OF  THL 

U  N  I  V  LRS  ITY 
Of  ILLINOIS 


203 

v.  I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofchri01smit_1 


A  DICTIONARY 


OF 


BEING 

A  CONTINUATION^  OF  THE  ‘DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE.’ 


EDITED  BY 

WILLIAM  SMITH,  D.C.L.,  LL.D. 

AND 

SAMUEL  CHEETHAM,  MA. 

rKOIESSOK  OF  PASTOEAL  THEOLOGY  IN  KING’S  COLLEGE,  LONDON. 


IN  T^YO  VOLUMES.-Yol.  I. 

ILLUSTRATED  BY  ENGRAVINGS  ON  WOOD, 


li  A  li  T  FORD  : 

\  THE  J.  B.  BURR  PUBLISHING  CO. 

f 

\ 


1  87  6. 


:  .t'  •  '• 

►’  A  . ' 

>  V.^  •- 


r 


■ 


\ 

f 


» 

r  * 
« 

I 


i 


f 


u 


•  A.- 


r' 


>.  ^ 


I 

V 


:f. 


T  » 


i- 


f  ‘ 


I 

< ,  .  • 


-  •  f  AV  •>*. '  * 

I  ^  ^  \  -  -♦ 

-  K 


<  « 


OSL  >5  L 


^'rr\  Ipcv 

V.  1 


PREFACE. 


This  Work  is  intended  to  furnish,  together  with  the  ‘  Dictionary  of 
Christian  Biography,  liiterature,  and  Doctrines,’  which  will  sliortly 
follow,  a  complete  account  of  the  leading  Personages,  the  Institu¬ 
tions,  Art,  Social  Life,  Writings  and  Controversies  of  the"  Christian 
Church  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  to  the  age  of  Charlemagne. 
It  commences  at  the  period  at  which  the  ‘  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  ’ 
leaves  off,  and  forms  a  continuation  of  it :  it  ceases  at  the  age  of 
Charlemagne,  because  (as  Gibbon  has  remarked)  the  reign  of  this 
monarch  forms  the  important  link  of  ancient  and  modern,  of 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  history.  It  thus  stops  short  of  what  we 
commonly  call  the  Middle  Ages.  The  later  developement  of  Ritual 
and  of  the  Monastic  Orders,  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  great 
JMendicant  Orders,  tlie  Painting,  Sculpture  and  Architecture,  the 
Hagiology  and  Symbolism,  the  Canon  Law,  and  the  Institutions 
generally  of  the  Middle  Ages,  furnish  more  than  sufficient  matter 
for  a  separate  book. 

The  present  Work,  speaking  generally,  elucidates  and  explains 
in  relation  to  the  Christian  Church  the  same  class  of  subjects  that 
the  ‘  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities  ’  does  in  reference 
to  the  public  and  private  life  of  classical  antiquity.  It  treats  of 
the  organization  of  the  Church,  its  officers,  legislation,  discipline, 
and  revenues ;  the  social  life  of  Christians ;  their  worship  and 
ceremonial,  with  the  accompanying  music,  vestments,  instruments, 
vessels,  and  insignia ;  their  sacred  places ;  their  architecture  and 
other  forms  of  Art ;  their  symbolism  ;  their  sacred  days  and  seasons ; 
the  gi-aves  or  Catacombs  in  Avhich  they  were  laid  to  rest. 

We  can  scarcely  hope  that  every  portion  of  this  wide  and  varied 
field  has  been  treated  with  equal  completeness ;  but  we  may  venture 
to  assert,  that  this  Dictionary  is  at  least  more  complete  than  any 
attempt  hitherto  made  by  English  or  Foreign  scholars  to  treat  in 
one  work  the  whole  archaeology  of  the  early  Church.  The  great 


IV 


PREFACE. 


work  of  Bingham,  indeed,  the  foundation  of  most  subsequent  books 
on  the  subject,  must  always  be  spoken  of  with  the  utmost  respect ; 
but  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  one  man  to  treat  with  the  requisite 
degree  of  fulness  and  accuracy  the  whole  of  so  vast  a  subject ; 
and  there  is  probably  no  branch  of  Christian  archaeology  on  whicli 
much  light  has  not  been  thrown  since  Bingham’s  time  by  the 
numerous  scholars  and  divines  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to 
special  investigations.  We  trust  that  we  have  made  accessible 
to  all  educated  persons  a  great  mass  of  information,  hitherto  only 
the  privilege  of  students  with  the  command  of  a  la'rge  library. 

In  treating  of  subjects  like  Church  Government  and  Ritual  it 
is  probably  impossible  to  secure  absolute  impartiality  ;  but  we  are 
confident  that  no  intentional  reticence,  distortion  or  exaggeration 
has  been  pi'actised  by  the  writers  in  this  work. 

It  has  been  thought  advisable  not  to  insert  in  the  present  work 
an  account  of  the  Literature,  of  the  Sects  and  Heresies,  and  of 
the  Doctrines  of  the  Church,  but  to  treat  these  subjects  in  the 
‘Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,’  as  they  are  intimately  con¬ 
nected  with  the  lives  of  the  leading  persons  in  Church  History, 
and  could  not  with  advantage  be  separated  from  them. 

It  has  not  been  possible  to  construct  the  vocabulary  on  an 
entirely  consistent  principle.  Where  a  w^ell- recognized  English 
term  exists  for  an  institution  or  an  object,  that  term  has  generally 
been  preferred  as  the  heading  of  an  article.  But  in  many  cases 
obsolete  customs,  offices,  or  objects  have  no  English  name ;  and 
in  many  others  the  English  term  is  not  really  co-extensive  with  the 
Latin  or  Greek  term  to  wLich  it  seems  at  first  sight  to  correspond. 
The  word  Decanus  (for  example)  has  several  meanings  which  are  not 
implied  in  the  English  Dean.  In  such  cases  it  was  necessary  to 
adopt  a  term  from  the  classic  languages.  Cross-references  are  given 
from  the  synonyms  or  quasi-synonyms  to  the  w’ord  under  which  any 
subject  is  treated.  The  Councils  are  placed  (so  far  as  possible) 
under  the  modern  names  of  the  places  at  which  they  w  ere  held,  a 
cross-reference  being  given  from  the  ancient  name.  In  the  case  of 
the  Saints’  Days,  the  names  of  the  Western  saints  have  been  taken 
from  the  martyrology  of  Usuard,  as  containing  probably  the  most 
complete  list  of  the  martyrs  and  confessors  generally  recognized  in 
the  West  up  to  the  ninth  century;  the  occurrence  of  these  names 
in  earlier  calendars  or  martyrologies  is  also  noted.  In  the  letters  A 
and  B,  however,  the  names  of  Saints  are  taken  principally  from  the 
‘  I\[artyrologium  Romanum  Yetus,’  and  from  the  catalogues  which 
bear  the  names  of  Jerome  and  of  Bede,  without  special  reference 


PREFACE. 


V 


to  Usuard.  In  the  case  of  the  Eastern  Church;  we  have  taken 
from  the  calendars  of  Byzantium,  of  Armenia,  and  of  Ethiopia, 
those  names  which  fall  within  our  chronological  period.  This 
alphabetical  arrangement  will  virtually  constitute  an  index  to  the 
principal  martyrologies,  in  addition  to  supiplying  the  calendar, 
dates  of  events  which  are  fixed  —  as  is  not  uncommonly  the  case  in 
ancient  records  —  by  reference  to  some  festival.  The  names  of 
persons  are  inserted  in  the  vocabulary  of  this  Work  only  with 
reference  to  their  commemoration  in  martyrologies  or  their  repre¬ 
sentations  in  art,  their  lives,  when  they  are  of  any  importance, 
being  given  in  the  Dictionary  of  Biography. 

References  are  given  throughout  to  the  original  authorities  on 
which  the  several  statements  rest,  as  well  as  to  modern  writers  of 
repute.  In  citations  from  the  Fathers,  where  a  page  is  given  without 
reference  to  a  particular  edition,  it  refers  for  the  most  part  to  the 
standard  pagination — generally  that  of  the  Benedictine  editions — 
which  is  retained  in  IMigne’s  Patrologia. 

At  the  commencement  of  this  work,  the  Editorsliip  of  that  por¬ 
tion  which  includes  the  laws,  government,  discipline,  and  revenues  of 
the  Churcjh  and  the  Orders  within  it,  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
Professor  Stubbs ;  the  education  and  social  life  of  Christians  in  those 
of  Professor  Plumptre  ;  while  the  treatment  of  their  worship  and 
ceremonial  was  entrusted  to  Professor  Cheetham ;  all  under  the 
general  superintendence  of  Dr.  William  Smith.  As  the  worlv  pro¬ 
ceeded,  however,  a  pressure  of  other  engagements  rendered  it  impos¬ 
sible  for  Professors  Stubbs  and  Plumptre  to  continue  their  editorship 
of  the  parts  which  they  had  undertaken ;  and  from  the  end  of  the 
letter  C  Professor  Cheetham  has  acted  as  Editor  of  the  whole 
work,  always  with  the  advice  and  assistance  of  Dr.  William  Smith. 

In  conclusion,  we  have  to  express  our  regret  at  the  long  time 
that  has  elapsed  since  the  first  announcement  of  the  work.  This 
delay  has  been  owing  partly  to  our  anxious  desire  to  make  it  as 
accurate  as  possible,  and  partly  to  the  loss  we  have  sustained  by 
the  death  of  two  of  our  most  valued  contributors,  the  Rev.  A.  W. 
Iladdan  and  the  Rev.  W.  B.  IMarriott. 


AMERICAN  PUBLISHERS’  PREFACE. 


'lx  offering  this  “  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities”  to  the  American 
public,  with  our  imprint,  sev'eral  very  important  facts  need  to  be  stated.  It  is 
due  to  ourselves  as  Publishers,  as  well  as  to  the  people  of  this  country,  who 
require,  in  their  religious  reading  and  studies,  this  invaluable  production  of  Dr- 
Smith,  that  they  be  enlightened  in  regard  to  the  circumstances  of  its  repub¬ 
lication  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

Early  recognizing  the  remarkable  excellence  of  this  Dictionary,  and  its 
necessity  to  all  students  of  the  Bible  and  Church  history,  we  contracted  with 
the  English  publisher  for  a  duplicate  set  of  plates,  that  we  might  reproduce 
the  work  entire  and  unaltered. 

An  edition,  however,  largely  abridged  and  seriously  mutilated,  has  been 
issued,  and  extensively  advertised  as  Dr.  Smith's  Dictionary.  Ours,  therefore, 
is  the  only  complete,  unabridged  American  edition  of  the  work,  as  it  came 
from  the  hands  of  Dr.  Smith  and  his  co-laborers.  This  merit  of  completeness 
and  integrity  will  have  great  weight  with  all  scholars  and  persons  of  discrim¬ 
ination.  Had  this  Dictionary  been  thought  susceptible  of  a  wise  and  proper 
condensation,  the  eminent  lexicographer  would  doubtless  have  done  this 
service  himself,  as  be  did  a  similar  service  in  respect  to  his  “  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,”  in  order  to  accommodate  the  slender  means  .of  many  students  of  the 
Scriptures.  But  this  work  is  so  compact,  its  various  articles  have  been  so 
condensed  by  their  respective  authors,  that  any  alteration- of  the  text  by  any 
other  hand,  is  not  a  matter  of  even  doubtful  expediency  nor  a  question  of 
cost,  but  a  damaging  mutilation  and  grievous  mistake.  Whoever  therefore 
may  be  betrayed  into  the  patronage  of  the  abridgment,  will  lose  very  much 
that  is  contained  in  the  orio-inal  work. 

Again,  we  are  enabled  by  our  contract  with  the  English  publisher  to  olfcr 
the  U^^ABRiDGED  DICTIONARY  at  Icss  than  one-half  the  price  of  the  imported 
edition,  and  at  a  cost  so  low  that  no  one  will  hesitate  a  moment  to  choose 
our  large  and  unaltered  reprint  from  the  English  plates,  rather  than  the 
abridgment  hastily  prepared  in  this  country. 

Furthermore  and  finally,  we  have  made  such  arrangements  with  Dr.  Smith 
and  Mr.  Murray,  his  publisher,  that  the  second  volume  (now  nearly  ready  for 
publication)  is  to  be  in  part  of  American  authorship,  and  will  therefore  be 
copyrighted  in  this  country.  There  can  therefore  be  no  legal  reprint  of  it 
except  by  ourselves.  Any  infringement  of  our  sole  right  to  republish  it  and 
thus  complete  this  most  valuable  contribution  to  Christian  literature,  will  be 
subjected  to  legal  resistance  and  redress.  The  distinguished  lexicographer 
will  therefore  derive  some  remuneration  for  the  vast  service  he  has  rendered 
to  the  Christian  people  of  the  United  States.. 

It  is  proper  therefore  that  we  here  emphasize  our  caiitioa,  lest  any 
person  be  misled  to  the  purchase  of  the  first  volume  of  the  mutilated  reprint, 
as  its  publishers  will  be  estopped  from  the  issue  of  the  second  volume.  No 


Vlll 


PREFACE. 


wise  man  will  Lny  any  portion  of  a  work  tliat  can  not  be  completed.  In  tlic 
interests  of  literary  integrity,  and  to  save  the  Christian  public  from  being 
imposed  upon  in  the  purchase  of  the  abridgment,  we  have  felt  it  incumbent 
upon  us  to  freely  and  full}"  state  the  real  facts  of  the  case,  and  that  we  may  leave 
no  room  for  any  possible  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  one  in  regard  to  the  truth 
of  our  statements  and  the  validity  of  our  claim,  we  append  the  certificates 
of  Dr.  Smith  of  London,  and  Messrs.  Little,  Brown  cL  Co.,  of  Boston,  the 
representatives  of  the  English  publisher  in  this  country. 

A  thorough  and  exhaustive  comparison  of  the  two  editions,  will  be  sent 
to  any  one  who  desires  it.  The  publishers  of  the  abridgment  caution  their 
subscribers  against  purchasing  any  second  volume  hut  theirs.  We  caution  the 
American  public  against  purchasing  any  first  volume  but  ours,  because  no 
second  volume  can  ever  be  issued  in  this  country  except  by  us.  Tliev  will 
thus  avoid  great  annoyance  and  pecuniary  loss. 

The  second  volume  will  be  of  the  same  size  and  cost  as  the  first,  and  to¬ 
gether,  they  will  constitute  an  Encyclopedia  of  priceless  value,  indispensable 
to  every  student  of  the  Bible,  to  every  professional  and  household  library. 
We  shall  publish  it  simultaneously  with  its  issue  in  England.  If  for  any 
reason  our  agents  should  neglect  to  deliver  it  promptly  to  those  who  have  the 
first  volume,  it  can  be  secured  without  failure  and  at  once,  bv  addressing 

The  J.  B.  BURR  PUBLISHING  CO. 

Hartford,  Conn. 


50  Albemarle  St.,  London,  May  22,  1876. 

Gentlemen — 

I  have  much  pleasure  in  stating  that  you  are  the  only 
firm  authorized  by  me  to  publish  the  “  Dictionary  of  Christian  An¬ 
tiquities”  in  America,  and  as  you  have  made  arrangements  with  me 
to  secure  an  accurate  reprint  of  the  work,  I  trust  that  the  American 
public  will  not  patronize  any  edition  but  the  one  issued  by  your  firm. 

I  am,  gentlemen. 

Yours  faith  full  V, 

1/  t 


To  the  J.  B.  Burr  Publishing  Cornjxmy,  Hartford^  Conn. 

Boston,  IMay  21:th,  1876. 

Dear  Sirs — 

If  the  plan  of  Dr.  Smith  is  carried  out,  as  it  probably 
will  be,  of  having  American  contributions  in  Volume  II.,  it  will 
estop  a  reprint  of  that  Volume,  and  the  statement  should  be  made 
public,  with  Dr.  Smith’s  letter,  that  you  loill  have  the  sole  right  to 
lish  the  American  edition  of  Volume  If. 

Yours  truly. 

Little,  Brown  A  Co. 


LIST  OF  WELTERS 

\ 

IN  THE  DICnONAEIES  OF  CHRISTIAN  ANTIQUITIES 

AND  BIOGRAPHY. 


INTl'IALS. 

0.  B. 

H.  B  -Y. 

J.  B — Y. 

E.  B. 

C.  W.  B. 
11.  B. 


AV.  B. 


H.  B. 

I.  B. 

T.  R.  B. 
D.  B. 


NAMKS. 

Rev.  Churchill  Babington,  B.D.,  I\L.S., 

Disney  Professor  of  Archaeology  in  the  University  of 
Cambridge;  late  Fellovv^  of  St.  John’s  College. 

Rev.  Henry  Bailey,  D.D., 

^^’arden  of  St.  Angnstine’s  College,  Canterbury,  and 
Honorary  Canon  of  Canterbury  Cathedral ;  late  Fellow 
of  St.  John’s  College,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  James  Barmby,  B.D., 

Principal  of  Bishop  Hatfield’s  Hall,  Durham. 

Rev.  Edward  White  Benson,  D.D., 

Chancellor  of  Lincoln  Cathedral ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Charlks  Williaai  Boase,  M.A., 

Fellow  of  Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

Henry  Bradshaw,  M.A., 

Fellow  of  King’s  College,  Cambridge  ;  Librarian  of  the 
University  of  Cambridge. 

Rev.  YJlliam  Bright,  D.D., 

Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford ;  Regius  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 

The  late  Rev.  Henry  Browne,  M.A., 

Yicar  of  Pevensey,  and  Prebendary  of  Chichester  Cathedral. 

Isambard  Brunel,  D.C.L., 

Of  Lincoln’s  Inn  ;  Chancellor  of  the  Diocese  of  Ely. 

Thomas  Ryburn  Bi  chanan,  M.A., 

Fellow  of  All  Souls  College,  Oxford. 

Kev.  Daniel  Butler,  M.A., 

Rector  of  Thwing,  Yorkshire;  late  Head  Master  of  tho 
Clergy  Orphan  School,  Canterbury. 

a  2 


X 


LIST  OF  WRITERS. 


INITIALS. 

J.  M.  C. 
J.  G.  C. 
C. 

E.  B.  C. 
J.  LI.  D. 

C.  D. 

W.  P.  D. 
S.  J.  E. 
J.  E. 

E.  S.  Ff. 

A.  P.  F. 
AV.  II.  F. 


J.  M.  F. 

C.  D.  G. 
W.  F.  G. 

A.  W.  H. 

E.  H. 


NAMES 

Rev.  John  Moore  Capes,  M.A., 
of  Balliol  College,  Oxford. 

Rev.  John  Gibson  Cazenove,  M.A., 

late  Principal  of  Cumbrae  College,  N.B. 

Rev.  Samuel  Cheetham,  M.A., 

Professor  of  Pastoral  Theology  in  King’s  College,  London, 
and  Chaplain  of  Dulwich  College;  late  Fellow  of 
Christ’s  College,  Cambridge. 

Edward  Byles  Co\vell,  M.A., 

Professor  of  Sanskrit  in  the  Fniversity  of  Cambridge. 

Rev.  John  Llewelyn  Davies,  M.A., 

RectDr  of  Christchurch,  Marylebone  ;  late  FelloAv  of 
'Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Cecil  Deedes,  M.A., 

Vicar  of  St.  Mary  Magdalene,  Oxford. 

Rev.  William  P.  Dickson,  D.D., 

Regius  Professor  of  Biblical  Ci  iticism,  Glasgow. 

Rev.  Samuel  John  Eales,  M.A., 

Head  Master  of  the  Grammar  School,  Halstead,  Essex. 

Rev.  John  Ellerton,  M.A., 

Rector  of  Hinstock,  Salop. 

Rcal  Edmund  S.  Ffoulkes,  B.D., 

Late  Fellow  of  Jesus  College,  Oxford. 

The  Right  Rev.  Alexander  Penrose  Forbes,  D.C.L., 

Bishop  of  Brechin. 

Hon.  and  Rev.  William  Henry"  Freyiantle,  M.A., 

Rector  of  St.  Mary’s,  Maiylebone  ;  Chaplain  to  the  Arch 
bishop  of  Canterbury. 

Rev.  John  M.  Fuller,  M.A., 

Vicar  of  Bexley. 

Rev.  Christian  D.  Ginsburg,  LL.D. 

The  late  Rcyl  Williayi  Frederick  Greenfield,  M.A., 

Master  of  the  Lower  School,  Dulwich  Colleire. 

The  late  ReYL  Arthur  'West  Haddan,  B.D., 

Rector  of  Barton-on-the-Heath  and  Honorarv  Canon  of 
Worcester  Cathedral ;  formerly  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Oxford. 

ReYL  Edyvin  Hatch,  M.A., 

Vice-Principal  of  St.  Mary  Hall,  Oxford. 


LIST  OF  WRITERS. 


XI 


INITIALS. 

E.  C.  H. 
L.  H. 

H. 

H.  J.  H. 
J.  H. 

W.  J. 

G.  A.  J. 
W.  J.  J. 


L. 

R.  A.  L. 
J.  M.  L. 
J.  R.  L. 

i 

G.  F.  M. 

S.  M. 

W.  B.  M. 

G.  M. 


NAMES. 

Rev.  Edwards  Comerford  Hawkins,  M.A., 

,  Head  Master  of  St.  John’s  School,  Leatherhead. 

Rev.  Lewis  Hensley,  M.A., 

Vicar  of  Hitchin,  Herts ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge. 

Rev.  Fenton  John  Anthony  Hort,  M.A., 

Fellow  of  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge  ;  Chaplain  to 
the  Bishop  of  Winchester. 

Rev.  Henry  John  Hotham,  M.A., 

Vice-Master  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

John  Hullah, 

Late  Professor  of  Music  in  King’s  College,  London. 

Rev.  William  Jackson,  M.A., 

Late  Fellow  of  Worcester  College,  Oxford ;  Bampton 
Lecturer  for  1875.  ^ 

Rev.  George  Andrew  Jacob,  D.H., 

late  Head  Master  of  Christ’s  Hospital,  London. 

Rev.  William  James  Josling,  M.A., 

Rector  of  Moulton,  Suffolk ;  late  Fellow  of  Christ’s  College,  ' 
Cambridge. 

Rev.  Joseph  Barber  Lightfoot,  D.I)., 

Canon  of  St.  Paul’s ;  Lady  Margaret’s  Professor  of  Divinity 
in  the  University  oP  Cambridge ;  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge. 

R.  A.  Lipsius, 

Professor  in  ihe  University  of  Kiel. 

John  Malcolm  Ludlow,  M.A., 

Of  Lincoln’s  Inn. 

Rev.  John  Robert  Lunn,  B.D., 

Vicar  of  Marton,  Yorkshire ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John’s 
College,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  George  Frederick  Maclear,  D.D., 

Head  Master  of  King’s  College  School,  London. 

Rev.  Spencer  Mansel,  M.A., 

Vicar  of  Trumpington,  Cambridge ;  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge. 

The  late  Rev.  Wharton  B.  Marriott,  M.A., 

Of  Eton  College;  formerly  Fellow  of  Exeter  College, 
Oxford. 

Rev.  George  Mead,  M.A., 

Chaplain  to  the  Forces,  Dublin. 


LIST  OF  WRITERS. 


Xll 

LIST  OF  WRITERS. 

INITIALS. 

NAMES. 

F.  M.  Rev.  Fhkderick  Mp:tHiCK,  M.A., 


W.  M. 

<» 

Rector  of  Blickling,  Norfolk ;  Prebendary  of  Lincoln 
Cathedral;  Chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln;  late 
Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Oxford. 

Rev.  William  Milligan,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Biblical  Criticism  in  the  University  of  Aber¬ 
deen. 

G.  H.  M. 

Rev.  George  Herbert  Moberly,  M.A., 

Chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury;  Rector  of  Dunst- 
bourne  Rouse,  Gloucestershire. 

11.  C.  G.  M.  Rev.  Handley  Carr  Glyn  Moule,  M.A., 


1.  R.  M. 

Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

John  Rickards  Mozley,  M.A., 

late  Fellow  of  King’s  College,  Cambridge. 

A.  N. 

Alexandp:r  Nesbitt,  F.S.A., 

Oldlands,  Uckfield. 

P.  0. 

Rev.  Piiirrs  Onslow,  B.A., 

Rector  of  Upper  Sapey,  Hereford. 

G.  W.  P. 

Rev.  Gregory  Walton  Pennethorne,  M.A., 

•  Rector  of  Ferring,  Sussex;  late  Vice-Principal  of  the 
Theological  College,  Chichester. 

W.  G.F.P.  Walter  G.  F.  Phillimore,  B.C.L., 


E.  H.  P. 

(sometimes 

P-) 

Lincoln’s  Inn ;  Chancellor  of  the  Diocese  of  Lincoln. 

Rev.  Edward  Hayes*Plumptre,  M.A., 

Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  King’s  College, 
London  ;  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul’s  Cathedral ;  Vicar  of 
Bickley  ;  formerly  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 

DE  pRESSENSE.  RcV.  E.  DE  PrESSENSE, 


J.  R. 

of  Paris. 

Rev.  James  Raine,  M.A., 

Prebendary  of  York  ;  Fellow  of  the  University  of  Durham. 

W.  R. 

Rev.  William  Reeves,  D.D., 

Rector  of  Tynan,  Armagh. 

G.  S. 

Rev.  George  Salmon,  D.D., 

Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Trinitv  College,  Dublin. 

P.  S. 

Rev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

W.  E.  S. 

Rev.  William  Edward  Scudamore,  M.A., 

Rector  of  Ditchingham  ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John’s  College, 
Cambridge. 

o.s. 

Rev.  John  Sharpe,  M.A., 

Fellow  of  Christ’s  College,  Cambridge. 

LIST  OF  WRITERS. 


Xlll 


iNrriAES. 


KAMES. 


B.  S.  Benjamin  Shaw,  M.A., 

Of  Lincoln’s  Inn  ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cam¬ 
bridge. 

R.  S.  Rev.  RoBEiiT  Sinker,  M.A., 

Librarian  of  T]  inity  College,  Cambridge. 

I.  G.  S.  Rev.  I.  Gregory  -Smith,  M.A  , 

Rector  of  G"jat'  Mai ’er.-i,  an  I  Prebendary  of  Hereford 
Cathedral ;  late  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 

J.  S — T.  John  Stuart,  LL.D., 

Of  the  General  Register-House,  Edinburgh. 

S.  Rev.  William  Stubbs,  M.A., 

Regius  Pi'ofessor  of  Modern  History,  in  the  University  of 
Oxford;  Fellow  of  Oriel  College,  Oxford. 

C.  A.  S.  Rev.  Charlks  Anthony  Swainson,  D.D., 

Korrisian  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of 
Cambridge,  and  Canon  of  Chichester  Cathedral;  late 
Fellow  of  Christ’s  College,  Cambridge. 

E.  S.  T.  Rev.  Edward  Stuart  Talbot,  M.A., 

Warden  of  Keble  College,  Oxford. 

R.  St.  J.  T.  Rev.  Richard  St.  John  Tyrwhitt,  M.A., 

Late  Student  and  Rhetoric  Lecturer  of  Christ  Church, 
Oxford. 

E.  V.  Rev.  Edmund  Venables,  M.A., 

Canon  Residentiary  and  Precentor  of  Lincoln  Cathedral ; 
Chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  London. 

W.  Rev.  Brooke  Foss  AVestcott'  D.D., 

(sometimes  Canon  of  Peterborough  ;  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  in 
B.  F.  W.)  the  University  of  Cambridge ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity 

College,  Cambridge. 

H.  W.  Rev.  Henry  Wage,  M.A., 

Chaplain  of  Lincoln’s  Inn,  and  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical 
History,  King’s  College,  London. 

G.  Rev.  George  Williams,  B.D., 

Rector  of  Ringwood,  Hants  ;  late  Fellow  of  King’s  College, 
Cambridge. 

J.  WC  Rev.  John  AVordsworth,  M.A., 

Prebendary  of  Lincoln  ;  Examining  Chaplain  to  the  Bishop 
of  Lincoln ;  late  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 

W.  A.  W.  William  Aldis  Wkight,  M.A., 

Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

E.  M.  Y.  Rev.  Edward  Mallet  Young,  M.A., 

Assistant  Master  of  Harrow  School ;  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge. 

H.  W.  Y.  Rev.  Henry  William  Yule,  B.C.L.,  M.A., 

Rector  'of  Ship ton-on-Cher well,  and  Vicar  of  Hampton 
Gay,  Ox  on. 


ABBKEVIATIOXS. 


Abp.  for  Archbishop. 

A.  C .  Jlnte  Chris tujn=^Jief ore  Christ. 

A.  D .  .inno  Domini=\n  the  year  of  ouf  Lord. 

nl .  alii,  or  a^tcrt=others. 

Alex .  Alexandria,  or  Alexandrinus. 

an .  rtnno=*in  the  year. 

Anast. .  Anastiisius,  Emperor  of  the  East. 

anc .  ancient. 

Ann .  .Annals  of  Tacitus,  a  Roman  historian. 

An  not . Annotations. 

Ant.  or  Antiq.  Antiquities. 

Antijrh .  Jlntiphonarius,  with  /ifter=Book  of  An¬ 

tiphons. 

Apoc .  Apocrypha. 

Aik>1 .  Apology. 

Apos. Const.. .  Apostolical  Constitutions. 

Archiep . .^rcA<eprscqp«s=Archbishop. 

Areop .  Areopagite. 

A.  U.  C .  ^nno  urbis  condittz=\n  the  year  from  the 

building  of  the  city,  i.e.,  Rome. 

Aug .  Augustine. 

A.  V .  Authorized  English  version  of  Bible. 

B .  .Beata=  Blessed. 

B.  &  D .  Hist,  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  (Apoc  ) 

Bur .  Baruch,  (Apoc.) 

B.  C . .  Before  Christ. 

Bibl .  £rWmn=Book. 

bk .  book. 

B.  V.  M .  Beata  Virgo  Jl/aWa=Blessed  Virgin 

Mary. 

. .  capitulum=.c\\a.\yier  or  circa=about. 

C.  or  can .  Canon. 

Cal .  Co^enrZarr «77i=:Calendar  or  List. 

Cap.  or  capit.  Capita lum=chQ\iler. 

Carth . Carthage  or  Carthagenian. 

cf. .  conferer  (French)=:compoTe. 

ch.  &  chs .  chapter  and  chapters,  respectively. 

Chrys.  Horn..  Homilies  of  Chrysostom,  A  D.  344-407. 

Cic .  M.T.Cicero,  a  Roman  orator,  B.C,  10.5-43 

cir.  or  circ.. . .  crrca3=about. 

Clem.  Alex...  Clement  of  Alexandria. 

Clem.  Rom...  Clemens  iiomajias=Clement  of  Rome. 

Cod .  Codex  or  Code. 

Comm .  Commentary. 

comp .  compare. 

Cone .  Concilium— CovmcW. 

D .  Dominus=L,ord. 

Deer .  Decretum— Decree  or  I.,aw. 


I  Ecclesiae  Ritibus  Antiquis. 

De  Resur.Mort  De  Resurrcctione  J\Iortuorum=Of  Res¬ 
urrection  of  the  Dead. 


Dial .  /?ia/o^ws=:Dialogue. 

Die.  or  Diet. . .  Dictionary. 

Dig .  Digest. 

Disp .  2)i.sputatio=:Discussion. 

E .  East  or  Eastern. 

Eccl.  . Ecclesiastical. 

Ecclus . Ecclesiasticus,  (Apoc  ) 

E.  Ch.  Intro..  Eastern  Church,  Introduction  to,  Neale’s, 
ed . edition. 

e.  g .  exempli  gratid=for  examp]e. 

Eng .  England  or  English. 

Ep.  &  Epp. ..  Epistle  and  epistles,  respectively. 

Epiph .  i?/;/pAa?irar=Epiphany. 

1  Esd .  1st  Book  of  Esdras,  (Apoc.) 

2  Esd . 2<1  Book  of  Esdras,  (Apoc.)  [D.  340. 

Euseb .  Eusebius,  a  Gr.  historian,  who  died  A. 

Excurs .  Excursion,  Wordsworth’s  Poem. 

f.  .  following  (verse  or  page.) 

ff. .  following  (verses  or  pages.) 

fig . figura=engra\in"  or  illustration. 

Gr . Greek. 

Greg .  Gregory. 


I  Gregory  Magnus=Gregory  the  Great. 

Greg.  Naz.  ...  Gregory  Nazianzen. 

Greg.  Nyss...  Gregory  of  Nyssa. 

Handb .  Handbook. 

H.  E .  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Hier .  Hieronymus= Jerome. 

Hisp .  Hispalenzio=zo(  His|)ale  now  Seville. 

Hist,, .  History. 

Hist.  Christ...  History  of  Christianity,  Milman’s. 

Hom.orHoinil  Homilies. 

ib.  or  ibid. . , ,  ibidem=:in  the  same  place, 

id .  idem^the  same. 

i.  e .  id  csr=:that  is. 

in  loc .  in  loco=in  the  place  or  passage  cited. 

Iren .  Irenaeus. 


I.  U.  R . “  Inscriptfoms  Chrislianae  Urbis  Ro 

manae”  by  De  Rossi. 

Jos . Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian. 

Just,  or  Justin.  Justinian,  Roman  em[)eror  and  lawgiver 
of  the  6th  century. 

Kal .  Kalendae=Cu\ends. 

1.,  11 .  lex.,  leges^itiw,  laws,  respectively. 

I.  c .  loco  citato— \n  the  place  cited. 

Lactan .  Lactanlius,  a  father  of  the  church. 

Lat.  Chr .  Latin  Christianity,  by  Milman. 

II.  cc .  locis  cituti<=al  the  places  cited. 

Lib.  or  lib..  . .  liber— book. 

lit .  literal  or  literally. 

Liv .  Livy,  a  Roman  historian. 

LXX .  The  Seventy,  i.  e.  the  Septuagint,  or 

Greek  translation  of  the  O.  T. 

M .  J\Ionsieur,  (French. )i=:.Mr. 

1  Macc .  1st  Bo.jk  of  the  Maccabees,  (.Apoc.) 

2  Macc .  2<1  Book  of  the  Maccaliees,  (Apric.) 

3  Macc .  3d  Book  of  the  Maccabees,  (.•\[)oc.) 

marg .  margin  nr  marginal. 

M.  Hieron.  I  MarUjrologium  Hicronymv=.'S\v.r\yro\- 

Mart . (  ogy  of  Jerome. 

Mart. Rom. Vet  Hartyrologium  Romanum  Vetus. 

MS.  or  MSS. .  Manuscript  or  Manuscripts. 

N.  T .  New  Testament. 

ob  or  obt .  cbiit—A\ed. 

Op.  Opp .  Opus,  Opfra= Work,  Works,  literary. 

O.  T .  Old  Testament. 

p.  &  pp .  page  and  pages,  respectively. 

Pal .  Palestine. 

Pent .  Pentateuch. 

Pand .  Pandects. 

pi.,  pll .  plate,  plates. 

pt .  Part. 

Polyc .  Polyenrp,  martyred  A.  D.  167. 

Pontif. .  Pont/^caZi'.- =concerning  the  Pope. 

Prol .  Prologus—Vreiace  or  Introduction. 

Ptol .  Ptolemy. 

Rel.  Jur.  1  Reliquiae  Juris  Ecclesiastici  Antiquis- 
Eccl.  Ant.  i  simae,  De  Lagnrde’s. 

R .  Responsum — the  initial  prefixed  to  re¬ 

sponsive  verses. 

Reg .  Regala  or  Regulae=R.o\e.  rules. 

R.  S .  Roma  Sottcranca,  by  De  Rossi. 

R.  G .  Rhbricae  Geuerales. 

S .  ,Sancti/.s=snint. 

Sacram. .  Sacramevtarium,  a  book  of  liturgies. 

sc .  fci7«cc<=::thut  is  to  say. 

Soc .  Socrates,  Ecclesiastical  historian. 

Soz.  orSozom.  Sozomen,  “  “ 

sq.  or  seq .  sc9i/e7i.«=:fnllowing  (verse.) 

sqq.  or  seqq...  se^uentio^following  (verses.) 

SS .  S«ncti=saints. 

St .  Saint. 

sub  fin .  sub  Jine=.nenr  the  end. 

Suet .  Suetonius,  aliistorian,  A.  D.  100. 

Sus .  History  of  Susanna,  (.Apoc.) 

s.  V .  sub  rcrto=under  the  word  alluded  to. 

Tab.,  Tabb. ..  Tabula,  Tabulae. 

Tac.  or  Tacit.  Tacitus,  a  Roman  historian  .A.D.  56-135,. 

Theod .  Theodoret,  Ecclesiastical  historian. 

Theod .  Theodosian,  the  Christian  Emperor. 

Tob .  Tobit,  (.Af  oc.) 

Tr .  Translation. 

tom .  ramM5=:volume. 

U.  C .  Urbis  covditce.  See  .A.  U.  C. 

u.  s .  vt  or  uti  supra=as  above. 

usu .  usually. 

V  .  riV/er=see,  and  sometimes=verse. 

V  .  Virgin. 

Val.  Ma.x .  Valerius  Maximus. 

ver .  verse  or  verses. 


^Monum^^  (  P^etfr-a  .Monumenta,  by  Cinmpinus. 

Vit.  Const.  M.  Vita  Constantini  JTagni=hife  of  Con¬ 


stantine  the  Great. 

viz . «idr2rcct=namely. 

vol .  volume. 

Vulg . Vulgnte=Lntin  translation  of  Bible. 

W .  Western. 

Wisd . The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  (.Apoc.) 

^ . denotes  section  or  subdivision  cf  chops. 

=r .  denotes  equivalent  to. 

f .  with  date  denotes  time  of  death. 


Words  in  brackets  and  printed  in  s.mall  capitals 
thus  [monastery,]  refer  the  render  to  those  articles  in 
the  Dictionary  for  further  information. 

The  abbreviations  for  the  names  of  the  Books  or  Parts 
of  the  Bible  are  omitted  here  because  familiar  to  all. 


A 


DIOTIONAEY 

OP 

CHKISTIAN  ANTIQUITIES. 


A 


A  AND  n 


AARON 


J 


I 

A 


1 


U) 


A  and  W.  (See  Kev.  xxii.  13.)  Of  these 
symbolic  letters  the  w  is  always  given  in  the 
miiiuscular  form.  The  symbol  is  generally  com¬ 
bined  with  the  monogram  of  Christ.  [Mono-  j 
gra:m.1  In  Boldetti’s  Ossermzioni  sopra  i  ciiniteri, 
kc.  Rom.  1720,  fol.  tav.  iii.  p.  19d,  no.  4,  it  is  | 
found,  with  the  more  ancient  decussated  mono¬ 
gram,  on  a  sepulchral  cup  or  vessel.  See  also 
De  Rossi  (^Inscriptions,  No.  776),  where  the  letters 
are  suspended  from  the  arms  of 
the  St.  Andrew’s  Ci-o.ss.  They 
ai‘e  combined  more  frequently 
with  the  upright  or  Egyptian 
monogram.  Aringhi,  Eom. 
Subt.  vol.  i,  p.  381,  gives  an 
engraving  of  a  jewelled  cross, 
with  the  letters  suspended 
by  chains  to  its  horizontal  arm,  as  below.  And 
the  same  form  occurs  in  sepulchral  in.scriptions 
in  De  Rossi,  Inscr.  Chr.  Rom. 
t.  i.  nos.  661,  666.  See  also 
Boldetti,  p,  345,  and  Bottari, 
tav.  xliv.  vol.  i. 

The  letters  ai’e  found,  with 
or  without  the  monogram,  in 
almost  all  works  of  Christian 
antiquity  ;  for  instance,  right 
and  left  of  a  great  cross,  on  which  is  no  form  or 
even  symbolic  Lamb,  on  the  ceiling  of  the  apse 
of  St.  Apollinare  in  Classe  at  Ravenna,  circ.  A.D. 
675.  They  were  worn  in  rings  and  sigils,  either 
alone,  as  in  Martigny,  s.  v.  Anneaux,  or  with 
the  monogram,  as  in  Boldetti,  ms.  21-31,  30-33. 
On  coins  they  appear  to  be  first  used  imme¬ 
diately  after  the  death  of  Constantine.  The 
earliest  instances  are  an  aureus  uummus  of  Con¬ 
stantins  (Bauduri,  v.  ii,  p.  227,  Numismata  Imp. 
liomonorum,  &,c.)  ]  and  another  golden  coin  bear¬ 
ing  the  effigy  of  Constantine  the  Great,  with  the 
words  “  \  ictoria  Maxima.”  Constantine  seems 
not  to  have  made  great  use  of  Christian  em¬ 
blems  on  his  coin  till  after  the  defeat  of  Lici- 
nius  in  323,  and  especially  after  the  building 
ot  Constantinople.  (See  Martigny,  s.  v.  A’uniis- 
matuiue.) 

1  he  use  of  these  symbolic  letters  amounts  to 
a  quotation  of  Rev.  xxii.  13,  and  a  confession  of 
(aith  in  our  Lord’s  own  as.sertion  of  His  infinity 
CHRIST.  ANT. 


and  divinity.  There  is  one  instance  in  Martial 
(^Ilpip.  V.  26)  where  A,  Alpha,  is  u.sed  jocularly 
(as  A  1,  vulgarly,  with  ourselves)  for  “chief”  or 
“  first.”  But  the  whole  expression  iu  its  solemn 
meanins:  is  derived  entirely  from  the  words  of 
Rev.  xxii.  13.  The  imjiort  to  a  Christian  is 
shewn  by  the  well-known  passage  of  Prudentius 
(Ilymnus  Omni  Hora,  10,  Cathonerinon,  i.x.  p. 
35,  ed.  Tubingen,  45)  : — 

“Corde  iiatus  ex  parentis  ante  niundi  exordium, 

Alpha  et  D  cngnominatus,  ipso  fens  et  clausula, 

Omnium  quae  tunt,  luerunt,  quaeque  post  futura  sunt.” 

The  symbol  was  no  doubt  much  more  frequently 
used  after  the  outbreak  of  Arianism.  But  it  a’'- 
pears  to  have  been  used  before  that  date,  from  i..s 
occurrence  in  the  inscription  on  the  tomb  raised 
by  Victorina  to  her  martyred  husband  Heraclius 
in  the  cemetery  of  Priscilla  (Aringhi,  i.  605). 
It  is  here  enclosed  in  a  triangle,  and  united  with 
the  upright  monogram.  See  also  another  in¬ 
scription  in  Fabretti  (Inscr.  antiq.  explicutio, 
Rom.  1699,  foL),  and  the  cup  given  in  Boldetti 
from  the  Callixtine  catacomb,  tav.  iii.  no.  4,  at 
p.  194.  From  these  it  is  argued  with  apparent 
truth  that  the  symbol  must  have  been  in  use 
before  the  Nicene  Council.’*  No  doubt,  as  a  con¬ 
venient  symbolic  form  of  asserting  the  Lord’s 
divinity,  it  became  far  more  prominent  after¬ 
wards.  The  Arians  certainly  avoided  its  use 
(Giorgi,  De  Monogram.  C/iristi,  p.  10).  It  is 
found  on  the  crucifix  attributed  to  Nicodemus 
(Angelo  Rocca,  Thesaurus  Rontifeiarum,  vol.  i. 
153,  woodcut),  and  on  a  wooden  crucifix  of  great 
antiquity  at  Lucca  (Borgia,  Dc  Crucc  Vcliterna, 
p.  33).  For  its  general  use  a.s  a  part  of  the 
monogram  of  Christ,  see  Monogram.  It  will  be 
found  (see  VV'^estwood’s  Ralaeographia  Sacra)  in  the 
Psalter  of  Athelstan,  and  in  the  Bible  of  Alcuin; 
both  in  the  British  Museum.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

AARON,  the  High  Priest,  commemorated 


•  Boldetti:  "  Quanto  alio  Ictterc  A  and  w,  non  v’badubbio 
che  quei  priini  Cristiani  le  pre.sero  dalT  Apocalisse.” 
He  goes  on  to  say  that  it  is  the  sign  of  Christian,  not 
Arian,  burial;  and  that  Arians  were  driven  from  Rome, 
and  excluded  from  the  Catacombs.  Aringhi  also  protests 
that  those  cemeteries  were  "  baud  unqnam  berctico  sebis- 
maticoque  commeicio  pollutae.” 


2 


ABACUC 


ABBAT 


Miaziah  1  March  27  (Ca/.  Ethiop.').  Deposition 
in  Mount  Hor,  July  1  (^Mart.  Bcdie,  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ABACUC.  (1)  Habakkuk  the  Prophet,  com¬ 
memorated  Jan.  15  {Martyrologium  lioin.  Vetus^ 
Hieron.,  Uedac). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome  under  Claudius,  a.d.  269, 
commemorated  Jan.  20  (^Martyr.  Rom.  Vetus). 

[C.] 

ABBA.  [Abbat.] 

ABBAT.  {Abbas  or  Abba  [-afjs],  a$$as, 
d0/3a,  in  low  Latin  sometimes  Abas,  Ital.  Abate, 
Germ.  Abt,  from  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac  form  of 
the  common  Semitic  word  for  Father,  probably 
adopted  in  that  form  either  by  Syriac  monks, 
or  through  its  N.  T.  use.)  A  name  employ'ed 
occasionally  in  the  East,  even  so  late  as  the  10th 
century,  as  a  term  of  respect  for  any  monks 
(Ca-ssian.,  Collat.  i.  1,  a.d.  429;  Reg.  S.  Columb. 
vii.,  A.D.  609  ;  Jo.  Mosch.,  Prat.  Sgnr.,  a.d.  630 ; 
Epiphan.  Hagiop.,  De  Loo.  SS.,  a.d.  956  ;  Byzant. 
auth.  ap.  Du  Cange,  Lex.  Inf.  Graec.  ;  Bulteau, 
Hist.  Mon.  d' Orient,  819 :  and,  similarly,  a^^d- 
dior,  h.^^abicTKiov,  i|/eu5d)8;8ay,  /cXsTrrdjS^Sas,  for 
an  evil  or  false  monk,  Du  Cange,  i6.);  and  some¬ 
times  as  a  distinguishing  term  for  a  monk  of 
singular  piety  (Hieron.,  in  Epist.  ad  Gal.  c.  4 ;  in 
Matt.  lib.  iv.  in  c.  23) ;  but  ordinarily  restricted 
to  the  superior  of  a  monastery'.  Rater  or  Princeps 
Monasterii,  elective,  irremoveable,  single,  abso¬ 
lute.  Replaced  commonly'  among  the  Greeks 
by  ’Apxi,uai^5piT77s  [Archimaxdrita],  'H70U- 
IJLsvos,  or  more  rarely  Koivo^idpxns ;  the  first 
of  which  terms  however,  apparently  by  a  con¬ 
fusion  respecting  its  derivation,  came  occasion¬ 
ally  to  stand  for  the  superior  of  more  monas¬ 
teries  than  one  (Helyot,  Hist,  des  Ordr.  Mon. 
i.  65)  : — extended  upon  their  institution  to  the 
superior  of  a  body  of  canons,  more  properly 
called  Praejositus,  Abbas  Canonicoruin  as  op¬ 
posed  to  Abbas  Monachorum  (e.  g.  Cone.  Paris. 
A.D.  829,  c.  37;  Cone.  Aquisg.  II.  a.d.  836. 
canon,  c.  ii.  P.  2,  §  1 ;  Chron.  Leod.) ;  but  varied 
by  many  of  the  later  monastic  orders,  as  e.  g.  by' 
Carmelites,  Augustinians,  Dominicans,  Servites, 
into  Praepositus  or  Prior  Conventualis,  by'  Fran¬ 
ciscans  into  Custos  or  Guardianus,  by  Camaldu- 
lensians  into  Major,  by'  Jesuits  into  Rector : — 
distinguished  in  the  original  Rule  of  Pachomius, 
as  the  superior  of  a  combination  of  monasteries, 
from  the  Pater,  Princeps,  or  Oeconmius  of  each 
and  from  the  Praepositi  of  the  several  families  of 
each.  Enlarged  into  Abbas  Abbatum  for  the  Ab- 
bat  of  Monte  Cassino  (Pet.  Diac.  Chron.  Casin. 
iv.  60 ;  Leo  Ostiens.,  ib.  ii.  54),  who  was  vicar  of 
the  Pope  over  Benedictine  monasteries  {Privil. 
Nicol.  L.  Papae,  a.d.  1059,  ap.  And.  a  Nuce  ad 
Leon.  Ostiens.  iii.  12),  and  had  precedence  over 
all  Benedictine  abbats  {Privil.  Paschal.  LI.  Papae, 
A.D.  1113,  in  Bull.  Casin.  ii.  130;  Chart.  Lothar. 
Imp.,  A.D.  1137,  ib.  157).  Similarly  a  single 
Abbat  of  Aniana,  Benedict,  was  made  by'  Ludov. 
Pius,  A.D.  817,  chief  of  the  abbats  in  the  empire 
{Chron.  Farf.  p.  671 ;  Ardo,  in  V.  Bened.  c.  viii. 
36) :  and  the  Hegumenos  of  St.  Dalmatius  in 
Constantinople  was,  from  the  time  of  St.  Dal¬ 
matius  himself  (a.d.  430),  dpxoiv  or  irarvp 
liova(XTf)pio3v,  Abbas  Universalis  or  KadoXinhs, 
Exarchus  omnium  monasteriornm  in  urbe  7'egia 
{Cone.  Constant,  iv.,  a.d.  536.  Act  i. ;  Cone. 
Ephes.  iii.  a.d.  431  ;  and  see  Tillem.,  Mem.  Eccl. 
xiv.  322  and  Eustath.  in  T.  Eucych.  u.  18,  Jo. 


Cantacuz.  i.  50,  Theocterictus  in  T'.  S.  Nicflae,  n. 
4.3,  quoted  by  Du  Cange).  Transferred  im¬ 
properly  sometimes  to  the  Praepositus  or  Py'ior, 
the  lieutenant  (so  to  say)  of  a  monastery',  Abbas 
Seenn/ius  or  Seenudarius  {Reg.  S.  Bened.  65  ;  and 
see  Sid.  Apoll.  vii.  17),  the  proper  abbat  being 
called  by  way  of  distinction  Abbas  2Iojor  {Cone. 
Aquisgr.  a.d.  817  c.  31).  Transferred  also,  in 
course  of  time,  to  non-monastic  clerical  offices, 
as  e.  g.  to  the  prineijjal  of  a  body  of  parochial 
clergy  (i.  the  Abbas,  Custos,  or  Rector,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  ii.  the  Presbyter  or  C ipeilanu^,  and 
iii.  the  Sacrista;  Ughelli,  Ital.  Sac.  vii,  506,  ap.  Du 
Cange)  ;  and  to  the  chief  chaplain  of  the  king  or 
emperor  in  camp  under  the  Carlovingians.  Abbas 
Castrensis,  and  to  the  Abbas  Curiae  at  Vienne 
(Du  Cange) ;  and  in  later  times  to  a  particular 
cathedral  official  at  Toledo  (Beyerlinck,  Magn. 
Theatrum,  s.  v.  Abbas'),  much  as  the  term  car¬ 
dinal  is  used  at  our  own  St.  Paul’s ;  and  to  the 
chief  of  a  decad  of  choristers  at  Anicia,  Abbas 
Clerieulorum  (Du  Cange) ;  and  later  still  to  the 
abbat  of  a  religious  confraternity',  as  of  St.  Yvo 
at  Paris  in  1350  and  another  in  1362  {Id.). 
Adopted  also  for  purely  secular  and  civil  officers, 
Abbas  Populi  at  Genoa,  and  again  of  the  Genoese 
in  Galata  (Jo.  Pachym.  xiii.  27),  of  Guilds  at 
Milan  and  Decurions  at  Brixia ;  and  earlier  still, 
Palatii,  Clocherii,  Campanilis,  Scholar  is,  Esclaf- 
fardorum  (Du  Cange)  ;  and  compare  Dante 
{Purgat.  xxvi.).  Abate  del  Collegia.  Usurped 
in  course  of  time  by  lay  holders  of  monasteries 
under  the  system  of  commendation  [COM- 
menda],  Abbas  Protector,  Abbas  Laicus,  Ardn- 
abbas,  Abba-  [or  Abbi-'\  Comes,  denominated  by'  a 
happy'  equivoque  in  some  papal  documents  Abbas 
Irreligiosus ;  and  giving  rise  in  turn  to  the  Abbas 
Legitimus  or  Monastkus  {Soon,  de  Tumu’at.  S. 
Quintin.,  ap,  Du  Cange),  as  a  name  for  the  abbat 
proper  (sometimes  it  was  the  Decani,  Contin. 
Aimoin.  c,  42  ;  and  in  Culdee  Scotland  in  the 
parallel  case  it  was  a  Prior)  who  took  charge  ot 
the  spiritual  duties.  Lastly,  perverted  altogether 
in  later  day's  into  a  mock  title,  as  Abbas  Laeiitiae, 
Juvenum,  Fatuorum,  or  again  Abbas  Bejanorum 
(of  freshmen,  or  “Yellow  Beaks,”  at  the  univer¬ 
sity  of  Paris),  or  Coniardonini  or  Conardonim  (an 
equally  unruly  cliib  of  older  people  elsewhere  in 
France),  until  “in  vitium  libertas  excidit  et  A'im 
dignain  lege  regi,”  and  the  mock  abbats  accord- 
ingly  “  held  their  peace  ”  perforce  (Du  Cange). 

The  abbat,  properly'  so  called,  was  elected  in 
the  beginning  by  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  out  of 
the  monks  themselves  (with  a  vague  right  of 
assent  on  the  part  of  the  people  also,  according 
to  Du  Cange) ;  a  right  confirmed  at  first  by' 
Justinian  {Xovell.  v.  c.  9,  a.d.  534-565);  vcho, 
however,  by'  a  subsequent  enactment  transferred 
it  to  the  monks,  the  abbat  elect  to  be  confirmed 
and  formally  blessed  by'  the  bishop  {Xovell.  cxxiii. 
c.  34).  And  this  became  the  common  law  of 
Western  monasteries  also  {Reg.  S.  Bened..  a.d. 
530,  c.  64;  Cone.  Cartluig.,  a.d.  525,  in  die  I  Ida  ; 
Greg.  M.,  Epist.  ii.  41,  iii.  23,  viii.  15;  Theodor., 
Poenit.  II.  vi.  1  in  Wasserschl,  p.  207  ;  Pseudo- 
Egbert,  Poen  t.  Add.  in  Thorpe,  ii,  235,  <!kc.  ; — 
“Fratres  eligant  sibi  abbatem,”  Aldhelm  ap.  W. 
Malm.,  De  G.  P.  v.  p.  1 11),  confirmed  in  time  by 
express  enactment  {Capit.  Car.  M.  et  Lud.  Pii, 
I.  vi.,  A.D.  816), — “  Qiiomodo  (monachis)  ex  se 
ipsis  sibi  eligendi  abbates  licentiam  dederimus;” 
— Urban.  Pap.  ap.  Gratian,  cap.  Alien,  cans.  12, 


ABBAT 


ABBAT 


qu.  2  ;  and  so  also  cap.  Quoniam  Dist.  Ixix.- — 
enforcing  the  episcopal  benediction,  from  Cone. 
Nicaen,  ii.,  A.D.  787,  c.  14.  So  also  Counc.  of 
Cealchyth,  A.D.  785,  c.  5  (monks  to  elect  from 
their  own  monastery,  or  another,  with  consent  of 
bishop),  but  Counc.  of  Becanceld,  A.D.  694,  and 
of  Cealchyth,  a.d.  816  (bishop  to  elect  abbat  or 
abbess  with  consent  of  the  “  family  ”).  And 
forms  occur  accordingly,  in  both  Eastern  and 
Western  Pontificals,  for  the  Benedict  io  re¬ 
spectively  of  an  Heguinenos,  or  of  an  Abbas,  both 
Monachoruin  and  Canonicoruin,  and  of  an  Abba- 
tissa  (see  also  Theodor.,  Poenit.  II.  iii.  5,  in 
Wasserschl.  p.  204,  &c. ;  and  a  special  form  for 
the  last  named,  wrongly  attributed  to  Theodore, 
in  Collier’s  Pecords  fi'om  the  Ordo  Rom.,  and 
with  variations,  in  Gerbert).  An  abbat  of  an 
exempt  abbey  (in  later  times)  could  not  resign 
without  leave  of  the  Pope  (c.  Si  Ahbatem,  Bonif. 
VIII.  in  Sext.  Deer.  I.  vi.  36) ;  and  was  to  be 
confirmed  and  blessed  by  him  (Matt.  Pai*.  in  an. 
1257).  A  qualification  made  in  the  Benedictine 
Piule,  allowing  the  choice  of  a  minority  if  theirs 
were  the  sanius  consilium,  necessarily  became  a 
dead  letter  from  its  impracticability.  Bishops, 
however,  retained  their  idght  of  institution  if  not 
nomination  in  Spain  in  the  7th  century  (Cbnc. 
Tolet.,  A.D.  633,  c.  50) ;  and  the  Bishop  of 
Chalons-sur-Marne  so  late  as  the  time  of  St. 
Bernard  (Epist.  58).  See,  however.  Cans,  xviii., 
Qu.  2.  The  nomination  by  an  abbat  of  his  suc¬ 
cessor,  occurring  sometimes  in  special  cases  (e.g. 
St.  Bruno),  and  allowed  under  restrictions  (Co/ic. 
Cabillon.  ii.,  A.D.  650,  c.  12 ;  Theodor.,  Capit. 
Dacher.  c.  71,  in  Wasserschl.  p.  151),  was  ex¬ 
ceptional,  and  was  to  be  so  managed  as  not  to 
interfere  with  the  general  right  of  the  monks. 
So  also  the  founder’s  like  exceptional  nominations, 
as  e.g.  those  made  by  Aldhelm  or  Wilfrid.  The 
interference  of  kings  in  such  elections  began  as  a 
practice  with  the  system  of  commendation  ;  but 
in  royal  foundations,  and  as  suggested  and  pro¬ 
moted  by  feudal  ideas,  no  doubt  existed  earlier. 
The  consent  of  the  bishop  is  made  necessary  to 
an  abbat’s  election,  “  ubi  jussio  Regis  fuerit,” 
in  A.D.  794  (Gone.  Franco/,  c.  17).  The  bishop 
was  also  to  quash  an  unfit  election,  under  the 
Benedictine  rule,  and  (with  the  neighbouring 
abbats)  to  appoint  a  proper  person  instead  (Reg. 
Ben.  64). 

Once  elected,  the  abbat  held  office  for  life, 
unless  canonically  deprived  by  the  bishop ;  but 
the  consent  of  his  fellow-presbyters  and  abbats  is 
made  necessary  to  such  deprivation  by  the 
Council  of  Tours  (Cone.  Turon.  ii.,  a.d.  567,  c.  7  ; 
so  also  Excerpt.  Pseudo- Egberti,  65,  Thorpe  ii. 
107).  And  this,  even  if  incapacitated  by  sickness 
(Hincmar  ad  Corbeiens.,  ap.  Flodoard.  iii.  7). 
'rriennial  abbats  (and  abbesses)  were  a  desperate 
expedient  of  far  later  popes.  Innocent  VIII. 
(a.d.  1484—1492)  and  Clement  VII.  (a.d.  1523- 
1534). 

Like  all  monks  (Hieron.,  ad  RtisEc.  95 ; 
Cassian.,  Collat.  v.  26  ;  Catis.  xvi.  qu.  1,  c.  40  ; 
Dist.  xoiii.  c.  5),  the  abbat  was  originally  a  lay¬ 
man  (“  Abbas  potest  esse,  et  non  iiresbyter ; 
laicus  potest  esse  abbas  Jo.  de  Turrecrem.,  sup. 
Dist.  Ixix.)  ;  and  accordingly  ranked  below  all 
orders  of  clergy,  even  the  Osfiarius  (Dist.  xciii. 
c.  5).  In  the  East,  Archimandrites  appear  to 
have,  become  either  deacons  at  least,  or  com¬ 
monly  priests,  before  the  close  of  the  5th  century 


3 

(inter  Epist.  Hormisd.  Pap.,  A.D.  514—523,  ayite 
Ep.  xxii. ;  Cone.  Constantin,  iv.,  a.d.  536,  Act  i.), 
although  not  without  a  struggle:  St.  Saba.s,  e.g., 
A.D.  484,  strictly  forbidding  any  of  his  monk.s 
to  be  priests,  while  reluctantly  forced  into  the 
presbyterate  himself  by  the  Patriarch  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  (Surius,  in  Vita,  5  J)ec.,  cc.  xxii.  xxv). 
And  Archimandrites  subscribe  Church  Councils 
in  the  East,  from  time  to  time,  from  Cone. 
Constantin.,  a.d.  448.  The  term  'A^fiaSov-pea-- 
PvTfpos,  however,  in  Nomocan.  (n.  44,  ed.  Co- 
teler.),  appears  to  indicate  the  continued  ex¬ 
istence  of  abbats  not  presbyters.  In  the  West, 
laymen  commonly  held  the  office  until  the  end 
of  the  7th  century,  and  continued  to  do  so  to 
some  extent  or  other  (even  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  office)  into  the  11th.  Jealousy  of  the 
priestly  order,  counterbalanced  by  the  absolute 
need  of  priestly  ministrations,  prolonged  the 
struggle,  in  the  6th  century,  whether  Western 
monasteries  should  even  admit  priests  at  all.  St. 
Benedict,  A.D.  530,  hardly  allows  a  single  priest ; 
although,  if  accepted,  he  is  to  rank  next  the 
abbat  (Deg.  60).  Aurelian  of  Arles,  a.d.  50, 
allows  one  of  each  order,  priest,  deacon,  sub¬ 
deacon  (Reg.  46).  The  Rcgula  Magistri  (23) 
admits  priests  as  guests  only,  “  ne  abbates  ut- 
pote  laicos  excludant.”  St.  Gregory,  however, 
A.D.  595,  gave  a  great  impulse,  as  to  monastic 
life  generally,  so  in  particular,  by  the  nature  of 
his  English  mission,  to  presbyter  (and  episcopal) 
abbats.  And  while  Benedict  himself,  a  layman, 
was  admitted  to  a  council  at  Rome,  A.D.  531,  as 
by  a  singular  privilege  (Cave,  Hist.  Litt.  in  V. 
Bened.') ;  during  the  next  century,  abbats  occur 
commonly,  1.  at  Councils  of  State,  or  in  Councils 
of  abbats  for  monastic  purposes,  in  Saxon  England 
and  in  France  ;  but  2.  in  purely  Church  Councils 
in  Spain.  Theodore  (about  a.d.  690)  repeats 
the  continental  canon,,  inhibiting  bishops  from 
compelling  abbats  to  come  to  a  council  without 
reasonable  caase  (Poenit.  II.  ii.  3 ;  Wasserschl. 
p.  203).  And  in  one  case,  both  Al)bates  pres- 
bgteri,  and  Abbates  simply,  subscribe  a  Saxon 
Council  or  Witenagemot,  viz.,  that  of  Oct.  12, 
803  (Kemble,  C.  D.  v.  65),  which  had  for  its 
purpose  the  prohibition  of  lay  commendations ; 
while  abbesses  occur  sometimes  as  well,  e.  g.  at 
Becanceld,  A.D.  694  (Anglo-Sar.  Cliron.),  and 
at  London,  Aug.  1,  a.d.  811  (Kemble,  C.  D.  i. 
242).  Lay  abbats  continued  in  England  a.d. 
696  (Wihtred’s  Dooms,  §  18),  A.D.  740  (Egbert’s 
Answ.  7,  11),  A.D.  747  (Counc.  of  Clocesho,  c.  5), 
A.D.  957  (Aelfric’s  Can.  §  18, — abbats  not  an 
order  of  clergy).  In  France,  an  annual  Council 
of  abbats  was  to  be  summoned  by  the  bishop 
everv  Nov.  1,  the  presbyters  having  their  own 
special  council  separately  in  ]\Iay  (Cone.  Aure- 
lian.  i.,  A.D.  511  ;  Cone.  Autisiod.,  a.d.  57S  or 
586,  c.  7).  Abbats,  however,  sign  as  represen¬ 
tatives  of  bishops  at  the  Councils  of  Orleans,  iv. 
and  V.,  A.d.  541,  549.  But  in  Spain,  abbats 
subscribe  Church  Councils,  at  first  after  and  then 
before  presbyters  (Cone.  Biacar.  iii.,  a.d.  572  ; 
Oscens.,  A.D.  588;  /.'mmY.,  a.d.  666 ;  'Ddet.  xii. 
and  xiii.,  A.D.  681,  683);  occurring,  indeed,  in 
all  councils  from  that  of  Toledo  (viii.)  A.D.  65:5. 
From  A.D.  565,  also,  there  was  an  unbroken 
succession  of  presbyter-abbats  at  Hy,  retaining 
their  original  missionary  jurisdiction  over  tlieir 
monastic  colonies,  even  after  these  colonies  had 
grown  into  a  church,  and  both  needed  and  had 


4 


A  BEAT 


ABBAT 


bishops,  although  undiocesan  (Baed.,  IT.  F.,  iii. 
4,  V.  24).  And  clerical  abbats  (episcopal  indeed 
first,  in  Ireland,  and  afterwards  ])rcsbyteral — 
see  Todd’s  St.  I’atrich.,  pp.  88,  89)  seem  to  have 
been  always  the  rule  in  Wales,  Ireland,  and 
Scotland.  In  Ireland,  indeed,  abbats  were  so 
identified  with  not  presbyters  only  but  bishops, 
that  the  Pope  is  found  designated  as  “Abbat 
‘of  Rome”  (Todd’s  St.  Patrick.,  156).  Most  con¬ 
tinental  abbats,  however  (and  even  their  Frae- 
positi  and  Decani)  appear  to  have  been  pres¬ 
byters  by  A.D,  817.  These  officers  may  bestow 
the  benediction  (“quamvis  presbyteri  non  sint”; 
Cone.  Aquisgr.,  A.D.  817,  c.  62).  All  were  ordered 
to  be  so,  but  as  yet  ineflectually,  A.D.  826  (Cbnc. 
Rom.  c.  27).  And  the  order  was  still  needed, 
but  was  being  speedily  enforced  by  custom,  A.D. 
1078  {Cone.  Piet' IV.  c.  7:  “  Ut  abbates  et  decani 
\aliter  abbates  diaconi]  qui  presbyteri  non  sunt, 
presbyteri  fiant,  aut  praelationes  amittant  ”). 

A  bishop-abbat  was  forbidden  in  a  particular 
instance  by  a  Council  of  Toledo  (xii.,  A.D.  681, 
c.  4),  but  permitted  subsequently  as  (at  first)  an 
exceptional  case  at  Lobes  near  Liege,  about  A.D. 
700,  (conjecturally)  for  missionary  purposes  among 
the  still  heathen  Flemish  (D’Achery,  Spicil.  ii. 
730)  ;  a  different  thing,  it  should  be  noted,  from 
bishops  resident  in  abbeys  under  the  abbat’s 
jurisdiction  (“  Episcopi  monachi,”  according  to 
a  very  questionable  reading  in  Baed.  H.  E.  iv. 
5),  as  in  Ireland  and  Albanian  Scotland,  and  in 
several  continental  (mostly  exempt)  abbeys  (St. 
Denys,  St.  Martin  of  Tours,  &c.),  and  both  at  this 
and  at  later  periods  in  exempt  abbeys  generally 
(Du  Cange,  voc.  Episcopi  Vagantes:  Todd’s  St. 
Patrick.,  51  sq.) ;  although  in  some  of  these  con¬ 
tinental  cases  the  two  plans  seem  to  haA'e  been 
interchanged  from  time  to  time,  according  as  the 
abbat  happened  to  be  either  himself  a  bishop,  or 
merely  to  have  a  monk-bishop  under  him 
(Martene  and  Durand,  Thes.  Nov.  Anccd.  i. 
Pref.  giving  a  list  of  Benedictine  Abbatial  bishops  ; 
Todd,  ib.).  In  Wales,  and  in  the  Scottish  sees 
in  Anglo-Saxon  England  (e.g.  Lindisfarne),  and 
in  a  certain  sense  in  the  monastic  sees  of  the 
Augustinian  English  Church,  the  bishop  was  also 
an  abbat  ;  but  the  latter  office  was  here  ap¬ 
pended  to  the  former,  not  (as  in  the  other  cases)  the 
former  to  the  latter.  So,  too,  “  Antistes  et  abbas,” 
in  Sidon.  Apoll.  (xvi.  114),  speaking  of  two  abbats 
of  Lerins,  who  were  also  Bishops  of  Riez.  Pos¬ 
sibly  there  were  undiocesan  bishop-abbats  in 
Welsh  abbeys  of  Celtic  date  (Rees,  Weish  SS. 
182,  266).  Abbats  sometimes  acted  as  chore- 
piscopi  in  the  9th  century :  v.  Du  Cange,  voc, 
Chorepiscopus.  The  abbats  also  of  Catania  and  of 
!Monreale  in  Sicily  at  a  later  period  were  always 
bishops  (diocesan),  and  the  latter  shortly  an 
archbishop,  respectively  by  privilege  of  Urban  II., 
A.D.  1088-1099,  and  from  A.D.  1176  (Du  Canged. 
So  also  at  Fulda  and  Corbey  in  Germany. 

We  have  lastly  an  abbat  who  was  also  ex 
officio  a  cardinal,  in  the  case  of  the  Abbat  of 
Clugny,  by  privilege  of  Pope  Calixtus  JI.,  a.d. 
1119  (Hug.  Mon.  ad  Pontium  Abb.  Chin.,  ap. 
Du  Cange). 

The  natural  rule,  that  the  abbat  should  be 
chosen  from  the  seniors,  and  from  those  of  the 
monastery  itself  {Reg.  S.  Scrap.  4,  in  Holsten. 
p.  15),  became  in  time  a  formal  law  {Decret. 
Ponif.  VIII.  in  6  de  Elect. — Abbat  to  be  an 
already  professed  monk  ;  Capit.  Car.  M.  et  Lttd. 


T’ii,  i.  tit.  81,  “  ex  seipsis,”  &c.,  as  above  quoted, 
Concil.  Rotom.,  a.d,  1074,  c.  10)  :  although  the 
limitation  to  one  above  twenty-five  years  old  is 
no  earlier  than  Pope  Alexander  III.  {Cone.  La- 
teran.  A.D.  1179).  In  the  West,  however,  the 
rule  was,  that  “Fratres  eligant  sibi  abbatem 
de  ipsis  si  habent,  sin  autem,  de  extraneis  ” 
(Theodor.,  Capit.  Each.  c.  72,  in  Wasserschl.  p. 
151 ;  and  so  also  St.  Greg.,  Ejnst.  ii,  41,  viii.  15)  : 
while  in  the  East  it  seems  to  be  spoken  of  as  a 
privilege,  where  an  abbey,  having  no  fit  monk 
of  its  own,  might  choose  a  ^eyoKovp(Tr]s — one 
tonsured  elsewhere  (Leunclav.  Jus  Graeco-Rom. 

p.  222). 

Repeated  enactments  prove  at  once  the  rule  of 
one  abbat  to  one  monastery,  and  (as  time  went 
on)  its  common  violation  (Hieron.  ad  Rustic.  95  ; 
Peg.  S.  Scrap.  4,  and  Regulae  passim ;  Cone. 
Venetic.,  A.D.  465,  c.  8 ;  Agath.,  a.d.  506,  cc.  38, 
57  ;  Epaon.,  a.d.  517,  cc,  9,  10  ;  and  so,  in  the 
East,  Justinian,  L.  1.  tit,  iii. ;  De  I^pisc.  1.  39:  and 
Balsamon  ad  Nomocah.  tit.  i.  c.  20, — “  Si  non  per- 
mittitur  alicui  ut  sit  clericus  in  duabus  ecclesiis, 
nec  praefectus  .seu  abbas  duobus  monasterii.s 
praeerit  ”).  No  doubt  such  a  case  as  that  of 
Wilfrid  of  York,  at  once  founder  and  Abbat  of 
Hexham  and  Ripon,  or  that  of  Aldhelm,  Abbat 
at  once  (for  a  like  reason)  of  Malmesbury,  Frome, 
and  Bradford,  was  not  so  singular  as  it  was  in 
their  case  both  intelligible  and  excusable.  The 
spirit  of  the  rule  obviously  does  not  apply,  either 
to  the  early  clusters  of  monasteries  under  the 
Rule  of  St.  Pechomius,  or  to  the  tens  of  thou¬ 
sands  of  monks  subject  to  the  government  of 
e.  g.  St.  Macarius  or  St.  Serapion,  or  to  the  later 
semi-hierarchical  quasi-jurisdiction,  posses.sed  as 
already  mentioned  by  the  Abbats  of  St.  Dalma- 
tius,  of  Monte  Cassino,  or  of  Clugny,  and  by 
Benedict  of  Aniana.  Genei'als  of  Orders,  and 
more  compact  organization  of  the  whole  of  an 
Order  into  a  single  body,  belong  to  later  times. 

The  abbat’s  power  was  in  theory  paternal,  but 
absolute — “  Timeas  ut  dominum,  diligas  ut  pa- 
trem  ”  {Reg.  S.  Alacar.  7,  in  Holsten.  p.  25 ;  and 
Regidae  passim).  See  also  St.  Jerome.  Even  to 
act  without  his  order  was  culpable  {Reg.  S. 
Basil.).  And  to  speak  for  another  who  hesitated 
to  obey  was  itself  disobedience  {Reg.  passim). 
The  relation  of  monk  to  abbat  is  described  as 
a  libera  servitus  {Reg.  S.  Orsies.  19,  in  Holsten. 
p,  73) ;  while  no  monk  (not  even  if  he  was  a 
bishop,  Baed.  //.  E.,  iv.  5)  could  exchange  mo¬ 
nasteries  without  the  abbat’s  leave  {Reg.  passim), 
not  even  (although  in  that  case  it  was  some¬ 
times  allowed)  if  he  sought  to  quit  a  laxer  for 
a  stricter  rule  {Reg.  PP.  14,  in  Holsten.  p.  23 ; 
Gild.  ap.  MS.  S.  Gall.  243,  pp.  4,  155)  ;  unless 
indeed  he  fled  from  an  excommunicated  abbat 
(Gild.  ib.  p,  155,  and  in  D’Ach.,  Sfficil.  i,  500). 
In  later  times,  and  less  civilized  regions,  it  was 
found  necessary  to  prohibit  an  abbat  from  blind¬ 
ing  or  mutilating  his  monks  {Cone.  Francof. 
A.D.  794,  c.  18).  The  rule,  however,  and  the 
canons  of  the  Church,  limited  this  absolute  power. 
And  each  Benedictine  abbat,  while  bound  exactly 
to  keep  St.  Benedict’s  rule  himself  (e.  g.  Co«c. 
Angustod.  c.  a.d.  670),  was  enjoined  also  to  make 
his  monks  learn  it  word  for  word  by  heart  {Cone. 
Aquisgr.,  A.D.  817,  cc.  1,  2,  80).  He  was  also 
limited  practically  in  the  exercise'of  his  authority 
(1)  by  the  system  o(  Praeq.ositi  or  Priorcs.  elected 
usually  by  himself,  but  consilio  et  voluntate  fra- 


ABBAT 


ABBAT 


5 


irum  ”  {Reg.  Orient.  3.  in  Moisten,  p.  89  ;  Reg.  S. 
Bened.  65),  and  in  Spain  at  one  time  by  the 
bishop  {Cone.  Tolet.  iv.  a.d.  633,  o.  51);  one  in  a 
Benedictine  abbey,  but  in  the  East  sometimes 
two,  one  to  be  at  home,  the  other  superintending 
the  monks  abroad  {Reg.  Orient.  2,  in  Moisten, 
p.  89)  ;  and  under  the  Rule  of  Pachomius  one  to 
each  subordinate  house  ;  a  system  in  some  sense 
revived,  though  with  a  very  different  purpose,  in 
the  Priores  non  Conventurdes  of  the  dependent 
Obedientiae,  Cellae,  &c.,  of  a  later  Western  Abbey; 
and  (2)  by  that  of  Decani  and  Centenarii,  elected 
by  tlie  monks  themselves  (Mieron.  ad  Eustoch. 
Epist.  xviii. ;  Reg.  Monach.  in  Append,  ad  Mieron. 
0pp.  V. ;  Reg.  passim  ;  see  also  Baed.  H.  E.  ii.  2), 
through  whom  the  discipline  and  the  work  of  the 
monastery  were  administered.  Me  was  limited  also 
from  without  hy  e})iscopal  jurisdiction,  more  effi¬ 
ciently  in  the  East  {Cone.  Chalc.,  a.d.  451',  cc.  4, 
8,  &c.  &c. ;  and  so  Balsam,  ad  Nomocan.  tit.  xi., 
“  Episcopis  magis  subject!  monachi  quam  monas- 
teriorum  praefectis  ”),  but  in  theory,  and  until 
the  11th  century  pretty  fairly  in  fact,  in  the 
West  likewise  {Reg.  S.  Bened. ;  Cone.  Agath.,  a.d. 
506,  c.  38  ;  Aurelian.  i.,  a.d.  511,  c.  19  ;  Epaon., 
A.D.  517,  c.  19;  Herd.  a.d.  524,  c.  3;  Arelat.  v., 
A.D.  554,  cc.  2,  3,  5 ;  and  later  still.  Cone. 
a.d.  859,  c.  9;  Rotomag.,  a.d.  878,  c.  10;  Au¬ 
gustan.,  A.D.  952,  c.  6 ;  and  see  also  Greg.  M. 
Epist.,  vii.  12  ;  x.  14,  33  ;  Mincmar,  as  before 
quoted ;  and  Cone.  Paris,  a.d.  615  ;  Tolet.  iv.  a.d. 
633  ;  Cabil/on.  i.  A.D.  650 ;  Herutf.  a.d.  673,  c.  3, 
in  Baed.  //.  E.  iv.  5,  among  others,  putting  restric¬ 
tions  upon  episcopal  interference).  The  French 
canons  on  this  subject  are  repeated  by  Pseudo- 
Egbert  in  England  {Excerpt.  63-65,  Thorpe,  ii. 
106,  107).  Cassian,  however,  in  the  West,  from 
the  beginning,  bids  monks  beware  above  all  of 
two  soi'ts  of  folk,  women  and  bishops  {De  Instit. 
Coenob.  xi.  17).  And  although  cxem})tions,  at  first 
merely  defining  or  limiting  ejjiscopal  power,  but 
in  time  substituting  immediate  dependence  upon 
the  Pope  for  episcopal  jurisdiction  altogether,  did 
not  grow  into  an  extensive  and  crying  evil  until 
the  time  of  the  Councils  of  Rheims  and  of  Rome, 
respectively  a.d.  1119  and  1122,  and  of  the  self- 
denying  ordinances  of  the  Cistercians  {Chart. 
Ch  irit.  in  Ann.  Cisterc.  i.  109)  and  Premonstra- 
tensians,  in  the  years  a.d.  1119,  1120,  repudiating 
such  privileges  but  with  a  sadly  short-lived 
virtue,  and  of  the  contemporary  reiiionstrances  of 
St.  Bernard  {Lih.  3  De  Consid.,  and  Ejrist.  7,  42, 
179,  180);  yet  they  occur  in  exceptional  cases 
much  earlier.  As  e.  g.  the  adjustment  of  rights 
between  Faustus  of  Lerins  and  his  diocesan  bishop 
at  the  Council  of  Arles,  c.  A.D.  456  (which  se¬ 
cured  to  the  abbat  the  jurisdiction  over  his  lay 
monks,  and  a  veto  against  the  ordination  of  any 
of  them,  leaving  all  else  to  the  bishop,  Mansi, 
vii.  907),  a  j)arallel  privilege  to  Agaune  (St. 
Maurice  in  the  Valais),  at  the  Council  of  Chalons 
A.D.  579,  and  privilegia  of  Popes,  as  of  Mono- 
rius  I.  A.D.  628  to  Bobbio,  and  of  .John  IV.  a.d. 
641  to  Luxeuil  (see  Marculf.,  Formul.  lib.  I.  §  1 ; 
and  Mabill.,  A)in.  Bened.  xiii.  no.  11,  and  Ap¬ 
pend.  n.  18).  Even  exempt  monasteries  in  the 
East,  i.e.  those  immediately  depending  upon  a 
patriarch,  were  subject  to  the  visitatorial  powers 
ot  regular  officials  called  Exarchi  Monastcriorum 
(Balsam,  in  Nomocan.  i.  20 ;  aud  a  form  in  Greek 
Pontificals  for  the  ordination  of  an  exarch,  Ma- 
bert.,  Archie  rat.,  Pontif.  Grace,  observ.  i.  ad  Edit. 


j  7)ro  Archimandrit.  pp.  570,  587),  exercised  some¬ 
times  through  Apocrisiarii  (as  like  powers  of  the 
bishops  through  the  Defensores  Ecclesiarum') ;  and 
even  to  visitations  by  the  emperor  himself  (Justi¬ 
nian,  Novell,  cxxxiii.,  cc.  2,  4,  5).  The  Rule  of 
Pachomius  also  qualified  the  abbat’s  power  by  a 
council  of  the  Majores  Monasterii,  and  by  a  tri¬ 
bunal  of  assessors,  viri  sancti,  5,  10,  or  20,  to  as¬ 
sist  in  administering  discipline  {Reg.  8.  Pack. 
167,  in  Moisten,  p.  49).  And  the  Rule  of  St.  Bene¬ 
dict,  likewise,  compelled  the  abbat,  while  it  re¬ 
served  to  him  the  ultimate  decision,  to  take 
counsel  with  all  the  brethren  (juniors  expressly 
included)  in  greater  matters,  and  with  the  Seni- 
ores  Monasterii  in  smaller  ones  {Reg.  8.  Bened.  2, 
3).  The  Rule  of  Columbanus  gave  him  an  un¬ 
qualified  autocracy. 

The  abbat  was  likewise  limited  in  his  power 
over  abbey  property,  and  in  secular  things,  by  his 
inability  to  interfere  in  person  with  civil  suits  ; 
which  led  to  the  appointment  of  an  Advocatus, 
Vicedomnus,  Oeconomus,  Procurator  {Cod.  Can. 
Afric.  A.D.  418  (?),  c,  97  ;  Justinian,  lib.  i.  Cod. 
tit.  3,  legg.  33,  42  ;  Cod.  Theodos.  lib.  ix.  tit.  45, 
leg.  3  ;  St.  Greg.  Epist.  iii.  22 ;  Cone.  Nicaen.  ii. 
A.D.  787,  c.  11),  revived  with  greater  powers 
under  the  title  of  Advocatus  Ecclesiae,  or  Monas¬ 
terii,  by  Charlemagne  {Capit.  A.D.  813,  c.  14 ;  and 
Lothar.,  Capit.  tit.  iii.  cc.  3,  9,  18,  &c.)  ;  who  from 
a  co-ordinate,  frequently  proceeded  to  usurp  an 
exclusive,  interest  in  the  monastic  revenues.  The 
abbat  also  was  required  to  give  account  of  the 
abbey  property  to  both  king  and  bishop,  by  the 
Council  of  Vern  (near  Paris)  A.D.  755;  while 
neither  abbat  nor  bishop  separately  could  even 
exchange  abbey  lands  in  Anglo-Saxon  England, 
but  only  by  joint  consent  (Theodor.,  Poen.  II.  viii. 
6,  in  Wasserschl.  p.  208). 

Within  the  abbey  and  its  precincts,  the  abbat 
was  to  order  all  work,  vestments,  services  {Reg. 
8.  Bened.  47,  57  ;  Regulae  passim) ;  to  award  all 
punishments,  even  to  excommunication  {Reg.  8. 
Bened.  24 ;  Leidrad.,  Lugdun.  Arch.,  ad  Car.  M. 
ap.  Galland.,  xiii.  390,  restoring  to  the  Abbat  of 
Insula  Barbara,  “  potestatem  ligandi  et  solvendi, 
uti  habuerunt  praedecessores  sui ;”  Monorius  III. 
cap.  Dilecta,  tit.  de  Major,  et  Obedientia,  desiring 
a  neighbouring  abbat  to  excommunicate  refrac¬ 
tory  nuns,  because  their  abbess  could  not ;  and  see 
Bingham),  or  to  the  iise  of  the  “  ferrura  abscis- 
sionis  ”  {Reg.  8.  Bened.  28).  Me  was  also  to  be  ad¬ 
dressed  as  “Domnus  et  Abbas”  {ih.  63).  And  while 
in  the  East  he  was  specially  commanded  to  eat  with 
the  other  monks  {Reg.  PP.  11,  in  Moisten,  p.  23), 
the  Rule  of  Benedict  (56)  appoints  him  a  separate 
table  “  cum  ho.spitibus  et  peregrinis,”  to  which 
he  might,  in  case  there  was  room,  invite  any  monk 
he  pleased.  The  Council  of  Aix  a.d.  817  (c.  27) 
tried  to  qualify  this  practice  by  bidding  abbats 
“  be  content”  with  the  food  of  the  other  monks, 
unless  “  propter  hospitem ;”  and  some  monas¬ 
teries  kept  up  a  like  protest  in  the  time  of  Peter 
Damiani  and  Peter  the  Venerable ;  but  it  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  the  Western  rule.  Me  was  ordered 
also  to  sleep  among  his  monks  by  the  Council 
of  Frankfort  a.d.  794  (c.  13).  The  abbat  was  spe¬ 
cially  not  to  wear  mitre,  ring,  gloves,  or  sandals, 
as  being  episcofml  insignia — a  practice  growing 
up  in  the  West  in  the  10th  and  11th  centuries, 
and  (vainly)  then  protested  against  by  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Poictiers  A.D.  1100,  and  by  St.  Bernard 
{Epist.  42)  and  Peter  of  Blois  {Epist.  90  ;  aud  sea 


6 


ATiBAT 


ABBAT 


also  Thom.  Cantiprat.,  De  Apihus,  i.  6  ;  Chron. 
Casin.  iv.  78).  But  a  mitre  is  said  to  have  been 
granted  to  the  Abbat  of  Bobbio  by  Pope  Theodo¬ 
ras  I.  A.D.  64-3  (Bull.  Casin.  I.  ii.  2),  the  next 
alleged  case  being  to  the  Abbat  of  St.  Savianus 
by  Sylvester  II.  A.D.  1000.  A  staff,  however,  but 
of  a  particular  form,  and  some  kind  of  stockings 
(“  baculum  et  ])edules”),  wore  the  special  insig¬ 
nia  of  an  abbat  in  Anglo-Saxon  England  in  the 
time  of  Theodore  a.d.  668-690,  being  formally 
given  to  him  by  the  bishop  at  his  benediction 
(Poenit.  II.  iii.  5,  in  Wasserschl.  p.  204),  And  the 
staff  was  so  everywhere.  He  was  also  to  shave  his 
beai'd,  and  of  course  to  be  tonsured  (Cone.  Bitu- 
ric.  A.D.  1031,  c.  7),  His  place  of  precedence, 
if  an  ordinary  abbat,  appears  to  have  been  finally 
fixed  as  immediately  after  bishops,  among  prae- 
lati,  and  before  archdeacons  (see,  however,  Decret. 
Greg.  IX.,  lib.  ii.  tit.  1,  cap.  Decernimus)’,  but 
the  list  of  our  English  convocations  from  Arch¬ 
bishop  Kemp’s  Register  a.d.  1452  (Wilk.  I.  xi. 
sq.),  though  following  no  invariable  rule,  appears 
usually  to  postpone  the  abbat  and  prior  to  the 
archdeacon.  In  Saxon  England,  he  shared  in  like 
manner  with  the  king  (as  did  an  abbess  also)  in 
the  “  wer  ”  of  a  murdered  “  foreigner  ”  (Laws  of 
Ine,  23;  Thorpe,  i.  117).  The  abbat  also  was 
not  named  in  the  canon  of  the  mass  (Gavant.  in 
Bubr.  Miss.  P.  iii.  tit.  8 ;  Macr.  F.F.,  Hierolex,  in 
Can.  Missae'),  except  in  the  case  of  the  abbat  of 
Monte  Cassino  (Ang.  a  Nuce,  in  notis  ad  Leo. 
Ostiens.  ii.  4).  But  an  anniversary  was  allowed 
to  be  appointed  for  him  on  his  death  (e.  g.  Cone. 
Aquisgr.  a.d.  817,  c.  73).  He  was  forbidden  (as 
were  all  monks,  at  least  in  France)  to  stand 
sponsor  for  a  child  (Cone.  Autissiod.  a.d.  578,  c. 
25 ;  Greg.  M.,  Epid.  iv.  42),  with  a  notable  ex¬ 
ception,  however,  in  England,  in  the  case  of  Abbat 
Robert  of  Mont  St.  Michel,  godfather  to  King 
Henry  H.’s  daughter  Eleanor  (Rob.  de  Monte  ad 
an.  1161),  or  to  go  to  a  maiTiage  (Cone.  Autissiod., 
ib.') ;  or  indeed  to  go  far  from  his  nionasteiy  at 
all  without  the  bishop’s  leave  (Cone.  Arel.  v. 
A.D.  554) ;  or  to  go  about  with  a  train  of  monks 
except  to  a  general  synod  (Cone.  Aquisgr.  a.d. 
817,  c.  59).  He  of  course  could  not  hold  pro¬ 
perty  (although  it  was  needful  sometimes  to  pro¬ 
hibit  his  lending  money  on  usury,  Pseudo-Egbert. 
Poenit.  iii.  7,  in  Thorpe,  ii.  199);  neither  could 
he  dispose  of  it  by  will,  even  if  it  accrued  to  him 
b}'  gift  or  heirship  after  he  became  abbat  (Reg. 
PP.  2,  in  Holsten.  p.  22) ;  but  if  the  heirship 
was  within  the  4th  degree,  he  was  exceptionally 
enabled  to  will  the  property  to  whom  he  pleased 
(Justinian,  lib,  i.  Cod.  tit.  de  Epise.  ct  Cler.  c. 
33).  Further,  we  find  bishops  and  archdeacons 
prohibited  from  seizing  the  goods  of  deceased 
abbats  (Cone.  Paris,  a.d.  615  ;  Cahillon.  i.  a.d. 
650).  And  later  wills  of  abbats  in  the  West  are 
sometimes  mentioned  and  confirmed,  but  prin¬ 
cipally  in  order  to  secure  to  their  abbeys  pro¬ 
perty  bequeathed  to  those  abbeys  (see  Thomassin). 
Privileges  of  coining  money,  of  markets  and  tolls, 
of  secular  jurisdiction,  began  certainly  as  early 
as  Ludov.  Pius,  or  even  Pipin  (Gieseler,  ii.  p,  255,  i 
notes  5,  6,  Eng.  Tr,).  Others,  such  as  of  the  title 
of  prince,  of  the  four  Abbates  Imperii  in  Germany  i 
(viz.,  of  Fulda — also  ex  offieio  the  empress’s 
chancellor — of  Weisseuberg,  Kempten,  Murbach),  . 
of  the  English  mitred  baronial  abbats,  and  the 
like,  and  sumptuary  laws  limiting  the  number  of 
their  horses  and  attendants,  &c.,  belong  to  later  j 


times.  An  abbat,  however,  might  hunt  in  Eng¬ 
land  (Laws  of  Cu  <t,  in  Thorpe,  i.  429).  An  abbat, 
or  an  abbess,  presiding  over  a  joint  house  of 
monks  and  nuns,  is  noted  by  Theodore  as'a  pecu¬ 
liar  Anglo-Saxon  -custom  : — “  Apud  Graecos  non 
est  consuetudo  viris  feminas  habere  monachas, 
neque  feminis  viros  ;  tamen  consuetudinem  istius 
provinciae  ”  (England)  “  non  destruamus  ”  (Poenit. 
II.  vi.  8,  in  Wasserschl.  p.  208).  The  well-known 
cases  of  the  Abbesses  Hilda  and  Aelbfled  of  Whitby 
and  of  Aebba  of  Coldingham  are  instances  of  the 
latter  arrangement  (Baed.  If.  E.  iv,  23,  24,  25, 
26)  ;  and  the  last  of  them  also  of  its  mischievous¬ 
ness  (Id.  ib.  25).  Tynemouth  and  Wimbourne 
are  other  instances.  But  the  practice  was  a  Celtic 
one  (e.  g.  St.  Brigid ;  see  Todd,  St.  Patriek, 
pp.  11,  12),  not  simply  Anglo-Saxon;  and  with 
Celtic  monastic  missions,  penetrated  also  into  the 
Continent  (e.g.  at  Remiremont  and  Poictiers),  and 
even  into  Spain  and  into  Rome  itself  (soMontalem- 
bert.  Monks  of  vol.  v.  p.  297,  Engl.  Tr.). 

It  is,  however,  remarkable,  that  while  instances 
of  abbesses  ruling  monks  abounded,  abbats  ruling 
nuns  rest  for  us  upon  the  general  assertion  of 
Theodore.  And  the  practice,  while  it  died  out  on 
the  Continent,  was  not  restored  in  England  after 
the  Danish  invasion.  In  the  East  there  was  a 
rigorous  separation  between  monks  and  nuns. 
And  whex’e  two  such  communities  were  in  any 
way  connected,  a  special  enactment  prohibited  all 
but  the  two  superiors  from  communication  with 
one  another,  and  placed  all  possible  restrictions 
upon  even  their  necessary  interviews  (Reg.  S. 
Basil,  in  Holsten.  p.  158).  St.  Pachomius  esta¬ 
blished  the  double  order,  but  put  the  Kile  be¬ 
tween  his  monks  and  his  nuns  (Pallad.,  Hist.  Laus., 
cc.  30 — 4-2). 

Interference  bv  abbats  with  the  ministrations 
of  parochial  clergy  could  scarcely  exist  until  ab¬ 
bats  were  presbyters  themselves,  nor  did  it  ever 
(as  was  naturally  the  case)  reach  the  extent  to 
which  it  was  carried  by  the  friars.  We  find, 
howev’er,  an  enactment  of  Theodore  (Poenit.  II.  vi. 
16,  in  Wasserschl.  p.  209),  prohibiting  a  monas¬ 
tery  from  imposing  penances  on  the  laity,  “  quia 
(haec  libertas)  proprie  clericorum  est.”  And  a 
much  later  and  more  detailed  canon,  of  the  4th 
Lateran  Council  (a.d.  1123),  forbids  abbats  to 
impose  penance,  visit  the  sick,  or  administer 
unction.  They  were  authorized  in  the  East,  it 
presbyters,  and  with  the  bishop’s  leave,  to  confer 
the  tonsure  and  the  order  of  reader  on  their  own 
monks  (Cone.  Nicaen.  ii.  a.d.  787,  c.  14).  And 
they  could  everywhere  admit  their  own  monks 
(“ordinatio  monachi  ” — Theodor.,  Poenit.  II,  iii.  3, 
in  Wasserschl.  p.  204).  But  encroachments  upon 
the  episcopal  office,  as  well  as  upon  episcopal  in¬ 
signia,  gradually  arose.  Even  in  a.d.  448  abbats 
were  forbidd'en  to  give  aTroaroXia  (Cone.  Constan¬ 
tin., — corrected  b}'  Du  Cange  into  iin(rr6\ia  = 
commendatory  letters  for  poor,  and  see  Cone.  Au- 
relian.  ii.  c.  13,  and  Turon.  ii.  c.  6).  But  by  a.d. 
1123  it  had  become  necessary  to  prohibit  gene¬ 
rally  their  thrusting  themselves  into  episcopal 
offices  (Cone.  Lateran.  iv.  c,  17).  And  we  find 
it  actually  asserted  by  Sever.  Binius  (in  Canon. 
Apostol.  ap.  Labh.  Cone.  i.  54e,  on  the  authority 
of  Bellarmine,  Be  Eecles.  iv.  8),  that  two  or  more 
“  abbates  infulati  ”  might  by  Papal  dispensation 
be  substituted  for  bishops  in  consecrating  a 
bishop,  provided  one  bishop  were  there  ;  while 
Innocent  IV.  in  1489  empowered  an  abbat  by 


ABBAT 

himself  to  confer  not  only  the  subdiaconate,  but 
the  diaconate. 

The  sjtiritual  abbat  was  supplanted  in  Wales 
(Gil  •aid.  Canibr.,  Itin.  Camh.,  and  repeatedly)  and 
in  Scotland  (R'obertson,  Early  Scotl.  i.  329,  339), 
by  the  end  of  the  8th  and  so  on  to  the  12th  cen¬ 
tury,  by  the  Advocatus  Ecclesiae  (confused 
sometimes  with  the  Oeconomus,  who  in  Welsh 
and  Irish  monasteries  was  a  different  officer,  and 
managed  the  internal  secular  affairs,  as  the  other 
did  the  external),  called  in  Scotland  Herenach,  in 
Ireland  Airchinneach,  who  was  originally  the  lay, 
and  gradually  became  also  the  hereditary,  lessee  of 
the  Termon  (or  abbey)  lands,  being  commonly  the 
founder  or  his  descendant,  or  one  of  the  neighbour¬ 
ing  lords ;  and  who  held  those  lands,  receiving  a 
third  part  of  their  value  in  the  first  instance,  but 
who  is  found  as  an  hereditary  married  lay  abbat 
during  the  period  named  ;  e.  (/.  Crinan,  the  Abbat 
of  Dunkeld,  who  was  grandfather  of  Shakspeare’s 
Duncan,  and  one  Dunchad,  also  Abbat  of  Dunkeld, 
who  died  in  battle  a.d.  961.  The  case  was  the 
same  at  Abernethy  and  at  Applecross.  The  spi¬ 
ritual  duties  devolved  upon  the  bishop  and  a 
prior.  See  also  Du  Cange  (voc.  Advocatus),  for 
a  similar  process  although  to  a  less  degree  on  the 
Continent.  In  Ireland,  the  Comarb,  or  similar 
hereditary  abbat  (or  bishop),  retained  his  spiritual 
character  (Todd,  St.  Patrick,  pp.  155  sq.).  The 
lay  abbats  in  Northumbria,  denounced  by  Baeda 
{Epist.  ad  E  jhert.),  were  simply  fraudulent  imi¬ 
tations  of  abbats  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word. 
An  entirely  like  result,  however,  and  to  as  wide 
an  extent  during  Carlovingian  times  as  in  Scot¬ 
land,  ensued  abroad  from  a  difierent  cause, 
viz.,  from  the  system  of  commendation  [COM- 
MEXDa];  which  began  in  the  time  of  Charles 
Martel  (a.d.  717—741,  being  approved  by  Cone. 
Leptin.  A.D.  743  ;  Cone.  Suession.,  A.D.  744;  and 
see  Baron,  in  an.  889,  n.  31),  with  the  plausible 
object  of  temporarily  employing  monastic  re¬ 
venues  for  the  pressing  needs  of  warfare  with 
Saracens,  Saxons,  or  other  heathens,  care  being 
taken  to  reserve  enough  to  keep  up  the  monas¬ 
tery  proper.  The  nobleman,  or  the  king  himself, 
who  led  the  troops  thus  raised,  became  titular 
abbat.  And  in  Carlovingian  times,  accordingly, 
most  of  the  great  Frank  and  Burgundian  nobles 
and  kings,  and  sometimes  even  bishops  (e.  g. 
Hatto  of  Mainz,  a.d.  891-912,  who  enjoyed  the 
reputation  of  holding  twelve  abbeys  at  once), 
were  titular  abbats  of  some  great  monastery,  as 
of  St.  Denys  or  St.  Martin,  held  for  life  or  even 
by  inheritance  ;  the  revenues  of  which  were  soon 
diverted  to  purposes  less  patriotic  than  that  of 
supplying  the  king  with  soldiers  (see  a  short 
list  by  way  of  specimen  in  Gieselei',  ii.  p.  411, 
note  1,  F.ng.  Tr.).  In  the  East  a  like  system  aj)- 
peai's  to  have  grown  up,  although  hardly  from 
the  same  origin,  some  centuries  later  ;  Jolfn,  Pa¬ 
triarch  of  Antioch,  at  the  beginning  of  the  12th 
century,  informing  us  that  most  monasteries  in 
his  time  were  handed  over  to  laymen  (xapto-ro- 
Kapioi  =  heneficiarii),  for  life  or  for  two  or  three 
descents,  by  gift  of  the  emperors;  while  Balsamon 
(ad  Cone.  Eicaen.  c.  13)  actually  condemns  him 
for  condemning  the  practice.  Later  abuses  of  the 
kind  in  the  West,  as  in  the  time  of  Francis 
I.  of  France  or  of  Louis  XIV.,  need  here  be  only 
alluded  to. 

(Bingham ;  Bulteau,  Hist.  Mon.  d'Orient ;  Du 
Cange ;  Ant.  Dadini,  Ascetic,  seu  Origg,  Rei  Monas- 


ABBESS  7 

tic. ;  Ferraris  ;  Helyot,  Hist,  des  Ordr,  Mon. ;  Her¬ 
zog  ;  Hospinian,  He  Monach. ;  Macri  FF.,  Hiero~ 
lexic.  ;  Martene,  He  Antiq.  Monach.  Pitihus  ;  ^lar- 
tigny  ;  Montalembert,  Monks  of  the  West ;  Tho- 
massin.  He  Benefic. ;  Van  Espen.)  [A.  W.  IL] 

ABBATISSA.  [Abbess.] 

ABBESS.  (Abbatissa  found  in  inscript,  of 
a.d.  569,  in  Mui'ator.  429.  3,  also  called  Anti- 
stita  and  Majorissa,  the  female  superior  of  a  body 
of  nuns;  among  the  Greeks, 'H7ou/r€VT?, ’Apx‘" 
fxavSpTriSf  Archimandritissa,  Justinian,  Novell., 
’Afxfjias  or  mother,  Pallad.,  Hist.  Bans.,  c.  42,  in  . 
the  time  of  Pachomius,  Mater  monasterii  or  moni- 
alium,  see  St.  Greg.  M.,  Hial.  IV.  13  [where 
“  Mater  ”  stands  simply  for  a  nun]  ;  Cone. 
Mogunt.  A.D.  813;  Aquisgr.,  a.d.  816,  lib.  ii.). 
In  most  points  subject  to  the  same  laws  as  ab¬ 
bats,  mutatis  mutandis  ; — elective,  and  for  life 
(triennial  abbesses  belonging  to  years  so  late  as 
A.D.  1565,  1583) ;  and  solemnly  admitted  by  the 
bishop — Benedictio  Abbat issae  (thsii  for  an  abbess 
monasticam  regulam  proftentem,  capit.  ex  Canone 
Theodori  Anglorum  Eqnscopi,  is  in  the  Ordo  Eo- 
manus,  p.  164,  Hittorp.) ;  and  in  Fi’ance  re¬ 
stricted  to  one  monastery  apiece  (Cone.  Vern.  a.d. 
755);  and  with  Praepositae,  and  like  subordinates, 
to  assist  them  (Cone.  Aquisgr.,  a.d.  816,  lib.  ii. 
cc.  24-26) ;  and  bound  to  obey  the  bishop  in  all 
things,  whether  abbesses  of  Monachae  or  of  Cano- 
nicae  (^Conc.  Cabillon.  ii.  a.d.  813,  c.  65)  ;  and  sub¬ 
ject  to  be  deprived  for  misconduct,  but  in  this 
case  upon  report  of  the  bishop  to  the  king  (Gone. 
Franco/.  A.D.  791)  ;  bound  also  to  give  account  of 
monastic  property  to  both  king  and  bishop  {Cone. 
Vern.,  A.D.  755);  entitled  to  absolute  obedience 
and  possessed  of  ample  powers  of  discipline,  even 
to  expulsion,  subject  however  to  the  bishop  (Gone. 
Aquisgr.  A.D.  816,  lib.  ii.)  ;  and  save  only  that 
while  an  abbat  could,  an  abbess  could  not,  excom¬ 
municate  (Honorius  III,,  cap.  Hilecta,  tit.  de  Ma¬ 
jor.  et  Obedientia)  ;  neither  could  she  give  the  veil 
or  (as  some  in  France  appear  to  have  tried  to 
do)  ordain  {Capitul.  Car.  M.  an.  789,  c.  74, 
Anseg.  71);  present  even  at  Councils  in  England 
(see  Abbat,  and  compare  Lingard,  Antiq.  i. 
139  ;  Kemble,  Antiq.  ii.  198  ;  quoted  by  Mont¬ 
alembert,  Alonks  of  Besf,  v.  230,  Engl.  Tr.). 
While,  however,  a  bishop  was  necessary  to 
admit  and  bless  an  abbat,  Theodore  ruled 
in  England,  although  the  rule  did  not  become 
permanent,  that  a  presbyter  was  sufficient  in  like 
case  for  an  abbess  {Poenit.  II.  iii.  4,  in  Wasserschl., 
p.  203).  The  limitation  to  forty  years  old  at  elec¬ 
tion  is  as  late  as  the  Council  of  Trent ;  Gregory 
the  Great  speaks  of  sixty  {Epist.  iv.  11).  An 
abbess  also  was  not  to  leave  her  monastery,  in 
France,  .save  once  a  year  if  summoned  by  the 
king  with  the  bishop’s  consent  to  the  king’s 
presence  upon  monastic  business  (Cone.  Vern. 
A.D.  755;  Cabillon.  ii.  a.d.  813,  c.  57).  Neither 
was  she  even  to  speak  to  any  man  save  upon 
necessary  business,  and  then  before  witnesses 
and  between  the  first  hour  of  the  day  and 
evening  (Cone.  Cabillon.  ii.  A.D.  813,  cc.  55, 
56).  For  the  exceptional  cases  of  Anglo-Saxon, 
Irish,  or  Continental  Irish,  abbesses  ruling 
over  mixed  houses  of  monks  and  nuns,  see 
Abbat.  It  was  noted  also  as  a  specially 
Western  custom,  that  widows  as  well  as  virgin* 
were  made  abbesses  (Theod.,  Pocnit.  II.  iii.  7,  in 
Wasserschl.  p.  204).  [A.  W.  II.] 


8 


ABBEY 


ABJURATION 


ABBEY.  [Monastkuy.] 

ABBUNA,  the  tnmmon  appellation  of  the 
Bishop,  Meti-an,  or  Metropolitan,  of  Axum,  or 
Abyssinia,  or  Ethiopia,  not  a  patriarch,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  appointed  and  consecrated  always 
by  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  specially 
forbidden  to  have  more  than  seven  suffragan 
bishops  under  him,  lest  he  should  make  himself 
so,  twelve  bishops  being  held  to  be  the  lowest 
canonical  number  for  the  consecration  of  a  patri¬ 
arch.  In  a  Council,  if  held  in  Greece,  he  occu¬ 
pied  the  seventh  place,  immediately  after  the 
prelate  of  Seleucia.  (Ludolf,  Hist.  Ethiop. 
iii.  7.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

ABDELLA,  martyr  in  Persia  under  Sapor, 
commemorated  Apr.  21  (^Martyr.  Rom.  Vet.').  [C.] 

ABDIANUS,  of  Africa,  commemorated  June 
3  (J/ari.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ABDON,  Abdo  or  Abdus,  and  SENNEN, 
Sennes,  or  Sennis,  Persian  princes,  martyred  at 
Rome  under  Decius,  a.d.  250,  are  commemorated 
July  30  {Marty rologium  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis^. 
Proper  office  in  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  p.  IIG  ; 
and  Antiphon  in  the  Lib.  Antqyhon.  p.  704. 

It  is  related  (Adonis  Martyrol.  iii.  Kal.  Aug.) 
that  their  relics  were  translated  in  the  time  of 
Constantine  to  the  cemetery  of  Pontianus.  There 
Bosio  discovered  a  remarkable  fresco,  represent¬ 
ing  the  Lord,  seen  from  the  waist  upward  emerg¬ 
ing  from  a  cloud,  placing  wreaths  on  the  heads 
of  SS.  Abdon  and  Sennen  (see  woodcut).  This  is 


A  bdon  and  Sennen.  (Fi  om  the  cemetery  of  Pontianns.) 

in  front  of  the  vault  enclosing  the  supposed 
remains  of  the  martyrs,  which  bears  the  inscrip¬ 
tion  [depositi]ONIS  die.  The  painting  is,  in 
Martigny’s  opinion,  not  earlier  than  the  seventh 
century.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  painter  has 
evidently  made  an  attempt  to  represent  the  Per¬ 
sian  dress.  The  saints  wear  pointed  caps  or 
hoods,  similar  to  those  in  which  the  Magi  are 
sometimes  represented;  cloaks  fastened  with  a 
fibula  on  the  breast ;  and  tunics  of  skin  entirely 
unlike  the  Roman  tunic,  and  resembling  that 
given  to  St.  John  Baptist  in  a  fresco  of  the 
Lord’s  Baptism  in  the  same  cemetery  of  Ponti¬ 
anus  (Bottari,  Sculture  e  Pitture,  tav.  xliv.). 
Some  account  of  the  peculiar  dress  of  Abdon  and 
Sennen  may  be  found  in  Laroi’s  treatise  Be  Eru- 
ditione  Apostolorum,  pp.  121-166. 

The  gesture  of  the  Lord,  crowning  the  martyrs 


for  tlieir  cou.stancy,  is  found  also  on  the  bottoms 
of  early  Chri.stian  cups  [Glas.S,  Chp.istian], 
where  He  crowns  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  and 
other  saints  (Buonarruoti,  Vasi  Antichi,  tav. 
XV.  fig.  1,  and  elsewhere) ;  and  on  coins  of  the 
Lower  Empire  the  Lord  is  not  uufrequently 
seen  crowning  two  emperors.  (Martigny,  Diet, 
des  Antiq.  chretiennes.  ]  [c.] 

ABECEDARIAN.  The  term  “  Hymnus  ”  or 
“  Paean  Abecedarius”  is  applied  specially  to  the 
hymn  of  Sedulius,  “A  solis  ortus  cardiue.” 
[Acrostic.]  [C.] 

ABERCIUS  of  Jerusalem,  tVaTrJcrToAoy 
davy.aTovpybs,  commemorated  Oct.  22  (Cal. 
Byzant.').  [C.] 

ABGARUS,  King,  commemorated  Dec.  21 
(Cal.  Armen.).  [C.] 

ABIBAS,  martyr  of  Edessa,  commemorated 
Nov.  15  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

ABIBON,  invention  of  his  relics  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  Aug.  3  (Martyrol.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ABILIUS,  bishop  of  Alexandria  (a.d.  86-96), 
commemorated  Feb.  22  (Martyrol.  Rom.  Vet.)’, 
Maskarram  1  =  Aug.  29  (Cal.  Ethiop.).  [C.] 

ABJURATION  — denial,  disavowal,  or  re¬ 
nunciation  upon  oath.  Abjuration,  in  common 
ecclesiastical  language,  is  restricted  to  the  renun¬ 
ciation  of  heresy  made  by  the  penitent  heretic 
on  the  occasion  of  his  reconciliation  to  the  Church. 
In  some  cases  the  abjuration  was  the  only  cere¬ 
mony  required ;  but  in  others  it  was  followed 
up  by  the  imposition  of  hands  and  by  unction. 
The  practice  of  the  ancient  Church  is  described 
by  St.  Gregory  the  Great  in  a  letter  to  Quiricus 
and  the  bishops  of  Iberia  on  the  reconciliation 
of  the  Nestorians.  According  to  this,  in  cases  in 
wliich  the  heretical  baptism  was  imperfect,  the 
rule  was  that  the  penitent  should  be  baptized  ; 
but  when  it  was  complete,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Arians,  the  custom  of  the  Eastern  Church  was 
to  reconcile  by  the  Chrism  ;  that  of  the  Western, 
by  the  imposition  of  hands.  As,  however,  the 
mvsterv  of  the  Chrism  was  but  the  Oriental  rite 

m  •/ 

of  Confirmation,  the  practice  was  substantially 
identical.  (On  the  question  of  Re-baptism,  see 
Re-Baptism,  Baptism.)  Converts  from  the 
Monophysites  were  received  after  simple  confes¬ 
sion,  and  the  previous  baptism  was  supposed  to 
take  effect  “  for  the  remission  of  sins,”  at  the 
m.oment  at  which  the  Spirit  was  imparted  by 
the  imposition  of  hands;  or  the  convert  was  re¬ 
united  to  the  Church  by  his  profession  of  faith 
(St.  Greg.  Ep.  9,  61).  A  similar  rule  is  laid 
down  by  the  Quinisext  Council,  canon  95,  which 
classes  with  the  Arians,  the  ^lacedonians,  Nova- 
tians  and  others,  to  be  received  with  the  Chrism. 
The  Paulianists,  Montanists,  Eunomians,  and 
others,  are  to  be  re-baptized ;  to  be  received  as 
Christians,  on  their  profession,  the  first  day,  as 
Catechumens  the  second,  and  after  they  have 
been  allowed  a  place  in  the  Church  as  hearers 
for  some  time,  to  be  baptized.  In  all  cases,  the 
profession  of  faith  must  be  made  by  the  pre¬ 
sentation  of  a  libellus,  or  form  of  abjuration,  in 
which  the  convert  renounced  and  anathematized 
his  former  tenets.  After  declaring  his  abjura¬ 
tion  not  to  be  made  on  compulsion,  from  fear  or 
any  other  unworthy  motive,  he  proceeded  tc 
anathematize  the  sect  renounced,  by  all  its 


I 


ABLUTION 

names  ;  the  neresiarchs,  and  their  successors,  past, 
present,  and  future ;  he  then  enumerated  the 
tenets  received  by  them,  and,  having  repudiated 
them  singly  and  generally,  he  ended  with  making 
profession  of  the  true  faith.  (Bandinius,  Monu- 
•tnenta  ii.  109-111.  But  for  the  whole  subject  see 
Martene  and  Durand,  De  Antiquis  Ecclesiae  liiti- 
bus  II.  liber  iii.  ch.  G  ;  Ahj.  de  levi  et  de  vehementi, 
later  date.  See  Landon’s  EccL  Die.')  [D.  B.] 

ABLUTION.  A  term  under  which  various 
kinds  of  ceremonial  washing  are  included.  The 
principal  are  the  following :  the  washing  of  the 
head,  as  a  pi-eparation  for  unction  in  baptism, 
and  the  washing  of  the  feet,  which  in  some 
places  formed  part  of  the  baptismal  ceremony 
[Baptism]  ;  the  washing  of  the  feet  of  the  poor 
by  exalted  persons,  which  forms  part  of  the  cere¬ 
mony  of  Maundy  Thursday  [Feet,  washing  of]; 
the  lustral  ceremony  which  preceded  entrance  to  a 
church  [Canthauus;  Holy  Water];  and  the 
washing  of  the  priest’s  hands  at  certain  points 
in  the  celebration  of  the  liturgy  [Aquamanile  ; 
Hands,  washing  of].  [C.] 

ABORTION. — The  crime  of  procuring  abor¬ 
tion  is  little,  if  at  all,  noticed  in  the  earliest 
laws.  It  is  a  crime  of  civilization :  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  principle  which  in  a  barbarous 
state  of  society  is  infanticide.  The  nation  of 
Lysias  which  was  pronounced  on  occasion  of  a 
suit  on  this  subject  is  lost,  so  that  it  cannot  be 
decided  whether  the  act  was  regarded  by  the 
Athenians  as  an  offence  against  society,  or  merely 
as  a  private  wrong.  It  is  in  the  latter  aspect 
that  it  is  chiefly  regarded  in  the  civil  law.  The 
child  unborn  represents  certain  interests,  and  his 
life  or  death  may  be  beneficial  or  injurious  to 
individuals :  thus,  it  may  have  been,  that  a 
father,  by  his  wife’s  crime,  might  lose  the  jus 
trium  liberorum.  The  case  quoted  from  Cicero 
pro  Cluentio  (Dig.  xlviii.  19,  39),  in  which  a 
woman  was  condemned  to  death  for  having  pro¬ 
cured  abortion,  having  been  bribed  by  the  second 
heir,  is  clearly  exceptional.  The  only  passage 
in  the  civil  law  in  which  the  crime  is  mentioned 
without  such  connexion,  is  a  sentence  of  Ulpian, 
in  the  Pandects  (Dig.  xlviii.  8,  8,  ad  legem  Cor¬ 
nelian!  de  Sicariis),  where  the  punishment  is 
declared  to  be  banishment.  The  horrible  preva¬ 
lence  of  the  practice  among  the  Romans  of  the 
Empire  may  be  learned  from  Juvenal. 

It  was  early  made  a  ground  of  accusation  by 
the  Christians  against  the  heathen.  Tertullian 
denounces  the  practice  as  homicidal.  “  Pre¬ 
vention  of  birth  is  a  precipitation  of  murder,” 
Aj)ol.  ix.  Minucius  Felix  declares  it  to  be  par¬ 
ricide. 

The  Council  of  Ancyra  (a.d.  314)  having  men¬ 
tioned  that  the  ancient  punishment  was  penance 
for  life,  proceeds  to  limit  it  to  ten  years ;  and 
the  same  space  of  time  is  given  by  St.  Basil,  who 
condemns  the  practice  in  two  canons,  ii.  andviii., 
alleging  the  character  of  the  crime  as  committed 
against  both  the  mother  and  the  offspring  ;  and 
declining  to  accept  the  distinctions  drawn  by 
the  lawyers  between  the  degrees  of  criminality 
varying  with  the  time  of  the  gestation.  The 
Council  of  Lerida  (324)  classes  the  crime  with 
infanticide,  but  allows  the  mother  to  be  received 
to  Communion  after  seven  years’  penance  even 
when  her  sin  is  complicated  with  adultery.  The 
Council  in  Trullo  condemns  it  to  the  penance 


ABSTINENCE  9 

of  homicide.  Pope  Gregory  III.  in  the  next 
century  reverts  to  the  ten  years’  penance,  al- 
thousrh  he  differs  from  St.  Basil  in  moditVinsr  the 

V  O 

sentence  to  a  single  vear  in  cases  where  the 
child  has  not  been  formed  in  the  womb;  this  is 
based  on  Exod.  xxi.,  and  is  countenanced  by  St. 
Augustine,  in  Quaestiones  Exodi,  in  a  passage  in¬ 
corporated  by  Gratian. 

There  is  thus  abundant  evidence  that  the  crime 
was  held  in  extreme  abhorrence,  and  punished 
with  great  severity,  as  pertaining  to  wilful 
murder,  by  the  canons  of  the  Church.  By  the 
Visigothic  law  (lib.  VI.  tit.  iii.  c.  1),  the  person 
who  administered  a  draught  for  the  ])urpose 
was  punished  with  death.  [D.  B.] 

ABRAHAM.  (1)  the  patriarch,  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  9  (^Martyrol.  Eoin.  Vet.).  Also  on 
the  23rd  of  the  month  Nahasse,  equivalent  to 
August  16.  {Cal.  Ethiop.  ;  Neale,  Eastern  Church, 
Tut  rod.  pp.  805,  815.) 

(2)  Patriarch  and  maj-tyr,  commemorated 
Taksas  6  =  Dec.  2  {Cal.  Ethiop.).  [C.] 

ABRAHAM,  ISAAC,  AND  JACOB  are 
commemorated  by  the  Ethiopic  Church  on  the 
28th  of  every  month  of  their  Calendar.  [C.] 

ABRAXAS  GEMS.  [See  Abrasax  in 
Dict.  of  Christ.  Biogr.] 

ABREHA,  first  Chj-istian  king  of  Ethio¬ 
pia,  commemorated  Tekemt  4  =  Oct.  1  {Cal. 
Ethiop.).  [C.] 

ABRENUNTIATIO.  [Baptism.] 

ABSOLUTION  Absolut io).  (For  Sacra¬ 
mental  Absolution,  see  Exomologesis.) 

1.  A  short  deprecation  which  follows  the 
Psalms  of  each  Nocturn  in  the  ordinary  offices 
for  the  Hours.  In  this  usage,  the  word  “  abso- 
lutio  ”  perhaps  denotes  simply  “  ending  ”  or  “com¬ 
pletion,”  because  the  monks,  when  the  Nocturns 
were  said  at  the  proper  hours  of  the  night,  broke 
off  the  chant  at  this  point  and  went  to  rest 
(Macri  Hierolexicon  s.  v.).  In  foct,  of  the  “  Ab- 
solutiones  ”  in  the  present  Roman  Breviary,  only 
one  (that  “  in  Tertio  Nocturno,  et  pro  feria  iv. 
et  Sabbato  ”)  contains  a  prayer  for  absolution, 
in  the  sense  of  a  setting  free  from  sin. 

2.  For  the  Absolution  which  follows  the  intro¬ 
ductory  Confession  in  most  Liturgies  and  Offices^ 
see  Confession. 

3.  The  prayer  for  Absolution  at  the  beginning 
of  the  office  is,  in  Oriental  Liturgies,  addressed 
to  the  Son  :  but  many  of  the.se  liturgies  contain 
a  second  “  Oratio  Absolutionis,”  at  some  point 
between  Consecration  and  Communion,  which  is 
addressed  to  the  Father.  For  example,  that  in 
the  Greek  St.  Basil  (Renaudot,  Lit.  Orient,  i.  81), 
addressing  God,  the  Father  Almighty  (6  0eds, 
6  riaTTjp  b  UauTOKpaTu  p),  and  reciting  the  pro¬ 
mise  of  the  Keys,  prays  Him  to  dismiss,  remit 
and  pardon  our  sins  {Itres,  depes,  avyx^pVf^ou 
ypur).  Compare  the  Coptic  St.  Basil  {lb.  i.  22). 

4.  The  word  “  Ab.solutio  ”  is  also  applied  to 

those  prayers  said  over  a  corpse  or  a  tomb  in 
which  remission  of  the  sins  of  the  departed  is 
entreated  from  the  Almighty.  (Macri  Jliero- 
lexicon,  s.  V.)  [C.] 

ABSTINENCE.  Days  of  abstinence,  as  they 
are  called,  on  which  ])ersons  may  take  their 
meals  at  the  ordinary  hour,  and  eat  and  drink 
what  they  please,  in  any  quantity  so  that  they 


JO 


ABUNA 


ACCENTUS  ECCLESIASTICUS 


abstain  from  meat  alone,  belong  to  modern  times. 
Anciently,  fasting  and  abstinence  went  together, 
as  a  general  rule,  formed  parts  of  the  same  idea, 
and  could  not  be  dissevered.  There  may  have 
been  some  few,  possibly,  who  ate  and  drank  in¬ 
discriminately,  when  they  broke  their  fast,  as 
Socrates  (v.  22,  10)  seems  to  imply ;  but  in 
general,  beyond  doubt,  abstinence  from  certain 
kinds  of  food  was  observed  on  fasting  days  when 
the  fast  was  over,  “  abstinentes  ab  iis,  quae  non 
rejicimus,  sed  differimus,”  as  Tertullian  says 
(Z><?  Jejun.  15).  Thus  it  will  be  more  properly 
considered  under  the  head  of  fasting,  to  which 
it  subserved.  [E.  S.  F.] 

ABUNA.  [Abbuna.] 

ABUNDANTIUS,  of  Alexandria,  commemo¬ 
rated  Feb.  26  (^2Iart.  Hicron2).  [C.] 

ABUNDIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Home  under 
Decius,  commemorated  Aug.  26  (^Mart.  Horn.  Vet. 
et  Bedac);  Aug.  23  (^3Iart.  Hieronym.'). 

(2)  The  deacon,  martyr  at  Spoleto  under  Dio¬ 
cletian,  Dec.  10  (^Martyrol.  Rom.  Vet.').  [C.] 

ACACIUS,  martyr,  commemorated  May  7 
(Ca/.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

ACATHISTUS  (Gr.  aKdeicrros).  A  hymn  of 
the  Greek  Church,  sung  on  the  eve  of  the  fifth 
Sunday  in  Lent,  in  honour  of  the  Blessed  Virgin, 
to  whose  intercession  the  deliverance  of  Constan¬ 
tinople  from  the  barbarians  on  three  several  oc¬ 
casions  was  attributed.  Meursius  assigns  its 
origin  more  especially  to  the  deliverance  of  the 
city  from  Chosroes,  king  of  the  Persians,  in  the 
reign  of  the  Emperor  Heraclius  (626).  It  is 
called  aKaOiCTTos,  because  during  the  singing  of 
it  the  whole  congregation  stood,  while  during 
the  singing  of  other  hymns  of  the  same  kind 
they  occasionally  sat.  (Suicer’s  Thesaurus,  s.  v. ; 
Neale’s  Eastern  Ch.  Introd.  747  ;  Daniel’s  Codex 
Liturg.  iv.  223.) 

Francis  Junius  wrongly  supposed  this  use  of 
the  Acathistus  to  commemorate  the  journey  of 
Mary  and  Joseph  to  Bethlehem.  (Macri  Hiero- 
Icxicon,  s.  V.) 

The  word  Acathistus  is  also  used  to  designate 
the  day  on  which  the  hymn  was  used.  (Sabae 
Typkum,  in  Suicer,  s.  v.)  [C.] 

ACCENTUS  ECCLESIASTICUS.  One  of 
the  two  principal  kinds  (accentus  and  concentus) 
of  ecclesiastical  music. 

1.  The  consideration  of  this  subject  is  encum¬ 
bered  by  an  especial  difficulty — the  popular,  and 
now  all  but  exclusive  application  of  the  word 
“  accent  ”  to  emphasis,  stress,  or  ictus.  Accent, 
however,  claims  and  admits  of  a  much  wfider 
application.  Ben  Jonson  “  speaks  of  accent  as 
being  “  with  the  ancients,  a  tuning  of  the  voice, 
in  lifting  it  up,  or  letting  it  down,” — a  defini¬ 
tion  not  only  clear  and  concise,  but  thoroughly 
accordant  with  the  derivation  of  the  word 
“  accent,”  from  accino,  \.q.  ad  cano,  to  sing  to. 
We  are  ail  conscious  of  and  affected  by  the 
varieties  of  accent  ^  (in  this,  its  etymological 
and  primitive  acceptation)  in  foreign  languages 
spoken  by  those  to  Avhom  they  are  native,  as 
well  as  in  our  native  language  spoken  by  fo¬ 
reigners,  or  (perhaps  still  more)  by  residents  of 

»  Er.glish  Grammar,  1640,  chap.  viii. 

>■'  "  Esl  in  dicendo  etiam  quidara  cantus  obscurior.” — 
Cicero,  Orat.  18,  57. 


parts  of  Great  Britain  other  than  our  own.  The 
Scottish,  Irish,  and  various  provincial  accents, 
are  not  so  much  the  re.sult  of  difierent  vocaliza¬ 
tion  (i.e.  utterance  of  vowel  sounds)  as  of  the 
different  gradations  in  which  the  Scotch,  Irish, 
and  others,  “  tune  their  voices.” 

2.  The  Accentus  Ecclesiasticus,  called  also  mo¬ 
dus  choraliter  legendd,  is  the  result  of  successive 
attempts  to  ensure  in  Public  Worship  uniformity 
of  delivery  consistent  with  uniformity  of  matter 
delivered ;  so  as,  if  not  to  obliterate,  at  least  to 
hide  individual  peculiarities  under  the  veil  of  a 
catholic  “  use.”  It  presents  a  sort  of  mean  be¬ 
tween  speech  and  song,  continually  inclining  to¬ 
wards  the  latter,  never  altogether  leaving  its 
hold  on  the  former  ;  it  is  speech,  though  always 
attuned  speech,  in  passages  of  average  interest 
and  importance  ;  it  is  song,  though  always  dis¬ 
tinct  and  articulate  song,  in  passages  demanding 
more  fervid  utterance.  Though  actually  musical 
only  in  concluding  or  culminating  phrases,  the 
Accentus  Ecclesiasticus  is  always  sufficiently  iso¬ 
chronous  to  admit  of  its  being  expressed  in  musi¬ 
cal  characters,  a  process  to  which  no  attempt 
(and  such  attempts  have  been  repeatedly  made) 
has  ever  succeeded  in  subjecting  pure  speech. 

3.  Accentus  is  probably  the  oldest,  as  it  is  cer¬ 
tainly  the  simplest,  form  of  Cantus  Ecclesiasticus. 
Like  most  art-forms  and  modes  of  operation 
which  have  subsequently  commended  themselves 
on  their  own  acccant  to  our  sense  of  beauty,  it 
grew  in  all  likelihood  out  of  a  physical  difficulty. 
The  limited  capacit)  of  the  so-called  “natural” 
or  speaking  voice  must  have  been  ascertained  at 
a  very  early  period ;  indeed  its  recognition  is 
confirmed  by  the  well-known_:|»a^ce  whether 
of  the  ancient  temple,  theatre,  ord^rem.  The  old 
rhetoricians,  says  Forkel,  are,  without  exception, 
of  the  same  way  of  thinking ;  and  we  may,  from 
their  extant  works,  confidently  conclude,  that 
neither  among  the  Greeks  nor  the  Romans  was 
poetry  ever  recited  but  in  a  tone  analogous  to 
that  since  known  as  the  accentus  ecclesiasticus. 
The  Abbe  du  Bos'*  too  has  demonstrated  that 
not  only  was  the  theatrical  recitation  of  the 
ancients  actually  musical — “  un  veritable  chant,” 
susceptible  of  musical  notation,  and  even  of  in¬ 
strumental  accompaniment — but  that  all  their 
public  discourses,  and  CA'en  thoir  familiar  lan¬ 
guage,  though  of  course  in  a  lesser  degree,  par¬ 
took  of  this  character. 

4.  The  advantages  resulting  from  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  isochronous  sounds  (sounds  which  are 
the  result  of  equal-timed  vibrations)  would  be¬ 
come  apparent  on  the  earliest  occa.siou,  when  a 
single  orator  was  called  upon  to  fill  a  large 
auditorium,  and  to  make  himself  intelligible,  or 
even  audible,  to  a  large  assembly.  So,  too,  for 
simultaneous  expression  on  the  part  of  large  num¬ 
bers,  these  advantages  would  at  once  make  them¬ 
selves  felt.  In  congregational  worship  a  uniform 
(technically,  a  “unisonous”)  utterance  might 
seem  as  essential,  as  conducive  to  the  decency 
and  order  with  which  we  are  enjoined  to  do  “  all 

c  ••  Die  alien  Sprach-  und  Declamations-Lehror  sind 
saninitlich  eben  derselben  Meinung,  und  wir  konnen  ans 
ihren  hinterlassenen  AVerken  mil  deni  hdchsten  Grad  von 
Wahrscheinlichkeit  SQliliesscn,  dass  sowohl  hei  den  Grle- 
chen  als  Romern  die  meisten  Gedicbte  mil  keiner  andem 
als  mit  dieser  Art  von  Gesang  gesungen  werden  sein.”— 
Forkel,  AUgrm.  Geschichtu  der  Alimk,  ii,  163. 

d  Eejicxions  sur  la  Foesie,  &c. 


ACCENTUS  ECCLESIASTICUS 


things,”  as  is  that  still  more  essential  uniformity 
expressed  in  the  term  Common  Prayer,  without 
which,  indeed,  congregational  worship  would  seem 
to  be  impossible.  “  Accent,”  says  Ornithoparcus, 
“  hath  great  affinity  with  Concent,  for  they  be 
Brothers  :  because  Somis,  or  Sound  (the  King  of 
Ecclesiastical  Harmony),  is  Father  to  them  both, 
and  begat  one  upon  Grammar,  the  other  upon 
Musick,”  &c.  (He)  “so  divided  his  kingdome, 
that  Concentus  might  be  chief  Ruler  over  all 
things  tnat  are  to  be  sung,  as  Hymnes,  Sequences, 
Antijdiones,  Responsories,  Introitus,  Tropes,  and 
the  like  :  and  Accentus  over  all  things  which  are 
read ;  as  Gospels,  Lectures,  Epistles,  Orations, 
Prophecies :  For  the  functions  of  the  Papale 
Kingdome  are  not  duely  performed  without  Con¬ 
cent”  kc.  “  Hence  it  was  that  I,  marking  how 
many  of  those  Priests  (which  by  the  leave  of  the 
learned  I  will  saye)  doe  reade  those  things  they 
have  to  reade  so  -wildly,  so  monstrously,  so 
faultily  (that  they  doe  not  onely  hinder  the  de¬ 
votion  of  the  faithful,  but  also  even  provoke 
them  to  laughter  and  scorning,  with  their  ill 
reading),  resolved  after  the  doctidne  of  Concent 
to  explain  the  rules  of  Accent ;  in  as  much  as  it 
belongs  to  a  Musitian,  that  together  with  Con¬ 
cent,  Accent  might  also  as  true  heire  in  this 
Ecclesiasticall  Kingdome  be  established  :  Desiring 
that  the  praise  of  the  highest  King,  to  whom  all 
honour  and  reverence  is  due,  might  duely  be 
performed.”  ® 

5.  The  Accentus  Ecclesiasticus,  or  modus  cho- 
raliter  leyendi,  must  have  been  perpetuated  by 
tradition  only,  for  many  ages.  That  the  miles 
for  its  application  have  been  reduced  to  writing 
only  in  comparatively  modern  times  does  not  in 
the  least  invalidate  its  claim  to  a  high  antiquity. 
On  the  contrary,  it  tends  to  confirm  it.  That 
which  is  extensively  known  and  univei’sally  ad¬ 
mitted  has  no  need  of  verification.  It  is  only 
when  traditions  are  dying  out  that  they  begin  to 
be  put  on  record.  So  long  as  this  kind  of  reci¬ 
tation  was  perfectly  familiar  to  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  there  could  be  no  necessity  for  “noting” 
it ;  not  till  it  began  to  be  less  so  were  “  accents  ” 
(the  characters  so  called)  invented  for  its  pre¬ 
servation, — just  as  the  “  vowel-points  ”  were 
introduced  into  Hebrew  writing  subsequently  to 
the  dispersion  of  the  Jews.  The  force  and  accu¬ 
racy  of  tradition,  among  those  unaccustomed  to  : 
the  use  of  written  characters,  have  been  well 
ascertained  and  must  be  unhesitatingly  admitted  ; 
their  operation  has  certainly  been  as  valuable  in 
music  as  in  poetry  and  history.  Strains  incom¬ 
parably  longer  and  more  intricate  than  those  now 
accepted  as  the  ecclesiastical  accents  have  been 
passed  on  from  voice  to  voice,  with  probably  but 
trilling  alteration,  for  centuries,  among  peoj)les 
who  had  no  other  method  of  preserving  and  ; 
transmitting  them. 

6.  The  authorities  for  the  application  of  the 
Cantus  Ecclesiasticus  are,  as  we  have  said,  com¬ 
paratively  modern.  Lucas  Lossius,^  a  writer 
frequently  quoted  by  Walther,  Kock,  and  other 
more  recent  musical  theorists,  gives  six  forms  of  i 
cadence  or  close,  i.e.,  modes  of  bringing  to  an  j 
end  a  phrase  the  earlier  portion  of  which  had 
been  recited  in  monotone.  According  to  Lossius, 


«  Andreas  Ornithopavcus,  Ills  Micrologus.  Translated 
by  John  I  lowland.  1609.  P.69. 

*  Erotemala  Alusicae  Practical,  1590. 


ACCENTUS  ECCLESIASTICUS  11 

accent  is  (1)  vmnutabilis  when  a  phrase  is  con¬ 
cluded  without  any  change  of  pitch,  i.e.,  when  it 
is  monotonous  throughout ;  (2)  it  is  medius  when 
on  the  last  syllable  the  voice  falls  from  the 
reciting  note  (technically  the  dominant)  a  third  ; 
(.3)  gravis,  when  on  the  last  syllable  it  falls  a 
fifth  ;  (4)  acutus,  when  the  “  dominant,”  after  the 
interposition  of  a  few  notes  at  a  lower  pitch,  is 
resumed ;  (5)  moderatus,  when  the  monotone  is 
interrupted  by  an  ascent,  on  the  penultimate,  of 
a  second ;  (6)  interrogativus,  when  the  voice, 
after  a  slight  descent,  rises  scale-wise  on  the  last 
syllable.  To  these  six  forms  other  writers  add 
one  more,  probably  of  more  recent  adoption ; 
(7)  the  finalis,  when  the  voice,  after  rising  a 
second  above  the  dominant,  falls  scale-wise  to 
the  fourth  below  it,  on  which  the  last  svllable  is 
sounded.  The  choice  of  these  accents  or  cadences 
is  regulated  by  the  punctuation  (possible,  if  not 
always  actual)  of  the  passage  recited  ;  each  par¬ 
ticular  stop  had  its  particular  cadence  or  cadences. 
Thus  the  comma  (distinctid)  was  indicated  and 
accompanied  by  the  accentus  irnmutabilis,  acutus, 
or  moderatus ;  the  colon  {duo  jmneta')  by  the 
medius;  and  the  full  stop  {punctum  quadratum 
ante  sgllabarn  capitaleni)  by  the  gravis. 

7.  The  following  table,  from  Lossius,  exhibits 
the  several  accents,  in  musical  notation : — 


(l)  Immutabilis. 


Lec»-  ti  -  o  E  -  pis  -  to  -  lae  8;inc  -  tl  Pau  -  li. 
(2)  Medius. 


et  o  -  pe  -  ra  -  tur  vir  -  tu  -  tes  in  vo  -  bis : 
(3)  Gravis. 


Be  -  ne  -  di-  cen-tur  in  te  om-nes  gen-tes. 


Cum  spi  -ri  -  tu  coe  -  pe  -  ri  -  tis  nunc,  Cum  fi-de  -  li, 


11 

(6)  Interrogativus. 

1 

S-  *  ** 

n 

ex  op-e-ri-bus  le-gis  an  exau-di-tu  fi-de  -  i? 

(7)  Finalis. 

11 

4l  -  " 

a  -  ni  -  ma  me  -  a  ad  te  De  -  us. 


The  examples  given  by  Ornithoparcus  are  similar 
to  the  above,  with  two  exceptions — (o);  the  Mode¬ 
ratus,  w^hich  in  ‘  His  Micrologus  ’  appears  thus  : 


J1  -  lu  -  mi  -  na  •  re  Je  -  ru  -  sa  -  lem. 


And  the  Interrogativus,  of  which  he  says  :  “  A 
speech  with  an  interrogation,  whether  it  have  in 
the  end  a  word  of  one  sillable,  or  of  two  sillables, 
or  more,  the  accent  still  falls  upon  the  last  sil¬ 
lable,  and  must  be  acuated.  Now  the  signs  of 
such  a  speech  are,  who,  which,  what,  and  those 
which  are  thus  derived,  u'/t//,  wherefore,  when, 
how,  in  what  sort,  whether,  and  such  like.” 


12 


ACC^ESS 


ACLEENSE  CONCILIUM 


Un  -  de  es  tu  ?  Quid  tst  ho  •  mo? 


•  Quantas  ha-  be  -  o  In  -  i  -qui-  La-tcs  et  pec  -  ca  -  ta  ? 

“  To  these  are  joyned  verbes  of  asking ;  as, 
I  aske,  f  seeke^  I  require,  I  sear  cite,  I  hear e,  [see, 
and  the  like,” 

Some  variations  too  from  the  above,  in  the 
present  Homan  use,  are  noticed  by  Mendelssohn 
e.g.  in  the  Gravis,  where  there  the  voice  rises  a 
tone  above  the  dominant,  on  the  penultimate, 
before  falling  : — 


changing  the  cadence  from  a  fifth  (compare  5) 
to  a  sixth  ;  and  in  the  Inter rogaticus,  where  the 
voice  falls  from  the  dominant  (also  on  the  penul¬ 
timate)  a  third  ; — 


To  the  accentus  belong  the  following  forms,  or 
portions  of  offices  of  the  Latin  Church  (1) 
Tonus  CoUectarum  seu  Orationum.  (2)  Tonus 
Epistolarum  et  EvangelU,  including  the  melodies 
to  which  the  Passion  is  sung  in  I’assion  Week. 


wish  or  injunction ;  as,  VIVAS  IN  DEO  fMura- 
tori,  Eiesaurus  Vet.  Inscrip.  19.54,  no.  4).  By 
far  the  greater  part  of  these  acclamations  are 
sepulchral  [Epitaph],  but  similar  sentences  are 
also  seen  on  amulets,  on  the  bottoms  of  cups 
[Glass,  Christian]  found  in  the  Catacombs,  and 
on  gems.  (See  the  Articles.) 

2.  The  term  acclamation  is  also  sometimes 
applied  to  the  resiionsive  cry  or  chant  of  the 
congregation  in  antiphonal  singing.  Compare 
Acrostic  (§  5);  Antiphon,  [C.] 

ACCUSEHS,  FALSE ;  HOW  PUNISHED. 
— Those  who  made  false  accusations  against  any 
person  were  visited  wifh  severe  jmnishments 
under  the  canons  of  several  councils. 

In  Spain.  The  Council  of  llliberis  (a.d.  305 
or  30G)  refused  communion  even  at  the  hour  of 
death  (“in  fine,”  al.  “in  finem  ”)  to  any  person 
who  should  falsely  accuse  any  bishop,  2)Tiest,  or 
deacon  (can.  75). 

In  France.  By  the  14th  canon  of  the  1st 
Council  of  Arles  (a.d.  314)  tho.se  who  falsely 
accuse  their  brethren  were  excommunicated  for 
life  (“  usque  ad  exitum  ”).  This  canon  was  re¬ 
enacted  at  the  2nd  Council  held  at  the  same 
city  (a.d.  443),  but  permission  was  given  for  the 
restoration  of  those  who  should  do  penance  and 
give  satisfaction  commensurate  with  their 
offence  (can.  24).  See  also  Calumnv.  [J.  B.] 


(3)  Tonus  Lectionum  solemnis  et  luguhris ;  Fro- 
phetiarum  et  Marty rologii.  (4)  Various  forms 
of  Intonation,  Benediction,  and  Absolution  used 
in  the  Liturgy.  (5)  Single  verses.  (6)  The 
Exclamations  and  Admonitions  of  the  assistants  at 
the  altar.  (7)  The  Prefaces ;  the  Pater  Foster, 
with  its  Pi-efaces ;  the  Benediction,  Pax  Domini 
sit  semper  vobiscum.  [J.  H.] 

AGOHSS.  1.  The  approach  of  the  priest  to 
the  altar  for  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist. 
Hence  the  expression  “  prayer  of  access  ”  is  used 
as  equivalent  to  the  Eox’?  Trapacrdaews,  or 
prayer  of  the  jiriest’s  presenting  himself  at  the 
altar,  in  the  Greek  Liturgy  of  St.  James  (Neale’s 
Eastern  Church,  Introduction,  i.  360). 

2.  But  the  expre.ssion  “  prayer  of  access,”  or 
“prayer  of  humble  access,”  is  more  commonly 
used  by  English  liturgical  writers  to  designate 
a  confession  of  unworthine.ss  in  the  sight  of  God, 
occurring  at  a  later  point  of  the  service ;  gene¬ 
rally  between  consecration  and  communion.  So 
that  the  “  prayer  of  humble  acce.ss  ”  corresponds 
to  the  “Prayer  of  Inclination”  or  “of  bowing 
the  neck  ”  in  the  Greek  Liturgies.  Though 
words  more  expressive  of  “  humble  access  ” 
occur  in  other  places;  for  instance,  'n  the  Greek 
St.  James,  where  the  priest  declares  :  iZov  irpos- 
7iXdov  rev  deicf  rovrcf  Kal  iirovpaviq}  fj.v(TTt]piu) 
ovx  d^ios  vTrdpx(*>r  (Daniel’s  Codex  Lit.,  iv. 
88);  in  the  Llozarabic,  “Accedain  ad  Te  in 
humilitate  sjnritus  mei  ”  (A.  i.  71)  ;  or  in  the 
“  Domine  et  Deus  noster,  ne  asjiicias  ad  multitu- 
dinem  peccatorum  nostrorum”  in  the  Liturgy  of 
Adaeus  and  Maris  (/6.  i.  176).  Compare  CON- 
FES.SION.  [C.] 

ACCLAMATION.  1.  A  term  applied  by 
opigra2)hists  to  certain  short  inscriptions,  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  second  person,  and  containing  a 

V  lieisebriefe  aus  den  Jahren  1830  bis  1832,  p.  167. 

^  Khau,  Enchiridion,  1538  ;  quoted  by  Arrey  von 
Donnner;  VLoch’s  Musikalisches  Lezilcon. 


ACEPSIMAS,  commemorated  Nov.  3  (Cal. 
Bjfzant.) ;  Nov.  5  (Cal.  Armoi.) ;  April  22 
(Mart.  Pom.).  [C.] 

ACEREA  or  ACERNA.  (The  latter  is 
possibly  the  original  form,  from  Acer,  maple.) 
Acerra  designated,  in  cla.ssical  times,  either  the 
incense-box  used  in  sacrifices  ;  ora  small  altar,  or 
incense-burner,  placed  before  the  dead.  (Smith’s 
Diet,  of  Greek  and  Poman  Antiquities,  s.  v.)  And 
in  ecclesiastical  latinity  also  it  designates  either 
an  incense-box  or  an  incense-burner ;  “  Area 
thuris,  vel  thuribulum,  A'el  thurarium.”  (Papias 
in  Ducange’s  Glossary  s.  \.  ‘  Acerna.’) 

It  is  used  in  the  rubrics  of  the  Gregorian  sa¬ 
cramentary  (Corbey  MS.)  in  the  office  for  the 
consecration  of  a  church  (p.  428) ;  and  in  the 
ollice  for  the  baptism  of  a  bell  (p.  438) ;  in 
the  latter  in  the  form  Acerna:  “tunc  pones  in- 
censum  in  acerna.”  In  both  cases  it  designates 
an  incense-burner  or  Thurihle  (q.  v.).  [C.] 

ACHAICUIM  CONCILIUM.— Two  synods 
of  Achaia,  in  Greece,  are  recorded  :  one,  a.d.  250, 
against  the  Valesians,  who,  like  Origen,  inter¬ 
preted  St.  ]\Iatth.  xix.  12,  literally;  the  other,  in 
359,  against  the  followers  of  Aetius.  [A.  W.  H.] 

ACHILLEAS  (or  Achillas),  bi.'hop  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  commemorated  Nov.  7  (Marturol.  Pom. 
Vet.).  [C.] 

ACHILIiEUS,  the  eunuch,  martyr  at  Rome, 
May  12,  a.d.  96.  (Martyrol.  Pom.  Vet.,  lliei'. 
Bedae).  [C.] 

ACINDYNUS  PiKivZvvos)  and  companion.s, 
martyrs,  a.d.  346,  commemorated  Nov.  2  (Cal. 
Byz.).  [C.] 

ACEPHALI  [Vagi  Clerici  ;  Autoce- 

PlIALl]. 

ACLEENSE  CONCILIUM  (of  Aclea  = 
“  Field  of  the  Oak,”  supjiosed  to  be  Ayclitfe,  in 
Durham;  Paine’s  Priory  of  Hexham,  i.  38,  note), 
(i.)  A.D.  781  (Flor.  Wig.  in  M.  II.  B.  545),  but 


ACOEMETAE 


ACOLYTES 


13 


782  {Angl.-Sax.  Chr.  and  H.  Hunt,,  ih.  336, 
731),  (ii,)  A,D,  787  (Kemble,  C.  D.,  No,  151), 

(iii,)  A,D,  788,  Sept,  29,  in  the  year  and  month  of 
the  murder  of  Elfwald  of  Northumbria,  Sept,  21, 
788  (Wilk,  i,  153  ;  Mansi,  xiii,  825,  826),  (iv,) 

A.D,  789  (^Angl.-Sax.  Chr.,  M.  H.  B.  337  “a  great 
svnod”),  in  "the  6th  year  of  Brihtric,  King  of 
Wessex  (H.  Hunt,,  ib,  732),  (v,)  a,d,  804  (Kemble, 
C.  D..  No,  186),  (vi,)  A,D,  805,  Aug,  6  {id.  ib., 

Nos,  190, 191),  (vii.)  a.d,  810  {id.  ib.,  No,  256), 
Nos,  ii,,  V,,  and  vi,  probably,  and  No,  vii,  cer¬ 
tainly,  were  at  Ockley,  in  Surrey;  or,  at  any 
rate,  not  in  the  Northuiubrian  Aclea,  Nothing 
more  is  known  of  any  of  these  synods,  or  ratner 
Witenagemots,  beyond  the  deeds  (grants  of  lands) 
above  referred  to,  in  Kemble.  [A,  W,  H,] 

ACOEMETAE,  lit,  the  “  sleepless  ”  or  “  un¬ 
resting  ”  (for  the  theological  or  moral  import  of 
the  term  v,  Suicer,  Thesaur.  Eccl.  s,v,),  a  so-called 
order  of  monks  established  in  the  East  about  the 
middle,  rather  than  the  commencement,  of  the 
5th  century,  being  altogether  unnoticed  by 
Socrates  and  Sozomen,  the  latter  a  zealous  chro¬ 
nicler  of  monks  and  monasteries,  who  bring  their 
histories  down  to  A.D,  440 ;  yet  mentioned  by 
Evagrius  (iii.  19)  as  a  regularly  established  order 
in  483,  Later  authorities  make  their  founder  to 
have  been  a  certain  officer  of  the  impeidal  house¬ 
hold  at  Constantinople  named  Alexander,  "who 
quitted  his  post  to  turn  monk,  and  after  haA'ing 
had  to  shift  his  quarters  in  Syria  sevei’al  times, 
at  length  returned  to  Constantinople,  to  give 
permanence  to  the  system  which  he  had  already 
commenced  on  the  Euphrates.  The  first  monas¬ 
tery  which  he  founded  there  Avas  situated  near 
the  church  of  St.  Mennas.  It  Avas  composed  of 
300  monks  of  different  nations,  Avhom  he  diA'ided 
into  six  choirs,  and  arranged  so  that  one  of  them 
should  be  always  emjffoyed  in  the  Avork  of  prayer 
and  praise  day  and  night  Avithout  intermission 
all  the  year  round.  This  Avas  their  peculiar  cha¬ 
racteristic — and  it  has  been  copied  in  various 
ways  elseAvhere  since  then — that  some  part  of 
“  the  house,”  as  WordsAvorth  {Excurs.  viii.  185) 
expresses  it,  “  was  eA'ermore  Avatching  to  God.” 
Alexander  having  been  calumniated  for  this 
practice  as  heretical,  he  Avas  imprisoned,  but 
regained  his  liberty,  and  died,  say  his  biographers, 
about  A.D.  430 — it  might  be  nearer  the  mark  to 
say  450 — in  a  new  coiiA'ent  of  his  OAvn  founding 
on  the  Dardanelles.  Marcellus,  the  next  head  of 
the  order  but  one,  brought  all  the  zeal  and 
energy  to  it  of  a  second  founder  ;  and  he  doubt¬ 
less  found  a  poAverful  supporter  in  Gennadius, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  a.d,  458-71,  a  great 
restorer  of  discipline  and  promoter  of  learning 
amongst  the  clergy.  Then  it  Avas  that  Studius, 
a  noble  Roman,  and  in  process  of  time  consul, 
emigrated  to  Constantino])le,  and  conA'erted  one 
of  the  churches  there,  dedicated  to  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  into  the  celebrated  monastery  bearing 
his  name,  but  Avhich  he  peopled  Avith  the  Acoe- 
metae.  There  Avas  another  monastery  founded  by 
St.  Dius,  in  the  reign  of  Theodosius  the  Great, 
that  also  became  theirs  sooner  or  latex',  to  Avhich 
Valesius  {Ad.  Evag.  iii.  19  and  31)  adds  a  thii'd 
founded  by  St.  Bassianus.  It  may  haA^e  been 
OAving  to  their  connexion  Avith  Studius  that  they 
were  led  to  correspond  Avith  the  West.  At  all 
events,  on  the  acceptance  by  Acacius,  the  patri¬ 
arch  succeeding  Gennadius,  of  the  Henoticon  of 
the  emperor  Zeno,  and  communion  with  the  schis¬ 


matic  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  their  “  hegumen,” 
or  pi'esident,  Cyril  lost  no  time  in  despatching 
complaints  of  him  to  Rome  ;  nor  Avere  their 
emissaries  sIoav  to  accuse  the  legates  of  the  Pope 
themseh'es  of  having,  during  their  stay  at  Con¬ 
stantinople,  held  communion  Avith  heretics.  The 
ultimate  result  Avas,  that  the  tAvo  legates,  Vitalis 
and  Misenus,  Avere  depi'iA'ed  of  their  sees,  and 
Acacius  himself  excommunicated  by  tlie  Popes 
Simplicius  and  Felix,  MeanAvhile  one  Avho  had 
been  expelled  fi'om  their  ordei',  but  had  learnt 
his  trade  in  their  monasteries,  Peter  the  Fullei', 
had  become  schismatic  patriarch  of  Antioch,  and 
he,  of  coui'se,  made  common  cause  Avith  their  op¬ 
ponents.  Nor  Avas  it  long  before  they  laid  them¬ 
selves  open  to  retaliation.  Foi',  under  Justinian, 
their  ardour  impelled  them  to  deny  the  cele- 
bi'ated  proposition,  adA'ocated  so  Avai'mly  by  the 
Scythian  monks,  hesitated  about  so  long  at  Rome, 
that  one  of  the  Trinity  had  sufiei'ed  in  the  flesh. 
Their  denial  of  this  proposition  threAV  them  into 
the  ai'ms  of  the  Nestorians,  Avho  Avere  much  in¬ 
terested  in  haAung  it  decided  in  this  Avay.  For 
if  it  could  be  denied  that  one  of  the  Trinity  had 
suffered,  it  could  not  be  maintained,  obviously, 
that  one  of  the  Trinity  had  become  incai'nate. 
Hence,  on  the  monks  sending  tAvo  of  their  body, 
Cyrus  and  Eulogius,  to  Rome  to  defend  their 
A'icAvs,  the  emperor  immediately  despatched  tAvo 
bishops  thithei',  Hypatius  and  Demetrius,  to 
denounce  them  to  the  Pope  {Bcigi  ad  Baron., 
A.D.  533,  n.  2).  In  short,  in  a  lettei',  of  AA'hich 
they  Avere  the  bear<*rs,  to  John  II.,  afterAA^ards 
inserted  by  him  in  Lib.  I.  Tit.  “  De  summa  Trini- 
tate  ”  of  his  Code,  he  himself  accused  them  of 
favouring  Judaism  and  the  Nestorian  hei'esy. 
The  Pope  in  his  reply  seems  to  admit  their  hete¬ 
rodoxy,  but  he  entreats  the  emperor  to  forgiA’e 
them  at  his  instance,  should  they  be  Avilling  to 
abjui'e  their  erroi’s  and  I'eturn  to  the  unity  of 
the  Chui'ch.  With  Avhat  success  he  interceded 
for  them  Ave  are  not  told.  During  the  iconoclastic 
controA'ei'sy  they  seem  to  have  shared  exile  Avith 
the  rest  of  the  monks  ejected  trom  their  monas¬ 
teries  by  Constantine  Copronymus  {Bagi  ad  Baron. 
A.D.  798,  n.  2);  but  under  the  empi'ess  Irene  the 
Studium,  at  all  CA’ents,  Avas  I'epeopled  Avith  its  foi'- 
mer  alumni  by  the  most  celebrated  of  them  all, 
Theodoi'e,  in  Avhose  sui'name,  “  Studites,”  it  has 
pei'haps  achieved  a  Avider  celebrity  than  it  ever 
Avould  othei'Avise  haA'e  possessed. 

In  the  West  a  bi'anch  of  the  order  lone;  held 
the  abbey  of  St.  Maurice  of  Agaune  in  Valais, 
Avhere  they  aa’CI'C  established  by  Sigismund,  king 
of  Burgundy,  and  had  their  institute  confirmed 
by  a  Council  held  thei'e  A.D.  523.  For  fuller  de¬ 
tails  see  Bonanni’s  Hist,  du  Clerg.  sec.  ct  reg.  vol. 
ii.  p.  153  et  seq.  (Amsterdam,  1716);  Bulteau’s 
Hist.  Monast.  d' Orient,  iii.  33  (Paris,  1680); 
Hospin,  De  Orig.  Monach.  iii.  8  ;  Du  Fresne, 
Gloss.  Lot.  s.  \.  ;  and  Constant.  Christian,  iv.  8 
2;  Bingham’s  Antiq.  A'ii.  11,  10.  [E.  S.  F.] 

ACOLYTER-ACOLYTHS— ACOLYTII- 

ISTS  (^AkoAovOoi).  One  of  the  minor  ordei's 
peculiar  to  the  Westei’n  Church,  although  the 
name  is  Gi'eek.  In  the  Apostolic  age,  the  only 
order  Avhich  existed,  in  addition  to  those  of 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  Avas  that  of  dea¬ 
conesses — widoAVS  usually  at  first,  Avho  Avere  em¬ 
ployed  in  such  ministrations  toAvards  their  own 
sex  as  Avere  considered  unsuitable  for  men,  espe¬ 
cially  in  the  East.  But  about  the  end  of  the  2nd 


14 


ACOLYTES 


ACROSTIC 


or  early  in  the  3i(l  century,  other  new  officers 
below  tlie  order  of  the  deacons  were  introduced, 
and  amongst  them  this  of  Acolytes,  thougli  only 
in  tlie  Latin  Church  as  a  distinct  order.  In  the 
rituals  of  the  Greek  Church  the  word  occurs  only 
as  another  name  for  the  order  of  sub-deacon. 

The  institution  of  the  minor  orders  took  its 
origin  in  the  greater  Churches,  such  as  Rome 
and  Carthage,  and  was  owing  partly  to  the  sup¬ 
posed  expediency  of  limiting  the  number  of  dea¬ 
cons  to  seven,  as  first  appointed  by  the  apostles, 
and  partly  to  the  need  which  was  felt  of  assist¬ 
ance  to  the  deacons  in  performing  the  lower  por¬ 
tions  of  their  office  ;  of  which  functions,  indeed, 
they  appear  in  many  cases  to  have  been  impa¬ 
tient,  regai'ding  them  as  unworthy  of  their  im¬ 
portant  position  in  the  Church.  Tertullian  is  the 
earliest  writer  by  whom  any  of  the  inferior  orders 
is  mentioned.  He  speaks  of  Readers,  J)e  Praescr. 
c.  41.  It  is  in  the  epistles  of  Cyprian  that  the 
fuller  organization  of  these  orders  comes  before 
us  {Epp.  xxix.,  xxxviii.,  Ixxv.,  &c.).  It  is  also 
stated  by  his  contemporary  Cornelius,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  at  that  time 
numbered  forty-six  presbyters,  seven  deacons, 
seven  sub-deacons,  forty-two  acolyths,  and  fifty- 
two  exorcists,  readers,  and  doorkeepers  (Ostiarii). 
None  of  these  inferior  orders,  according  to  St. 
Basil,  were  ordained  with  imposition  of  hands, 
but  they  were  simply  appointed  by  the  bishop 
with  some  apjiropriate  ceremony,  to  certain  sub¬ 
ordinate  functions  of  the  ministry  such  as  any 
Christian  layman  might  be  commissioned  by 
episcopal  authority  to  perform.  The  form  of 
ordination  employed  in  the  case  of  Acolytes  is 
thus  prescribed  by  a  canon  of  the  4th  Council  of 
Carthage.  “  When  any  Acolythist  is  ordained,  the 
bishop  shall  inform  him  how  he  is  to  behave  him¬ 
self  in  his  office  ;  and  he  shall  receive  a  candlestick 
with  a  taper  in  it,  from  the  archdeacon,  that  he 
may  understand  that  he  is  appointed  to  light  the 
candles  of  the  church.  He  shall  also  receive  an 
empty  pitcher  to  furnish  wine  for  the  Eucharist 
of  the  blood  of  Christ.”  Hence  it  appears  that 
the  Acolyte’s  office  at  that  period  consisted  chiefly 
in  two  things,  viz.,  lighting  the  candles  of  the 
church  and  attending  the  officiating'priest  with 
wine  for  the  Eucharist. 

The  Acolyte  of  the  ancient  Western  Church  is 
represented  in  the  later  Roman  communion  by 
the  Ceroferarius  or  taper-bearer,  whose  office  con¬ 
sists  in  walking  before  the  deacons  or  priests  with 
a  lighted  taper  in  his  hand. 

Both  in  the  East  and  West  the  minor  orders  of 
ancient  times  were  afterwards  conferred  as  merely 
introductory  to  the  sacred  orders  of  deacon  and 
presbyter,  while  the  duties  which  had  formerly 
belonged  to  them  were  performed  by  laymen.  In 
the  7th  century  the  readers  and  singers  in  the 
Armenian  Church  were  laymen — in  the  8th  cen¬ 
tury  the  readers,  and  in  the  12th  the  ostiarii 
and  exorcists  were  laymen  in  the  Greek  Church. 
Before  the  year  1300  the  four  orders  of  acolyte, 
exorcist,  reader,  and  ostiarius  began  to  be  con¬ 
ferred  at  the  same  time  in  the  Western  Churches. 
Not  long  afterwards  it  became  customary  to  re¬ 
lease  the  clerks  thus  ordained  from  discharging 
the  duties  of  their  orders,  which  were  entrusted 
to  lay  clerks.  The  Councils  of  Cologne  and  Trent 
vainly  endeavoured  to  alter  this  custom  ;  and 
laymen  continue  generally  to  perform  the  offices 
of  the  ancient  orders  in  the  Roman  churches  to 


the  present  day.  In  England  the  .same  custom  has 
prevailed  ;  and  the  minor  orders  having  for  some 
centuries  become  merely  titular,  were  disused  in 
the  Reformation  of  our  Churches. 

Fuller  information  on  the  subject  of  the  minor 
orders  may  be  found  in  Field’s  Book  of  the 
Church,  b,  v.  c.  25  ;  Bingham’s  Antiquities,  b. 
iii.  ;  Thomassin,  Vet.  ct  Kov.  Eccl.  pars  I.  lib.  ii. 
See  also  Robertson’s  History  of  the  Church  and 
Palmer’s  Treatise  on  the  Church  of  Christ.  [D.B.] 

ACONTIUS,  of  Rome,  commemorated  July 

25  fMart.  Hieron.').  [C.] 

ACROSTIC,  AupoffTixis,  aKpocrixiov, 

aKp6(TTixov,  Acrostichis.)  A  composition  in 
which  the  first  letters  of  the  several  lines  form 
the  name  of  a  person  or  thing.  The  invention  is 
attributed  to  Epicharmus, 

We  find  several  applications  of  the  Acrostic 
principle  in  Christian  antiquity, 

1.  The  word  Acrostic  is  apj)lied  to  the  well- 
known  formula  IxOvs.  [See  IX0TC.] 

2.  Verses  in  honour  of  the  Saviour  were  fre¬ 
quently  written  in  the  acrostic  form ;  Pope  Da- 
masus,  for  instance,  has  left  two  acrostics  on  the 
name  Jesus  (Carm.  iv.  and  v.),  the  former  of 
which  runs  as  follows :  . 

“  In  rebus  (antis  Trina  conjunctio  mundi 
Erigit  huinannm  sensum  laudare  venuste ; 

Sola  salus  nobis,  et  mundi  summa  potestas 
Venit  peccati  nodnm  dissolvere  fnictu. 

Summa  salus  cunctis  nituit  per  ^aecula  terris.” 

The  same  pope,  to  whom  so  many  of  the  in¬ 
scriptions  in  the  Catacombs  are  due,  composed 
an  acrostic  inscription  in  honoixr  of  Constantia, 
the  daughter  of  Constantine.  This  was  origin¬ 
ally  placed  in  the  apse  of  the  basilica  of  St. 
Agnes  in  the  Via  Nomentana,  and  may  be  seen  in 
Bosio,  Roma  Sotteranea,  p.  118.  And  inscrip¬ 
tions  of  this  kind  are  frequent.  Lest  the  reader 
should  miss  the  names  indicated,  an  explanation 
of  the  acrostic  principle  is  sometimes  added  to 
the  inscription  itself.  For  instance,  to  the  epi¬ 
taph  of  Licinia,  Leontia,  Ampelia,  and  Flavia 
(Muratori,  Thesaurus  Novus,  p.  1903,  no.  5)  are 
added  these  verses,  which  give  the  key : 

“  Nomina  sanctarum,  lector,  si  forte  requiris, 

Ex  omnl  versu  te  litera  prima  docebit.” 

So  the  epitaph  of  a  Christian  named  Agatha 
(Marini,  Fratelli  Arvali,  p,  828),  ends  with  the 
words,  “  ejus  autem  nomen  capita  ver[suum] 
and  another,  given  by  the  same  authority,  ends 
with  the  words,  “  Is  cujus  })er  capita  versoruni 
nomen  declaratur.”  Fabretti  (Biscript.  Anti],  iv. 
150)  gives  a  similar  one,  “  Revertere  per  capita 
versorum  et  invenies  pium  nomen.”  Gazzera 
fiscrizione  del  Piemonte,  p.  91)  gives  the  epitaph 
of  Eusebius  of  Vercelli,  in  which  the  first  letters 
of  the  lines  form  the  words  EVSEBIVS  EPIS- 
COPVS  ET  MARTYR;  and  another  acrostic 
epitaph  (p,  114),  where  the  initial  letters  form 
the  words  CELSVS  EPISCOPVS  (Martigny, 
Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chrdt.  11). 

We  also  find  acrostic  hymns  in  Greek.  Several 
of  the  hymns  of  Cosmas  of  Jerusalem,  are  of 
this  kind ;  the  first,  for  instance  (Gallandi,  Bi¬ 
bliotheca  Pat.  xiii.  234),  is  an  acrostic  forming 
the  words, 

XpicTTOS  )3poT(o0el9  oTrep  ©cos 

3.  Those  poems,  in  which  the  lines  or  stanzas 
commence  with  the  letters  of  the  alphabet  taken 


ACROTELEUTIC 


ACTORS  AND  ACTRESSES  15 


in  order,  form  another  class  of  acrostics.  Such  | 
is  the  well-known  hymn  of  Sedulius,  “A  solis 
ortus  cardine,”  a  portion  of  w'hich  is  introduced 
in  the  Roman  offices  for  the  Nativity  and  the  Cir¬ 
cumcision  of  the  Lord;  and  that  of  Venautius 
Fortunatus  (Carm.  xvi.),  which  begins  with  the 
words  “  Agnoscat  omne  saeculum.”  St.  Augustine 
composed  an  Abecedarian  Psalm  against  the  Do- 
natists,  in  imitation  of  the  119th,  with  the  con¬ 
stant  response,  “Omnes  qui  gaudetis  de  pace, 
modo  verum  judicate.” 

4.  A  peculiar  use  of  the  acrostic  is  found  in 
the  Office-books  of  the  Greek  Church.  Each 
Canon,  or  series  of  Troparia,  has  its  own 
acrostic,  which  is  a  metrical  line  formed  of  the 
initial  letters  of  the  Troparia  which  compose  the 
Canon.  To  take  the  instance  given  by  Dr.  Neale 
(^Eastern  Church,  Introd.  p.  832) ;  the  acrostic 
for  the  Festival  of  SS.  Proclus  and  Hilarius  is, 

•  SeTTrois  aO\r)TaLS  (Tenrov  €U<f>ep<»>  /uteXos. 

The  meaning  of  this  is,  that  the  first  Troparion 
of  the  Canon  begins  with  2,  the  second  with  E, 
and  so  on.  These  lines  are  generally  lambic,  as 
in  the  instance  above ;  but  occasionally  Hex- 
anseter,  as. 

Tor  Ni<rj<f)dpor  co?  PiKr}<f>6pov  aap.ao't  ixeKnm, 

They  frequently  contain  a  play  on  the  name  of 
the  Saint  of  the  day,  as  in  the  instance  just  given, 
and  in 

Auipov  @€OV  ere  nafipidKap  JJarep 

for  St.  Dorotheus  of  Tyre.  The  Troparia  are 
sometimes,  but  rarely,  arranged  so  as  to  form 
an  alphabetic  acrostic,  as  on  the  Eve  of  the 
Transfiguration  (Neale,  u.  s.). 

5.  The  word  aKpoaTixia,  in  the  Apostolical 

Constitutions  (ii.  57,  §  5)  denotes  the  verses,  or 
portions  of  a  verse,  which  the  people  were  to 
sing  responsively  to  the  chanter  of  the  Psalm, 
“  b  \ahs  TO.  aKpoa'TixiO'  viro^aWfTO).’*  The 
constantly  repeated  response  of  the  136th  Psalm 
(“For  His  mercy  endureth  for  ever”),  or  that 
of  the  ‘  Benedicite  omnia  Opera  ’  (“  Praise  Him, 
and  magnify  Him  for  ever  ”),  are  instances  of 
what  is  probably  intended  in  this  case.  Compare 
Antiphon,  Psalmody  (Bingham’s  Antiq.  xiv.  1, 
§  12).  [C.] 

ACROTELEUTIC.  [Doxology;  Psalmody.] 

ACTIO.  A  word  frequently  used  to  desig¬ 
nate  the  canon  of  the  mass. 

The  word  “  agere,”  as  is  well  known,  bears  in 
cla.«sical  writers  the  special  sense  of  performing 
a  sacrificial  act ;  hence  the  word  “  Actio  ”  is  ap¬ 
plied  to  that  which  was  regarded  as  the  essential 
portion  of  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice  ;  “  Actio  dici- 
tur  ipse  canon,  quia  in  eo  sacramenta  conficiuntur 
Dominica,”  says  Waiafrid  Strabo  (JDe  Rebus  Eccl. 
c.  22,  p.  950,  Migne).  Whatever  is  included  in 
the  canon  is  said  to  be  “  infra  actionem  hence, 
when  any  words  are  to  be  added  within  Hie 
canon  (as  is  the  case  at  certain  great  festivals), 
they  bear  in  t!ie  liturgies  the  title  or  rubric 
“  infra  actionem  and  in  printed  missals  these 
words  are  frequently  placed  before  the  prayer 
“Communicautes.”  Compare  Canon.  (Bona, 
de  Rebus  Liturgicis,  lib.  ii.  c.  11;  Macri,  Iliero- 
lexicon,  s.  v.  “  Actio  ”.) 

Honorius  of  Autun  supposes  this  use  of  the 
word  “  actio  ”  to  be  derived  from  legal  termino¬ 


logy.  “  Missa  quoddam  judicium  imitahur;  unde 
et  canon  Actio  vocatur”  (lib.  i.,  c.  8);  and  “  Canon 
.  .  .  etiam  Actio  dicitur,  quia  causa  populi  in  eo 
cum  Deo  agitur  ”  (c.  103).  (In  Du  Cange’s 
Glossary,  s.  v.  “Actio.”)  But  this  derivation, 
though  adopted  by  several  mediaeval  writers,' 
does  not  appear  probable,  [C.J 

ACTORS  AND  ACTRESSES.— The  in¬ 
fluence  of  Christianity  on  social  life  was  seen, 
as  in  other  things,  so  specially  in  the  horror 
with  which  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church 
looked  on  the  classes  of  men  and  women  whose 
occupations  identified  them  with  evil.  Among 
these  were  Actors  and  Actresses.  It  must  be  re¬ 
membered  that  they  found  the  drama  tainted  by 
the  depravity  which  infected  all  heathen  society, 
and  exhibiting  it  in  its  w'orst  forms.  Even  Au¬ 
gustus  sat  as  a  spectator  of  the  “scenica  adulteria  ” 
of  the  “  rnimi,”  whose  performances  were  tho 
favourite  amusement  of  Roman  nobles  and  people 
(Ovid,  Trist.  ii.  497—520).  The  tragedies  of 
Aeschylus  or  Sophocles,  or  Seneca,“  the  comedies 
even  of  Menander  and  Terence  could  not  compete 
with  plays  whose  subject  was  always  the  “  vetiti 
crimen  amoris,”  represented  in  all  its  ba.senoss 
and  foulness  (/6tc/.).  What  Ovid  wrote  of  “  ob- 
scaena”  and  “  turpia”  was  there  acted.  The 
stories  of  Mars  and  Venus,  the  loves  of  Jupiter 
with  Danae,  Leda,  and  Ganymede,  were  exhibited 
in  detail  (Cyprian,  De  Grat.  Dei,  c.  8).  Men’s 
minds  were  corrupted  by  the  very  sight.  They 
learnt  to  imitate  their  gods.  The  actors  became, 
in  the  worst  sense  of  the  word,  effeminate,  taught 
“gestus  turpes  et  molles  et  muliebres  exprimere” 
(Cyprian,  Ep.  2,  ed.  Gersdorf.  61,  ed.  Rigalt). 
The  theatre  was  the  “sacrarium  Veneris,”  tlie 
“ consistorium  impudicitiae ”  (^Ibid.  c.  17).  Men 
sent  their  sons  and  daughters  to  learn  adultery 
(Tatian.  Orat.  adv.  Graec.  c.  22  ;  Tertull.  De 
Spcct.  c.  10).  The  debasement  which  followed 
on  such  an  occupation  had  been  recognized 
even  by  Roman  law.  The  more  active  cen¬ 
sors  had  pulled  down  theatres  whenever  they 
could,  and  Pompeius,  when  he  built  one,  placed 
a  Temple  of  Venus  over  it  in  order  to  guard 
against  a  like  destruction  (Ibid.  c.  10).  The 
Greeks,  in  their  admiration  of  artistic  culture, 
had  honoured  their  actors.  The  Romans  looked 
on  them,  even  while  they  patronised  them,  with 
a  consciousness  of  their  degradation.  They  were 
excluded  from  all  civil  honours,  their  names  were 
struck  out  of  the  register  of  their  tribes ;  they 
lost  by  the  “  miuutio  capitis”  their  privileges  as 
citizens  (Ibid,  c,  22  ;  Augustin.  De  Civ.  Dei,  ii. 
14).  Trajan  banished  them  altogether  from 
Rome  as  utterly  demoralized. 

It  cannot  be  wondered  at  that  Christian  writers 
should  almost  from  the  first  enter  their  pro¬ 
test  against  a  life  so  debased.’’  They  saw 
in  it  part  of  the  “  pompae  diaboli,”  which 
they  were  called  on  to  renounce.  Tertul- 


‘  Augustine,  who  in  his  youth  had  delighted  in  the 
higher  forms  of  the  drama  (Covfess.  iii.  2).  dra^'ffi,  after 
his  conversion,  a  distinction  between  these  (“  scenicorum 
tolerabiliora  ludorum  ”)  and  tho  obscenity  of  the  mimes 
{De  Civ.  Dei,  ii.  8). 

•»  No  specific  reference  to  this  form  of  evil  is  found,  it 
i.s  true,  in  the  N.  T.  The  case  had  not  yet  presented 
Itself.  It  would  have  seemed  as  impossible  for  a  Christian 
to  take  part  in  it  as  to  join  in  actual  idolatry. 


16  ACTORS  AND  ACTRESSES 


ADRIANUS 


lian  wrote  the  treatise  already  quoted  specially  ' 
against  it  and  its  kindred  evils  of  the  circus  and 
the  amphitheatre,  and  dwells  on  the  inconsis¬ 
tency  of  uttering  from  the  same  lips  the  amen 
of  Christian  worship,  and  the  praises  of  the 
gladiator  or  the  mime.  The  actor  seeks,  against 
the  words  of  Christ,  to  add  a  cubit  to  his  stature 
by  the  use  of  the  Cothurnus.  He  breaks  the 
Divine  law  which  forbids  a  man  to  wear  a 
woman’s  dress  (Deut.  xxii.  5).  Clement  of 
Alexandria  reckons  them  among  the  things 
which  the  Divine  Instructor  forbids  to  all  His 
followers  (^Paedagog.  iii.  c.  77,  p.  298).  In  course 
of  time  the  question  naturally  presented  itself, 
whether  an  actor  who  had  become  a  Christian 
might  continue  in  his  calling,  and  the  Christian 
conscience  returned  an  answer  in  the  negative. 
The  case  which  Cyprian  deals  with  (^Ep.  2,  ut 
supra')  implies  that  on  that  point  there  could  be 
no  doubt  whatever,  and  he  extends  the  prohibition 
to  the  art  of  teaching  actors.  It  would  be  better 
to  maintain  such  a  man  out  of  the  funds  of  the 
Church  than  to  allow  him  to  continue  in  such  a 
calling.  The  more  formal  acts  of  the  Church  spoke 
in  the  same  tone.  The  Council  of  llliberis  (c.  62) 
required  a  “pantomimus”  to  renounce  his  art 
before  he  was  admitted  to  baptism.  If  he  re¬ 
turned  to  it,  he  was  to  be  excommunicated. 
The  3rd  Council  of  Carthage  (c.  35)  seems  to 
be  moderating  the  more  extreme  rigour  of  some 
teachers,  when  it  orders  that  “  gratia  vel  recon- 
ciliatio”  is  not  to  be  denied  to  them  any  more 
than  to  penitent  apostates.  The  Codex  Eccles. 
Afric.  (c.  63)  forbids  any  one  who  had  been  con- 
vei’ted,  “  ex  qualibet  ludicra  arte,”  to  be  tempted 
or  coerced  to  resume  his  occupation.  The  Coun¬ 
cil  in  Trullo  (c.  51)  forbids  both  mimes  and  their 
theatres,  and  ras  eVl  crKrjvwv  opxvweis,  under 
pain  of  deposition  for  clerical,  and  excommuni¬ 
cation  for  lay,  offenders.  With  one  consent  the 
moral  sense  of  the  new  society  condemned  what 
seemed  so  incurably  evil.  When  Christianity 
had  become  the  religion  of  the  Empire,  it  was 
of  course,  more  difficult  to  maintain  the  high 
standard  which  these  rules  implied,  and  Chryso¬ 
stom  (^Hom.  vi.  in  Matt.,  Horn.  xv.  ad  Pop.  Antioch. 
Horn.  X.  in  Coloss.  ii.  p.  403,  i.  38,  731,  780), 
complains  that  theatrical  entertainments  pre¬ 
vailed  among  the  Christians  of  his  time  with  no 
abatement  of  their  evils.  At  Rome  they  were 
celebrated  on  the  entrance  of  a  consul  upon  his 
office  (Claudian  in  Cons.  Mall.  313).  On  the 
triumph  of  the  Emperors  Theodosius  and  Arcadius 
the  theatre  of  Pompeius  was  opened  for  perfor¬ 
mances  by  actors  from  all  paids  of  the  Empire 
(Symmachus,  Epp.  x.  2,  29).  With  a  strange 
inversion  of  the  old  relations  between  the  old  and 
the  new  societies,  the  heathen  Zosimus  reproaches 
the  Christian  Emperor  Constantine  with  having 
patronised  the  mimes  and  their  obscenity.  The 
pantomimes  or  ballets  in  which  the  mythology 
of  Greece  furnished  the  subject-matter  (Medea 
and  Jason,  Perseus  and  Andromeda,  the  loves  of 
Jupiter),  were  still  kept  up.  Women  as  well 
as  men  performed  m  them  (Chrysost.,  Horn.  vi. 
m  Thess.),  and  at  Rome  the  number  of  actresses 
W'as  reckoned  at  3000.  The  old  infamy  adhered 
to  the  whole  class  under  Christian  legislation. 
They  might  not  appear  in  the  forum  or  basilica, 
or  use  the  public  baths.  And  yet,  with  a  strange 
inconsistency,  the  civil  power  kept  them  in  their 
degi-adation  rather  than  deprive  the  population 


of  the  great  cities  of  the  empire  of  the  amuse¬ 
ments  to  w'hich  they  were  so  addicted.  If 
the  Church  sought  to  rescue  them,  admitting 
them  to  baptism,  and  after  liaptism  claiming 
immunity  from  their  degrading  occupation,  it 
stepped  in  to  prevent  any  such  conversion,  ex¬ 
cept  in  extremis  (Cod.  Theodcs.,  De  Scenicis,  xv.). 
Compare  Milman’s  History  of  Christianity,  book 
iv.  c.  2;  Chastel,  p.  211.  Perhaps  the  fullest 
collection  of  every  passage  in  Christian  antiquity 
bearing  on  the  subject  is  to  be  found  in  Prynne’s 
Hidriomaitix.  [P.] 

ACUTUS,  martyr  at  Naples,  commemorated 
Sept.  19  f Marty rol.  Pom.  Vet.).  [C.J 

ACUS  (accuhium,  or  acuhium,  acicula,  spina, 
spinuld).  Pins  made  of  precious  metal,  and,  in 
later  mediaeval  times,  enriched  with  jewels,  for 
attaching  the  archiepiscopal  (or  papal)  pallium 
to  the  vestment  over  wffiich  it  was  worn,  i.  e.  the 
planeta  or  casula  (the  chasuble).  The  earliest 
mention  of  these  known  to  the  present  writer  is 
in  the  description  given  by  Joannes  Diaconus  of 
the  pallium  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great.  Writing 
himself  in  the  9th  century,  he  notes  it  as  a  point 
of  contrast  between  the  pallium  worn  by  St.  Gre¬ 
gory  and  that  customary  in  his  own  time,  that 
it  was  nullis  acubus  perforatum.  Their  first 
use,  therefore,  must  probably  date  between  the 
close  of  the  6th  and  the  beginning  of  the  9th 
century.  For  details  concerning  these  ornaments 
at  later  times,  see  Bock  {Gesch.  der  liturg.  Ge~ 
wander,  ii.  191).  Innocent  III.  fDe  Sacro 
Altaris  Mysterio,  lib.  i.  cap.  63)  assigns  to  these 
pins,  as  to  every  other  2^‘'ti’t  of  the  sacerdotal 
dress,  a  certain  mystical  significance.  “Tres 
acus  quae  pallio  infiguntur,  ante  }?ectus,  super 
humerum,  et  post  tergum,  designant  compas- 
sionem  proximi,  administrationem  officii,  destric- 
tionemque  judicii.”  [W.  B.  M.] 

ADAM  AND  EVE  are  commemorated  in 
the  Ethiopic  Calendar  on  the  6th  day  of  the 
month  Miaziah,  equivalent  to  April  1.  The 
Armenian  Church  commemorates  Adam  with 
Abel  on  July  25.  (Neale,  Eastern  Church,  Introd., 
pp.  800,  81*2.)  [C.] 

ADAUCTUS  or  AUD ACTUS.  (1)  Martyr 
at  Rome,  commemorated  Aug.  30  (Martyrol. 
Pom.  Vet.,  Hieronf).  Proper  collects  in  Gre¬ 
gorian  Sacramentary  (p.  127),  and  Antijihon  in 
Lib.  Antiph.  p.  709. 

(2)  Commemorated  Oct.  4  (J/.  llieron.).  [C.] 

ADDERBOURN,  Cottncil  near  the  (Ad- 
DERBURNKXSK  CONCILIUM),  A.l).  705;  011  the 
River  Nodder,  or  Adderbourn,  in  Wiltshire;  of 
English  bishops  and  abbats,  where  a  grant  of 
free  election  of  their  abbat,  after  Aldhelm’s 
death,  made  by  Bishop  Aldhelm  to  the  abbeys 
of  Malmesbury,  Frome,  and  Bradford,  was  con¬ 
firmed  (W.  Malm.,  De  Gest.  Pont.  v.  pars  iii.,  p. 
16-4p,  Migne ;  Wilk.  i.  68).  [A.  W.  H.] 

ADJUTOR,  in  Africa,  commemorated  Deo. 
17  {Mart.  Iheron.).  [C.] 

ADMONITION.  [Monition.] 

ADRIANUS.  (1)  i\Iartyred  by  Galerius  in 
Nicomedia,  commemorated  Sept.  8  {Martyrol. 
Pom.  Vet.,  llieron.  Bedae)  ;  Aug.  26  {Cal, 
Byzant.) ;  Nov.  6  (J/.  llieron.). 

(2)  Martyr,  Xatale  March  4  {Jfart.  Bedae) 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


17 


(3)  July  26  (^M.  Hieron.'). 

(4)  August  8  (^Cal.  Armen.').  fC.] 

ADULTERY, — We  shajl  attempt  to-  give  a 
general  account  of  laws  ami  customs  relating  to 
this  topic,  dwelling  more  fully  upon  such  as 
elucidate  the  spirit  of  their  several  periods,  and 
upon  the  princii)les  involved  in  disputable  points. 
Our  outline  breaks  naturally  into  the  three  fol¬ 
lowing  divivions : — 

1.  Antecedents  of  Christian  jurisprudence  in 

Church  and  State  on  adultery. 

2.  Nature  and  classification  of  the  crime. 

3.  Penalties  imposed  upon  it. 

Our  quotations  from  Eastern  canonists  when 
compared  with  civilians  are  made  from  the  older 
Latin  versions ;  on  occasion  the  Greek  phrases 
are  added.  In  imperial  laws  the  Latin  is  com¬ 
monly  the  most  authentic.  These  are  numbered, 
first  the  Book  of  Codex,  next  Title,  then  Law ; 
but  in  the  Digest,  where  it  is  usual  to  subdivide, 
the  Title  is  distinguished  by  a  Roman  numeral. 

I.  Antecedents  of  Christian  Jurisprudence  in 
Church  and  State  on  Adulterij. — Respecting  the 
germs  of  future  diflerences  as  regards  this  and 
connected  subjects  traceable  in  the  Apostolic 
times,  Neander  has  some  useful  observations 
(Planting  of  the  Christian  Church,  Bohn’s  ed.  I. 
240-9  and  257,  261).  Many  circumstances,  how¬ 
ever,  kept  down  these  tendencies  to  opposition. 
In  an  age  of  newly  awakened  faith,  and  under 
the  pressure  of  persecution,  living  motive  took 
the  place  of  outward  law.  The  revulsion  from 
heathen  sins  was  strong,  and  filled  the  souls  of 
converts  with  abhorrence,  while  the  tender  sym¬ 
pathy  of  their  teachers  urged  men  to  control 
themselves,  succour  the  tempted,  and  pity  the 
fallen.  “  I  am  overwhelmed  with  sadness,” 
writes  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians  (cap.  xi.), 

“  on  account  of  Valens  who  was  made  presbyter  i 
amongst  you,  because  he  thus  knows  not  the 
place  which  was  given  him.”  This  man  had 
fallen  into  adultery  (see  Jacobson  in  loco).  “I 
grieve  exceedingly  both  for  him  and  for  his 
wife,  to  whom  may  the  Lord  grant  true  repent¬ 
ance.  Be  ye  therefore  also  sober-minded  in  this 
matter,  and  count  not  such  persons  as  your  ene¬ 
mies  ;  but  as  suflering  and  wayward  members 
call  them  back,  that  you  may  save  the  one  Body 
of  you  all.  For  so  doing  ye  shall  establish  your 
own  selves.” 

Clement  of  Rome,  unlike  Polycarp,  had  no 
special  example  to  deal  with  ;  his  warnings  are 
therefore  general.  In  Ep.  i,  30  and  cap.  6  of 
the  2nd  Ep.,  attributed  to  him,  adultery  is  stig¬ 
matized  among  the  foulest  and  most  heinous 
sins.  His  exhortations  and  promises  of  forgive¬ 
ness  (i,  7,  8,  9,  50)  are  likewise  general,  but 
their  tenour  leaves  no  doubt  that  he  intended  to 
invite  all  such  sinners  to  repentance.  The  same 
declarations  of  remission  to  all  penitents  and 
the  loosing  of  every  bond  by  the  grace  of  Christ, 
occur  in  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Philadelph.  8  ;  and  are 
found  in  the  shorter  as  well  as  the  longer  receu- 
.sion  (see  Cureton,  Corp.  Ignat,  p.  97).  In  these 
addresses  we  seem  to  catch  the  lingering  tones 
ot  the  Apostolic  age  ;  and  all  of  like  meaning 
and  early  date  should  be  noted  as  valuable  testi¬ 
monies.  De  I’Aubcspine  (Bingham,  xvi.  11,  2) 
asserted  that  adulterers  were  never  taken  back 
into  communion  before  the  time  of  Cyprian,  and, 
though  Bishop  Pearson  refute.s  this  opinion,  he 
CHBIST.  ANT. 


allows  that  respecting  them,  together  with  mur¬ 
derers  and  idolaters,  there  was  much  dispute  m 
the  early  Church.  Beveridge  also  (6W.  Can. 
vii.  2)  believes  that  its  severity  was  so  great  as 
to  grant  no  such  sinners  reconciliation  except 
upon  the  very  hardest  terms. 

Of  this  severe  treatment,  as  well  as  the  differ¬ 
ence  of  opinion  alluded  to  by  Pearson,  we  see 
various  traces;  yet  the  prevailing  inclination 
was  to  hold  out  before  the  eyes  of  men  a  hope 
mingled  with  fear.  Hermas  fJ^astor  Mandat.  4,  1 
and  3)  concedes  one,  and  but  one,  repentance  to 
those  who  are  unchaste  after  baptism  ;  for  which 
mildness  and  a  reluctant  allowance  of  second 
nuptials,  Tertullian  (Z>e  Pudicit.  10)  styles  this 
book  an  Adulterers’  Friend.  Dionysius  of  Co¬ 
rinth,  writing  to  the  churches  of  Pontus  on 
marriage  and  continency,  counsels  the  reception 
of  all  who  repent  their  transgressions,  xvhatever 
their  nature  may  be  (Euseb.  iv.  23).  Thus  also 
Zephyrinus  of  Rome  announced,  according  to 
Tertullian,  “  ego  et  moechiae  et  fornicationis 
delicta,  poenitentia  functis  dimitto  and  though 
quoted  in  a  spirit  of  hostility  and  satire,  this 
sentence,  which  forms  a  chief  reason  for  the 
treatise  (7)e  Pudicit.),  probably  contains  in  sub¬ 
stance  an  authentic  penitential  rule.  Of  Tertul- 
lian’s  own  opinion,  since  he  was  at  this  time  a 
Montanist,  it  is  needless  to  say  more  than  that, 
differing  from  his  former  views,  not  far  removed 
from  those  maintained  by  Hermas  (cf.  De  Peni¬ 
tent.  7-10),  he  now  held  adultery  to  be  one  of 
those  sins  not  only  excluding  for  ever  from  the 
company  of  believers,  but  also  (cap.  19)  abso¬ 
lutely  without  hope  through  our  Lord’s  inter¬ 
cession.  Exclusion  from  the  faithful  was,  how¬ 
ever,  insisted  upon  in  such  cases  by  some 
Catholic  bishops.  Cyprian  (gad  Antonian.f  while 
himself  on  the  side  of  mercy,  tells  us  how  cer- 
I  tain  bishops  of  his  province  had,  in  the  time  of 
his  predecessors,  shut  the  door  of  the  Church 
against  adulterers,  and  denied  them  penitence 
altogether.  Others  acted  on  the  opposite  system  ; 
yet  we  are  assured  that  peace  remained  un¬ 
broken —  a  surprising  circumstance,  certainly, 
considering  the  wealth  and  intelligence  of  that 
.province,  and  the  importance  of  such  decisions 
to  a  luxurious  population.  Cyprian  hints  at  no 
lay  difficulties,  and  simply  says  that  every 
bishop  is  the  disposer  and  director  of  his  own 
act,  and  must  render  an  account  to  God  (cf.  also 
Cypr.  De  Unitate,  several  Epistles,  and  Cone. 
Carthag.  Proloquium).  Hence  the  determination 
of  one  bishop  had  no  necessary  force  in  the 
diocese  of  another.  So,  too,  the  acts  of  a  local 
council  took  effect  only  within  its  own  locality, 
unless  they  were  accepted  elsewhere.  But  the 
coiTespondeuce  of  bishops  and  churches  set 
bounds  to  the  difficulties  which  might  otherwise 
have  arisen,  and  prepared  the  xvay  for  General 
Councils — see,  for  instance,  the  fragment  (Euseb. 
V.  25)  of  the  early  Synod  at  Caesarea  in  Pales¬ 
tine — its  object  being  the  diffusion  of  the  Syno¬ 
dical  Epistle.  United  action  was  also  much 
furthered  by  the  kind  of  comjdlation  called 
Codex  Canonum,  but  the  first  of  these  (now 
lost)  was  formed  towards  the  end  of  the  4th 
century.  See  Dion.  Exig.  ap.  Justcll.  I.  101,  and 
Bevereg.,  Pand.  Can.  Proleg.  vii. 

The  passages  already  cited  show  the  strength  of 
Christian  recoil  from  heathen  sensuality.  In  his 
instructive  reply  to  Celsus  (iii.  51)  Origen  com- 


18 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


piires  the  attitude  of  the  Chui-ch  towards  back¬ 
sliders,  especially  towards  the  incontinent,  with 
that  feeling  which  prompted  the  Pythagoreans  to 
erect  a  cenotaph  for  each  disciple  who  left  their 
school.  They  esteemed  him  dead,  and,  in  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  way,  Christians  bewail  as  lost  to 
God,  and  already  dead,  those  who  are  overcome 
with  unclean  desire  or  the  like.  Should  such 
regain  their  senses,  the  Church  receives  them  at 
length,  as  men  alive  from  death,  but  to  a  longer 
probation  than  the  one  converts  underwent  at 
tirst,  and  as  no  more  capable  of  honour  and 
dignity  amongst  their  fellows.  Yet  Origen  goes 
on  to  state  (59-G4)  the  remedial  power  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Taken  together  these  sections  paint  a 
lively  picture  of  the  treatment  of  gross  trans¬ 
gressors  within  and  without  the  Christian  fold. 
On  the  passage  in  his  De  Oratione,  which  sounds 
like  an  echo  of  Tertullian,  see  foot-note  in  Dela- 
rue’s  ed.,  vol.  i.  256. 

Christians  might  well  shrink  from  what  they 
saw  around  them.  Licentious  impurities,  count¬ 
less  in  number  and  in  kind,  were  the  burning 
reproaches,  the  pollution,  and  the  curse  of 
heathendom.  It  is  impossible  to  quote  much  on 
these  topics,  but  a  carefully  drawn  sketch  of 
them  will  be  found  in  two  short  essays  by  Pro¬ 
fessor  Jowett  appended  to  the  first  chapter  of 
his  Commentaxy  on  the  Romans.  They  demon¬ 
strate  how  utterly  unfounded  is  the  vulgar 
notion  that  Councils  and  Fathei's  meddled  un¬ 
necessarily  with  gross  and  disgusting  offences. 
With  these  essays  may  be  compared  Martial 
and  the  Satirists,  or  a  single  writer  such  as 
Seneca — unus  instar  omnium — e.  g.  “  Hinc  de- 
centissiinum  sponsalioi-um  genus,  adultei'ium,” 
&c.,  i.  9;  or  again,  iii.  16,  “  Nunquid  jam  ulla 
x'epudio  ei'ubescit  postquam  illustres  quaedam 
ac  nobiles  foeminae,  non  consulura  numei'o, 
sed  maritorum,  annos  suos  computant  ?  et 
exeunt  matrimonii  causa,  nubunt  I'epudii  ?  .  .  . 
Nunquid  jam  ullus  adulterii  pudor  est,  postquam 
eo  veutum  est,  ut  nulla  virum  habeat,  nisi  ut 
adulterum  irritet  ?  Ai'gumentum  est  deformi- 
tatis,  pudicitia.  Quam  invenies  tarn  miseram, 
tarn  sordidara,  ut  illi  satis  sit  unum  adulteroi-um 
p^f?”  &c.  In  Valerius  Maximus  we  hear  a 
sigh  for  departed  moi-als — in  Christian  writers, 
from  the  Apologists  to  Salvian,  a  recital  of  the 
truth,  always  repi*oachful,  and  sometimes  half 
triumphant.  Moi’eovei*,  as  usual,  sin  became  the 
punishment  of  sin — Justin  Martyr,  in  his  first 
AjX)logg  (c.  27  seq.),  points  out  the  horidble  con¬ 
sequences  which  ensued  from  a  heathen  prac¬ 
tice  following  upon  the  licence  just  mentioned. 
The  custom  of  exposing  new-born  babes  pervaded 
nil  i-anks  of  society,  and  was  authorized  even  by 
the  ])hilosophers.  Almost  all  those  exposed,  says 
Justin,  both  boys  and  girls,  were  taken,  reared, 
and  fed  like  brute  beasts  for  the  vilest  purposes 
of  sensuality ;  so  that  a  man  might  commit  the 
gi’ossest  crime  unawares  with  one  of  his  own 
children,  and  fi'om  these  wi’etched  beings  the 
State  derived  a  shameful  impost.  Compai’e  Tei*- 
tull.  Afologet.  9,  sub  fin.  Happy  in  comparison 
those  infants  who  underwent  the  pi-ae  or  post 
natal  fate,  described  by  Minucius  Felix  c.  30.  To 
Lactaatius  (we  may  remark)  are  attributed  the 
laws  of  Constanjine  intended  to  mitigate  the 
allied  evils  of  that  later  age,  cf.  Milman  {Hist. 
Christ,  ii.  394),  “  We,”  continues  Justin  (c. 

29),  “  expose  not  our  offspring,  lest  one  of  them 


should  perish  and  we  be  murderers ;  nay,  the 
bringing  up  of  children  is  the  very  object  of  our 
marriages.”  Thei'e  are  passages  to  the  same 
effect  in  the  Ep.  ad  Diognet.  c.  5,  and  Athenag. 
Legat.  pro  Christian,  (c.  33  al.  28),  and  thus 
these  early  apologists  adduce  a  principle  laid 
down  amongst  the  ends  of  matidmony  in  the 
Anglican  maridage  -  service.  They  no  doubt 
utter  the  thought  of  their  fellow  Christians 
in  opposing  to  the  licence  of  the  age  the  purest 
parental  instincts,  and  these  are  perhaps  in 
every  age  the  most  stringent  restraints  upon 
adultery. 

The  standard  of  contemporary  Jewish  practice 
may  be  divined  from  the  Dial,  cum  Tryphon, 
cc.  134  and  141.  The  Rabbis  taught  the  law¬ 
fulness  of  mariying  four  or  five  wives, — if  any 
man  wex’C  moved  by  the  sight  of  beauty  Jacob’s 
example  excused  him, — if  he  sinned,  the  prece¬ 
dent  of  David  assured  his  foi'giveness. 

Surrounding  evils  naturally  deepened  the  im¬ 
pression  upon  Christians  that  they  were  sti-an- 
gei's  and  pilgrims  in  the  world,  that  their  aim 
must  be  to  keep  themselves  from  being  paidakers 
in  other  men’s  sins ;  to  suffer  not  as  evil  doers, 
but  as  Christians,  and  to  use  the  Roman  law  as 
St.  Paul  used  it,  for  an  appeal  on  occasion — a 
possible  protection,  but  not  a  social  rule.  Hence 
the  danger  was  Quietism ;  and  they  wei’e  in  fact 
accused  of  foi'saking  the  duties  of  citizens  and 
soldiers — accusations  which  the  Apologists,  pai'- 
ticularly  Tertullian  and  Origen,  answered, 
though  with  many  I’eserves.  The  faithful 
thought  that  their  pi'ayei’s  and  examples  wei'e 
the  best  of  seiwices ;  they  shunned  sitting  in 
judgment  on  cases  involving  life  and  death,  im¬ 
prisonment  or  tortui’e,  and  (what  is  more  to  our 
purpose)  questions  de  pudore.  On  the  admission 
of  Chi'istians  to  magisti*acy  as  early  as  the  An- 
tonines,  cf.  Dig.  50,  tit.  2,  s,  3,  sub  fin.,  with  Gotho- 
fi’ed’s  notes.  Traces  of  their  avei'sion  from  such 
business  apjxear  in  some  few  Councils ;  e.  g.  Elib. 
56,  excludes  Duumvirs  from  public  worship 
during  their  year  of  office.  TaiTacon.  4,  forbids 
bishops  to  decide  criminal  causes — a  rule  which 
has  left  its  mark  on  modern  legislatien.  Natu¬ 
rally  i-esulting  from  these  inffuences,  was  a 
higher  and  diffused  tone  of  purity.  Obeying 
human  laws,  believei’S  ti'anscended  them,  Ep.  ad 
Diognet.  5,  and  compare  Just.  A]^l.  I.  17,  seq. 
with  15.  He  speaks  emphatically  of  the  in¬ 
numerable  multitude  who  turned  from  license 
to  Christian  self-control.  The  causeless  divorce 
allowed  by  law  led  to  what  Christ  forbade  as 
digamy  and  adultery,  while  the  latter  sin  was 
by  Him  extended  to  the  eye  and  the  heart.  In 
like  manner,  Athenagoras  {Leg.  pro  Christ.  2) 
asserts  that  it  was  impossible  to  find  a  Christian 
who  had  been  criminally  conA’icted — and  that  no 
Christian  is  an  evil-doer  except  he  be  a  hypocrite 
— 32,  33,  al.  27,  28,  that  impurity  of  heart  is 
essentially  adultery,  and  that  even  a  slightly 
unchaste  thought  may  exclude  fi'om  everlasting 
life.  He  says,  as  Justhx,  that  numbers  in  the 
Church  were  altogether  continent ;  numbers,  too, 
lived  according  to  the  strictest  marriage  rule. 
Athenagoi'as  goes  so  far  (33  al.  28)  as  to  pro¬ 
nounce  against  all  second  marriages,  because  he 
who  depi'ives  himself  of  even  a  deceased  wife  by 
taking  another  is  an  adulterer.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  {Paedag.  ii.  6)  quaintly  observes 
that  “  Non  Moechaberis  ”  is  cut  up  by  the  roots 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


19 


through  “uon  concupisces,”  and  in  the  same 
spirit  CommoJian  (^Instruct.  48)  writes 

“  Escam  niuscipuli  ubt  mors  est  longe  vitate  : 

Multa  sunt  \iartyria,  quae  fiunt  sine  sanguine  fuso, 

Alienuni  non  cupere,”  &c. 

Compare  other  passages  on  adultery  of  the 
heart,  Lactant.  Instit.  vi.  23,  and  Epit.  8 ;  Greg. 
Naziauz.,  Horn.  37  al.  31  ;  and  later  on,  Photius, 
Ep.  139 — a  remarkable  composition. 

Another  safeguard  from  licentiousness  was 
the  high  valuation  now  set  upon  the  true  dignity 
of  woman  not  only  as  the  help-meet  of  man  but 
as  a  partaker  in  the  Divine  Image,  sharing  the 
same  hope,  and  a  fit  partner  of  that  moral 
union  in  which  our  Lord  placed  the  intention 
and  essence  of  the  married  state.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  draws  a  picture  of  the  Christian 
w'ife  and  mother  (^Paedag.  iii.  11,  p.  250  Sylb. 
and  Potter’s  Gr.  marg.);  of  the  husband  and 
father,  (^Strom.  vii.  p.  741).  Tertullian  before 
him,  in  the  last  cap.  ad  Uxorem  describes  a  truly 
Christian  marriage — the  oneness  of  hope,  prayer, 
practice,  and  pious  service ;  no  need  of  conceal¬ 
ment,  mutual  avoidance,  nor  mutual  vexation  ; 
distrust  banished,  a  freeborn  confidence,  sym¬ 
pathy,  and  comfort  in  each  other,  presiding  over 
eveiy  part  of  their  public  and  private  existence. 

This  language  derives  additional  strength 
from  Tertullian’s  treatment  of  mixed  marriages. 
Those  contracted  before  conversion  fall  under  1 
Cor.  vii.  10-17  (cf.  ad  Uxor.  ii.  2),  yet  their 
consequences  were  most  mischievous.  He  tells 
us  (ad  Scapulam  3)  how  Claudius  Herminianus, 
whose  wife  became  a  convert,  revenged  himself 
by  barbarous  usage  of  the  Cappadocian  Chris¬ 
tians.  A  mixed  marriage  after  conversion  is  a 
very  great  sin,  forbidden  by  1  Cor.  vii.  39  and  2 
Cor.  14-16,  and  Tertullian  ad  Uxor.  ii.  3 
condemns  those  who  contract  it  as  “  stupri  reos  ” 
—  transgressors  of  the  7th  Commandment. 
Addressing  his  own  wife,  he  proceeds  to  describe 
its  serious  evils  to  a  woman.  When  she  wishes 
to  attend  worship  her  husband  makes  an  appoint¬ 
ment  for  the  baths.  Instead  of  hymns  she  hears 
songs,  and  his  songs  are  from  the  theatre,  the 
tavern,  and  the  night  cellar.  Her  fasts  are 
hindered  by  his  feasts.  He  is  sure  to  object 
against  nocturnal  services,  prison  visits,  the  kiss 
of  peace,  and  other  customs.  She  will  have  a 
difficulty  in  persuading  him  that  such  private 
observances  as  crossing  and  exsufflation,  are  not 
magical  rites.  To  these  and  other  remarks, 
Tertullian  adds  the  sensible  arguments,  that 
none  but  the  worst  heathens  wmuld  marry 
Christian  women,  and  how  then  could  believing 
wives  feel  secure  in  such  hands  ?  Their  hus¬ 
bands  kept  the  secret  of  their  religion  as  a 
means  of  enforcing  subjection ;  or,  if  dissatisfied, 
nursed  it  for  the  day  of  persecution  and  legal¬ 
ized  murder.  Their  own  motives  were  of  the 
baser  kind — they  married  for  a  handsome  litter, 
mules,  and  tall  attendants  from  some  foreign 
country; — luxuries  which  a  faithful  man,  even 
if  wealthy,  might  not  think  pi’oper  to  allow 
them.  This  being  the  early  experience  of  the 
Church,  w'e  are  not  surprised  to  find  mixed 
marriages  forbidden  in  after  times  sub  2.'0€na 
adulUrii. 

We  cannot  here  pass  over  a  history  told  by 
Justin  Martyr  in  his  Apol.  ii.  2,  and  repeated 
by  Eusebius  iv.  17,  respecting  wffiich  the  learned 
Bingham  has  been  led  into  a  remarkable  mis¬ 


take,  copied  and  added  to  by  Whiston  in  a  note 
on  Antiq.  xv.  7,  10.  A  woman  married  to  a 
very  wicked  husband,  herself  as  drunken  and 
dissolute  as  the  man,  became  a  convert  to  the 
faith.  Thoroughly  reformed,  she  tried  to  per¬ 
suade  him  by  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel  and 
the  terrors  of  eternal  fire.  Failing  in  her  at¬ 
tempts,  and  revolted  by  the  loathsome  and  un¬ 
natural  compulsion  to  which  her  husband  sub¬ 
jected  her,  she  thought  repudiation  would  be 
preferable  to  a  life  of  impious  compliances.  Her 
friends  prevailed  upon  her  to  wait  and  hope  for 
the  best,  but  a  journey  to  Alexandria  made  her 
husband  worse  than  before,  and,  driven  to  des¬ 
pair,  she  sent  him  a  divorce.  Immediately  he 
informed  against  her  as  a  Christian  ;  a  blow 
which  she  parried  by  presenting  a  petition  for 
delay  to  the  Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius,  w'ho 
granted  her  request.  Upon  this  her  husband, 
thirsting  for  revenge,  accused  her  teacher  in 
religious  truth,  and  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing 
three  lives  sacrificed  in  succession  to  his  ven¬ 
geance. 

Bingham  (xvi.  11,  6)  cites  the  narrative  as  an 
instance  of  a  wife’s  being  allowed  by  the  Church 
to  divorce  a  husband  on  the  ground  of  adultery. 
But  the  valuable  wudter,  led  perhaps  by  Gotho- 
fred  (God.  Theod.  vol.  i.  p.  312)  has  here  erred  in 
a  matter  of  fact,  for  Justin  takes  some  pains  to 
show  that  the  woman’s  grievance  was  not  adul¬ 
tery  at  all.  Fleury  (iii.  49)  has  apprehended 
the  truth  with  correctness  and  expressed  it  with 
delicacy.  The  like  case  is  discussed  by  an  author 
long  called  Ambrose  in  his  comment  on  1  Coi'.  vii. 
11  (Ambros.  op.  ed.  Benedict.,  tom.  ii.  appendix 
p.  133  E-F),  and  he  determines  that,  under  the 
given  circumstances,  a  woman  must  separate 
from  her  husband,  but  she  must  not  marry  again. 
The  Imperial  law  also  provided  a  remedy,  Cod. 
Theod.  9,  tit.  7,  s.  3.  It  is  certainly  noteworthy 
that,  in  telling  this  brief  tragedy,  neither  Justin 
nor  Eusebius  says  a  wmi’d  against  the  wife’s  seek¬ 
ing  relief  from  the  heathen  custom  of  divorce. 
Tet  its  license  was  condemned  on  all  sides.  The 
founder  of  the  Empire  strove  to  check  it ;  and, 
had  the  aggrieved  woman  lived  under  the  first 
Christian  emperor,  that  resource  would  have 
been  denied  her.  Clearly,  circumstances  justi¬ 
fied  the  wife,  but  it  would  seem  natural  to  have 
mentioned  the  danger  of  doing  wrong,  while 
pleading  her  justification.  We,  in  modern  times, 
should  say  that  such  cases  are  exceptional,  and 
the  inference  from  silence  is  that  similar  wdcked- 
ness  w'as  not  exceptional  in  those  days,  and  was 
treated  by  the  Church  as  a  ground  of  divorce ; 
a  mournful  conclusion,  but  one  that  many  facts 
render  probable,  e.g.  the  Imperial  law  above 
cited. 

From  these  antecedents  our  step  is  brief  to 
laws  for  the  repression  of  incontinency.  The 
natural  beginning  was  for  each  community  to 
follow  simply  the  example  of  St.  Paul  (1  Cor. 
V.  and  2  Cor.  ii.),  but,  as  converts  multiplied,  it 
became  necessary  to  pi’escribe  definite  tests  of 
repentance  which  formed  also  the  tei*ms  of  re¬ 
conciliation.  Such  rules  had  for  one  object  the 
good  of  the  community,  and  in  this  light  every 
offence  was  a  public  wrong,  and  is  so  looked 
upon  by  canon  law  at  this  day.  But  penitence 
had  a  second  object — the  soul’s  health  of  the 
offender — and  thus  viewed,  the  same  transgres¬ 
sion  was  treated  as  a  moral  stain,  and  censured 

C 


20 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


according  to  its  intrinsic  heinousness,  or,  in  few 
words,  the  crime  became  a  sin.  This  idea,  no 
doubt,  entered  into  the  severe  laws  of  Christian 
princes  against  adultery,  and  is  an  indication  of 
ecclesiastical  influence  upon  them.  Framers  of 
canons  had  in  turn  their  judgment  acted  upon 
by  the  great  divines,  who  were  apt  to  regulate 
public  opinion,  and  to  enforce  as  maxims  of  life 
their  own  interpretations  of  Scripture.  Some¬ 
times  the  two  characters  met  in  the  same  per¬ 
son,  as  in  the  eminent  Gregories,  Basil,  and 
others ;  but  where  this  was  not  the  case,  theo¬ 
logians  commonly  overlooked  many  points  which 
canonists  were  bound  to  consider. 

Church  lawgivers  must  indeed  always  have 
regard  to  existing  social  facts  and  the  ordinary 
moral  tone  of  their  own  age  and  nation.  They 
must  likewise  keep  State  law  steadily  in  mind 
when  they  deal  with  offences  punishable  in  civil 
courts.  That  they  did  so  in  reality,  we  learn 
from  the  Greek  Scholia  ;  and  hence,  when  divorce 
is  connected  with  adultery  (particularly  as  its 
cause),  the  Scholiasts  trace  most  canonical 
changes  to  foregoing  altei’ations  in  the  laws  of 
the  Empire.  The  reader  should  reproduce  in  his 
mind  these  two  classes  of  data  if  he  wishes  to 
form  a  judgment  on  subjects  like  the  present. 
We  have  called  attention  to  the  license  which 
tainted  prae-Christian  Rome.  Of  the  Christian 
world,  homilists  are  the  most  powerful  illustra¬ 
tors,  but  the  light  thrown  upon  it  by  canons  is 
quite  unmistakable.  The  spirit  prevalent  at  the 
opening  of  the  4th  century  may  be  discerned 
from  its  Councils,  e.g.  Gangra ;  one  object  of 
which  (can.  4)  was  to  defend  married  presbyters 
against  the  attacks  made  upon  them ;  cf.  Elib.  33, 
and  Stanley’s  account  of  the  later  1  Nic.  ^(^Eastern 
Ch,  196-9).  Gangra,  14,  forbids  wives  to  desert 
their  husbands  from  abhorrence  of  married  life  ; 
9  and  10  combat  a  like  disgust  and  contempt  of 
matrimony  displayed  by  conseci'ated  virgins, 
and  16  is  aimed  against  sons  who  desert  their 
parents  under  pretext  of  piety,  i.e.  to  become 
celibates,  something  after  the  fashion  of  “  Cor- 
ban.”  An  age,  where  the  springs  of  home  life 
are  poisoned,  is  already  passing  into  a  morbid 
condition,  and  legislative  chirurgeons  may  be 
excused  if  they  commit  some  errors  of  severity  in 
dealing  with  its  evils.  But  what  can  be  said  of 
the  frightful  pictures  of  Roman  life  drawn,  some¬ 
what  later,  by  Ammian.  Marcell.  xiv.  6  ;  xxvii.  3  ; 
and  xxviii.  4;  or  the  reduced  copies  of  them  in 
Gibbon,  chaps.  25  and  31,  to  which  may  be  added 
the  fiery  Epistles  of  Jerome  (passim),  and  the 
calm  retrospect  of  Milman  (Hist,  of  Christ,  iii. 
230,  seq.)  ?  Can  any  one  who  reads  help  reflect¬ 
ing  with  what  intensified  irony  this  decrepit 
age  might  repeat  the  old  line  of  Ennius — 

Mulierem :  quid  potlus  dicam  aut  verius  quam  mulierem? 

Or  can  we  feel  surprised  with  violent  efforts  at 
coercing  those  demoralized  men  and  women? 

Gibbon,  in  giviug  an  account  of  the  jurispru¬ 
dence  of  Justinian,  saw  that  it  could  not  be 
understood,  particularly  on  the  topic  of  our 
article,  without  some  acquaintance  with  the 
laws  and  customs  of  the  earliest  periods.  To 
his  sketch  we  must  refer  the  reader,  adding  only 
the  following  remarks  : — 

1.  His  opinion  upon  the  barbarity  of  marital 
rule  has  found  an  echo  in  Hegel  (see  Werke,  Bd. 
IX.  p.  348,  seq.).  F.  von  Schlegel,  though  in  his 


Concordia  highly  praising  the  conjugal  purity  of 
ancient  Rome,  had  already  (  Werke,  xiii.  261,  2) 
blamed  that  rigid  adherence  to  letter  and  for¬ 
mula  which  pervades  the  system.  To  such  cen¬ 
sures  Mommsen  is  thoroughly  opposed.  In  book 
i.  chap.  5,  he  views  the  stern  simplicity  of  idea 
on  which  all  household  X'ight  was  founded  as  true 
to  nature  and  to  the  requirements  of  social  im¬ 
provement.  In  chap.  12  he  points  out  how  the 
old  Roman  religion  supplemented  law  by  its 
code  of  moral  maxims.  The  member  of  a 
family  might  commit  grievous  wrong  untouched 
by  civil  sentence,  but  the  curse  of  the  gods 
lay  henceforth  heavy  on  that  sacrilegious  head. 
Mommsen’s  remarks  on  religious  terrors  agree 
well  with  the  very  singular  restraints  on  divorce 
attributed  by  Plutarch  to  Romulus.  The  im¬ 
pression  of  ethical  hardness  is  in  fact  mainly 
due  to  the  iron  logic  of  Roman  lawyers.  Father, 
husband,  matron,  daughter,  are  treated  as  real¬ 
istic  universals,  and  their  specific  definitions 
worked  out  into  axioms  of  legal  right.  Yet  in 
application  (a  fact  overlooked  by  Schlegel)  the 
summum  jus  is  often  tempered  by  equitable  allow¬ 
ances,  e.g.  a  wife  accused  of  adultery  had  the 
}»ower  of  recrimination.  Dig.  48,  tit.  5,  s.  13,  §  5  ; 
and  cf.  August.  De  Conjug.  Adulterin.  ii.  7  (viii.) 
for  a  longer  extract,  and  a  comment  on  the  re¬ 
script.  Such  facts  go  far  to  explain  the  course 
pursued  by  Christian  lawgivers. 

2.  On  the  vast  changes  which  took  place 
after  the  2nd  Punic  war  Gibbon  should  be  com¬ 
pared  with  Mommsen,  b.  iii.  cap.  13,  pp.  884—5. 

But  neither  of  these  writers,  in  dwelling  on 
the  immoral  atmosphere  which  infected  married 
life,  point  out  any  specially  sufficient  cause  why 
Roman  matrons  showed  such  irrepressible  avi¬ 
dity  for  divorce  with  all  its  strainings  of  law, 
its  dissolution  of  sacred  maxims,  its  connection 
with  celibacy  in  males,  and  a  frightful  train  of 
unbridled  sensualities.  Perhaps  the  only  true 
light  is  to  be  gained  from  a  comparison  with 
ecclesiastical  history.  We  shall  see  that  in 
later  ages  of  the  Church  there  came  about  an 
entire  reversal  of  earlier  opinions  on  the  crimi¬ 
nal  essence  and  the  very  definition  of  adultery, 
and  that  the  ground  of  complaint  at  both  periods 
(Pagan  and  Christian)  was  one  and  the  same ; 
the  cause,  therefore,  may  not  improbably  be  one 
also,  viz.,  the  inadequate  remedy  afforded  to 
women  for  wifely  wrongs.  Some  paidiculars 
will  be  found  in  our  second  division,  but  the 
question  opens  a  wide  field  for  speculation,  out¬ 
lying  our  limits,  and  belonging  to  the  philoso¬ 
phy  of  history. 

3.  The  pai'allel  between  Chui-ch  and  State 
ought  to  be  carried  further.  Imperial  Rome, 
looking  back  upon  the  Republic,  felt  the  de¬ 
cadence  of  her  own  conjugal  and  family  ties, 
and  wrote  her  displeasui-e  in  the  laws  of  the 
first  Caesars.  So,  too,  when  the  nobleness  of 
apostolic  life  ceased  to  be  a  substitute  for  legis¬ 
lation,  it  sharpened  the  edge  of  canonical  cen¬ 
sure  by  regretful  memories  of  the  better  time. 
The  same  history  of  moi-als  led  to  a  sameness  in 
the  history  of  law,  the  State  repeated  itself  in 
the  Church. 

4.  Gibbon  has  a  sneer  against  Justinian  for 
giving  permanence  to  Pagan  constitutions.  But 
those  laws  had  always  been  presupposed  by 
Christian  government,  both  civil  and  spiritual. 
The  emperors  amended  or  supplemented  them, 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


21 


and  where  bishops  felt  a  need,  they  petitioned 
for  an  Imperial  edict — e.g.  the  canons  of  three 
African  councils  relating  to  our  subject,  and 
noted  hereafter,  in  which  the  synods  decide  on 
such  a  petition.  Then,  too,  the  opposite  experi¬ 
ment  had  been  tried.  The  Codex  Theodosianus 
began  with  the  laws  of  Constantine  (cf.  art. 
Theodosius  in  Diet.  Biograph.)  \  but  when  Jus¬ 
tinian  strove  to  give  scientific  form  to  his  juris¬ 
prudence  he  found  that  completeness  could  no 
way  be  attained  except  by  connecting  it  with 
the  old  framework  ;  and,  as  we  have  seen.  Gibbon 
himself  felt  a  similar  necessity  for  the  minor 
purpose  of  explanation. 

Our  plan  here  will  therefore  be  to  use  the 
great  work  of  Justinian  as  our  skeleton,  and 
clothe  it  with  the  bands  and  sinews  of  the 
Church.  We  gain  two  advantages :  his  incom¬ 
parable  method ;  and  a  stand-point  at  an  era  of 
systematic  endeavour  to  unify  Church  and  State. 
For  this  endeavour  see  Novell.  131,  c.  1,  held  by 
canonists  to  accept  ail  received  by  Chalcedon, 
can.  1  (comprehending  much  on  our  subject),  and 
Novell.  83,  extending  the  powers  of  bishops  on 
ecclesiastical  offences.  His  example  was  after¬ 
wards  followed  by  the  acceptance  of  Trull,  can.  2, 
adding  largely  to  the  list  of  constitutions  upon 
adultery  ;  cf.  Photii  Nomocanon,  tit.  i.  cap.  2,  with 
Scholia,  and  for  the  difficulties  Bev.  Pand.  Can. 
Proleg.  viii.,  ix.  For  harmonies  of  spiritual 
and  civil  law  as  respects  breaches  of  the  7th 
Commandment  see  Antiocheni  Nomoc.,  tits.  xli. 
and  xlii.,  and  Photii  Nomoc.  tit.  ix.  29,  and  tit. 
xiii.  5  and  6.  Both  are  in  Justellus,  vol.  ii. 

After  A.D.  305  the  Church  was  so  frequently 
engaged  in  devising  means  for  upholding  the 
sanctity  of  the  marriage  tie  that  every  step  in 
the  reception  of  canons  concerning  it  forms  a 
landmark  of  moral  change.  Such  an  era  was 
the  reign  of  Justinian ;  it  was  an  age  of  great 
code  makers — of  Dionysius  Exiguus  and  Joannes 
Antiochenus.  Numbei’s  of  local  constitutions 
became  transformed  into  world-wide  laws  ;  the 
fact,  therefore,  never  to  be  overlooked  respecting 
canons  on  adultery,  is  the  extent  of  their  final 
acceptance. 

We  now  come  to  Division  II.,  and  must  con¬ 
sider  at  some  length  the  definition  of  adultery 
•  strictly  so  called.  On  this  point  a  revolution 
took  place  of  no  slight  significance  in  the  great 
antithesis  between  East  and  West.  Details  are 
therefore  necessary. 

II.  Nature  and  Classification  of  the  Crime. — 
Neglecting  an  occasional  employment  of  the  words 
promiscue  (on  which  see  first  of  following  refer¬ 
ences),  we  find  (Dig.  48,  tit.  5,  s  .6,  §  1,  Papinian). 
“  Adulterium  in  nupta  committitur  stuprum 
vero  in  virginem  viduamve.”  Cf.  same  tit.,  34, 
Modestinus,  and  Dig.  1,  tit.  12,  s.  1,  §  5,  Ulpian ; 
see  Diet.  Antiq.,  and  Brissonius  de  Verb.  Signif. 
1,  s.  v.  for  distinctions  and  Greek  equivalents. 

The  offending  wife  is  thus  regarded  as  the  real 
criminal ;  and  her  paramour,  whether  married 
or  unmarried,  as  the  mere  accomplice  of  her 
crime.  She  is  essentially  the  adultera^  and  he, 
because  of  his  complicity  with  a  married  woman, 
becomes  an  adulter.  If  the  woman  is  unmarried, 
the  condition  of  the  man  makes  no  difference — 
the  offence  is  not  adulterium. 

This  was  also  the  position  of  the  Mosaic  code 
• — see  Lev.  xx.  10,  compared  with  Deut.  xxii.  22. 
It  is  not  easy  to  perceive  how  the  law  could 


stand  otherwise  when  polygamy  was  permitted ; 
cf.  Diet,  of  Bible,  in  verbo.  Espousal  by  both  codes 
(Roman  and  Jewish)  is  protected  as  quasi  wedlock 
(Dig.  48,  tit.  5,  s.  13,  §  3,  Deut.  xxii.  23,  24). 
So  likewise  by  Christian  canons,  e.g.  Trull.  98. 
“  He  who  marries  a  woman  betrothed  to  a  man 
still  living  is  an  adulter.”  Cf.  Basil,  can.  37. 

Both  in  Scripture  language  and  in  ordinary 
Roman  life  the  legal  acceptation  of  the  crime  is 
the  current  meaning  of  the  word.  Hosea  (iv. 
13,  14)  distinguishes  between  the  sins  of  Jewish 
daughters  and  wives ;  and  the  distinction  is  kept 
in  the  LXX  and  Vulgate  versions.  A  like  dis¬ 
tinction  forms  the  point  of  Horace’s  “  Matronam 
nullam  ego  tango;”  cf.  Sueton.  Oct.  67  “  adul- 
terare  matronas.”  Instances  are  sufficiently  com¬ 
mon,  but,  since  (for  reasons  which  will  soon 
appear)  it  is  necessary  to  have  an  absolutely 
clear  undei’standing  of  the  sense  attached  to  the 
word  adulterium  (  =  ^Oixeta)  during  the  early 
Christian  period,  we  note  a  few  decisive  re¬ 
ferences  from  common  usage.  Val.  Max.  (under 
Tiberius)  explains  (ii.  1,  3)  adulteri  as  “  sub- 
sessores  alieni  matrimonii.”  Quintilian  (under 
Domitian)  defines,  Instit.  Orat.  vii.  3,  “Adulte¬ 
rium  est  cum  aliena  uxore  domi  coire.”  Juvenal 
may  be  consulted  through  the  index.  Appuleius 
(under  the  Antonines),  in  the  well  known  story 
Metamorph.  ix.,  describes  the  deed,  and  refers  to 
the  law  de  Adulteriis. 

Christian  writers  seldom  explain  words  un¬ 
less  used  out  of  their  current  sense,  and  when 
they  do  so,  the  explanation  is  of  course  inci¬ 
dental.  We  find  an  early  example  in  Athena- 
goras,  De  Resur.  Mort.  23.  al.  17,  where  in 
treating  of  bodily  appetites  occurs  a  designed 
antithesis.  On  the  one  side  “  legitimus  coitus 
quod  est  matrimonium  ” — on  the  other,  “  incon- 
cessus  alienae  uxoris  appetitus  et  cum  ea  consue¬ 
tude — TovTO  yap  ((TTi  /uoix^icc.”  Another  early 
instance  is  in  the  Shephei’d  of  Hermas,  Mandat. 
iv.,  which  thus  begins :  “  Mando,  ait,  tibi,  ut 
castitatem  custodias,  et  non  ascendat  tibi  cogi- 
tatio  cordis  de  alieno  matrimonio,  aut  de  forni- 
catione.”  W’^e  have  here  a  twofold  division  like 
Papinian’s  above  quoted,  but  instead  of  opposing 
stuprum  to  adulterium  (implied  in  alieno  Matri¬ 
monio),  he  employs  “  fornicatio,”  an  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  expression  when  it  has  this  special  meaning. 
Origen  (^Levit.  xx.,  Homil.  xi.),  in  contrasting 
the  punishment  of  adulterers  under  the  Mosaic 
and  Christian  dispensations,  assumes  the  same 
act  to  be  intended  by  the  laws  of  both.  This 
passage  has  often  been  ascribed  to  Cyril  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  but  Delarue  (ii.  179,  180)  is  clear  for 
Origen.  Arnobius  (under  Diocletian)  writes,  lib. 
iv.  (p.  142,  Varior.  ed.),  “  Adulteria  legibus  vin- 
dicant,  et  capitalibus  afficiunt  eos  poenis,  quos  in 
aliena  comprehenderint  foedera  genialis  se  lectuli 
expugnatione  jecisse.  Subsessoris  et  adulteri 
persona,”  &c. 

The  canonists,  Greek  and  Latin,  use  criminal 
terms  like  ordinary  authors  without  explanation, 
and  obviously  for  the  same  reason.  But  on  our 
subject  the  meaning  is  generally  made  certain 
by  (1)  an  opposition  of  words  resembling  the 
examples  before  quoted ;  (2)  by  the  case  of  un¬ 
married  women  being  treated  in  separate  canons  ; 
or  else  (3)  by  a  gradation  of  penalties  imposed 
on  the  several  kinds  of  sin. 

In  the  latter  half  of  the  4th  century  we  have 
again  exact  ecclesiastical  definitions.  They  aro 


22 


ADULTEEY 


ADULTERY 


very  valuable,  because  given  by  two  of  the 
greatest  canonists  the  Church  ever  produced, 
and  also  because  they  were  accepted  by  can.  ii. 
Trull.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  thus  distinguishes  (ad 
Letoium,  rersp.  4),  “  Fornicatio  quidem  dicatur 
cupiditatis  cujuspiam  expletio  quae  sine  alterius 
fit  injuria.  Adulterium  vero,  insidiae  et  injuria 
quae  alteri  affertui’.”  This  antithesis  is  substan¬ 
tially  the  same  with  that  in  the  Digest,  but 
Gregory  so  states  it  because  (as  his  canon  tells 
us)  he  is  replying  to  certain  somewhat  subtle 
reasoners  who  argued  that  these  acts  of  inconti¬ 
nence  are  in  essence  identical — a  theory  which 
would  equalize  the  offences,  and,  by  consequence, 
their  punishments.  The  arguments  are  such  as 
we  should  call  verbal,  e.g.  what  the  law  does 
not  permit,  it  forbids — the  non  proprium  must  be 
alicnum.  He  answers  by  giving  the  specific  di¬ 
vision  made  by  the  Fathers  (as  above),  and  main¬ 
tains  (1)  its  adaptation  to  human  infirmity,  (2) 
the  double  sin  of  adultery,  and  (3)  the  propriety 
of  a  double  penitence.  With  Gregory,  therefore, 
the  canonist  prevails  over  the  theologian  —  he 
refuses  to  treat  the  crime  merely  as  a  sin. 

In  Basil’s  canon  ad  Amphiloch.  18 — which  is 
concerned  with  lapsed  virgins — who  had  been 
treated  as  digamists,  and  whom  Basil  would 
punish  as  adulterous,  we  find  an  incidental  defi¬ 
nition  :  “  eum,  qui  cum  aliena  muliere  cohabitat, 
adulterum  nominamus.” 

Basil’s  impoi’tant  21st  canon  is  summed  by 
Aristenus  :  “  Virum,  qui  fornicatus  est,  uxor  pro- 
pida  recipiet.  Inquinatam  vero  adulterio  uxorem 
vir  dimittet.  Fornicatoi’,  enim,  non  adulter  est, 
qui  uxori  junctus  cum  soluta  ”  (an  unmarried 
woman)  “  rem  habuerit.”  Here,  again,  is  the 
old  opposition  (as  in  stuprum  and  adulterium) 
the  logioal  essence  of  the  crime  turning  upon 
the  state  of  the  woman,  whether  married  or  sole. 
But  a  clause  of  great  value  to  us  is  omitted  by 
Aristenus.  Basil  considers  the  fornicatio  of  a 
married  man  heinous  and  aggravated  ;  he  says, 
“  eum  poenis  amplius  gravamus,”  yet  adds  ex¬ 
pressly,  “  Canonem  tamen  non  habemus  qui  eum 
adulterii  crimini  subjiciat  si  in  solutam  a  Matri- 
monio  peccatum  commissum  sit.”  This  clear 
assertion  from  a  canonist  so  learned  and  vera¬ 
cious  as  Basil  must  be  allowed  to  settle  the 
matter  of  fact,  that  up  to  his  time  Church  law 
defined  adulteiy  exactly  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  civil  law. 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  too,  that  Basil’s  answer 
addresses  itself  to  another  kind  of  difficulty 
from  Gregory’s,  that,  namely,  of  injustice  in  the 
different  treatment  of  unchaste  men  and  women. 
No  objection  was  of  older  standing.  We  almost 
start  to  hear  Jei'ome  (^Epitaph.  Fahiolae)  echoing, 
as  it  were,  the  verses  of  Plautus ;  cf.  the  passage 
(^Mercator,  iv.  5) — 

“  Ecastor  lege  dura  vivont  mulieres, 

Multoque  Iniquiore  miserae,  quam  viri  .... 

.  .  .  .  U  tinam  lex  esset  eadem,  quae  uxori  est  viro.” 

Yet  no  writer  tells  more  pointedly  than  Plautus 
the  remedy  which  Roman  matrons  had  adopted 
(^Amphitr.  iii.  2) — 

“  Valeas :  tibl  habeas  res  tuas,  rcddasmeas." 

As  to  the  legal  process  by  which  women  com*- 
passed  this  object,  it  was  probably  similar  to 
their  way  of  enlarging  their  powers  respecting 
property  and  other  such  matters,  on  which  see 
Mommsen,  book  iii.  13. 


We  now  note  among  divines  a  desire  to  im¬ 
press  upon  the  public  mind  the  other,  i.e.  the 
purely  theological  idea  that  all  incontinent 
persons  stand  equally  condemned.  They  appear 
to  reason  under  a  mixture  of  influences — 1.  A 
feeling  of  the  absolute  unity  of  a  married  couple, 
a  healthy  bequest  from  the  first  age ;  2.  Indig¬ 
nation  at  marital  license ;  3.  Desire  to  find  a 
remedy  for  woman’s  wrong ;  4.  The  wish  to 
recommend  celibacy  by  contrast  with  the  “  .ser¬ 
vitude  ”  of  marriage. 

Lactantius  (as  might  be  expected  from  his 
date)  fixes  upon  points  1  and  2.  He  finds  fault 
with  the  Imperial  law  in  two  respects — that 
adultery  could  not  be  committed  with  any  but  a 
free  woman,  and  that  by  its  inequality  it  tended 
to  excuse  the  severance  of  the  one  married  body. 
Tnstit.  vi.  23.  “Non  enim,  sicut  juris  publici 
ratio  est ;  sola  mulier  adultera  est,  quae  habet 
alium  ;  maritus  autem,  etiamsi  plures  habeat,  a 
crimine  adulterii  solutus  est.  Sed  divina  lex  ita 
duos  in  matrimonium,  quod  est  in  corpus  unum, 
pari  jure  conjungit,  ut  adulter  habeatur,  quis- 
quis  compagem  corporis  in  diversa  distraxerit.” 
Cf.  next  page — “  Dissociari  enim  corpus,  et  dis- 
trahi  Deus  noluit.”  It  would  seem  therefore 
that  this  Father  would  really  alter  the  ordinary 
meaning  of  the  word  adulterium,  and  explain  the 
offence  differently  from  its  civil-law  definition. 
He  would  extend  it  to  every  incontinent  act  of 
every  married  person,  on  the  ground  that  by 
such  an  act  the  marriage  unitv  enforced  bv  our 
Lord  is  broken.  It  is  true  that  another  view 
may  be  taken  of  the  words  of  Lactantius.  They 
may  be  considered  as  rhetoric  rather  than  logic, 
both  here  and  in  Epitome  8,  where  the  same 
line  of  thought  is  repeated ;  but  this  is  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  constant  recurrence  in  the  Fathers,  and 
reminds  us  of  Selden’s  celebrated  saying.  The 
student  will  in  each  case  form  his  own  judg¬ 
ment  ;  in  this  instance  he  may  probably  think 
the  statement  too  precise  to  be  otherwise  than 
literal. 

The  same  must  be  said  of  Ambrose,  whose 
dictum  has  been  made  classical  by  Gi’atian.  Yet 
it  should  be  observed  that  he  is  not  always  con¬ 
sistent  with  himself,  e.g.  (Jdexaem.  v.  7)  he  lays 
it  down  that  the  married  are  both  in  spirit  and 
in  body  one,  hence  adultery  is  contrary  to  nature.  • 
We  expect  the  same  prefatory  explanation  as 
from  Lactantius,  but  find  the  old  view  :  “  Nolite 
quaerere,  viri,  alienum  thorum,  nolite  insidiari 
alienae  copulae.  Grave  est  adulterium  et  naturae 
injuria.”  So  again,  in  Luc.  lib.  2,  sub  init.,  he 
attaches  this  term  to  the  transgression  of  an 
espoused  woman. 

The  celebrated  passage,  one  chief  support  of  a 
distinction  which  has  affected  the  law  and  lan¬ 
guage  of  modern  Europe  (quoted  by  Gratian, 
Decret.  ii.  c.  32,  q.  4),  occurs  in  Ambrose’s  Defence . 
of  Abraham  {De  Ahr.  Fair.  i.  4).  We  give  it  as 
in  Gratian  for  the  sake  of  a  gloss :  “  Nemo  sibi 
blandiatur  de  legibus  hominum”  (gloss — quae 
dicunt  quod  adulterium  non  committitur  cum 
soluta  sed  cum  nupta)  “  Omne  stuprum  adulte¬ 
rium  est :  nec  viro  licet  quod  mulieri  non  licet. 
Eadem  a  viro,  quae  ab  uxore  debetur  castimonia. 
Quicquid  in  ea  quae  non  sit  legitima  uxor,  com¬ 
missum  fuerit,  adulterii  crimine  damnatur.” 
This  extract  sounds  in  itself  distinct  and  con¬ 
secutive.  But  when  the  Apology  is  read  as  a 
whole,  exactness  seems  to  vanish.  It  is  divided 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


23 


into  three  main  heads  or  defens iones :  1st,  Abra¬ 
ham  lived  before  the  law  which  forbade  adultery, 
therefore  he  could  not  have  committed  it.  “  Deus 
in  Paradiso  licet  conjugium  laudaverit,  non  adul- 
terium  damnaverat.”  It  is  hard  to  understand 
how  such  a  sentence  could  have  been  written  in 
the  face  of  Matt.  xix.  4-9,  or  how  so  great  an 
authority  could  forget  that  the  very  idea  of  con¬ 
jugium  implied  the  wrong  of  adulterium.  2ndly, 
Abraham  was  actuated  by  the  mere  desire  of 
odspring  ;  and  Sarah  herself  gave  him  her  hand¬ 
maiden.  Her  example  (with  Leah’s  and  Rachel’s) 
is  turned  into  a  moral  lesson  against  female 
jealousy,  and  then  men  are  admonished — “  Nemo 
sibi  blandiatur,”  &c.,  as  above  quoted.  3rdly. 
Galat.  iv.  21-4,  is  referred  to,  and  the  conclusion 
drawn,  “  Quod  ergo  putas  esse  peccatum,  adver- 
tis  esse  mysterium ;  ”  and  again  “  haec  quae  in 
figuram  contingebant,  illis  crimini  non  erant.” 
We  have  sketched  this  chapter  of  Ambrose  be¬ 
cause  of  the  great  place  assigned  him  in  the 
controversy  of  Western  against  Eastern  Church 
law. 

Another  passage  referred  to  in  this  Q.  “  Dicat 
aliquis,”  is  the  9th  section  of  a  sermon  on  John 
the  Baptist,  formerly  numbered  65,  now  52  (Ed. 
Bened.  App.  p.  462),  and  the  work  of  an  Am- 
brosiaster.  But  here  the  adulterium  (filii  testes 
adulterii)  is  the  act  of  an  unmarried  man  with 
his  ancilla  (distinguished  from  a  concubina,  De- 
cret :  I.  Dist.  34,  “  Concubina  autem”  seq.),  i.  e. 
a  sort  of  Contubernium  is  called  by  a  word 
which  brings  it  within  the  letter  of  the  7th 
Commandment. 

Perhaps  Ambrose  and  his  pseudonym,  like 
many  others,  saw  no  very  great  difference  be¬ 
tween  the  prohibition  of  sins  secundum  literam 
and  secundum  analogiam — as,  for  example,  idola¬ 
try  is  adultery.  It  seems  clear  that  he  did  not 
with  Lactantius  form  an  ideal  of  marriage  and 
then  condemn  whatever  contradicted  it.  His 
language  on  wedlock  in  Paradise  forbids  this 
explanation. 

Looking  eastwards,  there  is  a  famous  sermon 
(37,  al.  31)  preached  by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  in 
which  he  blends  together  the  points  we  have 
numbered  2,  3,  and  4.  He  starts  (vi.)  from  the 
inequality  of  laws.  Why  should  the  woman  be 
restrained,  the  man  left  free  to  sin  ?  The  Latin 
version  is  incorrect ;  it  so  renders  KaraTropp^v^iv 
as  to  introduce  the  later  notion  of  adulterium. 
Gregory  thinks  (more  Aesopi)  that  the  inequality 
came  to  pass  because  men  w^ere  the  law-makers  ; 
further,  that  it  is  contrary  to  (a)  the  5th  Com¬ 
mandment,  which  honours  the  mother  as  well  as 
the  father ;  (6)  the  equal  creation,  resurrection, 
and  redemption  of  both  sexes  ;  and  (c)  the  mys¬ 
tical  representation  of  Christ  and  His  Church. 
A  healthy  tone  is  felt  in  much  of  what  Gre¬ 
gory  says,  but  (ix.)  the  good  of  marriage  is  de¬ 
scribed  by  a  definition  far  inferior  in  life  and 
spirituality  to  that  of  the  pagan  Modestinus, 
and  (in  x.)  naturally  follows  a  preference  for  the 
far  higher  good  of  celibacy.  The  age  was  not  to 
be  trusted  on  this  topic  which  formed  an  under¬ 
lying  motive  with  most  of  the  great  divines. 

Chrysostom  notices  the  chief  texts  in  his 
Expository  Homilies.  For  these  we  cannot  afford 
space,  and  they  are  easily  found.  We  are  more 
concerned  with  his  sermon  on  the  Bill  of  Divorce 
(ed  Bened.  iii.  198-209).  “  It  is  commonly  called 
adultery,”  he  says  in  substance,  “  when  a  man 


wrongs  a  married  woman.  I,  however,  affirm  it 
of  a  married  man  who  sins  with  the  unmarried. 
For  the  essence  of  the  crime  depends  on  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  injurers  as  well  as  the  injured. 
Tell  me  not  of  outward  laws.  I  will  declare  to 
thee  the  law  of  God.”  Yet  we  encounter  a 
qualification  :  the  offence  of  a  husband  with  the 
unmarried  is  (p.  207)  {xoixCias  crepop  eiSos. 
We  also  find  the  preacher  dwelling  with  great 
force  upon  the  lifelong  servitude  (SouAeia)  of 
marriage,  and  we  perceive  from  comparing  other 
passages  that  there  is  an  intentional  contrast 
with  the  noble  freedom  of  celibacy. 

Asterius  of  Amaseia  has  a  forcible  discourse 
(printed  by  Combefis,  and  particularly  worth 
reading)  on  the  question  :  “  An  liceat  homini 
dimittere  uxorem  suam,  quacunque  ex  causa  ?  ” 
The  chief  part  of  it  belongs  to  our  next  division, 
but  towards  the  end,  after  disposing  of  insuffi¬ 
cient  causes,  he  enters  on  the  nature  of  adul¬ 
tery.  Here  (as  he  says)  the  preacher  stands  by 
the  husband.  “  Nam  cum  duplici  tine  matrimo- 
nia  contrahuntur,  benevolent iae  ac  quaerendorum 
libei-orum,  neutrum  in  adulterio  continetur.  Nec 
enim  affectui  locus,  ubi  in  alterum  animus 
inclinat ;  ac  sobolis  omne  decus  et  gi-atia  perit, 
quando  liberi  confunduntur.”  Our  strong  Teu¬ 
tonic  instincts  feel  the  truth  of  these  words. 
Asterius  then  insists  on  mutual  good  faith,  and 
passes  to  the  point  that  the  laws  of  this  world 
are  lenient  to  the  sins  of  husbands  who  excuse 
their  own  license  by  the  plea  of  privileged 
harmlessness.  He  replies  that  all  women  are 
the  daughters  or  wives  of  men.  Some  man 
must  feel  each  woman’s  degradation.  He  then 
refers  to  Scidpture,  and  concludes  with  precepts 
on  domestic  virtue  and  examj)le.  The  sermon 
of  Asterius  shows  how  kindred  sins  may  be 
thoroughly  condemned  without  abolishing  esta¬ 
blished  distinctions.  But  it  also  shows  a  gene¬ 
ral  impression  that  the  distinctions  of  the  Forum 
were  pressed  by  apologists  of  sin  into  their  own 
baser  service. 

Jerome’s  celebrated  case  of  Fabiola  claims  a 
few  lines.  It  was  not  really  a  divorce  propter 
adulterium,  but  parallel  to  the  history  told  by 
Justin  Martyr.  The  points  for  us  are  the 
antithesis  between  Paulus  noster  and  Papini- 
anus  ( with  Paulus  Papiniani  understood ) 
and  the  assertion  that  the  Roman  law  turned 
upon  dignity — i.e.  the  matrona  as  distinguished 
from  the  ancillula.  Jerome  feels  most  strongly 
the  unity  of  marriage,  and  joins  with  it  the 
proposition  that  the  word  Man  contains  Woman. 
He  therefore  says  that  1  Cor.  vi.  16,  applies 
equally  to  both  sexes.  Moreover,  the  same 
tendency  appears,  as  in  Chrysostom,  to  de¬ 
press  wedlock  in  favour  of  celibacy.  Marriage 
is  servitude,  and  the  yoke  must  be  equal,  “  Eadem 
servitus  pari  conditione  cejisetur.”  But  the 
word  adulterium  is  employed  correctly  ;  and  in 
another  place  (on  Hosea,  ii.  2)  he  expressly 
draws  the  old  distinction — “  Fornicaria  est,  quae 
cum  pluribus  copulatur.  Adultera,  quae  unum 
virum  deserens  alteri  jungitur.”  * 

Augustine,  like  Lactantius,  j)Osits  an  idea  of 
marriage  (De  Genesi,  ix.  12  [vii.]).  It  possesses  a 
'Good,  consisting  of  three  things — fdes,  proles. 


»  The  innvpta  who  offends  cum  viro  conjugato  Is  not 
here  made  an  adulteress ;  Jerome's  remedy  might  have 
been  a  specific  constitution. 


24 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


sacramentum.  “  In  fide  attenditur  ne  pvaeter  vin¬ 
culum  conjugale,  cum  altera  vel  altero  concum- 
batur.”  But  {Quaest.  in  Exod.  71)  he  feels  a 
difficulty  about  words — “  Item  quaeri  solet  utrum 
nioechiae  nomine  etiam  fornicatio  teneatur.  Hoc 
enim  Graecum  verbum  est,  quo  jam  Scriptui’a 
utitur  pro  Latino.  Moechos  tamen  Graeci  nonnisi 
adulteros  dicunt.  Sed  utique  ista  Lex  non  solis 
viris  in  populo,  verum  etiam  feminis  data  est  ” 
(Jerome,  supra,  thought  of  this  point);  how 
much  more  by  “  non  moechaberis,  uterque  sexus 
astringitur,  ....  Ac  per  hoc  si  femina 
moecha  est,  habens  virum,  concumbendo  cum 
eo  qui  vir  ejus  non  est,  etiamsi  ille  non  habeat 
iixorem ;  profecto  moechus  est  et  vir  habens 
uxorem,  concumbendo  cum  ea  quae  uxor  ejus 
non  est,  etiamsi  ilia  non  habeat  virum.”  He 
goes  on  to  quote  Matt.  v.  32,  and  infers  “  omnis 
ergo  moechia  etiam  fornicatio  in  Scripturis 
dicitur  —  sed  utrum  etiam  omnis  fornicatio 
moechia  dici  possit,  in  eisdem  Scripturis  non 
mihi  interim  occurrit  locutionis  exemplum.” 
His  final  conclusion  is  that  the  greater  sin  im¬ 
plies  the  less — a  part  the  whole. 

Augustine’s  sermon  (ix.  al.  96)  De  decern 
Chordis  is  an  expansion  of  the  above  topics.  In 
3  (iii.)  occurs  the  clause  quoted  Decret.  ii.  32,  q. 
6.  (a  quaestio  wholly  from  Augustine) — “Non 
moechaberis :  id  est,  non  ibis  ad  aliquam  aliam 
praeter  uxorem  tuam.”  He  adds  some  particulars 
reminding  us  of  Asterius.  On  the  7th  Com¬ 
mandment,  which  Augustine  calls  his  5th  string, 
he  says,  11  (ix.),  “  In  ilia  video  jacere  totum  pene 
genus  humanum ;  ”  and  mentions  that  false 
witness  and  fraud  were  held  in  horror,  but  (12) 
“si  quis  volutatur  cum  ancillis  suis,  amatur, 
blande  accipitur ;  com  ertuntur  vulnera  in  joca.” 

We  cannot  pass  by  two  popes  cited  by  Gra- 
tian.  One  is  Innocent  I.,  whose  4th  canon  Ad 
Exup.  stands  at  the  end  of  same  c.  32,  q.  5.  “  Et 
illud  desidei*atum  est  sciri,  cur  communicantes 
viri  cum  adulteris  uxoribus  non  conveniant : 
cum  contra  uxores  in  consortio  adulterorum 
virorum  manere  videantur.”  The  gloss  explains 
“communicantes”  of  husbands  who  commit  a 
like  sin  with  their  wives.  But  this  may  or  may 
not  mean  that  they  sinned  cum  conjugatis,  and 
the  words  “  pari  ratione,”  which  follow,  to  l-e- 
come  decisive  must  be  read  with  special  emphctsis. 
The  other  is  the  great  Gregory,  quoted  earlier 
in  same  q.  5.  The  passage  is  from  Greg.  Mag. 
Moralium,  lib.  21,  in  cap.  Jobi  xxxi.  9;  and  as 
it  is  truncated  in  quotation,  we  give  the  main 
line  of  thought,  omitting  parentheses  :  “  Quam- 
vis  nonnunquam  a  I’eatu  adulterii  nequa^uam 
discrepet  culpa  fornicationis  (Matt.  v.  28,  quoted 
and  expounded).  Tamen  plerumque  ex  loco  vel 
ordine  concupiscentis  discernitur  (instance).  In 
personis  tamen  non  dissimilibus  idem  luxuriae 
distinguitur  reatus  in  qnibus  fornicationis  culpa, 
quia  ab  adulterii  reatu  discernitur,  praedicatoris 
egregii  lingua  testatur  (1  Cor.  vi.  9).’’  The  dif¬ 
ference  between  the  two  sins  is  next  confirmed 
from.  Job.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  old  juridical 
sense  of  adulterium  is  not  taken  away  by  these 
expository  distinctions. 

We  now  come  to  the  event  which  gives  signi¬ 
ficance  and  living  interest  to  our  recital  ofi 
opinions.  The  canon  law  of  Rome  took  ground 
which  allied  it  on  this  as  on  other  questions 
with  what  appeared  to  be  the  rights  of  women. 
Its  treatment  of  cases  arising  out  of  the  7th 


Commandment  widened  the  separation  of  East 
and  West,  and  left  a  mark  on  those  barbarian 
nations  which  owed  their  civilization  or  their 
faith  to  pontifical  Rome.  Our  business  here  is 
only  with  a  definition,  but  canonists  followed 
civilians  in  working  their  doctrine  out  to  its 
more  remote  consequences,  and  some  of  these 
would  form  a  curious  chapter  in  history. 

The  essence  of  the  pontifical  definition  is  not 
that  a  wife  is  the  adultera,  and  her  paramour 
the  adulter,  but  that  the  offence  be  committed 
“cum  persona  conjugata,”  whether  male  or 
female.  Hence  it  comprehends  two  distinct 
degrees  of  criminality.  It  is  called  simplex  in 
two  cases,  “  cum  solntus  concumbit  cum  conju¬ 
gata,  vel  conjugatus  cum  soluta.”  It  is  called 
duplex  “  cum  conjugatus  concumbit  cum  conju¬ 
gata.”  These  distinctions  are  taken  from  E.  L. 
Ferraris,  Prompta  Bibliotheca  1781),  in  verbo. 
They  rest  upon  the  Decretum  as  referred  to  by 
Ferraris,  part  2,  cause  32,  quaest.  4.  But  the 
extracts  we  gave  from  qs.  5  and  6  should  not  be 
neglected. 

The  Decretum,  according  to  C.  Butler  {Horae 
Juridicae  Subsecivae,  p.  168),  is  made  up  from 
(1)  decrees  of  councils,  (2)  letters  of  pontiffs, 
(3)  writings  of  doctors.  But  on  our  subject  the 
last-named  is  the  real  source — e.g.  q.  4  is  from 
the  moral  and  doctrinal  writings  of  Augustine, 
Ambrose,  Jerome,  and  Gregory  I. ;  q.  6  wholly 
from  Augustine.  This  is  a  very  noteworthy 
fact,  since  il  tends  to  confirm  a  conclusion  that 
canonists  had  previously  agreed  with  the  ci^vil 
law  so  far  as  concerns  its  definition  of  the  crime. 
Gratian  would  never  have  contented  himself  with 
quoting  theologians  if  he  could  have  found 
councils,  or  canonical  writings  accepted  by  coun¬ 
cils,  to  support  his  own  decisions. 

Such,  then,  is  one  not  unimportant  antithesis  in 
the  wide  divercjence  between  East  and  West.  It 
would  form  an  interesting  line  of  inquiry  (but 
beyond  our  province)  to  use  this  antithesis  as  a 
clue  in  those  mixed  or  doubtful  cases  of  descent 
where  the  main  life  of  national  codes  and  cus¬ 
toms  is  by  some  held  homesprung,  by  others 
given  to  old  Rome,  and  by  a  third  party  derived 
from  Latin  Christianity. 

Through  all  inquiry  on  this  subject  the  stu¬ 
dent  must  bear  in  mind  that  a  confusion  of 
thought  has  followed  the  change  in  law ;  e.g. 
Ducange,  Glossar.,  s.  v.,  commences  his  article 
with  a  shox’t  quotation  from  Gregory  of  Nyssa’s 
4th  can.  ad  Let.  (explained  above),  but  the  sen¬ 
tence  cited  contains  the  opinion,  not  of  the 
saint,  but  of  the  objector  whom  he  is  answering. 
Ducange  proceeds  to  trace  the  same  idea  through 
various  codes  without  a  suspicion  that  he  has 
begun  by  applying  to  one  age  the  tenets  of  an¬ 
other.  The  difficulty  of  avoiding  similar  mis¬ 
takes  is  greater  than  at  first  sight  might  have 
been  anticipated.  In  the  Dictionnaires  of  Tre- 
voux,  Furetiere,  Richelet,  and  Danet,  avoutrie 
or  adultere  is  explained  from  papal  law  or  Thom. 
Aquin.,  while  the  citations  mostly  give  the  older 
sense.  In  Chaucei‘’s  PersonE s  Tale  we  find  the 
same  word  {avoutrie')  defined  after  the  civilians, 
but  soon  after  he  mentions  “  mo  spices  ”  (more 
species)  taken  from  the  other  acceptation.  John¬ 
son  gives  to  adultery  the  papal  meaning,  but  his 
sole  example  is  from  pagan  Rome,  and  most 
modern  English  dictionary  makers  are  glad  to 
copy  Johnson.  A  still  more  striking  instance 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


25 


of  confounded  explanations  occurs  in  a  remark¬ 
able  dialogue  between  the  doctor  and  his  friend, 
vol.  iii.  46,  of  Croker’s  Boswell. 

The  natural  inference  is  that  the  above-men¬ 
tioned  authors  were  not  conversant  with  the 
great  change  of  definition  undergone  by  the  word 
adultery  and  its  equivalents.  But  when  those 
who  write  on  the  specialties  of  church  histoiy 
and  antiquities  quote  Fathers,  councils,  jurists, 
and  decretals,  they  ought  in  reason  to  note  how 
far  the  common  terms  which  their  catenae  link 
together  are  or  are  not  used  in  the  same  sense 
throughout.  This  precaution  has  been  generally 
neglected  as  regards  the  subject  of  this  article, 
— hence  endless  confusion. 

Immediately  upon  the  nature  of  the  crime  (as 
legally  defined)  followed  its  Classification.  By 
Lex  Julia,  48  Dig.,  i.  1,  it  was  placed  among 
public  wrongs.  But  a  public  wrong  does  not 
necessarily  infer  a  public  right  of  prosecution ; 
see  Gothofred’s  note  on  Cod.  Theod.  9,  tit.  7,  s.  2. 
— “Aliud  est  publicum  crimen;  aliud  publica 
accusatio.”  For  Publica  Judicia,  cf.  Dig.  as 
above  and  Institut.  Justin.  4,  18,  sub  init. 

Under  Augustus  the  husband  was  preferred  as 
prosecutor,  next  the  wife’s  father.  The  hus¬ 
band  was  in  danger  of  incurring  the  guilt  of 
procuration  (lenocinium')  if  he  failed  to  prose¬ 
cute  (48,  Dig.  V.  2,  §  2,  and  29,  sub  init.  ;  also 
9,  Cod.  Just.  9,  2).  He  must  open  proceedings  by 
sending  a  divorce  to  his  wife  (48,  Dig.  v.  2,  §  2 ; 
11,  §  10  ;  and  29,  init.').  Thus  divorce  was  made 
an  essential  penalty,  though  far  from  being  the 
whole  punishment.  By  Novell.  117,  c.  8,  pro¬ 
ceedings  might  commence  before  the  divorce. 
Such  prosecution  had  60  days  allowed  for  it, 
and  these  must  be  dies  utiles.  The  husband’s 
choice  of  days  was  large,  as  his  libellus  might 
be  presented  “  de  piano,”  i.e.,  the  judge  not  sit¬ 
ting  “pro  tribunali  ”  (48,  Dig.  v.  11,  §  6;  and 
14,  §  2).  The  husband  might  also  accuse  for  4 
months  fuidher,  but  not  “jure  mariti,”  only  “ut 
quivis  extraneus”  (Goth,  on  11,  §  6).  For  ex¬ 
ample,  see  Tacit.  Ann.  ii.  85 ;  Labeo  called 
to  account  by  the  praetor  (cf.  Orell.  note), 
for  not  having  accused  his  wife,  pleads  that  his 
60  days  had  not  elapsed.  After  this  time  an 
extraneus  might  intervene  for  4  months  of  avail¬ 
able  days  (tit.  of  Dig.  last  quoted,  4,  §  1). 
If  the  divorced  wife  married  before  accusation, 
it  was  necessary  to  begin  with  the  adulterer  (2, 
init. ;  39,  §  3).  The  wife  might  then  escape 
through  failure  of  the  plaint  against  him  (17, 
§  6).  He  was  liable  for  five  continuous  years 
even  though  she  were  dead  (11,  §  4;  39,  §  2), 
and  his  death  did  not  shield  her  (19,  init.),  but 
that  period  barred  all  accusation  against  both 
offenders  (29,  §  5 ;  and  31 ;  also  9,  Cod.  J.  9,  5). 
Under  Constantine,  A.D.  326  (9,  Cod.  Theod.  7,  2, 
and  9,  Cod.  J.  9,  30),  the  right  of  public  prose¬ 
cution  was  taken  away.  The  prosecutors  were 
thus  arranged:  husband;  wife’s  I’elations,  i.e. 
father,  brother,  father’s  brother,  mother’s  brother. 
This  order  remained  unaltered  (see  Balsam.  Schol. 
in  Bevereg.  Pandect,  i.  408,  and  Blastaris  Syn- 
tayma,  p.  185). 

The  Mo.saic  law,  like  the  Roman,  made  this 
offence  a  public  wrong,  and  apparently  also  a 
matter  for  public  prosecution ;  compare  Deut. 
xxii.  22,  with  John  viii.  3  and  10.  As  long  as 
the  penalty  of  death  was  enforced,  the  husb.and 
couiu  not  condone.  But  in  later  times  he  might 


content  himself  with  acting  under  Deut.  xxiv.  1- 
4.  See  Matt,  i.,  19.  [^Fspousals  count  as  matri¬ 
mony  under  Jewish  law  even  more  strongly  than 
under  Roman  ;  compare  L>eut.  xxii.  23,  seq.,  with 
48,  Dig.  V,  13,  §  3].  See  also  Hosea,  ii.  2,  iii.  1, 
and  parallel  passages. 

By  canon  law  all  known  sins  are  scandals,  and 
as  such  public  wrongs  ;  cf.  Gothofr.  marg.  annot. 
on  Dig.  48,  tit.  1,  s.  1  ;  Grat.  Decret.  ii.  c.  6,  9,  1  ; 
J.  Clarus,  Sent.  Rec.  v.  1,  6;  and  on  Adultery, 
Blackstone,  iii.  8,  1,  and  iv.  4,  11.  This  offence 
became  known  to  Church  authorities  in  various 
ways ;  see  Basil  34 ;  Innocent  ad  Exup.  4 ;  and 
Elib.  76,  78,  Greg.  Nyss.  4,  where  confes.sion 
mitigates  punishment.  A  similar  allowance  for 
self-accusation  is  found  in  regard  of  other  crimes, 
e.g.  Greg.  Thaum.  cans.  8  and  9. 

The  Church  agreed  with  the  State  in  not 
allowing  a  husband  to  condone  (Basil,  9  and 
21),  and  on  clerks  especially  (Neocaesarea,  8). 
Divines  who  were  not  canonists  differed  con.si- 
derably.  Hermas’s  Pastor  (Mandat,  iv.)  allowed 
and  urged  one  reconciliation  to  a  penitent  wife. 
Augustine  changed  his  mind  ;  compare  De  Adul- 
terin.  Conjug.  lib.  ii.  8  (ix.)  with  Ritractat.  lib. 
i.  xix.  6.  In  the  first  of  these  places  he  hesitates 
between  condonation  and  divorce  ;  opposes  for¬ 
giveness  “  per  claves  regni  caelorum  ”  to  the  pro¬ 
hibitions  of  law  “  secundum  terrenae  civitatis 
modum,”  and  concludes  by  advising  contin<'‘nce, 
which  no  law  forbids.  In  the  latter  passage  he 
speaks  of  divorce  as  not  only  allowed  but  com¬ 
manded.  “  Et  ubi  dixi  hoc  permissum  esse,  non 
jussum  ;  non  attend!  aliam  Scripturam  dicentem  ; 
Qui  tenet  -adulteram  stultus  et  imjiius  est  ” 
(Prov.  xviii.  22  ;  Ixx.). 

A  public  wrong  implied  civil  rights  ;  therefore 
this  offence  was  the  crime  of  free  persons  (Dig, 
48,  tit.  5,  s.  6  init.).  “  Inter  liberas  tantum  per¬ 
sonas  adulterium  stuprumve  passas  Lex  Julia 
locum  habet.”  Cf.  Cod.  J.  9,  tit.  9,  s.  23  init,  A 
slave  was  capable  only  of  Contubernium  (see  Ser- 
vus  and  Matrimonium  in  Diet.  Antiq.).  Servitude 
annulled  marriage  (Dig.  24,  tit.  2,  s.  1),  or  rather 
made  it  null  from  the  first  (^Novell.  Just.  22.  8,  9, 
10).  “Ancillam  a  toro  abjicere”  is  laudable  ac¬ 
cording  to  Pope  Leo  1.  (Ad  Rustic.  6).  That 
Christian  princes  attempted  to  benefit  slaves 
rather  by  manumission  than  by  ameliorating  the 
servile  condition,  we  see  from  the  aboA^e-quoted 
Novell,  and  from  Harmenop.  Proch.  i.  14 ;  the 
slave  (sec.  1)  is  competent  to  no  civil  relations, 
and  (sec.  6)  his  state  is  a  quasi-death. 

Concubinage  was  not  adultery  (Dig.  25,  tif.  7, 
s.  3,  §  1);  but  a  concubine  might  become  an  adult¬ 
eress,  because,  though  not  an  uxor,  she  ought  to 
be  a  matrona,  and  could  therefore,  if  unfaithful,  be 
accused,  not  jure  mariti,  hwt  jure  extranei.  For 
legal  conditions,  see  Cod.  J.  5,  tit.  26  and  27,  Just. 
Novell.  18,  c.  5  ;  also  74  and  89.  Leo  (Nov.  91) 
abolished  concubinage  on  Christian  grounds.  For 
the  way  in  which  the  Church  regarded  it,  cf. 
Bals.,  on  Basil,  26,  and  Cone.  Tulet.  i.  17 ;  also 
August.  Qu.iest.  in  Genesim,  90,  De  Fid.  et  Op. 
35  (xix.),  and  Serm.  392,  2.  Pope  Leo  I.  (Ad 
Lkistic.  4,  cf.  6,  as  giA’en  by  Mansi)  seems  to  make 
the  legal  concubine  a  mere  ancilla ;  cf.  Grat. 
Decret.  1.  Dist.  34  (ut  supra)  and  Diict.  Antiq.  s.  v. 

We  now  come  to  much  the  gravest  conse¬ 
quence  of  a  classification  under  public  wrong.s — 
its  effect  on  woman’s  remedy.  By  Lex  Julia,  the 
wife  has  no  power  of  plaint  against  the  husband 


20 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


for  adulteiy  as  a  public  wrong  (Cocf.  J.  9. 
tit.  9,  s.  1.).  This  evidently  flows  from  the  de- 
flnition  of  the  crime,  but  the  glossators’  reasons 
are  curious  She  cannot  com[)lain  jure  mariti 
because  she  is  not  a  husband,  nor  jure  extranei 
because  she  is  a  woman. 

The  magistrate  was  bound  by  law  to  inquire 
into  the  morals  of  any  husband  accusing  his  wife 
(Dig.  48,  tit.  5,  s.  ].3  §  5).  This  section  is  from  an 
Antoni  lie  rescript  quoted  at  greater  length  from 
the  Cod.  Gregorian,  by  Augustine,  De  Conjug. 
Adulterin.  lib.  ii.  7  (viii.).  The  hu.sband’s  guilt 
did  not  act  as  a  compensatio  criminis.  In  Eng¬ 
land  the  contrary  holds,  and  a  guilty  accuser 
shall  not  prevail  in  his  suit  (see  Burns,  Eccl. 
Law,  art.  “  Marriage.”).  But  the  wife’s  real 
remedy  lay  in  the  use  of  divorce  which  during 
the  two  last  centuries  of  the  Republic  became 
the  common  resource  of  women  under  grievances 
real  or  fancied,  and  for  purposes  of  the  worst 
kind.  There  is  a  graphic  picture  of  this  side 
of  Roman  life  in  Boissier’s  Cice'ron  et  ses  Amis; 
and  for  the  literature  and  laws,  see  “  Divor- 
tium  ”  in  Smith’s  Diet,  of  Antiquities.  Bris- 
sonius  de  Formulis  gives  a  collection  of  the 
phrases  used  in  divorcing. 

Constantine  allowed  only  three  causes  on 
either  side  —  on  the  woman’s  these  were  her 
husband’s  being  a  homicide,  poisoner,  or  violator 
of  sepulchres  (^Cod.  Theod.  3,  tit.  16,  s.  1 ;  cf.  Edict. 
Theodor.  54).  This  law  was  too  strict  to  be 
maintained  ;  the  variations  of  Christian  princes 
may  be  seen  in  Cod.  J.  5.  tit.  17.  Theodos.  and 
^  Valentin.  1.  8,  added  to  other  causes  the  hus¬ 
band’s  aggravated  incontinency.  Anastasius,  1. 
9,  permitted  divorce  by  common  consent ;  this 
again  “  nisi  castitatis  concupiscentia  ”  was  taken 
away  by  Justinian  in  his  Novell.  117,  which  (cap. 
9)  allowed  amongst  other  causes  the  husband’s 
gross  unchastity.  Justin  restored  divorce  by 
common  consent. 

The  Church  viewed  the  general  liberty  to  re¬ 
pudiate  under  the  civil  law,  with  jealousy ;  cf. 
Greg.  Nazianz.  Epp.  144,  5  (al.  176,  181),  and 
Victor  Antiochen.  on  Mark  x.  4-12.  But  it  was 
felt  that  women  must  have  some  remedy  for 
extreme  and  continued  wrongs,  and  this  lay  in 
their  using  their  legal  powers,  and  submitting 
the  reasonableness  of  their  motives  to  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  Church.  Basil’s  Can.  35  recognizes 
such  a  process ;  see  under  our  Div.  III.  Spiritual 
Penalties,  No.  2.  Still  from  what  has  been  said, 
it  is  plain  that  divorce  might  become  a  frequent 
occasion  of  adultery,  since  the  Church  held  that 
a  married  person  separated  from  insufficient 
causes  really  continued  in  wedlock.  Re-marriage 
was  therefore  always  a  serious,  sometimes  a  cri¬ 
minal  step.  [Divorce.] 

Marriage  after  a  wife’s  death  was  also  viewed 
with  suspicion.  Old  Rome  highly  valued  conti¬ 
nence  under  such  circumstances  ;  Val.  Max.  ii.  1, 
§  3,  gives  the  fiict ;  the  feeling  pervades  those 
tender  lines  which  contrast  so  strongly  with 
Catullus  V.  ad  Lesbiam— 

“  Occidit  mea  Lux,  meumque  Sidus; 

Sed  carara  seqtiar ;  arboresque  ut  alta 
Sub  tellure  suos  agunt  amores, 

El  radicibus  Implicantur  imis : 

Sic  nos  consociabimur  sepulti, 

Et  vivis  erimus  beatiorts.” 

Similar  to  Val.  Max.  is  Herm.  Mandat,  iv.  4. 
Gregory  Nazianz.  (Horn.  37,  al.  31)  says  that 


marriage  represents  Christ  and  the  Church, 
and  there  are  not  two  Christs  ;  the  first  mar¬ 
riage  is  law,  a  second  an  indulgence,  a  third 
swinish.  Against  marriages  beyond  two,  see 
Neocaes.  3,  Basil,  4,  and  Leo.  Novell.  90.  Curi¬ 
ously  enough,  Leo  (cf.  Diet.  Biog.)  was  him¬ 
self  excommunicated  by  the  patriarch  for  marry¬ 
ing  a  fourth  wife.  [Digamy.] 

III.  Penalties. — We  are  here  at  once  met  by  a 
very  singular  circumstance.  Tribonian  attri¬ 
butes  to  Constantine  and  to  Augustus  two  suspi¬ 
ciously  corresponding  enactments,  both  making 
death  the  penalty  of  this  crime,  and  both  inflict¬ 
ing  that  death  by  the  sword.  The  founder  of 
the  Empire  and  the  first  of  Christian  emperors 
are  thus  brought  into  a  closeness  of  juxtaposi¬ 
tion  which  might  induce  the  idea  that  lawyers, 
like  mythical  poets,  cannot  dispense  with  Ejjo- 
nyms. 

The  Lex  Julia  furnishes  a  title  to  Cod.  Theod.  9, 
tit.  7  ;  Dig.  48,  tit. ;  and  Cod.  J.  9,  tit.  9 ;  but  in 
none  of  these  places  is  the  text  preserved,  and  we 
only  know  it  from  small  excerpts.  The  law  of 
Constantine  in  Cod.  Theod.  9,  tit.  7,  s.  2,  contains 
no  capital  penalty,  but  in  Cod.  J.  9,  tit.  9,  s.  30, 
after  fifteen  lines  upon  accusation,  six  words 
are  added — “  Sacrileges  autem  nuptiarura  gladio 
puniri  oportet.”  The  word  “  sacrileges  ”  used 
substantively  out  of  its  exact  meaning  is  very 
rare  (see  Facciolati).  For  the  capital  clause, 
ascribed  to  the  Lex  Julia,  see  Inst  it.  iv.  18,  4  ;  but 
this  clause  has  been  since  the  time  of  (jujacius 
rejected  by  most  critical  jurists  and  historians,  of 
whom  some  maintain  the  law  of  Constantine, 
others  suppose  a  confusion  between  the  great  em¬ 
peror  and  his  sons.  Those  who  charge  Tribonian 
with  emhlcrnata  generally  believe  him  to  have 
acted  the  harmonizer  by  authority  of  Justinian. 
On  these  two  laws  there  is  a  summary  of  the  case 
in  Selden,  Uxor.  Ebr.  iii.  12,  with  foot  references. 
Another  is  the  comment  in  Gothofred’s  ed.  of  Cod. 
Theod.  vol.  iv.  296,  7.  Heineccius  is  not  to  be 
blindly  trusted,  but  in  Op.  vol.  III.  his  Syll.  xi.  De 
Secta  Triboniano-mastigum  contains  curious  mat¬ 
ter,  and  misled  Gibbon  into  the  idea  of  a  regular 
school  of  lawyers  answering  this  description. 
The  passages  in  Cujacius  may  be  traced  through 
each  volume  by  its  index.  See  also  Hofl’mann, 
Ad  Leg.  Jul.  (being  Tract  iv.  in  Fellenberg’s 
Jurisprudentia  Antiquaj  ;  Lipsii  Excurs.  in  Tacit. 
Ann.  iv. ;  Orelli,  on  Tacit.  Ann.  ii.  50 ;  Ortolan, 
Explication  des  Lnstituts,  iii.  p.  791 ;  Sandars, 
On  the  Lnstitutes,  p.  605  ;  Diet.  Antig.,  “  Adult- 
erium”;  and  Diet.  Biog.,  “  Justinianus.” 

The  fact  most  essential  to  us  is  that  prae- 
Christian  emperors  generally  substituted  their 
own  edicts  for  the  provisions  of  the  Lex  Julia, 
and  that  the  successors  of  Constantine  were 
equally  diligent  in  altering  his  laws.  Histo¬ 
rians  have  frequently  assumed  the  contrary ; 
Valesius’  note'  on  Socrates,  v.  18,  may  serve  by 
way  of  example.  The  Church  could  not  avoid 
adapting  her  canons  to  the  varied  states  of  civil 
legislation  ;  cf.  Scholia  on  Can.  Apost.  5,  and 
Trull.  87,  besides  many  other  places.  The  true 
state  of  the  case  will  become  plainer  if  we  briefly 
mention  the  ditferent  ways  in  which  adultery 
might  be  legally  punished. 

1.  The  Jus  Occidendi,  most  ancient  in  its  ori¬ 
gin  ;  moderated  under  the  Empire  ;  but  not  taken 
away  byChinstian  princes.  Compare  Dig.  48,  lit. 
5,  s.  20  to  24,  32  and  38,  with  same  48,  tit.  8 


ADULTEUX 


ADULTERY 


27 


8.  1,  §  5 ;  Cod.  J.  9,  tit.  9,  s.  4 ;  and  Pauli  Recept. 
Sentent.  ii.  26.  This  right  is  common  to  most 
nations,  but  the  remarkable  point  is  that  Roman 
law  gave  a  greater  prerogative  of  homicide  to  the 
woman’s  father  than  to  her  husband.  P'or  a 
similar  custom  and  feeling,  see  Lane’s  Modern 
Egyptians  i.  297.  The  Jus  Occidendi  under  the 
Old  Testament  is  treated  by  Selden,  DeJure  Nat. 
et  Gent,  juxta  Discip.  Ebraeor.  iv.  3 ;  in  old  and 
modern  France,  by  Ducange  and  Ragueau ;  in 
England,  by  Blackstone  and  Wharton.  There  is 
a  provision  in  Basil’s  Can.  34  directing  that  if  a 
woman’s  adultery  becomes  known  to  the  Church 
authorities  either  by  her  own  confession  or  other¬ 
wise,  she  shall  be  subjected  to  penitence,  but  not 
placed  among  the  public  penitents,  lest  her  hus¬ 
band,  seeing  her  should  surmise  what  has  occurred 
and  slay  her  on  the  spot  (cf.  Blastaris  Syntagma^ 
letter  M,  cap.  14).  This  kind  of  summary  venge¬ 
ance  has  often  been  confounded  with  the  penalty 
inflicted  by  courts  of  law,  e.g.  its  celebrated  as¬ 
sertion  by  Cato  in -A.  Cell.  x.  23,  though  his  words 
“sine  judicio  ”  ought  to  have  prevented  the  mis¬ 
take.  Examples  of  it  will  be  found  Val.  Max. 
vi  1,  13 ;  the  chastisement  of  the  historian  Sal¬ 
lust  is  described  A.  Cell.  xvii.  18  ;  many  illustra¬ 
tions  are  scattered  through  the  satirists,  and 
one,  M.  Ann.  Senec.,  Controv.  i.  4,  is  particularly 
curious. 

2.  Tlie  Household  Tribunal,  an  institution 
better  known  because  of  the  details  in  Dion. 
Hal.  ii.  25.  The  remarks  of  Mommsen  (i.  5  and 
12),  should  be  compared  with  Mr.  Hallam’s  phi¬ 
losophical  maxim  (^Suppt.  to  Middle  Ages,  art.  54) 
that  the  written  laws  of  free  and  barbarous 
nations  are  generally  made  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  the  infliction  of  arbitrary  punish¬ 
ments.  See  for  the  usage  Val.  Max.  ii.  9,  2,  and 
A.  Cell.  X.  23,  in  which  latter  place  the  husband 
is  spoken  of  'fs  the  wife’s  censor,  a  thought  which 
pervades  Origen’s  remarkable  exposition  of  Matt. 
XIX.  8,  9,  compared  with  v.  32  (tomus  xiv.  24). 
The  idea  itself  was  likely  to  be  less  alien  from 
the  mind  of  the  Church  because  of  the  patri¬ 
archal  power  which  sentenced  Tamar  to  the 
flames,  and  the  apostolic  principle  that  “  the 
Head  of  the  Woman  is  the  Man.”  It  is  plain, 
however,  that  all  private  administration  of  jus¬ 
tice  is  opposed  to  the  whole  tenour  of  Church 
legislation.  But  perhaps  the  most  pleasant  ex¬ 
ample  of  the  Roman  Household  Court  best  shows 
the  strength  and  extent  of  its  jurisdiction.  Pom- 
ponia  Graecina  (Tacit.  Ann.  xiii.  32)  was  so  tried 
on  the  capital  charge  of  foreign  superstition, 
and  the  noble  matron,  an  early  convert,  as  is 
sometimes  supposed,  to  Christianity,  owed  her 
life  to  the  ac(iuittal  of  her  husband  and  his 
family  assessors. 

3.  A  far  more  singular  penalty  on  adultery  is 
mentioned.  Tacit.  Ann.  ii.  85,  Sueton.  Tib.  35,  and 
Merivale,  v.  197.  It  consisted  in  permitting  a 
matron  to  degrade  herself  by  tendering  her  name 
to  the  Aediles  for  insertion  in  the  register  of  pub¬ 
lic  women.  Tacitus  speaks  of  it  as  “  more  inter 
veteres  recepto,”  and  looks  back 'with  evident 
regret  upon  the  ages  when  such  shame  was  felt 
to  be  an  ample  chastisement.  His  feeling  is 
shared  by  Val.  Max.  ii.  1.  A  like  custom  sub¬ 
sisted  before  1833  among  the  modern  Egyptians, 
(see  Lane,  i.  176-7),  ditfeidng  only  in  the  fact  that 
the  degradation  was  compulsory,  a  custom  curi¬ 
ously  parallel  to  a  narrative  o'f  Socrates,  v.  18, 


(copied  by  Nicephorus,  xii.  22),  who  says  that 
thei'e  1‘emained  at  Rome,  till  abolished  by  the 
Christian  Emperor  Theodosius  L,  places  of  con¬ 
finement  called  Sistra,  where  women  who  had 
been  caught  in  breaking  the  7th  Commandment 
were  compelled  to  acts  of  incontiuency,  during 
which  the  attention  of  the  passers-by  was  at¬ 
tracted  by  the  ringing  of  little  bells  in  order  that 
their  ignominy  might  be  known  to  every  one. 
Valesius  has  a  dubious  note  founded  chiefly  on 
a  mistake,  already  observed,  as  to  the  constancy 
of  Roman  punishments.  They  really  were  must 
variable,  and  here  again  Egypt  offers  a  parallel, 
cf.  Lane,  i.  462-3.  Niebuhr  {Lectures  on  Ronmn 
Hist.  i.  270)  thinks  the  unfixed  nature  of  penal¬ 
ties  for  numerous  offences  in  Greece  and  Rome  a 
better  practice  than  the  positive  enactments  of 
modern  times.  We  now  pass  to 

4.  Judicial  Punishments. — Augustine  {Civ.  Dei, 
iii.  5)  says  that  the  ancient  Romans  did  not  in¬ 
flict  death  upon  adulteresses  (cf.  Liv.  i.  28,  x. 
2,  XXV,  2,  and  xxxix.  18  ;)  those  who  read  Plautus 
will  find  divorce  descidbed  as  their  usual  chas¬ 
tisement.  The  critics  of  Tribonian  generally  be¬ 
lieve  that  Paulus  {Sentent.  ii.  26,  14)  gives  the 
text  of  the  Lex  Julia.  It  commences  with  the 
punishment  of  the  woman,  and  proceeds  to  that 
of  her  paramour  on  the  principle  before  noticed 
of  the  adultera  being  the  true  criminal,  and  the 
adulter  her  accomplice.  After  Constantine, 
though  the  civil  law  maintains  this  ancient 
position,  there  is  an  apparent  inclination  to  punish 
the  man  as  a  seducei — a  clearly  vital  alteration, 
and  due  probably  to  Christian  influences. 

Augustine  places  the  lenity  of  old  Rome  to¬ 
wards  adulterous  women  in  contrast  with  the 
sev^erities  exercised  on  Vestal  virgins.  His  state¬ 
ment  is  not  necessarily  impugned  by  those  who 
rank  adultery  among  capital  crimes  {e.  g.  Cod.  J. 
9^  tit.  9,  s.  9),  since  by  some  kinds  of  banishment 
“eximitur  caput  de  civitate,”  and  hence  the 
phrase  “  civil  death  ”  (see  Dig.  48,  tit.  1,  s.  2  ; 
tit.  19,  s.  2  ;  tit.  22,  s.  3-7).  Emperors  varied 
fi’om  each  other,  and  from  themselves.  Augustus 
exceeded  his  own  laws  (Tacit.  Ann.  iii.  24).  Ti¬ 
berius  was  perverse  {ibid.  iv.  42).  Appuleius, 
under  the  Antonines,  represents  the  legal  penalty 
as  actual  death,  and  seems  to  imply  that  burn¬ 
ing  the  adulteress  alive  was  not  an  unknown 
thing  {Met.  ix.  ut  supra).  Of  Macrinus  it  is  ex¬ 
pressly  stated  (Jul.  Capit.  12),  “  Adulterii  reos 
semper  vivos  simul  incendit,  junctis  corporibus.’"’ 
Alexander  Severus  held  to  a  capital  penalty  {Cod. 
J.  9,  tit.  9),  as  above.  Paulus  was  of  his  council 
(cf.  Ael.  Lamprid.  25),  a  fact  favouring  the  sup¬ 
position  that  the  section  {Recept.  Sent.  ii.  26,  14) 
which  mentions  a  punishment  not  capital  must 
represent  an  earlier  law.  Arnobius,  under  Dio¬ 
cletian  (see  Diet.  Biog.'),  speaks  of  adultery  as 
capital  (iv.  p.  142,  ed.  Var.).  With  the  above 
precedents  before  him,  the  reader  may  feel  in¬ 
clined  to  distrust  the  charge  of  new  and  Mosaic 
severity  brought  against  Constantine  and  his 
successors  in  chap.  44  of  Gibbon,  vol.  v.  p.  322, 
ed.  Milman  and  Smith. 

Whether  the  disputed  penal  clause  of  Con¬ 
stantine  be  genuine  or  not,  by  another  law  of  his 
{Cod.  J.  9,  tit.  11)  a  woman  offending  with  a 
slave  was  capitally  punished,  and  the  slave  burned. 
Constantins  and  Constans  {Cod.  Theod.  11,  tit. 
.36,  s.  4)  enacted  “  pari  similique  ratione  sacrilcgos 
nuptiarum,  tanquam  manifestos  parncidas,  m- 


28 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


r. uere  culeo  vivos,  vel  exurere,  juJicniitem  opor- 
teat.’'  Compare  Diet.  Antiq.a.vt.  Leges  Cornel iae, 
“  Lex  Pompeia  de  Parricidiis,”  and  for  burning, 
I’auli  Senterit.  liecept.  v.  24.  Baronius  (sub  fin. 
Ann.  339)  has  a  note  on  “  Sacrilegos,” — a  word 
which  placed  the  male  offender  in  a  deeply  criminal 
light.  The  execution  of  the  sentence  was  en¬ 
forced  by  clear  cases  of  adultery  being  excepted 
from  appeal  (Sent.  Recept.  ii.  26,  17),  and  after¬ 
wards  (Cod.  Thcod.  9,  tit.  38,  s.  3-8),  from  the 
Easter  indulgence,  when,  in  Imperial  phrase,  the 
Resurrection  Morning  brought  light  to  the  dark¬ 
ness  of  the  prison,  and  broke  the  bonds  of  the 
transgressor.  Yet  we  may  ask.  Was  the  Con- 
stantian  law  really  maintained?  Just  thirty 
years  later,  Ammianus  (xxviii.  1)  gives  an  ac¬ 
count  of  the  decapitation  of  Cethegus,  a  senator 
of  Lome ;  but  though  the  sword  was  substituted 
for  fire,  he  reckons  this  act  among  the  outrages 
of  Maximin,  prefect  of  the  city;  and  how  easily 
a  magistrate  might  indulge  in  reckless  barbarity 
may  be  seen  by  the  horrible  trial  for  adultery 
described  by  Jerome  (Ad  Innocent.),  in  which  both 
tlie  accused  underwent  extreme  tortures.  Again, 
though  the  Theodosian  code  (in  force  from  a.d. 
439)  gave  apparent  life  to  the  Constantian  law, 
yet  by  a  rescript  of  Majorian  (a.d.  459)  it  is 
ordered  that  the  adulterer  shall  be  punished  “  as 
under  former  emperors,”  by  banishment  from 
Italy,  with  permission  to  any  one,  if  he  return, 
to  kill  him  on  the  spot  (Novell.  Major.  9).  That 
death  in  various  times  and  places  was  the  penalty, 
seems  clear  from  Jerome  on  Nah.  i.  9  ;  the  V  mdal 
customs  in  Salviau,  7 ;  and  Can.  W  illici,  27. 
Fines  appear  in  later  Welsh,  as  in  Salic  and 
A.  S.  codes.  For  these  and  other  punishments 
among  Christianized  barbarians,  see  Ancient  Laws 
of  Wales  ;  Lindenbrogii  Cod.  Leg.,  Wilkins,  vol.  i., 
Olaus  Mag.  de  Gent.  Septent.  XIV. ;  and  Ducange 

s.  V.  and  under  Trotari. 

For  Justinian’s  legislation  see  his  134th  Novell. 
Cap.  10  renews  the  Constantian  law  against  the 
male  offender,  extends  it  to  all  abettors,  and  in¬ 
flicts  on  the  female  bodily  chastisement,  with 
other  penalties  short  of  death.  Caj).  12  contem¬ 
plates  a  possible  evasion  of  justice,  and  further 
oflences,  to  which  are  attached  further  severities. 
Caps.  9  and  13  contain  two  merciful  provisions. 
Leo,  in  his  32nd  Novell,  (cited  by  Harmenop.  as 
19th),  compares  adultery  with  homicide,  and 
punishes  both  man  and  woman  by  the  loss  of 
their  noses  and  other  inflictions.  For  a  final 
summary,  cf.  Harmenop.  Proch.  vi.  2,  and  on  the 
punishment  of  incontinent  married  men,  vi.  3. 

Spiritual  penalties  may  be  thus  arranged — 1. 
Against  adultery  strictly  so  called  (Can.  Apost. 
61  al.  60).  A  convicted  adulter  cannot  receive 
orders. — Ancyra,  20.  Adultera  and  adulter  (so 
SchoL,  husband  with  guilty  knowledge,  Routh 
and  Fleury),  7  years’  penitence. — Neocaesarea,  1. 
Presbyter  so  offending  to  be  fully  excommunicated 
and  brought  to  penitence. — Neocaesarea,  8.  The 
layman  whose  wife  is  a  convicted  adultera  can¬ 
not  receive  orders.  If  the  husband  be  already 
ordained,  he  must  put  her  away  under  penalty 
of  deprivation. — Basil,  can.  9.  An  unchaste  wife 
must  be  divorced.  An  unchaste  husband  not  so, 
even  if  adulterous ;  this  is  the  rule  of  Church 
custom.  [N.B. — We  place  Basil  here  because  ac¬ 
cepted  by  Trull.  2.] — Basil,  58.  The  adulter  15 
years’  penitence ;  cf.  59,  which  gives  7  years  to 
simple  incontinence,  and  compare  with  both  can. 


7  and  Scholia. — Gregor.  Ny.ss.,  can.  4,  prescribes 
18  years  (9  only  for  simple  incontinence). — Basil, 
27,  and  Trull.  26,  forbid  a  presbyter  who  has 
ignorantly  contracted  an  unlawful  marriage  be¬ 
fore  orders  to  discharge  his  functions,  but  do  not 
degrade  him. — Basil,  39.  An  adultera  living  with 
her  paramour  is  guilty  of  continued  crime.  This 
forbids  her  marriage  with  him,  as  does  also  the 
.civil  law.  Cf.  on  these  marriages  Triburiense,  40, 
49,  and  51. — On  intended  and  incipient  sin,  com¬ 
pare  Neocaesarea,  4,  with  Basil,  70  (also  Scholia) 
and  Blastaris  Syntagma,  cap.  xvi. — The  synod  of 
Eliberis,  though  held  a.d.  305,  was  not  accej)ted 
by  any  Universal  Council,  but  it  represents  an 
important  part  of  the  Western  Church,  and  its 
canons  on  discipline  are  strict.  The  following 
arrangement  will  be  found  useful.  Eliberis,  19. 
Sin  ofClerisy.  (Cf.  Tarracon.  9.) — 31.  Of  young 
men. — 7.  Sin,  if  repeated. — 69.  Of  married  men 
and  women.— 47.  If  habitual  and  with  relapse 
after  penitence. — 64.  Of  women  continuing  with 
their  accomplices  ;  cf.  69. — 65.  Wives  of  clerks. 
— 70.  Husbands’ connivance  (F.  Mendoza  remarks 
on  the  antiquity  of  this  sin  in  Spain). — 78.  01 
married  men  with  Jewesses  or  Pagans. 

2.  Against  Adultery  as  under  SjAritual  hut  not 
Civil  Law. — Both  canonists  and  divines  joined  with 
our  Saviour’s  precepts,  Prov.  xviii.  23  ;  Jer.  iii.  1 
(both  LXX);  1  Cor.  vi.  16,  and  xii.  11-16  and  39. 
They  drew  two  conclusions:  (1)  Divorce,  except 
for  adultery,  is  adultery.  Under  this  fell  the 
questions  of  enforced  continence,  and  of  marriage 
after  divorce.  (2)  To  retain  an  adulterous  wife 
is  also  adultery — a  point  disputed  by  divines,  e.g. 
Augustine,  who  yielded  to  the  text  in  Proverbs 
(Retract,  i.  xix.  6).  These  divisions  should  be 
remembered  though  the  points  are  often  blended 
in  the  canons. 

Can.  Apost.  5.  No  one  in  higher  orders  to 
cast  out  his  wife  on  plea  of  religion.  This  is 
altered  as  regards  bishops  by  Trull.  12,  but 
the  change  (opposed  to  African  feeling)  was  not 
enough  to  satisfy  Rome.  It  must  be  remem¬ 
bered  that,  though  divorce  was  restrained  by 
Constantine,  whose  own  mother  had  thus  suf¬ 
fered  (see  Euti’op.  ix.  22),  his  law  was  relaxed 
by  Theod.  and  Valentin,  and  their  successors, 
and  it  was  common  for  a  clerk,  forced  into  conti¬ 
nence,  to  repudiate  his  wife.  Trull.  13,  opposes 
the  then  Roman  practice  as  concerns  priests  and 
deacons,  and  so  far  maintains,  as  it  says.  Can. 
Apost.  5. — The  Scholia  on  these  three  canons 
should  be  read.  For  the  Roman  view  of  them 
compare  Binius  and  other  commentators  with 
Fleury,  Hist.  Eccl.  xl.  50.  Cf.  Siricius,  Ad  Himor. 
7 ;  Innocent  I.  Ad  Exup.  1,  and  Ad  Max.  et  Sev.  ; 
Leo  I.  Ad  Rustic.  3,  and  Ad  Anastas.  4.  See  also 
Milman,  Lat.  Christ,  i.  97-100.  The  feeling  of 
Innocent  appears  most  extreme  if  Jerome’s  asser¬ 
tion  (Ad  Dcmetriad.)  of  this  pope’s  being  his 
predecessor’s  son  is  literally  meant,  as  Milman 
and  others  believe. —  Can.  Apost.  18,  al.  17. 
On  marriage  with  a  cast-out  wife ;  cf.  Levit. 
xxi.  7. — 48,  al.  47.  Against  casting  out  and 
marrying  again,  or  marrying  a  dismissed  woman. 
“Casting  out”  and  “dismissed”  are  explained 
by  the  Scholiasts  in  the  sense  of  unlawful  repu¬ 
diations.  Sanchez  (De  Matrim.  lib.  x.  de  Divert. 
Disp.  ii.  2)  quotes  this  canon  in  the  opposite  sense, 
and  brings  no  other  authoidty  to  forbid  divorce 
before  Innocent  I. ;  indeed  in  Disp.  i.  12,  he  says, 
“  Posterior  (excusatio)  est,  indissolubilitatem  ma- 


ADULTERY 


ADULTERY 


29 


tiiiuonii  non  ita  arete  in  primitiva  Ecclesia  in- 
tellectam  esse,  quin  liceret  ex  legitima  causa, 
apud  Episcopos  provinciules  probata,  libellum 
repudii  dare.”  F.  Mendoza  makes  a  like  reserve 
on  Eliberis,  8.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  Latin 
renderings  of  Greek  law  terms  are  apt  to  be  am¬ 
biguous  ;  c.g.  “  Soluta  ”  is  sometimes  used  of 
a  dismissed  wife,  sometimes  of  an  unmarried 
woman. — Basil,  Ad  Amphiloch.  can  9.  The  dictum 
of  our  Lord  applies  naturally  to  both  sexes,  but 
it  is  otherwise  ruled  by  custom  {i.e.  of  the 
Church,  see  a  few  lines  further,  with  Scholia ; 
and  on  unwritten  Church  custom  having  the 
force  of  law  cf.  Photii  Nomoc.  i.  3,  and  refer¬ 
ences].  In  the  case  of  wives  that  dictum  is 
stringently  observed  according  to  1  Cor,  vi.  16  ; 
Jer.  hi.  1,  and  Prov.  xviii,,  latter  half  of  23 
(both  in  LXX  and  Vulgate). —  If,  however,  a  di¬ 
vorced  husband  marries  again,  the  second  wife  is 
not  an  adultera,  but  the  first ;  cf.  Scholia.  [Here 
the  Latin  translator  has  mistaken  the  Greek  ;  he 
renders  ovk  olda  el  Svyarai  by  “  nescio  an  possit,” 
instead  of  “  nescio  an  non  ” — so  as  to  give  the  con¬ 
trary  of  Basil’s  real  meaning.]  A  woman  must 
not  leave  her  husband  for  blows,  waste  of  dower, 
incontinence,  nor  even  disbelief  (cL  1  Cor,  vii.  16), 
under  penalty  of  adultery.  Lastly,  Basil  forbids 
second  marriage  to  a  husband  putting  away 
his  wife,  i.e.  unlawfully  according  to  Aristenus, 
Selden,  llx.  Ebr.  iii.  31,  and  Scholia  on  Trull.  87. 
On  like  Scripture  grounds  Can.  26  of  2nd  Synod 
attributed  to  St.  Patrick,  commands  divorce  of 
adulteresses,  and  permits  husband  to  remarry. — 
Basil,  21,  assigns  exti'a  penitence  to  what  would 
now  be  called  simple  adultery  (then  denied  by 
Church  custom  to  be  adultery),  i.e.  the  incon- 
tinency  of  a  married  man.  Divorce  is  next 
treated  as  a  penalty — an  offending  wife  is  an 
adulteress  and  must  be  divorced — not  so  the  hus¬ 
band  ;  cf.  can.  9.  Basil,  unlike  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
does  not  justify  in  reason  the  established  custom. 
— 35.  Alludes  to  a  judgment  of  the  sort  men¬ 
tioned  by  Sanchez  and  Mendoza,  and  referred 
to  above. — Can.  48.  Separated  wife  had  better 
not  re-marry. 

Carthage,  105  ap,  Bev,  (in  Cod.  Eccl.  Afric. 
102). — Divorced  persons  {i.e.  either  rightly  or 
wrongly  repudiating)  to  remain  unmarried  or 
be  reconciled,  and  an  alteration  of  Imperial  law 
in  this  sense  to  be  petitioned  for.  This  breathes 
a  Latin  rather  than  an  Eastern  spirit,  and  is  the 
same  with  2  Milevis  (Mileum),  17  (repeated  Cone. 
Afric.  69),  cf.  1  Arles,  10,  and  Innocent  L,  Ad 
Exup.  6.  The  case  is  differently  determined 
under  differing  conditions  by  Aug.  de  Fid.  et 
Oper.  2  (i.)  compared  with  35  (xix.). 

The  Scholiasts  hold  that  the  Carthaginian 
canon  was  occasioned  by  facility  of  civil  divorce, 
but  superseded  by  Trull.  87.  Innocent  III.,  with 
a  politic  regard  for  useful  forgeries,  ordained  that 
earlier  should  prevail  over  later  canons  (cf. 
Justell.  i.  311),  but  the  Greek  canonists  (as  here) 
maintain  the  reverse,  which  is  likewise  ably  up¬ 
held  and  explained  by  Augustine,  De  Bapt.  11.  4, 
(iii.),  and  14  (ix.). 

Trull.  87,  is  made  up  of  Basil’s  9,  21,  35,  and 
48.  The  Scholia  should  be  read — but  they  do 
not  notice  that,  when  it  was  framed,  divorce  by 
consent  had  been  restoj  ed  by  Justin,  Novell.  2 
(authent.  140).  They  are  silent  because  neither 
this  Novell,  nor  all  Justinian’s  117  were  inserted 
in  the  Basilica  then  used  j  his  134  alone  repi*e- 


sented  the  law  (see  Photii  Nomoc.  XIII.  4,  Sch.  3). 
— Trull.  87,  is  so  worded  as  to  express  desertion, 
and  therefore  implies  a  judicial  process,  without 
which  re-marriage  must  be  held  mere  adultery 
(see  on  this  point,  Blastaris  Syntarjm. :  Gamma, 
13).  The  “  divine  ”  Basil,  here  highly  magnified, 
is  elevated  still  higher  in  Blastaris,  Caus.  Matrim. 
ap.  Leunclavii  Jus  Graeco-Roman,  p.  514. 

This  canon  closes  the  circle  of  Oecumenical 
law  upon  adultery,  and  on  divorce,  treated  partly 
as  its  penalty  and  partly  as  its  cause.  The 
points  of  agreement  with  State  law  are  plain  ; 
the  divergence  is  an  effect  of  Church  restraint 
upon  divorce,  w'hich,  if  uncanonical,  easily  led  to 
digamy,  and  formed  per  se  a  species  of  adultery. 
According  to  canonists  (Photii  Nomoc.  I,  2,  Schol. 
2),  Church  law',  having  a  twofold  sanction,  could 
not  be  resisted  by  Imperial  constitutions. 

As  the  ancient  mode’of  thinking  on  adultery 
is  alien  from  our  own,  it  seems  right  to  I'efer 
the  reader  to  the  vindication  of  its  morality  by 
Gregory  Nyss.  {Ad  Let.  4). — Gregory  is  by  no 
means  lenient  to  the  incontinency  of  married  or 
unmarried  men  with  single  women ;  9  years  of 
penitence  with  all  its  attendant  infamy  made  up 
no  trifling  chasti.sement.  But  he  held  that  the 
offence  of  a  married  woman  and  her  paramour 
involves  three  additional  elements  of  immorality 
— the  treacherous,  the  specially  unjust,  and  the 
unnatural  ;  or,  to  put  the  case  another  way,  he 
estimated  the  sin  by  the  strength  of  the  barriers 
overleaped  by  passion,  and  by  the  amount  of 
selfishness  involved  in  its  gratification.  So,  in 
modern  days,  we  often  speak  of  an  adulteress  as 
an  unnatural  mother,  and  visit  her  seducer  wnth 
proportionate  indignation.  Thus  viewed,  spuri¬ 
ousness  of  progeny  is  not  a  censure  by  rule  of 
expediency,  but  a  legal  test  of  underlying  de¬ 
pravity. 

This  section  may  usefully  close  with  examples 
showing  how  the  ancient  position  has  been  over¬ 
looked  as  well  as  resisted.  We  saw  that  Car¬ 
thage,  105,  and  its  parallels  forbade  marriage 
after  divorce,  w'hether  just  or  unjust,  and  that 
the  view'  of  its  being  adultery  had  gained  ground 
in  the  West.  Now,  three  earlier  Eliberitan  canons 
uphold  the  other  principle.  Can.  8.  Against  re¬ 
marriage  of  a  w'oman  causelessly  repudiating. 
9.  Against  re-marriage  of  a  woman  leaving  an 
adulterous  husband.  10.  Against  marriage  with 
a  man  guilty  of  causeless  dismissal.  From  this 
last  canon,  compared  with  8  and  9,  it  appeal's 
that  the  husband  divorcing  an  adulteress  may 
mari'y  again,  which  by  9  an  aggrieved  wife  can¬ 
not  do ;  cf.  the  parallel,  Basil,  9,  supra.  Cote- 
lerius,  note  16,  3,  to  Herm.  Past.  Mand.  iv., 
quotes  cans.,  9  and  10  as  a  support  to  the  pseudo- 
Ambrose  on  1  Cor.  vii.  10,  11,  and  construes 
both  to  mean  that  the  man  is  favoured  above 
the  w'oman  under  like  conditions.  He  is  fol¬ 
lowed  by  Bingham,  xvi.  11,  6,  as  far  as  the  so- 
called  Ambrose  is  concerned.  But  we  have  suf- 
cieutly  proved  that  Church  custom  did  not  per¬ 
mit  incontinency  to  be  held  a  like  condition 
in  husband  and  in  wife.  The  pseudo-Ambrose 
himself  misleads  his  readers  —  his  law'  agrees 
with  the  Basilean  canon,  but  not  content  with 
laying  down  the  law,  he  goes  on  to  reason  out 
the  topic — the  man’s  being  the  head  of  the 
woman,  &c.  The  Western  Canon  ascribed  to  St. 
Patrick  (sM/jra)  seems  a  remarkable  contrast  to 
the  Latin  rule.  The  fact  is  equally  remarkable 


30 


ADULTERY 


ADVENT 


that  at  no  further  distance  from  Eliberis  than 
Arles,  and  as  early  as  A.D.  314,  it  was  enacted 
by  Can,  10  that  5^ouug  men  detecting  their  wives 
in  adultery  should  be  counselled  against  marry¬ 
ing  others  during  the  lifetime  of  the  adulteresses 
(cf.  Mantes  12).  Most  curious  to  us  are  the  de¬ 
crees  of  Pope  Leo  I.,  Ad  Nicet.  1,  2,  3,  4,  which 
allow  the  wives  of  prisoners  of  war  to  marry 
others,  but  compel  them  to  return  to  their 
husbands  under  pain  of  excommunication  should 
the  captives  be  released  and  desire  their  society. 
Such  instances  as  these  and  some  before  cited 
illustrate  the  A^aidous  modes  of  affirming  an  iron 
bond  in  marriage,  and  of  resisting  the  law  on 
adultery,  and  on  divorce  as  the  penalty  of  adul¬ 
tery  (afterwards  received  in  Trullo),  ere  yet  the 
opposition  formed  an  article  in  the  dh'ergence 
of  Creek  and  Latin  Christendom.  With  them 
should  be  compared  thfe  extracts  from  divines 
given  under  Division  11.  supra,  which  display  in 
its  best  colours  the  spirit  of  the  revolution.  For 
other  particulars,  see  Divorce. 

3.  Constructive  Adultery. — The  following  are 
treated  as  guilty  of  the  actual  crime  : — Trull.  98. 
A  man  marrying  a  betrothed  maiden ;  cf.  Basil, 
37,  with  SchoL,  and  Dig.  48,  tit.  5,  s.  13,  §  3 ; 
also  Siricius,  Ad  Him.  4. — Elib.  14.  Girls  seduced 
marrying  other  men  than  their  seducers. — Basil, 
18.  Consecrated  virgins  who  sin  and  their  para¬ 
mours  ;  cf.  his  60.  These  supersede  Ancyra,  19, 
by  which  the  offence  was  punished  as  digamy. 
See  on  same.  Trull.  4;  Elib. 13  ;  Siric.  Ad  Him.  6, 
Innocent,  Ad  Victr.  12  and  13.  Cyprian,  Ad  Pom¬ 
pon.,  pronounced  it  better  they  should  marry — 
the  offender  is  “  Christ!  Adultera.”  Jerome,  Ad 
Demetriad.  sub  fin.,  perplexes  the  case  for  irre¬ 
vocable  vows  by  declaring,  “  Quibus  aperte  dicen- 
dum  est,  ut  aut  nubant,  si  se  non  possunt  conti- 
nere,  aut  contineant,  si  nolunt  nubere.” — Laod. 
10  and  31,  accepted  by  Chalced.  i.  and  Trull.  2, 
forbid  giving  sons  and  daughters  in  marriage  to 
heretics.  Eliberis,  15,  16, 17,  enact  severe  penal¬ 
ties  against  parents  who  marry  girls  to  Jews, 
heretics,  and  unbelievers,  above  all  to  heathen 
priests.  1,  Arles,  11,  has  same  prohibition,  so  too 
Agde,  67.  By  Cod.  Theod.  16,  tit.  8,  s.  6  (a.d. 
339),  Jew's  must  not  take  Christian  women ;  by 
Cod.  Theod.  3,  tit.  7,  s.  2  (a.d.  388),  all  marriage 
between  Jew  and  Christian  is  to  be  treated  as 
adultery,  a  law  preseiwed  by  Justinian  {Cod.  J. 
1,  tit.  9,  s.  6).  Some  suppose  this  phrase  simply 
means  treated  as  a  capital  offence,  but  Elib.  15, 
mentions  the  risk  of  adulterium  anirnae.  The  pas¬ 
sage  in  Tertullian,  Ad  Ux.  ii.  3,  “fideles  gentilium 
matrimonia  subeuntes  stupri  reos  esse  constat,” 
&c.  (cf.  Division  1.  supra)  shows  how  early  this 
thought  took  hold  of  the  Church.  Idolatry 
from  Old  Testament  times  downward  w'as  adul¬ 
tery  ;  and  div'ines  used  the  principle  1  Cor.  vi. 
15,  16,  and  parallel  texts,  to  prov'e  that  marriage 
with  an  unclean  transgressor  inv'olved  wife  or 
husband  in  the  sinner’s  guilt.  Compare  Justin 
Martyr  in  the  history  cited  Division  I.,  C3'prian, 
Testimon.  iii.  62,  and  Jerome,  Epitaph.  Fabiolae. 
It  would^  appear  therefore  that  law  was  thus 
worded  to  move  conscience,  and  how  hard  the 
task  of  law  became  maj'  be  gathered  from  Chal- 
cedon,  14.  This  canon  (on  which  see  Schol.  and 
Routh’s  note,  Opusc.  ii.  107)  concerns  the  lower 
clerisy ;  but  the  acceptance  of  Laodicea  by  Can. 
1  had  already  met  the  case  of  lay  people.  See 
further  under  Marriage. 


The  Church  was  strict  against  incitements  and 
scandals.  Professed  v'irgins  must  not  live  with 
clerks  as  sisters.  See  Sub-introduciae.  On 
promiscuous  bathing.  Trull.  77,'  Laod.  30  ;  the 
custom  was  strange  to  early  Rome,  but  practice 
varied  at  different  times  (see  Diet.  Antiq.  Bal- 
neae).  On  female  adornment.  Trull.  96,  and  com¬ 
pare  Commodian’s  address  to  matrons,  Inst.  59, 
60. — Elib.  35,  forbids  women’s  night  watching 
in  cemeteries,  because  sin  w'as  committed  under 
pretext  of  prayer.  Against  theatricals,  loose 
reading,  some  kinds  of  revels,  dances,  and  other 
prohibited  things,  see  Bingham,  xvi.  11,  10-17, 
with  the  references,  amongst  which  those  to 
Cyprian  deserve  particular  attention. 

For  the  general  literature  on  Canon  Law  see 
that  article.  Upon  cival  law  there  are  excellent 
references  under  Justinianus,  Diet.  Biogr.,  with 
additional  matter  in  the  notes  to  Gibbon,  chap. 
44,  ed.  Smith  and  Milman,  and  a  summarv  re¬ 
specting  the  Basilica,  vol.  vii.  pp.  44,  45.  '  We 
may  here  add  that  Mommsen  is  editing  a  text  of 
the  Corpus  Juris  Civilis  ;  and  the  whole  Rus.sian 
code  is  now  being  translated  for  English  publica¬ 
tion.  There  is  a  series  of  manuals  by  Ortolan 
deserving  attention :  Histoire  de  la  Legislation 
romaine,  1842 ;  Cours  de  Legislation  penale  com- 
paree,  1839-41  ;  Explication  des  Lnstituts,  1863. 
Gothofredi  Manuale  Juris,  and  Windscheid’s 
Lehrbuch  d.  Pandektenr edits  (2nd  ed.)  may  be 
useful.  An  ample  collection  of  Councils  and  Ec¬ 
clesiastical  documents  relating  to  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland  is  being  published  at  Oxford.  Re¬ 
ferences  on  special  topics  have  been  fully  given 
above,  and  will  seiwe  to  indicate  the  readiest 
sources  for  further  information.  Curious  readers 
will  find  interesting  matter  in  Saint  Edme,  Dic- 
tionnaire  de  la  Penalite ;  Taylor,  On  Civil  Law  ; 
and  Duni,  Origine  e  Progressi  del  Cittadino  e  del 
Governo  civile  di  Roma,  1763-1764.  [W.  J.] 

ADVENT  (^Adventus,  NTjcrreia  rwv  XpicTTOv- 
yevucov),  is  the  season  of  preparation  for  the 
Feast  of  the  Nativity,  to  which  it  holds  the  like 
relation  as  does  Lent  to  Easter.  As  no  trace  of 
an  established  celebration  of  the  birth  of  our 
Lord  is  met  with  before  the  4th  century  [Na¬ 
tivity],  no  earlier  origin  can  be  assigned  to  the 
ecclesiastical  institution  of  Advent ;  the  state¬ 
ment  of  Durand  (^Rationale  divin.  off.  v'i.  21),  which 
makes  this  an  appointment  of  St.  Peter  (unless, 
like  other  statements  of  the  same  kind,  it  means 
only  that  this  was  an  ordinance  of  the  see  of  St. 
Peter),  may  rest,  perhaps,  on  an  ancient  tradition, 
making  Christmas  an  apostolic  institution,  but 
is  contrary  to  all  historical  testimony,  and  dev'oid 
of  probabilitj'.  Expressions  which  have  been 
alleged  on  that  behalf  from  Tertullian,  St.  Cyprian, 
and  other  early  writers,  are  ev'idently  meant,  not 
of  “Adv'ent  ”  as  a  Church  season,  but  of  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  in  the  fulness  of  time.  A 
passage  of  St.  Chrysostom  (^Hom.  iii.  ad  Eph. 
t.  xi.  22  B),  in  which  uaiphs  ttjs  7rpo(r6Sou  is 
mentioned  in  connection  with  to.  ’Eiropavia  (i.  e. 
the  ancient  Feast  of  Nativ'ity  and  Baptism)  and 
with  the  Lenten  Quadragesima,  speaks,  as  the 
context  manifestly  shows,  not  of  the  season  of 
Advent,  but  of  the  fit  time  (or  rather  fitness  in 
general)  for  coming  to  Holy  Communion  (comp. 
Menard  on  LAbr.  Sacram.  S.  Gregorii ;  0pp.  t.  iii. 
col.  446).  Setting  aside  these  supposed  testi¬ 
monies,  and  that  of  the  Sermons  de  Adventu, 


ADVENT 


ADVENT 


31 


alleged  as  St.  Augustine’s,  but  certainly  not  his, 
we  have  two  homilies  In  (or  De)  Adcentu  Domini, 
de  eo  quod  dictum  est,  sicut  fukjur  coruscans,  &c., 
et  de  duobus  in  lecto  uno,  by  St.  Maximus,  Bishop 
of  Turin,  ob.  466.  In  neither  of  these  sermons 
is  there  any  indication  of  Advent  as  a  season, 
any  allusion  to  Lessons,  Gospels,  &c.,  appro¬ 
priated  to  such  a  season,  or  to  the  Feast  of 
Nativity  as  then  approaching.  And,  indeed,  the 
fact  that  the  “  Sundays  in  Advent  ”  are  unknown 
to  the  Sacramentary  of  Pope  Leo  of  the  same  age 
sufficiently  shows  that  this  season  was  not  yet 
established  in  the  time  of  Maximus.  Among 
the  Homilies  (doubtfully)  ascribed  to  this 
bishop,  edited  by  Mabillon  (^Mus.  Ital.  t.  i.  pt.  2), 
one,  horn,  vii.,  preached  on  the  Sunday  before 
Christmas,  simply  exhorts  to  a  due  observance  of 
the  feast,  and  contains  no  indication  of  any 
ecclesiastical  rule.  Even  in  the  Sermons  de 
Adventu,  formerly  ascribed  to  St.  Augustine, 
now  generally  acknowledged  to  have  been 
written  by  Caesarius,  Bishop  of  Arles,  ob.  542  (S. 
Augustini  0pp.  t.  210,  Ben.  Append,  n.  115, 
116),  there  is  no  distinct  recognition  of  Advent 
as  an  established  observance.  In  these,  the  faithful 
a”e  exhorted  to  prepare  themselves,  seA'eral  days 
{ante  plures  dies%  foi  the  due  celebration  of  the 
Nativity,  especially  of  the  Christmas  Communion, 
by  good  works,  by  guarding  against  anger  and 
hatred,  by  modest  hospitality  to  the  poor,  by 
strict  continence,  &c.  Still  there  is  no  indi¬ 
cation  of  the  length  of  time  so  to  be  set  apart, 
nor  any  refei'euce  to  Lessons,  Gospels,  or  other 
matters  of  Church  usage.  The  preacher  urges 
such  preparation,  not  on  the  ground  of  Church 
observance,  but  as  matter  of  natural  fitness : 
“  Even  as  ye  would  prepare  for  celebrating  the 
birth-day  of  a  great  lord  by  putting  your  houses 
in  order,”  &c.  “  Ideo  ab  omni  inquinamento 

ante  ejus  Natalem  multis  diebus  abstinere  de- 
betis.  Quotiescumque  aut  Natalem  Domini  aut 
reliquas  sollemnitates  celebrare  disponitis,  ebrieta- 
tem  ante  omnia  fugite,”  &c.  And  so  in  the 
second  sermon  :  “  Et  ideo  quotiescumque  aut  dies 
Natalis  Domini,  aut  reliquae  festivitates  adveniunt, 
sicut  frequenter  admonui,  ante  plures  dies  non 
solum  ab  infelici  concubinarum  consortio,  sed 
etiam  a  propriis  uxoribus  abstinete  :  ab  omni  ira- 
cundia,”  &c.  There  is  indeed  a  canon  cited  by 
Gratian  {Decretal,  xxxiii,  qu.  4)  as  of  the  Council 
of  Lerida,  A.d.  523,  prohibiting  all  marriage /row 
Advent  to  Epiphany.  But  this  canon  is  known 
to  be  spurious,  and  does  not  appear  in  the 
authentic  copies  (see  Brun’s  Concilia,  t.  ii.  20). 
A  similar  canon  of  the  Council  of  Macon,  (a.d. 
581,  ibid.  242)  is  undisputed.  This  (can.  ix.) 
enjoins  that  from  the  Feast  of  St.  Martin 
(Nov.  11)  to  the  Nativity  there  be  fasting 
on  Monday,  Wednesday,  and  Friday  of  each 
week,  and  that  the  canons  be  then  read ;  also 
that  the  sacrifices  be  offered  in  the  quadragesimal 
oi*der.  (Subsequent  councils,  after  our  period, 
enjoin  the  observaoce  of  this  Quadragesima  S. 
Martini  as  the  preparation  for  Christmas,  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  Lenten  Quadragesima  before 
Easter.)  It  does  not  appear  what  were  the 
canons  appointed  to  be  read,  relating,  of  course, 
to  the  observance  of  these  forty  days  befoi'e 
Christmas ;  only,  it  may  be  inferred  that  such 
canons  were,  or  were  supposed  to  be,  in  exist¬ 
ence,  of  earlier  date  than  that  of  Macon  (in  the 
preface  to  which  council  it  is  said  these  enact¬ 


ments  are  not  new  :  “non  tarn  nova  quam  prisca 
patrum  statuta  sancientes  ”  &c.).  In  the  second 
Council  of  Tours  (a.d.  567),  the  fast  of  three 
days  in  the  week  is  ordered  (can.  xvii.)  for  the 
months  of  September,  October,  and  November, 
and  from  (1)  December  to  the  Nativity,  omm 
die.  But  this  is  for  monks  only.  St.  Gregory, 
Bishop  of  Tours,  in  De  Vitis  Patrum,  written 
between  590  and  595,  alleges  that  Perpetuus, 
Bishop  of  Tours  (461-490),  ordered  “a  deposi- 
tione  B.  Martini  usque  ad  Nat.  Dom.  terna  in 
septimana  jejuuia.”  This  may  have  been  one 
of  the  prisca  statuta  appealed  to  ;  but  no  trace 
is  extant  of  any  such  canon,  either  in  the  First 
Council  of  Tours,  a.d.  460,  or  in  any  other  Latin 
council  before  that  of  Macon.  It  seems,  from  all 
that  is  certainly  known,  that  Advent  took  its  place 
among  Church  seasons  only  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  6th  century.  When  the  Nativity  had 
become  established  as  one  of  the  great  festivals, 
it  was  felt  that  its  dignity  demanded  a  season  of 
preparation.  The  number  of  days  or  weeks  to  be 
so  set  apart  was  at  first  left  to  the  discretion  of 
the  faithful :  “  ante  plures  dies,  multis  diebus,  ’ 
as  in  the  above-cited  exhoi’tation  of  Caesarius. 
Later,  this  Avas  defined  by  rule,  and  first,  it 
seems,  in  the  Churches  of  Gaul.  Yet  not  every¬ 
where  the  same  rule :  thus  the  oldest  Gallican 
Sacramentaiy  shows  three  Sundays  in  AdA'ent, 
the  Gothic-Gallican  only  two  (Mabillon,  Mus. 
Ital.  t.  i.  pp.  284—288  ;  and  de  Liturg.  Gallicana, 
p.  98,  sqq^.  But  the  rule  that  the  term  of  pre¬ 
paration  should  be  a  quadragesima  (correspond¬ 
ing  Avith  that  which  was  already  established  for 
Easter),  to  commence  after  the  Feast  of  St. 
Martin,  which  rule,  as  has  been  seen,  Avas  not 
enacted,  but  reinforced  by  the  canon  of  Macon, 
581,  implies  six  Sundays ;  and  that  this  rule  ob¬ 
tained  in  other  Churches  appears  from  the  fact 
that  the  Ambrosian  (or  Milan)  and  Mozarabic 
(or  Spanish)  Ordo  show  six  missae,  implying  that 
number  of  Sundays ;  and  the  same  rule  Avas  ob¬ 
served  (as  Martene  has  shown)  in  some  of  the 
Gallican  Churches.  The  Epistola  ad  Bibianum 
falsely  alleged  to  be  St.  Augustine’s  account  of 
“  the  offices  of  divine  Avorship  throughout  the 
year  ”  in  his  diocese  of  Hippo  (see  Bened.  Ad- 
monitio  at  end  of  0pp.  S.  Augustini,  t.  ii.), 
also  attests  this  for  Churches  of  Gaul,  if,  as 
Martene  surmises,  this  Avas  the  Avork  of  some 
Gallican  Avriter.  It  should  be  remarked  that 
this  writer  himself  makes  the  ordo  adventus 
Domini  begin  much  earlier,  at  the  autumnal 
equinox,  Sept.  25,  as  being  the  day  of  the 
conception  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  and  so  the 
beginning  of  the  times  of  the  Gospel.  “  Sed 
quia  sunt  nonnulli  qui  adventum  Domini  a  festi- 
Autate  B.  Martini  Turonensis  urbis  episcopi 
videntur  insipienter  excolere,  nos  eos  non  repre- 
hendamus”  &c.  This  Quadragesima  S.  Martini 
seems  to  have  originated  in  Gaul,  in  the  diocese 
of  Tours,  to  Avhich  it  Avas  specially  recommended 
by  the  deAmtion  paid  to  its  great  saint ;  an 
additional  distinction  was  conferred  upon  his 
festiA’al  in  that  it  marked  the  beginning  of  the 
solemn  preparation  for  the  Nativity.  So  far,  we 
may  accept  Binterim’s  conclusion  {Denkwiirdig- 
keiten  der  christ.-kathol.  Kirche,  vol.  v.,  pt.  i.,  p. 
166):  the  rule — not,  as  he  says,  of  Advent,  but — of 
this  Quadragesima  is  first  met  with  in  the  diocese 
of  Tours.  If,  indeed,  the  Tractatus  de  sanctis 
tribus  Quadragesimis,  “  unde  eas  observari  ac- 


32 


ADVENT 


ADVENT 


cej/iiiius,  (juoilque  qui  cas  transgreJiuntur  legem 
vii'leut  ”  (ap.  Coteler,  Monum.  Eccl.  Gr.  iii.  425), 
be,  as  Cave  {Hist.  Lit.)  represents,  the  work  of 
that  Auastasius  Sinaita  who  was  patriarch  of 
Antioch,  5(31,'o0.  599;  this  Quadragesima,  under 
another  name  (“  Q.  S.  Philippi,”  or  “  Fast  of  the 
Nativity  ”),  was  already  observed  in  the  East. 
But  the  contents  make  it  plain  enough  that  its 
author  was  another  and  much  later  Anastasius 
Sinaita,  who  wrote  after  a.d.  787.  The  ob¬ 
servance  of  the  “  Quadragesima  Apostolorum,” 
and  “Quadragesima  S.  Philippi  ”  (the  Feast  of 
St.  Philip  in  the  Greek  Calendar  is  November 
14)  is  enjoined  upon  monks  by  Nice])horus, 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  806.  This  fast  of 
40  days  before  Christmas  seems  to  have  been 
kept  up  chiefly  by  the  monastic  orders  in  Gaul, 
Spain,  Italy,  (Martene  De  Lit.  Ant.  Eccl..  iii. 
p.  27);  it  was  observed  also  in  England  in 
the  time  of  Bede  {Hist.  iii.  27 ;  iv.  30),  and 
much  later.  It  was  not  until  the  close  of  the 
6th  century  that  the  Church  of  Rome  under 
St.  Gregory  received  the  season  of  preparation 
as  an  ecclesiastical  rule,  restricted,  in  its  proper 
sense,  to  the  four  Sundays  before  the  Nativity 
(Amalarius  De  Eccl.  Off.  iii.  40,  a.d.  812,  and 
Abbot  Berno,  De  quihusdam  rebus  ad  Missam 
pertinentihus.,  c.  iv.  1014);  and  this  became  the 
general  rule  for  the  Western  Church  throughout 
the  8th  century,  and  later.  And,  in  fact,  four  is 
the  number  of  Sundays  in  Advent  in  the  Saci'a- 
mentary  of  Gregory  {Liber  Sacrament,  de  circulo 
anni,  ed.  Pamelius  ;  and  in  the  Leciionarium  Ro~ 
manum.  ed.  Thomasius).  But  other  and  older 
copies  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  (ed.  Menard, 
1642,  reprinted  with  his  notes  in  the  Benedic¬ 
tine  Opj?.  S.  Gi’egorii,  t.  iii.);  the  Comes,  ascribed 
to  St.  Jerome;  the  Sacramentary  of  Gelasius,  ob. 
496  (a  very  ancient  document,  but  largely  in¬ 
terpolated  with  later  additions);  the  Antiquum 
Kalend.  Sacrae  Romanae  Eccl.  ap.  Martene.  Thes. 
Anecdot.  t.  v.  (in  a  portion  added  by  a  later  hand)  ; 
the  Pontifical  of  Egbert,  Archbishop  of  York,  ob. 
767  ;  a  Lectionary  written  for  Charlemagne  by 
Paul  the  Deacon  (ap.  Mabillon) ;  and  other  MSS. 
cited  by  Martene  {u.  s.  iv.  80,  ff.),  all  give  five 
Sundaj’^s.  Hence,  some  writers  have  been  led  to 
represent  that  the  practice  varied  in  different 
Churches,  some  reckoning  four,  others  five  Sundays 
in  Advent — an  erroneous  inference,  unless  it  could 
be  shown  that  the  first  of  the  five  Sundays  was 
designated  “Dominica  Prima  Adventus  Domini.” 
The  seeming  discrepancy  is  easily  explained. 
The  usual  ancient  names  of  the  four  Sundays, 
counted  backwards  from  the  Nativity,  are  :  Do¬ 
minica  i.,  ante  Nat.  Domini  (our  4th  Advent), 
Dom.  ii.,  Dom.  iii.,  Dom.  iv.  ante  Nat.  Domini. 
To  these  the  next  preceding  Sunday  was  prefixed 
under  the  style  Dom.  v.  ante  Nat.  Dom.,  not  as 
itself  a  Sunday  in  Advent,  but  as  the  preparation 
for  Advent.  So  Amalarius  and  Berno,  u.  s., 
and  Durandus :  “In  quinta  igitur  hebdomada 
ante  Nat.  D.  inclioatur  praeparatio  adventus  .  .  . 
nam  ab  ilia  dominica  sunt  quinque  officia  domi- 
nicaiia,  quinque  epistolae  et  quinque  evangelia 
quae  adventum  Domini  aperte  praedicant.”  The 
intention  is  evident  in  the  Epistle  and  Gospel 
for  this  Sunday,  which  in  the  Sarum  Mis.sal  is 
designated  “dominica  proxima  ante  Adventum,” 
with  the  rule  (retained  by  our  own  order  from 
that  of  Sarum),  that  these  shall  always  be  used 
for  the  last  Sunday  before  Advent  begins. 


After  the  pattern  of  the  Lenten  fast.  Advent 
was  marked  as  a  season  of  mourning  in  the  pub¬ 
lic  services  of  the  Church.  The  custom  of 
omitting  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis  (replaced  by  the 
Benedicamus  Domino),  and  also  the  Te  Deum,  and 
Ite  missa  est,  and  of  laying  aside  the  dalmatic 
and  subdeacon’s  vestment  (which  in  the  11th 
and  12th  century  appears  to  have  been  tiie 
established  rule,  Micrologus  De  Eccl.  Obs.  c.  46 ; 
Ruj)ert  Abbas  Tuit.  de  Div.  Off.  iii.  c.  2),  was 
coming  into  use  during  the  eighth  century.  In 
the  Mozarabic  Missal,  a  rubric,  dating  jjrobablv 
from  the  end  of  the  6th  century  {i.e.  from  the 
refashionment  of  this  ritual  by  Leander  or  Isidore 
of  Seville),  appoints  :  “  In  Adventu  non  dicitur 
Gloria  in  Excelsis  dominicis  diebus  et  feriis,  se  l 
tantum  diebus  festis.”  And  Amalarius,  ob.  812 
{De  Offic.  Sacr.  iii.  c.  40),  testifies  to  this  custom 
for  times  within  our  period :  “  Vidi  tempore 
prisco  Gloria  in  Excelsis  praetermitti  in  diebus 
adventus  Domini,  et  in  aliquibus  locis  dalmaticas  ” : 
and  iv.  c.  30  :  “  Aliqua  de  nostro  officio  reser- 
vamus  usque  ad  praesentiam  nativitatis  Domini, 
h.  e.  Gloria  in  Excelsis  Deo,  et  clarum  vesti- 
mentum  dalmaticam  ;  si  forte  nunc  ita  agitur 
ut  vidi  actitari  in  aliquibus  locis.”  The  Bene¬ 
dictine  monks  retained  the  Te  Deum  in  Advent  as 
in  Lent,  alleging  the  rule  of  their  founder.  The 
Alleluia  also,  and  the  Sequences,  as  also  the 
hymns,  were  omitted,  but  not  in  all  Churches. 
In  the  Gregorian  Antiphonary,  the  Alleluia  is 
marked  for  1  and  3  Advent  and  elsewhere.  In 
some  Churches,  the  Miserere  (Ps.  li.)  and  other 
mournful  Psalms  were  added  to  or  substituted 
for  the  ordinary  Psalms.  For  lessons,  Isaiah 
was  read  all  through,  beginning  on  Advent 
Sunday ;  when  that  was  finished,  the  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets,  or  readings  from  the  Fathers, 
especially  the  Epistles  of  Pope  Leo  on  the  Incar¬ 
nation,  and  Sermons  of  St.  Augustine,  succeeded. 
The  lesson  from  “the  Prophet”  ended  with  the 
form,  “  Haec  dicit  Dorninus  Deus,  Convertimini  ad 
me,  et  salvi  eritis.” 

In  the  Greek  Church,  the  observance  of  a  season 
of  preparation  for  the  Nativity  is  of  late  intro¬ 
duction.  No  notice  of  it  occurs  in  the  liturgical 
works  of  Theodorus  Studites,  ob.  826,  though, 
as  was  mentioned  above,  the  40-days’  fast  of  St. 
Philip  was  enjoined  (to  monks)  by  Nicephorus, 
A.D.  806.  This  naffapaKovTaVifixpov,  beginning 
November  14,  is  now  the  rule  of  the  Greek 
Church  (Leo  Allat.  de  Consensu  iii.  9,  3).  Codinus 
{De  Off.  Eccl.  et  Curiae  Constnntinop.  c.  7,  n.  20) 
speaks  of  it  as  a  rule  which  in  his  time  (cir. 
1350)  had  been  long  in  use.  The  piece  De  Tribus 
Quadragesimis  above  noticed,  ascribed  to  Ana¬ 
stasius  Sinaita,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  shows  that, 
except  in  monasteries,  the  rule  of  a  40-days’  fast 
before  the  Nativity  was  contested  in  his  time 
(a.d.  1100  at  earliest).  And  Theodore  Balsamon, 
A.D.  1200,  lays  down  the  rule  thus: — “We  ac¬ 
knowledge  but  one  quadragesima,  that  before 
Pascha ;  the  others  (named),  as  this  Fast  of  the 
Nativity,  are  each  of  seven  days  only.  Those 
monks  who  fast  40  days,  viz.  from  St.  Philip 
(14  Sept.),  are  bound  to  this  by  their  rule.  Such 
laics  as  voluntarily  do  the  like  are  to  be  praised 
therefor.”  Respons.  ad  qu.  53  Marci  Patriarch. 
Alex.,  and  ad  interrog.  monachorum,  app.  to 
Photii  Nomocanon.  In  the  calendar  formed 
from  Evangelia  Eclogadia  of  9th  century  our  4 
Advent  is  marked  “  Sunday  before  the  Nativity,’ 


ADVOCATE  OF  THE  CHURCH 


ADVOCATE  OF  THE  CHURCH  33 


while  the  preceding  Sundays  are  numbered  from 
All  Saints  =  our  Trinity  Sunday.  (Assemanni 
Kalead.  Eccl.  Unto.,  t.  vi.  p.  575.)  The  term 
“Advent”  is  not  applied  to  this  season:  the 
KvpiaKT]  rris  Sevrepas  Tlupova'ias  is  our  Sexa- 
gesima. 

In  the  separated  Churches  of  the  East,  no 
trace  appears,  within  our  period,  of  an  Advent 
season  ;  unless  we  except  the  existing  Nestorian 
or  Chaldean  rule,  in  which  the  liturgical  year 
begins  with  four  Sundays  of  Annunciation  (^evay- 
ycKicr/iov),  before  the  Nativity  (Assemanni  Bi¬ 
bliotheca  Orient,  t.  iii.  pt.  2,  p.  380  sqq.).  This 
beginning  of  the  Church  year  is  distinguished  as 
Risk  phenkito,  i.e.  initium  codicis,  from  the  Risk 
thannoto,  i.e.  new-year’s  day  in  October.  The 
Armenian  Church,  refusing  to  accept  25th  De¬ 
cember  as  the  Feast  of  Nativity,  and  adhering  to 
the  more  ancient  sense  of  the  Feast  of  Epiphany 
as  including  the  Birth  of  Christ,  prepares  for 
this  high  festival  (6th  January)  by  a  fast  of  50 
days,  beginning  17th  November. 

The  first  Sunday  in  Advent  Avas  not  always 
the  beginning  of  the  liturgical  year,  or  circulus 
tot i  us  anni.  The  Comes  and  the  Saci’amentary 
of  St.  Gregory  begin  with  IX.  Kal.  Jan.,  the 
Vigil  of  the  Nativity.  So  does  the  most  ancient 
Lectionarium  Gallicanum  ;  but  the  beginning  of 
this  is  lost,  and  the  Vigil  is  numbered  VII.,  the 
Nativity  VIII.  Hence  Mabillon  {Liturg.  Gallic. 
p.  98,  101)  infers  that  it  began  with  the  fast  of 
St.  Martin  (or  with  the  Sunday  after  it,  Dom. 
VI.  ante  Nat.  Dom.).  One  text  of  the  Missale 
Ambrosianum  begins  with  the  Vigil  of  St. 
Martin  (ed.  1560).  The  Antiphonarius  of  St. 
Gregory  begins  1  Advent,  and  the  Liber  Re- 
sponsalis  with  its  Vigil.  But  the  earlier  pi’actice 
was  to  begin  the  ecclesiastical  year  with  the 
month  of  Mai'ch,  as  being  that  in  which  our 
Lord  was  crucified  (March  25);  a  trace  of  this 
remains  in  the  notation  of  the  Quatuor  Tem¬ 
pera  as  Jejunium  primi,  quarti,  septimi,  decimi 
inensis,  the  last  of  which  is  the  Advent  Ember 
week. 

Literature. — De  Catholicae Ecclesiae  divinis  offic. 
ac  ministeriis,  Rome,  1590  (a  collection  of  the 
ancient  liturgical  treatises  of  St.  Isidore,  Alcuin, 
Amalarius,  IMicrologus,  Petr.  Damianus,  &c.); 
Martene,  Ee  Riti'ius  Ant.  Ecclesiae  et  Mona- 
chorum,  1699;  Binterim,  Die  vorziiglichsten 
Denkwiirdigkeiten  der  christ.-katholischen  Kirche, 
l\Iainz,  1829  (founded  on  the  work  of  Pel- 
licia,  De  Christ.  Eccles.  Primae  Mediae  et  No- 
vissirnae  Aetatis  Politia,^QaTp.  1777);  August!, 
Denkwiirdigkeiten  aus  der  christlichen  Archdo- 
logie,  Leipzig,  1818;  Herzog,  Real-Encyclopddie 
fiir  protestantische  Theologie  u.  Kirche,  s.  a.  Ad- 
ventszeit,  1853 ;  Rheinwald,  Kirchliche  Arch'd- 
ologie,  1830  ;  Alt,  Der  Christliche  Cultus,  Abth. 
ii.  Das  Kirchenjahr,  1860.  [H.  B.] 

ADVOCATE  OF  THE  CHURCH  (Ad- 
vocatus,  or  Defensor,  Ecclesiae  or  Monasterii ; 
2w5i/cos,’'E/cSiKos  :  and  Advocatio  =  ih.(i  office,  and 
sometimes  the  fee  for  discharging  it): — an  eccle¬ 
siastical  officer,  appointed  subsequently  to  the 
recognition  of  the  Church  by  the  State,  and  in 
consequence  (1)  of  the  Church’s  need  of  pi'o- 
tection,  (2)  of  the  disability,  both  legal  and  re¬ 
ligious,  of  clergy  or  monks  (Can.  Aiost.  xx., 
Ixxxi. ;  Constit.  Apostol.  ii.  6;  Justinian,  Novell. 
cxxiii.  6 ;  and  see  Bingham,  vi.  4)  eith.er  to  plead 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


in  a  civil  court  or  to  intei’meddle  Avith  worldly 
business.  In  its  original  form  it  was  lin.ited  to 
the  duties  thus  intimated,  and  took  its  origin  as  a 
distinct  and  a  lay  office  in  Africa  (CW.  Can.  Eccl. 
Afric.  c.  97,  A. I).  407,  Defensor es,”  to  be  taken 
from  the  Scholastici ;  ”  Cone.  Milevit.  ii.  c.  16, 
A.D.  416  ;  Can.  Afric.  c.  64,  c.  a.d.  421)  ;  but  re¬ 
ceived  A^eiy  soon  certain  privileges  of  ready  and 
speedy  access  to  the  courts  from  the  emperors 
(Coo?.  Theod.  2.  tit.  4.  §  7  ;  16.  tit.  2.  §  38). 
It  became  then  a  lay  office  (defensores,  distin¬ 
guished  in  the  code  from  “  coronati  ”  or  tonsured 
pei’sons),  but  had  been  previously,  it  Avould  seem, 
discharged  by  the  oeconomi  (Du  Cange).  And,  as 
it  naturally  canie  to  be  reckoned  almost  a  minor 
order,  so  it  was  occasionally,  it  Avould  seem,  still 
held  by  clerics  (Morinus,  De  Ordin. ;  Bingham). 
The  advocatus  Avas  to  be  sometimes  asked  from 
the  emperors  (authorities  as  above), — as  judices 
Avere  giA^en  by  the  Praetors  •, — but  sometimes  Avas 
elected  by  the  bishop  and  clergy  for  themselves 
(Coc7.  lib.  i.  tit.  iv.  constit.  19).  The  office  is 
mentioned  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  cc.  2, 
25,  26,  A.D.  451,  and  is  there  distinguished  both 
from  the  clergy  and  from  the  oeconornus ;  by  Pope 
Gelasius,  Eq.nst.  ix.  c.  2,  a.d.  492-496 ;  and  by 
Maxentius  (^Resp.  ad  Hormisd.)  some  S'  ore  of 
years  later.  But  it  had  assumed  a  much  more 
formal  shape  during  this  period,  both  .at  Con¬ 
stantinople  and  at  Rome.  In  the  former  place, 
as  protectors  of  the  Church,  under  the  title  of 
’EicKA.7j(rie/cSi/cot,  there  Avere  four  officers  of  the 
kind :  i.  the  irpooTeKBiKos,  Avho  defended  the 
clergy  in  criminal  cases  ;  ii.  one  Avho  defended 
them  in  civil  ones  ;  iii.  6  rov  B^paros,  also  called 
the  TTpcorJiraTros  ;  iv.  6  rys  ^EKKAyalas  ;  increased 
by  the  time  of  Heraclius  to  ten,  and  designed  in 
general  for  the  defence  of  the  Church  against 
the  rich  and  powerful  (Justinian,  Edict,  xiii.,  and 
Novell.  Ivi.  and  lix.  c.  1 ;  and  see  the  passages 
from  Codrinus,  Zonaras,  Balsamon,  «Sjc.,  in  Meur- 
sius.  Gloss.  Graecobarbarum,  voc.  ''EkZlkos,  and  in 
Suicer).  They  appear  also  to  haA'e  acted  as 
judges  OA'er  ecclesiastical  pei’sons  in  trifling  cases 
(Morinus).  They  were  commonly  laymen  (so 
Cod.  Theod.  as  above) ;  but  in  one  case  certainly 
(Cone.  Constantin.,  a.d.  536,  act.  ii.)  an  iKK\r]- 
(TiiKdiKOs  is  mentioned,  who  Avas  also  a  jnes- 
byter ;  and  presbyters  are  said  to  haA'e  com¬ 
monly  held  the  office,  while  later  still  it  Avas  held 
by  deacons  (Morinus).  In  Rome,  beginning  aa  ith 
Ijanocent  I.  (a.d.  402-417,  Epist.  xii.  ed.  Con¬ 
stant)  and  his  successor  Zosimus  (Epist.  i.  c.  3), 
the  Defensores  became  by  the  time  of  Gregory 
the  Great  a  regular  order  of  officers  (Defensores 
Romanae  Ecclesiae),  Avhose  duties  Avere — i.  to  de¬ 
fend  Church  interests  generally  ;  ii.  to  take  care 
of  alms  left  for  the  poor ;  iii.  to  be  sent  to  held 
applicants  from  a  distance  for  Papal  protection  ; 
iv.  to  look  after  outlying  estates  belonging  to 
St.  Peter’s  patrimony  (S.  Greg.  M.,  EpLtt.  pas¬ 
sim).  There  were  also  in  Rome  itself  at  that 
time  seven  officers  of  the  kind,  called  Defensores 
Regionarii  (Ordo  Roman.),  each  Avith  his  proper 
region,  and  the  first  of  the  seven  knoAvn  as  tlie 
Primicerius  Defensorum  or  Primus  Defensor  (St. 
Greg.  Epistt.,  passim).  St.  Gregory  certainly 
marks  them  out  as  usually  laymen,  yet  in  some 
cases  clerics,  and  generally  as  holding  a  sort  of 
ecclesiastical  position.  And  the  other  Popes  Avho 
allude  to  them  (as  quoted  aboA'c),  are  led  to  do 
so  Avhile  treating  the  question  of  the  steps  and 


34  ADVOCATE  OF  THE  CHURCH 


ADVOCATE  OF  THE  CHURCH 


delays  to  be  made  m  admitting  laymen  to  holy 
orders,  and  feel  it  necessary  to  say  that  such  re¬ 
strictions  apply  “  even  ”  to  Defensores.  See  also 
St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  De  Vttis  Patrum,  c.  6. 

The  great  development  of  the  office,  however, 
took  place  under  Charlemagne  ;  who  indeed,  and 
Pipin,  were  themselves,  Kar'  Defensores 

Ecclesiae  liomanaeP  And  the  German  emperors 
became,  technically  and  by  title,  Advorati  et 
Defensores  Ecclesiarum  (Charles  V.  and  Henry 
VIII.  being  coupled  together  long  afterwards  as 
respectively  ecc/<?sfa<?,  andfidei,  defensores').  It  was 
then  established  as  a  regular  office  for  each  church 
or  abbey,  under  the  appellations  also  occasionally 
of  Mundihurdi  (or  -Incrgi),  Pastores  Laid,  and 
sometimes  simply  causidid  or  tutores  ;  to  be  nomi¬ 
nated  by  the  emperor  [Leo  IX.,  however,  as  Pope 
appointed  (Du  Cange)],  but  then  probably  for  a 
particular  emergency  only  {Car.  M.  Capit.  v.  31, 
vii.  308) ;  and  usually  as  an  office  for  life,  to 
which  the  bishops  and  abbats  were  themselves 
to  elect  {Cone.  Mogunt.  c.  50,  A.D.  813, — all 
bishops,  abbats,  and  clergy,  to  choose  “  vicedo¬ 
minos,  praepositos,  advocatos,  sive  defensores ;  ” 
Cone.  Pem.  ii.  c.  24,  A.D.  813, — “  Ut  praepositi  et 
vicedornini  secundum  regulas  vel  canones  con- 
stituantur;”  and  see  also  Cone.  Ponian.  cc.  19, 
20,  A.D.  826,  and  Cone.  Duziae.  ii.  P.  iii.  c.  5. 
A.D.  871),  but  “in  praesentia  comitum  ”  {Legg. 
Loyigobard.  lib.  ii.  tit.  xlvii.  §  1,  2,4,  7),  and  from 
the  landowners  in  their  own  neighbourhood  (cap. 
xiv.  ex  Lege  Saliea,  PiOinana,  et  Gumhata, — “  Et 
ipsi  [adAmcati]  habeant  in  illo  comitatu  propriam 
haereditatem and  in  a  capitular  of  A.D.  742, 
we  find  mention  of  a  “  Graphio”  i.  e.  count,  “qui 
est  defensor,”  Morinus,  De  Ordin.,  P.  III.  p.  307)  ; 
and  this,  not  only  to  plead  in  court  or  take  oath 
there  (sometimes  two  advoeati,  one  to  plead,  the 
other  to  swear,  Legg.  Longobard.  ii.  xlvii.  §  8), 
but  in  course  of  time  to  hold  courts  {plaeita  or 
malla)  as  judges  in  their  OAvn  district  (Du  Cange, 
but  A.D.  1020  is  the  earliest  date  among  his 
authorities),  and  generally  to  protect  the  secular 
interests  of  their  own  church  or  abbey.  The 
Advocatus  was  at  this  time  distinguished  from 
the  Vieedomnus,  sometimes  called  Major  Domus, 
who  ruled  the  lay  dependents  of  the  Church  ; 
from  the  Praepositus,  who  ruled  its  clerical  de¬ 
pendents  ;  and  from  the  Oeeonomus,  who  (being 
also  commonly  a  cleric)  managed  the  interior 
economy  of  its  secular  affairs  ;  although  all  these 
titles  are  occasionally  used  interchangeably.  He 
was  also  distinct  from  the  Cancellarius,  whether 
in  the  older  sense  of  that  term  when  it  meant 
an  inferior  officer  of  the  court,  or  in  the  later 
when  it  meant  a  judge  (Bingh.  III.  xi.  6,  7). 
Two  circumstances  however  gradually  changed 
both  the  relative  position  of  the  Advoeatus  to 
his  ecclesiastical  clients,  and  the  nature  of  his 
functions ;  the  one  arising  from  the  mode  in 
which  he  was  remunerated,  the  other  from  the 
mode  of  his  nomination.  1.  He  was  paid  in 
the  first  instance  at  this  period  by  sometimes  an 
annual  .salary,  with  certain  small  privileges  of 
entertainment  and  the  like ;  also,  by  the  third 
part  of  the  profits  of  his  judicial  office  {Tertia 
pars  bannoi’um,  emendarum,  legum,  compositionum, 
sc.  “  placitorura  ad  quae  ab  abbate  vocatus  fue- 
rit,”  Chron.  Sen.  lib.  ii.  c.  5,  in  D’Ach.  Spieil.  ii. 
G13,  ed.  1723;  tertius  denarius);  but  commonly 
and  finally  by  lands  held  from  the  church  or 
abbey,  a  third  of  their  value  belonging  to  himself 


as  his  portion.  And  the  growth  of  the  feudal 
tenure,  in  addition  to  other  obvious  influences, 
gradually  converted  him  through  this  last  cir¬ 
cumstance  from  a  dependent  into  a  sujierior, 
from  a  law  officer  into  a  military  one,  and  from 
a  beneficiary  into  an  owner,  and  sometimes  into 
an  usurper  outright.  In  the  Ordo  Pomanus,  is 
an  Ordo  ad  antvmdum  Eeelesiae  Defensorem  vel 
alium  Militem,  beginning  with  a  benedietio  vexilli, 
lanceae,  ensis  (p.  178  Hittorp.,  about  the  time  of 
Charlemagne).  His  subadvoeatus,  let  us  add  (the 
number  of  whom  was  limited  by  various  enact¬ 
ments),  was  to  be  paid  in  one  instance  by  the 
receipt,  from  each  vill  of  the  ecclesiastical  pro¬ 
perty,  of  one  penny,  one  cock,  and  one  sextarius 
of  oats.  2.  The  nomination  to  the  office,  resting 
originally  with  the  Church  itself  or  with  the  em¬ 
peror,  was  usurped  gradually  by  the  founder, 
and  as  an  hereditary  appanage  of  his  own  estate  : 
whence  follow'ed  first  an  usurpation  of  the  Church 
property  by  the  lay  Airocafws,  and  next  an  usurpa¬ 
tion  by  the  same  officer  of  the  right  of  nomi¬ 
nating  to  the  church  or  abbey.  And  from  the 
latter  of  these  has  arisen  the  modern  use  of  the 
word  advouson,  which  now  means  exclusively 
and  precisely  that  right  which  the  original  adio- 
eatus  did  not  possess ;  the  jus  pxitronatus  no 
doubt  being  attached  to  the  founder  of  a  church 
from  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Orange  (c.  10) 
A.D.  441,  and  of  Justinian  {Novell.  Ivii.  c.  2,  cxxiii. 
c.  18),  A.D.  541,  555  ;  but  the  combination  of 
foundership  with  the  office  of  advocatus  being  an 
accidental  although  natural  combination,  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  ninth  and  following  centuries.  The 
earliest  charter  quoted  by  Du  Cange,  in  which 
mention  is  made  of  an  election  (in  this  case  of  an 
abbat)  “  assensu  et  consilio  advoeati,”  is  a  “  pri- 
vilegium  Rudolphi  Episc.  Halberstad.,”  A.D.  1147. 
But  in  Scotland,  Wales,  and  Ireland,  the  officer 
analogous  to  the  lay  advocatus  had  usurped  the 
position  and  the  very  name  of  abbat  long  pre¬ 
vious  to  the  12th  century  [see  Abbat].  And 
instances  of  similar  usurpation  abroad  may  no 
doubt  be  found  of  a  like  earlier  date  (see  Robert¬ 
son’s  Early  Scotland).  The  advocatio  of  a  bishopric 
seems  to  haA-^e  included,  at  least  in  England,  the 
custodia  {i.  e.  the  profits)  of  the  property  of  the 
see,  sede  vacante ;  but  Avas  a  distinct  right  from 
that  of  nomination  to  the  office,  the  “  dignitas 
crodae”  (as  e.g.  in  the  case  between  the  Welsh 
Lords  Marchers  and  the  English  Crown,  the  former 
claiming  the  custodia  but  not  the  nomination) : 
although  the  tA\'o  became  in  England  combined 
in  the  CroAvn.  There  does  not,  hoAvcA-er,  appear 
to  be  eA'idence,  that  this  particular  usurpation 
was  laid  to  the  charge  of  advoeati  abroad  during 
the  CarloA'ingian  period  ;  although  the  system  of 
lay  abbats,  commendataries,  &c.,  and  the  usurpa¬ 
tion  of  such  offices  by  kings  and  nobles,  led  to 
the  same  general  result  of  usurpation,  there 
also,  by  the  lay,  OA'er  the  ecclesiastical,  func¬ 
tionary.  Councils  in  England  put  restrictions  on 
these  usurpations  of  lay  domini,  advoeati,  &c.,  as 
early  as  the  Council  of  Beccanceld,  A.D.  696  X  716 
and  of  CloA'esho,  A.D.  803  (Councils  III.  338, 
Haddan  and  Stubbs  :  Wilk.  i.  56,  167).  Abroad, 
the  first  canon  on  the  subject  is  that  of  Rheims 
(c.  6),  A.D.  1148,  folloAved  among  others  by 
the  Councils  of  Salzburg  (c.  24),  A.D.  1274  and 
(c.  12),  A.D.  1281.  But  a  check  upon  them 
was  attempted  as  early  as  the  10th  century  by 
the  Capetian  dynasty  in  France. 


ADVOCATES 


AFFINITY 


35 


Tlie  title  of  Fidei  Defensor^  attached  to  the 
Crown  of  England,  and  so  strangely  inverted  from 
the  special  intent  of  its  original  Papal  donor,  may 
be  taken  as  the  last  existing  trace  of  the  ancient 
Advocatus  or  Defensor  Ecclesiae.  Unless  (with 
Spelman)  we  are  to  give  an  ancient  pedigree  to 
churchwardens,  and  find  the  old  office  still  in 
them.  (Bingham  ;  Du  Cange ;  Meursius,  Gloss. 
Gr<xeco')arbar. ;  Morinus,  De  Ordinat.;  Tho- 
massin.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

ADVOCATES,  NOT  TO  BE  ORDAINED, 
— Amongst  the  laws  which  imposed  restraints 
upon  the  clergy  was  one  which  forbad  them, 
except  in  certain  specified  cases,  to  act  as  advo¬ 
cates  before  civil  tribunals ;  since  it  was  con¬ 
sidered  that  any  such  interference  with  worldly 
matters  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  words 
of  St.  Paul  (2  Tim.,  ii.  4  “  No  man  that  war- 
reth  \_militans  Deo']  entangleth  himself  with  the 
affairs  of  this  life:”  see  St.  Ambrose,  De  Off. 
Minist.  1,  36 ;  and  Gclasii  Papae  Epp.  17,  sec. 
15).  For  this  reason  the  Srd  Council  of  Car¬ 
thage  (a.d.  397)  in  its  15th  canon  prohibits  all 
clerks  from  becoming  agents  or  procurators. 
The  prohibition  is  repeated  in  the  3rd  canon  of 
the  (Oecumenical  Council  of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451), 
but  with  the  proviso  that  secular  business  may 
be  undertaken  by  the  clergy  when  the  bishop 
directs  it  for  the  protection  of  Church  property, 
or  of  orphans  and  widows  who  are  without  any 
one  to  defend  them.  This  exception  was  in  later 
times  extended  to  the  poor  and  all  others  who 
came  under  the  designation  of  “  miserabiles 
personae.”  So  likewise  were  monks  forbidden  by 
the  11th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Tarragona 
(a.d.  516)  to  undertake  any  legal  business  ex¬ 
cept  for  the  benefit  of  the  monastery  and  at  the 
command  of  the  abbot. 

In  France  the  above-cited  provisions  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  were  repeated  by  the  16th 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Verneuil  (a.d.  755)  and  the 
14th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Mayence  (a.d.  813). 

There  are  many  other  canons  which  prohibit  the 
clergy  from  mixing  themselves  up  with  worldly 
matters,  and  which  therefore  forbid,  though 
not  in  express  terms,  their  acting  as  advocates. 

There  are  also  several  imperial  constitutions 
to  the  same  effect,  as,  for  instance,  one  of  Theodo¬ 
sius  11.  (a.d.  416)  which  he  afterwards  repeated 
in  the  Codex  T heodosianus,  a.d.  438  (16.  tit.  2. 
42),  and  which  was  also  inserted  in  the  1st  book 
(tit.  3.  s.  17)  of  the  Codex  Rcpetitae  Fraelectionis 
of  Justinian  (a.d.  534). 

Similar  provisions  are  to  be  found  in  the  34th 
title  of  the  Liber  novellarum  of  Valentian  III. 
(a.d.  452),  and  in  the  6th  chapter  of  the  123rd 
novell.  of  Justinian  (a.d.  541). 

(Thomassinus,  Vetus  et  nova  Ecclesiae  Disci- 
plina,  De  Beneficiis,  Pars  III.  Lib.  3,  cap.  17-19  ; 
Bouix,  Tractatus  de  Judiciis  Ecclesiasticis,  Pars 
I.,  3,  4-5).  [I.  B.] 

AEDITUI.  [Doorkeeper.] 

AEGATES,  Saint,  commemorated  Oct.  24 
{Mart.  Bedae). 

AEITHAIiAS.  (1)  Deacon  and  martyr,  com¬ 
memorated  Nov.  3  (Cal.  Bi/zant.). 

(2)  Martyr,  commemorated 5ept.  1  (Ib.).  [C.] 

AEMILIANUS.  (1)  Saint  in  Armenia,  com¬ 
memorated  Feb.  8  (Martyrol.  Rom.  Vet.,  Ilieron.). 

(2)  Confessor  in  Africa,  Dec.  6  (Mart.  R.  F.). 


(3)  Confessor,  .Ian.  8  (Cal.  Byzant.'). 

(4)  Bishop  of  Cyzicum,  Confessoi',  Aug.  8 

(Tb.).  [C.] 

AEMILIXJS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Africa,  comme¬ 
morated  May  22  (Martyrol.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(2)  Of  Sardinia,  May  28  (/6.). 

(3)  Commemorated  June  18  (Mart.  Ilieron.). 

.  [^’.1 

AER.  [Veil.] 

A  ERA.  [Era.] 

AFRA,  martyr  in  Rhaetia,  commemorated 
Aug.  5  (Martyrol.  Rom.  Vet.) ;  Aug.  6  (M. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

AFFIDATIO  (affiance,  Spenser;  Fr.  fan- 
qailles),  betrothal.  It  appears  doubtful  whether 
this  term  came  into  use  within  the  first  nine  cen¬ 
turies  of  the  Christian  era.  It  seems  rather  to 
belong  to  the  period  of  fully  developed  feudalism. 
The  earliest  example  quoted  by  Du  Cange,  from 
the  synodal  statutes  of  the  Church  of  Liege  in 
Martene’s  Thesaurus  Noius  Anecdote  rum,  is  in¬ 
deed  of  the  year  1287.  The  forms  given  in 
Martene’s  work,  De  Antviuis  ecclesiae  Ritibus 
(see  vol.  ii.  pp.  136,  137),  in  which  the  word 
occurs,  from  the  rituals  of  Limoges  and  of 
Rheims,  are  palpably  more  modern  yet,  to  judge 
from  the  passages  in  French  which  are  inter¬ 
mixed  in  them.  [J.  M.  L.] 

AFFINITY  (adfnitas),  a  relationship  by 
marriage.  The  husband  and  wife  being  legally 
considered  as  one  person,  those  who  are  related 
to  the  one  by  blood  are  related  to  the  other  in 
the  same  degree  by  affinity.  This  relationship 
being  the  result  of  a  lawful  marriage,  the  per¬ 
sons  between  whom  it  exists  are  said  to  he  related 
in  law  ;  the  father  or  brother  of  a  man’s  wife 
being  called  his  father-in-law  or  brother-in-law. 
The  distinction  between  affinity  and  consanguinity 
is  derived  from  the  Roman  law.  The  kinsfolk 
(cognati)  of  the  husband  and  wife  become  re¬ 
spectively  the  adfines  of  the  wife  and  husband. 
We  have  borrowed  the  words  affinity  and  con¬ 
sanguinity  from  the  Roman  law,  but  we  have  no 
term  corresponding  to  adfnes.  The  Romans  did 
not  reckon  degrees  of  adfnitas  as  they  did  of 
consanguinity  (cognatio)  ;  but  they  had  terms  to 
express  the  various  kinds  of  adfnitas,  as  socer, 
father-in-law  ;  socrus,  mother-in-law. 

It  has  resulted  from  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
marriage  that  persons  related  by  affinity  have 
been  always  forbidden  by  the  Church  to  marry 
within  the  same  degrees  as  tho.se  who  are  related 
by  blood.  The  Council  of  Agde  (506)  particu¬ 
larises  the  forbidden  degrees  as  follows  (Can.  61)  : 
— “A  man  may  not  marry  his  brother’s  widow, 
his  own  sistez’,  his  step-mother  or  fizther’s  wife, 
his  cousin-german,  any  one  nearly  allied  to  him 
by  consanguinity,  or  one  whom  his  near  kinsman 
had  married  befoi*e,  the  i-elict  or  daughter  of  his 
uncle  by  the  mother’s  side,  or  the  daughter  of 
his  uncle  by  the  father’s  side,  or  his  daughter- 
in-law,  i.e.  his  wife’s  daughter  by  a  former 
husband.” 

This  canon  is  repeated  almost  verbatim  in  the 
Council  of  Epone,  and  again  in  the  second  Council 
of  Toui’s  (566).  The  same  pi’ohibitions  are  also 
specified  in  the  Council  of  Auxerre  (578). 

Cei'tain  spiidtual  i*elations  have  been  also  in¬ 
cluded  within  the  prohibited  degrees.  This  re¬ 
striction,  however,  was  first  introduce  I  bv 

D 


AFFUSION 


AFRICAN  COUNCILS 


;J6 

Justinian,  who  made  a  law  (Coc?.  Just.  lib.  5, 
tit.  4,  de  Nuptiis,  leg.  26)  forbidding  any  mm 
to  marry  a  woman  for  whom  he  had  been  god¬ 
father  in  baptism,  on  the  ground  that  nothing 
induces  a  more  paternal  aflection,  and,  therefore, 
a  j lister  prohibition  of  mai-riage,  than  this  tie, 
by  which  their  souls  are  in  a  divine  manner 
united  togethei’. 

The  CcTuncil  of  Trullo  (Can.  53)  extends  the 
prohibition  to  the  mother  of  the  godchild  :  and, 
by  the  Canon  law  afterwards,  these  spiritual 
relations  were  carried  still  further,  so  as  to 
exclude  from  marrying  together  even  the  bap- 
tiser  and  the  baptised,  the  catechist  and  cate¬ 
chumen,  and  various  other  degrees  of  supposed 
spiritual  atlinity.  Such  restrictions,  however,  of 
course,  could  not  be  maintained  in  practice,  and 
the  dispensing  power  of  the  Pope  was  accordingly 
extended  to  meet  the  necessity.  (Bingham  ;  Gib¬ 
son’s  Cudex ;  Thorndike  ;  Wheatly,  On  Common 
Pra\jo(.')  [D.  B.] 

AFFUSION.  [Baptism.] 

AFRICAN  CODE.  [African  Councils.] 

AFRICAN  COUNCILS.  Under  this  head 
we  must  include  whatever  Councils  were  held  in 
Africa — no  matter  at  what  places,  only  distinct 
from  Egypt — for  this  simple  reason  :  that  so  many 
of  their  canons  were  so  soon  thrown  together  in- 
discriminately  and  made  one  code,  which,  as 
such,  afterwards  formed  part  of  the  code  received 
in  the  East  and  West.  On  this  African  code  a 
good  deal  has  been  written  by  Justellus  {Cod.  Eccl. 
Afric.,  Paris,  1614,  8vo.),  who  was  the  first  to  pub¬ 
lish  it  separately.  Bishop  Beveridge  (^Synod.  vol. 
ii.  p.  202,  et  seq.),  De  Marca  (^Diss.  de  Vet.  Coll. 
Can.  c.  iv.-xi.),  and  the  Ballerini  in  their  learned 
Appendix  to  the  works  of  St.  Leo  (tom.  iii.  De 
Aiitiq.  Col.  Diss.,  pars  I.  c.  3,  21-9),  but  a  good 
deal  also  remains  unsolved,  and  perhaps  insoluble. 
Several  of  the  canons  contained  in  it  have  been 
assigned  to  more  Councils  than  one,  and  several 
of  the  Councils  differently  dated  or  numbered  by 
different  editors  or  collectors.  Perhaps  the  best 
edition  of  it  is  that  published  in  Greek  and  Latin 
by  Mansi  (tom.  iii.  pp.  699-843).  Not  that  it 
was  originally  promulgated  in  both  languages, 
though,  as  Beveridge  suggests,  the  probability  is 
that  it  had  been  translated  into  Greek  before  the 
Trullan  Council  of  A.D.  683,  by  the  second  canon 
of  which  it  became  part  of  the  code  of  the  Eastern 
.Church.  As  it  stands  in  Mansi,  then,  it  compre¬ 
hends,  first,  the  deliberations  of  the  Council  of 
Carthage,  A.D.  419  ;  then  the  canons  of  the  same 
Synod  to  the  number  of  33  ;  then  “  canones  di- 
•versorum  conciliorum  ecclesiae  Africanae  ” — in 
the  words  of  their  heading,  the  first  of  which  is 
numbered  34,  in  continuous  series  with  the  pre¬ 
ceding,  and  the  last  138.  However,  in  reality, 
the  canons  proper  ought  to  be  said  to  end  with 
the  one  numbered  133,  at  which  point  Aurelius, 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  who  presided,  calls  upon  the 
Council  to  subscribe  to  all  that  had  gone  before, 
which  is  accordingly  done ;  he  signing  first,  the 
primate  of  Numidia  second,  the  legate  from 
Rome,  Famstinus,  Bishop  of  Potenza,  third,  St. 
Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  fourth ;  and  the  other 
bishops — 217  or  229,  according  to  the  i*eading 
selected — in  order ;  and  after  them  all  the  two 
presbyter-legates  from  Rome,  who  sign  last. 

This  done,  the  day  following,  a  letter  in  the 
name  of  the  whole  Synod  was  addressed  to  Boni¬ 


face,  bishop  of  Rome,  to  be  despatched  by  the  three 
legates.  This  is  given  at  length,  and  numbered 
134.  It  acquaints  him  with  their  objections  to 
the  “  commonitorium  ”  or  instructions  received 
by  the  legates  from  the  late  Pope  Zosimus,  par¬ 
ticularly  to  that  part  of  it  bearing  upon  appeals 
to  Rome  in  conformity  with  some  supposed  canons 
of  Nicaea,  which  they  had  not  been  able  to  find  in 
any  Greek  or  Latin  copy  of  the  acts  of  that 
Council  in  their  possession,  and  therefore  beg  him 
to  send  for  authentic  copies  of  them  at  once  from 
the  Churches  of  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Con- 
.stantinople.  This  course  they  had  already  taken 
themselves,  while  recommending  it  to  him  ;  and 
what  follows  as  canon  135  proves  to  be  a  letter 
from  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  to  the  same  bishops, 
telling  them  that  in  conformity  with  their  re¬ 
quest  he  has  sent  them,  by  his  presbyter  Inno¬ 
cent,  faithful  copies  of  the  authentic  Synod  of 
Nicaea,  which  they  would  also  find,  if  they  looked 
for  them,  in  the  ecclesiastical  history :  he  does 
not  say  by  whom. 

In  the  same  way  canon  136  is  a  letter  from 
Atticus,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  telling  them 
that  he  too  sends  them  the  canons  as  defined  bv 
Nicene  Fathers  pure  and  entire,  by  their  mes¬ 
senger  Marcellus  the  sub-deacon,  as  they  had  re¬ 
quested.  We  can  hardly  suppose  the  Synod  to 
have  been  sitting  all  the  time  that  it  must  have 
taken  these  messengers  to  go  and  return.  Next 
a  copy  of  the  Nicene  Creed  follows,  and  is  num¬ 
bered  137.  It  had  been  already  recited  and  ac¬ 
cepted,  together  with  the  Nicene  canons,  in  the 
previous  deliberations  of  the  Council,  before  the 
resolution  to  send  for  authentic  copies  of  both 
had  been  carried  out.  Cvaecilian,  who  was  Bishop 
of  Carthage  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea, 
and  had  attended  it,  had  brought  back  with  him 
copies  of  its  creed  and  canons  in  Latin,  which  had 
been  preserved  with  great  care  by  his  Church 
ever  since.  What  follows  in  the  last  place,  and 
is  numbered  138,  cannot  have  been  written 
earlier  than  A.D.  422,  it  being  a  letter  addressed 
to  Celestine,  the  successor  of  Boniface,  who  died  in 
that  year,  “  our  beloved  lord  (SecTTr^Tp)  and  most 
honoured  brother,”  as  he  is  styled,  in  the  name 
of  Aurelius  and  others  whose  names  are  given 
(St.  Augustine’s  is  not  one)  and  the  rest  of  those 
present  in  the  universal  Council  of  Africa,  in 
which  they  tell  him  that  the  canons  of  which  his 
predecessor  had  spoken  were  nowhere  to  be  found 
in  the  authentic  copies  of  the  Nicene  decrees  just 
received  from  the  East ;  and,  further,  that  in  no 
Council  of  the  Fathers  could  they  find  it  defined 
that  “  any  should  be  despatched  as  it  were  from 
the  side  of  his  Holiness,”  as  had  been  attempted  in 
this  instance.  If  the  last,  or  20th  Council,  as  it  is 
called,  under  Aurelius,  therefore,  has  been  rightly 
a.ssigned  to  A.D.  421, — and  Aurelius  opens  its  pro¬ 
ceedings  by  saying  that,  for  reasons  well  known 
to  his  audience,  it  had  been  suspended  for  the 
space  of  two  years,  thus  connecting  it  with  the 
Council  of  A.D.  419, — either  it  must  have  sat  the 
year  following  as  well,  or  there  must  have  been 
a  21st  Council  under  Aurelius  the  year  following 
to  indite  this  epistle,  which,  as  has  been  observed, 
could  not  have  been  done  till  the  accession  of 
Celestine  had  become  known  in  Africa,  that  is, 
till  towards  the  end  of  A.D.  422.  And  with  it  this 
collection  of  the  canons  of  the  African  Church  is 
brought  to  a  close.  Dionysius  Exiguus,  in  his 
edition,  heads  them  appropriately  “  the  Synod  of 


AFRICAN  COUNCILS 


AFRICAN  COUNCILS 


37 


tne  Afi'icans  at  Carthage  that  enacted  138 
canons,”  meaning  of  course  the  Synods  of  A.D. 
419-22  considered  as  one,  where  they  were 
passed  or  confirmed  (Migne’s  Patrol.^  tom.  67, 
p.  161  et  seq.').  Not  but  there  are  other  collec¬ 
tions  extant  containing  fewer  or  more  canons 
than  ai'e  included  in  this.  For  instance,  the 
Spanish  and  Isidorian  Collections  begin  with  the 
Synod  of  Carthage  under  Gratus,  A.D.  348,  and 
end  with  the  Synod  of  Milevis,  A.D.  402,  making 
eight  Synods  in  all,  one  of  Milevis  and  seven  of 
Carthage  (Migne’s  Patrol.,  tom.  84,  pp.  179-236). 
In  Beveridge  (Synodic,  i.  p.  365-72)  the  synodi¬ 
cal  letter  of  a  Council  of  Carthage  as  far  back  as 
A.D.  258  (or  256  according  to  others)  under  St. 
Cypidan,  is  printed  in  the  form  of  a  canon,  and 
placed,  together  with  the  speeches  mjfde  there  by 
him  and  others,  immediately  before  the  Ancyran 
canons,  as  though  it  had  been  one  of  the  provin¬ 
cial  Councils  whose  canons  had  been  accepted  by 
the  whole  Church,  which  it  was  not.  Earlier  far 
than  either  of  them  is  the  compendium  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  canons,  African  mainly,  232  in  all,  by 
Fulgentius  Ferrandus,  deacon  of  the  Church  of 
Carthage,  seemingly  drawn  from  independent 
sources  (Migne’s  Patrol.,  tom.  67,  p.  949-62). 
Then  earlier  still  than  his  w'ere  the  two  books 
produced  by  Boniface,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  at  the 
Synod  held  there  by  him  A.D.  525,  as  having 
been  discovered  in  the  archives  of  that  church, 
one  volume  containing  the  Nicene  canons  in  part, 
and  those  which  had  been  passed  in  Africa 
before  the  time  of  Aurelius ;  the  other  volume 
called  “  the  book  of  the  canons  of  the  time  of 
Aurelius,”  in  which,  according  to  the  Ballerini, 
nine  of  the  Synods  of  Carthage  under  Aurelius, 
and  some  others  of  Milevis  and  Hippo,  were  con¬ 
tained  (Mansi,  viii.  p.  635-56).  Finally,  there 
is  a  “  Breviarium  canonum  Hipponensium  ” 
printed  in  Mansi,  with  the  comments  of  the 
Ballerini  upon  them,  supposed  to  have  been 
passed  in  the  Synod  held  there  A.D.  393,  at 
which  St.  Augustine  was  present,  but  as  a 
priest ;  and  afterwards  inserted  in  the  Council  of 
Carthage,  held  four  years  afterwards  under 
Aurelian,  amongst  its  own,  and  evidently  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  34th  canon  of  the  Synod  of  A.D. 
419,  as  proposed  by  one  of  the  bishops  named 
Epigonius. 

The  argument  drawn  by  the  Ballerini,  after 
elaborately  compaidng  these  collections,  is  unfa¬ 
vourable  to  the  title  given  by  Justellus  to  the 
138  canons  above  mentioned  of  the  African  code  : 
still  as  designating  those  canons  alone  which 
have  been  received  generally  by  the  East  and 
West,  it  cannot  be  called  meaningless ;  and  this 
fact  having  been,  made  patent  by  his  publication 
of  them,  it  remains  as  a  matter  of  antiquarian 
interest  solely  to  determine  W’hat  canons  belong 
to  what  councils.  The  general  account  seems  to 
be  that  there  are  sixteen  Councils  of  Carthage, 
one  of  Milevis,  and  one  of  Hippo,  whose  canons 
were  received  and  confirmed  by  the  Council  of 
A.D.  419  besides  its  own  (Johnson’s  Vade  Mecum, 
ii.  171);  but  it  is  beset  with  difficulties.  The 
two  canons  interdicting  appeals  beyond  the  sea — 
28  and  125  according  to  the  Latin  numbering, 
and  doubtless  23  and  39  were  passed  with  the 
same  object — have  been  attributed  to  a  Synod  of 
Hippo  hy  some ;  but  the  22nd  canon  of  the 
second  Synod  of  Milevis,  A.D.  416,  to  which  both 
Aurelius  and  St.  Augustine  subscribed,  reads 


identical  wfith  one  of  them,  and  the  34th  canon 
of  a  Council  of  Carthage  two  years  later  with  the 
other.  It  is  of  more  practical  importance  to 
ascertain  whether  they  steer  clear  of  the  Sardican 
canons,  as  some  maintain ;  or  were  framed  in 
antagonism  to  them,  as  others.  The  Sardican 
canons,  it  has  been  said,  allowed  bishops  to  appeal 
to  Rome  ;  the  African  canons  forbade  priests  and 
all  below  priests  to  appeal  to  Rome.  The  African 
fathers  carefully  abstained  from  laying  the  same 
embargo  upon  bishops  :  nay,  they  undertook  to 
observe  the  canons  cited  by  Zosimus  as  Nicene, 
till  authentic  copies  of  the  Nicene  canons  had 
been  obtained  from  the  East.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  whatever  that  all  this  is  delusive.  In  the 
discussion  that  took  place  on  the  canons  cited  in 
the  “  Commonitorium,”  some  were  for  observing 
them,  pending  the  inquiry  ;  St.  Augustine  among 
the  number.  But  when  Aurelius  called  upon  the 
Council  to  say  definitively  what  it  would  do,  the 
collective  reply  was  :  “All  things  that  were  en¬ 
acted  in  the  Nicene  Council  are  acceptable  to  us 
all.”  And  to  no  more  could  they  be  induced  to 
pledge  themselves.  Then  as  to  the  canons,  which 
if  they  did  not  frame,  they  confirmed  subse¬ 
quently  ;  the  28th,  according  to  the  Latin  num¬ 
bering,  is :  “  It  was  likewise  agreed  that  presby¬ 
ters,  deacons,  or  any  of  the  inferior  clergy  with 
causes  to  try,  should  they  have  reason  to  com¬ 
plain  of  the  judgment  of  their  bishops,  might  be 
heard  by  the  neighbouring  bishops  with  consent 
of  their  own  ;  and  such  bishops  might  decide 
between  them  ;  but  should  they  think  they  ought 
to  appeal  from  them  likewise,  let  them  not  ap¬ 
peal  to  transmarine  tribunals,  but  to  the  primates 
of  their  provinces,  as  has  also  been  frequently  en¬ 
acted  in  regard  of  bishops.  But  in  case  any  should 
think  he  ought  to  appeal  to  places  beyond  the 
sea,  let  him  be  received  to  communion  by  nobody 
within  Africa.”  The  woi’ds  “sicut  et  de  episcopis 
saepe  constitutum  est,”  are  found  in  all  manu¬ 
scripts  of  this  canon,  as  it  stands  here.  They  are 
wanting  in  the  125th.  And  the  meaning  is 
clearly,  that  there  had  been  earlier  canons  in 
abundance  passed  for  regulating  episcopal  ap¬ 
peals  ;  for  instance,  the  6th  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Constantinople,  where  it  is  said  that  bishops 
should  be  brought  before  the  greater  Synod  of 
the  diocese,  in  case  the  provincial  Synod  should 
be  unable  to  decide  their  case.  And  nothing  had 
occurred  to  induce  them  to  legislate  further  for 
bishops.  The  present  controversy  had  originated 
with  a  simple  priest,  Apiarius.  Accordingly  their 
canons  were  directed  to  prevent  priests  and  all 
below  priests  in  future  from  doing  as  he  had 
done.  In  short,  they  told  Celestine  that  “  the 
canons  of  the  Nicene  Council  left  all,  whether 
inferior  clergy  or  bishops  themselves,  to  their 
own  metropolitan ;  it  having  been  wisely  and 
justly  considex'ed  there  that,  whatever  questions 
might  arise,  they  ought  to  be  tei’minated  in  their 
own  localities.”  Which  was  in  effect  as  much  as 
telling  him  that  the  genuine  Nicene  canons  were 
in  flat  contradiction  upon  each  point  to  those  so 
designated  by  his  predecessor.  Canon  125  is 
identical  with  the  preceding,  except  that  it  omits 
the  clause  “  sicut  et  de  episcopis,”  &c.,  and  men¬ 
tions  the  African  Councils  as  another  legitimate 
tribunal  of  appeal  besides  the  primates.  Canon 
23,  that  “  bishops  should  not  go  beyond  the  sea 
without  leave  from  their  primate,”  reads  very 
like  another  outpouring  of  their  sentiments  on 


38 


AFRICAN  COUNCILS 


AFRICAN  COUNCILS 


the  same  subject ;  and  canon  39,  that  “  no  pri¬ 
mate  should  be  called  a  prince  of  priests,  or  pon¬ 
tiff,”  seems  almost  borrowed  from  the  well- 
known  invective  of  St.  Cyprian  against  Stephen. 
Such,  then,  is  the  language  of  some  of  the  canons 
of  the  African  code,  fairly  construed,  to  which 
the  assent  of  Rome  as  well  as  Constantinople  has 
been  pledged.  And  “  it  was  of  very  great  autho¬ 
rity,”  says  Mr.  Johnson  (Vade  Mecum,  ii.  p.  171) 
in  the  old  English  Churches;  for  many  of  the 
“  excerptions  ”  of  Egbert  were  transcribed  from 
it. 

It  only  remains  to  set  down  the  different 
African  Councils  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
generally  supposed  to  have  occurred,  with  a  run¬ 
ning  summary  of  what  was  transacted  in  each  ; 
referring  generally  for  all  further  information  to 
]\Iansi,  Cave,  Beveridge,  Johnson,  De  Marca,  the 
Art  de  verifier  les  dates,  and  the  Ballerini.  Num¬ 
bering  them  would  only  serve  to  mislead,  at  least 
if  attempted  in  any  consecutive  series.  Cave,  for 
instance,  reckons  9  African  between  a.d.  401  and 
603,  and  as  many  as  35  Carthaginian  between 
A.D.  215  and  533 ;  but  among  the  latter  are  in¬ 
cluded  6  (between  a.d.  401  and  410),  w’hich  he 
had  already  reckoned  among  the  9  African. 

Carthage,  a.d.  200,217 — Supposed  to  be  one 
and  the  same,  under  Agrippinus,  in  favour 
of  rebaptizing  heretics. 

- —  .  a.d.  251 — Under  St.  Cyprian;  decreed 
that  the  lapsed  should  be  received  to  com¬ 
munion,  but  not  till  they  had  performed 
their  full  penance. 

-  ,  a.d.  252 — Against  Novatian,  who  denied 

that  the  lapsed  were  ever  to  be  received  to 
communion  again  ;  and  Felicissimus,  who  af¬ 
firmed  they  were,  even  before  they  had 
performed  their  penance. 

—  ■  a.d.  254,  255 — Doubtful  in  which  year  ; 

under  St.  Cyprian,  in  favour  of  infant  bap¬ 
tism. 

— —  A.D.  256 — Under  St.  Cyprian,  approving 
the  consecration  by  the  Spanish  bishops  of 
Felix  and  Sabinus  in  place  of  Basil  and 
Martial, — two  bishops  who  had  purchased 
certificates,  or  “libels,”  of  having  sacrificed 
to  idols,  and  declaring  that  Stephen,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  had  interposed  in  favour  of  the 
latter  unreasonably,  from  having  been 
duped  by  them. 

— —  A.D.  256 — Another  held  in  the  same  year 
— or  there  may  have  been  several — in  fa¬ 
vour  of  rebaptizing  all  who  had  received 
heretical  baptism,  when  St.  Cyprian  uttered 
his  celebrated  invective  against  Stephen. 
The  question  was  finally  ruled  in  the  7th 
of  the  Constantinopolitan  canons.  This  is 
the  Council  whose  synodical  letter  is 
printed  by  Beveridge  in  the  form  of  a 
canon,  immediately  before  those  of  Ancyra. 
It  is  given  in  Mansi,  i.  922-6  ;  but  the 
speeches  belonging  to  it  follow  951—92, 
under  the  head  of  “Concil.  Carthag.  iii. 
sub  Cypriano  episcopo  ;”  what  purports  to 
have  been  the  second  being  given  p.  925, 
and  all  three  supposed  to  have  been  held 
A.D.  256. 

CiRTA,  A.D.  305— To  elect  a  new  bishop  in 
place  of  one  who  had  been  a  “  traditor ;” 
that  is,  had  surrendered  copies  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  to  the  Pagan  authorities,  to  which  all 


present,  when  they  came  to  be  asked,  how¬ 
ever,  pleaded  equally  guilty. 

Carthage,  a.d.  312 — Of  70  Dona(ist  bishops 
against  Caecilian,  bishop  of  that  see. 

- A.D.  333 — under  Donatus,  author  of  the 

schism  ;  favourable  to  the  “  traditores.” 

-  A.D.  348 — under  Gratus ;  its  acts  are 

comprised  in  fourteen  chapters,  of  which 
the  first  is  against  rebaptizing  any  that 
have  been  baptized  with  water  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity.  This  is  probably  the  Council 
whose  canons  are  invoked  in  canon  12  of 
the  African  code. 

Theveste,  a.d.  362 — Of  Donatists  quarrelling 
amongst  themselves. 

African,  a.d.  380 — Of  Donatists,  in  condem¬ 
nation  of  Tichonius,  a  Donatist  bishop. 

Carthage,  a.d.  386 — Confirmatory  of  the 
synodical  letter  ofSiricius,  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Leptes,  a.d.  386 — Passed  canons  on  disci¬ 
pline. 

Carthage,  a.d.  390 — Formerly  regarded  as 
two  separate  Councils,  under  Genethlius, 
Bishop  of  Carthage ;  made  13  canons,  by 
the  second  of  which  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons  are  required  to  abstain  from  their 
wives  and  observe  continence.  Mansi  prints 
what  used  to  be  regarded  as  a  second 
Council  of  this  year  twice,  iii.  pp.  691-8 
and  867-76. 

-  A.D.  393  —  Of  Maximian’s  (Donatist 

bishop  of  Carthage)  supporters  against 
Primian  (another  Donatist  bishop  of  Car¬ 
thage). 

Hippo,  a.d.  393 — At  which  St.  Augustine  dis¬ 
puted  “  de  fide  et  symbolo  ”  as  a  pres¬ 
byter. 

Cabarussi  and  of  the  Caverns,  a.d.  394 — Of 
the  same  on  the  same  subject. 

Bagais,  a.d.  394 — Of  Primian’s  supporters, 
against  Maximian. 

-  A.D.  396 — One  canon  only  preserved ; 

against  translations  of  bishops  and  priests. 

Byzatiusi,  a.d.  397 — Confirming  all  that  had 
been  decreed  in  393  at  Hippo. 

Carthage,  a.d.  397 — Called  the  3rd,  either 
reckoning  that  under  Gratus  as  first,  and 
that  under  Genethlius  as  2nd ;  or  else 
supposing  two  to  have  been  held  under 
Aurelius  previously  in  394  and  397,  and 
making  this  the  3rd  under  him  ;  passed  50 
canons,  among  which  the  “Breviarium 
canonum  Hipponensium  ”  is  said  to  have 
been  inserted  (Mansi,  iii.  875,  and  the 
notes). 

Carthage,  a.d.  400 — Called  the  5th  under 
Aurelius  ;  of  72  bishops  ;  passed  15  canons 
on  discipline  (Pagi,  quoted  by  Mansi,  iii. 
p.  972).  Yet,  p.  979,  Mansi  reckons  a  first 
African  Council  in  399,  and  a  2nd  and  3rd 
in  401,  which  he  calls  4th,  5th,  and  6th 
Councils  under  Aurelius,  in  the  pontificate 
of  Anastasius. 

Milevis,  a.d.  402 — To  decide  several  points 
affecting  bishops. 

Carthage,  a.d.  403,  404,  405 — Mansi  makes 
3  African  Councils  of  these ;  a  1st,  2nd, 
and  3rd,  in  the  Pontificate  of  Innocent, 
or  8th,  9th,  and  10th  under  Aurelius,  for 
bringing  back  the  Donatists  to  the  Church 
(iii.  pp.  1155  and  1159). 

— —  A.D.  407,  408,  409 — Called  by  Mansi 


AFRICAN  COUNCILS 


AGAPAE 


39 


4th,  5th,  6th,  and  7th  African  Councils  in 
the  pontificate  of  Innocent,  the  5th  and 
6th  being  regarded  by  him  as  one,  or  the 
11th,  12th,  and  13th  Councils  under  Aure¬ 
lius — all  incorporated  into  the  African 
code  (iii.  p.  1163). 

Carthage,  a.d.  410 — Against  the  Donatists — 
probably  the  14th  under  Aurelius. 

- A.D.  411 — Great  conference  between  the 

Catholics  and  the  Donatists;  Aurelius  and 
St.  Augustine  both  taking  part  on  behalf 
of  the  former  ;  286  bishops  said  to  have 
been  present  on  the  Catholic  side,  and  279 
on  the  Donatist,  yet  313  names  are  given 
on  the  latter  side.  There  were  three  dif¬ 
ferent  stages  in  the  proceedings.  (Mansi, 
iv.  pp.  269  and  276.) 

—  a.d.  412 — In  which  Celestius  was  ac¬ 
cused  of  Pelagianism  and  appealed  to  the 
Pope,  probably  the  15th  under  Aurelius. 

CiRTA,  A.D.  412 — In  the  matter  of  the  Donatists 
— published  a  synodical  letter  in  the  name 
of  Aurelius,  St.  Augustine  and  others.  Sil- 
vanus,  primate  of  Numidia,  heads  it. 

African,  a.d.  414 — Of  Donatists. 

Carthage,  a.d.  416 — or  the  2nd  against  the 
Pelagians:  probably  the  16th  under  Au¬ 
relius  :  composed  of  67  bishops :  addressed 
a  synodical  letter  to  Innocent  of  Rome, 
condemning  both  Pelagius  and  Celestius. 

Milevis,  a.d.  416 — Called  the  2nd  of  Milevis 
against  Pelagius  and  Celestius — composed 
of  60  bishops — published  27  canons  on 
discipline — addressed  a  synodical  letter  to 
Innocent  of  Rome,  to  which  was  appended 
another  in  a  more  familiar  tone  from 
Aurelius,  St.  Augustine  and  three  more. 

Tisdra,  a.d.  417 — Passed  canons  on  disci¬ 
pline. 

Carthage,  a.d.  417,  418 — Against  the  Pela¬ 
gians — regarded  as  one,  probably  the  17  th 
under  Aurelius. 

Hippo,  Suffetula,  Maori  ana,  a.d.  418 — 
Passed  canons  on  discipline  preserved  by 
Ferrandus  (Mansi,  iv.  439). 

Thenes,  a.d.  418 — Published  nine  canons  on 
discipline. 

Carthage,  a.d.  419 — Attended  by  229,  or, 
accoi’ding  to  other  accounts,  217  bishops  ; 
and  by  Faustinus,  Bishop  of  Potenza,  and 
two  presbyters  as  legates  ft-om  Rome.  Its 
proceedings  have  been  anticipated  in  what 
was  said  on  the  African  code.  It  would 
seem  as  if  it  really  commenced  in  418, 
and  extended  through  419.  Pagi  supposes 
33  canons  to  have  been  passed  in  the 
former  year,  and  but  6  in  the  latter 
(Mansi,  iv.  419)  ;  and  Mansi  seems  even  to 
make  two  synods  of  it,  calling  one  a  5th 
or  6th,  and  the  other  a  7th  Council  of 
Carthage  (against  the  Pelagians,  he  pro¬ 
bably  means),  and  yet  evidently  reckoning 
both  together  as  the  18th  under  Aurelius. 
From  419  it  seems  to  have  been  adjourned 
to  421,  and  then  lasted  into  422  at  least, 
as  has  been  shown  above  ;  this  adjourned 
council  was  therefore  in  reality  the  20th 
under  Aurelian,  though  sometimes  headed 
the  18th,  as  being  one  with  the  council  of 
which  it  was  but  the  adjournment.  Then 
the  19th  under  Aurelius  is  the  title  given 
iu  Mansi  (iv.  443)  to  one  held  in  the 


interim,  A.D.  420,  to  determine  certain 
questions  of  precedence  amongst  bishops, 
possibly  the  missing  6th  against  Pela¬ 
gianism. 

Numidia,  a.d.  423 — In  which  Antonius,  a 
bishop  of  that  province,  was  condemned. 

Carthage,  a.d.  426 — At  which  Leporius,  a 
French  presbyter,  cleared  himself  from 
Pelagianism. 

Hippo,  a.d.  426 — At  which  Heraclius  was 
elected  successor  to  St.  Augustine  at  his 
nomination. 

- A.D.  427 — Said  to  have  passed  canons 

29  and  30,  in  the  Latin  numbering  of  the 
African  code  (Mansi,  iv.  539). 

African,  a.d.  484 — To  render  account  of  their 
faith  to  King  Hunneric,  when  it  appeared 
that  of  475  sees,  14  were  then  vacant :  88 
had  been  deprived  of  their  bishops  by 
death,  and  most  of  those  who  survived 
were  in  exile  (Mansi,  vii.  pp.  1156-64 
and  the  notes). 

Byzatium,  a.d.  507 — To  appoint  new  bishops 
in  place  of  those  who  had  died  or  been 
exiled. 

JUNCA,  A.D.  523 — under  Liberatus  :  to  con¬ 
demn  a  bishop  of  the  province  of  Tripoli 
who  had  usurped  a  church  not  in  his 
diocese  ;  St.  Fulgentius,  Bishop  of  Ruspe, 
being  one  of  those  present. 

Carthage,  a.d.  525 — under  Boniface  ;  when 
two  volumes  of  the  canons  were  found,  as 
already  described  (Mansi,  viii.  635-56). 

African,  a.d.  533 — Sent  a  synodical  letter  to 
John  II.  of  Rome  by  Liberatus,  deacon  of 
the  church  of  Carthage,  so  well  known  for 
his  writings. 

Byzatium,  a.d.  541 — Sent  a  deputation  to 
Justinian,  and  legislated  on  discipline. 

African,  a.d.  550 — Excommunicated  Vigilius 
for  condemning  the  three  chapters. 

Suffetula,  a.d.  570 — Passed  canons  on  dis¬ 
cipline,  some  of  which  are  preserved. 

African,  a.d.  594 — ^Against  the  Donatists, 
probably  for  the  last  time. 

Byzatium,  a.d.  602 — To  examine  certain 
charges  made  against  Clement  the  pri¬ 
mate. 

Numidia,  a.d.  603 — To  examine  the  case  of 
Donadeus,  a  deacon,  who  had  appealed 
from  his  bishop  to  Rome. 

Byzatium,  Numidia,  Mauritania,  Car¬ 
thage,  A.D.  633 — Against  Cyrus,  Pyrrhus, 
and  Sergius,  the  Monothelite  leaders. 

Byzatium,  Numidia,  Mauritania,  Car¬ 
thage,  646 — Against  the  Monothelites  : 
the  councils  of  Byzatium,  Numidia,  and 
Mauritania  addressed  a  joint  synodical 
letter :  and  the  Bishop  of  Carthage  a 
letter  in  his  own  name  to  Theodore, 
Bishop  of  Rome  :  all  preserved  in  the  acts 
of  the  Lateran  Council  under  Martin  I., 
A.D.  649.  [E.  S.  F.] 

AGABUS,  the  prophet  (Acts  xxi.  10),  com¬ 
memorated  Feb.  13  (J/ar^^roL  Aom.  \  April 

8  (CaL  Byzant.').  [C.] 

AGAPAE. — The  custom  which  prevailed  in 
the  Apostolic  Church  of  meeting  at  fixed  times 
for  a  common  meal,  of  which  all  alike  partook 
as  brothers,  has  been  touched  on  in  the  Diet,  of 
the  Bible  [Lord’s  Supper.]  It  had  a  precedent 


40 


AGAPAE 


AGAPAE 


in  the  habits  of  the  Essene  communities  in 
Judaea  (Joseph.  Bell.  Jvd.  ii.  8),  and  in  the  tpavoi 
of  Greek  guilds  or  associations ;  in  the  Charisties 
of  Roman  life  (Ovid,  Fasti,  ii.  616),  in  the 
crvfTorLTia  of  Crete,  in  the  ^eiSirta  of  Sparta. 
The  name  apparently  was  attached  to  the  meals 
towards  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  age.  The 
absence  of  any  reference  to  it  in  1  Cor.  xi.  or 
xiii.,  where  reference  would  have  been  so  natural, 
had  it  been  in  use,  may  fairly  be  taken  as  nega¬ 
tive  evidence  that  it  was  not  then  current.  The 
balance  of  textual  authority  inclines  in  favour  of 
ayavais,  rather  than  airdrais,  in  Jude  v.  12, 
and  perhaps  also,  though  less  decidedly,  in  2  Pet. 
ii.  13,  and  we  may  fairly  assume  (without  enter¬ 
ing  on  the  discussion  of  the  authorship  and  date 
of  those  epistles)  that  they  represent  the  termi¬ 
nology  of  the  Church  in  the  period  from  A.D.  60 
to  A.D.  80.  The  true  reading  of  1  Pet.  v.  14 
(eV  (piKiip-OTi  ayoTTTjs)  cannot  be  disjoined  from 
the  fact  that  there  was  a  feast  known  then  or 
very  soon  afterwards  by  that  name,  at  which 
such  a  salutation  was  part  of  the  accustomed 
ceremonials.  Soon  the  name  spread  widely  both 
in  the  East  and  West.  Ignatius  (ad  Smyrn.  c.  8),“ 
for  the  Asiatic  and  Syrian  Churches,  Clement 
for  Alexandria  (Paedag.  ii.  p.  142),  Teidullian  for 
Western  Africa  (Apol.  c.  39),  are  witnesses  for 
its  wide-spread  use. 

It  is  obvious  that  a  meeting  of  this  character 
must  have  been  a  very  prominent  feature  in  the 
life  of  any  community  adopting  it.  The  Christians 
of  a  given  town  or  district  came  on  a  fixed 
day,  probably  the  first  day  of  the  week  (the 
“  stato  die  ”  of  Pliny’s  letter  to  Trajan,  Epp.  x. 
96),  in  some  large  room  hired  for  the  purpose, 
or  placed  at  their  disposal  by  some  wealthy  con¬ 
verts.  The  materials  of  the  meal  varied  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  feeling  or  wealth  of  the  society. 
Bread  and  wine  were,  of  course,  indispensable, 
both  as  connected  with  the  more  solemn  com¬ 
memorative  act  which  came  at  some  period  or 
ether  in  the  service,  and  as  the  staple  articles  of 
food.  Meat,  poultry,  cheese,  milk,  and  honey, 
were  probably  used  with  them  (August.,  c. 
Faust.  XX.  20).  Early  paintings  in  the  cata¬ 
combs  of  Rome  seem  to  show  that  fish  also 
was  used  (Aringhi,  Roma  Subterran.  ii.  pp.  77, 
83,  119,  123,  185,  199,  267).  Both  the  fact  of 
its  being  so  largely  the  common  diet  of  the  poor 
in  Syria  (Matt.  vii.  9,  xiv.  17,  xvi.  34),  and 
the  associations  of  Luke  xxiv.  42,  John  xxi. 
9  (to  say  nothing  of  the  mystical  significance 
attached  to  the  word  IxOvs  as  early  as  Tertul- 
lian),  would  naturally  lead  Christians  to  use  it 
at  their  “  feasts  of  love.”  The  cost  of  the  meal 
fell  practically  on  the  richer  members  of  the 
Church,  whether  it  was  provided  out  of  the 
common  funds,  or  made  up  of  actual  contribu¬ 
tions  in  kind,  meat  or  fruit  sent  for  the  purpose, 
or  brought  at  the  time.  At  the  apjwinted  hour 
they  came,  waited  for  each  other  (1  Cor.  xi.  33), 

“  There  is  a  suggestive  difference,  indicating  a  change 
in  language  and  practice,  between  the  shorter  and  longer 
texts  of  the  Jgnatian  Epistles  in  this  passage.  In  the 
former  the  writer  claims  for  the  bishop  the  sole  prero¬ 
gative  of  baptizing,  or  aydirrjv  noielu.  In  the  latter  the 
word  rrpo(T(t>epeLv  is  interpolated  between  them.  The 
Agape  is  distinguished,  i.  e.  from  the  “Supper  of  the 
Lord,”  with  which  it  had  before  been  identified ;  and  the 
latter,  thus  separated,  is  associated  with  a  more  sacrificial 
terminology,  and  placed  before  the  social  feast. 


men  and  women  seated  at  different  tables,  per- 
ha]>s  on  opposite  sides  of  the  room,  till  the  bi.shop 
or  presbyter  of  the  Church  pronounced  the 
blessing  (cvXoyia).  Then  they  ate  and  drank. 
Originally,  at  some  time  before  or  after the 
rest  of  the  meal,  one  loaf  was  specially  blessed 
and  broken,  one  cup  passed  round  specially  as 
“the  cup  of  blessing.”  When  the  meal  was  over, 
water  was  brought  and  they  washed  their  hands. 
Then,  if  not  before,  according  to  the  season  of  the 
year,  lamps  were  placed  (as  in  the  upper  room  at 
Troas,  Acts  xx.  8)  on  their  stands,  and  the  more 
devotional  part  of  the  evening  began.  Those  . 
who  had  special  gifts  were  called  on  to  expound 
Scripture,  or  to  speak  a  word  of  exhortation,  or  to 
sing  a  hymn  to  God,  or  to  “  Christ  as  to  a  God” 
(Plin.  1.  c.).  It  was  the  natural  time  for  intel¬ 
ligence  to  be  communicated  from  other  Churches, 
for  epistles  from  them  or  their  bishops  to  be 
read,  for  strangers  who  had  come  with  iTricrT6\ai 
avcraTiKod.  to  be  received.  Collections  were 
made  for  the  relief  of  distressed  churches  at  a 
distance,  or  for  the  poor  of  the  district  (1  Cor. 
xvi.  1;  Justin.  M.  Apol.  ii.;  Tertullian.  Apol.  c. 
39).  Then  came  the  salutation,  the  kiss  of  love 
(1  Pet.  V.  14),  the  “  holy  kiss”  ^  (Rom.  xvi.  16), 
which  told  of  brotherhood,  the  final  prayer,  the 
quiet  and  orderly  dispersion.  In  the  ideal  Agapae, 
the  eating  and  drinking  never  passed  beyond  the 
bounds  of  temperance.  In  practice,  as  at 
Corinth,  the  boundary  line  may  sometimes  have 
been  transgressed,  but  the  testimony  of  Pliny  in 
his  letter  to  Trajan  (1.  c.),  as  well  as  the  state¬ 
ments  of  the  Apologists,  must  be  allowed  as 
proving  that  their  general  character  at  first  was 
that  of  a  pure  simplicity.  The  monstrous 
slanders  of  “  Thyestean  banquets  ”  and  “  shame¬ 
less  impurity”  were  but  the  prurient  inventions 
of  depraved  minds,  who  inferred  that  all  secret 
meetings  must  be  like  those  of  the  Bacchanalian 
orgies  which  had  at  various  periods  alarmed  the 
Roman  Senate  with  their  infinite  debasement 
(Liv.  xxxix.  13,  14).  At  Alexandria,  indeed,  as 
was  natural  in  a  wealthy  and  luxurious  city, 
there  seems  to  have  been  a  tendency  to  make 
the  Agape  too  much  of  a  sumptuous  feast, 
like  the  entertainments  of  the  rich,  and  to  give 
the  name  to  banquets  to  which  only  the  rich 
were  invited.  Clement  protests  with  a  natural 
indignation  against  such  a  misapplication  of  it 
by  those  who  sought  to  “  purchase  the  promise 
of  God  with  such  feasts”  (Paedag.  ii.  1,  §  4,  p.  61). 

It  seems  probable  from  his  protest  against  the 
use  of  flutes  at  Christian  feasts  (Paedag.  ii.  4,  p. 
71)  that  instrumental  music  of  a  secular  and 
meretricious  chai-acter  had  come  to  be  used  instead 
of  the  “  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs” 
(Eph.  V.  19,  Col.  iii.  16)  which  had  been  in  use, 
without  accompaniment,  at  the  original  Agapae. 
Clement,  however,  permits  the  employment  of 
the  harp  or  lyre. 

At  first  the  practice  would  naturally  serve  as  a 

*>  Chrysostom  (Horn.  27  and  54,  on  1  Cor.  xi.),  followed 
by  Theodoret  and  Theophylact  in  loc.,  and  most  liturgical 
writers,  say  “  before,”  but  obviously  under  the  influence 
of  later  practice,  and  the  belief  that  the  Eucharist  could 
not  have  been  received  otherwise  than  fasting  in  the  time 
of  the  Apostles. 

^  We  may  probably  think  of  some  order  like  that  w  hich 
attends  the  use  of  a  “  grace-cup  ”  in  college  or  civic  feast ; 
each  man  kissed  by  his  neighbour  ou  one  side,  and  kissing 
in  turn  him  who  sat  on  the  other. 


AGAPAE 


AGAPE 


41 


witness  and  bond  of  the  brotherhood  of  Christians. 
Rich  and  pool',  even  master  and  slave,  met  together 
on  the  same  footing.  What  took  place  but  once 
a  year  in  the  Roman  saturnalia  was  repeated  in 
the  Christian  society  once  a  week.  But  in  pro¬ 
portion  as  the  society  became  larger,  and  the 
sense  of  brotherhood  less  living,  the  old  social 
distinctions  would  tend  to  reassert  themselves. 
The  Agapae  would  become  either  mere  social 
entertainments  for  the  wealthy,  as  at  Alexan¬ 
dria,  or  a  mere  dole  of  food  for  the  poor, 
as  in  Western  Africa  (Augustin,  c.  Faust um 
XX.  20),  and  in  either  case  would  lose  their 
original  significance.  Other  causes  tended  also 
to  throw  them  into  the  back-ground.  When 
Christians  came  to  have  special  buildings  set 
apart  for  worship,  and  to  look  on  them  with 
something  of  the  same  local  reverence  that  the 
Jews  had  had  for  the  Temple,  they  shrank  from 
sitting  down  in  them  to  a  common  meal  as  an 
act  of  profanation.  The  Agapae,  therefore,  were 
gradually  forbidden  to  be  held  in  churches,  as 
by  the  Council  of  Laodicea  (c.  27),  and  that  of  3rd 
Carthage  a.d.  391  (c.  30),  and  that  in  Trullo 
much  later  **  (a.d.  692).  This,  of  course,  to¬ 
gether  with  the  rule  of  the  3rd  Council  of  Carthage 
(c.  29),  that  the  Eucharist  should  be  received 
fasting,  and  the  probable  transfer,  in  consequence 
of  that  rule,  of  the  time  of  its  “celebration”  from 
the  evening  to  the  morning,  left  the  “  feast  of 
love  ”  without  the  higher  companionship  with 
which  it  had  been  at  first  associated,  and  left  it 
to  take  more  and  more  the  character  of  a  pauper 
meal.  Even  the  growing  tendency  to  asceticism 
led  men  who  aimed  at  a  devout  life  to  turn  aside 
fastidiously  from  sitting  down  with  men  and 
women  of  all  classes,  as  a  religious  act.  So 
Tertullian,  who  in  his  Apology  had  given  so 
beautiful  a  description  of  them,  after  he  became 
a  Montanist,  reproaches  the  Church  at  large 
with  the  luxury  of  its  Agapae,  and  is  not  ashamed 
to  repeat  the  heathen  slander  as  to  the  preva¬ 
lence  in  them  even  of  incestuous  licence  (^De 
Jejun.  c.  xvii.).  One  effort  was  made,  as  by  the 
Council  of  Gangra,  to  restore  them  to  their  old 
position.  Those  who  despised  and  refused  to 
come  to  them  were  solemnly  anathematised  (c. 
11).  But  the  current  set  in  strongly,  and  the 
practice  gradually  died  out.  Their  close  con¬ 
nexion  with  the  annual  commemoration  of  the 
deaths  of  martyrs,  and  the  choice  of  the  graves 
of  martyrs  as  the  place  near  which  to  hold  them, 
was,  perhaps,  an  attempt  to  raise  them  out  of 
the  disrepute  into  which  they  had  fallen.  And 
for  a  time  the  attempt  succeeded.  Augustine 
describes  his  mother  Monica  as  having  been  in 
the  habit  of  going  with  a  basket  full  of  provi¬ 
sions  to  these  A.gapae,  which  she  just  tasted  her¬ 
self,  and  then  distributed  {Confess,  vi.  2).  And 
this  shows  the  prevalence  of  the  practice  in 
Western  Africa.  In  Northern  Italy,  however, 
Ambrose  had  suppressed  them  on  account  of  the 
disorders  which  were  inseparable,  and  their  re¬ 
semblance  to  the  old  heathen  Parentalia,  and 
Augustine,  when  he  returned  to  Africa,  urged 
Aurelius,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  to  follow  the 
example  {Epist.  xxii.).  The  name,  indeed,  still 
lingered  as  given  to  the  annual  dedication  feasts 


The  significance  of  the  reversal  of  the  prohibition 
at  6<y  late  a  date,  is  that  it  shews  that  the  practice  still 
lingered. 


of  churches  at  Rome  in  the  sixth  century  (Greg. 
M.,  Epp.  ii.  76),  and  the  practice  left  traces  of 
itself,  in  the  bread,  blest  as  distinct  from  conse¬ 
crated,  which,  under  the  title  of  Eulooia,  was 
distributed  in  churches,  or  taken  from  them  to 
absent  members  of  the  congregation,  (2)  in  the 
practice,  prohibited  by  the  Apostolic  canons  (c. 
3),  and  by  the  Council  in  Trullo  (c.  28,  57,  99) 
of  bringing  to  the  altar  honey,  milk,  grapes, 
poultry,  joints  of  meat,  that  the  priest  might 
blf!ss  them  there  before  they  were  eaten  at  a 
common  table.  The  grapes  appear,  indeed,  to 
have  been  actually  distributed  with  the  ayia,  or 
consecrated  elements,  while  the  joints  of  meat 
are  mentioned  as  a  special  enormity  of  the 
Armenian  Church.  (3)  Traces  of  the  Agapae 
are  to  be  found  lastly  in  the  practice  which 
prevailed  in  Egypt,  from  the  neighbourhood  of 
Alexandria  to  the  Thebaid,  in  the  5th  century, 
of  meeting  on  the  evening  of  Saturday  for  a 
common  meal,  generally  full  and  varied  in  its 
materials,  after  which  those  who  were  present 
partook  of  the  “  mysteries  ”  (Sozom.  H.  E. 
vii.  1 9 ;  Socrates,  H.  E.  v.  22).  The  practice, 
then,  noticed  as  an  exception  to  the  practice 
of  all  other  Churches  (comp.  Augustin.  Epist. 
ad  Jan.  i.  5)  was  probably  a  relic  of  the  primi¬ 
tive  Church,  both  as  to  time  and  manner,  when 
the  Lord’s  Supper  had  been,  like  other  suppers, 
eaten  in  the  evening,  when  an  evening  meeting 
on  “  the  first  day  of  the  week”  meant,  according 
to  the  Jewish  mode  of  speech,  the  evening  of 
Saturday,  when  the  thought  that  “  fasting”  was 
a  necessary  condition  of  partaking  of  the  Supper 
of  the  Lord  was  not  only  not  present  to  men’s 
minds,  but  was  absolutely  excluded  by  the 
Apostle’s  rule,  that  men  who  could  not  wait 
patiently  when  the  members  of  the  Church  met, 
should  satisfy  their  hunger  beforehand  in  their 
own  houses  (1  Cor.  xi.  34). 

The  classification  of  Agapae,  according  to  the 
occasion  on  which  they  were  held,  as  (1)  con¬ 
nected  with  the  anniversaries  of  martyrdoms 
[comp.  Natali'JTa],  (2)  as  Cunnu'nales  [comp. 
Marriage],  (3)  as  accompanying  funerals 
[Burial],  (4)  as  at  the  dedication  festivals  of 
churches  [Dedications],  must  be  looked  on  as 
an  after-growth  of  the  primitive  practice  of 
weekly  meetings.  Details  will  be  found  under 
the  respective  headings. 

We  have  lastly  to  notice  the  probable  use  at  the 
Agapae  of  cups  and  plates  with  sacred  emblems 
and  inscriptions,  of  which  so  many  have  been 
found  in  the  Catacombs  [Glass,  Christian],  and 
which  almost  suggest  the  idea  of  toasts  to  the  me¬ 
mory  of  the  martyrs  whose  Natalities  were  cele¬ 
brated.  “  Ffefor  Vivas  in  Nomine  Laureti” 
(Buonarrott.  Plate  xix.  fig.  2),  “  Semper  Refri- 
GERis  IN  Nomine  Dei”  {Ibid.  xx.  2),  “  niE 
ZH2AI2  EN  ArA©Ol2,  DULCIS  ANIMA  VI¬ 
VAS,  BIBAS  (for  Vivas)  IN  PACE,”  are  ex- 
amj)les  of  the  inscriptions  thus  found.  In  the 
judgment  of  the  archaeologist  just  referred  to, 
they  go  back  to  the  third,  or  even  to  the  second 
century.  The  mottoes  were  probably  determined 
by  the  kind  of  Agape  for  which  they  were  intended 
(comp.  Martigny,  art.  Fonds  de  Coupe.').  [E.H.P.] 

AGAPE.  (1)  V’^irgin  of  Antioch,  commemo¬ 
rated  Feb.  15  and  March  10  {Mart,  llieron.). 

(2)  Vii'gin  of  Thessalonica,  commemorated  April 
3  {Mart grot.  Rom.  T  cA). 


42  AGAPETI,  AND  AGAPETAE 

(3)  ^liirtyr,  April  16  {Cal.  Buznnt.^. 

(4)  Daughter  of  Sophia,  Sept.  17  {lb.'). 

(5)  Virgin,  commemorated  at  Home  Aug.  8 
(J/.  Hieron.). 

(6)  Virgin,  commemorated  at  Horaclea,  Nov. 

20  {M.  Micron.).  [C.] 

AGAPETI,  and  AGAPETAE,  respectively, 
men  who  dwelt  in  the  same  house  with  dea¬ 
conesses,  and  virgins  who  dwelt  in  the  same 
house  with  monks,  under  a  profession  of  merely 
spiritual  love ;  the  latter  of  the  two  akin  to 
(TuyeiaaKToi,  and  also  c'alled  a5e\(pai :  denounced 
by  St.  Greg.  Naz.  {Cann.  Ill.),  by  St.  Jerome 
{^Ad  Eustoch.  and  Ad  Occanuin, — “  Agajtetarum 
])estis  ”),  by  St.  Chrysostom  (Pallad.  in  V.  S. 
C/triis.  p.  45),  by  Epiphanius  {Maer.  l.xiii.,  Ixxi.x.), 
and  by  Theodoret  {In  Epist.  ad  Philcm.  v.  2) ; 
and  forbidden  by  Justinian  {Novell,  vi.  c.  6),  and 
others  (see  Photius  in  Nomocan.  tit.  viii.  c.  xiv. 
p.  99).  (Du  Cange,  Meursius  in  Glossar.,  Suicer.) 
The  Irish  Rules  and  Penitentials  severely  con¬ 
demn  a  like  practice:  see  e.  g.  Reg.  Columban. 
ii.  13.  And  the  “  second  order  of  saints,”  in 
Ireland  itself  (according  to  the  well-known 
document  published  by  LTssher),  “  abnegabant 
mulierum  administrationem,  separantes  eas  a 
monasteriis,”  owing  apparently  to  the  abuse 
arising  from  the  practice  when  permitted  by 
“  the  first  order.”  See  Todd,  Life  of  St.  Patric/t, 
pp.  90-92.  ('See  (TwEiaaKToi.)  [A.  \V.  H.] 

AGAPETUS  or  AGAPITUS.  1.  Comme¬ 
morated  March  24  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae). 

(2)  Of  Asia,  April  12  {Mart.  Hieron.). 

(3)  The  deacon,  martyr  at  Rome,  commemo¬ 
rated  with  Felicissimus,  Aug.  6  {Mart.  Bom. 
Vet.,  Micron.,  Bedae).  Proper  office  in  Gregorian 
Sacramentary,  p.  118,  and  Antiphon  in  Lib. 
Aiitiph.,  p.  705. 

(4)  Martyr  at  Praeneste,  commemorated  Aug. 

18  {Mart.  Pom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae).  Proper 
office  in  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  p.  123,  and 
Antiphon  in  Lib.  Antiph.  p.  707.  [C.] 

AGAPIUS.  (1)  The  bishop,  martyr  in  Nu- 
midia,  commemorated  April  29  {Mart.  Pom.  Vet.). 

(2)  And  companions,  martyrs  at  Gaza,  March 
15  {Cal.  Byzant.).  ,  [C.] 

AGATHA  or  AGATHE.  (1)  The  virgin, 
martyr  at  Catana,  passion  commemorated  Feb.  5 
{Mart.  Pom.  Vet.,  Micron.,  Bedae,  Cal.  Byzant.). 
Another  commemoration,  July  12  {M.  Hieron.). 
One  of  the  saints  of  the  Gregorian  Canon.  Proper 
office  for  her  Natalis  in  Gregorian  Sacramentary, 
p.  25,  and  Antiphon  in  Li').  Antiph.  p.  665. 

(2)  Commemorated  April  2  {2Iart.  Hieron.). 

[c.] 

AGATHANGELUS,  martyr,  commemorated 
Jan.  23  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

AGATHENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Agde.] 

AGATHO.  (1)  Martyr  at  Alexandria,  com¬ 
memorated  Dec.  7  {2Iart.  Pom.  Vet.). 

(2)  Deacon,  April  4  {Mart.  Bedae). 

(3)  Commemorated  July  5  (T6.  et //iieron.).  [C.] 

AGATHONICA  of  Pergamus,  commemo¬ 
rated  April  13  {Mart.  Pom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

AGATKONICUS,  martyr,  commemorated 
Aug.  22  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.J 

AGATHUS,  commemorated  May  8  {Mart. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

AGAUNE,  COUNCIL  OF  (Agaunense 


AGE,  CANONICAL 

CoNcruL-.M),  April  30,  a.d.  515,  51 P,  or  523;  of 
sixty  bisliops  and  sixty  nobles,  uudei  SIgismund, 
King  of  the  Burgundians  ;  establi.shed  the  “  Laus 
Perenuis”  in  the  monastery  of  Agaune  for  St. 
Maurice  in  the  Valais),  then  also  endowed  with 
lands  and  privileges.  Maximus,  Bishop  of  Geneva, 
heads  the  signatures  ;  but  Avitus,  Archbishop 
of  Vienne,  is  supposed  to  have  been  also  present 
(Mansi,  viii.  531-538).  [A.  W.  H.] 

AGDE,  COUNCIL  OF  (Agathense  Conci¬ 
lium),  in  Nai  bonne,  a.d.  506,  Sept.  10  or  11; 
of  35  bishops  from  the  South  of  France  ;  in  the 
22nd  year  of  Alaric,  (Arian)  King  of  the  Goths  ; 
enacted  73  canons  in  matters  of  discipline ; 
among  other  things,  forbidding  “  bigami  ”  to 
be  ordained ;  commanding  married  priests  and 
deacons  to  abstain  from  their  wives ;  fixing  25 
as  the  age  of  a  deacon,  30  as  that  of  a  priest  or 
bishop,  &c.  It  was  assembled  “  ex  permissu 
domini  nostri  gloriosissimi  magnificentissimique 
regis,”  sc.  Alaric ;  without  any  mention  of  the 
pope  (Symmachus),  save  as  mentioning  his  year 
in  the  title  (Mansi,  viii.  319-346).  [A.  W.  H.] 

AGE,  CANONICAL.  The  age  required  by 
the  canons  for  ordination.  In  the  case  of  bishops, 
it  appears  to  have  been  the  rule  of  the  Church 
from  early  times  that  they  should  be  thirty 
years  old  at  the  time  of  their  ordination.  This 
rule,  however,  was  frequently  dispensed  with, 
eitl'.er  in  cases  of  necessity  or  in  order  to  pro¬ 
mote  persons  of  extraordinary  worth  and  singular 
qualifications.  It  may  be  questioned  whether 
this  rule  was  observed  from  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  as  it  is  nowhere  enjoined  in  St.  Paul’s 
Pastoral  Epistles  or  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  And  in  the  so-called  Apostolical  Consti¬ 
tutions,  which  may  be  taken  as  expressing  the 
system  of  the  Eastern  Church  as  it  was  es¬ 
tablished  about  the  end  of  the  third  century, 
i  fifty  is  the  age  required  of  a  bishop  at  his  ordi¬ 
nation,  except  he  be  a  man  of  singular  merit, 
which  may  compensate  for  the  want  of  years. 

The  age  of  thirty  is  required  by  implication 
by  the  Council  of  Neocaesarea,  a.d.  314,  which 
forbids  to  admit  any  one,  however  well  qualified, 
to  the  priesthood,  under  thirty  years  of  age, 
because  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  at  that  age  be¬ 
gan  His  ministry.  The  Council  of  Agde  (Con¬ 
cilium  Agathense)  forbids  the  ordination  of 
bishops  or  priests  under  thirty  years  of  age. 

By  this  rule,  as  enacted  by  the  above-named 
councils,  the  ordinary  practice  of  the  Church 
has  been  regulated.  The  deviations,  however, 
in  special  cases  have  been  numerous,  and  for 
the.se  a  warrant  may  be  found  in  the  case  of 
Timothy,  whose  early  ordination  as  Bishop  of 
Ephesus  is  inferred  from  the  Apostle’s  admo¬ 
nition, — “Let  no  man  despise  thy  youth”  (I 
Tim.  iv.  12).  We  learn  from  Eusebius,  that 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus  and  his  brother  Atheno- 
dorus  were  both  ordained  bishops  x’ery  young  ; 
eri  v4ovs  6.a<pu}.  It  is  probable  that  Athanasius 
was  ordained  to  the  see  of  Alexandria  before  he 
was  thirty.  Remigius,  Bishop  of  Rheims,  as  ail 
authors  agree,  was  ordained  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
two,  .\.D.  471. 

In  later  times,  bovs  of  eleven  or  twelve  vears 
of  age  have  been  ordained  to  the  episcopate  by 
papal  dispensation ;  but  this  abuse  was  unknown 
to  the  ancient  Church. 

Prasbyters,  like  bishops,  might  not  be  ordained 


AGENDA 


AGNUS  DEI 


43 


before  the  age  of  thirty.  Justinian,  indeed, 
enacted  that  none  should  be  a  presbyter  before 
thirty-five;  but  the  Sixth  General  Council  of  Con¬ 
stantinople  I’educed  it  to  the  old  period,  appointing 
thirty  for  a  priest  and  twenty-five  for  a  deacon. 
Which  ages  were  also  settled  in  the  Saxon  Church, 
as  appears  by  Egbert’s  Collection  of  the  Canons 
then  in  force  in  this  country. 

The  councils  of  Agde,  506,  of  Carthage,  397, 
of  Trullo,  692,  of  Toledo,  633,  all  prescribe 
twenty-five  as  the  minimum  of  age  for  a  deacon  ; 
and,  according  to  Bingham,  this  rule  was  very 
nicely  observed,  so  that  we  scarce  meet  with  an 
instance  of  any  one  that  was  ordained  before  this 
age  in  all  the  history  of  the  Church.  For  this  the 
Council  of  Toledo  cites  the  Levitical  precedent. 

In  the  Greek  Church  the  age  of  thirty  is  still 
prescribed  for  a  priest,  and  twenty-five  for  a 
deacon.  In  our  own  Church,  the  first  Prayer- 
book  of  Edward  VI.  prescribed  twenty-one  for 
deacons,  twenty-four  for  priests.  The  present 
rubric  is  a  provision  of  Canon  34. 

(Bingham,  x.  1,  xx.  20  ;  Landon’s  Manual  of 
Councils  ;  Comber’s  Companion  ;  Frayerhook  in¬ 
terleaved.')  [D.  B.] 

AGENDA  (from  agere  in  the  special  sense  of 
performing  a  sacred  act).  A  word  used  to  desig¬ 
nate  both  the  mass  and  other  portions  of  Divine 
service. 

1.  In  the  plural. — The  second  Council  of  Car¬ 
thage  (390)  speaks  of  presbyters  who  committed 
a  bx'each  of  discipline,  in  that  “  agant  agenda  ”  in 
private  houses,  without  the  authority  of  the 
bishop  (Canon  9).  Innocent  I.  {Epistola  ad  De- 
centium,  §  3,  p.  552,  Migne)  speaks  of  cele¬ 
brating  other  agenda,  in  contrast  with  the  con¬ 
secration  of  the  mysteries. 

2.  The  plural  form  “agenda”  came  in  time, 
like  “  Biblia,”  to  be  considered  a  singular  femi¬ 
nine.  For  instance,  St.  Benedict  in  his  Rule,  c. 
13  (p.  291),  speaking  of  the  morning  and  evening 
office,  says,  “  Agenda  matutina  et  vespertina  non 
transeat.” 

3.  The  word  “agenda”  is  not  unfrequently 

used  absolutely  to  denote  the  office  for  the  dead. 
This  may  not  improbably  be  the  case  in  the 
canon  quoted  above  by  the  II.  Cone.  Carthage ; 
and  it  is  certainly  used  in  this  sense  by  Venerable 
Bede,  when,  speaking  of  local  commemorations  of 
the  dead,  he  says,  “  Per  omne  sabbatum  a  presby- 
tero  loci  illius  Agendae  eorum  sollenniter  cele- 
brantur  ”  (  Vita  St.  Augustini,  in  Ducange  s.  v.). 
Compare  Menard’s  note  in  his  edition  oi  Gregory’s 
Sacramentary^  p.  482.  (Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v. 
“  Agenda  ”).  [C.] 

AGNES,  or  AGNE  (071/^).  (1)  The  virgin, 

martyr  at  Rome.  Her  Natalis,  which  is  an  an¬ 
cient  and  highly-honoured  festival,  is  celebrated 
Jan.  21  (Mart.  Eom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae) :  Octave, 
Jan.  28  (ib.).  Proper  office  for  the  Natalis  in 
the  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  p.  23,  and  Antiphon 
in  Lib.  Antii-h.  p.  664.  By  Theodorus  Lector 
(Ecloga  ii.)  the  deposition  of  her  relics  is  joined 
with  the  deposition  of  those  of  Stephen  and 
Laurence  (see  Greg.  Sacram.  p.  304,  ed.  Menard). 
She  is  one  of  the  saints  of  the  Gregorian  Canon, 
where  her  name  appears  in  the  form  Agne. 

Tillemont  (Mem.  Eccl.  iv.  345)  conjectures 
that  the  second  festival  on  Jan.  28  commemorates 
the  apparition  of  St.  Agnes  to  her  parents  eight 
days  after  her  death. 


Her  remains  are  said  to  have  been  buried  in  a 
praediolum  belonging  to  her  family  on  the  Via 
Nomentana.  The  crypt  dug  to  receive  them  bo- 
came  the  nucleus  of  the  famous  cemetery  of  St. 
Agnes.  Two  churches  at  Rome  are  dedicated  to 
St.  Agnes,  one  of  which  is  said  to  be  that  built 
by  Constantine  at  the  request  of  his  daughter 
Constantia,  and  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  an¬ 
cient  basilicas  in  Rome.  In  early  times,  it  was 
I  customary  for  the  Pope  to  be  present  at  the  fes- 
!  tival  of  St.  Agnes  in  this  church,  in  which 
I  Gregory  the  Great  delivered  several  of  his  homi¬ 
lies  (e.g.  in  Matt.  c.  xiii.,  Horn.  2);  and  in  this 
I  church  still,  on  Jan.  21,  the  lambs  are  blessed, 
from  the  wool  of  which  the  Pallia  destined  for 
archbishops  are  to  be  made. 


In  the  illustration,  taken  from  an  ancient 
glass  vessel,  the  doves  on  each  side  bear  the  two 
crowns  of  Chastity  and  of  Martyrdom.  This 
representation  illustrates  the  verse  of  Prudentius 
(Feristeph.  xiv.  7), 

“Duplex  corona  est  praestita  martyri.” 

Representations  of  St.  Agnes  are  found  very  fre¬ 
quently  on  glass  vessels  in  the  catacombs ;  only 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  are  found  more  often  so 
represented.  When  alone,  she  is  generally  placed 
between  two  trees ;  sometimes  she  is  at  the  side 
of  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  sometimes  between  the 
Lord  and  St.  Laurence ;  between  St.  Vincent 
and  St.  Hippolytus ;  between  St.  Peter  and  St. 

1  Paul. 

I  (2)  There  is  another  festival  of  St.  Agnes  on 
Oct.  18  (Mart.  Hieron.).  Tillemont  (1.  c.)  con¬ 
jectures  that  this  was  instituted  in  commemora- 
I  tion  of  the  dedication  of  some  church  in  her 
I  honour.  (Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  chret.  p. 
22  ff.  ;  the  Abbe  Martigny  has  also  written  a 
monograph.  Notice historique,  liturgique,  et  arche'o- 
logique  sur  le  Culte  de  Stc.  Ague's.  Paris  et 
Lyons,  1847.)  [C.] 

AGNITUS,  commemorated  Aug.  16  (J/arL 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

AGNUS  DEI.  The  versicle  “  Agnus  Dei,  qui 
tollis  peccata  mundi.  Miserere  nobis,”  is  generally 
spoken  of  as  the  “  Agnus  Dei.” 

1.  A  reference  to  the  “  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,”  was  intro¬ 
duced  (as  was  natural)  into  some  of  the  liturgies 
at  an  early  period.  Thus  in  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
Chrysostom,  during  the  breaking  of  the  bread, 
the  priest  says,  MeAiCcTai  kuI  Siatiepi^fTai  6 


44 


AGNUS  DEI 


AGNUS  DEI 


ajj.v'bs  Tov  0eoG  (Neale’s  Tetralogia,  176);  and  in 
t’lat  of  St.  James,  after  breaking  and  signing 
with  the  cross,  the  priest  says,  ’iSe  6  a/xj/hs  tov 
Qeov,  b  Tibs  TOV  UaTpbs,  b  a^poov  tt)v  afiapTiav 
TOV  k6(T/xov,  &<payia(r6els  vntp  Trjs  tov  KbffpLov 
Cwrjs  Ka\  (TwTrjp'ias  (lb.  179).  And  in  the  ancient 
“  Morning  Hymn  ”  [Gloria  in  Excelsis] 
adopted  both  in  Eastern  and  Western  Liturgies, 
the  deprecation  is  found  :  'O  afivhs  tov  Qeov, 
*0  Tibs  TOV  UaTpbsy  b  aipo)v  Tcts  a/xapTias  tov 
k6<tijlov,  'EKerja-ou  ^pLUS. 

2.  At  the  Trullan  Council  (692)  it  was  decreed, 
among  other  matters,  that  the  Lord  should  no 
longer  be  pictured  in  churches  under  the  form  of  a 
lamb,  but  in  human  form  (Canon  82).  The  then 
Pope,  however,  Sergius  I.,  rejected  the  decrees  of 
this  Council  (though  its  conclusions  had  been 
subscribed  by  the  Papal  legates),  and  Anastasius 
the  Librarian  (inBaron.,an.701,vol.xii.  179)tells 
us  that  this  Pope  first  ordered  that,  at  the  time 
of  the  breaking  of  the  Lord’s  body,  the  “Agnus 
Dei  ”  should  be  chanted  by  clerks  and  people. 
Some  think  that  Sergius  ordered  it  to  be  said 
thrice,  where  it  had  previously  been  said  only 
once  ;  others,  as  Krazer  (^De  Liturgiis,  p.  545), 
that  he  ordered  it  to  be  said  by  the  whole  body 
of  the  clergy  and  people,  as  being  a  prayer  for 
all ;  not,  as  previously,  by  the  choir  only.  How¬ 
ever  this  may  be,  the  evidence  of  the  Ordines 
Romani  I.,  II.,  and  III.  (Mabillon,  Museum  Itali- 
cum,  ii.  pp.  29,  50,  59),  and  of  Amalarius  of 
Metz,  shows  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  9th  cen¬ 
tury  the  choir  alone,  and  not  the  priest  at  the 
altar,  chanted  the  “  Agnus  Dei and  this  was 
the  case  also  when  Innocent  III.  wrote  his  trea¬ 
tise  on  the  “  Mystery  of  the  Altar.”  The  Ordines 
Romani  do  not  define  the  number  of  repetitions  of 
the  versicle  ;  but  Martene  (J)e  Ritihus  Ecclesiae, 
lib.  i.,  c.  4,  art.  9)  proves  from  ancient  documents 
that  the  threefold  repetition  was  expressly  en¬ 
joined  in  some  churches — as  in  that  of  Tours — 
before  the  year  1000 ;  and  in  the  12th  century 
this  custom  prevailed  in  most  churches.  Subse¬ 
quently,  probably  from  about  the  14th  century, 
the  “  Agnus  Dei  ”  came  to  be  said  in  a  low  voice 
by  the  priest  with  his  deacon  and  subdeacon.  In 
later  times,  says  Innocent  III.  (^De  sacro  Altaris 
Mysterio,  i.  4,  p.  910,  Migne),  as  trouble  and  ad¬ 
versity  fell  upon  the  Church,  the  response  at  the 
third  repetition  was  changed  into  “  Dona  nobis 
pacem  in  the  church  of  St.  John  Lateran 
only  was  the  older  form  retained.  When 
the  substitution  of  “  Dona  nobis  pacem  ” 
was  made  is  uncertain ;  it  is  found  in  no 
MS.  older  than  the  year  1000.  The  reason 
which  Innocent  gives  for  the  introduction  of  the 
prayer  for  peace  may  perhaps  be  the  real  one ; 
but  it  is  not  an  unreasonable  conjecture  that  it 
had  reference  to  the  “pax,”  or  kiss  of  peace, 
which  was  to  follow. 

3.  Gerbert  (i)e  Musicd  Sacra,  i.  p.  458)  men¬ 
tions  among  ancient  customs  the  chanting  of  the 
“  Agnus  Dei  ”  by  the  choir  during  the  time  that 
the  people  communicated,  before  the  antiphon 
called  “Communio”  (Daniel,  Codex  Liturgicus, 
i.  148). 

4.  The  “Agnus  Dei”  was  sometimes  interpo¬ 
lated  with  “tropes;”  for  instance,  the  following 
form  is  quoted  by  Cai’dinal  Bona  from  an  ancient 
missal,  tlie  date  of  which  he  does  not  mention  : 
“Agnus  Dei,  qui  tollis  peccata  mundi,  crimina 
tollis,  aspera  mollis,  Agnus  honoris,  Miserere  nobis. 


Agnus  Dei,  qui  tollis  peccata  mundi,  vulne  -a 
sanas,  at  dua planas,  Agnus  amoris.  Miserere  nobis. 
Agnus  Dei,  qui  tollis  peccata  mundi,  sordida 
mundas,  cuncta  foecundas,  Agnus  odoris.  Dona 
nobis  pacem”  (^l)e  Rebus  Liturgicis,  lib.  ii.  c.  16, 
p.  473).  And  Rupert  of  Deutz  has  the  addition, 
“  Qui  sedes  ad  dextram  Ratris,  Miserere  nobis” 
(Daniel,  Codex  Lit.  i.  142). 

5.  In  the  Ambrosian  rite  the  “  Agnus  Dei  ” 
occurs  only  in  masses  for  the  dead  ;  where,  after 
“  Dona  nobis  pacem,”  the  words  are  added,  “  Re¬ 
quiem  sempiternam,  et  locum  indulgentiae  cum 
sanctis  tuis  in  gloria  ”  (Krazer,  Le  Liturgiis, 
p.  637). 

6.  A  legend  preserved  by  Robert  of  Mount  St. 

Michael  (in  Bona,  De  Reh.  Lit.  lib.  ii.  c.  16)  tells 
how,  in  the  year  1183,  the  Holy  Virgin  ajipeared 
to  a  woodman  at  work  in  a  forest,  and  gave  him 
a  medal  bearing  her  own  image  and  that  of  her 
Son,  with  the  legend  “Agnus  Dei,  qui  tollis  pec¬ 
cata  mundi.  Dona  nobis  pacem.”  This  she  bade 
him  bear  to  the  bishop,  and  tell  him  that  all  who 
wished  the  peace  of  the  Church  should  make 
such  medals  as  these,  and  wear  them  in  token  oi 
peace.  [C.] 

AGNUS  DEI.  A  medallion  of  wax,  bearing 
the  figure  of  a  lamb.  It  was  an  ancient  custom 
to  distribute  to  the  worshippers,  on  the  first 
Sunday  after  Easter,  particles  of  wax  taken  from 
the  Paschal  taper,  which  had  been  solemnlv 
blessed  on  the  Easter  Eve  of  the  previous  year. 
These  particles  were  burned  in  houses,  fields,  or 
vineyards,  to  secure  them  against  evil  influences 
or  thunder-strokes. 

In  Rome  itself,  however,  instead  of  a  Paschal 
taper,  the  archdeacon  was  accustomed  to  pro¬ 
nounce  a  benediction  OA’^er  a  mixture  of  oil  and 
wax,  from  which  small  medallions  bearing  the 
figure  of  a  lamb  were  made,  to  be  distributed  to 
the  people  on  the  first  Sunday  after  Easter,  espe¬ 
cially  to  the  newly  baptised.  (^Ordo  Romanus  1. 
pp.  25,  31 ;  Amalarius  de  Eccl.  Off.  i.  17,  p. 
1033;  Pseudo-Alcuin,  de  Die.  Off.  c.  19,  p.  482.) 

In  modern  times  this  benediction  of  the  Agnus 
Dei  is  reserved  to  the  Pope  himself,  and  takes 
place  in  the  first  year  of  each  pontificate,  and 
every  seventh  year  following. 

The  Paschal  taper  was  anciently  thought  to 
symbolise  the  pillar  of  fire  which  guided  the 
Israelites,  and  the  Agnus  Dei  the  Passover  Lamb 
(Amalarius,  u.  s.  c.  18 ;  compare  the  Gregorian 
Sacramentary,  p.  71;  “Deus,  cujus  autiqua 
miracula  in  praesenti  quoque  saeculo  coruscare 
sentimus”). 

A  waxen  Agnus  Dei  is  said  to  have  been  among 
the  presents  made  by  Gregory  the  Great  to 
Theodelinda,  queen  of  the  Lombards  (Frisi, 
Memorie  di  Monza,  i.  34)  ;  but  nothing  of  the 
kind  is  mentioned  by  the  saint  himself  in  tlie 
letter  (A^/>jst.  xiv.  12,  p.  1270)  in  which  he  gives 
a  list  of  his  presents.  One  was  found  in  1725  in 
the  church  of  San  Clemente  on  the  Coeliau  Hill 
at  Rome,  in  a  tomb  supposed  to  be  that  of 
Flavius  Clemens  a  martyr.  This  Agnus  is  sup¬ 
posed,  by  De  Vitry  (in  Calogiera’s  Raccolta, 
xxxiii.  280),  to  have  been  placed  in  the  tomb  at 
the  translation  of  the  relics  which  he  thinks  took 
place  in  the  7th  century. 

An  Agnus  was  frequently  enclosed  in  a  case  or 
reliquary  ;  and  some  existing  examples  of  sucii 
cases  are  thought  to  be  of  the  8th  or  9th  ccn- 


AGRICIUS 


ALB 


45 


tuiy.  A  vei'y  remarkable  one,  said  to  have 
belonged  to  Charlemagne,  is  among  the  treasures 
of  Aix-la-Chapelle ;  but  the  style  appears  to  be 
of  a  much  later  age  than  that  of  Charlemagne 
(Cahier  and  Martin,  Melanges  Arclieologie, 
vol.  i.  pi.  xix.  fig.  D.).  [C.] 

AGRICIUS,  Bishop  of  Trbves  and  confessor, 
deposition  Jan.  13  {Mart.  Bedae').  [C.J 

AGRICOLA.  (1)  In  Africa,  martyr,  com¬ 
memorated  Nov.  3  {M.  Hieron.'). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Bologna,  commemorated  Nov. 
27  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(3)  Saint,  Natale  Dec.  3  {M.  Bedae). 

(4)  In  Auvergne,  Dec.  9  {M.  Micron.). 

(5)  At  Ravenna,  Dec.  16  {M.  Micron.).  [C.] 

AGRIPPINA,  martyr  at  Rome,  commemo¬ 
rated  June  23  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

AGRIPPINENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Co¬ 
logne,  Council  of.] 

AGRIPPINUS,  of  Alexandria,  commemo¬ 
rated  July  {Mart.  Mieron.)]  Jakatit  5  =  Jan. 
30  (Cal.  Ethiop.). 

AINOI.  [Lauds.] 

AISLE.  [Church.] 

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,  COUNCILS  OF 
(Aquisgranensia  Concilia)  : — i.  a.d.  789  ;  a 
mixed  synod  held  under  Charlemagne  in  his 
palace,  which  enacted  82  capitulars  respecting 
the  Church,  \Q  ad  monachos,  21  on  matters  of  a 
mixed  kind  (Baluz.,  Capit.  i.  209). — ii.  A.D.  797 ; 
also  under  Charlemagne,  and  consisting  of  bishops, 
abbats,  and  counts  ;  at  which  1 1  capitulars  were 
made  respecting  matters  ecclesiastical  and  civil, 
and  33  “  de  partibus  Saxoniae.”  The  canons  (46) 
of  Theodulph,  Bishop  of  Orleans,  “  ad  parochiae 
suae  sacerdotes,”  are  appended  to  this  council 
(Baluz.,  Capit.  i.  250  ;  Mansi,  xiii.  994-1022). — 
iii.  A.D.  799 ;  also  under  Charlemagne,  and  in 
his  palace,  of  bishops,  abbats,  and  monks,  where 
Felix  of  Urgel  was  induced  by  Alcuin  to  re¬ 
nounce  the  heresy  of  Adoptianism  (Mansi,  xiii. 
1033-1040,  from  Alcuin,  ad  Elipand.  i.,  and  the 
Vita  Alcuin.). — iv.  a.d.  802,  October  ;  also  under 
Chaidemagne,  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons, 
who  then  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  him 
(Mansi,  xiii.  1102). — v.  A.D.  809,  November; 
also  under  Charlemagne,  upon  the  question  of 
the  Filioque ;  which  sent  messengers  to  Pope 
Leo  III.,  and  was  instructed  by  him  to  omit  the 
words  from  the  Creed,  although  the  doctrine 
itself  was  de  fide  (Mansi,  xiv.  17-28).  The  later 
Councils  of  Aix  are  beyond  the  period  assigned 
to  this  -work.  [A.  W.  H.] 

ALB  {alba,  tunica  alba,  tunica  talaris,  poderis, 
linea,  supparus,  subucula,  camisia ;  see  also  Sti- 

CHARION). 

§  1.  The  word  and  its  derivation. — The  Latin 
word  alba,  the  fuller  expression  for  which  is 
tunica  alba,  first  appears,  as  the  technical  de¬ 
signation  of  a  white  tunic,  m  a  passage  of  Vopis- 
cus,  who  speaks  of  an  alba  subserica,  or  tunic 
made  of  silk  interwoven  with  some  other  mate¬ 
rial,  sent  as  a  present,  circ.  265,  A.D.,  from  Gal- 
lienus  to  Claudius  {Mist.  August.  Script.  Tre- 
bellius  in  Claudio,  p.  208).  The  same  expression, 
alba  subserica,  occurs  more  than  once  in  a  lettea’ 
of  the  Emperor  Valerian.  The  word  survives  in 
theFr.  “aube,'’  as  in  our  own  “alb.”  The  cor¬ 


responding  Italian  word  “  camice  ”  in  derived 
from  “  camisia  ”  (see  below,  §  3). 

§  2.  Ecclesiastical  use  of  the  word,  and  of  the 
vesfment. — There  are  two  uses  of  the  term  in 
an.ient  writers,  between  which  it  is  not  alwa)’’s 
easy  to  distinguish.  When  used  in  the  singulai 
il  has  generally  the  technical  meaning  above  no- 
Jced,  that  of  a  white  tunic.  But  in  the  plural 
the  phrase  in  albis,  and  the  like,  may  either 
mean  “  in  albs,”  or,  more  vaguely  and  compre- 
lensively,  “  in  white  garments.”  Context  only 
can  determine  which  is  meant. 

The  first  recorded  instance  of  the  technical 
use  of  the  term,  as  a  designation  of  a  vestment 
of  Christian  ministry,  occurs  in  a  canon  of  the 
African  church  {Concil.  Carthag.  iv.  can.  41), 
dating  from  the  close  of  the  4th  century.  That 
canon  prescribes  that  deacons  shall  not  wear  the 
alb  except  when  engaged  in  Divine  service.  “  Ut 
diaconus  tempore  oblationis  tantum,  vel  lectionis, 
alba  utatur.”  This  probably  implies  that  bishops 
and  presbyters,  but  not  deacons,  were  allowed 
;o  wear  in  ordinary  life  a  long  white  tunic,  re¬ 
sembling  that  worn  in  divine  seiwice.  Other 
early  canons,  on  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical 
labits,  show,  as  does  thac  last  quoted,  that  there 
was  a. general  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  dea¬ 
cons,  and  other  yet  inferior  orders,  to  assume  the 
insignia  which  properly  belonged  to  the  higher 
grades  of  the  ministry.  “  Human  nature  ”  had 
bund  its  expression  in  such  and  the  like  ways  in 
the  early  church  as  in  later  times. 

This  conjecture  as  to  an  alb  being  worn  by 
bishops  and  presbyters  even  in  ordinary  life 
Trom  the  time  of  the  “  Peace  of  the  Church  ” 
under  Constantine),  at  least  on  occasions  when 
“  full  dress  ”  was  required,  is  confirmed  by  the 
remarkable  mosaics  in  the  church  of  St.  George 
at  Thessalonica.  These  date  in  all  probability 
from  the  4th  century.  Among  the  personages 
represented,  all  of  them  in  the  more  stately  dress 
of  ordinary  life,  there  are  two  only  who  are 
ecclesiastics,  Philip  Bishop  of  Heraclea,  and  the 
Presbyter  Romanus ;  and  the  dress  of  each  is  so 
arranged  as  to  show  the  white  chiton  (or  tunic), 
though  an  outer  tunic  of  darker  colour  is  also 
worn.  In  this  respect  their  dress  differs  from 
that  of  the  other  figures,  which  are  those  of  lay¬ 
men.  These  mosaics  are  figured  in  the  Byzantine 
Architecture  of  Texier  and  Pullan  (Lond.,  1864). 
That  an  alb  was  so  worn,  more  or  less  generally, 
by  presbyters,  at  least  in  some  parts  of  the  West 
in  later  centuries,  appears  clearly  from  such  a 
direction  as  that  of  Leo  IV.  in  his  Cura  Bastor- 
alis:  “  Nullus  in  alba  qua  in-suo  usu  utitur 
praesumat  missas  cantare.”  This  direction  is 
repeated  almost  verbatim  in  the  Capitula  of 
Hincmar  of  Rheims  (f 882),  and  in  the  Disciplina 
Ecclesiastica  of  Regino,  abbot  of  Prume,  in  the 
following  century. 

§  3.  Primitive  forms  of  the  Alb. — In  the  early 
ages  of  the  church  the  alb  of  Christian  ministry 
was  of  full  and  flowing  shape,  and  distinguished 
in  this  respect  from  the  closely-fitted  tunic  of 
Levitical  priesthood.  St.  Jerome  {Epist.  ad  Fa- 
biolam)  follows  Josephus  {Antiq.  Jvd.  iii.  7)  in 
dwelling  particularly  on  this  distinctive  charac¬ 
teristic  of  the  Levitical  tunic ;  and  in  order  to 
convey  to  his  readers  an  idea  of  its  general  ap¬ 
pearance,  he  is  obliged  to  refer  theui  to  the  linen 
shirts,  called  carnisiae,  worn  by  soldiers  when  on 
service.  More  than  four  centuries  later,  Amala- 


46 


ALB 


ALEXANDRIA 


nus  of  Metz  quotes  this  passage  of  St.  Jei’ome, 
in  his  treatise  De  Ecclesiasticis  Officiis  (lib.  ii. 
cap.  18);  and  expressly  notices  the  fact  that  the 
Christian  aib  differed  from  the  poderis,  or  full- 
length  tunic  of  Levitical  ministry,  in  that,  while 
this  last  was  strictum,  closely  fitted  to  the  body, 
that  of  the  church  was  largum,  full  and  flowing. 
With  this  statement  the  earliest  monuments  of 
ministering  vestments  quite  accord.  Th-e  albs 
(if  they  be  not  rather  dalmatics)  worn  by 
Archbishop  Maximian  and  his  attendant  clergy 
in  the  Ravenna  mosaics  (see  Vestiarium  Chris- 
tianum,  PI.  xxviii. ;  and  under  vestments),  and 
in  a  less  degree,  that  assigned  to  the  deacon  in 
the  fresco  representing  Ordination  in  the 
cemetery  of  St.  Hermes  at  Rome  (Aringhi,  Roma 
i'  u’it.  tom.  ii.  p.  329) ;  and  again  those  worn 
under  a  planeta  by  Pope  Cornelius  of  Rome  and 
St.  Cyprian  of  Carthage  in  frescoes  of  (probably) 
the  8th  century  (De  Rossi,  Roma  Sott.  vol.  i.  pp. 
298-304)  all  agree  in  this  respect.  In  these 
last,  particularly,  the  albs  (possibly  dalmatics, 
q.  V.)  worn  under  the  planeta,  have  sleeves  as 
large  as  those  of  a  modern  surplice. 

But  while  this  was,  no  doubt,  the  prevailing 
form,  we  have  pictorial  evidence  to  show,  that, 
in  the  ninth  century  certainly,  and  in  all  proba¬ 
bility  at  a  considerably  earlier  time,  a  different 
form  of  alb  was  in  use  side  by  side  with  the  first. 
Considerations  of  practical  convenience  deter¬ 
mined  this,  as  had  been  the  case,  we  may  well 
believe,  in  the  case  of  the  Levitical  priests.  If 
these  latter,  in  the  discharge  of  their  sacrificial 
duties,  would  have  been  not  only  incommoded 
but  endangered  by  wearing  full  and  flowing  linen 
garments,  so  were  there  occasions,  particularly 
the  administration  of  baptism,  when  large  and 
full  sleeves,  like  those  of  the  ordinary  alb  or 
dalmatic,  would  have  been  inconvenient  in  the 
highest  degree  to  those  engaged  in  offices  of 
Christian  ministry.  We  find  accordingly,  in  an 
illumination  dating  from  the  9th  century  (see 
woodcut  in  the  article  baptism),  that  the  priest 
in  baptizing  wore  a  closely  fitted  alb,  girded. 
This  is,  w'e  have  reason  to  believe,  the  earliest 
example  in  Christian  art  of  an  alb  so  shaped  ; 
but  in  later  centuries,  as  the  “  sacred  vest¬ 
ments  ”  continually  increased  in  number,  the 
alb,  which  w'as  worn  underneath  the  rest,  was  i 
gradually  more  and  more  contracted  in  form  ; 
and  at  the  present  time  the  alb,  technically  so 
called,  is  a  closely-fitting  vestment,  girded, 
nearly  resembling  that  of  the  pidest  in  the  plate 
just  referred  to. 

§  4.  Decoration  of  the  alb.—  Like  other  vest¬ 
ments  which,  in  primitive  times,  were  of  w'hite 
.linen  only,  the  alb  was  often  enriched  in  later 
times  in  respect  of  ornament,  material,  and 
colour.  Details  as  to  this  are  given  by  Bock 
{Liturgische  Gewdnder,  ii.  33)  and  by  Dr.  Rock 
(  Church  of  our  Fathers,  vol.  i.  p.  424  sqq.').  The 
most  common  ornaments  of  the  kind  were  knuwm 
as  parurae  (a  shorter  form  of  paraturae),  which 
were  oblong  patches,  richly  coloured  and  orna¬ 
mented,  attached  to  the  tunic.  Hence  a  distinc¬ 
tion  between  cdha  parata,  an  alb  with  “  ap¬ 
parels  ”  (technically  so  called),  and  alba  pura, 
this  last  being  the  “  w'hite  alb  plain”  spoken  of 
in  the  first  Prayer-book  of  Edward  VI.  These 
albae  paratae  date,  according  to  Professor  Weiss, 
from  the  close  of  the  lOth  century  (^Kostum- 
kunde,  u.  s.  w.,  p.  GG7).  But  this  is  true  only  of 


ecclesiastical  use.  Ornaments  like  in  kind  to 
these  apparels  had  long  been  in  use  for  the  richer 
albs  worn  by  persons  of  high  secular  rank.  They 
were  called  Paragaudae,  from  a  Syriac  wmrd  of 
similar  import.  See  Casaubon’s  note  on  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  Trebcllius  referred  to  in  §  1.  [W.B.M.] 

ALBANUS  (1)  (St.  Alban)  or  Albinuu 
{Mart.  Hieron.')  and  his  companions,  martyrs  in 
Britain,  commemorated  June  22  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Hieron.,  et  Bedaef 

(2)  Saint,  commemorated  December  1  {M. 
Bedae).  [C.] 

ALBINUS.  (1)  Bishop  and  confessor,  com¬ 
memorated  March  1  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae). 

(2)  Mai-tyr,  June  21  {M.  Bedae).  [C.] 

ALCESTER,  Council  of  (Alnense  Con¬ 
cilium),  A.D.  709;  an  imaginary  council,  resting 
solely  on  the  legendary  life  of  Eegwin,  Bishop 
of  Worcester,  and  founder  of  Evesham  Abbey,  bv 
Brihtwald  of  Worcester  (or  Glastonbury);  said 
to  have  been  held  to  confirm  the  grants  made 
to  Evesham  (Wilk.  i.  72,  73;  Mansi,  xii.  182- 
189).  Wilfrid  of  York,  said  to  have  been  at  the 
council,  died  June  23,  709.  [A.  W.  H.] 

ALDEGUNDIS,  virgin,  deposition  Jan.  30 
{Mart.  Bedae).  [C.] 

ALDERMANN.  [Ealdorman.] 

ALEXANDER,  (1)  martyr  under  Decius, 
commemorated  Jan.  30  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(2)  Commemorated  Feb.  9  {Mart.  Bedae). 

(3)  Son  of  Claudius,  martvr  at  Ostia,  Feb. 
18  {ib.). 

(4)  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  Feb.  26  (/6.);  April 
10  {M.  Hieron.). 

(5)  Of  Thessalonica,  Feb.  27  {M.  Hieron.). 

(6)  Of  Africa,  March  5  {M.  Hieron.). 

(7)  Of  Nicomedia,  March  6  {M.  Hieron.). 

(8)  With  Gains,  March  10  {Mart.  Bedae). 

(9)  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  martyr,  March  18 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae). 

(10)  Martyr  at  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  March 
28  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.) ;  Mar.  27  {M.  Bedae). 

(11)  Saint,  April  24  {Mart.  Bedae)  ;  April  21 
{Hieron.). 

(12)  The  Pope,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Trajan, 
j  May  3  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae).  Named  in  tho 

Gregorian  Canon,  Antiphon  in  Lib.  Antiph.  p.  693. 

(13)  Martyr  at  Bergamo,  Aug.  26  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.). 

(14)  Bishop  and  confessor,  Aug.  28  {Lb.). 

(15)  “In  Sabinis,”  Sept.  9  {Ib.  et  Hieron.). 

(16)  Commemorated  Sept.  10  {M.  Hieron.). 

(17)  In  Capua,  Oct.  15  {M.  Hieron.). 

(18)  Patriarch,  Nov.  7  {Cal.  Amnen.)’,  Miaziah 
22  =  April  17,  and  Nahasse  18  =  Aug.  11  {Cal. 
Ethiop.). 

(19)  Bishop  and  martyr,  Nov.  26  {M.  R.  F.). 

(20)  Martyr  at  Alexandria,  translated  Dec. 

12  {Lb.).  [C.] 

ALEXANDRIA,  CATECHETICAL 
SCHOOL  OF.  The  school  thus  described  occu¬ 
pies  an  exceptional  position  in  the  history  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Everyw'here,  of  course,  there 
was  instruction  of  some  kind  for  con-  . 

verts  [Catechumens]  ;  everywhere,  before  long, 
there  must  have  been  some  provision  made  for 
the  education  of  Christian  children.  That  at  Alex¬ 
andria  was  the  only  one  which  acquired  a  special 
reputation,  and  had  a  succession  of  illustrious 


ALEXANDRIA 


ALEXANDRIA 


47 


teachers,  affected,  directly  and  indirectly,  | 
the  theology  of  the  Church  at  large.  The  lives 
of  those  teachers,  and  the  special  characteristics 
of  their  theological  speculations  will  be  treated  j 
of  elsewhere.  Here  it  is  proposed  to  consider 
(1)  the  outward  history  of  the  school ;  (2)  its  ^ 
actual  mode  of  working,  and  general  influence  on  ^ 
the  religious  life  of  the  Alexandrian  Church.  | 

(1.)  The  origin  of  the  Alexandrian  school  “  is 
buried  in  obscurity.  Eusebius  (Af.  E.,  v.  10) 
speaks  of  it  as  of  long  standing  (e^  apxa'^ov 
idovs),  but  the  earliest  teacher  whom  he  names  is  j 
Pantaenus,  circ.  a.d.  180.  If  we  were  to  accept  ^ 
the  authority  of  Philip  of  Sida  (Fragm.  in  Dod- 
well’s  Dissert,  in  Iren.  Oxf.  pp.  488-497),  the 
honour  of  being  its  founder  might  be  conceded 
to  Athenagoras,  the  writer  of  the  Apologia ;  and 
this  would  carry  us  a  few  years  further.  But  the 
authority  of  Philip  is  but  slight.  His  list  is 
manifestly  inaccurate,  the  name  of  Clement  com¬ 
ing  after  Origen,  and  even  after  Dionysius,  and 
the  silence  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  must  be  held 
to  outweigh  his  assertion.  Conjecture  may  look 
to  St.  Mark  (Hieron.,  Cat.  36),  with  more  proba¬ 
bility,  perhaps,  to  Apollos,  as  having  been  the  first 
conspicuous  teacher  at  Alexandria.  Pantaenus, 
however,  is  the  first  historical  name.  He  taught 
both  orally  and  by  hi§  writings,  and,  though  his 
work  was  interrupted  by  a  mission  to  India,  he 
seems  to  have  returned  to  Alexandria,  and  to 
have  continued  teaching  there  till  his  death. 
First  working  with  him,  and  then  succeeding 
him,  we  have  the  name  of  Clement,  and  find  him 
occupying  the  post  of  teacher  till  the  persecution 
of  Severus,  A.D.  202,  when  he  with  others  fled  for 
safety.  The  vacant  place  was  filled  by  Origen 
(Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  3),  then  only  eighteen  years  of 
age,  but  already  well  known  as  a  teacher  of 
grammar  and  rhetoric,  and  as  having  studied 
profoundly  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 
It  is  probable,  but  not  certain,  that  he  himself 
had  attended  Clement’s  classes.  As  it  was,  seekers 
after  truth  came  to  him  in  such  numbers  that  he 
renounced  his  work  as  an  instructor  in  other 
subjects,  and  devoted  himself  to  that  of  the 
school  which  was  thus  reopened.  Clement  may 
possibly  have  returned  to  Alexandria,  and  worked 
with  him  till  his  death,  circ.  A.D.  220.  Origen 
himself  left  soon  afterwards,  and  founded,  in  some 
sense,  a  rival  school  at  Caesarea.  Of  the  teachers 
that  followed  we  know  little  more  than  the  names. 
Philip  of  Sida  (1.  c.)  gives  them  as  Heraclas, 
Dionysius,  Pierius,  Theognostus,  Serapion,  Peter, 
Macarius,  Didymus,  Rhodon.  Eusebius  (AT.  E. 
vii.  32)  names  Pierius  as  a  man  of  philosophical 
attainments  at  Alexandria,  and  mentions  Achillas 
more  distinctly  as  having  been  entrusted  with 
the  hiZacTKaXuov  there  under  the  episcopate  of 
Theonas.  He  further  speaks  of  the  school  as 
existing  in  his  own  time  (circ.  a.d.  330).  Theo- 
doret  (i.  1)  names  Arius  as  having  at  one  time  been 
the  chief  teacher  there,  and  Sozomen  (JE.E.  iii.  15) 
and  Rufinus  (AT.  E.  ii.  7)  name  Didymus,  a  teacher 
who  became  blind,  as  having  held  that  post  for  a 
long  period  of  years  (circ.  A.D.  340-395).  During 
the  later  years  of  his  life  he  was  assisted  by 
Rhodon  as  a  coadjutor,  who,  on  his  death,  re¬ 

*  It  may  be  worth  while  to  note  the  names  by  which  it 
18  described (1)  to  or  to  rSiv  lepCiv 

Aoywi/  Si8a<rKa\elov,  Euseb.,  U.  E.  v.  10,  vi.  3,  26  :  (2)  to 
tepbi/  SiSaaKaXeloi/  roiv  lepa>v  p.a0r)ixdr(x)i/,  Sozom.  iii.  15  : 
(3)  EccUsiastica  Schola,  Hieron.,  Cat.  c.  38. 


moved  to  Sida,  where  he  numbered  among  his 
pupils  the  Philip  from  whom  we  get  the  list  of 
the  succession.  This  seems  to  have  broken  up  the 
school,  and  we  ai*e  unable  to  trace  it  further. 

(2.)  The  pattern  upon  which  the  work  at  Alex¬ 
andria  was  based  may  be  found  in  St.  Paul’s 
labours  at  Ephesus.  After  he  ceased  to  address 
the  Jews  through  his  discourses  in  the  synagogue 
he  turned  to  the  “school  ”  ((TxoA'J?)  of  Tyrannus 
(Acts,  xix.  9).  That  “  school  ”  was  probably  a 
lecture-hall  (so  the  word  is  used  by  Plutarch,  Vit. 
Arati,  c.  29),  which  had  been  used  by  some  teacher 
of  philosophy  or  rhetoric,  and  in  which  the  apostle 
now  appeared  as  the  instructor  of  all  who  came  to 
inquire  what  the  “  new  doctrine  ”  meant.  Some¬ 
thing  of  the  same  kind  must  have  been  soon 
found  necessary  at  a  place  like  Alexandria.  With 
teachers  of  philosophy  of  all  schools  lecturing 
round  them,  the  Christian  Society  could  not  but 
feel  the  need  of  lecturers  of  its  own.  Elsewhere, 
among  slaves  and  artisans  it  might  be  enough  tu 
hand  down  the  simple  tradition  of  the  faith,  to  de- 
velope  that  teaching  as  we  find  it  in  the  Catecheses 
of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  The  age  of  apologists,  ap¬ 
pealing,  as  they  did,  to  an  educated  and  reading 
class,  must  have  made  the  demand  for  such  teachers 
more  urgent,  and  the  appearance  of  Pantaenus  as 
the  first  certainly  known  teacher,  indicates  that 
he  was  summonea  oy  the  Church  to  supply  it. 
In  a  room  in  his  own  house,  or  one  hired  for  the 
purpose,  the  teacher  received  the  inquirers  who 
came  to  him.  It  was  not  a  school  for  boys,  but 
for  adults.  Men  and  women  alike  had  free  access 
to  him.  The  school  was  open  from  morning 
to  evening.  As  of  old,  in  the  schools  of  the 
Rabbis,  as  in  those  of  the  better  sophists  and 
philosophers  of  Greece,  there  was  no  charge  for 
admission.  If  any  payment  was  made  it  came,  in 
the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  as  an  honorarium 
from  grateful  pupils  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  4). 
After  a  time  he  naturally  divided  his  hearers 
into  classes.  Those  who  were  on  the  threshold 
were,  it  is  natural  to  think,  called  on,  as  in  the 
Cohortatio  ad  Graecos  of  Clement,  to  turn  from 
the  obscenities  and  frivolities  of  Paganism  to  the 
living  and  true  God.  Then  came,  as  in  his  Paeda- 
gogus,  the  “  milk  ”  of  Catechesis,  teaching  them 
to  follow  the  Divine  Instructor  by  doing  all 
things,  whether  they  ate  or  drank,  in  obedience 
to  His  will.  Then  the  more  advanced  were  led 
on  to  the  “  strong  meat  ”  of  rj  iiroirTiKT]  Oeapta 
(Clem.  Alex.,  Stro7n.  v.  p.  686,  Pott.).  At  times 
he  would  speak,  as  in  a  continuous  lecture, 
and  then  would  pause,  that  men  might  ask  the 
questions  which  were  in  their  hearts  (Origen, 
in  Matt.  Tr.  xiv.  16).  The  treatises  which 
remain  to  us  of  Clement’s,  by  his  own  account 
of  them,  embody  his  reminiscences  of  such  instruc¬ 
tion  partly  as  given  by  others,  partly  doubtless 
as  given  by  himself.  We  may  fairly  look  on 
Origen’s  treatises  and  expositions  as  having  had 
a  like  parentage.  (Comp.  Guerike,  De  Schola 
Alex. ;  Hasselbach,  De  Schola  Alex. ;  Redepen- 
ning’s  Origenes,  i.  57,  ii.  10 ;  and  Art.  Alex- 
andrinisches  Catecheten  Schule,  in  Herzog’s  Peal. 
Encyclopddie ;  Neander’s  Church  History  [Engl. 
Translation],  ii.  260,  et  seq.")  [E.  H.  P.] 

ALEXANDRIA,  COUNCILS  OF.  There 
were  no  councils  of  Alexandria  proportionate  to 
its  situation  as  the  marine  gate  of  the  East,  or  to 
the  fame  of  its  catechetical  and  eclectic  schools. 


48 


ALEXANDRIA 


ALEXANDRIA 


or  to  its  ecclesir.stical  position,  as  having  been 
the  second  see  of  the  world.  And  the  first  of 
them  was  held  A.D.  230,  under  Demetrius,  in  a 
hasty  moment,  to  pass  judgment  upon  one  of 
the  most  distinguished  Alexandrians  that  ever 
lived,  Origen  :  his  chief  fault  being  that  he  had 
been  ordained  priest  in  Palestine,  out  of  the 
diocese.  His  works  were  condemned  in  this, 
and  he  himself  excommunicated  and  deposed  in  a 
subse(juent  council  ;  but  both  sentences  were 
disregarded  by  the  bishops  of  Palestine,  under 
whose  patronage  he  continued  to  teach  and  to 
preach  as  before. 

A.D.  235 — There  was  a  synod  under  Heraclas, 
who  is  said  to  have  appointed  20  bishops ; 
one  of  whom,  Ammonius,  having  betrayed 
the  faith,  was  reclaimed  at  this  synod. 

A.D.  263 — This  was  a  synod,  under  Dionysius, 
against  the  errors  of  Sabellius  ;  in  another, 
Hepotianus,  a  bishop  of  Egypt,  and  Ce- 
rinthus  fell  under  censure  for  their  views 
on  the  Millennium. 

A.D.  306 — under  Peter ;  against  Meletius,  a 
bishop  of  Lycopolis,  who  had  sacrificed  to 
idols,  and  was  therefore  deposed. 

A.D.  321 — Against  Arius,  who  was  deposed  in 
two  synods  this  year  under  Alexander. 

A.D.  324 — Against  Arius  once  more ;  but  this 
time  under  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  who 
had  been  despatched  to  Alexandria  to 
make  enquiries,  by  Constantine. 

A.D.  328 — When  St.  Athanasius  was  conse¬ 
crated  bishop.  (On  the  date,  see  Mansi, 
ii.  1086.) 

A.D.  340 — In  favour  of  St.  Athanasius.  De¬ 
puties  were  sent  from  the  council  to  Rome 
and  Tyre  in  that  sense.  Its  synodical 
letter  is  given  by  St.  Athanasius  in  his  2nd 
Apology. 

A.D.  352 — Called  “Egyptian;”  in  favour  of 
St.  Athanasius  again. 

A.D,  362 — under  St.  Athanasius,  on  his  return 
from  exile,  concerning  those  who  had 
Arianised.  It  published  a  synodical  letter. 
On  its  wise  and  temperate  decisions,  see 
Newman’s  Arians,  v.  1. 

A.D,  363 — under  St.  Athanasius  on  the  death  of 
Julian  ;  published  a  synodical  letter  to  the 
new  emperor  Jovian. 

A.D.  371 — Of  90  bishops,  under  St.  Athanasius  : 
to  pi'otest  against  Auxentius  continuing  in 
the  see  of  Milan.  This  is  one  of  those 
called  “  Egyptian.” 

A.D.  371 — under  St.  Athanasius  the  same 
year;  to  receive  a  profession  of  faith  from 
Marcellus,  Bishop  of  Ancyra,  which  turned 
out  orthodox. 

A.D.  399 — Against  the  followers  of  Origen, 
who  were  condemned.  Part  of  its  synodical 
letter  is  preserved  in  that  of  the  emperor 
Justinian  to  Mennas  on  the  same  subject 
long  afterwards. 

A.D.  430 — under  St.  Cyril  against  Nestorius  ; 

whei'e  St.  Cvril  indited  his  celebrated 

«/ 

epistle  with  the  twelve  anathemas. 

A.D.  457 — under  Timothy,  surnamed  Aelurus, 
or  the  Cat,  at  which  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon  was  condemned.  This  was  repeated, 
A.D.  477, 

A.D.  482 — At  which  John  Tabenniosites  was  con¬ 
secrated  bishop  ;  he  was  ejected  at  once  by 
the  emperor  Zeno,  when  Peter  Moggus  re¬ 


turned,  and  in  a  subsequent  synod  tne 
same  year  condemned  the  4th*  council, 
having  first  caused  a  schism  amongst  his 
own  followers  by  subscribing  to  the  He- 
uoticon  (Evag.  iii.  12-16). 

A.D.  485 — under  Quintian,  to  pronounce  Peter 
the  Fuller  deposed  from  Antioch. 

A.D.  578 — The  last  of  those  called  Egyptian  ; 
it  was  composed  of  Jacobites,  to  consider 
the  case  of  the  Jacobite  patriarch  of 
Antioch,  Paul, 

A.D,  589 — under  Eulogius  ;  against  the  Sa¬ 
maritans. 

A.D.  633 — under  Cyrus,  the  Monotli«elite  pa¬ 
triarch  :  the  acts  and  synodical  letter  of 
which  are  preserved  in  the  13th  action  of 
the  6th  general  council.  This  is  the  last 
on  record. 

The  interests  of  the  Church  History  of  Alex¬ 
andria  are  so  great,  that  a  few  words  may  be 
added  respecting  its  patriarchate. 

The  patriarchate  of  Alexandria  grew  out  of  the 
see  founded  there  by  St.  Mark,  “  according  to  the 
constant  and  unvarying  tradition  both  of  the  East 
and  West”  (Neale’s  Patriarch  of  Alex.  1.  i.)  ;  to 
which  jurisdiction  was  assigned,  as  of  ancient 
custom  appertaining,  by  the  6th  Nicene  canon, 
over  “  Egypt,  Libya,  and  Pentapolis.”  This  was, 
in  effect,  what  was  already  known  as  the  Egyp¬ 
tian  diocese,  being  one  of  five  placed  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  praefect  of  the  East,  and  com¬ 
prehending  itself  six  provinces.  Of  these,  Au- 
gustanica  was  subdivided  into  Augustanica  prima, 
and  secunda :  the  first  stretching  upon  the  coast 
from  Rhinocorura  on  the  borders  of  Palestine  to 
Diospolis  on  the  east  of  the  Mendesian  mouth  of 
the  Nile,  with  the  second  immediately  under  it 
inland ;  Egypt  proper  was  likewise  subdivMed 
into  prima  and  secunda,  of  which  secunda 
stretched  westwards  of  the  same  mouth  of  the 
Nile  along  the  coast,  with  prima  lying  imme¬ 
diately  under  it  inland.  Then  Arcadia  at  Hep- 
tanomis,  forming  the  3rd  province,  lay  under 
Augustanica  secunda  and  Aegyptus  prima  on 
both  sides  of  the  Nile  ;  and  south  of  this  Thebais, 
or  the  4th  province,  whose  subdivisions,  prima 
comprehended  all  the  rest  of  the  country  lying 
north,  and  secunda  all  the  country  lying  south 
of  Thebes,  included  in  Egypt.  Returning  to¬ 
wards  the  coast,  westwards  of  Aegyptus  secunda, 
the  5th  province,  Libya  inferior  or  secunda,  was 
also  called  Marmarica ;  and  to  the  west  of  it 
was  the  6th  province,  Libya  Pentapolis,  also 
called  Cyrenaica.  The  ecclesiastical  arrange¬ 
ments  in  each  of  these  pi'ovinces  have  yet  to  be 
given.  For  this  purpose  the  “  Notitia  ”  pub¬ 
lished  by  Beveridge  (Synod,  ii.  143-4)  might 
have  been  transcribed  at  length  ;  but  as  the  sites 
of  so  many  of  the  sees  are  unknown,  their  mere 
names,  which  are  often  uncouth  and  of  doubtful 
spelling,  would  be  devoid  of  interest.  It  may 
suffice  to  enumerate  them,  with  their  metropolis 
in  each  case.  Thus  Augustanica  prima  con¬ 
tained  14  episcopal  sees,  of  which  Pelusium  was 
the  metropolis ;  Augustanica  secunda  6,  at  the 
head  of  which  was  Leonto  ;  Aegyptus  prima  20, 
at  the  bead  of  which  was  Alexandria  ;  Aegyptus 
secunda  12,  at  the  head  of  which  was  Cabasa 
The  province  of  Arcadia  contained  G,  under  the 
metropolitan  of  Oxyrinchus ;  but  7  are  given 
subsequently,  corresponding  to  the  7  mouths  of 
;  the  Nile,  of  which  Alexandria  is  placed  first. 


ALEXANDEIA 


ALEXANDRIA 


49 


There  were  8  sees  in  Thebais  prima,  under  the 
metropolitan  of  Antino  ;  and  twice  that  number 
in  Thebais  secunda,  under  the  metropolitan  of 
Ptolemais.  Libya  secunda,  or  Mai'marica,  con¬ 
tained  8,  under  the  metropolitan  of  Dranicon ; 
and  Libya  Pentapolis  6,  at  the  head  of  which 
was  Sozuza.  Tripoli  was  a  later  acquisition,  in¬ 
cluding  3  sees  only.  They  may  have  been  placed 
under  Alexandria  subsequently  to  the  time  of 
the  4th  Council,  when  all  to  the  west  of  them 
lay  in  confusion  under  the  Vanaals ;  and  possibly  j 
may  have  been  intended  to  compensate  for  those  ^ 
two  sees  of  Berytus  and  Rabba  bordering  on 
Palestine,  of  which  Alexandria  was  then  robbed 
to  swell  the  patriarchate  of  Jerusalem  on  the 
south-west  (Cave,  Ch.  Govt.  iv.  11).  The  list  of 
sees  in  Le  Quien  (Oriens  Christiames,  vol.  ii.  p. 
330-640),  illustrated  by  a  map  of  the  patriarch¬ 
ate  from  D’Anville,  agrees  with  the  above  in 
most  respects,  only  that  it  is  shorter.  i 

Alexandria  had  been  synonymous  with  oi'tho- 
doxy  while  St.  Athanasius  lived  ;  shortly  after  ' 
his  death,  however,  the  next  place  after  Rome, 
which  it  had  ever  enjoyed  from  Apostolic  times, 
was  given  by  the  2nd  General  Council  to  Con¬ 
stantinople.  For  this  it  seemed  to  have  re-  j 
ceived  ample  compensation  in  the  humiliation 
of  the  Coustantinopolitan  patriarch  Nestorius,  ^ 
at  the  3rd  Council  under  St.  Cyril ;  when  the 
want  of  tact  and  perverseness  of  his  successor 
Dioscorus  enabled  the  more  orthodox  patriarchs 
of  Jerusalem  and  Constantinople  to  help  them¬ 
selves  at  its  expense,  and  obtain  sanction  for 
their  proceedings  at  the  4th  Council.  For  a 
time,  it  is  true,  Rome  peremptorily  refused  as¬ 
senting  to  them ;  and  charged  their  authors  with 
having  infringed  the  Nicene  canons.  But  Alex¬ 
andria  falling  into  the  hands  of  those  by  whom 
the  doctrinal  decisions  of  the  4th  Council  were 
called  in  question  and  even  condemned,  Rome 
naturally  ceased  taking  any  further  steps  in  its 
favour ;  and  under  Jacobite  patriarchs  princi¬ 
pally,  and  sometimes  exclusively,  Alexandria 
gradually  came  to  exercise  no  palpable  influence 
whateA'er,  even  as  3rd  see  of  the  world,  on  the 
rest  of  the  Church.  Le  Quien  reckons  48  patri¬ 
archs  in  all,  down  to  Eustathius,  who  was  con¬ 
secrated  A.D.  801,  but  sevei'al  of  them  were 
heretical ;  and  there  were  numerous  anti-patri¬ 
archs,  both  heretical  and  schismatieal,  from  time 
to  time  disputing  their  claims.  The  ‘  Art  de 
verifier  les  Dates  ’  makes  this  Eustathius  the 
66th  patriarch.  Dr.  Neale  makes  him  the  40th, 
and  contemporary  with  Mark  IL,  the  49th  Jaco¬ 
bite  patriarch. 

There  were  several  peculiarities  connected 
with  the  see  of  Alexandria,  which  have  been 
variously  explained.  One  rests  upon  the  autho¬ 
rity  of  Eutychius,  patriarch  of  Alexandria  in  the 
10th  century,  and  of  St.  Jerom.e.  The  words  of 
Eutychius  are  as  follows  :  “  St.  Mark  along  with 
Ananias  ordained  12  presbyters  to  remain  with 
the  patriarch  ;  so  that  when  the  chair  should 
become  vacant,  they  might  elect  one  out  of  the 
12  on  whose  head  the  other  11  should  lay  their 
hands,  give  him  benediction,  and  constitute  him 
patriarch ;  and  should  after  this  choose  some 
other  man  to  supply  the  place  of  the  promoted 
presbyter,  in  such  sort  that  the  presbytery 
should  alwavs  consist  of  12.  This  custom  con- 
tinned  at  Alexandria  till  the  time  of  the  patri¬ 
arch  Alexander,  one  of  the  318  (Fathers  of 

OHRIST.  ANT. 


Nicaea)  who  forbade  the  presbyters  in  futuie  to 
ordain  their  patriarch  ;  but  decreed  that  on  a 
vacancy  of  the  see,  tlie  neighbouring  bishops 
should  convene  for  the  purpose  of  tilting  it  with 
a  proper  patriarch,  whether  elected  from  those 
12  presbyters  or  from  any  others.”  Eutychius 
adds,  “  that  during  the  time  of  the  firf  t  10  patri¬ 
archs,  there  were  no  bishops  in  Eg)  pt ;  Deme¬ 
trius  the  11th  having  been  the  first  ti  consecrate 
them.”  (Taken  from  Neale,  p.  9.)  This  per¬ 
haps  may  serve  to  explain  the  extixjme  otTence 
taken  by  Demetrius  at  the  ordination  of  Origen 
to  the  priesthood  out  of  the  diocese,  if  a  priest 
in  Alexandria  was  so  much  more  to  the  bishop 
than  a  priest  elsewhere.  It  may  also  serve  to 
explain  the  haste  with  which  Alexander  insti¬ 
tuted  proceedings  against  Arius.  The  passage 
of  St.  Jerome  seems  conclusive  as  to  the  inter¬ 
pretation  to  be  given  to  that  of  Eutychius. 
This  Father  in  an  epistle  to  Evagrius,  while 
dwelling  on  the  dignity  of  the  priesthood,  thus 
expresses  himself :  “  At  Alexandria,  from  the 
time  of  St.  Mark  the  Evangelist  to  that  of  the 
bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius  (in  the  middle 
of  the  3rd  century),  it  was  tiie  custom  of  the 
presbyters  to  nominate  one,  elected  from  among 
themselves,  to  the  higher  dignity  of  the  bishopric  ; 
just  as  the  army  makes  an  emperor,  or  the  dea¬ 
cons  nominate  as  archdeacon  any  man  whom  they 
know  to  be  of  active  habits  in  their  own  body.” 
(^Ibid.).  St.  Jerome  wmuld  be  talking  nonsense, 
if  the  12  of  whom  he  is  speaking  had  been 
bishops  themselves ;  that  is,  of  the  same  rank 
as  their  nominee  was  to  be.  Hence  the  theory 
of  an  episcopal  college,  to  which  Dr.  Neale  seems 
to  incline,  falls  to  the  ground  at  once.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  seems  unquestionable  that  St. 
Jerome  must  have  meant  election,  not  ordina¬ 
tion,  from  the  marked  emphasis  wdth  which  he 
lays  down  elsewhere  that  presbyters  cannot  or¬ 
dain.  Otherwise,  from  the  age  in  which  Euty¬ 
chius  lived,  and  still  more  the  language  in  which 
he  wrote,  it  w'ould  hardly  be  possible  to  prove 
that  he  meant  election  only,  when  he  certainly 
seems  to  be  describing  consecration.  But  again, 
if  there  were  “  no  bishops  in  Egypt  during  the 
time  of  the  first  ten  patriarchs,”  how  could  epis¬ 
copal  consecration  be  had,  when  once  the  patri¬ 
arch  had  ceased  to  liA-'e  ?  To  this  no  satisfactory 
answer  has  ever  been  returned.  Eutychius, 
though  he  lived  in  the  10th  century,  may  be 
supposed  to  have  known  moi'e  about  the  ancient 
customs  of  his  see,  in  a  land  like  Egypt,  than 
those  who  have  decried  him.  And  certainly, 
though  we  know  there  were  bishops  in  Egypt 
under  Demetrius,  for  two  synods  of  bishops 
(Phot.  Bihl.  s.  118  and  Huet.  Origen.  i.  12),  we 
are  told,  met  under  him  to  condemn  Origen ;  it 
would  be  ditHcult  to  produce  any  conclusive 
testimony  to  the  fact  that  there  were  any  epis¬ 
copal  sees  there,  besides  that  of  Alexandria,  be¬ 
fore  then.  The  vague  statement  of  the  Emperor 
Adrian,  “  Illi  qui  Serapim  colunt  Christiani  sunt ; 
et  devoti  sunt  Serapi,  qui  se  Christi  episcopos 
dicunt,”  speaking  of  Egypt,  clearly  warrants  no 
such  inference,  standing  alone  ;  nor  does  it  ap¬ 
pear  to  have  ever  been  suggested  that  each  of 
the  first  ten  patriarchs  consecrated  his  suc¬ 
cessor  during  his  .own  life-time.  Yet  there  was 
a  strange  haste  in  electing  a  new  patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  that  seems  to  require  some  expla¬ 
nation.  The  new  patriarch,  we  learn  from  Lite- 


50 


ALEXIUS 


ALIENATION 


rat  us,  always  interred  his  predecessor  ;  and  be¬ 
fore  doing  so,  placed  his  dead  han  I  on  his  own 
head.  Can  it  have  been  in  this  way,  during 
that  early  period,  extraordinary  as  it  may  seem, 
that  episcopal  consecration  was  supposed  to  be 
obtained,  as  it  were,  in  one  continuous  chain 
from  St.  Mark  himself?  The  position  of  the 
patriarch  after  consecration  was  so  exceptional, 
that  it  would  be  no  wonder  at  all  if  his  consecra¬ 
tion  differed  materially  from  all  others.  In 
civil  matters  his  authority  was  very  great ;  in 
ecclesiastical  matters  it  was  quite  despotic.  All 
bishops  in  Egypt  were  ordained  by  him  as  their 
sole  metropolitan.  If  any  other  bishop  ever  per¬ 
formed  metropolitan  functions,  it  was  as  his  dele¬ 
gate.  The  Egyptian  bishops  themselves,  in  the 
4th  action  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  professed 
loudly  that  they  were  impotent  to  act  but  at 
his  bidding  ;  and  hence  they  excused  themselves 
from  even  subscribing  to  the  letter  of  St.  Leo 
while  they  were  without  a  patriarch,  after  Dios- 
corus  had  been  deposed  ;  and  that  so  obstinately, 
that  their  subscription  was  allowed  to  stand 
over,  till  the  new  patriarch  had  been  consecrated. 
The  patriarch  could  moreover  ordain  presbyters 
and  deacons  throughout  Egypt  in  any  number, 
where  ho  Avould ;  and  it  is  thought  probable 
that  the  presbyters,  his  assessors,  had  power  given 
them  by  him  to  confirm.  All  the  episcopal  sees 
in  Egypt  seem  to  have  originated  with  him  alone. 
As  early  as  the  3rd  century  we  find  him  called 
“  papa,”  archbishop  in  the  next,  and  patriarch 
in  the  5th  century,  but  not  till  after  St.  Cyril. 
In  later  times,  “judge  of  the  whole  world  ”  was 
a  title  given  him,  on  account  of  his  having  for¬ 
merly  fixed  Easter.  On  the  litui’gies  in  use  in 
the  Egyptian  diocese.  Dr.  Neale  says  ^General 
Tntrod.  i.  323—4),  “  The  Alexandrine  family  con¬ 
tains  4  liturgies :  St.  Mark,  which  is  the  normal 
form,  St.  Basil,  St.  Cyril,  and  St.  Gregory.  .  .  . 
St.  Mark’s  was  the  rite  of  the  orthodox  Church 
of  Alexandria.  .  .  .  The  other  three  are  used  by 
the  Mouophysites.  St.  Basil  (i.  e.  the  Copto- 
Jacobite)  is  the  normal  and  usual  form  ;  St. 
Gregory  is  employed  in  Lent ;  St.  Cyril  on  festi¬ 
vals.  .  .  .  Why  the  first  of  these  liturgies  bears 
the  name  of  Basil  ”  is  uncertain.  “  It  is  not 
possible  now  to  discover  its  origin,  though  it 
would  appear  to  have  been  originally  Catholic ; 
to  have  been  translated  from  the  Greek  into 
Coptic,  and  thence  after  many  ages  into  Arabic. 
The  liturgy  of  St.  Cyril  is  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  the  same  as  that  of  St.  Mark  .... 
and  in  both  that,  and  in  the  office  of  St.  Gregory, 
the  first  part  is  taken  from  the  normal  liturgy 
of  St.  Basil.”  Both  the  proanaphoral  and  ana- 
phoral  parts  of  the  Copto-Jacobite  litui'gy  of  St. 
Basil,  together  with  the  anaphoral  part  of  that 
of  St.  Mark  are  given  in  parallel  columns  further 
on  in  the  same  work.  And  the  Copto-Jacobite 
patriai’chal  church  at  Alexandria,  said  to  be  the 
burial-place  of  the  head  of  St.  Mark,  and  of  72 
of  the  patriarchs,  is  described  there  likewise,  p. 
277.  Between  the  two  works  of  Dr.  Neale 
already  cited,  and  the  Oriens  Ch-istianus  of  Le 
Quien,  everything  further  that  has  yet  been 
discovered  on  the  subject  of  this  patriarchate 
may  be  ootained.  [E.  S.  F.] 

ALEXIUS,  6  ivOpcDTros  TOO  0600,  comme¬ 
morated  March  17  (Cal.  Byzantf) ;  July  17 
Horn.').  [C.] 


ALIENATION  OF  CHUDCII  FRO- 
PERTY.  —  In  treating  of  a  subject  like  that 
of  the  alienation  of  Church  property,  the  canons 
and  other  authorities  cited  as  evidence  of  the 
law  concerning  it  might  either  be  arranged  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  various  descriptions  of  property 
to  which  they  refer,  or  else  the  entire  legislation 
of  each  church  and  nation  might  be  exhibited  in 
chronological  order  apart  from  the  rest.  The 
latter  plan  has  been  here  adopted,  both  as  being 
more  suitable  to  a  general  article,  and  also 
because  in  matters  of  church  order  and  disci¬ 
pline  the  canons  of  councils  were  not  in  force 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  churches  in  which  they 
were  authoritativ^ely  promulgated. 

The  alienation — by  which  is  to  be  understood 
the  transference  by  gift,  sale,  exchange,  or  per¬ 
petual  emphyteusis® — of  Church  property  [see 
Property  of  the  Church]  was  from  early  times 
restrained  by  special  enactments. 

It  is  a  much  debated  question  amongst  Ca¬ 
nonists  whether  or  not  alienation,  except  in  ex¬ 
traordinary  cases,  was  absolutely  prohibited  in 
the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  by  reason  of  the 
sac2‘ed  character  impressed  upon  property  given 
for  ecclesiastical  purposes,  and  by  that  act  dedi¬ 
cated  to  God  (see  Balsamon  in  can.  12,  Cone.  VI 1. 
ap.  BeA^eridge  Pand.  Can.  i.  303).  As,  howevei, 
the  property  of  the  Church  must  in  those  timeh 
have  consisted  only  of  the  offerings  and  oblations 
of  the  faithful,  which  were  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  bishops,^  it  would  appear  most  probable 
that  they  wei*e  free  to  make  such  use  of  it  as 
they  might  think  would  be  productive  of  the 
greatest  benefit  to  their  several  dioceses. 

The  general  law  of  the  Church  has  been  well 
epitomised  in  the  Commentary  of  Balsamon  (ap. 
BeA^eridge  Pand.  Can.  ii.  177).  “  Unusquisque 

nostrorum  Episcoporum  rationem  administra- 
tionis  rerum  suae  Ecclesiae  Deo  reddet.  Vasa 
enim  pretiosa  Ecclesiarum,  seu  sacra,,  et  reliqiia 
Deo  consecrata,  et  possessiones  irnmobiles,  non 
sunt  alienabilia,  et  Ecclesiae  seiwantur.  Eccle- 
siasticorum  autem  redituum  administratio  secure 
credi  audacterque  committi  debere  illis,  qui  statis 
temporibus  sunt  Episcopi.”  Its  history,  as  it  is 
found  in  the  councils  of  different  churches,  has 
now  to  be  traced. 

In  the  East. — The  earliest  canon  Avhich  refers 
to  the  subject  is  the  15th  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Ancyra  (a.d.  314),  Avhich  proAudes  that  the 
Church  (on  the  expression  rh  KvpiaKhv  see  BeA-e- 
ridge,  Adnott.  in  loc.)  may  resume  possession  of 
whateA'er  property  the  presbyters  of  a  diocese 
may  haA*e  sold  during  the  A^acancy  of  the  see ; 
but  this  canon  does  not  limit  any  poAver  Avhich 
the  bishop  himself  may  preA'iously  haA'e  possessed, 
and  is  simply  an  application  of  the  Avell-knoAvn 
rule  “sede  A’^acante  nihil  innovetur.” 

The  Council  of  Antioch  (a.d.  341)  has  tAAm 
canons,  the  24th  and  25th,  bearing  upon  this 


®  On  the  nature  of  this  tenure  see  Smith’s  Dictionai'y 
of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities,  sub  voce,  ‘  Emphy¬ 
teusis.’  It  may  be  described  in  brief  as  the  right  to  use 
another  person’s  land  as  one’s  oAA-n,  on  condition  of  culti¬ 
vating  it,  and  paying  a  fixed  rent  at  fixed  times. 

b  The  oath  now  taken  by  bishops  consecrated  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Roman  ordinal,  contains  a  clause  relating  to 
the  alienation  of  Church  property.  In  what  words  and 
at  what  time  !i  clause  of  this  nature  was  first  introtluced 
into  the  ordinal  is  a  question  which  has  given  rise  to 
much  controA'ersy. 


ALIENATION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY 


51 


question,  which  are  either  imitated  from  the 
39th  and  40th  Apostolic  Canons,  or  have  been 
imitated  by  the  authors  of  that  collection  [Apos¬ 
tolic  Canons].  The  24th  directs  that  Church 
property,  which  ought  to  be  administered  subject 
to  the  judgment  and  authority  of  the  bishop, 
should  be  distinguished  in  such  a  way  that  the 
presbyters  and  deacons  may  know  of  what  it 
consists,  so  that  at  the  bishop’s  death  it  may  not 
be  embezzled,  or  lost,  or  mixed  up  with  his  private 
property.  That  part  of  this  canon  in  which 
reference  is  made  to  the  duties  imposed  on  pres¬ 
byters  and  deacons  is  not  contained  in  the  Apos¬ 
tolic  canon.  This  omission  would  seem  to  point 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  council  is  later  in 
date  than  the  39th  Apostolic  canon  ;  and  Beve¬ 
ridge  (Cod.  Can.  i.  43)  draws  the  same  inference 
as  to  the  date  of  the  40th  Apostolic  canon  from 
its  not  making  mention  of  ol  rwu  aypwu  Kapnol, 
words  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  25th  Canon 
of  Antioch.  By  the  25th  canon  it  is  provided  that 
the  Provincial  Synod  should  have  jurisdiction  in 
cases  where  the  bishop  is  accused  of  converting 
Church  property  to  his  own  use,  which  w'as 
also  forbidden  by  the  37th  Apostolic  canon, 
or  managing  it  without  the  consent  (/xr?  fiera 
yvw/xrjs)  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  also 
in  cases  where  the  bishop  or  the  presbyters  who 
are  associated  with  him  are  accused  of  any  mis¬ 
appropriation  for  their  own  benefit.  Here  again 
it  will  be  noted  that  the  effect  of  this  canon  is 
to  make  provision  for  the  better  and  more  care¬ 
ful  management  of  Church  property,  and  that  it 
does  not  abridge  any  right  of  alienation  which 
the  bishop  may  have  before  possessed.  It  must, 
however,  be  observed  that  the  power  of  the 
bishop  to  manage  Church  property  (an 

expression  which  would  doubtless  include  the 
act  of  alienation)  is  qualified  by  the  proviso  that 
it  must  be  exercised  with  the  consent  of  his 
presbyters  and  deacons. 

The  7th  and  8th  canons  of  the  Council  of 
Gangra  (the  date  of  this  council  is  uncertain, 
some  writers  placing  it  as  early  as  a.d.  324,  and 
others  as  late  as  A.D.  371:  see  Van  Espen, 
Diisertatio  in  Synodum  Gangrensem^  Op.  iii.  120, 
ed.  Lovan.  1753,  and  Beveridge,  Aduott.  in  id. 
Cone.,  who  inclines  to  the  opinion  that  it  was 
held  a  short  time  before  the  Council  of  Antioch, 
A.D.  341),  prohibit  under  pain  of  anathema  all 
persons  from  alienating  (StSoVat  rrjs  ck/cAt?- 
(Tias)  produce  belonging  to  the  Church,  except 
they  first  obtain  the  consent  of  the  bishop  or  his 
oeconomus,  or  officer  entrusted  with  the  care  of 
Church  property. 

The  enactments  contained  in  the  second  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Nicaea  (or  as  it  is  generally  styled  the  7th 
Oecumenical  Council)  a.d.  787,  will  be  more  con¬ 
veniently  considered  below. 

The  African  Church  seems  to  have  found  it 
necessary  to  place  special  restrictions  upon  the 
power  of  alienating  Church  property  possessed 
by  bishops  under  the  general  law.  By  the  31st 
canon  of  the  code  known  as  the  Statuta  Ecclesiae 
Antiqua,  promulgated  (according  to  Bruns,  Ca- 
nones,  i.  140)  at  the  4th  Council  of  Carthage 
(a.d.  398),  the  bishop  is  enjoined  to  u.se  the  pos¬ 
sessions  of  the  Church  as  trustee,  and  not  as  if 
they  were  his  ow'n  property  ;  and  by  the  next 
canon  all  gifts,  sales,  or  exchanges  of  Church 
property  made  by  bishops  without  the  consent  in 
writing  (“  absque  conniventia  et  subscriptione  ”) 


of  their  clergy  are  pronounced  invalid.  In  the 
31st  canon  there  are  further  provisions  against 
the  unauthorized  alienation  of  Church  property 
by  the  inferior  clergy.  If  convicted  in  the 
synod  of  this  offence  they  are  to  make  restitu¬ 
tion  out  of  their  owm  property. 

Again  by  the  26th  (ap.  Eev.  29th)  canon 
of  the  Codex  Ecclesiae  Africanae  promulgated 
A.D.  419,  which  repeats  the  4th  canon  of  the 
5th  Councf-  of  Cai’thage  ( A.D.  401  ),  it  is 
ordained  that  no  one  sell  the  real  property  be¬ 
longing  to  the  Church  ;  but  if  some  very  urgent 
reason  for  doing  so  should  arise,  it  is  to  be  com¬ 
municated  to  the  Primate  of  the  Province,  Avho  is 
to  determine  in  council  with  the  ])roper  number  of 
bishops  (f.e.  twelve)  w’hether  a  sale  is  to  be  made 
or  not ;  but  if  the  necessity  for  action  is  so  great 
that  the  bishop  cannot  wait  to  consult  the  synod, 
then  he  is  to  summon  as  witnesses  the  neigh¬ 
bouring  bishops  at  least,  and  to  be  carefful  after¬ 
wards  to  report  the  matter  to  the  synod.  The 
penalty  of  disobedience  to  this  canon  ivas  de¬ 
position.  By  the  33rd  canon  (ap.  Bev.  36th) 
presbyters  are  forbidden  to  sell  any  Church  pro¬ 
perty  without  the  consent  of  their  bishops ;  and 
in  like  manner  the  bishops  are  forbidden  to  sell 
any  Church  lands  (praedia)  without  the  privity 
of  their  Synod  or  presbyters.  (See  on  these 
canons  Van  Espen,  Op.  iii.  299,  &c. ;  and  the 
Scholion  of  Balsamon  ap.  Bev.  Band.  Can.  i.  551.) 

Passing  from  Asia  Minor  and  Africa  to  Italy, 
the  earliest  provisions  with  reference  to  alienation 
to  be  found  in  the  councils  are  in  the  council  held 
at  Rome  by  Pope  Symmachus  in  A.D.  502.  The 
circumstances  under  which  the  canons  of  this 
council  were  passed  (and  Avhich  relate  solely  to  the 
question  of  alienation)  are  thus  described  by  Dean 
Milman  :  “On  the  vacancy  of  the  see  [by  the  death 
of  Pope  Simplicius,  a.d.  483]  occurred  a  singular 
scene.  The  clergy  were  assembled  in  St.  Pete]’’s. 
In  the  midst  of  them  stood  up  Basilius,  the 
Patrician  and  Prefect  of  Rome,  acting  as  Vice¬ 
gerent  of  Odoacer  the  barbarian  King.  He  ap¬ 
peared  by  the  command  of  his  master,  and  by 
the  admonition  of  the  deceased  Simplicius,  to 
take  care  that  the  peace  of  the  city  Avas  not 
disturbed  by  any  sedition  or  tumult  during  the 
election.  .  .  .  He  proceeded,  as  the  protector 

of  the  Church  from  loss  and  injury  by  church¬ 
men,  to  proclaim  the  folloAving  edict  :  ‘  That  no 
one  under  the  penalty  of  anathema  should  alie¬ 
nate  any  farm,  buildings,  or  ornaments  of  the 
churches ;  that  such  alienation  by  any  bishop 
present  or  future  Avas  null  and  void.’  So  im- 
poi'tant  did  this  precedent  appear,  so  dangerous 
in  the  hands  of  these  schismatics  Avho  Avouhl 
eA’^en  in  those  days  limit  the  sacerdotal  poAver, 
that  nearly  twenty  years  after,  a  fortunate  occa¬ 
sion  Avas  seized  by  the  Pope  Symmachus  to  annul 
this  decree.  In  a  Synod  of  bishops  af  Rome  the 
edict  was  I'ehcarsed,  interrupted  by  protests  ot 
the  bishops  at  this  presumptuous  interference  of 
the  laity  Avith  affairs  of  ecclesiastical  juri.sdiction. 
The  authenticity  of  the  decree  Avas  not  called 
in  question  ;  it  Avas  declared  invalid  as  being 
contrary  to  the  usages  of  the  Fathers  enacted 
on  lay  authority,  and  as  not  being  ratified  by 
the  signature  of  any  Bishop  at  Rome.  The 
same  council,  hoAvever,  acknoAvledged  its  Avi.sdom 
by  re-enacting  its  ordinances  against  the  aliena¬ 
tion  of  Church  property  ”  (History  of  Latin 
Christianity,  vol.  i.,  ]>.  221,  2nd  ed.).  On  this 

E 


52 


ALIENATION  OF  CIIUKCH  PKOPERTY 


Council  Boehmer  notes  that  it  has  not  more 
authority  than  belongs  to  it  as  a  Council  of 
the  Italian  Church,  and  that  therefore  its  decrees 
(which  go  far  beyond  any  yet  promulgated  else¬ 
where)  were  not  binding  upon  other  Churches. 
Previously,  however,  to  this  date  Pope  Leo  the 
Great  (a.d.  447)  had  written  to  the  bishops  of 
Sicily  and  forbidden  the  alienation  of  Church 
property  by  the  bishops  except  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Church,  and  with  the  consent  of  the  whole 
clergy  {Ep.  17).  Pope  Gelasius  also  (a.d.  492- 
493),  writing  to  Justinus  and  Faustus  (who  were 
acting  in  the  place  of  their  bishop),  directed  the 
restitution  of  all  property  belonging  to  the 
Church  of  Volterra  which  had  been  alienated  up 
to  that  time  ;  and  in  another  letter  he  forbad 
the  appropriation  of  Church  lands  for  the  pay¬ 
ment  of  any  particular  stipend  (Fragg.  23  and  24, 
ap.  Thiel). 

In  the  history  of  the  GalUcan  Church  the 
earliest  reference  to  alienation  is  to  be  found 
in  a  letter  from  Pope  Hilarus  (a.d.  462)  to  the 
bishops  of  the  provinces  of  Vienne,  Lyons,  Nar- 
bonne,  and  the  Maritime  Alps,  in  which  he  pro¬ 
hibits  the  alienation  of  such  Church  lands  as  are 
neither  wa.ste  nor  unproductive  (“  nec  deserta 
iiec  damnosa  ”)  except  with  the  consent  of  a 
council  {Ep.  8  sec.  ult.). 

The  Council  of  Agde  (a.d.  506)  contains  seve¬ 
ral  canons  on  alienation.  The  22nd  canon,  while 
declaring  that  it  is  superfluous  to  define  any¬ 
thing  afresh  concerning  a  matter  so  well  known, 
and  a  practice  forbidden  by  so  many  ancient 
Canons,  prohibits  the  clergy  from  selling  or 
giving  away  any  Church  property  under  pain  of 
being  excommunicated  and  having  to  indemnify 
the  Church  out  of  their  private  resources  for 
any  loss,  the  transaction  being  at  the  same  time 
declared  void.  The  26th  canon  inflicts  the  like 
punishment  on  those  who  suppress  or  conceal  or 
give  to  the  unlawful  possessor  any  document  by 
which  the  title  of  the  Church  to  any  property 
is  secured.  The  48th  canon  reserves  to  the 
Church  any  property  left  on  the  death  of  a 
bishop,  which  he  had  received  from  ecclesiastical 
sources.  The  49th  canon  repeats  almost  in  the 
same  words  the  above  cited  31st  canon  of  the 
Statuta  Ecclesiae  Antiqua  ;  the  53rd  canon  pro¬ 
hibits,  and  pronounces  void,  any  alienation  by 
parish  priests ;  while  by  the  56th  canon  abbots 
are  forbidden  to  sell  Church  property  without 
the  bishop’s  consent,  or  to  manumit  slaves,  “as 
it  would  be  unjust  for  monks  to  be  engaged  in 
their  daily  labours  in  the  field  while  their  slaves 
were  enjoying  the  ease  of  liberty.” 

The  1st  Council  of  Orleans  (a.d.  511)  places 
all  the  immoveable  property  of  the  Church  in 
the  power  of  the  bishop  “  that  the  decrees  of  the 
ancient  canons  may  be  observed  ”  (canons  14 
and  15). 

Pope  Symmachus,  a.d.  513  (who  died  a.d.  514), 
in  answering  certain  questions  put  to  him  by 
Caesarius,  Bishop  of  Arles,  forbids  Church  ])ro- 
perty  to  be  alienated  under  any  pretence,  but 
he  permits  a  life  rent  to  be  enjoyed  by  clerks 
worthy  of  reward  {Ep.  15). 

By  the  5th  canon  of  the  1st  Council  of  Cler¬ 
mont  (a.d.  535)  all  persons  are  excommunicated 
who  obtain  any  Church  property  from  kings. 

In  the  same  year  Pope  Agapetus  writing  to 
Caesarius,  Bishoj)  of  Arles,  says,  that  he  is  un- 
Mill  ingly  obliged  to  refuse  the  bishop  permission 


to  alienate  some  Church  land.s,  revocant  nos 
veneranda  Patrum  manifestis.sima  constituta, 
quibus  specialiter  prohibemur  praedia  juris  ec¬ 
clesiae  quolibet  titulo  ad  aliena  jura  transferre  ” 
{Com.  Gall.  i.  240). 

The  12th  canon  of  the  3rd  Council  of  Orleans 
(a.d.  538)  allows  the  recovery  of  Church  pro¬ 
perty  within  30  years,  and  ordains  that  if  the 
possessor  should  refuse  to  obey  the  judgment  of 
the  Council  ordering  him  to  surrender,  he  is 
excommunicated. 

The  23rd  canon  renews  the  prohibition  against- 
the  alienation  of  Church  property  by  abbots  or 
other  clergy  without  the  written  consent  of  the 
bishop;  and  by  the  9th  canon  of  the  4th  Council 
held  at  the  same  city  (a.d.  541)  it  is  provided 
that  Church  property  udiich  has  been  alienated 
or  encumbered  by  the  bishop  contrai-y  to  the 
canons  shall,  if  he  has  left  nothing  to  the 
Church,  be  returned  to  it ;  but  slaves  whom  he 
may  have  manumitted  shall  retain  their  freedom, 
though  they  must  remain  in  the  service  of  the 
Church.  The  11th,  18th,  30th,  and  34th  canons 
contain  farther  provisions  on  the  subject. 

The  1st  canon  of  the  3rd  Council  of  Paris 
(a.d.  557)  is  directed  against  the  alienation  of 
Church  property,  but  this  canon,  as  well  as  tnose 
next  mentioned,  would  appear  to  I’efer  to  seizure 
by  force  rather  than  to  posse.ssion  by  any  quasi- 
legal  process.  Alienation  is  forbidden  by  the  2ud 
canon  of  the  2nd  Council  of  Lyons  (a.d.  567). 

In  the  2nd  Coiincil  of  Tours  (a.d.  567)  there 
are  two  canons — the  24th  and  25th — relating  to 
the  recovery  of  Church  property  from  the  hands 
of  unlawful  possessors. 

la  Spain  the  Council  held  A.D.  589  at  Xar- 
bonne,  which  in  its  ecclesiastical  relations  must 
be  considered  in  Spain  (Wiltsch.  Geog.  of  the 
Church.,  i.  100),  prohibits  the  alienation  ofChurch 
property  by  the  inferior  clergy,  without  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  bishop,  under  pain  of  suspension  for 
two  years  and  perpetual  inability  to  serve  in 
the  church  in  \vhich  the  oflence  \vas  committed 
(can.  8). 

By  the  3rd  Council  of  Toledo  (held  in  the  same 
year),  can.  3,  bishops  are  forbidden  to  alienate 
Church  property,  but  gifts  which,  in  the  ju<lg- 
ment  of  the  monks  of  the  diocese,  are  not  detri¬ 
mental  to  the  interests  of  the  Church  cannot  be 
disturbed ;  by  the  next  canon  bishops  may 
assign  Church  property  for  the  support  of  a 
monastery  established  with  the  consent  of  his 
Synod. 

By  the  37th  canon  of  the  4th  Council  of 
Toledo  (a.d.  633)  the  bishop  is  permitted  (sub¬ 
ject  to  the  confirmation  of  a  Provincial  Council) 
to  redeem  any  promise  of  reward  made  for  ser¬ 
vices  to  the  Church. 

The  9th  Council  of  Toledo  (a.d.  655)  contains 
provisions  very  similar  to  the  above  cited  canons 
of  the  3rd  Council  held  at  the  same  place. 

In  England,  Archbishop  Theodore  of  Canter¬ 
bury  (a.d.  668-690)  forbids  abbots  to  make  ex¬ 
changes  without  the  consent  of  the  bishop  and 
their  brethren  {Poenitentiale — Pe  Abbatibusf 

The  Excerj  tiones  ascribed  ena  neously  to  Arch¬ 
bishop  Egbert  of  York  (who  held  that  metropo- 
litical  see  from  a.d.  732  to  766)  declare  that 
gifts,  sales,  or  exchanges  of  Church  property  by 
bishops  without  the  consent  and  M-ritten  per¬ 
mission  of  the  clergy  shall  be  void  (cap.  144). 
The  Poenitentiale,  also  attributed  wrongly  to  the 


ALIENATION  OF  CHUKCH  PKOPERTY 


53 


same  prelate,  permits  exchanges  between  mo¬ 
nasteries  with  the  consent  of  both  communities 
(addit  25). 

The  last  Council  which  passed  canons  on  the 
subject  of  alienation  during  the  period  covered 
by  this  article,  is  the  2nd  Council  of  Nicaea  (the 
“  SeA'enth  Oecumenical  Council”)  held  a.d.  787. 
The  12th  canon  making  mention  of  the  39th 
Apostolic  Canon  forbids  the  alienation  or  transfer 
of  Church  lands  by  bishops  and  abbots  in  favour 
of  princes  or  other  secular  potentates  ;  and  it  also, 
like  many  of  the  canons  hereinbefore  cited,  pro¬ 
hibits  bishops  from  appropriating  any  ecclesias¬ 
tical  property  to  their  own  use  or  to  that  of 
their  relatives.  Even  when  the  retention  of  any 
Church  lands  is  unprofitable  they  may  not  be 
sold  to  magistrates  or  princes,  but  to  the  clergy 
or  to  farmers  ;  and  these  again  may  not  sell  them 
to  magistrates,  and  so  contravene  the  spirit  of  the 
canon.  Such  deceitful  transactions  are  invalid, 
and  the  bishop  or  abbot  who  is  guilty  of  taking 
part  in  them  is  to  be  deposed. — See  the  elaborate 
Scholion  of  Balsamon  on  this  canon,  ap.  Bev. 
Band.  Can.  i.  303. 

Having  now  gone  through  the  principal 
canons  passed  by  the  ecclesiastical  assemblies  of 
the  first  eight  centuries,  there  remain  to  be  consi¬ 
dered  the  laws  by  which  the  Christian  emperors 
limited  the  power  of  the  Church  as  regards  the 
alienation  of  its  property. 

Constantine  the  Great  had  in  a  decree  of  the 
year  A.D.  323  (secs.  16,  18)  assured  to  the 
Church  the  safe  enjoyment  of  its  propei'ty,  and 
had  commanded  the  restitution  as  well  by  the 
State  as  by  private  individuals  of  all  such  pro¬ 
perty  as  they  might  have  got  possession  of ;  but 
It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  imperial 
legislation  concerning  the  alienation  of  Church 
property  until  after  the  promulgation  of  the 
Codex  Theodosianus  in  a.d.  438. 

The  Codex  Repetitae  Praelectionis  promulgated 
by  Justinian  in  December  A.D.  534  contains  in 
the  2nd  title  of  the  1st  Book  various  provisions, 
made  by  his  predecessors  and  re-enacted  by  him, 
on  the  subject  of  alienation. 

In  the  14th  section  there  is  a  constitution  of 
the  Emperor  Leo  (a.d.  470)  which  prohibits  the 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  or  any  of  his 
stewards  (oeconomi)  from  alienating  in  any  way 
the  land  or  other  immoveable  property  or  the 
colon!  or  slaves  or  state  allowances  ( civiles 
annonae)  belonging  to  his  Church,  not  even  if  all 
the  clergy  agreed  with  the  Archbishop  and  his 
steward  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  transaction. 
The  reason  given  for  this  stringent  law  is  that 
as  the  Church  which  is  the  mother  of  Religion 
and  Faith,  is  changeless,  her  property  ought  to 
be  preserved  also  without  change.  Any  trans¬ 
actions  completed  in  defiance  of  this  constitution 
were  void,  and  all  profits  resulting  therefrom 
were  given  to  the  Church.  The  stewards  who 
were  parties  to  the  act  were  to  be  dismissed,  and 
their  property  made  liable  for  any  damage  which 
might  arise  from  this  infringement  of  the  law. 
Ihe  notaries  employed  were  to  be  sent  into  per¬ 
petual  exile,  and  the  judge  who  ratified  the  pro¬ 
ceeding  was  punished  by  the  loss  of  his  office 
and  the  confiscation  of  his  property.  There 
was,  however,  an  exception  made  to  this  rule  in 
the  case  of  a  usufruct,  the  creation  of  which 
was  permitted  for  a  term  of  years  or  for  the 
life  of  the  usufructuary.  (The  editions  of  the 


Corpus  Juris  Civilis  generally  contain  after  this 
section  a  series  of  extracts  from  the  Novells  on 
the  same  subject.) 

The  r7th  section  contains  a  constitution  of  the 
Emperor  Anastasius  to  which  no  precise  date 
is  affixed  by  the  commentators,  but  which  must 
have  been  promulgated  between  the  years  A.D. 
491  and  517  (Haenel,  Indices  ad  Corpus  Legum 
ah  Imp.  Rom.  ante  Just,  latarum,  p.  82,  Lipsiae 
1857).  This  constitution,  like  the  last  cited, 
applies' solely  to  the  Church  of  Constantinople, 
and  relates  to  monasteries,  orphanages  and 
other  eleemosynary  institutions  whose  property 
might  in  cases  of  necessity  be  sold,  exchanged, 
mortgaged,  or  leased  in  perpetual  emphyteusis  ; 
provided  that  the  transaction  be  effected  in  the 
manner  therein  prescribed  and  in  the  presence 
of  the  civil  authorities  and  the  representatives 
of  the  particular  body  w'hose  property  is  about 
to  be  dealt  with.  It  is,  however,  decreed  that  if 
there  be  moveable  property  (the  sacred  vessels 
excepted)  sufficient  to  meet  the  sum  required, 
the  immoveable  property  shall  not  be  touched. 

In  the  21st  section  is  given  a  constitution  of 
Justinian  himself  (a.d.  529)  in  which  he  forbids 
any  sale  or  other  alienation  of  sacred  vessels  or 
vestments  except  only  with  .the  object  of  re¬ 
deeming  capt-ives  (and,  according  to  some  edi¬ 
tions,  relieving  famine)  ;  “  quoniam  non  absur- 
dum  est  animas  hominum  quibuscunque  vasis 
vel  vestimentis  praeferri.” 

The  rule  w'hich  permitted  the  sale  or  melting 
down  of  Church  plate  for  the  redemption  of 
captives  is  one  of  great  antiquity.  Its  propriety 
is  now'here  more  eloquently  defended  than  in 
the  following  passage  from  the  2nd  Book  of 
St.  Ambrose  De  Offievs  Ministrorum  (cir.  a.d. 
391)  “  Quid  enim  diceres  ?  Timui  ne  templo 
Dei  ornatus  deesset  ?  Responderet :  Aurum  Sa- 
cramenta  non  quaerunt ;  neque  auro  placent, 
quae  auro  non  emuntur.  Ornatus  sacramento- 
rum  redemptio  captivorum  est.  Vere  ilia  sunt 
vasa  pretiosa,  quae  redimunt  animas  a  morte. 
Hie  verus  thesaurus  est  Domini  qui  operator 
quod  sanguis  Ejus  operatus  est.  .  .  .  Opus 

est  ut  quis  fide  sincera  et  perspicaci  providentia 
munus  hoc  impleat.  Sane  si  in  sua  aliquis  deri- 
vat  emolumenta,  crimen  est ;  sin  vero  pauperibus 
ei’ogat,  captivum  redimit,  misericordia  est.”  He 
concludes  by  directing  that  vessels  which  are 
not  consecrated  should  be  taken  in  preference  to 
those  which  have  been  consecrated ;  and  that 
both  must  be  broken  up  and  melted  within  the 
precinct  of  the  Church  (cap.  28).  The  supreme 
claims  of  charity  over  all  other  considerations  are 
insisted  upon  in  the  same  strain  by  St.  Jerome 
(A/),  ad  Repotianum,  A.D.  394)  and  St.  Chrysostom 
(Horn.  52  in  St.  Matthaeum),  while  at  the  same 
time  the  proper  respect  due  to  the  sacred  vessels 
is  always  emphatically  enjoined,  as,  for  example, 
by  St.  Optatus,  De  Schismate  Donatistarum  vi.  2. 
An  example  of  the  precautions  taken  against  the 
abuse  of  this  privilege  is  to  be  found  in  one  of 
the  letters  of  Gregory  the  Great  (vii.  13)  in 
which  writing  (a.d.  597)  to  Fortunatus,  Bishop 
of  Fano,  he  gives  permission  for  the  sale  of 
Church  plate  in  order  to  redeem  captives,  but 
directs,  with  the  view  of  avoiding  all  sus])icion, 
that  the  sale  and  the  payment  oA'er  of  the 
money  received  therefrom  should  be  made  in 
the  presence  of  the  “defensor.” 

Passing  to  the  Novells  of  Justinian — the  71  h 


64 


ALIENATION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY 


Novell  (a.d.  535)  relates  to  the  question  of 
alienation  of  Church  property,  and  professes  to 
amend  and  consolidate  the  then  existing  laws, 
and  to  extend  their  operation  to  the  whole  of 
^he  empire.  In  the  first  chapter  the  alienation, 
either  by  sale,  gift,  exchange,  or  lease  on  per¬ 
petual  emphyteusis,  of  immoveables  or  quasi¬ 
immoveables  belonging  to  churches  or  eleemo¬ 
synary  institutions,  was  forbidden  under  the 
penalties  prescribed  by  the  above-cited  consti¬ 
tution  of  Leo. 

Under  the  2nd  chapter  alienation  is  permitted 
in  favour  of  the  emperor  when  the  proper  forms 
are  observed  and  ample  compensation  made,  and 
when  the  transaction  is  for  the  public  benefit. 
The  reason  given  for  this  exception  is  not  with¬ 
out  significance.  In  the  Latin  version  it  is  as 
follows  :  “  Nec  multum  differant  ab  alterutro 
sacerdotium  et  imperium,  et  res  sacrae  a  com- 
munibus  et  publicis  ;  quando  omnis  sanctissimis 
ecclesiis  abundantia  et  status  ex  imperialibus 
munificentiis  perpetuo  praebeatur.” 

The  third  and  four  succeeding  chapters  con¬ 
tain  regulations  for  the  lease  of  Church  estates 
by  emphyteusis.  Their  provisions  are  too  ela¬ 
borate  to  be  set  out  at  length,  but  may  be 
briefly  stated  thus :  “  The  usual  conditions  of 
these  emphyteuses  are  for  three  lives  —  that 
of  the  original  emphyteuta  and  of  two  of  his 
or  her  heirs,  being  children  or  grandchildren, 
or  the  husband  or  wife  of  the  emphyteuta  if 
tiiere  be  a  special  clause  to  that  effect  (though 
about  this  power  there  is  some  doubt)  in  suc¬ 
cession.  Thus  the  duration  of  the  lease  is  in¬ 
determinate  and  contingent.  The  contract  was 
invalidated  by  default  in  payment  of  the  quit 
rent  (canon)  for  two  instead  of  for  three  years 
as  was  the  case  with  lay  emphyteuses  ”  (Colqu- 
houn,  Roman  Civil  Law,  §  1709). 

The  8th  chapter  renews  the  prohibition  against 
the  sale,  pledge,  or  melting  down  of  Church 
plate,  except  with  the  object  of  redeeming  cap¬ 
tives. 

The  12th  chapter  sanctions  the  abandonment 
of  all  contracts  made  on  behalf  of  the  Church 
for  the  acquisition  by  gift  or  purchase  of  un¬ 
profitable  land. 

The  40th  Novell  (promulgated  the  following 
year,  A.D.  536)  gives  to  the  “  Church  of  the 
Holy  Resurrection  ”  at  Jerusalem  the  privilege 
of  alienating  buildings  belonging  to  it,  notwith- 
standing  the  general  prohibition  contained  in 
the  7th  Novell. 

The  46th  Novell  (a.d.  536  or  537)  relaxed  the 
law  against  the  alieiintion  of  immoveable  Church 
property  when  there  was  not  sufficient  moveable 
property  to  pay  debts  owing  to  the  State  or  to 
private  creditors.  But  this  step  could  not  be 
taken  except  after  investigation  by  the  clergy, 
the  bishop,  and  the  metropolitan,  and  under  a 
decree  of  the  “judex  provinciae.”  ^ 

The  2nd  chapter  of  the  54th  Novell  (a.d. 
537)  pei’mits  exchanges  between  ecclesiastical 
and  eleemosynary  corporations,  but  the  Church  of 
St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople  is  excepted  from 
the  operation  of  this  law  as  it  is  also  from  that 
of  the  46th  Novell. 

The  55th  Novell  (A.D.  537)  forbids  alienation 
made  ostensibly  in  favour  of  the  emperor,  but 
really  for  the  benefit  of  private  individuals.  It 
also  permits  churches  and  other  religious  bodies 
(with  the  exception  of  the  Church  of  St.  Sophia) 


to  lease  their  lands  to  one  another  in  perpetual 
emphyteusis. 

The  65th  Novell  has  reference  to  the  alienation 
of  property  belonging  to  the  Church  of  Mysia, 
but  being  only  of  local  importance  it  need  not 
be  further  considered. 

In  the  67th  Novell  (a.d.  538)  the  number 
of  persons  appointed  under  the  46th  Novell  to 
enquire  into  the  propriety  of  any  alienation  is 
increased  by  the  addition  of  two  bishops  chosen 
by  the  metropolitan  from  his  Synod. 

The  10th  chapter  of  the  119th  Novell  (a.d. 
544)  permits  the  alienation  by  the  emperor  of 
Church  property  which  had  been  transferred  to 
him. 

The  last  of  the  numerous  edicts  promulgated 
by  Justinian  on  the  alienation  of  Church  pro¬ 
perty  is  contained  in  the  120th  Novell  (a.d. 
544)  in  which  he  again  undertakes  the  task  of 
consolidating  the  law  on  this  subject. 

The  first  four  chapters  concern  only  the 
Church  of  Constantinople.  The  alienation  of 
immoveables  is  forbidden,  except  in  favour  of  the 
emperor. 

The  5th  chapter  relates  to  the  property  of 
other  Churches.  The  provisions  therein  con¬ 
tained,  and  those  contained  in  the  previous 
chapters  on  emphyteusis  are  thus  briefly  sum¬ 
marized  by  Colquhoun  (Roman  Civil  Law,  § 
1709): — “The  120th  Novell  was  promulgated 
by  Justinian  in  order  to  modify  the  rigour  of 
the  prohibition  against  creating  perpetual  em¬ 
phyteuses  on  ecclesiastical  pi’operty  by  restrict¬ 
ing  it  to  the  estates  of  the  Church  of  Constanti- 
nople,  leaving  the  property  of  other  Churches  to 
be  regulated  by  the  common  law.  It  is,  how¬ 
ever,  very  doubtful  whether  or  not  the  emphy¬ 
teusis  on  Church  property  can  be  perpetual 
without  the  express  stipulation  for  a  term.  Nor 
does  the  prohibition  appear  to  be  absolute  even 
as  regards  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  which 
had  permission  to  grant  perpetual  emphyteuses 
in  cases  where  it  owned  ruined  edifices  without 
the  means  of  restoring  them.  The  Novell  fixes 
the  amount  at  a  third  of  the  revenue  which 
such  edifices  produced  before  their  then  ruined 
state,  payable  from  the  date  of  the  emphyteu- 
tical  title,  or  at  a  half  of  the  revenue  which  the 
buildings  actually  produced  after  their  restora¬ 
tion.  What  is  doubtful  with  respect  to  the  lay 
is  clear  with  regard  to  ecclesiastical  emphyteuses, 
viz.,  that  they  must  be  reduced  to  writing.  As 
before,  the  contract  was  invalidated  by  default  to 
pay  the  quit  rent  for  two  instead  of  three  years, 
as  was  the  case  with  lay  emphyteuses.  The 
point  open  to  discussion,  in  respect  to  lay  emphy¬ 
teuses,  of  whether  the  rent  in  ari'ear  may  be 
recovered  and  the  expulsion  of  the  tenant  also 
insisted  on,  is  clear  in  the  case  of  ecclesiastical 
emphyteuses  in  the  affirmative.  Lastly,  the 
Churches  enjoyed  a  right  of  resumption  entirely 
exceptional  to  the  common  law  when  the  estate 
accrued  ‘  aut  in  imperialem  domum,  aut  in  sac¬ 
rum  nostrum  aerarium,  aut  in  civitatem  aliquam, 
aut  in  curiam,  aut  in  aliquam  venerabilem  ali- 
am  domum.’  This  right  of  resumption  applied 
equally  in  the  case  of  all  transmission  of  the 
right,  whether  inter  vivos  or  mortis  causa,  with¬ 
out  reference  to  the  title  of  acquisition,  and  the 
time  for  its  exercise  was  two  years  instead  of 
two  months  as  in  lay  cases.” 

The  remaining  chapters  of  this  Novell  relate 


ALIENATION 


ALLELUIA 


55 


to  the  exchange  of  ecclesiastical  property  and 
the  sale  of  immoveables  and  Church  ])late  for 
the  redemption  of  captives.  The  provisions 
therein  contained  do  not  differ  in  any  important 
particular  from  the  previous  laws  above  cited  on 
the  same  subject,  and  they  need  not  be  repeated. 

The  provisions  of  the  Civil  Law  (which  have 
now  been  examined)  have  been  usefully  arranged 
by  the  glossator  on  the  Corpus  Juris  Civiiis, 
Nov.  7  and  Nov.  120  (ed.  Lugd.  1627).  Im¬ 
moveable  property  belonging  to  the  Church  can¬ 
not  be  alienated  under  any  circumstances  if  it 
fall  within  the  following  classes — 1.  If  it  had 
been  giA^en  by  the  emperor  (Nov.  120,  7).  2.  If 

the  thing  to  be  alienated  is  the  church  or  mo¬ 
nastery  itself  (ibS).  3.  When  the  proposed  trans¬ 
feree  is  the  oeconomus  or  other  church  officer  , 
(ih.).  4.  When  the  property  Avas  given  to  the  ' 

Church  subject  to  a  condition  that  it  should 
not  be  alienated  (Nov.  120,  9).  5.  If  the  pro¬ 

posed  transferee  be  a  heretic  (131,  14).  But 
subject  to  the  aboA'e  restrictions,  immoA’eable 
property  may  be  alienated  under  the  folloAving 
circumstances,  viz.  : — 1.  For  debt  (Nov.  46).  ^ 

2.  By  AA'^ay  of  emphyteusis  for  a  term  (var.). 

3.  In  exchange  with  another  church  (No\".  54,  2).  ' 

4.  If  the  transferee  be  the  emperor  (Nov.  7,  2). 

5.  For  the  redemption  of  captiA^es  (Nov.  120,  9). 
On  the  other  hand  moA’^eable  property  can  be 
freely  alienated  if  it  be  for  the  advantage  of  the 
Church  that  such  a  step  should  be  taken.  The 
exception  to  this  rule  is  in  the  case  of  Church 
plate,  which  cannot  be  alienated  except  for  the 
redemption  of  captiA’-es  (Nov.  7,  8  and  NoA^  120, 
10),  and  for  the  payment  of  debt  when  it  is  not 
necessary  for  the  proper  performance  of  Divine 
Service  (Nov.  120,  10). 

The  Barbarian  Codes  contain,  as  might  be 
expected,  many  Ihavs  directed  against  the  forci¬ 
ble  seizure  of  Church  property,  but  such  acts 
can  hardly  be  considered  to  fall  under  the  head 
of  alienation.  There  are,  hoAve\"er,  a  feAV  pro¬ 
visions  on  the  subject  anterior  in  date  to  the 
death  of  Charlemagne. 

By  the  3rd  chapter  of  the  5th  Book  of  the 
Leges  Visigothorum  (cir.  A.D.  700  :  see  DaA’oud 
Oghlou,  Histoire  de  la  Legislation  des  Anciens 
Germains,  i.  2)  if  any  bishop  or  clerk  alienate 
by  sale  or  gift  any  Church  property  Avithout  the 
consent  of  the  rest  of  the  clergy,  such  sale  or 
gift  is  void,  unless  it  be  made  according  to  the 
ancient  canons. 

Again  in  the  20th  chapter  of  the  Leo:  Alam- 
manorum  (which  in  its  present  shape  was  pro¬ 
bably  compiled  about  the  beginning  of  the  8th 
century — see  Davoud  Oghlou,  op.  cit.  i.  304)  the 
inferior  clergy  are  forbidden  to  sell  Church  lands 
or  slaA'es  except  by  Avay  of  exchange. 

In  the  collection  entitled  Capitularia  Regum 
F rancorum  there  is  a  Capitulary  of  the  date  A.D. 
814,  forbidding  all  persons  whatsoeA’’er  to  ask 
for  or  receiA'e  any  Church  property  under  pain  of 
excommunication  (6,  135). 

There  are  also  tAvo  Capitularies  Avhich  are 
probably  not  later  in  date  than  the  one  last 
cited.  By  the  first  of  these  presbyters  are  for- 
niddcn  to  sell  Church  pi’operty  without  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  bishop  (7,  27);  to  Avhich  in  the 
second  is  added  the  consent  of  other  priests  of 
good  reputation  (7,  214). 

(The  following  authorities  may  be  consulted  : 
—Du  Rousseaud  de  la  Combe,  Recueil  de  Juris¬ 


prudence  Canonique  [Paris  1755],  sub  voce  Ali^ 
nation;  Boehmer,  Jus  Ecclesiasticum  Prote  tan- 
imw[Halae  Magd.  1738,  &c.]  in  LJecretal.  III.  ; 
Ferraris,  Bibliotheca  Canonica  [ed.  ]\Iignel,  sub 
voce  Alienatio ;  Sylvester  Mazzolini  da  Prierio 
[Lugd.  1533]  sub  Amce  Alienatio;  Redoanus,  Be 
Rems  Ecclesiae  non  alienandis  [printed  in  the  2nd 
part  of  the  15th  volume  of  the  J'ractahis  Uni- 
versi  Juris,  Venice,  1584];  and  the  Commenta¬ 
tors  on  the  above-cited  passages  from  the  Cor/us 
Juris  Civiiis,  and  on  the  following  passages  from 
the  Corpus  Juris  Canonici,  Decreti  Secunda 
Pars,  Causa  xii.  Quaestio  2  ;  and  Decretal,  lib. 
III.  13).  [I.  B.] 

ALLELUIA  (Greek  ' A.W'gXoviaJ).  The  litur¬ 
gical  form  of  the  HebreAv  “  Sing  ye 

praises  to  JehoA-ah  ;”  a  formula  found  in  Psalm 
117,  and  in  the  headings  of  several  Psalms,  espe¬ 
cially  Psalms  113-118,  which  formed  the  “  Hal- 
lel,”  or  Alleluia  Magnum,  sung  at  all  the  greater 
Jewish  feasts.  Alleluia  and  Amen,  says  the  , 
Pseudo-Augustine  Q^p.  178,  ii.  1160,  Migne), 
neither  Latin  nor  barbarian  has  A^entured  to 
translate  from  the  sacred  tongue  into  his  oAvn  ; 
in  all  lands  the  mystic  sound  of  the  HebreAV  is 
heard. 

1.  It  is  thought  by  some  that  the  early  Church 
transferred  to  the  Christian  Paschal  feast  the 
custom  of  singing  Psalms  Avith  Alleluia  at  the 
Paschal  sacrifice  ;  and  this  conjecture  derives 
some  probability  from  the  fact,  that  in  the  most 
ancient  sacramentaries  the  Alleluia  precedes  and 
folloAvs  a  Averse,  as  in  the  Jewish  usage  it  precedes 
and  follows  a  Psalm.  Vet  Ave  can  hardly  doubt 
that  the  use  of  the  Alleluia  in  the  Church  aa'us 
confirmed,  if  not  originated,  by  St.  John’s  vision 
(^Apoc.  19,  6)  of  the  heaA'enly  choir,  Avho  sang 
Alleluia  to  the  Lord  God  Omnipotent.  By  the 
4th  century  it  seems  to  haA^e  been  Avell  known  as 
the  Christian  shout  of  joy  or  victory  ;  for  Sozo- 
men  (//.  E.  vii.  15,  p.  298)  tells  of  a  voice 
heard  (an.  389)  in  the  temple  of  Sera})is  at 
Alexandria  chanting  Alleluia,  Avhich  was  taken 
for  a  sign  of  its  coming  destructfon  by  the  Chris¬ 
tians.  The  Auctory  Avhich  the  Christian  Britons, 
under  the  guidance  of  Germanus  of  Auxerre,  Avith 
their  loud  shout  of  Alleluia,  gained  OA’er  the 
pagan  Piets  and  Scots  (an.  429)  is  another  instance 
of  the  use  of  Alleluia  for  encouragement  and 
triumph  (Beda,  Ilistoria  Ecclesiastica,  i.  c.  20, 
p.  49);  and  Sidonius  A])ollinaris  (lib.  ii.  Ep.  10, 
p.  53)  speaks  as  if  he  had  heard  the  long  lines  of 
haulers  by  the  riA^er  side,  as  they  toAved  the 
boats,  chanting  Alleluia  as  a  “celeusma,”  to  make 
them  pull  together.  These  instances  are  of  course 
not  altogether  free  from  susjdcion ;  but  they 
serve  to  shoAV  that  in  early  times  the  Alleluia 
Avas  regarded  as  a  natural  expression  of  Christian 
exultation  or  encouragement. 

2.  A  special  use  of  the  Alleluia  is  found  in  the 
liturgies  both  of  Last  and  West.  In  most  Eastern 
liturgie.s,  it  folloAvs  immediately  ujwn  the  Chk- 
RUUIC  Hvmn,  which  precedes  the  greater  Ex- 
TRAXCD  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  those  of  St.  James, 
St.  Mark,  and  St.  Chrysostom  (Neale’s  Tetralogia, 
pp.  54,  55).  In  the  Mozarabic,  Avhich  has  many 
Oriental  characteristics,  it  is  sung  after  the 
Gospel,  Avhilo  the  priest  is  making  the  oblation  : 
“  Inteidm  quod  chorus  dicit  Alleluia,  offerat  sacer- 
dos  hostiam  cam  calice  ”  (Neale’s  Tetralogia, 
p.  60).  In  the  West,  it  folloAvs  tlie  Gkadual, 


66 


ALLELUIA 


ALL  SAINTS 


and  so  immediately  precedes  the  reading  of  the 
Gospel.  In  early  times  it  seems  to  have  been 
simply  intoned  by  the  cantor  who  had  sung  the 
Gradual,  standing  on  the  steps  of  the  Ambo,  and 
repeated  by  the  choir ;  but  before  the  8th  cen¬ 
tury  the  custom  arose  of  prolonging  the  last  syl¬ 
lable  of  the  Alleluia,  and  singing  it  to  musical 
notes  (Ordo  Romanus  II.,  in  Mabillon’s  Museum 
Italicum,  vol.  ii.  p.  44).  This  was  called  jubila- 
iio.  The  jubilant  sound  of  the  Alleluia,  however, 
was  felt  to  be  fitting  only  for  seasons  of  joy ; 
hence  its  use  was  in  many  churches  limited  to 
the  interval  between  Easter  and  Whitsunday. 
Sozomen,  indeed  (^H.  E.  vii.  19,  p.  307)  seems  to 
say  that  in  the  Roman  Church  it  was  used  only 
on  Easter-day ;  but  we  cannot  help  suspecting 
that  he  must  have  misunderstood  his  informant, 
who  may  have  used  the  word  “  Pascha  ”  to  de¬ 
note  the  Avhole  of  the  seA^en  weeks  folloAving 
Easter-day ;  for  St.  Augustine  distinctly  says 
(Ap.  ad  Janarium;  Ep.  119  [al.  55]  p.  220 
Migne)  that  the  custom  of  singing  Alleluia  dur¬ 
ing  those  fifty  days  Avas  universal,  though  in 
seA'eral  churches  it  Avas  used  on  other  days  also. 
In  the  Rule  of  St.  Benedict  (c.  15,  p.  297)  the 
use  of  Alleluia  in  the  responsories  of  the  mass 
seems  to  be  limited  to  the  season  from  Easter  to 
Whitsunday  ;  but  soon  after  Benedict’s  time  it 
AA^as  probably  more  common  in  the  West  to  inter¬ 
mit  its  use  only  from  Septuagesima  to  Easter. 
For  at  the  end  of  the  6th  century,  Gregory  the 
Great  Avidtes  to  John  of  Syracuse  (^Epist.  ix.  12, 
p.  940)  that  some  murmured  because  he  (Gregory) 
Avas  OA'ermuch  given  to  folloAving  the  customs  of 
the  Greek  Church,  and  in  particular  because  he 
had  ordered  the  Alleluia  to  be  said  at  mass 
beyond  the  Pentecostal  season  (extra  tempora 
Pentecostes) ;  so  fai*,  he  continues,  is  this  from 
being  the  case,  that  Avhereas  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  the  time  of  Pope  Damasus  had  adopted, 
through  Jerome’s  influence,  from  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem  the  limitation  of  the  Alleluia  to  the 
season  before  Pentecost,  he  had  actually  inno- 
A'ated  on  this  Greek  custom  in  orderingr  the 

O 

Alleluia  to  be  said  at  other  seasons  also.  This 
seems  the  most  probable  sense  of  this  much-con- 
troA'erted  passage,  as  to  the  reading  and  interpre¬ 
tation  of  AA'hich  there  is  much  difference  of 
opinion.  (See  Baronius,  Ann.  384,  n.  27,  Ami.  v., 

р.  578;  and  IVIabillon,  Museum  Italicum,  ii.  xcAui.). 
The  4th  Council  of  Toledo  (canon  11)  orders  that 
(in  accordance  Avith  the  uniAmrsal  custom  of 
Christendom)  the  Alleluia  should  not  be  said  in 
the  Spanish  and  Gaulish  churches  during  Lent — 
an  injunction  Avhich  seems  to  imply  that  its  use 
was  permitted  during  the  rest  of  the  year.  The 
same  canon  (in  some  MSS.)  also  forbids  the  Alle¬ 
luia  on  the  Kalends  of  January,  “  quae  propter 
errorem  gentilium  aguntur,”  but  on  AA'hich  Chris¬ 
tians  ought  to  fast. 

The  intermission  of  Alleluia  during  a  particular 
season  is  expressed  by  the  phrase  “Alleluia  clau¬ 
sum  ”  (Du  Cange,  s.  a'.). 

3.  We  haA'e  already  seen  that  St.  Benedict 
prescribed  the  use  of  the  Alleluia  in  the  respon¬ 
sories  of  the  Mass  from  Pasch  to  Pentecost.  He 
prescribed  it  also  in  the  ordinary  offices  (Eegula, 

с.  12,  p.  286).  From  Pentecost  to  Ash-Wednes- 
day,  howcA'er,  it  AA'as  to  be  said  in  the  nocturnal 
office  only  Avith  the  six  last  Psalms:  “A  Pen- 
tecoste  autem  ad  caput  quadragesimae  omnibus 
noctibus  cum  sex  posterioribus  Psalmis  tan- 


tum  ad  nocturnas  dicatur”  (^Rogula,  c.  15,  p 
297). 

In  the  Roman  arrangement  of  the  ordinary 
offices,  the  Alleluia  folloAvs  the  “  InA'ocation  ”  in 
all  the  hours  ;  but  from  Septuagesima  to  the 
Thursday  in  Holy  Week  the  A'erse,  “  Laus  tibi 
Domine;  Rex  aeternae  gloriae,”  is  substituted. 

4.  We  learn  from  Jerome  {Ep.21  [108],  ^19, 
p.  712,  ad  Eustochium  ;  cf.  23  [38],  §  4,  p.  175) 
that  the  sound  of  the  Alleluia  summoned  monks 
to  say  their  offices  :  “  Post  Alleluia  cantatum,  quo 
signo  A'ocabantur  ad  collectam,  nulli  residere 
licitum  erat.” 

5.  It  Avas  chanted  at  funerals ;  as,  for  instance, 
at  that  of  Fabiola  (Jerome,  Ep.  ad  Oceanum,  30 
[77],  p.  466);  at  that  of  Pope  Agapetus  in  Con¬ 
stantinople  (Baronius,  ann.  536,  §  64,  vol.  ix., 
p.  544). 

This  usage  is  found  in  the  Mozarabic  rite,  and 
perhaps  once  existed  in  the  ancient  Gallican  (Ba¬ 
ronius,  ann.  590,  §  39,  a'oI.  x.  p.  485). 

(Bona,  Be  Diviim  Psahnodia,  c.  xvi.  §  7 ;  De 
Rebus  Liturgicis,  lib.  ii.,  c.  6,  §  5  ;  Krazer,  De 
Liturgiis,  p.  419.)  [C.] 

ALL  SAINTS,  Festival  of  {Omnium  Sanc¬ 
torum  Natalis,  Festivitas,  Solemnitas). — In  the 
Easteim  Church  a  particular  Sunday,  the  first 
after  Pentecost,  Avas  appropriated  in  ancient 
times  to  the  commemoration  of  all  martyi*s. 
Chrysostom,  in  the  'Ejudgiou  els  rovs  aylovs 
nduTas  tovs  ev  oXy  rZ  K6(Tfj.Cj>  p.apTvpr](ruvTas, 
says  that  on  the  OctaA'e  of  Pentecost  they  find 
themseh’es  in  the  midst  of  the  band  of  martyrs  ; 
irapeAa&ev  pfids  p.apTvpo>v  (0pp.  ii.  711): 

and  there  is  a  similar  allusion  in  Orat.  contra 
Judaeos,  y\.  (0pp.  ii.  p.  650).  This  FestiA'al  of 
All  Martyrs  became  in  later  times  a  Festival  of 
All  Saints,  and  the  Sunday  next  after  Pcnteco.st 
appears  in  the  Calendar  of  the  Greek  IMenologion 
as  KvpiaKT]  tZv  'Ayiwu  irarTuv.  The  intention 
in  so  placing  this  commemoration  probabl  v  was 
to  crown  the  ecclesiastical  year  Avith  a  solemnity 
dedicated  to  the  Avhole  glorious  band  of  saints 
and  martyrs. 

In  the  West,  the  institution  of  this  festival 
is  intimately  connected  Avith  the  dedication  to 
Christian  purposes  of  the  Pantheon  or  Rotunda 
at  Rome.  This  temple,  built  in  honour  of  the 
victory'  of  Augustus  at  Actium,  Avas  dedicated 
by'  M.  Agrippa  to  Jupiter  Vindex,  and  AA-as  called 
the  Pantheon,  probably  from  the  number  of 
statues  of  the  gods  Avhich  it  contained,  though 
other  reasons  are  a.ssigned  for  the  name. 

Up  to  the  time  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  idol- 
temples  AA'ere  generally'  throAA’u  doAvn,  or,  if  they 
AA'ere  suffered  to  remain,  Avere  thought  unworthy 
to  be  used  in  the  service  of  God.  Gregory 
himself  at  first  maintained  this  principle,  but  in 
the  latter  part  of  his  life,  thought  it  Avould  con¬ 
duce  more  to  the  con\'ersion  of  the  heathen  if 
they'  were  alloAved  to  Avorship  in  the  accustomed 
spot  Avith  ncAV  rites  (see  his  Avell-knoAvn  letter 
to  Mellitus,  in  Bede,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  30  ;  0pp.  A'i. 
p.  79);  and  from  this  time,  the  principle  of  con- 
A'erting  heathen  fanes  to  Christian  uses  seems  to 
haA'e  become  familiar.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
7th  century,  the  Pantheon  remained  almost  the 
solitary  monument  of  the  old  heathen  Avorship 
in  Rome.  In  the  year  607  Boniface  III.  obtained 
from  the  Emperor  Phocas  the  important  re¬ 
cognition  of  the  supremacy  of  Rome  OA'er  all 


ALL  SAINTS 


ALL  SOULS 


67 


otlier  churches ;  and  in  the  same  year  his  suc¬ 
cessor,  Boniface  IV.,  having  cleansed  and  restored 
the  Pantheon,  obtained  the  emperor’s  permission 
to  dedicate  it  to  the  service  of  God,  in  the  name 
“  S.  Mariae  semper  Yirgiuis  et  omnium  hlar- 
tyrum  {Liber  Pontif.  in  Muratori,  Her.  Ital. 
Scriptores,  iii.  1,  135).  This  dedication  is  com¬ 
memorated,  and  is  believed  to  have  taken  place, 
on  May  13.  On  this  day  we  find  in  the  old  Ro¬ 
man  iiartyrology  edited  by  Rosweyd,  “  S.  Mariae 
ad  i\Iartyres  dedicationis  dies  agitur  a  Bonifacio 
Papa  statutus.”  Baronius  tells  us,  that  he  found 
it  recorded  in  an  ancient  MS.  belonging  to  the 
Church  itself,  that  it  was  first  dedicated  “  In 
honorem  S.  Mariae,  Dei  Genetricis,  et  omnium 
SS.  Martyrum  et  Confessorum  and  that  at  the 
time  of  dedication  the  bones  of  martyrs  from 
the  various  cemeteries  of  the  city  were  borne  in 
a  procession  of,  twenty-eight  carriages  to  the 
church.  {Martyrol.  Pom.  p.  204.)  The  technical 
use  of  the  word  “  confessor  ”  seems,  however,  to 
indicate  a  somewhat  later  date  than  that  of  the 
dedication  ;  and  Paulus  Diaconus  {Hist.  Longo- 
bard.  iv.  37,  p.  570)  tells  us  simply  that  Phocas 
granted  Boniface  permission,  “  Ecclesiam  beatae 
semper  Virginis  Mariae  et  omnium  Martyrum 
fieri,  ut  ubi  quondam  omnium  non  deorum  sed 
daemonum  cultus  erat,  ibi  deinceps  omnium  fieret 
momoria  sanctorum,”  and  the  church  bears  to 
this  day  the  name  of  “  S.  Maria  dei  Martiri.” 
This  festival  of  the  13th  May  was  not  wholly 
confined  to  the  city  of  Rome,  yet  it  seems  to  have 
been  little  moi'e  than  a  dedication-festival  of  the 
Rotunda,  corresponding  to  the  dedication-festivals 
of  other  churches,  but  of  higher  celebrity,  as  the 
commemoration  of  the  final  victory  of  Christianity 
over  Paganism. 

The  history  of  the  establishment  of  the 
festival  of  All  Saints  on  Nov.  1  is  somewhat 
obscure.  The  Martyrologium  Pom.  Vet.,  al¬ 
ready  quoted,  gives  under  “  Kal.  Novembr.”  a 
“  Festivitas  Sanctorum,  quae  Celebris  et  gene- 
ralis  agitur  Romae.”  The  very  terms  here  used 
show  that  this  “  Festivitas  Sanctorum  ”  was  a 
sjiecially  Roman  festival,  and  it  was  probably 
simply  the  dedication-feast  of  an  oratory  dedi¬ 
cated  by  Gregory  III.  “  In  honorem  Omnium 
Sanctorum.”  But  in  the  8th  century,  the  ob- 
seivance  of  the  festival  was  by  no  means  con¬ 
fined  to  Rome.  Beda’s  Metrical  Martyrology  has 

“  Multiplici  nitilat  gemma  ceu  in  fronte  November,  • 
Cunctorum  fulget  Sanctorum  laude  decoris.’’ 

In  the  ancient  Hieronymian  calendar  in 
D’Achery  {Spicileg.  tom.  ii.),  it  appears  under 
Kal.  Novemb.,  but  only  in  the  third  place; 
“  Natal  is  St.  Caesarii ;  St.  Andomari  Episcopi ; 
sive  Omnium  Sanctorum.”  The  list  of  festivals 
in  the  Penitential  of  Boniface  gives  “  In  solemni- 
tate  Omnium  Sanctorum  ;  ”  but  the  feast  is  not 
found  in  the  list  given  by  Chrodogang  (an.  762), 
or  in  Charlemagne’s  Capitulary  {Op]).  Caroli 
Magni,  i.  326)  on  the  subject  of  festivals.  It 
appears  then  to  have  been  observed  by  some 
churches  in  Germany,  France,  and  England  in 
the  middle  of  the  8th  century,  but  not  univer¬ 
sally.  It  was  perhaps  this  diversity  of  practice 
which  induced  Gregory  IV.,  in  the  year  835,  to 
suggest  to  the  Emperor  Lewis  the  Pious,  a  ge¬ 
neral  ordinance  on  the  subject.  Sigebert,  in  "his 
Chronicon  (in  Pistorius,  Script.  Ge.>'m.  tom.  i.), 
tells  us,  under  that  year,  “Tunc  monente  Gre¬ 


gorio  Papa,  et  omnibus  episcopis  assentiontibus, 
Ludovicus  Imperator  stiituit,  ut  in  Gallia  et 
Germania  Festivitas  Omnium  Sanctorum  in  Kal. 
Novemb.  celebraretur,  quam  Romani  ex  institute 
Bonifacii  Papae  celebrant.”  (Compare  Adonis 
Martyrol.  ed.  Rosweyd,  p.  180.)  It  would  seem 
from  this,  that  the  festivals  of  May  13  and 
Nov.  1  had  already  coalesced  on  the  latter  day, 
and  that  the  one  festival  then  observed  was 
referred  to  Boniface  IV.,  who,  in  fact,  instituted 
that  of  May  13.  The  time  was  perhaps  chosen 
as  being,  in  a  large  part  of  Lewis’s  dominions, 
the  time  of  leisure  after  harvest,  when  men’s 
hearts  are  disposed  to  thankfulness  to  the  Giver 
of  all  good.  From  this  time.  All  Saints’  day  be¬ 
came  one  of  the  great  festivals  of  the  Church, 
and  its  observance  general  throughout  Europe. 

It  probably  had  a  Vigil  from  the  first,  as  be¬ 
fore  the  time  of  its  general  observance  a  Vigil 
and  Fast  preceded  the  groat  festivals  of  the 
Church.  It  may,  perhaps,  have  had  an  octave 
from  its  first  institution  in  Rome  itself;  but  this 
was  not  the  case  in  other  churches,  for  an  octave 
of  All  Saints  does  not  seem  to  be  found  in  any 
calendar  earlier  than  the  13th  century.  Proper 
collects,  preface,  and  benediction  for  the  “Natalis 
Omnium  Sanctorum  ”  are  found  in  some,  but  not 
the  most  ancient,  MSS.  of  the  Gregorian  Sacra- 
mentaiy  (p.  138). 

(Baronius  in  Marty rologio  Pomano,  May  13 
and  Nov.  1 ;  Binterim’s  Denkwurdigkeiten,  vol. 
V.  pt.  1,  p.  487  ff. ;  Alt  in  Herzog’s  Peal-Ency- 
clopddie,  i.  247.)  [C.] 

ALL  SOULS,  Festival  of  {Omnium  fde- 
lium  dcfunctorum  memoria  or  commemoratio). 
Very  ancient  traces  of  the  observance  of  a  day 
for  the  commemoration  of  “  the  souls  of  all 
those  who  have  died  in  the  communion  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  ”  (according  to 
Cyprian)  appear  in  the  Fathers  of  the  Church. 

Tertullian  {He  Corona  Militis,  c.  3)  says, 
“  Oblationes  pro  defunctis  annua  die  facimus.” 
And  to  the  same  effect  he  speaks  {De  Exhort. 
Castitatis,  c.  11,  and  De  Monogam.  c.  10)  of 
annual  offerings  (oblationes)  for  the  souls  of  the 
departed.  These  were  probably  made  on  the  an¬ 
niversary  of  the  death,  and  were  especially  the 
business  of  surviving  relatives.  So  Chrysostom 
{Horn.  29  in  Acta  Apost.),  speaks  of  those  who 
made  commemoration  of  a  mother,  a  wife  or  a 
child.  Similarly  Augustine  {De  Cura  pro  Mor¬ 
tals,  ch.  4). 

It  appears  from  an  allusion  in  Amalarius  of 
Metz  (before  837)  that  in  his  time  a  day  was 
specially  dedicated  to  the  commemoration  of  all 
souls  of  the  departed,  and  it  seems  probable  that 
this  was  the  day  following  All  Saints’  Day. 
Amalarius  says  expressly  {De  Eccl.  Ojfficiis,  lib. 
iii.  c.  44)  “  Anniversaria  dies  ideo  repetitur 
pro  defunctis,  quoniam  nescimus  qualiter  eorum 
causa  habeatur  in  altera  vita.”  And  in  c.  65, 
he  says  “  Post  officium  Sanctorum  inserui  of- 
ficium  pro  mortuis  ;  multi  enim  transierunt  de 
praesenti  saeculo  qui  non  illico  sanctis  conjun- 
guntur,  pro  quibus  solito  more  officium  agitur.” 
The  festival  of  All  Souls  is  here  regarded  as  a 
kind  of  supplement  to  that  of  All  Saints,  and 
may  very  probably  have  taken  place  on  the 
morrow  of  that  day.  But  the  earliest  definite 
injunction  for  the  observance  of  a  commemoral  ion 
of  all  souls  of  the  departed  on  Nov.  2  appears  to 


68 


ALMACHIL'S 


ALMS 


be  that  of  Odilo,  Abbot  of  Clugny,  in  the  10th 
century.  A  pilgrim  returning  from  Jerusalem, 
says  Peter  Damiani  (^Vita  Odilonis,  0pp.  ii.  410), 
reported  to  Odilo  a  woful  vision  which  he  had 
had  on  his  journey  of  the  suffering  of  souls  in 
purgatorial  fire  :  Odilo  thereupon  instituted  in 
the  churches  under  his  control  a  general  com¬ 
memoration  of  the  souls  of  the  faithfu4  departed 
on  the  day  following  All  Saints’  Day ;  “  per 
omnia  monasteria  sua  constituit  generate  de- 
cretum,  ut  sicut  primo  die  Mensis  Novembris 
juxta  universalis  Ecclesiae  regulam  omnium 
Sanctorum  solemnitas  agitur  ;  ita  sequenti  die 
in  psalmis,  eleemosynis  et  praecipue  Missarum 
solemniis,  omnium  in  Christo  quiescentium 
memoria  celebraretur.”  This  order  was  soon 
adopted,  not  only  by  other  monastic  congrega¬ 
tions,  but  by  bishops  for  their  dioceses ;  for 
instance,  by  the  contemporary  Bishop  Notger  of 
Liege  {Chronicon  Belgicum,  in  Pistorius’s  Scrip- 
torcs  German,  iii.  92).  The  observance  appears, 
in  fact,  in  a  short  time  to  have  become  general, 
without  any  ordinance  of  the  Church  at  large  on 
the  subject. 

But  even  after  the  observance  of  a  commemo¬ 
ration  of  All  Souls  on  Nov.  2  became  common, 
we  find  (^Statutes  of  Cahors,  in  Martene,  The¬ 
saurus  Anecdot.  iv.  766)  that  in  some  places  the 
morrow  of  St.  Hilary’s  Day  (Jan.  14),  and  in 
others  the  morrows  of  the  Octaves  of  Easter 
and  Pentecost  were  appropriated  to  the  special 
commemoration  of  the  souls  of  the  departed 
(Binterim’s  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  vol.  v.  pt.  1,  p. 
492  tf.).  [C.] 

ALMACHIUS,  martyr  at  Borne,  commemo¬ 
rated  Jan.  1  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.^  Bedaef  [C.] 

ALMS  {'EKctj pocrwri,  non-classical  in  this 
sense,  either  word  or  thing  ;  although  for  the 
thing,  see  Seneca,  Be  Benefic.  vi.  3,  and  Martial, 
Epigr.  V.  42  ;  and  for  the  word  also,  Diog.  Laert. 
V.  17  :  first  found  in  the  special  meaning  of  alms  in 
LXX.,  Dan.  iv.  24  [27  Heb.],  where  the  original 
reads  “righteousness;”  so  also  Tobit  xii.  9,  xir. 
11  [and  elsewhere],  Ecclus.  iii.  30,  iv.  2,  vii.  10, 
xxix.  15,  16,  XXXV.  2).  Alms  recognized  as  a  duty 
throughout  the  0.  T.,  but  brought  into  promi¬ 
nence  in  the  later  Jewish  period  (cf.  Buxtorf, 
F.o  il.  Jfebr.  p.  88;  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Hebr.  in 
Matt.  vi.  2,  Luc.  ii.  8),  when  they  were  formally 
and  regularly  given  in  the  synagogues  (Vitring. 
Be  Syn.  Vet.^  to  be  distributed  by  appointed 
officers,  as  also  by  putting  them  into  certain 
trumpet-shaped  alms-boxes  in  the  temple,  called 
yo.^ocpvXdKia  (Le  Moyne,  Not.  in  Var.  Sac.  ii. 
75;  De)ding,  Observ.  Sac.  iii.  175  ;  distinct  from 
the  ya^o(pvXd.Kiov  or  treasury  of  St.  Luke  xxi.  1). 
They  were  regarded  also  as  a  w'ork  specially 
acceptable  to  God  (Prov.  xix.  17,  xxii.  9,  ike. ; 
Tobit,  and  Ecclus.,  passim  ;  St.  Luke  xi.  41,  Acts 
X.  2).  In  like  manner  they  became  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church — 

I.  A  fundamental  law  of  Christian  morality 
(St.  Matt.  X.  42,  xix.  21,  xxv.  35;  St.  Luke  xii. 
33 ;  Acts  ii.  44,  iv.  34-37,  xi.  29,  30 ;  Rom.  xii. 
13,  XV.  25;  2  Cor.  viii.  12,  ix.  7  ;  Gal.  ii.  1,  vi. 
10 ;  Ephes.  iv.  28  ;  1  Tim.  vi.  18 ;  Hebr.  xiii. 
16;  1  Pet.  iv.  8,  9 ;  1  John  iii.  17),  so  tho¬ 
roughly  recognized  as  to  make  it  both  super¬ 
fluous  and  impossible  .  to  enumerate  patristic 
allusions  to  it.  Special  tracts  on  almsgiving, 
by  St.  Cyprian,  Be  Opere  ct  Eleemos. ;  St.  Greg. 


Nyss.,  Be  Pauperihus  Amandis  Oratt.  IT.  St. 
Greg.  Naz.,  Be  Paupeium  Amore  Drat.  ;  St.  Basil 
M.,  Semt'.  de  Eleemos.  inter  Setmon.  XXIV.;  St. 
Ephraem  Syrus,  Be  Aw/yre  Pauperum ;  St.  I.eo 
M.,  Sermones  VI.  Be  Collectis  et  Eleemos. ;  St. 
Maximus,  Ad  Joann.  Cubic.  Epnst.  II.  {Be  Elee¬ 
mos.')  ;  and  among  the  sermons  attributed  to  St. 
Chrysostom,  one  Be  Jejun.  et  Eleemos.,  and  three 
Be  Eleemos.,  &c.  (and  see  a  collection  of  patristic 
citations  in  Drexelius,  Be  Eleemosyna).  Even 
Julian  the  Apostate,  c.  a.d.  351,  bears  testimony 
that  the  almsgiving  of  “  the  Galileans  ”  over¬ 
flowed  beyond  their  own  poor  to  the  heathen 
{Epist.  ad Arsac.,V:\)\st.x\{x.;  and  compare  Lucian, 
as  quoted  below) ;  and  thinks  it  expedient  to 
boast  of  his  own  kindness  {Ad  Themist.).  Com¬ 
pare  also  such  notable  examples  as  those,  e.g., 
of  Pope  Soter  as  described  by  his  contemporary 
Dionysius  Bishop  of  Corinth,  c.  A.D.  160  (ap. 
Euseb.  II.  E.  iv.  23);  of  Paulinus  of  Nola;  of 
Deo  Gratias  Bishop  of  Carthage  towards  Gen- 
seric’s  captives  (see  Milman,  I.  C.  i.  205,  and 
Gibbon) ;  of  Johannes  “  Eleemosynarius,”  Patri¬ 
arch  of  Alexandria,  A.D.  606-616  :  and  the  oc¬ 
currence  of  such  expressions  as,  “  Hoc  praestat 
eleemosyna  quod  et  Baptisma  ”  (St.  Hieron.  in 
Ps.  cxxxiii.),  “  Christian!  sacrificium  est  eleemo¬ 
syna  in  pauperem”  (St.  Aug.  Se7'm.  xlii.,  from 
Heb.  xiii.  16);  or  again,  that  almsgiving  is  the 
“  characteristic  mark  of  a  Christian,” — 
TYipiariKhv  Xpiariavov,  and  that  it  is  ixi]Tt)p 
dydirr^s,  (pdppaKOV  afjLapTTjfxdTuv,  els  rhy 

obpauhv  iaT-ppiypevT]  (St.  Chrys.  in  Heb.  Horn. 
xxxii.,  and  in  Tit.  Horn,  vi.) ;  or  again,  that 
“res  ecclesiae”  are  “patrimonia  pauperum.” 

II.  An  integral  part  of  Christian  worship  (Acts 
ii.  42,  vi.  1 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.l  ;  1  Tim.  v.  3, 16)  :  alms 
for  the  poor,  to  be  distributed  by  the  clergy  (Acts 
xi.  30),  being  a  regular  portion  of  the  offerings 
made  in  church,  among  those  for  the  support  of 
the  clergy,  and  oblations  in  kind  for  the  Church 
services  (Justin  M.,  Apol.  I.  p.  98,  Thirlby  ;  St. 
Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  xx.,  0pp.  i.  351  ;  Constit. 
Apostol.  iv.  6,  8 ;  St.  Chrys.,  Ho7n.  1.  in  S. 
Matth.  0pp.  vii.  518,  Ben. ;  Cone.  Gangrens., 
circ.  A.D.  324,  c.  8 ;  for  the  East : — St.  Iren., 
Adv.  Ilaer.  iv.  18  ;  St.  Cypr.,  Be  Op.  et  Eleem., 
203,  Fell ;  TertulL,  Apol.  39 ;  Arnob.,  Adv. 
Gent,  iv.,  in  fin.  ;  St.  Ambros.,  Ep.  xvii.  Ad 
Valent.  0pp.  ii.  827,  Ben.  ;  Cone.  Eliber..  a.d. 
304,  cc.  28,  29 ;  Cone.  Carthag.  iv.,  a.d.  398, 
cc.  93,  94  ;  Optatus,  Be  Schism.  Bonat.  vi.  p.  93, 
Albaspin.  ;  Cone.  Matiscon.  ii.,  a.d.  585,  c.  4 ; 
Horn,  cclxv.  in  Append,  ad  S.  Aug.  0pp.  v. ; 
Resp.  Greg.  M.  ad  Qu.  Aug.  ap.  Baed.  H.  E. 
i.  27  ;  for  the  West :  Psalms  being  sung,  at  least 
at  Carthage,  during  the  collection  and  distribu¬ 
tion,  St.  Aug.  Retract,  u.  11);  and  this  as  a  pri¬ 
vilege,  the  names  of  considerable  donors  being 
{Constit.  Agostol.  iii.  4;  St.  Cypr.,  A/.Ysf. 
ix.  al.  xvii.,  lx.  al.  Ixii. ;  St.  Hieron.,  in  let'em,  xi. 
lib.  ii.,  in  E Tech,  a  viii. ;  St.  Chrys.,  //om.  xviii. 
in  Act. :  Gest.  Checil.  et  Felic.  ad  fin.  Optati  p.  95), 
and  the  offerings  of  evil-livers,  euergumeni,  ex¬ 
communicate  persons,  suicides,  and  of  those  at 
enmity  with  their  brethren,  being  rejected  (St. 
Iren.,  Adv.  Ilaer.  iv.  34;  TertulL,  Be  Praescrip. 
30;  Constit.  Agost.  iv.  5-7  ;  St.  Athan.,  Ep.  ad 
Solitar.,  p.  364,  ed.  1698 ;  Epist.  ad  Bonifac.  in 
App.  ad  0pp.  S.  Aug.  ii. ;  Cone.  Herd.  A.D.  524,  c. 
13;  and  A'  tissiod.  i.,  A.D.  578,  c.  17  :  the  Irish 
synods  assigned  to  St.  Patrick,  c.  12,  Wilk.  i.  3, 


ALMS 


ALMS 


59 


and  c.  2,  ib.  4 ;  and  St.  Ambrose,  Optatus,  and  the 
Councils  of  Lerida  and  Carthage,  above  quoted  ; 
or  later  still,  Capit.  Herard.  Archiep.  Turon, 
116,  in  Baluz.  Capit.  i.  1294,  and  repeatedly  in 
the  Capitularies).  There  was  also  an  alnis-box 
(yo-^o(pv\(iKiou,  corhona,  see  St.  Cypr.,  De  Op.  et 
£leeinos.,  and  St.  Hieron.,  Epist.  27,  c.  14),  placed 
in  the  church  for  casual  alms,  to  be  taken  out 
monthly  (Tertull.  Apol.  39).  And  Paulinus 
{Epist.  32)  speaks  of  a  table  (mensa)  for  re¬ 
ceiving  the  offerings.  Collections  for  the  poor  in 
church  both  on  Sundays  and  on  week  days  are 
mentioned  by  St.  Leo  the  Great  {Serm.  de  Col- 
lectis).  The  poor  also  habitually  sat  at  the 
church  door,  at  least  in  the  East,  to  receive  alms 
(St.  Chrys.,  Horn.  xxvi.  De  Verb.  Apost.,  Horn.  i. 
in  2  Tim.,'  Horn.  iii.  De  Poenit.). 

III.  An  institution  having  a  formal  list  of  re¬ 
cipients,  mainly  widows  and  orphans  (St.  Ignat., 
ad  Pohjearp.  iv. ;  Constit.  Apost.  iv.  4,  &c.) ;  or, 
upon  occasion,  martyrs  in  prison  or  in  the  mines, 
or  other  prisoners,  or  shipwrecked  persons  (Dion. 
Corinth,  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  23  ;  Tertull.,  De 
Jejun.  13  ;  Lucian,  De  Morte  Peregrin.  §  11,  Op. 
viii.  279,  Bipont. ;  Liban.,  A.D.  387,  Orat.  xvi. 
in  Tisamcn.,  Orat.  de  Vinctis,  ii.  258,  445,  ed. 
Reiske):  and  special  officers,  as  for  other  directly 
ecclesiastical  functions,  so  also  for  managing  the 
Church  alms,  viz.  deacons  {Const.  Apost.  ii.  31, 
32,  iii.  19 ;  Dionys.  Alex.  ap.  Euseb.  //.  E.  vii. 
11  ;  St.  Cypr.,  Epist.  xli.,  and  xlix.  al.  Iii.,  Fell. ; 
St.  Hieron.,  Ad  Nepot.  Epist.  xxxiv.) ;  and  among 
women,  deaconesses,  commonly  widows  of  ad¬ 
vanced  age  {Constit.  Apost.  iii.  15  ;  St.  Hieron., 
Ad  Nepot.  Epist.  xxxiv. ;  and  Lucian  and  Libanius 
as  ,above).  See  also  Tertullian  {Ad  Uxor.  ii. 
4  and  8)  for  the  charitable  works  of  married 
Christian  matrons. 

IV.  These  arrangements  were  supplemented 
when  necessary  by  special  collections  appointed 
by  the  bishop  (Tertull.,  De  Jejun.  13),  after  the 
pattern  of  St.  Paul,  for  extraordinary  emer¬ 
gencies,  whether  at  home  or  among  brethren  or 
others  elsewhere;  e.g.  St.  Cypj'ian’s  collection 
of  “  sestertia  centum  millia  nummorurn  ”  for 
the  redemption  of  Numidian  captives  from  the 
barbarians  (St.  Cypr.,  Epist.  lx.)  ;  mostly  accom¬ 
panied  by  fast  days  (Tertull.  ib. — and  so,  long 
after,  Theodulph,  a.d.  787  [_CajDit.  38],  enjoins 
almsgiving  continually,  but  specially  on  fast  days), 
tut  sometimes  at  the  ordinary  Church  service 
(St.  Leo  M.,  De  Collectis) :  a  practice  which  grew 
sometimes  into  the  abuse  which  was  remedied  by 
the  Council  of  Tours  (ii.  a.d.  567,  c.  5),  enact¬ 
ing  that  each  city  should  provide  for  its  own 
poor,  and  by  Gregory  the  Great,  desiring  the 
Bishop  of  Milan  to  protect  a  poor  man  at  Genoa 
from  being  compelled  to  contribute  to  such  a 
collection  (St.  Greg,,  Epist.  ix.  126).  See  also 
St.  Hieron.,  Adc.  Vigilantium. 

The  hyairai  also  may  be  mentioned  in  this 
connection  (1  Cor.  xi.  20,  Jude  12 ;  Tertull., 
Aj.ol.  39 ;  Constit.  Apost.  ii.  28 ;  prohibited 
Cone.  Laod.,  A.D.  364,  c.  5,  and  see  Cone.  Quini- 
sext.  A.D.  762,  c.  74;  and  under  Agapae).  Also 
the  ^fydiufs  or  ^fvoUoxda  (St.  Chrys.,  Horn.  xlv.  in 
Act.  Apostol. ;  St.  Aug.,  Tract,  xcvii.  in  Joh. 
§  4);  the  TTreoxorpo^fta,  managed  by  the  “/cArj- 
piKoi  or  acpTjyovpeyoi  rwv  TrTwxeiwv  ”  {Cone. 
Chalccd.  A.D.  451,  c.  8  ;  and  Pallad.,  /fist.  Laiis. 

V.);  the  7'>7poKO)Li€ta,  the  votroKOjuera  (Pallad.,  V. 
Chrys.  p.  19),  the  6p<pavorpo(pe7a :  of  which  the 


names  explain  themselves  (and  see  abundant  re¬ 
ferences  in  Suicer,  sub  voce.,  and  Justinian  also 
enacts  laws  respecting  such  institutions  and  the 
clergy  who  manage  thenr.),  and  which  came  into 
being  with  the  Christian  Church.  E.  g.,  the 
^aaiXeias  of  St.  Basil  at  Caesarea  stands  as  a 
notable  example  of  a  Christian  hosjatal,  at  once 
for  sick  and  strangers  (St.  Basil.  M.,  Epist.  94 ; 
St.  Greg,  Naz.,  Orat.  xxvii,  and  xxx.  ;  Sozom.  vi. 
34),  with  its  smaller  offshoots  in  the  neighbour¬ 
ing  country  (St.  Basil.  M.,  Epist.  142,  143) ;  and 
so  also  the  hospital  of  St.  Chrysostom,  with  his 
advice  on  the  subject  to  the  faithful  of  Con¬ 
stantinople  (St.  Chrys.,  Horn.  xlv.  in  Aet.  Ap.ost. 
0pp.  ix.  343) ;  and  the  Xenodoehiurn  founded 
“  in  portu  Romano  ”  by  Pammachius  and  Fabiola 
(St.  Hieron.,  Ad  Ocean.  Ep.  Ixxxiv.).  Add  also 
the  alms  given  at  marriage  and  at  funerals  (St. 
Chrys.,  Horn,  xxxii.  in  S.  Matth.;  St.  Hieron., 
Ad  Pammach.  de  Obitu  Uxor.  Ep.  liv. ;  Pseudo- 
Origen.,  Comment,  in  Job.  lib,  iii.  p.  437  ;  St. 
Aug.,  Cont.  Faust,  xx.  20 ;  and  see  Bingham). 
Our  own  Council  of  Cealchyth,  in  A.D,  816  (c. 
10),  directs  the  tenth  of  a  bishop’s  substance 
to  be  given  in  alms  upon  his  death.  The  Mani- 
chaeans  appear  to  have  refused  alms  to  needy 
persons  not  Manichaeans  on  some  recondite  ))rin- 
ciple  of  their  connection  with  the  principle  or 
evil,  for  which  they  are  condemned  by  St.  Aug. 
{De  Mor.  Manich.  ii.  15,  16)  and  Theodcret 
{Hacr.  Fab.  i.  26). 

There  was  apparently  no  specified  rule  for 
division  of  ecclesiastical  revenues,  originally  of 
course  entirely  xmluntary  offerings,  anterior  to 
the  5th  century ;  the  bishop  being  throughout 
their  chief  administrator,  but  by  the  hands  of 
the  deacons  (see  e.  g.  St.  Cypr.,  about  Felicis- 
simus,  Epist.  xli. ;  and  Cone.  Gangr.,  c.  8,  and 
Epiphan,  Haer.  xL,  condemning  the  Eustathians 
for  withdrawing  their  alms  from  the  bishop  or 
the  officer  appointed  by  him).  In  the  Western 
Church  in  the  5th  century  (setting  aside  the 
questionable  decree  of  the  Synod  of  Rome  under 
Sylvester  in  324)  we  find  a  fourfold  division  of 
them :  1,  for  the  bishop  ;  2,  for  the  clergy ;  3, 
for  the  poor  ;  4,  for  the  fabric  and  sustentation 
of  the  churches.  Or  again,  for  1.  Churches; 
2.  Clergv  ;  3.  Poor ;  4.  Strangers.  This  origin- 
ated  with  the  Popes  Simplicius  {Epist.  3,  a.d. 
467)  and  Gelasius  (in  Gratian  Cans.  12  qu.  2, 
c.  Sancimus,  a.d.  492);  is  mentioned  repeatedly 
by  St.  Gregory  the  Great  at  the  end  of  the  6th 
century  {e.g.  Ep.  iv.  11,  v.  44,  vii.  8,  xiii.  44  ; 
Pesp.  ad  August.,  &c. ; — and  see  also  Cone.  Aurel. 
1.  c.  5),  was  varied  in  Charlemagne’s  and  Lnd. 
Pius’  Capitularies  (i.  80,  Baluz.  718),  as  re¬ 
garded  voluntary  offerings,  into  two-thirds  to 
the  poor  and  one-third  to  the  cleigy  in  rich 
place.s,  and  half  to  each  in  poor  ones;  but  was 
repeated  in  the  old  form  by  the  Capd.  of  Cnarle- 
iiiagne  him.-elf  respecting  tithes  (Baluz.  i.  356) 
and  by  the  Counc.  of  Hon//S,  a.d.  868,  c.  7; 
Tribur.,  A.D.  895,  c.  13  ;  and  Nantes,  A.D.  895  (?), 
c.  10  (if  at  least  this  last  is  not  to  be  referred 
to  the  Council  of  Nantes  in  658). 

The  special  otKce  of  Lleinwsynarius  or  Almoner 
occurs  in  later  times,  afterwards  the  name  of 
the  superintendent  of  the  alms-house  or  hosjiital, 
but  at  first  a  distributor  of  alms  :  both  in  monas¬ 
teries  (described  at  length  by  Du  Cange,  fjom  a 
MS  of  St.  V^ictor  of  Paris),  although  the  office  in 
the  older  Egyptian  monasteries  belonged  to  the 


60 


ALMS 


ALTAK 


oeconomus,  under  the  special  name  of  ZiaKovla 
(Cussian,  Collat.  xviii.  7,  xxi.  9)  ;  and  afterwards, 
in  England  at  least,  as  an  officer  attached  to 
each  bishop  {Cone.  Oxon.,  a.d.  1222 ;  Lyudw., 
Frovinc.  i.  13,  p.  67) ;  and  lastly  to  the  king,  as 
e.g.  in  England,  and  notably  to  the  Kings  of 
France  (see  a  list  in  Du  Cange). 

In  the  history  of  doctrine,  the  subject  of  alms- 
civing  is  connected — I.  With  the  notions  of  oom- 
n. unity  of  goods,  voluntary  poverty,  and  the 
difficulty  of  salvation  to  the  rich ;  the  current 
voice  of  fathers,  as  e.  g.  TertulL,  A[X)l.  39,  Justin 
M.,  Apol.  i.,  Arnob.  Adv.  Gent.  iv.  in  fin.,  magni¬ 
fying  the  temper  indicated  by  ra  twj/  (p'lAwy 
TrduTa  KOLud,  while  others,  as  St.  Clem.  Alex. 
(^Strom.  iii.  6,  p.  536,  Potter),  rejected  its  literal 
and  narrow  perversion  (see  also  his  tract  at 
length,  Quis  Dices  Salvetur)’  which  perversion 
indeed  the  Church  condemned  in  the  cases  of  the 
Apostolici  or  Aj  otactitae  (St.  Aug.,  De  Haer.  xl. 
0pp.  viii.  9  ;  St.  Epiphan.,  Haer.  Ixi.),  and  of  the 
Massalians  (St.  Epiphan.  Haer.  Ixx.),  and  again 
m  that  of  the  Pelagians,  who  maintained  that 
rich  men  must  give  up  their  wealth  in  order  to 
be  saved  (so  at  least  Pseudo-Sixtus  III.,  De 
Divitiis  ;  and  see  St,  Aug.,  Epist.  cvi.  ad  Paulin.^ 
and  Cone.  Diospolit.  §  6,  A.D,  415).  Compare 
Mosheim’s  Diss.  de  Vera  Nat.  Commun.  Bono- 
rum  in  Eccl.  Hieros.  II.  With  the  relation  of 
good  works  to  justification ;  alms  and  fasting 
standing  prominently  in  the  question,  i.  as  com- 
pai’atively  outward  and  positive  acts,  ii.  as  being 
specially  urged  from  early  times  as  parts  of 
repentance  and  charity  (e.  g.  Hermas,  Pastor 
X.  4 ;  Salvian,  Adv.  Avarit.  ii,  p.  205 ;  Lactant., 
Div.  List  it.  vi.  13,  tom.  i.  p.  470  ;  Constit.  S. 
Clem.  vii.  12  ;  St.  Ambros.,  De  Elia  ct  Jejun. 
XX. ;  St.  Chrys.,  Horn.  vii.  de  Poenit.  §  6,  0pp. 
ii.  336  C).  “  Date  et  dabitur  vobis,”  found  its 

answer  in  the  repeated  occurrence  of  the  w'ords 
(e.g.  St.  Caesar.  Arel.,  Horn,  xv,  ;  St.  Eligius,  in 
Vita  ii.  15,  ap.  D’Ach.,  Spicil.  ii.  96),  “Da,  Do- 
mine,  quia  dedimus ;  ”  but  the  whole  doctrine 
derived  its  colour  in  each  case  from  the  succes¬ 
sive  phases  of  the  doctrine  of  merit.  Ill,  With 
(in  time)  the  idea  of  compounding  for  other  sins 
by  alms,  a  feeling  strengthened  by  the  imposition 
of  alms  by  way  of  satisfaction  and  of  commuta¬ 
tion  of  penance.  The  introduction  of  the  practice 
is  attributed  to  Theodore  of  Canterburv,  c.  a.d, 
700,  but  upon  the  ground  only  of  the  Peniten- 
tials  hitherto  falsely  attributed  to  him  ;  while  the 
abuse  of  it  is  severely  condemned  by  the  Counf’il 
of  Cloveshoe,  a.d.  747  (c.  26),  and  by  Theodulph 
(Cap/it.  32,  A.D.  787).  Its  grossest  instance  is 
probably  to  be  found  in  the  ledger-like  calcula¬ 
tion  of  the  payments,  by  which  “  powerful  men  ” 
could  redeem  their  penances,  in  Eadgar’s  canons, 
in  pn.  (Thorpe,  ii,  286-289),  about  a.d.  963. 
See  also  Morinus,  De  Poenit.  lib.  x.  c.  17,  who 
treats  the  question  at  length.  IV.  With  alms 
for  the  dead.  See  Cone.  Carth.  iv.,  a.d.  398,  c. 
79  ;  St.  Chrys.,  as  before  quoted,  and  Bingham. 
See  also  for  later  times,  Car.  M.,  Capit.  v.  364, 
ap.  Baluz.  i.  902. 

Plough-alms  in  England  (eleem.  carucarum, 
Suhl-aelm  issati),  viz.,  a  penny  for  every  plough 
used  in  tillage,  to  be  paid  annually  fifteen  days 
after  Easter  (Laws  of  Eadgar  and  Guthrun,  a.d. 
906,  c.  6 ;  Eadgar’s  Laws  i.  2,  and  can.  54,  a.d. 
959  and  975  ;  Ethelred’s,  ix.  12,  a.d,  1014; 
CnuCsyC.  8,  c.  A.D.  1030;  Rectit.  '>ing  Pers.,  §  de 


Viliams'),  were  rather  a  church  due  than  alms 
properly  so  called.  As  was  also  St.  Peter’s 
penny,  Eleemos.  S.  Petri.  And  lAhera  Eleemo- 
syna,  or  Frank-AImoign,  is  the  tenure  of  most 
Church  lands  from  Saxon  times  (viz.,  tenure 
on  condition,  not  of  specific  I  religious  services, 
but  of  Divine  Service  generally),  although  now 
incapable  of  being  created  de  novo  (Stat.  Quia 
Emptores,  18  Edw,  I.).  See  Stephen’s  Blacksione, 
i.,  Bk.  II.  Pt.  i.  c.  2,  in  pn.  [A.  W.  H.] 

ALNENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Alcester, 
Council  of.] 

ALTAR. — The  table  or  raised  surface  on 
which  the  Eucharist  is  consecrated. 

I.  Names  of  the  Altar. 

1.  Tpdyrefa,  a  table  ;  as  rpdirc^a  Kuptov,  1  Cor. 
X.  21.  This  is  the  term  most  commonly  used  bv 
the  Greek  Fathers  and  in  Greek  Liturgies  ;  some¬ 
times  simply,  r]  rpdne^la,  as  the  Table  by  pre¬ 
eminence  (Chrysost.  in  Ephes.  Horn.  3),  but 
more  frequently  with  epithets  expressive  of  awe 
and  reverence ;  pvcTiKr),  m/evpaTiKT],  (po^^pd, 
(ppiKT-f),  (ppiKwdrjs,  ^aariKiK-i]  dOdi/aros,  lepd,  ayla, 
Beta,  and  the  like  (see  Suicer’s  Thesaumis,  s.  v.). 
St.  Basil  in  one  passage  (Ep.  73,  0pp.  ii.  870) 
appears  to  contrast  the  Tables  (rpaTreCas)  of  the 
orthodox  with  the  Altars  (dv(riaaTr]pia)  of  Basi- 
lides.  Sozomen  (Etcl.  Hist.  ix.  2,  p.  368)  says 
of  a  slab  wffiich  covered  a  tomb  that  it  was 
fa.shioned  as  if  for  a  Holy  Table  (Sianep  ds  Updp 
i^ga-KUTo  rpdwf^au),  a  passage  which  seems  to 
show  that  he  was  familiar  with  stone  tables. 

2.  Ova-iaarrjpiov,  the  place  of  Sacrifice ;  the 
word  used  in  the  Septuagiut  for  Noah’s  altar 
(Gen.  viii.  20),  and  both  for  the  Altar  of  Burnt- 
sacrifice  and  the  Altar  of  Incense  under  the 
Levitical  law,  but  not  for  heathen  altars. 

The  word  Bvaiaarnpiop  in  Heb.  xiii.  10,  is 
reffirred  by  some  commentators  to  the  Lord’s 
Table,  though  it  seems  to  relate  rather  to  the 
heavenly  than  to  the  earthly  sanctuaiy  (Thomas 
Aquinas).  The  Bvaiaar-fipiov  of  Ignatius,  too 
(ad  Philad.\\  compare  Magn.  7;  Trail.  7), 
can  scarcely  designate  the  Table  used  in  the 
Eucharist  (see  Lightfoot  on  Philippians,  p.  263, 
n.  2).  But  by  this  word  Eusebius  (Hid.  Eccl. 
X.  4,  §  44)  describes  the  altar  of  the  great 
church  in  Tyre,  and  again  (Panegyr.  sub  fin.)  he 
speaks  of  altars  (Bvaiaarrpia)  erected  through¬ 
out  the  world.  Athanasius,  or  Pseudo-Athana¬ 
sius  (Disp.  emit.  Arium,  0pp.  i.  90),  explains 
the  word  Tpd-n-f^a  by  Bvcriaarripiop.  This  name 
rarely  occurs  in  the  liturgies.  (dvaiaarfipiov 
not  unfrequently  designates  the  enclosure  within 
which  the  altar  stood,  or  Bema  (see  Mede,  On  the 
JSamc  Altar  or  Qucrtaarnpiop,  Works,  p.  382  fl'.). 

3.  The  Copts  call  the  altar  'Waarripiov,  the 
word  applied  in  the  Greek  Scriptures  to  the 
Mercy-Seat,  or  covering  of  the  Ark  [compare 
Arca]  ;  but  in  the  Coptic  liturgy  of  St.  Basil 
they  use  the  ancient  Egyptian  woi’d  Pimaner- 
sc/ioouschi,  which  in  Coptic  ver.sions  of  Scripture 
answers  to  the  Heb.  HSTD  and  the  Greek  Bvcia- 
(TTripLov  (Renaudot,  Lit.  Orient,  i.  181). 

4.  The  word  Bcouhs  (see  Nitzsch  on  the 
Odyssey,  vol.  ii.  p.  15)  is  used  in  Scripture  and 
in  Christian  wudters  generally  for  a  heathen 
altar.  Thus  in  1  Maccab.  i.  54,  we  read  that  in 
the  persecution  under  Antiochus  an  “abomina¬ 
tion  of  desolation”  was  built  on  the  Temple-altar 


ALTAR 

(^Qvaiaa'T'fjpLOv),  while  idol-altars  (Bw/tol)  were 
set  up  in  the  cities  of  Judah ;  and,  again  (i.  59), 
iacrihces  were  offered  “  eVl  t6v  Bcc/j.d^i'  hs  ini 
rov  Qv<Tia(TTr)plov.”  The  word  Bw/xos  is,  how¬ 
ever,  applied  to  the  Levitical  altar  in  Ecclesias- 
ticus  1.  12,  the  work  of  a  gentilizing  writer.  It 
is  generally  repudiated  by  early  Christian  writers, 
except  in  a  figurative  sense  :  thus  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (Strom,  vii.  p.  717)  and  Origen  (c. 
Celsum  viii.  p.  389)  declare  that  the  soul  is  the 
true  Christian  altar  (Bwgds),  the  latter  expressly 
admitting  the  charge  of  Celsus,  that  the  Chris¬ 
tians  had  no  material  altars.  Yet  in  later  times 
Bugos  was  sometimes  used  for  the  Christian 
altar;  Synesius,  for  instance  (KaTaCTaais,  c.  19, 
p.  303),  speaks  of  flying  for  refuge  to  the 
unbloody  altar  (Bw/xoV). 

5.  The  expression  “  Mensa  Domini,”  or  “  Mensa 
Dominica,”  is  not  uncommon  in  the  Latin  Fathers, 
especially  St.  Augustine  (e.g.  Sermo  21,  c.  5,  on 
Ps.  Ixiii.  11).  And  an  altar  raised  in  honour  of 
a  martyr  frequently  bore  his  name  ;  as  “  Mensa 
Cypriani  ”  (Augustine,  Sermo  310).  The  word 
“  mensa  ”  is  frequently  used  for  the  slab  which 
formed  the  top  of  the  altar  (v.  infra). 

6.  Ara,  the  Vulgate  rendering  of  Bco/ids  (1 
Maccab.  i.  54  [57],  etc.),  is  frequently  applied 
by  Tertulliau  to  the  Christian  altar,  though  not 
without  some  qualification  ;  for  instance,  “  ara 
Dei”  (de  Oratione,  c.  14).  Yet  ara,  like  B'c/xds, 
is  repudiated  by  the  early  Christian  apologists 
on  account  of  its  heathen  associations ;  thus 
Minucius  Felix  (Octavius,  c.  32)  admits  that 
“  Delubra  et  aras  non  habemus  ;  ”  compare  Arno- 
bius  (adv.  Gentes  vi,  1)  and  Lactantius  (Divin. 
Inst  it.  ii.  2).  In  rubrics,  Ara  designates  a  port¬ 
able  altar  or  consecrated  slab.  (Macri  Hiero- 
lexicon,  s.v.  “  Altare.”)  Ara  is  also  used  for  the 
substructure  on  which  the  mensa,  or  altar  proper, 
was  placed ;  “  Altaris  aram  funditus  pessum- 
dare  ”  (Prudentius,  Peristeph.  xiv.  49),  Compare 
Ardo  Smaragdus,  quoted  below. 

7.  But  by  far  the  most  common  name  in  the 
Latin  Fathers  and  in  Liturgical  diction  is  altare, 
a  “  high  altar,”  from  altus  (Isidore,  Origines,  xv. 
4-,  p.  1197;  compare  alveare,  collare).  This  is 
the  Vulgate  equivalent  of  OvcriaaT-ppiov.  Ter- 
tullian  (de  Exhort.  Castitatis  c.  10)  speaks  of  the 
Lord’s  Table  as  “  altare  ”  simply  ;  so  also  Cyprian 
(Epist.  45,  §  3,  ed.  Goldhorn),  who,  by  the 
phrase  “altari  posito,”  indicates  that  the  church- 
altar  in  his  time  was  moveable  ;  and  who,  in 
another  place  (Epist.  59,  §  25),  contrasts  the 
Lord’s  Altar  (“  Domini  Altare  ”)  with  the  “  ara  ” 
of  idols.  So  again  (Epist.  65,  §  1)  he  contrasts 
“  aras  diaboli  ”  with  “  Altare  Dei.”  So  Augus¬ 
tine  (Sermo  159,  §  1)  speaks  of  “Altare  Dei.” 
Yet  Cyprian  speaks  (Ep.  59,  §  15)  of  “diaboli 
altaria,”  so  uncertain  was  the  usage.  In  the 
Latin  liturgies  scarcely  any  other  name  of  the 
altar  occurs  but  altare.  The  plural  altaria  is 
also  occasionally  used  by  ecclesiastical  writers, 
as  invariably  by  classical  authors,  to  designate 
an  altar;  thus  Caesarius  of  Arles  (Horn.  7)  says 
that  the  elements  (creaturae)  to  be  consecrated 
“sacris  altaribus  Imponuntur.”  (Mone’s  Griech. 
u.  Lat.  Messen,  p.  6.) 

The  singular  “  altarium  ”  is  also  used  in  late 
writers:  as  in  the  Canon  of  the  Council  of 
Auxerre  quoted  below,  mass  is  not  to  be  said 
more  than  once  a  day,  “  super  uno  altario.” 
Altarium  is  also  used  in  a  wider  sense,  like 


ALTAR  61 

Ovcriaar-fipiov,  for  the  Bema  or  Sanctuary ;  so 
also  altaria. 

8.  In  most  European  languages,  not  only  of 
the  Romanesque  family,  but  also  of  the  Teutonic 
and  Slavonic,  the  word  used  for  the  Lord’s  Table 
is  derived,  with  but  slight  change,  from  altare. 
In  Russian,  however,  another  word,  prestol,  pi’o- 
perly  a  throne,  is  in  general  use.  [C.] 

II,  Parts  composing  altars. — Although  in  strict¬ 
ness  the  table  or  tomb-like  structure  consti¬ 
tutes  the  altar,  the  steps  on  which  it  is  placed, 
and  the  ciborium  or  canopy  which  covered  it, 
may  be  considered  parts  of  the  altar  in  a  larger 
sense,  oi-,  at  least,  were  so  closely  connected  with 
it,  as  to  make  it  more  convenient  to  treat  of 
them  under  the  same  head. 

The  altar  itself  was  composed  of  two  portions, 
the  supports,  whether  legs  or  columns,  in  the 
table  form,  or  slabs  in  the  tomb-like,  and  the 
“mensa”  or  slab  which  formed  the  top. 

The  expression  “  cornu  altaris,”  horn  of  the 
altar,”  often  used  in  rituals  (as  in  the  Sacrament. 
Gelasianum  1,  c.  Ixxxviii.),  appears  to  mean 
merely  the  corner  or  angle  of  the  altar,  no  known 
example  showing  any  protuberance  at  the  angles 
or  elsewhere  above  the  general  level  of  the 
mensa,  although  in  some  instances  (as  in  that  in 
the  church  of  S.  GioAmnni  EA^angelista  at  Ravenna 
hereafter  mentioned)  the  central  part  of  the  sur¬ 
face  of  the  mensa  is  slightly  hollowed.  By  the 
Cornu  EA^angelii  is  meant  the  angle  to  the  left  of 
the  priest  celebrating,  by  Cornu  Epistolae  that  to 
the  right.  These  phrases  must,  however,  it  would 
seem,  date  from  a  period  subsequent  to  that 
when  the  Gospel  was  read  from  the  ambo. 

III.  Material  and  form  of  altars. — It  is  admitted 
by  all  that  the  earliest  altars  were  tables  of 
wood  ;  in  the  high  altar  of  the  church  of  S.  Gio¬ 
vanni  Laterano  at  Rome  is  enclosed  an  altar  of 
the  tomb-like  form,  the  mensa  and  sides  formed 
of  wooden  planks,  on  which  St,  Peter  is  asserted 
to  have  celebrated  the  Lord’s  Supper,  and  at 
Sta.  Pudenziana,  in  the  same  city,  fragments  of 
another  are  preserved  to  which  the  same  tra¬ 
dition  attaches.  [Arca.] 

This  shows  an  ancient  belief  that  altars  were 
of  wood.  And  there  is  abundant  proof  that  in 
Africa  at  least  the  Holy  Table  was  commonly  of 
wood  up  to  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 
Athanasius,  speaking  of  an  outrage  of  the  Arians 
in  an  orthodox  church  (Ad  Monachos,  0pp.  i. 
847),  says  that  they  burnt  the  Table  (^vXivg 
yap  fjv)  with  other  fittings  of  the  church.  Op- 
tatus  of  MileA'’e,  describing  the  violence  of  the 
Donatists,  mentions  their  planing  afresh,  or 
breaking  up  and  using  for  firewood,  the  Holy 
Tables  in  the  churches  of  their  rivals  (De  Schis- 
mate  Donatista7'U/n  vi.  1,  p,  90  ff.)  ;  and  St.  Augus¬ 
tine  (Epist.  185,  c,  27)  declares  that  they  beat 
the  orthodox  Bishop  Maximinianus  with  the 
wood  of  the  altar  under  which  he  had  taken 
refuge.  In  England,  at  a  much  later  date,  if  we 
may  trust  William  of  Malmesbury  ( FiYa  S. 
Wulstani,  in  De  Gestis  Pont  if.  Angl.  iii.  14), 
Wulstan,  bishop  of  Worcester  (1062-1095),  de¬ 
molished  throughout  his  diocese  the  wooden 
altars  which  were  still  in  existence  in  England 
as  in  ancient  days,  “altaria  lignea  jam  inde  a 
priscis  diebus  in  Anglia.”  Martene  (De  Antiq. 
Eccl.  Ritihus  i.  3)  and  Mabillon  (Acta  SS.  Pene- 
dict.  Saec.  vi.,  pars  2,  p.  860)  have  shown  that 
wooden  altars  w’ere  anciently  used  in  Gaul. 


62 


ALTAR 


ALTAR 


Yet  there  is  distinct  evidence  of  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  stone  altars  in  the  fourth  century. 
Greacory  of  Xyssa  (Z^c  Christi  Baptisnvite,  Opp, 
iii.  309)  speaks  of  the  stone  of  which  the  altar 
was  made  being  hallowed  by  consecration.  To 
tlie  same  effect  St.  Chrysostom  (on  1  Cor.  Horn. 
20).  And  stone  became  in  time  the  usual  canon¬ 
ical  material  of  an  altar.  The  assertion  that 
Pope  Sylvester  (314-335)  first  decreed  that 
altars  should  be  of  stone  rests  upon  no  ancient 
authority  (Bona,  De  Reb.  Lit.  i.,  c.  20,  §  1). 
The  earliest  decree  of  a  council  bearing  on  the 
subject  is  one  of  the  provincial  council  of  Epaona 
(Pamiers  in  France)  in  517,  the  2dth  Canon  of 
which  (Bruu’s  Canoiies  ii.  170)  forbids  any  other 
than  stone  altars  to  be  consecrated  by  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  Chrism. 

As  this  council  was  only  provincial,  its  decrees 
were  no  doubt  only  partially  received.  The 
14t2j  chap,  of  the  Capitularies  of  Charles  the 
Great,  a.d.  769  (IMigne’s  Patrologia,  xcvii.  124), 
orders  that  priests  should  not  celebrate  unless 
“  in  mensis  lapideis  ab  Episcopis  consecratis.” 
This  seems  to  mark  a  period  when  the  use  of 
wooden  altars,  although  disapproved  of,  was  by 
no  means  unknown.  In  the  Eastern  churches 
the  material  of  the  altar  has  been  deemed  a 
matter  of  less  importance,  and  at  all  times  down 
to  the  present  day  altars  have  been  made  of 
wood,  stone,  or  metal. 

Assemani  (Bibl.  Orient,  iii.  238)  cites  a  Canon 
of  a  Svnod  of  the  Syro-Jacobites,  held  circa  A.D. 
908,  which  orders  the  use  of  fixed  altars  of  stone, 
and  the  disuse  of  wood ;  he  adds  that  in  the 
churches  of  the  Maronites  and  of  the  Jacobites 
the  altars  were  sometimes  of  wood,  sometimes 
of  stone  (compare  Xeale,  Eastern  Ch.  Intr,  181). 
In  some  instances  at  the  present  day  pillars  of 
stone  are  iised  to  support  a  mensa  of  wood. 

This  change  of  material  was  in  some  degree 
occasioned  or  accompanied  by  the  adoption  of  a 
different  tvpe  of  form,  that  of  the  tomb.  Such 
adoption  lias  been  usually  accounted  for  by  the 
supposition  that  the  tombs  in  the  Roman  cata¬ 
combs  known  as  “  arcosolia  ”  were  used  during 
the  period  of  persecution  as  altars.  These  arco¬ 
solia  were  formed  by  cutting  in  the  wall  of  the 
chamber  or  oratory,  at  a  height  of  about  three 
feet  from  the  floor,  an  opening  covered  by  an 
arch.  In  the  wall  below  this  opening  an  exca¬ 
vation  was  made  sufliciently  large  to  receive  one 
or  sometimes  two  bodies,  and  this  was  covered 
by  a  slab  of  marble. 

Such  tombs  would  evidently  furnish  suffici¬ 
ently  convenient  altars,  but  there  appears  to  be 
some  deficiency  of  proof  that  they  were  actually 
so  used  during  the  period  of  persecution,  to 
which,  indeed,  the  far  greater  number  are  by 
some  centuries  posterior.  Some  writers  assert 
that  up  to  the  time  of  St.  Sylvester  the  only 
altars  in  use  were  wooden  chests  [compare 
Arca]  carried  about  from  place  to  place  where- 
ever  the  Roman  bishop  had  his  habitation. 
Whether  this  opinion  be  or  be  not  well-founded, 
it  is  certain  that  traces  of  altars  occupying  the 
normal  position,  viz.,  the  centre  of  the  apse,  have 
been  found  in  the  oratories  of  the  catacombs. 
Bosio  and  Boldetti  state  that  they  had  met  with 
such,  the  one  in  the  cemetery  of  Priscilla,  the 
other  in  that  of  SS.  Marcellinus  and  Peter,  and 
Ivlartigny  (Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.  p.  58),  adds 
that  he  had  been  shown  by  the  Cav.  de  Rossi  in 


the  cemetery  of  Calixtus  the  traces  left  by  the 
four  pillars  which  had  supported  an  altar.  The 
date  of  the  altars  in  question  does  not,  however, 
appear  to  have  been  clearly  ascertained. 

It  was,  however,  not  only  in  Rome  that  the 
memorials  of  martyrs  and  altars  were  closely 
associated ;  the  83rd  Canon  of  the  Codex  Can. 
Eccl.  Afric.  A.D.  419  (in  Brun’s  Canones.  i. 
j  176)  orders  that  the  altaria  which  had  been 
;  raised  everywhere  by  the  roads  and  in  the  fields 
as  “  Memoriae  Martyrum,”  should  be  overturned 
when  there  was  no  proof  that  a  martyr  lay 
beneath  them  ;  and  blames  the  practice  of  erect¬ 
ing  altars  in  conseauence  of  dreams  and  “  iuanes 
revelationes.” 

j  In  the  Liber  Pontificalis  it  is  stated  that  Pope 
Felix  I.  (a.d.  269  —  274)  “  constituit  supra  sejml- 
^  era  martyrum  missas  celeb  raid,”  but  perhaps  the 
most  clear  proofs  of  the  prevalence  of  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  jilacing  altars  over  the  remains  of  martvrs 
and  saints  at  an  early  period,  are  furnished  by 
passages  in  Prudentius,  particularly  that  so  often 
quoted  (Beristeph.,  Hymn  XI.  v.  169 — 174):— 

“  Talibus  Hippolyti  corpus  mandatur  opertis 
Propter  ubi  apposita  est  ara  dicata  Deo, 

Ilia  sacramenti  danatri.x  mensa  eadenique 
Gustos  fida  sui  martyris  app<jsita, 

S*rvat  ad  aetemi  spem  judicis  ossa  sepulcro 
Pascit  item  sanctis  tibricolas  dapibu.s.'' 

The  practice  of  placing  the  altar  over  the  re¬ 
mains  of  martyrs  or  saints  may  probably  have 
arisen  from  a  disposition  to  look  upon  the  sufier- 
ings  of  those  confessors  of  the  faith  as  analogous 
with  that  sacrifice  which  is  commemorated  in 
the  Eucharist ;  and  the  passage  in  the  Reve¬ 
lation  (chap.  vi.  V.  9),  “  I  saw  under  the  altar 
the  souls  of  them  that  were  slain  for  the  word 
of  God,”  no  doubt  encouraged  or  in^^tigated  the 
observance.  The  increasing  disposition  to  vene¬ 
rate  martyrs  and  their  relics  fostered  this  prac¬ 
tice,  by  which,  as  Prudentius  says  (Beristeph., 
Hymn.  HI.  v.  211) — • 

“  Sic  venerarier  ossa  libet 
Ossibus  altar  et  impositum.” 

And  it  took  firm  root  in  the  Western  Church ; 
so  much  so  that  a  rule  has  long  been  established 
that  every  altar  must  contain  a  relic  or  relics, 
among  which  should  be  one  of  the  saint  in  whose 
honour  it  was  consecrated.  [CD2\SECRatiox  of 
Churches;  Relics.] 

This  practice,  no  doubt,  conduced  to  the  change 
of  material  from  wood  to  stone,  and  also  to  a 
change  of  form  from  that  of  a  table  to  that  of 
a  chest  or  tomb,  or  to  the  combination  of  the 
two.  The  table-form  seems  to  have  been  still 
common  in  Africa  in  the  earlv  part  of  the  5th 
century:  for  Synesius  (KaraaTaa-is,  c.  19,  p. 
303),  says  that,  in  the  terrors  of  the  Vandal 
invasion,  he  would  cast  himself  beneath  the 
altar,  and  clasp  the  columns  that  supported  it. 
The  annexed  woodcut  furnishes  an  example  of 
the  combination  of  the  table-form  with  the 
tomb-form.  It  was  discovered  in  the  ruins  of 
the  so-called  basilica  of  S.  Alessandro  pn  the 
Via  Nomentana,  about  seven  miles  from  Rome, 
and  may  with  all  probability  be  ascribed  to  the 
fifth  century.  The  mensa  is  a  slab  of  porphyry, 
the  rest  is  of  marble.  The  small  columns  were 
not  placed  as  represented  in  the  woodcut  at  the 
time  when  the  sketch  from  which  it  is  taken 
was  made  ;  they  were,  however,  found  close  by 


ALTAK 


ALTAR 


63 


the  altar,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  but  that 
they  were  originally  so  placed.  Beneath  the 
altar  is  a  shallow  excavation  lined  v/ith  marble, 


in  which  the  bones  of  St.  Alexander  are  believed 
to  have  been  deposited.  The  square  opening  in 
the  cancellated  slab  was  probably  used  for  the 
purpose  of  introducing  cloths  [Brandea],  which 
were  laid  on  the  tomb  of  a  saint,  and  afterwards 
preserved  as  relics.  A  part  of  the  inscription  on 
the  front  has  been  lost:  what  remains  reads  “  et 
Alexandro  Delicatus  voto  posuit  dedicante  Aepis- 
copo  Urs  .  .  ”  The  name  wanting  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  is  supposed  to  be  that  of  Eventius,  also  buried 
in  the  same  cemetery.  Ursus  is  believed  to  have 
been  bishop  of  Nomentum. 

The  altar  in  the  sepulchral  chapel  at  Rav^enna, 
known  as  “  SS.  Nazzaro  e  Celso,”  is  an  example 
of  the  simple  tomb-like  form.  The  chapel  was 
built  about  A.D.  450,  and  this  altar  may  be  of 
about  the  same  date.  According  to  the  Rev.  B. 
Webb  {Sketches  of  Continental  Ecclesiolojiy,  p. 
429)  it  is  composed  of  three  slabs  of  alabaster 
supporting  a  mensa ;  on  the  ends  are  carved 
crosses  ;  on  the  front  is  a  cross  between  two 
sheep ;  and  on  each  side  of  it  the  device  of  a 
crown  suspended  from  a  wreath.  It  is  shewn 
in  the  engraving  of  the  chapel  in  Gaily  Knight’s 
Eccl.  Arch,  of  Italy. 

In  the  somewhat  earlier  mosaics  in  the  bap¬ 
tistery  of  the  cathedi’al  of  Ravenna,  altars  are 
represented  as  tables  supported  by  columns  with 
capitals ;  the  tables  are  represented  red  and  the 
columns  gold,  indicating  perhaps  the  use  of  por¬ 
phyry  and  gilt  bronze  as  the  materials.  Nor, 
although  the  tomb-like  form  eventually  became  in 
the  Western  Church  the  ruling  one,  was  the  table- 
form  disused,  for  examples  of  it  of  a  date  even  as 
late  as  the  thirteenth  century  are  still  extant. 


Altar,  from  Anriol  ill  France. 


A  variety  of  the  table-form,  in  which  the 
mensa  is  supjiorted  by  only  one  leg,  is  shown  in 


the  accomjianying  woodcut.  This  altar  was 
found  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Auriol,  in  the 
department  of  the  Bouches-du-Rhone,  in  France, 
ana  may  be  attributed  to  the  fifth  or  sixth 
century. 

Martigny  {Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.,  p.  59)  men¬ 
tions  other  examples  in  which  the  mensa  is  sup¬ 
ported  by  five  columns,  one  being  in  the  centre. 
One  of  these  found  at  Avignon  is  supposed  to 
have  been  erected  by  S.  Agricola  (dec.  A.D.  580). 
Another,  in  the  Musee  at  Marseilles,  he  attri¬ 
butes  to  the  5th  century,  and  a  third  he  says 
exists  in  the  crypt  of  the  church  of  St.  Martha, 
at  Tarascon. 

In  the  baptistery  of  the  cathedral  of  Ravenna 
is  an  altar  composed  of  a  mensa  with  two  columns 
in  front,  and  a  quadrangular  block  of  marble,  in 
which  is  a  recess  or  cavity  now  closed  by  a 
modern  brass  door ;  the  front  of  this  block  has 
some  decoration  of  an  architectural  character,  a 
small  cross,  doves,  ears  of  wheat,  and  bunches  of 
grapes.  This  central  block  would  appear  to  be 
an  altar  (or  part  of  one)  of  the  6th  century.  A 
very  similar  block  is  at  Parenzo,  in  Istria,  and  is 
engraved  in  Heider  and  Eiselberger’s  AJ ittelalter- 
liche  Kunstdenkmale  des  Oesterreichischen  Kaiser- 
staates  (i.  109)  ;  the  writer  of  that  work  is, 
however,  disposed  to  consider  it  not  an  altar  but 
a  tabernacle. 

Mr.  Webb  {Sketches  of  Cont.  Ecclesiology,  pp. 
430,  440)  mentions  two  altars  at  Ravenna,  one 
in  the  crypt  of  S.  Giovanni  Evangelista,  the  other 
in  the  nave  of  S.  Apollinare  in  Classe,  of  the  same 
form  as  that  of  the  baptistery  of  the  Cathedral 
described  above,  and  seems  to  consider  this  ar¬ 
rangement  as  original ;  but  says  of  the  altar  of 
the  baptistery  that  it  was  the  tabernacle  of  the 
old  Cathedral.  He  remarks  that  the  mensa  of 
the  altar  in  S.  Giovanni  is  not  level,  but  slightly 
hollowed  so  as  to  leave  a  idm  all  round. 

Many  notices  of  altars  may  be  found  in  the 
Liber  I’ontificalis  (otherwise  known  as  Anastasias 
Bibliothecarius  de  Vitis  Fontificum).  as  that  Pope 
Hilarus  (A.D.  461-467)  made  at  S.  Lorenzo  f. 
1.  m.  “  altare  argenteum  pensans  libras  quadra- 
ginta,”  that  Leo  III.  (a.d.  795-816)  made  at  S. 
Giovanni  Laterano  “altare  majus  mirae  mag- 
nitudinis  decoratum  ex  argento  purissimo  pensans 
libras  sexaginta  et  novem.” 

In  these  and  in  the  numerous  like  instances  it 
is  either  expressly  stated  that  the  altar  was 
decorated  with  gold  or  silver,  or  the  quantity  of 
the  metal  employed  is  evidently  quite  insutheient 
to  furnish  the  sole  material ;  but  we  are  not  told 
whether  the  altar  was  constructed  of  stone  or  of 
wood. 

In  a  mosaic  at  S.  Vitale,  at  Ravenna,  dating 
from  the  6th  century  (engraved  in  Webb’s  Cont. 
Ecclcs.  p.  437),  an  altar  doubtless  is  represented 
as  standing  on  feet  at  the  angles,  and  therefore 
of  the  table  form.  It  has,  according  to  Mr. 
Webb,  an  ornamental  covering  of  white  linen 
with  a  hanging  beneath. 

The  annexed  woodcut  taken  from  the  same 
work  (p.  440)  shows  an  altar  similarly  re¬ 
presented  in  a  mosaic  in  S.  Apollinare  in  Classe 
at  Ravenna.  This  church  was  commenced 
between  534  and  538,  and  dedicated  between 
546  and  552,  but  much  of  the  mosaic  was  not 
executed  until  between  671  and  677  (Hiibsch, 
Altchristlichen  Kirchen'). 

Paul  the  Silentiary,  in  his  poetical  description 


64 


ALTAR 


ALTAR 


of  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople,  as  rebuilt  by 
Justinian  (between  A.u.  532  and  a.d.  563), 


A  tar,  from  a  m  saic  of  S.  Apolliiiiirc  in  Cla^  at 
Itavoiiiia. 


describes  the  altar  as  of  gold,  decorated  with 
precious  stones  and  supported  on  golden  columns. 
This  has  of  course  long  since  been  destroyed, 
but  there  still  exists  an  altar  of  almost  equal 
splendour,  though  of  the  other  type,  viz.,  that  of 
the  tomb,  and  more  recent  by  three  hundred 
years.  This  is  the  high  altar  of  S.  Ambrogio,  at 
Milan,  made  in  A.D.  835,  measuring  7  ft.  3  in.  in 
length  and  4  ft.  1  in.  in  height,  the  mensa  being 
4  ft.  4  in.  wide.  The  front  is  of  gold,  the  back 
and  sides  of  silver.  It  is  covered  with  subjects 
in  relief  in  panels  divided  by  bands  of  ornament, 
and  many  small  ornaments  in  cloisonne  enamel 
are  interspersed.  The  subjects  on  the  back  are 
chiefly  incidents  in  the  life  of  St.  Ambrose ; 
those  of  the  front  are  Christ  seated  within  an 
oval  compartment  within  a  cross,  in  the  branches 
of  which  are  the  symbols  of  the  Evangelists, 
figures  of  the  Apostles  being  placecj  above  and 
below.  On  the  right  and  left  are  subjects  from 
the  Gospels  or  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  On  the 
ends  of  the  altar  are  crosses  in  compartments, 
surrounding  which  are  angels  in  various  attitudes 
of  adoration.  It  is  represented  in  the  woodcut. 


Altar  of  S.  Ambrogio,  at  Milan. 


Two  examples  of  the  tomb-like  form,  of  stone 
and  of  earlier  date,  may  be  seen  in  the  lateral 
ap.ses  of  the  basilican  church  which  forms  part 
of  S.  Stefano  at  Bologna.  These  perhaps  date 
from  the  7th  or  8th  century.  On  one  are  a  cross 
and  two  peacocks,  and  an  inscription  in  honour 
of  S.  Vitalis  ;  on  the  other,  figures  of  a  lion  and 
a  stag  or  ox.  It  is  not  clear  whether  these  were 
construc^d  to  serve  as  altars,  or  are  tombs  con¬ 
verted  to  that  use ;  but  the  first  seems  the  more 
probable  suggestion. 

The  account  given  by  Ardo  Smaragdus,  in  his 
life  of  St.  Benedict  of  Aniane  {Act.  Sanct.  Feb. 
vol.  ii.  die  12,  p.  614),  of  one  of  the  altars  con¬ 
structed  by  the  latter  in  the  church  of  that  place 
(in  A.D.  782?),  is,  though  somewhat  obscure,  too 
remarkable  to  be  passed  over ;  the  altar  was  hol¬ 
low  within,  having  at  the  back  a  little  door;  in 


the  cavity  boxes  (capsae)  containing  relics  were 
preserved  on  non-festive  days.  This  “altare,” 
which  was  the  high  altar,  w'*s  so  constructed 
(in  altari  .  .  .  tres  aras  causavit  subponi)  as  to 
symbolize  the  Trinity. 

It  is  difficult  to  find  the  date  at  W’hich  it 
became  customary  to  incise  crosses,  usually  five 
in  number,  on  the  men.sa  of  an  altar ;  they  do 
not  appear  to  exist  on  the  mensa  of  the  wooden 
altar  in  S.  Giovanni  Laterano  at  Rome,  which  is 
no  doubt  of  an  early  date,  on  that  of  the  altar  of 
S.  Alessandro,  near  Rome,  or  on  those  of  the  early 
altars  at  Ravenna,  or  Auriol,  or  even  on  the  altar 
of  S.  Ambrogio.  Crosses  are  however  found  on 
the  portable  altar  which  was  buried  with  St. 
Cuthbert  (A.D.  687).  The  very  fragmentary 
state  of  this  object  makes  it  impossible  to  deter¬ 
mine  with  certainty  how  many  crosses  were  on 
it.  Two  are  to  be  seen  on  the  oaken  board  to 
which  the  plating  of  silver  was  attached,  and 
two  on  the  plating  itself,  but  it  is  quite  possible 
that  originally  there  were  five  on  each.  In  the 
order  for  the  dedication  of  a  church  in  the 
Sacramentary  of  Gregory  the  Great  (p.  148), 
the  bishop  consecrating  is  desired  to  make 
crosses  with  holy  water  on  the  four  corners  of 
the  altar ;  but  nothing  is  said  of  incised  crosses. 

The  practice  of  making  below  the  mensa  a 
cavity  to  contain  relics,  and  covering  this  by  a 
separate  stone  let  into  the  mensa,  does  not  appear 
to  be  of  an  early  date.  [Consecration.] 

IV.  Structural  accessories  of  the  altar. — 
Usually,  though  not  invariably,  the  altar  was 
raised  on  steps,  one,  two,  or  three  in  number. 
From  these  steps  the  bishop  sometimes  preached  ; 
hence  Sidonius  Apoll.,  addressing  Faustus,  Bishop 
of  Riez,  says  {Carm.  XVI.  v.  124), — 

“Seu  te  consplcuis  prradibns  venerabiJis  arae 
Concionaturum  plehs  sedala  circunisistit.” 

Beneath  the  steps  it  became  customary,  from 
the  fourth  century  at  least,  at  Rome  and  v/herever 
the  usages  of  Rome  were  followed,  to  construct 
a  small  vault  called  confessio  ;  this  w'as  originally 
a  mere  grave  or  repository  for  a  body,  as  at  S. 
Alessandro  near  Rome,  but  gradually  expanded 
into  a  vault,  a  window  or  grating  below  the  altar 
allowing  the  sarcophagus  in  ivhich  the  body  of 
the  saint  was  placed  to  be  visible.  [Confessio  ] 

In  the  Eastern  Church  a  piscina  is  usually 
fbund  under  the  altar  (Neale,  Eastern  Church 
Introd.  189),  called  Diore  com¬ 

monly  QkKaaaa  or  daKaaaihiov.  What  the  an¬ 
tiquity  of  this  practice  may  be  does  not  seem  to 
be  ascertained,  but  it  mav  have  existed  in  the 
Western  Church,  as  appears  from  the  Frankish 
missal  published  by  Mabillon  {Liturg.  Gall.  iii. 
§  12,  p.  314),  where,  in  consecrating  an  altar, 
holy  water  is  to  be  poured  “ad  basem.”  So  the 
Gregorian  Sacrarnentary,  p.  149. 

The  altar  w'as  often  enclosed  within  railings  of 
wood  or  metal,  or  low  walls  of  marble  slabs; 
these  enclosures  were  often  mentioned  by  early 
writers  under  the  names  “  ambitus  aitaris,*' 
“circuitus  altaris;”  the  railings  weie  called 
“  cancelli,”  and  the  slabs  “  transennae.’’  Some 
further  account  of  these  will  be  found  under  the 
words. 

Upon  these  enclosures  columns  and  arches  of 
silver  were  often  fixed,  and  veils  or.  curtains  of 
rich  stuffs  suspended  from  the  arches:  they  are 
frequently'  mentioned  in  the  Lib.  Pontif..  as  in 


ALTAR 


ALTAR 


65 


the  instance  where  Pope  Leo  III.  gave  96  veils, 
some  highly  ornamented,  to  be  so  placed  round 
the  “ambitus  alturis”  and  the  “ presbyterium  ” 
of  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome. 

V.  Ciborium,  otherwise  umbraculum,  Gr.  ki- 
$xpiou.  Ital.  baldachino. — Down  to  the  end  of 
the  period  with  which  we  are  now  concerned, 
and  even  later,  tlve  altar  was  usually  covered  by 
a  canopy  suppoxted  by  columns,  the  ciborium. 
The  word  is  no  doubt  derived  from  the  Greek 
KL^ccpiov,  the  primary  meaning  of  which  is  the 
cup-like  seed-vessel  of  the  Egyptian  water-lily. 

It  does  not  appear  when  the  oiborium  came 
first  to  be  in  use,  though  this  was  probably  at  as 
early  a  date  as  that  in  which  architectural 
splendour  was  employed  in  the  construction  of 
churches.  Augusti  quotes  Eusebius  (  Vit.  Const. 
M.  lib.  iii.  c.  38)  as  using  the  word  KiPcapiov 
when  describing  the  church  of  the  Sepulchre  at 
Jerusalem,  and  connecting  it  with  the  word 
(T<pa(piov ;  but  in  this  there  seems  to  be  a  mistake, 
as  neither  word  occurs  in  cap.  38,  while  in  cap. 
37  the  latter  occurs  in  connection  with  ic€(p- 
dkaiov :  by  which  last  it  would  seem  that  the 
apse  was  meant. 

Pauliuus  of  Nola  has  been  thought  to  allude 
to  the  ciborium  in  the  verses  (Z{6.  ii.  Epig.  2) : 


“  Diviniim  veneranda  tegunt  altaria  focdiis, 

Compositisque  sacra  cum  cruce  maityribus.” 


Ciboi'iuiu,  from  mosaic  in  the  charcb  of  St.  ueorge  at 
Thessalouico. 


Veils  are  mentioned  by  St.  Chiysostom  (7/om. 
iii.  in  Ephes.)  as  withdrawn  at  the  con.secration 
of  the  Eucharist,  and  it  is  probable  that  these 
were  attached  to  the  ciborium  in  the  fashion 
represented  by  the  accompanying  woodcut, 
where  a  ciborium  is  shown  with  the  veils  con¬ 
cealing  the  altar.  This  representation,  taken 
CHRIST.  ANT. 


from  Messrs.  Te.\ier  and  Pullan’s  work  on  By¬ 
zantine  Architecture,  is  found  in  the  mosaics 
of  St.  George  at  Thessalonica,  works  certainly 
not  later  than  A.D.  500,  and  perhaps  much 
earlier;  the  authors  are  indeed  disposed  to  refer 
them  to  the  era  of  Constantine  the  Great. 

Ciboria  ai-e  not  mentioned  in  the  Liber  Pon- 
tificalis  in  the  long  catalogue  of  altars  erected  in 
and  gifts  made  to  churches  erected  in  Rome  and 
Naples  by  Constantine,  unless  the  “  fastiginm” 
of  silver  weighing  2025  lbs.  in  the  basilica  of  St. 
John  Lateran  was,  as  some  have  thovfs:ht,  a 
ciborium.  Much  doubt,  it  must  be  remembered, 
has  been  thrown  on  the  trustworthiness  of  this 
part  of  the  Liber  Pontifcalis,  nor  does  any  men¬ 
tion  of  one  occur  until  the  time  of  Pope  Symma- 
chus  (498 — 514),  who,  it  is  stated,  made  at  S. 
Silvestro  a  ciborium  of  silver  weighing  120  lbs. 
Mention  is  made  in  the  same  work  of  many 
other  ciboria  ;  they  are  generally  described  as  of 
silver  or  decorated  with  silver.  The  quantity  of 
metal  varies  very  much  :  one  at  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  m. 
is  said  to  have  been  decorated  with  2015  lbs.  of 
silver,  that  of  St.  Peter’s,  of  silver-gilt,  weighed 
2704  lbs.  3  oz.,  and  that  at  S.  Giovanni  Laterano 
only  1227  lbs.  All  these  were  erected  by  Pope 
Leo  111.  (795-816).  The  last  is  described  as 
“  cyborium  cum  columnis  suis  quatuor  ex 
argento  purissimo  diversis  depictum  historiis 
cum  cancellis  et  columnellis  suis  mirae  magni- 
tudinis  et  pulchritudinis  decoratum.”  The 
“cancelli”  were,  no  doubt,  railings  running  from 
column  to  column  and  enclosing  the  altar.  The 
ciborium  in  St.  Sophia’s,  as  erected  by  Justinian, 
is  described  by  Paul  the  Silentiary  as  having 
four  columns  of  silver  which  supported  an 
octagonal  pyramidal  dome  or  blunt  spire  crowned 
by  a  globe  bearing  a  cross.  From  the  arches 
hung  nch  veils  woven  with  figures  of  Christ,  St. 
Paul,  St.  Peter,  &c. 

Ciboria  were  constructed  not  only  of  metal, 
or  of  wood  cov'ered  with  metal,  luit  of  marble  ; 
the  alabaster  columns  of  the  ciborium  of  the 
high  altar  of  St.  Mark’s  at  Venice  are  said  to 
have  occupied  the  same  position  in  the  chapel  of 
the  Greek  Emperor  at  Constantinople.  They 
are  entirely  covered  with  subjects  from  Biblical 
history,  sculptured  in  relief,  and  appear  to  be  of 
as  early  a  date  as  the  fifth  century  ;  but  perhaps 
the  earliest  ciborium  now  existing  is  one  in  the 
church  of  S.  Apollinare  in  Classe  at  Ravenna, 
which  is  shown  by  the  inscription  engraved  upon 
it  to  have  been  erected  between  a.d.  806  and 
A.D.  810. 

Various  ornaments,  as  vases,  crowns,  and 
baskets  (cophini)  of  silver,  were  placed  as  deco¬ 
rations  upon  or  suspended  from  the  ciboria  ;  and, 
as  has  been  already  said,  veils  or  curtains  were 
attached  to  them ;  these  last  were  withdrawn 
after  the  consecration  but  before  the  ele\atiou  of 
the  Eucharist.  These  curtains  are  mentioned 
repeatedly  in  the  Ijiber  J'ontif.  as  gifts  made  by 
various  popes  of  the  seventh,  eighth,  and  ninth 
centuries,  e.  g.,  “  Vela  alba  holoserica  rosata 
quae  pendent  in  arcu  de  cyborio  numero  qua¬ 
tuor,”  given  to  S.  Maria  Maggioro  by  Pope 
Leo  III.  (A.D.  795-816). 

It  does  not  appear  when  the  use  of  these  veils 
was  discontinued  in  the  Western  Chiu-ch  ;  in  the 
Eastern  a  screen  (elKov6ara(Tis)  with  doors  now 
serves  the' like  purpose.  Some  of  the  ciboria  .\t 
Rome,  according  to  Martigny  (Art.  Colonibi 


66 


ALTAR 


ALTAR 


Eucharistique),  having  a  ring  fixed  in  the  centre 
of  the  vault,  from  which  he  conceives  a  receptacle 
for  the  liost  to  have  been  suspended.  [Peri- 
STERlUlil].  No  ciborium  now  existing  at  Rome 
seems  to  be  of  earlier  date  than  the  twelfth 
century,  but  the  practice  of  suspending  such 
receptacles  is  no  doubt  much  earlier. 

jMartignv  is  of  o})inion  that  besides  the  cibo¬ 
rium,  the  columns  of  which  rested  on  the  ground, 
there  was  sometimes  a  lesser  one,  the  columns  of 
which  rested  on  the  altar,  and  that^these  last 
were  more  properly  called  ‘‘  peristeria,”  as  enclos¬ 
ing  a  vessel  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  in  which  the 
host  was  contained.  [CiRORiUJi,  TuRRiS,  Peri- 
STERIUil.] 


Ciborium  of  St.  Apollinare  in  Classe,  at  Ravenna. 


VI.  Appendages  of  the  Altar. — In  ancient  times 
nothing  was  placed  upon  the  altar  but  the 
Altar-cloths  and  the  sacred  vessels  with  the 
Elements.  A  feeling  of  reverence,  says  Mar- 
tene  (de  Antiq.  Eccl.  Kit.  i.  112),  permitted  not 
the  presence  of  anything  on  the  altar,  except  the 
things  used  in  the  Holy  Oblation.  Hence  there 
were  no  candlesticks  on  the  altar,  nor  (unless  on 
the  columns,  arches,  and  curtains  of  the  ciborium) 
any  images  or  pictures.  Even  in  the  ninth  cen¬ 
tury  we  find  Leo  IV.  (an.  855)  limiting  the  objects 
which  might  lawfully  be  placed  on  the  altar  to 
the  shrine  containing  relics,  or  perchance  the 
codex  of  the- Gospels,  and  the  pyx  or  tabernacle 
in  which  the  Lord’s  body  was  reserved  for  the 
viaticum  of  the  sick.  {De  Cura  Fastorali,  §  8, 
in  ^ligne’s  Putrologia,  cxv.  677.) 

The  Book  of  the  Gospels  seems  anciently  to 
have  l>een  frequently  placed  on  the  altar,  even 
when  the  Liturgy  was  not  being  celebrated 
(Neale,  Eastern  C/i.  Introd.  188).  An  example 
may  be  seen  in  the  frescoes  of  the  Baptistery  at 
Ravenna  (Webb’s  Continental  Ecclesiologg,  427). 

With  regard  to  the  relics  of  saints,  the  ancient 
rule  was,  as  St.  Ambrose  tells  us  {Ad  Marcel- 
Unam,  Epist.  85)  “  Hie  [Christus]  super  altare  .  . 
isti  [martyres]  sub  altari and  this  was  the 
practice  not  only  of  the  age  of  St.  Ambrose,  but 


of  much  later  times,  even  up  to  the  middle  of 
the  ninth  century,  as  Mabillon  {Ada  SS.  Be- 
nedid.  Saec.  iii.  Praefatio  §  105),  assures  us ;  for 
the  anonymous  author  of  the  Life  of  Servatius 
of  Tongres  says  expressly  that  the  relics  of  this 
saint,  when  translated  by  command  of  Charles 
the  Great,  were  laid  before  the  altar,  as  men 
did  not  yet  presume  to  lay  anything  except  the 
sacrifice  on  the  altar,  which  is  the  Table  of  the 
Lori  of  Hosts.  And  even  later,  Odo  of  Clugny 
tells  us  {Collationes  ii.  28)  that  when  Berno 
(an.  895)  laid  the  relics  of  St.  Walburgis  on 
the  altar,  they  ceased  to  work  miracles,  resenting 
the  being  placed  “  ubi  majestas  divini  !Mvsterii 
solummodo  debet  celebrari.”  The  passage  ol 
Leo  IV.,  quoted  above,  seems  in  fact  the  first 
permission  to  place  a  shrine  containing  relics  on 
the  altar,  and  that  permission  was  evidentlv  not 
in  accordance  with  the  general  religious  feeling 
of  that  age. 

In  the  earlv  centuries  of  the  Christian  Church, 
the  consecrated  bre<ad  was  generally  reserved  in 
a  vessel  made  in  the  form  of  a  dove  and  sus¬ 
pended  from  the  ciborium  [Peristerium],  or 
perhaps  in  some  cases  placed  on  a  tower  on  the 
altar  itself  {Liber  Fontif.,  Innocent  I.  c.  57,  and 
Hilary,  c.  70).  Gregory  of  Tours  {De  Gloria 
Alartyruia  i.  86)  speaks  distinctly  of  the  deacon 
taking  the  turns  from  the  sacristy  and  placing 
it  on  the  altar,  but  this  seems  to  have  contained 
the  unconsecrated  elements  [Turris],  and  to  have 
been  placed  on  the  altar  only  during  celebration; 
nor  does  the  reservation  of  the  consecrated  bread 
in  the  turris,  capsa  or  pyxis  on  the  altar  appear 
to  be  distinctly  mentioned  by  any  earlier  autho¬ 
rity  than  the  decree  of  Leo  IV.  quoted  above 
(Binterim’s  Denkmirdigheiten,  ii.  2,  167  ff.). 

No  instance  of  a  Cross  placed  permauentlv  on 
the  mensa  of  an  altar  is  found  in  the  first  eight 
centuries,  as  we  should  expect  from  the  decree 
of  Leo  IV.  The  vision  of  Probiauus  (Sozomen, 
Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  3.  p.  49)  shows  that  crosses  were 
seen  in  the  sanctuary  {Oo(naaTT]piov)  in  the 
fourth  centuiy ;  the  cross  was  found  on  the  sum¬ 
mit  of  the  ciborium,  as  in  the  great  church  of 
St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople  (Paul  the  Silentiary, 
Descrip.  S.  Sophiae,  737  [al.  ii.  320]),  and,  in  some 
churches  both  at  Rome  and  in  Gaul,  suspended 
from  the  ciborium  over  the  altar  (Gregory  of 
Tours,  De  Gloria  Mart.  ii.  20),  but  not  on  the 
mensa  of  the  altar  itself.  A  cross  was,  however, 
placed  on  the  altar  during  celebration.  See 
Sacrum.  Gelas.  i.  41. 

The  third  Canon  of  the  Second  Council  of 
Tours  (an.  567,  Bruns’s  Canones  ii.  226),  “  ut 
corpus  Domini  in  altari  non  in  imaginario  ordiue, 
sed  sub  crucis  titulo  componatur,”  which  has 
been  thought  to  mean,  that  the  Body  of  the 
Lord  should  not  be  reserved  among  the  images 
in  a  receptacle  on  the  reredos,  but  under  the 
cross  on  the  altar  itself,  might  possibly  refer  to 
a  suspended  cross ;  but  it  is  probably  rightly 
explained  by  Dr.  Neale  {Eastern  Ch.  Introd.  520) 
to  mean  that  the  particles  consecrated  should 
not  be  arranged  according  to  each  man’s  fancv, 
but  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  according  to  the 
rubric. 

Tapers  were  not  placed  on  the  altar  within 
the  period  which  we  are  considering,  though  it 
is  a  very  ancient  practice  to  place  lights  about 
the  altar,  especially  on  festivals.  [Lights.] 

Flowers  appear  to  have  been  used  for  the 


ALTAR 

festal  decoration  of  altars  ai,  least  as  early  as 
the  sixth  century ;  for  Venantius  Fortuuatus 
{Cui'mina  viii.  9)  says,  addressing  St.  Rhadegund, 

'•  Texistis  vafiis  altaria  festa  coronis." 

They  appear  as  decorations  of  churches  as 
early  as  the  fourth  century. 

VII.  Number  of  altars  in  a  Church. — There  was 
in  primitive  Tmes  but  one  altar  in  a  church,  and 
the  arrangements  of  the  most  ancient  Basilicas 
testify  to  the  fact.  (See  Pagi  on  Baronius,  aun. 
813,  No.  15.)  Eusebius  (///si.  EccL  x.  4,  §  45), 
in  the  description  of  the  great  church  at  Tyre, 
mentions  only  one  altar.  St.  Augustine  (on 
1  John,  Tract.  3)  speaks  of  the  existence  of  two 
altars  in  one  city  (civitate)  as  a  visible  sign  of 
the  Donatist  schism.  But  his  words  should  per¬ 
haps  not  be  taken  in  their  literal  sense ;  for  in 
the  time  of  St.  Basil,  there  was  more  than  one 
altar  in  Neo-Caesarea  ;  for  he,  speaking  (Horn.  19, 
in  Gordium)  of  a  pei’secution  of  Christians  in  that 
city,  says  that  “  altars  (dvaLa<TT7]pia^  were  over¬ 
thrown.” 

The  Greek  and  other  oriental  churches  have 
even  now  but  one  altar  in  each  church  (Renau- 
dot,  Lit.  Orient,  i.  182)  ;  nor  do  they  consecrate 
the  Eucharist  more  than  once  on  the  same  day 
in  the  same  place.  They  have,  however,  and  have 
had  for  several  centuries,  minor  altars  in  Trape/c- 
H\r](TLai  or  side-chapels,  which  ai’e  really  dis¬ 
tinct  buildings.  Such  side-chapels  are  generally 
found  where  there  has  been  considerable  contact 
with  the  Latin  Church  (Neale,  Eastern  Church, 
Introd.  183). 

Some  writers,  as  Martigny  (Diet,  des  Antiq. 
Chre't.,  art.  AiiteV),  rely  upon  the  “  arcosolia  ” 
or  altar-tombs  in  the  catacombs  as  proving  the 
early  use  of  many  altars:  two,  three,  and  more 
such  tombs  are  often  found  in  one  crypt,  and  in 
one  case,  a  crypt  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Agnes 
near  Rome,  there  are  as  many  as  eleven  arco¬ 
solia  (Marchi,  Mon.  delle  Arti  prim.  Crist.,  tav. 
XXXV.,  XXX vi.,  XXX vii.),  eight  of  which,  according 
to  Padre  March.i,  might  have  been  used  as  altars 
(p.  191);  but  there  seems  to  be  generally  a 
deficiency  of  proof  that  such  tombs  were  actually 
so  used,  nor  is  their  date  at  all  a  matter  of 
certainty  in  the  great  majority  of  cases. 

It  would  appear  p>robable  that  the  practice  of 
considering  the  tomb  of  a  martyr  as  a  holy  place 
fitted  for  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharistic 
sacrifice,  and  such  celebration  as  an  honour  and 
consolation  to  the  martyr  who  lay  below,  led  first 
to  the  use  of  several  altars  in  a  crypt  in  the; 
catacombs  where  more  than  one  martyr  might 
rest,  and  then,  when  the  bodies  of  several  martyrs 
had  been  transferred  to  one  church  above  ground, 
to  the  construction  of  an  altar  over  each,  from 
a  wish  to  leave  none  unhonoured  by  the  celebra¬ 
tion  of  the  Eucharist  above  his  remains.  Such 
ideas  were  prevalent  as  early  as  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  writings 
of  Prudentius  (Peristeph.  Hymn.  XI.  v.  169- 
174;  Hymn.  III.  v.  211),  Pope  Damasus,  and  St. 
Maximus,  Bishop  of  Turin  (Sermo  LXIII.  De  na- 
tali  saiu  torum ;  v.  Marchi,  p.  142  et  seq.).  At 
that  period,  and  indeed  long  after,  the  disturbance 
of  the  relics  of  saints  was  held  a  daring  and 
scarcely  allowable  act,  and  was  prohibited  by 
Theodosius  and  much  disapproved  of  by  Pofie 
Gregory  the  Great ;  nor  was  it  until  some  cen¬ 
turies  later  that  the  increasing  eagerness  for  the 


ALTAR  67 

posse.ssion  of  such  memorials  was  gratified  by  tho 
dismemberment  of  the  holy  bodies. 

It  has  been  contended  that  more  than  one 
altar  existed  in  the  Cathedral  of  Milan  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourth  century.  That  St. 
Ambrose  more  than  once  uses  the  plural  “al¬ 
taria”  in  connection  with  the  church  proves 
nothing,  for  “altaria”  frequently  means  an 
altar ;  but  in  describing  the  restoration  of  the 
chiu-ch  to  the  orthodox  (an.  385),  after  the 
attempt  of  the  Arians  to  occupy  it,  he  has  been 
understood  to  say  that  the  soldiers  rushing  in 
kissed  the  altar  :  hence  it  is  argued  that,  as  they 
could  not  reach  the  altar  of  the  Bema  or  sanc¬ 
tuary,  which  was  closed  to  the  people,  there 
must  have  been  at  least  one  altar  in  the  nave. 
But  the  woi’ds  “milites  irruentes  in  Altaria  o.s- 
culis  significare  pacis  signum  ”  (ad  Marcellin 'm, 
Ep.  33)  seem  rather  to  imply  that  the  soldiers 
rushing  into  the  Bema  signalized  by  their  kisses 
the  making  of  peace.  Altaria  is  used  in  the 
same  sense,  as  equivalent  to  “sanctuary,”  in  the 
Theodosian  Codex.  [Altarium.]  However  this 
may  be,  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century  we  find 
distinct  traces  of  a  plurality  of  altars  in  Western 
churches.  Gregory  of  Tours  (De  Gloria  Mar- 
tijrum  i.  33)  speaks  of  saying  masses  on  three 
altars  in  a  church  at  Braisne  near  Soissons ;  and 
Gregory  the  Great  (Epist.  v.  50)  says  that  he 
heard  that  his  correspondent  Palladius,  bishop 
of  Saintonge,  had  placed  in  a  church  thirteen 
altars,  of  which  four  remained  000008001X1164 
for  defect  of  relics.  Now'  certainly  Palladius 
would  not  have  begged  of  the  Pope,  as  he  ^id, 
relics  for  his  altar-s,  if  the  plurality  of  altars 
had  not  been  generally  allowed.  Moreover,  the 
Council  of  Auxerre  of  the  year  578  (Can.  10; 
Bruns’s  Canones  ii.  238)  forbade  two  masses  to 
be  said  on  the  same  day  on  one  altar,  a  prohi¬ 
bition  w'hich  probably  contributed  to  the  multi¬ 
plication  of  altars,  which  was  still  further  acce¬ 
lerated  by  the  disuse  of  the  ancient  custom  of 
the  priests  communicating  with  the  bishop  or 
principal  minister  of  the  church,  and  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  private  masses,  more  than  one  of 
which  was  frequently  said  by  the  same  priest  on 
the  same  day  (Walafrid  Strabo,  De  lieb.  Eccl. 
c.  21).  Bede  (Hist.  Eccl.  v.  20)  mentions  that 
Acca,  bishop  of  Hexham  (deposed  an.  732),  col¬ 
lected  for  his  church  many  relics  of  apostles 
and  martyrs,  and  placed  altars  for  their  vene- 
I'atiou,  “  distinct  is  porticibus  ad  hoc  ipsum  intra 
muros  ejusdem  ecclesiae,”  .  placing  a  separate 
canopy  over  each  altar  wMthiu  the  w'alls  of  the 
church.  There  were  several  altars  in  the  church 
built  by  St.  Benedict  at  Aniane  (Acta  Sanctorum, 
Feb.  ii.  614). 

In  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries  the  num¬ 
ber  of  altars  had  so  increased  that  Charlemagne, 
in  a  Capitulary  of  the  yeai’s  805-6  at  Thionville, 
attempted  to  restrain  their  excessive  multiplica¬ 
tion.  See  Capitula  infra  Ecclesiam,  c.  6  (Migne’s 
Patrol.  97,  283). 

This  was  not  very  effectual,  and  in  the  ninth 
century  the  multiplication  of  altars  attained  a 
high  ])oint,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  plan  of  the 
church  of  St.  Gall  in  Switzerland  [Church], 
prepared  in  the  beginning  of  that  century.  In 
this  are  no  less  than  seventeen  altars.  The 
will  of  Fortunatus  Patriarch  of  Grado  (dec. 
c.  A.D.  825)  also  affords  proof  of  the  increase  in 
the  number  of  altars  then  in  active  progress  *  in 

F  ' 


68 


ALTAR 


ALTAR 


one  oratory  he  placed  three  altars,  and  five  others 
in  another  (^Marin.  Com.  dei  Veneziani,  t.  i. 
p.  270). 

VIII.  Places  of  Altars  in  Churches. — From  the 
earliest  period  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge, 
the  altar  was  usually  placed,  not  against  the 
wall  as  in  modern  times,  but  on  the  chord  of  the 
apse,  when,  as  was  almost  invariably  the  case, 
he  church  ended  in  an  apse ;  when  the  end  of 
-he  church  was  square,  the  altar  occupied  a 
corresponding  position.  St.  Augustine  therefore 
says  (Serrno  46,  c.  1.)  “Mensa  Christi  est  ilia  in 
medio  posita.”  The  officiating  priest  stood  with 
lus  back  to  the  apse  and  thus  faced  the  congre¬ 
gation.  In  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome,  and  a  very  few 
other  churches,  the  priest  still  officiates  thus 
placed ;  but  though  in  very  many  churches, 
particularly  in  Italy,  the  altar  retains  its  ancient 
position,  it  is  very  rarely  that  the  celebrant 
does  so. 

That  such  was  the  normal  position  of  the  altar 
is  shown  by  many  ancient  examples,  and  by  the 
constant  usage  of  the  Eastern  churches.  The 
ancient  rituals  invariably  contemplate  a  detached 
altar  as  when,  in  the  Sacramentary  of  Gregory, 
in  the  order  for  the  dedication  of  a  church  (p. 
148),  the  bishop  is  directed  to  go  round  the  altar 
(vadit  in  circuitu  altaris),  or  in  the  Sacramentary 
of  Gelasius  where  the  subdeacon  (L.  1,  cxlvi.) 
is  directed,  after  having  placed  the  Cross  on  the 
altar,  to  go  behind  it  (vadis  retro  altare). 

Exceptions  at  an  early  date  to  the  rule  that 
the  altar  should  be  detached,  are  of  the  greatest 
rarity,  if  we  except  the  tombs  in  the  catacombs, 
which  have  been  supposed  to  have  been  used  as 
altars.  It  is  possible,  also,  that  in  small  chapels 
with  rectangular  terminations,  as  the  chapel 
of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  annexed  to  the  bap¬ 
tistery  of  the  Lateran,  the  altar  may  for  con¬ 
venience  have  been  placed  against  the  wall. 
When,  however,  it  became  usual  to  place  many 
altars  in  a  church  it  was  found  convenient  to 
place  one  or  more  against  a  wall ;  this  was  done 
in  the  Cathedral  of  Canterbury  [Church],  where 
the  altar  enclosing  the  body  of  St.  Wilfrid  was 
placed  against  the  wall  of  the  eastern  apse ; 
another  altar,  however,  in  this  case  occupied  the 
normal  position  in  the  eastern  apse,  and  the 
original  high  altar  was  placed  in  the  same 
manner  in  the  western  apse. 

In  the  plan  of  the  church  of  St.  Gall,  prepared 
in  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  the  places 
of  seventeen  altars  are  shown,  but  of  these  only 
two  are  placed  against  walls. 

In  a  few  instances  the  altar  was  placed  not  on 
the  centre  of  the  chord  of  the  arc  of  the  apse  but 
more  towards  the  middle  of  the  church ;  such 
was  the  case  in  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  m.  at  Rome,  if  the 
altar  occupies  the  original  position.  In  this  in¬ 
stance  it  stands  in  the  transept.  In  some  other 
early  churches  at  Rome,  the  altar  occupies  a  posi¬ 
tion  more  or  less  advanced.  The  Lib.  Pontif.  tells 
us  that  in  the  time  of  Pope  Gregory  IV.  (a.d.  827— 
844)  the  altai’  at  S.  Maria  in  Trastevere  stood  in 
a  low  plaoe^  almost  in  the  middle  of  the  nave  (in 
humili  loco  paene  in  media  testudine),  the  Pope 
thei’efore  removed  it  to  the  apse,  and  the  altar 
al  S.  Maria  Maggiore  seems  to  have  been  in  the 
time  of  Pope  Hadrian  I.  (a.d.  772-795),  as 
appears  from  the  account  in  the  same  book  of  the 
alterations,  effected  by  that  Pope  in  that  church. 
It  is  thought  by  some  that  in  the  large  drcular 


or  octagonal  churches  of  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries,  as  S.  Lorenzo  Maggiore  at  Milan,  and 
S.  Stefano  Rotondo  at  Rome,  the  altar  was  placed 
in  the  centre. 

In  the  churches  of  Justinian’s  period  con¬ 
structed  with  domes,  there  is  usually,  as  at  St. 
Sophia’s  Constantinople  and  S.  Vitale,  Ravenna,  a 
sort  of  chancel  intervening  between  the  central 
dome  and  the  apse ;  when  such  is  the  case,  the 
altar  was  placed  therein. 

IX.  Use  of  Pagan  Altars  for  Christian  purposes. 
— Pagan  altars,  having  a  very  small  superficies, 
ai*e  evidently  ill  suited  for  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist ;  nor  would  it  appear  probable  that  a 
Christian  would  be  willing  to  use  them  for  that 
purpose  ;  nevertheless,  traditions  allege  that  in 
some  cases  pagan  altars  were  so  used  (v.  Mar- 
tigny  art.  Autel),  and  in  the  church  of  Arilje  in 
Sorvia,  a  heathen  altar  sculptured  with  a  figure 
of  Atys  forms  the  lower  part  of  the  altar. 
(Mittheil.  der  K  K.  Central  Comm,  zur  Erfor- 
schung  und  Erhaltung  der  Baudenhmale,  Vienna, 
1865,  p.  6.)  Such  altars,  or  fragments  of  them, 
were,  however,  employed  as  materials  (par¬ 
ticularly  in  the  base.s)  in  the  construction  of 
Christian  altars.  Instances  are  stated  by  Mar- 
tigny  to  have  been  observed  in  the  churches  of 
St.  Michele  in  Vaticano  and  of  St.  Nicholas  de’ 
Cesarini  at  Rome. 

X.  Portable  Altars  (altaria  portatilia,  gesta- 
toria,  viatica)  are  probably  of  considerable  anti¬ 
quity  ;  indeed,  it  is  evident  that  from  the  time 
when  the  opinion  prevailed  that  the  Eucharist 
could  not  be  fitly  celebrated  unless  on  a  conse¬ 
crated  mensa  or  table,  a  portable  altar  became  a 
necessity.  Constantine  the  Great  (Sozomen,  flist. 
Eccl.  i.  8)  carried  with  him  on  his  campaigns  a 
church-tent,  the  fittings  of  which  no  doubt  in¬ 
cluded  a  portable  altar,  as  the  participation  of 
the  mysteries  is  especially  mentioned.  Bede 
(^Hist.  Eccl.  V.  10)  tells  us  that  the  two  Hewalds, 
the  English  missionaries  to  the  continental 
Saxons  (an.  692),  took  with  them  sacred  vessels 
and  a  consecrated  slab  to  serve  as  an  altar  (tabu- 
lam  altaris  vice  dedicatam) ;  and  bishop  Wulfram, 
the  apostle  of  Friesland  (before  740),  was  accus¬ 
tomed  to  carry  with  him  on  his  journeys  a  port¬ 
able  altar,  in  the  midst  and  at  the  four  corners 
of  which  were  placed  relics  of  saints  (Jonas  in 
Surius’s  Eist.  Sanctorum  ii.  294).  The  portable 
altar  of  St.  Willebrord  is  described  by  Brower 
(^Annal.  Trevirens.  an.  718,  §  112,  p.  364);  it 
bore  the  inscription :  “  Hoc  altare  VVillebrordus 
in  honore  Domini  Salvatoris  consecravit,  supra 
quod  in  itinere  missarum  oblationes  Deo  offerre 
consuevit,  in  quo  et  continetur  de  ligno  crucis 
Christi  et  de  sudario  capitis  ejus.”  This,  how¬ 
ever,  is  probably  not  a  contemporary  inscrip¬ 
tion,  and  the  genuineness  of  the  relic  may  per¬ 
haps  be  doubted.  St.  Boniface  also  carried  an 
altar  with  him  in  his  journeys.  And  the  monks 
of  St.  Denys,  when  accompanying  Charles  the 
Great  in  his  campaign  against  the  Saxons, 
carried  with  them  a  wooden  board,  which,  covered 
with  a  linen  cloth,  served  as  an  altar  (Anonymus 
de  Mirac.  S.  Dionysii  i.  20,  in  Mabillon,  Acta  SS. 
Ben.  saec.  iii.  pt.  2,  p.  350). 

These  portable  altars  seem  to  have  been  in 
almost  all  cases  of  wood.  Not  until  the  latter 
part  of  the  eighth  century  do  we  find  instances 
of  such  altars  being  made  of  any  other  material. 
The  capitulary  of  796  (quoted  above)  seems  to 


ALTAR 


ALTAR  CLOTHS 


C9 


enjoin  the  use  of  stone  tablets  for  portable  as  well 
as  fixed  altars.  Hincmar,  bishop  of  Reims  ((7a- 
pitulare  lii.  c.  3  ;  in  Hardouin’s  Concilia  v.  408), 
forbids  any  priest  to  celebrate  mass  e.xcept  on  a 
regular  altar,  or  on  a  “  tabula  ab  episcopo  conse- 
crata,”  which  table  might  be  “  de  marmore  vel 
nigra  petra  ant  licio  honestissimo.”  If  the  read- 
ino-  be  correct,  the  last  term  certainly  seems  to 
indicate  a  consecrated  cloth  [Antimensium]  of 
very  rich  material ;  though  «ome  (Binterim’s 
Denkuurdigkeiten  iv.  1,  106)  connect  “licium” 
with  “sublicius,”  and  suppose  that  it  means  a 
thick  piece  of  wood.  An  “  altare  portatile  ”  is 
said  to  have  been  given  by  Ch-arles  the  Bald  to 
the  monastery  of  St.  Denys  at  Paris,  square  in 
shape,  made  of  porphyry  set  in  gold,  and  con¬ 
taining  relics  of  St.  James  the  Less,  St.  Stephen, 
and  St.  Vincent  (t6.  107). 

A  portable  altar  of  wood  is  preserved  in  the 
church  of  S.  Maria  in  Campitelli  at  Rome, 
which  is  said  to  have  belonged  to  St.  Gregory 
*  Nazianzen,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  have  a 
legitimate  claim  to  so  high  an  antiquity.  Pro¬ 
bably  no  earlier  existing  example  is  to  be  found 
than  that  which  was  found  with  the  bones  of 
St.  Cuthbert  (dec.  a.d.  687)  in  the  cathedral  of 
Durham,  and  doubtless  belonged  to  him:  it  is 
now  preserved  in  the  chapter  library.  The  an¬ 
nexed  woodcut  will  render  anv  detailed  de- 


Portable  Altar  of  St.  Cuthbert. 

scription  needless :  it  measures  6  inches  by  5}, 
an  1  is  composed  of  wood  covered  with  x'ery  thin 
silver:  on  the  wood  is  inscribed  in  honor  .  . 
s.  PETRV  .  .  and  two  crosses.  The  sense  of  the 
letters  on  the  silver  has  not  been  satisfactorily 
made  out  (v.  St.  Cuthbert^  by  James  Raine, 
p.  200).  A  similar  portable  altar  is  recorded  by 
Simeon  of  Durham  {Monumenta  Hist.  Brit.  p.  659 
d)  to  have  been  found  on  the  breast  of  St.  Acca, 
Bishop  of  Hexham  (ob.  A.D.  740),  when  his  body 
was  exhumed  more  than  300  years  afterwards. 
It  was  of  two  pieces  of  wood  joined  by  silver 
nails,  and  on  it  was  cut  the  inscription,  “  Alme 
Trinitati  agie  Sophie  Sanctae  Mari.ae.”  Whether 
relies  were  placed  in  it,  the  writer  adds,  is  not 
known. 

The  “  taboot  ”  still  in  use  in  the  Abyssinian 


churches  is  a  square  slab  of  wood,  stone  or  metal, 
on  which  the  elements  are  consecrated,  in  fact,  a 
portable  altar.  [Arca.] 

In  the  Greek  Church  the  substitute  fur  a  port¬ 
able  altar  was  the  Antimensium. 

For  the  consecration  of  altars,  see  Consecra 
TiON  OF  Churches. 

XI.  Literature.  —  Besides  the  works  quoted  in 
this  article,  the  following  may  be  mentioned  :  - 
J.  B.  Thiers,  Dissertation  sur  les  Principaiix 
Autels,  la  Cloture  du  Chantr  et  les  Jube's  des 
Eglises  :  Paris,  1688.  J.  Fabricius,  De  Aris  I  V- 
terum  Christ ianorum :  Helmstadt,  1698.  G.Voigt, 
Thysiasteriologia,  seu  De  Alta7'ihus  Veterum  Ch>'is- 
tianorurn:  Ed.  J.  A.  Fabricius;  Hamburg,  1709. 
S.  T.  Schbnland,  Histor.  Nachricht  von  Altdren : 
Leipzig,  1716.  J.  G.  Geret,  De  Veterum  Chris- 
ti  morum  Altaribus  :  Anspach,  1755.  J.  T.  Trei- 
ber,  De  Situ  Altarium  versus  Orientem :  Jena, 
1668.  Kaiser,  Dissertatio  De  Altai-ibus  Borta- 
tilibus :  Jena,  1695.  Heideloff,  Der  Christ!. 
Altar:  Nurnberg,  1838.  [A.  N.] 

ALTAR  CLOTHS  (linteamina,  pallia  or 
pallae  altaris.  In  Greek  writers,  ‘'Ap<pia,  ajXTpi- 
aapara,  iirdpcpia,  aTr\cifi.aTa,  eVSuTai,  and  in 
authors  “  infimae  aetatis,”  rh  KardcrapKa.  and  rb 
Tpairi^o<p6pov).  Cloths  of  different  kinds,  and  of 
various  materials  (in  the  earliest  ages,  probably 
of  linen  only),  must  have  been  used  in  connection 
with  the  celebration  of  Holy  Communion  from 
the  very  earliest  times.  They  were  needed 
partly  for  the  covering  of  the  holy  table,  and  of 
the  oblations,  and  of  the  consecrated  elements 
[Corporale]  ;  partly  also  for  the  cleansing  of 
the  sacred  vessels,  and  the  like  [Mappa].  The 
first  of  these  uses,  of  which  we  have  now 
more  particularly  to  speak,  is  referred  to  by  St. 
Optatus,  Bishop  of  Milevis  in  Africa  (circ.  370 
A.D.)  as  matter  of  general  notoriety.  “  Who  is 
there,”  he  asks,  “  among  the  faithful,  who 
knows  not  that  during  the  celebration  of  the 
mysteries  the  wood  of  the  altar  is  covered  with 
a  linen  cloth  (‘  ipsa  ligna  linteamine  cooperiri,’  ” 
De  Schism.  I'onat.  lib.  xd.  c.  i.  p.  92.)  With 
this  we  may  compare  the  allusion  made  by 
Victor  Vitensis  (Z><?  Fersec.  Afric.  lib.  i.  cap.  12). 
Writing  in  the  year  487,  he  says  that  Genseiic, 
the  Vandal,  some  sixty  years  before,  sent  Pi’o- 
culus  into  Zeugitana,  and  the  latter  required 
the  x'essels  used  in  holy  ministry,  and  the  books, 
to  be  given  up ;  and  when  these  were  refused 
they  were  violently  seized  by  the  Vandals,  who 
“  rapaci  manu  cuncta  depopulabantur,  atque  de 
palliis  altaris  proh  nefas  !  camisias  {shirts)  sibi 
et  femoralia  faciebant.”  In  the  6th  century 
St.  Gregory  of  Tours  speaks  of  an  altar,  with 
the  oblations  upon  it,  being  covered  with  a  silken 
cloth  during  the  celebration  of  mass.  “Cum 
jam  altarium  cum  oblationibus  pallio  serico 
opertum  esset”  {Hist.  Franc,  vii.  22;  compare 
Mabillon,  Liturgia  Gallicana,  p.  41).  A  little 
later  in  the  same  passage  he  speaks  of  one  claim¬ 
ing  right  of  sanctuary  in  the  church,  and  laying 
hold  on  the  “pallae  altaris”  for  his  protection. 
It  is  i-emarkable  that  at  Rome  no  mention  is 
found  of  any  pallia  altaris  among  the  many  do¬ 
nations  to  churches  recorded  by  Anastasius,  till 
after  the  close  of  the  6th  century.  Writing  of 
Vitalianus  Papa  {sed.  658-672),  Anastasius  sa\T 
that  in  his  time  the  Emperor  Constans  came  to 
Rome  and  went  to  St.  Peter’s  in  state,  “  cum 


70 


ALTAR  CLOTHS 


ALTARIUM 


exei’citu  siio,”  attended  by  his  guards,  the  clergy 
coming  out  to  meet  him  with  wax  tapers  in  their 
hands;  and  he  ofl'ered  upon  the  altar  “pallium 
auro  textile,”,  or,  according  to  another  reading, 

“  pallam  auro  textilem,”  after  which  mass  was 
celebrated  (Anast.  Bibl.  135, 1.15;  Migne,  P.  C.  C. 
tom.  128,  p.  775).  The  same  writer,  speaking 
of  Zacharias  Papa  (^sed.  741-752),  says  that  he 
“  fecit  vestem  super  altare  beati  Petri  ex  auro 
textam,  habentem  nativitatem  Domini  et  Salva- 
toris  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  ornavitque  earn  gemmis 
pretiosis.”  The  earliest  monument  in  the  west, 
showing  an  altar  (or  holy  table)  set  out  for  the 
celebration  of  “mass,”  is  of  the  10th  or  11th 
century  (  Vestiarium  Christianum,  PI.  xliii.),  one 
of  the  frescoes  in  the  hypogene  church  of  S. 
Clemente  at  Rome.  The  holy  table  is  there 
covered  with  a  white  cloth,  which  is  pendent  in 
front,  but  apparently  not  so  on  the  two  sides. 
A  richly  ornamented  border,  several  inches  in 
breadth,  appears  on  the  lower  edge  of  this  “  lin- 
teamen  ”  (if  such  be  intended)  as  it  hangs  down 
in  front  of  the  altar. 

The  allusions  in  Greek  writers  of  early  date 
correspond  in  character  with  those  above  quoted. 
In  the'  collection  of  Canons  Ecclesiastical  (:S,vv- 
■rayiia  Kavovwu)  formed  by  Photius  of  Constan¬ 
tinople,  the  earliest  in  date,  bearing  upon  this 
point,  is  one  of  the  so-called  “  Canons  of  the 
Apostles  ”  {Kau.  73)  to  this  effect :  “  Let  no  one 
alienate  for  his  own  private  use  any  vessel  of 
gold  or  of  silver,  which  has  been  set  apart  for 
holy  use”  (ayiacrdeu),  “or  any  linen”  (hQ6vqv')'^ 
and  the  inference  we  naturally  draw  that  the 
“linen”  here  spoken  of  has  reference  to  altar 
linen  (perhaps  also  to  ministering  vestments) 
is  confirmed  by  the  subsequent  language  of  the 
First  and  Second  Councils  of  Constantinople.  In 
Canons  1  and  10,  after  quoting  the  “  (janon  of 
the  Apostles  ”  above  mentioned,  the  Council 
identifies  the  o06vr\  of  that  earlier  canon  with 
T/  cre^acrixia  t^s  ayias  rpa-wi^-qs  iuBuri],  “  the 
sacred  covering  of  the  holy  table.”  On  the  other 
hand  a  passage  of  Theodoret,  which  has  been 
alleged  (Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Cliretiennes, 
in  voc.  ‘  Alltel  ’)  as  proving  the  use  of  rich  cloths 
for  the  altar  eiirly  in  the  4th  century,  has  j)ro- 
bably  a  very  different  meaning  from  that  attri¬ 
buted  to  it.  The  word  Qvaiacrz-qpiov  in  early 
ecclesiastical  Greek  is  more  fi-equently  used  in 
the  sense  of  the  whole  space  immediately  about 
the  holy  table,  the  “sanctuary,”  than  of  the 
“altar”  itself.  When  therefore  Theodoret  states 
(^Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  cap.  xxix.  al.  cap.  xxxi.)  that 
at  the  consecration  of  a  church  at  .Jerusalem,  in 
the  time  of  Constantine  the  Great,  SLeKoaixiiro 
rd  diiou  6v(na<TT^piou  ^a(Ti\iKo7s  re  irapaireTd- 
(TfiLacnv  Ka\  Kei/xr}\iois  \i6oKoWr}Tois  the 

reference  is  in  all  probability  to  rich  curtains,  or 
“  veils,”  hung  about  the  sanctuary,  not  to  altar- 
cloths  properly  so  called.  Much  more  certainly 
to  the  purpose  is  a  passage  of  St.  Chrysostom 
(//oOT.  1.  al.  li.  in  Matt.  cap.  xiv.  23,  24),  part 
of  a  homily  originally  delivered  at  Antioch,  in 
which  he  draws  a  contrast  between  the  cover¬ 
ings  of  silk,  often  ornamented  with  gold  {xpvad- 
TTaara  (Tri0\r}iJ.ara),  bestowed  upon  the  holy 
table,  and  the  scanty  covering  grudgingly  given, 
or  altogether  refused,  to  Christ  in  the  person  of 
His  poor  members  upon  earth.  Among  the  Acts 
of  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  held  in  the  year 
536,  is  preserved  (Labbe’s  Concilia,  by  Mansi, 


tom.  ix.  pp.  1102,  3)  a  curious  lettei  drawn  up 
by  the  clergy  of  the  church  of  Apamea  in  Sjria 
Secunda.  They  complain  of  the  iniquitous  con¬ 
duct  of  Severus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  and  of  their 
own  bishop  Petrus ;  and  amid  many  grave  charges 
brought  against  the  latter,  one  is  that  owing  to 
the  gross  carelessness  (worse  than  carelessness  is 
charged  by  the  letter)  with  which  he  celebrated 
the  Holy  Liturgy,  the  purple  covering  of  the 
altar  was  defiled*  (Karexpct'cre  irTvafiari  rov  ae- 
TTTOv  dvaiao'T'qpiou  tt]v  aXovpy'iSa).  In  the  7th 
and  8th  centuries  we  find  evidence  that  these 
richer  coverings  of  the  altar  were  in  some  cases 
adorned  with  symbolic  ornaments  and  with  pic- 
tui’es  of  saints  '^apa/cx'/jpe?  ay'iwu'),  which  in¬ 
curred  the  condemnation  of  the  Iconoclasts,  who 
carried  them  away  together  with  images  and 
pictures  of  other  kinds.  So  we  learn  from  Ger- 
manus  of  Constantinople,  early  in  the  8th  century 
(Seti.  Germani  Patriarchae  de  Sanctis  Synod  is,  &c. 
apud  Spicileg.  Rom.  A.  Mai,  tom.  vii.  p.  62). 
On  the  other  hand,  in  times  of  grievous  public*" 
calamity,  we  read,  in  one  instance  at  least,  of  th^ 
altar  as  well  as  the  person  of  the  bishop  and  his 
episcopal  throne  being  robed  in  black.'  So  Theo- 
dorus  Lector  records  of  Acacius,  patriarch  ot 
Constantinople  :  koX  eavrdu  koX  rbv  dp6uov  Kai 
TO  OvaiaffTripiov  fxe\avo7s  iv5v/j.aaiv  ^fx<piecr€v. 
In  the  later  liturgical  offices  (see  Goar,  Euchol. 
Grace,  pp.  623,  627,  sqq.),  and  in  writers  such 
as  Symeon  of  Thessalonica  (circ.  1420  A.D.),  we 
find  mention  of  an  inner  covering  of  linen,  known 
as  KardaapKa,  and  of  a  second  and  more  costly 
covering  without.  Patriarch  Symeon  makes 
further  mention  of  four  pieces  of  cloth  on  each 
of  the  four  corners  of  the  altar.  “The  holy 
table  hath  four  pieces  of  woven  cloth  (rea-aapa 
pepy  v(j>da/j.aTos')  upon  the  four  corners  thereof ; 
and  that  because  the  fulness  of  the  Church  was 
formed  out  of  all  the  quarters  of  the  world  ;  and 
on  these  four  pieces  are  the  names  of  the  four 
Evangelists,  because  it  was  by  their  instrument¬ 
ality  that  the  Church  was  gathered,  and  the 
Gospel  made  circuit  of  the  whole  compass  of  the 
world.  But  the  [inner  cover]  called  KardcrapKa, 
has  an  outer  covering  (Tpajre^ocpbpor)  imme¬ 
diately  above  it.  For  here  is  at  once  the  tomb, 
and  the  throne,  of  Jesus.  The  first  of  these  cover- 
ings  is  as  it  were  the  linen  wherein  the  de.ad 
body  was  wrapped ;  but  the  second  is  as  an  outer 
garment  (wepi^oKr})  of  glory  according  to  that 
of  the  psalm,  said  at  the  putting  on  thereof, 

‘  The  Lord  is  king  :  he  hath  put  on  beauteous 
apparel  ’  ”  (Symeon  of  Thessalonica,  apud  Goar, 
Euchol.  Grace,  p.  216).  Of  the  two  wonls  here  and 
elsewhere  emjiloyed  as  the  technical  designation 
of  these  two  altar-cloths,  the  first,  KardaupKo, 
was  originally  used  of  an  inner  chiton,  or  tunic, 
worn  “  next  the  skin”  (/cara  adpua).  Thence  its 
secondary  usage  as  a  compound  word  (to  Kazd- 
(TapKo)  in  speaking  of  any  inner  covering,  as  here 
of  an  inner  covering,  of  linen,  for  the  holy  table. 
The  use  of  the  word  rpairf^ocpbpuv,  as  a  desig¬ 
nation  for  the  more  costly  outer  cover,  belongs 
in  all  probability  to  a  comparatively  late  date. 
The  word  does  occur  in  earlier  writers,  but  in  a 
wholly  different  sense,  and  one  more  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  classical  analogy.  [W.  B.  M.] 

ALTARIUM  (corhpre  Altar).  This  word 
is  sometimes  used  to  designate  not  merely  an  altar, 
but  the  space  within  which  the  altar  stood.  •  For 


ALTINO 


AMBITUS 


71 


instance,  Perpetuus,  Bishop  of  Tours,  built  a 
basilica  in  honour  of  St.  Martin,  which  had 
“  fenestras  in  alt  a-io  triginta  duas,  in  capso  vi- 
giuti “  ostia  octo,  tria  in  altario,  quinque  in 
capso”  (Gregory  of  Tours,  Hist.  Franc,  ii,  14), 
Ruinart  remarks  upon  the  passage  that  by  “alta- 
rium  ”  we  are  to  understand  the  presbytery,  by 
“  capsum  ”  the  nave.  Compare  Mabillon,  de  Lit. 
Gall.  i.  8,  §  1,  p.  69.  [Bema.] 

The  plural  “  altaria  ”  is  also  used  in  a  similar 
sense  ;  as  by  St,  Ambrose  in  the  passage  (Epist. 
33)  quoted  under  Altar  ;  and  in  the  Theodosiau 
Codex,  where  (Lib.  ix.  tit.  45,  De  Spatio  Ecclcsi- 
astici  Asyli)  it  is  provided  :  “  Pateant  summi 
Dei  templa  timentibus ;  nec  sola  altaria,"  etc. 
The  equivalent  word  in  the  Greek  version  is 
duaiacTTripia. 

The  same  extended  sense  is  found  in  some 
modern  languages,  e.g.  in  Portuguese  “  altar 
mor  ”  (great  or  high  altar)  is  used  in  the  sense 
of  choir  or  chancel  (Burton,  Highlands  of  the 
Brazil,  i.  128).  [A.  N.] 

ALTINO  (near  Aquileia),  Council  of  (Al- 
TiNENSE  Concilium),  a.d.  802 ;  considered  as 
fictitious  by  Mansi  (xiii.  1099-1102);  said  to 
have  been  held  by  the  Patriarch  of  Aquileia  to 
appeal  to  Charlemagne  for  protection  against  the 
Doge  of  Venice.  [A.  W.  H.] 

ALYPIUS,  Holy  Father,  commemorated  Nov. 
26  (^Cal.  Bgzant.).  [C.] 

AMA  (A/nit/a,  Hama,  Hamula  ;  compare  Germ. 
Ahm,  Ohiiie). 

“  Amae  vasa  sunt  in  quibus  sacra  oblatio  con- 

tinetur,  ut  vinum . Amula,  vas  vinarium. 

Amulae  dicuntur  quibus  oftertur  devotio  sive 
oblatio,  simile  arceolis”  (Papias,  in  Ducange’s 
Glossary,  s.  v.).  The  vessel  in  which  wine  for 
the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  was  oft'ered  by 
the  worshippers. 

The  word  Ama  is  used  by  Columella  and  other 
classical  authors,  but  the  earliest  instance  of  its 
use  as  a  liturgical  vessel  which  has  been  noticed 
is  in  the  Charta  Cornutiana  of  the  year  471 
(^Mahillon  de  Be  Dipl.  vi.  262),  Avhere  “  hamulae 
oblatoriae  ”  are  mentioned.  “  Amae  argenteae  ” 
m-e  mentioned  in  the  Ordo  Romanus  1.  (p.  5) 
among  the  vessels  which  were  to  be  brought 
from  the  Church  of  the  Saviour,  now  known 
as  St.  John  Lateran,  for  the  Pontifical  Mass 
on  Easter-Day ;  and  in  the  directions  for  the 
Pontifical  Mass  itself  in  the  same  Ordo  (p.  10), 
we  find  that  after  the  Pope  had  entered  the 
senatorium  or  presbytery,  the  archdeacon  follow¬ 
ing  him  received  the  amulae,  and  poured  the 
wine  into  the  larger  chalice  (calicem  majorem) 
which  was  held  by  the  subdeacon ;  and  again 
(c.  14,  p.  11)  after  the  altar  was  decked,  the  arch¬ 
deacon  took  the  Pope’s  amula  (compare  Ama- 
lariu.',  Ecloga,  554)  from  the  oblationary  sub¬ 
deacon,  and  poured  the  wine  through  the  strainer 
(super  colum)  into  the  chalice  [Cha.lice];  then 
those  of  the  deacons,  of  the  primicerius,  and  the 
others.  Whether  the  “  amae  argenteae  ”  are  iden¬ 
tical  with  the  “  amulae  ”  may  perhaps  be  doubted; 
but  at  any  rate  the  amulae  seem  to  have  been 
church-vessels  provided  for  the  purpose  of  the 
offertory.  Among  the  pi-esents  which  Pope  Ad¬ 
rian  (772-795)  made  to  the  church  of  St.  Adrian 
at  Rome,  the  Liber  Pontijicalis  (p.  346)  mentions 
“amam  unam,”  and  also  an  “amulam  offertoriam  ” 


of  silver  which  weighed  sixty-seven  pounds. 
They  were,  however,  often  of  much  smaller  size, 
and  the  small  silver  vessels  (see  woodcuts)  pre¬ 
served  in  the  Museo  Cristiano  in  the  Vatican 
are  deemed  to  be  amulae.  They  measure  only 
about  7  inches  in  height,  and  may  probably  date 
from  the  5th  or  6th  century.  Bianchini  in  his 
*  edition  of  the  Lib.  Pontif.  has  given  an  engraving 
j  of  a  similar  vessel  of  larger  size.  On  this  the 
I  miracle  of  Cana  is  represented  in  a  tolerably 
good  style.  Bianchini  supposes  this  to  be  of 
the  fourth  century. 


Ama,  from  the  Vatican  Mnsenm. 


The  material  of  these  vessels  was  usually 
silver,  but  sometimes  gold,  and  they  were  often 
adorned  with  gems.  Gregory  the  Great  {Epist. 
i.  42,  p.  539)  mentions  “  amulae  onychinae,” 
meaning  probably  vessels  of  onyx,  or  glass  imi¬ 
tating  onyx.  [A.  N.] 

AMACIUS,  bishop,  deposition  of,  July  14 
(^Mart.  Bedae).  [C.] 

AMANDUS,  Bishop  and  confessor.  Natalis, 
Feb.  6  {Mart.  Bedae')',  translation,  Oct.  26  {lb  ). 
His  name  is  recited  in  the  Canon  in  one  MS.  of 
the  Gregorian  Sacrainentarii.  (See  Menard’s  ed. 
p.  284.)  [C.l 

AMANTIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome,  com¬ 

memorated  Feb.  10  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(2)  Of  Nyon,  commemorated  June  6  {Mart. 
Hieron.,  Bedae).  [C.] 

AMATOR,  Bishop  of  Auxerre,  commemorated 
Nov.  26  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

AMATUS,  confessor,  commemorated  Sept.  13 
{Mart.  Bedae).  [C.] 

AMBITUS,  compass,  in  music.  {Toni  debi- 

tus  ascensus  et  descensus.)  The  compass  of  the 
earliest  Church  melodies  did  not  in  some  instances 
reach,  in  few  did  it  exceed,  a  fifth.  “  Princijiio 
cantilenae  adeo  simplices  fuere  apud  primores 
Ecclesiae,  ut  vix  diapente  ascensu  ac  descensu 
implerent.  Cui  consuetudini  proximo  accessisso 
dicuntur  Ambrosiani.  Deinde  paulatiin  ad  Dia¬ 
pason  devent um,  verum  omnium  Modorum  sys- 
tema.”  (Glareanus,  Dodecachordon,  lib.  i.  cap. 
xiv.)  In  Gregorian  music  the  uctave  wa*  the 


AMBITUS  ALTAIilS 


AMBO 


72 

limit;  the  four  authentic  scales  [Authentic] 
moving  from  the  key-note  to  its  8ve,  the  four 
jjlagal  [Plagal]  from  the  4th  below  the  key¬ 
note  to  the  5th  above  it.  In  later  times  this 
compass  (^ambitus)  was  much  extended.  A  me¬ 
lody  occupying  or  employing  its  whole  compass 
was  called  Cantus  Perfectus;  falling  short  of  it, 
Cantus  Fmperfectus ;  exceeding  it,  Cantus  Plus- 
quamperfectus.  Subsequently  other  interpre¬ 
tations  (such  as  the  course  of  modulation  per¬ 
mitted  in  fugue)  have  been  given  to  the  word 
ambitus.  With  these  we  are  not  now  concerned. 
(Gerbert,  Script.  Mus. ;  Forkel ;  Kock,  Mus. 
Lex.)  [J.  H.] 

AMBITUS  ALTARIS  (TepoTetov,  Renaudot, 
Ljit.  Orient,  i.  182).  This  expression  is  some¬ 
times  used,  as  apparently  by  Anastasius  (^Lib. 
Fontif.  in  Vita  Sergii  IF.),  for  the  enclosure 
which  surrounded  the  altar.  Pope  Sergius  II. 
(a.d.  844—877),  he  says,  constructed  at  St.  John 
Laterau  an  “ambitus  altaris  ”  of  ampler  size 
than  that  which  had  before  existed. 

It  would  seem  that  it  was,  in  some  cases  and 
perhaps  in  most,  distinct  from  the  presbyterium 
or  “  chorus  cantorum  and  according  to  Sarnelli 
(^Antica  Basilicographia,  p.  84)  there  was  usually 
between  the  presbyterium  and  the  altar  a  raised 
space  called  “solea.”  Various  passages  in  the 
FJb.  Pontif. — e.g.  those  in  which  the  alterations 
made  by  Pope  Hadrian  I.  (a.d.  772-795)  at 
S.  Paolo  f.  1.  M.,  and  by  Pope  Gregory  IV.  (a.d. 
827-844)  at  Sta.  Maria  in  Trastevere,  are  de¬ 
scribed — show  that  the  position  of  the  altar  and 
the  arrangement  of  the  enclosures  were  not  alike 
in  all  cases.  It  seems  not  improbable  but  that  in 
the  lesser  churches  one  enclosure  served  both  to 
fence  round  the  altar  and  to  form  the  “chorus.” 

In  the  plan  prepared  for  the  church  of  St. 
Gall  in  the  beginning  of  the  9th  century  (v. 
woodcut,  s.  V.  Church)  an  enclosure  is  marked 
“  chorus,”  and  a  small  space  or  passage  intervenes 
between  this  and  an  enclosure  shutting  off  the 
apse,  within  which  stands  the  altar.  This  is  at 
the  west  end  of  the  church ;  at  the  east  end  the 
apse  is  in  like  manner  enclosed,  but  the  enclosure 
of  the  “  chorus  ”  is  brought  up  to  the  steps 
leading  to  the  raised  apse  without  a  break.  A 
small  enclosure  is  shown  round  all  the  altars, 
except  those  which  are  within  the  enclosures  of 
the  apses. 

It  appears  not  unlikely  that  the  squai-e  en¬ 
closure  in  the  church  at  Djemla  in  Algeria 
[Church]  may  be  such  an  “ambitus;”  Mr. 
Kergusson  considers  this  enclosure  a  cel  la  or 
choir,  and  says  that  it  seems  to  have  been  enclosed 
up  to  the  roof,  but  that  the  building  is  so  ruined 
that  this  cannot  be  known  for  a  certainty.  A 
choir  enclo.sed  by  solid  walls  would  be  a  plan  so 
anomalous  in  a  Christian  church  that  very 
strong  evidence  would  be  required  to  prove  its 
having  existed.  The  building  in  question  may, 
from  the  purely  classical  character  of  the  mosaic 
floor,  be  safely  assigned  to  an  early  date,  probably 
anterior  to  the  fourth  century. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  any  early  example  of 
an  “Ambitus  altaris”  now  exists.  We  may  learn 
from  the  Lib.  Pontif.  that  they  were  usually  of 
stone  or  marble,  no  doubt  arranged  in  posts  or 
uprights  alternating  with  slabs  variously  sculp¬ 
tured,  and  pierced  in  like  manner  with  the 
presbyterium  at  S.  Clemente  in  Rome.  The  Lib. 


Pontif.  tells  us  of  the  Ambitus  which  is  above 
mentioned  Pope  Sergius  II.  constructed  at  St. 
John  Lateran,  that  he  “  pulchris  columnis  cum 
marmoribus  desuper  in  gyro  sculptis  splendide 
decoravit :  ”  many  fragments  of  marble  slabs 
with  the  plaited  and  knotted  ornament  charac¬ 
teristic  of  this  period  are  preserved  in  the 
cloister  of  that  church,  and  may  probably  be 
fragments  of  this  “Ambitus.” 

In  the  richer  churches  sih'er  columns  bearing 
arches  of  the  same  metal  were  often  erected  on 
the  marble  enclosure,  and  from  these  arches  hung 
rich  curtains,  and  frequently  vessels  or  crowns 
of  the  precious  metals  ;  repeated  mention  of  such 
decorations  may  be  found  in  the  Lib.  Pontif.,  and 
a  passage  in  the  will  of  Fortunatus  Patriarch  of 
Grado  (Hazlitt,  /Fist,  of  the-  Republic  of  Venice, 
vol.  i.  App.),  who  died  in  the  early  part  of  the  9th 
century,  describes  a  like  arrangement  very  clearly 
in  the  following  words:  “Post  ipsum  altare  alium 
parietem  deauratum  et  deargentatum  similiter 
longitudine  pedum  xv.  et  in  altitudine  pedes  iv.  et 
super  ipso  pariete  arcus  volutiles  de  argento  et 
super  ipsos  arcus  imagines  de  auro  et  de  argento.” 

This  expression  “  ambitus  altaris  ”  may  per¬ 
haps  also  sometimes  stand  for  the  apse  as  sur¬ 
rounding  the  altar.  [A.  N.] 

AjMBO  (Gr.  ''A/xfiuv,  from  ava^aiv^iv).  The 
raised  desk  in  a  church  from  which  certain 
parts  of  the  service  were  read.  It  has  been 
also  called  irvpyos,  pulpitum,  suggestus.  By 
Sozomen  (Rccles.  FFist.  ix.  2,  p.  367)  the  ambo 
is  explained  to  be  the  “  firf/jLa  riav  avayvwaruv  ” 
— the  pulpit  of  the  readers.  From  it  were  read, 
or  chanted,  the  gospel,  the  epistle,  the  lists  of 
names  inscribed  on  the  diptychs,  edicts  of  bishops, 
a^id  in  general  any  communications  to  be  made 
to  the  congregation  by  presbyters,  deacons,  or 
subdeacons ;  the  bishop  in  the  earlier  centuries 
being  accustomed  to  deliver  his  addresses  from 
the  cathedra  in  the  centre  of  the  apse,  or  from  a 
chair  placed  in  front  of  the  altar ;  St.  John  Chry¬ 
sostom  was,  however,  in  the  habit  of  preaching 
sitting  on  the  ambo  (IttI  rov  Socrates 

Eccl.  FFist.  vi.  5),  in  order  that  he  might  be 
better  heard.  Full  details  as  to  the  use  of  the 
ambo  will  be  found  in  Sarnelli  (^Antica  Basilico- 
grafia,  p.  72),  and  Ciampini  ( Tef.  Mon.,  t.  i.  p. 
21  et  seq.);  but  the  examples  which  they  describe 
are  probably  later  by  several  centuries  than  the 
period  v.’ith  which  we  are  now  concerned,  and 
the  various  refinements  of  reading  the  gospel 
from  a  higher  elevation  than  the  epistle,  and 
the  like,  are  probably  by  no  means  of  very  early 
introduction.  Two  and  even  three  amboncs  some¬ 
times  existed ;  one  was  then  used  for  the  gospel, 
one  for  the  epistle,  and  one  for  the  reading  of 
the  prophetical  or  other  books  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  (Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.).  In  the 
old  church  of  St.  Peter’s  there  was,  however, 
but  one,  which  Platner  (^Beschreibung  vo7i  Rom) 
thinks  was  a  continuance  of  the  ancient  usage. 

Something  in  the  nature  of  an  ambo  or  desk  no 
doubt  was  in  use  from  a  very  early  perioil. 
Bunsen  {Basiliken  des  Christlichen  Roiyis,  p.  48) 
expresses  his  opinion  that  the  ambo  was  origin¬ 
ally  moveable.  In  the  earlier  centuries  much  of 
the  church  furniture  was  of  wood,  and  the  am- 
bones  were  probably  of  the  same  material. 
Wherever  a  “  presbyterium  ”  or  “  chorus  can¬ 
torum”  (i.e.  an  enclosed  space  in  front  of  the 


AMBO 


AMBROSIAN  MUSIC 


73 


altar  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  inferior  clergy) 
existed,  an  ambo  was  probably  connected  with  it, 
being  placed  usually  on  one  side  of  the  enclosure. 
Where  no  “chorus”  existed,  the  ambo  was  pro¬ 
bably  placed  in  the  centre. 

At  St  Sophia’s  in  Constantinople  the  ambo  con-  | 
structed  by  Justinian  stood  nearly  in  the  middle  ' 
of  the  church,  but  more  towards  the  east.  A  full 
account  of  it  is  given  by  Paul  the  Silentiary  in  a 
poem  in  hexameter  verse  upon  it.  From  this  we 
learn  that  it  was  ascended  by  two  flights  of 
stairs,  one  from  the  west,  the  other  from  the  east; 
and  that  it  was  covered  by  a  canopy  i-esting  on 
eight  columns.  It  was  constructed  of  the  mos^ 
precious  marbles,  and  adorned  wjth  gold  and 
precious  stones.  The  area  at  the  top  of  the  stairs 
was  sufficiently  spacious  for  the  coronation  of  the 
Emperor,  and  the  space  below  enclosed  by  rail¬ 
ings  was  occupied  by  the  singers.  During  the 
services  the  gospels  and  epistles  were  no  doubt 
i-ead  from  the  raised  part. 

Pope  Pelagius  (555-559)  erected  an  ambo  in 
Ct.  Peter’s  (Zj6.  I'ontif.),  and  in  the  cathedral  of 
Ravenna  are  the  remains  of  one  ei'ected  by 
Archbishop  Agnellus  (558-566).  This  last  is 
ornamented  with  figures  of  lambs,  peacocks, 
doves,  fishes,  &c.,  within  panels,  the  design  and 
execution  being  poor  and  rude. 


WiliP;l|l|ll"l||l'l|l 


mjii.ii’im  I'utuij 


Ambo  of  S.  ApoUinare  Nuovo,  at  Ravenna 


{aiiinmuiiuiiuiii 


The  ambo  represented  in  the  woodcut  is  in  the 
church  of  S.  ApoUinare  Nuovo  at  Ravenna,  the 
date  of  its  erection  has  not  been  ascertained 
with  certainty,  but  it  would  seem  not  impro¬ 
bable  that  it  formed  a  part  of  the  original  fittings 
of  the  church  built  between  a.d.  493  and  a.d. 
525.  The  pillars  on  which  it  is  now  elevated 
were  doubtless  added  at  some  later  period,  when 
it  was  arranged  in  order  to  be  employed  as  a 
pulpit 


The  ambones  in  S.  Clemente  at  R.  me  are  of 
different  periods :  the  smaller  and  ear’ier  may 
perhaps  be  of  the  same  date  as  the  cn(  rus  with 
which  it  is  connected  (6th  century  ?),  but  there 
is  some  difference  in  the  character  of  the  work. 
The  larger  dates  probably  from  the  12th  century, 
as  no  doubt  does  also  that  in  S.  Lorenzo  f.  1.  M.  at 
Rome.  The  circumstance  upon  which  the  Abbe 
Martigny  (^Dict.  des  Antiq.  Cht'et.)  relies  as  prov¬ 
ing  the  high  antiquity  of  this  last,  viz.  that  a 
part  of  its  base  is  formed  from  a  bas-relief  relating 
to  pagan  sacrifices,  cannot  be  considered  as  having 
much  weight,  as  a  part  of  the  superstructure  is 
formed  from  a  slab  bearing  an  early  Christian 
inscription,  and  as  the  whole  style  and  character 
of  the  work  are  so  evidently  those  in  use  at  Rome 
during  the  12th  and  13th  centuries. 

The  lesser  and  earlier  ambo  at  S.  Clemente  has 
two  desks— -one,  the  most  elevated,  looking  towards 
the  altar,  the  other  in  the  contrary  direction  ; 
the  later  ambo  has  a  semi-hexagonal  projection 
on  each  side,  and  is  ascended  by  a  stair  at  each 
end.  This  latter  plan  seems  to  have  been  the 
more  usual ;  the  ambones  at  Ravenna  and  those  at 
Rome  of  the  12th  and  13th  centuries  are  all  thus 
planned. 

In  the  plan  for  the  church  of  St.  Gall  (c.  A.D. 
820),  the  ambo  is  placed  in  the  middle  of  the 
nave  but  near  its  eastern  end,  in  front  of  the 
enclosure  marked  “  chorus,”  and  is  within  an 
enclosure. 

A  tall  ornamented  column  is  often  found  at¬ 
tached  to  the  ambo  ;  on  this  the  paschal  candle 
was  fixed.  This  usage  may  have  existed  from 
an  early  period,  but  perhaps  the  earliest  existing 
example  of  such  a  column  is  one  preserved  in  the 
museum  of  the  Lateran  at  Rome,  w’hich  however 
is  probably  not  older  than  the  11th  century.  It 
is  engraved  by  Ciampini  (Vet.  3fon.,  t.  i.  pi.  xiv.). 

According  to  Sarnelli  (A7it.  Bas.  p.  84),  the 
word  ambo  is  the  proper  expression  for  the  raised 
platform  or  chorus  cantorum  ;  he  however  gives 
no  authorities  for  this  use  of  the  word.  [A.  N.] 

AMBROSE.  (1)  Bishop  of  Milan,  confessor, 
commemorated  April  4:  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron., 
Bedae)',  Dec.  7  (Cal.  Byzant.). 

(2)  Bishop,  commemorated  Nov.  30  (Mart. 
Hieron.').  [C.] 

AMBROSIAN  MUSIC,  the  earliest  music 
used  in  the  Christian  Church  of  wffiich  we  have 
any  account,  and  so  named  after  Ambrose,  bishop 
of  Milan  (374-398),  who  introduced  it  to  his 
diocese  about  the  year  386,  during  the  reign  of 
Constantine. 

The  notions  prevailing  among  musical  and 
other  writers  respecting  the  peculiarities  of 
Ambrosian  music  are  based  rather  on  conjecture 
than  knowledge.  It  may  be  considered  certain 
that  it  was  more  simple  and  less  varied  than  the 
Gregorian  music  which,  about  two  centuries 
later,  almost  everywhere  superseded  it.  Indeed 
it  has  been  doubted  whether  actual  melody  at 
all  entered  into  it,  and  conjectured  that  it  was 
only  a  kind  of  musical  speech — monotone  with 
melodic  closes,  or  Acckntus  Ecclksiastici’S, 
a  kind  of  music,  or  mode  of  musical  utterance, 
which  Gregory  retained  for  collects  and  responso.-J, 
but  which  he  rejected  as  too  simple  for  psalms 
and  hymns.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
argued  more  plausibly  that,  to  whatever  extent 
the  Accentus  or  Modus  choraliter  legendi  may 


74 


AMBROSIAN  MUSIC 


AMBROSIAN  MUSIC 


nave  been  used  in  Ambrosian  music,  an  element 
more  distinctly  musical  entered  largely^  into  it  ; 
that  a  decided  ca  itus,  as  in  Gregorian  music,  was 
used  for  the  psalms ;  and  that  something  which 
might  even  now  be  called  melody  was  employed 
for  (especially  metrical)  hymns.  That  this  me¬ 
lody  was  narrow  in  compass  [Ambitus],  and 
little  varied  in  its  intervals,  is  probable  or  cer¬ 
tain.  The  question  however  is  not  of  quality, 
but  of  kind.  Good  melody  does  not  of  necessity 
involve  many  notes ;  Rousseau  has  composed  a 
very  sweet  one  on  only  three  (Consolations  des 
Miseres  de  ma  1  ie,  No.  53). 

The  probability  that  this  last  view  of  Ambro- 
.sian  music  is  the  right  one  is  increased  by  the 
accounts  of  its  effect  in  performance,  given  in 
the  Benedictine  Life  of  St.  Ambrose,  drawn  from 
his  own  works,  wherein  one  especial  occasion  is 
mentioned  on  which  the  whole  congregation  sang 
certain  hymns  with  .such  fervour  and  unction 
that  many  could  not  restrain  their  tears — an 
incident  confirmed  by  an  eye-witness,  St.  Augus¬ 
tine.  “  How  did  I  weep,”  he  says,  “  in  Thy 
hymns  and  canticles,  touched  to  the  quick  by 
the  voices  of  Thy  sweet  attuned  Church  !  The 
voices  flowed  into  mine  ears,  and  the  truth  dis¬ 
tilled  into  my  heart,  whence  the  affections  of  my 
devotions  overflowed,  and  tears  ran  down,  and 
happy  was  1  therein.”®  It  is  difficult  to  attri¬ 
bute  to  mere  “  musical  speech,”  however  em¬ 
ployed,  such  effects  as  these,  even  upon  the 
rudest  and  least  instructed  people,  a  fortiori,  on 
persons  like  Augustine,  accomplished  in  all  the 
learning  and  the  arts  of  his  time.  The  hymns 
and  canticles  must  surely  have  been  conjoined, 
and  the  voices  attuned  to  a  sweeter  and  more 
expressive  song.  “  Dulcis  est  cantilena,”  says 
Ambrose  (Op.t.  i.  p.  1052)  himself,  “quae  non 
corpus  effeminat,  sed  mentem  animamque  con- 
firmat.”  Whatever  its  properties,  its  usefulness, 
or  its  dignity,  no  one  would  apply  the  epithet 
dulcis  to  the  Accentus  Ecclesiasticus,  or  speak  of 
it,  or  anything  like  it,  as  cantilena. 

That  neither  Augustine  nor  any  contemporary 
writer  has  described  particularly,  or  given  us 
any  technical  account  of,  the  music  practised  by 
the  Milanese  congregations  of  the  end  of  the  4th 
century,  however  much  we  may  regret  it,  need 
hardly  cause  us  any  surprise.  We  are  very  im¬ 
perfectly  informed  about  many  things  nearer  to 
us  in  point  of  time,  and  practically  of  more  im¬ 
portance.  Augustine  has  indeed  told  us  in  what 
manner  the  psalms  and  hymns  were  sung  in  the 
church  of  St.  Ambrose,  and  that  this  manner  was 
exotic  and  new.*’  But  of  the  character  of  the 
song  itself — in  what  the  peculiarity  of  the  Cantus 
Anihrosianus  consisted — he  tells  us  nothing.  Pos¬ 
sibly  there  was  little  to  tell ;  and  the  only  pecu¬ 
liarity  consisted  in  the  employment  in  psalmody 
of  more  melodious  strains  than  heretofore  — 
strains  not  in  themselves  new,  but  never  before 


a  “  Quantum  flevi  In  hymnis  et  canticis  tuis,  suave 
sonantis  Ecclesiae  tiiae  vocibus  commotus  acriter !  Voces 
illae  influebant  auribus  meis,  et  eliquabatur  veritas  in  cor 
meum ;  et  exaestuabat  inde  affectus  pietatis,  et  currebant 
lacrimae,  et  bene  mihi  erat  cum  eis.”— -S.  Augustini 
Cmfessionum,  lib.  ix.  cap.  vi.  c.  14. 

b  “Tunc  hymni  et  psalmi  ut  ‘canerentur’  secundum 
morem  orientalium  partiutn,  ne  populus  maeroris  taedio 
contabesceret,  institutum  est;  et  ex  illo  in  hodiemuin  re- 
teiitum,  Hiultis  jam  ac  pene  omnibus  gregibus  tuis,  et  per 
cetera  orbis  imitanlibus." — Con/.,  lib.  ix.  cap.  7-15. 


.so  employed  ;  for,  “  in  the  first  ages  of  Chri.sti- 
anity,”  says  St.  Isidore,  “  the  psalms  were  re¬ 
cited  in  a  manner  more  approaching  speech  than 
song.”'  In  this  view  most  writers  on  Ambrosian 
music  have  concurred  ;  that  it  was  veritable 
song,  in  the  proper  musical  sense  of  the  word, 
not  musical  speech  or  “half-song;”  and  that, 
not  on>ly  was  it  based  on  a  scale  system  or  tona¬ 
lity  perfectly  well  understood,  but  that  its 
rhythmus  was  subject  to  recognised  laws.  S. 
Ubaldo,  the  author  of  a  work  (Disquisitio  de 
cantu  a  D.  Ainhrosio  in  Mediolanensem  ecclesiiim 
introducto,  Mediolani,  1695)  especially  devoted 
to  Ambrosian  music,  says  expressly  that  St.  Am¬ 
brose  was  not  the  first  to  introduce  antiphonal 
singing  into  the  West,  but  that  he  did  introduce 
w'hat  the  ancients  called  Cantus  Ifarmonicus,  on 
account  of  its  determined  tonality  and  variety  of 
intervals,  properties  not  needed  in,  and  indeed 
incongruous  with,  musical  speech.  With  this 
Cantus  Harmonicus  was  inseparably  connected 
the  Cantus  Ixhythmicus  or  Metricus ;  so  that,  bv 
the  application  of  harmonic  (i.  e.  in  the  modern 
sense,  melodic')  rule,  a  kind  of  melody  was  jiro- 
duced  in  some  degree  like  our  own.  That  Am¬ 
brosian  music  was  rhythmical  is  irrefragably  at¬ 
tested  by  the  variety  of  metres  employed  by 
Ambrose  in  his  own  hymns,  and  that  such  was 
held  to  have  been  the  ca.se  for  many  centuries  is 
confirmed  by  Guido  Aretinus  and  John  Cotton 
(11th  century). 

The  first  requisite  of  melody  is  that  the  sounds 
composing  it  be  not  only  in  the  same  “  system,” 
but  also  in  some  particular  scale  or  succession, 
based  upon  and  moving  about  a  given  sound. 
The  oldest  scales  consisted  at  the  most  of  four 
sounds,  whence  called  tetrachords.  The  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  tetrachord  was  of  long  duration  ;  it 
is  the  theoretical  basis  even  of  modern  tonality. 
Eventually  scales  extended  in  practice  to  penta¬ 
chords,  hexachords,  heptachords,  and  ultimately 
octachords,  as  with  us.  The  modern  scale 
may  be  defined  as  a  succession  of  sounds  con¬ 
necting  a  given  sound  with  its  octave.  The 
theory  and  practice  of  the  octachord  were  fami¬ 
liar  to  the  Greeks,  from  whose  system  it  is 
believed  Ambrose  took  the  first  four  octachords 
or  modes,  viz.  the  Phrygian,  Dorian,  Hypolydian, 
and  Hypophrygiau,*  called  by  the  first  Christian 
writers  on  music  Protus,  Deuterus,  Tritus,  and 
Tetrardus.  Subsequently  the  Greek  provincial 
names  got  to  be  misapplied,  and  the  Ambrosian 
system  appeared  as  follows  : 


Protcs  or  Dorian. 


Tin  ^ 

xSz ^  'S'  

S’ 

Decterus  or  Phrygian. 

—y -  ^  ^ 

^ - 

Tritus  or  Aeolian. 

-J/t -  '   - 

^  -  - 

Tetrardus  or  Mvxolydian. 

-9— - - ^  — 1 

r— ^ 

These  scales  differ  essentially  from  our  scales, 

'  “Ita,  ut  pronuntianti  vicinior  esset,  quani  psalleuti." 
— De  OJic.,  cap.  vii. 


AMBROSIAN  MUSIC 


AMEN 


75 


major  or  minor,  of  D,  E,  F,  G,  which  are  virtu¬ 
ally  transpositions  of  one  another,  or  identical 
scales  at  a  higher  or  lower  pitch,  the  seats  of 
whose  two  semitones  are  always  in  the  same 
places, — between  the  3rd  and  4th  and  the  7th 
and  8th  sounds  severally.  Whereas  the  Greek 
and  Ambrosian  scales  above  are  not  only  unlike 
one  another  (the  seats  of  the  semitones  being  in 
all  different),  but  they  are  also  unlike  either  our 
modern  typical  major  scale  of  G,  which  has  its 
semitones  between  the  3rd  and  4th  and  7th  and 
8th  sounds,  or  our  typical  minor  scale  of  A, 
which  has  one  of  its  semitones  always  between 
the  2nd  and  3rd  sounds,  another  between  the  5th 
and  6th  or  the  7th  and  8th,  and  in  its  chromatic 
form  between  both. 


Modern  Typical  Major  Scale. 


Modern  Typical  Minor  Scale. 


i 


The  1st,  2nd,  3rd,  and  4th  Ambrosian  scales 
or  tones  therefore  are  not  what  we  now  call 
“keys,”  but  “modes,”  differing  from  one  another 
as  the  modern  major  and  minor  modes  differ,  in 
the  places  of  their  semitones.  Melodies  there¬ 
fore  in  this  or  that  Ambrosian  “  tone  ”  have  a 
variety  of  character  analogous  to  that  which 
distinguishes  our  major  and  minor  modes  so  very 
widely.  Thus  tenderness  is  the  popular  attri¬ 
bute  of  the  minor  mode ;  strength  and  clearness 
are  those  of  the  major.  In  like  manner  one 
Ambrosian  tone  was  supposed  to  be  characterised 
by  dignity,  another  by  languor,  and  so  on. 

The  rhythmus  of  Ambrosian  melody  is  thought 
by  some  to  have  consisted  only  in  the  adaptation 
to  long  and  short  syllables  of  long  and  short 
notes.  “Of  what  we  call  time,”  says  Forkel 
(^Gesch.  der  Musik,  ii.  168), — the  proportion 
between  the  different  divisions  of  the  same 
melody, — “  the  ancients  had  no  conception.” 
He  does  not  tell  us  how  they  contrived  to  march 
or  to  dance  to  timeless  melodies — melodies  with 
two  beats  in  one  foot  and  three  in  another,  or 
three  feet  in  one  phrase  and  four  in  another,  nor 
how  vast  congregations  were  enabled  to  sing 
them  ;  and  if  anything  is  certain  about  Ambrosian 
song  it  is  that  it  was  above  all  things  congrega¬ 
tional. 

Whether  Ambrose  was  acquainted  with  the 
use  of  musical  characters  is  uncertain.  Probably 
he  was.  The  system  he  adopted  was  Greek,  and 
he  could  hardly  make  himself  acquainted  with 
Greek  music  without  having  acquired  some 
knowledge  of  Greek  notation,  which,  though  in¬ 
tricate  in  its  detail,  was  simple  in  its  principles. 
But  even  the  invention,  were  it  needed,  of  cha¬ 
racters  capable  of  representing  the  compara¬ 
tively  few  sounds  of  Ambrosian  melody  could 
have  been  a  matter  of  no  difficulty.  Such  cha¬ 
racters  needed  only  to  represent  the  pitch  of 
these  sounds  j  their  duration  was  dependent  on. 


and  sufficiently  indicated  by,  the  metre.  Copies 
of  Ambrosian  music-books  are  preserved  in  .somo 
libraries,  which  present  indications  of  what  may 
be,  probably  are,  musical  characters.  Possibly 
however  these  are  additions  by  later  hands.  It 
is  certain  that,  in  the  time  of  Charlemagne,  Am¬ 
brosian  song  was  finally  superseded,  except  in 
the  Milanese,  by  Gregorian.  The  knowledge 
of  the  Ambrosian  musical  alphabet,  if  it  ever 
existed,  may,  in  such  circumstances,  and  in  such 
an  age,  have  easily  been  lost,  though  the  melo¬ 
dies  themselves  were  long  preserved  tradition¬ 
ally.  [J.  H.] 

AMBROSIANUM. — This  word  in  old  litur¬ 
gical  writings  often  denotes  a  hymn,  from  S. 
Ambrose  having  been  the  first  to  introduce 
metrical  hymns  into  the  service  of  the  Church. 
Originally  the  wmrd  may  have  indicated  that  the 
particular  hymn  was  the  composition  of  S. 
Ambrose,  and  hence  it  came  to  signify  anv  hymn. 
Thus  S.  Benedict,  in  his  directions  for  Nocturns, 
says,  “Post  hunc  psalmus  94  (Venite)  cum  anti- 
phona,  aut  certe  decantandus.®  Inde  sequatur 
Ambrosianum :  Deinde  sex  psalmi  cum  anti- 
phonis.”  Also,  S.  Isidore  de  Divin.  off.  lib.  i. 
c.  1,  §  2,  speaking  of  hymns,  mentions  S. 
Ambrose  of  Milan,  whom  he  calls  “a  most  illus¬ 
trious  Doctor  of  the  Church,  and  a  copious  com¬ 
poser  of  this  kind  of  poetry.  Whence  (he  adds) 
from  his  name  hymns  are  called  Amhrosians,” 
(unde  ex  ejus  nomine  hymni  Ambrosiani  appel- 
lantur).  [H.  J.  H.] 

AMEN  (Heb.  |1^^<).  The  formula  by  which 

one  expresses  his  concurrence  in  the  prayer  of 
another,  as  for  instance  in  Deut.  xxvii.  15. 

1.  This  word,  which  was  used  in  the  services 
of  the  synagogue,  was  transferred  unchanged  in 
the  very  earliest  age  of  the  Church  to  the 
Christian  seiwices  [compare  Alleluia]  ;  for  the 
Apostle  (1  Cor.  xiv.  16)  speaks  of  the  Amen  of 
the  assembly  which  followed  the  evxapiaria,  or 
thanksgiving.  And  the  same  custom  is  traced 
in  a  series  of  authorities.  Justin  Martyr  {ApoL 
i.  c.  65,  p.  127)  notices  that  the  people  present 
say  the  Amen  after  prayer  and  thanksgiving ; 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (in  Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  9,  p. 
253,  Schwegler)  speaks  of  one  who  had  often 
listened  to  the  thanksgiving  (euxapiffTld),  and 
joined  in  the  Amen  which  followed.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  (^Catechismus  Mystag.  5,  p.  331)  says 
that  the  Lord’s  Prayer  is  sealed  with  an  Amen. 
Jerome,  in  a  well-known  passage  (Prooemium  in 
lib.  ii.  Comment.  Ep.  Gal.,  p.  428)  speaks  of  the 
thundering  sound  of  tiu  Amen  of  the  Roman 
congregations. 

2.  The  formula  of  consecration  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  in  most  ancient  liturgies  ordered  to 
be  said  aloud,  and  the  people  respond  Amen.  Pro¬ 
bably,  however,  the  custom  of  saying  this  part 
of  the  service  secrete — afterwards  universal  in 
the  West — had  already  begun  to  insinuate  itself 
in  the  time  of  Justinian  ;  for  that  emperor  ordered 
(Novella  123,  in  Migne’s  Patrol,  tom.  72,  p.  1026), 
that  the  consecration-formula  should  be  said 
aloud,  expressly  on  the  ground  that  the  people 
might  respond  Amen  at  its  termination.  [Com¬ 
pare  Canon.]  In  most  Greek  liturgies  also, 

*  This  is  explalred  as  “oninino  protrahendo  et  ah  uno 
aut  a  pluribus  iii<rose”  or  as  “in  directum  .‘>ine  Antl- 
phona.”  Marti  ni-  e  Ant.  Mon.  rit..  Lib.  1.  cap.  ii.  22. 


AMENESIUS 


AMICE 


76 

when  the  priest  in  administering  says,  “  o-w/xa 
Xpiarov,”  the  receiver  answers  A7nen.  So,  too, 
in  the  Clementine  Liturgy,  at'ter  the  ascription 
of  Glory  to  God  (^Apost.  Const,  viii.  13,  p.  215, 
’Jltzen).  (Bona,  De  liebus  Liturgicis,  1.  ii.  cc.  5, 
12,  17.)  [C.] 

AMENESIUS,  deacon,  commemorated  Nov. 

iO  (^Mart.  Bedae).  [C.] 

AMICE  (^Amictus,  Humerale.,  Superhuinerale 
or  Ephodi  Anaboladiuin,  Anabolagiurn,  Anagolai- 
uin).  §  1.  The  word  Amictus  is  employed  in  clas¬ 
sical  writers  as  a  general  term  for  any  outer 
garment.  Thus  Virgil  employs  it  (Acn.  iii.  405) 
in  speaking  of  the  toga,  ornamented  with  purj)le, 
the  end  of  which  was  thrown  about  the  head  by 
priests  and  other  official  persons  when  engaged 
in  acts  of  sacrifice.  (See  for  example  “  the 
Emperor  sacrificing,”  from  the  column  of  Trajan, 
Vest.  Christ,  pi.  iii.)  The  same  general  usage 
may  be  traced  in  the  earlier  ecclesiastical  writers, 
as  in  St.  Jerome,  and  in  Gregory  of  Toui-s,  who 
uses  the  word  in  speaking  of  a  bride’s  veil.  St, 
Isidore  of  Seville  (circ.  630  A.D.)  nowhere  em¬ 
ploys  the  word  as  the  designation  of  any  par¬ 
ticular  garment,  sacred  or  otherwise.  But  in 
defining  the  meaning  of  anaboladium  (a  Greek 
word  which  at  a  later  time  was  identified  with 
amictus  as  the  name  of  a  sacred  vestment),  he 
describes  it  as  “  amictorium  lineum  feminarum 
quo  humeri  operiuntur,  quod  Graeci  et  Latini 
sindonein  vocant.”  (Origines,  xix.  25.)  With 
this  may  be  compared  St.  Jerome  on  Isaiah,  cap. 
iii.,  where  in  referring  to  the  dress  of  Hebrew 
women,  he  says,  “  Habent  sindones  quae  vocantur 
amictoria.”  This  usage  of  “  amictorium,”  and 
its  equivalent  “  anaboladium,”  in  speaking  of  a 
linen  garment  worn  by  women  as  a  covering  for 
the  shoulders,  will  prepare  us  for  the  first  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  “amictus”  as  a  vestment  early  in 
the  9th  century,  when  it  is  compared  by  Rabanus 
Maurus  (such  seems  to  be  his  meaning)  with  the 
“  superhumerale”  of  Levitical  use  (^Be  Instit. 
Cler.  Lib.  1.  cap.  15).  Rabanus,  however,  does 
not  use  the  word  “  amictus,”  though  he  seems 
evidently  to  refer  to  the  vestment  elsewhere  so 
called.  Amalarius  of  Metz,  writing  about  the 
same  time  (circ.  825  A.D.),  speaks  of  the  “  amic¬ 
tus”  as  being  the  first  in  order  of  the  vestments 
of  the  Chui’ch,  “  primum  vestimentum  nostrum 
quo  collum  undique  cingimus.”  Hence  its  sym¬ 
bolism  in  his  eyes  as  implying  “  castigatio  vocis,” 
the  due  restraint  of  the  voice,  whose  organs  are 
in  the  throat  (JDe  Eccl.  Off.  ii.  17.).  Walafrid 
Strabo  writing  some  few  years  later  (he  was  a 
pupil  of  Rabanus),  enumerates  the  eight  vest¬ 
ments  of  the  Chui'ch,  but  without  including  in 
them  the  amice  (i)<?  Reb.  Eccl.  c.  24.).  But  in  all 
the  later  liturgical  writers  the  vestment  is  named 
under  some  one  or  other  of  the  various  designa¬ 
tions  enumerated  at  the  head  of  this  article. 
As  to  its  use  in  this  country  there  is  no  evidence 
till  nearly  the  close  of  the  Saxon  i^eriod.  It  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  Pontifical  of  Egbert.  In 
a  later  Anglo-Saxon  Pontifical  (of  the  10th  cen¬ 
tury,  Dr.  Rock  says,)  among  the  vestments 
enumerated  occurs  mention  of  the  “  super¬ 
humerale  seu  poderem,”  an  expression  whioh  has 
been  supposed  to  point  to  the  amice,  though  the 
use  of  “  poderis,”  as  an  alternative  name,  seems 
to  make  this  somewhat  doubtful.  (Quoted  by 


Dr.  Rock,  Church  of  our  Fathers,  vol.  i.  p.  465 ; 
from  the  Archaeologia,  vol.  xxv,  p.  28.) 

§  2.  Shape  of  the  Amice,  its  Material,  and  orna¬ 
mentation.  The  amice  was  originally  a  square  or 
oblong  piece  of  linen,  somewhat  such  as  that 
which  forms  the  background  in  the  accompany¬ 
ing  woodcut,  and  was  probably  worn  nearly  as 
shown  in  Fig,  1,  so  as  to  cover  the  neck  and 


Amice. 


shoulders.  Early  in  the  10th  century  (a.d.  925) 
we  hear,  for  the  first  time,  of  ornaments  of  gold 
on  the  amice.  (^T estamentum  Reculfi  Episcopi  in 
Migne’s  Patrologia,  tom.  cxxxii.  p.  468,  “  caligas 
et  sandalias  paria  duo,  amictos  [sfc]  cum  auro 
quattuor.”)  This  ornament  was  probably  an 
“  aurifrigium  ”  or  “  orfrey.”  From  the  11th 
century  onwards  the  richer  amices  were  adorned 
with  embroidery,  and  at  times  even  with  pre¬ 
cious  stones.  These  ornaments  were  attached  to 
a  portion  only  of  the  amice,  a  comparatively 
small  patch,  known  as  a  plaga,  or  pat-ui'a  (i.  e., 
paratura)  being  fastened  on  (see  Fig.  4  in  wool- 


Fig.  4. 


cut)  so  as  to  appear  as  a  kind  of  collar  above  the 
alb  (see  Fig,  3).  An  example  is  given  of  late 
date,  to  show  the  shape  of  the  pat'ura,  as,  from 
the  nature  of  the  material,  very  early  amices 
are  not  extant.  These  parurae  were  known  in 
later  times  as  “  collaria  ”  or  “  colleria  ”  (see 
Rock,  Ch.  of  our  Fathers,  i.  47 0). 

§  3.  How  uoi-n. — All  the  earlier  notices  of 
the  amice  are  such  as  to  imply  that  it  was  worn 
on  the  neck  and  shouldei-s  only.  Honorius  of 
Autun  (writing  circ.  1125  .y.D.)  is  the  first  who 
speaks  of  it  as  being  placed  on  the  head.  “  Hu- 
merale  quod  in  Lege  Ephot,  apud  nos  Amictus 
dicitur,  sibi  imponit  et  illo  caput  et  collum  et 
humeros  (unde  et  Humerale  dicitur)  cooperit,  et 
in  pectore  copula  turn  duabusvittis  ad  mammillas 
cingit.  Per  Humerale  quod  capiti  imponitur 
spes  caelestium  intelligitur.”  (^Oemma  animae,  i. 
c.  201.)  It  appears  to  have  been  temporarily 
placed  on  the  head  (as  shown  in  Fig.  2  of  the 
above  woodcut)  till  the  other  vestments  were 
arranged,  after  which  it  was  turned  down  so 
that  the  parura  might  appear  in  its  proper 
place.  To  this  position  on  the  head  is  to  be 
referred  its  later  symbolism  as  a  helmet  of 


AMICUS 


AMPULLA 


77 


Galvation.  “  Amictus  pro  galea  caput  obnubit.” 
Durandi  Rationale  iii.  1.  For  other  symbol' 
isms  see  Innocent  III.,  De  Sacro  Altaris  Mysterio, 
i.  cc.  35  and  50.  (The  woodcut  above  is  from 
Dr.  Bock’s  Geschichte  der  liturgischen  Gewdnder^ 

B.  ii.  Taf.  ii.)  [W.  B.  M.] 

AMICUS,  confessor  at  Lyons,  commemorated 
July  14  (^Mai't.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

AMMON.  (1)  Commemorated  Feb.  7  (^Mart, 
Hieron.)^ 

(2)  Commemorated  Feb.  9  (3f.  Hieron.^  Bedae'). 

(3)  'A/j-fiovy,  the  deacon,  with  the  forty  women 
his  disciples,  martyrs,  commemorated  Sept.  1 
(^Cal.  Byzant.)- 

(4)  Commemorated  Sept.  10  (Af.  Hieron.^ 
Bedae'). 

(6)  Martyr  at  Ale.\andria,  Dec.  20  {Mart. 
Rofin.  Vet..,  Bedae).  [C.] 

AMMON  ARIA,  martyr  at  Alexandria,  com¬ 
memorated  Dec.  12  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.T 

AMMONIUS.  (1)  Martyr,  Jan.  31  {Mart. 
Hieron.,  Bedae). 

(2)  Infant  of  Alexandria,  commemorated  Feb. 
12  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(3)  Commemorated  Oct.  6  {M.  Hieron.).  [C.J 

AMOS,  the  prophet,  commemorated  June  15 
{Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

AMPELUS  of  Messana,  commemorated  Nov. 
20  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

AMPHIBALUM  or  AMPHIBALUS.  §  1. 
This  word  appears  to  be  confined  to  Gallican 
writers.  And  this  fact,  coupled  with  its  Greek 
derivation,  pointing  as  this  does  to  a  very  early 
period  for  its  introduction,  is  noticeable,  as  one 
among  many  instances  of  diversities  of  usage 
in  minor  matters,  characteristic  of  the  Gallican 
church,  and  indicating  an  origin  distinct  from 
that  of  other  western  churches. 

§  2.  Form  of  the  vestment,  and  its  prevailing 
use.  There  are  three  passages  to  which  refer¬ 
ence  may  here  be  made  as  determining  all  that 
can  with  certainty  be  known  with  regard  to 
the  vestment  now  in  question.  St.  Remigius, 
Archbishop  of  Arles,  dying  about  500  a.d., 
left  to  his  successor  in  the  see  “  Amphibalum 
album  paschalem,”  a  white  amphibalus  for 
use  on  Sundays  and  high  festivals.  (For 
‘paschalis’  see  Ducange  in  voc.)  We  cannot 
here  conclude  with  absolute  certainty  that  it 
is  of  a  vestment  for  church  use  that  he  is 
speaking,  though  the  context  seems  to  imply 
this.  (The  quotation  is  from  the  Testamentum 
S.  Remigii  Remensis,  apud  Galland,  Bibliothec. 
Pat.,  tom.  X.  p.  806.)  But  in  the  passages  that 
follow  this  meaning  is  beyond  doubt.  In  a  life 
of  S.  Bonitus  {alias  S.  Bonus),  f  circ.  710,  a.d. 
written,  as  it  is  supposed,  by  a  contemporary 
{Acta  Sanctorum  Januar.,  d.  xv.  p.  1071  sqq.),  we 
are  told  that  the  saint  was  much  given  to  weep¬ 
ing  even  in  church  ;  so  much  so,  that  the  upper 
part  of  his  amphibalus,  which  served  as  a  cover¬ 
ing  for  his  head,  was  found  to  be  wet  with  the 
tears  he  shed.  “  Lacrimarum  ei  gratia  in  sacro 
non  deei'at  officio  ita  ut  amphibali  summitas,  qua 
caput  tegebatur,  ex  profusione  earum  madida 
videretur.”  This  “upper  part”  of  the  amphi¬ 
balus  was  evidently  a  kind  of  hood  (like  that  of 


the  casula),  separable,  in  some  sort,  from  the 
rest  of  the  garment.  For  the  saint  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  appearing  after  death,  in  a  vision,  to  a 
certain  maiden,  devoted  to  God’s  service,  and 
sending  through  her  a  message  to  the  “  mother  ” 
of  the  neighbouring  monastery,  bidding  her  keep 
by  her  (no  doubt  as  a  relic)  that  part  of  his 
amphibalus  which  covered  his  head.  “  Ut  par¬ 
tem  amphibali  mei  qua  caput  tegitur,  secum  r?.- 
tineat.” 

Even  in  this  passage,  however,  though  it  is 
evidently  spoken  of  as  worn  in  church,  and 
during  the  “  holy  office,”  it  does  not  follow  that 
a  sacerdotal  vestment,  distinctively  so  called,  is 
there  intended.  The  mention  of  the  hood  (or 
hood-like  appendage)  as  worn  over  the  head 
points  rather  to  use  in  the  choii*.  But  in  a 
fragmentary  account  of  the  Gallican  rite,  of  un¬ 
certain  date,  but  probably  of  the  9th  or  10th 
century,  the  word  amphibalus  is  used  as  equiva¬ 
lent  to  the  “  casula,”  then  regarded  as  specially 
belonging  to  sacerdotal  ministry.  “  The  casula, 
known  as  amphibalus,”  the  writer  says,  “  which 
the  priest  puts  upon  him,  is  united  from  top  to 
bottom  .  .  .  it  is  without  sleeves  .  .  . 
joined  in  front  without  slit  or  opening 
‘  Casula,  quam  amphibalum  vocant,  quod  sacer- 
dos  induetur  {sic),  tota  unita  .  .  .  Ideo 

sine  manicas  {sic)  quia  sacerdos  potius  benedicit 
quam  ministrat.  Ideo  unita  prinsecus,  non  scissa, 
non  aperta,’  ”  &c.  (See  Martene,  Thesaurxis 
Anecdotorum,  tom.  v.) 

From  the  above  passages  we  may  infer  that 
“  amphibalus  ”  was  a  name,  in  the  Gallican 
church  of  the  first  eight  or  nine  centuries,  for 
the  more  solemn  habit  of  ecclesiastics,  and  par¬ 
ticularly  for  that  which  they  wore  in  offices  of 
holy  ministration.  Having  regard  to  its  (pro¬ 
bably)  Eastern  origin,  and  to  its  subsequent  iden¬ 
tification  with  the  casula,  we  shall  probably  be 
right  in  thinking  that  it  resembled  in  shape  the 
white  phenolia,  in  which  Eastern  bishojis  are  re¬ 
presented  in  mosaics  of  the  6th  century,  in  the 
great  church  (now  Mosque)  of  St.  Sophia  at 
Constantinople.  For  these  last  see  the  article 
Vestments  (Greek),  later  in  this  work,  and 
Salzenberg’s  Altchristiiche  Baudenhmale,  plates 
xxviii.  and  xxix.  [W.  B.  M.] 

AMPHILOCHIUS,  bishop  of  Iconium,  com¬ 
memorated  Nov.  23  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

AMPIDIUS,  commemorated  at  Rome  Oct.  14 
{Mart.  Hieron.).  fC.] 

AMPLIAS,  “  Apostle,”  commemorated  Oct. 
31  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

AMPODIUS,  commemorated  Oct.  11  {Mart. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

AMPLFLLA  (Probably  for  amb-olla,  from  its 
swelling  out  in  every  direction),  a  globular  ves¬ 
sel  for  holding  liquid.  In  ecclesiastical  language 
the  word  denotes  — 

1.  The  flasks  or  cruets,  generally  of  precious 
metal,  which  contain  the  wine  and  water  used 
at  the  altar.  The  word  “  pollen,”  used  in  some 
districts  of  Germany  to  designate  these  vessels 
(Binterim’s  Denkmirdigheiten,  iv.  1.  183)  is  pro¬ 
bably  derived  from  “  Ampullae.” 

When  the  custom  of  making  offerings  of  wine 
for  the  Holy  Communion  ceased,  ampullae  seem 
to  have  taken  the  place  of  the  larger  A. MAE. 


78 


AMPULLA 


AMULETS 


The  notion  of  the  ampullae  themselves  having 
been  large  vessels  is  probably  founded  on  the 
ancient  etymology,  “ampulla,  quasi  vas  am- 
plum an  etymology  which  Walafrid  Strabo 
(De  lieh.  Eccl.  c.  24)  adapts  to  the  facts  of  his 
own  time  by  reversing  it,  “ampulla  quasi  parum 
ampla.”  The  first  mention  of  ampullae  as  altar- 
vessels,  appears  to  be  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis 
(c.  110)  in  the  life  of  John  III.  (559-573),  who 
is  said  to  have  ordered  that  the  oratories  of  the 
martyrs  in  the  city  of  Rome  should  be  supplied 
with  altar-plate,  including  ampullae  [al.  amulae] 
from  the  Lateran  church. 

2.  More  commonly  the  word  ampulla  denotes 
a  vessel,  XrjKvOos^  used  for  holding  consecrated 
oil  or  chrism.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  by  Optatus 
Milevitanus  (^contra  Donatistas  ii.  19,  p.  42), 
when  he  tells  us  that  an  “ampulla  chrismatis” 
thrown  from  a  window  by  the  Donatists  mira- 
culouslv  remained  unbroken.  In  the  Gregorian 
Sacramentanj  (p.  65),  in  the  directions  for  the 
benediction  of  Chrism  on  the  “  Feria  V.  post 
Palmas,”  or  Thursday  in  Holy  Week,  “ampullae 
duo  cum  oleo”  are  ordered  to  be  prepared,  the 
better  of  which  is  to  be  presented  to  the  Pope. 
[Chrism.] 


P>y  far  the  most  renowned  ampulla  of  this 
kind  is  that  which  was  said  to  have  been  brought 
by  a  dove  from  heaven  at  the  baptism  of  Clovis, 
and  which  was  used  at  the  coronation  of  the 
Frank  kings.  Hincmar,  in  the  service  which  he 
drew  up  for  the  coronation  of  Charles  the  Bald 
(840),  speaks  of  the  first  Christian  king  of  the 
Franks  having  been  anointed  and  consecrated 
with  the  heaven-descended  chrism,  whence  that 
which  he  himself  used  was  derived  (“  caelitus 
sumpto  chrismate,  unde  nunc  habemus,  perunc- 
tus  et  in  regem  sacratus”),  as  if  of  a  thing  well 
Known.  In  Flodoard,  who  wrote  in  the  first 
halt  of  the  10th  century,  we  find  the  legend  fully 
developed.  He  tells  us  (^Hist.  Eccles.  Eemensis, 
i.  13,  in  Migne’s  Patrol,  vol.  135,  p.  52  c.)  that 
at  the  Baptism  of  Clovis,  the  clerk  who  bore  the 
chrism  was  prevented  by  the  crowd  from  reach¬ 
ing  his  proper  station ;  and  that  when  the 
moment  for  unction  arrived,  St.  Remi  raised  his 


eyes  to  heaven  and  prayed,  when  “e:ce  subito 
columba  ceu  nix  advolat  Candida  rostro  deferens 
ampullam  caelestis  doni  chrismate  repletam.” 
This  sacred  ampulla  (the  “  Sainte  Ampoulle”) 
was  preserved  in  the  abbey  of  St.  Remi,  at  Reims, 
and  used  at  the  coronation  of  the  successive  kings 
of  France.  It  was  broken  in  1793,  but  even 
then  a  fragment  was  said  to  have  been  preserved, 
and  was  used  at  the  coronation  of  Charles  X. 
The  ampulla  represented  in  the  woodcut,  from 
Monza,  is  said  to  be  of  the  7th  century.  It  is 
of  a  metal  resembling  tin,  and  has  engraved 
upon  it  a  representation  of  the  Adoration  of  the 
Magi  and  of  the  Shepherds,  with  the  inscription, 
€AeON  HYAOY  ZcoHC  TojN  AFIwN  XPICTOV 
TOricoN,  having  been  used  for  preserving  Hoh 
Oil.  [Oil,  Holy.]  [C.] 

AMULETS.  The  earliest  writer  in  whom 
the  word  occurs  is  Pliny  {H.  N.  xxix.  4,  19  ;  xxx. 
15,  47,  et  al.),  and  is  used  by  him  in  the  sense  of 
a  “  charm  ”  against  poisons,  witchcraft,  and  the 
like  (“  veneficiorum  amuleta  ”).  A  Latin  deriva¬ 
tion  has  been  suggested  for  it  as  being  that 
“quod  malum  amolitur.”  Modern  etymologists, 
however,  connect  both  the  word  as  well  as 
the  thing  with  the  East,  and  derive  it  from  the 
Arabic  hamrnalet  (=  a  thing  suspended).  The 
practice  which  the  word  implies  had  been  in  the 
Christian  Church,  if  not  from  the  first,  yet  as 
soon  as  the  Paganism  and  Judaism  out  of  which 
it  had  emerged  began  again  to  find  their  way 
into  it  as  by  a  process  of  infiltration,  and  the 
history  of  amulets  pre.sents  a  strange  picture  of 
the  ineradicable  tendency  of  mankind  to  fall  back 
into  the  basest  superstitions  which  seem  to  belong 
only  to  the  savage  bowing  before  his  fetiche. 
Man  has  a  dread  of  unseen  powers  around  him — 
demons,  spectres,  an  evil  eye — and  he  believes 
that  certain  objects  have  power  to  preserve  him 
from  them.  That  belief  fastens  sometimes  upon 
symbolic  forms  or  solemn  words  that  have  once 
served  as  representatives  of  higher  thoughts, 
sometimes  upon  associations  which  seem  alto¬ 
gether  arbitrary.  When  the  Israelites  left 
Egypt,  they  came  from  a  people  who  had  car¬ 
ried  this  idea  to  an  almost  unequalled  extent. 
The  scarabaeus,  the  hawk,  the  serj)ent,  the 
uraeus,  or  hooded  snake,  an  open  eye,  outsjuead 
wings,  with  or  without  formulae  of  prayer, 
deprecating  or  invoking,  are  found  in  countless 
variety  in  all  our  museums,  and  seem  to  have 
been  borne,  some  on  the  breast,  some  susjiended 
by  a  chain  round  the  neck.  The  law  of  Moses, 
by  ordering  the  Zizith,  or  blue  fringe  on  the  gar¬ 
ments  which  men  wore,  or  the  papyi'us  scrolls 
with  texts  (Exod.  xiii.  2-10,  11-17  ;  Dent.  vi. 
4—9,  13-22),  which  were  to  be  as  frontlets  on 
their'brows,  and  bound  upon  their  arms,  known 
by  later  Jews  as  the  Tephillim,  or  when  nailed  on 
their  door  posts  or  the  walls  of  their  houses  as 
the  Mesusa,  sought,  as  by  a  wise  “  economy,”  to 
raise  men  who  had  been  accustomed  to  such 
usages  to  higher  thoughts,  and  to  turn  what  had 
been  a  superstition  into  a  witness  for  the  truth. 
The  old  tendency,  however,  crept  in,  and  it  seems 
clear  that  some  at  least  of  the  ornaments  named 

by  Isaiah  (iii.  23),  especially  the  D'C’nb,  were  of 

the  nature  of  amulets  (^Bib.  Diet.  Amulets).  And 
the  later  (pvXaKrrjpia  of  the  N.  T.,  though  an  at¬ 
tempt  has  been  made  by  some  archaeologists  to 
explain  the  name  as  though  they  reminded 


AMULETS 


ANAGNOSTES 


men  <pvKd(Tff€iv  rhu  v6fjiOP  (Schottgen)  were, 
there  can  be  little  doubt,  so  called  as  “  pre¬ 
servatives  ”  against  demons,  magic,  and  the  evil 
e3’e.*  Through  the  whole  history  of  Rabbinism, 
the  tendency  was  on  the  increase,  and  few  Jews 
believed  themselves  free  from  evil  spirits,  unless 
the  bed  on  which  they  slept  was  guarded  by  the 
Mesxisa.  Mystic  figures — the  sacred  tetragram- 
maton,  the  shield  of  David,  the  seal  of  Solomon — 
with  cabalistic  words,  AGLA  (an  acrostic  formed 
from  the  initial  letters  of  the  Hebrew  words  for 
“  Thou  art  mighty  for  everlasting,  0  Lord  ”j, 
Abracalan,  and  the  like,  shot  up  as  a  rank  after¬ 
growth.  Greek,  Latin,  Eastern  Heathenism,  in 
like  manner,  supplied  various  forms  of  the  same 
usage.  Everywhere  men  lived  in  the  dread  of 
the  fascination  of  the  “  evil  eye.”  Sometimes  in¬ 
dividual  men,  sometimes  whole  races  {e.g.  the 
Thibii  of  Pontus)  were  thought  to  possess  the 
power  of  smiting  youth  and  health,  and  causing 
them  to  waste  away  (Plutarch,  Syinpos.  v.  7). 
And  against  this,  men  used  remedies  of  various 
kinds,  the  ’Ecpexria  ypaggara,  the  phallus  or 
fascinum.  The  latter  was  believed  to  operate  as 
diverting  the  gaze  which  would  otherwise  be 
fixed  on  that  which  kept  it  spell-bound  (Plu¬ 
tarch,  1.  c. ;  Varr.  de  Ling.  Lat.  vi.  5),  but  was  pro¬ 
bably  connected  also  with  its  use  as  the  symbol 
of  life  as  against  the  evil  power  that  was  working 
to  destroy  life.  It  is  obvious  that  superstitions 
of  this  kind  would  be  foreign  to  Christian  life  in 
its  first  purity.  The  “  bonfire  ”  at  Ephesus  was 
a  protest  against  them  and  all  like  usages  (Acts 
xix.  19).  They  crept  in,  however,  probably  in 
the  first  instance  through  the  influence  of  Juda- 
izincr  or  Orientalizing  Gnostics.  The  followers 
of  Basilides  had  their  mystical  Abraxas  and  Jal- 
dabaoth,  which  they  wrote  on  parchment  and 
used  as  a  charm  [Chr.  Biogr.  art.  Basilides]. 
Scarabaei  have  been  found,  with  inscriptions 
(Jao,  Sabaoth,  the  names  of  angels,  Bellerman, 
Uber  die  Scarabaeen,  i.  10),  indicating  Christian 
associations  of  this  nature.**  The  catacombs  of 
Rome  have  yielded  small  ob  jects  of  various  kinds 
that  were  used  apparently  for  the  same  purpose, 
a  bronze  fish  (connected,  of  com-se,  with  the 
mystic  anagram  of  IX0T2),  with  the  word 
shSAlS  on  it,  a  haul  holding  a  tablet  with 
ZHCE2,  medals  with  tne  monogram  which  had 
figured  on  the  labarum  of  Constantine  (Aringhi, 
Bom  i  Snbterranea,  vi.  23  ;  Costadoni,  Del  Pesce, 
pi.  ii.,  iii.,  19  ;  Martigny,  s.  v.  Poisson).  In  the 
E  !st  we  find  the  practice  of  carrying  the  Gospels 
(3t3^ta  or  cvayyeKia  juiKpd)  round  the  neck 
as  (puXaKTvpia  (Chrysost.  Horn.  Ixxiii.  in  Matt.); 
and  Jerome  (in  Matt.  iv.  24)  confesses  that 
he  had  himself  done  so  to  guard  against  disease. 
When  the  passion  for  relics  set  in  they  too  were 
employed,  and  even  Gregory  the  Great  sent  to 
Theodelinda  two  of  these  (pvkaKT-fjpia,  one  a  cross 
containing  a  fragment  of  the  true  cross,  the  other 
a  box  containing  a  copy  of  the  Gospels,  each  with 
Greek  invocations,  as  a  charm  against  the  evil 
spirits  or  lamiae  that  beset  children  (A’/?/),  xii.  7). 
In  all  these  cases  we  trace  some  Christian  asso- 


•  This  is  distinctly  stated  in  the  Jerusalem  Gemara 
(Bi-rach.  fol.  2, 4).  Comp,  the  exhaustive  article  by  I.eyrcz 
on  ‘  Phylakterien  ’  in  Herzog. 

•>  The  mention  of  “  the  horns  of  the  Scarabaeus  ”  as  an 
amuUt  by  Pliny  (ff.  .V.  xxviii.  4)  shews  how  widely  the 
old  Egyptian  feeling  about  it  had  spread  in  the  first 
century  of  the  Christian  era. 


7  It 

ciations.  Symbolism  passes  into  superstition. 
In  other  instances  the  old  heathen  leaven  waa 
more  conspicuous.  Strange  words,  irepltpyoi 
yapuKTripfs  (Basil,  in  Ps.  xlv.,  p.  229  A),  names 
of  rivers,  and  the  like  (Chrysost.  Horn.  Ixxiii.  in 
Matt.),  ligaturae”  ot' nW  kinds  (August.  Tract  vii. 
in  Joann.),  are  spoken  of  as  frequent.  Even  a 
child’s  caul  (it  is  curious  to  note  at  once  the 
antiquity  and  the  persistency  of  the  superstition), 
and  the  fyudKiriop  eudv/xa  became  an  kyKSXmov 
in  another  sense,  and  was  used  by  mid  wives  to 
counteract  the  “  evil  eye  ”  and  the  words  of  evil 
omen  of  which  men  were  still  afraid  (Balsamon, 
in  Cone.  Trull.,  c.  61).  Even  the  strange  prohibi¬ 
tion  by  the  Council  just  referred  to  of  the  practice 
of  “  leading  about  she  bears  and  other  like  beasts 
to  the  delusion  (-n-phs  iraiyviov)  and  injury  of  the 
simple,”  has  been  referred  by  the  same  writer 
{ibid.),  not  to  their  being  a  show  as  in  later 
times,  but  to  the  fact  that  those  who  did  so  car¬ 
ried  on  a  trade  in  the  (pvXaKTrjpia,  which  they 
made  from  their  hair,  and  which  were  in  request 
as  a  cure  for  sore  eyes. 

Christian  legislation  and  teaching  had  to  carry 
on  a  perpetual  warfare  against  these  abuses. 
Constantine  indeed,  in  the  transition  stage  which 
he  represented,  had  allow'ed  “  i-emedia  humanis 
quaesita  corporibus  ”  {Cod.  Theodos.  ix.  tit.  16, 
s.  3),  as  well  as  incantations  for  rain,  but  the 
Council  of  Laodicea  (c.  36)  forbade  the  clergy 
to  make  (poXauriipia,  which  w^ere  in  reality  “Secr- 
poDT-npia  for  their  owm  souls.”  Chrysostom  fre¬ 
quently  denounces  them  in  all  their  forms,  and 
lays  bare  the  plea  that  the  old  women  who  sold 
them  were  devout  Christians,  and  that  the  prac¬ 
tice  therefore  could  not  be  so  very  wrong  {Horn. 
viii.  in  Coloss.  p.  1374  ;  Horn.,  vi.  c.  Jud. ;  Horn. 
Ixii.  p.  536,  in  Matt.  p.  722).  Basil  (7.  c.)  speaks 
in  the  same  tone.  Augustine  {1.  c.  and  Serm.  eexv. 
De  Temp.)  warns  men  against  all  such  “  diabolica 
phylacteria.”  Other  names  bj'  which  such  amulets 
were  known  were  ireplairTa,  TrepidfiixaTa.  We 
may  inler  from  the  silence  of  Clement  of  Alex¬ 
andria  and  Tertullian  that  the  earlier  days  of  the 
Church  were  comparatively  free  from  these  super¬ 
stitions,  and  from  the  tone  of  the  writers  just  re¬ 
ferred  to  that  the  canon  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea 
had  been  so  far  effectual  that  the  clergy  were  no 
longer  ministering  to  them.  [E.  H.  P.] 

ANACHORETAE.  [Hermit.] 

ANACLETUS,  the  pope,  martyr  at  Rome, 
commemorated  April  26  {Mart.  Pom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ANACTORON  {' AvdKTopov  from  dvdKrwp), 
the  dwelling  of  a  king  or  ruler.  In  classical 
authors,  generally  a  house  of  a  god,  especially 
a  temple  of  the  Eleusinian  Demeter  or  of  the 
Dioscuri ;  also,  the  innermost  recess  of  a  temple, 
in  which  oracles  were  given  (Lobeck’s  Aglaopha- 
mxis,  i.  pp.  59,  62).  Eusebius  {Punegyr.  c.  9) 
applies  the  word  to  the  church  built  by  Constan¬ 
tine  at  Antioch,  whether  as  equivalent  to  /Satri- 
XiKT],  or  with  reference  to  the  unusual  size  and 
splendour  of  the  church,  or  with  a  reminiscence 
of  the  classical  use  of  the  word,  is  difficult  to  sav. 
(Bingham’s  Antigxiities,  viii.  1.  §  5.)  [C.] 

AN  AGNOSTES— T  .ECTOR  READER.— 

Tertullian  is  the  earliest  writer  who  mentions 
this  office  as  a  distinct  order  in  the  Church  {De 
Praes^r.  c.  41).  It  would  seem  that,  at  first,  tlu 
j  public  reading  of  the  Scriptures  was.  j*er formed 


80 


ANANIAS 


ANASTASIS 


indifferently  by  presbj’ters  and  deacons,  and  pos¬ 
sibly  at  times  by  a  layman  specially  aj)pointed 
by  the  bishop.  From  Tertullian’s  time,  how¬ 
ever,  it  Avas  included  among  the  minor  orders, 
and  as  such  is  frequently  referred  to  by  Cyprian 
(^Epp.  29,  38,  &c.).  It  is  also  one  of  the  three 
minor  orders  mentioned  in, the  so-called  Apos¬ 
tolical  Canons,  the  other  two  being  the  vnodid- 
Kovos  and  the  \J/d\Tr)s.  The  Scriptures  were 
read  by  the  Anagnostes,  from  the  pulpitum  or 
tribunal  ecclesiae.  If  any  portion  of  the  sacred 
writings  was  read  from  the  altar,  or  more  pro¬ 
perly  from  the  bema  or  tribunal  of  the  sanc¬ 
tuary,  this  was  done  by  one  of  the  higher  clergy. 
By  one  of  Justinian’s  Novels  it  was  directed 
that  no  one  should  be  ordained  reader  before 
the  age  of  eighteen  ;  but  previously  young  boys 
were  admitted  to  the  office,  at  the  instance 
of  their  parents,  as  introductory  to  the  higher 
functions  of  the  sacred  ministry  (Bingham, 
Thorndike).  [D.  B.] 

ANANIAS.  (1)  Of  Damascus  (Acts  ix.  10), 
commemorated  Jan.  25  {Mart.  Rom.  1  cA);  Oct. 
1  {Cal.  Ihjzant.')',  Oct.  15  ((7.  Armen.'). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Persia,  April  21  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(3)  Martyr,  Avith  Azarias  and  Misael,  Dec.  16 

(76.);  April  23  {Mart.  Bedae)]  Dec.  17  {Cal. 
Byzant.).  [C.] 

ANAPHORA.  {’ Apa<popd.  The  word  dva- 
(pepnv  acquired  in  later  Greek  the  sense  of 
“lifting  up”  or  “offering:”  as  auacpepciv  6v- 
aias,  Heb.  A'ii.  27 ;  1  Pet.  ii.  5  ;  dvacpfpeiv  eo- 
XapiCTiap,  evcprifiiap,  So^o\oylap,  Chrysostom  in 
Suicer,  s.  a%  'Ava<popd  AA^as  also  used  in  a  cor¬ 
responding  sense  ;  in  Ps.  1.  21,  [LXX],  it  is  the 

equiA'alent  of  the  Hebrew  nS'y,  “  that  A\  hich 
goeth  up  on  the  altar.”) 

1.  In  the  sense  of  “lifting  up”  Anaphora 
came  to  be  applied  to  the  celebration  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist;  Avhether  from  the  “lifting 
up  ”  of  the  heart  Avhich  is  required  in  that 
sei'A'ice,  or  from  the  “  oblation  ”  Avhich  takes 
place  in  it ;  probably  the  latter. 

In  the  litui-gical  diction  of  the  Copts,  AAffiich 
has  borroAved  much  from  the  Greeks,  the  Avord 
Anaphora  is  used,  instead  of  liturgy,  to  designate 
the  Avhole  of  the  Eucharistic  serA'ice,  and  the 
book  Avhich  contains  it ;  but  more  commonly  its 
use  is  restricted  to  that  more  solemn  part  of  the 
Eucharistic  office  Avhich  includes  the  Consecration, 
Oblation,  Communion,  and  Thanksgiving.  It  be¬ 
gins  with  the  “  Sursum  Corda,”  or  rather  Avith 
the  benediction  Avhich  precedes  it,  and  extends 
to  the  end  of  the  office,  thus  corresponding  AA'ith 
the  Preface  and  Canon  of  Western  rituals. 

The  general  structure  of  the  Anaphorae  of 
Oriental  liturgies  is  thus  exhibited  by  Dr.  Neale 
{Eastern  Church,  Introduction,  i.  463). 

The  Great  Euchanstic  Prayer — 

1.  The  Preface.  [Sursttm  Cohda.J 

2.  The  Prayer  of  the  Triumphal  Hymn.  [Preface.] 

3.  The  Triumphal  Hymn.  [Sanctus.] 

4.  Commemoration  of  our  I^ord’s  Life. 

5.  Commemoration  of  Institution. 

The  Covsecration — 

6.  Words  of  Institution  of  the  Bread. 

7.  Words  of  Institution  of  the  Wine. 

8.  Oblation  of  the  Body  and  Blood. 

9.  Introductory  Prayer  for  the  Descent  of  the 

Holy  Ghost 

10.  Prayer  for  the  Change  of  Elemerta. 


The  Great  Intercessory  Prayer— 

11.  General  lutorcession  for  Quick  and  Dead. 

1 2.  Ih-uyer  before  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

13.  The  Lord’s  IVayer 

14.  The  Embolisinus. 

The  Communion — 

15.  The  Pj-ayer  of  Inclination  (ras  (ce«^)aAas  icAi- 

yoyfiev). 

16.  Td  ayia  toi?  oyioi?  and  Elevation  of  Host. 

17.  The  Fraction 

18.  The  Confession. 

19.  The  Communion. 

20.  The  Aatidoron  ;  and  Prayers  of  Thank.<glving. 

This  table  exhibits  the  component  parts  of  the 
Anaphorae  of  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  Eastern  litur¬ 
gies,  in  the  stale  in  which  they  haA’e  come  down 
to  us ;  but  different  parts  are  A'ariously  de- 
A'eloped  in  different  liturgies,  and  even  the  order 
is  not  ahvays  preserved ;  for  Instance,  in  the 
existing  Nestorian  liturgies,  the  general  inter¬ 
cession  is  placed  before  the  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  other  minor  variations  are  found. 
The  principal  of  these  Avill  be  noticed  under  their 
proper  headings. 

It  is  in  the  Anaphorae  that  the  characteristics 
are  found  Avhich  distinguish  different  liturgies 
of  the  same  family ;  in  the  introductory  or  pro- 
anaphoral  portion  of  the  liturgies  there  is  much 
less  A’ariety.  “  In  every  liturgical  family  there 
is  one  liturgy,  or  at  most  two,  AA'hich  supplies 
the  former  or  pro-anaphoral  portion  to  all  the 
others,  and  such  liturgies  Ave  may  call  the  normal 
offices  of  that  family;  the  others,  both  in  MSS. 
and  printed  editions,  commence  with  the  ‘  Prayer 
of  the  Kiss  of  Peace,’  the  preface  to  the  Ana¬ 
phora  ”  (Neale,  Eastern  Church,  i.  319).  Thus, 
Avhen  the  liturgy  of  Gregory  Theologus  or  of 
Cyril  is  used,  the  pro-anaphoral  portion  is  taken 
from  that  of  St.  Basil ;  the  Ethiopian  Church  has 
tweh'e  liturgies,  which  have  the  introductory 
portion  in  common  ;  the  numerous  Syro-Jacobite 
liturgies  all  take  the  introductory  portion  from 
that  of  St.  James ;  the  three  Nestorian  from 
that  of  the  Apostles.  Further  particulars  Avill 
be  found  under  Canon  and  Communion. 

2.  The  word  dva<popd  is  sometimes  used  in 
liturgical  writings  as  equiA’alent  to  the  d^p  or 
Chalice- veil ;  and  has  found  its  Avay  in  this  sense, 
corrupted  in  form  {Xuphir)  into  the  Syrian 
liturgies.  (Renaudot,  Lit.  Orient,  ii.  61.)  [C.] 

ANASTASIA.  (1)  Martyr  under  Diocletian. 
Her  Natalis,  an  ancient  and  famous  festiA’al,  falls 
on  Dec.  25  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae). 
Her  name  is  recited  in  the  Gregorian  Canon. 
The  proper  office  for  her  festival,  in  the  Gre¬ 
gorian  Sacram.  (p.  7),  is  headed,  in  Menai’d’s 
text,  Missa  in  Mane  prima  Nat.  Dom.,  site  S. 
Anastasiae ;  and  is  inserted  between  the  Missa 
In  Vigilia  Domini  in  Nocte  and  the  Missa  In  Die 
Natalis  Domini.  The  titles  in  the  other  MSS. 
are  equivalent.  In  the  Byzantine  Caleruiar  she 
is  commemorated  as  <f>app.aKo\vTpl(i,  dissolver  of 
spells  on  Dec.  22  (see  Neale’s  Eastern  Church, 
Introd.  786). 

(2)  Of  Rome,  bcnopdprvs,  commemorated  Oct. 
29  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

ANASTASIS.— The  Orthodox  Greek  Church 
commemorates  the  dedication  of  the  Church  of 
the  Anastasis  by  Constantine  the  Great  {'EyKa'i- 
via  Tov  NaoD  dyias  rod  Xpiarov  /cal  0fov 

Tj/xuv  ' Avaardcfuis)  on  Sep.  13.  (Daniel,  Codex 


ANASTASIUS 


ANCHOK 


81 


Liturgicus,  iv.  268.)  This  festival  refers  to  the  ' 
dedication  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchi’e, 
or  of  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord,  at  Jerusalem,  ' 
A.D.  335.  (Eusebius,  Vita  Constantini,  iii.  26  ff.) 
A  similar  name  was  given  to  the  room  where  ' 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus  preached  at  Constantinople, 
afterwards  converted  into  a  magnificent  church. 
(Gibbon’s  Home,  iii.  367,  ed.  Smith.)  [C.] 

ANASTASIUS.  (1)  The  monk,  martyr  in 
Persia,  commemorated  Jan.  22  (Ga/.  Byzant., 
Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Ilieron.^. 

(2)  Saint,  April  1  {Mart.  Bedae'). 

(3)  The  pope,  April  27  {Mart.  R.  F.,  Bedae') ; 
Oct.  28  {Cal.  Armen.^. 

(4)  Saint,  May  2  {M.  Bedae). 

(5)  The  Cornicularius,  martyr,  Aug.  21  {Mart. 
R.  V.). 

(6)  Commemorated  Aug.  26  {M.  Hieron.). 

(7)  Bishop,  Oct.  13  {M.  Bedae,  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ANATHEMA,  the  greater  excommunica¬ 
tion,  answering  to  Cherem  in  the  Synagogue, 
as  the  lesser  form  did  to  Niddui,  i.e.  Separation : 
this  latter  is  called  in  the  Constitutions 

of  the  Apostles. 

The  excision  of  obstinate  offenders  from  the 
Christian  fellowship  was  grounded  upon  the 
words  of  Christ — “  If  he  will  not  hear  the  Church, 
let  him  be  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican.” 
So  St.  Gregory  interprets  them — “  let  him  not 
be  esteemed  for  a  brother  or  a  Christian  ” — “  vi¬ 
delicet  peccator  gravis  et  scandalosus,  notorius 
aut  accusatus  et  convictus  ” ;  being  reproved  by 
the  bishop  in  the  public  assemblies  of  the  Church, 
if  he  will  not  be  humbled  but  remains  incorri¬ 
gible  and  perseveres  in  his  scandalous  sins — 
“  turn  anathemate  feriendus  est  et  a  corpore  Ec- 
clesiae  separandus”  (St.  Gregory  in  Ps.  v.),  and 
St.  Augustine  {Tract  xxvii.  in  Johan.)  vindicates 
this  severity  of  discipline  on  the  Church’s  part 
in  such  a  case — “  quia  neque  influxum  habet  a 
capite,  neque  participat  de  Spiritu  Christi.” 

This  application  of  the  word  Anathema  to  the 
“  greater  excommunication  ”  was  warranted,  in 
the  belief  of  the  ancient  Church,  by  St.  Paul’s 
use  of  it  (Gal.  i.  8,  9),  and  the  discipline  itself 
being  distinctly  warranted  by  our  Lord’s  words, 
as  well  as  by  other  passages  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  the  anathema  was  regarded  as  cutting 
a  man  off  from  the  way  of  salvation ;  so  that 
unless  he  received  the  grace  of  repentance  he 
would  certainly  perish. 

A  milder  sense,  however,  of  the  word  Ana¬ 
thema,  as  used  by  St.  Paul,  has  not  been  without 
its  defenders,  both  among  our  own  Divines  as 
Hammond  and  Waterland,  and  by  Grotius.  The 
latter  writer,  commenting  on  Rom.  ix.  3,  gives 
the  following  interpretation:  “Hoc  dicit :  Velim 
non  modo  carere  honore  Apostolatus,  verum 
etiam  contemptissimus  esse  inter  Christianos, 
quales  sunt  qui  excommunicati  sunt.” 

And  as  to  the  effect  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Ana¬ 
thema — it  is  maintained  by  Vincentius  Lirinen- 
sis  that  it  did  not  bear  the  sense  of  cursing 
among  the  ancient  Christians,  as  Chei'em  did 
among  the  Jews. 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  word  Ana¬ 
thema  is  uniformly  employed  by  the  LXX  as  the 
equivalent  of  Cherem ;  and  it  can  hardly  be 
questioned,  therefore,  that  where  it  occurs  in 
the  N.  T.  it  must  be  understood  in  the  deeper 
sense — as  i*elating  to  the  spiritual  condition — 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


and  not  merely  to  exclusion  from  Church  privi 
leges,  whatever  may  have  been  the  force  subse¬ 
quently  attached  to  the  word,  as  expressing  the 
most  solemn  form  of  ecclesiastical  excommuni¬ 
cation.  On  this  point  and  on  the  history  of  the 
word  in  general,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Light- 
foot  on  Galatians ;  Thorndike,  vol.  ii.  338 ;  Bp. 
Jeremy  Taylor  {Ductor  Du'ntantium)  ;  J.  Light- 
foot,  De  Anathemate  Maranatha.  [D.  B.] 

ANATOLIA,  martyr,  commemorated  July  9 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ANATOLIUS,  bishop,  commemorated  July  3 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ANAXARBE  (Synods  of),  a.d.  431,  to  con¬ 
firm  the  deposition  of  St.  Cyril,  and  those  who 
held  with  him.  Another  was  held  there  two 
years  later,  as  at  Antioch,  to  make  peace  with 
St.  Cyril.  [E.  S.  F.] 

ANCHOR  (as  Symbol).  The  anchor  is  an 
emblem  very  frequently  used,  from  the  earliest 
ages  of  Christianity,  in  symbolism.  As  the  anchor 
is  the  hope  and  often  the  sole  resource  of  the 
sailor,  the  ancients  called  it  sacred;  to  weigh 
anchor  was,  “Anchoram  sacrum  solvere.”  St. 
Paul  adopts  an  obvious  symbolism,  when  he 
says  (Heb.  vi.  19)  that  we  have  hope  as  “  an 
anchor  of  the  soul  both  sure  and  stedfast so 
that,  in  its  special  Christian  sense,  the  anchor 
would  seem  to  be  an  emblem  of  hope. 

By  the  early  Christians  we  find  it  used,  some¬ 
times  with  reference  to  the  stormy  ocean  of 
human  life,  but  more  often  to  the  tempests  and 
the  fierce  blasts  of  persecution  which  threatened 
to  engulf  the  ship  of  the  Church.  Thus  the 
anchor  is  one  of  the  most  ancient  of  emblems ; 
and  we  find  it  engraved  on  rings,  and  depicted 
on  monuments  and  on  the  walls  of  cemeteries  in 
the  Catacombs,  as  a  type  of  the  hope  by  which 
the  Church  stood  firm  in  the  midst  of  the  storms 
which  surrounded  it.  In  this,  as  in  other  cases, 
Christianity  adopted  a  symbol  from  Paganism, 
with  merely  the  change  of  application. 

The  symbols  on  sepulchral  tablets  often  con¬ 
tain  allusions  to  the  name  of  the  deceased.  The 
Chevalier  de  Rossi  {De  Monum.  IX0TN  exhib.  p. 
18)  states  that  he  has  three  times  found  an 
anchor  upon  tituli  bearing  names  derived  from 
Spes  or  ikiris ;  upon  the  tablet  of  a  certain 
ELPIDIVS  (Mai,  Collect.  Vatican,  v.  449),  and 
upon  two  others,  hitherto  unpublished,  in  the 
cemetery  of  Priscilla,  of  two  women,  ELPIZVSA 
and  Spes.  In  some  cases,  above  the  transverse 
bar  of  the  anchor  stands  the  letter  E,  which  is 
probably  the  abbreviation  of  the  word  ’EAtti's. 
Further,  we  find  the  anchor  associated  with  the 
fish,  the  symbol  of  the  Saviour  [IX0T2J.  It  is 
clear  that  the  union  of  the  two  symbols  expre.sses 
“  hope  in  Jesus  Christ,”  and  is  equivalent  to  the 
formula  so  common  on  Christian  tablets,  “  Spes 
in  Christo,”  “  Spes  in  Deo,”  “  Spes  in  Deo 
Christo.” 

The  transverse  bar  below  the  ring  gives  the 
upper  part  of  the  anchor  the  appearance  of  a  crux 
an;Safa  [Cross]  ;  and  perhaps  this  form  may  have 
had  as  much  influence  in  determining  the  choice 
of  this  symbol  by  the  Christians  as  the  words  of 
St.  Paul.  The  anchor  appears,  as  is  natural,  very 
frequently  upon  the  tombs  of  martyrs.  (See 
Lupi,  Severae  Epitaphium,  pp.  136,  137  ;  Boldetti, 
Osservazioni,  366,  370,  &c. ;  Fabretti,  Inscrip- 


ANCYRA 


82 

tionum  Explic.  568,  569  ;  and  Martigny,  Diet, 
des  Antiq.  Chrdt.  s.  v.  ‘  Ancre.’)  [C.] 

ANCYRA. — Two  synods  of  Ancyra  are  re¬ 
corded  ;  the  first  of  which  stands  at  the  head  of 
those  provincial  synods  whose  canons  form  part 
of  the  code  of  the  universal  Church.  It  was 
held  under  Vitalis  of  Antioch,  who  signs  first ; 
and  of  the  18  bishops  composing  it,  several* 
attended  the  Nicene  Council  subsequently. 
Twenty-five  canons  were  passed,  about  half  of 
which  relate  to  the  lapsed,  and  the  rest  to  dis¬ 
cipline  generally  (v.  Beveridge,  Synod,  ii.  ad  1.'). 
The  date  usually  assigned  to  it  is  A.D.  314. 
Another  synod  met  there,  A.D.  358,  composed 
of  semi-Arians.  They  condemned  the  second 
Synod  of  Sirmium,  accepted,  the  term  homoi- 
ousion„  and  published  12  anathemas  against  all 
who  rejected  it,  together  with  a  long  synodical 
letter.  Another  synod  of  semi-Arians  was  held 
there,  A.D.  375,  at  which  Hipsius,  Bishop  of 
Parnassus,  was  deposed.  [E.  S.  F.] 

ANCYRA,  THE  SEVEN  VIRGINS  OF, 

are  commemorated  by  the  Armenian  Church  on 
June  20,  as  fellow-martyrs  with  Theodotion,  or 
Theodorus,  of  Salatia,  the  first  Bishop  of  Ancyra 
of  whom  we  have  any  account.  (Neale,  Eastern 
Church,  Introd.  p.  800.)  [C.] 

ANDEGAVENSE  CONCILIUM.  [An¬ 
gers,  Council  of.] 

ANDELAENSE  CONCILIUIil.  [Ande- 
LOT,  Council  of.] 

ANDELOT,  COUNCIL  OF  (Andelaense 
Concilium),  near  Langres  ;  summoned  by  Gun- 
tram,  King  of  Orleans  (at  a  meeting  to  ratify  a 
compact,  also  made  at  Andelot,  between  himself 
and  Childebert,  Nov.  28  or  29,  587),  for  March  1, 
A.D.  588,  but  nothing  further  is  recorded  of  it,  and 
possibly  it  was  never  held  at  all  (Greg.  Turon., 
tlist,  Fr.  ix.  20',  Mansi,  ix.  967-970).  [A.  W.  H.] 

ANDOCHIUS  or  ANDOCIUS,  presbyter, 
commemoi-ated  Sept.  24  (ATari.  Hieron., 
Bedie).  [C.] 

ANDREAS.  (1)  Martyr,  commemorated 
Aug.  19  (^Mart.  Rom.  Vet.'). 

(2)  King,  Hedar  16  =  Nov.  12  {Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(3)  The  general,  with  2953  companion  mar¬ 
tyrs,  commemorated  Aug.  19  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(4)  Of  Crete,  daiopdpTvs,  Oct.  17  {Cal. 

Byz.).  [C.] 

ANDREW,  Saint,  Festival  of. — As  was 
natural,  the  name  of  the  “  brother  fisherman  ” 
of  St.  Peter  was  early  held  in  great  honour. 
He  is  invoked  by  name  as  an  intercessor  in  the 
prayer  “  Libera  nos  ”  of  the  Roman  Canon,  with 
the  Virgin,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Paul;  and  his 
principal  festival  was  anciently  placed  on  the 
same  level  as  that  of  St.  Peter  himself  (Krazer, 
De  Liturgiis,  p.  529).  His  “  Dies  Natalis,”  or 
martyrdom,  is  placed  in  all  the  Martyrologies, 
agreeing  in  this  with  the  apocryphal  Acta  Andreae, 
on  Nov.  30.  It  is  found  in  the  Calendar  of  Car¬ 
thage,  in  which  no  other  apostles  are  specially 
commemorated  except  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  and 
St.  James  the  Great ;  and  in  St.  Boniface’s  list 
of  Festivals,  where  no  other  apostles  are  named 
except  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  (Binterim’s  Denk- 
wurdigkeiten,  v.  i.  299).  The  hymn  “  Nunc  An- 
dreae  solemnia,”  for  the  festival  of  St.  Andrew, 
U  attributed  to  Venerable  Bede.  Proper  offices 


ANDREW,  SAINT 

for  the  Vigil  and  Festival  of  St.  Anirew  arc 
found  in  the  Sacramentaries  of  Leo  and  Gregory. 
In  the  latter  (p.  144)  there  is  a  clear  allusion  to 
the  Acta  (see  Tischendorf’s  Acta  Apost.  Apocry¬ 
pha,  p.  127),  where  it  is  said  that  the  saint  frankly 
proclaimed  the  truth,  “  nec  pendens  taceret  in 
cruce ;  ”  and  in  the  ancient  Liher  Responsalis, 
which  bears  the  name  of  Gregory,  is  one  equally 
clear  to  the  same  Acta  in  the  words  of  St.  An¬ 
drew’s  prayer,  “  Ne  me  patiaids  ab  impio  judice 
deponi,  quia  virtutem  sanctae  crucis  agnovi  ”  (p. 
836).  A  trace  of  the  influence  of  these  same  Acta 
is  found  again  in  the  Gallo-Gothic  Missal  (pro¬ 
bably  of  the  8th  century),  published  by  Mabillon, 
in  which  the  “  contestatio,”  or  preface  {Lltiirgia 
Gall.  lib.  iii.  p.  222),  sets  forth  that  the  Apostle, 
“  post  iniqua  verbera,  post  carceris  saepta,  alli- 
gatus  suspendio  se  purum  sacrificium  obtulit. 
.  .  .  Absolvi  se  non  patitur  a  cruce  .  .  .  turba 
.  .  .  laxari  postulat  justum,  ne  pereat  populus 
hoc  delicto  ;  interea  fundit  martyr  spiritum.” 
The  Armenian  Church  commemorates  St.  Andrew 
with  St.  Philip  on  Nov.  16. 

The  relics  of  the  apostle  were  translated,  pro¬ 
bably  in  the  reign  of  Constantins,  though  .some 
authorities  place  the  translation  in  that  of  Con¬ 
stantine  (compare  Jerome,  c.  Vigilantium,  c.  6, 
p.  391,  who  says  that  Constantins  translated  the 
relics,  with  Paulinus,  Carm.  26,  p.  628),  to  Con¬ 
stantine’s  great  “Church  of  the  Apostles”  at 
Constantinople,  where  they  rested  with  those  of 
St.  Luke ;  the  church  was  indeed  sometimes 
called,  from  these  two  great  saints,  the  church 
of  St.  Andrew  and  St.  Luke.  Justini  in  built 
over  their  remains,  to  which  those  of  St.  Timothy 
had  been  added,  a  splendid  tomb. 

The  Martyrologium  Hieronymi  places  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  St.  Andrew  on  Sept.  3,  and  has  a 
“  Dedicatio  Basilicae  S.  Andreae  ”  on  Nov.  3  ;  but 
most  Martyrologies  agree  with  the  Martyro¬ 
logium  Romanum  in  placing  the  translation  on 
May  9.  Several  Martyrologies  have  on  Feb.  5 
an  “  Ordinatio  Episcopatus  Andreae  Apostoli,”  in 
commemoration  of  the  saint’s  consecration  to 
the  see  of  Patras  (Florentinus,  in  MaHyrol. 
Hieron.  p.  300 ;  Baronius,  in  Martyrol.  Romano, 
Nov.  30,  p.  502 ;  Tillemont,  Mem.  Eccles.  i.  320, 
589 ;  Binterim’s  Denkwii.  digkeiten,  v.  i.  503,  ff.). 

As  was  natural  in  the  case  of  so  distinguished 
a  saint  as  the  first-called  Apostle,  churches  were 
dedicated  in  honour*  of  St.  Andrew  in  early  times. 
Pope  Simplicius  (c.  470)  is  said  to  have  dedicated 
a  basilica  at  Rome  in  his  honour  (Ciampini,  Vet. 
Alonum.  i.  242);  and  somewhat  later  (c.  500) 
Pope  Symmachus  converted  the  “Vestiarium 
Neronis”  into  a  church,  which  bore  the  name 
“  S.  Andreae  ad  Crucem.”  This  was  not  far  from 
the  Vatican  (Ciampini,  De  Sacris  Acdif.  p.  86). 
Later  examples  are  frequent. 

The  representation  of  St.  Andrew  with  the 
decussate  cross  (X)  as  the  instrument  of  his 
martyrdom  belongs  to  the  Middle  Ages.  In 
ancient  examples  he  appears,  like  most  of  the 
other  apostles,  simply  as  a  dignified  figure  in 
the  ancient  Roman  dress,  sometimes  bearing  a 
crown,  as  in  a  5th-century  Mosaic  in  the 
church  of  St.  John  at  Ravenna  (Ciampini,  Vetera 
Monumenta,  tom.  i.  tab.  Ixx.  p.  235),  sometimes 
a  roll  of  a  book,  as  in  a  9th-century  Mosaic 
figured  by  Ciampini  (u.  s.  tom.  ii.  tab.  lin. 
p.  162),  where  he  is  joined  with  the  favoured 
disciples,  SS.  Peter,  and  James,  and  John.  [C.J 


ANGELS  AND  AKCH ANGELS  83 


ANDRONICUS 

ANDRONICUS.  (1)  Saint,  April  5  (if. 

Bedue). 

(2)  AT  ay  13  (if.  Hieron.'). 

(3)  “  Apostle,”  with  Junia  (Rom.  xvi.  7),  com¬ 
memorated  May  17  (^Cal.  Byzant.') ;  invention 
of  their  relics,  Feb.  22  (/&.,  Neale). 

(4)  Commemorated  Sept.  27  (if.  Hieron.'). 

(5)  “  Holy  Father,”  Oct.  9  {Val.  Byzant.). 

(6)  Martyr,  commemorated  Oct.  10  {Mart. 

Hieron.);  Oct.  11  {M.  Rom.  Vet.);  Oct.  12  {Cal. 
Byzant.).  [C.] 

ANESIUS,  of  Africa,  commemorated  March 
31  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ANGARIENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Sanga- 
RiicNSE  Concilium.] 

ANGELS  and  ARCHANGELS,  in  Chris¬ 
tian  Art.  The  representations  of  angels  in 
Christian  art,  at  various  periods,  reproduce  in 
a  remarkable  manner  the  ideas  concerning  them, 
which  from  time  to  time  have  prevailed  in  the 
Church.  In  one  and  all,  however,  we  may  trace, 
though  with  various  modifications  of  treatment, 
an  embodied  commentary  upon  the  brief  but  ex¬ 
pressive  declaration  concerning  their  nature  and 
office  which  is  given  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
(i.  14).  Worship  or  service  rendered  unto 
God  {\€iTovpy'ia),^  and  work  of  ministration 
{SiaKOvia)  done  on  God’s  behalf  to  men,  these  are 
the  two  spheres  of  angelic  operation  suggested  in 
Holy  Scripture,  and  these,  under  various  modifi¬ 
cations  curiously  characteristic  of  the  successiA^e 
ages  in  which  they  are  found,  come  before  us  in 
a  series  of  monuments  extending  from  the  fourth 
to  the  close  of  the  14th  century. 

§  2.  First  three  Centuries.  Existing  monu¬ 
ments  of  early  Christian  art,  illustrative  of  our 
present  subject,  are,  for  the  first  500  years,  or 
more,  almost  exclusiA’-ely  of  the  West,  and,  with 
one  or  two  doubtful  exceptions,  all  these  are  of 
a  date  subsequent  to  the  “  Peace  of  the  Church,” 
under  Constantine  the  Great,  and  probably,  not 
earlier  than  400  A.D.  As  a  special  interest 
attaches  to  these  earliest  monuments,  it  may  be 
well  here  to  enumerate  them.  The  earliest  of  them 
all,  if  D’Agincourt’s  judgment  {Histoire,  etc.  vol. 
v.  Peinture,  PI.  vii.  No.  3.)  may  be  trusted,  is 
a  monument  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Priscilla,® 

»  Heb.  i.  14.  keirovpyiKa  rrvfvfjiara.  airoa’Tekkofxeva  elf 
SiaKoviav.  The  distinction  of  the  two  words  noticed 
above  is  lost  in  our  English  version.  It  is  well  brought 
out  by  Origen,  cent.  Celsum,  lib.  v.  (quoted  by  Bingham, 
Avtiq.,  book  xiii.  cap.  iii.  $  2,  note  2).  See  this  further 
illustrated  in  the  description  of  woodcut  iu  $  6  below. 

b  Absent  (almost,  if  not  altogether)  for  the  first  four 
centuries  (see  $  2),  they  subserve  purposes  of  dogma  3) 
in  the  5tb  century  ;  they  are  Scriptural  still,  but  also  in 
one  case  legendary  (^  4)  in  the  6th.  From  that  time  for¬ 
ward  canonical  and"  apocryphal  Scripture  and  mediaeval 
legend  are  mixed  up  together.  We  find  them  Imperial 
in  character,  or  sacerdotal  and  liturgical,  as  the  case  may 
be;  while  in  the  later  middle  ages  even  feudal  notions 
were  characteristically  mixed  up  with  the  traditions  con¬ 
cerning  them  derived  from  Holy  Scripture.  (For  this  last 
see  Jameson.  Sacred  and  Legendary  Art,  3rd  edit.  vol.  i. 
p.  95,  quoting  from  II  Pcrfdi.0  Legendario.) 

®  The  Abb^  Martigny  {Dictionnaire, &c. in  voc. •  Anges  ’) 
speaks  with  evident  doubt  of  the  date  assigned  to  this 
fresco.  D’Agincourt  himself  in  his  description  gives  no 
particulars  a.s  to  the  source  from  which  his  drawing  was 
derived.  Neither  earlier  nor  later  antiquaries  know  any¬ 
thing  of  its  history.  And  this  being  so,  an  unsupported 
opinion  as  to  its  date,  resting  on  the  authority  of  D’Agin- 


dating,  as  he  thinks,  from  the  second  century. 
It  is  a  i-epre.sentation  of  Tobias  and  the  angel. 
(This  same  subject,  suggestive  of  the  “  Guardian 
Angel,”  reappears  in  .some  of  the  Vetri  Antichi, 
of  the  4th  and  5th  century.)  Another  fresco  of 
early  but  uncertain  date  in  the  cemetery  of 
St.  Priscilla  (Aringhi,  R.  S.  ii.  p.  297)  has  been 
generally  interpreted  as  repre.senting  the  Annun¬ 
ciation.  The  angel  Gabriel  (if  such  be  the  inten¬ 
tion  of  the  painter)  has  a  human  figure,  and  the 
dress  commonly  assigned  to  Apostles  and  other 
Scriptural  personages,  but  is  without  wings,  or 
any  other  special  designations.  With  these 
doubtful  exceptions,  no  representations  of  angels, 
now  remaining,  are  earlier  than  the  fourth  cen¬ 
tury,  and  probably  not  earlier  than  the  fifth. 

§3.  Fourth  and  fifth  Centuries.  There  was  an 
interval  of  transition  from  this  earlier  period, 
the  limits  of  which  are  indicated  by  the  Council 
of  Illiberis,^  A.D.  305,  on  the  one  hand,  and  on 
the  other  by  the  Christian  mosaics  of  which  wo 
first  hear  ®  at  the  close  of  that  century,  or  early 
in  the  next.  The  first  representation  of  angels 
in  mosaic  work  is  supposed  (by  Ciampinus  and 
others)  to  be  that  of  the  Church  of  S.  Agatha  at 
RaA^enna.  These  mosaics  Ciampinus  admits  to  be 
of  very  uncertain  date,  but  he  believes  ^  them  to 
be  of  the  beginning  of  the  5th  century.  (See  his 
Vetera  Monumenta,  vol.  i.  Tab.  xlvi.)  The  first 
representations  of  the  kind  to  which  a  date  can 
with  any  certainty  be  assigned,  are  those  in  the 
Church  of  S.  Maria  Major  at  Rome,  put  up  by 
Xystus  III.  between  the  years  432  and  440  A.D. 
In  those  of  the  Nave  of  this  Church  (Ciampini 
V.  M.  tom.  i.  Pll.  1.  to  Ixiv.)  various  subjects  from 
the  Old  Testament  have  their  place ;  and  amongst 
others  the  appearance  of  the  three  angels  to 
Abraham  (PI.  li.)  and  of  the  “  Captain  of  the 
Lord’s  Hosts”  (by  tradition  the  archangel 
Michael)  to  Joshua  (PI.  Ixii.).  But  on  the 
“Arcus  Triumphalis  ”s  of  this  same  Church, 
there  is  a  series  of  mosaics,  of  the  greatest  pos¬ 
sible  interest  to  the  history  of  dogmatic  theology ; 
and  in  these  angels  have  a  prominent  part. 
This  series  was  evidently  intended  to  be  an  em- 


court  alone,  carries  but  little  weight.  The  same  subject  is 
reproduced  in  the  Cemetery  of  S§.  Thraso  and  Satuminus 
(Ferret,  vol.  iii.  pi.  xxvi.). 

d  The  37th  canon  forbids  the  painting  upon  walls  the 
objects  of  religious  worship  and  adoration.  “  Placuit  pic- 
turas  in  ccclcsia  esse  non  debere,  ne  quod  colitur  et  adoratur 
in  parietibus  deplngatur.”  Roman  writers,  for  obvious 
reasons,  seek  to  explain  away  the  apparent  meaning 
of  this  prohibition.  As  to  this,  see  Bingham,  C.  A., 
book  viii.  cap.  viii.  $  6. 

*  Paullinus,  bishop  of  Nola,  early  in  the  5th  century, 
describes  at  much  length  In  a  letter  (Ep.  xii.)  to  his  friend 
Severus  the  decorations  with  which  he  had  adorned  his 
own  church.  His  descriptions  accord  closely  with  some 
of  the  actual  monuments  (sarcophagi  and  mosaic  pictures) 
of  nearly  contemporary  date,  w  hich  have  been  preserved 
to  our  own  lime. 

t  The  form  of  the  Nimbus  here  assigned  to  our  Lord 
seems  to  indicate  a  later  date. 

e  By  the  “  triumphal  arch  ”  of  a  Roman  church  is 
meant  what  will  correspond  most  nearly  with  the  chancel 
arch  of  our  own  churches.  It  was  full  in  view  of  the 
assembled  people  on  entering  the  church.  And  for  the 
first  six  centuries  (or  nearly  that  time)  it  was  reserved 
exclusively  for  such  subjects  as  had  immediate  reference 
to  our  I.ord  ;  more  particularly  to  His  triumph  over  sin 
and  death,  and  His  session  as  King  In  heaven.  S* *-? 
i  farther  on  this  subject  Ciampini,  V.  M.  tom.  L  p.  19jJ,  sqq. 


84 


ANGELS  AND  AliCH ANGELS 


ANGELS  AND  ARCHANGELS 


bodimeut  in  art  of  the  doctrine  deci’eed  just  j 
previously  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  431.  j 
The  angels  represented  in  the  scenes  of  “The 
Annunciation,”'  the  Worship  of  the  Magi  (see  I 
woodcut  annexed),  and  the  Presentation  in  the  , 
Temple,  are  here  made  to  serve  to  the  declaration  | 
of  what  had  just  before  been  proclaimed,  viz. :  j 
that  He  who  was  born  of  Mary  was  not  a  mere 
man  in  whom  the  Word  of  God  might  afterward  j 
take  up  his  abode,*  but  was  himself  God,  as  well  ■ 
as  man,  two  natures  united  in  one  person.  The 
angels  throughout  are  represented  as  ministering  | 
as  it  were  in  homage  to  a  king.  Even  in  the 
Annunciation,  not  Gabriel  only  is  represented,  ' 
but  two  other  angels  are  seen  standing  behind 
the  seat  on  which  the  Virgin  Mary  is,  placed. 
Of  these  Ciampinus  rightly  says,  that  they  are  to  ' 
be  regarded  as  doing  homage  to  the  Word  then 
become  incarnate.  “  Duo  illi  ....  astant,  sive 
Gabrielis  asseclae,  sive  Deiparae  custodes,  aut  • 
potius  incaruato  tunc  Verbo  obsequium  ex- 
liibeutes.”  They  embody,  as  he  observes,  the  ■ 
thought  expressed  by  St.  Augustine.  “All 


angels  are  created  beings,  doing  sei’vice  unto 
Christ.  Angels  could  be  sent  to  do  Him  homage, 
(ad  obsequium)  could  be  sent  to  do  Him  service, 
but  not  to  bring  help  (as  to  one  weak  or  helpless 
in  himself):  and  so  it  is  written  that  angels 
ministered  to  Him,  not  as  pitying  one  that  needed 
help,  but  as  subject  unto  Him  who  is  Almighty.” 
(S.  Aug.  in  Psal.  Ivi.) 

§  4.  Sixth  Century.  Between  500  A.D.  and 
600  A.D.,  the  following  examples  may  be  cited  : 
the  triumphal  arch  of  the  Church  of  SS.  Cosmas 
and  Damlanus  at  Rome  (Ciampini  V.  M.  tom.  ii. 
Tab.  XV.)  circ.  530  A.D.,  and  fifteen  years  later  the 
mosaics  of  S.  Michael  the  archangel  at  Ravenna, 
ibid.  Tab.  xvii.).  In  the  apse  of  the  tribune  is 
a  representation  of  Our  Lord,  holding  a  lofty 
cross,  with  Michael  r.  and  Gabrihel  (sic)  1.  On 
the  wall  above,  the  two  archangels  are  again 
seen  on  either  side  of  a  throne,  and  of  one  seated 
thereon.  These  two  bear  long  rods  or  staves, 
but  on  either  side  are  seven  other  angels  (four  r. 
and  three  1.)  playing  upon  trumpets.  There  is 
here.an  evident  allusion  to  Rev.  viii.  2,  6,  “  I  saw 


Worship  of  the  Magi,  from  S.  Maria  Major  at  Home. 


the  seven  angels,  which  stand  before  God,  and  to  ' 
them  were  given  seven  trumpets.”  Comp.  I 

,Ezek.  X.  10,  Tobit  xii.  15,  and  Rev.  i.  4;  iv.  j 
5.  (Ciampini  V.  M.  ii.,  xvii.,  comp.  Tab.  xix.) 
Michael  and  Gabriel  appear  yet  again  on  the 
arch  of  th^  Tribune  of  S.  Apollinaris  in  Classe 
(t6«c?.  .Tab.  xxiv.);  and  there  ai-e  representations 
of  the  four  archangels,  as  present  at  the  Worship 
of  the  Magi,. in  the  S.  Apollinaris  Novus  (ibid. 
jTab.  xjxvii.)  towards  the  close  of  that  century. 
To  this  period  also  is  to  be  assigned  the  diptych 
of  Milan, which  is  remarkable  as  containing  an 

h|  For  further  particulars  as  to  this  see  $  15  below. 

■  i  See  ('yiiL  Alex.  Epist.  ad  Morachos,  in  which  the 
patriarch  of  Alexandria,  the  chief  opponent  of  Nestorius, 
represents  in  tliese  terms  the  doctrine  condemned  at 
Ephesus. 

Figured  and  described  in  Bugatl,  Memorie  di  S.  Cdso 
Martire,  Append,  tab.  1.  and  ii.  J’he  particular  group 
above  referred  to  is  figured  in  Martigny,  Du  tionnaire,  &c., 
under  ‘  Annonciation.’  Tbe  whole  diptych  is  published 
In  facsimile  of  fictile  ivory  by  the  Arundel  Society. 


'  embodiment  (probably  the  first  in  Christian  art) 

I  of  legends  concerning  the  appeai’ance  of  Gabriel 
I  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  derived  from  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels. 

§  5.  From  600  to  800  A.D.  Art  monu¬ 
ments  of  this  period  are  but  few  in  number. 
For  examples,  bearing  upon  our  present  subject, 
see  Ciampini  V.  M.  vol.  ii.  Tabb.  xxxi.  and 
xxxviii.  and  D’Agincourt,'"  Peinture,  tom.  v., 
PI.  xvi.  and  xvii.  They  contain  nothing  to  call 
for  special  remark,  save  that,  in  the  8th  century 
particularly,  the  wings  of  angels  become  more 
and  more  curtailed  in  proportion  to  the  body ; 
a  peculiarity  which  may  serve  as  an  indication  of 
date  where  others  are  wanting.  One  such  ex¬ 
ample  in  sculpture,  of  Michael  and  the  Dragon,  is 
referred  to  below,  §  10. 

§  6.  Eastern  and  Greek  Representations.  Early 
monuments  of  Christian  art  in  the  East  are  un- 


See  also  his  pi.  x.  and  xii.,  containing  frescoes  of  lat« 
but  uncertain  date  from  the  Cirtacombs. 


ANGELS  AND  AECHANGELS 


ANGELS  AND  AECHANGELS  85 


fortunately,  very  rare,  the  zeal  of  the  Iconoclasts, 
and  at  a  later  period  of  Saracens  and  Turks, 
having  been  fatal  to  many,  which  might  other¬ 
wise  have  been  preserved.  The  earliest  example 
in  (jreek  art  is  a  representation  of  an  angel  in 
a  MS.  of  Genesis  in  the  Imperial  Library  at 
Vienna,  believed  to  be  of  the  4th  or  5th  century. 
It  is  figured  by  Seroux  D’Agincourt,  PeitUure^ 
PI.  xix.  It  is  a  human  figure,  winged,  and  with¬ 
out  nimbus  or  other  special  attributes.  The 


will  be  seen  that  the  Saviour  is  hei-e  repre¬ 
sented  in  glory.  And  the  various  angelic  powei's 
appear  in  three  different  capacities’.  Beneath  the 
feet  of  the  Saviour,  and  forming  as  it  were 
a  chariot  upon  which  He  rises  to  Heaven,  is  what 
the  Greeks  call  the  Tetramorphon.  The  head 
and  the  hand  of  a  man  (or  rather,  according  to 
Greek  tradition,  of  an  angel),  the  heads  of  an 
eagle,  a  lion,  and  an  ox,  are  united  by  wings  that 
are  full  of  eyes  (comp.  Ezekiel  i.  18).  On  either 
side  of  these  again  are  two  pairs  of  fiery  wheels, 
“  wheel  within  wheel,”  as  suggested  again  by  the 
description  in  Ezek.  i.  16.  These  serve  as 


fiery  sword,  etc.,  spoken  of  in  Gen.  iii.  is  there 
represented  not  as  a  sword,  in  the  hand  of  the 
angel,  but  as  a  great  wheel  “  of  fire  beside  him. 
Next  in  date  to  this  is  an  interesting  picture  of 
the  Ascension,  in  a  Syriac  MS.  of  the  Gospels, 
written  and  illuminated  in  the  year  586  a.d,  at 
Zagba  in  Mesopotamia.  We  have  engraved  this, 
as  embodying  those  Oriental  types  of  the  angel 
form  which  have  been  characteristic  of  Eastern 
and  Greek  art  from  that  time  to  this.  It 


symbolic  representations  of  the  order  of  angels 
known  as  “thrones”  (comp.  §  7  below),  and  of  the 
cherubim.  Of  the  six  other  angels,  here  repre¬ 
sented  in  human  form,  and  winged,  four  are  min¬ 
istering  to  Our  Lord  (^\eiTovpyovi/T€s'),  either  by 
active  service,  as  the  two  who  bear  Him  up  in 

"  Compare  the  mosaic  of  the  S.  Vitalis  at  Ravenna 
(Clamp.  V.  M.  ii.  tab.  xlx.),  in  the  tipper  part  of  which 
two  angels  are  seen  upholding  a  mystic  "  wheel.”  Ciam- 
pinns,  apparently  without  undershindlng  what  was  the 
symbolism  Intended,  rightly  describes  it  in  the  words 
(p.  72)  ”  duo  angeli  ....  quandam  rotam  prae  manibua 
,  tenenles.” 


86 


ANGELS  AND  ARCHANGELS 


ANGEI.S  AND  ARCHANGELS 


their  hands,  or  by  adoration,  as  two  others  who  are 
offering  Him  crowns  of  victory  ((rrecpavoi').  Two 
others,  lastly,  have  been  sent  on  work  of  ministry 
to  men  (comp,  note  “  above),  and  are  seen,  as 
St.  Liflce’s  narrative  suggests,  asking  of  the 
eleven  disciples,  “  Why  stand  ye  here  gazing 
up  into  heaven?”  and  the  rest.  (The  central 
figure  of  the  lower  group  is  that  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.) 

§  7.  The  Celestial  Hierarchy  of  Dionysius. 
The  best  comment  on  the  picture  last  described  is 
to  be  found  in  the  ‘Celestial  Hierarchy’  of  Diony¬ 
sius.  The  whole  number  of  celestial  beings  are 
to  be  divided  (so  he  tells  us),  into  three  orders,  in 
each  of  which  a  triple  gradation  is  contained.  In 
the  first  order  are  contained  the  “thrones,”  the 
seraphim  and  cherubim.  And  these  are  con¬ 
tinually  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God,  nearer 
than  all  others  to  Him,  reflecting,  without  inter¬ 
vention  of  any  other  created  being,  the  direct 
effulgence  of  His  glory.  Next  to  these,  and  of 
the  second  order,  are  dominions,  authorities, 
powers  (Kupidrtjres,  i^ovciai,  Svi'd/xeis'),  forming 
a  link  between  the  first  and  the  third  order.  To 
these  last  (principalities  [apx“C>  archangels, 
and  angels)  he  assigns  that  more  immediate  ex¬ 
ecution  of  the  divine  purposes  in  the  sphere  of 
creation,  and  towards  mankind,  which  in  the 
belief  of  religious  minds  is  generally  associated 
with  the  idea  of  angelic  agency. 

This  teaching  of  Dionysius,  regarded  as  it  was 
both  in  East  and  West  as  of  all  but  apostolic 
authority,  has  served  as  a  foundation  upon  which 
all  the  later  traditions  have  been  built  up.  And 
this  language,  with  the  additional  comments 
quoted  in  the  next  section,  will  give  the  reader 
the  key  to  much  that  wmuld  be  otherwise  obscure 
in  the  allusions  of  Greek  fathers,  and  in  the 
forms  of  Greek  art. 

§  8.  Anyels  in  later  Greek  Art.  The  language 
of  the  'Epfiyvela  Ttjs  ^wypaipiKrjs,  °  or  ‘  Painter’s 
Guide  ’  of  Panselinos,  a  monk  of  Mount  Athos  in 
the  11th  century,  may  be  regarded  [see  under 
Apostles]  as  embodying  the  unchanging  rules  of 
Greek  religious  art  from  the  8th  century  to  the 
)n'esent  time.  Taking  up  the  division  quoted 
above,  the  writer  says,  as  to  the  first  order,  that 
“  the  thrones  are  represented  as  wheels  of  fire, 
compassed  about  with  wflngs.  Their  wings  are 
full  of  eyes,  and  the  whole  is  so  arranged  as  to 
produce  the  semblance  of  a  royal  throne.  The 
cherubim  are  represented  by  a  head  and  tw'o 
wings.  The  seraphim  as  having  six  wings, 
whereof  two  rise  upward  to  the  head,  and  two 
droop  to  the  feet,  and  two  are  outspread  as  if  for 
flight.  They  carry  in  either  hand  a  hexapteryx,  p 
inscribed  with  the  words  ‘  Holy,  Holy,  Holy.’ 
It  is  thus  that  they  w'ere  seen  by  Isaiah.”  Then, 
after  describing  the  “  Tetramorphi,”  he  proceeds 
to  speak  of  angels  of  the  second  order.”  These 
are  dominions,  virtues,  powers.  “These,”  he 
says,  “are  clothed  in  white  tunics  reaching  to 
the  feet,  with  golden  girdles  and  green  outer 
robes. *  *1  They  hold  in  the  right  hand  staves  of 

Obtained  by  M.  Didron  in  MS.  at  Mount  Athos,  and 
published  by  him  in  a  French  translation. 

p  The  “  flabellum  ”  or  “  fan  ”  of  the  Greeks  was  called 
efaJTTepv^,  as  containing  the  representation  of  a  six- 
winged  seraph.  The  “  thrones,”  represented  as  wheels 
(with  wings  of  flame),  described  by  Panselinos,  may  be 
seen  in  the  second  of  the  illustrations  of  this  article. 

1  Outer  robes.  “  Des  Stoles  vertes,”  says  M.  Didron. 


gold,  and  in  the  left  a  seal  formed  thus 

Then,  of  the  third  order,  (principalities,  arch¬ 
angels,  angels),  he  writes  thus.  “These  are 
represented  vested  as  warriors,  and  with  golden 
girdles.  They  hold  in  their  hands  javelins  and 
axes;  the  javelins  are  tipped  with  iron,  as 
lances.” 

§  9.  Attributes  of  Anyels.  There  are  two 
sources  from  which  we  may  infer  the  attributes 
regarded  as  proper  to  angels  in  early  times ;  the 
description  given  of  them  in  the  treatise  of 
Dionysius  already  quoted,  and  the  actual  monu¬ 
ments  of  early  date  which  have  been  preserved 
to  our  times.  As  to  these  Dionysius  writes  that 
angels  are  represented  as  of  human  form  in  regard 
of  the  intellectual  qualities  of  man,  and  of  his 
heavenward  gaze,  and  the  loi-dship  and  dominion 
which  ai’e  naturally  his.  He  adds  that  bright 
vesture,  and  that  which  is  of  the  colour  of  fire, 
are  symbolical  of  light  and  of  the  divine  likeness, 
while  sacerdotal  vesture  serves  to  denote  their 
office  in  leading  to  divine  and  mystical  contem¬ 
plations,  and  the  consecration  of  their  whole  life 
unto  God.  He  mentions,  also,  girdles,  staves  or 
rods  (significant  of  royal  or  princely  power), 
spears  and  axes,  instruments  for  measurement  or 
of  constructive  art  (to  yecafxerpiKa  ual  tskto- 
viKo.  OTKevr)),  among  the  insignia  occasionally 
attributed  to  angels.  If,  from  the  pages  of 
Dionysius,  we  turn  to  actual  monuments,  we  find 
the  exact  counterpart  of  his  descriptions.  They 
may  be  enumerated  as  follows  : — 1.  The  human 
form.  In  all  the  earlier  monuments  (enumerated 
above,  §§  3,  4),  angels  are  represented  as  men, 
and  either  with  or  without  wings.  In  this 
Christian  art  did  but  follow  the  suggestions  of 
Holy  Scripture.  But  St.  Chrysostom  expresses 
what  was  the  prevailing  (but  not  the  universal) 
opinion  of  early  Christian  w'riters,  when  he  says 
{De  Sacerd.  lib.  vi.  p.  424  D)  that  although 
angels,  and  even  God  Himself,  have  ofttimes 
appeared  in  the  form  of  man,  yet  what  was  then 
manifested  was  not  actual  flesh,  but  a  semblance 
assumed  in  condescension  to  the  weakness  of 
mankind®  (ou  aapuhs  d\7}deia  dwd  (TvyKard- 
fiaais).  Both  in  ancient  and  in  modern  art 
examples  are  occasionally  found  of  angels  thus 
represented  as  men,  without  any  of  the  special 
attributes  enumerated  below.  2.  TLm^s.  As 
heavenly  messengers  ascending  and  descending 
between  heaven  and  earth,  angels  have,  wffth  a 
natural  propriety*  as  well  as  on  Scriptural 


But  we  suspect  that  in  the  original  he  found  &ro\ai,  a  word 
which  Greek  wTiters  never  use  in  the  technical  sense  of 
“  stoles  ”  (the  ecclesiastical  vestment  known  as  stola  in 
the  West  since  the  8th  century). 

»■  This  is  what  was  known  in  mediaeval  times  as  the 
“  Signaculum  Dei,”  or  Seal  of  God.  Such  a  seal  is  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  hand  of  Lucifer  before  his  fall,  in  the  Borlus 
Dcliciarum,  a  MS.  once  in  the  Library  of  Strasbourg. 

*  With  this  agrees  the  language  of  Tertullian,  De  Besur- 
rectione  Camis,  cap.  Ixii. :  ‘‘  Angell  aliquando  tanquam 
homines  fuenmt,  edondo  et  bibendo,  et  pedes  lavacro  por- 
rigendo,  humanam  enim  induerunt  superficiem,  salva 
intus  substantia  propria.  Igitur  si  angeli,  factt  tanquam 
homines,  in  eadem  substantia  spiritus  permanserunt,'  &c. 
Similar  language  reappears  in  other  Latin  Fathers. 

t  Comp.  Fhilo,  Quaest.  in  Exod.  xxv.  20,  ai  tov  Oeov 
Tra<rai  SvrdfJieii  7rTfpo<ftvov<ri  ttjs  ayto  npos  tov  Tlardpa 
o&ov  yKL\6p.eva.t  t€  Kai  e<f)tep.evai.  And  very  beautifully 
elsewhere  he  speaks  of  the  angels  as  going  up  and  down 
between  heaven  and  earth,  and  conveying  (Siayye'A- 


ANGELS  AND  ARCHANGELS 


ANGELS  AND  ARCHANGELS  87 


authority,  “  been  represented  in  all  ages  of  the 
church  as  furnished  with  wings.  We  may  add 
that  this  mode  of  expressing  the  idea  of  ubiquity 
and  powei’,  as  superhuman  attributes,  had  pre¬ 
vailed  in  heathen  art  from  the  earliest  times, 
and  that  in  East  and  West  alike.  Examples  of 
this  in  Assyrian  art  are  now  familiar  to  us. 
Similar  figures  are  found  in  Egypt.  They  were 
less  common  in  classical  art.  Yet  Mercury,  as 
the  messenger  of  the  gods,  had  wings  upon  his 
feet ;  and  little  winged  genii  were  commonly  repre¬ 
sented  in  decorative  work,  and  thence  were  ti’ans- 
ferred  (probably  as  mere  decorations)  into  eaidy 
Christian *  *  works  of  art.  As  to  the  number  of 
these  wings,  two  only  are  to  be  found  in  all  the 
earlier  representations.  We  do  not  know  of  any 
example  of  four,  or  of  six  wings,  eaidier  than  the 
9th  century,  though  the  descriptions  given  in  Holy 
, Scripture  of  the  “Living  Creatures”  with  six 
wings,  and  the  four-winged  deities  of  primitive 
Eastern  art,  might  naturally  have  suggested 
such  repi’esentations.  As  to  later  representations 
of  cherubim  and  seraphim,  and  the  like,  see 
below,  section  14.  3.  Vestm'e.  The  vesture 

assigned  to  angels,  in  various  ages  of  the  Church, 
has  ever  been  such  as  was  associated  in  men’s 
minds  with  the  ideas  of  religious  solemnity,  and 
in  the  later  centuries,  of  sacerdotal  ministry.  In 
Holy  Scripture  the  vesture  of  angels  is  described 
as  white  (Matt,  xxviii.  3 ;  John  xx.  12 ;  Rev.  iv. 
4;  XV.  6),y  and  in  mosaics  of  the  5th  and  6th 
centuries,  at  Rome  and  Ravenna  (where  first  we 
ean  determine  questions  of  colour  with  any 
accuracy),  we  find  white  vestments  generally 
assigned  to  them  (long  tunic  and  pallium),  ex¬ 
actly  resembling  those  of  apostles.  But  in 
mosaics,  believed  to  be  of  the  7th  century  (St. 
Sophia  at  Thessalonica)*  angels  have  coloured 
himatia  (outer  robes)  over  the  long  white  tunic, 
and  their  wings,  too,  are  coloured,  red  and  blue 
being  the  prevailing  tints.  And  these  two 
colours  had,  long  ere  that  time,  been  recognised 
as  invested  with  a  special  significance,  red  as  the 
colour  of  flame,  and  symbolical  of  holy  love 
(caritas),  blue  as  significant  of  heaven,  and  of 
heavenly  contemplation  or  divine  knowledge. 
And  in  the  later  traditions  of  Christian  art  (from 
the  9th  century  onwards)  “  these  two  colours 
were  as  a  general  rule  assigned,  red  more  espe¬ 
cially  to  the  seraphim  as  the  spirits  of  love,  and 
blue  to  the  cherubim  as  spirits  of  knowledge  or 
of  contemplation ;  while  the  two  colours  com¬ 
bined,  as  they  often  are  found,  are  regarded  as 

Kovaai)  the  biddings  of  the  Father  to  His  children,  and 
the  wants  of  the  children  to  their  Father. 

“  See  the  passages  in  Fjcodus,  Isaiah,  and  Ezekiel  already 
referred  to ;  and  compare  the  expression  in  Rev.  xiv.  6,  of 
an  angel  Jlyivg  (TrerdfAevos)  there. 

*  For  examples  see  Aringhi,  Ronut  SubteiTavea,  tom.  i. 
pp.  323, 615 ;  tom.  ii.  p.  16’7.  Compare  p.  29,  where  similar 
figures,  without  wings,  Sre  introduced  in  an  ornamental 
design. 

y  See  Ciamplnl,  V.  M.  il.  pp.  58  and  64.  He  speaks  of 
“  tunicae  ”  and  “  pallia  ”  as  being  white ;  and  of  “  stoles  ” 
(really  stripes  on  the  tunic),  and  wings  of  violet. 

*  Texler  and  Pullan,  Byzantine  Architecture,  pi.  xl. 
Compare  the  curious  picture  of  the  Holy  Family,  a  bishop 
(or  other  ecclesiastic),  and  two  angels,  from  Urgub,  figured 
in  plate  v.,  where  the  robes  of  the  angels  are  white,  their 
wings  blue  and  reddish  yellow. 

*  “  The  distinction  of  hue  in  the  red  and  blue  angels  we 
find  wholly  omitted  towards  the  end  of  the  15th  r.eutury  ” 
(Mrs.  Jameson,  Sacred  and  Legendary  Art). 


suggesting  the  union  of  the  two  qualities  of  love 
and  knowledge,  the  perfection  of  the  angelic 
nature.  It  should  be  added  that  the  vestments 
of  angels  have  not  unfrequently  such  ornament 
appended  to  them  as  was  of  ordinary  usage  from 
time  to  time  in  ecclesiastical  di'ess,  viz.,  coloured 
stripes  on  the  tunic,  in  the  earlier  centuries, 
afterwards  oraria  or  stoles,  and  even  “omophoria,” 
the  distinctive  insignia  of  episcopal  office  in  the 
East.  4.  The  Nimbus.  In  the  early  Greek  MS. 
already  noticed,  §  6,  and  in  one  or  two  early 
representations  in  the  catacombs  at  Rome,  angels 
are  represented  without  the  Nimbus.  But  from 
the  middle  of  the  5th  century  onward,  this  orna¬ 
ment  is  almost  invariably  assigned  to  them. 
[Nimbus.]  5.  The  Wand  of  Power.  Only  in 
exceptional  instances  during  the  first  eight  cen¬ 
turies,  are  angels  represented  as  bearing  anything 
in  the  hand.  Three  examples  may  be  cited,  in 
mosaics,**  of  the  6th  century,  at  Ravenna,  in 
which  angels  attendant  on  our  Lord  (see  §  3) 
hold  wands'^  in  their  hands,  which  may  either 
represent  the  rod  of  divine  power,  or,  as  some 
have  thought,  the  “  golden  reed  ” — the  “  mea- 
suring  reed,”  assigned  to  the  angel  in  Rev.  xxi. 
15,  as  in  Ezek.  xl.  3.  The  representations  Oi 
archangels,  particularly  of  Michael,  as  warriors 
with  sword,  or  spear,  and  girdle,  ai’e  of  later  date. 
6.  Instruments  of  Music.  One  early  example 
has  been  already  referred  to  (§  4)  of  a  Ravenna 
mosaic,  in  which  the  “  Seven  Angels  ”  are  repre¬ 
sented  holding  trumpets  in  their  hands.  In  the 
later  traditions  of  Christian  art,  representations 
of  angels  as  the  “  Choristers  of  Heaven  ”  have 
been  far  more  common,  various  instruments  of 
music  being  assigned  to  them. 

§  10.  Michael. — The  archangel  Michael  is  first 
designated  by  name  in  mosaics  of  the  5th  cen¬ 
tury,  at  Ravenna  (Ciampini,  vol.  ii.  pi.  xvii.  and 
xxiv.).  And  in  other  cases  where  we  see  two 
angels  specially  marked  out  as  in  attendance  on 
our  Lord,  we  may  infer  that  Michael  and  Gabriel 
are  designated.  For  the  names  of  these  two 
alone  are  prominent  in  Holy  Scripture.  And 
according  to  a  very  ancient  tradition,  traced  back 
to  Rabbinical  belief,  perpetuated  as  many  such 
traditions  were  in  the  East,  and  thence  handed 
on  to  Western  Christendom,  these  two  arch¬ 
angels  personified  respectively**  the  judgment 


Ciampini,  V.  M.  ii.  tab.  xvii.,  xix.,  and  xxiv.  Com¬ 
pare  in  his  plate  xlvi.  of  vol.  i.  the  mosaic  at  S.  Agatha, 
which  we  believe  to  be  of  nearly  the  same  date. 

In  the  church  dedicated  in  the  name  of  the  archangel 
Michael  at  Ravenna,  in  the  year  545,  an  indication  of 
special  honour  is  given  to  him  by  the  small  cross  upon  his 
wand,  which  is  wanting  in  that  of  Gabriel  (Ciamp.  V.  M. 
ii.  tab.  xvii.). 

4  In  yet  other  traditions  the  mercy  of  God,  and  more 
particularly  His  healing  grace,  Is  ministered  by  Raphael. 
There  is  great  variety  in  the  older  Jewish  traditions. 
According  to  one  (Joma,  p.  37,  quoted  by  Bohmer  in 
Herzog’s  Encycl.),  when  the  three  angels  appeared  to 
Abraham,  Michael,  as  first  in  rank,  occupied  the  central 
place,  having  Gabriel,  as  second,  on  his  right  hand,  and 
Raphael,  as  third  in  rank,  on  his  left.  This  place  on  the 
right  hand  of  God  is  elsewhere  assigned  to  Gabriel,  as 
being  the  angel  of  his  'power  (comp.  Origen,  opxwv, 
i.  8),  and  to  Raphael  that  on  the  left  (near  the  heart),  as 
being  the  angel  of  His  mercy.  And  again  in  Philo  (Qiiaest. 
in  Gen.  iii.  24),  the  two  cherubim  on  either  side  of  the 
mercy-seat  represent  respectively  the  raes-sengers  of  the 
Wrath,  and  of  the  Mercy,  of  the  Lord  (comp.  Fvod.  xxxlv, 
5-7> 


88  ANGELS  and  ARCHANGELS 


ANGELS  AND  ARCHANGELS 


a&d  the  mercy  of  God,  and  were  therefore  fitly 
placed,  Michael,  as  the  angel  of  power,  on  the 
right  hand,  Gabriel,  nearer  to  the  heart,  on  the 
left  hand.  For  the  special  traditions  concerning 
“St.  Michael,”  his  appearances  in  vision  at 
Mount  Galgano  in  Apulia,  to  St.  Gregory  the 
Great  on  the  mole  of  Hadrian,  now  the  castle  of 
Sf.  Angelo,  and  to  Aubert,  Bishop  of  Avranches 
in  706,  A.D.,  at  “Mount  St.  Michel”  in  Nor¬ 
mandy  (to  this  our  own  St.  Michael’s  Mount 
owes  its  designation),  see  Jameson’s  Sacred  and 
Legendary  Art,  pp.  94  sqq.  The  oldest  ex¬ 
ample  in  sculpture  of  St.  Michael  treading  under 
foot  the  dragon  (see  Rev.  xii.  7,  S),  is  on  the 
porch  of  the  Cathedral  of  Catana,  believed  to  be 


St.  Michael. 


of  the  7th  century.  [Figured  above.]  Later 
pictures  often  represent  St.  Michael  as  the  angel 
of  judgment,  holding  scales  in  his  hand,  in  which 
souls  are  weighed. 

§  11.  Gabriel  (Heb.  “  Man  of  God,”)  as  the 
me.ssenger  more  especially  of  comfort  and  of  good 
tidings,  occupies  a  prominent  place  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  announcing  the  birth  both  of  John 
the  Baptist  to  Zacharias  and  of  our  Lord  to  the 
Virgin  Mary.  (In  apocryphal  legend  he  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  foretelling  to  Joachim  the  birth  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.)  In  the  language  of  Tasso  he  is 
“  I’Angelo  Annunziatore.”  Though  only  twice 
(as  far  as  I  have  obseiwed)  designated  by  name 
in  early  Christian  Art  (Ciampini,  F.  M.  ii..  Tab. 
xvii.  and  xxiv.),  yet  in  the  various  pictures  of 
the  Annunciation,  which  are  many,  it  is  he,  of 
course,  who  is  to  be  understood.  By  a  singular 
fate,  having  been  regarded  by  Mahomet  as  his 
immediate  inspirer,  he  is  looked  upon  in  many 
parts  of  the  East  as  the  great  protecting  angel 
of  Islamism,  and,  as  such,  in  direct  opposition  to 
Michael  the  protector  of  Jews  and  Chri.stians. 

§  12.  Raphael  (Heb.  the  Healer  who  is  from 
God,  or  “Divine  Healer”)  is  mentioned  in  the 
book  of  Tobit  as  “  one  of  the  seven  holy  angels 
which  go  in  and  out  before  the  glory  of  the  Holy 
One,”  cap.  xii.  15.  Through  the  influence  of 
this  beautiful  Hebrew  story  of  Tobias  and 
Raphael,  his  name  became  associated  in  early 
times  with  the  idea  of  the  guardian  angel.  As 


such  he  is  twice  figured  in  the  Roman  catacombs, 
and  allusions  to  the  same  story  are  frequent 
in  the  Vetri  Antichi.  [Glass,  Christian.]  In 
mediaeval  Greek  art  the  three  archangels  already 
named  are  Sometimes  represented  together,  de¬ 
signated  by  their  initial  letters  M,  F,  and  P, 
Michael  as  a  warrior,  Gabriel  as  a  prince,  and 
Raphael  as  a  priest — the  three  supporting  be¬ 
tween  them  a  youthful  figure  of  our  Lord,  him¬ 
self  I’epresented  with  wings  as  the  “angelus” 
or  messenger  of  the  will  of  God.  (Figured  in 
Jameson’s  S.  L.  A.,  p.  9.3.) 

§  13.  Uriel.  (The  Fire  of  God.)  The  fourth 
archangel,  named  Uriel  in  Esdras  ii.  4,  has  been 
much  less  prominent  in  legend  and  in  art  than 
the  three  already  named.®  He  is  regarded  as 
charged  more  particularly  with  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  God’s  will,  of  judgments  and  prophecies 
(with  reference,  doubtless,  to  Esdras  ii.).  These 
“archangels”  of  Christian  tradition  are  to  the 
Jews  the  first  four  of  those  “Seven  Angels”  who 
see  the  glory  of  God  (Tobias  xxii.  15);  the  other 
three  being  Chamuel  (he  who  sees  God),  Jophiel 
(the  beauty  of  God),  and  2kidkiel  (the  righteous¬ 
ness  of  G(^).  But  these  last  three  names  have 
never  been  generally  recognised  either  in  East  or 
West.  And  in  the  first  example  of  the  repre¬ 
sentation  of  these  Seven  Angels  in  Christian  art 
they  are  distinguished  from  the  two  archangels 
Michael  and  Gabriel,  who  hold  wands,  while  to 
the  seven,  as  already  noticed,  §  4,  trumpets  are 
assigned.  (Ciampini,  V.  M.,  ii.,  pi.  xvii.) 

§  14.  Seraphim  and  Chervhim.  These  two 
names  appear,  the  first  in  Isaiah  vi.  2  (there  only), 
and  the  latter  in  Exodus  xiv.  18,  where  t"-o 
are  spoken  of,  and  in  Ezekiel  i.  4—14,  who  speaks 
of  four  (compare  the  four  “  living  creatures  ” 
of  Rev.  iv.  6).  They  have  been  perpetuated  in 


Seraphim  and  Cbembim 


Christian  usage,  and  the"  descriptions  given  of 
them  in  Holy  Scripture  have  been  embodied 
(those  of  the  cherubim  or  four  “  living  creatures,” 
first,  and  somewhat  later  those  of  the  seraphim) 
in  Christian  art  from  the  5th  century  onwards. 
They  were  regarded  (see  above  §  9)  as  the  spirits 
of  love  and  of  knowledge  respectively.  For  fuller 
details  concerning  the  two  in  Holy  Scripture  see 

«  From  the  name  of  Uriel  being  little  known,  the  fourth 
archangel  is  designated  in  some  mediaeval  monument* 
I  (Jameson,  S.  and  L.  Art,  p.  92)  as  “  St.  Cherubin,” 


ANGELS  OF  CHUKCHES 


ANGELS  OF  CHURCHES 


89 


*  Dictionaiy  of  the  Bible.’  In  art  they  do  not 
appear  as  Angel  forms,  with  any  special  modi¬ 
fication  of  the  ordinary  type,  as  far  as-we  have 
observed,  in  any  earlier  representation  than  that 
of  the  Syriac  MS.  already  described  and  figured. 
Later  modifications  of  this  oldest  type  may  be 
seen  in  Jameson,  S.  and  L.  Art,  p.  42  sqq., 
from  which  the  cut  given  above  is  taken ; 
D’Agincourt,  Sculpture,  pi.  xii.  16  (the  diptych 
of  Rambona,  9th  century),  Peinture,  pi.  1.  3 
(Greek  MS.  of  12th  century).  Cherubic  repre¬ 
sentations  of  the  four  “  Living  Ci’eatures”  will 
be  separately  treated  under  Evangelists. 

§  15.  J'he  Illustrations  to  this  Article.  Great 
interest  attaches  to  the  mosaic  of  Xystus  III., 
which  forms  the  first  of  the  illustrations  to  this 
article,  from  its  bearing  upon  the  history  of 
doctrine,  and  especially  of  the  cultus  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  as  restorations  made  in  the 
time  of  Benedict  XIV.  (1740-1758)  have  pro¬ 
duced  considerable  changes  in  the  mosaic  here 
figured,  it  will  be  well  to  state  the  authority 
for  the  present  representation.  The  only  pub¬ 
lished  picture  of  the  mosaic  in  its  older  state 
(that  here  reproduced),  is  a  very  rude  engraving 
in  Ciampini,  Vetera  Monumenta,  i.  p.  200,  Tab. 
xlix.  In  some  important  particulai-s  of  archaeo¬ 
logical  detail  his  engraving  varies  from  the  care¬ 
fully  drawn  and  coloured  pictures,  from  which 
the  illustration  above  given  has  been  taken.  But 
in  the  general  arrangement  and  outline  of  the 
figures  the  two  are  in  accord.  The  coloured 
drawings  of  which  we  speak,  form  part  of  a  col¬ 
lection  (in  two  large  folio  volumes)  which  was 
made  by  Pope  Clement  XL  when  Cardinal 
Albano.  These,  with  a  number  of  other  volumes 
containing  classical  antiquities  of  various  kinds, 
were  purchased  at  Rome  by  an  agent  of  George  III., 
and  are  now  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Windsor. 

The  second  of  the  illustrations  (from  a  Syidac 
MS.)  is  from  a  photolithogi’aph,  reproducing  the 
outline  given  by  Seroux  d’Agincourt,  Peinture,  pi. 
xxvii.  That  author  speaks  of  it  as  “  caique'  sur 
I’original,”  and  from  a  comparison  with  an  exact 
copy  made  from  the  original  by  Professor  West- 
wood,  we  are  able  to  vouch  for  the  perfect  accu¬ 
racy  of  the  present  illustration.  [W.  B.  M.] 

ANGELS  OF  CHURCHES— Bishops.  It 
does  not  appear  that  the  bishops  of  the  Primitive 
Church  were  commonly  spoken  of  under  this 
title,  nor  indeed  did  it  become  in  later  times  the 
ordinary  designation  of  the  episcopal  office.  In¬ 
stances,  however,  of  this  application  of  it  occur 
in  the  earlier  Church  historians,  as,  e.  g.,  in  So¬ 
crates,  who  so  styles  Serapion  Bishop  of  Thomais 
(Lib.  iv.  c.  23).  The  word  Bydel  also,  which  is 
Saxon  for  angel  or  messenger,  is  found  to  have 
been  similarly  employed  (see  Hammond  on  Pev. 
i.  20).  But  though  no  such  instances  were 
forthcoming,  it  would  prove  nothing  against  the 
received  interpretation,  as  it  may  be  considered, 
of  the  memorable  vision  of  St.  John,  recorded  in 
the  first  three  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse,  in 
which  he  is  charged  to  convey  the  heavenly 
message  to  each  of  the  seven  churches  through 
its  “  Angel.”  It  should  be  remembered  that 
the  language  of  this  vision,  as  of  the  whole 
book  to  which  it  belongs,  is  eminently  mystical 
and  .symbolical ;  the  word  “  Angel,”  therefore, 
as  being  transferred  from  an  heavenly  to  an 
earthly  ministry,  though  it  would  very  signifi¬ 


cantly  as  well  as  honourably  characterize  the 
office  so  designated,  could  yet  scarcely  be  ex¬ 
pected  to  pass  into  general  use  as  a  title  of 
individual  ministers.  By  the  same  Divine  voice 
from  which  the  Apostle  receives  his  commission 
the  “  mystery  ”  of  the  vision  is  interpreted. 
“  The  seven  stars,”  it  is  declared,  “  are  the 
angels  of  the  seven  chui'ches ;  and  the  seven 
candlesticks  which  thou  sawest,  are  the  seven 
churches.”  The  symbol  of  a  star  is  repeatedly 
employed  in  Scripture  to  denote  lordship  and 
pre-eminence  (e.g.  Num.  xxiv.  17).  “There  shall 
come  a  star  out  of  Jacob,”  where  it  symbolises 
the  highest  dominion  of  all.  Again,  the  actual 
birth  of  Him  who  is  thus  foretold  by  Balaam  is 
announced  by  a  star  (Matt.  ii.  2  ;  cf.  Is.  xiv.  12). 
Faithful  teachers  are  “stars  that  shall  shine  for 
ever  ”  (Dan.  xii.  3)  ;  false  teachers  are  “  wander¬ 
ing  stars  ”  (Jude  13),  or  “stars  which  fall  from 
heaven  ”  (Rev.  vi.  13,  viii.  10,  xii.  4).  Hence  it 
is  naturally  inferred  from  the  use  of  this  symbol 
in  the  present  instance  that  the  “angels”  of  the 
seven  churches,  were  placed  in  authority  over 
these  churches.  Moi-eover,  the  angel  in  each 
church  is  one,  and  the  responsibilities  ascribed 
to  him  correspond  remarkably  with  those  which 
are  enforced  on  Timothy  and  Titus  by  St.  Paul 
in  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  Again,  this  same  title  is 
given  to  the  chief  priest  in  the  Old  Testament, 
particularly  in  Malachi  (ii.  7), — where  he  is  stylea 
the  angel  or  messenger  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts, 
whose  lips  therefore  were  to  keep  knowledge, 
and  from  his  mouth,  as  from  the  oracle,  the 
people  were  to  “  seek  the  law,”  to  receive  know¬ 
ledge  and  direction  for  their  duty.  To  the  chief 
minister,  therefore,  of  the  New  Testament,  it  may 
be  fairly  argued,  the  title  is  no  less  fitly  applied. 

By  some,  however,  both  among  ancient  and 
modern  writers,  the  word  “  angel  ”  has  been 
understood  in  its  higher  sense  as  denoting  God’s 
heavenly  messengers;  and  they  have  been  supposed 
to  be  the  guardian  angels  of  the  several  churches 
— their  angels — to  whom  these  epistles  were  ad¬ 
dressed.  It  is  contended  that  wherever  the 
word  angel  occurs  in  this  book,  it  is  employed 
unquestionably  in  this  sense  ;  and  that  if  such 
guardianship  is  exercised  over  individuals,  much 
more  the  same  might  be  predicated  of  churches 
(Dan.  xii.  1).  Among  earlier  writers  this  inter¬ 
pretation  is  maintained  by  Origen  (Horn.  xiii.  in 
Luc.  and  Horn.  xx.  in  Num.')  and  by  Jerome  (in 
Mich.  vi.  1,  2).  Of  later  commentators,  one  of 
its  most  recent  and  ablest  defenders  is  Dean 
Alford.  But  besides  the  obvious  difficulty  of 
giving  a  satisfactory  explanation  to  the  word 
“  write  ”  as  enjoined  on  these  supposed  heavenly 
watchers,  there  remains  an  objection,  not  easily 
to  be  surmounted,  in  the  language  of  reproof>nd 
the  imputation  of  unfaithfulness,  which  on  this 
hypothesis  would  be  addressed  to  holy  and  sin-, 
less  beings, — those  angels  of  His  Avho  delight  to 
“  do  His  pleasure.”  So  is  it  observed  by  Au¬ 
gustine  (Ep.  43,  §  22)  :  “  ‘  Sed  habeo  adversuin 
te,  quod  caritatem  primam  reliquisti.’  Hoc  de 
superioribus  angelis  dici  non  potest,  qui  per- 
petuam  retinent  caritatem,  unde  qui  defecerunt 
et  lapsi  sunt,  diabolus  est  et  angeli  ejus.” 

By  presbyterian  writers  the  angel  of  the 
vision  has  been  variously  interpreted  : — 1.  Of  the 
collective  presbytery  ;  2.  Of  the  presiding  pres¬ 
byter,  which  office,  however,  it  is  contended  was 
soon  to  be  discontinued  in  the  Church,  because 


90 


ANGERS 


ANNE 


of*  its  foreseen  corruption.  3.  Of  the  yiesseugers 
sent  from  the  several  churches  to  St.  John.  It 
hardly  falls  within  the  scope  of  this  article  to 
discuss  these  interpretations.  To  unprejudiced 
readers  it  will  probably  be  enough  to  state  them, 
to  make  their  weakness  manifest.  It  is  difficult 
to  account  for  them,  except  as  the  suggestions  of 
a  foregone  conclusion. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  St.  John  is  believed  on 
other  grounds  to  have  been  pre-eminently  the 
organiser  of  Episcopacy  throughout  the  Church, 
so  here  in  this  wonderful  vision  the  holy  Apostle 
comes  before  us,  it  would  seem,  very  remarkably 
in  this  special  character ;  and  in  the  message 
which  he  delivers,  under  divine  direction,  to  each 
of  the  seven  churches  through  its  angel,  we 
recognize  a  most  important  confirmation  of  the 
evidence  on  which  we  claim  for  episcopal  govern¬ 
ment,  the  precedent,  sanction,  and  authority  of  the 
apostolic  age.  (Bingham,  Thorndike,  Archbishop 
Trench  on  Epp.  to  Seven  Churches.')  [D.  B.] 

ANGERS,  COUNCIL  OF  (Andegavense 
Concilium),  a.d.  453,  Oct.  4  ;*  wherein,  after 
consecrating  Talasius,  Bishop  of  Angers,  there 
were  passed  12  canons  i*especting  submission 
of  presbyters  to  bishops,  the  inability  of 
“  digami  ”  to  be  ordained,  &c.  (Mansi,  vii.  899- 
902).  [A.  W.  H.] 

ANGLICAN  COUNCILS  (Concilia  Ajigli- 
cana) ;  a  designation  given  to  English  general 
councils,  of  which  the  precise  locality  is  un¬ 
known  ;  e.  g.  a.d.  756,  one  of  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  abbats,  held  by  Archbishop  Cuthbert  to 
appoint  June  5  to  be  kept  in  memory  of  the 
martyrdom  of  St.  Boniface  and  his  companions 
(Cuthb.  ad  LuUum,  intr.  Epist.S.  Bonif.  70;  Wilk. 
i.  144;  Mansi,  xii.  585-590);  A.D.  797  (Alford), 
798  (Spelman),  held  by  Ethelheard  preparatory  to 
his  journey  to  Rome  to  oppose  the  archbishopric 
of  Lichfield  (W.  Malm.  G.  P.  A.  lib.  i. ;  Pagi  ad  an. 
796,  n.  27  ;  Mansi,  xiii.  991,  992).  [A.  W.  H.] 

ANIANUS.  (1)  Patriarch,  commemorated 
Hedar  20  Nov.  16  (Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(2)  Bishop  ;  translation,  June  \i(Mai't.  Bedae, 
Hieron.) ;  deposition  at  Orleans,  Nov.  17  (M. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

ANICETUS,  martyr,  commemorated  Aug. 

12  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.j 

ANNA,  the  prophetess,  commemorated  Sept.  1 
(Ado,  De  Festiv.f  Martyrol.)  ;  Jakatit  8  =  Feb.  2 
(Cal.  Ethiop.).  [C.] 

ANNATES  :  lit.  the  revenues  or  profits  of 
one  year,  and  therefore  synonymous  with  first- 
fruits  so  far ;  but  being,  in  their  strict  anc 
technical  sense,  a  development  of  tiie  Middle 
Ages,  the  only  explanation  that  can  be  given  of 
them  here  is  how  they  arose.  Anciently,  the 
entire  revenues  of  each  diocese  were  placed  in 
the  hands  of  its  bishop,  as  Bingham  shews  (v.  6. 
1-3),  who  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  his 
senate  of  presbyters  distributed,  and  in  the 
Western  Church  usually  divided  them  into  4 
parts.  One  p.-irt  went  to  himself ;  a  2nd  to  his 
clergy  ;  a  3rd  to  the  poor ;  a  4th  to  the  mainte¬ 
nance  of  the  fabric  and  requirements  of  the 
diocesan  churches.  Of  these  the  3rd  and  4th 
were  claimants,  so  to  speak,  that  never  died  ; 
but  in  the  case  of  the  two  former,  when  ofiices 
becanae  vacant  by  death  or  removal,  what  was 


to  be  done  with  the  stipend  attaching  to  them, 
till  they  were  filled  up  ?  Naturally,  when  en¬ 
dowments  became  fixed  and  considerable,  and 
promotions,  from  not  having  been  allowed  at  all, 
the  rule,  large  sums  constantly  fell  to  the  dis¬ 
posal  of  some  one  in  this  way  ;  of  the  bishop, 
when  any  of  his  clergy  died  or  were  removed  ; 
and  of  whom,  when  the  bishop  died  or  was  re¬ 
moved,  by  deposition  or  by  translation,  as  time 
went  on,  but  of  the  metropolitan  or  primate  at 
last,  though,  perhaps,  at  first  of  the  presbytery  ? 
And  then  came  the  temptation  to  keep  bishop¬ 
rics  vacant,  and  appropriate  “  the  annates,”  or 
else  require  them  from  the  bishop  elect  in  return 
for  consecrating  him.  It  was  but  a  step  further 
in  the  same  direction  for  Rome  to  lay  claim  to 
what  primates  and  archbishops  had  enjoyed  so 
long,  when  the  appointment  of  both,  so  far  as 
the  Church  was  concerned,  became  vested  in 
Rome.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally 
certain,  that  had  the  primitive  rule,  founded  as 
it  was  in  strict  justice,  been  maintained  intact, 
each  parish,  or  at  least  each  diocese,  would  have 
preserved  its  own  emoluments,  or,  which  comes 
to  the  same  thing,  would  have  seen  them  applied 
to  its  own  spiritual  exigencies  in  all  cases.  The 
34th  Apostolical  canon,  the  15th  of  Ancyra,  and 
the  25th  of  Antioch,  alike  testify  to  the  old  rule 
of  the  Church,  and  to  what  abuses  it  succumbed. 
Still,  De  Marca  seems  hardly  justified  in  ascrib¬ 
ing  the  origin  of  annates  to  direct  simony  (De 
Concord.  Sac.  et  Imp.  vi.  10).  [E.  S.  F.] 

ANNE  (^kvva,  nsn).  Mother  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.  July  25  is  observed  by  the  Orthodox 
Greek  Church  as  the  commemoration  of  the 
“  Dormitio  S.  Annae,”  a  Festival  with  abstinence 
from  labour  (dpyia).  The  same  day  is  said  to  have 
been  anciently  dedicated  to  S.  Anne  in  the  West 
also,  and  the  feast  was  pi’obably  transferred  in  the 
Roman  Calendar  to  the  26th  (the  day  on  which 
it  is  at  present  held)  from  a  desire  to  giA’e 
greater  prominence  to  S.  Anne  than  was  possible  * 
on  S.  James’s  Day.  In  the  Greek  Calendar,  also, 
Joachim  and  Anna,  “  ©eoTraropes,”  have  a  festival 
on  Sep.  9,  the  day  following  the  Nativity  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  Both  the  Armenian  and  the  Greek 
Calendars  haA’^e  on  Dec.  9  a  “  Festival  of  the  Con¬ 
ception  of  the  Virgin  Mary,”  or  (as  it  is  called 
in  the  latter)  'H  (rv\\7)\pis  rrjs  ayias  Kat  deoirpo- 
pLrfTopos  ''Auvrjs,  I.  e.  S.  Anne’s  Conception  of 
the  Virgin,  Ka\  yap  avri)  d.TreKvgo'e  inrhp 
\6yov  rhv  Aoyov  Kvf)(Ta<Tav.  In  the  Ethiopic, 

“  Joachim,  avus  Chidsti,”  has  April  7 ;  and  on 
July  20  is  commemorated  the  “  Ingressus  Annae 
Matris  Mariae  in  Templum  ”  or  “  Purificatio 
Annae.”  (Daniel’s  Codex  Liturgicus,  tom.  iv. ; 
Alt’s  Kirchenjahr.)  There  is  no  evidence  of  any 
public  recognition  of  S.  Anne  as  a  patron  saint 
until  about  the  beginning  of  the  6th  century, 
when  Justinian  I.  had  a  temple  built  in  her 
honour,  which  is  described  by  Procopius  (De 
Aedific.  Justin,  ch.  iii.)  as  lepoTrpcTres  re  Kai 
dyaarhu  o\a>s  cdos  ’'Avut)  ayia,  ‘‘  Avhom,”  he 
adds,  “  some  belieA'e  to  be  /iTjrepa  OeoroKOu  and 
grandmother  of  Christ ;  ”  and  we  are  informed 
bv  Codinus  that  Justinian  II.  founded  another  in 
705. 

Her  body  was  brought  from  Palestine  to  Con¬ 
stantinople  in  740,  and  her  “Inventio  Corporis  ” 
was  celebrated  with  all  the  honour  due  to  a 
saint.  [C.] 


ANNOTINUM  PASCHA 


ANTIMENSIUM 


91 


ANNOTINUM  PASCHA.  In  the  Grego¬ 
rian  Liber  Lesponsalis,  and  in  some  MSS.  ot  the 
Sacramentary j  following  the  Dominica  in  Albis 
(First  after  Easter),  we  find  an  office  in  Pas- 
cha  Annotina.  That  it  was  not,  however,  in¬ 
variably  on  the  day  following  the  Octave  of 
Easter  is  shown  by  Martene  (quoted  by  Binterim, 
V.  i.  246),  who  found  it  placed  on  the  Thursday 
before  Ascension  Day  in  an  ancient  ritual  of 
Vienne.  And  it  is  mentioned  in  later  autho- 
I’ities  as  having  been  celebi’ated  on  various  days, 
as  on  the  Sabbatum  in  Albis,  the  Saturday  alter 
Easter-Day. 

As  to  the  meaning  of  the  expression  there  are 
various  opinions.  Natalis  Alexander  Eccl. 

Diss.  ii.  quaest.  2),  with  several  of  the  older  au¬ 
thorities,  supposed  it  to  be  the  anniversary  of 
the  Easter  of  the  preceding  year.  If  this  anni¬ 
versary  was  specially  observed,  when  it  fell  in 
the  Lent  of  the  actual  year  it  would  naturally 
be  omitted,  or  transferred  to  a  period  when  the 
Fast  was  over;  for  the  services  of  the  Pascha 
annotinum  were  of  a  Paschal  character,  and  con¬ 
sequently  unsuited  for  a  season  of  mourning. 

Probablv,  however,  the  nature  of  the  Pascha 
annotinum  is  correctly  stated  by  the  Micrologus 
(c.  56);  Annotine  Pascha  is  a"  term  equivalent 
to  anniversary  Pascha ;  and  it  is  so  called  because 
in  olden  time  at  Rome  those  who  had  been  bap¬ 
tized  at  Easter  celebrated  the  anniversary  of 
their  baptism  in  the  next  year  by  solemn  ser¬ 
vices.  Honorius  of  Autun,  Durand,  and  Beleth, 
give  the  same  explanation,  which  is  adopted  by 
Thoinasius,  Martene,  and  Mabillon.  To  this  call¬ 
ing  to  mind  of  baptismal  vows  the  collects  of 
the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  (p.  82)  refer.  The 
words  of  the  Micrologus,  that  this  was  observed  in 
olden  time  (antiquitus)  seem  to  imply  that  even 
at  the  time  when  that  treatise  was  written 
(about  1100),  it  liad  become  obsolete  (Gregorian 
Sacram.  Ed.  Menard,  p.  399 ;  Binterim’s  Denh- 
ww'diykeiten,  v.  i.  245  ffi).  [C.] 

ANNUNCIATION.  [Mary  the  Virgin, 
Festivals  of.] 

ANOINTING.  [Unction.] 

ANOVIUS,  of  Alexandria,  commemorated 
July  7  {Mart.  Ilieron.). 

ANSENTIUS.  Commemorated  August  7 
{Mart.  Hieron.}.  [C.] 

ANTEMPNUS,  bishop,  commemoi*atcd  April 
27  {Mart.  Hieron.^.  [C.] 

ANTEPENDIUM  (or  Antipendium),  a  veil 
or  hanging  in  front  of  an  altar.  The  use  of  such 
a  piece  of  drapery  no  doubt  began  at  a  period 
when  altars,  as  that  at  S.  Alessandro  on  the  Via 
Nomentana  near  Rome  [Altar],  began  to  be 
constructed  with  cancellated  fronts:  the  veil 
hanging  in  front  would  protect  the  interior 
from  dust  and  from  profane  or  irreverent  curio¬ 
sity.  Ciampini  {Vet.  Mon.  t.  ii.  p.  57)  says 
that  in  a  crypt  below  the  church  of  SS.  Cosmo 
e  Damiano  at  Rome  there  was  in  his  time  an 
ancient  altar  “  cum  duabus  columnis  ac  epistilio 
et  corona ;  nec  non  sub  ipso  epistilio  anuli  sunt 
ferrei  e  quibus  vela  pendebant.”  (Compare  t.  i. 
p.  64.) 

In  the  7th  and  8th  centuries  veils  of  rich  and 
costly  stufls  are  often  mentioned  in  the  Z»6. 
Pontif.  as  suspended  “ante  altare,”  as  in  the 


case  where  Pope  Leo  III.  gave  to  the  church  of 
St.  Paul  at  Rome  “  velum  rubeum  quod  pendet 
ante  altare  habens  in  medio  crucem  de  chrysoclavo 
et  periclysin  de  chrysoclavo,”  a  red  veil  which 
hangs  before  the  altar,  having  in  the  middle 
a  cross  of  gold  embroidery  and  a  border 
of  the  same.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  in 
this  and  like  cases  the  veil  was  not  attached  to 
the  altar,  but  hung  before  it  from  the  ciborium 
or  from  arches  or  railings  raised  upon  the  altar 
enclosure.  [A.  N.] 

ANTEEOS,  the  pope,  martyr  at  Rome, 
commemorated  Jan.  3  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Bedae').  [C.] 

ANTHEM.  [Antiphon.] 

ANTHEMIUS,  commemorated  Sept.  26  {Cal. 
Armen.).  [C.] 

ANTHIA,  mother  of  Eleutherius,  comme¬ 
morated  April  18  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ANTHIMUS.  (1)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Nico- 
media,  commemorated  April  27  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.). 

(2)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Rome,  May  11  {Tb. 
et  Bedae). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Aegaea,  Sept.  27  {Mart. 

R.  V.).  [C.] 

ANTHOLOGIUM  {' Av0o\6yiov),  a  compi¬ 
lation  from  the  Paracletice,  Menaea,  and  Horo¬ 
logium,  of  such  portions  of  the  service  as  are  most 
frequently  required  by  ordinary  worshippers.  It 
generally  contains  the  offices  for  the  Festivals  of 
the  Lord,  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  of  the  prin¬ 
cipal  saints  who  have  festivals  (twv  eopra^o- 
[xevav  ayiwv) ;  and  tho.se  ordinary  offices  which 
most  constantly  recur.  (Neale,  Eastern  Church, 
Inti'od.  890.)  This  book,  which  was  intended  to 
be  a  convenient  manual,  has  been  so  swollen  by 
the  zeal  of  successive  editors,  that  it  has  become, 
says  Leo  Allatius,  a  very  monster  of  a  book.  {De 
lAbris  Ecclesiasticis  Graecorum,  p.  89.)  [C.] 

ANTIGONUS,  of  Alexandria,  commemorated 
Feb.  26  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ANTIMENSIUM,  a  consecrated  altar-cloth, 
“cujus  nominis  ratio  haec  est,  quod  ea  adhibeant 
loco  mensae  sive  altaris  ”  (Bona,  De  Rebus  Lit. 
I.  xx.  §  2).  This  seems  the  natural  derivation, 
especially  if,  as  Suidas  says  (in  Suicer’s  Thesaurus 
s.  V.)  the  word  was  a  Latin  one,  meaning  a  table 
placed  before  a  tribunal  {irpb  SiKaarTjp'iov  kci- 
yevy).  Nevertheless,  the  Greeks  always  write 
the  word  avr ifiivaiop,  and  derive  it  from  fxivaos, 
a  canister  (Neale,  Eastern  Church,  Introd.  p.  186). 

These  Antimensia  were,  and  are,  consecrated 
only  at  the  consecration  of  a  church  (Goar’s  Eu- 
chologion,  p.  648),  when  a  piece  of  cloth  large 
enough  to  form  several  antimensia  was  placed  on 
the  altar,  consecrated,  and  aftei’wards  divided 
and  distributed  as  occasion  required.  “  Relics 
being  pounded  up  with  fragrant  gum,  oil  is  poured 
over  them  by  the  bishop,  and,  distilling  on  to  the 
corporals,  is  supposed  to  convey  to  them  the 
mysterious  virtues  of  the  relics  themselves.  The 
Holy  Eucharist  must  then  be  celebrated  on  them 
for  seven  days,  after  which  they  are  sent  forth 
as  they  may  be  wanted  ”  (Neale,  u.  s.  p.  187). 
As  to  the  antiquity  of  these  ceremonies  it  is 
difficult  to  speak  with  certainty. 

Tlieodore  Balsamon  (in  Suicer,  s.  v.)  .says  that 
these  Antimensia  were  for  use  on  the  Tables  of 


92 


ANTIOCH 


ANTIOCH  . 


Oratories  (twp  ev/cTTjpiwi'),  which  were  probably 
for  the  most  part  unconsecrated ;  and  Manuel 
Charitopulus  (in  Bona,  u.  s.)  says  that  they  were 
for  use  in  cases  where  it  was  doubtful  whether  the 
altar  was  consecrated  or  not.  They  were  required 
to  be  sufficiently  large  to  cover  the  spot  occupied 
by  the  paten  and  chalice  at  the  time  of  conse¬ 
cration. 

The  Syrians  do  not  use  these  cloth  antimensia, 
but  in  their  stead  consecrate  slabs  of  wood,  which 
appear  to  be  used  even  on  altars  which  are  con¬ 
secrated  (compare  the  Ethiopia  Area  [Arca]). 
The  Syriac  Nomocanon  quoted  by  Renaudot  (ZjA 
Orient,  i.  182)  in  the  absence  of  an  Antimensium 
of  any  kind  permits  consecration  of  the  Eucharist 
on  a  leaf  of  the  Gospels,  or,  in  the  desert  and  in 
case  of  urgent  necessity,  on  the  hands  of  the 
deacons.  [C.] 

ANTIOCH,  COUNCILS  OF.  Cave  reckons 
only  13  Councils  of  Antioch  between  A.D.  252 
and  800,  at  which  date  the  first  vol.  of  his  Hist. 
Liter  aria  stops  :  Sir  H.  Nicolas  as  many  as  33, 
and  Mansi  nearly  the  same  number.  Numbering 
them,  however,  is  unnecessary,  as  there  are  no 
first,  second,  and  third  Councils  of  Antioch  as  of 
Carthage  and  elsewhere.  They  may  be  set 
down  briefly  in  chronological  order,  only  three 
of  them  requiring  any  special  notice. 

A.D.  252 — under  Fabian,  against  the  followers 
of  Novatus  (Euseb.  vi.  46). 

—  264,  269 — On  their  dates  see  Mansi  i. 
1089-91  :  both  against  Paul  of  Samosata, 
who  was  also  Bishop  of  Antioch  after  De- 
metrian  (Euseb.  vii.  27-9).  For  details, 
see  below. 

—  331 — Of  Arians,  to  depose  Eustathius, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  for  alleged  Sabellianism 
(Soc.  i.  24). 

—  339 — Of  Arians,  to  appoint  Pistus  to  the 
see  of  Alexandria,  to  which  St.  Athanasius 
had  just  been  restored  by  Constantine  the 
younger  (^Life  of  St.  At!ia7iasius  by  his 
Benedictine  editors). 

—  341 — known  as  the  Council  of  the  Dedi¬ 
cation  :  the  bishops  having  met  ostensibly 
to  consecrate  the  great  church  of  the 
metropolis  of  Syria,  called  the  “  Dominicum 
Aureum,”  the  only  council  of  Antioch 
whose  canons  have  been  preserved  (Soc. 
ii.  8).  For  details,  see  below. 

—  345 — Of  Arians  :  when  the  creed  called 
the  “  Macrostiche,”  from  its  length,  was 
put  forth  (Soc.  ii.  18). 

—  348 — Of  Arians :  at  which,  however, 
Stephen,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  himself  an 
Arian,  was  deposed  by  order  of  Constantins 
for  the  monstrous  plot  oi'ganised  by  him 
against  the  deputies  from  Sardica  (New¬ 
man’s  Arians,  iv.  3,  4). 

—  354 — Of  Arians  :  against  St.  Athanasius. 

—  358 — under  Eudoxius  :  rejected  the  words 
Homoousion  and  Ilonioiousion  equally : 
but  “  without  venturing  on  the  distinct 
Anomoean  doctrine  ”  (Newman’s  Arians, 
iv.  4). 

—  361 — To  authorise  the  translation  of  St. 
Meletius  from  Sebaste  to  Antioch.  A 
second  was  held  shortly  afterwards,  by  the 
same  party,  to  expel  him  for  having  made 
proof  of  his  orthodoxy. 

«—  363 — Of  semi-Arians  ;  addressed  a  sy¬ 


nodical  letter  to  the  new  emperor  Jovian, 

as  had  been  done  bv  the  orthodox  at  Alex- 
¥ 

andria.  St.  Meletius  presided,  and  signed 
first  (Soc.  iii.  25). 

A.D.  367 — Creed  of  the  Council  of  the  Dedica¬ 
tion  confirmed. 

—  379 — under  St.  Meletius:  condemned  Mar- 
cellus,  Photinus,  and  Apollinaris.  Ad¬ 
dressed  a  dogmatic  letter  to  St.  Damasus 
and  the  bishops  of  the  West,  who  had  sent 
a  similar  one  to  St.  Paulinus. 

—  380 — For  healing  the  schism  there  :  when 
it  was  agreed  that  whichever  survived — 
St.  Meletius  or  St.  Paulinus — should  be  ac¬ 
cepted  by  all.  Here  the  rSfjLOs  or  synodical 
letter  of  the  Westerns  was  received  (at 
least  so  says  De  Marca,  Explic.  Can.  V. 
Concil.  Const.  A.D.  381,  among  his  Dis¬ 
sertations).  St.  Meletius  signed  first  of  146 
others.  St.  Paulinus,  apparently,  was  not 
present  at  all.  A  meeting  of  Arians  took 

.  place  there  the  same  year  on  the  death  of 
their  bishop  Euzoius,  when  Dorotheus  was 
elected  to  succeed  him  (Soc.  iv.  35,  and 
V.  3  and  5). 

—  389 — To  prevent  the  sons  of  Marcellus, 
Bishop  of  Apamea,  from  avenging  his 
murder  by  the  barbarians. 

—  391 — Against  the  Messalians. 

—  424 — or,  as  Mansi  thinks  (iv.  475)  in  418  : 
at  which  Pelagius  was  condemned. 

—  431 — under  John  of  Antioch,  condemning 
and  deposing  St.  Cyril  and  five  others 
(Mansi,  5,  1147). 

—  432 — under  John  also ;  for  making  peace 
with  St.  Cyril  :  after  which  he  in  this,  or 
another  synod  of  the  same  year,  condemned 
Nestorius  and  his  opinions. 

—  435 — Respecting  the  works  of  Theodorus 
of  Mopsuestia  and  Diodorus  of  Tarsus 
lately  translated  into  Armenian. 

—  440 — On  the  same  subject :  occasioned  by 
a  letter  of  Proclus,  patriarch  of  Constanti¬ 
nople. 

—  445 — under  Domnus  :  in  which  a  Syrian 
bishop  named  Athanasius  was  condemned. 

—  448 — under  Domnus  also :  when  Ibas, 
Bishop  of  Edessa,  was  accused  ;  but  hLs 
accusers  were  excommunicated. 

—  471 — At  which  Peter  the  Fuller  was  de¬ 
posed,  and  Julian  consecrated  in  his  room  ; 
then  Peter,  having  been  restored  by  the 
usurper  Basilicus  in  476,  was  again  ejected 
by  a  synod  in  478  on  the  restoration  of 
Zeno. 

—  482 — At  which  the  appointment  of  Ca- 
lendio  to  that  see  was  confirmed  ;  but  he 
in  turn  was  ejected  by  the  emperor  Zeno 
in  485,  and  Peter  the  Fuller  restored,  who 
thereupon  held  a  synod  there  the  same 
year,  and  condemned  the  4th  Council. 

—  512 — at  which  Severus  was  appointed 
patriarch. 

—  542 — Against  Origen. 

—  560 — under  Anastasius:  condemning  those 
who  opposed  the  4th  Council. 

—  781 — under  Theodoric  :  condemning  the 
Iconoclasts. 

Of  these,  the  two  synods  A.D.  264  and  269 
against  Paul  of  Samosata  were  conspicuous  both 
from  the  fact  that  the  accused  was  bishop  of  the 
city  in  which  they  were  held,  and  from  the  novel 


ANTIOCH 


ANTIPHON 


93 


character  of  their  proceedings.  They  came  to 
the  stern  resolution  of  deposing  him,  yet  had  to 
apply  to  a  pagan  emperor  to  enforce  their  sen¬ 
tence,  who,  strange  to  say,  did  as  they  requested. 
No  such  case  had  occurred  before :  it  was  the 
gravity  of  their  deliberations  and  the  justice  of 
their  decisions  tliat  caused  them  to  be  respected. 
With  the  first  of  them,  as  we  learn  from  Eu¬ 
sebius,  there  were  some  celebrated  names  as¬ 
sociated.  Firmilian,  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappa¬ 
docia,  the  well-kuown  advocate  for  re-baptisiilg  he¬ 
retics  with  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Gregory  the  wonder¬ 
worker,  and  Athenodorus  his  brother,  the  bishops 
of  Tarsus  and  Jerusalem,  and  others.  Dionysius 
of  Alexandria  was  invited,  but  sent  excuses  on 
account  of  his  age ;  declaring  his  sentiments  on 
the  question  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  whole 
diocese,  without  so  much  as  naming  the  accused, 
its  bishop.  Those  who  were  present  exposed  his 
errors  ;  but  Paul,  promising  amendment,  man¬ 
aged  to  cajole  Firmilian,  aud  the  bishops  sepa¬ 
rated  without  passing  sentence.  At  the  second 
council,  having  been  convicted  by  a  presbyter 
uamed  Malchion,  occupying  the  highest  position 
in  the  schools  of  Antioch  as  a  sophist,  he  was 
cut  off  from  the  communion  of  the  Church  ;  and 
a  synodical  letter  was  addressed  in  the  name  of 
those  present,  headed  by  the  bishops  of  Tarsus 
and  Jerusalem — Firmilian  had  died  on  his  road 
to  the  council — and  of  the  neighbouring  churches, 
to  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Alexandria,  and  the 
whole  Church  generally,  setting  forth  all  that 
had  been  done  in  both  synods,  as  well  as  all  the 
false  teaching  and  all  the  strange  practices — so 
much  in  harmony  with  what  is  attributed  to 
the  sophists  of  Athens  in  Plato — for  which  Paul 
had  been  deposed,  also  that  Domnus,  son  of 
Deinetrian,  his  predecessor  in  the  see,  had  been 
elected  in  his  place.*  Still,  condemned  as  he  had 
been,  Paul  held  his  ground  till  the  emperor 
Aurelian,  having  been  besought  to  interfere,  com¬ 
manded  that  “  the  house  in  which  the  bishop 
lived  should  be  given  up  to  those  with  whom 
the  bishops  of  Italy  and  of  the  city  of  Rome  com¬ 
municated  as  regards  dogma.”  This  settled  his 
fate  ouce  for  all. 

The  remaining  council  of  Antioch  to  be  spe¬ 
cially  noticed  is  that  of  the  Dedicatio  A.D.  341. 
It  was  attended  by  90  bishops,  says  St.  Atha¬ 
nasius,  or  by  97  as  St.  Hilary.  Of  these  but  36 
are  said  to  have  been  Arian  :  yet  they  carried 
their  point  through  Constantins  so  far  as  to 
substitute  Eusebius  of  Hems  for  St.  Athanasius, 
and,  on  his  hesitating,  to  get  George  or  Gregory 
of  Cappadocia  sent  out  to  be  put  in  possession  of 
the  see  of  Alexandria  without  delay. 

Not  content  with  this,  they  got  their  12th 
canon  levelled  against  those  who,  having  been 
deposed  in  a  synod,  presume  to  submit  their 
case  to  the  emperor  instead  of  a  larger  synod, 
averring  that  they  deserved  no  pardon,  and 
ought  not  ever  to  be  restored  again.  In  this 
way  the  restoration  of  St.  Athanasius  to  Alex¬ 
andria  by  Constantine  the  younger  was  virtually 
declai'ed  uncanonical  and  his  see  vacant.  To 
this  canon  St.  Chrysostom  afterwards  objected, 
when  it  was  adduced  against  him,  that  it  was 
framed  by  the  Arians.  Lastly,  they  managed  to 
pi'omuigate  four  different  creeds,  all  intended  to 
undermine  that  of  Nicaea.  Yet,  strange  to  say, 
the  25  canons  passed  by  this  council  came  to  be 
among  the  most  respected  of  any,  and  at  length 


admitted  into  the  code  of  the  Universal  Church. 
They  are  termed  by  Pope  Zacharias  “  the  canons 
of  the  blessed  Fathers;”  by  Nicholas  I.  “the 
venerable  and  holy  canons  of  Antioch;”  and  by 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  “  the  just  rules  of  the 
Fathers.”  Hence  some  have  supposed  two 
councils  :  one  of  50  orthodox  bishops,  or  more, 
who  made  the  canons ;  another  of  30  or  40 
Arians,  who  superseded  St.  Athanasius  (Mansi,  ii. 
1305,  note).  But  canon  12  plainly  was  as  much 
directed  against  St.  Athanasius  as  anything  else 
that  was  done  there.  On  the  other  hand,  it  laid 
down  a  true  principle  no  less  than  the  rest ;  and 
this  doubtless  has  been  the  ground  on  which 
they  have  been  so  widely  esteemed.  Among 
them  there  are  five  which  cannot  be  passed  over, 
for  another  reason.  The  9th,  for  distinctly 
proving  the  high  antiquity  of  one  at  least  of  the 
Apostolical  canons,  by  referring  to  it  as  “  tho 
antient  canon  which  was  in  force  in  the  age  of 
our  fathers,”  in  connexion  with  the  special 
honour  now  claimed  for  metropolitans — on  which 
see  Bever.,  Synod,  ii.  ad  loc. — canons  4  and  5,  for 
having  been  cited  in  the  4th  action  of  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  or  rather  read  out  there  by  Aetius, 
Archdeacon  of  Constantinople,  from  a  book  as 
“canons  83  and  84  of  the  holy  Fathers  ;”  and 
likewise  canons  16  and  17,  for  having  been  read 
out  in  the  11th  action  of  the  same  council  bv 
Leontius,  Bishop  of  Magnesia,  from  a  book  as 
“  canons  95  and  96  ;  ”  being  in  each  case  the 
identical  numbers  assigned  to  them  in  the  code  of 
the  Universal  Church,  thus  proving  this  code  to 
have  been  in  existence  and  appealed  to  then,  and 
therefore  making  it  extremely  probable,  to  say 
the  least,  that  when  the  Chalcedonian  bishops  in 
their  first  canon  “  pronounced  it  to  be  fit  and 
just  that  the  canons  of  the  holy  Fathers  made  in 
every  synod  to  this  present  time  be  in  full  force,” 
they  gave  their  authoritative  sanction  to  this 
very  collection.  Hence  a  permanent  and  in¬ 
trinsic  interest  has  been  imparted  to  this  council 
irrespectively  of  the  merits  of  its  own  canons  in 
themselves,  though  thei^  are  few  councils  whose 
enactments  are  marked  throughout  by  so  much 
good  sense.  [E.  S.  F.] 

ANTIPAS,  Bishop  of  Pergamus,  tradition¬ 
ally  the  “  angel  ”  of  that  church  addressed  in 
the  Apocalypse,  commemorated  April  11  (CaL 
Byzant.).  [C.] 

ANTIPHON-^Gr.  'AutI^covov  :  Lat.  Anti- 
phona :  Old  English,  Antefn,  Antem  [Chaucer] : 
Modern  English,  Anthem.  For  the  change  of 
Antefn  into  Antem^  compare  0.  E.  Stefn  [prow] 
with  modern  Stem.  French,  Antienne.')  “  An- 
tiphona  ex  Graeco  interpretatur  vox  recipi'oca  ; 
duobus  scilicet  choris  alternatim  psallentibus 
ordine  commutato.”  (Isidore,  Oriyines  vi.  18.) 

There  are  two  kinds  of  responsive  singing  used 
in  the  Church  ;  the  Responsorial,  when  one  singer 
or  reader  begins,  and  the  whole  choir  answers  in 
the  alternate  verses ;  the  present  Anglican  prac¬ 
tice  when  the  Psalms  are  not  chanted ;  and  the 
Antiphonal  (described  in  Isidore’s  definition)  when 
the  choir  is  divided  into  two  parts  or  sides,  and 
each  part  or  side  sings  alternate  verses.  Of 
these  forms  of  ecclesiastical  chant  we  are  now 
concerned  only  with  the  second,  the  Antiphonal. 
We  shall  endeavour,  as  briefly  as  may  be,  to  men¬ 
tion  (1)  Its  origin.  (2)  The  different  usages  of 
the  term  “Antiphon.”  (3)  Its  application  in  the 


94 


ANTIPHON 


ANTIPHON 


Missal,  and  in  the  Breviary ;  pointing  out  as 
they  occur  any  peculiarity  or  difi’erence  of  usage 
between  the  Eastern  and  the  Western  Churches. 

I.  Its  origin  may  be  found  in  the  Jewish 
Church.  For  we  read  (1  Chron.  vi.  31  &c.),  that 
David  divided  the  Levites  into  three  bands,  and 
“  set  them  over  the  service  of  song  in  the  house 
of  the  Lord,  after  that  the  ark  had  rest.  And 
they  ministered  before  the  dwelling-place  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation  with  singing, 
until  Solomon  had  built  the  house  of  the  Lord  in 
Jerusalem ;  and  then  they  waited  on  their  office 
according  to  their  order.”  It  appears  further 
that  the  sous  of  the  Kohathites,  under  “  Heman  a 
singer”  (v.  33),  stood  in  the  centre  while  the 
Gershomites,  led  by  Asaph,  stood  on  the  right 
hand,  and  the  Merarites,  led  by  Ethan  (or  Jedu- 
thuu),  on  the  left.  These  arrangements,  and  the 
further  details  given  in  1  Chron.  xxv.  clearly 
point  to  some  definite  assignment  of  the  musical 
parts  of  the  tabernacle  and  temple  worship. 
Some  of  the  psalms,  moreover,  as  the  xxiv.  and 
the  cxxxiv.  appear  to  be  composed  for  antiphonal 
singing  by  two  choirs. 

It  appears  on  the  evidence  of  Philo,  that  this 
mode  of  singing  was  practised  by  the  Essenes. 
Speaking  of  them  he  says  :  “  In  the  first  place 
two  choirs  are  constituted  ;  one  of  men,  the  other 
of  women.  They  then  sing  hymns  to  the  praise 
of  God,  composed  in  different  kinds  of  metre  and 
verse — now  with  one  mouth,  now  with  anti¬ 
phonal  hymns  and  harmonies,  leading,  and  direct¬ 
ing:,  and  ruling:  the  choir  with  modulations  of 
the  hands  and  gestures  of  the  body ;  at  one  time 
in  motion,  at  another  stationary ;  turning  in  one 
direction,  and  in  the  reverse,  as  the  case  requires. 
Then,  when  each  choir  by  itself  has  satisfied 
itself  with  these  delights,  they  all,  as  though 
inebriated  with  divine  love,  combine  from  both 
choirs  into  one.” 

Pliny  appears  to  allude  to  antiphonal  chanting 
when,  in  a  well-known  passage  (Epist.  x.  97),  he 
saj’-s  that  the  Christians  sing  a  hymn  to  Christ 
as  God,  “  by  turns  aifiong  themselves  ”  (secum 
invicem). 

The  introduction  of  antiphonal  singing  among 
the  Greeks  is  ascribed  by  an  ancient  tradition  to 
Ignatius  of  Antioch  (Socrates,  Eccl.  Hist.  vi.  8), 
who  saw  a  vision  of  antiphonal  chanting  in 
heaven.  And  this  tradition  probably  represents 
the  fact,  that  this  manner  of  singing  was  early 
introduced  into  Antioch,  and  spread  thence  over 
the  Eastern  Church. 

We  learn  from  S.  Basil  that  it  was  general  in 
his  time.  He  says  (^Ep.  ccvii.  ad  Cleric.  Neo- 
caesar.)  prefacing  that  what  he  is  going  to  speak 
of  are  the  received  institutions  in  all  the  churches 
(ra  vvv  KeKpaTriK6Ta  €07}  irdcrais  'rats  rov  &€ou 
eKK\T](r'iais  (rvi^cpda  icrri  Kal  (rvfKpuya),  “  that  the 
people,  I’esorting  by  night  to  the  house  of  prayer 

. at  length,  rising  from  prayer,  betake 

themselves  to  psalmody.  And  now,  divided  into 
two  parts,  they  sing  alternately  to  each  other 
Siauep-TjOfVTes,  avTi^dWovaiv  dWr)Kois  .  .). 
Afterwai’ds  they  commit  the  leading  of  the 
melody  to  one,  and  the  rest  follow  him.” 

Theodoret  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  19)  ascribes  the 
introduction  of  antiphonal  singing  to  Flavian 
and  Diodorus,  who,  while  still  laymen,  he  says, 
were  the  first  to  divide  the  choirs  of  singers  into 
two  parts,  and  teach  them  to  sing  the  songs  of 
David  alternately  (ovroi  TtpSiroi,  ^iXV  SteXdyres 


rovs  tS>u  rpaWdyruy  x^povs,  4k  SiaSoxrjs  dS(i$ 
rrju  Aavi5iKT)u  edida^ou  p.fKcpSiav'),  and  then  he 
adds  that  this  custom,  which  thu.s  took  its  rise  at 
Antioch,  spread  thence  in  every  direction. 

In  the  Western  Church  the  introduction  of 
Antiphonal  singing  after  the  manner  of  the  Ori¬ 
entals  (secundum  morem  Orientalium),  is  attri¬ 
buted  to  S.  Ambrose,  as  S.  Augustine  says 
(Confess,  ix.  c.  7,  §  15),  and  he  gives  as  a  reason, 
that  the  people  should  not  become  weary. 

A  passage,  indeed,  is  adduced  from  Tertullian 
(ad  Uxor,  ii.),  from  which  it  is  argued  that  the 
practice  of  alternate  singing  was  in  vogue  before 
the  time  of  S.  Ambrose.  It  has  also  been  con¬ 
tended  that  Pope  Damasus,  or  again  Caelestiue, 
was  its  originator  in  the  Western  Church.  As 
these  opinions  do  not  seem  to  be  generally  adopted, 
and  as  the  arguments  by  which  they  are  sup¬ 
ported  may  easily  admit  of  another  interpreta¬ 
tion,  it  does  not  appear  to  be  necessary  to  occupy 
space  by  discussing  them  here. 

II.  The  word  Antiphon,  however,  has  been 
used  in  several  ditferent  senses. 

1.  Sometimes  it  appears  to  denote  the  psalms 
or  hymns  themselves,  which  were  sung  anti- 
phonally.  Thus  Socrates  (Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  8)  calls 
certain  hymns  which  were  thus  sung  “Anti- 
phonas.”  When  the  word  is  used  in  this  sense 
there  is  generally  a  contrast  expressed  or  implied 
with  a  “psalmus  directus,”  or  “  directaneus.” 
“  Psallere  cum  antiphona”  is  a  phrase  much 
used  in  this  connexion,  to  which  “  psallere  in 
directum”  is  opposed.  Thus  S.  Aurelian  in  the 
order  for  psalmody  of  his  rule,  “  Dicite  Matu- 
tinarios,  id  est  primo  canticum  in  antiphona : 
deinde  directaneum,  Judica  me  Deus.  ...  in 
antiphond  dicite  hymnum.  Splendor  paternae 
gloriae.”  It  is  not  quite  certain  what  is  meant 
by  these  two  expressions ;  the  general  opinion  is 
that  “  psallere  cum  (or  in)  antiphona,”  means  to 
sing  alternately  with  the  two  sides  of  the  choir ; 
and  “psallere  directaneum”  to  sing  either  with 
the  whole  choir  united,  or  else  for  one  chanter  to 
sing  while  the  rest  listened  in  silence  (this  latter 
mode  of  singing,  however,  is  what  is  usually 
denoted  bj’’  “  tractus ;”)  while  some  think  that 
“  psallere  in  ”  or  “  cum  antiphona”  means  to  sing 
with  modulation  of  the  voice  ;  and  that  “  psallere 
directaneum”  denotes  plain  recitation  without 
musical  intonation.  Thus  Cassian  (De  Instit. 
Coenob.  ii.  2),  speaking  of  psalms  to  be  sung  in 
the  night  office,  says,  “  et  hos  ipsos  antiphonarura 
protelatos  melodiis,  et  adjunct ione  quarumdam 
modulationum and  S.  Benedict  directs  that 
some  psalms  should  be  said  “  in  directum,”  but 
many  more  “  modulatis  vocibus.”  A  third 
opinion  is  that  “psallere  cum  antiphona”  means 
to  sing  psalms  with  certain  sentences  inserted 
between  the  verses,  which  sentences  were  called 
antiphons,  from  thefr  being  sung  alternately 
with  the  verses  of  the  psalm  itself.  Of  this 
method  of  singing  we  shall  speak  more  fully 
presently.  In  opposition  to  this  sense,  “  psallere 
directum”  would  mean  to  sing  a  psalm  straight 
through  without  any  antiphon ;  and  it  may  be 
remarked  that  the  “  psalmus  directus,”  said  daily 
at  Lauds,  in  the  Ambrosian  office,  has  no  Anti¬ 
phon.  The  expression  “  oratio  recta”  seems  also 
to  be  used  in  much  the  same  sense. 

2.  The  word  Antiphona*  is  also  used  to  denote 


•  “A  distinction  is  made  by  llturgi('.al  writers  between 


ANTIPHON 


ANTIPHON 


95 


a  sacred  composition,  or  compilation  of  verses 
from  the  Psalms,  or  sometimes  from  other  parts 
of  Scripture,  or  several  consecutive  verses  of  the 
same  psalm  appropriate  to  a  special  subject  or 
festival.  This  was  sung  by  one  choir,  and  after 
each  verse  an  unvarying  response  was  made  by 
the  opposite  choir ;  whence  the  name. 

Compilations  of  this  nature  are  to  be  found  in 
the  old  office  books,  e.g.,  in  the  Mozarabic  office 
for  the  dead,  where,  however,  they  are  called  “  a 
Psalm  of  David,”  as  being  said  in  the  place  of 
psalms  in  the  Nocturns  ;  and  they  have  this  pecu¬ 
liarity,  that  each  verse  (with  very  few  excep¬ 
tions)  begins  with  the  same  word.  Thus  the 
verses  of  one  such  “psalm”  all  begin  with  “Ad 
te ;”  those  of  another  with  “  Miserere ;”  of 
another  with  “Libera;”  of  another  with  “  Tu 
Domine,”  and  so  on.  Thev  are  also  found  in  the 
Ambrosian  burial  offices,  where  they  are  called 
Antiphonae,  each  verse  being  considered  as  a 
separate  Antiphon,  and  are  headed  Antiph.  i. 
Antiph.  ii.  and  so  on.  The  Canticles,  which  were 
appointed  to  be  said  instead  of  the  “  Venite”  in 
the  English  state  services,  there  called  “  hymns,” 
and  directed  to  be  said  or  sung  “  one  verse  by 
the  Priest,  and  another  by  the  Clerk  and  people  ” 
(L  e.  antiphonally),  are  of  this  nature. 

3.  The  word  “  Antiphona”  denotes  (and  this 
is  the  sense  in  which  we  ai‘e  most  familiar  with 
its  use),  a  sentence  usually,  but  by  no  means 
invariably,  taken  from  the  psalm  itself,  and  ori¬ 
ginally  intercalated  between  each  verse  of  a  psalm, 
but  which,  in  process  of  time,  came  to  be  sung, 
wholly  or  in  part,  at  the  beginning  and  end  only. 
We  shall  speak  more  at  length  on  this  head  pre¬ 
sently. 

4.  The  word  “Antiphona”  came  to  denote 
such  a  sentence  taken  by  itself,  and  sung  alone 
without  connexion  with  any  psalm.  These  Anti¬ 
phons  were  frequently  original  compositions. 
(We  thus  arrive  at  our  common  use  of  the  word 
anthem  as  part  of  an  Anglican  choral  service.) 
Antiphons  of  this  description  are  of  common 
occurrence  in  the  Greek  offices. 

As  an  example  take  the  following  from  the 
office  for  the  taking  the  greater  monastic  habit 
(too  iJL€yd\ov  o'x'^/iaTos).  In  the  Liturgy,  after 
the  entrance  of  the  Gospels,  the  following  Anti¬ 
phons  (’AvTt^coj'a)  are  said  : — 

Ant.  1.  “Would  that  I  could  wipe  out  with  tears  the 
handwriting  of  my  offences,  0  Lord :  and  please  Thee  by 
repentance  for  the  remainder  of  my  life :  but  the  enemy 
deceives  me,  and  wars  against  my  soul.  0  Lord,  before  1 
finally  perish,  save  me. 

"  Who  that  is  tossed  by  storms,  and  makes  for  it,  docs 
not  find  safety  in  this  port?  Or  who  that  is  tormented 
with  pain  and  falls  down  before  it,  does  not  find  a  cure  in 
this  place  of  healing?  0  thou  Creator  of  all  men,  and 
physician  of  the  sick,  0  Lord,  before  1  finally  perish, 
save  me. 

“  I  am  a  sheep  of  Thy  rational  flock ;  and  I  flee  to  Thee, 
the  good  Shepherd ;  save  me  the  wanderer  from  Thy  fuld, 
0  God,  and  have  mercy  on  me.” 

Then  follows  “  Gloria  Patri  ”  and  a  “  Theoto- 
kion,”  which  is  a  short  Antiphon  or  invocation 
addressed  to  the  B.V.M.  as  “Theotokos.”  Then 
Antiphon  ii.,  after  the  model  of  the  first,  but  in 

antiphona,  and  antiphonum,  the  neuter  form  denoting 
antiphons  of  the  nature  here  described;  and  the  feminine 
a  sentence  or  modulation  sung  as  a  prefix  or  adjunct  to  a 
given  psalm  ‘  quasi  ex  opposite  respondens.’  ” — Goar,  Euch. 
p.  123. 


two  clauses  only.  So  after  another  “  Gloria  ” 
and  “  Theotokion,”  Antiphon  iii.  in  one  clause. 

III.  We  shall  now  refer  to  the  principal  uses 
of  Antiphons  in  the  services  of  the  Church. 

1st.  In  the  Liturgy,  or  office  of  the  Mass. 

We  will  take  the  Greek  offices  first.  In  these 
(and  we  will  confine  ourselves  to  the  two  Litur¬ 
gies  of  SS.  Basil  and  Chrysostom)  before  the  lesser 
entrance  (i.e.  that  of  the  Gospels)  3  psalms,  or 
parts  of  psalms  are  song  with  a  constant  re¬ 
sponse  after  each  verse.  These  are  called  re¬ 
spectively  the  1st,  2nd,  and  3rd  Antiphon,  and 
each  is  preceded  by  a  prayer,  which  is  called  tho 
prayer  of  the  1st,  2nd,  and  3rd  Antiphon  respec¬ 
tively. 

The  Greek  liturgical  Antiphons  consist  each  of 
four  versicles  with  its  response,  though  occasion¬ 
ally,  as  on  Christmas  Day,  the  third  Antiphon 
has  but  three ;  that  “  Gloria  Patri  ”  is  said  after 
the  first  and  second  Antiphons,  but  not  after  the 
third.  (This  is  doubtless  because  the  office  passes 
on  immediately  after  the  third  Antiphon  to  other 
singing  with  which  we  are  not  now  concerned.) 
In  the  first  Antiphon  the  antiphonal  response 
is  always  the  same,  and  is  that  given  in  the 
cases  quoted  ;  in  the  second  it  varies  with  the 
day  to  the  solemnity  of  which  it  has  reference ; 
it  always  begins  with  the  words  “  Save  us,”  and 
ends  with  “  Who  sing  to  Thee,  Alleluia  ”  (cSxtov 
^fxds  .  .  .  rpaWovTas  <Toi  ’A\\T]\ov'ia)’,  in  the 
third  it  varies  likewise  with  the  day,  but  is  not 
of  so  uniform  a  type.  It  is,  as  a  rule,  the  same 
as  the  “  Apolyticon,”  an  Anthem  which  is  sung 
near  the  end  of  the  preceding  vespers.  That 
after  the  “  Gloria  ”  in  the  second  Antiphon,  in¬ 
stead  of  repeating  the  proper  response  of  the 
Antiphon  “  0  only  begotten  Son  and  Word  of 
God,”  &c.,  is  sung  as  a  response.  (This  invoca¬ 
tion  occurs  in  the  office  of  the  “  Typics.”) 

Other  compositions,  which  are  virtually  Anti¬ 
phons,  are  found  in  Greek  offices,  and  will  be 
spoken  of  under  their  proper  heads  ;  see  Conta-  ' 
KiON,  Theotokion. 

We  turn  now  to  the  Liturgies  of  the  Western 
Church. 

The  three  Antiphons  of  the  Greek  Liturgies 
correspond  both  in  structure  and  position  with 
the  single  Antiphon  of  the  Western  Church. 
The  chant  which  the  Church  uses  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  Mass  is  commonly  called  “  Introitus,” 
or  “  Antiphona  ad  Introitum,”  from  its  being 
sung  Antiphonally  when  the  priest  enters  upon 
the  service,  or  mounts  to  the  altar;  for  both  ex¬ 
planations  ai’e  given  [Introit].  It  still  retains 
its  name  of  “  Introitus  ”  in  the  Roman  missal ; 
and  the  word  “  Introit  ”  is  frequently  used  among 
ourselves  at  the  present  day  with  a  similar  mean¬ 
ing. 

In  the  Ambrosian  Liturgy  the  corresponding 
Antiphon  was  called  “  Ingressa  ”  for  the  same 
reason  ;  while  in  the  Mozarabic  and  Sarum  Litur¬ 
gies  it  was  called  “  Officium.”  In  the  Galilean 
rite  it  was  called  “Antiphona”  or  “Antiphona 
ad  praelegendum,”  or  “  de  praelegere.” 

The  institution  of  the  Antiphon  at  the  Introit 
is  almost  universally  ascribed  to  S.  Caelestine, 
who  w'as  Pope  a.D.  422,  and  who  is  said  to  have 
borrowed  this  kind  of  singing  from  S.  Ambrose, 
and  to  have  appointed  that  the  cl.  psalms  of 
David  .should  be  sung  antiphonally  before  the 
Sacrifice,  which  was  not  done  previously,  but 
only  tho  Epistles  of  S.  Paul  and  the  Gospel 


96 


ANTIPHON 


ANTIPHON 


were  read,  and  thus  the  Mass  was  conducted.*’ 
In  the  account  given  by  S.  Augustine  {de  Civ. 
Dei,  xxii.  8  sub  fin.')  of  a  Mass  which  he  cele¬ 
brated,  A.D.  425,  there  is  no  mention  of  such  an 
Introit.  After  speaking  of  certain  preliminary 
thanksgivings  (as  we  should  say  occasional)  for 
a  i-ecent  miracle,  he  says,  “  I  saluted  the  people  ” 
.  .  .  when  silence  was  at  length  established,  the 
appointed  lections  of  Holy  Scripture  were  read 
as  though  that  was  the  bbginuing  of  the  Mass. 

It  seems,  however,  doubtful  what  we  are  to 
understand  by  the  singing  of  Psalms  thus  insti¬ 
tuted  by  Caelestine  — whether  an  entire  Psalm, 
varying  with  the  office,  was  sung,  or  only  cer¬ 
tain  verses  taken  from  the  Psalms,  and  used  as 
an  Antiphon.  The  former  opinion  is  held  by 
Honorius  (Gemraa  animae,  87),  who  says  that 

Caelestine  appointed  Psalms  to  be  sung  at  the 
Introit  of  the  Mass,  from  which  (de  quibus) 
Gregory  the  Pope  afterwards  composed  Anti¬ 
phons  for  the  Introit  of  the  Mass  with  musical 
notations  (modulando  composuit.)”  Also  by 
Priscus  in  his  “  Acts  of  the  Popes,”  and  by  Cardi¬ 
nal  Bona, 

The  latter  opinion  is  held  by  Micrologus 
(cap.  i.),  and  by  Amalarius  (Jde  Eccl.  Off.  iii. 
5),  who,  in  explaining  this  addition  of  Caeles- 
tine’s,  says,  “  Which  we  understand  to  mean 
that  he  selected  Antiphons  out  of  all  the  Psalms, 
to  be  sung  in  the  office  of  the  Mass.  For  previ¬ 
ously  the  Mass  began  with  a  lection,  which  cus¬ 
tom  is  still  retained  in  the  ‘vigils  of  Easter  and 
Pentecost.” 

It  has  again  been  argued  with  much  force  that 
it  was  customary  to  sing  Antiphons  taken  from 
the  Psalms  at  the  Mass  before  the  time  of  Caeles¬ 
tine. S,  Ambrose  (jie  Myst.  cap.  8)  and  the 
writer  de  Sacr.  (iv.  2)  speak  as  though  the  use 
of  the  verse  “  Introibo,”  &c,,  at  the  Introit  were 
familiar.  So,  too,  Gregory  Nazian.  says.  When 
he  (the  priest)  is  vested,  he  comes  to  the  altar 
saying  the  Antiphon  “  I  will  go  unto  the  altar  of 
God  ”  (Introibo  ad  altare  Dei).  It  is  also  noticeable 
that  some  of  the  verses  said  to  have  been  used  as 
Antiphons  in  early  times  differ  somewhat  from 
Jerome’s  version.  This  is  sti-ong  evidence  that 
the  use  of  Antiphons  at  the  Introit  was  anterior 
to  the  time  of  Caelestine.  However  this  may 
be,  Caelestine  may  well  have  so  organized  or 
.altered,  or  developed  the  custom,  as  to  be  called 
its  inventor.  And  on  the  whole  the  more  pro¬ 
bable  opinion  seems  to  be  that  he  appointed  en¬ 
tire  Psalms  to  be  sung  before  the  Mass  and  that 
afterwards  Gregory  the  Great  selected  from  them 
verses  as  an  Antiphon  for  the  “  Introit,”  and 
oth-ers  for  the  “  Responsory,”  **  “  Offertory,”  and 
“  Communion,”  which  he  collected  into  the  book 
which  he  called  his  Antiphonary.  In  support  of 
this  view  it  may  be  observed  that  the  Respon¬ 
sory  &c.  (which  are  really  Antiphons,  though 
the  Introit  soon  monopolized  that  name)  are 
often  taken  from  the  same  Psalm  as  the  Introit. 

The  form  of  the  Antiphon  at  the  Introit  was 
as  follows.  After  the  Introit,  properly  so  called, 
a  psalm  was  sung,  originally  entire,  but  after- 

b  Liber  pontificaJis  in  vita  S.  Caelestini.  See  also  the 
Catalogue  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  April,  vol.  i.  (Henschen 
and  Papebroch). 

c  Vide  Radulph.  Tungrens,  De  Can.  Observ.  prop.  23. 
Cassian,  Tnstit.  iii.  11. 

d  Afterwards  known  as  the  “Gradual.”  In  the  Anti¬ 
phonary  it  is  called  “  Responsorium  gradale." 


wards  a  single  verse  with  “Gloria  Patri.”  The 
Introit  was  then  repeated,  and  some  churches 
used  to  sing  it  three  times  on  the  more  solemn 
days. 

The  Introit  in  the  Antiphonary  of  S.  Gregory 
is  taken  from  the  Psalms,  with  a  few  exceptions, 
which  Durandus  (^Rat.  iv.  5)  calls  “  Irregular 
Introits.”  These  Introits,  taken  from  other  parts 
of  Scripture,  are  in  all  cases  followed  by  their 
appointed  “  Psalmus.”  There  are  also  a  few  In¬ 
troits  which  are  not  taken  from  any  part  of 
Scripture.  Such  is  that  for  Trinity  Sunday  in 
the  Roman  and  Sarum  missals. 

“  Blessed  be  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  the  undivided 
Unity ;  we  will  give  thanks  to  It,  for  It  has  dealt  merci¬ 
fully  with  us.” 

And  that  for  All-Saints  Day  in  the  same  Missal. 

“  Let  us  all  rejoice  celebrating  the  festival  in  honour 
of  all  the  Saints,  over  whose  solemnity  the  angels  rejoice, 
and  join  in  praising  the  Son  of  God.” 

These  non-script  ural  Introits,  however,  are 
mostly,  as  will  be  observed,  for  festivals  of  later 
date,  and  are  not  found  in  Gregory’s  Antiphonary. 
A  metrical  Introit  is  sometimes  found.  Thus 
in  the  Roman  Missal  in  Masses,  “  in  Coinmemora- 
tione  B.V.M.,  a  purif.  usque  ad  pasch.”  the 
Introit  is : — 

Salve,  sancta  Parens,  enixa  puerpera  Regem, 

Qui  coelum  terramque  regit  in  secula  seculorum.e 
Psalmus. — Virgo  Dei  genetrix,  quern  totus  non  capit  orbis 
In  tua  se  clausit  viscera  factus  homo. 

Gloria  Patri. 

Here  the  “  Psalmus  ”  is  not  from  the  Psalms, 
which  is  very  unusual,  though  this  is  not  a  soli¬ 
tary  case.  That  of  Trinity  Sunday  is  another. 
The  lines  are  the  beginning  of  an  old  hymn  to 
the  Virgin,  which  is  used  in  her  office  in  various 
Breviaries. 

The  different  Sundays  were  often  popularly 
distinguished  by  the  fii'st  word  of  their  “  Officium,” 
or  “  Introitus.”  Thus,  the  first  four  Sundays  in 
Lent  were  severally  known  as,  “  Invocavit,” 
“  Reminiscere,”  “  Oculi,”  “  Laetare.”  Low  Sun¬ 
day  as  “  Quasimodo,”  and  so  in  other  cases. 
So  too  we  find  week  days  designated,  i.e.  Wednes¬ 
day  in  the  third  week  in  Lent  called  in  Missals, 
“  Feria  quarta  post  Oculi.''  In  rubrical  direc¬ 
tions  this  nomenclature  is  very  frequent. 

The  Ambrosian  “  Ingressa  ”  consists  of  one  un¬ 
broken  sentence,  usually  but  by  no  means  always, 
taken  from  Scripture,  and  not  followed  by  a 
“  Psalmus,”  or  the  “Gloria  Patri.”  It  is  often 
the  same  as  the  Roman  “Officium.”  It  is  never 
repeated  except  in  Masses  of  the  Dead,  when  its 
form  approaches  very  nearly  to  that  of  the  Ro¬ 
man  “Introitus.” 

The  form  of  the  Mozarabic  “  Officium  ”  though 
closely  approaching  that  of  the  Roman  “  In¬ 
troitus  ”  differs  somewhat  from  it.  The  Anti¬ 
phon  is  followed  by  a  “  versus,”  corresponding  to 
the  Roman  “Psalmus,”  with  the  “Gloria  Patri,” 
before  and  after  which  the  second  clause  alone  of 
the  Antiphon  is  repeated.^ 

Durandus  (^Rat.  lib.  iv.  cap.  5)  and  Beleth  (^De 
Div.  Off.  cap.  35)  state  that  in  their  time  a 
Tropus  "was  sung,  in  some  churches,  on  the  more 
solemn  days  before  the  Antiphon. 

e  The  line  is  thus  given  in  the  Roman  and  Sarum 
jMissals.  It  was  probably  read  “  in  secla  sSclorum.” 

^  This  is  the  Roman  manner  of  repeating  the  “Re- 
sponsorles  ’  at  Matina. 


ANTIPHON 


ANTIPHON 


97 


We  now  come  to  that  use  of  Antiphons  with  | 
which  we  are  pi'obably  most  familial* — as  sung 
as  an  accompaniment  to  Psalms  and  Canticles. 
In  general  terms  an  Antiphon  in  this  sense  is 
a  sentence  which  precedes  a  Psalm  or  Canticle  to 
the  musical  tone  of  which  the  whole  Psalm  or 
Canticle  is  sung,  in  alternate  verses  by  the  oppo¬ 
site  sides  of  the  choir  jvhich  at  the  end  unite  in 
repeating  the  Antiphon.  This  sentence  is  usually, 
but  by  no  means  univei’sally,  taken  from  the 
Psalm  itself,  and  it  varies  with  the  day  and 
occasion.  Originally  the  Psalm  was  said  by  one 
choir,  and  the  Antiphon  was  intercalated  between 
each  verse  by  the  opposite  choir :  whence  the 
name.  Ps.  136  (Confitemini)  and  the  Canticle 
“  Benedicite  ”  are  obvious  examples  of  this 
method  of  singing.  Indeed  in  Ps.  135  (v.  10-12) 
we  have  very  nearly  the  same  words,  without 
what  we  may  call  the  Antiphon  (“for  His  mercy 
endureth  for  ever”),  which  occur  in  ft.  136  with 
that  Antiphon  inserted  after  each,  clause,  and 
the  “  Benedicite  ”  is  often  recited  without  the 
repetition  of  its  Antiphon  after  every  verse.? 
Pss.  42  and  43  (^Quemadrnodum  and  Judica),  80 
(Q«t  regis  Israel),  and  107  (^Confitemini)  will  at 
once  suggest  themselves  as  containing  an  Anti- 
phonal  verse  which  is  repeated  at  intervals. 

There  are  many  examples  of  this  earlier  use  of 
Antiphons  in  the  Greek  Services.  For  instance : 
at  Vespers  on  the  “Great  Sabbath”  (t.  e.  Easter 
Eve),  Ps.  82  (Beus  stetit)  is  said  with  the  last 
verse,  “Arise,  0  God,  and  judge  Thou  the  earth, 
for  Thou  shalt  take  all  heathen  to  Thine  inheri¬ 
tance,”  repeated  with  beautiful  application,  as  an 
Antiphon  between  each  verse. 

Again,  in  the  Office  for  the  Burial  of  a  Priest, 
Pss.  23  (^Dominus  regit  me),  24  (^Domini  est 
terra),  84  ( Quam  dilecta),  are  said  with  “Alleluia, 
Alleluia,”  repeated  as  an  Antiphon  between 
each  verse.  Here  the  three  Psalms  are  called 
respectively  the  first,  second,  and  third  Anti¬ 
phons. 

It  appears  that  in  the  Roman  Church  the  same 
custom  of  repeating  the  Antiphon  after  each 
verse  of  the  Psalm  originally  prevailed.  In  an 
old  mass,  edited  by  Menard,  in  the  Appendix  to 
the  Sacramentary  of  S.  Gregory,  we  read,  “  An- 
nuente  Episcopo,  incipiatur  psalmus  a  Cantore, 
cum  Introitu  reciprocante.”  * 

Amalarius,  too  {Be  Ordine  Antiphonarii,  cap. 
iii.),  speaking  of  the  Nocturns  of  weekdays,  has 
the  words,  “  Ex  senis  Antiphonis  quas  vicissim 
chori  per  singulos  versus  repetunt.”  We  have 
evidence  that  this  custom  W’as  not  obsolete  (in 
places  at  least)  as  late  as  the  10th  century,  in  the 
life  of  Odo,  Abbot  of  Cluny,  where  we  are  told 
that  the  monks  of  that  house,  wishing  to  pro¬ 
long  the  office  of  the  Vigils  of  S.  Martin  (Nov. 
11),  when  the  Antiphons  of  the  office  are  short,*' 


8  E.g.  in  the  Lauds  of  the  Ambrosian  Breviary,  and  in 
a  still  more  compressed  form  in  the  Mozarabic  Lauds ; 
where  the  word  "  Benedicite  ’’  is  omitted  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  each  verse  after  the  first.. 

The  use  of  “  Alleluia  ”  on  this  and  on  similar  occa¬ 
sions  of  mourning  (e.g.  during  Lent)  is  different  from  the 
usage  of  the  Western  Church. 

»  This  seems  to  point  more  to  the  mode  of  singing  the 
Introit  than  Psalms  in  the  daily  office. 

The  circumstance  of  their  frequent  repartition  has 
been  sus:ge.sted  as  a  reason  why  the  Antiphons  to  the 
Psalms  in  the  daily  office  are,  as  a  rule,  so  much  shorter 
than  that  at  the  Introit  of  the  Mass, 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


I  and  the  nights  long,  till  daybreak,  used  to  repeat 
every  Antiphon  after  each  verse  of  the  Psalms, 
We  find  also,  m  a  letter  by  an'anonymous  author 
to  Batheric,  who  was  appointed  Bishop  of 
Ratisbon,  A.D.  814  (quoted  by  Thomasius),  the 
writer  complaining  that  he  has  in  the  cour.se  of 
his  travels  found  some  who,  with  a  view  to  "get 
through  the  office  as  rapidly  as  possible,  that 
they  may  the  quicker  return  to  their  worldly 
business,  recite  it  “  without  Antiphons,  in  a 
perfunctory  manner  and  with  all  haste  ”  (“  sine 
Antiphonis,  cursim,  et  cum  omni  velocitate  ”  ). 
Theodoret  also  I’elates  (^Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  10)  that 
Christians,  in  detestation  of  the  impiety  of 
Julian,  when  singing  the  hymns  of  David,  added 
to  each  verse  the  clause,  “  Confounded  be  all  they 
that  worship  carved  images.”  / 

A  familiar  instance  of  this  older  use  of  an 
Antiphon  is  found  in  the  “  Reproaches  ”  (“  versi- 
culi  improper ii  ”  or  “  improperia  ”)  of  the 
Roman  Missal  for  Good  Friday. 

These  are  Gregorian :  the  introductory  rubric 
as  it  stands  in  the  Roman  Missal  is  cited,  as  it  is 
so  precise  as  to  the  manner  of  singing  them.  It 
runs  thus:  “Vei'siculi  sequentes  improperii  a 
binis  alternatim  cantantur,  utrosque  choro  simul 
repetente  post  quemlibet  versum  Popule,  &c.” 

Sometimes  metrical  hymns  were  sung  anti- 
phonally  after  this  manner.  Thus  at  the  “  Salu¬ 
tation  of  the  Cross”  the  verse  of  the  hymn 
“  Pange  lingua,”  which  begins  “  Crux  fidelis,”  is 
sung  in  the  Sarum  rite  at  the  beginning,  and 
after  every  Averse  of  the  hymn,  the  rubric  being — • 

“  Chorus  idem  repetat  post  unumquemque  versum. 
“Crux  fidelis  inter  omnes,”  &c. 

(.  .  .  Sacerdotes  can  tent  hunc  rersum  seqiientem.) 

“  Pange  lingua  gloriosi  proelium  certaminis,”  &c. 

Chorus — *‘  Crux  fidelis,”  &c. 

And  so  on.  So  also  before  the  Benediction  of 
the  Paschal  Candles  on  Easter  Eve,  according 
to  the  Sarum  rite,  the  hymn  “  Inverdor  rutili  ” 
is  sung  in  the  same  manner,  with  the  first  stanza 
repeated  antiphonally  after  each  stanza. 

A  variation  of  this  form  of  antiphonal  inter¬ 
polation  is  when  the  interpolated  clause  itself 
varies.  The  following  is  a  striking  example  : — 
On  the  morning  of  Easter  Eve  in  the  Greek 
office,  the  following  Antiphons  (rpoirdpia)  are 
said  with  Ps.  119,  “saying”  (as  the  rubric 
directs)  “one  verse  (crrlxov)  from  the  Psalm 
after  each  troparium.”  These  are  known  as  to 
iyKu>p.ia. 

“  Blessed  art  Thou,  0  Lord,  0  teach  me  Thy  statutes. 
Blessed  are  those  that  are  undefiled  in  the  way,  and  walk 
in  the  law  of  the  Lord.” 

“Thou,  0  Christ,  the  Life,  wast  laid  low  in  the 
grave,  and  the  angelic  hosts  were  amazed,  glorifying 
Thy  condescension.” 

“  Blessed  are  they  that  keep  His  testimonies,  and  seek 
Him  with  their  whole  heart,” 

"0  Life,  how  is  it  that  Thou  dost  die?  How  is  it 
that  Thou  dost  dwell  in  the  grave  ?  Thou  payest  the 
tribute  of  death,  and  raiscst  the  dead  out  of  Hades.” 
“For  they  w'ho  do  no  wickedness  walk  in  His  ways.” 

“  We  magnify  Thee,  0  Jesu  the  King,  and  honour 
Thy  burial,  and  Thy  passion,  by  which  Thou  hast  saved 
us  from  destruction.” 

And  so  on  throughout  the  whole  Psalm. 

In  the  same  manner  at  the  burial  of  monks, 
the  blessings  at  the  beginning  of  the  Sermon  on 

“  The  rubrical  directions  with  respect  to  the  ‘‘Impro* 
perla  ”  in  the  Mozarabic  Missal  are  very  full. 


98 


ANTIPHON 


ANTIPHON 


the  Mount  (oi  fiaKapiaixoi)  are  recited  with  a 
varying  antiphonal  clause  after  each,  beginning 
from  the  fifth. 

As  an  example  from  the  Western  Church,  we 
may  refer  to  the  following,  which  belongs  to 
Vespers  on  Easter  Eve.  It  is  given  in  S.  Gre¬ 
gory’s  Antiphonary,  with  the  heading  Antiph.  and 
Ps.  to  the  alternate  verses. 

Antiph.  “  In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawn 
towards  the  first  day  of  the  week,  came  Mary  Magdalene, 
and  the  other  Mary  to  see  the  sepulchre.”  Alleluia. 

Pa.  “  My  soul  doth  magnify  the  Lord.” 

Antiph.  “  And  behold,  there  was  a  great  earthquake,  for 
the  angel  of  the  Lord  descended  from  heaven.”  Alleluia. 

I’s.  “  And  my  spirit  hath  rejoiced  in  God  my  Saviour.” 

And  so  the  Magnificat  is  sung  with  the  suc¬ 
cessive  clauses  of  the  Gospel  for  the  day  used  as 
Antiphons  after  each  of  its  verses. 

The  missal  Litanies  which  are  said  in  the  Am¬ 
brosian  Mass  on  Sundays  in  Lent,  and  the  very 
beautiful  Preces  with  which  the  Mozarabic 
Missal  and  Breviary  abounds,  are  so  far  anti¬ 
phonal  that  each  petition  is  followed  by  an  un¬ 
varying  response.  Their  consideration,  however 
interesting,  scarcely  belongs  to  our  present 
subject. 

The  repetition  of  the  Antiphon  after  each 
verse  was  called  “  Antiphonare.”  In  the  old 
Antiphonai'ies  we  frequently  find  such  directions 
as  “  Hoc  die  Antiphonamus  ad  Bemdictus^’’  or 
simply  “  Hoc  die  antiphonamus.”  The  word 
“  antiphonare  ”  is  explained  to  mean  to  repeat 
the  Antiphon  after  each  verse  of  the  Canticle. 
The  “  Greater  Antiphons  ”  {i.  e.  “  0  Sapientia,” 
&c.)  are  directed  to  be  sung  at  the  Benedictus^^ 
with  the  rubric,  “Quas  antiphonamus  ab  In  Sanc- 
titate which  means  that  the  repetition  of  the 
Antiphon  begins  from  the  verse  of  which  those 
are  the  first  words.® 

At  a  later  period  the  custom  of  repeating  the 
Antiphon  after  each  verse  of  the  Psalm  dropped, 
and  its  use  was  gradually  limited  to  the  beginning 
and  end  of  the  Psalm.  A  relic  of  the  old  usage 
still  survives  in  the  manner  of  singing  the 
“  Venite  ”  at  Nocturns,  in  which  Psalm  the 
Antiphon  is  repeated,  either  wholly  or  in  part, 
several  times  during  the  course  of  the  Psalm. 

It  remained  a  frequent  custom,  and  more  par¬ 
ticularly  in  the  monastic  usages,  at  Lands  and 
Vespers  on  the  greater  feasts  to  sing  the  Anti¬ 
phon  three  times  at  the  end  of  Benedictus  and 
of  Magnificat,  once  before  Gloria  Patri,  once 
before  Sicut  erat,  and  once  again  at  the  conclu¬ 
sion  of  the  whole.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
general  use  of  the  Church  of  Tours ;  and  the 
Church  of  Rome  I’etained  the  practice  in  the 
12th  century,  at  least  in  certain  offices  of  the 
festivals  of  the  Nativity,  the  Epiphany,  and  S. 
Peter.  It  was  called  “  Antiphonam  triumphare,” 
which  is  explained  by  Martene  (^De  Ant.  Eccl. 
Bit.  iv.  4)  as  “  ter  fari.”  Antiphonam  lemre,^  or 
imponere,  means  to  begin  the  Antiphon. 

Other  variations  in  the  manner  of  singing  the 
Antiphon  are  mentioned  by  other  writers.  Thus 


“  This  differs  from  the  later  (and  the  present)  practice, 
according  to  which  these  Antiphons  are  said  to  the  Mag¬ 
nificat  at  Vespers. 

o  This  is  the  manner  in  which  the  " /aoufapio-^xot  ”  men¬ 
tioned  above  are  recited.  The  first  four  are  followed  by 
no  antiphonal  sentence. 

p  Compare  our  English  tue  of  the  word  to  raise. 


we  are  told  “i  that  sometime.s  the  Antiphon  was 
said  twice  before  the  Psalm ;  or  at  least,  if  only 
said  once,  the  first  half  of  it  would  be  sung  bv 
one  choir,  and  the  second  half  by  the  other. 
This  was  called  “  respondere  ad  Antiphonam.” 

It  appears  that  this  method  of  singing  tne 
Antiphon  was  confined  to  the  beginning  and  end 
of  the  Psalm  or  Canticle.  When  repeated  during 
the  Psalm,  the  Antiphon  was  always  sung  by  one 
choir,  the  other  taking  the  verse. 

The  repetition  of  the  Antiphons  was  in  later 
times  still  further  curtailed,  and  the  opening 
woi-ds  only  sung  at  the  beginning  of  the  Psalm 
or  Canticle,  the  entire  Antiphon  being  recited  at 
the  close.  Still  later,  two  or  more  Psalms  were 
said  under  the  same  Antiphon,  itself  abbreviated 
as  just  stated.  This  is  the  present  custom  of  the 
Roman  Breviary.  When  the  Antiphon  w’as  taken 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Psalm  or  Canticle, 
after  the  Antiphon  the  beginning  of  the  Psalm  or 
Canticle  was  not  repeated,  but  the  recitation  was 
taken  up  from  the  place  where  the  Antiphon 
ceases.  For  instance,  the  opening  verses  of  the 
92nd  Psalm  are  said  at  Vespers  on  Saturday  in 
the  Ambrosian  rite  in  this  manner  : — 

Ant.  “  Bonum  est.” 

Ps.  “  Et  psallere  nominl  Tuo  Altissime,”  &c. 

“Gloria  Patri,”  &c. 

Ant.  “  Bonum  est  confiteri  Domiuo  Deo  nostro.” 

Where  the  recitation  of  the  Psalm  begins  with 
the  A’^erse  following  the  Antiphon,  though  the 
opening  woi'ds  onlg  of  the  Antiphon  are  said  at 
the  beginning. 

On  the  more  important  festiA^als  the  Anti¬ 
phons  at  Vespers,  Matins,  and  Lauds  (but  not  at 
the  other  hours),  were  said  entire  before  as  well 
as  after  the  Psalms  and  Canticles.  These  feasts 
were  hence  called  “double;”  those  in  which  the 
Antiphons  were  not  thus  repeated,  “  simple.” 

There  are  a  few  peculiarities  in  the  use  of 
Antiphons  to  the  Psalms  and  Canticles  in  the 
Ambrosian  and  Mozarabic  rites  which  may  be 
mentioned. 

1.  The  Ambrosian  Antiphons  are  divided  into 
simple  and  double.  The  simple  Antiphons  are 
said  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Roman  Antiphons 
on  days  which  are  not  “double.”  They  are 
always  so  said  whatever  be  the  nature  of  the 
feast.  In  Eastertide  the  Antiphon  is  said  entire 
before  the  Psalm,  and  instead  of  its  repetition 
at  the  end,  “  Alleluia,  Alleluia,”  is  said. 

The  double  Antiphons  consist  of  two  clauses, 
the  second  being  distinguished  by  a  ^.(i.  e.  versus), 
and  is  said  entire  both  before  and  after  the 
Psalm.  The  following  is  a  specimen  which  is 
said  to  be  one  of  the  Psalms  on  Good  Friday: — 

Ant.  duplex.  “Simon,  sleepest  tbou?  Couldest  not  thou 
watch  with  me  one  hour  ?  ” 

r.  “  Or  do  ye  see  Judas,  how  he  sleeps  not,  but  hastens 
to  deliver  Me  to  the  Jews  ?” 

These  double  Antiphons  occur  occasionally  and 
irregularly  on  days  which  have  proper  Psalms. 

1  By  Amalarins,  De  Eccl.  Off.  iv.  7. 

r  In  the  Vatican  Antiphonary  we  find  the  foil  'wing 
direction  on  the  Epiphany : — “  Hodie  ad  omnes  Antiphonas 
respondemus,”  and  so  in  other  instances.  In  a  MS.  of  the 
church  of  Rouen  the  antiphon  before  and  after  the  “  Mag¬ 
nificat  ”  at  first  Vespers  of  the  Assumption  is  divided  into 
four  alternate  parts  between  the  two  sides  of  the  choir, 
and  after  the  “Gloria  Patri  ”  is  again  gnng  by  both  sides 
together. 


ANTIPHON 


ANTIPHON 


99 


Thus  on  Wednesday  before  Easter,  out  of  nine 
Psalms,  one  was  a  double  Antiphon ;  on  Thurs¬ 
day,  out  often,  none,  and  on  Good  Friday,  out  of 
eighteen,  one  ;  on  Christmas  Day,  out  of  twenty- 
one,  four ;  and  on  the  Epiphany,  out  of  twenty- 
one,  six.  Festivals  are  not  divided  into  “  double  ” 
and  “  simple  ”  as  distinguished  by  the  Anti¬ 
phons. 

2.  The  Mozarabic  Antiphons  are  said  entire 
befoi’e  as  well  as  after  their  Psalm  or  Canticle. 
Occasionally  two  Antiphons  are  given  for  the 
same  Canticle.®  They  are  often  divided  into  two 
clauses,  distinguished  by  the  letter  in  which 
case  at  the  end  of  the  Psalm  the  “  Gloria  ”  is  in¬ 
tercalated  between  the  two  clauses. 

Of  the  nature  of  the  sentence  adopted  as  an 
Antiphon  little  is  to  be  said.  It  is,  for  the  most 
part,  a  verse,  or  part  of  a  verse,  from  the  Psalm 
it  accompanies,  varying  with  the  day  and  the 
occasion,  and  often  with  extreme  beauty  of  ap¬ 
plication.  Sometimes  it  is  a  slight  variation  of 
the  verse  ;  or  it  is  taken  from  other  parts  of 
Scripture ;  sometimes  it  is  an  original  composi¬ 
tion,  occasionally  even  in  verse.  E.  g.  in  the 
3rd  Nocturn  on  Sundays  between  Trinity  and 
Advent  in  the  Sarum  Breviary : 

2b  Ps.  19  {Coeli  enarrant), 

“  Sponsus  ut  e  thalamo  processit  Chrlstns  in  orbem : 

Descendens  coelo  jure  salutifero.” 

The  Antiphons  for  the  Venite  are  technically 
called  the  Invitatoria." 

The  corresponding  Antiphons  of  the  Eastern 
Church  need  not  detain  us,  as  they  are  less  pro¬ 
minent  and  important,  and  present  no  special 
features.  They  are  always  taken  from  the  Psalm 
itself,  and  are  said  after  the  Psalm  only,  and  are 
prefaced  by  the  words  /col  iraKiv  (and  again), 
and  are  introduced  before  the  “  Gloria  Patri.” 

Thus  Ps.  104  {Benedic  anima  med)  is  said 
daily  at  Vespers.  It  is  called  the  prooemiac 
Psalm ;  and  the  Antiphon  at  the  end  is — 

And  again. 

“The  sun  knoweth  his  going  down.  Thon  makest 
darkness  that  it  may  be  night. 

“  0  Lord,  how  manifold  are  Thy  works.  In  wisdom 
hast  Thou  made  them  all.” 

“  Glory  be,”  &c.  “  As  it  was,”  &c. 

Antiphona  Post  Evangelium. — An  Antiphon 
said,  as  its  name  indicates,  after  the  Gospel,  in 
the  Ambrosian  rite.  It  consists  of  a  simple  un¬ 
broken  clause,  and  is  sometimes  taken  from  the 
Psalms  or  other  parts  of  Scripture ;  sometimes 
it  is  composed  with  reference  to  the  day.  One 
example  will  show  its  form,  that  for  the  Christo- 
phory  or  return  of  Christ  out  of  Egypt  (Jan.  7). 

“  Praise  the  Lord,  all  ye  angels  of  His ;  praise  Him  all 
His  host.  Piai.se  Him  sun  and  moon :  praise  Him  all  ye 
stars  an<l  light.” 

There  is  nothing  corresponding  in  the  Roman 
Monastic  and  Sarum  Missals,  in  which  the  Gospel 

*  We  do  not  feel  sure  whether  In  these  cases  it  is  in¬ 
tended  that  both  Antiphons  be  used  at  once,  or  a  choice 
given  between  the  two. 

‘  It  does  not  seem  quite  clear  what  this  P.  represents. 
Probably  it  stands  for  Psalmus. 

“  The  Roman  is  taken  rather  than  any  other  Breviary 
as  giving  a  short  form.  The  Invitatories  of  the  Sarum 
Breviary  are  nearly  the  same  for  the  weekdays.  For 
ordinary  Sundays  there  is  a  greater  variety,  which  would 
have  made  them  longer  to  quote,  without  adding  to  the 
value  of  the  illustration. 


IS  immediately  followed  by  the  Creed.  In  the 
Mozarabic  office  the  Lauda  followed  the  Gospel. 
(The  Creed,  it  will  be  Temembered,  is  sung  after 
the  con.secration.) 

Antiphona  ad  Confractionem  Panis. — An  Anti¬ 
phon  said  in  the  Mozarabic  Mass  on  certain  days 
at  the  breaking  of  the  consecrated  Host.*  It 
occurs  for  the  most  part  during  Lent,  and  in 
votive  Masses.  Also  on  Whitsunday  and  on 
Corpus  Christi.  It  is  usually  short  and  said  in 
one  clause.  Thus  from  the  4th  Sunday  in  Lent 
(^Mediante  die  Festo'),  up  to  Maundy  Thursday 
(Ai  coend  Domini),  and  also  on  Corpus  Christi, 
it  is — 

“  Do  Thou,  0  Lord,  give  us  our  meat  in  due  season 
Open  Thine  hand,  and  fill  all  things  living  with  plen- 
teousness.” 

In  the  Ambrosian  Missal  the  Confractorium 
corresponds  to  the  Antiph.  ad  Confrac.  There 
is*no  Antiphon  appointed  at  the  same  place  in 
the  Roman  and  Sarum  Missals. 

Antiphona  in  Choro. — An  Antiphon  said  in 
the  Ambrosian  rite  at  Vespers  on  certain  days. 
It  occurs  near  the  beginning  of  the  office,  before 
the  Hymn,  and  is  said  on  Sundays,  and  at  the 
second  Vespers  of  festivals.  It  is  also  said  at 
the  first  Vespers  of  those  festivals  which  have 
the  office  not  solemn  7  (officium  non  solemne)  and 
of  some,  but  not  of  all,  “  Solemnities  of  the  Lord.” 
It  is  not  said  at  first  Vespers  of  a  Solemn  Office, 
This  is  the  general  rule,  though  there  are  oc¬ 
casional  exceptions.  It  varies  with  the  days,  and 
is  usually  averse  of  Scripture,  in  most  cases  from 
the  Psalms,  and  has  no  Psalm  belonging  to  it. 
Sometimes  it  is  an  adaptation  of  a  passage  of 
Scripture,  or  an  original  composition.  Thus,  on 
Easter  Day,  we  have — 

Ant.  in  ch.  Hallel.  Then  believed  they  His  words, 
and  sang  praise  unto  Him.”  Hallel. 

Anti])hona  ad  Crucem. — An  Antiphon  said  in 
the  Ambrosian  rite  at  the  beginning  of  Lauds 
after  the  Benedictus.  It  is  said  on  Sundays 
(except  in  Lent),  on  Festivals  which  have  the 
“Solemn  Office”  (except  they  foil  on  Satur¬ 
day),  in  “  Solemnities  of  the  Lord  ”  (even 
though  they  fall  on  Saturday),  and  during 
Octaves.  It  is  usually  a  verse  from  Scripture, 
but  sometimes  an  original  composition  with  very 
much  of  the  character  of  a  Greek  rpuirdpiov,  and 
always  ends  with  Kyr.  Kyx-.  Kyr.  (i.  e.  Kyrie 
eleison,  sometimes  written  K.  K.  K.).  It  is  said 
five  times,  the  Antiphon  itself  is  repeated  three 
times,  then  follows  Gloria  Patri,  then  the  Anti¬ 
phon  again,  then  Sicut  erat,  and  then  the  Anti¬ 
phon  once  more.  On  Sundays  in  Advent,  except 
the  6th,  on  Christmas  Day,  the  Circumcision, 
and  the  Epiphany,  it  is  said  seven  times,  i.  e.,  is 
repeated  five  times  before  the  Gloria  Patri. 

*  In  the  Mozarabic  rite  the  Host  after  consecration  is 
divided,  as  is  well  known,  into  nine  parts,  which  are 
arrangf'd  on  the  paten  in  a  prescribed  order,  which  it 
would  be  foreign  to  our  present  purpose  to  describe.  In 
the  Eastern  Church  the  Host  is  broken  into  four  parts  by 
tlie  Priest,  who  recites  an  unvarying  form  of  words.  But 
this  is  not  an  Antiphon,  and  therefore  beyond  our  pro¬ 
vince. 

y  Festivals  are  divided  in  the  Ambrosian  rite  into  So- 


whlch  have  the  oflRce  solemn  (ofllcium  solemne),  or  not 
J  solemn  (officium  non  solemne). 


H 


100 


ANTIPHONARIUM 


ANTIPHONARIUM 


Thus  on  Ascension  Day — 

Ant.  ad  criicem  quinquies.  “Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why 
stand  ye  gazing  up  into  heaven?  As  ye  have  seen  Him 
go  into  heaven,  so  shall  He  come.”  Hallel.  Kyr.  Kyr.  Kyr. 

“Ye  men,”  &c. 

“Ye  men,”  &c. 

“  Glory  be,”  &c. 

“Ye  men,”  &c. 

“  As  it  was,”  &c. 

“Ye  men,”  &c. 

An  Antiphoha  ad  crucem,  apparently  recited 
once  only,  often  occurs  in  the  Aiitiphonary  of 
Gregory  the  Great,  after  the  Antiphons  of  Ves¬ 
pers  or  Lauds.  The  early  writers  on  the  offices 
of  the  Roman  Church  make  no  mention  of  it,  so 
that  it  was  probably  peculiar  to  the  monastic 
rites,  which  more  readily  admitted  additions  of 
this  nature.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  the 
monastic  orders  derived  it  from  the  Church  of 
Milan. 

Antiphona  ad  Accedentes  or  ad  Accedendum. — 
An  Antiphon  in  the  Mozarabic  Mass,  sung  after 
the  Benediction,  and  before  the  Communion  of 
the  Priest.  They  do  not  often  change.  There 
IS  one  which  is  said  from  the  Vigil  of  Pentecost 
to  the  first  day  of  Lent  inclusive,  one  which  is 
said  from  Easter  Eve  to  the  Vigil  of  Pentecost. 
In  Lent  they  vary  with  the  Sunday,  that  for 
the  first  Sunday  being  said  on  weekdays  up  to 
Thursday  before  Easter  exclusive.  The  first  of 
these  which  is  said  during  the  greater  part  of 
the  year,  is  as  follows  : — 

“  0  taste  and  see  bow  gracious  the  Lord  is.”  Allel. 
Allel.  Allel. 

V.  “  1  will  always  give  thanks  unto  the  Lord.  His 
praise  shall  ever  be  in  my  mouth.”  P.  Allel.  Allel.  Allel. 

V.  “  The  Ix)rd  delivereth  the  souls  of  His  servants  j 
and  all  they  that  put  their  trust  in  Him  shall  not  be  des¬ 
titute.”  P.  Allel.  Allel.  Allel. 

V.  “Glory  and  honour  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the 
Son.  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  world  without  end.”  Amen, 
i*.  Allel.  Allel.  Allel. 

In  the  Apostolical  Constitutions.,  Ps.  24  (Bene- 
dicam),  from  which  this  Antiphon  is  taken,  is 
appointed  to  be  said  during  the  Communion,  as 
it  is  in  the  Armenian  Liturgy  during  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  the  Azymes.''  (During  the  com¬ 
munion  of  the  people  another  Canticle  is  sung.) 
S.  Ambrose  alluded  to  the  practice  in  the  words 
“  Unde  et  Ecclesia  videns  tantam  Gratiam,  horta- 
tur,  Gustate  et  videte.” 

The  second  Antiphon,  that  used  between  Easter 
and  Pentecost,  has  reference  to  the  Resurrection. 
It  is  adapted  from  the  words  of  the  Gospel  nar¬ 
rative,  and  we  need  not  quote  it. 

That  for  Thursday  before  Easter  is  much 
longer,  and  is  broken  into  many  more  antiphonal 
clauses,  and  is  an  abstract  of  the  Gospel  narra¬ 
tive  of  the  institution  of  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper.  Those  in  use  during  Lent  are  of 
precisely  the  ordinary  form. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  other  Western  Liturgies 
which  exactly  corresponds  to  this  Antiphon. 
The  Roman  and  Sarum  Communio,  and  the  Am¬ 
brosian  Transitorium.  which  are  the  analogous 
parts  of  those  offices,  are  said  after  the  Recep¬ 
tion.  [H.  J.  H.] 

ANTIPPIONAKIUM  (also  Antiphonale,  An- 
tiphonarius,  Antiphonarius  liber),  an  office  book 
of  the  Latin  Church,  containing  the  Antiphons 


and  other  portions  of  the  Service,  which  w’ere 
sung  antiphonally. 

The  name  Antiphonarium  is  applied  to  such 
books  by  John  the  Deacon,  in  his  Life  of  Gregory 
the  Great,  who  says  that  that  Pontiff  w’as  the 
author  of  Antiphonaides.  The  complete  collec¬ 
tion,  however,  of  Antiphons  and  Responsories, 
known  by  the  general  name  of  Antiphonarium 
or  Responsorium,  was  usually  divided  into  three 
parts  in  the  Roman  Church. 

Amalarius  writes:®  “It  is  to  be  observed 
that  the  volume  which  w'e  call  Antiphonarium 
has  three  names  ^  (tria  habet  nomina)  among 
the  Romans.  That  part  which  we  term  Gradical 
(Gradale)  they  term  Cantatory  (Cantatorium), 
which  is  still,  according  to  their  old  custom,  in 
some  churches  bound  in  a  separate  volume.  The 
following  part  they  divide  under  two  headings 
(in  duobus  nominibus).  The  part  which  contains 
the  Responsories  is  called  the  Responsorial  (Re- 
sponsoriale) ;  and  the  part  which  contains  the 
Antiphons  is  called  the  Antiphonary  (Antiphon¬ 
arius).” 

As  to  the  name  Cantatorium,  we  find  in  the 
“  Ordo  Romanus  1.”  (§  10)  the  direction  : — 
“  After  he  [the  Subdeacon]  has  finished  reading 
[the  epistle],  the  singer  (Cantor),  with  the  Canta¬ 
tory,  mounts,®  and  sings  the  Response.”  And 
Amalarius  (^De  Eccl.  Off.  iii.  16)  says  :  “  The 
singer  holds  the  Tablets  (Tabulas),”  where  the 
word  Tabulas  is  thought  to  mean  the  same  thing 
as  Cantatorium,  i.  e.  the  book  itself 

The  derivation  of  these  words  is  obvious.  The 
book  was  called  Cantatorium  from  its  containing 
the  parts  of  the  Service  which  were  sung :  Gradale, 
Gradalis,  or  Graduale  (Gradual  or  Graile),  from 
their  being  sung  at  the  steps  of  the  ambo  or 
pulpit ;  and  Tabulae  in  all  probability  from  the 
plates  in  which  the  book  was  contained,  and 
which  appear  to  have  been  of  bone,  or  perhaps 
horn.  Amalarius,  in  the  context  of  the  passage 
quoted,  says  that  the  tabulae  w’hich  the  Cantor 
holds  are  usually  made  of  bone  (solent  fieri  de 
osse). 

By  whatever  name  this  book  was  known,  it 
contained  those  portions  of  the  office  of  the  Mass 
which  were  sung  antiphonally,  and  w'as  the  first 
of  the  three  divisions  above  alluded  to.  The 
second  part,  the  Re  sponsor  iale,  contained  the 
Responsories  after  the  lessons  at  Nocturns  ;  and 
the  third  part,  the  Antiphonarium,  the  Antiphons 
for  the  Nocturns  and  diurnal  offices. 

The  three  parts  together  make  up  what  is 
generally  understood  by  the  Antiphonale  or  An¬ 
tiphonarium.  The  book  is  also  sometimes  called 
the  Official  Book,  or  the  Office  Book  (Liber  offi- 
cialis.  A  MS.  of  the  Monastery  of  St.  Gall,  of 
part  of  an  Antiphonary  and  Responsorial  of  the 
usual  type,  is  headed  “  Incipit  officialis  liber  ”). 
It  seems  also  to  have  been  occasionally  called  the 
Capitular  Book  (Capitulare).  In  a  MS.  of  St. 
Gall,  of  apparently  about  the  beginning  of  the 
11th  century,  w'e  find  the  direction,  “  Respon- 
soria  et  Antiphonae  sicut  in  Capitulari  habetur 
and  though,  according  to  the  old  Roman  use  of 
words,  “  Capitulare”  means  the  Book  of  Epistles 
and  Gospels,  the  context  in  this  place  necessitates 


»  De  ord.  Antiph.,  Prologus. 
b  i.e.  consists  of  three  parts,  as  the  context  shows. 

®  i.e.  the  Ambo  or  its  steps,  for  the  cnstom  would  seem 
to  have  varied. 


*  These  corresiwnd  to  the  French  pain  bent.  [Eclogiae.] 


ANTIPHONARIUM 


ANTIPHONARIUM 


101 


the  meaning  of  Antiphonary.  The  word  occurs, 
moreover,  throughout  the  MS.  in  the  same 
sense. 

Antiphonaries  are  sometimes  found  in  old 
MSS.  divided  into  two  parts  —  one  beginning 
with  Advent,  and  ending  with  Wednesday  or 
some  later  day  (for  the  practice  is  not  uniform) 
in  the  Holy  Week,  and  the  other  comprising 
the  rest  of  the  year.  Sometimes,  again,  they 
were  divided  into  two  pai'ts,  containing  respect¬ 
ively  the  services  for  the  daily  and  the  nocturnal 
olfices.  Among  the  books  of  the  Monastery  of 
Pisa  (Muratori,  Ann.  Jtal.  iv.)  we  meet  with 
“  Antiphonarios  octo,  quinque  diurnales,  tres  noc- 
turniles"  and  in  an  old  inventory  of  the  church 
of  Tarbes  “  Antiphonarium  de  die  ”  and  “  Anti- 
phonarium  de  nocte  are  mentioned.  We  have 
thus  to  distinguish  between — 

(1.)  The  Antiphonanum  (pi'operly  so  called), 
which  contained  the  Antiphons  for  the  Nocturns 
and  dail}’'  office. 

(2.)  The  Liher  Besponsorialis  et  Antiphona- 
rius,  frequently,  and  in  the  Roman  Church 
usually,  called  for  brevity  Antiphonarium,  which 
comprised  the  contents  of  the  last-mentioned 
book,  together  with  the  Responsories,  originally 
divided  into  two  distinct  parts,  but  afterwai'ds 
united  into  one,  and  arranged  in  order  of 
sequence. 

(3.)  The  Antiphonarium,  otherwise  called  Gra¬ 
duate,  Gradale,  or  Gradalis,  and  which  contains 
those  portions  of  the  missal  which  are  sung  anti- 
phonally.  This  is  what  is  called  by  some  Canta- 
torium. 

Those  which  are  most  frequently  met  with ^re 
of  classes  2  and  3. 

2.  As  to  the  origin  of  Antiphonaries, — St. 
Gregory  the  Great  is,  as  we  have  stated,  usually 
considered  to  have  been  the  author  of  Antipho¬ 
naries.  It  is,  however,  maintained  by  some,**  and 
with  much  I’eason,  that  as  the  use  of  Antiphons 
and  Responsories  in  the  Roman  Church  was  older 
than  the  time  of  Gregory,  it  is  likely  that  books 
of  Antiphons  and  Responsories  existed  likewise 
previously,  and  that  that  Pontiff  merely  revised 
and  rearranged  the  Antiphonal  and  Responsorial 
books  he  found  in  use,  much  in  the  same  manner 
as  he  recast  the  old  Sacramentary  of  Gelasius 
into  what  is  now  universally  known  as  the  Gre¬ 
gorian  Sacramentary. 

It  has  been  also  questioned  by  some  whether 
Gregory,  the  reputed  author  of  Antiphonaries, 
may  not  be  Pope  Gregory  II.  A.D.  715.  But  as 
the  title  of  the  Great  was  not  ascribed  to  Gregory 
I.  till  long  after  his  death,®  the  argument  founded 
on  the  absence  of  that  title,  which  is  much  relied 
on,  does  not  seem  of  great  force. 

The  Roman  Antiphonary^  substantially,  we 
may  suppose,  as  Gregory  compiled  it,  was  sent 
by  Pope  Adrian  I.  (a.D.  772-795)  to  Charle¬ 
magne.  The  received  story  is  that  the  Pope 
sent  two  Antiphonaries  to  the  Emperor  by  two 
singers  (Cantores)  of  the  Roman  Church.*'  Of 
these,  one  fell  ill  on  his  journey,  and  was  received 
at  the  Monastery  of  St.  Gall,  to  which  monastery 

<*  As  by  Thomasius,  Opera,  iv.  p.  xxxiv. 

«  In  the  writincts  of  Bede,  Gregory  of  Tours,  &c.  kc., 
he  is  called  B.  Gregorius,  or  Gregorius  Papa,  or  Gre¬ 
gorius  Ecclesiae  Doctor,  but  not  Gregorius  Magnus. 

f  It  was  after  this,  according  to  Thomasius  {Ep.  i.  ad 
Sch»‘nk),  that  the  Antiphonary  was  divided  into  the  parts 
ftbove  named. 


he  left  an  Antiphonary.  The  other  book  reached 
its  destination,  and  was  deposited  at  Metz.  This 
Antiphonary  was  held  in  high  estimation,  as  we 
learn  from  St.  Bernard,  who  says  that  the  early 
Cistercians,  who  could  find  nothing  more  authen¬ 
tic,  sent  to  Metz  to  transcribe  the  Antiphonary, 
which  was  reputed  to  be  Gregorian,  for  their 
use.  It  is  also  said  that  the  clergy  of  Metz 
excelled  the  rest  of  the  Gallic  clergy  in  the 
Roman  Church  song  (Romana  Cantilena)  as  much 
as  the  Roman  clergy  excelled  them. 

A  Roman  Antiphonary  was  also  sent  by  Pope 
Gregory  IV.  (A.D.  827-844)  to  the  then  Abbat  of 
Corbie,  which  was  known  as  the  Corbie  Anti¬ 
phonary  ;  and  as  this  often  varies  from  that  of 
Metz,  it  is  inferred  (as  is  probable)  that  certain 
changes  and  variations  between  different  copies 
had  by  that  time  crept  into  the  Antiphonary  as 
compiled  by  Gregory. 

After  the  Gregorian  Antiphonary  was  intro¬ 
duced  into  France,  it  soon  underwent  many  addi¬ 
tions  and  modifications. 

Walafrid  Strabo,  who  lived  in  the  9th  century, 
says  that  the  Chui-ch  of  Gaul,  which  possessed 
both  learned  men  and  ample  materials  for  the 
divine  offices  of  its  own,  intermingled  some  of 
these  with  the  Roman  offices.  Hence  a  great 
variety  in  the  usages  of  the  different  French 
churches,  on  which  we  need  not  touch. 

3.  As  examples  of  the  contents  of  these  books, 
we  will  give  a  sketch  of  two. 

(1.)  The  Antiphonary  for  the  Mass,  or  Gra¬ 
dual,  attributed  to  St.  Gregory.  This  is  headed 
“  In  Dei  nomine  incipit  Antiphonarius  ordinatus 
a  St.  Gregorio  per  circulum  anni.” 

This  title  is  followed  in  the  St.  Gall  MS.  by 
the  well-known  lines — 

“Gregorius  Praesul  meritis  et  nomine  dignus. 

Unde  genus  ducit  Suramum  conscendit  Honorem,”  etc. 

The  book  contains  the  various  Antiphons  sung 
at  the  Mass  for  the  course  of  the  ecclesiastical 
year,  divided  into  two  parts ;  that  for  the  Sun¬ 
days  and  moveable  feasts,  and  that  for  the  Saints’ 
days.  The  first  part,  corresponding  to  the  2'em- 
porale  of  the  Missals,  has  no  special  heading.  It 
begins  with  a  rule  for  finding  Advent  (that  it 
must  not  begin  before  V.  Kal.  Dec.,  or  after 
HI.  Non.  Dec.),  and  then  proceeds  with  the 
Sundays  and  Festivals  in  their  course,  beginning 
with  the  first  Sunday  in  Advent  (Dom.  1"‘*  de 
Adventu  Domini),  giving  for  each  day  the  Station, 
the  Antiphona  ad  Introitum,  with  the  tone  for 
the  Psalm  ;  the  Responsorium  Gradale,  the  Trac- 
tus,  when  it  occui’s  ;  the  Antiphona  ad  Ojferend  i, 
and  the  Antiphona  ad  Communionem,s  each  with 
its  versus  ad  repetendum,  and  the  last  with  its 
psalm  also. 

In  the  arrangement  of  the  year,  there  is  little 
to  be  noticed.  The  Sundays  during  the  summer 
are  counted  from  the  Octave  of  Pentecost,  and 
are  called  Dominica  prirna  post  Octavas  Pente- 
costas;  and  so  on  until  the  5th,  which  is  called  in 
some  ^ISS.  Dominica  prirna  post  Natale  Aposto- 
lorutn,^  the  numbering  from  the  Octave  of  Pente¬ 
cost  being  likewise  continued  till  Advent.  After 
six  of  these  Sundays  post-Natale,  &c.,  comes 


8  These  are  now  called  respectively  the  Gradual  (Gra- 
duale,  or  Gradale),  the  Offertory  (Offertorlum),  and  the 
Communion  (Communio),  and  the  last  two  are  shortened 
into  a  Single  verse, 
t  i.*  as.  I'eter  and  Paul. 


102 


ANTIPHONAEIUM 


ANTIPHONAEIUM 


Dominica  prima  post  St.  Laurentii^  and  so  on  for 
six  Sundays  more,  when  we  come  to  Dominica 
prima  post  S.  Angeli,^  of  which  last  set  of  Sun¬ 
days  seven  are .  provided.  Trinity  Sunday  does 
not  appear,  but  the  last  Sunday  before  Advent  is 
called  “cfc  SS.  T7'initate,  [al.']  Dom.  xxi^.  post 
Octav.-Pentec.  ;  and  the  Antiphons  are  those  now 
used  in  the  Roman  Church  on  Trinity  Sunday, 
i.e.,  the  Octave  of  Pentecost.  The  Festival  of  the 
Circumcision  does  not  appear,  the  day  being  called 
Oct.  Domini.  There  is  also  a  second  office  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  same  day,  according  to  an  old  prac¬ 
tice,  called  variously  In  Natal.  Sanctae  Mariae 
or  De  Sancta  Maria  in  Octava  Z>"‘,  or  Ad  hono~ 
rem  Sanctae  Mariae.'^ 

The  offices  for  Good  Friday  “ac?  crucem  ado- 
randam”  and  the  Reproaches  (called  here  simply 
Ad  crucem  Aiitiphona)  and  that  for  baptism  on 
Easter  Eve,  as  also  various  Litanies  and  other 
occasional  additions  to  the  usual  office,  are  found 
in  their  proper  places. 

The  second  part  is  headed  “  De  natalitiis 
Sanctorum,"  and  cori’esponds  with  the  Sanctoy'ale 
of  later  books.  It  begins  with  the  festival  of  St. 
Lucy  [Dec.  13],  and  ends  with  that  of  St.  Andrew 
’[Nov.  30].  This  is  followed  in  the  St.  Gall  MS. 
by  offices  for  St.  Nicholas,  the  Octave  of  St. 
Andrew,  St.  Damasus  [Dec.  11],  and  the  Vigil  of 
St.  Thomas,  and  one  for  the  Festival  of  St.  Thomas, 
which  differs  from  that  previously  given.  There 
are  also  a  variety  of  occasional  and  votive  offices. 

The  Festival  of  All  Saints  is  found  in  some 
MSS.  There  is  one  Festival  of  the  Chair  of  St. 
Peter  in  one  of  the  St.  Gall  copies  on  Jan.  18,“ 
and  one  in  three  MSS.  on  Feb.  22.®  There  is  no 
addition  in  either  case  of  the  words  Romae  or 
Antiochiae,  and  both  are  not,  it  seems,  found  in 
the  same  MS. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  arrangement,  take  the 
first  Mass  for  Christmas  Day,  that  in  media  node 
or  in  gain  cantu. 

“VIII.  Kalendas  Jannarii 
Nativitas  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Cbristi. 

Ad  Saiictam  Mariam. 

Antiphona  ad  Introitum. 

Dominos  dixit  ad  me,  Filius  meus  es  to.  Ego  hodie 
genui  te.  [Dominos  dixit.] 

Ton.  ii.  oia,  euonae. 

Ps.2.  Qoare  fremoerunt  gentes?  et  popoli  medltati 
sunt  inania  ?  [Dominos  dixit]  [Gloria.  Dominos  dixit] 

Fe  ad  repetendum.  Postola  a  me,  et  dabo  tibi  gentes 
haereditatem  tuam,  et  possessionem  toam  terminos  terrae. 
[Dominos  dixit.]’' 

Then  follow  successively  the  Responsorium 
gradate,  the  Antiphona  ad  offerenda,  and  the 
Antiphona  ad  Communionem,  each  with  its 
versus,  and  the  last  with  its  psalm  and  versus  ad 
repetendum.  All  these  Antiphons  are  repeated 
in  the  manner  which  has  been  explained  in  the 
article  on  Antiphons;  and  as  they  are  of  the 


*  i.e.  Ang.  10. 

k  i.e.  Midhaelmas,  as  we  shoold  say. 

“  This  has  been  pot  forward  as  an  argument  for  the 
Gregorian  authorship  of  this  Antiphonary,  as  it  Is  said 
that  St.  Gregory  was  in  the  habit  of  celebrating  two 
masses  on  this  day,  the  second  of  which  was  “  de  Sancta 
Maria.” 

“  This  corresponds  with  the  present  festival  of  the 
Chair  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome. 

o  This  corresponds  with  the  present  festival  of  the 
Chair  of  St.  Peter  of  Antioch. 


ordinary  form,  it  does  not  seem  necessary  to  set 
them  out  at  length  here. 

(2.)  As  an  example  of  an  Antiphonary  for  the 
canonical  hours,  w'e  will  take  the  Antiphonary  of 
the  Vatican  Basilica.  It  is  a  MS.  with  musical 
notation  differing  from  that  adopted  later.  It 
represents  the  use  of  the  Roman  Church  in  the 
12th  century,  and  may  be  considered  as  embody¬ 
ing  the  substance  of  the  Gregorian  Antiphonary, 
together  with  some  later  additions.  It  is  headed 
— “  In  nomine  Domini  Jesu  Christi  incipit  Re- 
sponsoriale  et  Antiphonarium  Romanae  Ecclesiae 
de  circulo  anni  juxta  veterem  usum  Canoni corum 
Basilicae  Vaticanae  St.  Petri,”  It  begins  with  a 
calendar,  with  the  usual  couplets  of  he.xametei-s 
at  the  head  of  each  month,  and  then,  wnthout 
any  further  title,  proceeds  with  the  Antiphons 
at  the  first  Vespers  of  the  fii-st  Sunday  in  Ad¬ 
vent,  and  thence  onwards  throughout  the  course 
of  the  year,  giA'ing  the  Antiphons  at  Nocturns 
and  all  the  hours ;  and  the  Responsories  after 
the  lessons  at  Nocturns.  These  Antiphons  and 
Responsories  are  so  nearly  the  same  as  those  in 
the  present  Roman  Breviary  that  it  is  unneces¬ 
sary  to  quote  more  than  the  following  specimen 
of  the  manner  in  which  they  are  set  out : — 

“Dominica  i.  de  Adventu  Domini. 

Statio  ad  Sanctam  Mariam  Majorem  ad  Praesepe. 

Istud  Invitatorium  cantamus  eo  die  ad  Matutinom 
usque  in  Vigil.  Natal.  Domini,  exccptis  Festivitatibus 
Sanctorum. 

Regem  venturum  Dominom,  venite  adoremus.  Venite. 

In  i.  Noctumo. 

Ant.  Missus  est  Gabriel  Angelus  ad  Mariam  Virginem 
desponsatam  Joseph.  Psal.  Beatns  vir.  Quare  fremu- 
erunt.  Domine  quid.  Domine  ne  in. 

Ant.  Ave  Maria,  gratia  plena,  benedicta  tu  inter  mnli- 
eres.  Psal.  Domine  Deus  meus.  Domine  Dominus 
noster.  Confitebor.  In  Domino  confido. 

Ant.  Ne  timeas  Maria,  invenisti  gratiam  apud  Domi- 
num;  ecce  concipies  et  paries  Filium.  Alleluja.  Psal. 
Salvum  me  fac.  Usquequo.  Dixit  insipiens.  Domine 
quis. 

F.  Ostende  nobis  Domine  misericordiam  Tuam. 

R.  Et  salutare  Tuum  da  nobis.” 

Then  follows  a  long  rubric,  directing  how  the 
Responsories  should  be  sung,  and  then  the  three 
well-known  Responsories : — 

(1)  Aspiciens  a  longe,  &c, 

(2)  Aspiciebam  in  visu  noctis,  &c. 

(3)  Missus  est  Gabriel,  kc. 

The  lessons  are  not  indicated ;  but  the  Re¬ 
sponsories  are  usually  taken  from  the  book  which 
is  being  read  in  its  course.  Thus,  on  the  Octave 
of  Pentecost  the  Books  of  the  Kings  p  were 
begun ;  and  we  have  the  rubric,  “  Historia 
Regum  cantatur  usque  ad  Kalendas  August!,” 
followed  by  a  series  of  Responsories  taken  or 
adapted  from  those  books  for  use  during  that 
time.*! 

The  Antiphons,  &c.,  for  ordinary  week  days 
(^Feriae')  are  given  after  the  Octave  of  the  Epi¬ 
phany.  On  days  on  which  there  are  nine  lessons, 
nine  Responsories  are  given.  According  to  the 
present  Roman  custom,  the  ninth  is  replaced  by 
Te  Deum  on  those  days  on  W’hich  it  is  said. 

There  is  also  an  Antiphonary  of  this  description 


p  Including  what  we  call  the  Books  of  Samuel. 

<1  The  older  Roman  custom  was  to  sing  in  the  Octave 
of  Pentecost  and  during  the  following  week  Responsories 
from  the  Psalms  (de  Psalmists)  after  that  from  the  Kings, 


ANTISTES 


APOLLONIUS 


103 


attributed  to  St.  Gregory,  which  exists  at  St. 
Gall.  It  is  headed  by  au  introduction  in  verse, 
which  begins  thus — 

“  Hoc  quoque  Gregorius  Patres  de  more  secutus, 
Instauravit  opus,  auxit  et  in  melius. 

His  vigili  Clerus  mentem  couamine  subdat 
Ordinibus,  pascens  hoc  sua  corda  favo.” 

(and  so  on  for  14  lines.) 

The  MS.  bears  the  heading — “Incipiunt  Re- 
spousoria  et  Antiphonae  per  circulum  anni.” 
These  are  in  the  main  identical  with  those  in  the 
Antiphonary  just  mentioned,  but  are  ari’anged 
with  reference  to  the  monastic  distribution  of 
'psalms  and  lessons. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  Antiphonary  is  a  large 
number  of  Antiphons,  given  for  the  Benedicite, 
the  Benedictus,  and  the  Magnificat  respectively. 

In  a  portion  of  an  Antiphonary  (“  ex  vetus- 
tissimo  codice  MS.  membranaceo  Palatino  signato 
num.  487  in  Bibliotheca  Vaticana,  in  quo  conti- 
nentur  vetustiores,  germanioi’esque  libelli  Ordinis 
Romani  ”),  containing  the  service  for  Easter 
week,  one  or  more  of  the  Antiphons  to  the 
psalms  for  each  day  is  given  in  Greek,  but 
written  in  Roman  characters,  the  others  remain¬ 
ing  in  Latin.  Thus  at  Vespers  on  Easter  Tuesday, 
the  Antiphon  to  Ps.  cxii.  is  thus  given — 

“  Alleluja.  Prosechete  laos  mu  to  nomo  mu ;  clinate  to 
us  hymon  is  ta  rhimata  tu  stomatos  mu. 

V.  .Anixo  en  parabolaes  to  stoma  mu  ;  pbthenxomae 
problemata  aparcbes.’"^ 

Those  to  the  other  psalms  at  the  same  Vespers 
are  in  Latin. 

This  may  suffice  to  explain  the  general  nature 
of  Antiphonaries.  The  consideration  of  the  many 
points  of  interest  which  their  details  present  is 
beyond  the  scope  of  this  article.  [H.  J.  H.] 

ANTISTES. — This  title  appears  to  have 
been  common  to  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the 
Early  Church.  As  the  name  “  sacerdos  ”  is  com¬ 
mon  to  both  estates  in  respect  of  the  offices  of 
divine  service  which  were  performed  by  both, 
so  in  respect  of  the  government  of  the  Church 
in  which  they  were  associated,  we  find  them 
designated  alike,  sometimes  as  “  Presbyters  ”  as 
marking  their  age  and  dignity — sometimes  in 
respect  of  their  “  cure  ”  or  charge — as  “  antis- 
tites,”  Trpoea-TUTfs,  praepositi.  Thus  in  the  first 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  a.d.  341,  the 
bishop  and  presbyter  are  both  expressly  classed 
among  the  wpoeerTUTes,  and  the  corresponding 
title  of  “Antistites”  is  evidently  extended  to 
the  second  order  of  the  ministry  by  St.  Augus¬ 
tine  (Serm.  351  de  Poenitentid),  as  follows :  “  Ve- 
niat  (peccator)  ad  antistites^  per  quos  illi  in 
ecclesia  claves  ministrantur,  et  .  .  .  a  praepo- 
sitis  sacramentorum  accipiat  satisfactionis  suae 
moduin.”  Here  it  is  plain  that  “  antistites  in 
ecclesia”  are  not  the  bishop  alone,  but  the  bishop 
and  the  presbyters.  This  usage  of  the  word 
agrees  with  that  of  Archisynagogus  in  the 
Jewish  synagogue,  and  may  have  been  suggested 
by  it.  (Thorndike,  Primitive  Government  of 
Churches,  voL  i.  p.  34.)  [D.  B.] 

ANTONICUS,  saint,  commemorated  April  19 
{Mart.  Bedae).  [C.] 

'  iTfioaixtTt  \a6f  fiov  t<Z  vofiu  fiov  ‘  Kklvare  to  ovt 
v^uiu  eis  Ta  p^/iara  rou  (TTo/jtaTOS  ftov. 

avoL^m  (V  n-apa/SoXoTf  to  OTOjuia  /now,  ^Oey^ofiai.  Trpo- 
Bki^ara  in’ 


ANTONINA,  martyr,  commemorated  June 
10  {Cal.  Byzant.,  Neale).  [C.] 

ANTONINUS.  (1)  Abbat,  Jan.  17  (M. 
Bieron.). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Nicomedia,  May  4  {3f.  Hieron.'). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Apamea,  commemorated  Sept.  2 
{Mart.  Pom.  Vet.) ;  Sept.  3  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ANTONIUS.  (1)  The  hermit,  Jan.  17  {Mart. 
Bedae,  Cal.  Byzant.,  Armen.). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome,  commemorated  Aug.  22 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(3)  In  Piacenza,  Sept.  30  {M.  Hieron.). 

(4)  In  Caesarea,  commemorated  Nov.  13 

{Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ANYSIA,  martyr  of  Thessalonica,  commemo¬ 
rated  Dec.  30  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.j 

APER,  bishop,  commemorated  Sept.  15  {Mart. 
Bedae,  Hieron.).  [C.] 

APOCREOS  (’ATrJ/epews). — The  Sunday  in 
the  Orthodox  Greek  Calendai*,  which  corresponds 
to  our  Sexagesima  Sunday,  is  called  KvpiaKri 
’An^Kpeeas,  because  from  it  the  abstinence  from 
flesh  begins,  though  the  more  strict  observance  of 
the  Lent  fast  does  not  commence  until  the  follow¬ 
ing  Sunday.  [Lent.]  The  whole  of  the  preceding 
week  is  also  named  from  this  Sunday,  and  is  a 
kind  of  carnival.  (Daniel,  Codex  Liturgicus,  iv. 
214 ;  Suicer,  Thesaurus,  s.  v.  ’An^Kpeus.)  [C.] 

APODOSIS  (’ATrJSotrjs). — V/hen  the  com¬ 
memoration  of  a  Festival  is  prolonged  over  several 
days,  the  last  day  of  this  period  is  called  in  the 
Greek  Calendar  the  “Apodosis”  of  the  Festival. 
For  instance,  on  the  Thursday  before  Pentecost 
is  the  Apodosis  of  the  Ascension  {airoSidoTai  r] 
'EopTTj  rrjs  ’ AvaX-fixpews).  In  this  case,  and  in 
some  others  (for  instance,  the  Exaltation  of  the 
Cross  and  the  Transfiguration)  the  Apodosis 
coincides  with  the  octave  ;  but  this  is  not  always 
the  case.  Sometimes  the  peidod  is  more  than  an 
octave  ;  Easter-day,  for  instance,  has  its  Apodosis 
on  the  eve  of  the  Ascension ;  but  generally  it  is 
less  ;  the  Nativity  of  the  Theotokos  (Sept.  8),  for 
instance,  has  its  Apodosis  Sept.  12.  (Neale’s 
Eastern  Church,  Introd.  764 ;  Daniel’s  Codex 
Liturgicus,  iv.  230.)  [C.] 

APOLLINARIS.  (1)  Bishop,  martyr  at 
Ravenna,  commemorated  July  23  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Bedae).  Antiphon  for  Natalis  Sancti  Apol- 
linaris  in  Liber  Antiphon,  p.  704. 

(2)  Commemorated  Aug.  23  {Mart.  Bedae). 

(3)  “  Avernus,”  Sept.  26  {M.  Hieron.). 

(4)  Bishop,  Oct.  5  {lb.  et  Hieron.).  [C.] 

APOLLINARIUS,  martyr,  commemorated 
June  5  {Mart.  Bedae).  [C.] 

APOLLONIA,  virgin,  martyr  at  Alexandria, 
commemorated  Feb.  9  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

APOLLON,  bishop  and  martyr,  commemo¬ 
rated  Feb.  10  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

APOLLONIUS.  (1)  Commemorated  March 
19  {Mart.  Bedae). 

(2)  Of  Egypt,  commemorated  April  5  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.);  Dec.  14  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(3)  Presbyter,  of  Alexandria,  April  10  {P).  et 
Hieron.). 

(4)  Senatoi*,  martyr  at  Rome,  April  18  {Ih. 
et  Bedae). 


104  APOSTASY 

(5)  Commemorated  July  7  (Mart.  Bedae  et 
Hieron.). 

(6)  Commemorated  Dec.  23  (M.  Hieron.').  [C.] 

APOSTASY  (aTTocTTao’io,  apostasia,  praevari- 
catio)  is  of  three  kinds.  1.  Apostasy  a  fide,  or 
perfidiae ;  2.  Apostasy  a  religione ;  3.  Apostasy 
ah  ordine  suscepAo.  Of  these  the  two  last  will 
be  more  appropriately  considered  under  the 
articles  Monasticism  and  Desertion. 

Apostasy  a  fide  is  the  voluntary  and  com- 
^ilete  abandonment  of  the  Faith  by  those  who 
have  been  made  members  of  the  Church  by 
baptism.  It  is  voluntary,  and  herein  to  be  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  the  sin  of  the  lapsed  [Lapsi], 
who  fall  away  through  compulsion  or  the  fear 
of  death  ;  it  is  also  complete,  and  consequently  a 
graver  crime  than  heresy,  which  is  the  denial 
of  one  or  more  of  the  articles  of  the  Faith,  but 
not  an  entire  rejection  of  the  Faith  itself.  Lastly, 
Apostasy  is  an  abandonment  of  the  Faith,  and 
therefore  an  offence  which  could  only  be  com¬ 
mitted  b)'  members  of  the  Church,  by  those 
who  had  in  baptism  taken  the  soldier’s  oath  to 
fight  under  her  standard.  For  this  reason  apos¬ 
tates  were  accounted  to  be  betrayers  of  their 
Master’s  cause,  and  deserters  from  the  ranks 
in  which  they  had  sworn  to  serve.  “  Praeva- 
ricatores  eos  existimamus,  qui  susceptam  fidem 
et  cognitionem  Dei  adeptam  relinquunt ;  aliud 
pollicitos,  et  aliud  nunc  agentes  ”  (St.  Hilar. 
Piet,  in  Ps.  118,  vers.  119). 

It  would  also  appear  that  catechumens  were 
by  some  considered  capable  of  committing  the 
sin  of  apostasy  (Cod.  Theod.,  De  Apjostat.  xvi.  7,  2), 
although  their  guilt  was  not  so  great  as  that  of 
the  baptized  apostate. 

Apostates  a  fiide  were  of  two  classes :  those 
who  became  Jews,  and  those  who  became  Pagans. 
Of  the  former  class  there  were  those  who  entirely 
abandoned  the  Christian  Faith,  and  who  there¬ 
fore  were  properly  called  apostates ;  and  those 
who  did  not  altogether  reject  it,  but  mingled  to¬ 
gether  Christianity  and  Judaism,  and,  as  it  were, 
made  for  themselves  a  new  religion.  Such  were 
the  Coelicolae,  Cerinthiani,  Ebionaei,  Nazaraei, 
Elcesaei,  and  Samsaei.  There  were  others,  again, 
who  were  also  called  apostates,  who,  without 
embracing  any  distinctive  Jewish  doctrines,  ob¬ 
served  parts  of  the  ceremonial  law,  such  as  rest¬ 
ing  on  the  Sabbath,  or  who  kept  the  Jewish 
feasts  and  fasts,  or  consulted  Jews  with  the 
object  of  procuring  charms  for  the  cure  of  sick¬ 
ness. 

And,  secondly,  there  were  those  who  volun¬ 
tarily  abandoned  Christianity  and  returned  to 
heathenism.  And  persons,  who  without  going 
to  this  length,  accepted  the  office  of  flamen,  or 
who  attended  sacrifices  (except  in  the  discharge 
of  duty),  or  joined  as  actors,  stage  players,  or 
charioteers  in  the  heathen  games,  or  who  sold 
animals  or  incense  for  sacrifice,  or  manufactured 
idols  and  the  like,  were  considered  to  have  be¬ 
trayed  their  faith  and  to  be  guilty  of  a  sin  almost 
as  grave  as  that  of  apostasy,  and  to  merit  the 
name  of  apostates  (Devoti.  Inst.  Can.  iv.  3 ; 
Bingham,  Antiq.  xvi.  6,  4). 

The  crime  of  apostasy  was  punished  in  the 
same  way  as  heresy,  though  it  was  a  graver 
offence.  There  are  also  special  enactments  in  re¬ 
ference  to  it,  both  in  the  canons  of  Councils  and 
in  the  constitutions  of  the  Christian  emperors. 


APOSTASY 

By  the  11th  canon  of  the  Oecumenical  Council 
of  Nicaea  (a.d.  325),  those  who  had  voluntarily 
denied  Christ,  if  they  gave  proof  of  hearty  re¬ 
pentance,  were  admitted  for  three  years  amongst 
the  audnentes.  For  the  next  seven  years  they 
were  peraiitted  to  become  substrati,  and  were 
obliged  to  leave  the  church  at  the  same  time  a.* 
the  catechumens.  After  the  expiration  of  this 
term  they  were  allowed  to  join  as  consistentes  in 
the  prayers  of  the  faithful ;  but  two  years  had 
still  to  elapse  before  they  were  permitted 
to  make  oblations,  or  to  partake  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist;  then  they  were  said  ixBelu  iirl  rh 
re\(iov  (cf.  Beveridge,  Pand.  Can.  Annotationes 
in  loc.,  and  Bingham,  Antiq.  viii.  3  ;  xviii.  1). 

These  provisions  were  an  amelioration  of  the 
earlier  discipline  of  the  Church,  as  we  learn  from 
St.  Cyprian  (a.d.  252).  “Apostatae  vero  et  de- 
sertores  vel  adversarii  et  hostes  et  Christi  Eccle- 
siam  dissipantes,  nec,  si  occisi  pro  nomine  foris 
fuerint,  admitti  secundum  Apostolum  possunt 
ad  ecclesiae  pacem,  quando  nec  Spiritus  nec  Eccle- 
siae  tenuerunt  unitatem  ”  (St.  Cyprian,  Ep.  Iv. 
ad  fin.). 

By  the  63rd  (or  64th)  of  the  Canons  of  the 
Apostles,  clerks  who  went  into  synagogues  to 
pray  were  deposed  and  excommunicated ;  and  if 
laymen  committed  a  like  offence  they  were  ex¬ 
communicated  (on  the  interpretation  of  this  canon 
with  regard  to  the  question  whether  or  not  clerks 
were  to  be  excommunicated  as  well  as  deposed, 
see  Beveridge,  Pand.  Can.  Annotationes,  in  loc.). 
The  same  punishments  were  by  the  65th  (or 
66th)  canon  inflicted  on  clerks  and  laymen  who 
fasted  on  the  Loi*d’s  Day,  or  upon  any  Sabbath 
Day  except  the  Great  Sabbath,  Easter  Eve ;  and 
by  the  69th  (or  70th)  canon,  those  were  included 
who  observed  Jewish  fasts  or  feasts,  or  (canon 
70  or  71)  who  gave  oil  for  consumption  in  syna¬ 
gogues  or  heathen  temples. 

By  the  11th  canon  of  the  “Concilium  Quini- 
sextum,”  or  “in  Trullo  ”  (a.d.  691  or  692),  the 
clergy  and  laity  were  forbidden — the  former  under 
pain  of  deposition,  and  the  latter  under  pain  of 
excommunication — to  eat  unleavened  bread  with 
Jews,  or  to  have  any  friendly  intercourse  with 
them,  or  to  consult  them  in  sickness,  or  even  to 
enter  the  baths  in  their  company. 

In  Africa,  by  the  35th  canon  of  the  3rd 
Council  of  Carthage  (a.d.  397)  “  Apostaticis  con- 
versis  vel  reversis  ad  Dominum  gratia  vel  re- 
conciliatio  non  negetur.” 

In  the  East,  by  the  29th  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Laodicea  (a.d.  365,  according  to  Beveridge) 
Christians  were  forbidden  to  Judaize  (lovSat(^iv) 
under  the  penalty  of  anathema.  By  the  37th 
and  following  canons  of  the  same  Council  they 
were  forbidden  to  be  present  at  Jewish  or  Pagan 
feasts. 

In  Spain,  the  Council  of  Eliberis  (a.d.  305  or 
306)  contains  several  provisions  for  the  suppres¬ 
sion  and  punishment  of  apostasy  ;  for  example, 
by  the  first  canon  persons  of  full  age,  who  after 
baptism  went  to  a  heathen  temple  and  sacrificed 
to  an  idol  were  refused  communion,  even  at  the 
hour  of  death.  By  the  46th  canon  of  the  same 
Council  apostates  who  have  not  been  guilty  of 
idolatry  are  admitted  to  communion  after  ten 
years’  penance  ;  by  the  49th  the  blessing  of  the 
fruits  of  the  earth  by  Jews  is  forbidden,  and 
those  who  allow  that  ceremony  to  be  performed 
are  cast  out  altogether  from  the  Church.  Upon 


APOSTASY 


APOSTLE 


105 


this  canon  Hefele  (^Conciliengeschichte,  i.  148)  ob¬ 
serves  :  “  In  Spain  the  Jews  had  become  so  nu¬ 
merous  and  powerful  during  the  early  ages  of  the 
Christian  era  that  they  believed  they  might  ven¬ 
ture  to  attempt  to  convert  the  whole  country.  .  . 
There  is  no  doubt  that  at  that  period  many 
Christians  in  Spain  of  high  standing  became  con¬ 
verts  to  Judaism.”  I 

Again,  by  the  59th  canon  of  the  4th  Council  of 
Toledo  (a.d.  633),  apostate  Jews  who  practise 
circumcision  are  punished  ;  but  (canon  61)  their 
children,  if  believers,  ai'e  not  excluded  from  suc¬ 
cession  to  their  property.  The  next  canon  (62) 
forbids  any  intercourse  between  converted  Jews 
and  those  who  remain  in  their  old  faith  ;  and  there 
are  several  other  canons  which  show  that  apos¬ 
tasy  to  Judaism  was  still  a  prevalent  crime  in 
Spain  ;  as,  for  instance,  the  64th  canon,  whieh 
ordains  that  the  evidence  of  apostate  Jews  should 
not  be  received  in  a  court  of  justice. 

In  the  French  Councils  there  are  several  canons 
relating  to  apostasy.  By  the  22nd  canon  of  the  1st 
Council  of  Arles  (a.d.  314)  it  was  forbidden  to 
S^'ve  communion  to  apostates  who  sought  it  in 
sickness,  until  they  were  restored  to  health,  and 
had  exhibited  proper  evidence  of  their  repent¬ 
ance. 

By  the  12th  canon  of  the  Council  ofVennes 
(a.d.  465)  the  clergy  were  forbidden  to  attend 
Jewish  banquets  or  to  invite  Jews  to  their  own 
tables — a  prohibition  which  was  repeated  in  the 
40th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Agde  (a.d.  506),  and 
extended  to  laymen  by  the  15th  canon  of  the 
Council  of  Epone  (a.d.  517),  and  also  by  the  13th 
canon  of  the  3rd  Council  of  Orleans  (a.d.  538), 
and  the  15th  canon  of  the  1st  Council  of  Macon 
(a.  d.  581). 

In  the  collections  of  the  Imperial  Law — the 
*  Codex  Theodosianus  ’  (which  was  promulgated 
A.D,  438)  contains  various  provisions  made  by  the 
Christian  emperors  for  the  punishment  of  apos¬ 
tasy.  Constantine  the  Great  ordained  (a.d.  315) 
that  apostates  to  Judaism  should  suffer  “  poenas 
meritas  ”  (Cof?.  Theod.  xvi.  8,  1),  which  were  de¬ 
fined  by  Constantins  (a.d.  357)  to  be  the  confis¬ 
cation  of  the  property  of  the  offender  (Cod. 
Theod.  xvi.  8,  7).  They  were  deprived  by  Valen- 
tinian  the  Younger  (a.d.  383)  of  the  jus  testandi, 
but  the  action  upsetting  the  will  had  to  be 
brought  within  five  years  of  the  death  of  the 
testator,  and  by  persons  who  had  not  in  his 
lifetime  known  of  his  offence,  and  remained 
silent  (Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  7,  3).  Apostates  to  Pa¬ 
ganism  were  deprived  by  Theodosius  the  Great 
(a.d.  381)  of  the  jus  testandi  (Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  7, 
1)  ;  but  another  constitution  of  the  same  emperor, 
promulgated  A.D.  383,  made  a  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  baptized  (Christiani  ac  f deles)  and 
catechumens  (Christiani  et  catechumeni),  and  the 
latter  were  permitted  to  execute  testamentary 
dispositions  in  favour  of  their  sons  and  bi'others 
german.  By  this  constitution  it  was  further  pro¬ 
vided  that  apostates  should  not  only  be  unable, 
with  the  foregoing  exceptions,  to  bequeath  pro¬ 
perty  by  will,  but  should  also  be  incapable  of 
receiving  property  under  the  will  of  another 
person  (Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  7,  2).  One  day  later 
Valeutinian  the  Younger  promulgated  through¬ 
out  the  Western  Empire  the  constitution  cited 
above,  which  applied  to  all  classes  of  apostates 
alike  (Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  7,  3).  By  a  constii  ution 
of  the  year  391  the  same  emperor  ordained  that 


baptized  apostates  professing  Paganism  should  be 
deprived  of  the  right  of  bequeathing  by  will,  of 
receiving  property  under  a  will,  of  bearing  wit¬ 
ness  in  a  court  of  justice,  and  of  succeeding  to  an 
inheritance.  They  were  also  condemned  “  a  con- 
sortio  omnium  segregari  ”  (on  the  meaning  of 
this  expression  see  the  note  of  Godefroi,  in  loc.), 
and  were  dismissed  from  all  posts  of  civil  dignity. 
It  was  also  declared  that  these  penalties  remained 
in  force  even  though  the  apostate  repented  of 
his  sin — “  perditis,  hoc  est  sanctum  Baptismum 
profanantibus,  nullo  remedio  poenitentiae  (quae 
solet  aliis  criminibus  prodesse)  succurritur  ”  (Cod. 
Theod.  xvi.  7, 4—5).  Arcadius  (a.d.  396)  extended 
the  power  which  his  father  Theodosius  the  Gi’eat 
had  given  to  apostate  catechumens  to  make  cer¬ 
tain  testamentary  dispositions,  and  ordained  that 
all  apostates,  whether  baptized  or  catechumens, 
should  have  the  poAver  to  bequeath  property  to 
their  father  and  mother,  brother  and  sister,  son 
and  daughter,  and  grandson  and  granddaughter 
(Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  7,  6).  The  last  constitution 
contained  in  the  Codex  Theodosianus  under  this 
title  is  a  very  severe  enactment  of  Valentinian 
the  Third  (a.d.  426),  abrogating  the  provisions 
of  the  above-cited  constitution  of  Valentinian  the 
Younger  of  the  year  323,  as  far  as  it  related  to 
apostates  to  Paganism.  Under  its  provisions  a 
person  could  be  accused  of  apostasy  at  any  time, 
although  fiA-^e  years  may  have  passed  since  his 
death,  and  it  Avas  immaterial  whether  the  accuser 
had  or  had  not  been  privy  to  the  oftence.  Apo¬ 
states  Avere  also  prohibited  from  disposing  of 
their  property  by  will  and  from  alienating  it  by 
sale  or  gift  (Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  7  ult.).  The  “  Para- 
titlon  ”  prefixed  to  this  title  in  the  edition  of 
Godefroi  (Leipsic,  1736,  &c.)  giA^es  a  brief  but 
very  useful  summary  of  its  contents. 

The  “  Codex  Repetitae  Praelectionis  ”  promul¬ 
gated  by  Justinian  in  December  A.D,  534  contains 
a  title,  “  De  Apostatis  ”  (Lib.  i.  tit.  7),  the  first 
four  Sections  of  Avhich  relate  to  this  subject,  and 
consist  of  extracts  from  the  “  Codex  Theodosi¬ 
anus.” 

The  first  section  re-enacts  the  constitution  of 
Constantins  (a.d.  357),  by  Avhich  the  property  of 
apostate  JeAvs  is  confiscated  (Cod.  Theod.  xah.  8, 
7).  The  second  section  contains  that  part  of  the 
constitution  of  Valentinian  the  younger  (a.d. 
383),  Avhich  limits  the  time  in  Avhich  an  accusa¬ 
tion  of  apostasy  could  be  brought  (Cod.  Theod. 
xvi.  7,  3).  In  the  thii'd  section  the  constitution 
of  the  same  emi)eror  (a.d.  391)  is  re-enacted, 
which  is  contained  in  the  Codex  Theodosianus  (xvi. 
7,  4),  and  is  cited  abov'e.  The  fourth  section  re¬ 
peats  the  enactment  of  Valentinian  the  Third 
(a.d.  426),  by  Avhich  very  seA'ere  penalties  were 
inflicted  on  apostates  (Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  7  ult. 
cited  above).  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  le¬ 
gislation  of  Justinian  was  not  more  tolerant  than 
that  of  his  predecessors  in  its  treatment  of  this 
oftence. 

Although  beyond  the  limits  of  this  article,  it 
may  be  noted  that  the  title  of  the  Decretals  re¬ 
lating  to  apostasy  is  the  9th  title  of  the  fifth 
book  (“De  Apostatis  et  Reiterantibus  Baptisma  ”). 
The  subject  is  also  considered  by  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas  (Sumrna  Thcol.  2-2,  quaestio  12).  [I.  B.] 

APOSTATE  (cLToaTaT-qs,  apostata,  praevari- 
cator).  See  Apostasy. 

APOSTLE  (in  Hagiology).  The  Avord  'A7r<i- 


106 


APOSTLES 


APOSTLES 


iTToXos  is  used  in  the  Greek  Calendar  to  designate 
not  only  those  who  are  called  Apostles  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  the  Seventy  Disciples  and 
others  who  were  companions  of  the  Apostles, 
strictly  so  called.'  It  is  applied,  for  instance,  to 
Agabus,  Rufus,  Asyncritus,  and  others,  supposed 
to  be  of  the  Seventy  (April  8) ;  and  to  Ananias 
of  Damascus  (Oct.  1).  But  the  Apostles,  in  the 
narrower  sense,  are  distinguished  from  others  to 
whom  the  title  is  applied  by  some  epithet  or 
description.  For  instance,  Nov.  30  is  described 
as  the  Festival  tov  aylov  eudo^ou  Kal  irai'evcpr)- 
fjiov  *AiroaT6\ov  ’AvSpeou  rod  IlpajTO/fArjTOU, 
K.T.X. ;  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  are  described  by 
the  terms  ■jrpa)TOKopu(pcuoi,  in  addition  to  the 
epithets  applied  to  St.  Andrew.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  the  Constantinople  “  Typicum  ”  expressly 
forbids  St.  Peter  to  be  called  the  Apostle  of  Eome^ 


inasmuch  as  he  was  a  teacher  and  enlightener  of 
the  whole  world ;  and  it  hints  that  if  any  place 
is  to  be  connected  with  his  name,  it  should  be 
Antioch  (Daniel,  Codex  Lit.  iv.  261). 

The  term  ’laairSaroKos,  the  equal  of  the 
Apostles,  is  applied  to 

1.  Bishops  supposed  to  be  consecrated  by 
Apostles  ;  as  Abercius  of  Hierapolis  (Oct.  22). 

2.  Holy  women  who  were  companions  of  the 
Apostles:  as  Mary  Magdalene,  Junia,  and  Thekla. 

3.  Princes  who  have  aideil  the  spread  of  the 
Faith ;  as  Constantine  and  Helena  in  the  Ortho 
dox  Greek  Church,  and  Vladimir  in  the  Russian 
Church. 

4.  The  first  preachers,  or  “  Apostles,”  of  the 

Faith  in  any  country ;  as  Nina,  in  the  Georgian 
Calendar  (Neale,  Eastern  Churchy  Introd.  p. 
761).  .  [C.] 


The  Twelve  Apostles  on  thrones,  in-ith  Onr  Lord  in  centre. 


APOSTLES  IN  CHRISTIAN  ART.  §  1.  j 
In  representations  of  the  Twelve,  antecedent  to  j 
the  year  1300  A.D.  or  thereabouts,  only  slight 
variations  of  treatment  are  to  be  observed, 
whether  in  Eastern  or  in  Western  monuments. 
It  will  be  convenient  to  speak  separately  of  these 
two  classes. 

§  2.  Of  the  Eastern  and  Greek  Churches. — 
Eastern  monuments  of  an  early  date  are  very 
limited  in  number,  owing  to  the  destructive  zeal, 
first  of  the  Iconoclasts,  and  afterwards,  in  many 
cases,  of  the  Turks.  And  among  these  the  only 
representations  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  known  to  ! 
the  present  writer  are  the  following.  In  an  early 
Syriac  manuscript  of  the  Gospels  written  at 
Zagba  in  Mesopotamia  in  the  year  585  A.D.,  now 
in  the  Libi'ary  of  the  Medici  at  Florence,  is  a 
picture  of  the  Ascension,  in  which  twelve  (not 
eleven  only)  Apostles  are  represented,  the  Virgin 
Mary  standing  in  the  midst  of  them  (see  this 
figured  under  Angels).  Of  about  the  same  date 
are  some  mosaics  in  the  church  of  St.  Sophia  at 
Thessalonica,  figured  by  Texier  and  Pullan  in 
their  ‘  Byzantine  Architecture,'  pi.  xl.,  xli.  Se¬ 
parate  representations  of  many  of  the  Apostles 
will  be  found  among  the  illuminations  of  the 
Menologium  Graecorum  of  the  emperor  Basil. 
These,  though  of  considerably  later  date  (10th  or 
11th  centuiy),  are  all  but  identical  in  character 


with  those  above  mentioned.  Indeed  the  reli¬ 
gious  art  of  the  Greeks,  as  everything  else  per¬ 
taining  to  religion,  has  been  stereotyped  once  for 
all  from  the  close  of  the  8th  century  until  now. 
“  Greek  art,”  says  M.  Didron,  “  is  wholly  inde¬ 
pendent  of  time  and  place.  The  painter  of  the 
Morea  I’eproduces  at  this  day  art  such  as  it  was 
at  Venice  in  the  lOth  century;  and  those  Vene¬ 
tians  again  reproduce  the  art  of  Mount  Athos 
four  or  five  centuries  before.  The  costume  of 
the  personages  represented  is  everywhere  and 
at  all  times  the  same,  not  only  in  shape,  but 
in  colour  and  drawing,  even  to  the  very  number 
and  size  of  the  folds  of  a  dress.”  For  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Greeks,  at  all  times,  religious  art  has  been, 
what  one  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Seventh  Genei’al 
Council  described  it — not  a  matter  to  be  regu¬ 
lated  by  the  luAVutive  power  of  p.ainters,  but  by 
the  prescriptions  and  tradition  of  the  Church 
(Labbe’s  Concil.  tom.  vii.  col.  831). 

§  3.  Early  Monuments  in  the  — Repre¬ 
sentations  of  the  Apostles  in  monuments  of  early 
date,  still  existing  in  Italy  and  in  France,  are 
very  numerous,  and  of  very  v'arious  kinds ;  as, 
for  example,  in  mosaics,  frescoes,  marble  sai’co- 
phagi,  and  even  in  smaller  objects  of  art,  such 
as  vessels  of  glass  or  ornaments  of  bronze.  The 
principal  works  in  which  these  are  figured  or  de¬ 
scribed  are  enumerated  in  §  12  below. 


APOSTLES 


APOSTLES 


107 


§  4.  Costume  and  Insignia. — In  all  the  early 
monuments  above  referred  to,  whether  of  the 
East  or  of  the  West,  in  which  the  Twelve  are 
represented,  almost  exactly  the  same  costume 
and  insignia  are  attributed  to  them.  Only  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul  [see  Paul  and  Peter  below] 
have  any  special  attributes.  The  dress  assigned 
to  them  is  a  long  tunic  reaching  to  the  feet  (with 
rare  exceptions,  which  are  confined,  as  far  as  the 
writer  knows,  to  some  of  the  Roman  catacombs) 
and  with  a  pallium  Cg-dnov)  as  an  outer  gar¬ 
ment.  The  insignia  by  which  they  are  designated 
are  a  roll  of  a  book  (volumen')  generally  in  the 
left  hand,  indicative  of  their  office  as  Preachers 
of  the  Divine  Word,  or  a  chaplet  (corona\  also 
held  in  the  hand,  significant  either  of  the  Mar¬ 
tyr’s  crown,  or  of  what  is  but  a  slight  variation 
of  the  same  idea,  the  crown  of  Victory  which 
the  Lord  bestows  upon  them  who  contend  faith¬ 
fully  unto  the  end.  The  scroll  above  spoken  of 
is  sometimes  replaced  by  a  codex  or  book  of  the 
more  modern  form  (this  latter  is  generally  the 
distinctive  mark  of  a  bishop).  In  the  mosaics  of 
St.  Sophia  at  Thessalonica  above  mentioned  (§  2) 
the  roll  is  assigned  to  some,  the  codex  to  others, 
while  others  are  represented  without  either. 
[For  an  example  of  the  codex  assigned  to  an 
apostle  in  Western  Art,  seeCiampini,  Vet.  Mon. 
tom.  ii.  tab.  xliii.,  a  monument  of  the  9th  cen¬ 
tury.]  They  are  occasionally  represented  as  seated 
on  ‘  thrones  ’  or  chairs  of  state  (see  woodcut,  p. 
106)  in  reference  to  their  delegated  authority 
(compare  Luke  xxii.  30)  to  rule  in  Christ’s  name 
over  the  Church.  And  in  one  mosaic,  probably 
of  the  5th  century,  in  the  church  of  St.  John  in 
Fonte  at  Ravenna,  all  the  Twelve  wear  a  kind  of 
tiara  or  peaked  cap,  suggestive  of  the  thought 
that  the  office  of  the  Apostles  in  the  Church 
corresponds  to  that  of  the  High  Priest  under 
the  Law.  [See  further  under  Tiara.]  This 
monument  is  engraved  by  Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon. 
tom.  i.  tab.  Ixx. 

§  5.  Names  of  the  Apostles  in  early  Monuments. 
— In  early  representations  of  the  whole  number  of 
the  Twelve  the  addition  of  names  to  each  is 
of  very  exceptional  occurrence.  The  only  ex¬ 
ample  known  to  the  present  writer  is  that  of  a 
mosaic  referred  to  above  in  the  church  of  St. 
John  m  Fonte  at  Ravenna.  The  arrangement 
thei’e  is  a  circular  one,  the  figures  being  so  dis¬ 
posed  that  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  occupy  the 
principal  position,  while  the  names,  and  figures, 
of  the  rest  occur  in  the  following  order :  An¬ 
dreas — Jacobus — Joannes — Piiilipus — Bar¬ 
tolomeus — Simon — Judas  Thadeus — Jacobus 
MI — Mateus — Thomas.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  number  Twelve  is  obtained,  after  insert¬ 
ing  the  name  of  St.  Paul,  by  omitting  that  of 
Mathias.  This  last  omission  is  generally  made 
in  similar  enumerations  of  the  Twelve  in  later 
centuries. 

§  6.  Mode  of  representation. — In  Western  mo¬ 
numents  of  the  first  eight  centuries  (the  period 
with  which  we  are  here  principally  concerned) 
the  Twelve  are  almost  invariably  represented  as 
standing,  or  as  seated,  on  either  side  of  our  Lord, 
who  is  either  figured  in  His  human  person,  or 
(much  more  rarely)  symbolically  designated.  In 
either  case  He  is  distinguished  from  the  Apostles 
them.selves  by  conventional  designations  of  higher 
dignity.  And  in  the  case  of  the  Apostles  them¬ 
selves  symbolical  designations  sometimes  take  the 


I  lace  of  any  more  direct  representation,  w'hile  in 
other  cases,  as  on  many  of  the  sarcophagi,  the 
two  modes  of  representation  are  combined. 

§  7.  Direct  representation — In  many  early  mo¬ 
numents  (see  under  Paul  and  Peter)  there  has 
been  an  evident  attempt  at  portraiture  in  the 
case  of  the  two  “  chiefest  Apostles.”  Of  the  rest, 
some  are  represented  as  of  youthful  appearance, 
and  beardless,  others  as  bearded,  and  of  more  ad- 
A^anced  years.  But  beyond  this  no  special  tradi¬ 
tionary  rules  of  representation  can  be  traced  in 
early  monuments. 

§  8.  Symbolical  designation. — Of  the  symbols 
employed  to  represent  the  Twelve,  the  most 
common  is  that  of  twelve  sheep,  adopted”(so  it 
has  been  thought)  with  reference  to  those  Avords 
of  Our  Lord,  “  Behold  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep 
in  the  midst  of  avoIa'cs.”  The.se  twelve  sheep  are 
commonly  represented  six  on  either  side  of  Our 
Lord  (personally  or  symbolically  represented), 
who  is  generally  seen  standing  upon  a  rock, 
whence  flow  four  streams.  To  such  a  repre¬ 
sentation  Paulinus  refers  (in  his  Epist.  xxxii.  ad¬ 
dressed  to  his  friend  Severus,  bishop  of  Milevis 
in  Africa ;  Migne,  P.  C.  C.  tom.  Ixi.  p.  366)  in 
speaking  of  his  own  church  at  Nola  in  Campania. 
He  is  writing  circ.  400  A.D. 

“  Petram  superstat  Ipse  petra  Ecclesiae, 

De  qua  sonori  quatuor  fontes  meant, 
Evangelistae,  viva  Christi  flumina." 

The  tAvo  groups,  each  of  six  sheep,  are  generally 
represented  as  issuing  from  tAvo  towers  repre¬ 
senting  Betnlehem  and  Jerusalem,  the  cities  of  the 
birth  and  the  passion  of  Our  Lord,  the  beginning 
and  the  end,  as  it  were,  of  that  Life  upon  earth, 
of  Avhich  the  Apostles  were  the  chosen  witnesses. 
Another  symbol,  founded  also,  in  all  probability 
on  Avords  of  Our  Lord  (“  Be  ye  ...  .  harmless  as 
doA'es,”  Matt.  x.  16)  is  that  of  twelve  doA'es.  Pau¬ 
linus,  bishop  of  Nola,  in  the  letter  already  quoted, 
speaks  of  a  mosaic  picture  on  the  roof  of  the  apse 
of  his  church,  on  Avhich  Avas  represented,  mter 
alia,  a  Cross  surrounded  Avith  a  ‘  Corona,’  a  circle 
of  light,  to  use  his  own  Avords.  and  round  about 
this  Corona  the  figures  of  twelve  doves,  emblem¬ 
atic  of  the  tweh'e  Apostles.  Beneath  this  picture 
was  the  following  inscription,  descriptive  of  its 
meaning : — 

"  Pleno  coruscat  Trinitas  mysterio : 

Stat  Ohristus  agno ;  vox  Patris  caelo  tonat ; 

Kt  per  columbam  Spiritus  ."^anctus  Quit, 

Crucem  corona  lucido  cingit  globo, 

Cui  coronae  sunt  corona  Apostoli, 

Quorum  figura  est  in  columbarum  choro.” 

A  representation®  of  the  Twelve,  nearly  .an¬ 
swering  to  this  description,  forms  the  frieze  of  an 
early  sarcophagus  preserved  in  the  Museum  at 
Marseilles,  and  figured  below  (after  Milliu,  Voy¬ 
ages,  etc.  plate  Ivi.  6).  Yet  other  symbols  are 


occa.sionally  used  in  designation  of  Apostles,  but 
these,  as  being  less  capable  of  definite  interpre¬ 
tation,  are  rather  accompaniments  of  personal 


»  4  crucifix  with  twelve  doves  upon  the  four  portiona 
of  the  cross  itself,  in  the  apse  of  the  church  of  St.  Clement 
at  Rome,  is  of  the  13th  century.  So  Didron,  in  tlie  Aunaht 
Archaeologiqiies,  tom.  xxvi.  p.  17.  This  cross  Is  figured  hjf 
Alltgran/a,  Sf^fgazionc,  kc.,  tom.  i.  p.  118. 


108 


APOSTLES 


APOSTLES 


represeD  tat  ions  of  the  Twelve,  than  substitutes 
for  them.  Such  are  palm  trees,  vines,  and  other 
trees,  to  which  a  mystical  reference  was  given 
in  Christian  art  as  well  as  in  early  Christian 
literature.  St.  Hilary  of  Poitou,  commenting  on 
Matt.  xiii.  (the  parable  of  the  ‘  Sinapis  ’  or  Mus¬ 
tard  Plant),  sees  in  the  seed  committed  to  the 
ground,  and  then  springing  up  therefrom,  a  type 
of  Christ,  and  in  the  branches  of  the  tree,  put 
forth  by  the  Power  of  Christ,  and  embracing  the 
whole  earth  beneath  their  shade,  a  type  of  the 
Apostles,  branches  to  which  the  Gentiles,  like 
birds  of  the  air,  should  fly  from  the  world’s 
troubling  storms,  and  And  rest.  St.  Augustine 
uses  nearly  similar  language  in  reference  to  the 
same  parable.  (^Sermo  in  Festo  S.  Laurcntii.) 
And  this  traditional  application  affords  a  nro- 


the  walls  of  the  cemetery  of  St.  Callixtus  is  an 
inscription,  in  rude  characters,  much  such  as 
that  here  given  : — 


The  central  letters  of  the  inscription  are  believed 
to  represent  the  A  and  fl,  which  frequently  occur 
in  early  monuments  as  symbols  of  Our  Lord  ; 
while  the  twelve  letters  on  either  side  signify 
the  twelve  Apostles,  who  in  early  monuments, 
and  especially  on  sarcophagi,  are  frequently  re¬ 
presented,  six  on  either  hand. 

§  9.  Later  conventional  designations  of  the 
different  Apostles. — Christian  art  in  the  West 
for  the  last  five  centuries,  or  rather  more,  has 
assigned  special  attributes  to  each  one  of  the 
Twelve,  most  of  them  having  reference  to  late 
traditions  concerning  them,  unknown  to  the  early 
Church.  These  traditions,  by  the.ir  late  date, 
lie  beyond  the  range  properly  embraced  by  the 
present  work.  But  for  the  sake  of  comparison 
and  contrast  with  the  older  repi’esentations  above 
described,  it  may  be  well  very  briefly  to  notice 
them.  For  fuller  particulars,  the  reader  should 
consult  Didron’s  Manuel  d' Iconographie  (see  be¬ 
low  §  12)  and  Jameson’s  Sacred  and  Legendary 
Art. 

§  10.  As  Authors  of  separate  Articles  of  the 
Creed. — Probably  the  earliest  of  these  later  modes 
(after  1300  A.D.)  of  designating  the  several 
Apostles,  is  that  of  assigning  to  each  (w’ritten  on 
a  scroll  held  in  the  hand)  the  particular  article 
of  the  Creed  of  which  each  was,  by  tradition,  the 
author.  (For  the  tradition  as  to  this  authorship, 
see  Durandi,  Rationale,  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxv.)  In  the 
cathedral  church  of  Albi  (Didrcn,  Manuel  d’/co 
nographie,  p.  304)  the  Apostles  are  represented 
in  this  manner. 


bable  interpretation  of  the  small  bush-1  ike  trees* 
which  are  seen  associated  in  some  early  frescoes 
with  figures  of  Our  Lord  and  the  Apostles.  The 
symbolism  of  the  vine  resulted  naturally  from 
the  words  addressed  to  His  disciples  by  Our  Lord 
(“I  am  the  vine:  ye  are  the  branches,”  Joh.  xv. 
5).  The  palm-tree,  as  the  recognised  symbol  of 
victory  and  of  triumph,  was  suggestive  of  the 
same  thoughts  as  those  indicated  by  the  victor’s 
chaplet  (corona')  which  Apostles  often  bear  in 
their  hands,  or  have  bestowed  upon  them  by  a 
hand  from  heaven. 

Yet  one  other  symbol  may  be  referred  to, 
unique  of  its  kind,  adopted,  so  it  has  been  inge¬ 
niously  suggested,^  by  some  poor  man  who  could 
not  by  any  other  more  elaborate  means  express  the 
Christian  faith  and  hope  in  which  he  rested.  On 


§  11.  Distinguished  by  special  Insignia. — As 
an  example  of  yet  another  mode  of  designating 
the  Apostles  individually,  we  may  refer  (with 
M.  Didi’on)  to  a  series  of  enamels  by  Leonard 
Limousin  in  the  church  of  St.  Peter  at  Chartres. 
The  Twelve  are  there  represented  with  the  fol¬ 
lowing  insignia  : — St.  Peter  with  the  Keys  ;  St. 
Paul  with  a  Sword  St.  Andrew  with  a  Cross, 
saltier-wise;®  St.  John  with  a  Chalice  St.  James 
the  Less  with  a  Book  ?  and  a  Club  ;  ^  St.  James  the 
Elder  with  a  Pilgrim’s  Staff,*'  a  broad  Hat  **  with 
scallop-shells,  and  a  Book;?  St.  Thomas  with  an 
Architect’s  Square;*  St.  Philip  with  a  small 


As,  for  example,  in  that  of  our  Lord  as  the  giver  of 
the  Divine  Word,  with  two  Apostles  on  either  side,  in  the 
cemetery  of  St.  Agnes  at  Rome.  Aringhi,  R.  S.  tom.  ii. 
p.  329  ;  figured  also  in  Vestiarhim  Christianum,  pi.  xii. 

c  Lupi  (Antonniaria),  Dissertazione,  kc.  Faenza,  1785, 
4to. ;  tom.  i.  p.  260. 

4  As  the  instrument  by  which  he  was  believed  to  have 
suffered  martyrdom  :  or  (so  Durandus,  Rat.  i.  cap.  iii.  16) 
as  a  soldier  of  Christ,  armed  (so  he  probably  would  suggest) 
with  “  the  sword  of  the  Spirit.” 

e  “  En  sautoir the  ”  crux  decussata,”  shaped  like  an 
X,  and  generally  known  as  St.  Andrew's  Cross.  In  Greek 
Martyrologies  (and  in  one  or  two  Western  examples) 
St.  Andrew  is  depicted  as  crucified  on  a  cross  of  the  ordi¬ 
nary  form.  See  the  Menologium  Graecorum,  vol.  i.  p.  221 
(Nov.  30). 

f  Originally  perhaps  with  reference  to  the  words  (Matt 
XX.  23),  “  Ye  shall  indeed  drink  of  my  cup.”  For  the  later 
legendary  stories  of  a  poisoned  chalice  given  to  him,  see 
Jameson,  S.  and  L.  Art,  voL  i.  p.  159. 

g  Equivalent  to  the  scroll  (see  $  4)  of  primitive 
Christian  art 

t  All  the  insignia  here  mentioned  are  assigned  to  St. 
James  (the  St.  lago  of  Spanish  h'gend),  as  the  patron  of 
pilgrims.  The  pilgrimage  to  Compostella,  the  reputed 
place  of  St  lago’s  burial,  was  a  favourite  object  of  medi¬ 
aeval  devotion. 

i  In  allusion  to  a  beautiful  legendary  story  (.Tameson, 
and  L.  A.  p.  246),  in  respect  of  which  St.  Thomas  Is 
recognised  as  the  patron  of  architects  and  builders. 


ApjsUea. 


APOSTLES’  FESTIVALS  AND  FASTS 


109 


Cross,  the  staff  of  which  is  knotted  like  a  reed;'* 
St.  Matthew  with  a  Pike  (or  Spear);™  St,  Ma¬ 
thias  with  an  Axe;™  St.  Bartholomew  with  a 
Book"  and  a  Knife  St.  Simon  with  a  Saw." 

§  12.  Authorities  referred  to. — In  the  follow¬ 
ing  section  are  enumerated  the  principal  works 
in  which  the  monuments  above  referred  to  are 
figured  or  described.  For  the  Syriac  MS.  re¬ 
ferred  to  in  §  2,  see  the  Bibliotheca  Medicea  of 

S.  E.  Assemanus,  Florentine,  fol.  1742.  For  the 
Greek  Monuments,  see  Texier  and  Pullan,  Byzan¬ 
tine  Architecture,  fol,  London,  1864.  The  Meno- 
logium  Graecorum  referred  to  in  §  2  was  published 
at  Urbino,  3  vols.  fol.  1727.  And  on  the  subject 
of  the  later  Greek  Religious  Art  generally,  see  Di- 
dron,  Manuel  d’Tconographie  Chretienne,  Grecque, 
et  Latine,  Pains,  1845.  (This  is  a  French  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  'Epfirjueia  rrjs  pa<piKys,  or 
‘Painter’s  Guide’  of  Penselinos,  a  monk  of  Mount 
Athos  in  the  11th  century,  and  the  recognised 
authority  in  the  school  of  Greek  Art  which  has 
its  centre  in  the  same  “  holy  mountain  ”  to  this 
day.  It  is  enriched  with  very  valuable  notes  by 
the  editor.  For  what  relates  to  the  Apostles, 
see  p,  299  sqq.)  For  early  monuments  at  Rome 
and  Ravenna  —  Ciampini,  Vetera  Monumenta, 
Romae,  fol.  1699 ;  and  for  those  of  the  Roman 
Catacombs  more  particularly  —  Aringhi,  Boma 
Suhterranea,  2  vols.  fol.  Romae,  1651,  or  Bottari, 
Sculture  e  Fitture  sagre,  etc.,  Romae,  fol.  1737  ; 
Perret,  Catacomhes  de  Rome,  6  vols.  fol.  Paris, 
1851  (not  always  to  be  depended  on  in  matters 
of  detail) ;  Alemannus,  de  Parietinis  Lateranen- 
sibus,  Romae,  4"  1625  ;  and  for  ancient  ornaments 
in  Glass,  chiefly  from  the  Roman  Catacombs, 
Garrucci,  Vetri  ornati,  etc.  Roma,  1864.  For 
monuments  at  Verona,  Maffei,  Verona  Illustrata, 
fol.  1732 ;  and  at  Milan,  Allegranza  (Giuseppe), 
Spiegazione  e  Riflessioni,  etc.,  Milano,  4®  1757. 
For  early  sarcophagi  at  Arles,  Marseilles,  Aix, 
and  other  towns  in  France,  the  chief  authority 
is  Millin,  Voyages  dans  les  Departemens  du  Midi 
de  la  France,  8"  and  4°  Paris,  1807-1811.  One 
monument  of  special  interest,  that  of  the  Sancta 
Pudentiana  at  Rome  (the  figures  of  the  Twelve, 
ten  only  of  which  now  remain,  are  believed  with 
good  reason  to  be  of  the  4th  century,  though 
the  upper  part  of  the  mosaic  is  of  the  8th)  may 
best  be  studied  in  the  coloured  drawing  and 
description  given  by  Labarte,  FTistoire  des  Arts 
Industriels,  etc.,  vol.  iv.  p.  166  sqq.,  and  the 
Album  of  Plates,  vol.  ii.  pi.  cxxi.  This  mosaic 
is  also  represented  in  Gaily  Knight,  Ecclesias¬ 
tical  Architecture  of  Italy  (London,  1842),  vol.  i. 
pi.  xxiii.  [W.  B.  M.] 

APOSTLES’  FESTIVALS  AND  FASTS. 
— 1.  Festivals.  —  1.  In  the  Apostolical  Consti¬ 
tutions  (viii.  33,  §  3)  we  find  abstinence  from 
labour  enjoined  on  certain  “  days  of  the  Apostles” 
(tos  rjfMepas  toov  aTro(TT6\wv  apye'iTuxTav),  but 

^  “  Petite  croix  de  roseaux."  So  Didron.  A  reference 
to  Jameson’s  S.  and  L.  A.  p.  242,  and  to  the  drawing  there 
given,  suggests  the  explanation  above  given.  The  shape 
described  is  that  of  a  traveller's  staff ;  and  the  emblem 
marks  the  apostle  as  a  preacher  of  Christ  crucified  to 
distant  nations. 

“  See  note  4,  preceding  page. 

"  See  note  8,  preceding  page. 

®  According  to  Western  tradition  he  was  sawn  asunder ; 
but  in  the  Greek  representation  of  his  martyrdom  he 
is  affixed  to  a  cross  exactly  like  that  of  our  Saviour 
(Jameson,  voL  1.  p.  253). 


what  these  days  were  does  not  appear,  though 
the  injunction  to  abstain  from  labour  betokens 
a  great  festival. 

2.  As  the  services  of  Easter  week,  following 
the  evangelic  narrative  of  the  events  after  the 
Resurrection,  placed  a  commemoration  of  the 
solemn  sending  and  consecration  of  the  Apostles 
(St.  John  Xx.  21-23)  on  the  first  Sunday  after 
Easter,  this  day  appears  to  have  been  sometimes 
called  “  the  Sunday  of  the  Apostles.”  This 
Sunday  was  one  of  the  highest  festivals  in  the 
Ethiopian  Calendar  (Alt,  Christliche  Cultus,  ii. 
33,  184). 

3.  In  the  West  the  commemoration  of  all  the 
Apostles  was  anciently  joined  with  tliat  of  the 
two  gr*eat  Apostles,  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul ;  and 
this  festival  appears  to  have  been,  at  the  time  of 
its  first  institution,  the  only  festival  in  honour 
of  the  Apostles;  for  we  find  in  the  Missae  for 
that  festival  in  the  Leonine  Sacrameniary 
(Migne’s  Patrol,  vol.  55,  p.  44)  an  “oratio  super 
oblata,”  which  runs,  “  Omnipotens  sempiterno 
Deus,  qui  nos  omnium  apo.stolorum  merita  sub 
una  tribuisti  celebritate  venerari.”  And  this 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  also  w'hen  the 
“  Epistola  ad  Chromatium”  quoted  by  Cas- 
siodorus  (in  Leonine  Sacram.  p.  44)  was  written  ; 
for  we  there  read  that  the  Apostles  were  com¬ 
memorated  on  one  day,  “  ut  dies  varii  non 
videantur  dividere  quos  una  dignitas  Apostolatus 
in  coelesti  gloria  fecit  esse  sublimes.” 

4.  It  was  no  doubt  from  this  close  connection 
with  the  Festival  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  (June  29) 
that  the  Festival  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  (2uva|ts 
tS)v  daSeKa  ' Aito<tt6\o}v)  came  to  be  celebrated  in 
the  orthodox  Greek  church  on  the  morrow  of 
that  festival — June  30 — as  it  is  to  this  day. 
This  is  a  great  festival,  with  abstinence  from 
labour  ('Apy(a). 

5.  In  the  Ai'menian  calendar,  the  Saturdav  of 
t’ne  sixth  week  after  Pentecost  is  dedicated  to  the 
Twelve  Holy  Apostles,  and  their  chiefs,  Peter 
and  Paul ;  and  the  Tuesday  in  the  fifth  week 
after  the  elevation  of  the  Cross  is  dedicated  to 
Ananias  of  Damascus,  Matthias,  Barnabas,  Philip, 
Stephen,  Silas  and  Silvanus,  and  the  Tw^elve 
Apostles.  (Alt,  Christliche  Cultus,  ii.  242,  256.) 

6.  The  Micrologus  tells  us  (c.  55)  that  on 
May  1,  “  invenitur  in  Martyrologiis  sive  in 
Sacramentariis  festivitas  SS.  Philippi  et  Jacob. 
et  omnium  Apostolorum.”  The  existing  Mar- 
tyrologies  and  Sacramentaries,  however,  men¬ 
tion  no  commemoration  on  May  1,  beyond  that 
of  SS.  Philip  and  James  ;  but  the  mention  of  a 
commemoration  of  all  Apostles  may  have  arisen  ^ 
from  the  “  Deposition”  of  the  bodies  of  SS.  Philip 
and  James  in  the  “  Basilica  omnium  Apostolo- 
rum.”  (Binterim’s  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  v.  i.  365  ; 
Wetzer  and  Welte’s  Kirchenlexicon,  xii.  57.) 

7.  The  15th  of  July  is  in  the  Roman  calendar 
the  Feast  of  the  “  Division  of  the  Apostles,” 
(Divisio  SS.  Apostolorum).  This  was  j)robably 
intended  to  commemorate  the  traditional  event 
1‘elated  by  Rufinus  (//.  E.,  i.  9),  that  the  Apostles, 
before  leaving  Jerusalem  to  begin  their  work  of 
preaching  the  Gospel  to  all  nations,  determined 
by  lot  the  portions  of  the  world  which  each 
should  evangelise.  By  others,  however,  the 
Feast  is  supposed  to  commemorate  the  “  Divisio 
ossium  Petri  et  Pauli.”  The  legend  to  which 
this  refers  is  as  follows : — The  remains  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul  were  placed  together  after  their 


110  APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


martyrdom,  and  when  Pope  Sylvester,  at  the 
consecration  of  the  great  church  of  St.  Peter, 
desired  to  place  the  sacred  remains  of  the  patron 
saint  in  an  altar,  it  was  found  impossible  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  them  from  those  of  St.  Paul ;  but  after 
fasting  and  prayer,  a  divine  voice  revealed  that 
the  larger  bones  were  those  of  the  Preacher,  the 
smaller  of  the  Fisherman ;  and  they  were  con¬ 
sequently  placed  in  the  churches  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul  respectively.  (Ciampini,  de  Sacris 
Aedijiciis,  p.  53,  quoting  Beleth,  Explicat.  Divin. 
Offic.  c.  138.) 

II.  Fasts. — 1.  As  early  as  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  (v.  20,  §  7)  we  find  the  week  fol¬ 
lowing  the  octave  of  Pentecost  marked  as  a  fast. 
The  intention  of  this  probably  was,  as  no  fast 
was  allowable  in  the  joyful  season  between  Pasch 
and  Pentecost,  lhat  men  should  endeavour  to 
render  themselves  fit  recipients  of  the  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  subsequent  mortification. 
This  fi\st  was  afterwards  extended  to  the  eve  of 
the  Festival  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  and  as  it 
now  filled  the  whole  space  between  the  “  Apostle 
Sunday  ”  and  the  great  commemorations  of  the 
Apostles  on  June  29  and  June  30,  it  came  to  be 
called  the  “Apostles’  Fast,”  "N-qaTeia  rootf  aylau 
'ATToa-ToKwu.  (August!,  Handbuch  der  Christl. 
Archdologie,  iii.  481.) 

2.  There  is  a  collect  for  a  Fast  in  the  mass 
already  referred  to  in  the  Leonine  Sacramentary. 
This,  perhaps,  indicates  that  an  extraordinary 
fast,  instituted  in  the  time  of  St.  Leo  for  the 
relief  of  Rome,  or  for  some  other  reason,  con¬ 
curred  with  the  Festival  of  All  Apostles.  (Note 
in  the  Leonine  Sacram.  Migne’s  Patrol,  vol.  55, 
p.  44.) 

III.  Dedications. — A  church  (Maprvptoy),  de¬ 

dicated  to  the  Twelve  Apostles,  second  in 
splendour  only  to  that  of  St.  Sophia,  was  built 
at  Constantinople  by  Constantine  the  Great,  who 
intended  it  for  the  place  of  his  own  sepulture 
(Eusebius,  Vita  Constantini,  lib.  iv.,  cc.  58-60). 
He  also  dedicated  at  Capua,  in  honour  of  the 
Apostles,  a  church  to  which  he  gave  the  name  of 
Constantinian  {Liber  Pontif.,  under  ‘  Sylvester,’ 
Muratori  Scriptores,  iii.  1).  The  ancient  church 
at  Rome  dedicated  to  the  Apostles,  is  said  to  have 
been  begun  by  Pope  Pelagius  I.  (555-560),  and 
completed  by  his  successor  John  III.  (560-573). 
(Ciampini,  de  Sacris  Aedif.  p.  137.)  [C.] 

APOSTOLUS,  the  formal  missive  of  the  judge 
of  a  lower  court,  whereby  a  cause  w^as  trans¬ 
ferred  to  a  higher  court  to  which  appeal  had 
been  made  from  him.  See  Justinian,  Cod.  vii. 
62,  &c.  &c.,  and  under  Appeals.  [A.  \V.  H.] 

APOSTOLICAL  CANONS.  About  500 
A.T).,  Dionysius  Exiguus,  a  Roman  monk  of  great 
learning,  at  the  request  of  Stephen,  Bishop  of 
Salona,  made  a  collection  of  Greek  canons,  trans¬ 
lating  them  into  Latin.  At  the  head  of  this 
collection  he  placed  50  canons,  with  this  title, 
“  Incipiunt  Regulae  Ecclesiasticae  sanctorum 
Apostolorum,  prolatae  per  Clementem  Ecclesiae 
Romanae  Pontificem.”  At  the  same  time,  how¬ 
ever,  Dionysius  says  in  the  preface  to  his  w'ork, 
“  In  principio  itaque  canones,  qui  dicuntur  Apos¬ 
tolorum,  de  Graeco  transtulimus,  quibus  quia 
plurimi  consensum  non  praebuere  facilem,  hoc 
ipsum  vtstram  noluimus  ignorare  sanctitatem, 
quamvis  postea  quaedam  cocstituta  pontificum 
ex  ipsis  canonibus  assumpta  esse  videantur.” 


These  w'ords  obviously  point  to  a  difTerence  of 
opinion  prevailing  in  the  Church,  though  it  has 
l>een  doubted  by  some  whether  the  dissentients 
spoken  of  rejected  the  canons  altogether,  or 
merely  denied  that  they  were  the  work  of  the 
apostles.  And  with  regai*d  to  the  last  clause,  it 
is  much  disputed  whether  pre\’tous  popes  can  be 
shown  to  have  knowm  and  cited  these  canons.® 
Hefele  denies  that  “  Pontifices  ”  means  Popes,  and 
would  understand  it  of  bishops  in  their  synodical 
constitutions.** 

The  subsequent  course  taken  by  the  Church  of 
Rome  in  relation  to  these  canons  is  not  altogether 
clear.  In  the  last  decade  of  the  5th  century 
Pope  Gelasius  published  a  decree  De  Libris  non  re- 
cipiendis,  and  in  the  text  of  this  decree  as  it  now 
stands  in  the  Decretum  Gratiani  there  appears, 
amongst  other  rejected  works,  ‘  Liber  canonum 
Apostolorum  apocryphus.’  But  it  is  said  that 
these  words  are  not  found  in  the  most  ancient 
MSS.  of  the  decree,  and  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  in 
speaking  of  it,  expressly  says  that  Gelasius  is 
silent  as  to  the  Apostolical  Canons.  ^Moreover. 
Dionysius,  "who  was  by  birth  a  Scythian,  does  not 
seem  to  have  come  to  Rome  until  after  the  death 
of  Gelasius,  and  consequently  his  collection  cannot 
have  appeared  at  the  time  of  the  decree.® 

Hefele  thei'efore  thinks  that  the  words  in  ques¬ 
tion  were  for  the  first  time  inserted  by  Pope  Hor- 
misdas  (514—523),  w^hen  he  republished  the  decree 
‘  De  Libris  non  recipiendis  ’  {Conciliengeschidde^  i. 
719)."*  If  so,  the  point  is  not  very  material.  It 
is  clear  that  Dionysius,  in  setting  forth  a  later 
collection  during  the  popedom  of  Hormisdas  (of 
which  the  preface  alone  is  now  extant)  left  out 
these  canons.  He  says  :  “  Canones  qui  dicuntur 
Apostolorum  et  Sardicensis  concilii  atque  Afri- 
canae  provinciae  quos  non  admisit  universitas,  ego 
quoque  in  hoc  opere  praetermisi,  &c.”  ® 

“  Bishop  Pearson  contends  that  Leo,  Innocent,  and  Ge- 
lasius  himself,  refer  to  them  (  Vindic.  Ignat.,  part  i.  cap. 
iv.) ;  but  this  has  been  as  strongly  denied.  Bickell  thinkf* 
that  Dionysius  may  have  had  in  view  expressions  of 
Siricius  {Ep.  ad  Div.  Episc.,  anno  386)  and  Innocent  (Ep. 
ad  Victric.,  anno  404),  which,  however,  he  conceives  him 
to  have  misunderstood  {Gesch.  des  Kirchenrechts,  p.  74). 
Von  Drey  seems  to  think  the  canons  were  not  known  at 
Rome  till  the  version  of  Dionysius ;  but  Hefele  observes 
that  they  might  have  been  known  in  their  Greek  form. 
Dionysius  in  his  preface  says  that  he  had  been  exhorted 
to  the  work  of  translation  by  his  friend  Laurentius,  who 
was  “  confusione  prisctie  translationis  ofFensus.”  Does  this 
poirit  to  an  existing  version  of  the  canons,  or  is  it  to  be 
understood  of  the  other  matters  contained  in  his  col¬ 
lection  ?  The  latter  seems  most  in  accordance  with  the 
received  theory. 

•>  See  his  Conciliengeschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  767.  But  unless 
it  can  be  limited  to  Eastern  bishops,  this  view  would 
equally  admit  that  the  canons  so  quoted  or  relied  on  must 
have  been  known  in  the  Western  Church. 

c  Dionysius  says  in  his  preface:  “  Xos  qui  eum  (Ge- 
lasium)  praesentia  corporali  non  vidimus.”  This  in  itself 
would  not  be  conclusive  as  to  the  decree,  though  the  only 
alternative  would  be  to  admit  that  the  canons  were  known 
at  Rome  before  Dionysius’s  translation.  Bishop  Pearson 
seeks  to  throw  doubt  on  the  decree  (  Vmdic.  Ignat.,  part  i. 
cap.  iv.) ;  but  much  of  his  reasoning  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  theory  of  Hefele. 

4  So  too,  apparently,  Bickell,  vol.  i.  p.  74. 

'  Cited  in  Bickell  (i.  75),  who  also  mentions  that  they 
were  omitted  from  the  Spanish  collection  of  canons  in  the 
7th  century,  with  these  words :  “  Canones  autem  qui 
dicuntur  Apostolorum,  sed  quia  eosdem  nec  sedes  ajos- 
tolica  rccipit,  nec  SS.  patres  illis  consensum  pracbucruut. 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 

At  all  events  it  must  ne  taken  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  at  the  present  day  does  not  accept  these 
canons  as  of  apostolic  authority.  Though  the 
citations  made  by  Gratian  under  the  head  “De 
auctoritate  et  numero  Canonum  Apostolorum,” 
are  not  very  consistent  v/ith  each  other,  yet  the 
latest  canonists  S^peak  more  distinctly. 

“  Canones  illi  non  sunt  opus  genuinum  aposto¬ 
lorum,  nec  ah  omni  naevo  immunes  ;  merito  tamen 
I'eputantur  insigne  monumentum  disciplinae  Ec- 
clesiae  per  priora  secula,”  says  M.  Icard  in  his 
Praelectiones  Juris  Canonici  at  St.  Sulpice  (pub¬ 
lished  with  the  approbation  of  the  authorities  of 
the  Church)  in  1862,  and  he  then  cites  the  Gela- 
sian  decree  declaring  them  apocryphal. 

Nevertheless  great  attention  has  been  paid  to 
them.  Extracts  were  admitted  by  Gratian  into 
the  Deeretum,  and,  in  the  words  of  Phillips  (‘  Du 
Droit  ecclesiastique  dans  ses  Sources,’  Paris,  1352) 
“  ils  ont  pris  rang  dans  la  legislation  canonique.” 

But  we  must  return  to  the  6th  century. 
About  fifty  years  after  the  work  of  Dionysius, 
John  of  Antioch,  otherwise  called  Johannes  Scho- 
lasticus,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  set  forth  a 
cvurayfia  Kav6v(t}v,  which  contained  not  50  but 
85  Canons  of  the  Apostles.  And  in  the  year  692 
these  were  expressly  recognized  in  the  decrees  of 
the  Quinisextine  Council,  not  only  as  binding 
canons,  but  (it  would  seem)  as  of  apostolic  ori¬ 
gin.^  They  are  therefore  in  force  in  the  Greek 
Church. 

How  it  came  to  pass  that  Dionysius  translated 
only  50  does  not  appear.  Some  writers  have 
supposed  that  he  rejected  what  was  not  to  be  re¬ 
conciled  with  the  Roman  practice,  s  But,  as 
Hefele  observes,  this  could  hardly  be  his  motive, 
inasmuch  as  he  retains  a  canon  as  to  the  nullity 
of  heretical  baptism,  which  is  at  variance  with 
.  the  view  of  the  Western  Church.  Hence  it  has 
been  suggested  that  the  MS.  used  by  Dionysius 
was  of  a  different  class  from  that  of  John  of  An¬ 
tioch  (for  they  vary  in  some  expressions,  and 
have  also  a  difference  in  the  numbering  of  the 
canons),  and  that  it  may  have  had  only  the  50 
translated  by  the  former.  And  an  inference  has 
also  been  drawn  that  the  35  latter  canons  are  of 
later  date.**  Indeed,  according  to  seme,  they 
are  obviously  of  a  different  type,  and  were  pos¬ 
sibly  added  to  the  collection  at  the  same  time 


pro  eo  quod  ab  haereticis  sub  nomine  Apostolorum  com- 
positi  dignoscuntur,  quamvis  in  eisdem  quaedam  inve- 
niuntur  utilia,  auctoritate  tamen  canonica  et  apostolica 
eorum  gesta  constat  esse  remota  et  inter  apocrypha 
dcputata,” 

^  ’ESo^e  KoX  TOVTO  rrj  ayi<f  ravr/j  avv6S<o  KaWitTra  re 
K<u  <TnovSai6raTa,  tixTre  fieveiv  Kal  airh  rov  yvv  /3e/3a(Ov; 
»cai  i<7<f>aX.€r?  Trpb?  \lrv\biv  Oepairetav  KaX  iarpeCav  iradutv 
Tovs  VITO  jibv  irpo  rip.cju  ayiuv  teal  p.aKapi<xiv  nareptav 
6tx9€vra$  KaX  KvpoiBivTa^,  aXXa  p.rfv  KaX  trapetfiofleVrat 
rip.lv  hv6p.ari  twv  ay[<ov  KaX  evSo^iav  ano<TT6\<ov  bySo^- 
*ovTa  nevre  Kavova^.  Can.  II.,  cited  in  Ultzen,  Pref. 
p.  ix. 

Beveridge  argues  that  the  word  hvopLart  shews  that, 
while  their  validity  as  canons  of  the  Church  was  admitted, 
their  apostolical  origin  was  not  decided.  Contra  Hefele, 
Cmciliengesch.  i.  768. 

The  additional  35  canons  in  the  collection  of  Scho- 
lasticus  have  not  been  in  any  way  recognized  by  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

8  As,  for  instance,  De  Marca;  and  see  AylifFe's  Parergon, 
Introd.,  p.  iv. 

•*  See  on  this  subject,  Hefele,  1.  768.  Scholasticus  says 
there  were  previous  collections  containing  85. 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS  111 

that  the  canons  w^ere  appended  to  the  Constitu¬ 
tions.' 

It  is  time  to  come  to  the  Canons  themselves. 
Both  in  the  collection  of  John  of  Antioch  and  in 
that  of  Dionysius  they  are  alleged  to  have  been 
drawn  up  by  Clement  from  the  directions  of  the 
Apostles.  In  several  places  the  Apostles  speak  in 
the  first  person,**  and  in  the  85th  canon  Clement 
uses  the  first  person  singular  of  himself. 

Their  subjects  are  briefly  as  follow  : — * 

I  &  2  (I.  &  II.).  Bishop  to  be  ordained  by  two 
or  thi’ee  bishops  ;  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  the 
rest  of  the  clerical  body  by  one. 

3  &  4  (HI.)  relate  to  what  is  proper  to  be  of¬ 
fered  at  the  altar ;  mentioning  new  corn,  grapes, 
and  oil,  and  incense  at  the  time  of  the  holy  ob¬ 
lation. 

5  (IV.).  First-fruits  of  other  things  are  to  be 
sent  to  the  clergy  at  their  home,  not  brought  to 
the  altar. 

6  (V.).  Bishop  or  presbyter  or  deacon  not  to 
put  away  his  wife  under  pretence  of  piety. 

7  (VI.).  Clergy  not  to  take  secular  cares  on 
them. 

8  (VH.).  Nor  to  keep  Easter  before  the  vernal 
equinox,  according  to  the  Jewish  system. 

9  (VHI.).  Nor  to  fail  to  communicate  without 
some  good  reason. 

10  (IX.).  Laity  not  to  be  present  at  the  read¬ 
ing  of  the  Scriptures  without  remaining  for 
prayer  and  ^le  Communion. 

II  (X.).  None  to  join  in  prayer,  even  in  a 
house,  with  an  excommunicate  person. 

12  (XL).  Clergy  not  to  join  in  prayer  with  a 
deposed  man  as  if  he  were  still  a  cleric. 

13  (XII.  &  XHL).  Clergy  or  lay  persons,  being 
under  excommunication  or  not  admitted  to  Com¬ 
munion,  going  to  another  city  not  to  be  received 
without  letters. 

14  (XIV.).  Bishop  not  to  leave  his  own  diocese 
and  invade  another,  even  on  request,  except  ^or 
good  reasons,  as  in  case  he  can  confer  spixitval 
benefit ;  nor  even  then  except  by  the  judgment  cf 
many  other  bishops,  and  at  pressing  request. 

15  (XV.).  If  clergy  leave  their  own  diocese, 
and  take  up  their  abode  in  another  without  con¬ 
sent  of  their  own  bishop,  they  are  not  to  perform 
clerical  functions  there. 

16  (XVL).  Bishop  of  such  diocese  not  to  treat 
them  as  clergy. 

17  (XVIL).  One  twice  married  after  baptism, 
or  who  has  taken  a  concubine,  not  to  be  a  cleric. 

18  (XVIIL).  One  who  has  married  a  widow  or 
divorced  woman,  or  a  courtesan  or  a  slave,  or 
an  actress,  not  to  be  admitted  into  the  clerical 
body. 


i  So  Bickell,  i.  86  and  235.  For  the  Constitutions,  see 
the  next  article. 

k  Beveridge  however  contends,  from  the  variations  and 
omissions  in  MSS.  and  versions,  that  the  introduction  of 
the  first  person  is  a  mere  interpolation  of  late  date,  in 
order  to  promote  the  fiction  of  apostolic  origin  {Cod.  Can. 
in  Cotel.,  vol.  ii.  p.  73,  Appendix).  See  instances  in 
Canons  XXIX.,  L..  LXXXII.,  LXXXV.  The  various  read¬ 
ings  may  be  seen  in  Ultzen's  edition,  and  in  Lagarde’s 
Rtliq.  Jut.  Eccles.  Antiquiss. 

1  The  numbering  varies.  Thus  Canon  III.  of  the  Greek 
text  is  divided  into  two  by  Dionysius.  The  Arabic  nu¬ 
merals  represent  the  order  in  Dionysius ;  the  Roman  that 
in  the  Greek  of  Johannes  Scholasticus.  Coteleriiis,  again, 
gives  a  different  numbering,  making  the  canons  only  76 
in  all. 


112 


APOSTOLICAL  CANOXS 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


19  (XIX.).  Nor  one  who  has  married  two  sis¬ 
ters  or  his  niece. 

20  (XX.).  Clergy  not  to  become  sureties. 

21  (XXI.).  One  who  has  been  made  a  eunuch 
by  violence,  or  in  a  persecution,  or  was  so  born, 
may  be  a  bishop. 

22  (XXII.).  But  if  made  so  by  his  own  act, 
cannot  be  cleric. 

23  (XXIII.).  A  cleric  making  himself  so,  to  be 
deposed. 

24  (XXIV.).  A  layman  making  himself  a 
eunuch  to  bo  shut  out  from  Communion  for  three 
years. 

25  &  26  (XXV.).  Clerics  guilty  of  inconti¬ 
nence,  perjury,  or  theft,  to  be  deposed,  but  not 
excommunicated  (citing  Nah.  1,  9  ovk  4k^ik^(T€19 
Sis  eVi  rb  avrb). 

27  (XXVI.).  None  to  marry  after  entering  the 
clerical  body,  except  readers  and  singers. 

28  (XXVII.).  Clergy  not  to  strike  offenders. 

29  (XXVIII.).  Clergy  deposed  not  to  pi’esume 
to  act,  on  pain  of  being  wholly  cut  off  from  the 
Church. 

30  (XXIX.).  Bishop,  &c.  obtaining  ordination 
by  money  to  be  deposed,  and,  together  with  him 
who  ordained  him,  cut  off  from  communion,  as 
was  Simon  Magus  by  me,  Peter. 

31  (XXX.).  Bishop  obtaining  a  church  by 
means  of  secular  rulers  to  be  deposed,  &c. 

32  (XXXI.).  Presbyters  not  to  set  up  a  sepa¬ 
rate  congregation  and  altar  in  coutempt  of  his 
bishop,  when  the  bishop  is  just  and  godly. 

33  (XXXII.).  Presbyter  or  deacon  under  sen¬ 
tence  of  his  own  bishop  not  to  be  received  else¬ 
where. 

34  (XXXIII.).  Clergy  from  a  distance  not  to 
be  received  without  letters  of  commendation,  nor 
unless  they  be  preachers  of  godliness  are  they 
to  have  anything  beyond  the  supply  of  their 
wants. 

35  (XXXIV.).  The  bishops  of  every  nation  are 
to  know  who  is  chief  among  them,  and  to  consi¬ 
der  him  their  head,  and  do  nothing  without  his 
judgment,  except  the  affairs  of  their  own  dio¬ 
ceses,  nor  must  he  do  anything  without  their 
judgment. 

36  (XXXV.).  Bishop  not  to  ordain  out  of  his 
diocese. 

37  (XXXVI.).  Clergy  not  to  neglect  to  enter 
on  the  charge  to  which  they  are  appointed,  nor 
the  people  to  refuse  to  receive  them. 

38  (XXXVII.).  Synod  of  bishops  to  be  held 
twice  a  year  to  settle  controversies. 

39  (XXXVIII.).  Bishop  to  have  care  of  all  ec¬ 
clesiastical  affairs,  but  not  to  appropriate  any¬ 
thing  for  his  own  family,  except  to  grant  them 
relief  if  in  poverty. 

40  (XXXIX.  &  XL.).  Clergy  to  do  nothing 
without  bishop.  Bishop  to  keep  his  own  affairs 
separate  from  those  of  the  Church,  and  to  provide 
for  his  family  out  of  his  own  property. 

41  (XLI.).  Bishop  to  have  power  over  all  eccle¬ 
siastical  affairs,  and  to  distribute  through  the 
presbytei’s  and  deacons,  and  to  have  a  share  him¬ 
self  if  required. 

42  (XLIL).  Cleric  not  to  play  dice  or  take  to 
drinking. 

43  (XLI II.).  Same  as  to  subdeacon,  reader, 
singer,  or  layman. 

44  (XLIV.).  Clergy  not  to  take  usury. 

45  (XLV.).  Clergy  not  to  pray  with  heretics, 
still  less  to  allow  them  to  act  as  clergy. 


46  (XLVL).  Clergy  not  to  recognize  heretical 
baptism  or  sacrifice. 

47  (XLVIL).  Clergy  not  to  rebaptize  one  truly 
baptized,  nor  to  omit  to  baptize  one  polluted  by 
the  ungodly,™  otherwise  he  contemns  the  cross 
and  death  of  the  Lord,  and  does  not  distinguish 
true  priests  from  false. 

48  (XLVIIL).  Layman  who  has  put  away  his 
wife  not  to  take  another,  nor  to  take  a  divorced 
woman. 

49  (XLIX.).  Baptism  to  be  in  name  of  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  not  of  three  eternals,  or 
three  sons,  or  three  paracletes. 

50  (L.).  Baptism  to  be  performed  by  three  im¬ 
mersions,  making  one  initiation — not  one  single 
immersion  into  the  Lord’s  death. 

LI.  Clergy  not  to  hold  marriage  or  the  use  of 
meat  and  wine  things  evil  in  themselves,  or  to 
abstain  on  any  other  than  ascetic  grounds. 

LII.  Bishop  or  presbyter  to  receive,  not  to  re¬ 
ject  penitents. 

LIII.  Clergy  not  to  refuse  to  partake  of  meat 
and  wine  on  feast  days  [as  if  evil,  or  on  other 
than  ascetic  grounds]. 

LIV.  Clerics  not  to  eat  in  taverns  except  on  a 
journey. 

LV.  Clerics  not  to  insult  bishop. 

LVI.  Nor  presbyter  or  deacon. 

LVII.  Nor  to  mock  the  maimed,  deaf,  dumb, 
blind,  or  lame,  nor  must  a  layman  do  so. 

LVIII.  Bishops  and  presbyters  not  to  neglect 
their  clergy  or  people. 

LIX.  Nor  to  refuse  succour  to  the  needy 
clergy. 

LX.  Nor  to  publish  in  the  church  as  sacred 
works  forged  by  the  ungodly  in  false  names. 

LXI.  Those  convicted  of  incontinence  or  other 
forbidden  practices  not  to  be  admitted  into  the 
clerical  body. 

LXII.  Clerics  from  fear  of  Jew  or  Gentile  or 
heretic  denying  Christ  to  be  excommunicated,  oi 
if  only  denying  that  they  are  clerics,  to  be  de¬ 
posed.  On  repentance,  to  be  admitted  as  laymen. 

LXIII.  Cleric  eating  blood,  or  things  torn  by 
beasts,  or  dying  of  themselves,  to  be  deposed,  on 
account  of  the  prohibition  in  the  law.  Laymen 
doing  so  to  be  excommunicated. 

LXIV.  Cleric  or  layman  entering  synagogue  of 
Jews  or  heretics  to  pray,  to  be  deposed  and  ex¬ 
communicated. 

LXV.  Cleric  in  a  struggle  striking  a  single 
blow  that  proves  mortal  to  be  deposed  for  his 
pi’ecipitancy.  Laymen  to  be  excommunicated. 

LXVI.  Neither  cleric  nor  layman  to  fast  on 
Sunday  or  on  any  Saturday  but  one.“ 

LXVII.  Any  one  doing  violence  to  an  unbe¬ 
trothed  virgin  to  be  excommunicated.  He  may 
not  take  another,  but  must  keep  her,  though 
poor. 

LXVIII.  Clergy  not  to  be  ordained  a  second 
time,  unless  when  ordained  by  heretics,  for  those 
baptized  or  ordained  by  heretics  have  not  really 
been  brought  into  the  number  of  the  faithful  or 
of  the  clergy. 

LXIX.  Bishop,  presbyter,  deacon,  reader,  or 
singei",  not  fasting  in  the  holy  forty  days,  or  on 
the  fourth  and  sixth  days,  to  be  deposed,  unles.s 

n»  I.  e.  baptized  by  heretics.  Heretical  baptism  is 
styled  not  an  initiation,  but  a  pollution.  See  Jpost. 
Const,  vi.  15. 

“  Namely,  that  before  Easter  day.  Apost.  Const  T. 
18  and  20. 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS  113 


suffering  from  bodily  weakness.  Laymen  to  be 
excommunicated. 

LXX.  None  to  keep  fast  or  feast  with  the 
Jews,  or  receive  their  feast-gifts,  as  unleavened 
bread  and  so  forth. 

LXXI.  No  Christian  to  give  oil  for  a  heathen 
temple  or  Jewish  synagogue,  or  to  light  lamps  at 
their  feast  times. 

LXXII.  Nor  to  purloin  wax  or  oil  from  the 
Church. 

LXXIII.  Nor  to  convert  to  his  own  use  any 
consecrated  gold  or  silver  vessel  or  linen. 

LXXIV.  Bishop  accused  by  credible  men,  to  be 
summoned  by  tlie  bishops ;  and  if  he  appear  and 
confess  the  charge,  or  be  proved  guilty,  to  have 
appropriate  sentence  ;  but  if  he  do  not  obey  the 
summons,  then  to  be  summoned  a  second  and 
third  time  by  two  bishops  personally ;  and  if  he 
still  be  contumacious,  then  the  Synod  is  to  make 
the  tit  decree  against  him,  that  he  may  not  ap¬ 
pear  to  gain  anything  by  evading  justice. 

LXXY.  No  heretic,  nor  less  than  two  wit¬ 
nesses,  even  of  the  faithful,  to  be  received  against 
a  bishop  (Deut.  19,  15). 

LXXVI.  Bishop  not  to  ordain  relatives  bishops 
out  of  favour  or  affection. 

LXXVII.  One  having  an  eye  injured  or  lame 
may  still  be  a  bishop,  if  worthy. 

LXXVIII.  But  not  one  deaf,  dumb,  or  blind,  as 
being  practical  hindrances. 

LXXIX.  One  that  has  a  devil  not  to  be  a  cleric, 
nor  even  to  pray  with  the  faithful,  but  when 
cleansed  he  may,  if  worthy. 

LXXX.  A  convert  from  the  heathen  or  from  a 
vicious  life  not  foi-thwith  to  be  made  a  bishop  ; 
for  it  is  not  right  that  while  yet  untried  he 
should  be  a  teacher  of  others,  unless  this  come 
about  in  some  way  by  the  grace  of  God.® 

LXXXl.  We  declare  that  a  bishop  or  presbyter 
is  not  to  stoop  to  public  [secular]  offices,  but  to 
give  himself  to  the  wants  of  the  Church  (Matt. 
6,  24). 

LXXXII.  We  do  not  allow  slaves  to  be  chosen 
into  the  clerical  body  without  consent  of  their 
masters,  to  the  injury  of  those  who  possess  them, 
for  this  would  subvert  households.  But  if  a  slave 
seem  worthy  of  ordination,  as  did  our  Onesimus, 
and  the  masters  consent  and  set  him  free,  let  him 
be  ordained. 

LXXXIII.  Clergy  not  to  serve  in  the  army,  and 
seek  to  hold  both  Roman  command  and  priestly 
duties  (Matt.  22,  21). 

LXXXIV.  Those  who  unjustly  insult  a  king  or 
ruler  to  be  punished. 

LXXXV.  For  you,  both  clergy  and  laity,  let 
there  be,  as  books  to  be  reverenced  and  held  holy, 
in  the  Old  Testament — five  of  Moses,  Genesis,  Exo¬ 
dus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy — of  Jesus 
the  sou  of  Nun,  one  ;  of  Judges,  one  ;  Ruth,  one  ;  of 
Kings,  four  ;  of  Paraleipomena  the  book  of  days, 
two  ;  of  Esdras,  two  ;  of  Esther,  one  ;  of  Macca¬ 
bees,  three  ;  of  Job,  one  ;  of  the  Psalter,  one  ;  of 
Solomon,  three — Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of 
Songs  ;  of  the  Prophets,  thirteen  ;  of  Isaiah,  one  ; 
of  Jeremiah,  one;  of  Ezekiel,  one  ;  of  Daniel,  one. 
Over  and  above  is  to  be  mentioned  to  you  that 
your  young  men  study  the  Wisdom  of  the  learned 
Sirach.  But  of  ours,  that  is  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  let  there  be  four  gospels,  Matthew’s, 

°  I.  e.  unless  he  be  designated  as  such  in  some  special 
way  by  the  hand  of  God.  Beveridge  refers  to  the  case 
of  A  mbrose. 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


Mark’s,  Luke’s,  John’s ;  fourteen  epistles  of 
Paul ;  two  epistles  of  I’eter  ;  three  of  John  ;  one 
of  James  ;  one  of  Jude  ;  two  epistles  of  Clement ; 
and  the  regulations  addressed  to  you  bishops 
through  me,  Clement,  in  eight  books,P  which  it  is 
not  right  to  publish  before  all,  on  account  of  the 
mysteries  in  them ;  and  the  Acts  of  us,  the 
Apostles. 

The  above  is  merely  the  substance  of  the 
canons  in  an  abridged  form.  It  will  not  of  course 
supersede  the  necessity  of  referring  to  the  origi¬ 
nal  in  order  to  form  an  exact  judgment.  For  the 
sake  of  breAuty  the  penalties  haA^e  been  in  most 
cases  omitted.  They  are  usually  deposition  for 
the  clergy,  excommunication  for  laymen. 

Turrianus  attemptel  to  maintain  that  those 
canons  really  are  what  they  profess  to  be,  the 
genuine  Avork  of  the  apostles.  Daille,  on  the 
other  hand,  contended  that  they  wci’e  a  produc¬ 
tion  of  the  middle  or  end  of  the  5th  century. 
Against  him  Bishop  BeA^eridge  entered  the  field  ; 
and  in  tAvo  treatises  of  great  learning,  acuteness, 
and  vigour,'!  sought  to  show  that  though  not  the 
Avork  of  the  apostles  themselves,  they  AA’ere  yet 
of  great  antiquity,  being  in  substance  the  decrees 
of  primitiA’e  Synods  coiu'ened  in  different  places 
and  at  different  times  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
2nd,  or  at  latest  the  earlier  part  of  the  3rd  cen¬ 
tury.  And  he  further  thinks  that  during  the 
3rd  century  they  Avere  brought  together  and 
formed  into  a  collection  or  Codex  Canonum, 
Avhich  Avas  recognized,  and  cited  as  of  authority 
in  the  Church.  *■ 

Bishop  Pearson  also  holds  the  canons  in  a  col¬ 
lected  form  to  haA'e  been  in  existence  prior  to  the 
Council  of  Nice  ( Vmdic.  Ignat,  part  i.  cap.  iA". 
in  Cotel.,  Ami.  ii.,  append,  p.  295).  * 

It  Avill  be  Avell  to  endeaAmur  to  give  some 
samples  of  the  eA’idence  Avhich  Beveridge  adduces 
to  show  that  the  canons  are  quoted  at  all  eAmnts 
from  the  first  part  of  the  4th  century  down- 
Avards. 

George  of  Cappadocia  buys  the  favour  of  the 
Praefect  of  Egypt,  and  is  thrust  into  the  bishopric 
of  Alexandria.  Athanasius  thereupon  says,  tou- 
To  rovs  iKicKrjffiaa'TiKovs  Kav6vas  ivapaXv<X€i'  (ad 
ubique  orthod.  c.  1,  p.  945).  The  reference,  it  is 
alleged,  is  to  Apost.  Can.  30  (xxix.)  and  31  (xxx.) 


p  Viz.  the  Apost.  Constitutions.  See  next  article 
‘Judicium  de  Canonihus  Apostolicis,’  to  be  found  in 
Cotel.  I'atres  Apost.  vcl.  i.  p.  432,  edit.  1724  ;  and  ‘  Codex 
Canonum  Ecclesiae  Primitivae  illustratus,  ibid.  voL  ii. 
Appendix,  p.  i. 

r  ‘Judic.’  in  Cotel.  vol.  i.  pp.  436-441  ;  and  see  Cod. 
Can.  in  Cotel.  vol.  ii.  Append,  pp.  8-10,  et  alibi.  He 
appears  to  think  that  in  many  cases  they  may  represent 
apostolical  traditioris.  They  were  called  “  apostolical'* 
from  this  feeling,  and  also  because  framed  by  apostolical 
men.  He  allows,  however,  that  they  were  probably  col¬ 
lected  by  divers  persons,  some  of  Avhom  put  together 
more,  some  fewer.  Hence  Dionysius  found  only  50  in 
the  Codex  from  A\’hich  he  translated,  Avhile  Scolasticus 
found  85.  Hincmar  of  Bheims  is  cited  by  Beveridge  as 
cn  his  side ;  but  it  would  seem  that  he  looked  on  the 
Apostolical  Canons  as  collections  of  apostolical  tradi¬ 
tions  made  by  pious  persons,  rather  than  as  decrees  of 
synods.  He  speak.<  of  them  as  “  antequam  episcopi  concilia 
libere  inciperent  cclebrare,  a  d-'votls  quibusque  collectos.’’ 
See  Cod.  Can.  in  Cotel.  a'oI.  ii.  App.  p.  12. 

»  The  question  of  the  collection,  however,  stands  on 
very  different  grounds  from  that  of  the  antiquity  of  par¬ 
ticular  canons,  and  the  two  points  should  be  kept  sep.irate 
In  investigating  the  subject. 


114  APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


Basil,  in  his  letters  to  Amphilochius  (which 
h  we  themselves  obtained  the  aiithority  of 
Canons  in  the  Greek  Church)  says  a  deposed 
deacon  is  not.  to  be  excommunicated,  Sidrt 
apxcfios  eVrt  Kavwv  rovs  airh  fiadfiov  TreirTCi>K6- 
Tas,  TovTU}  rpS-rrcf}  rrjs  KoXacecos  iiiro- 

fidWeadai.  Reference  alleged  to  be  to  Apost. 
Can.  25.* 

Again  he  says,  rovs  5iyd/iov$  -n-avreXus  6 
Kav^u  rrjs  virrjpecr'ias  aTre/fAetce.  Comp.  Can.  17. 

Once  more  he  says,  the  Chui’ch  must  SouAeuetv 
CLKpi^dq  KavovMu,  and  reject  heretical  baptism. 
See  Apost.  Can.  46. 

The  Council  of  Nice,  Can.  1,  while  treating 
self-inflicted  mutilation  as  a  bar  to  orders,  says : 
— jxnrtp  5e  rovro  TrpdSrjXov,  on  repl  ruv  iTTirr]- 
SfvovTcvv  rh  TTpaypLa  Kai  roXiidvruiv  kavrovs 
kKTkfjLveiv  efprjrai'  ovrws  ef  rives  virb  ^ap^dpcav 
^  becTTcoriav  evvovx>’<^^'>](^°-v ,  evpicTKOivro  Se  dXXoiS 
d^LOi.  rovs  roiovrovs  els  KXripov  irpocr'ierai  6 
Kavdv.  Reference  alleged  to  Can.  Apost.  21 
and  22. 

Again  Can.  2  says,  that  things  had  lately  been 
done  irapd  rov  Kavova  rhv  eKKXrjaiacrriKhv,  to 
correct  which  it  enacts  that  no  neophyte  is  to  be 
made  a  presbyter.  The  reference  is  alleged  to 
be  to  Apost.  Can.  Ixxx. 

Can.  5  says  : — Kparelru  ^  yvd>p.r)  Kara  rhv 
Kavova  rhv  Ziayopevovra  rovs  ixp'  erepuv  diro~ 
$X7]devras,  ixp'  krepcov  fii]  Trpo(rie(rdaL.  Comp. 
Can.  Apost.  13  (xii.  and  xiii.)  and  33  (xxxii.) 

Again,  Can.  9,  concerning  the  ordination  of 
known  sinners,  treats  it  as  vapd  Kavova,  and 
savs,  rovrohs  6  Kavd/v  ov  ’irpoa'ierai.  See  Can. 
Apost.  Ixi. 

Can.  10,  concerning  such  as  are  ordained  in 
ignorance  of  their  having  lapsed,  says  : — rovro  ov 
TTpoKpivei  r<p  KavSvi  rep  eKKX‘r](ria(TriK<p'  yvuxr- 
Oevres  yap  KaOaipovvrai.  Bev.  thinks  the  re¬ 
ference  is  to  Can.  Apost.  Ixii.,  and  that  the 
Council  of  Nice  found  it  needful  to  extend  the 
rule  to  those  who  had  lapsed  before  ordination. 

Can.  15  and  16  restrain  the  clergy  from 
moving  from  city  to  city,  a  practice  which  it 
calls  <rvvT]6eLa  irapd  rhv  KavSva,  and  speaks  of 
such  persons  as  pifire  rhv  eKKX’qriarr iKhv  Kavdva 
elhores.  Comp.  Can.  Apost.  14  and  15. 

The  Synod  of  Gangra,  held  in  the  middle 
of  the  4th  century  against  the  Eustathians,  after 
passing  several  canons  on  matters  more  or  less 
similar  to  those  treated  in  some  of  the  Apost. 
Canons,  declares  that  its  object  has  been  to  con¬ 
demn  those  who  bring  in  novelties, — Trapd  rds 
ypaepds  /col  rovs  eKKXr}<ria(rriKovs  Kavdvas. 

The  Council  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  381,  speaks 
of  a  ttoAoios  6ecr/jihs,  as  well  as  the  Nicene 
Canon,  for  bishops  to  ordain  in  the  e-rrapxla  or 
ecclesiastical  province  to  which  they  belong. 
Bev.  finds  in  the  mention  of  “  provinces,”  a  re¬ 
ference  to  the  authority  of  Metropolitans,  Can. 
Apost.  35  (xxxiv.). 

Not  long  afterwards  a  synod  at  Carthage  says  : 
— 6  dpxouos  rvTTOs  (pvXaxGfiererai,  'Iva  ^rroves 
rpiuv  rd'v  opKrdevrwv  els  x^^po^o*'****'  ’Eirta/cd- 
TTwv  dpKeffoxxiv.  Comp.  Can.  Apost.  i. 

*  Daille,  and  his  ally,  “  Observator”  (who  seems  to  have 
been  Matt,  de  la  Roque)  contend  that  the  context  shews 
that  Basil  cannot  have  meant  to  allude  to  the  Apostolical 
Canons.  Beveridge  replies  at  length  {Cod.  Can.  38,  39). 

Bickell  takes  the  same  view  as  Daille  {GefcJi.  des  Kirchen- 

rezhts,  L  83,  note),  but  without  noticing  the  arguments  of 

Beveridge. 


The  Council  of  Ephe.sus,  431  a.d.,  sent  three 
times  to  summon  the  accu.sed  bishop,  Nestorius, 
to  appear,  saying,  that  it  did  so  in  obedience  r^ 
Kav6vi,  and  afterw'ards  informed  the  Emperor  of 
the  course  taken, — rwv  Kavdva  v  irapaKeXevo- 
pevcvv  rp  rpirp  KXpaei  wapaKaXeiirOai  rhv  airei- 
dovvra. 

And  in  like  manner  at  Chalcedon,  451  A.D., 
upon  the  third  summons  sent  to  Dioscorus,  the 
bishops  who  were  the  bearers  of  it  say  that 
the  Council  sent  them  to  him : — rplrrjv  ijdrj 
KXri(Tiv  ravr^v  Troiovpevp  Kard  rT}v  clkoXov- 
Qiav  ru)v  ay'iuiv  Kavdvwv.  Compare  Can.  Apost. 
Ixxiv. 

At  Ephesus  a  complaint  was  made  against  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch  for  trying  to  subject  to  him¬ 
self  the  Island  of  Cyprus: — “Contrary  to  the 
Apostolic  canons  and  the  decrees  of  the  most 
holy  Nicene  Synod.”  Comp.  Can.  Apost.  36 
(xxxv.) 

We  may  now  perhaps  pause  in  cur  extracts 
from  Councils  and  Synods,  as  we  are  approaching 
a  period  about  which  there  is  less  dispute  :  but 
we  must  go  back  to  the  Nicene  times  in  oi'der  to 
cite  one  or  two  individual  testimonies.  Alex¬ 
ander,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  writes  that  Arias, 
though  excommunicated  there,  was  received  bv 
other  bishops,  which  he  blames, — rip  pr]re  rov 
'ATrocrroXiKdv  Kavdva  rovro  rvyx'upe'iv  (apud 
Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  c.  iv.).  See  Can.  Apost. 
13. 

About  the  same  time  Eusebius,  declining  to  be 
translated  from  Caesarea  to  Antioch,  Constantine 
the  Great  writes  to  praise  him  for  observing  rds  re 
evroXds  rov  0eov  Kal  rhv  ' ATToaroXiKdv  Kavova, 
Kol  rys  eKKXpcrlas  (Euseb.  Vita  Const,  iii.  61). 
The  reference  is  alleged  to  be  to  Can.  Apost.  14, 
while  eKKXpaias  is  said  to  allude  to  the  15th 
Canon  of  Nice. 

Again,  during  the  reign  of  Constantine,  Pope 
Julius,  writing  of  the  dep/osition  of  Athanasius 
and  the  intrusion  of  Gregory  into  his  see,  declares 
it  to  have  been  done  in  violation  of  the  Canons 
of  the  Apostles.  See  2nd  Ap)ol.  of  Athanasius. 
The  reference  is  asserted  to  be  to  Can.  36  (xxxv.) 
and  Ixxiv.  (Gregory  being  an  untried  lay¬ 
man.)** * 

Once  more,  in  a  provincial  synod  at  Con¬ 
stantinople,  394  A.D.,  it  was  detennined  that  the 
deposition  of  a  bishop  must  not  be  merely  by  two 
or  three  bishops, — dXXh.  TcXeiovos  ervvdhov  rpriepo}, 
Kal  rwv  rps  eirapxlcis,  KaOins  Kal  ol  ’AirocrroXiKol 
Kavoves  hiiaplcravro.  The  allusion  is  said  to  be 
to  Can.  Apost.  Ixxiv. 

Of  late  years  not  much  has  been  done  by 
English  scholars  in  the  way  of  original  investiga¬ 
tion  into  the  subject,  but  German  writers  have 
given  a  good  deal  of  attention  to  it  during  the 
present  century,  and  have  arrived  at  results 
widely  different  from  those  we  have  just  been 
considering.  Among  these  Von  Drey  and  Bickell 
stand  conspicuous.  The  former  seems  to  con¬ 
sider  that  the  first  50  canons  were  collected  in 
the  early  part  of  the  5th  century,  partly  out  of 
decrees  of  post-Nicene  Councils,  partly  out  of 
the  so-called  apostolical  constitutions ;  and  that 
the  other  35  w'ere  added  subsequently,  probably 

“If  this  could  be  considered  to  be  proved,  it  would 
settle  the  point  that  the  Canons  were  known  at  Rome, 
and  referred  to  by  popes  before  Dionysius’s  version  of 
them.  And  if  the  LXXlVth  be  really  in  tender!,  it  would 
show  that  more  than  50  were  then  recognised. 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


•  115 


at  the  beginning  of  the  6th  century,  when  the 
whole  85  were  appended  to  the  constitutions.* * 
Bickell  while  adopting  a  similar  theory  does 
not  press  it  so  far.  He  believes  the  collection  to 
have  been  made  out  of  like  materials  to  those 
specified  by  Drey,  but  to  be  not  later  than  the 
end  of  the  4th  century  ;  and  holds  that  the  apos¬ 
tolical  canons  were  quoted  at  Chalcedon  (instead  of 
being  in  part  derived  from  the  decrees  of  that  Coun¬ 
cil  as  Drey  would  maintain),  and  possibly  also  at 
Ephesus  and  Constantinople,  448  (Gesch.  des  Kir- 
chenrechts,  vol.  i.  p.  83 ;  see  also  Hefele  Conci- 
liengesch.,  vol.  i.  p.  771).  Both  Von  Drey  and 
Bickell  agree  in  denying  the  position  of  Beve¬ 
ridge  that  the  collection  was  made  not  later 
than  the  3rd  century,  and  was  composed  out  of 
bond  fide  previous  canons  then  existing.  And 
they  meet  his  citations  by  denying  that  Kauccv 
dea-gos  and  such  like  words  always  imply  what 
we  call  a  canon,  and  by  alleging  that  they  are 
used  in  early  times  of  any  generally  received 
rule  in  the  Church.  Thus  kuvcdv  diro<TToXiKhs 
might  either  refer  to  some  direction  ot  the  Apos¬ 
tles  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  or  to  some 
ecclesiastical  practice  supposed  to  have  been 
originated  by  them,  and  to  have  their  authority. 

Thus  Clem.  Rom.  speaks  of  wpicr/iivov  rris 
XeiTovpy'ias  avrov  Kavova  (fiEp.  i.  41),  and  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  he  can  here  allude  to 
any  synodical  decree.  Comp.  Iren.  Ad,  Haer.  i.  9  ; 
Polycrates,  apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  24  ;  Clem. 
Al.  Strom,  i.  350,  vi.  676,  vii.  753,  756,  764  (see 
also  the  instances  in  De  Lagarde  Bel.  Jur,  Eccl. 
Ant.  pref.  p.  vi.).  Accordingly  Bickell  would 
thus  interpret  (as  Daille  had  done  before  him) 
the  use  of  the  words  kuvwv  and  Kapov^Kos  pSpos, 
in  canon  15  of  Neocaesarea,  and  in  canons  13,  15, 
18,  of  Nioc.y  So  also  Cornelius  Ad  Fabium 


*  The  following  table  gives  what  he  supposes  to  be  the 
original  of  the  various  Canons : — 

I.,  11.,  VI..  Vll.,  XVll.,  XVllL,  XX..  XXVI.,  XXXIll., 


(Euseb.  vi.  43)  Kara  top  rr^s  eV/cATjo'fas  kupSpu, 
and  Firmilian  Ad  Cyprian,(p\K  75)  and  Cone.  Are- 
lat.  canon  13,  “  ecclesiastica  regula,”  and  comp. 
Euseb.  vi.  24.  Bickell  also  thus  interprets  the 
letter  of  Alexander  to  Meletius,  and  that  of 
Constantine,  which  as  we  have  seen  {a)de,  p.  114) 
Beveridge  takes  as  allusions  to  the  apostolical 
canons. 

In  short  Von  Drey  and  Bickell  maintain  that 
the  instances  brought  forward  by  Beveridge  are 
not  really  proofs  that  the  set  of  canons  called 
apostolical  are  there  quoted  or  referred  to,  but 
rather  that  allusion  is  made  to  broad  and  gene¬ 
rally  acknowledged  principles  of  ecclesiastical 
action  and  practice,  whether  written  or  un¬ 
written  (see  Bickell,  i.  p.  2,  and  p.  81,  82,  and 
the  notes).*  But  they  go  further  and  proceed 
to  adduce  on  their  side  what  they  consider  to  be 
a  positive  and  decisive  argument.  Many  canons 
of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  A.D.  341,  correspond 
not  only  in  subject  but  to  a  very  remarkable 
degree  in  actual  phraseology  with  the  apostolical 
canons.  Vet  they  never  quote  them,  at  least  eo 
nomine. 

The  following  table  gives  the  parallel  cases : — 


Antioch  I.  compared  with  Can.  Apost.  VII. 


II. 

HI. 

>> 

IV. 

J  9 

V. 

t  J 

VI. 

9  f 

VII.,  VIII. 

9  } 

IX. 

*  f 

XIII. 

9  9 

XVII.,  I 

XVIII.  5 

9$ 

XX. 

9  > 

XXI. 

9  1 

XXII. 

f  9 

xxiir. 

9  9 

XXIV. 

f  9 

XXV. 

9  9 

i  Vlll.,  IX.,  X, 
txi.,  XII.,  XIII, 
XV.,  XVI. 
XXVIII. 
XXXI. 

XXXII. 

XII.,  XXXIII 
XXXIV. 
XXXV.  . 

XXXVI. 

XXXVII. 

XIV. 

XXXV. 

LXXVI. 

XL. 

XLK 


XLVI.,  XLVII.,  XLIX.,  LI.,  LIL,  LIIL,  LX.,  LXIV.,  are 
all  taken  from  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  ;  the  first 
six  books  of  which  he  considers  as  of  latter  half  of  3rd 
century. 

LXXIX.  is  from  the  8th  book,  which  is  later,  but 
before  the  year  325. 

XXL- XXIV.,  and  LXXX.,  are  taken  from  the  Nicene 
Decrees. 

ViII.-XVI.,  and  XXVIII.,  and  XXXI.- XLI.,  from 
those  of  Antioch. 

XLV..  LXX.,  LXXL,  from  those  of  Laodicea. 

LXXV.  from  those  of  Constantinople,  a  d.  381. 

XXVII.  from  those  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  394. 

XXIX.,  LXVIL,  LXXIV.,  LXXXI.,  LXXXIIL,  from 
those  of  Chalcedon. 

XIX.  from  Neocaesarea. 

XXV.  from  a  canonical  letter  of  Basil. 

LXJX.  and  LXX.,  out  of  the  supposed  Epistle  of 
Ignatius,  Ad  PhilaJeLph. 

About  a  third  of  the  Canons  Drey  treats  as  of  unknown 
origin.  The  subject  matter  of  many  of  them  he  considers 
may  be  more  ancient,  but  not  in  the  form  of  canons. 

As  to  the  distinction  said  to  be  apparent  between  the 
first  50  Canons  and  the  residue,  see  Bickell,  i.  86  and  236. 

y  For  an  examination  of  these  instances  from  a  con¬ 
trary  point  of  view,  see  Beveridge  {Cod.  Can.  lib.  i.  cap. 
xi.).  But  the  reader  should  notice  that  in  Nic.  Can.  18, 
he  Inexactly  translates  ioanep  ovre  6  KcuvoiP  ovre  ij  avp- 
tjOfia  napdSojKf  by  “  nec  canonem  nec  consuetudinem 
esse,”  and  neglects  the  words  napa  Kavova  koX  napa  rd^ev 
at  the  end  of  the  Canon.  He  understands  the  Canon  of 
Neocaesarea,  that  there  must  be  seven  deacons,  Kara  r'ov 
Kavova,  to  allude  to  Acts  vi.  (the  written  law  of  Scrip- 


On  this  state  of  facts  Von  Drey  and  Bickell 
maintain  that  the  apostolical  canons  are  ob¬ 
viously  borrowed  from  those  of  Antioch,  while 
Beveridge  argues  that  the  converse  is  the  case. 
The  argument  turns  too  much  on  a  close  com¬ 
parison  of  phrases,  and  of  the  respective  omis¬ 
sions,  additions,  and  modifications,  to  admit  of 
being  presented  in  an  abridged  form.  It  will  be 
found  on  one  side  to  some  extent  in  Bickell,  vol. 
i.  p.  79,  et  seq.,  and  p.  230,  et  seq.  (who  give^ 

ture).  Some  might  possibly  contend  that  the  words  of 
the  Epistle  of  Alexander  (sitpra,.p.  11 4)  refer  to  2nd  Epist. 
John  10.  He  also  deals  with  a  Canon  of  Ancyra  (Can. 
21),  which  mentions  that  6  nporepos  opo?  refused  com¬ 
munion,  except  on  the  death-bed,  to  unchaste  women 
guilty  of  al)ortion.  This  Beveridge  argues'does  not  mean  a 
“  Canon  "  at  all,  but  rather  a  decision  of  Church  discipline. 
Hefele,  on  the  other  hand,  thinks  it  alludes  to  a  Canon 
of  Elvira,  refusing  the  sacrament  to  such  even  at  death 
(^Conciliengesch.  i.  208). 

*  To  a  certain  extent,  Beveridge  discusses  this  theory 
when  put  forward  by  “Observator  ”  (see  Cod.  Can.  lilx  i. 
c.  ll,p.  44),  and  appears  to  contend  that  Kavtiv  is  n(>t  used 
for  unwritten  law,  at  all  events  by  Councils  in  their  de¬ 
crees.  There  certainly  seems  some  apparent  distinction 
drawn  in  Nic.  Can.  18,  ovre  6  kuvcov  cure  >;  ovvyjOeia 
jrapdSioKt. 

“  It  will  be  observed  that  all  the  Apostolical  Canons 
except  one,  for  vhich  parallels  are  here  found  in  the 
Antioch  decrees,  fall  within  the  fir.st  50 ;  and  the  parallel 
to  the  LXXVIth  Canon  is  very  far-fetched. 


116  APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


the  references  to  the  corresponding  parts  of  Von 
Drey’s  work) ;  and  on  the  other,  in  Beveridge’s 
Codex  Canonum,  lib.  i.  cap.  iv.  and  cap.  xi.,  and 
elsewhere  in  tha,t  treatise.** 

As  a  general  nile  the  apostolical  canons  are 
shorter,  the  Antioch  canons  fuller  and  more  ex¬ 
press  :  a  circumstance  which  leads  Bickell  to  see 
in  the  former  a  compendium  or  abridgment  of 
the  latter,  but  which,  according  to  Beveridge, 
proves  the  former  to  be  the  brief  originals,  of 
which  the  latter  are  the  subsequent  expansion. 

Beveridge  observes  with  some  force  that 
though  the  apostolical  canons  are  not  quoted  by 
name,  the  canons  of  Antioch  repeatedly  profess 
to  be  in  accordance  with  previous  ecclesiastical 
rules,  whereas  the  apostolical  canons  never  men¬ 
tion  any  rules  previously  existing.*^  Still  the 
same  question  must  arise  here  as  in  relation  to 
the  canons  of  Nice,  viz.,  whether  the  allusion 
really  is  to  pre-existing  canons  of  councils,  or 
whether  the  terms  used  are  to  be  otherwise  ex¬ 
plained.  And  as  regards  the  silence  of  the  apos¬ 
tolical  canons  as  to  anything  older  than  them¬ 
selves,  it  must  be  recollected  that  any  other 
course  would  have  been  self-contradictory.  They 
could  not  pretend  to  be  apostolic  and  yet  rely  on 
older  authorities.  Hence  even  had  such  refer¬ 
ences  been  found  in  the  materials  of  which  they 
were  composed,  these  must  have  been  struck  out 
vhen  they  were  put  together  in  their  present 
shape. 

The  synod  of  Antioch  lying  under  the  re¬ 
proach  of  Arianism,  it  may  seem  improbable  that 
any  decrees  should  have  been  borrowed  from  it. 
To  meet  this  objection  Bickell  urges  that  though 
the  Antioch  clergy  were  Arian,  the  Bishop  Me- 
letius  was  not  un-orthodox,  and  was  much  re¬ 
spected  by  the  Catholics.  And  he  throws  out 
the  theory  that  the  apostolical  canons,  which 
shew  traces  of  Syrian  phraseology,  may  be  a 
sort  of  corpus  canonum  made  at  that  period  in 
Syria,  and  drawn  up  in  part  from  the  Antioch 
decrees,  in  part  from  the  apostolical  constitutions 
(which  shew  like  marks  of  Syrian  origin),  and 
in  part  from  other  sources.**  This  work,  it  is 
conjectured,  Meletius  brought  with  him  when 
he  came  to  the  Council  of  Constantinople  (where 
he  died)  in  381  A.D.,  and  introduced  it  to  the 
favourable  notice  of  the  clergy :  a  hypothesis 
which  is  thought  to  account  for  the  apostolical 
canons  being  cited  (as  Bickell  thinks  for  the  first 
time)  at  the  Piovincial  Synod  of  Constantinople, 
A.D.  394-. 

The  opinion  of  Hefele  may  be  worth  stating. 
He  thinks  that  though  there  is  a  good  deal  to  be 
said  for  the  theory  that  many  of  the  apostolical 
canons  were  borrowed  from  those  of -Antioch, 

b  The  suggestion  is  there  made  that  the  Council  stu¬ 
diously  re-enacted  certain  orthodox  canons,  in  order  to 
gain  a  good  reputation,  while  they  thrust  in  here  and 
there  a  canon  of  their  own  so  framed  as  to  tell  against 
Athanasius  and  the  Catholics.  See  Cod.  Can.  lib.  i.  cap.  iv. 
ad  Jin. 

c  However,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  37-39  Canons 
of  Laodicea,  which  closely  resemble  the  LXX.  and  LXXI. 
Apostolical  Canons,  do  not  in  any  way  refer  to  them, 
though  on  Beveridge’s  theory  the  A  post.  Canons  must 
have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Fathers  of  Laodicea. 

In  Can.  XXXVII.  the  Syro-Macedouian  name  of  a 
mouth,  Hyperberetaeus,  occurs  in  connexion  with  the 
time  for  the  autumnal  synod.  Similar  n  imes  of  months 
occur  in  Ap.  Const,  v.  17,  20,  and  at  viii.  10.  Kvadius, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  is  prayed  for  as  “  our  bishop.” 


the  converse  is  quite  possible,  and  the  point  by 
no  means  settled.  In  regard  to  the  Council  of 
Nice,  it  would  appear,  he  thinks,  that  it  refers 
to  oltlcr  canons  on  the  like  subjects  with  those 
which  it  was  enacting.  And  it  is  by  no  means 
impossible  that  the  allusion  may  be  to  those 
which  arc  now  found  among  the  apostolic  canons, 
and  which  might  have  existed  in  the  Church 
before  they  were  incorporated  in  that  collection. 
This  view  he  thinks  is  supported  by  a  letter  from 
certain  Egyptian  bishops  to  Meletius  at  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  the  4th  century,®  in  which  they 
complain  of  his  having  ordained  beyond  the 
limits  of  his  diocese,  which  they  allege  is  con¬ 
trary  to  “  mos  divinus  ”  and  to  regula  eccle- 
siastica  ;  ”  and  remind  him  that  it  is  the  “  lex 
patrum  et  propatrum.  ...  in  alienis  paroeciis 
non  licere  alicui  episcoporum  ordinationes  cele- 
bi*are.”  The  inference,  Hefele  thinks,  is  almost 
irresistible  that  this  refers  to  what  is  now  the 
36th  (xxxv.)  Apostolical  Canon.  And  at  all 
events  he  appears  to  hold  with  Bickell  that  the 
apostolical  canons  are  referred  to  at  Ephe.sus, 
Constantinople  (a.d.  448),  and  Chalcedon.  But 
such  a  view  falls  short  of  that  of  Beveridge. 

Coming  to  the  internal  evidence,  we  find  great 
stress  to  have  been  laid  bv  Daille.  Von  Drev, 
Bickell,  and  others  on  the  contents  of  the  canons,  as 
distinctly  marking  their  late  date.  Thus  the  8th 
(vii.)  (as  to  Easter)  is  in  harmony  with  the  pre¬ 
sent  interpolated  text  of  the  apostolical  consti¬ 
tutions,  but  is  at  variance  with  what  Epiphanius 
read  there,  and  with  the  Syriac  didascalia  (see 
infra,  pp.  122, 123).  It  relates  to  the  settlement  of 
a  particular  phase  of  the  Easter  controversy  which 
did  not,  according  to  Hefele,  spring  up  until 
the  3rd  century  (Conciliengesch.  i.  303  and  776).^ 
Moreover,  if  known  and  recognized  previous  to 
the  Council  of  Nice,  it  seems  extraordinary  that 
this  canon  should  not  have  been  mentioned  in 
Constantine’s  famous  letter  to  the  Nicene  Fathers 
on  the  Easter  Controversy  (Euseb.  Vita  Const,  iii. 
18-20). 

Canon  27  (xxvi.)  hardly  savours  of  a  very 
early  time.  On  this  canon  Beveridge  (^Annot.  in 
Can.  Apost.,  sub  Canone  xxvi.)  cites  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451),  as  saying  that  in  many 
provinces  it  was  permitted  to  readers  and  singers 
to  marry  ;  and  understands  it  of  those  provinces 
in  which  the  apostolical  canons  had  been  put  in 
force,  they  having  been,  he  says,  originally  passed 
in  different  localities  by  provincial  synods.  (See 
also  his  Jvd.  de  Can.  Apost.  §  xii.  in  Cotel.  vol.  i. 
p.  436.)  This  seems  to  derogate  somewhat  from 
the  general  reception  which  he  elsewhere  appears 
disposed  to  claim  for  them.  So  limited  an  opera¬ 
tion  even  in  the  5th  century  is  scarcely  what  was 
to  be  expected  if  the  whole  collection  had  been 
made,  and  promulgated  a  century  and  a  half  be¬ 
fore. 

The  31st  (xxx.),  the  Ixxxi.,  and  Ixxxiii.,  all 
appear  to  speak  of  a  time  when  the  empire  was 
Christian  (see  Hefele,  vol.  i.  p.  783,  789  ;  Bic¬ 
kell,  i.  80.).K 

e  Given  in  Routh,  Rel.  Sacr.  vol  iii.  pp.  381,  382. 

f  If  Hcfele’s  view  on  this  subject  be  accept'd,  Beveridge 
must  be  held  to  have  confused  the  special  point  here  ruled 
with  other  questions  in  dispute  in  the  Easter  controversy 
(l7od.  Can.  lib.  2,  c.  iii.). 

e  Von  Drey,  however,  points  out  that  it  Is  difiRcult  to 
suppose  a  council  under  the  empire  would  set  its«'lf  so 
openly  against  the  emperor’s  interference.  If  bo,  some 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS  117 


The  35th  (xxxiv.),  recognizing  a  kind  of  metro¬ 
politan  authority,  has  also  been  much  insisted 
on  by  Von  Drey  and  Bickell,  as  well  as  by  Daille, 
in  pi'oof  of  an  origin  not  earlier  than  the  4th 
century  (see  contra,  Bev.  Cod.  Can.  lib.  2,  cap.  v.).** 

The  46th  suggests  the  remark  that  if  it  were  in 
existence  at  the  time  of  Cyprian,  it  would  surely 
have  been  cited  in  the  controversy  as  to  heretical 
baptism.  It  agrees  with  the  doctrine  of  the  apos¬ 
tolical  constitutions  vi.  15,  and  according  to  some 
has  probably  been  taken  thence.  Beveridge  indeed 
observes  that  Cyprian  (^Epist.  to  Jubajanus)  does 
rely  on  the  decree  of  a  synod  held  under  the 
presidency  of  Agrippinus  (see  Jud.  de  Can.  Ap. 
§  xi.  and  Cod.  Can.  lib.  3,  cap.  xii.).  This  de¬ 
cree  he  seems  to  think  may  be  the  original  of 
canon  46.  If  so,  hov/ever,  it  would  seem  to  shew 
the  local  and  partial  character  of  the  apostolical 
canons,  for  we  know  that  the  Roman  Chui'ch 
held  at  this  very  time  a  contrary  view  (Comp, 
the  admissions  of  Bev.  in  Jud.  de  Can.  §  xii.). 

Again,  other  orders  besides  bishop,  priest,  and 
deacon  apj^ear  in  the  clerical  body.  We  have  sub¬ 
deacons,  readers,  and  singers  (canon  43).*  Though 
the  second  of  these  is  found  in  Tertullian,  the 
first  and  last  are  not  to  be  traced  further  back 
than  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 

Not  to  mention  other  instances,  it  may  in  con¬ 
clusion  be  observed  that  much  contest  has  taken 
place  over  the  list  of  canonical  books  in  the  last 
canon,  and  as  to  the  reference  therein  to  the  con¬ 
stitutions.  Beveridge  thinks  that  the  variation 
in  that  list  from  the  canon  of  Scripture  as  eventu¬ 
ally  settled,  is  a  proof  that  it  was  drawn  up  at 
an  early  date  and  before  the  final  settlement 
was  made.  But  at  the  same  time  he  (somewhat 
inconsistently)  is  inclined  to  take  refuge  in  the 
theory  that  this  last  canon  has  been  interpolated. 
Here  again  it  would  be  vain  to  attempt  an 
abridgement  of  the  argument  (see  Cod.  Canon. 
lib.  2,  c.  ix.  and  Jud.  de  Can.  Apost.  §  xvi.  ct  seq.') 

Before  concluding,  the  opinions  of  one  or  two 
other  writei’s  must  be  mentioned.  Krabbe  thinks 
that  at  the  end  of  the  4th  or  early  in  the  5th 
century,  a  writer  of  Arian  or  Macedonian  ten¬ 
dencies  drew  up  both  the  8th  book  of  the  consti¬ 
tutions  and  the  collection  of  canons,  the  former 
being  composed  out  of  precepts  then  in  circulation 
under  the  Apostles’  names,  with  many  additions  of 
his  own,  the  latter  out  of  canons  made  in  diflerent 
places  during  the  2nd  and  3rd  centuries,  with 


support  might  be  hence  gained  for  the  theory  that  these 
canons  (in  the  present  form,  at  all  events)  did  not  really 
emanate  from  any  council. 

Beveridge  observes  that  the  Apostolical  Canon  merely 
speaks  of  top  npiorov  kttitTKonov,  whereas  the  corre¬ 
sponding  Canon  of  Antioch  has  rov  iu  rjj  /jLrjrpoTroXei 
7rpoe<TTtt>Ta  enCarKowov ;  the  latter  being  in  conformity 
with  the  name  metropolitan.  This  name  did  not  arise  till 
the  4th  century ;  and  he  therefore  thinks  the  Apostolical 
Canon  is  proved  to  be  the  older  of  the  two,  and  to  be 
before  that  era.  Moreover  the  Canon  of  Antioch  pro¬ 
fesses  its  enactment  to  be  Kara  top  apxaCorepop  Kpa~ 
njo-ai/Ta  etc  to)p  narepuiP  ij/xtov  Kapopa.  It  may  be  worth 
observing  that  there  is  no  trace  of  a  primacy  among 
bishops  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  even  in  their 
present  state. 

‘  Sometimes  we  find  only  a  general  expression,  as  in 
^n.  9  tviii.),  which  runs  el  rt?  eViVtcoTros  77  TTpea^vrepoi 
t)  fiiaKovo;  fj  etc  toO  tcarakoyov  tov  lepariKov ;  the  latter 
words  comprehending  the  other  orders,  and  being  appa¬ 
rently  strictly  equivalent  to  the  phrase  Ij  oAws  rov  Kara- 
Aoyov  TUP  tcAjjpitcwi/  iu  Can.  15. 


the  interpolation  of  the  7th  and  85th  canons 
forged  by  himself  (see  Ultzen,  p.  xvi.  pref.). 

Bunsen  attaches  much  importance  to  the  apos¬ 
tolical  canons.  He  regards  them  as  belonging 
to  a  class  of  ordinances  which  were  “  the  local 
coutumes  of  the  apostolical  Church,”  i.  e.  if  not 
of  the  Johanneau  age,  at  all  events  of  that  imme¬ 
diately  succeeding.  Yet  such  “never  formed 
any  real  code  of  law,  much  less  ^vere  they  the 
decrees  of  synods  or  councils.  Their  collections 
nowhere  had  the  force  of  law.  Every  ancient 
and  great  church  presented  modifications  of  the 
outlines  and  traditions  here  put  together ;  but 
the  constitutions  and  practices  of  all  churches 
were  built  upon  this  groundwork  ”  {Christ,  and 
Mankind,  vol.  ii.  421).  Our  apostolical  canons 
sei’ved  this  purpose  in  the  Greek  Church.  The 
fiction  which  attributes  them,  to  the  Apostles  is 
probably  ante-Nicene  (vol.  vii.  p.  373)  ;  but  they 
are  now  in  an  interpolated  state. 

Internal  evidence  shews,  he  thinks,  that  the 
original  collection  consisted  of  three  chapters : — 

I.  On  ordination. 

II.  On  the  oblation  and  communion. 

III.  On  acts  which  deprive  of  official  rights 
or  offices. 

These  comprise,  with  some  exceptions,  rather 
more  than  a  third  of  the  whole.  To  these,  he 
says,  were  appended,  but  at  an  early  date — 

IV.  On  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  bishop ; 
and  subsequently  when  the  collection  thus  ex¬ 
tended  had  been  formed — 

V.  Other  grounds  of  deprivation. 

Canons  6  (v.),  27  (xxvi.),  he  considers  from 
internal  evidence  to  be  interpolations.  Relying 
on  the  fact  that  the  Coptic  version  (to  which  he 
attaches  much  weight,  calling  it  “  The  Apos¬ 
tolical  Constitutions  of  Alexandria  ”)  omits 
canons  xlvii.,  xlviii.,  xlix.,  1.,  he  treats  these 
also  as  of  later  date.  Canon  35  (xxxiv.)  he 
appears  to  consider  as  a  genuine  early  form  of 
what  subsequently  became  the  system  of  metro¬ 
politan  authority.  ‘ 

Coming  then  to  what  he  styles  “The  Second 
Collection,  which  is  not  recognized  by  the  Roman 
Church,”  i.  e.  to  the  canons  not  translated  by 
Dionysius,  he  says  they  “  bear  a  more  decided 
character  of  a  law  book  for  the  internal  dis¬ 
cipline  of  the  clergy,  with  penal  enactments.” 

Canon  Ixxxi.  is  a  repetition  and  confirmation 
of  one  in  the  first  collection,  viz.,  xx.  compared 
with  31  (xxx.).  This  and  canons  Ixxxiii.,  Ixxxiv., 
are  post-Nicene.  The  canon  of  Scripture  also  is 
spurious,  as  contradicting  in  many  points  the 
authentic  traditions  and  assumptions  of  the  eariy 
Church.  It  is  wanting  in  the  oldest  MS.,  the 
Codex  Barberinus  {Christianity  and  Mankind, 
vol.  ii.  p.  227). 

Ultzen,  though  modestly  declining  to  express 
a  positive  judgment,  evidently  leans  to  the  view 
of  Bickell  that  the  Antiochene  decrees  were 
the  foundation  of  many  of  the  canons,  and  re¬ 
grets  that  Bunsen  should  have  brought  up  again 
the  theory  of  Bev'eridge,  which,  he  considers, 
“  recentiores  omnes  hu  jus  rei  judices  refuta- 
verant  ”  (Pref.  p.  xvi.  note,  and  p.  xxi.). 

There  are  Oriental  versions  of  the  apostolical 
canons.  As  Bunsen  has  observed,  the  Coptic  and 
Aethiopic  (the  former  being  a  very  late  but 
faithful  translation  from  an  old  Sahidic  version, 
see  Tattam’s  Edition,  1848)  omit  certain  of  the 
canons  relating  to  heretical  baptism.  Except  in 


118 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


APOSTOLICAL  CANONS 


this  and  in  Can.  Ixixv.  they  do  not  differ  in  any 
important  degree  Some  account  of  these  ver¬ 
sions,  and  also  of  the  Syriac,  may  be  seen  in  Bickell, 
vol.  i.  append,  iv.  He  considers  even  the  last- 
named  to  be  later  than  our  Greek  text,  and  that 
little  assistance  is  to  be  derived  from  them  (see 
p.  215) ;  others,  however,  as  Bunsen,  rate  them 
highly.  The  subject  deserves  further  inquiry. 

To  attempt  to  decide,  or  even  to  sum  up  so 
large  a  controversy,  and  one  on  which  scholars 
have  differed  so  widely,  would  savour  of  pre¬ 
sumption.  It  must  suffice  to  indicate  a  few 
points  on  which  the  decision  seems  principally 
to  turn.  The  first  question  is.  Can  we  come  to 
Beveridge’s  conclusion  that  a  corpus  canonum 
corresponding  to  our  present  collection,  and  pos¬ 
sessing  a  generally  recognized  authority,  really 
existed  in  the  3rd  century  ?  If  so,  much  weight 
would  deservedly  belong  to  it. 

But  if  an  impartial  view  of  Beveridge’s  argu¬ 
ments  should  be  thought  to  lead  merely  to  the 
conclusion,  that  a  number  of  canons  substanti¬ 
ally  agreeing  with  certain  of  those  now  in  our 
collection,  are  quoted  in  the  4th  century,  and 
presumably  existed  some  considerable  time  pre¬ 
viously,  we  find  ourseh’'es  in  a  different  position. 

In  this  case  the  contents  of  our  present  col¬ 
lection  may  possibly  be  nothing  more  than  de¬ 
crees  of  synods  held  at  difterent  and  unknown 
times,!  and  in  different  and  uncertain  places,  not 
necessarily  agreeing  with  each  other,  and  not 
necessarily  acknowledged  by  the  Church  at  large, 
at  all  events  till  a  later  period.”* * 

Again,  if  our  present  collection  as  a  whole  be 
not  shewn  to  be  of  the  3rd  century,  the  question 
at  once  arises  when  and  how  it  was  made,  and 
whether  any  modification  or  interpolation  took 
place  in  the  component  materials  when  they  were 
so  collected  together.** 

If  it  be  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  digest  of  pre¬ 
existing  canons  brought  together  from  various 
sources,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  how  far  the 
fact  that  any  particular  canon  is  authenticated 

k  In  Can.  LXXXV.  tbe  Coptic  omits  Esther  from  the 
0.  T.  and  puts  Judith  and  Tobit  in  place  of  Maccabees, 
and  after  mentioning  the  16  Prophets,  it  goes  on ;  “  These 
also  let  your  young  persons  learn.  And  out  of  the  Wis¬ 
dom  of  Solomon  and  Esther,  the  three  Books  of  Maccabees, 
and  the  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  there  is  much  in¬ 
struction.’'  In  N.  T.  it  adds  the  Apocalypse,  between 
Jude  and  the  Epistles  of  Clement,  and  says  nothing  what¬ 
ever  about  the  eight  books  of  regulations.  “  The  Acts  ” 
are  merely  mentioned  by  that  name,  and  follow  the 
Gospels  in  tbe  list. 

*  Some  may,  no  doubt,  be  of  an  early  date :  thus  Von 
Drey  admits  the  probable  antiquity  of  Can.  1,  Can.  10  (ix.). 
Can.  11  (x.),  and  others.  See  notes  to  the  Canons  in 
Hefele’s  Conciliengeschichte,  vol.  i.  Append. ;  and  comp. 
Bickell,  vol.  i.  pp.  80,  81. 

“  Beveridge  speaks  of  the  Apostolical  Canons  as  the 
work  “  not  of  one  but  of  many  synods,  and  those  held  in 
divers  places”  (Cod.  Can.  lib.  1,  cap.  li.).  He  thinks 
that  the  name  of  the  month  Hyperberetaeus  in  Can. 
XXXVII.  shews  that  Canon  to  be  of  Eastern  origin; 
while  he  argues  that  the  rule  as  to  Easter  in  Can.  VII. 
proves  that  Canon  to  belong  to  the  Western  Church, 
inasmuch  as  the  rule  in  question  does  not  agree  with  the 
Oidental  practice  (Jud.  de  Can.  s.  12;  and  see  s.  27). 

“  As  to  admissions  of  interpolations,  see  Bev.  Jwl.  de 
Can.  ad  finein,  and  Cod.  Can.  in  Cotel.  vol.  ii.  Append, 
pp.  10,  73,  114.  Nor  can  it  be  forgotten  that,  in  the  only 
shapes  in  which  we  know  of  their  having  been  collected, 
they  are  introduced  by  the  untrue  pretext  of  being  the 
words  of  the  Apostles  dictated  to  Clement. 


by  being  cited  at  Nice  or  elsewhere,  in  any 
degree  authenticates  any  other  canon  not  so 
cited.  For  unless  some  bond  of  connexion  can 
be  shewm,  two  canons  standing  in  juxtaposition, 
may  be  of  quite  different  age  and  origin. 

These  considerations  have  been  principally 
framed  wMth  reference  to  the  arguments  of  Beve¬ 
ridge.  Of  course  if  the  views  of  Von  Drey  be 
adopted,  any  importance  to  be  attached  to  the 
canons  is  materially  diminished.  (Jp  to  a  certain 
point  Beveridge  certainly  argues  not  only  with 
ingenuity  but  force,  and  his  reasoning  does  not 
seem  to  have  received  its  fair  share  of  attention 
from  Von  Drey  and  Bickell.®  Still,  after  allow¬ 
ing  all  just  weight  to  w'hat  he  advances,  a  careful 
consideration  of  the  points  just  suggested,  may 
perhaps  tend  to  shew  that  it  is  not  difficult  to 
see  why  controversialists  of  modern  times  have 
not  ventured  to  lay  much  stress  on  the  apos¬ 
tolical  canons. 

But  there  is  another  reason  for  this.  No 
Western  church  can  consistently  proclaim  their 
authority  as  they  now  stand.  Protestant  churches 
will  hardly  agree,  for  instance,  to  the  rule  that 
one  who  was  ordained  unmarried,  may  not  after¬ 
wards  marry,  nor  will  they  recognize  the  Mac¬ 
cabees  as  a  canonical  book ;  wdiile  the  canons 
w'hich  require  a  trine  immersion  in  baptism,  and 
the  repetition  of  baptism  when  performed  by 
heretics,  will  not  be  accepted  by  either  Protest¬ 
ant  or  Roman  Catholic.? 

It  may  be  proper  to  add  that  the  canons  here 
discussed  are  not  the  only  series  extant  which 
claim  apostolical  authority. 

Thus,  for  instance,  besides  the  Aiard^eis  rav 
ay'iovp  dTro(rT6\wy  nepl  I’’’" 

rroKvrov  and  At  hiaraya\  at  dia  KKripevTos  Kal 
KavSves  eKKXrjffiao'TiKol  rwu  aylwv  airoaTdXup 
(both  of  which  will  be  treated  of  in  connexion 
with  the  Apost.  Constitutions),  w'e  have  certain 
pretended  canons  of  an  apostolic  council  at  An¬ 
tioch  (the  title  being  rov  aylov  tepopdpTvpos 
riOjU^iAou  6/c  TTjs  ep  ’AvTtox^*?  d-noa'rdXojp 

crup65ov,  tovt'  ecrrip  %k  tup  cppoSikup  avrap 
Kapdpup  fxepos  tup  vtt’  abrov  evpedepTcop  els  rijp 
'^Ipiyepovs  fiifi\io6r}Kr]p').  They  are  in  Bickell, 
i.  138,  and  Lagarde,  Selig.  Juris  Eccles.  p.  18. 

We  also  find  another  set  of  apostolic  canons 
(8pos  KUPOPiKhs  TMP  ayiwp  cnroa'TdXwp')  also 
published  by  Bickell,  i.  133,  and  Lagarde,  p.  36 
(and  of  which  the  latter  critic  says  that  it  is 
“  nondum  theologis  satis  consideratum  ”) ;  and 
yet  again  a  curious  series  of  alleged  apostolic 
ordinances  (many  of  which  resemble  parts  of 
the  apostolical  constitutions),  in  three  ancient 
Syriac  MSS.,  one  translated  into  Greek  by  Lagarde 
{Eel.  Jur.  Eccl.  p.  89),  and  two  into  English,  with 
notes,  by  Cureton,  in  ‘Ancient  Syriac  Documents, 


o  Yet  it  is  certainly  remarkable  that,  when  we  first 
hear  of  these  Canons,  the  question  seems  to  be  whether 
they  are  apostolic  or  apocryphal.  The  view  that  they 
are  an  authentic  collection  of  post-apostolic  synodical 
decrees  does  not  seem  to  have  then  suggested  itself. 

p  Refined  distinctions  have  indeed  been  drawn  to  qua¬ 
lify  the  apparent  sense  of  some  of  these  Canons  (see  J^v. 
Cod.  Can.  in  Cotel.  vol.  ii.  Append,  p.  100,  and  p.  130); 
but  the  difficulty  attending  them  has  probably  had  its 
share  in  preventing  their  full  recognition.  Hefele  spt'aks 
of  the  Canon  on  Heretical  Baptism  as  contrary  to  the 
Roman  rule.  Can,  LX  VI.  is  also  contrary  to  the  disci¬ 
pline  of  Rome ;  but  not  being  in  the  first  50,  it  is  held 
apocryphal. 


APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTIONS 


119 


relating  to  the  earliest  establishment  of  Christi¬ 
anity  in  Edessa,'  &c.,  with  preface  by  W.  Wright, 
Lond.  18G4.  It  appears  that  in  Cod.  Add.  14,173, 
fo).  37,  in  Brit.  Mus.  this  document  is  quoted  as 
“  Canons  of  the  Apostles.” 

It  is  not  perhaps  a  wholly  unreasonable  hope 
that  further  researches  into  the  ecclesiastical 
MSS.  of  Syria  may  be  the  means  of  throwing 
more  light  on  the  perplexing  questions  which 
surround  alike  tlie  apostolic  canons  and  the  apos¬ 
tolic  constitutions,  both  of  them,  in  all  proba¬ 
bility,  closely  connected  in  their  origin  with  that 
Church  and  country.* *! 

Authorities. — Centuriatores  Magdeburg,  ii.  c.  7, 
p.  544,  &c.  Fr.  Turrianus,  Pro  Canon.  Apost.  et 
Epp.  Decret.  Pontif.  Apost.  Adversus  Magd.  Centur. 
Defensio  (Flor.  1572,  Lutetiae  1573),  lib.  i.  P.  de 
Marca,  Com.  Sacerd.,  iii.  2.  J.  Dallaeus,  DePseud- 
epigraphis.  Apost.,  lib.  iii.  Pearsoni  Vindic. 
Ignat,  (in  Cotelerius,  Patr.  Apost.,  voL  ii.  app. 
p.  251),  part  i.  cap.  4.  Matt.  Larroquanus  in 
App.  Olys.  ad  Pearsonianas  Ignatii  Vindic.  (Rotho- 
mag.  1674).  Beveregii  Judicium  de  Can.  Apost. 
(in  Coteh,  Pair.  Apost.,  edit.  1724,  vol.  i.  p.  432). 
Beveregii  Adnotationes  ad  Can.  Apost.  (Ibid.  p. 
455).  Codex  Canonum  Ecclesiae  Universalis  Vin- 
dicatus  a  Gul.  Beveregio  (Ibid.  vol.  ii.  app.  p.  1, 
and  Oxford  1848.)  Brunonis  Judicium  de  Auctore 
Canonum  et  Const  it  utionum  Apostolicorum  (Cotel, 
vol.  ii.  app.  p.  177).  Proleg.  in  Ignatium  Jac. 
Usserii  (Ibid.  vol.  ii.  app.  p.  199),  see  cap.  vi. 
Regenbrecht,  Eiss.  de  Can.  Ap.  et  Cod.  Ecc. 
Hisp.,  Ratisb.  1828.  Krabbe,  De  Cod.  Can.  qui 
Apost.  dicuntur,  Eitt.  1829.  Von  Drey,  Neue 
Enter  such,  uber  die  Konst  it.  und  Kanones  der 
Apost.,  Tubingen  1832.  Bickell,  Geschichte  des 
Kirchenrechts,  Giessen  1843,  vol.  i.  Hefele,  Con- 
ciliengeschichte,  Freiburg  1855,  vol.  i.  append. 
Bunsen,  Christianity  and  Mankind,  London  1854. 
tiltzen,  Constitutiones  Apost.,  Suerini  1853,  pre¬ 
face  §  2.  Dc  Lagarde,  Reliquiae  Juris  Ecclesi- 
astici  Antiquissimae,  1856.  [B.  S.] 

APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTIONS.  The 
.apostolical  constitutions  consist  of  eight  books. 
Their  general  scope  is  the  discussion  and  regula¬ 
tion  (not  in  the  way  of  concise  rules,  but  in 
diffuse  and  hortatory  language)  of  ecclesiastical 
affairs.  In  some  places  they  enter  upon  the 
private  behaviour  proper  for  Christians;  in 
other  parts,  in  connexion  with  the  services  of 
the  Church,  they  furnish  liturgical  forms  at 
considerable  length.*  A  large  share  of  the 
whole  is  taken  up  with  the  subjects  of  the  sac¬ 
raments,  and  of  the  powers  and  duties  of  the 
clergy. 

At  the  end  of  the  eighth  book,  as  now  com¬ 
monly  edited,  are  to  be  found  the  apostolical 
canons.  These  we  have  already  treated  of  in  the 
previous  article. 

Ihe  constitutions,  extant  in  MSS.  in  various 
libraries,**  appear  during  the  middle  ages  to  have 
been  practically  unknown.  When  in  1546, 


1  Bickell,  however,  warns  us  that  the  fruits  of  such 
researches  must  be  tised  with  caution,  on  account  of  the 
uncritical  way  in  which  various  pieces  are  put  to¬ 
gether  in  these  MSS.  (vol.  i.  p.  218). 

*  '1  hese  belong  especially  to  the  question  of  Liturgies, 
and  will  not  therefore  be  considered  at  length  here. 

**  An  account  of  the  MSS.  is  given  in  Ultzen’s  edition, 
and  hy  Lagarde  in  Bunsen’s  Christ,  and  Man.,  vol.  vi. 
Fk  3S. 


Carolus  Capellus,  a  Venetian,  printed  an  cpitomo 
of  them  in  Latin  translated  from  a  MS.  found  in 
Crete,  Bishop  Jewell  spoke  of  it  as  a  work  “  in 
these  countries  never  heard  of  nor  seen  before.” 
(Park.  Soc.,  Jew.,  i.  111.)  In  1563  Bovius  pub¬ 
lished  a  complete  Latin  version,  and  in  the  same 
year  Turrianus  edited  the  Greek  text.  It  is  not 
expedient  here  to  pursue  at  any  length  the 
question  of  subsequent  editions,  but  it  may  be 
as  well  to  mention  the  standard  one  of  Cote¬ 
lerius  in  the  Patres  Apostolici  and  the  useful  and 
portable  modern  one  of  Ultzen  (Suerin,  1853). 
There  is  also  one  by  Lagarde,  Lipsiae,  1862. 

The  constitutions  profess  on  the  face  of  them 
to  be  the  words  of  the  Apostles  themselves 
written  down  by  the  hand  of  Clement  of  Rome. 

Book  1  prescribes  in  great  detail  the  manners 
and  habits  of  the  faithful  laity. 

Book  2  is  concerned  chiefly  with  the  duties  of 
the  episcopal  office,  and  with  assemblies  for 
divine  worship. 

Book  3  relates  partly  to  widows,  partly  to  the 
clergy,  and  to  the  administration  of  baptism. 

Book  4  treats  of  sustentation  of  the  poor,  of 
domestic  life,  and  of  virgins. 

Book  5  has  mainly  to  do  with  the  subjects  of 
martyrs  and  martyrdom,  and  with  the  rules  for 
feasts  and  fasts. 

Book  6  speaks  of  schismatics  and  heretics,  and 
enters  upon  the  question  of  the  Jewish  law,  and 
of  the  apostolic  discipline  substituted  for  it,  and 
refers  incidentally  to  certain  customs  and  tradi¬ 
tions  both  Jewish  and  Gentile. 

Book  7  describes  the  two  paths,  the  one  of 
life,  the  other  of  spiritual  death,  and  follows  out 
this  idea  into  several  points  of  daily  Christian 
life.  Then  follow  rules  for  the  teaching  and 
baptism  of  catechumens,  and  liturgical  pre¬ 
cedents  of  prayer  and  praise,  together  with  a  list 
of  bishops  said  to  have  been  appointed  by  the 
Apostles  themselves. 

Book  8  discusses  the  diversity  of  spiritual 
gifts,  and  gives  the  forms  of  public  prayer  and 
administration  of  the  communion,  the  election 
and  ordinations  of  bishops,  and  other  orders  in 
the  Church,  and  adds  various  ecclesiastical  regu¬ 
lations. 

This  enumeration  of  the  contents  of  the  books 
is  by  no  means  exhaustive — the  style  being 
diffuse,  and  many  other  matters  being  incident¬ 
ally  touched  upon — but  is  merely  intended  to  give 
the  reader  some  general  notion  of  the  nature  of 
the  work. 

From  the  time  when  they  were  brought  again 
to  light  down  to  the  present  moment,  great 
differences  of  opinion  have  existed  as  to  the  date 
and  authorship  of  the  constitutions. 

Turrianus  and  Bovius  held  them  to  be  a 
genuine  apostolical  work,  and  were  followed  in 
this  opinion  by  some  subsequent  theologians,  and 
notably  by  the  learned  and  eccentric  Whiston, 
who  maintained  that  (with  the  exception  of  a 
few  gross  interpolations)  they  were  a  record  of 
what  our  Saviour  himself  delivered  to  his 
Apostles  in  the  forty  days  after  his  resurrection, 
and  that  they  were  committed  to  writing  and 
were  sent  to  the  churches  by  two  apostolic 
councils  held  at  Jerusalem,  a.d,  64  and  A.D.  67, 
and  by  a  third  held  soon  after  the  destruction 
of  the  city. 

On  the  other  hand  Baronins,  Bellarmine  and 
Petavius  declined  to  attach  weight  to  the  Con- 


120 


APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTIONS 


Btitutions,  while  Daille  and  Blondel  fiercely  at¬ 
tacked  their  genuineness  and  authority. 

Whiston’s  main  argument  was  that  the  early 
Fathers  constantly  speak  of  SiSa(rKa\(u  otto- 
<TTo\iK'f},  diard^eis,  diarayai,  Siardyfiara  raiy 
a.TToa'rhXwv.  ko.vwv  rijs  XtiTOvpyias,  Kavd)V  rjjs 
aXTjdeias,  and  so  forth,  which  is  true  ;  but  he 
has  not  proved  that  these  expressions  are  neces¬ 
sarily  used  of  a  definite  book  or  books,  and  far 
less,  that  they  relate  to  what  we  now  have  as 
the  so-called  Apostolical  Constitutions. 

It  will  be  well  to  look  at  some  of  the  chief  of 
these  passages  from  the  Fathers. 

We  may  begin  with  the  words  of  Ireuaeus  in. 
the  fragment  first  printed  by  Pfaff  in  1715.  ot 
raus  SevTfpais  rwv  aTroaroXcov  ^lard^effi  irapr}- 
KoXovBriKOTes  icraai  rdu  Kvpiov  veav  Trpo(T<popdv 
iv  T7J  Kaivfi  diad-f}K'p  Ka^etrrrj/ceVat  Kara  rd 
MaXax'tov  k,  t.  X. 

Professor  Lightfoot  is  disposed  to  see  here  a 
reference  to  the  apostolical  constitutions,  but 
does  not  recognise  the  Pfaffian  fragments  as 
genuine.®  (Lightfoot  On  Epist.  to  Philippians, 
London,  18d8,  pp.  201,  202.)  But  if  the  genu¬ 
ineness  be  admitted,  the  reference  is  surely  in 
the  highest  degree  vague  and  uncertain.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  the  ordinances  spoken  of 
(whatever  they  Avere)  were  to  be  found  in  any 
one  particular  book — still  less  is  there  anything 
to  identify  what  is  spoken  of  with  the  apostolical 
constitutions  either  as  we  now  have  them,  or 
under  any  earlier  and  simpler  form.  Moreover, 
it  appeal’s  singular  that  if  the  Constitutions  were 
really  what  the  writer  was  relying  on,  he  should 
not  quote  some  passage  from  them.  Instead  of 
this,  he  goes  on  to  cite  the  Revelation,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
almost  as  if  these  contained  the  Siard^ets  in 
question.  What  is  meant  by  the  word  Sevrepai 
it  seems  A*ery  difficult  to  say  with  certainty. 

Origen  speaking  of  fasting  (in  his  10th  Homily 
on  Leviticus)  says,  “  Sed  est  et  alia  adhuc  re- 
ligiosa  [jejunandi  ratio],  cujus  laus  quorundam 
apostolorum  Uteris  praedicatur.  Invenimus  enim 
ill  quodam  libello  ab  apostolis  dictum,  Beatus 
est  qui  etiam  jejunat  prae  eo  ut  alat  pauperem. 
Hujus  jejunium  valde  acceptum  est  apud  Deum 
et  revera  digne  satis  :  imitatur  enim  Ilium  qui 
animam  suam  posuit  pro  fratribus  suis.” 

The  terms  in  which  Origen  introduces  this 
citation  do  not  seem  very  appropriate  to  such  a 
work  as  the  Constitutions,  nor  in  point  of  fact 
do  the  words  (which  seem  meant  as  an  exact 
quotation)  occur  in  it.  There  is  indeed  (Book 
V.  1)  a  general  exhortation  to  fast  in  order  to 
give  the  food  to  the  saints,  but  the  passage  has  a 
primary  reference  (at  all  events)  to  saints  im¬ 
prisoned  on  account  of  the  faith.  There  is,  there¬ 
fore,  a  considerable  divergence  between  the  words 
in  Origen  and  those  in  the  Constitutions;  and 
we  are  hardly  justified  in  seeing  any  reference  to 
the  latter  in  the  former.** 


e  Hilgenfeld  appears  to  take  a  like  view,  both  as  to  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions  being  intended,  and  as  to  the 
passage  not  being  genuine.  {Nov.  Test,  extra  Canon,  recept. 
I’ascic.  iv.'pp.  83,  84.)  Bunsen  thinks  the  Fragment  ge¬ 
nuine,  and  that  it  refers  to  some  early  “  Ordinances,”  not 
necessarily  the  same  as  we  now  have ;  Christ,  and  Man., 
vol.  ii.  p.  398,  et  seq. 

d  Priraa  facie,  too,  “  literae  quorundam  apostolorum”  is 
not  an  apt  designation  of  a  work  professing  to  represent 
the  joint  decrees  of  all. 


A  later  treati.se  entitled  ‘  De  Aleatoribus,’  of 
unknown  date  and  authorship,  erroneously  as¬ 
cribed  to  Cyprian,  refers  to  a  passage  “  in  doc- 
trinis  apostolorum,”  relating  to  Church  discipline 
upon  offenders.  Here  again  no  effort  has  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  tracing  the  words  of  the  citation  either 
in  the  con.stitutions  or  in  any  known  work. 
There  is,  indeed,  a  passage  of  a  similar  effect 
(Book  ii.  c.  39),  but  the  actual  language  is  not 
the  same ;  and  a  similarity  of  general  tenor  is 
not  much  to  be  relied  upon,  inasmuch  as  the 
subject  in  hand  is  a  very  common  one. 

We  come  now  to  Eusebius,  In  his  list  of 
books,  after  naming  those  generally  allow-ed,  and 
those  which  are  dvnXey 6 p.evoi,  he  goes  on, — “  We 
must  rank  as  spurious  {y66oi)  the  account  of  the 
‘  Acts  of  Paul,’  the  book  called  ‘  The  Shepherd,’ 
and  the  ‘  Revelation  of  Peter,’  and  besides  these, 
the  epistle  circulated  under  the  name  of  ‘  Bar¬ 
nabas,’  and  what  are  called  the  ‘  Teachings  of 
the  Apostles  ’  (Twv  aTTocTTiiAcoi/  o.l  XeySpevai  Si- 
dayat),  and  moreover,  as  I  said,  the  ‘Apocalypse 
of  John,’  if  such  an  opinion  seem  correct,  which 
some  as  I  said  reject,  while  others  reckon  it 
among  the  books  generally  received.  We  may 
add  that  some  have  reckoned  in  this  division  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrew’s,  to  which  those 
HebreAVS  Avho  have  receiA’ed  [Jesus  as]  the  Christ 
are  especially  attached.  All  these  then  will  be¬ 
long  to  the  class  of  controverted  books.”  (Euseb. 
Eist.  Eccl.  iii.  25.) 

The  place  here  given  to  the  StSoxod  (eA’en 
supposing  them  to  be  the  constitutions)  is  in¬ 
consistent  with  their  being  held  a  genuine  work 
of  the  Apostles.  It  speaks  of  them,  how’ever,  as 
forming  a  well-known  book,  and  from  the  con¬ 
text  of  the  passage,  they  seem  to  be  recognised 
as  orthodox ;  but  there  is  nothing  to  identify 
them  directly  Avith  our  present  collection. 

Athanasius,  among  books  not  canonical,  but 
directed  to  be  read  by  proselytes  for  instruction 
in  godliness,  enumerates  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
the  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  Esther,  Judith,  Tobias, 
and  W’hat  he  styles  SiSax^  KaXovp.eirq  rwv  diro- 
rrroXwv.  The  same  remarks  obA’iously  apply  to 
this  Father  as  to  Eusebius  (Op.  S.  Athan.  i.  963, 
Ed.  Bened.). 

The  language  of  neither  of  them  indicates  that 
the  work  in  question  W’as  looked  upon  as  an  au¬ 
thoritative  collection  of  Church  laAvs.  Lagarde 
denies  that  either  of  them  is  to  be  considered 
as  quoting  any  book  of  our  constitutions,  laying 
much  stress  on  the  distinction  between  hihaxa'i 
and  Siard^eis  or  Siarayal  dnoaroXeav.  (Bunsen, 
Christ,  and  Man.,  a’oI.  vi.  p.  41.®)  Bunsen,  how- 
eA’er,  himself  is  inclined  to  see  here  a  real  refer¬ 
ence  to  a  primitiA’e  foi’m  of  the  constitutions. 
(Vnd.  vol.  ii.  p.  405.) 

We  noAV  come  to  Epiphanius,  w’ho,  w’riting  at 
the  close  of  the  4th  century,  has  numerous 
explicit  references  to  the  didra^is  of  the  Apostles, 
meaning  thereby  apparently  some  book  of  a 
similar  kind  to  that  AA’hich  w’e  noAV  haA'e.  His 
view  of  its  character  and  authority  is  to  be  found 
in  the  following  passage  : — 

“  For  this  purpose  the  Audiani  themseh’es 
[a  body  of  heretics]  allege  the  Con-stitution  of 
the  Apostles,  a  work  dl^puted  indeed  As’ith  the 


e  In  this  work  Lagarde  writes  under  the  name  of 
Boetticher,  which  he  has  since  changed  for  family  reasons 
to  Lagarde. 


APOSTOIJCAL  CONSTITUTIONS 


121 


majority  [of  Christians]  yet  not  worthy  of  re¬ 
jection/  For  all  canonical  order  is  contained 
therein,  and  no  point  of  the  faith  is  falsified,  nor 
yet  of  the  confession,  nor  yet  of  the  adminis¬ 
trative  system  and  rule  and  faith  of  the  Church.” 
{Haer.  70,  No.  10  ;  comp,  also  Ibid.  No.  11,  12  ; 
75,  No.  6;  80,  No.  7.) 

But  when  we  examine  his  citations,  we  find 
that  none  of  them  agree  exactly  with  our  present 
text,  while  some  of  them  vary  from  it  so  widely, 
that  they  can  be  connected  with  it  only  by  the 
supposition  that  they  were  meant  to  be  made  ad 
sensum  not  ad  literam.  Even  this  resource  fails 
m  a  famous  passage,  immediately  following  that 
just  cited,  where  Epiphanius  quotes  the  consti¬ 
tutions  as  directing  Easter  to  be  obseiwed  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Jewish  reckoning,^  whereas  in  our 
present  copies  they  expressly  enjoin  the  other 
system,  (See  Book  v.  17.) 

In  a  work  known  as  the  ‘opus  imperfectum  in 
Matthaeum,’  once  ascribed  to  Chrysostom,  but 
now  considered  to  have  been  the  production  of 
an  unknown  writer  in  the  5th  century,  there  is 
a  distinct  reference  to  “  the  8th  book  of  the 
apostolic  canons.”  And  words  to  the  effect  of 
those  quoted  are  found  in  the  second  chapter. 
Another  citation,  however,  in  the  same  writer 
cannot  be  verified  at  all. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  the  list  further. 
From  this  time  forwards  references  are  found 
which  can  be  verified  with  more  or  less  exactness, 
and  in  the  year  692  the  council  of  Constantinople, 
known  as  Quinisextum,  or  the  Trullan  council, 
had  the  work  under  their  consideration,  but  came 
to  a  formal  decision,  refusing  to  acknowledge  it 
as  authoritative  on  account  of  the  extent  to  which 
it  had  been  interpolated  by  the  heterodox. 

It  appears  then  that  we  must  conclude  that 
there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  the  Church 
generally  received  as  of  undoubted  authority  any 
collection  of  constitutions  professing  to  have 
come  from  the  Apostles  themselves,  or  at  least 
to  be  a  trustworthy  primitive  record  of  their 
decisions.  Even  Epiphanius  bases  his  approbation 
of  the  work  of  which  he  speaks  on  subjective 
grounds.  He  refers  to  it,  because  he  thinks  it 
orthodox,  but  admits  that  it  was  not  received  as 
a  binding  authority.  Yet  had  such  a  work 
existed,  it  should  seem  that  from  its  practical 
character  it  must  have  been  widely  known,  per¬ 
petually  cited,  and  generally  acted  upon. 

Indeed  that  the  so-called  apostolic  constitu¬ 
tions,  as  they  now  stand,  are  not  the  production 
of  the  Apostles  or  of  apostolical  men,  will  be 
clear  to  most  readers  from  their  scheme  and  con¬ 
tents.  “  Apostles,”  says  the  author  of  an  article 
on  the  subject  in  the  ‘  Christian  Remembrancer  ’ 
in  1854,  “  are  brought  together  who  never  could 
have  been  together  in  this  life :  St.  James,  the 
greater  (after  he  was  beheaded),  is  made  to  sit 
in  council  with  St.  Paul  (Lib.  vi,  c.  14),  though 
elsewhere  he  is  spoken  of  as  dead  (Lib.  v.  c,  7). 
Thus  assembled,  they  condemn  heresies  and 
heretics  by  name  who  did  not  arise  till  after 

Tali'  aTTocToAoii'  Sidra^Lv,  ovaav  }ieu  toIs  ttoA.- 
\ol%  (V  an^iKeKTW,  a\k’  ovk  aS6K^nov.  ■ 

*  Opi^ouo'i  yap  ev  rf}  ax/rfi  6taTa^€i  ol  aTToiTToXoi  oTi* 
Yp.«r?  n'rf  \l/r)<j)i^r]re,  aWa  noLtlre  orav  oi  aSe\<f>oi  vp-ati/  ot 
€<f  TTjs  jrepiTOfx^?"  fier'  avriav  dp.a  noielre.  And  he  adds  : 
riopa  Tols  OTTOITToXoi?  5€  TO  pTqTOV  fit’  O/utOI'Otal' CTl  iifiepcTat , 
uis^€7ripapTvpoC<ri  \eyovTfs  OTt  Kar  re  n\avtjOit)<Ti,  /xijfie 
VMti'  ptKtrv. 


their  death  (Lib.  vi.  c.  8) ;  they  appoint  the 
observance  of  the  days  of  their  death  (Lib.  viii. 
c.  33).  nay,  once  they  are  even  made  to  say 
‘  These  are  the  names  of  the  bishops  whom  we 
ordained  in  our  lifetime  ’  (Lib.  viii.  c.  47).” 

Most  persons  will  also  be  of  opinion  that  there 
is  a  tone  about  the  constitutions  themselves 
which  is  by  no  means  in  harmony  with  what  we 
know  of  apostolic  times.  Thus  for  instance,  the 
honour  given  to  the  episcopate  is  excessive  and 
hyperbolical. 

ovro’i  [i.  e.  6  CTrlor/coTros]  vfiSsv  ^aa'i\ehs  Ka\ 
SvydffrrfS'  ovrns  vjxwv  iiriyelos  0eos  /aera  0eJr, 
6s  rris  Trap'  vfjLwy  TtftTjs  dTroAttweir  (citing 

Ps.  Ixxxii.  6  and  Exod.  xxii.-xxviii.  in  LXX.). 
'O  yap  iiTL(TKOTros  TrpoKade^fada}  vfxuu  ais  @€OV 
d^la  T6T£/iTj|U6Vos,  rj  Kparei  tov  KX'fjpov  Ka\  tov 
\aov  TravrJs  &px^^  (Book  ii.  26 ;  comp,  also 
Book  ii.  33). 

And  in  Book  vi.  2  we  read : — 

et  yap  6  ^aaiX^vaiv  iTreyeipSixfvos  KoXacrews 
d|ios,  K^LV  ui'Js  p,  Kti.y  <plXo^‘  Trdcrep  ^dXXop  b 
Upev(Tiv  iiravKTTdfxeyos  ;  '’Offcp  yap  iepwavvTj 
^aaiXeias  dfx^ivwv,  irepl  \pvxvs  exovrra  tov 
dywva,  roaovrep  Ka\  ^apvrepav  ttji/ 

p'lav  b  ravri]  ToKixT]aas  iLyTOixfiaT^Tv,  fjTr^p  b  tt} 
fiatriXeia.^ 

A  system,  too,  of  orders  and  classes  in  the 
Church  stands  out  prominently,  especially  in  the 
8th  book,  of  which  there  is  no  trace  in  the  ear¬ 
liest  days  (see  Bickell,  vol.  i.  p.  62).  Thus  we 
have  subdeacons,  readers,  &c.,  with  minute  direc¬ 
tions  for  their  appointment.  Ceremonies  also  are 
multiplied.  The  use  of  oil  and  myrrh  in  baptism 
is  enjoined  (Book  vii.  22),  and  the  maiTiajie  of 
the  clergy  after  ordination  is  forbidden  (vi.* *i7). 

We  must  therefore  feel  at  once  that  we  have 
passed  into  n  different  atmosphere  from  that  of 
Clement’s  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  that 
the  connection  of  Clement’s  name  with  the  work- 
must  be  a  fiction,  no  less  than  the  assertion  that 
he  wrote  its  contents  at  the  mouth  of  the  aj)os- 
tles.  Even  those  who  think  that  they  trace 
something  like  the  origin  of  such  a  system  in  the 
letters  of  Ignatius  must  allow  that  it  is  here 
represented  in  a  state  of  develojauent  which 
must  have  required  a  considerable  period  of  time 
to  bring  about. 

The  questions,  however,  still  remain 

To  what  date  are  we  to  assign  the  work  in  the 
form  in  which  it  now  exists? 

Can  we  show  that  it  was  in  any  degree  formed 
out  of  pre-existing  materials  ? 

Bishoj)  Pearson  *  and  Ai'chbishop  Usher  regard 
the  variations  between  the  citations  of  EjiipHa- 
nius,  and  what  we  read  in  our  present  copies  ot 
the  constitutions,  as  conclusive  evidence  that 
there  have  been  alterations  and  interj)olations  on 
a  large  scale  since  the  time  of  that  Father,  and 
the  latter  of  these  writers  thinks  that  the  same 
falsifier  has  been  at  work  here,  who  expanded  tbe 
shorter  epistles  of  Ignatius  into  the  so-called 
longer  epistles.! 

h  Comp.  U.sher,  in  Cotel.  I'atr.  Apost.  vol.  ii.  p.  220, 
edit.  1724. 

i  Vind.  Ignat.  Part  i.  c.  4  prope  fin.  And  see  tbe 
opinion  of  Heveridge,  Cod.  Cun.  lib.  2,  cap.  ix. 

j  Cotel.  rat7-.  Ap.  vol.  ii.  Append,  p.  22S.  Bickell  has 
collectod  .some  instances  of  correspondence  in  jiliraseolotfy 
between  tlie  Ignatian  Kpistles  and  the  Coiistituiions  as 
they  stand,  vlikh  the  reader  may  refer  to  in  order  to 
examine  the  probability  of  the  latter  theory  {Gasch  tics 


122 


APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTIOXS 


According  to  Peai’son,  we  should  probably 
attribute  the  work  in  its  existing  form  to  about 
the  middle  of  the  5th  century,  while  Usher  re¬ 
fuses  to  jilace  it  higher  than  the  Gth  century.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  could  suppose  that  Epipha- 
nius  quoted  loosely,  and  that  the  book  which  he 
had  may,  with  occasional  exceptions,  have  re¬ 
sembled  in  substance  what  we  now  hax'e,  we 
should  be  able  to  put  its  antiquity  somewhat 
higher.  But  whatever  conclusion  may  be  come 
to  on  this  point,  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence 
to  warrant  its  being  assigned  to  any  period  suffi¬ 
ciently  early  to  make  it,  as  it  stands,  an  authority 
as  to  apostolic  usage. 

But  the  question  still  remains.  Can  we  trace 
its  composition,  and  in  any  degree  identify  the 
materials  out  of  which  it  has  been  put  together  ? 

That  the  work  was  a  pure  and  simple  forgery 
is  improbable.  Such  xvas  not  the  course  which 
matters  took  in  early  days ;  nor  would  the  mea¬ 
sure  of  acceptance  which  it  obtained  be  easily  ac¬ 
counted  for  on  this  theory. 

Moreover  it  contains  passages  which  seem 
manifestly  to  belong  to  an  early  age.  Thus  in 
case  of  quarrels  the  Christian  is  recommended 
to  seek  reconciliation  even  at  a  loss  to  himself, 
Kal  iirl  KpiT-ppiou  iOviKSv  (book  ii. 

c.  45) — words  which  at  all  events  savour  of  a 
time  before  the  empire  was  Christian.  So  again, 
the  .secular  judges  are  .said  to  be  iOviKoi  Kal  ov 
yivaxTKoi'Tis  fleoTTjxa.  So  also  martyrdom  and 
persecution  on  account  of  Christianity  are  spoken 
of  as  by  no  means  exclusively"  belonging  to  the 
past  (see  Lib.  5,  init.  et  alibi). 

And  to  mention  but  one  more  point,  the  charge 
of  Arianism,  which  was  at  one  time  freely  brought 
against  the  constitutions,  and  used  to  prove  that 
they  had  been  corrupted,  if  not  forged,  by  here¬ 
tics,*  has  in  later  days  been  sometimes  made  the 
ground  of  an  opposite  inference.  It  is  thought  by 
some  modern  writers  merely  to  show  that  the 
phrases  excepted  against  date  from  a  time  before 
the  controversy  arose,  and  when  therefore  men 
spoke  with  less  of  dogmatic  exactness. 

Perhaps  it  is  possible  to  go  even  a  step  further, 
at  all  events,  by  way  of  not  unreasonable  conjec¬ 
ture.  We  have  seen  that  Whiston  relied  on  a 
number  of  places  in  which  the  early  Fathers 
speak  of  didaxai,  5i5acrKa\'iai,  S lar a  rut v  diro- 
(tt6\oi}u,  and  some  years  before  Whiston  wrote. 
Bishop  Pearson  (in  his  Vindiciae  /gnatianae) 
had  suggested  the  idea  that,  so  far  as  such  ex¬ 
pressions  really  referred  to  any  specific  works  at 
all,  they  were  to  be  understood  of  smaller,  more 
ancient,  and  more  fragmentary  treatises,  of  a 
kind  not  rare  in  the  Primitive  Church,  professing 
to  contain  the  words  of  the  apostles  or  of  aposto¬ 
lical  men  on  matters  of  doctrine  and  Church 
order.  Some  of  these  were  the  production  of  here¬ 
tics,  some  were  of  an  orthodox  chai’aoter.  Those 
which  related  to  doctrine  were  called  didascaliae, 

Kirchenrechts,  vol.  i.  p.  58,  note).  Pearson  takes  a  some¬ 
what  different  view,  Vivd,  Ignat,  nbi  supra. 

Comp.  Bickell,  1.  pp.  57,  58,  note.  Eplphanius,  how¬ 
ever,  never  quotes  from  the  7th  or  8th  book-;,  which  on 
any  theory  are  doubtless  of  later  dtite. 

1  See  for  instance  Le  Clerc,  in  Cotel.  Pair.  vol.  ii. 

App.  p.  492,  et  seq.;  and  Bruno,  ibid.  p.  177,  et  seq. 
Indeed  Photius  and  the  Trullan  Council  had  insinuated 
the  same  accusation  (Pibliolh.  Can.  112,  113). 

See  Bickell,  p.  58,  note,  p.  61,  and  p.  69.  note.  Comp. 
Bull,  Im/.  Fid.  Nic,  lib,  2,  c.  3,  $  6 


those  which  gave  rules  of  ritual  or  discipline, 
Siand^eis  or  Constitutiones.  These  works,  written 
at  dilferent  times  and  in  diflerent  parts  of  the 
Church,  furnished  (as  Pearson  supposes)  the  mate¬ 
rials  to  the  compiler,  who,  with  many  alterations 
and  interpolations  formed  out  of  them  our  pre.seut 
constitutions  {Vindic.  Ignat.,  Part  i.  c.  4). 

Other  critics  have  spoken  in  terms  which  seem 
rather  to  point  to  a  gradual  accretion,  added  to 
from  time  to  time  to  express  the  Church  system 
as  developed,  and  modified  at  the  periods  when 
such  additions  were  respectively  made.  Thus 
Lagarde  says,  “  Communis  virorum  doctorum  fere 
omnium  nunc  invaluit  opinio,  oas  [Constitutiones] 
saeculo  tertio  clam  succrevisse  et  quum  sex  ali- 
quando  libris  absolutae  fuissent,  septimo  et  octavo 
auctas  esse  postea  ”  (^Rcliq.  Juris  Eccles.  Antiq. 
1856). 

That  the  work  as  we  have  it  is  a  composite 
one  is  indeed  manifest  enough  “  from  the  general 
want  of  internal  unity,  method,  or  connexion  ; 
the  difierence  of  style  in  the  various  portions,  and 
sometimes  statements  almost  contradictory  ;  the 
same  topics  being  treated  over  and  over  again  in 
diflerent  places  ;  besides  a  formal  conclusion  of 
the  end  of  the  sixth  book,  and  other  indications 
of  their  being  distinct  works  joined  together  ” 
{Christ.  Beniemhr.  ubi  sup^a). 

In  the  Paris  Library  is  a  Syriac  MS.  called  the 
Didascalia  or  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  12  Apos¬ 
tles  and  holy  disciples  of  our  Saviour.  It  con¬ 
tains  in  a  shorter  form  much  of  the  substance  of 
the  first  six  books  of  the  constitutions,  but  with 
very  great  omissions,  and  with  some  variations 
and  transpositions. 

Its  contents  were  printed  in  Syriac  by  De  La- 
garde  (without  his  name)  in  1854 ;  and  the  same 
critic,  in  the  6th  vol.  of  Bunsen’s  Christianity  and 
Mankind,  has  published,  1st,  our  present  text, 
with  what  he  states  to  be  the  variations  of  the 
Syriac ;  and  2nd,  a  shorter  Greek  text  or  ‘  Didas¬ 
calia  Purior,’  founded  on  the  Syriac." 

Bickell,  who,  however,  when  he  wrote  had 
only  seen  extracts,  thought  this  Syriac  MS.  a 
mere  abridgement  of  the  larger  work,  and  there¬ 
fore  posterior  in  date  to  it,  and  adding  little  to 
our  knowledge. 

But  Bunsen  {Christianity  and  Mankind,  vol  i.  p. 
X.),  Lagarde  {liel.  Jur.  Eccl.  Ant.  pref.,  p.  iv.),  and 
the  author  of  the  article  in  the  Christian  Remem¬ 
brancer  1854,  all  agree  that  we  have  here  an 
older  and  more  primitive,  if  not  the  original 
work.  Hilgenfeld  says,  “  Equidem  et  ipse  Syria- 
cam  Didascaliam  ad  hujus  operis  primitivam 
formam  propius  accedere  existimo,  sed  eandem 
nunquam  nmtatam  continere  valde  dubito.”®  He 
concludes,  on  the  whole,  “  tertio  demum  saeculo 
didascalia  apostolica  in  earn  fere  formam  redacta 
esse  videtur,  qiiam  Eusebius  et  Athanasius  nove- 
rant,  quam  recensionem  a  nostris  constitutionibus 
ai)ostolicis  valde  divers.im  fuisse  antiquissima 
docent  testimonia,  praecipue  Epiphanii.  Ea  autem 


"  Jt  iloes  not  seem,  however,  tbat  this  literal  y  repre¬ 
sents  the  Syriac.  For  one  of  the  passages  given  by  Hil- 
geiifeltl  (sec  infra),  which  undoubtedly  e.xists  in  the  S\'riac, 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  '  Didascalia  Purior.'  It  is  much 
to  be  regretted  that  neitlicr  Lagarde  nor  any  other  Ori*  ntal 
scholiir  has  published  a  litoral  translation  of  the  Syriac 
te.xt. 

«  His  own  view  is  that  the  Apostolicid  Constiiutions 
sprang  from  an  Ebionite  source,  allied  to  that  which  pro* 
duct'd  the  Clementine  Recognitions 


APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTIONS 


123 


etiani  a  Syriaca  didascalia  quamvis  cognata 
sacpius  discedunt.”  He  thinks  that  the  Syriac 
appears  not  to  be  very  consistent  on  the  subject 
of  the  calculation  of  Easter.  It  seems,  however 
(from  the  translations  which  he  gives),  that  it 
contains  a  passage  agreeing  in  substance  with  what 
Epiphanius  quotes  as  to  keeping  Easter  by  the 
Jewish  method  (ante  p.  121):  “  Ihr  sollt  aber  begin- 
nen  dann,  wenn  eure  Briider  aus  dem  \  oik  [Israel] 
das  Fascha  halten,  well,  als  uuser  Herr  und  Lehrer 
mit  uns  das  Fascha  ass,  er  nach  dieser  Stunde  von 
Judas  verrathen  wurde.  Und  um  dieselbe  Zeit 
haben  wir  angefangen,  bedriickt  zu  werden,  well 
er  von  uns  genommen  war.  Nach  der  Zahl  des 
Mondes,  wie  wir  zahlen  nach  der  Zahl  der  gliiu- 
bigen  Hebraer,  am  zehnten  im  Monat,  am  Montag 
haben  sich  die  Friester  und  Aeltesten  des  Volks 
versammelt  ”  u.  s.  w.,  and  subsequently  —  “  Wie 
also  der  vierzehnte  des  Fascha  fallt,  so  sollt  ihr 
ihn  halten.  Denn  nicht  stimmt  der  Monat,  und 
auch  nicht  der  Tag  in  jedem  Jahre  mit  dieser 
Zeit,  sondern  er  ist  verschieden.”  p 

Tills  is  worthy  of  serious  attention,  as  an  argu¬ 
ment  for  the  antiquity  of  this  Syriac  work. 

It.  would  seem  that  it  must  at  all  events  be  ad¬ 
mitted  that  the  original  work  from  which  the 
Syriac  was  taken  consisted  of  six  books  only. 
The  7th  and  8th  books,  as  they  now  stand,  formed 
no  part  of  it. 

The  same  is  the  case  with  an  Aethiopic  version 
translated  by  Mr.  Flatt.  This  also,  though  said 
to  be  very  loose  and  of  little  value  as  a  guide  to 
the  original  text,  is  a  witness  to  the  fact  that 
there  were  but  six  books  when  it  was  made.  The 
like  is  true  of  the  Arabic  versions,  of  which  some 
account  was  first  given  by  Grabe,  and  of  which 
two  MSS.  are  in  the  Bodleian. *  *1 

Not  only  do  these  facts  tend  to  isolate  the  first 
six  books  from  the  7th  and  8th ;  but  the  formal 
conclusion  which  occurs  at  the  end  of  the  6th 
even  in  our  present  Greek,  and  the  style  of  the 
contents  itself,  furnish  internal  evidence  in  the 
same  direction. 

It  has  therefore  been  contended  that  the 
kernel  out  of  which,  to  a  great  extent,  the  first 
six  books  sprang  was  a  shorter  book  called 
di^a(TKa\(a  roiv  cnroCTSKau,  of  which  the  Syriac 
version  furnishes  a  fair  idea,  if  not  a  really  pure 
text. 

And  as  none  of  Epiphanius’s  citations  are  made 
from  the  two  last  books,  it  is  suggested  that  we 
may  have  here  something  like  a  key  to  the  work 
as  it  was  in  his  time,  the  7th  and  8th  books  hav¬ 
ing  been  added  since. ' 

Coming  to  the  7th  book,  we  must  notice  that 
its  first  thirteen  chapters  or  thei'eabouts  exhibit 
a  great  similarity,  both  in  matter  and  expression, 
to  the  first  part  of  an  ancient  tract  printed  by 
Bickell  from  a  Vienna  MS.,  and  entitled  Al  Sia- 
Tayai  al  Sia  K\tj/j.€i/tos  Kal  Kau6i'cs  iKK\r)cna<rTi- 


p  Sec  Hilgenfeld,  yovum  Test,  extra  Can.  recept.  Fasci¬ 
culus  iv.  p.  79,  et  seq.  (Lipsiae,  1866.) 

1  there  are  in  the  Arabic  five  chapters  not  in  the 
Greek. 

'  I  he  fact  that  there  is  no  Oriental  version  of  the  eight 
Greek  books  as  a  whole,  has  been  relied  on  to  shew  that 
they  had  not  been  united  together  in  one  work  up  to 
the  year  451,  when  the  Egyptian,  Aethiopic,  and  Syriac 
cimnhes  were  severed  from  the  eomniunion  of  the  Greeks 
and  l..atlns  (CAnVf.  Remembr.,  1851,  p.  278).  The  same 
authority  is  inclined  to  date  the  Didascaly  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  3rd  century. 


Kol  rwv  ayiwv  aTTO<TT6\(av.  *  This  tract  professes 
to  contain  short  and  weighty  utterances  by  the 
apostles  (who  are  introduced  as  speaking  success¬ 
ively)  on  Christian  morals,  and  on  the  ministers 
of  the  Church. ‘  An  Aethiopic  version  (for  it  is 
extant  in  Coptic,  Aethiopic,  and  Arabic)  calls  it 
“  canons  of  the  apostles  which  they  have  made 
for  the  ordering  of  the  Christian  Church.”  “  It 
is  the  piece  which  Bickell  and  others  after  him 
have  called  “  Apostolische  Kirchenordnung.” 
It  is  assigned  by  him  to  the  beginning  of  the 
3rd  century.  *  The  same  date  is  given  in  the 
article  on  the  subject  in  Herzog’s  EncyclopdJie, 
where  it  is  treated  as  a  document  independent  of 
the  constitutions.  Bunsen,  removing  the  dra¬ 
matic  form  and  presenting  only  the  substance  of 
the  piece,  considers  it  to  be  in  facta  collection  of 
rules  of  the  Alexandrian  Church.  This  view, 
however,  is  warmly  disputed  by  the  writer  in  the 
Christian  liemernbrancer  (1854,  p.  293),  who 
contends  that  its  whole  garb,  style,  and  lan¬ 
guage  show  that  it  was  not  an  authoritative 
work,  but  was  the  production  of  a  pious  writer, 
who  arrayed  in  a  somewhat  fictitious  dress  what 
he  sought  to  inculcate.  It  is  more  remarkable  for 
piety  than  knowledge ;  for  though  the  number  of 
twelve  apostles  is  made  out,  it  is  by  introducing 
Cephas  as  a  distinct  person  from  Peter,  and  by 
making  him  and  Nathanael  occupy  the  places  of 
James  the  Less  and  of  Matthias.  St.  Paul  does 
not  appear  at  all — a  fact,  perhaps,  not  without 
its  bearing  on  conjectures  as  to  its  origin. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  language  of  the 
first  pai't  of  this  tract,  and  of  the  7th  Book  of  the 
Constitutions,  coincides  to  a  great  extent  with  the 
latter  part  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  leaving  it 
doubtful  whether  it  was  taken  thence  or  whether 
the  transcribei’s  of  that  epistle  subsequently  in¬ 
corporated  therewith  a  portion  of  this  treatise. 
Borrowing  and  interpolation  must,  it  would 
seem,  have  taken  place  on  one  hand  or  on  the 
other,  and,  as  in  other  cases,  it  is  diificult  to  de¬ 
cide  the  question  of  originality. 

Upon  this  state  of  facts  the  writer  in  the 
Christ.  Rem.  argues  that  this  tract  fui-nished 
materials  fer  the  first  part  of  the  7th  Book  of 
the  Constitutions.  He  also  thinks  that  it  is  it¬ 
self  the  work  referred  to  by  Eusebius  and  Atha¬ 
nasius  under  the  name  of  diSax^  tS>v  otto- 
(tt6\(i3V.  We  have  seen  already  that  the  title 
in  the  Greek  varies  from  that  in  the  Aethiopic, 
and  it  is  urged  that  (considering  the  subject) 
there  seems  no  reason  why  it  may  not  also  be 
suitably  designated  ‘Teaching  of  the  Apostles.’ 
Now  in  an  old  stichometry  appended  to  Niceph- 
orus’  chronography,y  but  perhaps  of  earlier  date 
than  that  work,  the  number  of  lines  contained 
in  certain  works  is  given,  and  from  this  it  would 
appear  that  the  ‘  Doctrina  Apostolorum  ’  was 


•  Bickell,  vol.  i.  App.  I.  It  will  also  be  found  in 
Lagarde’s  Rel.  Juris  Keel.  Ant.,  p  74. 

‘  It  is  the  former  of  these  points  alone  in  which  the 
likeness  appears  between  this  work  and  the  7th  Book  of 
the  Constitutions. 

“  See  Bickell  ubi  supra;  and  i.  p.  88. 

*  It  mentions  only  “Readers”  in  addition  to  the  three 
orders  of  tlie  ministry;  and  as  Tertullian  does  tlie  same 
{De  Rraescr.  Ilaer.,  c.  41),  this  is  thouglit  a  ground  for 
attributing  it  to  his  epoch  (Bickell,  vol.  i.  p.  92).  See 
also  Hilgenfeld,  Noo.  Test,  extra  Can.  rec..  Fasciculus  Iv. 
pp.  93,  94. 

y  A  production  of  the  9th  century. 


124 


APOSTOLICAL  CONSTIU  UTIONS 


shorter  than  the  Book  of  Canticles,  and  that  a 
book  called  the  ‘Teaching  of  Clement,’  was  as 
long  as  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  Hence,  if  the  ‘  Doc- 
trina  ’  of  this  list  be  the  same  as  that  of  Euse¬ 
bius,  it  must  have  been  a  book  very  much 
shorter  than  our  present  constitutions,  and  one 
not  far  differing  in  length  from  the  tract  of 
which  we  have  been  speaking;  while  the  ‘Teach¬ 
ing  of  Clement  ’  (a  larger  work)  may  be  a  desig¬ 
nation  of  the  earlier  form  of  our  present  first 
six  books — in  short,  of  the  Didascalia.  Kulfinus, 
in  a  list  otherwise  very  similar  to  those  of 
Eusebius  and  Athanasius,  omits  the  ‘Teaching 
of  the  Apostles,’  and  inserts  instead  ‘  The  two 
wa3's,  or  the  Judgment  of  Peter.’  Assuming 
that  the  ‘  Doctrina  ’  is  the  tract  we  have  been 
discussing,  reasons  are  urged  for  supposing  that 
it  reappears  here  under  a  different  title.  We 
have  afready  seen  that  the  Greek  and  Aethiopic 
give  it  two  different  names,  and  its  contents 
might  perhaps  render  the  designation  in  Ruf- 
fiuus  not  less  appropriate.  For  St.  John,  w’ho 
speaks  first,  is  introduced  as  beginning  his  ad¬ 
dress  with  the  words,  “  There  are  two  ways, 
one  of  life  and  one  of  death  and  St.  Peter  in¬ 
tervenes  repeatedly  in  the  course  of  it,  and  at 
the  close  sums  up  the  whole  by  an  earnest  ex- 
nortation  to  the  brethren  to  keep  the  foregoing 
injunctions.  Such  is  the  hypothesis  of  the 
learned  writer  in  the  Clu'ist.  Rem. 

Kilgenfeld,  it  may  be  mentioned,  has  independ¬ 
ently  arrived  at  a  conclusion  in  part  accordant 
with  the  above.  He  argues  strongly  that  the 
treatise  published  by  Bickell  is  that  spoken  of  by 
Rutfinus  under  the  name  of  ‘  Duae  viae  vel  Judi¬ 
cium  Petri,’  but  does  not  apparently  identify  it 
wdth  the  ‘  Doctrina  Apostolorum  ’  of  Athanasius. 
He  thinks  the  book  was  known  in  some  form  to 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and  agrees  that  great  part 
of  it  passed  into  the  7th  Book  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tions  (see  Hilgenfeld’s  Novum  Test,  extra  Canonem 
Receptmn,  Lipsiae  1866 ;  Fasciculus .iv.  p.  93). 

We  now  come  to  the  8th  Book.  Extant  in 
several  Greek  MSS.  (one  being  at  Oxford)  are 
large  portions  of  the  matter  of  the  earlier  part 
of  this  book,  not  however  connected  together 
throughout,  but  appealing  in  two  distinct  and 
apparentlj'  separate  pieces.  The  first  of  them 
is  entitled  ‘  Teaching  of  the  Holy  Apostles  con¬ 
cerning  gifts  ’  (xapio'iudTWJ'),  the  second  ‘  Regu¬ 
lations  (Stard^eis)  of  the  same  Holy  Apostles 
concerning  ordination  [given]  through  Hippo- 
I  vtus  ’  (vrepl  T7r7roA.oToo).  The 

tw’o  together,  as  just  observed,  comprise  a  very 
large  proportion  of  the  8th  Book,  but  are  not 
without  some  omissions  and  several  variations 
from  it.  In  that  book  as  we  have  it,  the  two 
portions  represented  respectively  by  these  sepa¬ 
rate  treatises  stand  connected  by  a  short  chapter, 
containing  nothing  of  importance,  and  seeming 
to  serve  only  as  a  link. 

Hence  it  has  been  suggested  that  we  have  in 
the  treatises  in  question  an  older  and  purer  form 
of  the  8th  Book,  or  rather  the  materials  used  in 
its  composition.  The  ‘  Regulations  ’  are  also  in 
existence  in  Coptic  (indeed  there  are  two  Coptic 
forms  differing  from  each  other  and  from  the 
Greek  by  additions  and  omissions  and  probably 
in  age),  in  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Aethiopic,  the 
text  being  in  many  cases  a  good  deal  modified.* 


]  Bunsen  treated  these  as  a  collection  of  Alox- 
:  andrian  Church  rules,  and  Mowed  the  por- 
I  tions  common  to  them  and  to  the  8th  Book  of 
the  Constitutions  as  in  a  great  degree  derived 
from  a  lost  wmrk  of  Hippolytus  Trepl 
Taw^  (Christ,  and  Man.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  412). 

On  the  other  hand  Bickell  argues  that  the 
tracts  in  question  are  nothing  more  than  ex¬ 
tracts  from  the  constitutions,  more  or  less 
abridged  and  modified.  He  relies,  for  example, 
on  the  fact  that  in  one  of  these  treatises  no  less 
than  in  the  text  of  our  8th  Book,  St.  Paul  (who 
is  introduced  as  a  speaker)  is  made  to  command 
Christian  masters  to  be  kind  to  their  servants, 
“  as  W'e  have  also  ordained  in  vlnt  has  preceded, 
and  have  taught  in  our  epistles.”  This  he  con¬ 
siders  to  be  a  clear  reference  to  what  has  been 
before  said  in  the  constitutions  on  the  same  sul>- 
ject  (Book  vii.  c.  13). 

Lagarde  expresses  a  similar  view,  and  draws 


mentioned  infra,  p.  125.  See  also  Christ.  Reniembr.,p.  230, 
as  to  another  Syriac  MS.,  and  comp.  p.  233. 

®  The  inscription  on  the  statue  of  Hippolytus  at  Rome 
mentions  among  his  works  nepl  xapierp.dT<jjv  airoaroXiKtt 
TrapaSocrii.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  nepi  xap-  was 
one  treatise  and  avroa-T.  napdS.  another,  or  whether  the 
whole  is  the  title  of  one  work.  See  Bickeli,  p.  60,  note. 
As  regards  the  nepl  xeiporonwi',  Bunsen  considers  it  to 
have  been  the  subject  of  much  interpolation,  and  regards 
its  fate  in  this  respect  to  have  been  like  that  of  the  Consti¬ 
tutions  themselves,  the  composition  of  which  he  describes 
in  words  worth  quoting  in  relation  to  the  general  subject ; 
“  Here  we  see  the  very  origin  of  these  Constitutions. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  ante-Nicene  period  they  made 
the  old  simple  collections  of  customs  and  regulations  into 
a  book,  by  introducing  different  sets  of  ‘  coutumes,’  by  a 
literary  composition  either  of  their  own  making,  or  by 
transcribing  or  extracting  a  corresponding  treatise  of  some 
ancient  father.  Thus  the  man  who  compiled  our  7th  book 
has,  as  everybody  now  knows,  extracted  two  chapters  of 
the  ancient  epistle  which  bears  the  name  of  Barnabas. 
The  compiler  of  the  Sth  book,  or  a  predecessor  in  this  .sort 
of  compilation,  has  apparently  done  the  same  with  the 
work  of  Hippolytus  on  the  Charismata”  (Christianity 
and  Mankind,  vol.  ii.  416).  Elsewhere,  in  the  same  work, 
he  expresses  an  opinion  that  the  old  collections  of  customs 
here  spoken  of  were  themselves  made  at  a  much  earlier 
time — perhaps  in  the  2nd  century — and  express  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  various  great  churches ;  and  that  the  consciousness 
of  apostolicity  in  that  primitive  age  justifies,  or  at  least 
excuses,  the  fiction  by  which  they  were  attributed  to 
Apostles, — a  fiction  which  deceived  no  on®,  and  was  only 
meant  to  express  an  undoubted  fact,  viz.,  the  apostoliei'y 
of  the  injunctions  as  to  their  substance  (vol.  ii.  399). 
Ascending  still  a  step  higher,  he  believes  that  the  mate¬ 
rials  employed  in  these  old  collections  were  of  all  but 
apostolic  times.  The  oldest  horizon  to  which  we  look 
back  as  reflected  in  them  is  perhaps  the  age  immediately 
posterior  to  Clement  of  Rome,  who  himself  represents  the 
end  of  the  Jobannean  age,  or  first  rentur^'  (see  vol,  iL 
p.  402).  To  Bunsen’s  mind,  full  of  faith  in  the  power 
and  tact  of  subjective  criticism,  this  means  more 
than  to  the  mind  of  theologians  of  the  English  school. 
He  believed  in  the  possibility  of  applying  the  cri¬ 
tical  magnet  to  draw  forth  the  true  fragments  of  steel 
from  the  mass  in  which  to  our  eyes  they  seem  inex¬ 
tricably  buried.  He  thus  speaks  of  the  subjective 
process  by  which  be  makes  the  first  step  upwards . — 
“  As  soon  as  we  get  rid  of  all  that  belongs  to  the  bad 
taste  of  the  fiction,  some  ethic  introductions,  and  all  occa¬ 
sional  moralising  conclusions,  and  generally  everything 
manife.stiy  re-written  with  literary  pretension ;  and  lastly, 
as  soon  as  we  expunge  some  interpolations  of  the  4th  and 
6th  centuries,  which  are  easily  discernible,  we  find  our¬ 
selves  unmistakeably  in  the  midst  of  the  life  of  the  Church 
of  the  2nd  and  3rd  centuries  ”  (vol.  ii.  p,  405). 


•  The  Syriac  and  Coptic  form  part  of  the  collections 


APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTIONS 


125 


attention  to  the  cii'cumstance  that  in  one  part  of 
the  Munich  MS.  of  the  nepl  there 

is  a  note  which  expressly  speaks  of  what  follows 
as  taken  out  of  the  apostolical  constitutions.’’ 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  remarked  that  all 
such  researches  as  those  we  have  been  consider¬ 
ing  as  to  one  piece  being  the  basis  or  original  of 
another,  are  beset  with  much  difficulty,  because 
certain  statements  or  maxims  often  recur  in 
several  tracts  which  (in  their  present  state  at 
all  events)  are  distinct  from  each  other,  though 
sometimes  bearing  similar  names.  Lagarde  points 
out  (KeL  Jur.  Eccl.  Ant.,  preface  p.  xvii.,  and 
Bunsen’s  Christianity  and  Mankind,  vol.  vi.  p.  38, 
39)  that  there  once  was  a  Syriac  collection  in 
eight  books  equally  professing  to  be  the  work  of 
Clement,  yet  far  from  being  identical  with  our 
present  Greek  constitutions,  though  here  and 
there  embracing  similar  pieces.  Passages  which 
Lagarde  deems  to  be  extracts  from  the  2nd  and 
3rd  Books  have  been  edited  by  him  in  Syriac 
from  fragments  found  in  the  same  Paris  MS. 
(Sangerm.  38)  which  contains  the  Syriac  Didas- 
calia* *^  (see  his  Eel.  Jur.  Eccl.  Ant.  Syrian.  1856). 
He  has  also  translated  them  into  Greek  (see  his 
Eel.  Jur.  Eccl.  Ant.  Graece,  p.  80,  and  Pi’ef. 
p,  xvii.).‘’  Then  again,  there  is  an  Egyptian  col¬ 
lection,®  also  in  eight  books,  the  relation  of  which 
to  the  abovementioned  Syrian  Octateuch  is  dis¬ 
cussed  by  Lagarde  (^Eel.  Jur.  Eccl.  Ant.  preface, 
and  Bunsen’s  Christ,  and  Mankind,  vol.  vi.  p.  39). 

We  have  thus  endeavoured  to  present  a  sketch 
of  some  of  the  leading  theories  which  have  been 
put  forward  as  to  the  apostolical  constitutions. 
Did  space  permit  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  add 
others.  Krabbe  appears  to  have  thought  that 
Eusebius,  Athanasius,  and  Epiphanius  knew  the 
first  seven  books,  and  that  they  were  composed 
in  the  East  not  long  after  the  time  of  Cyprian 
(the  seventh  being  a  kind  of  appendix  to  the 
others),  and  probably  by  one  author,  whose  object 
was  to  model  the  Church  on  a  Levitical  pattern, 
and  who  perhaps  described  not  so  much  what 
existed  as  what  he  desired  to  see.  At  a  later 
period  (end  of  4th  or  beginning  of  5th  century) 
the  8th  Book  was  added,  embracing  divers  pre¬ 
cepts  which  were  commonly  supposed  to  be  apos¬ 
tolical,  together  with  much  from  the  writer  him- 


*>  Lagarde,  Rd.  Juris  Eccl.  Ant.,  Preface,  p.  viii. ;  and 
see  also,  ibidem,  a  theory  as  to  the  name  of  Hippolytus, 
as  connected  with  the  treatise. 

®  This  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  Syriac  Didas- 
calia  previously  mentioned,  from  which  it  is  quite 
distinct. 

d  Matter  closely  agreeing  with  these  fragments,  though 
not  in  quite  the  same  order,  and  connected  with  much 
that  is  additional,  is  also  found  in  a  MS.  of  the  12th  cent, 
in  the  Cambridge  Univ.  Library.  This  MS.  (brought  by 
Buchanan  from  Southern  India)  contained  eight  books  of 
Cl'-mentine  Constitutions  placed  at  the  end  of  a  Syriac 
Bible ;  but  it  is  now  in  a  dilapidated  state.  It  may  be 
that  tlie  Paris  fragments  are  extracts  from  it,  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  this  MS.  (as  the  later  of  the  two  in  date)  may 
possibly  contain  a  subsequent  development.  It  may  be 
hoped  that  further  attention  will  be  paid  to  it  by  Oriental 
scholars.  Its  existence  seems  to  have  been  unknown  to 
Lagarde. 

*  Of  this  Egj’ptian  collection,  the  first  two  books  arc 
printed  in  a  Greek  version  by  Lagarde  in  Bunsen’s  Christ, 
and  Mankind,  vi.  451 ;  and  see  Bunsen’s  analysis  of  the 
collection,  ibid.  vii.  372.  Another  Coptic  MS.  was  trans¬ 
lated  by  Dr.  Tattam  in  1848.  There  is  a  notice  of  it  in 
the  Christ.  Eememtn-.  for  1864,  p.  282. 


self,  probably  an  Arlan  or  Macedonian.  Tills 
second  writer  probably  is  responsible  for  many 
interpolations  in  the  previous  books.^ 

Von  Drey  again,  who  spent  much  labour  on 
the  subject,  advocated  the  view  that  the  treatises 
of  four  distinct  writers  are  combined  in  our  pre¬ 
sent  work.  The  first  six  books,  he  thouglit, 
were  written  after  the  middle  of  the  3rd  century, 
to  teach  practical  religion,  and  were  adapted  for 
catechumens.  The  seventh  is  probably  of  the 
date  of  A.D.  300,  and  treats  of  the  mysteries  for 
the  use  of  the  faithful  alone.  The  8tli  Book  is 
a  kind  of  pontifical  of  some  Eastern  Church,  being 
full  of  liturgies  for  the  use  of  the  clergy,  it 
dates  perhaps  from  the  3rd  century,  but  has 
been  altered  and  adapted  to  the  state  of  things 
in  the  middle  of  the  4th.  Athanasius,  who 
sj^ieaks  of  the  SiSaxh  KaKovy^vr]  twu  aiTO(TT6\ooi 
as  fit  for  recent  converts  desirous  of  instruction, 
is  to  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  six  first  books.s 
But  before  the  time  of  Epiphanius  the  eight 
books  were  joined  as  one  work. 

Interesting  as  such  inquiries  are,  they  cannot 
at  present  be  considered  as  having  removed  the 
question  of  the  origin  and  date  of  the  apostolical 
constitutions  out  of  the  class  of  unsolved  problems.’’ 
The  majority  of  scholars  Avill  perhaps  decline  to 
say  with  confidence  more  than  that  the  precise 
age  and  composition  of  the  work  is  unknown, 
but  that  it  is  probably  of  Eastern  authorship,* 
and  comprises  within  itself  fragments  of  very 
difterent  dates,  which  we  have  no  certain  means 
for  discriminating  from  one  another,  and  which 
have  undergone  great  modifications  when  in¬ 
corporated  with  the  rest.  The  consequence  is 
that,  as  it  stands,  the  work  cannot  be  deemed  to 
reflect  a  state  of  things  in  the  Church  much,  if 
at  all,  prior  to  the  Nicene  age.** 

Nor  can  it  be  said  ever  to  have  possessed,  so 
far  as  we  know,  any  distinct  ecclesiastical  au¬ 
thority.  We  are  in  the  dark  as  to  its  author¬ 
ship,  and  there  is  no  such  proof  of  its  general 
and  public  reception  at  any  period  as  would 
seem  needful  to  establish  its  validity  as  an  autho¬ 
ritative  document.  There  are  indeed  signs  of  a 
common  nucleus  of  which  various  churches  seem 
to  have  aA'ailed  themselves,  but  in  adopting  it  into 
their  respective  systems  they  modified  it  in  re¬ 
lation  to  their  respective  needs,  with  a  freedom 
hardly  consistent  with  the  idea  that  it  was  en¬ 
titled  to  very  great  veneration. 

Authorities. — F.  Turrianus,  Prooem.  in  Lihr. 


t  When,  however,  a  very  late  date  is  attempted  to  be 
assigned,  it  should  be  remembered  e  contra  that,  as  ob- 
serv  d  by  Bickell,  metropolitan  authority  does  not  appear ; 
and  if  we  hear  of  asceticism  (in  book  viii.),  there  is  no 
mention  of  monasticism. 

g  While,  on  the  other  hand,  the  85th  of  the  Apostolical 
Canons  perhaps  refers  to  the  7th  and  ath  when  it  speaks 
of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  as  Siarayal  a?  ou  XPT 
Snuoateveir  errl  travTcjv  Sia  ra  ev  aurat?  ixvariKa. 

^  See  the  words  of  Lagarde  in  Bunsen,  (Joist,  and 
Manic.,  vol.  vi.  p.  40. 

•  See  Bickell,  vol.  i.  p.  63,  who  assigns  several  gnmnds 
for  this  conclusion.  It  is  worth  notice  that  throughout 
the  Constitutions  the  Church  of  Rome  never  occupies  any 
position  of  priority  or  pre-eminence. 

k  The  age  of  the  Syriac  Dida.scalia  is  of  course  another 
question.  It  demands  fuller  consideration,  which  it  can 
hardly  receive  from  scholars  in  general  until  it  has  bi'en 
literally  translated.  According  to  the  ‘  I)ida.scalia  I'lirior’ 
in  Bunsen,  it  is  not  free  from  very  hyperboliv  al  language 
in  relation  to  the  clergy. 


126 


APOSTOLICUS 


APPEAL 


Clementis  Rom.  de  Const.  Apost.,  kc.  Antv.  1578. 
Joh.  Dallaeus,  De  Pseudepigraphis  Apost.,  lib. 
iii.  Harderv.  1653.  Jac.  Usserii,  Diss.  de 
Ignat.  Epist.  (i-n  Cotel.  Pair.  Ap.,  vol.  ii.  app. 
p.  199,  &c.  Edit.  1724).  Pearsoni,  Vindic.  Ignat. 
(in  Cotel.  Pair.  Ap.^  vol.  ii.  app.  p.  251).  Part  I. 
chap.  4.  Brunoiiis,  Judicium  (Ibid.  p.  177). 
Cotelerii,  Judic.  de  Const.  Apmt.  (Cotel.  vol.  i. 
p.  195).  J.  E.  Grabe,  Spicileg.  Patr.  Oxon. 
1711.  J.  E.  Grabe,  Essay  upon  two  Arabic  MSS. 
Lend.  1711.  W.  Whiston,  Primitive  Christianity 
Revived.  Lond.  1711.  Krabbe,  Uber  den  Ur- 
sprung  und  den  Inhalt  der  Ap.  Const.  Hamb. 
1829.  Von  Drey,  Neue  Untersuchungen  Uber 
die  Const.,  kc.  Tiibingeu  1832.  Rothe,  Anfange 
der  Christ!.  Kirche.  Bickell,  Geschirhte  der  Kir- 
chenrechts,  vol.  i.  Giessen  1843.  Ultzen,  Const. 
Aj.ost.  Suerini  1853.  Bunsen’s  Christianity  and 
Alankind,  London  1854.  Christian  Remembrancer 
for  1854.  De  Lagarde,  Reliquiae  Juris  Ecclesi- 
astici  Antiquissimae,  1856.  Idem,  Syriace  1856. 
Hilgenfeld,  Novum  Testamentum  extra  Canonern 
receptum.  Lipsiae  1866 ;  Fascic.  IV.  The  Ethiopde 
Didascalia  ;  or,  the  Ethiopic  version  of  the  Apos¬ 
tolical  Constitutions,  received  in  the  Church  of 
Abyssinia,  With  an  English  translation.  Edited 
and  translated  by  Thomas  Pell  Platt,  F.A.S. 
London,  printed  for  the  Oriental  Translation 
Fund,  1834.  The  Apost.  Constitutions;  or,  the 
Canons  of  the  Apostles  in  Coptic,  with  an  English 
Translation  by  Henry  Tattam,  LL.t).,  &c, ;  printed 
for  the  Oriental  Translation  Fund,  1848.  [B,  S.] 

APOvSTOLICUS,  a  title  once  common  to  all 
bishops  (the  earliest  instance  produced  by  Du 
Cange  is  from  Venantius  Fortunatus,  6th  century, 
addressing  Gregory  of  Tours,  Prolog,  to  V.  S. 
Martini  and  elsewhere  ;  but  none  of  his  quota¬ 
tions  use  the  word  absolutely  and  by  itself,  but 
rather  as  an  epithet);  but  from  about  the  9th 
century  restricted  to  the  Pope,  and  used  of  him 
in  course  of  time  as  a  technical  name  of  office. 
It  is  so  used,  e.  g.,  by  Rupertus  Tuitiensis,  12th 
century  {De  Divin.  Offic.  i.  27) ;  but  had  been 
formally  assigned  to  the  Pope  still  earlier,  in 
the  Council  of  Rheims  a.d.  1049, — “quod  solus 
Romanae  sedis  Pontifex  universalis  Ecclesiae  pri- 
mas  esset,  et  Apostolicus,” — and  an  Archbishop 
of  Compostella  was  excommunicated  at  the  same 
council  for  assuming  to  himself  “  culmen  Apo¬ 
stolic!  nominis  ”  (so  that,  in  the  middle  ages, 
Apostolicus,  or,  in  Norman  French,  V Apostole  or 
r Apostoile,  which  =  Apostolicus,  not  Apostolus, 
became  the  current  name  for  the  Pope  of  the 
time  being),  Claudius  Taurinensis,  in  the  9th 
century,  recognizes  the  name  as  already  then 
appropriated  to  the  Pope,  by  ridiculing  his 
being  called  “  not  Apostolus,  but  Apostolicus,''  as 
though  the  latter  term  meant  Apostoli  cusfos  : 
for  which  Claudius’s  Irish  opponent  Dungal 
takes  him  to  task.  (Du  Cange ;  Raynaud,  Contin. 
Paronii.')  [A.  W.  H.] 

APOSTOLIUM  (’ATToo'ToXctoj'),  a  church 
dedicated  in  the  name  of  one  or  more  of  the 
Apostles.  Thus  Sozomen  {Hist.  Eccl.  ix.  10,  p. 
376)  speaks  of  the  Basilica  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome 
as  TO  lleTpov  airo(rTo\fiou’,  and  the  same  writer, 
speaking  of  the  church  which  Rufinus  built  at 
the  Oak  (a  suburb  of  Chalcedon)  in  honour  of 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  says  that  he  called  it  ’Atto- 
(TToKeio!/  from  them  {Hist.  AJee/.  viii.  17,  p.  347). 
[Marty-rium,  Propheteum,]  [C.] 


APOTAX  AMENI  {aTroTa^dpevoi) — rentin- 
ciantes,  renouncers,  a  name  by  which  the  monks 
of  the  ancient  Church  were  sometimes  designated, 
as  denoting  their  renunciation  of  the  world  and 
a  secular  life,  e.g.  in  Palladius  Hist.  Lausiac., 
c.  15,  and  Cassian,  who  entitles  one  of  his  books, 
De  Institutis  Renunciantium.  (Bingham,  book  vii. 
c.  2.)  [D.  B.] 

APPEAL  {Appellatio  in  reference  to  the 
court  appealed  to,  Provocatio  in  reference  to  the 
opponent ;  ((peais  in  classical  Greek,  verb  in 
N.  T.  iTTiKaXela-dai),  a  complaint  preferred  before 
a  superior  court  or  judge  in  order  to  obtain  due 
remedy  for  a  judgment  of  a  court  or  judge  of  an 
inferior  rank,  whereby  the  complainant  alleges 
that  he  has  suffered  or  will  suffer  wrong.  We 
are  concerned  here  with  ecclesiastical  appeals 
only.  And  they  will  be  most  conveniently  dis¬ 
cussed  if  —  distinguishing  between  1,  appeals 
from  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  to  another  also 
ecclesiastical,  and  2,  appeals  from  an  eccle¬ 
siastical  to  a  lay  tribunal,  or  vice  versa , 
and  further,  as  regards  persons,  between  (a) 
bishops  and  clergy,  to  whom  in  some  rela¬ 
tions  must  be  added  monks  and  nuns,  and  (;3) 
laity — we  treat  successively,  as  regards  subject 
matter,  of  I.  Spiritual  Discipline  properly  so 
called,  II.  Civil  Causes,  and  III,  Criminal  ones. 
It  will  be  convenient  also  to  include  under  the 
term  Appeal,  both  appeals  properly  so  called, 
where  the  superior  tribunal  itself  retries  the 
case ;  and  that  which  is  not  properly  either 
i-evision  or  rehearing,  where  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  superior  tribunal  is  confined  to  the  ordering, 
upon  complaint  and  enquiry,  of  a  new  trial  by 
the  original,  or  by  an  enlarged  or  otherwise 
altered,  body  of  judges ;  and  that  again  which 
is  properly  a  mere  i*evision,  where  the  case  is 
revised  by  a  higher  tribunal  but  without  sus¬ 
pending  sentence  meanwhile ;  and,  lastly,  the 
ti'ansference  also  of  a  cause  from  one  kind  of 
tribunal  to  another  not  co-ordinate  with  it,  as 
e.g.  from  lay  to  spiritual  or  vice  versa,  which,  if 
the  first  court  have  completed  its  sentence, 
practically  constitutes  the  second  into  a  court  of 
appeal  to  its  predecessor.  It  is  necessary  also 
to  bear  in  mind  the  difference  between  a  friendly 
interference,  such  as  brotherly  love  requires  on 
the  part  of  all  bishops  if  any  fall  into  heresy 
or  sin,  but  which  implies  no  formal  authority 
of  the  adviser  over  the  advised  ;  and  an  arbitra¬ 
tion,  where  the  arbiter,  who  may  be  any  one, 
derives  his  authority  from  the  mutual  and  free 
consent  of  (properly)  both  parties,  but  (as  will 
be  seen)  in  certain  cases  sometimes  from  the  sole 
action  of  one ;  and  an  appeal,  where  some  defi¬ 
nite  superior  tribunal  may  be  set  in  motion  by 
either  party,  but  has  in  that  case  exclusive  as 
well  as  compulsory  jurisdiction  ;  and  the  yet 
further  step,  where  (like  the  intercessio  of  the 
Tribuni  Plehis')  the  superior  court  or  magistrate 
has  the  power  of  calling  up  the  case  for  revision, 
and  of  suspending  sentence  meanwhile,  suo  motu. 
An  appeal,  however,  of  whatever  kind,  implies 
the  legality  in  the  absHact,  and  assumes  the 
fact,  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  appealed 
from  as  a  primary  court.  And  it  becomes  need¬ 
ful,  therefore,  here  to  assume,  although  it  is 
no  business  of  this  article  either  to  detail  or 
to  prove,  the  extent  and  Ijmits  of  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  in  the  first  instance;  in  order  clearly 


APPEAL 


APPEAL 


127 


to  set  forth  the  various  checks  in  the  way  of 
appeal  placed  in  such  case  upon  that  original 
jurisdiction.  On  the  other  hand,  the  limitation 
of  the  subject  to  the  period  antecedent  to 
Charlemagne,  excludes  from  consideration  the 
whole  of  the  elaborate  fabric  built  up  by  the 
Canon  Law  of  later  times,  mainly  upon  the  basis 
of  the  False  Decretals.  And  we  haA^e  nothing 
t«  do,  accordingly,  Avith  that  grand  innoA'ation, 
whereby,  in  the  West,  the  entire  system  of  purely 
ecclesiastical  appeals  (and,  indeed,  of  justice)  Avas 
in  eft'ect  perA^erted  and  frustrated,  viz.,  the  right 
gradually  alloAved  of  appealing  immediately  from 
any  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  high  or  Ioav,  upon 
any  subject  great  or  small,  to  the  Pope  at  once ; 
nor  yet  Avith  the  elaborate  disputes  upon  the 
nature  and  limits  of  majores  causae  (the  phrase, 
hoAvever,  dating  from  Innocent  I.) ;  nor  Avith 
the  encroachments  of  the  highest  or  of  other 
ecclesiastical  tribunals  upon  those  of  the  State  ; 
nor  AA'ith  the  celebrated  Appel  comme  d’ Abus  in 
medieA'al  and  later  France ;  nor  Avith  such 
questions  as  the  legitimate  effect  of  the  clause 
appellatione  remota  or  postposita  in  a  Papal 
brief ;  nor  Avith  the  appeal  from  the  Pope  to  a 
General  Council,  present  or  future ;  or  from  the 
Pope  ill-informed,  to  the  Pope  Avell-informed : 
nor  again,  on  another  side  of  the  subject,  Avith 
distinctions  betAveen  appeals  judicial  or  extra¬ 
judicial,  or  from  sentences  definitiA^e  or  inter¬ 
locutory  ;  nor  Avith  the  system,  at  least  as  sub¬ 
sequently  elaborated,  of  Apostoli  (certainly  not 
deriA^ed  from  post  appellationem)  or  letters  di- 
missory,  whether  reverential,  refutatory,  repo¬ 
sitory,  testimonial,  or  conventional,  Avhereby 
the  under  court  formally  transferred  the  cause 
to  the  upper  one  ;  nor  with  the  fatalia  appel- 
lationum,  scil.,  the  fixed  times  within  which  an 
appeal  must  be  laid,  carried  to  the  upper  court 
by  means  of  Apostoli.  prosecuted,  and  concluded; 
nor,  in  a  Avord,  Avith  any  other  of  the  elaborate 
details  of  the  later  Canon  Law  upon  the  subject. 
Our  attention  must  be  confined  to  the  system 
so  far  as  it  Avas  worked  out  under  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  rencAA^ed  or  modified  under  that  of 
Charlemagne. 

I.  1.  Spiritual  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  dis¬ 
cipline  over  clergy  and  laity  alike,  rested  in  the 
beginning  both  by  Scriptural  sanction  and  by 
primitiv^e  practice  Avith  the  bishop,  acting,  hoAV- 
ever,  rather  Avith  paternal  authority  and  in  the 
spirit  of  mutual  love,  through  moral  influence 
on  the  one  side  met  by  Avilling  obedience  on  the 
other,  than  according  to  the  hard  outlines  of  a 
fixed  Church  laAV  laid  doAvn  in  canons ;  although 
such  canons  gradually  grew  into  existence  and 
into  fulness,  and  the  ultimatum  of  excommuni¬ 
cation  must  haA'c  existed  all  along  as  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  obstinate  or  repeated  transgression.  The 
Apostolic  canons,  hoAvever  (xxxvii.  and  Ixxiv.), 
recognize  as  the  then  Church  law,  and  theNicene 
Council  (a.d.  325)  formally  establishes,  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  synod  of  each  province  as  a  court 
of  (revision  rather  than)  appeal  from  a  single 
bishop;  enacting,  that  “excommunicate  clerks 
and  laymen  shall  abide  by  the  sentence  of  their 
bishop,”  but  that,  “  to  prevent  injustice,  synods 
of  the  bishops  of  a  province  (iirapxta)  shall  be 
held  twice  a  year,  in  order  that  questions  arising 
on  such  subjects  may  be  enquired  into  by  the 
community  of  the  bishops ;  a  sentence  of  excom¬ 
munication,  if  confirmed  by  them,  to  hold  good 


until  a  like  synod  should  reverse  it”  (Cone.  Nic. 
can.  5)  :  such  right  of  a})peal  being  aj'parcntly 
the  common  laAv  of  the  Church,  and  the  Council 
interfering  only  to  secure  it  by  requiring  synods 
to  be  held  with  sufficient  frequency.  And  this 
right,  as  respects  presbyters  and  all  below  pres¬ 
byters,  was  recognised  and  confirmed  by  Cone, 
Carth.,  A.D.  390  can.  8,  and  a.d.  398  can.  29, 
66,  Cone.  Milev.  a.d.  416  c.  22,  for  Africa  ;  by 
Cone.  Vasens.  a.d.  442  can.  5,  and  Cone.  Venet. 
A.D.  465  can.  9  (“  Episcoporum  audientiam,  non 
secularium  potestatum,”  in  this  last  instance), 
for  Gaul  and  Armorica ;  by  Cone.  Ilispal.  A.D. 
590  cc.  5,  9,  for  Spain ;  and  by  Cone.  Antioch. 
cc.  6,  11,  A.D.  341,  directed  both  against  the  Pope 
and  against  appeals  to  the  Emperor  (adopted  into 
the  canons  of  the  Church  Catholic),  and  by  the 
Council  of  Constantinople  in  381,  cc.  2,  3,  6,  for 
the  East.  The  last-named  Council  also  in  eflect 
limited  the  right  of  appeal  from  above  as  Avell 
as  beloAV,  by  forbidding  all  bishops  rals  v-n-fpopiois 
iKK\T](r'iais  cTrteVot,  and  by  establishing  each  pro- 
Aunce  in  an  independent  jurisdiction  (Cone.  Con- 
stantinop.  c.  2). 

o.  Confining  ourselves  first  to  the  case  of  clergy, 
the  right  of  the  bishop  to  judge  his  brethren  or 
his  clerks,  was  further  limited,  in  that  part  of 
the  Church  where  Church  law  was  earliest  and 
most  formally  deA'eloped,  viz.,  Africa,  by  the 
requirement  of  tAvelve  bishops  to  judge  a  bishop, 
of  six  to  judge  a  presbytei*,  of  three  to  judge  a 
deacon  (Cone.  Carth.  a.d.  348  can.  11,  a.d.  390 
can.  10,  A.D.  397  can.  8).  And  a  dispute  be- 
tAveen  tAvo  bishops  was  still  later  refeiTed  by  the 
(African)  Council  of  Mileum  A.D.  416  (can.  21), 
to  bishops  appointed  by  the  metropolitan.  In 
the  East,  and  generally,  bishops  (and  presbyters) 
AAmuld  seem  to  haA^e  been  left  by  the  Nicene 
canon  merely  to  the  natural  resort  of  an  appeal 
from  one  synod  to  another  and  a  larger  one,  viz. 
to  the  metropolitan  and  bishops  of  the  next  pro- 
A'ince  ;  which  is  the  express  rule  laid  down  in 
Cone.  Antioch.  A.D.  341,  cc.  11,  12,  14,  15,  and 
in  Cone.  Constantinop.  a.d.  381,  can.  6.  So  also 
canon  13  of  the  collection  of  Martin  of  Braga. 
But  betAA'een  the  Nicene  and  Constantinopolitan 
Councils  and  that  of  Chalcedon  in  451,  a  further 
modification  took  place  in  accordance  Avith  the 
settlement  of  the  several  Patriarchates,  Avhereby 
the  appeal  Avas  made  to  lie  from  the  bishop  to 
the  metropolitan  with  his  synod,  and  then  from 
him  to  the  Patriarch ;  Avith  the  further  claim 
gradually  emerging  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  to  a  right  of  supreme  judicial  authority 
OA'er  the  entire  Church.  (But  Avhether  the  sen¬ 
tence  Avas  to  remain  in  force  pending  the  appeal 
seems  to  have  been  a  doubtful  question,  A^ariously 
settled  at  different  times  and-  places  ;  see  Bal- 
samon  in  Can.  Afric.  32.)  The  first  step  Avas 
that,  in  the  West,  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  A.D. 
347,  intended  to  be  oecumenical  but  in  result  only 
Western,  and  not  accepted  as  authoritative  either 
by  the  Eastern  or  even  by  the  African  Churches  : 
Avhich  attempted  to  make  the  system  work  more 
fairly,  and  perhaps  to  escape  reference  to  an  Arian 
Emperor,  by  giving  presbyter  or  deacon  an  ap¬ 
peal  to  the  metropolitan  and  the  comprovincial 
bishops  (can.  14  Lat.),  and  by  enacting  Avith  re¬ 
spect  to  bishops,  in  the  Avay  of  reA'ision  rather 
than  appeal,  that,  whereas  ordinarily  they  should 
be  judged  by  the  bishops  of  their  own  province, 
if  a  bishop  thought  himself  aggrieved,  either  the 


128 


APPEAL 


APPEAL 


bishops  who  tried  him  or  those  of  the  neighbour¬ 
ing  province  should  consult  the  Bishop  of  Rome  , 
and  if  he  judged  it  right,  then  the  comprovincial 
or  the  neighbouring  bishops  should  by  his  ap¬ 
pointment  retry  the  case,  with  the  addition  (if 
the  complainant  requested  it,  and  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  complied  with  his  request)  of  presbyters 
rej)resent  ag  tlie  Bishop  of  Rome,  w’ho  were  to 
take  their  place  in  that  capacity  among  the 
judges  (can.  4,  5,  7)  :  no  successor  to  be  a])pointed 
to  the  deposed  bishop  pending  such  new  trial.  The 
choice  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  referee  (to  decide, 
however,  not  the  case  itself,  but  whether  there 
ought  to  be  a  new  trial)  has  some  appearance  of 
having  been  personal  to  Julius  the  then  Pope  (as 
was  the  subsequent  grant  of  Gratian  to  Pope 
Damasus),  to  whoni  the  right  is  granted  by  name 
in  the  Greek  version  of  the  canons  (so  Richerius 
and  De  Marca) ;  but  certainly  it  was  determined 
to  the  see  of  Rome,  not  through  previous  prece¬ 
dent,  or  as  by  inherent  right,  but  as  in  honour 
of  the  one  Apostolical  see  of  the  West, — “  in 
honour  of  the  memory  of  St.  Peter.”  It  was  in 
fact  giving  to  the  Pope  the  right  previously 
possessed  e.xcluslv^ely  by  the  Emperor,  save  that 
the  latter  would  refer  causes  to  a  Council.  Prior 
to  347,  the  case  of  Fortunatus  and  Felicissimus 
A.D.  252  (striving  to  obtain  the  support  of  Pope 
Cornelius  against  their  own  primate  St.  Cyprian, 
and  eliciting  from  the  latter  an  express  assertion  of 
the  sufficiency  and  finality  of  the  sentence  passed 
upon  them  by  their  own  comprovincial  African 
bishops,  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  59,  Fell) — and  that  of 
Mercian,  Bishop  of  Arles  A.D.  254  (whom  the 
bishops  of  Gaul  are  e.xhorted  to  depose  for  Nova- 
tianism,  St.  Cyprian  interfering  on  the  sole 
ground  of  brotherly  episcopal  duty  to  urge  them 
to  the  .step,  and  asking  Pope  Stephen  to  inter¬ 
fere  also,  but  solely  on  the  like  ground.  Id.  Epist. 
68), — and  those  of  Basileides  and  of  Martial, 
Bishops  respectively  of  Leon  with  Astorga  and  of 
Merida,  also  A.D.  254  (deposed  by  the  Spanish 
bishops  as  having  lapsed,  and  of  whom  Basileides, 
having  deceived  Pope  Stephen  into  re-admitting 
him  to  communion,  and  into  “canvassing”  for  his 
restoration,  was  rejected  nevertheless  by  the 
Spanish,  seconded  by  the  African  bishops.  Id.  Epist. 
67)  —  sufficiently  shew  that  while  the  Nicene 
canons  only  confirmed  and  regulated  the  jire- 
viously  established  and  natural  principle  of  the 
final  authority  of  the  provincial  synod,  that  of 
Sardica  introduced  a  new  provision,  although  one 
rather  opening  the  way  for  further  extensive 
changes  than  actually  enacting  them.  In  341, 
also,  the  Council  of  Antioch,  representing  the 
East,  repudiated  the  same  Pope  Julius’s  in¬ 
terference  on  behalf  of  St.  Athanasius  (Sozom. 
iii.  8  ;  Socrat.  ii.  15)  and  passed  a  canon 
against  the  return  of  a  deposed  bishop  to  his  see 
unless  by  decree  of  a  synod  larger  than  that 
which  had  deposed  him  (can.  12) ;  as  well  as 
against  appeals  of  deposed  bishops  to  emperors, 
unsanctioned  by  the  comprovincial  bishops:  canons 
ado])ted  into  the  code  of  the  whole  Church.  In 
the  West,  however,  the  Sardican  canon  became 
the  starting  point  of  a  distinctly  marked  ad¬ 
vance  in  the  claims  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
although  not  without  opposition  on  the  part  of 
the  Church,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  without 
political  support  from  the  Emperors.  In  367  a 
Council  of  Tyana  restored  Eustathius  of  Sebastea 
to  his  see,  among  other  grounds,  on  the  strength 


of  a  letter  of  Pope  Liberius  ;  but  the  proceed¬ 
ing  was  condemned  in  strong  terms  by  St. 
Basil  the  Great  (^Ej/ist.  263  §  3).  In  378,  the 
Emperor  Gratian  added  State  sanction — at  least 
during  the  Popedom  of  Damasus,  and  in  reference 
to  the  schism  of  the  antipope  Ursicinus — to  the 
judicial  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  in 
conjunction  with  six  or  seven  other  bishops  if 
the  accused  were  a  bishop  himself,  and  with  an 
alternative  of  fifteen  comprovincial  bishops  in  the 
case  of  a  meti’opolitan,  the  attendance  of  the 
accused  bishop  at  Rome  to  be  compelled  by  the 
civil  power  (Cone.  Rom.,  Ejrist.  ad  Gratian.  et 
Valentin.  Lnpp.  A.D.  378,  in  Mansi,  iii.  624,  and 
the  Rescript  appended  to  it  of  the  same  Em¬ 
perors  ad  Aquilinum  Vicariuni).  In  381,  how¬ 
ever,  the  epistle  of  the  Italian  bishops  (inclu'ling 
St.  Ambrose)  to  Theodosius,  claims  no  more  re¬ 
specting  Eastern  bishops  in  the  case  of  ilaximus 
(deposed  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople),  than 
that  the  voice  “  of  Rome,  of  Italy,  and  of  all  the 
West,”  ought  to  have  been  regarded  in  the  matter. 
But  in  some  year  between  381  and  398  (see 
Tillemont,  Md'm.  Eccl.'),  although  Theodoret  (v. 
23)  seems  to  place  it  under  Innocent  I.  in  402, 
Flavian,  accepted  by  the  East,  but  rejected  by 
Egypt  and  by  Rome  and  the  West,  as  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  was  summoned  by  the  Emperor  to  go 
to  Rome  to  be  judged  there  by  the  Bishop  cf 
Rome,  but  refused  to  submit ;  and  was  finally 
accepted  by  the  Pope,  to  whom  he  sent  a  depu¬ 
tation  of  bishops,  at  the  intercession  of  St. 
Chrysostom,  but  without  any  pretence  of  trial. 
In  404-406,  Innocent’s  interference  to  procure 
St.  Chrysostom’s  own  restoration  to  his  see,  even 
to  the  extent  of  withdrawing  communion  from 
St.  Chrysostom’s  opponents,  proved  as  great  a 
failui-e  as  Pope  Julius’s  like  attempt  on  behalf 
of  St.  Athanasius  (Sozom.  viii.  26-^8,  and  the 
letters  of  St.  Chrysostom  and  Pope  Innocent  in 
Mansi,  iii.  1081-1118);  although  the  mean  pro¬ 
posed  was  not  a  trial  by  the  Pope  but  a  general 
Council.  While  St.  Chrysostom  himself  at  the 
same  period  affirms  the  old  principle,  that  causes 
must  not  virepopiovs  ekKeadai,  ciAA’  eV  rats  (irap- 

Xtais  Tct  TU)v  ktrapxi-wv  •yi;/ivd^€(r0ai(inMandi,  jV>.). 
But  even  in  the  Western  Church  at  the  same 
period  the  Roman  claim  was  admitted  with  diffi¬ 
culty,  and  only  gradually  and  by  continual  strug¬ 
gles.  Innocent  I.  indeed  declared  that,  “si  majores 
causae  in  medium  fuerint  devolutae,  ad  sedein 
Apostolicam,  sicut  synodus  statuit”  (meaning,  of 
course,  but  exaggerating,  the  Sardican  canons) 
“  et  vetus  sive  inveterata  consuetude  exigit,  post 
judicium  episcopale  referantur  ”  (Epnst.  2  ad 
Victric.).  But  in  actual  fact,  1.  in  Africa,  A.D. 
417-425,  the  appeal  to  Pope  Zosimus  of  the  pres¬ 
byter  .4piarius,  condemned  by  his  own  Bishop, 
Urbanus  of  Sicca,  whom  the  Pope  summoned  to 
Rome  to  be  judged,  and  on  refusal  sent  legates  to 
successive  Carthaginian  Councils  to  enforce  his 
claims,  was  in  the  first  instance  provisionally  com¬ 
promised,  by  a  temporary  admission  of  the  Papal 
authority  (^Epist.  Cone.  Afrie.  ad  Bonifae.  Papain 
A.D.  419,  in  Mansi,  iv.  511),  on  the  ground  of  the 
canons  of  Sardica,  alleged  by  the  Popes  (Zosimus, 
Boniface,  Celestine)  to  be  Nicenc;  but  on  the 
production  of  the  genuine  canons  of  Nicaea  from 
Constantinople  and  Alexandria,  was  absolutely 
rejected  (EjAst.  Cone.  Afrie.  ad  Caelestimm  a.d. 
425,  in  Mansi,  iv.  515):  whilst  the  canon  (22^ 
of  Mileum,  a.d.  416,  which  is  repeated  by  Carth- 


APPEAL 


APPEAL 


129 


aginian  Councils  down  to  a.d.  525  (Mansi,  viii. 
644),  assigns  presbyters  and  all  below  them  to 
appeal,  “  non  ad  transmarina  judicia  sed  ad 
primates  suarum  provinciarum ;  ad  transmarina 
autem  qui  putaverit  appellandurn,  a  nullo  intra 
Africam  ad  communionem  suscipiatur  and  the 
Cod.  Can.  Afric.  18  Gr,  31  (a.d.  419),  adds  to  this 
— “sicut  et  de  Episcopis  saepe  constitutum  est,” 
the  genuineness  of  which  last  clause  is  supported 
by  Tillemont,  De  Marca,  and  Beveridge,  although 
denied  by  Baronins.  It  seems  certainly  to  have 
been  inserted  in  the  canon  by  some  African  coun¬ 
cil  of  this  period.  At  the  same  time,  while  the 
gloss  of  Gratian  on  the  word  “  transmarina  ” — 
“  nisi  forte  ad  Romanam  sedem  appellaverit  ” — 
is  plainly  of  the  kind  that  as  exactly  as  possible 
contradicts  its  text;  it  is  evident  by  St.  Augustin’s 
letter  to  Pope  Celestine  in  424  (Epist.  209),  that 
applications  from  Africa  in  a  friendly  spirit  to 
Rome  in  disputes  respecting  bishops,  both  to 
judge  and  to  confirm  othei's’  judgments,  and  this 
not  only  during  the  provisional  admission  of  the 
Papal  claim  (as  in  the  case  of  the  Bishop  of 
Fussala),  but  before  it,  had  been  frequent.  It  is 
hard  to  believe,  in  the  face  of  the  precisely  con¬ 
temporary  and  unmistakeable  language  of  the 
assembled  African  bishops  at  the  close  of  the 
controversy  respecting  Apiarius,  that  such  ap¬ 
plications  could  have  been  in  the  nature  of  formal 
appeals ;  although  the  case  of  Pope  Leo  I.  and  Lu- 
pieinus,  a.d.  446,  shows  the  Papal  claim  to  have 
been  still  kept  up  (St.  Leo,  Epist.  xii.  al.  i.  §  12). 
2.  In  Illyria, — whereas,  in  421,  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  had  decreed  that  doubtful  cases  should 
be  determined  by  a  council,  “non  absque  scientia” 
of  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  {Cod.  Theod. 
xvi.  tit.  2.  s.  45), — in  444,  PojJe  Leo  L,  insisting 
upon  the  canons  apparently  of  Sardica,  and  as 
part  of  the  Papal  measures  for  securing  the 
whole  of  Illyria  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate, 
commanded  appeals  (“caussae  graviores  vel  appel- 
lationes  ”)  from  Illyria  to  be  brought  to  Rome 
(St.  Leo,  Epist.  v.  §  6).  And  3.  in  Gaul,  in  445, 
the  same  Pope,  ovei’throwing  the  decree  of  Pope 
Zosimus  in  418,  which  had  constituted  Arles 
the  metropolitan  see  of  the  province,  insisted  on 
rehearing  at  Rome  in  a  synod  the  causes  of 
Bishop  Projectus  and  of  Celidonius  Bishop  either 
of  Vesontio  or  of  Vienne,  whom  Hilary  of  Arles 
had  deposed,  and  carried  the  point,  although  with 
strong  opposition  from  Hilary  (St.  Leo,  Epist. 
X.).  Pope  Hilary,  however,  461-462,  Epist.  xi., 
respecting  the  Metropolitan  of  Vienne  and  Arles, 
refers  his  authority  as  Bishop  of  Rome  to  the 
“  deci’eta  principum.”  And  undoubtedly  a  decree 
of  the  Emperor  Valentinian  III.,  in  the  year  445, 
definitely  assigned  to  the  Pope,  not  simply  an  ap¬ 
pellate  jurisdiction,  but  the  right  of  evoking  causes 
to  Rome  suo  motu,  by  enacting  that  “  omnibus  pro 
lege  sit  quidquid  sanxit  vel  sanxerit  Apostolicae 
sedis  auctoritas,  ita  ut  quisquis  Episcop<'!rum  ad 
judicium  Romani  autistitis  evocatus  venire  neg- 
lexerit,  per  moderatorem  ejusdem  provinciae 
adesse  cogatur”  (Cod.  Theod.  Novell,  tit.  xxiv., 
Suppl.  p,  12).  An  ultimate  appellate  jurisdiction 
was  also  given  at  the  same  period,  but  by  Church 
authority,  viz.,  by  the  general  council  of  Chalce- 
don  in  451,  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  :  the 
order  of  appeal  being  there  fixed  from  bishop  to 
metropolitan  and  synod,  and  from  the  latter  to 
the  particular  Patriarch  or  to  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
•tantinople  {Cone.  Chalc.  c.  9). 

CUUISr.  ANT. 


The  Eastern  rule  appears  to  have  henceforward 
remained  the  same  ;  except  that  Justinian  a.d. 
533,  confirming  the  canon  of  Chalcedon  in  other 
respects,  dropped  all  special  mention  of  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  but  enacted  in  general 
that  an  appeal  should  lie  from  bishop  to  metro¬ 
politan,  and  from  metropolitan  alone  to  me¬ 
tropolitan  with  synod,  but  that  from  the  synod 
each  Patriarch  should  be  the  final  court  of 
appeal  in  his  own  Patriarchate,  as  final  as  was  in 
civil  cases  the  Praefectus  Praetorio  (Justin.  Cod. 
vii.  tit.  62.  s.  19) ;  although  no  cause  was  to  come 
to  him  at  once  unless  in  the  form  of  a  request 
that  he  would  delegate  it  to  the  bishop,  who  was 
the  proper  primary  tribunal  (Id.  i.  tit.  4.  s.  29 ; 
7.  tit.  62.  s.  19;  Novell,  cxxiii.  22).  A  law  of  Leo 
and  Constantins  in  838  (Leunclav.  Jus  Gr.  Rem.  II. 
99)  likewise  declares  the  patriarch  to  be  the  apxv 
of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  whose  decision,  there¬ 
fore,  is  final,  unless  indeed  he  chooses  to  review  it 
himself.  And  so  also,  apparently,  the  8th  General 
Council  of  Constantinople  a.d.  870  (Act  10,  cc. 
17,  26).  It  is  to  be  added,  however,  that  in  the 
case  of  any  one  under  the  degree  of  bishop, 
and  in  cases  not  ecclesiastical,  the  bishop  was 
the  primary  judge,  but  from  him  the  case  might 
be  taken  to  the  civil  judge,  the  Emperor  deciding 
if  they  ditfered  ;  but  in  the  case  of  a  bishop,  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  patriarch  enacted  by 
Justinian  is  final  (Justin.,  Novell.  Ixxxiii.  12, 
cxxiii.  21,  22). 

In  the  West,  the  changes  in  the  matter  relate 
to  two  points,  to  the  fruitless  attempts  of  the  Popes 
to  obtain  appellate  jurisdiction  over  the  East, 
and  to  their  more  successful  eftbrts  to  secure  their 
Western  claim  of  the  like  kind  under  the  altered 
laws  and  policy  of  the  new  Barbarian  rulers  of 
Europe ;  etforts  which  may  be  said  to  have 
finally  secured  success  under  the  Caidovingians, 
in  the  popedom  of  Nicholas  I.  about  858.  and  as 
confirmed  by  the  false  Decretals,  first  used  by 
Nicholas  in  864  (Gieseler).  For  the  former,  in 
449,  Flavian  no  doubt  appealed  from  Dioscorus 
and  the  Ephesine  Latrociniurn  nominally  to  the 
Pope,  but  Leo’s  own  lettei  to  Theodosius  in  con¬ 
sequence  (St.  Leo,  Epist.  43  al.  34,  and  44  al.  40  ; 
Liberat.  Brev.  12,  in  Mansi,  ix.  379),  shows  that 
the  tribunal  of  appeal  contemplated  by  even  the 
Pope  himself,  was  a  general  council  (see  Quesnel 
and  Van  Espen).  In  484,  however,  Felix  11.  in  a 
synod  at  Rome,  as  the  issue  of  a  long  dispute, 
during  which,  among  other  steps,  he  had  sixm- 
moned  Acacius  of  Constantinople  to  be  tried  at 
Rome  upon  the  strength  of  the  canons  of  Sardica, 
misnamed  Nicene,  made  an  open  schism  with  the 
East,  which  lasted  40  years,  by  excommunicating 
and  deposing  Acacius  (Mansi,  vii.  1054) ;  a  sen¬ 
tence  which,  it  need  not  be  said,  was  disregarded. 
In  587,  Pelagius  11.  seems  to  have  confirmed  the 
sentence  of  acquittal  passed  by  a  tribunal  at 
Constantinople,  summoned  by  the  Emperor,  in 
the  case  of  Bishop  Gregory  of  Antioch,  while 
pi'otesting  against  the  title  of  universal  bishop 
applied  by  the  same  authority  to  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople  (St.  Greg.  M.,  Epist.  v.  18 ;  Eva- 
grius,  vi.  7);  a  protest  renewed,  as  every  one 
knows,  by  Gregory  himself.  But  this  implied 
no  formal  superiority  over  Eastern  bishops. 
And  the  claim  unhesitatingly  advanced  by  Gre¬ 
gory — “  De  Constantinopolitana  ecclesia  quis  earn 
dubitet  Apostolicae  sedi  esse  subjectam”  (St.  Greg. 
M.,  Epist.  ix.  12) — was  assuredly  not  admitted  by 


130 


APPEAL 


APPEAL 


the  Clmi’ch  of  Constantinople  itself.  Further 
on,  the  Council  in  2'i  ullo  in  G91,  repeated  not 
only  the  3rd  canon  of  Constantinople  in  381, 
but  the  28th  of  Chalcedon  in  451,  which  latter 
equals  Constantinople  to  Rome  (Cone.  Quinisext. 
can,  36)  ;  and  also  the  17th  of  the  same  Council 
of  Chalcedon  (ib.  38),  which  involves  the  9th  of 
the  same  council,  viz.,  that  which  (as  above  said), 
so  regulates  the  course  of  appeals  as  to  put  the 
patriarch  of  a  province  Avith  an  alternative  of 
the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  as  the  ultimate 
tribunal.  The  dispute  which  a  century  after 
issued  in  the  great  schism,  cut  short  the  narrower, 
by  absorbing  it  in  the  broader,  controA’^ersy.  For 
the  West,  hoAvcA’^er,  mattei’s  proceeded  more  suc¬ 
cessfully.  Gelasius  (492-496),  Avhile  allowing 
the  subordination  of  the  Pope  to  a  general 
council  approved  by  the  Church,  asserts  posi¬ 
tively  (Epist.  13),  that  the  see  of  St.  Peter  “de 
Omni  ecclesia  jus  habeat  judicandi,  neque  cui- 
quam  de  ejus  liceat  judicare  judicio,”  and  that 
“  ad  illam  de  qualibet  mundi  parte  canones  ap- 
pellari  A'oluerint,  ab  ilia  autem  nemo  sit  appellare 
permissus.”  In  503,  although  the  Arian  Theodoric 
appointed  a  commission  of  bishops,  under  the  presi¬ 
dency  of  a  single  bishop  (of  Altino),  to  judge  of  the 
disputed  election  of  Symmachus  to  the  Popedom, 
and  although  Symmachus  in  the  fii’st  instance 
admitted  their  jurisdiction,  and  both  parties 
appealed  to  the  judgment  of  Theodoric  himself ; 
yet  1.  a  Roman  synod  (Synodus  Fahnaris)  both 
sanctioned  Symmachus’s  election  Avithout  pre¬ 
suming  to  make  enquiry,  and  declared  the  inter¬ 
ference  of  laity  in  Church  elections  or  property 
to  be  against  the  canons  (Mansi,  \'iii.  201,  sq. ; 
Anastas.  Lib.  Poutif.  in  v.  Symmachi);  and  2.  Enno- 
dius  of  Ticinum,  in  511,  formally  asserted  in  an 
elaoorate  document  the  absoluteness  of  the  Papal 
power,  and  especially  that  the  Pope  is  himself 
the  final  court  of  appeal,  whom  none  other  may 
judge  (Mansi,  viii.  282-284).  And  at  the  end 
of  the  century  Gregory  the  Great  assumes  as 
indisputable  that  every  bishop  accused  is  subject 
to  the  judgment  of  the  see  of  Rome  (Epist.  ix. 
59).  During  the  folloAving  period,  howeA^ei-, — 
while  the  suffering  African  Church,  retaining  her 
privilege  untouched,  but  as  a  privilege,  under  Gre¬ 
gory  the  Great,  yet  practically  gave  up  her  an¬ 
cient  opposition  a  few  years  later  (Epist.  Episc. 
Afric.  ad  Papam  Theodorum,  in  Act.  Cone.  Lat¬ 
er  an.  A.D.  649,  Mansi,  x.  919), — the  European 
Chui’ches  Avere  practically  under  the  government 
of  the  kings,  although  the  theoretical  claims  of 
the  Popes  remained  undiminished.  The  Irish 
Churches,  indeed,  AA^ere  still  independent  of  the 
Pope,  the  end  of  the  seA'enth  century  being  the 
close  of  the  Celtic  schism,  except  in  Wales.  In 
Saxon  England,  the  proceedings  of  both  kings  and 
synods  in  the  appeals  of  Wilfrid  (678-705),  when 
the  Pope  reversed  the  judgments  of  English 
synods  on  Wilfrid’s  complaint,  showed  on  the  one 
hand  a  feeling  of  reverence  for  the  Pope  (e.g.  the 
Council  of  Nidd,  a.d.  705  [Eddius  58]  did  not 
repudiate  the  Pope’s  decree,  but  the  testimony  of 
Papal  letters,  Avhich  might  be  forged,  as  against 
the  viva  voce  evidence  of  Archbishop  Theodore) ; 
but  on  the  other,  disregarded  such  decree  in 
practice,  by  enforcing  that  precise  severance  of 
Wilfrid’s  diocese  against  which  he  had  appealed. 
And  the  Council  of  Cloveshoo,  a.d.  747,  pointedly 
limits  appeals  to  the  provincial  council,  and  no 
further  (can.  25),  In  Spain,  although  Gregory 


the  Great  interfered  by  a  legate  authori¬ 
tatively  in  favour  of  depo.sed  bishops,  viz., 
Stephanus  and  Januarius,  on  the  ground,  fir.st, 
of  Justinian’s  law  as  being  their  Patriarch,  and 
if  that  was  refused,  then  by  the  right  of  the  see 
of  Rome  as  head  of  the  Church  (Epist.  xiii.  45), 
yet  in  701  or  704,  King  Witiza,  in  a  Council  of 
Toledo,  expressly  forbade  appeals  to  any  foreign 
bishop  (Cone.  Tolet.  xviii.).  And  a  little  earlier, 
admission  into  Church  communion  Avas  declared 
dependent  on  the  Avill  of  the  Prince  (Cone.  Tolet. 
A.D.  681  c.  3,  and  683,  c.  9).  The  Kings  in  effect 
were  in  Spain  supreme  judges  of  bishops  (Cenni, 
De.  Antiq.  Eccl.  IJisp.  ii.  153,  quoted  by 
Gieseler).  In  Gaul,  the  cases  of  Salonius, 
Bishop  of  Embrun,  and  Sagittarius,  Bishop  ct 
Gap,  depo.sed  in  577  by  a  synod  of  Lyons,  re¬ 
stored  by  Pope  John  III.  on  appeal,  but  by  per- 
mi.ssion  and  poAver  of  King  Guntram,  and  then 
again  finally  deposed  in  579  by  a  Council  of 
Chalons  (Greg.  Turon.,  Hist.  Franc,  v.  21-28), 
leaA'e  the  Papal  claim  in  a  similar  state  of  half 
recognition  to  that  in  which  it  stood  in  England. 
And  in  the  ensuing  century  the  Royal  authority 
here  also  practically  superseded  the  Papal.  In 
615,  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  disci¬ 
pline  is  made  subservient  to  the  king’s  interces¬ 
sion  (Cone.  Paris,  c.  3,  as  confirmed  by  Chlotarius 
II.).  And  many  instances  of  depositions  of  bishops 
occur  without  appeal  to  the  Pope,  beginning 
with  that  of  Saff’aric  of  Paris,  depo.sed  by  a 
second  synod  there,  to  Avhich  he  had  appealed 
from  a  former  one,  under  King  Chilperic,  a.d. 
555.  Gregory  the  Great,  indeed,  renewed  the 
ingenious  expedient  of  appointing  the  Bishop  of 
Arles  his  Aucar  to  decide  such  causes  in  Gaul,  in 
conjunction  with  twelve  bishops  ;  and  yet  even 
so,  most  of  such  causes  were  decided  without 
even  the  presence  of  the  Papal  Aucar  (De  Marca, 
vii.  19).  The  Capitula  of  Hadrian  I.,  sent  to 
Ingilram  of  Metz  in  785,  introduced  the  first 
great  innovation  upon  preceding  rules,  by  enact¬ 
ing  (c.  3)  that  no  bishop  should  be  condemned 
unless  in  a  synod  called  “Apostolica  aucto- 
ritate and  again,  that,  if  a  deposed  bishop, 
Avhose  primary  tribunal  Avas  the  comprovincial 
synod,  appealed  from  it  to  Rome,  “id  obseiwandum 
esset  quod  (Papa)  ipse  censuerit”  (c.  20,  23,  and 
Epitome  Capit.  a.d.  773).  But  they  contained 
also  the  African  prohibition  of  appeals  ad  trans- 
marina  judicia  (see  Gieseler).  And  Avhile  the  Ca¬ 
pitulary  of  Aix  in  789,  repeated  more  expressly 
by  the  Council  of  Aix  in  816  (cc.  73,  74),  I'epeats 
the  Nicene  and  Antiochene  (341)  canons  Avithout 
the  addition  of  those  of  Sardica,  the  Capitularies 
as  collected  by  Benedict  Levita  contain  also  the 
Sardican  canons.  For  bishops,  then,  Charlemagne 
alloAved  the  appeal  to  Rome  for  a  neAv  trial, 
the  comproAuncial  synod  being  still  held  to  be 
the  proper  tribunal  for  such  cases :  and  an  appeal 
being  also  alloAved  to  more  numerous  episcopal 
judges  if  dissatisfaction  AA^ere  felt  with  those 
originally  appointed  by  the  metropolitan,  and, 
again,  from  them  to  a  synod  (Capit.  A'ii.  41.3). 
or  again,  from  a  suspected  judge  to  another  (ib. 
vii.  240,  and  Add.  iii.  25,  iv.  18,  sq.) :  —  see 
Capit.  V.  401,  410,  au.  300,  Aui.  102,  103,  314, 
315,  412,  Add.  iii.  105  : — but  left  the  ordinary 
and  direct  right  of  a  proper  appeal  to  the  Pope, 
and  the  condition  of  his  prior  consent  to  the  trial 
of  an  accused  bishop,  sufficiently  unsettled  to  lead 
to  the  great  disputes  of  the  following  period,  of 


APPEAL 


APPEAL 


131 


which  the  case  of  Hincmar  and  Bishop  Rothad 
is  the  primary  case.  The  Carlovingian  Princes, 
indeed,  deposed  bishops  in  synods,  just  as  they 
elected  them,  without  any  reference  to  the 
Pope.  But  the  Papal  power  ^  gradually  in¬ 
creased.  And  while  Gregory  .,  in  835,  and 
Leo  IV.,  about  850,  expressly  claim  a  proper 
appellate  jurisdiction,  Pope  Nicholas  I.,  858-807, 
on  the  strength  of  the  False  Decretals,  may 
be  said  to  have  finally  established  the  claim 
in  its  fulness.  Even  in' 791,  however,  the  synod 
of  Friuli  asserted  for  the  Patriarch  of  Aquileia 
the  right,  that  even  no  presbyter,  deacon,  or 
archimandrite  be  deposed,  in  his  Patriarchate, 
without  consulting  him  (can.  27)  :  the  same  right 
which  Hadrian  claimed  universally  for  the  Bishop 
of  Rome.  As  regards  all  below  bishops,  the 
Council  of  Frankfort  in  794,  can.  6,  re-enacts  the 
order  of  appeal  from  bishop  to  metropolitan,  i.e., 
to  the  provincial  synod,  but  no  further  ;  and,  in 
addition,  orders  the  civil  magistrate  (Comes)  to 
act  as  assessor,  and  to  refer  to  the  Emperor  all 
cases  too  hard  for  the  metropolitan.  And  Ca/jit. 
iii.  1,  A.D.  812,  includes  bishops  also  among  those 
who  are  to  bring  their  disputes  to  the  Emperor 
for  settlement. 

In  sum,  appeal  from  a  bishop  or  bishops  to  his 
neighbouring  brethren,  under  their  metropolitan, 
i.e.,  from  one  or  few  bishops  to  many,  was 
the  Church’s  common  law ;  the  appeal  termi¬ 
nating  there,  until  the  law  of  Valentinian  in 
445  for  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  canon  of  Chal- 
cedon  in  451  for  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
and  patriarchs  generally,  and  the  law  of  Jus¬ 
tinian  in  533  for  all  patriarchs  without  dis¬ 
tinction,  allowed  further  appeal  from  bishops  to 
th'eir  patriarchs :  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  however, 
alleging  also  for  his  right  the  narrow  and  in¬ 
sufficient  basis  of  the  canons  of  Sardica,  and  cus¬ 
tom,  and  in  time  also  the  broader  and  sentimental 
ground  of  the  privilege  of  St.  Peter.  The  False 
Decretals  first  established  in  the  West,  in  its  full 
meaning,  the  absolute  both  appellate  and  imme¬ 
diate  jurisdiction  of  the  Popes  as  of  Divine  right,  in 
the  9th  century,  during  the  Papacy  of  Nicholas  I. 
It  remains  to  add,  that  the  Cyprian,  the  Armenian, 
the  Georgian,  the  Bulgarian,  and  the  Ravennate, 
claims,  to  be  autocephalous,  Avere  simply  rem¬ 
nants  of  the  older  condition  of  things  before  the 
existence  of  patriarchates,  differing  from  each 
other  only  in  the  fact  that  the  Cyprian  right 
was  actually  tried  and  confirmed  by^  a  general 
council. 

/3.  The  aboA'e  canons  for  the  most  part  leave 
laymen  to  their  original  right  of  appeal  to  a 
provincial  synod,  according  to  the  canon  of  Nice. 
.\nd  this  was  plainly  their  right,  generally 
speaking,  throughout ;  and  is  confirmed  (as  above 
said)  by  the  Council  of  Frankfort  in  794.  In 
Africa,  however,  where  the  right  of  appeal  was 
more  jealously  guarded  than  elsewhere,  it  was 
enacted  at  one  time  (^Conc.  Catih.  A.D.  397  can. 
8,  and  a.d.  398  can.  22,  23)  that  the  bishop  of 
the  place  “  agnoscat  et  finiat”  the  causes  of  all 
below  presbyters,  although  in  no  case  “  absque 
praesentia  clericorum  suorum.”  Hincmar,  in  the 
9th  century,  limits  the  same  class  of  appeals  to 
the  provincial  synod,  protesting  only  against  any 
further  right  of  appeal  in  such  cases  to  the  Pope. 

I.  2.  The  interference  of  lay  tribunals  in  causes 
spiritual,  after  the  Emperors  became  Christian, 
belongs  properly  to  other  articles.  Questions  of 


faith  and  such  as  were  purely  ecclesiastical,  as  it 
is  sufficient  here  to  state  upon  the  unqualified 
testimony  of  Gothofred  (^Comment,  in  Cod.  Theo 
16.  tit.  2.  s.  23,  quoted  by  Bingham),  were  left 
ordinarily  to  bishops  and  synods,  by  laws  reach¬ 
ing  from  Constantins  to  Justinian  (e.  g.  Novell. 
Ixxxiii.,  cxxiii.  21).  And  the  law  of  Honorius 
in  399  (Cud.  Theod.  16.  tit.  11.  s.  1),  among  others, 
which  expressly  denies  any  proper  right  of 
Church  courts  to  civil  jurisdiction,  affirms  also 
that  causes  of  religion  as  properly  belong  to 
them.  When,  however,  either  questions  of  faith 
or  private  causes  became  of  political  importance, 
a  qualified  and  occasional  practice  of  appeal  to 
the  Emperors  from  spiritual  tribunals  naturally 
grew  up.  Our  business  is  with  the  latter,  i.e. 
with  judicial  cases.  And  here  it  may  be  said  in 
brief,  tliat  the  Emperors  throughout  claimed  and 
exercised  a  right  of  ordering  a  new  trial  by- 
spiritual  judges;  the  choice  of  whom  so  far 
rested  with  themseh’es,  that  they  took  them  if  it 
seemed  good  from  another  province  than  that  of 
the  parties  accused  or  accusing.  So  Constantine 
dealt  with  Caecilianus  in  the  Donatist  contro¬ 
versy,  appointing  first  Melchiades  of  Rome  and 
three  Gallic  bishops  to  judge  the  case  at  Rome, 
and  then,  upon  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  Dona- 
tists,  commanding  a  synod  to  rehear  it  at  Arles 
(without  the  Pope  at  all)  in  314.  The  precise 
question,  however,  was  one  of  discipline  more 
than  of  belief.  And  Constantine  disclaimed  all 
right  of  appeal  from  the  episcopal  tribunal  to 
himself.  So  also  Bassianus  of  Ephesus,  and 
Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  asked  letters  from  the 
Emperor  Marcian,  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
In  451  might  judge  their  appeals.  And  at  a 
somewhat  earlier  period  Theodosius  in  a  like 
case  transferred  causes  from  one  province  to 
another  (De  Marca,  De  Cone.  Sac.  it  Imp.  iv. 
3).  So  also  Theodoric  appointed  bishops  to  de¬ 
cide  the  case  of  Pope  Sy'mmachus  c.  a.d.  500, 
although,  after  commencing  the  case,  they  ulti¬ 
mately  refused  to  judge  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
save  by  a  merely  formal  judgment.  And  the 
Council  of  Mileum  in  416,  while  condemning  to 
deprivation  any  appellant  to  a  civil  tribunal, 
excepts  the  case  of  those  Avho  ask  from  the 
Emperor  “  episcupale  judicium.”  On  both  sides, 
howeA’^er,  this  middle  course  Avas  occasionally 
transgressed.  Bishops  sometimes  asked  the 
Emperors  themseh'es  to  decide  their  appeals : 
e.g.,  eA'en  St.  Athanasius,  Avhile  in  his  Apol. 
ii.  expressly  repudiating  the  Emperor’s  poAver 
to  decide  such  a  cause,  yet,  after  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Tyre  had  deposed  him,  requested  the 
Emperor  nevertheless,  not  bnly  to  assemble  a 
“  laAvful”  council  of  bishops  to  rehear  the  case, 
but  as  an  alternatWe,  ^  Kal  ainhv  St^aadai 
rijif  airoKoyiav  (Socrat.  i.  33).  And  the  Council 
of  Antioch  accordingly,  in  341,  took  occasion  (as 
aboA'e  said)  to  prohibit  all  applications  to  tlie 
Emperor  except  such  as  were  backed  by  letters 
of  metropolitan  and  provincial  bishops,  and  to 
insist  upon  the  restriction  of  fresh  trials  to  “a 
larger  synod  canons  i*epeated  down  to  the 
days  of  Charlemagne,  and  adopted  by  tlie  Church 
at  large,  although  repudiated  as  Arian  by 
St.  Chrysostom  and  by  Pope  Innocent  I.,  Avhen 
quoted  against  the  former.  And  about  a.d.  380, 
Sulpicius  SeA'erus,  again,  affirms  that  he  himself 
and  his  fellow  bishops  had  done  Avrong  in  allow¬ 
ing  Priscillian  to  appeal  to  the  Emperor,  and 


132 


APPEAL 


APPEAL 


lays  it  down  that  he  ought  to  have  appealed  to 
other  bishops.  Yet  both  Pope  Symmachus  and  his 
opponent  Laurentius  requested  the  Arian  Lom¬ 
bard  ‘  Theodoric  to  decide  between  them.  On 
the  other  side,  when  mentioning  a  very  late 
case,  where  the  Emperor  transferred  a  cause  of 
a  spiritual  kind  from  the  Patriarch  Luke  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  A.D.  1156-1169,  to  a  civil  court, 
Balsamon  (in  can.  15  Syn.  Carthag,'),  while 
affirming  this  to  be  against  the  canons,  yet  ad¬ 
mits  that  a  lay  co-judge  might  rightly  be  asked 
of  the  Emperor.  And  Justinian  (^Nov.ell.  cxxiii. 
21)  reserves  indeed  a  right  upon  appeal  of  as¬ 
signing  judges,  from  whom  an  appeal  lay  “se¬ 
cundum  legum  ordinem,”  i.e.  ultimately  to  the 
Praefectus  Praetorio  and  Quaestor  Palatii  (Cod. 
7.  tit.  62.  s.  32);  but  ecclesiastical  causes  are 
expressly  excepted  from  such  appeal.  On  the 
other  hand,  Arcadius  and  Honorius  expressly 
prohibit  appeals  from  councils  to  themselves; 
unless,  indeed,  this  refers  only  to  civil  and 
criminal  causes.  The  Carlovingian  Emperors 
(as  we  have  seen  above)  reserved  an  appeal  to 
themselves  in  difficult  cases  from  the  metro¬ 
politan,  in  causes  of  presbyters  and  all  below 
them  ;  besides  appointing  the  civil  magistrate 
as  assessor  to  the  metropolitan  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance.  And  in  the  case  of  Leo  III.  A.D.  800, 
when  Charlemagne  convened  a  synod  at  Rome  to 
investigate  accusations  against  that  Pope,  the 
bishops  appointed  declined  to  act,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  the  Pope’s  right  to  judge  them,  and 
not  theirs  to  judge  the  Pope  (Anastas.,  in  V. 
Leon.  III.). 

II.  We  pass  next  to  civil  causes :  and  the 
jurisdiction  of  bishops  in  these,  whether  lay  or 
clerical,  is  of  coui*se,  as  a  coercive  jurisdiction, 
purely  a  creation  of  municipal  law.  As  founded 
upon  1  Cor.  An.  4,  it  could  not  haA'e  been  until 
the  time  of  Constantine  more  than  a  A'oluntarily 
conceded  poAver  of  arbitration,  Avhereby  both 
plaintiff  and  defendant,  being  Christians,  agreed 
to  be  bound  (see  Estius,  ad  loc.').  But  upon  prin¬ 
ciples  of  Christian  love  and  of  aA'oiding  scandal, 
the  decision  of  such  cases  became  the  common 
and  often  the  inconA’eniently  troublesome  busi¬ 
ness  of  bishops  :  e.g.,  of  Paphnutius  (see  Ruffi- 
Lus),  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  (St.  Greg.  Nyss.  in 
Vita'),  St.  Basil  the  Great  (St.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat. 
20),  St.  Ambrose  (Epist.  34),  St.  Augustine  (Pos- 
sid.  in  T7i«),  St.  Martin  of  Tours  (Snip.  SeA\ 
Dial,  ii.) :  and  is  recognized  as  their  Avork  by 
St.  Chrysostom  (De  Sac.  iii.  18).  The  Apost. 
Consiit.  ii.  45-47  regulate  the  process.  St. 
Cyprian  (Ado.  Judaeos  iii.  44),  speaking  of  resort 
to  the  bishop  and  not  to  the  secular  court  as  the 
duty  of  Christians,  may  serA-e  as  a  specimen  of 
the  feeling  upon  Avhich  the  practice  rested.  And 
while  Socrates  (A’ii.  37)  speaks  of  Bishop  Syl- 
vanus  of  'Pi'oas  as  declining  it  either  for  himself 
or  his  clergy,  it  is  recognized  e\'en  by  the  Council 
of  Tarragona  in  516  (c.  4)  as  extending  to  pres¬ 
byters  and  deacons  also.  The  practice  Avas 
changed  from  a  precarious  to  a  recognized  and 
legal  Institution  by  Constantine.  Either  party 
to  a  suit  AA^as  allowed  by  him,  not  in  form  to 
appeal  from  magistrate  to  bishop,  but  to  do  so 
in  effect ;  in  that  he  guA'e  to  either  the  poAver  to 
choose  the  bishop’s  court  in  preference  to  the 
magistrate’s,  the  bishop’s  sentence  to  stand  as 
good  in  law  as  if  it  were  the  Emperor’s  (Euseb., 
De  V.  Constantini,  iA'.  27  ;  Sozom.  i.  9) ;  and  if 


the  law  at  the  end  of  the  Theodosian  code  is 
(as  Selden,  and,  among  later  writers,  Haenel 
and  Walter  [see  Robertson’s  p.  80]  think, 

but  Gothofred  denies)  his,  then  took  the  still 
further  step  of  empoAvering  either,  without  the 
other’s  consent,  and  whether  the  cause  were 
actually  pending  or  even  already  decided  by  the 
civil  court,  to  claim  a  rehearing  in  the  court  of 
the  bishop  (Extrav.  de  ELct.  Judic.  Episc.  Cad. 
Tiieod.  Au".  303). 

a.  This  power  Avas  enlarged  in  the  case  of  the 
clergy  into  a  compulsory  jurisdiction,  the  Church 
forbidding  clergy  to  take  civil  cases  in  which 
they  Avere  concerned  before  any  other  tribunal 
than  the  bishop’s  (Cone.  Carth.  A.D.  397  c.  9, 
Cone.  Milevit.  a.d.  416  c.  19,  Cone.  Chale.  A.D. 
451  c.  2,  Cone.  Venetie.  a.d.  465  c.  9,  Cone. 
Cahillon.  i.  a.d.  470  c.  11,  Cane.  Matiscon.  a.d. 
582  c.  8),  while  the  Emperors  permitted  and 
ratified  episcopal  jurisdiction  betAveen  clergy  in 
ciAul  cases,  and  Avhere  both  parties  agreed  to  the 
tribunal  (Valentin.  III.,  Novell,  de  Epise.  Judicio, 
xii.  Gothofr.)..  And  Justinian  in  539  gave  civil 
jurisdiction  outright  to  the  bishops  OA'er  the 
clergy,  the  monks,  and  the  nuns,  subject  to  an 
appeal  to  the  Emperor  in  case  the  civil  judge 
decided  differently  to  the  bishop  (Novell.  Ixxix., 
Ixxxiii.,  cxxiii.  c.  21).  The  laAV  also  of  Constan¬ 
tins,  in  A.D.  355,  refers  all  complaints  against 
bishops  without  distinction,  and  therefore  ciA'il 
as  Avell  as  criminal,  to  an  episcopal  tribunal 
(Cod.  Theod.  16.  tit.  2.  s.  12) ;  which  Justinian 
specifies  into  a  regular  chain  of  appeal  to  metro¬ 
politan' and  patriarch,  unless  in  one  exceptional 
case,  where  either  the  Praefectus  Praetorio  per 
Orientem,  or  “judges  appointed  by  the  Emperor,” 
are  to  decide  (Novell,  cxxiii.  cc.  22,  24).  If  a 
layman,  hoAveA’er,  were  a  party  to  the  suit,  it 
rested  AA-ith  him  to  choose  the  tribunal. 

3.  With  respect  to  laymen,  indeed,  generally, 
the  laAV  of  Constantine,  if  it  CA'er  did  go  to  the 
length  of  alloAAing  a  transfer  of  the  cause  at  the 
Avill  of  either  party,  and  at  any  stage  of  the  suit, 
AA’as  soon  limited.  Arcadius  and  Honorius  a.d. 
408  require  the  consent  of  both  parties  (Cod. 
Justin.  1.  tit.  4.  s.  7,  8).  And  both  they,  and 
Valentinian  III.  a.d.  452,  expressly  alloAV  a  lay¬ 
man  to  go  if  he  chooses  to  the  ciAul  court,  and  in 
all  cases  and  jiersons  require  the  “  A'inculum  com- 
promissi,”  and  the  “A'oluntas  jurgantium,”  as  a 
prior  condition  to  any  episcopal  (coercive)  juris¬ 
diction  at  all ;  expressly  laying  doAvn  also  that 
bishops  and  presbyters  “  forum  non  habere  nec  de 
aliis  causis  praeter  religionem  posse  cognoscere  ” 
(Cod.  Theod.  16.  tit.  11.  s.  1  ;  and  Valentin.  KL, 
as  before  cited).  Justinian,  hoAA’CA'er,  appear.";  to 
haA'e  gone  further.  1.  He  granted  to  the  clergy 
of  Constantinople  a  right  to  haA'e  all  their  pe¬ 
cuniary  causes,  CA'en  if  a  layman  Avere  con¬ 
cerned,  tried  in  the  first  instance  by  the  bishop ; 
and  onlv  if  the  nature  of  the  case  hindered  him 
from  deciding  it,  then,  but  not  otherAvise,  before 
the  ciA'il  court  (Novell.  Ixxxiii.);  and  2.  he  ap¬ 
pointed  the  bishop  generally  co-judge  with  the 
ciA'il  magistrate,  and  Avith  an  appeal  from  the 
latter  to  the  former  (Novell.  IxxxA'i.).  And  both 
in  Cone.  Carthag.  a.d.  399  c.  1  (Cod.  Can.  Afric. 
5),  and  in  Justin.  Novell,  cxxiii.  §  7,  Cod.  1.  tit. 
3.  s.  7,  and  Cod.  Theod.  11.  tit.  39.  s.  8,  provi¬ 
sion  is  made  to  protect  a  bishop  or  clergyman, 
Avho  had  thus  acted  as  judge,  from  being  subse¬ 
quently  molested  by  a  discontented  party*  to  the 


APPEAL 


APSE 


133 


suit,  «rho  should  summon  him  to  give  account 
of  his  judgment  before  a  secular  tidbunal. 

The  law  of  Constantine  in  its  widest  form,  and 
as  applying  to  laity  as  well  as  clergy,  is  alleged 
to  have  been  revived  by  Charlemagne  (Capit.  vi. 

,  281),  expressly  as  a  renewal  of  the  (extreme) 
Theodosian  enactment,  but  very  serious  doubts 
are  thrown  on  the  genuineness  of  the  re-enact¬ 
ment  :  viz.,  that  “Quicunque  litem  habeat,  sive 
possessor  si ve  petitor  fuerit,  vel  in  initio  litis  vel 
decursis  temporum  curriculis,  sive  cum  negotium 
peroratur  sive  cum  jam  coeperit  promi  sententia, 
si  judicium  elegerit  sacrosanctae  legis  Antistitis, 
illico  sine  aliqua  dubitatione,  etiam  si  alia  pars 
refragatur,  ad  Episcoporum  judicium  cum  ser- 
mone  litigantium  du'igatur :  .  .  .  omnes  itaque 
causae,  quae  vel  praetorio  jure  vel  civili  tractan- 
tui',  Episcoporum  sententiis  tei’miuatae,  perpe- 
tuo  stabilitatis  jure  firmentur  :  nec  liceat  ulterius 
retr.actari  negotium,  quod  Episcoporum  senten¬ 
tia  deciderit — thus  interposing  an  absolute 
right  of  appeal  in  civil  causes  for  either  party, 
whether  lay  or  clerical,  at  every  stage  of  the 
civil  suit,  from  the  civil  judge  to  the  bishop,  and 
forbidding  appeal  from  the  latter  (see  also  Capit. 
vii.  306,  and  Gratian,  Decrct.  P.  II.,  c.  xi.  qu.  1 
cc.  35-37 ;  and  Hallam,  Middle  A'/es,  ii.  146, 
11th  ed.).  At  the  same  time  it  is  obvious,  by 
Cone.  Franco/.  A.D.  794  c.  6,  above  referred 
to,  that  an  appeal  to  the  Emperor  himself  was 
allowed,  even  from  the  metropolitan,  in  all  civil 
cases.  The  joint  jimsdiction  of  bishops  and 
aldermen  in  Saxon  England  belongs  to  a  different 
subject. 

III.  In  criminal  cases,  this  article  is  not  con¬ 
cerned  to  define  the  limits  and  nature  of  the 
exemptions  or  privileges  of  clergy,  beyond  the 
brief  statement  that,  1.  Clergy,  and  in  particu¬ 
lar  bishops,  were  exempted  from  civil  tribunals 
by  the  Emperors  in  criminal  cases,  provided  that 
first  the  delicta  were  levia,  and  next  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  plaintiff  if  a  layman  were  obtained ; 
and  2.  Episcopal  intei'cession  for  criminals,  all 
along  looked  upon  as  a  duty  and  regarded  with 
favour,  received  a  civil  sanction  at  the  hands  of 
Justinian ;  while  Heraclius  A.D.  628  formally 
committed  jurisdiction  over  the  criminal  offences 
of  clergy  to  the  bishops,  to  be  judged  “  /caret 
Tovs  Belovs  Kav6vas”  (Leunclav.  Jus  Graeco- 
Rom.  i.  73).  In  relation  to  appeals,  we  have 
only  to  mention,  that  Justinian,  in  criminal 
cases  of  clerks,  appoints  the  bishop  and  civil 
judges  to  act  together,  with  an  appeal  to  the 
Emperor  {Novell,  cxxiii.  c.  21);  the  civil  judge 
to  try  the  case,  but  within  two  months,  and 
the  bishop  then  (if  the  accused  is  condemned) 
to  deprive  {Novell.  Ixxxiii.)  ;  and  that  in  the  law 
of  Heraclius,  just  mentioned,  occurs  the  well- 
known  phrase  —  that  if  the  case  were  beyond 
canonical  punishment,  then  the  bishop  should 
be  directed,  “  rhv  toiovtov  rots  iroAt- 
TiKols  &pxov(ri  TT  a  p  a  5  i  d  6  a  6  a  i,  roj 
Tois  ■qp.erepoLS  SiwpKTfxeuas  v6p.ois  rifiwp'ias 
vTto(Txi]<y6iJ.evovd*  And  in  such  cases,  therefore, 
the  cause  was  thenceforth  transferred  from  the 
spiritual  to  the  lay  tribunal.  So  also  .lustinian 
{Novell.  Ixxxiii.)  requires  the  convicted  criminal 
clerk  to  be  first  deposed  by  the  bishop,  and  then, 
but  not  before,  virh  ray  twv  v6fj.o>v  'Yiveo'dai 
X^'pas.  Under  the  Carlovingian  empire,  the 
Apocrisiarius  or  Archicapellanus  acted  as  the 
Emperor’s  deputy  in  the  final  decision  of  clerical 


causes  of  all  kinds,  the  Emperor  being  the  ulti¬ 
mate  judge  in  these  as  in  secular  ones  {Cone. 
Franco/.  A.D.  749  c.  6 ;  and  see  for  Cappellani 
under  the  Franks,  Walafr.  Strab.,  De  Reb.  Eccl. 
c.  31). 

(Besides  the  works  of  De  Marca,  Richerius, 
Quesnel,  Thomassin,  Van  Espen,  and  Church 
Historians,  such  as  Fleury,  Neander,  Gieseler ; 
and  Beveridge,  Bingham,  &c.  among  ourselves, 
the  works  of  Allies  and  of  Hussey,  on  the  Pai^al 
Supremacy,  and  Greenwood’s  Cathedra  Petri., 
Loud.,  1856,  sq.,  may  be  refei-red  to ;  also,  He- 
benstreit.  Hist.  Jurisd.  Eccl.  ex  legg.  utriusque 
Cod.  illustrata,  (Lips.  1773),  Schilling,  Ee  Origine 
Jurisd.  Eccles.  in  Causis  Civilibus  (Lips.  1825), 
and  Jungk,  De  Originibus  et  Progressu  Episcop. 
Judicii  in  Causis  Civilibus  Laicorum  usque  ad 
Justinianum,  Berlin  1832-8,  referred  to  by 
Gieseler.)  [A.  W.  H,] 

APPROBATION  OF  BOOKS.  [Censor¬ 
ship  OF  Books.] 

APRONIANUS,  martyr  at  Rome,  comme¬ 
morated  Feb.  2  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet./  [C.] 

APSE,  the  niche  or  recess  which  terminates 
a  church  at  the  end  near  which  the  high  altar 
is  placed.  This  feature  existed  in  the  basilicas 
or  halls  of  justice  constructed  by  the  Romans, 
the  tribunal  for  the  presiding  magistrate  having 
been  placed  in  the  centre  of  the  arc  forming  the 
apse. 

In  the  earlier  centuries  the  apse  was  almost 
invariably  semicircular,  in  some  churches  and 
particularly  in  those  which  would  appear  to 
date  from  the  third  or  early  part  of  the  fourth 
century  the  apse  is  internal,  so  that  the  building 
has  a  rectangular  termination.  Sta.  Croce  in 
Gei’usalemme,  at  Rome,  has  this  plan,  though  it 
is  doubtful  whether  this  was  the  plan  adopted 
when  it  first  became  a  church ;  but  in  Italy  it  is 
very  rarely  found ;  in  Africa  and  in  Asia  it  seems 
to  have  prevailed,  particularly  in  the  earlier 
period  :  the  basilica  of  Reparatus  at  Orleansville, 
in  Algeria,  believed  to  date  from  A.D.  252  ;  the 
churches  at  Deyr  Abu-Faneh  near  Hermopolis 
Magna,  at  Hermouthis  (Erment)  in  Egypt,  at 
Ibrihm  in  Nubi.a,  at  Pergamus,  and  Ephesus,  are 
all  thus  planned.  [Church.] 

In  the  basilica  of  St.  Reparatus  there  is  a  se¬ 
cond  apse,  also  internal,  at  the  other  end  of  the 
building;  this  is  believed  to  have  been  added 
about  the  year  403. 

In  the  churches  built  in  the  fifth  century  in 
the  East  three  apses  are  often  found,  the  aisles 
as  well  as  the  central  nave  being  so  terminated  ; 
in  the  following  century  this  plan,  the  so-called 
parallel  triapsal,  was  introduced  into  Italy  and 
churches  at  Ravenna,  as  St.  Apollinare  in  Classe, 
built  A.D.  538-549,  (though  with  a  peculiar  mo¬ 
dification),  and  the  Duomo  at  Parenzo  (a.d.  542), 
exhibit  it.  In  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  it 
appears  at  Rome,  as  in  St.  Maria  in  Cosmedin  (a.d. 
772-795),  and  a  few  other  churches. 

The  transverse-triapsal  plan,  that  in  which 
there  arc  three  arises,  one  projecting  from  the 
end,  and  one  from  each  side  of  the  building,  is 
rarely  found  in  churches  of  the  usual  ba.silican 
plan,  or  in  any  anterior  to  the  sixth  century.  It 
occurs  (with  some  modification)  in  St.  Sophia's, 
Constantinople,  and  in  other  churches  for  which 
that  building  served  in  some  degree  as  a  model, 
and  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries  is  com- 


134 


APTONIUS 


AECA  ARCULA 


mon  in  Germany.  It  is,  how'ever,  found  at  Rome 
in  oratories,  even  in  the  fifth  century,  as  in  that 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist  opening  from  the^  bap¬ 
tistery  of  the  Lateran,  built  by  Pope  Hilarus, 
cir.  A.D.  461,  and  that  of  Sta.  Croce,  built  by  the 
same  pope,  but  now  destroyed. 

About  the  year  800  churches  in  Germany  were 
constructed  with  an  apse  at  each  end :  the  greater 
church  at  Reichenau,  in  the  Lake  of  Constance, 
begun  in  816,  has  a  semicircular  apse  at  one 
end  and  a  square  recess  at  the  other ;  the  plan 
prepared  for  the  church  of  St.  Gall  in  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  ninth  century  shows  a  semicircular 
apse  at  each  end. 

The  altar  was  usually  placed  in  the  chord  of 
the  arc  of  the  apse,  the  cdthedra  or  chair  for  the 
bishop  in  the  centre  of  the  arc  against  the  wall, 
while  a  stone  bench,  or  a  series  of  such,  one 
above  the  other,  afforded  places  for  the  clergy. 
At  Torcello,  near  Venice,  there  are  six  such 
ranges.  Apses  so  fitted  appear  to  have  been 
called  “apsides  gradatae.”  [Church.]  [A.  N.] 

APTONIUS,  commemorated  May  23  (3fart. 
Hieron.').  [C.] 

APULEIUS,  disciple  of  Peter,  martyr  at 
Rome,  commemorated  Oct.  7  (J/arf.  Rom.  TcL, 
Bedae)  ;  in  Rlieims  MS.  of  the  Gregorian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  (see  Menard’s  ed.  p.  418). 

AQUAMANILE  (other  forms,  Aquamani- 
lium,  Aquamanus,  Gr.  Xepvi$ov'),  the  bason 
used  for  the  washing  of  the  hands  of  the  cele¬ 
brant  in  the  liturgy.  The  aquamanile  with  the 
urceus  are  the  bason  and  ewer  of  the  sacred 
ceremony. 

In  the  Statuta  Antiqua  called  the  “Canons  of 
the  Fourth  Council  of  Carthage”  {Canon  V.),  it 
is  laid  down  that  a  subdeacon  should  receive  at 
his  ordination  from  the  hands  of  the  archdeacon 
an  aquamanile  (corruptly  written  “  aqua  et  man- 
tile  ”)  as  one  of  the  emblems  of  his  office.  Com¬ 
pare  Isidore,  Be  Eccl.  Off.  ii.  10.  And  these  di¬ 
rections  are  repeated  verbatim  in  the  office  for 
the  ordination  of  a  subdeacon  in  the  Gregoidan 
Sacramentary  (p.  221).  In  the  Greek  office,  the 
subdeacon  receives  xep>'tj8o|6(rTo»'  koi  yavZvXiov^ 
where  the  word  perhaps  includes 

both  urceus  and  aquamanile  (Daniel’s  Codex  Lit. 
iv.  550). 

In  the  Ordo  Romanus  I.  (p.  5),  the  acolytes 
are  directed  to  carry  an  aquamanus  (among  other 
things)  after  the  Pope  in  the  great  procession  of 
Easter-Day. 

Aquamanilia  of  great  splendour  are  frequently 
mentioned  in  ancient  records.  Desiderius  of  Aux- 
erre  is  said  to  have  given  to  his  church  “  aqua¬ 
manile  pensans  libras  ii.  et  uncias  x. ;  habet  in 
medio  rotam  liliatam  et  in  cauda  caput  homi- 
nis;”  and  Brunhilda,  queen  of  the  Franks,  offered 
through  the  same  Desiderius  to  the  church  of 
St.  G-jrmanus  “  aquamanilium  pensans  libras  iii. 
et  uncias  ix. ;  habet  in  medio  Xeptunum  cum  tri- 
dente  ”  (Krazer,  Be  Liturgiis,  p.  210).  Compare 
Urceus.  [C.] 

AQUILA.  (1)  Wife  of  Severiauus,  martyr, 
commemorated  Jan.  23  {3Iart.  Rom.  Vet.'). 

(2)  Husband  of  Priscilla,  July  8  {Ib.) ;  July 
14  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(3)  Martyr  in  Arabia,  Aug.  1  {Mart.  Rom. 

Vet.).  [C.] 

AQUILEIA,  COUNCIL  OF  (Aquiliense 
Concilium).  I.,  a.d.  381,  provincial,  although 


the  Easterns  were  invited,  St.  Ambros?  being  the 
most  important  bishop  present ;  summoned  by 
the  Emperor  Gratian,  to  try  the  cases  of  Bishop 
Palladius  and  Secundianus,  who  were  there  con¬ 
demned  for  Arianism  (Mansi,  iii.  599-632). 

II.  A.D.  553,  Western  or  rather  provincial,  on 
behalf  of  the  three  chapters.  It  rejected  the 
Oecumenical  Council  of  Constantinople  of  A.D. 
550,  and  thereby  severed  the  Aquileian  Church 
from  the  Church  Catholic  for  over  100  years 
(Baed.,  Be  VI.  Aetat. ;  Mansi,  ix.  659).  III. 
A.D.  698,  a  like  Synod  for  a  like  purpose  (Baed., 
ib. ;  Paul.  Diac.,  v.  14 ;  Sigebert  in  an. ;  Mansi, 
xii.  115).  [A.  W.  H.] 

AQUILINA,  martyr,  commemorated  June  13 
{Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

AQUILINUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Africa,  Jan.  4 
{3Iart.  Hieron.,  Bedae). 

(2)  Commemorated  Feb.  4  {M.  Hieron.). 

(3)  Of  Isauria,  commemorated  May  16  {3Iart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae). 

(4)  Presbyter,  May  27  {31.  Hieron.). 

(5)  Saint,  July  16  {Ib.) ;  July  17  {31. 

Hieron.).  [C.] 

AQUISGRANENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Aix.] 

ARABICUM  CONCILIUM.  — A  council 
was  held,  A.D.  247,  in  Arabia  against  those  who 
maintained  that  the  soul  died  with  the  body. 
Origen  went  to  it,  and  is  said  to  have  reclaime  I 
them  from  their  error  (Euseb.  vi.  37).  [E.  S.  F.] 

ARATGR,  commemorated  April  21  {3Iart. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

ARAUSICANUM  CONCILLUIM.COrange.] 

ARCA,  ARCULA.  1.  A  chest  intended  to 
receive  pecuniary  offerings  for  the  service  of  the 
church  or  for  the  poor  (Tertullian,  Apologeticus, 
c.  39).  Of  this  kind  was  probably  the  “  area 
pecuniae,”  which  Pope  Stephen  (an.  260)  is  said 
to  have  handed  over,  with  the  sacred  vessels,  to 
his  archdeacon  when  he  was  imprisoned  {Liber 
Pontif.  c.  24) ;  and  such  that  which  Paulinus 
Petricordius  says  (in  Vita  S.  3Iartini,  lib.  iv.  ap. 
Ducange)  was  committed  to  the  charge  of  a 
deacon  chosen  for  the  purpose.  The  box  from 
which  priests  received  their  portions  is  described 
as  “  arcula  sancta  ”  by  Marcellus  (  Vita  S.  Felicis, 
c.  3). 

2.  It  is  used  of  a  box  or  casket  in  which  the 
Eucharist  was  reserved :  thus  Cyprian  {Be  Lapsis, 
c.  26,  p.  486)  speaks  of  an  “  area  in  qua  Domini 
sacramentum  fuit,”  from  which  fire  issued,  to 
the  great  terror  of  a  woman  who  attempted  to 
open  it  with  unholy  hands.  In  this  case,  the 
casket  appears  to  have  been  in  the  house,  and 
perhaps  contained  the  i-eserved  Eucharist  for  the 
sick. 

3.  Among  the  prayers  which  precede  the  Ethi¬ 
opia  Canon  (Renaudot,  Lit.  Orient,  i.  501)  is 
one  “  Super  arcam  sive  discum  majorem.”  The 
prayer  itself  suggests  that  this  area  was  used 
for  precisely  the  same  purpose  as  the  paten, 
inasmuch  as  in  both  cases  the  petition  is  that 
in  or  upon  it  may  be  perfected  (perficiatur)  the 
Body  of  the  Lord.  Renaudot  (p.  525)  seems  to 
think  that  it  may  have  served  the  purpose  of  an 
Antimensium  (q.  V.). 

It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  its  use  was 
limited  to  the  case  of  unconsecrated  altars ;  and 
when  we  remember  that  the  Copts  applied  the 
term  iKacniipiov  to  the  Christian  altar  (Kenan* 


AKOADIUS 


ARCHDEACON 


135 


dot,  i.  182)  it  does  not  seem  improbable  that 
this  area  was  an  actual  chest  or  ark,  on  the  lid 
of  which,  the  Mercy-Seat,  consecration  took  place. 
It  is  worth  noticing  that  chests  are  said  to  have 
been  anciently  used  as  altars  in  Rome  [Altar]. 
Dr.  Neale  {Eastern  Church,  Introd.  p.  18G)  says 
that  the  tahout  or  ark  of  the  Ethiopic  Church  is 
used  for  the  reservation  of  the  Sacrament.  Major 
Harris’s  informant  {Highlands  of  Ethiopia,  iii. 
138)  declared  that  it  contains  nothing  except  a 
parchment  inscribed  with  the  date  of  the  dedi¬ 
cation  of  the  building.  [C.} 

ARCADIUS.  (1)  Martyi*,  commemorated 
Jan.  12  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.\ 

(2)  Martyr  in  Africa,  Nov.  12  {Ih.').  [C.] 

ARCANI  DISCIPLINA  [Disciplina  Ar- 

CANl]. 

ARCHANERIS,  commemorated  at  Rome 
Aug.  10  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ARCHBISHOP.— The  earliest  use  of  this 
title  was  probably  the  same  as  that  with  which 
we  are  familiar  in  the  Modern  Church,  viz.,  as 
designating  a  metropolitan  or  chief  bishop  of  a 
pi’ovince.  Afterwards,  however,  as  the  hierar¬ 
chical  system  of  the  Church  was  further  extended 
to  correspond  with  the  civil  divisions  of  the 
Roman  empire,  it  became  appropriated  to  the 
higher  dignity  of  patriarch.  Thus,  according  to 
Bingham  (ii.  17),  Liberatus  {Breviar.,  c.  17)  gives 
all  the  patriarchs  this  title  of  archbishops,  and, 
he  adds,  so  does  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  fre¬ 
quently,  speaking  of  the  patriarchs  of  Rome  and 
Constantinople  under  the  name  of  archbishops 
also.  About  the  time  of  Constantine  the  empire 
was  divided  into  dioceses,  each  of  which  contained 
many  provinces.  This  division,  like  the  earlier 
one  of  provinces,  was  also  adopted  by  the  Church  ; 
and  as  the  State  had  an  exarch  or  vicar  in  the 
capital  city  of  each  civil  diocese,  so  the  Church, 
in  process  of  time,  came  to  have  her  exarchs  or 
patriarchs  in  many,  if  not  all,  the  capital  cities 
of  the  empire.  These  patriarchs  were  originally 
called  archbishops,  which  title  had  therefore  a 
much  more  extensive  signification  than  it  has  at 
present.  The  principal  privileges  of  the  arch¬ 
bishops  of  that  period  were — 1.  To  ordain  all  the 
metropolitans  of  the  diocese,  their  own  ordination 
being  received  from  a  Diocesan  Synod  ;  2.  To  con¬ 
vene  Diocesan  Synods  and  to  preside  in  them  ; 
3.  To  receive  appeals  from  metropolitans  and  from 
Metropolitan  Synods ;  4.  To  censure  metropoli¬ 
tans,  and  also  their  suffragans  when  metropolitans 
were  remiss  in  censuring  them.  The  Patriarch  or 
Archbishop  of  Alexandria  had  from  very  early 
times  some  peculiar  privileges  within  his  diocese, 
but  originally  ail  patriarchs  were  co-ordinate,  as 
well  as  mutually  independent  as  regai’ds  actual 
power,  though  some  had  a  precedence  of  honour, 
as  those  of  Rome,  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  and 
Jerusalem,  to  whom  the  canons  gave  precedence 
of  all  others. 

bor  “  Archbishop  ”  in  its  later  and  present  sig¬ 
nification,  see  Metropolitan.  [D.  B.] 

ARCHDEACON.  — ' Apxi^iaKovos,  'Apxi~ 
hiaKusv,  ’Apx‘A€i>tT7js  (Catal.  Patriarch.  Constant. 
IO0O6,  ap.  Mai  Script.  Vet.  iii.  243,  though  per¬ 
haps  somewhat  late),  Archidiaconus,  Archidia- 
con,  Lecita  Septimus  {J o&nvies  Secundus,  Vit.  Greg. 
Max.  I.  i.  c.  25). 

1.  Origin  of  Name  and  Office. — That  there  was 


from  the  first  a  primacy  among  deacons,  as  there 
appears  to  have  been  among  presbyters,  and  as 
there  was  afterwards  among  bishops,  is  more  a 
matter  of  conjecture  than  of  historical  certainty. 
It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  some  one  deacon, 
either  the  senior  in  office  or  the  most  eminent  in 
ability,  took  the  lead  of  the  rest,  as  St.  Stephen 
appears  to  have  taken  the  lead  of  the  seven  first 
deacons  (whence  the  Menologium  gives  him  the 
title  ’Apx'StaKovos) ;  but  it  is  uncertain  when 
this  became  a  part  of  the  regular  ecclesiastical 
order.  The  name  is  sometimes  given  by  later 
writers  to  prominent  deacons  of  the  first  four 
centuries ;  for  example,  St.  Lawrence,  who  had 
evidently  some  precedence  over  his  brother 
deacons,  is  called  archdeacon  by  St.  Augustine 
{Serin,  de  Diversis,  cxi.  cap.  9 ;  Sanctus  Laurentius 
archidiaconus  fuit)  ;  and  Caecilian  of  Carthage  is 
called  archdeacon  by  Optatus  (1.  i.  p.  18,  ed. 
Paris,  1679).  But  other  writers  describe  the 
office  by  a  periphrasis  ;  for  example,  Theodoret 
(//.  E.  i.  26)  uses  the  phrase  6  rov 
SiukSvcov  riyov/xevos  to  describe  the  position — 
which  was  evidently  equivalent  to  that  of  an 
archdeacon — of  Athanasius  at  Alexandria ;  and 
there  is  the  negative  evidence  that  neither  the 
name  nor  the  office  is  mentioned  in  the  Aposto¬ 
lical  Constitutions  (although  some  have  .supposed 
the  phrase  6  TrapeerTws  rw  apxt^pVi  diduoyos,  in 
ii.  57,  to  refer  to  it),  and  that  Cornelius  {ap. 
Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  43)  omits  the  archdeacon  from 
his  list  of  Church  officers  at  Rome.  The  first 
contemporai-y  use  of  the  title  is,  in  the  Eastern 
Church,  in  the  old  version  of  the  acts  of  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  (Labbe,  Supplem.  Goncil.  p. 
505),  and,  in  the  Western  Church,  in  St.  Je¬ 
rome  {e.g.  Ep.  xcv.  ad  Rusticum).  After  that 
period  it  is  in  constant  use. 

In  both  East  and  West  the  title  appears  to 
have  been  restricted  to  the  secular  clergy ;  the 
first  in  rank  of  the  deacons  of  a  monastery 
seems  to  have  had,  in  the  East,  the  title  of 
■npiarohiaKovos  (but  not  universally,  for  Joannes 
Climacus,  Seal.  Farad,  p.  58,  also  uses  the  title 
UpxtSiaKcvy  of  a  monk) ;  a  deacon  in  a  similar 
position  in  the  West  seems  to  have  had,  at  least 
in  early  times,  no  special  designation. 

II.  Mode  of  Appointment. — The  mode  of  ap¬ 
pointment  varied  with  particular  times  and 
places.  At  first,  and  in  some  places  perma¬ 
nently,  the  deacon  who  was  senior  in  date  of 
ordination  appears  to  have  held  the  office,  with¬ 
out  any  special  appointment,  by  right  of  his 
seniority.  That  this  was  the  usual  practice  at 
Constantinople  is  clear  from  the  answer  of  Ana¬ 
tolius  to  Leo  the  Great  in  the  case  of  Andrew 
and  Aetius.  Leo,  probably  having  the  use  of 
the  Roman  Church  in  his  mind,  assumes  in  his 
letter  of  remonstrance  to  Anatolius  that  the 
latter  had  appointed  {const ituisse)  Andrew  arch¬ 
deacon.  Anatolius  replies  that,  on  the  ordina¬ 
tion  .of  Aetius  as  presbyter,  Andrew  had  suc¬ 
ceeded  him  as  archdeacon  in  regular  order  (no« 
provectus  a  nobis  sed  gradu  faciente  Archidiaconi 
dignitate  honoratus — S.  Leon.  Mag.  Op.  vol.  L  p. 
653,  ed.  Paris,  1675).  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
Sozomen  speaks  of  Serapion  as  having  been  ap¬ 
pointed  by  Chrysostom  (%v  apxi^id.Kovou  avroD 
KaTeVTTjcrc — //.  E.  viii.  9),  and  Theodoret  notices 
that  Athanasius  was  at  the  head  of  tlie  deacons, 
though  young  in  years  {vtos  t^v  ri\iKlavf  which 
could  hardly  have  been  the  case  in  so  large  a 


136 


ARCHDEACON 


ARCHDEACON 


church  as  that  of  Alexandria  if  the  rule  of 
seniority  had  been  followed.  St.  Jerome  has 
indeed  been  sometimes  quoted  to  show  that  the 
practice  at  Alexandria  was  for  the  deacons  to 
elect  their  archdeacon,  but  the  hypothetical 
form  of  the  sentence  (“  quomodo  si  ...  . 

diaconi  eligant  de  se  quern  industrium  noverint 
et  Archidiaconum  vocent  ”)  makes  it  difficult  to 
use  the  passage  as  an  assertion  of  an  existing 
fact.  In  the  West  there  appears  to  have  been  a 
similar  diversity  of  practice.  The  phrases  which 
are  sometimes  used  (e.g.  by  Joannes  Secundus, 
Vit.  S.  Greg.  Max.  i.  25,  “  levitam  septimum 
ad  suum  adjutorium  constituit  ”)  seem  to  show, 
what  might  also  be  expected  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  that  when  the  archdeacon  became  not 
so  much  the  first  in  rank  of  the  minor  officers 
of  the  Church  as  the  bishop’s  secretary  and  dele¬ 
gate,  the  bishop  had  at  least  a  voice  in  his  ap¬ 
pointment.  But  there  is  a  canon  of  a  Gallic 
council  in  A.D.  506  (Cone.  Agath.  can.  xxiii., 
Mansi,  viii.  328)  which  strongly  asserts  the  rule 
of  seniority,  and  enacts  that  even  in  cases  in 
which  the  senior  deacon,  propter  simpliciorem 
naturam,  was  unfit  for  the  office,  he  was  to  have 
the  title  (Joci  sui  nomen  teneat),  although  the 
burden  of  the  duty  devolved  upon  another.  In 
later  times,  however,  it  is  clear  that  the  right  of 
appointment  rested  absolutely  with  the  bishop. 

III.  Number,  and  Duration  of  Office. — It  is  clear, 
both  from  the  statement  of  St.  Jerome  (^Ep.  xcv. 
ad  Rusticum,  “  singuli  ecclesiarum  episcopi,  sin- 
guli  archipi’esbyteri,  singuli  archidiaconi  ”)  and 
from  the  invariable  use  of  the  singular  number 
in  the  canons  of  the  councils  which  refer  to  the 
office,  that  for  several  centuries  there  was  but 
one  archdeacon  in  each  diocese.  When  the 
number  was  increased  is  not  altogether  clear. 
The  increase  seems  to  have  been  a  result  partly 
of  the  increase  in  the  number  of  rural  parishes, 
partly  of  the  difficulty  of  dividing  dioceses 
which  were  coextensive  with  civil  diA'isions. 
The  fact  of  the  Council  of  Merida  (a.d.  666) 
having  directly  prohibited  the  appointment  of 
more  than  one  archdeacon  in  each  diocese  seems 
to  indicate  that  such  a  practice  had  been  con¬ 
templated,  if  not  actually  adopted  {Cone.  Emerit. 
can.  X.,  Mansi,  xi.  81);  but  the  first  actual  re¬ 
cord  of  a  plurality  of  archdeacons  occurs  a 
century  later  in  the  diocese  of  Strasburg.  In 
774,  Bishop  Heddo  divided  that  diocese  into 
three  archdeaconries  (archidiaconatus  rurales), 
and  from  that  time  there  appears  to  have  been 
thi’oughout  the  West — except  in  Italy,  where  the 
dioceses  Avere  small — a  general  practice  of  re¬ 
lieving  bishops  of  the  difficulties  of  the  admi¬ 
nistration  of  overgrown  dioceses  by  appointing 
archdeacons  for  separate  diAusions,  and  giving 
them  a  delegatio  (ultimately  a  delegntio  perpetual) 
as  to  the  visitation  of  parishes.  Thence  grcAv 
up  the  distinction  between  the  “  Archidiaconus 
magnus  ”  of  the  Cathedral  Church  and  the 
“  Archiffiaconi  rurales.”  The  former  was  at  the 
head  of  the  cathedral  clergy,  whence  in  much 
later  times  he  Avas  knoAvn  as  the  pi’ovost  (prae- 
positus)  of  the  cathedral,  ranking  as  such  before 
the  archpresbyter  or  dean.  The  latter  had  a 
corresponding  status  in  their  several  districts ; 
they  Avere  usually  at  the  head  of  the  chapter  of 
a  provincial  town,  and  they  had  precedence,  and 
perhaps  jurisdiction,  over  the  “  Archipresbyteri 
rurales,”  who  were  at  the  head  of  subdivisions 


of  the  archdeaconries,  and  corresponded  to  modem 
“  rural  deans.”  There  was  this  further  diffei’- 
ence  between  the  two  classes,  that  the  rural 
archdeacons  were  usually  priests,  Avhereas  the 
cathedral  archdeacon,  even  so  late  as  the  12th 
century,  was  usually  a  deacon. 

Originally,  the  office  was  limited  to  deacons; 
an  archdeacon  who  received  priest’s  orders 
ceased  thereby  to  be  an  archdeacon.  Proofs  and 
examples  of  this  are  numerous.  St.  Jerome 
says  (in  Ezech.  c.  xlviii.)  that  an  archdeacon 
“  injuriam  putat  si  presbyter  ordinetur.”  Anato¬ 
lius  made  his  archdeacon  Aetius  a  presbyter  in 
order  to  get  rid  of  him,  of  Avhich  proceeding 
Leo  the  Great,  in  a  formal  complaint  to  the 
Emperor  Marcian  on  the  subject,  says  “  dejec- 
tionem  innocentis  per  speciem  provectionis  im- 
plevit  ”  (S.  Leon.  Magn.  Epist.  57,  al.  84) ;  and 
Sidonius  Apollinaris  speaks  of  an  archdeacon 
John  Avho  Avas  so  good  an  archdeacon  that  he  Avas 
kept  from  the  presbyterate  in  consequence  (“  diu 
dignitate  non  potuit  augeri  ne  potestate  posset 
absolvi  ” — lib.  iv.  ep.  24).  It  is  not  certain  at 
what  date  presbyters  were  alloAved  to  hold  office 
as  archdeacons ;  probably  the  earliest  certain 
evidence  on  the  point  is  that  Avhich  is  afforded 
by  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  Avho  (a.d.  874)  addresses 
his  archdeacons  as  “  archidiaconibus-presbyteris  ” 
(Mansi,  xv.  497). 

IV.  Functions. — At  first  an  archdeacon  dif¬ 
fered  only  from  other  deacons  in  respect  of  pre¬ 
cedence.  In  the  churches  of  the  East  he  Avas 
probably  never  much  more.  Individual  arch¬ 
deacons  attained  to  eminence,  Tbut  not  by  Aurtue 
of  their  office.  Their  office  gaA'e  them  such 
privileges  as  the  right  of  reading  the  Gospel  in 
the  cathedral  (e.g.  at  Alexandria ;  Sozomen,  Aui. 
19),  and  of  receiving  the  sacred  elements  before 
the  other  deacons  (Joannes  Citri,  Resp.  ad  Cabas il. 
ap.  Meui'sius,  Gl.  Graeco-Barb.  s.  a-.)  ;  but  they 
appear  to  haA^e  had  no  administratiA'e  functions, 
and  at  Constantinople,  so  unimportant  did  the 
office  become,  from  an  ecclesiastical  point  of  Auew, 
that  at  last  the  archdeacon  became  only  an  officer 
of  the  Imperial  court  (Codinus,  De  Off.  Constant. 
c.  .xvii.  38). 

It  was  different  in  the  West.  Partly  from  the 
fact  that  the  deacons,  and  especially,  therefore, 
the  senior  deacon,  Avere  the  administratiA-e  offi¬ 
cers  of  the  Church ;  partly  from  the  fact  that 
the  senior  deacon  had  been  from  earlv  times  es- 
pecially  attached  to  the  bishop,  the  office,  Avhich, 
even  in  the  time  of  St.  Leo,  Avas  called  the  “  offi- 
ciorum  primatus  ”  (S.  Leon.  Magn.  Ep.  106,  al. 
71),  assumed  an  importance  Avhich  at  one  period 
was  hardly  inferior  to  that  of  the  episcopate 
itself. 

The  functions  of  the  office  may  conA'eniently 
be  distributed  under  Iavo  heads,  according  as  they 
greAv  out  of  the  original  functions  of  the  diaco- 
nate,  or  out  of  the  special  relation  of  the  arch¬ 
deacon  to  the  bishop. 

(1)  The  archdeacon  seems  to  haA^e  had  charge 
of  the  funds  of  the  Church  ;  e.g.  both  St.  Am¬ 
brose  and  St.  Augustine,  in  speaking  of  St.  LaAV- 
rence,  speak  of  him  as  haAung  the  “  opes  ecclesiae  ” 
in  his  custody  (S.  Aug.  Serm.  de  Divers,  cxi. 
c.  9) ;  and  St.  Leo  describes  the  appointment  of 
an  archdeacon  by  the  phrase  “  quern  ecclesias- 
ticis  negotiis  praeposuit  ”  (S.  Leon.  Magn.  Ep. 
85,  al.  58). 

This  involved  the  distribution  of  the  funds  to 


ARCHDEACON 


ARCHDEACON 


137 


the  poor ;  St.  Jerome  speaks  of  the  archdeacon 
as  “  inensarum  et  viduarum  minister  ”  (S.  Hie- 
ron.  in  Ezech.  cxlviii.),  and  the  4th  Council  of 
Carthage  prohibits  a  bishop  from  attending  to 
the  “  gubernationem  viduarum  et  peregrinarum  ” 
himself,  but  orders  him  to  do  so  “per  archi- 
presbyterum  aut  per  archidiaconum  ”  (IV.  Cone, 
Garth,  can.  xvii. ;  Mansi,  iii.  952). 

Afterwards,  if  we  are  to  trust  the  letter  of 
Isidore  of  Seville  to  the  Bishop  of  Cordova, 
he  appears  to  have  distributed  to  the  clergy  of 
the  several  orders  the  money  which  was  oti'ered 
for  their  support  at  the  communion  (Isid.  Hisp. 
Ep.  ad  Luidifr.,,  Op,  ed.  Paris,  1601,  p.  615). 

(2)  The  archdeacon  had  the  “  ordinatio  eccle- 
siae,”  that  is,  the  superintendence  of  the  arrange¬ 
ments  of  the  cathedral  church  and  of  divine 
service.  He  was  “master  of  the  ceremonies.” 
As  such  he  had  (a)  to  keep  note  of  the  calendar, 
and  to  announce  the  fasts  and  festivals  (Isid. 
Hisp.  ibid. ;  cf.  the  phrase  “  concionatur  in  po~ 
pulos”  of  Jerome  in  Ezech.  c.  xlviii.).  (/3)  He 
had  to  correct  offences  against  ecclesiastical  order 
during  divine  service  ;  for  example,  at  Carthage 
a  woman  who  kissed  the  relics  of  an  unrecog¬ 
nized  martyr  was  reproved  (correpid)  by  Caeci- 
lian  (Optat.  i.  p.  18).  Probably  this  was  a  duty 
of  the  archdeacon  in  the  East  as  well  as  in  the 
West ;  at  least  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the 
origin  of  the  unseemly  scuffle  between  Meletius 
and  his  archdeacon  at  Antioch  (Sozom.  H.  E.  iv. 
28)  unless  we  suppose  that  the  latter  was  exer¬ 
cising  a  supposed  right.  (7)  He  had  to  see  that 
the  arrangements  of  the  Church  for  divine  ser¬ 
vice  wore  properly  made,  and  that  the  ritual 
was  pi'operly  observ'ed.  Isidore  of  Seville  (ibid.') 
assigns  to  him  in  detail,  “  cura  vestiendi 
altaris  a  levitis,  cura  incensi,  et  sacrificii 
necessaria  sollicitudo,  quis  levitarum  Aposto- 
lura  et  Evangelium  legat,  quis  preces  dicat.” 
(S)  The  same  authority,  or  quasi-authority,  may 
be  quoted  for  his  having  also  charge  of  the 
fabric  of  the  cathedral  church  :  “  pro  repa- 
randis  diocesanis  basilicis  ipse  suggeiut  sacerdoti  ” 
(ibid.). 

(3)  The  archdeacon  had  to  superintend  and  to 
exei’cise  discipline  over  the  deacons  and  other 
inferior  clergy.  This  was  common  to  both  East 
and  West ;  and  as  early  as  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon  we  find  it  stated  that  a  deacon  (Maras  of 
Edessa)  had  been  excommunicated  by  his  arch¬ 
deacon  (cLKOLVuvrjTos  k(TTi  Ibio)  apxibLaK6vcf  : 
but  the  bishop,  Ibas,  who  is  speaking,  goes  on  to  say, 
oiidf  ifioi  iariv  oLKoivwyTjTos,  which  seems  to  im¬ 
ply  that  the  bishop  and  the  archdeacon  had  co¬ 
ordinate  jurisdiction  over  deacons :  Mansi,  vii. 
232).  A  curious  instance  of  the  extent  of  their 
authority  is  afforded  by  a  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Agde,  in  Gaul,  which  enacts  that  “  Clerici  q  li 
comam  nutriunt  ab  archidiacono  etiamsi  nolu- 
erint  inviti  detondeantur  ”  (Cone.  Agath.  can.  xx. ; 
Mansi,  viii.  328).  This  ordinary  jurisdiction  of 
an  archdeacon  over  the  inferior  clergy  must  be 
distinguished  from  the  delegated  jurisdiction 
which  he  possessed  in  later  times.  The  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Toledo  which  is  cited  in  the 
Decretals  as  giving  him  an  ordinary  jurisdiction 
over  presbyters  is  confessedly  spurious  (Mansi, 
iii.  1008). 

(4)  This  power  of  exercising  discipline  was 
combined  with  the  duty  of  instructing  the  in¬ 
ferior  clergy  in  the  duties  of  their  office.  The 


4th  Council  of  Carthage  enacts  that  the  ostia- 
rius  before  ordination  is  to  be  instructed  by 
the  archdeacon.  Gregory  of  Tours  identifies  the 
archdeacon  with  the  “  praeceptor  ”  (//.  F.  lib. 
vi.  c.  36),  and  speaks  of  himself  as  living  at  the 
head  of  the  community  of  deacons  (Vit.  Pair.  c. 
9).  The  house  of  this  community  appears  to 
have  been  called  the  “diaconium”  (“lector  in 
diaconio  Caeciliaui  ” — Optat.  lib.  i.  c.  21),  and  is 
probably  referred  to  by  Paulinus  when  he  says 
that  he  lived  “  sub  cura  ”  of  the  deacon  Castus 
(Paulin.  Vit.  Ambros.  c.  42). 

(5)  As  a  corollary  from  the.se  relations  of  an 
archdeacon  to  the  inferior  clergy,  it  was  his  office 
to  enquire  into  their  character  before  ordination, 
and  sometimes  to  take  part  in  the  ceremony 
itself.  Even  in  the  East  it  is  pos.sible  that  he 
had  some  kind  of  control  over  ordinations,  for 
Ibas  is  said  to  have  been  prevented  by  his  arch¬ 
deacon  from  ordaining  an  unworthy  person  as 
bishop  (/ccoAuflels  Trap  a.  too  T-gviKavra  apx^b  la- 
k6vov  avTov — Cone.  Chale.  act  x.,  as  quote!  by 
Labbe,  iv.  647,  e.,  but  Mansi  substitutes  irpea- 
^vrepo V — vii.  224).  In  the  African  Church  the 
archdeacon  was  directed  to  take  part  in  the 
ordination  of  the  subdeacons,  acolytus,  and 
ostiarius  (IV.  Cone,  Carthag.;  Mansi,  iii.  961). 
Throughout  the  West  his  testimony  to  charac¬ 
ter  appears  to  have  been  required.  At  Rome 
this  was  the  case  even  at  the  ordination  of  pres¬ 
byters  ;  but  Jerome  speaks  of  it  as  “  unius  urbis 
consuetudiuem  ”  (S.  Hieron.  Ep.  ci.  al.  Ixxxv.  ad 
Evang.).  In  later  times  the  archdeacon  enquired 
into  the  literary  as  well  as  into  the  moral  quali¬ 
fications  of  candidates  for  ordination  ;  but  there 
is  no  distinct  authority  for  supposing  this  to 
have  been  the  case  during  the  first  nine  cen¬ 
turies  ;  the  earliest  is  that  of  Hincmar  of  Rheims, 
in  874,  who  directed  his  archdeacon-presbyters 
to  enquire  diligently  into  both  the  “  vita  et 
seientia  ”  of  those  whom  they  presented  for  ordi¬ 
nation  (Mansi,  xv.  497).  In  one  other  point  they 
appear  in  some  places  to  have  conformed  to  latei 
practice,  for  Isidore  of  Pelusium  (Ep.  i.  29)  re¬ 
proves  his  archdeacon  for  making  money  from 
ordination /ees  (a-rrh  tiu^s  xe'poTovja'j/). 

2.  The  second  class  of  an  archdeacon’s  func¬ 
tions  were  those  which  grew  out  of  his  close 
connection  with  the  bishop.  The  closeness  of 
this  connection  is  shown  as  early  as  the  4th 
century  by  St.  Jerome,  who  says  of  the  “  primus 
ministeriorum,”  i.e.  the  archdeacon,  that  ho 
never  leaves  the  bishop’s  side  (“  a  pontificis 
latere  non  recedit  ” — Hieron.  in  Ezech.  c.  xlviii.). 
This  expression  has,  without  any  corroborative 
evidence  except  the  indefinite  phrase  of  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions  (quoted  above),  been  in- 
terpreted.exclusively  of  his  attendance  upon  the 
bishop  at  the  altar.  It  is  probable  that  this  is 
included  in  the  expression,  but  it  is  improbable 
that  nothing  else  is  meant  bv  jt.  The  mass  of 
evidence  goes  to  show  that  while  the  .arch-pres¬ 
byter  was  the  bishop’s  assistant  chiefly  in  spi¬ 
ritual  matters,  the  archdeacon  was  his  assistant 
chiefly  in  secular  matters. 

(1)  He  was  attached  to  the  bishop,  probably 
in  the  capacity  of  a  modern  cha])lain  or  secre¬ 
tary.  He  transacted  the  greater  part  of  the 
business  of  the  diocese  ;  for  example,  St.  Leo 
speaks  of  the  office  as  involving  “dispensatiouem 
totius  causae  et  curae  ecclo.siastic.ae  ”  (Ep.  Ixxxiv. 
al.  Ivii.).  He  conveyed  the  bishop’s  orders  to  the 


138 


ARCHDEACON 


ARCHIMANDRITE 


clergy ;  for  example,  when  John  of  Jerusalem 
prohibited  Epiphanius  from  preaching,  he  did 
so  “per  archidiaconum”  (S.  Hieron,  Ep.  xxxviii. 
al.  Ixi,).  He  acted  as  the  bishop’s  substitute  at 
synods  ;  for  example,  Photinus  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  (Mansi,  vi.  567).  Compare  the  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Trullo,  in  692  (Mansi,  xi.  943), 
which  forbids  a  deacon  from  having  precedence 
over  a  presbyter,  except  when  acting  as  substi¬ 
tute  for  a  bishop,  and  the  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Merida,  in  666  (Mansi,  xi.  79),  which  expressly 
disapproves  of  the  practice.  Ordinary  deacons 
were  sometimes  called  the  “  bishop’s  eyes,” 
whence  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  writing  to  his  arch¬ 
deacon,  says  that  he  ought  to  be  “  all  eye  ” 
(8Aof  ocpdaAjubs  6(p€i\fis  VTzapx^iv  —  Isid.  Pel. 
Ep.  i.  29). 

(2)  In  somewhat  later  times  he  was  dele¬ 
gated  by  the  bishop  to  \dsit  parishes,  and  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  all  orders  of  the  clergy. 
There  is  no  trace  of  this  in  the  East.  It  grew 
up  in  the  West  with  the  growth  of  large  dio¬ 
ceses,  with  the  prevalence  of  the  practice  of  ap¬ 
pointing  bishops  for  other  than  ecclesiastical 
merits,  and  with  the  rise  of  the  principle  of  the 
immunity  of  ecclesiastical  persons  and  things 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  secular  power.  But 
it  is  difficult  to  determine  the  date  at  which 
such  delegations  became  common.  The  earliest 
evidence  upon  which  reliance  can  be  placed  is 
that  of  the  Council  of  Auxerre  in  578,  which 
enacted  that,  in  certain  cases,  a  parish  priest 
'wno  was  detained  by  infirmity  should  send  “  ad 
archidiaconum  suum"  implying  a  certain  official 
relation  between  them.  More  definite  testimony 
is  afforded  bv  the  Council  of  Chalons  in  650, 
which  expressly  recognises  his  right  of  visiting 
private  chapels  (“  oratoria  per  villas  potentum  ” 
— r.  Cone.  Cabill.  can.  14 ;  Mansi,  x.  1 1 92).  A  simi¬ 
lar  enactment  was  made  at  the  second  Council 
of  Chalons,  in  813,  which,  however,  censures  the 
exacting  of  fees  for  visitations  (“  ne  census  exi- 
gant  ” — IT.  Cone.  Cahill,  c.  15).  In  later  times 
this  “  delegatio  ”  became  a  “  delegatio  perpetua,” 
not  revocable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  bishop  who 
had  conferred  it ;  but  that  such  was  not  the  case 
during  the  first  nine  centuries  is  clear  from  the 
letter  of  Hincmar  to  his  archdeacons  (quoted 
above),  and  also  from  the  fact  that  Isidore  of 
Seville,  whose  authority,  or  quasi-authority, 
was  so  frequently  quoted  to  confirm  the  later 
pretensions  of  the  ai'chdeacons,  only  speaks  of 
their  visiting  parishes  “  cum  jussione  episcopi.” 

The  rise  of  the  separate  jurisdiction  of  the 
archdeacon  is  still  more  obscure.  In  the  6th 
century  we  find  him  named  as  the  bishop’s  as¬ 
sessor  in  certain  cases  (I.  Cone.  Matise.  can.  8, 
Mansi,  ix.  933;  II.  Cone. Matise.  can.  12  j  Mansi,  ix. 
954) ;  but  there  is  no  trustworthy  evidence  in 
favour  of  the  existence  of  an  “archdeacon’s 
court  ”  within  the  period  of  which  the  present 
work  takes  cognizance. 

(3)  In  the  East,  during  the  vacancy  of  a  see, 

the  archdeacon  appears  to  have  been  its  guardian 
or  co-guardian.  Chrysostom  writes  to  Innocent 
of  Rome,  complaining  that  Theophilus  of  Alex¬ 
andria  had  written  to  his  archdeacon  “  as  though 
the  church  were  already  widowed,  and  had  no 
bishop  "(Jtiairfp  ijSrj  rrjs  eKKXrtaias  Ka) 

ovK  exova-ns  eiria-Koirop — Mansi,  iii.  1085);  and  in 
the  letter  which  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  wrote 
to  the  clergy  of  Alexandria  to  inform  them  of  the 


I  deposition  of  their  bishop  Dioscorus,  the  arch¬ 
deacon  and  the  oeconomus  are  specially  named. 
In  the  West  it  is  not  clear  that  this  was  the  case ; 
but  sometimes  the  archdeacon  was  regarded  as 
having  a  right  of  succession.  Eulogius  {ap.  Phot. 
Bihl.  182)  says  that  it  was  a  law  at  Rome  for  the 
archdeacon  to  succeed  ;  but  the  instance  which 
he  gives,  that  of  Cornelius  making  his  arch¬ 
deacon  a  presbyter,  to  cut  off  his  right  of  suc¬ 
cession,  is  very  questionable,  the  date  being 
earlier  than  the  existence  of  the  office.  Ko 
doubt,  many  archdeacons  were  chosen  to  succeed, 
but  the  most  striking  instances  which  are  some¬ 
times  quoted  to  confirm  the  statement  of  Eulogius, 
those  of  St.  Leo  and  St.  Gregory,  were  probably 
both  exceptional. 

(Ad  amusing  blunder  identified  the  archdeacon, 
who  was  sometimes  called  not  only  “oculus  epis¬ 
copi,”  but  eor  ejjiscopi,”  with  the  chorepiscopus 
or  suffragan  bishop;  the  blunder,  which  has  been 
not  uiifrequently  repeated,  seems  to  be  traceable 
in  the  first  instance  to  Joannes  Abbas  de  trans~ 
latione  reliquiarum  S.  Glodesindis,  quoted  in  H. 
Vales.  Adnot.  ad  Tlieodoret.,  i.  26.)  [E.  H.] 

ARCHELAUS,  or  ARCHILLAUS,  com¬ 
memorated  Aug.  23  {Moi't.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ARCHIMANDRITE  (apxwv  ttjs  fxdvSpas, 
praefeetus  eoenobii),  lit.  ruler  of  “  the  fold  ” 
— the  spiritual  fold  that  is — a  favourite  me¬ 
taphor  for  designating  monasteries  in  the  East, 
and  very  soon  applied.  As  early  as  a.d.  376 
we  find  St.  Epiphanius  commencing  his  work 
against  heresies  in  consequence  of  a  letter  ad¬ 
dressed  to  him  by  Acacius  and  Paul,  styling 
themselves  “presbyters  and  archimandrites,” 
that  is,  fathers  of  the  monasteries  in  the  parts  of 
Carchedon  and  Beroea  in  Coele-Syria.  Possibly 
St.  Epiphanius  omits  to  style  them  “  archiman¬ 
drites  ”  in  his  reply,  because  the  term  was  not 
yet  in  general  u.se.  ®  But  at  the  time  of  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  the  Emperors  Theodosius  and 
Valentinian  received  a  petition  from  “  a  deacon 
and  archimandrite,”  named  Basil  (Mansi,  tom.  iv. 
p.  1101).  At  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  a.d. 
448,  under  Flavian,  23  archimandrites  affixed 
their  signatures  to  the  condemnation  of  Eutvehes, 
himself  an  archimandrite.  Sometimes  the  same 
person  was  styled  archimandrite  and  hegumen 
indifferently  ;  but,  in  general,  the  archimandrite 
presided  over  several  monasteries,  and  the  hegu¬ 
men  over  but  one.  The  latter  was  therefore  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  former,  as  a  bishop  to  a  metropolitan 
or  archbishop.  Again,  there  was  an  exarch,  or 
visitor  of  monasterie.s,  by  some  thought  to  have 
been  inferior  to  the  archimandrite,  by  some  supe¬ 
rior,  and  by  some  different  only  from  him  in 
name.  But  if  it  is  a  fact  that  archimaudriles 
were  admitted  to  their  office  by  the  patriarch 
alone,  though  he,  of  course  may  have  sometimes 
admitted  the  others  as  well,  it  would  seem  to 
suggest  that  they  occupied  the  highest  rank  in 
the  monastic  hierarchy,  analogous  to  that  of  pa¬ 
triarch  amongst  bishops.  According  to  Goar 
(^Euchol.  p.  240)  archimandrites  had  the  privilege 
of  ordaining  readers,  which  the  ordinary  hegumen 
had  not ;  but  he  has  omitted  to  point  out  where 
this  privilege  is  conferred  in  the  form  of  admis¬ 
sion  given  by  him  further  on  (p.  492).  King 
(p.  337),  in  his  history  of  the  Greek  Church,  re- 


Botb  letters  are  pri-fixpil  to  his  work. 


9 


ARCOSOLIUM 


ARCHINIMUS 

gards  archimandrite  as  the  equivalent  for  abbot, 
and  hegumen  for  prior,  in  the  Western  monas¬ 
teries  ;  but  he  can  only  mean  that  the  offices  ii 
each  case  were  analogous.  Rarely,  but  occasion¬ 
ally,  bishops  and  archbishops  themselves  were 
designated  archimandrites  in  the  West  and  East. 
For 'fuller  details,  see  Suicer,  Thesaur.  Eccl.  s.  v. ; 
Du  Fresne,  Gloss.  Graec.  s.  v.,  /udy5pa;  Habert’s 
Pontifical,  Eccl.  Graec.  p.  570,  et  seq.  [E.  S.  F.] 
ARCHINIMUS,  confessor,  conjmemorated 
March  29  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.fi  [C.] 

ARCHIPARAPHONISTA  (' ApxiTrapo.<p(^- 
vi(TTT]sfi  a  principal  officer  of  the  Roman 
“  Schola  Cantorum,”  [Cantor]  called  also 
“  Quartus  Scholae.”  It  belonged  to  his  office  to 
name  the  chanters  who  were  to  sing  the  several 
parts  of  the  service  in  a  Pontifical  Mass  {Ordo 
Romanus,  I.  c.  7  ;  HI.  c.  7) ;  to  go  before  the  pope, 
and  place  for  him  a  prayer-desk  befoi-e  the  altar 
( 0.  R.  I.  c.  8) ;  and  to  bring  to  the  sub-deacon 
the  water  for  use  in  the  celebration  of  mass 
(a  R.  I.  c.  14).  [C.] 

ARCHIPPUS,  the  fellow-labourer  of  St.  Paul 
commemorated  March  20  {Mart.  Rom,  Vet.') ;  as 
“  Apostle,”  Feb.  19  {Cal.  Byzant.fi  [C.] 

ARCHISUBDIACONUS.— This  is  a  word 
which  occurs  in  the  canons  of  the  synod  of  Aux- 
erre  {Synod.  Autissiodor.  can.  6  ;  Mansi,  ix.  912), 
but  apparently  not  elsewhere.  If  the  reading  be 
genuine,  it  would  appear  that  in  some  dioceses 
the  subdeacons  as  well  as  the  deacons  had  their 
primate ;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  reading 
should  be  subarchidiaconum,  which  may  have 
been  another  name  for  the  officer  known  to  the 
Greeks  as  6  Sevrepevasu,  and  to  some  Western 
dioceses  as  secundarius.  [E.  H.] 

ARCHRRKSBYTER.  {dpxnrpeafivT^pos, 
Sozom.  II.  E.  viii.  12 ;  but  the  ordinary  Greek 
term  was  irpwTOTrpeo'IBvTfpos,  which  is  found  ap¬ 
plied  to  the  same  person  in  the  corresponding 
passage  of  Socrates,  H.  E.  vi.  9 ;  cf.  also  Phot. 
Bibl,  59,  in  the  account  of  the  irregular  synod 
against  Chrysostom,  and  Mansi,  vii.  252,  from 
which  it  appears  that  the  word  was  found  in 
some  versions  of  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon ;  in  later  times  =  irpuToirdiras,  Codin.  De 
Off.  Eccl.  Const,  c.  i. ;  archipresbyter,  S.  Hieron. 
Ep.  xcv.  ad  Rustic.) 

The  origin  of  the  office  is  not  clear  ;  after  the 
permanent  establishment  of  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  episcopate  and  presbyterate  it  appears 
that  the  senior  presbyter  had  certain  recognized 
rights  in  virtue  of  his  seniority  ;  but  there  is  no 
evidence  of  his  having  had  a  distinct  name  until 
the  close  of  the  4th  century,  when  we  find  it,  as 
quoted  above,  in  Socrates. 

For  some  time  the  name,  when  given  at  all, 
seems  to  have  been  given  as  a  matter  of  course 
to  the  presbyter  who  was  senior  in  date  of  ordi¬ 
nation.  But  the  assertion  of  Gregory  Nazianzen 
{Orat.  xliii.  39)  that  he  refused  r))v  twv  irpea- 
^vT(pu)u  TrpoTiixri(riu,  which  Basil  offered  him, 
and  the  phrase  of  Liberatus  {Brev.  c.  xiv.)  “qui 
[see  Diet,  of  Chr.  Biogr.  art.  Dioscorus  OF 
Alexandria]  et  eum  [_Dict.  of  Chr.  Biogr.  art. 
Protkrius]  archipresbyterum  fecerat”  seem  to 
show  that  in  some  places  in  the  East  the  bishop 
had  the  power  of  making  a  special  appointment. 
In  the  West,  however,  this  was  regarded  as  a  vio¬ 
lation  of  the  regular  order,  for  St.  Leo  {Ep.  v. 
a/,  xvii.)  finds  great  fault  with  Dorus  of  Bene- 


139 

ventum  for  giving  precedence  (he  does  not  use 
the  word  archpresbyter)  to  a  newly  ordained 
presbyter  over  his  seniors. 

At  first  there  appears  to  have  been  only  one 
archpresbyter  in  a  diocese  (cf.  S.  Hieron.  Ep.  xcv. 
ad  Rustic.,  “  singuli  ecclesiarum  episcopi,  singuli 
archipresbyteri,  singuli  archidiaconi”).  He  took 
i-ank  next  after  the  bishop,  all  of  whose  functions 
he  performed  during  the  vacancy  of  a  see,  and 
some  of  them,  e.g.  baptism,  during  the  bishop’s 
temporary  absence.  It  has  been  held  lhat  he 
had  also  a  right  of  succession,  but  this  is  hardly 
proved.  With  the  increase  in  the  population  in 
the  large  dioceses  of  the  West  and  the  growing 
difficulty  of  subdividing  them,  on  account  of  their 
identification  with  civil  divisions,  began  the  sys¬ 
tem  of  placing  an  archpresbyter  (arch,  ruralis) 
in  each  of  the  larger  towns,  who  stood  in  the 
same  relation  to  the  clergy  of  the  surrounding 
district  as  the  arch  presbyter  of  the  cathedral  to 
the  rest  of  the  clergy  of  the  cathedral.  The 
first  mention  of  these  rural  archpresbyters  is  in 
Gregory  of  Tours  {Mirac.  i.  78,  ii.  22).  Their 
duties  may  be  gathered  from  various  canons  of 
Galilean  and  Spanish  councils.  The  Council  of 
Tours,  in  567,  enacted  that  subpresbyters  were  to 
be  liable  to  penance  if  they  neglected  to  compel 
the  presbyters  and  other  clergy  of  their  re¬ 
spective  districts  to  live  chastely  (Mansi,  ix.  797). 
The  Council  of  Auxerre,  in  578,  indicted  a  similar 
but  heavier  penalty  on  them  if  they  neglected 
to  inform  the  bishop  or  the  archdeacon  (the  first 
instance  of  such  a  subordination  of  rank)  of 
clerical  delinquencies ;  and*  also  enacted  that 
“  saeculares  ”  who  neglected  to  submit  to  the 
“  institutionem  et  admonitioncm  archipresbyteri 
sui  ”  were  to  be  not  only  suspended  from  ecclesi¬ 
astical  privileges  but  also  to  be  fined  at  the  king’s 
discretion  (Mansi,  ix.  797).  From  Can.  19  of  the 
Council  of  Rheims,  in  630,  it  would  appear  that 
certain  feudal  rights  of  seigniority  had  begun  to 
attach  to  the  archpresbyters,  in  consequence  of 
which  the  office  was  being  held  by  laymen 
(Mansi,  x.  597).  The  Council  of  Chalons,  in  650, 
enacted  that  lay  judges  were  not  to  visit  monas¬ 
teries  or  parishes,  except  on  the  invitation  in  the 
one  case  of  the  abbot,  in  the  other  of  the 
archpresbyter  (Mansi,  x.  1191). 

The  name  decanus,  which  was  given  to  the 
archpresbyter  of  the  cathedral,  and  decanus  ru¬ 
ralis,  which  was  given  to  the  archpresbyter  of  a 
country  district,  as  also  the  struggle  for  pre¬ 
cedence  between  the  archpresbyters  and  the 
archdeacons,  in  which  the  latter  were  ultimately 
victorious,  belong  to  a  later  period.  [E.  H.] 

ARCHIVES.  [Registers.] 

ARCOSOLIUM.  This  word  is  derived  by 
Martigny  {Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chre't.)  from  “arcus, 
an  arch,  and  “  solium,”  which  according  to  him 
is  sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of  sarcophagus. 
Some  inscriptions,  and  particularly  one  now  in 
the  cortile  of  the  Palazzo  Borghese  (Marchi, 
Mon.  delle  Arti  Christ,  primit.  p.  85),  which  runs 
thus,  “  Domus  eternalis  Aur.  Celsi  et  Aur.  Ilari- 
tatis  compari  mees  [leg.  comparavimus]  fecimus 
nobis  et  nostris  et  amicis  arcosolio  cum  parieti- 
culo  suo  in  pacem,”  make  mention  of  it,  and  it 
has  been  supposed  to  denote  those  tombs  hewn 
in  the  living  rock  of  the  catacomb.s  at  Rome  (and 
elsewhere),  in  which  there  is  an  arched  opening 
above  the  portion  reserved  for  the  deposition  of 


140 


ARCOSOLIUM 


ARCOSOLIUM 


the  body  to  be  interred,  the  grave  being  dug 
from  above  downwards  into  the  reserved  portion 
below  the  arch.  . 

There  seems,  however,  some  reason  for  doubt¬ 
ing  whether  the  attribution  of  the  woitl  is 
correct,  and  whether  we  ought  not  rather  to 
understand  by  it  the  sepulchral  chambers  or  cu- 
bicula  in  which  the  great  majority  of  those 
tombs  are  found. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  one  tomb  of  the 
kind  could  contain  more  than  about  five  bodies, 
even  if  two  were  placed  in  the  grave  below,  and 
three  in  loculi  cut  in  the  wall  umler  the  arch ; 
while  the  inscription  quoted  above  would  seem 
to  imply  that  a  much  larger  number  were  to  be 
placed  in  the  arcosolium  made  by  Aurelius  Cel- 
sus ;  but  it  maybe  that  these  persons  were  all  men¬ 
tioned  in  order  that  the  right  of  interment  of  I'ela- 
tious  or  friends  might  not  be  disputed  if  claimed. 

It  is  not  clear  how  or  where  the  parieticulum 
or  partition  could  be  placed.  Martigny  says 
that  the  arcosolia  were  divided  into  several  com¬ 
partments  by  these  walls,  but  does  not  explain 
in  what  way.  If  the  word  mean  merely  the 
tomb,  parieticulum  would  probably  mean  the 
wall  included  under  the  arch. 

The  word  may  really  be  derived  from  “  area,” 
a  sarcophagus,  and  “  solium,”  which  among  other 
meanings  has  that  of  a  piscina  or  reservoir  in  a 
bath,  and  in  mediaeval  Latin  of  a  chamber  gene¬ 
rally  j  it  may  thus  denote  a  vault  containing 
sarcophagi. 

In  the  tombs  of  this  kind  the  receptacle  for  the 
corj)se  was  sometimes  covered  by  a  slab  of  marble, 
or  sometimes  a  marble  sarcophagus  is  inserted. 
In  a  few  cases  the  sarcophagus  projects  forward 
into  the  chamber,  and  the  sides  of  the  arch  are 
continued  to  the  ground  beyond  the  sarcophagus. 

Such  slabs  or  sarcophagi  have  been  supposed 
to  have  seiwed  as  altars  during  the  period  of  per¬ 
secution,  as  being  the  resting-places  of  saints  or 
martyrs,  and  in  some  instances  this  may  have 
been  the  case  ;  but  the  far  greater  number  of  these 
tombs  are  no  doubt  of  later  date,  and  simply  the 
monuments  used  by  the  wealthier  class.  The 
bishops  and  martyrs  of  the  3rd  century  were,  as 
may  be  seen  in  the  cemetery  of  Callixtus  (on  the 
Via  Appia  near  Rome),  placed,  not  in  these  “ar¬ 
cosolia  ”  or  “  monumenta  arcuata,”  but  in  simple 
“loculi,”  excavations  in  the  wall  just  large 
enough  to  receive  a  body  placed  lengthwise  (v. 
De  Rossi,  Roma  Sott.  Crist,  t.  ii.  tav.  i.  ii.  iii.). 
It  seems  hardly  probable  that,  when  such  illus¬ 
trious  martyrs  were  interred  in  so  humble  a 
manner,  more  obscure  sufferers  should  be  more 
highly  honoured  ;  this  consideration  seems  to 
afford  ground  for  the  supposition  that,  where  a 
saint  or  martyr  of  the  first  three  centuries  has 
been  placed  in  a  decorated  tomb,  such  a  memorial 
IS  to  be  attributed  not  to  the  period  of  the  ori¬ 
ginal  intei'ment,  but  to  the  piety  of  a  later  time. 
In  the  4th  and  5th  centuries  the  humble  “locu¬ 
lus  ”  was  altered  into  the  decorated  “  monu- 
mentum  arcuatum,”  and  the  whole  sepulchral 
chamber  in  many  cases  richly  adorned  with  in¬ 
crustations  of  marble,  with  stucco,  and  with 
paintings.  A  n  excel  lent  example  of  this  is  afforded 
by  the  chamber  in  the  cemetery  of  Callixtus,  in 
which  the  remains  of  the  Popes  Eusebius  (309- 
311)  and  Miltiades  (or  Melchiades,  311-314) 
were  placed,  a  part  of  which  is  represented  in 
the  annexed  woodcut. 


In  the  walls  of  this  chamber  are  three  large 
“arcosolia,”  in  front  of  one  of  which  was  a 
marble  slab,  with  an  inscription  by  Pope  Damasus 
commemorating  Pope  Eusebius  (v.  De  Rossi,  t. 
ii.  tav.  iii.  iv.  and  viii.).  The  whole  chamber 
has  been  richly  decorated  with  marble  incrusta¬ 
tions,  paintings,  and  mosaics.  These  decorations 
it  would  seem  reasonable  to  assign  to  Pope  Da¬ 
masus,  who  undoubtedly  set  up  the  inscription. 
Another  inscription  by  Pope  Damasus,  found  in 
the  crypt  of  St.  Sixtus  in  the  same  cemetery,  tes¬ 
tifies  the  desire  then  felt  to  lie  in  death  near  the 
remains  of  holy  personages,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  awe  and  respect  felt  for  them  in  these 
words — 

“  Hie  fateor  volui  Damasus  mea  cond^re  membra 
Sed  cineres  timui  sanctos  vexare  piorum." 

This  pious  awe  gradually  diminished,  and  loculi 
are  found  excavated  above,  below,  before,  at  the 
side  of  the  sepultures  of  confessors  and  martyrs. 
Hence  the  formulae  “ad  sanctos,”  “ad  martyres,” 
“supra  sanctos,”  “retro sanctos,”  “ante  sanctos,” 
often  found  in  inscriptions  in  the  catacombs.  A 
good  instance  of  this  practice  may  be  seen,  over 
the  tomb  of  Pope  Eusebius,  where  a  painting  re¬ 
presenting  the  Good  Shepherd  has  been  cut 
through  in  order  to  form  a  loculus. 


Aroosolium  in  the  Cemetery  of  Ctdlixtus. 


Loculi  so  excavated  within  the  arch  of  the  “ar¬ 
cosolia  ”  are,  however,  too  common  to  be  always 
accounted  for  in  this  manner,  and  in  many  in¬ 
stances  were  no  doubt  intended  for  the  children 
or  near  relatives  of  those  who  lay  below. 

In  the  year  1859,  in  the  cemetery  of  St,  Cal¬ 
lixtus,  an  unviolated  “arcosolium”  was  disco¬ 
vered  :  in  this  a  marble  sarcophagus  was  found, 
in  which  lay  a  body  swathed  in  numerous  bands 
of  linen  exactlv  in  the  manner  shown  in  the  early 
representations  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus. 

These  “arcosolia”  were  often  decorated  with 
paintings,  either  on  the  trout  of  the  sarcophagus 
or  on  the  wall  above  it.  Examples  may  be  found 
in  Perret's  work  on  the  ‘Catacombs,  'noI.  i. 
pi.  Ivii.-lxx.  One  of  the  most  remarkable  in- 


AREA 


ARLES 


141 


stances  is  the  tomb  of  St.  Hermes  in  the  cata¬ 
combs  near  Rome  called  by  liis  name. 

Tile  tombs  of  this  class  are  more  usually  found 
in  the  “  cubicula,”  or  small  chambers,  than  in 
the  galleries  of  the  catacombs :  in  the  former,  two, 
three,  or  more  are  often  found.  Martigny  seeks 
to  draw  a  distinction  between  those  found  in  the 
“  cubicula,”  which  he  thinks  may  often  or  gene¬ 
rally  be  those  of  wealtliy  individuals  made  at 
their  own  cost,  and  those  in  the  so-called  chapels 
or  larger  excavations,  which  he  thinks  were  con¬ 
structed  at  the  general  charge  of  the  Christian 
community.  In  one  such  chapel  in  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Agnes  near  Rome  there  are  eleven  such 
tombs.  Rostell  (^Beschreibung  von  Bom,  by  Bunsen 
and  others,  vol.  i.  p.  408)  gives  it  as  his  opinion 
that  such  chapels,  specially  connected  with  the 
veneration  of  martyrs,  do  not  usually  date  from 
an  eaidier  period  than  the  4th  or  5th  century. 
The  work  of  the  Cav.  de’  Rossi  on  the  catacombs 
(^Bo/na  Crist.  Solterranea)  will  no  doubt  when 
completed  throw  great  light  on  all  these  ques¬ 
tions,  which  cannot  be  satisfactorily  solved  except 
by  that  union  of  the  most  careful  and  minute  in¬ 
vestigation,  and  candid  and  impartial  criticism, 
which  that  learned  archaeologist  will  bring  to 
bear  upon  them. 

Examples  of  tombs  of  the  same  form  may  be 
found  in  structures  above  ground  at  a  much  later 
date :  two  such  are  in  the  walls  of  the  entrance 
to  the  baptistery  at  Albenga,  between  Nice  and 
Genoa,  a  building  probably  not  later  than  the 
7th  century.  One  tomb  is  quite  plain,  the  other 
decorated  with  plaited  ornaments  in  the  style 
prevalent  circa  800.  [A.  N.] 

AREA.  I.  A  space  within  w'hich  monuments 
'stood,  which  was  protected  by  the  Roman  law 
from  the  acts  of  ownership  to  which  other  lands 
were  liable.  Such  areae  are  frequent  by  the 
side  of  most  of  the  great  roads  leading  into  Rome, 
and  letters  on  the  monument  describe  how  many 
feet  of  frontage,  and  how  many  in  depth,  belong  to 
it.  The  formula  is,  IN'FR'P. .  .  .  IN’AG’P.  .  .  . 
i.e.,  “In  fvonte  pedes — “In  agro  pedes — .” 
The  size  of  these  areae  varied  much ;  some  were 
16  feet  square,  some  24  feet  by  15 ;  a  square  of 
about  125  feet  each  way  seems  to  have  been 
common;  the  example  in  Horace  (^Sat.  i.  8,  12) 
gives  us  1000  feet  by  300  ;  and  some  appear  to 
have  been  even  larger  than  this ;  one  of  Gruter’s 
Inscription's,  for  instance,  (i.  2,  p.  cccxcix.  1), 
runs,  “  Huic  raonumento  cedunt  agri  puri  jugera 
decern.”  So  large  a  space  was  required,  not  for  the 
mausoleum  which  was  to  be  erected,  but  in  some 
cases  for  the  reception  of  many  tombs,  in  others 
for  the  performance  of  sacra,  which  w'ere  often 
numerously  attended  (Northcote  and  Brownlow’s 
Boma  Sotterranea,  pp.  47  f.). 

On  a  monument  or  a  boundary  stone  of  the 
area  was  engraved  a  formula  indicating  that  this 
plot  was  not  to  pass  to  the  heirs  of  him  who  set 
it  apm-t  for  sepulture.  This  was  generally 
H‘M*H‘N‘S.  i.e.,  “Hoc  monumentum  haeredes  non 
sequitur  ”  (Orelli’s  Inscriptiones.  No.  4379).  The 
•uvresponding  Greek  foi’m  was,  “  roiis  K\r]poi'6- 
poii  uov  ovK  iTTaKo\ov9n<T€i  TovTo  rh  iJLvrjiufioy  ” 
(Bockh’s  Corpus  Inscriptionum,  No.  3270). 

In  the  Roman  catacombs  care  has  evidently 
been  taken  lest  the  subterranean  excavations 
should  transgress  the  limits  of  the  area  on  the 
surface  (Northcote,  u.s.  48). 


This  reverence  of  the  Roman  law  for  burial- 
places  enabled  the  early  Christians,  except  in 
times  of  persecution  or  popular  tumult,  to 
preserve  their  sepulchi-es  inviolate.  The  areas 
about  the  tombs  of  martyrs  were  especially  so 
preserved,  where  meetings  for  worship  -were  held, 
and  churches  frequently  built.  Tertullian  {Ad 
Scapml.  3)  tells  us  that  when  Hilarianus,  a  perse¬ 
cutor,  had  issued  an  edict  against  the  formation  of 
such  areae,  the  result  was  that  the  areae  (thresh¬ 
ing-floors)  of  the  heathen  lacked  corn  the  follow¬ 
ing  year.  So  the  Acta  Pi'oconsxilaria  of  the  trial 
of  Felix  (in  Baronius,  ann.  314  §  24)  speak  of  the 
areae,  “  where  you  Christians  make  prayy  t-i  ”  (ubi 
orationes  facitis).  These  areae  were  freqiiently 
named  from  some  well-known  person  buried 
there ;  thus  St.  Cyprian  is  said  to  have  been 
buried  “  in  area  Candidi  Procuratoris  ”  {Acta 
Alart.  8.  Cypriani  in  Ducange’s  Glossary  s.  v.).  In 
the  Gesta  Purgationis  Caeciliani  {Ibid.),  certain 
citizens  are  said  to  have  been  shut  up  “  in  area 
martyrum,”  where,  perhaps,  a  church  is  intended. 
Compare  Cemetery,  Martyrium. 

II.  The  court  in  front  of  a  church  [Atrium.] 
(Bingham’s  Antiquities,  viii.  3  §  5.)  [C.] 

ARELATENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Arles.] 

ARETHAS  and  companions,  martyrs,  com¬ 
memorated  Oct.  24  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

ARGEUS,  martyr,  commemorated  Jan.  2 
{Mart.  Bom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ARICION,  of  Nicomedia,  commemorated 
June  23  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ARIMINENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Rimini.] 

ARISTARCHUS,  disciple  of  Apostles,  com¬ 
memorated  Aug.  4  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.);  “Apostle,” 
April  15  [14,  Neale],  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

ARISTIDES,  of  Athens,  commemorated  Aug. 
31  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ARISTION,  one  of  the  Seventy  Disciples  of 
Christ,  commemorated  Oct.  17  {Mart.  Bom. 
Vet.).  [C.] 

ARISTOBULUS,  “Apostle,”  commemorated 
Oct.  31  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

ARISTON,  and  others,  martyrs,  comme¬ 
morated  July  2  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ARISTONICUS,  martyi*,  commemorated 
April  19  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

ARISTONIPPUS,  commemorated  Sept.  3 
{Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

ARISTUS,  commemorated  Sept.  3  {Mart. 
Bedae).  [C.] 

ARLES,  COUNCILS  OF  (Arelatensia 
Concilia).  —  I.  a.  d.  314,  summoned  by  the 
Emperor  Constantine  to  try  afresh  the  cause 
of  the  Donatists  against  Caecilian,  Bishop  of 
Carthage, —  a  cause  “  de  Sancti  Coelestisque 
Numinis  cultu  et  fide  Catholica  ;”  because 
the  former  complained  that  the  judgment  given 
at  Rome  in  313  by  the  Pope  and  certain  Gallic 
bishops  (whom  Constantine  had  appointed  to  try 
the  case  there),  was  an  unfair  one.  The  emperor 
accordingly  summoned  other  bishops,  from  S-'^ily, 
Italy  (not  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  lie  having  been 
one  of  the  former  judges),  the  Gauls  (which 
include  Britain),  and  Africa  itself,  to  the  number 
of  200  according  to  St.  Augustin,  to  come  to 
Arles  by  August  1  to  retry  the  case.  The  sum- 


142 


ARLES 


ARRHAE 


mons  to  Chrestus  of  Syracuse  (Mansi,  ii.  466, 
467,  from  Euseb.  x.)  desires  him  to  bring  two 
presbyters  and  three  servants  with  him  at  the 
public  expense.  And  the  letter  of  Constantine 
to  the  Vicarius  Africae  (ib.  463-465)  claims  it 
as  the  empei'or’s  duty  to  see  that  such  conten¬ 
tions  are  put  an  end  to.  The  sentence  of  the 
Council,  adverse  to  the  Donatists,  is  likewise 
to  be  enforced  by  the  civil  power  (liescri/.t. 
Constant,  post  Synodum,  ib.  477,  478).  But  Con¬ 
stantine  in  the  same  letter  expressly  disclaims  all 
appeal  to  himself  from  the  “judicium  sacerdotum” 
(ib.  478).  The  Synod  also  announces  its  judg¬ 
ment  and  its  canons  to  Pope  Sylvester,  in  order 
that  “  per  te  jjotissimum  omnibus  insinuari,”  re¬ 
gretting  also  the  absence  of  their  “  frater  dilectis- 
simus,”  who  probably  would  have  passed  a 
severer  sentence.  The  canons  begin  with  one 
enacting  that  the  observance  of  Easter  shall  be 
“  uno  die  et  tempore,”  the  Bishop  of  Rome  “  juxta 
consuetudinem  ”  to  make  the  day  known.  They 
include  also  among  other  regulations  a  prohibi¬ 
tion  of  the  rebaptizing  of  heretics  if  they  had 
been  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity ; 
an  exhortation  (“  consilium  ”)  to  those  whose 
wives  had  been  guilty  of  adultery,  not  to  marry 
another  “  viventibus  uxorihus;”  a  requirement 
to  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  of  eight  bishops, 
if  possible,  but  of  three  at  the  least ;  and  a  con¬ 
demnation  of  those  “  sacerdotes  et  Levitae,”  who 
do  not  abstain  from  their  wives.  The  Council 
was  purely  a  Western  one,  and  of  the  emperor’s 
selection,  although  St.  Augustine  (^De  Baj  t.  cont. 
Donat.,  ii.  9,  and  elsewhere)  calls  it  “  universal.” 
Among  the  signatures  to  it,  accoi'ding  to  the 
most  authentic  list,  are  the  well-known  ones  of, 
“  Eborius  Episcopus  de  civitate  Eboracensi  pro- 
Auncia  Britannia ;  Restitutus  Episcopus  de  civi¬ 
tate  Londinensi  provincia  suprascripta  ;  Adelfius 
Episcopus  de  ci,vitate  Colonia  Londinensium  ”  {i.  e. 
probably.  Col.  Legionensium  i.e.  Caerleon  on  Usk); 
“  exinde  Sacerdos  presbyter,  Arminius  diaconus  ” 
(Mansi,  ib.  476,  477).  There  were  present,  ac¬ 
cording  to  this  list,  33  bishops,  13  presbyters,  23 
deacons,  2  readers,  7  exorcists,  besides  2  presby¬ 
ters  and  2  deacons  to  represent  Pope  Sylvestei’. 

II.'  A.D.  353,  of  the  Gallic  bishops,  summoned 
by  the  Emperor  Constans  to  condemn  the  person 
of  St.  Athanasius  (but  without  discussing  doc- 
tr  ine)  under  penalty  of  exile  if  they  refused, 
Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Treves,  being  actually  exiled 
for  refusing  (Sulp.  Sever.,  ii. ;  Hilar.,  Libell.  ad 
Constant, ;  and  ilansi,  iii.  231,  232). 

HI.  A.D.  452,  called  the  second,  which  com¬ 
piled  and  reissued  56  canons  of  other  recent  Gallic 
Councils  respecting  discipline  (Mansi,  vii.  875), 
Possibly  there  had  been  another  in  451  (Id.  ib. 
873). 

IV.  A.D.  455,  commonly  called  the  third,  pro¬ 
vincial,  determined  the  dispute  between  Bishop 
Theodorus  and  Faustus  abbat  of  Lerins,  by  de¬ 
creeing  that  the  right  of  ordination,  and  of 
giving  the  chrism,  &c.,  pertain  to  the  bishop, 
but  the  jurisdiction  over  laymen  in  the  monas¬ 
tery  to  the  abbat  (Mansi,  vii.  907). 

V.  A.D.  463,  provincial,  convened  by  Leontiiis, 
Archbishop  of  .Aides,  to  oppose  Mamertinus, 
Archbishop  of  Vienne,  who  had  encroached  upon 
the  province  of  Arles  (Mansi,  vii.  951,  from  St. 
Hilary’s  Epist.). 

VI.  A.D.  475,  provincial,  under  the  same  Leon¬ 
tius,  to  condemn  the  error  of  “  predestinaticn.” 


The  books  of  Faustus,  De  Gratia  Dei,  &c.,  were 
written  to  express  the  sense  of  the  Council,  and 
the  Augustinians  condemned  it  as  semi-Pelagian 
(Mansi,  vii.  1007). 

VII.  A.D.  524,  commonly  called  the  fourth, 
provincial,  among  other  canons  on  discipline,  ap¬ 
pointed  25  as  the  age  for  deacons’  orders,  and  30 
for  priests’  (Mansi,  viii.  625). 

VIII.  A.D.  554,  commonly  called  the  fifth,  pro¬ 
vincial,  chiefly  to  reduce  monasteries  to  obedience 
to  their  bishop  (Mansi,  ix.  702). 

IX.  A.D.  813,  under  Charlemagne,  enacted  26 

canons  respecting  discipline,  and  among  others, 
that  the  Bishop  “  circumeat  parochiam  suam 
semel  in  anno”(c.  17), and  that  “Comites, judices, 
seu  reliquus  populus,  obedientes  sint  Episcopo,  et 
invicem  consentiant  ad  justitias  faciendas  ”  (c. 
13 ;  Mansi,  xiv.  55).  [A.  W.  H.] 

ARMARIUS,  in  monastic  establishments,  the 
precentor  and  keeper  of  the  church  books.  Ar- 
marius  is  continually  used  by  Bernard  (in  Ordine 
Cluniacensi,  &c.)  for  Cantor  and  Magister  Cere- 
moniarum.®  [J.  H.] 

ARMENIA,  COUNCIL  OF.— A  council 
was  held  in  Armenia,  .simultaneously  Avith  an¬ 
other  at  Antioch,  A.D.  435,  condemning  the 
works  of  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Diodorus 
of  Tarsus,  lately  translated  into  the  language 
of  Armenia  and  circulated  there  (Mansi,  v. 
1179).  [E.  S.  F.] 

ARMOGASTES,  confessor,  commemorated 
March  29  {Mart.  Eom.  F<?L).  [C.] 

ARMORICA,  COUNCIL  IN,  a.d.  555,  to 
excommunicate  Maclou,  Bishop  of  Vannes,  Avho 
had  renounced  tonsure  and  celibacy  on  the  death 
of  his  brother  Chanao,  Count  of  Brittany  (Greg^. 
Tur.,  Hist.  iA'.  4 ;  Mansi,  ix.  742).  [A.  \V.  H.] 

ARNULPHUS,  confessor,  Aug.  16  {Mart. 
Bedae);  July  18  {M.  Hieron.').  [C.] 

ARONTIUS,  commemorated  Aug.  27  {Mart. 
Hieron^).  [C.] 

ARRIANUS,  martyr,  commemorated  Dec.  14 
{Cal.  Byzant.). '  [C.] 

ARRHAE,  OR  ARRAE  SPONSALITIAE, 
also  Arrhabo,  Arrabo,  earnest  money  on  be¬ 
trothal.  The  practice  of  giving  earnest  money 
on  betrothal,  of  Avhich  traces  are  to  be  found  in 
all  parts  of  the  world,  has  its  root  eAudently  in 
the  A'ieAv,  common  yet  to  many  saA'age  races,  of 
marriage  as  the  mere  sale  of  a  Avife,  to  Avhich 
betrothal  stands  in  the  relation  of  contract  to 
deliA'ery. 

Among  the  Jew^s,  as  will  be  seen  from  Selden’s 
treatise,  De  Uxore  llebraicd  (Book  ii.  cc.  1,  2, 
3,  4),  betrothal  Avas  strictly  a  contract  of  pur¬ 
chase  for  money  or  money’s  Avorth  (although 
two  other  forms  Avere  also  admitted);  the  coin 
used  being,  howcA'er,  the  smallest  that  could  be 
had.  The  earnest  Avas  given  either  to  the  Avife 
herself,  or  to  her  parents.  It  could  not  be  of 
forbidden  things  or  things  consecrated  to  priestly 
use,  or  things  unlaAvfully  OAvned,  unless  such  as 
mi^ht  haA’c  been  taken  from  the  Avoman  herself ; 
but  a  laAvfully  given  earnest  AA'as  sufficient  to 
constitute  beti'othal  Avithout  Avoids  spoken.  In 


»  J'raecentor  et  Armarius :  Armarii  nomen  obtimiit,  eo 
quod  in  ejns  manu  solet  esse  Bibliotheca,  quae  et  in  alio 
nomine  Armarium  appellaiur.— /lacange. 


AKRHAE 


ARRHAE 


143 


strict  consistency  with  tlie  view  of  marriage  as  a 
purchase  by  the  man,  it  was  held  that  the  giving 
of  earnest  by  the  Avoman  was  void.  And  when, 
at  a  later  period,  the  use  of  the  ring  as  a  symbol 
of  the  earnest  crept  into  Jewish  betrothals  from 
Gentile  practice,  so  carefully  was  the  old  view 
preserved  that  a  previous  formal  inquiry  had  to 
be  made  of  two  witnesses,  whether  the  ring 
offered  was  of  equal  A’^alue  with  a  coin. 

The  first  legal  reference  among  the  Romans 
to  the  ari'ha  on  betrothal,  and  the  only  one  in 
the  Digest,  belongs  to  the  3rd  century, — i.e.  to  a 
period  when  the  Roman  world  was  already  to  a 
great  extent  permeated  by  foreign  influences, — 
at  this  time  chiefly  Oriental.  It  occurs  in  a 
pt.S!>age  from  Paul  us,  who  flourished  under 
Alexander  Severus,  223-235  (^Dig.  23.  tit.  2. 
s.  38).  The  jurist  lays  it  down  that  a  public 
functionaiy  in  a  proAMnce  cannot  marry  a  woman 
from  that  province,  but  may  become  betrothed 
to  her ;  and  that  if,  after  he  has  given  up  his 
oflice,  the  woman  refuses  to  marry  him,  she  is 
only  bound  to  repay  any  earnest-money  she  has 
received, — a  text  which,  it  will  be  observed, 
applies  in  strictness  only  to  provincial  function¬ 
aries,  and  may  thus  merely  indicate  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  the  practice  among  subject  nations. 
Certain  it  is  that  the  chapter  of  the  Digest  on 
betrothals  (^De  Sponscdibus,  23.  tit.  1)  says  not  a 
word  of  the  arrha  ;  Ulpian  in  it  expressly  states 
that  “  bare  consent  suffices  to  constitute  be¬ 
trothal,”  a  legal  position  on  which  the  stage 
betrothals  in  Plautus  supply  an  admirable  com¬ 
ment. 

About  eighty  years  later,  however — at  a  time 
when  the  northern  barbarians  had  ah’eady  given 
emperors  to  Rome — the  arrha  appears  in  full 
development.  Julius  Capitolinus — Avho  wrote 
under  Constantine  —  in  his  life  of  Maximinus 
the  younger  (killed  313),  says  that  he  had 
been  betrothed  to  Junia  Fadella,  Avho  Avas 
afterAvardS  married  to  Toxotius,  “  but  there 
remained  with  her  royal  arrhae,  Avhich  AV'ere 
these,  as  Junius  Cordus  relates  from  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  those  who  are  said  to  have  examined 
into  these  things,  a  necklace  of  nine  pearls,  a  net 
of  eleven  emeralds,  a  bracelet  with  a  clasp  of 
four  jacinths,  besides  golden  and  all  regal  A'est- 
ments,  and  other  insignia  of  betrothal.”®  Am¬ 
brose  indeed  (346-397)  speaks  only  of  the 
symbolical  ring  in  relating  the  story  of  St.  Agnes, 
Avhom  he  represents  as  replying  to  the  GoA'ernor 
of  Rome,  who  Avished  to  marry  her  to  his  son, 
that  she  stands  engaged  to  another  loA'er,  Avho 
has  offered  her  far  better  adornments,  and  giA'en 
her  for  earnest  the  ring  of  his  affiance  (et 
annulo  fldei  suae  subarrhaAut  me,  Ep.  34).  To 
a  contemporary  of  Ambrose,  Pope  Julius  I.  (336- 
352)  is  ascribed  a  decree  that  if  any  shall  haA'e 
espoused  a  Avife  or  given  her  earnest  (si  quis 
desponsaA'erit  uxorem  A^el  subarrhaverit)  his 
brother  or  other  near  kinsman  may  not  marry 
her  (Labbc  and  Mansi,  Concil.  ii.  1266).  About 
a  century  later,  the  Avord  arrha  is  used  figura- 
tiA'ely  in  reference  to  the  Annunciation,  considered 
as  a  betrothal,  by  Peter  Chrysologus,  Archbishop 
ot  Ravenna  in  433,  as  quoted  by  Du  Cange,  in 
terbo. 

In  the  days  of  Justinian,  we  see  from  the  Code 


•  A  few  words  of  the  above  passage  have  greatly  exer¬ 
cised  commentators. 


that  the  earnest-money  Avas  a  regular  element  in 
Byzantine  betrothal.  It  was  given  to  the  in¬ 
tended  bride  or  those  Avho  acted  for  her,  and 
Avas  to  be  repaid  in  the  event  of  the  death  of 
either  party  (Cod.  5.  tit.  1.  s.  3,  Law  of  Gra- 
tian,  Valentinian,  and  Theodosius,  a.d.  380), 
or  of  breach  of  promise  by  the  woman ;  in 
the  latter  case,  indeed,  the  woman  sui  juris,  or 
the  father,  mother,  grandfather  or  great-grand¬ 
father  of  one  under  age  haAung  to  pay  an  equal 
additional  sum  by  way  of  penalty  ;  though  a 
Avoman  under  age  Avas  only  bound  to  simple  re¬ 
payment,  as  Avas  also  the  case  in  the  event  of 
any  unlaAvful  marriage,  or  of  the  occurrence 
of  some  cause  unknoAvn  at  the  time  of  betrothal 
Avhich  might  dispense  the  woman  from  fulfilling 
her  promise.  The  fourfold  penalty  of  the  earlier 
laAV  AA'as  still,  by  the  one  noAv  quoted,  made 
exigible  by  special  contract  (I rid.  5,  LaAV  of  Leo 
and  Anthemius,  A.D.  469).  Simple  restitution 
was  sufficient  in  case,  after  betrothal,  either  party 
chose  to  embrace  a  religious  life  (1.  tit.  3.  s. 
56 ;  Noa'.  123,  c.  xxxix.) ;  or  in  case  of  diversity 
of  religious  faith  between  the  betrothed,  if  dis- 
coA'ered  or  occurring  after  betrothal,  but  not 
otherAAUse  (Code,  1.  tit.  4.  s.  16,  law  of  Leo  and 
Anthemius,  A.D.  469). 

It  is  difficult  not  to  seek  for  the  reason  of  this 
deA'elopment  of  the  arrha  within  the  Roman  or 
Byzantine  Avorld  of  the  6th  century  in  some 
foreign  influence.  Accordingly,  if  Ave  turn  to 
the  barbarian  races  Avhich  OA'erran  the  empire 
from  the  end  of  the  4th  century,  Ave  find  almost 
eA'eryAvhere  the  prevalence  of  that  idea  of  Avife- 
buying,  Avhich  is  the  foundation  of  the  betrothal 
earnest ;  see  for  instance  in  Canciani,  Leges  Bar- 
barorum  Antiquae,  a'oI.  ii.  85,  the  (reputed)  older 
text  of  the  Salic  law,  tit.  47,  as  to  the  purchase  of 
a  Avidow  for  three  solidi  and  a  denarius,  A'ol.  iii. 
17,  18,  22  ;  the  Burgundian  Law,  titles  xii.  1 
and  3,  xiv.  3,  and  xxxiv.  2 ;  a'oJ.  v.  49,  50 ; 
the  Saxon  Law,  titles  au.  1,  2,  3,  xii.  xviii.  1,  2, 
&c.,  or  (in  the  A’olume  of  the  Becord  Commission^ 
our  OAvn  Laws  of  Ethelbert,  77,  83 ;  Ine,  31. 
And  in  the  regions  overspread  by  the  Frankish 
tribes  in  particular,  the  arrha,  as  a  money 
payment,  is  visible  as  a  legal  element  in  be¬ 
trothal.  Gregory  of  Tours  (544—595)  repeatedly 
refers  to  it  (i.  42 ;  iv.  47  ;  x.  16). 

In  the  earlier  Avriters  there  is  nothing  to 
connect  the  betrothal  earnest  with  a  religious 
ceremony.  Nor  need  Ave  be  surprised  at  this, 
when  AA'e  recollect  that,  in  the  early  ages  of 
Christianity,  marriage  itself  Avas  held  by  the 
Roman  world  as  a  purely  cIauI  contract ;  so  that 
Tertullian,  enumerating  those  ceremonies  of 
heathen  society  Avhich  a  Christian  might  inno¬ 
cently  attend,  Avrites  that  “  neither  the  virile 
robe,  nor  the  ring,  nor  the  marriage-bond  (neque 
annulus,  aut  conjunctio  maritalis)  floAvs  from 
any  honour  done  to  an  idol  ”  (De  idoloL,  c.  16). 
And  indeed  the  opinion  has  been  strongly  held, 
as  August!  points  out,  Avhilst  disclaiming  it,  that 
church  betrothals  did  not  obtain  before  the  9th 
century.  The  earliest  mention  of  a  priestly 
benediction  upon  the  sjxmsi  appears  to  occur  in 
the  10th  canon  of  the  Synod  of  Reggio,  a.d.  850 
(see  Labbe  and  Mansi,  Comil.  xiv.  p.  934) ;  and 
it  is  not  impo.ssible  that  that  confusion  betw'een 
the  sponsus  and  maritus,  the  sponsa  and  urc/r, 
was  then  already  creeping  into  middle  age  Latin, 
which  has  absolutely  pre\'ailed  in  French,  where 


144 


ARRHAE 


AE3ENIUS 


^pov^x,  ^pouie,,  are  synonymous  with  vuiri  and 
feinmc  in  the  sense  of  uxor.  In  a  contemporary 
document,  the  reply  of  Pope  Nicolas  I.  (858- 
8(3?)  to  the  consultation  of  the  Bulgarians,  the 
question  whether  betrothal  was  a  civil  or  reli¬ 
gious  ceremony  remains  undecided  ;  but  as  he 
professes  to  exliibit  to  them  “  a  custom  which 
the  holy  Roman  Church  has  received  of  old,  and 
still  holds  in  such  unions,”  his  testimony,  though 
half  a  century  later  than  the  death  of  Charle¬ 
magne,  deserves  to  be  here  recorded,  bearing  wit¬ 
ness  as  it  does  expressly  to  the  betrothal  earnest. 

“  After  betrothal,”  he  says,  “  which  is  the 
promised  bond  of  future  marriage,  and  which 
is  celebrated  by  the  consent  of  those  w'ho  enter 
into  this,  and  of  those  in  whose  authority  they 
are,  and  after  the  betrother  hath  betrothed  to 
himself  the  betrothed  with  earnest  by  marking 
her  finger  with  the  ring  of  affiance,  and  the  be¬ 
trother  hath  handed  over  to  her  a  dow'er  satisfac¬ 
tory  to  both,  with  a  writing  containing  such  con¬ 
tract,  before  persons  invited  by  both  parties, 
either  at  once  or  at  a  fitting  time  (to  wit,  in 
order  that  nothing  of  the  kind  be  done  before  the 
time  prescribed  by  law)  both  proceed  to  enter 
into  the  mandage  bond.  And  first,  indeed,  they 
are  placed  in  the  Church  of  the  Lord  with  the 
oblations  which  they  ought  to  offer  to  God  by  the 
hand  of  the  priest,  and  thus  finally  they  receive 
the  benediction  and  the  heavenly  garment.” 

Tt  will  be  seen  from  the  above  passage  that 
whilst  Pope  Nicolas  recognises  distinctly  the 
practice  of  betrothal  by  arrha,  symbolized 
through  the  ring,  yet  the  only  benediction 
w'hich  he  expressly  mentions  is  the  nuptial,  not 
the  spousal  one. 

It  has  been  doubted  in  like  manner  whether 
church  betrothals  were  practised  at  this  period 
in  the  Greek  Church,  and  whether  the  form  of 
betrothal  in  the  Greek  Euchologium  is  not  of 
iate  insertion.  That  at  the  date  of  the  last  quoted 
authority,  or  say  in  the  middle  of  the  9th  cen¬ 
tury,  the  Greek  ceremonies  appertaining  to  mar¬ 
riage  differed  already  from  the  Roman  aj^pears 
from  the  text  of  Pope  Nicolas  himself ;  his  very 
object  being  to  set  forth  the  custom  of  the  Roman 
Church  in  contrast  to  that  of  the  Greek  (consue- 
tudinem  quam  Graecos  in  nuptialibus  contuberniis 
habere  dicitis).  Now  the  striking  fact  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  form  of  the  Euchologium  is  that  in  it 
the  earnest  or  appa$u)v  is  not  a  mere  element  in 
betrothal,  but,  as  with  the  Jews,  actually  consti¬ 
tutes  it — a  practice  so  characteristic  that  it  can 
hardly  be  supposed  to  flow  otherwise  than  fi'om 
ancient  usage.  Here,  in  fact,  the  words  appa^wu, 
appa^wriC^crOai^  can  only  be  translated  “  be¬ 
trothal,”  “  betrothing.”  The  formula,  repeated 
alternately  by  the  man  and  the  woman,  runs  : 
“  So  and  so,  the  servant  of  God,  betroths  to  him¬ 
self  (^ap^a^wviC'eTai')  this  handmaid  of  God  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  now  and  ever,  and  world  without 
end.  Amen.”  The  prayer  is  in  like  manner  : 
“  Look  upon  this  Thy  servant  and  this  thine 
handmaid,  and  confirm  their  betrothal  (aT’pp'i^ov 
rhv  apfia^wra  ai/Tcoy')  in  faith  and  concord,  and 
truth,  and  love.  For  thou.  Lord,  didst  show  us 
to  give  the  earnest  and  therebv  to  confirm  all 
things.”  And  the  heading — which  may  indeed 
well  be  more  modern — is  “  service  for  betrothal, 
othenvise  of  the  earnest.” 

The  most  therefore  that  can  be  concluded  on 


this  still  doubtful  subject  seems  to  be  this— 
1st.  That  the  earnest-money  on  betrothal,  sym¬ 
bolizing  as  it  clearly  does  thf  barbarous  custom 
of  wife-buying,  must  essentially  have  been  every¬ 
where  in  the  first  instance  a  civil,  not  a  religious 
act.  2.  That  the  practice  was  unknown  to  an¬ 
cient  Greek  and  Roman  civilization,  and  was 
especially  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  older 
Roman  law.  3.  That  it  was  nevertheless  firmly 
rooted  in  Jewish  custom,  and  may  not  impro¬ 
bably  have  passed  from  thence  into  the  ritual 
of  the  Eastern  Church,  where,  as  with  the  Jews, 
the  giving  of  earnest  constitutes  the  betrothal. 
4.  That  it  was  very  generally  prevalent  among 
the  barbarian  tribes  which  overran  the  Roman 
empire,  and  seems  from  them  to  have  passed  into 
its  customs  and  its  laws,  making  its  appearance 
in  the  course  of  the  3rd  century,  and  becoming 
prominent  by  the  6th  century  in  Justinian’s 
Code,  at  the  same  time  when  we  also  find  its 
prevalence  most  distinctly  marked  in  Gaul,  and 
as  a  Frankish  usage.  5.  That  no  distinct  trace 
of  it  in  the  ceremonies  of  the  Church  can  how¬ 
ever  be  pointed  out  till  the  later  middle  age, 
although  it  may  very  likely  have  prevailed  in 
the  Eastern  Church  from  a  much  earlier  period. 

It  follows,  however,  from  what  has  been  said 
above  that  whatever  may  have  lingered  in  latei 
times  of  the  betrothal  arrha  must  be  ascribed 
to  very  ancient  usage  ;  as  in  the  formula  quoted 
by  Selden  from  the  Parochial  of  Ernest,  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Cologne  and  Bishop  of  Liege,  which 
includes  the  use,  not  only  of  the  ring,  but  also, 
if  possible,  of  red  purses  with  three  pieces  ot 
silver,  “  loco  arrhae  sponso  dandae.”  Our  own 
Sarum  ordinal  says  in  reference  to  betrothal : 
“  men  call  arrae  the  rings  or  money  or  other 
things  to  be  given  to  the  betrothed  by  the  be¬ 
trother,  which  gift  is  called  suharratio,  particu¬ 
larly  however  when  it  is  made  by  gift  of  a  ring.” 
And  the  two  forms  of  Sarum  and  York  respec¬ 
tively  run  as  follows  :  (Sarum)  “  With  this  ring 
I  thee  wed,  and  this  gold  and  silver  I  thee  give ;” 
(York)  “  With  this  ring  1  wed  thee,  and  with 
this  gold  and  silver  I  honour  thee,  and  with 
this  gift  I  honour  thee.”  The  latter  formula 
indeed  recalls  a  direction  given  in  one  of  the  two 
oldest  rituals  relating  to  marriage  given  by  Mar- 
tene,  De  Antiquis  Ecclesiae  Jiitibus,  vol.  ii.  p.  127 
(extracted  from  a  Rennes  missal,  to  which  he 
ascribes  about  700  years  of  antiquity,  or  say,  of 
the  11th  century),  entitled,  “  Oi-do  ad  sponsum 
et  sponsam  benedicendam,”  which  says  that 
“  after  the  blessing  of  the  ring  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Trinity  ....  the  betrother  shall  hon¬ 
our  her  (the  betrothed)  with  gold  or  silver  ac¬ 
cording  to  his  means  ”  (honorare  auro  vel  argento 
prout  poterit  sponsus). 

As  respects  the  use  of  the  ring  in  betrothal, 
see  further  under  Ring,  and  also  Betrothal. 

(August!,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  vol.  ix.  295,  and 
foil,  may  be  consulted,  but  is  far  from  satis¬ 
factory.  Bingham,  Antiquities,  book  xxii.  ch. 
iii.,  confounds  together  everything  that  can  be 
confounded.  Selden,  Uxor  Hehraica,  book  ii., 
remains  by  far  the  best  single  source  of  re¬ 
ference.)  [J.  M.  L.] 

ARSENIUS.  (1)  b  ix4yas,  May  8  {Cal.  By- 
zant.'). 

(2)  Confessor,  July  19  {Mart.  Btdae). 

(3)  Martyr,  commemorated  Dec.  14  {Mart, 
Bom.  Vei.'^ 


ARTEMIUS 


ASCENSION  DAY 


145 


ARTEMIUS.  (1)  Husband  of  Candida,  [ 
martyr,  at  Rome,  commemorated  June  6  {^Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.'). 

(2)  Vli’yaXoixapTvp  of  Antioch,  Oct,  20  (^Cal. 
Byzant.). 

ARTEMON,  commemorated  Oct.  24  (Cal. 
Armen.).  [0.] 

ARVERNENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Galli- 
CAN  CouNCir,s.] 

ASCENSION  DAY :  (Ascensio  and  Ascensa 
Domini ;  dies  festus  Ascensionts :  kopr^  rrjs 
avaKri^l/ecos  ;  t]  ardXrj^is  and  Tyxkpa  ava\r]\pifios). 
This  festival,  assigned,  in  virtue  of  Acts  i.  3,  to  the 
fortieth  day  after  Easter-day,  is  not  one  of  those 
which  from  the  earliest  times  were  generally  ob¬ 
served.  No  mention  of  it  occurs  before  the  4th 
century,  unless  an  earlier  date  can  be  made  good 
for  the  “  Apostolic  Constitutions,”  or  for  the  pas¬ 
sages  in  which  mention  is  made  of  this  festival — 
Lib.  V.  19  :  “  From  the  first  day  (Easter-day)  num¬ 
ber  ye  forty  days  to  the  fifth  day  (Thursday),  and 
celebrate  the  Feast  of  the  di/d\rnj/is  tov  Kvp'iov 
Kad'  %v  TrXd^puaas  Trd<Tav  olKovo/xiav  nai  Sidra^iv 
dvriKQe,  K.  r.  A.” :  viii.  33,  “On  what  days  serv¬ 
ants  are  to  rest  from  work  :  tV  dud\rj\pir  dpye'i- 
TuxTav  Sid  rh  Trepas  ttjs  Kara  Xpicrhu  oikouo- 
n'tas."  Origen  (c.  Cels.  viii.  362),  names  as  holy- 
days  generally  observed,  besides  the  Lord’s  Day, 
only  Parasceue  (Good  Friday),  Pascha  (Easter- 
day),  and  Pentecost.  No  others  than  these  are 
mentioned  by  Tertullian.  Of  sermons  preached 
on  this  festival,  the  oldest  seems  to  be  one  extant 
only  in  a  Latin  version,  ap.  Sirmondi  0pp.  Varia, 
t.  i.  p.  39,  which  he  and  Valesius,  on  insufficient 
grounds,  assign  to  Eusebius  the  Church  historian; 
Cave,  and  later  writers,  to  Eusebius  of  Emesa. 
Its  title  is  de  Resurrcctione  et  Ascensione  Domini, 
and  the  preacher  dwells  chiefly  on  the  Resurrec¬ 
tion  ;  but  the  opening  words  show  that  it  was 
preached  on  Ascension  Day  :  “  Laetantur  quidem 
coeli  de  festivitate  praesenti,  in  qua  Dominum 
suscepere  victorem.”  Next,  perhaps,  in  point  of 
antiquity,  is  one  by  Epiphanius  (t.  ii.  285,  ed. 
Petav.).  In  the  opening,  he  complains  that  the 
greatness  of  this  festival  is  not  duly  appreciated, 
though  it  is,  to  the  others,  what  the  head  is  to  the 
bod)’’,  the  crown  and  completion.  First,  he  says, 
is  the  Feast  of  Incarnation  ;  second,  the  Theopha- 
nia  ;  third,  the  Passion  and  Resurrection.  “  But 
even  this  festival  brought  not  the  fulness  of  joy, 
because  it  still  left  the  risen  Lord  fettered  to  this 
earth.  The  Pentecost,  also,  on  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  communicated,  contains  a  great,  un¬ 
speakable  joy.  But  to-day,  the  day  of  the 
Ascension,  all  is  filled  with  joy  supreme.  Christ, 
opening  highest  heavens,  &c.”  It  is,  of  course, 
only  with  a  rhetorical  purpose  that  Pentecost  is 
here  named  before  Ascension.  There  were  in¬ 
deed  heretics,  Valentinians  and  Ophites  (Iren, 
i.  1,  5,  and  34  ad  fin.),  and  other  Gnostics  (repi’e- 
sented  by  the  Ascensio  Esaiae,  Aethiop.),  who 
assigned  a  period  of  eighteen  months  to  our 
Lord’s  sojourn  on  earth  after  the  Resurrection ; 
and  besides,  there  are  traces  of  a  belief  among 
the  orthodox  that  the  bodily  presence  of  the 
risen  Lord  with  his  disciples,  from  time  to  time, 
was  continued  during  three  years  and  six 
months  (Eus.  Dem.  Ev.  viii.  400  B. ;  Browne’s 
Ordo  Saeclorum,  p.  82  f.);  but  certainly  the  day  on 
which  the  Ascension  was  celebrated  was,  in  all 
the  chui’ches,  the  fortieth  after  Easter-day,  Of 
CHRIST.  ANT. 


about  the  same  time,  is  a  sermon  by  St.  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  remarkable  for  its  title :  Els  rrjv 
XcyofjieyrfP  rw  iirixtapicp  tuv  KaTTiraSdKOJV  edei, 
'ETTiau^opLkvrfv,  ^tis  kariv  r]  drdXijipis  too  K. 

’I.  X.  Bingham,  Augusti,  Rheinwald,  Alt, 
and  others,  explain  this  as  kopr^  rrjs  iiricrcuCo- 
/jifPTjs  (pvcreus  dpOpwn-'iPTjs  (or  iirl  (pvaei 

duOpwTr'iPT}),  with  reference  to  the  crowning  work 
of  redemption  in  the  glorification  of  the  Manhood 
The  name,  marked  by  Gregory  as  local  to  Cap¬ 
padocia,  is  not  retained  in  the  Greek  calendar, 
but  it  occurs  in  the  title  of  St.  Chrysostom’s 
19th  sermon  on  the  Statues  (ad  pop.  Antioch.,  t. 
ii.  188  Ben.),  rp  KvpiaKjj  rrjs  ’ETritrw^o/xeVrjs,  al. 
Soj^ojuci/Tjs.  Leo  Allatius  (de  Domrn.  et  Hebdom. 
Graecorum,  §  28),  who  evidently  knows  the 
designation  only  from  these  two  places,  says  that 
the  Sunday  is  the  fifth  after  Easter,  the  Sunday 
of  Ascension  week.  Tillemont  (see  the  Bene¬ 
dictine  Praefat.  t.  ii.  p.  xi.  sqq.)  infers  from  the 
place  of  this  sermon  in  the  series  between  S.  18, 
preached  after  mid-Lent,  and  S.  20,  preached 
at  the  end  of  the  Quadragesima,  that  it  was 
delivered  on  Passion  Sunday,  5  Lent.  But 
Chrysostom’s  own  recital  in  the  first  sermon  de 
Ayina  (t.  iv.  701  A.)  clearly  shows  that  the  19th 
sermon  is  later  by  “  many  days  ”  than  the 
21st,  preached  on  Easter-day :  see  the  Bene¬ 
dictine  Moniturn,  prefixed  to  the  sermons  on 
Anna,  and  also  (for  Montfaucon’s  final  conclusion) 
Vit.  Chrysost.  t.  xiii.  128  sqq.  ed.  Par.  Ben.  2. 
Hence  it  appears  that  the  Sunday  ’Enicrw^o- 
fikprjs  cannot  be,  as  Savile  (t.  viii.  809)  supposes, 
the  octave  of  Easter,  dominica  in  albis,  and  it 
seems  most  probable  that  Leo  Allatius  is  right  in 
making  it  the  Sunday  of  Ascension  week.  In 
this  case,  the  term  ’ETrto’co^’oyueVTj  belongs  to  the 
Feast  of  Ascension.  Baumgarten  (Erldut.  des 
Christl.  Alterthums,  p.  299  ap.  Augusti)  takes 
it  to  mean  any  day  specially  retained  for  solemn 
celebration  over  and  above  the  great  festivals ; 
in  this  sense,  or  rather,  perhaps,  in  that  of  “a 
holiday  gained  or  secured  in  addition,”  it  will  be 
suitable  to  the  Feast  of  Ascension  as  one  of  recent 
introduction,  regarded  as  a  welcome  boon  espe¬ 
cially  to  servants  and  labourers.  On  the  Feast 
itself,  Chrysostom  has  one  sermon  (t.  ii.  447),  of 
uncertain  date.  The  celebration  was  held  e|w 
TrJXeajs  :  this,  "which  was  the  established  rule  for 
Good  Friday  (Serm.  de  Coemet.  et  de  Cruce,  t.  ii. 
397),  was  here  done  on  a  special  occasion,  in 
honour  of  the  martyrs  whose  remains  the  bishop 
Flavian  had  rescued  from  impure  contact,  and 
translated  to  the  martyrium  called  Romanesia 
outside  the  walls.  It  does  not  follow  that  an 
extramural  celebration  or  procession  was  the 
established  practice  at  Antioch  on  Ascension-day, 
as  some  writers  have  inferred  from  this  passage. 
In  the  sermon  de  b.  Philogonio,  preached 
20th  Dec.  386,  St.  Chrysostom  (t.  i.,  497  C.), 
extolling  the  dignity  of  the  approaching  Feast  of 
Nativity  (then  of  recent  introduction),  says : 
“From  this  the  Theophania  and  the  sacred 
Pascha,  and  the  Ascension,  and  the  Pentecost 
have  their  origin.  For  had  not  Christ  been  born 
after  the  flesh.  He  had  not  been  baptised,  which 
is  the  Theophania;  not  crucified,  which  is  the 
Pascha;  had  not  sent  the  Spirit,  which  is  the 
Pentecost.”  Here  the  words  Ka\  t]  dpd\7j\{/is  are 
clearly  an  interpolation.  The  three  ancient 
festivals,  he  would  say,  are  Theophania,  Pas¬ 
cha,  Pentecost:  they  I'equire  Nativity  as  their 


146 


ASCENSION  DAY 


ASCENSION  DAY 


ground.  So  in  Serm.  1  de  Pentecoste  (t.  i.  458) 
— also  of  unknown  date — he  enumerates  as  the 
three  leading  festivals,  Epiphany,  Pascha,  Pen¬ 
tecost,  with  no  mention  of  Nativity  or  of 
Ascension,  although  p.  461  he  refers  to  the  As¬ 
cension  as  an  event :  “  for,  ten  days  since,  our 
nature  ascended  to  the  royal  throne,”  &c.  But 
in  another,  the  second  de  Pentecoste  (ib.  469),  he 
says :  “Not  long  since  we  celebrated  the  Cross 
and  Passion,  the  Resurrection,  after  this,  the 
Ascension  into  heaven  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.” 

On  the  whole,  it  would  seem  that,  so  far  as 
our  sources  of  information  go,  the  institution  of 
this  festival,  in  the  East,  dates  at  earliest  from 
the  middle  of  the  4th  century. 

Nor  do  we  find  it  earlier  in  the  Western 
Church  :  there  is  no  mention  of  it  in  Tertullian, 
SS.  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Hilary,  or  in  the  canons 
of  the  early  councils.  In  St.  Augustine’s  time, 
indeed,  the  usage  was  so  well-established  that  he 
speaks  of  it  as  universal,  therefore  of  Apostolic 
institution.  In  the  Epistle  to  Januarius,  liv.  \/d. 
cxviii.]  (t.  ii.  123,  sqq.  Ben.),  he  ranks  it  with 
Pascha  and  Pentecost.  “Ilia  autem  quae  non 
scrii^ta  sed  tradita  custodimus,  quae  quidem  toto 
terrarum  orbe  seiu'^antur,  datur  intelligi  A'el  ab 
ipsis  Apostolis  vel  plenariis  conciliis.  .  .  com- 
mendata  atque  statuta  retineri,  sicuti  quod 
Domini  passio  et  resurrectio  et  ascensio  in  caelum, 
et  adventus  de  caelo  Sp.  sancti,  anniversaria 
solemnitate  celebrantur,”  &c.  (He  does  not 
name  the  Nativity,  this  was  well  understood  to 
be  of  recent  institution.)  Beverege,  Cod.  Can. 
Vindic.  c.  ix.  puts  the  argument  thus  : — “  What¬ 
ever  is  universal  in  the  Church  must  be  either 
Apostolic  or  ordained  by  general  councils ;  but 
no  general  council  did  ordain  these  festivals, 
therefore  they  come  to  us  from  the  Apostles 
themselves.”  On  the  authority  of  this  passage 
of  St.  Augustine,  liturgical  writers,  Martene  and 
others,  have  not  hesitated  to  conclude  that  the 
Feast  of  Ascension  is  as  old  as  Pascha  and  Pente¬ 
cost.  In  the  silence  of  the  first  three  centuries, 
we  can,  at  most,  accept  the  passage  as  testimony 
to  matter  of  fact,  that  at  the  end  of  the  4th 
century  Ascension-day  was  generally  kept ;  as  in 
the  second  of  his  five  Ascension-sermons  (261- 
265,  t.  v.  1065  sqq.  Ben.),  St.  Augustine  says,  §  3, 
“  Ecce  celebratur  hodiernus  dies  toto  orbe  ter¬ 
rarum.”  From  this  time,  certainly,  the  observ¬ 
ance  of  the  day  was  general  in  East  and  West. 
But  it  does  not  appear  to  have  ranked  Avith  the 
highest  festiA'als,  which  Avere  Nativity,  Easter, 
and  Pentecost  {Goncil.  Agatliense,  a.  506.  can.  63, 
and  Aurelianense  1,  a.  511,  can.  25).  As  a  feast 
of  secondary  order,  it  ranked,  in  the  Latin  Church 
Avith  Epiphany  and  St.  John  Baptist’s-day  (comp. 
Concil.  Agath.  can.  21).  In  the  Eastern  Church 
it  was  celebrated  with  solemn  extra-mural  pro¬ 
cessions — possibly  as  early  as  St.  Chrysostom’s 
time  at  Antioch,  though,  as  before  observed, 
this  is  not  necessarily  implied  in  the  passage 
cited ;  in  Jerusalem,  to  the  Mount  Olivet,  on 
which  the  Empress  Helena  had  erected  a  church. 
Bede  says  that  the  celebration  there  was  almost 
as  solemn  as  that  of  Easter;  it  began  at  mid¬ 
night,  and  Avith  the  multitude  of  t.apers  and 
torches  the  mountain  and  the  subjacent  land¬ 
scape  were  all  ablaze  (de  loc.  sacr.  c.  7).  Else¬ 
where,  the  procession  Avas  to  the  neai’est  hill  or 
rising  ground,  from  Avhich  at  the  same  time  a 
benediction  was  pronounced  on  the  fields  and 


fruits  of  the  earth.  In  the  vA'^estern  Church  this 
procession  and  benediction  were  transferred  to 
the  Rogation-days  ;  and  Avhen  Gregory  of  Tours, 
ob.  595  (Hist.  Franc.  A'.  11),  speaks  of  the 
solemn  processions  Avith  AA'hich  Ascension-day 
was  eA’-eryAvhere  celebrated,  perhaps  he  means 
only  pi’ocessions  into  the  churches.  Martene 
describes  one  such  as  held  at  Vienne,  in  France. 
The  archbishop,  Avith  deacon  and  subdeacon, 
headed  it :  on  their  return  to  the  church,  they  are 
receiA'ed  by  all  standing  in  the  nave ;  two  canons 
advance  tOAvards  the  cantors :  Cant.  Quem  quae- 
ritis  ?  Canon.  Jesum  qui  resurrexit.  Cant. 
Jam  ascendit,  sicut  dixit.  Canon.  Alleluia. 
Then  all  proceed  into  the  choir,  and  mass  is  cele¬ 
brated.  There  Avas  also,  on  this  day,  in  some 
churches  (in  others  reserved  for  Pentecost)  a 
service  of  benediction  over  loaves  provided  for 
the  poor,  and  also  OA^er  the  neAV  fruits  of  the 
earth. 

The  Augil  of  Ascension  Avas  kept  by  some  as  a 
fast,  as  an  exception  to  the  ancient  rule,  rigidly 
maintained  by  the  Greeks,  and  long  contended 
for  by  many  of  the  Latins.  “Hoc  [paschali] 
tempore  nullius  festi  Augiliam  jejunare  A'el 
obsei'A^are  jubemur,  nisi  Ascensionis  et  Pente- 
costes.”  (Micrologus,  de  Feel.  Observat.  c.  55.) 
Isidore  of  Seville  (610)  (de  Eccles.  Off.  c.  37) 
acknoAvledges  no  fast  whatever  betAveen  Easter 
and  Ascension-day :  he  holds  that  all  fifty  days 
to  Pentecost  are  days  of  rejoicing  only ;  but  some, 
he  says,  on  the  ground  of  our  Lord’s  Avords,  St. 
Matt.  ix.  15,  “Can  the  children  of  the  bride- 
chamber  mourn,”  &c.,  kept  fast  on  the  eight 
days  from  Ascensi(.nto  Pentecost.  The  extended 
fa.st  of  three  days  before  Ascension,  which 
Amalarius  (de  Feel.  Off.  iv.  37)  calls  triduanum 
vigiliae  Ascens.  jejunium  (apologising,  as  do  other 
early  liturgical  Avriters,  for  that  institution  as 
an  innoA^ation  upon  the  knoAvn  ancient  rule  of 
East  and  West)  came  but  sloAvly  into  general 
obseiwance  in  the  Western  Church.  Especially 
Avas  this  the  case  in  Spain.  “  Hispani,  propter 
hoc  quod  scriptum  est,”  says  Walafrid  Strabo 
(823)  (de  rebus  Feel.  c.  28),  “  ‘  Non  possunt  filii 
sponsi  lugere  quamdiu  cum  illls  est  sponsus,’  infra 
qulnquagesimam  Paschae  recusantes  jejunare, 
litanias  suas  post  Pentecosten  posuerunt,  quinta, 
se.xta  et  septima  feriis  ejusdem  hebdomadis  eas 
facientes.”  Accordingly,  in  the  Spanish  collection 
of  the  Canons,  the  Avording  of  those  relating  to  the 
Rogation  fast  is  altered.  In  Cone.  Aurelian.  i.  can. 
27,  the  title,  “De  Litaniis  ante  asc.  Domini  cele- 
brandis,”  is  made,  “  Ut  Litaniae  post  Dom.  asc. 
celebrentur ;  ”  and  in  the  body  of  the  Canon, 
for  “  Rogationes,  ?.e.,  Litanias  ante  asc.  Dom.  ab 
omnibus  ecclesiis  placuit  celebrari  ita  ut  prae- 
missum  triduanum  jejunium  in  Dom.  ascensionis 
festivitate  soh'atur,”  the  Spanish  codex  has, 
“  Rog.,  f.e.,  lit.  post  Asc.  Dom.  placuit  celebrari, 
ita  ut  praem.  trid.  jej.  post  Dom.  asc.  solemni- 
tatem  solvatur and  the  next  canon  Avhich 
pi’onounces  censure  “  de  clerieis  qui  ad  litanias 
A'enire  contempserint,”  is  made  to  affect  only 
clerics  who  refuse  to  come  ad  officium,  ad  opus 
sacrum  genei'ally. 

The  Mosarabic  Order  does  not  even  recognise 
a  vigil  of  Ascension,  though  it  has  one  for 
Pentecost. 

There  was  no  octave  of  Ascension ;  the  fol- 
loAving  Sunday  is  simply  Dominica  post  Ascen- 
sionem. 


ASCENSION  DAY 


ASCETICISM 


147 


(Binterim.  Die  vorzuqlichsten  Denkxv.  der  Chrtst- 
Kathol.  Kirche,  B.  v.  th.  i.  253-256.  Augusti, 
Denkw.  del'  Christl.  Archdologie,  B.  ii.  351  sqcj. 
Rheiowald,  Die  Kirchliche  Archdologie,  204  sq. 
Horn,  Ueber  dus  Alter  des  Bimmelfahrtsfestes,  in 
Liturg.  Journal,  v.  J.  H.  Wagnitz,  1806.)  [H.  B.] 
ASCETICISM.  The  difficulty  of  tracing  the 
history  of  asceticism  in  the  early  ages  of  Christi¬ 
anity  arises  in  part  from  scantiness  of  materials, 
but  chiefly  from  the  circumstance  that  this  and 
the  cognate  terms  have  been  used  in  two  senses, 
one  general,  one  more  specific.  These  two  signi¬ 
fications,  and  this  enhances  the  difficulty,  cannot 
be  strictly  assigned  to  different  periods,  being 
not  infrequently  synchronous ;  nor  is  it  always 
easy  to  distinguish  one  from  the  other  merely  by 
the  conte.\t.  The  neglect  of  this  important  dis¬ 
tinction  and  the  vehemence  of  partisanship  have 
complicated  the  conti'oversy  on  the  origin  and 
growth  of  asceticism  ;  some  writers  contending 
that  Ascetics  as  an  order  are  coeval  with 
Christianity,  some  denying  their  existence  alto¬ 
gether  till  the  4th  century.  Neither  statement 
can  be  accepted  without  some  qualification.  The 
following  attempt  at  an  historical  sketch  of 
asceticism  among  Christians,  in  its  earlier  phases, 
is  based  on  a  collation  of  the  principal  passages 
in  early  Christian  writers  bearing  on  the  subject. 

The  principle  of  asceticism,  and  this  is  allowed 
on  all  sides,  was  in  force  before  Christianity. 
The  Essenes,  for  instance,  among  the  Jews,  owed 
their  existence  as  a  sect  to  this  principle.  It  was 
dohiinant  in  the  oriental  systems  of  antagonism 
between  mind  and  matter.  It  asserted  itself 
even  among  the  more  sensuous  philosophers  of 
Greece  with  their  larger  sympathy  for  the  plea¬ 
surable  development  of  man’s  physical  energies. 
But  the  fuller  and  more  systematic  development 
of  the  ascetic  life  among  Christians  is  contem¬ 
poraneous  with  Christianity  coming  into  con¬ 
tact  with  the  Alexandrine  school  of  thought, 
and  exhibits  itself  first  in  a  country  subject 
to  the  combined  influences  of  Judaism  and  of 
the  Platonic  philosophy.  Indeed,  the  great  and 
fundamental  principle  on  which  asceticism,  in  its 
narrower  meaning  rests,  of  a  two-fold  morality, 
one  expressed  in  “  Precepts  ”  of  universal  obliga¬ 
tion  for  the  multitude,  and  one  expressed  in 
“  Counsels  of  Perfection  ”  intended  only  for  those 
more  advanced  in  holiness,  with  its  doctrine  that 
the  passions  are  to  be  extirpated  rather  than 
controlled  (Orig.  Ep.  ad  Rom.  Lib.  iii. ;  Tertull. 
de  Pallio,  7,  8 ;  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iv.  529,  vi. 
775)  is  very  closely  akin  to  the  Platonic  or  Py¬ 
thagorean  distinction  between  the  life  according 
to  nature  and  the  life  above  nature,  as  well  as  to 
their  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  of  the  contem¬ 
plative  above  the  practical  life,  and  is  more 
naturally  deducible  from  this  source  than  from 
any  other  (Porphyr.  de  Abstinent. ;  Eus.  H.  E. 
ii.  17).  In  fact  the  ascetics  of  the  3rd  and  4th 
centuries  loved  the  designation  of  philosophers 
(Rosw.  Vitae  Patr.  pass. ;  cf.  Greg.  Nyss.  Orat. 
Cutech.  18  ;  Soz.  H.  E.  i.  13).  At  the  same  time 
it  must  be  noted  that  the  Church  uttered  its 
protests  from  time  to  time  against  the  idea  of 
there  being  anything  essentially  unholy  in  matter, 
and  its  cautions  against  excessive  abstinence. 
Thus  Origen  insists  that  the  Christian  reason  for 
abstinence  is  not  that  of  Pythagoras  (c.  Celsum 
V.  264);  and  the  so  called  “Apostolic  Canons” 
(51,  53)  while  approving  asceticism  as  a  useful 


discipline  condemn  the  abhorren  e  of  things  in 
themselves  innocent  as  if  they  involved  any 
contamination  (cf.  Eus.  //.  E.  v.  3). 

During  the  1st  century  and  a  half  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  there  are  no  indications  of  ascetics  as  a 
distinct  class.  While  the  first  fervour  of  conver¬ 
sions  lasted,  and  while  the  Church,  as  a  small  and 
compact  community,  was  struggling  for  existence 
against  opposing  forces  on  every  side,  the  pro¬ 
fession  of  Christianity  was  itself  a  profession  of 
the  ascetic  spirit ;  in  other  words,  of  endurance, 
of  hardihood,  of  constant  self-denial  (cf.  Acts  ii. 
44 ;  iv.  34,  35).  Thus,  even  at  a  rather  later 
date,  Clemens  of  Alexandria  represents  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  an  i.<rKr]<Tis  {Strom,  iv.  22 ;  cf.  Minuc. 
Fel.  Oct.  cc.  12,  31,  36).  Similarly  the  term  is 
applied  to  any  conspicuous  example  of  fortitude 
or  patience.  Eusebius  so  designates  certain 
martyrs  in  Palestine  (de  Mart.  Pal.  10),  a  region 
into  which  monks,  strictly  so  called,  were  not 
introduced  till  the  middle  of  the  4th  century 
(Hieron.  Vit.  Hilar.  14),  and  Clemens  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  calls  the  patriarch  Jacob  an  daK-gT^s 
(Paedagog.  i.  7).  This  more  vague  and  more 
general  use  of  the  word  appears  again  and  again 
even  after  the  formal  institution  of  monachism. 
Athanasius,  or  whoever  is  the  author,  speaking 
of  the  suffei'ings  of  the  martyr  Lucian,  in  prison, 
calls  him  “  a  great  ascetic  ”  (Synops.  Scr.  Sacr.). 
Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  calls  those  who,  like  Anna 
the  prophetess,  are  frequent  and  earnest  in 
prayer  “ascetics”  (Catech.  i.  19).  Jerome  ap¬ 
plies  the  word  to  Picrius  for  his  self-chosen 
poverty,  and  to  Serapion,  Bishop  of  Antioch 
(Scr.  Ecc.  76.  41);  and  Epiphanius  to  Marcion 
because,  prior  to  his  lapse  into  heresy,  he  had  ab¬ 
stained,  though  without  any  vow,  from  marriage 
(Haer.  xlii.).  Cyril  of  Alexandria  uses  tkaKgais 
as  equivalent  to  self-denial  (in  Joan.  xiii.  35)  in 
the  same  way  as  Chrysostom  speaks  of  virtue  as 
a  discipline  (Horn,  in  Inscr.  Act.  Apostol.  ii.  0). 
So  far  there  is  nothing  to  proA^e  the  existence  of 
an  ascetic  class  or  order  bound  by  rules  not 
common  to  all  Christians. 

For  about  a  century  subsequent  to  150  A.D. 
there  begin  to  be  traces  of  an  asceticism  more 
sharply  defined  and  occupying  a  more  distinct 
position ;  but  not  as  yet  requiring  its  Amtaries  to 
separate  themselves  entirely  from  the  rest  of  their 
community.  Athenagoras  speaks  of  persons 
habitually  abstaining  from  matrimony  (Apol.  pro 
Chr.  xxviii.  129  ;  cf.  Irenaeus  ap.  Eus.  H.  E.  v. 
241 ;  cf.  Dionys.  Alexandr.).  Eusebius  mentions 
deA'out  persons,  ascetics,  but  not  an  order,  who 
ministered  to  the  poor  (de  Mart.  Pal.  cc.  10,  11), 
and  calls  Narcissus,  Bishop  of  Jeru.salem,  an 
“ascetic”  (H.  E.  vi.  9).  Tertullian  uses  the 
term  “exercitati  ”  or  disciplined,  (de  Puecr.  14), 
but,  apparently  in  reference  to  students  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  .styles  the 
ascetics  ^kX^ktSiv  iK\(KTOT€poi  “  more  elect  than 
the  elect”  (Horn.  “  Quis  Dives  36;  cf.  Strom. 
viii.  15) ;  and  Epiphanius  in  a  later  century 
speaks  of  monks  as  ot  crTrovSatoi  or  “  the  earn¬ 
est  ”  (Expos.  Fid.  22;  cf.  Eus.  //.  E.  vi.  11), 
just  as  the  Avord  “religious”  came  in  the  mid¬ 
dle  ages  to  be  restricted  to  those  who  devoted 
themselves  to  a  life  of  more  than  ordinary  strict¬ 
ness.  This  increasing  rcA'erence  for  a\isterities 
as  such  is  seen  in  most  of  the  sects,  Avhich  were 
prominent  in  the  2nd  century  ;  only  with  the 
exaggeration  Avhich  usually  characterises  move- 


148 


ASCETICISM 


ASCETICISM 


ments  of  the  kind.  The  Moiitanists  prescribed 
a  rigorous  asceticism,  not  for  their  more  zealous 
disciples  only,  but  for  all  indiscriminately.  The 
Syrian  Gnostics,  the  followers  of  Saturninus  and 
Basilides,  the  Encratitae,  the  disciples  of  Cerdo 
and  lilarcion  in  Asia  Minor  and  Italy,  all  car¬ 
ried  the  notion  of  there  being  an  inherent  pollu¬ 
tion  in  the  material  world,  and  of  it  being  the 
positive  duty  of  Christians  to  shun  all  contact 
with  it,  to  an  extent  which  left  even  the  Church 
doctrine  of  asceticism  far  behind  (Iren.  adv.  Ilaer. 

i.  24  ;  Epiphan.  Haer.  23).  How  far  their  prac¬ 
tice  cori'esponded  with  theory  is  doubtful.  The 
proneness  of  human  nature  to  a  reaction  into 
excessive  laxity  after  excessive  austerities  hardly 
admits  of  exception,  and  gives  probability  to  the 
allegations  made  by  the  orthodox  writers  of 
flagrant  licentiousness  in  some  cases. 

The  middle  of  the  3rd  century  marks  an  era  in 
the  development  of  Christian  asceticism.  Antony, 
Paul,  Ammon,  and  other  Egyptian  Christians  not 
content,  as  the  ascetics  before  them,  to  lead  a  life 
of  extraordinary  strictness  and  severity  in  towns 
an  1  villages,  aspired  to  a  more  thorough  estrange¬ 
ment  of  themselves  from  all  earthly  ties ;  and 
by  their  teaching  and  example  led  very  many 
to  the  wilderness,  there  to  live  and  die  in  almost 
utter  seclusion  from  their  fellows.  The  Great 
Decian  persecution  was  probably  the  imme¬ 
diate  occasion  of  this  exodus  from  the  cities 
into  the  desert ;  not  only  by  driving  many  to 
take  refuge  in  the  desert,  but  by  exciting  a  spirit 
which  longed  to  emulate  the  self-renunciation  of 
the  martyrs  and  confessors.  But  it  was  pi’obably 
the  influence  of  the  Alexandrine  teaching,  as  has 
been  already  suggested,  which  had  fostered  the 
longing  to  escape  altogether  from  the  contamina¬ 
tions  and  persecutions  of  an  evil  world.  It  was 
no  longer,  as  in  earlier  days,  only  or  chiefly  from 
external  enemies  that  a  devout  Christian  felt 
himself  in  danger.  As  Christianity  widened  the 
circle  of  its  oj)erations,  it  became  inevitably  less 
discriminating  as  to  the  character  of  those  who 
were  admitted  into  the  community ;  and  the 
gradual  intrusion  of  a  more  secular  spirit,  among 
Christians,  first  forced  those  who  were  more 
thoroughly  in  earnest  to  aim  at  a  stricter  life  in 
the  world,  and  then  thrust  them  out  of  the  world 
altogether.  Eusebius  bears  witness  to  this 
Alexandrine  influence  on  Christian  asceticism  in 
a  remarkable  comparison  of  the  ascetics  of  his 
own  creed  with  the  Therapeutae  in  Egypt  (^H.E. 

ii.  17  ;  Soz.  H.  E.  i.  13).  There  seems  to  have 
been  something  in  the  climate  and  associations  of 
Egypt  (as  in  Syria)  which  predisposed  men  thus 
to  abdicate  the  duties  and  responsibilities  be¬ 
longing  to  active  life.  The  exact  position  which 
these  Therapeutae  occupied  is  uncertain.  Pro¬ 
bably  they  were  in  existence  prior  to  Christianity  ; 
are  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  Essones  ;  but 
were  chiefly,  though  not  exclusively,  Jews. 
From  Philo’s  account  (de  Vita  Contempl.  pp. 
892-4)  it  seems  clear,  at  any  rate,  that  this 
manner  of  life  resembled  in  many  respects  that 
of  the  Christian  ascetics  in  the  desert.  They 
dwelt  in  separate  cells  not  far  from  one  another ; 
renounced  their  possessions ;  practised  fastings 
an  1  other  austerities ;  and  devoted  themselves 
partly  to  contemplation,  and  in  part  to  study.  In 
this  last  point  their  example  was  not  imitated  by 
their  Christian  anti-types  in  Egypt.  They  seem 
to  have  been  imbued  with  the  mystical  spirit  of 


Alexandria.  Their  name  signifies  that  they  gave 
themselves  either  to  serve  God,  or,  more  proba¬ 
bly,  to  cultivate  their  own  souls  and  those  of 
their  disciples.  (Eus.  H.  E.  ii.  17.) 

Hitherto  Christian  asceticism  has  been  in¬ 
dividualistic  in  its  character.  About  the  middle 
of  the  4th  century  it  begins  to  assume  a  corporate 
character.  Naturally,  as  the  number  of  recluses 
increased,  the  need  was  felt  of  organisation. 
Pachomius  is  generally  regarded  as  the  first  to 
form  a  “  Coenobium,”  that  is  an  association  of 
ascetics  dwelling  together  under  one  supreme 
authority  (Hieron.  Reg.  Each. ;  cf.  Graveson  Hist. 
Eccl.  i.  116).  A  fixed  rule  of  conduct  and  a 
promise  to  observe  the  rule  were  the  natural 
consequences  of  forming  a  society.  But  the 
exaction  of  an  irrevocable  and  lifelong  vow  be¬ 
longs  to  a  later  phase  of  asceticism.  James  of 
Nisibis  speaks  of  ascetics  practising  a  rigid  celi¬ 
bacy  (Serm.  6tus).  The  term  ascetic  begins  now 
to  be  nearly  equivalent  to  monastic.  The  so- 
called  “  Apostolical  Constitutions,”  which  arc 
generally  assigned  to  this  period,  enumerate 
“  ascetics,”  but  not  “  monks  ”  among  orders  of 
Christians  (13).  The  \6yos  aaKrjriKhs  of  Basil 
of  Caesaraea  is  on  the  monastic  life.  So  6.(TKr]cns 
is  used  by  Palladius  (^Hist.  Laus.  Proem,  c.  46, 
&c.)  ;  in  canons  of  the  Council  of  Gangra  against 
excessive  asceticism  (12,  13),  and  by  Athanasius 
in  his  life  of  Antony.  Athanasius  calls  the 
two  disciples  who  waited  on  Antony  acrKov/xfvoi, 
“  learning  to  be  ascetics.”  'AcrKr)Tr\piov  in  So¬ 
crates  (i/.  E.  iv.  23)  means  what  is  now  called  a 
monastery  ;  dcr/crjTiKTj  KaXv^r},  a  monastic  cell 
(Theodoret,  H.  E.  iv.  25).  At  that  time  jxovaa- 
rrjplov  was,  as  the  word  literally  expresses,  a 
separate  cell ;  aaK-qrippiov  a  common  dwelling- 
place  under  the  rule  of  a  superioi',  in  which  those 
who  desired,  according  to  the  idea  of  the  age,  a 
yet  higher  stage  of  perfection,  might  be  trained 
and  disciplined  for  absolute  seclusion  (Greg. 
Naz.  Or.  XX.  359).  In  the  middle  ages  the  word 
“  asceterium  ”  was  altered  into  “  arcisterium 
or  “  archisterium  ”  (Jlw  Cange,  s.  vocc.). 

In  the  besrinnins:  of  the  6th  centurv  the  widow* 

o  o  • 

and  virgins  who  were  officially  recognised  as  such, 
are  designated  acTK-prpiai  (Justinian,  Novell,  cxxiii. 
43).  At  a  later  period  the  word  means  a  nun  : 
and  is  the  Greek  equivalent  for  “  sanctimonialis,” 
or  “mouialis”  (Phot.  Nomocan.  Tit.  ix.  1  p.  207). 

' Act Kgrpios  is  a  later  form  for  dcr/crjTTjs. 

The  history  of  asceticism,  after  the  institution 
of  monastic  societies  belongs  to  the  history  of 
MOXASTiciSM.  There  it  will  be  seen  with  what 
marvellous  rapidity  this  development  of  Christian 
asceticism  spread  far  and  wide  from  the  deserts 
of  the  Thebaid  and  Lower  Egypt ;  how  Basil, 
Jerome,  Athanasius,  Augustine,  Ambrose,  were 
foremost  among  its  earliest  advocates  and  propa¬ 
gators,  and  how  Cassian,  Columbanus,  Benedict 
and  others  crowned  the  labours  of  their  prede¬ 
cessors  by  a  more  elaborate  organisation.  It  is 
enough  here  to  endeavour  to  trace  the  gradual 
and  almost  imperceptible  process  by  which  as¬ 
ceticism,  from  being  the  common  attribute  of 
Christianity,  became  in  course  of  time  the  dis¬ 
tinctive  speciality  ofa  chiss  within  the  Christian 
community. 

(Besides  the  writers  quoted  already,  see  Bing¬ 
ham,  Origines,  bk.  vii.  Paleotimo,  Sumnia  Anti- 
quitatum.  lib.  vii.  Gluck’s  Atteserrae  Origines 
Rei  Monasticae.  Jilamachi,  Costumi  dei  primitivi 


ASCIIAIMENSE 


ASTERISCUS 


149 


Christiani.  Dissertatio  de  Ascctis  praef.  S.  Jac. 
Nis.  Scrm.  vi.  Claudii  Salmasii  Notae  in  Tertull. 
de  Pallio.)  [I.  G.  S.] 

ASCHABIENSE  CONCILIUM.— A  coun¬ 
cil  was  held,  a.d.  763,  at  Ascheim,  under  Tas- 
silo  II.,  Duke  of  Bavaria,  that  passed  15  decrees 
on  discipline.  [E.  S.  F.] 

ASCLEPIADES,  bishop  and  martyr,  com¬ 
memorated  Oct.  18  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.^.  [C.] 

ASH  WEDNESDAY.  [Lent.] 

ASIATICUM  CONCILIUM.  —  A  council 
was  held,  A.D.  245,  in  Asia  Minor  against  Noetus, 
but  at  what  place  is  uncertain.  [E.  S.  F.] 

ASINARII  (Tertull.  Apol.  c.  xvi.),  a  term 
of  reproach  against  the  early  Christians.  That 
the  Jews  worshipped  an  ass,  or  the  head  of  an 
ass,  was  a  current  belief  in  many  parts  of  the 
Gentile  world.  Tacitus  {Hist.  v.  4)  says  that 
there  was  a  consecrated  image  of  an  ass  in  the 
temple,  the  reason  for  this  special  honour  being 
that  a  herd  of  wild  asses  had  been  the  means  of 
guiding  the  Jews,  when  they  were  in  the  desert, 
to  springs  of  water.  Plutarch  {Sympos.  iv.  5,  2) 
tells  virtually  the  same  story.  Diodorus  Siculus 
says  (lib.  xxxiv.  Frag.')  that  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
found  in  the  temple  a  stone  image  representing 
a  man  sitting  upon  an  ass ;  but  on  the  other 
hand  Josephus  (c.  Apion.  ii.  c.  7)  adduces  the 
fact  that  no  such  image  had  been  found  in  the 
temple  by  any  conqueror  as  an  argument  for  the 
groundlessness  of  the  calumny. 

The  same  belief  appears  to  have  prevailed  in 
reference  to  the  early  Christians.  It  is  men¬ 
tioned  by  both  Tertullian  {Ad  Nat.  i.  14;  Apol. 
xvi.)  and  Minucius  Felix  {Octav.  9  and  28),  but, 
though  referred  to  in  later  times,  appears  to 
have  died  out  in  the  course  of  the  3rd  century. 
(The  fact  mentioned  by  Servetus,  De  Trin.  Error. 
c.  16,  that  he  heard  the  same  reproach  made  by 
the  Turks  against  the  Christians  in  Africa  is 
probably  to  be  connected  with  the  mediaeval 
“  Festival  of  the  Ass  ”  rather  than  with  the 
earlier  calumny.) 

The  origin  of  the  reproach  has  been  a  subject 
of  various  speculations : — (1)  It  has  been  con¬ 
sidered  to  have  arisen  somewhere  in  the  Gentile 
world,  and  to  have  been  applied  to  the  Jews 
before  the  Christian  era.  On  this  hypothesis 
various  explanations  of  it  have  been  given. 
Morinus  {De  Capite  Asinino  Deo  Christ iano,  Dord¬ 
recht,  1620)  thought  that  there  was  a  confusion 
between  the  two  words  Chomer  ("llOh),  which  is 
used  (?)  for  the  “pot”  of  manna  in  the  temple, 
and  Chanior  (“lion),  which  means  a  “  wild  ass,” 
and  that  this  confusion  was  confirmed  by  the 
appearance  of  the  pot  of  manna  with  its  two  large 
ears.  Hasaeus  {De  Onolatria  olim  Judaeis  et  Chris- 
tianis  unpacta,  Erfurt,  1716)  thought  that  the 
use  among  the  Jews  (?  more  probably  late  Sama¬ 
ritans)  of  the  word  “Ashima”  (  =  “name”)  for 
the  more  sacred  word  “Jehovah  ”  may  have  sug¬ 
gested  the  perversion  “  asinus  ”  to  the  Roman 
soldiers;  and  Heinsius  (Z>e  Laude  Asini,  p.  186, 
ed.  1629)  thought  that  the  ovpavds  which  the 
Jews  were  reputed  to  worship  (“  nil  praeter  nubes 
et  coeli  numen  adorant,”  Juv.  Sat.  xiv.  97)  was 
corrupted  into  6yos.  (2)  It  has  been  considered 
to  have  arisen  in  Egypt,  and  on  this  hypotliesis 
two  explanations  have  been  given.  Tanaquil 
Faber  {Epist.  i.  6)  thought  that  it  was  a  corrup¬ 


tion  from  the  name  of  Onias,  who  built  a  Jewish 
temple  at  Heliopolis ;  and  Bochart  {Hierozoic.  i. 
2,  c.  18)  thought  that  the  Egyptians  wilfully  per¬ 
verted  the  expression  “Pi  iao  ”  (  =  “  mouth  of 
God  ”)  into  “  Pieo,”  which  in  an  Egyptian  voca¬ 
bulary  edited  by  Kircher  signifies  “ass.”  (3)  It 
has  been  viewed  as  a  calumny  of  the  Jews  against 
the  Christians,  which  was  reflected  back  upon  the 
Jews  themselves.  In  favour  of  this  view  it  is 
urged  that  Tertullian  distinctly  speaks  of  it  as  a 
Jewish  calumny;  and  against  it  is  the  prevalence 
of  the  story  in  writers  whom  a  Jewish  calumny, 
however  industriously  spread,  would  hardly 
reach.  (4)  It  has  been  regarded  as  having 
originated  from  the  use  of  the  ass  as  a  symbol 
by  some  Gnostic  sects.  That  the  ass  was  thus 
used  is  clear  from  the  statement  of  Epiphanius 
(c.  Haeres.  26,  10  ;  see  also  Origen,  c.  Cels.  vi.  9), 
Between  these  various  hypotheses  it  is  hardly 
possible,  in  the  absence  of  further  evidence,  tc 
make  a  choice ;  the  question  must  be  left  un¬ 
decided.  A  slight  additional  interest  has  been 
given  to  it  by  the  discovery  at  Rome,  in  1856,  on 
a  wall  under  the  western  angle  of  the  Palatine, 
of  a  graffito,  which  forcibly  recalls  the  story 
mentioned  by  Tertullian.  The  apologist’s  words 
are  {Ad.  Nat.  i.  14) — “  nuper  quidam  perditissi- 
mus  in  ista  civitate,  etiam  suae  religionis  de¬ 
serter,  solo  detrimento  cutis  Judaeus  ....  pic- 
turam  in  nos  proposuit  sub  ista  proscriptione 
ONOCOETES.  Is  erat  auribus  canteriorum  et 
in  toga,  cum  libro,  altero  pede  ungulate.  Et 
credidit  vulgus  infami  Judaeo.”  The  graffito  in 
question  represents  an  almost  similar  caxdcature, 
evidently  directed  against  some  Christian  con¬ 
vert  of  the  2nd  century.  Upon  a  cross  is  a 
figure  with  a  human  body  wearing  an  interula, 
bxit  with  an  ass’s  head.  On  one  side  is  another 
figure  lifting  up  his  head,  possibly  in  the  attitude 
of  prayer.  Underneath  is  written  AAEEAMENOs 
SEBETE  ©EON  (“  Alexamenos  is  worshipping 
God”).  The  form  of  the  letters  points  to  the 
graffito  having  been  written  towards  the  end  of 
the  2nd  century,  about  the  very  time  at  which 
Tertullian  wrote  (see  P.  Garrucci’s  article,  with 
a  copy  of  the  graffito,  in  the  Civilta  Cattolica, 
serie  3,  vol.  iv.  p.  529).  This  graffito  is  now 
preserved  in  the  library  of  the  Collegio  Romano 
in  Rome.  [E.  H.] 

ASPERGILLUM.  The  brush  or  twig  used 
for  sprinkling  Holy  Water  [Holy  Water].  It 
anciently  was,  or  was  said  to  be,  of  hyssop,  a 
plant  supposed  to  possess  cleansing  virtues,  from 
its  use  in  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  well-known 
reference  to  it  in  the  51st  Psalm.  Thus,  in  the 
Gregorian  Sacramentary  (p.  148)  the  bishop  in 
the  consecration  of  a  church,  sprinkles  the  altar 
seven  times  with  hyssop.  The  modern  French 
name  Goupil  indicates  that  a  fox’s  brush  was 
some  time  used  as  an  aspergillum.  {Goupil  for 
Vulpicula,  Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.).  [C.] 

ASPERSION.  [Baptism.] 

ASS,  WORSHIP  OF  THE.  [Asinarii.] 
ASSUMPTION  OF  THE  VIRGIN 
MARY.  [Mary  the  Virgin,  Festivals  of.] 

ASTERISCUS  (sometimes  called  Stellula  by 
Latin  writers).  To  prevent  the  veil  from  dis¬ 
turbing  the  particles  arranged  on  the  discus  or 
paten,  in  preparation  for  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist,  St.  Chrys6stom  is  said  to  have  invented 
two  small  arches  to  suj)port  it.  These,  when 


150 


ASTERIUS 


ATHEISTS 


])lacod  so  as  to  cross  each  other,  resembled  a  star, 
and  hence  were  called  aar^p  or  a(rri]pi(TKos,  the 
star ;  hence  the  priest,  placing  it  over  the  paten, 
is  directed  to  say,  “  And  the  star  came  and  stood 
over  where  the  young  child  was.”  In  modern 
times  the  arches  are  riveted  together  at  the  point 
of  intersection,  but  so  loosely  as  to  admit  of  one 
arch  being  turned  within  the  other  for  con¬ 
venience  of  carriage.  See  woodcut.  (Neale, 
Eastern  Churchy  Introd.  350 ;  Daniel,  Codex 
Liturgicus,  iv.  336,  390.)  [C.] 


ASTERIUS,  martyr,  commemorated  March  3 
(^Mart.  Eom.  Vet.^.  [C.] 

ASTORGA,  COUNCIL  OF  (Asturicense 
Concilium),  a.d.  446,  condemned  certain  Mani- 
chees,  or  Priscillianists  (Cave;  Mansi,  vi.  490; 
but  omitted  by  Labbe).  [A.  W.  H.] 

ASTROLOGERS.  No  element  of  heathenism 
was  more  difficult  to  eradicate  than  the  belief 
that  the  stars  in  their  courses  influenced  the 
lives  of  men,  and  that  the  destinies  of  individuals 
and  of  nations  might  be  foretold  by  those  who 
studied  their  combinations.  Under  the  names  of 
Chald'iei  (as  representing  those  who  were  more 
famous  than  any  other  people  of  the  ancient 
world  for  their  devotion  to  this  study),  Mathe- 
matici  (in  popular  language  this  had  become  the 
exclusive  meaning  of  the  word),  Apotelesmatici 
(as  dealing  with  the  aTroTeAeVyuoTa,  or  influences 
of  the  stars),  Genethliaci  (as  casting  horoscopes 
of  the  positions  of  the  planets  at  the  hour  of 
birth),  they  were  to  be  found  in  every  city  of  the 
empire.  They  became  on  many  gi-ounds  objects 
of  suspicion  to  its  police.  They  were  cheats  and 
impostors ;  they  brought  in  the  foreign,  eastern 
superstitions  of  which  Roman  magistrates  stood 
in  dread  ;  they  might  at  any  time  play  into  the 
hands  of  political  rivals  by  predicting  their  suc¬ 
cess  as  the  favourites  of  heaven.  The  annals  of 
the  empire  accoi'diugly  present  a  series  of  edicts 
against  them.  They  were  banished  from  Rome 
by  Agrippa  and  Augustus  (Dion.  Cass.  xlix.  43, 
Ivi.  25),  by  Tiberius  (Tacit.  Ann.  ii.  32  ;  Sueton. 
Tiber,  c.  36),  by  Claudius  (Tacit.  Ann.  xii.  52), 
by  Vitellius  (Sueton.  Vitell.  14).  The  frequent 
repetition  of  the  measure  shews  how  ineradicable 
was  the  evil.  Sometimes  the  emperor  himself, 
Vespasian,  in  his  eager  ambition  (Tacit.  Hist.  ii. 
78),  Domitian,  in  his  restless  suspicion,  yielded 
to  their  influence.  Otho’s  murder  of  Galba  had 
been  prompted  by  their  counsels.  Over  the 
minds  of  most  men,  and  yet  more,  of  women, 
they  exercised  an  unbounded  sway  (Juven.  vi. 
553-568),  often  in  proportion  to  the  notoriety 
which  they  had  gained  by  being  mixed  up  in 
political  or  other  mysteries,  and  were  on  that 
account  expelled  from  the  city. 

Christian  feeling  was  opposed  to  the  practice 


on  other  grounds.  It  belonged  to  the  system 
of  demon-worship  and  lying  magic,  which  Scrip¬ 
ture  had  forbidden.  The  astrologer  was  a  child 
of  the  devil.  His  art  had  come  down  from  the 
Egyptians  and  Chaldaeans  (Clem.  Alex.  Strom. 
i.  16,  p.  132).  It  substituted  the  idea  of  des¬ 
tiny  for  that  of  the  providence  of  God,  and 
tampered  with  the  sense  of  responsibility  by 
leading  men  to  impute  their  vices  to  the  stars. 
(August,  de  Civ.  Dei,  v.  1 ;  Tract,  in  Ps.  Ixi. ;  cfe 
Mathein. ;  Greg.  Nyss.  Ep.  contr.  Fatum  ;  Tertull. 
de  Idol.  c.  ix.  p.  156.)  Some  teachers  pointed  to 
the  case  of  Esau  and  Jacob,  born  in  the  same 
hour  yet  with  such  different  destinies,  as  a  proof 
that  the  system  was  false  (August,  de  Doctr. 
Christ,  ii.  21).  Some  conceding  that  the  heathen 
world  was  subject  to  these  influences,  favourable 
or  malignant,  held  that  baptism  placed  men  in 
another  region  in  which  they  were  set,  and  that 
the  “  new  birth  ”  annulled  the  horoscope  that 
was  cast  for  the  first  nativity.  The  action  of 
the  Church  was  in  accordance  with  the  teaching 
of  its  chief  writers.  The  burning  of  the  books 
of  those  who  used  “  curious  arts  ”  in  Acts  xix. 
19,  served  as  a  precedent.  Mathematici  were  to 
give  up  their  books  to  the  bishop,  or  to  burn 
them  (Constit.  Apost.  i.  4).  Clergy  of  all  orders 
were  forbidden  to  practise  the  art  under  pain  of 
excommunication  (C  Laod.  c.  36).  In  two  or 
three  instances  the  operation  of  the  laws  con¬ 
nects  itself  with  memorable  names.  Aquila,  the 
translator  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  said  to 
have  been  expelled  from  the  Church  on  the 
charge  of  being  an  astrologer  (Epiphan.  de  Mens, 
et  Pond.  §  XV.  t.  ii.  p.  171,  but  the  narrative  is 
hardly  more  than  a  legend).  Eusebius,  of  Emesa, 
had  to  contend  against  the  suspicions  to  which 
his  love  of  science  exposed  him,  that  he  was 
addicted  to  the  fxipos  airoT€\€(Tp.aTiKhu  of  astro¬ 
logy  (Sozom.  II.  E.  iii.  6).  It  was  one  of  the 
crimes  imputed  to  the  Priscillianists  of  Spain 
that  they  had  revived  the  old  superstitions  of 
the  Mathematici,  and  had  taught  men  that  the 
several  parts  of  their  body  were  under  the  con¬ 
trol  of  the  signs  of  the  zodiac  (August,  de  Ilaer. 
Ixx.)  [E.  H.  P.] 

ASTURICENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Astorga.] 
ASYI.UM.  [Sanctuary.] 

ASYNCRITUS,  “Apostle,”  commemorated 

April  8  ((7a/.  Bgz.').  [C.] 

ATHANASIUS  (1)  Bishop  of  Alexandria ; 
Natale  commemorated  Jan.  18  ((7a/.  Byzant.) ; 
Jan.  26  and  June  6  (Armen.);  May  2  (^Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.) ;  Dec.  20  {Mart.  Bedae) ;  translation,  May  2 
{Cal.  Byzant.) ;  commemorated  Maskarram  13  = 
Sept.  16,  and  Ginbot  7  =  May  2  {Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(2)  Presbyter,  Oct.  11  {Mart.  Bedae,  Hieron.). 

ATHEISTS  {&d€oi),  a  name  of  reproach 
which  was  applied  to  the  early  Christi.ans.  The 
absence  of  material  symbols  of  the  Deity,  of  sac¬ 
rifice,  of  temples,  and  of  almost  all  the  external 
observances  which  constituted  the  religion  of 
contemporary  heathendom,  naturally  induced  a 
popular  cry  that  Christianity  was  a  new  form  of 
atheism.  The  cry  was  repe.ated  by  Jews  as  well 
as  by  Gentiles  (see  Justin  Mai*t.  c.  Tryph.  cviii.). 
It  was  a  leading  cause  of  the  general  animosity 
against  the  Christians  and  the  apologists  were 
at  some  pains  to  refute  it  (see  especially  Athenag. 
Legat.pro  Christ.  3  and  4).  The  following  are  the 


AUDIENTES 


ATHENAGOKAS 

chief  allusions  to  the  calumny  outside  the  writings 
of  the  apologists: — Eusebius  (Zf.  E.  iv.  15)  tells 
us  that  the  formula  in  which  Polycarp  was  de¬ 
sired  by  the  proconsul  to  abjure  his  faith  was 
0Llp€  Tovs  cLdfovs.  Diou  Cassius  (Ixvii.  14-)  relates 
that  Flavius  Clemens,  the  uncle  of  Domitian, 
whom  some  writers  have  identified  with  Clemens 
Romauus,  and  who  was  no  doubt  a  Christian, 
was  put  to  death  for  atheism.  Lucian  {Alexand. 
Pseud,  c.  25,  cf.  c.  38)  says  that  Pontus  was  full 
adfcov  Kai  Xpi(TTtapwu.  Even  so  late  as  the  4th 
century  we  find  Licinius  accusing  Constantine  of 
having  embraced  ttjv  &deov  S6^av  (Euseb.  Vit. 
Const,  c.  15);  and  Julian  summed  up  his  objec¬ 
tions  to  Christianity  when  he  described  it  ar. 
adeSr-qTa  (Julian,  Ep.ad  Arsac.  ap  Sozom.  H.  E. 
V.  16).  But  by  that  time  the  Christian  fathers 
had  already  begun  to  turn  the  tables  upon  their 
adversaries  and  atheism  became  a  reproach,  not 
of  Paganism  against  Christianity,  but  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  against  Paganism  (see  Clem.  Alex.  Pro- 
trept.  p.  11).  [E.  H.] 

ATHENAGOKAS,  with  ten  disciples  and 
five  priests,  commemorated  July  23  (Cal. 
Armen.').  [t!.] 

ATHENOGENES,  martyr,  and  ten  disciples, 
commemorated  July  16  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 
ATRIUM,  the  court  attached  to  churches 
in  the  earlier  centuries.  It  was  usually  placed 
before  the  front  of  the  church,  and  surrounded 
by  porticoes.  In  the  centre  of  the  open  area 
was  a  fountain,  or  at  least  a  cantharus  [Can- 
THARUS],  a  large  vessel  containing  water  for  ab¬ 
lution.  This  fountain  was  sometimes  covered 
with  a  roof  and  surrounded  by  railings.  The 
atrium  was  in  the  earlier  ages  considered  an  im¬ 
portant,  almost  indispensable  adjunct  to  at  any 
rate  the  larger  churches.  Eusebius  describes 
(Eccles.  Hist.  x.  4,  §  39)  the  atrium  with  its 
four  porticoes  in  his  account  of  the  church  built 
by  St.  Paulinus  at  Tyre;  and  atria  dating  from 
the  5th  century  existed  at  St.  Peter's  and  S. 
Paolo  f.  1.  M.  at  Rome.  Examples,  though  not 
dating  from  the  period  with  which  this  work 
is  concerned,  may  be  seen  in  several  churches 
at  Rome,  as  S.  Clemente,  S.  Cecilia,  and  others, 
and  indeed  elsewhere.  In  the  ruins  of  the  basi- 
.ica  of  S.  Stefano,  in  Via  Latina,  the  atrium,  in¬ 
stead  of  occupying  its  normal  place,  is  placed  by 
the  side  of  the  apse,  the  reason  probably  being 
that  the  Via  Latina  ran  past  the  apse,  and  that 
those  who  wished  to  enter  the  church  from  that 
great  thoroughfare  would  thus  pass  through  the 
atrium.  Where,  however,  no  important  street 
or  public  building  prevented  the  architect  from 
fully  developing  his  plans,  the  atrium,  it  should 
seem,  during  the  whole  period  treated  of  in  this 
work  (and  indeed  until  a  later  period),  in  Italy 
at  least,  and  probably  elsewhere,  formed  a  part 
of  every  important  church.  [A.  N.] 

ATTIGNV,  COUNCILS  OF  (Attiniacen- 
8IA  Consilia),  held  at  Attigny  (Attiniacum),  a 
town  of  France,  on  the  river  Aisne,  N.E.  of 
Rheims. — I.  a.d.  765,  provincial,  under  Ripin 
(Mansi,  xii.  674). 

II.  A.D.  822,  at  which  the  Emperor  Louis  did 
public  penance,  “de  omnibus  quae  publice  perpe- 
ram  gessit,”  and  especially  for  his  cruelty  to 
his  nephew  Bernard  (Mansi,  xiv.  403). 

III.  A.D.  834,  November,  under  Ludovicus 
Pius,  a  synod  of  “  the  whole  empire,”  passed 


151 

some  canons  on  behalf  of  the  Church,  and  re¬ 
ferred  a  criminal  cause,  brought  before  them 
by  the  emperor,  to  the  state  tribunal  (Mansi, 
xiv.  655).  [A.  W.  H.] 


ATTINIACENSE  CONCILIUM.  [At¬ 
tigny.] 

AUBERTUS  or  AUTBERTUS,  bishop 
and  confessor,  commemorated  Dec.  13  (Mart. 
Bedae).  [C.] 

AUCTOR,  bishop,  commemorated  Aug.  9 
(Mart.  Bedae).  [C.] 

AUDACTES,  martyr,  commemoi’ated  Oct.  24 
(Mart.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

AUDACTUS.  [Adauctus.] 

AUDAX,  martyr,  commemorated  July  9 
(Mart.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 


AUDIENTES  (^ AKpoct>p.^voi).  Two  stages 
have  to  be  noted  in  the  history  and  significance 
of  this  word.  Down  to  the  time  of  Novatus  and 
the  consequent  development  of  the  penitential 
system  of  the  Church,  it  is  used  as  equivalent 
to  catechumen.  The  Audierdes  are  those  who 
are  present  in  the  Church,  but  are  not  yet  bap¬ 
tized,  and  who  therefore,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  were  not  present  during  the  passages  of 
the  Fideles,  or  the  yet  more  sacred  service  which 
followed.  They  heard  the  psalms,  the  lessons, 
the  sermon,  and  then  left  (Tertull.  de  Poenit. 
c.  vi.,  vii. ;  Cypr.  Ep.  13).  At  Carthage  they 
were  placed  under  the  special  care  of  a  catechist 
or  Audientium  Doctor  (Cypr.  Ep.  31).  The  trea¬ 
tise  of  Augustine,  de  catechizandis  rudibus,  was 
written  for  such  a  catechist,  and  shews  fully 
what  was  the  nature  of  the  instruction  given. 
The  word  seems  to  be  used  with  somewhat  of 
the  same  A’^agueuess  by  Augustine  (Serm.  132). 
There  is  no  trace  at  this  period,  if  indeed  at 
any  time  in  the  West,  of  a  distinct  position  for 
them  in  the  place  whei'e  Christians  met  for 
worship. 

In  the  East,  however,  we  find  from  the  time 
of  Gregory  Thaumaturgiis  onwards  a  more  syste¬ 
matic  classification,  and  that  one  made  subser¬ 
vient  to  an  elaborate  penitential  system.  The 
Audientes  are  the  second  in  a  graduated  series  of 
those  who,  as  catechumens  or  members  of  the 
Church,  have  fallen,  and  need  to  be  restored. 
Outside  the  Church  stood  the  Flentes  (KXaiSpLevoi) 
mourning  over  their  guilt,  catching  only  the 
indistinct  sounds  of  what  was  passing  within, 
exposed  to  sun  or  rain.  Then  within  the 
narthex^  the  portico  in  one  sense  outside  the 
church,  but  communicating  with  it  by  open 
doors,  were  the  Audientes  (Greg.  Thaum.  Can. 
xi.).  They  might  stay  there  and  listen,  like  those 
who  bore  the  same  name  in  the  older  system,  till 
the  sermon  was  over.  Then  the  deacon  bade 
them  depart  along  with  the  unbelievers  (Const. 
Apost.  viii.  5),  and  they  had  not  the  privilege  of 
joining  in  any  prayers.  After  a  year  thus  passed 
they  came  within  the  church,  as  Flectentes 
(youvK\ivovTfs),  joining  in  the  prayers  up  to 
the  commencement  of  the  proper  Eucharistic 
service,  but  kneeling  in  their  contrition.  Lastly, 
they  became  Consistentes  (<Tvvi(TTa.iifvoi),  stand¬ 
ing  with  those  in  full  communion  with  the 
Church,  but  not  yet  admitted  themselves  to  that 
privilege.  Such  was  the  ideal  system  laid  down 
by  the  Council  of  Nicaea  (c.  xi.),  elaborated  by 
Basil  (Can.  xxii.,  Ixxv.),  and  more  or  less  acted 


152 


AUDIEXTIA 


AUrjUSTIXUS 


on  throughout  the  churches  of  the  East.  It 
brought  with  it,  in  the  risk  of  degradation  from 
a  higher  order  to  one  of  shame  and  dishonour, 
from  the  position  of  full  membership  to  any  one 
of  them,  a  system  of  secondary  punishments  the 
actual  effect  of  which  it  is  not  easy  to  estimate. 
[Catechumens  ;  Penitents.]  [E.  H.  P.] 
AUDIEXTIA  EPISCOPALIS.  This 
forms  one  of  the  heads  or  titles  in  the  first  book 
of  Justinian’s  Codex,  and  is  there  used  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  an  authority,  not  only  in  spiritual  but 
also  in  certain  secular  matters,  conferred  upon 
the  bishops  of  the  Church.  In  conjunction  with 
the  temporal  magistrates,  they  were  empowered 
to  take  part  in  managing  the  revenues  of  cities, 
the  guardianship  of  young  persons,  and  various 
other  matters  of  a  civil  nature  (see  Guizot,  Hist, 
of  Civilisation  in  Europe,  Lecture  II.,  as  to  the 
influence  which  the  Church  thus  exercised  in 
society).  But  the  phrase  more  especially  de¬ 
notes  the  power  given  to  the  bishops  of  hearing 
and  deciding  disputes  as  to  temporal  rights  in 
certain  cases.  Thus  we  find  {Cod.  i.  tit.  4.  s.  8) 
“si  qui  ex  consensu  apud  sacrae  legis  antistitem 
iitigare  voluerint,  non  vetabuntur.  Sed  expo¬ 
nent  ur  illius  in  civili  duntaxat  negotio,  more 
arbitri  sponte  residentis,  judicium  ;  ”  and  {Ibid. 
s.  9)  “  Episcopale  judicium  ratum  sit  omnibus, 
qui  se  audiri  a  sacerdotibus  elegerint ;  eamque 
eorum  judicationi  adhibendam  esse  reverentiam 
jubemus,  quam  vestris  deferri  necesse  est  potesta- 
tibus,  a  quibus  non  licet  provocare,  &c.”  Two 
limitations  appear  on  the  face  of  these  passages  : 
— 1.  That  the  matter  in  controversy  must  be  of 
a  civil  character,  no  criminal  cases  being  to  be 
thus  decided.  2.  That  both  parties  to  the  dis¬ 
pute  must  voluntarily  agree  to  have  their  cause 
thus  tried.  The  result  therefore  is  to  make  the 
bishop  an  authoritative  arbitrator,  whenever  the 
parties  submitted  themselves  to  his  decision. 
This  repeats  what  had  been  previously  autho¬ 
rized  by  Arcadius  and  Honorius  (see  Theod. 
Codex.  De  Jurisdict.  ii.  1),  and  by  Valentinian 
III.  ;  and,  indeed,  was  perhaps  little  more  than 
an  acceptance  and  recognition  on  the  part  of  the 
state  of  a  custom  which  had  long  prevailed  in 
Christian  communities,  of  bringing  their  disputes 
before  their  Christian  superiors  instead  of  before 
heathen  judges,  in  accordance  with  the  words  of 
St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  vi.).  At  one  period,  however, 
there  is  some  ground  to  believe  that  the  secular 
power  of  Rome  was  inclined  to  go  much  further. 
According  to  Eusebius  {Vit.  Const,  iv.  27)  and 
Sozomen  (i.  9),  Constantine  ordained  that  either 
pai’ty  in  a  dispute  of  a  civil  nature  might  select 
the  bishop  as  his  judge,  even  against  the  will  of 
the  other  party  ;  and  that  the  episcopal  decision 
should  be  conclusive,  and  should  be  executed  by 
the  temporal  authorities.  This  compulsory  set¬ 
ting  aside  of  the  ordinary  tribunals  of  the  Roman 
Empire  at  the  pleasure  of  either  litigant,  did  not 
long  endure,  and  seems  to  have  been  superseded 
by  the  more  moderate  principle  .adopted  by  Arca¬ 
dius  and  Honorius.  Indeed  the  le.arned  commen¬ 
tator  Gothofred,  who  is  followed  by  Bingham 
{Antiq.  ii.  7,  3),  doubts  whether  Constantine  ever 
really  made  any  such  decree.  Later  writers, 
however,  have  not  shared  these  doubts  (see 
Herzog,  Eeal.  Encycl.  sub  voce,  “  audientia  Epis- 
copi.”).  This  alleged  decree  was  in  later  ages 
revived  in  the  west,  being  then  attributed  to 
Theodosius.  In  that  form  it  was  accepted  by 


Charlemagne  {Capit.  vi.  306),  passed  into  the 
collections  of  laws,  and  finally  found  its  way  into 
the  Decretum  of  Gratian  (Part  II.  causa  xi. 
quaest.  i.  35).  Innocent  III.  lays  stress  upon  it 
(Decretal.  Greg.  i.  lib.  2,  tit.  i.  13),  and  indeed 
in  this  sh.ape  it  was  well  calculated  to  minister 
to  the  Papal  pretensions.  [B.  S.] 

AUDIFAX,  martyr,  commemorated  Jan.  20 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.).  [C.] 

AUDOEXUS  or  ALTJOIXUS  (St.  Ouen), 
bishop  of  Rouen,  commemorated  Aug.  24  {Mari. 
Hieron.').  [C.] 

AUFIXUS.  Natalis  in  Africa,  Oct.  16  {M, 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

AUGEXTIUS.  In  Africa,  Jan.  4  {Mart. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

AUGTJLUS,  bishop  and  martyr,  comme¬ 
morated  Feb.  7  {Mart.  Bedae,  Hieron.).  [C.] 

AUGURIES.  [Divinations.] 

AUGUSTA,  virgin,  commemorated  July  28 
{Mart.  Bedae).  [C.] 

AUGUST ALIS,  commemorated  at  Arles, 
Sept.  7  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

AUGUSTIXE’S  OAK,  Conferences  at,  be¬ 
tween  Augustine  of  Canterbury  and  the  British 
bishops : — 1.  In  A.D.  602  or  603,  and  probably 
at  Aust  on  the  Severn,  or  some  spot  near  to  it, 
with  a  view  to  induce  the  British  bishops  to  give 
up  their  Easter  Rule,  and  to  co-operate  with 
Augustine  in  preaching  to  the  Saxons.  The  first 
conference  (B.aed.  ii.  2)  was  only  preliminary 
(Augustine,  however,  working  a  miracle  at  it, 
acc.  to  Bede),  and  led  to — II.  A  more  foi*mal 
conference  shortly  after,  in  the  same  year,  at  the 
same  place,  at  which  seven  British  bishops  were 
present,  with  “  many  learned  men,”  especially 
from  Bangor  monastery  (near  Chester),  then 
under  Dinoth  as  its  abbat.  On  this  occasion 
Augustine  limited  his  demands  to  three,  con¬ 
formity  in  keeping  Easter,  and  in  the  baptismal 
rite,  and  co-operation  in  preaching  to  the  Saxons  : 
suppressing,  if  Bede’s  account  is  complete,  all 
claim  of  the  jurisdiction  which  Gregory  the  Great 
had  bestowed  upon  him  over  the  British  bishops, 
and  saying  nothing  of  the  tonsure ;  but  disgust¬ 
ing  the  Britons  by  refusing  to  stand  up  at  their 
approach — a  token,  according  to  the  words  of  a 
certain  anchorite  whom  they  had  consulted,  that 
he  was  not  a  man  of  God,  and  therefore  was 
not  to  be  followed.  The  conference  accordingly 
broke  up  without  any  other  result  than  that  of 
drawing  from  Augustine  some  angry  words, 
which  unfortunately  came  true  a  dozen  yeai-s 
afterwards,  w'hen  he  was  dead,  in  the  slaughter 
of  the  Bangor  monks  at  Chester  (Baed.  ih.).  The 
baptismal  difterences  have  been  conjectured  by 
Kiinstmann  to  relate  to  trine  immersion,  by 
Dr.  Rock  (upon  the  better  evidence  of  the 
Stowe  Missal)  to  have  referred  to  the  washing 
of  the  feet  which  the  Britons  are  supposed  to 
have  attached  to  baptism ;  but  both  are  con¬ 
jectures  only.  For  the  date,  locality,  and  his¬ 
tory  of  these  conferences,  see  Haddan  and  Stubbs, 
Councils,  iii.  40,  41.  And  for  the  well-known 
“  Answer  of  Dinoth,”  which  is  plainh’^  the 
work  of  some  mediaeval  Welsh  antiquarv,  see 
ib.  i.  122.  [A.  W'  H.] 

Ali’GCSTIXUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Nicomedia, 
commemorated  May  7  {Mari.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.). 


AUTOCEPHALI 


AUGUSTODUNENSE 

(2)  Bishop  and  confessor,  Apostle  of  England, 
May  26  {Martyrol.  Bedae,  Adonis). 

(3)  Commemorated  at  Rome  Aug.  22  (if. 
Hicron.). 

(4)  Bishop  of  Hippo,  confessor,  Aug.  28  (^Mart. 
Bom.  Vet.,  Ilieron.,  et  Bcdae).  In  Mart.  Hieron.,^ 
under  May  26,  “  in  Africa  Agustini  Episcopi 
under  Aug.  28,  “  Ipono  regio  Depositio  Agustini 
Episcopi so  that  May  26  seems  to  have  been 
given  to  St.  Augustine  of  Canterbury  at  a  date 
later  than  that  of  Mart.  Hkron.  His  name  is 
recited  in  the  Gregorian  Canon. 

(5)  Presbyter,  Oct.  7  (if.  Bedae). 

(6)  “  In  Cappadocia  Agustini  Episcopi,”  Nov. 

17  (df.  Hieron.  ).  [c.] 

AUGUSTODUNENSE  CONCILIUM. 
[Autun,  Council  of.] 

AUGUSTUS.  (1)  Of  Alexandria,  Jan.  11 
(if.  Hkron.). 

(2)  Martyr,  commemorated  May  7  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.). 

(3)  Confessor,  commemorated  at  Bourges,  Oct. 

7  (if.  Hkron.).  [C.] 

AURELIANENSE  CONCILIUM. 
[Orleans,  Council  of.] 

AUREOLA.  [Nimbus.] 

AURELIUS,  commemorated  April  26  {Mart. 
Hkron.).  [C.] 

AUSTERIUS,  commemorated  Oct.  19  {Mart. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

AUSTREBERTANA,  abbess,  commemo¬ 
rated  Feb.  10  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

AUTHENTIC.  The  sounds  connecting  the 
final  (in  Gregorian  music)  with  its  octave,  or  a 
.  melody  in  which  they  only  are  employed,  were 
called  Authentic,  in  contradistinction  to  those  con¬ 
necting  the  4th  below  the  final  with  its  8ve,  the 
5th  above  it,  which  were  called  Plagal  (v.  Plagal). 
In  Ambrosian  music  authentic  scales  only  were 
employed,  and  of  these  only  four ;  the  Phrygian 
(D — d),  Dorian  (E — e),  Hypolydian  (F — f),  and 
Hypophrygian  (G — g)  of  the  Greek  system.  The 
Aeolian  (A — a)  and  the  Ionian  (C — c),  subse¬ 
quently  added  to  the  number  of  the  church 
scales  (tones  or  modes),  were  subjected  to  the 
same  classification.  Authentic  scales  are  cha¬ 
racterised  by  the  harmonic  division  (6:4:3) 
of  their  octaves  ;  e.g.  C — g — c  ;  the  plagal  by  the 
arithmetical  division  (4:3:2);  e.  g.  G — C — g. 
Authentic  melodies  are  thought  to  have  gene¬ 
rally  greater  dignity  and  strength  than  plagal. 
A  good  modern  example  of  the  former  is  the 
well-known  German  chorale  Ein  feste  Burg  ist 
wiser  Gott,  and  of  the  latter  our  Evening  Hymn, 
attributed  to  Talli§ ;  and  it  would  be  difficult 
to  find  in  pure  melodic  music  better  examples 
of  the  sublime  and  the  beautiful.  But  the  tune 
known  in  England  as  the  Old  Hundredth  (essen¬ 
tially  plagal)  certainly  contravenes  this  theory 
in  a  very  striking  instance  and  manner. 

The  relations  of  subject  and  answer  in  the 
modern  tonal  fugue  (as  when  C — g  are  “  an¬ 
swered”  not  by  g — d  but  by  g — C)  obvio.usly 
grew  out  of  the  division  of  scales  into  authentic 
and  plagal.  [J.  H.] 

AUTifeSIODORENSE  CONCILIUM. 
[Auxerrk,  Council  of.] 

AUTOCEPHALI  {A.vTOK((pa\oi,  from  avrhi 
and  Kec^aATj),  a  name  given  by  canonists  and  in 


153 

the  Notitiae — 1.  To  Metropolitans  who  remained 
independent  of  Patriarchs  after  Patriarchs  were 
established,  i.  e.,  who  then  continued  still  to  be 
what  all  Metropolitans  originally  were.  So  the 
Cyprian  archbishop  {Cone.  Ephes.  a.d.  431,  act. 
vii. ;  and  again,  as  late  as  Cone.  Ti-ull.  a.d.  691, 
can.  39,  at  a  time  w'hen  the  Cypriots  had  fled 
from  Cyprus  itself,  and  had  taken  refuge  in  the 
^Enapx'io.  'E\\r}(nr6vTios) :  to  whom  Balsamon 
joins  the  archbishops  of  Bulgaria  and  of  Iberia 
(Georgia).  The  privilege  had  been  given  to  the 
former  of  these  two  by  Justinian.  (See,  how¬ 
ever,  Le  Quien,  Oriens  Christ.,  vol.  i.  96.)  The 
latter  would  seem  to  have  been  at  first  reckoned 
as  subject  to  the  Patiuarchate  of  Antioch,  and 
then  to  Constantinople ;  but  from  a.d.  450  he 
styled  himself  avTouiipaKos,  and  appears  to  have 
been  considered  as  such  (Malan,  Hist,  of  Georg. 
Ch.  35,  196,  &c.).  The  Armenian  Church  is  also 
so  styled  in  the  Notitiae  (see  Bingh.  II.  xviii.  2) ; 
but  it  would  rather  appear  to  have  claimed  to 
be  in  itself  a  patriarchate,  inasmuch  as  Nerses 
its  second  bishop,  present  at  Cone.  Constant  n., 
A.D.  381,  styled  himself  Patriarch  and  Katho- 
licos  of  Armenia,  as  did  thenceforward  his  suc¬ 
cessors  (Malan,  Life  of  Gregory  the  Illuminator, 
27).  RaA’’enna  in  the  west  is  also  said  to  have 
arrogated  the  privilege  of  “  autocephaiism,”  and 
only  to  have  surrendered  it  under  the  pontifi¬ 
cate  of  Pope  Donus,  a.d.  676-679.  Roman  (and 
Welsh)  Britain,  which  is  usually  adduced  as 
another  western  instance,  and  which  undoubtedly 
had  no  relations  to  the  Roman  patriarchate  or 
any  other  for  three  centuries  (400-700), — as 
neither  had  Celtic  Ii’eland  nor  Columban  Scot¬ 
land, — was  rather  a  case  of  bishops  who  still 
remained  without  a  metropolitan,  the  legends 
of  the  archbishoprics  of  Caerleon  or  of  St.  David’s, 
or  indeed  of  any  archbishopric  in  the  island  at 
all  except  as  an  honoraiy  and  unmeaning  title, 
being  without  any  historical  authority  whatever. 
The  epithet  is  applied  to  Britain  only  by  late 
controversial  writers. 

2.  A  name  given  to  a  class  of  bishops  whe 
came  to  exist  in  the  9th  century  in  the  eastei  n 
patriarchates,  as  Constantinople,  Jerusalem,  An¬ 
tioch,  who  were  dependent  directly  upon  their 
patriarch  without  the  intervention  of  a  metro¬ 
politan,  and  who  might  be  more  accurately  (and 
sometimes  were)  called  archbishops  or  metropo¬ 
litans  themselves,  only  without  suffragans  (see 
authorities  in  Bingh.  II.  xviii.  3), 

3.  The  name  might  be  applied,  on  the  same 
principle  upon  which  it  is  attached  to  metropo¬ 
litans  whose  independence  survived  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  patriarchs,  to  bishops  whose  independence 
survived  the  establishment  of  metropolitans.  But 
the  origin  of  metropolitans  was  too  early  and  too 
universal  to  allow  of  any  ancient  authority  sig¬ 
nalizing  possible  temporary  exceptions  of  this 
kind  by  a  name.  The  British  bishops,  however, 
appear  to  be  (substantially)  a  case  in  point. 
And  Valesius,  although  inaccurately  in  point  of 
fact,  has  applied  the  name  to  the  Bishop  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  before  that  Bishop  became  himself  a 
patriarch  (Bingh.  ib.  4). 

4.  No  doubt  also  the  name  mi ;ht  be  applied, 
as  Bingham  suggests,  to  any  case  where  there 
happened  to  be  only  one  bishop  in  the  country, 
as  in  Scythia  in  the  time  of  Sozomen. 

Aeephalus  {'AufipaKos)  is  said  to  be  sometimes 
used  for  Autoeephalus. 


154 


AUTONOMVS 


BALANCE 


(Bingliam  ;  Brerewood,  Patriarch,  Gov.  of 
Anc.  Ch. ;  Cave,  Dissert,  on  Gov.  of  Anc.  Ch. ; 
Beveridge,  Pandet.t.  ;  Du  Cange  ;  Meursius ; 
Suicer.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

AUTONOMtJS,  commemorated  June  24  {Cal. 
Armen.).  [C.] 

AUTUN,  COUNCIL  OF  (Augustodun- 
ENSE  Concilium),  a.d.  670,  under  Bishop  Leo- 
degar,  passed  some  canons  respecting  monks, 
and  one  enforcing  the  Athanasian  creed  (Mansi, 
xi.  123).  [A.  W.  H.J 

AUVEEGNE,  COUNCILS  OF.  [Cler- 
MONT,  Council  of.] 

AUXENTIUS,  holy  father,  commemorated 
Feb.  14  (Cal.  Byzant.)  ;  July  28  (.Mart. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

AUXEREE,  COUNCILS  OF  (Autissiodo- 
RENSiA  Concilia).  I.  a.d.  578,  diocesan,  where 
the  bishop,  with  his  7  abbats,  and  34  presbyters 
and  3  deacons,  passed  45  canons,  and  among 
others,  one  requiring  a  synod  of  abbats  every 
November  and  of  presbyters  every  May  (Mansi, 
ix.  911). 

II.  A.D.  841,  provincial,  gathered  by  the  Em¬ 
perors  Louis  and  Charles  to  consult  respecting 
the  slaughter  in  the  war  between  them,  for  which 
a  three  days’  fast  was  appointed  (Mansi,  xiv. 
786).  [A.  W.  H.] 

AVE  MAEIA.  [Hail  Mary.] 

AVITUS.  (1)  Bishop,  deposition,  Feb.  5 
{Mart.  Hieron.). 

(2)  Presbyter,  commemorated  June  17  {Mart. 
Bedue). 

(3)  Confessor,  June  23  {Ib.  et  Hieron.).  [C.] 

AZARIAS,  martyr,  with  Ananias  and  Misael, 
commemorated  Dec.  16  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.)  ;  April 
23  {Mart.  Bedae) ;  Dec.  17  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

AZYME.  [Elements.] 


B 

BABYLAS.  (1)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Antioch, 
A.D.  253 ;  commemorated  Jan.  24  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae)',  Sept.  4  {Cal.  Byz.). 

(2)  Saint,  Natale,  June  11  {M.  Bedae),  [C.] 

BACCANCELDENSE  CONCILIUM. 
[Bapchild,  Council  of.] 

BACCHUS.  (1)  Secundicerius,  martyr,  a.d. 
290 ;  commemorated  Oct.  7  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Cal.  Byz.).  (2)  ‘‘  Passio  S.  Bacchi,”  Sept.  25 
{M.  Bedae).  [C.] 

BACULUS.  [Staff.] 

BAGAJENSE  CONCILIUM,  Donatist,  at 
Vagais  or  Bagais,  in  Numidia,  a.d.  394,  where 
310  bishops,  under  Primian  the  Donatist  Primate 
of  Carthage,  condemned  Maximian,  the  Catholic 
bishop  of  that  city  (St.  Aug.  Cont.  Crescon.  iii. 
53,  V.  10,  0pp.  X.  465,  490 ;  Tillemont,  M.  E.  vi. 
165;  Labb.  ii.  1154).  [A.  W.  H.] 

BAGAN,  virgin,  commemorated  with  Eu¬ 
genia,  Jan.  22  {Cal.  Armen.).  [C.] 

BAHED.  The  name  of  a  fast  in  the  Ethiopic 
Calendar,  .observed  on  Ter  10  =  Jan.  5  (Neale, 
Eastern  Ch.  hit.  p.  810).  [C.] 

BALANCE  (Symbol).  The  balance  appears 
sometimes  upon  Christian  tombs.  A  sepulchral 


stone  from  the  cemetery  of  St.  Cyriac  (Aringh’, 
Roma  Sv})t.  ii.  139)  displays  this  instrument  in 
conjunction  with  a  crown;  it  may  also  be  seen 
upon  a  marble  slab  taken  by  Bosio  from  a 
cemetery  of  the  Via  Latina  (Aringhi,  ii.  658), 
accompanied  by  a  house,  a  fish,  by  a  doubtful 
object  which  has  been  taken  wrongly  for  a  can¬ 
delabrum,  and  by  a  mummy  set  up  in  a  niche. 
A  monument  of  the  same  nature  reproduced  in 
the  work  of  M.  Perret  {Inscript.  No.  37)  repre¬ 
sents  a  balance  with  a  weight  (see  woodcut).  De 
Rossi  {Roma  Sott.  T.  i.  p.  86)  notices  another 
example  in  the  church  of  St.  Cecilia  at  Rome. 


balance  with  weight,  from  the  Catacombs. 


Some  antiquaries,  as  Mamachi  {Origines  v.  98) 
have  supposed  that  the  balance  is  symbolical  of 
judgment  or  justice.  And  it  is  true  that  it  is 
found,  doubtless  with  this  signification,  on  coins 
of  Gordian,  Diocletian,  and  other  emperors  of 
pagan  Rome.  The  mediaeval  artists  again  have 
frequently  made  use  of  this  idea.  We  may  see 
it,  for  instance,  in  the  tympanum  of  the  great 
doorway  of  Notre  Dame  in  Paris,  and  in  that  of 
the  cathedral  of  Autun,  where  it  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  a  translation  in  sculpture  of  the  words 
of  the  Apociilypse  (xxii.  12).  But  in  the  first 
two  instances  which  we  have  mentioned,  and 
which  are  almost  the  only  examples  transmitted 
to  us  by  Christian  antiquity  properly  so  called, 
it  is  important  to  observe  that  mention  is  made 
of  the  contract  entered  into  between  the  pur¬ 
chasers  of  the  tombs  and  the  fossores  Montanus 
and  Calevius:  VRSICTNVS  ED  QVINTILIANA 
SE  BIBI  (vivLs)  CONPARAVERVNT  LOCV  A 
iMONTANV.  II  CALEVIVS  BENDIDIT  (ven- 
didit)  AVIN  TRISOMY. 

It  is  therefore  more  natural  to  suppose  that 
the  balance  symbolises  purchase  and  sale,  per  aes 
et  libram. 

Sometimes  upon  tombs  the  balance  is  simply 
indicative  of  a  trade,  as  for  example  on  the  slab 
of  a  Roman  monever  found  in  the  cemetery  of 
St.  Priscilla  (Marini  PapiH  diplom.  p.  332) : 
AYR.  YENERANDO.  NVM  ||  QYI.  YIXIT. 
ANN.  XXXV  II  ATILIA.  VALENTINA. 
FECIT  II  MARITO.  BENEMERENTL  IN.  PACE. 
Bronze  balances  were  found  in  a  Frankish  se¬ 
pulchre  of  the  Merovingian  period  by  the  Abbe' 
Cochct  {Sepult.  Gauloises,  p.  253  and  following), 
where  in  all  probability  they  indicated  the  tomb 
of  a  monetary  officer,  or  fiscal  agent,  or  accountant 
of  some  kind.  This  is  rendered  almost  certain 
by  the  fact  that  a  balance  in  the  Faussett  col¬ 
lection  {Inventorium  Sepulchrale,  p.  43 ;  pi.  xvii. 
fig.  1,  2,  3),  was  found  in  the  same  tomb  with  a 
“  touch-stone  ”  for  the  trial  of  metals.  Another, 
found  like  the  preceding  in  an  ancient  tomb  in 
Kent,  is  described  and  figui’ed  by  Mr.  Roach 
I  Smith  in  Colle(Aav.ea  Antigm,  vol.  iii.  pp.  12-14: 


BALBINA 

pi.  iv.  fig.  1  (Mai-tigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chr^t. 
p.  67).  [C.] 

BALBINA.  (1)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Rome, 
A.D.  130 ;  commemorated  March  31  (Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Bedae'). 

(2)  Natale,  Oct.  6  (M.  Bedae). 

BALDEGUNDIS,  deposition  at  Poictiers, 
Fob.  11  (Mart.  Hieron.). 

BANNER.  [Labarum;  Vexillum.] 

BAPCHILD,  COUNCIL  OF  (Baccancel- 
DENSE  Concilium),  or  rather  Witenagemot. 
(1)  Between  A.D.  696  &  716,  at  Bapehild,  near 
Sittingbourne,  in  Kent;  a  Kentish  Witenagemot, 
at  which  abbesses  and  presbyters,  as  well  as 
bishops  and  abbats,  were  present,  and  where  the 
celebrated  Privilege  of  Wihtred  was  enacted, 
granting  to  the  Kentish  metropolitan  a  free 
election  in  the  case  of  abbats,  abbesses,  priests, 
and  deacons.  The  date  cannot  be  precisely 
determined ;  and  is  further  confused  by  a  dis¬ 
crepancy  between  the  Canterbury  Register  and 
the  Textus  Eoffensis  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  on  the  other,  respecting 
the  dates  of  Gebmund  and  Tobias,  successively 
bishops  of  Rochester.  Spuiious  forms  of  the 
Privileginm  extend  it  to  the  election  of  bishops 
and  to  the  whole  of  Saxon  England.  See  Haddan 
and  Stubbs,  Councils,  iii.  238-247. — (2)  A.D.  798, 
if  at  all ;  said  to  have  been  held  under  Kenulf, 
king  (not  of  Kent,  but)  of  Mercia,  and  Archbishop 
Athelard,  with  bishops  (two  lists,  both  spurious), 
abbats,  and  an  archdeacon ;  and  to  have  prohi¬ 
bited  lay  interference  with  churches  and  mo¬ 
nasteries,  in  compliance  with  a  mandate  of  Pope 
Leo  III.  The  decree,  however,  is  verbatim  that 
of  the  (genuine)  Council  of  Cloveshoo  of  A.D.  803, 
from  which  also  one  of  the  lists  of  bishops  is 
partially  taken  (Kemble,  Cod.  Dipl.  1018,  1024, 
Wilk.  i.  162  ;  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  G.unc.  iii. 
517).  The  copy"  in  Reg.  A  1  at  Canterbury, 
however  has  no  signatures.  [A.  W.  H.] 

BAPTISM.  This  Article  is  arranged  as 
follows: — I.  Terms  used  to  designate  Baptism. 

II.  The  Order  of  Baptism  in  various  Churches. 

III.  The  several  Parts  of  the  entire  Ritual,  viz. : 
Consecration  of  the  Water;  Interrogations  and 
Responses  (Renunciation  and  Profession) ;  Pre- 
pai-atory  Unction  ;  Unclothing  of  the  Catechu¬ 
men  ;  the  Immersion ;  the  Baptismal  J'ormula ; 
the  subsequent  Ceremonies,  viz.  :  the  Kiss,  the 
lighted  Tapers,  the  white  Garments,  the  red 
and  white  Thread,  the  Chaplet,  and  the  washing 
of  Feet.  IV.  At  what  times,  in  what  places, 
and  by  whom.  Baptism  was  administered  ;  with 
what  matter,  in  what  mode,  and  at  what  age. 
V.  Graphic  I'epresentations  of  Baptism.  VI.  Li¬ 
terature.  The  subject  of  Sponsors,  and  that  of 
Baptismal  Names,  are  treated  separately  in  their 
alphabetical  order. 

I.  Terms  used  to  designate  Baptism. 

§  1.  BaTTTi^etv  and  derived  words.  The  meaning 
of  this  verb  is  not,  as  commonly  asserted,  identical 
with  that  of  iSaTTreii/,  to  “dip,”  but  presented  this 
idea  under  special  modifications  characteristic  of 
the  various  ages  in  which  it  was  employed.  In 
classicjil  usage  it  was  commonly  used  meta¬ 
phorically  in  speaking  of  one  “  drenched  ”  with 
wine,  “overwhelmed”  with  misfortunes,  and 
the  like.  Polybius  uses  it  (iii.  72)  in  speaking 
ot  troops  passing  through  water  which  reached 


BAPTISM  loo 

up  to  their  breasts ;  fx6\is  k'cos  rwu  jaacTTwi/ 
ot  TTcfot  ^aTTTL^dfXfvoi  Si4l3atj/ov.  In  the  Canon¬ 
ical  Books  of  the  LXX  it  occurs  but  once 
in  speaking  of  Naaman  either  “  washing  ”  or 
“dipping  ”  himself  in  the  Jordan  (1  Kings  v.  14). 
In  the  Apocrypha,  in  speaking  of  one  washing 
herself  (eSairr'iCexo  iirl  rris  TTTjyrjs,  Jud.  xii.  7) 
at  a  spring;  and  again  (Ecclus.  24,  37  al.  29)  of 
one  washing  himself  after  touching  a  dead  body ; 
both  cases  having  reference  to  ceremonial  puri¬ 
fication.  In  the  New  Testament  it  is  occasionally 
used  metaphorically  (Matt.  xx.  22 ;  Mark  x.  38, 
.39  ;  Luke  xii.  50).  But  it  generally  has  reference 
either  to  Jewish  ceremonial  purification  (Mark 
vii.  4  ;  Luke  xi.  28),  or  to  Christian  Baptism. 

§  2.  AovTphr,  or  lavacrum,  fons.  These 

terms  (laver  and  font)  have  reference,  like  the 
last  noticed,  to  the  outward  circumstances  of  the 
Baptismal  Rite.  Aovrphv,  the  Latin  lavacrum, 
means  literally,  “  what  serves  for  washing  the 
body,”  that  is,  either  the  vessel,  or  the  water  so 
used.  St.  Paul  twice  (Eph.  v.  26,  and  Tit.  iii.  5) 
uses  the  word  in  reference  to  bapti.sm.  In  Justin 
Martyr  it  appears  as  an  evidently  technical  de¬ 
signation  of  baptism  (rh  Aovrphu  iroiovvTai,  Apol. 
I.  c.  79),  and  from  that  time  onward  the  word  is 
repeatedly  used.  The  terms  irriy^  and  fons, 
meaning  a  spring,  or  a  pool  fed  by  a  spring,  date 
as  technical  terms  from  the  time  when  either 
natural  pools  (see  §  39)  in  the  open  air,  or  bap¬ 
tisteries  supplied,  as  was  commonly  the  case,  by 
natural  springs,  were  made  use  of  for  the  purpose 
of  Christian  baptism. 

§  3.  Terms  expressive  of  doctrine. — The  most 
common  of  these  doctrinal  designations  are  those 
which  have  reference  to  the  idea  of  Regeneration 
— in  Greek  avayivpqois,  and  more  rarely  naAiy- 
yeu^tria  and  deoy4v€(ris,  in  Latin  regeneratio, 
secunda  or  spiritualis  nativitas,  renasci,  and  re- 
nascentia.  Terms  of  regeneration  had  been  used 
in  a  figurative  sense  both  by  classical  authors 
and  by  Hellenists,  such  as  Philo  and  Josephus, 
before  they  were  adopted  into  the  language 
of  Christianity.  They  served  to  express  the  idea 
of  an  entire  change  of  condition,  as  for  ex¬ 
ample  the  passing  out  of  a  state  of  misery,  of 
slavery  or  of  subjection,  into  a  state  of  well¬ 
being,  of  freedom  and  of  independence.  (See 
Wetsteiu  on  Matt.  xix.  28  ;  Trench’s  Sgnonyms  of 
N.T.  pp.  71,  72.  Add  Tertullian,  de  Bapt.  c.  5.) 
The  Rabbinical  use  of  such  terms  more  directly 
illustrates  the  Christian  meaning  of  these  words, 
but  the  ultimate  date  to  which  that  use  is  to 
be  traced  is  open  to  doubt.  (See  Lightfoot  on 
John  iii.  4 ;  0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.  610,  fol.  Rotterdami 
1687  ;  Schoettgen,  Hor.  Heb.  i.  p.  704,  Dresdao 
4,  1733  ;  Carpzovii  Annotationes  in  Th.  Goodwini 
Mosen  et  Aaronem,  Francofurti  4,  1748,  lib.  i. 
cap.  iii.  §  vii.) 

§  4.  'Zeppay'ts,  Signaculum,  &c.  Baptism  is 
not  unfrequently  spoken  of  as  “  the  seal,”  or 
more  fully  “the  seal  of  the  Lord,”  (Clemens 
Alex.),  and  that  partly  perhaps  with  reference  to 
the  language  of  Holy  Scripture  (2  Cor.  i.  22, 
Eph.  i.  13,  and  iv.  30).  But  other  thoughts  were 
also  connected  with  the  term,  as  e.g.  that  of  the 
sign  of  the  cross  (this  being  more  especially  the 
seal)  being  the  seal  of  the  Christian  covenant  or  of 
the  “spiritual  circumcision.”  (St.  Cyril.  Hieros. 
Cotech.  V.  Mera  tI/v  tt'kttiu  rqv  trufu/xaTiK^ 
Xa/x^dvopfu  (TippayiSa.  'Aylcv  npev/Liart  5ia  to 
Kot/rpov  TrepiTfppopepoi.)  Hence  further  modi- 


a 


156 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


fioatioas  cf  the  same  idea,  such  as  “  Character 
Dominicus,”  the  mark  impressed  by  the  Lord 
(St.  Augustine  de  Bapt.  c.  Donat,  lib.  vi.  cap.  i. 
and  Epist.  184  Ws,  c.  vi.  §  23.  Migne,  tom.  ii, 
p.  803);  SefTTroretas  arjiuLe'iooa-is,  a  mark  indicative 
ot“  ownership  or  dominion  (St.  Greg.  Naz.  Oi\  xl. ; 
comi)are  St.  Isa^ic  of  Armenia,  quoted  below, 
§  101);  or  again  the  Nota  Militaris  (St.  Augus¬ 
tine  de  Bapt.  lib.  i.  cap.  iv.),  ^  too  (TTpariwrov 
(Tcppay'is  (St.  Chrysostom  in  ii.  Cor.  Horn.  iii.  ad 
fin.),  the  mark  put  upon  soldiers  to  ensure  their 
recognition. 

§  0.  Terms  of  Initiation  or  Illumination. — The 
idea  of  baptism  being  an  initiation  (pvr)(Tis, 
p.v<TTayo}y'ia,  TeXery?)  into  Christian  mysteries, 
an  enlightenment  (ppoir icrpdts,  illurninatio,  illus- 
tratio)  of  the  darkened  understanding,  belonged 
naturally  to  the  primitive  ages  of  the  Church, 
when  Christian  doctrine  was  still  taught  under 
great  reserve  to  all  but  the  baptized,  and  when 
adult  baptism,  requiring  previous  instruction, 
was  still  of  prevailing  usage.  Most  of  the  Fathers 
interpreted  the  (pcariarOfVTcs,  “once  enlightened,” 
of  Heb.  vi.  4,  as  referring  to  baptism.  In  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  (Justin  M.  Apol.  ii. 
Ka\€?Tai  Se  tovto  rh  Kovrpov  (pwriaphs  ws  (t>(o- 
Ti^o/j.€j/ccv  TTju  Siduoiav  tS>v  Tavra  piardavdvTujv') 
we  find  proof  that  “illumination”  was  already 
a  received  designation  of  baptism.  And  at  a 
later  time  (St.  Cyril  Hieros.  Catech.  passim)^  oi 
(pwTi^opevoi  (illuminandi)  occurs  as  a  technical 
term  for  those  under  preparation  for  baptism, 
01  (pcortaBej/res  of  those  already  baptised.  So  oi 
ap.vr]Toi  and  oi  p.ep.vr)pevoi,  the  uninitiated  and 
the  initiated,  are  contrasted  by  Sozomen,  H.  E. 
lib.  i.  c.  3. 

§  6.  Modern  terms. — In  most  of  the  modern  Eu¬ 
ropean  languages  the  words  expressive  of  baptism 
are  derived  directly  from  the  Latin  baptizare,  and 
testify  to  the  fact  of  Latin  having  been  in  the 
Western  Churches  the  one  ecclesiastical  language 
almost  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  But  there 
IS  one  notable  exception.  The  German  taufen, 
to  “  baptize,”  akin  to  our  English  “  dip,”  has  the 
same  technical  meaning  as  baptizare,  and  recals 
the  time  when  on  the  conversion  of  the  German 
tribes  baptism  was  as  a  rule  performed  by  “  dip¬ 
ping  ”  (see  §  92),  and  when  not  Latin,  but  as  far 
as  possible  the  mother-tongue  of  the  converts 
was  employed  in  the  baptismal  offices.  Our 
countryman,  St.  Boniface,  in  his  Statuta  (Mar- 
tene,  de  Ant.  Ecc.  Bit.  tom.  i.  p.  48)  desires  that 
the  catechumens  be  taught  to  make  the  Renun¬ 
ciations  and  Confessions  of  Faith  in  Baptism  “  in 
.■psa  lingua  qua  nati  sunt,”  and  directs  any  pres¬ 
byter  to  leave  the  diocese  who  is  too  proud  to 
obey  this  direction. 

II.  The  Order  of  Baptism  in  various  Churches 
of  the  East  and  of  the  West. 

§  7.  Described  by  Justin  Martyr. — The  earliest 
description  of  the  actual  rite  of  baptism  is  that 
given  by  Justin  Martyr  in  his  first  Apology  (cap. 
Ixxix.),  which  dates  from  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  “  We  will  now  relate  after  what 
manner  we  dedicated  (av^Q-pKap.^v)  ourselves  unto 
God,  when  we  were  new-made  through  Christ 
(^KaivoTTon)Q4vTfs  Sid  rov  X.).  So  many  as  are 
convinced,  and  believe  the  truth  of  what  we 
teach  and  affirm,  and  who  promise  to  be  able  to 
live  accordingly,  are  taught  both  to  pray,  and 
with  fasting  to  ask  of  God  remission  of  their  past 


sins,  while  we  join  with  them  in  their  prayers 
and  in  their  fast.  Then  they  are  conducted 
by  us  to  a  place  where  there  is  water,  and 
they  are  regenerated  (duayivvwvTai)  after  the 
same  manner  of  regeneration  as  that  in  which 
we  our.selves  were  regenerated.  For  they  then 
make  their  ablution  (rh  Xovrphv  iroiovvrai)  in 
the  water,  in  the  name  of  God,  the  Father  and 
Lord  of  the  Universe,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  Christ  said  : 
‘Except  yc  be  regenerated  (^tdv pip  dvaytvvpQriTT) 
ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.’  ” 

§  8.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  description  here 
given  is  without  full  details  concerning  the  rite 
itself,  as  was  natural  in  one  writing  concerning 
a  Christian  Sacrament  to  per-sons  who  were  not 
Christians  themselves.  But  we  may  trace  clear 
allusions  to  the  prefatory  instruction  and  guid¬ 
ance  of  the  catechumens — to  the  baptismal  pro¬ 
mises  or  stipulations — to  a  place  of  baptism  apart 
from  the  ordinary  place  of  assembly  for  the 
faithful  (dyovrai  v(pl  ypwv  fu6a  vSwp  iarif  We 
find  also  the  baptismal  formula,  “  In  the  name 
of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,” 
though  with  slight  interpolations  which  are  pro¬ 
bably  due  to  the  need  of  some  exj)lanation  in 
addressing  a  heathen  audience  on  such  a  subject. 

§  9.  Bitual  described  by  Tertullian. — About 
fifty  years  later  than  Justin  Martyr,  and  about 
the  close  of  the  second  century,  we  find  evidence 
in  the  works  of  Tertullian  of  the  nature  of  the 
baptismal  rite  as  observed  at  that  time.  He 
speaks  first  of  the  Preparation  of  the  Catechumens 
immediately  before  Baptism — saying  that  they 
should  be  frequent  in  prayer,  with  fasting  and 
kneeling  (then  a  penitential  attitude),  and  watch¬ 
ing,  and  with  confession  of  all  former  sins. 

“  Ingressuros  baptismum,  orationibus  crebris, 
jejuniis  et  geniculationibus,  et  pervigiliis,  orare 
oportet,  et  cum  confessione  omnium  retro  delict- 
orum,  ut  exponant  etiam  baptismum  Joannis. 
Tinguebantui’,  inquit,  confitentes  delicta  sua  ” 
{pe  Bapt.  c.  20).  §  10.  He  describes  the  solemn 

renunciation  of  the  devil  and  his  pomp,  and  his 
angels,  distinguishing  the  renunciation  made  at 
the  time  of  baptism  from  that  made  some  time 
previously  in  the  church  (on  admission  as  cate¬ 
chumens).  (“Aquam  adituri  ibidem,  sed  et  ali- 
quanto  pi’ius  in  ecclesia  sub  antistitis  manu, 
contestamur  nos  renuntiare  diabolo  et  pompae  et 
angelis  ejus.”  De  Cor.  Mil.  c.  3.)  He  speaks  then 
of  other  “  responses  ”  made  by  the  baptized  while 
standing  in  the  water,  alleging  these  as  an  ex¬ 
ample  of  custom  founded  on  tradition  onlv,  not  on 
any  express  direction  of  our  Lord.  (“Dehinc  ter 
mergitamur  amplius  aliquid  respondentes  quam 
Dominus  in  evangelio  determinavit.”  Ibid.  See 
below,  §  93.)  §  11.  The  words  (ter  mergitamur) 

just  quoted,  and  those  of  the  treatise  De  Bapt.  c.  1, 

“  in  aquam  homo  demissus  et  inter  pauca  verba 
tinctus,”  have  reference  to  the  Trine  Immersion 
then  customary  (see  below,  §  49)  and  the  u.-e 
of  the  words  implicitly  prescribed  in  Matt,  xxviii. 
19.  These  points  he  more  exactly  determines 
elsewhere.  (“  Novissime  mandans  ut  tinguerent 
in  Patrem  et  Filium  et  Spirit um  Sanctum,  non  in 
unum  :  nam  nec  semel  sed  ter,  ad  singula  nomina, 
in  personas  singulas  tiuguimur.”  Ado.  Praxeam., 
c.  26.)  §  12.  Among  the  traditionary  customs, 

Tertullian  mentions  the  tasting  of  a  mixture 
(concordiam)  of  honey  and  milk  on  leaving  the 
font  (“  Inde  suscepti  lactis  et  mellis  concordiam 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


157 


praegustanius.”  De  Cor.  Mil.  c.  3).  But  there  is 
no  reference  to  this  in  his  treatise  de  baptismo,  so 
that  it  may  not  improbably  have  been  of  occa¬ 
sional  or  local  usage  only  in  his  time.  §  13.  The 
anointing  with  a  consecrated  (benedicta)  oil,  and 
the  imnosition  of  hands  by  the  bishop,  which 
followed  upon  baptism,  is  spoken  of  as  being 
intimately  connected  with  the  actual  baptism. 
In  the  font,  according  to  his  view,  we  are  washed 
from  sin,  and  so  prepared  for  the  reception  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  (“Non  quod  in  aquis  spiritum 
sanctum  consequamur  sed  in  aqua  emundati  sub 
Angelo  Spiritui  Sancto  praeparamur  ....  An¬ 
gelas  baptism!  arbiter  supervcnturo  Spiritui 
Sancto  vias  dirigit  ablutione  delictorum  quam 
tides  impetrat  obsignata  in  Patre  et  Filio  et 
Spiritu  Sancto  ....  Exinde  egress!  de  lavacro 
perungimur  benedicta  unctione  ....  Dehinc 
manus  imponitur  per  benedictionem  advocans 
et  invitans  Spiritum  Sanctum.”  Be  bapt.  cc.  6, 
7,  8).  The  evidence  of  Tertullian  on  other  points 
will  come  under  notice  later  in  this  article. 

§  14.  Ritual  at  Jerusalem,  A.D.  347.  The 
Catecheses  of  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  delivered  in 
Lent,  a.  347,  picture  to  us  in  tolerably  full 
detail  the  ceremonial  usages  there  customary  in 
his  time.  Throughout  Lent  {Catech.  i.  Tfaaapd- 
Kovra  7}iJ.4pas  ov  tt}  irpoa'evxfj  j  and 

again  reaaapdKovTa  rjixfpcov  /uerduoiai/)  the 

catechumens  assembled  day  after  day  in  the 
church  of  the  Anastasis  (Cat.  xiv.)  for  prayer, 
and  for  catechetical  instruction.  §  15.  And  at 
the  close  of  Lent,  on  the  “  Sabbath,”  or  Easter 
Eve,  as  the  evening  (Myst.  Catech.  i.  /car’ 
rod  ^aTTriapaTos  t^u  kairtpau.  Compare  Chry- 
sost.  in  1  Cor.  Horn,  xl.,  where  he  speaks  of  t^v 
kaiTipav  e/ceij/Tjv,  that  CA^ening  in  which  baptism 
is  solemnized)  closed  in  upon  the  holy  city,  those 
to  be  baptized  assembled  in  the  outer  chamber 
of  the  baptistery  (ets  rhv  -npoavXiop  rov  ^aTni<r- 
ryplov  oIkov,  Myst.  Cat.  i.)  and  facing  towards 
the  west,  as  being  the  place  of  darkness,  and  of 
the  poAvers  thereof,  Avith  outstretched  hand, 
made  open  renunciation  of  Satan.  §  16.  Then 
turning  them  about,  and  Avith  face  towards  the 
East,  “  the  place  of  light,”  they  exclaimed,  “  I  be- 
lieA’-e  in  the  Father  (ets  Thv  11.)  and  in  the  Son, 
and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  one  baptism  of 
repentance.”  §  17.  This  said,  they  Avent  forward 
into  the  inner  chamber  (oIkos)  of  the  baptistery, 
and  (Myst.  Cat.  ii.)  put  off  the  garment  (chiton) 
wherewith  they  were  clothed,  and  being  thus 
naked  Avere  anointed  with  oil  from  head  to  foot. 
§  18.  After  this  preparatory  unction  they  were 
led  by  the  hand  to  the  font  itself,  and  then  each 
one  Avas  asked,  “  Dost  thou  believe  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ?  ”  and  they,  in  ansAver,  witnessed  the 
saving  confession  of  their  faith,  and  dipped  them¬ 
selves  thrice  in  the  Avater,  and  thrice  lifted 
themselA’’es  up  from  out  thereof ;  and  so  set 
forth,  by  symbol,  the  three  days’  burial  of  the 
Lord,  and  his  Resurrection ;  and  the  saA'ing 
water  Avas  to  them  at  once  death  and  life,^  at 
once  “a  tomb  and  a  mother.”  §  19.  Then,* on 
coming  forth  from  the  Avater,  they  were  clothed 
with  Avhite  garments,  significant  of  the  purity 
and  brightness  of  that  spiritual  vesture  with 
which  they  Avei'e  ever  henceforth  to  be  clothed 
(Myst.  Cat.  iv.  in  fin.).  §  20.  Afterward,  as 
Christ,  coming  up  out  of  the  waters,  was 
anointed  with  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 


descending  upon  Him  in  bodily  shape  as  a  dove, 
an  unction,  not  bodily  but  spiritual,  so  the  bap¬ 
tized,  when  made  partakers  of  “  the  anointed,” 
ai'e  themseh'es  “anointed”  with  a  holv  oil  “on 
the  forehead,  the  ears,  the  nostrils,  and  the 
breast;  and  Avhile  the  body  was  thus  touched 
with  material  ointment,  the  spirit  was  sanctified 
[or  ‘  consecrated,’  a7jd^6Tai]  by  the  holy  and 
lifegiving  Spirit”  (Myst.  Cat.  iii.).  §21.  Holy 
Communion.  After  this  followed  holy  communion, 
of  which  all  the  newly  baptized  were  partakers, 
therein  becoming  “  of  one  body  and  of  one  blood  ” 
Avith  Christ  (o'vo'O'wpoi  Ka\  avvaipoi  too  Xpiarov), 
and  there  partaking  of  a  heaA'enly  bread,  and  of  a 
cup  of  salvation,  that  sanctify  both  soul  and  body 
(lb.  iA'.).  §  22.  Psalms  and  lights.  Under  the 

figurative  language  employed  by  St.  Cyril  in  his 
prefatory  address,  Ave  may  see  evident  allusions  to 
the  accompanying  ceremonial  of  the  great  Easter 
rite.  This  Avas  celebrated,  as  Ave  have  already 
mentioned,  on  the  eve,  and  during  the  night 
(ttStc  phv  vp7p  6  debs  iKe'iprjp  ’tt]P 

pvKTa  K.T.A.,  Praefatio)  preceding  Easter  day. 
And  the  use  of  artificial  light,  thus  rendered 
necessary,  Avas  singularly  in  harmony  Avith  the 
occasion,  and  with  some  of  the  thoughts  most 
prominently  associated  Avith  it  (see  §  5  above). 
It'would  be  difficult  to  imagine  any  scene  more 
moving  than  that  pictured  to  us  in  the  pages  of 
St.  Cyril,  Avhen  on  the  eve  of  the  Saviour’s 
resurrection,  and  at  the  doors  of  the  church  of 
the  “Anastasis,”  the  white-robed  (§  19)  band 
of  the  neAvly  baptised  was  seen  approaching  from 
the  neighbouring  baptistery,  and  the  darkness 
was  turned  into  day  (rb  <tk6tos  rb  ^p€po(paP€S, 
Praefat.  ad  Catech.)  in  the  brightness  of  unnum¬ 
bered  lights.  And  as  the  joyous  chant  swelled 
upwards,  “  Blessed  is  he  A\'hose  unrighteousness 
is  forgiven,  and  whose  sin  is  covered,”  it  might 
well  be  thought  that  angels’  voices  Avere  heard 
echoing  the  glad  acclaim,  “  Blessed  is  the  man 
unto  Avhom  the  Lord  imputeth  no  sin,  and  in 
whose  spirit  there  is  no  guile.”  (8t6  vpuip  ao.6ev- 
Twp,  i.  e.,  after  your  baptism,  ot  &yy€\oi  iirKpa:- 
p^aovorip,  MuKdpioi  S>p  d(i>edr}(rap,  k.t.A,,  Prae¬ 
fat.) 

§  23.  Other  Eastern  rites.  In  Egypt.  The 
order  of  baptism  AA'^hich  Ave  have  traced  aboA'e  as 
observed  at  Jerusalem  in  the  year  347  A.D.,  bears 
a  close  resemblance  in  all  its  more  important  de¬ 
tails  to  those  of  which  Ave  find  record  elscAvhere. 
The  limits  of  this  article  do  not  admit  of  our 
quoting  these  in  full.  For  the  order  folloAved  in 
the  Egyptian  Church,  see  the  Const itutiones  Eccle- 
siae  Aegyptiacae,  §  46  seqq.,  published  by  Lagarde 
(al.  Bbtticher)  in  his  Reliquiae  Juris  Ecclesiastici 
antiqu  ssimae.  It  Avill  be  found  also  in  Bunsen’s 
Christianity  and  Mankind,  a'oI.  aJ.  J).  465,  seqq., 
in  a  Greek  translation  by  Lagarde  from  the 
Coptic  original.  With  this,  which  may  probably 
date  from  the  4th  or  5th  century  (not  as  a  MS. 
but  as  a  rite),  may  be  compared  the  Ordo  Bap- 
tismi  of  Severus,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  in  the 
7th  century  (Bihlioth.  Max.  Patrum,  Paris,  fol. 
1654,  tom.  A’i.  col.  25),  and,  for  a  much  later 
time,  see  Vansleb,  Histoire  de  I'^glise  d* Alex- 
andrie,  Paris,  1677,  cap.  21,  p.  80. 

§  24.  In  Aethiopna.  The  Ethiopic  rite  must 
originally  haA'e  resembled  that  of  Alexandria. 
Our  first  detailed  accounts  of  it  come  to  us  from 
the  Jesuit  missionaries  (Bibl.  Max.  Pair,  as 
above,  tom.  vi.  col.  57,  seqq.).  With  their  state- 


158 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


meuts,  which  coming  from  various  quarters 
appear  at  times  somewhat  inconsistent  with 
eacli  other,  may  be  compared  the  account  given 
by  Ludolf  in  his  Historia  Aethiopica,  lib.  iii. 
cap.  vi. 

§  2y.  The  Descriptions  of  the  Rite  given  by 
Dionysius,  the  so-called  Areopagite  (^Ecc.  Hier. 
lib.  ii.),  and  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
cannot  be  assigned  with  certainty  to  any  par¬ 
ticular  date  or  locality  ;  but  they  afford  interest¬ 
ing  points  of  comparison  w'ith  the  ritual  de¬ 
scribed  elsewhere. 

§  26.  Western  Rites.  The  only  complete 
Ordines  Baptismi  of  any  early  Western  churches 
are  the  Roman  and  the  Gallican.  The  Roman 
may  be  traced  with  slight  variations  in  the 
sacramentary  attributed  to  Gelasius  (Migne, 
Patrol,  tom.  74,  p.  1105,  and  Muratoid,  Liturg. 
Rowan.  Veti),  and  that  of  Gregory  the  Great 
(ed.  H.  Menard).  Many  variations  of  the  Gallican 
Ordo  Baptismi  are  given  by  Martene  (^De  Ant. 
Ecc.  Bit.  tom.  i.  Part  1),  and  of  these  we  select 
one  example  as  being  of  exceptional  interest. 

§  27.  The  Gotho-Gallican  Rite.  The  earliest 
of  tlie  Gallican  Ordines  Baptismi  is  probably 
tiiat  sometimes  described  as  the  Gothic,  as 
having  been  in  use  in  the  Visigothic  Church. 
The  order  commences  with  a  prefatory  address, 
remarkable  for  the  figurative  language  employed, 
which  is  utterly  unlike  that  to  be  met  with  in 
any  other  known  ritual,  and  in  which  we  may 
pi’obably  see  traces  of  the  peculiar  circumstances 
under  which  Christianity  was  first  introduced 
into  Gaul.  “Standing,  dearest  brethren,  on  the 
bank  of  this  crystal-clear  fount,  bring  ye  from  the 
land  to  the  shore  new-comers  to  ply  the  traffic 
whereof  they  have  need  (mercaturos  sua  com- 
mercia).  Let  all  who  embark  on  this  voyage 
make  their  way  over  this  new  sea,  not  with 
a  rod  virga,’  probably  with  reference  to 
Moses  and  the  Red  Sea],  but  with  the  cross ; 
not  with  bodily  touch,  but  with  spiritual  appre¬ 
hension  ;  not  with  traveller’s  staff,  but  in  sacra¬ 
mental  mysteiw  (non  virga,  sed  cruce,  non  tactu 
sed  sensu,  non  baculo  sed  Sacramento).  The 
place  is  small  but  full  of  grace.  Happy  hath 
been  the  pilotage  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore 
let  us  pray  the  Lord  our  God,  that  He  will  sanc¬ 
tify  this  fount,  and  make  it  a  laver  of  most 
blessed  regeneration  in  remission  of  all  sins ; 
through  the  Lord.”  §  28.  The  Collect  then 
follows,  being  a  prayer  for  the  benediction  of 
the  font.  “  God  who  didst  sanctify  the  fount 
of  Jordan  for  the  salvation  of  souls,  let  the  angel 
of  thy  blessing  descend  upon  these  waters, 
that  thy  servants  being  bathed  (perfusi)  there¬ 
with  may  receive  remission  of  sins,  and  being 
boim  again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  may 
devoutly  serve  thee  for  ever  ;  through  the  Lord.” 
§  29.  The  Contestatio.  “  It  is  meet  and  right. 
Holy  Lord,  Almighty  Father,  Initiator  of  the 
Saints,  Father  of  all  Unction,  and  author  of  a 
new  sacrament  through  thine  only  Son  our  Lord 
God  ;  Who,  through  the  ministry  of  water  be- 
etowest  in  place  of  the  riches  of  the  world  ante 
divitias  muudi,’  evidently  from  the  Greek  6.vti 
TOO  ttKovtov  too  uSa/xov')  thine  Holy  Spirit ; 
Thou  that  providest  the  waters  of  Bethesda 
through  the  healing  operation  of  the  Angel ; 
Who  didst  sanctify  the  channel  of  Jordan  by  the 
worthiness  of  Christ  thy  Son  ;  have  regard,  0 
Lord,  to  these  waters  prepared  for  the  doing 


away  of  the  sins  of  men ;  grant  that  the  Angel 
of  thy  fatherly  love  (pietatis  tuae)  may  be  pre¬ 
sent  to  this  holy  fount ;  may  he  wash  off  the 
stains  of  the  former  life,  and  sanctify  a  .shrine 
wherein  Thou  mayest  dwell,  causing  them  that 
herein  .shall  be  regenerated  to  grow  and  be 
strengthened  evermore  in  the  inner  man  (ju’oeu- 
rans  ut  regenerandorum  viscera  aeterna  florescant, 
probably  iVa  dd\Kr)  th  rhv  alcava  rd  (nrKd’yx^a 
Tojv  dvay^vviapLivoov),  and  bestowing  that  true 
renewal  which  is  of  baptism.  l>le.ss.  Lord  God, 
this  water  that  Thou  didst  create,  and  let  Thy 
healing  power  (virtus  tua)  descend  upon  it. 
Pour  down  from  above  Thy  Holy  Spirit,  the 
Paraclete,  the  messenger  [angel]  of  truth.  Sanc¬ 
tify,  0  Lord,  these  waters  as  thou  didst  the 
.streams  of  Jordan ;  that  they  who  go  down  into 
this  fount,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  may  be  found 
worthy  to  obtain  both  pardon  of  sins  and  the 
on-pouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  Who  with  (apud)  Thee  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  blessed  for  evermore.”  §  30. 
Consecration  with  Chrism.  “  Then  thou  makest 
a  cross  with  chrism,  and  sayest :  I  exorcise 
thee,  thou  water  of  God’s  creation  ;  I  exorcise 
thee,  the  whole  army  of  the  devil,  the  whole 
power  of  the  adversary,  and  all  darkness  of  evil 
spirits ;  I  exorcise  thee  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  to  w'hom  the  Father 
hath  subjected  all  things  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
Fear  and  tremble.  Thou  and  all  the  malice  that 
is  thine :  give  place  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  all 
who  descend  into  this  font  may  have  the  laver 
of  the  baptism  of  regeneration,  unto  remission  of 
all  sins,  through  Ouy  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
will  come  unto  the  judgment  seat  of  the  Majesty 
of  His  P'ather  with  the  holy  angels,  to  judge 
thee  thou  enemy,  and  the  world,  through  fire, 
forevermore.”  ^  Insufflation.  “Then  thou 
shalt  breathe  (see  §  42)  three  times  upon  the 
water,  and  put  chrism  therein  in  the  form  of  a 
cross,  and  say :  ‘  the  on-pouring  of  the  salutary 
chrism  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  this  may 
be  made  a  fountain  of  water  springing  up  unto 
life  eternal.’  Amen.”  §  32.  The  interrogations 
and  the  baptism.  “  While  baptizing  thou  shalt 
make  the  interrogations  (dum  baptizas  inter- 
rogas  :  see  below,  §  43)  and  .say  :  ‘  I  baptize  thee 
(naming  him)  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  unto  remission  of 
sins,  that  thou  mayest  have  eternal  life.  Amen.’  ” 
§  33.  Unction.  “  While  touching  him  with 
chrism  thou  shalt  say :  ‘  I  anoint  thee  with  the 
(chrism)  unction  of  holiness,  the  clothing  of  im¬ 
mortality,  w'hich  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  first 
I’eceived,  bestowed  by  the  Father,  that  thou 
mayest  present  it  entire  and  undiminished  before 
the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,  and  mayest  live  for 
ever  and  ever.”  §  34.  The  washing  of  feet, 
“  While  washing  his  feet,  thou  shalt  say  :  ‘  I 
wash  thy  feet,  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  did 
unto  his  disciples.  Do  thou  the  like  to  strangers 
and  pilgrims,  that  thou  mayest  have  eternal 
life.’”  The  clothing.  “  While  putting  the 

garment  upon  him  thou  shalt  say  :  ‘  Receive  this 
white  garment,  which  thou  mayest  keep  and 
present  (quam  perferas)  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.’  ”  §  36.  The 

collect.  “  Let  us  pray,  most  dear  brethren,  our 
Lord  God,  for  these  his  neophytes,  now  baptized, 
that  when  the  Saviour  shall  come  in  His  ma- 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


159 


jesty,  He  will  cause  them  whom  He  hath 
regenei’ated  of  watei'  and  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
be  clothed  for  ever  with  the  garment  of  salva¬ 
tion  ;  through  the  Lord,”  §  37.  Another  collect. 
“  For  these  who  are  now  baptized,  and  crowned 
(see  §  65)  in  Christ,  on  whom  our  Lord  hath 
deigned  to  bestow  regeneration,  we  pray  thee. 
Almighty  God,  that  they  may  preserve  undefiled 
unto  the  end  the  baptism  which  they  have 
received  ;  through  Our  Lord.” 

§  38.  Peculiarities  of  this  Bite. — There  is  strong 
internal  evidence  that  this  rite  in  its  present 
shape  is  a  translation  into  debased  Latin  of  an 
older  Greek  original.  There  are  many  parts 
of  it  of  ^vhich  the  sense  can  only  be  guessed  by 
first  translating  it  back  into  Greek,  word  for 
word,  taking  Latin,  such  as  that  of  the  translator 
of  Irenaeus,  as  a  guide  in  so  doing.  And  this 
fact,  coupled  with  that  of  the  metaphors  in  the 
opening  address  being  taken  wholly  from  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  trade  and  of  navigation,  bears  out  in 
a  remarkable  manner  the  conclusion  to  which 
other  independent  evidence  points,  viz.,  that 
Christianity  was  introduced  into  Gaul  through 
Greek  missionaries,  and  in  connection  with  the 
great  line  of  commercial  traffic  of  which  Mar¬ 
seilles  was  the  chief  western  entrepot,  and  the 
cities  of  Cyzicus,  Phocaea,  and  Alexandria  the 
principal  eastern  ports.  It  has  another  point 
of  interest  for  English  readers,  viz.,  that  there 
are  strong  grounds  for  believing  that  the  primi¬ 
tive  British  and  Irish  rites  were  based  on  the 
old  Gallican  use,  of  which  that  just  quoted 
presents,  probably,  the  oldest  example  now  re¬ 
maining. 

§  39.  British  and  Irish  Rites. — No  complete 
Ordo  Baptismi  appears  to  have  been  preserved 
which  will  illustrate  the  primitive  usage  of  the 
British  and  Irish  Churches.  Incidental  notices 
of  the  latter  in  ancient  documents  serve  to  de¬ 
termine  many  points  of  detail  which  will  be 
noticed  in  their  place.  The  fullest  of  these,  and 
one  which  is  of  great  interest  on  many  grounds, 
is  the  story  told  by  Tirechan  (6th  century)  in  the 
Book  of  Armagh,  concerning  St.  Patrick’s  bap¬ 
tising  the  two  daughters  of  King  Laoghaire  at 
the  pool  of  Clebach  in  Connaught.  For  this,  see 
Todd’s  Life  of  St.  Patrick,  p.  452. 

§  40,  Spanish  Bite. — Such  details  as  can  now 
be  determined  concerning  the  primitive  baptismal 
rite  in  Spain  are  contained  in  a  treatise  of  St. 
Ildephonsus  of  Seville  (7th  century),  De  Cogni- 
tione  Baptismi.  Further  particulars  may  be 
inferred  from  Isidore  of  Seville  De  off.  Eccl. 
lib.  ii.  cap.  24  ;  and  from  the  Mozarabic  Liturgy, 
attributed  by  some  to  him.  That  Spanish  usage 
in  the  4th  century  differed  in  some  respects  from 
that  of  Rome,  is  indicated  by  the  letter  of 
Siricius  of  Rome  to  Himerius  Tarraconensis.  See 
below,  §  73. 

III.  Details  of  the  Ritual  of  Baptism. 

§  41.  Theodulf,  bishop  of  Orleans,  just  at  the 
close  of  the  8th  century,  wrote  a  treatise  De 
Ordine  Baptismi  (Migne’s  Patrol,  cv.  223). 
in  which  he  describes  the  complicated  Ritual 
practised  in  Western  Churches  in  his  own  time. 
Taking  his  description  as  a  basis,  but  omitting 
here  the  notice  of  such  points  as  will  come 
under  separate  discussion  in  other  articles,  we 
may  proceed  now  to  describe  separately  the  main 
features  of  the  order  of  baptism  as  they  had  been 


developed  in  the  8th  century,  viz.,  the  Conse¬ 
cration  of  the  Water,  the  Renunciations,  the 
Profession  of  Faith,  the  Immersion  with  accom¬ 
panying  Interrogations,  and  the  subsequent 
ceremonial. 

§  42.  Consecration  of  the  Water  of  Baptism. — 
This  consecration  is  first  mentioned  by  Tertullian 
(de  Bapt.  c.  iv.)  as  brought  about  by  invocation 
of  God.  St.  Cyprian  (Epist.  Ixx.  ad  .Januar.), 
speaks  of  the  water  “being  cleansed  beforehand 
and  sanctified  by  the  bishop  (a  sacerdote) and 
a  Council  held  at  Carthage  under  him,  speaks  of 
this  sanctification  being  brought  about  (prece 
sacerdotis)  by  the  bishop’s  prayer.  St.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  Catech.  iii.,  speaks  of  the  water  re¬ 
ceiving  power  and  being  sanctified  upon  invo¬ 
cation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  Christ.  St.  Basil 
the  Great  (de  Sp.  Sancto,  cap.  27)  reckons  the 
blessing  of  the  baptismal  water  among  the 
traditional  customs  derived  from  the  Apostles. 
From  St,  Augustine,  however  (de  Bapt.  lib.  vi. 
c.  25)  we  learn  that  the  “  Invocations  ”  were  not 
regarded  as  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  sacra¬ 
ment.  In  St.  Augustine  first  (in  Joann.  Evang. 
Tract.  118  ad  fin.)  we  hear  of  the  sign  of  the 
cross  being  made  at  this  Invocation.  Oil  also, 
poured  crosswise,  was  used,  at  least  in  some 
churches,  in  the  consecration  of  the  water,  (Dio- 
nys.  Areop.  De  Hier.  Eccl.  cap.  11 ;  Severus 
Patriarch.  Alexandr.  De  Ordine  Baptismi,  Bibl. 
Patt.  Max.  t.  vi,  p.  25.)  To  the  same  effect  the 
Sacramentary  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great  and  the 
early  Gallican  Rite  already  quoted  in  §  30, 
This  ceremony,  and  the  baptism  of  an  infant 
by  immersion,  are  represented  in  the  engraving 
below,  which  is  from  a  Pontifical  of  the  9th  cen¬ 
tury.  A  further  ceremony,  used  as  time  went 
on,  was  Exorcism  accompanied  by  Insufflation, 
or  breathing  upon  the  waters.  See  §  31  above, 
and  Martene,  De  A.  E.  B.  tom.  i.  pp.  63,  64. 


Consecration  of  Water,  and  Baptism. 


The  Interrogations  and  Responses. 

§  43.  Renunciation  and  Profession. — The  two 
portions  of  the  Order  of  Baptism  next  to  be  con¬ 
sidered,  viz..  Renunciation  followed  by  Profession 
of  Faith,  are  often  classed  together  in  early 
writers  under  the  designation  of  the  Interro^ 
gationeset  Responsa,  i-TrepwT'fio'cis  ual  atroKpiads, 
in  reference  to  the  formulae  of  question  and  an¬ 
swer  by  which  both  one  and  the  other  were  ex¬ 
pressed.  These  phrases  had  their  ultimate  origin 
probably  in  an  exceptional  word  (iirepuTOpta, 
an  answer  formally  made  to  a  question  formally 
put)  used  by  St.  Peter  (1  Pet.  iii.  21)  in  speaking 
of  bapti.sm.  This  was  a  word  of  technical  legal 
use,  having  reference  e.specially  to  forms  of  co¬ 
venant  stipulation.  And  this,  with  very  slight 
modification  only,  appears  as  a  received  technical 


160 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


term  of  the  baptismal  ceremonial  in  the  middle 
of  the  3rd  century.  At  that  time  there  were 
forms  of  interrogation  and  response  recognised  as 
of  “  legitimate  ecclesiastical  rule  ”  in  Africa 
(Tertullian,  above,  §  10 ;  Cyprian.  Epist.  Ixx.  ad 
Jarmar.),  in  Egypt  (Dionysius  apud  Euseb.  H.  E. 
lib.  vii.  c.  9),  in  Cappadocia  (Firmilianus  apud 
Cyprian.  0pp.  Baluz.  Ep.  Ixxv.),  and  at  Rome  (i6.). 

§  44.  2 he  ceremonial  of  Renunciation. — The 
Catechetics  of  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  when  com¬ 
bined  with  allusions  incidentally  made  by  Dio¬ 
nysius,  St.  Basil,  and  others,  put  before  us  very 
vividly  the  ceremonial  with  which  these  renun¬ 
ciations  were  made.  St.  Cyril  (^Cat.  Myst.  i.) 
addressing  the  neophytes,  says,  “Ye  entered  in 
first  into  the  outer  chamber  of  the  baptistery, 
and  standing  with  your  faces  to  the  west  ye  heard 
how  ye  were  bidden  to  stretch  forth  the  hand 
with  a  gesture  of  repulsion  (Ji-iTuQovvra  ra? 
X^lpas,  Dionys.  Areop.  Ecc.  Hier.),  and  ye  re¬ 
nounced  Satan,  as  though  there  present  before 
you  .  .  .  saying,  ‘  I  renounce  thee,  Satan  ’  .  .  . 
Then,  with  a  second  word  thou  art  taught  to 
say,  ‘  and  thy  works  ’  .  .  .  and  then  again  thou 
sayest,  ‘  and  [his]  thy  pomp.’  And  afterward 
thou  sayest,  ‘  and  all  thy  worship  ’  {Karp^iav')  .  .  . 
When  thou  hadst  thus  renounced  Satan,  breaking 
altogether  all  covenants  with  him,  then  .  .  . 
turning  from  the  west  toward  the  sunrising,  the 
place  of  light,  thou  wast  told  to  say,  ‘  I  believe 
in  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  in  one  baptism  of  repentance.’  ”  From  Dio¬ 
nysius  we  learn  further  that  before  making  this 
renunciation  the  catechumen  was  divested  of  his 
upper  garment,  and  standing  barefoot,  and  in 
his  chiton  (shirt)  only,  made  three  separate 
renunciations  in  answer  to  questions  put  to 
him  [this  is  implied,  but  not  so  distinctly  stated 
by  St.  Cyril],  and  then  being  turned  toward  the 
east  was  bidden  to  look  up  to  heaven,  and  with 
uplifted  hands  (ras  avareivavTa)  to  de¬ 

clare  his  allegiance  unto  Christ  ((rvi/Ta^aadai 
T(p  Xpicrrcp),  and  after  so  doing  he  again,  in 
answer  to  questions  put  to  him,  thrice  made 
confession  of  his  faith. 

§  45.  FForc?s  used  in  Renunciation. — These  are 
given  with  more  or  less  of  detail,  according  to 
the  use  of  various  churches,  by  the  following 
writers  after  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  already 
quoted : — St.  Cyril,  Catech.  Myst.  i. ;  St.  Basil, 
De  Sp.  S.  capp.  xi.  and  xxvii. ;  St.  Chrysostom, 
Horn.  xxi.  ad  Pop.  Antiochenum  ;  Liber  Sao'am. 
Gelasii  apud  Martene,  Ee  A.  E.  R.  i.  p.  65 ; 
Isidore  Hispal.  De  Eccl.  Off.  lib.  ii.  cap.  20 ;  and 
St.  Ildephonsus,  DeCognit.  Rapt.  cap.  iii. ;  Ephraem 
Syrus,  De  Abrenuntiatione,  &c.  (0pp.  ed.  Yoss, 
2  fol.  Romae  1589,  t.  i.  p.  199).  For  the  Gallican 
usage,  see  Martene,  as  above,  tom.  i.  p.  64.  The 
mode  of  making  the  Renunciations,  and  the 
words  employed,  are  very  fully  described  in  the 
treatise  De  Sacramentis,  attributed  to  St.  Am¬ 
brose,  but  of  uncertain  date  and  of  doubtful 
authenticity.  In  the  Baptism  of  Infants  the 
Renuntiations  and  the  Profession  of  Faith  were 
made  by  the  Sponsor. 

The  Profession  of  Faith. 

§  46.  Baptism  “  in  the  name  of  the  Fathei-, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,”  involves 
in  its  very  nature  a  profession  of  Faith.  And  of 
the  formal  Declaration  of  Faith  made  in  Baptism, 
we  may  see  the  first  trace,  probably,  in  Acts 


viii.  37  (si  sana  est  lectio).  Fuller  details  will 
be  found  in  Tertullian,  De  Bapt.  c.  vi.  and  De 
Corona  Mil.  c.  iii. ;  in  St.  Cyprian,  Ep.  Ixx.  and  the 
letter  of  Firmilian  published  with  St.  Cyprian’s 
works  (Ep.  Ixxv.).  A  comparison  of  the  many 
passages  in  later  writers  referring  to  these  In¬ 
terrogations  and  Responses,  leads  to  the  con¬ 
clusion,  that  this  profession  was  originally  a  re¬ 
citation  of  the  Creed,  assented  to  with  a  “  Credo  ” 
by  the  Catechumen,  much  as  in  our  own  bap¬ 
tismal  service  now.  The  form,  however,  varied 
according  to  the  gradual  enlargement  of  the 
original  Creed,  and  special  questions  were  some¬ 
times  added  having  reference  to  prevailing  here¬ 
sies  or  schisms  in  particular  Churches.  Ex¬ 
amples  will  be  found  in  the  Missale  Gallicanum 
quoted  by  Martene  (De  Ant.  Ecc.  Rit.  t.  i.  p.  65) 
and  in  the  Or  do  iii.  ibid.  p.  64. 

The  Preparatory  Unction. 

§  47.  Without  entering  at  length  upon  the 
subject  of  “  Unction,”  which  will  be  treated  in 
a  separate  article,  it  may  be  well  to  note  here 
that  in  many  documents  dating  from  after  the 
close  of  the  3rd  century,  we  find  allusions  to  an 
Unction  preceding  Baptism,  in  addition  to  that 
which  was  given  (see  §  58)  after  Baptism.  Nei¬ 
ther  Justin  Martyr,  nor  Tertullian,  nor  St.  Cy¬ 
prian,  say  anything  of  such  a  preparatory  Unction. 
But  this  is  spoken  of  in  the  Apostolical  Consti¬ 
tutions  (lib.  iii.  c.  15),  even  in  the  earliest  form 
in  which  they  have  been  preserved  to  us,  and  by 
St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (Catech.  Alyst.  ii,).  This 
last  gives  us  as  a  fixed  date  the  year  347  A.D. 
The  use  may  of  course  have  been  even  earlier 
than  this  at  Jerusalem  and  elsewhere.  But  in 
Africa  we  may  infer  that  it  had  not  been  intro¬ 
duced  even  at  the  close  of  the  4th  century,  as 
St.  Augustine  nowhere  alludes  to  any  such  rite ; 
and,  what  is  more,  in  one  passage  (Sermo  ccxxvii. 
in  die  Paschae ;  al.  De  Diversis,  83)  he  dwells 
with  much  emphasis  on  the  fact  (necessary  to 
the  argument  he  is  pursuing)  that  the  Unction 
of  Christians  follows  after  their  baptism.  Among 
books  of  doubtful  date,  which  contain  allusions 
to  this  particular  rite  are  the  “  Recognitions,” 
ascribed,  though  falsely,  to  St.  Clement  of  Rome 
(lib.  iii.  c.  jxvii.);  the  Responsiones  ad  Ortho- 
doxos  (Quaest.  137,  ed.  Ben.  p.  501,  E.  7)  falsely 
attributed  to  Justin  Martyr ;  the  Ecclesiastical 
Hierarchy  of  Dionysius,  the  so-called  Areopagite 
(see  §  39,  above) ;  and  the  Constitutions  of  the 
Egyptian  Church  already  referred  to. 

The  Unclothing  of  the  Catechumens. 

§  48.  A  comparison  of  all  the  evitlence  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  catechumens  entered 
the  font  in  a  state  of  absolute  nakedness.  See 
particularly  St.  Cyril,  Hieros.  Myst.  Catech.  ii.  ad 
init. ;  St.  Ambrose,  Senn.  xx.  (0pp.  t.  v.  p,  153, 
Paris,  1642),  and  Enarrat.  vi  Ps.  Ixi,  32  (BB. 
t.  i.  p.  966) ;  St.  Chrysostom,  ad  Ilium.  Cat.  i. 
(Migne,  tom.  ii.  p.  268).  Possibly  a  cincture  of 
some  kind  (quo  pudori  consuleretur)  may  have 
been  worn,  as  indicated  in  some  mediaeval  works 
of  art.  But  in  any  case,  the  question  arises, 
considering  the  great  numbers,  of  both  sexes  and 
of  all  ages,  baptised  at  one  time,  how  could  the 
solemn  celebrations  at  Epiphany,  Easter,  or  Pen* 
tecost  have  been  conducted  with  decency  and 
order  ?  The  explanation  of  this  dilficulty  seems 
to  lie  in  the  construction  of  the  ancient  bap- 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


161 


tisteries,  in  which  the  actual  KoXvjx^iiOpa,  or  ] 
pool,  occupied  the  centre  of  a  much  larj^er 
chamber,  from  which  it  was  in  a  measure  sepa-  ^ 
rated  by  rows  of  surrounding  columns.  If  we 
suppose  the  intervals  of  thofre  columns  to  have 
been  occupied  at  the  time  of  baptism  by  cur¬ 
tains,  it  is  easy  to  imagine  how  the  necessary 
arrangements  could  be  made  without  difficulty, 
the  more  so,  as  the  custom  was  for  the  baptism 
of  men  to  take  place  first,  that  of  women  after¬ 
wards.  And  that  curtains  were  so  used  we  may 
infer  with  some  certainty  from  the  following 
facts.  St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  in  his  well-known 
description  of  the  baptism  of  Clovis  and  his  fol¬ 
lowers,  speaks  thus  of  the  preparations  made  at 
the  baptistery  for  the  occasion  (^Hist.  Franc,  lib. 

ii.  c.  xxxi.).  “  The  open  spaces  of  the  church 
are  shaded  (or  are  darkened,  adumhrantur)  by 
coloured  hangings,  and  fitted  up  with  white  cur¬ 
tains  ;  the  baptistery  is  duly  arranged,  balsams 
diffuse  their  scent,  burning  lights  are  gleaming, 
and  the  whole  enclosure  of  the  baptistery  is  be¬ 
dewed  with  a  divine  fragrance,”  &c.  Similar 
arrangements  to  these  we  find  extemporised  some 
centuries  later  by  St.  Otto  in  Pomerania.  He 
himself  baptised  boys  in  one  place,  while  the 
grown  men  and  the  women  respectively  were 
baptised  in  separate  places  by  others.  Large 
vessels  were  let  down  deep  into  the  ground, 
the  edge  reaching  upwards,  above  ground,  to 
the  height  of  the  knee,  or  somewhat  less.  These 
were  filled  with  water.  And  round  these  cur¬ 
tains  were  hung  on  “  columellae,”  probably  stout 
poles,  and  attached  to  a  rope.  A  further  ai*- 
rangement  is  descidbed  in  the  following  terms : 

“  Ante  sacerdotem  vero  et  comministros,  qui  ex 
una  parte  adstantes  sacramenti  opus  explore  ha- 
bebant,  linteum  fune  trajecto  pependit  quatenus 
verecuudiae  undique  provisum  foret.”  (S'.  Ottonis 
lifa,  lib.  ii.  c.  15,  apud  Surium,  2  Julii.) 

The  Immersion. 

§  49.  Triple  Immersion,  that  is  thrice  dipping 
the  head  (^Kaddnep  %v  tivi  rdcptp  Ttp  vSari  kutu- 
dv6uTwv  ^fiwp  rds  Kecj)a\ds,  St.Chrysost.  in  Joan. 

iii.  5,  Horn,  xxv.)  while  standing  in  the  water, 
was  the  all  but  universal  rule  of  the  Church  in 
early  times.  Of  this  we  find  proof  in  Africa 
(Tertullian  c.  Praxeam,  cap.  xxvi.),  in  Palestine 
(St.  Cyril  Hiero.  Catech.  Myst.  ii.),  in  Egypt 
(^Constitt.  Feel.  Aegypt.  see  above,  §  23),  at  Anti¬ 
och  and  Constantinople  (St.  Chrysostom,  Horn, 
de  Fide,  t.  ix.  p.  855),  in  Cappadocia  (St.  Basil 
De  Sp.  Seto,  c.  xxvii.  and  St.  Gregor.  Nyssen.  De 
Bapt.  vSari  eavrovs  eyKpvTrrojufU  .  .  .  Kal  rp'iTov 
rovTo  Troii7travT€s).  For  the  Roman  usage  Ter¬ 
tullian  indirectly  witnesses  in  the  second  cen¬ 
tury;  St.  Jerome  {adv.  Lucifer,  cap.  iv.  t.  iv. 
p.  294)  in  the  fourth  ;  Leo  the  Great  (Epist.  iv. 
ad  Episc.  Sicul.  c.  iii.)  in  the  fifth  ;  and  Pope  Pela- 
gius  (Epist.  ad  Gaudent.  apud  Gratian.  Distinct. 

iv.  cap.  Ixxxii.),  and  St.  Gregory  the  Great 
(Epist.  i.  41,  ad  Leandrum')  in  the  sixth.  Theo- 
dulf  of  Orleans  witnesses  for  the  general  practice 
of  his  time,  the  close  of  the  eighth  century  (^De 
Ordine  Baptismi,  cap.  xi.  sub  trina  mersione  in 
fontein  .  ,  .  descendirnus).  Lastly,  the  Aposto¬ 
lical  Canons,  so  called,  alike  in  the  Greek,  the 
Coptic,  and  the  Latin  versions  (Can.  42  al.  50), 
give  special  injunctions  as  to  this  observance, 
saying  that  any  bishop  or  presbyter  should  be 
deposed  who  violated  this  rule. 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


]  §  50.  Single  Immersion. —  While  trine  immer¬ 

sion  was  thus  an  all  but  universal  practice,  Euno- 
mius  (circ.  360)  appears  to  have  been  the  first  to 
introduce  simple  immersion  “  unto  the  death  of 
Christ  ”  (Sozomen.  H.  E.  lib.  vi.  c.  26 ;  and 
Theodoret.  Haeret.  Fab.  iv.  §  3  ;  Schultze,  t.  iv. 

р.  356).  This  practice  was  condemned,  on  pain 
of  degradation,  by  the  Canon.  Apost.  46  [al.  50]. 
But  it  comes  before  us  again  about  a  century 
later  in  Spain  ;  but  then,  curiously  enough,  w'e 
find  it  regarded  as  a  badge  of  orthodoxy  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  practice  of  the  Arians.  These  last 
kept  to  the  use  of  trine  immersion,  but  in  such 
a  way  as  to  set  forth  their  own  doctrine  of  a 
gradation  in  the  three  Persons.  Hence  arose, 
and  long  continued,  a  diversity  of  practice  in  the 
orthodox  Churches,  some  following  one  rite  and 
some  another.  Gregory  the  Great  (Epist.  i.  41), 
when  his  advice  upon  the  subject  was  asked  by 
Leander  bishop  of  Hispala,  replied  that  either 
simple  or  trine  immersion  are  allowable,  the  one 
setting  forth  the  Unity  of  Godhead,  the  other 
the  Trinity  of  Persons.  But  under  the  special 
circumstances  of  the  Spanish  Churches,  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  trine  immersion  was  there 
specially  the  usage  of  heretics,  he  thought  they 
would  do  w'ell  to  hold  to  simple  immersion.  But 
the  matter  was  still  unsettled  some  twenty  or 
thirty  years  later.  At  the  Council  of  Toledo  (the 
4th,  held  A.D.  633)  the  practice  suggested  by 
St.  Gregory  was  laid  down  as  the  rule  of  the 
Spanish  Churches,  and  from  that  time  onward, 
though  triple  immersion  has  been  the  prevailing 
practice,  yet  both  canons  of  councils  and  writers 
on  ritual  questions  have  maintained  the  legiti¬ 
macy  of  simple  immersion.  (See  Martene,  De 
A.  E.  B.  lib.  i.  cap.  i.  art.  xiv.  §  viii.) 

The  Baptismal  Formula. 

§  51.  Not  less  necessary  to  a  valid  baptism 
than  the  use  of  water  was  the  pronouncing  of 
the  words  prescribed  by  implication  by  Our 
Lord,  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  “I  baptize  thee  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  With  the  slight  exceptions  noticed 
below  there  has  been  at  all  times,  and  in  all 
Christian  Bodies,  a  practically  universal  assent 
as  to  the  use  of  these  “  Evangelical  Words,”  as 
.they  are  called  by  St.  Augustine.  In  this  we 
find  complete  assent  between  the  Churches  of 
the  East  and  of  the  West.  Tertullian,  in  reference 
to  this,  appeals,  not  to  any  ecclesiastical  tradi¬ 
tion,  but  to  the  direct  command  of  Our  Lord, 
“  Lex  tinguendi  imposita,  et  forma  praescripta  : 
‘  Ite,  inquit,  docete  nationes,  tingentes  eos  in 
Nomine  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti  ’  ”  (De 
Bapt.  c.  13.  Compare  his  treatise  Adv.  Praxeam^ 

с.  26,  quoted  in  §  11).  St.  Cyprian,  fifty  years 
later,  uses  similar  language  in  his  Epist. 
Ixxiii.,  ad  lubai.  p.  200.  And  St.  Augustine 
(de  Bapt.  lib.  vi.  cap.  25)  asserts  that  it  was 
easier  to  find  heretics  who  rejected  baptism 
altogether  than  to  find  any  who,  giving  ba})tism, 
used  any  other  than  the  generally  received  for¬ 
mula.  The  use  of  this  form  was  no  less  care¬ 
fully  maintained  in  the  East.  The  41st  of  the 
“Canons  of  the  Apostles”  orders  the  degradation 
of  any  bishop  or  Presbyter  who  baj)tized  other¬ 
wise  than  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord  Fis  riarepa  Kal  tlhv  Kal  ’'Ayioy  Ilpevpa, 
Didymus  of  Alexandria  (ed.  Vallars.  1735, 
vol.  ii.  p.  130),  St.  Basil  (De  Sp.  Seto,  cap.  12, 


162 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


tom.  iii.  p.  23),  and  others,  speak  of  Baptism 
as  invalid  if  not  given  with  these  words. 

§  52.  Apparent  excejAions.  In  the  language 
of  Holy  Scripture  itself  authority  seems,  at  first 
sight,  to  be  found  for  a  certain  variety  of  ex¬ 
pression  in  giving  effect  to  the  command  of  Our 
Lord.  Thus,  in  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  we  find  expressions  such  as  baptizing 
“  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,”  Acts  ii.  38  ;  “  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,”  ibid.  A'iii.  16;  or 
simply  “  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,”  ibid.  x.  48. 
But  in  all  probability  these  are  only  to  be  re¬ 
garded  as  compendious  expressions,  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  a  statement  that  the  persons  in 
question  received  “  Christian  Baptism.”  And 
the  apparent  exception  afforded  by  the  language 
of  Justin  Martyr,  quoted  above  in  §  7,  is  proba¬ 
bly  apparent  only,  and  not  real.  Addressing 
himself  as  he  there  does  to  persons  unacquainted 
with  Christian  Doctrine,  he  somewhat  amplifies 
the  actual  formula,  which  would  otherwise  have 
been  unintelligible  to  a  heathen,  and  speaks  of 
Christians  being  baptized  “  in  the  name  of  God 
the  Father  and  Lord  of  the  Universe,  and  of  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.” 

§  53.  Real  Exceptions.  On  the  other  hand  we 
find  evidence,  even  as  early  as  St.  Cyprian’s 
(^Eptist.  Ixiii.)  time,  that  there  were  some  who 
maintained  that  it  was  sufficient  to  administer 
“  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.”  St.  Ambrose 
favours  this  opinion,  if  the  treatise  De  Spiritu 
Sancto  (lib.  i.  cap.  Ill)  be  really  his.  In  later 
times  this  same  opinion  was  formally  maintained 
by  more  than  one  authority.  The  Council  of 
Frejus,  a.  792,  and  Pope  Nicholas  1.  in  his 
Responsa  ad  Bulgaros^  all  maintain  more  or  less 
emphatically  the  validity  of  such  a  formula. 

Directly  contrary  to  this  is  the  decree  of  the 
Synodus  Londinensis,  held  in  the  year  605,  by 
Augustine  of  Canterbury,  Laurentius,  Justus, 
and  Mellitus.  There,  as  we  learn  from  a  letter 
of  Pope  Zacharias  to  St.  Boniface,  it  was  decreed, 
that  anyone  who  had  been  “washed”  without 
invocation  of  the  Trinity  had  not  the  Sacrament 
of  Regeneration.  The  omission  of  the  name  of 
any  one  person  of  the  Trinity  was  held  to  be  fatal 
to  the  validity  of  the  rite  (Wilkins,  Concilia, 
p.  29).  St.  Ildephonsus  of  Toledo  (^De  Cognit. 
Baptisrni,  lib.  i.  c.  112),  circ.  a.  663,  uses  similar 
language.  “  Quod  si  omissa  qualibet  Trinitatis 
persona  baptismum  conferatur,  omnino  nihil 
egisse  baptism!  solemnitas  deputetur  nisi  tota 
Trinitas  veraciter  invocetur.”  For  the  opinions 
of  the  Schoolmen  on  this  question  see  Martene 
Be  A.  E.  R.,  lib.  i.  cap.  i.  Art.  xiv.  20.  And  for 
those  of  various  theologians  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  and  subsequently,  see  Augusti 
Denkuiirdigkeiten,  vol.  vii.  p.  239. 

§  54.  Slight  variations.  The  passages  above 
quoted  shew  that  all  the  earlier  Church  au¬ 
thorities,  almost  without  exception,  speak  of  the 
use  of  the  words  “  In  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,”  as 
absolutely  required.  Yet  it  is  worth  noting  that 
it  was  an  essential  not  a  literal  identity  of  ex¬ 
pression  that  was  required.  The  main  point  of 
faith  in  the  three  Pei-sons  of  the  Blessed  Trinity 
being  secured,  slight  verbal  variations  in  the 
formula  were  not  regarded  as  of  vital  importance. 
Indeed  the  usage  of  various  churches  was  not 
absolutely  identical.  Thus  while  in  most  cases 
the  identical  words  of  Our  Lord  ets  rh  ovopa  rov  1 


riaTpbs  Kal  rod  Ttov  Ka\  rov  aylov  TlvevpaTOS^ 
were  exactly  reproduced  (in  Latin  Ritual  “  In 
Nomine  Patris  et  Filii  et  Si)iritus  Sancli  ”),  the 
words  els  rh  ovopa,  “in  nomine,”  were  in  some 
churches  omitted.  The  formula,  as  given  by  Ter- 
tullian  (§11)  and  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions 
(lib.  iii.  c.  14),  serves  to  exemplify  this  omission. 
Elsewhere  additions  were  made  to  the  formula, 
as  thus ;  “  In  nomine  Patris,  Amen  ;  et  Filii, 
Amen ;  et  Spiritus  Sancti,  Amen.”  The  cor¬ 
responding  Greek  words  are  the  formula  of  the 
Greek  Church  to  this  day.  In  the  Gothic  missal 
already  quoted  in  §  32,  we  find  “In  nomine 
Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti  in  remissionem 
peccatorum,  ut  habeas  vitam  aeternam.”  In  an 
ancient  Gallican  Missal,  there  is  still  greater 
variation,  “  Baptizo  te  credentem  in  nomine 
Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti  ut  habeas  vitam 
aeternam  in  saecula  saeculorum,”  or  again, 
“Baptizo  te  in  nomine  Patris  etc.,  .  .  .  unam 
habentium  substantiam,  ut  habeas  vitam  aeternam 
et  partem  cum  Sanctis.”  Again  IVIartene  {Be 
A.  E.  R.  tom.  i.  p.  31,  §  xix.)  quotes  the  for¬ 
mula  once  in  use  at  Cambray,  in  which  the 
words  “  Ego  te  baptizo”  were  altogether  omitted, 
and  the  ministrant  said  only,  “  In  nomine  Patris 
et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti.  Amen.”  Hugo  de 
St.  Victor,  Peter  Lombard,  and  others,  held  this 
to  constitute  a  valid  baptism  ;  Pope  Alexander 
III.  decided  in  a  contrary  sense.  This  was  in  the 
year  1175  A.d.  About  400  years  earlier,  Za¬ 
charias  (Martene  §  xix.),  then  Roman  Pope,  had 
formally  to  decide  whether  Baptism  given  by  an 
ignorant  Priest  “In  nomine  Patria  Filia  et 
Spiritua  Sanctua  ”  was  valid  or  no.  St.  Boni¬ 
face  had  decided  that  such  baptism  was  in¬ 
valid,  and  was  for  rebaptizing  a  child  who 
had  so  received  it.  But  he  was  opposed  by  two 
other  bishops  (Virgilius  and  Sidonius)  whose 
opinion  was  endorsed  by  the  bishop  of  Rome  on 
appeal  made  to  him.  “If”  (so  he  wrote)  “he 
who  so  ministered  baptism  did  so  not  by  way  of 
introducing  error  or  heresy,  but  only  through 
ignorance  of  our  Roman  speech  spoke  with  a 
broken  utterance,  we  cannot  consent  to  any  re¬ 
petition  of  the  baptism  so  conferred.” 

§  55.  Eastern  and  Western  Forms.  One  dif¬ 
ference  there  is  between  the  mode  of  employing 
the  “  Evangelical  words,”  which  is  characteristic 
of  Eastern  and  of  Western  Churches  respectively. 
In  the  West,  with  very  rare  exceptions  only,  the 
personal  office  of  the  ministrant  has  been  made 
somewhat  prominent  by  the  formula  “  I  baptise 
thee  (Ego  baptizo  te)  in  the  name  ”  etc.  But  in 
the  Eastern  use  this  is  not  the  case,  the  third 
person  being  employed,  fiairrl^erai  6  Suva  (some¬ 
times  o  SoGAos  rod  deov,  adding  the  name)  els  rh 
ovopa  K.  r.  \.  “  Such  an  one  ”  (naming  him),  or 
“  The  servant  of  God,  N.  or  M.  is  baptized  in  the 
name,”  &c.  The  exceptions  among  Eastern 
Churches  ai’e  very  few.  The  Coptic  Formula 
(Abudacni  Historia  Jacobitarum  sen  Coptorum, 
Oxon.  1675.  J.  E.  Gerhardi,  Erercit.  de  ecclesia 
Coptica,  1666)  is  in  the  first  person,  “  I  baptize 
thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Amen  ;  I  baptize 
thee  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  Amen  ;  I  baptize  thee 
in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Amen.”  And  the 
Nestorians  (Badger’s  Nestorians  and  their  Rituals) 
of  Syria,  though  their  own  older  formula  agreed 
with  that  of  other  Eastern  Churches,  adopted 
also  that  prescribed  by  the  Roman  Church,  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  fii’st  person.  A  more  remark- 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


1G3 


able  exception  to  the  usual  Eastern  practice  is 
that  of  the  Aethiopian  Church,  if  it  really  were 
as  described.  Alvarez,  one  of  the  Jesuit  Mis¬ 
sionaries,  states  in  one  place  that  the  form  they 
employ  is  “  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  ot  the  Holy  Ghost.” 
And  Ludolf  (who  has  no  sympathy  with  these 
Roman  authorities  when  he  thinks  them  moved 
by  prejudice)  states  that  in  the  ritual  books  of 
the  Ethiopians  he  had  never  been  able  to  find 
any  other  formula.  On  the  other  hand  thei'e 
were  others  of  the  same  Jesuit  Mission  who  spoke 
of  the  great  variety  of  forms  which  they  found 
in  use,  obliging  them  to  rebaptize.  See  Ludolf, 
Hist.  Acthiop.  lib.  iii.  cap.  vi. 

Subsequent  Ceremonial. 

§  56.  The  ceremonies  subsequent  upon  the 
actual  baptism  are  commonly  (as  by  Bellarmine, 
de  Bapt.  lib.  i.  cap.  27)  reckoned  as  five  in  num¬ 
ber,  the  Kiss,  the  Unction  of  the  Head  (distinct 
from  the  Unction  in  Confirmation),  the  lighted 
Taper,  the  white  Robe,  the  Tasting  of  Milk  and 
Honey.  To  these  may  be  added  the  Washing  of 
Feet,  and  the  Chaplet  on  the  head,  which  found 
place  in  the  Ritual  of  some  early  Churches. 

§  57.  The  Kiss.  We  first  hear  of  this  as  a 
customary  practice  in  Africa  in  St.  Cyprian’s 
Epist.  Ixiv.  (a/,  liv.)  ad  Fidum.  St.  Augustine 
quotes  the  passage  (contra  duas  epist.  Pelag.  lib. 
iv.  cap.  viii.  §§  23,  24)  in  a  way  which  shews 
that  the  usage  had  been  maintained  to  his  own 
time.  It  is  expressly  prescribed  (to  be  given  by 
the  bishop  fii'st  and  afterwards  by  the  assembled 
faithful)  in  the  ritual  of  the  Egyptian  Church 
§  50.  (See  aboA’^e  §  23  of  this  Article),  and  in  St. 
Chrysostom  (Sermo  50  de  util.  leg.  script,  tom. 
iii.  p.  80  I.)  we  find  proof  of  a  similar  usage. 

§  58.  The  Unction  of  the  Head.  No  trace  is 
to  be  found  in  the  earliest  records  of  more  than 
one  Unction  after  baptism,  viz.,  that  given  in 
Confirmation  by  the  bishop.  Its  introduction  is 
attributed,  by  Roman  tradition,  to  St.  Sylvester, 
bishop  of  Rome,  from  314  to  335  a.d.  See 
further  under  Unction. 

§  59.  The  Use  of  Lights.  We  have  already 
seen  that  in  the  4th  century  certainly,  and  pro¬ 
bably  therefore  in  yet  earlier  ages,  baptism  Avas 
administered  after  dark  (generally  late  on  Easter 
EA’-e).  In  this,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  what 
was  perpetuated  in  late  Christian  usage  for 
doctrinal  or  symbolical  reasons  took  its  rise  in 
considex'ations  of  practical  convenience  or  neces¬ 
sity.  References  made  to  the  use  of  Lights  by 
St.  Cyril  Hieros.,  have  already  been  alleged 
(§  22).  And  to  the  same  effect,  though  with 
more  of  detail,  is  the  language  of  St.  Gregory 
Nazianz.  Orat.  xl.  “  The  station  that  thou  shalt 
take  before  the  great  bema  (of  the  church), 
after  thy  baptism,  is  a  foreshadowing  of  the 
glory  that  shall  be  from  heaA^en  ;  the  psalmody 
wherewith  thou  shalt  be  receiA'ed  is  a  prelude 
of  the  hymns  that  thence  shall  sound  ;  the  lamps 
that  thou  shalt  kindle  set  forth  in  mystery  that 
procession  of  many  lights-  wherewith  bright  and 
A’irgir.  souls  shall  go  forth  to  meet  their  Lord, 
haying  the  lamps  of  faith  bright  and  burning.” 
^  ith  tt>ese  passages  compare  Ambrosius,  de 
lapsu  virg.  sac.  c.  5  ;  Marcus  Gazensis,  ad  Arca~ 
(Bum  Imp.  apud  Baronium  ad  ann.  401 ;  Gregor. 
Turon.  Hist.  Franc,  lib.  v.  c.  11;  St.  Gregory 
the  Great,  Lib.  Sacram.  de  sabbato  sancto ;  Al- 


cuinus,  de  Div.  off.  de  sabbato  sancto ;  Amala- 
rius,  de  eccl.  off.  lib.  i.  c.  18  ;  Rabanus,  de  Inst. 
Clcr.  lib.  ii.  e.  38,  39  ;  St.  Ivo,  of  Chartres,  de 
Sacramento  Neophytorum ;  and  the  Ordo  Bap~ 
tismi  xviii.  in  Martene,  de  Ant.  Eccl.  Bit.  tom.  i. 
p.  78. 

§  60.  The  wearing  of  white  garments  (Aeu/eex- 
pLOveiv  or  Kafnrpo<pop^7v  in  Greek  Avriters)  br 
the  neAvly  baptized  Avas  of  universal  custom 
both  in  West  and  East,  and  this  Avas  continued 
throughout  the  Aveek  to  the  Lord’s  Day 

immediately  folloAving,  thence  called  the  “  Do¬ 
minica  in  albis  depositis,”  the  Kvpiany  rys 

ZiaKaiv7](Tip.ov  (Goar,  Euchol.  Graec.  p.  373)  of 
the  Greeks.  By  their  colour  these  garments 
Avere  significant  both  of  innocence  and  of  joy 
(Marriott,  Vestiarium  Christianum,  p.  182,  n. 
19),  and  by  their  material,  Avhich  Avas  generally 
linen,  they  Avere  associated  Avith  the  idea  of  de¬ 
liverance  from  death  (Philo  de  Somniis,  p.  597. 
Paris,  fol.  1640,  and  Jerome,  Epist.  ad  Fabiol. 

0pp.  tom.  ii.  p.  574.  Paris,  fol.  1693).  The 

-allusions  to  this  practice  in  early  Avriters  are  in¬ 
numerable.  It  Avill  suffice  here  to  state  a  feAv 
particulars  as  to  the  A-arious  A’estments  of  Avhich 
Ave  find  mention. 

§  61.  The  Alb.  The  outer  garment,  vestis 
alba,  or  simply  “alba”  (q.  a-.),  Xaixirpa  or  Mvay 
iadiis,  or  ip-ipooTiov,  aams  probably  not  unlike 
that  Avorn  in  early  times  as  a  A-estment  of  holy 
ministry.  In  some  instances  Ave  hear  of  this 
being  kept  as  a  memorial  of  baptism,  to  serve  as  a 
coA'ering  for  the  body  after  death  (Antonini  Mart. 
Itinerarium:  “induti  sindones  .  .  .  quas  sibi  ad 
sepulturam  servant.”)  So  Constantine  the  Great, 
dying  shortly  after  his  baptism,  Avas  buried  per' 
avTwv  rwv  eiKpooriuip,  in  the  garments  Avhieh 
he  had  then  Avorn  (St.  Germanus  Patriarch. 
De  Sanctis  Synodis  etc.  apud  Spicil.  Bom.  A. 
Mai,  tom.  vii.  §  14).  And  so  Probus  Anicius  in 
his  epitaph  (Bosio,  Bom.Subt.  p.  47)  is  described 
as  one,  “Qui  noA-a  decedens  muneris  aetherii 
vestiraenta  tulit.”  At  other  times  these  Avhite 
garments  Avere  presented  to  the  Church.  This 
is  implied  in  the  story  of  Elpidophorus  and  the 
Deacon  Maritta,  told  by  Victor  of  Utica  (De 
Persec.  Vandal,  lib.  v.  Bibl.  Patr.  Max.  tom. 
viii.  p.  699).  For  the  use  of  the  poor  they  Avere 
proAuded  gratuitously,  as  e.g.  by  Constantine 
the  Great  (Surii  Vit.  Sanctorum,  in  S.  Syl- 
A-estro,  die  31  Dec.),  and  by  Gregory  the  Gi-eat 
(Epist.  iv.  16  ;  and  vii.  24). 

§  62.  The  Sabanum.  This  Avord  (in  Greek 
adSavov)  as  originally  used  meant  either  a  large 
Avrapper  for  covering  the  body  immediately  after 
bathing,  or  a  toAvel  used  for  drying  it.  The 
same  Avord  is  occasionally  used  (as  by  Victor 
Uticensis)  in  speaking  of  baptismal  vestments, 
and  it  is  used  in  the  Greek  Church  to  this  day. 
A  letter  is  extant  from  Pope  Paul  1.  in  Avhich 
he  thanks  King  Pepin  for  having  sent  him  the 
“Sabanum”  used  at  the  baptism  of  the  king’s 
daughter  Gislana.  It  is  not  clear  whether  tliis 
is  identical  Avith  the  “  alba  ”  or  no. 

§  63.  The  Chrismale.  This  was  a  piece  of 
white  linen  tied  round  the  head,  and  intended 
to  retain  the  chrism  upon  the  head  throughout 
the  Aveek  “  in  albis.” 

§  64.  TTie  twisted  th'-ead.  In  the  Armenian 
rite,  as  still  celebrated,  there  is  a  our'ons  relic 
of  the  primitive  customs  in  regard  of  baptismal 
dress.  We  here  read  [Translation,  unpublished, 

M 


1G4 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


b)'  the  Rev.  S.  C.  Malan]  of  the  priest  “  twist¬ 
ing  the  thread.”  And  the  Catholicos  (bishop) 
Joseph,  in  his  Russian  translation  of  this  order 
of  baptism,  enlarges  this  rubric  as  follows: 
“  While  the  choir  sings,  the  priest  takes  two 
threads,  one  white  and  the  other  red,  in  remem¬ 
brance  of  the  water  and  the  blood  that  flowed 
from  the  side  of  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  He 
lifts  them  up  under  the  holy  cross,  and  lays  them 
*.-.t  last  upon  the  catechumen  or  child  to  be  bap¬ 
tized.”  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  is  a 
last  trace  of  former  white  baptismal  robes  with 
red  embroidery.  This  hypothesis  is  confirmed 
by  some  references  in  ancient  authors.  A  MS. 
at  Turin,  of  unknown  authorship  and  date  [from 
internal  evidence  it  appears  to  the  writer  to  be 
of  the  llth  century],  thus  describes  the  “  chris- 
male.”  “Induitur  deinde  chrismali  neophytus, 
scilicet  alba  veste  quae  instar  cappae  lineae  capu- 
tium  habet,  quo  caput  quasi  quadam  mitra  ope- 
ritur,  et  filo  rubeo  supersuitur.”  Durandus  too 
{Rationale  Die.  Off.  lib.  vi.  c.  82),  mentions  a 
custom  still  existing  in  his  time  (ISth  centuiy) 
in  Narbonne,  that  the  w'hite  garment  of  the  bap¬ 
tized  had  sewn  upon  it  a  red  band  like  a  ‘  co¬ 
rona.’  And  the  same  combination  of  colours 
was  still  preserved  in  the  usage  of  the  Ethiopic 
Church  two  centuries  ago  (Ludolf,  Hist.  Aethiop. 
lib.  iii.  cap.  6),  and  may  be  traced  back  in  Africa 
to  the  5th  century  of  our  era.  Victor  of  Utica 
{de  Pers.  Vand.  lib.  ii.)  speaks  of  the  white 
robe  as  “  purpura  sanguinis  Christi  decoratam.” 

§  65.  The  Chaplet  (corona  or  (rT€(pauo<i).  The 
earliest  certain  reference  to  this  as  worn  by 
Neophytes  is  in  the  ritual  of  Alexandria  de¬ 
scribed  by  Patriarch  Severus  in  the  7th  century. 
“  Then  {i.  e.  after  baptism  and  unction)  he  takes 
the  baptized  to  the  altar,  and  gives  them  the 
sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  and  the  priest  crowns 
them  wdth  garlands  ”  {Bibl.  Max.  Patr.  Paris 
1(55-1,  tom.  vi.  p.  25).  This  usage  was  still  main¬ 
tained  at  Alexandria  200  years  ago.  Vansleb, 
describing  their  baptismal  ritual,  writes  as  fol¬ 
lows.  The  piiest,  “  trempe  dans  I’eau  du  bap- 
teme  la  couronne  et  la  ceinture  de  I’enfant  qui 
a  e'te'  baptise]  et  lui  met  cette  couronne  sur  la 
tete,  et  il  lui  ceint  les  reins  de  cette  ceinture,” 
kc.  (^Hist.  de  VEijlise  <T Alexandrie,  Paris  1677, 
12).  Allusions  to  a  similar  rite,  on  very  slight 
grounds  however  of  what  is  probably  merely 
metaphorical  language,  have  been  imagined  in 
the  Gotho-Gallican  Missal  (baptizati  et  in  Christo 
coronati),  in  St.  Chrysostom,  Cutech.  I.  ad  Illu- 
minandos  {prav  SiaSripa  [not  a  chaplet,  but  a 
royal  crown],  a.va8-{]<n]crd€  twv  7]\iaHwv  aKriuuv 
(patSporepas  ^xou  Travraxodev  iKTnjSdxras  Xa/x- 
TnjSoVas),  and  Catech.  II.  rhv  areepavov  ttJs 
SiKutoaurris,  a  quotation  from  Scripture.)  A 
passage  of  Gi*egory  Nazianz.  (Oratio  xxiii.  ad 
init.),  quoted  by  Augusti  for  this  usage,  has 
certainly  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  bap¬ 
tism,  as  an  examination  of  the  entire  context 
will  conclusively  shew.  The  “crowns”  there 
spoken  of  are  the  words  of  public  encomium 
wherewith  St.  Gregory  w'elcomes  Heron,  a  con¬ 
fessor  of  the  faith,  comparing  him  to  one  who 
has  conquered  in  the  arena. 

§  66.  Tasting  of  milk  and  honeg.  This  sym¬ 
bolical  usage,  like  many  others,  originated  in  a 
prevailing  metaphor.  “  Quid  ergo  lac  et  mel  ?  ” 
asks  Barnabas.  “  Quia  nimirum  infans  lacte  et 
melle  vivificatur,  sic  et  nos  fide  promissionis  et 


verbo  nutrimur.”  Tertullian  in  more  than  one 
passage  (see  §  12  above,  and  adv.  Marc.  lib.  i. 
c.  14);  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Paedag.  lib.  i. 
cap.  vi.) ;  the  Third  Council  of  Carthage,  can. 
24 ;  the  Constitutions  of  the  Egyptian  Church, 
§  51  ;  St.  Jerome  {adv.  Lucifer.  0pp.  tom.  ii. 
p.  180,  and  in  Esaiam.  cap.  Iv.)  ;  and  the  Leonine 
Sacramentary  (Muratori,  Liturg.  Rom.  Vet.  tom. 
i.),  all  allude  to  the  tasting  of  mingled  milk  jnd 
honey  after  baptism.  The  rite  is  again  men¬ 
tioned  by  Macarius  Bishop  of  Memphis,  circ.  a. 
756,  and  was  still  preserved  both  in  Alexandria 
and  in  the  Ethiopic  Church  two  hundred  years 
ago  (Vansleb  and  Ludolf,  referred  to  above). 

§  67.  Pedilavium.  The  washing  of  feet.  A 
peculiar  custom  prevailed  in  the  early  Gallican 
ritual,  of  a  symbolical  washing  of  the  feet  of  the 
newly  baptized,  having  reference  to  the  action 
of  our  Lord  recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 
(xiii.  1-16).  The  so-called  Gothic  missal, 
and  another  early  Gallican  missal  (Martene,  De 
A.  E.  R.  tom.  i.  pp.  63,  64),  both  contain  refe¬ 
rences  to  this  as  a  recognized  part  of  the  bap¬ 
tismal  ritual.  In  the  first,  see  above  §  34,  im¬ 
mediately  after  the  application  of  the  chrism, 
we  read,  “  Dum  pedes  ejus  lavas,  dicis,  ‘  Ego 
tibi  lavo  pedes.  Sicut  Dominus  noster  Jesus 
Christus  fecit  discipulis  suis,  tu  facias  hospi- 
tibus  et  peregrinis  ut  habeas  vitam  aeternam  ” 
(then  follows  the  impositio  vestimenti).  In  the 
second  of  the  two  documents,  a  collect  is  given 
“ad  pedes  lavandos,”  which  follows,  as  before, 
immediately  upon  the  “  Infusio  Chrismae.” 
“Dominus  et  Salvator  noster  Jesus  Christus 
apvfstolis  suis  pedes  lavit :  Ego  tibi  pedes  lavo, 
ut  et  tu  facias  hospitibus  et  pei’egrinis,  qui  ad 
te  venerint.  Hoc  si  feceris  habebis  vitam  aeter¬ 
nam  in  saecula  saeculorum.  Amen.”  In  yet  a 
third  Gallican  sacramentary  (Mabillon,  Mus.  Ital. 
tom.  i.  and  Martene,  De  A.  E.  R.  tom.  i.  p.  64) 
the  same  rite  is  noticed,  but  is  placed  after  the 
clothing  with  the  “  Vestis  Candida,”  instead  of 
immediately  before  as  in  the  two  earlier  MSS. ; 
and  there  is  a  slight  variation  in  the  terms  of 
the  collect  prescribed.  From  two  treatises  of 
doubtful  authenticity  attributed  to  St.  Ambrose 
(Z)e  Sacrarn.  lib,  iii.  c.  1  and  De  Myster.  c.  6), 
it  has  been  inferred  that  the  rite  was  in  use  at 
Milan.  In  the  first  of  the  two  passages  the 
writer,  whoever  he  was,  mentions  that  the  rite 
in  question  w^as  not  of  Roman  usage.  No  traces 
of  it  are  now  to  be  found  in  the  Ambrosian 
ritual.  Allusions  to  a  similar  rite  after  baptism, 
occurring  in  the  works  of  St.  Augustine,  are 
not,  as  might  be  thought,  a  proof  of  a  similar 
usage  in  the  African  Church.  They  occur  in  a 
.sermon  (^De  tempore  160)  which  on  other  grounds 
had  been  judged  not  to  be  St.  Augustine’s,  but 
to  have  been  composed  by  Caesar  i  us  Arch  bp.  of 
Arles  (t540).  He  quotes  the  words  of  a  Gal¬ 
lican  missal  still  extant  (Martene,  De  A.  E.  R. 
p.  64):  “  Secundum  quod  ipsis  in  baptismo  dic¬ 
tum  est,  Hospitum  pedes  Invent,”  &c.  The 
48th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Illiberis,  forbidding 
the  practice  (neque  pedes  eorum  [qui  bapti- 
zantur]  lavandi  sunt  a  sacerdotibus  vel  clericis), 
marks  probably  a  previous  attempt  to  introduce 
the  observance  in  some  parts  of  Spain,  in  imita¬ 
tion  of  the  usage  elsewhere  existing.  No  traces 
of  the  rite  are  now  anywhere  to  be  found  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  administration  of  baptism.  But 
a  ceremonial,  similar  in  its  origin  in  which  the 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


165 


Pope  takes  part,  forms  one  of  the  ohservauces  of 
the  Holy  Week  at  Rome  to  this  day. 

IV.  At  what  times  Baptism  was  administered. 

§  68.  In  the  Apostolic  Age  no  special  times 
were  appointed  for  the  administration  of  bap¬ 
tism,  this  being  determined  by  the  vary¬ 
ing  circumstances  consequent,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  on  the  first  establishment  of  the 
faith.  The  first  administration  of  Christian 
baptism,  properly  so  called,  was  on  the  first 
Christian  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.),  when  some 
3000  persons  gladly  receiving  the  words  of 
Peter  were  at  once  baptized  on  the  same  day 
(vcr.  41).  The  Ethiopian  eunuch  (Acts  viii.), 
when  Philip,  taking  occasion  from  the  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  (cap.  liii.),  had  taught  him  the  glad 
tidings  of  Jesus,  was  straightway  baptized  in 
water  by  the  way  side.  The  jailor  at  Philippi 
(Acts  xvi.),  when  the  word  of  the  Lord  had 
been  spoken  unto  him  (ver.  32)  by  Paul  and 
Silas,  was  baptized  with  all  his  household  while 
it  was  night  (ver.  33  compared  with  ver.  25). 
And  neither  in  Scripture  nor  in  any  of  the  ear¬ 
lier  Christian  writers  before  Tertullian,  is  any 
trace  to  be  found  of  the  setting  apart  of  any 
special  season  as  more  suited  than  others  for  the 
administration.  This  greater  liberty  of  the 
Apostolic  times  is  often  alluded  to  by  early 
fathers,  when  dissuading  men  from  the  indefinite 
deferring  of  baptism  under  pretext  of  observing 
the  fixed  times  appointed  by  the  Church  for  its 
more  solemn  administration. 

§  69.  Special  seasons  spoken  of  by  Tertullian. 
The  first  mention  of  any  particular  season  as 
being  set  apart  for  solemn  administration  of  bap¬ 
tism,  is  found  in  Tertullian  (de  Bapt.  c.  xix.) 
writing  about  the  close  of  the  2nd  century. 
“  Pascha  ”  (i.  e.  Easter),  he  says,  “  offers  a  more 
solemn  season  for  baptism,  for  then  was  fulfilled 
the  Passion  of  the  Lord  into  which  we  are  bap¬ 
tized  ....  And  afterward  Pentecost  ”  (f.  e.  the 
whole  period  from  Easter  to  the  day  of  Pente¬ 
cost)  “  is  a  lengthened  time  for  the  preparation 
of  the  waters  (ordinandis  aquis).  Therein  was 
the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord  celebrated  among 
the  disciples,  and  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
bestowed,  and  the  hope  of  the  advent  of  the 
Lord  suggested.”  But  in  mentioning  these  as 
times  when  baptism  was  administered  with  more 
than  usual  solemnity,  he  is  careful  to  add,  that 
“  every  day  is  the  Lord’s  ....  no  hour,  no 
time,  unsuitable  for  baptism  ;  the  solemnity  may 
oe  less,  but  in  the  grace  given  there  is  no  diver¬ 
sity.”  Other  I’eferences  to  these  two  periods, 
or  one  of  them,  as  specially  observed  for  the 
solemn  administration  of  baptism,  will  be  found 
in  St.  Jerome,  St.  Gregory  Nazianz.,  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom,  and  other  writers  both  in  East  and  West. 

§  70.  Baptism  at  Epiphany.  Beside  the  two 
seasons  of  Easter  and  Pentecost,  there  were  not 
a  few  churches  in  w'hich  the  Epiphany  festival 
was  observed  in  the  same  way.  Towards  the 
close  of  the  4th  century,  Siricius  Bishop  of 
Rome  stated  (^Epist.  ad  flimermm,  Labbe,  Concil. 
t.  ii.  p.  1018),  that  all  Churches  agreed  with 
that  of  Rome  in  an  exclusive  observance  of 
Easter  and  Pentecost.  But  in  this  he  was  mis¬ 
taken.  Many  Eastern  Churches,  and  not  a  few 
in  the  West,  which  by  origin  or  by  subsequent 
intercourse  came  under  Eastern  influence,  ob¬ 
served  Epiphany  (traditionally  the  time  of  our 


Lord’s  baptism  in  Jordan)  as  a  season  for  solemn 
administration  of  baptism.  We  find  evidences 
of  this  in  the  churches  of  Cappadocia  (St.  Greg. 
Nazianz.  Orat.  xl.  /ueVw  ra  (paiTa),  at  Antioch, 
but  before  St.  Chrysostom’s  time  (this  by  in¬ 
ference  from  a  comparison  of  St.  Chrysostom’s 
Catechesis  I.  ad  Illuminandos ;  Migne,  t.  ii.  p. 
268 ;  De  Baptismo  Christi,  ibid.  p.  433,  seqq. ; 
and  Horn.  HI.  in  Ephes.  i.  ibid.  t.  xi.  p.  25);  at 
Jerusalem  (^Typicum  S.  Sabae,  quoted  by  Valesius 
on  Theodoret.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  ii.  c.  27 ;  and  the 
Itinerarium.,  Antonini  Martyris) ;  in  Africa 
(Victor  Uticensis,  De  Persec.  Vandal,  lib.  ii.  in¬ 
ferred  from  his  mention  of  baptism  when  “  appro- 
piuquabat  jam  futurus  dies  ....  Kalendarum 
Februarium  ”) ;  in  Spain  and  Sicily  (Siricius  ad 
Himerium,  already  referred  to,  and  Leo,  ad  Epis- 
copos  Siciliae,  Labbe,  Concil.  t.  iii.  p.  1297):  in 
Gaul  (see  Martene,  de  A.  E.  R.  lib.  i.  cap.  i.  p. 
2)  ;  in  Ireland  (St.  Patricii  ....  Synodi,  Ca- 
nones,  &c.,  ed.  T.  P.  Villanuova,  Dublin!  1835 ; 
Wilkins,  Concilia.,  p.  26,  can.  xix.  These  canons 
are  of  late  date  in  their  present  form,  but  pre¬ 
serve  some  genuine  traditions). 

§  71.  Other  days  were  observed  in  some 
churches.  Thus  we  hear  of  “  Natalitia  Christi,” 
or  Christmas,  in  Spain  and  in  Gaul  (see  Martene, 
as  above),  and  of  Festivals  of  Apostles  and 
Martyrs,  in  Spain  (Siricius  ad  Himerium'),  in 
Campania,  Samnium,  and  Picenum  (Leo  M. 
Epist.  136),  and  of  the  Festival  of  St.  John 
Baptist  (Gregor.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc,  cap.  9). 
All  days  were  allowable  for  the  more  private 
administration  in  cases  of  pressing  necessity  from 
sickness  or  other  causes. 

§  72.  Roman  us  jge,  however,  was  much  more 
strict  in  this  particular  than  that  of  other 
Western  Churches.  And  with  the  zeal  for  ritual 
uniformity  which  has  ever  been  characteristic  of 
that  Church  (Gregory  the  Great  a  notable  ex¬ 
ception),  her  bishops,  and  a  series  of  councils 
more  or  less  under  Roman  influence,  made  re¬ 
peated  efforts  to  confine  the  solemn  administration 
to  the  two  seasons  of  Easter  and  Pentecost. 

§  73.  Papal  decrees  to  this  effect,  directed  to 
churches  of  the  Roman  obedience,  are  those  of 
Siricius  (385-398),  in  his  epistle  (Labbe,  Concil.  ii. 
p.  1018)  to  Himerius,  Bishop  of  Tarraco,  in 
Spain;  of  Leo  the  Great  (440-461),  writing  to 
the  bishops  of  Sicily  (Labbe,  Concil.  iii.  p.  1297); 
of  Gelasius  (492-496),  to  the  bishops  of  Lucania; 
Gregory  II.  (715-731)  to  the  clergy  and  people 
of  Thuringia,  and  Nicolas  1.  in  his  Itesponsa  ad 
Bulgaros,  cap.  69.  It  is  curious  to  find  the  same 
Roman  tradition  seeking  to  assert  itself  in  England 
many  centuries  later,  in  the  face  of  a  superstitious 
belief  on  the  part  of  some  that  it  was  perilous  to 
have  children  baptised  at  those  times.  So  we 
learn  from  the  language  of  Otto,  Cardinal  Legate 
at  the  Council  of  London,  a.  1237  (“Nonnulli  in 
Anglia  periculum  suspicantur  si  praefatis  diebus 
pueri  baptizentur.”  Wilkins,  Concil.  p.  650). 

§  74.  Councils.  Identical  in  effect  with  the 
decrees  last  quoted  ai’e  the  canons  of  a  series  of 
provincial  councils,  extending  from  the  0th  to 
the  13th  century.  The  earliest  of  these  is  the 
Council  of  Gerunda,  in  Hispania  Tarraconensis, 
a.  517.  With  this  agree  the  Councils  of  Autis- 
siodurum  (Auxerre),  a.  578  ;  of  Moguntia  (May- 
ence),  a.  813,  can.  4,  ami  again,  a.  847,  can.  3; 
of  Paris  (Parisiense  vi.  a.  829,  part  1.  can.  7); 
of  Meaui  (Meldense,  a.  845);  of  Worms  (Worma- 


166 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


tiense,  a.  868,  can.  1)  ;  of  Tribur,  or  Teuver, 
near  Majence  (Triburiense,  a.  895,  can.  12);  of 
Rouen  (  Rothonihgense,  a.  1072,  can.  23) ;  of 
Winchester  (Wintoniense,  a.  1074,  can.  7);  of 
London  (Londinense,  a.  1237). 

§  75.  Imperial  and  other  authorities  were  not 
wanting  from  time  to  time  to  enforce  a  practice 
which  popes  and  provincial  councils  were  thus 
continually  enacting.  The  capitularies  of  Charle¬ 
magne,  a.  804,  direct  “ut  nullus  baptizare  prae- 
sumat  nisi  in  Pascha  et  Pentecosten,  excepto 
infirmo.”  To  the  same  effect  are  the  capitularia 
collected  by  Benedictus  Levita  (lib.  1,  n.  171). 
“  Ut  baptismus  non  fiat  nisi  statutis  temporibus 
id  est  Pascha  et  Pentecosten,  nisi  infirmitas  inter- 
cesserit.”  And  lib.  ii.  n.  171  :  “  Ut  nullus  bapti¬ 
zare  praesumat  nisi  per  duo  tempora,  id  est  vigilia 
Paschae  et  vigilia  Pentecostes,  praeter  mortis 
periculum.”  Bishops  sometimes  made  this  ob¬ 
servance  matter  of  special  injunction  to  the  clergy 
at  their  ordination  (St.  Hildephonsus  De  Co^n. 
Baptismi,  lib.  i.  c.  108;  Rodulfi  Archiepisc.  Bitu- 
ricensis  Capitular,  n.  20 ;  Ratherii  Vei’onensis 
Episcopi  Synodica,  apud  Martene,  Spicileyium, 
tom.  ii.),  or  desired  parish  priests  to  enforce  this 
duty  upon  their  people  from  the  pulpit  (Otto, 
Cardinalis,  apud  Wilkins,  Concilia,  p.  650). 

§  76.  Later  usage. — The  limitation  of  baptism 
to  one  or  two  special  periods  in  the  year  was  of 
advantage  in  the  first  four  centui’ies,  or  there¬ 
abouts,  when  the  baptism  of  adults,  requiring 
previous  instruction  and  preparation,  was  still  of 
prevailing  usage.  But  this  limitation  no  longer 
served  any  important  end,  when  under  the  changed 
circumstances  of  the  church  the  baptism  of  adults 
was  rare  and  exceptional.  And  accordingly  these 
restrictions  have  long  ceased  to  be  observed  in 
churches  both  of  the  East  and  of  the  West. 

Places  of  administering  Baptism. 

§  77.  Originally  no  limitation  of  place  was 
observed.  Water  by  the  roadside  (Acts  viii.  36- 
38),  private  houses  (Acts  ix.  18),  or  a  prison 
(Acts  xvi.  29,  30),  were  all  made  use  of  for  the 
purpose.  And  in  sub-apostolic  times  we  find 
proof  of  the  same  freedom  from  all  limitation. 
See  Justin  Martyr,  quoted  above,  §  7  ;  dementis 
Eecog.  lib.  iv.  c.  32,  and  lib.  vi.  c.  15;  Tertullian 
de  Bapt.  c.  4.  To  the  same  effect  are  the  tradi¬ 
tionary  stories,  in  early  Hagiologies,  of  baptisms 
performed  in  private  houses,  in  prisons,  in  the 
public  road.  See  the  lives  of  St.  Laurentius 
(Surii  T7f.  Sanct.  die  23  Julii),  of  St.  Apollinaris 
{ibid,  die  10  August),  and  of  the  Deacon  Cyriacus 
{ibid,  die  16  Jan.).  It  is  not  till  the  close  of  the 
3rd  century  that  we  meet  with  any  mention  of 
baptisteries  properly  so  called,  and  under  the 
name  “  baptisterium  ”  (See  the  story  of  St.  Cyri¬ 
acus  apud  Surium,  die  16  Jan.).  [Baptistery.] 

Baptism,  by  whom  administered. 

§  78.  In  the  first  five  centuries,  or  there¬ 
abouts,  the  rule  and  the  practice  of  the  Church 
was,  that  the  solemn  celebration  of  baptism, 
whether  at  Epiphany,  Easter,  or  Pentecost,  should 
be  presided  over  by  the  bishop.  The  earliest 
authorities  bearing  upon  this  subject  are,  St. 
Ignatius,  ad  Smyrn.  cap.  8 ;  Tertullian  de  Bapt. 
c.  17  ;  Constit.  Apost.  lib.  iii.  cap.  xi.  (bishops 
and  presbyters  to  baptize,  deacons  being  in  at¬ 
tendance  upon  them) ;  St.  Gregor.  Nyssen.  Orat. 
xl.  (Paris,  Morell,  fol.  1630,  tom.  i.  p.  656)  where 


'  baptism  by  bishops  and  presbyters  is  spoken  of 
Council  of  Illiberis,  a.  313,  can.  77,  decreeing 
j  that  if  a  deacon  baptise  any  one,  without  either 
bishop  or  presbyter,  the  sacrament  must  be  “com¬ 
pleted  ”  afterwards  by  the  benediction  of  the 
bishop;  St.  Jerome,  adv.  I^ucifer.  c.  4  (saying 
that  neither  Presbyter  nor  deacon  have  the  right 
of  baptising  without  direction  from  the  bishop, 
though  even  laymen  are  frequently  allowed  to 
baptise  if  necessity  so  require).  In  the  5th  and 
6th  centuries  we  find  at  one  time  (Gelasii  Papae 
Epist.  ad  univ.  episc.  and  Isidor.  Hispal.  Off.  Eccl. 
lib.  ii.  c.  24),  a  declaration  that  bishops  and  pres¬ 
byters  are  the  only  proper  administrators  (cases 
of  necessity  excepted);  at  another  (Concil.  Hispal. 
ii.  a.  619,  can.  7),  the  vindication  of  the  supreme 
right  of  bishops  in  this  matter,  in  depreciation 
of  that  of  presbyters.  Of  the  practice  of  the 
Eastern  Churches  at  this  time  we  find  an  indi¬ 
cation  in  a  letter  written  by  the  people  of  Edessa 
at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a.  451, 
and  inserted  among  its  Acta.  In  it  they  beg  that 
Abas,  their  bishop,  will  return  to  them  as  soon 
as  possible,  on  account  of  the  approaching  Easter 
Festival,  his  presence  being  required  for  the 
instruction  of  the  catechumens,  and  for  those  who 
are  found  worthy  to  receive  holy  baptism.  More 
remarkable  is  a  somewhat  similar  letter  (quoted 
by  Martene  Be  A.  E.  B.  tom.  i.  p.  7),  in  which 
certain  of  the  clergy  in  Italy  write  to  Constanti¬ 
nople,  begging  that  the  emperor  will  allow 
Dacius,  bishop  of  Milan,  to  return  to  his  diocese 
after  an  absence  of  fifteen  or  sixteen  years,  giving 
as  a  reason  that  almost  all  the  bishops  custom¬ 
arily  ordained  by  the  Bishop  of  Milan  were  now 
dead,  and  an  immense  multitude  of  people  died 
witnout  baptism  (quia  cum  pene  omnes  episcopi, 
quos  ordinare  solet,  ....  mortui  sint,  im- 
mensa  populi  multitude  sine  baptismo  moritur). 
It  is  worthy  of  note  in  connection  with  this  that 
from  the  time  of  St.  Ambrose  to  that  of  Cardinal 
Borromeo,  if  not  later,  the  traditions  of  the 
Church  of  Milan  have  maintained  in  a  raidety  of 
ways  the  special  office  of  the  bishop  in  the  admi¬ 
nistration  of  baptism.  Paulinus,  writing  (circ. 
420)  the  life  of  St.  Ambrose,  says  that  St. 
Ambrose  had  with  his  own  hands  baptised  more 
persons  than  five  succeeding  bishops.  And  in 
the  Caeremoniale  Ambrosianum,  published  by 
Cardinal  Borromeo  (Martene,  p.  7),  it  is  stated 
that  the  archbishop  administered  baptism  solem.nly 
twice  in  the  year,  at  Easter  and  at  Pentecost, 
and  also  at  other  times  throughout  the  year  in 
the  event  of  any  adults,  converted  from  unbelief, 
being  presented  for  baptism. 

§  79.  In  later  centuries.  The  provision  last 
mentioned  will  of  itself  serve  to  suggest  whv  it 
was  that  as  time  went  on  the  personal  action  of 
the  bishop,  as  the  recognised  administrator  of 
baptism,  became  gradually  less  and  less ;  while 
that  of  presbyters,  deacons,  and  even  of  clergy 
of  the  minor  orders,  was  continually  increasing. 
From  the  time  when  the  baptism  of  adults  be¬ 
came  the  exception  rather  than  the  prevailing 
rule,  and  when,  from  the  wider  extent  of  the 
Church,  the  number  of  the  children  brought  to 
baptism  was  continually  increasing,  the  older 
practice  of  the  Church  gradually  changed.  It 
was  revived  at  a  later  time  by  missionary  bishops, 
such  as  our  own  countryman  St.  Bonitace  in 
Germany,  or  St.  Otto  of  Bamberg  in  Pomerania 
(^Hist.  3.  Bonifacii  and  Hist.  S.  Ottonis,  lib.  ii. 


BAPTISM 

c.  19,  quoted  by  Martene  De  Ant.  Ecrl.  Hit.  lib.  i. 
cap.  i.  art.  iii.).  But  with  exceptions  such  as 
these  last,  exceptions  which  prove  the  rule, 
the  tendency  in  most  Churches,  from  about 
the  close  of  the  5th  century,  was  to  make 
the  administration  of  baptism  of  less  prominent 
importance;  and  the  part  taken  by  the  bishop 
himself  became  gradually  less  and  less.  In  the 
Gregorian  Sacramentary,  not  the  bishop,  but 
presbyters,  are  spoken  of  as  being  in  a  special 
sense  the  ministers  of  baptism  (ministri  baptismi). 
And  even  at  the  more  solemn  ceremonies  of  the 
Easter  Baptism  at  Rome  and  elsewhere,  the 
bishop  merely  inaugurated  the  ceremony  by 
baptising  a  few  himself,  leaving  the  rest  to 
presbyters,  to  deacons,  or  if  need  were  to  acolytes. 
(^Ot'do  Romanus  apud  Mabillon  Mus.  Ital.  t.  ii., 
and  Martene  De  A.  E.  i?.  t.  i.  p.  8,  col.  2.) 

§  80.  Lay  Baptism.  Tertullian  {de  hapt.  cap. 

1 7)  and  St.  Jerome  {adv.  Lucif.  cap.  4  ;  see  above, 
§  78)  say,  in  effect,  that  for  a  layman  to  baptise 
is  not  contrary  to  essential  Christian  principles, 
though  contrary  to  ecclesiastical  order.  And 
such  practically  has  been  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  in  all  later  times,  forbidding  lay  baptism 
as  a  rule,  but  recognising  it  in  cases  of  necessity. 
See  as  to  this  the  Council  of  Illibei’is,  a.  313, 
can.  38.  In  late  mediaeval  times  the  practice  of 
lay  baptism  became  very  common.  See,  as  illus¬ 
trating  English  usage  in  this  matter,  the  Council 
of  Durham  (between  the  years  1217  and  1222; 
in  Wilkins,  Concil.  p.  575)  and  the  Council  of 
Oxfoi'd,  a.  1222  {ibid.  p.  594). 

§  81.  Baptism  by  Women.  The  question 
whether  women  may  lawfully  baptise  is  first 
adverted  to  by  Tertullian.  Nothing  can  well  be 
stronger  than  his  language,  diluted  though  it  be 
by  some  later  writers  into  the  assertion  that 
women  may  not  “publicly  baptise  in  the  church.” 
After  saying  {de  bapt.  cap.  17)  that  in  cases  of 
perilous  necessity  laymen  should  not  hesitate  to. 
give  baptism,  he  goes  on  to  say  that  women, 
though  they  took  upon  themselves  to  teach, 
would  scarcely,  with  all  their  presumption, 
attempt  to  create  a  right  to  administer  baptism, 
unless  indeed  some  strange  beast  arose  like  to 
one  that  formerly  had  been.  That  former  one 
sought  to  do  away  with  baptism;  some  successor 
might  perhaps  seek  to  confer  baptism  herself. 
Compare  De  Virgin,  veland.  cap.  9,  and  De 
PraesGript.cfi'g.Al.  'Yha  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
lib.  iii.  cap.  9;  Epiphanius,  Haeres.  70;  and  the 
Fourth  Council  of  Carthage,  a.  398,  canon  20 
(“  Mulier,  quamvis  docta  et  sancta,  viros  in  con¬ 
vent  u  docere,  v^el  aliquos  baptizare,  non  prae- 
sumat  ”),  are  all  to  the  same  effect.  Isidore  of 
Hispala  is  referred  to  (by  Augusti,  Denkw.  p.  115) 
as  saying  that  persons  baptised  by  women  are  not 
to  be  rebaptised.  And  Joannes  Moschus  (Pmfwm 
Spirituale,  cap.  3)  says  that  it  is  contrary  to  the 
canons  for  women  to  baptise,  yet  makes  an  ex¬ 
ception  for  cases  of  the  last  extremity.  Even  as 
late  as  the  12th  century  we  find  Hugo  de  S. 
Victore  speaks  of  it  as  still  with  some  a  disputed 
question  whether  baptism  by  women  was  valid. 

§  82.  Baptism  by  Heretics.  The  question  of 
the  validity  or  otherwise  of  baptism  by  heretics 
is  one  which  was  forced  on  the  attention  of  the 
Chui-ch  in  the  3rd  century  by  the  Donatist  Schism. 
The  dissension  thence  aidsing  between  St.  Cyprian 
(sujiported  by  all  the  African  bishops  and  by 
several  of  the  Eastern  Churches)  and  Stephen 


BAPTISM  167 

Bishop  of  Rome,  is  on  many  grounds  of  great 
importance  to  early  Church  histoiy.  But  this 
lies  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  article.  The 
fiuiil  settlement  of  the  question  was  ba.sed  upon 
the  principle  that  the  unworthiness  of  the  mini.s- 
trant  cannot  mar  the  act  of  God,  or  as  was  said, 
that  the  wickedness  of  the  sower  affects  net  the 
vitality  of  the  seed.  Hence  the  question  of  re¬ 
baptising  or  otherwise  was  for  the  most  part 
determined  simply  by  the  question  whether  the 
essential  elements  of  baptism  w'ere  wanting  or 
no,  viz. :  water  and  the  words  prescribed  by  our 
Lord.  If  these  were  employed  the  baptism  w’^as 
regarded  as  valid,  though  irregular,  and  the 
person  so  baptised  was  admitted  into  communion, 
if  on  other  grounds  found  worthy,  after  impo¬ 
sition  of  the  hands  of  the  bishop. 

§  83.  Baptism  by  Pagans  and  Jews,  and  excom¬ 
municate  persons,  has  been  held  to  fall  under  the 
same  rule  as  that  last  stated.  But  opinions  have 
not  been  altogether  at  one  upon  this  point.  See 
the  authorities  quoted  by  Martene,  De  A.  E.  B. 
lib.  i.  cap.  1,  art.  iii. 

§  84.  Baptism  administered  in  sport.  Perhaps 
the  strongest  illustration  of  the  feeling  of  anti¬ 
quity  in  this  matter  is  afforded  by  the  story  told 
by  Socrates  {Hist.  Ecc.  lib.  ii.  c.  16)  and  by 
Ruffinus  {Hist.  Ecc.  lib.  i.  c.  14).  When  Atha¬ 
nasius  was  a  boy,  so  the  story  is  told,  he  w’as 
playing  with  some  young  companions  on  the 
shore  at  Alexandria.  The  bishojj,  Alexander  by 
name,  happened  to  be  looking  on  from  a  distance 
as  they  played,  and  observed,  to  his  astonishment, 
that  they  were  imitating  the  ceremonial  of 
baptism,  Athanasius  acting  as  “  boy-bishop,”  to 
anticipate  a  phrase  of  well-known  Mediaeval 
usage.  “On  diligent  inquiry,”  we  translate  now 
the  words  of  Ruffinus,  “  both  from  those  who 
wei’e  said  to  have  been  baptised,  as  to  what  they 
had  been  asked  and  what  they  had  replied  (the 
eTTfpuTTjaeLS  and  the  aTroKpiaeis,  above,  §  43), 
and  from  him  also  who  had  put  the  baptismal 
questions,  when  the  bishop  found  that  all  things 
had  been  duly  performed  according  to  the  ob¬ 
servances  of  religion,  he  conferred  with  his  clergy 
in  council,  and  is  said  to  have  decided  to  this 
effect,  that,  as  water  had  been  poured  upon  these 
persons  after  the  interrogations  and  responses 
had  been  duly  made,  their  baptism  ought  not  to 
be  repeated,  but  only  be  made  complete  by  the 
customary  sacerdotal  acts  (adimplere  ea  quae  a 
sacerdotibus  mos  est).  Doubts  have  been  raised 
as  to  whether  such  an  occurrence  ever  actually 
took  place  ;  but  whether  the  story  be  true  or  no 
it  serves  equally  to  illustrate  the  feeling  of  the 
Church  at  the  time  the  story  was  first  told. 

§  85.  Baptism  self-administered.  To  make  this 
subject  complete,  it  may  perhaps  be  added  that 
on  one  occasion  the  question  arose  whether  bap¬ 
tism  self-administered  was  valid.  The  question 
was  decided  in  the  negative  by  Pope  Innocent  III. 
on  the  gi’ound  that  there  is  an  essential  distinction 
of  person  between  the  baptiser  and  the  baptised. 
The  Council  of  Nismes  (a.  1283)  embodied  this 
decision  in  one  of  their  canons:  “Si  quis  se  ipsum 
baptizaverit  talem  non  esse  baptizatum  ecciesia 
judicabit.” 

With  what  matter  Baptism  was  administered. 

§  86.  Of  water  as  the  material  element.  Water 
from  natural  associations  has  ever  been  associated 
with  ideas  of  life  in  the  minds  of  must  cultivated 


168 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


nations.  And  to  Heathens  (Tertullian.  de  hapt. 
c.  5),  as  ■well  as  to  Jews,  it  was  associated  not 
in  thought  only,  but  in  actual  ceremonial  usage, 
with  ideas  of  religious  purification.  This  was  the 
material  element-employed  in  the  Baptism  of  our 
Lord,  this  that  was  united  in  mention  by  Him 
with  the  Name  of  the  Spirit,  when  speaking 
(John  iii.)  of  the  gift  of  a  new  spiritual  birth. 
And  this  accordingly  from  the  first  Christian 
Pentecost  (Acts  ii.)  to  this  time,  has  been  re¬ 
garded  in  all  parts  of  Christendom  and  at  all 
times  as  determined  by  divine  appointment  to 
be  the  material  element  in  the  administration  of 
Baptism.  The  few  exceptions  to  this  statement 
which  require  notice  are  the  following. 

§  87.  Baptism  by  fire.  Philastrius  of  Brescia 
(^De  Haeres.  n.  viii.  apud  Biblioth.  Patr.  Galland. 
tom.  vii.  p.  489),  and  St.  Augustine  quoting  him 
as  an  authority  (^De  Haeres.  cap.  lix.  BB.  tom, 
viii.  p.  20  s.  7),  speak  of  Seleucus  and  Hermas  as 
founders  of  a  Sect  of  which  one  characteristic 
was  their  maintaining  the  only  true  baptism  to 
be  “  Spiritu  et  igni.”  And  in  an  anonymous 
Treatise  on  Heretical  Baptism  we  read  of  some 
who,  by  what  means  is  not  known,  produced  an 
appearance  of  fire  on  the  baptismal  water,  in 
order  to  complete  what  they  thoiight  necessary 
for  Christian  Baptism.  And  so  again  Irenaeus 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria  speak  of  certain 
heretics  (Carpocratians  and  Heraclians)  who 
branded  a  mark  upon  the  ears  of  their  aisciples, 
this  being  in  their  eyes  the  true  sealing  (^treppayi- 
Cfiv)  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

§  88.  Baptising  with  wine  and  the  like.  The 
authority  of  a  bishop  of  Rome,  Siricius  (a.  384 
to  389),  or  according  to  others  of  Stephanus  II. 
or  III,,  has  been  claimed  for  the  assertion,  that 
Baptism  in  wine  is  valid  though  not  to  he  allowed 
except  in  cases  of  the  last  necessity.  The  facts 
concerning  this,  much  disptited  by  Roman  Ritu¬ 
alists,  may  be  determined  by  comparison  of  the 
following  authorities :  Antoninus  Augustinus  de 
emendatione  Gratiani,  p.  200.  Baluzius,  Notae  in 
Anton.  August,  p.  431.  Martene  de  Ant.  Ecc. 
Bit.  lib.  i.  cap.  i.  Art.  xiv.  Bertini  de  Sacrament. 
Vindob.  1774,  p.  507.  Harduini  Dissert,  de  hap- 
tismo  in  vino.  Others  mingled  wine  with  water 
and  were  condemned  {Excerpta  Egberti,  a.  750 
in  Wilkins,  Concil.  p.  104)  for  so  doing. 

§  89.  Baptism  with  sand.  In  one  cas'i,  for 
which  Joannes  Moschus  is  the  earliest  authority, 
the  question  arose  not  as  a  mere  abstract  dispu¬ 
tation,  but  in  reference  to  an  actual  matter  of 
fact,  whether  baptism  in  sand  be  legitimate  or 
no.  In  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus 
a  certain  Jew  was  travelling  in  company  with 
some  Christians  through  a  dry  and  desert  coun¬ 
try,  when  he  was  seized  with  gidevous  illness ; 
and  being  apparently  at  the  point  of  death 
begged  his  companions  to  baptize  him.  They 
replied  that  there  was  neither  priest  nor  water 
at  hand,  and  that  without  these  baptism  could 
not  be  had.  “  But  being  earnestly  adjured  not  to 
refuse  him,  they  divested  the  man,  and  sprinkled 
him  three  times  with  sand  instead  of  water, 
saying  that  they  baptized  him  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  Upon  this  (so  the  story  proceeds)  his 
strength  was  miraculously  restored,  and  on  their 
return,  Dionysius,  then  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
being  consulted  on  the  subject,  decided  “  Bapti- 
zatum  esse  Judaeum  si  modo  aqua  denuo  per- 


funderetur,”  in  other  words  that  the  only  thing 
wanting  to  his  Baptism  was  the  element  of  water, 
with  which  he  was  to  be  “  perfusus.”  Autho¬ 
rities  for  this  will  be  found  in  Joannes  Moschus, 
Pratum  SjArituale,  cap.  176  (De  la  Bigne,  Bi- 
blioth.  Patr.  tom,  ii.  pp.  1132,  113.3),  in  Nice- 
phorus  (^Hist.  Ecc.  lib.  iii.  c,  37);  and  the  story 
is  told  in  detail  by  the  Magdeburg  Centuriatc-";, 
who  are  quoted  by  Bingham  {^Antiq.  book  xi.  e. 
2,  §  5). 

§  90.  Baptism  with  milk.  Benedictus  Abbas 
Petroburgensis  (in  Gedis  Henrici  II.  ad  ann. 
1171,  edit.  Hearne  tom.  i,  p.  38)  states  that  a 
custom  prevailed  in  the  early  Irish  Church  of 
baptizing  the  children  of  the  rich  in  milk.  Oc¬ 
casional  references  are  found  elsewhere  to  such  a 
practice.  See  Michelet,  Histoire  de  Franxe,  vol. 
i.  p.  263.  Note. 

§  91.  Figurative  expressions.  Phrases  such  as 
“the  baptism  of  blood,’  meaning  martyrdom; 
“  Baptism  with  fire,”  meaning  either  mai-tyrdom 
(as  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  lib.  vi.  c.  4)  or  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  (as  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  in  three 
different  passages)  ;  the  Baptism  of  Tears,  mean¬ 
ing  Repentance  (as  in  Isidore  of  Seville  and 
others),  are  merely  metaphorical  expressions, 
bearing  indeed  upon  primitive  Doctrine,  but  not 
in  any  way  upon  primitive  Ritual  to  which  this 
article  is  limited. 

Modes  of  administering  Baptism  (by  Immersion, 
Affusion,  Aspersion). 

§  92.  Immersion.  Passages  already  quoted  in 
this  article  will  have  sufficed  to  show  that  the 
ordinary  mode  of  Baptism  in  primitive  times,  at 
least  in  the  case  of  adults,  was  that  the  Cate¬ 
chumen  should  descend  into  a  Font  of  water 
(whether  natural  or  artificial),  and  while  stand¬ 
ing  therein  dip  the  head  thrice  under  the  water. 
See  §§  11,  18,  49. 

§  93.  Affusion.  Yet  there  are  not  wanting 
indications  both  in  literature  and  in  art  of  an 
other  usage,  viz.,  that  of  the  bishop  or  other 
administrant  pouring  water  out  of  the  hand,  or 
from  some  small  vessel,  on  the  head  of  the  bap¬ 
tized.  Thus  we  meet  more  than  once  in  Latin 
writers  with  the  expression  “  perfusus  ”  applied 
to  the  Catechumen  (see  §§  28  and  89 ;  and  aqua 
infusa  §  84).  And  it  is  to  be  noted  that  fhe 
woi’d  BaTTTi^ftz/,  w'hich  is  used  in  Greek  Ritual 
in  speaking  of  the  act  of  the  ministrant,  might 
be  used  with  perfect  propriety  of  such  a  pouring 
of  water  upon  the  head  and  body  as  that  now  in  , 
question.  One  common  mode  of  bathing  among 
the  ancients  w'as  the  pouring  of  water  from 
vessels  over  the  body,  as  we  may  see  in  ancient 


Bepresontation  of  Baptism,  from  the  Cemetery  of  Calutas. 


vase  paintings  (compare  Ovid’s  description  of 
Diana’s  bath,  •where  her  attendants  “  urnis  capa- 
cibus  undam  Efiuudunt  ”).  And  it  is  remarkable 
that  in  almost  all  the  earliest  representations  of 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


169 


Baptism  that  have  been  preserved  to  us,  this  is 
the  special  act  represented.  Such  appears  to  be 
the  representation  in  the  fresco  from  the  Ceme¬ 
tery  of  St,  Calixtus  here  engi*aved. 

In  the  picture  of  Our  Lord’s  Baptism  in  the 
Baptistery  of  St.  John  at  Ravenna  (Ciampini 
Vet.  Mon.  tom.  i.  Tab.  Ixx.)  dating  probably 
from  about  the  year  450,  our  Lord  is  standing 
ii;  the  Joi'dan,  the  water  reaching  to  the  waist, 
and  the  Baptist  is  standing  near,  as  if  upon  the 
bank,  and  pouring  water  from  a  shell,  or  from 
some  small  vessel,  upon  the  head  of  our  Lord. 
And  there  is  a  similar  representation,  varying, 
however,  in  some  of  its  details,  in  the  Church  of 
S.  Maria  in  Cosmedin,  also  at  Ravenna  (Ciam¬ 
pini  Vet.  Mon.  i.  Tab.  xxiii.),  the  Mosaics  of 
which  are  said  to  date  from  the  year  553  A.D. 
And  it  would  seem  probable  on  a  review  of  all 
the  evidence,  that  in  primitive  times,  while  adult 
Baptism  was  still  of  prevailing  usage,  the  two 
modes  hitherto  described  were  combined.  The 
dipping  of  the  head  under  water  took  place,  in 
some  churches  certainly,  so  we  find  clearly 
stated,  during  the  final  Interrogations.  And 
where  this  was  the  case  we  may  infer  that  the 
“  Aftusio  ”  or  “  Perfusio,”  the  pouring  on  of 
water  by  the  Ministrant,  took  place  during  the 
pronunciation  of  the  formula.  This  hypothesis 
of  a  double  use  explains  some  difficulties  in 
ancient  authors,  more  particularly  in  the  Trea¬ 
tise  De  Sacramentis  attributed  to  St.  Ambrose, 
and  in  the  Egyptian  Ritual  already  referred  to. 
And  its  probability  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that 
in  the  Armenian  Order  of  Baptism  even  to  this 
day  the  double  usage  of  Immersion  and  Affusion 
is  maintained.  There  the  actual  administration 
is  described  as  follows  :  The  priest  asks  the  child’s 
name,  and  on  hearing  it,  lets  the  child  down 
into  the  water,  saying,  “  This  N.  servant  of  God, 
who  is  come  from  the  state  of  childhood  (or 
from  the  state  of  a  Catechumen)  to  Baptism,  is 
baptized  in  the  Name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  ....  While  say¬ 
ing  this  the  priest  buries  the  child^  (or  Catechu¬ 
men)  three  times  in  the  water,  as  a  figui’e  of 
Christ’s  three  days’  burial.  Then  taking  the 
child  out  of  the  water  he  thrice  pours  a  handful 
of  water  on  his  head,  saying,  “  As  many  of  you 
as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on 
Christ.  Hallelujah.  As  many  of  you  as  have 
been  enlightened  by  the  Father,  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  put  into  you.  Hallelujah.”  (Fi’om  an  unpub¬ 
lished  translation  by  the  Rev.  S.  C.  Malan.) 

§  94,  Affusion  and  Aspersion  in  clinic  Baptism. 
In  one  case  of  very  common  occurrence  in  early 
times,  viz.,  that  of  the  Baptism  of  the  sick  under 
fear  of  approaching  death,  the  administration 
was  necessarily  by  Affusion  or  by  Aspersion.  And 
in  the  middle  of  the  third  century  we  find  the 
question  formally  raised,  by  one  of  the  African 
bishops,  whether  persons  so  baptized  (clinici,  or 
as  they  were  also  called  grabatarii,  baptized  on  a 
sick-bed)  could  be  regarded  as  “  legitimi  Chrls- 
tiani,”  could  be  supposed,  in  other  words,  to  have 
received  baptism  in  a  legitimate  and  regular 
manner.  The  manner  in  which  Cypi’ian  replies 
to  the  enquiry  (Cypriani  Epist.  Ixxvi.  al,  Ixix. 
ad  Magnum)  shows  that  no  formal  decision  had, 
to  his  knowledge,  ever  been  given  previously  on 
the  question.  He  judges  of  the  question  sub¬ 
mitted  to  him  to  the  best  of  his  own  abilitv 
(quantum  concipit  mediocritas  nostra),  and  ex¬ 


presses  an  opinion  that  the  mode  in  which  the 
water  was  applied  was  a  matter  of  minor  im¬ 
portance,  provided  that  Faith  was  not  wanting 
on  the  part  both  of  Ministi’ant  and  Recipient. 
In  the  ninth  century  Walafrid  Strabo  speaks  of 
Baptism  by  Affusion,  “desuper  fundendo,”  as  ex¬ 
ceptional  only  (De  Beb.  Eccl.  cap.  26).  Not  till 
the  13th  century  (August!  Denkwiirdig.  cap.  ix.  § 
11)  do  we  find  proof  that  Affusion  or  Aspersion 
had  become  the  rule  of  the  Western  Church. 
The  older  2)ractice  is  maintained  in  the  East  to 
this  day. 

Age  at  which  Baptism  was  conferred.  (Infant 
and  Adult  Baptism.) 

§  95.  Infant  Baptism.  St.  Iremeus.  Direct 
evidence  of  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism  first 
occurs  in  St.  Irenaeus,  who  was  born,  probably,  in 
the  year  97  A.  D.,  and  who  had  sat  at  the  feet  of 
Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St.  John.  In  his  book 
against  Heresies  (lib.  ii.  cap.  39  al.  22)  he  says 
that  our  Lord  came  (into  the  world)  in  order 
that  through  Himself  He  might  save  all  men, 
infants,  and  little  ones,  and  children  and  youths 
and  elders,  even  all  who  through  Him  are  born 
again  unto  God.  No  unprejudiced  interpreter 
acquainted  with  the  forms  of  speech  habitually 
employed  by  Irenaeus  himself,  and  by  the  early 
fathers  generally,  will  doubt  that  when  Irenaeus 
thus  speaks  of  infants  and  little  ones,  as  well  as 
others  of  more  mature  age,  being  “  born  again 
unto  God,”  he  refers  to  the  fact  of  their  being 
baptized.  (For  Irenaeus’  own  usage  see  particu¬ 
larly  adv.  Haer.  lib.  i.  c.  18  els  rod 

^aivTiaixaros  rys  els  6ehv  avayew/icreus^  and  cap. 
xix.,  where  authority  to  baptise  is  described  as 
“  potestas  regenerationis  in  Deum.”) 

§  96.  Tertullian  was  of  full  age  before  the 
death  of  Irenaeus,  and  in  knowledge  of  antiquity, 
and  of  the  usages  of  the  Church,  was  second  to 
none  then  living.  And  he  gives  absolutely  con¬ 
clusive  proof  that  Baptism  of  Infants  was  a  com¬ 
mon  practice  of  the  Church  in  his  own  time, 
towards  the  close  of  the  second  century.  With 
characteristic  freedom  he  expresses  his  own 
opinion  that  the  practice  might  wisely  be 
altered,  stating  reasons  for  his  opinion  (^de  Bapt. 
c.  18).  But  he  nowhere  says  one  word  to  im¬ 
ply  that  the  practice  of  his  own  contemporaries 
was  an  innovation  upon  the  earlier  usage  of  the 
Church. 

§  97.  Origen.  We  have  testimony  no  less 
decisive  from  Origen  as  to  what  was  the  tradi¬ 
tionary  practice  of  the  more  Eastern  Chuvehea, 
He  was  born  probably  in  the  year  186  A,  D.  and 
was  a  disciple  of  Clemens  Alex,  and  an  inheritor 
of  his  great  learning.  His  language  in  several 
passages  shows  not  only  that  Infant  Baptism  was 
a  recognised  practice  of  the  Church  in  his  own 
day,  but  that  in  his  belief  (and  no  man  knew 
more  of  antiquity)  had  been  equally  so  from  the 
time  of  the  Apostles,  See  his  Horn,  viij,  on  Le¬ 
viticus  (Oberthur  t.  vi.  p.  137)  and  Horn,  xiv, 
on  St.  Luke  (t.  xiii.  p.  335),  where  he  argues 
that  infimts  must  have  original  sin,  “  else  why 
are  they  baptized  ?  ”—^and  his  comment  in  Ep. 
ad  Rom.  lib.  v.  c.  vi.  (ecclesia  ab  ajiostolis  tradi- 
tionem  accepit  etiam  parvuUs  baptismum  dare). 

§  98,  Other  early  evidence,  but  indirect  and 
inferential  only,  has  by  some  been  cited  (Bing¬ 
ham  C.  A.  book  xi.  ch.  iv.  §§  vi.  vii.)  from  Cle¬ 
ment  of  Rome,  and  from  Justin  Martyr,  Mor« 


170 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


conclusive  than  these  is  an  expression  of  Clemens 
Alex,  in  the  second  century,  when  (^Paedag.  lib. 
iii.  c.  11)  he  speaks  of  twv  e’l  vSdrtav  dvaairwiJLi- 
vwv  TTaiZiwv,  the  children  that  are  drawn  up  from 
out  of  the  water,  in  a  context  which  shows  clearly 
that  it  is  of  Baptism  that  he  speaks. 

§  99.  Jems/i  Proselyte  Baptism. — In  order  to 
complete  the  subject  of  the  evidence  for  Infant 
Baptism,  it  may  be  w'ell  to  refer  to  the  argu¬ 
ments  based  on  the  analogy  of  Christian  Baptism 
both  to  the  Proselyte  Baptism  of  the  Jews, 
wliich  was  given  to  infants  as  well  as  to  adults, 
and  to  the  rite  of  circumcision,  administered  on 
the  8th  day  after  birth,  and  only  in  excejdional 
cases  to  adults.  For  the  first  of  these,  the  Bap¬ 
tism  of  Proselytes,  the  argument  from  analogy 
is  exceedingly  strong,  on  the  assumption  that 
the  practice  in  question  really  existed  before  the 
Apostolic  age.  Lightfoot  (on  Matt.  iii.  and  John 
iii.)  and  many  other  Hebraists  assume  the  pre¬ 
existence  of  the  Jewish  rite  without  doubt.  To 
the  present  writer  there  appear  to  be  the 
strongest  grounds  for  this  opinion.  But  among 
Continental  scholars  at  the  present  time  the 
prevailing  opinion  appears  to  be  opposed  to  that 
of  Lightfoot.  A  summary  of  the  arguments 
on  either  side,  and  full  references  to  the  best 
authorities,  will  be  found  in  Carpzovius  Anno- 
tationes  in  T.  Gooducini  Mosen  et  Aaronem.  Fran- 
cofurti,  4,  1748.  See  particularly  the  Xotes 
on  Lib.  i.  cap.  iii.  §  vii.  For  additional  authori¬ 
ties  see  the  Bibliographia  Antiquaria  of  T.  A. 
Fabricius,  p.  385. 

§  100.  The  Analogy  of  Circumcision  (adminis¬ 
tered  as  this  was  in  infancy)  with  Christian 
Baptism,  is  recognised  both  in  Scripture  (Col.  2. 
ii.)  and  in  early  Christian  writers,  as  Justin 
Martyr,  Dial,  cum  Tryp.  lud. ;  St.  Irenaeus  adv. 
Haer.  lib.  iv.  c.  xxx.  (this,  however,  open  to  dis¬ 
pute).  In  St.  Cyprian’s  time  so  close  was  this 
analogy  considered  by  some  as  to  cause  doubt 
whether  in  Auew  of  “  eighth  day  circumcision  ” 
any  day  earlier  than  the  eighth  were  allowable 
for  Christian  Baptism  (Cypriani  Epist.  lix.).  St. 
Gregory  Nazianz.  expressly  appeals  to  this  as 
analogous  to  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism 
(prat.  xl.  de  Bapt.  p.  658). 

§  101.  Adult  Baptism.  The  general  conclu¬ 
sion,  resulting  from  an  impartial  investigation 
of  all  the  evidence  now  available,  appears  to  the 
jjresent  writer  to  be,  that  in  the  first  four  cen¬ 
turies  of  Christian  History  adult  baptism  was, 
from  a  variety  of  concurrent  causes,  the  pre¬ 
vailing  practice.  Yet  that  during  the  .same 
period  infants  were  always  baptised  without 
delay  if  in  apparent  danger  of  death.  But  in 
the  absence  of  such  danger  their  baptism  was 
deferred  to  the  time  of  solemn  baptism  held  at 
Kpiphany,  Easter,  or  Pentecost.  And  it  is  pro¬ 
bable  that  in  many  cases  Christian  parents  may 
have  shared,  and  have  acted  on,  the  opinion  ex¬ 
pressed  by  Tertullian  in  the  second  century,  and 
by  Gregory  Nazianz,  in  the  fourth,  and  thought 
it  well  to  defer  the  baptism  of  children,  cases 
of  grave  sickness  excepted,  till  they  were  able  to 
make  answer  on  their  own  behalf  to  the  inter¬ 
rogations  of  the  baptismal  rite  (see  Gregor.  Naz,, 
Orat.  xl.  He  urges  the  baptism  of  infants  in 
case  of  danger,  and  yet  shortly  after  advises  the 
deferring  their  baptism  in  other  cases  till  they 
were  three  years  old).  In  the  year  450  or  there¬ 
abouts,  we  find  evidence  that  in  Syria,  if  not 


elsewhere,  the  baptism  of  infants  was  regarded 
as  not  allowable  only  but  matter  of  absolute 
duty.  (St,  Isaac  the  Great  in  Assemani  Bihl. 
Oriental,  t.  i,  221.  “  Let  the  lambs  of  our  flock 

be  sealed  from  the  first,  that  the  Robber  may 
see  the  mark  impressed  (§  4)  upon  their  bodies 
and  tremble.  Let  not  a  child  that  is  without 
the  seal  (§  4)  suck  the  milk  of  a  mother  that 
hath  been  baptized  ....  Let  the  children  cf 
the  kingdom  be  carried,  from  the  womb,  to 
baptism.”) 

V.  Baptism  as  represented  in  Ancient  Art. 

§  102.  Direct  Representations.  Of  two  modes 
in  which  we  find  baptism  represented  in  ancient 
art,  the  first,  that  of  direct  representation,  is 
confined  to  a  very  limited  number  of  examples. 
The  earliest,  probably,  is  one  of  those  engraved 
for  this  article  (see  §  93)  from  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Calixtus  at  Rome,  and  believed  by  De  Ro.ssi 
to  be  of  the  second  century.  It  serves  to  illus¬ 
trate  what  has  been  .said  above  of  what  appears 
to  have  been  one  customary  mode  of  administer¬ 
ing  the  rite,  viz.,  by  pouring  water  from  the 
hand,  or  from  a  small  vessel  held  in  the  hand, 
upon  a  person  standing  in  shallow  water.  Two 
Mosaics,  at  Ravenna  and  at  Rome,  in  which  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord  is  represented,  have  been 
already  described  (see  §  93).  Another  similar 
representation  is  painted  in  fresco  on  the  walls 
of  a  chamber  in  the  cemetery  of  Pontianus, 
originally  u.sed  as  a  baptistery;  and  yet  another 
in  the  church  of  S.  Maria  in  Cosmedin,  at 
Ravenna  (the  Mosaic  said  to  be  of  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury),  figured  in  Ciampini,  Vet.  Alonum.  i.  p.  78. 
Millin  (Midi  de  la  France)  has  engraved  (Atlas, 
PI.  Ixv.  11)  a  peculiar  representation  of  this  sub¬ 
ject  from  a  sarcophagus.  With  this  may  be 
compared  that  on  the  diptych  of  Milan,  figured 
and  described  by  Bugati  (Memorie  di  S.  Celso,  p. 
282),  and  reproduced  in  facsimile  by  the  Arundel 
Society.  No  other  such  representations  are 
known  to  the  present  writer,  dating  certainly  from 
any  period  antecedent  to  800  a.d.  But  two  very 
curious  representations  were  engraved  by  Ciam- 
pinus  in  his  Monumenta  Vetera  (tom.  i.  p.  16) 
of  Sarcophagi,  to  which  he  attributed  a  x’ery 
great  antiquity.  In  the  first  is  represented  the 
baptism  of  a  king  and  queen  (their  rank  being 
indicated  by  a  Royal  crown  on  the  head  of  each), 
and  these  he  supposes  to  represent  Agilulfus  and 
his  wife  Theodelinda,  queen  of  the  Lombards, 
baptized,  as  he  thinks,  in  the  year  590.  On  the 
other  sarcophagus  a  somewhat  similar  scene  is 
represented.  A  man  somewhat  advanced  in 
years  kneels  to  receive  baptism,  which  is  admi¬ 
nistered  by  affusion  only,  water  being  poured 
upon  his  head  from  a  small  vessel,  which  h.as 
been  filled  evidently  from  one  of  larger  size  (not 
unlike  the  upper  part  of  a  modern  English  font) 
which  stands  near.  Ciampinus  supposes  (but  on 
very  slight  grounds)  that  the  event  represented 
is  the  baptism  of  Arrichius,  second  Duke  of 
Benev^entum,  a  contemporary  of  Gregory  the 
Great,  circ.  591  A.D,  It  is  remarkable  that  in 
both  these  .scenes  the  ministrant  of  the  baptism 
has  the  distinctive  dress  of  a  layman,  while  all 
the  other  men  represented  are  designated  by  an 
ecclesiastical  or  a  monastic  di’ess.  The  real  date 
of  these  sarcophagi  must,  however,  be  regarded 
as  extremely  uncertain.  To  the  12th  century 
belongs  a  fresco  in  the  church  of  St.  Lorenzoi 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


171 


nt  Rome  (ibid.  tom.  i.  Tab.  vi.),  representing  the 
baptism  of  St.  Romanus,  by  St.  Laurentius.  This 
embodies  the  tradition  alluded  to  by  Walafrid 
Strabo  in  the  9th  century.  “Notandum  non 
solum  mergeudo  verum  etiam  desuper  fundendo 
multos  baptizatos  fuisse,  et  adhuc  posse  ita 
baptizari  si  necessitas  sit,  sicuti  in  passione  B. 
Laureutii  quendam  urceo  allato  legimus  bap- 
tizatum.  Hoc  etiam  solet  evenire  cum  provec- 
tiorum  granditas  corporum  in  minoribus  vasis 
hominem  tingi  non  patitur.”  The  baptism  of 
two  adults  by  St.  Paul,  represented  in  the  same 
plate  (from  a  chapel  in  the  church  of  S.  Puden- 
tiana)  is  probably  of  the  same  date.  To  the 
same  period  is  to  be  assigned  the  representation 
of  the  imaginary  baptism  of  Constantine  by  St. 
Silvester,  formerly  on  the  fa9ade  of  St.  John 
Lateral!,  at  Rome  (Ciampini  de  Sac.  Aedif.  tah.  ii. 
Hg.  4).  The  picture  engraved  below  is  from  a 


Baptismal  Ceremony,  from  a  Pontiflcal  of  the  Ninth  Century. 

Pontifical  of  the  9th  centui’y,  now  in  the  S. 
Minerva  Library  at  Rome.  It  represents  the 
baptism  of  an  infant  and  of  an  adult,  and  it  is 
remarkable  that  the  latter  is  represented  as 
wearing  a  tunic  in  the  font.  This  is  in  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  conclusions  drawn  from  literary 
evidence,  noticed  above  in  §  48.  The  en¬ 
graving  in  §  43  is  from  the  same  MS.,  or 
rather  from  an  exact  copy  in  the  collection 
of  Pope  Clement  XL,  now  in  the  Royal 
Library  at  Windsor. 

§  103.  Symbolical  Eepresentation.  From 
a  very  early  period  indeed,  the  practice  ob¬ 
tained  of  representing  baptism  symbolically 
under  a  figure  due,  probably,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  an  expression  recorded  in  Mark 
i.  17  (“I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men”), 
and  to  the  parable  wherein  our  Lord  com¬ 
pares  the  heavenly  kingdom  to  a  net  en¬ 
closing  fish  both  bad  and  good.  A  well- 
known  passage  of  Tertullian  will  suffice  for 
illustration  of  this  symbolical  meaning. 

“  Nos  pisciculi  secundum  piscern  nostrum 
in  aquis  nascimur,  nec  nisi  in  aquis  per- 
manendo  salvi  sumus.”  We  smaller  fishes, 
alter  the  example  of  our  Ichthus,  are  born 
ii-  water,  and  only  by  continuing  in  the 
water  do  we  remain  safe  (de  Bapt.  c.  1). 

We  find  the  same  figure  in  a  passage  of  St. 
Hilary  (In  Matthaeum,  ed  Ben.  tom.  iii. 
p.  679),  in  which  he  says  that  in  the 
words  recorded  in  Matt.  iv.  19,  “  The  future 
work  of  the  Apostles  is  set  forth,  in  draw¬ 
ing  forth  men,  like  fish  from  out  of  the 


sea,  into  the  light  of  the  heavenly  habitation.” 
And  to  come  somewhat  nearer  home  we  find 
St.  Patrick  and  his  nephew  Secundiuus  fre¬ 
quently  employing  the  same  language  in  re¬ 
ference  to  the  missionary  work  in  which  they 
were  engaged.  The  former  says  in  his  “Con¬ 
fession,”  “  Valde  debitor  sum  Deo  qui  mihi 
tantam  gratiam  dedit  ut  populi  multi  per  me  in 
Deum  renascerentur  et  postmodum  consum- 
marentur  ....  Idcirco  oportet  quidem  bene  et 
diligenter  piscari,  sicut  Dominus  praemonet 
dicens,  venite  post  me,  taciarn  vos  fieri  piscatores 
hominura.”  And  Secundinus,  speaking  of  St. 
Patrick : — 

“  Dominus  ilium  elogit  ut  doceret  barbaras 
Nationes,  et  piscaretur  per  d»ctrinae  retia, 

Ut  de  saeculo  credentes  traheret  ad  gratiam, 
Dominumque  sequerentur  sedem  ad  aetheream.” 

This  symbol  of  the  fish  is  of  frequent  occurrence 
in  the  Roman  catacombs,  and  in  various 
parts  of  France.  The  writer  has  observed  in 
manuscripts,  and  in  ecclesiastical  monuments 
of  various  kinds  at  Autun,  Clermont  Ferrand, 
and  at  Paris,  a  peculiar  application  of  this 
symbol,  which  has  not  hitherto,  to  his  know¬ 
ledge,  been  either  described  or  explained. 
Two  fi'ilies  are  represented  in  close  proxi¬ 
mity,  attached  the  one  to  the  other  by  a 
string  which  issues  from  the  mouth  of  one, 
and  attaches  to  the  head  of  the  other.  This 
is  in  all  probability  a  Christian  adaptation 
of  an  old  Celtic  symbol  familiar  to  the 
Gauls  in  Pagan  times.  Their  God  of  Elo¬ 
quence  was  represented  with  a  golden  cord 
issuing  from  his  mouth,  and  entering  the 
ear  of  one  to  whom  he  is  supposed  to  speak. 
And  so  in  the  Christian  symbolism  of  Gaul 
at  a  later  period.  He  who  spake  as  never  man 
spake,  is  represented  under  the  well-known  figure 
of  an  IX0TC  or  Fish,  drawing  to  Him  by  the 
power  of  His  Word  one  who  is  himself  (in  the 
language  of  the  Autun  inscription)  IX0TOC 
OTPANIOY  FENOC,  the  offspring  of  that  hea- 


OapiUlt  (n>m  Uie  Clinn:b  of  St.  Oermaiii  Jos  Pi  js  at  Paris 


172 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISM 


venly  Fish.  This  repi’esentation  may  be  seen 
over  the  western  doors  of  the  cathedral  at  Autuu, 
in  a  MS.  Bible  (11th  century  probably)  in  the 
public  library  at  Clermont  Ferrand,  and  on  the 
capital  of  a  column  in  the  baptistery  of  the 
church  of  St.  Germain  des  Pr&  at  Paris.  There 
also  appears  a  modification  of  the  fish  symbol, 
which  is  probably  unique  in  its  kind.  Figures  are 
represented  which  are  half-man  and  half-fsh,  with 
their  hands  clasped  upon  a  fish,  which  is  rising 
upwards  through  the  water,  as  shown  in  the 
accompanying  woodcut.  The  church  in  which 
this  capital  is  still  to  be  seen  is,  eA’^en  in  its  pre¬ 
sent  state,  the  oldest  in  Paris.  When  it  was 
built  in  the  11th  or  12th  century  in  place  of  a 
church,  originally  built  six  centuries  before,  the 
capitals  of  many  of  the  older  columns  were  pre¬ 
served,  and  employed  in  the  construction  of  the 
present  building.  And  on  these,  as  on  other 
grounds  which  cannot  now  be  stated  in  detail, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  representation 
dates,  in  origin  at  least,  from  the  very  earliest 
period  of  the  Gallican  Church.  (See  Marriott’s 
Testimony  of  the  Catacombs,  ^c.,  p.  142,  sq.) 

VI.  Literature. 

§  104. — It  only  remains  to  mention  briefly  the 
chief  sources  of  information  upon  the  various 
matters  treated  in  this  article.  Details  as  to  the 
primitive  idtual  of  baptism  are  to  be  sought  in 
the  various  authoi's  and  treatises  already  quoted 
or  referred  to.  See  particularly  §§  27  to  40. 
Among  modern  authors,  who  have  treated  of  the 
Ritual  of  Baptism,  may  be  mentioned  Hixgo 
Menardus,  whose  notes  on  the  saci'amentary  of 
St.  Gregory  the  Great  abound  with  instruction 
upon  this  as  upon  other  matters  of  which  he 
ti'eats.  The  treatise  of  Edmond  Martene,  De 
Antiquis  Ecclesiae  Ritibus,  part  i.,  is  full  of  infor¬ 
mation  as  to  Western  usages,  and  gives,  what  is 
of  especial  value,  a  large  collection  of  the  earliest 
“  Ordines  Baptismi.”  But  he  shows  little  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  Greek  authors,  and  his  references 
to  them,  and  occasionally  to  Latin  writers,  are 
not  always  exact.  Goar,  in  his  Euchologion 
Graecorum,  gives  full  details  of  the  later  Greek 
rites,  and  his  notes  upon  these,  illustrating 
modern  usage  from  the  older  writers,  are 
valuable.  Bingham  (^Antiquities,  book  xi.)  does 
not  appear  to  have  investigated  the  early  ritual 
of  baptism  very  thoroughly,  but  the  later 
editions  of  his  treatise  are  of  use  as  containing 
in  the  notes  full  citations  from  the  original  text 
of  the  various  authors  whom  he  quotes.  The 
Treatise  of  Augusti,  Archaologie  der  Taufe,  form¬ 
ing  vol.  vii.  of  his  Denkwiirdigkeiten  aus  der 
Christlicher  Archaologie,  contains  more,  and  more 
exact  information,  than  any  of  the  older  writers 
on  the  subject.  And  it  is  also  valuable  as  giving 
lists  of  writers  who  have  treated  either  of  bap¬ 
tism  generally,  or  of  special  questions  in  con¬ 
nection  with  it.  Binterim  has  given  (Die  Vor- 
ziiglichsten  Denkwwdiglieiten  der  Christ-Catho- 
lischen  Kirche,  vol.  i.  pt.  1)  a  fair  account  of  the 
ceremonies  of  Baptism,  with  abundant  citations  ; 
and  an  essay  on  Baptism  in  Wine,  Milk,  and  Sand 
(Denkw.  ii.  pt.  i.,  pp.  2-34).  [W.  B.  M. 

BAPTISM,  Angel  of.  Tcrtulliau  in  his 
treatise  de  Baptismo,  cc.  5  and  6,  speaks  of  an 
angel  who  is  present  at  baptism  (baptismi 
arbiter),  and  who  prepares  the  waters  of  the 


font  (aquis  in  salutem  hominis  temperandis  adest 
— aquis  intervenit),  and  under  whose  auspices 
men  are  prepared,  by  the  cleansing  of  the  font, 
for  the  following  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (in  aqua 
emundati  sub  angelo  Spiritui  Sancto  praepara- 
mur).  His  language  is  not  inconsistent  with  a 
belief  that  this  may  have  been  a  mere  ir  livid ual 
speculation  of  his  own,  rather  than  a  loctrine 
generally  accepted  in  his  time.  No  pa  allel  to 
this  language  has  hitherto,  as  far  as  tht  writer 
knows,  been  alleged  from  any  other  early  writers. 
But  in  more  than  one  of  the  early  “  Ordines 
Baptismi  ”  there  will  be  found  expressions,  de¬ 
rived,  in  all  probability,  from  this  very  passage  of 
Tertullian.  See  the  Article  Bakiism,  §  29, 
where  there  is  the  same  allusion  as  in  Tertullian 
to  the  angel  at  Bethesda  (angelum  aquis  inter¬ 
venire  si  novum  videtur,  exemplum  futuri  prae- 
cucurrit.  Piscinam  Bethesdam  angel  us  inter- 

veniens  commovebat . de  Bapt.  c.  5).  With 

this  compare  the  “Collectio”  of  the  Gotho-Gal- 
lican  Missal.  “  Descendat  super  has  aquas  angel  us 
benedictionis  tuae,”  and  again  “  qui  Bethesdae 
aquas  angelo  medicante  procuras . ange¬ 

lum  pietatis  tuae  his  sacris  fontibus  adesse  dig- 
nare.”  So  too  in  the  Liber  Sacramentorum  of 
Gelasius  Papa  (Martene,  De  Ant.  Eccl.  Rit.  tom. 
i.  p.  66),  “  Super  has  aquas  angelum  sanctitatis 
emittas.”  [W.  B.  M.] 

BAPTISM,  Iteration  of.  ('AvaBairr'iCfiv. 
Denuo  baptizare ;  haptismum  iterare.)  It  has 
always  been  held,  as  matter  of  theory,  that 
baptism  once  really  conferred  can  never  be  really 
repeated.  And  yet,  from  the  2nd  century  to  the 
present  time,  questions  concerning  the  repetition 
of  baptism  have  continually  arisen,  and  have  been 
determined  upon  other  considerations  than  that 
of  the  abstract  principle  just  stated.  Yet  the 
principle  itself  was  always  maintained.  Those 
who  rebaptized  heretics  did  so,  as  St.  Cyril 
Hieros.  says((7a/<?c/i.  i.  ol  alperiKol  avaBairTi^ovTai 
iireib})  rh  Trp6Tepov  ovk  i)v  jSaTTTJO'fia),  on  the 
ground  that  the  former  (reputed)  baptism  was 
not  really  baptism.  And  baptism  administered 
in  cases  where  the  fact  of  previous  baptism  was 
open  to  doubt,  was  defended  in  terms  which  imply 
that  any  conscious  or  intended  repetition  of 
baptism  would  be  matter  for  grave  condemnation. 
(Non  potest  in  iteration's  crimen  devenire,  quod 
factum  esse  omnino  nescitur.  Leo  M.  Epist. 
xxxvii.  ad  Leon.  Ravenn.  Labbe  t.  iii.  p.  1326). 
But  the  abstract  principle  was  wholly  inadequate 
to  the  solution  of  the  more  difficult  question, 
“  what  constitutes  valid  baptism  ?  ” 

§  2.  Baptism  by  Heretics. — Among  the  ques¬ 
tions  thus  left  open  the  most  important  was 
whether  baptism  given  by  heretics  and  schis¬ 
matics  was  to  be  regarded  as  valid  or  no.  This 
question  came  prominently  before  the  Church  in 
connection  with  the  Donatist  controversy  in  the 
3rd  century.  St.  Cyprian,  supported  by  many 
bishops  in  the  East,  maintained  that  baptism 
given  “outside  the  Church”  (extra  cccle.siam), 
i.e.  by  schismatics  or  by  excommunicated  here¬ 
tics,  was  not  to  be  accounted  valid,  and  was 
therefore  to  be  repeated  (in  theory,  given  for 
the  first  time),  in  the  case  of  penitents  seeking 
reconciliation  with  the  Church.  Similar  que.s- 
tions  had  to  be  determined  in  respect  of  the 
Marcionites,  Paulinianists,  Arians,  Euuomia.m 
and  others. 

§  3.  Ultimate  decision. — The  ultimate  result  of 


BAPTISM 


BAPTISTERY 


173 


the  controversy  concerning  rebaptization  was  the 
acceptance,  in  the  West  absolutely,  but  with 
more  of  reserve  in  the  East,  of  the  principle  that 
the  validity  of  the  Sacrament  depended  upon  ad¬ 
ministration  in  accordance  with  Christ’s  Institu¬ 
tion  (*.  e.  with  water  and  the  “  Evangelic  words  ”) 
without  regard  to  the  orthodoxy  or  otherwise  of 
the  administrator.  This  doctrine  finds  decisive 
expression  in  the  language  of  St.  Augustine 
(contra  Petil.  de  unico  baptismOy  c.  3).  “Si  de 
ipsa  Trinitatis  unitate  dissentientem  haereticura 
invenio,  et  tamen  evangelica  et  ecclesiastica  regula 
baptizatum,  intellectum  hominis  corrigo  non 
Dei  violo  sacramentum.”  And  again  in  speak¬ 
ing  of  baptism  given  by  Marcion,  “  Si  evangelicis 
verbis  in  nomine  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti 
Marcion  baptismum  consecrabat,  integrum  erat 
sacramentum,  quamvis  ejus  fides  sub  eisdem  ver¬ 
bis  aliud  opiuantis  quam  catholica  veritas  docet 
non  esset  integra,  sed  fabulosis  falsitatibus  in- 
quiuata.”  The  Council  of  Arles  (a.  448)  for  the 
reasons  stated  by  St.  Augustine,  allowed  the 
'baptism  of  the  Bonosiani  as  valid,  but  rejected 
that  of  the  Photinians.  And  the  precedents  thus 
established  have  been  followed  in  the  West,  ever 
since,  with  scarcely  any  exceptions.  See  Baptism 
§§  82  to  89.  But  in  the  Eastern  Churches  the 
difference  of  tendency  indicated  in  what  has  been 
already  said  may  clearly  be  traced  in  other  cases. 
St.  Cyril  Hieros.,  as  we  have  already  seen,  says 
simply  that  “  Heretics  are  rebaptized,”  as  their 
baptism  is  not  really  such.  And  with  this  ac¬ 
cords  the  language  of  the  Apostolic  Canon,  quoted 
by  Photius  (Syntagma  Canonum :  Spicil.  Rom.  A. 
Mai,  tom.  vii.).  “  If  a  bishop  or  presbyter  re¬ 
baptize  one  who  has  true  baptism  (rby  Kara 
aXifdeiav  ixovra  pdirTi<TfjLd),  or  if  he  refuse  to 
rebaptize  one  who  has  been  defiled  ”  (i.  e.  by 
a  pretended  baptism — compare  St.  Athanasius 
quoted  below)  “  by  the  ungodly,  let  him  be  re¬ 
garded  as  making  mockery  of  the  Cross  and  of 
the  Death  of  Christ,  and  not  distinguishing 
priests  (tepeas)  from  pretended  priests.”  With 
this  St.  Athanasius  agrees  both  in  doctrine  and  in 
expression.  The  Arians,  he  says  (Orat.  ii.  cont. 
Arian.  BB.  tom.  i.  p.  510)  are  in  peril  as  to  the 
fulness  of  the  Sacrament  itself.  “  The  baptism 
they  bestow  must  be  (dWo  Uv  etrj — falling  short 
of  absolute  assertion)  alien  from  the  truth,  eA’en 
though  out  of  regard  to  what  is  written  ”  [in 
Holy  Scripture]  “  they  make  pretence  of  naming 
the  Father  and  the  Son.”  And  again  to  the 
same  effect  (ibid.  §  43)  speaking  of  other  heretical 
bodies  which  do  but  utter  the  divine  names  (in 
the  Formula  of  Baptism),  but  without  a  right 
intention,  and  without  salutary  faith,  the  water 
that  they  bestow  is,  he  says,  “  without  profit 
(d\u(riT6A6s),  being  destitute  of  true  godliness,  so 
that  he  who  is  sprinkled  (^avTi^Sfifvov^  by  them 
is  rather  defiled  in  ungodliness  than  redeemed 
with  the  ransom  of  Christ.”  This  aKvaireXes, 
“  without  profit,”  reminds  us  of  the  recurrent 
formula  of  St.  Augustine,  in  speaking  of  heretical 
baptism,  when  followed  by  repentance  and  re¬ 
ception  into  the  Church.  In  heresy  men  may 
have  baptism,  though  they  have  not  (per  quod 
utile  est)  its  beneficial  effect.  On  repentance  and 
conversion,  “  prodesse  incipit  ad  salutem,”  that 
baptism  “  begins  to  avail  unto  salvation,”  which 
before  availed  only  to  condemnation  (De  Baptismo 
c.  Donat,  lib.  i.  cap.  xii.,  lib.  iv.  capp.  iv.  and 
XXV.,  lib.  V.  capp.  v,  and  viii.,  and  xviii.  &c.). 


A  tone  like  that  of  Athanasius  may  be  traced  in 
the  decisions  of  various  Eastern  Councils  quoted 
by  Photius.  After  the  “  Canon  of  the  Apostles  ” 
already  quoted,  there  follows  Canon  29  of  the 
Council  of  Nicaea,  which  orders  the  rebaptizing  of 
the  followers  of  Paulinus.  It  has  been  conjec¬ 
tured  (by  St.  Augustine  first,  De  Haeres.  c.  44) 
that  this  was  because  of  some  defect  in  the 
formula  which  they  employed.  This  is  very  i)ro- 
bable,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  of  the 
canon  to  imply  this.  Forty  years  later,  at  the 
Council  of  Laodicea,  a  distinction  was  made. 
Canon  78  directs  that  Novatians  or  Photinians 
and  Quartodecimans  are  to  be  received  back  on 
conversion,  with  chrism  and  imposition  of  hands, 
and  then  adds,  “  Moi'eover  we  rebaptize,  as 
heathens  ('EAA^j/as)  Manichaeans,  Valentinians, 
and  Marcionists.”  See  further  Canons  on  the 
same  subject  in  the  Syntagma  Canonum  of 
Photius. 

§  4.  Rebaptizing  in  case  of  doubt.^The  second 
class  of  cases  involving  the  question  of  iteration 
of  baptism  was  that  of  children  whose  baptism 
was  matter  of  doubt.  This  question  was  formally 
brought  before  a  Synod  at  Carthage  (the  Fifth, 
a.  425)  in  reference  to  children  redeemed  from 
slavery,  and  who  could  neither  themselves  recol¬ 
lect,  nor  had  witnesses  to  testify,  whether  or  no 
they  had  been  baptized.  It  was  determined 
“absque  ullo  scrupulo  eos  esse  baptizandos  ne 
ista  trepidatio  eos  facial  sacramentorum  purga- 
tione  privari.”  This  canon  was  re-enacted  by 
Cone.  Carthag.  vi.  a.  525 :  and  in  the  East,  in 
almost  identical  terms,  by  the  Quinisext  Council 
(Constantinople  a.  691).  It  appears  again  in  col¬ 
lections  of  mediaeval  canons,  and  amongst  others 
in  those  of  Theodore,  Archbp.  of  Canterbury,  in 
the  Excerpta  of  Egbert  of  York,  and  the  Syntagma 
Canonum  of  Photius.  The  hypothetical  form  of 
baptism,  “  If  thou  art  not  already  baptized,”  &c., 
was  apparently  unknown  till  the  8th  century. 
The  earliest  example  of  it  is  found  in  the  Statuta 
of  St.  Boniface,  Archbp.  of  Mayeuce  (Martene 
De  Rit.  Antiq.  Eccl.  t.  i.  p.  59).  “  Si  do 

aliquibus  dubiurn  sit  utrum  sint  baptizati  absque 
ullo  scrupulo  bapti/entur :  his  tamen  verbis 
praemissis :  non  te  rebaptizo,  sed  si  nondum  es 
baptizatus  ego  -te  baptizo  in  nomine  Patris  et 
Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti.”  Cases  of  doubt  arising 
from  other  causes  have  been  noticed  under 
Baptism,  §§  80  to  89.  [W.  B.  M.] 

BAPTIST,  NATIVITY  OF.  [Sr.  John 
Baptist,  Festivals  of.] 

BAPTISTERY  (Lat.  Baptisterium,  Greek 
BaTTTKXTr^pioi/,  also  Domus  illuminationis,  (pwri- 
(Tr^piov),  the  building  or  chamber  set  apart  for 
the  celebration  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 
The  receptacle  for  the  water  was  called  in  Latin 
“  piscina,”  in  Greek  “  KoKv/i^'yQpa,'’  and  more 
rarely  by  some  other  names,  as  vnordpos,  lava- 
crum,  natatoi'ia.  Besides  the  receptacle  for  the 
water  a  baptistery  was  furnished  with  an  altar, 
for  the  practice  existed  from  a  very  early  period 
until  the  10th  century,  and  perhaps  even  later 
(v.  Martene,  De  Antig.  Eccl.  Rit.  t.  i.  p.  153),  of 
allowing  the  newly  baptized,  even  if  infants,  to 
partake  of  the  Eucharist.  In  the  earliest  ages 
the  administration  of  baptism  was  confined  to 
the  principal  church  of  the  diocese  ;  and  this 
practice  still  exists  at  Florence,  Pisa,  and  el.se- 
where  in  Italy.  Pope  Marcellus  (a.d.  304-309) 


174 


BAPTISTERY 


BAPTISTERY 


is  said,  in  the  Lih.  Pontif.,  to  have  appointed 
twenty-five  “tituli”  in  Rome  “as  though  (quasi) 
dioceses,  on  account  of  the  baptism  and  penance 
of  many.”  Many  passages  in  the  Lih.  I'ontif. 
shew  that  baptisteries  existed  attached  to  many 
of  the  minor  churches  down  to  the  9th  century, 
and  it  is  probable  that  every  parish  church  in 
Rome  had  its  baptistery.  The  existence  of  many 
baptisteries  in  one  city  was,  it  would  seem,  al¬ 
most  or  quite  peculiar  to  Rome. 

As,  during  the  earlier  centuries,  immersion, 
either  alone  or  accompanied  by  aspersion,  and 
not  merely  sprinkling,  was  deemed  to  be  the  pro¬ 
per  mode  of  administering  the  rite  (v.  Martene, 
De  Antiq.  EccL  Lit.  t.  i.  p.  135),  a  large  recep¬ 
tacle  for  water  was  required;  and  as  Easter, 
Pentecost  and  the  Epiphany  were  seasons  specia’ly 
appointed  for  baptisms,  and  large  crowds  of 
people  were  therefore  attendant  at  those  feasts, 
it  became  necessary  to  provide  a  spacious  apart¬ 
ment  in  which  the  sacrament  might  be  adminis¬ 
tered.  When  on  Holy  Saturday  St.  John  Chry¬ 
sostom  was  attacked,  three  thousand  men  had 
been  baptized,  and  many  more,  both  men  and 
women,  fled,  who  were  still  waiting  to  undergo 
baptism  (Chrysostom,  Epist.  ad  Innocent. ;  0pp. 
iii.  518,  ed.  Montfaucon  ;  Palladius,  Vita  Chry- 
sost.  c.  9).  The  presence  of  the  “  piscina,”  or  re¬ 
ceptacle  for  water  would  have  been  inconvenient 
in  a  church,  and  all  the  space  of  even  a  very  large 
edifice  would  be  required,  at  the  great  festivals 
above  mentioned,  by  those  attending  the  solemn 
services  of  those  occasions.  From  these  circum¬ 
stances  the  practice  of  constructing  a  building 
distinct  from  the  church  or  basilica  very  natu¬ 
rally  arose,  and  though  we  have  no  existing 
baptistery  which  can  be  referred  to  any  period 
earlier  than  the  4th  century,  nor  indeed  any  dis¬ 
tinct  account  of  the  building  of  one  before  the 
time  of  Constantine  the  Great,  it  seems  highly 
probable  that  where  in  Asia  or  elsewhere  churches 
had  been  built  at  earlier  periods  they  were  ac¬ 
companied  by  baptisteries.  In  the  earliest  ages 
a  river  or  a  pool  may  have  served  as  a  place  of 
baptism,  and  indeed  the  spot  in  the  Jordan  where 
our  Saviour  was  baptized  by  St.  John  is  said  to 
have  been  lined  with  marble  and  resorted  to  by 
crowds  on  the  eve  of  the  Epiphany  (v.  Martigny, 
Diet,  des  Atdiq.  Chret.,  art.  Baptistere). 

That  Easter  was  still  in  the  8th  century 
chosen  as  a  peculiar  season  for  baptism  at  Rome 
is  shewn  by  a  passage  in  the  Lih.  Pontif.  in  the 
life  of  Hadrian  I.  (772-795).  This  Pope,  we  are 
told,  repaired  the  Claudian  Aqueduct,  which 
supplied  the  baths  of  the  Lateran  palace  and  the 
baptistery  of  the  church,  and  from  which,  it  is 
added,  many  churches  were  supplied  on  the  holy 
day  of  Easter.  Charles  the  Great,  by  a  capitu¬ 
lary  of  A.D.  804,  ordered  that  baptisms  should 
take  place  only  at  Easter  and  Pentecost. 

Passages  in  the  writings  of  Tertullian  (^De 
Coron.  Mil.  c.  3)  and  of  Justin  Martyr  (^Apol. 
i.  c.  61)  shew  that  baptism  was  not  administered 
in  the  church,  but  that  the  place  of  baptism  was 
without  it.  Such  places  of  baptism  are  believed 
to  have  existed  in  the  catacombs  at  Rome  ;  in 
one  of  these,  in  a  cemetery  known  as  the  Ostri- 
anum,  not  far  from  the  church  of  St.  Agnes  on 
the  Via  Nomentana,  St.  Peter  is  traditionally 
^id  to  have  baptized.  The  spot  was  known  as 
“  ad  Nymphas  S.  Petri,”  or  “  fons  S.  Petri  ” 
(v.  De  Rossi,  Roma  Sott.  Crist.,  t.  i.  p.  189). 


Boldetti  believed  that  he  had  discovered  raoie 
than  one  of  these  baptisteries  ;  but  Padre  Marchi 
says  expressly  (Mon.  delle  Arti  Crist.  Prim.,  &c., 
p.  222)  that  the  only  “  battisterio  ciraiteriale  ” 
known  at  the  time  that  he  wrote  (1844)  was 
that  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Pontianus.  This 
(engraved  in  PI.  xlii.  of  March i’s  work)  consists 
of  a  small  cistern  or  “  ])iscina  ”  supplied  by  a 
current  of  water.  The  piscina  would  appear  to 
be  between  3  and  4  feet  deep  and  about  6  feet 
across ;  it  is  approached  by  a  flight  of  steps, 
between  the  base  of  which  and  the  water  is 
a  level  space  about  5  feet  wide,  on  which  the 
priest  or  bishop  may  have  stood  while  performing 
the  rite.  There  seems  to  be  no  trace  of  an  altar, 
nor,  indeed,  any  fit  place  for  one.  Above  the 
water  is  a  painting  representing  the  baptism  of 
Our  Lord,  and  on  another  side,  and  partly  hidden 
by  the  water,  a  painting  of  a  cross  adorned  with 
gems  and  throwing  out  leaves  and  flowers  from 
its  stem.  Two  lighted  candelabra  rest  upon  the 
arms  of  the  cross,  and  an  alpha  and  an  ctnega 
hang  suspended  from  them  by  chains.  [See 
A  and  w,  p.  1.] 

The  lighted  candelabra  are  no  doubt  in  allusion 
to  the  divine  illumination  of  the  soul  attendant 
on  baptism,  whence  baptisteries  were  often  called 
(puTi(rT-f}pia,  as  has  been  remarked  above. 

This  baptistery  has  been  noticed  at  some 
length,  as  although  the  date  of  the  paintings 
which  decorate  it  cannot  be  fixed  with  any  cer¬ 
tainty,  it  is  perhaps  one  of  the  earliest  examples 
now  remaining  of  a  chamber  set  apart  for  the 
performance  of  this  rite. 

Of  the  construction  of  baptisteries  in  the  time 
of  Constantine  the  Great  we  have  abundant  proof. 
The  anonymous  pilgrim  of  Bordeaux,  who  visited 
Jerusalem  c.  A.D.  334  when  speaking  of  the  basilica 
which  Constantine  had  just  built  at  the  Sepulchre 
of  our  Lord  says,  that  by  its  side  were  reservoirs 
for  water,  and  behind  it  a  bath  where  children 
were  “  washed  ”  (balneum  a  tergo  ubi  infantes 
lavantur),  that  is,  no  doubt,  baptized.  Eusebius 
evidently  includes  a  baptistery  among  the  Exedrae 
of  the  church  of  Paulinus  at  Tyre,  and  Faulinus 
of  Nola  (Eq).  12,  ad  Severwn')  says  that  Sever  us 
built  a  baptistery  between  two  basilicas.  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem  speaks  of  the  baptistery  as  having 
a  porch  or  anteroom,  -npoavKios  oIk^s.  where  the 
catechumens  made  their  renunciation  of  Satan 
and  Confession  of  Faith,  and  an  icrcorepos  oIkos, 
the  inner  room  where  the  ceremony  of  baptism 
was  performed.  This  shows  that  a  well-con¬ 
sidered  plan  for  such  buildings  then  existed. 

Constantine  is  usually  said  to  have  built  the 
baptistery  of  the  Lateran,  and  the  Lib.  Pontif. 
contains  a  long  detail  of  the  magnificence  with 
which  he  decorated  it.  Niebuhr  understands  by 
the  account,  which  is  not  without  obscurity,  that 
the  walls  of  the  baptistery  were  covered  with 
porphyry  and  that  the  piscina  was  of  silver,  five 
feet  in  height ;  the  water  is  said  to  have  flowed 
into  this  receptacle  from  seven  stags  of  silver 
and  a  lamb  of  gold.  On  the  right  hand  of  the 
lamb  stood  an  image  of  the  Saviour,  of  silver, 
five  feet  high,  and  on  the  left  one  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  of  the  same  size  and  of  the  same  metal. 
In  the  middle  stood  columns  of  porphyry  bearing 
a  “phiala”  of  gold,  weighing  52  lbs.,  in  which 
the  Paschal  candle  was  placed.  As,  however,  the 
expression  which  Niebuhr  interprets  to  mean 
the  building  or  baptistery,  is  “fons  sanctus,”  and 


BAPTISTERY 


BAPTISTERY 


175 


A  building  very  similar  to  this,  the  circular 
church  at  Nocera  dei  Pagani,  known  as  Sta.  Maria 
Maggiore,  was  no  doubt  constructed  for  a  bap¬ 
tistery,  as  it  possesses  a  large  and  apparently 
original  piscina.  It  is  a  circle  about  80  feet  in 
diameter,  with  an  apse  of  about  three-fourths  of 
a  circle  in  plan,  projecting  from  one  side.  Thirty 
columns  arranged,  as  at  Sta.  Costanza,  in  pairs, 
support  arches  on  which  rests  a  dome,  and  the 
aisle  has  barrel  vaults.  The  piscina  in  the  centre 
is  circular  and  about  20  feet  in  diameter  and 
nearly  5  feet  deep ;  within  are  two  steps  or 
benches  running  round  the  whole  circumference, 
and  there  is  a  raised  wall  or  parapet  round  it, 
octagonal  on  the  exterior.  This  parapet  was 
decorated  on  the  outside  with  slabs  of  marble 
bearing  incised  patterns,  and  upon  it  stood  eight 
columns,  which  perhaps  once  supported  a  canopy ; 
three  only  of  these  columns  now  remain  (v. 
Hiibsch,  Alt.  Christ.  Kirchen,  PI.  xvii.  xviii.).  The 
date  of  this  building  is  not  known  from  any  his¬ 
torical  data,  but  it  may  perhaps  be  attributed 
with  probability  to  the  5th  century. 

Another  baptistery,  which,  though  probably 
considerably  older  than  that  at  Nocera,  has  the 
piscina  arranged  in  a  very  similar  manner,  is 
that  at  Aquileia.  It  is  now  in  ruins,  but  the 
annexed  woodcut  copied  from  the  engraving  in 


Baptistery  at  Aquileia. 


the  expression  “  fons  baptisterii  ”  occurs  imme¬ 
diately  afterwards,  it  may  be  doubtful  whether 
the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  not  that  the  build¬ 
ing  (i.e.  the  baptistery)  was  constructed  of  or 
covered  with  porphyry,  but  that  the  piscina  which 
it  contained  was  of  porphyry  covered  with  silver. 
Niebuhr  and  several  other  writers  have  ques¬ 
tioned  whether  this  part  of  the  Lib.  Pontif.  can 
be  relied  on  as  historical ;  the  erection  of  images 
of  the  Saviour  and  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  is  cer¬ 
tainly  not  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the 
Church  at  that  period,  and,  in  conjunction  with 
o*her  statements  of  a  doubtful  nature,  must  throw 
considerable  doubt  upon  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  account  of  the  buildings  and  donations  of 
Constantine  which  the  book  contains.  There  is, 
however,  no  doubt  but  that  Constantine  erected 
a  basilica  within  the  Lateran  palace,  or  at  least 
converted  some  hall  of  the  palace  into  a  church, 
and  a  baptistery  in  all  probability  formed  a  part 
of  the  group  of  ecclesiastical  buildings.  It  is 
generally  believed  that  the  existing  b^aptistery 
owes  its  form  (though  it  has  undergone  many 
alterations  and  been  much  added  to),  to  Pope 
Sixtus  III.  (a.d.  432-440).  He  is  said  by  the 
compiler  of  the  Lib.  Pontif.  to  have  added,  as  a 
decoration  to  the  “  fons,”  the  porphyry  columns 
which  Constantine  had  collected,  and  marble 
‘‘  epistylia  by  which  we  should  under¬ 
stand  not  only  the  capitals  but  the  archi¬ 
traves,  as  those  now  there  are  no  doubt 
antique,  and  have  inscribed  upon  them  six¬ 
teen  verses  referring  to  baptism  (printed 
in  the  Besch.  v.  Rom.,  bd.  iii.  abt.  1.), 
which  are  doubtless  those  which  the  Lib, 
Pontif.  alludes  to,  though  by  a  coi'ruption 
of  the  text  they  are  said  to  have  been 
placed  not  on  the  architraves  but  on  the 
columns. 

The  building  as  it  now  exists  is  an  octa¬ 
gon  about  62  feet  in  diameter,  in  the  centre 
of  which  are  eight  columns  of  porphyry 
carrying  antique  capitals  and  architraves; 
lesser  columns  are  placed  on  the  archi¬ 
traves,  and  support  the  roof.  This  octa¬ 
gon  is  entered  from  a  large  portico  with 
apsidal  ends  which  may  answer  to  the 
TTpoavAios  oiKos  mentioned  by  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem. 

Hiibsch  (Alt.  Christ.  Kirchen')  asserts 
that  the  walling  as  well  of  the  octagon  as 
of  the  portico  to  a  height  of  about  50  feet  bears 
the  stamp  of  the  Constantinian  period. 

Another  very  remarkable  building  at  Rome  is 
no  doubt  of  the  period  of  Constantine,  but  it  is 
uncertain  whether  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  bap¬ 
tistery  or  as  a  sepulchral  church.  This  is  the 
circular  church  close  to  St.  Agnes,  on  the  V^ia 
Nomentana,  known  as  Sta.  Costanza.  The  LAb. 
Pontif.  (in  vita  S.  Silvestri)  says  that  Constantine 
built  “  basilicam  Sanctae  Martyris  Agnetis  ”  and 
“  baptisterium  in  eodem  loco  and,  as  no  trace 
of  any  other  baptistery  has  been  found  near  the 
place,  this  church  has  been  usually  taken  to  be 
the  baptistery  mentioned  in  the  above-quoted 
book.  No  trace  of  a  “piscina”  has  however,  it 
would  seem,  been  noticed ;  the  building  was 
certainly  the  place  of  sepulture  of  one  or  more 
members  of  the  Imperial  family ;  and  it  appears 
doubtful  whether  at  that  period  it  would  have 
been  deemed  right  to  bury  in  a  basilica  or  a 
baptistery  any  person,  of  rank  however  exalted. 


the  Mittelalterliche  Kunstdenkmale  des  (Esterrei- 
chischen  Kaiserstaates,  by  Heider  and  Eitelberger 
:  (bd.  i.  s.  119),  will  give  a  good  idea  of  the  manner 
in  which  a  baptistery  at  the  period  was  arranged. 
The  piscina  is  hexagonal,  and  would  seem  to  have 
one  step  and  a  low  parapet  wall  on  the  outside, 

I  and  two  steps  in  the  inside.  The  authors  of 
j  the  above-quoted  work,  however,  state  that  the 
I  number  of  steps  is  five,  meaning  probably  that 
j  any  one  ascending  from  the  floor  and  descending 
I  to  the  bottom  of  the  piscina  would  mount  two 
steps  and  descend  three.  In  the  eastern  angle 
of  the  octagon  is  a  small  apse. 

This  baptistery  is  entered  by  a  vaulted  passage¬ 
like  building  in  three  compartments,  which  bears 
the  name  of  “  Chiesa  dei  Pagani,”  and  probably 
served  as  a  place  of  assemblage  and  instruction 
for  the  catechumens  before  they  were  admitted 
to  baptism.  It  appears  to  have  had  an  upper 
storv,  which  may  have  been  set  apart  for  women, 
as  there  is  ground  for  believing  that  such  a 


170 


BAPTISTERY 


BAPTISTERY 


separation  of  the  sexes  was  practised  in  the  bap¬ 
tisteries  or  the  apartments  connected  with  tliem. 

No  one  of  the  baptisteries  of  this  period  has 
come  down  to  the  present  time  in  a  more  un¬ 
altered  condition  than  that  of  the  Cathedral  of 
Ravenna,  known,  like  many  other  baptisteries  in 
Italy,  as  S.  Giovanni  in  Fonte. 

It  was,  if  not  built,  at  least  renovated  and 
decollated  by  Neon,  archbishop  from  A.D.  425  to 
430,  as  an  inscription  (v.  Ciampini,  Vet,  Mon, 
t.  i.  cap.  XXV.)  formerly  existing  within  it  testi¬ 
fied.  lliibsch  (^Alt,  Christ,  Kirchen)  expresses  an 
opinion  that  the  decorations  now  existing  may  be 
considered  as  for  the  most  part,  if  not  entirely, 


Lower  Story. 


the  work  of  Neon.  The  occurrence  of  a  mono¬ 
gram,  which  may  be  read  Maximianus  (Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Ravenna  in  the  time  of  Justinian),  of 
an  inscription  in  the  mosaics,  which  appears  to 
refer  to  Theodoric  the  Great  (Webb,  Contin. 
Eccles,  p.  428),  and  very  close  similarity  in  the 
patterns  of  the  marble  inlay  on  the  walls  to 
those  in  St.  Sophia’s  at  Constantinople,  and  in 
the  Duomo  at  Parenzo,  in  Istria,  lead  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  the  work  of  decoration  was  only 
gradually  executed  and  not  completed  until  the 
middle  of  the  6th  century. 

As  will  be  seen  by  the  plan  annexed,  the  build¬ 
ing  is  an  octagon,  with  two  niches  or  apses ;  it 


Baptistery  at  Bavenna  (horizontal  sections). 


measures  about  40  feet  in  diameter.  Recent 
excavations  have  shewn  that  there  were  origin¬ 
ally  four  apses.  In  the  centre  is  the  piscina. 


Baptistery  at  Bavenna  (Elevation). 


which,  according  to  Hiibsch,  is  probably  original. 
The  semi-circular  indentation  in  one  side,  in  which 
the  priest  stood  while  baptizing,  is  remarkable. 


This  baptistery  affords  one  of  the  best  examples 
of  the  internal  decoration  of  the  period,  carried 
through  the  whole  of  a  building,  now  existing  in 


Europe;  the  architectural  arrangement  will  bo 
understood  from  the  elevation  and  the  section. 
The  columns  and  arches  are  of  marble,  and  the 


BAPTISTERY 


BAPTISTERY 


177 


lower  part  of  the  walls  is  lined  with  the  same 
material  in  long  slabs ;  above  this  are  panels  of 
“opus  sectile,”  marqueterie  in  porphyry,  ser¬ 
pentine,  marbles  of  various  colours,  and  brick. 
Beneath  the  arches  carried  by  the  upper  range 
of  columns  are  figures  of  saints  (?)  executed  in 
stucco  in  low  relief,  as  to  the  age  of  which  there 
is  some  difference  of  opinion.  The  dome  is 
covered  with  mosaic ;  in  the  centime  the  baptism 
of  our  Lord  is  represented,  round  this  the  twelve 
Apostles,  and  below  them  a  range  of  eight  com¬ 
partments,  in  each  of  these  are  alternately  two 
cathedrae  placed  under  canopies  with  an  altar 
between  them,  and  two  tombs  of  an  altar  form 
st.  nding  under  canopies,  between  which  is  w^hat 
set  ms  to  represent  a  slab  or  low  tombstone  lying 
on  the  ground,  over  which  hangs  a  mass  of  drapery 
supported  on  ornamental  posts.  The  meaning 
of  these  representations  has  not  been  clearly 
explained  ;  the  cathedrae  and  altars  have  been 
supposed  to  symbolize  a  council,  but  this  leaves 
unexplained  the  signification  of  the  tombs;  the 
altar-tombs  appear  to  stand  for  tombs  of  confes¬ 
sors  or  martyrs,  as  wreaths  appear  to  crown  them 
and  lilies  or  palm  branches  to  spring  from  them; 
the  tombs  over  which  the  draperies  hang  are 
thought  by  Ciampini  (t.  i.  p.  178)  to  represent  the 
tombs  of  bishops.  The  intention  may  have  been 
to  symbolize  the  whole  Chui'ch,  the  cathedrae 
standing  for  living  bishops,  the  tombs  for  saints 
and  bishops  deceased. 

The  church  now  called  S.  Maria  in  Cosmedin, 
in  Ravenna,  was  also  once  a  baptistery,  having 
been  built  (it  is  believed)  in  the  time  of  Theo- 
doric  for  the  use  of  the  Arians ;  it  is  circular  in¬ 
ternally,  octagonal  externally,  with  a  small  round 
ended  apse  projecting  from  one  of  the  sides  and 
a  loggia  of  three  arches  from  another.  It  is  co¬ 
vered  by  a  dome,  on  which  are  mosaics  represent¬ 
ing  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  and  the  twelve 
Apostles.  These  are  believed  to  be  of  later  date 
than  the  original  building. 

The  baptistery  of  St.  Sophia’s,  Constantinople, 
which  no  doubt  is  that  erected  by  Justinian,  has 
a  portico  or  narthex,  and  is  rectangular  exter¬ 
nally,  with  a  rectangular  projection  containing 
an  apse;  internally  it  is  octangular,  with  on  the 
ground-plan  four  niches  (besides  the  apse)  on 
four  of  the  sides ;  the  upper  story  is  octangular, 
with  a  large  window  in  each  side.  It  is  placed 
near  the  south-west  angle  of  the  cathedral,  facing 
westwards  (Salzenberg,  Baudenkmale  v.  Constan- 
tinopel,  pi.  vi.).  At  Parenzo,  in  Istria,  the  bap¬ 
tistery  stands  in  front  of  the  duomo,  and  con¬ 
nected  with  it  by  a  square  atrium,  which  last 
position  was  one  frequently  adopted. 

The  preceding  examples  will  give  a  sufficient 
idea  of  the  form,  arrangements,  and  decorations 
of  baptisteries  down  to  the  6th  century.  One 
curious  example,  which  perhaps  should  be  attri¬ 
buted  to  the  7th,  is  the  baptistery  at  Poitiers: 
this  is  in  plan  an  oblong,  with  an  apse  projecting 
from  one  of  the  longer  sides ;  this  apse  is  straight 
lined,  but  not  rectangular  on  the  outside  and 
five-sided  within.  Two  large  arches  in  the  end 
walls  make  it  probable  that  niches  existed  en¬ 
tered  by  them.  A  building  of  later  date  has 
been  added  on  the  side  opposite  to  the  apse,  so 
that  the  form  of  the  original  entrance  cannot  now 
be  determined.  The  piscina,  nearly  in  the  centre 
of  the  oblong,  is  octagonal.  The  architectural 
decoration  is  partly  original  and  partly  made  up 

CHRIST.  ANT, 


'  from  old  materials ;  what  is  original  is  rude,  but 
has  something  of  a  classical  character  (v.  Gail- 
habaud,  Mon.  Anc.  et  Mod.,  t.  ii.). 

The  baptistery  at  Albenga,  between  Nice  and 
Genoa,  is  octangular  externally,  but  within  semi¬ 
circular  ;  three  rectangular  niches  are  formed 
in  the  thickness  of  the  wall,  and  on  the  eighth 
side  was  the  entrance.  It  is  roofed  by  a  dome,  in 
the  drum  below  which  were  tight  windows, 
which  were  filled  with  slabs  of  marble  pierced  in 
patterns  of  circles  and  crosses.  The  vault  of  the 
niche  opposite  the  entrance  and  the  wall  at  its 
back  have  been  covered  with  mosaic;  the  labarum, 
doves,  and  a  lamb  can  be  distinguished.  No  re¬ 
mains  of  the  piscina  are  now  to  be  traced,  but  a 
perfectly  plain  cylindrical  font  stands  in  one  of 
the  niches.  Those  architectural  details  which 
are  original,  e.g.  the  slabs  in  the  windows,  are 
very  rudely  executed,  and  the  building  is  per¬ 
haps  not  earlier  than  the  7th  or  even  the  8th 
century. 

About  A.D.  750,  Cuthbert,  archbishop  of  Can¬ 
terbury,  erected  a  church  to  the  east  of  kis 
cathedral,  and  almost  touching  it,  to  serve  as  a 
baptistery,  and  for  other  purposes  (Edmer,  Vita 
S.  Breguini,  Ang.  Sac.  t.  ii.  p.  186).  It  was 
dedicated  in  honour  of  St.  John  the  Baptist. 

During  the  8th  and  9th  centuries  baptisteries 
continued  to  be  in  full  use  in  Italy,  as  we  may 
learn  from  the  Lib.  Fontif.,  where  mention  is 
made  of  the  building  or  rebuilding  of  five  bap¬ 
tisteries  attached  to  churches  in  Rome,  between 
A.D.  772  and  a.d.  816.  In  one  of  these  cases, 
that  of  S.  Andrea  Apostolo,  rebuilt  by  Pope 
Leo  III.  (795-816),  we  are  told  expressly  that 
the  place  was  too  small  for  the  people  who 
came  to  baptism,  and  that  the  Pope  therefore 
built  a  circular  baptistery  “  ampla  largitate,” 
that  he  also  enlarged  the  “fons”  and  decorated 
it  with  porphyry  columns  round  about. 

Martigny  (^Dict.  des  Antiq.  Chret.')  expresses  an 
opinion  that  in  France  the  practice  of  placing 
the  baptistery  first  in  the  portico  and  then  in  the 
interior  of  the  church,  began  in  the  6th  century ; 
but  the  passage  in  the  Hid.  Franc,  of  St.  Gregory 
of  Tours  (1.  ii.  chap,  xxi.),  to  which  he  refers, 
seems  har^Ry  sufficient  to  prove  this  statement. 
St.  Gregory  himself  states  that  he  constructed  a 
baptistery  “  ad  basilicam”  (apparently  of  St.  Per¬ 
petuus,  at  Tours),  and  the  baptistery  at  Poitiers 
was  evidently  a  separate  building.  The  baptistery 
at  Fr(^jus,  which  according  to  Texier  and  Pullan 
(^Byz.  Arch.')  was  built  in  810,  is  also  a  detached 
structure. 

In  Germany  and  Italy  baptisteries  were  built 
as  detached  structures  down  to  a  much  later 
date;  but  this  was  not  an  invariable  practice, 
for  in  the  plan  for  the  church  of  St.  Gall 
[CnuRCiij,  prepared  in  the  beginning  of  the 
9th  century,  there  is  no  detached  baptistery,  but 
a  circular  “  fons,”  about  six  feet  in  diameter,  in 
the  middle  of  the  nave  towards  the  west  end  of 
the  church,  surrounded  by  a  screen. 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  earlier  baptisteries 
were,  if  not  circular,  octagonal ;  it  is  uncertain 
whether  these  forms  were  adopted  merely  from 
reasons  of  convenience,  or  as  symbolical.  The 
circular  form  was  that  almost  invariably  adopted 
for  a  sepulchral  chapel  or  memorial  church,  and 
the  immersions,  with  which  the  rite  of  baptism 
w.\s  in  the  earlier  centuries  invariably  performed, 
wert  considered  as  typical  of  dying  to  the  world. 


178 


BARBARA 


BARNABAS 


The  octagonal  form  is  said  to  have  been  adopted 
as  typical  of  perfection. 

The  piscina  was  usually  octagonal,  but  some¬ 
times  hexagonal,  and  sometimes  circular.  In 
Lusitania,  we  are  told  by  Gregory  of  Tours  (Z>e 
Gloria  AlaHyrum,  1.  i.  c.  23),  it  was  customarily 
constructed  of  variegated  marble  in  the  form  of 
a  cross. 

Of  baptisteries  in  Asia  or  Africa  we  have  but 
little  information.  Texier  and  Pullan  {Byz.  Arch. 
p.  14)  however  state  that  small  baptisteries  are 
frequently  found  adjoining  ancient  churches  in 
the  East ;  and  Count  de  la  Vogiie  has  given  a 
drawing  and  plan  of  one  at  Deer-Seta,  in  Central 
Syria  (ArcA.  Civ.  et  Relig.  en  Syria,  &c.  pi.  117), 
of  an  hexagonal  form,  Avhich  would  appear  to  be 
of  the  6th  century.  It  has  the  peculiarity  of 
three  doors,  one  in  each  of  three  contiguous  sides ; 
in  the  centre  was  an  hexagonal  piscina,  with  a 
column  at  each  angle. 

Mr.  Curzon  (^Monast.  of  the  Levant,  cap.  131) 
describes  as  entered  from  the  vestibule  of  the 
church  of  the  White  Monastery  (or  Derr  Abou 
Shenood)  in  Egypt,  a  small  chapel  or  baptistery, 
25  feet  long,  arched  with  stone,  with  three  niches 
on  each  side,  and  a  semicircular  upper  end,  the 
whole  highly  decorated  with  sculptured  ornament 
of  very  good  style.  This,  as  well  as  the  adjacent 
church,  are  said  to  have  been  built  by  order  of 
the  Empress  Helena. 

Besides  being  used  for  baptisms,  baptisteries 
were  used  as  places  for  assemblies.  Cuthbert, 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  is  stated  to  have  built 
the  baptistery  mentioned  above,  in  order  that  it 
might  serve  for  “  baptisteria,  examinationes 
judiciorum,”  and  also  that  the  bodies  of  the 
archbishops  might  be  there  buried  (^Anglia  Sacra, 
ii.  186). 

This  practice  of  burying  in  baptisteries,  though 
prohibited  at  an  earlier  period  (as  by  the  14th 
Canon  of  the  Council  of  Auxerre  in  578),  was 
common  before  burial  in  the  church  was  allowed. 

Many  of  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  were 
buried  in  the  baptistery  from  the  time  of  Cuth¬ 
bert,  who  built  it,  until  A.D.  1067,  when  it  was 
burnt.  In  the  original  entrance  to  the  baptistery 
at  Albenga  are  two  tombs  in  the  fashion  of  the 
“  arcosolia  ”  of  the  Roman  catacombs,  as  early  as 
the  8th  or  9th  centuries. 

Baptisteries  appear  to  have  been  in  the  earlier 
ages  (at  least  in  the  West),  almost  always  dedi¬ 
cated  under  the  invocation  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist.  [A.  N.] 

BARBARA,  virgin,  martyr  in  Tuscany,  circ. 
200  ;  commemorated  Dec.  16  (^Mart.  Eom.  Vet.')', 
Dec.  4  (Jf.  Hieron.,  Cal.  Byzant.)',  Oct.  8  (^Cah 
Ai'men.).  [C.] 

BARBARIANS,  BISHOPS  FOR.  In  ordi¬ 
nary  cases  the  election  of  a  bishop  required  the 
consent  or  suffrage,  not  only  of  the  clergy  of  the 
diocese  over  which  he  was  to  preside,  but  of 
the  faithful  laity  also.  This  rule,  however, 
could  obviously  be  applied  only  to  countries 
already  Christian.  When  a  bishop  was  to  be 
sent  out  to  a  distant  or  barbarous  nation,  it  was 
required  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  Can.  xxviii., 
that  he  should  be  ordained  at  Constantinople, 
to  which  city,  as  the  New  Rome,  equal  privi¬ 
leges  with  “  the  Elder  royal  Rome,”  were  now 
to  be  assigned.  The  Bishop  of  Tomi  in  Scythia, 
is  an  instance  of  a  missionary  bishop  thus  or¬ 


dained,  and  commissioned  by  the  Patriarch  oi 
Constantinople — the  consent  of  the  people  to 
whom  he  was  sent  to  minister  being,  of  necessify, 
dispensed  with.  In  the  previous  century  it  is  re¬ 
corded  by  the  Church  historians  that  Athanasius 
ordained  Frumentius  at  Alexandria  to  be  Bishop 
of  the  Ethiopians,  when,  as  Bingham  remarks,  ‘‘No 
one  can  imagine  th.at  he  had  the  formal  consent, 
though  he  might  have  the  presumptive  approba¬ 
tion  of  all  his  people.”  [D.  B.] 

BARCELONA,  COUNCIL  OF  (Barci- 
NONENSE  Concilium),  provincial.  (1)  a.d.  540, 
of  Sergius  the  metropolitan  and  six  suffragans, 
passed  ten  canons  upon  discipline  (Labb.  v.  378, 
379). — (2)  A.D.  599,  Nov.  1,  in  the  14th  year  ot 
King  Recared,  under  Asiaticus,  metropolitan  of 
Tarragona,  and  eleven  suffragans,  against  simonv, 
probably  in  compliance  with  the  repre.sentations 
of  Gregory  the  Great  (Baron,  in  an.  599,  §  23, 
from  Gregory’s  letters).  It  also  forbad  ordina¬ 
tions  per  saltum  ;  and  ordered,  in  the  election  of  a 
bishop,  a  choice  by  lot  from  two  or  three  candi¬ 
dates,  to  be  nominated  by  the  “  clerus  et  plebs  ” 
of  the  diocese,  and  presented  to  the  metropolitan 
and  bishops  (Labb.  v.  1605,  1606).  [A.  W,  H.] 

BARCINONENSE  CONCILILHI.  [Bar¬ 
celona,  Council  of.] 

BARDINIANUS,  martyr  in  Asia  ;  comme¬ 
morated  Sept.  25  (J/arf.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

BARNABAS,  ST.,  Legend  and  Festival 
OF.  There  is  a  tradition  that  he  became  a 
believer  after  witnessing  the  miracle  wrouo-ht 
by  our  Lord  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  and  that 
he  was  one  of  the  seventy  disciples.  (Eu.sebius, 
Hist.  Eccl.  i.  12,  and  ii.  1.)  It  is  also  said  that 
he  was  the  first  preacher  of  Christianity  at 
Rome,  that  he  converted  Clemens  Romanus  to 
the  faith  and  that  he  founded  the  churches  of 
Milan  and  Brescia.  But  these  and  other  state¬ 
ments  about  him  may  certainly  be  regarded  as 
unworthy  of  credit.  There  is  however  a  general 
agreement  of  testimony  about  the  time,  place 
and  cause  of  his  death.  From  verv  earlv  times, 
in  the  Western  as  well  as  in  the  Eastern  church, 
he  has  had  the  credit  of  martyrdom.  It  is 
believed  that  he  was  stoned  to  death  by  the 
Jews  of  Salamis  in  Cyprus  about  the  year  64 
A.D.  Ti’adition  says  that  his  death  took  place  on 
the  11th  of  June  and  that  he  was  buried  at  a 
short  distance  from  the  town  of  Salamis.  No¬ 
thing  however  seems  to  have  been  heard  of  his 
tomb  until  about  the  year  478  a.d. 

The  discovery  of  his  body  is  fully  related  in 
the  Eulogy  of  St.  Barnabas,  written  by  Alexander, 
a  monk  of  Cyprus,  about  the  beginning  of  the 
sixth  century.  After  giving  an  account  of  the 
martvrdom  and  burial  of  Barnabas,  this  writer 
asserts  that  in  consequence  of  the  many  mira¬ 
culous  cures  that  had  occurred  in  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood  of  the  tomb  the  spot  had  been  called 
the  “place  of  healing”  (tJttos  iryifias).  But 
the  cause  of  these  miracles  was  unknown  to  the 
Cypriotes  until  the  discovery  was  made  in  the 
following  way.  Peter  the  Fuller,  Patriarch  of 
Antioch,  a  man  who  had  been  very  succe.ssful  in 
creating  dissensions,  was  endeavouring  to  bring 
Cyprus  under  his  episcopal  sway,  on  the  plea 
that  the  Word  of  God  in  the  first  instance  was 
carried  from  Antioch  to  Cyprus.  The  Cypriotes 
resisted  this  claim  on  the  ground  that  their 
church  had  from  the  time  of  its  founders  been 


BARTHOLOMEW 


BARTHOLOMEW 


179 


independent  of  the  see  of  Antioch.  Anthemius, 
the  Bishop  of  Cyprus,  a  timid  and  retiring  pre¬ 
late,  was  scarcely  a  match  for  an  opponent  so 
able  and  experienced  as  Peter.  But  he  was 
encouraged  by  Barnabas  himself  who  appeared 
to  him  several  times  in  a  vision.  At  the  saint’s 
bidding  he  searched  a  cave  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  the  tSttos  vyie'ias,  and  found  a  coffin  con¬ 
taining  the  body  of  Barnabas  and  a  copy  of  St. 
Matthew’s  Gospel.  He  proceeded  to  Constan¬ 
tinople,  where  the  dispute  was  heard  before  the 
Emperor  Zeno,  and  in  support  of  his  claim  to 
remain  independent  he  announced  that  the  body 
of  Barnabas  had  lately  been  discovered  in  his 
diocese.  On  hearing  this  the  emperor  gave  his 
decision  in  favour  of  Anthemius,  bade  him  send 
at  once  to  Cyprus  for  the  copy  of  St.  Matthew’s 
Gospel,  and  as  soon  as  it  arrived  had  it  adorned 
with  gold  and  placed  in  the  imperial  palace. 
After  conferring  great  honours  on  Anthemius, 
the  emperor  sent  him  back  to  Cyprus  Avith 
instructions  to  build  a  magnificent  church  in 
honour  of  Barnabas  neai*  the  spot  where  the 
body  was  found.  This  oraerwas  strictly  carried 
out,  tho  body  was  placed  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  altar  and  the  11th  of  June  consecrated  to 
the  memory  of  the  saint.  (^Acta  Sanctorum : 
Junii  xi.) 

HoweA'er  ready  we  may  be  to  reject  this 
account  of  the  finding  of  the  body  of  Barnabas, 
there  is  ev^ery  reason  to  belieA'e  that  in  the 
Eastern  Church  these  events  were  the  origin  of 
the  festival.  No  church  howeA'er  was  built  to 
the  saint’s  memory  at  Constantinople.  It  is  also 
remarkable  that  from  early  times  the  day  was 
kept  in  the  Eastern  Church  in  honour  of  Bar¬ 
tholomew  as  well  as  of  Barnabas.  When  the 
second  saint’s  name  was  added  is  quite  uncertain, 
but  there  are  good  grounds  for  believing  that 
the  day  was  originally  saci'ed  to  Barnabas  only. 
In  the  Menologium  Basilianum,  edited  by  com¬ 
mand  of  the  Emperor  Basil  in  the  year  886  A.D., 
the  day  is  the  joint  festival  of  the  two  saints. 
At  what  time  it  was  first  observed  in  the  Western 
Church  is  very  doubtful.  Papebrochius  asserts 
that  the  festival  was  not  kept  in  Eastern  earlier 
than  in  Western  Christendom,  but  he  has  not 
proved  this  statement.  The  day  occurs  as  the 
Feast  of  Barnabas  in  the  calendar  of  the  Venerable 
Bede,  so  that  unless  this  be  one  of  the  additions 
made  after  the  author’s  death,  we  may  conclude 
that  the  day  was  observed  in  the  Westei’n 
Church  in  the  8th  century.  It  does  not  how¬ 
ever  occur  in  all  the  old  service-books.  In  the 
Martgrologium  Romanum  it  appears  as  the  Fes¬ 
tival  of  Barnabas  only. 

The  principal  account  of  the  traditions  con¬ 
cerning  Barnabas  is  the  work  above  referred 
to,  Alexandri  Monachi  Laudatio  in  Apost. 
Barnaham ;  in  Migne’s  Patrol.,  Series  Graeca, 
vol.  87,  col.  4087 ;  Surius,  Vitae  Sanctorum, 
Junii  xi.  [W.  J.  J.] 

BARTHOLOMEW,  bishop  ;  commemorated 
with  Pachomius,  Taksas  11  -  Dec.  7  (Cal. 
FAhiop.)  [C.] 

BARTHOI.OMEW,  ST.,  Legend  and  Fes¬ 
tival  OF.  The  New  Testament  tells  us  but 
little  of  this  Apostle,  and  there  is  an  equal 
absence  of  any  great  amount  of  early  trust¬ 
worthy  tradition.  He  is  by  some,  with  a  great 
show  of  probability,  identified  with  Nathanael, 


for  the  arguments  as  to  which  derived  from 
scripture,  see  Dict.  Bidl.,  under  Bartholomew, 
Nathanael.  It  may  be  further  remarked  in 
faA^our  of  the  identification  that  in  such  a  matter 
Eastern  tradition  is  more  to  the  point  than 
Western  (considering,  that  is,  the  scene  of  this 
Apostle’s  labours  and  martyrdom),  and  that  the 
former  uniformly  identifies  Nathanael  with  Bar¬ 
tholomew.  For  example,  from  the  Armenian 
and  Chaldaean  writers  cited  by  Assemani  (Bihl. 
Or.  A"ol.  iii.  part  2,  p.  4),  e.g.  Elias,  bishop  of 
Damascus,  and  Ebedjesu  Sobensis,  we  may  infer 
that  Nathanael  was  in  those  churches  included 
among  the  Apostles,  and  viewed  as  one  with  Bar¬ 
tholomew  ;  in  fact,  Assemani  remarks,  “  Bartho- 
lomaeum  cum  Nathanaele  confundunt  Chaldaei  ” 
(ibid.  p.  5).  Moreover  in  martyrologies  and 
calendars,  both  of  Eastern  and  Western  Churches, 
the  name  of  Bartholomew  is  of  constant  occur¬ 
rence,  while  that  of  Nathanael  is  ordinarily 
absent,  which  would  be  strange  on  the  hypo¬ 
thesis  of  a  difference  between  the  tAVo.  It  must 
be  alloAved,  hoAveA'er,  that  the  Egyptian  and 
Ethiopian  Churches  seem  to  identify  Nathanael 
Avith  Simon  the  Canaanite,  for  in  their  Meno- 
logies  and  Calendars,  edited  by  Job  Ludolf 
(Frankfort,  1691),  there  is  no  mention  of  Simon 
the  Canaanite,  but  on  July  10  is  “Nathanael  the 
Canaanite  ”  (p.  33).  In  Greek  Menologies  also, 
under  the  days  April  22,  May  10  is  a  similar 
identification,  as  also  in  the  Russian  Calendar  for 
the  latter  day. 

The  general  account  given  by  tradition  of  the 
labours  of  this  Apostle  is  to  the  effect  that  ht- 
preached  the  gospel,  using  especially  that  by 
St.  Matthew,  in  India,  Avhere  he  suffei'ed  martyr¬ 
dom  by  beheading,  haA'ing  been,  according  to  some 
Avriters,  previously  flayed  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  v. 
10 ;  Jerome,  De  viris  Illustr.  36,  a’oI.  ii.  651,  ed. 
Migne.  Cf.  also  Ado’s  Libellus  de  festiv.  SS. 
Apostolorum  in  Migne’s  Patrol.  Lat.  cxxiii.  185). 
In  the  appendix  De  vitis  Apostolorum  to  Sophro- 
nius’s  Greek  Aversion  of  the  De  viris  Illustri'>u& 
allusion  is  made  to  the  Apostle’s  mission  ’IrSois 
Tols  KaXovfjLeuois  eoSalfioaiu,  Avhich  might  pos¬ 
sibly  refer  to  Arabia  Felix,  and  it  is  added  that 
he  suffered  in  Albanopolis,  a  city  of  Armenia 
Major  (Jerome,  a^oI.  ii.  722).  The  latter  state¬ 
ment  is  also  found  in  seA'eral  other  Avriters  (e.g. 
Theodorus  Studita  and  Nicetas  Paphlago,  A'ide 
infra :  and  the  Martyrologies  of  Florus  and 
Rabanus),  generally  in  the  form  that  the  Apostle 
suffered  through  the  machinations  of  the  priests, 
Avho  stirred  up  Astyages  brother  to  the  king 
Polymius  Avhom  BartholomcAv  had  conA’erted. 
See  further  the  Pseudo-Abdias’s  Acta  of  this 
Apostle,  published  by  Fabricius  (Codex  Pseude- 
pigraphus  Novi  Testamenti,  a’oI.  i.  pp.  341  seqq.). 

The  tenor  of  the  tradition  as  to  the  disposi¬ 
tion  of  the  relics  of  St.  Bartholomew  is  on  the 
Avhole  consistent,  though  not  altogether  free  from 
difficulties.  Theodorus  Lector,  a  Avriter  of  the 
sixth  century,  tells  us  (Collectan.  2.  in  Magn. 
Bibl.  Pair.  a'oI.  vi.  part  1,  p.  505  ed.  Col.  Agr. 
1618)  that  the  Emperor  Anastasius  gave  the 
body  of  St.  BartholomeAv  to  the  City  ol’Daras  in 
Mesopotamia,  Avhich  he  had  recently  founded 
(circa  507  A.D.).  Wo  next  find  that  before  the 
end  of  the  sixth  century,  a  translation  had  been 
effected  to  the  Lipari  islands  (of.  Greg.  Turon. 
De  Gloria  Martgrum,  i.  33).  Thence  in  809 
A.D.  the  relics  Avere  transferred  to  Boneventum, 

N 


180 


BARTHOLOMEW 


BASIL 


and  finally  in  983  a.d.  to  Rome,  where  they  lie 
in  a  tomb  beneath  the  high  altar  in  the  church 
of  St.  Bai-tholomew  in  the  island  in  the  Tiber 
(See  Ciampini,  De  Sacris  Aedificiis  &c.,  vol.  iii. 
])p.  58,  G6,  who  re-fers  to  a  temporary  transference 
of  the  relics  to  the  Vatican  Basilica  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  an  overflow  of  the  Tiber  during  the 
Episcopate  of  Paul  IV.).  For  these  statements 
we  may  refer,  in  addition  to  the  writers  cited 
above,  to  a  panegyric  of  Theodoras  Studita 
(ob.  826  A.D.),  translated  into  Latin  by  Anasta- 
sius  Bibliothecarius,  and  published  in  D’Achery’s 
Spicilegium  (vol.  iii.  pp.  13  seqq.') ;  to  an  oration 
of  a  certain  Joseph,  po.ssibly  Joseph  Hymno- 
graphus,  a  contemporary  of  Theodoras  Studita 
(^Acta  Sanctorum,  August,  vol.  v.  pp.  43  seqq.)  ; 
and  to  a  panegyric  of  Nicetas  Paphlago  (Com- 
bens,  Auctar.  Nov.  Patruni,  i.  p.  392). 

It  would  seem  that  not  before  the  eighth  cen¬ 
tury  did  the  previously  existing  festival  com¬ 
memorating  the  collective  body  of  the  Apostles, 
held  upon  the  day  after  the  feast  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul,  develope  itself  into  festivals  of 
individual  Apostles  ;  consequently  it  is  in  writers 
of  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  that  notices  are 
to  be  looked  for  of  a  festival  of  St.  Bartholomew, 
which  would  appear  to  have  originated  with  the 
Eastern  Church  (for  the  notices  in  Latin  writers 
are  later),  probably  with  that  of  Constantinople. 
Of  this,  indeed,  the  encomiastic  orations  of  Theo¬ 
doras  and  Nicetas  are  evidence,  and  we  further 
have  a  direct  statement  on  the  part  of  the  latter 
(§  2)  to  the  etfect  that  the  festival  of  this  Apostle 
was  then  annually  celebrated. 

It  will  of  course  follow  from  what  has  been 
said  that  in  the  more  ancient  Sacramentaries 
(e.  g.  those  of  Gelasius  and  Gregory)  in  their 
original  form  there  is  no  trace  of  a  festival  of 
this  Apostle,  nor  indeed  is  there  in  any  Latin 
writer  for  a  considerable  time  after  their  date. 
As  to  the  special  day  or  days  on  which  this 
festival  was  held,  very  gi’eat  diversity  exists  in 
ancient  Martyrologies  and  Calendars  : — thus  in 
the  Calendar  of  the  Byzantine  Church,  we  find 
on  June  11,  “  Bartholomew  and  Barnabas,”  while 
on  August  25  is  the  “  Translation  of  Barnabas 
the  Apostle  and  Titus  the  Apostle  :  ”  the  Arme¬ 
nians  held  the  feast  on  February  25  and  December 
8,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  two  Calendars  given 
by  Assemani  (^Bibl.  Or.  vol.  iii.  part  2,  p.  645). 
The  Ethiopic  or  Abyssinian  Church  again  com¬ 
memorates  St.  Bartholomew  on  November  19 
and  June  17  (Ludolf  pp.  11,  31).  In  the  Arabian 
Calendar  the  name  occurs  several  times,  some¬ 
times  alone,  sometimes  with  the  added  title 
martyr,  and  on  November  15  and  June  30,  with 
the  addition  Apostle  (Selden,  De  Synedriis  Ve- 
terum  Ebraeorum,  bk.  iii.  c.  15,  pp.  228,  243,  ed. 
Amsterdam,  1679).  It  is  explained  in  the  Greek 
metrical  Ephemerides  that  the  one  day  (June  11) 
commemorates  the  martyrdom  evdeKarr)  (rrav- 
pwaav  ffx<ppoua  Bap6o\ofxa7ov ;  and  the  other 
(August  25),  the  finding  of  the  relics,  (rhr  vIkw 
€^KaSl  Tre/MTTTy  BapdoXo/xaie  i<p€vpi)v — on  which 
latter  day  several  Calendars  associate  him  with 
Barnabas,  e.  g.  in  the  Pictoidal  Moscow  Calendar 
prefixed  by  Papebroch,  together  with  the  pre¬ 
ceding,  to  the  Alta  Sanctorum  for  May,  vol.  i. 
Cf.  Assemani  Calendarium  Ecclesiae  Universae, 
vol.  vi.  pp.  420,  541. 

The  ancient  Latin  Martyrology  which  bears 
the  name  of  St.  Jerome  follows  the  Greek  in 


the  double  announcement,  and  on  June  13  has 
“In  Perside  natalis  S.  Bartholomaei  Apostoli ;  ” 
on  August  24,  “  In  India  natalis  S.  Bartholomaei 
Apostoli  ”  (vol.  xi.  463,  472).  The  later  Mar¬ 
tyrologies  content  themselves  with  a  notice  on 
August  24  or  25  :  for  example,  those  of  Bede 
(Migne,  Patr.  Lot.  xciv.  604),  and  the  amplifica¬ 
tion  of  this  by  Floras  (j6.  1015),  of  Rabanus 
Maurus  (i6.  cx.  1164),  of  Wandelbert  {ib.  exxi. 
608),  of  Ado  {ib.  cxxiii.  167,  335),  and  of  Usu- 
ardus  {ih.  exxiv.  393). 

We  subjoin  the  notice  of  the  day  as  given  in 
the  Metrical  Martyrology  of  Wandelbert, 

“  bartholotnaeus  nonam  exornat  retinetque  beatus, 
Imlia  quo  doctore  Dei  cognovit  honorem, 

Herculis  et  Bacchi  insanis  vix  eruta  sacris ; 

Nunc  ilium  fama  est  varia  pro  sorte  sepulcri, 

Acoliuni  Lipare  Beneventi  et  tcmpla  tenere.” 

With  regard  to  the  relative  importance  of  this 
festival,  Binterim  {Denkvciirdigkeiten,  i.  445) 
refers  to  Schulting,  who  gives  an  extract  from  an 
old  English  Missal  which  contained  a  special  pre¬ 
face  for  St.  Bartholomew’s  day,  and  he  adds  that 
before  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century  this 
festival  was  viewed  in  England  as  of  considerable 
importance.  It  is  not  certainly  known  whether 
the  vigil  is  coeval  with  the  festival ;  in  most 
Calendars,  however,  drawn  up  before  the  middle 
of  the  tenth  century  the  vigil  is  wanting,  while 
it  is  marked  in  later  ones. 

We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  date  of  the  rise  of  this  festival  is  such 
as  to  preclude  its  appearance  in  the  ancient 
Roman  Sacramentaries  in  their  original  form. 
In  the  various  later  accretions,  however,  of 
Gregory’s  Sacramentary,  is  a  collect,  kc.,  for  this 
day  (said  first  to  occur  in  the  Cod.  Gemeticensis, 
of  about  the  year  1000  A.D.)  on  which  the 
collect  of  our  own  prayer  book  is  based.  (Migne 
Patrol.  Ixxviii.  138.) 

The  name  of  Bartholomew  has  apparently  not 
been  a  favourite  with  the  writers  of  pseudony¬ 
mous  literature.  Traces,  however,  of  writings 
bearino;  his  name  are  not  altogether  wanting. 
Thus  Jerome  {Prol.  in  Comm,  in  S.  Matt,  init., 
vol.  vii.  17)  refers  to  an  apocryphal  gospel 
bearing  the  name  of  Bartholomew,  doubtless  the 
same  condemned  by  a  Council  held  at  Rome  in 
the  episcopate  of  Gelasius,  “  Evangelium  nomine 
Bartholomaei  Apostoli  apocryphum  ”  (Migne 
Patrol,  lix.  162)  and  this  also  may  be  that  re¬ 
ferred  to  by  the  Pseudo-Dionysius  Areopagita, 
OvTO)  yovv  6  0eTos  Bap0o\ojua?Ss  /cat 

TToWiju  T^v  6€o\oyiau  elvai  Kal  e\axt(TTr]v  ual 
rh  €vayyeXiou  TiXarv  Ka\  pi^ya,  ual  avdis  ervu- 
T6T iJ.r}/jL(yov  (Mystica  Theologia,  c.  1  §  3).  Finally, 
in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (lib.  viii.  cc.  19, 
20)  is  given  under  the  name  of  the  Apostle  Bar¬ 
tholomew  the  regulation  as  to  the  appointment 
of  Deaconesses.  [R.  S.] 

BASIL,  LITURGY  OF.  [Liturgy.] 

BASIL.  (1)  Holy  Father  and  Confessor 
under  Leo  the  Iconoclast ;  commemorated  Feb.  28 
{Cal.  Byzant.). 

(2)  Presbyter  of  Ancyra,  martyr  under  Julian  ; 
commemorated  March  22  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(3)  Bishop  of  Parium,  is  commemorated  as 
“  Holy  Father  and  Confessor,”  April  12  {Cal. 
Byzant^. 

(4)  Bishop  of  Amasea,  martyr  under  Licinius, 
April  12  {Cal.  Byz.). 


BASILEUS 


BATH 


181 


(6)  The  Great,  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappa¬ 
docia,  commemorated  June  14  (^Mart.  Rom.  Vet.')  ; 
May  23  (^Mart.  Hieron^\  Jan.  1  {Cal.  Byzant.')] 
Nov.  12  (^Cal.  Armen.^ ;  Ter  6  =  Jan.  1  (Ca/. 
Ethiop.).  A  standing  figure  of  St.  Basil,  after 
ancient  precedents,  is  given  in  the  Benedictine 
edition  of  his  works ;  a  head  in  Spizelius’s  Aca¬ 
demia  Vetus  Christi^  and  in  Acta  SS.  June,  tom. 
ii.  p.  936.  [C.] 

BASILEUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome  under 
Gallienus  ;  commemorated  March  2  (^Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.). 

(2)  “  In  Antiochia  Basillei  et  aliorum  xxx 
martyrum  ”  Dec.  22  (^Mart.  Ilieron.).  [C.] 

BASILIANI.  [See  Diet  of  Chr.  Biogr. 
Art.  Basilius.] 

BASILICA  (sc.  aedes).  This  word  in 
its  classical  acceptation  signifies  a  hall  suited  for 
or  employed  as  a  court  of  justice  or  a  place  of 
meeting.  Such  buildings,  often  of  great  size  and 
splendour,  existed  in  every  Roman  city ;  they 
were  usually  oblong  in  plan,  sometimes  with, 
sometimes  without  ranges  of  columns  dividing 
the  space  into  a  nave  and  aisles ;  at  one  end  was 
usually  a  semi-circular  apse  (v.  Diet,  of  Greek 
and  Roman  Antiq.,  Art.  ‘  Basilica  ;  ’  Bunsen,  Die 
Basiliken  des  Christ.  Roms.).  When  Christianity 
became  the  religion  of  the  state,  these  buildings 
were  found  to  be  so  well  adapted  to  the  cele¬ 
bration  of  public  worship  that  some  were  by 
some  slight  modifications  fitted  and  used  for  the. 
purpose,  and  the  new  buildings  constructed  ex¬ 
pressly  to  serve  as  churches  were  built  almost 
universally  on  the  same  model.  Hence  basilica 
came  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  church  by  the 
writers  of  the  fourth  and  later  centuries  without 
any  regard  for  the  form  or  size  of  the  building. 
Earlier  writers  use  “  dominicum  ”  in  Latin,  or 
KvoiaKhv  in  Greek,  and  some  other  names 
[Church].  Eusebius,  in  his  account  of  the 
church  built  by  Constantine  at  Jerusalem,  calls 
it  6  fiaaiKcios  reltis,  and  the  nave  PaaiKeios 
oTkos.  The  use  of  the  word  “  basilica  ”  as 
meaning  a  church  seems  to  have  arisen  gradu¬ 
ally,  for  the  anonymous  pilgrim  who,  in  333, 
wrote  an  itinerary  from  Bordeaux  to  Jerusalem, 
when  he  says  that  a  “  basilica  ”  had  been  built 
at  the  Holy  Sepulchre  by  Constantine,  adds 
the  explanation,  “  id  est  dominicum.”  Mabillon 
(^Op.  posthum.,  t.  ii.  p.  355)  says  that  it  has  been 
satisfactorily  shown  that  in  the  writings  of  au¬ 
thors  who  wrote  in  Gaul  in  the  6th  and  7th  cen- 
tui-ies  “basilica”  is  to  be  understood  as  meaning 
the  church  of  a  convent,  cathedral  and  parish 
churches  being  called  “  ecclesiae  ;”  the  writers  of 
other  countries  do  not  observe  this  distinction. 

Seven  churches  at  Rome — S.  Pietro  in  Vati- 
cano,  S.  Giovanni  Laterano,  Sta.  Maria  Maggiore, 
Sta.  Croce  in  Gerusalemme,  S.  Paolo  fuor  le 
Mura,  S.  Lorenzo  in  Agro  Verano,  and  S.  Sebas- 
tiano — are  styled  basilicas  by  pi'e-eminence  and 
enjoy  certain  honorific  privileges. 

Basilicula  is  used  by  St.  Paulinus  (Epist.  xii. 
ad  Severum)  and  by  Avitus  Viennensis  (^Epist.  vi.) 
for  a  chapel  or  oratory. 

The  word  basilica  is  found  in  the  Salic  Law 
(tit.  58,  c.  3,  4,  and  5)  in  the  sense  of  a  monu¬ 
ment  erected  over  a  tomb,  apparently  the  tomb 
of  a  person  of  high  rank.  With  the  Franks  they 
appear  to  have  been  constructed  of  wood,  as 
mention  is  made  of  their  being  burnt.  Ciampini 


has  engraved  (Vet.  Mon.,  t.  i.  tab.  xlv.)  two  mo¬ 
numents  which  in  his  time  existed  m  the  portico 
of  S.  Lorenzo  in  Agro  Verano  at  Rome,  which 
he  conceives  to  have  been  basilicae  or  basiliculae. 
One  may  be  described  as  a  model  of  a  temple 
with  four  pilasters  on  each  side,  and  without  a 
cella.  It  has  a  somew'hat  elegant  and  almost 
classical  character.  The  other  would  seem  to 
have  been  only  the  loAver  part  of  a  monumeiit ; 
it  has  three  fluted  pilasters  in  front,  with  au 
open  space  behind  them.  These  pilasters  carry 
a  base  of  many  mouldings  of  somewhat  classical 
character,  upon  which  rest  the  bases  of  two  plain 
pilasters.  Ciampini  gives  no  hint  as  to  the  date 
of  these  monuments. 

Tombstones  of  very  early  date  may  be  found, 
in  which  the  top  is  ridged  like  the  roof  of  a 
house  and  carved  with  an  imitation  of  tiles  or 
shingles ;  one  (engraved  in  Fosbroke’s  Encycl. 
of  Antiq.,  vi.  1,  p.  132)  at  Dewsbury,  in  York¬ 
shire,  may  be  as  early  as  the  7th  or  8th  century. 
Tombs  in  the  form  of  chapels  of  early  date  still 
remain  in  Ireland  (Petrie,  Round  Towers  and 
Architecture  of  Ireland,  p.  454),  and  did  exist  at 
Iona,  and  probably  at  Glastonbury  and  elsewhere, 
such  structures  are  no  doubt  instances  of  what 
the  Salic  Law  calls  “  basilicae  ”  [Tomb]. 

The  word  Basilica  is  used  in  the  Vulgate  (e.  g. 
2  Chron.  vi.  13)  for  the  court  of  the  Temple; 
hence  Christian  wu’iters  occasionally  use  the 
expression  “  basilica  ecclesiae,”  as  equivalent 
(seemingly)  to  the  Atrium  or  fore-court  of  a 
church.  (Binterim’s  Denkaiirdigkeiten,  iv.  i. 
24.)  [A.  N.] 

BASILICLES.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome,  with 
Rogatus  and  others,  under  Aurelian ;  comme¬ 
morated  June  10  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(2)  Martyr,  with  Polymachus  and  others, 
under  Diocletian,  June  12  {31.  Hieron.,  Bedae). 
This  saint  has  a  proper  collect,  &c.,  in  the 
Sacram.  Greg.  (p.  105),  “  pridie  Idus  Junii,”  i.e. 
June  12,  with  Cyrinus,  Nabor,  and  Nazarius.  An¬ 
tiphon  in  the  Gregorian  Lib.  Antiph.  p.  699.  [C.] 

BASILIDIANS.  [See  Diet,  of  Chr.  Biog.  Art. 
Basilides.] 

BASILISCUS,  martyr  under  Maximian,  a.d. 
308;  commemorated  May  22  {Cal.  Byzant.)', 
March  3  {31.  Rom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

BASILISSA,  wufe  of  Julian,  martyr  at  An¬ 
tioch,  A.D.  296;  commemorated  June  9  {3Iai't. 
Rom.  Vet.)',  May  20  {3Iart.  Hieron.)',  March  3 
{Cal.  Byzant.)',  Nov.  25  {Cal.  Armen.f  [C.] 

BASILLA.  (1)  Virgin-martyr  at  Rome  un¬ 
der  Gallienus ;  commemorated  May  20  {3Iart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae). 

(2)  Commemorated  Aug.  26  {M.  Hieron.). 

(3)  In  Antioch,  Nov.  23  {M.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

BASKET.  [Canistrum.] 

BASSUS.  (1)  Saint  of  Africa,  Natale,  March 
19  {31.  Bedae). 

(2)  Saint,  Natale,  Oct.  20  (Jf.  Bedae). 

(3)  In  Heraclea,  Nov.  20  {Alart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

BATH.  Baths  in  the  earlier  Christian  cen¬ 
turies  w’ere  in  such  frequent  use,  that  they  were 
almost  necessary  adjuncts  to  houses  of  a  superior 
class.  Moreover,  a  practice  existed  that  cate¬ 
chumens  should  bathe  before  baptism,  and  priests 
on  the  eve  of  certain  festivals  and  other  occa¬ 
sions.  We  therefore  find  that  baths,  Aovrpa, 
are  mentioned  among  the  adjuncts  of  the  Church 


182 


BATHING 


BATHING 


of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  built  by  Constantine  at 
Constantinople  (Euseb.,  Vit.  Const.,  1.  iv.  c.  59). 
They  are  also  mentioned  in  the  Codex  2’heod., 
b.  ix.  tit.  4,  among  the  buildings  and  places  in¬ 
cluded  within  the  precincts  of  churches. 

The  anonymous  pilgrim  of  Bordeaux,  who  was 
at  Jerusalem  c.  A.D.  333,  says  that  a  “  balneum  ” 
was  placed  behind  the  basilica,  built  by  Constan¬ 
tine  over  the  Sepulclu'e  of  our  Lord,  but  as  he 
adds  the  words  “  ubi  infantes  lavantur,”  it  is 
probable  that  he  speaks  of  a  baptistery,  or  of 
the  piscina  of  a  baptistery. 

The  Lib.  Pontif.  frequently  mentions  baths  in 
connexion  with  churches.  Pope  Hilarius  (a.d. 
461-467),  we  are  told,  built  the  “balneum”  of 
St.  Stephen,  and  in  the  life  of  Pope  Hadrian  I. 
(772-795)  mention  is  made  of  a  bath  at  the  La- 
teran  palace,  and  of  another  near  St.  Peter’s ;  at 
this  last  Ave  are  told  the  poor  who  came  to  receive 
alms  at  Easter  were  accustomed  to  bathe.  Some¬ 
times  these  baths  were  made  sources  of  profit, 
as  Pope  Damasus  (a.d.  367-385)  is  stated  to  have 
built  or  given  a  bath  near  the  “  titulus,”  S.  Lo¬ 
renzo  in  Damaso  (which  he  had  created),  which 
bath  yielded  27  solidi.  Martigny  (^Dict.  des 
Antiq.  Chret.)  mentions  other  instances  of  bishops, 
— as  St.  Victor  of  Ravenna,  in  the  6th  century,  and 
Anastasius  II.  of  Pavia — Avho  erected  or  adorned 
baths  for  the  clergy;  and  in  the  7th,  of  St.  Aguel- 
lus  of  Naples,  who  made  an  ordinance  obliging 
the  priests  under  his  authority  to  bathe  on  cer¬ 
tain  days,  and  made  a  foundation  to  furnish  them 
with  soap  at  Christmas  and  Easter.  Certain  hot 
baths  at  Pozzuoli  he  states  are  still  known  as 
“  fons  episcopi.” 

In  an  enclosure  near  the  apse  of  the  ruined 
church  of  S.  Stefano,  in  Via  Latina,  near  Rome, 
discovered  in  the  year  1858,  is  a  small  reservoir 
(v.  Avoodcut  under  CilURCir),  which  has  been  con¬ 
sidered  to  have  been  a  bath.  It  seems,  hoAvever, 
possible  that  it  may  haA^e  been  the  piscina  of  a 
baptistery,  or,  if  the  area  in  Avhich  it  stands  was 
the  atrium  of  the  church,  the  place  of  the  foun¬ 
tain  or  cantharus.  [A.  N.] 

BATHING.  The  common  use  of  baths 
throughout  the  Roman  Em})ire  presented  to 
Christian  converts  a  special  difficulty  and  danger. 
The  habits  of  the  time  had  given  a  marked  pre¬ 
ference  to  the  thermae  or  hot-air  baths  such  as 
we  noAV  know  as  “  Turkish,”  and  neither  these 
nor  the  halneae  (swimming  or  plunge  baths)  were 
to  be  had  in  their  own  houses.  To  give  these 
up  Avas  to  sacrifice  comfort,  and,  it  might  be, 
health,  and  yet  to  go  to  them  Avas  in  many  cases 
to  run  the  risk  of  moral  contamination.  The 
feeling  of  the  older  Romans,  Avhich  hindered  eA'en 
a  grown-up  son  from  bathing  with  his  father 
(Cic.  De  Off.  i.  35  ;  Valer.  Max.  ii.  17),  had  died 
out,  and  in  the  thermae  of  all  large  cities  Avere 
to  be  found  croAvds  of  men  and  boys,  frequently 
of  women  also,  sitting  naked  in  the  tepid  trium  or 
Laconicum.  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  things  that 
in  a  society  corrupt  as  was  that  of  the  Empire, 
this,  eA’cn  without  the  last-named  enormity,  must 
haA^e  brought  with  it  many  evils,  foul  speech  and 
fouler  acts.  It  might  haA^e  seemed  at  first,  as  if 
those  who  were  seeking  to  lead  a  purer  life  would 
nave  had  to  renounce  the  habit  altogether,  as 
they  renounced  the  obscenities  of  the  mimes, 
and  the  fei’ocities  of  gladiatorial  shows. 

It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  the  rigorism  of 


early  Christian  life  never  reached  this  point. 
Doubtless,  in  eveiy  city,  there  were  establish¬ 
ments  of  dinercnt  grades,  and  the  Christian  could 
choose  those  which  were  conducted  Avith  greater 
decency.  Probably,  too,  before  long,  as  the  em¬ 
ployment  was  not  a  forbidden  one,  Christians 
would  be  found  to  enter  on  it  and  reform  its  evils. 
The  public  baths  at  Rome  which  Avere  established 
by  emperoi's  or  placed  under  magisterial  control, 
were  free  from  the  grosser  evils  of  the  mixture  of 
the  tAVO  sexes ;  and  it  is  recorded  to  the  honour 
of  many  of  the  emperors  Avho  were,  more  or  less, 
under  the  influence  of  a  higher  culture,  that  they 
sought  to  check  them.  Hadrian  (Spartianus,  p. 
25),  Antoninus  Pius  (Julius  Capit.  p.  90),  Alex¬ 
ander  SeA’erus  (Lamprid.  c.  42),  are  all  named  as 
having  taken  steps  to  put  down  the  lavacra 
mixta,  which  were  so  flagrant  an  outrage  on  all 
natural  decency.  As  it  is,  though  the  practice, 
like  most  others  in  the  common  routine  of  life,  is 
but  little  noticed  unless  Avhere  its  accompaniment 
calls  for  censure,  Ave  find  traces  enough  to  shoAV 
that  the  most  devout  Christians  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  abstain  from  the  public  bath.  It 
Avas  in  the  “baths”  of  Ephesus  that  St.  John 
encountered  Cerinthus  (Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  38). 
Tertullian,  with  all  his  austerity,  acknowledged 
that  bathing  Avas  necessary  for  health,  and  that 
he  practised  it  himself  (^Apol.  c.  xlii.)  Clement 
of  Alexandria  {Paedag.  iii.  c.  9),  lays  doAvn  rules, 
half  medical  and  half  moral,  for  its  use.  It 
formed  part  of  the  complaints  of  the  Christians 
of  Lugdunum  and  Vienna,  and  Avas  mentioned  by 
them  as  the  first  sign  of  the  change  for  the 
worse  in  their  treatment,  that  they  Av^ere  ex¬ 
cluded  from,  the  public  baths  (Euseb.  H.  E.  y.  1). 
Augustine  narrates  how  on  his  mother’s  death, 
led  by  the  popularly  accepted  etymology  of 
^aKavetov  (as  if  from  fidWeiu  duiav)  he  had 
gone  to  the  thermae  to  assuage  his  sorroAV,  and 
found  it  fruitless  (“  neque  enim  exsudavit  de 
corde  meo  moeroris  amaritudo.”  Confess,  ix.  32). 
The  old  evils,  however,  in  spite  of  the  reforming 
Empire,  continued  to  preA\ail,  probably  in  worse 
forms  in  the  proAunces  than  in  the  capital. 
Epiphanius  mentions  \ovTpd  auSpoyvva  as  com¬ 
mon  among  the  Jcaa^s  of  his  time  (Haer.  30). 
Clement  describes  the  mixture  of  the  sexes  as 
occurring  in  the  daily  life  of  Alexandria  (^Paedag. 
iii.  5) ;  Cyprian  as  in  that  of  Carthage  {de  Cult. 
Virg.  p.  73) ;  Ambrose  as  in  that  of  Milan  {de 
Off',  i.  18);  and  both  plead  against  it  Avith  an 
earnestness  Avhich  shows  that  it  was  a  danger 
for  Christians  as  Avell  as  heathens.  Even  those 
Avhose  sense  of  shame  led  them  to  aA’oid  the 
more  public  exposure,  submitted  to  the  gaze 
and  the  cares  of  male  attendants  (Clem.  Al.  1.  c.). 
It  is  even  more  startling  to  find  that  it  AA-as 
necessary,  after  the  conA'ersion  of  the  Empire,  to 
forbid,  under  pain  of  deposition,  the  clergy  of  all 
orders  from  frequenting  baths  where  the  sexes 
were  thus  mingled  (C.  Laod.  c.  30  ;  C.  Trull,  c. 
77).  Offending  laymen  AA'ere  in  like  manner  to 
come  under  sentence  of  excommunication.  Gra¬ 
dually  the  better  feeling  prei’ailed,  and  the  lava¬ 
cra  mixta  fell  into  a  disrepute  like  that  of  houses 
of  ill  fame.  It  was  reckoned  a  justifiable  cause 
of  diAmrce  for  a  Avife  to  haA'e  been  seen  in  one 
(Cod.  Justin.  V.  tit.  17  de  Pejoud.f 

Another  aspect  of  the  practice  remains  to  be 
noticed.  Traces  meet  us  here  and  there  of  a  dis¬ 
tinctly  liturgical  use  of  bathing,  analogous  to  the 


BAVO 


BELFRY 


183 


ablutions  of  Jewish  woi’shippers  and  priests,  as 
preliminary  to  solemn  religious  acts,  and,  in  pai-ti- 
cular,  to  baptism.  The  practice  existed  among  the 
Essenes  (Joseph.  Vit.  c.  2),  and  there  may  probably 
be  a  reference  to  it  in  the  “  washed  with  pure 
water”  of  Heb.  x.  22.  Tertullian  {de  Orat.  c. 
xi.)  condemns  as  superstitious  what  he  describes 
as  the  common  custom  (“plerique  superstitiose 
curaut”)  of  washing  the  whole  body  before 
eveiy  act  of  prayer.  In  Western  Africa  there 
was  a  yet  stranger  usage,  which  Augustine  cha¬ 
racterises  as  “  pagan,”  of  going  to  the  sea  on  the 
Feast  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  and  bathing  as  in 
his  honour  (Serm.  cxciv.  de  Temp.  23).  As  pre¬ 
paratory  to  baptism,  it  was,  however,  i-ecog- 
nised.  The  catechumens  who  w'ere  to  be  admit¬ 
ted  at  Easter  had  during  the  long  quadragesimal 
fast  abstained  from  the  use  of  the  bath ;  and 
there  was  some  risk  in  such  cases,  when  large 
numbers  were  gathered  together  for  baptism  by 
immersion,  and  stripped  in  the  presence  of  the 
Church,  of  an  uncleanliness  which  would  have 
been  offensive  both  to  sight  and  smell.  Here, 
therefore,  the  bath  was  brought  into  use  (August. 
Epist.  54),  and  the  halneator  attended  with 
his  st7'igil,  and  his  flask  of  oil  and  his  towels, 
after  the  usual  fashion  (Zeno  Veron.  Invit.  ad 
font.  vi.).  It  may  be  noted,  as  implied  in  this, 
that  the  employment  was  among  those  which 
it  was  not  unlawful  for  Christians  to  engage  in. 
It  was  probably  for  this  purpose,  as  well  as  for 
the  use  of  priests  before  they  celebrated  the 
eucharist,  that  Constantine  constructed  baths 
within  the  precincts  of  the  great  church  which 
he  built  at  Constantinople  (Euseb.  Vit.  Const. 
IV.  59),  and  that  they  were  recognised  as  import¬ 
ant,  if  not  essential,  appendages  to  the  more 
stately  churches,  and  were  entitled  to  the  same 
privileges  of  asylum  (Cbc?.  Theodos.  ix.  tit.  45). 
Popes  and  bishops  followed  the  imperial  example, 
and  constructed  baths  in  Rome,  in  Pavia,  in  Ra¬ 
venna,  and  in  Naples.  A  full  account  of  their 
structure  and  use  is  to  be  found  in  Sidon.  Apol- 
linar.  Epp.  ii.  2.  (Comp,  the  monograph  De 
sao'is  Christianoi'um  balneis,  by  Paciandi.  Rome, 
1758.)  [E.  H.  P.] 

BAYO,  Saint,  of  Ghent  (died  653),  Natale, 
Oct.  1  (J/ar^.  Bedae,  Adonis  in  Appendice').  In 
the  6eims  MS.  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary, 
the  commemoration  of  SS.  Bavo,  Germanus,  and 
Vedast,  is  joined  with  that  of  St.  Remigius.  [C.] 

BEADLE.  \_Ang.  Sax.  Bydel,  a  messenger.] 
An  inferior  officer  of  the  Church  answering  to  the 
modern  beadle,  is  possibly  referred  to  in  a  Canon 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451)  under  the 
name  of  -napafiovapios.  In  the  Roman  Church 
the  officer  was  called  mansionarius.  By  Gregory 
the  Great  he  is  also  styled  Custos  Ecclesiae — W'hose 
business  it  was  to  light  the  lamps  or  candles  of 
the  church.  Later  critics,  however,  have  given  a 
different  interpretation  of  irapa/jLoi'dpios.  Thus, 
Justellus  explains  it  by  “  villicus,”  a  bailiff’  or 
steward  of  the  lands;  and  Bishop  Beveridge  (Not. 
in  Cone.  Chalced.  c.  2)  styles  him  “  rerum  eccle- 
siasticarum  administrator,”  which  would  have 
the  same  meaning  (Bingham,  iii.  13).  [D.  B.] 

BEARDS.  The  practice  of  the  clergy  in 
ancient  times  in  respect  of  wearing  beards  was 
in  conformity  with  the  general  custom.  Long 
hair  and  baldness  by  shaving  being  alike  in  ill- 
repute  as  unseemly  peculiarities,  the  clergy  were 


required  to  observe  a  becoming  moderation  be¬ 
tween  either  extreme.  To  this  effect  is  tho 
Canon  of  the  4th  Council  of  Carthage — Clericus 
nec  .omam  nutriat  nee  barbam  radat.  The  con¬ 
trary  practice,  however,  having  obtained  in  the 
later  Roman  Church,  it  has  been  contended  by 
Bellarmine  and  others,  that  the  word  radat  was  an 
interpolation  in  the  Canon.  But  this  allegation 
has  been  disproved  by  Savaro,  on  the  testimony 
of  the  Vatican  and  many  other  manuscripts  :  and 
it  appears  further,  from  one  of  the  Epistles  of 
Sidonius  (lib.  iv.  Ep.  24),  that  in  his  time  it  was 
the  custom  of  the  French  bishops  to  wear  short 
hair  and  long  beards :  his  friend  Maximus  Pala- 
tinus,  who  had  become  a  clergyman,  being  thus 
described — “  Habitus  viro,  gradus,  pudor,  color, 
sermo  religiosus :  turn  coma  brevis,  barha  pro- 
lixa,''  &c.  (Bingham,  b.  vi.  c.  iv.)  [D.  B.] 

BEASTS,  IN  SYMBOLISM.  [Symbolism.] 

BEATITUDES.  In  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
Chrysostom,  the  Beatitudes  (p-aKapiapoi')  are 
ordered  to  be  sung  by  the  choir  on  Sundays, 
instead  of  the  third  Antiphon  (Daniel’s  Codex 
Liturgicus,  iv.  343 ;  Neale’s  Eastern  Ch.,  Tntrod. 
390).  Goar  (^Euchologion)  seems  to  have  been 
uncertain  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  or  of  the 
practice  of  the  Church  ;  for  he  writes  that  these 
{jLOLKapKTpoi  ai-e  “hymni  sanctorum  beatitudinis 
memoriam  recolentes  ;  vel  potius  eae  beatitudines 
de  quibus  S.  Matthaei  V. ;  vel  tandem  pia 
viventium  vota  pro  defunctorum  requie.”  Dr. 
Neale  takes  them,  no  doubt  rightly,  for  the 
Beatitudes  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  [C.j 

BEATRIX,  martyr  ;  commemoi'ated  July  29 
{Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Bedae).  The  Mart.  Hieron. 
has  under  July  29  “  Veatrix;”  July  28,  “  Bea¬ 
trix  and  again  “  Beatrix,”  July  30.  The 
Corbey  MS.  of  the  Sacram.  Greg,  has  a  comme¬ 
moration  of  S.  Beatrix  (with  S.  Felix  and  others) 
on  July  29.  Antiphon,  in  Lib.  Antiph.  p.  704.  [C.] 

BELFRY  (High-German,  Berevrit,  Bervrit, 
a  tower  for  defence ;  Low-Latin,  bertefredum, 
battefredum,  belp-edurn,  &c. ;  Italian,  bettifredo,  a 
sentry-box  on  a  tower;  Old  French,  berfroi ; 
Mod.  French,  beffroi;  Eng.  belfry,  the  corrupt 
etymology  of  which  has  limited  the  application, 
see  Wedgwood’s  Diet,  of  Eng.  Etymology,  i.  142). 
The  place  in  wffiich  bells  hang.  Berfredum  is 
also  found  used  for  the  structure  of  timber  on 
which  a  bell  is  hung,  in  German  Glockenstuhl. 
In  common  parlance  belfry  and  its  equivalents 
are  used  for  the  whole  tow'er  in  which  bells 
hang. 

The  earliest  examples  of  bell-towers  connected 
with  churches  appear  to  be  those  of  Ravenna  : 
that  of  S.  Francesco  Hiibsch  attributes  to  the 
beginning  of  the  6th  century,  and  those  of  S. 
Giovanni  Battista  and  S.  Apollinare  in  Classe  to 
the  middle  or  latter  part  of  the  same  century. 
Of  the  towers  at  Rome  he  thinks  that  those  of 
Sta.  Pudenziana  and  S.  Lorenzo  in  Lucina  may 
be  in  part  at  least  of  the  7th  ;  but  no  docu¬ 
mentary  notice  of  bell-towers  has  been  found 
earlier  than  that  in  the  Lib.  Bontif.  of  the 
“turris”  built  by  Pope  Stephen  III.  (,v.D.  768- 
772)  at  St.  Peter’s,  in  which  he  placed  three 
bells  “  to  call  together  the  clergy  and  people 
to  the  service  of  God.”  (This  passage  is  given 
by  Ducange,  but  does  not  appear  in  all  editions 
of  the  Lib.  Bontif.)  Pu])e  Leo  IV.,  tiie  same 


184 


BELL 


BELLS 


book  informs  us,  built  a  campanile  at  S.  Andrea  ' 
Apostolo,  and  placed  there  a  bell  with  a  brazen 
hammer.  [A.  N.] 

BELL,  BOOK,  AND  CANDLE.  [£x- 

COilMUJJlCATlON.] 

BELLS.  I.  Names  of  Bells. — The  name  cam- 
“panum  or  campana  is  commonly  said  to  have  been 
given  to  bells,  because  they  were  invented  by 
Panllinus  of  Nola  in  Campania.  Paullinus,  how¬ 
ever,  who  more  than  once  describes  churches, 
never  mentions  bells,  and  the  more  probable  sup¬ 
position  is,  that  bells  in  early  times  were  cast 
from  Campanian  brass,  which  Pliny  (^Nat.  Hist. 
xxxiv.  8)  describes  as  the  best  for  such  a  purpose, 
and  so  received  the  name  campana  or  campanum. 
The  woi'd  nola  can  scarcely  be  derived  from  the 
city  Nola,  and  is  pei'haps  imitative  of  the  sound, 
like  the  English  “  knoll.” 

The  word  which  we  have  in  the  form  clock 
(compare  Irish  clog,  French  cloche,  Germ,  glocke') 
w.xs  adopted  in  later  Latin,  both  in  the  neuter  form 
cloccum  (^Vita  S.  Bonifacii,  in  Act.  Sanct.  June, 
tom.  i.  p.  472)  and  the  feminine  clocca  (Bonifacii 
Epistt.  9  et  75) ;  the  latter  is  the  usual  form. 
The  “Anonymus  Thuanus,”  quoted  by  Binterim 
(^Denkwilrd.  iv.  1.  290)  gi^-es  the  form  cloqua  for 
a  turret-bell  (cloquam  turris). 

Signum  (Ital.  segno,  old  French  seint,  whence 
toesm)  is  the  most  usual  w'ord  for  a  church-boll 
f]-om  the  6th  century.  In  some  cases  it  appears 
to  designate  not  a  bell,  but  some  other  kind  of 
semantron.  (Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.  ;  Rosweyd, 
Vitae  Patrum,  Onomast.  s.  v.  p.  1056.) 

Small  bells,  such  as  were  rung  by  hand  in  the 
refectories  of  monasteries,  were  called  tintinna- 
bula ;  and  the  still  smaller  bells  which  were 
sometimes  appended  to  priestly  vestments,  were 
designated  tinniola,  from  their  tinkling  sound. 
(Ducange,  s.  v.)  Tintinnum  seems  to  have  been 
sometimes  used  for  a  larger  bell  (see  Tatwin, 
quoted  below). 

The  word  skella,  skilla,  scilla,  squilla,  or  es- 
quilla  (Ital.  squilla.  Germ,  schelle)  is  also  used  for 
a  small  bell :  see  below.  In  the  Tahularium  of 
St.  Rerai  (quoted  by  Ducange)  a  “  schilla  de 
metallo  ”  is  mentioned  as  well  as  “  signum 
ferreum.” 

Other  designations  occasionally  found  are  aes, 
aeramentuni,  lebes,  muta,  kuBwv. 

II.  Use  of  Bells. — For  the  purpose  of  announcing 
meetings  of  Christians  in  times  of  persecution  a 
messenger  was  employed  [Cursor];  in  quiet 
times  future  services  were  announced  by  a  deacon 
in  time  of  divine  worship ;  in  some  parts  of 
Africa  a  trumpet  seems  to  have  been  employed 
to  call  the  people  to  their  assemblies. 

After  the  time  of  Constantine  some  sonorous 
instrument,  whether  a  clapper  [Semantroa^]  or 
a  bell,  seems  to  have  been  generally  employed  to 
give  notice  of  the  commencement  of  Christian 
assemblies.  The  word  “  signum  ”  in  Latin  writers 
is  probably  used  to  designate  both  these  instru¬ 
ments,  and  it  is  not  always  easy  to  say  which  is 
intended.  Gregory  of  Tours  (^Hist.  Franc,  ii.  23, 
j).  73)  mentions  a  “  signum  ”  as  calling  monks  to 
matins,  in  the  time  of  Sidonius  Apollinaris  ;  and 
elsewhere  (^De  Mit'ac.  S.  Martini,  ii.  45,  p.  1068) 
he  mentions  the  “  signum  ”  (signum  quod  com- 
moveri  solet)  as  if  it  were  something  swung  like  a 
bell.  So  Venantius  Fortunatus  (Carm.  ii.  10) 
speaks  of  the  “signum”  of  the  principal  church 


'  in  Paris  calling  to  prayer.  St.  Columba  is  said,  in 
the  life  by  Cumineus  Albus  (Ac^a  S'-?.  Junii,  tom. 
ii.  p.  188,  c.  10),  to  have  gone  into  the  church  when 
the  bell  rang  (pulsante  campana)  at  midnight ; 
and  Bede  (^Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  23)  mentions  that  at 
St.  Hilda’s  death,  one  of  her  nuns  at  a  distance 
from  Whitby  heard  suddenly  the  well-known 
sound  of  the  bell  which  roused  or  called  them  to 
prayer  when  one  departed  from  this  world..  These 
testimonies  seem  to  show  that  bells  of  considerable 
size  were  used  in  England,  at  least  in  convents, 
as  early  as  the  6th  century,  Tatwin,  archbishop 
of  Canterbury  (731—734)  in  some  verses  “  De 
Tintinno  ”  (Hook’s  Archbishops,  i.  206)  speaks  ci* 
a  bell  “  superis  suspensus  in  aiuds  ”  hastening  the 
steps  of  the  crowd.  The  Excerptiones  attri¬ 
buted  to  Egbert  (canon  ii.),  enjoin  “  ut  omne.s 
sacerdotes  horis  competentibus  diei  et  noctis  su- 
arum  sonent  ecclesiarum  signa.” 

St.  Sturm  when  dying  (an.  779)  ordered  all 
the  bells  (gloggas)  of  his  convent  to  be  rung 
(Eigil’s  Vita  S.  Sturmii,  c.  25,  in  Migne’s  Patrol, 
cv.  443). 

In  Gaul  we  have  already  seen  that  “  signa  ” 
were  used  as  early  as  the  6th  century.  At  a 
later  period,  Flodoard  (Hist.  Pemens.  ii.  12) 
tells  us  of  the  miraculous  silence  of  two  of  the 
bells  of  a  Gascon  church  in  which  St.  Rigobert 
(t749)  was  praying.  We  cannot,  of  course,  in¬ 
sist  upon  all  the  details  of  this  narrative  as  if 
they  were  literally  true,  but  the  account  shows 
at  any  rate  that  Flodoard  (about  950)  took  foi 
granted  that  in  the  8th  century  the  great 
churches  in  the  Gascon  territory  had  many  bells, 
which  were  rung  at  certain  hours ;  and  that 
even  country  churches  had  more  than  one,  for 
the  two  silent  bells  had  been  stolen  from  a 
country  church ;  moreover,  the  bells  must  have 
been  of  considerable  size,  for  the  narrator  speaks 
expressly  of  their  loud  sound  (his  altisone  re- 
boantibus).  It  is  worth  observing,  too,  that  ho 
uses  the  words  campanae,  nolae,  and  signa  as 
precisely  synonymous. 

By  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great,  in  fact,  the 
use  of  church-bells  seems  to  have  become  common 
in  the  empire.  Charles  encouraged  the  art  or 
bell-founding,  and  entertained  bell-founders  at 
his  court.  Among  the  most  famous  of  these  was 
Tancho,  a  monk  of  St.  Gall,  who  cast  a  fine  bell  for 
the  great  church  at  Aachen.  (The  Monk  of  St. 
Gall  De  Gestis  Caroli,  i.  31.)  He  asked  for  100 
pounds  of  silver  as  alloy  for  the  copper,  from 
which  we  infer  that  the  bell  may  have  weighed 
400  or  500  pounds. 

Bells  appear  to  have  been  held  in  especial  re¬ 
gard  by  the  Irish  ecclesiastics  of  the  fifth  and 
succeeding^  centuries.  Their  bells  seem  to  have 
been  chiefly  hand-bells ;  but  Dr.  Petrie  (Round 
Towers  of  Ireland,  p.  383)  says  that  “  it  is  per¬ 
fectly  certain  that  bells  of  a  size  much  too 
large  for  altar-bells  were  abundantly  distributed 
by  St.  Patrick  in  Ireland,  as  appears  trom  his 
oldest  lives.”  Sinall  of  Cill  Airis,  in  the  tri¬ 
partite  life  of  St.  Patrick  supposed  to  have 
been  originally  written  in  the  6th  century,  is 
called  campanarius.  Hand-bells  are  })reserved, 
which  are  attributed  to  Iri.sh  Saints  or  ecclesi¬ 
astics  from  the  5th  century  downwards.  They 
seem  to  have  been  reckoned  among  the  most 
necessary  insignia  of  a  bishop:  thus  in  the  an¬ 
notations  of  Tirechan,  in  the  Book  of  Armagh, 
we  are  told  that  Patrick  conferred  on  Fiac  the 


BELLS 


BELLS 


185 


degree  of  a  bishop  and  gave  him  a  box  or  satchel 
containing  a  bell,  a  “  monster  ”  (i.  e.  a  reliquary), 
a  crozier,  and  a  “  polaire  ”  or  ornamental  case 
for  a  book  (Petrie,  p.  338).  The  earliest  of  these 

bells  and  the  most  highly 
venerated  is  that  known 
as  the  ‘Clog-an-eadhachta 
Phatraic,’ — the  bell  of  the 
will  of  Patrick, — given  to 
the  church  of  Armagh  by 
St.  Columba ;  this  is  of 
quadrangular  form,  of 
thick  sheet  iron,  six  inches 
high,  five  inches  by  four 
at  the  mouth  and  dimi¬ 
nishing  upwards,  with  a 
loop  at  the  top  for  the 

The  Bell  of  St.  PatricK.  hand  (v.  woodcut).  It  is 

kept  in  a  splendidly  orna¬ 
mented  case,  made  for  it  between  A.D.  1091  and 


1105. 

Many  other  such  bells  are  in  existence,  as  the 
bell  of  St.  Gall,  in  the  Treasury  of  the  church 
of  St.  Gall  in  Switzei'land ;  the  bell  of  St. 
Mogue  (d.  A.D.  624),  in  possession  of  the  Primate 
of  Ireland,  &c. 

In  the  9th  century,  according  to  Dr.  Petrie 
(^Round  Toners  of  Ireland,  p.  252),  the  quad¬ 
rangular  form  which  is  found  in  all  the  early 
bells  began  to  give  way  to  the  circular.  The 
early  bells  are  usually  of  iron,  but  one  of  bronze 
in  the  collection  of  the  Royal  Irish  Academy, 
which  has  been  ascribed  to  St.  Patrick,  in  con¬ 


sequence  of  its  being  inscribed  with  the  name 
“  Patrici,”  is  of  bronze,  as  arc  some  others. 

In  the  East,  church-bells  were  of  later  intro¬ 
duction.  No  mention  of  them  in  the  East  ap¬ 
pears  to  occur  until  Orso,  duke  of  Venice,  towards 
the  end  of  the  9th  century,  gave  twelve  large 
bells  of  brass  to  Michael  (or  Basil)  the  Greek 
emperor,  who  added  a  bell-tower  to  the  church 
of  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople  for  their  re¬ 
ception.  (Baronius,  in  Augnsti’s  Handbuch,  i. 
402.)  *  [A.  N.]  and  [C.] 

We  gather  from  the  above  examples  that  from 
the  6th  century  at  least  bells  were  used  in  the 
West,  first  in  convents,  afterwards  in  churches 
generally,  to  summon  worshippers  to  the  various 
services,  and  to  give  notice  to  the  faithful  of  the 
passing  away  of  one  of  the  brotherhood.  Details 
of  the  manner  of  making  and  hanging  these  bells 
are  altogether  wanting. 

Besides  these  uses,  we  find  that  bells  were 
anciently  used  by  the  Western  Church  in  proces¬ 
sions.  For  instance,  the  rubric  of  the  Mozarabic 
Missal  (p.  166,  ed.  Lesley)  directs  that  a  boy 
ringing  a  hand-bell  (esquillam)  should  precede 
the  procession  which  bore  the  Eucharist  to  the 
Sepulchre  on  Maundy  Thursday. 

Another  ecclesiastical  use  of  small  bells  is  the 
following  : — Benedict  of  Aniane  (see  his  Life 
by  Ardo,  c.  8,  in  Acta  SS.  Febr.  tom.  ii.  p.  612) 
ordered  a  squilla  to  be  rung  in  the  monk’s  dor¬ 
mitory  before  the  signum  of  the  church  rang  for 
the  nocturnal  “  Hours.” 

It  is  generally  agreed,  that  there  is  no  trace 
within  our  period  of  the  practice  of  ringing  either 
a  small  bell  or  the  great  bell  of  the  church  at 
the  elevation  of  the  Host.  The  ancient  Irish 


hand-bells  may  probably  have  been  used  in  pro¬ 
cessions,  or  in  monasteries  for  such  uses  as  those 
described  above. 


The  belief  that  the  ringing  of  bells,  whethei 
the  great  bells  of  a  church  or  hand-bells,  tended 
to  dispel  storms  is  of  considerable  antiquity.  The 
origin  of  this  belief  is  traced  by  hagiographors  to 
St.  Salaberga,  who  lived  in  the  beginning  of  the 
7th  century.  The  story  is,  that  a  small  boll 
attached  to  the  neck  of  a  stag,  was  brought  from 
heaven  to  St.  Salaberga,  for  the  relief  of  her 
daughter  Anstrudis,  who  was  terrified  at  thunder. 
This  belief  is  expressed  in  the  lines 

“  Relliquiae  sanctae  Salabergae  ef  canipana  praesens 
Expellunt  febres  et  ipsa  tonitrua  pellit.” 

See  Mabillon’s  Acta  SS.  Bened.  saec.  ii.  p.  414  ; 
Bollandist  Acta  SS.  Sept.  tom.  vi.  p.  517. 
This  supposed  property  of  dispelling  storms  is 
alluded  to  in  the  services  for  the  benediction  or 
“  baptism  ”  of  bells. 

III.  Benediction  of  Bells. — It  is  probable  that 
from  the  time  that  bells  first  became  part  of  the 
furniture  of  a  church,  they  were  subjected,  like 
other  church-furniture  and  ornaments,  to  some 
kind  of  consecration.  Forms  for  the  benediction 
of  a  church-bell  fAd  signum  ecclesiae  benedicen~ 
dum)  are  found  in  the  Reims  and  the  Corbej 
MSS.  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  fSacram. 
Greg.  ed.  Menard,  p.  438)  to  the  following  efiect. 
After  the  benediction  of  the  water  to  be  used  in 
the  ceremony.  Psalms  145-150  (Vulg.),  were 
chanted ;  meantime  the  bell  was  washed  with 
the  holy-water,  and  touched  with  oil  and  salt, 
by  the  officiating  bishop,  who  said  at  the  same 
time  the  prayer,  beginning,  “  Deus,  qui  per 
Moysen  legiferum  tubas  argenteas  fieri  praece- 
pisti ;  ”  the  bell  was  then  wiped  with  a  napkin, 
and  the  Antiphon  followed,  “  Vox  Domini  super 
aquas”  (Ps.  xxix.  3,  Vulg.);  the  bell  was  then 
touched  with  chrism  seven  times  outside  and 
four  times  inside,  while  the  prayer  was  said, 
“  Omnipotens  sempiterne  Deus,  qui  ante  arcam 
Foederis,  &c. ;  ”  it  was  then  fumigated  with 
incense  within  and  without,  and  “  Viderunt  te 
aquae  ”  (Ps.  Ixxvi.  16)  was  chanted;  the  service 
concluded  with  the  collect  “  Omnipotens  Domi- 
nator  Christe,  quo  secundum  assumptionom 
carnis  dormiente  in  navi,”  &c.  Both  the  verses 
and  the  prayer  allude  to  the  supposed  power  of 
the  bell  to  calm  storms. 

The  office  Ad  signum  ecclesiae  henedicendum 
given  in  Egbert’s  Tontifical  (pp.  177  ft’,  ed.  Sur¬ 
tees  Society,  1853)  difters  in  no  essential  point 
from  the  Gregorian. 

The  custom  of  engraving  a  name  upon  a  bell 
is  said  by  Baronius  fAnnales,  an.  961,  c.  93)  to 
have  originated  with  Pope  John  XllL,  who  con¬ 
secrated  a  bell  and  gave  it  the  name  John.  This 
will  probably  be  accepted  as  sufficient  testimony 
to  the  fact,  that  the  custom  of  engraving  a  name 
on  a  bell,  in  connexion  with  the  ceremony  of  con¬ 
secration,  did  not  arise  in  Italy  before  the  10th 
century.  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  in  other 
countries,  as  in  Ireland,  it  may  be  of  earlier  date  ; 
or  the  names  engraved  on  some  ancient  Irish  bells 
may  simply  indicate  ownership. 

In  Charles  the  Great’s  capitulary  of  the  year 
789,  c.  18,  the  words  occur,  “  Ut  cloccae  non 
baptizentur.”  As  it  is  almost  certain  that  some 
kind  of  dedication-rite  for  church-bells  was 
practised  continuously  through  the  i)eriod,  we 
must  either  conclude  that  some  j)articular 
practice  in  the  matter — it  is  impf.'isible  to  de¬ 
termine  what — is  here  condemned  or  that  the 


186 


B£MA 


BENEDICITE 


“  cloccae  ”  here  intended  were  hand-bells  for 
domestic  use.  The  latter  supposition  is  strength¬ 
ened  by  the  fact  that  the  direction  immediately 
follows  in  the  capitulary,  that  papers  should  not 
be  hung  on  poles  to  avert  hail ;  clearly  a  domes¬ 
tic  supei’stition.  (Binterim,  Denkwwdigkeiten 
iv.  1,  29-r.)  The  connexion  suggests,  that  these 
“  cloccae  ”  were  house-bells  to  be  used  for  avert¬ 
ing  storms.  See  the  legend  of  St.  Salaberga, 
above. 

IV.  Literature.  N.  Eggers,  De  Origine  et 
Nomine  Campanarum  (Jena,  1684);  De  Cam- 
pamirum  Materia  et  Forma  (Ib.  1685).  H. 
VVallerii  Diss.  De  Campanis  et  praecipuis  earum 
Usibus  (Holm.  1694).  P.  C.  Hilscher,  De  Cam¬ 
panis  Templorum  (Lipsiae,  1692).  J.  B.  Thiers, 
Traite  des  Cloches,  &c.  (Paris,  1719).  J.  Mon¬ 
tanas,  Historische  Nachricht  von  den  Glocken, 
V.  s.  w.  (Chemnitz,  1726).  C.  W.  J.  Chrysander, 
Mist.  Nachricht  von  Kirchen- Glocken  (Rinteln, 
1755).  Canon  Barraud  in  Didron’s  A7inales 
ArcheoL,  xvi.  325;  xvii.  104,  278,  357;  xviii. 
57,  145.  [C.] 

BEMA,  otherwise  tribunal,  sanctuarium  (Gr. 
^rgxci).  The  part  of  a  church  i-aised  above  the 
rest,  shut  otf  by  railings  or  screens,  and  reserved 
for  the  higher  clergy.  The  part  so  reserved, 
when  the  apse  was  large,  was  sometimes  the  apse 
alone,  but  often  a  space  in  front  of  the  apse  was 
included.  When,  as  is  the  case  in  many  churches 
of  the  basilican  type  at  Rome  and  elsewhere, 
there  was  a  ti-ansept  at  that  end  of  the  church,  the 
bema  often  commenced  at  the  so-called  triumjjhal 
arch  at  the  end  of  the  nave.  In  the  old  church 
of  St.  Peter  at  Rome  the  bema  appears  to  have 
comprised  the  apse  alone,  but  at  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  M. 
the  whole  ti'ansept  is  slightly  raised.  Some¬ 
times  where  a  transept  exists,  the  bema  does  not 
extend  into  the  arms  of  fhe  transept,  which  are 
parted  oft'  by  screens.  The  altar  was  usually 
placed  withm  in  the  bema,  often  on  the  chord  of 
the  arc  of  the  apse.  Beneath  the  altar  was 
usually  a  ciypt  or  confession.  Round  the  wall 
of  the  apse  or  “  conchula  bematis  ”  ran  a  bench 
for  the  presbyters,  which  was  interrupted  in  the 
centre  by  the  cathedra  or  throne  for  the  bishop. 
These  seats  are  alluded  to  by  St.  Augustine 
when  (Ajo.  203)  he  speaks  of  “  apsides  gradatae  ” 
and  “  cathedrae  velatae.”  Such  an  ari*angemeut 
as  this  was  probably  in  use  as  early  as  the  time 
of  Constantine ;  for,  from  the  description  given 
us  by  Eusebius  of  the  church  built  by  Paulinas 
at  Tyre  {Eccles.  Mist.  x.  14),  we  find  that  the 
altar  stood  in  the  middle,  and,  together  with  the 
seats  for  the  dignitaries,  was  surrounded  by  rail¬ 
ings  of  wood  admirably  worked.  We  should 
probably  understand  by  middle,  not  absolutely 
the  middle  of  the  church,  but  the  middle  of  the 
apse,  for  the  description  is  -given  in  a  very  in¬ 
exact  and  rhetorical  style.  At  St.  Sophia’s,  when 
rebuilt  by  Justinian,  thei'e  was  an  enclosure 
(fpKos)  formed  by  a  stylobate,  on  which  were 
twelve  columns  surrounded  by  an  architrave, 
which  divided  the  bema  from  the  solea.  This 
enclosure  had  three  gates,  and  was  entirely  of 
silver,  very  richly  ornamented  (Pauli  Silentiarii 
Desc^ip.  S.  Sophiae).  Such  an  enclosure  is  called 
by  Sozomen  hpixpaKva,  and  by  Constantine  Por- 
phyrogenitus,  KijKKiSfs.  Such  was  the  nox'mal 
arrangement,  but  it  was  not  invariable ;  for  the 
Lib.  Doatif.,  in  the  life  of  Pope  Hadrian  I.  (a.d. 
772-795),  narrates  how  at  S.  Maria  ad  Praesepe 


(now  S.  Mai'ia  Maggiore)  the  women  who 
j  attended  the  service  intervened  between  him 
and  his  attendant  clergy,  and  in  the  life  of  Pop>e 
Gregory  IV.  (a.d.  827-844)  that  the  altar  at  S. 
Maria  in  Trastevere  stood  in  a  low  place,  almost 
in  the  middle  of  the  nave,  so  that  the  crowd 
surrounding  it  were  mixed  up  with  the  clergy. 
The  Pope  therefore  made  for  the  clergy  a  hand¬ 
some  “  tribunal  ”  in  the  circuit  of  the  apse,  rais¬ 
ing  it  considerably.  This  arrangement  remained 
in  use  until  perhaps  the  11th  or  12th  century; 
it  is  clearly  shown  in  the  plan  for  the  church  of 
St.  Gall  drawn  up  in  the  beginning  of  the  9th  cen¬ 
tury  (^Arch.  Journal,  vol.  v.,  see  Church),  both 
apses  being  shut  oft’  and  raised  above  the  rest  of 
the  church.  Probably  no  example  now  exists 
of  a  period  as  early  as  that  treated  of  in  this 
work,  in  which  a  “  bema  ”  remains  in  its  ori¬ 
ginal  state ;  but  the  raised  tribunal  may  be  seen 
in  many  Italian  churches  in  Rome,  Ravenna,  and 
elsewhere.  In  S.  Apollinare  in  Classe,  in  the 
latter  city,  a  part  of  the  marble  enclosure  seems 
to  remain.  The  bench  of  marble,  with  the  ca¬ 
thedra  in  the  middle,  may  also  be  seen  in  that 
and  many  other  churches,  a  good  example  is  af¬ 
forded  by  those  at  Parenzo  in  Istria  which  would 
seem  to  be  of  the  same  date  as  the  church — the 
6th  century.  In  the  church  of  S.  Clemente  at 
Rome  marble  screens  of  an  early  date  (7th  cent- 
ury?)  part  off  the  bema  in  the  ancient  fashion, 
but  the  church  is  not  earlier  than  the  12th  cent¬ 
ury.  The  word  is  little  used  by  Latin  writers, 
being  in  fact  the  Greek  equivalent  for  what  in 
the  Lib.  Pontif.  is  called  “  tribunal ;  ”  ‘‘  presby- 
te  ‘lum  ”  in  the  same  work  is  perhaps  sometimes 
us?.d  with  the  same  meaning,  though  by  this 
word  the  “  choi’us  ”  or  place  for  the  singers  and 
inferior  clergy  is  generally  meant  [v.  Chorus, 
Presbyterium].  The  word  “  bema  ”  is  also 
found  in  use  for  a  pulpit  or  ambo,  as  by  Sozomen 
(1.  ix.  c.  2);  but  it  is  distinguished  from  the 
bema,  or  sanctuary,  by  being  called  )8r)^a  rwv 
avayvcaaTwv,  the  readers’  bema.  The  same  ex¬ 
pression  is,  however,  applied  by  Symeon  of  Thes- 
salonica  to  the  soleas,  a  platform  in  front  of  the 
bema  (Neale,  East.  Church,  v.  i.  p.  201).  [A.  N.] 

BENEDICAMUS  DOMINO.  This  is  a 
liturgical  form  of  words,  said  by  the  priest  at 
the  end  of  all  the  canonical  hours,  with  the 
exception  of  matins.  The  response  to  it  is  always 
Deo  gratias.  It  is  also  said  at  the  end  of  the 
mass  in  those  masses  in  which  Gloria  in  excelsis 
is  not  said,  and  which  are  not  masses  for  the 
dead,  in  which  the  corresponding  form  is  Requies- 
cat  in  pace.  The  custom  of  substituting  Bene- 
dicatnus  for  Ite  missa  est  in  these  masses  is 
derived  from  the  old  practice  of  the  Church, 
accoi’ding  to  which  after  masses  for  the  dead, 
or  those  for  penitential  days,  the  people  were  not 
dismissed  as  at  other  times,  but  remained  for 
the  recitation  of  the  psalms,  which  were  said 
after  the  mass.  Benedicamus  Domino  is  sung  on 
the  same  tone  as  Lte  missa  est,  which  varies  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  character  of  the  day.  [H.  J.  H.] 

BENEDICITE.  This  canticle,  called  also 
Canticum  trium  /  tierorrim,  is  part  [v.  35  to  the 
middle  of  v.  66]  of  the  prayer  of  Azarias  in  the 
furnace,  which  occurs  between  the  23rd  and 
24th  verses  of  Daniel  iii.  in  the  LXX.,  but  is  not 
in  the  Hebrew.  It  is  used  in  the  lauds  ot  the 
Western  Church,  both  in  the  Gregorian,  iaclu- 


BENEDICTINE  RULE  AND  ORDER 


187 


ding  the  old  English,  and  Monastic  uses,  among 
the  psalms  of  lauds,  on  Sundays  and  festivals, 
immediately  before  P^s.  cxlviii.,  cxlix.,  cl.  It 
usually  has  an  antiphon  of  its  own,  though  in 
some  uses  the  psalnis  at  lauds  are  all  said  under 
one  antiphon.  The  autiphonal  clause,  “  Laudate 
et  superexaltate  eum  in  saecula,”  is  only  said 
after  the  first  and  last  verses.  Glorici  Patri  is 
not  said  after  it,  as  after  other  canticles,  but 
in  its  place  the  verses — 

Benedicamus  Patrem  et  Filium  cum  Spiritu  Sancto  : 
laudemus  et  superexaltemus  eum  in  saecuia. 

Benedictus  es,  Domine,  in  firmamento  coeli :  et  lauda- 
oilis  et  gloriosus  et  superexaltatus  in  saecuia. 

In  the  Ambrosian  lauds  for  Sundays  and  festi¬ 
vals,  Benedicite  occurs  with  an  antiphon  varying 
with  the  day,  and  preceded  by  a  collect  [Oratio 
secreta]  which  varies  only  on  Christmas  Day 
and  the  Epiphany.  During  the  octave  of  Easter 
Hallelujah^  is  said  after  each  verse. 

Benedicite  also  occurs  in  the  private  thanks¬ 
giving  of  the  priest  after  mass ;  in  the  Roman 
office  in  full ;  in  the  Sarum  the  last  few  verses 
only. 

In  the  Mozarabic  breviary  this  canticle  is 
found  in  the  lauds  for  Sundays  and  festivals  in 
a  somewhat  ditlerent  form,  with  a  special  anti¬ 
phon,  and  is  called  Benedictus.  It  begins  at  v. 
29  ;  the  antiphonal  clause  is  omitted  altogether 
till  the  end  ;  and  the  opening  words  of  the  Bene¬ 
dicite  proper,  “  Benedicite  omnia  opera  Domini 
Domino,”  are  never  repeated  after  their  first 
occurrence. 

In  the  offices  of  the  Greek  Church  this  canticle 
is  the  eighth  of  the  nine  Odes  ”  appointed  at 
lauds.  The  antiphonal  clause  is  said  after  every 
verse,  and  a  supplementary  verse  is  added  at 
the  end,  “  euAoyeiTe  ’AttocttoAoj,  IlpocpriTai, 
Kai  Maprvpe?  Kupiov,  rbr  Kvpioy  K.r.\.  This 
canticle  is  sometimes  called  (e.g.  by  St.  Benedict 
and  by  St.  Fructuosus  Archb.  of  Bragas,f  665) 
from  the  nature  of  its  contents  the  Benedictio, 
in  the  same  way  as  the  last  three  psalms  of  the 
Psalter  are  known  as  the  Laudes.  [H.  J.  H.] 

BENEDICTA,  religious  woman,  martyr  at 
Rome  under  Julian,  commemorated  January  4 
(^Mart.  Bom.  Vet.).  [C.] 

BENEDICTINE  RULE  AND  ORDER, 
founded  by  St.  Benedictus  of  Nursia,  born  A.D. 
480,  and  died  probably  542.  [See  Diet,  of  Chr. 
Biogr.  s.  r.]  Even  before  the  institution  of  the, 
Benedictine  Rule,  monasticism  was  widely  esta¬ 
blished  in  Southern  and  Western  Europe,  and 
was  instrumental  in  spreading  Christianity  among 
the  hordes  which  overran  the  prostrate  Roman 
Empire.  But  there  was  as  yet  neither  uni¬ 
formity  nor  permanency  of  rule  (Mab.  Act. 
0.  S.  B.  Praef.). .  In  the  words  of  Cassian,  which 
seem  to  ajiply  to  Occidental  as  well  as  Oriental 
monachism,  there  were  as  many  rules  as  there 
were  monasteries  (^Tnstit.  ii.  2).  In  Italy,  always 
easily  accessible  to  Greek  influences,  the  Rule  of 
Basil,  which  had  been  translated  into  Latin  by 
Ruffians  (Pi-aef.  Reg.  Bas.),  was  the  favourite ; 
in  Southern  Gaul,  and  in  Spain,  that  of  Cassian, 
or  rather  of  Macarius ;  and  as  the  Rule  of  Bene¬ 
dict  worked  its  way  into  the  North-west  of 
Europe,  it  was  confronted  by  the  rival  system  of 
Columbanus  (Pellic.  Polit.  Ecc.  Chr.  1.  iii.  1,  §  4 ; 


Mab.  Ann.  Praef.).  Like  Aaron’s  rod,  in  the 
quaint  language  of  the  Middle  Ages,  it  soon  swal¬ 
lowed  up  the  other  rules.  But,  in  fact,  there 
was  often  a  great  diversity  of  practice,  even 
among  those  professing  to  follow  the  same  Rule, 
often  a  medley  of  different  rules  within  the  same 
walls  (Mab.  Ann.  Praef.),  and  a  succession  of  new 
rules  in  successive  years  (Mab.  Ann.  i.  29).  The 
Columbanists,  for  instance,  were  not,  strictly 
tspeaking,  a  se})arate  order  (Mab.  Ann.  Praef.). 
The  Benedictines  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  the 
first  in  order  of  time,  as  well  as  in  importance, 
of  the  monastic  orders. 

The  Benedictine  Rule  gave  stahilitg  to  what 
had  hitherto  been  fliictuating  and  incoherent 
(Mab.  Ann.  Praef.).  The  hermit-life  had  been 
essentially  individualistic,  and  the  monastic  com¬ 
munities  of  Egypt  and  the  East  had  been  an  aggre¬ 
gation,  on  however  large  a  scale,  of  units,  rather 
than  a  compact  and  living  organization,  as  of 
“many  members  in  one  body.”  Benedict  seems 
to  have  felt  keenly  the  need  of  a  firm  hand  to 
control  and  regulate  the  manifold  impulses,  of  one 
sort  and  another,  which  moved  men  to  retire 
from  the  world.  Apparently  there  was  a  good 
deal  of  laxity  and  disorder  among  the  monks  of 
his  day.  He  is  very  severe  against  the  petty 
fraternities  of  the  Sarabaitae,  monks-  dwelling 
two  or  three  together  in  a  “  cell,”  or  small 
monastei-y,  without  any  one  at  their  head,  and 
still  more  against  the  “  Gyrovagi  ”  monks,  who 
led  a  desultory  and  unruly  life,  roving  from  one 
monastery  to  another.  Unlike  his  Eastern  pre¬ 
decessors,  who  looked  up  to  utter  solitude  as  the 
summit  of  eai-thly  excellence,  Benedict,  as  if  in 
later  life  regretting  the  excessive  austerities  of 
his  youth,  makes  no  mention  at  all  of  either 
hermits  or  anchorites  (Prol.  Beg.  S.  B.).  Any¬ 
thing  like  anarchy  offended  his  sense  of  order 
and  congruity  ;  and,  with  his  love  of  organizing, 
he  was  the  man  to  supply  what  he  felt  to  be 
wanting. 

Accordingly,  in  Benedict’s  system  the  vow  of 
self-addiction  to  the  monastery  became  more 
stringent,  and  its  obligation  more  lasting. 
Hitherto,  it  had  been  rather  the  expression  of  a 
resolution  or  of  a  purpose,  than  a  solemn  vow  of 
perpetual  perseverance  (Aug.  Ep.  ad  Mon.  109, 
p.  587  ;  Aug.  Bett.  c.  Jovinian.  ii.  22 ;  Hieron. 
Ep.  48 ;  Cass.  Inst.  x.  23).  But  by  the  Rule 
(c.  58)  the  vow  was  to  be  made  with  all  possible 
solemnity,  in  the  chapel,  before  the  relics  in  the 
shrine,  with  the  abbat  and  all  the  brethren  stand¬ 
ing  by  ;  and  once  made  it  was  to  be  irrevocable — 
“  Vestigia  nulla  retrorsum.”  The  postulant  for 
admission  into  the  monastery  had  to  deposit  the 
memorial  of  his  compact  on  the  altar :  and  from 
that  day  to  retrace  his  steps  was  morally  impos¬ 
sible.  The  Rule  contemplates  indeed  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  a  monk  retrograding  from  his  promise, 
and  re-entering  the  world  which  he  had  re¬ 
nounced,  but  only  as  an  act  of  apostasy, 
committed  at  the  instigation  of  the  devil  (c.  58). 
Previously,  if  a  monk  married,  he  was  censured 
and  sentenced  to  a  penance  (Basil.  Besjmvs.  36 ; 
Leo,  Ep.  90,  ad  Rustic,  c.  12;  Epiphan.  Ilier. 
Ixi.  7;  Hieron.  Ep.  ad  Dem.  97  (8);  Aug.  de 
Bon.  Vid.  c.  10 ;  Gelas.  Ep.  5,  ad  Ej>isc.  lAC  -an. 
ap.  Grat.  Cans,  xxvii. ;  Quaest.  i.  c.  14 ;  Cone. 
Aurcl.  I.  c.  23) ;  but  the  marriage  was  net 
annulled  as  invalid.  After  the  promulgation  of 
the  Rule,  far  heavier  penalties  were  enacted. 


»  So  spelt  in  the  Ambrosian  books. 


188 


BENEDICTINE  RULE  AND  ORDER 


The  monk,  who  had  broken  his  vow  by  mariying, 
was  to  be  excommunicated,  was  to  be  compelled 
to  separate  from  his  wife,  and  might  be  forcibly 
reclaimed  by  his  monastery  :  if  a  priest,  he  was 
to  be  degraded  (Greg.  M.  Ep.  i.  33,  40,  vii.  9, 
xii.  20,  ap.  Grat.  xxvii. ;  Qu.  i.  c.  15 ;  Cone, 
Tnron.  II.  c,  15).  These  severities  were  no  part 
of  Benedict’s  comparatively  mild  and  lenient 
code ;  but  they  testify  to  his  having  intro¬ 
duced  a  much  stricter  estimation  of  the  monastic 
vow. 

At  the  same  time,  as  with  a  view  to  guard 
against  this  danger  of  relapse,  Benedict  wisely 
surrounded  admission  into  his  order  with  diffi¬ 
culties.  He  provided  a  year’s  noviciate,  which 
was  prolonged  to  two  years  in  the  next  cen¬ 
tury  (Greg.  M.  Ep.  x.  24) ;  and  thrice,  at 
certain  intervals,  during  this  year  of  probation, 
the  novice,  was  to  have  the  Rule  read  over  to 
him,  that  he  might  weigh  well  what  he  was 
undertaking,  and  that  his  assent  might  be  deli¬ 
berate  and  unwavering  (c.  58).  The  w'ritten 
petition  for  admission  was  required  invariably 
(c.  58).  None  were  to  be  received  from  other 
m  masteries,  without  letters  commendatory  from 
their  abbat  (c.  61);  nor  :nildren  without  the 
consent  of  parents  or  guardians,  nor  unless  for¬ 
mally  disinherited  (c.  59).  Eighteen  years  of 
age  was  subsequently  fixed  as  the  earliest  age 
for  self-dedication.  The  gates  of  the  monastery 
moved  as  slowly  on  their  hinges  at  the  knock  of 
postulants  for  admission,  as  they  were  inexorably 
closed  upon  him  when  once  within  the  walls 
(cf.  Fleury,  Hist.  Ecc.  xxxv.  19—  note  by  Bened. 
Editor  ;  Aug.  Vindel.  1768). 

Benedict  had  evidently  the  same  object  before 
his  eves,  the  consolidation  of  the  fabric  which  he 
was  erecting,  in  the  form  of  government  which 
he  devised  for  his  order.  This  was  a  monarchy, 
and  one  nearer  to  despotism  than  to  what  is 
called  a  “constitutional  monarchy.”  Poverty, 
humility,  chastity,  temperance,  all  these  had  been 
essential  elements  in  the  monastic  life  from  the 
first.  Benedict,  although  he  did  not  introduce 
the  principle  of  obedience,  made  it  more  precise 
and  more  implicit  (cc.  2,  3,  27,  64 ;  cf.  Mab.  Ann. 
iii.  8);  stereotyped  it  by  regulations  extending 
even  to  the  demeanour  and  deportment  due  from 
the  younger  to  the  elder  (cc.  7,  63)  ;  and  crowned 
the  edifice  with  an  abbat,  iiTesponsible  to  his 
subjects.  Strict  obedience  was  exacted  from  the 
younger  monks,  towards  all  their  superiors  in 
the  monastery  (cc.  68-71);  but  the  abbat  was 
to  be  absolute  over  all  (c.  3).  He  alone  is  called 
Dominus  in  the  Rule ;  though  the  word  in  its 
later  form,  Domuus,  became  common  to  all  Bene¬ 
dictines  (c.  63).  The  monks  had  the  right  of 
electing  him,  without  regard  to  seniority.  Sup- 
po.sing  a  flagrantly  scandalous  election  to  be 
made,  the  bishop  of  the  diocese,  or  the  neigh¬ 
bouring  abbats,  or  even  the  “Christians  of  the 
neighbourhood,”  might  interfere  to  have  it  can¬ 
celled  ;  but  once  duly  elected  his  will  was 
to  be  supreme  (c.  64).  He  was  indeed  to 
convoke  a  council  of  the  brethren,  when  neces¬ 
sary  :  on  any  important  occasions,  of  them  all ; 
otherwise,  only  of  the  seniors  :  but  in  everv  case 
the  final  and  irrevocable  decision,  from  which 
there  was  no  appeal,  rested  with  him  (c.  3).  He 
was  to  have  the  appointment  of  the  prior,  or 
provost  (c.  65;  cf.  Greg.  M.  Ep.  vii.  10),  and  of 
the  decani  or  deans,  as  well  as  the  power  of 


deposing  them  (c.  21),“  the  prior  after  four,  the 
deans  after  three  warnings  (c.  65).  Benedict 
was  evidently  distrustful  of  any  collision  of 
authority,  or  want  of  perfect  harmony,  between 
the  abbat  and  his  pidor ;  and  preferred  deans,  as 
more  completely  subordinate  (c.  65) ;  for,  while 
the  abbat  held  his  office  for  life,  the  deans  as 
well  as  all  the  other  officei’s  of  the  monasterv, 
except  the  prior,  held  theirs  for  only  a  certain 
time  (cc.  21,  31,  32).  Even  the  cellerarius,  or 
cellarius,  the  steward,  who  ranked  next  to  the 
abbat  in  secular  things,  as  the  prior  in  things 
spiritual,  was  to  be  appointed  for  one,  four,  or 
ten  years ;  the  tool-keepers,  robe-keepers,  &c., 
only  for  one.  The  abbat  was  armed  with  power 
to  enforce  his  authority  on  the  recalcitrant,  after 
two  admonitions  in  private  and  one  in  public, 
by  the  “  lesser  excommunication,”  or  banishmwnt 
from  the  common  table  and  from  officiating  in 
the  chapel  ;  by  the  “greater  excommunication.” 
or  deprivation  of  the  rites  of  the  Church  ;  by  flog¬ 
ging,  by  imprisonment,  and  other  bodily  penances 
(cc.  2,  23-29  ;  cf.  Mart,  de  Ant.  Mon.  Hit.  ii.  11) 
in  case  of  hardened  offenders ;  and,  as  an  extreme 
penalty,  by  expulsion  from  the  society.  Bene¬ 
dict,  however,  with  characteristic  clemency, 
exjjressly  cautions  the  abbat  to  deal  tenderly 
with  offenders  (c.  27);  allowing  readmission  for 
penitents  into  the  monastery,  even  after  relapses  ; 
and,  as  though  aware  how  much  he  is  entrusting 
to  the  abbat’s  discretion,  begins,  and  almost  ends, 
his  Rule  with  grave  and  earnest  cautions  against 
abusing  his  authority. 

Benedict’s  constitution  was  no  mere  democracy, 
under  the  abbat.  All  ranks  and  conditions  of  men 
were  indeed  freely  admitted,  from  the  highest 
to  the  lowest,'*  and  on  equal  terms  (c.  51 ;  cf.  Aug. 
de  Op.  Mon.  22):  within  the  monastery  all  the 
distinctions  of  their  previous  life  vanished  ;  the 
serf  and  the  noble  stood  there  side  by  side  (c.  2). 
Thus  even  a  jiriest,  whose  claims  to  precedence, 
being  of  a  spiritual  nature,  might  have  been 
supposed  to  stand  on  a  different  footing,  had  to 
take  his  place  simply  by  order  of  seniority  among 
the  brethren  (c.  60),  though  he  might  be  allowed 
by  the  abbat  to  take  a  higher  place  in  the  chapel 
(c.  62),  and  might,  as  the  lay-brothers,  be  pro¬ 
moted  by  him  above  seniors  in  standing  (c.  63 : 
cf.  Fleury,  Hist.  Ecc.  xxxii.  15).  Similarly,  a 
monk  from  another  monastery  was  to  have  no 
especial  privileges  (c.  61).  But,  with  all  this 
levelling  of  distinctions  belonging  to  the  world 
without,  the  gradations  of  rank  for  the  monks 
as  monks  were  clearly  defined.  Every  brother 
had  his  place  assigned  him  in  the  monastic 
hierarchy.  Such  offices  as  those  of  the  hebdo- 
madarius  or  weekly  cook,  of  the  lector  or  read^r- 
aloud  in  the  refectory,  were  to  be  held  by  each 
in  turn,  unless  by  special  exemption  (cc.  35,  38), 
and  the  younger  monks  were  enjoined  to  address 
the  elder  as  “nonni,”  or  fathers,  in  token  of 
affectionate  reverence  (c.  63).  Benedict  seems 
to  have  had  an  equal  dread  of  tyranny  and 
of  insubordination. 

Indeed,  the  strict  obedience  exacted  by  the 
Rule  is  tempered  throughout  by  an  elasticity, 
and  considerateness,  which  contrast  strongly 
with  the  inflexible  rigour  of  similar  institutions. 

»  r.  IMartcne,  note  in  }\eu.  Vonim.  ad  loc. ;  cf.  Cone. 

Mngiint.  c.  11. 

The  restrictions  and  limitations  in  Martene’s  Reg. 

1  Comm,  are  not  m  the  Kale, 


BENEDICTINE  EULE  AND  OEDER 


189 


Like  the  Evangelic  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which 
he  makes  his  model  (^Prol.  Beg. ;  cf.  c.  4),  Benedict 
often  lays  down  a  principle,  without  shaping  it 
into  details.  Thus  he  en  joins  silence,  as  a  whole¬ 
some  dis(;i])line,  without  prescribing  the  times  and 
places  for  it,  beyond  specifying  the  refectory  and 
the  dormitory  (c.  6).  Like  Lycurgus,  he  wishes 
to  bequeath  to  his  followers  a  law  which  shall 
never  be  broken  (c.  64);  and  yet,  in  the  closing 
words  of  his  Rule,  he  reminds  them  that  the 
Rule,  after  all,  is  imperfect  in  itself  (c.  73). 
More  than  once  he  seems  to  anticipate  the  day 
when  his  order  shall  have  assumed  larger  dimen¬ 
sions,  and  provides  for  monasteries  on  a  grander 
scale  than  existed  when  he  was  writing  his  Rule 
(cc.  31,  32,  53).  Thus,  about  dress,  as  if  fore¬ 
seeing  the  vaiying  requirements  of  various  climes, 
he  leaA^es  a  discretionary  power  to  the  abbat, 
affirming  merely  the  unvarying  principle  that 
it  is  to  be  cheap  and  homely  (c.  55) ;  and  that 
there  are  to  be  two  dresses,  the  “  scapulare,”  or 
sort  of  cape,  for  field-work,  and  the  “  cucullus,” 
or  hood,  for  study  and  prayer  (cf.  Fleury,  Hist. 
Ecc.  xxxii.  16).  The  colour  of  the  tunic  or  toga, 
being  left  undetermined  by  the  founder,  has 
varied  at  different  times :  till  the  8th  century 
it  was  usually  white  (Mab.  Ann.  iii.).  Nor  is 
there  any  Procrustean  stiffness  in  the  directions 
about  diet.  Temperance,  in  the  strictest  sense, 
is  laid  down  as  the  principle  :  but  the  abbat 
may  relax  the  ordinary  rules  of  quantity  and 
quality  (c.  40) ;  more  food  is  ordered  whenever 
there  is  moi*e  work  to  be  done  (c.  39) ;  baths 
and  meat  are  not  allowed  mei-ely,  but  enjoined 
for  the  sick  (c.  36),  for  the  young  or  aged 
(c.  37),  as  well  as  for  guests  who  may  chance  to 
be  lodging  in  the  monastery  (c.  42) ;  and  even 
wine,  forbidden  by  Eastern  Asiatics,  is  allowed, 
sparingly,  by  Benedict,  as  if  in  concession  to  the 
national  propensities  imported  into  Italy  by  the 
barbarians,  and  to»the  colder  climate  of  Northern 
Europe  (c. '40).  Even  those  minuter  rules,  in 
which  Benedict  evinces  his  love  of  order,  pro¬ 
portion,  and  clocklike  regularity,  and  which 
show  that  Benedict,  like  Wesley,  wished  to 
direct  everything,  originate  almost  always  in 
a  wise  and  tender  consideration  for  human 
weaknesses.  The  day  is  mapped  out  in  its  round 
of  duties,  so  that  no  unoccupied  moments  may 
invite  temptation  (c.  48),  but  the  hours  allotted 
for  work,  prayer,  or  rest,  vary  with  the  seasons. 
Benedict  seems  to  take  especial  delight  in 
arranging  how  the  Psalter  is  to  be  read  through, 
ordering  certain  Psalms  on  certain  holy  days ; 
but  he  leaves  it  open  to  his  followers  to  make  a 
better  distribution  if  they  can  (cc.  15,  18).  The 
fii’st  Psalm  is  to  be  recited  slowly ;  but  this  is  to 
give  the  brethren  time  to  assemble  in  their 
oratoiy.  The  monk  who  serves  as  cook  is, 
during  his  week  of  office,  to  take  his  meals  before 
the  rest  (c.  35);  the  cellarer,  or  steward,  is  to 
have  fixed  hours  for  attending  to  the  wants  of 
the  brethren,  that  there  may  be  no  vexation  or 
disappointment  (c.  31);  a  list  is  to  be  kept  by 
the  abbat  of  all  the  tools  and  dresses  belonging: 
to  the  monastery,  lest  there  may  be  any  con¬ 
fusion  (c.  32) ;  the  monks  are  to  sleep  only  ten 
or  twelve  in  the  same  dormitory,  with  curtains 
between  the  beds,  and  under  the  charge  of  a 
dean,  for  the  sake  of  order  and  propriety  (c.  22) ; 
the  Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
not  to  be  read  the  last  thing  before  going  to  bed, 


as  unedifying  to  weak  brethren  (c.  42);  and,  la<t 
and  least,  no  monk  is  to  take  the  knife,  which 
was  part  of  his  monastic  equipment,  with  him  to 
bed,  lest  he  should  hurt  himself  in  his  sleep 
(c.  22).  But  it  is,  above  all,  in  its  treatment 
of  weaker  brethren  (the  “  infirmi  ”  or  “  pusil- 
lanimi  ”),  that  the  Rule  breathes  a  mildness,  and 
what  Aristotle  would  call  “  eVtej/ceia,”  rare 
indeed  in  those  days.  The  abbat  is  to  “  love 
the  offender,  even  while  hating  the  offence 
he  is  to  “  beware  lest  he  break  the  vessel  in 
scouring  it ;”  he  is  to  let  “  mercy  prevail  over 
justice  ”  (c.  64),  A  whole  chapter  (c.  43)  is 
devoted  to  meting  out  the  degrees  of  correction 
for  monks  coming  late  to  chapel  or  refectory ; 
and,  in  this  unlike  Wesley,  Benedict  expressly 
discourages  the  public  confession  of  secret  faults, 
a  practice  inevitably  tending  to  unreality  and 
irreverence  (c.  46),  as  well  as  loud  and  demon¬ 
strative  private  prayer  in  the  chapel  (c.  52). 
There  is  something  peculiarly  characteristic  of 
Benedict’s  gentle  and  courteous  spirit  in  his  oft- 
repeated  cautions  against  murmuring  on  the  one 
hand  (cc.  31,  40,  41,  53),  and,  on  the  other, 
against  anything  like  scurrility  (cc.  43,  49,  &c.). 

Compared  with  Eastern  Rules,  the  Benedic¬ 
tine  Rule  is  an  easy  yoke  (Sev,  Sulp,  Vit.  S. 
Martini,  i.  7;  Cass.  Instit.  i.  11);  and  this 
may  be  attributed  partly  to  the  more  prac¬ 
tical  temperament  of  the  West,  partly  to  the 
exigencies  of  European  climates,  partly,  tod,  to 
the  personal  character  of  the  lawgiver  (cc.  39, 
40,  46,  &c.).  Taking  the  passage  in  the  Psalms. 
“  Seven  times  a  day  will  I  praise  Thee,”  and 
another,  “  At  midnight  I  will  rise  to  give 
thanks  unto  Thee,”  as  his  mottoes,  he  portioned 
out  day  and  night  into  an  almost  unceasing 
round  of  prayer  and  praise  (c.  16).  But  whereas 
his  predecessors  had  ordered  the  whole  of  the 
Psalter  to  be  recited  daily,  Benedict,  thougn 
with  a  sigh  of  regret  for  the  degeneracy  of  his 
age,  was  content  that  it  should  be  gone  through 
in  the  week  (c.  18).  There  is  a  curious  direc¬ 
tion,  too  (c.  20),  against  lengthy  private  devo¬ 
tions,  especially  in  chapel  after  service.  In 
harvest  time,  or  if  they  were  far  from  home,  the 
monks  were  to  say  their  devotions  in  the  field,  to 
save  the  time  and  trouble  of  returning  to  the 
monastery  (c.  50 ;  cf.  Mab.  Ann.  iii.  8).  What¬ 
ever  ascetic  austerities  were  introduced  at  a 
later  date  into  some  of  the  reformed  Benedic<^ine 
orders,  we  find  no  trace  at  all  in  the  original 
Rule  of  those  ingenious  varieties  of  self-torture 
which  had  been  so  common  in  Egypt  and  Syria. 
Benedict  shows  no  love  of  self-mortification  tor 
its  own  sake ;  and,  while  prizing  it  in  moderation 
as  a  discipline,  makes  it  subservient  to  other 
practical  purposes.  Thus  he  orders  some  more 
suitable  occupation  to  be  allotted  to  such  of  the 
brethren  as  may  be  incapacitated  in  any  way 
from  hard  work  out  of  doors  (c.  48).  The  diet 
allowed  by  the  Benedictine  Rule  would  have 
seemed  luxurious  to  the  monks  of  the  East 
(c.  39,  &c.). 

But  the  great  distinction  of  Benedict’s  Rule 
was  the  substitution  of  study  for  the  compara¬ 
tive  uselessness  of  mere  manual  labour.  Not  that 
his  monks  were  to  be  less  laborious;  rather  they 
were  to  spend  more  time  in  work  ;  but  their  work 
was  to  be  less  servile,  of  the  head  as  well  as  of 
the  hand,  beneficial  to  future  ages,  not  merely 
furnishing  sustenance  for  the  bodily  wants  of  the 


190 


BENEDICTINE  RULE  AND  ORDER 


community,  or  for  almsgiving  (cc.  38,  48  :  cf. 
Cass.  Instit.  X.  23  ;  Hier.  Ep.  ad  Eustoch.  18,  22). 
As  if  conscious  of  his  innovation  Benedict  seems 
to  restrict  the  word  “  labor,”  as  heretofore,  to 
manual  occupations ;  to  these  he  still  devoted 
the  larger  part  of  the  day :  and  his  range  of 
literature  is  a  nan’ow  one,  specifying  by  name 
only  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers  (cc.  9,  48).  But,  by  reserving 
some  portion  for  study,  he  implanted  the  princi¬ 
ple,  which  afterwards  bore  so  glorious  fruits  in 
the  history  of  his  order,  .that  liberal  arts  and 
sciences  were  to  be  for  them  not  permitted 
merely,  but  sanctioned  and  encouraged  (c.  48). 
It  is  a  question  how  far  Benedict  is  indebted  for 
this  to  Cassiodorus,  his  contemporary,  wrong¬ 
fully  claimed  by  some  zealous  Benedictines  as 
one  of  their  order  (Mign.  Patrol.  Ixix.  483). 
But  the  “  Vivarium  ”  which  Cassiodorus  founded 
in  Calabria  seems  to  have  been  more  like  an 
university,  or  even  the  intellectual  and  artistic 
Court  over  which  Frederick  II.  presided  in  that 
part  of  Italy  during  the  13th  century,  more 
genial  in  its  tone  and  wider  in  its  range  of 
studies  (Cassiod.  de  Instit.  Div.  Litt.  cc.  28, 
30,  31).  Probably  Benedict  and  his  more  secular 
contemporary  were  both  alike  affected  by  the 
same  impulses,  inherited  trom  the  dying  litera¬ 
ture  of  Imperial  Rome. 

A  monk’s  day,  according  to  the  Rule,  was  an 
alternation  of  work,  manual  or  mental,  and 
prayer,  in  the  words  of  the  Rule  of  the  “opus  Dei 
or  divinum  officium  ”  and  “labor  etTectio,”  with 
the  short  intervals  necessai'y  for  food  and  rest 
(cf.  Mab.  Ann.  iii.  8;  Fleury,  Hist.  Ecc.  xxxii.  15 
et  seq.).  In  winter  the  middle  of  the  day,  and 
in  summer  the  morning  and  evening,  were  for 
manual  labour ;  for  study  the  heat  of  the  day  in 
summer,  and  the  dusk  and  darkness  of  morning 
and  evening  in  the  short  days  of  winter  (cc. 
8,  48).  After  the  midday  meal  in  summer,  the 
monk  might  take  his  siesta,  or  a  book  (c.  48). 
The  seven  hours  for  divine  service  were  those 
called  “  canonical and  the  services  were — ma¬ 
tins  (afterwai'ds  called  lauds)  at  sunrise  (in 
summer),  prime,  tierce,  sext,  nones,  vespers, 
compline,  separated  each  from  each  by  three 
hours,  as  well  as  a  midnight  service,  which  was 
to  be  held  a  little  before  the  matins,  called  in 
the  Rule  “  nocturnae  vigiliae”  (c.  16).  On  Sun¬ 
days  the  monk  was  to  rise  earlier  and  have 
longer  “vigiliae”  (c.  11),  and  was  to  substitute 
reading  for  manual  work  (c.  48).  Each  ser¬ 
vice  was  to  include  a  certain  number  of  Psalms, 
often  selected  with  especial  X'efei’ence  to  the 
time  of  day,  as  the  third  for  nocturns,  of  Can¬ 
ticles,  and-  of  lections,  or  readings  from  Holy 
Scripture  or  the  Fathers  (c.  8,  &c.).  On  Sun¬ 
days  and  holy  days  all  the  brethren  were  to 
receive  the  Holy  Communion  (c.  25).  The  pre¬ 
cise  times  for  the  several  avocations  of  the 
monastic  day  were  to  vary  with  the  four  seasons, 
both  of  the  natural  and  of  the  Christian  year 
(c.  8,  &c.).  The  work  or  the  book  for  the  time 
was  to  be  assigned  to  each  at  the  discretion  of 
the  abbat  (c.  48).  The  evening  meal  was  to  be 
taken  all  the  year  I'ound  before  dark  (c.  41). 
As  the  monk  had  to  rise  betimes,  so  his  thought- 
ful  legislator  would  have  him  retire  early  to 
rest. 

Chapters  1-7  in  the  Rule  are  on  the  monastic 
character  generally — obedience,  humility,  &c. ; 


8-20  on  divine  service;  21-30  on  deans  and  the 
correction  of  offenders ;  31—41  on  the  cellarer 
and  his  department,  especially  the  refectory;  42- 
52  are  chiefly  on  points  relating  either  to  the 
oratory  or  to  labour :  the  I’einaining  twenty- 
one  rules  hardly  admit  of  classification,  being 
miscellaneous  and  supplementary  to  those  pre¬ 
ceding. 

On  the  whole,  the  Benedictine  Rule,  as  a  Rule 
for  Monks,  must  be  pronounced,  by  all  who  view 
it  dispassionately,  well  worthy  of  the  high  praise 
which  it  has  received,  not  from  monks  only,  but 
from  statesmen  and  others.  “  First  and  fore¬ 
most  in  discretion,  and  clear  in  style,”  is  the 
appropriate  comment  on  it  of  Gregory  the  Great 
(^Dial.  ii.  36).  In  the  7th  century  the  observance 
of  it  was  enjoined  on  all  monks,  by  the  Council 
of  Augustodunum  (c.  15),  and  by  Lewis  the  Pious 
(Exh.  ad  Eigil.  Ahh.  Fuld.  ap.  Migue,  Praef.  Regi). 
It  is  commonly  entitled  in  councils  “the  holy 
Rule”  (Migne,  Praef.  Peg.)\  and  by  one  held  in 
the  9th  century  it  is  directly  attributed  to  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  {Gone.  Duziac.  ii.). 
By  one  writer  it  is  contrasted  with  previous 
rules  as  the  teaching  of  Christ  with  that  of 
Moses  (Gaufr.-Abb.  Vindocin.  Sermo  de  S.  B.  ap. 
Migne,  Praef.  Peg.).  It  was  a  favourite  alike 
with  Thomas  Aquinas,  as  a  manual  of  morality, 
and  with  the  politic  Cosmo  de’  Medici,  as  a 
manual  for  rulers  (Alb.  Butler,  Lives  of  the  Saints^ 
s.  voce;  cf.  Gueranger,  Enchirid.  Bened.  Praef.). 
Granted  the  very  questionable  position,  that  the 
life  of  a  monk,  with  its  abdication  of  social  and 
domestic  duties,  is  laudable,  Benedict’s  conception 
of  thr-t  life,  in  principle  and  in  detail,  is  almost 
unexceptionable.  His  monks  are  indeed  treated 
throughout  as  simply  children  of  an  older  growth  : 
they  may  not  even  walk  abroad  (c.  67);  nor,  if 
sent  outside  the  precincts,  may  they  stop  any¬ 
where  to  eat,  without  the  abbat’s  leave  (c.  51) ; 
nor  may  they  even  receive  letters  from  home  (c. 
51).  The  prescribed  washing  of  strangers’  feet 
(c.  53),  and  the  very  strict  prohibition  against  a 
monk  having  anything,  however  trifling,  of  any 
sort  to  call  his  own,  are  all  part  of  this  extension 
into  maturer  yeai's  of  a  discipline  proper  for  chil¬ 
dren.  But,  if  treated  as  children,  the  followers 
of  Benedict  were  at  any  rate  under  a  wise  and 
sympathising  Master ;  and  the  school  where  they 
wei’e  to  be  ti-ained  in  humility  and  obedience  was 
not  one  of  needless  and  vexatious  mortifications. 
Order,  proportion,  i-egularity,  these  are  the 
characteristics  of  the  Rule ;  with  an  especial 
tenderness  for  the  “  weaker  brethren.”  As  in 
all  monastic  institutions,  self-love  seems  to 
force  its  way  through  all  the  barriers  heaped 
around  it ;  tinging  even  the  holiest  actions  with 
a  mercenariness  of  intention  {Prol.  &c.  &c.). 
Thus  the  motive  proposed  for  waiting  sedulously 
on  the  sick  is  the  reward  which  may  be  won  by 
so  doing  (c.  37).  But  the  Rule  appeals  also, 
though  less  expressly,  to  higher  motives  than  the 
fear  of  punishment  or  the  hope  of  recompense — 
to  the  love  of  God  and  of  man  (e.  g.  Pi  oL).  It 
cannot  be  said  of  Benedict’s  Rule,  as  of  solitary 
asceticism,  that  self  is  the  circumference  as  well 
as  the  centre  of  the  circle.  The  relations  of  the 
brethren  to  their  father,  and  to  one  another, 
tend,  in  the  Rule,  to  check  that  isolation  ot  the 
heart  from  human  sympathies  which  is  the  bane 
of  monasticism.  If  there  is  a  disregard  of  the 
claims  of  the  outer  world,  at  all  events  some- 


BENEDICTINE  RULE  AND  ORDER  ' 


191 


thing  like  the  ties  of  family  is  duly  recognised 
within  the  order,  hallowing  even  the  trivial  de¬ 
tails  of  daily  life.  The  monastery  is  the  “  House 
of  God and  even  its  commonest  utensils  are 
“holy  things  ”(c.  31).  Benedict  disclaims  for 
man  either  any  merit  in  keeping  the  divine  law, 
or  any  power  to  do  so  without  help  from  heaven 
(^ProL). 

In  style  the  Rule  is  clear  and  concise;  largely 
interspersed  with  apposite  quotations  from  the 
Scriptures,  especially  the  Psalms.  But  its  La- 
tiuity  is  very  unclassical,  not  only  in  syntax,  but 
in  single  words  (e.  g.  odire  for  odisse,  c.  4  ;  solatium^ 
for  “helper,”  cc.  31,  35;  t^pus  for  “ arrogance  ” 
or  “  circumlocution,”  c.  31).  In  this  respect  the 
Rule  contrasts  unfavourably  with  Cassian's  com¬ 
paratively  accurate  and  polished  style.  The 
text  may  haA'e  been  corrupted ;  but  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  serious  deterioration  in  Latin 
literature  during  the  5th  century. 

With  the  lapse  of  time,  the  right  meaning  of 
many  passages  in  the  Rule  gave  rise  to  violent 
controversies.  Its  very  brevity  and  conciseness 
were  themselves  the  occasion  of  an  uncertainty, 
frequently  enhanced  by  the  changes  of  meaning 
which  the  same  word  often  undergoes  in  succes¬ 
sive  periods.  Whether  such  phrases  as  “  Com- 
muuio  ”  and  “  Missa  ”  are  to  be  taken  in  their 
more  technical  and  ritualistic  sense,  or  merely 
for  “  charity  ”  and  the  “  termination  of  divine 
service  ;”  whether  “  excommunicatio  ”  means  the 
greater  or  the  lesser  sentence  of  deprivation  (cc. 
24,  25) ;  whether  “  clerici  ”  (c.  62)  means  dea¬ 
cons  only,  or  priests  as  well ;  all  these  have  been 
questions  with  commentators  and  reformers. 

Matutini  ”  in  the  Rule  is  said  to  correspond 
with  the  service  afterwards  known  as  “  Laudes  ;” 
and  “Laudes”  in  the  Rule  to  mean  the  three 
last  Psalms,  all  commencing  “  Laudate  ”  (Fleury, 
Hist.  Ecc.  xxxii.  15).  “Prior”  seems  in  one 
place  (c.  63),  where  the  younger  brethren  are 
ordered  to  salute  the  “  priores,”  to  mean  merely 
older,  at  least  in  precedence ;  while  in  another 
place  (c.  68),  w'hich  treats  of  obedience,  it  seems 
to  mean  those  in  office.  There  is  some  ambi¬ 
guity  about  the  several  articles  of  dress  pre¬ 
scribed  (c.  55) ;  and  still  more  about  the  diet. 
“  ilixtum  ”  (c.  38)  is  supposed  by  some  to  mean 
“  wine  and  water,”  by  others  “  wine  and  bi’ead  ;” 
and  it  is  a  vexed  question,  whether  eggs  and  fish, 
birds  and  fowls,  as  well  as  “pulse,”  are  included 
in  the  word  “  pulmentum  ”  (Mart.  Comm,  in  Peg. 
cc.  38,  55 ;  Mab.  Ann.  i.  53,  xiii.  2,  xiv.  46).  The 
enactment  that  “even  a  small  part”  of  the  bre¬ 
thren  may  elect  the  abbat  is  variously  explained, 
as  meaning  either  a  minority,  in  certain  cir¬ 
cumstances,  or,  more  probably,  “a  majority  how¬ 
ever  small  ’\(^Comm.  in  Peg.  c.  64)  ;  and  another 
provision  in  the  next  chapter,  that  “a  council 
of  the  brethren  ”  is  to  take  part  in  electing  the 
prior,  is  vague  both  as  to  the  size  of  the  council 
and  the  extent  of  its  powers  (c.  65).  A  distinction 
familiar  to  Roman  Catholic  ca.suists  has  been 
drawn  by  some  commentators  between  the  “  pre¬ 
cepts  ”  and  “  counsels  ”  in  the  opening  words  of 
the  Prologue  to  the  Rule ;  and,  however  that 
may  be,  the  opinion  has  prevailed  that  the  spirit 
rather  than  the  letter  of  the  Rule  is  to  be  ob¬ 
served,  and  that  it  is  not  strictly  obligatory  in  its 
les.ser  details  (note  by  Ed.  on  Fleury,  Hist.  Ecc. 
xxxii.  12,  Aug.  Vindel.  1768:  cf.  Bern,  de  Praec. 
et  Dispens.,  Patrol,  clxxii. ;  Petr.  Clun.  Epp.  i.  28, 


iv.  17,  Patrol,  clxxxix. ;  Hospin.  de  Monachatu,  pp 
132-134).  But  the  hottest  dispute  has  been  on 
the  permissibility  of  secular  studies  for  the  bre 
thren.  In  the  17th  century  Mabillon  and  other.® 
argued  against  their  Tra])pist  opponents,  that 
though  not  mentioned  expressly,  these  studies' 
are  implied  and  involved  in  the  Rule ;  that  as 
the  order  in  time  came  to  consist  more  and 
more  largely  of  students,  and  as  Latin  became  to 
them  a  dead  language,  instead  of  being  one  with 
which  they  were  habitually  familiar,  such  pur 
suits  became  for  them  an  absolute  necessitv 
(Mab.  Breve  Script,  de  Mm.  Stud.  Pat. ;  cf.  Mait 
land’s  Ea)'k  Ages,  158-171). 

The  Rule  of  Benedict  soon  reigned  alone  in 
Europe,  absorbing  into  itself  the  Rule  of  Colum- 
banus,  w'hich  had  been  dominant  in  Western 
Europe  (Mab.  Ann.  Praef.  i.  13,  v.  11).  In  Italy 
it  was  accepted  generally,  before  the  close  of  the 
century  in  which  Benedict  died  (Joan.  Diac. 
Vita  Greg.  M.  iv.  80).  It  was  probably  intro¬ 
duced  into  Gaul  during  his  lifetime  by  his 
disciple  Maurus,  from  whom  the  famous  monas¬ 
tery  of  St.  Maur  claims  its  name  ;  and  there  it  soon 
made  its  way,  its  comparative  elasticity  pre¬ 
vailing  over  the  rigidity  of  the  rival  system. 
Thus  Faremoutier  transferred  itself  from  the 
Columban  Rule  to  that  of  Benedict  (A.  Butler, 
Lives  of  the  Saints  s.  S.  Fara).  The  Council  of 
Aachen  in  788  a.d.  ordered  the  Benedictine  to 
be  observed,  and  no  other,  in  the  Empire  of 
Karl  and  his  son  (Cone.  Aquisgran. ;  cf  Cone. 
Augustod.  c.  15).  It  won  Germany  early  in  the 
9th  century  (Cone.  Mogunt.  c.  11  ;  cf  Pertz 
Legg.  1.  166,  c.  11),  and  Spain  in  the  next  cen¬ 
tury  (Mab.  Ann.  Praef  iv.  saec.).  It  is  a  question 
at  what  date  it  was  introduced  into  England ; 
whether  by  Benedict  Biscop,  by  Wilfrid  (Ling. 
Ang.-Sax.  Church,  ch.  5),  or,  as  Mabillon  and 
other  learned  writers  have  asserted  (see  in  A. 
Butler’s  Lives  of  the  Saints,  under  Benedict),  bv 
Augustine,  importing  it  from  the  monastery  of 
S.  Andrea  on  the  Caelian  hill,  under  the  auspices 
of  Gregory.  A  lax  Rule  probably  prevailed  till 
the  time  of  Dunstan  (see  Marsham’s  Praef 
to  Dugd.  Monastic.  Anglic. ;  cf  Cone.  Clovesh. 
747  A.D.).  [v.  Benedictus,  in  Diet.  Chr.  Biog.'] 

In  the  10th  century  the  Benedictine  Rule  held 
almost  universal  sway  in  Europe  (Pellic.  Polit, 
Ecc.  Chr.  1.  iii.  1,  §  4),  and  wherever  it  pene¬ 
trated,  it  was  the  pioneer  not  of  Christianity 
only,  but  of  civilization  and  of  all  humanizing 
influences.  For  their  labours  in  clearing  forests 
and  draining  swamps,  in  setting  an  example  of 
good  husbandry  generally,  as  well  as  for  having 
fostered  what  little  there  was  of  learning  and 
refinement  in  that  troublous  and  dreary  period, 
a  debt  of  gratitude  is  due  to  them,  which  cannot 
easily  be  overrated. 

For  more  than  three  centuries  after  its  insti¬ 
tution  one  Rule  sufficed  for  the  Benedictine 
order  generally.  Between  the  9th  and  15th 
centuries,  as  the  order  extended  itself  more 
widely,  and  as  reformers,  ardent  against  abuse.s, 
arose  here  and  there  in  its  ranks,  various  “  con¬ 
stitutions”  were  engrafted  on  the  original  Rule. 
For  so  early  as  in  the  8th  century  there  were 
symptoms  of  decay.  The  rich  endowments 
granted  by  kings  and  nobles  had  brought  with 
them,  as  was  inevitable,  the  seeds  of  luxury  and 
self-indulgence,  and  the  very  popularity  of  the 
“  religious  ”  life  often  gave  occasion  to  unreality 


192 


BENEDICTINE  BULE  AND  ORDEB 


m  professing  it.  Thus,  as  for  instance  in  England, 
when  it  had  become  the  foshion  for  kings  and 
queens  to  quit  their  palaces  for  a  monastery, 
and  to  lavish  their  treasures  on  it  (Bed.  Ecc. 
Hist.  iii.  19,  23,  24;  Ling.  A.-FI.  C.  i.  211,  214), 
this  fatal  munificence  served  to  attract,  in  the 
course  of  years,  oppressive  taxes,  or  spoliation  of 

more  downright  sort  (Bonif.  Ep.  ad  Cudbert. 
c.  11,  ap.  Bed.  Hist.  Ecc.  p.  353,  Hussey).  Often 
too  the  iium unity  (Pertz,  Le<jg.  i.  223)  and  com- 
jiarative  security  of  the  monastic  life  tempted  a 
noble  to  assume  the  name,  without  the  reality, 
of  abbat ;  in  order  to  escape  legal  obligations 
he  would  get  his  “  folkland  ”  converted  into 
“bocland”  on  pretence  of  conveying  it  to  the 
service  of  God,  and  there  would  live  with  his 
family  and  dependants,  an  abVjat  in  name  and  in 
tonsure,  but  in  nothing  more  (Bede,  Ep.  ad 
Egb.  ap.  Hist.  Ecc. ;  Ling.  A.-*?.  C.  i.  226-7,  230, 
407,  413).  The  need  of  reformation  soon  called 
into  existence  reformers.  Clugni,  in  the  10th 
century,  was  the  first  .separate  congregation,  with 
a  separate  Rule  of  its  own  (Mab.  Praef.  Ann. ; 
Thomass.  Vet.  et  Nova  Discipl.  1.  iii.  21,  25).  The 
four  centuries  which  followed  witnessed  the  birth 
of  more  than  twenty  “  Reformed  Orders,”  all  pro¬ 
fessing  to  hold  the  original  Rule  of  Benedict  in 
its  pristine  purity  and  integrity,  but  each  super¬ 
adding  its  own  special  exposition  of  the  Rule  as 
binding  on  its  members  (Hospin.  de  Mon.  p.  132). 
Monte  Casino,  the  head-quarters  at  first,  if  not  the 
birthplace,  of  the  order,  retained  its  supremacy, 
which,  according  to  some  authorities,  the  founder 
intended  for  it  (v.  note  on  Fleury,  Hist.  Ecc. 
xxxiii.  12),  for  some  three  centuries ;  its  primacy 
has  never  been  denied.  It  was  sacked  by  the 
Lombards  in  591  A.D.  (Clint.  Fast.  Rom.\  or 
580  A.o.  (Fleury,  Hist.  Ecc.  xxxiii.  10),  and  the 
fugitives  who  escaped  founded  the  Lateran 
Monastery  at  Rome  (Paul.  D.  Hist.  Lomh.  iv.  18  ; 
cf.  Mab.  Ann.  vii.).  In  the  beginning  of  the  8th 
century  it  rose  again  from  its  ruins,  and  received 
within  its  walls  Carloman,  weary  of  the  cares  of 
empire.  But  Odo,  the  founder  of  Clugni,  became 
“  General  ”  of  his  own  “  congregation,”  and  his 
example  has  been  followed  by  others  (Mab.  Ann. 
i.  19). 

Among  the  most  fomous  Benedictine  abbeys 
(the  term  is  a  specialty  of  the  order)  were, 
besides  those  already  mentioned,  Bamberg,  Font- 
evraud,  Fulda,  Sta.  Giustina  at  Padua,  including 
in  its  jurisdiction  Sta.  Scholastica  (A.  Butler, 
Lives  of  Saints  ;  see  St.  Bened.),  Grotta  Ferrata, 
Marmoutier,  S.  Paolo  fuori  near  Rome,  S.  Seve- 
rino  at  Naples,  &c.,  and  in  England,  St.  Albans, 
Glastonbury,  Malmesbury,  &c.,  with  many  of  our 
Cathedrals.  The  preference  of  the  old  Benedic¬ 
tines  for  mountainous  sites  is  proverbial : 

“  Bernardus  valles,  colies  Benedictus  amal  at.” 

It  would  be  endless  to  enumerate  the  dis¬ 
tinguished  members  of  the  order.  The  list  of 
those  belonging  to  Monte  Casino  alone,  during 
its  first  six  centuries,  fills  25  folio  pages  of 
Fabricius’  Bibliotheca  Ecclesiastica,  with  a  brief 
notice  of  each  (Petr.  Diac.  Ee  Vir.  III.  Casin.). 
Trithemius,  the  learned  abbat  of  Spanheim, 
counts  on  the  roll  of  the  order,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  16th  century,  18  popes  (Gueranger,  a.d. 
1862,  says  “  30,”  Enchirid.  Bened.  Praef.),  more 
than  200  cardinals,  1600  archbishops,  about 
4000  bishops,  and,  almost  incredible  as  it  sounds 


15,700  famous  abbats,  with  an  equal  number  of 
canonized  saints!  (v.  Fabric.  Bibl.  Ecc.  s.  v. ;  cf. 
Mab.  AA.  Praef.  vi. ;  Ziegelbauer  u.  Legipout ; 
Hist.  Lit.  0.  S.  B.).  St.  Paul  is  the  Patron 
Saint  of  the  Order. 

The  original  copy  of  the  Rule  is  said  to  have 
been  burnt  at  Teano,  near  Monte  Casino,  towards 
the  close  of  the  9th  century  (Leo  Marsic.  ap 
Mab.  Ann.  iii.  263).  Sigebertus  Gemblacensis,  in 
the  12th  century,  states  that  it  was  first  made 
public  by  Simplicius,  third  abbat  of  Monte  Casino 
(Fabric.  Bibl.  Ecc.  s.  v.  Bened.).  Ilospinian  gives 
no  authority  for  his  counter-statement,  that 
many  attribute  it  to  Gregory  the  Great  (De 
Monach.  p.  116).  Mabillon  assumes  it  to  have 
been  made  by  Benedict  himself  at  Monte  Casino 
about  528  A.D.  (Ann.  iii.  8;  A.  Butler,  TAves  of 
Saints,  see  St.  Bened.).  VVion  speaks  of  more 
than  a  hundred  editions  of  the  Rule  in  1554  a.d. 
(Lign.  Vit.  i.  7).  It  is  said  to  have  been  trans¬ 
lated  into  English  by  Dunstan  (Mign.  Braef.  Beg. 
S.  Bened.'). 

The  best  commentaries  on  it  are  those  of 
Martene  and  Calmet.  That  of  Me'ge  is  con¬ 
sidered  lax  by  stricter  Benedictines.  The  com¬ 
mentaries  of  Smaragdus,  probably  abbat  of  St. 
Michael’s,  not  Smaragdus  Ardo,  and  of  Ililde- 
marus,  a  E'rench  Benedictine  in  the  8th  cen¬ 
tury,  are  commended  by  Martene,  in  his  pre¬ 
face  to  the  Rule  (Mign.  Patrol.  Ixvi.);  also  that 
of  Bernardus,  a  monk  of  Lerins,  afterwards 
abbat  of  Monte  Casino  in  the  13th  century,  and 
one,  incomplete,  by  Trithemius  lately  mentioned. 
But  especially  he  praises  those  of  Menard,  a 
monk  of  St.  Denys,  who  afterwards  placed  him¬ 
self  under  the  stricter  rule  of  St.  Maur ;  and 
of  Haeften,  a  Benedictine  prior,  the  author  of  the 
prolix  Disquisitiones  Monasticae,  in  twelve  books, 
epitomized  by  Stengel  or  Stengelius.  Mabillon 
seems  to  have  contemplated  a  Commentary  on 
the  Rule,  but  from  want  of  time  to  have  resigned 
the  task  to  Martene  (Praef.  Peg.  S.  B.  ap.  l\Iign. 
Patrol.  Ixvi. ;  cf.  Not.  cc.  2,  9).  The  Rule  was 
harmonized  with  other  monastic  rules  by  Bene- 
dictus  Anianensis.  [See  Diet,  of  Chr.  Biogr.  s.  c.] 

The  following  are  important  works  on  the 
Benedictine  Rule  and  Order: 

Petr.  Diac.  Casin.  de  Vir.  Plustr.  Casin.  in 
Fabric.  Bibl.  Ecc.  and  de  Ortu  ct  Obit.  .Just. 
Casin.  in  Maii  Scr.  Vet.  Nov.  Coll,  and  Prolog. 
in  Vit.  S.  Placidi,  in  Martene  et  Durand,  Ampliss. 
Coll. ;  Leonis  Marsic.  et  Petr.  Diac.  Chronic.  Casin. 

“  ed.  W.  Wattenbach  in  Monum.  German.”  (l\Iign. 
Patrol,  s.  V.);  Reg.  S.  Bened.  C.  Comment.  Joan, 
de  Turre  Cremata  et  Smaragdi  Abb. ;  item 
IV.  Libri  de  Vir.  III.  0.  S.  B.  Joan.  Trithemii, 
Col.  Agr.  1575,  fol. ;  Arnold.  Wion,  Lignum  Vitae, 
Venet.  1595;  Me'ge,  Coinmentaire  sur  la  Regie  de 
St.  Benoit,  Jos.  !Mege  (de  St.  Maur)  Paris,  1687,  and 
Vie  de  St.  Benoit  avec  une  Histoire  de  son  (Jrdre, 
Paris,  1690;  Bulteau,  Histoire  de  COrdre  de  .St. 
Benoit,  Paris,  1691 ;  IMenard,  Martgrclog.  0.  S.  B. 
Par.  1629.  La  Regie  de  St.  Benoit  expliquce  par  ?.!. 
de  Ranee,  Abbe  de  la  Trappe,  Paris,  1690 ;  Martene, 
de  Ant.  Monach.  Bit.  Lugd.  1690,  and  Comment,  in 
Reg.  S.  B.  Paris,  1690  ;  Mabillonii  Annates  0.  S.  B. 
Paris,  1703  -39 ;  Dacherii  et  Mabillonii  AA.  SS. 
0.  S.  B.  Paris,  1668-1701 ;  l\Iabillouii  Breve 
Scriptum  de  Mmiast.  Stud.  Ratione  in  Bibl.  Ascet. 
Pezii ;  Berthelet,  Traite  historique  et  morale  sur 
r Abstinence,  1726,  Paris,  1731 ;  Calmet,  Comment. 
Hist,  et  Morale  sur  la  Regie  de  S.  B.  Par.  1734* 


BENEDICTION 


BENEDICTION 


103 


Holstemi  Codex  Regular.  Monast.  et  Canonic,  a 
R.  P.  Mariano  Brockie  illustratiis,  &c.,  Aug. 
Vindei.  17r)9 ;  Hist.  Lit.  0.  S.  R.,  Aug.  Vind. 
1754;  Ziegellauer  u.  Legipont.  Martyrologium 
des  Benedict.  Orrfens,  Augsburg,  1855;  St.  Benoit 
et  ses  Ordres  religieux.^  Lille,  1855;  Gueranger, 
Enchiridion  Benedictinum,  Andegav.  1862.  [1.  G.  S.] 

BENEDICTION,  the  spousal  or  nuptial. 
Among  the  Jews  special  benedictions  were  in  use 
both  for  betrothal  and  actual  marriage,  the  latter 
constituted,  as  with  the  Romans,  by  a  deductio  or 
procession  accompanying  the  bride ;  which  how- 
e^'er  with  the  Romans  had  for  its  goal  the  house 
of  the  husband,  with  the  Jews  the  nuptial  bed 
Uself.  A  passage  in  Tobit  (vii.  13,  14)  indicates 
the  close  connexion  of  the  blessing  with  what  we 
should  term  the  marriage  settlement.  Forms  ot 
both  benedictions  will  be  found  in  Selden’s  Cxor 
Hehraica,  bk.  ii.,  cc.  vii.,  xii.  But  Maimonides 
expressly  observes  (^Uxor.  FJhr.  bk.  ii.  c.  13)  that 
not  the  blessing  of  the  betrothed  makes  mar¬ 
riage,  but  the  leading  of  the  bride  to  the  nup¬ 
tial  bed. 

Certain  heathen  marriages,  e.  g.  the  Roman 
confarreatio,  being  also  accompanied  with  a 
benediction,  it  was  but  natural  that  the  same 
custom  should  prevail  in  reference  to  Christian 
ones.  A  good  deal,  however,  of  confusion  seems 
to  have  arisen  on  the  subject,  especially  through 
not  distinguishing  the  legal  and  spiritual  aspects 
of  the  benediction.  It  cannot  be  too  often  re¬ 
peated  that  for  many  centuries  both  betrothal 
and  marriage  were  in  the  eyes  of  the  Church 
primarily  civil  contracts,  valid  although  cele¬ 
brated  according  to  heathen  rites,  if  in  conformity 
with  the  civil  laAV,  subject  only  to  certain  peculiar 
Christian  restrictions.  It  is  not  meant,  however, 
by  these  expres-sions  that  such  contracts  were 
looked  on  as  merely  “  secular,”  as  many  would 
term  them  now,  or  “  profane,”  as  the  middle 
ages  termed  them.  For  Our  Lord  and  His  Apos¬ 
tles,  human  society  itself  was  a  sacred  thing  : 
the  State,  which  embodied  it  for  all  purposes  of 
civil  life,  was  sacred  (Rom.  xiii.,  1,  4,  6)  ;  mar¬ 
riage  above  all,  the  very  keystone  of  all  hivman 
society,  had  a  primordial  sacredness  (Matt.  xiv.  4), 
entirely  transcending  all  enactments  of  municipal 
or  ceremonial  law. 

But  this  view  in  nowise  prex^ented  the  Church 
from  claiming  spiritual  control  over  such  con¬ 
tracts  as  between  the  faithful,  from  recognizing 
and  sealing  their  unions  by  its  benediction,  or 
ex'en  from  looking  upon  such  unions  with  dis¬ 
favour  when  this  was  not  solicited.  Thus  the 
5th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius  to  Poly¬ 
carp  (admitted  by  Dr.  Cureton  as  genuine  into 
his  ‘  Corpus  Ignatianum  ’)  says  :  “  It  is  meet 
that  men  and  women  who  are  marrying  should 
unite  with  the  approval  of  the  bishop,  that  the 
marriage  be  according  to  the  law  and  not  ac¬ 
cording  to  lust.”  So  Tertullian  (writing  about 
A.D.  200),  in  his  work  De  Fudicitid,  speaks  of 
“secret  unions,  that  is,  not  first  declared  before 
the  church  ”  (non  prius  apud  ecclesiam  professae) 
as  running  the  risk  of  being  deemed  nigh  to  adul- 
tery  and  fornication.  Another  passage  of  his, 
(^Ad  Uxor.  c.  8),  is  generally  quoted  as  one  of  the 
first  distinct  authorities  in  favour  of  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  benediction  on  marriage.  According  to 
the  ordinary  reading,  it  runs  thus  :  “  How  should 
we  be  sufficient  to  set  forth  the  bliss  of  that 
marriage  which  the  Church  brings  about  (conci- 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


liat),  and  the  oblation  confirms,  and  the  benedic¬ 
tion  seals,  angels  proclaim,  the  Father  ratifies  ?  ” 
It  must,  however,  be  observed  that,  if  the  above 
reading  be  correct,  the  substitution  of  the  bene¬ 
diction  for  the  execution  of  the  tabulae  nuptiales, 
which  the  words  “  et  obsignat  beuodictio  ”  im¬ 
ply,  antedates  by  many  centuries  the  rule  of  the 
Church  in  the  matter.  It  is  remarkable,  too, 
as  pointed  out  by  Augusti,  that  one  text,  instead 
of  the  words  “et  obsignat  benedictio,  angeli  re- 
nuntiant,”  has  simply  “  et  obsignatum  angeli 
renuntiant,”  ‘  the  angels  proclaim  when  sealed,’ 
— a  reading  which  brings  back  the  passage  into 
accordance  with  the  law  and  practice  of  the  time, 
but  at  the  expense  of  the  decisive  word  “  bene¬ 
dictio  ”  itself."  That  such  benedictions  were 
pronounced,  however,  there  can  be  no  reason  to 
doubt.  Thus  Ambrose,  writing  against  mixed 
marriages,  says  :  “  For  since  marriage  itself 
should  be  sanctified  by  the  priestly  veil  (volamine 
sacerdotali)  and  by  benediction,  how  can  that  be 
called  a  marriage  where  there  is  no  agreement 
of  faith  ?  ”  (Bk.  ix.  Ep.  70).  But,  as  Sdden  has 
observed,  the  like  benedictions  were  often  claimed 
on  behalf  of  many  other  kinds  of  contract  besides 
that  of  marriage, — a  sale  for  instance.  The  total 
absence  from  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  of  any 
liturgical  formulae  relating  to  marriage,  and  of 
any  notice  of  church  usages  in  respect  to  it, 
seems  a  conclusive  proof  that  nothing  of  the  kind 
formed  part  of  the  ritual  of  the  early  church 
during  the  3  or  4  centuries  (or  even  more)  over 
which  the  collection  of  the  materials  for  the 
compilation  in  question  probably  extended. 

There  is  however  extant,  under  dates  ranging 
as  far  back  as  the  former  half  of  the  2nd  cen¬ 
tury,  a  whole  series  of  authorities  enfoi-cing  the 
necessity  of  the  ecclesiastical  benediction,  upon 
which  the  Church  of  Rome  has  unhesitatingly 
built  its  practice  as  to  the  ceremonial  validity  of 
the  rite,  and  which  have  been  quoted  without 
comment  by  Bingham  and  other  Protestant 
writers.  But  as  these  are,  for  the  most  part, 
spurious  documents  of  the  forged  Decretal  class, 
and  are  only  so  far  important  as  they  shew  the 
points  for  wfoich  it  was  sought  to  claim  the  sanc¬ 
tion  of  an  earlier  period,  and  thus  to  establish 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  clergy  in  matters  con¬ 
nected  with  marriage,  they  may  be  passed  over. 

Turning  to  the  Eastern  Church,  we  find  that 
Chrysostom  in  his  voluminous  w'orks  never  indi¬ 
cates  the  existence  of  a  marriage  liturgy,  or  the 
indispensableness  of  sacerdotal  benediction.  Two 
letters  of  Gregory  Nazianzen  show  clearly  that 
such  benediction  w’as  looked  upon  rather  as  a 
seemly  accompaniment  to  Christian  marriage  than 
as  a  condition  of  it,  since  the  writei’,  in  that  grace¬ 
ful  tender  style  of  which  he  is  a  master,  professes 
to  give  his  by  letter.  One  is  to  Procopius  (A/).  57, 
otherwise  44),  on  the  marriage  of  “  his  golden 
Olympias.”  “  I  join  to  each  other,”  he  writes, 
“  the  right  hands  of  the  young  people,  and  both 
to  that  of  God.  For  it  is  fitting  that  like  many 
other  good  things,  so  should  marriage  take  jdace 
in  the  best  way  in  all  respects,  and  according  to 
our  common  prayers.”  However  visible  may  be 

»  It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the  same  Tertullian, 
In  his  treatise  on  Idolatry  (c.  16),  expressly  admits  the 
purity  of  betrothal  and  marriage  in  themselves,  even 
when  celebrated  amongst  heathens,  and  therefore  the 
lawfulness  of  a  Christian’s  presence  at  botb.  See  post, 
art.  BKi'KOihAL. 


104 


BENEDICTION 


BENEDICTION 


here  the  habitual  form  of  Christian  marriage, 
nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than  that  the  inter¬ 
ference  of  the  Church  is  not  treatefl  as  indispens¬ 
able,  Another  letterto  EUsebius(171)  is  still  more 
conclusive,  as  shewing  that  whilst  Gregory  made 
it  a  rule,  whenever  present  at  a  wedding,  to  inter¬ 
pose  the  prayers  of  the  church,  the  actual  rites 
of  marriage  he  left  to  be  performed  by  others, 
and  considered  that  a  sufficient  consecration  of 
them  could  be  given  from  afar,  since  prayers 
“  are  not  bounded  by  space.” 

We  must  now  however  notice  a  singular  docu¬ 
ment,  which  is  included  by  Labbe'  and  Mansi 
among  those  of  the  4th  century,  and  appended 
by  them  to  the  Acts  of  the  Nicene  Council,  as 
being  attributed  to  the  Nicene  Fathers  by  a 
Vatican  codex.  It  is  termed  “  Sanctiones  et 
decreta  alia  ex  quatuor  I’egum  ” — quaere,  regu- 
lorum  ? — “ad  Constantinum  libris  decerpta  ” 
(L.  and  M.,  Councils,  vol.  ii.  p.  1029  and  foil.), 
and  is  written  in  Latin,  though  CA'idently  repre¬ 
senting  the  practice  of  the  Greek  Church.  The 
2nd  chapter  of  these  ‘  Sanctions  and  Decrees  ’ 
forbids  marriage  with  a  person’s  nuptial  para- 
nymphs,  with  whom  “  the  benediction  of  the 
crowns  ”  is  received.  Benedictions  are  mentioned 
in  like  manner  in  c.  6  and  7,  but  it  is  clear  that 
the  ceremony  of  the  Greek  ritual  known  as  the 
benediction  of  the  crowns,  and  not  the  Latin  bene¬ 
diction  of  the  marriage  itself,  is  what  the  above 
passages  refer  to.  But  when  we  attempt  to  fix  a 
date  for  the  work  which  contains  them,  we  shall 
be  compelled  to  carry  this  to  the  second  half  of 
the  6th  century  at  earliest.  For  it  is  a  re 
markable  fact  that  Justinian’s  legislation,  mi¬ 
nutely  occupied  as  it  is  with  Church  matters, 
never  once  refers  to  the  ecclesiastical  benedic¬ 
tion  of  marriage  :  it  requires  a  will  to  see  it, 
as  some  have  done,  in  the  mere  expression 
“  vota  nuptialia;”  and  this  although  it  will 
be  seen  (Contract  of  maiTiage)  that  a  kind 
of  church-registration  of  marriages  was  pro¬ 
vided  for. 

It  is  however  by  no  means  improbable  that 
between  the  6th  and  7th  centuries  the  regular 
practice  of  an  ecclesiastical  benediction  upon 
marriage,  and  the  Greek  ritual  of  marriage  itself, 
became  established.  And  it  is  a  well-known 
Greek  name  which  now  carries  us  back  to  the 
next  Western  authority  on  the  subject, — that  of 
the  canons  of  a  Council,  held  in  England  towards 
the  end  of  the  7th  century,  under  Archbishop 
Theodore,  which  enact  that  “in  a  first  marriage 
the  priest  should  perform  the  mass  and  bless 
both  ”  parties  (c.  59)  ;  implying,  it  would  seem, 
the  practice  set  foi'th  by  the  ‘  Sanctions  and 
Decrees,’  of  confining  the  blessing  to  the  as  yet 
unmarried  party  only,  where  the  other  has  been 
married  already. 

In  the  Carlovingian  era,  finally — to  which  be¬ 
long  the  head  springs  of  the  great  stream  of  church 
forgeries, —  forgeries  which,  amongst  other  au¬ 
thorities,  have  so  dealt  with  the  Capitularies 
themselves  that  it  is  frequently  impossible  to 
determine  the  precise  age  of  a  given  text — the 
priestly  benediction  entered  into  the  civil  law  as 
an  essential  requisite  of  marriage;  and  the  various 
spurious  authorities  from  the  annals  of  the 
Western  Church  above  commented  on  were 
apparently  invented  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
back  to  a  remote  period  the  ecclesiastical  re¬ 
cognition  of  its  necessity.  And  it  may  be  ob-  | 


served  that  the  mention  of  it  almost  invariably 
occurs  in  connexion  with  the  subject  of  consan¬ 
guinity, — another  great  source  of  clerical  in¬ 
fluence  and  income  in  its  relation  to  marriage, 
which  has  been  even  more  prolific  in  suggestions 
of  pious  fraud.  By  the  35th  article  of  tlie  first 
Capitulary  of  802,  none  are  to  be  married  before 
inquiry  be  made  as  to  whether  they  are  related  ; 
“and  then  let  them  be  united  with  a  benedic¬ 
tion.”  (Comp,  also  vi.  130,  vii.  179,  viii.  408.) 
The  473rd  article  (vii.  473),  “  on  lawful  mar¬ 
riage  ”  is  almost  exactly  identical  in  its  wording 
with  the  supposed  letter  of  Pope  Ev’aristus,  and 
may,  it  is  submitted,  be  fairly  deemed  its  ori¬ 
ginal. 

We  may  briefly  refer  to  certain  canons  of  the 
patriarch  Nicephorus,  recorded  by  Cotelerius,  and 
perhaps  enacted  at  the  Council  of  Constantinople- 
in  A.D.  814,  which  indicate  that  at  this  period  at 
least  the  benediction  was  by  the  Church  decreed 
to  constitute  the  marriage.  If  any  having  a 
concubine  would  neither  leave  her  nor  allow  her 
to  receive  the  benediction,  and  have  her  with  the 
sacramental  rite,  his  ofterings  were  not  to  be 
received  (can.  xxxiv.).  And  lastly,  the  well- 
known  document  known  as  the  reply  of  Po{)e 
Nicolas  to  the  Bulgarians,  though  belonging 
only  to  the  latter  half  of  the  9th  centurv,  pre¬ 
serves  to  us  probably  the  practice  of  the  Roman 
Church  on  this  subject  from  an  earlier  period. 
It  indicates  evidently  a  different  ceremonial  from 
that  of  the  Greek  Church,  and  although  dwelling 
on  the  formalities  of  betrothal,  .speaks  of  no  bless¬ 
ing  but  the  nuptial  one. 

To  sum  up  the  conclusions  of  this  inquiry  ; 
1st.  There  never  was  a  period  when  the  Christian 
Church  did  not  rejoice  to  sanction  the  nuptial 
rite  by  its  benedictions,  and  did  not  exhort  the 
faithful  to  obtain  them  for  their  unions.  2nd. 
But  having  a  profound  faith  in  the  primordial 
sanctity  of  marriage  in  itself,  many  centuries 
elapsed  before  the  pronouncing  of  such  a  benedic¬ 
tion  was  held  essential  to  the  validity  of  marriage, 
when  duly  contracted  according  to  the  municipal 
law,  and  not  contrary  to  the  .special  ethical  rules 
of  the  Church  in  reference  to  marriage.  3rd. 
Hence  the  total  absence  of  marriage  liturgies 
from  the  early  Christian  rituals,  extending  to 
about  the  beginning  of  the  7th  century;  the 
genuineness  of  the  one  in  the  Gelasian  Missal 
(end  of  the  5th  century)  being  confessedly  im¬ 
pugned  by  the  absence  of  any  in  the  Gregorian, 
a  century  later.  4th.  It  may  however  be  ad¬ 
mitted  that  by  the  end  of  the  7th  century  the 
priestly  benediction  of  marriage  had  probably 
become  the  rule  in  both  great  branches  (divisions 
not  yet)  of  the  Church  ;  and  in  the  course  of  the 
8th  and  9th  centuries  it  hardened  into  a  legal 
institution  within  the  domains  of  the  great 
usurpers  of  the  West,  the  Carlovingians,  being 
now  largely  supported  by  supposititious  church 
authorities,  carried  back  as  far  as  the  beginning 
of  the  2nd  century.  5th.  It  is  also  possible 
that  about  this  period  a  practice  of  sacerdotally 
blessing  betrothals  likewise  grew  up,  and  promis¬ 
ing  to  open  a  new  source  of  income  to  the  clergy 
and  above  all  to  the  Roman  pontifts,  was  in  like 
manner  sought  to  be  maintained  by  spurious 
authorities  ;  but  the  date  of  this  cannot  be  fixed 
earlier  than  a.d.  860,  since  Pope  Nicol.is,  in  his 
reply  to  the  Bulgarians,  clearly,  speaks  only  of 
the  nuptial  benediction.  [J.  M.  L.J 


BENEDICTIONS 


BENEDICTIONS 


195 


BENEDICTIONS.  (^Benedictio,  euAoyla.) 

1.  Definition,  ^-c. — Like  many  other  points  of 
ritual,  the  practice  of  benediction  passed  from 
the  Jewish  to  the  Christian  Church.  In  the  in¬ 
fancy  of  the  former,  under  Aaron,  we  discover 
the  existence  of  the  blessing  of  the  congregation 
by  the  priest  after  the  morning  and  the  evening 
sacrifice  (Lev.  ix.  22);  and  later  notices  may  be 
seen  in  1  Chron.  xxiii.  13,  Ecclus.  xxxvi.  17,  xlv. 
15,1.  20.  The  actual  form  is  prescribed  in  Num. 
vi.  22  sqq. ;  cf.  Ps.  Ixvii.  1. 

The  benediction,  ordinarily  pronounced  by 
priests  (as  e.g.  in  the  case  of  Zacharias,  for 
whose  blessing  the  people  waited,  Luke  i.  21), 
would  on  occasions  of  special  solemnity  be  re¬ 
served  for  the  high  priest.  Even  the  king,  as 
the  viceroy  of  the  Most  High,  might  give  the 
blessing  (cf.  2  Sam.  vi.  18,  1  Kings  viii.  55, 
1  Chron.  xvi.  2).  It  would  appear  that  Levites 
had  ordinarily,  though  not  invariably,  the  power 
of  giving  the  blessing.  Cf.  perh.  2  Chron.  xxx.  27. 

The  actual  formula  referred  to  above  does  not 
occur  in  the  New  Testament,  though  our  Lord 
is  spoken  of  as  blessing  little  children  and  His 
disciples  (Mark  x.  16,  Luke  xxiv.  50),  besides 
the  blessing  on  the  occasion  of  the  institution  of 
the  Eucharist  (Matt.  xxvi.  26).  Still,  the  gene¬ 
ral  tenor  and  form  of  the  blessing,  must  have 
been  similar,  and  the  familiar  “  peace  ”  of  the 
benediction  is  probably  a  relic  of  the  old  Aaron- 
itic  form. 

Before  proceeding  to  consider  the  various  oc¬ 
casions  of  benediction  in  the  Christian  Church, 
attention  may  be  called  to  the  strict  definition 
of  the  term,  in  contradistinction  from  the  allied 
expressions,  consecration,  dedication,  although  the 
distinction  is  not  unfrequently  lost  sight  of. 
Benediction,  then,  may  be  defined  to  be  a  certain 
holy  action  which,  combined  with  prayer,  seeks 
for  God's  grace  for  persons,  and,  in  a  lower  de- 
gi’ee,  a  blessing  upon  things,  with  a  view  whether 
to  their  efficiency  or  safety.  We  may  add  St. 
Ambrose’s  definition  (^De  Benedictionibus  Patri- 
archarum,  c.  2),  “  Benedictio  est  sanctificationis 
et  gratiarum  votiva  collatio.”  On  this  point  the 
following  extracts  may  be  cited  from  Gillebert 
(bishop  of  Limerick  in  the  12th  century),  De 
Usu  Ecclesiastico,  in  Du  Cange’s  Glossary,  s.  vv. 
“  Consecrare,”  “  Benedictio.”  “  Dedicat  pontifex 
atrium,  templum,  altare,  tabulam  altaris.  De- 
dicare  enim  est  locum  Deo  offerre,  benedicere  et 
sanctificare.  Consecrat  autem  episcopus  uten- 
silia  ecclesiae,  quae  fere  omnibus  sacerdotibus 
sunt  communia,  vestimenta  videlicet  sacerdotalia 
et  pontificalia,  altaris  velamina,  calicem,  patenam 
et  corporalia  et  vasculum  Eucharistiae,  chrisma, 
oleum,  vas  chrismale,  thus  et  thuribulum,  baptis- 
terium,  arcam  vel  scrinium  reliquiarum,  cibo- 
riuin,  id  est  altaris  umbraculum,  crucem,  tin- 
tinnabulum  et  ferruin  judiciale.  Ea  enim  tantum 
consecrat  quae  a  communi  usu  in  cultum  divinum 
separantur.”  .  .  .  “  Benedicere  autem  dico  prae- 
sulem  ea  quae  non  sunt  utensilia  ecclesiae,  con¬ 
secrare  vero  ipsa  utensilia.  Benedicit  ergo  pon¬ 
tifex  reginam,  et  virginem  cum  velatur,  et  quem- 
libet  fidelem  benedici  postulantem  et  totum 
populum  ante  pacem.”  These  benedictions  may 
not  be  conferred  by  a  priest  in  the  presence  of  a 
bishop.  Gillebert  had  previously  said,  “Bene¬ 
dicere  potest  praesente  episcof  o  aquam  et  sal  in 
Dominicis  sacerdos  et  prandium  et  sponsum  et 
aquam  judicii  vei  panem  et  caetera.  In  absentia 


vero  episcojd  potest  benedicere  coronam  clerici 
et  velum  viduae,  novos  fructus,  candelas  in  Puri- 
ficatione  S.  Mariae,  cineres  in  capite  jejuuii, 
ramos  in  Dominica  Palinarum,  et  peregrinaturos 
et  lecturum  Evangelium,  et  populum  cum  dimit- 
titur,  aquam  benedictam  aspergit  ad  benediceudas 
novas  domos  et  caetera  nova.” 

II.  Minister  of  Benediction. — It  will  be  obvious 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  a  benediction 
is  imparted  by  a  superior  to  an  inferior  (cf.  Heb. 
vii.  7,  where  this  is  explicitly  stated).  Hence 
it  is  laid  down  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (viii. 
28)  that  a  bishop  may  bestow  the  blessing,  and 
receive  it  from  other  bishops,  but  not  from 
priests;  .so  too  a  priest  may  bless  his  fellow- 
priests  and  receive  the  blessing  from  them  or 
from  a  bishop ;  the  deacon  merely  receives  and 
cannot  impart  the  blessing.  Thus  if  a  bishop  be 
present,  to  him  does  the  Benedictio  super  pi  bem 
appertain,  and  only  in  the  absence  of  a  bishop, 
unless  special  authority  be  given,  is  it  permitted 
to  the  priest,  whose  blessing,  however,  is  not 
held  as  of  the  same  .solemn  import  as  that  of  the 
bishop. 

The  ancient  Sacramentaries  do  not  distinguish 
between  Episcopal  and  Sacerdotal  blessings; 
while  in  later  times  a  minutely  developed  system 
has  been  formed,  as  may  be  seen,  for  example, 
from  the  extracts  from  Gillebert  gix'en  above. 
To  enter,  however,  at  any  length  into  the.se  ac¬ 
cretions  is  foreign  to  our  present  scope.  It  will 
suffice  to  allude  to  one  or  two  general  points. 
Here  will  appertain  the  division  of  Benedictions 
into  solemnes  and  communes,  magnae  and  parvae, 
and  the  like,  although  these  distinctions  are  by 
‘no  means  uniformly  explained.  The  benedictio 
solemnis  appears  to  belong  strictly  to  the  bishop, 
■ind,  in  his  absence,  to  the  pznest  acting  as  his 
representative  :  other  benedictions,  it  has  been 
seen,  the  priest  may  confer  in  the  presence  of 
the  bishop.  In  no  case,  however,  can  they  be 
imparted  by  a  deacon  or  layman  (cf.  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  viii.  48,  iii.  10). 

The  distinction  between  the  b.  parva  and  the 
b.  magna  is  variously  explained  :  by  some  they 
are  held  to  be  the  blessings  conferred  by  priest 
and  bishop  respectively ;  by  others,  that  the 
former  implies  a  private  benediction,  the  latter 
a  public  and  solemn  one  (cf.  Cotelier’s  note,  Pa- 
■  tres  Apost.  i.  284.  ed.  1698). 

Here  may  be  added  a  remark  as  to  special 
powers  of  blessing  possessed  by  abbots.  Their 
pre-eminence  above  priests  in  general  consists  in 
a  superioidty  of  jurisdiction,  not  in  a  higher 
order  of  consecration.  From  the  8th  century, 
however,  abbots  who  were  priests  have  j)ossessed 
sundry  episcopal  rights  both  of  benediction  within 
the  limits  of  their  own  cloisters  and  even  of 
several  lower  forms  of  consecration,  the  latter 
of  which  indeed  was  specially  allowed  by  the 
second  General  Council  of  Nicea,  a.d.  787,  can. 
14  (Labbe'  and  Cossai*t,  Concilia  vii.  909).  Tliis 
example  seems  to  have  been  further  acted  on,  for 
in  the  time  of  Charlemagne  we  find  abbesses 
assuming  to  themselves  the  right  of  conferring 
benedictions  even  upon  men,  with  laying  on  of 
hands  and  the  sign  of  the  cross,  although  this 
was  distinctly  prohibited.  (Baluzius,  Capitularia 
Beg.  Fram:.  [anno  789]  i.  238,  ed.  Paris,  1677.) 

III.  Objects  of  Benediction. —  It  will  be  readily 
seen  that  Benedictions  may  be  divided  into  Litur¬ 
gical  and  non-Liturgical,  that  is,  into  such  as 

O 


196 


BENEDICTIONS 


BENEDICTIONS 


are  in  immediate  eonnection  with  various  holy 
offices,  and  those  which  may  be  viewed  as  inde¬ 
pendent  offices.  Those  of  the  former  class 
specially  regard  persons,  those  of  the  latter 
may  regard  either  persons  or  things.  We 
shall  touch  briefly  on  each  class  of  objects 
separately. 

(A.)  Benedictions  of  Persons. — Here  may  be 
reckoned  in  the  first  place  all  Liturgical  bless¬ 
ings,  whether  (a)  general,  the  blessing  communi¬ 
cated  to  the  whole  congregation  in  the  dismis¬ 
sion-formula  (JnrdKvais),  as  Dorninus  vobiscum, 
pax  vobiscum,  &c.,  in  the  ordinary  services  of  the 
Church,  as  those  of  the  Canonical  Hours,  of  which 
the  Benediction  is  an  essential  element  in  both 
Eastern  and  Western  ritual,  varying  however  in 
the  former  according  to  the  day  of  the  week  :  or 
— (B)  special,  as  those  at  the  Eucharist,  Baptism, 
Ordination,  Marriage,  Penance,  Extreme  Unction, 
Burial.  We  shall  briefly  comment  here  on  the 
E<’nedictions  entering  with  the  first  of  these 
offices,  for  the  others  reference  may  be  made  to 
the  several  articles  on  these  rites. 

The  old  Latin  Sacrameutaries  agree  in  placing 
a  Benediction  in  the  Mass  after  the  Lord’s 
Prayer  and  before  the  Communion,  a  custom 
which,  in  the  Romish  ritual,  appears  to  have 
been  introduced  from  the  Gallicau  and  Moza- 
rabic  Liturgies  (Daniel,  Cod.  Liturg.  i.  141). 
Up  to  this  point  the  congregation  was  pro¬ 
hibited  from  leaving,  as  e.g.  by  the  Council  of 
Agde  (506  A.D.)  and  the  First  and  Third  Councils 
of  Orleans  (511  and  538  a.d.).  “  Missas  die  Do- 

miuico  a  saecularibus  totas  teneri  speciali  ordi- 
natione  praecipimus,  ita  ut  ante  benedictionem 
sacerdotis  populus  egredi  non  praesumat.”  {Cone. 
Agath.  can.  47  ;  Labb^  iv.  1391.)  Menard  {Greg. 
Sacram.  p.  ‘297 ;  but  cf.  Mabillon,  De  Liturgia  Galli- 
cana,  i.  4,  §  13, 14)  refers  this  to  the  benediction  at 
the  end  of  the  Mass.  “Populus  non  ante  discedat 
quam  Missae  solennitas  compleatur,  et  ubi  epis- 
copus  merit,  benedictionem  accipiat  sacerdotis.” 
{Cone.  Aurel.  1.  can.  26;  Labbe,  iv.  1408.  Sirmond 
remarks  that  the  edd.  have  no  MS.  authority  for 
prefixing  a  negative  to  fuer it,  and  that  the  error 
is  appai'ently  due  to  its  not  being  perceived  that 
episcopus  and  sacerd  >s  are  used  synonymously.) 
“  De  Missis  nullus  laicorum  ante  discedat  quam 
Dominica  dicatur  oratio  ;  et  si  episcopus  praesens 
fuerit  ejus  benedictio  expectetur.”  {Cone.  Aur. 
HI.  can.  29;  Labbe',  v.  302.)  The  Mass  in  one 
sense  was  now  over,  and  thus  those  who  did  not 
communicate  might  leave.  (Cf.  Greg.  Tur., 
De  Jliraculis  S.  Martini,  ii.  47 :  “  Cumque  ex- 
plctis  Missis  populus  coepisset  sacrosanct um 
corpus  Redemptoris  accipere.”)  We  may  further 
cite  the  injunction  laid  down  by  the  Fourth 
Council  of  Toledo  (633  A.D.)^  which,  after  finding 
fault  with  those  priests  who  “  post  dictam  ora- 
tionem  Dominicam  statim  communicant  et  postea 
benedictionem  in  populo  dant,”  proceeds  “  post 
or.  Dom.  et  conjunctiouem  panis  et  calicis  bene¬ 
dictio  in  populum  sequatur,  et  turn  demum  cor¬ 
poris  et  sanguinis  Domini  sacramentum  sumatur  ” 
(can.  18  ;  Labbe",  v.  1711).  This  may  be  further 
illustrated  by  a  remark  of  Caesarius  of  Arles,  to 
the  effect  that  he  who  wishes  “  Missas  ad  inte¬ 
grum  cum  luci’o  animae  suae  celebrare  ”  must 
remain  in  the  church  “  usquequo  or.  Dom.  di¬ 
catur  et  benedictio  populo  detur.”  {Serm.  281, 
§  2 ;  Migne,  xxxix.  2277.)  This  benediction, 
which  is  properly  the  prerogative  of  the  bishop, 


is  uttered  generally  in  three,  sometimes  however 
in  four  and  even  five  or  more  divisions,  at  the 
end  of  each  of  which  is  responded.  Amen. 

The  following  is  the  manner  in  which  this 
Benediction  is  ordinarilv  introduced.  The  deacon, 
if  one  be  present,  having  called  with  a  loud 
voice.  Humiliate  vos  benedictioni  (cf.  Caesarius, 
Serm.  286,  §  7),  the  imparter  of  the  blessing  fol¬ 
lows  with  Dorninus  sit  semper  vobiscum,  to  which 
is  responded  Et  cum  spiritu  tm ;  then  follows 
the  benediction.  As  showing  the  nature  of  this, 
we  subjoin  the  benediction  for  the  festival  of 
St.  Stephen,  from  three  old  Latin  Liturgies,  the 
Gallican,  the  Gregorian,  and  the  Mozarabic  re¬ 
spectively  (Migne,  Ixxii.  232  ;  Ixxviii.  33  ;  Ixxxv. 
199).  “  Deus,  qui  tuos  martyres  ita  vinxisti 

caritate  ut  pro  te  etiam  mori  cuperent,  ne  peri- 
rent,  Amen;  et  beatum  Stephanum  in  confes- 
sione  ita  succendisti  fide,  ut  inibrem  lapidum  non 
timeret.  Amen,  Exaudi  precem  familiae  tuae 
amatoris  inter  festa  plaudentem.  Amen.  Acce- 
dat  ad  te  vox  ilia  intercedens  pro  populo,  pro 
inimicis  quae  orabat  in  ipso  martyrio,  Arnen. 
Ut  se  obtinente  et  te  remunerante,  perveriat 
illuc  plebs  adquaesita  per  gratiam,  ubi  te,  caelis 
apertis,  ipse  A^idit  in  gloriam.  Amen.  Quod  Ipse 
praestare  digneris,  qui  cum  Patre  et  Spiritu 
Sancto  vivis  et  reguas  in  saecula  saeculorum.” 
“  Deus  qui  beatum  Stephanum  Protomartyrem 
corona vit,  et  confessione  fidei  et  agone  martvrii 
mentes  vestras  circumdet,  et  in  praesenti  saeculo 
corona  justitiae,  et  in  futuro  perducat  vos  ad 
coronam  gloriae.  Amen.  Illius  obteutu  tribuat 
vobis  Dei  et  proximi  charitate  semper  exuberare, 
qui  hanc  studuit  etiam  inter  lapidantium  im¬ 
petus  obtinere.  Amen,  Quo  ejus  exemplo  robo- 
rati,  et  intercessione  muniti,  ab  eo  quern  ille  a 
dextris  Dei  vidit  stantem,  mereamiui  benedici. 
Amen.  Quod  Ipse  .  .  .  .”  “  Ghristus  Dei  Filius, 

pro  cujus  nomine  Stephanus  martyr  lapidatus 
est  innocens,  contra  incursantium  daemonum 
ictus  vos  efficiat  fortioi'es,  Amen.  Quique  eum 
pro  inimicis  orantem  consummate  martyrio  pro- 
vexit  ad  caelum,  conferat  in  vobis  ut  sine  con- 
fusione  ad  eum  A'eniatis  post  trausitum.  Amen. 
Ut  illic  laetatura  post  istud  saeculum  aocedat 
anima  A’estra,  quo  praedictus  martyr  spiritum 
suum  suscipi  exorabat.  Amen.” 

Besides  tfie  above,  there  was  here  also  a  short 
benediction  at  the  end  of  the  service,  such  as 
“  Pax  Domini  sit  semper  vobiscum,”  or  the  two 
following  taken  from  Saxon  offices,  “  Benedictio 
Dei  Patris  Omnipotentis  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti 
maneat  semper  vobiscum.”  “  B.  Dei  Patris  et 
Fil.  et  S.  S.  et  pax  Domini  sit  semper  vobiscum.” 
(Palmer,  Grig.  Lit.  iv.  §  24.) 

By  way  of  illustration  of  this  last  we  may 
cite  Amalarius  {De  Eccl.  Off.  iii.  36),  “  Hunc 
morem  tenet  sacerdos,  ut  post  omnia  Sacramenta 
consummata  benedicat  populo ;  ”  and  Rabanus 
Maurus  {De  Inst.  Cleric,  i.  33),  “  Post  commu- 
nionem  ergo,  et  post  ejusdem  nominis  cantieum, 
data  Benedictione  a  sacerdote  ad  plebem,  diaconus 
praedicat  Missae  officium  esse  peractum,  dans 
licentiam  abeundi.” 

In  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (lib.  viii.),  it  is 
ordained  that  before  the  Missa  Fidelium  a  solemn 
dismission-blessing  should  be  pronounced  OA’er 
catechumens,  energumens,  and  penitents  (cc. 
6-8).  The  solemn  blessing  OA'er  the  congrega¬ 
tion  is  to  be  found  later  (c.  15)  after  the  com¬ 
munion,  the  deacon  haA’ing  first  uttered  the 


BENEDICTIONS 


BENEDICTIONS 


197 


usual  form,  ©€a?  8iot  rou  Kptartov  avrov 
Kkii'aTe  /cat  evKoysTaOe. 

The  blessings  entering  into  Eastern  liturgies 
are  frequent ;  and  we  find  them  at  various  points 
of  the  service  introduced  by  the  formula  ev\6y.i- 
(Tov  Secnrora.  It  has  been  remarked  as  in  some 
degree  significant  of  the  characters  of  the  two 
great  divisions  of  Christendom  that  when  such 
a  request  as  the  above  has  been  made  by  the 
deacon  to  the  priest,  in  the  Western  Church  the 
latter  proceeds  to  invoke  God’s  blessing  on  the 
congregation  and  himself,  in  the  Eastern  Church 
he  answers  it  as  a  rule  by  an  ascription  of  praise 
to  God.  Thus  at  the  beginning  of  the  Prothesis 
(or  introductory  part  of  the  Eucharistic  Service) 
in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom,  the  deacon’s 
request  to  bless  is  answered  by  ev\oyr}rhs  6 
0el)s  Tjfiwv  7rdvTOT€  yvu  Kal  del  /cal  els  robs 
alccvas  ruv  alwvuv.  'KfXT]v.  (Daniel,  iv.  329, 
and  often.)  Or  again,  we  may  cite  the  form  as 
used  at  the  beginning  of  the  proanaphoi*al  part 
of  the  Liturgy  (i.e.,  the  continuation  of  the 
service  ap  to  the  Sursum  cordd)  evKoyii)p.evi)  ^ 
fiaciKela  Tov  Tlarphs  /col  toD  T,  koI  rov  'A. 
Uv.  vvv  Kal  del,  (ih.  340). 

The  long  benediction  we  have  spoken  of  as 
occurring  in  Latin  liturgies  after  the  Lord’s 
Prayer,  is  not  found  in  the  Eastern  ritual,  at 
the  corresponding  part  of  which  occurs  what  is 
known  as  the  ‘‘  Prayer  of  Inclination,”  answei*- 
ing  in  character  to  the  “prayer  of  humble 
access”  of  our  own  church.  (Neale,  Holy 
Eastern  Churchy  Introd.  p.  515.) 

A  further  enumeration  of  the  benedictions  of 
Greek  liturgies  appertains  rather  to  a  description 
of  the  Eastern  Eucharistic  offices ;  it  may,  how¬ 
ever,  be  mentioned  that  in  addition  to  the  final 
dismission-blessing,  universal  here  as  in  the 
Latin  ritual,  some  of  the  Eastern  liturgies  (as 
those  of  St.  jiark  and  the  Coptic  so-called  liturgy 
of  St.  Basil)  give  a  long  benediction  after  the 
post-communion  prayers  of  thanksgiving  (see 
e.g.  Neale,  ih.  pp.  G88,  694);  also  the  Nestoi’ian 
liturgy  of  Theodore  the  interpreter  closes  with 
a  similar  benediction  (Daniel,  iv.  193).  The 
above  are  too  long  for  quotation  here,  but  we 
may  cite  as  an  example  of  a  Greek  benediction 
the  final  blessing  from  the  liturgy  of  St.  Mark 
(Daniel,  iv.  170):  evKoyelro)  6  &ehs  6  eh\oy<ru 
Kal  ayii^cvv  Kal  (TKeiruv  Kal  StaTrjpaju  iravras 
vyas  8ia  ttjs  /xede^ews  Toip  aylaiu  avrov  pva- 
rripiwv,  6  S>u  evKoyrirhs  els  robs  o.  ruy  a. 
It  may  be  mentioned  as  a  curious  peculiarity 
that  in  the  Constantinopolitan  rite  the  priest 
does  not  give  the  final  blessing  till  he  has  dis¬ 
robed  (Daniel,  iv.  372). 

At  the  cud  of  the  Ethiopic  liturgy  is  a  prayer 
of  the  people,  of  the  nature  of  a  benediction, 
spoken  after  the  blessing  of  the  bishop  or  priest 
has  been  pronounced,  preluded  too  by  the  call 
of  the  deacon  to  kneel :  “  May  the  Lord  bless  us 
His  servants  .  .  . 

Besides  the  above,  there  was  another  solemn 
benediction,  the  special  prerogative  of  the 
bishop,  the  b,  matutinalis  et  vesyerthialis,  said, 
as  its  name  implies,  at  the  end  of  matins  and 
vespers.  For  this  we  may  again  refer  to  the 
Council  of  Agde  (can.  30),  “  Plebs  collecta  ora- 
tione  ad  vesperam  ab  episcopo  cum  benedictione 
dimittatur.”  (Labbe",  iv.  1388  ;  cf.  also  Cone. 
Barcell.  [540  a.d.]  can.  2  ;  ib.  v.  378.) 

Oi  non-liturgical  blessings  appertaining  to  per¬ 


sons,  we  may  briefly  speak  here  of  the  general 
blessing,  properly  though  not  exclusively  the 
episcopal  prerogative,  as  may  be  seen  from  e.g. 
Basil,  Ep.  199,  §  27  [iv.  724,  ed.  Migne],  and 
Athanasius,  Vita  S.  Anton,  c.  67.  It  would 
seem  that,  especially  on  the  enti’ance  of  a  bishop 
into  a  place,  his  blessing  was  reverently  be¬ 
sought  by  the  people.  Cf.  Chrys.  Horn.  Encorn. 
in  Mel.  §  2;  Aug.  Ep.  33,  §  5  [ii.  131,  ed. 
Migne];  and  Greg.  Nyss.  Vita  Macrinae  [iii.  976, 
Migne].  This  blessing  was  eagerly  sought  for 
even  by  princes,  as  by  Clodoveus  from  Remigius, 
or  by  the  Empress  Eudoxia  from  the  Bishop 
Porphyrins  (^Acta  Sanctorum,  i.  154  Oct. ;  iii. 
653  Feb.).  This  may  be  further  illustrated  by 
a  statement  of  Philostorgius  (see  Yalesius’  note 
on  Theodoret  iv.  5)  to  the  effect  that  when  all 
the  other  bishops  went  to  pay  homage  to  Eu- 
sebia,  wife  of  the  Emperor  Constans,  Leontius, 
Bishop  of  Tripoli,  refused  to  do  so  save  on  the 
condition  that  the  empress  should  rise  at  his 
approach,  and  with  bowed  head  ask  his  blessing. 
It  was  allowed  by  the  Council  of  Epao  [517  a.d.] 
for  people  of  rank  (cives  superiorum  natalium) 
to  invite  the  bishop  to  themselves  to  receive  his 
blessing  at  Christmas  and  Easter. 

(P.)  Benedictions  of  things.  Before  proceed¬ 
ing  to  enumerate  some  of  the  more  striking 
cases  of  benedictions  of  things,  we  may  once 
more  call  attention  to  the  distinction  already 
dwelt  on  between  benediction  and  the  stronger 
term  consecration,  in  that  in  the  one  regard  is 
had  but  to  the  bestowal  of  certain  grace  or 
efficacy,  whereas  in  the  other,  a  thing  is  not 
only  destined  for  a  holy  use,  but  is  viewed  as 
changed  into  a  holy  thing.  Augusti  (^Denkwur- 
digk.  X.  192)  brings  out  this  distinction  by  a 
comparison  of  the  phrases  panis  benedictus  and 
panis  consecratus  ;  and  so  the  Greek  Church  re¬ 
cognizes  the  difference  between  evXoyla  on  the 
one  hand  and  ayiaa’fj.Ss  or  Kadiepwais  on  the 
other.  Similar  is  the  distinction  between  bene- 
dictiones  invocativae  and  b.  constituUvae,  sacra- 
tivae,  destinativae,  the  names  of  Avhich  show  that 
the  one  invoke  God’s  grace,  the  other  dedicate 
permanently  to  His  service. 

We  shall  now  enumerate  some  of  the  more 
frequent  instances  of  special  benedictions  of 
thing.s,  for  detailed  information  respecting  whic’n 
reference  may  be  made  to  the  separate  articles. 

(I)  B.  fontis,  the  blessing  of  the  baptismal 

water,  &c.  [Baptism].  (2)  b.  aquae  lustralit 
[Holy  Water].  (3)  b.  panis  et  vini,  whicl 
substances  when  blessed  bore  the  name  of  the 
saint  on  whose  festival  the  benediction  took 
place,  as  St.  John’s  wine,  St.  Mark’s  bread,  &c. 
(4)  b.  salis  [Salt],  whether  for  admixture  with 
holy  water  or  otherwise.  (5)  b.  lactis  et  mellis 
[Milk  and  Honey].  (6)  b.  olei,  whether  for  the 
catechumens  at  baptism  or  confirmation,  or  for 
the  Chrisma,  or  for  the  sick  (^evxf^aiov) 
[Chrism  ;  Oil].  (7)  b.  incensi.  (8)  b.  cereorum, 
as  for  the  special  feast  of  Candlemas  Day,  Feb. 
2.  (9)  b.  cinerum,  of  Ash  Wednesday  [Lent]. 

(10)  6.  palmarum,  of  Palm  Sunday  processions. 

(II)  b.  paschales,  whether  of  Easter  eggs  or  the 
paschal  lamb  or  the  Easter  candles ;  and  to  these 
may  be  added  an  immense  number  of  varieties 
of  benedictions  for  almost  every  imaginable  occa¬ 
sion,  wherein  the  pious  of  past  ages  deemed  that 
the  church  could  draw  forth 'on  their  behalf 
from  a  rich  store  of  blessing.  Thus  we  may 


198 


BENEDICTIONS 


BENEDICTIONS 


mention,  in  addition  to  those  already  cited,  the  ' 
following  benedictions  of  things,  occurring,  un-  j 
less  the  contrary  be  specified,  in  the  Gregorian  j 
Sacramentary.  (1)  b.  domus.  (2)  uvae  vel  favae  ' 
(  =:  fabae).  (3)  ad  fructus  novos.  (4)  ad  omnia 
quae  volueris.  (5)  .  carnis.  (6)  putei  (Gall.). 
(7)  casei  et  ovonxm  (Euch.  Graec.).  (8)  ignis 
(Pontif.  Egb.).  (9)  librorum  (ib.). 

IV.  Mode  of  imparting  Benediction.  However 
various  the  objects  for  which  blessings  are  sought, 
and  however  different  therefore  the  formulae  in 
which  they  are  conferred,  still  there  are  certain 
accompaniments  which  are  as  a  rule  always 
present,  and  as  to  which  the  directions,  simple 
enough  in  the  earliest  Church,  have  been  in  pro¬ 
cess  of  time  rendered  more  and  more  definite,  to 
leave  as  little  as  possible  to  individual  will, 
(a)  As  showing  how  the  Christum  Ritual  on 
these  points  is  foreshadowed  in  the  .Jewish,  we 
have  thought  it  well  to  prefix  a  brief  note  as  to 
the  laws  of  blessing  in  the  latter.  The  priests, 
to  whom  the  power  of  imparting  blessings  was 
committed,  were  to  do  so  standing  (cf.  Deut.  x. 

8 ;  xxvii.  12),  with  outstretched  hands.  We 
cite  here  a  passage  from  the  Mishna,  the  earliest 
authority  to  which  we  can  appeal  next  to  the 
Bible.  “  In  what  way  is  the  sacerdotal  blessing 
performed  ?  In  the  provinces  [7.  e.  away  from 
the  temple]  they  say  it  in  three  blessings  [i.  e. 
the  formula  of  Kumbers  vi.  24—26  is  divided 
into  three  clauses,  and  Amen  responded  at  the 
end  of  each],  but  in  the  temple  in  one.  In  the 
temple  they  say  the  Name  as  it  is  written  [f.  e. 
the  rerpaypdfx/xaTov],  in  the  provinces  with  the 
substituted  name  [i.e.  Adonai].  In  the  provinces 
the  priests  raise  their  hands  on  a  level  with  their 
shoulders,  but  in  the  temple  above  their  heads, 
except  the  high-priest,  who  does  not  raise  up  his 
hands  above  the  diadem.”  [Or  perhaps  rather  a 
ptate  of  gold  worn  upon  the  forehead  of  the  high- 
priest.  The  reason  of  the  prohibition  in  his  case 
was  because  of  the  presence  of  the  Sacred  Name 
upon  the  plate.]  Mishn.  Sota,  vii.  6.  In  a  some¬ 
what  later  authority,  the  commentary  on  Num- 
bei's  and  Deuteronomy  known  as  Sifree,  we  have 
further  directions  given  :  (1)  the  blessing  is  to 
be  pronounced  in  the  Hebrew  language ;  (2)  the 
imparter  of  the  blessing  is  to  stand,  and  (3)  with 
outstretched  hands.  (4)  The  sacred  name  mn' 
is  to  be  used ;  (5)  the  priest  must  face  the 
people,  and  (6)  speak  in  a  loud  voice.  {Sifree  on 
Numb.  vi.  22-27.)  Reference  may  also  be  made 
to  a  still  later  authority,  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
itself  {Sota,  fol.  38  a). 

During  the  conferring  of  the  blessing  the 
people  must  not  look  at  the  priest,  for  for  the  time 
the  glory  of  God  is  supposed  to  rest  upon  him 
(vide  infra).  Also,  his  hands  are  disposed  so 
that  the  fingers  go  in  pairs,  forefingers  with 
middle  fingers,  ring  fingers  with  little  fingers, 
with  the  tips  of  the  two  thumbs  and  of  the  two 
forefingers  respectively  touching  each  other,  thus 
arranging  the  whole  ten  fingers  in  six  divisions. 
We  shall  quote  in  illustration  of  this  from  the 
Lekach  Tob  of  R.  Eleazar  b.  Tobiah  (the  so- 
called  Pesikta  Zotarta)  on  Numbers,  1.  c.  “  It 
is  forbidden  to  look  at  the  priests  at  the  moment 
that  they  lift  up  their  hands, — and  he  divides  his 
hands  into  six  parts,  as  it  is  said,  ‘  Every  one  had 
six  wings.’  Isa.  vi.  2.” 

One  more  extract  will  suffice,  which  we  take 
lirom  the  ancient  commentary  on  Numbers  (m 


ioc.),  the  Bammidiyar  Rahba  (c.  11).  “There¬ 
fore  it  is  said  (Cant.  ii.  9),  ‘  Behold  he  stands 
behind  our  wall,’  that  is,  synagogues  and  col 
leges.  ‘  He  looks  from  the  windows  ’ : — At  the 
time  when  the  Holy  One,  Blessed  be  He,  said  to 
Aaron  and  his  sons  ‘  Thus  shall  ye  bless  ’  &c., 
Israel  said  to  the  Holy  One,  ‘  Lord  of  the  Uni¬ 
verse,  thou  tellest  the  priests  to  bless  us,  we 
want  only  Thg  blessing  and  to  be  blessed  from 
Thy  mouth ;  according  as  it  is  said.  Look  from 
the  abode  of  Thy  holiness,  from  heaven  ’  (Deut. 
xxxi.  15).  The  Holy  One  said,  ‘  Although  I  com¬ 
manded  the  priests  to  bless  you,  /  am  standing 
with  them  and  blessing  you.’  Therefore  the 
priests  stretch  forth  their  hands  to  indicate  that 
the  Holy  One  stands  behind  us,  and  therefore  it 
says,  ‘  He  looks  from  the  windows  ’  [i.e.  from 
between  the  shoulders  of  the  priests],  ‘  He  peeps 
from  the  lattice  work  ’  [i.e.  from  between  the 
fingers  of  the  priests].” 

()8)  The  foregoing  points  afford  a  very  close 
parallel  to  the  usages  of  the  Christian  church'. 
That  the  imparter  of  the  blessing  should  stand 
is  but  in  accordance  with  the  natural  order  of 
things,  and  thus  is  a  point  universally  observed, 
so  that  the  Latin  church  does  but  stereotyj)e 
usage,  when  in  the  ritual  of  Paul  V.  it  is  laid 
down  as  a  Rubric  stando  semper  benedicat.  As  to 
the  kneeling  of  the  recipients  of  the  blessing,  we 
may  find  ancient  evidence  in  the  Apostolic  Con¬ 
stitutions  (viii.  6),  where  the  injunction  is  pre¬ 
fixed  to  the  Benediction,  “ .  .  .  and  let  the  deacon 
say,  KXivarc  koX  evXoyeiade.” 

The  order  of  the  Jewish  ritual  that  the  priest 
should  face  the  people  is  paralleled  (to  say 
nothing  of  unvarying  custom)  by  the  Rubric 
before  the  benediction  in  the  mass  in  ancient 
Sacramentaries,  (thus  e.  g.  “  Postea  dicat  episco- 
pus  convertens  ad  populum,”  in  an  ancient  mass 
for  Easter.  Greg.  Sacram.  p.  248);  and  that  to 
pronounce  the  blessing  in  a  loud  voice  by  the 
equivalent  command  constantly  met  with  in 
Greek  service  books  {e.g.  eTreux^Tat  6  Upevs 
fieyaXocpciovos,  Goar,  Euchol.  p.  42). 

The  lifting  up  of  hands  {t-rrapais  tS>v 
is  an  inseparable  adjunct  of  benedictions.  It  is 
constantly  associated  in  the  Bible  with  actions  of 
a  more  solemn  character,  as  oaths  {e.g.  Gen.  xiv. 
22  ;  Rev.  x.  5),  or  prayer  {e.g.  Psalm  xxviii.  2  ; 
xliv.  21  [20,  E.V.];  Ixiii.  5  [4,  E.V.];  1  Tim.  ii. 
8),  or  benediction  {e.g.  Lev.  ix.  22  ;  Luke  xxiv. 
50).  An  occasional  addition  is  that  of  the  laying 
on  of  hands  :  of  this  we  find  traces  in  Gen.  xlviii. 
14,  18;  Matt.  xix.  13,  15  ;  Mark  x.  16  :  and  we 
may  again  refer  to  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
(viii.  9),  w'here  the  benediction  upon  penitents  is 
associated  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  (xetpo- 
Oftria).  The  feeling  of  the  greater  worth  and 
power  of  the  right  hand  is  shown  in  patriarchal 
times  (Gen.  1.  c.);  and  in  later  times  it  is  either 
taken  for  granted  or  is  expressly  commanded  that 
the  right  hand  should  be  used: 

(7)  With  this  natural  and  almost  universal 
gesture,  the  act  of  benediction  is  constantly  re¬ 
presented  in  ancient  art.  Thus,  the  Lord  extends 
His  open  hand  over  the  demoniac,  in  the  bas- 
reliefs  of  a  sarcophagus  at  Verona  (Maffei, 
Verona  Illustrata,  pars  iii.  p.  54) ;  and  also  over 
a  kneeling  figure  in  an  Akcosolium  of  the 
cemetery  cf  St.  Hermes  (Bottari,  Pitture  e  Sculr 
ture,  clxxxvii.  No.  2). 

In  process  of  time,  as  in  the  Jewish  so  in  the 


BENEDICTIONS 


BENEDICTIONS 


199 


Christian  ritual,  a  particular  disposition  of  the 
fingers  in  the  act  of  blessing  became  usual.  In 
the  Greek  church,  and  in  Greek  paintings  for  the 
most  part,  the  hand  outstretched  in  blessing  has 
the  thumb  touching  the  tip  of  the 
ring-fingei’,  while  the  forefinger, 
C\  middle,  and  the  little  finger 

f  are  erected.  According  to  a  view 
mentioned  by  Ciampini  {De  Sacris 
Y  Aedif.  Const,  p.  42,  from  Theoph. 

I  Raynaud,  De  Attrihutis  Christi,  4. 
/  9.  733,  who  cites  it  from  some 

^  fragments  of  a  Greek  writer  of 
uncertain  date,  Nicolaus  Malaxus), 
xj  the  erect  forefinger  with  the  curved 
middle  finger  make  IC,  i.e.  ’iTjtroCs, 
while  the  crossing  of  the  thumb  and  ring-finger 
and  the  curving  of  the  little  finger  make  XC,  i.e. 
XpicTTSs.  One  cannot  but  agree  here  with  the 
remark  in  the  Aota  Sanctorum  (June,  vol.  vii. 
p.  135)  that  this  is  rather  an  ingenious  specula¬ 
tion  of  Malaxus  than  a  received  doctrine  of  the 
Greek  church.  According  to  Goar  (^Euchologion, 
p.  923)  the  thumb  and  ring-finger  crossed  made 
a  X,  the  other  fingers  erect  with  the  fore  and 
middle  fingers  slightly  separated  were  supposed 
to  represent  v,  I,  the  whole  standing  for  Arjcrovs 
Xpiarhs  viKa.  He  also  gives  (pp.  114,  115) 
pictures  of  St.  Methodius  and  St.  Germanus, 
with  the  fingers  disposed  as  above,  save  that  the 
fore  and  middle  fingers  are  united.  Evidence, 
however,  is  not  forthcoming  as  to  the  date  of 
these  representations.  (Cf.  Leo  Allatius,  De 
Cons.  Eccl.  Occid.  et  Orient,  pp.  1358  sqq.,  who 
describes  as  used  by  the  Greeks  a  disposition  of 
the  fingers  akin  to  that  spoken  of  by  Malaxus, 
and  considers  it  as  indicating  the  doctrines  of  the 
Trinity  and  of  the  twofold  nature  of  our  Lord.) 
Neale  (ih.  352,  n.)  thus  describes  the  eastern 
method,  “The  priest  joins  his  thumb  and  third 
finger,  and  erects  and  joins  the  other  three;  and 
is  thus  supposed  to  symbolize  the  procession  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Father  alone ;  and, 
according  to  others,  to  form  the  sacred  name 
IHC  by  the  position  of  his  fingers.” 

In  the  Latin  manner  of  benediction  the  erected 
fingers  are  the  thumb,  the  forefinger  and  the 
middle  finger,  while  the  other 
two  are  doubled  down  on  the 
palm  of  the  hand.  The  hand 
of  the  Lord  is  thus  represented 
in  some  monuments,  when  He 
works  a  miracle,  not  holding 
a  rod  in  the  hand :  for  in¬ 
stance,  in  the  healing  of  the 
man  born  blind  (Bottari,  tav. 
xix.),  that  of  the  woman  with 
an  issue  of  blood  (xxi.),  and 
in  the  representation  of  Christ’s  entry  into  Jeru¬ 
salem  (cxxxiii.) :  see  also  the  illustrations  of 
Blind,  Healing  of,  and  Bethesda.  The  same 
arrangement  of  the  fingers  is  observed  in  the  bas- 
belief  of  an  ancient  sarcophagus,  representing 
the  Good  Shepherd  blessing  His  sheep.  In  some 
cases  tlie  representation  of  the  natural  gesture  of 
an  orator  or  teacher  resembles  the  act  of  blessing  ; 
as,  for  instance,  in  the  repi’esentation  of  Christ  in 
the  midst  of  the  doctors,  given  by  Bottari  (liv.). 

This  arrangement  of  the  fingers  is  said  to  be 
found  in  the  most  ancient  pictorial  representa¬ 
tions  of  the  Popes  (Molanus,  Hist.  SS.  Irnnginum, 
p.  468  n. ;  ed.  Louvain,  1771).  Pope  Leo  IV. 


(^Hom.  de  Cura  Fastorali,  Migne’s  Patrol,  axv. 
678)  seems  to  enjoin  a  somewhat  different  ar¬ 
rangement,  still  for  the  purpose  of  symbolizing 
the  Trinity  ;  “  districtis  duobus  digitis  et  pollice 
intus  recluso,  per  quod  Trinitas  annuitur.” 
These  words,  however,  though  given  by  Labbe", 
are  wanting  in  many  authorities. 

But  it  seems  certain,  that  it  is  only  in  com¬ 
paratively  modern  times  that  the  rite  of  benedic¬ 
tion  has  constituted  a  distinction  between  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Churches.  For  instance,  in  the 
most  Roman  of  monuments,  the  Vatican  con- 
fessio  (or  crypt)  of  St.  Peter  (see  the  frontis¬ 
piece  to  Borgia’s  Vaticana  Confessio  B.  Petri),  the 
Lord  gives  the  blessing  in  the  Greek  manner ;  in 
the  triumphal  arch  of  St.  Mark’s  Church,  in  the 
Latin  manner  ;  in  the  tribune  of  the  same  church, 
after  the  Greek  manner  ;  so  also  in  a  mosaic  of  the 
ancient  Vatican  (Ciampini,  De  Sacr.  Aedif.  p.  43), 
executed  under  the  direction  of  Innocent  HI. 
(1198-1216),  who,  treating  expressly  of  this 
matter  (Z>e  Sacro  Altaris  Myst.  ii.  44),  pre¬ 
scribes  the  elevation  of  three  fingers,  without 
indicating  which.  On  the  other  hand,  the  bas- 
relief  of  a  Greek  diptych  given  by  Foggini  {De 
Pom.  Itin.  Petri,  p.  471),  represents  St.  Peter 
giving  the  blessing  in  the  Latin  manner,  while 
St.  Andrew,  the  reputed  founder  of  the  Church 
of  Constantinople,  blesses  in  the  Greek  manner  ; 
a  circumstance  which  may  perhaps  indicate  that 
different  gestures  of  blessing  were  regarded  as 
characteristic  of  East  and  West  respectively 
(see  Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.  p.  84). 

(S)  The  SIGN  OF  THE  Cross  (see  the  article) 
constantly  accompanies  benedictions  both  in  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western  rites,  and  was  thought 
to  impart  validity  to  the  act ;  “  quod  signum 
nisi  adhibeatur  .  .  nihil  horum  rite  perficitur,” 
says  St.  Augustine  {Tract,  in  Joannem,  118,  §  5). 

(e)  Incense  is  a  frequent  accompaniment  of 
Benedictions  ;  and  the  employment  of  Holy  Water 
to  be  sprinkled  on  persons  or  things  may  be 
regarded  as  a  form  of  Benediction  [Holy  Water]. 
The  modern  Romish  Ritual  makes  a  special  vest¬ 
ment  incumbent  on  the  priest  who  gives  a  blessing. 
This,  however,  is  beside  our  present  purpose. 

V.  Benedictionals. — It  has  been  already  shown 
that  various  early  forms  of  benedictions  are 
found  interspersed  in  ancient  Sacramentaries. 
In  that  attributed  to  Pope  Leo  are  found  forms 
of  blessing  “ascendentibus  a  fonte,”  and  “  lactis  et 
mellis,”  as  well  as  a  “benedictio  fontis,”  which 
is  possibly  a  later  addition.  It  is,  however,  in 
the  somewhat  later  Sacramentary  of  Gregory  the 
Great  that  we  meet  with  specimens  of  benedic¬ 
tions  on  a  more  extended  scale,  in  some  MSS. 
variously  interspersed  through  the  book,  and  in 
some  given  separately,  forming  the  so-called 
Benedict ionale.  This  is  the  case  with  the  very 
ancient  MS.  of  the  Caesarean  Library,  edited  by 
Lambecius,  not  knowing  that  the  greater  part  of 
it  had,  under  a  different  arrangement,  already 
been  edited  by  Menard.  Another  of  somewhat 
different  form  has  been  edited  by  Pamelius 
{Liturgg.  vol.  ii.)  from  two  MSS.  of  the  time 
of  Charlemagne  now  in  the  Vatican.  The  Li'>er 
Sacramentorum  of  Ratoldus,  of  the  tenth  century, 
also  contains  numerous  benedictions,  but  the 
fullest  Benedictional  is  that  found  in  two  MSS. 
of  the  Monastery  of  St.  Theodoric,  near  Rheims, 
wi’itten  about  the  year  900.  Meuard  has  also 
edited  a  Benedictional  from  a  MS.  in  the  abbey 


200 


BENEDICTU8 


BERGHFORDEXSE  COXCILIUM 


of  St.  Eligius,  and  Angelas  Rocca  another  from 
a  MS.  in  the  Vatican.  A  large  collection  of 
benedictions  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  Pontifical 
of  Egbert  (Archbishop  of  York,  A.D.  732-766), 
published  by  the  Surtees  Society  in  1853.  It 
will  be  observed  that  all  the  above  are  merely 
recensions,  more  or  less  added  to,  of  the  bene¬ 
dictions  in  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary ;  it 
will  suffice  to  mention,  in  addition  to  those, 
the  benedictions  of  the  Gothic  Missal,  first 
edited  by  Joseph  Thomasius  and  then  by  Ma- 
billon  (Jiluseuni  Italicum,  vol.  ii.),  which  are 
numerous,  but  of  very  different  form. 

VI.  Literature. — For  the  matter  of  the  present 
article  we  have  to  express  considerable  obliga¬ 
tions  to  the  essay  Segen  und  Fluch  in  Binterim’s 
Penkwurdigkeiten  (vol.  vii.  part  2),  and  to 
Augusti’s  Penkwurdigkeiten  aus  der  Christlichen 
ArcMologie,  vol.  x.  pp.  165  seqq.  We  have  also 
consulted  the  articles  Benedictionen  and  Seg- 
nungen  in  Herzog’s  Pealencyklopddie^  and  in 
Wetzer  and  Welte’s  Kirchen-Lexicon.  See  also 
Gerhard,  De  Benedictione  Ecclesiastica,  and  Hae- 
ner,  De  Ritu  Benedictionis  Sacerdotalis.  A  vast 
mine  of  information  is  to  be  found  in  Martene, 
De  Antiquis  Ecclesiae  Ritibus,  and  in  Gretser, 
De  Benedictionibus.  [R.  S.] 

BENEDICTUS,  of  Nursia,  abbot  of  Monte 
Cassiuo,  born  A.D.  480,  and  died  probably  542. 
[See  Diet,  of  Chr.  Biogr.  s.  v.]  His  festivals  are 
as  follows  : — 

,  Under  March  21,  the  Mart.  Rom.  Vet.  has 
“  In  Cassino  Castro,  Benedict!  Abbatis  ;  ”  Mart. 
Hieron.,  “  Depositio  Benedict!  Abbatis  Mart. 
Bedae,  “  Natale  Benedict!  Abbatis.” 

Under  J uly  11,  Mart.  Bedae  has,  “  Floriaco  adven- 
tus  S.  B.  A. Mart.  Adonis,  “  Translatio  S.  B.  A. 
while  M.  Hieron.  has  again  “  Depositio  S.  B.  A.” 

Under  Dec.  4,  the  M.  Hieron.  has  “Floriaco 
adventus  Corporis  S.  B.  A.” 

The  Cal.  Byzant.  celebrates  “  Benedict  of 
Nursia,  Holy  Father,”  on  March  14. 

We  see  that  the  festival  of  March  21  commemo¬ 
rates  the  death  (or  burial)  of  the  saint ;  that  of 
July  11,  the  translation  of  his  relics  to  Fleury 
(St.  Benoit  sur  Loire),  in  653.  The  Mart.  Hieron., 
here  as  in  some  other  places,  is  inexplicable. 

The  name  of  St.  Benedict  is  recited  in  the 
prayer  Communicantes  of  the  Gregorian  canon, 
and  in  the  ancient  canon  of  Milan  (Menard’s 
Greg.  Sacram.,  p.  546).  The  Corbey  MS.  of  the 
Sacram.  Greg,  has  on  vi.  Idus  Julii  (July  10) 
“  Vigilia  S.  Benedict!  Abbatis,”  with  proper  col¬ 
lect,  &c.,  and  on  v.  Id.  Jul.  (July  11)  “Natale 
S.  B.  A.,”  with  proper  collect,  &c.,  for  the  mass. 
The  MSS.  of  Reims  and  of  Ratold  have  also  the 
Fatale  on  this  day,  but  the  office  is  simply  de 
communi  unius  abbatis  (Menard,  u.  s.  p.  407). 
Antiphon  in  Lib.  Antiph.  p.  703.  Compare  Liber 
Rcsponsalis,  p.  810. 

Stephen  of  Tournai  (Epist.  105)  tells  us  that 
the  ancient  church  of  St.  Benedict  at  Paris  was 
built  so  that  the  sanctuary  was  towards  the 
west,  an  arrangement  which  was  afterwards 
altered  (in  Menard,  u.  s.  p.  329).  [C.]  ♦ 

BENEDICTUS.  The  song  of  Zacharias  con¬ 
tained  in  S.  Luke  i.  68-79,  so  called  from  its 
first  word.  This  canticle  has  been  said  at  lauds 
in  the  Western  Church  from  early  times  every 
day  throughout  the  year,  whatever  be  the  ser¬ 
vice.  The  introduction  of  the  custom  is  attri¬ 
buted  to  S.  Benedict.  It  is  said  with  a  varying 


antiphon  which  is  doubled,  i.e.,  said  entire  both 
before  and  after  the  canticle,  on  double  feasts; 
in  the  Roman,  Monastic,  and  other  offices  derived 
from  a  Gregorian  or  Benedictine  origin,  at  the 
end  of  lauds,  immediately  before  the  oratio  or 
collect,  and  occupies  the  same  position  at  lauds 
which  the  Magnificat  occupies  at  vespers.  In 
the  Ambrosian  office  it  occui-s  on  the  contrary 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  office,  after  the 
opening  versicles.  The  Ambrosian  rules  too  for 
the  duplication  of  antiphons  are  different  from 
the  Roman.  The  Benedictus  is  also  found  else¬ 
where,  e.g.,  in  the  Mozarabic  lauds  for  the 
nativity  of  S.  John  Baptist.  In  the  Greek  rite, 
the  Benedictus  called  irpocrevxh  Zaxapiov,  tov 
TTarphs  TOV  npoSpSpov,  forms  together  with  and 
following  the  Magnificat  the  last  of  the  nine 
odes  [Ode]  appointed  for  lauds. 

The  introductory  part  of  the  Song  of  the  Three 
Children,  which  precedes  the  Benedictiones,  or 
Benedicite  proper,  is  also  known  as  the  Bene¬ 
dictus  from  its  opening,  “  Benedictus  es  Domine 
Deus  patrum  nostrorum,  &c.  .  .  .”  This  is  said 
daily  in  the  Ambi’osian  rite  at  matins  before  the 
psalms,  in  the  place  the  Venite  occurs  in  other 
western  rites.  The  whole  of  the  Song  of  the 
Three  Children  is  also  called  the  Benedictus  in 
the  Mozarabic  breviary,  and  said  daily  at  lauds, 
as  has  been  already  stated.  [H.  J.  H.] 

BENEFICE.  This  subject  occupies  a  larger 
space  in  the  writings  of  Canonists  than  almost 
any  other  question  within  the  cognisance  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  law ;  but  its  history  prior  to  the  year 
814  may  be  compressed  into  a  small  compass. 

The  term  benefice  is  thus  defined — the  per¬ 
petual  right  of  receiving  profits  from  real  pro¬ 
perty  established,  by  authority  of  the  Church  in 
favour  of  a  spiritual  person  in  I’espect  of  the 
performance  of  a  spiritual  office. 

The  expression  seems  to  haA-'e  originated  in  the 
practice  of  granting  the  right  of  occupation  in 
Church  lands  to  laymen  in  exchange  for  pro¬ 
tection  afforded  to  the  Church.  These  were 
called  benefices,  and  the  property,  when  restored 
to  the  Church,  retained  the  name. 

The  custom  of  assigninor  to  ecclesiastics  a  life 
interest  in  Church  property  appears  to  have 
commenced  about  the  beginning  of  the  6th 
century,  and  is  referred  to  in  the  22nd  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Agde  (a.d.  506)  and  in  the 
23rd  canon  of  the  first  Council  of  Orleans  (a.d. 
511),  also  in  a  letter  of  Pope  Symmachus  to 
Caesarius,  Bishop  of  Arles  (a.d.  513). 

But  the  grant  was  not  larger  than  a  life 
interest  to  the  beneficiary ;  and  it  therefore 
lacked  the  condition  of  perpetuity,  which  was 
an  essential  characteristic  of  a  benefice  in  later 
ecclesiastical  law  (Ducange,  Glossarium,  sub 
voce ;  Ferraris,  Bibliotheca  Canonica,  sub  voce ; 
Thomassinus,  Vetus  et  Nova  Ecclesiae  Disciplina, 
ii.  3,  13,5;  Boahmer,  Jus  Ecclesiasticum,  iii. 
5,  492).  [1.  B.] 

BENIGNUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Torn!  in  Scythia; 
commemorated  April  3  (^Mart.  Rotn.  Vet.). 

(2)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Dijon  under  M.  Au¬ 
relius  ;  commemorated  Nov.  1  (J/arL  Hieron., 
Adonis). 

BERGHAMSTEDENSE  CONCILIUM. 

[Bersted,  Council  of.]  [C.] 

BEEGHFOEDENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Bus- 

FORD  Council  of.] 


BERONICUS 


BETHLEHEM 


201 


BERONICUS,  martyr  at  Antioch  in  Syria; 
commemorated  Oct.  19  (^Mart.  Rom.  Vet.^ 
Adonis).  [C.] 

BERSTED,  COUNCIL  OF  (Bergham- 

STEDENSE  CONCILIUM),  or  rather  WiTENAGEMOT, 
of  Kent,  at  Bersted  near  Maidstone,  a.d.  69G,  at 
which  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  Wihtred,  king 
of  Kent,  were  passed.  The  date  is  uncertain, 
Gebmund,  bishop  of  Rochester  (who  was  pre¬ 
sent),  living  until  696  according  to  the  Textus 
Roffensis  (whence  the  laws  are  taken),  but 
dying  as  early  as  at  least  694  according  to  the 
Saxon  Chronicle.  “  To  the  Church,  freedom 
from  imposts,”  or,  more  probably,  “  freedom  in 
jurisdiction  and  revenue,”  is  the  beginning 
of  the  first  law  (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Counc. 
iii.  233-238  ;  Thorpe,  Anc.  Laws  and  Institutes, 
ii.  16-19).  [A.  W.  IL] 

BERYTUS,  COUNCIL  OF,  a.d.  448,  as 
Mansi  thinks  (vi.  501-2),  in  September,  to  hear 
a  charge  preferred  against  Ibas,  bishop  of  Edessa, 
by  nine  of  his  clergy,  which  was  twofold  :  first, 
that  he  had  said,  “  1  envy  not  Christ  being  made 
God,  having  been  made  so  myself  as  much  as 
He,”  which  he  denied  indignantly ;  and  next, 
that  he  had  called  St.  Cyril  a  heretic,  which  he 
averred  he  never  had  after  the  reconciliation 
between  John  of  Antioch,  his  own  superior,  and 
St.  Cyril.  To  refute  this,  his  celebrated  letter 
to  Maris,  of  subsequent  date,  was  adduced  in 
evidence,  containing  a  narrative  of  the  whole 
controversy  between  Nestorius  and  St.  Cyril. 
He  rejoined  by  producing  a  testimonial  in  his 
favour  addressed  to  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Bery- 
tus,  and  Photius,  bishop  of  Tyre,  two  of  his 
Judges,  and  signed  by  upwards  of  sixty  presby¬ 
ters,  deacons,  and  subdeacons  of  his  diocese.  His 
acquittal  followed:  which,  having  been  reversed 
at  Ephesus  by  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria  the  year 
following,  was  confirmed  in  the  tenth  session  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  where  the  acts  of  this 
Council  ai-e  preserved  (Mansi  vii.  211-72).  His 
epistle  to  Maris,  indeed,  was  afterwards  con¬ 
demned  at  the  fifth  General  Council.  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

BETHESDA,  Miracle  of  (in  Art).  Of 
this  miracle  there  is  an  ancient  representa¬ 
tion  on  a  sarcophagus  from  the  Vatican  ceme¬ 
tery,  engraved  in  Bottari  (^Sculture  e  Pitture, 
tav.  xxxix. :  see  woodcut).  The  subject  oc¬ 
cupies  the  centre  of  the  tomb.  A  wavy  line, 
representing  water,  divides  the  composition 
horizontally  into  two  compartments :  on  the 
lower,  the  impotent  man  is  seen  lying  on  his 
couch,  which  is  covered  by  a  strajulum  or 
coverlet;  on  the  upper,  he  is  seen  healed  and 
carrying  his  couch,  while  the  Lord  stretches 
forth  His  hand  towards  him ;  another  figure 
raises  his  hand,  the  fingers  arranged  as  in  the 
Latin  form  of  benediction.  The  background  is 


formed  by  an  arcade  of  three  arches  supported  by 
columns,  intended,  no  doubt,  to  represent  one  of 
the  “  five  porches  ”  (St.  John  v.  2)  in  which  the 
impotent  folk  were  laid  (Martigny,  Diet,  des 
Antiq.  Chre't.  p.  542).  The  same  miracle  is  i-epre- 
sented,  in  a  very  different  style,  in  the  great 
Laurentian  MS.  See  Assemanni,  Bibliothecae 
Mediceae  Catal.  tab.  xix.,  and  Westwood’s  Palaeo- 
graphia  Sacra.  [C.j 


Miracle  of  Betbesda,  from  an  ancient  Sarcophagus. 


BETHLEHEM  (architectural).  In  the 
I  Ethiopia  churches,  a  small  building  is  thrown 
I  out  from  the  ea.st  end  of  the  sanctuary,  where 
!  the  bread  for  use  in  the  eucharist  is  prepared  by 
i  the  Deacon  alone,  and  baked  in  the  oven  with 
j  which  the  place  is  furnished.  This  building  is 
i  called  the  Bethlehem,  or  “  house  of  bread  ”  (Neale, 
I  Eastern  Church,  Introd.  190).  [C.j 

I  BETHLEHEM  (Svmhol).  In  an  ancient 
j  mosaic  of  the  church  of  SS.  Cosmas  and  Damian, 

!  in  the  Via  Sacra  at  Rome  (Ciampini,  Vetera 
I  Monumenta,  ii.  tab.  xvi. ;  see  woodcut)  two 
flocks,  each  of  six  sheep,  pass  from  cities  labelled 
'  re.spectively  Hierusalem  and  Bethlehem 
towards  the  figure  of  a  lamb,  representing  the 
I  Lord,  which  stands  on  a  mound  in  the  centre. 

I  Similar  representations  are  found  in  Buonarotti 
(^Franwienti  di  Vasi,  tav.  vi.  1)  and  I’erret 
(i'atacomhes  de  Rome,  v.  pi.  iii.).  Tlie  Abbe 
Martigny  (DicL  des  Antiq.  ChrH.  p.  225)  sup¬ 
poses  Jerusalem  and  Bethlehem  to  symbolize 
respectively  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Churches; 
but  this  scarcely  seems  a  probable  ojiinion.  It 


UotUleheiu  aud  Juru^ultiu  tu  S/mbuls, 


202 


BETHPHANIA 


betrothal 


is  difficult  to  see  how  Bethlehem  could  represent 
the  Gentile  church,  and  the  twelve  sheep  are 
generally  supposed  to  represent  the  Apostles, 
none  of  whom  came  forth  from  the  Gentiles. 
On  the  whole,  it  seems  more  ])robable  that  the 
issuing  forth  of  the  flock  of  Christ  from  Jeru¬ 
salem  and  Bethlehem  symbolizes  the  fact  that 
the  church  is  founded  on  the  Nativity,  the 
Passion  and  the  Resurrection  of  the  Lord.  Beth¬ 
lehem  was  the  scene  of  the  former,  Jerusalem 
of  the  two  latter.  See  Ciampini  (  Vet.  Man.  i. 
189).  [C] 

BETHPHANIA.  [Epiphany.] 

BETHURIUS,  martyr  at  Carthage  under 
Saturninus ;  commemorated  July  17  {Mart, 
llotn.  V,  t.).  [C.] 

BETROTHAL.  Under  this  head  we  shall 
consider  only  the  ordinary  contract  of  that 
name,  reserving  for  the  head  of  Espousals  the 
specially  religious  applications  of  the  idea. 

The  two  influences  which  must  have  chiefly 
built  up  the  earliest  practice  of  the  Church 
must  have  been  the  Jewish  and  the  Roman,  as 
embodied  in  the  civil  law  of  the  Empire.  But 
as  respects  marriage,  these  influences  were  dif¬ 
ferent  in  character.  The  Jewish  law  of  mar¬ 
riage  embodied  much  of  the  old  and  to  this 
day  widely  prevalent  custom  among  uncivilized 
races,  of  treating  it  as  the  purchase  of  a  wife; 
with  this  remarkable  feature  indeed,  that  the 
woman  was  at  a  very  early  age  («.  e.  within  her 
12th  year,  see  Selden’s  Uxor  Ifebraica,  bk.  ii.  c. 
iii.)  held  fit  to  dispose  of  herself.  Under  this  sys¬ 
tem,  betrothal,  if  not  the  actual  marriage,  which 
was  held  to  consist  in  the  leading  of  the  bride  to 
the  nuptial  bed,  was  yet  really,  for  most  pur¬ 
poses,  the  marriage  contract,  the  violation  of 
Avhich  by  connexion  with  another  was  deemed 
adultery,  and  punishable  as  such,  the  dissolution 
of  which  could  only  take  place  by  a  “  writing  of 
divorcement  ”  (Selden,  quoting  Maimonides,  u.  s., 
c.  i.).  The  contract  was  made  by  persons  held 
to  be  of  full  age  {i.  e.  speaking  generally,  and 
neglecting  some  exceptional  minutiae,  males  in 
the  last  day  of  their  13th  year,  w’omen  in  the 
second  half  of  their  12th)  at  their  own  will  ; 
but  girls  under  age  might  be  betrothed  by  their 
fathers  or  guardians  (though  only  by  money  or 
wanting),  with  power,  however,  at  10  to  repu¬ 
diate  the  engagement ;  it  could  also  be  entered 
into  through  go-betweens, — those  pro.ienetici  of 
the  Greeks  and  Romans, — whose  name  has,  in 
ordinary  parlance,  been  shortened  in  form  and 
widened  in  meaning  into  that  of  our  “  proxies,” 
but  who  represent  a  still  recognised  function  and 
calling  in  the  Jewish  communities  of  our  day. 
Where  the  contract  was  in  writing,  with  or 
without  the  giving  of  earnest  money,  it  was  to 
be.  written  out  by  the  man  in  the  presence  of 
witnesses,  and  handed  over  to  the  woman,  who 
must  know  its  purport,  otherwise  there  was 
no  contract.  Selden  gives  the  form  of  such  a 
writing,  specifying  the  man’s  pronouncing  of  the 
words  of  betrothal,  the  assent  of  the  girl,  and  his 
promise  of  a  jointure. 

The  Roman  looked  upon  the  marriage  contract 
with  different  eyes  from  the  Jew.  At  the  time 
when  the  Christian  Church  grew  up,  the  idea  of 
it  as  the  purchase  of  a  wife  had  quite  died  out 
from  men’s  minds.  Marriage,  and  still  more 
betrothal,  was  (with  one  execution)  a  purely 


'  civil  contract,  verbally  concluded.  Under  the 
later  Roman  law  (we  need  not  here  go  in  detail 
into  the  enactments  of  the  Lex  Julia,  or  Papia- 
Poppaea),  which  forms  the  second  and  main 
basis  of  church  practice  on  the  subject,  betrothal 
is  viewed  simply  as  a  contract  for  future  mar¬ 
riage.  It  was  of  more  weight  indeed  than  our 
“  engagement,”  since  it  was  held  as  much  a  note 
of  infamy  to  enter  into  two  contracts  of  betrothal 
as  of  marriage  {Dig.  3,  tit.  2,  s.  1,  13),  so 
that  Tacitus  says  of  the  younger  Agrippina,  when 
thinking  of  marrying  her  son  Domitius  to  Octavia, 
daughter  of  Claudius,  that  it  could  not  be  done 
“  without  crime,”  since  Octavia  was  already  be¬ 
trothed  to  Silanus  {Ann.  bk.  xii.  c.  3),  but  it  was  a 
compact  for  which  mere  consent  without  writing, 
even  of  absent  parties,  was  sufficient  (Z)i^.  23,  tit. 
1,  s.  4),  although  for  its  full  validity  the  consent 
of  all  parties  was  required  whose  consent  would 
be  necessary  to  marriage  (s.  7).  The  consent  of  a 
daughter,  however,  to  her  father’s  betrothal  of  her 
was  implied,  in  default  of  proof  to  the  contrary 
(s.  12);  and  Julianus  held  that  the  like  consent 
of  a  father  was  to  be  implied,  in  default  of  proof  of 
his  dissent,  to  his  daughter’s  betrothal  of  herself. 

No  forms  were  requisite  for  the  early  Roman 
betrothal,  and  there  seems  no  reason  for  suppos¬ 
ing  that  the  stage  betrothals  which  are  so  fre¬ 
quent  in  Plautus  would  not  have  been  .strictly 
legal.  {Aulul.  ii.  2,  vv.  77-9  :  Poenul.  v.  3,  vv. 
37,  8 ;  I'rinumn.  ii.  4,  vv.  98-103.)  In  these 
the  essence  of  the  contract  lies  evidentlv  in 
the  question  and  reply  (the  interrogatory  form 
being  a  characteristic  of  the  early  Roman  law) : 
“  Spondesne  ?  ” — “  Spondeo.”^  At  the  same  time, 
the  early  Roman  betrothal  was  generally  accom¬ 
panied  with  the  sending  to  the  woman  of  the 
iron  Bridal  Ring  (see  this  head). 

We  may  infer  from  the  much  larger  space 
assigned  to  betrothal  and  its  incidents  in  the 
Code  (5,  tit.  1-3.)  than  in  the  Digest  that  with 
the  growth  of  the  empire  the  contract  both 
assumed  greater  importance,  and  was  at  the 
same  time  more  frequently  broken.  The  prac¬ 
tice  of  giving  earnest-money  [Arrhae]  becomes 
now  prominent ;  whilst  gifts  on  betrothal  are 
also  largely  dwelt  upon:  Under  Constantine  we 
see  that  the  passing  of  a  ki.ss  between  the  be¬ 
trothed  had  come  to  have  a  legal  value.  (Code  5, 
tit.  3,  s.  16.) 

A  glimpse  at  the  forms  usual  in  the  later 
Roman  betrothals,  towards  the  beginning  of  the 
3rd  century,  is  given  to  us  by  Tertullian.  In 
his  treatise  de  Velund.  Virgin,  c.  ii.,  he  ob¬ 
serves  that  even  among  the  Gentiles  girls  are 
brought  veiled  to  betrothal,  “  because  they  are 
united  both  in  body  and  spirit  to  the  man 
by  the  kiss  and  the  joining  of  right  hands.” 
This  passage  evidently  shows  that  in  his  time 
Gentile  betrothal  had  grown  to  be  a  ceremony, 
of  which  the  veil,  the  kiss  and  the  clasped 
hands  were  among  the  elements ;  his  mention  of 
the  kiss  illustrating  the  before  quoted  constitu¬ 
tion  by  Constantine,  later  indeed  by  nearly  a 
century  and  a  half.  He  does  not  indeed  name  the 
ring  ;  but  the  use  of  it  [Bridal  Ring]  is  testified 
to  by  himself  in  another  passage,  and  by  several 
other  authorities. 

The  greater  prominence  of  the  betrothal  con¬ 
tract  under  the  later  emperors — say  from  the  3rd 
century  inclusively — is  be.st  explained  through 
the  gradual  permeation  of  the  Roman  empire 


BETROTHAL 


BETROTHAL 


203 


by  the  barbarian  races,  the  main  source  from 
which  all  the  most  energetic  elements  of  its 
population  were  recruited,  long  before  any  col¬ 
lective  invasion.  For  when  we  turn  to  the 
barbaric  Codes,  we  generally  find  betrothal  in 
a  position  of  prominence  quite  unlike  anything 
in  the  earlier  Roman  law — the  ruling  idea  being 
almost  invariably  that  of  wife-buying.  The 
Salic  law  deals  with  the  subject,  after  its  wont, 
only  through  money-payments.  If  any  one 
caiTies  off  a  betrothed  girl  and  marries  her,  he 
is  to  pay  62^  solidi,  and  15  to  her  betrothed. 

actus  antujuior,  t.  xiv.  arts.  8,  9.)  If  any,  ' 
whilst  the  bi  .desman  is  conducting  the  betrothed 
to  her  husband,  falls  on  her  in  wrath  and  with 
violence  commits  adulteiy  with  her,  he  shall  pay 
200  solidi  (art.  10).  Amongst  our  forefathers  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  period,  we  find  the  laws  of 
Ethelbert  (597-616)  decreeing  that  “if  a  man 
carry  off  a  maiden  betrothed  to  another  man  in 
money,”  he  is  to  “  make  bot  with  20  shillings” 
(83).  The  laws  of  Ina  (688-725),  though  a 
century  later,  do  not  any  more  than  those  of 
Ethelbert  seem  to  distinguish  betrothal  from 
purchase :  “  If  a  man  buy  a  wife  and  the  mar¬ 
riage  take  not  place,  let  him  give  the  money,” 
&c.  (31). 

But  it  is  in  the  Wisigothic  and  Lombardic 
laws  that  we  find  most  matter  under  this  head. 
The  former  attribute  almost  absolute  authority 
in  the  betrothals  of  women  to  the  father  or  his 
representative.  One  of  the  more  ancient  enact¬ 
ments  bears  that  “  if  any  have  had  a  girl  be¬ 
trothed  to  him  with  the  will  of  her  father  or  of 
the  other  near  relations  to  whom  by  law  this 
,  power  is  given,”  the  girl  may  not  marry  another 
against  her  parents’  (or  relatives’)  will ;  but  if 
she  do,  both  parties  shall  be  handed  over  to  the 
power  of  him  who  had  had  her  betrothed  to 
him  with  her  parents’  will,  and  any  relatives 
abetting  the  marriage  shall  pay  1  pound  of  gold. 

The  betrothal  contract  is  by  the  Wisigothic 
law  treated  as  so  far  equivalent  to  marriage, 
that  the  term  adultery  is  freely  used  of  its 
violation  by  the  parties.  A  husband  or  betrothed 
are  moreover  declared  not  to  be  responsible  for 
killing  those  who  commit  adultery  with  their 
wives  or  betrothed  (1.  4).  Again,  the  same  title 
of  the  law  embraces  the  rupture  of  both  contracts 
(De  divortiis  A’uptiarum  et  discidio  Sponsorum, 
t.  ^ i.). 

The  Wisigothic  Code  has  been  always  held  to 
have  been  drawn  up  under  priestly  influence. 
The  Lombards  were  never  looked  on  with  favour 
by  the  Church.  Yet  between  the  two  systems 
of  legislation  there  is  less  difference  on  the  head 
which  occupies  us  than  might  be  expected.  The 
Lombard  law,  like  the  Wisigothic,  adopts  from 
Rome  the  two  years’  maximum  for  delay  in 
carrying  out  a  betrothal  contract.  (Laws  of 
Notharis,  a.d.  638  or  643,  c.  178.) 

The  laws  of  Luitprand  (a.d.  717)  are  very 
severe  against  too  early  marriages  of  girls.  If 
any  betroth  to  himself  or  carry  away  [as  his  wife] 
a  girl  under  12,  he  is  to  compound  as  for  rape. 

The  forms  of  betrothal  among  the  barbarian 
conquerors  of  the  Roman  Empire  must  have  been 
infinitely  varied.  The  Salic  betrothal  was  by 
the  otl'er  of  a  solidus  and  deuarius,  and  the  con¬ 
tract  could  be  made  between  absent  parties ;  as 
when  Chlolowig  (Clovis)  espoused  Chlotildi 
through  his  envoys  (Xedegari\is,  Epit.  c,  IS). 


Canciaui,  from  the  Euphemian  Codex  of  Verona, 
has  published  two  formulae^  one  apparently  of  a 
Lombard,  the  other  of  a  Salic  betrothal  (vol.  ii. 
pp.  467,  476),  which,  although  the  text  of  them 
may  be  somewhat  later  than  the  period  to  which 
this  work  relates,  no  doubt,  like  most  written 
formulae.,  exhibit  with  some  faithfulness  the 
usages  of  an  earlier  period.  In  both  of  them 
the  betrothal  has  palpably  become  a  judicial  act. 
A  sword  and  a  glove  are  the  main  features  of  the 
former:  “For  this  cometh  M.,  for  that  he 
willeth  to  espouse  D.,  daughter  of  P.  Camest 
thou  because  of  this  ?  ”  “I  came,”  “  Give 
pledge,  that  thou  wilt  make  unto  her  a  fourth 
part  of  whatever  thou  hast ;  and  by  this  sword 
and  this  glove  I  betroth  to  thee  Hd.,  my  daughter, 
and  thou,  receive  her  by  title  of  betrothal.” 
“  Thou,  father  of  the  woman,  give  pledges  to  him 
that  thou  givest  her  to  him  to  wife,  and  sendest 
her  under  his  mundium.  And  thou,  give  [pledge] 
that  thou  receivest  her  ;  and  whoever  shall  with¬ 
draw,  let  him  compound  in  a  thousand  solidi.” 
The  Salic  formula  is  confined  to  the  case  of  tiie 
second  marriage  of  a  “  Salic  wddow  ;  ”  it  belongs 
self-evidently  to  the  Carlovingian  era,  and  in  it 
the  ideas  of  betrothal  and  of  marriage  seem  to 
run  into  each  other. 

We  come  now  to  the  legislation  of  the  Church 
itself  on  the  subject  of  betrothal.  Tertullian 
in  his  treatise  on  Idolatry  (c.  16),  seeking  to 
determine  what  actions  and  matters  a  Chris¬ 
tian  is  not  to  meddle  with  on  account  of  their 
idolatrous  character,  says :  “  But  as  concern¬ 
ing  the  offices  of  private  and  common  solemni¬ 
ties,  as  these  ...  of  betrothal  or  marriage,  I 
think  no  danger  is  to  be  apprehended  fi’om  any 
breath  of  idolatry  which  may  intervene.  For 
the  objects  must  be  considered  for  which  the 
office  is  performed.  I  deem  those  pure  in  them¬ 
selves,  for  neither  .  .  .  the  ring  nor  the  mar¬ 
riage  bond  flows  from  the  worship  of  any  idol.” 
It  may  be  fairly  concluded  from  this  passage 
that  towards  the  end  of  the  2nd  or  beginning  of 
the  3rd  century,  betrothal  was  considered  by  the 
Church  as  being  in  itself  a  perfectly  valid  and 
lawful  contract,  and  even  when  celebrated  be¬ 
tween  heathens,  involving  no  contamination  for 
the  Christian  who  should  take  part  in  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  connected  with  it. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  notice  the  forgeries  which 
support  sacerdotal  claims.  The  first  unim¬ 
peachable  authority  on  the  subject  is  found  in 
Basil’s  Canonical  Epistle  to  Amphilochus,  bishop 
of  Iconium.  It  will  be  seen  that  he  treats  of 
betrothal  in  a  quite  incidental  manner.  In  one 
passage  (c.  xxii.)  he  takes  the  case  of  men  who 
have  violently  carried  away  the  betrothed  of 
another ;  these  are  not  to  be  received  to  commu¬ 
nion  until  they  jmt  their  wives  away,  and  sub¬ 
mit  to  the  will  of  those  to  whom  these  were  at 
first  betrothed.  Yet  he  views  betrothal  as  so  far 
approximating  to  marriage  that  he  allows  (c.  69) 
a  reader  or  subdeacon  seducing  his  betrothed  be¬ 
fore  marriage  to  be  admitted  to  communion  after 
a  year’s  penance,  without  loss  of  office,  but  so 
that  he  cannot  be  promoted  ;  but  in  case  of  his 
misconducting  himself  without  betrothal  with  a 
woman  he  is  to  be  dei)rived  of  his  olfice  itself. 

Of  more  interest,  both  in  itself,  and  as  being, 
probably,  the  first  genuine  utterance  of  a  I’ope 
which  sullices  to  dispose  of  a  whole  mis«;  of 
antedated  forgeries,  is  a  letter  of  Rope  Bene- 


204 


BETKOTHAL 


BIGAMY 


diet  I.  (a.d.  57rv--7)  to  the  Patriarch  of  Gran. 
The  Pope  had  been  asked  whether,  where  a  girl 
had  been  betrothed  by  word  of  mouth  only,  and 
died  before  marriage,  her  sister  could  marry  the 
.same  man.  The  Pope  replied  that  it  was  connu¬ 
bial  intercourse  that  made  two  one  ;  “  how  by 
bare  words  of  betrothal  they  can  be  made  one 
we  can  in  nowise  see.  Do  not  therefore  deny  that 
which  you  can  show  no  reason  for  denying.” 

It  is  indeed  evident,  from  the  application  itself, 
that  the  (luestion  whether  the  contract  of  be¬ 
trothal  did  not  of  itself  create  a  consanguinity 
between  the  parties,  sufficient  to  render  the 
subsequent  marriage  of  either  with  a  kinsman 
or  kinswoman  of  the  other  unlawful,  was  already 
a  moot  one.  We  might  not  be  surprised  if 
Gregory  the  Great  (a.d.  590-603),  in  whose 
powerful  mind  a  strong  vein  of  ascetic  feeling 
IS  discoverable — should  have  taken  the  opposite 
side  to  Benedict.  He  remains  indeed  quite 
within  the  law  in  allowing  a  betrothed  woman 
to  dissolve  her  engagement  in  order  to  enter 
a  convent  ;  writing  (bk.  vi.  Ep.  20)  to  the 
bishop  and  defensor  of  Naples,  where  one 
Stephen,  betrothed  to  a  girl  who  had  been 
“  converted  ”  in  one  of  the  monasteries  of  the 
city,  was  alleged  to  detain  her  and  her  property, 
that  after  due  e.xamination  he  was  to  be  exhorted 
to  restore  the  girl  herself  and  her  things,  and  if 
he  did  not,  then  to  be  compelled  to  do  so. 

The  Council  (3)  of  Constantinople  in  Trullo 
(a.d.  680-1)  is  the  first  oecumenical  ai:thority 
for  assimilating  betrothal  to  marriage,  so  far  as 
to  make  it  adultei'y  to  marry  a  betrothed  woman 
in  the  life-time  of  her  first  betrothed.  Now 
about  this  period  indeed  betrothal  becomes  a 
very  frequent  subject  of  church  legislation  or 
church  jurisprudence.  One  of  the  canons  (105) 
of  a  Council  held  in  England,  under  Archbishop 
Theodore,  towards  the  end  of  the  7th  century, 
provides  that  if  a  man  after  betrothing  to  him¬ 
self  a  wife,  wdll  not  live  with  her,  he  shall  restore 
the  money  given  to  him  and  add  a  third  to  it. 
Another  (129)  forbids  parents  to  give  a  betrothed 
girl  to  another  “  if  she  resist  altogether,”  but 
they  may  send  her  to  a  convent  (for  this  seems  the 
cruel  sense  of  the  enactment).  A  collection  of 
canons  of  the  Irish  Church,  supposed  to  be  also 
of  the  end  of  this  century,  enacts,  somewhat 
singularly,  that  when  betrothed  girls  have  been 
dishonoured  by  other  men,  they  are  to  be  bought 
and  given  back  to  their  first  betrothed  (bk.  xli. 
c.  37).  The  “Excerpt”  of  Pope  Gregory  III. 
(a.d.  731-41)  mentions  five  years,  “  or  more 
humanely  three,”  as  the  penance  for  attempting 
to  seduce  another’s  betrothed.  In  the  case  (which 
is  that  mentioned  in  the  25th  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Ancyra)  of  a  man  seducing  the  sister  of  his 
betrothed,  and  of  his  victim  killing  herself,  all 
who  are  implicated  in  the  deed  must  do  ten  years’ 
penance,  or  some  say  seven  (c.  18).  The  first 
Council  of  Rome  under  Pope  Zacharias,  A.D.  743, 
anathematizes  those  who  rashly  presume  to  steal 
a  maid  or  widow  for  their  wife,  unless  betrothed 
to  them  (can.  7).  The  Carlovingian  Capitularies 
enact  that  a  betrothed  girl  ravished  by  another 
man  is  to  be  given  back  to  her  former  betrothed, 
but  that  in  case  of  his  refusing  to  take  her  she 
may  marry  a  stranger,  but  not  her  ravisher, 
under  pain  of  anathema  (c.  124),  and  follow 
generally  in  the  tracts  of  the  spurious  lettei’s  of 
Evaristus  and  Siricius. 


Finally,  the  reply  of  Pope  Nicolas  to  the 
Bulgarians  in  860,  shows  that  at  the  eml  of  the 
9th  century  the  form  of  betrothal  had  become 
confined  to  the  placing  of  the  ring,  by  way  of 
earnest,  on  the  woman’s  finger,  and  her  endow¬ 
ment  by  the  man  in  the  presence  of  invited 
witnesses,  a  greater  or  less  interval  separating 
betrothal  from  marriage. 

If  we  are  not  mistaken,  the  history  of  the  8  or 
9  first  centuries  shows  in  the  Church  a  gradual 
recession  from  the  freedom  both  of  the  Jewish 
and  of  the  Roman  law  upon  the  subject  of  be¬ 
trothal.  Two  causes  seem  to  have  operated  to 
produce  this  result, — on  the  one  hand,  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  barbarian  codes,  which  generally 
look  upon  the  w'oman  more  or  less  as  the  property 
of  her  father,  if  not  of  her  family  generally, — on 
the  other,  that  of  the  growing  spirit  of  asceticism 
in  reference  to  the  relations  between  the  sexes, 
leading  to  the  encroachment  of  the  Church  upon 
the  domain  of  the  civil  power  as  respects  the 
whole  subject  of  marriage,  and  thereby  again 
fostering  restrictive  church  legislation  with  all 
its  attendant  covetousnesses  and  corruptions. 
The  Carlovingian  era,  with  which  we  break 
off,  is  that  of  the  first  establishment  of  this 
system.  [J.  M.  L.] 

BEZIEKS,  COUNCIL  OF  (Biterrexse 
Concilium),  provincial,  a.d.  356,  summoned  by 
command  of  the  Emperor  Constantins,  under 
Saturninus,  Bishop  of  Arles ;  one  of  those  minor 
Councils  of  the  West,  at  which  an  attempt  was 
made  to  condemn  St.  Athanasius.  St.  Hilary  of 
Poitiers,  who  defended  the  orthodox  cause,  was 
shortly  afterwards  banished  to  Phrygia  by  the 
emperor  through  the  false  dealing  of  Saturninus 
(S.  Hilar.  Pictav.,  De  Synod.  §  2,  Ad  Constant.  §  2, 
0pp.  ii.  460,  563  ;  Hieron.  Ee  Scriptt.  Eccl.c. ; 
Sulp.  Sever.  H.  E.  ii. ;  Labb.  v.  783).  [A.  W.  H.] 

BIBIANA,  martyr  at  Rome;  commemorated 
Dec.  2  (Jia/’f.  Rom.  Vet.') ;  as  Viviana  (J/«;-f. 
Hieron.).  [C.] 

BIBLE,  USE  OF  IN  SERVICES.  [Ca¬ 
nonical  Books;  Epistle;  Gospel;  Lection arv  ; 
Prophecy.] 

BIBLIOTHECA.  [Library.] 

BIDDING-PRAYER.  This  term  is  used  by 
Bingham  to  designate  a  prayer  of  a  particular 
form  uttered  by  the  Deacon  in  the  Liturgy.  As, 
however,  the  modern  English  Bidding-Prayer 
appears  to  be  of  mediaeval  origin,  it  seems  best 
to  treat  of  the  ancient  prayer  under  its  proper 
designation  [Prosphonesis].  [C.] 

BIGAMY.  Under  this  head  we  shall  desig- 
nate  only,  according  to  modern  usage,  the  case 
of  matrimonial  union  to  two  persons  at  the  same 
time ;  premising  that  until  the  beginning  of  the 
17th  century,  at  least,  the  term  was  applied  to 
all  cases  of  second  marriage,  whether  during 
the  existence  of  a  prior  union  or  after  its  dis¬ 
solution  ;  the  word  “  polygamj'^  ”  being  applied 
to  the  former  case.  Thus  Sir  E.  Coke  in  his  3rd 
Institute  (p.  88)  writes:  “The  difference  be¬ 
tween  bigamy  or  trigamy  and  polygamy,  is  quia 
bigamus  scu  trigaynus,  etc.,  est  qui  diversis  tem- 
poribus  et  successive  duas  seu  t?'es,  etc.,  uxorcs 
habuit  :  polygamus  qui  duas  vel  plures  shnul 
duxit  uxores  the  distinction  being  thus  made 
entirely  to  turn  on  the  simultaneous  or  successive 
nature  of  the  marriage  relations.  [Digamy.] 


BIGAMY 


BIGAMY 


205 


It  is  of  course  not  from  Jewish  precedent  that 
Chrstendom  has  borrowed  its  condemnation  ot 
bigamy.  The  foundation  of  the  Church’s  law 
in  this  matter  lies  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord, 
Matt.  xix.  4  and  foil. ;  Mark  x.  5  and  foil.,  and 
in  the  developments  of  that  teaching  by  St.  Paul. 
(Compare  also,  as  an  early  and  quite  consonant 
authority,  Hermas,  Bk.  ii.  Mand.  4;  likewise 
Almost.  Const.  Bk.  vi.  c.  14.)  In  church  practice 
indeed  it  has  been  always  contested  whether  the 
expressions  in  1  Tim.  iii.  2,  12 ;  Tit.  i.  6,  which 
our  version  renders  “  husband  ”  or  “  husbands 
of  one  wife,”  apply  to  simultaneous  marriages 
only,  or  to  successive  marriages  as  well.  The 
ordinary  Protestant  interpretation  assigns  to 
'them  the  more  restricted  meaning ;  but  this 
conclusion  will  probably  appear  the  more  doubt¬ 
ful,  the  more  Christian  antiquity  and  the  usages 
of  the  time  are  studied.  Whatever  might  be 
Jewish  theory  on  the  subject,  there  is  no  hint 
whateA’er  in  the  New  Testament  at  either  bigamy 
or  polygamy  as  a  Jewish  practice,  and  neither 
was  certainly  legal  in  either  Ephesus  or  in  Crete, 
when  the  Epistles  above  referred  to  were  written 
to  the  respective  bishops  of  those  churches.  Mo¬ 
nogamy  w'as  the  law  both  of  Greece  and  of  Rome. 
So  long  therefore  as  the  Roman  power  subsisted, 
the  monogamy  inculcated  by  the  Church  was  also 
enforced  by  the  law.  The  influence  upon  this 
state  of  things  of  the  barbarian  invasions  must 
have  been  very  various.  Tacitus  notes  of  the 
ancient  Germans  that  “  almost  alone  among  the 
barbarians  they  content  themselves  with  one 
wife,  except  a  very  few,  who  not  through  lust 
but  for  honour’s  sake  enter  into  several  mar¬ 
riages  ”  (^Gcrm.  18).  His  words,  however,  appear 
to  have  applied  more  or  less  to  all  the  Teutonic 
races.  On  the  other  hand,  among  the  Celtic 
races,  or  those  mixed  with  them,  e.g.  the  Britons, 
Scots,  and  Hibernians  of  our  own  islands, — a  com¬ 
munity  of  wives  or  something  closely  equivalent 
to  it  is  testifled  to  by  Caesar,  Jerome,  and  Strabo. 
Subjection  to  Rome,  the  preaching  of  Christianity, 
did  not  suffice  to  introduce  monogamic  habits, 
and  we  find  Gildas  lamenting  that  his  countrv- 
men  were  not  restrained  by  polygamy  from  fre¬ 
quenting  harlots  (quam  plurimas  uxores  haben- 
tes,  sed  scortantes).  Monogamy  seems  to  have 
been  equally  unknown  to  the  Slavonic  races,  as 
well  as  to  the  Tartar ;  Attila’s  harem  is  well 
known.  It  is  also  to  be  presumed  that  the 
weakening  of  the  Roman  power  in  Asia  allowed 
old  polygamic  practices,  familiar  to  Orientals, 
to  revive.  With  these  preliminary  observations 
we  shall  endeavour  to  trace  briefly  the  course  of 
Church  legislation  on  the  subject. 

The  first  authority  we  find  is  a  doubtful  one — 
that  of  those  Canons  attributed  to  the  Council  of 
Nicaea  (a.d.  325),  which  are  only  to  be  found  in 
the  Arabic  version.  The  24th  of  these  (2(ith  in 
the  version  of  the  Maronite  Abraham  Echellensis) 
bears  that  “  none  ought  to  marry  two  wives  at 
once,  nor  to  bring  in  to  his  wife  another  woman 
for  pleasure  and  fleshly  desire.”  If  a  priest,  such 
person  is  to  be  forbidden  to  officiate  and  excluded 
from  communion,  until  such  time  as  he  cast  out 
the  second,  whilst  he  ought  to  retain  the  first ; 
and  so  of  a  layman.  The  66th  Canon  (71st  of 
the  Echellensian  version)  enters  in  still  more 
detail  into  the  case  of  a  priest  or  deacon  taking 
another  wife,  whether  free  or  slave,  without 
having  dismissed  the  first,  the  penalty  being 


deposition ;  or  for  a  layman  in  the  same  sin, 
excommunication.  The  67th  Canon  again  (22nd 
Echellensian)  enacts  that  whosoever  shall  have 
accepted  two  women  at  once  in  marriage  shall 
himself  be  excommunicated  with  his  second  wife. 
It  is  difficult  to  attribute  Nicene  authority  to 
these  Canons,  which  show  so  vividly  tlie  corrup¬ 
tions  that  grew  up  in  the  more  distant  Oriental 
churches.  But  whether  illustrative  of  the  dege¬ 
neracy  of  Arabian  Christendom  before  the  rise  of 
Mohammedanism  in  the  7th  century,  or  of  the 
influence  of  Mohammedan  polygamy  itself  upon 
it  at  a  later  period,  they  are  not  the  less  valuable. 
The  tradition  of  a  condemnation  of  bigamy  by 
the  Nicene  fathers  appears  also  from  the  sin¬ 
gular  collection  attributed  to  them,  from  a  Vati¬ 
can  Codex,  intitled  by  Labbe  and  Mansi  (see  vol. 
ii.  p.  1029  and  foil.),  “  Sanctiones  et  decreta  alia 
ex  quatuor  regum  ad  Constantinum  libris  de- 
cerpta.”  The  5th  chapter  of  the  1st  book  bears 
that  “to  no  Christian  is  it  lawful  to  have  two 
or  more  wives  at  once,  after  the  manner  of  the 
Gentiles,  who  marry  three  or  four  at  once ;  but 
one  is  to  be  married  after  the  other,  that  is,  the 
contract  is  to  be  made  with  a  second  after  the 
death  of  the  first.”  If  any  dares  to  go  counter 
to  this  prohibition,  he  is  to  be  excommunicated. 
Reference  is  made  to  the  holy  fathers  assem¬ 
bled  in  the  Council,  and  the  enactment  is  declared 
to  be  binding  on  all  Christians,  whether  laymen 
or  clerics,  priests,  deacons,  princes,  kings  and 
emperors. 

'rhe  “  Sanctions  and  Decrees,”  whatever  be 
their  authority,  belong  evidently  to  the  Eastern 
Church.  But  from  the  canonical  epistle  of  Basil 
to  Bishop  Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  the  spurious¬ 
ness  both  of  the  above  quoted  canons  from  the 
Arabic,  and  of  the  “Sanctions  and  Decrees,”  so 
far  as  they  claim  Nicene  authority,  may  be  in¬ 
ferred,  since  he  says  that  the  subject  of  polygamy 
has  been  pretermitted  by  the  fathers,  assigning 
a  four  years’  penance  for  it  before  the  ofi'ender 
can  be  admitted  to  communion  (C.  Ixxx.). 

The  practice  of  the  West,  except  in  far  out- 
lying  provinces,  seems  to  have  been  generally 
more  strict  than  in  the  East,  and  we  have  thus  to 
infer  the  spirit  of  the  Western  Church  towards 
bigamy  chiefly  from  enactments  against  concu¬ 
binage.  The  first  Council  of  'foledo  (a.d.  400) 
excludes  from  communion  a  man  having  a  faith¬ 
ful  wife  and  a  concubine,  but  not  one  who  has 
a  concubine  and  no  wife,  so  long  as  he  contents 
himself  with  one  woman  (c.  17).  Passing  over 
an  alleged  decree  of  Pope  Celestin  (a.d.  423—32), 
which  declares  that  a  second  wife  married  against 
church  forbiddance  is  not  a  wife,  although  the 
first  should  not  have  been  betrothed  (c.  4, 
Gratian);  we  should  notice  a  letter  (12)  of  Leo 
the  Great  (a.d.  440-61),  addressed  to  the  African 
bishops  of  the  province  of  Mauritania  Caesariensis, 
which  speaks  of  an  actual  case  of  bigamy  in  the 
priesthood  of  that  province.  Neither  apostolic 
nor  legal  authority,  it  says,  allow  the  husband 
of  a  second  wife  to  be  raised  to  the  pastoral 
office,  much  less  him  who,  “  as  it  has  been  re¬ 
lated  to  us,  is  the  husband  of  two  wives  at  once  ” 
(c.  5).  Another  letter  of  Leo’s  (dated  458  or  9), 
to  Rusticus  Bishop  of  Narbonne,  is  probably  the 
first  authority  for  the  lower  modern  view  of  the 
coQCubinate.  Not  every  woman  united  to  a 
man  is  the  man’s  wife,  for  neither  is  every  son 
his  father’s  heir.  .  .  .  Therefore  a  wife  is  one 


206 


BIGAMY 


BIGAMY 


thing,  a  concubine  another ;  as  a  han«lmaid  is 
one  thing,  a  freewoman  another.  .  .  Wherefore 
if  a  clerk  of  any  place  give  his  daughter  in 
marriage  to  a  man  having  a  concubine,  it  is 
not  to  be  taken  as  if  he  gave  her  to  a  married 
man ;  unless  haply  the  woman  appear  to  have 
been  made  free,  and  lawfully  jointured  and 
restored  to  honour  by  a  public  marriage  (c.  4). 
Those  who  by  their  father’s  will  are  married 
to  men  are  not  in  fault  if  the  women  which 
such  men  had  were  not  had  in  marriage  (c.  5). 
Since  a  wife  is  one  thing,  a  concubine  another, 
to  cast  from  one’s  bed  the  bondmaid  and  to 
receive  a  wife  of  ascertained  free  birth  is  not  a 
doubling  of  marriage,  but  a  progress  in  honour¬ 
able  conduct  (c.  6). — The  Council  of  Angers  in 
4o.i  enacts  excommunication  against  those  who 
abuse  the  name  of  marriage  with  other  men’s 
wives  in  the  lifetime  of  their  husbands  (c.  6). 
That  of  Vannes  (a.d.  465)  deals  in  the  same  way 
with  those  who  having  wives,  except  by  reason  of 
fornication,  and  without  proof  of  adultery,  marry 
others, — both  enactments,  however,  pointing  per¬ 
haps  rather  to  marriage  after  separation. 

Towards  the  same  period,  however  (latter 
half  of  the  5th  century),  we  must  notice  a  Nes- 
torian  Synod  held  in  Persia,  under  the  presidency 
of  Barsumas  Archbishop  of  Isisibis,  as  affording 
probably  the  first  instance  of  what  may  be  called 
the  modern  Protestant  interpretation  of  the 
Pauline  yuidy  yvvaiKhs  avr]p.  A  priest,  its  canons 
declare,  “  should  be  one  who  has  one  wife,  as 
it  is  said  in  the  Apostle’s  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
•  Whoever  marries,  let  him  have  one  wife ;’  if 
he  transgresses,  he  is  to  be  separated  from  the 
Church  and  the  priestly  order.  But  if  a  priest 
not  knowing  marriage,  or  whose  wife  is  dead, 
should  w'ish  for  lawful  marriage,  let  him  not  be 
forbidden  by  the  bishop,  whether  he  have  wished 
to  marry  before  or  after  his  priesthood.”  Any 
one  w'ho  contravenes  these  canons  is  anathe¬ 
matized,  and  if  a  priest,  to  be  deposed  (see  Labbe 
and  Mansi,  Cone.,  vol.  viii.  pp.  143—4).  It  is 
clear  that  the  Nestorians  in  this  case  interpreted 
St.  Paul  as  speaking  not  of  successive  but  of 
simultaneous  mandage.  That  this  was  not  how¬ 
ever  the  view  of  the  Greek  Church  generally  is 
evident  from  many  authorities  ;  see,  for  instance, 
the  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople  in 
Trullo,  A.D.  691  and  following  years. 

If  Burchard’s  collection  is  to  be  credited,  a 
canon  (16)  was  adopted  by  the  4th  or  5th  Council 
of  Arles  (a.d.  524  or  554)  forbidding  any  man  to 
have  two  wives  at  once,  or  a  concubine  at  any 
time  (sed  neque  unquam  concubinam).  A  col¬ 
lection  of  Irish  Canons,  supposed,  to  belong  to 
the  close  of  the  7th  century,  shows  that  the 
Celtic  kings  of  Ireland  must,  as  in  Britain  in  the 
days  of  Gildas,  have  had  regular  harems.  The 
barbarous  Latin  title  of  one  of  its  chapters 
(bk.  xxiv.,  c.  vii.)  is,  “  De  rege  non  habente 
uxores  plurimas,”  and  the  Synod  is  represented 
as  enacting  (if  the  term  can  be  used)  as  follows : 

According  as  is  the  dignity  which  the  king 
receives,  so  great  should  be  his  fear ;  for  many 
women  deprave  his  soul,  and  his  mind,  divided 
by  the  multitude  of  his  wives,  falls  greatly  into 
sin.” 

To  the  8th  century  belongs  one  of  the  most 
curious  incidents  in  the  treatment  of  this  question 
by  the  Church.  In  a  letter  of  Pope  Gregory  II. 
(a.d.  714—30)  to  Boniface,  the  Apostle  of  Ger¬ 


many,  written  in  answer  to  a  series  of  questions 
put  to  him  by  the  latter,  w'e  find  the  Pope  treat¬ 
ing  the  case  of  a  wife,  who  through  boduy  infir¬ 
mity  becomes  incapable  of  fulfilling  the  conjugal 
duty.  Can  the  husband  in  such  an  event  take 
a  second  wife  ?  The  Pope  replies,  that  it  is  good 
for  him  to  remain  united  to  her.  “  But  he  who 
cannot  contain  ”  (referring  evidently  to  1  Cor. 
vii.  9),  “  let  him  marry  rather but  without 
withdrawing  maintenance  “  from  her  whom  in¬ 
firmity  hinders,  but  no  detestable  fault  excludes” 
from  his  bed — a  decision  closely  akin  to  that  of 
Luther  and  the  Protestant  theologians  in  the 
case  of  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse.  Further  on  (c. 
6)  the  Pope  condemns  bigamy  generally,  “  since 
that  is  not  rightly  to  be  deemed  marriage  which 
exceeds  the  number  of  two,  for  the  yoke  is  not 
borne  except  by  two”  (quia  nisi  in  duobus  non 
geritur  jugum)— not  a  very  complimentary  argu¬ 
ment  in  favour  of  monogamy  (6'.  Bonif.  Epistt. 
ed.  Wurdtwein,  No.  24). 

We  find  the  question  of  the  lawfulness  of  a 
second  marriage  in  case  of  a  wife’s  bodily  in¬ 
firmity  recurring  in  a  work  not  of  much  later 
date  than  Pope  Gregory’s  letter  to  Boniface, 
Archbishop  Egbert  of  York’s  Dialogue  on  Church 
Government  (^Dialogus  per  interrogationes  et 
responsiones  de  institutione  ecclesiasticd).  The 
archbishop  is  however  more  cautious  than  the 
Pope.  He  puts  the  case  (c.  13)  only  in  the  shape 
of  a  dissolution  of  the  marriage  tie  by  agree¬ 
ment  of  both  parties  (ex  convenientia  ambo- 
rum),  because  of  the  infirmity  of  one  of  them  ; 
can  the  healthy  one  marry  again,  the  infirm  one 
consenting,  and  promising  continence  ?  The 
archbishop  implies  that  he  may  :  “  By  change  of 
times  necessity  breaks  the  law  ...  in  doubtful 
cases  one  should  not  judge  (in  ambiguis  non  est 
ferenda  sententia).” 

Another  example  in  the  8th  century,  though 
bearins:  rather  on  concubinage  than  on  bigamv, 
is  to  be  found  in  certain  replies  reported  to  have 
been  given  by  Pope  Stephen  HI.,  whilst  he  was 
in  France,  in  the  town  of  Kierzy,  at  the  Breton 
monastery  (in  Carisiaco  villa  Brittannico  monas- 
terio),  to  various  questions  addressed  to  him  a.d. 
754.  He  expressed  his  approval  of  Pope  Leo’s 
view  as  to  the  propriety  of  dismissing  a  bond¬ 
maid  concubine  and  marrying  a  freewoman,  and 
(c.  3)  in  further  reply  to  a  case  put  to  him  of  a 
man  marrying  a  bondmaid  in  a  foreign  country, 
then  returning  to  his  own  and  marrying  a  free¬ 
woman,  then  again  going  back  to  the  former 
country  and  finding  his  bondmaid  wife  manned 
to  another,  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  “  such  a 
one  may  take  another  bondmaid  (is  potest  aliam 
accipere),”  but  not  in  the  lifetime  of  the  free 
wife. 

The  relaxation  of  the  sanctity  of  the  marriage 
tie  in  the  Carolingian  era  seems  indeed  to  have 
become  extreme.  This  mav  be  inferred,  for  in- 
stance,  from  the  frequency  of  enactments  for¬ 
bidding  manned  men  to  have  concubines,  for 
which  see  Ansegis,  bk.  vi.  cc.  230,  433,  and  again 
bk.  vii.  c.  338,  the  last  garnished  with  the  some¬ 
what  naif  alignment,  “lest  love  of  the  concubine 
detach  the  man  from  his  wife.”  A  contemporary 
capitulary  (a.d.  774)  by  Arechis  Prince  of  Benc- 
vento,  forbids  a  man  having  a  lawful  wife  to  give 
aught  by  any  device  to  his  sons  or  daughters 
born  during  her  life  of  another  unlawful  wife 
(c.  8),  an  enactment  which  seemingly  points  at 


BIOTHANATOS 


BIRD 


207 


practices  aA’^owedly  bigamous.  The  dismissal  of 
wives  by  the  Carolingian  sovereigns,  in  order  to 
marry  others,  becomes  likewise  so  common  that 
it  is  almost  impossible  to  distinguish  between 
patent  bigamy  and  bigahiy  veiled  under  the  name 
of  divorce.  At  the  summit  of  the  Carolingian 
world  the  great  emperor,  besides  actual  and 
divorced  wives,  sets  the  law  at  defiance  by  keep¬ 
ing  concubines.  The  East  was  even  below  the 
West  in  servility  towards  the  vices  of  the  sove¬ 
reign.  In  the  year  809  a  Council  of  Constan¬ 
tinople  pronounced  a  second  marriage  of  the 
reigning  emperor  Constantine,  after  sending  his 
first  wife  to  a  convent,  lawful,  on  the  ground 
that  “  the  Divine  law  can  do  nothing  against 
kings.” 

The  reader  is  referred  to  the  head  Digamy  for 
the  further  consideration  of  this  subject ;  in  the 
meanwhile  we  may  conclude  that,  whilst  the 
church  of  the  eight  or  nine  first  centuries  never 
formally  sanctioned  simultaneous  marriage  rela¬ 
tions  with  two  persons,  it  yet  sometimes  indi¬ 
rectly  permitted  them  in  outlying  provinces  in 
the  case  of  a  ivife’s  infirmity,  and  certainly  was 
not  powerful  enough  to  check  them  among  the 
great  of  the  ruder  races,  nor  probably  generally 
in  the  Carolingian  era.  [J.  M.  L.] 

BIOTHANATOS  (fiioeduaros),  “  Qui  morte 
violenta  peril,”  says  Suicer,  siih  v. :  as  if  it  had 
been  contracted  from  “  biaiothanatos,”  which 
is  the  definition  of  “  ol  PioOauarovvTes”  given  by 
St.  Chrysostom  in  disputing  against  the  opinion 
that  the  souls  of  such  after  death  become 
demons  (De  Lazaro  Serm.  ii.  §  1 ;  Op.  vol.  i. 

р.  727  ;  Ed.  Montf.  Comp.  Tertull.  De  Animd, 

с.  57).  According  to  Baronius,  a.d.  138,  n.  4-5, 
it  was  one  of  the  terms  applied  to  Christians 
generally  by  way  of  reproach  for  preferring  to 
lose  their  lives  sooner  than  deny  Christ :  an 
application  that  would  have  been  unmeaning 
had  not  the  prominent  notion  attached  to  the 
word  all  along  been  that  of  people  laying  violent 
hands  upon  themselves ;  and  hence,  according  to 
the  story  told  by  Cassein  (Collat.  iii.  6  ;  comp. 
Ins.  viii.  14),  a  monk  who  had  thrown  himself 
into  a  well  under  temptation  of  the  devil,  and 
been  drowned,  was  all  but  reckoned  by  his  abbot 
among  such,  as  being  unworthy  to  be  commemo¬ 
rated  among  those  who  had  gone  to  their  rest 
in  peace.  Pagan  moralists,  we  are  told  by 
Mr.  Lecky  (Europ.  Mor.  ii.  46,  et  seq.),  con¬ 
demned  suicide  upon  four  grounds.  “  Christian 
theologians,”  he  adds,  “  were  the  first  to  main¬ 
tain  dogmatically  that  a  man  who  destroys  his 
own  life  has  committed  a  crime  similar  both  in 
kind  and  in  magnitude  to  that  of  an  ordinary 

murderer . On  the  other  hand,  the  high 

position  assigned  to  resignation  in  the  moral 
scale,  .  .  .  and,  above  all,  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  remedial  and  providential  character  of 
suffering,  have  proved  sufficient  protection 
against  despair.  Enthusiasm,  in  eaidy  times, 
indeed,  animated  many  to  court  martyrdom ; 
and  Christian  women  were  honoured,  or  at  least 
excused,  for  committing  suicide  to  guard  their 
ehastity.  But  this  feeling  died  away  with  the 
occasions  which  evoked  it,  and  even  asceticism 
was  gradually  subjected  to  rule,  when  experience 
had  shown  the  extreme  limits  to  which  it  could 
be  carried  without  injury  to  the  constitution.” 
The  “  Gircumcelhones”  a  wild  sect  of  the  Dona- 
tists,  ai‘e  frequently  rej>roached  for  looking  upon 


suicide  in  the  light  of  a  virtue  by  St.  Augustine 
(Cont.  Ep.  Farm.  iii.  6  ;  Brev.  Coll,  cum  Don. 
Die  iii.  c.  8,  §  13,  &c.).  By  the  16th  canon  of 
the  first  Council  of  Braga,  A.D.  560  (Mansi  ix. 
774^84,  and  Pagi,  ibid.),  those  who  committed 
it  in  any  way  “  were  neither  to  be  comme¬ 
morated  at  the  oblation,  nor  to  be  carried  to  the 
gi'ave  with  psalm-singing.”  Comp.  Gratian, 
Decret.  Part  ii.  cause  23,  9.  5:  where  this  canon 
and  other  passages  in  point  are  cited.  [E.  S.  Ff.] 
BIRD  (as  symbol).  The  birds  re})resented  in 
the  earliest  Christian  art  are  generally  dis¬ 
tinguished  by  their  species  [see  Dove,  Eagle, 
Phoenix,  &c.].  This  is  not  only  the  case  in  the 
early  sarcophaguses  and  frescoes  of  the  catacombs, 
but  it  is  specially  remarkable  in  the  first  gothic 
works  of  the  Lombard  churches  in  the  North  of 
Italy.  See  Ruskin  (^Stones  of  Venice,  Appendix, 
vol.  i.,  Byzantine  and  Lombard  Carvings)  where 
early  Lombard  work  is  contrasted  with  Byzan¬ 
tine.  But  in  the  very  earliest  tombs  (see  Aringhi, 
ii.  324,  and  De  Rossi  almost  passim,  Bottari 
t.  178  viii.  tav.  174,  &c.)  birds  assignable  to  no 
particular  species  are  introduced,  apparently  with 
symbolic  purpose.  In  De  Rossi  they  occur  so 
often  on  tombs,  with  or  without  the  palm  bi'anch, 
that  they  may  clearh'’  be  taken  as  images  of  the 
released  soul  seeking  its  home  in  heaven.  Aringhi 
recognizes  this  in  a  passage  of  some  beauty 
(ii.  324);  he  takes  the  lightness  and  aerial  nature 
of  the  Bird  as  a  symbol  of  the  aspiration  of 
faithful  spirits  “  quorum  jugis  potissimum  con- 
versatio,  ut  Apostolus  ait,  in  coelis  est  ”  (see  also 
Ps.  cxxiii.  6  of  the  released  soul).  He  refers  to 
Bede  who  says  “  Volucres  sunt  qui  sursum  cor 
habent,  et  coelestia  concupiscunt ;  ”  and  who 
looks  on  the  bird  also  as  a  sign  of  the  resurrec¬ 
tion.  The  faithful,  like  birds  “  obviam  Xti  in 
acre  ex  mortuis  sunt  ituri.”  [Note  the  curious 
analogy  of  the  Psyche-butterfly,  and  comj)are 
with  it  Hadrian’s  “  Animula  vagula,  blandula,” 
&c.,  as  if  addressed  to  a  thing  of  uncertain  flight.] 
Caged  birds  are  occasionally  found  in  paintings  or 
other  representations  (Bokletti,  p.  154,  tav.  vi.). 
They  are  supposed  to  represent  the  human  soul 
in  the  prison  of  the  flesh,  or  they  may  be  emblems 
of  the  imprisonment  of  a  martyr.  Martigny 
describes  a  mosaic  in  the  tribune  of  Sta.  Maria  in 
Transtevere,  in  Rome,  where  one  of  these  cages  is 
placed  near  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  with  inscrip¬ 
tion  “Christus  Dominus  captus  est  in  peccatis 
nostris  ;  ”  and  another  by  Isaiah,  with  the  words 
“Ecce  virgoconcipiet  et  pariet  filium” — referring 
thus  to  the  Passion  and  the  Incarnation  of  our 
Lord. 

The  symbolism  of  the  cross  by  a  bird’s  out¬ 
spread  ivings  is  Tertullian’s  (^De  Oratione,  c.  29 
[al.  24]) :  Herzog  conjectures  that  the  pictures 
or  carvings  of  birds  with  flowers  and  fruits 
combined  are  symbolic  of  Paradise.  In  the 
illustrations  to  Le  Plant’s  31SS.  Ckre'tiennes  de 
la  Gaule  nondescript  birds  are  found  almost 
passim,  generally  in  pairs  on  each  side  of  the 
monogram  of  Christ,  and  almost  ahvays  with 
the  letters  A  u,  which  appear  more  frequently 
in  the  ancient  documents  of  Christian  France. 

Pail’S  of  drinking  birds,  peacocks  (see  s.  v.), 
and  also  of  conventional  shape,  are  still  to  be 
seen  among  the  most  ancient  fragments  of  By¬ 
zantine  domestic  sculpture  in  Venice  (Stones  of 
Venice,  ii.  138,  plate  xi.).  They  may  be  carried 
back  to  the  11th  or  12th  century,  perhap.s  :  at 


208 


BIRRUS 


BISHOP 


till  events  they  are  clearly  decorative  repetitions 
of  the  bird-symbols  in  the  catacombs  and  earlier 
monuments.  [K.  St.  J.  T.] 

BIRRUS,  al.  BYRRHUS.  (Bripos,  Briplov.') 
Tiie  word  Birrus  or  Burrus  was  an  old  Latin 
word  (Festus  in  voc.)  equivalent  to  “  rufus  ”  or 
red,  and  identical  probably  with  the  Greek  irv^ftos. 
So  St.  Isidore  seems  to  have  thought,  though 
late  copyists,  ignorant  as  most  of  them  were  of 
Greek,  have  made  nonsense  of  his  text.  “Birrus 
a  Graeco  vocabulum  trahit :  illi  enim  birrum 
bibrium  (?  iruppSu  or  B-ppiou)  dicunt.”  {Orig.  lib. 
XX.  cap.  24.)  No  traces  of  the  word,  as  the  name 
of  a  garment,  are  to  be  found  before  the  Christian 
era.  The  earliest  known  instance  of  such  an  use 
is  in  Artemidorus  (early  in  2nd  century).  Speak¬ 
ing  of  the  significance  of  various  articles  of 
dress,  when  seen  in  dreams,  he  says  that  the 
Chlamys  (a  short  military  cloak),  “  which  some 
call  Mandyas,  others  Ephestris,  others  ^Tjp'iou, 
portends  trouble  and  ditficulty,  and  to  prisoners 
under  trial  portends  condemnation,  by  reason 
that  it  compasses  about  and  confines  the  body  ” 
(Oneirocritica,  lib.  ii.  cap.  3).  Other  writers 
identify  it  with  the  “  amphibalus  ”  (q.  v.). 
“Birrus:  amphibalus  villosus,”  says  Papias. 
And  the  author  of  the  life  of  St.  Deicolus  (^Acta 
SS.  Ord.  Bened.  saec.  2,  p.  105),  “  Birrum  .... 
quern  Graeci  amphibalum  vocant.”  A  fresco 
in  the  cemetery  of  Pontianus  (Aringhi,  Roma 
Sotterranea,  tom.  i.  p.  383),  in  which  are  repre¬ 
sented  three  laymen,  SS.  Milix,  Abdon,  and 
Sennes,  and  one  ecclesiastic,  St.  Vicentius,  Avill 
probably  give  a  good  idea  of  the  dilference  be¬ 
tween  the  Chlamys,  the  Birrus,  and  the  Casula 
(or  Planeta).  St.  Milix  is  represented  wearing 
a  Chlamys ;  Abdon  and  Sennes  a  heavy  cloak 
reaching  from  the  shoulders  to  the  back  of  the 
knee,  and  in  form  dift'ering  but  little  from  the 
Chlamys  (see  woodcut,  p.  8).  But  the  Birrus 
(if  such  be  the  garment  intended)  is  provided 
with  a  hood,  or  cowl,  for  wearing  over  the 
head,  as  were  most  such  outer  garments  when 
intended,  as  was  the  Birrus,  for  out-door  use. 
And  this  hood  is  here  represented  as  worn 
on  the  head.  Such  a  rough  Birrus  as  this 
was  allowed  to  be  worn  by  slaves  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Theodosian  Code  (Lex  1,  de 
Habitu,  speaking  of  them  as  viles  birri).  And 
hence  some  have  inferred,  though  wronglv,  that 
the  Birrus  was  at  that  time  regarded  as  a  gar¬ 
ment  suitable  only  for  persons  of  the  lowest 
class.  This  was  not  so.  There  were  “  viles 
birri,”  cheap  cloaks,  such  as  those  here  allowed 
as  a  privilege  to  slaves;  there  were  “  pretiosi 
birri,”  costly  cloaks,  such  as  those  of  which  St. 
Augustine  says  that  they  might  perhaps  be  fitting 
for  a  bishop,  but  not  fitting  for  Augustine,  “  a 
poor  man,  as  his  parents  had  been  poor  before 
him  ”  (Sermo  de  Biversis,  356,  tom.  v.  p.  1579). 
From  the  4th  century  onward  the  mention  of  the 
Birrus  is  not  unfrequent,  as  of  an  out-door  dress 
used  alike  by  laymen  (St.  Augustin.  De  Verbis 
Apost.  Serm.  xviii.  cap.  10)  and  by  ecclesiastics.® 
And  in  these  later  notices  it  is  almost  always 

“  More  particularly  we  hear  of  bishops  wearing  them 
(as  an  out-door  dress),  St.  Augustine,  above  cited,  and  De 
vita  C'ltricaruvi,  Serna,  ii. ;  Palladius,  Hist.  Lausaic.  c.  136 ; 
Gregor.  Turon.  Hi&t.  Franc,  lib.  ii.  1.  Many  centuries 
later  we  read  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury  wearing  a 
Birrus  (Anonymus  de  Miracalis  S.  Thomae  Cantuarensis, 
apud  Ducange). 


referred  to  as  being  either  a  somewhat  expensive 
dress,  or  as  having  a  certain  secular  character 
attaching  to  it  as  compared  with  the  dress  worn 
by  monks.  Thus  Cassianus  (circ.  418  A.D.) 
describing  the  dress  of  monks,  says  {De  Habitu 
Monach.  lib.  i.  cap.  7)  that  they  avoid  the  costli¬ 
ness  and  the  pretence  to  dignity  implied  in  the 
Planeta  and  the  Birrus  (Planeticarum  simul 
atque  birrorum  pretia  simul  et  ambitionem  de- 
clinant).  And  St.  Isidore  in  like  manner  couples 
together  the  Planeta  and  the  Birrus  as  garments 
which  are  not  allowable  to  monks  (Linteo  non 
licet  Monachum  indui.  Orarium,  biiTos,  planetas, 
non  est  fas  uti,  Regula,  cap.  13).  And  this  will 
account  for  the  peculiar  language  of  the  12th 
Canon  of  the  Council  of  Gangra  (a.  319),  warn¬ 
ing  men  against  attributing  too  much  importance 
to  the  monastic  dress  for  its  own  sake,  and 
despising  those  ivho  wore  “  birri  ”  (rovs  ^rjpous 
(popovvras).  Towards  the  close  of  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury  we  find  St.  Gregory  the  Great  using  the 
term  “  Birrus  albus  ”  in  speaking  of  the  white 
“  Christening-Cloak  ”  worn  by  the  newly  bap¬ 
tized  (Lib.  vii.  Indict,  i.  Epist.  5).  And  the 
word  has  many  descendants  in  mediaeval  Latin, 
such  as  Birettum,  Birreta,  Birrati  (the  Car¬ 
melite  Monks,  “  Les  Freres  Barrez,”  were  so 
called);  and  in  old  French,  as  “Bure”  coarse 
cloth.  Bureau  (Fr.  and  Eng.),  a  table  covered 
with  coarse  cloth,  such  as  was  used  for  official 
business  (Menage).  [W.  B.  M.] 

BIRTHDAYS  OF  SAIXTS.  [Festivai^s.] 

BISHOP.  Names  and  titles.  Origin  of  the 
office. 

I.  Appointment. 

1.  Election. 

a.  Who  elected.  Who  were  eligible,  y.  Time, 
mode,  and  place  of  election. 

2.  Confirmation. 

3.  Ordination. 

o.  Matter  and  form.  /3.  Ordainers.  y.  Place 
and  time  of  ordination.  6.  Register  of  ordi* 
nations. 

4.  Enthronization. 

6.  Oatiis. 

a.  Piofession  of  obedience  to  metropolitan.  )3. 
Oath  of  allegiance  to  the  emperor  or  king, 
y.  Oath  against  simony. 

II.  Removal. 

1.  By  translation. 

2.  By  resignation. 

a.  Simply.  /3.  In  favour  of  a  successor,  y.  So 
far  as  to  obtain  a  coadjutor. 

3.  By  deposition,  absolute  or  temporary. 

A.  For  what  cause. 

a.  Of  irregularities  which  vitiated  the  con¬ 
secration  ab  initio.  /3.  Of  such  as  en¬ 
tailed  deposition  from  the  office  already 
conferred,  y.  Of  such  as  also  entailed 
excommunication.  8.  Of  such  as  entailed 
only  suspension. 

B.  By  what  authority. 

III.  Offices  and  Functions,  in  relation  to  the 

Church. 

1.  Spiritual,  arising  from  his  office  as  bishop. 

a.  Singly,  in  respect  to  his  own  diocese. 

i.  Ordination,  ii.  Confinnation.  iii.  Admi¬ 
nistration  of  sacraments,  iv.  Preaching. 
V.  Discipline,  vi.  Creeds,  liturgy,  church 
worship,  &c.,  and  church  affairs  gene¬ 
rally.  vii.  Visitation  of  Diocese.  viiL 
Was  the  representative  of  the  diocese : 
1.  in  issuing  litterae  formatae;  2.  in 
communicating  with  other  dioceses,  ix. 
Alms  and  church  property,  x.  Patron¬ 
age  of  benefices  in  the  diocese,  xi.  Ar¬ 
bitration  of  lawsuits,  xii.  How  far 
allowed  to  act  out  of  his  own  diocese, 
xiii.  A  Biugle  bishop  to  each  diocese« 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


209 


(See  under  the 
several  articles.) 


and  a  single  diocese  to  each  bishop, 
xiv.  Size  oi  dioceses,  their  union,  subdi¬ 
vision,  &c.  XV.  Residence. 

/3.  Jointly,  in  synod,  in  respect  to  his  province. 

■y.  Collectively,  in  general  council,  in  respect  to 
the  Church  at  large. 

2.  Temporal,  conferred  by  the  state. 

1.  Judicial  authority  in  secular  causes,  ii.  Be¬ 
came  a  member  of  state  councils  vvitena- 
gemots,  &c.  iil.  Authority  over  subordinate 
civil  magistrates,  iv.  Protection  of  minors, 
widows,  prisoners,  &c.  v,  Oflice  of  crowning 
emperor  or  king.  vi.  Not  sworn  in  a  court 
of  justice,  vii.  Intercession  for  criminals, 
vlii.  Special  legal  protection  of  his  life  and 
property,  ix.  Exemption  from  jurisdiction 
of  civil  courts,  x.  Legal  force  of  synodical 
di  cisions  and  canons,  xi.  But  restricted  also 
by  law  or  canon  in  various  ways :  as,  1.  in 
the  disposing  of  his  property  by  will ;  2.  in 
the  reading  of  heathen  or  of  heretical  books ; 

3.  in  ways  of  living;  4.  in  the  matter  of  | 
fiscal  burdens,  military  service,  &c.  xii.  Of 
the  education  given  in  the  bishop’s  b'luse, 

3.  Social  and  honorary  iirivileges. 

i.  Of  bowing  the  head,  kissing  the  hands  and  the 
feet,  &c.  ii.  Mitre,  ring,  pastoral  staff,  and 
other  vestments  and  insignia,  iii  Of  sing¬ 
ing  Hosannas  before  him.  iv.  Of  the  phrase 
“  Corona  tua.”  v.  Of  the  bishop’s  throne,  &c. 
vi.  Bishops  attended  by  two  presbyters,  &c, 

IV.  /  osition,  in  relation  to  other  bishops. 

1.  All  in  their  inherent  oflice  equal — litterae  commu- 

nicatoriae — order  of  precedence. 

2.  Archbishop,  primate,  metropolitan,  exarch,  pa¬ 

triarch,  pope.  (See  under  the  several  articles.) 

3.  Special  cases,  as  In  Africa  and  at  Alexandria. 

4.  AuTOKec/joAoi. 

6.  Chorepiscopi. 

6.  Suffragans. 

7.  Coadjutors. 

8.  Intercessores  and  inter- 

ven  tores. 

9.  Comtnendatarli. 

V.  Anomalous  cases. 

1.  Episcopi  vagantes,  <rxoAafi)i/Tes,  ambulantes,  &c. 

2.  Monastic  bishops. 

3.  Antistes  palatii. 

4.  Episcopus  cardinalis. 

6.  Epi.scopus  regionarius. 

6.  Titular  bishops,  and  inpartibus  infidelium. 

7.  Episcopus  ordinum. 

8.  Libra,  as  the  collective  name  of  the  suffragans  of 

the  see  of  Rome. 

9.  Lay  holders  of  bishoprics. 

10.  Episcopi  Fatuorum — Innocentium — Puerorum. 

(Authoriiies.) 

Bishop  (’ETrltr/coTros,  a  term  adopted  by  the 
Christian  Church  through  the  LXX.  usage  of  it, 
and  first  by  the  Hellenic  portion  of  the  Church, 
iTTKTKOTrT]  [Acts  i.  20]  being  formed  from  it  to 
express  the  office)  =  in  the  Acts,  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles,  and  in  the  contemporary  St.  Clement  of 
Rome  (but  wrongly  so  interpreted  in  the  spurious 
Epist.  of  St.  Ignatius  to  Hero,  cc.  iii.  viii.),  first 
an  appellative  (Acts  xx.  28),  and  then  an  inter¬ 
changeable  title,  of  the  irpeafivrepoi,  who  minis¬ 
tered  to  the  several  Churches  under  the  Apostles  : 
but  from  the  earliest  years  of  the  2ud  century, 
and  from  St.  Ignatius  onwards,  the  distinctive 
name,  adopted  as  such  in  evei*y  language  used 

?  ^  ■» 

by  Christians,  Eastern  (Syidac,  |  • 

X  ? 

Arabic,  Ethiopic,  I  Coptic, 

ItlCniCKOnOC)  as  well  as  Western  (Scan¬ 
dinavian  and  Teutonic,  as  well  as  Latinized),  of 
the  single  president  of  a  diocese  (irapoiKia,  Sioi- 
XTjo-xs),  who  came  in  the  room  of  the  Apostles, 
having  presbyters,  deacons,  and  laity  under  him, 
and  possessing  exclusive  power  of  ordination,  and 
primarily  of  confirmation,  with  primary  authority 
in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  and  of 

CHRlSr.  ANT. 


di.scipline  (St.  Ignat,  ad  Folycarp.  init.  and  v.  vi. 
viii.;  ad  Ephes.  i.  ii.  ;  Martyr.  S.  Ignat.  §  iii. ; 
Martyr.  S.  Folycarp.  §  xvi. ;  Polycrates  ap.  Euseb. 
H.  E.  V.  24;  Hadrian.  Imper.  Epist.  ap.  Vopisc. 
in  V.  Saturnin.  ;  Hennas  Pastor,  17.9.  iii.  5 ; 
Murator.  Canon,  p.  20,  ed.  Tregelles  [of  Pius, 
bishop  of  Rome] ;  Hegesipp.  ap.  Euseb.  II.  E.  ii. 
23  [of  St.  James  of  Jerusalem],  and  iv.  22  [of 
Symeon  of  Jerusalem,  A.D.  69] ;  Dion.  Cor.  ap. 
Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  23  [of  Dionysius  (appointed  by 
St.  Paul),  Publius,  Quadratus,  of  Athen.s];  St. 
Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vi.  13,  and  ap.  Euseb.  II.  E. 

ii.  1;  &c. &c. &c.): — “Episcopi  ”  being  thenceforth 
occasionally  still  called  “  presbyteri,”  but  not 
vice  versa  [see,  however,  St.  Clem.  Alex.  Quis 
Dives  Salvetur,  xlii.  and  Tertull.  de  Fraescript. 

iii. ];  see  Pearson, •  Ffnxfxc.  Ignat,  ii.  13,  pp.  547, 
sq.  ed.  Churton : — TJre  •yap  recos  iKoivwvovv 
ovSfjLan"  \onrhr  8e  rh  lS'ia(^ov  ^udaTcp  a-Kovivi- 
IX'grai  ovofia,  ^ETTiaKSTrov’ETncrKOTra},  irpecr^vTipov 
TTpea^vTfpcp  (St.  Chrys.  in  Fhil.  1,  Horn.  i.). 

Called  also  Apostolus  at  first,  but  for  so  short  a 
time  as  to  leave  little  more  than  a  tradition  of  the 
fact  (Theodor.  Mopsuest.  in  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  ap.  Rab. 
Maur.  vi.  604 ;  Theodoret  in  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  in  Fhil. 
i.  1,  ii.  25;  Ambrosiast.  in  Ephes.  iv.  12,  and 
ap.  Amalar.  de  Off.  Eccl.  ii.  13 — N.  T.  usage, 
as  in  Rom.  xvi.  7,  2  Cor.  viii.  23,  Phil.  ii.  25, 
is  indecisive). 

Called  likewise,  but  rarely  after  the  fourth 
century,  by  names  applied  also  to  presbyters 
(cf.  TTpoXardix^voi,  1  Thess.  v.  12  and  see  Herm. 
Past.  T7s.  ii.  4;  ^yovy^voi,  Heb.  xiii.  7,  17,  and 
see  Herm.  Past.  Vis.  ii.  2,  iii.  9,  St.  Clem.  Rom, 
ad  Cor.  i.  21);  as,  e.g.  npoeerTws  or  npoefTTws 
rr,s  'EKKXiqaias  (of  bishops,  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv. 
23,  vi.  3,  8,  vii.  13,  viii.  18,  &c. ;  and  probably 
in  St.  Greg.  Nyss.  de  Scopo  Christian.  Opp,  iii. 
306 ;  of  presbyters,  in  St.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  i, ; 
St.  Basil.  M.  Feg.  Moral.  Ixx.  36 ;  of  bishops  and 
presbyters  together,  in  Cone.  Antioch,  a.d.  341, 
can.  1 ;  the  word  is  ambiguous  in  St.  Justin  IMart, 
Apol.  i.  67)  ;  Ylpoia’To.p.^vos  (of  bishops,  in 
Eusebius ;  or  again,  TTpoards,  Euseb.  vi.  10, 
and  so  6  TTpoaraTar  "'AyyeXos,  Oecum.  et  Areth. 
in  Apoc.  ii.  1  ;  and  TTpoaracria  of  a  bishopric, 
Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  4,  vi.  35 ;  and  of  the  presbyteratc 
in  St.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  1 ;  and  St.  Chrys.  Horn.  xi. 
in  1  Tim.  iii.);  Tlpdedpos  (of  bishops,  in  Euseb. 
a.  E.  viii.  2,  &c.;  Cone.  Trull,  cap.  xxxvii. ;  and 
TooeSp'ia  a.TTQ(rro\iKy  =  a  bishopric,  Theodoret, 
iii,  14  ;  of  presbyters  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  x.  4,  Synes. 
Epist.  xii.) ;  Fraesidens  (Tertull.  de  Cor.  Mil.  iii., 
and  Senior  of  both,  id.  Apol.  39);  Fraepositus 
(of  bishops  in  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  iii.  ix.  xiii.,  &c. ; 
St.  Aug.  de  Trin.  xv.  26,  Epist.  xiii. ;  of  pres¬ 
byters,  in  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  3,  21);  Antistes  (of 
bishops  repeatedly,  as  in  Justinian’s  Code,  St.  Gre¬ 
gory  the  Great,  &c.  &c. ;  and  so  expressly  Isidor. 
Hispal.  Etymol.  VII.  xii.  §  16  ;  of  presbyters,  as  in 
Ambrosiast.  in  1  Tim.  v. ;  of  both  bishop  and  pres¬ 
byter,  in  St.  Aug.  Senn.  251  de  Foenit. ;  but  “  an- 
tistes  ordine  in  secundo”  of  a  presbyter,  by  the 
time  of Sidon, Apollin.  Epist. iv.  11);  and  sometimes 
at  first  by  the  name  itselfof  np6cr/3uT6pos(St.  Iren. 
adv.  Ilacr.  III.  ii,  2,  IV.  xxvi.  2,  and  ap.  Euseb. 
II.  E.  V.  24 ;  St.  Clem.  Alex.,  Quis  Dives  Salvetur, 
xiii.,  who  calls  the  same  person  both  iiriaKoivos 
and  irpea’fivTfpos) ;  while  St.  Cyprian  and  St.  Au¬ 
gustin,  after  1  Pet.  v.  1,  call  presbyters  “  com- 
presbyteri  nostri ;”  and  4th  century  writers,  as 
Ambrosiast.  in  1  Tim.  iii.  10,  and  the  Qu.  Vet. 


210 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


ct  Kov.  Test.  ci.  in  Append,  to  St.  Aug.  III.  ii.  93, 
describe  the  bishop  as  “  primus  presbyter  ”  or 
“  inter  presbyteros,”  and  speak  of  “  compres- 
byteri  ”  and  “  consaceixlotes  ”  (the  use  of  “  prae- 
latus”  for  bishop  exclusively  is  altogether  mo¬ 
dern;  but  “  De  Praelatorum  Simplicitate  ”  was  a 
title  of  St.  Cypr.  de  Unit.  Ted. ;  and  the  word 
is  used  bishops  and  presbyters  together  in 
St.  Greg.  M.  Reg.  Pastoral. ;  it  is  used  also  of 
an  abbat,  as  in  Cone.  Suess.  ii.  A.D.  853). 

Called  also,  and  from  an  early  date,  by  names 
exclusively  belonging  to  bishops  specifically  such, 
as  *'Apx^^*'>  01’  Princeps,  Eeclesiae,  or  PojmU 
(Origen,  cont.  Cels.  iii. ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  28, 
viii.  1 ;  St.  Chrys.  de  Sacerd.  iii.  14;  St.  Jerome 
repeatedly ;  Paulinus,  Epist.  ad  Alyp.  xlv. ; 
Optat.  i.  p.  15,  ed.  1679 ;  and  so  apx^  for 
bishopric,  as  e.  g.  in  Eusebius,  //.  E.  vi.  29); 
or  Princeps  simply  (St.  Jerome  in  Ps.  xlv.  and 
in  Esai.  lx.  17,  &c. ;  and  so  in  the  5th  century 
[or  more  prob.  the  6th  or  7th]  St.  Patrick’s 
canons  so  styled,  in  D’Achery,  and  in  Haddan 
and  Stubbs,  Goiinc.  ii.)  ;  Rector,  as  in  Hilary  the 
Deacon,  in  Ephes.  iv.,  and  Greg.  M.  Reg.  Pastor. ; 
I^raesul  (Pope  Julius,  Epist.  ad  Euseb.  ap.  Cou- 
.stant,  i.  382  [see  Du  Cange],  and  so  Praesulatus 
=.  Episcopate  in  e.  g.  Cassiodor.)  ;  Upoyyov- 
pevos  and  UpwTOKaOeSp'iTrjs  (Herm.  Past.  Vis.  iii. 
9)  ;  netTras  or  Papa  (especially,  at  first,  in  Africa, 
Dion.  Alex,  ad  Philem.  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  7  ; 
Tertull.  de  Pudic.  xiii. ;  Letters  of  St.  Cyprian, 
St.  Augustin,  Sidon.  Apollin.  &c.,  and  in  St.  Jerome, 
Prudentius,  Sulp.  Severus,  &c. — compare  also 
Abuna,  in  the  Church  of  Abyssinia),  used  down  to 
a  period  later  than  Charlemagne  (e.  g.  in  Walafr. 
Strab.  de  Reb.  Eccl.  vii.,  about  A.D.  840,  and 
Eulog.  Cordd).  about  a.d.  850)  of  all  bishops 
(Bingh.  II.  ii.  7  ;  Casaubon,  Exercit.  xiv.  §  4 ; 
Thomassin,  I.  i.  4,  50 ;  Suicer ;  Du  Cange)  ;  and 
in  the  East  (as  still  in  the  Greek  and  Russian 
Churches)  of  presbyters  also,  and  especially  of 
abbats  (but  Goar’s  distinction,  Trairas  =  a  bishop, 
and  TraTras  =  one  of  the  loAver  orders  of  clergy, 
seems  a  refinement),  but  gradually  restricted  by 
usage  in  the  West  to  the  bi.shop  of  Rome  (see 
Cone.  Tolet.  a.d.  400,  Labbe,  ii.  1227  ;  Cone.  Rom. 
Palm.  A.D.  503 ;  and  Ennodius,  Lib.  Apologet., 
of  the  same  date ;  Cone.  Constantin,  a.d.  681, 
Act.  1  and  2  ;  Gieseler  refers  to  Jo.  Diecmann, 
de  Vocis  Papae  Aetatibus,  Viteberg.  1671),  and 
finally  and  absolutely  so  limited  by  Greg.  VII.  in 
a  Council  of  Rome,  a.d.  1073  (Baron.  Martyrol. 
.Tan.  10);  and  in  the  East  to  the  bi.shop  of 
Alexandria  (Thomassin,  I.  i.  50,  §  14,  Du  Cange ; 
but  that  it  Avas  granted  formally  to  St.  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  by  Pope  Celestine  [Niceph.  xiv.  34] 
is  a  manifest  and  confessed  [Baron,  as  above] 
fiction) ; — sometimes,  again,  in  the  5th  century, 
*'A77€Aos  (St.  Aug.  Epist.  142 ;  St.  Ambrose  in 
1  Cor.  xi. ;  St.  Jerome  in  1  Cor.  xi.;  Socrat.  iv.  23; 
from  Rev.  i.  ii.,  and  compare  Gal.  i.  8,  iv.  14,  and 
possibly  1  Cor.  xi.  10);  and  so,  in  Saxon  England, 
God’s  “  Bydels,”  or  messengei's  (“  B}* delas,”  Laws 
of  Ethelred,  vii.  19,  and  of  Canute,  26); — and 
''Eepopos,  and  the  office  ’E^opeta  (Philostorg.  iii. 
4,  15) ;  and,  .a  the  8th  and  Later  centuries, 
Latinized  into  Speculator  (in  Cone.  Suess.  iii. 
A.D.  862) ;  and  varied  by  Anglo-Saxon  “  pom- 
positas,”  in  episcopal  signatures  to  charters,  into 
Inspector,  Superspector,  Visitator,  Inspector  Plebis 
Dei,  Katascopus  Legis  Dei,  &c.  &c.  (Kemble, 
Cod.  Dipl,  passim) : — called  also  Patriarcha  (so 


Dupin,  Dissert,  i.  §  5,  and  Suicer ;  the  name  bein 
first  confined  to  the  nigher  bishops,  acc.  t 
Suicer,  by  Socrates  v.  8,  c.  a.d.  440),  yet  only  rhe¬ 
torically  so  called  in  St.  Greg.  Naz.  (Orat.  20,  30, 
41)  and  St.  Greg.  Nyss.  (Orat.  Funebr.  in  Mdet. ; 
and  see  Bingh.  II.  ii.  9),  but  as  an  ordinary  name 
under  the  Gothic  kings  of  Italy  (Athalaric,  Epist. 
ad  .loan.  Pap.  in  Cassiodor.  ix.  15). 

Called  also  by  names  indicative  of  their  func¬ 
tions  ;  as,  'Updpxvs  (Pseudo-Dion.  Areop.  Eccl. 
Hierarch,  c.  v. ;  &c.) ; — Sacerdos  or  Pontifex, 
often  of  bishops  exclusively  (Taylor,  Episc. 
Assert.  §  27) ;  and  so  Aeirovpyia  for  bishopric, 
e.  g.  in  Euseb.  vi.  29  : — Sumrnus  or  Maximus 
Pontifex,  or  Sumrnus  Sacerdos  (ironically  in 
Tertull.  de  Pudicit.  i.,  but  seriously,  de  Rapt., 
xAui. ;  and  of  all  bishops  as  such,  in  St. 
Ambrose,  St.  Jerome,  St.  Augustin,  Sidon. 
Apollin,  Qu.  in  Vet.  et  Nov.  Test.  ci.  &c. ;  Cone. 
Agath.  A.D.  506,  can.  35,  and  down  to  the  11th 
century  [see  Du  Cange],  the  analogy  of  the  Jewish 
^Apxtepcvs  occurring  as  early  as  St.  Clem.  Rom. 
ad  Cor.  i.); — Pater  Patrum  and  Episcopus  Epi- 
scoporum,  but  rhetorically  only  (Sidon.  Apollin. 
Epist.  vi.  1,  after  Pseudo-Clem,  ad  Jacob.  Epist. 
1);  while  in  Africa,  where  the  power  of  the 
metropolitan  dex^eloped  more  slowly,  St.  Cyprian 
(p.  158,  Fell)  in  Cone.  Carth.  declares  that  no  one 
in  Africa  “Episcopum  se  Episcoporum  constituit;” 
and  Cone.  Carth.  a.d.  256  (in  St.  Cyprian),  and 
Cone.  Nippon.  Reg.  a.d.  393,  can.  39,  in  Cod.  Can. 
Eccl.  Afric.,  forbid  expressly  the  assumption  of 
such  titles  as  “Princeps  Sacerdotum,  aut  Sumrnus 
Sacerdos,  aut  aliquid  hujusmodi,”  and  command 
even  the  Primate  of  Africa  to  be  called  by  no 
other  title  than  that  of  “  primae  sedis  Episcopus  ;” 
— or  again  from  the  4th  century  (but  the  terms 
are  in  substance  in  St.  Ignatius,  ad  Ephes.  vi. 
’ETTiO'/fOTTOJ'  us  avThv  rhu  Kvpiou,  ad  Trail,  i. 

’Eirto'/fJirqp  us  XpKTTu ;  and  St.  Cypr.  Epist. 
55,  63;  and  cf.  2  Cor.  v.  20),  Vicarius  Christi  — 
Domini — Dei  (St.  Basil.  M.  Constit.  Monast.  22 ; 
0pp.  ii.  792  [6  rod  'Xurripos  vTr4x<»>v  ’npdauirov}’, 
St.  Ambrose  in  1  Cor.  xi.  10;  Pseudo-Dion.  Ai^eop. 
Eccl.  Ilier.  ii.  2 ;  Qu.  Vet.  et  Nov.  Test.  127,  in 
App.  ad  0pp.  St.  Aug.  iii.) ; — and  from  a  consi¬ 
derably  earlier  date,  Vicarius  or  Successor  Apo~ 
stolorwm  (Hippolyt.  Haer.  Proem,  p.  3  ;  St.  Iren. 
adv.  Haer.  iii.  3 ;  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  62,  69 ;  Fix’* 
milian  in  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  55,  75;  Cone.  Carth. 
iii.  in  St.  Cyprian,  a.d.  256,  can.  Ixxix. ;  St. 
Jerome,  Epist.  liv.  al.  Ivii.;  Pseud.  Dion.  Areop. 
Eccl.  Hier.  ii.  2 ;  and  in  substance  St.  Aug.  in 
Ps.  xlv.  16,  De  Rapt.  c.  Donat,  vii.  43,  Serm.  cii. 
c.  1,  De  Util.  Credendi,  §  35,  Epist.  42,  &c.) ; — 
also  M.eo’irrfs  (Origen,  St.  Basil  M.,  St.  Chrys., 
Apost.  Constit.  iv.  26,  &c.,  in  Cotel.  ad  Constit. 
Ajpost.  vol.  i.  p.  237  ;  and  /lerirfiav  Qeov  ua)  av- 
OpuTTuv,  rovTo  yap  X(Xus  S  Aepevs,  St.  Greg.  Naz. 
Orat.  i.) ;  but  by  St.  Augustin’s  time  it  had  be¬ 
come  expedient  to  condemn  the  calling  a  bishop 
by  the  name  of  “  Mediator  ”  (Cont.  Parmen.  ii.  8, 
0pp.  ix.  35); — Tloiy^v,  Pastor  (Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  36, 
St.  Greg.  Naz.  and  St.  Hilar,  passim  ;  Cone.  Sar- 
die.  A.D.  347,  can.  vi. ;  Theodoret,  iv.  8,  &c.  &c. ; 
so  in  the  English  Prayer-book,  “The  bishops  and 
pastors  of  Thy  flock  ;”  “  pastores  ovium,”  in 
St.  Cypr.  of  presbyters,  but  not  pastor  simply  : 
so  Taylor,  Episcop.  Asserted,  §  25  :  see,  however, 
the  use  of  iroifiati'eiv,  in  Acts  xx.  28): — extra¬ 
vagantly  denominated  ©ebs  'Enlyaos  luLera  &(hv, 
and  by  other  extreme  designations,  in  Apost. 


bO  ® 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


211 


Constit.  ii.  26 ;  and  at  a  later  date,  Thronus  Dei 
(^Conc.  Tolet.  xi.  a.d.  675,  can.  5,  and  Carloving. 
Capitul.^  quoted  by  Du  Cange). 

Designated  also  by  the  titles  of, — 1.  Apostohcus^ 
applied  to  all  bishops  (and  their  sees  called  “  sedes 
Apostolicae  ”)  as  late  as  Charlemagne  (St.  Aug. 
Epist.  42;  Greg.  Tur.  H.  F.  ix.  42;  Venant. 
J'ortun.  Poem.  iii.  ;  Formulae  in  Marculfus  ; 
Gunthi'am  in  Cone.  Matisc.  ii.  a.d.  585  ;  and  see 
Casaubon,  Exercit.  xiv.  §  4 ;  and  Thomassin,  I.  i. 
4);  restricted  at  one  time  to  metropolitans 
(Siricius,  A.D.  384-398,  Epist.  iv.  c.  1 ;  Alcuin, 
dc  Div.  Off.  xxxvii.) ;  but  gradually  turned  into 
a  substantive  appellation  of  the  bishop  of  Rome 
(as  in  Rup.  Tuit.  de  Div.  Off.  i.  27,  a.d.  1111); 
while  a  council  of  the  11th  century  is  said  to 
have  excommunicated  an  archbishop  of  Gallicia 
for  so  styling  himself  [Apostolicus]  ;  and  used  in 
the  12th  and  following  centuries  as  the  Pope’s  ordi¬ 
nary  designation  (e.  g.  in  the  English  Year-books, 
“  L’Apostoile,”  or  “  L’Apostole  ;”  Si)elmau’s 
further  statement  —  that  he  was  called  also 
Apostolus — seems  a  mistake); — 2.  Beatissimus 
— Sanctissimus — Beverendissirnus — Deo  Amahilis 
—&fo<pi\4<TTaTos  — '  Ay  iwTaTos  —  MaKafUuiTaTos 
—'OaidjTaros — AtSectficoTaTos  (in  the  Councils, 
Justinian’s  Laws,  superscriptions  to  lettei's,  as  St. 
Cyprian’s,  St.  Augustin’s,  &c.  &c. ;  and  Socrates 
[H.  E.  vi.  Prooem.']  apologizes  for  not  calling  the 
bishops,  his  contemporaries,  GeotpiAea-raTous  1) 
ayicoTUTOvs  fj  ra  roiavra)  ; — 3.  Dominus — Aftr- 
ttJttjs  —  Sanctitas  Tua — 'H  St?  Xpr?(rTOTT?s.  Ma- 
KapiSTrjs,  ‘AyioTTfs  (like  authorities) ; — 4.  “  Dei 
gratia  Archiepiscopus  ”  first  occurs  in  England 
of  Archbishop  Theodore  (Counc.  of  Hatfield,  a.d. 
680,  in  Baed.  E.  E.  iv.  17),  and  so  on  in  pneral 
of  his  successors  (e.  g.  of  Nothelm,  in  Kemble, 
Cod.  Dipl.  65),  &c. ; — 5.  Lastly,  “Servus  Ser- 
vorum  Dei  ”  is  found  as  early  as  Desiderius, 
bishop  of  Cahors,  a.d.  650,  who  so  styles  himself 
(Thomassin,  I.  i.  4,  §  4). 

For  the  nature  and  institution  of  the  Christian 
ministry  as  such — in  so  far  as  it  is  common  to 
bishops  and  presbyters — see  Clergv,  Presby¬ 
ters.  The  special  episcopal  office  as  above  de¬ 
scribed, — consisting  in  a  presidency  over  the 
clergy  and  laity  of  a  particular  diocese,  with  a 
veto,  and  with  a  sole  power  of  oi'dination, — and 
whether  regarded  (with  later  schoolmen)  as  one 
order  with  the  presbyterate,  on  the  ground  of 
the  powers  of  the  ministry  common  to  both, 
differenced  only  by  peculiar  and  additional  powers 
belonging  to  bishops,  or  (according  to  the  earlier 
and  more  common  view)  as  a  distinct  order,  on 
the  ground  of  those  additional  powers, — finds  its 
actual  institution  implied  and  recorded  in  the 
N.  T. :  1.  in  the  position  of  St.  James  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  (Acts  xii.  17,  XV.  13,  xxi.  18,  Gal.  ii.  9), 
affirmed  also  by  all  antiquity  to  have  been  bishop 
of  Jerusalem  ; — 2.  in  the  appointment  by  St.  Paul, 
when  his  “  measure”  (1  Cor.  x.  16)  grew  too 
large  for  his  own  personal  supervision,  of  single 
officers,  with  powers  of  ordination  (1  Tim.  iii.  13, 
Tit.  i.  5)  and  jurisdiction  (both  in  church  wor¬ 
ship,  1  Tim.  ii.  1-12,  and  over  all  church  mem¬ 
bers,  including  presbyters,  1  Tim.  v.  1-22,  Tit.  i. 
5,  ii.),  and  probably  of  confirmation  (1  Tim.  v. 
22),  in  the  Apostle’s  stead  (1  Tim.  i.  3,  Tit.  i.  5), 
*.  e.  of  bishops  in  the  later  sense  of  the  term 
(removeable,  like  later  bishops,  and,  as  it  seems, 
actually  removed,  when  the  needs  of  the  Church 
in  i,ne  particular  cases  required  it),  —  viz.  Timothy 


at  Ephesus,  and  Titus  in  Crete,  certainly  (and  .so 
the  Fathers  with  one  accord) ;  and,  hot  improb¬ 
ably,  Epaphroditus  at  Philippi  (Phil.  ii.  25,  and 
so  Theodoret  in  1  Tim.  vi.  1),  and  Archippus  at 
Colossae  (Col.  iv.  17,  Philem.  2;  and  so  Ambrose 
in  Col.  iv.  17);  to  whom  the  Fathers  add  a  great 
many  more  (see  a  list  in  Apost.  Constit.  vii.  47, 
and  among  moderns  in  Andrewes,  Epist.  i.  ad  Pet. 
Molin..,  0pp.  Posth.  pp.  185, 186)  ; — 3.  in  the’'A7- 
yeXoi  of  Rev.  i.-iii.  [Angels  OF  Churches],  who 
were  real  individual  persons,  although  symbol¬ 
ized  as  stars  (Rev.  i.  20),  just  as  the  Churches 
j  they  governed*  were  real  Churches,  which  are 
I  symbolized  likewise  as  candlesticks ;  and  who 
I  are  proved  to  have  been  bishops,  (i.)  by  the 
j  analogy  of  Gal.  i.  8,  iv.  14 ;  (ii.)  by  their  stand- 
I  ing  for  and  representing  their  several  Churches ; 

I  (iii.)  by  the  fact  (see  further  on)  that  St.  John 
is  expressly  and  specially  stated  to  haA'e  ap- 
I  pointed  bishops  from  city  to  city  in  these  very 
regions  ;  (iv.)  by  the  current  interpretation  of 
the  term  from  early  times,  as  in  St.  Jerome, 
St.  Ambrose,  St.  Aug.,  Oecumen.  and  Arethas  in 
Apocalgps.  &c. ;  to  which  may  be  added  the 
probable  mention  (the  reading  of  Rev.  ii.  20  being 
not  altogether  certain)  of  the  wife  of  one  of  them. 
And  these  intimations  find  their  counterpart  and 
confirmation,  (1)  in  express  statements  of  earl}' 
Fathers,  as  (i.)  St.  Clem.  Rom.  ad  Cor.  i.  44, 
that  the  Apostles,  having  appointed  presbyter- 
bishops  and  deacons  in  the  several  Churches 
in  the  first  instance,  proceeded,  as  a  further  and 
distinct  step,  in  order  to  provide  for  the  con¬ 
tinuance  of  the  ministry  without  schisms  or 
quarrels,  to  appoint  some  further  institution, 
whereby  the  succession  of  such  presbyters  and 
deacons  might  be  kept  up,  as  first  by  the  Apostles 
themselves,  so  after  them  by  other  chosen  men  ; 
i.  e.  in  other  words,  instituted  the  order  of  bishops  ; 
KaTe(rTT?(rai'  [oi  * Att6(ttoXoC\  tovs  Trpofiprjpevovs 
[^i-TrarK Sirovs  Kal  StafcJvous],  Ka\  peTa^v  iiriyop^v 
SiStvKaaiv,  ’Sirws  iav  KoippQuKTiv,  diabi^ooprai 
€Tepoi  SedoKtpacrpfyot  drSpes  XnTovpyiav 

avTuv'  Tohs  oSv  KaraaradevTas  utt’  tKeivoov  [/.  e. 
the  Apostles  themselves]  ^  pera^v  vff  eripwu 
iXXoyipwu  avSpeay,  k.t.X.  (ii.)  The  Muraiorian 
Canon  (p.  17,  ed.  Tregelles),  “  Quarti  Evange- 
liorum  Johannis  ex  decipolis  ”  [John  the  Apostle 
as  distinguished  from  John  Baptist],  “  cohor- 
tantibus  condiscipulis  et  episcopis  suis ;” — Ter- 
tullian  {adv.  Marc.  iv.  5),  “  Ordo  episcoporum 
ad  originem  recensus  in  Joannem  stabit  auc- 
torem  ;” — St.  Clement  Alex.  (G«/s  Dives  Palvetur, 
xlii.  0pp.  p.  959,  and  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  23), 
’ATrpet  [sc.  St.  John  when  returned  from  Patmos 
to  Ephesus]  irapaKaXoupfvos  Kal  eirl  ra  irXij- 
(TiSxu'pa  Twp  edvoov,  oirov  pev  '’EiriaKSirovs  Kura- 
(TTijacau,  oirov  Se  oAas  'Y,KKXr}cr'ias  appS(ra)v,  Sirov 
de  KXijptp  era  ye  Tiva  KXnpdxrusv  ruy  virh  tov 
Tlyevparos  o’ljpaipopeywp — St.  Jerome  (Catal. 
Scriptt.  Eccl.  ix.),  “  Novissimus  omnium  scripsit 
[Joannes]  Evangelium,  rogatus  ab  Asiae  Epi¬ 
scopis;” —  testifying  to  the  appointment  by  St. 
John  of  bishops  from  city  to  city,  and  to  their 
existence  as  a  settled  and  established  order  from 
his  time.  (2)  In  the  fact,  that  bisho])s  in  the 
later  sense  ar^;  actually  found  in  every  Church 
whatsoever,  from  the  moment  that  any  evidence 
exists  at  all  ;  and  that  such  evidence  exists, 
either  simply  to  an  actual  bishop  at  the  time, 
or  more  commonly  to  such  a  bishoj)  as  in  suc- 
j  cession  to  a  line  of  2)reJecessci's-  tJ'aced  up  tc 


212 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


Apostles,  and  with  no  intimation  of  such  epi¬ 
scopate  being  anything  else  but  the  original, 
appointed,  and  unbroken  order :  and  this,  in  the 
case  of  Antioch,  and  of  Asia  Minor  generally,  as 
early  as  the  first  decade  of  the  2nd  century,  in 
other  cases  within  the  first  forty  years  of  that 
century ;  in  others,  as  e.  g.  Ephesus,  Alexandria, 
Jerusalem,  Athens,  within  the  last  quarter  of  the 
first — i.  e.  either  close  upon  the  death  of  the  last 
Apostle,  or  within  about  a  quarter  of  a  century 
of  it,  or  long  before  it  happened — a  space  of  time 
within  which*,  taken  at  the  longest,  it  is  histo¬ 
rically  impossible  that  so  great  a  revolution  (if 
it  had  been  one)  should  have  been  not  only  accom¬ 
plished  but  forgotten.  A  detailed  list  of  these 
cases  may  be  found  in  an  Excursus  by  Professor 
Lightfoot  On  the  Philippians.  The  only  discover¬ 
able  exceptions, — that  of  the  Church  of  Corinth 
when  St.  Clement  wrote  to  it,  and  that  of  Phi¬ 
lippi  when  St.  Polycarp  wrote  to  it, — are  so  few 
and  so  temporary,  as  to  prove  merely  that  the 
whole  of  the  needs  of  a  rapidly  growing  Church 
could  not  be  supplied  at  once,  and  that  circum¬ 
stances  (as  e.  q.  the  martyrdom  perhaps,  or  the 
deportation,  of  an  Apostle)  might  leave  this  or 
that  Church  temporarily  unprovided  with  a 
bishop.  In  the  words  of  Ambrosiaster  (i.  e. 
Hilary  the  Deacon),  it  so  happened,  “  quia  adhuc 
rectores  Ecclesiis  non  omnibus  locis  fuerant  con- 
stituti”  (J.n  1  Cor.  xi.  2).  And  there  certainly 
were  bishops  in  both  the  places  named  imme¬ 
diately  afterwards.  Xor,  further,  (3)  was  there 
any  substantial  difference  in  the  office  itself  from 
that  subsequently  so  styled.  St.  Clement  of  Rome, 
for  instance,  so  absolutely  represented  his  Church 
as  to  write  in  the  name  of  that  Church ;  and  is 
described  by  Hermas  Pastor  (  F/s.  ii.  4)  as  offici¬ 
ally  communicating  in  its  name  with  foreign 
Churches ;  and  is  placed  by  St.  Irenaeus  and 
others  as  one  in  a  series  of  bishops,  all  so  called 
in  the  same  sense.  And  although  the  succession 
of  the  heads  of  the  school  at  Alexandria  (for 
which  see  Bing.  III.  x.  5)  may  well  have  been 
more  important  in  point  of  influence  than  that 
of  the  bishops  of  that  see,  it  did  not  interfere 
with  the  office  and  succession  of  those  bishops, 
which  is  carefully  recorded  (as  is  that  of  all  the 
principal  sees)  by  Eusebius.  Nor  again  does  St. 
Irenaeus,  who  speaks  of  a  “  succession  ”  also  of 
“  presbyters,”  and  indeed  calls  bishops  themselves 
occasionally  “  presbyter.-^,”  know  of  any  difference 
between  the  bishop  of  Rome  of  his  own  time 
(assuredly  a  bishop  in  the  later  sense)  and  the 
succession  of  single  heads  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
'Whorn  he  names  in  order  from  Apostolic  times 
down  to  that  same  bishop. 

The  Episcopate  then  is  historically  the  con¬ 
tinuation,  in  its  permanent  elements,  of  the 
Apostolatft  4.nd,  accordingly,  the  reasons  as¬ 
signed  for  the  actual  appointment  of  the  epi- 
.scopate  are  :  (1)  as  given  by  St.  Paul  himself, 
to  take  the  place  of  the  Apostles  (Tim.  i. -3; 
Tit.  i.  5),  and  for  the  better  maintenance  of  the 
faith  (t6.),  and  in  order  to  a  due  ordination  of 
the  ministry  (Tit.  i.  5).  To  these  the  Fathers 
add,  (2)  other  reasons,  drawn  apparently  from 
their  own  experience  of  the  benefits  of  the  epi¬ 
scopate  :  as  St.  Clem.  Rom.  and  St.  Jero’  .e,  who 
allege  it  to  have  been  instituted  as  a  preventive 
of  schisms ;  and  St.  Irenaeus  and  Tortullian,  a 
little  later  than  the  first  named,  who  regard  it 
as  a  safeguard  of  the  faith  (and  see  1  Tim. 


i.  3 ;  Tit.  ii.  1) ;  and  St.  Cyprian,  a  little  later 
still,  who  chiefly  dwells  upon  it  as  a  bond  of 
unity ;  in  which  point  of  view  St.  Ignatius  al.=:o 
had  regarded  it  at  the  beginning.  The  further 
suggestion  hazarded  by  St.  Jerome — that  it  was 
an  afterthought  of  the  Apostles,  suggested  to 
them  by  the  schisms  at  Corinth — is  inconsistent 
with  the  fact  that  bishops  existed  before  those 
schisms.  And  the  gradual  spread  of  the  institu¬ 
tion  is  best  explained  by  the  sensible  and  natural 
remark  of  Epiphanius,  that  Ou  iravra  evOvs 
ri5vvi)dr}(Tau  ol  ’Att^cttoAoi  KaTao’rria'ai,  and  that 
presbyters  and  deacons  could  administer  a  church 
for  a  while,  until  yeyove  (^Haer.  Ixxv.  §  5 ; 

0pp.  i.  908).  Bishops,  who  came  in  place  of 
Apostles,  could  not,  indeed,  have  existed  both 
coincidently  and  contemporaneously  with  those 
in  whose  place  they  came,  but  only  as  the 
growth  of  the  Church,  and  the  removal  of  the 
Apostles,  required  and  made  room  for  them.  A 
theory  started  recently  (by  Rothe,  Anfdnge  dcr 
Christlichen  Kirche,  354—392,  quoted  by  Light- 
foot)  of  a  special  and  formalCouncilof  the  Apostles, 
which  among  other  things  instituted  episcopacy, 
a.s  one  among  a  series  of  “  second  ordinances,” 
seems  to  rest  upon  insufficient  grounds  (see  Light- 
foot’s  Excursus  to  the  Philippians,  before  quoted), 
and  to  transform  a  really  apostolic  origin  into  a 
single  definite  and  formal  apostolic  act :  like  the 
parallel  but  ancient  tradition  respecting  the  com¬ 
position  of  the  Creed.  On  the  other  hand,  space 
of  time  literally  shuts  out  the  much  older  theory, 
viz.  that  there  was  a  period  at  the  beginning 
when  each  Church  was  governed  by  a  college  of 
presbyters,  until  “  ecclesiastical  authority  ”  esta¬ 
blished  a  bishop  over  each  college,  in  order  to 
put  an  end  to  schisms,  and  notably  to  those  at 
Coi'inth ;  unless,  with  St.  Jerome,  the  originator 
of  it,  we  take  the  “  ecclesiastical  authority  ”  to 
mean  the  Apostles  themselves,  and  the  period  In 
question  to  be  reduced  therefore  so  as  to  fall 
within  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles,  and  so  refer 
it  simply  to  the  colleges  of  presbyters,  who  during 
such  lifetime  did  undoubtedly  govern  the  several 
Churches  under  the  Apostles  :  thus  rendering  the 
hypothesis  at  once  very  true  and  equally  innocent, 
and  in  effect  identifying  it  with  the  contempo¬ 
rary  statement  of  St.  Clem.  Rom.  before  quoted. 
Later  I’epetitious  of  St.  Jerome’s  theory,  and 
often  of  his  words,  may  be  found  in  writers  of 
the  Western  Church  (see  quotations  in  Morinus, 
de  Sac.  Ord.  III.  ii.  11  sq.)  down  to  the  10th  or 
11th  century.  But  the.se  are  of  course  sirnpl}* 
St.  Jerome  over  again.  Contemporaneously  how¬ 
ever  with  him, — yet  (as  it  should  seem)  chiefly 
with  the  view  of  repressing  the  presumption  (not 
of  bishops  but)  of  deacons,  or  (as  in  Augustin’s 
case)  in  order  to  turn  a  courteous  compliment 
to  a  presbyter  (viz.  St.  Jerome), — the  original 
identity  both  of  the  names,  and  of  the  offices,  of 
bishop  and  presbyter,  became  a  current  topic  ; 
e.  g.  in  St.  Aug.  Epist.  19  ad  S.  Hieron. ;  Am- 
brosiast.  in  1  Tim.  iii.,  and  in  Ephes.  iv. ;  Qu. 
Vet.  et  Nov.  2'est.  ci. ;  Anon,  in  1  Tim.  iii.  17,  in 
App.  ad  0pp.  S.  Hieron. ;  Lib.  ad  Bustic.  de  1  //. 
Grad.  Eccl.  in  the  same  Append. ;  Sedul.  Scot,  in 
Epist.  ad  2'it.  i. ;  Isid.  Hispal.  de  Offic.  Eccl.  vii. ; 
and  of  course  St.  Jerome  himself.  And  while 
St.  Augustin  assigns  the  “  usiis  Ecclesiae  ”  as  the 
ground  for  the  subsequent  appropriation  of  the 
names  (“  honornm  vocabula”),  St.  Jerome  (as 
already  said)  aflirms  of  the  office  itself,  as  dis- 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


213 


tinct  from  that  of  presbyter,  that  it  arose  “  ex 
Kcclesiae  consuetudine  magis  qu:im  dispositionis 
Doniinicae  veritate  ”  (which  means,  apparently, 
that  it  rests  upon  no  written  words  of  our  Lord 
Himself) ;  asserting,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  was 
the  one  absolutely  necessary  preventive  of  schism, 
and  in  eifect  that  the  Apostles  had  established  it 
as  such*;  and  also  (in  common  with  all  the  others 
above  quoted)  that  presbyters,  whatever  else  they 
could  do,  could  not  ordain.  Another  view,  of  a 
like  date  with  St.  Jerome’s,  probably  represents 
the  general  facts  of  the  case  with  very  fair  ac¬ 
curacy,  viz.  that  contained  in  Hilary  the  Deacon, 
in  El  hes.  iv. :  “  Ut  cresceret  plebs  et  multipli- 
caretur,  omnibus  inter  initia  concessum  est  et 
evangelizare  et  baptizare  et  Scripturas  in  ecclesia 
explanare  :  ubi  autem  omnia  loca  circumamplexa 
est  Ecclesia,  conventicula  constituta  sunt  et  rec- 
tores  et  cetera  officia  in  Ecclesiis  sunt  ordinata, 
ut  nullus  de  clero  auderet,  qui  ordinatus  non 
csset,  praesumere  officium  quod  sciret  non  sibi 
creditum  vel  concessum.”  In  other  words,  under 
pressure  of  necessity,  before  the  Church  could 
be  fully  organized,  and  before  a  longer  duration 
had  stiffened  it  into  orderly  system  and  regular 
law,  acts  were  allowed  and  held  good  to  any  one, 
which  were  properly  and  primarily  the  office  of 
particular  officers,  viz.  of  “  Rectores,”  i.  e.  bishops, 
and  of  an  ordained  clergy ;  those  acts  being  done 
of  course  not  against — but  owing  to  circum¬ 
stances,  not  by — the  clergy.  And  those  which 
are  here  specified,  moreover,  are  such  only  as 
the  Church  has  ever  held  to  be  capable  of  being 
discharged  by  any  Christian  man,  so  that  they 
are  done  in  unity  with  the  Church.  Even  Ter- 
tullian’s  well-known  words  do  not  make  it  plain, 
whether  he  meant  to  affirm  that,  in  case  of 
absolute  necessity,  laymen  might  formally  ad¬ 
minister  the  Eucharist,  or  whether  not  rather 
that  in  such  a  case  the  will  w'ould  be  accepted 
for  the  deed.  For  this,  however,  and  like  ques¬ 
tions,  see  Prip:st,  Baptism. 

1.  The  first  step  towards  making  a  bishop 
was  his 

1.  Election. 

a.  Who  elected. — ^The  election  of  bishops  [yet- 
poTovia  sometimes,  commonly  (Kkoy^']  pertained 
from  the  beginning  to  the  neighbouring  bishops, 
and  (except  in  the  obviously  special  cases  of  a 
bishop  sent  to  the  heathen  £as  e.  g.  Frurnentius 
by  St.  Athanasius  to  the  Abyssinians, — Socrat. 
i.  19,  Theodoret,  i.  23, —  or  St.  Augustine  to  the 
Saxons  by  St.  Gregory],  or  of  one  sent  to  a 
diocese  overrun  with  heresy  or  schism),  to  the 
clergy  and  laity  of  the  particular  Church.  But 
the  relative  rights  of  each  class  of  electors  were 
apparently  determined,  not  by  express  enactment, 
but  by  Apostolic  practice,  defended  in  the  first 
instance  by  Jewish  precedent — “  Traditione  Di- 
vina  [Num.  xx.  25,  26]  et  Apostolica  observa- 
tione  ”  [Acts  i.  15,  vi.  2]  (St.  Cypr.  Epist.  Ixvii. 
Fell), — and  subsequently  upon  grounds  of  com¬ 
mon  sense  and  equity, — as  that,  “  Deligatur  epi- 
scopus  praesente  plebe,  quae  singulorum  vitam 
plenissimc  novit  ”  {id.  ib.) ;  or  that,  “  Nullus 
invitis  detur  episcopus  ”  (Caelestin.  Epist.  ii.  5); 
or  that,  “  Qui  praefuturus  est  omnibus,  ab  omni¬ 
bus  eligatur”  (Leo  M.  Epist.  Ixxxix);  or  again, 
Tlapa  irauTwv  tu>v  fX(.w6vT(av  itoijjia'iveaQai  \pr](pi- 
C6fj.(uos  (Cone.  CEdc.  a.d.  451  ;  Act.  xi.  Labbe, 
iv.  698).  The  judgment  [^Kpiais  judicium']  i.  e. 
commonly  the  choice,  and  the  ratification  [/ffpos]. 


naturally  inclined  to  the  bishops,  so  that  for  the 
first  500  years  such  elections  were  ordinarily 
ruled  by  them.  The  approval  [(ruj/ei/Sj/crjo-is, 
consensus]  and  the  testimony  to  character  [/uap- 
rvpiov  testimoniurn]  were  the  more  proper  office 
of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  diocese  itself. 
While  the  formal  appointment  [Karaaraais, 
which  included  the  ordination]  belonged  exclu¬ 
sively,  as  to  the  Apostles  at  first,  so  to  the 
iwSyifjLoi  &v5pes  (St.  Clem.  Rom.  ad  Corinth. 
I.  xliv.)  who  succeeded  them,  i.  e.  the  bishops. 
But  both  classes  of  electors  are  found  (so  soon  as 
we  have  any  evidence  to  the  point,  i.  e.  from  the 
middle  of  the  3rd  century)  taking  the  initiative 
in  different  cases.  And  the  clergy,  and  the  people, 
alike,  possessed  the  right  of  giving  a  “  suff'ragium 
de  persona,”  as  well  as  a  “  testimonium  de  vita  ” 
(Andrewes,  Resp.  ad  Bellarm.  xiii.) ;  a  right,  how¬ 
ever,  alternating  in  point  of  fact  between  a  choice 
and  a  veto,  and  fluctuating  with  circumstances. 

The  germ  of  such  a  mode  of  election  is  found 
in  the  N.  T.  The  /caraerToa'is  (Acts  vi.  3,  Tit. 
i.  5,  and  compare  Heb.  v.  1,  viii.  3,  and  St.  Matt, 
xxiv.  45,  &c.)  was  throughout  reserved  to  the 
Apostles  or  their  successors  ;  but  the  “  choice  ” 
of  the  persons  and  the  “  testimony  ”  to  their 
character  pertained  to  the  people  in  the  case  of 
the  seven  deacons  (Acts  vi.  2,  3) ;  the  former  to 
St.  Paul  and  the  latter  to  “  the  brethren,”  in  that 
of  Timothy  (Acts  xvi.  2,  3);  St.  Paul  alone  (un¬ 
less  so  far  as  the  “  presbytery  ”  joined  in  the  act) 
both  chose  and  sent  Timothy  and  Titus  respec¬ 
tively  to  Ephesus  and  to  Crete  (1  Tim.  i.  3,  18 ; 
Tit.  i.  5) ;  the  whole  of  the  disciples  appear  to 
have  chosen  the  two  between  w'hom  lots  w^ere  to 
be  cast  in  the  case  of  St.  Matthias  (Acts  i.  23), 
which  is  however  an  exceptional  case  ;  while  the 
word  x€'poToi/€Ct>  (Acts  xiv.  23)  leaves  it  unde¬ 
termined  whether  St.  Paul  and  Barnabas  only 
ordained,  or  did  not  also  choose,  the  Pisidian 
presbyters.  The  earliest  non-Scriptural  witness, 
writing  however  before  the  N.  T.  canon  was 
closed,  St.  Clement  of  Rome  (as  above),  agrees 
precisely  with  the  N.  T.,  in  terms  as  well  as 
substance.  He  reserves  the  Karaaracris,  as  by 
express  Apostolic  appointment,  to  the  Apostles 
and  their  successors,  but  (rvvev5oKri<Td(rr]s  tt/s 
'EKKkgarlas  irdags  :  speaking,  it  is  true,  of  the 
case  of  eViV/fOTTot  who  were  presbyters,  but  in 
language  which  must  almost  certainly  apply  also 
to  that  of  bishops  properly  so  called.  In  con¬ 
formity  also  with  this,  we  find,  after  A.D.  69, 
and  upon  the  martyrdom  of  St.  James,  the  re¬ 
maining  Apostles  and  personal  disciples  of  Christ 
and  His  surviving  relatives,  meeting  together  and 
joining  in  the  appointment  of  Symeon  the  son  of 
Clopas  to  the  bishopric  of  Jerusalem  (Euseb.  //.  E. 
iii.  11).  The  theory,  that  at  first  the  “senior 
presbyter”  succeeded  as  of  right  to  the  epi¬ 
scopate,  and  that  at  some  early  time  a  change 
was  effected,  “  prospiciente  ccncilio,”  such  that 
thenceforth  “  meritum,  non  ordo,”  should  select 
the  bishop,  seems  to  be  only  a  4th  century  hypo¬ 
thesis,  based  upon  what  no  doubt  was  a  frequent 
practice,  of  Ambrosiaster,  i.e.  Hilary  the  Deacon, 
j  in  Eph.  iv.  12;  who  however  is  thinking  of  the 
election,  not  of  the  consecration,  of  a  bishop, 
whose  specific  office  also  he  distinctly  recognizes 
in  the  passage  itself. 

The  natural  course  of  things,  and  the  in¬ 
creasingly  fixed  and  detailed  organization  of  the 
,  Church,  gradually  defined  and  modified  the  on- 


214 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


ginal  practice  thus  inaugurated :  1.  by  intro¬ 
ducing  the  metropolitan  (and,  further  on,  the 
patriarch),  as  a  power  more  and  more  prepon¬ 
derant  in  such  elections ,  and  2.  by  regulating 
the  rights  of  the  comprovincial  bishops ;  both 
points  formalized  into  canons  by  the  great  Nicene 
Council ;  3.  by  substituting  for  the  unavoidable 
disorder  and  evil  of  a  strictly  popular  suffrage 
(^ox^-ois),  an  election  by  the  chief  only  of  the 
laity  (a  change  begun  by  the  Councils  of  Sardica, 
A.D.  347,  and  Laodicea,  a.d.  365,  and  finally  esta¬ 
blished  by  Justinian) ;  still  further  restricted  in 
practice  in  important  cases  to  a  nomination  by 
the  emperor  alone;  and  changed  from  the  middle 
of  the  6th  century  into  a  general  right  of  royal 
consent,  converted  commonly,  and  as  circum¬ 
stances  allowed,  in  the  case  of  the  European  king¬ 
doms,  and  partially  in  that  of  the  Eastern  em¬ 
perors  also,  into  a  right  of  royal  nomination, 
concurrent  with,  but  gradually  and  in  ordinary 
cases  reducing  to  a  mere  form,  the  old  canonical 
mode  of  election.  The  substitution,  further,  in 
the  West,  of  the  clergy  of  the  cathedral  as  the 
electoral  body,  and  in  the  East  of  the  compro- 
Adncial  bishops  solely,  in  place  of  the  old  “  plebs 
et  clerus  ”  of  the  diocese,  or  at  the  least  of  the 
cathedral  town,  hardly  dates  before  the  9th  and 
10th  centuries. 

The  classical  passages  for  ante-Nicene  times 
are  principally  from  St.  Cyprian,  and  belong  to 
Africa,  A.D.  252-254. — “  Diligenter  de  traditione 
Divina  et  Apostolica  observatione  servandum  est 
et  tenendum  (quod  apud  nos  quoque  et  fere  per 
provincias  totas  tenetur),  ut  ad  ordinationes  rite 
celebrandas,  ad  earn  plebem  cui  praepositus  ordi- 
natur,  episcopi  ejusdem  provinciae  proximi  quique 
conveniant,  et  episcopus  deligatur  plebe  prae- 
sente,  quae  singulorum  vitam  plenissime  novit, 
et  uniuscujusque  actum  de  ejus  conversatione 
prospexit  ”  (^Epist.  Ixvii.  addressed  to  the  Spa¬ 
nish  Churches). — “  Instruit  et  ostendit  (Deus) 
ordinationes  sacerdotales  nonnisi  sub  populi  as- 
sistentis  conscientia  fieri  oportere  ”  [scil.  Num. 
XV.  25,  26;  Acts  i.  15,  vi.  2);  “  ut  plebe  prae- 
sente  vel  detegantur  malorum  crimina  vel  bo- 
norum  merita  praedicentur ;  et  sit  ordinatio 
justa  et  legitima,  quae  omnium  suffragio  et 
judicio  fuerit  examinata  ”  {id.  ib.'). — “  De  uni- 
versae  fraternitatis  suffragio,  de  episcoporum 
qui  in  praesentia  convenerant  judicio  {id.  ib.). — 
“  Episcopo  semel  facto,  et  collegarum  et  plebis 
testimonio  et  judicio  comprobato  ”  (id.  Epist. 
xTiv.). — “  Cornelius  factus  est  episcopus  [Romae] 
de  Dei  et  Christi  Ejus  judicio,  de  clericorum  pene 
omnium  testimonio,  de  plebis  quae  tunc  affuit 
suffragio,  et  de  sacerdotum  antiquorum  et  bo- 
norum  vii’orum  collegio”  (id.  Epist.  Iv.). — “  Post 
Divinum  judicium,  post  populi  suffragium,  post 
co-episcoporum  consensum  ”  (id.  Epist.  lix.). — 
“  Episcopo  Cornelio  in  Catholica  Ecclesia  de  Dei 
judicio,  de  cleri  ac  plebis  suffragio,  ordinato  ” 
(id.  Epist.  Ixviii.). — In  which  passages,  suffra¬ 
gium,  judicium,  testimonium,  consensus,  appear  to 
be  used  without  precise  discrimination,  either  in 
regard  to  meaning,  or  to  the  several  classes  of 
eiectoi’s  and  their  respective  functions,  and  to 
express  little  more  than  St.  Clement  of  Rome’s 
vaguer  term,  awevdoKT^cris. 

The  same  rule  is  testified  in  the  East  by  the 
joint  evidence  of  Origen, — “  Requiritur  in  ordi- 
nando  sacerdote  praesentia  populi,  ut  sciant  omnes 
et  certi  sint,  quia  qui  praestantior  est  ex  omni 


populo,  qui  doctior,  qui  sanctior,  qui  in  omni  vir- 
tute  eminentior,  ille  eligatur  ad  sacerdotium ;  et 
hoc,  adstante  populo,  ne  qua  postmodum  retrac- 
tatio  cuipiam,  ne  quis  scrupulus  resideret”  {Horn. 
vi.  in  Levit.,  0pp.  ii.  216,  ed.  Delarue) ; — and  of 
the  cases  mentioned  by  Eiisebius ;  as,  e.  g.,  A6^av 
to7s  tuv  6ju,6pci}v  ’EKKKi]tTiu)j'  TTpof(rTa}(Tiv,  to  elect 
Dius  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  c.  a.d.  190  (//.  E.  vi. 
10); — Alexander,  ordained  bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
A.D.  214,  jnera  KOiuris  rwu  ’ETTKrKSirwv  ot  ras  7repi| 
SifTirov  'EKKKrjffias  yucopgs  {ib.  11): — T^j/  Travra 
\ahu  .  .  .\^iov  iiTi^oriaai  [cried  out  that  Fabian 
was  worthy  to  be  bishop  of  Rome],  rwv  abf\<put/ 
avdvTcav  ;^eipoTOVias  eveKCv  t?)S  tov  ptWovroi 
StaSe'xeirSat  iTriCKOir^v  ini  Trjs  *EKK\r]alas 

(TvyKeKpoT'pixivcov  {ib.  vi.  29,  A.D.  236)  : — and, 
similarly,  the  neighbouring  “  bishops,  presbyters, 
deacons,  and  the  Churches,”  assembled  at  Antioch 
A.D.  269  or  270,  deposed  Paul  of  Samosata,  and 
appointed  Domnus  bishop  of  Antioch  in  his  place. 
The  Apostolic  Canons  (can.  i.),  and  Apostolic  Con¬ 
stitutions,  viii.  27,  require  three  or  at  least  two 
bishops  to  the  x^'-po'^ovia,  which  at  least  in¬ 
volves  the  election,  of  a  bishop.  The  former 
(can.  xxxiv.)  take  also  the  further  step  of  re¬ 
quiring  reciprocally  the  yviapt]  tov  npcvTOu  (the 
metropolitan),  and  the  yvcopp  ndvruv,  to  all 
church  acts.  And  the  latter  (viii.  4)  enjoin  that 
the  people  shall  be  thrice  asked  if  the  candidate 
is  worthy.  Apostolic  Canon  Ixxvi.  further  en¬ 
joins,  that  no  bishop,  in  order  to  gratify  a  brother 
or  any  other  relative,  shall  eis  rb  d|i'a)/xa  ttjs 
iniTKon^s,  hr  fiovK^rai,  And  the 

Council  of  Ancyra  (a.d.  314,  can.  xviii.)  proves 
the  power  of  the  people,  as  the  last  quoted  canon 
does  that  of  the  bishops,  by  providing  for  the 
Cc^se  of  one  “  constituted  ”  {KaraoraOeis)  a  bishop, 
but  rejected  by  the  diocese  {napoiuia)  to  which 
he  had  been  consecrated,  such  rejeption  being 
apparently  assumed  to  be  conclusive  as  regarded 
the  particular  diocese ;  although  in  Apost.  Can. 
xxxvi.  it  is  ordered,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
bishop  in  such  a  case  shall  “  remain.”  The  case 
of  Alexandria  in  early  times  was  confessedly  ex¬ 
ceptional,  and  arose  from  the  seditious  character 
of  the  Alexandrians  (Epiphan.  Haer.  Ixix.  11). 
The  pi’esbyters  of  that  city  by  themselves  chose 
one  of  their  own  number  (acc.  to  the  well-known 
words  of  St.  Jerome),  and  that  immediately,  i.  e., 
as  it  should  seem,  without  waiting  for  the  voice 
of  the  people,  or  for  that  of  the  bishops  of  the 
patriarchate  (see  also  the  strange  story  in  Liber- 
atus,  Breviar.  xx.).  The  Christian  (and  Jewish) 
practice,  “  in  praedicandis  sacerdotibus  qui  ordi¬ 
nandi  sunt,”  was  also  recognized,  and  copied,  in 
the  case  of  provincial  governors,  by  the  emperor 
Alexander  Severus  (Lamprid.  in  V.  Alex.  Severi). 

The  Council  of  Nice  (a.d.  325)  recognized  and 
established  the  power  of  the  comprovincial 
bishops,  and  the  authority  of  the  metropolitan, 
by  requiring  (can.  iv.),  if  it  can  be  had  [npoo-^Kei 
/udAttTTo],  the  personal  presence  of  “  all  the 
bishops  of  the  province  {inapx^a),”  in  order  to 
the  appointment  {KaOiaraffdai)  of  a  bishop  ;  but 
if  this  cannot  be  had,  then  of  at  least  three, 
o’vp.yl/Tjipuiv  yivofiivuv  /col  twv  andvTiav  kuI  (tvv- 
Tidcpfvav  Bid  ypa/xfiaTa,  the  ratification  {Kvpos) 
being  reserved  to  the  metropolitan ;  and-(can.  vi.) 
by  voiding  elections  made  x^P^^  yvwpT^s  p-qrpo- 
noX'iTov.  The  Council  of  Antioch,  a.d.  341, 
recognizes  also  both  people,  provincial  bishops, 
and  metropolitan,  by  voiding  (can.  xvi.)  an  elec- 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


215 


tion  made  crvv6Sov  (defined  to  be 

one  “at  which  the  metropolitan  is  present’), 
Kal  el  Tras  6  Kahs  eKoiro.  It  repeats  also  in 
substance  (can.  xix.)  the  4th  Nicene  canon  ;  while 
(in  can.  xviii.),  providing  for  the  case  of  a  bishop 
refused  by  his  diocese,  it  refers  the  final  decision  to 
the  synod.  And  it  voids  (can.  xxiii.)  an  appoint¬ 
ment  by  a  single  bishop  of  his  own  successor, 
referring  such  election,  according  to  rhu  e/c/fXrj- 
(TiaariKhv  Qe(TfjLov,  to  the  synod  and  judgment  of 
the  bishops,  whose  right  it  was.  The  Council  of 
Sardica,  A.D.  347  (can.  ii.),  cancels  an  election 
made  by  the  “  clamour  ”  of  the  people,  with 
suspicion  of  bribery  or  undue  influence ;  and 
(can.  vi.)  also  requires  the  consent  of  the  metro¬ 
politan  [toG  e^dpxov  T7JS  eTrapx^^l*  That  of 
Laodicea,  A.D.  365,  assigns  the  choice  (/cptVis)  to 
the  metropolitan  and  ot  irepi^  'EttIo-kottoi  (can. 
xii.)  ;  and,  on  the  other  side,  takes  the  fii'st  step 
against  popular  elections  by  forbidding  (can.  xix.) 
TOiS  ox^ois  eirirpeireiv  tcls  eK\oyds  Trote?(r0ot 
ra>v  fieWSvTwv  KadiaTaaQai  els  rT)v  iepare^av. 
The  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  381,  informs 
Pope  Damasus  of  the  validity  of  the  election  of 
Nectar i us  to  the  see  of  Constantinople,  as  having 
been  made  “  by  the  common  consent  of  all,  in 
the  presence  of  the  emperor,  with  the  applause 
of  clergy  and  people — of  the  like  validity  of 
that  of  Flavian  to  Antioch,  because  “  canonically 
elected  by  the  assembled  bishops  ”  ttjs  eirapxlas 
Kal  Trjs  dvaroKiKT^s  SioiKi](rews,  Trda-qs  (Tv/j.^ijcpov 
rrjs  ’EKK\T}crlas  : — and  of  that  of  Cyril  to  Jeru¬ 
salem,  because,  similarly,  -irapd  tS>u  rris  ewapx'ias 
X^iporovr]6evTa  {Epist.  Synod,  ap.  Theodoret.  v. 
9).  Of  the  Councils  of  Carthage,  the  Second  (so 
called),  A.D.  390  (can.  xii.),  requires  the  consent 
of  the  primate  ;  the  Third,  A.D.  397  (can.  xxxix.), 
three  bishops  at  least,  appointed  by  the  primate  ; 
the  Fourth,  A.D.  398  (can.  i.),  the  “  consensus 
clericorura  et  laicorum,”  and  the  “  conventus 
totius  provinciae  episcoporum,  maximeque  metro- 
politani  auctoritas  vel  praesentia.”  The  Council 
of  Ephesus,  A.D.  431  (can.  xix.),  secures  their 
right  to  the  bishops  of  Cyprus  as  against  the 
patriarch  of  Antioch,  but  as  not  being  within  his 
patriarchate.  And  that  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451 
(Act.  xvi.  Labbe,  iv.  817),  requires  the  consent  of 
all  or  the  major  part  of  the  bishops  of  the  pi‘o- 
vince,  rh  Kvpos  exovros  tov  prirpoTToKlrov  •,  and 
affirms  the  authority  of  the  metropolitan  also  in 
Act.  xiii.  (ib.  713'),  and  in  can.  xxv.  (i6.  768). 
Similar  testimony  to  the  necessity  of  the  metro¬ 
politan’s  consent  is  borne  by  Pope  Innocent  I., 
“  Extra  conscientiam  metropolitani  episcopi  nul- 
lus  audeat  ordinare  episcopum  ”  (R'pist.  i.  c.  2, 
A.D.  402x417);  by  Boniface  I.  (^Epist.  iii.  A.D. 
418x422);  by  Leo  the  Great  (^Epistt.  Ixxxix. 
xcii.) ;  by  Pope  Hilary  (^Epist.  ii.  A.D.  461  x  468)  ; 
by  Cone.  Taurin.  can.  i.  a.d.  401 ;  and  by  Cone. 
Arelat.  ii.  can.  v.  A.D.  452. 

On  the  other  hand,  these  enactments  respect¬ 
ing  the  comprovincial  bishops,  and  the  growing 
power  of  the  metropolitans,  did  not  extinguish 
the  rights  of  the  clergy  and  people ;  who  re¬ 
mained  a  real  power  for  many  centuries  still, 
and  continued  so  in  name  (in  the  West)  down  to 
the  1 2th  century.  The  Council  of  Nice  itself,  in 
dealing  with  the  Meletian  schism,  required  the 
choice  of  the  people  (el  6  \ahs  atpo7ro\  as  well 
as  the  sanction  of  the  Alexandrian  metropolitan 
(<TvyeTri\\>r)<pl^ouTos  Kal  iTnatppayi^ovTos  tov  Trjs 
AAe^oj/Spetas  'EiricKOTrov),  in  case  a  reconciled 


Meletian  bishop  was  appointed  to  a  see  (Epist. 
Synod,  ap.  Theodoret.  i.  9,  Socrat.  i.  9).  St.  Atha¬ 
nasius,  immediately  after  the  council,  was  elected 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  \p‘fi<p(p  tov  \aod  irdvros 
(St.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  xxi.),  and  by  the  acclama¬ 
tion  and  demand  of  irdv  rh  irKriOos  Kal  Tray  6  Kahs 
TTjy  KadoXiKys  ’EKKkrjcr'ias  (^Epist.  Synod.  Alex. 
ap.  Athanas.  Apol.  ii.) ;  and  Peter,  who  suc¬ 
ceeded  him,  was  chosen  first  by  the  priests  and 
magistrates,  and  then  accepted  by  the  people 
(<5  Kahs  diras  Ta7s  ev(pr)p.tais  eSyKovu  r^v  •^So- 
Theodoret,  iv.  20) ;  statements  which  indi¬ 
cate  that  Alexandrian  elections  did  not  then  at 
any  rate-  possess  any  exceptional  character.  So 
also  Pope  Julius  (in  S.  Athan.  Apol.')  condemns 
the  intru.sion  of  (Gregory  into  the  see  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  as  being,  1.  A  stranger ;  2.  Not  baptized 
there  ;  3.  Unknown  to  most ;  4.  Not  asked  for  by 
either  presbyters,  bishops,  or  people.  Later  still, 
the  rights  of  the  “  clerus  ”  and  “  plebs  ”  are  tes¬ 
tified  by  a  continuous  chain  of  witnesses  :  as,  e.  g. 
by  the  Councils  of  Antioch,  A.D.  341,  can,  xviii., 
and  the  4th  Council  of  Carthage,  A.D.  398,  can.  i. 
(both  above  quoted),  and  Cod.  Eecl.  Afriean.  can. 
xiii.,  v-wh  ttJaAo)!/  —  a  multis  —  x^^P^'^ove7(r0aL ’. 
and  again,  (1)  in  the  West,  by  Pope  Siricius  (a.d. 
394  X  398,  Epist.  i.  c.  10,  “  Si  eum  cleri  ac  plebis 
evocaverit  electio,”  and  this  either  to  presby- 
terate  or  episcopate);  Pope  Zosimus  (a.d.  417, 
Epist.  iii.)  ;  Pope  Caelestinus  (a.d.  422  x  432, 
Epist.  ii.  c.  5,  “  Cleri,  plebis,  et  ordinis  ”) ;  Leo 
the  Gi'eat  (a.d.  440x461,  Epist.  Ixxxiv.  “Cleri 
plebisque,”  and  the  metropolitan  to  decide  a 
disputed  election; — Epist.  Ixxxix.  “"Vota  civium, 
testimonia  populorum,  honoratorum  arbitrium, 
electio  clericorura  ;” — Epist.  xcii.  “  A  clericis 
electi,  a  plebibus  expetiti,  a  provincialibus  epi- 
scopis  cum  metropolitani  judicio  consecrati  ”)  : 
Pope  Symmachus  (a.d.  498  x  514,  Epist.  v.  c.  6) : 
Gregory  the  Great  (^passim,  see  quotations  in  Tho- 
massin,  II.  ii.  10) ;  by  the  form  itself  of  election 
in  the  Ordo  Botnanus  (^Bihl.  PP.  x.  104);  by  the 
system  of  Episeopi  Fnterventores  or  Intereessores, 
or,  later,  Visitatores,  sent  down  to  the  vacant  see 
to  superintend  the  election,  and  not  only  existing 
in  Africa,  but  repeatedly  mentioned  in  the  letters 
of  Gregory  the  Great,  of  Hincmar,  &c.  &c.  [IxTKii- 
VKNTORES ;  'Visitatores]  ;  by  St.  Jerome  (“  Spe¬ 
culator  Ecclesiae  vel  epi.scopus  vel  presbyter,  qui 
a  populo  electus  est,”  m  Ezeeh.  lib.  x.  c.  33  ;  Opy. 
iii.  935) ;  Optatus  (“  Suffragio  totius  populi.” 
lib.  i.) ;  Sulpic.  Severus  (de  V.  B.  Martini.,  c.  vii. 
of  the  election  of  St.  Martin  of  Tours,  A.D.  371); 
Sidonius  Apollinaris  (^Epist.  lib.  viii.  Ep.  5,  8,  9, 
of  the  election  of  the  metropolitan  of  Bourge.-;, 
A.D.  472);  St.  Augustin  (^Epist.  cx.  0pp.  ii.  601, 
of  the  election  of  nis  own  successor);  by  Conm-. 
of  Orleans  II.  A.D.  533,  can.  vii., — of  Clermont  in 
AuA^ergne,  a.d.  535,  can.  ii., — of  Orleans  HI.  a.d. 
538,  can.  iii. ; — and  (2)  in  the  East,  by  the  case  of 
Eustathius,  compelled  to  accept  the  see  of  Antioch, 
A.D.  325,  by  ol  dpxi^p^7s  re  Kal  tepe7s  Kal  ctTras 
6  \ahs  6  (piKdxpiCTTos,  ^r)((>cp  Koiyfj  (Theodoret, 
i.  7);  by  that  of  Eusebius  to  the  see  of  Caesarea 
in  Pontus,  A.D.  362,  d  dyg-os  d-iras  .  .  .  6,Kovra 
(rvyapirdcTavTes  .  .  .  to7s  'EiricrKdKois  ivpoffiiyayou, 
Te\ecr6T}val  re  rj^lovu  Kal  KTjpux^Vvai,  Trei6o7 
^lav  avap.l^avTes  (St.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  xix., 
condemning  also  the  carrying  such  elections 
Kara  (pparpeias  Kal  (Tvyyeveias)  ;  by  that  of  Nec- 
tarius  to  the  see  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  381, 
Koivrj  xj/rfepep  ttjs  avvddov  (Sozom.  vii.  8),  but  also 


216 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


apira(r6€)s  vwh  rod  \aov  (Socrat.  v.  8) ;  by  that 
of  St.  Chrysostom,  a.d.  397,  to  Constantinople, 
whom  d  *ApKd5ios  fxeTaTr4p.TreTai,  to 

make  him  archbishop,  if/7j<f>l<rp.aTi  Kotv^  d/xov 
TrdvTOJVf  KXripov  re  (prjpLi  Ka\  Kaov  (Socrat.  vi,  2) ; 
to  which  may  be .  added  the  recognition  by  Leo 
the  emperor  (a.d.  457  x  474)  of  the  Khrjpos  Ka\ 
ih  KOLvhv  (Evagr.  iii.  12);  and  abundant  other 
evidence,  of  which  some  will  occur  further  on. 

The  Laodicene  Council,  however,  a.d.  365  (as 
above  quoted),  took  the  first  step  towards  the 
ultimate  practical  extinction  of  really  popular 
elections  ;  although  elections  by  acclamation, 
held  to  be  not  irregular  as  springing  from  a  kind 
of  supposed  Divine  inspiration,  or  again  by  cries 
of  Dignus  or  "Altos,  still  occurred:  as,  e.g.  in 
the  cases  mentioned  by  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Augustin, 
Philostorgius,  Photius,  cited  by  Bingham,  IV.  ii. 

6  ;  in  the  case  of  St.  Ambrose  himself  (Paulin,  in 
V.  S.  Ambros. ;  Theodoret,  iv.  7  ;  Sozom.  vi.  24) ; 
in  that  of  Sisinnius  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  426 
(Socrat.  vii.  26).  But  a  general  suffrage  was 
from  that  time  gradually  superseded  as  the  ordi¬ 
nary  rule  by  the  votes  of  the  rich  or  high  in 
station.  And  successive  councils  recognized  the 
practice,  up  to  the  time  when  Justinian  enacted 
it  by  express  law.  In  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
A.D,  431,  Meinuon,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  complains 
that  his  opponent  sought  to  be  elected  by  the 
votes  of  rb  cr4p.vov  fiovAiVT-fipiov  Kal  tovs  Xau.- 
TTpordrovs  (^Epist.  Cathol.  in  Cone.  Ephes.  Labbe 
iii.  764).  Leo  the  Great  and  the  Roman  Council, 
on  occasion  of  Flavian’s  condemnation  by  the 
Latrocinium  Epliesinum,  A.D.  442,  write  in  his 
favour,  “  Clero,  honoratis,  et  plebi,  consistenti 
apud  Constantinopolira”  (Cone.  Chalced.  a.d.  451, 
p.  i.  c.  22  ;  Labbe,  iv.  47).  And  the  same  Leo  also 
mentions  the  “  honorati  ”  expressly,  although 
not  exclusively,  Epist.  Ixxxix.  cvi.  Stephen  of 
Ephesus  (Cone.  Chaleed.  Act.  xi. ;  Labbe,  iv.  687)  ! 
claims  to  have  been  appointed  by  forty  bishops  j 
of  Asia,  yp7]<(>cp  Ka\  twu  Xapirpordruv  Kal  tu>v 
XoydScop  Kal  tov  ^vKa^eardrov  nduros  KXvpov 
Kal  rwu  XoiTTuv  irdpTwv  rrjs  ivoXtus  irdaris.  And 
in  Act.  xvi.  of  the  same  council  (Labbe,  ib.  618), 
the  right  of  election  is  said  to  belong  to  the 
clergy,  the  KXiiropes  Kal  XapirpoTaroi  di’bpes, 
and  the  bishops,  “  all  or  most,”  of  the  province. 
Again  (ib.  p.  iii.  c.  21,  Labbe,  ib.  890),  the  people 
of  Alexandria  and  its  honorati  et  curiales  et 
naucleri,”  are  said  to  have  demanded  Timothy  as 
their  bishop ;  while  Liberatus  (Breviar.  xiv.  xv.) 
affirms  that  Proterius,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
bishop  upon  whom  Timothy  was  intruded,  was 
elected  by  the  “  nobiles  civitatis,”  which  he  also 
expresses  as  “  decreto  populi.”  Finally,  Justinian 
established  by  direct  law  that  the  KXripiKol  Kal 
TrpuToi  T7JS  irSXews  should  choose  three  persons, 
whenever  a  vacancy  occurred,  of  whom  the  or- 
dainer  \i.  e.  the  metropolitan]  should  ordain  the 
one  who  in  his  judgment  was  the  best  qualified 
(Novell,  cxxiii.  c.  1,  cxxxvii.  c.  2,  and  Cod.  lib.  i. 
tit.  iii.  Be  Episeopis,  1.  42).  The  2nd  Council  of 
Arles,  A.D.  452,  had  previously  adopted  a  dif¬ 
ferent  plan  for  attaining  the  same  end ;  viz,  that 
the  bishops  should  choose  the  three  candidates, 
out  of  whom  the  “  clerici  vel  cives  ”  were  to 
select  one  (can.  liv.).  And  the  Spanish  Council 
of  Barcelona  subsequently,  a.d.  599,  so  far  varied 
the  rule  of  Justinian  as  to  enact  (after  the  pat¬ 
tern  of  St.  Matthias’  election)  that  the  decision 
should  be  made  by  lot,  between  two  or  three. 


elected  by  the  “  clerus  et  plebs,”  .and  presented 
to  the  metropolitan  and  bishops  (can.  iii.).  Th# 
common  phrase  in  St.  Gregory  the  Great’s  Letters 
is  “  cleru.s,  ordo,  et  plebs  or,  “  clerus  et  nobiles, 
ordo  et  plebs.” 

From  the  time  of  Justinian  onwards,  both  in 
East  and  West,  the  chief  power  in  the  election 
of  bishops,  on  the  Church  side,  inclined  to  the 
metropolitan,  but  as  choosing  with  the  compro¬ 
vincial  bishops  from  three  candidates  elected  by 
the  principal  people,  clergy  and  laity,  of  the  see  ; 
j  the  whole  process,  however,  being  summarily 
I  overruled  upon  occasion  by  the  emperors  ;  as  also 
in  course  of  time,  and  much  more  continuously 
and  absolutely,  by  the  Frankish,  Spanish,  and 
Gothic  kings.  Before  this  time,  indeed,  both  Theo¬ 
dosius  the  Great,  and  Theodosius  the  Younger, 
had  interfered  by  an  absolute  nomination  in  three 
several  appointments  to  the  see  of  Constantinople 
(Socrat.  vii.  8,  29,  40),  for  obvious  political 
reasons.  And  Valentinian  had  interfered  in  a 
like  manner  to  enforce  the  popular  demand  for 
the  conseci’ation  of  St.  Ambrose  to  Milan  (Theo¬ 
doret,  iv.  6).  But  such  interference  was  con¬ 
fessedly  irregular,  had  been  expressly  condemned 
by  Can.  Apostol.  xxx.,  and  was  in  earlier  times  pro¬ 
tested  against,  as,  e.  g.  by  St.  Athanasius  (Epist. 
ad  Solit.  V.  Agentes^  §  51,  0pp.  i.  375,  demanding, 
no?os  Kapwp  dirh  iraXaTiov  irdpwtardai  rhp  ’Etti- 
(Tkottop).  But  from  the  6th  century  onwards,  in 
the  case  of  at  least  important  sees,  the  emperors, 
although  leaving  the  old  forms  of  election  intact, 
appear  to  have  commonly  interfered  to  make  (or 
at  the  very  lea.st  to  sanction)  nominations  them¬ 
selves.  St.  Gregory  the  Great  treats  the  sole 
imperatorial  nomination  in  such  cases  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  cour.se.  Instances  will  also  be  found,  both 
from  him  and  from  later  time.s,  down  to  Heraclius, 
Justinian  II.,  Philippicus,  Constantine  Coprony- 
mus,  A.D.  754,  in  Thomassin,  II.  ii.  17  ;  while 
the  2nd  Council  of  Nice,  a.d.  787,  protests  against 
such  lay  interference  uncompromisingly  (can.  iii. 
ndaap  ipTj<pop  TTapd  dpxdpTWP,  'ETriaKdirov, 
'rp(0'$uTepov,  ^  biaKdpov,  6.KvpoP  pepeip').  Saracen 
conquerors,  as  might  be  expected,  interfered  in 
a  like  manner:  as,  e.g.  in  Syria,  a.d.  736,  in  the 
case  of  the  patriarch  of  Antioch  (Thomassin,  II. 
ii.  17,  §  7).  But  it  remained  for  Nicephorus  II., 
A.D.  963  X  969,  to  enact  as  an  universal  law, 
that  no  bishop  whatever  should  be  elected  or 
consecrated  dpev  rrjs  avrov  ypwfiris  (Cedren. 
p.  658,  and  so  also  Zonaras) ;  a  law  however 
which  did  not  last  long.  Finally,  in  the  East,  the 
custom  settled  down  into  an  election  by  the 
clergy,  and  ultimately  only  by  the  comprovincial 
bishops,  of  three,  of  whom  in  such  cases  as  the 
see  of  Constantinople  the  emperor,  but  ordinarily 
the  metropolitan,  selected  one  (Morinus,  ii. 
193).  The  ancient  form  of  election  however, 
as  modified  bv  Justinian,  still  held  its  ground  for 
a  considerable  time.  In  the  case,  e.g.,  of  Epi- 
phanius  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  528,  “  the  emperor 
(Justin)  and  empress,  the  magnates,  the  bishops, 
priests,  monks,  and  the  most  faithful  people,” 
concurred  (Epist.  Epiphan.  inter  Epistt.  Honnisd. 
J^apae  post  Epist.  Ixxi.,  Labbe  iv.  1534).  In  that 
of  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem,  a.d.  634,  “the 
clergy,  monks,  faithful  laics,  in  a  word  all  the 
citizens  ”  (Sophron.  Epist.  ad  Sei'gium  Constan- 
tinop.  up.  Cone.  Constantin.  A.D.  680,  Act.  xi. ; 
Labbe,  vi.  854).  In  that  of  Stephen  of  Laris.sa,  who 
was  chosen  out  of  three,  elected  by  the  “clerus* 


BISHOP 


PISH  OP 


217 


and  “popnlus;”  and  by  those  “quorum  adsensus  j 
erat  actui  necessarius,”  a.d.  531,  the  “  sancta  ^ 
provinciae  synodus  et  totius  civitatis  possessores 
omneque  corpus  Ecclesiae”;  and  (he  adds),  “com- 
muui  omnium  testimonio  ordinatus  sum  (Hoi-  j 
sten.  Collect.  Rom.  pp.  6,  7).  While  the  council  | 
in  Trullo,  A.D.  691,  speaks  of  an  election  by  all 
the  bishops  of  the  province  as  the  “  ancient  cus¬ 
tom  ”  (can.  xxxix.)  :  and  Joh.  Antioch.  {Nomocan. 
tit.  vii.  in  Bibl.  Jur.  Can.  p.  610)  rules  that  a 
bishop  must  be  elected  by  the  metropolitan, 
and  by  all  the  bishops  of  the  province,  either 
present  or  sending  a  written  consent  5  and  that 
such  elections  (€/cAo7as)  must  not  be  entrusted 
to  the  multitude  :  and,  lastly,  Zonaras  and  Bal- 
samon,  glossing  the  older  canons  by  the  custom 
of  their  own  time,  exclude  the  “  clerus  et  plebs  ”  I 
altogether,  and  refer  the  whole  matter  to  the  , 
metropolitan  and  bishops,  the  former  choosing 
the  “  dignissimus  ”  out  of  three,  elected  by  the 
bishops  without  the  presence  of  the  metropolitan 
(according  to  Symeon  of  Thessalonica),  and  pre¬ 
sented  by  them  to  him  (see  the  form  at  length 
in  Sym.  Thessai.  ap.  Morin,  ii.  149,  sq.).  Pro¬ 
bably  the  emperor  really  determined  the  choice, 
wherever  his  power  enabled,  and  his  policy  in¬ 
clined,  him  to  do  so  ;  while  as  a  rule  he  left 
ordinary  cases  to  the  ordinary  methods.  See, 
however,  Le  Quien,  Oriens  Christ,  i.  136,  169. 

In  the  West,  a  like  retention  of  the  old  form  of 
election  ran  parallel  with  a  gradual  increase  (less, 
ajq'tarently,  through  circumstances,  in  France 
than  elsewhere)  of  the  power  of  the  metro¬ 
politan,  and  with  the  practical  assumption  of  a 
sole  nomination,  especially  in  France,  by  the 
king.  In  France,  the  Councils  of  Orleans  II., 
A.D.  533,  canons  i.  viii.,  of  Clermont,  A.D.  535, 
can.  ii.,  of  Orleans  III.,  a.d.  538,  can.  iii.,  specify 
the  “  clerici,  cives,”  bishops  of  the  province,  and 
metropolitan,  but  require  the  consent  of  all  the 
comprovincial  bishops  only  in  the  election  of  the 
metropolitan  himself.  But  in  the  Council  of  Or¬ 
leans  V.,  A.D.  549,  canons  x.  and  xi.,  occurs  first 
the  significant  phrase,  “  cum  voluntate  regis 
although  still  “  juxta  electionem  cleri  ac  plebis,” 
and  with  consecration  by  the  metropolitan  and 
comprovincial  bishops,  and  with  a  special  enact¬ 
ment  that  “  nullus  invitis  detur  episcopus,  sed 
nec  per  oppressionem  potentium  personarum  .  .  . 
cives  aut  clerici  inclinentur and  although  also 
checked  almost  immediately  by  the  Council  of 
Paris  III.,  A.D.  557,  can.  ii.,  which  voids  the 
“  principis  imperium,”  if  against  the  will  of 
metropolitan  and  bishops.  Absolute  nominations 
by  the  kings,  however,  occur  earlier :  e.  g.  under 
Theodoric  of  Austrasia,  A.D.  511  x  534  (Greg.  Tur. 
de  SS.  Patrum  W.  c.  iii.).  And  compare  also 
the  appointment  to  the  see  of  Leon,  of  Paulus 
Leonensis,  by  Childebert  (F.  S.  Paul.  Leon.'), 
A.D.  512.  The  issue  between  royal,  and  metro¬ 
politan  or  ecclesiastical,  nominations  was  directly 
raised  A.D.  563,  in  the  case  of  Emerius,  bishop  of 
Saintes;  whom  the  king  (Charibert)  forced  upon 
the  see  in  defiance  of  the  metropolitan,  as  being 
his  predecessor  Lothaire’s  nominee  (Greg.  Tur. 
H.  E.  iv.  26).  And  Lothaire  II., — in  confirming 
a  re-enactment  of  can.  ii.  of  the  second  Council  of 
Paris,  made  by  the  Council  of  Paris  V.  a.d.  615 
(can.  i.),  and  again  re-enacted  at  the  Council  of 
Rheims,  a.d.  625,  can.  xxv.,  and  at  the  Council 
of  Chalons,  a.d.  649,  can.  x., — requires  to  such 
elections,  made  “  a  clei’o  et  populo,”  the  sub¬ 


sequent  “  ordinatio  jirincijns,”  with  no  other 
qualification  than  that  “  certe  si  de  palatio  eli- 
gitur  [episcopus],  per  meritum,  &c.,  ordinetur” 
(IMansi,  x.  543).  Thenceforward,  the  action  of 
the  people  of  the  diocese,  under  the  Frankish 
kings,  is  commonly  termed,  not  “  electio,”  but 
“fiagitatio”  or  “  petitio,”  or  is  expressed  aa  . 
“  .suppliciter  postulamus,”  addressed  to  the  king. 
Regular  forms  for  the  donation  of  a  bishopric  by 
the  king,  nominally  “  cum  consilio  episcoporum 
et  procerum  ” — in  Marculphus,  and  in  Sirmond 
{Cone.  Gallie.  ii.  Append.;  see  also  the  “  electio 
quo  modo  a  clero  et  a  populo  oligitur  episcopus 
in  propria  sede  cum  consensu  regis  archiprae- 
sulisque  omniumque  populo  ”  [sic],  in  Morinus, 
de  Ordin.  ii.  304) — exhibit  the  choice,  even  when 
made  by  the  clergy  and  people,  and  sanctioned 
by  the  metropolitan,  as  ultimately  and  in  efi’ect 
made  by  the  king.  And  in  point  of  fact,  the 
bishops  were  *50  nominated.  Carioman,  however, 
and  Pipin  {Com.  lAptin.  A.D.  743,  and  Cone.  Suess. 
A.D.  744),  professed  to  restore  liberty  of  election 
to  the  Church.  And  a  new  set  of  “formulae” 
occurs  accordingly  (in  Baluz.  ii.  591,  and  in  Sir¬ 
mond),  as  “usurpatae  post  restitutam  clectionum 
libertatem.”  And  Charlemagne,  upon  the  advice 
of  Pope  Adrian,  that  he  should  leave  episcopal 
elections  to  the  “  clerus  et  plebs  ”  according  to 
the  canons  {Cone.  Gallic,  ii.  96),  issued  a  capitu¬ 
lary,  A.D.  803  {Cone.  Aquisgran.  c.  ii.,  repeated  by 
Louis,  A.D.  816,  Capit.  Aqtiisgran.  c.  ii.),  consent¬ 
ing  “  ut  episcopi  per  electionem  cleri  et  populi 
secundum  statuta  canonum  de  propria  dioecesi 
eligantur;”  but  he  did  so  as  granting  a  grace, 
not  as  admitting  a  right.  And  as  the  bishops  in 
point  of  fact  continued  to  be  appointed  by  the 
emperors  (see  e.  g.  Baluz.  ad  Cone.  Gall.  Eat'hon. 

р.  34,  and  ad  Capit.  ii.  1141),  and  no  choice 
could  be  made  save  by  the  empei*or’s  special  per¬ 
mission  (so  Gieseler,  and  this  as  late  as  Cone.  Va¬ 
lentin.  A.D.  855,  can.  vii.),  and  special  privileges 
of  free  election  were  given  to  particular  churches 
(Baluz.  ib.),  which  imply  the  universality  of  the 
opposite  practice, — not  to  add  also  the  much 
disputed  but  after  all  possibly  genuine  grant  by 
Adrian  to  Charlemagne  (in  Gratian,  Dist.  63, 

с.  22)  of  an  absolute  right  to  the  appoint¬ 
ment  and  investiture  of  all  bishops  and  arch¬ 
bishops  in  all  provinces  of  his  empire, — it  is 
obvious  that  the  change  was  more  in  name  than 
in  reality  (as  indeed  the  “  formulae  ”  themselves, 
as  above  in  Sirmond,  &;c.,  shew),  until  at  least  the 
renewal  of  the  contest  after  the  middle  of  the 
9th  century  in  the  time  of  Hincmar.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  power  of  the  metropolitan  and 
the  right  of  free  election  were  continually  re¬ 
asserted,  although  with  little  efi'ect  (see  the 
councils  above  quoted,  from  that  of  Orleans  in 
5.33  to  that  of  Rheims  in  649);  until  under 
Charlem  igne’s  immediate  successors,  whose  right 
to  nominate  is  actually  recognized  at  the  Council 
of  Paris  VI.  a.d.  829  (can.  xxii.),  and  that  of 
Thionville  in  815  {C ipit.  C (r.  Culv.  tit.  ii.  c.  2), 
&c. ;  and  this,  although  Carioman  and  Pipin  had 
both  of  them  professedly  restored  the  rights  of 
the  metropolitan  as  well  as  freedom  of  election 
(a.d.  742,  Capit.  c.  i.,  and  a.d.  755,  can.  ii.).  See 
the  whole  subject  carefully  treated  in  Henry  C. 
Lea’s  Studies  in  Church  History,  })p.  81-9U 
(^Philad.  U.  S.  1869). 

In  Saxon  England,  king,  witan,  and  metro¬ 
politan  appear  to  have  predominated,  although 


218 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


the  first  gr.adually  became  as  a  rule  the  real 
nominator.  At  the  same  time,  the  canonical 
form  of  election  was  kept  up  ;  and  when  the  king 
was  weak  and  the  Church  strong,  it  occasionally 
became  a  reality.  The  Kentish  and  Northumbrian 
kings  agreed  in  choosing  Wighard,  but  accepted 
Theodore,  a.d.  668,  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
at  the  hands  of  the  pope,  upon  Wighard’s  unex¬ 
pected  death  at  Rome  (Baed.  H.  E.  iii.  29,  iv.  1). 
Northumbrian  kings  and  witenagemots  adjudi¬ 
cated  the  various  disputes  about  Wilfrid’s  sees. 
And  Theodore  and  a  synod  of  bishops  chose  and 
consecrated  Cuthbert  to  the  see  of  Lindisfarne, 
A.D.  684,  but  “  sub  praesentia  Regis  Ecgfridi  ” 
(id.  iv.  28).  Wihtred’s  privilege,  a.d.  696  x  716, 
in  its  genuine  form  refers  to  Kent  and  to  abbats 
and  presbyters,  not  to  England  at  large,  or  to 
bishops  (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Counc.  iii.  238-247). 
And  Agatho’s  privilegium  to  the  “  congregatio  ” 
of  the  monastery  of  St.  Paul’s,  a.d.  673x681,  to 
elect  their  own  bishop,  is  a  forgery  (ib.  161). 
On  the  other  hand  (although  no  doubt  contem¬ 
porary  both  with  the  Carlovingian  nominal  re¬ 
storation  of  liberty  of  election  in  France,  and  with 
the  breaking  up  of  the  Northumbrian  kingdom), 
Alcuin’s  letter.s,  “ad  Fratres  Eboi-acen.ses,”  of 
Aug.  796,  before  the  election  of  Eanbald  to  York, 
distinctly  affirm,  that  “  hucusque  sancta  Ebo- 
racensis  Ecclesia  in  electione  sua  inviolata  per- 
mansit,”  adding,  “  videte  ne  in  diebus  vestris 
maculetur — imply  that  Alcuin  him.self  had  a 
voice  in  the  election ; — and  urgently  exhort  the 
York  clergy  to  elect  a  proper  person,  if  he  him¬ 
self  cannot  come  in  time  for  the  election  {Epistt. 
.54,  55,  Migne ;  48,  49,  Froben.).  “  Profes- 
siones,”  also,  of  a  little  later  date,  distinctly 
as.sert  an  election  by  the  diocese  :  e.  g.  that  of 
Beornmod  of  Rochester,  A.D.  805,  or  a  year  or 
two  earlier, — “  electus  ab  Ethelardo  archiepi- 
scopo  et  a  servis  Domini  in  Cantia  constitutis  ” 
(in  Wharton,  A.  S'.), — and  that  of  a  bishop  of 
Lichfield  (probably  Kynferth,  A.D.  833  x  836), 
“  quoniam  me  tota  Ecclesia  provinoiae  nostrae 
sibi  in  episcopatus  officium  elegerunt  ”  (^Cotton 
MSS.  Cleop.  E.  1), — and  that  of  Helmstan  of  Win¬ 
chester,  A.D.  838,  “  a  sancte  et  Apostolice  sedis 
dignitate  et  ab  congregatione  civitatis  Wentanae 
necnon  Ethel[wulfi]  regis  et  totius  gentis  occi- 
dentalium  Saxonum  ad  episcopalis  officii  gradum 
electus  ”  (ibS), — and  that  of  Deorlaf  of  Hereford, 
A.D.  857  X  866,  “quoniam  me  tota  congregatio 
Herefordensis  Ecclesiae  sibi  in  officium  episcopale 
elegerunt  ”  {App.  ad  Text.  Hoff.).  In  a  little 
later  times,  we  find  Odo  made  archbishop,  a.d. 
942,  by  the  “  regia  voluntas,”  followed  by  the 
“  assen.sus  episcoporum  ”  (Will.  Malm.  G.  P.  A. 
i.);  Dunstan,  A.D.  960,  made  so  by  Edgar  (ffd.  ib.), 
but  with  an  election  also  by  acclamation  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  Life ;  and  Living,  a.d.  1013,  “  suffragio 
Regis  Ethelredi  ”  (W.  Malm.  ib.).  And  in  the 
time  of  Eadward  the  Confessor,  Aelfric  is  elected 
by  the  monks  of  Canterbuiy,  but  set  aside  by  the 
king  in  favour  of  Robert,  made  archbishop 
“  regis  munere  ”  (  V.  Eadw.  ed.  Luard,  pp.  399, 
400).  By  that  time  the  election  by  the  “  clerus 
et  plebs  ”  of  the  diocese,  so  far  as  it  still  sur¬ 
vived  at  all,  had  gradually  shrivelled  up  into  an 
election  by  the  clergy,  and  by  the  clergy  of  the 
cathedral, — a  process  materially  accelerated  by 
the  monastic  character  of  the  chapters,  coupled 
with  the  monastic  privilege  of  choosing  their  own 
abbats, — but  which  was  also  perpetually  set  aside 


by  the  necessity  of  the  royal  consent,  running 
naturally  into  a  right  of  royal  nomination.  See 
also  the  evidence  collected  by  Freeman,  /list,  of 
Norm.  Conq.  ii.  61,  117,  and  571-577.  The  case 
of  the  see  of  Rochester  was  exceptional,  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  claiming,  and  fre¬ 
quently  obtaining,  the  right  of  nomination  to 
that  see,  as  against  the  crown,  until  the  days  of 
King  .John. 

In  Spain,  the  power  of  the  bishops  in  the 
election  of  the  kings  preserved  and  extended 
also  their  own  power,  and  among  other  things,  in 
episcopal  elections.  The  Council  of  Toledo  X., 
A.D.  656,  for  instance,  elected  a  metropolitan  of 
Braga  (the  former  bishop  being  deposed  for  in¬ 
continence)  without  consulting  the  diocese.  See 
however  Dunbar,  Ilist.of  Spain  and  Portwgal,  bk. 
ii.  c.  ii.,  who  rather  leans  towards  the  royal  power 
in  such  elections.  Ultimately  the  king  and  the 
metropolitan  of  Toledo  seem  to  have  acquired 
practically  a  joint  power  of  nomination.  Cone. 
Tolet.  XII. ,  A.D.  681,  empowers  the  archbishop 
of  Toledo,  as  primate,  to  consecrate  at  Toledo, 
“  quoscunque  regalis  potestas  elegerit  et  jam 
dicti  Toletani  episcopi  judicium  dignos  esse  pro- 
baverit  ”  (can.  vi.).  And  see  also  the  history  of 
King  Witiza,  A.D.  701-710.  Martin  of  Braga 
too,  distinctly  says  that  the  people  are  not  to 
elect  bishops. 

In  Italy,  also,  the  royal  power  gradually 
overruled  without  superseding  the  older  canoni¬ 
cal  form  of  election.  But  that  the  latter  con¬ 
tinued  in  all  ordinary  cases,  save  that  the  metro¬ 
politan’s  influence  and  veto  had  grown  moi’e 
powerful,  is  palpable  by  St.  Gregory  the  Great’s 
letters.  On  the  other  hand,  Odoacer,  A.D.  476- 
483,  with  the  “  advice  ”  of  Pope  Simplicius,  for¬ 
bade  the  election  of  a  bishop  of  Rome  without 
his  (the  king’s)  consent.  And  the  interference 
of  (the  Arian)  Theodoric  in  the  disputed  election 
of  Pope  Symmachu.s,  a.d.  501,  was  both  asked  for 
and  submitted  to ;  although  it  called  forth  En- 
nodius’  Apologetic  Letter,  and  also  a  protest  from 
the  Cone.  Palm.  a.d.  502,  which  declared  Odoacer’s 
law  invalid.  Yet  the  Gothic  kings  continued  to 
exercise  such  a  power.  Theodoric  appointed  suc¬ 
cessive  popes  during  his  reign,  down  to  Felix  III. 
A.D.  526  (Greenwood,  Cathed.  Pet.  iii.  c.  4).  And 
Athalaric  issued  regulations  about  papal  elec¬ 
tions  on  occasion  of  the  outrageous  simony  that 
attended  the  accession  of  John  II.  a.d.  533 
(Cassiod.  ix,  15).  And  not  only  so,  but  the 
Greek  emperoi’s,  when  they  recovered  Italy, 
exercised  it  likewise;  so  that,  e.  g.  Gregory  the 
Great,  a.d.  590,  after  due  election  by  the  “  clerus, 
senatores,  populusque  Romauus,”  still  required 
the  “  praeceptio  ”  of  the  emperor  Maurice  to 
complete  his  election  (Jo.  Diac.  in  T'.  Greg.  M. 
lib.  i.  ep.  39,  40).  And  Pipin  and  Charlemagne 
fell  heirs  to  the  like  “  jus  et  potestatem  eli- 
gendi  pontiricem:”  for  all  which  see  details 
under  Pope.  The  election  of  the  pope  in¬ 
deed  remained  like  other  elections  of  the  kind, 
until  the  decree  of  the  Cone.  Pom.  of  a.d.  1059 
under  Nicholas  II.  (for  which  .see  Gieseler,  ii.  369, 
Eng.  transL);  which  itself  was  a  change  ana¬ 
logous  to  the  contemporary  changes  elsewhere. 

In  brief,  then,  during  this  period,  the  old 
canonical  diocesan  election  continued  thro’.  ghout 
the  Western  Church  as  the  right  and  pro}>er  mode 
of  election;  but  (1)  wjis  in  itself  graduallv  ab¬ 
sorbed  into  a  vote  of  the  cathedral  clergy  C*  olcctic 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


219 


clericonim  est,  petitio  plebis,”  is  the  utmost 
allowed  iu  Gratian,  Deer.  i.  dtst.  62),  and  (2)  was 
oveiTuled  perpetually  by  the  royal  nomination, 
which  itself  was  concurrent  with  but  commonly 
superseded  the  consent  ot  metropolitan  and  com¬ 
provincial  bishops. 

For  special  conditions  attending  the  election 
of  metropolitans,  and  for  the  relation  ot  the 
metropolitans  to  the  patriarchs  in  the  matter, 
see  Metropolitan,  Patriarch. 

At  what  times  special  questions  arose  respect¬ 
ing  the  qualifications  which  gave  a  right  to  vote 
in  the  election  of  a  bishop — how  such  questions 
were  determined — in  what  way  votes  were  ac¬ 
tually  taken — and  other  questions  of  like  detail 
— there  remains  no  evidence  to  shew  :  except 
that  we  may  infer  from  siich  accounts  as  e.  g. 
that  in  Synesius,  Epist.  67,  that  where  there  was 
a  popular  assembly  ordinarily  acting  in  other  and 
civil  matters,  such  assembly  acted  also,  at  first, 
in  the  choice  of  a  bishop.  Synesius’  description 
also  illustrates  forcibly  the  ox^ot  of  the  Laodiceue 
Council,  the  women  being  preeminently  noisy  on 
the  occasion,  and  even  the  children. 

Who  were  eligible. — Such  being  the  electors, 
it  follows  next  to  consider  the  qualifications  of 
those  who  were  to  be  elected.  The  general  dis¬ 
qualifications  for  the  clerical  office — such  as,  e.g. 
digamy,  clinic  baptism,  heretical  baptism,  the 
having  been  a  demoniac,  or  done  public  penance, 
or  lapsed,  the  occupations  of  pleader,  soldier,  play¬ 
actor,  usurer,  the  being  a  slave,  or  illegitimate, 
the  having  any  of  his  own  immediate  family  still 
unconverted  heathens,  &c.  &c.  —  will  be  best 
treated  under  Presbyters,  Clergy,  or  the  se¬ 
veral  subjects  themselves.  The  special  conditions 
of  eligibility  for  a  bishopric  w'cre,  (1)  that  the 
candidate  should  be,  acc.  to  Apost.  Const  it.  ii.  1, 
fifty  years  of  age ;  but  acc.  to  Cone.  Neocaes. 
A.D.  314  (requiring  30  for  a  presbyter,  on  the 
ground  of  St.  Luke  iii.  23 — a  canon  adopted  by 
the  Church  universal),  and  acc.  to  similar  later 
canons  (^Arclut.  IV.  A.D.  475,  can.  i.,  Agath. 
A.D.  506,  can.  xvii.,  Aurelian.  III.  A.D.  533, 
can.  vi.,  Tolet.  IV.  a.d.  581,  can.  xx. ;  and  again, 
Justin.  Novell,  cxxxiii.  1 ;  and  again,  Charlemagne 
at  Aix,  A.D.  789,  Capit.  i.  49,  and  at  Frankfort, 
A.D.  794,  can.  xlix.),  the  age  of  30  only  was  in¬ 
sisted  on.  And  so  also  Balsamon.  Photius  in 
one  place  (ap.  Suicer)  says  35,  which  is  likewise 
Justinian’s  rule  in  another  Novel  (cxxvii.  1).  And 
Siricius  and  apparently  Zosimus  (Sir.  ad  Himer. 
Epist.  1  §  9,  Zos.  ad  Hesych.  Epist.  1,  §  3,  a  de¬ 
tailed  lex  annalis  in  both  cases)  place  the  mini¬ 
mum  at  45.  Special  merits,  however  (St.  Chrys. 
Horn,  in  1  Tim.  x.  xi.),  and  the  precedent  of 
Timothy  (1  Tim.  iv.  12 ;  and  see  St.  Ignat. 
ad  M  ignes.  3,  speaking  of  vfdjTfpiK^  rd^is  =  a 
youthful  appointment),  repeatedly  set  aside  the 
rule  in  practice  (see  instances  in  Bingh.  II.  x.  1)  : 
as,  e.g.  in  the  well-known  case  of  St.  Athanasius, 
apparently  not  much  more  than  23  when  conse¬ 
crated  bishop.  (2)  That  he  should  be  of  the 
clergy  of  the  church  to  which  he  was  to  be  con¬ 
secrated, —  onr’  auTov  rov  Upareiov — “de  proprio 
clero”  (so  Pope  Julius,  Epist.  ad  Orient,  ap.  S. 
Athanas.  Apol.  ii. ;  Pope  Caelestinus,  Epist.  ii.  c.  4 ; 
Pope  Hilary,  Epist.  i.  c.  3  ;  Leo  M.,  Epist.  Ixxxiv. ; 
Gregory  the  Great  repeatedly;  and  as  part  of 
the  Old  canonical  rule,  the  Capit.  of  Charle¬ 
magne  above  quoted,  “de  propria  dioecesi)”: — a 
rule  likewise  repeatedly  broken  under  pressure 


of  circumstances,  special  merit  in  the  candidate, 
the  condition  of  the  diocese  itself,  &c.,  and  by 
translations,  so  far  as  translations  were  allowed ; 
but  one  also  enforced  by  the  nature  of  the  case 
so  long  as  the  voice  and  testimony  of  the  people 
of  the  diocese  was  an  important  element  in  the 
election,  and  on  like  grounds  disregarded  in  pro¬ 
portion  as  metropolitan,  or  still  more  royal, 
nominations  became  predominant.  St.  Jerome’s 
well-known  statement  about  Alexandria  seems 
to  speak  of  it  as  almost  a  special  privilege  of  that 
see  from  early  times :  which  it  plainly  was  not. 
If  the  presbyter  chosen  was  not  of  the  diocese 
itself,  the  consent  of  his  own  bishop  was  requisite 
(Cone.  Nicaen.  can.  xvi.  &c.  &c. ;  and  see  below, 
III.  1,  a,  X.).  (3)  That  he  should  be  a  presbyter, 
or  a  deacon  at  the  least,  and  not  become  a  bishop 
per  saltuin,  but  go  through  all  the  interstitia  or 
several  stages ; — also  at  first  an  ecclesiastical 
custom,  grounded  on  the  fitness  of  the  thirrg 
(e.g.  Pope  Cornelius  “non  ad  episcopatum.subit© 
pervenit  sed  per  omnia  ecclesiastica  ofiicia,”  &c. 
and  again,  “  cunctis  religionis  gradibus  asceudit,’^ 
St.  Cypr.  Epist.  52  al.  55 ;  and  similarly  Greg. 
Naz.  Orat.  xx.  of  St.  Basil  ;  and  so  repeatedly 
St.  Gregory  the  Great,  objecting  to  a  layman 
being  made  bishop),  but  turned  into  a  canon  by 
Cone.  Sardic.  A.D.  347,  can.  x.  (/ca0’  eKaorou 
Padfxhr,  K.T.\.,  and  naftiing  reader,  deacon,  priest ; 
the  object  being  to  exclude  neophytes),  and  by 
some  later  provincial  councils  (Cone.  Aurelian. 
III.  A.D.  538,  can.  vi. ;  Bracar.  I.  a.d.  563,  can. 
xxxix. ;  Barcinon.  II.  A.D.  599,  can,  iii.) :  and  so 
Leo  the  Great  (admitting  deacons  however  on 
the  same  level  with  priests),  “  Ex  presbytefis 
ejusdem  Ecclesiae  vel  ex  diaconibus  optimus  eli- 
gaiuv”  (Epist.  Ixxxiv.  c.  6): — broken  likewise 
perpetually  under  special  circumstances  (see 
Morin,  de  Sacr.  Ordin.  III.  xi.  2).  Instances  of 
deacons,  indeed,  advanced  at  once  to  the  epi¬ 
scopate,  are  numerous,  and  scarcely  regarded  as 
irregular,  beginning  with  St.  Athanasius  (see  a 
list  in  Bingh.  II.  x.  5 ;  but  St.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat. 

xxi.  speaks  of  St.  Athanasius  as  irdoau  tt)v  tuv 
^aQfxwv  aKoKovQlav  die^eXdchu').  But  the  case 
of  a  reader  also  is  mentioned  in  St.  Aug.  (Epist. 
cxlii.),  and  of  a  subdeacon  in  Liberatus  (Breviar. 

xxii. ).  And  although  expressly  forbidden  by  Jus¬ 
tinian  (Novell,  vi.  1,  cxxiii.  1,  cxxxvii.  1)  and  by 
Cone.  Arelat.  IV.  a.d.  455,  can.  ii.,  yet  the  well- 
known  cases  of  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Ambrose,  .St.  Mar¬ 
tin  of  Tours,  St.  Germanus  of  Auxerre,  and 
others,  prove  the  admissibility  of  even  a  layman, 
if  under  the  circumstances — as,  e.  g.  by  reason 
of  the  sudden  acclamation  of  the  people — such  a 
choice  was  held  to  be  “voluntate”  or  “judicio 
Dei  ”  (Hieron.  in iii,  0pp.  iii.  1489  ;  Pon¬ 
tius,  in  V.  S.  Cypr.  ;  Paulin,  in  V.  S.  Ambros.  iii. ; 
&c.).  Instances  may  also  be  found  in  the  Alex¬ 
andrian  church  (Keiiaudot,  ap.  Denzinger,  Bit. 
Orient.  145,  146).  And  the  rubric  in  the  Nes- 
torian  Pontifical  expressly  admits  the  possibility 
of  a  bishop  elect  being  a  deacon  as  well  as  a 
presbyter  (Denzinger,  ib.  146).  At  the  same  time 
there  is  the  well-known  case  of  the  patriarch 
Photius,  deposed,  because  ordained  on  five  suc¬ 
cessive  days  respectively  monk,  reader,  subdea¬ 
con,  deacon,  priest,  and  on  the  sixth  day  bishep 
(Cone.  Nicaen.  II.  a.d.  787,  can.  iv.).  See  also 
under  Advocate  of  the  Church.  But  then  (4) 
such  candidate  was  not  to  be  a  neophyte  (1  Tim. 
iii.  6),  or  a  heathen  recently  baptized,  who  had  not 


220 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


yet  beeu  tried  (^Apost.  Can.  Ixxx. ;  Cone.  Nicaen. 
can.  ii. ;  Cone.  Laodic.  A.n.  365,  can.  iii.)  :  but  one 
converted  at  least  a  year  before  {Cone.  Aurelian. 
III.  A.D.  538,  can.  vi.);  or  who  had  been  a  reader, 
or  a  subdeacoH,  or  (acc.  to  one  copy)  a  deacon  for 
a  year  {Cone.  Braear.  II.  A.D.  563,  can.  xx.) ;  or 
acc.  to  yet  another  provincial  council  {Epaon. 
A.D.  517,  can.  xxxvii.),  at  the  least  “  praemissa 
religione.”  Yet  here  too  special  circumstance.^ 
were  held  to  justify  exceptions ;  as  in  the  case  of 
St.  Cyprian  himself,  “  adhuc  neophytus  ”  (Pont. 
ib.)  ;  of  St.  Ambrose  and  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea 
in  Pontus,  not  yet  baptized  (Theodoret,  iv.  7, 
Socrat.  iv.  30,  Sozom.  vi.  24,  St.  Greg.  Naz.  Of-at. 
xix.) ;  of  Nectarius,  r^u  pvarLK^v  iaQrira  Iti 
^a<pi^o’ii^vos,  &c.  (Sozom.  vii.  8).  And  all  these 
are  cases  of  immediate  consecration  ;  the  later 
practice  of  ordaining  to  each  step  on  successive 
days,  in  order  to  keep  the  letter  while  breaking 
the  spirit  of  the  rule,  dating  no  earlier  than 
the  case  of  Photius  above  mentioned  (Bingh.  II. 
X.  7).  (5)  Apost.  Can.  xxi.  permits  the  consecra¬ 
tion  of  one  made  a  eunuch  by  cruelty,  or  born 
so  ;  and  {ib.  Ixxvii.)  of  one  maimed  or  diseased 
in  eye  or  leg :  but  {ib.  Ixxviii.)  forbids  it  in  the 
case  of  a  deaf  or  dumb  person.  (6)  Lastly,  the 
bishop  who  was  appointed  Interventor  to  a  see 
during  the  vacancy  was  pro  hae  viee  ineligible 
to  that  see.  [Interventores.]  It  remains  to 
add  (7)  that  the  candidate’s  own  consent  was 
not  at  first  held  to  be  requisite,  but  that  in  many 
cases  consecration  was  forced  upon  him  &Kovra ; 
as  in  the  instances  in  Bingh.  IV.  vii.  2  :  to  which 
may  be  added  others,  as,  e.  g.  that  of  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  in  Pontus,  A.D.  362  (Greg.  Naz.  Oral. 
xix.).  And  Apost.  Can.  xxxvi.  orders  the  excom¬ 
munication  of  a  bishop  who  refuses  the  charge  of 
the  people  assigned  to  him.  But  first  St.  Basil 
(  d  Amphiloeh.  x.)  exempts  those  who  in  such  a 
case  had ‘‘ sworn  ” — hixvvoims  /caraSexfO^^®* 
tV  afterwards  the  emperors 

Leo  and  Majorian  forbade  forced  ordinations  alto¬ 
gether  {Novel,  ii.  in  Append,  ad  Cod.  Theodos.  vi. 
34).  And  similarly  Pope  Simplicius  {Epist.  ii.), 
and  Cone.  Aurelian.  III.  A.D.  538  (can.  vii.).  At 
the  same  time  the  law  of  Leo  and  Anthemius 
{Cod.  Justin,  lib.  i.  tit.  iii.  De  Episeopis,  1.  31) 
describes  the  “  nolo  episcopari  ”  temper  proper  to 
one  to  whom  a  bishopric  is  ottered — “  ut  quaeratur 
cogendus,  rogatus  recedat,  invitatus  refugiat,  sola 
illi  sutfragetur  necessitas  obsequendi;”  and  that 
“  profecto  indignus  est  sacerdotio,  nisi  fuerit  or- 
dinatus  invitus.”  And  so  the  Fathers  generally 
(Thomassin,  II.  ii.  65). 

y.  Time,  mode,  and  plaee  of  eleetion. — Further, 
(1)  the  election  was  ordered  to  be  made,  and  the 
new  bishop  consecrated,  iurhs  rpiwv  (xi)p(av,  un¬ 
less  delay  was  unavoidable,  by  Cone.  Chaleed. 
A.D.  431,  can.  xxv.  And  the  alleged  practice  at 
Alexandria  (doubtless  from  the  special  character 
of  the  place  already  mentioned)  was  to  elect  im¬ 
mediately  after  the  death  of  the  last  bishop,  and 
before  he  was  interred  (Epiphan.  Haer.  Ixix.  §  11, 
Liberal.  Breviar.  xx.,  and  see  Socrat.  vii.  7);  a 
practice  followed  in  one  instance,  that  of  Pi'oclus, 
A.D.  434—447,  at  Constantinople  also  (Socrat.  vii. 
40).  The  time  allowed  in  Africa,  however,  was 
much  longer,  the  episeopus  interventor  being  only 
superseded  if  he  allowed  the  election  to  be  de¬ 
layed  beyond  a  year  {Cone.  Carthag.  V.  a.d.  398, 
can.  iii. ;  Cod.  Can.  Eeel.  Afrie.  Ixxiv.).  On 
the  other  hand,  Cone.  Bom.  a.d.  606,  to  prcA^ent 


bishops  nominating  their  own  .successors,  for¬ 
bids  election  until  the  third  day  after  the  last 
bishop’s  death.  (2)  Such  election  was  not  to 
take  place  4irl  ‘rrapoveria  aKpoaip.€vwv — “  in  the 
presence  of  the  hearers,”  i.  e.  the  class  of  cate¬ 
chumens  so  called  {Cone.  Laodie.  a.d.  365,  can. 
V.) ;  probably  because  accu-sations  might  on  such 
occasions  be  brought  forward  against  clergy. 
(3)  Later  canon  law  {Greg.  IX.  Deeretal.  1.  vi. 
De  TAeet.  et  Eleeti  Potest,  c.  42)  specifies  three 
modes  of  electing ;  scil.  by  “  compromissarii  ” 
(delegates  by  whose  act  the  body  of  electors 
bound  themselves  to  abide),  by  scrutiny  of  votes, 
by  “  inspiration  ”  (if  the  electors  agree  in  an 
unanimous  and  unpremeditated  choice).  Of  these 
three,  compromissarii  are  mentioned  by  Gregory 
the  Great,  although  not  under  that  name  {Epist. 
iii.  35).  And  election  by  acclamation  was  (as  we 
have  seen)  not  unknown.  The  other  was  of  course 
the  ordinary  way,  viz.  by  some  kind  or  other  of 
scrutiny  of  votes.  (4)  The  election  was  properly 
to  take  place  in  the  diocese  itself  (whereas  “  com¬ 
promissarii  ”  might  be  sent  elsewhere  to  perform 
it),  that  the  people  might  be  able  to  give  their 
testimony  (St.  Cypr.  Epist.  Ixvii.).  Cone.  Aure¬ 
lian.  IV.  A.D.  541,  can.  v.,  &c.  &c.,  refer  to  the  place 
of  ordination,  for  which  see  below.  So  long  as  that 
also  took  place  in  the  diocesan  cathedral  (see  e.  g. 
St.  Aug.  Epist.  261,  and  below),  so  long  no  doubt 
the  election  took  place  there  likewise.  But  even 
when  the  ordination  came  to  be  transferred  to 
the  metropolitan  see,  the  election  still  remained 
commonly  as  to  be  done  on  the  spot  itself. 
[IXTERVENTORES ;  ViSITATORES.] 

2.  Confirmation. —  The  bishop  elect  was  next 
to  be  confirmed,  viz.  by  the  metropolitan.  And 
so  far  as  such  confirmation  merely  referred  to  the 
metropolitan’s  share  in  the  election,  it  would 
certainly  seem  to  follow  from  Cone.  Nieaen.  can. 
vi.  {KpaTe'iTCt}  rj  rwv  TrXfiSvwv  \l/?i(pos'),  from  Cone, 
Antioeh.  A.D.  341,  can.  xix.  (repeating  the  Nicene 
canon),  and  even  from  so  late  a  witness  as  Cone, 
Arelat.  II.  A.D.  452,  can.  v.,  that  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance  and  canonically  the  voice  of  the  majority 
of  bishops  was  final.  At  the  same  time,  a  cer¬ 
tain  right  of  ratification  is  assigned  to  the  me¬ 
tropolitan,  even  from  the  time  of  the  Coiincil  of 
Nice  itself.  And  it  certainly  seems  that  the 
metropolitan  in  course  of  time,  practically,  if 
not  expressly,  came  to  have  a  veto.  So,  e.  g. 
Pope  Hilary,  a.d.  465,  Epist.  ii.  c.  1.  In  the 
form  of  election,  however,  in  Sym.  of  Thessal., 
the  bishoj>s  alone  vote  at  all,  the  metropoli¬ 
tan  not  being  even  present.  [Metropolitak.] 
So  likewise  with  the  patriarch,  later  still  ^^.see, 
however,  for  both.  Cone.  Chaleed.  a.d.  451,  Act. 
xvi.,  Labbe,  iv.  818,  and  Patriarch).  But  from 
no  doubt  the  earliest  times,  and  corresponding 
to  the  proof  {boKiixaaia)  required  in  1  Tim.  iii. 
7,  10,  something  must  have  existed  like  the 
enactment  of  Cone.  Carth.  IV.  so  called :  “  Qui 
episeopus  ordinandus  est,  antea  examiuetur,  si 
nature  sit  prudens,  si  docibilis,  si  moribus  tern 
peratus,  &c.,  si  litteratus,  si  in  lege  Domini  in- 
structus,  si  in  Scripturarum  sensibus  cautus,  s. 
in  dogmatibus  ecclesiasticis  exercitatus ;  et  ante 
omnia,  si  fidei  documenta  verbis  simplicibus 
asserat,  id  est,  Patrem  et  Filium  et  Spiritum 
Sanctum  unum  Deum  esse  confirmans,”  «S:c.  &c. 
So  also  Theodoret  (m  1  I'im.  v.  22), — 'E^erdC^iy 
ycLp  TrpoTfpov  XP^  ytipoTovovpevov  tOv  j8to»^ 
el0’  Q'jTois  Ka\eiy  ctt’  avrhy  T^y  X®P**'  Ilveu- 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


221 


uaros.  See  also  the  Apost.  Constit.,  and  the  de¬ 
scription  in  the  Greek  Pontificals  of  the  bishop 
to  be  consecrated,  as  already  inroxl/ricpios  Kal 
c(rT€peci}/u€i'os  =  elect  and  confirmed.  Certainly, 
from  the  4th  century  onward,  the  confirmation 
was  a  distinct  technical  act,  following  upon  the 
election ;  so  far  distinct,  indeed,  that  in  time 
(from  the  4th  century  itself  according  to  De 
Marca,  de  Cone.  Sacerd.  ct  Imp.  VIII.  ii.  1 ;  but 
Van  Espen,  Jur.  Eccl.  Univ.  I.  xiv.  1,  §  7, 
more  probably  refers  it  to  the  11th  or  12th) 
confirmation  was  held  to  confer  upon  the 
bishop  not  yet  consecrated  the  power  of  juris¬ 
diction,  but  not  that  of  order.  Justinian  enacts 
that  a  bishop  elect  shall  carefully  peruse  the 
“  rules  laid  down  by  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,”  and  shall  then  be  interrogated  by  his 
ordainer  (*.  e.  the  metropolitan)  whether  he  is 
competent  to  keep  them  ;  and  upon  his  solemn 
profession  accordingly,  and  after  a  solemn  admo¬ 
nition,  shall  then  be  ordained.  And  so  we  find 
Gregory  the  Great,  A.D.  596  (^Epist.  vii.  19),  de¬ 
siring  the  archbishop  of  Ravenna  to  summon 
into  his  presence  the  bishop  elect  of  Ariminum 
(elected  by  “  clerus  et  plebs  ”),  and  to  examine 
him  ;  and  if  “  ea  in  eo  quae  in  textu  Heptatici 
morte  mulctata  sunt,  minime  fuerint  reperta, 
atque  fidelium  personarum  relatione  ejus  vobis 
quidem  vita  placuerit,  ad  nos  eum  cum  decreti 
pagina,  vestrae  quoque  addita  testificationis  epi- 
stola,  destinate,  quatenus  a  nobis  .  .  .  consecretur 
antistes.”  So  again  in  Carlovingian  times,  two 
centuries  and  a  half  later,  upon  the  election 
of  Gillebert  to  the  see  of  Chalons  sur  Marne, 
Hincmar,  archbishop  of  Rheims,  with  the  other 
bishops  of  the  province,  or  their  vicars,  the 
abbats,  canons,  monks,  presbyters,  deacons,  and 
subdeacons,  being  assembled  at  Chiersi  (near 
Laon) — the  archbishops  of  Rouen,  Tours,  and 
Sens,  being  also  present — the  “  clerus,  ordo,  et 
plebs”  of  Chalons  presented  the  decree  of  election 
to  Hincmar  and  his  fellow-bishops,  and  (after  an 
explanation  respecting  a  previous  election  that 
had  been  set  aside)  declared  the  unanimous  con¬ 
sent  to  it  of  the  “  canonici,  monachi,  parochi,  et 
nobiles  ”  of  the  diocese.  Thereupon  Hincmar 
interi’ogated  the  bishop  elect  respecting  his 
country,  condition,  literary  proficiency,  and  past 
ordinations ;  and  ascertained  that  he  had  not 
been  “  conductor  alienarum  rerum,  nec  turpia 
lucra  vel  exactiones  sive  tormenta  in  hominibus 
exercens ;”  and  further,  as  he  had  held  some 
court  office,  that  his  accounts  with  the  king  were 
settled ;  to  the  former  of  which  points  certain 
clerici  and  noble  laymen  bore  testimony,  while 
for  the  latter  he  produced  a  royal  letter,  duly 
sealed,  and  containing  also  an  intimation  of  the 
royal  wish  for  his  consecration.  Testimonies  of  a 
bishop  and  certain  monks  to  his  good  behaviour 
were  then  produced  ;  and  the  consent  of  the 
archbishop  of  Toui’s  was  given  to  the  transfer 
into  another  province  of  one  born  and  ordained 
at  Tours.  Hincmar,  then,  with  the  archbishop 
ot  Tours  as  his  assessor,  desired  the  candidate  to 
read,  or  listen  to,  and  promise  to  keep,  the  Pas¬ 
toral  of  Gregory  the  Gi*eat,  the  Canons,  and  the 
rules  usually  given  by  the  ordainer  to  the  or¬ 
dained,  and  which  were  subsequently  given  to 
him  in  writing;  and  to  write  out  and  subscribe 
the  Creed,  and  hand  it  so  subscribed  to  the  me¬ 
tropolitan.  The  written  consents  of  the  absent 
bishops  wei’e  then  produced  and  read,  and  the 


day  and  place  of  consecration  fixed  (Cone.  Gallic. 
Sirmond,  ii.  651).  See  also  the  Ordinals  in 
Martene  (ii.  386)  and  Morinus  (de  Sac.  Urd.  ii.). 
A  professio,  i.  e.  at  first  both  of  his  faith  and  of 
canonical  obedience  to  his  archbishop,  came  also 
to  be  part  of  the  formal  proceedings  of  the  con¬ 
firmation  of  a  bishop.  The  English  “  Professions” 
begin  early  in  the  9th  century ;  and  the  early 
ones  commonly  contain  a  kind  of  creed,  as  well 
as  a  promise  of  obedience.  So  likewise  in  the 
East,  the  2nd  Counc.  of  Nice,  A.D.  787  (can.  ii.) 
requires  a  careful  enquiry  to  be  made  whether 
the  candidate  is  well  acquainted  with  the  Canons, 
with  the  Gospels,  Epistles,  and  the  whole  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  is  prepared  himself  to  walk,  and  to 
teach  the  people  committed  to  him,  according  to 
God’s  commandments.  And  the  bishop  elect  was 
required  to  profess  that  he  “  receives  the  Seven 
Synods,  and  promises  to  keep  the  canons  enacted 
by  them,  and  the  constitutions  promulged  by 
the  Fathers.”  A  solemn  recitation  and  subscrip¬ 
tion  of  the  Creed,  and  a  disclaimer  of  simony, 
were  required  also  of  the  bishop  elect  before  bis 
consecration  (Sym.  Thessal.  ap.  Morin,  ii.  156). 
In  the  Western  Church,  even  at  this  date,  no 
further  confirmation  was  usual  or  necessary. 
The  pope  only  intervened  in  a  few  extraordinary 
cases  (Thomassin,  II.  ii.  30,  §  1 :  and  see  Patri¬ 
arch,  Pope). 

3.  Ordination  (xaporouia  most  commonly,  as 
probably  in  Acts  xiv.  23,  although  the  word  is 
also  used  of  election,  as  2  Cor.  viii.  19  ;  x^‘po- 
dfcr'ia,  which  also  means  sometimes  benediction 
only,  as  6  TrpftrjSoTepos  xe/po^erei,  ou 
Apost.  Constit.  viii.  28  [and  so  and 

X^ipoOerelv  are  distinguished  in  the  spurious 
Epist.  of  St.  Ignat,  to  Hero,  c.  iii.];  Kadiepuxris  j 
r€\e(Tiovpy'ia]  a(popi(r/j.6s  ]  and  in  Pseudo-Dion. 
Areop.,  rhetoricized  into  nXCiwcris  UpariK^,, 
aTTovK^pcocis,  diaK6(Tjj.Tq(ris,  k.t.\.)^ — followed 
upon  the  completion  of  the  confirmation. 

And  (a)  first,  the  matter  and  form  (as  it 
was  afterwards  called)  of  ordination  w'as,  from 
the  beginning,  laying  on  of  hands  (iirid^cns 
Tuv  Acts  vi.  6,  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  v.  22, 

2  Tim.  i.  6 ;  Euseb.),  accompanied 

necessarily  by  words  expressive  of  the  purpose 
of  the  act,  but  by  no  invariable  and  universal 
formula  claiming  apostolic  authority.  Other 
rites,  added  as  time  went  on,  cannot  claim  to 
be  either  apostolical  or  universal,  and  pertain 
therefore,  at  best,  “  to  the  solemnity,  not  to  the 
essence,”  of  the  rite,  (i.)  The  only  other  rite 
indeed  in  episcopal  ordination,  that  has  any  ap¬ 
pearance  of  a  claim  to  the  “  ubique  et  ab  omnibus,” 
but  which  is  not  traceable  (although  it  very  pro¬ 
bably  existed)  before  the  3rd  century,  is  the  lay¬ 
ing  of  the  Gospels,  open  in  the  ancient  and  in  the 
Greek  church,  shut  acc.  to  the  Ordo  Eornanus, 
upon  the  head  (in  some  rites,  upon  the  neck  and 
shoulders)  of  the  bishop  to  be  ordained. — Const. 
Apostol.  viii.  4  :  Kal  (riarir^s  •yeropieVr;?,  (Is  twv 
TrpWTWV  ’ETTJO'fcjTTOJJ'  2/XO  KUt  SvO’lu  iT€pOlS  TTAtJ- 
ciou  rov  dvaiao’Trjplov  ecTws,  rwu  Konriau  'Eni- 
<TK6ir(av  Kal  Trpf(rSvT(pct)u  aiw-irf}  Trpo(T€vxofMiVcov, 


•  The  si)ecial  appropriation  of  the  term  contecratimi  to 
episcoi)al  ordination  is  purely  modern  ;  Leo  M.,  e.g.,  uses 
the  term  indifferently  of  bishops,  priests,  or  deacons;  and 
Gillebert,  quoted  by  Du  Cange,  opposes  it  to  “  dcdicare,”, 
the  latter  meaning  to  ilovote  to  God,  the  former  to  set 
apart  for  holy  uses. 


222 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


vup  Se  ZiaKovwv  ra  6e7a  EvayyeXia  iw't  rris  rov 
■)(eipoTovovfx4vov  KupaXrjs  av€TTTvyiJ.4pa  KaT€X<iv- 
Twp,  Keyerco,  — And  with  unimportant  va¬ 

riations,  Cone.  Garth.  IV.  A.D.  398,  can.  ii.  : 
“  Ejnscopus  cum  ordiuatui*,  duo  episcopi  ponant 
et  teneant  Evarigeliorum  codicem  super  caput  et 
cervicem  ejus,  et  uno  super  eum  fuudente  bene- 
•  ictionem,  reliqui  omnes  episcopi  qui  adsunt, 
manibus  suis  caput  ejus  tangant.” — And  so  also 
Constit.  Apostol.  viii.  3  (assigning  the  act  to 
deacons),  Pseudo-Chrys.  (Ifom.  de  Uno  Legis¬ 
lator.  0pp.  VI.  410,  Montfauc.),  Pseudo-Dion. 
Areop.  (de  Eccl.  Hier.  V.  i.  7,  iii.  7),  and  almost 
every  ritual,  Eastern  and  Western,  including  (so 
Denzinger)  Nestorian,  Maronite,  and  Jacobite 
(assigning  it  either  to  the  patriarch  or  to  the 
assisting  bishops).  And  although  it  came  to  be 
used  in  Egypt  in  the  consecration  of  the  patri¬ 
arch  only,  yet  there  too,  if  the  Pseudo-Dionysius 
represents  the  Alexandrian  rite,  it  mast  have 
been  used  at  first  for  all  bishops  (Denzinger, 
Bit.  Orient.  135).  Alcuin  however  (de  Div.  Off.), 
Amalarius  (de  Offic.  Eccl.  ii.  14),  and  Isidor. 
Hispal.  (de  Div.  Offic.  ii.  5),  quoted  by  Morinus, 
seem  (rather  unaccountably)  to  imply  its  absence 
in  Gaul,  Germany,  and  Spain,  in  the  8th  and  9th 
centuries.  And  it  is  certainly  wanting  in  two 
pontificals  in  Mabillon  (Mus.  Italic,  tom.  ii. 
namm.  viii.  ix.).  The  actual  delivery  of  the 
Gospels  to  the  consecrated  bishop  occurs  among 
the  Maroniles,  but  not  among  the  Jacobite  Sy¬ 
rians  or  the  Nestorians  (Denzinger) ;  and  in  the 
West,  it  is  in  the  present  Roman  Pontifical,  but 
was  unknown  until  the  11th  century  (Morinus, 
iii.  23). — (ii.)  Anointing  of  the  head  in  episcopal 
ordination  is  a  much  less  ancient  or  general  rite 
than  the  imposition  of  the  Gospels.  Among  the 
Easterns  it  never  existed  at  all  (Morinus,  Den¬ 
zinger,  &c.) ;  the  fev/  ambiguous  expressions  in 
Eastern  rituals  (cited  by,  e.  g.,  J.  A.  Assemani) 
referring  to  spiritual  anointing,  while  the  tes¬ 
timony  to  the  absolute  non-occurrence  of  the 
material  rite  is  express.  It  is  found  in  Gaul  in 
the  6th  century  (Bit.  ap.  Morin,  de  Ordin.  ii.  261, 
sq.)  ;  in  Africa  not  at  all ;  doubtfully  in  Spain 
(Morinus) ;  but  in  Italy,  also  in  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury  (S.  Leo  M.,  Serm.  viii.  de  Passion.  Dcnnini ; 
Greg.  M.  in  I^eg.  I.  x. ;  ap.  Morin,  ib.  III.  vi.  2, 
§  2) ;  and  in  Saxon  England  it  was  extended  to 
hands  as  well  as  head  in  the  8th  century  (Egbert’s 
Pontiff  ed.  Greenwell ;  and  so  also  in  the  Roman 
ordinal  in  Morinus,  ii.  288). — (iii.)  The  sign  of 
the  cross,  accompanying  the  imposition  of  hands 
(which  is  therefore  called  a<ppayls),  is  mentioned 
by  St.  Chrys.  (Horn.  Iv.  in  Matth.),  and  by  the 
Pseudo-Dionysius  as  above.  In  the  later  Greek 
ritual  it  occurred  thrice  (see  Morinus,  iii.  254). 
— (iv.)  Deliv'ery  of  pastoral  staff  and  ring  be¬ 
came  also  a  part  of  the  Western  rite  from  about 
the  latter  part  of  the  6th  century  (Maskell, 
Jtlon.  Bit.  vol.  iii.  273).  It  occurs  in  the  Ponti¬ 
ficals  of  Gregory  the  Great  and  Egbert,  but  not 
in  those  of  Gelasius  or  Leo.  The  staff  indeed 
dates  from  the  4th  century,  as  one  of  the  insignia 
of  a  bishop,  both  in  East  and  West.  And  the  ring, 
which  is  unused  in  the  East  (except  by  the  Ma¬ 
ronite  Syrians,  and  by  the  Armenians,  the  latter 
of  whom  borrowed  it  from  Rome — so  Denzinger — 
and  the  aippayls,  or  sign  of  the  cross,  is  avrl  5a- 
KTv\lov,  acc.  to  Sym.  Thessalon.),  occurs  in  the 
West  as  early  as  Isid.  Hispal.  de  Div.  Off.  ii.  5  ; 
but  “  is  not  in  either  Amalarius,  Alcuin,  or  Rab. 


Maurus  ”  (Maskell).  Both  staff  and  ring  aie 
in  Cone.  Tolet.  IV.  a.d.  633,  can.  xxviii.  (men¬ 
tioning  “  orarium,  annulum,  baculum  ”)  ;  and, 
seemingly,  in  Cone.  Franco/,  a.d.  794,  can.  x. 
(mentioning,  however,  only  in  general,  “ejdsco- 
palia”).  [Ring  ;  Crosikr  Staff.]  But  as  part 
of  the  rite  of  ordination,  they  belong  to  the  Wesh, 
and  to  the  latter  part  of  the  6th  century, 
[Investituri:.]  The  staff,  however,  occurs  in 
a  late  Greek  Pontifical  in  Morinus  (de  Sac. 
Ord.  ii.  124). — (v.)  The  wp.o(p6piop,  or  pallium 
(a  linen  vestment  marked  with  crosses),  also 
came  to  be  given  at  epi.scopal  ordination  in  the 
East.  It  is  mentioned  as  an  (Eastern)  epi¬ 
scopal  vestment  as  early  as  Isidor.  Pelus.  in  the 
beginning  of  the  5th  century  (lib.  i.  Ep.  136 ; 
and  see  Morinus,  p.  ii.  pp.  220  sq.,  and  Den¬ 
zinger)  ;  and  occurs  in  the  Eastern  rituals.  In  the 
West,  the  delivery  of  a  vestment  also  called  by 
the  name  of  pallium  followed  ordination,  not  of  all 
bishops,  but  of  archbishop.s,  as  a  totally  distinct 
ceremony,  and  with  an  entirely  different  meaning 
and  purpose.  And  this  began  about  A.D.  500  :  see 
Gieseler,  ii.  133,  Eng.  ed.,  and  under  Pall. — 
(vi.)  The  delivery  of  the  mitre  at  ordination  in 
the  West  dates  only  after  the  close  of  the  period 
to  which  this  article  refers  ;  occurring  first  about 
the  10th  century  (see  Maskell’s  Mon.  Bit.  iii.  275). 
It  is  in  the  Sarum,  as  in  all  later  Pontificals. 
As  part  of  the  episcopal  dress  during  Divine 
service,  in  some  shape  or  other,  and  under 
various  names,  it  occurs  both  in  East  and  West 
from  apparently  the  4th  century.  [Mitre.] — 
(vi.)  The  delivery  of  the  paten  “  cum  oblatis,” 
and  of  the  chalice  “  cum  vino,”  which  forms  a 
principal  part  of  the  later  additions  to  the  ordi¬ 
nation  of  a  presbyter  [Presbyter],  is  found 
for  the  first  time  in  the  Sacram.  of  Gregory  the 
Great  (Morinus,  ii.  277,  iii.  134),  and  in  the  con¬ 
secration  of  a  bishop  (in  which  however  it  does 
not  occur  again).  Among  the  Syrians,  however, 
the  conseci’ating  bishop  touched  the  consecrated 
elements  with  his  hands  before  laying  hands  upon 
the  head  of  the  bishop  to  be  consecrated  (Den¬ 
zinger)  ;  and  in  the  Apost.  Constit.  viii.  5,  one  of 
the  consecrating  bishops  is  ordered  avacpepeiv 
T7?F  Ovffiav  iirl  tup 

— (vii.)  The  apappgcris  or  proclamation  (prae- 
dicatio,  promulgatio,  apauipa^LS,  iTriK^pv^is,  or 
Kripv^is  e’l  op6piaros\  and  (viii.)  the  kiss  of  peace, 
are  mentioned  by  Pseudo-Dion.  Areop.  as  follow¬ 
ing  upon  the  consecration.  The  latter  is  men¬ 
tioned  also  in  Apost.  Constit.  viii.  5,  but  as  oc¬ 
curring  at  the  subsequent  enthronization.  And 
it  was  I’epeated  four  times  during  the  service  in 
the  East  in  the  time  of  Sym.  of  Thessal.  (ap. 
Morin,  ii.  171).  The  former  occurs  in  the  time 
of  Symeon  before  the  consecration,  and  was  in 
that  position  a  public  proclamation  by  name  of 
the  appointment  (^  0ffa  X“P*s  irf oxeipfC^Tat) 
of  the  elect  bishop,  made  by  the  consecrating 
archbishop  (among  the  Jacobites  and  Copts, 
however,  by  the  archdeacon — Denzinger).  There 
were  indeed  two  such  p.rjpvp.aTa :  one,  the  de¬ 
claration  made  to  the  bishops,  intimating  the 
choice  made  by  emperor,  or  by  metropol  tan, 
among  the  three  presentees;  the  other,  the  pio- 
clamation  of  the  uame  to  the  people  (Morinus, 
iii.  254).  In  the  older  Latin  Ordinals  the  same 
form  occurs  in  substance  in  like  place  (id.  ib. 
27)  ;  viz.  as  a  declaration  by  the  consecrator, 
that  “  cives  nostri  elegerunt  sibi  ilium  pastorem, 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


223 


oreinus  itaque  pro  hoc  viro,”  &c.  It  is  also  in 
use  among  the  Syrians  (id.  ib.  31).  The  Apost. 
Constit.  do  not  mention  it.  But  St.  Greg.  Naz. 
seems  to  allude  to  it  under  the  term  inKp-n/xi- 
(Mor.  tb.  30).  ’At/dppria-is  is  also  used  in 
Syuesius  (Epist.  67)  as  equivalent  to  consecra¬ 
tion  ;  and  see  also  Suicer  in  voce. 

All  these,  however,  are  later  additions  to  the 
rite ;  arising  (as  was  not  unnatural)  out  of  the 
gradual  extension  of  the  “  traditio  instrumen- 
torum,”  which  had  constituted  the  ordination  of 
the  minor  orders  from  the  beginning  (see  Cone. 
Carth.  IV.),  to  the  higher  orders  also ;  and  accom¬ 
panied  in  the  case  of  some  of  them  by  an  equally 
natural  conversion  of  accessories  in  course  of  time 
into  essentials.  It  is  waste  of  words  to  prove  that 
the  one  and  only  essential  act  from  the  beginning 
was  imposition  of  hands.  This  also,  however, 
in  process  of  time,  became  varied,  1.  by  repe¬ 
tition,  2.  by  the  use  of  one  or  both  hands,  and 
the  like  :  for  which  details  see  Imposition  of 
Hands. 

The  form  of  ordination  was  not  similarly  fixed. 
Pope  Innocent  III.,  speaking  as  a  canonist,  and 
Hubert,  writing  of  the  Greeks  as  a  theologian, 
expressly  declare  that  the  Apostles  appointed  no 
foriTi  of  words ;  that  it  rests  therefore  with  the 
Church  to  appoint  such  a  form ;  and  that,  apart 
from  Church  authority,  any  words  whatever, 
adequate  to  the  purpose,  would  suffice.  And  the 
facts  of  the  case  are  in  themselves  enough  to 
estc’blish  this.  In  the  Greek  Church,  the  form 
in  Sym.  Thessal.  runs  thus  :  ‘H  Oeia  irpo- 

Xetp'i^iTai  rhu  Seiva  els  ’EttiVkottov,  k.t.\.  ; 
these  words,  which  are  used  at  the  avdpp7]<xis^ 


metropolitan  in  person  or  by  letter,  and  three 
suffragans),  with  the  consent  of  the  remaindex', 
or  of  at  least  the  major  part  of  the  wdiole  num¬ 
ber,  in  case  of  division  ;  or  yet  again  (C’o;ic. 
Arausic.  I.  A.D.  441,  can.  xxi.),  by  actually  de¬ 
posing  the  ordainex*,  and  (if  a  willing  participator 
in  the  irregularity)  the  oi'dained  bishop  also,  if 
“  tw'o  bishops  px-esumed  ”  to  ox'dain  ;  while  yet  a 
fourth  like  council  {Regions,  a.d.  439,  can.  ii.) 
not  only  censux'es  but  voids  a  consecx'ation,  which 
;  shall  lack  any  of  the  thx’ee  conditions,  of  consent 
^  of  compi'ovincial  bishops,  px’esence  of  three  of 
them,  and  assent  of  metropolitan.  The  rule  re¬ 
quiring  thx'ee  is  also  matter  of  constant  reference 
(as,  e.  g.,  in  Cone.  Epaon.  a.d.  517,  can.  i. ;  or 
j  again  by  popes  fx’om  Damasus  onw'ax’d  to  Leo  Ill., 
in  discussing  the  jxosition  of  chorepiscopi ;  see 
Morin,  iii.  58).  Spanish  councils  simply  x'epeat  the 
Nicene  canon  on  the  subject  (e.  g.  Cone.  Tolct.  IV. 

.  A.D.  581,  can.  xviii. ;  and  so  Isidox*.  Hispal.  de 
Offic.  Eccl.  ii.  5).  And  in  Africa,  at  an  earlier 
date.  Cone.  Carth.  III.  a.d.  397,  can.  xxxix.,  con¬ 
demns  consecx’ation  by  two  bishops,  px’onounces 
the  x’equix’ement  of  t\velve  (which  had  been  sug- 
!  gested)  impx'acticable,  and  X’epeats  accox-dingly 
j  the  old  rule  of  three  :  can.  xl.  of  the  same  council 
prohibiting  the  thx’ee  from  px-oceeding  to  conse- 
I  ci'ate,  in  case  objections  ax'e  taken  to  the  bishop- 
elect,  until  themselves  wdth  “  one  or  two  ”  mox’e 
have  enquii’ed  into  those  objections  on  the  spot, 
and  found  them  gx'oundless.  Ihe  rule  in  the 
East  was  the  same  (Denzingei*,  p.  142),  ‘‘  soil, 
j  ut  non  minuatur  numerus  ternarius.”  And  Cone. 

!  Seleuc.  et  Ctesiph.  a.d.  410  (ed.  Lamy,  1869), 
deposes  (if  the  x’ecox’d  is  genuine)  both  conse- 


being  X’ejieated  at  the  actual  consecration.  Den- 
zinger,  how'ever  (pp.  140,  141),  considers  the 
essential  words  in  the  Easteim  rites  which  he 
xnentions  to  be  found  in  the  px’ayex's  which  ac- 
comj)anied  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  to  be  of  a 
precatoiT  form.  In  the  Latin  Chux'ch,  since  the 
11th  centuiy,  it  has  been  simply,  “Accipe  Spi¬ 
rit  um  Sanctum,”  without  expi’ess  xnention  in  the 
form  itself  of  the  ejnscopal  office  either  by  name 
or  by  descx'iption,  the  context  sufficiently  limit¬ 
ing  the  purpose  of  the  woi’ds  (Vazquez,  &c.). 
Prior  to  that  date,  the  “  consecx’atio  ”  of  a  bishop 
W'as  not  an  imperative  declai*ation,  but  w'as  in 
the  form  of  a  prayer.  [Ordination.] 

The  ox-dainei’s  wex’e  necessarily  bishops  (see 
below.  III.  1,  a.  i).  “  Tw’O  or  three  at  the  least,” 
was  the  rule  of  the  Apostolic  Canon  (1),  and  of 
the  Apost.  Constit.  (viii.  4,  27) :  the  latter  also 
deposing  both  ordained  and  oi’dainer,  if  any  were 
ox’dained  (of  coui'se,  without  sufficient  cause),  by 
one  bishop(viii.  27),  yet  expi’essly  not  voiding  such 
ox'dination  if  the  case  wex’e  one  of  necessity.  But 
while  St.  Cypxian  {Epist.  67)  implies  the  ox'di- 
nary  pi’esence  of  all  or  most  of  the  compx’ovincial 
bishops,  the  Nicene  Council  (can.  iv.)  requires 
the  actual  participation  in  the  consecx’ation,  of 
three  absolutely,  as  a  minimum — of  all,  if  pos¬ 
sible — but  in  any  case  with  the  consent  at  least 
of  the  i-est  of  the  compx*ovincial  bishops,  or  (can. 
vi.)  of  the  major  pai’t  of  them.  And  so  also 
Cone.  Chalccd.  Act.  xvi.  Sevex*al  Gallican  pro¬ 
vincial  councils  go  further,  by  X'equiidng  in  one 
case  {Cone.  Arelut.  I.  a.d.  314,  can.  xx.)  seven  as  a 
rule,  but  if  that  is  impossible,  at  least  “  infra  tx’es 
non  audea[n]t  ox’dinai-e or  again  (Cone.  Arelat. 
II.  A.D.  353,  can.  v.),  the  meti-opolitan  with  three 
suflfx-aganf  (ox-,  accox*ding  to  another  reading,  the 


crated  and  consecx’ators,  if  any  be  ox'dained  bishop 
by  one  bishop  or  by  two.  But  then  the  principle 
wdiich  undexday  this  x’ule,  was  not  the  inability 
of  one  bishop  by  himself  to  conseci’ate,  but  the 
desii-ableness  that  many,  and  if  possible  all, 
should  co-operate  in,  and  testify  to,  the  act  of 
consecration.  So  expx’essly  the  Apost.  Constit. 
viii.  27 ;  adding  with  like  clearness  a  proviso, 
that  “  one  ”  xnay  conseci-ate  in  case  of  necessity, 
if  only  a  gx’eater  number  signify  their  sanction 
of  the  act.  So  Gx’egoxy  the  Great,  in  the  well- 
known  Ansivers  to  Augustine,  x'equix'es  “  thx'ee  or 
four  ”  if  possible,  but  speaks  of  the  px’esence  of 
more  than  one  only  as  “valde  utilis,”  as  of  those 
“  qui  testes  assistant and  distinctly  authorizes 
consecx’ation  by  one  on  the  gx’ound  of  necessity. 
So  Synesius  {Epist.  67)  censux-es  the  consecration 
of  Siderius,  bishop  of  Palaebisca,  as  (not  invalid 
but)  iKdeafxws,  1.  because  not  in  Alexandria  or 
wdth  the  consent  of  the  patx’iarch  ;  but  also,  2.  be¬ 
cause  performed  by  “  not  thx-ee,”  but  a  single 
bishop ;  and  Theodoret  (v.  23)  that  of  Evagrius 
of  Antioch,  as  also  Trapd  rhv  iKK\7]<ria(rTiKhu 
de<rix6v,  “because  (among  other  things)  Pauiinus 
alone  consecrated  him.  But  Synesius  adds,  that 
necessity  justified  the  foi'iner  of  these  conseex’a- 
tions,  and  had  led  St.  Athanasius  to  allow  the  like; 
and  in  that  of  the  lattex*,  both  the  bishop  of  Alex¬ 
andria  and  the  Western  bishops  recognized  it  none 
the  less  (Theodox-et,  ib. ;  Innocent  1.  Epist.  14). 
So  again  the  bishops  of  Pontus  {Ejnst.  ad  fin.  Cone. 
Chalced.)  speak  of  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria  as  actu¬ 
ally  bishop,  although  consecrated  by  only  two 
bishops  (and  those  under  censux’e),  “  cum  x’egulae 
patrum  .  .  .  tx*es  episcopos  corpox-aliter  adesse  .  .  . 
pi'ospiciant.”  Of  the  vexy  councils  themselves 
of  Arles  II.  and  of  Riez,  above  quoted,  the  former 


224 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


recognizes  tlie  reality  of  the  censured  consecra¬ 
tion  by  a))pointing  the  bishop  consecrated  by  two 
to  one  of  the  sees  vacated  by  the  deposition  of 
his  consecrators,  if  the  irregularity  had  been 
without  his  consent ;  and  'the  latter, — although 
its  canon  can  scarcely  be  explained  away  (as  by 
Thomassin)  by  referring  it  to  election  and  not 
consecration, —  yet  both  permits  the  deposed 
bishop  to  confirm,  and  allows  the  orders  he  may 
have  already  conferred,  subject  only  to  the 
favour  of  the  metroj)olitan  ;  or  in  other  words, 
does  not  venture  to  quash  the  consecration  out¬ 
right.  The  Welsh  and  early  Irish  and  Scotch 
practice — of  only  one  consecrator — was  no  doubt 
at  first  a  matter  of  necessity  ;  although  continued 
after  it  had  ceased  to  be  so.  The  Saxon  Church 
resumed  the  canonical  rule  of  three,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  soon  as  possible.  And  even  in  664  a 
Wessex  bishop  called  in  two  British  bishops,  albeit 
he  must  have  thought  them  schismatical,  to  com¬ 
plete  that  number  (Baed.  H.  E.  iii.  28).  The  cases 
of  Pope  Pelagius  I.  A.D.  .555,  ordained  by  two 
bishops  and  a  presbyter  {Lib.  Pontif.  in  V.  Pelag.\ 
and  of  Novatian  long  before,  calling  in  three 
bishops,  aypo'iKovs  koX  a-nKovcrrarovs,  from  some 
corner  of  Italy,  to  ordain  him  to  the  see  of  Horne 
(Euseb.  II.  E.  vi.  43),  and  long  afterwards,  the 
permission  given  by  the  popes  (see  Bellarm. 
de  Eccl.  iv.  8)  to  make  up  the  number  of  three 
by  two  or  more  mitred  abbats,  so  that  there  was 
one  bishop  (Labbe,  i.  53), — prove  at  once  the 
existence  of  the  rule  while  they  violate  its  spirit. 
Pope  Siricius  also  {Epist.  iv.  c.  2,  A.D.  384  x  398)  i 
forbids  “  ne  unus  episcopus  episcopum  ordinare  j 
praesumat;”  but  it  is  “propter  arrogantiam,”  and  i 
“  ne  furtivum  beneficium  praestitum  videatur.” 
Michael  Oxita  (patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
A.D.  1145-6)  also  rejected  two  bishops  who  had 
been  ordained  by  a  single  bishop  (Bever.  Pandect. 
ii.  Annot.  p.  10).  Among  the  Nestorians,  again, 
the  patriarch  Timotheus,  about  A.D.  900,  assert¬ 
ing  the  “  need  ”  of  three  bishops,  allows  in  a 
case  of  necessity  the  sufficiency  of  two,  so  long 
as  the  necessity  lasted ;  but  enjoins  that  the 
Gospels  shall  be  placed  on  the  right  hand  upon 
a  throne  in  lieu  of  a  third  bishop  (Assemani, 
Bihl.  Orient.  III.  i.  163).  Compare  finally  the 
distinction  drawn  in  the  Pontificals  between  the 
consecrator  and  the  “  assisting  bishops  ” — “  socii 
ordinationis  ”  (Coptic  i?2A)  :  or  again  the  words 
of  the  bishops  of  Pontus  mentioned  above,  “  per 
suffragium  consensumque  duorum  episcoporum 
cum  ipso  (patriarcha)  praesentium.”  Whether 
chorepiscopi,  consecrated  by  one  bishop,  were 
bishops  themselves,  see  Chorepiscopi. 

y.  The  place  of  oi’dination  was  properly  and 
originally  the  actual  see  itself  to  which  the 
bishop  was  to  be  ordained.  So  St.  Cy[(rian 
{Epist.  67),  Possid.  (in  V.  S.  Aug.  viii.),  St.  Au¬ 
gustin  himself  {Epist.  261),  Pope  Julius  {Epist.  ad 
Orient,  ap.  St.  Athan.  Apol.  ii.).  Cone.  Chedeed.  Act. 
xi.  (Labbe,  iv.  700),  Cone.  Pom.  a.d.  531  (in  Hol¬ 
stein.  Collect.  Rom.  p.  7),  and  Synesius  {Epist.  67, 
as  above).  The  practice  however  came  in  time 
to  be  that  the  metropolitan  appointed  the  place 
(Synes.  ib. ;  Cone.  Tolet.  IV.  a.d.  581,  can.  xviii.), 
although  it  was  commonly  the  metropolitan  see, 
and  the  metropolitan  himself  was  always  to  be 
consecrated  there  {Cone.  Tolet.  ib.).  If,  however, 
not  there,  then,  by  Cone.  Tarracon.  a  d.  516, 
can.  X.,  the  bishop  consecrated  elsewhere  was  to 
present  himself  to  the  metropolitan  within  two 


months.  And  Cone.  Aurelian.  IV.  a.d.  541,  can.  v., 
restricts  it  to  the  metropolitan  see,  unless  un¬ 
avoidably  removed  elsewhere ;  and  even  in  that 
case  commands  the  presence  of  the  metropolitan, 
and  that  it  shall  be  within  the  province.  In 
whatsoever  town  it  was,  the  rite  was  always 
celebrated  at  the  altar  of  the  church,  the  can¬ 
didate  kneeling  (Pseudo-Dion,  as  above,  and  re¬ 
peatedly  5  Iheodoret,  iv.  15,  Trapa  ttjp  t(paj/  rpa- 
TT^(au).  A  natural  custom  also  in  course  of  time 
marked  out  the  Lord’s  Day,  or  at  any  rate  some 
great  festival,  as  the  “  legitimus  dies”  for  a 
bishop’s  consecration  (Pope  Zosimus,  Epist.  vi.  ; 
Cone.  Tolet.  IV.  can.  xviii.);  while  Leo  the  Great 
{Epist.  ix.)  insists  upon  the  Lord’s  Day,  but  as 
beginning  from  the  Saturday  evening;  and  Pope 
Gelasius  actually  limits  the  ordinations  of  }>res- 
byters  and  deacons  to  the  Saturday  evening  ex¬ 
clusively.  But  there  was  certainly  no  restric¬ 
tion  of  days  at  all  until  the  4th  century  (Pagi, 
ap.  Bingh.  IV.  vi.  7).  In  the  East  the  same  rule 
of  Sunday  came  to  prevail  universally  (Denzin- 
ger) ;  but  the  Nestorian  rubric  (as  does  also 
common  Western  practice)  admits  festivals  like¬ 
wise  {id.).  Ember-days,  when  they  came  to  exist, 
belonged  to  presbyterial  and  diaconal  ordinations. 
The  hour  also  came  to  be  limited  as  well  as  the 
day,  viz.  to  the  time  of*  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist,  i.e.  the  morning  (t^s  /xvariKps  Upovp- 
y'las  TTpoKei/xemfs,  says  Theodoret,  Hist.  Relig. 
xiii.,  speaking  however  of  presbyterial  ordina¬ 
tion)  :  and  this  at  an  early  period,  inasmuch 
as  Novatus  is  censured  (Euseb.  II.  E.  vi.  43),  as' 
haAung  been  (among  other  things)  consecrated 
(Ipa  SejfctTp,  i.  e.  somewhere  about  4  P.M.  In  the 
East  the  rule  became  equally  fixed,  and  on  like 
grounds;  and  this  as  regards  bishops  universally: 
save  (as  before)  the  one  exception  of  the  Mes- 
torians,  who  leave  it  optional,  and  provide  rubrics 
for  ordinations  made  “  extra  missam  ”  (Den- 
zinger).  Theodore  in  England  enacts  (/’oc?i?A  II. 
iii.  1),  that  in  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  “  debet 
missa  cantari  ab  episcopo  ordinante.”  The  parti¬ 
cular  part  of  the  liturgy,  however,  at  which  the 
ordination  was  to  be  (so  to  say)  interpolated, 
differed  in  East  and  West.  The  “dies  anniver- 
sarius  ”  of  the  ordination,  i.  e.  the  “dies  natalis  ” 
or  the  “  natalitia  ”  of  the  bishop,  was  also  com¬ 
monly  kept  as  a  kind  of  festival  (St.  Aug.  Cont. 
Lit.  Petil.  ii.  23,  Horn,  xxxii.  de  Verb.  Lom.y 
Horn.  xxiv.  et  xxv.  e.v  Quinquaginta,  Horn,  cccxl. 
ed.  Bened. ;  Leo  M.,  Horn.  i.  ii.  iii.  ;  Paulin. 
Epist.  xvi. ;  St.  Ambros.  Epist.  v.  ;  Pope  Hilary, 
Epist.  ii. ;  Sixtus,  Epist.  ad  Joh.  Antioch.  Labbe, 
iii.  1261 ;  Pagi,  ap.  Bingh.  IV.  vi.  15). 

S.  The  ordainers  were  also,  according  to  African 
rule  {Cod.  Can.  Afric.  89),  to  give  letters  under 
their  own  hand  to  the  bishop  ordained,  “  con- 
tinentes  consulem  et  diem,”  in  order  to  prevent 
future  disputes  about  precedence.  And  a  register 
of  ordinations  {archivus,  matricxda,  apxfTUTros, 
paTpiKiov)  was  to  be  kept  both  in  the  primate’s 
church  and  in  the  metropolis  of  the  province  for 
the  like  purpose  {ib.  86 ;  and  see  Bingh.  II. 
xvi.  8). 

4.  Enthronization  {ivdpovidC^iu,  incathedrare), 
which  is  mentioned  in  the  Apost.  Coxistit.,  and 
in  Greek  Pontificals,  as  the  concluding  act  of 
ordination,  followed  upon  ordination,  either  (as 
at  fir.st)  immediately  or  (in  course  of  time)  after 
an  interval;  a  regular  service  being  then  <>ro- 
vided  for  it,  which  is  described  by  Sym.  Thess.  c. 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


225 


viii.  A  sermon  was  thereupon  preached,  at  least 
in  the  East,  by  the  newly  consecrated  bishop, 
styled  “sermo  enthronisticus,”  of  which  instances 
are  given  in  Bingh.  11.  xi.  10.  And  litterae 
communicator iae,  or  s;inodicae,  or  enfhromsttcae, 
ypa/jL/jiaTa  KoivcaviKO,,  cri»\A,o/3al  ivQ^'ovKTTiKoX, 
were  written  to  other  bishops,  to  give  account 
of  the  sender’s  ftiith,  and  to  receive  letters  of 
communion  in  return  (Bingh.  ib.').  Ta  ivdpov- 
KTTiKO.,  also,  were  payments  which  came  to  be 
made  by  bishops  on  occasion  of  their  enthroniza- 
tiou.  The  Arabic  version  of  the  Nicene  canons 
has  a  rule  about  enthronization  (can.  Ixxi.),  viz. 
that  the  bishop  be  enthroned  at  once  by  a  delegate 
of  the  archbishop,  and  that  the  archbishop  visit 
him  personally  after  three  months,  and  confirm 
him  in  the  see.  In  664  or  5,  when  Wilfrid  was 
conseci-ated  at  Compicgne  by  twelve  French 
bishops,  they  carried  him,  with  hymns  and  chants, 
“  in  sella  aurea  sedentem,  more  eorum  ”  (Edd.  in 
V.  Wilf.  xii.). 

5.  A  Profession  of  Obedience  to  the  metro¬ 
politan,  and  (in  the  Carlovingiau  empire)  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  emperor  or  king,  began 
to  be  required,  prior  to  confirmation,  the  former 
from  the  6th  -century  onwards,  the  latter  from 
the  time  either  of  Charlemagne  or  of  his  imme¬ 
diate  successors  ;  but  far  earlier  in  Spain,  a.  The 
earliest  written  profession  of  obedience  to  the 
metropolitan  produced  by  Thomassin — “  cartula 
de  obedientiae  sponsione  ” — is  one  made  by  the 
meti’opolitan  of  Epirus  to  the  archbishop  of 
Thessalonica,  and  is  condemned  by  Pope  Leo  I.  A.D. 
450  (Epist.  Ixxxiv.  c.  1).  And  some  kind  of 
written  pi'omise — “  tempore  ordinationis  nostrae 
unusquisque  sacerdos  cautionem  scriptis  emit- 
timus,  studiose  de  fide  ordinatoris  nostri  ” — was 
made  to  the  patriarch  of  Aquileia,  c.  A.D.  590, 
by  his  suffragans  (Baron,  in  an.  590,  num.  xxviii.). 
But  Spanish  councils  of  a  little  later  date  are  (as 
might  be  expected)  most  express  on  the  point.  Cone. 
Emerit.,  indeed,  A.D.  666,  can.  iv., — extending  to 
bishops,  &c.,  an  enactment  of  Cone.  Tolet.  IV. 
A.D.  581,  can.  xvii.,  respecting  presbyters  and 
deacons, — only  enjoins  the  metropolitan  at  the 
time  of  his  oi'dination,  and  the  bishops  at  the 
time  of  theirs,  respectively  to  promise  “  vivere 
caste,  recte,  et  sobrie.”  But  Cone.  Tolet.  XI. 
A.D.  675,  can.  x.,  requires  every  one  of  all  grades 
of  clergy,  before  “  consecration,”  to  bind  himself, 
not  only  to  keep  the  faith,  live  piously,  and  obey 
the  canons,  but  also  “  ut  debitum  per  omnia 
honorem  atque  obsequii  reverentiam  praeemi- 
nenti  sibi  unusquisque  dependat.”  St.  Boniface 
shortly  after,  in  Germany,  A.D.  723,  when 
consecrated  bishop  by  Pope  Gregory  II.,  goes  a 
long  step  further,  by  giving  a  written  promise 
(addressed  to  St.  Peter),  “  vobis,  beato  Petro,  vica- 
rioque  tuo  B.  Papae  Gregorio,  successoribusque 
ejus;”  that  he  will  keep  the  faith  in  its  purity, 
&c.,  and  that  he  will  “  fidem  et  puritatem,”  &c., 
“  praedicto  vicario  tuo  atque  successoribus  ejus 
per  omnia  exhibere,”  &c.  (S.  Bonif.  E^nst.  xvii., 
ed.  Jaffe)  ;  an  innovation  which  Thomassin  tells  us 
was  not  repeated  by  any  one,  not  even  by  St. 
Boniface’s  own  successors  at  Mentz.  Further 
on,  in  Gaul,  Cone.  Cabillon.  A.D.  813,  can.  xiii., 
expressly  forbids  the  oath  which  some  then  exacted 
at  ordination,  “quod  digni  sint,  et  contra  canones 
non  sint  facturi,  et  obedientes  sint  episcopo  qui 
oos  ordinat,”  &c. ;  “  quod  juramentum  quia  peri- 
culosum  est,  omnes  una  inhibendum  statuimus.” 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


And  a  Capitulary  of  Ludov.  Pius,  A.D.  816 
(Capit.  i.  c.  97),  noticing  the  “  sacramenta,”  as 
well  as  “  munera,”  which  Lombard  bishops  then 
exacted  “  ab  his  quos  ordinabant,”  forbids  “  om¬ 
nibus  modis,  ne  ulterius  fiat.”  But  this  prohi¬ 
bition  applied  to  the  exaction  of  an  oath  of  fealty 
(Canciani,  Leg.  Barbar.  v.  121).  Professions  to 
the  metropolitan  by  the  bishop  to  be  consecrated 
were,  certainly,  from  that  time  forward  the  regu* 
lar  practice.  The  form  of  that  of  the  bishop  oi 
Terouenne  to  Hincmar  of  Rheims  is  in  Cone.  Gallic. 
ii.  655.  And  English  professions  likewise  run  on 
from  the  like  date.  A  special  oath  to  the  pope, 
and  the  meaning  attaclied  to  the  reception  of  the 
pall,  belong  to  later  centuries,  the  instance  of 
St.  Boniface’s  oath  alone  excepted.  In  the  East, 
a  form  of  written  promise  of  canonical  obedience, 
made  by  the  bishop  to  the  patriarch,  is  in  Jur. 
Orient,  i.  441 ;  and  is  expressly  sanctioned  by  the 
8th  can.  of  Cone.  Constantin,  a.d.  869,  while 
condemning  certain  unauthorized  additions  to  it. 
It  may  also  be  mentioned  here  that  St.  Augustin 
procured  an  enactment,  at  a  Council  of  Car¬ 
thage,  that  all  canons  relating  to  the  subject, 
“  ab  ordinatoribus  ordinaudis  vel  ordiuatis  in 
notitiam  esse  deferenda  ”  (Possid.  V.  S.  Aug. 
viii).  )8.  A  general  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
king,  from  all  subjects,  occurs  repeatedly  in 
the  Spanish  councils  (e.  g.  Cone.  Tolet.  XVI.  a.d. 
693).  And  a  promise  of  fidelity  from  bishops  is 
mentioned  in  Gaul  as  early  as  the  time  of  Leode- 
garius  of  Autun  and  St.  Eligius,  c.  A.D.  640.  But 
special  mention  of  an  oath  of  fidelity  taken  by  a 
bishop  at  his  ordination  seems  to  occur  first  at 
the  Council  of  Toul,  a.d.  850,  where  it  is  de¬ 
clared  that  the  archbishop  of  Sens  had  thrice 
sworn  allegiance  to  Charles  the  Bald,  the  first 
time  being  when  the  king  gave  him  his  bishopric. 
Such  an  oath  of  allegiance  seems  also  to  be 
meant  by  Cone.  Tur.  III.  a.d.  813,  can.  i. ;  and 
by  Cone.  Aquisgr.  II.  a.d.  836,  cap.  ii.  can.  xii.  : 
although  spoken  of  with  no  reference  to  ordi¬ 
nation.  But  the  absence  of  all  formulae  for  it  in 
earlier  times  is  conclusive  against  throwing  back 
the  date  before  Charlemagne.  Homage  in  the 
feudal  sense  belongs  to  a  later  period  still.  At 
the  same  time  Charlemagne  introduced  an  oath 
of  fealty  in  the  case  of  bi.shops,  and  inx^ested  a 
bishop  with  the  temporalities  of  his  see  by  ring 
and  crosier  (De  Marca,  de  Cone.  Eccl.  et  Imp. 
pp.  402,  426).  As  regards  the  East,  there  is  no 
mention  whatever  in  Symeon  Thessalon.  of  any 
oath  to  the  emperor  taken  by  a  bishop  at  ordi¬ 
nation.  7.  The  oath  against  simony  may  also  be 
mentioned  here,  enacted  by  Justinian  (^Novell. 
cxxxvii.  c.  2)  as  to  be  taken  by  a  bishop  at  ordi¬ 
nation  ;  an  enactment  repeated  by  Pope  Adrian  1. 
(Epist.  ad  Car.  M.  in  Cone.  Gallic,  ii.  97).  (See 
also  above,  1.  2  ;  and  Simony.) 

II.  We  have  next  to  consider  how  a  bishop 
ceased  to  be  so,  either  of  a  particular  see,  or 
altogether.  And, 

1.  Of  Translation,  which,  as  a  rule,  was  for¬ 
bidden,  but  only  as  likely  to  proceed  from  selfish 
motives,  and  therefore  with  the  exception,  ex¬ 
pressed  sometimes,  but  seemingly  always  under¬ 
stood,  of  cases  where  there  was  sutlicient  and 
good  cause.  Before  the  period  of  the  Apostolic 
Canons  this  prohibition  would  have  been  hardly 
needed.  Apost.  Can.  xiv.  forbids  it,  unless  there 
be  a  ftjKoyos  alrla,  scil.  a  prosjiect  of  more  spi¬ 
ritual  “gain”  in  saving  souls;  and  guards  the 


226 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


right  practical  application  of  the  rule  by  the 
proviso,  that  neither  the  bishop  hiinself,  nor  the 
napoiKLO.  desiring  him,  but  “  many  bishops,”  shall 
decide  the  point,  and  that  TrapaK\T](Tei  fxey'aTr). 
The  Council  of  Nice  (can.  -w.).  Cone.  Antioch. 
A.D.  34:1  (can.  xxi.).  Cone.  Sardic.  a.d.  347  (can. 
i.),  Cone.  Garth.  III.  a.d.  397  (can.  xxxvii.),  and 
Cone.  Garth.  IV.  a.d.  398  (can.  xxvii.),  forbid  it 
likewise:  the  first  two  without  qualification; 
and  the  second,  whether  the  suggestion  proceed 
from  the  bishop,  the  people,  or  other  bishops ; 
but  the  third,  if  anh  Tr6Ke(as  /xiKpas  €?s  irepav ; 
and  the  fourth,  also  in  case  it  be  “  de  loco  ignobili 
ad  uobilem,”  while  allowing  it  if  it  be  for  the 
good  of  the  Church,  so  that  it  be  done  “  by  the 
sentence  of  a  synod,”  and  at  the  request  of  the 
clergy  and  laity.  And  the  Council  of  Nice  itself 
both  shewed  that  exceptional  cases  were  not  ex¬ 
cluded,  by  actually  itself  translating  a  bishop 
(Sozom.  i.  2,  quoted  by  Pagi),  and  is  explained 
b}'  St.  Jerome  as  prohibiting  it,  only  “  ne  virgin- 
alis  pauperculae  societate  contempta,ditioris  adul- 
terae  quaerat  amplexus  ”  (Epist.  Ixxxiii.  ad 
Ocean.).  St.  Athanasius  indeed  gives  us  the 
obiter  dictum  of  an  Egyptian  council,  condemning 
translation  as  parallel  with  diA'orce,  and  therefore 
with  the  sin  of  adultery  (Athan.  Apol.  ii.).  And 
similarly  St.  Jerome  {Epist.  Ixxxiii.  ad  Ocean.). 
But  Pope  Julius  condemns  it  on  the  assumption 
throughout  that  its  motive  is  self-aggrandize¬ 
ment.  Pope  Damasus  also  condemns  it,  but  it  is 
when  done  “  per  ambitionem  ;  ”  and  Pope  Gela- 
sius,  but  only  “  nullis  existentibus  causis.”  Leo 
the  Great,  c.  A.D.  450  (Epist.  Ixxxiv.  c.  8)  de¬ 
poses  a  bishop  who  seeks  to  be  translated,  but 
it  is  “  ad  majorem  plebem,”  and  “  despecta  civi- 
tatis  suae  mediocritate.”  And  Pope  Hilary,  in 
Cone.  Rom.  a.d.  465,  condemns  a  proposed 
Spanish  translation,  among  other  things,  as  con¬ 
trary  to  the  Nicene  canon  (Hilar.  Epist.  1-3). 
While  Com.  Chalced.  A.D.  451,  can.  v.,  re-enacts 
the  canons  against  ‘‘  transmigration.”  At  the 
same  time,  both  translations,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
were  repeatedly  sanctioned,  beginning  with  the 
noted  case  of  Alexander  and  Narcissus  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  (Hieron.  de  Scriptt.  Eccl.  62);  as  may 
be  seen  in  Socrat.  vii.  35,  &c.,  and  in  the  autho¬ 
rities  quoted  by  Bingh.  VI.  iv.  6.  St.  Greg.  Naz., 
indeed,  a.d.  382,  speaks  of  the  Antiochene  canon 
on  the  subject  as  a  v6p.os  'rrdXai  redi'riKws  :  and 
Socrates  actually  tells  us  in  terms,  that  transla¬ 
tions  were  only  forbidden  Avhen  persecutions 
ceased,  but  had  previouslj'  been  perfectly  free  to 
all ;  and  asserts  that  they  were  a  thing  abia.<popov, 
whenever  circumstances  made  them  expedient 
(v.  8,  vii.  35) :  and  the  author  of  the  tract 
De  Translationi’ms  in  the  Jus  Orient,  (i.  293) 
sums  up  the  matter  tersely  in  the  statement 
that  1)  fxeTd$a(Tis  KeKwXvrai,  ov  /x^u  rj  fjL€Tdd((ris  : 
t.  e.  the  thing  prohibited  is  “  transmigration  ” 
(which  arises  from  the  bishop  himself,  from  self¬ 
ish  motiA’^es),  not  “  translation  ”  (Avherein  the  Avill 
of  God  and  the  good  of  the  Church  is  the  ruling 
cause);  the  “going,”  not  the  “being  taken,”  to 
another  see.  The  same  rule  and  practice  preA'ailed 
both  in  East  and  West  doAvu  to  the  9th  century, 
complicated  hoAveA’er  in  the  West  by  frequent 
cases  of  sees  destroyed  in  Avar,  or  removed  “  ad 
alia  loca  quae  securiora  putamus  ”  (St.  Greg.  M. 
Epist.  ii.  14).  Many  cases  occur  in  Gregory’s 
letters,  of  bishops  of  Italy,  Corsica,  &c.,  translated 
by  him  for  these  or  like  causes,  but  always  under 


pressure  of  necessity  (see  Thomassin,  II.  ii.  62) ; 
and  Joan.  Diac.  (iii.  18)  asserts  expressly,  that 
Gregory  “  nunquam  episcopum  ab  integritate 
suae  Ecclesiae  A'el  ijise  in  aliam  commutavit  A^el 
sub  quacunque  occasione  migrare  consensit.” 
Gregory  of  Tours  supplies  instances  of  like  trans¬ 
lations  in  Gaul,  all  made  “  consensu  regum  et 
episcoporum,”  but  “  ioconsulta  .sede  apostolica” 
(Thomassin,  ib.  §  5).  So  in  Spain  {Cone.  Tolet.  X. 
j  .\.D.  656,  and  XVI.  a.d.  693,  can.  xii.).  In  Saxon 
England,  after  the  first  .shifting  of  .sees  conse- 
I  quent  u])on  the  settlement  of  the  Church  doAvn 
to  Abp.  Theodore  AA'as  passed,  no  translations 
occurred  at  all,  except  the  simoniacal  instance  of 
Wine  in  666,  until  that  of  Dunstan  from  Wor¬ 
cester  to  London,  a.d.  959,  except  in  the  cases  of 
(1)  the  CA'er-shifting  sees  of  Hexham  and  Whit- 
herne,  and  there  once,  in  789,  and  (2)  the  arch¬ 
bishoprics  of  Canterbury  and  York  ;  and  even  in 
the  case  of  the  archbishoprics,  Cuthbert’s  AA-as  the 
only  instance  (A.D.  740)  until  the  10th  century. 
In  the  East.  AV'hile  the  case  of  Anthimus,  con¬ 
demned  bv  Cone.  Constantin,  a.d.  536,  Act.  i.,  for 
rrjv  fjLOixiKTjv  apiray^v  rrjs  fiaaiXiSos  ’EKKXrja'ias, 
viz.  Constantinople,  and  for  leaving  his  own 
(smaller)  see  of  Trajiezus  “  Avidowed  and  Avithout 
a  husband,  against  the  canons,” — condemned  also 
by  Pope  Agapetus  1.  (“  Impossibile  translatitium 
hominem  in  ilia  sede  permanere,”  Liberat.  Bre^ 
viar.  21), — sheAA's  the  existence  of  the  old  feeling 
on  the  subject ;  the  counter  case  of  Germanus  of 
Cyzicum,  translated  a.d.  714  to  Constantinople, 
“  suffragio  atque  consensu  religiosorum,  presby- 
terorum,,diaconorum,  et  totius  sanctioris  cleri 
sacrique  senatus  et  populi  imperatricis  hujus 
ciA'itatis  ”  (Thomassin,  from  Theophanes  in  «n. 
and  Anastasius),  shcAA^s  equally  that  translations, 
if  circumstances  were  thought  to  justifv  them, 
Avere  not  prohibited.  In  the  Alexandrian  Church 
the  rule  appears  to  have  been  exceptionally  strict, 
so  that  originallv  it  was  forbidden  to  translate  a 
bishop,  already  such,  to  the  patriarchate,  although 
in  later  and  Mohammedan  times  this  rule  after 
great  contentions  became  relaxed  (Denzinger); 
and  among  the  Nestorians,  as  one  result  of  such 
relaxation  of  a  like  rule,  it  camp  to  pass  that 
patriarchs  Avere  often  actually  re-consecrated 
(Assemani  and  Renaudot,  ap.  Denzinger). 

2.  OH  Resigmtion,  and  (a)  of  resignation  simply ; 
respecting  Avhich  there  is  no  express  canon,  abso¬ 
lutely  speaking ;  hut  Can.  Apostol.  can.  xxxvi.Co^c. 
Ancgr.  can.  xviii.,C'onc.An^iocA  a.d.  341,  cans.  xAui. . 
XA'iii.,  assume  or  enact  that  a  bishop  once  conse¬ 
crated  cannot  refuse  to  go  to  a  see,  even  if  the 
people  Avin  not  receiA^e  him  ;  and  the  tAA'o  latter 
refer  the  decision  to  the  synod,  Avhich  may  alloAv 
him  to  AvithdraAvor  not  as  it  judges  best.  Instances 
accordingly  occur  of  resignations  alloAved  because 
circumstances  rendered  it  expedient  for  the  good 
of  the  Church,  as  Avhere  the  people  obstinately 
refused  to  submit  to  the  bishop :  e.  g.  St.  Greg. 
Naz.,  Avhen  archbishop  of  Constantinople,  Avith 
the  consent  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople 
(Theodoi'et,  v.  8 ;  Socr^it.  v.  7 ;  Sozom.  vii.  7  ; 
St.  Greg.  Naz.  Epist.  xlii.  al.  xxxvi.,  Ixa".  al.  lix., 
Orat.  xxxii.,  and  Carmen  de  Vita  Sva) ;  Meletius 
Avhen  bishop  of  Sebaste  in  Armenia  (Theodoret, 
ii.  31);  Martyrius,  bishop  of  Antioch  (Theod.  _ 
Lector  i.) :  all  cases  in  point  to  the  canons  aboA’e 
mentioned,  the  people  in  each  case  being  factious 
and  peiwerse ;  but  the  second  and  third  (although 
the  latter  was  at  Antioch  itself),  apparently  in 


BTSHOF 


BISHOP 


227 


direct  contradiction  to  the  Antiochene  rule,  no 
synodical  decision  being  mentioned,  but  only 
the  will  of  the  bishops  themselves:  e.g.  of  Mar- 
tyrius,  auworaKTCfi,  Kal  Aaw  aneiBel,  /cat 

’E/c/cArjcrta  (ppvnwix^vr)  airoTaTTogai.  Instances 
occur  also  of  resignations  ofiered  (and  ap{)roved 
though  not  acce])ted)  for  peace’  sake  :  as  St.  Chrys. 
(Horn.  xi.  in  Kphcs.\  liavian  of  Antioch  under 
Theodosius  (Theodoret,  v.  23),  the  Catholic 
African  bishops  under  Aurelius  and  St.  Augustin 
at  the  time  of  the  Donatist  schism  (Collat. 
Carthag.  a.d.  411,  die  i.  c.  xvi.).  And  Eustathius 
of  Perga,  again,  was  permitted  to  resign  by  the 
Cone.  Eplies.  a.d.  431  (Act.  vii.  in  Ejyist.  ad  Synod. 
Earnphyliae),  on  account  of  old  age,  retaining 
t6  t6  rys  e-mcrKonris  ovo/xa  Kal  tV  rip^v  Kal 
TT)v  Koivwulav,  but  without  authority  to  act  as 
bishop  unless  at  a  fellow-bishop’s  request.  And 
a  pension  out  of  the  revenues  of  the  see  was 
granted  to  Domnus,  who  had  resigned  the  see  of 
Antioch,  by  the  Cone.  Chalced.  a.d.  457  (Act.  vii. 
al.  Act.  X.,  Labbe,  iv.  681),  at  the  request  of 
Maximus,  who  had  succeeded  him.  These  and 
like  instances  testify  to  the  gradual  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  rule,  permitting  resignations  under 
oircumstAiices  of  obvious  expediency  for  the 
Church,  so  that  they  were  sanctioned  by  at  least 
the  provincial  synod.  And  forms  of  A'oluntary 
resignation  both  for  patriarchs  and  bishops  in 
the  East  occur  in  Leunclav.  Jus  Orient.  At  the 
same  time  the  feeling  of  the  Church  ran  strongly 
against  resignations,  as  being  a  giving  up  of  work 
for  Christ.  So  Leo  M.,  Ejyist.  xcii.  And  Cyril 
Alex,  puts  the  dilemma:  “If  worthy,  let  them 
continue;  if  unworthy,  let  them  not  resign  but 
be  deposed  ”  (Epist.  ad  Domnum  ap.  Balsam., 
quoted  by  Thomassin).  Although  St.  Chrys.  in 
like  Ciise  bids  a  bishop,  conscious  of  serious  guilt, 
resign  rather  than  be  deposed  (de  Sacerd.  lib.  iii. 
c.  10)  From  the  5th  century  onward,  resigna¬ 
tions  occur  not  unfrequently  in  the  West  (see  a 
list  in  Thomassin,  II.  ii.  52),  with  the  consent  of 
the  clergy,  or  at  least  the  metropolitan  and 
council,  and  of  the  laity,  or  at  least  the  king. 
In  the  East,  the  consent  of  the  emperor  and  of 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  became  necessary; 
as  in  the  case  of  Paulus  of  Antioch  in  the  time  of 
Justin  (inter  EjAst.  Hormisd.  Papao,  post  Epist. 
Ixxx.).  The  conception  of  a  matrimonial  tie, 
such  that  no  authority  could  sever  it  unless  (in 
the  West)  that  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  developed 
itself  prominently  at  a  considerably  later  period, 
after  at  lea.st  the  8th  century.  The  canonical 
grounds  for  a  resignation,  as  summed  up,  later 
still,  in  the  Corp.  Juris  (Decret.  Greg.  IX.  lib.  i. 
tit.  ix.  de  Renunc.  c.  10),  are  in  substance  those 
already  intimated  :  —  i.  Guilt,  limited  however 
from  earlier  severity  to  such  only  as  impedes  the 
discharge  of  the  episcopal  office:  ii.  Sickness  (in 
which  case  Gregory  the  Great  would  have  per¬ 
mitted  a  coadjutor  only)  :  iii.  Ignorance  :  iv.  I\r- 
ver.se  rebelliousness  of  the  people  :  v.  The  healing 
of  a  schism  :  vi.  Irregularity,  such  as,  e.g.  bigamy. 
A  desire  to  take  monastic  vows,  although  a  not 
unfrequent  case,  and  in  some  instances  at  least 
tolerated,  was  not  a  canonical  ground  of  resigna¬ 
tion.  (3.)  Resignation  in  favour  of  a  successoi*, 
however,  was  distinctly  prohibited,  by  Cone.  An¬ 
tioch.  A.D.  341,  can.  xxiii. :  ’E7rt(r/co7roi/  /ar;  e^drai 
auT  aiiTov  KaOicTT^i/  erepov  iavTov  diddoxoy,  kEv 
TTphs  TT)  T(\eVTf}  TOV  fitOV  TVyX<i>rT)‘  €t  Sc  Tt 
ToiovToir  yiyvoiTO,  &Kvpov^  ilyai  KararTTacriP. 


But  it  was  so,  as  the  rest  of  the  canon  shews, 
only  in  order  to  secure  canonical  and  free  election 
when  the  see  became  actually  vacant, — /utra  rrjy 
Koifxr}(Tiy  tov  dvaiTavaaix^vov.  And  the  object 
was,  not  to  prohibit,  but  to  prevent  the  abuse  of, 
the  recommendations  very  commonly  made  by 
aged  bishops  of  their  successors ;  a  practice 
strongly  praised  by  Origen  (in  Num.  Horn,  xxii.), 
comparing  Moses  and  Joshua  (so  also  Theodoret, 
in  Burn.  c.  xlvii.),  but  which  naturally  had  ol'ten 
a  decisive  influence  in  the  actual  election :  as, 
e.  g.  in  the  case  of  St.  Athanasius  recommended 
by  Bishop  Alexander,  and  Peter  recommended  by 
St.  Athanasius,  both  of  whom  were  duly  elected, 
&c.,  but  after  the  bishopric  was  actually  vacant ; 
the  story  being  apparently  without  grounds,  of 
an  intervening  and  rival  episcoj/ate  before  St. 
Athanasi'xs,  of  Achilla.s,  and  of  Theonas  (Epiphau. 
Haer.  Ixviii.  6,  12;  Theodoret,  iv.  18).  So  also 
St.  Augustin  recommended  his  own  successor, 
Eraclius.  But  such  recommendations  slipj/ed  na¬ 
turally  into  a  pi’actice  of  consecrating  the  suc¬ 
cessor,  sometimes  elected  solely  by  the  bishop  him¬ 
self,  before  the  recommending  bishop’s  death,  thus 
interfering  with  the  canonical  rights  of  the  com- 
pi’ovincial  bishops  and  of  the  diocese  itself.  Limit¬ 
ing  then  the  prohibition  to  the  actual  election 
by  a  single  bishop  of  a  sxiccessor  to  take  his  own 
place  during  his  own  lifetime,  the  Antiochene 
canon  is  repeated  by,  e.  g.  Cone.  Paris.  V.  a.d.  615, 
can.  ii.  (“  ut  nullus  episcoponim  se  vivente  alium 
in  loco  suo  eligeret  ”),  and  became  the  rule ;  al¬ 
though  one  often  broken  in  the  West  in  the  7th 
and  8th  centuries,  as  e.g.  in  the  noted  case  of  St. 
Boniface,  who  was  permitted  by  Pope  Zacharias, 
although  after  strong  remonstrances,  and  with 
great  reluctance,  to  nominate  and  ordain  his  own 
succe.ssor.  But  then  we  must  distinguish  (7) 
that  qualified  resignation,  which  extended  only  to 
the  appointment  of  a  coadjutor — not  a  coadjutor 
with  right  of  succession,  which  was  distinctly 
uncanonical,  but  simply  an  assistant  during  the 
actual  bishop’s  life,  and  no  further.  The  earliest 
instance  indeed  -of  a  simple  coadjutor,  that  of 
Alexander,  coadjutor  to  Narcissus  of  Jerusalem 
(Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  11),  w’as  supposed  to  require  a 
vision  to  justify  it.  But  examples  occur  re¬ 
peatedly  thenceforward,  both  in  East  and  West 
(e.  g.  in  Sozom.  ii.  20 ;  Theodoret,  v.  4 :  St,  Am- 
bros.  Epist.  Ixxix. ;  St.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  xii. 
ad  Patr.  0pp.  i.  248.  c,  quoted  by  Bingham)  ; 
including  St.  Augustin  himself,  who  did  not 
“  succeed,”  but  “  accede,”  to  the  see  of  Hippo, 
being  coadjutor  therein  first  of  all  to  his  j/re- 
decessor  Valerius,  by  the  consent  of  “  primate, 
metropolitan,  and  the  whole  clergy  and  people 
of  Hippo,”  yet  this  “  contra  morem  Ecclesiae  ” 
(Possid.  V.S.Aug.  viii.);  the  canon  of  the  Nicene 
Council,  which  prohibits  two.  bishops  in  one  city, 
being  held  to  prohibit  only  two  independent  and 
distinct  bishops,  and  not  where  one  was  (as 
English  people  might  now  call  it)  curate  to  the 
other,  although  Augustin  afterwards  thought 
that  canon  condemned  himself.  But  a  coadjutor 
with  right  of  succession  was  distinctly  unca¬ 
nonical  ;  although  instances  occur  of  this  al.so  : 
as  of  Theoteenus  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine  (Euseb. 
//.  E.  vii.  32),  before  the  Antiochene  canon,  and  of 
Orion,  bishop  of  Palaebisca  (Synes.  EjAst.  Ixvii.); 
and  of  Augustin  himself,  but  with  this  diflerence, 
that  he  was  formally  and  canonically  elected,  so 
that  the  one  point  in  his  case  was  his  being  con- 


228 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


eecrated  before  his  predecessor’s  death.  So  also 
Paulinus  of  Antioch,  whose  act  was  condemned 
as  uncanonical  by  St.  Ambrose  (Epist.  Ixxviii.), 
and  by  Theodoret  (v.  23)  and  by  Socrates  (ii.  15). 
And  a  like  case  in  Spain,  where  a  bishop  of  Bar¬ 
celona,  with  consent  of  the  metropolitan  and 
comprovincial  IjishojiS  and  the  whole  of  his  own 
diocese,  sought  to  make  a  neighbouring  bishop 
(who  was  also  his  heir)  his  coadjutor  and  suc¬ 
cessor,  but  was  condemned  for  so  doing  by  Pope 
Hilary  and  a  Roman  Council,  a.d.  465,  protest¬ 
ing  against  making  bishoprics  hereditary  (Hilar. 
Epistt.  ii.  iii.).  So  also  Pope  Boniface  JI.  A.D. 
531,  was  com])elled  to  desist  from  his  attempt  to 
appoint  V^igilius  his  own  successor.  And  Pope 
Boniface  III.  in  a  Roman  Council,  a.d.  606,  forbade 
any  formal  discussion  about  a  successor  to  a  de¬ 
ceased  bishop  until  “  tertio  die  depositionis  ejus, 
adunato  clero  et  filiis  Ecclesiae  ;  tunc  electio  fiat.” 
Thomassin  sums  up  the  case  by  laying  down, 

(1)  that  coadjutors  or  successors  were  up  to  the 
9th  century  never  asked  for  from  the  Pope ; 

(2)  that  the  consent  of  metropolitan  and  pro¬ 
vincial  synod  was  necessary;  and  (3)  after  the 
5th  century  that  of  the  king;  but  that,  lastly, 
with  these  last-named  sanctions,  coadjutors  wei-e 
permitted  whenever  it  was  for  the  good  of  the 
Church,  although  coadjutors  with  right  of  suc¬ 
cession  were  forbidden.  The  hereditary  benefices 
of  the  Welsh  Church  of  the  11th  and  12th  cen¬ 
turies,  and  of  the  contemporary  Breton  Church, 
and,  indeed  (in  some  degree  or  other),  of  other 
churches  also,  are  too  late  to  come  into  this 
article.  So  far  of  the  removal  of  bishops  merely 
from  a  particular  see.  But,  next,  of 

3.  The  Deposition  of  bishops.  And  here  only 
of  the  case  of  bishops  as  such,  referring  to 
Clkrgv,  Degradation,  for  the  general  “  irre¬ 
gularities,”  which  affected  all  clergy,  and  there¬ 
fore  inclusively  bishops  also. 

(A.)  The  grounds  upon  which  bishops  as  such 
were  deposed  were  as  follows,  (a.)  First,  there 
were  certain  irregularities  which  vitiated  an  epi¬ 
scopal  consecration  ah  initio;  and  these  were  for 
the  most  part,  although  not  wholly,  irregularities 
such  as  disqualified  for  consecration  at  all,  as 
those  already  referred  to  above,  (i.)  If  prior  to 
ordination  to  a  bishopric  the  candidate  had  not 
been  examined  in  the  faith,  or  had  failed  to  meet 
such  examination,  Justinian  (^Novell,  cxxxvii.  c.  2) 
deposed  both  the  ordainer  and  the  recently  or¬ 
dained.  (ii.)  Although  the  Cone.  Neocaes.  (can. 
ix.  A.D.  314)  speaks  of  a  belief  that  ordination 
remitted  sins,  except  fornication,  yet  Cone.  Nicaen. 
(canons  ix.  x.)  rules  that  those  who  are  ordained 
through  ignorance  or  laxity,  being  guilty  of  sins 
(without  any  exception)  that  would  rightly  dis¬ 
qualify  them,  yuwo'OevTcs  KaQaipovvrai.  (iii.) 
The  canons  that  .'equire  the  consent  of  metropoli¬ 
tan  and  synod,  &c.,  to  the  consecration  of  a  bishop, 
sometimes  proceed  to  void  a  consecration  made 
in  violation  of  them,  jur/Sev  lo’x'o^iv  (^Conc.  Antioch. 
A.D.  341,  can.  xix.),  and  similarly  Cone.  Ee^iiens. 
can.  ii.,  Cone.  Aurelian.  V.  canons  x.  xi..  Cone.  Ca- 
billm.  I.  can.  x.  &c.  Yet  it  does  not  appear  that 
in  such  a  case  the  consecrated  bishop  suffered 
commonly  more  than  the  forfeiture  of  the  see, 
&Ki^poi'  elvui  T^v  KardcTTaariu.  (iv.)  Consecration 
cf  a  bishop  into  a  see  already  lawfully  filled 
was  reckoned  as  no  consecration  (Bingh.  XVII. 
^v.  3,  quoting  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  Iv. ;  Cone.  Sardic.. 
acc.  to  Hilary,  de  Sijn.  p.  128;  Cone.  Chalced. 


P.  iii.  Epist.  51,  54,  56,  57,  &c.,  about  Timothy 
the  Cat ;  Liberat.  Breviar.  xv.).  (v.)  The  ordi¬ 

nation  of  one  under  sentence  of  deposition  was 
ahso  void  (^Conc.  Chalced.  Act.  xi.).  But  then 
(/8)  bishops  already  validly  consecrated  were 
liable  to  deposition,  as  well  for  the  general 
causes  affecting  all  clergy,  as  also  in  parti¬ 
cular  for  causes  relating  to  their  own  especial 
office ;  as,  e.  g.  (i.)  if  they  ordained,  or  if 
they  preached  {Cone.  Trull,  can.  xx.),  without 
permission,  outside  their  own  dioce.ses  (^Apostol. 
Can.  XXXV.;  Cone.  Antioch,  a.d.  341,  c.  xii.);  or 
(ii.)  if  they  received  a  clergyman  who  had  dis¬ 
obediently  quitted  his  own  diocese  (C'onc.  Antioch. 
A.D.  341,  can.  iii.;  Cone.  Chalced.  A.D.  457,  can. 
XX.  excommunicated  them  in  this  case) ;  or  (iii.) 
if  they  ordained  for  money  (Apostol.  Can.  xxix.  ; 
Cone.  Chalced.  a.d.  451,  can.  ii.)  ;  or  (iv.)  accord¬ 
ing  to  a  late  Galilean  council  (Cone.  Arausic. 
A.D.  441,  can.  xxi.),  if  two  bishops  presumed  to 
consecrate  by  themselves,  whereupon  both  of 
them  wei’e  to  be  deposed  ;  or  (v.)  according  to 
Pope  Innocent  I.  {Epist.  xxiii.  c.  4,  a.d.  402 
X  417),  bishops  who  ordained  soldiers  were 
themselves  to  be  deposed  ;  or  (vi.)  if  they 
ordained  a  bishop  into  a  see  already  full 
{Cone.  Chalced.  a.d.  451,  as  above);  or  (vii.)  if 
they  ordained  any  that  had  been  baptized  or 
rebaptized  or  ordained  by  heretics  {Apost. 
Can.  Ixviii.) ;  or  (viii.)  if  they  ordained  any  of 
their  own  unworthy  kindi'ed  (A^josC  Can.  Ixxvi.)  ; 
or  (ix.)  if  they  absented  themselves  from  their 
diocese  for  longer  than  a  year  {Cone.  Constantin. 

IV.  A.D.  870,  can.  xvi.,  says  six  months),  and 

persisted  in  disobedience  when  duly  summoned 
to  return  (Justinian,  Novell.  A’i.  c.  2;  see  also 
below  under  III.  1,  a.  xv.).  (x.)  For  simony, 

see  Simony  ;  or  (xi.)  if  they  did  not  duly  enforce 
discipline  [Disgidline]  ;  or  (xii.)  if  they  sought 
to  create  a  bishopric  for  themselves  out  of  ambi¬ 
tion,  either  in  a  place  where  there  had  been  none 
{Cone.  Tolet.  XII.  a.d.  681,  can.  iv. :  see  however 
below),  or  by  getting  royal  authority  to  divide  a 
province,  so  as  to  erect  a  new  metropolis  in  it 
{Cone.  Chalced.  a.d.  451,  can.  xii.).  And  yet 
further  (7),  bishops  were  liable  to  excommuni¬ 
cation  as  well  as  deposition,  if  (i.)  they  received 
as  clergy  such  as  were  suspended  for  leaving 
their  own  diocese  {Apost.  Can.  xvi. ;  Cone.  Carthag. 

V.  A.D.  398,  can.  xiii.  &c.  &c.);  or  (ii.)  if  they 
“  made  use  of  worldly  rulers  to  obtain  j>refer- 
ment  ”  {Apost.  Can.  xxx.,  often  repeated)  ;  or  (iii.) 
if,  being  rejected  by  a  diocese  to  which  they  have 
been  appointed,  they  move  sedition  in  another 
diocese  {Cone.  Ancyr.  a.d.  314,  can.  xviii.) ;  &c.  &c. 
(5.)  Lastly,  bishops  were  liable  to  suspension  or 
other  less  censure,  (i.)  if  they  refused  to  attend 
the  synod  when  summoned  {Cone.  Carthag.  V. 
A.D.  398,  can.  x. ;  Arelat.  II.  A.D.  452,  can.  xix.; 
Tarracon.  a.d.  536,  can.  vi.  &c.  &c.) ;  and  if  when 
summoned  to  meet  an  accusation,  they  failed  to 
appear  even  to  a  third  summons,  they  were  de¬ 
posed  {Cone.  Chalc.  a.d.  451,  Act.  xiv.)  ;  or  (ii.) 
if  they  unjustly  oppressed  any  part  of  their 
diocese,  in  which  case  the  African  Church  de¬ 
prived  them  of  the  part  so  oppressed  (St.  Aug. 
Epist.  cclxi.)  ;  &c.  &c. 

(B.)  The  authority  to  inflict  deptosition  w'as 
the  provincial  synod  :  and  for  the  gradual  growth 
and  the  differing  rules  of  appeal  from  that  tri¬ 
bunal,  see  Appeal. 

Cone.  Chalced.  can.  xxix.  a.d.  451,  forbids 


BISHOP 

degradation  of  a  bishop  to  the  rank  of  a  priest : 
he  must  be  degraded  altogether  or  not  at  all. 
And  Cone.  Antioch,  canons  xi.  xii.  a.d.  341,  forbids 
recourse  to  the  emperor  to  reverse  a  sentence  of 
deposition  passed  by  a  synod.  [Degradation  ; 
Orders.] 

III.  From  the  appointment  and  the  removal 
of  a  bishop,  we  come  next  to  his  office,  as  bishop. 
And  here,  in  general,  the  conception  of  that  qffice 
— consisting  in,  1.  rh  and,  2.  rh  Upa- 

T€U€ti/  (so  St.  Ignat,  interpol.  Ep.  ad  Smyrn. 
c.  9) — was  plainly,  at  the  first,  that  of  a  ruler, 
not  autocratic,  but  (so  to  say)  constitutional, 
and  acting  always  in  concert  with  his  clergy 
and  ])eople,  as  he  had  in  the  first  instance  been 
elected  by  them  ;  and  of  a  chief  minister,  in  sub¬ 
ordination  to  whom,  for  the  sake  of  the  essential 
unify  of  the  Church,  all  Christian  sacraments 
and  discipline  were  to  be  administered,  yet  not 
as  by  mere  delegates,  but  as  by  the  due  co¬ 
operation  of  subordinate  officers,  each  having  his 
own  place  and  function  :  for  the  former  of  which 
points  St.  Cyprian  is  the  primary  and  explicit 
witness-  and  no  less  so  St.  Ignatius  for  the  latter. 
The  legal  powers  and  the  wealth  gradually  ac¬ 
quired  by  the  bishop,  the  weight  derived  from 
his  place  in  synods,  and  the  natural  increase  of 
the  power  of  a  single  ruler  holding  office  for  life, 
and  habitually  administering  the  discipline  and 
the  property  of  his  diocese,  naturally  rendered 
the  essential  “monarchy”  of  the  episcopate  more 
and  more  absolute,  from  Constantine  onwards, 
and  especially  under  Justinian ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  bishops,  pari  passu,  became  also 
more  and  more  under  State  control,  especially  in 
the  East.  In  the  West,  and  from  the  break  up 
of  the  Roman  empire,  the  monopoly  in  the  hands 
of  churchmen  of  knowledge  and  of  civilization, 
the  political  powers  thrown  (and  necessarily 
thrown)  into  the  hands  of  the  bishop,  the  unity 
of  the  Church  of  all  the  separate  kingdoms,  and 
its  relations  to  the  still  respected  imperatorial, 
as  well  as  to  the  pontifical,  influence  of  Rome, 
— to  which  no  doubt  might  be  added  at  the  first 
the  reverence  for  the  priesthood  as  such  felt 
by  barbarians,  and  especially  by  Germanic  peoples, 
met  and  strengthened  by  the  Christian  view  of 
the  priestly  office, — gave  to  the  bishops  special 
weight,  as  the  leaders  of  the  Church  :  a  weight 
exceptionally  increased  in  Spain  by  the  elective 
position  of  the  VTsigoth  kings;  but  qualified  both 
there,  and  much  more  elsewhere,  especially  in 
France,  by  the  right  of  nomination  of  bishops 
assumed  by  the  kings,  and  by  their  simoniacal 
and  corrupt  use  of  it,  and  by  the  assumption  on 
the  part  of  the  State  of  a  full  right  of  making 
laws  for  the  Church.  But  to  proceed  to  details. 
And  here — 

(1.)  Of  the  SPIRITUAL  OFFICE  of  a  bishop,  as 
pertaining  to  him  essentially  and  distinctively. 
And  of  this,  first  (a),  in  respect  to  his  own 
diocese. 

(a.)  i.  The  power  of  ordin/ation  belonged  to 
bishops  exclusively.  They  were  the  organ  by 
which  the  Church  was  enabled  to  perpetuate  the 
ministry.  Starting  with  the  fact,  that  no  one  is 
spoken  of  in  the  N.  T.  as  ordained  except  either 
by  an  Apostle,  or  by  one  delegated  by  an  Apostle 
to  this  special  office,  the  earliest  intimation  we 
meet  with  is  the  statement  of  St.  Clem.  Rom., 
ah-eady  quoted,  which  draws  a  plain  distinction 
between  the  original  appointment  of  presbyter- 


BISHOP 


229- 


bishops  and  deacons,  and  the  subsequent  pro¬ 
vision  made  by  the  Apostles  of  an  order  of  men 
who  should  be  able  to  perpetuate  those  offices. 
When  next  the  subject  happens  to  be  mentioned, 
the  ordainers  are  assumed,  as  of  course,  to  be 
bishops,  and  the  question  is  only  of  their  requisite 
number  and  acts,  or  the  like  ;  as  in  Can.  Apost.  i., 
’ETrltr/foiros  itnaKSirwu  dvo  fj 

rptwv,  and  can.  ii.  irpcafitWfpos  vnh  ^vhs  4ttl- 
(rK6-n-ov  x^^poTovdado)  ]  and  in  Cone.  Carthag.  Ill, 
A.D.  397,  can.  xlv.  “  Episcopus  unus  .  . .  per  quern  , 
presbyteri  multi  constitui  possunt and  IV. 
A.D.  398,  canons  ii.  iii.  &c.,  which  is  the  classical 
passage  (so  to  call  it)  respecting  the  rites  of  or¬ 
dination,  and  which  allows  presbyters  no  part 
at  air  in  episcopal  consecration;  and  in  presby- 
terial,  only  to  hold  their  hands  “  juxta  manum 
episcopi  super  caput  illius  ”  (qui  ordinatur),  but 
“  episcopo  eum  benedicente  et  manum  super 
caput  ejus  tenente.”  And  this  latter  practice 
(which  however  does  not  exist  in  the  Eastern 
church  [Denzinger],  although  supposed  to  be 
based  upon  1  Tim.  iv.  14)  appears  to  be  alluded 
to  by  Firmilian  (in  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  Ixxv.), 

“  majores  natu  .  .  .  ordinandi  habent  potesta- 
tem.”  Similar  assumptions  occur  in  Cone.  Nic. 
can.  xix.,  Antioch.  A.D.  341,  can.  ix.,  Chalced. 
A.D.  451,  can.  ii.  &c.  &c. ;  and  in  Cone.  Sardic. 
A.D.  347,  can.  vi.,  'T.tv'ktkottoi  Kadiffrav  h<pd~ 
Xovffiv  '"ETTKTKSirovs ;  and  also  Pseudo  -  Dion. 
Areop.  Eccl.  Hier.  v.  So  also,  not  affirming 
simply  but  assuming  the  fact,  St.  Jerome 
{Epist.  ad  Evangel^,  “  Quid  tacit,  excepta  or- 
dinatione,  episcopus,  quod  presbyter  non  fa- 
ciat.^”  and  St.  Chrys.  {Horn.  xiii.  in  1  Tim.'), 
Ou  yap  St]  irpeo'^vrepoi  rhv  iTr'icrKoirov  ex^tpo- 
Toyovu  (and  similarly,  Hmn.  i.  in  Philipp.),  and 
{Horn.  xi.  in  1  Tim.  iii.  8),  Tp  yap  x^‘^po'rou'ia 
p.6vri  {ot  eViV/coTTOt)  vir^p^efi-pKacTi,  Kol  Tovrep 
jjLOVov  SoKovcri  TrXcovfKTeiu  robs  irpea^uTcpovs  ; 
while  Epiphanius  {Haer.  Ixxv.),  expressly  affirm¬ 
ing  what  at  length  Aerius  had  denied,  lays  down 
that  riarepas  yap  y^vv^  (p  twv  imerKSTTurv 
rd^is)  t?7  'EKKXrjO'ia,  r)  8e  {tuu  rrpfcrfivTfpuu) 
iraTfpas  pA]  Svvapevr}  yeuvav,  5id  rpy  rod  Aou- 
rpov  TraXiyyeveo'ias  reuva  y€vv^.  So  again,  in 
actual  practice,  the  cases  of  Ischyras,  declared  to 
be  only  a  “  layman  ”  by  an  Alexandrian  synod, 
A.D.  324  or  325  (Neale,  Hist,  of  East.  Ch., 
Alexandria,  vol.  i.  p.  135),  because  ordained 
presbyter  vrrb  KoKKovOov  rov  irpea^vrepov  <pav- 
rao’dei'Tos  iTn(rKoiri]p  (St.  Athanas.  Apol.  ii.  0pp. 
i.  p.  193,  ed.  1698),  and  of  certain  presbyters 
declared  to  be  laymen  for  the  like  reason  by 
Coyic.  Sardic.  A.D.  347,  can.  xix. ;  while  the  much 
later  Council  of  Seville  {Cone.  Hispal.  II.  a.d.  619, 
can.  V.)  pronounced  certain  presbyterial  and  dia- 
conal  ordinations  void,  because,  although  the 
bishop  had  laid  his  hands  upon  the  candidates, 
a  presbyter,  the  bishop  being  blind,  “illis  contra 
ecclesiastic-urn  ordinem  benedictionem  dedisse 
fertur.”  The  one  and  only  distinct  assertion  of 
a  contrary  practice  upon  this  point,  and  this  too 
(even  had  it  been  trustworthy)  of  a  single  and 
exceptional  case,  is  that  of  Eutychius,  patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  A.D.  933-940,  born  A.D.  876,  who 
affirms  in  his  Origines,  that  in  Alexandria,  from 
the  beginning,  the  twelve  city  presbytei-s  not 
only  chose  the  Alexandrian  patriarch,  upon  a 
vacancy,  out  of  their  own  number,  but  also  by 
imposition  of  hands  and  benediction  created  him 
patriarch ;  and  that  this  lasted  down  to  the 


230 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


patriarchate  of  Alexander,  who  was  at  the 
Nicene  Council,  i.e.  down  to  about  a.d.  308  or 
313  :  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  bishop,  in 
whose  time  an  Alexandrian  synod  deposed  one 
who  had  received  presbyterial  oi’dination,  and 
on  that  very  ground,  viz.  Ischyras,  was  himself 
ordained  by  presbyters,  and  that  all  his  prede- 
cessoi's  had  been  so  likewise.  Both  date,  and  the 
internal  evidence  of  ' this  and  of  many  other 
equally  gross  blunders  (see  Pearson,  Vindic.  Ignat. 
c.  XI.  ii.  2,  pp.  270,  282  sq.,  ed.  Churton),  make 
Eutychius’  statement  unworthy  of  the  notice  it 
once  attracted.  And  it  is,  besides,  an  obvious 
perversion  of  the  fact  alleged  by  St.  Jerome,  that 
up  to  the  time  (not  of  the  patriarch  Alexander, 
but)  of  the  patriarchs  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  viz. 
A.D.  232  or  A.D.  264,  “  Alexandrine  presbyteri 
semper  unum  ex  se  electum,  in  excelsiori  loco 
collocatum,  episcopum  nominahant and  of  the 
stranger  practice  still,  mentioned  by  Liberatus 
(as  above  in  I.  1,  7).  That  there  were  bishops 
enough  in  Egypt  to  consecrate  legitimately 
(Eutychius  also  affirming  that  there  were  no 
others  except  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  until 
A.D.  190),  is  evident  by  the  testimonies  collected 
in  Pearson  (as  above,  pp.  296,  sq.  :  there  were 
above  a  hundred  at  one  of  Bishop  Alexander’s 
councils).  The  further  assertion  of  both  Am- 
brosiaster  (in  Ephes.  iv.  11)  and  of  the  author 
of  the  Quaest.  in  Vet.  et  Nov.  Test,  ci.,  that  in 
Egypt  “  presbyteri  ronsignant  si  praesens  non 
sit  episcopus,”  and  tnat  “  in  Alexandi-ia  et  per 
totam  Aegyptum,  si  desit  episcopus,  consecrat 
presbyter,”  is  ruled  to  mean  either  the  con¬ 
secration  of  the  Eucharist  or  the  rite  of  con¬ 
firmation,  not  that  of  ordination,  whether  to 
the  episcopate  or  the  presbyterate,  1.  by  the 
date  of  the  statements,  viz.  long  after  the  period 
fixed  even  by  Eutychius,  and  much  more  that 
named  in  St.  Jerome ;  2.  by  the  meaning  of  the 
word  consignare ;  3.  by  the  case  of  Ischyras, 
above  mentioned,  which  is  conclusive.  Other 
instances  of  alleged  presbyterial  ordination  are 
either  “  mere  mistakes  ”  (see  a  list  with  expla¬ 
nations  in  Bingh.  II.  iii.  7),  or  depend  upon  the 
assumption  that  chorepiscopi  were  not  bishops, 
or  upon  a  misinterpretation  of  an  obscure  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Ancyra,  can.  xiii.  [Chorepi¬ 
scopi.]  The  early  Scotch  and  Irish  Churches,  in 
which  the  presbyter-abbats  of  certain  monas¬ 
teries  exercised  an  anomalous  jurisdiction,  never 
allowed  presbyterial  ordination  (see  Adamnan 
in  V.  S.  Columbae,  and  other  authorities,  in  Grub’s 
Hist,  of  Ch.  of  Scotl.  c.  xi.  vol.  i.  152-160).  That 
a  bishop  however  was  not  at  liberty  to  ordain 
clerks  “  sine  consilio  clericorum  suorum,  ita  ut 
civium  conniventiam  et  testimonium  quaerat  ” 
(Cone.  Garth.  IV.  can.  xxii.),  but  did  so  “  com- 
muni  consilio”  (St.  Cypr.  Epist.  xxxviii.),  see 
below  in  (a.)  x.  Moreover,  he  was  strictly  for¬ 
bidden  to  ordain  in  the  diocese  of  another  bishop 
(see  below,  (a.)  xii.),  or  indeed  in  any  way 

aWoTpioeTTiaKorreit'. 

(a.)  ii.  Confirmation,  in  accordance  Avith  the 
intimations  in  the  N.  T.  (Acts  viii.  17,  xix.  6), 
appears  also,  when  first  mentioned,  as  the  office 
of  the  bishop  (Constit.  Apost.  iii.  16;  Pseudo- 
Dionys.  Hierarch.  Eccl.  ii.  p.  254  ;  Cone.  Carthag. 
II.  A  •  D.  390,  can.  iii.,  “  ut  chrisma,  &c.,  a  pres- 
byteris  non  fiant  ”).  But  (through  the  difficulty 
of  always  securing  the  bishop’s  presence)  the 
practice  gradually  issued  in  a  severance  between 


the  two  acts,  of  imposition  of  hands,  which  was 
restricted  to  the  bishop  (St.  Cypr.  Epist.  Ixxiii. ; 
Firmilian,  ap.  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  Ixxv. ;  Anon,  de 
Bapt.  Haer.  in  Append,  ad  S.  Cgpr.  0pp.  ;  Cone. 
Eliberit.  A.D.  205,  canons  xxxviii.  Ixxvii. ;  Euseb. 
//.  E.  vi.  43  ;  St.  Chrys.  Horn,  xviii.  in  Act.  Apost. 
§  3  ;  St.  Jerome,  eont.  Lucif.  iv. ;  St.  Ambros. 
de  Sacram.  iii.  2  ;  St.  Aug.  de  Trin.  xv.  26  ; 
Pope  Innoc.  I.  ad  Decent,  iii. ;  Gelasius,  Epist.  ix. ; 
Leo  M.  Epist.  Ixxxviii. ;  Greg.  M.  Epist.  iii.  9 ; 
Siricius,  E'pist.  i.  ad  Himer. ;  Cone.  Hispal  II. 
A.D.  619,  can.  vii. ;  Cone.  Meld.  a.d.  845,  can. 
xlv.) ;  and  of  anointing  with  the  consecrated 
chrism,  the  consecration  of  which  was  also  re¬ 
stricted  to  the  bishop  (Cone.  Carthag.  III.  A.D. 
397,  can.  xxxvi. ;  Tolet.  I.  A.D.  400,  can.  xx. ; 
Bracar.  II.  A.D.  563,  can.  xix.,  and  III.  a.d.  572, 
can.  iv. ;  Autissiod.  A.D.  576,  can.  vi. ;  Barcinon. 
II.  A.D.  599,  can.  ii. ;  Pope  Innocent  I.  Epist.  i. 
ad  Decent,  c.  iii. ;  Leo  M.  Epist.  Ixxxviii. ;  Gelas. 
Epist.  ix.),  and  to  the  bishop  of  the  diocese 
(Cone.  Carth.  IV.  a.d.  398,  can.  xxxvi. ;  Vasens. 
I.  A.D.  442,  can.  iii.  &c.  &c.) ;  but  the  actual 
application  of  it,  with  some  qualifications  and  in 
certain  cases,  allowed  to  presbyters  :  as  e.  g.  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,  there  being  a  double  anoint" 
ing,  that  of  the  forehead  was  restricted  to  the 
bishop,  the  rest  not  so ;  in  Gaul,  a  single  anoint¬ 
ing  was  ordinarily  the  presbyter’s  office ;  in  the 
East,  a  single  anointing  also,  but  ordinarily  the 
bishop’s  office,  and  only  in  his  absence,  as  at 
Alexandria  and  in  Egypt,  allowed  to  presbyters ; 
but  in  West  and  East  alike,  allowed  to  presbyters 
in  cases  of  urgency,  as  of  energumens  or  of  those 
at  the  point  of  death,  or  again  by  commission 
from  their  bishop  (see  Bingh.  XII.  ii.  1-6).  The 
Constit.  Apostol.  vii.  43,  44,  describe  the  practice 
of  the  3rd  or  4th  century.  [Confirmation.] 

(a.)  iii.  In  the  administration  of  sacraments, 
the  bishop’s  authority  was  primary,  that  of  pres¬ 
byters,  and  a  fortiori  of  deacons,  subordinate. 
St.  Ignat,  ad  Smgm.  viii. :  Ovk  e^ov  iarri 
rod  4TriarK6irov  oijre  ^airr'i^eiu  o{jt€  aydirr)!/ 
TtoiViv.  Tertull.  de  Bapt.  17 :  “  Dandi  (bap- 
tismum)  jus  quidem  habet  summus  sacerdos,  qui 
est  episcopus  :  dehinc  presbyteri  et  diaconi ;  non 
tamen  sine  episcopi  auctoritate,  propter  Ecclesiae 
honorem ;  quo  salvo,  salva  pax  est.”  Hieron. 
cont.  Lucif.  IV. :  “  Inde  venit  ut  sine  jussione 
episcopi  neque  presbyter  neque  diaconus  jus  ha- 
beat  baptizandi.”  St.  Ambros.  de  Sacram.  iii.  1 : 
“  Licet  presbyteri  fecerint,  tamen  exordium  mi- 
nisterii  a  summo  est  sacerdote.”  Similar  state¬ 
ments  are  numerous  (Bingh.  Lay  Bapt.  i.  §  2,  sq.). 
So  e.  g.  Cone.  Eliberit.  a.d.  305,  can.  Ixxvii — If  any 
are  baptized  by  a  deacon,  “  episcopus  eos  per 
benedictionem  perficere  debebit.”  So  also  Cone. 
Vern.  I.  A.D.  755,  can.  viii.,  forbids  presbyters 
baptizing,  or  celebrating  mass,  “  sine  jussione 
episcopi.”  Although  no  doubt  the  statement  of 
Ambrosiaster  in  Ephes.  iv.  is  true  also, — as  it  is 
indeed  perfectly  consistent  with  the  principle 
above  laid  down,  and  both  would  be  and  is  iq 
like  case  the  Church’s  rule  now, — that,  before 
the  Chui'ch  was  settled,  laymen  were  allowed 
“  evangelizare  et  baptizare  et  Scripturas  in 
ecclesia  explanare.”  See  also  Van  Espen,  Jur. 
Eccl.  Univ.,  De  Bapt.  c.  iii.  §  1 ;  and  Bingham 
on  Lay  Baptism. 

(a.)  iv.  The  office  of  formal  preaching,  as  dis¬ 
tinct  from  exposition  of  Scripture,  belonged  also 
properly  to  bishops.  So  e.g.  in  the  African 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


231 


Church,  if  the  bishop  were  present,  until  the 
time  of  St.  Augustin ;  who  was  the  first  African 
presbyter  that  preached  “  coram  episcopo,”  but 
this,  “  accepta  ab  episcopis  potestate”  (Possid. 
V.  S.  Aug.  V.).  So  also  in  Spain,  Cone.  Hispal.  II. 
A.D.  619,  can.  vii.  In  the  East  the  practice  was 
otherwise,  since  there  it  was  only  “  in  quibusdam 
Ecclesiis,  tacere  presbyteros  et  praesentibus  epi¬ 
scopis  non  loqui  ”  (Hieron.  ad  Nefot.  Epist.  ii.). 
Yet  thei'e  also  the  privilege  depended  on  the 
consent  of  the  bishop,  and  was  taken  away  in 
Alexandria  by  an  absolute  prohibition  : 

Tepos  eV  ' AXi^avSpeia  oh  ■KpoaofJLiXei  (Socrat.  v. 
22 ;  Sozom.  v.  17,  vii.  19),  from  the  time  of 
Aldus.  In  Rome,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  asserted 
that  no  bishop  (ohre  6  eiriaKOTros  ovre  &\\os  ns, 
acc.  to  Sozom.  vii.  19,  repeated  by  Cassiodorus, 
Hist.  Tripart.)  preached  at  all  until  Leo  the  Great 
(Thomassin,  II.  iii.  83,  §  5).  To  preach,  however, 
every  Sunday,  was  reckoned  ordinarily  the  duty, 
as  well  as  the  privilege,  of  the  bishop  ;  on  the 
ground  that  he  is  to  be  SihaKnuhs  =  apt  to  teach 
(so  dpSuos  5iSa(TKa\iKhs  =  the  bishop’s  throne,  in 
St.  Chr3’’s.  Horn.  ii.  in  Tit.,  and  a^'iwfjia  hihatTKa- 
\iKhv  =  the  bishop’s  office,  in  St.  Cyril  Alex. 
Epist.  ad  Monach.  in  Cone.  Ephes.  Labbe,  iii.  423  ; 
— and  Sozom.  vii.  19,  M6vos  d  rrjs  WAccos  eVt- 
aKOTTos  5i5d(TK€i, — and  St.  Ambros.  de  Offic.  i.  1, 
“  Episcopi  proprium  munus  docere  populum  ”). 
And  see  also  Origen,  Horn.  vi.  in  Levit.  Gone.  Lao- 
dic.  c.  A.D.  366,  can.  xlx.,  and  Cone.  Valent.  A.D.  855, 
can.  i.,  take  the  practice  for  granted.  King  Gun- 
tram,  A.D.  585  (^Edict.  eonfirm.  Cone.  Matise.  II.), 
exhorts  bishops  to  frequent  preaching  ;  Charle¬ 
magne  enjoins  their  having  suitable  homilies 
{Capit.  i.  A.D.  813.  c.  xiv.,  and  Cone.  Arelat.  can.  x., 
Mogunt.  can.  xxv.,  and  Rhem.  canons  xiv.  xv., 
all  of  the  same  year),  and  deprives  bishops  of 
their  sees  who  should  not  have  preached  before 
a  fixed  day  (^Monaeh.  S.  Gall.  i.  20);  Ludov.  Pius 
enjoins  bishops  to  preach  either  in  person  or  by 
their  vicars  (Capit.  i.  109) ;  and  Cone.  Ticin. 
A.D.  850,  can.  v.,  threatens  deposition  to  all 
bishops  who  did  not  preach  at  least  on  Sundays 
and  holidays.  Ethelred  also  in  England  enjoins 
bishops  to  preach  (Laws,  vii.  19 ;  repeated  by 
Cnut,  Law  xxvi).  And  similarly  in  Spain,  Cone. 
Tolet.  XI.  A.D.  675,  can.  ii.  Bishops  are  also  en¬ 
joined  by  Cone.  Turon.  III.  A.D.  613,  can.  xvii., 
to  have  homilies  about  the  Catholic  faith  and  a 
holy  life,  and  to  cause  them  to  be  translated 
“  in  rusticam  Romanam  linguam  aut  Theodiscam, 
quo  facilius  cuncti  possint  intelligere,”  &c.  In 
the  East,  the  Council  in  Trullo  (a.d.  691,  canons 
xix.  XX.),  while  deposing  bishops  who  preached 
outside  their  own  dioceses  without  permission, 
enjoins  all  bishops  to  preach  at  least  every  Sun¬ 
day,  and  if  possible  every  day.  And  Balsamon, 
on  can.  Ixiv.  of  the  same  council,  lays  down  the 
principle,  that  “  to  teach  and  expound  belongs  by 
divine  grace  to  bishops  only,  and  so  to  those  to 
whom  bishops  delegate  the  office.”  It  is  assumed 
to  be  the  bishop’s  duty,  also,  in  Cod.  Theodos. 
lib.  xvi.  tit.  ii.,  de  Epise.  1.  25  ;  and  also  lib.  ix. 
tit.  xl.  de  Foenis  1.  16 ;  and  in  Cod.  Justin,  lib. 
ix.  tit.  xxix.  de  Grim.  Saerilegii,  1.  1. 

(a.)  v.  As  in  the  points  hitherto  mentioned, 
so  also  in  the  administration  of  diseipline,  the 
bishop  took  the  lead  ;  the  presbyters  (and  appa¬ 
rently  in  some  cases  the  deacons)  held  their 
proper  subordinate  place  under  him,  and  formed 
his  council.  Bishop  and  presbytery  occur  to- 


'  gether  passim  in  St.  Ignatius.  The  condemna¬ 
tions  of  Origen  (Famphil.  Apol.  ad  Thot.  Cod. 

'  cxviii.),  of  Novatian  (Euseb.  //.  E.  vi.  43),  of 
j  Paul  of  Samosata  (id.  vii.  28,  30),  of  Noetus 
(Epiphan.  Haer.  Ivii.  1),  of  Arius  at  Alexandria 
(id.  Ixix.  3 ;  and  see  Coteler.  ad  Constit.  Apost. 
viii.  28),  proceeded  from  the  bishop,  or  bishops, 

!  but  with  presbyters,  the  irpea&vT^piov  alone  in- 
'  deed  being  mentioned  in  the  case  of  Noetus,  and 
deacons  as  well  as  presbyters  in  that  of  Arius. 
So  also  Pope  Siricius  in  the  case  of  Jovinian, 
j  “  facto  presbyterio  ”  (Siric.  Epist.  ii.,  the  deacons 
’  also  it  appears  concurring) ;  and  Synesius,  bishon 
of  Ptolemais,  in  that  of  Andronicus,  a  layman 
(Synes.  Epist.  Ivii.  Iviii.).  At  the  same  tiitie, 
the  bishop  was  the  chief,  and  ordinarily  the  sole, 

'  judge  in  the  first  instance  in  cases  of  excommu¬ 
nication  (“  mucro  episcopalis  ”),  following  the 
1  authority  of  1  Tim.  v.  1,  19  (but  see  also  1  Cor. 

'  V.  4,  2  Cor.  ii.  10  : — so  St.  Cypr.  Epist.  xxxviii. 
xxxix.  Ixv.  &c. ;  Cone.  Nieaen.  can.  v. ;  Cone.  Garth. 
II.  A.D.  390,  can.  viii. ;  Cone.  Carthag.  IV.  a.d. 
j  398,  can.  Iv. ;  Can.  Apost.  xxxi. ;  Gone.  Ephes. 

can.  V. ;  Cone.  Agath.  a.d.  506,  can.  ii. ;  and 
'  countless  other  evidence  —  see  Excommuni¬ 
cation);  subject  however  to  an  appeal  to  the 
synod  [Appeal]  :  although  his  power  came  to  be 
i  limited  in  Africa  by  a  Carthag.  Council  (II.  A.D. 
i  390,  can.  x.),  by  the  requirement  of  twelve 
bishops  to  judge  a  bishop  (which  came  to  be  the 
traditional  canonical  number),  of  six  to  judge  a 
presbyter,  and  of  three,  in  addition  to  the  ac¬ 
cused  s  own  diocesan,  to  try  a  deacon.  The  power 
of  formal  absolution  from  formal  sentence  is 
throughout  assumed  by  the  canons  to  be  in  such 
sense  in  the  bishop,  that  presbyters  could  only 
exercise  it  (apart  from  him)  in  cases  of  imminent 
danger  of  death,  unless  by  leave  of  the  bishop ; 
and  deacons  only  in  very  extreme  cases  indeed 
(Dion.  Alex,  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  44 ;  Cone.  Garth. 
II. canons  ii.  iv.,and  III.  can.  xxxii. ;  Cone.  Arausie. 
I.  A.D.  441,  can.  i. ;  Cone.  Epaon.  a.d.  517,  can. 
xvi. ;  &c.  &c.).  St.  Cypr.  (Epist.  xiii.)  allows  a 
deacon  to  absolve,  only  if  neither  bishop  nor 
presbyter  can  be  had,  and  in  a  case  of  extreme 
urgency.  But  he  also  speaks  of  ‘‘  episcopus  et 
clerus  ”  as  both  uniting  in  the  solemn  act  of 
absolution  by  imposition  of  hands.  And  the  rule 
is  laid  down  fully  in  Cone.  Eliberit.  a.d.  305, 
can.  xxxii. :  “  Apud  presbyterum  . . .  placuit  agere 
poenitentiam  non  debere  sed  potius  apud  episco- 
pum :  cogente  tamen  infirmitate,  necesse  est 
presbyterum  communionem  praestare  debere,  et 
diaconum  si  ei  jusserit  episcopus.”  See  also  IMar- 
shedV s  Fenit.  Hiseipl.  pp.  91,  sq. ;  and  Taylor’s 
Episcop.  Asserted,  §  36.  [Discipline  ;  Penance.] 
See  also  under  Penitentiary,  Presdyter,  for 
the  Trpea^vnpos  ^ttI  rr\s  peravoias  (Socrat.  v. 
19),  and  the  like  delegates  of  this  part  of  the 
bishop’s  office. 

This  authority  extended  over  the  whole  diocese 
and  all  its  members.  Exemptions,  as  of  monas¬ 
teries,  fi’om  episcopal  jurisdiction,  are  directly  in 
the  teeth  of  the  Counc.  of  Chalced.  canons  vii.  viii., 
of  Justinian’s  law  (Cbc?.  i.  tit.  iii.  de  E/nsc.  1.40), 
of  the  provincial  councils  of  Orleans,  I.  a.d.  511, 
can.  XIX. ;  Cone.  Agath.  a.d.  506,  can.  xxxviii. ; 
Cone.  Ilerdens.  a.d.  546,  can.  iii. ;  &c.  The  well- 
known  case  of  Faustus  of  Lerins  and  his  bishop 
at  the  Council  of  Arles  in  A.D.  455,  was  an 
adjustment  of  rights  as  between  abbat  and 
bishop,  but  not  an  exemption  in  the  proper 


232 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


sense  of  the  word  (as  Hallam  superficially  I 
states).  The  earliest  real  case  of  the  kind  appears  j 
to  belong  to  the  8th  century,  when  Zachary,  i 
A.D.  750,  granted  a  privilege  to  Monte  Casino,  ' 
“  ut  nullius  juri  subjaceat  nisi  solius  Romani 
pontificis”  (Mabill.  Act.  S.  Ord.  Bened.,  Saec.  iii. 
p.  64-3).  Precedents  for  such  exemptions,  as 
granted  by  royal  authority,  occur  in  the  Formulae 
of  Iilarculfus.  [EXEMPTION  ;  Monks.] 

(a.)  vi.  As  in  the  special  subject  of  discijiline, 
so  generally  in  the  affairs  of  the  diocese,  the 
bishop  had  the  primary  administration  of  them, 
with  the  power  of  veto,  but  (as  throughout)  with 
the  counsel  and  consent  of  his  presbyters,  and 
of  the  diocese  at  large.  So  e.  g.  St.  Cyprian, 
repeating  the  statement  over  and  over  again  in 
equivalent  terms, — “  Nihil  sine  consilio  vestro 
(presbyterorum)  et  sine  consensu  plebis  mea  pri- 
vata  sententia  gerere.”  The  same  rule,  as  regards 
the  presbyters,  and  in  their  place  the  deacons,  is 
prominent  in  the  language  of  St.  Ignatius  in  the 
earliest  time.  And  the  “  consessus  presby¬ 
terorum  ”  is  likened  by  St.  Jerome  to  the 
bishop’s  “  senate,”  and  by  Origen  and  others  to 
the  $ov\^  ’EKKX-nfflas,  and  by  St.  Chrysostom  and 
Synesius  to  the  Sanhedrim  (avyedpior).  That 
presbyters  also  shared  in  diocesan  synods,  “  ad- 
stantibus  diaconis,”  see  Council,  Synod.  On  the 
other  hand,  /xTjSev  drev  yrwjurjs  tov  eTricrKdTrov 
(Cone.  Laodic.  can.  Ivii.)  is  repeated  so  endlessly 
by  councils,  and  asserted  by  church  writers,  as 
to  make  it  needless  to  multiply  quotations.  Im- 
peratorial  legislation,  in  conferring  special  powers 
upon  bishops,  tended  largely  to  increase  episcopal 
authority.  Yet  provincial  synods  of  presbyters 
(and  of  abbats)  still  continued,  throughout,  down 
to  Carlovingian  times.  [Council  ;  Synod.]  And 
Guizot  (H.  de  la  Civ.  en  France.,  Le^on  15)  joins 
priests  with  bishops  as  the  really  governing  body 
of  the  Church  in  the  earlier  Frankish  period. 
In  the  particular  matters  of  creeds,  liturgies, 
and  church  worship  generally,  the  bishop  is  also 
inferred  to  have  had  authority  to  regulate  and 
determine  all  questions,  partly  as  being  a  natural 
portion  of  his  office,  partly  from  the  fact,  that  in 
unessentials,  even  the  creeds,  much  more  litur¬ 
gical  points,  varied  in  various  dioceses,  within 
undefined  but  obvious  limits.  And  so  Basil 
of  Caesarea,  we  learn,  composed  certain 
Siara^eis  Kai  evKoafiias  tov  /STy/xaros  for  his 
own  Church  while  still  a  presbyter,  of  which 
Eusebius  his  bishop  sanctioned  the  use.  St. 
Augustin  (Epist.  86,  ad  Casulan.')  assumes  a 
like  power  in  the  bishop  to  appoint  fasting  days 
for  his  own  diocese.  And  the  like  is  implied  in 
the  tradition,  that  St.  Ignatius  introduced  anti¬ 
phons  and  doxologies  into  his  own  church 
(Cassiod.  Hist.  Tripartit.  x.  9).  So  Proclus  of 
Constantinople,  A.D.  431-447,  is  said  to  have 
introduced  the  Trisagion  into  that  Church.  It 
was  the  bishop’s  office  also  to  consecrate  churches 
and  cemeteries  [Church,  Cemetery]  :  mentioned 
as  early  as  Euseb.  H.  E.  x.  3,  'EyKaiy'iwv  eoprai 
.  .  .  /col  Twj/  &pTi  veovaywy  Trpo<r€VKTr)pioov  acpi- 
cpdcreis,  iTriCKOiriov  re  iir]  raurh  (rvveXevo'fis. 

(a.)  vii.  Visitation  of  his  diocese  was,  at  first, 
rather  a  duty  following  as  a  matter  of  course  from 
a  bishop’s  office,  than  a  legal  and  canonical  obliga¬ 
tion  :  see  St.  Athanas.  Apol.  ii.  §  74 ;  St.  Chrys. 
Horn.  i.  in  Epist.  ad  Titum  (eVt/r/ccif'e/s) ;  Sulp. 
Sever.  Dial.  ii.  (of  St.  Martin);  St.  Aug.  Epist.  vi. 
0pp.  ii.  144;  Greg.  Tur.  H.  E.  v.  5,  and  De  Glor. 


Confess,  lix.  cvi. ;  St.  Greg.  M.  Dial.  iii.  38,  &c.: 
and  see  also  under  Chorepiscopi,  and  Flepio- 
hevriis  or  VisiTATOR.  Accordingly,  no  canons  at 
first  defined  or  enforced  the  duty.  But  in  course 
of  time,  so  soon  as  canons  came  to  be  made  upon 
the  subject,  the  bishop  became  bound  to  visit  his 
diocese  once  a  year,  both  to  confirm  and  to  ad¬ 
minister  discipline,  and  generally  to  oversee  the 
diocese  :  St.  Bonif.  Epist.  Ixx.  ed.  Jaffe';  Cone. 
Tarracon.  A.D.  516,  can.  viii. ;  Cone.  Bracar.  III. 
A.D.  572,  can.  i. ;  Cone.  Tolet.  IV.  A.D.  633,  can. 
xxxvi. ;  Cone.  Tolet.  VII.  a.d.  646,  can.  iv. ; 
Cone.  Liptin.  a.d.  743  (i.  e.  St.  Boniface,  as  above) ; 
Cone.  Suess.  a.d.  744,  can.  iv. ;  Cone.  Arelat.  a.d, 
813,  can.  xvii;  Capit.  Car.  M.  lib.  vii.  cc.  94,  95, 
109,  365,  A.D.  769,  813,  &c. 

(o.)  viii.  Further  (1),  it  was  the  bishop’s  office 
to  issue  letters  of  credence  to  any  members  of  his 
diocese,  which  alone  enabled  them  to  commu¬ 
nicate  in  other  churches  :  sc.  litterae  formatae,  or 
canonicae^  &c.  So,  Can.  Apost.  xxxii.,  no  stranger 
bishop  or  clergy  were  to  be  received  6.vev  avara- 
tikS)v  ;  Cone.  Laodic.  a.d.  366,  can.  xli.,  Ou  Set 
tepariKhv  ^  K\r]piKhv  &vev  KavoviKwv  ypafip-druv 
odeveiy ;  Cone.  Antioch.  A.D.  341,  can.  vii.,  Mij- 
Sej/a  &V€V  elprjviKuv  dex^crOai  rwv  ^ivwv  :  Cone. 
Carthag.  I.  A.D.  348,  can.  vii.,  “  Clericus  vel  laicus 
non  communicet  in  aliena  plebe  sine  litteris  epi- 
scopi  sui.”  So  also  Cone.  Milevit.  A.D.  402,  can.  xx. 
(“  formatam  ab  episcopo  accipiat”) ;  Cone.  Agath. 
A.D.  506,  can.  Iii.,  and  repeated  Cone.  Epaon. 
A.D.  517,  can.  vi.  (“  sine  antistitis  sui  epistolis  ”) ; 
but,  in  each  case,  of  the  clergy,  who  should  travel 
from  home.  And  the  Councils  of  Arles  (A.D.  314, 
can.  ix.)  and  of  Eliberis  (a.d.  305,  can.  xxv.) 
forbid  “  confessors  ”  to  give  such  letters,  and 
order  those  who  have  them  to  procure  fresh 
“  communicatoriae”  from  the  bishop.  The  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Antioch,  A.D.  341,  can.  viii.,  permits  chor¬ 
episcopi  di56vai  FipnviKOLS,  but  forbids  presbyters 
doing  so ;  and  the  Council  of  Eliberis  (a.d.  305, 
can.  Ixxxi.)  prohibits  the  worse  abuse  of  the 
wives  (apparently  of  bishops)  giving  and  receiv¬ 
ing  such  “  pacificae.”  These  letters,  according 
to  their  purpose,  were  called  “  commendatitiae  ” 
(of  credence,  or  recommendation),  “  pacificae  ” 
(also  “  ecclesiasticae  ”  or  “  canonicae,”  of  com¬ 
munion),  or  “  dimissoriae  ”  (awoXvTiKoi,  avara- 
riKal,  or  again  elpiqyiKai,  or  “  concessoriae  ”)  ;  see 
e.  g.  Co7ic.  Trull,  can.  xvii.  (not  necessary  or 
granted,  like  modern  letters  dimissory,  to  any 
one  who  desired  to  be  ordained  in  another  dio¬ 
cese  than  his  own — who,  however,  had  of  course 
to  obtain  leave  to  do  so — but  only  when  a 
clergyman  desired  to  change  his  diocese) ;  and 
they  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the  unauthori- 
tative  “  libelli  ”  given  by  martyrs  or  confest-ors 
during  a  persecution  to  those  who  had  lapsed. 
Cone.  Chalced.  a.d.  451,  can.  xi.,  orders  (XvaraTL- 
Ka\  to  be  given  only  to  such  as  were  “  suspectae  ;” 
but  to  those  who  were  poor  and  in  want,  only 
FiprjviKal,  and  not  aviTTariKal — pacificae.,  and  not 
commendatitiae.  (2.)  The  bishop  also  represented 
his  diocese  collectively,  besides  answering  for 
its  individual  members;  as  in  communicating 
with  other  dioceses.  So,  e.  g.  St.  Clement  ot 
Rome  writes  to  the  Corinthian  Church,  as  speak¬ 
ing  for  the  Church  of  Rome,  of  which  he  was 
bishop;  and  is  spoken  of  by  Hermas  Pastor 
(Tas.  ii.  4)  as  officially  communicating  with 
Christians  of  other  dioceses.  It  is  needless  to 
give  evidence  from  later  times. 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


233 


(a.)  ix.  The  income  and  offerings  of  the 
Church,  and  its  alms,  were  likewise,  in  the  first 
instance,  under  the  disposition  of  the  bishop,  to 
be  dispensed  either  by  himself  or  by  his  proper 
officers  (see  Alienation  of  Church  Pko- 
PERTT,  Alms,  Archdeacon,  Deacon,  Oeco- 
NOMUS);  and  this  upon  the  ground  of  Acts  iv. 
35,  37,  V.  2,  1  Cor,  xvi.  3,  4 ;  but  with  the 
general  consent  of  his  presbyters,  as  Acts  xi.  30, 
Ta  rris  ’E/c/cArjo-tas  .  .  .  htoiKe^adai  'Kpoa'f}K(i  fMera 
Kpicews  Ka\  e^ovcrtas  too  e7ri(r/f(i7roi»  {Cone.  An¬ 
tioch.  A.D.  341,  can.  xxiv.,  and  see  can.  xxv.). 
And  Cone.  Gangr.  (a.d.  325,  canons  vii.  and  viii.) 
puts  an  anathema  on  those  who  intermeddle  with 
church  property,  irapa  yi'WjX7]v  (or  irapeKThs) 
Tov  iiricntSTTov  ^  rov  ra  Toiavra. 

So  Can.  Apost.  xxxvii.  :  UduTuv  twv  iKKAgaiaa- 
Ti/fiSr  irpaypLaTcov  6  eTTicrKUTros  ex^Tco  ttjj/  (ppov- 
T(5a  Kal  StoiKefrco  avra.  ws  Qeov  ecpopci'VTOS.  And 
so  also  ib.  can.  xl. ;  and  at  length,  Constit.  Apostol. 
ii.  25.  And  St.  Cypr.  (Epist.  xxxviii.  al.  xli.), 
“  Episcopo  dispensante.”  And  St.  Hieron.  ad 
Nepot.  Epist.  xxxiv.,  “Sciat  episcopus,  cui  coni- 
inissa  est  Ecclesia,  quern  dispensation!  pauperum 
curaeque  praeficiat.”  And  Possid.  in  V.  S.  Aug. 
But  Cone.  Antioeh.  (as  above,  can.  xxv.)  forbids 
the  bishop  from  dealing  with  church  revenues, 
pfTct,  yuwpgs  twv  -npecrliuTepwu  ^  roSu  8ia- 
kSvwu,  and  orders  him  evOvuas  vapex^^^  '^V 
v68(p  rrjs  -A-ud  Can.  Apost.  xxxix.  al.  xl. 

bids  him  keep  his  own  goods  and  those  of  the 
church  distinct,  so  that  earw  (pauepd  rd  t5ia  rov 
iTTiaKdiTOV  Trpdypara  (el  ye  Kail  tSia  exez)  Kal 
(pavepd  TCt  KvpiaKd,  k.t.\.  And  Cone.  Carth.  IV. 
A.t).  398,  can.  xxxii.,  “  Irrita  erit  donatio  episcc- 
porum  vel  venditio  vel  commutatio  rei  eccle- 
siasticae,  absque  conniventia  et  subscriptione 
clericorum.”  Compare  also  the  established  ex¬ 
ceptional  cases  Avherein  chui’ch  plate,  &c.,  might 
be  sold,  viz.  for  redeeming  captives  (as  St.  Am¬ 
brose,  de  Offie.  ii.  28  ;  Acacius  of  Amida,  in  So- 
crat,  vii.  21  ;  Deogratias  of  Carthage,  in  Victor 
Utic.  c?e  Fersee.  Vandal,  i. ;  St.  Augustin  [Possid. 
in  V.  S.  Aug.  24]  ),  or  feeding  people  in  case  of 
famine  (as  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  in  Theodoret. 
ii.  27,  and  Sozom.  iv.  25) ;  in  which,  as  in  other 
cases  of  real  necessity,  the  bishop  allowably 
disposed  of  the  property,  but  with  the  consent 
of  the  primate  “  cum  statute  numero  episco- 
porum  ”  {Cone.  Carth.  V.  a.d.  398,  can.  iv.),  or 
“  apud  duos  vel  tres  comprovinciales  vel  vicinos 
episcopos”  {Cone.  Agath.  a.d.  506,  can.  vii.); 
which  last  canon,  however,  permits  the  bishop  by 
himself  to  dispose  of  “  terrulae  aut  vineolae  exiguae 
aut  ecclesiae  minus  utiles,”  &c.  (can.  xlv.) :  and 
Cone.  Epaon.  a.d.  517,  can.  xii.,  I’equires  the  “con- 
scientia  metropolitan!  ”  to  a  like  sale.  Councils  of 
Orleans,  III.  and  IV.  a.d.  538,  541,  repeat  like 
rules.  And  in  Spain,  Cone.  Ilispal.  II.  a.d.  619, 
canons  ix.  and  xlix.,  and  Tolet.lV.  A.D.  633,  can. 
xlviii.,  and  the  Capit.  of  Martin  of  Braga  ;  in 
Italy,  the  letters  of  Gregory  the  Great,  and  Cone. 
Fom.  VI.  under  Symmachus,  A.D.  504;  and  in 
the  East,  Justinian  {Novell.  123,  c.  23,  131,  c.  11), 
shew  a  like  system.  This  general  rule,  however, 
held  good  only  so  long  as  the  church  good:^  of 
each  diocese  formed  a  common  fund.  After  the 
appropriation  of  special  incomes  to  special  officers 
and  to  particular  parishes,  the  bishop  of  course 
ceased  to  have  control  over  more  than  his  own 
share,  except  over  alms  and  general  contri¬ 
butions,  and  in  like  cases  (see  Tithes)  :  un¬ 


less  so  far  as  he  still  retained  the  power  of 
appointing  clergy  and  ordaining  them  to  parti¬ 
cular  benefices.  The  era  of  such  limitation  may 
be  taken  to  be  the  Cone.  Troslcian.  (Troli, 
near  Soissons),  A.D.  909,  can.  vi.  ;  the  old 
rule  lineering  still  during  the  time  of  Charle¬ 
magne  (see  Thomassin,  III.  i.  8).  About  600f. 
a  year  is  Gibbon’s  estimate  of  an  average  episcopal 
revenue  in  the  time  of  Justinian;  the  valuation 
fluctuating  at  the  time  from  2  pounds  of  gold 
to  30  (Justin.  Novell.  123,  c.  3). 

(a.)  X.  The  bishop  also  appears,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  have  so  taken  charge  of  his  whole 
diocese,  as  that,  the  diocesan  city  being  served 
by  clergy  of  his  own  ordaining,  the  countrv 
districts  were  served  from  the  city  by  clergy 
at  his  a2)pointment,  although  with  counsel  and 
consent  of  both  presbyters  and  laity.  The  dio¬ 
cese  was  in  fact  one  parish,  there  being  no  such 
thing  as  a  parish  in  the  modern  sense.  And  this 
original  condition  of  things  gradually  settled  into 
rule,  as  follows  : — 1.  That  no  clergyman  could 
migrate  to,  or  be  ordained  to  a  higlier  order  in, 
another  diocese  than  that  in  which  he  had  been 
born  and  ordained,  or  (if  this  involved  two  di(j- 
ceses)  in  which  he  had  been  ordained,  without 
the  express  leave  of  the  bishop  who  had  ordaine  1 
him  :  the  presbyters  being  bound  to  the  bisho[> 
who  had  ordained  them,  as  he  in  turn  was  bound 
to  support  them  if  in  need.  See  Clergy,  Lit- 
TERAE  Dimissoriae,  Presijyter.  An  excej)tion 
however  came  to  exist  in  favour  of  the  bishoji  of 
Carthage,  in  relation  to  Africa,  “  ut  soli  ecclesiae 
Carthaginis  liceat  alienum  clericum  ordinare  ” 
(Ferrand.  J5reuiar.  c.  230).  That  no  clergyman, 
when  benefices  came  to  exist,  could  resign  hi> 
benefice,  or  remove  to  another,  within  the  parti¬ 
cular  diocese,  without  his  bishop’s  consent.  Cone. 
Carth.  IV.  A.D.  398,  can.  xxvii.,  probably  refers  to 
different  dioceses, — “Inferioris  gradus  sacerdotes 
vel  alii  clerici  concessione  suorum  e])isco]:)oruni 
possunt  ad  alias  ecclesias  transmigrare.”  But  in 
later  times,  Cone.  Remens.  a.d.  813,  can.  xx..  Cone. 
Turon.  A.D.  813,  can.  xiv.,  and  Cone.  Namnet.  can. 
xvi.,  are  express,  “  De  titulo  minor!  ad  majorem 
migrare  null!  presbytero  licitum  est  ;”  and  are 
confirmed  by  Charlemagne,  Capit.  lib.  vi.  c.  197, — 
“Nullus  presbyter  creditam  sibi  ecclesiam  sine 
consensu  sui  episcopi  derelinquat  et  laicorum 
suasione  ad  aliam  transeat ;”  and  see  also  lib.  vi. 
c.  85,  lib.  vii.  c.  73.  But,  at  the  same  time,  the 
bishop  could  not  remove  or  eject  a  clergyman 
against  his  will  or  at  his  own  pleasure,  the  rule 
coming  to  be  that  three  bishops  were  required 
to  judge  a  deacon,  and  six  a  presbyter,  including 
their  own  diocesan,  with  an  appeal  to  the  pro¬ 
vincial  synod  :  see  Appeal,  Deacon,  Presryti;r, 
Synod.  3.  That  the  bishop  as  a  rule  collated 
to  all  benefices  within  his  diocese,  conferring,*  by 
ordination  to  a  particular  “title,”  the  spiritu:tl 
jurisdiction,  which  drew  with  it  the  temporal 
endowments  (see  Bingh.  IX.  viii.  5,  6  ;  Thomassin, 
II.  i.  33-35).  But,  4.  that  the  right  of  nomi¬ 
nating  to  a  church  in  another’s  diocese  was 
granted,  as  time  went  on,  to  a  bishop  who  had 
founded  that  church  (and  apparently  to  his  suc¬ 
cessors,  on  the  assumption  that  he  founded  it  out 
of  church  property),  in  the  West  {Cone.  Anxusie.  I. 
A.D.  441,  can.  x.)  ;  and  in  the  East  from  Justinian, 
and  ultimately  in  the  West  likewise  (e.  g.  Cone. 
Tolet.  IX.  A.D.  655,  can.  ii. ;  Cone.  Francof.  a.d. 
794,  can.  liv.),  to  laymen  also  in  like  position; 


234 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


and  in  both  East  and  West,  by  the  time  of  Jus¬ 
tinian  and  of  Charlemagne  respectively,  to  kings, 
nobles,  and  other  laymen,  without  any  such 
ground  :  although  the  right  of  the  bishop  to 
determine  whether  the  presentee  was  fit,  and 
if  unfit,  to  reject  him,  remained  still,  even 
in  the  case  of  noblemen’s  chaplains.  Further, 
1.  in  the  East,  a  limit  also  was  put  to  the 
“  requests  ”  (dv(rw7rri<Te(ri)  of  the  nobles,  and  to 
the  “  command  ”  (/ceAeufTts)  of  the  emperor,  in 
making  such  presentations  (^Novell.  3,  in  Fraef. 
and  c.  2)  :  and,  2.  in  the  West,  the  Council  of  Arles, 
VI.  A.D.  813,  can.  iv.,  commands,  “  ut  laid  pres- 
byteros  absque  judicio  proprii  ej)iscopi  non  eji- 
ciant  de  ecclesiis  nec  alios  immittere  prae- 
sumant and  the  Council  of  Tours,  III.  a.d.  813, 
can.  XV.,  “  Interdicendum  videtur  clericis  sive 
laicis  ne  quis  cuilibet  presbytero  praesumat  dare 
ecclesiam  sine  licentia  et  consensu  episcopi  sui 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  both  Charlemagne  and 
Louis  the  Pious  guard  the  lay  side  of  the  ((ues- 
tion  by  enacting,  “Si  laici  clericos  probabilis 
vitae  et  doctrinae  episcopis  consecrandos  suisque 
in  ecclesiis  constituendos  obtulerint,  nulla  qua- 
libet  occasione  eos  rejiciant or  if  they  do  re¬ 
ject  them,  then,  “  diligens  examinatio  et  evidens 
ratio,  ne  scandal um  generetur,  manifestum  faciat  ” 
{Capit.  lib.  V.  c.  178,  and  Lud.  Pii  Cupit.  in 
Cone.  Gall.  ii.  430) :  an  enactment  repeated  by 
Cone.  Paris.  A.D.  829,  can.  xxii.  See  also  Cone. 
Rom.  A.D.  826  and  853,  can.  xxi.  The  right  of 
presentation  to  such  a  benefice  by  lapse,  as  de¬ 
volving  upon  the  bishop,  is  not  traced  by  Tho- 
massin  (II.  i.  31,  §  5)  higher  than  the  time  of 
Hincmar.  The  consent  of  the  C-hurch,  necessary 
in  the  time  of  St.  Cyprian  to  the  ordination  of  a 
])resbyter,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  required 
in  that  of  a  deacon — “  diaconi  ab  episcopis  hunt  ” 
(St.  Cypr.  Ej  ist.  Ixv.) — and  a  fortiori  not  in 
the  case  of  minor  orders. 

(a.)  xi.  The  bishop  became  also  a  judge  or 
arbitrator  in  secular  causes  between  Christians, 
on  the  ground  of  1  Cor.  vi.  4 :  necessarily,  how¬ 
ever,  by  consent  only  of  both  parties,  and  by  an 
authority  voluntarily  conceded  to  him  :  an  office 
which  continued  so  late  as  the  time  of  St.  Au¬ 
gustin;  sitting  on  Monda)^s  for  the  purpose  :  for 
which,  and  for  other  details,  see  Apost.  Constit. 
ii.  45-53.  See  also  undei'  Appeal.  As.an  office 
conferred  bv  the  State,  and  endowed  with  legal 
power,  see  also  below  under  (2). 

(a.)  xii.  All  these  powei's  belonged  to  a  bishop 
solely  in  relation  to  his  own  diocese.  Beyond 
that  diocese — not  to  discuss  hei’e,  1.  the  authority 
of  synods,  or,  2.  the  gradual  growth  of  the 
offices  of  archbishop,  primate,  metropolitan, 
exarch,  patriarch  (for  which  see  the  several 
articles)— each  bishop  had  no  right  to  interfere, 
except  under  circumstances  (such  as  the  pre¬ 
valence  of  schism  or  heresy,  or  of  persecution, 
or  the  like)  which  would  obviously  constitute  a 
necessity  superseding  law.  So,  e.  y.  St.  Atha¬ 
nasius  Ka\  %eipoTov£a?  iiroiei  in  cities  out  of  his 
diocese,  as  he  returned  from  exile  (Socrat.  ii.  24). 
And  similarly  Eusebius  of  vSamosata,  in  the  Arian 
persecution  under  Valens  (Theodoret,  iv.  13,  v.  4). 
And  Epiphanius  likewise  in  Palestine;  defending 
his  act  on  tlie  ground  that,  although  each  bishop 
had  his  own  diocese,  “  et  nemo  super  alienam 
mensuram  extenditur,  tanien  praeponitur  om¬ 
nibus  earitas  Christi  ”  (^Epist.  ad  Joan.  Hieros. 
Opf .  ii.  312).  Compare  also  the  letters  of  Cle¬ 


ment  of  Rome  to  the  Cojunthians,  and  of  Dionysius 
of  Corinth  (KadoAiKal  (TTKTToAal)  to  the  Lace¬ 
daemonians,  and  to  the  Athenians,  and  many 
others  (Euseb.  //.  E.  iv.  23)  ;  and  St.  Cyprian’s 
interference  in  Spain  in  the  cases  of  Martial  and 
Basilides,  and  in  Gaul  in  that  of  Marcian.  And 
see  Du  Pin,  de  Antiq.  Eccl.  Discipjl.  pp.  141,  sq. 
Still,  the  rule  was — 

(a.)  xiii.  A  single  bishop  to  each  diocese,  and 
a  single  diocese  to  each  bishop.  “  Cnus  in 
Ecclesia  ad  tempus  sacerdos,”  is  St.  Cyprian’s 
dictum  {Epist.  lii.  al.  Iv.).  And  St.  Jerome, 
“  Singuli  Ecclesiarum  episcopi,  singuli  archi- 
presbyteri,  &c.,  in  naA'i  unus  gubernator,  in 
domo  unus  dominus”  {E/Ast.  ad  Rustic.,  and  re¬ 
peatedly).  And  similarly  St.  Hilar.  Diac.  {in 
Phil.  i.  1,  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  &c.).  And  .Socrat.  vi. 

!  22  ;  Sozom.  iv.  15  ;  Theodoret,  ii.  17  (efs  0e^s,  ds 
I  Xpiarhs,  efs  iTr'iCKoiros),  and  iii.  4 ;  and,  above 
j  all.  Cone.  Nicaen.  a.d.  325,  can.  viii.  &c.  &c.  &c. 

■  And  to  the  same  effect  the  numerous  canons  for¬ 
bidding  the  intrusion  of  any  one  into  a  diocese  as 
bishop  during  the  lifetime  of  the  bishop  of  that 
^  diocese,  unless  the  latter  had  either  freely  re¬ 
signed  or  been  lawfully  deposed.  The  seeming 
exceptions  to  this,  indeed,  proA^e  the  rule.  Merely 
I  as  a  temporary  expedient,  in  order  to  heal  a 
schism,  the  Catholic  bishojxs  in  Africa  offered  to 
share  their  .sees  with  the  Donatist  bishops  {Collat. 

!  Carthag.  1  die  c.  xau.  in  Labbe,  ii.  1352);  as  Me- 
letius  long  before  had  propo.sed  to  Paulinus  at 
Antioch  to  put  the  Gospels  on  the  episcopal 
throne  Avhile  they  two  should  sit  on  either  side 
as  joint  bishops  (Theodoret,  au  3)  :  the  propo.sal 
dropping  to  the  ground  in  both  cases.  See  also 
AAffiat  is  said  aboA'e  of  coadjutors  ;  and  the  conjec¬ 
ture,  not  hoAvever  solidly  grounded,  of  Hammond 
and  others,  respecting  tAvo  joint  bishops,  respec- 
ti\"ely  for  Jews  and  Gentiles,  in  .some  cities  in 
Apostolic  times  (see  Bingh.  II.  xiii.  3).  It  must  be 
added,  hoAveA'er,  that  Epiphanius  {Haer.  Ixviii.  6) 
does  say  that  Alexandria  never  had  tAvo  bishops, 
a>s  al  Tr6\€is.  On  the  other  side,  two  sees 

to  one  bishop  was  equally  against  all  rule.  The 
text,  “  Unius  uxoris  virum,”  says  the  Ee  Diyn. 
Sacerd.  (c.  iv.  inter  Opjp.  S’.  Am'mos.),  “  si  ad 
altiorem  sensum  comscendimus,  inhibet  episcopum 
duas  usurpare  Ecclesias.”  And  later  Avriters, 
e.  g.  Hincmar,  work  the  same  thought  Avith  still 
greater  A'ehemence,  and  loudly  inveigh  against 
spiritual  adultery.  And  apart  from  this  exalted 
Auew,  the  canon  of  Chalcedon,  which  forbids  a 
clergyman  being  inscribed  upon  the  roll  of  tAA’o 
dioceses,  was  (very  reasonably)  held  to  include 
bishops.  The  exceptional  cases  indeed  of  Inter- 
ventores,  and  of  the  temporary  “commendation” 
of  a  diocese  to  a  neighbouring  bishop  [Ixter- 
VENTORES,  Commenda],  occur,  the  fo  mer  in  the 
early  African  Church,  the  latter  as  early  as  St. 
Ambros.e  himself  {Epist.  xBa'.).  And  a  case  occurs 
in  St.  Basil  the  Great’s  letters  (290  and  292), 
where  a  provincial  synod,  under  urgent  necessity, 
and  not  without  A'ehement  opposition,  by  a  dis¬ 
pensation  (t5  rrjs  otKopofxlas  ava-yfioiov),  allowed 
a  bishop,  promoted  to  the  metropolitan  see  of 
Armenia,  to  retain  his  previous  see  of  Colonia. 
And  Gregory  the  Great  in  several  cases  joined 
together  in  Italy  ruined  or  impoveri.shed  or  de¬ 
populated  sees.  St.  Medard  also,  in  532,  united 
the  sees  of  Noyon  and  Tournay,  upon  the  urgency 
of  his  metropolitan  and  comprovincial  bishops, 
and  of  the  king,  nobles,  and  people  (Sui  ius,  in 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


235 


V.  S.  Med.  Jun.  8).  But  pluralities,  in  the  sense 
of  two  or  more  previously  independent  bishoprics 
held  together  for  merely  personal  reasons,  do  not 
seem  to  have  crept  in  until  early  Carlovingian 
times ;  when,  e.  g.,  Hugh,  son  of  Drogo,  became 
archbishop  of  Rouen,  a.d.  722,  and  added  thereto 
subsequently  the  sees  of  Paris  and  Bayeux,  besides 
the  abbeys  of  Jumieges  and  Fontanelles  (^Chron. 
Gemmetic.^  for  no  other  apparent  reason  than  that 
he  was  nephew  of  Pipin  the  Elder.  In  England, 
the  first  case  was  that  of  St.  Dunstan,  who  held 
Worcester  and  Loudon  together,  in  order  no  doubt 
to  further  his  monastic  schemes,  A.D.  957-960. 
And  this  is  followed  by  the  well-known  series  of 
archbishops  of  York  who  were  also  bishops  of 
Worcester,  from  972  to  1023 ;  and  this,  again, 
by  the  union  of  the  same  unfortunate  see  of  Wor¬ 
cester  to  that  of  Creditou  in  the  episcopate  of 
Living,  1027-1046.  The  union  of  other  prefer¬ 
ment,  as  of  deaneries  or  abbeys,  to  bishoprics, 
began  much  about  the  like  period,  when  circum¬ 
stances  tempted  to  it.  And  for  two  abbeys  held 
together,  see  Aubat.  The  apparent  exception  of 
the  province  of  Europa  in  Thrace  in  earlier  times, 
in  which  two  bishops  wei’e  allowed  upon  their 
own  petition  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (a.d.  431, 
Act.  vii.  sub  finem)  to  hold  each  two,  and  in  one 
case  more,  bishoprics  together,  on  the  ground  that 
those  bishoprics  had  always  been  held  together, 
brings  us  rather  to  the  previous  enquiry  respect¬ 
ing  the  size  of  dioceses,  and  whether  necessarily 
limited  to  one  city  and  its  dependent  country, 
and  if  so,  of  what  size  the  city  must  be. 

(a.)  xiv.  And  here,  there  being  no  principle 
involved  beyond  that  of  suitableness  in  each  case 
to  the  particular  locality,  and  the  original  diocese 
in  each  case  being  the  great  city  of  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood  with  so  much  of  its  dependent  country 
and  towns  as  was  converted  to  the  faith,  questions 
necessarily  arose,  as  the  district  became  com¬ 
pletely  Christianized,  and  were  determined  in 
dirterent  ways  in  different  places,  as  to  the  sub¬ 
division  of  the  original  v^aguely  limited  diocese. 
In  some  countries  that  subdivision  was  carried 
so  far  as  to  call  forth  prohibitions  against  placing 
bishops  eV  Kdo/xrj  rivi  ^  iv  TrdAet  (^Conc. 

i'ardic.  A.D.  347,  can.  vi.) ;  or  again,  eV  rals  K(i- 
/lais  Kai  eV  raTs  (^Conc.  Laodic.  about  A.D. 

366,  can.  Ivii.),  which  latter  canon  perhaps  only 
prohibits  chorepiscopi.  Leo  the  Great  also  vehe¬ 
mently  condemns  the  erecting  sees  “  in  castellis,” 
&c.,  in  Africa  (^Epist.  Ixxxvii.  c.  2).  And  it  was 
made  an  objection  to  the  Donatists  that  (to  multi¬ 
ply  tlieir  numbers)  they  consecrated  bishops  “  in 
villis  et  in  fundis,  non  in  aliquibus  civitatibus  ” 
{Collat.  Garth,  c.  181;  Labbe,  ii.  1399).  The 
prohibition  is  repeated  in  later  times,  as  by  Pope 
Gregory  III.  A.D.  738,  and  Pope  Zacharias,  A.D. 
743.  The  pi'actice  however  had  continued  never¬ 
theless  ;  as  is  obvious  by  St.  Greg.  Naz.,  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom,  Synesius,  and  others,  quoted  in  Bingh.  II. 
xii.  2,  3;  and  by  Sozomen  (vii.  19),  stating,  but 
as  an  exceptional  case,  that  iarXv  (i-mj  kuI  iv 
Kcoixais  iiriaKOiroL  Upovvrai,  ws  Trapo  'Apafilois 
Kal  Kvirplois  eyvwv.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
conversion  of  the  German  and  other  European 
nations,  as  it  were,  wholesale,  upon  the  conver¬ 
sion  of  their  kings,  led  in  a  large  part  of  northern 
Europe  to  sees  of  nations  I'ather  than  cities,  and 
to  sees  therefore  of  often  unwieldy  extent.  E.  g., 
in  Scythia,  TroAXat  ir6\fis  ovres  'S.Kvdai  eva  irdvres 
iirioKUToy  (^^^om.  vii.  19  ;  and  see  also  vi. 


21);  viz.  the  Bishop  of  lomi.  In  the  older  coun¬ 
tries  it  might  obviously  happen,  very  naturallv, 
that  (as  in  the  province  of  Europa)  two  or  more 
towns  or  “  civitates  ”  of  small  but  nearly  equal 
size  might  come  to  be  united  in  one  diocese,  of 
which  yet  neither  of  them  could  claim  to  be  pre¬ 
eminently  the  city.  Just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  Soz¬ 
omen  tells  us,  that  Gaza  and  I\Iajuma,  being  two 
“  civitates  ”  (although  very  small  ones)  and  also 
two  bishoprics,  were  united  by  the  emperors 
into  one  “  civitas,”  yet  remained  two  bishoprics 
still  (v.  4).  The  actual  number  of  bishops  in  the 
time  of  Constantine  is  reckoned  by  Gibbon  as 
1800,  of  whom  1000  were  Eastern,  800  Western. 
The  authority  for  subdivision  was  “  voluntas 
episcopi  ad  quern  ipsa  dioecesis  pertinet,  ex  con- 
silio  tamen  plenario  et  primatis  authoritate  ” 
(Ferrand.  Breviar.  xiii.  in  Justell.  Bibl.  Jur.  Can. 
i.  448).  See  also  Cone.  Carthag.  II.  A.D.  397,  can. 
V.,  and  III.  A.D.  397,  can.  xlii.  (Labbe,  ii.  1160, 
1173),  and  St.  Aug.  Epist.  cclxi.,  respecting  his 
erecting  the  see  of  Fussala  with  the  consent  of 
the  primate  of  Numidia.  The  consent  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome  was  not  asked  or  thought  of, 
until  in  the  West  in  the  time  of  St.  Boniface,  and 
even  then  it  was  chiefly  in  respect  to  newly  con¬ 
verted  countries.  Com2)are  the  well-known  his¬ 
tory  of  Wilfrid  in  England  in  the  end  of  the  7th 
century,  the  action  of  Pojoe  Formosus  a  century 
later  in  respect  to  the  same  country,  and  the 
history  of  Nominoii  and  the  Breton  sees  in  845. 
The  Pope’s  consent  became  needful  about  the 
time  of  Gregory  V.  The  consent  of  the  king 
became  also  necessary  from  the  commencement 
of  the  Frank  kingdom,  and  in  Saxon  England. 
While  in  the  East  the  absolute  power  of  erecting 
new  sees  accrued  to  the  emperors  solely,  without 
respect  to  diocesan  bishop,  metropolitan,  council, 
or  any  one  else  (Thomassin,  De  Marca,  &c.).  An 
exceptional  African  canon  {Cod.  Can.  Afric.  cxvi.), 
in  order  to  reconcile  Donatists,  allowed  any  one 
reclaiming  a  place,  not  a  bishop’s  see,  to  retain  it 
tor  himselt  as  a  new  and  separate  bishopric  upon 
a  prescription  of  three  years.  And  so  again  in 
Sixiin,  according  to  Cone.  Tolet.  A.D.  633,  can. 
xxxiv.,  and  Cone.  Emerit.  A.D.  666,  can.  viii.,  thirty 
years’  undisturbed  possession  by  one  bishoji,  of 
what  had  previously  been  a  part  of  another’s 
bishopric,  constituted  a  prescriptive  right  on  be¬ 
half  of  the  possessor.  The  Cone.  Chaleed.  A.D.  451, 
can.  xi.,  had  fixed  the  same  period.  Tiie  union  of 
sees  was  subject  to  the  same  rules  with  the  sub¬ 
division  of  them.  There  were  in  England  no  in¬ 
stances  of  such  union  within  our  period,  except  in 
the  cases  of  the  temjwrary  sees  of  Hexham  and 
of  Whitherne,  and  of  the  })ossible  brief-lived  see 
of  Rij)on  ;  the  union  of  Cornwall  and  Devonshire 
being  of  considerably  later  date.  The  transference 
of  tlie  episcojjal  see  from  one  place  to  another  with¬ 
in  the  same  bishopric,  as  distinct  from  any  change 
of  the  limits  or  indejxmdency  of  the  bishopric 
itself,  seems  to  have  followed  a  like  rule  with 
the  larger  measures  of  union  or  division.  The 
bishop,  with  sanction  of  his  comprovincials,  and 
with  the  acquiescence  of  the  State,  was  sufficient 
authority  at  first  in  European  kingdoms  or  in  the 
East ;  as,  e.g.  in  the  shiftings  of  the  see  of  East 
Anglia,  or  of  that  of  Wessex,  &c.  The  consent 
of  the  Po2)e  came  to  be  asked  afterwards ;  as  in 
the  time  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  in  the  case 
of  the  removal  of  Crediton  to  Exeter,  or  in 
that  of  the  great  mowment  of  sees  from  smaller 


236 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


to  larger  towns  in  the  time  of  William  the  Con¬ 
queror  in  England  generally  ;  which  however 
were  both  of  them  done,  and  the  latter  of  the 
two  expressly,  “  by  leave  of  the  king.” 

(a.)  XV.  Finally,  bishops  were  required  to 
reside  upon  their  dioceses.  The  Council  of  Nice 
(can.  xvi.),  enjoining  residence  on  the  other  orders 
of  clergy,  plainly  takes  that  of  bishops  for  granted, 
and  as  needing  no  canon.  The  Council  of  Sardica, 
A.D.  347,  can.  xv.,  in  the  case  of  bishops  who 
have  private  property  elsewhere,  peimits  only 
three  weeks’  absence  in  order  to  look  after  that 
property,  and  even  then  the  bishop  so  absent  had 
better  reside,  not  on  his  estate  itself,  but  in  some 
neighbouring  town  where  there  is  a  church  and 
presbyter.  And  Cone.  Trull.  A.D.  691,  can.  Ixxx., 
deposes  a  bishop  (or  other  clerk)  who  without 
stroncT  cause  is  absent  from  his  church  three 
Sundays  running.  A  year’s  absence  from  his 
diocese  forfeited  the  see  altogether,  acc.  to  Jus¬ 
tinian’s  law  (at  first  it  had  forfeited  only  the 
pay,  Novell.  Ixvii.  *c.  2),  or  six  months  acc.  to 
Cone.  Constant.  A.D.  870  (see  above).  Presence  at 
a  synod  (which  was  compulsory)  was  of  course  a 
valid  reason  for  absence.  Bishops  however  were 
not  to  cross  the  sea,  acc.  to  an  African  rule  (^Cod. 
Can.  Afrie.  xxiii. ;  and  so  also  in  Italy,  Greg.  M. 
Epist.  vii.  8),  without  the  permission  and  the 
letter  (aTroAoTi/flj,  TeruTreo/^eVTj,  formata')  of  the 
primate ;  nor  to  go  to  the  emperor  without 
letters  of  both  primate  and  comprovincial  bishops 
(Gone.  Antioch,  a.d.  341,  can.  xi.).  Nor  were 
they  to  go  into  another  province  unless  invited 
{Cone.  Sardic.  can.  ii.);  nor  indeed  to  go  to  court 
at  all  unless  invited  or  summoned  by  the  emperor ; 
nor  to  go  too  much  “  in  canali  ”  or  “  canalio  ” 
(along  the  public  road)  “  ad  comitatum  ”  (to  the 
court)  to  j)resent  petitions,  but  rather  to  send 
their  deacon  if  necessary  (*6.  can.  ix.-xii).  Yet, 
A.D.  794,  by  Cone.  Franco/,  can.  Iv.,  some  four  and 
a  half  centuries  later,  Charlemagne  is  permitted 
to  have  at  court  with  him,  by  licence  of  the  Pope 
and  consent  of  the  synod,  and  for  the  utility  of 
the  Church,  Archbishop  Angelram  and  Bishop 
Hildebald.  Bishops,  again,  were  not  to  leave 
their  dioceses  “  negotiandi  causa,”  or  to  frequent 
markets  for  gain  (Cone.  Eliberit.  a.d.  305,  can. 
xviii.).  How  far  persecution  was  an  excuse  or 
reason  for  absence,  see  Persecution,  Martyrdom. 
St.  Augustin  excuses  an  absence  of  his  own  on 
the  ground  that  he  never  had  been  absent  “  licen- 
tiosa  libertate  sed  necessaria  servitute  ” 
cxxxviii.).  And  Gregory  the  Great  repeatedly 
insists  upon  residence.  And  to  come  later  still, 
Cone.  Franco/,  a.d.  794,  canons  xli.  xlv.,  renews 
the  prohibition  of  above  three  weeks’  absence 
upon  private  affairs.  And  Charlemagne  at  Aix 
(Capit.  Aquisgr.  a.d.  789,  c.  xli.)  restrains  the 
bishop’s  residence,  not  simply  to  his  see,  but  to 
his  cathedral  town  :  just  as  previous  Frank 
canons  repeatedly  enjoin  his  presence  there  at 
the  three  great  feasts  of  Easter,  Whitsunday, 
and  Christmas.  The  bishop,  too,  by  a  canon  of 
Cone.  Carthag.  IV.  a.d.  398,  can.  xiv.,  was  bound 
to  have  his  “  hospitiolum  ”  close  to  his  cathedral 
church.  The  sole  causes,  in  a  word,  that  were  held 
to  justify  absence,  were  such  as  arose  from  ser¬ 
vice  to  the  Church  ;  as  when  at  synod,  or  employed 
on  church  duties  elsewhere,  or  summoned  to 
court  on  church  business  or  for  Christian  pur¬ 
poses  (but  this  was  an  absence  jealously  watched  : 
see  Cone.  Sardic.  &c.  &c.  •  as  above).  Absence 


also  on  pilgrimage  was  seemingly,  yet  hardly 
formally,  acquie.sced  in.  And  a  journey  to  Pome 
(by  permission  of  the  pidnce)  would  ct»me  under 
the  same  class  of  exemption  as  the  attending  a 
synod.  By  the  time  of  Charlemagne,  moreover, 
the  office  of  Missi  Dominici,  and  other  State 
duties,  were  held  to  justify  at  least  temj)oraj-y 
non-residence. 

)8.  From  the  spiritual  office  of  the  bishop 
we  pass  to  his  joint  authority  when 
assembled  in  provincial  synod ;  and  this,  i.  as 
respects  the  consecration  of  bishops,  for  which 
see  above;  and,  ii.  as  a  court  of  ajtpeal  and  judi¬ 
cature  over  individual  bishops,  for  which  see 
Appeal,  Council,  Svnod  ;  and,  iii.  as  exercising  a 
general  juri.sdiction  over  the  province  ;  for  which, 
and  for  the  relative  rights  of  bishops  and  presby’- 
ters,  &c.  in  synod  assembled,  see  Council,  Synod. 

y.  Thirdly,  for  the  collective  authority  of 
bishops  assembled  in  general  council,  i.  as  re¬ 
spects  doctrine,  ii.  as  respects  discipline,  see 
Council,  Oecumenical. 

III.  (2.)  Over  and  above  the  spiritual  powers 
inherent  in  the  episcopate  as  such,  certain  tem¬ 
poral  POWERS  AND  privileges  were  conferred 
upon  the  bishop  from  time  to  time  by  the  State ; 
and  these,  partly,  in  his  general  capacity  as  of 
the  clergy  (for  which  see  Clergy),  partly  upon 
him  as  bishop. 

(i.)  'T\\q  judicial  authority  in  secular  causes  be¬ 
tween  Christians,  winch  attached  to  the  bishop 
as  a  matter  of  Christian  feeling,  became  gra¬ 
dually  an  authority  recognized  and  enlarged  by 
state  law.  See  details  under  Appeal.  He  was 
limited  in  the  Roman  empire  to  civil  causes,  and 
to  criminal  cases  that  were  not  capital,  and  almost 
certainly  to  cases  wffiere  both  parties  agreed  to 
refer  themselves  to  the  bishop.  In  England, 
however,  the  bishop  sat  w'ith  the  alderman  in 
the  Shire  Gemot,  twice  a  y'ear,  “  in  order  to  ex¬ 
pound  the  law  of  God  as  well  as  the  secular  law” 
(Eadgar’s  Laws,  ii.  5,  &c.  &c.) ;  an  arrangement 
to  which  (as  is  well  known)  William  the  Con¬ 
queror  put  an  end.  In  Carlovingian  France,  the 
bishop  and  the  comes  were  to  supj^ort  one  another, 
and  the  two  as  Missi  Dominici  made  circuits  to 
oversee  things  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  {Capnt. 
of  A.D.  789,  802,  806,  &c. ;  see  Gieseler,  ii.  240, 
Eng.  tr.).  Questions  relating  to  marriages,  and 
to  wills,  were  also  referred  to  the  bishops  by  the 
Roman  laws,  and  by  the  Carlovingian  (see  under 
Marriage,  Testament).  The  bishop  also  vv'as 
authorized  by  Cod.  Justin.  I.  iv.  25,  to  prohibit 
gaming ;  as  he  had  been  by  Cod.  Theod.  IX.  iii.  7, 
XVI.  X.  19,  to  put  down  idolatry ;  and  IX.  xvi.  12, 
sorcerers ;  and  XV.  viii.  2,  pimps.  He  had  also 
special  jurisdiction,  in  causes  both  civil  and  (sub¬ 
sequently)  criminal,  over  clergy,  monks,  and  nuns 
—  “  episcopalis  audieutia”  —  from  Valeutinian, 
A.D.  452  (^Novell,  iii.  de  Episc.  J^idicio),  and  from 
Justinian,  A.D.  539  (^Novell.  Ixxix.  and  Ixxxiii.,  and 
so  also  cxxiii.  c.  21)  ;  and  from  Heraclius,  a.d.  628 
(for  the  inclusion  of  criminal  cases,  see  Gieseler, 
ii.  119,  n.  14,  Eng.  tr.).  And  this  exemption 
of  the  clergy  from  civil  courts  was  continued  by 
Charlemagne  (Gieseler,  ib.  256). 

(ii.)  Bishops  also  became  members  of  the  great 
council  of  the  kingdom  in  all  the  European 
states;  the  result  of  such  amalgamation  being 
to  mersre  ecclesiastical  councils  to  some  extent 
in  civil  ones.  Their  political  position  had  also 
the  effect  of  rendering  them  more  despotic,  while 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


237 


it  made  them  at  the  same  time  more  worldly.  '  and  King  Aidan)  only  from  about  CarloA'ingian 
They  were  in  effect  nobles,  with  the  additional  times ;  in  the  East,  however,  from  the  emperor 
powers  of  a  monopoly  of  education  and  of  the  Theodosius,  A.D.  408  (see  Maskell’s  Dissert,  ia 
sanctity  of  their  office.  See  for  this  Guizot,  2Ion.  Eit.  iii.,  and  a  list  in  Moriuus,  de  Sac, 
Hist,  de  la  Civ.  en  France,  Lecon  13.  Ordin.  ii.  243;  and  Coronation,  Unction). 


(iii.)  Under  the  Roman  emperors  it  would  seem 
also  that  civil  magistrates  were  placed  in  a  cer¬ 
tain  sense  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop  in  ^ 
respect  to  their  civil  office.  Cone.  Arel.  a.d.  314,  j 
can.  vii.,  de  Praesidibus,  “  placuit  ut  cum  pro-  | 
moti  fuerint,  literas  accipiant  ecclesiasticas  com-  j 
municatorias :  ita  tamen  ut  in  quibuscunque 
locis  gesserint,  ab  episcopo  ejusdem  loci  cura  de 
illis  agatur  :  ut  cum  caeperint  contra  disciplinam 
publicam  agere,  turn  demum  a  communione  ex-  j 
cludautur  :  similiter  et  de  his  qui  rempublicam 
agere  volunt  ”  (Labbe,  i.  1427).  And  so  Socrates 
(vii.  13),  writing  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and 
Orestes  the  Fraefectus  Augustalis  of  Egypt.  The 
episcopal  power  of  excommunication  seemed  to 
afford  a  ground  for  this  authority.  And  so  St. 
Gresrorv  of  Nazianzum  declares  to  the  Avpdarai 
Kol  ''Apxopres,  that  6  too  Xpiarov  vopios  viroTi- 
Briffiv  v/xds  Tj7  ififj  Sopaerreia  Kul  e/xcp  ^rj/uari, 
k.t.A.  {Orat.  xvii.).  In  Spain,  at  a  later  period. 
Cone.  Tolet.  III.  a.d.  589,  can.  xviii.,  describes 
the  bishops  as  “  prospectores  qualiter  judices 
cum  populo  agant ,”  an  enactment  repeated  by 
Cone.  Tolet.  IV.  a.d.  633,  can.  xxxii.  And  a  con¬ 
stitution  of  Lothaire*’s  in  Fi-ance,  about  a.d.  559, 
enacts,  in  case  of  an  unjust  decision  by  the  civil 
judge,  that,  in  the  absence  of  the  king,  “  ab  epi- 
scopis  castigetur”  (Labbe,  v.  828).  And  this 
seems  to  have  been  based  upon  Justinian’s  Code 
(I.  iv.  26),  and  upon  Novell,  viii.  9,  Ixx.xvi.  1 
and  4,  cxxviii.  23  (see  Gieseler,  ii.  118,  119, 
Eng.  tr.) 

(iv.)  The  more  special  office  of  protecting  mi¬ 
nors,  widows,  orphans,  prisoners,  insane  people, 
foundlings,  in  a  word  all  that  were  distressed 
and  helpless,  was  also  assigned  to  bishops  ;  at 
first,  as  a  natural  adjunct  to  their  office  (see, 
e.  g.  Cone.  Sardic.  a.d.  347,  can.  vii. ;  St.  Jerome, 
ad  Ge^'unt.  [of  a  widow  protected  “  Ecclesiae 
praesidio”]  ;  St.  Ambros.  de  Offic.  ii.  29  ;  St.  Aug. 
Epist.  252  al.  217,  and  Serin.  176,  §  2);  after¬ 
wards  by  express  law  {Cod.  tit.  i.  c.  iv.  de  Episc. 
Audientia,  ii.  22,  24,  27,  28,  30,  38) ;  repeated 
further  on  by  Gallic  councils  {Aurelian.  Y.  A.D. 
549,  can.  xx. ;  Turon.  II.  A.D.  567,  can.  xxix.  ; 
Matisc.  II.  A.D.  585,  can.  xiv. ;  Franco/.  A.D.  794, 
can.  xl. ;  Arelat.  VI.  a.d.  813,  can.  xvii.);  and  by 
Spanish  ones  {Tolet.  III.  A.D.  589,  can.  xviii.); 
and  referred  to  in  Italy  in  the  letters  of  Gregory 
the  Great  frequently.  The  manumission  of  slaves 
belonging  to  the  Church  (e.  g.  Cone.  Agath.  A.D. 
506,  can.  vii.),  and  the  protection  of  freedmen(f6. 
oan.  xxix.,  and  Cone.  Aurelian.  V.  A.D.  549,  can. 
vii.  &c.),  were  also  permitted  and  assigned  to 
bishops  ;  and  this  not  only  in  Gaul  but  else- 
W'here  (see  Thomassin,  II.  iii.  87,  sq.).  And 
the  manumission  of  slaves  generally  was  often 
made  in  their  presence  (e.  g.  in  Wales  and 
England,  Counc.  I.  206,  676,  686,  Haddan  and 
Stubbs),  and  was  furthered  by  their  influence. 

(v.)  The  practice  of  anointing  kings  at  their 
coronation,  and  the  belief  which  grew  up  that 
the  right  to  the  crown  depended  upon,  or  was 
conveyed  by,  the  episcopal  unction,  added  further 
power  to  the  bishops.  But  this  began  in  the  West 
(if  we  except  the  allusion  in  Gildas  to  the  prac¬ 
tice,  and  the  well-known  case  of  St.  Columba 


(vi.)  Bishops  were  further  exempted  from  being 
sworn  in  a  court  of  justice,  from  Cone.  Chaleed. 
(a.d.  451,  Act.  xi.);  confirmed  by  Marcian  and 
by  Justinian  {Cod.  i.  tit.  iii.  de  Episc.  et  Cler. 

1.  7,  and  Novell,  cxxiii.  7);  the  privilege,  however, 
being  mixed  up  in  the  first  instance  with  the 
general  question  of  the  legality  of  oaths  at  all  to 
any  Christian.  And  this  privilege  was  repeated 
by  the  Lombard  laws  (L.  ii.  tit.  51,  and  L.  iii.  tit. 
1),  and  is  traceable  in  the  Capit.  of  Charlemagne 
(ii.  38,  iii.  42,  v.  197).  But  oaths  of  fidelity 
to  the  king  were  imposed  upon  bishops  by  Char¬ 
lemagne  (see  aboA’e).  It  was  extended  to  presby¬ 
ters  also  in  so-called  Egbert’s  Excerpts,  xix.  (9th 
century),  and  by  the  provincial  Council  of  Tribur 
(near  Mayence,  A.D.  895,  can.  xxi.)  ;  as  it  was 
always,  by  both  law  and  canon,  in  the  East,  acc. 
to  Photius  in  Nomocan.  tit.  ix.  c.  27,  and  Bal- 
samon,  ib.  Bishops  indeed  had  the  privilege  of 
not  being  summoned  to  a  court  to  give  evidence 
at  all,  from  at  least  Justinian’s  time  (as  above) ; 
possibly  from  that  of  Theodosius  {Cod.  lib.  xi.  tit. 
xxxix.  de  Fide  Testium,  1.  8) ;  but  the  latter  law 
is  taken  to  mean  only  that  a  clergyman  chosen 
to  act  as  arbiter  could  not  be  compelled  to  give 
account  of  his  decision  to  a  civil  tribunal  (see 
Bingh.  V.  ii.  1).  The  value  of  a  bishop’s  evidence, 
and  that  not  on  oath,  was  also  estimated,  accord¬ 
ing  to  a  very  suspicious  law  assigned  to  Theodosius 
{Cod.  xvi.  tit.  xii.  de  Episc.  Audient.  1.  1),  as  to 
be  taken  against  all  other  evidence  whatever ; 
and  certainly  was  ranked  by  Anglo-Saxon  laws 
(Wihtred’s  Dooms  xvi.')  with  the  king’s,  as 
“  incontrovertible.”  See  also  Egbert’s  Dialogus, 
Besp.  i. ;  and  a  fair  account  of  “  compurgation,” 
as  required  or  not  required  of  the  clergy,  in 
H.  C.  Lea’s  Superstition  and  Force,  pp.  30,  sq. 
Philadelphia,  1870.  Gregory  of  Tours,  when 
accused,  condescended,  “  regis  causa  ”  and  “  licet 
canonibus  contraria,”  to  exculpate  himself  by 
three  solemn  denials  at  three  several  altars ; 
although  it  was  held  superfluous  for  him  to  do 
this,  because  “  non  potest  persona  inferior  ” 
[which  was  the  case  here]  “  super  sacerdotem 
credi.”  Cone.  Meld.  a.d.  845,  can.  xxxvii.  forbids 
bishops  to  swear.  And  the  Capit.  of  Carolus 
Calvus,  A.D.  858  {Cone.  Carisiac.  c.  xv.)  is  ex¬ 
press  in  forbidding  episcopal  oaths  upon  secular 
matters,  or  in  anything  but  a  case  of  “scan- 
dalum  Ecclesiae  suae.”  The  office  of  Advoentus 
Ecclesiae,  among  other  things,  w'as  connected 
with  this  inability  to  be  swmrn.  See  also  II.  C. 
Lea,  as  above. 

(vii.)  Bishops  had  also  a  privilege  of  intercession 
for  criminals  in  capital  or  serious  criminal  cases; 
which  the  Council  of  Sardica  regards  as  a  dutv 
on  their  part  calling  for  frequent  exerci>e  : 
‘'ETret  TToWaKls  <To/j.fiaiP€i  Tipas  .  .  .  Ka-ra^uyiip 
iirl  TT]P  'EKKXrjO'lap  .  .  .  to7s  toiqvtois  /xt;  app-q- 
Ttap  elpai  ryp  ^ondeiap,  dwd  /tif  AAtj'T/xoO, 

K.T.X.  (can.  vii.,  transportation  and  banishment 
to  an  island  being  the  penalties  named).  As 
an  office  naturally  as  well  as  legally  attached  to 
the  episcopate,  such  intercession  is  mentioned  by 
St.  Ambrose,  by  St.  Augustin  (interceding  for 
the  Circumcellions,  Epist.  clviii.  and  (dx.),  by 
St.  Jerome  {ad  Nepot.,  Epist.  xxxiv.),  by  Socratea 


238 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


(v.  14,  vii.  17).  It  did  not  extend  to  pecuniary 
causes,  on  the  ground  that  in  these  to  help  the 
one  side  would  be  to  injure  tlie  other  (St.  Ainbros. 
de  Offic..  iii.  9).  It  is  mentioned  later  still  by 
Snip.  Severus,  Dial.  iii.  of  St.  Martin,  by  Eu- 
nodius  of  St.  Epiphanius  of  Ticinum,  &c.  Restric¬ 
tions,  however,  are  placed  upon  the  (admitted) 
right  by  Cod.  Theod.  (IX.  tit.  xl.  cc.  16,  17), 
renewed  by  Justinian  (I.  tit.  iv.  De  Episc.  Audient. 
1.  6),  and  again  by  Theodoric  in  Italy  (^Edict.  c. 
114):  free  access  being  given  nevertheless  to 
bishops  to  enter  prisons  with  a  view  to  such 
“  interventiones  ”  (Append.  Cod.  Theod.  c.  xiii.). 
And  Charlemagne  gives  authority  to  bishops  to 
obtain  pardon  for  criminals  from  the  secular 
judges  at  the  three  great  festivals  (Capit.  vi.  106). 
A  series  of  councils,  mostly  in  Gaul,  had  put 
limits,  before  Charlemagne,  to  the  Church’s  right 
of  protecting  criminals.  See  Church,  Sanc¬ 
tuary. 

(viii.)  A  bishop’s  character,  life,  and  property, 
were  also  placed  under  special  legal  protection  : 
(1.)  By  the  canons,  rejecting  the  evidence  of  a 
heretic  altogether,  and  requiring  more  than  one 
Christian  lay  witness,  against  a  bishop  (Apost. 
Can.  Ixxiv.);  or  again,  rejecting  in  such  case  the 


heretics  or  heathens,  but  were  bound  to  leave 
them  by  will  to  the  Church  in  such  case  (Can. 
Eccl.  Afric.  48).  Justinian  also  allows  bishops 
to  leave  nothing  by  will  except  what  they  pos¬ 
sessed  before  being  ordained  bishops,  or  what 
might  have  accrued  to  them  since  that  time  by 
inheritance  from  kinsmen  up  to  the  4th  degree 
and  no  further;  all  else  to  go  to  the  Church,  or 
to  works  of  piety  (Cod.  I.  de  Episc.  et  Cler. 
1.  33) :  the  goods  of  a  bishop  dying  intestate  to 
go  wholly  to  the  Church  (i6.).  And  Gregory  the 
Great  acts  upon  a  like  rule.  And  in  Gaul,  Cone, 
Agath.  a.d.  506,  can.  vi.,  Epaon.  a.d.  517,  can. 
xvii.,  Paris.  III.  a.d.  557,  can.  ii.,  Lugdun.  II. 
A.D.  567,  can.  ii.,  contain  various  enactments 
founded  on  like  principles,  although  not  quite  so 
rigoi’ous.  So  likewise  Spanish  councils  from 
Cone.  Tarracon.  a.d.  516,  can.  xii..  Cone.  Valent. 
A.D.  524,  can.  ii.  iii.,  onwards  ;  carefully  guard¬ 
ing  the  right  of  the  Church  to  all  church  goods 
(especially,  it  must  be  owned,  in  the  matter  of 
limiting  the  manumission  of  slaves  belonging  to 
the  Church),  while  leaving  the  bishop’s  propertv, 
otherwise  acquired,  to  his  heirs.  And  all  these 
enactments  were  backed  by  a  strong  feeling  in 
I  favour  of  the  principle,  that  a  clergyman,  and 
evidence  of  one  known  to  be  guilty  of  crime  |  especially  a  bishop,  should  have  no  private  wealth, 
(Cone.  Carth.  II.  A.D.  390,  can.  vi.);  or  of  one 


but  should  give  up  all  to  the  Church  and  the 
poor  :  see  e.  g.  Possidius’  Life  of  St.  Augustin.  He 
was  to  have  “  vilem  supellectilem  et  mensam 
ac  victum  pauperem,”  acc.  to  Cone.  Carthag.  IV. 
A.D.  398,  can.  xv.  Nor  was  he  to  become  exe¬ 
cutor  under  a  will  (ib.  xviii.),  or  to  go  to  law 
“  pro  rebus  transitoriis  ”  (ib.  xix.).  But  see  for 
this  under  Clergy,  Poverty.  The  requirement 
of  the  royal  consent  to  a  bishop’s  will  in  England 
in  Norman  times  arose  from  a  totally  different 
source,  viz.  the  king’s  right  to  the  temporalties 
during  vacancy,  and  the  regarding  the  bishopric 
as  a  fee  in  the  feudal  sense.  See  also  the  parallel 
case  of  abbats,  under  Abbat.  (2.)  Acc.  to  Cone. 
Carthag.  a.d.  398,  can.  xvi.,  a  bishop  Avas  not  to 
read  “  gentilium  libros,  haereti corum  autem  pro 
necessitate  et  temjiore.”  But  see,  for  the  fluc- 
,  and  Capit.  Ludov.  Add.  \  tuations  of  the  dispute  respecting  classical  study 

and  the  reading  of  Pagan  writers,  Thomassin,  II. 
i.  92.  (3.)  For  prohibitions  about  hunting  and 

hawking,  and  social  matters  generally,  see 
Clergy.  (4.)  Under  the  Frank  kings  also,  and 
notably  under  Charlemagne  and  his  successoi*s, 
bishops,  who  with  the  other  clergy  enjojed  large 
exemptions  under  the  Roman  empire  (see  Clergy), 
became  liable  to  certain  duties,  arising  from  their 
wealth  and  position,  and  gradually  assuming  large 
proportions  as  the  feudal  system  grew  up  :  as, 
e.g.  annual  gifts  to  the  crown,  the  entertainment 
of  the  king  and  his  officers  on  progress  (jusgisti, 
jus  metatus,  &c.,  see  Du  Cange  sub  vocibus,  and 
Thomassin,  III.  i.  38,  sq.),  the  finding  soldiers  for 
the  emperor’s  service,  &:c.  &c.  But  feudal  dues 
belong  to  a  later  date.  Clergy  had  been  espe¬ 
cially  exempted  from  the  “jus  metatus”  under 
the  Roman  emperors. 

(xi.)  We  may  also  mention  here  the 
of  educating  boys  in  the  bishop’s  house 
ministry  (see  Possid.  in  V.  S.  Aug.,  and 
vi.  31,  speaking  respectively  of  Africa 
Egypt);  and  Cone.  Tolet.  II.  a.d.  531, 


cleric  or  lay,  without  previous  enquiry  into  the 
character  of  the  witness  himself  (Cone.  Chale. 
A.D.  451,  can.  xxi.) ;  which  provisions  occur  also 
in  Cone.  Constantin,  (a.d.  381,  can.  vi.),  with  the 
qualification  that  they  do  not  apply  to  suits 
against  a  bishop  touching  pecuniary  matters, 
but  only  to  ecclesiastical  cases.  (2.)  By  the  canons 
which  excommunicate  any  one  proved  to  have 
falsely  accused  a  bishop  (Apost.  Can.  xlvii.) ; 
extended  also  to  priests  and  deacons  by  Cone. 
Eliherit.  A.D.  305,  can.  Ixxv.  Under  the  Ger¬ 
manic  states  this  protection  was  carried  still 
further  (see,  e.  g.  for  Anglo-Saxon  laws,  Thorpe’s 
index,  vol.  i.';  and  across  the  Channel,  Leg.  Ala- 
mann.  cc.  x.  xii. ;  Leg.  Ljongob.  I.  ix.  27  ;  Leg. 
Baivvar.  i.  11 ;  and  Capit.  Carol,  et  Ludov.  lib.  vi. 
cc.  98,  127  ;  vii.  c.  362 
iv.  c.  3):  provisions  suggested  by  Justinian’s 
legislation  of  a  like  kind. 

How  far  bishops  were  exempt,  with  other 
clergy,  from  civil  jurisdiction,  see  under  Clergy. 
Justinian  gave  to  bishops  the  special  privilege, 
that  they  could  not  be  brought  before  the  civil 
magistrate  for  any  cause,  pecuniary  or  crimiiKil, 
without  the  emperor’s  special  order  (Novell. 
cxxiii.  1.  8). 

(ix.)  For  the  legal  force  attached  to  the  decrees 
of  (episcopal)  synods,  see  under  Council,  Synod. 

(x.)  In  addition  however  to  privileges  thus 
accorded  to  bishops  by  the  State,  their  office  as 
bishops  entailed  upon  them  also  certain  restric¬ 
tions  and  burdens,  partly  in  common  with  clergy 
generally  (for  which  see  Clergy,  Presbyters, 
&c.),  partly  peculiar  to  themselves,  or  belonging 
to  them  more  especially  than  to  the  clergy  of 
lower  rank.  As  (1)  in  the  disposal  of  their  pro¬ 
perty  by  will  :  wherein,  in  the  case  of  any  lands 
acquired  by  them  after  ordination,  they  were  re¬ 
quired  to  leave  such  lands  to  the  Church  (Cone. 
Carth.  III.  A.D.  397,  can.  xlix.),  and  could  only 
dispose  of  such  as  had  come  to  them  by  inheritance 
or  by  gift,  or  such  as  they  had  possessed  before 
ordination.  And  even  those  they  could  not  leave 
save  to  their  kinsfolk,  nor  to  them  if  they  were 


custom 
for  the 
Sozom. 
and  of 
can.  i. 


and  ii.,  and  IV.  a.d.  633,  can.  xxiv.  (regulating 
the  pi'actice  in  Spain) ;  and  Cone.  Turm.  V.  a.d. 
567,  can.  xii.  for  Gaul).  See  Thomassin,  III.  i. 
92-97. 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


239 


III.  (3.)  From  the  office,  we  pass  to  the  hono¬ 
rary  PRIVILEGES  and  rank  of  a  bishop  ;  of  whom 
in  general  the  Apost.  Constit,  (ii.  34)  declare, 
that  men  ought  rhv  fTr'KTKO-rrov  (rrepyeiv  ws  ira- 
r4pa,  <l)o$e7(TBai  ws  ^aai\4a,  rtpau  cbs  Kvpiov. 
but  no  doubt  many  of  such  privileges  belong 
to  Byzantine  times,  and  date  no  earlier  than  the 
3rd  or  4th  centuries  at  the  earliest.  And  here — 

(i.)  Of  the  modes  of  salutation  practised  to¬ 
wards  him  from  the  4th  century  onwards.  As, 

1.  bowing  the  head  to  receive  his  blessing — wtto- 
KXiveiv  K^cpaXriv — inclinare  caput :  see  Bingh. 

ll.  ix.  1,  and  Vales,  in  Theodoret.  iv.  6,  from 
St.  Hilary,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Ambrose,  &c. 
speaking  of  bishops  only  ;  and  a  law  of  Honorius 
and  Valentinian,  speaking  of  bishops  as  those 
“  quibus  omnis  terra  caput  inclinat.”  2.  Kiss¬ 
ing  his  hand  —  manus  osculari  (Bingh.  ib.  2, 
quoting  Sav^aro  on  Sidon.  Apollin.  Epist.  viii.  11). 

3.  Kissing  the  feet  also  —  pedes  deosculari  —  ap¬ 
pears  by  St.  Jerome,  Epist.  Ixi.  (speaking  of  a 
bishop  of  Constantina  in  Cyprus  ;  and  see  Casau- 
bon,  Exercit.  xiv.  §  4),  to  have  been  at  one  time  a 
mark  of  respect  common  to  all  bishops ;  being 
borrowed  indeed  from  a  like  custom  practised 
towards  the  Eastern  emperors.  The  deacon  is  to 
kiss  the  bishop’s  feet  before  reading  the  Gospel, 

acc.  to  the  Ordo  Romanus.  It  was  restricted 
to  the  Pope  as  regards  kings,  by  Gregory  VII. 

4.  The  forms  of  address,  and  the  titles  and  epithets, 
applied  to  bishops,  have  been  mentioned  already. 

(ii.)  The  insignia  of  a  bishop  were, — 1.  the 
mitre ;  seemingly  alluded  to  by  Eusebius,  x.  4, 
as  rhu  ovpdviov  rr\s  (rT(<pavov,  and  cer¬ 

tainly  mentioned  by  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  v.  under 
the  name  of  Kibapis,  and  by  Ammian.  Marcell, 
lib.  xxix.  under  that  of  “  corona  sacerdotalis,” 
yet  not  occurring  in  Pontificals  in  the  West  until 
after  the  lOth  century  (Menardus,  in  Du  Cange), 
and  not  reckoned  among  the  “  episcopalia  ”  even 
in  A.D.  633  (see  above) ;  while  in  the  East, 
Symeon  of  Thessalonica  tells  us  that  all  bishops 
officiated  with  bare  heads  except  the  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  who  did  then  wear  a  KiSapis]  and 
the  homily  attributed  to  St.  Chrysostom,  de  Uno 
Legislat.  (0pp.  vi.  410,  Montf.),  implies  that  there 
was  then  no  ridpa  or  Kopv^dvriov  appropriated 
to  bishops  at  their  consecration.  The  “  aurea 
lamina,”  however,  attributed  to  St.  John  by 
St.  Jerome  (de  Scriptt.  Eccl.),  and  by  Eusebius 
(irtraXoi',  iii.  31,  v.  24)  on  the  authority  of  Poly¬ 
crates, — and  again  by  Epiphanius  (Haer.  xxix.), 
on  that  of  Eusebius  and  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
to  St.  James  of  Jerusalem, — seem  to  favour  the 
supposition  that  some  kind  of  mitre  soon  became 
usual.  See  Maskell,  Mon.  Rit.  iii.  274.  [Mitre.] 

2.  The  ring,  peculiar  to  the  West,  and  alluded 
to  by  Optatus  (lib.  i.):  see  above,  and  under 
Ring.  3.  The  staff,  belonging  apparently  to 
patriarchs  in  the  East  (so  Balsamon),  and  of  a 
shape  to  supply  the  ordinary  uses  of  a  start', 
viz.  to  leali  upon ;  in  the  West,  growing  by  Car- 
lovingian  times  into  a  sceptre  of  some  seven 
feet  long,  occasionally  of  gold  (see  the  Monach. 

5.  Gall.  i.  19,  quoted  by  Thomassin,  I.  ii.  58);  so 
that  instead  of  golden  bishops  carrying  wooden 
staves,  there  had  conie  to  be  (acc.  to  a  saying 
quoted  by  Thomassin)  wooden  bishops  carrying 
golden  ones.  See  Staff.  The  two  last  named, 
the  ring  and  the  staff,  were  so  far  the  charac¬ 
teristic  insignia  of  a  bishop  before  the  time 
of  Charlemagne  as  to  become  the  symbols  by 


which  bishoprics  were  given  (see  above).  And 
they  are  recognized  as  such  a.d.  633  in  Spain, 
in  conjunction  with  yet  another,  viz.,  4.  the 
orarium :  for  which  see  Orarium.  5.  A  cross 
borne  before  him  was  peculiar  in  the  East  to  a 
patriarch ;  in  the  West  it  does  not  occur  until 
the  10th  century,  unless  in  such  exceptional 
cases  as  that  of  the  first  entry  of  St.  Augustin 
into  Canterbury,  a.d.  596  :  the  cross  of  gold  men¬ 
tioned  by  Alcuin  as  carried  about  with  him  by 
Willibrord  being  apparently  only  a  i)ectoral  cross. 
See  Cross.  6.  The  tonsure,  when  general  rules 
about  modestly  cut  hair,  &c.,  settled  into  formal 
rule  about  the  6th  century,  was  not  peculiar  in 
any  special  form  to  bishops :  see  Tonsure.  Nor 
yet,  7.  was  there  apparently  any  sj)eeial  dress 
for  bishops  apart  from  solemn  occasions  and  in 
ordinary  life,  during  the  period  with  which  this 
article  is  concerned  :  as  appears,  among  other 
evidence,  by  the  rebukes  addressed  by  popes  to 
the  Gallic  bishops  of  the  5th  century  onwards, 
who,  being  monks  before  they  were  bishops, 
I’etained  their  monastic  habit  as  bishops  (see  at 
length  Thomassin,  I.  ii.  43,  sq.).  For  the  vest¬ 
ments  used  during  divine  service,  see  Vestments. 

(iii.)  Singing  hosannas  before  a  bishop  on  his 
arrival  anywhere,  is  mentioned  only  to  be  con¬ 
demned  by  St.  Jerome  (in  Matt.  xxi.  0pp.  vii. 
174  b).  But  see  Vales,  ad  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  23; 
and  Augusti,  Denkwiird.  aus  der  Christl.  Archaeol. 
V.  218. 

(iv.)  The  form  of  addressing  a  bishop  by  tht 
phrase  corona  tua  or  vestra,  and  of  adjuring  him 
per  coronam,  frequent  in  St.  Jerome,  St.  Augus¬ 
tin,  Sidon.  Apollin.,  Ennodius,  has  been  explained 
as  referring  to  the  mitre,  to  the  tonsure,  or  to 
the  corona  or  consessus  of  the  bishop’s  presbyters. 
The  personal  natui’e  of  the  appellation  appears  to 
exclude  the  last  of  these.  Its  being  peculiar  to 
bishops  is  against  the  second.  While  the  objec¬ 
tion  taken  by  Bingham  against  the  fix’st,  viz. 
that  bishops  did  not  wear  mitres  at  the  period 
when  the  phrase  came  into  use,  seems  scarcely 
founded  on  fact.  And  the  bishop’s  head-covering 
was  also  certainly  called  “  corona,”  as  by  Am- 
raianus  Marcellinus.  At  the  same  time,  the 
phrase  after  all  possibly  means  nothing  more 
definite  than  “your  beatitude,”  or  “your  high¬ 
ness.” 

'(v.)  The  bishop’s  throne — 6p6vos,  6p6vos  dwo- 
(TToXiKds — or  (after  the  name  of  the  founder  of 
the  see)  6  MdpKov  6p6uos,  for  Alexandria,  &c. — 
0rifj.a — 9p6uos  vif/rjXds,  in  contradistinction  to  the 
“  second  throne  ”  of  the  presbyters — “  linteata 
sedes”  (Pacian.  ad  Sempron.  ii.) — “  cathedra  ve- 
lata  ”  (St.  Aug.  cciii). — 6p6vos  i(rToKi(T(x4vos 

iirKTKOTnKws  (St.  Athan.  Apolog.) — was  alsoamark 
of  his  dignity.  The  Council  of  Antioch,  a.d.  364, 
condemns  Paul  of  Samosata  for  erecting  a  very 
splendid  throne,  like  a  magistrate’s  tribunal 
(Euseb.  II.  E.  vii.  30).  See  also  above  in  this  ar¬ 
ticle  under  Enthronization.  By  C(mc.  Carthag.  IV. 
A.D.  398,  canons  xxxiv.  xxxv.,  a  bishop  is  enjoined 
that,  as  a  rule  of  courtesy,  “  quolibet  loco  sedens, 
stare  presbyterum  non  patiatur;”  and  that  al¬ 
though  “in  Ecclesia  et  in  consessu  presbyterorum 
sublimior  sedeat,  intra  domum  .  .  .  collegam  se 
presbyterorum  esse  cognoscat.”  During  prayers, 
according  to  the  Arabic  version  of  the  Nicene 
canons  (Ixii.),  the  bishop’s  place  in  church  was 
“in  fronte  templi  ad  medium  altaris  ”  (Labbe, 
li.  334). 


240 


BISHOP 


BISHOP 


(vi.)  If'  we  are  to  take  the  pretended  letter 
of  Pope  Lucias  (Labbe,  i.  7‘21)  to  be  worth  any¬ 
thing  as  evidence  in  relation  to  later  times,  the 
bishoj)  of  Rome  was  habitually  attended  by  two 
presbyters  or  three  deacon;,  in  order  to  avoid 
scandal. 

IV.  (1.)  The  relation  of  bishops  to  each  other 
was  as  of  an  essentially  equal  office,  however  dif¬ 
ferenced  individuals  might  be  in  point  of  in¬ 
fluence,  &c.,  by  personal  qualifications  or  by  the 
relative  importance  of  their  sees.  St.  Cyprian’s 
view  of  the  “  unus  episcopatus  ” — the  one  cor¬ 
poration  of  whicli  all  bishops  are  equal  mem¬ 
bers — is  much  the  same  with  St.  Jerome’s  well- 
known  declaration  (^Ad  Evungel.  Epist.  ci.),  that 
“  ubicunque  fuerit  episcopus,  sive  Romae  sive 
Eugubii,  ....  ejusdem  meriti,  ejusdem  est  et 
sacerdotii.”  And  a  like  principle  is  implied  in 
the  litterae  communicatorixc  or  synodicae, — avy- 
•ypdufLo.Ta  koivuvikol,  sometimes  called  litterae  en- 
thronisticae,  crvWa0u\  ivQpovKTTiKaX, — by  which 
each  bishop  communicated  his  own  consecration 
to  his  see  to  foreign  bishops  as  to  his  equals 
(Bingh.  II.  xi.  10).  The  order  of  precedence 
among  them  was  determined  by  the  date  of  con¬ 
secration  (see,  e.  g.  the  Cod.  Can.  Evcl.  Afric. 
Ixxxvi.,  Cone.  Bracar.  II.  A.D.  563,  can.  vi.,  and 
Tolet.  IV.  A.D.  633,  can.  iv.,  and  Bracar.  IV. 
A.D.  675,  can.  iv. ;  and  the  English  Council  of 
Hertford,  A.D.  673,  can.  viii.  ;  and  Justinian’s 
Cod.  I.  tit.  iv.  1.  29 ;  and  above  under  I.  3.  S). 
But — 

(2.)  This  equality  Avas  gradually  undermined 
by  the  institution  of  meti’opoiitans,  archbishops, 
primates,  exarchs,  patriarchs,  pope :  for  each  of 
whom  .see  the  seA’eral  articles. 

(3.)  HoweA'er,  apart  from  this,  there  came  to  be 
special  distinctions  in  particular  Churches  :  as, 
e.  g.  in  Mauritania  and  Numidia  the  senior 
bishop  was  “  primus  but  in  Africa  proper,  the 
bishop  of  Carthage  (Bingh.  II.  xvi.  6,  7);  and  in 
Alexandria  the  bishop  had  special  powers  in  the 
ordinations  of  the  suffragan  sees :  for  Avhich 
see  Alexandria,  (Patriarchate  of),  p.  48 ;  Me¬ 
tropolitan. 

(4.)  The  successiA'e  setting  up  of  metropolitans 
and  of  patriarchs  gaA'e  rise  to  exceptional  cases 
[AuTo/ce<^aAoi]  :  all  bishops  whateA’-er  having  been 
really  auro/cet^aAot,  i.  e.  independent  (save  sub¬ 
jection  to  the  synod),  before  the  setting  up  of 
metropolitans,  and  all  metropolitans  before  the 
establishment  of  patriarchs :  see  Bingh.  II.  xvdii. 
[autocephali.  Metropolitans,  Patriarchs.] 
Whether  there  continued  to  be  any  Idshop  any- 
Avhere,  avroK^epahos  in  such  sense  as  to  haA'e 
neither  patriarch  nor  metropolitan  nor  compro- 
A'incial  bishops,  appears  doubtful :  and  such  a 
case  could  only  occur,  either  in  a  country  Avhere 
there  Avas  but  one  bishop  (as  in  Scythia  in 
t’ne  5th  century),  or  as  a  temporary  state  of 
things  in  a  newly  conA'erted  country  :  see  Bingh. 
ih.  4. 

(5.)  For  Chorepiscopi,  in  contradistinction  from 
Avhom  we  find  in  Frank  times  Episcopi  Cathe- 
drales  (Du  Cange),  6.  for  Suffragans,  7.  for  Co¬ 
adjutors,  8.  for  Intercessores  and  Intertentores, 
and,  9.  for  Commendatarii,  see  under  the  several 
titles. 

V.  There  remain  some  anomalous  cases ;  as, 
(1.)  Episcopi  vacantes,  crxo^aioi, 

viz.  bishops  who  by  no  fault  were  without  a 
see,  but  who  degenerated  sometimes  into  cpi- 


'  scopi  vagi  or  atnhulantes,  avdXiSes,  or  ^OLKavr'i^oi 
(BatTKavTi^oi,  in  Synes.  Epist.  67),  vacant ivi , 
and  among  whom  in  Cariovingian  times,  and 
in  northern  P'rance,  “  Scoti  ”  enjoyed  a  bad 
pre-eminence.  Bishops  indeed  without  sees, 
either  for  missionary  purposes  to  the  heathen,  or 
merely  Ti/xrjs  eVe/cev  (Sozom.  A'i.  34,  ov  TrjAfcDS 
Tivds},  existed  from  the  time  of  the  Council  of 
Antioch,  A.D.  341,  can.  xix.  ;  and  see  Apost.  Can. 
xxxvi..  But  “Episcopi  A'agi,  A'agantes,  ambulantes, 
qui  parochiam  non  habent,”  are  condemned  by 
Cone.  Vermer.  a.d.  752  or  753,  can.  xiv.,  and 
Cone.  Vernens.  or  Vernovens.  a.d.  755,  can.  xiii.. 
Cone.  Calch.  A.D.  816,  can.  a'.,  and  Cone.  Meld. 
A.D.  845,  can.  x. ;  and  the  “  Scoti,  qui  se  dicunt 
episcopos  esse,”  by  Cone.  Cabillon.  II.  A.D.  813, 
can.  xliii.  Compare  the  case  of  the  early  Welsh 
and  Irish  (Scotch)  churches  for  honorary  bishops, 
j  and  again  for  the  custom  of  dioceseless  bi.shops. 
j  “  Episcopi  portatiles  ”  is  a  very  late  name  fox 
)  them  {Cone.  Lugd.  A.D.  1449). 

I  (2.)  For  the  bishop-abhats  or  bishop>-monhs,  prin¬ 
cipally  of  Celtic  monasteries,  but  also  in  some 
I  Continental  ones,  the  former  having  no  see  except 
j  their  monastery  (see  Arbat),  the  latter  being 
j  simply  members  of  the  fraternity  in  episcopal 
I  orders,  but  (anomalously)  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
j  their  abbat,  and  performing  episcopal  offices  for  the 
j  monastery  and  its  dependent  district :  see  Todd’s 
I  St.  Patrick;  Reeves’ edition  of  Adamnan’s  Life  of 
St.  Columba ;  Mabillon,  Annal.  Bened. ;  Martene 
and  Durand,  27ies.  Eov.  Anecd.  \'ol.  i.  Pref.  Five 
bishops  of  this  clas.s — “  episcopus  de  monasterio 
S.  Mauricii,  &c.  &c. —  Avere  at  Cone.  Attiniac. 
A.D.  765. 

(3.)  Episcopus  or  A.ntistes  Palatii,  was  an  epi¬ 
scopal  counsellor  residing  in  the  palace  in  the  time 
of  the  Carlovingians,  by  special  leave  (see  aboA-e, 
III.  1,  a.  xal).  For  the  court  clergy,  whether 
under  the  Roman  emperors  from  Constantine,  or 
under  the  Franks,  see  Thomassin,  II.  iii.  589, 
and  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  vol.  v.  pp.  144,  sq.  Eng. 
transl. 

(4.)  For  Episcopus  Cardinalis,  which  in  St.  Gre¬ 
gory  the  Great  means  simply  “  proprius,”  i.  e.  the 
duly  installed  (and  “  incardinated”)  bishop  of  the 
place,  see  Du  Cange,  and  under  Cardinalis. 

(5.)  Episcopus  Begionarius,  i.  e.  without  a  spe¬ 
cial  diocesan  city :  see  Regionarius. 

(6.)  Titular  bishops,  and  bishops  in  partibus  in- 
fdelium,  belong  under  these  names  to  later  times. 

(7.)  Episcopus  Ordinum,  in  Frank  times,  Avas  an 
occasional  name  for  a  coadjutor  bishop  to  assist 
in  conferring  orders  (Du  Cange). 

(8.)  For  the  special  and  singular  name  of  Libra, 
applied  to  the  suffragans  of  the  see  of  Rome,  see 
Libra. 

(9.)  For  lay  holders  of  bishoprics,  see  Commen- 
DATORS. 

(10.)  And,  lastly,  it  almost  needs  an  apology 
to  mention  such  mockeries  as  Episcopi  Fahiorum 
—  Innocent ium  —  Puerotnim  ;  all  too  of  later 
date  :  for  Avhich  see  Du  Cange. 

(Bingham  ;  Thomassin,  Yet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Dis- 
cipl. ;  Du  Pin,  de  Antigua  Eccles.  Disciplina 
Dissert. ;  Morinus,  de  Ordinibns ;  Van  Espen, 
Jus  Eccl.  Univ. ;  De  Marca,  de  Cone.  Eccl.  et  Imp., 
and  de  Primatu  Dissert,  ed.  Baluz. ;  Martene, 
de  Sacris  Ordinationibus ;  CaA*e,  Dissert.  07i  Anc. 
Ch.  Government ;  BrereAvood,  Patriarch.  Gov.  oj 
the  Church;  Bishop  Potter,  Disc,  cm  Ch.  Govern^ 
ment ;  Greenwood,  Cathedra  Petri.')  [A.  W.  Tl.] 


13IS0MUS 


BODY 


BISOMIT8,  a  sepulchre  capable  of  containing 
two  hollies  ((Tw/iara).  The  word  is  found  in 
inscriptions  in  Christian  cemeteries  at  Rome  and 
elsewhere,  as  in  one  found  in  the  cemetery  of 
Callixtus,  near  Rome  :  “  Bonifacius,  qui  vixit  annis 
xxiii.  et  ii.  (mens)es,  posilus  in  bisomum  in  pace, 
sibi  et  patr.  suo.”  [A.  N.J 

BISSEXTILE.  [Chronology.] 

BITEKRENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Beziers, 
Council  of.] 

BITURICENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Bourges, 
Council  of.] 

BLANDINA,  martyr  at  Lyons  under  M. 
Aarelius;  commemorated  June  2  (^Mart.  Rom. 
Yet.).  [C.] 

BLASIUS,  or  BLAVIUS  (St.  Blaise), 
bishop,  martyr  at  Sebaste  (circ.  320) ;  comme¬ 
morated  Feb.  15  (^Mart.  Ro))i.  Vet.)\  Feb.  11 
(6'u/.  Byzcint.)]  Jan,  15  ((7a/.  Armen.).  [C.] 

BLASPHEMY :  lit.  “  defamation,’’  and  to 
blaspheme^  B^dirreip  rr]y  “  to  hurt  the 

rej)utation  :  to  reproach  or  speak  injuriously  of 
another;”  which  is  the  meaning  of  both  words 
in  Plato,  Demosthenes,  Isocrates,  and  other  sub¬ 
sequent  writers,  where  they  occur :  particularly 
the  LXX.  translators  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Accordingly,  when  the  Proconsul  bade  St.  Poly- 
carp  revile  Christ,  the  answer  was,  “  How  can  I 
blaspheme  ” — that  is,  speak  evil  of — “  the  King 
who  has  saved  me  ?  ”  (Euseb.  E.  IF.  iv.  15).  By 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  this  word 
would  seem  appropriated  to  any  wickedness  said 
or  done  against  God,  especially  where  used  with¬ 
out  adjuncts,  as  the  Jews  said  of  our  Lord, 
“This  man  blasphemeth  ”  (Matt.  ix.  3),  and 
St.  Paul  of  his  own  doings  at  one  time,  “  I  com¬ 
pelled  them  to  blaspheme”  (Acts  xxvi.  11);  and 
it  is  the  wilful  and  persistent  commission  of  this 
act  against  the  Third  Person  in  the  Godhead,  or 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  denounced  by  our  Lord 
Himself  as  the  one  sin  or  blasphemy  which  is 
never  forgiven  (Mark  iii.  29  :  cf.  Heb.  vi.  4-7 
and  1  John  v.  16),  on  which  see  Bingham  at 
great  length  (xvi.  7,  3  ;  cf.  Bloomfield  on  Matt, 
xii.  31).  He  had  previously  shewn  that  “  blas¬ 
phemy  ”  was  by  the  primitive  Church  placed 
first  of  the  sins  against,  the  third  Command¬ 
ment  ;  for  which  reason  it  was,  doubtless,  that 
all  Christians  are  forbidden  by  the  15th  African 
canon  to  frequent  places  where  blasphemy  was 
used.  Very  rarely  the  word  occurs  in  a  good 
sense  for  s.alutary  chiding  or  remonstrance  ;  see 
Liddell  and  Scott’s  Xe.ncon  for  its  classical,  and 
Schleusner’s  Lexicon  and  Suicer’s  Tkes.  for  its 
Scriptural  and  ecclesiastical  senses.  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

BLESSIN(t.  [Benediction.] 

BLIND,  HEALING  OF  (in  Art).  The 
healing  of  the  blind  is  frequently  represented 
on  ancient  monuments,  perhaps  as  a  symbolical 
re])iesentation  of  the  opening  of  the  eye  of 
the  soul  wrought  by  the  power  of  the  Saviour 
(1  Pet.  ii.  9).  See  Bottari,  Sculture  e  Pittu7'e^ 
tav.  xix.  xxxii.  xxxix.  xlix.  Ixviii.  cxxxvi. ;  Millin, 
Friuli  de  In  France^  Ixv.  5. 

In  most  cases  only  one  blind  man,  probably 
the  “  man  blind  from  his  birth  ”  of  St.  John  ix.  1, 
13  oeing  healed.  He  is  generally  represented 
little  or  stature,  to  mark  his  inferiority  to  the 
Saviour  and  the  Apostles  (when  any  of  the  latter 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


2dl 

are  intioduced),  is  shod  with  .sandals  and  bears 
a  long  staff  tc  guide  liis  steps.  The  Saviour, 
young  and  beardless,  touches  his  eyes  with  the 
fore-finger  of  the  right  hand.  This  representation 
is  found  on  an  antique  vase  given  by  Mamachi 
(^Origines,  v.  520),  on  an  ivory  casket  of  the 
fourth  or  fifth  century,  engraved  by  D’Agincourt 
{Sculpture,  pi.  xxii.  No.  4);  in  a  bas-relief  of  a 
tomb  of  the  Sextian  family,  in  the  miuseum  of 
Aix  in  Provence,  of  about  the  same  epoch  {FYance 
FHttoresque,  pi.  cxxxvii.)  ;  and  elsewhere. 

In  a  few  cases  (e.g.  Bottari,  tav.  cxxxvi.), the 
blind  man  healed  appears  to  be  Bartimaeii.s,  from 
the  circumstance  that  he  has  “  cast  away  his 
garment”  (Igdriop,  Mark  x.  50)  before  throwing 
himself  at  the  feet  of  Jesus. 

On  a  sarcophagus  in  the  Vatican  (Bottari, 
xxxix.  see  woodcut)  is  a  rejiresentation  of  the 
healing  of  two  blind  men  ;  probably  the  two  who 


Healing  of  Two  Blind  Men.  From  an  ancient  Sarcophagns. 

were  healed  by  the  Lord  as  Ho  left  the  house  of 
Jairus  (]\latt.  ix.  27-31).  Here,  too,  the  figures 
of  those  upon  whom  the  miracle  is  wrought  are 
of  small  size;  the  blind  appears  to  lead  the  blind, 
for  one  only  has  a  staff,  while  the  other  places 
his  hand  upon  his,  shoulder.  The  Lord  lays  His 
hand  upon  the  head  of  the  figure  with  the  staff, 
while  another,  probably  one  of  the  Apostles, 
raises  his  hand,  the  fingers  arranged  after  the 
Latin  manner  [Benediction],  in  blessing.  (Mar- 
tiguy,  Ekt.  des  Antiq.  Ch'et.)  [C.] 

BODY,  in  the  sense  contemplated  by  St.  Paul 
when  he  said  of  the  Church,  “  Which  is  Hit 
body  ”  (Eph.  i.  23),  meaning  Christ’s,  which  is 
expressed  further  on,  “  For  the  edifying  of  the 
body  of  Christ  ”  (iv.  12),  and  of  Christians  gene¬ 
rally,  “Ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members 
in  particular”  (1  Cor.  xii.  27).  The  Apostle,  we 
know,  spoke  (Acts  xxi.  37),  as  well  as  wrote, 
Greek  ;  but  being  a  Roman  citizen  (ib.  xxii.  27) 
he  probably  had  some  knowledge  of  Latin  as 
well :  and  it  is  to  this  circumstance,  therefore, 
that  we  must  ascribe  his  affixing  a  sense  to  the 
Greek  word  erw^ua,  long  before  aj)propriated  by 
its  Latin  equivalent  “corpus,”  but  which  it  had 
never  itself  shared  hitherto.  What  Greek  ears 
had  always  understood  hitherto  by  awga  was  a 
physical  or  material  body,  organic  or  inorganic, 
as  the  case  might  be;  and  occasionally  the  latter 
in  a  confused  mass,  as  “  body  of  water  ”  or  “  of 


f 


242 


BODY 


the  universe/'  But  “  corpus,”  besides  these 
senses,  had  for  some  time  been  familiar  to  Latin 
ears  as  denoting  a  combination  of  living  agents  in 
various  relations:  a  troop  of  soldiers,  a  guild 
of  artisans,  or  the  whole  body  politic;  of  these 
the  second  acceptation  was  beginning  to  be 
stereotyped  in  law,  where  “  corpora  ”  (corpo¬ 
rations)  quickly  became  synonymous  with  what, 
in  classical  literature,  had  been  known  as  “col¬ 
legia  ”  (colleges).  There  must  have  been  many 
such  in  existence  at  Rome  when  the  Apostle 
wrote  ;  and  they  were  extended,  in  process  of 
time,  to  most  trades  and  professions.  The  gene¬ 
ral  notion  attaching  to  them  was  that  of  “  a 
numbei  of  persons  ” — the  law  said,  not  fewer 
than  three — “  and  the  union  which  bound  them 
together  ”  (Smith’s  Diet,  of  Roman  and  Greek 
Antiq.  p.  255).  Tit.  1  of  B.  xiv.  of  the  Theodo- 
sian  Code  is  headed  “  De  Privilegiis  Corporato- 
rum  urbis  Romae,”  and  Tit.  14  of  B.  xi.  of  that 
of  Justinian  is  on  the  same  subject.  Writing 
from  Rome,  therefore,  where  such  “  bodies  ” 
abounded — his  own  craft  possibly,  that  of  tent- 
makers,  among  the  number — what  could  be 
more  natural  than  for  the  Apostle  to  apply  this 
designation  to  the  new  brotherhood  that  was 
forming,  and  then  paint  it  in  glowing  colours  to 
his  Ephesian  converts  as  a  corporation, ,  whose 
head,  centre,  and  inspiring  principle  was  Christ  ? 
He  was  the  union  that  bound  it  together 
and  supplied  it  with  life.  So  far,  indeed,  it 
stood  on  a  ditferent  footing,  and  required  to  be 
placed  in  a  ditferent  category  from  all  other 
corporations ;  still,  as  outwardly  it  resembled 
them,  might  it  not  also  be  described  in  terms 
which  they  had  been  beforehand  with  it  in  ap¬ 
propriating,  and  invested  with  a  new  idea  ? 
The  Apostle  authorised  this  for  all  languages  in 
communicating  the  adopted  sense  of  the  Latin 
W'ord  to  its  Gj-eek  equivalent.  Accordingly  with 
us  too  the  Church  of  Christ  is  both  spoken  of 
and  exists  as  a  corporation.  But  though  it  has 
many  features  in  common  with  all  such  bodies, 
it  has  essential  characteristics  of  its  own,  evi¬ 
denced  in  its  history  throughout,  which  are  not 
shared  by  any  other.  Their  agreement,  there¬ 
fore,  must  have  been  one,  not  of  identity,  but  of 
analogy,  to  which  the  Apostle  called  attention. 
And  this  is  clear  from  his  having  recourse  to 
other  kindred  analogies  elsewhere,  to  develop  his 
meaning.  “  The  husband,”  he  says,  “  is  the 
head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the  Head  of 
the  Church  ;  and  He  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body.” 
As  if  he  had  said,  “  Do  not  misunderstand  me : 
the  relation  of  the  church  to  Christ  is  not  merely 
that  of  corporations  in  general  to  the  principle 
which  binds  them  together:  itMs  closer  still.  It 
may  be  compared  to  the  marriage  tie,  described 
w’hen  first  instituted  in  these  solemn  wmrds : 
*7 hey  two  shall  be  one  flesh’  (Eph.  v.  23-32). 
Even  this  falls  short  of  my  full  meaning.  I 
would  have  you  ‘grow  up  into  Him  in  all 
things,  which  is  the  Head,  even  Christ,  from 
whom  the  whole  body  fitly  joined  together  and 
compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth, 
according  to  the  eflectual  working  in  the  mea- 
sure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body 
unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love’  (Eph.  iv. 
15,  16).  Realise  the  vital  connexion  that  sub¬ 
sists  between  the  head  and  members  of  each 
individual  man  ;  realise  the  depth  of  communion 
that  there  should  or  may  be  between  husband  | 


BODY,  MUTILATION  OF  THE 

and  wife  ;  realise  the  full  force  of  the  bond 
determining  the  character  and  cohesion  of  every 
society,  or  corporate  body  :  then  from  all  these 
collectively,  form  your  estimate  of  the  church  of 
Christ.  Each  of  them  illustrates  some  feature 
belonging  to  it  which  is  not  so  clearly  traced  in 
the  others ;  therefore  none  of  them  sino^lv  wull 
bear  overstraining,  and  all  together  must  not 
be  supposed  to  exhaust  the  subject.”  Unseen 
realities  cannot  be  measured  or  determined  by 
what  can  be  seen  or  felt.  “It  is  the  description 
of  a  man  and  not  a  state,”  said  Aristotle  of  the 
Republic  of  Plato,  in  which  every  body  could  say 
of  every  thing,  “it  is  my  property  ”  \Pol.  ii.  1). 
Spiritual  union  is  neitiier  political,  nor  conjugal, 
nor  physical,  nor  anything  earthly.  It  may  be 
illustrated  from  such  earthly  relations,  but  it 
transcends  them  all ;  nor  is  it  explained  really, 
when  called  “  sacramental,”  further  than  that 
it  is  then  asserted  to  have  been  assured  to  us 
by  what  are  called  in  theological — not  Scriptural 
— language,  the  Sacraments  of  the  Church.  As 
Hooker  says  :  “Christ  and  His  holy  Spirit  with  all 
their  blessed  effects,  though  entering  into  the  soul  of 
man  we  are  not  able  to  apprehend  or  express  how, 
do  notwithstanding  give  notice  of  the  times  when 
they  use  to  make  their  access,  because  it  pleaseth 
Almighty  God  to  communicate  by  sensible  means 
those  blessings  which  are  incomprehensible  ” 
{Eccl.  Pol.  V.  57,  3).  That  is  to  say,  when  such 
blessings  are  communicated  throusfh  the  Sacra- 
ments.  Another  writer  adds  :  “  We  are  told  in 
plain  and  indubitable  terms  that  Baptism  and 
the  Lord’s  Supper  are  the  means  by  which  men 
are  joined  to  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  therefore 
by  which  Christ  our  Lord  joins  Himself  to  that 
renewed  race  of  which  He  has  become  the  Head. 

.  .  .  These  facts  we  learn  from  the  express  state¬ 
ments  of  St.  Paul :  ‘For  by  one  Spirit  we  are 
all  baptized  into  one  body;’  and  again,  ‘We 
being  many  are  one  bread  and  one  body  :  for  we 
are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread.’  Herein  it 
is  expressly  declared  that  the  one  and  the  other 
of  these  Sacraments  are  the  peculiar  moans  by 
which  union  with  the  Body  of  Christ  is  bestowed 
upon  men.  They  are  the  ‘joints’  and  ‘bands’ 
whereby  the  whole  body  in  its  dependence  on  its 
Head  has  nouidshment  ministered  ”  (Wilber- 
force’s  Incarn.  p.  415).  .  .  .  Body,  then,  in 
the  sense  predicated  by  St.  Paul  of  the  Church, 
stands  for  a  multitude  of  singulars,  and  not  an 
abstraction.  It  means  the  collection  or  aggre¬ 
gate  of  Christian  souls  who,  cleansed,  quickened, 
and  inhabited  by  Christ,  form  one  brotherhood 
in  Him.  What  each  of  them  is  separately,  that 
all  of  them  are  collectively,  neither  more  nor 
less.  Numbers  cannot  affect  its  integrity.  To 
say  that  a  body  so  composed  is  one  is  to  say 
no  more  of  it  than  mu.st,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  be  said  of  every  body  corporate  with¬ 
out  exception.  The  fact  of  its  unity  resulting 
from  a  personal  union  of  each  of  its  members 
with  one  and  the  same  Person,  viz.  Him  who 
redeemed  them,  is  its  distinguishing  feature. 
“  From  the  oneness  of  His  Body  which  was 
slain,  results  the  oneness  of  His  body  which  is 
sanctified.”  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

BODY,  MUTILATION  OF  THE.  This 
subject  may  be  considered  under  three  aspects  in 
I'eference  to  Church  history;  1st,  in  respect  to 
its  bearing  upon  clerical  orders  ;  2nd,  as  a  crime 
I  to  be  repressed  ;  Brd^  as  a  form  of  punishment. 


BODY,  MUTILATION  OF  THE 

I,  The  Pentateuch  forbade  the  exercise  of  the 
priest’s  office  to  any  of  the  Aaronites  who  should 
haA’-e  a  “  blemish,”  a  term  extending  even  to  the 
case  of  a  “flat  nose”  (Lev.  xxi.  17-23);  whilst 
iniuries  to  the  organs  of  generation  excluded  even 
from  the  congregation  (Dcut.  xxiii.  1).  The 
Prophets  announce  a  mitigation  of  this  severity 
(Is.  Ivi.  3-5),  which  finds  no  place  in  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  our  Saviour  (Matt.  xix.  12),  nor  does  any 
trace  of  it  remain  in  the  I’ules  as  to  the  selection 
of  bishops  and  deacons  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
(1  Tim.  iii..  Tit.  i.).  Nevertheless,  the  Jewish 
rule  seems  to  have  crept  back  into  the  discipline 
of  the  Christian  Church, — witness  the  story  of 
the  monk  Ammonius  haAdng  avoided  promotion 
to  the  episcopate  by  cutting  off  his  right  ear, — for 
which  see  Soci'at.  H.  E.  iv.  23  (Baronius  indeed 
holds  him  to  have  been  eventually  ordained).  And 
one  of  the  so-called  Apostolical  Canons  (deemed 
probably  antecedent  to  the  Nicene  Council  of  a.d. 
325),  which  provides  that  one-eyed  or  lame  men, 
who  may  be  worthy  of  the  episcopate,  may  become 
bishops,  “  since  not  the  bodily  defect  ”  (AwjStj, 
translated  in  the  later  Latin  version  of  Haloander 
mutUatio),  “  but  the  defilement  of  the  soul, 
pollutes”  the  man  (c.  69,  otherwise  numbered 
76  or  77),  leaves  at  least  open  the  question 
whether  such  defects  are  a  bar  to  the  first  recep¬ 
tion  of  clerical  orders.  No  general  rule  however 
as  to  mutilation  is  to  be  found  in  the  records  of 
any  of  the  early  General  Councils,  but  only  in 
those  of  the  non-oecumenical  ones  of  the  West,  or 
in  the  letters,  &c.,  of  the  Popes,  always  of  sus¬ 
picious  authority.  Thus,  a  letter  of  Innocent  I. 
(402-17)  to  Felix,  bishop  of  Nocera,  says  that  no 
one  who  has  voluntarily  cut  off  a  part  of  any  of 
his  fingers  is  to  be  ordained  (^Ep.  4,  c.  1).  A 
Council  of  Rome  in  465  forbade  from  admission  to 
'orders  those  who  had  lost  any  of  their  members, 
requiring  even  the  ordaining  bishop  to  undo  his 
act  (c.  3).  So  Pope  Gelasius  (492-6)  in  a  letter 
to  the  bishops  of  Lucania,  complains  that  persons 
with  bodily  mutilations  are  admitted  to  the  ser¬ 
vices  of  the  Church  ;  an  abuse  not  allowed  by 
ancient  tradition  or  the  forms  of  the  Apostolic 
see  {Ep.  9.  c.  16).  A  fragment  of  a  letter 
of  the  same  Pope  to  the  clergy  and  people  of 
Brindisi  condemns  in  like  manner  the  ordina¬ 
tion  of  a  man  “  weak  and  blemished  in  any  part 
of  his  body.”  But  a  letter  to  Bishop  Palladius 
lays  down — in  accordance  with  the  Apostolical 
Canon  above  quoted  —  that  a  dignity  received 
whilst  the  body  was  yet  whole  was  not  to  be 
lost  by  subsequent  enfeeblement ;  Avith  which 
letter  may  be  connected,  for  Avhat  it  is  Avorth, 
a  canon  or  alleged  canon  of  the  Council  of  Ilerda 
in  524,  quoted  by  Ivo,  to  the  effect  that  a  cleric 
made  lame  by  a  medical  operation  is  capable  of 
jtromotion.  Not  to  speak  of  an  alleged  canon  of 
Gregory  the  Great,  590-603,  against  the  oi'di- 
nation  of  persons  self-mutilated  in  any  member, 
to  be  found  in  Gratian ;  two  centuries  later,  in  a 
capitulary  of  Pope  Gregory  11.  (714-30)  addressed 
to  his  ablegates  for  Bavaria,  we  find  in  like 
manner  any  bodily  defect  treated  as  a  bar  to 
ordination.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may  quote  a 
testimony  later  indeed  than  the  period  embraced 
in  this  Avork,  but  as  occurring  after  the  schism 
of  East  and  West,  above  the  suspicion  of  all 
Romanizing  partiality,  that  of  Balsamon  (ad 
Marci  Alex,  interrog.  23,  quoted  by  Cotelerius, 
Patres  Apost.  i.  pp.  478-9),  who  says  that 


BODY,  MUTILATION  OF  THE  243 

bodily  injuries  or  infirmities  supervening  after 
ordination,  even  if  they  rendered  the  priest 
unable  physically  to  fulfil  his  office,  did  not 
depriA'e  him  of  his  dignity,  as  “  none  Avas  to 
be  hindered  from  officiating  through  bodily  de¬ 
fect  ”  also  rendered  by  Beveridge  as 

mutilation). 

We  may  take  it  therefore  that  the  rule  of  the 
Church  as  to  mutilations  and  bodily  defects 
generally  Avas  this  :  such  mutilations  or  defects 
were  a  bar  to  ordination,  especially  if  self-in¬ 
flicted  ;  but  supervening  inAmluntarily  after 
ordination,  they  Avere  not  a  bar  to  the  fulfilment 
of  clerical,  duties,  or  to  promotion  in  the  hier¬ 
archy.  There  is,  however,  one  particular  form 
of  mutilation — that  of  the  generative  organs — 
Avhich  occurs  with  peculiar  prominence  in  early 
Church  history,  and  is  dealt  Avith  by  special  en¬ 
actments. 

One  sect  of  heretics,  the  Valesians  (whose  ex¬ 
ample  is  strangely  recalled  by  the  practices  of  a 
Avell-knoAvn  body  of  dissenter’s  from  the  Russian 
Church  at  the  present  day),  enforced  the  duty  of 
emasculation  both  on  themselves  and  others 
(Epiph.  cont.  Haer.  58  ;  Aug.  de  Ilaeres.  c.  37). 
Their  catechumens,  Avhilst  unmutilated,  Avere  not 
alloAved  to  eat  flesh,  but  no  restrictions  as  to  food 
Avere  imposed  on  the  mutilated.  They  Avere  said 
to  use  not  only  persuasion  but  force  in  making 
converts,  and  to  practise  violence  for  the  purpose 
on  travellers,  and  even  on  persons  received  as 
guests. 

The  most  notorious  instance  of  self-mutilation 
in  Church  history  is  that  of  Origen,  Avho,  Avhen 
a  young  catechist  at  Alexandria,  inflicted  this  on 
himself  in  order  to  quench  the  violence  of  his  pas¬ 
sions  (Euseb.  H.  E.  au.  8).  He  was  nevertheless 
ordained  by  the  bisho[)S  of  Caesai'ea  and  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  men  of  the  highest  authority  among  the  pre¬ 
lates  of  Palestine.  But  Demetrius  of  Alexandria, 
Avho  had  formerly  spoken  of  him  in  terms  of  high 
praise,  began  attacking  the  validity  of  his  ordina¬ 
tion,  and  the  conduct  of  his  ordaining  bishops. 
It  is  indeed  remarkable  that  Epiphanius  mentions 
three  separate  traditions  as  to  the  mode  which 
Origen  adopted  to  maintain  his  continence — two 
of  them  not  implying  actual  mutilation,  but  only 
extinction  of  the  generatiA’e  poAver — and  seems 
to  consider  that  a  good  many  idle  tales  had  been 
told  on  the  subject  (^Contra  Haer.  64).  It  is  well 
knoAvn,  at  any  rate,  that  Origen  was  condemned 
and  sentenced  to  be  deprived  of  his  orders  for 
self-mutilation  by  the  Council  of  Alexandria,  a.d. 
230.  This  is  not  the  place,  of  course,  for  dAvelling 
on  the  unworthy  motiA^es  mixed  up  in  Origen’s 
condemnation  ;  but  if  Avhat  is  recorded  of  the 
Valesians  be  true — Avhose  heresy  appears  to  have 
been  contemporaneous  with  Origen — it  was 
absolutely  necessary  that  the  Church  should 
firmly  resist  not  only  the  return  to  the  emascu¬ 
late  priesthoods  of  the  heathen,  but  the  utterly 
'  anti-social  tendencies  Avhich  such  practices  por¬ 
tended  or  expressed.  The  Council  of  Achaia,  by 
which  the  Valesians  were  condemned,  is  usually 
set  doAvn  to  the  year  250. 

I  If  the  Apostolical  Canons  are  as  a  whole 
anterior  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  they  constitute 
the  next  authority  on  the  subject.  According  to 
these,  whilst  a  man  made  a  eunuch  against  his 
will  was  not  excluded  from  being  admitted  into 
the  clergy,  yet  self-mutilation  was  .assimilated  to 
suicide,  and  the  culprit  could  not  be  admitted,  or 

K 


244  BODY,  MUTILATION  OF  THE 

was  to  be  “  altogether  condemned  ”  (expelled  ?) 
if  the  act  were  committed  after  his  admission 
(c.  17,  otherwise  numbered  20-22,  or  21-23). 
A  layman  mutilating  himself  was  to  be  excluded 
for  3  years  from  communion  (c.  17,  otherwise 
23  or  2-1-).  It  may  however  be  suspected  that 
on  this  head  at  least  these  canons  must  have  been 
interpolated  after  the  Nicene  Council  (325),  or 
they  would  have  been  referred  to  in  that  well- 
known  one  which  stands  first  of  all  in  the  list  of 
its  enactments, — that  if  any  one  has  been  emascu¬ 
lated  either  by  a  medical  man  in  illness,  or  by 
the  barbarians,  he  is  to  remain  in  the  clergy  ;  but 
if  anv  has  mutilated  himself  he  is,  if  a  cleric 
already,  on  proof  of  the  fact  by  examination,  to 
cease  from  clerical  functions,  and  if  not  already 
ordained  not  to  be  presented  for  ordination ;  this 
however,  not  to  apply  to  those  who  have  been 
made  eunuchs  by  the  barbarians  or  by  their 
masters,  who,  if  they  are  found  worthy,  may  be 
admitted  into  the  clergy.  Contemporaneously,  or 
nearly  so,  with  the  Council  we  find  a  constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  emperor  Constantine  rendering  the 
making  of  eunuchs  within  the  “  orbis  Romaniis,” 
a  capital  crime  {Code,  bk.  iv.  t.  xcii.  1.  1). 

It  is,  however,  at  this  period  that  we  find  the 
next  most  prominent  instance  of  self-mutilation 
in  Church  history  after  that  of  Origen, — that  of 
Leontius,  Arian  bishop  of  Antioch  in  the  time  of 
Athanasius,  who,  when  a  presbytei’,  had  been 
deposed  on  this  account,  but  was  nevertheless 
promoted  to  the  episcopate  by  the  emperor 
Constantins,  against  the  decrees  of  the  Niccue 
Council,  observes  Theodoret  (ii.  23 ;  cf.  Euseb. 
vi.  8).  This  Leontius  figures  by  no  means  favour¬ 
ably  in  the  Church  histories.  Athanasius  was 
very  hostile  to  him,  and  he  was  accused  of  cun¬ 
ning  and  double-dealing,  of  promoting  the  un¬ 
worthy  and  neglecting  the  worthy  in  his  diocese. 

A  canon  on  bodily  mutilation  similar  to  the 
Nicene  one  was  enacted  by  the  Synod  of  Seleucia 
in  Persia,  A.D.  410  (c.  4),  and  by  a  Syrian  synod 
in  465,  and  the  interdiction  against  the  admission 
to  orders  of  the  self-mutilated  was  also  renewed 
by  the  Council  of  Arles,  A.D.  452  (c.  7).  Pope 
Gelasius,  in  his  before  quoted  letter  to  the 
Lucanian  bishops,  recalls  as  to  the  self-emasculate 
‘that  the  canons  of  the  Fathers  require  them  to 
be  separated  from  all  clerical  functions,  as  soon 
as  the  fact  is  recognized  (^Ejjist.  9,  c.  17).  It 
thus  appears  that  this  most  serious  form  of 
miutilation,  so  long  as  it  was  not  self-inflicted, 
was  no  bar  either  to  clerical  ordination  or  promo¬ 
tion,  but  that  if  self-inflicted,  it  was  a  bar  to  the 
exercise  of  all  clerical  functions. 

II.  Mutilation  as  a  Grime. — An  alleged  decretal 
of  Pope  Eutychianus  (275-6),  to  be  found  in 
Gratian,  enacts  that  persons  guilty  of  cutting 
off  limbs  were  to  be  separated  from  the  Church 
until  they  had  made  friendly  composition  (the 
very  idea  of  composition  for  such  an  act  was 
entirely  foreign  to  the  Italy  of  the  3rd  century) 
before  the  bishop  and  the  other  citizens,  or,  if 
refusing  to  do  so  after  two  or  three  warnings, 
were  to  be  treated  as  heathen  men  and  publi¬ 
cans.  The  document  may  probably  safely  be 
set  dowm  to  the  9th  century,  but  in  the  mean¬ 
while  we  find  in  the  records  of  the  11th  Council 
of  Toledo,  A.D.  675  (from  which  it  is  perhaps 
borrowed),  evidence  that  similar  crimes  were 
committed  by  the  clergy  themselves.  The  Gth 
canon  enacts  amongst  other  things  that  clerics 

o  o 


BODY,  MUTILATION  OF  THE 

shall  not  inflict  or  order  to  be  ipflicted  mutilation 
of  a  limb  on  any  persons  whomsoever.  If  any  do 
so,  either  to  the  servants  of  their  church  or  to 
any  persons,  they  shall  lose  the  honour  of  their 
order,  and  be  subject  to  perpetual  impri.sonment 
with  hard  labour.  The  Excerpt  from  the  Fathei’s 
and  the  Canons  attributed  to  Gregory  III.  bears 
that,  for  the  wilful  maiming  another  of  a  limb, 
the  penance  is  to  be  three  years,  or  more  hu¬ 
manely,  one  year  (c.  30).  The  Capitulary  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  789,  c.  16,  and  the  Council  of 
Frankfort,  794,  forbid  abbats  for  any  cause  to 
blind  or  mutilate  their  monks  (c.  18) — enactments 
which  sufficiently  shew  tne  ferocity  of  the 
Carolingian  era,  and  with  which  may  be  noticed 
the  2nd  Capitulary  of  Theodulf,  bishop  of  Orleans, 
to  his  clei’gy,  a.d.  797,  treating  amongst  minor 
sins  the  maiming  of  a  man  so  that  he  shall  not 
die,  the  reference  being  at  least  mainly  to  clerical 
maimers. 

In  the  early  barbarian  codes  no  difference  W’as 
made  in  principle  between  the  various  shapes  of 
bodily  mutilation,  and  all  cases  were  punished 
by  pecuniary  compensation.  But  in  the  later 
Roman  law  we  find  absolute  distinction  made 
betw'een  emasculation  and  every  other  form  of 
mutilation,  the  former  being  the  only  one  which 
it  is  deemed  necessary  to  legislate  against.  We 
have  already  seen  that  Constantine  had  made  the 
former  a  capital  crime,  wffien  committed  within 
the  Roman  wmrld.  The  142nd  Novel  goes  fur- 
ther  still.  Speaking  of  the  crime  as  having  be¬ 
come  rife  again,  it  enacts  the  lex  talionis  against 
male  offenders,  with  confiscation  of  goods  and 
life-long  labour  in  the  quarries  if  they  survive 
the  operation ;  or  as  respects  females,  flogging, 
confiscation  and  exile.  We  may  pi’obably  ascribe 
the  character  of  the  imperial  law  on  this  subject 
to  the  influence  of  the  Christian  Church,  which, 
at  the  risk  of  whatever  incongruities  in  its  prac¬ 
tice,  has  always  treated  emasculation  as  a  crime 
S'd  generis^  analogous  only  to  murder  and  suicide,  . 
according  as  it  is  endured  or  self-inflicted. 

III.  Mutilation  as  a  Punishment. — Mutilation 
is  no  unfrequont  punishment  under  the  Christian 
empei'ors  of  the  West :  Constantine  punished 
slaves  escaping  to  the  barbarians  with  the  loss 
of  a  foot  (Cod.  6.  tit.  1.  s.  3).  The  cutting  off 
of  the  hand  was  enacted  by  several  Novels ;  by 
the  17th  (c.  viii.)  against  exactors  of  tribute 
who  should  fail  to  make  proper  entries  of  the 
quantities  of  lands ;  by  the  43rd  (c.  1)  against 
those  who  should  copy  the  works  of  the  heretic 
Severus.  It  is  nevertheless  remarkable  that  the 
134th  Novel  finally  restricted  all  penal  mutila¬ 
tion  to  the  cutting  off  of  one  hand  only  (c.  xiii.). 
In  the  barbaric  codes,  mutilation  is  a  frequent 
punishment.  The  Salic  law  frequently  enacts 
castration  of  the  slave,  but  only  as  an  alternative 
for  composition  (for  thefts  above  40  denarii  in 
value,  t.  xiii.,  and  see  t.  xlii.  ;  for  adultery 
with  the  slave-woman  who  dies  from  the  effects 
of  it,  t.  xxix.  c.  6).  The  Bui'gundian  law,  by  a 
late  enactment  {Additam.  i.  t.  xv.,  supposed  to 
be  by  Sigismund),  extends  the  mode  of  dealing 
to  Jews. 

Even  in  the  legislation  of  the  Church  itself 
mutilation  as  a  punishment  occurs  ;  but  only  in 
its  rudest  outlying  branches,  or  as  an  offence  to 
be  repressed.  Thus,  to  quote  instances  of  the 
former  case,  in  the  collection  of  Irish  Canous, 
supposed  to  belong  to  the  end  of  the  7th  cen- 


BONIFACIUS 

tury,  Patrick  is  represented  as  assigning  the 
cutting  off  of  a  hand  or  foot  as  one  of  several 
alternative  punishments  for  the  stealing  of 
money  either  in  a  church  or  a  city  within 
which  sleep  martyrs  and  bodies  of  saints  (bk. 
xxviii.  c.  6).  Another  fragment  from  an  Irish 
svnod,  appended  by  Labbe  and  Mansi  to  the 
above,  enacts  the  loss  of  a  hand  as  an  alternative 
punishment  for  shedding  the  blood  of  a  bishop, 
where  it  does  not  reach  the  ground,  and  no  salve 
(collyrium)  is  needed  ;  or  the  blood  of  a  priest 
when  it  does  reach  the  ground,  and  salve  is 
required.  Instances  of  the  latter  case  have  been 
alreadv  given  in  the  enactments  against  abbats 
maiming  their  monks,  which  was  no  doubt  done 
at  least  under  pretext  of  enforcing  discipline. 
In  the  ‘  Excei'ptions  ’  ascribed  to  Egbert,  arch¬ 
bishop  of  York  (but  of  at  least  two  centuries  later 
date),  we  find  a  canon  that  a  man  stealing  money 
from  the  church-box  shall  have  his  hand  cut  off 
or  be  put  into  prison  (c.  Ixxiii.).  [J.  M.  L.] 

BONIFACIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Tarsus  under 
Diocletian,  is  commemorated  Dec.  19  (^Cal.  By- 
zant.).  He  was  formerly  commemorated  in  the 
Roman  chui-ch  on  June  5,  the  supposed  day  of 
his  burial  at  Rome  {Jrlart.  Rom.  Vet.')'.,  but  in 
more  recent  martyrologies  this  Boniface  is  com¬ 
memorated  on  May  14,  the  supposed  day  of  his 
death  ;  and, 

(2)  The  Apostle  of  Germany,  archbishop  of 
Mentz,  martyred  in  Friesland,  is  commemorated 
on  June  5  {Mart.  Bedae.,  Adoni^.  This  saint  is 
figured  in  his  episcopal  vestments  (9th  cent.)  in 
the  ..lo^a  SaJictorum,  June,  tom.  i.  p.  458.  See 
also  Brower’s  ITiesawus  Antiq.  Fuldensium,  pp. 
163-165. 

(3)  Deacon,  martyr  in  Africa  under  Hunneric  ; 
commemorated  Aug.  17  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.). 

(4)  “  Natale  Bonefacii  episcopi,”  Sept.  4  {M. 
Bedae). 

(5)  Confessor  in  Africa  ;  commemorated  Dec.  8 
{Mart.  Hieron.);  Dec.  6  {M.  Adonis).  [C.] 

BONOS  A,  sister  of  Zosima,  martyr  in  Porto 
under  Severus ;  commemorated  July  15  {3fart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.).  [C.] 

BOOKS,  CENSURE  OF.  A  studious  life 
was  strongly  enforced  upon  the  clergy  by  the 
ancient  Fathers,  and  enjoined  by  various  canons 
of  the  earlier  Councils.  St.  Chrysostom  in  par¬ 
ticular  insists  strongly  and  very  fully  on  the  duty 
in  the  clergy  of  qualifying  themselves  by  patient 
and  laborious  study  for  the  office  of  preaching,  and 
for  the  defence  of  the  fixith  against  heretics  and 
unbelievei’s;  resting  his  argument  on  the  exhorta¬ 
tion  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  (1  Tim.  iv.  13) — 
“Give  attendance  to  reading,  to  exhortation,  to 
doctrine:  meditate  upon  these  things  :  give  thyself 
wholly  to  them  ;  that  thy  profiting  may  appear 
to  all  men.”  Exhortations  to  the  like  efiect 
occur  also  in  the  writings  of  St.  Jerome,  Cyprian, 
Lactantius,  Hilary,  Minucius  Felix,  and  others. 
In  all  these  writers  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  is  urged  upon  the  clergy  as  being  of  pri¬ 
mary  obligation,  and  the  foundation  on  which 
all  the  superstructure  of  a  more  general  and 
extensive  learning  was  to  be  raised.  Certain 
canons  also  required,  e.g.  Cone.  Tolet.  iii.  c.  7, 
that  in  their  most  vacant  hours,  the  times  of 
eating  and  drinking,  some  portion  of  Scripture 
should  be  read  to  them  —  partly  to  exclude 
trifling  and  unnecessary  discourse,  and  partly  to 


BOOKS,  CPIURCII  245 

afford  them  proper  themes  and  subjects  for  edi¬ 
fying  discourse  and  meditation. 

Next  to  the  Scriptures  the  study  of  the  best 
ecclesiastical  writers  was  recommended  as  most 
profitable  and  appropriate  to  the  clerical  office : 
the  first  place  in  such  writings,  however,  being 
assigned  to  the  Canons  of  the  Church.  These 
were  always  reckoned  of  the  greatest  use  and 
importance,  as  containing  a  summary  account, 
not  only  of  the  Church’s  discipline  and  doctrine 
and  government,  but  also  rules  of  life  and  moral 
pi’actice — on  which  account  it  was  ordered  that 
the  Canons  should  be  read  over  at  a  man’s  ordi¬ 
nation  ;  and  again,  the  Council  of  Toledo  (iv.  c. 
25)  required  the  clergy  to  make  them  a  part  of 
their  constant  study,  together  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  The  Canons,  it  should  be  remem¬ 
bered,  were  then  a  sort  of  directory  for  the  pas¬ 
toral  care,  and  they  had  this  advantage  of  any 
private  directory,  that  they  were  the  public 
voice  and  authorised  rule  of  the  Church,  and 
therefore  so  much  the  more  entitled  to  respectful 
attention.  In  later  ages,  in  the  time  of  Charle¬ 
magne,  we  find  laws  which  obliged  the  clergy  to 
read,  together  with  the  Canons,  Gregory’s  treatise 
Be  Curd  Pastorali. 

With  regard  to  other  books  and  v/ritings  there 
was  considerable  restriction.  Some  of  the  canons 
forbade  a  bishop  to  read  heathen  authors :  nor 
would  they  allow  him  to  read  heretical  books, 
otherwise  than  as  a  matter  of  duty,  i.  e.  unless 
there  was  occasion  to  refute  them,  or  to  caution 
others  against  the  poison  of  them;  e.g.  Cone. 
Carth.  iv.  c.  16 :  “  Ut  episcopus  Gentilium  libros 
non  legat :  haereticorum  autem  pro  necessitate 
et  tempore.” 

In  some  cases,  however,  the  study  of  heathen 
literature  might  be  advantageous  to  the  cause 
of  Christian  truth  ;  and  the  Church’s  prohibition 
did  not  extend  to  these.  Thus  St.  Jerome  ob- 
sei’ves  that  both  the  Greek  and  Latin  historians 
are  of  great  use  as  well  to  explain  as  confirm  the 
truth  of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel.  St.  Augustine 
says  of  the  writings  of  heathen  philosophers,  that 
as  they  said  many  things  that  were  true,  both 
concerning  God  and  the  Son  of  God,  they  were  in 
that  respect  very  serviceable  in  refuting  the 
vanities  of  the  Gentiles.  And  in  fact  all  -who 
are  acquainted  with  the  Fathers  and  ancient 
writers  of  the  Church  know  them  to  have  been 
for* the  most  paiff  well  versed  in  the  classical  or 
heathen  literature. 

On  the  whole  it  appears  that  the  clergy  were 
obliged  in  the  first  place  to  be  diligent  in  study¬ 
ing  the  Scriptui’es,  and  next  to  them,  as  they  had 
ability  and  opportunity,  the  canons  and  approved 
writers  of  the  Church.  Beyond  this,  as  there 
was  no  obligation  on  them  to  read  human  learn¬ 
ing,  so  there  was  no  absolute  prohibition  of  it ; 
but  where  it  could  be  made  to  minister  as  a 
handmaid  to  divinity,  there  it  was  not  only 
allowed,  but  encouraged  and  commended ;  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  many  instances 
the  cause  of  Christian  religion  was  advanced  by 
the  right  application  of  secular  learning  in  the 
primitive  ages  of  the  Church.  The  principles  on 
which  such  studies  were  maintained  are  summed 
up  by  St.  Ambrose,  Prooem.  in  Luc.  Evang. : 
“  Legimus  aliqua,  ne  legantur  ;  legimus  ne  igno- 
remus;  legimus  non  ut  teueamus,  sed  ut  repu- 
diemus  ”  (Bingham).  •  [D.  B.j 

BOOKS,  CHURCH.  [Liturgical  Books.] 


BRAXDEOI 


246  BORDEAUX,  COUNCIL  OF 

BORDEAUX,  COUNCIL  OF  (Burdiga- 
LENSE  Concilium),  in-ovincial,  at  Bordeaux. 
(1)  A.D.  385,  coudeniued  and  deposed  Priscillian, 
Instantius,  and  their  followers,  for  complicity 
with  Manicheeism.  Priscillian  appealed  to  the 
emperor  Maxentius,  who,  however,  put  him  to 
death  the  same  year  at  Trfeves  (Sulp.  Sever., 
H.  E.  ii.  46,  who  affirms  the  appeal  to  have 
been  permitted  only  “  nostrorum  inconstantia,” 
whereas  it  ought  to  have  been  made  to  other 
bishops ;  Labbe,  ii.  1034). — (2)  A.D.  670,  under 
Count  Lupus  and  the  archbishops  of  Bourges, 
Bordeaux,  and  Eauze  in  Armagnac,  by  order  of 
King  Chilpe'ric,  upon  points  of  discipline  {V Art 
de  Verifier  les  Dates,  i.  291).  [A.  W.  H.] 

BOSCI  (BockoI),  Syrian  monks  in  the  4th 
century,  so  called  because  they  lived  on  herbs 
only.  Sozomen  speaks  of  them  as  very  numer¬ 
ous  near  Nisibis,  and  names  a  bishop  among  the 
most  famous  of  them.  They  had  no  buildings 
but  lived  on  the  mountains,  continually  praying 
and  singing  hymns.  Each  carried  a  knife,  with 
which  to  cut  herbs  and  grasses  (Soz.  E.  E.  vi. 
33).  A  connexion  has  been  traced  between  them 
and  the  sect  of  Adamiani  or  Adamitae,  who  went 
about  naked.  The  principle  is  the  same — of  re¬ 
turning  to  a  state  of  nature — but  the  Bosci  are 
not  accused,  as  the  Adamitae,  of  licentiousness; 
and  with  them  the  motive  was  apparently  austere 
self-mortification.  Frequent  instances  of  similar 
abstinence  are  recorded  of  Eastern  hermits  in 
Moschus  (^Frat.  Spirit.),  Theodoret  (^Philoth.), 
and  Evagrius  (//.  E.  i.  21).  (Tillemont,  II.  E. 
viii.  292.)  [I.  G.  S.] 

BOSTRA,  COUNCIL  OF,  a.d.  243  or  244; 
indeed,  there  probably  were  two  such  :  one  at 
which  Beryllus,  bishop  of  Bostra,  was  reclaimed 
from  his  strange  views  respecting  the  Person  of 
our  Lord  by  Origen ;  and  another  at  which 
Origen  refuted  some  Arabians,  who  said  that  the 
souls  of  men  died  with  their  bodies,  and  came 
to  life  with  their  bodies  again  at  the  resur¬ 
rection  (Euseb.  vi.  33  and  7 ;  Mansi,  i.  787 
-90).  [£.  S.  Ff.] 

BOURGES,  COUNCIL  OF  (Bituricense 
Concilium),  at  Bourges,  but  (1)  a.d.  454,  only 
conjecturally  in  that  city.  That  there  was  a 
council  in  that  year  in  that  neighbourhood 
appears  by  a  synodical  epistle  signed  by  the 
bishops  of  Bourges,  Tours,  and  another  (Sir- 
mond.  Com.  Gall.  iii.  App.  1507  ;  Labbe,  iv. 
1819).  Hincmar  wrongly  calls  it  a  Council  of 
Rome,  under  the  mistaken  impression  that  the 
Leo  who  signs  it  was  the  Pope. — (2)  a.d.  473, 
to  elect  Simplicius  to  the  see  of  Bourges  (Sidon. 
Apoll.  Epistt.  vii.  5,  8,  9,  &c. ;  and  his  ora¬ 
tion  to  the  people  for  Simplicius,  Labbe,  iv. 
1820-1827).  Sidouius  requests  the  interven¬ 
tion  of  Agroecius,  archbishop  of  Sens  (although 
out  of  his  province),  and  of  Euphronius  of 
Autun,  the  provincial  bishops  being  too  few 
in  number.  And  the  “  plebs  Biturigum  ”  appear 
to  have  referred  the  nomination  to  Sidonius  him¬ 
self. — (3)  A.D.  767,  under  Pipin,  mentioned  by 
Regino  and  Fredegarius,  but  with  no  record  of 
its  purpose  or  acts  (Labbe,  vi.  1836).  [A.  W.  H.] 

BOWING,  [Genuflexion.] 

BRACARENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Braga, 
Council  of.] 

BRAGA,  COUNCIL  OF  (Bracarense 
Concilium),  provincial,  at  Braga,  in  Spain, 


between  the  Minho  and  Douro.  (1)  a.d.  411 
(if  genuine),  of  ten  bishops,  to  defend  the  faith 
against  Alans,  Suevi,  and  Vandals,  who  were 
either  Arians  or  heathens,  under  Pancratianus 
of  Braga  (Labbe,  ii.  1507-1510). —  (2)  a.d. 
561  or  563,  of  eight  bishop.s,  “  ex  praccepto 
Ariamiri  (or  probably  Theodomiri)  Regis,”  to 
condemn  the  Priscillianists.  It  passed  also 
twenty-two  canons,  about  uniformity  of  ritual, 
church  reA’enues,  precedence,  burial  without  and 
not  within  a  church,  and  other  points  of  disci¬ 
pline  (Labbe,  v.  836-845). — (3)  A.D.  572,  June  1, 
of  twelve  bishops,  under  Archbishops  Martin  of 
Braga  and  Nitigisius  of  Luca,  under  Miro,  king 
of  the  Suevi,  passed  ten  canons,  about  bishops 
exacting  undue  fees,  appointment  of  metropolitan 
to  proclaim  annually  the  date  of  Easter,  and 
other  points  of  discipline.  It  was  also  the  first 
to  use  the  formula,  “  regnante  Chidsto  ”  (Labbe, 
V.  894-902).  Mailoc,  bishop  of  Britona,  was  one 
of  the  bishops  present. — (4)  A.D.  675,  under 
Archbishop  Leocidisius,  with  seven  suffragans 
(including  a  bishop  of  Britona),  passed  nine 
canons  ;  prohibiting  the  giifing  of  milk,  or  of  the 
bread  dipped  in  the  wine,  or  of  grapes  instead  of 
wine,  at  the  Eucharist ;  allowing  a  priest  to  have 
dwelling  with  him  no  other  woman  than  his 
mother,  not  even  his  sister ;  and  on  other  points 
of  discipline  (Labbe,  \*i.  561-570).  [A.  W.  H.] 

BRAINE,  COUNCIL  OF  (Brennacense 
Concilium),  at  Braine  near  Soissons  (Berni  near 
Compiegne,  acc.  to  L' Art  de  Ve'rifier  les  Dates, 
but  wrongly),  rather  a  State  than  a  Church 
Council,  held,  A.D.  580,  under  King  Chilpe'ric, 
excommunicated  Leudastes  (who  had  been  Count 
of  Tours)  for  falsely  accusing  Gregory  of  Tours 
of  having  calumniated  Queen  Fredegunda.  Wit¬ 
nesses  were  not  produced,  “  cunctis  dicentibus, 
non  potest  persona  inferior  super  sacerdotem 
credi.”  And  Gregory  exculpated  himself  by 
solemn  oath  at  three  several  altars  after  saying 
mass,  the  accusers  in  the  end  confessing  their 
guilt  (Greg.  Tur.,  Hist.  Franc,  v.  50 ;  Labbe,  v. 
965,  966).  [A.  W.  H.] 

BRANDEUM.  The  word  Brandeum  proba¬ 
bly  designated  originally  some  particular  kind  of 
rich  cloth.  Thus,  Joannes  Diaconus  (Fjfa  S. 
Greg.  lib.  iv.,  in  Du  Cange,  s.  v.)  speaks  of  a 
lady  wearing  a  head-dress  “  candentis  brandei.” 

But  the  usages  with  which  we  are  immedi¬ 
ately  concerned  are  the  following  : — 

1.  The  rich  cloth  or  shroud  inwffiich  the  body 
of  a  distinguished  saint  was  wrapped.  Thus 
Hincmar  (  Vita  S.  Remigii,  c.  73)  describing  the 
translation  of  St.  Romigius,  says  the  body  was 
found  by  the  bishops  who  translated  it  wrapped 
in  a  red  brandeum.  Compare  Fiodoard,  Hist. 
Femensis,  i.  20,  21. 

2.  Portions  of  such  shrouds  were  used  as 
relics ;  for  instance,  a  portion  of  the  brandeum 
wffiich  enveloped  St.  Remigius,  enshrined  in  ivory, 
w'as  venerated  with  due  honour  (Hincmar,  /.  c.). 

3.  When  relics  of  some  saint  came  to  be  regarded 
as  absolutely  essential  to  the  consecration  of  a 
church  [Consecration],  pieces  of  cloth  w'hich 
had  been  placed  near  them  were  held  to  be 
themselves  equivalent  to  relics.  St.  Gregory 
the  Great  sets  forth  his  view  of  this  practice  in 
a  letter  to  Constantia  (^Epist.  iii.  30).  It  is  not, 
he  says,  the  Roman  custom,  in  giving  relics  of 
saints,  to  presume  to  touch  any  portion  of  the 


BREAKING  OF  BREAD 


BREVIARY 


247 


Dodv  but  only  a  bmncleum  is  put  in  a  casket,  and  '  signify  the  book  containing  those  offices  in  dis- 
set  near  the  most  holy  bodies.  This  is  again  tinction  to  the  missal:  a  tew  short  offices,  not 
taken  up  and  enshrined  with  due  solemnity  in  ;  directly  connected  with  canonical  hours,  and  in 


ihe  church  to  be  dedicated,  and  the  same  miracles 
are  wrought  by  it  as  would  have  been  by  the 
very  bodies  themselves.  Tradition  relates,  that 
when  some  Greeks  doubted  the  efficacy  of  such 
relics,  St.  Leo  cut  a  brandeum  with  scissors,  and 
blood  flowed  from  the  wound.  St.  Leo  smiiacle 
is  related  by  St.  Germanus  to  Pope  Hormisdas 
(Epistt.  Pontiff,  p.  524)  and  by  Sigebert  (C/iro- 
ntcon,  A.D.  441).  Joannes  Diaconus  (Vita 
S.  Greg.  ii.  42)  relates  a  similar  wonder  of 
St.  Gregory  himself,  which  is  said  to  be  also 
attested  by  an  inscription  in  one  of  the  crypts  of 
the  Vatican  (Torrigius  de  Crgptis  Vaticanis,  pt. 
2,  c.  4,  ed.  2).  (Du  Cange’s  Glossary,  s.  v. 
Brandeum). 

BREAKING  OF  BREAD.  [Fraction.] 

BREGENTFORD,  or  BREGUNTFORD, 
COUNCIL  OF  (Brentfordense  Concilium), 
provincial,  at  Bregentforda,  Breguntford,  or 
Brentford.  (1)  A.D.  705,  an  informal  political 
conference,  mentioned  by  Waldhere,  bishop  of 
London,  as  to  be  held  by  the  kings,  bishops,  and 
abbats,  of  Wessfex  and  of  the  East  Saxons,  about 
certain  unnamed  grounds  of  quarrel  (Haddan  and 
Stubbs,  Counc.  iii.  274).— (2)  a.d.  781,  held  by 
Ofia,  king  of  Mereia,  and  Archbishop  Jaenberht, 
freed  the  monastery  of  Bath  from  the  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  the  see  of  Worcester  (charter  in  Kemble, 
Cod.  Dipl.  14b).  Other  (questionable)  charters 
apparently  profess  to  emanate  from  the  same 
Council  (ib.  139,  140).  [A.  W.  H.] 

BRENNACENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Braine, 
Council  of.] 

BRENTFORDENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Bre- 
GENTFORD,  Council  of.] 

BREVIARY  (^Breviarium).  This  word,  in 
its  ecclesiastical  sense,  denotes  an  office  book  of 
the  Church,  containing  the  offices  for  the  canoni¬ 
cal  hours,  as  distinguished  from  the  missal, 
which  contains  those  of  the  mass.  The  name, 
which  Meratus  derives  from  breve  horarium,  ex¬ 
plaining  it  as  compendium  precum,  indicates  that 
the  book  is  an  abbreviation  or  compilation ;  and 
it  is  so  called,  according  to  some,  because  the 
e.xistins  form  is  an  abbreviation  of  the  ancient 
office  ;  according  to  others,  because  it  is  a  short 
summary  of  the  principal  portions  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  of  the  lives  of  the  greatest  saints,  and  of 
the  choicest  prayers  of  the  Church  ;  or,  again, 
because  in  its  arrangement  the  various  parts  of 
the  office,  such  as  prayers,  hymns,  lessons,  &c., 
are  only  once  given  in  full ;  and  afterwards  only 
indiciited  by  the  first  words,  or  by  references.® 
Some,  again,  have  thought  that  the  breviary 


was  originally  an  abbreviation  of  the  missale 
plenarium;  and  mainly  distinguished  from  it 
by  the  partial  omission  or  abbreviation  of  the 
rubrics,  and  by  the  first  words  alone  of  the 
psalms,  sections,  &c.,  being  given.  It  is  sup¬ 
posed  that  this  abbreviated  book  was  originally 
compiled  as  a  directory  for  the  choir,  and  that 
on  its  general  adoption  in  convents,  in  which 
the  canonical  hours  took  their  rise,  these  wei’e 
inserted,  and  hence  the  name  breviary  came  to 

•  There  is  great  variety  of  practice  in  this  respect  be¬ 
tween  different  breviaries,  and  even  different  editions  of 
the  same  breviary. 


some  breviaries  the  ordinary  and  canon  of  the 
mass,  with  a  few  special  masses,  still  remaining 
in  it. 

The  contents  of  the  breviary,  in  their  essential 
parts,  are  derived  from  the  early  ages  of  Christi¬ 
anity.  They  consist  of  psalms,  lessons  taken 
from  the  Scriptures,  and  from  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers,  versicles  and  pious  sentences  thrown 
into  the  shape  of  antiphons,  responses,  or  other 
analogous  forms,  hymns,  and  prayers.  Tho 
jresent  form  of  the  book  is  the  result  of  a  long 
and  gradual  development.  During  a  long  time 
a  great  diversity  existed  in  the  manner  in  which 
;he  psalms  and  their  accompanying  prayers  were 
recited  in  different  dioceses  and  convents  ;  but 
roni  the  5th  century  onwards  a  marked  ten¬ 
dency  to  uniformity  in  this  part  of  divine  wor¬ 
ship  may  be  observed,  till  in  later  days  the  only 
very  striking  difference  which  remains,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Mozarabic  breviary,  which  has 
special  character  of  its  own,  is  between  the 
office  books  of  the  East  and  the  West.  The  name 
breviary  is  confined  to  those  of  the  West. 

The  books  used  in  the  daily  office  which  con¬ 
tained  the  materials  that  were  afterwards 
consolidated  into  the  breviary,  were — (1)  the 
Psalter,  containing  the  psalms  and  canticles 
arranged  in  their  appointed  order ;  (2)  the 
Scriptures,  from  which  lessons  for  the  nocturns 
were  taken ;  (3)  the  Homiliary,  containing  the 
homilies  of  the  Fathers  appointed  to  be  read  on 
Sundays  and  other  days  indicated ;  (4)  the  Pas¬ 
sionary,  or  Passiomd,  containing  the  history  of 
the  sufferings  of  the  saints,  martyrs,  and  con¬ 
fessors  ;  (5)  the  Antiphonary,  containing  the  an¬ 
tiphons  and  responsories ;  (6)  the  Hymnal;  (7) 
the  Collectaneum,  or  Collectarium,  or  Liber  CoU 
lectarius,  or  Orationale,  containing  the  prayers, 
and  also  the  Short  Chapters  read  at  the  several 
hours ;  (8)  the  Martyrology.  There  were  also 
Rubrics  giving  the  directions  for  leciting  the 
various  offices. 

Various  digests  of  offices  from  these  and  similar 
sources  have  been  attributed  with  more  or  less 
probability  to  Leo  the  Great,  Gelasius,  and 
Gregory  the  Great.  Gregory  VII.  [tl085]  com¬ 
piled  the  book  which  is  the  basis  of  the  present 
Roman  breviary.  A  MS.  copy  of  this  book  was 
preserved  in  the  monastery  of  Casini,  from  about 
the  year  1100  a.d.  This  was  inscribed  “Incipit 
Breviarium  s.  Ordo  officiorum,  &c.  ;  ”  and  hence 
Benedict  XIV.  derives  the  probable  origin  of  the 
name.  An  abbreviation  of  this  book  made  in 
1244  by  Michael  Haymon,  general  of  the  Mi¬ 
norites,  obtained  the  approbation  of  Pope  Gre¬ 
gory  X.,  and  was  introduced  by  Pope  Nicholas  III. 
in  1278  or  1279  into  all  the  churches  of  Rome. 

Originally  different  dioceses  and  monastic 
orders  had  their  own  special  breviaries,  varying 
one  from  the  other.  There  is  a  marked  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  secular  and  the  monastic  bre¬ 
viaries,  but  the  individual  members  of  these  two 
families,  while  they  vary  much  in  detail,  agree 
closely  in  their  arrangement  and  general  features. 
After  the  edition  by  Pius  V.,  the  Roman  breviary 
thus  revised  was  imposed  on  the  whole  Roman 
obedience  to  the  exclusion  of  those  hitherto  in 
use,  with  an  exception  in  favour  of  those  which 
had  then  been  in  use  for  200  years. 


248 


BRIBERY 


BRIDAL  RING 


The  breviary  is  usually  divided  into  four  ’ 
parts,  called  after  the  four  seasons  of  the  year,  ' 
“  Pars  hiemalis,  vernalis,  aestivalis  [v.  aestivaj, 
autumnalis.”  When  this  fourfold  division  was  | 
first  adopted  is  doubtful.  Traces  of  it  have 
been  found  in  the  11th  century.  Each  of  these 
parts,  in  addition  to  the  introductory  rubrics, 
calendar,  and  other  tables,  has  four  subdivisions  : 
(1)  the  Psalter  [Psalterium],  comprising  the 
psalms  and  canticles  aiTanged  according  to  the 
order  of  their  weekly  recitation,  and  also  other 
subordinate  parts  of  the  office  which  do  not  vary 
from  day  to  day ;  (2)  the  Proper  of  the  Season 
[Proprium  de  tempore],  containing  those  por¬ 
tions  of  the  offices  which  vary  with  the  season ; 
(3)  the  Proper  of  the  Saints  [Proprium  Sane-  ; 
torum] ;  i.  e.,  the  corresponding  portions  for  the 
festivals  of  saints ;  and  (4)  the  Common  of  the 
Saints.  [See  Hours  of  Prayer  ;  Office,  The  ^ 
Divine  ;  Psalmody.]  [H.  J.  H.]  I 

BRIBERY.  The  Old  Testament  is  so  full  of 
warnings  against  “  the  gift  ”  that  “  blindeth  the 
wise,  and  perverteth  the  words  of  the  righteous”  ; 
(Ex.  xxiii.  8),  of  denunciations  of  those  that 
“judge  for  reward”  (Micah  iii.  11),  that  we 
could  not  expect  otherwise  than  to  find  the  like 
teachings  embodied  in  the  more  spiritual  morality 
of  the  New  Testament.  It  may  indeed  be  a  ques¬ 
tion  whether  the  qualification  required  of  bishops’ 
and  deacons  by  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  that  they 
should  not  be  “  giA^en  to  filthy  lucre  ”  (^alaxpo- 
KepSe^sf  1  Tim.  iii.  3,  8 ;  Tit.  i.  7,  implies  prone¬ 
ness  to  bribery,  properly  so  called,  or  covetous-  ' 
ness  generally.  If,  howeA'er,  we  reckon  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions  as  repi’esenting  gene¬ 
rally  the  Church  life  of  the  2nd  century,  we 
see  that  the  ofience  was  then  beginning  to  take 
shape.  The  bishop  is  directed  not  to  be  open  to  re¬ 
ceive  gifts,  since  unconscientious  men  “  becoming 
acceptors  of  persons,  and  haA'ing  receiA^ed  shame¬ 
ful  gifts”  Avill spare  the  sinner,  letting  him  remain 
in  the  Church  (bk.  ii.  c.  9).  Another  passage 
speaks  of  either  the  bishops  or  the  deacons  sinning 
by  the  acceptance  of  persons  or  of  gifts,  Avith  the 
addition  of  the  remarkable  Avords :  “  For  when 
the  ruler  asks,  and  the  judge  receiA’^es,  judgment 
is  not  brought  to  an  end  ”  (i6.  c.  17).  A  third 
deals  Avith  the  still  more  heinous  offence  of  con¬ 
demning  the  innocent  for  rcAA^ard,  threatening 
Avith  God’s  judgment  the  “pastors”  and  deacons 
AA'ho,  either  through  acceptance  of  persons  or  in 
return  for  gifts,  expel  from  the  Church  those 
Avho  are  falsely  accused  (t6.  c.  42). 

Thei’e  Avas  of  course  nothing  exceptional  in  this 
morality.  In  the  Roman  law  there  were  nu¬ 
merous  enactments  against  bribery.  Theodosius 
enacted  the  penalty  of  death  against  all  judges 
who  took  bribes  (Cod.  Theod.  9,  tit.  27,  s.  5). 
In  Justinian’s  time,  although  the  penalty  of 
death  seems  to  have  been  abrogated,  the  offence 
is  subjected  to  degrading  punishments  (Nov.  viii., 
exxiv.). 

The  laAv  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of 
bribery  Avas  substantially  that  of  the  State.  The 
spirit’jal  sin  Avas  looked  upon  as  equiA'alent  to 
the  civil  offence,  and  the  Church  needed  no 
special  discipline  to  punish  the  former.  One 
form  of  bribery  indeed,  that  relating  to  the 
attainment  of  the  orders  or  dignities  of  the 
Church,  is  considered  separately  under  the  head 
of  Simony.  [J.  M.  L.]  i 

BRICCTUS,  or  BRICTIUS.  (1)  Bishop, 


confessor  at  Martula  in  Umbria;  is  commemo¬ 
rated  July  8  (3fart.  Pom.  Fe<.);  July  9  (Jf. 
Adonis). 

(2)  St.  Brice ;  succeeded  St.  Martin  as  bishop 
of  Tours ;  commemorated  as  confessor,  Nov.  13 
(Mart.  Bedae,  Hieron.,  Adonis).  Proper  office  in 
the  Gregorian  Liber  Responsalis,  p.  835.  [C.] 

BRIDAL  RING.  That  the  present  use  of 
the  ring  in  marriage  has  grown  out  of  its  use  in 
betrothal,  is  historically  clear.  The  origin  of 
the  latter  is,  however,  obscure,  though  proba¬ 
bly  it  is  the  meeting-point  of  seA'eral  different 
ideas  and  practices.  If  marriage  was  originally 
wife-catching,  as  seems  probable,  the  ring  may 
be  considered  as  the  symbol  of  the  wife’s  cap- 
tiA’ity.  Again,  before  money  Avas  invented,  or 
before  its  use  became  common,  a  ring  would  be 
one  of  the  aptest  representatiA'es  of  wealth,  and 
as  such  would  easily  constitute  either  the  actual 
price  of  betrothal,  or  the  earnest  of  it ;  whilst 
we  knoAV  that  in  some  countries  the  ring  has 
actually  taken  the  place  of  money,  e.  g.  the 
“  ring-money  ”  of  our  Teutonic  forefathers. 
Again,  as  signet-rings  came  into  use,  the  ring 
itself  would  easily  groAv  to  be  looked  upon  as 
a  pledge  of  contracts,  a  symbol  of  faith  between 
man  and  man.  Lastly,  as  men’s  feelings  became 
more  refined,  the  idea  of  the  ring,  (1st)  as  a 
symbol  of  the  wife’s  subjection,  (2nd)  as  the 
price,  or  the  symbol  of  the  price,  of  her  purchase, 
(3rd)  as  the  pledge  of  the  contract  for  her  per¬ 
son,  would  lose  itself  in  that  of  its  spiritual 
significance  as  a  symbol  of  endless  indissoluble 
union. 

It  is  certain,  at  any  rate,  that  the  bridal  ring 
of  early  Christian  custom  was  not  derived  from 
JeAvish  practice,  since  it  appears  clearly  that  its 
use  by  way  of  earnest  on  betrothal  among  the 
JcAvs  Avas  of  late  introduction,  derived  from  the 
Gentiles,  and  depended  for  its  validity  on  the  ring 
being  AA'orth  money  [Arrhae].  But  the  early 
Christians,  as  aboA^e  indicated,  found  it  in  use 
among  the  Romans,  unconnected  (as  was  ordinary 
marriage  itself)  with  any  superstitious  practices, 
and  naturally  adopted  it.  Tertullian  uses  the 
term  annulus  metonymically  for  betrothal  itself, 
in  that  passage  of  his  treatise  on  Idolatry,  in 
Avhich,  examining  AA'hat  transactions  among  the 
Gentiles  a  Christian  man  may  laAA'fully  take  part 
in,  he  decides  that  betrothals  are  among  the 
number,  since  “  the  ring  ”  is  not  derived  from 
the  honour  paid  to  any  idol  (c.  16).  The  same 
author  sheAvs  in  his  Apology  that  by  his  time  the 
I  use  of  gold  for  the  betrothal  ring  must  haA'e  long 
I  replaced  that  of  iron,  since  he  speaks  of  the 
Avoman  of  old  knowing  “  no  gold,  saA’e  on  one 
finger,”  Avhich  her  betrothed  “  oppignorasset 
pronubo  annulo  ”  (c.  6),  with  which  may  be 
compared  Juvenal’s  “  digito  pignus  fortasse 
dedisti  ”  (Sat.  vi.  17). 

It  Avill  be  obvious  from  the  last  tAA^o  passages 
that  the  main  significance  of  the  betrothal  ring 
in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  was 
that  of  a  pledge.  Hence  its  abiding  significance 
as  representing  the  arrhae.  Its  A’alue  in  this 
respect  Avas  by  no  means  confined  to  the  betrothal 
contract ;  thus  in  the  Digest,  Ulpian,  in  refei'ence 
to  the  arrhae  on  an  ordinary  contract  of  sale,  puts 
the  case  of  a  ring  being  given  by  Avay  of  earnest 
and  not  returned  after  the  payment  of  the  price 
and  deliA^ery  of  the  thing  sold  (Dig.  19,  tit.  1, 
s.  11,  §  6  ;  Avith  Avhich  compare  14,  tit.  3,  s.  16). 


BRIDAL  RING 


BRIEFS  AND  BFI  LS 


249 


There  is  therefore  nothing  special  in  the  ex¬ 
pression  “  Subarrare  annulo,”  which  occurs  in 
a  well-known  passage  of  the  34th  letter  of  St. 
Ambrose,  where  he  represeilts  St.  Agnes  saying 
to  the  gov'ernor  of  Rome,  when  he  pressed  her  to 
marry  liis  son,  that  “  another  lover  ”  had  already 
“given  her  earnest  by  the  ring  of  his  faith” 
(annulo  fidei  suae  subarravit  me). 

Historically,  the  bridal  ring  figures  somewhat 
prominently  in  the  record  of  the  5th  century. 
In  M.  Augustin  Thierry’s  ‘  Histoire  d’Athila,’ 
2nd  ed.  vol.  i.  c.  5,  or  again  in  his  ‘  Placidie, 
reine  des  Gothes,’  appended  to  the  2nd  volume 
of  his  ‘Saint  Jerome,’  c.  4  (Gibbon  c.  xxxv. 
relates  the  story  somewhat  differently),  it  is  told 
how  in  A.D.  434,  Honoria,  the  graceless  grand¬ 
daughter  of  the  great  Theodosius,  in  a  fit  o-f 
rebellion  against  parental  authority,  sent  her  ring 
by  a  eunuch  to  the  Hunnish  king  Attila  (then 
recently  come  to  the  throne)  by  way  of  betrothal 
earnest,  requesting  him  to  make  war  on  her 
brother  Valentinian.  The  barbarian  sovereign 
(who  had  a  whole  harem  of  his  own)  took  no 
notice  of  the  ring  at  the  time,  but  had  it  put 
away ;  and  fifteen  years  after,  when  about  to 
inrade  Italy,  sent  a  letter  to  the  Western  Emperor, 
complaining  that  the  princess,  his  betrothed,  had 
been  ignominiously  treated  on  his  account,  and 
was  kept  in  prison,  and  requiring  her  to  be  set 
free  and  restored  to  him  with  her  dowry,  which 
he  reckoned  at  hnlf  the  personalty  of  the  late 
emperor  Constantins,  and  half  the  Western  Em¬ 
pire  ;  and  he  forwarded  by  his  envoys  at  the  same 
time  her  ring,  to  avouch  the  justice  of  his  claim, 
— which  however  he  afterwards  did  not  care,  and 
probably  never  intended  to  press, — indeed  Honoria 
was  married  at  the  time,  as  was  stated  to  him  in 
reply,  and  as  no  doubt  he  knew  already. 

The  received  position  of  the  ring  on  the  fourth 
finger  is  explained  by  Isidore  of  Seville,  on  the 
ground  that  “  there  is  in  it,  so  they  say,  a  vein  of 
blood  which  reaches  to  the  heart  ”  {de  Offic.  bk.  ii. 
c.  19).  The  quaint  reason  assigned  for  the  choice 
of  the  finger  will  be  observed,  as  well  as  the 
indication  that  the  ring  was  only  given  in  first 
marriages.  A  simpler  origin  for  the  use  of  the 
fourth  finger  is  that  the  Greeks  and  Romans  wore 
of  old  their  rings  on  that  finger  (Maci'obius, 
Saturn.  7,  1.  13,  quoted  by  Selden  in  his  Uxor 
llehraica'). 

The  bridal  ring  is  referred  to  both  in  the 
Wisio;othic  and  the  Lombard  Codes.  The  former 
s]>eaks  of  it  as  constituting  by  delivery  an  en¬ 
forceable  marriage  contract  without  writing : 
“  where  a  ring  has  been  given  or  accepted  in  the 
name  of  earnest,  though  no  writings  should  pass 
between  the  parties,  that  promise  should  be  in 
nowise  broken  with  which  a  ring  has  been  given 
and  terms  (definitio)  fixed  before  witnesses  ” 
(bk.  iii.  t.  i.  c.  3).  The  Lombard  law  is  to  the 
same  effect ;  when  a  man  betroths  to  himself 
a  woman,  “  with  a  ring  only,  he  gives  earnest 
for  her  and  makes  her  his  ”  (cum  solo  annulo 
earn  subarrat  et  suam  tacit),  “  and  if  afterwards 
he  marry  another,  he  is  found  guilty  to  the 
amount  of  500  solid!  ”  (bk.  v.  c.  i. ;  law  of  Luit- 
prand,  A.D.  717). 

As  late  as  the  9th.  century,  it  is  clear  that  the 
ring  was  constitutive  of  betrothal,  not  of  mar¬ 
riage.  This  is  shown  by  Pope  Nicolas’s  answer 
to  the  Bulgarians,  where  he  says  that  “  after  the 
future  bridegroom  has  betrothed  to  himself  the 


future  bride  by  earnest,  placing  on  her  finger  tlie 
ring  of  affiance  .  .  .  either  soon  or  at  a  fitting 
time  .  .  .  both  are  led  to  the  marriage  (nuptialia 
foedera)  .  .  .  and  thus  at  last  receive  the  bene¬ 
diction  and  the  heavenly  veil.”  From  this  it 
follows  that  all  Western  Church  formulae  of 
blessing  rings  must  belong  to  a  still  later  period  ; 
and  indeed  the  use  of  the  ring  in  marriage  is 
sujjposed  to  have  come  in  during  the  10th  century. 

On  the  other  hand,  since,  as  observed  under 
the  head  Arrhae,  Pope  Nicolas’s  reply  exju’essly 
distinguishes  Latin  from  Greek  usage,  it  is  per¬ 
fectly  j^ossible  that  the  blessing  of  rings,  which 
occurs  in  the  betrothal  liturgy  of  the  Eucho- 
logium  may  be  of  earlier  date:  “By  a  ring 
was  given  authority  to  Joseph  in  Egypt.  By  a 
ring  was  Daniel  glorified  in  the  land  of  Babylon. 
By  a  ring  was  shewn  the  truthfulness  of  Tamar. 
By  a  ring  our  heavenly  Father  shewed  mercy 
towards  his  son,  for  ‘  having  slain  the  fatted  calf 
and  eaten  let  us  rejoice  ’  [he  said]  .  .  .  Thou 
therefore,  0  Lord,  bless  this  placing  of  rings  with 
a  heavenly  blessing,”  &c.  The  Greek  ceremony, 
it  may  be  observed,  requires  two  rings,  one  of 
gold  and  one  of  silver.  [J.  M.  L.] 

BRIDGET,  or  BRIGIDA,  virgin,  of  Ireland, 
martyr  in  Scotland,  A.D.  523,  wonder-worker, 
is  commemorated  Feb.  1  (Jdart.  Hicron..,  Adonis., 
Bedae).  [C.] 

BRIEFS  and  BULI.S  (JBreve,  Bulla).  Both 
these  names  are  applied  to  the  Letters  Apostolic 
of  the  Pope  :  the  distinction  between  thon  being 
chiefly  one  of  form,  and  relating  to  the  nature 
of  the  instrument  in  which  the  letters  are  con¬ 
tained. 

A  Papal  Brief  is  ordinarily  written  in  the 
Latin  character,  and  is  sealed,  not  with  lead,  but 
with  wax;  the  seal  bearing  the  impression  of  the 
so-called  “  fisherman’s  I'ing,”  a  figure  of  St.  Peter 
fishing  fi’om  a  boat.  It  is  signed  by  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  Briefs,  and  commonly  commences  thus : 
“  Pius  Papa  IX.,”  &c. 

A  Bull,  on  the  other  hand,  is  written  in  the 
Gothic  character,  and  is  sealed  with  a  leaden  seal 
of  a  globular  form  (from  which,  viz.  bulla,  as 
most  suppose,  it  derives  its  name,  though  some 
deduce  it  from  $ovKt]),  which  is  attached  to  the 
document  by  a  string  of  silk,  if  the  Bull  be  one 
of  Grace,  or  by  a  hempen  cori,  if  it  be  one  of 
Justice.  The  seal  bears  on  one  side  a  representa¬ 
tion  of  the  Apostles  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and 
on  the  other  the  name  of  the  reigning  Pope. 
Bulls  are  issued  from  the  Papal  Chancery,  and 
commence  in  this  form  :  “Pius  Episcopus,  servus 
sei'vorum  Dei,”  &c. 

Some  Bulls  have  not  only  the  Papal  seal,  but 
also  a  second  one  in  the  form  of  a  cross.  These 
are  Consistorial  Bulls,  and  are  issued  with  the 
assent  and  advice  of  the  Cardinals  in  Consistory, 
by  whom  they  are  subscribed. 

Briefs  and  Bulls  are  of  equal  force,  but  the 
former  are  supposed  to  have  greater  brevity  of 
expression  (whence  perhaps  the  name),  and  as 
a  general,  though  not  invariable,  rule,  to  be 
employed  in  mattei’s  of  lesser  moment.  Before 
his  coronation,  a  Pope  ought  not  to  issue  Bulls, 
but  only  Briefs.  Or  if  he  issues  a  Bull,  it  does 
not  bear  his  name  on  the  seal. 

A  Brief,  on  the  whole,  may  be  said  to  corre¬ 
spond  in  some  respects  to  a  Writ  of  Privy  Seal 
in  England,  as  distinguished  from  Letters  Patent 


BEOTHERHOOD 


250  BRITAIN,  COUNCILS  IN 

of  the  Crown,  which  would  answer  to  a  Bull. 
It  may  be  added  that  a  Brief  may  be  suppressed, 
as  it  is  not  issued  in  the  same  open  form  as  a 
Bull ;  and  there  are,  it  is  said,  instances  of  Briefs 
being  suppi-essed  altogether.  It  may  also  be 
cancelled  or  superseded  by  a  subsequent  Brief, 
whereas  a  Bull  can  be  cancelled  only  by  a  Bull. 
For  the  most  part  also  a  Brief  is  of  less  extensive 
application  than  a  Bull,  the  latter  being  some¬ 
times  binding  on  the  entire  Christian  world  in 
communion  with  Rome. 

It  must  be  stated,  however,  that  some  of  the 
particulars  just  specified,  though  characteristic 
of  Bulls  and  Briefs  at  this  day  and  for  a  long 
period,  are  not  observed  in  very  early  documents. 
Thus,  for  instance,  in  the  Li'ter  Diurnus  lloma- 
norum  Fontificum,  a  work  probably  of  the  8th 
centuiy  (printed  in  Migne’s  Patrologiae  Cursus 
Complehis,  vol.  cv.)  forms  of  commencements  of 
Papal  letters  are  given,  in  which  the  name  of 
the  Pope  follows  instead  of  preceding  that  of  the 
gi’eat  person  to  whom  the  letter  is  addressed. 

Thus  to  a  Patrician  the  letter  begins  Do¬ 
mino  excellentissimo,  atque  praecellentissimo  filio 
[name]  patricio,  [name  of  Pope]  Episcopus  servus 
servorum  Dei.”  And  to  the  archbishop  of  Ra¬ 
venna —  “  Reverendissimo  et  Sanctissimo  fratri 
[name  of  archbishop]  Coepiscopo,  [name  of  Pope] 
servus  servorum  Dei.”  And  even  to  a  Pres¬ 
byter  we  have  —  “  Dilectissimo  filio  [name  of 
presbyter],  [name  of  Pope]  servus  servorum  Dei.” 
In  a  Dissertation  annexed  to  the  edition  of  the 
Liber  Diurnus  of  1860,  the  Jesuit  Gesner  states 
that  the  custom  of  putting  the  Pope’s  name  first 
does  not  seem  to  have  come  in  until  about  the 
9th  century.  It  will  thus  probably  be  nearly 
contemporaneous  with  the  appearance  of  the 
Forged  Decretals,  and  will  appropriately  mark 
the  era  when  the  Popes  first  put  forward  regal 
and  ultra-regal  pretensions. 

Authorities, —  Ferraris,  Bibliotheca  Canonica 
vol.  i.  edit.  1844,  sub  vocibus  “Breve,  Bulla;” 
XyWiXo’s,  Parergon  Juris  canonici,  tit.  “of  Bulls 
Papal;”  Burn’s  A'cc/cs.  Zaie,  tit.  “Bull;”  Twiss 
On  the  letters  Apostolic  of  Pope  Pius  IX.  Lon¬ 
don,  1851,  p.  2.  [B.  S.] 

BRITAIN,  COUNCILS  IN.  [Britannicum 
Concilium.] 

BRITANNICUM  CONCILIUM;  f. e.  Coun¬ 
cils  of  the  Welsh  Church.  See  Calrlkonense  ; 
Llandewi-Brefi  ;  Lucus  Victoriae;  Augus¬ 
tine’s  Oak;  Verulamium. 

2.  Breton  Councils  [Brittany]. 

The  Councils  called  “  Britannica,”  in  Cave, 
Wilkins,  Labbe,  &c.,  are  either  those  above  named 
(mostly  misdated  and  incorrectly  described),  or 
are  pure  fables ;  while  Cave  has  chosen  to  add 
to  them  the  Northumbrian  Synod  of  Onestre- 
feld  of  A.D.  702,  which  see  under  its  proper 
title.  [A.  W.  II.] 

BROTHERHOOD.  The  origin  of  brother- 
hoods  or  fraternities  in  the  Christian  Church  and 
world,  whether  clerical,  lay,  or  mixed,  is  far  from 
being  satisfactorily  ascertained.  The  history  of 
monastic  fraternities  will  be  found  under  their 
appropriate  headings,  though  we  may  here  re¬ 
mark  that  the  formation  of  such  tratornitios 
was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  very  impulse 
which  produced  monachism  itself,  and  sent  the 
fiQuaxhs,  or  solitary,  as  a  “hermit”  into  the 
wilderness  (eprj/ioi/).  Yet  such  fraternities  were 


practically  in  existence  in  the  Egyptian  laurae, 
when  Serajnon  could  rule  over  a  thousand  monks  ; 
they  received  their  fii’st  written  constitution 
from  St.  Basil  (326-379),  and  both  Basil  and 
Jerome  (who  had  himself  been  a  hermit)  having 
declared  their  disapproval  of  solitary  monachism, 
the  social  or  fraternal  type  must  be  considered  to 
have  become  fully  impressed  on  the  monastic 
system  during  the  course  of  the  4th  and  5th 
centuries. 

Dr.  Brentano,  in  his  work  On  the  History  and 
Development  of  Gilds  (London,  Triibner,  1870), 
expresses  indeed  the  opinion  “  that  the  religious 
brotherhoods  of  the  middle  ages,  and  as  they 
still  exist  in  Catholic  countries,  have  their  origin 
in  a  connexion  with  monasticism,  and  in  an 
imitation  of  it  .  .  .  and  that  this  origin  is  to 
be  sought  in  Southern  lands,  in  which  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  monasticism  were  first  propagated  ” 
(p.  9).  If  this  be  so,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
the  imitation  was  almost  coeval  with  its  model, 
for  he  himself  ascribes  to  the  3rd  century—  the 
age  of  the  Egyptian  hermits  —  the  “Christian 
brotherhood  for  nursing  the  sick  ”  of  the  Para- 
bolani, — which  Muratori  was  the  first  to  point 
out  as  a  sort  of  religious  fraternity,  in  ojipo- 
sition  to  various  writers  quoted  by  him  (in  the 
75th  Dissertation  of  his  Antiquitates  Medii 
Aevi,  vol.  vi.),  who  had  held  that  such  frater¬ 
nities  date  only  from  the  9th  or  even  the  13th 
centuries.  [Parabolani.]  Muratori  also  sug¬ 
gests  that  the  lecticarii  or  decani,,  who  are 
mentioned  in  the  Code  (1  tit.  2,  s.  4),  and  m 
Justinian’s  43rd  and  59th  Novels,  by  the  latter 
as  fulfillino;  certain  functions  at  funerals,  must 
have  been  a  kind  of  religious  fraternity.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  old  sodalitas,  or  its  equiva¬ 
lent  the  Greek  (pparpia  (henceforth  Latinized  as 
“  phratria  ”  or  “fratria”),  appears  to  have  be¬ 
come  more  and  more  discredited,  since  the  18th 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (a.d.  451) 
requires  the  cutting  off  of  all  clerics  or  monks 
forming  “  conjurationes  vel  sodalitates  ”  (Isidore 
Mercator  translates  “  phratrias  vel  factiones  ”)  ; 
for  if  “  the  crime  of  conspiracy  or  of  sodalitas  is 
wholly  forbidden  even  by  external  laws,  much 
more  should  it  be  so  in  God’s  Church.”  A 
decree  of  the  Vandal  king  Gundemar  (to  be 
found  in  the  10th  vol.  of  Labbe  and  Mansi’s 
Councils,  p.  510),  about  A.D.  610,  directed  to 
the  priests  of  the  city  of  Carthage,  speaks  in 
like  manner  of  fratrias  et  conjurat tones  ixgAnst  the 
Metropolitan  Church.  So  again  the  6th  Oecu¬ 
menical  Council,  that  of  Constantinople  in  Trullo, 
A.D.  680-1,  has  a  canon  (34)  against  clerics  or 
monks  (TUFOyUi/u/iej/ot  fj  </)paTpid^ovT6S  (translated 
in  the  Latin  conjurantes  vel  sodalitates  ineuntesf 
who  are  to  lose  their  rank  ;  and  other  similar 
enactments  could  be  adduced. 

In  the  8th  century  we  find  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  the  Church  to  confine  the  idea  of  frater¬ 
nity  to  clerical  and  monastic  use.  We  may  take 
as  an  instance  of  this  in  our  own  country  the 
‘Dialogue  by  question  and  answer  on  Church 
government  ’  of  Archbishop  Egbert  of  f  ork  (mid¬ 
dle  of  the  century),  in  which  the  terms  frafer 
and  soror  will  be  found  applied  both  to  clerics 
and  monks  or  nuns,  but  never  apparently  to  lay¬ 
men.  But  there  is  at  the  same  time  ground  for 
surmising  that  the  term  “  fraternity,”  which  in 
the  12th  and  13th  centuries  is  used  ordinarily  as 
a  synonym  for  “  gild,”  was  already  current  in 


BROTHERHOOD 


BURIAL  OF  THE  DEAD  251 


the  8th  or  9th  to  designate  these  bodies,  the 
organization  of  which  Dr.  Brentano  holds  to  have 
been  complete  among  the  Anglo-Saxons  in  the 
8th  century  (Brentano  on  Gilds,  pp.  11—12),  and 
the  bulk  of  which  were  of  lay  constitution,  though 
usually  of  a  more  or  less  religious  character. 
The  connexion  between  the  two  words  is  esta¬ 
blished  in  a  somewhat  singular  manner.  A 
Council  of  Nantes  of  very  uncertain  date,  which 
has  been  placed  by  some  as  early  as  658,  by 
others  as  late  as  800,  has  a  canon  (9)  which  is 
repeated  almost  in  the  same  terms  in  a  capitulary 
of  Archbishop  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  of  the  year 
852  or  858  (c.  16).  But  where  the  canon  speaks 
of  “  those  gatherings  or  confraternities  which  are 
termed  consortia  (de  collectis  vel  confratriis  quas 
consortia  vocant),”  the  archbishop  has  “  de 
collectis  quas  geldonias  vel  confratrias  vulgo 
vocant,”  —  “  gatherings  which  are  commonly 
called  gilds  or  confraternities.”  Whilst  the  faith¬ 
ful  are  authorized  to  unite  “  in  oblations,  in 
lights,  in  mutual  prayers,  in  the  burial  of  the 
dead,  in  alms  and  other  offices  of  piety,”  those 
feasts  and  banquets  are  forbidden,  where  “  undue 
exactions,  shameful  and  vain  merriment  and 
quarrels,  often  even  hatred  and  dissensions  are 
wont  to  arise  ;  ”  the  penalty  assigned  being  for 
clerics  deprivation,  for  laymen  or  women  exclu¬ 
sion  from  communion  till  they  have  given  due 
satisfaction. 

But  the  term  “  gild  ”  itself  was  already  in 
use  to  designate  fraternities  for  mutual  help  be¬ 
fore  the  days  of  Hincmar.  We  meet  with  it  in 
a  capitulary  of  Charlemagne’s  of  the  year  779, 
treated  by  Canciani  and  Muratori  as  enacted  for 
Lombardy,  but  by  Pertz  on  the  contrary  (in  his 
Monumenta  Gerinaniae  Historica')  as  enacted  for 
France,  which  bears  “As  touching  the  oaths  mu¬ 
tually  sworn  by  a  gild  (per  gildoniam.  Cane. ; 
gildoiiia,  Pertz),  that  no  one  presume  to  do  so. 
Otherwise  as  touching  their  maintenance  ‘  (ali- 
moniis;  or  “alms,”  elemosynis,  Pertz),’  or  fire, 
or  shipwreck,  though  they  may  make  covenant 
(quamvis  convenientias  faciant)  let  none  presume 
to  swear  thereto”  (see  also  bk.  v.  of  the  general 
collection,  c.  200,  “  de  sacramentis  pro  gildoma 
(  gildonia  )  invicem  conjurantibus  ”  ;  and  the 
4th  “Addition,”  c.  134,  “  ne  aliquis  pro  gildomia 
sacramentum  facere  audeat.”)  It  is  thus  clear 
that  the  gilds  of  the  latter  half  of  the  8th  cen¬ 
tury  existed  for  purposes  exactly  the  same  as 
those  which  they  fulfilled  several  centuries  later. 
So  far  indeed  as  they  were  usually  sanctioned  by 
oath,  they  were  obviously  forbidden  by  the  capi¬ 
tulary  above  quoted,  as  well  as  by  several  others 
against  “  conjurations  ”  and  conspiracies  which 
Dr.  Brentano  refers  to  from  Pertz,  the  last  (the 
Thionville  Capitulary  of  805)  of  a  peculiarly 
ferocious  character. 

It  may  be  suspected  that  the  subject  of  reli¬ 
gious  or  quasi-religious  brotherhoods  or  fraterni¬ 
ties  in  the  early  Church  (apart  from  monastic 
ones)  has  been  but  imperfectly  investigated  as 
yet.  It  may  at  least  be  said  that  specific  bodies 
are  found  apparently  answering  to  the  character, 
attached  to  particular  churches,  during  the  3rd, 
4th,  5th,  and  6th  centuries.  In  the  West,  how¬ 
ever,  we  seem  first  to  discern  them  under  the 
Teutonic  shape  of  the  gild,  which  in  its  freer 
forms  was  palpably  the  object  of  great  jealousy 
to  the  political  and  spiritual  despots  of  the  Car- 
lovingian  era.  [J.  M.  L.] 


BUCOLUS,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  consecrated 
by  St.  John  ;  commemorated  as  “  Holy  Father,” 
Feb.  6  {Cal.  Byzant.')  [C.] 

BULLS.  [Briefs  and  Bulls.] 

BURDIGALENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Bor¬ 
deaux,  Council  of.] 

BURFORD,  COUNCIL  OF  (Berghfcrd- 
ENSE  Concilium),  provincial,  “  juxta  vadura 
Berghford,”  at  Burford  in  Oxfordshire,  a.d.  685, 
witnesses  a  grant  by  King  Berhtwald,  an  under¬ 
king  of  Ethelred  of  Mercia,  to  Aldhelm  and  the 
abbey  of  Malmesbury  (charter  in  Will.  Malm. 
G.  P.  A.  V.,  and  Kemble,  Cod.  Dipl.  26;  the 
latter  correcting  the  impossible  date  DCXXXV 
into  DCLXXXV,  and  thus  removing  the  main 
objection  to  the  genuineness  of  the  document, 
w'hich  however  he  still  marks  as  spurious ; 
Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Counc.  iii.  169).  [A.  W.  H.] 

BURIAL  OF  THE  DEAD.  Among  the  many 
points  of  contrast  between  the  Christian  Church 
and  the  systems  which  it  supplanted,  the  treat¬ 
ment  of  the  departed  furnished  one  of  the  most 
conspicuous.  Side  by  side  with  their  unexampled 
hospitality  and  their  austere  purity  of  life,  Julian 
enumerates  their  care  for  the  burial  of  the  dead 
as  one  of  the  means  by  which  the  Christians 
against  whom  he  strove,  had  succeeded  in  con¬ 
verting  the  Empire  {Epist.  ad  Arsac.  xlix.,  0pp. 
ed.  Spanheim).  That  which  was  characteristic 
of  the  new  faith  was  not  only  its  belief  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  but  its  reverence  for 
that  body  as  sharing  in  the  redemption,  and  this 
showed  itself  in  almost  ev'ery  incident  connected 
with  the  funeral  rites. 

1.  Mode  of  Burial.  In  Egypt  and  in  Palestine 
the  Christian  Church  inherited  the  practice  of 
embalming.  It  had  prevailed  from  the  earliest 
period  of  which  we  have  any  record.  It  had 
originated  in  a  belief  which  Christians  recognised 
as  analogous  to  their  own  (August.  Set'm.  de  Div. 
cxx.  12).  So  the  patriai’chs  and  kings  of  the  Old 
Testament  had  been  intei  red,  so  had  been  their 
Lord  himself.  It  was  natural  that  those  who 
found  the  practice  in  existence  should  not  discard 
it,  even  though  they  no  longer  looked  on  it  as 
essential.  The  language  of  Tertullian  implies 
that  it  was  in  general  use  in  Western  Africa 
{Apol.  c.  42) ;  that  of  Augustine  {1.  c.)  shows 
that  it  was  adopted  in  Egypt.  In  Greece,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  dead  had  been  consigned  to  the 
funeral  pyre,  and  the  ashes  collected  in  an  urn 
of  bronze  or  clay,  from  the  heroic  age  downward. 
Rome,  which  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  Republic 
had  interred  its  dead,  had  adopted  the  Greek 
usage  in  the  time  of  Sulla  (the  dictator  is  said 
to  have  been  the  first  Roman  whose  body  was 
so  disposed  of)  and  had  transmitted  it  to  the 
Empire  (Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  vii.  54 ;  Cic.  de  Lcyg. 
ii.  25).  Against  this  usage  Christian  feeling 
naturally  revolted.  Even  while  contending  that 
no  variation  in  the  mode  of  burial  could  afl'ect 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  Christian  writers 
protested  against  cremation  as  wanting  in  re¬ 
verencing,  and  suggesting  a  denial  of  the  truth 
which  they  held  so  precious.  We,  they  said, 
“  veterem  et  melioi’em  consuetudinem  humandi 
frequentamus”  (Minuc.  Felix,  Octav.  c.  39 ; 
August,  de  Civ.  Dei,  i.  12,  13).  And  accord¬ 
ingly,  when  their  persecutors  sought  to  Inflict 
the  most  cruel  outrage  on  their  feelings,  they 
added  to  the  tortures  by  which  they  inflicted 


252  BURIAI,  OF  THE  DEAD 


BURIAL  OF  THE  DEAD 


death,  that  of  burniug  the  bodies  of  the  dead, 
lu  this  way,  they  thought,  they  should  rob  the 
Christians  of  that  resuiTcction  which  they  hoped 
for,  or  at  least  trample  on  that  which  they  held 
sacred  (Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  1,  ad  fin.').  As  a  rule, 
accordingly,  it  may  be  held,  that  interment,  with 
or  without  embalming,  according  to  local  custom 
or  the  rank  of  the  deceased,  obtained  from  the 
first  in  all  Christian  Churches. 

2.  Place  of  Burial.  At  first,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  Christians 
to  transgress  the  laws  of  the  Empire  which  for¬ 
bade  interment  within  the  walls  of  cities  (Cic.  de 
Lci](j.  ii.  58).  The  Jewish  custom  had  in  this 
respect  agreed  with  that  which  prevailed 
throughout  the  heathen  world,  strengthened  by 
the  feeling  that  contact  with  the  graves  where 
the  dead  reposed  brought  with  it  a  ceremonial 
defilement.  The  tomb  of  Christ,  e.g.,  was  in  a 
garden  nigh  unto  the  city,  but  outside  the  gates 
(Matt,  xxvii.  60),  and  the  same  holds  good  of 
the  burial  at  Nain  (Luke  vii.  12),  and  of  that  of 
Lazarus  (John  xi.  30).  The  demoniac  of  Gadara 
had  “  his  dwelling  in  the  tombs,”  because  they 
were  remote  from  human  habitations  (Mark  v. 
5).  Commonl)',  as  on  the  Appian  way,  and  the 
road  from  Athens  to  the  Piraeus,  the  strip  of 
ground  on  each  side  of  the  most  frequented 
highway,  beginning  at  the  city  gate,  became 
the  burial-place  of  citizens.  Slaves  and  foreign¬ 
ers  were  laid  in  some  less  honourable  position. 
The  Jews  at  Rome  and  in  other  cities  had  burial- 
places  of  their  own. 

The  wish  to  avoid  contact  with  idolatrous 
rites,  and  to  escape  interruption  and  insult  in 
their  own  funeral  ceremonies,  would  naturally 
lead  Christians  to  follow  the  example  of  the 
Jews,  and  to  secure,  as  soon  as  possible,  a  place 
where  they  could  bury  their  dead  in  peace.  The 
earliest  trace  of  this  feeling  is  found  in  an 
inscription,  which  records  the  purchase  by 
Faustus,  a  slave  of  Antonia,  the  wife  of  Drusus, 
from  Jucundus,  a  Christian,  of  the  “jus  olla- 
rum,”  the  right,  i.e.  of  burying  the  remains  of 
the  dead  in  a  columbarium.  The  Christian,  i.  e. 
will  no  longer  burn  the  bodies  of  those  for 
whom  he  cares,  nor  have  his  own  body  to  be 
burnt,  but  sells  his  interest  in  the  pagan  sepul¬ 
chre,  and  provides  another  for  himself  (Muratori 
MDCLXViii.  6).  So  in  like  manner  Cyprian 
i^Ep.  68)  makes  it  a  special  charge  against  Mar- 
tialis,  bishop  of  Astura,  that  he  had  allow'ed  his 
sons  to  be  “apud  profana  sepulcra  depositos.” 
During  the  long  periods  in  which  they  were 
exempt  from  persecution,  they  were  allowed  in 
many  cities  to  possess  their  burial-grounds  in 
peace.  At  Carthage,  e.g.,  they  had  their  areae, 
and  it  was  only  in  a  time  of  popular  fury  that 
their  right  to  them  was  disputed  (Tertull.  ad 
Scap.  c.  3).  At  Alexandria  they  had  what  they 
had  been  the  first  to  call  KoifjLrjTrjpia,  and  it  was 
not  till  the  persecution  under  Valerian  and  Gal- 
lienus  that  they  were  forbidden  to  have  access 
to  them  (Euseb.  B.  E.  vii.  11).  [Cemetery.] 
Soon  afterwards,  however,  they  must  have  been 
restored,  as  we  find  Diocletian  and  Maximian 
again  closing  them.  Special  edicts  of  this  nature 
are,  of  course,  exceptions  that  prove  the  rule. 
Where,  as  at  Rome,  Naples,  and  Milan,  the  na¬ 
ture  of  the  soil  lent  itself  readily  to  subterrane¬ 
ous  interment,  this  was  caught  at  as  givino^  at 
once  the  privacy  and  security  which  the  Chris¬ 


tians  needed.  As  Christianity  spread,  it  was  not 
difficult,  by  payment  or  by  favour — often,  perhaps, 
through  a  secret  sympathy — to  obtain  from  the 
owners  of  the  land  which  was  thus  excavated  a 
prescriptive  right  to  its  use ;  and,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  sanctity  of  the  catacombs  never  seems 
to  have  been  violated.  [Catacombs.]  Whatever 
other  purposes  they  might  serve,  as  meeting- 
places  or  refuges,  this  was,  beyond  question, 
their  primary  and  most  lasting  use. 

During  persecution,  especially  in  localities 
where  there  was  not  the  facility  for  concealment 
presented  by  the  catacombs,  the  Christians  had, 
of  course,  to  bury  their  dead  as  they  could. 
When  the  conversion  of  Constantine  restored  free 
liberty  of  choice,  the  places  which  had  been 
made  sacred  by  the  bodies  of  saints  and  martyrs 
were  naturally  sought  after.  The  tomb  became 
the  nucleus  of  a  basilica.  The  devout  Christian 
wished  to  be  helped  by  the  presence  and  protec¬ 
tion  of  the  martyr  (August,  de  Cura  ger.  pro 
Mort.  c.  1  and  7).  The  phrases  POSlTOS  AD 
SAXCTOS,  AD  MARTYRES,  are  found  frequently  on 
monumental  inscriptions  in  Italy  and  Gaul  (Le 
Bbiiit,  Base ripA ions  Chretiennes,  i.  83).  Gra¬ 
dually,  through  the  influence  of  this  feeling,  the 
old  Roman  practice  of  extramural  interment 
fell  into  disuse.  Burial  within  the  basilica  was 
reserved  for  persons  of  the  highest  rank.  Con¬ 
stantine  was  the  first  to.  set  the  example,  and 
was  followed  by  Theodosius  and  Honorius  (Chry- 
sost.  Horn.  26  in  2  Cor.).  The  distinction  was 
eagerly  sought  after,  and  the  desire  to  obtain 
it  had  to  be  placed  under  restrictions  both  by 
imperial  laws,  as  by  those  of  Valentinian  and 
Gratian,  and  by  the  canons  of  councils  (Cone. 
Bracar.  A.D.  563,  c.  18).  During  the  transition 
period  many  cities  seem  to  have  adhered  to  the 
old  plan,  and  to  have  refused  their  sanction  to 
any  intramui-al  interment  (ibid.).  Where  that 
sanction  was  given,  the  precincts  of  the  church, 
sometimes  its  atrium  or  courtyard,  where  it  was 
constructed  after  the  type  of  a  basilica,  became 
the  favourite  spot.  In  the  9th  century  Gregory 
of  Tours  supplies  the  first  instance  of  a  formal 
consecration  of  a  churchyard  for  such  a  purpose 
(De  Glor.  Confess,  c.  6).  A  special  prohibition 
against  the  use  of  the  baptistery  for  interments 
is  found  in  Gaul  about  the  same  period  (Cone, 
Antissiod.  c.  14). 

Funeral  Rites.  The  details  of  Christian 
burial  present,  as  might  be  expected,  points  both 
of  resemblance  and  contrast  to  heathen  practices. 
Wherever  the  usage  was  the  expression  of  na¬ 
tural  reverence  or  love,  there  it  was  adopted. 
Where  it  was  connected  with  any  pagan  super¬ 
stition  it  was  carefully  avoided. 

(1.)  Starting  from  the  moment  of  death,  the 
first  act  of  the  by-standers,  of  the  nearest  of  kin 
who  might  be  present,  was  to  close  the  eyes  and 
mouth  of  the  corpse  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  22). 
Among  the  Romans  this  had  been  followed  by 
reopening  the  eves  when  the  body  was  placed 
upon  the  pyre  (Plin.  Eat.  Hist.  xi.  37),  probably 
as  symbolizing  the  thought  that  though  they 
had  ceased  to  look  upon  the  world  which  they 
were  leaving,  they  were  yet  on  the  point  ot 
passing  to  another  state  of  being  where  they 
would  see  and  be  seen  again.  Of  this  latter 
custom  we  have  no  trace  in  Christian  history. 
Then  followed  the  washing,  the  anointing,  some¬ 
times  the  embalming.  In  the  society  around 


BURIAL  OF  TPIE  DEAD 


BURIAL  OF  THE  DEAD  253 


them  this  had  been  left  to  the  pollinctores,  who 
made  it  their  business.  With  Christians  it  was 
a  work  of  love,  done  for  friends  and  kindred,  or 
even  for  straneers  and  the  poor  (Euseb.  //.  E. 
vii.  22). 

(2.)  In  Palestine  and  throughout  the  East 
generally  interment  followed  upon  death  after 
an  interval  of  a  few  hours,  during  which  the 
hired  mourners  made  their  lamentations  (Matt, 
ix.  23;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25;  Jerem.  xxii.  18). 
This  was  due  in  part,  of  course,  to  the  rapidity 
with  which  decomposition  sets  in  under  such  a 
climate,  but  still  more  to  the  feeling  common  to 
both  Jew  and  heathen,  that  the  ])resence  of  the 
dead  body  bi'ought  defilement  to  the  house  and 
its  inmates.  Here  also  Christian  thought  shewed 
itself  in  contrast,  and  the  interval  between  death 
and  burial  was  gradually  prolonged  to  three  or 
four  days.  The  body  was  swathed  in  white 
linen,  sometimes  with  the  insignia  of  office,  or 
with  ornaments  of  gold  and  gems,  placed  in  the 
coffin  or  sarcophagus,  and  laid  out,  sometimes  in 
the  chamber  of  death,  sometimes  in  the  church, 
that  friends  might  come  and  weep  and  take  their 
last  look  (Euseb.  Vit.  Const,  iv.  66,  67 ;  Ambros. 
Omt.  in  obit.  Theodos. ;  August.  Conff.  ix.  12). 
V^igils  were  held  over  it,  accompanied  by  pi’ayers 
and  hymns.  Hired  mourners,  like  those  of  the 
East  or  the  pt'aeficae  of  the  Romans,  were  not 
allowed. 

(3.)  The  feeling  that  a  funeral  was  a  thing  of  evil 
omen  for  the  eye  to  fall  on  led  the  Romans  to  choose 
night  as  the  time  for  interment.^  The  Christian 
Church,  on  the  contrary,  as  soon  as  it  was  able 
to  develop  itself  freely,  and  was  free  from  the 
risk  of  outrage,  chose  the  day,  and  gave  to  the 
funeral  procession  somewhat  of  the  character  of 
a  triumph.  The  coffin  was  borne  on  the  shoulders 
of  the  nearest  fiiends  and  kinsmen.  Whei’e,  as 
in  the  case  of  Paula  (Hieron.  27  ad  Eustoch.), 
honour  was  to  be  shewn  to  some  conspicuous 
benefactor  of  the  Church,  it  was  carried  by  the 
bishops  and  the  clergy.  The  leading  clergy  of 
a  diocese  took  their  place  as  bearers  at  the  funeral 
of  a  bishop,  as,  e.  g.  in  that  of  St.  Basil  (Greg. 
Naz.  Orat.  xx.  p.  371).  They  and  the  others 
who  took  part  in  the  ceremonial  carried  in  their 
hands  branches,  not  of  the  funereal  cypress,  as 
among  Greeks  and  Romans,  but  of  palm  and  olive, 
as  those  who  celebrate  a  victory.  Leaves  of  the 
evergreen, laurel  and  ivy  were  placed  in  the  coffin 
in  token  of  the  hope  of  immortality  (Durand. 
Eat.  div.  off.  vii.  35).  Others,  Jigain,  in  like  token 
of  Christian  joy,  carried  lighted  lamps  or  torches 
(Chrysost.  Horn.  IV.  in  Hehr. ;  Greg.  Nyss.  Vit. 
Macrin.  ii.  p.  201).  The  practice  of  crowning 
the  head  with  a  wreath  of  flowers  was  rejected, ** 
partly  as  tainted  with  idolatry,  partly  as  asso¬ 
ciated  with  riotous  revels  or  shameless  effeminacy 
(Clem.  Alex.  Paedag.  ii.  8 ;  Tertull.  de  Cor.  Milit. 
c.  10),  but  flowers  were  scattered  freely  over  the 
body.  Others,  again,  carried  thuribles,  and  fra¬ 
grant  clouds  of  incense  rose  as  in  a  Roman 

a  Julian,  in  his  edict  against  the  practice  of  funeral 
processions,  occasioned  by  those  which  had  been  held  at 
Antioch  in  honour  of  the  martyr  Baby  las,  falls  back 
upon  the  old  superstition :  “  (Ju*  enim  dies  est  bene  aus- 
picatus  a  funere?  Aut  quomodo  ad  Decs  et  templa 
venletur." — Cod.  Theod.  lx.  tit.  17,  L  5. 

•>  The  denial  of  what  had  come  to  be  a  recognized 
mark  of  honour  was  turned  in  the  earlier  ages  of  the 
Church  into  a  ground  of  attack.  "  Coronas  etiam  sepulchris 


triumph  (Baron.  Annal.  a.d.  310,  n.  10;  Chrysost. 
Bom.  cxvi.  1.  6).  Nor  did  they  march  in  silence, 
but  chanted  as  they  went  hymns  of  hope  and 
joy.  “  Right  dear  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  is  the 
death  of  His  saints “  Turn  again  unto  thy 
rest,  0  my  soul,  for  the  Lord  hath  rewarded 
thee ;”  “  The  souls  of  the  righteous  are  in  the 
hand  of  God  ” — were  among  the  favourite  an¬ 
thems  {Constt.  Apost.  vi.  30 ;  Chrysost.  Born. 
30,  de  Do)'ni.').  Bells  were  not  tolled  till  the 
eighth  or  ninth  century,  nor  can  the  practice  of 
carrying  the  cross  in  the  procession  be  traced 
beyond  the  sixth  (Greg.  Turon.  Vit.  Patr.  c.  14). 
When  they  reached  the  grave,  hymns  and  prayers 
were  renewed,  and  were  followed  by  an  address 
from  the  bishop  or  priest.® 

(4.)  Either  in  the  church  or  at  the  grave  it 
was  customary,  as  early  as  the  fourth  century, 
to  have  a  celebration  of  the  eucharist  in  token 
of  the  communion  that  still  existed  between  the 
living  and  the  dead.  (123  C.  Carth.  iii.  c.  29). 
With  this  were  united  special  prayers  for  the  soul 
of  the  departed.  The  priest  first,  and  afterwards 
the  other  friends,  gave  the  corpse  the  last  kiss  of 
peace  (Dionys.  Aroop.  Hierarch.  Eccles.  c.  7).  For 
some  centuries,  in  spite  of  repeated  prohibitions  by 
councils  of  the  Church,  the  practice  prevailed,  in 
Western  Africa,  in  Gaul,  in  the  East,  of  placing 
the  consecrated  bread  itself,  steeped  in  the  wine, 
within  the  lips  of  the  dead  (C.  Carth.  iii.  c.  6; 
vi.  c.  83  ;  C.  Antissiod.  c.  12  ;  C.  Trullan.  c.  133). 
Another  practice,  that  of  burying  the  Eucharistic 
bread  with  the  dead,  though  not  between  the 
lips,  had  a  higher  sanction.  St.  Basil  is  reported, 
on  one  occasion,  after  consecration,  to  have  divided 
the  Eucharist  into  three  parts,  and  to  have  re¬ 
served  one  to  be  buried  with  him  (Amphilochius 
in  Spicileg.  vii.  p.  81)  ;  and  St.  Benedict,  in  like 
manner,  ordered  it  to  be  laid  upon  the  breast  of 
a  young  monk,  as  he  was  placed  in  the  grave. 
(Greg.  Dialog,  ii.  24  ;  cf.  Martene  de  Ant. 
Eccles.  Bit.  i.  162,  ed.  1.)  The  old  union  of  the 
Agape  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  left  traces 
of  itself  here  also,  and  the  Eucharist  was  fol¬ 
lowed  by  a  meal,  ostensibly  of  brotherhood,  or 
as  an  act  of  bounty  to  the  poor,  but  often  passing* 
into  riotous  excess  (August,  de  Mor.  Eccl.  c.  34). 

When  the  body  was  lowered  into  the  grave  it 
was  with  the  face  turned  upwards,  and  with  the 
feet  towards  the  east,  in  token  of  the  sure  and 
certain  hope  of  the  coming  of  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
(Chrysost.  Bom,  cxvi.  t.  vi.).  Other  positions, 
such  as  sitting  or  standing,  were  exceptions  to 
the  general  rule  (Arringhi,  Roma  subt.  c.  16, 
p.  33).  The  insignia  of  office,  if  the  deceased 
had  held  any  such  position  —  gold  and  silver 
ornaments,  in  the  case  of  private  persons — were 
often  flung  into  the  open  grave,  and  the  waste 
and  ostentation  to  which  this  led  had  to  be 
checked  by  an  imperial  edict  (^Cod.  Theodos.  xi. 
tit.  7,  1.  14),  which  does  not  appear,  however,  to 
have  been  very  rigidly  enforced.  The  practice 

denegatls”  is  the  language  of  the  heathen  in  the  Octavius 
of  Minucius  Felix ;  and  the  Christian  in  his  reply  ac¬ 
knowledges  “uec  mortuos  coronamus”  (c.  xii.  x.\xviii.). 
Flowers  were  however  scattered  over  the  grave  (Pru¬ 
dent.  Caihetnerinon,  x.  177.) 

®  The  tuneral  orations  of  Eusehius  at  the  death  of  Con¬ 
stantine,  of  Ambrose  on  that  of  Theodosius,  are  the  most 
memorable  instances;  but  we  have  also  those  of  Grr'gory 
of  Nazianzum  on  his  father  brother,  and  slater. 


?54  BUKIAL  OF  THE  LORD 


retained  in  our  English  service,  of  a  solemn 
prayer  while  the  first  handfuls  of  earth  are 
thrown  upon  the  coffin,  is  not  traceable  to  any 
early  period.  In  the  Greek  Euchologion  the 
earth  is  cast  in  by  the  bishop  or  priest  himself. 
When  the  grave  was  closed  the  service  ended 
with  the  Lord’s  Prayer  and  Benediction. 

There  were,  however,  subsequent  rites  con¬ 
nected  more  or  less  normally  with  the  burial. 
On  the  third  day,  on  the  ninth,  and  on  the  for¬ 
tieth,  the  friends  of  the  deceased  met  and  joined 
in  paslms  or  hymns  and  prayers  (^Constt.  Apost. 
viii.  c.  42). 

The  feeling  that  death  in  the  case  of  those 
who  fell  asleep  in  Christ  was  a  cause  not  for 
lamentation  but  for  thanksgiving,  shewed  itself 
lastly  in  the  disuse  of  the  mourning  apparel 
which  was  common  among  the  Romans,  of  the 
ashes  and  rent  garments,  which  were  signs  of 
sorrow  with  the  Jews.  Instead  of  black  clothes, 
men  were  to  wear  the  dress  which  they  wore  at 
feasts.  The  common  practice  was  denounced  as 
foreign  to  the  traditions  and  the  principles  of 
the  Christian  Church  (Cyprian,  de  Mortal,  p.  115  ; 
August.  Serm.  2,  de  Consol.  Mort.).  Here,  how¬ 
ever,  the  natural  feeling  was  too  strong  to  be 
thrust  out,  and  gradually  the  old  signs  of  a 
sorrow,  which  could  not  but  be  felt,  even  though 
it  were  blended  with  hope,  made  their  way  into 
use  again. 

It  was  characteristic  of  the  religious  care 
with  which  the  Church  regarded  every  work 
connected  with  the  burial  of  the  dead,  that  even 
those  whose  tasks  were  of  the  lowest  kind,  the 
grave-diggers  (Koirtarot,  fossarii),  the  sanda- 
pilarii.  and  others,  whose  functions  corresponded 
to  those  of  the  undertaker’s  men  in  our  own 
time,  were  not  merely  a  class  doing  their  work 
as  a  trade,  but  were  reckoned  as  servants  of  the 
Church,  and  as  such  took  their  place  as  the  lowest 
order  of  the  clergy. 

The  more  developed  and  formal  ritual  of  in¬ 
terment  in  the  Eastern  Church  is  given  at  some 
length  by  the  Pseudo-Dionysius  the  Areopagite, 
and  contained,  as  its  chief  elements,  the  fbllow- 
'ing  : — (1)  The  body  was  brought  to  the  bisherp 
or  priest  by  the  next  of  kin,  that  he  might  offer 
thanksgiving  as  for  one  who  had  fought  the 
good  fight,  and  the  relations  sang  triumphant 
and  rejoicing  hymns.  (2)  The  deacons  recited 
the  chief  Scriptural  promises  of  the  resurrection 
and  of  eternal  life,  and  sang  creeds  and  hymns  of 
like  tenor.  (3)  The  catechumens  were  then  dis¬ 
missed,  and  the  archdeacon  spoke  to  the  faithful 
who  remained,  of  the  bliss  of  the  departed,  and 
exhorted  them  to  follow  their  example.  (4)  The 
priest  then  prayed  that  the  deceased  might  find 
a  resting-place  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
in  the  land  wffiere  sorrow  and  sighing  should  flee 
away.  (5)  The  bishop,  followed  by  the  kindred 
or  friends,  then  gave  the  corpse  the  kiss  of  peace. 
(6)  When  this  was  over,  the  bishop  poured  oil 
upon  the  dead  body,  and  it  was  then  placed  in 
the  grave.  The  anointing  of  baptism  was  to 
prepare  the  athlete  for  his  conflict :  that  of 
burial  was  a  token  that  the  conflict  was  over, 
and  the  combatant  at  rest.  (^Eccles.  Hierarch. 
vii.  p.  359.)  [E.  H.  P.] 

BURIAL  OF  THE  LORD.  Easter-Eve  in 
the  Armenian  Calendar  is  called  the  Burial 
of  the  Lord  (Neale,  Eastern  Ch.  Introd.  p. 
798).  [C.] 


BYZATIUIVI,  COUNCIL  OP 

BUTTA,  BUTTO  or  BUTRO.  (Several  kin¬ 
dred  forms  are  given  by  Du  Cange,  s.  v.  Butta.)  In 
some  MSS.  of  the  Liber  Bontijicalis  we  read  that 
Leo  III.  (79.5-816) 
caused  to  be  made 
for  the  venerable 
monastery  of  St. 

Sabas,  “  butronem 
[al.  buttonem]  ar- 
genteum  cum  canis- 
tro  SuO  pensantem 
libr.  xii.”  Leo  IV. 

(847-855)  is  also  re¬ 
ported  by  the  same 
authority  to  have 
placed  in  the  church 
of  St.  Peter,  “  bu¬ 
tronem  ex  argentO  Single  Butu.,  as  Liimp. 

purissimo,  qui  pen- 

det  in  presbyterio  ante  altare,  pensantem  libr. 
cxlix  ” ;  and  another,  also  of  pure  silver,  “  cum  ga- 
batis  argenteis  pendentibus  in  catenulis  septem.” 

These  buttones  seem  to  have  been  suspended 
cups  used  for  lamps.  [Compai-e  Canistrcm, 
Gabatha.]  The  illustrations  are  from  the  Hie- 
rolexicon ;  the  first  represents  a  single  sus¬ 
pended  hutto,  from  an  ancient  representation ; 
the  second,  a  corona  with  three  hanging  hat- 
tones,  from  an  ancient  painting  once  existing  in 
St.  Peter’s  at  Rome. 


Buttones  used  as  Lamps. 


The  form  butrista  is  used,  apparently  in  the 
same  sense,  by  Alcuin,  Poem.  165.  (Du  Cange’s 
Glossary  ;  Maori  Hierolexicon,  s.  v.  Butto.) 

Martene  (de  Ant.  Eccl.  Bit.  iii.  96)  describes 
a  buta  as  used  for  fetching  and  preserving  the 
Chrism,  according  to  an  ancient  custom,  in  the 
church  of  St.  Martin  at  Tours.  lC.J 

BYBLINUS,  in  Caesarea  ;  commemorated 
Nov.  5  (Mart.  Hieron.').  [C.] 

BYZACENUM  CONCILIUM.  [Byza- 
TiuM,  Council  of.] 

BYZATIUM,  COUNCIL  OF  (Byzacentjm 
Concilium),  provincial,  at  Byzatium  in  Africa. 
(1)  A.D.  397,  to  confirm  the  canons  of  the 
Council  of  Hippo  of  A.D.  39.3  :  its  Synodical 
Letter  is  in  the  Acts  of  the  Third  Council  of 


CALCULATORES 


255 


BYZATIUM,  OOUNCIT.  OF 

Carthage  of  the  same  year,  397  (Mansi,  iii.  875). 
— (2)  A.ii.  507,  a  jQumerous  Council,  wliich  in¬ 
sisted  on  filling  up  vacant  bishoprics.  King  Thrasa- 
mund  having  forbidden  this  in  order  to  extinguish 
the  orthodox  Church  (Ferrand.  Diac.,  V.  Fulgent. 
xvi. ;  Labb.  iv.  1378-1380). — (3)  A.D.  541,  sent 
a  deputation  to  the  emperor  Justinian,  who  in 
reply  confirms  all  the  canonical  privileges  of  the 
metro2)olitan  of  Carthage  (Dacianus),  and  of  the 
African  jorimates  (^Rescripts  of  Justinian  to  the 
Council  and  to  Dacianus,  in  Baron,  ad  an.  541 ; 
Labbe,  v.  380). — (4)  a.d.  602,  in  the  cause  of 
Crementius,  or  Clementius,  or  Clementinus, 
primate  of  the  province,  held  at  the  instigation 
of  Gregory  the  Great  (Epistt.  xii.  32),  who  ex¬ 
horts  the  comprovincial  bishops  to  inquire  into, 
and  adjudicate  upon,  certain  accusations  that 
were  current  against  their  metropolitan  (Labbe, 
v.  1612). — (5)  a.d.  646,  under  Stephen  the  me¬ 
tropolitan,  against  the  Monothelites  (Labbe,  v. 
1835,  vi.  133).  [A.  W.  H.] 


C 

CABERSUSSA,  COUNCIL  OF.  [African 

Councils.] 

CABILLONENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Cha- 

loxs-sur-Sa6ne.] 

CAECILIA,  virgin-mai'tyr  at  Home,  is  com¬ 
memorated  Nov.  22  (^Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

CAECTLIANUS,  martyr  at  Saragossa,  com¬ 
memorated  April  16  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CAECILIUS,  with  others  “  qui  Romae  ab 
apostolis  ordinati  sunt,”  is  commemorated  May  15 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.').  [0.] 

CAESAR  -  A  UGUSTANUM  CONCI¬ 
LIUM.  [Saragossa.] 

CAESAREA,  COUNCILS  OF.  (1)  In 
Palestine,  a.d.  196,  according  to  CaA^e  {Hist.  Lit. 
i.  97)  on  the  Easter  controversy  that  had  arisen 
between  Pope  Victor  and  the  churches  of  Asia 
Minor, — Narcissus  of  Jerusalem,  Theophilus  of 
Cae.sarea,  Cassius  of  Tyre,  and  Clarus  of  Ptole- 
mais  being  jiresent,  as  Ave  learn  from  Eusebius 
(A^  25).  They  beg,  in  Avhat  he  has  preserved  of 
their  letter,  to  be  understood  as  keeping  Ea.ster 
on  the  same  day  as  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 
But,  curiously  enough,  seA'eral  Aversions  of  the 
acts  of  this  Council  haA'e  been  discoA’ered  in  the 
West,  beginning  Avith  that  ascribed  to  Bede 
(i^ligne’s  Patrol,  xc.  607  ;  comp.  Mansi  i.  711- 
716)  at  much  greater  length  :  the  only  question 
is,  are  they  in  keeping  with  the  aboA'e  letter  ? 

(2)  In  Palestine  (Mansi  ii.  1122),  summoned 
a.d.  331,  to  inquire  into  the  truth  of  some 
charges  brought  against  St.  Athanasius  by  his 
euemie.s,  but  not  held  till  334,  when  he  Avas  fur¬ 
ther  accused  of  having  kept  the  Council  ap¬ 
pointed  to  try  them,  Avaiting  thirty  months.  He 
knew  too  well  to  Avhat  party  the  bishop  of  the 
diocese,  and  father  of  ecclesiastical  history, 
belonged,  to  appear  even  then ;  and  on  his  non- 
appearance,  proceedings  had  to  be  adjourned  to 
the  Council  of  Tyre  the  year  folloAving. 

(3)  In  Palestine,  a.d.  357  or  358  apparently, 
under  Acacius  its  Metropolitan,  when  St.  Cyril 


of  Jerusalem  was  deposed  (Soz.  iv.  25).  So¬ 
crates  (ii.  40)  adds  that  he  appealed  from  its 
sentence  to  a  higher  tribunal,  a  course  hitherto 
without  precedent  in  canonical  u.sage ;  and  that 
his  appeal  Avas  allowed  by  the  emperor. 

(4)  In  Pontus,  or  Neocaesarea,  A.D.  358,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Pagi  (Mansi  iii.  291),  at  which  Eusta¬ 
thius,  bishop  of  Sebaste,  was  deposed ;  and 
Melatius,  afteiAvards  bishop  of  Antioch,  set  in 
his  place. 

(5)  In  Cappadocia,  A.D.  370  or  371,  when 
St.  Basil  was  constituted  bishop  in  the  room  of 
Eusebius,  its  former  Metropolitan,  Avhom  he  had 
been  assisting  some  years,  though  he  had  been 
oi-dained  deacon  by  St.  Meletius.  The  Lihellus 
Synodicus,  a  work  of  the  ninth  century  (Mansi 
i.  25,  note)  makes  St.  Basil  anathematise 
Dianius,  the  iiredecessor  of  his  OAvn  prede¬ 
cessor  at  this  synod ;  but  St.  Basil  himself 
(Ep.  li.  al.  Ixxxvi.)  denies  eA’er  having  done  so. 
Further  on  in  his  epistles  (xcviii.  al.  cclix.) 
he  seems  to  speak  of  another  synod  about  to  be 
held  in  his  diocese,  to  settle  the  question  of 
jurisdiction  betAveen  him  and  the  Metropolitan 
of  Tyana,  consequent  on  the  dii'ision  of  Cappa¬ 
docia  by  the  civil  jiOAver  into  two  provinces. 
St.  Basil  stood  upon  his  ancient  rights :  but 
eA^entually  the  matter  Avas  compromised,  as  Ave 
learn  from  his  friend  St.  Gregory  {Oral,  xliii. 

§  59  al.  XX.),  by  the  erection  of  more  sees  in  each, 
the  carrying  out  of  Avhich,  hoAveA^er  beneficial  to 
their  country,  proved  so  nearly  fatal  to  their 
friendship.  The  date  assigned  to  this  Council 
by  Mansi  (iii.  453)  is  A.D.  372.  [E.  S.  Ff.]  • 

CAESARIUS.  (1)  Bishop  of  Arles,  comme¬ 
morated  Aug.  27  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Deacon  and  martyr,  is  commemorated 
Nov.  1  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  under  Decius,  is  commemorated 

Nov.  3  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CAINICHUS,  abbat  in  Scotland,  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  11  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CAIUS.  (1)  Gains  of  Corinth  is  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  4  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Bologna,  Jan.  4  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Palatinus,  martyr,  March  4 {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  at  Apamea  under  Antoninus  Verus, 
March  10  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(5)  Martyr  at  Militana  in  Armenia,  April  19 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(6)  Pope,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Diocletian, 
April  22  {Kal.  BucJter.,  Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Usuardi). 

(7)  Martyr  at  Nicomedia,  Oct.  21  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Usuai-di). 

(8)  Martyr  at  Messina,  Nov.  20  {Mart.  Rom. 

Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CALCHUTHENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Ceal- 

CHVTHE.] 

CALCUTiATORES,  or  according  to  Pertz, 
CAUCULATORES,  casters  of  horoscopes.  This 
term  does  not  appear  to  figure  in  church  history 
till  the  time  of  Charlemagne.  An  ecclesiastical 
capitulary  of  789,  dated  from  Aix-la-Chapelle, 
referring  to  the  precepts  of  the  Pentateuch 
against  Avdtchci’aft  and  sorcery,  enacts  that 
“there  shall  be  no  calculators,  nor  enchanters, 
nor  storm-raisers  (tempestarii),  or  obligatores  {1)  ; 
and  Avherever  they  are,  let  them  amend  or  be 
condemned  ” — the  punishment  being  apparently 


256 


CAlENDAR 


CALENDAR 


left  to  the  discretion  of  the  jhidge  (c.  64).  The 
term  figures  again,  and  in  much  the  same  com¬ 
pany,  in  a  similar  enactment  contained  in  certain 
“  Capitula  Excerpta  ”  of  the  year  802,  also  dated 
from  Aix-la-Chapelle  (c.  40).  [J.  M.  L.] 

CALENDAR  {Kakndariuin^  Com,putus^  Dis- 
trihutio  Ojficiorum  per  circulum  totius  anni,  firjya?- 
ov  €opra(rTLK6u,  r)iJL€po\6'Yiov,  e(priiJ.€p'is :  later, 
KaK^vrdpLov.')  It  does  not  belong  to  this  article 
to  treat  of  the  calendar  except  in  its  ecclesiastical 
form  as  used  for  liturgical  purposes  during  the 
first  eight  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  The 
early  Christian  communities  continued  to  use 
the  mode  of  reckoning  and  naming  days  and 
years  which  existed  in  the  countries  in  which 
they  had  their  origin.  The  distinctive  church 
calendar  exists  for  the  purpose  of  denoting  the 
days,  either  of  a  given  year,  or  of  any  year, 
which  are  marked  for  religious  celebration. 

First  among  these  liturgical  requirements  is 
the  specification  of  the  Lord’s  Day.  This  was 
facilitated  by  a  contrivance  borrowed  from  the 
heathen  Roman  calendar.  [Sunday  Letter.] 

But  together  with  the  week  of  seven  davs, 
of  which  the  first  day  or  Sunday  was  assigned  to 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord’s  Resurrection,  there 
existed  from  the  earliest  times  a  yearly  com¬ 
memoration  which,  eventually,  by  general  con¬ 
sent  of  the  churches,  at  first  divided  on  this 
point  (Easter),  was  assigned  to  the  Sunday 
next  after  the  day  on  which,  according  to  cer¬ 
tain  calculations,  the  Jews  were,  or  should 
have  been,  celebrating  their  Passover,  that  is, 
the  day  of  the  full  moon  nearest  to  the  vernal 
equinox.  Hence  the  year  of  the  Christian 
calendar  is  partly  solar  of  the  Julian  form, 
partly  lunar.  All  the  Sundays  which  are  related 
to  Easter,  i.e.  all  from  our  Septuagesima  Sun¬ 
day  to  the  last  Sunday  after  Trinity,  change 
their  places  year  by  year:  the  rest,  i.e.  from 
1  Advent  to  the  Sunday  before  Septuagesima 
shifting  only  to  a  place  one  day  later;  in  leap- 
years,  two.  About  the  middle  of  the  4th  cen¬ 
tury,  the  Nativity  of  Christ,  until  then  com¬ 
memorated,  if  at  all.  on  the  6th  January,  was 
fixed  to  the  25th  December  [Christmas].  And 
as  other  days,  commemorative  of  bishops,  mar¬ 
tyrs,  and  apostles  came  to  be  celebrated,  these 
also  were  noted  in  the  fixed  calendar. 

The  calendar  existed  in  two  forms  :  one,  in 
which  all  the  days  of  the  year  were  noted,  with 
specification  of  months  and  w’eeks :  the  other, 
a  list  of  the  holy  days,  with  or  without  specifi¬ 
cation  of  the  month  date.  Of  the  full  calendar, 
what  seems  to  be  the  earliest  extant  specimen 
is  furnished  by  a  fragment  of  a  Gothic  calendar, 
composed,  probably,  in  Thrace  in  the  4th  cen¬ 
tury,  edited  by  l\Iai,  Script,  vet.  nova  collectio, 
V.  i.  66-68.  Comp,  de  Gabelentz,  Ulphilas,  ii.  i, 
p.  xvii.  Krafft,  Kirch.  Gesch.  der  germanischen 
Vglker,  i.  1,  371,  385-387.  This  fragment  gives 
only  the  thirty-eight  days  from  23  October  to 
30  November.  It  assigns  the  festivals  of  seven 
saints,  two  of  the  New  Testament,  three  of  the 
Universal  Church,  two  local,  namely  Gothic. 
Not  less  ancient,  perhaps,  is  a  Roman  calendar, 
of  the  time  of  Constantins  IL,  forming  part  of  a 
collection  of  chronographical  pieces  written  by 
the  calligrapher,  Furius  Dionysius  Filocalus,  in 
the  year  354 ;  edited,  after  others,  by  Kollar, 
Analect.  Vindobon.  i.  961,  sqq.  This,  while  re¬ 
taining  the  astronomical  and  astrological  notes 


of  the  old  Roman  calendars,  with  some  of  the 
heathen  festivals,  is  so  far  Christian  that,  side 
by  side  with  the  old  nundinal  letters  A — H,  it 
gives  also  the  dominical  letters,  A — G,  of  the 
ecclesiastical  year ;  but  it  does  not  specify  any 
of  the  Christian  holy  days.  (Comp.  Ideler,  Hdb. 
2,  140.)  Next  in  point  of  antiquity  is  the 
calendar  composed  by  Polemeus  Silvius,  in  the 
year  448,  edited  by  the  Bollandists,  Acta  Sanc¬ 
torum  Januar.  vii.  176  ff.  This  is  a  full  Roman 
calendar  adapted  to  Christian  use,  not  only  as 
that  of  A.D.  354,  just  noticed,  by  specification  of 
the  Lord’s  Days,  but  with  some  few  holy  days 
added,  namely,  four  in  connexion  with  Christ, 
and  six  for  commemoration  of  martyrs. 

Of  the  short  calendar,  the  most  ancient  speci¬ 
men  is  that  which  was  first  edited  by  Bucherius, 
de  Doctrina  Temporum.,  c.  xv.  266  sqq.  (Antwerp, 
1634) — a  work  of  Roman  origin  dating  from 
about  the  middle  of  the  4th  century,  as  appears 
from  the  contents,  as  also  from  the  fact  that  it 
is  included  in  the  collection  of  Filocalus,  thence 
edited  by  Kollar,  u.  s. ;  also  with  a  learned  com¬ 
mentary  by  Lambecius,  Catal.  Codd.  MSS.  in 
Biblioth.  Caesar.  Vinddton.  iv.  277  ff.,  and  by 
Graevius  Thes.  viii.  It  consists  of  two  por¬ 
tions,  of  which  the  first  is  a  list  of  twelve 
popes  from  Lucius  to  Julius  (predecessor  of 
Liberius),  A.D.  253-352 ;  not  complete,  how¬ 
ever,  for  Sixtus  (Xystus)  has  his  place  among 
the  martyi’s,  and  Marcellus  is  omitted.  The 
other  part  gives  names  and  days  of  twenty-t^yo 
martyrs,  all  Roman,  including  besides  Xystus, 
those  of  earlier  popes,  Fabianus,  Calli.stus,  and 
Pontianus.  Together  with  these,  the  Feast  of 
the  Nativity  is  noted  on  25th  December,  and  that 
of  the  Cathedra  Petri  assigned  to  22nd  February. 

A  similar  list  of  Roman  festivals  with  a 
lectionary  (^Capitulare  Evangeliorum  totius  aymi') 
was  edited  by  Fronto  (Paris,  1652,  and  in  his 
Epistolae  ct  Dissertat.  ecclesiasticae.,  p.  107-233, 
Veron.  1733),  from  a  manuscript  written  in 
letters  of  gold,  belonging  to  the  convent  of  St. 
Gonevi&ve  at  Paris.  This  seems  to  have  been 
composed  in  the  first  half  of  the  8th  century. 
Another,  also  Roman,  edited  by  Martene,  Thes. 
Analect.  v.  65,  is  perhaps  of  later  date. 

A  calendar  of  the  church  of  Carthage,  of  the  like 
form,  discovered  by  Mabillon,by  Ruinart  appended 
to  his  Acta  Martyrum.,  is  by  them  assigned  to 
the  5th  century.  It  contains  only  festivals  of 
bishops  and  martyrs,  mostly  local.  It  opens  with 
the  title,  “  Ilic  contiuentur  dies  natalitiorum 
martyrum  et  depositiones  cpiscoporum  quos 
ecclesiae  Carthaginis  anniversaria  celebrant.” 

As  each  church  had  its  own  bishops  and 
martyrs,  each  needed  in  this  regard  {i.e.  for  the 
days  marked  for  the  Depositiones  Episcoponan 
and  Natalitia  Martyinim')  its  separate  calendar. 
It  belonged  to  the  bishop  to  see  that  these  lists 
were  properly  drawn  up  for  the  use  of  the 
church.  And  to  this  effect  we  find  St.  Cyprian 
in  his  36th  epistle  exhorting  his  clergy  to  make 
known  to  him  the  days  on  which  the  confessors 
suffered.  “Dies  eorum,  quibus  excedunt,  nun- 
ciate  ut  commemorationes  eorum  inter  memorias 
martyrum  celebrare  possimus.  Quamquam 
Tertullus  ......  scripserit  et  scribat  et  sig- 

nificet  mihi  dies,  quibus  in  carcere  beati  fratres 
nostri  ad  immortalitatem  gloriosae  mortis  exitu 
transeunt,  et  celebrentur  hie  a  nobis  oblationes 
et  sacrificia  ob  commemorationes  eorum.”  Out 


CALENDAK 


CALENDAR 


257 


of  these  calendar  notices  grew  the  MartyrO-  ! 
LOGIKS  which,  however,  they  greatly  surpass  | 
in  autnority  and  importance.  For  the  calen¬ 
dar,  being  essential  as  a  liturgical  directory, 
was  therefore  composed  only  by  the  bishop  or 
by  some  high  officer  of  the  church  appointed  by 
him.  Nothing  could  be  added  to,  or  altered  in, 
the  calendar  but  by  his  authority.  It  was 
accordingly  prefixed  or  appended  to  the  Sacra- 
mentaries  and  other  liturgical  books.  As  an 
example  of  an  early  form  of  this  liturgical 
calendar,  the  following  is  here  given  from  the 
Resp  insoriale  and  Antiphonarium  ascribed  to  St. 
Gregory  the  Great  (ed.  Thomasius) : — 

Specimen  distributionis  officiorum  per  circulum 
anni. 

Donilnica  I.  Adventus  Do 


mini. 

Dominica  II.  ante  Nativ. 
Domini. 

Natale  S.  Luciae  Virginis. 
Dom.  III.  ante  Nativ.  Do¬ 
mini. 


Dom.  V. 

Responsoria  do  Psalmis. 
Diebus  Dominicis  Anti- 
phonae. 

Vigilla  S.  Sebastiani. 

Natale  S.  Agnetis. 
Furificatio  S.  Mariae. 


Dom.  proxima  ante  Nat.  Vigilla  et  Natale  S.  Agnae. 

[)oni.  Adunatio  S.  Mariae. 

Vigilia  Nat.  Dom.  Dominica  in  LX.Kma. 

Naiivitas  Domini.  Dom.  in  L.Xma. 

Natale  S  Stcphaiii.  Dom.  in  Lma.  (sen  Carnis- 

„  S  Joaniiis.  privii  et  excarnaliorum). 

„  SS.  Innocentium.  Dom.  I.  in  XLa. 

Dom.  I.  post  Nat.  Dom.  Dom.  II. 

Vigilia  Octavae  Nat.  Dom.  Dom.  III. 

Kpiphania  (sen  Thco-  Dom.  in  medio  XLmae  (seu 
pliania).  de  Jerusalem) 

Octava  lipiphaniae.  Lactare  (vc  I  de  Rosa). 

Dominica  I.  post  Tbeo-  Dom.  de  Passlone  Domini 
phaiiiam.  (seu  Mediana). 

Dom.  II.  Dom.  in  Palmis  (seu  In- 

Dom.  III.  dulgentiae). 

Dom.  IV.  Vigilia  Coenae  Domini. 

Parasceve.  Dominica  post  Ascensum 

Saiibatnm  sanctum.  Domini  (seu  Item  de 

Vigiliae  S.  Paschae.  Rosa). 

Dominica  S.  Pascliae.  Pentecoste. 

Dom.  octava  Paschae  (seu,  Octava  Pentecostes. 

post  albas  pascbales).  Vigilia  Nativltatis  S. 

Dom.  1.  post  Pascha.  Joannae  Baptistae. 

Dom.  11.  (Sic  sequuntur  offlcia  pro- 

Dom.  111.  pria  de  S  metis  usque  ad 

Dom.  IV.  Adventum). 

Litanla  major.  Commnnia  Oiticia. 

Vigilia  Apostol.  Philippi  et  Responsoria  de  libro  Re- 

Jacobi.  gum,  Sapientiae,  Job, 

Dom.  111.  etIV.  in  Pascha  Tobia,  Judith,  Esther,  de 

R.  R.  de  Auctoritate.  historia  Machubaeorum 

Dom.  V.  et  VI.  in  ,Pa.scba  de  Projihetis. 

R.  R.  de  p.salmis.  Antiphonae  ad  hymnum 

In  Natalitiis  Ss.  infra  trium  puerorum. 

Pascha.  De  Can-ico  Zachariae.  S. 

In  Natalitiis  unius  Mar-  .Mariae. 

tyris  sive  Confessoris.  Antiphonae  dominicis  die- 

In  S.  Crucis  Inventione.  bus  post  Pentecosten  a 

in  exaltatione  S.  Crucis.  L.  usque  ad  XXIV. 

Ascensio  Domini. 

A  knowledge  of  the  calendar,  being  indispen¬ 
sable  for  the  due  performance  of  the  liturgy,  was 
one  of  the  essential  qualifications  for  the  priestly 
office.  It  is  a  frequent  injunction  in  the  capi- 
tula  of  bishops,  “  presbyteri  coinputum  discant.” 
A  canon  of  the  council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  a.d. 
789,  c.  70,  and  the  Capitulare  rnterrogationis, 
A.D.  811,  of  Charlemagne,  i.  68,  enjoin  (with  a 
view  to  the  supply  of  qualified  persons)  “  ut 
scholae  legentium  puerorum  fiant,  psalmos, 

notas,  cantum,  computurn,  grammaticam . 

discant.”  For  instruction  in  this  department  of 
clerical  education  and  ecclesiastical  learning, 
treatises  more  or  less  copious  were  provided. 
An  elaborate  work  of  this  kind  is  the  de  Cwnputo 
of  Rabanus  Maurus,  archbishop  of  Mayence 
(a.d.  847),  edited  by  Baluxius,  Miscellan.  t.  i. 
p.  1,  sqq.  Yearly,  on  the  feast  of  Epiphany,  the 
CHRIST.  ANT. 


bishop  announced  the  date  of  Easter  for  that 
year,  as  enjoined  e.g.  by  the  4th  Council  of 
Orleans,  A.D.  541,  can.  1  (Bruns,  ii.  201):  and  from 
him  the  clergy,  together  with  this  announcement, 
received  notice  of  any  new  festival  appointed,  in 
order  that  the  same  might  be  eutei-ed  in  their 
calendar,  and  made  known  to  the  people. 

It  results,  partly  fi’om  these  subsequent  addi¬ 
tions  made  to  the  original  texts  of  the  calendars, 
which  cannot  always  be  discriminated  in  the 
MSS.  by  difference  of  handwriting,  colour  of  the 
ink,  and  other  palaeographical  criteria,  that  it  is 
not  always  easy  to  say  to  what  age,  or  to  what 
province  of  the  Church,  a  given  calendar  belongs. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  any  of  them  contains  the 
genuine  materials  of  such  lists  existing  in  times 
earlier  than  the  beginning  of  the  4th  century. 
For  of  these  lists,  scarcely  any  can  be  supposed 
to  have  escaped,  in  the  Diocletian  persecufion, 
from  the  rigorous  search  then  decreed  for  the 
general  destruction  not  only  of  the  copies  of 
the  Scriptures,  but  of  all  liturgical  and  ecclesi¬ 
astical  documents,  among  which  the  calendars, 
lists  of  bishops  and  martyrs,  and  acts  of  martyrs, 
held  an  important  place  (Euseb.  H.  E.  viii.  2 ; 
Arnob.  adv.  Gentes,  iv.  36).  Some  rules,  how¬ 
ever,  which  may  help  to  determine  the  relative 
antiquity  of  extant  calendars,  may  be  thus  sum¬ 
marized,  chiefly  fi’om  Binterim,  Denkwilrdig- 
kerten^  v.  i.  20,  sqq. : — 

1.  Brevity  and  simplicity  in  the  statement 
concerning  the  holy-day  are  characteristic  of  the 
earlier  times.  Only  the  name  of  the  martyr 
was  given,  without  title  or  eulogy ;  even  the 
prefix  S.  or  B.  (sancius,  beat  us)  is  sparingly 
used.  Sometimes  the  martyrs  of  a  whole  pro¬ 
vince  are  included  under  a  single  entry.  Thus 
the  Calendar  of  Carthage,  in  which  eighty-one 
days  are  marked,  has,  at  2  Kal.  Jan.  Sanctorum 
Temidemium ;  15  Kal.  Aug.  SS.  Soil itano rum. 
In  several  other  calendars,  one  name  is  given,  with 
the  addition,  et  sociorum  (or  comitum),  ejiis. 

2.  To  one  day  only  one  celebration  is  assigned 
in  the  oldest  calendars.  “  Commemorationes  ” 
were  unknown  or  very  rai’e  in  the  earlier  times. 
These  seem  to  have  come  into  use  in  the  9th 
century,  by  reason  of  the  increasing  number  of 
saints’  days. 

3.  The  relative  antiquity  of  a  calendar  is 
especially  indicated  by  the  paucity,  or  entire 
absence,  of  days  assigned  to  the  B.  Virgin  Mary. 
Writers  of  the  Church  of  Rome  satisfy  them¬ 
selves  in  respect  of  this  fact  with  the  explana¬ 
tion,  that  the  days  assigned  to  the  Lord  in¬ 
clude  the  commemoration  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
Mother.  Thus,  for  example,  Morcelli  (A/V. 
Christiana,  cited  by  Binterim,  u.  s.  p.  14)  ac¬ 
counts  for  the  entire  silence  of  the  Calend. 
Carthag.  concerning  the  days  of  the  V.  Mary ; 
and  the  like  explanation  is  given  of  the  fact  tha^- 
of  St.  Augustine  we  have  no  sermon  preached  for 
a  festiv’al  of  the  Virgin. 

4.  Another  note  of  antiquity  is  the  absence  of 

all  saints’  days  and  other  celebrations  from  the 
period  during  which  Lent  falls.  Thus  March 
and  April  in  the  Carthaginian  Calendar  exhibit 
no  such  days ;  and  the  like  blank  appears  in  the 
calendars  of  Bucherius  aod  Fronto.  For  the 
51st  canon  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea  (cir.  a.d. 
352)  enjoins :  '6ti  ov  Se?  ir  TfcraapaKorTg 
papTvpwv  yevfdKiov  itriTeXelv  aWa  ruu  ayicvv 
papTupwv  fjLViiav  noieir  iy  aaBf^arois  Kal 


258 


CA1.EP0DIUS 


GAT>L  TO  THE  MINISTRY 


KvpiaKa7s'  “a  martyr’s  day  must  not  be  kept 
during  the  quadragesima,  but  must  (at  that 
time)  be  reserved  for  sabbaths  and  Lord’s-days  ” 
(Bruns,  i.  78).  And  with  this  agreed  the  rule 
of  the  Latin  Chui-ch,  as  expressed  in  the  1st 
canon  of  the  10th  Council  of  Toledo,  A.D.  656 
(Bruns,  i.  298),  where,  with  especial  reference 
to  the  falling  of  Lady-day  (F.  of  Annunciation, 
25  Mar.)  in  Lent,  or  on  Easter-day  itself,  it  is 
said :  “  eadem  festivitas  non  potest  celebrari 
condigne,  cum  interdum  quadragesimae  dies  vel 
paschale  festum  videtur  incumbere,  in  quibus 
nihil  de  sanctorum  soleranitatibus,  sicut  ex  anti- 
quitate  regulari  cautum  est,  convenit  celebrari.” 

5.  Before  the  5th  century,  no  day  of  canonised 
bishop  or  other  .saint  is  marked  to  be  kept  as 
festival,  unless  he  was  also  a  martyr.  The  oc¬ 
currence  of  any  such  day  is  a  sure  indication 
that  the  calendar  is  of  later  date  than  A.D.  400 ; 
or,  that  the  entry  is  of  later  insertion.  To  the 
bishops  is  assigned  the  term  Deposition  to  the 
martyrs,  Natalis  or  Natalitium. 

6.  Vigils  are  of  rare  occurrence  in  the  olde.st 
calendars.  Not  one  vigil  is  noted  in  the  Kal. 
Bucherianum  and  Kal.  Carthaginense.  The 
Kal.  Frontonianum  (supra')  has  four.  A  Gallican 
Calendar  of  A.D.  826,  edited  by  d’Achery  (Spi- 
cileg.  X.  130),  has  five  ;  and  another,  by  Martene, 
for  which  he  claims  an  earlier  date  (  Thes.  Anecd. 
V.  65),  has  nine. 

For  the  determination  of  the  Province  or 
Church  to  which  a  Calendar  belongs,  the  only 
criterion  to  be  relied  on  is  the  preponderance  in 
it  of  names  of  martyrs  and  saints  known  to  be 
of  that  diocese  or  province.  Naturally,  each 
Church  would  honour  most  its  own  confessors 
and  champions  of  the  faith.  Especially  does 
this  rule  hold  in  respect  of  the  bishops,  whose 
names,  unless  they  were  also  martyrs  or  other¬ 
wise  men  of  highest  note  in  the  Church,  would 
not  be  likely  to  obtain  a  place  in  the  calendars 
of  other  than  their  own  Churches. 

The  Greek  Church  had  its  calendars,  under  the 
title  i(pr)ij.epis  (eopTaariKT]),  fnjvaTov  (eopr.)’, 
later,  KaXeyrdpiou,  which,  as  containing  the 
offices  for  each  celebration,  grew  into  enormous 
dimensions.  One  such,  with  the  designation, 
Mrfvo\6yiov  twv  ei/ayyeKiuu  eopracrriKhu  sive 
K  ilendarimn  Ecclesiae  Constantinopolitanae, 
edited  from  a  manuscript  in  the  Albani  Library 
by  Morcelli,  fills  two  quarto  volumes,  Rome, 
1788.  But  the  title  privo\6yiov  corresponds 
not  with  the  Latin  Kalendarium,  but  with  the 
Martyrologium.  Cave,  in  a  dissertation  ap¬ 
pended  to  his  Ilistoria  Literaria,  part  ii.  (de 
Libris  et  officiis  ecclesiasticis  Graecorum,  p.  43) 
describes  the  uaXeurdpiov  or  Ephemeris  ecclesi.ts- 
tica  in  usum  totius  anni,  as  a  digest  of  all  church 
festivals  and  fasts  for  tbe  twelve  months,  day  by 
day,  beginning  with  September.  “  That  calen¬ 
dars  of  this  kind  wei’e  composed  for  the  use  of 
the  churches  is  plain  from  Biblioth.  Vindobon. 
Cod.  Hist.  Eccl.  xcvii.  num.  xiii.,  which  gives  a 
letter  written  by  the  head  of  some  monastery  in 
reply  to  questions  concerning  monastic  observ¬ 
ances  of  holydays;  to  which  is  appended  a  com¬ 
plete  Church  Calendar.”  [H.  B.] 

CALEPODIUS,  aged  presbyter,  martyr  ,  at 
Rome  under  the  emperor  Alexander  Severus, 
commemorated  May  10  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Usuardi).  [C.] 


CALF.  Irrespectively  of  its  moaning  as 
symbol  of  an  Evangelist,  the  image  of  the 
calf  or  ox  is  held  by  Aringhi  (lib.  vi.  ch. 
xxxii.  vol.  ii.  p.  320)  to  represent  the  Christian 
soul,  standing  to  Christ  in  the  same  relation  as 
the  sheep  to  the  shepherd.  He  also  takes  the 
calf  or  ox  to  represent  Apostles  labouring  in  their 
ministry,  quoting  various  Fathers,  and  finally 
St.  Chrysostom’s  idea,  that  the  oxen  and  fatlings 
spoken  of  as  killed  for  the  Master’s  feast  are 
meant  to  represent  prophets  and  martyrs.  The 
calf  or  ox,  as  a  sacrificial  victim,  has  been  taken  to 
represent  the  Lord’s  sacrifice ;  for  which  Aringhi 
quotes  a  comment  on  Num.  xviii.  These  simili¬ 
tudes  seem  fanciful,  and  pictorial  or  other  repre¬ 
sentations  hardly  exist  to  bear  them  out.  A  calf 
is  represented  near  the  Good  Shepherd  in  Buona- 
rotti  (Vetri,  tav.  v.  fig.  2);  and  Martigny  refers 
to  Allegranza  (Mon.  antichi  de  Milano,  p.  125) 
for  an  initial  letter  at  Milan,  where  the  animal 
is  represented  playing  on  a  lyre  :  typifying,  he 
thinks,  the  subjugation  of  the  human  nature  to 
the  life  of  faith.  He  also  refers  to  St.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  (Paedag.  lib.  i.  c.  5)  for  a  com¬ 
parison  of  young  Christians  to  sucking  calves 
(/xuaxo-pia  ya\aBr\vd),  connected  perhaps  in  the 
Father’s  mind  in  the  same  way  as  in  his  own ; 
though,  as  Bishop  Potter  remarks  in  his  note  (ad 
loc.),  no  such  comparison  exists  in  Scrijdure. 
The  plate  in  Allegranza  is  of  considerable  interest, 
being  from  a  “marmo”  belonging  to  the  ancient 
pulpit  of  S.  Ambrogio.  The  calf  is  lying  down, 
and  turning  up  its  forefoot  to  hold  the  lyre,  or 
“  antica  cetra.”  It  is  engraved  in  the  loop  of  an 
initial  D.  The  preceding  “  marmo  ”  is  a  repre¬ 
sentation  of  an  Agape,  from  the  posterior  parapet 
of  the  pulpit ;  and  Allegranza  considers  the  c<xlf 
to  be  a  symbol  connected  with  the  Agape.  See 
above,  Clem.  Alex.  Paedag.  i.  5.  See  also  s.  v. 
Lyre,  that  instrument  being  held  typical  of  the 
human  body  in  its  right  state  of  harmony  with, 
and  subjection  to,  the  divinely-guided  soul.  For 
oxen  with  Dolia  see  Bottari,  iii.  155,  184. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

CALIGAE.  These  were  stockings,  made  of 
various  matei’ial,  serving  for  a  defence  against 
cold,  and  as  such  worn  at  times  by  soldiers 
(Casaubon  on  Suetonius) ;  by  monks,  if  infirm 
or  exposed  to  cold  (Cassianus,  lib.  i.  c.  10  ;  S. 
Benedictus,  Rcgula,  c.  62  ;  Gregor.  ^Magnus,  Dial, 
cc.  2,  4) ;  and  by  bishops  in  out-door  dress 
(Gregor.  Turon.  Eist.  Franc,  lib.  A'i.  c.  31). 
The  Rule  of  St.  Ferreolus  (quoted  by  Ducange, 
s.  V.),  c.  32,  has  an  amusing  passage  forbidding 
the  elaborate  cross-gartering  of  these  caligae, 
out  of  mere  coxcombry.  The  earliest  writer 
who  mentions  the  caligae  as  among  the  “sacred 
V’estments  ”  to  be  worn  by  bishops  and  cardi¬ 
nals  is  Ivo  Carnotensis  (tlll5).  “  Antequam 
induantur  sandaliis  vestiantur  caligis  byssinis 
vel  lineis,  usque  ad  genua  proten.sis  et  ibi  bene 
constrictis”  (Sermo  de  signijicationibus  indumen- 
tomm  sacerdotal ium,  apud  Hittorpium  de  Div. 
Off.).  [W.  B.  M.] 

CALIXTUS  [Callistus]. 

CALL  TO  THE  MINISTRY  is  more  a 
matter  of  Chri.stian  ethics  than  of  Church  canons ; 
and  in  that  point  of  view  it  became  mixed  up,  in 
the  Church  of  the  4th  century  and  onwards,  w'ith 
the  parallel  cases  of  the  adoption  of  the  monastic 
or  the  celibate  life.  The  temper  that  ought  to 


CALOYERS 


25G 


CALL  TO  THE  MINISTRY 

'iniin&te  those  who  are  to  be  ordained  was  held 
to  be,  on  the  one  hand,  a  sincere  and  pure  desire 
to  serve  God  in  some  special  way,  but  on  the 
other,  also,  a  shrinking  from  the  fearful  responsi¬ 
bility  of  the  ministry  ;  on  the  one  hand,  obedience 
to  the  call  of  superiors,  and  faith  to  undertake 
duties  which  came  by  no  self-seeking,  on  the  other, 
humility,  'that  was  really  the  more  worthy  the 
more  it  felt  its  own  unworthiness.  In  a  word, 
the  true  no/o  episcopari  spirit  was  held  to  extend, 
in  measure,  to  the  lower  orders  also.  Com¬ 
pare  Rom.  X.  15,  and  Heb.  v.  4,  5.  Under  this 
view  of  the  case,  it  was  not  indeed  the  absolute 
law,  but  it  naturally  came  to  pass,  and  so  was 
the  common  rule,  that  the  bishops,  or  the  right¬ 
ful  electors  (which  included,  of  course,  the  bishop 
or  the  bishops,  and  even  in  the  case  of  the  pres- 
byterate,  up  to  at  any  rate  the  3rd  centuiw,  the 
clergy  and  people  also)  should  choose  at  least  to 
the  higher  orders,  and  in  such  case  the  canons 
enacted  that  any  one  already  in  orders  in  any 
degree  could  not  refuse  to  accept.  A  like  rule 
would  apply  in  a  less  degree  to  the  first  entry 
into  the  ministry ;  the  supply  in  both  cases  being 
supplemented  by  voluntary  candidates,  from  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  but  it  being  held  the  best 
that  the  call  should  come  from  others,  who  had 
authority.  A  Carthaginian  canon  among  the 
Cod.  Can.  Afric.  (Grace,  c.  31)  rules  that  “  qui- 
cumque  clerici  vel  diaconi  pro  necessitatibus 
ecclesiarum  non  obtemperaverint  episcopis  suis 
volentibus  eos  ad  honorem  ampliorem  in  sua 
ecclesia  promovere,  nec  illic  ministrent  in  gradu 
suo,  unde  recedere  noluerunt.”  And  for  the  case 
of  the  episcopate,  in  particular,  see  under  Bishop. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  call  certainly  needed  not 
of  necessity  to  originate  with  the  bishop.  It  was 
open,  and  it  was  held  a  pious  act,  for  parents  to 
devote  their  children  to  the  ministry,  not  com¬ 
pelling,  but  exhorting  and  encouraging  them  so 
to  devote  themselves.  See,  e.g.  Gaudent.  Brix. 
(Serm.  2),  and  St.  Augustin  (Epist.  199) ;  the 
former  speaking  also  of  virgins  and  the  latter 
of  monks,  but  both  likewise  of  the  ministry. 
Cone.  Tolet.  II.  a.d.  531,  regulates  the  education 
of  those,  “  quos  voluntas  parentum  a  primis  in- 
fantiae  annis  in  clericabus  officio  manciparit.” 
Pope  Siricius  (Epist.  I.  cc.  9,  10)  had,  before 
that  (a.d.  385-398),  regulated  the  several  periods 
of  years  during  which  such  should  remain  suc¬ 
cessively  in  each  order  of  clergy.  And  Cone. 
Emerit.  a.d.  666,  can.  18,  bids  the  “  parochiani 
presbyteri  ”  choose  promising  young  people,  and 
“  de  ecclesiae  suae  fhmilia  clericos  sibi  fheiant.” 
Nor  was  this  restricted  to  young  people  with 
their  parents’  consent.  Setting  aside  special 
occupations,  &c.,  which  constituted  a  disqualifi¬ 
cation  for  holy  orders  altogether,  it  was  open  to 
older  men  also  to  offer  themselves  for  the  mi¬ 
nistry  ;  but  under  certain  conditions,  in  order  to 
ensure  purity  of  motive.  Pope  Siricius  (as  above) 
permits  the  “  aetate  jam  grandaevus  ”  to  hasten 
“  ex  laico  ad  sacram  militiam  pervenire but 
he  is  only  to  obtain  the  presbyterate  or  epis- 
c-opate  “  accessu  temporum,  ...  si  eum  cleri  ac 
plebis  vocarit  electio.”  A  couple  of  centuries 
later,  Gregory  the  Great  required  in  like  case  a 
probation  in  a  monastery  (Jo.  Diac.  lib.  ii.  c.  16). 
The  Council  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  869  (can.  5), 
prohibited  only  those  (of  senatorial  rank  or  other 
worldly  occupation)  who  sought  to  be  tonsured 
from  ambitious  or  worldly  motives,  expressly 


excepting  others  of  a  different  temper.  And 
Ciinons  like  those  of  the  Council  of  Rouen  in  1072 
must  be  understood  with  a  like  excej)tion,  which 
sentence  those  “  clerici  ”  to  be  deposed  “  qui  non 
electi  nec  vocati  aut  nesciente  episcopo  sacris 
ordinibus  se  intromittunt.”  In  short,  the  words 
of  Hincmar  express  the  Church’s  view  of  the 
subject,  who  praises  certain  clergy,  who  “  non 
importune  ad  ordinationem  . . .  se  ingesserunt . . . 
sed  electi  et  vocati  obediei'unt”  (Hincm. 
ad  Nieolaum  Papam,  0pp.  ii.  308);  and  these  of 
St.  Augustin,  “  Honor  te  quaerere  debet,  non 
ipsum  tu  ”  (Horn.  13,  in  Quinquaginta),  proceed¬ 
ing  to  quote  the  parable  about  taking  the  lowest 
room.  See  also  St.  Chrys.  He  Saeerd.  i.  3,  and 
in  1  Tim.,  Horn.  1.  The  call  to  the  ministry,  then, 
in  the  earlier  Church,  meant,  in  the  case  of  the 
ministry  in  general,  the  invitation,  approaching 
to  a  command,  of  the  bishop ;  but  this  might  be 
anticipated,  under  certain  conditions,  by  the  vo¬ 
luntary  offering  of  himself  by  the  candidate  ; 
if  possible,  in  his  youth,  but  allowably  at  any 
age.  In  the  case  of  the  higher  orders,  it  was  or 
ought  to  have  been  the  outward  call  of  the 
rightful  patrons  (so  to  call  them)  of  the  parish 
or  diocese.  Who  occupied  this  position  in  respect 
to  presbyters  or  to  bishops  at  successive  periods, 
will  be  found  under  Bishop,  Priest  ;  but  the 
bishop  did  so  primarily  and  properly,  and  of 
course  had  in  every  case  and  ahvays  the  right 
of  examination  and  (if  he  thought  good)  rejection, 
when  it  came  to  the  question  of  ordination.  The 
inward  call  of  later  days — i.  e.  the  self-devotion 
of  the  candidate  himself  in  real  sincerity  and 
earnestness — was  assumed  throughout.  And  all 
regulations  on  the  subject  tended  to  sift  and  test 
the  reality  of  that  inward  call.  (Thomassin, 
De  Benef.  p.  ii.  lih.  i.  cc.  23,  sq.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

CALLICULAE.  Ornaments  for  the  alb  or 
white  tunic,  made  either  of  some  richly-coloured 
stuff  or  of  metal.  Examples  of  these  may  he  seen 
in  Ferret,  Cataeombes  de  Rome,  ii.  pi.  7  ;  and  in 
Garrucci,  Vetri  ornati,\\.  5,  xxv.  4.  For  further 
particulars  see  Martiguy,  Diet,  des  Ant.Chret.,  and 
Ducange,  Glossarium  in  voc.  [W.  B.  M.] 

CALLINICUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Apollonia 
under  Decius,  is  commemorated  Jan.  28  (Mart. 
Usuardi)  ;  July  29  (Cal.  Byzant.'). 

2.  Commemorated  Dec.  14  (Cal.  Byzant.').  [C.] 

CALLISTE,  with  her  brothers,  martyr,  is 
commemorated  Sept.  1  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

CALLISTRATUS  and  the  forty-nine  martyrs 
(a.d.  288)  are  commemorated  July  1  (Cal.  Ar¬ 
men.)  ;  Sept.  27  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

CALLISTUS.  (1)  With  Carisius  and  seven 
others,  martyrs  at  Corinth,  commemorated  April 
16  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(2),  or  CALIXTUS,  pope,  martyr  at  Rome, 
an.  223,  commemorated  Oct.  14  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Bedae,  Usuardi).  [C.j 

CALLOCERUS,  or  CALOCERUS,  eunuch, 
martyr,  commemorated  May  19  (Kal.  Bueher., 
Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi);  Feb.  11  (Mart. 
Bedae).  [C.] 

CALOYERS.  The  monks  of  the  Eastern 
Church.  The  word  is  derived  either  from  KaXos 
and  yrjpas,  or,  more  probably  from  KciXos  and 
yepuv,  signifying  a  good  old  age.  Applied  at 
'  first  to  the  elder  monks  exclusively,  it  soon 


260 


CALUMNIES  AGAINST  THE  CHRISTIANS 


became  the  common  designation  of  all.  (Suicer. 
Thesaur.  s.  v.,  cf.  Pallad.  Hist.  Laus.  ciii.  Kd\os, 
where  Innocentius  is  called  6  k<x\qs  yffjwi/). 
These  Eastern  monks  have  preserved  from  the 
first,  with  characteristic  tenacity,  the  Rule  of 
St.  Basil.  Thus  their  fastings  are  more  frequent 
and  more  idgorous  than  those  in  V/estern  Chris¬ 
tendom.  Their  offices  too  are  more  lengthy ; 
but  partly  from  this  very  circumstance,  and 
partly  from  the  office-books  being  very  costly, 
some  are  not  infrequently  omitted  (Helyot. 
Hist,  des  Ordres  Belig.  I.  xix.  6).  They  are 
divided,  like  their  Western  brethren,  into  three 
kinds,  Caenobitae,  dwelling  together  under  one 
roof ;  Anachoretae,  scattered  round  the  several 
monasteries  and  resorting  thither  for  solemn  ser¬ 
vices  on  festivals,  &c. ;  and  Eremitae,  or  solitary 
recluses.  The  Caenobitae,  or  monks  proper,  are 
again  subdivided  into  Archarii,  novices ;  Micro- 
schemi;  and  Megalosoliemi,  the  highest  grade 
(Helyot.  I.  xix.). 

The  “  Hours  ”  observed  by  the  Caloyers  are 
much  the  same  as  those  in  the  West,  being,  in 
fact,  derived  from  a  common  source.  After  a 
prolonged  service  at  midnight  they  sleep  from 
2  a.m.  to  5  a.m.  Then  a  service  corresponding 
to  matins,  lauds,  and  prime,  the  last  portion  of 
which  is  simultaneous  with  sunrise.  After  an 
interval  spent  in  their  cells,  they  meet  again  at 
9  a.m.  for  tierce,  sext,  and  mass.  At  mid-day 
dinner,  with  the  usual  lections,  in  the  I’efectory. 
At  4  p.m.  vespers ;  at  6  p.m.  supper,  followed  by 
the  dird^iiivvov,  a  sort  of  compline  ;  at  8  p.m.  to 
bod  (Helyot.  I.  xix.). 

They  have  four  especial  seasons  of  fasting  in 
the  year,  and  their  abstinence,  as  has  been  said 
already,  is  more  severe  than  in  Western  climes. 
Besides  Lent,  as  in  the  West,  there  are  the  “Fast 
of  the  Apostles,”  commencing  on  the  8th  day 
after  Whitsunday,  and  lasting  about  3  weeks; 
the  “Fast  of  the  Assumption,”  lasting  14  days; 
and  “  Advent  ”  (Helyot.  I.  xix.). 

Their  robes,  more  flowing  and  voluminous  than 
those  of  Western  Orders,  are  marked  on  the  cape 
with  the  Cross,  and  with  the  letters  IC.  XC.  NC. 
(Jesus  Christus  Vincit).  The  tonsure  extends 
all  over  the  head ;  but  they  wear  beards  (cf. 
Mab.  Ann.  I.  xv.  32).  (Helyot.  I.  xix.).  Nu¬ 
merous  lay  brothers  are  attached  to  each  monas¬ 
tery,  for  the  field  work ;  and  considerable  taxes 
are  collected  from  each  by  the  “  exarchs  ”  or 
visitors,  for  the  Patriarch  (Helyot.  I.  xix.). 

The  greatest  of  the  Asiatic  monasteries  is  on 
Mt.  Sinai,  founded,  it  is  said,  by  Justinian,  and 
renowned  as  the  residence  of  SL  Athanasius  of 
Mt.  Sinai,  and  of  St.  John  Climacus,  whose  name 
figures  in  Western  Hagiologies  also.  Here,  as  at 
Mt.  Casino,  the  abbat  exercises  a  large  ecclesias¬ 
tical  jurisdiction;  he  is  archbishop  ex  officio.  As 
a  precaution  against  Arabs  there  are  no  doors, 
and*the  only  gateway  is  blocked  up.  Provisions 
and  pilgrims,  &c.,  are  all  drawn  up  in  a  basket 
to  the  window.  In  Europe  there  are  several 
monasteries ;  among  which  that  of  St.  Sabas,  in 
the  wilderness  near  Bethlehem,  and  those  on  the 
isles  in  the  Levant  are  famous.  But  the  greatest 
are  those  on  Mt.  Athos,  where  the  peninsula  is 
entirely  and  exclusively  occupied  by  the  “Ca¬ 
loyers  ”  (Helyot.  L).  [1.  G.  S.] 

CALUMNIES  AGAINST  THE  CHRIS- 
,TIANS.  It  was  hai’dly  possible  that  a  new 


society  like  the  Christian  Church  should  escape 
misrepresentations.  It  had  enemies  on  all  sides. 
It  ofl'ended  men  by  presenting  a  higher  standard 
of  purity  than  their  own,  and  they  revenged 
themselves  by  imputing  to  it  their  own  impurity. 
The  secrecy  that  attended  some  portions  of  its 
life  or  worship  gave  rise  to  suspicions.  Other 
societies,  heretical  or  fantastic,  which  were  popu¬ 
larly  identified  with  it,  brought  upon  it  the  dis¬ 
credit  to  which  their  defects  made  them  liable. 
Popular  credulity  was  ready  to  accept  any  sensa¬ 
tional  tale  of  horror  which  malice  or  ignoi'ance 
might  suggest.  The  result  was  that  the  popular 
feeling  of  dislike  took  definite  shape,  and  that 
the  persecutions  of  the  Christians  in  the  first 
three  centuries  were  stimulated  by  the  general 
belief  that  they  were  guilty'  of  crimes  which 
made  them  enemies  of  the  human  race.  But 
over  and  above  these  influences,  there  was  also, 
if  we  may  trust  the  statements  of  many  early 
Christian  writers,  a  system  of  calumny,  organised 
and  deliberate,  of  which  the  Jews  were  the  chief 
propagators.  Envoys  (airdcXToXoi)  were  sent  front 
Jerusalem  with  circular  letters  to  the  synagogues 
throughout  the  empire,  and  these  became  centres 
from  which  the  false  reports  were  disseminated 
among  the  heathen  (Just.  M.  Dial.  c.  Trijph. 
c.  17,  p.  234  ;  Euseb.  in  Esaiam,  xviii.  1,  p.  424). 
They  spread  the  charge  of  Atheism,  which  was 
so  large  an  element  in  the  accusations  to  which 
Christians  were  exposed,  and  were  active,  as  in 
the  case  of  Polycarp,  in  stirring  up  the  multi¬ 
tude  (Epist.  Smgrn.  9 ;  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vii. 
1).  The  calumnies  in  question  are,  of  course, 
the  chief  subject-matter  of  the  Apologetic  trea¬ 
tises  of  the  2nd  and  3rd  centuries.  Of  these, 
the  treatise  of  Tertullian,  ad  Nationes,  as  berntr 
addressed,  not,  like  his  Apologies,  to  emperors 
and  proconsuls,  but  to  the  Gentiles  at  large,  is 
perhaps,  the  most  exhaustive.  It  will  be  con¬ 
venient  to  deal  with  the  chief  charges  singly. 

(1.)  The  Agapae  and  the  more  sacred  Supper 
which  was  at  first  connected  with  them,  fur¬ 
nished  material  for  some  of  the  more  horrible 
charges.  “Thyesteian  banquets  and  Oedipodean 
incest  ”  became  bye-words  of  reproach  (Athenag. 
Apol.  c.  4)  side  by  side  with  that  of  Atheism. 
When  they  met,  it  was  said,  an  infant  was 
brought  in,  covered  with  flour,  and  then  stabbed 
to  death  by  a  new  convert,  who  was  thus  initi¬ 
ated  in  the  mysteries.  The  others  then  ate  the 
flesh  and  licked  up  the  blood.  This  was  the 
sacrifice  by  which  they'  were  bound  together 
(Tertull.  ad  Nat.  i.  15 ;  Apol.  c.  8  ;  Minuc. 
Felix,  Octav.  c.  9).  Two  sources  of  this  mon¬ 
strous  statement  may'  be  assigned  with  some  pro¬ 
bability.  (a)  To  drink  of  human  blood  had  actually 
been  made,  as  in  the  conspiracy'  of  Catilina,  a 
bond  of  union  in  a  common  crime  (Sallust,  Catd. 
c.  22),  and  the  blood,  it  was  said,  was  that  of  a 
slaughtered  child  (Dio.  Cass,  xxxvii.  30).  It 
had  entered  into  the  popular  imagination  as  one 
of  the  horrors  of  a  secret  conspiracy'.  Christians 
were  regarded  as  members  of  a  secret  society, 
conspiring  together  for  the  downfal  of  the  re¬ 
ligion  and  polity  of  the  empire.  It  was  natural 
to  think  that  they  had  like  rites  of  initiation. 
(6)  The  language  of  devout  Christians  as  to  the 
Supper  of  which  they  partook  would  tend  to  con¬ 
firm,  even  if  it  did  not  originate,  the  belief.  It 
was  not  common  bi’ead  or  common  wine  which 
they  ate  and  drank  but  Flesh  and  Blood.  By 


201 


CALUMNIES  AGAINST  THE  CHRISTIANS 


participation  in  that  flesh  and  blood  they  be¬ 
came  members  of  one  body.  It  is  singular,  how¬ 
ever,  that  the  Apologists  do  not  meet  the  charge 
with  this  explanation,  but  confine  themselves 
(J.  c.)  to  dwelling  on  the  incredibility  of  such 
charges,  on  the  absence  of  any  evidence  to  sup¬ 
port  them.  Their  unwillingness  to  expose  the 
mysteries  of  their  faith  to  the  scorn  ot 
the  heathen  was,  it  can  hardly  be  questioned,  the 
cause  of  this  reticence. 

(2.)  Next  in  order  came  the  charge  of  im¬ 
purity.  When  the  members  of  a  Christian 
Church  met,  men  and  women,  it  was  at  night. 
A  lamp  gave  light  to  the  room,  and  to  its  stand 
a  dog  was  fastened.  After  they  had  supped 
and  were  hot  with  wine,  meat  was  thrown 
to  the  dog  so  as  to  make  him  overthrow  the 
lamp-stand  in  his  struggles  to  get  at  it,  and 
then  the  darkness  witnessed  a  scene  of  shameless 
and  unbridled  lust,  in  which  all  laws  of  nature 
were  set  at  nought  (Tertull.  Apol.  c.  8  ;  ad 
Nat.  c.  16;  Euseb.  df.  E.  iv.  7-15;  Origen,  c. 
Cels.  vi.  27 ;  Minuc.  Felix  c.  9).  Here,  too,  we 
may  trace  the  calumny  to  two  main  sources, 
(a)  In  the  Bacchanalia  and  other  secret  mys¬ 
teries,  revelations  of  which  had  from  time  to 
time  startled  the  Roman  world  (comp.  Livy, 
xxxix.  13  for  those  of  B.C.  185),  turpitude  of 
this  kind  had  been  but  too  common.  Men  of 
prui'ient  imaginations  imputed  it  even  where  the 
lives  of  the  accused  were  in  flagrant  contradic¬ 
tion  to  it.  (b)  The  name  of  the  Agapae,  inter¬ 
preted  as  such  men  would  interpret  it,  was  sure 
to  strengthen  the  suspicion.  They  could  form 
no  other  notion  of  a  “  love-feast  ”  held  at  night. 
It  may  be  that  the  “  holy  kiss,”  the  “  kiss  of 
peace,”  which  entered  into  the  early  ritual  of 
the  Eucharist,  was  distorted  in  the  same  way ; 
and  that  the  names  of  “  brother  ”  and  “  sister  ” 
by  which  Christians  spoke  of  each  other  were 
associated  with  the  thought  that  the  intercourse 


which  was  assumed  to  take  place  was  incestuous 
in  its  nature  (Minuc.  Felix,  1.  c.).  (c)  It  seems 

probable  that  in  some  cases  abuses  of  this  kind 
did  actually  exist  in  the  Agapae.  [Agapae.] 
They  became  conspicuous  for  licence  and  revehy. 
The  language  of  the  later  Apostolical  Epistles 
(2  Pet.  ii.  13,  Jude  v.  12)  shows  that  excesses 
had  occurred  even  then.  The  followers  of  Car- 
pocrates  followed  in  the  same  line,  and  are  said 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (^Strom.  iii.  2-4,  p.  185), 
and  Eusebius  (//.  E.  iv.  7,  §  5)  to  have  been 
guilty  in  their  Agapae  of  practices  identical  with 
those  which  were  popularly  imputed  to  the 
Christians  at  large. 

(3.)  The  charge  of  Atheism  was  natural  enough 
as  against  those  who  held  aloof  from  all  temples 
and  altars,  and,  though  it  was  a  formidable 
weapon  in  the  hands  of  their  persecutors,  can 
hardly  be  classed  as  a  distinct  calumny.  Still 
less  can  we  group  under  that  head  the  accusa¬ 
tion  that  they  worshipped  one  who  had  died  a 
malefactor’s  death,  though  this  too  from  the 
time  of  the  Apostles  downward  was  a  frequent 
topic  of  reproach  (Tacit.  Annnl.  xv.  63  ;  Justin 
M.  ilta/.  c.  Tryph.  c.  93;  Minuc.  Fel.  p.  86). 
It  was  not  strange  either  that  the  reverential 
use  which  the  Christians  of  the  2nd  centurv 
made  ot  the  sign  of  the  cross  should  lead  to  the 
notion  that  they  worshipped  the  cross  itself. 
We  may  wonder  rather  that  the  Apologist  who 
speaks  of  the  accusation  should  be  content  almost 


to  admit  the  fact  without  any  explanation,  and 
to  retort  with  the  argument  that  the  framework 
scaffolding  of  most  of  the  idols  before  which  the 
Gentiles  bowed  down  exhibited  the  same  form 
(Tertull.  Apol.  c.  16).  We  enter  upon  the  region 
of  distinct  slander,  however,  when  we  come 
across  statements  of  another  kind,  as  to  the 
objects  of  Christian  adoration.  Of  these  the 
most  astounding  is  that  they  worshipped  their 
God  under  the  mysterious  form  of  a  man  with 
an  ass’s  head.  It  seems  strange  that  such  a 
charge  should  have  been  thought  even  to  need 
denial,  and  yet  it  is  clear  that  it  was  at  one 
time  widely  received.  Tertullian  (Ajoo/.  c.  16  ad 
Nat.  c.  11)  speaks  of  a  caricature  exhibiting  such 
a  form,  with  the  inscription  “  The  God  of  the 
Christians” — ONOKOITES.*  And  a  picture  an¬ 
swering  to  this  description  has  actually  been 
found  on  a  wall  of  the  palace  of  the  Caesars  on 
the  Palatine  Hill.  A  man  is  represented  as 
offering  homage  to  a  figure  with  an  ass’s  head, 
and  underneath  is  the  inscription  AAEXAMEN02 
2EBETE  (for  2EBETAI)  ©EON.  The  fragment 
is  now  in  the  Kircher  Museum,  and  exhibits  the 
lowest  style  of  art,  such  as  might  be  found  in 
a  boy-artisan  bent  on  holding  up  some  fellow- 
workman  to  ridicule.*’  It  has  to  be  noted  that 
this  was  but  the  transfer  to  the  Christians  of  an 
old  charge  against  the  Jews,  and  that  there  it 
was  connected  with  the  tradition  that  it  was 
through  the  wild  asses  of  the  desert  that  the 
Jews  had  been  led  to  find  water  at  the  time  of 
the  Exodus  (Tacit.  Hist.  v.  3). 

(4.)  The  belief  that  Christians  were  worship¬ 
pers  of  the  sun  obtained  even  a  wider  currency, 
and  had  more  plausibility  (Tertull.  Apol.  c.  16, 
Just.  M.  Apol.  i.  68).  They  met  together  on 
the  day  which  ^vas  more  and  more  generally 
known  as  the  Dies  Solis.  They  began  at  an 
early  period  to  manifest  a  symbolic  reverence 
for  the  East ;  and  these  acts,  together  with 
the  language  in  which  they  spoke  of  Christ  as 
the  true  light,  and  of  themselves  as  “children 
of  light,”  would  naturally  be  interpreted  as  acts 
of  adoration  to  the  luminary  itself.  With  this 
we  may  perhaps  connect  the  singular  statement 
ascribed  to  Hadrian  that  they  were  also  worship¬ 
pers  of  Serapis  (Vopiscus,  Hist.  Aug.  p.  719). 
This,  however,  never  rose  to  the  rank  of  a  popu¬ 
lar  calumny,  and  seems  to  have  had  its  beginning 
and  end  in  the  fantastic  eclecticism  of  that  em¬ 
peror,  who  identified  Serapis  with  the  sun,  and 
so  reproduced  the  current  belief  under  this  form. 

(5.)  It  was  also  reported  that  the  members  of 
the  new  sect  worshipped  their  priests  with  an 
adoration  which  had  in  it  something  of  a  phallic 
character  (“  Alii  eos  ferunt  ipsius  anstititis  ac 
sacerdotis  colere  genitalia,”  Minuc.  Felix,  Octav. 
c.  9).  In  this  case,  as  in  the  charge  of  immoral 
excesses,  we  have  probably  the  interpretation 
given  by  impure  minds  to  acts  in  themselves 
blameless.  Penitents  came  to  the  presbytery  of 
the  church  to  confess  their  sins,  and  knelt  before 
them  as  they  sat,  and  this  attitude  may  have 
suggested  the  revolting  calumny  to  those  who 
could  see  in  it  nothing  but  an  act  of  adoration. 

(6.)  Over  and  above  all  specific  charges  there 


»  The  word  was  probably  meant  to  signify  “  Ass-born.” 
Another  reading  is  OstKaiOKETES,  as  if  parodying 
’Ai/axwprjrJ}?,  and  conveying  the  notion  of  Ass-hermit, 
b  See  the  woodcut  under  Cuccii  ix. 


262 


CALUMNY 


CANA,  MIRACLE  OF 


was  the  dislike  which  men  felt  to  a  society  so 
uttei’ly  unlike  their  own.  These  men  who  lived 
apart  from  the  world  were  a  lucifurja  natio.  They 
were  infractmsi  in  negotiis.  They  were  guilty 
of  treason  because  they  would  not  offer  sacrifice 
for  the  emperors,  and  looked  for  the  advent  of 
another  kingdom.  They  were  ignorant,  rude, 
uncultivated,  and  yet  they  set  themselves  up 
above  the  wisest  sages.  They  led  men  to  a  dark 
fatalism  bv  ascribing  to  God  all  their  power  to 
act  (Tertull.  Apol.  35-42).  They  showed  a  de¬ 
fiant  obstinacy  in  their  resistance,  even  to  death, 
to  the  commands  of  civil  magistrates  (Marc. 
Aurel.  xi.  3).  [E.  H.  P.] 

CALUMNY.  [Detraction  ;  Slander.] 

CAMBRICUM  CONCILIUM,  a  d.  465,  is 
a  fiction,  taken  from  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth, 
&c.  [A.  W.  H.] 

CAMELAUCIUM.  A  covering  for  the  head, 
in  use  chiefly  in  the  East,  of  very  unsettled 
orthography.  We  find  camelaucum,  cainelaucus, 
calamaucum,  and  in  Greek  Ka^r)KavKiov  and 

Ka/neXavKiov.  It  appears  to  have  been  a  round 

cap  with  ear-flaps  of  fur, 
originally  camel’s  hair  if 
the  ordinary  etymology  is 
to  be  accepted,  or  wot>l,  and 
sometimes  adorned  with 

gems.  The  form  and  name 
being  preserved,  it  some¬ 
times  became  a  helmet  and 
was  worn  in  battle.  We 

find  it  adopted  both  by 

royal  personages  and  by 

ecclesiastics.  The  head-covering  taken  from 

Totila  when  killed,  a.d.  552,  and  presented  to 

Justinian,  is  called  by  Theophanes  (^Chron.  p.  193) 
KafxgXavKiov  hiahiQov.  Constantine  the  Great 
appears  on  his  triurhphal  arch  at  Rome  similarly 
attired.  [See  Crown.]  Ferrario  (^Costumi, 

Europa  (Rs)  vol.  iii.  part  i.  pi.  30),  and  Constan¬ 
tine  Porphyr.  (^de  Ad7n.  Imp.  c.  13)  describe  by 
the  same  name  the  sacred  caps,  preserved  at 
the  high-altar  of  St.  Sophia’s,  traditionally  be¬ 
lieved  to  haA'e  been  sent  by  an  angel’s  hands 
to  Constantine  the  Great,  and  used  in  the  coro¬ 
nation  of  the  emperors  of  the  East. 

Its  ecclesiastical  use  in  the  East  seems  to  have 
been  chiefly  confined  to  the  monastic  orders. 
Goar  (  Eucholog.  p.  156)  tells  us  that  the  mitre 
of  the  metropolitan  of  Constantinople  had  this 
name  only  when  he  was  taken  from  the  monastic 
ranifs.  It  is  defined  by  Allatius  {de  utrins- 
que  Eccl.  Consens.  lib.  iii.  c.  viii.  no.  12,  apud 
Ducange),  as  a  round  woollen  cap  worn  by 
monks.  It  was  worn  b}'  Armenian  bishops  when 
officiating  at  the  altar  (i6.,  Isaac  Invectio  secunda 
in  Armen,  p.  414).  [Mitre.] 

Fuller  particulars  and  authorities  may  be 
found  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Glossarg  of 
Ducange.  For  its  form,  Ferrario  w.s.,  Goar, 
Eucholog.  p.  156,  and  the  plates  prefixed  to 
Ducange’s  Gloss.  Med.  et  Inf.  Graec.  may  be  con¬ 
sulted.  [E.  V.] 

CAMERA  PARAMENTI.  [Sacristy.] 

C  AMISIA.  (Hence  the  Ital.  ‘  Camicia  *  a 
shirt,  and  ‘  Camice  ’  an  alb  ;  Sp.  ‘  Camisa ;  ’  and 
the  Fr.  ‘  Chemise,’  in  Languedoc  ‘  Camise.’)  St. 
Jerome  (^Ep.  ad  Fabiolam'),  in  describing  the 
vestments  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  (“  Volo  pro 


legentis  facilitate  abuti  sermone  vulgato.  Solent 
militantes  habere  lineas  quas  camisias  vocant 
sic  aptas  membris  et  astrictas  corponbus  ut 
expediti  sint  vel  ad  cursum  ve!  ad  praclia,”  &c.), 
and  a  scholiast  on  Lucan  (suttarum  est  genus  ve.s- 
timentiquod  vulgo  camisia  dicitur,id  est  interula) 
si)eak  of  this  word  as  belonging  to  the  lingua 
vulgaris.  St.  Jerome’s  description  shews  it  to 
have  been  a  shirt  fitted  to  the  body  so  as  to 
admit  of  active  exertion  of  the  limbs,  which  was 
not  the  case  with  the  flowing  garments  worn  by 
the  more  wealthy  in  ordinary  life.  St.  Isidore 
iOrig.  xix.  22,  29)  derives  the  word  “a  camis” 
(“quod  in  his  dormimus  in  camis,  id  est  in  stratis 
nostris  ”).  With  him  it  is  a  night-shirt  or  bed¬ 
gown.  The  word  ‘  cama  ’  still  retains  the 
meaning  of  a  ‘  bed  ’  in  the  Spanish  language,  to 
which  St.  Isidore,  himself  a  Spaniard,  seems  to 
refer.  The  Arabic  ‘  kamis  ’  is  no  doubt  con¬ 
nected  with  the  Spanish  ‘camisa.’  See  further 
references  in  Menage,  iJict.  Etym.  ‘Chemise,’  and 
in  Ducange,  Glossarium,  ‘  camisia.’  [W.  B.  M.] 

CAMPAGAE.  (Other  forms  of  the  same  word 
are  Campacus,  Gainbacus,  Campobus.)  A  kind  of 
ornamented  shoe  worn  by  emperors  and  kings 
(Trebellius,  in  Gallieno ;  Capitolinus,  tn  Maxi- 
min.  Jun.)  and  by  various  officers  of  state  (“  pr-’.e 
toribus  Palatinis  et  quibusvis  aliis:”  cf.  Ducange, 
in  voc.').  At  a  later  period  they  were  worn  by 
the  higher  ecclesiastics  at  Rome,  and  by  others 
elsewhere,  but  in  disregard  of  the  special  privi¬ 
leges  claimed  in  regard  of  these  by  Roman  autho¬ 
rities.  Gregor.  Magnus,  Ep.  vii.  indict,  i.  ep.  28. 
“  Pervenit  ad  nos,”  &c.  [W.  B.  M.] 

CAMPANA.  [Bell.] 

CAMPANARIUS.  The  special  office  of 
Campanarius,  or  bell-ringer,  in  a  church  is  per¬ 
haps  not  mentioned  in  the  literature  of  the  first 
eight  centuries.  See,  however,  the  so-called 
Excerpta  Egberli,  c.  2,  and  the  Leges  Presbyt. 
Northumbr.  c.  36. 

In  more  ancient  times  the  duty  of  ringing  the 
bells  at  the  proper  seasons  seems  to  have  been 
laid  upon  the  priests  themselves  {Capitulare 
Episcop.  c.  8 ;  Cajoit.  Caroli  Magni,  lib.  vi.  c. 
168).  To  the  same  effect  Amalarius  (de  Eiv. 
Off.  iii.  1)  says,  speaking  of  the  ringing  of  bells, 
“ne  despiciat  presbyter  hoc  opus  agere.”  (Du¬ 
cange  s.  vv.  Campanum,  Campanarius.)  In  later 
times  the  Ostiarius  was  the  bell-ringer  (Martene 
de  Pit.  Eccl.  ii.  18,  ed.  1783).  [C.] 

CAMPANILE.  [Belfry  :  Tower.] 

CAMPIO,  “  champion  ”  :  one  whose  profes¬ 
sion  it  was  to  fight  for  another  in  cases  where 
single  combat  was  permitted  by  law  to  decide 
the  right  “  in  campo  duellum  exercens.”  People 
were  allowed  their  advocate  in  court,  and  their 
champion  in  the  field.  But  the  latter  was  a 
mediaeval  institution,  and  therefore  beyond  our 
limits.  He  was  a  superior  personage  to  the 
gladiator  of  old  Rome,  so  far  in  that  he  fought, 
not  for  a  mere  display  of  brute  force,  but  for 
the  triumph  of  justice.  See  Du  Cange,  Holf- 
mann,  Spelman,  and  Blount,  s.  v.  [B.  S.] 

CANA,  MIRACLE  OF.  Representations 
of  this  miracle  frequently  present  themselves 
in  Christian  art.  It  was  early  supposed  to  be 
typical  of  the  Eucharist ;  indeed,  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  so  far  back  as  the  2nd  century,  looks 
on  the  change  of  the  water  as  figurative  of  the 


CANCELLI 


CANCLLLI 


263 


grace  communicated  in  baptism  (Comment,  in 
Evang.  lib.  iv.).  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (Catech. 
xxii.  11)  says  it  represents  the  chanp  of  the 
wine  into  the  blood  ot  the  Lord  in  the  Euchai'ist  j 
and  this  idea  has  been  applied  with  eager  incon¬ 
sequence  to  the  support  of  the  full  dogma  ot 
transubstantiation.  The  miracle  is  represented 
on  an  ivory,  published  by  Mamachi,  Bottari,  and 
Gori,  which  is  supposed  to  have  formed  part  ot 
the  covering  of  a  thi’one  belonging  to  the  exarchs 
of  Ravenna,  and  is  referred  to  the  7th  century. 
BanJini  (fn  Tabularn  eburneam  Observationes,  4to. 
Florentine,  1746)  gives  a  plate  of  it:  and  the 
present  writer  saw  it  in  the  Duomo  of  Ravenna 
in  1871.  See  woodcut. 


In  Bottari,  taw.  xix.  and  xxxii.,  our  Saviour, 
wearing  the  ordinary  tunic,  and  toga  over  it, 
touches  or  points  respectively  to  three  and 
two  vessels  with  a  rod.  In  tav.  li.  five  jars  are 
given,  as  also  in  Ixxxviii. ;  four  in  tav.  Ixxxix. 
The  vessels  or  hydriae  are  of  different,  and  gene¬ 
rally  humble  forms,  on  these  sarcophagi.  Bottari 
remarks  that  the  sculptors  may  have  been  ham¬ 
pered  by  knowing  the  water-vessels  to  have 
been  large,  containing  a  “  metretes.”  But  those 
on  Bandini’s  ivory  are  gracefully-shaped  am¬ 
phorae.  Here  the  Lord  bears  a  Gi-eek  cross  on  a 
staff,  and  motions  with  the  other  hand  to  the 
bridegroom,  or  a  servant,  tvho  is  carrying  a  cup 
to  the  master  of  the  feast,  gazing  steadily  .at  it, 
and  extending  his  left  hand  towards  the  Saviour. 
The  first-quoted  of  these  plates  (xix.  and  xxxii.) 
of  Bottari’s  are  from  sarcophagi  found  in  the 
Vatican,  and  of  high  merit  in  an  artistic  point 
of  view.  The  later  ones,  not  much  inferior,  are 
from  the  cemetery  of  Lucina,  in  the  Callixtine 
catacomb,  or  from  a  sarcophagus  dug  up  in  1607, 
in  preparing  foundations  for  the  Capella  Borghese 
at  Sta.  Maria  Maggiore.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

CANCELLI  (Podiumj  Pectoralia,  Meniana ; 

Apo<paKTo,  Kd77€A.ot,  KdyKtWoi, 
Kd7>cf  a\o).  These  words  are  applied  to  a  par¬ 
tition  formed  of  open  work  in  wood  or  iron,  or 


even  of  stone  (Papias,  in  Ducange,  s.  v.  Cancell'is\ 
especially  to  the  open-work  screen  or  grating 
which  separates  the  choir  from  the  nave  of  a 
church,  or  the  sanctuary  from  the  choir.  Euse¬ 
bius  (Hist.  Eccl.  x.  4,  s.  44),  after  describing  the 
thrones  of  the  vpde^poi  in  the  upper  part  of 
the  great  church  at  Tyre,  the  benches  (seem¬ 
ingly)  for  the  rest  of  the  clerks,  and  the  altar 
or  sanctuary,  says,  “  These  again,  that  they  might 
be  inaccessible  to  the  laity,  he  enclosed  with 
wooden  gratings,  wrought  with  so  delicate  an 
art  as  to  be  a  wonder  to  behold.”  These  cancelli 
seem  to  have  enclosed  the  whole  of  the  space 
occupied  by  the  clergy.  Compare  Church. 

St.  Ambrose  is  said  (Sozomen,  Hist.  Eccl.  vii. 
25,  317)  to  have  excluded  the  emperors  from 
the  sanctuary,  and  to  have  assigned  them  a  place 
just  outside  the  rails  which  enclosed  it  (irph  ru3V 
dpv(pd.KT(oi/  rod  leparelou).  Here  the  Upareiou 
seems  to  correspond  with  what  we  call  the 
chancel,  including  the  whole  of  the  space  aS' 
signed  to  the  clergy,  and  not  merely  the  sanc¬ 
tuary  ;  for  the  emperor’s  position  is  said  to 
indicate  his  precedence  ajnong  the  people,  and  his 
inferiority  to  the  clergy.  The  rail  seems  to  have 
been,  in  short,  a  chancel-screen  rather  than  an 
altar-rail. 

Cyprian,  in  the  Life  of  Caesarius  of  Arles 
(Acta  SS.  Bened.  saec.  i.  App.)  says  that  the 
saint  did  not  hesitate  to  give  for  the  redemption 
of  captives  things  belonging  to  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  the  sacrament,  as  chalices  and  censers, 
and  even  took  down  the  silver  ornaments  from 
the  cancelli.  In  this  case,  the  context  .suggests 
that  the  cancelli  were  near  the  altar.  Paul 
Warnefrid  (De  Episcop.  Metens.  in  Pertz, 
Monum.  German,  ii.  266)  says  that  Chrodegang 
caused  to  be  made  a  church  in  honour  of  St. 
Stej'hen,  and  his  altar,  and  cancelli.,  and  a  pres¬ 
bytery,  where  again  the  rail  or  grating  seems  to 
have  been  the  enclosure  of  the  altar. 

Athanasius  (Epistola  ad  Orthodoxos,  0pp.  i. 
646)  speaks  of  the  KayKeXoi  of  a  church  as 
among  the  things  destroyed  by  Arian  fury. 

Cyril  of  Scythopolis,  in  the  Life  of  Euthymius 
(t673;  in  Acta  iSS.  Jan.  ii.  302  ff.),  tells  how  a 
Saracen,  leaning  on  the  screen  of  the  sanctuaiy 
(t^  /cayyeArp  rod  Upare'iov)  while  the  offering 
was  being  made,  saw  rire  descend  from  heaven 
and  spread  itself  over  the  altar.  Here  the  sci'een 
clearly  enclosed  the  bema,  or  sanctuary,  and  ad¬ 
mitted  of  the  altar  being  .seen  from  without. 
And  again,  in  the  Life  of  St.  Sabas  (in  Cotelerius, 
Monum.  Eccl.  Graecae,  tom.  iii.),  he  speaks  of  the 
rails  of  the  sanctuary  (k.  rod  dva'iacrrrjpiov'). 

Some  have  thought  that  the  Rugak  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  Liber  Pontif  calls  among  the 
presents  of  various  popes  to  Roman  churches  were 
cancellated  doors.  But  see  the  article. 

Germanus  of  Constantinople*  (Hist.  Eccl.  p. 
148,  ed.  Paris,  1560)  says  that  the  I'ails  (KciyKeWa) 
mark  out  the  space  to  the  outside  of  which  the 
people  may  appro.ach,  while  inside  is  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  accessible  only  to  the  priests.  Here  we 
mu.st  conclude,  either  that  the  phrase  rd  ciyia 
ru)P  ayiujv  includes  choir  as  well  as  .sanctuary, 
which  is  highly  imj>robable,  or  that  the  people 
entered  the  choir  at  any  rate  for  the  purpose  ot 
communicating.  Compare  Choir. 

*  It  is  doul'tful  whether  this  work  is  to  be  atrrit'ufed 
to  the  Uernianus  of  the  8lb  century,  or  to  his  uainesake 
of  the  12ih. 


264 


CANDELABRUM 


CANON 


Durandus  (Ratiomle,  i.  3,  35)  observes  that  in 
ancient  times  the  enclosure  of  the  choir  was  not 
so  high  as  to  prevent  the  people  from  seeing  the 
clerks ;  but  that  in  his  own  time  a  curtain  or 
partition  was  generally  interposed  between  the 
clerks  and  the  people,  so  that  they  could  not  see 
each  other. 

Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.  Cancellus ;  Suicer’s 
Tliesuurus,  s.  vv.  SpvcpaKToyf  KiyK\is,  KciyycXa  ; 
INIa billon,  Comment.  Praev.  in  Ordinem  Rom. 
c.  20,  p.  cxxxvii.  [C.] 

(2)  In  addition  to  the  use  of  this  word  for  the 
lattice-work  protecting  the  altar  of  a  church 
and  the  raised  area  on  which  it  stood,  Cun- 
celli  was  also  employed  to  designate  a  railing 
round  a  tomb.  We  find  it  used  in  this  sense  by 
Augustine  (e.g.  Senn.  de  Divers,  xxxi.,  de  Civit. 
Dei  xxii.  7,  &c. ;  Gregory  of  Tours,  de  Mirac.  i. 
69  ;  ii.  20,  46,  47  ;  id.  Hist.  vi.  10,  where  thieves 
are  described  as  breaking  into  St.  Martin’s 
Church  at  Tours  by  raising  against  the  window 
of  the  apse  “  cancellum  qui  super  tumulum 
cujusdam  defuucti  erat”). 

Another  word  used  in  the  same  sense  from  the 
similarity  of  its  form  w’as  Cataracta,  Karap- 
pd/fTTjy,  “  a  portcullis.”  The  letters  of  the 
legates  to  Pope  Hormisdas  relative  to  the  re¬ 
quest  of  Justinian  for  some  relics  of  the  apostles 
speaks  of  the  “  secunda  cataracta.”  Labbe' 
Cone.  iv.  1515 ;  and  the  encyclic  of  Vigilius, 
Hp.  XV.  mentions  the  “  cataracta  Beati  Petri,” 
i.e.  the  iron  railing  surrounding  his  “confessio” 
Cb.  V.  330).  [E.  V.] 

CANDELABRUM.  [Corona  Lucis.] 

CANDIDA.  (1)  Wife  of  Artemius,  martyr 
at  Rome,  is  commemorated  June  6  (^Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Virgin,  of  Rome,  is  commemorated  Aug.  29 
(^Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CANDIDUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome,  is  com¬ 
memorated  Feb.  2  (^Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Sebaste  in  Armenia,  March  9 
(^Mart.  Bedae);  March  11  (Hart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr,  one  of  the  Theban  Legion,  com¬ 
memorated  Sept.  22  (Mart.  Bedae,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  at  Rome,  Oct.  3  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

CANDLE.  [Lights:  Taper.]  [C.] 

CANDLEMAS.  [Mary,  Festivals  of.] 
CANISTER,  or  CANISTRUM.  (1)  A 

basket  used  for  holding  consecrated  bread,  or 
perhaps  Eulogiae.  Compare  Arca.  St.  Jerome 
(Hp.  ad  h'ustic.  c.  20),  speaking  of  the  practice 
among  Christians  in  his  day  of  carrying  home 
the  consecrated  elements  both  of  bread  and 
Avine,  uses  the  expression,  “  Qui  corpus  Domini 
in  canistro  A'imineo  et  sanguinem  portat  in 
A'itro;”  from  which  it  appears  that  a  wicker 
basket  was  used  for  holding  the  consecrated 
bread. 

This  passage  is  remarkably  illustrated  by  a 
fresco  discoA'ered  in  the  crypt  of  St.  Cornelius  by 
Cavaliere  de’  Rossi.  This  represents  a  fish  swim¬ 
ming  in  the  water,  bearing  on  its  back  a  basket 
having  on  the  top  several  small  loaves,  and  in.side 
a  red  object,  clearly  visible  through  the  wicker¬ 
work,  which  seems  to  be  a  small  glass  flask  of 
wine.  This  is  marked  in  the  engraving  by  a 
somewhat  darker  tint.  We  haA'e  thus  the  Fish, 
the  well-known  symbol  of  the  Redeemer,  com¬ 
bined  with  the  representation  of  the  sacred 
bread  and  wine. 


I  In  another  painting  of  the  same  cemetery  is 
I  represented  a  tripod  table,  on  which  are  laid 
I  three  loaves  and  a  fish,  and  round  which  are 
I  placed  seven  baskets  full  of  loaves.  Here,  also, 

I  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  loaA'es  are  eucha- 
ristic,  either  as  being  the  Foaves  actually  con¬ 
secrated,  or  those  blessed  for  distribution  [Eu¬ 
logiae]  (Martigny,  Diet,  des  Ant.  Chrdt. 
p.  246). 


Epiphanius  the  Pre.sbyter  (in  Indiculo  ad 
Ilormisd  an,  quoted  b}^  Ducange,  s.  v.  Canist/nim) 
says  that  certain  persons  proved  themselves  to 
be  heretics  by  the  very  fact  that  on  the  approach 
of  what  they  called  persecution,  i.e.  the  pre¬ 
dominance  of  the  orthodox  Church,  they  con-* 
secrated  great  quantities  of  sacramental  bread, 
and  distributed  full  baskets  (canistra  plena)  to 
all,  that  they  might  not  be  deprived  of  com¬ 
munion.  Ducange  refers  this  to  the  eulogiae  ; 
but  the  eulogiae  would  scarcely  haA’e  been"^ 
regarded  as  a  substitute  for  communion,  and  the 
passage  may  probably  be  referred,  like  that  of 
St.  Jerome,  to  the  distribution  of  bread  actually 
consecrated. 

(2)  The  disk  or  tazza  placed  under  a  lamp. 
This  sense  is  frequent  in  the  Liber  Pontifcalis. 
For  instance.  Pope  Adrian  (772-795)  is  .said  to 
have  given  to  a  church  twelve  silver  canistri, 
weighing  thirty-six  pounds.  Leo  III.,  his  suc¬ 
cessor,  gax’e  a  silver  canister  with  its  chains, 
weighing  fifteen  pounds.  Gregory  IV.  gave  two 
canistra  of  nine  lights  (canistra  ennafodia  =  eVi/ea- 
(pctiTta).  In  the  latter  case,  the  lights  were 
probably  distributed  round  the  circumference  of 
the  tazza.  (Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.).  [C.] 

CANON.  Kavwv,  a  rule;  applied  ecclesias¬ 
tically  to  many  very  diverse  things,  but  with  the 
one  notion  of  fixity  or  regularity  underlying  all 
of  them:  as — 

1.  The  Holy  Scriptures,  as,  i.  themselves  a 
rule ;  ii.  in  re.spect  to  the  rule  by  which  to  de¬ 
termine  what  is  Holy  Scripture,  the  latter  being 
the  sense  in  which  the  word  was  first  applied  to 
them.  [Canonical  Books.] 

2.  The  Creed.  [Creed.] 

3.  The  Roll  of  the  clergy  in  a  particular 
church  (o  eV  tiS  Kau6vi  =  clergyman),  from  a 
time  prior  to  the  Nicene  Council  (can.  16,  17, 
19),  =  6  ayios  Kavwv  (Cone.  Antioch.  A.D.  341, 
can.  1),  KaTd\o70s  tepariKds  (Can.  Apx)st.  14, 
50),  Albus  (Sidon.  Apollin.  lib.  aT.  ep.  8),  Matri- 
cula  (Cone.  Agath.  a.d.  506,  can.  2),  Tabula 
Clericorum  (St.  Aug.  Horn.  50  de  Div.').  Hence 
Canonici,  and  Canonicae ;  and  later  still.  Canons 
Secular  and  Canons  Regular.  [Canonici.] 

4.  The  rules,  either  invented  or  improA'ed  by 
Eusebius  after  the  Monotessaron  of  Ammonius,' 
for  ascertaining  the  parallel  passages  of  the  four 
Gospels. 

5.  Canon  Paschalis  =  the  rule  for  finding 
Easter.  [Easter.] 

6.  The  fixed  portion  of  the  Eucharistic  service. 
[Canon  of  the  Liturgy.] 


CANON  LAW 


CANON  LAW 


265 


7.  The  hvmns  which  formed  inv’ariable  por-  ] 
tions  of  services  in  the  Greek  office  books,  e.  g. 

6  Meyas  Kavwu,  Kavi}v  6  'Tv|/w(rea)S,  Kauuv 
yeKpaxTifMOS,  Kuyoues  ' AvaffTaffifioi,  &c.  &c.  (Du 
Cange,  Meursius,  Suicer,  Cave.)  [Canon  of 
Odes.] 

8.  A  Lectionary,  according  to  Gothofred  (see 
Bingham  XIII.  v.  6);  but  this  seems  doubtful. 

9?  A  synodical  decree.  [Canon-law.] 

10.  A  monastic  rule, — Koviov  Trji  /uLoyaxiKrjs 
iroKireias  (Cave,  Diss.  in  fin.  Hist.  Litt.fi  So  also 
used  by  the  Pseudo-Egbert. 

11.  A  Penitential  (Cave,  f&.).  “Inciderein  | 
canona  ”  came  to  mean  “  to  incur  penance  ”  (Du 
Cange). 

12.  The  epithet  canonicae  was  also  applied 
to, — 

i.  The  Canonical  Letters  given  by  bishops  to 
the  faithful  who  travelled  to  another  diocese. 
[Epistolae.] 

ii.  The  Canonical  Hours  of  prayer.  [Hours.] 

iii.  “  Canonical  Pensions,”  granted  to  a  retired 
bishop  out  of  the  revenues  of  his  former  see. 
[Bishop;  Pension.] 

The  word  is  used  also,  politically,  of  an  ordi¬ 
nary  as  opposed  to  an  extraordinary  tax  ;  whence 
St.  Athanasius  speaks  of  himself  as  accused  of 
getting  a  Kav^u  imposed  upon  Egypt  (Apol.  ii. 
0pp.  i.  178),  which  Sozomen  (vi.  21)  calls  (p6pos : 
and  also  of  a  pension  or  fixed  payment  (Du  Cange, 
Suicer).  [A.  W.  H.] 

CANON  LAW.  The  term  Canon  Law,  as 
commonly  used  at  the  present  day,  is  generally 
understood  to  relate  to  that  complex  system  of 
ecclesiastical  jurisprudence  which  grew  up  in 
the  Church  of  Rome  during  the  Middle  Ages.® 
Of  this  system,  howeA’’er,  it  hardly  falls  within 
our  limits  to  speak.  The  Decretum  of  Gratian, 
which  is  the  first  part  of  the  Corpus  Juris 
Cauonici,  was  not  drawn  up  until  the  12th 
century,  and  even  the  Decretals  of  the  Pseudo- 
Isidore,  which  form  to  so  large  an  extent  the 
basis  of  the  canon  law  of  Rome,  did  not  appear 
till  some  time  after  the  year  800.  We  have, 
therefore,  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  earlier 
collections  of  church  law 

“  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  (says  Ayliffe,  in 
his  Introduction  to  his  Parergon  Juris  Canonici) 
that  the  communion  of  the  Church  could  long 
subsist  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  without 
some  other  laws  and  obligations,  holding  men  to' 
peace  and  concord  among  themselves,  than  those 
contained  in  holy  writ ;  considering  the  pride 
and  passions  of  men,  and  an  overweening  conceit 
of  their  own  particular  ways  m  point  of  Divine 
worship,  and  the  ceremonies  of  it.” 

The  earliest  approach  to  a  lex  scripta  other 
than  and  beyond  the  Scriptures,  probably  con¬ 
sisted  partly  of  letters  of  eminent  bishops  in 
reply  to  questions  put  to  them  on  disputed 
topics  (a  kind  of  “  responsa  prudentum  ”) — 
j)artly  of  ti'aditional  maxims,  “  coutumes,”  as 
Bunsen  calls  them  (^Christianity  and  Mankind. 
vol.  ii.  421),  reduced  to  widting,  and  generally 
accepted,  with  or  without  synodical  sanction — 


•  It  is  sometimes  also  applied  to  the  provincial  canons 
and  constiiutions  passed  by  domestic  synods  in  this  coun¬ 
try.  It  is  to  these  that  the  act  25  Hen.  8,  c.  19,  relates. 
But  these  also  belong  to  a  time  subsequent  to  the  year 
80u,  and  do  not  therefore  fall  to  be  noticed  here. 


partly  of  decisions  of  local  councils,  in  which 
certain  neighbouring  dioceses  met  together  and 
agreed  upon  rules  for  their  observance  in  com¬ 
mon. 

The  so-called  apostolical  canons,  and  aposto¬ 
lical  constitutions  [see  Apost.  Canons  and 
Apost.  Constitutions]  probably  contain  frag¬ 
ments  derived  from  this  early  period.  The 
ancient  pieces  edited  in  Lagarde’s  lieliquiae  Juris 
Ecclesiastici  Antiquissimae,  and  in  Bickell’s 
Geschichte  des  Kirchenrechts,  also  perhaps  reflect 
to  some  extent  the  state  of  things  at  a  primitive 
stage,  with  more  or  less  of  subsequent  accretion 
and  interpolation. 

Eusebius  mentions  synods  or  meetings  of  the 
orthodox  on  the  subject  of  the  Easter  contro¬ 
versy  as  early  as  the  close  of  the  2nd  cen¬ 
tury  (//.  E.  V.  23;  see  Bickell,  i.  38).  In  the 
3rd  century  like  assemblies  were  held  on  the 
question  of  baptism  by  heretics,  and  on  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  lapsi.  Of  letters  of  bishops  received 
as  having  weight  in  ecclesiastical  questions,  few 
or  none  remain  of  a  very  early  date.  The  epistle 
of  Clement  of  Rome,  and  the  epistles  of  Ignatius, 
hardly  fulfil  this  character,  and  the  pretended 
letters  of  early  popes  in  the  Pseudo-Isidorian  De¬ 
cretals  are  forgeries.  But  in  the  3rd  century  we 
have  a  letter  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  and  one 
of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  which  were  written  in 
reply  to  questions  put  to  them,  and  which  find  a 
place  in  the  Codex  Canonum  of  the  Greek  Church, 
it  is  therefore  possible  that  similar  epistles  of 
other  bishops  may  have  exercised  more  or  less 
influence  in  regulating  the  affairs  of  infant 
churches  during  the  previous  period. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  4th  century,  pro¬ 
vincial  councils  became  numerous.  Before  the 
year  325  we  have,  for  instance,  councils  at  Elvira, 
Arles,  Ancyra,  and  Neocaesarea.  Then  begins  the 
series  of  general  councils,  that  of  Nice  being  the 
first,  followed,  in  381,  by  the  first  Council  of 
Constantinople,  minor  councils  having  been  held 
in  the  interim.  [Council.]  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that  some  effort  was  now  made  to 
collect  the  laws  of  the  Church.  We  begin  with 
the  Eastern  Church. 

The  first  collection  of  which  we  hear  has  not 
come  down  to  us  in  its  original  form.  It  ap¬ 
pears  to  have  contained  at  first  only  the  canons  of 
Nice,  and  those  of  the  provincial  councils  of  An¬ 
cyra,  Neocaesarea,  and  Gangra.  As  the  three 
last  mentioned  councils  were  connected  with 
the  diocese  of  Pontus,  it  has  been  conjectured, 
from  the  prominence  given  to  them,  that  the 
collection  originated  there. 

By  degrees  other  councils  were  added,  and  this 
Codex  Ecclesiae  Orientalis,  thus  enlarged,  became 
a  work  of  recognized  authority,  and  was  quoted 
at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  451  A.D.  Jus¬ 
te  11  us  edited  in  1319  a  Codex  Canonum  Ecclesiae 
Universae,  which  he  professed  to  be  the  collec¬ 
tion  quoted  at  Chalcedon,  and  to  have  been  the 
work  of  Stephen,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  at  the  end 
of  the  4th  ceutui'y.  In  point  of  fact,  however, 
the  work  published  by  Justellus  contains  much 
additional  matter,  and  cannot  be  considered  as  an 
exact  representation  of  the  early  form  of  the 
collections  in  question.  Subsequently  to 


b  •'  Notus  est  error  JukUlli,  qui  codiceni  suum  ca¬ 
nonum  ecclesiae  universae  pro  lubitu  composuit  et  pro 
coUectione  a  concilio  Chalo.'doncnsi  coutiraiaUi,  nunc 


266 


CANON  LAW 


CANON  LAW 


the  Council  of  ChalceJon,  divers  collections  ap¬ 
pear  to  hare  been  made,  varying  from  one 
another  more  or  less  in  the  order  and  character 
of  their  contents.  Meanwhile,  another  element 
had  been  added  to  church  law  by  the  decrees  of 
the  Christian  emperors,  collected  in  the  Codes 
of  Theodosius  and  Justinian  (Biener,  p.  14). 

In  the  middle  of  the  6th  centuiy,  John,  sur- 
named  Scholasticus,  a  priest  of  Antioch,  and 
subsequently  Patriai’ch  of  Constantinople,  made 
a  more  systematic  and  complete  collection,  in¬ 
troducing  into  it  sixty-eight  passages  from  the 
works  of  Basil,  which  the  Oriental  Church  re¬ 
ceives  as  authoritative  ®  At  the  same  time  he  also 
extracted  and  put  together,  from  the  legislation 
of  Justinian,  a  number  of  laws  bearing  on  ec¬ 
clesiastical  matters.  These  two  collections, 
when  afterwards  combined  (probably  by  another 
hand),  obtained  the  name  of  Nomocanon. 

We  now  come  to  the  council  in  Trullo,  held 
A.D.  692,  the  decree  of  which  furnishes  a  list 
of  what  was  then  received.  The  council  acknow¬ 
ledges  85  apostolic  canons,  and  those  of  Nice, 
Ancyra,  Neocaesarea,  Gangra,  Antioch,  Laodicea, 
Constantinople,  Ephesus,  Chalcedon,  Sardica,  and 
Carthage,*^  also  of  the  Synod  of  Constantinople 
under  Nectarius.®  It  further  recognizes  the  so-  | 
called  canons  taken  from  the  works  of  Dionysius  j 
and  Peter,  archbishops  of  Alexandria,  Gregory  i 
Thaumaturgus,  Athanasius,  Basil,  Gregory  Nys- 
sen,  Gregory  Theologus,  Amphilochius,  Timo- 
theus,  Theophilus  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and 
Gennadius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Lastly, 
it  confirms  the  Canon  of  Cyprian  as  to  the 
baptism  of  heretics,  which  it  states  to  have  been 
recognized  by  the  usage  of  the  Church. 

Not  quite  two  centuries  later  appeared  the 
great  Nomocanon  of  Photius,  patriarch  of  Con¬ 
stantinople.  This  comprehended  a  digest  of  the 
canons  according  to  their  subject  matter,  and  of 
the  laws  of  Justinian  on  the  same  subjects.  A 
close  connexion  was  thereby  practically  estab¬ 
lished  between  the  decrees  of  councils  and  those 
cf  emperors  (Biener,  p.  22).  It  seems  to  be  the 
aim  of  this  work  to  embrace  the  same  canons 
in  the  main  as  were  recognized  by  the  Trullan 
Council,  and  to  add  them  to  the  Trullan  deci’ees, 
and  those  of  the  following  councils  : — 

The  so-called  7th  Council,  or  2nd  Nicene ; 
the  so-called  Primo  secunda,  held  A.D.  861 ;  that 
of  St.  Sophia,  called  by  the  Greeks  the  8th 
Council,  A.D.  879.^ 

The  council  styled  by  the  Latins  the  8th, 
viz.,  that  held  against  Photius  A.D.  869,  not 
being  acknowledged  by  the  Gi’eeks,  did  not  ap¬ 
pear  in  this  collection. 

In  the  11th  century  the  work  of  Psellus,  in 


demum  restituta,  vcnditavit.”  Biener,  p.  10;  comp. 
Phillips,  p.  15. 

It  contained  the  Aj>ostolic  Canons,  and  those  of  Nice, 
Ancyra,  Neocaesarea,  Sardica,  Gangra,  Antioch.  Laodicea, 
Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon,  and  the  so-called 
Canons  of  Basil. 

d  I.  e.  probably  the  same  excerpta  from  the  Council, 
A.D.  419,  which  Dionysius,  Exiguus  received  into  his 
collection. 

«  /.  e.  that  held  in  394  in  relation  to  Agnpius  and 
Bagadius. 

f  For  an  account,  however,  of  certain  varieties  and 
omissions,  not  easily  to  be  accounted  for,  and  possibly 
due  in  part  to  subsequent  copyists  and  editors,  see 
Biener,  $  4. 


the  12th,  the  commentaries  of  Zonaras  and  Bal- 
samon,  and  of  Aristenus,  and  later  still,  the 
labours  of  Blastai’es,  would  require  special  men¬ 
tion,  as  forming  marked  eras  in  the  growth  of 
canon  law  in  the  East,  as  distinguished  from  the 
mere  collection  and  publication  of  existing  ca¬ 
nons. 

But  we  have  already  passed  our  chronological 
limit,  and  we  therefore  turn  to  the  churches  of 
the  West. 

The  canons  of  Nice  appear  to  have  been  speedily 
translated  into  Latin,  and  to  have  been  circulated 
in  the  West,  together  with  those  of  Sardica. 
Soon  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a  further 
collection  called  the  “  Prisca  translatio  ”  ap¬ 
peared,  which  began  with  the  Council  of  Ancyra, 
and  comprehended  those  of  Chalcedon  and  Con¬ 
stantinople.  We  hear  also  of  a  Gallic  collection. 
The  African  church,  too,  as  it  had  numerous 
councils,  appeal's  to  have  collected  their  decrees 
[see  Codex  Canonum  Ncclesiae  Africanae~\.  In  or 
about  A.D.  547  Ferrandus,  a  deacon  of  Carthage, 
published  his  Breviatio  Canr/num,  which  was  not 
merely  a  compilation,  but  a  systematic  digest, 
and  comprehended  also  the  Greek  Councils  to 
which  he  appears  to  have  had  access  through  a 
Spanish  version. 

Spain,  indeed,  had  at  an  early  period  a  collec¬ 
tion  of  her  own.  The  fact  that  a  Spanish 
bishop  presided  at  the  Council  of  Nice  would 
ensure  a  prompt  entrance  into  that  country  for 
the  Nicene  decrees.  The  canons  of  other  councils 
followed,  some  of  which  were  held  in  Spain  itself. 
An  old  Codex  Canonum  appears  to  have  existed, 
though  not  now  extant  in  its  original  form.  It 
is  said  to  have  been  cited  at  the  Council  of  Braga, 
A.D.  591. 

Martin,  archbishop  of  Braga,  also  compiled 
extracts  from  Greek  councils,  which  became  a 
valuable  contribution  to  the  canon  law  of  the 
Spanish  church.  In  the  seventh  century  we 
come  to  the  collection  which  goes  by  the. name 
of  Isidore  of  Seville,  and  which  seems  to  be  of 
his  date,  though  perhaps  not  his  work.  This 
was  edited  at  Madrid  in  1808  and  1821  from 
a  Spanish  MS.  This  collection  is  a  very  full 
one,  and  at  once  attained  to  a  high  position.  It 
contains  not  only  canons  of  councils  but  de¬ 
cretals  of  popes.  In  its  composition  use  was  no 
doubt  made  of  the  Roman  work  of  Dionysius  of 
which  we  are  about  to  speak. 

We  must  now  go  back  a  few  years  in  order  to 
trace  the  state  of  things  at  Rome.  The  decrees 
of  Nice  and  Sardica  were  speedily  accepted  and 
acted  upon  by  the  popes,  but  the  history  of  any 
regular  collection  of  canons  is  obscure  until  the 
end  of  the  5th  century,  when  the  Scythian  monk 
Dionysius  Exiguus  settled  at  Rome,  and  not  long 
afterwards  undertook  to  edit  a  systematic  com¬ 
pilation.  That  his  work  is  not  entirely  new  is 
clear,  because  he  states  that  one  of  its  objects 
was  to  give  a  new  and  better  translation  of  the 
Greek  canons.  This  seems  to  refer  to  the 
defective  nature  of  the  “  Prisca  translatio  ” 
above  mentioned.  The  labours  of  Dionysius  re¬ 
sulted  in  a  collection  both  more  accurate  and 
more  complete  than  any  previously  existing  at 
Rome.  It  comprised  50  of  the  apostolical  canons, 
27  canons  of  Chalcedon,  21  of  Sardica,  and  138 
of  various  African  councils.  The  work  gave  so 
much  satisfaction  that  its  author  proceeded  to 
make  a  second  and  further  one,  into  which  the 


CANON  LAW 

former  was  .nterwov’en.  He  now  collected  and 
edited  the  aecretal  letters  of  the  popes  down  to 
Auastasius  II. k  As  the  first  systcun/itic  editoi  of 
decretals,  Dionysius  gave  a  new  prominence  to 
that  branch  of  Canon  Law  (assimilating  it  to  the 
Rescripts  of  the  Emperors),  and  thus  contributed 
much  to  sti’engthen  the  Papal  pretensions.^ 
That  in  a  work  which  no  doubt  was  much 
valued  and  widely  circulated,  the  epistles  of 
popes  should  be  placed  on  a  level  with  the  canons 
of  councils,  was  no  light  matter.  Accordingly 
the  Spanish  collection  of  Isidore,  of  which  we 
have  just  spoken,  borrowed  and  republished 
these  decretals  from  the  work  of  Dionysius,  thus 
giving  them  standard  authority  in  the  code  of 
the  church  of  Spain.  The  way  was  thus  pre¬ 
pared  for  the  systematic  interpolation  of  the 
Isidorean  collection  with  a  host  of  forged  de¬ 
cretals  purporting  to  be  the  genuine  letters  of 
early  popes,  but  being  in  reality  fictitious  docu¬ 
ments  framed  to  advance  the  extravagant  papal 
pretensions  then  rising  into  notice.  This,  indeed, 
did  not  take  place  until  the  ninth  century,  and 
the  Pscwffo-Isidorean  work  must  not  be  con¬ 
founded  with  the  earlier  collection  of  Isidoi’e.* * 

The  work  of  Dionysius  became  extensively 
known  as  the  standard  repertory  of  canon  law. 
Cresconius  appears  to  have  reproduced  its  con¬ 
tents  for  the  use  of  the  church  of  Africa ;  Chil- 
pe'ric  in  Gaul  is  said  to  have  been  acquainted 
with  it;  and  in  England,  Theodore  is  believed  to 
have  quoted  from  it  at  the  Synod  of  Hertford  in 
673.  It  is  thought  to  have  made  its  way  even 
into  the  East.  Its  most  important  recognition, 
however,  was  that  which  was  accorded  to  it  by 
Pope  Adrian  I.  when  he  ^transmitted  a  copy 
(augmented  by  certain  additions)  to  Charle¬ 
magne  ;  and  by  Charlemagne  himself  when  he 
caused  the  work  to  be  solemnly  received  by  the 
synod  held  at  Aix-la-Chapelle.  From  this  period 
it  is  frequently  spoken  of  by  the  title  of  Cudex 
Hadrianus,  sometimes  also  by  the  name  of  Codex 
Canonum. 

At  this  point  we  pause.'*  The  next  century 
saw  the  Psewdo-Isidorian  collection  foisted  upon 
the  church. 

A  new  era  then  commenced ;  the  era  of  ex¬ 
travagant  papal  claims,  and  of  canonical  sub- 

8  Last  of  all  he  published  a  revised  and  corrected 
edition,  which  however  has  perished. 

h  In  connexion  with  the  word  “  Decretal,”  the  following 
explanation  of  terms,  as  used  in  the  later  canon  law%  may 
not  be  out  of  place ; — “  A  canon  is  said  to  be  that  law 
which  is  made  and  ordained  in  a  general  council  or  pro¬ 
vincial  synod  of  the  Church.  A  decree  is  an  ordinance 
which  is  enacted  by  the  pope  himself,  by  and  with  the 
advice  of  his  cardinals  assembled,  without  being  consulted 
by  any  one  thereon.  A  decretal  epistle  is  that  which  the 
pope  decrees  either  by  himself  or  else  by  the  advice  of  his 
cardinals.  And  this  must  be  on  his  being  consulted  by 
some  particular  person  or  persons  thereon.  A  dogma  is 
that  determination  w  hicb  consists  in  and  has  a  relation  to 
some  casuistical  point  of  doctrine,  or  some  doctrinal  part 
of  the  Chri.'tian  faith.”  AylifFe,  xxxvli. 

*  The  letter  of  Pope  Siricius  to  Hiinerius,  bishop  of 
Tarragona,  a.d.  385,  seems  the  first  authentic  Papal 
Decretal. 

It  may  be  well  to  add  a  word  as  to  Poenitentials. 
These  were  designed  to  regulate  the  penances  to  be  cano¬ 
nically  inflicted  on  penitents.  They  do  not  appear  to 
have  had  general  sanction,  but  were  locally  adopted  owing 
to  the  posi.ion  and  influence  of  their  authors.  I'bus  we 
have  the  Poenitential  of  Giegory  the  Great,  of  Theodore, 
of  Bede,  and  others.  See  Aylltfe,  xv. 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY  *267 

tletie.s  engendered  by  ecclesiastics,  whose  pro¬ 
fessional  labours  and  commentaries  developed 
the  law  of  the  church  into  a  system  more 
artificial  and  intricate  than  that  of  the  state. 
But  these  things  lie  beyond  our  present  province, 
and  it  is  only  necessary  to  draw  attention  to  the 
new  phase  which  from  this  period  \he  whole 
subject  of  canon  law  assumes. 

From  this  time  forward,  the  strident  has  to  do 
not  merely  with  a  collection  of  statutes  but 
with  a  fabric  of  jurisprudence — not  merely  with 
a  Codex  Canonum,  but  with  a  Corpus  Juris. 

Authorities  : —  Parergon  Juris  Canonici,  by 
Ayliffe.  London,  1726.  Biener,  De  Collection- 
ibus  Canonum  Ecclesiae  Graecae.  Berlin,  1827. 
Bickell,  Geschichte  des  Kirchenr edits.  Giessen, 
1845.  Beveridge,  Pandectae  Canonum  Sanctorum 
Apostolorum  et  Conciliomm  ah  ecclesid  Graeco, 
receptorum.  Oxon.  1672.  Phillips,  Du  Droit 
Ecclesiastique  dans  ses  Sources,  traduit  par 
Crouzet.  Paris,  1852. — [A  useful  book  but 
ultramontane  in  tone.]  In  these  works,  parti¬ 
cularly  in  the  fii’st  and  last,  references  will  be 
found  to  the  older  authors  for  the  benefit  of 
such  students  as  desire  to  investigate  the  subject 
more  fully.  [B.  S.] 

CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY.  That  por¬ 
tion  of  the  Liturgy  which  contains  the  form  of 
consecration,  and  w'hich  in  the  Roman  and  most 
other  rites  is  fixed  and  invariable,  is  called  the 
Canon. 

I.  Designations.  The  word  Kav^v  designates 
either  the  standard  by  which  anything  is  tried, 
or  that  which  is  tried  by  such  standard  (see 
Westcott  on  the  Canon  of  the  N.  T.,  Ai)p.  A). 
It  is  used  in  the  first  sense  by  Clement  of  Rome 
(1  Cor.  41),  where  he  desii-es  the  brethren  not 
to  transgress  the  set  rule  of  their  service  (rhv 
upiapevov  Trjs  \eiTovpy'ias  Kav6vd) ;  in  the 
second,  when  it  is  applied  by  liturgical  writers 
to  the  fixed  series  of  Psalms  or  Troparia  for  a 
particular  day.  It  is  in  the  second  sense  that 
the  word  canon  is  applied  to  the  fixed  portion 
of  the  Liturgy.  As  the  names  of  certain 
saints  were  recited  in  this  canon,  the  word 
KavovL^eiu  came  to  designate  the  act  of  entering 
a  name  in  a  liturgical  list  or  diptych,  and 
saints  whose  names  were  so  entered  were  said  to 
be  canonized. 

It  is  also  called  Actio  (see  the  article),  and 
the  title  Infra  Actionem  {infra  being  used  for 
intra),  is  not  uncommonly  placed  over  the  prayer 
Communicantes  in  ancient  MSS.  See  Le  Brun, 
Exposition  de  la  Messe,  tom.  i,  pt.  iv,  art.  4. 

Pope  Vigilius  {Epist.  ad  Profuturum)  and 
Gregory  the  Great  {Epist.  vii.  64)  call  the 
canon  Precem,  Precem  Canonicam,  as  being  the 
prayer  by  pre-eminence. 

It  is  also  called  Secreta  and  Secretum  3fissae, 
from  being  said  in  a  low  voice.  [Skcreta.] 

Tertullian  appears  to  use  the  word  Benedictio 
{ =  iv\oyia)  to  designate  that  portion  of  the 
Eucharistic  service,  or  Actio,  which  included 
consecration.  ^&^De  Pudic.  c.  14;  Ad  Uxorem, 
ii.  c.  6. 

II.  Early  notices  of  this  portion  of  the  Liturgy. 
On  the  scriptural  notices  it  is  not  necessary  here 
to  dwell. 

In  Justin  Martyr’s  account  of  the  celebration 
of  the  Eucharist  for  the  newly-baptized  {Apol.  i. 
c.  65),  this  })ortion  of  the  service  is  described  as 
follows.  “Then  is  presented  (irpoaipepirai)  to 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 


268  CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 

tho  brother  who  pi-esides,  bread,  and  a  cup  of 
water  and  mixed  wine  (Kpd/j.aTos),  and  he,  re¬ 
ceiving  them,  sends  up  praise  and  glory  to  the 
Father  of  All,  through  the  name  of  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  offers  a  thanksgiving  (eux®" 
picrriap)  at  some  length  for  that  He  has  vouch¬ 
safed  to  us  these  blessings.  And  when  he  has 
finished  the  prayers  and  the  thanksgiving,  all 
the  people  present  respond  by  saying  Amen  .  .  . 
And  after  the  pi’esident  has  given  thanks  and 
the  people  responded,  those  who  are  called  among 
us  deacons  give  to  each  of  those  who  are  present 
to  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine  and  water  over 
which  thanks  have  been  given,  and  carry  them 
to  those  not  present.  And  this  meal  is  called 
with  us  eucharistia,  of  which  none  is  permitted 
to  partake,  except  one  who  believes  that  the 
things  taught  by  us  are  true,  and  who  has  passed 
through  the  washing  for  remission  of  sins  and 
new  birth,  and  so  lives  as  Christ  commanded. 
For  we  receive  these  not  as  common  bread  or 
common  drink,  but  as  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour 
being  incarnate  by  the  Word  of  God  possessed 
both  flesh  and  blood  for  our  salvation,  so  also 
we  were  taught  that  the  food  over  which  thanks¬ 
giving  has  been  made  by  the  utterance  in  prayer 
of  the  word  derived  from  Him  (t^u  cuxvs 
?<6yov  TOv  Trap'  avrov  f:Vxo.pto'rif]Q^'l<Tav  Tpo<pi]v) 
is  the  flesh  and  blood  of  that  incarnate  Jesus. 
For  the  Apostles,  in  the  memoirs  which  they 
wrote  which  are  called  Gospels,  transmitted  to 
us  that  Jesus  Christ  thus  charged  them  ;  that 
after  taking  bread  and  giving  thanks.  He  said, 
‘  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me  ;  this  is  my 
Body  and  that,  in  like  manner,  after  taking 
the  cup  and  giving  thanks.  He  said,  ‘  This  is 
my  Blood  ;  ’  and  that  He  gave  to  partake  to 
them  alone.” 

The  same  ceremony  is  more  briefly  described 
in  the  following  chapter,  in  the  account  of  the 
ordinary  Sunday  services,  Avith  the  addition  that 
the  president  sends  up  prayers  and  thanksgiving, 
“  haip  Zvvajxis  avrcp”  according  to  his  ability ; 
for,  as  F.  Xavier  Schmid  observes  (Liturgik,  i. 
44),  “  even  the  prayers  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass  depended  for  their  contents  and  length  on 
the  pleasure  of  the  several  presidents,  though 
they  might  often  be  moulded  on  a  type  given  by 
some  apostle  or  apostolic  man.” 

Justin  connects  the  notion  of  sacrifice  with 
the  Eucharist.  In  the  Dialogue  (c.  117,  p.  386) 
he  speaks  of  the  acceptableness  of  the  sacrifices 
(^Oua-ias)  which  Christ  ordained,  “  that  is,  over  the 
Eucharist  or  thanksofiering  (eVl  tt}  evxapio'Tia^ 
of  the  bread  and  the  cup ;  ”  and  he  regards  the 
oftering  of  fine  flour  (LeA\  xiv.  10)  as  a  type  of 
the  Eucharist. 

In  Irenaeus,  Avith  many  passages  interesting 
in  a  dogmatic  jAoint  of  view  (Avith  Avhich  at  pre¬ 
sent  we  are  not  concerned)  are  several  Avhich 
contain  liturgical  indications.  He  dwells  (^Haeres. 
iv.  18,  §  4,  p.  251)  on  the  difficulty  Avhich  they, 
Avho  do  not  belicA'c  Christ  to  be  the  very  Word 
of  God  through  Whom  all  things  Avere  made, 
must  experience  in  receiving  the  truth  that  the 
bread  oA’^er  (or,  by  occasion  of)  which  thanks 
naA'e  been  given  (“  panem  in  quo  gratiae  actae 
sint  ”)  is  the  Lord’s  Body.  And  again  he  says 
(^Haeres.  v.  22,  §  3,  p.  294)  that  natural  bread 
receiA'es  over  it  the  Avord  of  God,  and  the  thank- 
offering  becomes  the  Body  of  Christ  (<5  yeyovws 
ipTO'S  iviSex^^ui  rhv  \6yov  toO  &eov  /col  yiuf- 


rat  rj  €vxo.pi(Tria  (Xco/xa  XpaTTOv).  [Eucharist.] 
Speaking  of  the  heretic  Marcus  {[{acres,  i.  13, 
§  2),  he  says,  that  he  pretended  to  perform 
a  eucharistic  serA'ice,  and  that  by  uttering  a 
long  form  of  inv'ocatijn  (^ttI  irhiov  [KTeivuv 
rhv  \6yov  TT/s  e7rt/cX^<r<c«js)  he  caused  the 
liquid  in  the  cups  to  appear  red  and  purple. 
This  was  no  doubt  in  imitation  of  the  Epi- 
CLESIS  of  the  orthodox.  In  Fragment  38,  Ave 
read:  “The  offering  {TTpo(r<popd')  of  the  Eucharist 
is  not  fleshly,  but  spiritual,  and  therein  pure. 
For  we  offer  {irpoaipdpo/xfv)  unto  God  the  bread 
and  the  cup  of  blessing,  giving  thanks  (ihxa.pi- 
(TTovvTis)  unto  Him,  for  that  He  bade  the  earth 
bring  forth  these  fruits  for  our  sustenance ;  and 
at  that  point,  after  completing  our  offering,  Ave 
call  forth  (iKKaXovgev')  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  de¬ 
clare  (oirccs  a.iro(P'i)vrf)  this  sacrifice  and  the 
bread  the  Body  of  Christ  and  the  cup  the  Blood 
of  Christ,  that  they  who  partake  of  these  figures 
(dvriTurrcov)  may  obtain  remission  of  their  sins 
and  eA'erlasting  life.”  And  again  (Ilaeres.  iv. 
18,  s.  5,  p.  251)  we  read,  that  bread  produced 
from  earth,  receiving  over  and  above  its  propei 
nature  the  iuA^ocation  or  calling-forth  of  God 
(TTpoaXa^S/iivos  r^v  iKK\.t](Tiv  rov  0eoC)  is  no 
longer  common  bread,  but  Eucharistia. 

It  is  supposed  by  some  that  Clement  of  Alex¬ 
andria  describes  the  great  eucharistic  thanks¬ 
giving  of  his  time,  Avhen  he  says  that  Christians; 
thank  God  for  the  blessings  of  creation  and  for 
the  gifts  of  nature  (CohoHatio  ad  Geides,  pp.  7 
and  92,  ed.  Potter)  ;  for  His  mercy  in  redeeming 
us  by  His  Word  from  the  misery  of  the  Fall  ; 
for  Christ’s  life  and  Avorks  (ib.  pp.  6  and  8  ;  com¬ 
pare  p.  87).  This  is  not  quite  evident ;  nor  is  it 
clear  that  the  allusions  to  the  Cherubic  hymn 
of  Isaiah  (Strom,  v.  6,  p.  668;  A'ii.  12,  p.  880) 
relate  to  the  use  of  that  hymn  in  the  liturgy. 
But  Clement  is  clearly  refei-ring  to  the  Eucharist, 
when  he  insists,  against  the  Eucratites,  on  the 
use  of  wine  [Elements],  and  says  (Paedag.  ii.  2, 
p.  186)  that  the  Lord  “  blessed  (evXoygaev')  the 
wine,  saying,  ‘  Take,  drink ;  this  is  My  blood,’ 
the  blood  of  the  A'ine ;  under  the  figure  of  the 
holy  stream  of  gladness  He  describes  the  Word 
shed  forth  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins 
(rhv  \6yov  rhv  Trepl  ttoWwv  iKX^d/juvov  its 
&(p€(Ttv  afiapTidSy  fvcppoavvrjs  dyiov  aWriyopei 
vaga).”  He  giA^es  no  details  of  the  form  of  con¬ 
secration. 

Tertullian’s  Avorks  contain  many  eucharistic 
allusions.  The  intercessions  Avhich,  according  to 
his  testimony,  Christians  made  on  behalf  of  em¬ 
perors  and  the  peace  of  the  empire  (Apol.  cc. 
30,  39),  on  behalf  of  enemies  (Apol.  c.  31),  and 
for  fruitful  seasons  (ad  Scapulam,  c.  4) ;  the 
commemoration  of  and  intercession  foi'  the  dead 
(De  Exhort.  Cast.  c.  11  ;  De  Monogamii,  c.  10) 
probably  all  took  place  in  connexion  with  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist  (ad  Scapulam,  c.  2).  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Marcionite  theory,  he  says  (adv. 
Marcion.  i.  23),  the  eucharistic  giving  of  thanks 
is  performed  oA'er  alien  bread  to  another  than 
the  true  God  (“super  alienum  panem  alii  Deo 
gratiarum  actionibus  fungitnr”),  implying  that 
a  giAung  of  thanks  to  the  true  God  over  the 
eucharistic  bread,  took  place  in  the  service  of 
the  Church.  He  describes  (De  AntniLi,  c.  17)  the 
blessing  of  the  Cup  in  the  Last  Supper  as  “  con¬ 
secration  ;  ”  and  the  consecration  of  the  bread 
to  be  a  representation  (“  figura  ”)  of  the  Lord’s 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY  2G9 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 

Body  he  held  to  have  been  accomplished  by  the 
words,  “  Hoc  est  corpus  meum  ”  Marcion. 
iv.  40 ;  cf.  de  Orat.  c.  6).  Prayers  which  are 
called  “  orationes  sacrificiorum  ”  tollowed  com¬ 
munion  (de  Orat.  c.  14). 

St.  Cyprian  says  (Epist.  63,  c.  17),  that  in  the 
eucharikic  action,  “  because  we  make  mention  of 
His  Passion  in  all  our  sacrifices  (for  the  Passion 
of  the  Lord  is  the  sacrifice  which  we  offer)  we 
ought  to  do  no  other  thing  than  He  did ;  for 
scripture  says  that  so  often  as  we  offer  the  cup 
in  commemoration  of  the  Lord  and  His  Passion, 
we  should  do  that  which  it  is  evident  that  the 
Lord  did.”  He  is  arguing  here  especially  for 
the  mixed  chalice  [Elements],  but  his  words 
clearly  have  an  application  to  the  eucharistic 
office  in  genei'al.  We  find  also  from  Cyprian  that 
in  the  eucharistic  action  (“in  sacrificiis  nostris”), 
as  well  as  in  prayers  (“  orationibus  ”)  intercession 
was  made  for  brethren  suffering  affliction  (Epist. 
61,  c.  4),  whose  names  were  i-ecited(A/iisL  62,  c.  5), 
as  were  also  the  names  of  those  who  made  oftei’- 
ings  (Epist.  16,  c.  2)  and  of  the  dead  who  had 
departed  uncensured  in  communion  with  the 
Church  (Epist.  1,  c.  2).  The  liturgical  office  of 
a  priest  seems  to  be  summed  up  (Epist.  65,  c.  4) 
in  sanctifying  the  oblation,  in  prayers  and  suppli¬ 
cations  (“  orationes  et  preces”)  ;  and  the  brethren 
are  admonished,  that  when  they  come  together 
to  celebrate  the  divine  sacrifices  with  the  priest 
of  God,  they  should  not  indulge  in  noLsy  and 
unseemly  prayers  (De  Orat.  Dom.  c.  4) ;  a  pas¬ 
sage  which  seems  to  imply  that  the  congrega¬ 
tion  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  eucharistic 
service. 

Origen  has  more  than  one  passage  bearing 
upon  the  hallowing  of  the  elements  in  the  Eu¬ 
charist.  We  read  (contra  Celsum,  lib.  8,  p.  399, 
ed.  Spencer,  1 658),  “  Let  Celsus,  as  one  who  knows 
not  God,  pay  his  thank-ofi'erings  (xapio'r'ftpia)  to 
demons;  but  we,  doing  that  which  is  well¬ 
pleasing  to  the  Maker  (Srjpiovpyif)  of  the  uni¬ 
verse,  eat  the  loaves  offered  with  thanksgiving 
and  prayer  over  the  gifts  (tovs  per’  eiixapitrTios 
K.  evxvs  Trjs  eVi  rois  8o6e7(ri  irpoaayopevovs 
&pTovs),  loaves  which  are  made,  in  consequence 
of  the  prayer,  a  certain  body,  holy  and  hallowing 
those  who  use  it  with  sound  purpose.”  Again, 
in  the  Comment  on  St,  Matthew  (c.  14),  Origen 
speaks  of  the  bi’ead  being  hallowed  by  the  word 
of  God  and  pra3'er.  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that 
in  the  Alexandrian  Liturgy,  the  priest  in  ad¬ 
ministering  the  bread  says,  awpa  aytor,  not 
(Twpa  Xpiarov  (Daniel,  Codex  Lit.  iv.  168). 

Firmilian  (1269),  bishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cap¬ 
padocia  (Cypriani  Epist.  lb,  c.  10,  p,  818,  Hartel) 
describes  an  ecstatic  woman  who  performed  a 
mock  eucharistic  act  and  sanctified  the  bread 
with  an  invocation  of  considerable  power  (“  invo- 
catione  non  contemptibili  ”),  and  offered  the  sacri¬ 
fice  to  the  Lord  without®  the  mystic  words  of 
the  accu.stomed  form  (“  sine  Sacramento  solitae 
praedicationis’’).  In  this  passage  invocatio  pro¬ 
bably  corresponds  to  ^ttikAtjcis,  and  praedicatio 
to  KTjpvypa,  a  word  used  by  St.  Basil  (Epist. 
141)  for  a  liturgical  form.  It  seems  to  be  here 
implied  that  the  form  of  the  epiclesis  used  by 
the  ecstatica  was  her  own  effusion ;  while  the 
usual  “  praedicationes  ”  of  the  sacred  act  were 


®  The  “  non  "  which  is  here  inserted  in  some  texts  is  a 
oci\jecturc  not  supported  by  any  MS. 


“  mysteries,”  and  either  unknown  to  her,  or  re¬ 
jected  as  not  satisfying  her  aspirations. 

In  the  liturgical  directions  of  the  second  book 
of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (c.  57,  §§  13,  14) 
no  explicit  account  is  given  of  the  central  por¬ 
tion  of  the  service.  After  describing  the  bidding- 
prayer,  or  Prosphonesis  of  the  deacon,  and  the 
prayer,  with  benediction,  of  the  priest,  the  writer 
proceeds:  “And  after  this  let  the  sacrifice  be 
made  (yivcadw  dvaia),  all  the  people  standing 
and  praying  in  a  low  voice;  and  when  the 
offering  has  been  made  (orau  averex^fl),  let 
each  order  partake  severally  of  the  Lord’s  Body 
and  the  precious  Blood.”  No  details  are  given 
of  the  sacrifice  or  anaphora,  perhaps  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  silence  imposed  in  that  respect  by 
the  “  Disciplina  Arcani.”  The  eighth  book  con¬ 
tains  what  is  commonly  called  the  Clementine 
Liturgy,  which  is  considered  elsewhere. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  gives  us  a  descrijition 
(Catech.  Mystag.  V.)  of  the  liturgy  as  it  was 
actually  celebrated  at  Jerusalem  in  the  early 
part  of  the  4th  century.  After  describing  the 
Sursuin  Corda,  Preface,  and  Sanctus,  he  proceeds 
(§  7)  :  “  Then,  after  hallowing  ourselves  by  these 
spiritual  hymns,  we  beseech  the  merciful  God  to 
send  forth  His  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  elements 
displaj'ed  on  the  table  (ra  -npoK^ipiva),  to  make 
the  bread  the  Body  of  Christ  and  the  wine  the 
Blood  of  Christ.  For  most  certainly,  what¬ 
soever  the  Holy  Spirit  may  have  touched,  that 
is  hallowed  and  transformed  (■^yiao'Tai  Kal 
pera^f^XrjTai).  Then,  after  that  the  spiritual 
sacrifice,  the  unblood service  (Karpe'a')  is  com¬ 
pleted,  over  that  sacrifice  of  propitiation  we  be¬ 
seech  God  for  the  common  peace  of  the  churches, 
for  the  welfare  of  the  world,  for  kings,  for  sol¬ 
diers  and  allies,  for  those  in  infirmity,  for 
those  in  special  trouble,  and,  generally,  we  all 
pray  for  all  who  need  help ;  and  this  sacrifice  we 
offer.  Then  we  make  mention  also  of  those  who 
have  gone  to  rest  before  us,  first  patriarchs, 
prophets,  apostles,  martyi's ;  that  God  at  their 
prayers  and  intercessions  would  receive  our  sup¬ 
plication  (Sttcos  b  0ebs  Tats  evxals  avrcov  Kal 
npeafieiais  irpoffbe^riTai  tV,v  ^pwv  derjaiv)’,  then 
also  on  behalf  of  the  holy  fathers  and  bishops 
who  have  gone  to  rest  before  us,  and  generally 
all  of  our  body  who  have  gone  to  rest  before  us ; 
believing  that  the  greatest  benefit  will  accrue  to 
their  souls  for  whom  the  supplication  is  offered 
(r)  S4r]cris  avacpepfrai)  while  the  holy  and  mo.st 
awful  sacrifice  is  displayed  (-n-poKupivips').”  Then 
follows  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  the  to  ayia  rois  ayiois, 
and  communion. 

St.  Basil,  in  a  remarkable  passage  (De  Spirifu 
Sancto,  c.  27  [al.  661,  p.  54)  speaks  of  some  of 
the  ceremonies  of  the  Eucharist  as  having  been 
derived  from  unwritten  tradition.  “Tlie  words 
of  the  Invocation  [Epiclesis]  at  the  disjilaying 
or  dedicating  (67rl  rff  bread  of 

thanksgiving  and  the  cup  of  blessing,  which  of 
the  saints  left  behind  for  us  in  writing  ?  For, 
you  know,  we  are  not  content  with  the  things 
which  the  Apostle  or  the  Gospel  relate,  but  we 
prefix  and  suffix  other  expressions  (irpoKeyopev 
Kal  iiriKfyopiv  (Tepa)  which  we  regard  as 
highly  important  for  the  mystery,  having  them 
handed  down  to  us  from  unwritten  tradition 
(iK  rris  aypd(pov  8L8a(rKa\'ias  irapaKa&ovrfs).” 
This  clearly  indicates  that  the  general  form  of 
consecration  in  the  time  of  St.  Ba-sil  corres]iouded 


270  CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 


to  that  in  the  existing  Greek  Liturgies,  in  that 
the  portion  actually  taken  ft  om  Scri})ture  was 
preceded  and  succeeded  by  forms  not  sci-iptural, 
reputed  to  be  taken  from  apostolic  tradition, 
and  that  an  Epiclesis  was  an  essential  part  of 
the  form. 

St.  Chrysostom  informs  us  (on  2  Cor.  Horn. 
18)  that  after  the  Kiss  of  Peace  there  followed 
the  blessing  of  the  priest,  to  which  the  people 
responded,  “  And  with  thy  spirit ;  ”  then,  it  is 
implied,  came  the  “  Lift  up  your  hearts,”  &c., 
with  the  response  “It  is  meet  and  right  ”  and 
the  cherubic  hymn.  As  to  the  petitions  of  the 
great  thanksgiving,  he  tells  us  (on  St.  Matt. 
Horn.  25  [al.  26])  that  the  priest  bids  us  make 
the  eucharistic  ofi'ering  (^ihxapLO’TUv)  on  behalf 
of  the  world,  of  those  who  have  gone  before  and 
those  who  are  to  follow  after  us  ;  and  again  (on 
2  Cor.  Horn.  2)  for  bishops,  for  presbyters,  for 
kings  and  rulers,  for  land  and  sea,  for  wholesome 
air,  for  all  the  world.  It  appears  also  that 
founders  of  churches,  and  the  village  for  which  a 
church  was  founded,  were  specially  named  in  the 
sacred  service  (/n  Acta,  Horn.  18,  c.  5).  It  also 
appears  that  the  Agnus  Dei  was  repeated  in  con¬ 
nexion  with  the  eucharistic  intercession  :  (virep 
uhrSrv  irpotripLev,  Sedfieiroi  tov  ap.vov  tov  Keigerrov 
Tov  Kafiovros  rrjv  agapTiav  tov  KO(rp.ov]  on  1  Cor. 
Horn.  41 ;  compare  on  St.  John,  Horn.  24,  and 
on  Acts,  Horn.  21),  and  that  the  Lord’s  Prayer 
formed  part  of  the  canonical  prayers  (In  Genes. 
Horn.  27).  The  ra  ayia  tols  ay'iois  [Sancta 
Sanctis]  formed  the  transition  to  Communion 
(Pseudo-Chrys.  on  Hebr.  Horn.  17). 

St.  Augustine,  at  thg  end  of  the  4th  century, 
testifies  to  the  general  order  of  the  canon  in  his 
time  in  the  North-African  churches,  which  pro¬ 
bably  differed  little  in  this  respect  from  the 
Italian.  Thus  we  find  (ac?  Infant,  de  Sacra¬ 
ment  is,  p.  227)  that  the  Sur'sum  Corda  formed 
the  introduction  to  the  more  solemn  part  of 
the  service,  which  is  called  “  sanctificatio  sacri- 
ficii  Dei,”  and  that  this  was  followed  by  the 
Lord’s  Prayer.  Again,  that  the  intercessions  at 
the  altar  included  pi'ayer  for  unbelievers,  that 
God  would  convert  them  to  the  faith  ;  for  cate¬ 
chumens,  that  He  would  inspire  them  with  a 
longing  for  regeneration ;  for  the  faithful,  that 
they  may  persevere  in  that  which  they  have 
begun  (^Epist.  217,  Ad  Vital. ;  De  Bono  Per'- 
seve  ant.  c.  7) ;  and  for  the  dead  (^De  Cut'a 
pro  Mortuis,  cc.  1  and  4).  That  the  North- 
African  Church  exercised  special  care  in  regard 
to  the  prayers  to  be  used  at  the  altar,  even  while 
strict  uniformity  was  not  insisted  upon,  is  indi¬ 
cated  by  the  provision  (III.  Cone.  Cat'th.  c.  23, 
circ.  A.D.  397)  that  the  altar-prayers  should 
always  be  addressed  to  the  Father  (“  cum  altari 
adsistitur  semper  ad  Patrem  dirigatur  oratio  ”), 
and  that  the  celebrant  is  not  to  adopt  prayers 
from  extraneous  authorities,  “  nisi  prius  eas  cum 
instructioribus  fratribus  contulerit.”  A  nearer 
approach  to  uniformity  in  indicated  by  the  decree 
of  a  somewhat  later  council  (Rhein  wald’s  Archiiol. 
p.  355),  “  ut  preces  quae  probatae  fuerint  in  con- 
cilio,  sive  praefationes  sive  commendationes  seu 
manus  impositiones,  ab  omnibus  celebrentur.” 

The  pseudo-Ambi'osius  de  Sacrarnentis,  writing 
probably  in  the  4th  century,  discusses  (iv.  c.  4) 
the  question  of  consecration  in  the  Eucharist. 
“By  what  words,”  he  says,  “and  whose  expres¬ 
sions  (sermonibus)  is  consecration  effected  ?  By 


those  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  For  in  the  rest  of  the 
service  praise  is  given  to  God,  prayer  is  made  for 
the  people,  for  kings,  for  the  rest.  When  the 
point  of  completing  the  venerable  sacrament  is 
reached,  the  priest  no  longer  uses  his  own  ex¬ 
pressions,  but  the  expressions  of  Christ.” 

Summary. — We  find,  then,  that  from  the 
middle  of  the  2nd  century,  the  pre.sentation  of 
the  elements  was  regarded  as  a  thank-offering  or 
sacrifice  [Eucharist],  especially  for  the  fruits 
of  the  eSrth ;  that  thanks  were  given  to  God 
over  the  bread  and  mixed  wine,  with  prayer, 
which  probably  included  the  Lord’s  Prayer ; 
that  this  was  done  in  especial  commemoration  of 
the  Lord’s  death,  though  it  is  not  absolutely 
certain  that  the  words  of  Institution  were  in  all 
cases  recited  over  the  elements ;  and  that  there 
was  in  many  churches  an  Invocation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Moreover,  it  is  clear  that  from  the  time 
of  Tertullian  at  least  intercession  was  made  in 
the  eucharistic  service  for  the  dead  as  well  as 
the  living.  In  the  2nd  century,  the  details  of 
the  prayers  and  thanksgivings  seem  to  have 
depended  upon  the  president  of  the  assembly, 
though  a  genei'al  type  was  probably  in  all  cases 
followed ;  in  the  4th  century,  the  canon  of  the 
liturgy  was  evidently  fixed,  both  in  East  and 
West,  in  forms  not  materially  differing  from 
those  found  in  extant  liturgies.  From  this 
point  we  proceed  to  consider  these  lattei*.  For 
the  discussion  of  their  respective  dates  and  mu¬ 
tual  connexion,  see  Liturgy. 

HI.  Tiie  Canon  in  existing  Liturgies.  In  the 
extant  Liturgies  we  find  the  Canon  (which  cor¬ 
responds  nearly  to  the  Anaphora  of  the  Eastern 
ritual)  consisting  in  all  cases  of  nearly  the  same 
elements,  variously  arranged.  We  have  in  nearly 
all  canons,  after  the  Sanctus,  commemoration  of 
the  Lord’s  Life  and  of  the  Institution,  Oblation, 
prayer  for  living  and  dead,  leading  on  to  the 
Lord’s  Pra)^er,  with  Embolismus.  In  the  Eastern 
liturgies  always,  sometimes  in  the  Gallican  and 
Mozarabic  masses,  but  not  in  the  Roman  or 
Ambrosian,  we  have  an  Epiclesis,  or  prayer  for 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  elements. 
The  annexed  analytical  table  shows  the  principal 
differences  of  arrangement.  The  Canon  is 
generally  understood  to  exclude  the  Sanctus, 
while  the  Anaphora  includes  both  the  Sursurn 
Corda  and  the  S  tnet'ts. 

\See  Table  opposite."] 

The  portion  between  the  Sursurn  Corda  and 
the  Sanctus  will  be  described  under  Preface.  In 
the  Alexandrian  (St.  Mark’s)  Liturgy  alone,  the 
prayers  for  the  living  and  the  dead,  and  for 
acceptance  of  the  sacrifice,  are  inserted  in  the 
midst  of  it.  The  arrangement  of  St.  James’s 
liturgy  is  typical  of  that  usual  in  the  orthodox 
Eastern  Church,  from  which  the  Nestorian 
arrangement  differs  mainly  in  having  the  inter¬ 
cession  for  living  and  dead  before  the  Epi(desis. 
The  Gregorian  (which  is  nearly  identical  with 
the  modern  Roman)  and  the  Gallican  (the  ar¬ 
rangement  of  which  is  nearly  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Mozarabic)  represent  the  principal  Western 
types. 

The  canon  of  the  Roman  or  Gregorian  liturgy 
is  divided  into  ten  portions,  which  are  usually 
known  by  their  first  words.  These  are  as  fol¬ 
lows  :  1.  Te  igitur,  for  acceptance  of  the  sacri¬ 
fice  to  be  offered.  2.  Memento,  commemorating 
the  living.  3.  Cormnunicantes,  commemorating 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 


271 


ST.  JAMES 
(Greek). 

ST.  MARK. 

NESTORIUS. 

AMBROSIAN  AND 
GREGORIAN. 

GALLICAN. 

Oblation  of  Elements. 
Prayer  for  Living  and 

1  )ead. 

• 

Collectio  post  Nomina. 
Kiss  of  Peace. 

Oratio  ad  Pacem. 

Sursum  Corda. 

Sursum  Corda. 

Sursum  Corda  (pecu- 

Sursum  Corda. 

Sursum  Corda. 

liar  form). 

Preface. 

Preface. 

Preface. 

Preface. 

Preface. 

Prayer  for  Living 

and  Dead ;  and 
for  acceptance 
of  the  Sacrifice. 

Preface  resumed. 

Sanctus. 

Sanctus. 

&mctu8. 

Sanctus. 

Sanctus. 

Commemoration  of 

Commemoration  of 

Prayer  for  the  Liv- 

Collectio  post  Sanctus 

the  Lord’s  life. 

the  Lord’s  life. 

ing;  and  for  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  the 

(short). 

Sacrifice. 

Commemoration  of 

Commemoration  of 

Commemoration  of 

Commemoration  of 

Commemoration  of  In- 

Institution. 

Institution. 

Institution. 

Institution. 

siitution. 

Oblation. 

Oblation. 

Oblation. 

Oblation. 

Prayer  for  Living 

Prayer  for  the  Dead. 

and  Dead. 

Prayer  for  Descent  of 

Prayer  for  Descent 

Prayer  for  Descent 

“  Post  Secreta  "  fsome- 

Holy  Spirit. 

of  Holy  Spirit. 

of  Holy  Spirit. 

times  containing  In- 

vocation 

Spirit). 

of  Holy 

Priest. 
Fraction 
and  com- 
mixtion. 

Choir. 
Conlracto- 
rium  (an 
Antiphon.) 

Prayer  for  Living 

Prayer  for  Peace. 

and  Dead. 

Preface  to  Lord’s 

Preface  to  Lord’s 

Preface  to  Lord's 

Preface  to  Lord’s 

Prayer. 

Prayer. 

Prayer. 

Prayer. 

Lord’s  Prayer. 

Lord's  Prayer. 

Fraction. 

Lord’s  Prayer. 

Lord’s  Prayer. 

Embolismus. 

Embolismus. 

Embolismus. 

Embolismus. 

the  Virgin  Mary  and  other  saints.  4.  Hanc  igi- 
tur,  for  peace  and  salvation.  5.  Quam  oblatio- 
nem,  that  the  oblation  may  become  to  the  wor¬ 
shippers  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord.  6. 
Qui  Pridie,  commemoi'ating  the  Institution.  7. 
Unde  et  memores,  the  Oblation.  8.  Supra  quae 
propitio,  for  a  blessing  on  reception.  9.  Memento 
etiam,  commemorating  the  dead.  10.  Nobis 
quoque  peccatoribus,  for  the  priest  and  people 
present.  The  most  remarkable  peculiarity  of 
the  Roman  rite  is,  that  the  commemoration  of 
the  living  is  separated  from  that  of  the  dead,  and 
precedes  consecration,  while  in  the  Eastern  litur¬ 
gies  the  intercessions  for  living  and  dead  form 
one  prayer,  and  follow  the  recitation  of  the 
words  of  Institution.  It  seems  probable  that 
originally  the  Memento  etiam  followed  the  Me¬ 
mento  immediately,  just  as  in  Greek  liturgies 
the  /xv^(r0TjTt  is  followed  by  p.vi\<TQr\ri  Koi ;  and 
in  fact  in  Gerbert’s  text  of  the  Gelasian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  a  Memento  etiam,  in  a  form  differing 
considerably  from  the  Gregorian,  does  follow 
immediately  upon  the  Memento,  so  that  both 
precede  the  Communicantes ;  while  a  Memento 
etiam  in  the  Gregorian  form  follows  the  supra 
quae  propitio  (Daniel’s  Codex  Lit.  i.  15,  19 ; 
Gerbert,  Vetus  Liturgia  Alcmannica,  i.  365). 
This  arrangement  may  perhaps  represent  the 
state  of  transition  from  one  form  to  the  other, 
the  earlier  Memento  etiam  having  been  struck 
out  when  another  nearly  identical  was  intro¬ 
duced  in  another  place. 

The  Gallican  canon  has  peculiarities  which 
show  that  it  belongs  to  a  wholly  different  family 
from  the  Roman.  The  prayers  for  living  and 
dead,  with  the  kiss  of  peace,  precede  the  sursum 
corda  and  sanct^^s :  the  sanctus  is  immediately 


followed  by  what  is  called  the  “collectio  post 
sanctus”  (sometimes  called  the  canon),  which  is 
again  immediately  followed  by  the  recitation  of 
the  words  of  Institution.  While  the  Roman  canon 
is  invariable,  the  Gallican,  which  is  very  short, 
changes  with  every  mass.  To  give  one  by  way  of 
example,  the  canon  for  the  eve  of  the  Nativity  in 
the  Gallo-Gothic  missal  (Daniel,  Cod.  Lit.  i.  83)  is 

“  Vere  sanctus,  vere  benedictus  Dominus  Noster 
Jesus  Christus  Filius  tuus  manens  in  coelis  maui- 
festatus  in  terris.  Ipse  enim  pridie  quam  pate- 
retur,  etc.” 

The  same  form,  Vere  sanctus,  etc.,  follows  the 
sanctus  also  in  the  Mozarabic  liturgy.  This  is 
not,  however,  immediately  followed  by  the  words 
of  Institution,  but  by  a  prayer  commencing 
“  Adesto,  adesto  Jesu  bone  pontifex,”  containing 
a  petition  for  the  sanctification  of  the  oblation, 
which  is  followed  by  “  Dominus  Noster  Jesus 
Christus,  in  qua  nocte  tradebatur,  accepit  pancm, 
etc.,”  reciting  the  Institution. 

In  Mabillon’s  Sacramentarium  Gallicanum  the 
Roman  canon  is  given  with  the  first  mass,  and 
perhaps  served,  as  Mabillon  remarks  (p.  453, 
Migne)  for  all ;  he  supposes,  however,  that  at  an 
earlier  period  the  Gallican  had  its  own  canon, 
and  that  the  introduction  of  the  Roman  canon 
was  the  beginning  of  the  supersession  of  the 
Gallican  rite  by  the  Roman,  which  was  after¬ 
wards  completely  established  {Praefat.  §  iv.). 

The  Commemoration  of  the  Lord’s  Life  begins 
in  most  cases,  with  taking  up  the  ascx-iption  of 
holiness  to  the  Almighty  already  set  forth  in  the 
sanctus.  For  instance,  in  the  Greek  St.  Jame.:, 
the  &yios  of  the  preceding  hymn  is  repeated  in 
"Ayios  (I,  BaeiAev  rwv  alwvuv  ....  Hyios  ual 
6  fiovoyfi/ifs  crov  tihs  .  ,  ,  ,  &yioy  5c  Kol  to 


272  CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 


riy€v/xd  <TOv  to" Ayiov  (Daniel,  Cod.  Lit.  iv.  109) 
which  commences  the  commemoration  ;  and  the 
variable  Lost  Sovctus  of  the  Gallican  and  Moza- 
rabic  liturgies  begins  very  commonly  with  the 
words  “  Vere  sanctus,  v<?re  benedict  us  Dominus 
Noster  Jesus  Christus.”  The  “  commemorations  ” 
in  St.  James  and  St.  Basil  (Daniel  iv.  427)  recite 
with  great  dignity  and  beauty  the  creation  of 
man,  his  state  in  Paradise,  his  fall,  and  redemp¬ 
tion  by  God’s  mercy ;  so  leading  on  to  the  com¬ 
memoration  of  the  Lord’s  death  and  the  Institu¬ 
tion  of  the  supper.  That  of  St.  Chrysostom  is 
much  shorter.  St.  Mark  (Daniel  iv.  158)  has  in 
this  place  a  mere  allusion  to  the  manifestation  of 
the  Lord,  and  a  prayer  for  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  bless  the  sacrifice.  The 
Sanctus  of  the  Gallican  and  Mozarabic  canon 
contains,  at  least  on  the  Lord’s  festivals,  a  com¬ 
memoration  of  some  portion  of  His  Life  ;  a  fea¬ 
ture  entirely  absent  from  the  Roman.  Some 
liturgies  contain  in  this  portion  allusions  to 
peculiar  opinions  Avith  regard  to  the  person  of 
Christ  ;  the  Armenian,  for  instance,  after  reciting 
(^Liturgy  of  the  Armewan  Church,  tr.  by  Rev. 
S.  C.  Malan,  p.  39)  God’s  mercy  in  the  prophets 
and  the  law,  speaks  of  the  Sou  as  having  taken  a 
body  “  by  union  without  confusion  from  the 
Mother  of  God  and  Holy  Virgin  Mary.” 

The  Aethiopic  liturgy  agrees  with  the  Coptic 
St.  Basil  and  St.  Gregory  (Renaudot,  Lit.  Orient. 
i.  13,  29,  516)  in  breaking  this  portion  of  the 
ofllce  with  responds.  That  of  St.  Gregory,  for 
e.vample,  thrice  inserts  the  Kyrie  Eleison.” 

The  transition  from  the  preceding  prayer 
or  ascription  to  the  Cotnmemoratioyi  of  Institution 
is  generally  made  in  the  Eastern  liturgies  by  the 
words  “  os  ry  vvkti  y  TrapeSidoTo,”  or  some  equi¬ 
valent  formula ;  those  of  St.  James  and  St. 
Chrysostom  add  “juaWov  Se  kavrhv  TrapeSiSou;” 
hut  this  addition  is  not  found  in  the  Syriac  St. 
James.  The  Coptic  St.  Basil  (Renaudot,  Lit. 
Orient,  i.  14)  has  a  wholly  different  form  :  ‘'*He 
instituted  this  great  mysteiy  of  piety  and  worship, 
when  He  had  determined  to  deliver  Himself  to 
death  for  the  life  of  the  world.”  The  usual 
Western  form  is  “  Qui  pridie  quam  pateretur  ;  ” 
but  the  Mozarabic  has  here  “  Dominus  Xoster 
Jes  IS  Christus  in  qua  nocte  tradebatur,”  approach¬ 
ing  in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  mere  nearly  to 
the  Eastern  type.  It  has  indeed  been  contended 
that  this  form  is  a  comparatively  recent  interpo¬ 
lation,  inasmuch  as  the  prayer  which  follows  is 
called  the  “  Post  Pridie  ”  as  if  the  usual  for¬ 
mula  had  preceded  (Krazer,  De  Liturgiis,  615; 
Neale,  Eastern  Church,  hit.  472).  But  in  fact 
the  title  “  Post  Pridie  ”  is  probably  not  so  an¬ 
cient  as  Isidore’s  time,  Avho  calls  the  prayer 
which  follows  consecration  the  “  Confirmatio 
Sacramenti  ” ;  and  it  is  surely  very  much 
more  probable  that  the  heading  “  Post  Pridie  ” 
should  have  been  inserted  by  some  revisor  fami¬ 
liar  with  Roman  liturgical  diction,  than  that  the 
form  “  Qui  pridie,”  common  to  the  whole  of 
Western  Christendom,  should  have  been  displaced 
by  one  entirely  unheard  of,  and  that  in  the  most 
solemn  part  of  the  Liturgy. 

In  no  liturgy,  in  the  narrative  of  institution,  is 
any  one  Gospel  followed,  and  the  form  adopted 
is  such  as  to  suggest  rather  an  independent 
tradition  than  an  artificial  arrangement  from  the 
Gospels.  Many  of  the  forms  add  epithets  expres¬ 
sive  of  veneration  for  the  Person  of  the  Lord. 


Very  many  liturgies  contain  a  reference  to  the 
Lord’s  raising  his  eyes  to  Heaven  before  breaking 
the  bread.  This  is  the  case  in  those  of  St. 

I  James  and  St.  Mark,  but  not  in  that  of  St.  Chryso¬ 
stom  or  in  the  kindred  Nestorian  forms  ;  it  is 
the  case  in  all  the  Western  forms,'  except 
the  Mozarabic.  St.  Mark  and  St.  James  insert 
the  raising  of  the  eyes  to  Heaven  before  the 
blessing  of  the  cup  also.  St.  James  and  St. 
Basil  mention  the  displaying  or  dedicating 
(avaSel^as)  of  the  bread  to  God  the  Father. 

The  mingling  of  the  wine  with  water  is  a  well- 
known  and  almost  universal  custom  ;  but  in 
none  of  the  Western  liturgies  is  any  mention  of 
it  made  in  the  canon,  while  in  the  East  it  con¬ 
stantly  appears.  The  Basilian  has  simply  min¬ 
gling  ”  (/cepdfTos)  (Daniel,  iv.  429) ;  St.  James 
the  fuller  form,  “  mingling  of  wine  and  water.” 
So  also  Coptic  St.  Gregory  (Renaudot  i.  30); 
and  many  of  the  Syro-Jacobite  liturgies,  as  for 
instance  that  of  St.  John  (/?>.  ii.  164).  St. 
Chrysostom  has  no  reference  to  the  mixing ;  but 
it  is  nevertheless  found  in  the  liturgy  of  Nesto- 
rius,  which  is  in  a  great  measure  derived  from 
that  of  Constantinople. 

It  is  an  ancient  belief  that  the  Lord  Himself 
partook  of  the  bread  and  the  cup  in  the  Last 
Supper.  This,  howeA'er,  appears  but  rarelv  in 
the  Liturgies.  The  Coptic  forms  of  St.  Basil 
and  St.  Gregory  refer  to  the  Lord’s  tasting  the 
Cup  (Renaudot,  i.  15,  31);  and  some  of  the 
Syro-Jacobite  liturgies  refer  to  His  partaking  or 
the  Bread :  for  instance,  St.  James  of  Edessa 
(/6.  ii.  373).  That  of  Nestorius  (76.  ii.  629) 
makes  the  Lord  partake  both  of  the  bread  and 
the  wine. 

Some  of  the  Syix)- Jacobite  liturgies,  drawn  up 
at  a  time  when  the  controversy  was  rife  as  to 
the  use  of  leaA'ened  or  unleavened  bread  in  the 
Eucharist,  [Elements]  introduce  into  the  canon 
such  expressions  as  “  common  ”  or  “  leavened  ” 
bread.  For  instance,  those  of  James  Baradai  and 
^Matthew  the  Pastor  (Renaudot,  ii.  335,  348) ; 
and  some,  as  that  of  Dioscorus  (76.  495)  speak 
of  His  accomplishing  the  IMosaic  Passover  ;  as 
does  also  Nestorius  (/6.  ii.  629). 

With  regard  to  the  actual  words  said  over 
the  bread,  the  usual  Latin  form  is  simply,  ‘‘  Hoc 
est  Corpus  Meum.”  The  Ambrosian,  in  one  text 
adds  “  quod  pro  multis  confringetur ;  ”  in  Pa- 
melius’s  text,  “  quod  pro  vobis  confringetur  ” 
(Daniel’s,  Codex  i.  86)  ;  the  Mozarabic,  quod 
pro  vobis  tradetur.” 

In  the  Greek,  St.  James  has,  “  This  is  my 
Body,  which  is  broken  and  given  for  you  for  the 
remission  of  sins,”  and  with  this  the  principal 
liturgies  agree,  except  that  few  give  both  the 
words  “  broken  ”  and  “  given.”  The  words  found 
in  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul,  to  vtrep  vgQp  5iS6fx(vov, 
or  K\a)fM(Pov,  appear  indeed  in  all  Eastern  litur¬ 
gies  with  the  exception  of  that  of  the  Syrian 
Eustathius  (Ren.  ii.  236).  Many  of  the  Syro- 
Jacobite  liturgies  amplify  the  solemn  words  of 
the  Lord  by  the  insertion  of  peculiar  expressions. 

Of  the  words  said  OA'er  the  wine,  the  Cle¬ 
mentine  Liturgy  (^Const.  Apost.  viii.  12,  §  16) 
has  the  simplest,  as  probably  the  most  ancient 
form — “  This  is  My  Blood,  wh>rh  is  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  St.  Chrysostom 
has  a  form  identical  with  that  in  the  English 
Prayer-Book ;  St.  James  and  St.  Mark  have 
“shed  and  distributed’*  instead  of  the  simple 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 


CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY  273 


“shed.”  The  Roman,  which  in  the  case  of  the 
Bread  has  the  shortest  form,  m  the  case  of  the 
Wine  has  the  longest — “  For  this  is  the  Cup  of 
my  Blood,  of  the  new  and  eternal  Testament, 

.  the  mystery  of  faith,  which  shall  be  shed  for 
you  and  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins  ” — 
where  the  woi’ds  “  eternal  ”  and  “  mysteiy  of 
faith”  are  peculiar  to  the  Roman  form.  The 
Mozarabic  has,  “  For  this  is  the  Cup  of  the  New 
Testament  in  my  Blood,  which  shall  be  shed  for 
you  and  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.” 

In  the  Intercession  for  the  world  and  the  Church 
on  earth,  the  petitions  enumerated  by  St.  Cyril  are 
always  found,  with  more  or  less  of  expansion  in 
detail,  and  often  with  the  addition  of  interesting 
local  peculiarities.  Thus  in  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
James  (i.e.  of  Jerusalem)  we  have  special  inter¬ 
cession  on  behalf  of  the  Holy  City  and  other  sacred 
places  visited  by  the  Lord  ;  St.  Mark  (Alexan¬ 
drian)  has  a  special  prayer  for  the  due  rise  of 
the  Nile  ;  so  also  the  Coptic  St.  Basil  (Renaudot, 
i.  17);  and  the  Alexandrian  St.  Gregory  (^Ib.  i. 
109).  Both  St.  James  and  St.  Mark  have  inter¬ 
cessions  for  prisoners ;  the  former  enumerating 
“  those  in  bonds,  in  prisons,  in  captivities  (aixi^a- 
Aojcr/ais),  and  banishments,  in  mines  and  tortures, 
and  bitter  slaveries”  (Daniel’s  CodeXj  iv.  118), 
phrases  which  originated  in  a  time  of  persecu¬ 
tion.  In  the  Roman  liturgy  this  portion  of  the 
intercession  is  treated  much  more  briefly  than  is 
usual  in  the  Eastern  Chui'ch ;  the  intercessions 
are  for  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  for  the  pope 
and  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  nominatim,  and 
for  all  faithful  worshippers ;  the  Ambrosian 
adds,  after  the  bishop,  the  king  by  name 
(Daniel,  i.  82).  Most  of  the  liturgies  contain 
a  special  intercession  for  those  who  have  made 
the  offerings  and  those  who  are  present  at  the 
service  ;  thus  in  St.  Basil  (Daniel,  iv.  433)  is  a 
prayer  for  the  people  here  present  (rod  irepie- 
(TTwros  \aov)  and  the  priest  who  presents  (irpocT- 
KO/iiCovTos)  the  holy  gifts ;  St.  Chrysostom  men¬ 
tions  the  priest  in  the  same  terms,  but  not  the 
people;  St.  James  (Dan.  iv.  119)  mentions  not 
only  those  who  have  made  the  offerings  on  that 
day,  but  those  on  whose  behalf  they  made 
them  (07r6p  wv  cKaaros  irpoa-fiveyKep) ;  St.  Mark 
(Dan.  iv.  156),  in  which  this  prayer  'precedes 
consecration,  prays  that  God  will  receive  the 
thank-offerings  (^euxo-piffr-fipia)  of  those  who 
offer,  as  He  received  the  gifts  of  Abel,  the  sacri¬ 
fice  of  Abraham,  the  incense  of  Zacharias,  the 
alms  of  Cornelius,  and  the  two  mites  of  the 
widow  ;  the  Roman  (Dan.  i.  14,  15)  has  a  peti¬ 
tion  for  all  God’s  servants,  and,  in  the  Gelasian 
form,  “  omnium  circumstantium  quorum  tibi 
fides  cognita  est  et  nota  devotio,  qui  tibi  ofierunt 
hoc  sacrificium  laudis  pro  se  suisque  omnibus, 
pro  redemptione  anlmarum  suarum,  pro  spe 
salutis  et  iucolumitatis  suae;”  in  the  Gregorian 
form,  which  is  that  at  present  in  use,  after  the 
word  “  devotio,”  we  have  “  pro  quibus  tibi  offe- 
rimus  vel  .  .  .  probably  an  addition  of  St. 
Gregory’s  own  age. 

A  more  particular  account  of  the  I’emaining 
portions  of  the  canon  will  be  given  under  Dip¬ 
tych^,  Lord’s  Prayer,  and  Emholismus. 

Ceremonies  ichich  accompanied  the  Anaphora  or 

Canon. 

1.  We  may  take  the  ritual  of  the  liturgy  of  St. 
Chrysostom  as  a  type  of  the  oriental  ceremonies 

CHRIST.  ANT, 


of  the  anaphora  or  canon,  which  are  thore  more 
fully  described  than  in  other  Eastern  liturgies. 
It  is  no  doubt  possible  that  some  of  the  cere¬ 
monies  here  described  did  not  originate  within 
the  first  eight  centuries;  but  on  the  whole  it 
may  be  said  to  represent  fairly  enough  the. 
highest  ritual  development  attained  in  the  East 
within  our  period. 

At  the  opening  of  the  anaphora,  the  elements 
have  already  been  brought  into  the  sanctuary, 
and  placed  on  the  holy  table,  coA^ered  with  the 
aer^  or  veil.  The  deacon  cries,  “  The  doors !  the 
doors!” — a  phrase  intended  originally  to  exhort 
the  attendants  carefully  to  exclude  the  unini¬ 
tiated  {Constt.  Apast.  viii.  10) — and  then  de.sires 
the  people  to  stand  (Daniel,  Codex  Lit.  iv.  356  ff.). 
The  priest  lifts  the  aer,  or  veil,  from  the  elements, 
and  the  deacon  approaching  guards  them  from  pol¬ 
lution  with  his  feather-fan  [Flabellum].  Then 
follow  the  Sursum  Corda,  Preface  and  Sanctus. 
After  this  the  deacon  takes  the  Asteriscus  from 
off*  the  Paten,  and  again  uses  the  feather-fan. 
The  commemoration  of  Institution  then  proceed.s, 
the  deacon  pointing  oiit  to  the  celebrant  the 
paten  and  chalice  at  the  proper  moment.  At 
the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  deacon 
la}rs  aside  his  fan,  draws  nearer  to  the  priest, 
and  both  make  three  I’everences  or  prostrations 
(TrposKvv'f}(T€is)  before  the  Holy  Table,  praying 
silently ;  then  the  deacon,  with  bowed  head, 
points  to  the  holy  bread,  and  the  priest  rising 
signs  it  thrice  with  the  cross;  the  chalice  is 
signed  in  like  manner,  and  then  both  elements 
together ;  after  which  the  deacon,  after  bowing 
his  head  to  the  priest,  resumes  his  place  and  his 
fan.  At  the  i-ecitation  of  the  Diptychs  the 
deacon  censes  round  the  holy  table,  and  then 
recites,  standing  by  the  door  of  the  Sanctuary, 
those  portions  of  the  prayer  which  were  to  be 
heard  by  the  choir  without.  At  the  prayer  of 
Inclination  he  bids  the  people  to  bow 
their  heads.  After  the  prayer  the  priest  elevates 
the  holy  Bread,  saying  the  Sancta  Sanctis ;  the 
choir  then  sings  the  communion-anthem  {koivu- 
viKrl)  of  the  day,  and  the  Fraction,  Commixtion, 
and  Communion  follow. 

The  rubrical  directions  of  the  other  Greek 
liturgies  correspond  generally  with  these,  so  far 
as  they  go,  but  contain  very  much  less  detail. 

2.  In  the  Roman  rite,  at  the  commencement 
of  the  canon,  the  celebrant  stood  before  the  altar, 
probably  at  first  with  hands  expanded  shoulder- 
high  in  the  ancient  attitude  of  prayer  (Gerbert, 
Lit,  Aleman,  i.  342),  while  the  attendant  clergy 
stood  with  bowed  heads,  as  A^enerating  the  Divine 
Majesty  and  the  Incarnation  of  the  Lord  intro¬ 
duced  in  the (Amalarius,  Acc/.  Off. 

iii.  22 ;  compare  Ordo  Horn.  1.  c.  16 ;  and  IL.  c. 
8).  At  the  Avords  Te  iyitur,  Avith  Avhich  the 
canon  strictly  commences,  the  priest  made  a  pro¬ 
found  inclination  and  kissed  the  altar  ;  frequently 
also  he  kissed  the  "J"  at  the  commencement  of  the 
canon,  Avhich  Avas  made  to  represent  a  cross,  or 
in  later  times  a  crucifix.  (Muratori,  Antiq.  Ital. 

iv.  p.  839;  Gerbert,  Lit.  ALman.  i.  341). 

From  very  ancient  times  also  at  each  of  the 

Avords  dona.,  munera,  sacrificia,  the  priest  made 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  blessing  the  oblation,  as 
gifts,  bounties,  sacrifices.  This  is  the  first  of  the 
six  groups  of  crosses  mentioned  in  the  Ordo 
Romanus  II.  c.  10;  (compare  Amalarius,  n.  s.). 
The  due  u.se  of  the  crosses  in  the  canon  was  held 


274  CANON  OF  THE  LITURGY 

to  be  of  so  much  importance  that  St.  Boniface 
(about  750)  consulted  Pope  Zacharias  on  the 
subject,  who  in  answer  sent  him  a  copy  of  the 
canon  with  the  crosses  inserted  in  the  proper 
places.  This  copy  has  unfortunately  perished. 
Innocent  the  Third  (^De  Myst.  Missae,  v.  c.  11) 
states  the  correct  number  of  crosses  in  the  canon 
as  twenty-five,  the  number  still  used  in  the 
Roman  rite. 

The  prayer  Hanc  igitur  has  long  been  recited 
by  the  priest  with  hands  extended  over  the  Host 
and  Chalice,  in  imitation  of  the  gesture  of  a 
sacrificing  priest  under  the  Mosaic  Law  (Lev. 
iv.  4,  «Sjc.).  But  the  more  ancient  practice  was 
for  him  to  recite  this  prayer  profoundly  inclined 
to  the  altar,  as  is  clear  from  the  testimony  of 
Amalarius  {Eclogae,  c.  30,  p.  1331  A,  Migne)  : 
and  this  practice  continued  as  late  as  the  end 
of  the  13th  century  (Durandus,  Rationale^  iv. 
c.  39). 

In  the  prayer  Qutm  oblationem,  at  the  words 
benedictam,  ascriptam,  ratam^  ratiomhilem,^  accep- 
tabilem^  occurs  the  second  gi-oup  of  crosses  of  the 
Ordo  Rom.  //.,  which  however  defines  nothing 
as  to  the  number  of  crosses,  or  the  manner  of 
signing  the  oblation.  The  Ordo  published  by 
Hittorp  at  this  point  directs  the  priest  to  stand 
upright,  blessing  (J,.e.  signing  with  the  cross) 
the  bread  only  ;  then,  at  the  words,  Ut  nobis 
Corpus  et  Sanguis  fiat,  to  bless  both  the  Host 
and  the  Chalice.  The  present  custom,  according 
to  which  the  priest  at  the  words  Benedictam,  &g. 
makes  three  crosses  over  the  Host  and  Chalice 
together,  is  at  least  as  old  as  the  11th  century 
(Microl.  Be  Eccl.  Ob^erv.  c.  14). 

At  the  words  Qui  Bridie,  ^c.  the  priest  takes 
the  Bread  into  his  hands.  In  this  prayer  is 
introduced  the  third  group  of  crosses  of  the  Ordo 
R.  IL,  at  the  words  accipiens  panem  ....  bene- 
dixit,  and  item  gratias  agens  henedixit. 

Amalarius  {Eel.  31,  p.  1331)  expressly  states 
that  in  his  time  the  whole  of  the  Canon  was  said 
secretd  (see  further  under  Secreta).  Of  the 
Elevation  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  immediately 
after  Consecration  no  mention  is  found  in  the  old 
Sacramentaries,  in  the  most  ancient  of  the  Roman 
Ordines,  or  in  the  early  commentators  on  the 
rite,  Amalarius,  Walafrid  Strabo,  Florus,  Remi- 
gius  of  Auxerre,  Pseudo-Alcuin,  and  the  Micro- 
logus.  The  only  indication  of  elevation  in  those 
of  the  Ordines  Romani  which  are  older  than  the 
12th  century,  is  that  at  the  words  Per  quern  haec 
omnia,  noticed  later. 

At  the  words  Hostiam  puram,  says  the  Ordo 
Rom.  II.  (c.  10),  is  introduced  the  fourth  group 
of  crosses.  Amalarius  {Eclogae,  c.  30,  p.  1331) 
says,  “  Here  the  priest  makes  the  sign  of  the 
Cross  four  times  over  the  Host,  and  a  fifth  over 
the  Chalice  only;”  a  practice  somewhat  different 
from  that  of  modern  times. 

After  the  prayer  Supra  quae  propitio,  the 
priest  inclines  himself  with  bowed  head  before 
the  altar,  and  I’ecites  the  Suppliciter  Te  rogamus, 
in  which  he  inserts  a  private  prayer  (Amalarius, 
tt.  s.,  c.  31)  ;  a  dii-ection  for  which  is  also  found 
in  some  ancient  MSS.  of  Sacramentaries.  No 
crosses  are  noted  by  the  Ordo  Rom.  II.  at  the 
words  Sacrosanctum  Fiiii  Bui  ^c.,  whence  we 
may  conclude  that  the  crosses  now  used  there 
are  of  later  introduction  than  the  9th  century. 
That  they  were  introduced  into  the  Roman  rite 
not  later  than  the  12th  century  is  clear  from  the 


CANON  (IN  MUSIC) 

testimony  of  Innocent  III.  (J)e  Myst.  Missae.  v, 
c.  11). 

The  beginning  of  the  prayer  Nobis  quoque 
peccatoribus  was  anciently  said  with  the  voice 
somewhat  raised,  that  the  congregation  might  • 
be  able  to  join  in  it  {Ordo  Rom.  II.  c.  10).  The 
priest  beats  his  breast,  as  bewailing  his  sinful¬ 
ness. 

At  the  words  sanctificas,  vivificas,  benedicis, 
4'C.  comes  the  fifth  group  of  crosses,  according  to 
Ordo  Rom.  II.  The  Ordo  Rorn.  IV.  (p.  61)  is 
more  explicit,  desiring  the  priest  to  sign  Host 
and  Chalice  three  several  times,  making  three 
several  crosses.  Compare  Amalarius,  Eel.  p. 
1332.  It  is  thought  by  some  (as  Bona,  De  Reb. 
Lit.  ii.  14,  s.  5)  that  at  the  words  of  this  prayer 
which  refer  to  God’s  creating  and  vivifying 
power,  an  offering  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  H 
any  were  to  be  blessed,  was  placed  on  the  altar 
by  the  attendant  -deacon.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  a  benediction  of  fruits  of  the  earth  is  in 
some  few  ancient  Sacramentaries  prescribed  in 
this  place ;  but  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  this  is 
a  relic  of  what  was  once  an  universal  custom,  or 
a  peculiar  observance  of  a  few  churches. 

At  the  words.  Per  quern  haec  omnia,  ^'C.,  the 
archdeacon  rose,  the  other  deacons  still  standing 
with  bowed  heads,  drew  near  to  the  altar,  re¬ 
moved  the  fold  of  the  corporal  which  covered 
the  chalice,  wrapped  the  offertorium  or  veil 
round  the  handles,  and  at  the  words  Per  ipsum, 
4c.  raised  the  chalice  by  the  handles.  The  cele¬ 
brant  touched  the  chalice,  still  held  by  the 
archdeacon,  with  the  consecrated  wafers,  making 
two  crosses,  and  saying.  Per  ipsum  et  cum  ipso 
.  .  .  per  omnia  saecula  saeculorum.  He  then 
restored  the  wafers  to  their  place  on  the  altar, 
and  the  archdeacon  placed  the  chalice  by  them 
{Ordines  Rom.  i.  c.  16;  ii.  c.  10;  iii.  c.  15: 
compare  Amalarius,  Eel.  p.  1332).  These  di¬ 
rections  respecting  the  crosses  were  changed  in 
later  times. 

For  the  manner  of  saying  the  Pater  Noster, 
see  Lord’s  Prayer.  Here  it  may  suffice  to 
say  that,  while  in  the  Eastern,  Gallican,  and 
Spanish  Churches  this  prayer  was  said  by  the 
whole  people,  in  the  Roman,  from  the  time  or 
Gregory  the  Great  at  least  (see  Epist.  vii.  64)  it 
was  said  by  the  priest  alone,  yet  in  an  audible 
voice,  so  that  the  people  (or  the  choir)  might 
“  acclaim  ”  at  the  last  petition.  The  Amen  is 
not  commonly  found  in  ancient  Sacramentaries  ; 
nor  does  it  seem  in  place  here,  as  the  Lord’s 
Prayer  is  prolonged  in  the  Libera  nos  [Embolis- 
MUS]  which  follows. 

When  the  celebrant  (in  a  papal  mass)  reached 
the  words  Ab  omni  perturbatione  secun,  the  arch¬ 
deacon  {Ordo  Rom.  I.  c.  18)  took  the  paten 
from  the  regionary  sub-deacon,  who  was  stand¬ 
ing  behind  him,  kissed  it,  and  passed  it  to  the 
second  deacon.  So  Ordo  Rom.  II.  11,  and  III 
16.  The  fifth  Ordo  Rom.,  probably  of  consider¬ 
ably  later  date,  desires  the  deacon  to  present 
the  patens  to  the  celebrating  bishop  to  kiss. 

For  the  remaining  portion  of  the  liturgy,  see 
Kiss,  Fraction,  Communion.  [C.] 

CANON  (in  Music).  1.  The  peculiar  form 
of  musical  composition  called  by  this  name  was 

*>  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Host  was  not  cortr 
secrated  on  the  paten,  but  was,  at  the  date  of  Ordo  Bom.  I. 
broken  upon  it ;  a  custom  subsequently  changed- 


CANON  (IN  MUSIC) 

unknown  to  the  ancients,  the  earliest  example 
extant  being  of  the  13th  century,  we  believe. 

2.  The  accepted  values  of  the  several  notes 
constituting  the  musical  scale  expressed  philo¬ 
sophically.  The  reader  is  referred  to  Smith’s 
Dictionary  of  Antiquities  [Musica]  for  a  general 
description  of  the  sounds  assumed  by  the  Greeks, 
and  the  systems  in  which  they  were  arranged. 
The  assumptions  of  the  Greek  writei's  were  of 
course  adopted  by  the  Latins,  and  appeared 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  early  and  middle 
ages  as  the  basis  on  which  all  their  music  rested. 
Considerable  uncertainty  is  caused  in  this  subject 
by  the  fact  that  there  were  two  somewhat  con¬ 
flicting  schools,  the  Aristoxeneans  and  the  Py¬ 
thagoreans.  Pythagoras  having  discovered  the 

simple  ratios  of  for  the  Octave,  the 

Fifth,  the  Fourth,  and  the  Tone  (major),  which 
last  is  the  difference  between  the  Fourth  and 
Fifth,  his  disciples  maintained  that  all  sounds 
should  be  defined  by  determinate  ratios,  while 
Aristoxenus  discarded  this  idea  altogether,  and 
maintained  that  the  Tetrachord  or  Fourth  should 
be  divided  into  intervals,  the  values  of  which 
were  to  be  determined  by  the  ear  only.  This  is 
probably  the  germ  of  the  dispute  which  has 
lasted  to  the  present  day  respecting  the  tempera¬ 
ment  of  instruments  with  fixed  tones :  and  as 
the  true  measure  of  an  interval  is  a  logarithm. 
It  was  of  course  impossible  to  reconcile  at  all 
completely  these  two  opinions.  Ptolemy  ex¬ 
amined  the  matter  and  established  the  truth  of 
the  Pythagorean  views :  Euclid  seems  to  have 
endeavoured  to  combine  them,  that  is,  if  the  two 
treatises  attributed  to  him,  the  Introductio  Har¬ 
monica  and  the  Sectio  Canonis,  are  both  genuine. 
The  latter  of  these  is  usually  considered  genuine, 
and  it  is  pui’ely  Pythagorean  and  rigidly  exact ; 
while  the  former,  which  is  certainly  Aidstoxenean, 
and  perhaps  written  ad  populum,  is  considered 
more  doubtful. 


CANON  (IN  MUSIC)  275 

The  canon  of  the  scale  then  is  the  system 
of  ratios  into  which  a  resonant  string  is  to  be 
divided  so  as  to  produce  all  the  notes  which  arc 
assumed ;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  the  re¬ 
lative  lengths  of  strings  for  these  notes  which 
are  to  be  fixed  in  an  instrument  and  stretched 
with  the  same’tension. 

The  desci'iption  of  the  intervals  given  in 
Smith’s  Diet,  of  Antiq.,  from  the  Introductio 
Harmonica,  is  of  course  Aristoxenean  :  it  sup¬ 
poses  a  tone  to  be  divided  into  twelve  equal 
parts,  and  the  tetrachord  therefore  into  thirty, 
and  the  intervals  in  the  tetrachord,  taken  in 


ascending  order,  to  be  as  follows  ; — 

In  the  Syntonous  or  ordinary  Dia-  Parts. 

tonic,  system .  6,  12,  12 

, ,  Soft  Diatonic  (;ua\o/f<fv)  ..  9,  15 

, ,  Tonal  or  ordinary  Chro¬ 
matic  (Tormioi/)  ..  ..  6,  6,  18 

, ,  Sesquialter  Chromatic  (y- 

. 4^,  4|,  21 

, ,  Soft  Chromatic  (^(xaXaKdv)  4,  4,  22 
, ,  Enharmonic  .  3,  3,  24 


This  makes  a  Fourth  equal  to  2^  tones,  a  Fifth 
3^,  and  an  Octave  6  tones.  But  in  the  Sectio 
Canonis  Euclid  has  proved  that  the  Fourth, 
Fifth,  and  Octave^  are  each  of  them  less  than 
these  magnitudes  (Theor.  11,  14);  and  also  that 
the  second  sound  in  the  Chromatic  and  Enhar¬ 
monic  Tetrachords  is  not  equally  removed  from 
the  first  and  third  (Theor.  18)  :  it  would  there¬ 
fore  appear  most  reasonable  that  he  meant  that 
Aristoxenus’s  hypothetical  division  of  the  tone  and 
tetrachord  gave  results  which  might  be  treated 
as  equal  for  practical  purposes  or  by  unphiloso- 
phical  men,  but  that  this  was  not  rigidly  exact. 

In  Theorems  19  and  20  of  the  Sectio  Canonis, 
Euclid  gives  the  divisions  of  the  string  (which 
he  calls  also  the  canon,  and  assumes  for  the 
Proslambanomenos)  according  to  the  Diatonic 
system.  The  results  are  the  following  : — 


A.  Proslambanomenos . 

B.  Hypate  hypaton  . 

C.  Parhypate  hypaton . 

D.  Lichanos  hypaton  . 

E.  Hypate  meson . 

F.  Parhypate  meson  . 

G.  Lichanos  meson . 

a.  Mese . 

b.  Paramese . . 

c.  Trite  diezeugmenon,  or  Paranete 

synemmenon  . 

d.  Paranete  diezeugmenon,  or  Nete 

synemmenon  . 


Length  = 

1 


4 

9 


27 


&4 

3 

8 


e.  Nete  diezeugmenon  ..  ,, 

f.  Trite  hyperbolaeon  .• 

g.  Paranete  hyperbolaeon 
•a.  Nete  hyperbolaeon  .. 


The  Trite  synemmenon  (bb)  does  not  appear ;  its 

length  will  be  It  is  worth  noticing  that 

this  differs  from  our  modern  canon  in  the  values 

of  C,  D,  F,  G,  bb,  c,  d,  f,  g ;  these  are  at  present 

occiiTnpd  tA  hp  ^  1  5  5  1  0 

assumea  to  oe  g,  gyj  8>  9>  32^  T2>  27> 

2^  (taking  A  to  be  1) :  all  these  notes 
then  are  flatter  by  a  comma  than  ours. 

In  Theor.  17  Euclid  gives  a  method  of  deter¬ 
mining  the  Lichani  and  the  Paranetae  of  the 
enhai'monic  system  ;  and  if  the  direction  in 
which  he  takes  his  Fifths  be  reversed,  the  Chi’o- 
matic  Lichani  and  Paranetae  would  seem  to  be 
determined  :  but  beyond  that  he  has  given  us  no 
information  further  than  the  rough  description 
of  Aristoxenus’s  division. 

It  is  not  surprising  then  that  various  canons 
of  the  scale  have  been  assigned  by  diftereut 
writers,  just  as  in  more  modern  times  various 
systems  of  temperament  have  been  advocated. 

Ptolemy  gives  the  following  canons  for  any 
tetrachord  :  say,  for  example,  that  from  the 
Hypate  hypaton  (B)  to  the  Hypate  meson  (E). 

T 


bl>  h 


276  CANON  (IN  MUSIC) 

Archytas’s  Canons. 

Diatonic:  1,  f|,  | ;  b,  C,  D,  E.* 

LL  # 

Chromatic  :  1,  | ;  j._ 

Enharmonic:  1,  ||,  jf,  f  ;  B,  C,  C,  E. 


CANON  (IN  MUSIC) 


b 


Eratosthenes’s  Canons. 

Diatonic*  1  243273.  ^ 

uiatonic  .  2  5 4  ’  B,  C,  D,  E. 

Chromatic ;  I,  Ig,  ^5,  |  ; 

Enharmonic*  lS9lR3.  tfb 

Entiaimomc.  1,  4  j  b,  B,  C,  E. 

Didymus’s  Canons. 

Diatonic :  1,  1|,  §|,  |  ;  g,  c,  D,  E. 

Chromatic :  1,  |  ;  B,  C,  C|,  E. 

Enharmonic  :  1,  i  6>  f  5  B,  B,  C,  E. 

Ptolemy’s  own  Canons. 

Diatonic  intense :  1,  4  j 

Diatonic  syntonous  :  Ratios 

Diatonic  soft  : 


b  b 


Diatonic  ditonal :  1,  |||,  ^ ;  B,  C,  D,  E. 

bb  b 


Diatonic  tonal : 
Diatonic  soft : 


1, 

1, 


Enharmonic 


1, 


27 

2  8’ 

27 

32’ 

3  . 

4  ’ 

20 

2T’ 

6 

7’ 

3  . 

■4  ’ 

I2’ 

5 

6’ 

3  . 

?’ 

21 

22’ 

7 

E’’ 

3  . 

4  ’ 

27 

28’ 

9 

10’ 

3  . 

4  ’ 

4  5 
48^’ 

15 

1'6’ 

3  . 

4  ’ 

b  bb 

C,  D, 

b 


b  fi 


bb 

C,' 

# 


The  canons  according  to  Euclid  or  Aristoxenus 
can  be  reproduced  with  pretty  considerable  ac¬ 
curacy  by  means  of  logarithms  and  converging 
fractions  :  there  will  of  course  be  a  little  dis¬ 
crepancy  according  as  the  30th  part  of  a  Fourth 
or  the  12th  part  of  a  Tone  is  taken  for  the  ele¬ 
ment,  these  not  being  exactly  equal :  the  former 
seems  preferable ;  and  it  gives  for  the  logarithm 
of  the  element  *004165;  and  the  following  re¬ 
sults  in  the  cases  not  as  yet  determined  : — 

1  243  2  7  3  .  ^  ^ 

’  256»  32»  4  > 


Logarithms  0,  *02499,  *06247,  *12494. 

1  243  ^  Q].  J_3.  ^  . 

Jtatios  1,  256’  7  15’  4> 


Chromatic  tonal : 


7 

Logarithms  0,  *02499, 

Ratios  1,  or  LX  or 


•04998,  -12494. 

_  24^  8  3  . 

18  256>  9>  4» 

Chromatic  sesquialter :  Logarithms  0,  *01874,  *03758,  *12494. 

Ratios  1  or  Ll  S.  • 

Kauos  1,  25  24’  12’  4  ’ 

Logarithms  0,  *01666,  *03332,  *12494. 

Ratios  1,  2g 

Logarithms  0,  *01249,  *02499,  *12494 


Chromatic  soft : 


Enharmonic : 


B,  C,  D,  E. 

b  bb 

B,  C,  D,  E. 

^  i 

B,  C.  CjJ,  E. 

bb  b 

B,  c,  c|,  E. 

25  26  J2  or  13.  or  23  3  •  „  ^ 

2  7’  13  14  27’  4  >  B,  C,  CJ  E. 


Ratios  1  or  L6  or  L7  or  2  43  3  .  f  b 

itatios  1,  3g  01  3  9,  17  01  ^  g  oi  256’  4  ’  B,  B,  C,  E. 


The  values  of  the  Meson  tetrachord  (E,F,G,a) 
will  be  obtained  in  any  one  of  these  systems  by 
multiplying  the  corresponding  ratios  by  ^  ; 
those  of  the  Synemmenon  tetrachord  (a,  bb,  c,  d) 
by  multiplying  them  by  ;  those  of  the 
Diezeugmenon  tetrachord  (b,  c,  d,  e)  are  half 
those  of  the  Hypaton  tetrachord ;  and  those  of 
the  Hyperbolaeon  (e,  f,  g,  aa)  are  half  those  of 


the  Meson,  or  ^  of  those  of  the  Hypaton.  All 

these  will  be  expressed  in  terms  of  the  Proslam- 
banomenos  (A)  by  multiplying  each  of  them 

f  • 

The  Greek  Chromatic  Scale  then  will  be,  ex¬ 
pressed  in  modern  musical  notation  as  nearly  as 
possible,  the  following ;  Didymus’s  canon  being 
taken  for  the  sake  of  simplicity  of  notation  : 

jSl 


i 


~.Z31 


w 


And  the  Enharmonic  Scale  will  be,  according  to  Didymus’s  canon,  this : 

9 - - 1 - = — — - 9 - 1- 


■  Sr- 


i 


tier  le- 


*  The  notation  C  is  adopted  to  mean  a  C  slightly  flat- 

tened,  C  somewhat  flatter  still,  and  so  for  C :  the  actual 
amount  of  flattening  or  sharpening  is  determinc-d  by  the 


ratio  given.  At  present  we  have  no  notation  to  express 
these  things;  in  the  16th  century  the  symbol  X  was 
used  to  indicate  the  enharmonic  diesis,  but  as  it  is  now 
used  for  a  double  sharp,  it  has  been  thought  prudent  to 
avoid  employing  it  here. 


CANON  OF  ODES 

It  will  be  observed  from  the  above  that,  while 
Pythagoras  and  Euclid  allowed  only  the  Fourth, 
Fifth,  and  Octave,  with  their  replicates,  to  be 
consonances,  the  later  writei’s  had  discovei’ed  the 

consonances  of  the  Major  Third  and  Minor 
Third  (1^),  also  the  Minor  Tone  (^q),  and 
perhaps  also  the  Harmonic  Flat  Seventh  (^) 
and  Sharp  Eleventh  (^y),  which  are  now  heard 
in  instruments  of  the  Hoi'n  kind.  . 

There  were  no  alterations  made  in  this  until 


CANON  OF  ODES  277 

the  developments  of  Guido  Aretinus  in  the  11th 
century. 

S.  Ambrose  decreed  the  use  of  the  Diatonic 
genus  alone  in  church  music ;  and  it  is  probable 
that  the  chromatic  and  enharmonic  genera  soon 
fell  into  general  desuetude,  or  only  existed  as 
curiosities  for  the  learned. 

The  Jews  are  believed  to  have  used  a  canon 
proceeding  by  thirds  of  tones,  thus  giving  18 
notes  in  the  octave.  Appx-oximating  to  these  in 
the  same  manner  as  for  Euclid’s  chromatic  and 
enharmonic  canons,  we  obtain  the  following  : — 


1, 

2  5 

25 

8 

6 

14 

2  7  13 

15'  2 

or  f ,  JJ, 

1  7 

11 

17 

7 

9 

27 

13 

1 

26> 

27» 

7’ 

17’ 

34’  17’ 

2S^’ 

27) 

28’ 

12’ 

1  6’ 

5  0’ 

2  5’ 

2* 

1 

b 

# 

b 

#  b 

i  , 

b 

1 

K 

k 

f 

bb. 

b 

b 

C, 

C, 

D, 

D, 

D, 

E, 

E,  F, 

G, 

G, 

G|, 

ab. 

a, 

b, 

C, 

c. 

Mr.  A.  J.  Ellis,  in  a  memoir  read  before  the 
Royal  Society,  18G4,  states  that  the  Pythagorean 
canon  has  been  developed  into  an  Arabic  scale  of 
17  sounds.  “No  nation  using  it,”  he  adds,  “has 
shown  any  appreciation  of  harmony.”  It  is  in 
fact  next  to  impossible  to  conceive  any  satis¬ 
factory  harmony  existing  with  the  non-diatonic 
canons,  a  consideration  which  has  scarcely  enough 
been  dwelt  on  in  discussing  whether  harmony 
was  known  to  the  ancients.  It  must  never  be 
forgrotten  that  what  is  now  called  the  chromatic 
scale  is  no  representation  of  and  has  no  con¬ 
nexion  with  the  ancient  chromatic  canon  (a  fact 
noticed  by  Morley,  annotations  to  his  Plaine  and 
Easie  Introduction) ;  it  is  merely  a  combination 
of  various  diatonic  scales,  whose  canons  are,  if 
necessary,  accommodated  to  each  other :  the 
only  case  then  in  practice  in  which  chi’omatic 
or  enharmonic  harmonies  or  melodies  (in  the 
old  sense)  can  now  be  heard  is  in  the  tuning  of 
an  orchestra  before  a  performance,  unless  indeed 


in  those  ways,  which,  according  to  Dr.  Holder,  j 
there  seems  some  reason  to  believe.  It  may  not  I 
be  irrelevant  to  add  that  the  modern  canon,  to 
which  reference  has  several  times  been  made 
above,  is  in  some  respects  open  to  dispute,  as  it 
scarcely  explains  the  phenomena  which  are  ac¬ 
cepted  as  musical  facts. 

The  writer  has  made  use  of  the  Introductio 
Harmonica  and  Sectio  Canonis  of  Euclid;  Mor- 
ley’s  Plaine  and  Easie  Introduction  to  Practicall 
Musicke  ;  Sir  John  Hawkins’s  History  of  Music  ; 
Holder’s  Treatise  on  the  Natural  Grounds  and 
Principles  of  Harmony ;  and  the  Memoir  of  Mr. 
Ellis  mentioned  above.  Other  authorities  on  the 
subject  are  the  Antiquae  Musicae  Auctores  Sep- 
tem,  ed.  Meibomius ;  Ptolem}’-,  ed.  Wallis ;  Boe¬ 
thius,  De  Musied;  Salinas;  Zarlino ;  Kircher; 
Mersennus ;  Colonna.  [J.  K.  L.j 

CANON  OF  Odes  (Kdi/wv).  This  word  is  ap¬ 
plied  to  a  part  of  the  ofBce  of  the  Greek  Church, 
sung  to  a  musical  tone,  for  the  most  part  at  Lauds, 
and  which  corresponds  to  the  hymns  of  the  West¬ 
ern  Church.  A  canon  is  usually  divided  into  nine 
Odes,  each  ode  consisting  of  a  variable  number 
of  stanzas  or  troparia,  in  a  rhythmical  syllabic 
measure,  prosody  being  abandoned  except  in  three 
cases.  The  canon  is  headed  by  an  iambic,  or 
iccasionally  an  hexameter  line  containing  an 
Jlusion  to  the  festival  or  the  contents  of  the 
tiinon,  or  a  play  upon  the  saint’s  name,  which 
forms  an  Acrostic  to  which  the  initial  letters 


of  each  troparion  correspond.  This  acrostical 
form  is  thought  with  pi’obability  to  be  derived 
from  Jewish  practice.  The  nine  odes  have  gene¬ 
rally  some  reference  to  the  corresponding  odes 
at  Lauds  [v.  Canticle],  especially  the  seventh, 
eighth,  and  ninth.  In  practice  the  second  ode 
of  a  canon  is  always  omitted,  except  in  Lent. 
The  reason  given  is,  that  the  second  of  the  odes 
at  Lauds  (the  song  of  Moses  from  Deut.),  which 
is  assigned  to  Tuesday,  is  more  a  denunciation 
against  Israel  than  a  direct  act  of  praise  to  God, 
and  is  on  thM  account  omitted  except  in  Lent. 
Hence  the  second  ode  of  a  canon,  which  partakes 
of  the  same  chai'acter,  is  also  omitted  except  on 
week  days  in  Lent.  It  is  not  said  on  Saturday 
in  Lent.  (v.  Goar*.  Eit.  Grae. ;  in  San.  Olei.  Ofl'm. 
not.  14).  The  tone  to  which  the  canon  is  sung 
is  given  at  the  beginning,  and  each  ode  is  fol¬ 
lowed  by  one  or  more  troparia  under  different 
names.  After  the  sixth  ode  the  Synaxarion,  or 
the  commemorations  which  belong  to  the  day, 
are  read. 

Among  the  principal  composers  of  canons  were 
John  of  Damascus,  Joseph  of  the  Studium, 
Cosmas,  Theophanes,  St.  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem, 
&c. ;  and  as  examples  of  canons,  may  be 
mentioned  “  the  Great  Canon,”  the  composition 
of  St.  Andrew,  archbishop  of  Crete  (born  A.D. 
660),  which  begins  Tr6dev  &p^cofiai  dpyveiv 
and  is  said  on  Monday  of  the  first  week  in  Lent. 
This  canon  is  not  acrostical.  Also  that  for 
orthodoxy  Sunday,  i.  e.  the  fir.st  Sunday  in  Lent, 
of  which  the  acrostic  is  ai^fiepov  deo- 

(peyyfos  ijKvdev  aiy\r},  and  that  for  Christmas- 
day  by  Cosma.s,  beginning  xpunhs  yivvaxai, 
So|d(raT6,  with  the  acrostic  ^poTwOels 

tv  birep  deos  pfvy,  and  another  for  the  same 
day  by  St.  John  Damascene,  in  trimeter  iambics, 
beginning  eawce  \ahv  QavparovpyrSv  AemrbTps, 
the  acrostic  of  which  consists  of  four  elegiac 
lines.  This  is  one  of  the  three  canons  which 
retain  the  classical  prosody.  The  two  others  are 
by  the  same  author,  and  said  on  the  Epiphany 
and  on  Whitsunday.  The  construction  of  a 
canon  much  resembles  that  of  a  choral  ode  of 
the  Greek  dramatists,  the  strophe,  antistrophe, 
&c.,  being  represented  by  the  odes  and  the 
various  kinds  of  troparia  by  which  they  are 
sepai’ated.  The  name  canon  is  probably  applied 
to  these  hymns  from  their  being  completed  in 
nine  odes,  nine  being  looked  upon  as  a  perfect 
number  (Zonaras  in  Hymn. :  Exp. :  quoted  by 
Goar).  Others,  however,  derive  the  name  from 


278 


CANONICAL  BOOKS 


CANONICAL  BOOKS 


the  fixed  rhythmical  system  on  which  they  are 
constructed  ;  while  mystical  reasons  for  the  name 
have  been  assigned  by  some  writers. 

The  w'ord  canon  is  applied  in  the  Armenian 
rite  to  a  section  of  the  psalter,  which  in  that  rite 
is  divided  into  ^ight  sections  called  canons. 

[H.  J.  H.] 

CANONICAL  BOOKS  (^Lihn  Canonici,  Ec- 
clesiastici ;  Bi/3Aia  Kavovi^jfXiva,  a.va‘yi’yv(t3(rK6~ 
fxepa).  The  question  of  the  determination  of  the 
Canon,  both  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament, 
has  been  already  fully  treated  in  the  Dictionary 
OF  THE  Bible  (pp.  250  ft’.).  The  present  article 
relates  mainly  to  the  authoritative  promulgation 
of  lists  or  catalogues  of  books  to  be  read,  under 
tlie  name  of  Scripture,  in  the  services  of  the 
Church.  The  canon  of  books  to  be  publicly 
read  is  not  wholly  identical  with  the  canon  of 
books  from  which  the  faith  is  to  be  established 
(see  Westcott,  u.s.). 

1.  Athanasius  (^Ep.  Festal,  tom.  i.  pt.  ii. 

p.  962,  ed.  Ben.)  divided  all  the  books  which 
claimed  the  title  of  Holy  Scripture  into  three 
classes.  (1.)  Kauopi^ofxeva,  books  which 

belonged  in  the  fullest  sense  to  the  canon,  and 
were  the  standard  of  the  faith.  (2.)  ’Avayiyvu}- 
<TK6,j.€va,  books  which,  though  not  belonging  in 
the  strictest  sense  to  the  canon,  might  be  read 
in  time  of  divine  service,  and  recommended  to 
catechumens,  “  for  example  of  life  and  instruc¬ 
tion  of  manners.”  (3.)  'Air6Kpv<pa,  spurious  books 
claiming  authority  under  venerable  names. 
This  distinction  between  the  books  truly  canoni¬ 
cal  and  the  books  proper  to  be  read  has  been 
perpetuated  in  the  Greek  Church  to  this  day ; 
and  it  is  the  present  rule  of  the  English  Church, 
which,  in  the  sixth  Article,  after  enumerating 
the  books  of  the  Hebrew  canon,  proceeds  to  say 
that  “  the  other  books  (as  Hierom  saith)  the 
Church  doth  read  for  example  of  life  and  instruc¬ 
tion  of  manners ;  but  yet  doth  it  not  apply  them 
to  establish  any  doctrine.” 

2.  In  the  Latin  Church  also  at  the  same  period 
a  distinction  was  drawn  by  some  between  the 
books  of  the  Hebrew  canon  and  the  later  addi¬ 
tions.  Rufinus  {Expos,  in  Si/mh.  cc.  37,  38) 
divides  the  books  into  three  classes :  “  Canonici 
.  .  .  quos  patres  intra  canonem  concluserant,  ex 
quibus  fidei  nostrae  assertiones  constare  volue- 
runt ;  .  .  .  ecclesiastici  .  .  .  quos  legi  quidem 
in  ecclesiis  voluerunt,  non  tainen  proferri  ad 
auctoritatem  ex  his  fidei  confirmandam  ;  .  .  . 
caeteras  vero  scripturas  apocrypkas  nominarunt, 
quas  in  ecclesiis  legi  voluerunt.”  Here,  the 
ecclesiastici  are  exactly  equivalent  to  the  avayi- 
ypuaKOfieva  of  Athanasius.  Jerome,  in  the  /Vo- 
logus  Galeatus,  enumerates  the  twenty-two  books 
of  the  Hebrew  canon,  and  adds,  “  quidquid  extra 
hos  est  inter  apociypha  ponendum,”  giving  the 
word  apocrypha  a  wider  meaning  than  that' 
adopted  by  Rufinus,  so  as  to  include  all  books 
claiming  to  be  Scripture  not  found  in  the  He¬ 
brew  canon.  This  use  of  the  word  A/wcri//?A  r, 
which  seems  in  ancient  times  to  have  been  pecu¬ 
liar  to  Jerome,  was  adopted  by  the  English  and 
otlier  Refoi-mers  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and 
so  has  become  familiar  to  us.  It  is  not,  however, 
used  in  the  sixth  Article,  where,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  books  read  by  the  Church  but  not 
reputed  strictly  canonical  are  called  simply  “  the 
other  books.” 

3.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions  were  probably 


intended  to  give  an  appearance  of  apostolic 
authority  to  actually  existing  practices,  and  the 
substance  of  the  first  six  books  may  be  as  old  as 
the  3rd  century.  In  the  fifty-seventh  chapter 
of  the  second  book  (p.  67,  ed.  Ueltzen),  w'e  have 
an  approach  to  a  catalogue  of  the  books  to  be 
read  as  Scripture  in  public  worship.  The  pas¬ 
sage  is  as  follows  :  “  Let  the  reader,  standing  in 
the  midst  on  a  raised  space,  read  the  Books  of 
Moses,  and  of  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  those  of 
Judges  and  of  Kingdoms  (6acrtAei'wv),  those  of 
Chronicles  and  the  Return  from  Captivity  [Ezra 
and  Nehemiah] ;  in  addition  to  these  those  of 
Job  and  of  Solomon  and  of  the  sixteen  Prophets 
.  .  .  After  this  let  our  Acts  [Acts  of  Apostles] 
be  read  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul  our  fellow- 
worker,  which  he  enjoined  on  the  churches  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and 
after  these  let  a  deacon  or  presbyter  read  the 
Gospels  which  we,  Matthew  and  John,  delivered 
to  you,  and  those  which  Luke  and  Mark,  Paul’s 
fellow-workers,  received  and  left  to  you.” 

In  this  catalogue  (unless  Esther  be  omitted) 
the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  is  exactly  that 
of  the  Jews.  The  Catholic  Epistles  are  possibly 
included  under  Acts;  for  in  a  Syrian  version, 
which  places  the  Catholic  Epistles  immediately 
after  the  Acts,  at  the  close  of  the  Epistles  fol¬ 
lows  the  colophon,  “  The  end  of  the  Acts,” 
(Wiseman,  Horae  Synacae,  p.  217,  quoted  by 
Westcott,  Bible  in  Church,  p.  176)  as  if  the 
term  Acts  included  the  Epistles.  It  is  not  easy 
to  see  on  what  ground  A.  Ritschl  {Alt-kathol. 
Kirche,  p.  329,  note  1)  affirms  the  sentence  re¬ 
lating  to  St.  Paul’s  Epistles  to  be  “  plainly  inter¬ 
polated.”  It  does  not  appear  that  there  is  any 
variation  of  MSS.  in  this  place. 

The  list  contained  in  the  eighty-fifth  of  the 
Apostolical  Canons,  of  the  books  to  be  held  in 
veneration  by  all  clergy  and  laity,  is  no  doubt  of 
much  later  date  ;  but  as  it  is  in  itself  remark¬ 
able,  and  had  a  powerful  influence  on  some  of 
the  Eastern  Churches,  it  is  given  in  the  parallel 
arrangement  opposite.. 

After  the  foundation  of  Constantinople  (about 
A.D.  332),  Constantine  desired  Eusebius  to  pro¬ 
vide  fifty  splendid  copies  of  the  Scriptures  for  the 
churches  of  his  new  city.  How  he  fulfilled  his 
charge  we  cannot  exactly  affirm,  as  he  gives  no 
catalogue  of  the  books  he  included  in  the  collec¬ 
tion,  and  not  one  of  his  copies  is  known  to  exist ; 
pi'obably  the  canon  of  these  books  diflered  little, 
if  at  all,  from  that  of  Cyril  and  Laodicea. 

A  catalogue  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  the 
authority  of  wdiich  is  strictly  ecclesiastical  and 
not  imperial,  is  found  in  the  works  of  Athana¬ 
sius.  That  great  prelate  joined  to  his  “  Festal 
Letter  ”  •  of  the  year  365  a  list  of  the  books 
which  w^ere  canonized  and  traditional  and  con¬ 
fidently  believed  to  be  divine  (to  Kapovi^6iJ.eva 
Kol  TrapaSodevTa  irKrTevdeuTa  t6  Bela  fhai  $i~ 
B\ia).  In  the  New  Testament,  this  list  gives 
exactly  the  books  which  we  receive  in  the  order 
in  which  they  stand  in  the  oldest  Greek  MSS. 
In  the  Old  Testament,  Baruch  and  the  Letter  are 
added  to  Jeremiah ;  Esther  is  placed  among  the 
Apocrypha ;  and  the  books  of  Maccabees  are 
omitted  altogether. 

•  The  circulars  in  which  the  bishop  of  Alexandria 
annually  announced  to  the  diSFerent  churches  of  his  pro¬ 
vince  the  date  of  Easter  were  called  "Paschal”  or 
”  Festal”  letters. 


PANONICAL  BOOKS 


279 


Athanasius  (^Ep.  Feat.,  in  Cone.  Laodicenum,  can.  60 
vpp.  ed.  Ben.  I.  ii.  962.)  (Bruns’s  Cavoiies,  i.  79). 


Carumes  Apost.  85), 
(Ueltzen’s  Const. 
Apost.  p.  253.) 


Genesis 
Ek'  dus 
Leviticus 
Numbers 
Deu  teronoray 
Jo^hua 
J  udges 
lluth 

Kings,  four 
Cbrunicles,  two 
Ksdvas,  two 
Esther 

Macciibees,  three 
Job 

'I' lie  Psalter 
Solomon’s  Proverbs 
Ecclesiastes 
Song  of  Sonp 

Book  of  the  Twelve  Pro¬ 
phets,  one 
Isaiah 
Jeremiah 
Ezekiel 
Daniel 

For^instruction  of  yotith,  the 
XVisdom  of  Sirach 

Gospels,  four: 

Matthew 

Mark 

Luke 

John 

Epistles  of  Paul,  fourteen 

Peter,  two 

John,  three 

James,  one 

Jude,  one 

Clement,  two 

Apostolical  Constitutions, 
{Aiarayai),  eight 
Acts  of  the  Apostles 


Genesis 

Exodus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

Deuteronomy 

Joshua 

Judges 

Ruth 

I.  and  II.  Kings 
111.  and  IV.  Kings 
I.  and  11.  Chronicles 
1.  and  II.  Esdras 
Psalms 
Proverbs 
Ecclesiastes 
Song  of  Songs 
Job 

Minor  Prophets,  twelve 
Isaiah 

Jeremiah,  Baruch,  Lamen 
tations,  and  the  Letter 
Ez-kiel 
Daniel 


Gospels,  four : 

Matthew 

Mark 

Luke 

John 

Acts  of  Apostles 
Catholic  Epistles  of 
Apostles,  seven: 

James  one 
Peter,  two 
John, three 
Jude,  one 

Epistles  of  Paul  the 
Apostle,  fourteen; 
Romans 

Corinthians,  two 

Galatians 

Ephesians 

Pliilippians 

Colossiaiis 

’rij"8salonians,  two 

Hebrews 

Timothy,  two 

Titus,  one 

Philemon 

The  Ap.  calypse  of  John 


1.  Genesis 

2.  Exodus 

3.  Leviticus 

4.  Numbers 

6.  Deuteronomy 

6.  Joshua 

7.  Judges  and  Ruth 

8.  E-sther 

9.  1.  and  II.  Kings 

10.  111.  and  IV.  Kings 

11.  I.  and  II.  Chronicles 

12.  I.  and  IJ.  Esdras 

13.  The  150  Psalms 

14.  Proverbs  of  Solomon 

15.  Ecclesiastes 

16.  Song  of  Songs 

17.  Job 

18.  The  Twelve  Prophets 

19.  Isaiah 

20  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  La¬ 
mentations,  and  the 
Letter 

21.  Ezekiel 

22.  Daniel 


Gospels,  fotir : 

Matthew 

Mark 

Luke 

John 

Acts  of  A  postles 

Catholic  Epistles,  seven : 
James,  one 
Peter,  two 
John,  three 
Jude,  one 

Epistles  of  Paul,  fourteen  : 
Romans,  one 
Corinthians,  two 
Galatians,  one 
Ephesians,  one 
Pbilippians,  one 
Colosr'i.ms,  one 
Thes.salonians,  two 
H>  brews,  one 
'riniothy,  two 
Titus,  one 
Philemon,  one 


Cone.  Carthagin.  III.  can.  4^ 
(Bruns  s  i  aiionts,  i.  153.) 


Genesis 

Exodus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

Deuieronony 

Joshua 

Judges 

Ruth 

Books  r)f  King.s,  four 
Books  of  Chronicles,  two 
Job 

The  Psalter  of  David 
Books  of  Salomon,  five 
Books  of  Prophets,  twelve : 
Isaiah 
Jeremiah 
Ezekiel 
1  )aniel 
Tobit 
Judith 
Esther 

Books  of  Esdras,  two 
Books  of  Maccabees,  two 


Gospels,  four  books 
Acts  of  Apostles,  one 
Epistles  of  Paul  the  Apostle, 
thirteen 

The  same  to  the  Hebrews, 
tme 

Peter  the  Apostle,  two 
John  the  Apostle,  three 
Jude  the  Apostle,  one 
James,  one 

The  Apocfilypse  of  .lohn, 
one.  book 


The  earliest  conciliar  decision  on  the  subject 
of  Canonical  Books  is  that  of  the  provincial 
synod  of  Laodicea,  about  the  year  36.3.  As  the 
canons  of  this  council  now  stand  in  the  printed 
editions  and  in  mo.st  MSS.,  the  fifty-ninth  canon 
enacts  that  “  psalms  composed  by  private  per¬ 
sons  should  not  be  used  in  churches,  nor  un¬ 
canonized  (d/coj/di/jo-To)  books,  but  only  the  ca¬ 
nonical  books  of  the  New  and  Old  Testament  ”  ; 
and  the  sixtieth  gives  a  list  of  the  books  which 
should  be  read  [in  churches]  (tlrra  Sei 
avayiyvwcKecrOai).  But  this  list  is  unques¬ 
tionably  a  later  addition ;  it  is  not  found  in  the 
best  Greek  MSS.,  in  ancient  Syriac  versions,  in 
one  of  the  two  complete  Latin  versions,  nor  in 
the  oldest  digests  of  ecclesiastical  canons  (see 
Westcott,  Canon  of  N.  T.  pp.  500  ff.).  Yet  it  is 
probably  a  very  early  gloss,  being  in  fact  iden¬ 
tical  (excepting  in  the  addition  to  Jeremiah  of 
Baruch  and  the  Letter,  in  the  place  occupied  by 
Esther  and  Job,  and  in  the  omission  of  the  Apo¬ 
calypse)  with  the  list  given  by  Cyril  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  about  A.D.  350  {Catech.  Myst.  iv.  33  [al. 


22]),  a  list  which  he  distinctly  describes  as  the 
canon  of  ecclesiastical  books,  desirino-  his  cate- 
chumens  not  to  read  other  books  than  those 
which  were  read  in  the  churches. 

In  the  Latin  Church,  as  we  have  seen,  a  dis¬ 
tinction  was  drawn  by  Rufinus  and  Jerome 
between  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  canon  and  fhe 
later  additions ;  but  the  distinction  drawn  by 
these  learned  and  able  doctors  was  not  generally 
received  in  the  Latin  Church.  The  old  Latin 
translation  was  made  from  the  LXX.  and  gave 
no  indication  that  the  different  books  were  not 
all  of  the  same  authority  ;  and  when  this  had 
obtained  general  currency,  the  great  leaders  of 
the  Latin  Church  were  unwilling  to  draiv  di.s- 
tinctions  which  would  shake  the  received  tra¬ 
dition.  Hence  Ambro.se  and  Augustine,  with 
the  great  mass  of  later  writers,  cite  all  the 
books  in  question  alike  as  Scrijiture,  and  Au¬ 
gustine  (de  Duct.  Gnrist.  ii.  8)  gives  a  list  of 
the  books  of  which  “  the  whole  canon  of  the 
Scriptures”  consists,  without  making  any  clear 
distinction  between  the  apocryphal  and  the  other 


280 


CANONICAL  BOOKS 


CANONICAL  BOOKS 


books.*’  The  ecclesiastical  canon  of  the  Latin 
Church  has  in  fact  from  the  date  of  the  first  Latin 
translation  included  what  Ave  call  the  Apocryphal 
Books,  though  we  not  unfrequently  meet  with 
expressions  which  show  that  the  Latin  Fathers 
were  conscious  that  the  books  of  their  canon 
were  in  fact  of  very  different  degrees  of  autho¬ 
rity.  Gregory  the  Great,  for  instance,  speaks  of 
the  books  of  Maccabees  as  not  belonging,  in  the 
proper  sense,  to  the  canon. 

At  the  third  Council  of  Cai'thage,  at  which 
St.  Augustine  was  present,  and  at  which  his  in¬ 
fluence  no  doubt  predominated,  a  decree  was 
made  which  determined  the  list  of  canonical 
Scriptures.  The  forty-seventh  canon  (Bruns’s 
Canones  i.  133)  begins  thus  :  “  It  is  also  agreed, 
that  besides  Canonical  Scriptures  nothing  be  read 
in  tho  Church  as  Holy  Scripture  (sub  nomine 
Divinarum  Scripturarum),”  and  a  list  of  cano¬ 
nical  writings  follows,  in  which  the  Apocryphal 
books  are  mingled  with  those  of  the  Hebrew 
canon,  without  distinction.  Some  of  the  MSS. 
however  omit  the  two  books  of  Maccabees.  The 
canon  ends  with  saying,  in  one  text,  “  Let  it  be 
made  known  to  our  brother  and  fellow-bishop 
Boniface  [of  Rome],  or  other  bishops  of  those 
parts,  for  confirming  that  canon,  that  Ave  have 
received  from  our  fathers  these  books  to  be  read 
in  churches ;  ”  in  another  text,  “  The  books  then 
amount  to  tAventy-se^ven  ;  let  the  churches 
aci'oss  the  sea  [j.  e.  Italian]  be  consulted  about 
that  canon.”  In  both  texts,  permission  is  giA’en 
to  read  the  Passions  of  Martyrs  on  their  anni¬ 
versaries. 

The  confirmation  of  Rome  was  probably  ob¬ 
tained,  and  this  canon  of  Carthage,  though  of 
course  only  binding  in  its  proper  force  on  the 
churches  of  a  particular  proA'ince,  became  the 
general  ecclesiastical  rule  of  the  West.  “  Usage 
recei'/ed  all  the  books  of  the  enlarged  canon 
more  and  more  generally  as  equal  in  all  respects; 
learned  tradition  kept  aliA’-e  the  distinction  be- 
tAA'een  the  Hebrew  canon  and  the  Apocr^'pha 
Avhich  had  been  draAvn  by  Jerome  ”  (Westcott, 
Bible  in  Church,  p.  190). 

The  Apostolical,  Laodicean,  and  Carthaginian 
canons  were  all  confirmed  by  the  second  canon 
of  the  Quiuisextine  Council,  a.d.  692  (Bruns’s 
Canones  i.  36),  no  regard  being  had  to  their  A’^aria- 
tions.  The  68th  canon  made  proA'ision  for  the 
reA’-erent  treatment  of  copies  of  the  sacred  books. 

In  these  lists,  the  first  and  second  books  of 
Kings  are  of  course  those  AA'hich  Ave  call  the  first 
and  second  books  of  Samuel,  and  the  third  and 
fourth  books  of  Kings  those  Avhich  Ave  call  the 
first  and  second  books  of  Kings.  It  is  not  alAA’^ays 
easy  to  say  Avith  certainty  Avhat  is  intended  by  the 
first  and  second  books  of  Esdras.  In  the  Vatican 
and  Alexandrian  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  “  I.  Esdras  ”  is 
the  apocryphal  book  Avhich  aa'c  call  the  first  book 
of  Esdras,  Avhile  “  II.  Esdras  ”  is  composed  of  the 
books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (Westcott,  Bible  in 
Church,  pp.  303  ft'.).  In  the  Vulgate,  “  1.  Esdras  ” 
is  the  canonical  book  of  Ezra,  and  “  H.  E.sdras  ” 
the  canonical  book  Nehemiah.  Jerome  in  the  Pro- 
logus  Galeatus  mentions  only  one  Esdras,  Avhich 
(he  says)  the  Greeks  and  Latins  divided  into  tAvo 
books ;  iiitiBc  two  books  Avere,  as  appears  from 
the  Praef.  in  Esdram  and  the  Ep.  ad  Paulinum 


*>  Canon  Westcott  has  however  pointed  out  [art.  Canon, 
p.  255j  that  his  language  is  imonsioient  on  this  point. 


(c.  16)  the  canonical  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehe¬ 
miah.  A  letter  of  Pope  Innocent  1.  to  Exsupe- 
rius,  bishop  of  Toulouse  (a.d.  405)  contains  a  list 
(given  by  Kirchhofer,  Quellensammlung,  p.  504) 
identical  in  contents  Avith  that  of  the  Council  or 
Carthage,  but  differing  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
books.  There  is  also  a  papal  list  attributed  to 
Gelasius  (Pope  A.D.  492-496)  and  another  to  Hor- 
misdas  (514-523).  But  none  of  these  lists  are 
free  from  suspicion.  They  AA'ere  unknown  in  the 
middle  of  the  6th  century  to  Cassiodorus,  who 
collected  the  lists  of  canonical  books  current  in 
his  time,  and  still  later  to  Isidore  of  ScA'ille  ; 
and  different  copies  of  the  Gelasian  list  vary  in 
such  a  Avay  as  to  suggest  that  they  were  not  all 
deiuA'ed  from  the  same  original.  The  letter  of 
Innocent  is  found  in  the  collection  of  Decretals 
attributed  to  Dionysius  Exiguus,  but  that  col¬ 
lection,  as  is  Avell  knoAvn,  contains  matter  of  a 
much  later  date  than  that  of  its  supposed  com¬ 
pilation  (about  500).  It  is  not,  in  fact,  until 
the  8th  century  that  we  have  distinct  eAudence 
of  its  existence,  when  it  formed  part  of  the  Code 
sent  to  Charlemagne  in  the  year  774  by  Pope 
Hadrian  I.  The  list  of  canonical  books  in  the 
decree  of  Gelasius  does  not  distinctly  appear  till 
about  the  lOth  century.  Both  lists  simply  re¬ 
peat  the  Canon  of  Carthage  (Westcott,  Bible  in 
Church,  194  ff.).  It  is  a  remarkable  instance  of 
the  rapid  A'ictory  of  usage  over  scholarship,  that 
in  the  Codex  Amiatinus  (written  about  541)  of 
Jerome’s  Vulgate,  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha 
are  mixed  Avith  those  of  the  HebreAv  canon, 
against  the  express  judgment  of  Jerome  himself. 
But  indications  are  not  AA^anting,  that  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  A’alue  and  authority  of  certain  works 
was  regarded  in  the  Latin  Church  as  distinct 
from  that  of  ecclesiastical  use. 

The  determination  of  the  canon  in  Spain  was 
a  matter  of  unusual  importance.  The  Pris- 
cillianists  during  the  5th  century  introduced  a 
multitude  of  apocryphal  Avntings,  AA'hich  it  Avas 
one  of  the  chief  cares  of  the  orthodox  bishops 
to  destroy.  The  Arian  Goths  probably  rejected 
the  Epistle  to  the  HebreAvs  and  the  Apocalypse, 
as  Avell  as  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament. 
On  their  conA’ersion,  they  bound  themselves  to 
accept  the  Roman  canon,  as  well  as  other  de¬ 
crees  of  the  see  of  Rome.  Isidore  of  Seville 
(t636)  folloAA's  Augustine  expressly  in  dealing 
Avith  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  and  reckons 
among  “  Canonical  Scriptures  ”  books  Avhich  the 
Hebrews  do  not  receiA’e  (see  Ongines,  vi.  2.)  In 
the  list  which  he  giA'es  (Kirchhofer’s  Quellen~ 
sammlung,  p.  505),  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  are  enumerated  exactly  as  in  the  English 
canon,  except  that  Job  and  Esther  are  placed 
after  Solomon’s  Song.  After  Malachi,  he  adds, 
Avithout  any  mark  of  distinction,  “Judit  et 
Tobias  et  Machabaeorum  Libri  quibus  auc- 
toribus  scripti  sunt  minime  constat.”  Eccle- 
siasticus.  Wisdom,  and  the  apocryphal  books 
of  Esdras,  do  not  seem  to  be  mentioned  at  all. 
In  the  NeAV  Testament,  after  the  Gospels  and 
Acts,  he  proceeds,  “  Pauli  Epistol.  xiA',  novem 
ecclesiis,  reliquae  discipulis  scriptae.  AJ  He- 
braeos  a  pleri.sque  Latinis  ejus  esse  dubitatur, 
propter  dissonantiam  sermonis ;  eandem  aiii  Bar- 
nabae,  alii  dementi  adscribunt.  Jacobi,  Petri  ii., 
Cath.  Judae  et  Johannis.  Johannis  Apocalypsis. 
Caetera  Apocrypha.”  He  seems  therefore  to  have 
I  acknowledged  only  one  epistle  ot  St.  John. 


CANONICAL  HOURS 


CANONiCI 


281 


The  code  which  Charlemagne  gave  at  Aix  for 
the  government  of  the  Church  was  founded  upon 
that  which  he  received  from  Pope  Hadrian  as 
mentioned  above.  In  this  it  was  enjoined  that 
“  the  Canonical  Books  only  be  read  in  the 
Church  but  it  does  not  appear  that  any  defi¬ 
nite  list  was  given,  though  in  the  printed  editions 
the  list  of  Laodicea  was  appended.  Alcuin,  the 
well-known  English  scholar  (■j■804),  Charle- 
magre’s  chief  literary  adviser,  was  commissioned 
towards  the  close  of  his  life  to  undertake  a  revi¬ 
sion  of  the  Latin  Bible  for  public  use.  He  re¬ 
stored  in  a  great  measure  Jerome's  text  in  those 
books  which  Jerome  had  translated,  but  did  not 
separate  the  Apocrypha.  Several  MSS.  remain 
which  claim  to  be  derived  from  Alcuin’s  revi¬ 
sion.  One  of  the  finest  of  these,  known  as 
“  Charlemagne’s  Bible,”  is  in  the  British  Museum. 
A  peculiarity  of  this  copy  is,  that  it  contains  the 
apocryphal  Letter  to  the  Laodiceans  as  a  fifteenth 
Epistle  of  St.  Paul.  [C.] 

CANONICAL  HOURS.  [Hours  of 
Prayer.] 

CANONICI.  The  canonical  clergy  have 
occupied  an  intermediate  position  between  the 
monks  and  the  secular  clergy.  As  living  to¬ 
gether  under  a  rule  of  their  own  they  were 
often  regarded  popularly  as  a  species  of  monks  ; 
while,  inasmuch  as  their  rule  was  less  strict, 
and  their  seclusion  from  the  world  less  complete, 
they  were  sometimes,  from  a  monastic  point  of 
view,  classed  even  with  the  laity,  as  distinguished 
from  those  who  were  “  religious.”  Thus  the 
collesres  of  the  “  canonici  ”  were  sometimes  called 
“  monasteria  ”  (Hospiu.  De  Monach.  iii.  vi.  p. 
72  b.)  ;  while  Dudo  {De  Act.  Norman,  iii.  v.) 
broadly  dividing  Christians  into  “  regular  ”  or 
“  contemplative,”  and  “  secular  ”  or  practical 
places  “  canonici  ”  among  the  “  secular  ”  (Du 
Cange,  Gloss.  Lat'mit.  s.  voce).  The  canonici  did 
not  fully  assume  this  quasi-monastic  chai’acter 
till  the  8th  century.  The  theory  which  would 
trace  them  back  as  a  monastic  order  to  St. 
Augustine,  and  which  ascribes  to  him  the 
Augustinian  Rule  scarcely  needs  refutation 
(Hospin.  De  Monach.  iii.  vi.  p.  71  b. ;  Bingh. 
Orijin.  Eccles.  vii.  ii.  §  9). 

The  “  canonici  ”  were  at  first  the  clergy  and 
other  officials  attached  to  the  church,  and  were 
so  called  either  as  bound  by  canons  (v.  Du  Cange, 
s.  V.'),  or  more  probably  as  enrolled  on  the  list  of 
ecclesiastical  officers,  Kavwv,  matricula,  albus, 
tabula  (Socr.  H.  E.  i.  17 ;  Theod.  Lect.  //.  E.  i. 
p.  553 ;  Cone.  Chalced.  451  A.D.  c.  2 ;  Vales,  ad 
Socr.  II.  E.  V.  19 ;  Bingh.  i.  v.  §  10).  Du 
Cange  explains  the  word  by  the  “  canon  ”  (r-rrop- 
rv\^ ;  a  certain  proportion  (one-fourth)  of  the 
alms  of  the  faithful  set  apart  for  the  mainte¬ 
nance  of  the  clergy  and  other  officers  of  the 
church  {Concc.  Agath.  506  A.D.  c.  36 ;  Aurel.  iii. 
538  A.D.  c.  11 ;  Narhon.  589  A.D.  cc.  10,  12). 
Anothei",  but  most  improbable  derivation  is 
from  KoivofviKol  (Du  Cange,  s.  v.).  A  passage 
is  cited  by  Du  Cange  from  the  life  of  Antony 
attributed  to  Augustine — irifia  rhv  Kav6va — to 
show  that  the  word  was  equivalent  to  “  clerus.” 
But  “canonici”  was  at  first  a  more  compre¬ 
hensive  word  than  “  clerus,”  embracing  all  who 
held  ecclesiastical  offices,  as  readers,  singers, 
porters,  &c.  (Thomass.  Vet.  et  Nov.  Discipl.  1.  ii. 
34 ;  Bingh.  i.  v.  §  10). 


Some  bishops  even  before  the  5th  century,  for 
instance  Eusebius  of  Vercellae,  Ambrose  of 
Milan,  the  great  Augustine,  and  Martin  of  Tours, 
set  an  example  of  monastic  austerity  to  the 
clergy  domiciled  with  them,  which  became  widely 
popular  {Concc.  Tolet.  ii.  a.d.  531,  c.  1 ;  Turon. 
ii.  A.D.  567,  c.  12).  Gelasius  I.  at  the  close  of  the 
5th  century  founded  an  establishment  of  “  ca¬ 
nonici  regulares  ”  at  Rome  in  the  Lateran 
(Hospin.  III.  vi.  p.  72  b. ;  Bingh.  VII.  ii.  §  9). 
In  531  A.D.  the  2nd  Council  of  Toledo  speaks  of 
schools  conducted  by  the  “canonici”  wherein 
the  scholars  lived  “  in  domo  ecclesiae  sub  Epi- 
scopi  praesentia  ”  (cc.  1,  2) ;  and,  before  the  end 
of  the  same  century,  the  3rd  Council  of  Toledo 
orders  the  Scriptures  to  be  read  aloud  in  the 
refectory  of  the  priests,  “  sacerdotali  couvivio  ” 
(c.  7).  A  similar  phi-ase,  “mensa  cauouica,”  is 
quoted  by  Du  Cange  from  Gregory  of  Touj-s 
{Hist.  X.  ad  fin.)  in  reference  to  the  “  canonici  ” 
established  by  Baudinus,  archbishop  of  Tours,  in 
the  6th  century,  and  from  a  charter  granted  by 
Chilperic  in  580  A.D.  (Miraei  Diplom.  Belg.  II. 
1310,  ap.  Du  Cange,  s.  u.).  In  the  3rd  Council  of 
Orleans,  A.D.  538,  the  “  canonici  ”  are  forbidden 
.secular  business  {Cone.  Aurel.  III.  c.  11).  The 
college  in  which  the  canons  resided,  or  rather 
the  chui'ch  to  which  the  college  was  attached,  is 
styled  “canonica”  in  a  charter  724  A.D.  {Chart. 
Langob.  Brunett.  p.  470,  ap.  Du  Cange,  s.  v.). 

Bishops,  especially  for  missions,  were  fre¬ 
quently  chosen  out  of  the  monasteries  ;  and  these 
naturally  surrounded  themselves  with  monks. 
In  the  words  of  Montalembert  many  a  bishopric 
was  “  cradled  ”  in  a  monastery.  Thus  in  Armo¬ 
rica  “the  principal  communities  formed  by  the 
monastic  missionaries  (from  Britain  in  the  5th 
century)  were  soon  transformed  into  bishoprics.” 
{Monks  of  the  West,  II.  273.)  In  countries 
which  owed  their  Christianity  to  monks,  the 
monastery  and  the  cathedral  rose  side  by  side, 
or  under  one  roof.  But  cathedral-monas¬ 
teries  are,  strictly  speaking,  almost  peculiar 
to  England  (Stubbs,  Introd.  to  Epp.  Cantuir. 
xxi.) ;  for,  while  elsewhere,  for  the  most  part, 
either  the  cathedral  or  the  monastery  ousted 
the  other,  in  England  many  of  the  cathedrals 
retained  their  monastic,  more  exactly  their 
quasi-monastic  character  till  the  Reformation. 
Usually  it  was  the  mother-church,  as  Canterbury 
or  Lindisfarne,  which  thus  adhered  to  its  original 
institution,  while  the  new  cathedrals  for  the 
sub-divided  diocese  passed  into  the  hands  of  the 
nott-monastic  clergy  (Stubbs,  v.  sup.  xxii.).  In 
either  case,  as  at  Worcester,  the  cathedral  clergy 
were  the  parochial  clergy  of  the  city  (Stubbs,  The 
Cathedr.  of  Worcester  in  the  2>th  Century,  Com- 
munic.  to  the  Historic.  Sect,  of  the  Instit.  July, 
1862).  The  result  of  this  combination  on  the 
clergy  generally,  and  on  the  monks,  was  twofold. 
On  the  one  hand  the  clergy  became,  in  the  first 
instance,  more  monastic;  on  the  othei*,  a  some¬ 
what  more  secular  tone  was  given  for  a  time 
to  the  monasteries.  But,  as  these  cathedral- 
monasteries  came  to  lose  their  missionary  cha¬ 
racter,  other  monasteries  arose,  by  a  reaction 
of  sentiment,  of  a  less  secular  and  of  a  more 
ascetic  kind  ;  e.  g.  in  England,  Crowland,  and 
Evesham,  in  contrast  to  Peterborough  and  Wor¬ 
cester  (Stubbs,  V.  sup.').  By  the  Council  of 
Clovesho,  A.D.  747,  all  monasteries  proper  in 
England  were  placed  under  the  Benedictine  rule; 


2S2 


CANONICI 


CANONICI 


and  tlixis  the  severance  was  defined  of  the  chap¬ 
ters  and  the  monasteries.  (Cone.  Cloresh.  c.  24 ; 
cf.  lieg.  S.  Bened.  c.  58  ;  cf.  Mabill.  AA.  0.  S.  B. 

I.  Praef.  Ivi.). 

But  Chrodegang,  or  Chrodogang,  cousin  of 
Pepin  and  archbishop  of  Metz,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  8th  century,  was  virtually  the  founder  of 
“  canouici  ”  as  a  semi-monastic  order.  By 
enforcing  strict  obedience  to  the  Rule  and  the 
Superior  he  tightened  the  authority  of  the 
bishop  over  the  clergy  of  his  cathedral  (Beg. 
Clirodeg.  ap.  Labb.  Cone.  vii.  1445).  But, 
while  retaining  the  monastic  obligations  of 
“  obedience  ”  and  of  “  chastity,”  he  relaxed  that 
of  poverty.  His  “canouici”  were,  like  monks,  to 
have  a  common  dormitory  and  a  common  refec¬ 
tory  (Beg.  Chrod.  c.  3  ;  Cone.  Mogunt.  813  ad. 
c.  9).  Like  monks  they  were  to  reside  within 
the  cloister ;  and  egress,  except  by  the  pointer’s 
gateway,  was  strictly  forbidden  (Cone.  Aquisgr. 
816  A.D.  cc.  117,  144).  But  they  were  allowed 
a  life  interest  in  private  property ;  “  though  after 
death  it  was  to  revert  to  the  church  to  which 
they  belonged ;  and,  which  is  especially  curious, 
they  w'ere  not  to  forfeit  their  property,  even  for 
crimes  and  misdemeanoui's  entailing  otherwise 
severe  penance.  (Beg.  Chrod.  cc.  31,  32;  cf. 
Stubbs,  Kpp.  Cantuar.  Introd.  xxiv.)  Thus  the 
discipline  of  the  cloister  was  rendered  more 
palatable  to  the  clergy ;  while  a  broad  line  of 
demarcation  was  drawn  between  them  and  monks 
(Cone,  Mogunt.  cc.  9, 10 ;  Cone.  T^iron.  III.  c.  25). 
They  were  not  to  wear  the  monk’s  cowl  (Beg. 
Chrod.  c.  53,  interpolated  from  Cone.  Aquisgr. 
c.  125).  The  essential  difference  between  a 
cathedral  with  its  “canonici”  and  an  abbey- 
church  with  its  monks,  has  been  well  expressed 
thus  ;  the  “canonici  ”  existed  for  the  services  of 
the  cathedral,  but  the  abbey-church  for  the 
spiritual  wants  of  the  recluses  happening  to 
settle  there  (Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  ii.  443). 

Chrodegang’s  institution  was  eagerly  adopted 
by  the  tar-seeing  Karl,  in  his  reformation  of 
ecclesiastical  abuses ;  indeed  he  wished  to  force 
it  on  the  clergy  generally  (Robertson’s  Ch.  Hist. 

II.  200).  He  ordered  the  “  canonici  ”  to  live 
“  canonice,”  and  to  obey  their  bishop  as  abbat ; 
a  similar  enactment  was  made  at  the  Councils  of 
Aachen,  788  A.D.  and  of  Mentz,  813  A.D.  (Cone. 
Aquisgr.  cc.  27,  29 ;  Cone.  Mogunt.  c.  9 ;  cf.  Du 
Cange,  s.  u. ;  Hospin.  xxii.  154;  Robertson’s  Ch. 
Hist.  II.  198).  It  was  evidently  the  great  legis¬ 
lator’s  intention  to  make  these  colleges  of  canons 
instrumental  for  education  (Cone.  Cahill.  813 
A.D.  c.  3;  Alte.'.er.  Aseetieon.  II.  1).  Thus  one 
of  the  principal  canons  was  the  “  Scholasticus  ” 
(schoolmaster,  or  more  proj)erly,  chancellor. 
Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  II.  ^3),  and  the 
buildings  were  arranged  mainly  to  be  used  as 
schools  (Hospin.  p.  153-6). 

The  rule  of  Chrodegang  in  its  integrity  was 
shortlived.  By  the  middle  of  the  9th  century 
it  \vas  in  fox’ce  in  most  cathedrals  of  France, 
Germany,  Italy,  and,  more  partially,  in  England 
(Robertson’s  Ch.  Hist.  II.  200).  But,  though 
milder  even  than  that  mildest  of  monastic  rules — 
the  Benedictine — it  was  too  severe  to  be  generally 
accepted  by  the  clergy,  especially  in  England. 
In  the  9th  century  (Robertson,  II.  209),  or, 
leather,  by  the  end  of  the  8th  (Stubbs,  E]p. 

“  Also,  the  diet  was  more  generous.  (A’ej/.  Chrod. 
C.  22;  Cone.  Aquisyr.  816  a.d.  c.  122.) 


Can^wir.  Intr.  xvii.),  bodies  of  secular  clerks, 
with  the  character  if  not  the  name  of  “  canonici,” 
had  sujiplanted  monks  in  many  parts  of  England  ; 
but  they  soon  lost  the  ground  which  they  had 
gained.  Partly,  perhaps,  from  the  popularity  of 
monks  with  the  laity  in  England,  as  the  harbingers 
of  Christianity,  and  as  intimately  connected  with 
the  history  of  the  nation,  partly  from  the  repug¬ 
nance  of  the  clergy  to  asceticism,  the  “  Lotha- 
ringian  ”  rule  never  took  root  here  (Freeman, 
V.  sup.,  II.  85).  According  to  William  of  Malmes¬ 
bury  (Stubbs,  De  Invent.  Crue.  Intr.  ix.),  it 
never  was  accepted  here.  “  An  attempt  was 
made  to  introduce  it  in  the  Legatine  Council 
of  786,  \vhich  probably  went  no  farther  in 
effect  than  to  change  the  name  of  secular  clerks 
into  canons,  and  to  turn  secular  abbots  into 
deans”  (Stubbs,  v.  sup.  x. ;  Cone.  Calcyth.  c.  4.) 
By  1050  A.D.  it  was  nearly  obsolete  in  England 
(Stubbs,  V.  sup.  ix.).  Celibacy  seems  to  have 
formed  no  integral  part  of  the  plan  in  the 
foundation  of  Waltham.  (Freeman,  v.  sup.  II. 
443 ;  Stubbs,  He  Inv.  Cmic.  xii.) 

Even  where  it  had  been  at  first  in  vogue  the 
Rule  of  Chrodegang  was  soon  relaxed  ;  nor  were 
the  eftbrts  of  Adalbero,  Willigis,  and  others, 
eftectual  to  restore  it  (Robertson’s  Ch.  Hist. 
II.  477).  The  “canonici”  became,  fii'st,  a  com¬ 
munity  dwelling  together  under  the  headship  of 
the  bishop,  but  not  of  necessity  under  the  same 
roof  with  him ;  next,  an  “  acephalous  ”  com¬ 
munity, — a  laxity  which  had  been  specially  con¬ 
demned  by  the  Council  of  Aachen,  already  men¬ 
tioned  (c.  101) — and,  gradually,  instead  of  repre¬ 
senting  the  clergy  of  the  diocese  they  developed 
into  a  distinct,  and,  sometimes,  antagonistic  body 
(Robertson,  II.  476).  As  their  wealth  and  in¬ 
fluence  increased  they  claimed  a  share  in  the 
government  of  the  diocese  (Robertson,  II.  401)^ 
Trithemius  speaks  of  the  “  Canonici  Trevirenses  ” 
in  the  close  of  the  10th  century,  as  both  in  name 
and  in  reality  “secular^s  non  regulares”:  and 
Hospinian  protests  against  the  very  expression 
“canonici  seculares,”*^  as  a  contradiction  in 
terms,  like  “  regulares  irregulares.”  (Hospinian, 
V.  sup.  p.  73.) 

The  “Canons  Regular  of  St.  Augustine,” 
founded  by  Ives  of  Chartres  and  others,  in  the 
11th  century,  may  be  regarded  as  resulting  fi’om 
the  failure  of  the  attempts  to  force  the  canonical 
rule  on  the  clergy  of  the  cathedral  and  collegiate 
churches  (Robertson’s  Ch.  Hist.  II.  708).  These 
“  canonici  ”  diflered  but  slightly  from  the  monks ; 
and,  unlike  the  “  canonici  ”  ot  older  date,  resem¬ 
bled  the  monks  in  the  renunciation  of  private 
property.  This  order  was  inti’oduced  into  Eng¬ 
land  very  early  in  the  12th  century  by  Adelwald, 
confessor  of  Henry  1st,  but  some  assign  an  earlier 
date.  At  the  Reformation  there  were,  according 
to  Hospinian  (p.  73),  moi'e  than  8000  “  coenobia 
canonicorum  ”  in  Europe  ;  the  number  declined 
greatly  afterwards.  The  various  mediaeval  sub- 
div^isions  of  “  canonici,”  enumerated  by  Du  Cange 
(s.  V.)  do  not  fall  within  our  present  scope.  (See 
also  Thomassini,  Vetus  et  ^oca  Hiseiphna,  I.  iii. 

b  rill  the  14th  ceiiturj’  these  spmi-.ri'gular,  semi-secular 
foundations  seem  t<>  have  been  uncongenial  to  the  English, 
Harold,  the  founder  of  Waliham,  is  an  exception.  (Free¬ 
man,  .Vorm.  >  'onq.  11.  445). 

c  The  expression  “secular  canons”  sometimes  occurs 
prematurely  (e.  g.  in  Freeman's  Xorman  Conquest)  where 
*•  secular  eleilis  ”  would  be  more  exact. 


CANONISTAE 


CANOPY 


283 


cc.  7-12;  III.  ii.  c.  27;  BihliotJieque  Sacr^e,  par 
Richard  et  Girardin,  s.  v.  Par.  1822;  Martigiiy, 
Victionnaire  des  Antiquites  Chretiennes,  Par. 
1885). 

Canonicae  in  the  primitive  church  were  devout 
women,  taking  charge  of  funerals  and  other 
works  of  charity  (Socr.  H.  E.  i.  17  ;  Soz.  H.  E. 
viii.  23,  cf.  Justin.  Aow//.  cc.  43,  59,  ap.  Menardi 
Comm,  in  S,  Bcnod.  Anion,  Cone.  Eoy.  c.  68). 
Though  not  originally  bound  by  a  vow,  nor 
compelled  to  live  in  a  community  (Bingh.  Orig. 
Eccl.  VII.  iv.  §  1  ;  but  cf.  Pelliccia  Eccl.  Christ. 
Polit.  I.  iii.  3,  §  1),  they  lived  apart  from  men, 
and  had  a  special  part  of  the  church  reserved  for 
them  in  the  public  services  (Du  Cange,  s.  v.).  In 
the  8th  century  the  “  canonicae,”  “  canonissae,” 
or  “  canonichissae,”  lived  together  after  the 
example  of  the  “  canonici,”  being  like  them 
attached  to  particular  churches  (Pellic.  I.  iii.  4, 

§  1).  They  are  distinguished  from  nuns  (Cone. 
Francof.  794  a.d.  cc.  46,  47);  but,  like  nuns 
were  strictly  debarred  from  the  society  of  men 
{Cone.  Aquisgr.  816  a.d.  c.  20 ;  cf.  C.nc.  Cahill. 
813  A.D.  c.  53).  They  were  to  occupy  them¬ 
selves  specially,  Ijkethe  “  canonici”  in  education 
{Cone.  Francof.  c.  40;  Cone.  Aquisgr.  c.  22). 
See  further  Magdeb.  Centur.  viii.  6.  The  “do- 
micellae  ”  or  secular  canonesses  are  of  later  date 
(Du  Cange,  s.  v.).  (See  also  Thomass.  Vet.  et 
Nov.  Discipl.  I.  iii.  cc.  43,  51,  63;  Alteserrae 
Aseetieon.  III.  3.)  [!•  G.  S.] 

CANONISTAE.  [Canon  Law.] 

CANONIZATION  is  defined  by  Ferraris 
(sub  voc.  Veneratio  Sanetorum)  to  be  a  “  public 
judgment  and  express  definition  of  the  Apostolic 
See  respecting  the  sanctity  and  glory  of  one, 
who  is  thereupon  solemnly  added  to  the  roll  of 
the  saints,  and  set  forth  for  the  public  veneration 
of  the  whole  Church  militant,  and  the  honours 
due  to  saints  decreed  to  him.”  And  it  is  distin¬ 
guished  by  him  from  Beatification.,  which  means, 
according  to  the  same  authority,  a  like  “  lawful 
grant  by  the  pope  to  a  particular  kingdom,  pro¬ 
vince,  religious  body,  or  place,  to  venerate  and  in¬ 
voke,  in  the  mass  and  by  exposition  of  relics,”  &c., 
some  particular  person,  deceased.  Both,  in  this 
sense,  date  subsequently  to  the  period  of  which 
the  present  work  treats,  the  first  formal  canoni¬ 
zation  by  a  pope  being  said  to  be  either  that  of 
St,  Suibert  by  Rope  Leo  111.  a.d,  804,  at  the  re¬ 
quest  of  Charlemagne  (Ferraris,  as  above),  or 
(which  however  depends  on  a  letter  said  to  be  a 
forgery)  that  of  Udalric,  bishop  of  Augsburg,  by 
diploma  of  Pope  John  XV.  a.d.  993  (Mabill. 
Aett.  SS.  Ben.  Saee.  V.  Pref.  §  101  ;  Gibbings, 
Praeleet.  on  the  Diptychs,  p.  33,  Dubl.  1864). 
But  canonization  in  some  sense  (  =  inserting  in  the 
Canon  of  the  Mass)  is  the  outgrowth  of  a  practice 
of  very  early  date  (being  alluded  to  by  Tertullian, 
Be  Cor.  iii.,  and,  earlier  still,  in  the  Martyr.  Poly¬ 
carp.  xviii,,  ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  15),  viz.  that  of 
reciting  at  a  certain  part  of  the  Eucharistic  service 
the  names  (among  others)  of  deceased  saints  and 
martyrs  [Diptychs]  ;  not  for  invocation  (“  non 
invocantur,”  St.  Aug.  Be  Civ.  Bei,  xxii.  10),  but 
“  in  memory  of  those  who  have  finished  their 
course,  and  for  the  exercising  and  preparation  of 
those  who  have  yet  to  walk  in  their  steps  ” 
{Mart.  S.  Polye.').  The  authority  by  which  a 
name  was  inserted  in  this  list — the  saint  being 
then  said  to  be  “  vindicatus  ”  (Optat.  Be  Schism. 


Bonat.  i.  16) — was,  until  at  least  the  10th  cen¬ 
tury,  that  of  the  bishop,  with  (no  doubt)  the  con¬ 
sent  of  his  clergy  and  people,  and,  as  time  went  on, 
of  the  synod  and  metropolitan,  and  according  to 
Mabillon  {Praef.  in  Aett.  SS.  Bened.  p.  412),  of  the 
emperor  or  king.  But  the  consent  of  the  last 
named  could  only  have  been  asked  or  given  in 
cases  of  political  importance,  real  or  supposed. 
The  last  case  of  canonization  by  a  metropolitan  is 
said  to  have  been  that  of  St.  Gaultier,  or  Gaucher, 
abbat  of  Pontoise,  by  the  Archbishop  of  Rouen, 
A.D.  1153  (Gibbings,  as  above).  And  a  decree  of 
Pope  Alexander  111.  A.D.  1170,  gave  the  prero¬ 
gative  to  the  pope  thenceforth,  so  far  as  the 
Western  Church  was  concerned  [Calendar  ; 
Martyrology  ;  Menology]  ;  who  proceeded 
(acc.  to  Ferraris)  in  two  ways,  either  by  formally 
sanctioning  local  or  other  saints,  who  had  long 
before  been  canonized  in  effect  by  common  con¬ 
sent,  or  by  initiating  the  pi’ocess  himself  in  new 
cases.  “  Canonizare  ”  is  also  used  to  signify 
simply  to  “approve,”  or  to  “appoint  to  a  ca- 
nonry,”  or  to  enrol  in  the  “canon”  of  the  clergy, 
or  to  make  a  canon  in  a  Council.  (Salig.  Be 
Biptyckis  ;  BuC&ngQ’.,  Suicer;  Ferraris,  Prom//Ai 
Biblioth.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

CANOPY.  The  fixed  solid  canopy,  or  ciborium, 
over  the  altar,  has  already  been  described  under 
Altar,  p.  65.  It  has  been  supposed,  however, 
that  the  altar  was  sometimes  anciently  covered 
with  a  canopy  of  a  lighter  kind,  as  of  .silk.  In 
the  will  of  Abbot  Aredius  (in  the  Works  of 
Gregory  of  Tours,  p.  1313,  ed.  Ruinart),  who 
died  A.D.  591,  we  find,  among  other  things 
declared  necessary  for  a  church,  “  cooperturios 
holosericos  tres ;  calices  argenteos  quatuor  .  .  . 
item  cooperturium  lineum  .  .  .”  These  silken 
coverings  Binterim  {Benhwurd.  vii.  3,  353) 
believes  to  be  not  altar-cloths,  but  canopies, 
while  the  “  cooperturius  lineus  ”  is  an  altar-cloth, 
distinct  from  the  corporal.  Gregory  of  Tours 
also,  a  contemporary  of  Aredius,  describing  a 
dream  or  vision,  says,  “  cum  jam  altarium  cum 
oblationibus /)a//iosmco  coopertum  esset,”  Gunt- 
chramn  entered  {Hist.  Franc,  ifii.  22,  p.  347,  ed. 
Ruinart).  Here  again  Binterim  {u.  s.)  supposes 
that  a  canopy  is  intended,  insisting  on  the  words 
of  Optatus  {Be  Schism.  Bonat.  vi.  1,  p.  92),  that 
it  was  a  matter  of  notoriety  that  the  boards 
of  the  altar  were  covered  with  linen.  The 
words  of  Optatus,  however,  written  of  the 
African  church  in  the  4th  century,  have  but 
little  application  to  Galilean  customs  at  the  end 
of  the  6th,  nor  are  they  in  fact  contradictory 
to  the  words  of  Gregory  ;  for  the  altar  may  have 
been  first  covered  with  linen,  and  the  oblations 
upon  it  afterwards  covered  with  a  silken  veil. 
This  was  probably  the  case ;  for  a  word  derived 
from  ‘  cooperire’  would  naturally  refer  to  covering 
up  closely,  rather  than  to  shading  as  a  canopy 
does.  Compare  Altar-cloths,  p.  69.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  Mabillon  and  Ruinart 
are  right  in  explaining  the  word  cooperturius  of 
an  altar-covering  or  Veil.  The  “cooperturius 
Sarmaticus,”  which  Gregory  rejected  {Be  Vitis 
Patrum,  p»  8,  1195),  seems  to  have  been  intended 
for  a  similar  use. 

The  custom  of  carrying  a  canopy  over  the 
pope  in  certain  processions  does  not  seem  to  be 
mentioned  earlier  than  the  12th*  century  (sec 
Urdo  Romanus  XI.  17  126;  40,  136);  and  the 


CANTAB  RAUII 


CANTICLE 


'J84 

use  of  a  canopy  to  overshadow  the  Eucharist  in 
Corpus  Christi  processions  is  later  still. 

For  the  cano[)y  surmounting  the  seat  of  a 
bishop,  see  Throne.  [C.] 

CANTABRARII.  Literally,  bearers  of  the 
cantabrum,  or  cruciform  standard  of  the  later 
Roman  emperors,  in  military  or  religious  pro¬ 
cessions.  The  word  occurs  in  the  Cod.  Theodos. 
xiv.  7,  2,  as  applied  to  a  guild  of  such  persons, 
and  has  no  direct  connexion  with  ecclesiastical 
antiquity.  Bingham,  however  (xvi.  5,  6),  cites 
the  passage  in  its  bearing  upon  the  mention  of 
centurions  by  the  C.  in  Trullo  (c.  61)  as  con¬ 
nected  with  divination ;  and  hence  it  appears  in 
the  index  to  his  work  as  the  name  of  “a  sort  of 
conjurors.”  The  cantabrum  itself  is  mentioned 
by  Minucius  Felix  (Octav.  c.  27)  and  Tertullian 
{Apol.  c.  16) -as  an  instance  of  the  unconscious 
honour  paid  by  the  heathens  to  the  figure  of  the 
cross.  [E.  H.  P.] 

CANTATORIUM.  [Antiphonarium.] 

CANTERBURY,  COUNCIL  OF,  two  in 
Labb.  &c.  : — (1)  a.d.  605,  fictitious,  resting  on 
a  foi’ged  charter  of  Ethelbert  to  St.  Augustin’s 
monastery  at  Canterbury  (see  Haddan  and  Stubbs, 
Counc.  iii.  56,  57).  (2)  A.D.  685,  founded  on  a 

mere  miustake.  [A.  W.  H.] 

-  CANTHARUS  (or  -UM),  also  PharoCan- 

THARUS,  also  CaNTHARUS  CEROSTATUS  or  CERO- 
STRATUS,  1.  a  chandelier  for  ecclesiastical  use,  de¬ 
scribed  by  Ducange,  s.  v.  as  “  a  disc  of  metal, 
furnished  with  candles  fixed  upon  it.”  The  word 
is  of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  Anastasius 
and  other  early  authorities:  e.g.  S.  Silv.  xxxiv. 
§  34,  “  canthara  cerostrata  xii  aerea ;  ”  ib.  §  36, 
“  pharum  cantharum  argenteum  cum  delphinis 
cxx,  ubi  oleum  ardet  nardinum  pisticum  .  .  . 
canthara  cerostrata  in  gremio  basilicae  quinqua- 
ginta.”  S.  Symmach.  liii.  §  80,  “  ad  beatum  Pe- 
trum  XX  canthara  argent ea  fecit.”  Among  the 
ai-ticles  of  church  property  confiscated  by  Pope 
Sergius  I.  a.d.  687,  to  raise  the  donative  de¬ 
manded  by  the  exarch  of  Ravenna,  as  the  price  of 
his  support,  we  read  of  “  cantharos  et  coronas 
quae  ante  sacrum  altare  et  confessionem  beat! 
Petri  Apostoli  ex  antique  pendebant  ”  (Anast.  S. 
Sergius  Ixxxvi.  §  159).  2.  a  vessel  for  water 

[Phlala.]  [E.  V.] 

CANTIANILLA,  with  C antianus  and  Can- 
Tius,  martyrs  at  Aquileia,  commemorated  May  31 
(^Mart.  Rs)m.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CANTIANUM  CONCILIUM.  [Kent.] 

CANTICLE  (^Canticuni).  A  species  of 
sacred  song.  St.  Paul  [Eph.  v.  19]  mentions 
“  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,” 
XaKovpres  iavroTs  ipa\/uo?s  Kal  vfivois  Ka\  ^8a?s 
vuevjuaTiKaTs  (“  canticis  spiritualibus,”  Vulg.). 
He  also  couples  the  three  terms  in  Col.  iii.  16. 
Some  of  the  psalms  are  called  in  the  LXX.  and 
Vulg.:  ij/aX/ubs  wdrjs  (Psalmus  Cantici),  e.g. 
LXVIL,  XCI.  (LXVIII.,  XCII.),  or  alvos  <pSijs 
(Laus  Cantici)  ;  e.  gr.  XCll.  (XClIl.).  On  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  a  ps  dm  and  a  canticle,  Augus¬ 
tine  remarks  (on  Ps.  LX VII.)  that  some  before 
his  time  had  made  this  distinction  between  a 
canticle  and  a  psalm,  that  since  a  canticle  is 
sung  with  the  voice  alone,  but  a  psalm  with  the 
accompaniment  of  an  instrument ;  so  by  a  can¬ 
ticle,  the  intelligence  of  the  mind  is  signified,  by 


a  psalm  the  operation  of  the  body.  He  goes  on 
to  give  as  a  reason  why  the  book  of  Psalms  is  so 
called  rather  than  the  book  of  Canticles,  that« 
canticle  may  be  without  a  psalm,  but  not  a  p.^alm 
without  a  canticle.  Jerome  distinguishes  to 
the  effect  that  psalms  properly  belong  to  the 
region  of  ethics,  so  that  we  know  through  the 
bodily  organs  what  to  do  or  avoid — while  can¬ 
ticles  deal  with  higher  matters,  the  harmony  of 
the  universe,  and  the  order  and  concord  of  crea¬ 
tion.  Hymns  are  distinguished  from  both,  as 
being  directly  occupied  with  the  praises  of  God. 
Others  distinguish  differently,  while  Chrysostom 
and  Basil  define  to  much  the  same  effect.  So 
also  Thomasius.  Bona  distinguishes  between 
four  sorts  of  sacred  song:  (1)  Canticle  (Can- 
ticum)  which  is  sung  by  the  voice  alone  ;  (2) 
Psalm  (Psalmus),  which  is  sung  by  the  voice, 
accompanied  by  a  musical  instrument ;  (3)  Can¬ 
ticle  of  a  psalm  (Canticum  Psalmi),  w'hcn  there 
is  an  instrumental  prelude  to  the  voice ;  (4) 
Psalm  of  a  canticle  (Psalmus  Cantici),  when  the 
voice  begins  and  the  organ  or  other  instrumental 
accompaniment  follows.  But  this  seems  to  be 
over  refining,  and  hence  some  have  considered 
the  three  words  [Psalm,  Canticle,  Hymn]  as 
virtually  synonyms,  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
easy  to  show  that  sacred  songs  were  called  by 
these  three  names,  but  not  so  easy  to  show  that 
these  names  represent  different  kinds  of  song, 
since  they  are  used  promiscuously  in  the  titles 
of  the  psalms.  Hence  it  has  been  though*, 
by  some  that  St.  Paul  in  the  passages  referred 
to  is  simply  recommending  the  use  of  the  psalter 
On  the  whole  we  may  be  satisfied  with  St. 
Augustine’s  conclusion,  w'ho  after  discussing  the 
point  at  some  length,  says  he  will  leave  the 
question  to  those  w'ho  are  able,  and  have  the 
leisure  to  make  the  distinction,  and  to  define  it 
accurately.  The  broad  distinction,  to  w'hich  the 
derivation  of  the  Greek  words  would  lead,  seems 
to  be  that  a  psalm  was  sung  to  instrumental 
accompaniment,  a  canticle  with  the  voice  alone  ; 
while  a  hymn  is  a  direct  praise  of,  or  thanks¬ 
giving  to  God. 

In  ecclesiastical  use  the  word  canticle  is 
applied  to  those  poetical  extracts  from  Holy 
Scripture,  w'hich  are  incorporated  among  the 
psalms  in  the  divine  office.  For  the  most  part 
they  are  said  at  Lauds.  In  the  Gregorian  and 
its  derived  rites,  a  canticle  is  said  every  day 
among  the  psalms  at  Lauds,  immediately  before 
the  three  final  psalms ;  and  St.  Benedict  in  his 
rule  directs  that  on  each  day  at  Lauds  a  canticle 
from  the  Prophets  shall  be  sung,  “  sicut  psallit 
Ecclesia  Romana.”  These  canticles,  still  retained 
in  the  Roman  and  cognate  breviaries,  are :  seven 
from  the  Old  Testament,  said  in  the  following 
order — 

At  Lauds : — 

On  Sundays  and  Festivals,  “  Benedicite." 

On  Mondays.  The  Song  of  Isaiah  (Is.  xii.). 

On  Tuesday,  The  .Song  of  Hezekiah  (Is.  xxxvili.  10-20) 

On  Wednesday,  The  Song  of  Hannah  (1  Sam.  ii.  1-10). 

On  Thursday,  The  Song  of  Mosts  (Kx.  xv.  1-19). 

On  Friday,  The  .Song  of  Habakkuk  (Hah.  iii.  2-19). 

On  Saturday,  The  Song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxii.  1-43). 

And  also  three  from  the  New  Testament: — 

Benedictm,  said  daily  at  Lauds, 

Magnificat  „  „  „  Vespers. 

X'unc  dimittis  „  „  „  Compline. 


CANTICUM  EVANGELICUM 


CAPITULAKY 


285 


These  canticles  are  said  with  an  antiphon,  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  psalms. 

^  Other  Western  breviaries  use  a  greater  variety 
of  canticles :  thus  the  Benedictine  and  other 
monastic  breviaries  of  the  same  type,  have  th..ee 
canticles  instead  of  psalms,  in  the  third  nocturn 
on  Sundays  and  festivals. 

In  the  Office  of  the  Greek  Church,  the  follow¬ 
ing  nine  canticles,  called  odes  (ySai),  are  ap¬ 
pointed  at  Lauds  : — 

(1)  The  Song  of  Moses  in  BscoJus  (Ex.  xv.  1-19). 

(2)  The  Song  of  Moses  in  Deut.  (Deut.  xxxii.  1-43). 

(3)  The  Prayer  of  Hannah  (1  Sam.  ii.  1-10). 

(4)  The  Prayer  of  Habakkuk  (Hab.  ili.  2-19). 

(5)  The  Prayer  of  Isaiah  (Is.  xxvi.  9-20). 

(6)  The  Prayer  of  Jonah  (Jon.  ii.  2-9). 

(7)  The  Prayer  f  of  the  Three  Holy  Children  (Dan.  iil. 

3-34).  QJn  Apocry.] 

(8)  The  Song  f  of  the  Three  Holy  Children.  [Benk- 

DICITK.] 

(9)  Magnificat  and  Benedictus. 

These  are  assigned : — (1)  to  Sunday  and  Mon¬ 
day  ;  (2)  to  Tuesday ;  (3)  to  Wednesday ;  (4)  to 
Thursday;  (5)  to  Friday;  (6)  and  (7)  to  Satur¬ 
day  ;  (8)  and  (9)  are  said  at  a  different  time. 

Benedictus  and  Benedicite  were  in  early  times 
sung  in  some  masses :  the  former  before  the 
prophecy  in  some  early  Gallican  masses ;  the 
latter  is  prescribed  in  the  4th  Council  of  Toledo 
to  be  sung  before  the  epistle  on  Sundays  and 
festivals  of  martyrs. 

“  Te  Deum  ”  is  the  only  composition  not  taken 
from  Holy  Scripture,  which  is  usually  considered 
a  canticle.  Some  ritualists,  however,  think  it 
should  be  reckoned  among  hymns. 

For  a  fuller  collection  of  canticles  see  the 
Mozarabic  breviary,  and  Thomasius,  vol.  ii. 

.  [H.  J.  H.] 

CANTICUM  EVANGELICUM.  “Bene¬ 
dictus  ”  was  sometimes  so  called,  probably  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  other  canticle  said  at 
Lauds,  which  is  taken  from  the  Old  Testament. 
The  expression  occurs  in  a  MS.  Pontifical  of  the 
Church  of  Poitiers  of  about  800  A.D.,  and  else¬ 
where.  [H.  J.  H.] 

CANTICUM  GKADUUM.  The  Gradual 
Psalms  were  sometimes  so-called.  They  were 
recited  in  the  following  order :  the  first  five 
with  Bequiem  aeternam,  ^c.,  and  followed  by  a 
few  versicles,  were  said  “  pro  defunctis.”  The 
next  ten  each  with  “Gloria;”  five  “pro  cou- 
gregatione,”  and  five  “  pro  familiaribus  ;  ”  each 
group  being  followed  by  a  few  versicles  and  a 
collect.  [H.  J.  H.] 

CANTOR.  (^Psalmtsta,  \f/cl\Tr}s,  ypa\T(f>56s, 
(j55o's.) 

Among  the  clerici  of  the  ancient  Church  are 
to  be  reckoned,  as  a  distinct  order,  the  Cantores 
or  Psalmistae,  whose  institution  dates,  it  would 
seem,  from  the  4th  century.  They  are  mentioned 
in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  so  called  (ii.  25, 
§  12 ;  iii.  11 ;  viii.  10,  §  2,  etc.)  and  in  the  Apo¬ 
stolical  Canons  (cc.  26,  43,  69).  In  the  fifteenth 
canon  of  the  council  of  Laodicaea,  A.D.  365,  they 
are  called  KavoviKoX  t/^dArai,  i.e.  singers  enrolled 
in  the  canon  or  catalogue  of  clergy,  to  whom  the 
office  of  singing  in  the  church  was  then  restricted. 
The  reason  of  their  appointment  seems  to  have 
been  to  regulate  and  encourage  the  ancient  psal¬ 
mody  of  the  Church.  There  can  be  no  question 


but  that  from  the  apostolical  age,  singing  formed 
a  part  of  the  public  worship,  the  whole  congre¬ 
gation  joining,  as  in  the  prayers  ;  but  when  it 
was  found  by  experience  that  the  negligence  and 
unskilfulness  of  the  general  body  of  the  people 
rendered  them  unfit  to  perform  this  service  with¬ 
out  instruction  and  guidance,  it  was  re.solved  to 
set  apart  a  peculiar  order  of  men  for  the  singers’ 
office,  not  with  a  view  to  abolish  the  ancient 
psalmody,  but  to  retrieve  and  improve  it.  That 
the  restriction  imposed  by  the  council  of  Laodi¬ 
caea  must  be  regarded  as  a  temporary  provision, 
designed  only  to  revive  and  develop  the  ancient 
psalmody,  then  falling  into  decay,  appears  from 
the  facts  collected  by  S.  Augustine,  Chrysostom, 
Basil,  and  others,  that  in  their  own  age  the 
custom  of  congregational  singing  was  again 
generally  observed  in  the  churches. 

As  to  the  form  of  ordination  by  which  the 
cantores  were  set  apart  for  their  office,  this  was 
done,  as  in  the  case  of  the  other  inferior  orders, 
without  imposition  of  hands  ;  but  in  one  thing 
it  differed  from  the  others,  that  whereas  the 
latter  were  usually  conferred  by  the  bishop  or  a 
chorepiscopus,  this  order  might  be  conferred  by 
a  presbyter,  using  the  form  of  words  following, 
as  given  in  the  4th  council  of  Carthage,  c.  10  : 
“  See  that  thou  believe  in  thy  heart  what  thou 
singest  with  thy  mouth,  and  appi-ove  in  thy 
works  what  thou  believest  in  thy  heart.”  [Com¬ 
pare  Confessor,  §  4.]  Bingham,  iii.  7;  Martene 
de  Ant.  Eccl.  Ritibus  1.  c.  viii.  art.  8,  §  4.  [D.  B.] 

CANTUAEIENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Can¬ 

terbury.] 

CAPA  OR  CAPPA.  [Cope.] 

CAPITOLINI.  A  name  of  reproach  applied 
by  the  Novatians  to  the  Catholics,  because  the 
latter  charitably  resolved,  in  their  synods,  to 
receive  into  communion  again,  upon  their  sincere 
repentance,  such  as  had  offered  sacidfice  in  the 
Capitol  (Bingham,  b.  i.  c.  3).  [D.  B.] 

CAPITULA.  The  name  of  a  prayer  in  the 
Mozarabic  breviary  immediately  preceding  the 
Lord’s  Prayer,  which  in  this  rite  occurs  near 
the  end  of  the  office.  It  changes  with  the  day 
and  office,  and  also  varies  much  in  length,  but 
has  no  special  characteristics  to  distinguisli  it 
from  other  Mozarabic  prayers.  The  corre¬ 
sponding  prayer  in  the  Mass,  not  however  called 
by  this  name,  is  directed  to  be  said  “  ad  ora- 
tionem  dominicam.”  Baronins,  referring  to  an 
epistle  of  Poj)e  A'^igilius,  observes  that  formerly 
the  word  Capitulum  was  used  of  “  preces  quae- 
dam  prolixiores  in  honorom  Sanctorum  vel 
Solennitatum.”  [H.  J.  H.] 

CAPITULARE.  [Antiphon arium,  p.  100.] 

CAPITUIjARY.  The  term  “Capitulary” 
means  a  set  or  collection  of  capitula  or  little 
chapters.  It  is  applied  to  the  laws  and  ordi¬ 
nances  of  the  early  Frankish  sovereigns,  because 
the  laws  enacted  at  one  time  and  place  were 
usually  collected  and  published  in  a  continuous 
series.  The  collective  series  was  called  a  “  Capi¬ 
tulary;”  the  several  laws  which  were  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  series  were  called  “  Capitula.”  The 
term  has  not  in  itself  any  ecclesiastical  meaning, 
being  also  applicable  to  temporal  laws.  But,  as 
a  fact,  the  majority  (though  by  no  means  the 
whole)  of  the  Frankish  Capitula  were  of  an 
ecclesiastical  character. 


t  So  distinguished  in  the  titles. 


286 


CAPITULARY 


CAPITULARY 


The  edition  of  Baluze*  begins  with  Childe- 
bert’s  Constitution  for  the  Abolition  of  Idolatry, 
554  A.D.  This  is  followed  by  various  other 
capitula  of  the  first  race  of  kings,  viz.  of  Lo- 
thaire  I.  and  II-.,  Dagobert,  and  Sigebert.  Crime, 
slavery,  man;iage,  contracts,  pledges,  judicial 
and  ecclesiastical  regulations,  all  find  place 
among  these  laws,  which  furnish  some  interest¬ 
ing  evidence  of  the  religious,  political,  and  social 
condition  of  France.  They  show  strong  traces 
of  clerical  influence,  in  the  care  which  they  take 
of  ecclesiastical  interests.  The  Merovingian 
princes  were  rude  and  unlearned,  and  were  glad 
to  make  use  of  the  abilities  and  learning  of  the 
priesthood:  they  were  also  dissolute,  and  perhaps 
glad  to  compound  for  their  excesses  by  gratify¬ 
ing  the  priesthood  ;  and  both  these  causes 
conspired  to  throw  wealth  and  power  into  epi¬ 
scopal  hands.  Nor  was  this  state  of  things 
wholly  without  its  advantages.  The  influence 
of  the  clergy  mitigated  the  ferocity  of  the 
nobles,  and  it  has  been  suggested  that  the 
humane  tone  of  portions  of  the  Merovingian 
laws  is  probably  due  to  the  part  which  they 
took  in  the  formation  of  them. 

It  may  be  briefly  mentioned  that  the  follow¬ 
ing  subjects  appear  repeatedly  and  with  pro¬ 
minence  : 

The  right  of  sanctuary  in  churches.  The 
crime  of  doing  violence  to  churches  or  monastic 
houses.  The  crime  of  violence  to  the  persons  or 
property  of  the  clergy  or  monks.**  The  right 
freely  conferred  on  all  men,  without  restraint, 
of  making  gifts  of  land  or  other  property  to  the 
Church.  The  duty  of  a  strict  observance  of  the 
Lord’s  day.** 

It  is  impossible,  however,  here  to  discuss  these 
laws  in  detail.  Indeed,  in  the  judgment  of 
Guizot,  they  hardly  deserve  it.  Civilisation 
during  the  Merovingian  dynasty  persistently 
declined,  and  in  the  Church  the  bishops  came  by 
degrees  to  constitute  an  irresponsible  and  ill- 
organized  aristocracy, — the  power  of  the  Metro¬ 
politans  and  of  the  State  having  gradually 
declined. 

We  come  next  to  a  few  Capitularies  in  the 
nominal  reign  of  Childeric  III.,  but  in  reality 
the  work  of  Carloman  and  Pepin,  and  then  to  the 
Capitularies  of  Pepin  le  Bref  as  sovereign  of  the 
Franks  in  the  year  752. 

Of  these  latter  Baluze  gives  five  or  six,  but 
Hallam  notices  that  only  one  is  expressly  said  to 
be  made  “  in  general!  populi  conventu.”  The 

»  Guizot  speaks  of  this  as,  when  he  wrote,  the  best 
edition,  but  still  only  to  be  regard-  d  as  the  materials  for  a 
really  correct  and  satisfactory  edition  of  the  Capitularies. 
Since  that  time  the  voluminous  and  elaborate  work  of 
Pertz  has  appeared,  in  which  the  Capitularies  have  been 
re-edited  from  M.S.  authority,  and  several  unpublished  by 
Baluze  added  to  the  number.  This  is  therefore  pn.bai  ly 
now  the  standard  edition ;  but  the  references  in  this  article 
have  been  kept  to  the  work  ot  Baluze,  ftecause  it  is  more 
p<jrtable,  and  probably  more  ac  essible,  and  because 
Guizot’s  references  are  alwaj-s  made  to  it. 

b  “  In  all  temporal  affairs  the  Tfieodosian  Code  wa.s  the 
universal  law  of  the  clergy.  But  the  barbaric  jurispru¬ 
dence  had  liberally  provided  for  their  personal  safety  :  a 
subdeacon  was  equivalent  to  two  Fianks;  the  antrustion 
and  priest  were  held  in  similar  e&timation  ;  and  the  life  of 
a  bishop  was  appreciated  far  above  the  common  standard, 
at  the  price  of  900  pieces  of  gold  ”  (Gibbon,  vol.  vi.  chap. 
xxxv'Iii.). 

c  This  subject  recurs  continually  in  the  Capitularies. 


rest  appear  to  be  due  to  synods ;  but  it  would, 
perhaps,  be  rash  to  conclude  positively  that  they 
mav  not,  in  some  c-oses,  have  had  some  kind  of 
subsequent  assent  from  the  lay  Counts.** 

It  is,  perhaps,  hardly  quite  correct  to  say  that 
the  Capitularies  of  Pepin  “  relate  without  ex¬ 
ception  to  ecclesiastical  affairs  ”  (Hallam,  Mid. 
*Ayes,  vol.  i.  chap.  ii.  part  2).  Not  only  are  they 
concerned  with  questions  of  marriage  and  kin¬ 
dred  matters,  which  perhaps  are  quasi-eccle- 
siastical,  but  one  or  two  deal  with  tolls,  with 
the  regulation  of  money,  with  parricide,  and 
with  the  administration  of  justice  as  well 
secular  as  spiritual.  The  general  complexion, 
however,  is  ecclesiastical.  Amongst  other  things, 
tw'o  synods  are  to  be  held  annually,  and  detailed 
regulations  are  made  as  to  the  rights  of  bishops, 
abbots,  monks,  and  clergy. 

The  continuance  in  the  laws  of  Pepin,  and,  as 
we  shall  see,  in  those  of  Charleinagne,  of  the 
.same  strong  ecclesiastical  type  which  is  found  in 
those  of  the  Merovingians,  is  perhaps  due, 
amongst  other  causes,  to  the  desire  to  attract 
the  Church  to  the  side  of  the  new  dynasty.  “  In 
order  to  encounter  and  subvert  the  reverence 
which  was  still  yielded  to  a  merely  titular 
monarch,  the  supposed  descendant  of  the  gods, 
it  was  necessary  to  enlist  on  their  own  side 
religious  feelings  of  a  far  deeper  nature,  and  of 
a  much  more  solemn  significance.”  (Sir  J.  Ste¬ 
phen,  Lect.  on  Hist,  of  France,  vol.  i.  p.  84.) 

From  the  time  of  Pepin,  however,  the  Sove¬ 
reign  Power  set  itself  not  only  to  advance  the 
interests  of  the  Church,  but  to  correct  its  dis¬ 
orders.  The  strengthening  of  the  Metropolitan 
authority  and  that  of  the  Crown  were  among 
the  means  used  for  reorganizing  the  system. 

We  turn  next  to  the  important  and  copious 
legislation  of  Charlemagne. 

The  public  Capitularies  of  Charlemagne  are 
reckoned  by  Guizot  at  sixty  in  number.  Five 
other  documents  of  a  more  private  character 
may  also  claim,  in  the  opinion  of  that  writer,  a 
right  to  the  name.**  Nearly  all  these  Capitu¬ 
laries  contain  a  large  number  of  Capitula,  or 
distinct  articles  in  each  of  them.  These  amount 
in  all  to  1150,  and  are  upon  very  various  sub¬ 
jects,  even  when  included  in  the  same  Capitu¬ 
lary.  Guizot  classifies — 

80  under  Moral  Legislation, 


273 

J) 

Political 

130 

Penal 

110 

>> 

Civil 

85 

Religious 

309 

Canonical 

73 

Domestic 

12 

Occasional 

Under  the  first  head  he  places  such  articles  as: 
“Turpe  lucrum  exercent  qui  per  varias  cii*- 

d  Comp,  the  2nd  Capit.  of  Carloman,  a.d.  743,  which 
begins  — “  Modo  autem  in  hoc  synodali  conventu,  qui 
congregaius  est  ad  Kalendas  Martlas  in  l<x»  qui  dicitur 
Liptenas,  omnes  venerabiles  sacerdotes  Dei  et  comiu-s  et 
praefecti  prioris  8yn<jdi  decreta  consentienter  firmaverunt, 
seque  ea  impU  re  velle  et  observare  promiserunt  ”  (Baluze, 
i.  149). 

e  Balnze’s  collection  /wnta'ns  many  errors,  but  this  is 
due  to  the  loose  use  of  the  word  “  capitulary.”  Pertz  of 
course  gives  more  still ;  and  some  of  those  last  might  pro¬ 
bably  be  fairly  considered  as  of  a  public  character,  and 
added  to  the  computation  of  Guizot. 


CAPITULARY 


CAPITULARY 


287 


ctiniventiones  lucz’andi  causa  inhoneste  res  quas- 
libet  congregare  decertant”  (Baluze  i.  454). 
This  is  the  16th  capitulum  of  a  Capitulary  made 
A.D.  806.  It  is  rather  a  maxim  of  ethics  than 
an  edict  or  law. 

Religious  legislation  in  the  above  classification 
is  such  as  relates  not  to  ecclesiastics  alone,  but 
to  all  the  faithful.  In  some  points  this  resembles 
the  moral  in  its  tone.  Thus  we  find  : 

“  Ut  nullus  credat  quod  nonnisi  in  tribus 
linguis  (probably  Latin,  Greek,  and  German) 
Deus  orandus  sit:  quia  in  omni  lingua  Deus 
adoratur,  et  homo  exauditur,  si  juste  petierit  ” 
(Baluze  i.  270).  This  is  No.  50  of  a  set  put 
forth  A.B.  794. 

Canonical  legislation  is  the  term  for  what 
concerns  the  relations  of  the  clergy  among 
themselves.  The  tendency  of  this  class  of 
Capitula  is  to  uphold  the  power  of  the  bishops. 
Even  the  monastic  bodies  are  to  be  in  subordi¬ 
nation  to  them.f  In  fact,  Charlemagne  appears 
to  have  considered  that  by  reducing  all  the 
clergy  under  the  episcopate,  and  then  exercising 
a  personal  influence  over  the  bishops  himself, 
he  was  providing  the  best  remedy  for  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  Church,  which  was  one  of  much 
disorganisation.  He  aimed  at  a  stronger  and 
more  pervading  discipline,  not  by  reducing  the 
episcoj)al  powers,  but  by  taking  care  that  their 
vast  powers  were  well  exercised. 

With  the  other  heads  of  the  classification  we 
have  not  here  to  do,  except  in  so  far  as  under 
the  title  of  “  Political  Legislation  ”  some  regu¬ 
lations  are  found  as  to  the  i*elation  of  the  secular 
and  ecclesiastical  powers.  These  tend  to  show 
that  Charlemagne,  while  giving  great  power  to 
the  bishops,  consulting  with  them  on  church 
matters,  and  using  their  learning  and  intelli¬ 
gence  for  the  general  purposes  of  his  govern¬ 
ment,  was  careful  not  to  become  their  tool,  nor 
to  subject  his  own  authority  to  theirs.  “The 
laws  which  fix  the  obligations,  the  revenues, 
even  the  duties  of  the  clergy,  are  issued  in  the 
name  of  the  emperor ;  they  are  monarchical  and 
.mperial,  not  papal  or  synodical  canons  ”  (Mil- 
man,  Lat.  Christ,  book  v.  chap.  1).  In  return 
for  his  having  confirmed  the  system  of  tithes  by 
a  law  of  the  empire,  Charlemagne  “  assumed  the 
power  of  legislating  for  the  clergy  with  as  full 
despotism  as  for  the  laity,”  though  “  in  both 
cases  there  was  the  constitutional  control  of  the 
concurrence  of  the  nobles  and  of  the  higher 
ecclesiastics,  strong  against  a  feeble  monarch, 
feeble  against  a  sovereign  of  Charlemagne’s  over¬ 
ruling  character.  His  institutes  are  in  the 
language  of  command  to  both  branches  of  that 
great  ecclesiastical  militia,  which  he  treated  as 
his  vassals,  the  secular  and  the  monastic  clergy.” 
— Ibid. 

In  any  inquiry,  however,  on  the  subject  of 
Capitularies,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the 
extremely  loose  use  of  the  word  which  prevails 
in  Baluze  and  other  editors.  Guizot  has  pointed 
out  that  they  apply  this  title  equally  to  no  less 
than  twelve  distinct  kinds  of  documents.  “  We 
find  in  their  collections  of  so-called  Capitularies” 
— he  says — 

“  1.  Ancient  laws  revived.  (Ra/.  i.  281.) 


f  See  4th  Capitulare,  a.d.  806,  cap.  ii.  (Bal.  i.  450),  and 
1st  Capitulare,  a.d.  802,  cap.  xv  (Ral.  1.  366).  Pepin  had 
l&id  down  the  same  principle  (Bal.  1.  169). 


“  2.  Extracts  from  ancient  laws  put  together 
for  some  special  purpose.  (^Ibid.  i.  395.) 

“  3.  Additions  to  ancient  laws  (amounting 
probably  to  new  laws.  (^fbid.  i.  387.) 

“  4.  Extracts  from  pi’evious  Canons.  (^Ibid. 
i.  209.) 

“  5.  New  laws  properly  so  called. 

“  6.  Instructions  given  by  Charlemagne  to  his 
Missi^  to  guide  them  in  their  duties. 
(^Ibid.  i.  243.) 

“  7.  Answers  given  by  Charlemagne  to  ques¬ 
tions  fi’om  counts,  bishops,  &c.,  as  to 
practical  difficulties  in  their  administra¬ 
tion.  (^Ibid.  i.  401.) 

“  8.  Questions  drawn  up  in  order  to  be  pro¬ 
posed  for  discussion  to  the  bishops  or 
counts  at  the  next  assembly,  e.  g.,  ‘  To 
ascertain  on  what  occasions  and  in  what 
places  the  ecclesiastics  and  the  laity  seek, 
in  the  manner  stated,  to  impede  each 
other  in  the  exercise  of  their  respective 
functions.  To  inquire  and  discuss  up  to 
what  point  a  bishop  or  an  abbot  is  justi¬ 
fied  in  interfering  in  secular  affaii's,  and 
a  count  or  other  layman  with  ecclesias¬ 
tical  affairs.  To  interrogate  them  closely 
on  the  meaning  of  those  words  of  the 
Apostle  :  “  No  man  that  warreth  for  the 
law  entangleth  himself  with  the  affairs 
of  this  life.”  Inquire  to  whom  these 
words  apply.’  (^Ibid.  i.  477.) 

“  9.  Sometimes  the  so-called  Capitula  seem  to 
be  little  more  than  memoranda.  (^Ibid.  i. 
395.)  (Perhaps,  however,  this  class  is 
identical  in  reality  with  Class  6.) 

“  10.  Judicial  decrees.  {Ibid.  i.  398.) 

“  11.  Regulations  for  the  management  of  the 
royal  lands  and  possessions.  {Ibid.  i.  331.) 

“  12.  Matters  of  an  executive  and  adminis¬ 
trative  rather  than  legislative  nature. 
{Ibid.  i.  26,  in  Art.  1,  6,  7,  8,  53,  54.)” 

It  is  obvious  that  a  very  different  kind  of 
sanction  might  be  required  for  some  of  them 
from  that  which  would  be  needed  for  others. 
No  general  rule  can  therefore  be  laid  down 
applicable  to  all.  Nor  even  in  respect  to  those 
which  are  in  the  strictest  sense  legislative  is  it 
easy  to  discern  an  uniform  constitutional  pro¬ 
cedure. 

As  regards  ecclesiastical  matters,  it  may  pro¬ 
bably  be  considered  that  the  prelates  were 
always  consulted,  though  in  most  cases  the 
initiative,  and  in  all  cases  the  final,  authori¬ 
zation  came  from  the  Sovereign.  Thus  a  Capi¬ 
tulary  A.D.  813  of  Canonical  Rules  is  entitled — 

“  Capitula  de  confirmatione  constitutionum 
quas  episcopi  in  synodis  auctoritate  regia  nuper 
habitis  constituerant.” 

If  it  could  be  safely  assumed  that  all  legis¬ 
lative  Capitularia,  on  whatever  subject,  had  the 
collective  assent  of  one  of  the  General  Assemblies 
held  in  every  year,  it  would  follow  that  eccle¬ 
siastical  laws  had  the  assent  of  the  laity .6  For 


K  See  Baluze,  Preface.  7-9.  He  suggests  that  some 
of  the  apparent  exceptions  consist  of  capitula  which  are 
mere  extracts  from  ancient  Church  Councils,  and  which 
therefore  the  royal  authority  may  have  been  deemed  com¬ 
petent  to  promulgate.  In  some  other  instances,  be  thinks 


288 


CAPITULARY 


CAPITULUM 


in  these  assemblies,  counts  and  great  men,  as 
well  as  prelates,  were  present.  Hincmar,  in  an 
impoi  tant  document  at  the  close  of  the  ninth 
century  (Guizot,  Lect.  20),  gives  some  account 
of  these  assemblies,  and  says  that  it  was  in  the 
option  of  the  lay  and  ecclesiastical  lords  to  sit 
together  or  separately,  according  to  the  affairs 
of  which  they  had  to  tr^at  —  ecclesiastical, 
seculai',  or  both.  From  th.s  it  might  at  first 
appear  that  canonical  matters  were  considered 
by  the  clergy  alone,  but  perhaps  this  may  be 
rather  understood  of  the  previous  discussion 
and  preparation  of  the  law.  If  so,  it  is  con¬ 
sistent  with  its  being  finally  submitted  for  the 
consent  and  approbation  of  the  whole  assembly. 

The  further  question,  as  to  which  much  con¬ 
troversy  has  taken  place,  whether  the  lesser 
freeholders  had  a  share  in  legislation,  and  if  so, 
whether  their  voice  was  given  in  the  assembly, 
or  when  the  Capitularies  passed  by  the  assembly 
were  subsequently  proclaimed  locally  in  the 
different  districts,  is  a  matter  rather  of  political 
inquiry,  and  hardly  belongs  to  the  subject  of  the 
present  work.  It  is  discussed  by  Hallam  (^Middle 
Ages,  chap.  ii.  part  II.),  where  references  will  be 
found  to  other  authorities. 

Upon  the  whole,  it  must  always  be  borne  in 
mind  that  in  that  early  state  of  society — a  state 
in  which  the  master-mind  of  Charlemagne  was 
reducing  to  something  like  order  very  chaotic 
elements — we  must  not  expect  to  find  any 
pedantic  exactness  of  constitutional  law.  The 
will  of  the  Sovereign  was  the  motive  power  of 
the  whole  system,  but  before  exercising  it  he 
availed  himself  of  the  advice  of  the  counsellors 
who  were  most  likely  to  be  of  service :  so  far  all 
is  clear.  The  extent  to  which  he  submitted 
every  legislative  regulation  to  the  whole  body  of 
the  assembly,  held,  with  certain  modifications, 
twice  in  the  year,  is  a  matter  on  which  it  is 
more  difficult  to  speak  positively.  Perhaps  the 
practice  even  as  to  legislative  regulations  was 
not  uniform,  while  certainly  the  boundary 
between  legislative  and  executive  regulations 
was  very  ill-defined. 

On  the  reception  accorded  to  the  Capitularies  by 
the  Church,  and  the  quasi-canonical  authority  at- 


capitularies  may  In  the  first  instance  have  been  put  forth 
by  the  sole  authority  of  the  sovereign,  but  subsequently 
submitted  to  the  general  assemblies  for  their  recognition 
and  consent,  where  such  a  step  seemed  to  be  expedient. 
Butler  says,  “  They  (the  Capitularies)  were  generally  pro¬ 
mulgated  in  public  assemblies  composed  of  the  sovereign 
and  the  chief  men  of  the  nation,  as  well  ecclesiastics  as 
secular”  {Horae  Juridicae.,  p.  129,  edit.  1807). 

In  one  case,  in  the  reign  of  Childeric  III.,  in  a  capitulary 
due  to  Pepin,  we  read  that  synods  are  to  be  held  annually, 
“  ut  haeresis  amplius  in  populo  non  resurgat,  sicut  Inve- 
nimus  in  Adalberto  haeresim,  quern  publiciter  unE  voce 
condemnaveruiit  xxiii.  episcopi  et  alii  multi  sacerdotes 
cum  consensu  Principis  et  populi"  &c.  (Bal.  i.  157).  Here 
the  laity  seem  to  have  had  a  consentient  voice  even  in  so 
purely  spiritual  a  matter  as  heresy. 

Hallam  notices  the  more  frequent  mention  of  “  general 
consent"  in  the  capitularies  of  Charlemagne,  as  compared 
with  those  of  his  predecessors  {Middle  Ages,  vol.  i.  p.  215, 
216,  ed.  1855).  On  the  other  hand,  the  author  of  the  article 
“  Capitularicae  "  in  Herzog  thinks  that  Hincmar’s  words 
point  to  a  separation  made  by  Charlemagne  between  the 
clergy  and  laity,  so  that  the  former  obtained  a  right  to 
make  “•  leges  ecclesiasticae,”  as  distinguished  from  capi- 
tulai-ies  (for  which  latter  general  assent  was  still  needful) ; 
but  subject  to  a  veto  on  the  part  of  the  sovereign. 


tributed  to  them,  much  information  will  be  found 
in  the  Preface  of  Balu'ze,  §  18  et  seq.  See  also 
the  letter  of  Leo  IV.  in  Gratian,  Dist.  10,  c.  9. 

Capitularies  subsequent  to  the  reign  of  Char¬ 
lemagne  do  not  fall  within  our  limits.  The 
latest  are  those  of  Carloman  in  882,  after  which 
there  is  a  long  blank  in  French  legislation. 

It  does  not  seem  that  a  formal  collection  of  the 
Capitularies  was  made  till  they  were  edited  in 
four  books  by  Angesise,  Abbot  of  Fontenella, 
■who  died  in  833.  These  four  books  contain  the 
laws  of  Charlemagne,  and  a  portion  of  those  of 
Louis  le  Dehonnaire.  Charles  the  Bald  cites 
this  work  as  a  code  of  authority.  Subsequently 
Benedict,  a  deacon  of  Mayence,  about  the  year 
842,  added  three  more  books.  These,  however, 
contain  fragments  of  Roman  and  canon  law, 
besides  the  Capitularies  of  the  Carlovingian 
kings.  Four  supplements  again  have  been  added 
by  anonymous  compilers. 

Authorities. — Capitularia  Regum  Francorum. 
Additae  sunt  Marculfi  monachi  et  aliorum  for~ 
mulae  veteres  et  notae  doctissimorum  virorum. 
Stephanus  Baluzius  Tutelemis  in  unum  collegit, 
ad  vetustissimos  codices  manuscriptos  tmendavit, 
magnam  partem  nunc  primnm  edidit,  notis  illus- 
tracit.  Parisiis,  1677  (2  vols.).  GmzoVs  Lectures 
on  the  History  of  Civilization  in  France,  trans¬ 
lated  by  Hazlitt.  Bogue,  1846.  Hallam‘s 
Middle  Ages.  Herzog’s  Real-Encyclopddie,  Art. 
“  Capitularien.”  Pertz,  Monumenta  Germaniae 
Historica,  tom.  i.  Legum.  Hanover,  1835.  [B.  S.] 

CAPITULUM,  CAPITULAEE,  =  Ke<pd. 
Xaiou. — (1)  Properly,  a  summary  or  heading, 
under  which  many  particulars  are  arranged  ; 
“  brevis  multorum  complexio  ”  {Papias  ap.  Du 
Cange).  Hence  (2),  in  the  plural,  codes  of  law, 
ecclesiastical  or  civil,  digested  under  chapters  or 
capitula  (so  used  in  Cod.  Theodos.).  And  inas¬ 
much  as  these  mostly  applied  to  special  emergent 
cases  not  adequately  met  by  existing  general 
laws,  Capitula  came  to  mean  Additamenta  et 
Appendices  legum.  So  the  Capitula  or  Capitularia 
of  Charlemagne  and  his  successors,  mostly  passed 
in  mixed  assemblies  of  clei’gy  and  laity.  (3)  The 
word  came  .also  to  mean  the  (usually  short) 
“  chapter  ”  itself,  of  which  it  was  properly  the 
heading.  As,  e.g.  the  capitula  or  short  lessons 
(e.  g.  from  the  Psalms)  for  particular  days,  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  Council  of  Agde,  a.d.  506,  can.  21, 
and  by  Pope  Vigilius,  A.D.  538  X  555,  Epist.  2 ; 
called  also  Capitella  in  the  same  Council  of  Agde, 
can.  30.  And  Capitulare  Evangeliot'um  in  circulo 
Anni  was  a  list  of  the  beginnings  and  endings  of 
the  Gospels  for  the  Church  year.  So  also,  again 
(besides  our  modern  use  of  the  word  “  chapter  ”), 
the  Capitula  of  a  Monastic  Rule.  (4)  And  from 
this  last-mentioned  usage,  coupled  with  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  reading  a  capitulum  or  chapter  of  the  Rule, 
or  (as  was  St.  Augustine’s  practice)  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  to  the  assembled  canons  or  monks,  the 
assembled  canons  or  monks  themselves  came  to 
be  called,  in  a  body,  the  capitulum  or  chapter 
[Chapter],  and  their  meeting-place  the  chapter- 
house.  And  in  process  of  time  the  term  in  this 
sense  became  limited  to  the  cathedral  chapter  : 
“  Capitulum  dicitur  respectu  ecclesiae  cathe- 
dralis ;  conventus  respectu  ecclesiae  regularis ; 
collegium  respectu  ecclesiae  inferioris  ubi  est 
collectio  viventium  in  communi”  (Lyndwood). 
Congregatio  was  the  earlier  term.  [A.  W.  H.] 


CAPTATORES 


CAPRA  SIUS 

Chrodegang,  bishop  of  Metz  (t  766),  in  his 
Buie  (c.  18)  desires  the  canons  of  his  order  to 
assemble  after  prime,  to  hear  a  reading  of  a 
martyrology  or  some  similar  work  ;  on  Sun¬ 
days,  Wednesdays,  and  Fridays,  and  on  saints’ 
days,  treatises  or  homilies  of  an  edifying  kind 
were  to  precede  this  reading ;  on  other  days,  the 
Rule  itself,  or  a  portion  of  it.  Similar  directions 
are  frequent  in  later  statutes.  This  assembly 
was  called  cnpitulwn.  (Martene,  De  Antiei.  Eccl. 
Bitihus,  lib.  iv.  c.  vii.  §  4.)  See  also  the  Life  of 
Benedict  of  Aniane  by  Ardo,  c.  52  (in  Acta  SS. 
Bened.  saec.  iv.  pt.  1).  In  the  Life  of  Germar, 
abbot  of  Flaviacum  (f  658  ?),  the  third  hour  is 
mentioned  as  the  time  for  holding  capitulum 
Cc.  15,  in  Acta  SS.  Ben.  saec.  ii.);  so  in  Adre- 
valdus.  Be  Mirac.  S.  Bened.  (c.  28,  ib.).  Dunstan 
{Concordia^  cc.  1  and  5)  desires  capitulum  to  be 
held  after  prime  in  summer,  after  terce  in  winter. 
This  seems  to  be  in  accoi'dance  with  the  intentions 
of  St.  Benedict :  for  one  object  of  the  capitulum 
was  the  distribution  of  the  day’s  labour  among 
the  brethren ;  and  accoi’diug  to  his  Rule.,  c.  48, 
labour  was  to  begin  after  prime  in  summer, 
after  terce  in  winter. 

The  place  of  holding  the  capitulum  seems 
anciently  (according  to  the  Ordo  Conversat. 
Monast.  c.  3)  to  have  been  the  cloister ;  but  see 
Chapter-house.  [C.] 

(5)  The  “  little  Chapter,”  said  at  all  the 
canonical  hours  excepting  Matins,  after  the 
psalms.  It  consists  of  one  or  two  verses  of 
Scripture,  usually  taken  ft’om  the  Epistles, 
whence  the  corresponding  passage  in  the  Am¬ 
brosian  breviary  is  called  Epistolella.  It  is 
often  taken  from  the  Prophets,  and  occasion¬ 
ally  from  other  parts  of  Scripture.  It  is  recited 
by  the  officiating  priest,  standing,  and  is  not 
preceded  by  a  Benediction.  At  the  end  “  Deo 
Gratias  ”  is  aaid.  See  (3)  above. 

(6)  An  anthem  in  the  Ambrosian  rite  said  at 

Lauds  after  the  psalms  anJ  before  the  antiphon, 
and  varying  with  the  day.  That  for  ordinary 
Sundays  is  “  Cantate  Domino  canticum  novum  : 
laudatio  ejus  in  ecclesia  sanctorum.”  It  is  also 
said  at  the  lesser  hours,  and  at  Compline  fol¬ 
lowing  the  Besponsio  brevis,  after  the  Epi¬ 
stolella.  [H.  J.  H.j 

[Du  Cange ;  Mayer,  Biss,  in  his  Thes.  Nov.  Stat. 
^c.,  Eccles.  Cathedr.  et  Colleg.  in  Gennanid ; 
Walcott,  Sacred  Archaeology.'] 

CAPRASIUS,  martyr  at  Agen,  is  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  20  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CAPSA,  also  Capsula,  Capsella.  A  box  or 
case.  The  name  is  applied  to  several  kinds  of 
caskets  for  ecclesiastical  use. 

1.  The  casket  used  to  contain  the  unconse¬ 
crated  elements.  According  to  the  direction  of 
the  Ordo  Romanus  I.  c.  8,  two  acolytes  bear  in 
the  procession  before  the  pope,  when  about  to 
celebrate,“  capsas  cum  sanctis  apertas.”  On  this 
passage  Binterim  {Benkwurdigkeiten,  vii.  1,  369) 
observes  that  by  ‘  sancta  ’  in  the  neuter  plural 
we  are  to  understand,  not  the  consecrated  Body 
of  the  Lord,  but  the  yet  unconsecrated  Elements, 
which  the  acolytes  bore  before  the  mass,  just  as 
after  it  they  carried  off  the  remains  of  the 
oblations  in  ‘  sacculi.’  This  procession  corre¬ 
sponds,  in  fact,  to  the  ‘Greater  Entrance’  of 
the  Greeks,  in  which  the  elements  are  borne  in 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


289 

solemn  procession  from  the  sacristy  to  the  Holy 
Table. 

2.  Capsa  sometimes  designates  the  vessel  in 
which  the  reserved  Eucharist  was  borne  from 
one  place  to  another.  The  seventeenth  canon  of 
the  council  of  Orange  enjoins,  “  cum  capsa  et 
calix  offerendus  est,  et  admistione  Eucharistiae 
consecrandus  ”  [Consecration].  The  meaning 
of  this,  'hl&h\\\on{Comra.  Praev.  in  Ord.  Rom.  p. 
cxxxix)  considers  to  be  that,  together  with  the 
‘  capsa  ’  containing  the  sacred  vessels  and  per¬ 
haps  the  Eucharist,  the  chalice  was  also  to  be 
brought  to  the  altar.  The  word  Turris  is  used 
in  a  similar  sense.  Compare  Tabernacle. 

3.  A  repository  or  Shrine  (Fi*.  chasse)  for 
preserving  the  relics  of  saints.  The  legates  of 
the  Apostolic  See  in  their  letter  to  Hormisdas 
(in  Hormisdae  Epistolae,  p.  475,  Migne)  say  that 
they  suggested  the  making  of  shrines  (capsellas) 
for  the  I'elics  of  each  of  the  apostles  severally 
in  the  church  of  the  Apostles  at  Constantinople. 
In  the  description  of  the  altar  built  by  St. 
Benedict  at  Aniane,  we  read  that  an  opening 
was  made  in  the  back  of  it  for  inserting  the 
‘  capsae  ’  which  contained  relics  of  saints  {Acta 
SS.  Feb.  ii.  614).  Compare  Altar,  p.  64. 

4.  A  casket  to  contain  the  book  of  the  Gospels. 

Ado  of  Vienne  speaks  {Chronicon,  a.d.  519)  of 
twenty  “  capsae  evangeliorum  ”  of  gold,  richly 
jewelled  [Liturgical  Books].  [C.] 

CAPSARIUM.  The  room  in  which  the 
capsae  containing  relics  were  placed.  Perpetuus 
of  Tours  (circa  a.d.  490),  in  his  will  (D’Achery’s 
Spicilegium,  v.  105)  distinguishes  a  reliquary  j 
which  he  left  to  a  friend  from  another  gilded 
‘  theca  ’  which  was  in  his  capsarium,  and  which 
he  left  to  the  church  (Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.). 

[C.] 

CAPSUM.  The  nave  of  a  church.  Gregory 
of  Tours  {Hist.  Franc,  ii.  14)  describes  a  certain 
church  as  having  thirty-two  windows  in  the 
sanctuary,  twenty  in  the  nave  (in  capso).  (Du¬ 
cange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.)  [C.] 

CAPTATORES.  The  leaving  by  testament 
the  institution  of  an  heir  to  the  secret  will  of 
another  was  by  the  Roman  law  tei*med  a  cap- 
tatoria  institutio,  and  forbidden  (see  Dig.  bk. 
xxviii.  t.  V.  11.  70,  71,  81  ;  Code,  bk.  vii.  t.  xxii. 
1.  11).  In  a  less  technical  sense,  however,  the 
captator  answered  substantially  to  our  legacy- 
hunter,  and  the  scandal  is  one  which  seems  to 
have  been  rife  in  the  early  church — as  indeed 
the  satirists  shew  it  to  have  been  in  the  heathen 
world  of  the  day.  Perhaps  we  may  see  a  germ 
of  it  in  what  St.  Paul  says  (ii.  Tim.  iii.  1,  2)  of 
the  “  covetous  ”  who  shall  be  “  in  the  last  days,” 
adding,  “  for  of  this  sort  are  they  which  creep 
into  houses,  and  lead  captive  silly  women  ”  (v. 
6),  though  his  description  applies  mainly  to  dis¬ 
honest  and  selfish  teachers.  By  the  end  of  the 
4th  century,  at  any  rate,  Christian  emperors  had 
to  legislate  against  it.  A  law  of  Valentinian, 
Valens,  and  Gratian  (a.d.  370)  in  the  Theodosian 
Code,  enacted  that  clerics  or  professors  of  con¬ 
tinence  were  not  to  frequent  the  houses  of 
widows  and  female  wards,  but  should  be  banished 
by  public  judgment,  if  the  relatives  of  such 
females  should  deem  fit  to  prosecute  them  ;  nor 
should  any  such  persons  receive  aught  from  the 
woman  with  whom  they  might  becoiiu'  connected 


290 


CAPTATORES 


CAE 


under  pretext  of  religion,  by  any  kind  of  libe¬ 
rality,  or  by  her  last  will ;  but  any  bequest  to 
them  from  such  females  should  be  void,  nor  could 
they  tare  und  :Y  any  trust  either  by  donation  or 
testament.  Should  anything  be  so  given  or  left 
to  them  after  the  date  of  the  law,  the  public 
exchequer  was -to  receive  it.  Another  law  in 
the  same  Code  (1.  27),  of  Valentinian,  Theodosius, 
and  Arcadius  (a.d.  390),  contains  special  pro¬ 
visions  as  to  liberalities  by  deaconesses,  who 
amongst  other  things  were  forbidden  to  nominate 
as  their  heirs  any  church,  cleric,  or  poor  man ; 
this  however  was  partly  revoked  a  few  months 
later  (1.  28  ib.)  by  the  same  emperors,  so  far  as 
allowing  the  enjoyment  of  certain  articles  of 
personal  use  by  clerics  or  servants,  under  the 
name  of  a  church  (Bingham  does  not  seem  quite 
to  have  understood  the  bearing  of  this  last 
enactment).  These  laws,  although  as  will  be 
seen,  they  did  not  hold  their  ground  in  the  state, 
are  remarkable  from  the  reference  to  them  in  one 
of  Jerome’s  best  known  letters  (^Ep.  2,  ad  Nepo- 
tianum)  :  “  Shameful  to  say,  the  priests  of  idols, 
actors,  charioteers,  harlots  receive  inheritances ; 
only  to  clerics  and  monks  is  this  forbidden  by 
law,  and  forbidden,  not  by  persecutors  but  by 
the  princes.  Nor  do  I  complain  of  this  law, 
but  lament  that  w"e  should  have  deserved  it.” 
And  he  proceeds  to  draw  one  of  his  scathing 
sketches  of  those  who  devote  a  shameful  service 
to  old  men  and  childless  old  women,  besieging 
their  bedsides,  performing  for  them  the  most 
menial  and  repulsive  offices,  in  dread  at  the 
doctor’s  entrance,  asking  with  trembling  lips  if 
the  patient  be  better,  in  peril  if  he  become  a 
little  stronger,  feigning  joy  whilst  their  minds 
are  tortured  by  their  avarice,  sweating  for  an 
empty  inheritance. 

There  is  a  striking  analogy  between  Jerome’s 
picture  and  one  traced  in  one  of  the  novels  of 
Leo  and  Majorian,  annexed  to  the  Theodosian  Code 
(bk.  viii.  N.  vi.  §  11 ;  a.d.  458).  It  professes  to 
restrain  the  avidity  of  these  captatores,  who  by 
attendance  by  the  bedside  of  persons  they  scarcely 
know,  corrupt  by  simulated  affection  minds 
wearied  with  bodily  illness  and  having  no  longer 
any  clear  judgment,  so  that  forgetting  the  ties 
of  blood  and  affinity,  they  may  name  strangers 
their  heirs.  Medical  men  are  suborned  to  per¬ 
suade  their  patient  to  wrong,  and  neglecting  the 
care  of  healing  become  ministers  to  the  cove¬ 
tousness  of  others.  And  it  proceeds  to  enact  that 
persons  who  could  not  claim  in  case  of  intestacy 
in  any  degree  from  a  testator,  if  they  should 
receive  anything  by  way  of  bequest  or  trust, 
should  give  one-thii-d  to  the  treasury,  until  by 
fear  of  this  the  injustice  of  testatoi's  and  dis¬ 
honesty  of  captators  should  come  to  an  end.  It 
will  be  observed  that  this  law,  instead  of  being 
confined  to  clerics  and  monks  like  the  previous 
one,  is  of  a  general  character.  Perhaps,  though 
it  did  not  hold  its  place,  it  has  not  been  without 
influence  on  the  differential  duties  imposed  by 
most  modern  states  on  legacies  and  successions, 
which  are  generally  highest  as  against  strangers 
to  the  family  of  the  testator  or  predecessoi*. 

As  respects  the  clergy,  indeed,  we  find  by  a 
law  almost  contemporary  with  the  last,  inserted 
in  Justinian’s  code,  that  of  Valentinian  and 
Marcian,  A.D.  455  (bk.  i.  t.  ii.  1.  13),  that  widows, 
deaconesses,  virgins  dedicated  to  God,  nuns,  and 
women  bearing  any  other  name  of  religious 


honour  or  dignity,  received  full  liberty  to  leave 
by  will  or  otherwise  all  or  any  part  of  their 
fortune.  In  short,  the  strongest  laws  against 
clerical  captation  which  Jerome  applauded  seem 
to  have  been  tacitly  abrogated,  utterly  incon¬ 
sistent  as  they  were  with  the  growth  of  Romish 
or  Oriental  priestcraft. 

The  term  haeredipetae  seems  only  to  differ  from 
that  of  captiitores,  so  far  as  it  implies  only  the 
captation  of  inheritances,  not  of  gifts  from  the 
living.  [J.  M.  L.] 

CAPTIVES,  REDEMPTION  OF.  The 

disasters  which  fell  upon  the  Roman  emjnre  in 
the  4th  and  5th  centuries  gave  a  special  promi¬ 
nence  to  this  as  one  of  the  forms  of  Christian 
love,  and  it  connects  itself  accordingly  with  some 
of  the  noblest  acts  and  words  of  the  teachers  of 
the  Church.  Ambrose  was  charged  by  his  Arian 
opponents  with  sacrilege  for  having  melted  down 
the  eucharistic  vessels  of  the  church  at  Milan 
for  this  purpose,  and  defends  himself  against  the 
charge  on  the  grounds  that  this  was  the  highest 
and  best  use  to  which  he  could  have  applied  them 
{De  Offic.  ii.  28).  Augustine  did  the  same  at 
Hippo  (Possidius,  Vita,  c.  24).  Acacius,  Bishop 
of  Amidas,  ransomed  as  many  as  7000,  who  had 
been  taken  prisoners  by  the  Persians  (Socr.  H.  E. 
vii.  21) ;  Deogratias,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  the 
Roman  soldiers  who  had  been  carried  off  by  Gen- 
seric  after  the  capture  of  Rome  (Victor  Utic.  de 
persecut.  Vandal,  i.,  Bibl.  Pair.  vii.  p.  591).  It 
is  worth  noting  that  this  was  not  only  admired 
in  individual  actions,  but  that  the  truth  that 
mercy  is  above  sacidfice  was  formally  embodied 
in  ecclesiastical  legislation.  The  Code  of  Jus¬ 
tinian  (i.  tit.  2,  de  Sacros.  Eccles.  21),  while  for¬ 
bidding  the  alienation  of  church  ve.ssels  or  vest¬ 
ments  for  any  other  purpose,  distinctly  permits 
them  to  be  pledged  or  even  sold  for  this  or  other 
like  works  of  mercy  or  necessity.  [E.  H.  P.] 

CAPUA,  COUNCIL  OF,  a.d.  389,  provin- 
cial,  respecting  the  schism  at  Antioch  between 
Flavianus  and  Evagrius ;  also  respecting  the  de¬ 
nial  by  Bonosus  of  the  perpetual  virginity  of  the 
B.  V.  Mary ;  passed  also  a  canon  against  rebap¬ 
tizing,  re-ordination,  and  translation  of  bishops, 
embodied  in  the  African  code  (3.  Andjros.  Epist. 
78,  79;  Cod.  Can.  Afric.  48;  Labb.  ii.  1039, 
1072).  [A.  W.  H.] 

CAPUT  JEJUNII.  [Lent.] 

CAPUTIUM,  a  covering  for  the  head,  worn 
by  monks,  sometimes  sewn  on  to  the  tunic,  as  a 
hood  (^Reg.  Comm.  S.  Bened.  c.  55).  [I.  G.  S.] 

CAR,  CART,  CHARIOT,  &c.  Herzog 
{Real-Encyclopddie  fur  protestantische  Theologie 
u.  Kirche,  8vo.  Gotha,  1861,  s.  v.  “  Sinnbilder,”) 
mentions  a  sculpttire  in  St.  Callixtus,  which  con¬ 
tains  a  chariot  without  driver,  with  pole  turned 
backwards,  and  whips  left  resting  on  it.  T^is, 
as  he  says,  appears  evidently  intended  as  a  syfebol 
of  the  accomplished  course  of  a  life.  In  Bottari, 
tav.  clx.,  two  quadrigae  are  represented  at  the 
base  of  an  arch  (covered  with  paintings  of  ancient 
date)  in  the  second  cubiculum  of  the  catacomb 
of  St.  Priscilla  on  the  Salarian  Way.  The  cha¬ 
rioteers  carry  palms  and  crowns  in  their  hands, 
and  the  horses  are  decorated  with  palm-branches, 
or  perhaps  plumes;  which  connects  the  image  of 
the  chariot  with  St.  Paul’s  imagination  of  the 


CARACALLA 


Christian  race  (1  Cor.  lx.  24;  2  Tim.  iv.  7). 
(See  Martigny,  s.  v.  “  Cheval,”  and  article  Horse 
in  this  book.) 

GueneTiaulf  refers  to  a  sculpture  from  an 
ancient  Gothic  or  Frank  tomb  at  Langres  (  Univ. 
Pittoreique  (^France),  pi.  xlv.),  and  to  a  cart  or 
waggon  on  one  of  the  capitals  in  the  crypts  in 
St.  Denis  (pi.  Iv.  vol.  ii.  in  A.  Hugo,  France 
Pittoresque  et  Monumentale).  In  Strutt  (  View 
of  the  Inhabitants  of  England,  Lond.  1774,  4to. 
vol.  i.  p.  5,  fig.  6)  there  is  a  chariot  of  the  9th 
century,  so  presumed.  See  also  D’Agincourt, 
Peinture,  pi.  clxiv.  No.  14,  and  pi.  clvii.  In  the 
catacomb  of  St.  Praetextatus  (see  Ferret,  Cata- 
combes,  vol.  i.  pi.  Ixxii.)  there  is  a  somewhat 
powerful  and  striking  representation  of  the  Cha¬ 
riot  of  Death,  who  is  taking  a  departed  woman 
into  his  car.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

CARACALLA  (in  late  Greek  writers  Kapa- 
Kakiov').  Originally  a  garment  peculiar  to  Gaul ; 
it  was  introduced  into  Roman  use  by  the  em¬ 
peror  M.  Aurelius  Antoninus,  commonly  known 
in  consequence  as  Caracallus  or  Caracalla.  See 
Ferrarius,  de  Re  Vest,  pars  ii.  lib.  i.  c.  28. 
Ecclesiastical  writers  speak  of  it  as  worn  by 
clerics  (Ven.  Beda,  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  i.  c.  7,  refer¬ 
ring  to  the  year  305  A.D.  and  to  the  martyr¬ 
dom  of  St.  Alban),  and  as  corresponding  in  shape 
to  the  Jewish  ephod.  So  says  St.  Eucherius  of 
Lyons,  writing  about  the  middle  of  the  5th  cen¬ 
tury,  and  referring  evidently  to  the  genuine 
Gallic  caracalla,  which  was  a  kind  of  short  tunic 
with  sleeves  and  furnished  with  a  hood.  With 
him  agrees  Dio  Cassius  (quoted  by  Rubenius, 
de  Re  Vest.  lib.  i.  c.  6),  who  describes  the 
caracalla  as  a  sleeved  tunic  made  somewhat  in 
the  fashion  of  a  corselet, 

6(i>paKos  rp6Trov  riva  imroi-qixlros.  But  the 
caracalla  introduced  into  use  by  M.  Aurelius 
was  lengthened  so  as  to  reach  nearly  to  the  feet. 
So  we  must  infer  from  the  statement  of  Aurelius 
Victor  :  “  Cum  e  Gallia  vestem  plurimam  de- 
vexisset,  talaresque  caracallas  fecisset,  coegisset- 
que  plebem  ad  se  salutandum  talibus  introire,  de 
nomine  hujus  vestis  Caracalla  nominatus  est.” 
Spartianus  .speaks  still  more  distinctly  to  the 
same  effect :  “  Ipse  Caracalla  nomen  a  vestimento 
quod  populo  dederat,  demisso  usque  ad  talos,  quod 
antea  non  fuerat,  unde  hodieque  dicuntur  An- 
toninianae  Caracalla^  ejusmodi,  in  usu  maxime 
Romanae  plebis  frequentatae.”  From  the  re¬ 
ference  to  this  vestment  made  by  St.  Jerome 
{Epistle  to  Fahiola'),  we  may  infer  that,  like  other 
garments  suited  for  out-door  use,  the  caracalla 
was  furnished  with  a  hood.  “  Ephod  .  .  .  pal- 
liolum  mirae  pulchritudinis  praestringens  ful- 
gore  oculos  in  modum  caracallarum  sed  absque 
cucullis.”  The  statement  to  the  same  effect 
made  by  St.  Eucherius  of  Lyons,  is  evidently  a 
mere  reproduction  of  St.  Jerome.  {Tnstit.  lib.  ii. 
cap.  10.  “Ephod,  vestis  sacerdotalis  .  .  .  Est 
autem  velut  in  caracallae  modum,  sed  sine  cu~ 
cullo.")  [W.  B.  M.] 

CARAUKUS.  [Charaunus.] 

CARILEFUS,  presbyter,  of  Aninsula  in 
Gaul,  is  commemorated  July  1  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

[C.] 

CARILIPPUS,  martyr,  is  commemorated 
April  28  {M(U't.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CARISIUS,  with  Calustus,  martyr  at  Co- 


CARDIXAL  291 

rinth,  is  commemorated  April  16  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CARITAS.  [Charitas.] 

CARPOPHORUS.  (1)  One  of  the  Coronati 
QriATUOR,  commemorated  Nov.  8  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Spoleto,  comme¬ 
morated  Dec.  10  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

[C.] 

CARPUS.  (1)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Pergamus, 
commemorated  April  13  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Usuardi). 

(2)  The  disciple  of  Paul,  martyr  at  Troas, 
commemorated  Oct.  13  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usu¬ 
ardi)  ;  as  “  Apostle  ”  and  one  of  the  Seventy, 
May  27  {Cal.  Byzant.'). 

(3)  Bishop  of  Thyatina,  martyr,  Oct.  13  {Cal. 

Byzant.').  [C.] 

CARDINAL.  As  the  Benedictine  Editors  of 
St.  Gregory  the  Great  {Ad  Ep.  i.  15)  truly  re¬ 
mark  :  “  Nomeii  vetus,  nova  est  dignitas,  pur¬ 
pura  recentior.”  Our  chronological  limits  extend 
at  most  to  the  early  dawn  of  the  dignity,  which 
is  a  long  way  out  of  sight  of  the  purple.  Cardinal 
winds,  cardinal  numbers,  cardinal  virtues,  the 
cardinal  altar,  and  cardinal  mass,  are  expressions 
all  illustrative  of  the  gradual  adaptation  of  the 
term  to  that  which  was  chief  in  the  hierarchy. 
As  the  name  of  “  pope,”  or  “  papa,”  was  originally 
common  to  all  bishops,  so  the  chief  presbyters 
and  deacons  of  any  church  to  which  a  cure  of 
souls  was  attached  were  apt  to  have  the  term 
“  cardinal  ”  applied  to  them  by  way  of  dist. no¬ 
tion  long  before  it  was  applied  to  the  presbyters 
and  deacons  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  particular. 
Parish  churches  had  come  to  be  called  “  titles,” 
as  conferring  a  title  upon  those  who  served  them  ; 
and  a  title,  from  the  notion  of  fixity  that  was 
implied  in  it,  “  cardo,”  the  hinge  on  which,  when 
fixed  to  a  door,  the  door  turns.  Then,  as  thei-e 
were  chapels  and  oratories  that  were  not  parish 
churches — in  other  words  gave  no  distinctive 
title — so  there  were  priests  and  deacons  attached 
to  parish  churches  temporarily,  that  were  not 
fixtures ;  or  who  went  by  their  titles,  yet  were 
not  therefore  called  cardinals.  In  the  writings 
of  St.  Gregory  the  Great  this  distinction  comes 
out  strongly,  being  applied  by  him  even  to 
bishops,  as  is  shewn  by  Thomassin  {De  Ben.  ii. 
part  ii.  115).  Thus,  on  one  occasion,  he  bids  the 
Bishop  of  Grosseto  visit  the  church  of  Porto  Bar- 
rato,  then  vacant,  and  ordain  “  one  cardinal 
presbyter  and  tw’o  deacons  there”  {Ep.  i.  15). 
On  another  occasion  we  find  him  naming  Martin, 
a  Corsican  bishop,  whose  see  had  been  destroyed, 
“  cardinal  priest,”  or  “  pontiff,”  of  another  church 
in  the  island  that  had  long  been  deprived  of  its 
bishop  (i.  79).  Elsewhere,  he  forbids  Januarius, 
archbishop  of  Cagliari,  making  Liberatus  “  a  car¬ 
dinal-deacon,”  unless  furnished  with  letters  cli- 
missory  from  his  own  diocesan  (i.  83).  “  Car- 

dinales  violenter  in  pax’oehiis  ordinatos  forensibus 
in  pi’istinum  cardinem  revocabat  Gregorius,”  as 
is  said  of  him  by  his  own  biographer,  John  the 
Deacon  (iii.  11),  a  writer  of  the  9th  century; 
instances  of  which  abound  in  his  epistles : 
“  cardinare  ”  and  “  incardinatio  ”  are  words  used 
by  him  in  describing  this  process.  The  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon,  made  “cardinal”  of  a  churefc 
in  this  sense,  was  attached  to  it  permanently,  in 
contradistinction  to  bishoj  ?  administering  the 

U 


292 


CARDIXAL 


CASK 


affairs  of  a  diocese  during  a  vacancy,  and  priests 
or  deacons  holding  subordinate  or  temporary 
posts  in  a  parish  church.  Of  titles,  or  parish 
churches  in  Rome,  the  number  seems  to  have 
varied  in  different  ages.  According  to  Anastasius, 
or  whoever  wrote  the  lives  of  these  popes  (on 
which  see  Cave,  s.  v.),  St.  Euaristus,  a.d.  100-9, 
divided  the  city  amongst  his  presbyters,  and  ap¬ 
pointed  seven  deacons.  St.  Fabian,  a.d.  236-50, 
divided  its  “  regions  ”  amongst  these  deacons. 
Cornelius,  the  next  pope,  tells  us  himself  of  as 
many  as  44  presbyters  there  then,  while  the 
number  of  deacons  remained  the  same  (Euseb. 
vi.  43).  From  St.  Dionysius,  A.D.  259-69,  being 
also  credited  by  his  biographer  with  ha\dng  di¬ 
vided  the  churches  in  Rome  amongst  his  pres¬ 
byters,  and  instituted  cemeteries  and  parishes  or 
dioceses,  we  must  infer  that  the  old  arrange¬ 
ments  had  been  thrown  into  confusion,  and  the 
number  of  churches  diminished  considerably,  by 
the  persecutions  under  Decius  and  Valerian. 
And  this  would  explain  what  we  are  told  once 
more  by  Anastasius,  that  St.  Marcellus,  A.D. 
308-10,  appointed  25  titles,  as  parishes  (jjucisi 
dioeceses)  in  the  city,  for  administering  baptism 
and  penance  to  the  multitudes  converted  from 
paganism,  and  for  burial  of  the  martyrs.  Long 
after  this,  the  number  of  titles  in  the  city  stood 
at  28.  Accordingly,  when  we  read  of  a  pres¬ 
byter  or  deacon  of  the  Roman  church  without 
any  further  distinction,  a  member  of  the  Roman 
clergy  is  meant  who  was  attached  to  some  chapel 
or  oratory  within  the  city.  When  we  read  of  a 
presbyter  or  deacon  of  some  particular  title  there, 
a  member  of  the  Roman  clergy  is  meant,  who 
was  either  temporarily  or  permanently  attached 
to  one  of  the  25  or  28  parish  churches,  or 
seven  regions  of  the  city ;  and  to  those  perma¬ 
nently  attached  to  either  the  name  of  “  cardinal” 
was  given,  after  it  had  got  into  use  elsewhere. 
Anastasius  himself,  or  a  namesake  and  contem- 
poi'ary  of  his,  had  it  applied  to  him  (Cave,  s.  v.). 
The  fact  that  the  popes  in  those  days  were 
elected,  like  most  other  bishops,  by  the  clergy 
and  people  of  their  diocese,  is  amply  sufficient 
to  account  for  the  prodigious  importance  that 
attached  gradually  to  the  cardinal  presbyters  and 
deacons  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  throwing  those 
of  all  other  churches  into  the  shade.  Cardinal 
bishops  were  not  known  there  for  some  time 
afterwards,  as  Thomassin  shews  (ib.  c.  116).  On 
the  contrary,  the  rule  laid  down  under  anathema 
by  the  synod  under  Stephen  IV.  a.d.  769,  was,  in 
the  words  of  Anastasius,  that  “  nobody,  whether 
a  layman,  or  of  any  other  rank  soever,  should 
be  capable  of  being  advanced  to  the  pontifical 
dignity,  who  had  not  risen  regularly  step  by  step, 
and  been  made  cardinal  presbyter  or  deacon.” 
But  when  Anastasius,  a  little  further  on,  speaks 
cf  the  same  pope  appointing  the  seven  bishops, 
whom  he  calls  “  hebdomadal  cardinals,”  to  func¬ 
tionate  at  the  altar  of  St.  Peter  in  turn,  he  is 
probably  not  using  the  phrase  in  the  exact  sense 
which  it  has  since  borne  :  as  in  the  Coun^cil  of 
Constantinople  that  restored  Photius,  A  D.  879, 
and  -was  contemporary  with*  Anastasius,  Paul, 
bishop  of  Ancona,  and  Eugenius,  bishop  of  Ostia, 
were  present  as  legates  of  John  VIII.,  and  w^ere 
styled  and  subscribed  as  such ;  while  Peter,  the 
thii’d  legate,  subscribed  as  “  presbyter  and  car¬ 
dinal,”  and  was  so  styled  throughout  (Bever. 
Synod,  ii.  299).  Similarly,  in  the  list  of  sub¬ 


scriptions  to  the  Roman  synod  that  preceded  it- 
all  the  bishops  write  themselves  bishops  only, 
while  the  presbyters  and  deacon^  are  written 
“  cardinals  ”  in  addition.  The  seven  bishops  of 
Ostia,  Porto,  St.  Rufina,  Albano,  Sabina,  Tus- 
culum,  and  Praeneste,  began,  in  point  of  fact,  to 
be  called  “cardinals”  in  the  11th  century,  or 
the  age  of  St.  Peter  Damian,  himself  one  of  them, 
when  formed  into  a  college  with  the  cardinal  ures- 
byters  and  deacons  by  the  decree  of  Nicholas  II. 
A.D.  1059,  for  electing  all  future  pwpes.  And  it 
w’as  a  much  later  development  by  which  bishops 
of  distant  sees  came  to  be  made  cardinal  deacons 
or  presbyters  of  some  chui’ch  in  Rome  as  well. 
For  a  description  of  the  Roman  church  in  the 
11th  century,  by  which  time  the  seven  cardinal 
bishops  had  been  appointed  to  the  church  of 
St.  John  Lateran  to  officiate  there  in  turn  for 
the  pope :  and  the  28  cardinal  presbyters  distri¬ 
buted  between  the  four  churches  of  St.  Mary 
Major,  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Laurence, 
seven  at  each,  see  the  old  ritual  in  Baron. 
A.D.  1057,  n.  19  ;  Comp,  the  Liber  Diurnus  Pontif. 
Pom.  iii.  11,  in  Migne’s  Patrol,  cv.  p.  77;  and 
more  in  Du  Cange,  Hoffman,  Moreri,  Morone,  s.  v. ; 
and  Muratori,  Antiq.  Ital.  v.  155-8.  [E.  S.  F.] 

C  AREN  A  (  =  Quadragena').  A  forty-days? 
fast,  imposed  by  a  bishop  upon  clergy  or  laity, 
or  by  an  abbot,  upon  monks  [Pexitexce].  -4 
MS.  Penitential,  quoted  by  Ducange  (s.  r.), 
speaks  of  fasting  on  bread  and  water,  “  quod  in 
communi  sermone  carina  vocatur.”  [C.] 

CARNIPRIVIUlvr,  or  Cap.xisprivicm.  This 
name  is  said  by  Macer  (^Hiero^exicon,  s.  v.)  to 
be  applied  to  Quinquagesima  Sunday,  as  being 
the  last  day  on  which  it  was  permitted  to  eat 
flesh,  the  Lent  fast  anciently  commencing  on  the 
following  day,  as,  he  says,  is  still  customary  with 
the  Orientals  and  w’ith  some  religious  orders  in 
Europe.  In  the  calendar  of  the  Greek  Church, 
however,  the  KvpiaKn  ’ATrJfcpeo^s  [Apocreos]  is 
Sexagesima  Sunday.  Beleth  says  (^Rationale.,  c. 
65),  “  Secunda  Dominica  Septuagesimae  dicitur 
vulgo  carnispriviiim,”  where  by  the  “  second 
Sunday  of  Septuagesima  ”  we  must  no  doubt 
understand  Quinquage.sima ;  and  this  Sunday  is 
called  in  the  Mozarabic  Missal  Dominica  ante 

cames  tollendas  (Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.).  [C.] 

• 

CARNIVAL.  This  w'ord,  variously  derived 
from  “  caro  vale,”  or  “  ubi  caro  valet,”  is  applied, 
in  the  narrowest  sense,  to  the  three  days  pre¬ 
ceding  Ash-Wednesday ;  in  a  wider  sense  to  the 
wffiole  period  from  St.  Blaise’s  Day  (Feb.  3)  to 
Ash-Wednesday.  The  period  immediately  pre¬ 
ceding  Lent  has  long  been  a  season  devoted  to 
somewhat  more  than  usual  gaiety,  in  anticipation 
of  the  austerities  of  Lent.  (Wetzer  and  Welte’s 
Kirchenlexicon.)  [C.] 

CARPENTORACTENSE  CONCILIUM 
[Carpextras.] 

CARPENTRAS,  COUNCIL  OF  [near 
Narbonne,  Carpextoractexse],  a.d.  527,  Nov. 
6,  respecting  the  fair  distribution  of  revenue 
between  the  bishop  and  the  parish-priest  (Labb. 
Cone.  iv.  1663).  [A.  W.  H.] 

CARTHAGE,  COUNCILS  OF.  [African 

COUXCILS.] 

CASK,  as  symbol.  [D0LIUM.3 


OASSTANUS 


CASULA 


293 


CASSIANUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Saragossa,  is 
commemoi’ated  April  16  (^Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Bishop  and  confessor  of  Autun,  is  comme¬ 
morated  Aug.  5  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Rome  (Bede),  or  at  Imola 
(Eom.  Vet.^  Usuardi,  is  commemorated  Aug.  13 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  at  Tangier’s,  is  commemorated 
Dec.  3  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(5)  Of  Rome,  a.d.  431,  is  commemorated  Feb. 
29  (Cal.  Byzant.).  Perhaps  identical  with  (3). 

[C.] 


CASSIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Damascus,  is  com¬ 
memorated  July  20  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  jMartyr,  is  commemorated  Oct.  10  (Mart. 
Usuardi).  •  [C.] 


CASSOCK.  (Ral.  Casacha,  Casachina  ;  Fr. 
Casaque;  Flem.  Casacke.)  It  is  not  easy  to 
determine  with  what  older  words,  or  with  what 
older  garment,  the  present  ‘  cassock,’  as  a  gar¬ 
ment  and  as  a  word,  is  to  Le  identified.  Some 
have  thought  that  the  Italian  ‘casacha’  and  the 
French  ‘casaque’  are  to  be  traced  to  ‘  cara- 
calla  ’  (see  the  article  above),  ‘  casacha  ’  repre¬ 
senting  an  older  ‘  caracha.’  Others  trace  the  word 
thi’ough  Kacras  or  Kaaaus  (Xenophon,  Cyrop.  viii. 
3,  6-8;  Jul.  Pollux,  vii.  68,  describing  it  as 
iTTiTiKhs  xiTwi/)  to  zeds,  skin  or  hide.  In  con¬ 
nexion  with  this  it  may  be  noticed  that  Agathar- 
cides  (a  Greek  grammarian,  at  Alexandria,  of 
the  2nd  century  B.C.),  quoted  by  Lepsius  (Ep.ad 
Belyas,  44),  states  that  th«  Egyptians  had  cer¬ 
tain  garments  made  of  felt  which  they  called 
Kacrai.  “Apud  Aegyptios  aroKas  rivas  rriXTiTas, 
verba  sunt  Agatharcidae,  Trpoo'ayoptvoua't  Kacras 
.  .  .  Acue  in  ultima  habes  ‘  casack,’  difficili 
alias  originatione.”  See  thjs  and  other  refer¬ 
ences  in  Menage,  Diet.  Etym.  under  ‘  Casa¬ 
que.’  [W.  B.  M.] 

CASTOLUS,  or  CASTULUS,  martyr  at 
Rome,  is  commemorated  March  26  (Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Usuardi).  ,  [C.] 


CASTOR,  martyr  at  Tarsus,  is  commemorated 
April  27  (Afar^.  Hieron.,  Usuardi);  also  March 
28  (lb.).  [C.] 

CASTORIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome,  is  com¬ 
memorated  July  7  (Mart.  Lorn.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome  under  Diocletian,  Nov.  8 
(Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi).  [C.] 


CASTUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Africa  in  the  3rd 
century,  is  commemorated  May  22  (Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr,  Sept.  4  (Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Capua,  Oct.  6  (Mart.  Hieron., 

Usuardi).  [C.] 

CASUTjA.  (See  also  Amphibalum,  Planeta, 
Infula,  Paenula.) 

§  1.  The  uord  and  its  derivation. — The  word 
Casula  (whence  Fr.  and  Eng.  Chasuble),  a  dimi¬ 
nutive  originally  of  casa,  “  a  cottage,”  comes 
before  us  in  patristic  literature  in  two  senses. 
It  is  used,  first,  in  its  literal  meaning  of  a  cottage 
or  hut ;  as  by  St.  Gregory  of  Tours  (De  Mirac. 
S.  JuHani,  cap.  xliv.),  and  by  St.  Isidore  of  Seville 
(De  Off.  Eccl.  lib.  ii.  ‘  de  monachis.’),  It  is  used 
also,  and  far  more  commonly,  as  a  designation  for 
an  outer  garment ;  the  word  having  been  in  all 


probability  a  provincial  term,  of  popular  use,  for 
the  garment  which  in  the  older  Latin  was  known 
as  ^paenula.  St.  Isidore  of  Seville,  circ.  600  A.D., 
is  the  first  writer  who  gives  any  formal  deriva¬ 
tion  of  the  word,  or  anything  approaching  to  a 
description  of  the  garment  it-self.  “  The  casula,” 
he  says  (De  Oriyin.  xix.  cap.  21),  “  is  a  garment 
furnished  with  a  hood  (vestis  cucullata)  ;  and  is  a 
diminutive  of  ‘  casa,’  a  cottage,  seeing  that,  like  a 
small  cottage  or  hut,  it  covers  the  entire  person.” 
Philo  Judaeus,  some  600  years  earlier,  had  used  a 
similar  comparison,  when,  describing  a  garment 
made  of  goat-skins  (no  doubt  a  rough  paenula) 
commonly  worn  in  his  time,  he  says  that  it 
formed  a  “  portable  house  ”  (cpoprjT^  oiKia)  for 
travellers,  soldiei’s,  and  others,  who  were  obliged 
to  be  much  in  the  open  air.  (De  Victimis,  Phi- 
lonis  0pp.  Fol.  Paris,  1640,  p.  836,  A.) 

§  2.  Form  and  material  of  the  Casula. — As  a 
description  of  the  form  or  appearance  of  the 
casula,  which  will  add  anything  to  that  of  St. 
Isidore  already  quoted,  the  earliest  notice  we 
have  is  in  a  MS.  of  uncertain  date  (probably  9th 
century,  or  thereabout),  containing  fragmentary 
notices  of  the  old  Galilean  liturgy  (Martene, 
Thesaurus  Anecdot.  tom.  v.  col.  99)  :  “  Casula, 
quam  amphibalum  vocant  quo  sacerdos  indu- 

itur,  tota  unita . Ideo  sine  manicis,  quia 

sacerdos  potius  benedicit  quam  ministrat.  Ideo 
unita  extrinsecus,  non  scissa,  non  aperta,  quia 
multae  sunt  Scrlpturae  sacrae  secreta  mysteria, 
quae  quasi  sub  sigillo  sacerdos  doctus  debet 
abscondere,”  etc.  This  “  vestment,”  for  Church 
use,  for  such  it  here  is  (see  below,  §  5),  is 
here  described  as  “  made  in  one  piece  through¬ 
out,”  as  “  without  sleeves,”  and  “  without  slit 
or  opening  in  front.”  This  description  is  exactly 
what  might  be  expected  on  the  supposition  that 
the  casula  was  virtually  a  paenula  under  another 
name.  And  it  exactly  corresponds  with  the 
earliest  representations  of  the  chasuble  preserved 
in  ecclesiastical  art.  (See  Planeta.) 

The  materials  of  the  casula  varied  according 
to  the  purposes  it  was  designed  to  serve.  In  the 
earlier  periods  of  its  history,  when  it  was  regarded 
as  a  garb  of  very  humble  pretensions,  it  was  made 
of  wool  (St.  Augustine,  De  Civit.,  quoted  below, 
§  3),  and  probably  also,  like  the  paenula,  often  of 
skins,  dressed  with  the  wool  or  fur  upon  them. 
But,  from  the  sixth  century  downwards,  we  hear 
of  chasubles  of  brilliant  colour  (superbi  coloris), 
and  of  costly  materials,  such  as  silk.  Boniface  III. 
(a.d.  606)  sent  a  chasuble,  formed  partly  of  silk 
and  partly  of  fine  goats’-hair,  as  a  present  to 
king  Pepin.  (Bonifacii,  P.  P.  III.  Epist.  III. 
apud  Oct.  Ferrariurn,  De  Re  Vest.  p.  685.) 

§  3.  Various  uses  of  the  Casula. — The  earliest 
notices  of  the  casula  shew  that,  like  the  paenula,  it 
was  originally  a  garment  of  very  humble  charac¬ 
ter,  such  as  would  be  worn  by  peasants  and  arti¬ 
sans  as  their  ordinary  out-door  dress,  for  protec¬ 
tion  against  cold  and  wet.  Being  furnished  with 
a  hood,  it  was  both  hat  and  cloak  in  one.  St.  Au¬ 
gustine,  writing  about  the  close  of  the  4th  cen¬ 
tury,  but  speaking  of  a  story  dating  from  before 
his  own  time,  tells  a  tale  of  one  Florentius,  a 
working  tailor  at  Hippo,  who  lost  his  casula, 
and  had  no  money  to  buy  a  new  one  (De  Civit. 
Dei,  lib.  xxii.  cap.  8,  §  9).  Fifty  folks”  as  we 
learn  from  the  course  of  the  story,  would  have 
been  thought  about  a  reasonable  sum  for  him  to 
pay.  But  he  himself  for  greater  economy  meant 


294 


CASULA 


CATACOMBS 


to  buy  some  wool,  which  his  wife  might  make 
up  for  him  as  best  she  could.  In  another  passage 
(^Senno  cvii.  cap.  v.  opp.  tom.  v.  p.  530)  St.  Au¬ 
gustine  speaks  of  the  casula  as  a  garment  which 
any  one  of  his  congregation  might  be  expected  to 
possess,  and  one  which  every  one  would  take  care 
to  have  good  of  its  kind.  A  notice  of  the  casula, 
preserved  to  us  in  Procopius  (^De  Bello  Vandalico, 
lib.  ii.  cap.  26),  shews  that  even  to  his  time 
(circ.  530)  the  tradition  had  survived  of  the  very 
humble  character  attaching  to  this  dress.  He 
has  occasion  to  speak  of  the  abject  submission  by 
which  Areobindus,  when  defeated  by  Gontharis, 
sought  to  disarm  the  anger  of  the  victor.  And 
he  speaks  of  him  as  putting  upon  him  an  outer 
garment  unsuited  for  a  general,  or  for  any  war¬ 
like  usage,  but  befitting  a  slave  or  a  man  of 
humble  station ;  this  being,  he  adds,  what  the 
Romans,  in  the  speech  of  Latium,  call  KacrovXa. 

§  4.  Worn  by  Monks,  and,  as  an  out-door  dress, 
by  the  Clergy. — The  same  reasons  which  made  the 
casula  a  suitable  dress  for  peasants,  recommended 
it  also  as  a  habit  for  monks.  Ferrandus,  first 
the  deacon  and  afterwards  the  biographer  of 
Facundus,  bishop  of  Ruspa,  in  Africa,  tells  us 
that  the  bishop  retained  his  monastic  dress 
and  ascetic  habits  after  being  advanced  to  epi¬ 
scopal  dignity  (circ.  507  A.D.).  He  continued  to 
wear  a  monk’s  leathern  girdle  (^pelliceum  cin- 
gulwn);  and  neither  used  himself,  nor  permitted 
his  monks  to  use,  a  casula  of  costly  quality  or  of 
brilliant  colour  (“  Casulam  pretiosam  vel  superbi 
coloris  nec  ipse  habuit,  nec  suos  monachos  habere 
permisit”).  At  a  period  a  little  after  this  St. 
Caesarius,  archbishop  of  Arles  in  Gaul  (t  540), 
is  described  as  wearing  a  cassia  in  his  ordinary 
walks  about  the  streets  (S.  Caesarii  Vita,  apxvd 
Acta  Sanctoimm,  Augtisti  d.  xxvii.  tom.  vi.).  And 
he  had  also  one  special  casula,  of  finer  material 
doubtless,  and  either  white  or  of  some  rich  colour, 
for  processional  use.  (“  Casulam,  qua  in  pro- 
cessionibus  utebatur,  et  albam  paschalem,  profert, 
datque  egeno,  jubetque  ut  vendat  uni  ex  clero.”) 
The  same  bishop,  in  his  will,  when  disposing  of 
his  wardrobe,  distinguishes  between  the  indu¬ 
menta  paschalia,  or  vestments  for  church  use  on 
Sundays  and  high  festivals,  which  had  been  pre¬ 
sented  to  him,  and  his  casula  villosa,  or  long- 
napped  cloak,  which  would  be  suitable  for  out¬ 
door  wear  only  : — “  Sancto  et  domino  meo  archi- 
episcopo,  qui  mihi  indigno  digne  successerit ... 
indumenta  paschalia,  quae  mihi  data  sunt,  omnia 
illi  serviant,  simul  cum  casula  villosa  et  tunica 
vel  galnape  quod  melius  dimisero.  Reliqua  vero 
vestimenta  mea,  excepto  birro  amiculari,  mei 
tarn  clerici  quam  laici  ....  dividant.” 

At  or  just  after  the  close  of  the  sixth  century, 
a  further  notice  of  the  casula,  preserved  to  us  by 
John  the  Deacon  (^Bivi  Gregorii  Vita,  lib.  iv. 
cap.  63),  serves  to  indicate  that  the  casula,  worn 
at  Rome  as  an  out-door  habit  by  ecclesiastics, 
must  have  differed  in  some  respects  from  the  cus¬ 
tomary  dress  then  worn  in  the  East  by  persons  of 
the  same  class.  One  abbot  John,  a  Persian,  came 
to  Rome  in  St.  Gregory’s  days,  “  ad  .adorandum 
loculos  sanctorum  Apostolorum  Petri  et  Pauli.” 
“  One  day,”  so  he  himself  tells  the  story,  “  I  was 
standing  in  the  middle  of  the  city,  when  who 
should  come  across  towards  me  but  Papa  Gre¬ 
gorius.  Just  as  I  was  thinking  of  making  my 
obeisance  to  him  (“  mittere  me  ante  eura  ”),  the 
pope  came  close  up,  and  seeing  my  intention. 


sicut  coram  Deo  dice,  fratres,  he  bowed  himself 
to  the  ground  before  me,  and  would  not  rise  till 
I  had  done  so  first.  Then  embracing  me  with 
much  humility,  he  slipped  three  pieces  of  money 
into  my  hand,  and  desired  that  a  casula  should  be 
given  me,  and  everything  else  that  I  required.” 

This  use  of  the  casula  as  the  characteristic  out¬ 
door  garb  of  the  clergy,  and  in  many  places  also 
of  monks,  was  maintained  in  the  West  from  the 
5th  to  the  8th  century.  In  the  Council  of 
Ratisbon,  held  in  April,  a.d.  742,  under  the  pre¬ 
sidency  of  St.  Boniface,  one  of  the  canons  deter¬ 
mined  on  was  directed  against  those  of  the  clergy 
who  (in  out-door  life,  as  we  may  infer)  adopted 
the  dress  of  laymen,  the  sagum,  or  short  oj^en 
cloak  then  commonly  worn.  “  We  have  decreed 
that  presbyters  and  deacons  shall  wear,  not 
‘saga,’  as  do  laymen,  but  ‘casulae,’  as  becometh 
servants  of  God.”  (“  Decrevimus  quoque  ut 
presbyteri  vel  diaconi  non  sagis  laicorum  more, 
sed  casulis  utantur,  ritu  servorum  Dei.”) 

§  5.  Use  of  the  Casula  as  a  Vestment  of  Holy 
Ministry. — From  the  5th  to  the  8th  century  the 
term  planeta  (q.  v.)  appears  to  have  been  the 
term  ordinarily  employed  in  Italy  and  Spain,  if  not 
elsewhere,  for  the  supervestment  worn  in  offices 
of  holy  ministry.  The  earliest  undoubted  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  word  casula  being  used  in  this  precise 
meaning  dates  from  the  9th  century,  or  possibly 
the  8th,  if  the  Sacramentary  of  St.  Gregory  be 
longs  in  its  present  form  to  that  time.  But  the 
usages  of  words  in  formal  documents  such  as  this 
last,  confirmed  as  this  is  by  the  nearly  contem¬ 
porary  writings  (circ.  820)  of  Rabanus  Maurus, 
Amalarius,  and  Walafrid  Strabo,  indicate,  gener. 
ally,  a  considerably  earlier  popular  usage.  How¬ 
ever  this  may  be,  we  know  that  from  the  date  of 
these  last  writers  to  the  present  time,  the  word 
casula  has  been  used  as  the  exact  equivalent  of 
planeta  by  western  ritualists,  and  has  in  general 
usage  quite  superseded  all  other  terms,  such  as 
amphihaluni,  infula,  planeta,  by  which  at  various 
times  it  has  been  designated. 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  compass  of  this 
work  to  trace  the  various  modifications  of  the 
‘  chasuble,’  in  respect  of  form,  material,  and 
ornament,  from  the  9th  century  downwards,  or 
to  treat  of  the  various  svmbolical  meanings 
attributed  to  it.  Full  information,  however, 
upon  these  points  will  be  found  in  the  following 
treatises.  Bock,  Geschichte  der  liturgischen 
Geu- Under  des  Mitteldlters,  2  vols.  8vo.,  Bonn. 
1866;  Pugin,  Glossary  of  Ecclesiastical  Orna- 
7nent,  fol.,  London,  1846  ;  Rock,  The  Church  of 
our  Fathers,  London,  1849  ;  and  in  the  Vestiarium 
Christianuin  (London,  1868)  of  the  writer  of  this 
article.  [W.  B.  M.] 

CATABASIA  (Kara$a<ria).  An  anthem  or 
short  hymn  in  the  Greek  offices,  so  called  because 
the  two  sides  of  the  choir  come  down  (Karo^Sat- 
vovai)  into  the  body  of  the  church  and  unite  in 
singing  it.  It  often  occurs  between  the  “  odes  ” 
of  a  “  canon  ;  ”  and  its  construction  is  that  of 
any  other  “  troparion.”  Sometimes  two  “  cata- 
basiai”  occur  together  between  each  ode,  as  on 
the  Sunday  after  Christmas-day,  where  each 
pair  consists  of  the  first  troparion  of  the  corre¬ 
sponding  odes  of  the  two  canons  for  Christmas- 
day,  mentioned  in  a  preceding  article.  [H.  J.  IL] 

CATACOMBS.  Few  words  are  more  familiar, 
or  more  universally  intelligible  than  “  Catacomb,” 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


295 


as  signifying  a  subterranean  excavation  con-  ' 
structed  for  the  interment  of  the  dead.  Yet  in 
its  original  meaning  the  word  had  no  connection 
whatsoever  with  sepulture,  or  even  with  exca¬ 
vations,  but  was  simply  used  as  the  name  of  a 
particular  district  in  the  vicinity  of  Rome.® 

The  word  Cutacum'yie,  the  earliest  form  in 
which  we  meet  with  it,  is  unquestionably  de¬ 
rived  from  the  Greek  Kara  and  Kv/jL^r},  “  a  hol¬ 
low,”  and  so  “a  cup,”  “a  boat,”  &c.,  a  widely 
spread  root  which  we  trace  in  the  Greek  Kvfx- 
/8aAo(',  the  Latin  Cymba,  the  Celtic  Cum,  the 
A.-S.  Combe,  and  the  Piedmontese  Coiiiba,  “  a 
valley,”  or  “  hollow.”  It  is  allied  to  the  San¬ 
skrit  Kumbhas,  “  a  pit.”  In  Ducange  Gloss.  Med. 
et  fnf.  Graecitatis  we  find  “  Kvjx^r],  Cymbi, — 
7rAo?a  7r€pj</)ep^  "P(ay.aiois,  Suid  iS.”  Kv/x^etou, 
elbos  TTOTripiov  TrapaTrX'ficriou  tw  ttAoiou  f> 

Ka\(7Tai  KVfx^r)”  Auctor.  Etymol.  The  district 
near  the  tomb  of  Cecilia  Metella  and  the  Circus 
of  Romulus  on  the  j.  ppian  Way  aj)pears,  probably 
from  its  natural  configuration,  to  have  borne  this 
designation.  In  the  fmperia  C.(es  irum,  a  docu¬ 
ment  of  the  7th  century,  printed  by  Eccard  in 
his  Corpus  Hist.  Med.  Aeo.  vol.  i.  p.  31,  the 
erection  of  the  Circus  of  Maxentius,  or  Romulus, 
AD.  311,  in  that  locality  is  spoken *of  in  these 
words,  “  Maxentius  Termas  in  Palatio  fecit  et 
Circum  in  Catecumpas.''  The  site  of  the  adjacent 
Basilica  of  St.  Sebastian  is  indicated  by  the  same 
name  in  a  letter  of  Gregory  the  Great  to  Con- 
stantia  (the  daughter  of  the  Emperor  Tiberius 
Constantinus,  married  by  him  to  his  successor 
Maurice)  towards  the  end  of  the  6th  century, 
excusing  himself  for  not  sending  her  the  head  of 
the  Apostle  Paul,  which  she  had  requested  as  a 
gift  to  the  Church  she  had  erected  in  his  honour 
(Greg.  Magn.  Epist.  iv.  Ind.  xii.  Ep.  30).  Speak¬ 
ing  of  the  bodies  of  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul 
he  writes  “  quae  ducta  usque  ad  secundum  urbis 
milliarium  in  loco  qui  dicitur  [ad]  cat  'cumbas 
collocata  sunt.”  A  various  reading,  catcdumbas, 
found  in  some  MSS.,  and  adopted  by  Baronius, 
MartyroL  ad  xiii.  Kal.  Feb.  has  led  some  writers 
to  adopt  a  different  etymology,  ad  (Kara)  tum- 
bas,  and  to  consider  the  word  an  early  synonvm 
for  “  coemeterium.”  But  the  best  MSS.  read 
cumbas  not  tumbas,  and  there  is  no  ground  for 
believing  that  Christian  burial  places  generally 
were  known  by  any  such  name  till  a  considerably 
later  period.  The  view  of  Padre  March!  (^Monum. 
Primitiv.  p.  209),  that  the  word  catacomb  is  a 
mongrel,  half  Greek  and  half  Latin,  and  that  the 
second  element  is  to  be  found  in  the  verb  cumbo, 
is  based  on  false  philological  principles,  and  may 
safely  be  rejected.  The  distance  of  the  Basilica 
of  St.  Sebastian  from  the  Tiber  is  a  sufficient 
reason  for  discarding  the  etymology  of  the  ano¬ 
nymous  author  of  the  History  of  t  e  Transhdion 
of  St.  Sebastian,  c.  vi.  “Milliario  tertio  ab  Urbe, 
loco  qui  ob  stationem  navium  Catacumhas  dice- 
batur.” 

All  through  the  middle  ages  the  phrase  “  ad 
catacumhas”  was  used  to  distinguish  the  sub¬ 
terranean  cemetery  (catacomb  in  the  modern 
sense)  adjacent  to  the  Basilica  of  St.  Sebastian 
(“  in  loco  qui  appellatur  Cutacumbas  ubi  corpus 
beati  Sebastian!  martyids  cum  aliis  quiescit.” 


•  For  other  examples  of  a  local  name  becoming 
generic  cf.  “Capitol,”  “  Palace,”  "Academy,”  "Newgate," 

••  Bedlam,”  &c. 


'  Anast.  Hadrian,  i.  §  34-3;  “  coemeterio  Sancti 
Christi  martyris  Sebastiani  in  catacum'ia.”  Ib. 
Nicolaus  i.  §601)  while  the  term  itself  in  its  re¬ 
stricted  sense  designated  a  subterranean  cha])el 
communicating  with  that  Basilica  in  which, 
according  to  tradition,  the  bodies  of  the  two 
great  Apostles  had  been  deposited  after  the  in¬ 
effectual  attempt  of  the  Greeks,  referred  to  by 
S.  Gregory  u.  s.  to  steal  them  away  (Bosio,  Rom. 
Sotteran.  cap.  xiii.).  In  documents  from  the  6th 
to  the  13th  century  we  continually  meet  with 
the  expressions  “  festum  ad  catacumhas,”  “  locus 
qui  dicitur  in  catacumhas,”  and  the  like.  The 
earliest  authority  is  a  list  of  the  Roman  ceme¬ 
teries  of  the  6th  century,  where  we  find  “c/me- 
terium  catecumbas  ad  St.  Sebastianum  Via  Appia.’* 
In  the  De  Mirabilibns  Eomae  of  the  13th  century 
we  read  “  Coemeteria  Calisti  juxta  Catacumbas." 
The  first  recorded  use  of  the  word  in  its  modern 
sense  out  of  Rome  is  at  Naples  in  the  9th  century 
(De  Rossi,  R.G.  i.  87.)  ** 

Bede,  at  the  beginning  of  the  8th  century,  writes, 
de  Sex  aetatibus  rnundi  ad  ann.  4327.  “  Damasus 
Romae  episcopus  fecit  basilicam  juxta  theatrum 
S.  Laurentio  et  aliam  in  catacumhas  ubi  jacue- 
runt  corpora  sancta  Apostolorum  Petri  et  Pauli.” 
The  celebrity  acquired  by  this  cemetery  as  the 
temporary  resting-place  of  the  chief  of  the 
Apostles  led  to  a  general  familiarity  with  its 
name,  and  a  gradual  identification  of  the  term 
“  catacumbae  ”  with  the  cemetery  itself.  When 
in  process  of  time  the  other  underground  places 
of  interment  of  the  Christians  fell  into  neglect 
and  oblivion,  and  the  very  entrances  to  them 
were  concealed,  and  their  existence  almost  for¬ 
gotten,  this  one  beneath  the  Church  of  St. 
Sebastian  remained  always  open  as  the  object 
of  pilgrimage,  and  by  degrees  transferred  its 
name  to  all  similar  subterranean  cemeteries.  “A 
visit  to  the  cemeteries  became  synonymous  with 
a  visit  ad  catacumhas,  and  the  term  catacomb  gra¬ 
dually  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  specific  name 
for  all  subterranean  excavations  for  purposes  of 
burial,  not  only  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Rome, 
but  also  in  Naples,  Malta,  Paris,  Sicily,  and 
wherever  else  similar  excavations  have  been 
discovered  ”  (Northcote,  R.  S.  109). 

Oriyin. — Until  a  comparatively  recent  period 
a  very  erroneous  opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
subterranean  cemeteries  of  Rome  was  univer¬ 
sally  entertained.  No  one  thought  of  calling 
in  question  the  assertion  that  they  were  ex¬ 
hausted  sandpits,  and  had  been  originally  exca¬ 
vated  for  the  pui-pose  of  obtaining  the  volcanic 
stratum  known  as  arena  by  the  ancients,  and 
as  pozzolana  by  the  moderns,  so  extensively 
used  by  them  in  the  composition  of  their  mortar ; 
and  that  the  Christians,  finding  in  the  laby¬ 
rinthine  recesses  of  these  deserted  nrenariae  suit¬ 
able  places  for  the  concealment  of  the  bodies  of 
their  martyred  brethren,  had  taken  possession 
of  them  and  employed  them  as  cemeteries. 
There  was  great  plausibility  about  this  view. 
It  seemed  to  derive  support  from  the  ‘  Martyro- 
logies’  and  other  ancient  documents  in  which 
the  expressions  in  arenario,  or  juxta  arenarium, 
or  in  cryptis  arenariis  are  of  not  unfrequent 


*>  In  the  same  way  as  this  cemetery  of  St  Sebastian 
was  known  by  the  designation  “  ad  caUicutnbas,"  others 
were  specified  as  "  ad  Nymphas,”  “  ad  Ursum  pileatnm,” 
“  inter  duas  lauros,”  “  ad  Sextum  Philippi,”  and  the  lik& 


296 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


©ccurrenre.  It  also  removed  the  seeming  diffi¬ 
culty,  which  a  fuller  understanding  of  the  laws 
regulating  sepulture  among  the  Romans  has  dis¬ 
sipated,  as  to  the  possibility  of  a  small  and  per¬ 
secuted  body  excavating  galleries  of  such  enor¬ 
mous  extent,  and  disposing  of  the  material 
extracted  from  them  without  attracting  the 
notice  and  provoking  the  interference  of  the  sup- 
})orters  of  the  dominant  religion.  Once  started 
and  given  to  the  world  under  the  authority  of  the 
names  of  men  of  acknowledged  learning  it  found 
general  acceptance,  and  became  an  historical  tra¬ 
dition  indolently  accepted  by  one  generation  of 
investigators  after  another.  Bosio,  the  pioneer 
of  all  subsequent  examinations  of  the  catacombs, 
maintained  a  discreet  silence  upon  the  origin  of 
the  subterranean  cemeteries ;  but  their  Pagan 
origin  is  accepted  by  his  translator  and  editor, 
Aringhi,  as  well  as  by  Baronius,  Severano,  Bot- 
tari,  Boldetti,  and  other  writers  on  the  subject. 
Marchi,  with  a  touch  of  quiet  sarcasm,  affirms  that 
it  causes  him  no  surprise  that  this  hypothesis 
should  have  been  maintained  by  Bottari,  who,  it 
is  abundantly  evident,  “  studied  the  subterra¬ 
nean  Rome  quite  at  his  ease  not  under  but  above 
ground.”  (Marchi,  n.  s.  p.  15.)  But  he  confesses 
to  astonishment  that  “  the  excellent  Boldetti,” 
with  all  the  opportunities  afforded  by  personal 
examination  for  perceiving  the  wide  difference 
between  the  arenariae  and  the  cemeteries  which 
lie  below  them,  should  have  never  seen  the 
untenableness  of  the  traditional  view.  In  more 
modern  times  the  same  origin  of  the  catacombs 
was  asserted  by  D’Agincourt,  Raoul-Rochette, 
and  indeed  by  every  one  who  wrote  on  the 
subject.  Padre  Marchi  has  the  merit  of  being 
the  first  to  promulgate  the  true  doctrine  that 
the  catacombs  were  the  work  of  Christians 
alone,  and  from  the  first  designed  for  places 
of  sepulture.  The  Padre  ingenuously  informs 
us  (p.  7)  that  he  commenced  his  investigations 
with  the  most  unquestioning  faith  in  the  uni¬ 
versally  received  theory,  and  that  it  was  only 
by  degrees  that  his  studies  and  experience, 
not  among  books  and  papers,  but  in  quarries, 
cemeteries,  and  sand-pits,  led  him  to  an  opposite 
conclusion,  and  put  him  in  a  position  to  declare 
to  the  world  as  an  unquestionable  fiict,  that  in 
the  Christian  cemeteries  no  Pagan  ever  gave  a 
single  blow  with  pickaxe  or  chisel.  The  brothers 
De  Rossi,  the  pupils  of  Padre  Marchi  in  the  work 
of  investigation,  have  continued  his  labours  in 
the  Same  path  of  patient  e.xamination  of  facts, 
and  that  with  such  success  that  it  may  now  be 
regarded  as  established  beyond  controversy  that 
the  origin  of  the  catacombs  was  Christian  and 
not  Pagan,  and  that  they  were  constructed  ex¬ 
pressly  for  the  purpose  of  interment,  and  had  no 
connection  with  the  arenariae  beyond  that  of 
juxtaposition.  In  certain  cases,  as  at  St.  Callis- 
tusand  St.  Agnes,  the  catacombs  lie  at  the  side 
of  or  beneath  those  excavations,  so  that  they  are 
entered  from  them,  the  arenariae  effectually 
masking  the  doors  of  access  to  the  Christian 
galleries,  while  they  afforded  them  an  easy  mode 
of  removing  the  excavated  earth. 

Padre  Marchi’s  confidence  in  the  old  theory  of 
the  Pagan  origin  of  the  catacombs  was  first  dis¬ 
turbed  by  a  careful  examination  of  the  geological 
characteristics  of  the  strata  in  which  they  were, 
as  a  rule,  excavated.  The  surface  of  the  Cam- 
pagn?.  surrounding  Rome,  esjjeclally  on  the  left  j 


bank  of  the  Tiber,  where  the  catacombs  are 
chiefly  situated,  is  almost  entirely  formed  of 
materials  of  volcanic  origin.  These  igneous 
strata  are  of  different  composition  and  antiquity. 
We  will  only  specify  the  three  with  which  wc 
are  concerned,  viz.,  the  so-called  tufa  litoide,  tufa 
granolare,  and  pozzolana  pura.  The  pozzolana 
pura  is  a  friable  sand  rock,  entirely  destitute  of 
any  cementing  substance  to  bind  the  molecules 
together  and  give  them  the  nature  of  stone. 
The  tufa  granolare  is  in  appearance  almost  the 
same  rock  as  the  pozzolana  pura.  The  distin¬ 
guishing  mark  is  the  presence  of  a  slight  cement, 
which  gives  the  mass  some  degree  of  solidity, 
and  unites  the  sandy  particles  into  a  stone  which 
is  cut  with  the  greatest  ease.  The  third  stratum, 
the  tufa  litoide,  is  a  red  conglomerate  cemented 
into  a  .substance  of  sufficient  hardness  to  form  an 
exceedingly  useful  building  stone.  Of  these 
three  strata,  it  was  the  first  and  the  last  alone 
which  were  worked  by  the  ancient  Romans  for 
architectural  purposes,  while  it  is  exclusively  in 
the  second,  the  tufa  granolare,  that  the  cata¬ 
combs  were  excavated.  The  tufa  litoide  was 
employed  from  the  earliest  ages,  as  it  still  is,  in 
the  buildings  of  Rome.  The  interior  of  the 
Cloaca  Maxima,  the  Tahularium  of  the  Capitol, 
and  others  of  the  most  ancient  architectural 
works,  attest  its  durability,  as  well  as  the  early 
date  of  its  use,  and  it  is  still  extensively  quarried 
as  building  stone  at  the  foot  of  Monte  Verde, 
outside  the  Porta  Portese  (Murray’s  Handbook 
for  Rome,  p.  324).  While  this  formation  fur¬ 
nished  the  stone  for  building,  the  third  named — 
the  pozzolana  pura,  found  in  insulated  deposits, 
rarely  of  any  considerable  extent — supplied  the 
sand  required  for  the  composition  of  the  mortar, 
and  as  such  is  commended  by  Vitruvius  (ArcA. 
iii.  7)  as  preferable  to  every  other  kind.  The 
vicinity  of  Rome,  and  indeed  some  parts  of  the 
city  itself,  abounded  in  pozzolana  pits,  or  aren¬ 
ariae,  forming  an  intricate  network  of  excava¬ 
tions,  not  running  in  straight  lines,  as  the  galleries 
of  the  catacombs  do  almost  universally,  but  pur¬ 
suing  tortuous  paths,  following  the  direction  of 
the  sinuous  veins  of  the  earth  the  builders  were 
in  search  of.  References  to  these  sand-pits, 
whose  dark  recesses  afforded  secure  concealment 
as  well  to  the  perpetrators  of  deeds  of  blood  as 
to  their  intended  victims,  appear  in  some  of  the 
chief  classical  writers.  Cicero  mentions  that 
the  young  patrician  Asinius  had  been  inveigled 
into  the  gardens  of  the  Esquiline,  where  he  was 
murdered  and  precipitated  into  one  of  the  sand- 
quarries  :  “  Asinius  autem  .  .  .  quasi  in  hor- 
tulos  iret,  in  arenarias  quasdam  extra  Portam 
Esquilinam  perdiictus  occiditur  ”  {Orat.  pro 
Cluentio,  c.  13).  Suetonius  also  relates  that 
when  the  trembling  Nero,  fearing  instant  a.ssas- 
siuation,  took  refuge  in  the  villa  of  his  freed- 
man  Phaon,  between  the  Nomentan  and  Sala- 
rian  roads,  he  was  advised  to  conceal  himself 
in  an  adjacent  sand-pit,  “  in  specum  egestae 
arenae,*'  but  he  vowed  that  he  would  not  go 
underground  alive,  “  negavit  se  vivum  sub 
terram  iturum  ”  (Sueton.  in  Heron.  48). 

Exhausted  sand-pits  of  this  kind  also  afforded 
burial  places  for  the  lowest  dregs  of  the  po])u- 
lace,  for  slaves,  and  others  who  on  ceremonial 
gi’ounds  were  denied  the  honour  of  the  funeral 
pile.  The  best  known  are  those  left  by  the 
sand-diggers  on  the  Esquiline,  which,  we  learn 


CATACOMBS 

from  Horace,  were  used  as  common  receptacles 
for  the  vilest  corpses,  and  defiled  the  air  with 
their  pestilential  exhalations,  until  Maecenas 
rescued  the  district  from  its  degradation  and 
converted  it  into  a  garden  (Horat.  Serm.  i.  8, 
7-16). 

“  Hue  pHiis  angustls  ejecta  cadavera  cellis, 

Conservus  vili  portanda  locabat  In  area, 

Hoc  miserae  plebi  stabat  commune  sepulchrum.” 

(Cf.  the  commentary  of  Acron  the  Scholiast  on 
the  passage:  “Hue  aliquando  cadavera  porta- 
bantur  plebeiorum  sive  servorum :  nam  sepulchra 
publica  erant  antea.”)  These  loathsome  burial 
pits  were  known  by  the  names  of  puticuli  or 
puticulae ;  a  diminutive  of  puteus,  “a  well,”  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  etymology  given  by  Festus.  They 
were  also  designated  culinae,  from  their  shape. 
(Facciolat.  stib.  voc.  culina  ;  Padre  Lupi,  Disserta- 
zimi,  I.  §  cxxxix.  p.  63). 

We  need  not  pause  to  refute  the  monstrous 
theory  so  carelessly  propounded  by  Basnage,  Bur¬ 
net,  Misson,  &c.,  which  identified  the  first  begin¬ 
nings  of  the  Christian  catacombs  w'ith  these 
horrible  charnel-houses,  which  were  the  op])ro- 
brium  of  Paganism,  and  asserted,  in  Burnet’s 
words,  that  “those  burying-places  that  are  graced 
with  the  pompous  title  of  catacombs  are  no  other 
than  the  puticoli  mentioned  by  Festus  Pompeius, 
where  the  meanest  sort  of  the  Roman  slaves  were 
laid,  and  so  without  any  further  care  about  them 
were  left  to  rot.”  The  most  superficial  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  the  catacombs  will  convince  us  of  the 
absurdity  of  such  an  hypothesis,  and  prove 
the  correctness  of  the  assertion  that  “  the  puti- 
cuU  into  which  the  carrion  of  the  Roman  slaves 
might  be  flung  had  not  the  slightest  analogy 
with  the  decorous,  careful,  and  expensiA^e  provi¬ 
sions  made  by  the  early  Christians  for  the  con¬ 
servation  of  their  dead  ”  (^Edin.  Eev.  No.  221, 
Jan.  1859). 

But,  if  otherwise  probable,  this  presumed 
connection  between  the  arenariae  and  the  ceme¬ 
teries  of  the  Christians  would  be  at  once  dis¬ 
proved  by  the  I’emarkable  fact  first  noticed  by 
P.  Marchi,  and  confirmed  by  the  investigations 
of  the  brothers  De  Rossi,  to  which  we  have 
alluded  above,  that  the  strata  which  furnished 
pozzoluna  pu-a  Avere  carefully  avoided  by  the 
excavators  of  the  catacombs,  Avho  ran  their  vast 
system  of  galleries  almost  exclusively  in  the 
tufa  granoltre.  While,  on  the  one  hand,  they 
avoided  the  solid  strata  of  the  tufa  litoide, 
which  could  not  be  quarried  Avithout  at  least 
threefold  the  time  and  labour  required  in  the 
granul  ir  tufa,  and  the  exca Abated  material  from 
Avhich  could  not  be  disposed  of  without  great 
inconA'enieuce,  Avith  equal  care  these  subterranean 
engineers  avoided  the  layers  of  friable  pozzolana 
Avhich  would  haA^e  rendered  their  Avork  insecure, 
and  in  which  no  permanent  gallery  or  rock  tomb 
could  have  been  constructed,  and  selected  that 
stratum  of  medium  hardness  Avhich  Avas  best 
adapted  for  their  peculiar  purpose.  The  suita¬ 
bility  of  the  tufa  granolare  for  the  object  in  view 
cannot  be  better  stated  than  in  the  Avords  of  Dr. 
Northcote :  “  It  is  easilv  worked,  of  sutlicient  con- 
sistency  to  admit  of  being  holloAved  out  into  galle¬ 
ries  and  chambers  Avithout  at  once  falling  in,  and 
its  porous  nature  causes  the  Avater  quickly  to  drain 
off  from  it,  thus  leaving  the  galleries  dry  and 
wholesome,  an  important  consideration  when  we 


CATACOMBS  297 

think  of  the  A^ast  number  of  dead  bodies  Avhich 
once  lined  the  walls  of  the  subterranean  ceme¬ 
teries  ”  (Roma  Sotterr.  p.  321).  To  these  advan¬ 
tages  may  be  added  the  facility  Avith  Avhich  the 
rock  Avas  triturated  so  as  to  be  carried  out  of 
the  excavations  in  the  form  of  earth  instead  of 
heavy  blocks  of  stone,  as  would  have  been  tho 
case  in  the  quarries  of  compact  tufa. 


rian  of  Arenaria 


The  exclusively  Christian  origin  of  the  cata¬ 
combs,  and  their  destination  from  the  first  for 
purposes  of  interment  is  also  evident,  from  the 
contrast  furnished  by  thoir  plan,  form,  and  mode 
of  construction,  to  the  arenifodinae,^  or  sand-pits, 
and  lapidicinae,  or  stone  quarries,  of  ancient 
times.  This  contrast  is  made  evident  to  the  eve 
by  Padre  Marchi,  from  Avhom  the  annexed  Avood- 
cuts  are  borrowed  (Tav  T  iii.  ix.-xii.),  and  by 


Plan  of  St.  Agnos. 


Dr.  Northcote  and  Mr.  BrownloAv  in  the  plan 
and  atlas  appended  to  their  Roma  Sotterranea. 
The  ground  jilaus  given  by  Marchi  lay  before  us 
in  successive  ])lates  the  ichnography  of  the 
stone  quarry  Avhich  lies  above  the  catacomb  of 
St.  Pontianus,  and  of  the  ttrenaria  which  lies 
above  that  of  St.  Agne.s,  and  the  portions  '>f  the 
cemetery  immediately  beneath  tbem.  Nothing 
could  more  forcibly  show  the  difference  between 
the  vast  cavernous  chambers  of  the  quarry, 


298 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


where  the  object  was  to  remove  as  much  0/  the 
stone  as  was  consistent  with  safety,  and  the  long 
narrow  galleries  of  the  catacomb  in  which  the 
object  was  to  displace  as  little  of  the  stratum  as 
would  be  consistent  with  the  excavator’s  purpose. 
The  plates  also  enable  us  to  contrast  the  tortuous 
passages  of  the  aretuiriae,  running  usually  in 
curved  lines,  with  a  careful  avoidance  of  sharp 
angles,  and  wide  enough  to  admit  a  horse  and 
cart  for  the  removal  of  the  material,  and  the 
straight  lines,  right  angles,  and  restricted  dimen¬ 
sions  of  the  ambulacra  of  the  catacombs.  An¬ 
other  marked  difference  between  the  arenai'iae 
and  the  subterranean  cemeteries  of  the  Christians 
is,  that  the  walls  of  the  latter  always  rise  ver¬ 
tically  from  the  floor  of  the  gallery,  while,  on 
account  of  the  frailness  of  the  material  in  which 
they  were  excavated,  the  wails  of  the  sand  quar¬ 
ries  are  set  at  a  re-entering  angle,  giving  the 
gallery  almost  the  form  of  a  tunnel.  This  mode 
of  construction  renders  it  impossible  to  form 
sepulchral  recesses  with  exactly  closed  apertures, 
as  we  find  them  in  all  the  galleries  of  the  cata¬ 
combs.  The  friability  of  the  material  also  forbids 
the  adaptation  of  a  plate  or  marble  or  tiles  to 
the  aperture  of  the  I'ecess,  which  was  essential 
to  confine  the  noxious  effluvia  of  the  decaying 
corpses. 

The  wide  distinction  between  the  mode  of 
construction  adopted  in  the  quarries  and  that 
rendered  necessary  by  the  requirements  of  the 
cemeteries,  and  the  practical  difficulties  which 
stood  in  the  way  of  transforming  one  into  the 
other  are  rendered  more  evident  by  the  few 
instances  in  which  this  transformation  has  been 
actually  effected.  The  examples  we  would  bring 
in  proof  of  our  statement  are  those  given  by  Mich. 
Stef.  De  Rossi  from  the  cemeteries  of  St.  Hermes 
and  St.  Priscilla  (^Analis.  Geol.  ed  Arch.  vol.  i.  pp. 
31,  32,  sq. ;  Northcote,  R.  S.  pp.  323,  329).  In 
the  first  piano  of  the  catacomb  of  St.  Hermes 
we  have  a  specimen  of  a  sepulchral  gallery  with 
three  rows  of  lateral  loculi,  constructed  in  brick 
and  masonry,  within  an  ancient  arenaria.  At 
first  sight  the  difference  between  the  form  and 
proportions  of  the  galleries  and  loculi,  and  those 
of  the  usual  type,  is  scarcely  noticeable.  Closer 
inspection,  however,  shows  that  the  side  walls 
are  built  up  from  the  ground,  in  advance  of  the 
tufa  walls  of  the  gallery,  which  is  two  or  three 
times  the  ordinary  width,  leaving  space  enough 
for  the  depth  of  the  loculi.  These  are  closed  in 
the  ordinary  manner,  with  the  exception  of  those 
of  the  uppermost  tier,  where  the  closing  slabs 
are  laid  at  an  angle,  sloping  up  to  the  barrel 
vault  of  the  gallery,  and  foi’ming  a  triangular 
instead  of  a  rectangular  recess.  When  the 
galleries  cross  one  another  the  space  becomes 
wider  and  the  walls  more  curved,  and  the  vault 
is  sustained  in  the  centre  by  a  thick  wall  con¬ 
taining  tombs,  which  divides  the  ambulacrum 
into  two  parallel  galleries.  This  example  indi¬ 
cates  the  nature  of  the  alterations  required  to 
convert  an  arenaria  into  a  cemetery.  These  as 
a  rule  were  so  costly  and  laborious  that  the 
Christians  preferred  to  undertake  an  entirely 
fresh  excavation. 

The  second  example  is  that  from  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Priscilla,  on  the  Via  Salaria  Nova.  The 
annexed  plan  given  fx-om  De  Rossi  enables  us, 
by  a  valuation  in  the  shading,  to  distinguish 
between  the  original  excavation  and  the  form 


into  which  it  was  subsequently  converted  when 
it  became  a  Christian  burial-place,  and  helps 
us  to  appreciate  the  immense  labour  that 
was  expended  in  the  erection  of  “  numerous 
pillars  of  various  sizes,  long  walls  of  solid  ma- 
soniy,  sometimes  straight,  sometimes  broken 
into  angles,  partly  concealing  and  partly  sustain¬ 
ing  the  tufa  and  the  sepulchres  of  the  galleries, 
frequent  niches  of  various  sii.e  often  interrupted 
by  pillars  built  up  within  th<>m,”  and  the  other 
modifications  necessary  to  convert  the  original 
excavation  into  its  pi*esent  fox'm.  We  may  men¬ 
tion  a  third  example  of  the  same  kind :  the 
arenaria  adjacent  to  St.  Saturninus,  on  the  same 
I’oad.  A  poi'tion  of  this  cemeteiy  has  been  exca¬ 
vated  in  good  pozzolana  eaidh,  and  has  the  cha¬ 
racteristics  of  a  true  arenaria.  The  galleries  are 
wide,  and  are  curved  in  plan.  The  walls  and 
vault  are  arched,  and  it  has  not  been  thought 


Plan  of  part  of  ihe  Catacoml)sof  St.  Priscilla  from  Dt?  Xtoaei,  showing 
the  adaptation  of  an  Arenaria  to  a  Christian  i-.einelery.  The  dark 
sbadiag  represents  the  tnfa  rock  ;  the  lighter  the  added  masonry. 


consistent  with  secuiuty  to  construct  more  than 
two  ranges  of  loculi  near  the  pavement,  and  even 
these  occur  at  wfider  intervals  than  is  usual  where 
the  1‘ock  is  harder.  In  all  respects  the  conti-ast 
this  divi.sion  of  the  cemetery  presents  to  the 
oi’dinaiy  type  is  most  marked.  “  Hei-e  we  have 
another  instance  of  the  Christians  having  made 
the  attempt  to  utilise  the  arenaria,  but  it  appears 
that  they  found  it  moi’e  convenient  to  abandon 
the  attempt,  and  to  construct  entirely  new  gal¬ 
leries,  even  at  the  cost  of  descending  to  a  gi'eater 
depth  into  the  bowels  of  the  earth  ”  (Northcote, 
R.  S.  p.  330). 

These  examples  when  candidly  examined  lead 
to  a  conclusion  directly  opposite  to  that  atfli*med 
so  confidently  by  Rixoul-Rochette  and  othei*s. 
So  far  fi-om  its  being  the  case  that  the  Christians 
commenced  their  subterranean  cemeteries  by 
adopting  exhausted  arenariae,  which  they  ex* 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 

tended  and  enlarged  to  suit  their  increasing 
requirements,  so  that  “an  arenaria  was  the 
ordinary  matrix  of  a  catacomb,”  the  rarity  of 
such  instances  that  can  be  adduced,  and  the 
marked  contrast  between  the  arenaria  and  the 
catacomb  both  in  plan  and  mode  of  construction, 
confirm  our  assertion  that  the  subterranean  ceme-  j 
teries  of  the  Christians  had  a  distinct  origin,  and 
from  the  first  were  intended  for  places  of  inter¬ 
ment  alone,  and  that  what,  previous  to  recent 
investigations,  was  regarded  as  the  normal  con-  j 
dition  of  things,  was  really  extremely  exceptional,  \ 
and  is  to  be  explained  in  each  case  on  exceptional 
grounds. 

The  traditional  hypothesis  to  which  we  have 
referred,  by  which  the  conclusions  of  all  inves¬ 
tigators  before  the  memorable  epoch  of  Padre  | 
March!  were  fettered,  had  its  foundation  in  cer-  i 
tain  passages  in  ancient  documents  of  very  ques¬ 
tionable  value,  which  describe  the  burial-places 
of  certain  martyrs  and  others  as  being  in  arena-  j 
no,  juxta  arenarium,  ad  arenas,  or  in  cryptis  | 
arenariis.  These  passages  are  almost  exclusively  | 
derived  from  the  documents  known  as  “  Acta  ' 
Martyrum,”  which,  from  the  extent  to  which  ' 
their  text  has  been  tampered  with  at  difterent 
dates,  are  generally  almost  worthless  as  histo¬ 
rical  authorities.  None  of  those  in  question  are 
contained  in  Ruinart’s  Acta  Martyrxim  Sincera, 
and  they  are  probably  of  little  real  weight.  And 
further,  even  if  the  statements  contained  in  them 
deserved  to  be  received  with  more  confidence 
De  Rossi  has  very  acutely  demonstrated  that 
they  cannot  fairly  be  considered  to  prove  the 
fact  for  which  they  are  adduced.  They  show 
little  more  than  that  the  terms  arenarium,  &c., 
were  used  more  loosely  at  the  time  these  “Acts” 
were  compiled  than  strict  accuracy  warranted, 
and  were  applied  to  the  whole  “  hypogaeum  ”  of 
which  the  sand-pit  at  most  only  formed  part. 
According  to  Mich.  Stef.  De  Rossi  {Analis.  Geol.  ed 
Arch.  vol.  i.  pp.  13-34),  if  we  confine  ourselves 
to  a  range  of  five  or  six  miles  out  of  Rome,  there 
are  no  more  than  nine  passages  of  these  “Acts  ” 
in  which  martyrs  are  recorded  to  have  been 
interred  in  arenario  or  in  cryptis  arenariis ; 
while  of  this  limited  number  of  authorities,  four 
refer  to  cemeteries  in  which  an  arenaria  is 
actually  found  more  or  less  closely  connected 
with  the  cemetery,  and  in  which  therefore  the 
fact  may  be  at  once  acknowledged  to  be  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  the  record,  without  in  the  least 
impugning  our  conclusion  as  to  the  generally 
distinct  nature  of  the  two. 

It  deserves  notice  also,  as  showinsr  the  worth- 
lessness  of  these  records  as  statements  of  fact, 
that  two  of  the  passages  which  speak  of  inter¬ 
ments  in  ci*yptis  arenariis,  that  of  SS.  Nereus 
and  Alexander  in  the  cemetery  of  Domitilla,  and 
that  of  S.  Laurentius  in  that  ofCyriaca,  refer  to 
localities  where  pozzolana  is  not  to  be  found, 
but  where  the  stratum  in  which  the  cemetery  is 
constructed  is  that  known  as  capellaccio,  which 
is  quite  worthless  for  building  purposes.  No 
arewanum,  or  c  ypta  arenaria,  properly  so  called, 
could  have  existed  there. 

With  regard  to  the  passage  which  refers  to 
the  place  of  sepulture  of  SS.  Marcus  and  Mar- 
cellinus.  Padre  Marchi  justly  observes  that  it 
is  not  said  that  these  martyrs  were  buried  in 
cryptis  arenarum,  but  “m  loco  qui  dicitur  ad 
arenas,''  and  therefore  merely  in  the  neighbour- 


299 

hood  of  the  pits  from  which  the  walls  of  the  city 
were  built. 

But  although  the  exclusively  Christian  origin 
of  the  catacombs  has  to  be  distinctly  asserted, 
and  the  idea  that  they  had  their  origin  in  sand 
quarries,  already  existing  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
Church,  must  be  met  with  a  decided  contra¬ 
diction,  we  must  be  careful  not  to  press  the 
distinction  so  far  as  to  deny  the  connection  which 
really  exists,  in  very  many  instances,  between 
the  cemetery  and  an  arenaria.  We  must  also 
allow  that  there  are  examples  in  which  loculi  for 
Christian  interment  have  been  found  in  the  walls 
of  the  tortuous  roads  of  a  sand  quarry.  Mr. 
J.  H.  Parker,  who  by  his  accurate  investigations 
is  conferring  on  the  architecture  and  topography 
of  Rome  the  same  benefits  he  has  bestowed  on 
the  architecture  of  his  native  Country  and  of 
France,  has  discovered  loculi  in  the  sides  of  a 
sand-pit  road,  near  the  church  of  S.  Drbano  alia 
Catfarella.  This  road  evidently  Communicated 
with  the  cemetery  of  Praetextatus,  to  which  the 
main  entrance  was  from  the  church,  originally 
an  ancient  tomb.  A  modern  brick  wall,  built 
across  the  road,  prevents  any  further  examina¬ 
tion  of  the  locality.  Such  communications  be¬ 
tween  the  cemeteries  and  the  adjacent  arenariae 
were  frequently  opened  in  the  days  of  perse¬ 
cution,  when,  as  Tertullian  informs  us,  the 
Christians  were  “daily  besieged,  and  betrayed, 
and  caught  unawares  in  their  very  assemblies 
and  congregations ;  their  enemies  having  in¬ 
formed  themselves  as  to  the  days  and  places  of 
their  meetings  ”  (Tert.  Apol.  vii. ;  ad  Nat.  i.  7), 
and  when,  therefore,  it  became  necessary  as  far 
as  possible  to  conceal  the  entrances  to  their 
burial  places  from  the  public  gaze.  In  those 
times  of  trial  the  original  entrances  to  the  cata¬ 
combs  were  blocked  up,  the  staircases  destroyed, 
and  new  and  difficult  ways  of  access  opened 
through  the  recesses  of  a  deserted  sand-pit. 
These  afforded  the  Christians  the  means  of  ingress 
and  egress  without  attracting  public  notice,  and 
by  means  of  them  they  had  facilities  for  escape, 
even  when  they  had  been  tracked  to  the  cata¬ 
comb  itself.  The  catacomb  of  S.  Callistus  affords 
examples  of  these  connections  with  arenaria. 
(Cf.  the  plans  given  by  De  Rossi,  Northcote,  and 
Marchi.) 

History. — The  practice  of  interring  the  entire 
corpse  unconsumed  by  fire  in  a  subterranean  ex¬ 
cavation  has  been  so  completely  identified  with 
the  introduction  of  the  Christian  religion  into 
Rome  that  we  are  in  danger  of  losing  sight  of 
the  fact  that  this  mode  of  burial  did  not  in  any 
sense  originate  with  the  Christians.  However 
great  the  contrast  between  the  sepulture  after 
cremation  in  the  urns  oi  columbaria,  or  the  indis¬ 
criminate  flinging  of  the  dead  into  the  loathsome 
puticoli,  and  the  reverent  and  orderly  interment 
of  the  bodies  of  the  departed  in  the  cells  of  a 
catacomb,  the  Christians,  in  adopting  this  mode, 
were  only  reverting  to  what  one  of  the  early 
apologists  terms  “  the  older  and  better  custom  of 
inhumation”  (Minuc.  Fel.  Octao.  c.  34).  It  is 
well  known  that  the  custom  of  burying  the  dead 
was  the  original  custom  both  with  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  and  was  only  su})erseded  by  burn¬ 
ing  in  later  times,  chiefly  on  sanitary  grounds. 
The  Etruscan  tombs  are  familiar  examples  be¬ 
longing  to  a  very  early  period.  In  Rome,  cre¬ 
mation  did  not  become  general  till  the  later  days 


300 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


of  th(;  republic.  The  authority  of  Cicero  is  defi¬ 
nite  on  this  point.  He  states  that  Marius  was 
buried,  and  that  the  Gens  Cornelia  adopted  cre¬ 
mation  for  their  dead  in  living  memory,  Sulla 
being  the  first  member  of  that  Gens  whose  body 
was  burnt  (Cic.  de  Leg.  ii.  22).  Under  the 
Empire  cremation  became  the  almost  universal 
custom,  though  not  so  as  absolutely  to  exclude 
the  other,  which  gradually  regained  its  lost  hold 
on  tlie  public  mind,  and  was  re-established 
by  tlie  fourth  century.  Macrobius  asserts  posi¬ 
tively  that  the  custom  of  burning  the  dead  had 
entirely  ceased  in  his  day.  “  Urendi  corpora  de- 
fiinctorum  usus  nostro  saeculo  nullus  ”  (Macrob. 
Saturn  d.  lib.  vii.  c.  7).  Of  the  practice  of  in¬ 
humation  of  the  unburnt  body  we  have  not  un¬ 
frequent  examples  in  Rome  itself.  The  tomb  of 
the  Scipios,  on  the  Appian  Way  (now  within  the 
Aurelian  walls),  is  a  familiar  instance.  The 
correspondence  between  the  arrangements  of  this 
tomb  and  those  of  the  earlier  Christian  catacombs, 
e.g.  that  of  Domitilla,  is  very  marked.  In  both 
we  have  passages  excavated  in  the  tufa,  giving 
access  to  sepulchral  chambers  arranged  in  stories  , 
burial  placai’,  cut  in  the  native  rock  and  covered 
with  a  slab  of  stone ;  sarcophagi  standing  in 
recesses,  partially  hollowed  out  to  receive  them. 
Visconti  was  of  opinion  that  this  tomb  was  a 
used-out  stone  quarry.  In  this  he  is  followed 
by  Raoul-Rochette,  Tableau  des  Cutac.  p.  23. 
It  is  favoured  by  the  irregularity  of  the  plan. 
Another  like  example  is  the  tomb  of  the  Nasos,  on 
the  Flammian  Way,  described  by  Bartoli,  in 
which  Raoul-Rochette  has  traced  a  marked  re¬ 
semblance  to  the  plan  and  general  disposition  to 
the  catacomb  of  St.  Hermes,  which,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  presents  many  marked  variations 
from  the  ordinary  plan  of  the  Christian  cata¬ 
combs.  Other  examples  are  given  by  De  Rossi, 
L.  S.  i.  88,  who  remarks  that  this  mode  of  inter¬ 
ment  was  much  more  general  in  Rome  and  its 
vicinity  than  is  usually  credited.  He  quotes 
from  Fabretti,  Insc.  Dom.  p.  55,  a  description  of 
a  tomb  found  by  him  at  the  fourth  mile  on  the 
Flaminian  Way.  “Necdum  crematione  instituta 
in  topho  indigena  excavatum  sepulchrum  .... 
qurUia  in  nostris  Christianorura  coemeteriis 
visuntur,”  and  mentions  a  numerous  series  of 
cells  of  a  similar  character  cut  in  the  living  rock 
examined  bv  him  in  different  localities  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  city. 

But  although  Pagan  subterranean  burial 
places  possess  a  family  likeness  to  the  ceme¬ 
teries  of  the  Christians,  they  are  unmis¬ 
takably  distinguished  from  them  by  certain 
unfailing  marks.  They  are  of  much  more  con¬ 
tracted  dimensions,  being  intended  for  the  mem¬ 
bers  and  dependants  of  a  single  family,  instead 
of  being  open  to  the  comnuiuity  of  the  faithful 
generally.  As  being  destined  to  be  the  abodes 
of  the  dead  only,  their  entrances  were  firmly 
closed,  while  the  burial  niches  were  frequently 
left  open  ;  while  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  cemeteries,  constantly  visited  for  the  pur- 
'poses  of  devotion  and  for  the  memorial  of  the 
departed,  the  loculi  were  hermetically  sealed,  to 
prevent  the  escape  of  noxious  gases,  while  the 
entrance  stood  ahvays  open,  and  the  faithful 
could  approach  each  separate  grave  with  their 
prayers  and  their  offerings.  These  distinctions 
are  broadly  maintained  as  a  rule.  As  regards 
dimensions,  however,  there  are  exceptions  each 


way.  We  meet  with  some  isolated  Christian 
burial  chambers  designed  to  receive  the  indi¬ 
viduals  of  a  single  family;  and  on  the  other 
hand,  some  heathen  tombs  exceed  the  usual 
limits  of  a  single  chamber*.  De  Rossi  mentions 
the  existence  of  many  hypogaea,  opening  from 
the  tombs  and  columbaria  on  the  Appian  and 
Latin  Ways,  which  contain  a  few  small  CM^icu/aand 
three  or  four  very  short  ambulacra.  Such  hyjio- 
gaea  were  assigned  by  Marchi,  without  sufficient 
evidence,  to  the  adherents  of  idolatrous  Oriental 
sects  (De  Rossi,  R.  S.  i.  pp.  88-92). 

But  it  is  not  in  these  heathen  examples  that 
we  are  to  find  the  germ  of  the  Christian  catacombs. 
We  are  to  look  for  them  in  the  burial  places  of 
another  people,  with  whom  the  Christians  of 
Rome  were  from  the  first  closely  connected,  and 
indeed  in  the  popular  mind  identified — the  Jews. 
The  first  converts  to  the  faith  in  Rome  were 
Jews ;  and,  as  Dean  Milman  has  remarked  {Lxt. 
Christianity,  i.  31),  no  Church  seems  to  have 
clung  more  obstinately  to  Judaising  tenets  and 
Jewish  customs  than  the  Roman.  In  their  man¬ 
ner  of  sepulture,  therefore,  we  should  anticipate 
that  the  Roman  Christians  would  follow  the 
customs  of  the  land  which  was  the  cradle  of  their 
religion,  and  to  which  so  many  of  them  traced 
their  parentage — customs  which  were  faithfully 
adhered  to  in  the  land  of  their  dispersion.  They 
had  an  additional  reason  for  regarding  this  mode 
of  interment  with  affectionate  reverence,  as  one 
hallowed  to  them  by  the  example  of  their  cruci¬ 
fied  Master,  and  in  Him  associated  with  the 
hopes  of  the  resurrection.  The  practice  of  burial 
in  sepulchres  hewn  out  of  the  living  rock  was 
always  familiar  to  the  Jews,  and  was  adopted  by 
them  in  every  part  of  the  world  wherever  they 
made  settlements  and  the  nature  of  the  soil 
permitted  it.  The  existence  of  Jewish  catacombs 
in  Rome,  of  a  date  anterior  to  Christianity,  is  no 
matter  of  conjecture.  One  was  discovered  by 
Bosio  at  the  opening  of  the  17th  century,  and 
described  by  him  {R.  S.  c.  xxii.  p.  141  seq.), 
bearing  unmistakable  evidence  of  a  very  early 
date.  This  cemetery,  placed  by  him  on  ilonte 
Verde,  outside  the  Porta  Portese,  has  escaped  all 
subsequent  researches  (Marchi,  p.  21  seq.).  From 
the  meanness  of  its  construction,  the  absence  of 
any  adornment  in  painting,  stucco,  or  marble, 
and  the  smallness  and  paucity  of  its  cnbicula 
(only  two  were  found),  it  was  evidently  a  burial 
j)lace  of  the  poorer  classes.  There  was  an  utter 
absence  of  all  Christian  symbols.  Almost  every 
loculus  bore — either  painted  in  red  or  scratched 
on  the  mortar — the  seven-branched  candlestick. 
In  one  inscription  was  read  the  word  CTNAmr. 
(Tvraycoyr). 

Another  Jewish  catacomb  is  still  accessible 
on  the  Via  Appia,  opposite  the  Basilica  of  St. 
Sebastian.  According  to  Mr.  Parker  (who  has 
included  photogra})hs  of  this  catacomb  in  his  in¬ 
valuable  series.  Nos.  1160,  1161),  part  of  it  is  of 
the  time  of  Augustus,  part  as  late  as  Constantine. 
It  contains  two  cubicula,  with  large  arcosolia, 
ornamented  with  arabe.sque  paintings  of  flowers 
and  birds,  devoid  of  distinctive  symbols.  Some 
of  the  lojuli  present  their  ends  instead  of  their 
sides  to  the  galleries — an  arrangement  very  rarely 
found  in  Christian  cemeteries.  The  inscriptions 
are  mostlv  in  Greek  characters,  though  the 
language  of  some  is  Latin.  Some  bear  Hebrew 
words.  Nearly  all  have  the  candlestick.  In 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


301 


1866  another  extremely  poverty-stricken  Jewish 
catacomb,  dug  in  a  clay  soil,  was  excavated  in 
the  Vigna  Cimarra,  on  the  Appian  Way. 

The  idea  so  long  and  so  widely  prevalent,  that 
works  of  such  immense  extent,  demanding  so 
large  an  amount  of  severe  manual  labour,  could 
have  been  executed  in  secret,  and  in  defiance  of 
existing  laws,  is  justly  designated  by  Mommsen 
as  ridiculous,  and  reflecting  a  discredit,  as  un¬ 
founded  as  it  is  unjust,  on  the  imperial  police  of 
the  capital.  It  is  simply  impossible  that  such 
excavations  should  have  escaped  official  notice. 
Kor  was  there  any  reason  why  the  Christians 
should  have  desired  that  their  burial  places 
should  have  been  concealed  from  the  state  autho¬ 
rities.  No  evidence  can  be  alleged  which  affords 
even  a  hint  that  in  the  first  two  centuries  at 
least  there  was  any  official  interference  with 
Christian  sepulture,  or  any  difficulties  attending 
it  to  render  secrecy  or  concealment  desirable. 
The  ordinary  laws  relating  to  the  burial  of  the 
dead  afforded  their  protection  to  the  Christians 
no  less  than  to  their  fellow  citizens.  A  special 
enactment,  of  which  we  find  no  trace,  would 
have  been  needed,  to  exempt  the  Christians  from 
the  operation  of  these  laws.  So  long  as  they  did 
not  violate  any  of  the  laws  by  which  the  sepul¬ 
ture  of  the  dead  was  regulated  the  Roman  Chris¬ 
tians  were  left  free  to  follow  their  taste  and 
wishes  in  this  matter.  Nor,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  there  anything  altogether  strange  or  repul¬ 
sive  in  the  mode  of  burial  adopted  by  the  Chris¬ 
tians.  They  were  but  following  an  old  fashion 
which  had  not  entirely  died  out  in  Rome,  and 
which  the  Jews  were  suffered  to  follow  un¬ 
molested.  One  law  they  were  absolutely  bound 
to  observe,  viz.,  that  which  prohibited  interment 
within  the  walls  of  the  city.  And  a  survey  of 
the  Christian  cemeteries  in  the  vicinity  of  Rome 
will  show  that  this  was  strictly  obeyed.  All 
of  them  are  contained  in  the  zone  at  once  pre¬ 
scribed  bv  law  and  dictated  by  convenience, 
within  a .  radius  of  about  2^  miles  from  the 
Aurelian  walls.  “  Between  the  third  and  fifth 
mile  from  the  walls  no  Christian  sepulchre  has 
been  found ;  at  the  sixth,  only  one,  that  of  St. 
Alexander;  while  beyond  the  seventh  mile  tombs 
are  again  met  with,  but  these  belong  rather  to 
the  towns  and  villages  of  the  Campagna  than  to 
Rome  itself”  (Northcote,  R.  S.  p.  334;  Mich. 
Stef  de  Rossi,  Analis.  Geol.  ed  ArcU.  i.  45). 

Legal  enactments  and  considerations  of  practical 
convenience  having  roughly  determined  the  situ¬ 
ation  of  the  Christian  cemeteries,  a  further  cause 
operated  to  fix  their  precise  locality.  Having 
regard  to  the  double  purpose  these  excavations 
were  to  serve — the  sepulture  of  the  dead,  and  the 
gathering  of  the  living  for  devotion — it  was 
essential  that  a  position  should  be  chosen  where 
the  soil  was  dry,  and  which  was  not  liable  to  be 
flooded  by  the  neighbouring  streams,  nor  subject 
to  the  infiltration  of  water.  If  these  rules  were 
not  observed,  not  only  would  the  putrefaction  of 
the  corpses  have  taken  place  with  dangerous 
rapidity,  and  the  air  become  poisoned,  but  the 
galleries  themselves  would  have  been  choked 
with  mud  and  been  rendered  inaccessible.  We 
find,  therefore,  that  the  plannei’s  of  the  ceme¬ 
teries,  as  a  rule,  avoided  Jhe  valleys  and  low 
lands,  and  restricted  their  operations  to  the 
higher  grounds  surrounding  the  city,  particularly 
where  the  geological  conditions  of  the  soil  pro¬ 


mised  them  strata  of  the  tufa  grnnolare,  in  which 
they  by  preference  worked,  and  where  springs  of 
water  were  absent.  As  an.  example  of  the  disas¬ 
trous  consequences  of  not  attending  to  these  pre¬ 
cautions  we  may  name  the  cemetery  of  Castulu-s, 
on  the  Via  Labicana,  re-discovered  by  De  Rossi 
in  1864  (^Bulletmo  de  Arch.  Crist.,  Fev.  1865). 
From  its  loxv  position,  the  galleries  are  filled 
with  clay  and  water,  which  have  reduced  them 
to  ruin  and  rendered  the  cemetery  quite  inac¬ 
cessible. 

As  a  rule,  each  catacomb  occupies  a  separate 
rising  ground  of  the  Campagna,  and  one  divided 
from  any  other  by  intervening  valleys.  The 
general  humidity  of  these  low  grounds,  and  the 
streams  which  flow  along  them,  efl'ectually  pro¬ 
hibit  the  construction  of  galleries  of  communica¬ 
tion  between  the  various  cemeteries.  The  idea 
broached  by  Raoul-Rochette,  and  contended  for 
by  Marchi,  that  a  subterranean  communication 
at  a  low  level  exists  between  the  whole  of  the 
Christian  cemeteries  of  Rome,  as  well  as  with 
the  chief  churches  within  the  city,  is,  in  Momm¬ 
sen’s  words,  “a  mere  fable” — in  fact,  a  complete 
impossibility.  Such  galleries  of  connection,  if 
formed,  would  have  been  constantly  inundated, 
if  they  had  not  at  once  become  mere  conduits  of 
running  water. 

Each  of  the  larger  cemeteries,  then,  may 
be  regarded  as  an  insulated  group,  embracing 
several  smaller  cemeteries,  corresponding  to  the 
original  funeral  areae  assigned  to  the  interment 
of  the  early  Christians,  but  never  crossing  the 
intermediate  depressions  or  ravines,  and  seldom, 
if  ever,  having  any  communication  with  each 
other  (M.  Stef,  de  Rossi,  R.  S.  Analis.  Geol.  ed 
Arch.  i.  41,  seq.). 

The  notions  which  have  been  entertained 
as  to  the  horizontal  extent  of  the  catacombs 
are  very  greatly  exaggerated.  It  has  been  even 
gravely  asserted  that  they  reach  as  far  as  Tivoli 
in  one  direction  and  Ostia  in  the  other.  It  is 
probably  quite  impossible  to  form  a  correct  esti¬ 
mate  of  the  area  actually  occupied  by  them,  from 
our  ignorance  of  their  real  extent.  Not  a  few 
which  were  known  to  the  older  investigators 
cannot  now  be  discovered,  and  it  can  hardly  be 
questioned  that  others  exist  which  have  never 
been  entered  since  the  period  when  they  were 
finally  given  over  to  neglect  and  decay.  M.  Stef, 
de  Rossi,  in  his  valuable  Analisi  Geologica  cd 
Architetlonica,  so  often  referred  to,  p.  60,  de¬ 
clares  his  belief  that  nearly  the  whole  of  the 
available  space  wdthin  the  above-named  ceme- 
terial  zone,  where  the  soil  was  suitable  for  the 
purpose,  was  occupied  by  burial  vaults.  But  he 
discreetly  abstains  from  any  attempt  to  define 
either  their  superficial  area  or  their  linear 
extension.  The  calculations  that  have  been 
hazarded  by  Marchi  and  others  are  founded  on 
too  vague  data  to  be  very  trustworthy.  Marchi 
calculated  that  the  united  length  of  the  galleries 
of  the  catacombs  would  amount  to  800  or  900 
miles,  and  the  number  of  graves  to  between  six 
and  seven  millions.  The  estimate  quoted  by  Mar- 
tigny  {^Diction,  des  Atd.  Chret.  p.  128)  does  not 
go  beyond  587  miles.  That  given  by  Northcote 
{R.  S.  p.  26)  is  more  modest  still, — “on  the 
whole  there  are  certainly  not  less  than  350  miles 
of  them.”  But  all  such  estimates  are  at  present 
simply  conjectural. 

The  beginnings  of  these  vast  cemeteries  were 


302 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


small  and  comparatively  insignificant.  There  is 
little  question  that  almost  without  exception 
they  had  their  origin  in  sepulchral  areas  of  limi¬ 
ted  extent,  the  property  of  private  families  or 
individuals,  devoted  by  them  to  this  sacred  pur¬ 
pose.  The  investigations  of  De  Rossi,  an  ex¬ 
plorer  as  sagacious  as  he  is  conscientious,  have 
satisfactorily  proved  that  the  immense  cemetery 
of  Callistus,  with  its  innumerable  cubicula  and 
stories  of  intricate  ramifications,  originally  con¬ 
sisted  of  several  small  and  independent  burial 
grounds,  executed  with  great  regularity  within 
carefully  prescribed  limits.  The  manner  in 
which  a  subterranean  cemetery  was  constructed 
was  as  follows.  First  of  all  a  plot  of  ground 
suitable  for  the  purpose  was  obtained  by  gift  or 
by  purchase,  extending  so  many  feet,  in  f route,  in 
length,  along  the  high  road,  so  many,  in  ogro, 
in  depth,  at  right  angles  to  the  road.  That  which 
used  to  be  known  as  the  cemetery  of  Lucina,  the 
most  ancient  part  of  the  cemetery  of  Callistus, 
measured  100  Roman  feet  in  length  by  180  feet 
in  depth.  A  second  area  of  the  same  cemetery 
including  the  Papal  crypt  and  that  of  St.  Caecilia 
measured  250  along  the  road,  and  reached  back 
100  feet  in  agro.  Such  a  plot  was  secured  by  its 
Christian  proprietor  as  a  burial-place  with  the 
usual  legal  formalities.  The  fact  of  the  indivi¬ 
dual  being  a  Chidstian  threw  no  impediment  in 
the  way  of  the  purchase,  or  of  the  construction  of 
the  cemetery.  All  were  in  this  respect  equally  un¬ 
der  the  protection  of  the  laws.  The  first  step  in  the 
construction  of  the  cemetery  was  the  excavation 
of  a  passage  all  the  way  round  the  area,  commu¬ 
nicating  with  the  surface  by  one  or  more  stair¬ 
cases  at  the  corners.  Loculi  were  cut  in  the 
walls  of  these  galleries  to  receive  the  dead. 
When  the  original  galleries  were  fully  occupied, 
cross  galleries  were  run  on  the  same  level,  gra¬ 
dually  forming  a  network  of  passages,  all  filled 
with  tombs.  If  a  family  vault  was  required,  or 
a  martyr  or  other  Christian  of  distinction  had 
to  be  interred,  a  small  rectangular  chamber, 
cubiculuni,  was  excavated,  communicating  with 
the  gallery.  In  the  earlier  part  of  the  cemetery 
of  Callistus  a  considerable  number  of  these  small 
burial  chambers  are  found,  succeeding  one  an¬ 
other  as  we  proceed  along  the  ambulacrum  with 
as  much  regularity  as  bedrooms  opening  out  of  a 
passage  in  a  modern  house.  When  the  galleries 
in  the  original  piano  had  reached  their  furthest 
extension  consistent  with  stability,  the  excavators 
commenced  a  new  system  of  galleries  at  a  lower 
level,  i-eached  by  a  new  staircase.  These  were 
carried  out  on  the  same  principle  as  those  in  the 
story  above,  and  were  used  for  sepulture  as  long 
as  they  afforded  space  for  graves.  When  more 
room  was  wanted  the  fossores  formed  a  third 
story  of  galleries,  which  was  succeeded  by  a 
fourth,  and  even  by  a  fifth.  Instances  indeed 
are  met  with,  as  in  some  parts  of  the  cemetery 
of  Callistus,  where,  including  what  may  be  called 
a  mezzanine  story,  the  number  of  piani  reaches 
seven.  Sometimes,  however,  according  to  Cav. 
Mich.  S.  de  Rossi  (^Analis.  Geol.  ed.  Architet.  del 
Cimitero  di  Callisto,  vol  ii.  p.  30),  the  upper 
piani  are  of  later  date  than  the  lower,  experience 
having  given  the  excavators  greater  confidence  in 
the  .security  of  the  strata,  and  the  complete 
cessation  of  persecution  removing  the  temporary 
necessity  for  concealment.  Some  of  these  later 
galleries  are  not  more  than  from  three  to  four 


inches  below  the  surface.  The  extreme  narrcw- 
ness  of  the  galleries  is  one  of  the  most  marked 
characteristics  of  the  Christian  catacombs.  The 
object  of  the  excavators  being  to  economize 
space  and  make  the  most  of  a  limited  area,  the 
gallery  was  not  formed  of  a  greater  width  than 
would  be  sufficient  for  the  purpo.se  of  affording 
two  tiers  of  sepulchral  recesses,  with  room 
enough  between  for  the  passage,  usually,  of  a 
single  person.  The  narrowest  galleries,  which 
are  by  no  means  rare,  are  from  2  ft.  to  ft. 
wide.  The  normal  width  is  from  2^  ft.  to 

3  ft.  A  few  are  3J  ft.  wide.  A  still  smaller 
number,  and  those  usually  very  short,  are  from 

4  ft.  to  5  ft.  in  width.  These  rules,  says 
M.  S.  de  Rossi,  are  unalterable,  whatever  be 
the  piano,  or  the  quality  of  the  rock.  The 
only  variation  is  that  where  the  rock  is  more 
friable  the  galleries  are  less  numerous,  and 
more  of  the  intervening  stratum  is  left  un¬ 
touched;  while  they  become  more  numerous  and 
intricate  the  greater  the  solidity  of  the  forma¬ 
tion.  The  ceiling  is  usually  flat,  sometimes 
slightly  arched.  The  height  of  the  galleries 
depends  on  the  nature  of  the  soil  in  which  they 
are  dug.  The  earliest  were  originally  the  least 
elevated  ;  the  fossores  being  aj)prehensive  of 
making  them  too  high  for  security.  As  they 
gained  confidence  in  the  strength  of  the  rock, 
space  required  for  more  graves  was  obtained  by 
lowering  the  floor  of  the  galleries,  so  that  not 
unfi-equently  the  most  ancient  are  now  the 
most  lofty.  Sometimes  the  construction  of 
galleries  at  a  lower  ’evel  was  stopped  by  the 
cessation  of  the  strata  of  tufa  grunolare :  and  at 
others,  as  in  the  Vati«  an  cemetery,  by  the  oc¬ 
currence  of  springs,  which  threatened  the  inun¬ 
dation  of  the  gallei’ies  and  the  destruction  of 
the  graves.  When  further  progress  down¬ 
wards  was  prevented,  another  funeral  area  was 
opened  by  the  side  of  the  original  one,  and  the 
same  process  was  repeated.  It  often  happened 
that  in  the  course  of  time  independent  ceme¬ 
teries  which  had  been  formed  in  adjacent  plots  of 
ground  were  combined  together,  so  as  to  form 
one  large  necropolis.  Examples  of  this  are 
found  in  almost  all  the  great  cemeteries  of  Rome, 
and  the  combination  of  names  which  has  thus 
arisen  has  given  rise  to  no  little  confusion.  Por¬ 
tions  of  what  has  since  become  one  cemetery  bear 
different  appellations  in  the  ancient  documents, 
and  it  is  not  easy  to  unravel  the  tangled  skein : 
e.g.  the  cemetery  “ad  Ursum  pileatum  ”  on  the 
“  Via  Portuensis  ”  bears  the  titles  of  St.  Pontia- 
nus,  SS.  Abdon  and  Sennen,  and  St.  Pigmenius. 
That  on  the  “  Via  Appia,”  usually  known  as  the 
cemetery  of  St.  Praetextatus,  is  also  called  after 
St.  Urbanus,  SS.  Tiburtius  and  Valeriauus,  St. 
Balbina  and  St.  Marcus. 

Tradition  and  documentary  evidence  have 
assigned  several  of  the  Roman  catacombs  to  the 
first  age  of  the  Church’s  history.  For  some,  an 
apostolical  origin  is  claimed.  It  may  be  difficult 
to  prove  beyond  question  thatanV  of  the  existing 
catacombs  belong  to  the  age  of  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul,  but  the  matter  has  been  very  care¬ 
fully  and  dispassionately  examined  by  De 
Rossi,  R.  S.  i.  p.  184  seq.,  and  the  evidence  he 
collects  from  the  existing  remains  in  support  of 
the  traditional  view  is  of  a  nature  to  convince  us 
that  some  of  them  were  constructed  at  least  in  a 
very  early  period.  This  evidence  is  presented  by 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


303 


paintings  in  a  pure  classical  style,  with  a  very 
rare  admixture  of  distinctly  Christian  symbols ; 
decorations  in  fine  stucco,  displaying  a  chaste 
architectural  si)irit ;  crypts  of  considerable  size, 
not  hewn  out  of  the  living  tufa,  but  carefully, 
and  even  elegantly,  built  with  pilasters  and 
cornices  of  brick  and  terra-cotta;  wide  corridors 
with  painted  walls,  and  recesses  for  sarcophagi,  j 
instead  of  the  narrow  ambulacra  with  their 
walls  thickly  pierced  with  shelf-like  funeral 
recesses;  whole  families  of  inscriptions  to  persons 
bearing  classical  names,  and  without  any  dis-  ^ 
tinctively  Christian  expressions;  and  lastly, 
though  rarely,  consular  dates  of  the  second,  and 
one  or  more  even  of  the  first  century.  The  cata¬ 
combs  that  present  these  distinctive  marks  of 
very  early  date  are  those  of  Priscilla  on  the  Via 
Salaria  Nova,  that  of  Domitilla  on  the  Via  Arden- 
tina,  of  Praetextatus  on  the  Via  Appia,  and  a 
portion  of  that  of  St.  Agnes,  identified  with  the 
cemetery  of  Ostrianus  or  Fons  Petri. 

The  evidence  of  early  date  furnished  by  in¬ 
scriptions  is  but  scanty.  It  must,  however,  be 
borne  in  mind  that  only  a  very  small  proportion 
have  the  date  of  the  year,  as  given  by  the 
consuls,  upon  them.  The  chief  object  was  to  fix 
the  anniversary  of  the  death,  and  for  this  the  day 
of  the  mouth  was  sufficient.  The  most  ancient 
dated  Christian  inscription  is  of  the  third  year 
of  Vespasian,  a.d.  72,  but  its  original  locality  is 
unknown  (Northcote,  R.  S.  p.  65).  Rostell 
(^Roms  Beschreibung,  i.  371),  quotes  from  Bol- 
detti,  p.  83,  one  of  the  consulate  of  Anicius  and 
Virius  Callus,  A.D.  98,  from  the  catacomb  of 
Hippolytus ;  but  it  begins  with  the  letters 
D.  M.,  and  contains  no  distinctly  Christian  ex¬ 
pressions.  One  of  the  consulate  of  Sura  and 
Senecio,  a.d.  107,  and  another  of  that  of  Piso 
and  Bolanus,  a.d.  110,  were  seen  by  Boldetti  in 
the  catacomb  beneath  the  basilica  of  St.  Paul 
(Boldetti,  pp.  78,  79).  The  same  explorer  found 
here  also  an  inscidption,  which  the  name  of 
Gallicanus  fixes  either  to  a.d.  127  or  a.d.  150. 

The  beginning  of  the  third  century  finds  the 
Christians  of  Rome  in  possession  of  a  cemetery 
common  to  them  as  a  body,  and  doubtless  secured 
to  them  by  legal  tenure,  and  under  the  protection 
of  the  authorities  of  the  city.  We  learn  this 
instructive  fact  from  the  Rhilosophumena  of 
Hippolytus  (ix.  11),  where  we  read  that  Pope 
Zephyrinus  “set  Callistus  over  the  cemetery,” 
Karearrjffev  cTrl  Koifirtrripiov.  As  we  have 
seen  reason  to  believe  that  at  this  period  several 
Christian  cemeteries  were  already  in  existence, 
there  must  have  been  something  distinctive  about 
this  one  to  induce  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  intrust 
its  care  to  one  of  his  chief  clergy,  who  in  a  few 
years  succeeded  him  in  his  Episcopate.  We  can 
have  little  hesitation  in  accepting  De  Rossi’s 
conclusion  (for  the  grounds  of  which  the  reader 
must  be  referred  to  his  great  work  Roma  Sotter- 
r.inea,  or  to  Dr.  Northcote’s  excellent  abridgement 
of  it  under  the  same  title)  that  this  was  the 
cemetery  which  we  read  in  Anastasius,  §  17, 
Callixtus  “  made  on  the  Appian  Way,  where  the 
bodies  of  many  priests  and  martyrs  I’epose,  and 
which  is  called  even  to  the  present  day  coeme- 
terium  Callixti.”  In  a  crypt  of  this  cemetery 
Zephyrinus  himself  was  buried,  in  violation  of 
the  rule  which  had  prevailed  almost  without 
exception  up  to  that  period,  that  the  bi.shops 
of  Rome  should  be  laiil  where  St.  Peter  was 


believed  to  repose,  in  the  crypt  of  the  Vatican. 
Of  the  fifteen  bishops  who  are  reported  to  have 
preceded  Zephyrinus,  all  but  Clemens,  who  is 
recorded  to  have  been  buried  in  Greece,  and 
Alexander,  w'hose  sepulchre  was  made  near  the 
scene  of  his  martyrdom,  on  the  Via  Nomentava, 
according  to  the  oldest  and  most  trustworthy 
recensions  of  the  Liber  Pontifcalis,  were  sup¬ 
posed  to  sleep  in  the  Vatican  cemetery.  Of 
the  eighteen  who  intervened  between  him  and 
Sylvestei’,  no  fewer  than  thirteen  repo.se  in  the 
cemetery  of  Callistus.  •  Slabs  bearing  the  names 
of  Antero.s,  a.d.  236,  Fabianus,  a.d.  251,  (the 
first  bishop  of  whose  martyrdom  there  is  no 
question),  Lucius,  A.D.  253,  and  Eutychianus, 
A.D.  275,  in  Greek  characters,  the  official  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  Church,  with  the  words  Episcopus, 
and,  in  the  case  of  Fabianus,  martyr,  added, 
have  been  discovered  by  Cav.  de  Rossi  in  this 
crypt.  An  adjoining  vault  has  revealed  the 
epitaph  of  Eusebius,  a.d.  311,  set  up  by  Dama- 
sus,  and  engraved  by  his  artist  Furius  Dionysius 
Philocalus,  whose  name  it  bears.  In  another  crypt 
in  the  same  cemetery  De  Rossi’s  labours  have 
been  rewarded  by  the  fragments  of  an  epitaph 
which  is  reasonably  identified  with  that  of  Cor¬ 
nelius,  A.D.  252,  whose  portrait,  together  with 
that  of  his  contemporary  and  correspondent 
Cyprian,  is  painted  on  its  wall.  Callistus 
himself  does  not  lie  in  the  catacomb  that  bears 
his  name.  He  met  his  end  by  being  hurled  from 
a  window  into  a  well  in  the  Trastevei’e,  and  his 
corpse  was  hastily  removed  to  the  nearest  cem¬ 
etery,  that  of  Calepodius,  on  the  Via  Aurelia. 
It  cannot  be  reasonably  questioned  that  a  ceme¬ 
tery  which  was  the  recognised  burial-place  of 
I  the  bishops  of  the  city  had  a  jmblic,  official 
character  distinct  from  the  private  cemeteries 
with  which  the  walls  of  Rome  were  surrounded. 

I  do  the  period  of  peaceful  occupation  and 
undisturbed  use  of  the  cemeteries  by  the 
Christian  population  of  Rome  succeeded  that  of 
'  persecution.  We  cannot  place  this  earlier  than 
the  middle  of  the  third  century.  There  might 
be  occasional  outbreaks  of  popular  violence 
directed  against  the  Christians,  and  isolated  acts 
of  cruelty  and  severity  towards  the  professors  of 
an  unpopular  religion.  We  know  from  the 
famous  correspondence  between  Pliny  and  Mar¬ 
cus  Aurehus,  that  even  under  the  merciful  survey 
^  of  so  wise  and  benevolent  a  ruler,  the  position  of 
a  Christian  was  far  from  one  of  security.  Of 
this  we  hav'e  a  proof,  if  it  be  really  authentic,  in 
the  touching  record  of  a  martyrdom  within  the 
precincts  of  the  catacombs,  given  by  the  cele¬ 
brated  epitaph  of  Alexander  from  the  cemetery 
of  Callistus  (Bosio  lib.  iii.  c.  23,  p.  216). 

“Alexander  mortuus  non  est  sed  vivit  super 
astra  et  corpus  in  hoc  tumulo  quiescit.  Vitam 
I  explevit  cum  Antonino  Imp.  qui  ubi  multum 
beuefitii  anteveuire  previderet  pro  gratia  odium 
I  reddidit.  Genua  enim  flectens  vero  Deo  sacri- 
ficatui’us  ad  supplicia  ducitur.  O  tempora  in- 
fausta  quibus  inter  sacra  et  vota  ne  in  cavernis 
quidem  si\lvari  possimus.  Quid  mi.serius  vita, 
sed  quid  miserius  in  morte  cum  ab  amicis  et 
parentibus  sepeliri  nequeant.  Tandem  in  caelo 
coruscat.  Parum  vixit  qui  vixit  iv.  x.  Tern.” 

Another  of  almost  equal  interest,  from  the 
same  cemetery,  is  also  found  in  Bosio,  p.  217, 
referring  to  a  martyrdom  in  the  days  of  Hadrian. 

“Tempore  Adriani  Imperatoris  Marius  ado- 


304 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


lescens  Dux  niilitum 
pro  Clio  consumsit. 


qui 

In 


satis  vixit  dum  vitam 
pace  taudem  quievit. 


Benemereutes  cum  lacrimis  et  metu  posuerunt. 

There  was  no  general  persecution  of  the 
Christians  in  Rome  from  the  reign  of  Nero,  ^ 
A.D.  65,  to  that  of  Decius,  a.d.  249-251.  , 
“  During  that  period,”  writes  Dean  Milman  ' 
{History  of  Christianity,  bk.  iv.  c.  ii.  p.  329,  note  ' 
2'),  ‘‘  the  Christians  were  in  general  as  free  and 
secure  as  tlie  other  inhabitants  of  Rome.  Their  j 
assemblies  v/ere  no  more  disturbed  than  the 
synagogues  of  the  Jews,,  or  the  rites  of  other 
foreign  'religions.  From  this  first  terrible  but 
brief  onslaught  under  Decius,  to  the  general  and 
more  merciless  persecution  under  Diocletian  and 
Galerius,  a.d.  303,  there  is  no  trustworthy  , 
record  of  anj'  Roman  persecution.”  These  epochs 
of  persecution  left  their  marks  on  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  catacombs.  The  martyrdom  of 
Xystus  II.  in  the  cemetery  of  Praetextatus,  j 
A.D.  257  (“  Xystum  in  cimiterio  animadversum 
sciatis  .  .  .  ct  cum  eo  diacouos  quatuor,”  Cy-  j 
prian,  Ep.  80),  and  the  walling  up  alive  of  a  con-  j 
siderable  number  of  the  faithful,  men,  women, 
and  children,  near  the  tombs  of  the  martyrs 
Chrysanthus  and  Daria,  in  a  catacomb  on  the  ’ 
Via  Salaria,  recorded  by  St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  | 
De  Gloria  Martyr,  i.  c.  28  ;  and  other  traditions  | 
of  the  same  period,  even  though  we  are  com-  j 
pelled  to  hesitate  as  to  some  of  them,  testify  to  i 
the  danger  that  attended  the  meetings  of  the 
faithful  in  the  cemeteries,  and  the  necessity  1 
which  had  arisen  for  secrecy  and  concealment  if 
they  would  preserve  the  inviolability  of  their 
graves,  and  continue  their  visits  undisturbed. 
To  these  fierce  times  of  trial  we  may  safely 
assign  the  alterations  which  we  find  made  in  the 
entrances  of  and  staircases  leading  down  to  the 
catacombs,  and  the  construction  of  concealed 
ways  of  ingress  and  egress  through  the  arenariae 
which  lay  adjacent  to  them.  We  may  instance 
the  blocking  up  and  partial  destruction  of  two 
chief  staii’cases  in  the  cemetery  of  Callistus,  and 
the  formation  of  secret  passages  into  the  arena- 
ria.  One  of  these  is  approached  by  a  staircase 
that  stops  suddenly  short  some  distance  from  the 
floor  of  the  gallery,  and  was  thus  rendered 
utterly  useless  to  any  who  could  not  command  a 
ladder,  or  some  other  means  of  connecting  the 
lowest  step  with  the  arenaria  (Northcote,  B.  S. 
pp.  331,  347  ;  De  Rossi,  B.  S.  ii.  47-49).  It  happens 
not  unfrequently  that  galleries  are  found  com¬ 
pletely  fille  l  up  with  earth  from  the  floor  to  the 
vault.  It  has  been  considered  by  many  that 
this  was  the  work  of  the  Christians  themselves, 
with  the  view  of  preserving  their  sepulchres 
inviolate  by  rendering  the  galleries  inaccessible 
to  friend  or  foe.  This  view,  first  propounded  by 
Buonarruoti,  Osserv.  p.  xii.,  is  strongly  main¬ 
tained  by  De  Rossi,  B.  S.  ii.  52-58,  who  assigns 
this  earthing-up  of  the  tombs  to  the  persecution 
of  Diocletian,  a.d.  302.  But  the  opinion  main¬ 
tained  by  other  equally  competent  authorities  is 
more  probable,  that  this  proceeding  was  simply 
dictated  by  convenience,  as  a  means  for  disposing 
more  easily  of  the  earth  excavated  from  newly- 
formed  galleries.  It  must  always  have  been 
a  tedious  and  laborious  operation  to  convey  the 
freshly-dug  earth  from  the  catacomb  to  the 
surface,  through  the  long  tortuous  passages,  and 
by  the  air-tunnels.  The  galleries  already  piled 
with  tombs,  and  therefore  useless  for  future 


interments,  offered  a  ready  reception  for  the 
material,  and  in  these  it  was  deposited.  This  is 
the  view  of  Marchi,  p.  94,  and  Raoul- Rochette, 
Table m  des  Catac.  p.  35,  and  even  of  Boldetti, 
pp.  607  ;  although  the  last-named  author  is 
unable  altogether  to  reject  Buonarruoti’s  idea 
that  the  galleries  were  thus  filled  up  to  save 
the  hallov/ed  remains  they  contained  from  the 
sacrilegious  hands  of  the  heathen. 

The  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  which  saw 
the  establishment  of  Christianity  as  the  religion 
of  the  Roman  states,  was  the  commencement  of 
a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  catacombs.  Sub¬ 
terranean  interment  gradually  fell  into  disuse, 
and  had  almost  entirely  cea.sed  by  the  close  of 
that  century.  The  undeniable  evidence  of  the 
inscriptions  with  consular  dates  as  given  by 
De  Rossi,  Inscr.  Christ,  i.  p.  117,  &c.,  shews  that 
between  a.d.  338  and  A.D.  360  two  out  of  three 
burials  took  place  in  the  subterranean  portions 
of  the  cemeteries.  Between  a.d.  364  and  A.D. 
369  the  proportions  are  nearly  equal,  and  a 
new  era  in  the  history  of  the  cemeteries  began 
— the  era  of  religious  interest.  •  The  zeal  dis¬ 
played  by  Pope  Damasus  a.d.  306-384  in  re¬ 
pairing  and  decorating  the  catacombs;  erecting 
new  staircases  for  the  convenience  of  pilgrims, 
searching  for  the  places  of  the  martyi's’  interment, 
and  adorning  them  with  exquisitely  engraved 
epitaphs  in  large  faultless  characters,  the  work 
of  an  artist  named  Furius  Dionysius  Philocalus, 
caused  a  short  sudden  outburst  of  desire  to  be 
buried  near  the  hallowed  remains,  resulting 
in  wholesale  destimction  of  many  hundreds  of 
early  paintings  with  which  the  walls  of  the 
cubicula  and  arcosolia  were  covered.  But  the 
flame  soon  died  out.  Between  A.D,  373  and 
A.D.  400  the  subterranean  interments  were  only 
one  in  three,  and  after  A.D.  410,  the  fatal  year 
of  the  taking  of  Rome  by  Alaric,  scarcely  a 
single  certain  example  is  found.  But  although 
the  fashion  of  interment  came  to  an  end,  the 
reputed  sanctity  of  those  whose  remains  were 
enshrined  in  them  caused  them  to  be  the  object 
of  wide-spread  interest.  Pilgrims  flocked  to 
visit  the  places  hallowed  by  the  memories  of 
so  many  confessors  and  martyrs,  for  whose 
guidance  catalogues  of  the  chief  cemeteries  and 
of  the  saints  buried  in  them  were  from  time  to 
time  drawn  up,  which  have  prove<l  of  consider¬ 
able  service  in  their  identification.  Even  hermits 
came  from  a  distance  and  fixed  their  cells  in  their 
immediate  neighbourhood. 

It  appears  evident  from  Jerome’s  well-known 
description  of  his  visits  to  the  catacombs  when  a 
schoolboy,  circa  A.D.  354,  llieron.  in  Ezech.  c.  xl. 
that  even  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tui’y  interment  was  rare  in  them.  He  speaks 
of  visiting  “  the  tombs  of  the  apostles  and 
martyrs,”  and  describes  the  walls  of  the  crypts 
“  lined  with  the  bodies  of  the  dead  but  his 
language  is  that  of  one  describing  a  cemetery 
long  since  disused,  not  one  in  daily  activity.  So 
also,  Praef.  ad  Lib.  ii.  in  Galat.,  “  Ubi  alibi  tanto 
studio  et  frequentia  ad  martyrum  sepulchra 
curritur?”  The  words  of  the  poet  Prudentius, 
written  about  the  same  time,  describing  the 
tomb  of  Hippolytus,  lead  to  the  .same  conclusion. 
His  lengthened  and  minutely  detailed  de.scription 
does  not  contain  a  word  that  indicates  that  the 
cemetery  which  contained  this  sacred  shrine  was 
used  for  actual  interment. 


•V 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


305 


Amidst  all  the  Jevastation  committed  by  the 
barbarian  conquerors  both  in  the  first  and  second 
sack  of  Rome,  A.D.  410,  457,  we  have  no  record 
of  damage  inflicted  on  the  cemeteries.  It  may 
be  simply  lack  of  evidence.  We  cannot  deem  it 
likely  that  any  feeling  of  reverence  would  have 
led  the  Goths  to  refrain  from  the  rich  plunder 
the  piety  of  devotees  had  stored  up  in  the  burial 
chapels.  Prudentius  informs  us  that  the  aedicula 
which  enshrined  the  relics  of  St.  Hippolytus  was 
bright  with  solid  silver,  and  other  catacombs  were 
certainly  as  sumptuously  decorated.  But  whether 
the  catacombs  were  devastated  by  Alaric’s  hordes 
or  no,  it  is  certain  that  after  a.d.  410  “  the  use 
of  the  subterranean  cemeteries  as  places  of 
burial  was  never  resumed,  and  that  inscriptions 
and  notices  that  seem  to  refer  to  them  will  be 
found  on  closer  examination  to  relate  to  basilicas 
and  cemeteries  above  ground.  The  fossors’  occu¬ 
pation  was  gone,  and  after  a.d.  426  their  name 
ceases  to  be  mentioned.  The  liturgical  books  of 
the  fifth  century  refer  constantly,  in  the  prayers 
for  the  dead  and  the  benediction  of  graves,  to 
burials  in  and  around  the  basilicas,  never  to  the 
subterranean  cemeteries,”  (Northcote  R.  S.  p. 
104).  But  though  disused  as  places  of  sepulture 
the  catacombs  continued  to  be  visited  by  pilgrims, 
and  were  regarded  with  special  devotion  by  the 
popes,  who  from  time  to  time  repaired  and  beau¬ 
tified  them  {e.  g.  Symmachus,  A.D.  498-514; 
Anast.  §81).  The  fatal  zeal  displayed  by  succes¬ 
sive  pontiffs  in  the  restoration  and  decoration  of 
these  consecrated  shrines  is  the  cause  of  much  per¬ 
plexity  to  the  investigator  who  desires  to  dis¬ 
cover  their  original  form  and  arrangements. 
Nothing  but  long  experience  and  an  intimate  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  the  character  of  the  construction 
and  ornamentation  of  difi'erent  periods  can  enable 
us  to  distinguish  with  any  accuracy  between 
the  genuine  structure  of  the  catacombs  and  the 
paintings  with  which  they  were  originally  I 
adorned,  and  the  work  of  later  times.  Many  of  i 
the  conclusions  drawn  by  Roman  Catholic  writers  I 
from  the  paintings  and  ritual  arrangements  of 
the  catacombs  as  we  now  find  them,  and  the 
evidence  supposed  to  be  furnished  by  them  as  to 
the  primitive  character  of  their  dogmas  and  tra¬ 
ditions,  prove  little  worth  when  a  more  search¬ 
ing  investigation  shows  their  comparatively 
recent  date.  An  analogous  exaggeration  has 
widely  prevailed  with  regard  to  the  custom  of ; 
resorting  to  these  gloomy  vaults  as  places  of 
concealment  in  times  of  persecution.  We  can¬ 
not  fairly  doubt  that  they  occasionally  served  as 
places  of  refuge,  though  it  is  not  always  ea&y  to 
determine  whether  the  language  used  refers  to 
the  subterranean  part  of  the  cemetery,  or  to  the 
cellae,  the  basilicas,  and  other  buildings  which 
had  gradually  risen  in  the  area  that  lay  above 
them  ;  but  that  which  was  at  most  exceptional 
has  been  spoken  of  almost  as  if  it  were  the  rule. 

We  have  direct  eviilence  that  the  ravages  of  the 
Goths  under  Vitiges,  when  they  sacked  Rome,  A.D. 
537,  extended  to  the  catacombs,  “  Ecclesiae  et  cor¬ 
pora  sanctorum  martyrum  exterminatae  sunt  a 
Gothis”  (Anast.  §  99).  On  their  retirement  the 
havoc  they  had  committed  was  repaired  by  Pope 
Vigilius,  who  replaced  the  broken  and  mutilated 
epitaphs  of  Pope  Damasus  by  copies,  not  always 
very  correct.  These  good  deeds  stand  recorded  in  [ 
an  inscription  of  this  pope  now  in  the  Gallery  of 
the  V^atican  : — 

CHUIST.  ANT. 


“  Dum  pnritura  Getae  posuissent  castra  sub  urbem 
Moverunt  Sanctis  bella  nefanda  ))rius, 

Totaque  sacrilege  verterunt  corde  sepulclira 
Martyiibus  quundaiu  rite  sacrata  plis. 

Quos  inoni-traiite  Deo  Damasus  sibi  Papa  probates 
Allixo  moniiit  carmine  jure  coli ; 

Sed  periit  titulus  coufracto  maimere  sanctus 
Nec  tamen  his  iterum  posse  latere  fuit. 

Diruta  Vigilius  nam  poslbaec  Papa  gemiscens 
Hestibus  expulsis  omne  novavit  opus.” 

The  reverence  for  the  catacombs  was  now 
gradually  dying  out.  One  pope  after  another 
attempted  to  revive  it  by  their  decree.s,  but 
without  any  permanent  effect.  John  III.,  circa 
A.D.  568,  restored  the  cemeteries  of  the  holy 
martyrs,  “and  ordered  that  oblations”  (the 
Eucharistic  elements),  “cruets,  and  lights  [‘ob- 
lationes,  ampullae  ’  (var.  lect.  ‘  amulae  ’),  vel  ‘  lu- 
minaria  ’],  should  be  supplied  from  the  Lateral! 
every  Sunday”  (Anast.  §  110).  It  is  also  re¬ 
corded  in  commendation  of  Sergius  I.,  a.d.  687- 
701,  that  when  he  was  a  presbyter  it  was  his 
wont  to  “  celebrate  mass  diligently  through  the 
different  cemeteries”  (Anast.  §  158).  In  the 
next  century,  circa  735,  Gregory  III.,  a  zealous 
builder  and  repairer  of  churches,  arranged  a 
body  of  priests  to  celebrate  mass,  and  provided 
that  lights  and  oblations  should  be  furnished  from 
the  palace  for  all  the  cemeteries  round  Rome 
(Anast,  §  204).  In  neither  of  these  cases,  how¬ 
ever,  can  we  affirm  that  the  reference  is  chiefly 
to  underground  cemeteries  or  catacombs. 

We  have  now  reached  the  period  of  the  reli¬ 
gious  spoliation  of  the  catacombs,  from  which 
they  have  suffered  more  irreparably  than  from 
any  violence  offered  by  sacrilegious  hands. 
The  injuries  commenced  by  the  Goths  had  been 
repeated  by  the  Lombards  under  Astolphus, 
a.d.  956.  But  these  invaders  did  little  more 
than  complete  the  devastation  which  was  being 
already  caused  by  the  carelessness  of  those 
by  whom  these  cemeteries  should  have  been 
religiously  tended.  The  slothfulness  and  neglect 
manifested  towards  these  hallowed  places  are 
feelingly  deplored  by  Paul  I.  in  a  Constitution 
dated  June  2,  A.D,  761.  Not  only  were  sheep 
and  oxen  allowed  to  have  access  to  them,  but 
folds  had  been  set  up  in  them  and  they  h  id 
been  defiled  with  all  manner  of  corruption. 
The  holy  father  therefoi’e  resolved  to  trans¬ 
late  the  bodies  of  the  saints  and  enshrine 
them  in  a  church  he  had  built  on  the  site  of  his 
paternal  mansion  (Anast.  §  259,  260).  Paul’s 
immediate  successors  reversed  his  policy,  and 
used  all  their  endeavours  to  i-estore  the  lost 
glories  of  the  catacombs.  But  it  was  too  late, 
the  spirit  of  the  age  had  changed.  As  the  only 
means  of  securing  the  sacred  I'blics  from  dese¬ 
cration,  Paschal,  A.D.  817-827,  was  forced  to 
follow  the  example  set  by  Paul,  July  20,  a.d. 
817.  He  translated  to  the  church  of  St.  Pras- 
sede,  as  recorded  in  an  inscidption  still  to  be 
read  there,  no  less  than  2300  bodies.  The  work 
was  continued  by  succeeding  popes,  and  many 
cartloads  of  relics  are  recorded  to  have  been 
transferred  at  this  period  from  the  catacombs  to 
the  Pantheon.  The  sacred  treasures  which  had 
given  the  catacombs  their  value  in  the  eyes  of 
the  devout  having  been  removed,  all  interest  in 
them  ceased.  Henceforward  all  inducement  to 
visit  them  was  lost,  and  with  some  insignificant 
exceptions  the  catacombs  lapsed  into  complete 


306 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


oblivion,  in  which  they  remained  wrapped  for 
more  than  six  centuries.  It  was  not  till  May 
31,  1578,  that  their  fortuitous  discovery  re¬ 
vealed  to  the  astonished  inhabitants  of  Rome 
the  hidden  treasures  that  lay  beneath  their  feet, 
and  awoke  an  interest  which,  though  sometimes 
flagging  and  not  always  intelligently  exercised, 
has  never  since  expired,  and  which  the  combined 
genius,  learning,  and  industry  of  Marchi,  and 
his  pupils,  the  brothers  De  Rossi,  together  with 
the  remarkable  discoveries  which  have  rewarded 
their  researches,  and  the  skill  with  which  they 
have  known  how  to  interpret  and  employ  the 
results  of  their  investigations,  have  of  late  raised 
to  a  pitch  that  has  never  before  been  equalled. 

It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  article  to 
record  the  names  and  trace  the  labours  of  the 
investigators  who  have  employed  themselves  in 
this  held  of  research.  This  will  be  found  in  the 
chronological  sketch  prefixed  to  Raoul-Rochette’s 
excellent  and  unprejudiced  little  work,  Tab¬ 
leau  des  Catacombes  de  Rome”  Paris,  1853,  as 
well  as  in  the  opening  pages  of  the  Roma 
Sutterranea  of  De  Rossi,  and  the  English  abridge¬ 
ment  by  Dr.  Northcote  and  the  Rev.  W.  K 
Bi'ownlow,  London,  1869. 

Description. — The  catacombs  of  Rome,  to 
which  as  the  most  interesting  and  most  thoroughly 
investigated  of  the  subterranean  cemeteries  our 
present  remarks  will  be  confined,  consist  of  a  vast 
labyrinth  of  narrow  subterranean  passages  or 
galleries  excavated  in  the  strata  of  volcanic  earth 
that  underlie  the  fity  and  its  neighbourhood, 
for  the  purpose  of  the  interment  of  the  dead. 
These  galleries  are  excavated  at  different  levels, 
forming  various  stories  or  piani,  one  beneath  the 
other,  communicating  by  narrow  flights  of  steep 
stairs  cut  in  the  native  rock,  as  well  as  by  shafts 
and  wells  sunk  for  the  purpose  of  affording  light 
and  air.  These  stories  of  galleries  lie  one  below 
the  other  sometimes  to  the  number  of  five,  or 
even,  as  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Callistus  of 
seven.  The  galleries  as  a  rule  preserve  the  level 


Boction  of  the  Crypt  of  St.  Lnetus  in  the  Catacomb  of  St  Callistna, 
from  De  Bossi. 


of  the  piano  to  which  they  belong,  so  that  it  is 
very  rare  to  meet  with  galleries,  gradually  de¬ 
scending  by  an  inclined  plane  to  a  lower  story. 
The  only  communication,  as  a  rule,  between  the 
stories  is  by  flights  of  steps.  The  lowest  are  usual  ly 


the  latest;  the  additional  labour  of  removing  the 
earth  from  the  greater  depth  not  being  under¬ 
taken  until  the  want  of  burial  space  in  the  story 
above  forced  it  upon  its  possessors.  Instances 
occur  where  a  stratum  of  considerable  thickness 
having  been  left  by  the  original  con.structorj 
between  two  stories  of  ambulacra,  an  interme¬ 
diate  story  (a  mezzanine  or  entresol),  has  been 
excavated  in  later  times.  These  corridors,  or 
amhnlacra,  follow  no  definite  system.  They  more 
usually  than  not  run  in  straight  lines,  forming 
an  intricate  network  continually  crossing  and 
recrossing  one  another  at  difl’erent  angles,  and 
as  no  law  of  parallelism  is  adopted  in  laying  out 
the  plan,  it  is  not  easy  to  reduce  them  to  any 
system.  These  galleries  are  not  merely  passages 
of  access  to  the  cemetery,  but  themselves  con- 


Oallery  with  “  Loculi,”  from  Nortbeote's  ‘  Bomn  Sottcrraiiea. 


stitute  the  cemetery.  They  do  not  conduct  to 
the  places  of  interment,  but  the  dead  are  interred 
in  them.  The  walls  are  vertical,  and  (as  re¬ 
presented  in  the  annexed  woodcut)  are  pierced  on 
each  side  with  long  low  horizontal  recesses,  com¬ 
mencing  a  few  inches  above  the  level  of  the  floor, 
and  rising  tier  above  tier,  like  the  berths  in  a  ship’s 
cabin,  to  the  number  of  five,  six,  and  sometimes 
even  twelve  ranges.  They  are  divided  from  one 
another  by  an  intervening  shelf  of  tufa  as  thin 
as  was  compatible  with  security.  The  length  of 
these  niches  is  almost  invariably  in  the  direction 
of  the  gallery.  This  form  was  much  easier  to 
excavate,  and  enabled  the  corpse  to  be  laid  in  its 
tomb  with  greater  facility  and  reverence  than 
when  the  recess  entered  deep  into  the  rock,  at 
right  angles  to  the  axis  of  the  corridor.  Examples 
of  this  latter  form  do  exist  in  the  Roman  cata¬ 
combs,  but  very  rarely.  Padre  Marchi,  Monu- 
menti  delle  AHi  Christ.  Prim.  pp.  110,  225,  tav. 
xiv.,  xliii.,  xliv.,  gives  a  description  and  engra¬ 
vings  of  20  specimens  discovered  by  him  in  the 
cemetery  of  St.  Cyriaca  (see  ground  plan).  The 
same  mode  of  construction  appears  in  the  heathen 
catacombs  in  Egypt,  and  those  of  the  Saracens  at 
Taormina,  engraved  by  D’Agincourt,  pi.  ix.  Tlie 
name  given  in  modern  times  to  these  sepulchral 
cavities  is  loculus.  The  original  term,  appearing 
thousands  and  thousands  of  times  in  the  inscrip- 


CATACOMBS  CATACOMBS  307 


tioQS  of  the  catacombs,  was  locus.  The  word 
loiulus,  properly  signified  a  hier  or  a  coffin, 
“cujus  (Agapeti)  corpus  in  loculo  phunbeo  trans- 
latum  est  (Constantinopoli)  usque  iu  basilicam  B. 
Petri  apostoli  ”  (Anastas,  lix.  §  95 :  cf.  Ibid. 


Local!  in  Uie  Catacomb  of  St.  Cyriaca,  from  March!. 


Ixiii.  110),  and  is  incorrectly  applied  to  the 
grave.  Its  use  iu  this  sense  was  introduced  by 
Lupi  iu  the  early  part  of  the  18th  century.  He 
writes  “  loculum  apjtello  excuvatum  in  coeme- 
terii  parietibus  feuestram  parvam  ad  unum  alte- 
rumve  cadaver  excipiendum”  (Lupi,  Dissert,  ad 
Sev.  Martyr.  Epitaph.  1 734,  p.  2,  note  3).  Each 
recess  usually  contained  a  single  body.  But 
instances  are  by  no  means  rai-e  where  by  in¬ 
creasing  its  depth  it  was  made  capable  of  re¬ 
ceiving  two,  three,  or  four  corpses.  Such  recesses 
were  designated  bisonii,  trisomi,  quadrisomi,  etc., 
according  to  the  number  of  bodies  for  which  they 
were  destined.  Examples  of  the  use  of  all  these 
terms  appear  in  the  epitaphs.  Bisomi :  from 
that  of  St.  Callistus,  “  Donata  se  viv.  emit  sibi 
et  Maxentiae  locum  bisomum.”  (Boldetti,  p. 
286.)  “Sergius  et  Junius  Fossores  B.  N.  M.  iu 
pace  bisoia.”  (Boldetti,  p.  65.)  “  Hoctavie  coivgi 
neofite  bisomv.  maritus  fecit”  (Bosio,  p.  5u7). 
Trisomi:  “  Seberus,  Leontius  Bictorinus.  'I'ri- 
somu  ”  (Bosio,  p.  216).  “  Se  biba  (viva)  emet 

Domnina  locum  a  Successum  trisomu  ubi  positi,” 
(Ib.).  Quadrisomi:  “Consulatu  Nicomaci  Flabiani 
locum  Marmorari  quadrisomum  ”  (Maitland,  p. 
39;  see  Marchi,  pp.  115-117.)  The /ocmV  were 
iu  later  times  purchased  of  the  sextons,  fossores, 
and  as  some  of  the  inscriptions  already  given 
show,  not  unfrequently  in  a  person’s  lifetime. 
Another  example  is  the  following  ungrammatical 
epitaph  from  Bosio,  lib.  iii.  c.  41.  “  Locus  Bene- 
nati  11  et  Gaudiosae  compares  ||  se  vivi  compara- 
verunt  ||  ab  Anastasio  et  Autiocho  FS.  (lo.s.so- 
ribus).”  An  inscription  from  the  Museum  of  the 
Capitol  given  by  Burgon,  Letters  from  Rome, 
p.  181,  no.  25,  acquaints  us  with  the  price  paid, 
1500  folles  (the  follis  is  said  at  that  time  to 
have  been  equivalent  to  an  obelus'),  and  that  the 
bargain  was  struck  in  the  presence  of  Severus 
and  Laurence  his  brother  sexton.  “  Emit  locum 
ab  Ar||taemisium  visomum  \\  hoc  est  et  prae- 
tium  II  datura  Fossor  Phila|Iro  yd  est  Fol.  N.  ><! 
S.  Prae||sentia  Severi  Foss,  et  Laurent.”  Some¬ 
times  loculi  were  excavated  by  the  heirs  of  the 
fossor  with  whom  the  bargain  was  made,  “  fos- 
soris  discendentibus  ”  (De  Rossi,  R.  S.  i.  215). 
The  loculi  are  found  of  all  sizes,  from  those  suit¬ 
able  for  an  infant  of  a  few  days  old  which  occur 
by  thousands  to  those  adapted  to  the  bodv  of  a 


full  gro^n  man.  In  the  more  ancient  galleries 
apertures  of  various  dimeu.sions  occur  confusedly, 
having  been  formed  as  occasion  required.  The 
earlv  loculi  are  al.so  of  much  larger  dimensions 
tnau  was  needful  for  the  reception  of  the  body, 
and  neither  in  the  form  of  the  niches  themselves 
nor  in  their  arrangement  does  the  idea  of  eco¬ 
nomy  of  space  shew  itself.  But  experience  taught 
the  excavators  how  to  make  the  most  of  the  space 
at  command,  and  Marchi,  pp.  112,  113,  tav.  xv., 
])roduces  an  example  from  the  cemetery  of  St. 
Cyriaca,  where  the  loculi  are  arranged  in  groups 
according  to  their  dimensions,  every  square  inch 
of  rock  being  utilised  as  far  as  was  consistent 
with  stability.  In  some  ca.ses  the  back  wall  of 
the  loculus  instead  of  being  parallel  to  the  lines 
of  the  opening  is  set  at  an  angle,  forming  a 
tra})ezoidal  recess  in  which  bodies  of  dillerent 
stature  might  lie  side  by  side  (see  annexed 
ground  plan  and  section)  (Marchi,  tav.,  xv. 
xviii.).  In  later  times  space  was  also  economised 
by  making  the  recess  wide  at  the  head  and 
narrow  at  the  feet.  Examples  are  not  wanting 
of  graves  being  dug  like  those  of  our  own  day  in 
the  floor  of  the  corridors.  Marchi  gives  instances 
from  the  catacombs  of  Calepodius  and  Calli.stus, 
tav.  xxi.  xxvi.  etc.  But  they’  are  very  uu- 
frequent.  The  loculi,  after  the  introduction  of 
the  bod)’  were  closed  with  great  care,  either  with 
slab's  of  marble  (tabulae)  or  with  large  tiles. 


Plan  of  above  locali  cbiiwinii)  from  the  Catacomb  of  St  CjTiaca, 
from  Mai'clii. 

usually  three,  very  exactly  cemented  together, 
and  luted  round  with  lime  to  prevent  the  escape 
of  the  gases  of  the  putrefying  bodies.  The  tiles 
closing  the  early’  loculi  in  the  cemetery  of  Domi- 
tilla  are  of  vast  size.  (De  Rossi,  Bullett.  de  Ant. 

.  Christ.  Magg.,  1865.)  On  the  slabs  of  the 
earlier  loculi,  e.g.  in  the  cemeteries  of  PrLscilla 
and  Domitilla,  the  name  is  only  painted  In 
red  and  black  pigment,  not  cut  or  scratched 
(Fabretti  Insc.  Dom.  viii.  p.  579  ;  Aringhi,  R.  S. 
iv.  37,  p.  126;  Boldetti,  lib.  ii.  c.  1).  The 
striking  fact  that,  in  the  words  of  Dean  Milman 
(Lat.  Chr.  i.  p.  27),  “  for  a  considerable  jiart  of 
the  first  three  centuries  the  church  of  Rome 
was  a  Greek  religious  colony  ;”  that  its  language, 
organisation,  writers,  scriptures,  liturgy,  were 
Greek,  is  evidenced  by  the  inscriptions  on  these 
primitive  buidal  places.  They  are  almost  exclu¬ 
sively  in  Greek.  When  engraved  the  lettei*s  are 
often  coloured  with  vermilion.  But  an  immense 
number  of  loculi  are  entirely  destitute  of  any 

X 


308 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


inscription  (Bosio,  lib.  iii.  c.  41  ;  Boldetti,  lib.  ii. 
c.  1  ;  Lupi,  p.  38).  On  these  slabs  were  engraved 
the  funeral  inscription  or  epitaph,  often  accom¬ 
panied  with  some  of  the  more  usual  Christian 
emblems,  the  dove,  the  anchor,  or  the  monogram 
of  Christ.  The  word  tabula  appears  in  some  of 
the  epitaphs,,  e.  g.,  of  a  master  to  a  pupil, 
“  Posvit  tabvla  magister  discenti  Pempino  bene- 
merenti”  (Marchi,  p.  119).  “  Bicentivs  karo 

tilio  karissimo  benemerenti  posvit  tabvla  qvi 
bixit  annos  iii  et  dies  xxii  ”  (/6.  p.  120).  Both 
from  the  catacomb  of  St.  Cyriaca. 

A  small  glass  vessel  containing  indications  of 
the  presence  of  a  red  fluid,  is  often  found  em¬ 
bedded  in  the  mortar  at  one  extremity  of  the 
loculus.  This  was  formerly  considered  to  be  a 
certain  mark  of  a  martyr’s  tomb,  the  “  Congre¬ 
gation  of  Relics  ”  having  so  decided  (Apr.  10, 
1068),  the  red  sediment  being  supposed  to  be 
blood.  But  this  opinion  has  long  ceased  to  be 
entertained  by  the  best  and  most  unprejudiced 
Christian  archaeologists  who  almost  unanimously 
agree  that  the  vessel  contained  Eucharistic  wine, 
and  was  used  at  the  funeral  agape.  [Glass, 
Christian.]  Incised  on  the  slab,  or  scratched  on 
the  mortar,  the  pa/m  bi'anch  is  one  of  the  symbols 
that  most  constantly  presents  itself  in  connection 
with  the  loculus.  This  also  has  been  authorita¬ 
tively  declared  to  be  an  indisputable  evidence  of 
a  martyr’s  tomb,  “  palmam  et  vas  sanguine 
tinctum  pro  signis  certissimis  martyrii  haberi,” 
(^Decree  of  the  Cong,  of  lielics,  u.  s.),  and  has  been 
as  completely  set  aside  by  later  and  less  enthu¬ 
siastic  investigators.  Not  to  dwell  on  the  fact 
that  the  epitaphs  found  in  connection  with  the 
palm  branch,  have  as  a  rule,  no  reference  to  a 
martyr’s  death,  this  symbol  is  found  on  tombs 
prepared  by  individuals  in  their  lifetime  (e.  g., 
“  Leopardus  se  biv.  fecit  ”  between  two  palm 
branches,  Boldetti,  p.  264),  and  decorates  those 
of  young  children  (/6.  p.  268) ;  dignifies  that  of 
Lucifer,  bishop  of  Cagliari,  who  died  in  schism, 
(/■i.  p.  262) ;  and  even  appears  on  pagan  tomb¬ 
stones  {Ib,  p.  281,  sq.).  Not  a  few  of  the  marble 
slabs  {ta')ulae\  closing  the  loculi,  prove  on  exami¬ 
nation,  like  some  of  our  mediaeval  sepulchral 
brasses,  to  have  been  used  before,  their  back 
bearing  a  second  inscription.  These  ai-e  known 
as  opisthographs.  They  are  usually  heathen 
slabs,  but  not  always.  One  described  by  Marchi, 
p.  53,  bears  on  one  side  “  Hilara  in  Pace,”  and  on 
the  other  “  Irene  in  Pace  ” — both  Christian. 
Boldetti,  lib.  ii.  c.  10,  supplies  a  large  number  of 
examples  of  these  twice  used  slabs.  Mabillon 
{Iter.  Ttal.  p.  136),  writes  of  this  custom,  “  Chris- 
tianis  mos  erat  ut  e  sepulchris  gentilium  lapides 
revellerent  in  suos  usus,  et  relicta  ex  ea  parte^ 
quae  interiora  Christiani  tumuli  spectabat  pro- 
fana  inscriptione  aliam  in  exteriore  apponerent 
ritu  Christiano  ”  (Cf.  Idem.  Euseb.  Roman,  p.  34 ; 
Marchi,  pp.  53,  123). 

Besides  the  opisMojyrajoA'?  where  a  heathen  slab 
has  been  applied  to  a  Christian  use  no  inconsidei- 
able  number  of  distinctly  pagan  epitaphs  has  been 
disco vei’ed,  in  which  no  such  transformation  has 
taken  place.  Boldetti,  lib.  ii.  c.  9,  gives  no  less 
than  57  heathen  inscriptions  without  any  Chi-is- 
tian  admixture  from  the  various  catacombs,  and 
the  list  might  be  very  largely  increased.  One 
such  is  mentioned  by  Mabillon  in  his  Iter'.  Ttali- 
cum.  Mus.  It.  vol.  i.  p.  47,  which  though  it  was 
destitute  of  Christian  tokens  was  sent  to  Tou- 


lou.se  as  the  slab  of  a  supposed  marln,  Julia 
Euodia,  when  it  was  really  that  of  Casta  her 
mother,  and  was  pagan.  In  Boldetti,  p.  447,  we 
have  a  curious  heathen  slab  from  St.  Agns.s,  with 
the  inscription  “  Domine  frater  ilaris  semper 
ludere  tal  ula  ”  and  symbols  of  gaming.  De 
Rossi  found  pagan  sarcophagi  aud  pagan  inscrip¬ 
tions  in  the  catacomb  of  Callistus  in  excavations 
made  under  his  own  eye  {Rom.  Sott.  ii.  pp.  169, 
281-290).  It  has  been  usually  held  that  these  w’ere 
slabs  which  had  been  removed  from  the  heathen 
tombs  in  the  vicinity  of  the  catacombs  after  the 
Christian  religion  had  become  dominant,  and 
brought  down  to  be  re-engraved  and  fitted  for 
their  new  purpose.  “  Primes  Christianos  Paga- 
norum  memorias  titulosque  suffuratos  esse  et 
suis  loculis  coemiterialibus  claudendis  propriis  no¬ 
minibus  insculptis  et  profanorum  absconditis  aut 
abrasis  . .  .  ostendere  possumus  ”  (Fabretti  Insc. 
Ant.  p.  307).  But  another  and  widely  different 
view  has  lately  been  propounded  by  Mr.  Parker 
and  others,  that  the  rigid  separation  usually  sup¬ 
posed  to  exist  between  Christians  and  heathen 
in  the  places  of  sepulture  was  not  always  main¬ 
tained,  and  that  when  in  the  fourth  century  the 
burning  of  the  dead  ceased  the  catacombs  became 
the  common  burial  places  of  Rome  for  heathen 
and  Christians  alike.  This  is  one  of  the  many 
questions  in  connection  with  the  catacombs  in 
which  fuller  light  may  show  that  the  traditional 
view  requires  some  modification,  but  which 
must  wait  the  result  of  further  investigations 
for  complete  resolution.  A  class  of  mixed  in¬ 
scriptions  remains  to  be  noticed  in  which  the 
heathen  formula  D.  M.,  or  even  the  full  Dis 
Manihus  appears  in  connection  with  Christian 
phraseology,  and  Christian  emblems.  “  Debit  a 
sacratis  manibus  officia  ”  is  quoted  from  Gruter 
by  Fabretti  Inscr.  Dom.  112  A.,  as  a  Christian 
inscription.  From  the  same  collection  (Gruter, 
MLXi.)  he  also  gives  one  in  which  occurs  the  line 
“Sanctique  Manes  nobis  petentibus  adsint,”  in 
connection  with  the  clause  “  quievit  in  pace,” 
and  the  term  “depositio.”  Other  inscriptions 
from  Fabretti’s  collection  evidence  the  same 
lingering  retention  of  heathen  formula  and  phra¬ 
seology  in  the  expressions  “  Lachesis,  ”  “Taena- 
riae  fauces,”  “  fatis  ereptus  iniquis,”  and  the  like. 
The  strangely  unchristian  phrase  “Tartarea 
custodia  ”  occurs  in  the  epitaph  of  a  presbyter 
(Fabr.  p.  329,  no.  484).  “  Domus  aeterna  ”  is  by 

no  means  infrequent :  e.g.  “  Floreutia  quae  vixit 
anuis  xxvi  Crescens  fecit  Venemerenti  et  sibi  et 
suis  domu  aeterna  in  pace”  {ib.  p.  114,  no. 
289).  The  untenable  fallacy  contended  for  by 
Boldetti,  lib.  ii.  c.  11,  Fabretti.  and  the  earlier 
school  of  antiquaries,  that  the  letters  D.  M. 
stood  for  Deo  Maximo  has  been  deservedly  ex¬ 
ploded.  De  Rossi  allows  that  they  can  only 
stand  for  Dis  Manibus,  and  we  may  safely  regard 
the  occurrence  of  these  letters  on  Christian 
tombstones  as  an  instructive  example  of  the 
slowness  with  which  an  entire  people  changes 
its  ancestral  faith,  and  of  the  obstinacy  with 
which  certain  usages  are  clung  to  long  after 
their  real  force  and  meaning  has  passed  away.® 


®  On  this  subject  and  Its  kindred  topics  the  dispas¬ 
sionate  verdict  of  Dean  Merivale  may  be  read  wiih 
a'ivantagp.  "  The  first  Christians  at  Home  did  not  sepa¬ 
rate  themselves  frem  the  heathens,  nor  renounce  their 
ordinary  callujs;  they  intermarried  with  unbeliever.-. 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


309 


Examples  are  not  wanting  whei*e  the  work  of 
excavation  has  not  been  completed,  and  the  form 
of  the  loculus  is  still  seen  as  it  was  sketched  by 
the /bssor<?s  on  the  wall  of  the  ambulacrum. 

d'he  bodies  of  the  faithful  were  not  buried 
naked,  but  with  the  same  feeling  of  reverence 
that  pervaded  the  whole  rite,  were,  like  that  of 
their  Master,  wrapt  in  linen  cloths  “  as  the  man¬ 
ner  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury.”  Sometimes  the 
body  was  enveloped  in  a  sheet ;  sometimes  swathed 
in  many  lengths  of  bands,  in  the  same  fashion 
as  Lazarus  is  represented  in  the  early  Christian 
pictures  and  bas  reliefs.  Bosio  assures  us  that 
in  his  investigations  he  found  instances  of  both 
modes.  He  mentions  that,  in  excavating  the 
foundations  for  St.  Petei^’s,  bodies  were  exhumed 
bound  with  linen  bands,  and  that  he  himself  had 
seen  very  many  wrapt  in  linen  sheets  of  exceed¬ 
ing  fineness,  which  fell  to  dust  at  a  touch  (Bosio, 
R.  S.  cap.  19;  Marchi,  p.  19).  The  story  of  the 
double  discovery  of  the  body  of  St.  Caecilia  rirst 
by  Pope  Paschal,  c.  820,  and  then  by  Cardinal 
Sfondrati,  A.D.  1599,  in  the  robes  of  golden  tissue 
she  had  worn  in  life  is  familiar.  (It  may  be  read 
in  Northcote,  R.  S.  pp.  154-157.)  That  the 
bodies  placed  in  the  loculi  were  embalmed  is  pro¬ 
bable  from  the  known  custom  of  the  early  Chris¬ 
tians.  Boldetti,  lib.  i.  c.  59,  affirms  that  on  re¬ 
peated  occasions  when  he  was  present  at  the 
opening  of  a  grave  in  the  catacombs  the  assem¬ 
bled  company  were  conscious  of  a  spicy  odour 
diffusing  itself  from  the  tomb.  Of  this  custom 
Prudentius  writes: 

“  Aspersaque  myrrha  Sabaeo, 

Corpus  medlcamlne  servat,” 

(in  Exeq.  les.  Hymn  10). 

Another  and  ruder  mode  of  averting  the  evils 
which  might  arise  from  the  putrefaction  of  the 
bodies  in  galleries  which  were  the  frequent  resort 
of  the  living  was  to  bury  the  corpse  in  quick 
lime.  Padre  Marchi  remarked  frequent  exam¬ 
ples  of  this  custom,  especially  in  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Agnes.  The  lime  appeared  to  have  been 
placed  between  two  winding  sheets,  one  coarser 
and  the  other  finer,  of  the  tissue  of  which  it 
retained  the  impress  (Marchi,  p.  19). 

Interment  in  the  loculus  though  infinitely  the 
most  common,  was  not  the  only,  and  perhaps  not 
the  earliest  mode  adopted  by  the  Christians. 
Cav.  de  Rossi  has  been  led  by  his  investigations 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  earliest  form  of  Christian 
burial  was  in  sarcophagi  placed  in  detached 
chambers,  and  that  burial  in  the  loculus  was  of 
later  date.  The  truth  may  howev'er  be  that  the 
bodies  of  the  wealthier  were  laid  in  sarcophagi, 
which  must  have  always  been  costly,  while  the 
friends  of  the  poorer  contented  themselves  with 
a  simple  loculus  in  the  wall.  The  Cemetery  of 
St.  Domitilla  at  Tor  Marancia,  which  is  consi¬ 
dered  by  De  Rossi  to  be  the  monument  of  a  Christian 
family  of  distinction,  and  is  shown  by  the  classi¬ 
cal  character  of  its  architecture  and  decoration  to 
have  belonged  to  the  first  age  of  the  church, 
affords  examples  of  interment  in  sarcophagi,  as 


nor  even  tn  their  unions  with  one  another  did  they 
neglect  the  ordinary  forms  of  law.  It  would  seem  that 
they  burnt  their  dead  after  the  Roman  fashion"  (can 
this  be  shown  to  be  trne  ?),  “  gathered  their  ashes  into  the 
sepulchres  of  their  patrons,  and  inscrib'  d  over  them  the 
customary  dedication  to  the  Divine  Spirits." — Histury  nf 
the  Humans,  ch.  llv. 


well  as  of  the  transition  from  the  sarcophagus  to 
the  loculus,  in  some  graves  which  “  though  really 
mere  shelves  in  the  wall  are  so  disguised  bv 
stucco  and  painting  on  the  outside  as  to*  present 
to  passers  by  the  complete  outward  appearance 
of  a  sarcophagus”  (De  Rossi,  R.  S.  i.  187,  195, 
267  ;  Northcote,  R.  S.  p.  72,  73).  Another 
example  is  the  so-called  Capella  Graeca  of  the 
catacomb  of  St.  Priscilla.  This  crypt  is  of  a  very 
peculiar  character,  formed  in  the  galleries  of  an 
ancient  arenaria,  not  hollowed  out  of  the  tufa, 
but  constructed  of  brick.  The  burial-places 
here  are  not  loculi,  but  large  arched  recesses 
destined  to  contain  sarcophagi  of  which  in 
Bosio’s  time  numerous  fragments  remained,  and 
some  still  exist  (Bosio,  R.  S.  513,  533 ;  De  Rossi, 
R.  S.  i.  188  sq.).  The  cemetery  of  Domitilla  con¬ 
tains  also  numerous  examples  of  sarcophagi  of 
terra  cotta  buried  in  the  floor  of  the  ambulacra. 

Another  form  of  interment  analogous  to  the 
sarcophagus  was  that  in  the  Table  Tomb  or  Se- 
polcro  a  mensa,  an  oblong  chest  either  hollowed 


Table  Tcmb. 


out  in  the  living  rock,  or  built  up  of  masonry 
slabs  of  stone  or  large  tiles,  and  closed  by  a  heavy 
slab  of  marble  lying  horizontally  on  the  top,  form¬ 
ing  a  table.  The  rock  was  excavated  above  the 
tomb,  to  form  a  i*ectangular  recess.  When  the 
niche  assumed  a  circular  form,  which  is  the  more 
fi’equent  though  not  the  earlier  shape,  it  is  known 
by  the  name  of  arcosolium  [Arcosolium.]  Both 


Arcosuliuin. 


forms  of  tomb  are  met  with  in  the  galleries 
among  the  loculi,  but  their  more  usual  position 
is  in  the  sepulchral  chambers,  or  cubicula,  which 
opened  out  of  the  galleries.  The  tabfe  tomb  some¬ 
times  stands  in  front  of  the  wall,  projecting 
fi'om  it,  like  the  altar  tombs  of  our  own  churches. 
Examples  of  this  arrangement  appear  in  the 
tombs  of  the  presbyters  Eusebius  and  Gregorius 
in  the  papal  crypt  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Callis- 
tus  (De  Rossi,  vol.  ii.  p.  108,  tav.  I.  A.).  More 
frequently  it  is  let  into  the  wall,  and  stands  in  a 
recess,  as  we  see  in  the  tomb  assigned  by  De 
Rossi  to  St.  Zephyrinus,  which  formed  the  original 
altar  in  the  same  crypt  (/6.  pp.  20,  21,  51), 
and  that  of  St.  Cornelius  in  the  same  catacomb 
(76.  vol.  i.  p.  284,  tab.  v.).  The  arched  form  or 
arcosolium  proper  is  not  found  in  the  more  ancient 
cemeteries,  or  in  the  earliest  constructed  ctsbicula. 
This  is  an  indication  of  date  of  great  importance 
in  determining  the  relative  antiquity  of  the 
catacombs.  De  Rossi  remarks  (vol.  ii.^p.  245) 
that  “  the  arcosolium  is  the  dominant  form  in 


310 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


erei’y  part  of  the  second  and  third  area  of  the 
cemetery  of  St.  Callistus,  and  appears  frequently 
in  some  of  the  crypts  added  to  the  oi’igiual  rect¬ 
angular  ai-ea  to  unite  it  to  the  second  area,  but 
is  entirely  wanting  (with  one  exception  which 
serves  only  to  prove  the  rule)  in  all  the  cvhicula 
of  the  primitive  area,  even  in  the  most  noble 
and  illustrious  of  its  sepulchres  ”  (Cf.  De  Rossi, 
vol.  i.  pp.  284,  285  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  21). 

In  addition  to  the  ordinary  places  of  interment 
in  the  ambulacra,  the  catacombs  contain  an  im¬ 
mense  number  of  sepulchral  chambers  or  cubi- 
cvla,  each  enshrining  a  larger  or  smaller  number 
of  dead,  as  well  in  tahlr.  tombs  and  arcosolia  as 
in  loculi  pierced  in  the  walls.  These  were  origi- 


In  the  Catacomb  of  St.  Agnes,  with  seats  hewn  ont  of  the  rock. 


nally  family  burial  places,  excavated  and  embel¬ 
lished  at  the  expense  of  the  friends  of  the 
departed,  and  from  the  date  of  their  first  con¬ 
struction  served  for  the  celebration  of  the  eucha- 
ristic  feast  and  agape,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
funeral,  and  its  successive  annivei'saries.  In 
times  of  pei'secution  they  may  have  supplied 
places  of  religious  assembly  where  the  faith¬ 
ful  might  gather  in  security  for  the  celebra¬ 
tion  of  the  holy  mysteries  at  the  graves  of  the 
departed  martyrs  and  others  whose  faith  they 
might  be  soon  called  to  follow  and  seal  their 
testimony  with  their  blood.  The  name  cubicu- 
lum  is  of  exclusively  Christian  use  as  applied  to 
places  of  interment.  We  find  it  repeatedly  used 
in  that  sense  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis  of  Anasta- 
sius.  In  the  life  of  Sixtus  III.  a.d.  432-440,  it  is 
distinctly  used  for  a  family  vault  “  Cujus  ”  (Bassi) 
“  corpus  sepelivit  ad  Beatum  Petrum  apostolum 
in  cubiculo  pai’entum  ejus  ”  (Anast.  xlvi.  §  63). 
Padre  Marchi,  p.  101,  gives  several  inscriptions 
from  the  catacombs  themselves,  in  which  the 
term  occurs  in  this  reference  :  e.g.  CvbicvLVM 
Domitiani  ;  Cubiculus  Fal.  Gaudenti  Ar- 
GENTARi,  from  the  catacomb  of  St.  Callistus. 
An  inscription  of  the  year  336  given  by  De  Rossi, 
Ko.  45,  indicates  the  family  vault  of  Aurelia 
Martina  Cubiculum  Aureliae  Martinae. 
*•  These  inscriptions  indicate,”  writes  Marchi,  p. 
101,  “  that  in  the  fourth  century  the  persons 
named  caused  that  their  own  cubicula  should  be 
excavated  at  their  own  expense.  Each  cubiculum 
was  of  sufficient  dimensions  to  serve  for  several 
generations  of  their  respective  families.  If  it 
proved  insufficient  loculi  were  added  at  a  greater 
or  less  distance  from  the  cubiculum.”  Sometimes 


we  find  the  arch  of  an  arcoso^vim  of  the  first 
century  cut  through  and  used  as  a  door  or  en¬ 
trance  to  a  second  cubiculum  excavated  in  its  rear, 
the  original  sarcophagus  being  removed  and 
carried  to  the  back  of  the  chapel  that  other 
bodies  might  be  placed  near  it  {Bulletin,  di  Arch. 
Christ.  1867).  The  number  of  these  sepulchral 
chambers  is  almost  beyond  computa  .ion.  Marchi 
reckons  more  than  sixty  in  the  eighth  part  of  the 
catacomb  of  St.  Agnes.  In  that  of  St.  Callistus 
they  amount  to  some  hundreds.  They  are 
equally  frequent  in  the  other  cemeteries.  Their 
form  is  very  varied.  In  the  catacomb  of  St.  Cal¬ 
listus,  with  very  few  exceptions,  they  are  rect¬ 
angular,  and  that  appears  to  have  been  the 
earlier  shape.  But  the  plates  of  Marchi,  Boldetti, 
&c.,  afford  examples  of  many  other  forms,  tri¬ 
angular,  pentagonal,  hexagonal,  octagonal,  circu¬ 
lar,  and  semi-circular.  Among  the  examples 
given  by  Boldetti,  pp.  14,  15,  and  Marchi,  tav. 
xxiii.,  of  which  we  give  a  plan  and  section,  one 


Plan  of  Cnbicnlnm  from  Catacomb  of  St  Callistn!!. 


Section  of  Cubiculum  from  Catacomb  of  St  Calliatos. 


from  the  cemetery  of  Callistus  is  circular,  with  a 
domed  vault,  and  is  surrounded  by  six  arched 
niches.  Another  from  that  of  St.  Helena  on  the 
Via  Labicana  is  square,  with  an  insulated  tomb  in 
the  centre,  the  roof  being  supported  by  four  co¬ 
lumns  standing  quite  free  of  the  walls,  cut  out  ol 
the  native  tufa.  The  roof  is  sometimes  a  barrel 
vault,  sometimes  a  coved  ceiling,  nearly  flat :  in 
one  instance,  it  expands  into  a  lofty  dome,  lighted 
by  a  luminare  (Bosio,  p.  489,  Marchi,  tav.  xxxi.). 
Both  the  roof,  the  vaults,  and  the  recesses  of  the 
arcosolia  are  generally  coated  with  stucco,  and 
richly  decorated  with  religious  paintings.  In 
the  later  restorations  the  walls  are  often  veneered 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


311 


with  plates  of  costly  marble  [Platonia].  In  a 
very  large  number  of  examples  the  Good  Shepherd 
occupies  the  centre  of  the  ceiling,  the  surrounding 
lunettes  containing  Adam  and  Eve  after  the  Fall, 
the  history  of  Jonah,  the  Sacrifice  of  Abraham, 
Moses  striking  the  Rock,  the  Three  Children  in 
the  Furnace,  the  Visit  of  the  wise  men  to  Christ, 
the  Raising  of  Lazarus,  the  Healing  of  the 
Blind  man,  the  Paralytic  caiTying  his  Bed,  the 
Miracle  of  the  Loaves,  and  other  scenes  from  the 
limited  cycle  of  Scriptural  subjects  to  which  early 
Christian  art  confined  itself,  treated  with  a 
wearisome  uniformity  ;  embellished  with  palm 
branches,  vines  laden  with  gi*apes,  the  dove,  the 
peacock,  and  other  familiar  Christian  symbols. 
The  walls  of  the  chamber  were  also  similarly 
decorated  [Frescos].  The  vault  is  in  some  cases 
supported  by  columns,  either  cut  out  of  the  tufa, 
or  formed  of  brick  coated  with  stucco  (Marchi, 
tav.  xix.  xxii.  xxx.  xxxiii.).  A  very  interesting 
cubiculum  from  the  Via  Latina  given  by  Marchi, 
tav.  xxii.  p.  141,  sq.  from  a  plate  of  Bosio’s,  p. 
30J,  has  a  domical  vault  and  pillars  covered  with 
stucco,  ornamented  with  vine  branches  and  amo- 
rini  in  relief.  The  character  of  the  decoration 
claims  for  this  a  very  early  date.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  any  other  of  the  kind  has  been  dis¬ 
covered  in  the  catacombs.  Light  and  air  were 
not  unfrequently  admitted  by  means  of  a  shaft 
communicating  with  the  surface  of  the  ground, 
called  luininare.  A  chamber  so  lighted  was 
known  as  a  cubiculum  clarurn  (Cf.  Anastas.  Bibl. 
17^.  Marcellin.  “  Sepelivit  (corpora)  ...  in  coe- 
meterio  Priscillae  in  cu'nculo  claro").  For  ex¬ 
amples  see  Marchi,  tav.  viii.  xxix.  xxxii.  xlviii. 
Jerome’s  well  known  description  of  the  catacombs 
in  Ezechiel.  c.  xl.  contains  an  allusion  to  these 
luminaria.  His  words  are  “  raro  desuper  lumen 
admissum  horrorem  temperat  .  .  .  .  ut  non  tarn 
fenestram  quam  foramen  demissi  luminis  putes.” 
And  again,  praefat.  in  Daniel.  “Cum  et  quasi 
per  cryptam  ambulans  rarum  desuper  lumen 
aspicerem.”  Prudentius  also  in  his  Periste- 
ph  tnon,  xi.-v.  161-8  uses  similar  language  : — 

OccuiTunt  caesis  immissa  foramina  tectis 
Quae  jaciunt  claios  antra  super  radios. 
****** 

Attamen  excisi  subter  cava  viscera  montis, 

Crebra  ten  brato  fornice  lux  penetiat, 

Sic  datur  absentis  per  subU'rranea  soils 
Cernere  fulgorem  luminlbusque  frui.” 

The  Acts  of  SS.  Marcellinus  and  Peter  record 
that  the  martyr  Candida  was  put  to  death  by 
hurling  her  down  an  airshaft,  and  overwhelming 
her  with  stones,  “per  luminare  cryptae  jactantes 
lapidibus  obruerunt,”  ap.  Bolland.  ii.  Jun.  n.  10. 
From  an  epitaph  given  by  Marchi,  p.  165,  the 
luminaria  appear  to  have  been  divided  into 
“  larger  ”  and  “  smaller,”  “  majora,”  “  minora.” 
It  is  as  follows  :  “  cumparavi  Saturninus  ajlSusto 
(Sixto)  locum  visomum  auri  solidljos  duo  in  lu¬ 
minare  majore.  Que  po||sita  est  ibi  que  fuit  cum 
marito  an  xl.”  Marchi  gives  an  interesting  ex¬ 
ample  of  a  luminare  majus  serving  for  two  cubi- 
cala  from  the  cemetery  of  SS.  Marcellinus  and 
Peter  (pi.  xxix.  pp.  165  sq.).  A  cylindrical  shaft 
immediately  above  the  ambulacrum  expands  into 
a  cone  as  it  descends,  so  as  to  supply  light  and 
air  to  chambers  on  opposite  sides  of  the  passage. 
Painted  on  the  W'all  of  the  shaft  is  a  dove  with 
an  olive  branch.  In  the  cemetery  of  Callistus 
the  same  luminare  sometimes  serves  for  three 


chambers  (Northcote,  R.  S.  p.  128).  Examples 
of  the  smaller  luminaria  from  the  cemetery  of 
St.  Helena  may  be  found  in  Marchi,  tav.  vi.  vii. 
viii.  If  the  strata  through  which  the  shaft  was 
driven  were  not  sufficiently  solid  to  stand  with¬ 
out  support,  it  was  lined  with  a  wall,  carried  up 
a  little  distance  above  the  level  of  the  ground, 
to  avoid  accidents.  Many  of  the  existing  lumi¬ 
naria  belong  to  the  Damasine  period,  having  been 
opened  to  admit  light  and  air  to  the  tombs  of 
the  more  renowned  martyrs  when  they  became 
the  object  of  pious  visits.  We  may  instance  that 
of  the  crypt  of  St.  Cecilia.  If,  as  was  most 
usual,  there  was  no  luminare,  the  chambers  were 
illuminated  by  lamps,  sometimes  suspended  by 
chains  from  the  vault,  sometimes  standing  in 
niches,  or  on  small  brackets  of  tile  cr  marble 
often  placed  at  the  angle  of  a  loculus.  Bottari, 
vol.  i.  p,  17,  asserts  that  when  the  catacombs 
were  first  opened  some  of  these  lamps  were 
found  still  in  their  place,  and  we  are  informed  by 
Marchi,  p.  136,  that  the  upper  part  of  the 
niches,  and  the  walls  or  ceilings  above  the  lamps 
still  retained  the  blackness  caused  by  the  smoko. 

These  cubicula  were  very  frequently  double, 
one  on  either  side  of  the  gallery,  and,  as  we  have 
just  noticed,  in  some  instances  a  luminare  was 
sunk  in  the  centre  so  as  to  give  light  to  both 
(Boldetti,  p.  16,  6.).  An  inscription  of  the  highest 
interest  given  by  De  Rossi,  vol.  i.  p.  208,  de¬ 
scribes  a  double  cubiculum  of  this  kind  con¬ 
structed  by  the  permission  of  Pope  Marcellinus, 
A.D.  296-308,  by  the  Deacon  Severus  for  himself 
and  his  family,  “  Cubiculum  duplex  cum  arcisoliis 
et  luminare  ||  jussu  P.  P.  sui  Marcellini  Diaconus 
iste  II  Severus  fecit  mansionem  in  pace  quietam 
II  sibi  suis  que.”  De  Rossi  descidbes  a  luminare  of 
very  large  size  and  unusual  character  in  the 
cemetery  of  St.  Balbina  discovered  by  him.  It 
is  nearly  hexagonal,  and  opens  on  the  subterra¬ 
nean  excavations  with  no  less  than  eight  rays  of 
light  illumining  as  many  distinct  chambers  and 
galleries  (A.  S.  i.  265). 

Each  side  of  the, cubiculum  usually  contains  a 
table  tomb  or  an  arcosolium.  That  facing  the  en¬ 
trance,  behind  which  the  rock  is  often  excavated 
so  as  to  form  an  apse,  was  the  chief  tomb  of  the 
chamber,  and  very  frequently  contained  the  re¬ 
mains  of  a  martyr,  and  according  to  primitive 
usage,  based  on  Rev.  vi.  9-11,  lurnished  an  altar 
for  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist.  The  altar 
was  sometimes  detached  from  the  wall.  But 
this  was  not  a  primitive  arrangement.  In  the 
papal  crypt  in  the  cemetery  of  Callistus  we  have 
traces  of  two  altars.  The  original  altar  remains 
hewn  out  in  the  rock,  the  front  of  brickwork, 
and  the  stone  slab  covering  it  forming  the  holy 
table.  In  front  of  this,  a  raised  marble  step 
or  podium,  with  four  shallow  holes  or  sockets 
is  an  evidence  of  a  second  later  altar  standing 
on  four  pillars.  We  have  noticed  above  an 
example  of  an  insulated  altar  from  the  cemeterv 
of  St.  Helena.  As  more  space  was  required  for 
the  interment  of  the  bodies  of  members  of  the 
same  family  the  walls  above  and  around  the 
original  tombs  were  pierced  with  loculi,  some¬ 
times  amounting  to  nearly  a  hundred.  The 
desire  of  reposing  in  the  same  locality  with 
the  blessed  dead,  and  in  close  proximity  to  a 
saint  or  martyr,  which  was  awakened  at  so  early 
a  period  and  exercised  so  much  power  (cf.  August. 
de  Curd  pro  Mortuis  gerendd  ;  Retract,  lib.  v. 


312 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


c.  64.  Maximus  Taurinensis.  Horn.  Ixxxi.  Ambros. 
ad  pop.  de  SS.  Gervas.  et  Frotas.  Paulinus  Nol. 
in  Pa'oegyr.  Celsi)  led  to  the  excavation  of  loculi 
in  the  walls  behind  the  earlier  tombs,  with  com¬ 
plete  disregard  of  the  paintings  decorating  them, 
which  were  thus  mutilated  or  destroyed.  A 
very  badly  spelt  and  ungrammatical  inscription 
given  by  Marchi,  p.  102,  fi’om  Boldetti,  who 
copied  it  from  the  cemetery  of  St.  Cyriaca,  tells 
us  of  two  ladies  Valeria  and  Sabina,  who  in 
their  lifetime  had  purchased  from  fossores  named 
Apro  and  Viator  a  double  grave  (bisomum)  in 
the  rear  of  that  in  which  the  bodies  of  recognised 
saints  had  been  buried,  “  retro  sanctos.”  It  is 
as  follows:  In  Crypta.  Noba  retro  sanctus 

EMERUM  (-RUNT)  SE  VIVAS  BaLER  |  RA  ET 

Sabina  Merum  locu  \  Bisoni  ab  aprone  et 
A  I  Biatore.  The  inscription  set  up  by  Damas- 
us  in  the  cemetery  of  Cailistus  in  honour  of  the 
companions  in  martyrdom  of  Pope  Xystus  bears 
witness  to  his  participation  in  this  feeling,  and 
his  relinquishment  of  the  fulfilment  of  his 
wishes  lest  he  should  disturb  the  ashes  of  the 
faithful. 

“  Hie  fateor  Damasus  volui  niea  conSere  membra, 

Sed  cineres  timui  sanctos  vexare  piorum.” 

An  inscription  given  by  Gruter,  Insc.  Antiq. 
Christ,  p.  1167,  No.  4,  testifies  the  same  senti¬ 
ment. 

“  Sanctorum  exuviis  penitus  confine  sepulchrum, 
Promeruit  sacro  digna  Marina  solo.” 

St.  Ambrose  also  states  that  he  had  resigned  the 
place  beneath  the  altar  in  which  he  had  intended 
his  own  body  should  lie,  “dignum  est  enim  ut 
ibi  requiescat  sacerdos  ubi  ofierre  coesuevit  ”  to 
the  relics  of  the  recently  discovered  martyrs 
Gorvasius  and  Protasius,  and  contrasts  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  Christ  present  on  the  altar  with  the  saints 
beneath  it,  “  ille  super  altari  qui  pro  omnibus 
mortuus  est,  isti  sub  altari  qui  illius  redempti 
sunt  passione.”  (Ambros.  Ep.  xxii.  15.)  See  also 
Jerome,  adv.  Vigilant,  p.  359.  [Altar.]  For 
e.xamples  of  this  ruthless  destruction  of  earlier 
decorations  (Cf.  De  Rossi,  vol.  ii.  tav.  27,  28,  29 ; 
Northcote,  R.  8.  Plate  xvi.)  When  the  cubicu- 
lum  was  absolutely  too  full  to  receive  any  more 
bodies  loculi  were  dug  in  its  vicinity,  their  con¬ 
nection  with  the  family  vault  being  indicated 
by  an  inscription  to  that  effect,  e.  g.  Marchi, 
p.  101,  LOCA  adpertinentes  ad  cubiculum 
germulani. 

The  altar  was  sometimes  protected  from  any 
careless  approach  by  lattice  work  of  marble, 
transenna,  the  prototype  of  the  cancelli  of  later 
Christian  churches.  Fragments  of  an  enclosure 
of  this  kind  were  found  by  De  Rossi  in  the 
papal  crypt,  and  supply  the  authority  for  the 
restoration  (i2.  S.  vol.  ii.  pp.  20-27,  tav.  i.  I.  A.). 
Other  examples  are  given  by  Boldetti  from  the 
cemeteries  of  Praetextatus  and  Helena,  and 
Priscilla  (pp.  34,  35,  Marchi,  p.  128).  A  very 
beautiful  example  of  the  transenna  is  seen  in  the 
cemetery  church  of  St.  Alexander,  A.D.  498. 

We  know  that  it  was  the  universal  custom 
of  the  early  church  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist 
at  the  time  of  a  funeral,  provided  it  took  place 
in  the  morning  (for  authorities  see  Bingham  bk. 
xxiii.  ch.  iii.  §  12).  By  degrees  a  corrupt  custom 
crept  in,  based  on  a  superstitious  view  of  the 
magical  power  of  the  consecrated  elements,  of 
administering  the  Holy  Communion  to  the  de¬ 


parted  (Bingham  Grig.  bk.  xv.  c.  iv.  §  20).  Thft 
j)rohibition  of  this  profane  custom  in  the  canons 
of  some  early  councils  (e,g.  Auxerre,  A.D.  578, 
can.  12;  Carthage  iii.  A.D.  397,  can.  6;  Trullo, 
A.D.  691,  can.  83)  is  evidence  for  its  existence. 
The  consecrated  bread  was  laid  as  a  charm  on 
the  breast  of  the  corpse.  The  wine  enclosed  in 
small  glass  or  earthenware  bottles  was  placed  in 
the  grave,  or  imbedded  in  the  mortar  at  the 
mouth  of  the  loculus,  and  the  red  colour  left  by 
the  exsiccated  wine  mistaken  for  blood  in  the 
early  stages  of  catacomb  investigation  has  created 
thousands  of  false  martyrs.  Another  analogous 
custom  was  that  of  pouring  libations  of  wine  on 
the  graves  after  the  old  heathen  fashion,  and 
supplying  the  dead  with  food  for  their  last 
journey,  viaticum.  The  22nd  canon  of  the  Se¬ 
cond  Council  of  Tours  A.D.  567  mentions  those 
“  qui  in  festivitate  cathedrae  domini  Petri  Apo- 
stoli  cibos  mortuis  offeruut.”  Paulinus  of  Nola 
Poem,  xxvii.  vv.  566-7  thus  alludes  to  the  liba¬ 
tions — 

“  Simplicitas  pietate  cadit,  male  credula  sanctos 
Perfusis  balante  mero  gaudere  sepulchris.” 

Another  purpose  of  the  cvbicula  was  for  the 
celebi’ation  of  the  Funeral  ^east  on  the  anniver¬ 
sary  of  the  day  of  death.  This  was  a  custom 
inherited  from  the  heathen  sepulchral  rites, 
which  too  often  degenerated  into  heathen  license. 
St.  Augustine  deplores  that  “  many  drink  most 
luxuriously  over  the  dead,  and  when  they  make 
a  feast  for  the  departed,  bury  themselves  over 
the  buried,  and  place  their  gluttony  and  drunk¬ 
enness  to  the  score  of  religion  ”  (^De  Mor.  Eccl. 
Cath.  c.  xxxiv.),  and  condemns  those  who  “  make 
themselves  drunk  in  the  memorials  of  the  mar¬ 
tyrs  ”  (Cont.  Faust,  lib.  xx.  c.  21).  (Cf.  Ambros. 
de  Elia.  c.  xvii. ;  August.  Confess,  vi.  c.  2.)  In 
primitive  times  it  may  be  charitably  believed 
that  such  abuses  were  the  exceptions,  and  that 
the  anniversary  was  observed  in  a  seemly  manner, 
and  with  a  cheerfulness  tempered  by  religion. 
(On  this  custom  see  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  i.  454, 
Clark’s  edition ;  Bingham,  Origines,  bk.  xx.  ch. 
viii.  §§  1-10;  bk.  xxiii.  ch.  iii.;  §§  3-17; 
Bosio,  lib.  iv.  c.  34.)  The  pictures  on  the  walls 
of  the  cubicula  in  some  of  the  catacombs  furnish 
representations  of  these  funeral  feasts,  of  which 
they  were  the  scene.  The  most  curious  is  from 
an  arcosolium  in  the  catacomb  of  SS.  Marcellinus 
and  Peter  (Bosio,  p.  391).  Three  guests — a 
woman  between  two  men — are  seated  at  a  cres¬ 
cent-shaped,  or  sigma  table,  at  the  two  ends  of 
which,  in  stately  curule  chairs,  two  matrons  are 
seated.  No  dishes  appear  on  the  table :  they 
are  placed  on  a  small  three-legged  stand  in  the 
centre,  at  which  a  lad  is  stationed  preparing  to 
execute  the  orders  of  the  guests,  which  are 
written  above  their  heads — “  Irene  da  Calda,” 
“  Agape  misce  mi  ”  (cf.  Juven.  Sat.  v.  63  ;  Mar¬ 
tial,  lib.  i.  Ep.  11  ;  lib.  viii.,  Ep.  63;  lib.  xiv., 
Ep.  95).  Another  painting  from  the  same  ceme¬ 
tery  represents  six  persons,  three  of  each  sex, 
seated  at  an  empty  table.  One  is  drinking  from 
a  rhytion ;  another  stretches  out  his  hand  to 
receive  a  cup  from  a  person  of  whom  no  more 
than  the  arm  is  left  (Bosio,  p.  355). 

The  cubicula  generally  speaking  are  of  small 
dimensions,  and  are  incapable  of  containing  more 
than  a  very  limited  number  of  worshippers. 
But  thex'e  are  also  found  halls  and  chambers  of 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


313 


much  larger  proportions,  which  have  been  con¬ 
sidered  by  the  chief  Roman  Catholic  authorities 
on  the  subject  to  have  been  constructed  for  the 
purpose  of  religious  assemblies.  These  are  dis¬ 
tinguished  by  Padre  Marchi,  by  an  arbitrary 
nomenclatui  e  which  has  failed  to  find  acceptance, 
inio  crifiiae,  for  the  smaller,  and  eccle.siac,  for  the 
larger  excavations.  Of  the  latter  the  most 
typical  examj)le  is  that  discovered  in  the  cata¬ 
comb  of  St.  Agnes  in  1842,  and  described  and 
figured  by  Marchi  (pp.  182-191;  Tav.  xxxv.- 
xxxvii.)  from  whom  we  borrow  the  annexed  plan 
and  section.  This  comprises  five  quadrangular  com- 


Plan  of  supposed  Church,  from  flie  Catacomb  of  St.  Agnes,  Vom 
Uarchi. 


partments,  three  on  one  side  of  the  ambulacrum 
and  two  on  the  other,  connected  by  a  tolerably 
wide  passage  cutting  the  gallery  at  right  angles. 
The  two  comp;irtments  to  the  right  of  the 
gallery  are  supposed  to  have  been  reserved  for 


'  but  the  whole  rests  on  too  conjectural  a  basis  to 
be  accepted  as  anything  more  than  a  possible 
hypothesis. 

Some  of  the  so-called  crypts  are  destitute  of 
orrcosolia,  or  have  the  arcosolia  placed  at  too 
great  an  elevation  to  serve  as  holy  tables  for  the 
celebration  of  the  sacred  mysteries.  Tliese  are 
assumed  by  Marchi  to  have  been  devoted  to  the 
instruction  of  catechumens.  They  usually  con¬ 
sist  of  two  chambers,  one  for  each  sex,  and  are 
provided  with  chairs  for  the  (presumed)  cate¬ 
chists,  and  benches  cut  in  the  tufa  rock  for  the 
catechumens  (cf.  Marchi,  pp.  130-133;  tav. 
xvii.).  But  such  an  identification  is  exceedingly 
1  doubtful. 

i  When  the  catacombs  became  places  of  refuge 
in  times  of  persecution  (as  it  is  indisputable 
they  did,  though  not  to  the  extent  popularly 
credited),  it  was  essential  that  there  should  be 
the  means  of  obtaining  a  supply  of  water  w  ithout 
leaving  the  limits  of  the  cemetery.  This  want 
was  supplied  by  wells  and  springs,  whether  dug 
i  for  this  purpose  or  not,  many  of  which  remain 
!  to  the  present  time,  still  holding  water.  We 
may  mention  one  in  the  Area  prima  of  the  Cata¬ 
comb  of  St.  Callistus  (Fj  in  De  Rossi's  plan), 
which  may  still  be  used  for  its  original  purpose. 
The  shaft  of  this  well  is  furnished  with  foot 
holes,  to  enable  a  man  to  descend  for  the  purpose 
of  cleaning  it  out,  as  is  the  case,  according  to  De 
Rossi,  in  all  the  ancient  wells  connected  with  tl  a 
catacombs  (M.  S.  de  Rossi,  Analis.  Geol.  ed  Arch 


SecUon  of  Bnpposed  Church,  from  the  Catacomb  of  St.  Agues,  from  MarchL 


women,  and  two  of  the  three  to  the  left  of  the  i 
gallery  for  men.  The  third  compartment,  di¬ 
vided  from  the  others  by  an  arch  supported  on 
stuccoed  columns,  formed  the  chancel  or  sanc¬ 
tuary.  In  the  centre  of  the  end  wall  stands  the 
cathedra,  or  bishop’s  seat,  flanked  on  each  side 
by  a  stone  bench  running  along  the  side  walls, 
which  formed  seats  for  the  clergy.  Hollowed 
out  so  as  to  furnish  loculi  for  children,  an  arco- 
solium  fills  the  space  behind  the  episcopal  chaii', 
and  occupies  both  sides  of  each  of  the  compart¬ 
ment.  The  walls  above  the  arcosolia  are  pierced 
with  tiers  of  loculi.  There  is  no  trace  of  an 
altar.  The  cathedra  entirely  prevents  the  arco- 
solium  fronting  the  entrance  being  so  used. 
Marchi  therefore  concludes  that  the  altar  must 
have  been  portable.  The  whole  is  entirely  des¬ 
titute  of  painting,  or  decorations  of  any  kind, 
beyond  a  rich  marble  paneling,  a  small  portion 
of  which  remains.  The  result  of  the  learned 
father’s  researches  was  to  satisfy  him  that  the 
two  sexes  reached  the  church  by  distinct  stair¬ 
cases  (p.  42)  and  by  .separate  corridors,  and  that 
the  church  itself  mu.st  have  been  constructed 
before  the  commencement  of  the  thix'd  century:  , 


I  vol.  ii.  p.  97).  Wells  ai’e  also  mentioned  by 
Boldetti  (p.  40)  as  existing  in  the  cemeteries  ol 
Praetextatus  and  St.  Helena,  and  natui-al  springs 
in  those  of  St.  Pontianus,  Ostrianus  or  Fons  Petri 
and  the  Vatican. 

In  close  connection  with  the  wells  of  the 
catacombs  stand  the  so-called  The 

most  I'emarkable  of  these  is  that  in  the  Cata¬ 
comb  of  St.  Pontianus,  the  purpose  of  which  is 
put  beyond  doubt  by  its  pictoi-ial  decoration 
(Aringhi,  i.  381;  Bottari,  tav.  xliv. ;  Boldetti, 
p.  40  ;  Marchi,  pp.  32,  220-224;  tav.  ii.  xlii.). ' 
A  descent  of  ten  steps  leads  to  a  cistern  filled  by 
a  natural  sti'eam  flowing  through  a  channel  in 
the  rock.  The  wall  above  the  cistern  retains  a 
fresco  of  the  Baptism  of  our  Lord,  and  on  that 
at  the  back  of  it  is  a  magnificent  jewelled  cross, 
the  stem  immersed  in  the  water,  blossoming  into 
flowers  and  leaves,  and  fi’om  its  arms,  which 
suppoi’t  lighted  candles,  the  charactei’s  A.  fl. 
suspended  by  chains.  Another  of  these  so-called 
baptisteries  is  found  in  the  lowest  piano  of  gal¬ 
leries  in  the  Catacomb  of  St.  Agnes.  It  is  a  well- 
pi-eserved  chambei*,  with  rude  columns  cut  in 
,  the  tufa  rock  in  the  corners.  A  spring  of  water 


314 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


runs  through  it.  The  paintings  have  entirely 
perished  from  damp. 

In  connection  with  some  cemeteries  we  find 
provision  for  washing  the  corpse.  This  is  seen 
in  the  very  remarkable  early  Cemetery  of  Domi- 
tilla  at  Tor  Marancia.  The  entrance  is  above 
ground  on  the  side  of  a  hill  cut  down  for  the 
purpose.  On  each  side  of  the  doorway  is  a 
vestibule,  or  covered  portions.  To  the  left  is  a 
chamber  where  may  be  traced  a  well  and  cistern, 
with  the  place  for  the  pulley  of  the  but:ket. 
This  chamber  was  probably  devoted  to  the  cus¬ 
tomary  washing  of  the  dead  body  before  inter¬ 
ment.  (See  Bosio,  R.  S.  cap.  17.)  A  similar 
chamber  is  found  at  the  entrance  of  the  Jewish 
Catacomb  on  the  Via  Appia.  It  has  a  mosaic 
pavement,  and  drains  to  carry  the  water  away. 


jCntrance  to  the  Catacomb  of  St.  Doiuitilla,  from  De  Bosei. 

a)  Enti  ance  to  the  Catacomb.  (?<)  Porter’s  lodge  with  a  well  and 
chamber  for  washing  the  bodies,  (c)  “  Schola,"  or  place  of  meeting. 


Some  of  these  wells  probably  had  no  other 
object  than  that  of  draining  the  catacombs. 
This  was  the  case  with  that  dug  by  Damasus  in 
the  Vatican  Cemetery.  The  galleries  of  this 
catacomb  being  rendei’ed  unfit  for  the  purpose 
of  sepulture  by  the  infiltration  of  water,  Da¬ 
masus  cut  away  the  rock  till  he  found  the  spring, 
and  diverted  its  waters  to  supply  a  baptistery. 
It  is  this  spring  which  now  supplies  the  fountain 
in  front  of  the  Pontifical  Palace. 

Damasus  recorded  his  good  work  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  inscription : — 

“  Cingebant  latices  montem  teneroque  meatu 
Cor,  ora  iriultorum  cineres  atqne  <  ssa  riaiabant. 

Non  tulit  boc  Jlamasus  commiinl  lege  s  pultos 
Post  .-equiem  trisles  itfnun  persolvi  re  porn  »s. 
Protinns  aggressus  magnum  snperare  laborem 
Aggeris  imnienti  dejf  cit  culmina  mentis, 

Intlma  sollicite  scrutatus  viscera  terrae, 

Siccavit  lotum  quMquld  madefecerat  humor, 

Invenit  foutem  pratbet  qui  dona  saluiis. 

Haec  curavit  Mercurius  Levita  fidelis." 

The  singular  variety  of  objects  discovered 
within  the  loculi  of  the  catacombs  is  an  evidence 
of  the  permanence  of  the  old  heathen  idea,  which 
regarded  the  life  after  death  as  a  continuation  of 
the  present  life  with  its  occupations  and  amu.se- 
ments,  as  well  as  of  the  strength  of  the  universal 
human  instinct,  which  leads  the  bereaved  to 
deposit  in  the  grave  of  their  loved  ones  the  tools 
and  ornaments  and  playthings  which  had  lost 
their  use  by  the  death  of  their  possessor.  Bol- 
detti,  lib.  ii.  cc.  14,  15,  furnishes  us  wdth  very 
interesting  details  of  the  results  of  his  investiga¬ 
tions  in  this  department,  together  with  engraved 
representations  of  some  of  the  more  curious  and 
typical  objects  discovered  by  him,  some  of  which 
are  still  to  be  seen  in  the  Christian  Mu.seum 


of  the  Vatican.  Among  the  objects  extracted 
from  children’s  graves  are  jointed  dolls  of  ivory  or 
bone,  similar  to  those  which  we  learn  from  Cancel- 
lie  ri  cZe /9ecr.  Basil.  Vatican,  tom.  ii.  pp.  99.5-1000, 
were  found  in  the  bier  of  Maria,  the  daughter 
of  Stilicho  and  wdfe  of  Honorius,  belonging  to 
the  close  of  the  4th  century — little  earthenware 
mmei^-jars, — masks,  and  a  very  great  abundance 
of  small  bronze  bells,  such  as  we  know  to  have  been 
in  use  in  classical  times  for  the  amusement  of 
children,  frequently  met  with  in  heathen  tomb.s, 
and  mice  in  metal  or  terra-cotta.  Female  tombs 
have  furnished  numerous  examples  of  toilet  equip- 
a  ;e  and  personal  ornaments ;  mirrors,  comJjs  in 
ivory  or  boxwood,  bodkins,  pins  of  ivory  or  bone, 
vinaigrette-!,  taeezers,  toothpicks,  and  earpicks ; 
bracelets  and  armlets,  earrings  and  necklaces ; 
buckles  and  brooches,  rings  and  seals ;  studs  and 
buttons,  bullae,  and  other  similar  objects,  setting 
before  us  vividly  the  Roman  Christian  ladies  of 
the  first  ages.  In  not  a  few  instances,  according 
to  the  same  authority  (Boldetti,  Osserv.  p.  297), 
the  false  hair  worn  in  life  was  buried  with  the 
corpse.  Among  other  objects  of  interest  dis¬ 
covered  in  the  loculi  we  may  mention  dice,  ivory 
knife-handles,  nailheads,  a  lock  and  key,  one  half  of 
an  ivory  egg  with  portraits  of  a  husband  and  wife 
and  the  Christian  monogi’am  engraved  on  the 
flat  section ;  tortoiseshell,  vreights  of  stone,  and 
small  glass  fish  engraved  with  numbers,  the 
purpose  of  w’hich  has  not  been  determined. 

The  number  of  lamps  discovered  in  and  about 
the  tombs  is  countless.  The  majority  are  of 
terra-cotta,  but  some  have  been  found  of  bronze, 
and  some  even  of  silver  and  amber.  One  in  this 
last  material  was  found  in  the  catacomb  o^ 
St.  Priscilla  (Boldetti,  Osserv.  p.  298,  tav.  i. 
no.  7).  By  far  the  greater  part  of  these  lamps 
have  only  the  monogram  of  Christ  impre.ssed  on 
them.  But  there  are  a  very  large  number 
which  present  other  familiar  symbols,  such  as 
the  palm-branch,  the  dove,  the  fish,  the  ship, 
and  A  and  Cl.  The  Good  Shepherd  is  of  frequent 
occurrence.  The  lamps  found  in  the  Jewish 
catacombs  almost  universally  bear  the  seven- 
branched  candlestick. 

The  so-called  instmments  of  torture  which  the 
eager  imagination  of  pious  enthusiasts,  resolved 
to  convert  every  buried  Christian  into  a  martyr, 
has  discovered  enshrined  in  the  loculi,  or  in¬ 
cised  on  their  closing  slabs,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
best  informed  and  most  calm  judging  writers, 
are  nothing  more  than  implements  of  handicraft. 
One  singular  pronged  weapon,  spedmens  of 
which  are  preserved  in  the  Vatican  and  the 
Collegio  Romano,  has  been  identified  with  a 
heathen  sacrificial  instrument,  and  its  presence 
in  a  Christian  catacomb  has  yet  to  be  explained. 

Topography  of  the  Roman  Catacombs. 

The  following  catalogue  of  the  ancient  Christian 
cemeteries  of  Rome,  the  names  of  which  stand 
recorded  in  ancient  historical  documents,  ar¬ 
ranged  according  to  the  chief  lines  of  road 
leading  from  the  city,  is  derived  from  De  Rossi’s 
great  work.  The  first  column  gives  the  name  of 
the  road.  The  second  that  which  De  Rossi’s 
investigations  have  led  him  to  believe  to  have 
been  the  primitive  names  of  the  larger  cemeteries 
in  the  first  age  of  the  Church.  In  the  third 
column  appear  the  de.signations  by  which  they 
were  known  in  the  fourth  century,  after  the 


CATACOMBS 


315 


establishment  of  the  peace  of  the  Church.  The 
fourth  column  gives  the  titles  of  certain  lesser 
cemeteries  or  isolated  tombs  of  martyrs,  which 
are  often  confused  with  the  larger  cemeteries  to 


which  they  were  adjacent,  and  with  which  they 
were  sometimes  locally  connected.  The  later 
cemeteries  formed,  subsequent  to  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  occupy  the  last  column. 


Roads. 


Appia  .  . 


Ardeatina  .  . 


Ostiensis  .  .  . 


Cornelia 


Flaniinia .  .  . 
Clivus  Cucutneris 


Saluria  Vetus 


Siilarla  Nova 


Nomentana  .  . 


Tiburtina  .  . 
Labicuna  .  .  . 

Latina  .  .  . 


dreater  Cemeteries. 


Primitive  Names. 


Portuensis  .  .  . 
Aurelia  .  .  . 


{Luoinae  . 
Zepbyrini 
{'allisti  . 
Hippolyti 

2.  Praetextati  .  .  . 


3.  Ad  Catacumbas  . 

4.  Domitillae  .  . 

5.  Basilei  .... 

6.  Commodillae 


7.  Pontiani  ad  Ursum 
Hleatum  .... 

8 . 


9.  Lucinae  . 
0.  Calepodii  . 


•  • 


11. 


2.  Ad  Septem  Columbas 
13.  Basillae  .  .  . 


14.  .  .  . 

5.  Maximi 


16.  Thrasonis 


17.  Jordanorum 


18.  Priscillae 


19. 


ianum 

triani 


vel  Os- 


20.  ... 

21.  Cyriacae 


22.  Ad  Duas  Lauros 


23. 


24. 


Names  in  the  4th 
Century. 
Time  of  I'eace. 


•  S.  Xysti . 

>S.  Caeciliae 
SS.  Xysti  et  Comelii 

S.  Januarii. 

SS.  Urban!,  Felicissimi, 
Agapiil,  Januarii, 
Quirini. 

SS.  Tiburtii,  Valeriani, 
et  Maximi. 

S.  Sebast  ani  .  .  . 

S.  I^etronillae  .  .  ) 
SS  Petronillae,  Ne-  > 
rei,  et  Achiliei  .  ) 
SS.  Marci  et  Marcel- 
liani. 

SS.  Fellcis  et  Audacti 


II 


SS.  A  bdon  K  Sennen  1 
Anastasii,  pp.  > 
Innocentii,  pp.  * 
S.  Pancratii  .  .  . 


'SS.  Processi  et  Mart- 
iani. 

S  Agaihae  ad  Giru- 
lum. 

S.  Callisti  via  Aurelia 
Julii  via  Aurelia. 


S.  Valf'ntini. 

Ad  caput  S.  Joannis. 
S.  Hermetis. 

SS.  Hermetis,  Basillae, 
Proti,  et  Hyacinthi 
S.  Pamphyli. 

S.  Felicitatio  .  .  . 


S.  Satuminl. 

S.  Alexandri. 

SS.  Alexandri,  Vlta- 
lis  tt  Martialis  et 
Vll.  Virginum. 

(  S.  Silvestri. 
fS.  Marcelll. 
t  Coemeterium  majus. 

<  Ad  NymphasS.  Petri. 
( Foutis  S.  Petri. 


{ 


S.  Hippolyti. 

S.  Laurentii. 

S  Gorgonli.  ,  .  . 
SS  Pet)  i  et  VTarcellini. 
S.  Tiburtii. 

S.  Castuli. 

S.  Gordi  mi. 

SS.  Gordiani  et  Epi- 
machi. 

SS.  Simplicil  et  Scr- 
viliani,  guarti  et 
V  Ou'nii,  et  Sophiae. 


23 . j  .S.  rertulliiii. 

26  Aproniani  .  .  .  [  S.  Eugeniao. 


Lesser  Cemeteries, 
or  isolated 
Tonibs  of  Martyrs. 


27.  Soterldis. 


28.  Sepulcrum  Pauli 
Api'stoli  in  praedio 
Lucinae. 

29.  Coemeterium  Ti- 
mothei  in  horto 
Theoiiis. 

30.  Kcclesia  S.  Theclae. 

31.  EcclesiaS.Zenonis. 


Cemeteries 
constructed  after 
the  Peace  of  the 
Church. 


38.  Balbinae  sive  S. 
Marci. 

39.  Damasi. 


40.  Julii  via  Portu- 
ensi  mill.  iii.  S.  Fe¬ 
licia  via  Portuensi. 

41.  S.  Felicia  via  Au¬ 
relia. 


.32.  Mf'moria  Petri 
Apostolietsepultu- 
rae  episcoporum  in 
Vatlcano. 


33.  Ecclesia  S.  Hi- 
larlae  in  horto  ejus- 
dem. 

34.  Crypta  SS.  Chry- 
santi  et  Dariae. 

35.  Coemeteilum  No- 
vellae. 


36.  Coemeterium  S. 
Agnetis  in  ejusdem 
agello. 

37.  Coemeterium  S. 
Nlcomedis. 


42.  InComitatu  sfve 
SS.  Quatuor.  tforo- 
natorum. 


316 


CATACOMBS 


CATACOMBS 


Catacombs  of  Naples,  &g. 

To  the  north  of  the  city  of  Na])les,  four  sub¬ 
terranean  Christian  cemeteries  are  known  to 
exist,  in  a  sj^ur  of  Capodimonte,  no  great  dis¬ 
tance  from  one  another.  They  have  been  distin¬ 
guished  by  the  names  of  S.  Vito,  S.  Serero, 
S.  Maria  della  Santifa,  and  S.  Gennaro  (Janua- 
rius)  dei  poveri.  There  is  also  a  fifth  at  some 
distance  under  the  monastic  Church  of  S.  Efremo. 
That  of  S.  Gennaro  is  the  only  one  now  acces¬ 
sible.  It  has  been  fully  described  by  Pelliccia 
{de  Christianae  Eccles.  Fold.  Neapol.  1781,  vol.  iv. 
Dissert.  V.),  and  more  recently  in  an  elaboi-ate 
treatise  of  great  value,  embracing  the  whole 
subject  of  interment  in  the  catacombs,  by  Chr. 
Fr.  Bellermann,  Hamburg,  1839. 

With  many  points  of  resemblance  as  regards 
the  formation  of  the  graves,  and  the  actual  mode 
of  interment,  the  Neapolitan  Catacombs  differ 
very  widely  in  their  general  structure  from 
those  of  Rome.  Instead  of  the  low  narrow 
galleries  of  the  Roman  Catacombs,  we  have  at 
Naples  wide  lofty  corridors,  and  extensive 
cavern-like  halls,  and  subterranean  churches. 
The  chief  cause  of  this  diversity  is  the  very 
different  chai-acter  of  the  material  in  which  they 
are  excavated.  Instead  of  the  friable  tufa  gra- 
nolare  of  Rome,  the  stratum  in  which  the 
Neapolitan  catacombs  lie  is  a  hard  building 
stone  of  great  durability  and  strength,  in  which 
wide  vaults  might  be  constructed  without  any 
fear  of  instability.  To  quote  the  words  of 
Mabillon,  Iter  Ttalicum,  “  altiores  habent  quam 
Romana  Coemiteria  fornices  ob  duritiem  et 
firmitatem  rupis  secus  quam  Romae  ubi  arena 
.sen  tophus  tanturn  altitudinis  non  patitur.”  It 
IS  probable  that  these  catacombs  were  originally 
stone  quarries,  and  that  the  Christians  availed 
themselves  of  excavations  already  existing  for 
the  interment  of  their  dead.  On  this  point 
Marchi  speaks  without  the  slightest  hesitation 
{fMonum.  Primitive,  p.  13). 

The  Catacomb  of  St.  Januarius  derives  its 
name  from  having  been  selected  as  the  resting- 
place  of  the  body  of  that  saint,  whose  death  at 
Puteoli  is  placed  a.d.  303,  when  transferred  to 
Naples  by  Bp.  John,  who  died  a.d.  432. 

Mabillon  speaks  of  three  stories :  “  triplex 
ordo  criptarum  alius  supra  alium.”  INvo  only 
are  mentioned  by  Pelliccia  and  Bellermann  as 
now  accessible.  The  galleries  which  form  the 
cemetery  proper,  are  reached  through  a  suite  of 
wide  and  lofty  halls,  with  vaulted  ceilings  cut 
out  of  the  rock,  and  decorated  with  a  succession 
of  paintings  of  different  dates,  in  some  instances 
lying  one  over  the  other.  The  earliest  frescos 
are  in  a  pure  classical  style,  and  evidently  belong 
to  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  aera.  There 
is  nothing  distinctly  Christian  about  these.  In 
many  places  these  have  been  plastered  over,  and 
on  the  new  surface  portraits  of  bishops,  and 
other  religious  paintings,  in  a  for  inferior  style 
and  of  a  much  later  date,  have  been  executed. 
[Fresco.] 

The  interments  are  either  in  loculi,  arcosolia, 
or  cubicula.  The  loculi  are  cut  without  order  or 
arrangement,  the  larger  and  smaller  apertures 
bring  all  mixed  together,  with  no  attempt  at 
economising  space.  The  arcosolia  have  barrel 
vaults.  Some  of  them  are  painted;  one  con¬ 
tains  ci  fresco  of  the  peacock,  and  on  the  wall 


abox'e  portraits  of  a  mother  and  daughter  whose 
remains  are  interred  below,  with  a  rudely 
written  inscription,  “  Vixit  Rufina  annos  Iv.  et 
filia  ejus  ....  xxxvii."  Another  also  presents 
the  portraits  of  its  occupants,  all  in  juaiyer ; 
a  bearded  father,  Michelinus;  a  girl,  Hilarias 
aged  14,  and  a  child  Nonnosa  aged  2  years  10 
months,  with  spotted  frock,  peaid  head-dress  and 
earrings,  necklace,  and  buckle  to  belt.  In  a 
third  is  the  bust  of  a  young  man  in  white  tunic 
and  red  pallium,  with  the  inscription  “Hie 
rcquiescit  Proculus.”  A  fourth  contains  full- 
length  figures  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Lawrence. 
The  cubicula  average  7  palms  broad,  by  10  jialms 
in  height  and  depth.  The  roof  is  horizontal  or 
slightly  coved.  Each  contains  from  3  to  8 
loculi.  The  graves  were  hermetically  sealed 
with  slabs  of  marble.  But  all  have  been  opened 
and  ransacked.  The  interments  in  the  lower 
piano  occur  in  two  long  parallel  galleries,  one 
much  wider  than  the  other,  communicating 
with  one  another  by  14  transverse  passages.  In 
the  upper  story  the  graves  are  cut  in  the  sides 
of  three  large,  broad,  low  vaulted  halls  exca¬ 
vated  out  of  the  rock,  and  certainly  with  no 
original  view  of  sepulture. 

At  the  entrance  of  the  lower  piano  we  find  a 
so-called  martyrs’  church,  with  a  slightly  vaulted 
roof.  It  was  divided  into  a  nave  and  sanctuary 
by  two^  pillars,  the  bases  of  which  remain,  with 
cancelli  between.  In  the  sanctuary  stands  the 
altar,  built  of  rough  stone,  and  a  rude  bishop’s 
seat  in  an  apse  behind  it.  On  the  South  wall  are 
the  arcosolia  of  John  I.  a.d.  432,  and  Paul  a.d. 
764,  who,  according  to  Joannes  Diaconus,  desired 
to  be  buried  near  St.  Januarius.  In  other  rooms 
we  find  a  well  and  a  cistern,  recesses  for  lamps, 
and  the  remnants  of  a  Christian  mosaic  painting. 
In  a  niche  in  the  upper  piano,  which  was  tradi¬ 
tionally  the  place  of  the  font,  is  the  symbol 

^  .  Here,  according  to  Pelliccia,  iv.  162, 
Nl  I  KA  ’  °  ’  ’ 

a  marble  shell  was  discovered,  since  used  as  a 
holy  water-basin  in  the  church  of  St.  Gennaro. 
The  inscriptions  in  these  catacombs  go  down  to 
the  9th  or  10th  century. 

Among  other  Christian  catacombs  known  to 
exist  in  different  parts  of  the  shores  of  the  Medi¬ 
terranean,  of  which  we  are  still  in  want  of  fuller 
and  more  scientific  descidptions,  we  may  parti¬ 
cularize  those  of  Syracuse  known  as  “  the  grottos 
of  St.  John,”  and  described  by  D’Agincourt  as 
“  of  immense  size,”  and  believed  by  him  to  have 
passed  from  pagan  to  Christian  use :  the  Saracen 
catacomb  near  Taonnina,  with  ambulacra  as 
much  as  12  feet  wide;  the  loculi  r\.  right  angles 
to,  not  parallel  with,  the  direction  of  the  gal¬ 
leries;  each,  as  in  the  Roman  catacombs,  herme¬ 
tically  sealed  with  a  slab  of  stone  :  those  of  Malta, 
supposed  by  Denon  {Voyage  in  Sidle,  Par.  1788), 
to  have  served  a  double  purpose,  both  for  the 
burial  of  the  dead,  and  as  places  of  refuge  for 
the  living  ;  and  which,  according  to  the  same 
authority,  “  evidence  a  iiui’poso,  leisure,  and  re¬ 
sources  far  different  from  the  Roman  catacombs 
and  those  of  Egypt.  Of  these  last  D’Agiucourt 
gives  the  ground-plans  of  several  of  pagan  origin. 
The  most  remarkable  is  one  beyond  the  canal  of 
Canopus,  in  the  quarter  called  by  Strabo,  xvii. 
p.  795,  “  the  Necropolis.”  The  plan  of  this 
hypogaeum  is  drawn  with  great  regularity,  very 
unlike  the  iittricate  maze  of  those  of  Rome.  The 


317 


CATALOGUS  HIERATIC  US 

walls  are  pierced  with  three  ranges  of  loculi, 
running,  as  at  Taormina,  at  right  angles  to  their 
length.  Very  recently  a  small  Christian  catacomb 
has  been  discovered  at  Alexandria,  described  by 
De  Rossi  Nov.  1864,  Agost.  1865).  It 

is  entered  from  the  side  of  a  hill,  and  is  reached 
by  a  staircase,  which  conducts  to  a  vestibule  with 
a  stone  bench  and  an  apse.  This  is  succeeded  by 
a  cuhiculutn,  with  an  arcosolium  on  three  sides, 
opening  into  au  ambulacrum  containing  28  loculi, 
all  set  endways  to  the  passage.  The  whole  is  full 
of  paintings,  of  various  dates,  on  successive 
layers  of  stucco.  One,  of  a  liturgical  character, 
is  assigned  by  De  Rossi  to  the  4th  century.  But 
this  is  probably  much  too  eaidy. 

Authorities. — Aringhi,  Roma  Suhterranea.  Bol- 
detti,  Osscrvazioni  sopra  i  cimiteri  de*  santi  mar- 
tiri  ed  antichi  Christiani  di  Roma.  Bosio,  Roma 
Sotteranea.  Bottari,  Sculture  e  pitture  sagre 
estratte  dai  cimiteri  di  Roma.  Fabretti,  Inscrip- 
tionum  antiquarum  explicatio.  Lupi,  Dissertatio. 
Mabillon,  Iter  Italicum.  Marchi,  I  monumenti 
delle  arti  cristiane  primitive  nella  metropoli  del 
Cristianesimo.  Northcote  (J.  S.)  and  Brownlow 
(W.  R.),  Roma  Sotterranea.  Panvinius,  De  ritu 
sepeliendi  mortuos  apud  veteres  Christianos  et 
eorum  coerneteriis.  Ferret  (Louis),  Les  cata- 
comhes  de  Rome.  Raoul -Rochette,  Tableau  des 
Catacombes.  Rossi  (J.  B.  de’),  Inscriptiones 
Christianae.  Rossi  (J.  B.  de’  and  Mich.  S.  de’), 
Roma  Sotterranea.  Seroux  D’Agincourt,  Histoire 
de  Cart  par  les  monuments.  [E.  V.] 

CATALOGUS  HIERATICUS,  the  name 
given  in  the  Apostolic  Canons  (15  and  51,  or  14 
and  50)  to  the  list  of  the  clergy  of  a  particular 
church.  The  term  is  also  said  to  be  applied  to 
that  part  of  the  Diptychs  which  contained  the 
names  of  those,  still  living,  who  were  named  in 
the  Eucharistic  serA'ice  ;  auz.  of  those  who  had 
made  offerings,  emperors,  patriarchs,  &c.,  and 
lastly  of  the  bishop  and  clergy  of  the  particular 
church,  as  above,  said.  [A.  W.  H.] 

CATECHUHIENS.  The  work  of  the  Church 
in  admitting  converts  from  heathenism  or  Juda- 
ism  presented,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  very 
different  features,  according  to  the  varying  cir¬ 
cumstances  with  Avhich  she  had  to  deal.  Disci¬ 
pline  might  be  more  or  less  highly  organised, 
converts  of  higher  or  lower  grades  of  knowledge 
or  character.  If  Ave  attempt  to  form  a  complete 
picture  from  data  gathered  from  different 
churches  and  centuries,  it  must  be  Avith  the 
resei'A^e  that  all  such  pictures  are  more  or  less 
idealised,  and  that  practically  there  Avere  ei'ery- 
AA'here  departures  more  or  less  important  from 
it.  It  Avill  be  conA'enient  to  arrange  what  has 
to  be  said  under  the  heads  (I.)The  Catechumens. 
(II.)  The  Catechists  or  Teachers.  (HI.)  The 
Place  of  Instruction.  (IV.)  The  Substance  of  the 
Teaching. 

I.  Instruction  of  some'  kind,  prior  to  the  ad¬ 
mission  of  converts  by  baptism,  must  haA'e  been 
giA'en  from  the  first,  and  the  Avord,  which  after- 
Avards  became  technical,  meets  us  in  the  N.  T. 
Apollos  Avas  “instructed’  ”  i^KOT’qx'gp^vos')  in  the 
Avay  of  the  Lord  (Acts  xviii.  25).  Theophilus 
had  been  “  instructed  ”  in  the  main  facts  of  the 
Gospel  history  Avhich  St.  Luke  inscribes  to  him 
(Luke  i.  4).  The  v-fj-moi  of  the  apostolic  epistles, 
though  not  confined  to  the  stage  prior  to  baptism, 
would  naturally  include  those  Avho  were  passing 


CATECHUMENS 

t.hrough  it ;  and  in  the  (ttoix^'Icl  ttjs  apxvs  twv 
Xoyiuu  rov  Qeov  of  Heb.  v.  12,  Ave  have,  probably, 
a  summary  of  the  instruction  which  the  Aviiter 
looked  on  as  adapted  for  such  pevsons.  In  jirac- 
tice,  however,  as  in  the  instances  of  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch  (Acts  Auii.  36®),  and  the  Philippian  gaoler 
(Acts  xvi.  33),  it  must  have  been  of  the  briefest 
and  simplest  kind.  The  traces  of  the  process 
and  method  of  instruction  in  the  sub-apostolic 
age,  and  the  two  centuries  that  folloAved,  are 
fragmentary  and  vague.  It  's  not  till  Ave  get  to 
the  4th  century,  with  its  strivings  after  a  more 
elaborate  organisation,  that  Ave  meet  Avith  the 
deA'eloped  system  Avhich  has  noAV  to  be  described. 
So  far  as  Ave  may  think  of  it  as  having  actually 
prevailed,  it  deserves  attention  as  presenting  the 
most  complete  plan  of  systematic  mission-work 
that  the  Church  has  ever  knoAvn. 

The  conA^erts,  it  is  obvious,  might  be  of  any 
age — might  haA^e  been  Jews,  or  heathens,  or  here¬ 
tics — might  be  ignorant  or  educated,  of  good 
or  bad  character.  They  might  have  been  led  to 
offer  themseh-es  by  the  influence  of  personal 
friends,  or  by  the  sermons  preached  in  (Jhristian 
a.ssemblies  at  the  religious  services  to  Avhich  even 
outsiders  Avere  admitted.  They  presented  them¬ 
selves  to  the  bishop  or  priest,  and  Avere  admitted 
sometimes  after  inquii-y  into  charactef,  sometimes 
without  any  delay,  by  the  sign  of  the  cross 
(August.  Conff.  i.  11,  De  peccat.  merit,  ii.  26)  and 
imposition  of  hands,  to  the  status  of  catechumens 
(1  Cone.  Arelat.  c.  6,  Cone.  EH'k  c.  3).  The 
Councils,  as  might  be  expected,  prescribe  condi¬ 
tions  and  alloAV  immediate  admission  only  in  cases 
of  sickness  and  of  at  least  decent  conduct.  St. 
Martin,  hoAveA^er,  in  his  mission  work  in  Gaul, 
is  reported  to  have  admitted  his  hearers  to  be 
catechumens  as  they  rushed  to  him  catervatim 
on  the  spot  (Sqlpicius,  Vita,  ii.  5,  p.  294). 
From  that  moment  they  Avere  recognised  as 
Christians,  though  not  as  “fideles”  (1  Cone. 
Constant,  c.  7 ;  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  tit.  Aui.  de 
Apostat.  leg.  ii.),  and  began  to  pass  under  in¬ 
struction.  The  next  epoch  in  their  progress  Avas 
the  time  AA'hen  they  Avere  sufficiently  adA^anced 
to  giA^e  in  their  names  as  candidates  for  baptism  ; 
and  some  Avriters  (e.  g.  Suicer  and  Basnage) 
have  accordingly  recognised  only  tAvo  great  divi¬ 
sions,  the  Audikntes,  and  the  Competentics. 
Others,  like  Bona  and  Bingham,  have  made  three 
or  four  divisions,  though  differing  in  details;  and 
it  will  be  Avell  for  the  sake  of  completeness  to 
notice  these,  though  it  is  belieA'ed  that  the  classi¬ 
fication  Avas  neA'er  a  generally  received  one. 

(1.)  Bingham’s  first  class  are  the  i^uoQovjxivoi, 
those,  i.  e.,  Avho  Avere  not  alloAved  to  enter  the 
church,  and  receiA^ed  whatever  instruction  Avas 
giA''en  them  outside  its  Avails.  The  existence  of 
such  a  body  is,  hoAvever,  very  doubtful.  It  rests 
only  upon  an  inference  draAvn  from  the  fifth 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Neo-Caesarea,  ordering 
that  a  catechumen  (one  of  the  Audientes)  Avho 
had  been  guilty  of  grievous  offences  should  be 
driA’^en  out  (e^udeiadcv),  and  there  is  no  mention 
of  such  a  class  either  in  the  canon  itself  or  else- 
Avhere.  What  is  described  is  the  punishment  of 
an  individual  offender  ;  and  even  if  the  offenders 


»  The  interpolation  of  the  question  and  answer  of 
V.  37  in  the  MSS.  nf  later  date  shows  an  uncas3’  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  difference  between  the  ecclesiastical  and 
the  apostolic  practice. 


318 


CATECHUMENS 


CATECHUMENS 


were  numerous  enough  to  attract  notice,  there 
would  be  no  ground  for  classing  them  as  in  a 
distinct  stage  of  instruction. 

(2.)  The  next  division,  that  of  the  Audientes, 
or  aKpowixevoi,  rests  on  better  evidence.  The  Greek 
term  is,  indeed,  not  found  as  the  designation  of 
a  class  till  the  4th  century,  but  the  Audientes 
or  Auditores  are  mentioned  both  by  Tertullian 
(de  Pocnitent.  c.  6)  and  Cyprian  {E/dst.  13  to  34). 
Over  and  above  the  instruction  they  received 
from  their  teachers,  they  were  allowed  to  attend 
in  churches  and  to  listen  (hence  their  name)  to 
the  scriptures  and  to  sermons,  sharing  this  privi¬ 
lege  with  the  unbelievers,  but  probably  occuj)ying 
a  distinct  place  in  the  congregation. They 
were  not  allowed,  however,  to  be  present  when 
the  strictly  liturgical  worship  of  the  church 
began,  and  when  the  sermon  was  over,  the  deacon, 
mounting  on  a  rostrum  of  some  kind,  proclaimed 
tliat  it  was  time  for  them  to  go  (Constt.  Apost. 
viii.  5).  As  applied  to  these,  or  to  the  whole 
body  of  those  who  wei'e  under  catechetical  train¬ 
ing,  the  missa  catechumenorum  became  the 
dividing  point  between  the  more  general  worship 
of  the  church  and  the  K^iTovpyia,  properly  so 
called. 

The  feeling  which  showed  itself  in  this  disci- 
plina  arcani  kept  them  in  like  manner  from 
hearing  the  Creed  oi  the  Lord’s  Prayer  till  they 
took  their  place  among  the  fdcles  (Chrysost. 
J/o)n.  xix.  in  Matt.').  Sozomen  {H.  E.  i.  20) 
even  hesitated  about  inserting  the  Nicene  Creed 
in  his  history  lest  it  should  fall  into  the  hands 
of  those  who  were  still  in  the  earlier  stage  of 
their  Christian  training.  The  practice  of  repeat¬ 
ing  the  Lord’s  Prayer  secretd,  which  still  prevails 
in  the  Western  Church,  probably  originated  in  a 
like  2)recaution.  Assuming  the  Audientes  to 
represent  the  first  class  of  beginners  in  Christian 
training,  we  may  fairly  identify  them  with  the 
“  rudes  ”  of  Augustine’s  treatise  ( De  catechiz. 
rudihus')  and  the  areXeaTepoi  of  the  Greek 
Canonists  (Balsamon  ad  Cone.  Eeocaesar.  c.  5). 
The  time  of  their  probation  probably  varied 
according  to  the  rapidity  of  their  progress,  and 
the  two  years  specified  by  the  Council  of  Eliberis 
(c.  42),  or  the  three  fixed  by  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  (viii.  32),  can  hardly  be  looked  on 
as  more  than  rough  estimates  of  what  was 
thought  advisable.  Any  lapse  into  idolatrous 
practices  or  other  open  sins  involved,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  a  corresponding  prolongation 
of  the  time  of  trial.  Where  the  offence  was  fla¬ 
grant,  the  term,  in  which  penance  rather  than 
instruction  was  now  the  dominant  element,  might 
be  extended  to  the  hour  of  death,  or  to  som.e 
great  emergency  (^Conc.  Elib.  c.  68). 

(3.)  Writers  who  maintain  a  threefold  or  four¬ 
fold  division  of  the  body  of  catechumens  see  the 
third  class  in  i\\Q  prostrati  ov genuflectentes  {yovv- 
K\lyouT€s).  These  were  admitted,  not  only  to 
stand  and  listen,  but  to  kneel  and  pray.  As 
being  thus  more  prominent,  they  seem  to  have 
been  known  as  specially  t/ie  catechumens,  as,  e.g., 
in  the  evxv  Karri xov/aeuay  of  the  C.  of  Laodicea, 
c.  19.  The  name,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 
applied  also  to  those  who  were  in  one  of  the 
stages  of  the  penitential  discipline  of  the  Church, 


b  The  place  assigned  for  the  Audierdes  was  the  Xarthev 
or  portico  of  the  chuich.  (Zonaras,  ed.  tone.  X'icatn. 

c.  11.) 


the  fdeles  being  degraded  from  their  rightful 
position  and  placed  on  a  level  with  tho.'-e  who 
were  not  as  yet  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  mem¬ 
bership.  [Penitents.] 

(4.)  After  these  stages  had  leen  traversed, 
each  with  its  appropriate  instruction,  the  cate¬ 
chumens  gave  in  their  names  as  a})plicants  for 
baptism,  and  were  known  accordingly  as  Compe- 
tentes  (^trvvairovvTfs).  This  was  done  commonly 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Quadragesimal  fast,  and 
the  instruction,  carried  on  through  the  whole  of 
that  jieriod,  was  fuller  and  more  public  in  its 
nature  (Cyril  Hieros.  Catech.  i.  5;  Hieron.  Ep. 
61,  ad  Parnmach.  c.  4).  To  catechumens  in  this 
stage  the  great  articles  of  the  Creed,  the  nature 
of  the  Sacraments,  the  penitential  discipline  of 
the  Church,  were  explained,  as  in  the  Catechetical 
Lectures  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  with  dogmatic 
fu-ecision.  Special  examinations  and  inquiries 
into  character  w^ere  made  at  intervals  during  the 
forty  days.  It  was  a  time  for  fasting  and  watch¬ 
ing  and  prayer  (Consf A  Apost.  viii.  5;  4  C.  Carth. 
c.  85  ;  Tertull.  De  Bapjt.  c.  20 ;  Cyril.  1.  c.),  and, 
in  the  case  of  those  who  were  married,  of  the 
strictest  continence  (August,  de  fde  et  oper.  v.  8). 
d'hose  who  passed  through  the  ordeal  were  known 
as  the  perfectiores  (r^X^Lwrepoi),  the  electi,  or  in 
the  nomenclature  of  the  Eastern  Church  as  ^arr- 
ri(6/j.evoi  or  <pcoTt(6iJ.fuoi,  the  present  participle 
being  used  of  course  with  a  future  or  gerundial 
sense.  Their  names  were  inscribed  as  such  in 
the  album  or  register  of  the  church.  They  were 
taught,  but  not  till  a  few  days  before  their  bap¬ 
tism,  the  Creed  and  the  Lord’s  Prayer  which 
they  were  to  use  after  it.  The  periods  for  this 
registration  varied,  naturally  enough,  in  different 
churches.  At  Jerusalem  it  was  done  on  the 
second  (Cyril.  Catech.  iii.),  in  Africa  on  the  fourth 
Sunday  in  Lent  (August.  Serm.  213),  and  this 
was  the  time  at  which  the  candidate,  if  so  dis¬ 
posed,  might  lay  aside  his  old  heathen  or  Jewish 
name  and  take  one  more  specifically  Christian 
(Socrat.  H.  E.  vii.  21).  The  ceremonies  connected 
with  their  actual  admission  will  be  found  under 
Baptism.  It  is  only  necessary  to  notice  here 
that  the  Sacrarnentum  Catechumenorum  of  which 
Augustine  speaks  (Z)e  Peccat.  Merit,  ii.  26)  as 
given  apjiarently  at  or  about  the  time  of  their 
first  admission  by  imposition  of  hands,  was  pro¬ 
bably  the  evXoyiai  or  panis  benedictus,  and  not, 
as  Bingham  and  Augusti  maintain,  the  salt 
which  was  given  with  milk  and  honey  after 
baptism.® 

®  It  may  be  well  to  quote  the  passage  referred  to 
“  Non  unius  est  modi  sanctlficatlo;  nam  et  catechumenos 
secundum  quendam  modum  suiim  per  signum  Cbristi  et 
orationem  et  manus  impositionem  puto  sanctificari :  et 
quod  accipiunt,  quamvis  non  sit  corpus  Christi,  sanctum 
est  tanien,  et  sanclius  qnam  cibi  quibus  alimur,  quoniam 
sacrarnentum  est.”  Bingham  (x.  2,  16).  following  Bona, 
infers  from  a  canon  of  the  3rd  Cone.  Carth.  c.  6,  forbidding 
any  other  sacrarnentum  than  the  “solitum  sal”  to  be 
given  to  catechumens  during  the  Easter  festival,  that  this 
must  be  that  of  wliicb  Augustine  speaks;  and  it  is  bej'ond 
question  that  this  was  given  during  the  period  of  probation, 
as  well  as  immediately  after  baptism.  It  would  seem,  how¬ 
ever,  from  the  canon  itself,  that  some  other  sacrarnentum 
was  given  at  other  times;  and  the  words  of  Augustine, 
“  quamvis  non  sit  corpus  Christi,”  imply,  it  is  believed, 
something  presenting  a  greater  outward  likeness  to  the 
Eucharistic  brejid  than  could  be  found  in  the  salt.  The 
proviso  would  hardly  have  been  needed,  on  Bingham’s 
suppositiou. 


CATECHUMENS 


CATHEDRA 


319 


It  is  clear  that  many  cases  would  present 
themselves  in  which  the  normal  order  of  progress 
would  be  interrupted.  (1.)  The  catechumen 
might  lapse  into  idolatry  or  other  grievous  sin. 
In  that  case  he  was  thrown  back,  and  had  to  go 
through  a  penitential  discipline,  varying,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  nature  of  the  offence,  from  a  few 
months  to  three  or  five  years,  or  even  to  a  life¬ 
long  exclusion  ((7.  EHh.  c.  4,  10,  11,  68;  C.  Nicaen. 
c.  14 ;  C.  JS'eo.  Caesar,  c.  5).  In  no  case,  how¬ 
ever,  was  the  sacrament,  which  was  thought  of 
as  indispensable  to  salvation,  refused  to  the  peui- 
cent  when  the  hour  of  death  approached.  Their 
sins  were  looked  on  as  committed  in  their  unre¬ 
generate  state,  and  therefore  less  heinous  than 
they  would  have  been  in  those  who  had  been 
admitted  to  full  Christian  fellowship.  (2.)  They 
might,  however,  through  their  own  neglect,  die 
without  baptism.  In  that  case,  they  were  buried 
v.'ithout  honour,  with  no  psalms  or  oblations 
(1  C .Bracar.  c.  35),  and  were  not  mentioned  in  the 
prayers  of  the  Church.  The  one  comfort  left  to 
their  surviving  friends  was  to  give  alms  to  the 
poor  in  the  hope  that  thus  they  might  obtain 
some  alleviation  for  the  souls  that  had  passed 
beyond  the  grave  without  the  new  birth  that 
admitted  men  to  the  Kingdom  (Chrysost.  Horn.  3 
in  Philipp.').  (3.)  Where  the  loss  of  baptism  was 
not  incurred  by  their  own  defiiult,  the  will  was 
accepted,  at  least  in  special  cases,  for  the  deed. 
The  death  of  the  younger  Valentinian  led  Am¬ 
brose  (de  Obit.  Valent,  p.  12)  to  the  wider  hope. 
What  was  true  of  catechumen-martyrs  and  the 
baptism  of  blood,  as  supplying  the  lack  of  the 
baptism  of  water — and  this  was  received  almost 
as  an  axiom  by  all  Christian  writers  from  Ter- 
tullian  downwards  (see  Bingham,  x.  2,  20) — was 
true  of  one  of  whom  it  might  be  said  “hunc  sua 
pietas  abluit  et  voluntas.”  Augustine,  following 
in  the  footsteps  of  his  master,  appealed  to  the 
crucial  instance  of  the  penitent  thief  against  the 
rigorous  dogmatism  of  those  who  thaught  that 
baptism  was  absolutely  indispensable  (de  Bapt. 
iv.  22).  (4.)  Another  common  case  was  naturally 
that  of  those  who  were  stricken  down  by  some 
sudden  sickness  before  the  term  of  their  probation 
had  expired.  In  this  case  the  Church  did  not 
hesitate  to  anticipate  the  wdshed-for  goal,  dis¬ 
pensed  with  all  but  the  simplest  elements  of 
instruction,  and  administered  baptism  on  the 
bed  of  death.  [Baptism,  p.  169.] 

II.  It  is  noticeable  that,  with  all  this  syste¬ 
matic  discipline  as  to  the  persons  taught,  there 
was  no  order  of  teachers.  It  was  part  of  the 
pastoral  office  to  watch  over  the  souls  of  those 
who  were  seeking  admission  to  the  Church,  as 
well  as  of  those  who  were  in  it,  and  thus  bishops, 
priests,  deacons,  or  readers  might  all  of  them  be 
found,  when  occasion  required,  doing  the  work 
of  a  catechist.  The  Doctor  Audientium,  of 
whom  Cyprian  speaks,  was  a  lector  in  the  church 
of  Carthage.  Augustine’s  treatise,  de  Catechi- 
zandis  Pudibus,  was  addressed  to  Deogratias  as  a 
deacon,  the  Catecheses  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  were 
delivered  by  him  partly  as  a  deacon,  partly  as  a 
presbyter.  The  word  Catechist  implied,  accord¬ 
ingly,  a  function,  not  a  class.  Those  who  under¬ 
took  that  function  were  known  sometimes  as 
vavrSXoyoi  (Constt.  Apost.  ii.  37),  as  having  a 
work  like  that  of  those  to  whom  that  title  was 
applied  on  board  ship.  It  was  their  part  to 
BjH'ak  to  tho.se  v/ho  were  entering  the  ark  or  ship 


of  Christ’s  Church,  to  tell  them  of  the  perils  ol 
the  voyage  which  they  were  about  to  undertake, 
and  take  their  })ledge  for  payment  of  the  fare. 
The  word  was  part  of  the  metaphor  which  saw  in 
the  bishop  the  steersman,  and  in  the  j)resbyters 
the  sailors,  in  the  Church  itself  the  navis  or  ship. 

III.  The  places  in  which  catechetical  instruc¬ 
tion  was  thus  carried  on  must  have  varied 
widely  at  different  times  and  in  different  places : 
sometimes  the  room  or  building  in  which  the 
f  deles  met  to  worship,  before  or  after  service ; 
sometimes  a  room  in  the  presbyter’s  or  deacon’s 
house,  probably  at  Alexandria,  from  the  special 
nature  of  the  case,  a  lecture-room,  like  the 
“  school”  of  Tyrannus  in  Acts  xix.  9.  It  is  not 
till  we  come  to  the  fully-developed  organisation 
of  the  Church  that  we  read  of  special  buildings  for 
the  purpose,  under  the  name  of  Karr]xoviJL€vua. 
They  are  mentioned  as  such  in  the  97th  canon  of 
the  Trullan  Council,  and  appear,  from  a  Novella 
of  the  Emperor  Leo’s,  to  have  been  in  the  uTrepepov, 
or  upper  chamber  of  the  church ;  probably,  i.  e. 
in  a  room  over  the  portico.  In  some  instances 
the  baptistery  seems  to  have  been  used  for  this 
purpose  (Ambros.  Ep.  33),  while  in  others,  again, 
perhaps  with  a  view  to  guarding  against  prema¬ 
ture  presence  at  the  rite  of  baptism,  they  were 
not  allowed  to  enter  the  building  in  which  it 
was  administei’ed  (Cone.  Arausic.  c.  19). 

IV.  The  ideal  scheme  of  preparation  involved 

obviously  a  progress  from  lower  to  higher  truths. 
The  details  varied  probably  according  to  the  dis¬ 
cretion  of  the  teacher  and  the  necessities  of  the 
taught ;  but  two  great  representative  examples 
are  found  of  the  earlier  stage  in  Augustine’s 
treatise  de  Catechizandis  rudihus,  and  in  the 
Catecheses  of  Cvril  of  Jerusalem.  The  range  of 
subjects  in  the  former  includes  the  sacred  history 
of  the  world  from  the  Creation  downwards,  and 
then  proceeds  to  the  ti’uths  of  the  resurrection  and 
judgment  according  to  works.  The  better  edu¬ 
cated  may  be  led  to  the  allegorical  meaning  of 
Scripture,  and  the  types  of  the  law.  Then  came 
the  Gospel  narratives,  and  the  Law  of  Christ. 
The  teaching  of  Cyril,  as  intended  for  the  com- 
petentes,  took  a  wider  and  higher  cycle  of  subjects, 
and  are  based  (Catech.  iv.)  upon  a  regula  fidei, 
including  the  dogmas  (1)  of  God,  (2)  of  Christ, 
(3)  of  the  birth  from  the  Virgin’s  womb.  (4)  of 
the  cross,  (5)  of  the  burial,  (6)  of  the  i’esurrcc- 
tion  of  Christ,  (7)  of  the  ascension,  (8)  of  judg¬ 
ment  to  come,  (9)  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  (10)  of  tlie 
soul,  (11)  of  the  body,  (12)  of  meats,  (13)  of 
the  general  resurrection,  (14)  of  the  Holv  Scrip¬ 
tures.  [E.'H.  P.] 

CATHEDRA  (Kadedpa). — (1)  First  and  pro¬ 
perly,  in  ecclesiastical  usage,  the  actual  throne 
or  seat  of  the  bishop  in  his  episcopal  church  ; 
the  Kal  dporos  v\pr]Xos  of  Eusebius  (//.  E. 

vii.  30),  to  which  Paul  of  Samosata  arrogantly 
added  a  a-f^Kp^rov, — distinguished  by  the  same 
Eusebius  from  the  Sfvrepoi  Qp6voi  of  the  presby¬ 
ters  (ib.  X.  5.  23) ; — who  also  speaks  of  the  atroaTo- 
XiKhs  dpovos  of  St.  James  at  Jerusalem,  meaning 
the  actual  seat  itself  still  preserved  there  (ib.  vii. 
19,  32); — called  cathedra  velata  by  St.  Augustin 
(Epist.  ad  Maxim,  cciv.),  and  linteata  by  Pacian ; 
and  inveighed  against  by  St.  Greg.  Naz.  (Carm.  xi.) 
as  vy^7)Xoi  dp6voi;  and  so  Prudentius  speaks  of 
the  bishop’s  seat,  “  Fronte  sub  adversa  [i.  us 
the  upper  end  of  the  apse]  gradibus  sublime 


:v20 


CATHEDRA 


CATHOLIC 


tribunal  Tollitur  ”  //.  iv.  225).  St. 

Mark’s  chair  is  said  to  have  existed  for  a  long 
time  at  Alexandria  (Vales,  ad  Euseb.  //.  E.  vii.  9). 
And  one  assigned  to  Pope  Stephen  is  said  to  have 
been  found  in  the  catacombs  by  Pope  Innocent  XII. 
The  wooden  chair,  with  its  heathen  ivories,  re¬ 
presenting  the  -  labours  of  Hercules,  which  is  sc 
carefully  honoured  in  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome  as 
St.  Peter’s,  is  at  once  the  most  celebrated,  and 
the  most  unfortunately  chosen,  specimen  of  the 
class.  Episcopal  chairs  are  frequently  repre¬ 
sented  in  ancient  Christian  mosaics  or  marbles, 
sometimes  adorned  with  two  lions’  heads,  some¬ 
times  with  two  dogs’  heads,  sometimes  with  our 
Lord  Himself  represented  as  sitting  in  them, 
sometimes  with  the  B.  Virgin,  sometimes  with 
the  open  Gospels  laid  upon  them,  sometimes 
with  the  bishop  himself  (Ciampini,  Vet.  Mun.  I. 
tab.  2,  37,  47,  II.  tab.  41 ;  and  cf.  St.  Aug.  Epist. 
ad  Eiosc.  Ivi.) ;  sometimes  raised  upon  steps 
(^gradatae,  St.  Aug.  Epist.  ad  Maxim,  cciii.,  and 
see  Aringhi,  ii.  325) ;  sometimes  “  veiled  ”  (ve- 
latae.,  St.  Aug.  as  above,  see  Bosio,  Rom.  Setter. 

р.  327).  And  certain  chairs  or  seats,  cut  in  the 
tufa  stone  in  the  catacombs,  are  conjectured  to 
have  been  intended  for  the  bishop  at  the  time 
when  persecution  compelled  the  Christians  to 
hold  service  there.  A  Council  of  Carthage,  A.D. 
535,  forbids  a  bishop  “  cathedram  collocare  in 
monasterio,”  i.  e.  to  ordain  there. 

But  hence  (2)  the  word  was  transferred  to 
the  see  itself  of  the  bishop,  as  in  Victor  Vitens. 
De  Fersec.  Vandal,  iv.  So  Cone.  Milevit.  ii. 
cans.  21,  24;  and  “Cathedrae  viduatae  ”  in 
Collat.  Cartliag.  i.  c.  185,  217;  “Cathedrae  ma¬ 
trices,”  in  Cone.  Milev.  ii.  c.  25 ;  and  Cod.  Can. 
Afric.  123;  and  “Cathedrae  principales,”  in  Cod. 
Can.  Afric.  38.  So  also  Greg.  Tur.  II.  F.  iii.  1, 
and  Sidon.  Apollin.  repeatedly.  And  earlier  than 
all  these,  Tertullian  {De  Praescript.  xxxvi.) 
speaks  of  “  Cathedrae  Apostolorum,”  as  still 
existing  in  the  “  Ecclesiae  Apostolicae ;”  mean¬ 
ing,  not  the  literal  chairs,  but  the  specially 
Apostolic  succession  of  the  bishops  of  those  sees. 

(3)  The  word  became  used  for  the  Episcopal 
Church  itself,  “  principalis  cathedra,”  in  Cone. 
Aquisgr.  A.D.  789,  can.  40,  meaning  the  cathedral 
as  opposed  to  the  other  churches  in  the  diocese  : 
“  Ecclesia  Cathedralis,”  Cone.  Tarracon.  A.D.  516, 

с.  ult. :  called  also  “  Ecclesia  mater,”  in  the  Cone. 
Rom.  sub  Sglvestro,  c.  17  ;  and  “  Ecclesia  matrix,” 
in  Cone.  Mogunt.  i.  c.  8 ;  and  “  matrix,”  simply, 
by  Ferrand.  Breviar.  cc.  11,  17,  38.  But  “ca¬ 
thedral,”  used  absolutely  for  the  “  ecclesia  catlie- 
dralis,”  dates  from  the  10th  century,  and  belongs 
to  the  Western  Church  only.  [Cathedral.] 

[Du  Cange  ;  Bingham  ;  Martigny  ;  Walcott, 
Sacr.  Arch?\  [A.  W.  H.] 

CATHEDRA  PETRI.  [Peter,  Festivals 

OF.] 

CATHEDRAL,  also  in  later  times  Do<m- 
kirche,  Duomo  :  the  chief  and  episcopal  church 
of  a  dioceso ;  not  so  called  however  until  the 
10th  century,  when  the  epithet,  derived  from 
the  bishop’s  cathedra  or  chair,  became  a  sub¬ 
stantive  name ;  called  previously  the  mother 
church,  or  the  ecclesia  matrix.,  in  distinction 
from  the  parish  churches,  which  were  called 
tituli  or  ecclesiae  dioecesanae.  [Cathedra.] 
It  was  also  sometimes  called  the  “  Catholic  ” 
church.  [Catholic.]  The  architectural  features 


of  a  cathedral  are  treated  in  the  article  Cjiurch, 
The  gradual  formation  and  character  of  the 
cathedral  chapter  will  be  found  under  Chapter. 
A.nd  for  the  immunities  belonging  to  it  simply 
as  a  church,  see  Church,  Sanctuary.  As  a 
cathedral  church,  it  was  held  to  be — what  at 
first  and  in  the  earliest  times  it  literally  was — 
the  parish  church  of  the  diocese,  to  which  the 
others  stood  as  it  were  in  the  relation  of  chapels. 
In  it  the  bishop  was  formally  enthi'oned :  so 
catliedrare  and  incathed'rare.,  to  enthrone.  And 
in  it  he  was  to  be  consecrated,  according  to 
ordinary  rule.  [Bishop.]  Ordinations  also,  and 
diocesan  synod.s,  were  commonly  held  there.  And 
manumissions  of  serfs,  in  Celtic  and  Saxon  England, 
took  place  at  the  altar  of  the  cathedral  in  the 
presence  of  the  bishop.  Schools  and  libraries 
were  attached  in  cour.se  of  time  to  cathedrals. 
And  Charlemagne,  who  ordered  monastic  schools, 
and  founded  palatine  schools,  found  episcopal 
schools  ready  to  his  hand.  [Schools  ;  Canonici, 
p.  281.]  [A.  W.  H.] 

CATHEDRATICUM.— (1)  A  pension  paid 
annually  to  the  bishop  by  the  churches  of  his 
dioce.se,  “in  signum  subjectionis ;”  acc.  to  Cone. 
Bracnr.  ii.  c.  2,  “  pro  honore  cathedrae ;”  and 
to  Cone.  Ravenn.  A.D.  997,  c.  2,  “  pro  respectu 
Sedis;”  both  councils  limiting  the  payments  in 
each  case  to  two  shillings  severally.  So  also  Cone. 
Bracar.  iii.  A.D.  572,  and  Tolet.  vii.  c.  4. — (2) 
(vOpovKTTiKhp,  a  fee  paid  by  the  bishop  to  the 
bishops  who  had  consecrated  him,  and  to  the 
clerks  and  notaries  who  assisted  (Julian.  Ante¬ 
cessor,  Constit.  115,  431  ;  Justinian,  Novell. 
cxxiii.  c.  3 ;  quoted  by  Du  Cange).  [A.  W.  H.] 

CATHISMA  {KaOicpa).  A  section  of  the 
psalter. 

(1)  The  psalter  in  the  Greek  Office  is  divided 
into  twenty  sections,  called  Cathismata.  Each 
Cathisma  is  sub-divided  into  three  Staseis,  and 
“  Gloria  ”  is  said  at  the  end  of  each  stasis  only. 
These  divisions  and  the  order  of  reciting  the 
psalter  will  be  explained  in  a  later  article.  The 
reason  for  the  name  assigned  is  that,  while 
the  choir  stand  two  and  two  by  turns  to  recite 
the  psalms,  the  rest  sit  down. 

(2)  A  short  hymn  which  occurs  at  intervals 

in  the  offices  of  the  Greek  Church.  It  consists 
of  one  stanza,  or  troparion  {rpo-ndpiov),  and  is 
followed  by  “  Gloria.”  The  name  is  said  to 
indicate  that  while  it  is  sung  the  choir  sit  down 
for  rest.  [H.  .1.  H.] 

CATHOLIC,  Ka6o\iKhs,  Catholicus,  used  in 
its  ordinary  sense  of  “  universal,”  not  only  by 
heathen  writers  (as.  e.g.  Pliny),  but  also  not 
uncommonly  by  ecclesiastical  writers  also  (as, 
e.g.  Justin  Martyr,  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  81,  Ka9o- 
At/ch  avd<TTa(Tis,  and  Tertullian,  Adv.  3farcion. 
ii.  17,  “Catholica  .  .  .  bonitas  Dei,”  kc.  &c.);  but 
commonly  employed  by  the  latter  as  an  epithet 
of  the  Christian  Church,  Faith,  Tradition,  People  ; 
first  in  St.  Ignatius  (^Ad  Smyrn.  viii.),  in  the 
Martyrdom  of  St.  Polycarp  (in  Euseb.  II.  E.  iv. 
14,  &c.),  in  the  Passio  S.  Pionii  under  Decius 
(ap.  Baron,  in  an.  254,  n.  ix.),  in  St.  Clem.  Alex. 
{Strem.  vii.  p.  899,  Oxf.  1715),  and  thencefor¬ 
ward  commonly,  being  embodied  in  the  Eastern 
(although  not  at  first  in  the  Western)  creed: — 
indicating  (1)  the  Church  as  a  whole,  as  in  St. 
Ignatius  above  quoted;  and  so  in  Arius’  creed 
(Socrat.  i.  26),  =  ^  anh  Trepdraw  %ws  irtparut^l 


CATHOLIC 


CATHOLICUS 


321 


(2)  that  portion  of  the  universal  Church  which 
IS  in  any  particular  place,  as  ri  eV  'Zfx.vpvri  KaOo- 
\lk^  iKKKTjcrla,  as  in  the  M<xrt.  S.  Polycurp. :  (3) 
(v;^hen  it  had  grown  into  an  epithet  ordinarily 
attached  to  the  word  church),  used  as  equivalent 
to  Christian,  “Catholica  tides”  in  Prudent.  Peri- 
steph.  iv.  24-,  “Catholici  populi,”  id.  ib.  30:  or 
to  “  orthodox,”  as  opposed  to  “  heretical as  in 
Pacian.  Epist.  1,  ad  Sempron.  “Christianus  mihi 
nomen  est,  Catholicus  cognomen;”  and  in  Cone. 
Antioch.  A.D.  341,  at  KadoXiKal  iKKXrjrriai,  as  op¬ 
posed  to  the  Samosatenians  ;  and  in  Cone.  Arimin. 
A.D.  3o9,  y  KadoXiK^  iKKXrjfria.  in  like  opposition 
to  heretics  ;  and  in  St.  Cyril.  Hieros.  Lect.  Catech. 
xviii.  advising,  in  a  town  where  there  are  heretics, 
to  enquire,  not,  ttoD  earlu  anKws  y  (KKXyala, 
aWa,  irov  €(Tt\v  t]  kuBoKik^  eKKXr^a'ia,  &c.  &c. 
So  also  in  the  Athanasian  Creed,  “  the  Catholic 
religion,”  and  “  the  Catholic  faith.”  (4)  When 
men  began  to  look  about  for  a  rationale  of  the 
epithet,  or  when  driven  to  do  so  as  in  the  Do- 
natist  controversy  (the  Donatists  meeting  the 
argument  against  them,  drawn  from  the  word, 
by  explaining  it,  “  non  ex  totius  orbis  commu- 
nione,  sed  ex  observatione  omnium  praeceptorum 
divinorum  atque  omnium  sacramentorum,”  St. 
Aug.  Epist.  93,  §  23),  taken  to  indicate  the  uni¬ 
versality  of  the  Church  ;  so  in  St.  Aug.  Epist. 
52,  §  1,  “  KaOoXiK^]  Graece  appellatur,  quod  per 
totum  orbem  terrarum  diffunditur ;”  and  simi¬ 
larly  Isidor.  Sentent.  i.  16,  &c.  &c.  And  St.  Cyril. 
Hieros.  {Lect.  Catech.  xviii.  §  23)  dilates  upon 
the  word  rhetorically  in  this  sense,  as  intimating 
that  the  Church  subjugates  all  men,  teaches  all 
truth,  heals  ail  sin,  &c.  In  somewhat  like  way, 
the  Catholic  Epistles  are  so  called  {^''E.yKVKXioi) 
as  early  as  the  3rd  century  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  25, 
vii.  25);  because  written,  ov  irphs  %v  eOvos  aXXa 
KaOSxou  irphs  irauTa  (Leont.  De  Sect.  Act.  2). 
And  not  only  these,  but  such  epistles  also  as 
those  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  (KadoXiKa7s  Trphs 
TCLS  iKKXT](Tias  iiTKrroXais,  Euseb.  E.  E.  iv.  23). 
So  Tertullian,  again  {De  Monog.'),  of  Catholic 
tradition.  And  similarly  the  well-known  defi¬ 
nition  of  “  vere  Catholicum,”  in  St.  Vine,  of 
Leri  ns,  as  that  which  had  been  held  “semper, 
ubique,  et  ab  omnibus.”  Optatus  {Cont.  Donat. 
ii.),  in  explaining  the  term  by  “  rationalis  et 
ubique  diffusa,”  was  possibly  in  the  first  half 
of  his  definition  thinking  of  the  “Rationalis,” 
who  was  also  called  KaQoXiKbSy  being  the 
general  receiver  of  the  imperial  revenue  under 
the  Roman  empire ;  but  more  probably  was 
confounding  the  real  derivation  /ca0’  ’6Xov.,  with 
a  supposed  one  from  Kara  x6you.  (5)  Used 
also  somewhat  later  of  the  Church  as  a  build¬ 
ing  :  viz.  as  the  distinctive  epithet  of  the  bishop’s 
or  cathedral  church,  as  against  the  parish 
churches;  e.g.  in  Epiphanius,  Haer.  lix.  §  1 
KadoXiK^  eKKXrjcr'ia  iv  'AXf^avSpela,  in  op})Osition 
to  the  smaller  churches  there,  and  so  also  Niceph. 
XV.  22).  (6)  In  Cone.  Tt-ull.  can.  lix.  (Labb. 

vi.  1170),  as  the  name  of  the  church,  as  op¬ 
posed  to  an  oratory  {cvktvp'kp  oiKcp\  baptisms 
(and  by  inference  the  eucharist)  being  cele¬ 
brated  in  the  KadoXinij  iKKXrjaicu,  but  not  in 
the  oratory.  (7)  In  Byzantine  Greek  times,  an 
epithet  of  the  parish  church,  which  was  open  to 
all,  in  distinction  from  the  monastic  churches 
(Codinus,  Balsamon,  &c.).  (8)  Still  later,  the 

Patriarchs  or  Primates  of  Seleucia,  of  the  Arme¬ 
nians,  of  the  Ethiopians,  were  styled  Catholici 
CHKISr.  ANT. 


(Du  Cange).  See  also  Thomassin,  I.  i.  24.  The 
Catholicus  of  the  Persian  Church  was  so  called  as 
early  as  Procopius  {De  Bell.  Persico,  ii.) ;  and  the 
Catholicus  of  Seleucia  was  made  so  independently 
ofthe  Patriarch  of  Antioch  {Arabic  Vers,  of  Eicene 
Canons').  The  term  means,  more  exactly,  a  pri¬ 
mate,  having  under  him  metropolitans,  but 
himself  immediately  subject  to  a  patriarch. 
[Catholicus.]  KaOoXiKol  OpSvoi,  in  Theophan. 
(in  F.  Constant.  Copronymi),  were  the  sees  of 
Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem.  (9) 
The  term  became  a  title  of  the  King  of  France, 
Pipin  being  so  called  A.D.  767  ;  and  very  much 
later,  of  the  King  of  Spain  also.  (Pearson,  On 
the  Creed.,  art.  ‘  Holy  Catholic  Church  ;’  Du 
Cange  ;  Suicer.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

CATHOLICUS.  “  I  have  ordered  the  ca¬ 
tholicus  of  Africa  to  count  out  3000  purses  to 
your  holiness,”  said  the  Empei'or  Constantine  to 
Caecilian,  bishop  of  Carthage  (Euseb.  H.  E.  x.  6). 

A  similar  order  to  indemnify  Eusebius  the  his¬ 
torian  for  the  costs  of  getting  50  copies  of  the 
Bible  transcribed  for  general  use  was  issued  by 
him  to  the  catholicus  of  the  diocese ;  that  is,  of 
the  civil  diocese  called  the  East  (ib.  Vit.  Const, 
iv.  36).  A  former  holder  of  this  office,  Eusebius 
elsewhere  tells  us,  named  Adauctus,  had  been 
martyred  under  Diocletian  {H.  E.  viii.  11).  Ap¬ 
parently  there  was  one  such  for  each  of  the  13 
civil  dioceses,  and  a  14th  attached  to  the  im¬ 
perial  household — cttI  rlcv  uadoXov  XSyaiv  Xeyo- 
fievos  elvai  BaeiXecus  {ib.  vii.  10) — who  was  in 
later  times,  according  to  the  Basilics,  or  code  of 
the  Emperor  Basil  1.,  called  the  “  logoihete’* 
(lib.  vi.  tit.  23).  Various  ordinances  relating  to 
this  office  are  to  be  seen  there.  The  two  promi¬ 
nent  ideas  attaching  to  it  were  that  of  a  receiver- 
general,  and  of  a  deputy-YQC^ix&Y.  It  was  formerly 
discharged  in  England  by  the  sheriff’  or  vice- 
comes  of  each  county,  who  forwarded  his  annual 
account  of  receipts  and  disbursements  to  the 
king’s  exchequer.  The  ecclesiastical  officer  called 
“  catholicus  ”  was  of  a  piece  with  the  civil. 
Procopius,  in  his  history  of  the  Persian  war 
(ii.  25)  under  Justinian,  says  that  the  chief  dig¬ 
nitary  among  the  Christians  of  Dubis  was  called 
“catholicus,”  as  presiding  over  the  whole  coun¬ 
try,  namely,  Persia.  But  according  to  Dr.  Neale 
{Eastern  Ch.  i.  141),  this  title  had  been  assumed 
at  a  much  earlier  date  by  the  bishops  of  Seleucia, 
meaning  by  it  that  they  were  “  procurators- 
general,”  in  the  regions  of  Parthia,  for  the 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,  to  whose  jurisdiction  they 
were  subject,  till  for  political  reasons  their  inde¬ 
pendence  was  allowed.  The  “  catholicus  ”  men¬ 
tioned  by  Procopius  w’as  doubtless  head  of  the 
Nestorians  in  Persia,  whose  teaching  w’as  speedily 
carried  thither  from  Edessa,  as  the  well-known 
letter  of  Ibas,  bishop  of  the  latter  place,  to  the 
Persian  Maris,  alone  would  shew.  Having  on 
the  death  of  Acacius,  twenty-second  catholicus  of 
Seleucia,  a.d.  496,  obtained  possession  of  that  see, 
they  established  their  head-quarters  there,  con¬ 
stituting  its  archbishop  patriarch,  and  styling  him 
“  catholic  patriarch.”  By  this  phrase  they  must 
have  meant  however  not  rf<;ynt(y-patriarch,  which 
he  was  no  longer,  but  oecumenical  patriarch,  which 
to  them  he  was  in  fact.  So  that  when  the  title 
got  into  sectarian  hands,  it  seems  to  have  shifted 
its  meaning  to  some  extent,  and  implied  uni¬ 
versal  rather  than  vicarious  powers.  But  as  it 


322 


OATULINUS 


CAUPONA 


was  a  dignity  confined  at  first  to  the  eastern 
portions  of  the  single  patriarchate  of  Antioch, 
and  there  common  to  the  orthodox  and  heterodox 
alike,  we  must  not  expect  to  find  the  accounts 
giv'en  of  it  clear  or  always  consistent.  As  a 
general  rule  the  “  catholicus  ”  was  subordinate 
to  the  patriarch,  and  had  metropolitans  under 
him ;  but  the  officer  answering  to  this  descrip¬ 
tion  among  the  Jacobites  was  more  comnjonly 
called  “  maphrian”  or  “  fruit-bearer  the  Nes- 
torians  on  all  occasions  doing  their  best  to 
monopolize  the  other  title.  Still  we  read  of  a 
“  catholicus  ”  for  Armenia  and  for  Georgia  among 
the  former,  as  well  as  for  Chaldaea  and  Persia 
among  the  latter;  and  Jacobite  patriarchs  also 
callea  themselves  “  catholic,”  in  imitation,  and 
to  the  annoyance,  of  the  Nestorian.  (Asseman. 
De  Monoph.  §  8,  and  De  Syris  Nestor,  c.  xi.  ;  Du 
Cange,  Gloss.  (Trace,  s.  v.)  Later  writers,  again, 
speak  of  a  “catholicus”  of  Ethiopia,  of  Nubia, 
of  the  isles  and  elsewhere  :  that  is  to  say,  this 
title  came  to  be  applied  in  time  to  any  grade 
between  metropolitans  and  pati'iarchs  (Bever. 
Synod,  i.  7G9),  and  to  be  no  longer  peculiar  to  a 
single  iiatriarchate.  [E.  S.  F.J 

C  ATULINUS,  deacon,  martyr  at  Carthage,  is 
commemorated  July  15  (^Mart.  Carthag.,  Usuardi). 

[C.] 

CAIIPONA,  CAUPONES,  tavern,  tavern- 
keepers.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions  enume¬ 
rate  the  caxipo  amongst  the  persons  whose 
oblations  are  not  to  be  accepted  (bk.  iv.  c.  6). 
If  such  oblations  were  forced  on  the  priest,  they 
were  to  be  spent  on  wood  and  charcoal,  as  being 
only  fit  for  the  fire  (J,h.  c.  10).  A  later  consti¬ 
tution  still  numbers  the  caupo  amongst  those 
who  could  not  be  admitted  to  the  church  unless 
they  gave  up  their  mode  of  life  (bk.  viii.  c.  32). 
Bingham,  indeed,  holds  the  caupo  of  the  Apos¬ 
tolical  Constitutions  not  to  have  been  strictly  a 
tavern-keeper,  but  a  fraudulent  huckster,  and 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  word  is  to  be  found 
used  in  a  more  extended  sense  in  many  instances. 
But  there  is  in  the  present  one  no  reason  for 
diverting  it  from  its  ordinary  use.  It  is  clear 
from  too  many  evidences  that  the  ancient  tavern 
— the  caupona  of  the  Romans — differed  little 
from  a  brothel ;  see  for  instance  Dig.  bk.  xxiii. 
t.  ii.  1.  43 ;  Code,  bk.  iv.  t.  1.  vi.  1.  3.  A  Con¬ 
stitution  of  Constantine  (a.d.  326),  whilst  de¬ 
claring  that  the  mistress  of  a  tavern  (the  words 
caupona  and  taherna  are  here  used  indifferently) 
was  within  the  laws  as  to  adultery,  yet  if  she 
herself  had  served  out  drink,  as.similated  her  to  a 
tavern-servant,  classing  such  persons  among  those 
whom  “the  vileness  of  their  life  has  not  deemed 
worthy  to  observe  the  laws  ”  (Code,  bk.  ix.  t.  ix. 
1.  29).  In  the  work  called  the  “  Lex  Romana,” 
which  is  considered  to  represent  the  law  of  the 
Roman  population  in  Italy  during  Lombard  times, 
and  which  is  mainly  founded  on  the  Theodosian 
Code,  a  similar  provision  is  contained,  but  with 
the  use  of  the  word  taberna  alone  (bk.  ix.).  This 
evidently  implies  that  the  ca^ipo  himself,  or  the 
cauponae  or  tabernae  domina,  was  undistinguish- 
able  from  the  brothel-keeper,  and  the  forbiddance 
to  receive  the  coupons  offering  resolves  itself  into 
that  contained  in  Deut.  xxiii.  18. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  almost  all  later 
church  authorities.  Thus  a  cleric  found  eatinj 
in  a  caupona,  unless  through  the  necessities  of 


travel,  was  by  the  46th  (otherwise  53rd)  of  the 
Apostolical  Canons — supposed  to  be  of  the  4th 
century — sentenced  to  excommunication,  the 
Canon  evidently  intending  a  tavern  and  not  a 
mere  huckster’s  shop.  The  24th  Canon  of  the 
Council  of  Laodicea  (latter  half  of  the  4th  cen- 
tuiy,  but  the  alleged  dates  varying  from  357  to 
367),  enacts  that  none  of  the  priestly  order 
{lepaTiKovs),  fi’om.  the  presbyter  to  the  deacon, 
nor  outside  of  the  ecclesiastical  order  to  the  ser¬ 
vants  and  readers,  nor  any  of  the  ascetic  class 
shall  enter  a  tavern  {KairriX^lov see  also  the  7th 
Canon  of  the  so-called  African  Council,  which 
however  itself  only  designates  a  general  collec¬ 
tion  of  African  Canons).  The  book  of  Canons  of 
the  African  church,  ending  with  the  Council  of 
Carthage  of  419,  c.  40,  repeats  substantially  the 
above-quoted  article  of  the  Apostolical  Canons. 

In  spite  of  these  enactments,  we  find  by  later 
ones  that  clerics,  who  were  forbidden  to  enter 
taverns,  actually  kept  them.  Thus  certain 
“  Sanctions  and  Decrees”  printed  by  Labbe  and 
Mansi,  after  the  various  versions  of  the  Nicene 
Canons,  from  a  codex  at  the  Vatican,  but  evi¬ 
dently  from  a  Greek  source,  require  (c.  14)  that 
the  priest  be  neither  a  caupo  nor  a  tahernarius, 
making  thus  a  distinction  between  the  two 
terms,  which  often  appear  in  later  days  t«  be 
synonymous.  A  canon  ascribed  by  Ivo  to  the 
Synod  of  Tours,  A.l»  461,  states  that  “  it  hath 
been  related  to  the  holy  synod  that  certain 
priests  in  the  churches  committed  to  them  (an 
abuse  not  to  be  told)  establish  taverns  and  there 
through  caupones  sell  wine  or  allow  it  to  be 
sold ;”  so  that  where  services  and  the  word  of 
God  and  His  praise  should  alone  be  heard,  there 
feastings  and  drunkenness  are  found.  Such 
practices  are  strictly  forbidden,  the  offending 
priest  is  to  be  deposed,  the  laymen,  his  accom¬ 
plices,  to  be  excommunicated  and  expelled  (cc.  2, 
3).  In  the  East,  indeed,  it  appears  certain  from 
the  43rd  Novel,  that  in  the  first  half  of  the  6th 
century,  and  presumably  since  the  days  of  Con¬ 
stantine,  taverns  were  held  on  behalf  of  the 
church,  and  must  have  been  included  among  the 
1100  separate  trading  establishments  which  were 
the  property  of  the  cathedral  church  of  Con¬ 
stantinople.  But  apparently  this  tavern-keeping 
for  the  church  w'as  not  held  equivalent  to  tavern¬ 
keeping  by  clerics,  since  about  sixty  years  later, 
the  9th  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople 
in  Trullo,  A.D.  691,  bears  “that  it  shall  not  be 
lawful  for  any  cleric  to  have  a  tavern.  For  if  it 
be  not  permitted  to  him  to  enter  one,  how  much 
less  can  he  serve  in  it,  and  do  there  that  which 
is  not  lawful  ?”  He  must  therefore  either  give  it 
up  or  be  deposed.  And  although  the  68th  Canon 
of  the  same  Council  uses  a  compound  of  the 
Greek  Synonym  for  caupo,  in  a  more  general 
sense  (rots  ^L^Xioxatr'fjXois,  translated  librorum 
cauponatoribus,  i.e.  book-sellers),  yet  in  the  76th 
the  strict  idea  of  the  tavern  seems  to  recur, 
where  it  is  enacted  that  no  KairriXeTou  is  to  be 
set  up  within  the  holy  precincts,  nor  food  or 
other  things  to  be  exhibited  for  sale.  And  by 
the  8th  century  the  original  sense  of  caupo,  cau¬ 
pona  is  palpable  through  the  more  modern  word 
(in  this  application)  taberna,  which  occurs  in 
numerous  I’epetitions  more  or  less  literal  j)f  the 
above-quoted  Apostolical  Canon ;  as  in  a  Capi¬ 
tulary  of  Theodulf,  Bishop  of  Orleans,  to  his 
clergy,  A.D.  797,  forbidding  them  to  go  from 


CELIBACY 


323 


CAVEENENSE  CONCILIUM 

tavern  to  tavern,  drinking  or  eating  (c.  13) ;  ' 
one  of  the  injunctions  of  Charlemagne,  from 
a  MS,  of  the  Monastery  of  Angers,  forbidding 
priests  to  enter  a  tavern  to  drink  ;  the  19th 
Canon  of  the  Council  of  Frankfort,  and  the  em¬ 
peror’s  Frankfort  Capitulary  (794)  to  the  same 
effect,  but  extending  also  to  monks;  a  capitulary 
of  801  (general  coll.,  bk.  i.  c.  14),  quoting  the 
Council  of  Laodicea  and  the  African ;  the  b2oth 
chapter  of  the  5th  book ;  the  Canons  of  the 
Councils  or  Synods  of  Rheims  (c.  xxvi.),  applying 
to  monks  and  canons,  and  of  Tours  (c.  xxi),  both 
inA.D.813;  the  Edict  of  Charlemagne  in  8 1 4,  c.  18. 

It  will  thus  appear  that  whilst  the  severity  of 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  against  the  indi¬ 
vidual  tavern-keeper  is  not  followed  in  later 
ames,  yet  that  the  Western  Church,  at  least 
luring  the  period  with  which  this  work  is  occu¬ 
pied,  persistently  treated  the  use  of  the  tavern 
by  clerics,  otherwise  than  in  cases  of  necessity, 
etill  more  their  personal  connexion  with  it,  as 
incompatible  with  the  cleidcal  character.  The 
witness  of  the  Eastern  Church  is  also  to  the  same 
effect,  but  its  weight  is  marred  by  the  trade, 
including  that  in  liquors,  which  for  two  centuries 
at  least  seems  to  have  been  carried  on  at  Con¬ 
stantinople  for  the  benefit,  not  indeed  of  indi¬ 
vidual  devices,  but  of  churches  and  charitable 
foundations.  [See  also  Drunkenness.] 

[J.  M.  L.] 

CAVEENENSE  CONCILIUM.  [African 
Councils.] 

CEALCHYTHE,  COUNCILS  OF.  [Cal- 
CiiUTHENSE.]  Exact  locality  unknown,  but  cer¬ 
tainly  in  Mercia,  and  probably  Chelsea,  originally 
called  Chelcheth,  Chelchyth,  &c.  (1)  A.D.  787, 

or  possibly  788,  a  legatine  council,  George,  bishop 
of  Ostia,  and  Theophylact,  bishop  of  Todi,  being 
the  legates  for  Pope  Adrian  I.  Its  object  was  to 
renew  the  “  antiquam  amicitiam  ”  between  Rome 
and  England,  and  to  affirm  “  the  Catholic  faith  ” 
and  the  six  Oecumenical  Councils.  But  it  also 
appears  to  have  been  made  the  occasion  of  pre¬ 
paring  the  way  for  the  erecting  of  Lichfield  into 
an  archbishopric  independent  of  Canterbury, 
which  actually  took  place  in  788.  A  companion 
council  was  held  in  Northumbria  (Haddan  and 
Stubbs,  Counc.  iii.  444,  sq.).  (2)  A.D.  789,  called 

“  Pontificale  Concilium;”  grants  made  there 
now  extant  (K.  C.  D.  155;  Haddan  and  Stubbs, 
iii.  465).  (3)  A.D.  793,  at  which  a  grant  was 

made  to  St.  Alban’s  (K.  C.  D.  152;  Haddan  and 
Stubbs,  iii.  478).  (4)  A.D.  799,  at  which  a 

cause  was  adjudicated  between  King  Coenulf  and 
the  Bishop  of  Selscy  (K.  C.  D.  116,  1034 ;  Haddan 
and  Stubbs,  iii.  528).  There  were  several  councils 
at  the  same  place  after  A.D.  800.  [A.  W.  H.] 

CELEDEI.  [CoLiDEi.] 

CELEDONIUS,  martyr  at  Leon  in  Spain, 
is  commemorated  March  3  {Ma/i.  Bom.  Vet., 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

CEI.ENENSE  CONCILIUM,  a.d.  447, 
held  in  a  small  place  close  to  Lugo  in  Gallicia, 
against  the  Priscillianists ;  an  appendage  to  the 
1st  Council  of  Toledo  (Labb.  Cone.  iii.  1466). 

[A.  W.  H.] 

CELEEINA,  martyr  in  Africa  under  Decius, 
is  commemorated  with  Celerinus,  Feb.  3  (^Mart. 
Hieron.,  Bom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 


CELIBACY.  The  history  of  Christian 
thought  and  legislation  in  reference  to  this  sub¬ 
ject  is  essentially  one  of  development.  From  the 
first  there  were  the  germs  of  tw'o  different  sys¬ 
tems,  at  first  in  due  proportion,  each  the  comple¬ 
ment  of  the  other.  Then,  under  influences  which 
it  will  be  our  work  to  trace,  one  passes  through 
rapid  stages  of  growth  till  it  threatens  to  over¬ 
power  or  crush  the  other.  Protests  are  uttered 
from  time  to  time,  with  more  or  less  clearness. 
The  idea  which  seemed  threatened  with  extinction 
finally  revives  and  in  its  turn  dominates  undulv. 
It  remains  for  the  future  to  restore  the  balance 
which  we  recognise  in  the  primitive  records  of 
the  faith. 

1.  Any  preference  of  celibacy  over  marriage 
was,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  foreign  to  the  ethics 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Wedlock  and  the  fruits 
of  wedlock  were  God’s  best  gifts.  To  be  un¬ 
married  or  childless  was  to  be  under  a  “  reproach,” 
which  it  was  difficult  to  bear.  The  asceticism  of 
the  later  sects  of  Jews  made  in  this  respect  no 
difference.  Even  the  Essenes  lived  the  life  of 
a  communist  rather  than  a  monastic  society  and 
had  wives  and  children  with  them.  No  book  of 
the  Canonical  Scriptures  is  stronger  in  its  praises 
of  marriage,  or  its  condemnation  of  the  sins  that 
mar  its  perfection  than  that  which  represents 
the  ethical  teaching  of  the  Judaism  of  Alexandria 
(Ecclus.  XXV.  xxvi.).  Preference  for  the  celibate 
life  had,  it  must  be  confessed,  so  far  as  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church  was  concerned,  its  origin  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  birth  from  the  Virgin’s  womb, 
the  virgin-life  of  the  Baptist  and  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  the  strange  words  of  implied  blessing  on 
those  who  “made  themselves  eunuchs  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven’s  sake”  (Matt.  xix.  12)  could 
not  fail  to  make  an  impression  on  the  minds  of 
many  disciples.  The  work  of  the  great  Apostle, 
whose  activity  threw  that  of  all  others  into  the 
shade,  tended  in  the  same  direction.  He  declared 
without  reserve  that  it  was  a  good  and  noble 
thing  for  a  man  not  to  “  touch  a  woman  ”  with 
the  touch  even  of  wedded  love  (1  Coi\  vii.  1). 
Himself  leading  a  celibate  life,®  he  wished  that 
all  men  could  follow  his  example  (1  Cor.  vii.  7), 
and  laid  down  principles  which,  though  limited 
by  his  reference  to  a  “  present  necessity  ”  (1  Cor. 
vii.  26),  led  on  almost  inevitably  to  a  wider 
generalisation.  If  the  man  or  woman  unmarried 
was  more  free  from  “  care,”  more  able  to  render 
an  undivided  service  to  their  Lord,  it  would  be  a 
legitimate  inference  to  think  of  that  life  as  the 
more  excellent  of  the  two.  The  degree  of  its 
superiority  might  be  exaggerated  at  a  later  period, 
but  a  higher  excellence  of  some  kind  was  cer¬ 
tainly  implied  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul.  The 
vision  of  the  144,000  in  the  Apocalypse  as  of 
those  who  were  “  virgins,  who  were  not  defiled 
with  women  ”  (Rev.  xiv.  4)  seemed  to  carry  the 
recognition  of  that  higher  excellence  into  the 
glorified  life  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem. 

2.  All  this  was,  however,  balanced  by  the 
fullest  recognition  of  the  sacredness  of  marriage, 
and  was  as  far  as  possible  removed  fi‘om  the 
Manichaeau  tendencies  which  afterwards  cor- 


•  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  question.  It  may 
be  enough  to  say  that  It  is  a  rash  exegesis  which  secs  a 
reference  to  a  wife  in  the  “  true  yoke-fellow  ”  of  Phil.  iv.  3, 
or  finds,  not  celibacy,  but  married  continent',  in  1  Cot 
vii.  7,  8. 


Y 


324 


CELIBACY 


CELIBACY 


rupted  it..  Tlie  presence  of  Christ  at  the  mar¬ 
riage-feast  of  Cana  (.John  ii.  1),  his  vindication  of 
the  sacredness  of  marriage  against  the  casuistry 
of  the  scribes,  as  resting  on  God’s  primeval  or¬ 
dinance  and  the  laws  of  human  life  (Matt.  xix.  4), 
his  choice  of  Apostles  who  had  wives  (Matt, 
viii.  14),  and  probably  children  (Matt.  xix.  27, 
29),  guarded  against  any  tendency  to  treat  mar¬ 
riage  as  among  the  things  common  and  unclean. 
Nor  was  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  less  clear.  The 
great  casuistic  Epistle  recognises  it  as  a  divine 
institution,  makes  all  limitation  on  the  jus  con- 
jug  ii  but  a  temporary  means  to  an  end  beyond 
itself  (1  Cor.  vii.  3-5);  allows  even,  though  not 
approving,  the  marriage  of  widowers  and  widows 
(1  Cor.  vii.  39).  The  duties  of  husbands  and 
wives  are  enforced  on  new  and  more  mystic 
grounds  than  in  the  ethics  of  .Judaism  or  Heathen¬ 
ism  (Eph.  V.  22—33).  Their  life,  in  all  its  manifold 
relations,  was  recognised  as  giving  scope  for  the 
development  of  a  high  and  noble  form  of  Christian 
holiness  (1  Pet.  v.  1-7).  With  what  might  seem 
an  almost  startling  contrast  to  his  own  example 
St.  Paul  required  the  bishop-presbyter  to  have 
had  the  experience  of  marriage  and  with  at  least 
a  preference  for  those  who  had  brought  up 
children  (1  Tim.  iii.  2,  4),  and  extended  the  re¬ 
quirement  even  to  the  deacons  of  the  Church 
(1  Tim.  iii.  11,  12).  The  writer  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  at  least  implied,  perhaps  asserted, 
that  marriage  was,  or  might  be,  “honourable  in 
all  things  and  the  bed  undefiled”  (Heb.  xiii.  4). 
“  Forbidding  to  marry  ”  is  classed  by  St.  Paul  as 
one  of  the  “  doctrines  of  devils  ”  which  were  to 
be  the  signs  of  the  apostasy  of  the  latter  days 
(1  Tim.  iv.  1). 

3.  The  two  lines  of  thought  thus  traced,  ran 
on  through  the  Church’s  history,  but  in  unequal 
measure.  Gradually  the  teaching  which  St.  Paul 
condemned  mingled  itself  with  his,  and  the  celi¬ 
bate  life  was  exalted  above  that  of  marriage,  not 
only  because  it  brought  with  it  a  scope  of  more  un¬ 
interrupted  labour  and  more  entire  conseci’ation, 
but  on  the  ground  that  there  was  in  marriage 
and  its  relations  something  impure  and  defiling. 
In  the  language  of  some  Gnostic  sects,  it  be¬ 
longed  to  the  kingdom  of  the  Demiurgus,  the 
I  creator  of  the  material  universe  and  of  the 
human  body  as  a  part  of  it,  not  to  that  of  the 
higher  Chvist-Aeon,  who  was  Lord  of  the  king¬ 
dom  (TertuU.  de  FracscripL  c.  33;  Irenaeus,  i. 
28  ;  Hippolytus,  Refut.  Omn.  Haer.  i.  16).  First, 
womoii  [Virgins],  and  then  men,  devoted  them¬ 
selves  to  unwedded  life,  as  offering  a  higher  spi¬ 
rituality,  At  first,  indeed,  the  more  prominent 
teachers  kept  within  the  limits  of  Apostolic 
thought.  Hernias  (ii.  4,  4)  almost  reproduced 
the  language  of  St.  Paul.  Ignatius  (^Ep.  ad 
Rolgc.  e.  5)  while  introducing  another  thought, 
that  the  life  of  celibacy  is  “  in  honour  of  Our 
l.ord’s  flesh, ’’.warns  men  against  boasting  of  this, 
and  exalting  themselves  above  others.  Even 
Tertullian,  reproducing  his  own  experience, 
while  declaiming  vehemently  against  second,  or 
against  mixed  marriages,  draws,  with  great  power, 
a  picture  of  the  beauty  and  ble.ssedness  of  a  mar¬ 
riage  in  which  husband  and  wife  are  both  true 
worshippers  of  Christ  (Ac?.  Uxor.  ii.  8).  Clement 
of  Ale.\andria  even  ventures  to  depict  the  true 
ideal  Gno.Aic  as  one  who  marries  and  has  children 
and  so  attains  to  a  higher  e.xcelience,  because  he 
conquers  more  temptations  than  that  of  the 


celibate  life  {Strom,  vii.  12  p.  741).  There  were 
not  wanting,  however,  signs  of  a  tendency  to 
a  more  one-sided  development.  Putting  aside 
the  treatise  de  Virginitate  ascribed  to  Clement  of 
Rome,'*  as  probably"  one  of  the  many  spurious 
writings  for  which  the  authority  of  his  name  was 
claimed,  and  belonging  to  the  3rd  century  rather 
than  the  1st,  there  remain  the  facts  (1)  that, 
out.side  the  Church,  Tatian  and  the  Encratitrs 
developed  their  rigorous  asceticism  into  a  total 
abstinence  from,  and  condemnation  of,  marriage ; 
(2)  that  Athenagoras  {Legal,  c.  33),  while  not 
condemning  it,  speaks  of  many  men  or  women 
as  “growing  old  unmarried,  in  the  hope  of  living 
in  closer  communion  with  God,”  and  passes 
sentence  upon  second  marriage  as  being  no  better 
than  a  “decent  adultery”;  (3)  that  Justin  con¬ 
firms  at  once  his  statement  and  his  opinion  {Ap>ol.  i. 
15)  ;  (4)  that  Origen  claims  a  special  glory  in  the 
world  to  come  for  those  that  have  chosen  the  life 
of  consecrated  celibacy  {Horn.  xix.  in  Jerem.  4), 
and  gave  a  terrible  proof  in  his  own  self-mutila¬ 
tion  of  the  excesses  to  which  a  literal  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  mysterious  words  of  Matt.  xix.  12 
might  lead.  Many  bye-currents  of  theologicjil 
thought  and  feeling  tended  to  swell  the  stream. 
The  influence  of  Eastern  Dualism,  the  assimilation 
by  the  Church  of  the  feeling,  if  not  of  the  dogma, 
which  culminated  in  Manichaei.sm,  the  growing 
honour  for  the  mother  of  the  Lord  as  the  Ever- 
virgin,  the  deepening  sense  of  the  awfulness  of 
the  Eucharistic  sacrifice,  the  embarrassment 
caused  by  domestic  ties  in  times  of  persecution, 
perhaps  also  the  difficulty  of  maintaining  the 
purity  of  married  life  in  the  midst  of  the  fathom¬ 
less  social  corruption  of  the  great  cities  of  the 
empire® — all  these  led  men  to  take  what  seemed 
to  them  at  once  the  easier  and  the  shorter  road 
to  the  higher  blessedness  of  heaven.  As  the 
monastic  life  spread,  those  who  embraced  it 
thought  of  themselves,  and  were  looked  upon  by 
others,  as  being  already  “as  the  angels  in  heaven.” 
The  praises  of  the  virgin-state  became  a  common 
topic  for  the  rhetoric  of  sermons  and  treatises ; 
and  the  dialogue  of  Methodius  of  Tyre  {Conviviuin 
decern  VirginurrC)  is  probably  far  from  being  an 
exaggerated  specimen  of  its  class. 

Through  all  this,  however,  strong  as  might 
oe  the  influence  of  dogma  or  of  feeling,  the  ques¬ 
tion,  as  regards  the  lay-members  of  the  Church, 
was  left  as  St.  Paul  had  left  it,  as  a  matter  for  each 
man’s  conscience.  The  common  sense  of  Christian 
writers  led  them  to  see  the  absurdity  of  a  rule 
of  life  which  would  have  led  rapidly  to  the  ex¬ 
tinction  of  the  Christian  society  :  their  reverence 
made  them  shrink  from  condemning  what  had 
been  from  the  first  a  divine  ordinance  and  had 
now  become  the  symbol  of  the  mystic  union 
between  Christ  and  his  Church.  There  was  no 
attempt  so  far  to  enforce  the  higher  life  by 
any  legislation.**  Even  second  marriages,  though 


•>  The  authenticity  of  the  treatise  has  been  defended  by 
Roman  Catholic  theologians.  An  English  translation  has 
been  published  in  Clark's  Ante-Nicene  Library. 

c  Comp,  the  picture  drawn  by  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(Paedagog.  iii.  2,  3),  as  shewing  what  was  possible  even 
among  those  who  were  nominally  Christians. 

A  soliUiry  exception  is  found  in  the  correspondence 
between  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  and  Pinytus  of  Gnos.?us 
in  Euscbiu.s  (//.  £.  iv.  23).  The  latter,  it  would  seem,  had 
tried  to  enforce  celibacy  among  those  committed  to  his 
care.  The  former  warns  him  against  rashly  placing  on 


CELIBACY 


CELIBACY 


325 


condemned  by  the  moi-e  rigorous  moralists,  were 
not  forbidden.  But  it  was  otherwise  with  the 
clergy.  The  feeling  that  they  were  bound  to 
exhibit  what  men  looked  on  as  the  higher  pat¬ 
tern  of  holiness  gained  strength  in  proportion  as 
that  pattern  was  more  and  more  removed  from 
their  common  life.  The  passage  already  referred 
to  in  Ignatius  {Ep.  ad  Folyc.  c.  5)  shews  that 
even  then  there  were  laymen  who,  because  they 
were  celibates,  looked  down  superciliously  on 
bishops  who  continued,  after  their  appointment, 
to  cohabit  with  their  wives. 

The  practice  of  the  Church  of  the  first  three 
centuries  has  hardly  been  foirly  dealt  with  by 
Protestant  controversialists.  It  is  easy  to  point 
to  the  examples  of  married  apostles,  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  who  had  wives  and  to  whom 
children  were  born  long  after  their  ordination,® 
and  these  prove,  of  course,  that  marriage  was  not 
looked  on  as  incompatible  by  the  Church’s  law 
with  ministerial  duties.  But  it  is  difficult,  per¬ 
haps  imi)ossible,  to  point  to  one  instance  in  which 
the  marriage  was  contracted  after  ordination.^ 
The  unwritten  law  of  the  ancient  Church  was 
indeed  like  that  of  the  Greek  Church  at  the  pre¬ 
sent  day.  Marriage  was  permitted  in  the  clergy, 
but,  as  such,  they  were  not  allowed  to  marry. 
Thei'e  were  obviously  many  reasons  for  a  ruLe 
which,  at  first  sight,  appears  illogical  and  incon¬ 
sistent.  It  carried  into  practice  the  principle  that 
a  man  should  abide  in  the  state  in  which  asacred 
vocation  had  found  him  (1  Cor.  vii.).  Jt  fulfilled 
the  condition  laid  down  by  St.  Paul,  that  the 
bishop-presbyter  was  to  be  the  husband  of  one 
wife,  and  yet  guarded  against  the  risk,  so  immi¬ 
nent  in  all  religious  sects,  of  priestly  influence 
being  exercised  to  secure  a  wealthy  marriage. 
It  allowed  the  holiness  of  married  life,  yet  tacitly 
implied  the  higher  excellence  of  the  celibate. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  3rd  century  the  prin¬ 
ciple  was  foi’mulated  into  a  law,  and  both  the 
so-called  Apostolical  Canons  (c.  25)  and  Consti¬ 
tutions  (vi.  17)  rule  that  only  the  lower  orders 
of  the  clergy,  sub-deacons,  readers,  singers,  door¬ 
keepers,  and  the  like,  might  marry  after  their 
appointment  to  their  office.  Those  who  disre-  I 
garded  the  law,  and  the  offenders  were  numerous  ^ 
enough  to  call  for  special  legislation,  were  to  be 
punished  by  deposition  (Cone.  Neo-Caesar,  c.  1). 
Another  council,  held  about  the  same  time  (a.o.  1 
314)  at  Ancyra,  made  a  special  exception  (c.  10) 
in  favour  of  deacons  who,  at  the  time  of  their  j 
ordination,  gave  notice  to  the  ordaining  bishop 
that  they  did  not  intend  to  remain  single.  If 
they  did  not  give  notice,  and  yet  married,  they 
were  to  lose  their  office. 

The  growing  feeling  that  celibaev  was  a  higher 
state  than  marriage  affected  before  long  what  has 
been  just  described  as  the  law  of  the  Church  for 
the  first  three  centuries.  The  married  clersv 
might  from  various  motives,  genuine  or  affected 

- I 

their  shoulders  a  burden  which  they  could  not  bear.  -It 
is  obvious  that  the  rule  would  be  applied  with  greater 
stringency  to  the  clergy,  who  were  more  immediately 
under  him.  | 

®  One  striking  example  is  found  in  the  history  of  , 
Novatus,  who,  being  a  priest,  is  charged  hy  Oyprian  I 

(‘Epist.  49)  with  having  so  ill-treated  hia  wife  th.it  she  * 

miscarried.  j 

f  Hefel»,  a  singularly  fair  and  accu'’ate  writ-  r,  says 
that  there  is  absolutely  no  example  of  such  a  marriage 
{^BtUrdye,  i.  p.  123).  I 


aspirations  after  greater  purity,  desire  to  be  free 
from  what  they  had  come  to  regard  as  an  impe¬ 
diment  to  attaining  it.  The  penalty  of  deposition 
pronounced  by  the  Apostolic  Canons  (c.  6)  on  any 
bishop,  presbyter,  or  deacon  who  sejiarated  him¬ 
self  from  his  wife  “under  the  pretence  of  piety,” 
shows  that  so  far  the  Church  was  determined  to 
maintain  the  validity  of  the  contract  as  still 
binding. 

A  more  difficult  question,  however,  presented 
itself.  Admitting  that  the  contract  was  not  to 
be  dissolved,  on  what  footing  \vas.it  to  continue? 
The  rigorous  asceticism  of  the  time  did  not  hesi¬ 
tate  to  answer  the  question  by  affirming  that 
the  husband  and  wife  were  to  live  together  as 
brother  and  sister,  that  any  other  intercourse 
was  incompatible  wuth  the  life  of  pra^'er,  and 
profaned  the  holiness  of  the  altar.  The  Council  of 
Elvira  (a.d.  305),  representing  the  more  excited 
feelings  that  had  been  roused  by  the  persecution 
of  Diocletian,  made  the  first  attemjit  to  enforce 
on  the  clergy  by  law,  and  under  pain  of  deposition 
(c.  33),  what  had  probably  been  often  admire  1 
as  a  voluntary  act  of  self-control.  The  Council 
of  Nicaea  was  only  sar'ed  from  ado])ting  a  like 
decree  as  a  law  for  the  whole  Church  by  the 
protest  of  Paphnutius,  a  confe.ssor-bishop  from 
the  Upper  Thebaid,  who,  though  himself  a  celibate 
all  his  life,  appeared  as  the  advocate  at  once  of 
the  older  law  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  married 
life  as  compatible  with  holiness  (Sozom.  11.  E.  i. 
23;  Socrat.  H.  E.  i.  !!).& 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  over  and  above 
the  ascetic  view  which  looked  on  marriage  as 
impure,  there  rvas  also  a  strong  sense  of  some 
of  the  inconveniences  connected  with  a  marrie  I 
clergy.  The  wives  of  bishops  took  too  much  upon 
them,  spoke  and  wi’ote  as  in  their  husbands’  name 
even  without  their  authority,  and  interfered  with 
the  discipline  of  the  diocese.  It  is  significant 
that  the  same  council  which  took  the  lead  in 
condemning  the  cohabitation  of  bishops,  priests, 
or  deacons  with  their  wives,  should  have,  as  its 
last  canon,  one  directed  against  the  practice, 
apfiarently  common,  of  women  receiving  or 
giving  literae  paciiicae  in  their  own  name 
(G.  EUb.  c.  81). 

The  contrast  between  the  decrees  of  the  Nicene 
Council  and  that  of  Elvira  on  this  matter  shows 
the  existence  of  opposite  tendencies  in  Eastern 
and  Western  Christendom,  and  from  this  point 
the  divergence,  first  in  feeling  and  afterwards  in 
legislation,  becomes  more  marked.  It  w'll  be 
convenient  to  trace  the  paths  taken  by  the  two 
great  divisions  of  Christendom  separately.  The 
Council  of  Gangra  was,  in  this  as  in  other  respects, 
the  representative  of  a  healthier  and  more  lium.in 
feeling.  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Sebaste,  had  taught 
men  to  look  on  marriage  as  incompatible  with 
holine.ss,  on  the  ministrations  of  married  priests 
as  worthless,  and  his  followers  accordingly  held 
aloof  from  them.  The  Council  diil  not  hesitate 
to  pass  a  solemn  anathema  on  those  who  thus 
acted.  (C.  Gangr.  c.  4.)  The  more  ascetic  view, 
however,  gained  ground  in  Macedonia,  Thessaly, 
and  Achaia,  and  the  man  who  was  most  urgent 


8  The  narrative  has  been  called  in  question  by  Ba- 
ronius  and  other  Romi^h  writers  on  this  ground,  that 
Socrates  was  biassed  hy  his  prepossession  in  favour  of  the 
Novattans.  who  allowetl  the  marriage  of  the  clerjiy,  but 
Is  detend«.d  by  ilelele  {Beitruye,  i.  129J. 


V 


32G 


CELIBACY 


CEIJBACY 


jn  pressing  it  was  the  Heliodorns,  then  bisliop 
ot’  Tricca,  who,  in  earlier  life,  had  written  the 
sensuous,  erotic  romance  of  the  Aethlopica  (Socr. 
If.  E.  V.  22).  This  is  one  of  the  instances,  how¬ 
ever,  in  whicih  the  exception  proves  the  rule,  and 
the  general  practice  of  the  Eastern  Church  was 
not  aflected  by  the  rigorous  asceticism  of  its 
European  provinces.  Even  bishops  had  children 
born  to  them  after  their  consecration.  This, 
however,  was  in  its  turn  opposed  to  the  domi¬ 
nant  practice,  and  the  fact  that  Synesius  (a.d.  410) 
refused  to  accept  the  bishopric  of  Ptolemais  unless 
he  was  allowed  to  continue  to  cohabit  with  his 
wife,  shews  that  a  dispensation  was  necessary, 
and  that  he  too  was  an  exception  to  the  general 
practice.  It  came  accordingly  to  be  the  rule  of 
the  Eastern  Church  that  men  who  were  married 
before  their  oi’dination  might  continue,  without 
blame,  to  live  with  their  wives,  but  that  a  higher 
standard  of  self-devotion  was  demanded  of  bishops, 
first  by  })ublic  opinion  and  afterwards  by  eccle¬ 
siastical  and  even  civil  legislation.  The  feeling 
found  a  formal  expression  in  the  Council  in  Trullo, 
which  sanctioned  cohabitation  in  the  case  of  sub¬ 
deacons,  deacons,  and  priests  (c.  13)  married  be¬ 
fore  ordination,  but  ordered  the  wife  of  a  bishop 
to  retire  to  a  convent  or  to  become  a  deaconess 
(c.  48).**  Those  who  had  married  after  their 
ordination  wei-e  however  to  be  suspended,  and  in 
future  absolutely  deposed  (c.  36).  The  strong 
protest  in  c.  33  against  the  growth  of  a  Lcau- 
tical  hereditary  priesthood  in  Armenia  may 
indicate  one  of  the  elements  at  work  in  bring¬ 
ing  about  the  more  stringent  enforcement  of 
celibacy.  Even  the  former  were  subject  to  re¬ 
strictions  analogous  to  those  which  governed  the 
ministrations  of  the  Jewish  priesthood,  and  were 
not  allowed  to  contract  marriage  after  their  ordi- 
nation,  the  rule  being  based  on  the  canon  of  the 
Council  of  Ancyra  already  referred  to,  but  ex¬ 
cluding  the  power  which  that  conceded  of  giving 
notice  of  the  intention  to  marry,  at  the  time  of 
ordination.  The  Theodosian  Code  {De  Episcop. 
14,  2)  enforced  the  same  rule,  and  children  born 
of  marriages  so  contracted  were  to  be  treated  as 
illegitimate  (Cod.  Theod.  de  bonis  cleric.,  Jus¬ 
tinian.  Novell.  V.  c.  8).  The  Emperor  Leo  the 
Wise  (a.d.  886-911)  confirmed  the  Trullan  canon, 
with  a  modification  tending  towards  leniency. 
Clergy  who  so  married  were  not  to  be  reduced  as 
before  to  lay  communion,  but  were  simply  de¬ 
graded  to  a  lower  order  and  shut  out  from  strictly 
})riestly  functions.  The  results  of  this  compro¬ 
mising  legislation  were  probably  then,  as  they 
arc  now,  (1)  that  nearly  all  candidates  for  the 
priesthood  married  before  they  were  admitted  to 
the  diaconate ,  (2)  that  they  continued  to  live 
with  their  wives,  but  did  not  marry  again,  if  they 
were  left  widowers  ;  and  (3)  that  the  great  mass 
of  the  secular  clergy  being  thus  ineligible  for 
the  episcopate,  the  bishops  were  mostly  chosen 
from  among  the  monks. 


Zacharias,  Nriova  Giustificazione  del  Celibato 
Sacro,  pp.  129,  130.]  [I.  G.  S.] 

It  remains  to  trace  the  progress  of  a  more 
stringent  and  “  thorough  ”  policy  in  the  Churches 
of  the  West.  The  principle  asserted  at  Elvira 
extended  to  Western  Africa,  and  was  carried  fur¬ 
ther  in  application.  Not  only  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  deacons,  but  those  of  a  lower  grade  who 
ministered  at  the  altar  were  to  lead  a  celibate 
life  (2  C.  Garth,  c.  2).  It  was  assumed  as  an 
axiom  that  the  intercourse  of  married  life  was 
incompatible  with  prayer  and  the  sacrifice  of  the 
altar,  and  as  the  priest  ought  always  to  pray,  and 
daily  to  offer  that  sacrifice,  he  must  of  necessity 
abstain  altogether  (Hieron.  Contr.  Jovinian.  i.  34). 
The  bishops  of  Rome  used  their  authority  in  the 
same  direction.  Siricius,  in  the  first  authentic  De¬ 
cretal  (a.d.  38.5),  addressed  to  Himerius,  bishop 
of  Tarragona,  forbade  absolutely  the  marriage  of 
presbyters  and  deacons.  Innocent  I.  (a.d.  405)  in 
two  Decretals  addressed  to  Victricius,  bishop  of 
Rouen,  and  Exsuperius  of  Toulouse,  enforced  the 
prohibition  under  pain  of  degradation  {Corp.  Juris 
Can.  c.  4,  5,  and  6  Dist.  31).  Leo  I.  (a.d.  443)  tried 
to  unite  the  obligation  of  the  marriage  vow  and 
the  purity  of  the  consecrated  life  by  allowing 
those  who  were  alreadv  married  to  continue  to 

y 

li,ve  with  their  wives,  but  “  habere  quasi  non  ha- 
beant  .  .  .  quo  et  salva  sit  charitas  connubi- 

orum  et  cessent  opera  nuptiarum’”  (Epist.  167  ad 
Eusticum).  If  this  law  were  not  kept,  they  were 
to  be  subject  to  the  extreme  penalty  of  excommu¬ 
nication.  So  in  like  manner  the  1st  Council  of 
Toledo  (c.  1)  forbade  the  promotion  of  deacons  or 
presbyters  “  qui  incontiueuter  cum  suis  uxoribus 
vixerint”  to  a  higher  grade.  So  also  the  1st 
Council  of  Orange  (can.  22,  23,  24)  forbade  the 
ordination  of  deacons  unless  they  make  a  vow  of 
chastity,  and  punishes  subsequent  cohabitation 
with  deprivation.  The  1st  Council  of  Tours,  as  if 
afraid  of  the  consequences  of  this  extreme  rigour, 
reduced  the  penalty  to  the  suspension  of  those 
who  were  ah-eady  priests  from  priestly  functions, 
and,  in  the  case  of  others,  excluded  them  from 
any  higher  grade  than  that  which  they  already 
occupied  (1C.  Turon.  c.  1,  2),  but  allowed  both  to 
partake  of  the  sacrament  of  the  altar.  The  sub¬ 
deacons,  perhaps  as  finding  less  compensation  in 
the  respect  of  the  people  and  in  the  nature  of 
their  work,  held  out  longer  than  those  of  higher 
grade.  The  yoke  was,  however,  pressed  on  them 
too  by  Leo  (Epist.  34  to  Leo  of  Catania)  and 
Gregory  the  Great  (Corpus  Juris  Can.  c.  14,  Dist. 
31),  and  Spain  still  kept  its  old  pre-eminence  in 
ascetic  rigour.  The  8th  Council  of  Toledo  (c.  6), 
a.d.  653,  condemned  both  the  marriage  of  sub¬ 
deacons  after  their  ordination,  and  continued  co¬ 
habitation  if  they  were  married  before.  Their 
work  as  bearing  the  vessels  of  the  altar  required 
that  they  should  keep  themselves  free  from  the 
pollution  which  was  inseparable  from  that  union. 
Offenders  were  to  be  sentenced  to  something  like 


[It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Nestorians 
till  the  middle  of  the  6th  century  relaxed  consi¬ 
derably  the  i-ules  of  the  Trullan  Council,  and 
that  the  Monophysite  Abyssiniaas  allowed  their 
bishops  to  retain  their  wives  and  live  with  them. 


The  Council,  however,  recognized,  while  it  deplored, 
the  fact  that  bishops  continued  to  live  with  their  wives  in 
Africa,  Libya,  and  elsewhere  (c.  12).  It  forbade  the  scandal 
for  the  future,  and  punished  offenders  with  deposition. 


perpetual  imprisonment  in  a  monastery.  The 
9th  Council  (c.  10),  A.D.  659,  described  every  such 
union,  from  bishops  to  sub-deacons,  as  a  “  con- 
nubium  detestandum,”  and  their  issue  were  not 
only  treated  as  illegitimate  and  excluded  from  all 
rights  of  inheritance,  but  treated  as  slaves  “jure 
perenni  ”  of  the  Church  against  which  their 
fathers  had  offended.  It  is  melancholy,  but  in¬ 
structive,  to  find  another  Ct'Uncil  of  the  same 
Church,  seventy-two  years  later  (a.d.  731),  com- 


CELIBACY 


CELLA 


327 


pelled  to  pass  canons  on  the  one  hand  against  the 
spread  of  unnatural  crime  among  the  clergy, 
pronouncing  the  sentence  of  deposition  and  exile 
on  the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  who  were 
guilty  of  it,  and,  on  the  other,  against  the 
attempts  at  suicide  which  were  becoming  fre¬ 
quent  among  those  who  had  been  subjected  to 
the  discipline  of  the  Church,  with  its  censures 
and  its  penances  (16  C.  Tolet.  c.  3  and  4). 
Stephen  IV.  (a.d.  769)  enforced  the  rule  of  the 
Western  as  contrasted  with  that  of  the  Eastern 
Church  (^Corpus  Juris  Can.  c.  14,  Dist.  31). 

[The  contrast  between  Eastern  and  Western 
feeling  is  shown  singularly  enough  in  their  esti¬ 
mate  of  the  relative  guilt  of  clerical  marriage 
and  fornication.  The  Council  of  Neo-Caesarea 
(c.  1)  punishes  the  latter  with  greater  severity 
than  the  former.  That  of  Orleans  (c.  1)  calmly 
puts  the  two  on  the  same  level,  “  si  quis  pellici 
vel  uxori  se  jungat.”]  [1.  G.  S.] 

One  marked  exception  has  to  be  noted  to  the 
general  prevalence  of  this  rigoiu*.  The  Church 
of  Milan,  in  this  as  in  other  things,  maintained 
its  independence  of  Rome,  and,  resting  on  the  au¬ 
thority  of  Ambrose,  was  content  with  the  Eastern 
rule  of  monogamy,  and  applied  it  even  to  its 
own  archbishops.  “  The  practice  of  marriage 
was  all  but  universal  among  the  Lombard  clergy. 
They  were  publicly,  legally  married,  as  were  the 
laity  of  Milan  ”  (Milman’s  Latin  Christianit  /, 
b.  vi.  c.  3).'  The  practice  against  which  Peter 
Damiani  raved  in  the  1 1th  century  was  clearly 
of  long  standing,  and  it  may  be  noted  that  it 
bore  its  fruit  in  the  high  repute,  the  thorough 
organization,  which  made  the  Milanese  clergy 
famous  through  all  Italy. 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  limits  of  this  work 
to  carry  on  the  history  further.  Enough  has 
been  said  to  shew  that  when  Hildebi'and  entered 
on  his  crusade  against  the  marriage  of  the  clergy 
he  was  simply  acting  on  and  enforcing  what  had 
for  about  seven  centuries  been  the  dominant  rule 
of  the  church.  The  confusions  of  the  period  that 
preceded  this  had  relaxed  the  discipline,  but  the 
law  of  the  Church  remained  unaltered.  The  ex¬ 
ceptional  freedom  enjoyed  by  the  Church  of  Milan 
would  but  make  one  who  strove  after  the  unity 
of  a  theocracy  more  zealous  to  put  a  stop  to 
what  he  regarded  as  at  once  a  defilement  of 
the  sacred  olfice  and  a  rebellion  against  divine 
authority. 

[Obviously  this  rapid  and  yet  gradual  deve¬ 
lopment  which  has  been  traced  of  clerical  celi¬ 
bacy  was  very  largely,  if  not  mainly,  due  to  the 
influence  of  monasticism.  Celibacy  becomes,  step 
by  step,  compulsory  on  all  the  clergy,  while  the 
monastic  obligation  is  rivetted  more  and  more 
tightly  by  an  irrevocable  vow.  In  the  monk 
celibacy  was,  as  has  been  indicated,  an  aspiration 
after  superhuman  holiness,  intensified  by  that 
feeling  of  despair  with  which  he  was  apt  to 
regard  the  world  around  him,  and  its  apparently 
hopeless  state  of  corruption  ;  and  in  subtle  com¬ 
bination  with  motives  of  this  kind  was  the  han¬ 
kering  after  wonder  and  veneration.  In  every 


*  The  passages  from  Ambrose  have  been  much  tam¬ 
pered  with,  and  the  text  Is  doubtful.  "  Monogumia  sacer- 
dotum  ”  and  “  castimonia  ”  present  themselves  as  various 
readings.  One  text  permits,  another  prohibits,  coba- 
bitition  after  marriage.  See  the  discussion  in  Milman’s 
note,  1.  c. 


way  the  example  of  the  monks  told  powerfully 
on  the  clergy.  The  more  devout  longed  to  attain 
the  monk’s  moral  impassibility ;  lower  natures 
were  attracted  by  the  prospect  of  gaining  for 
themselves  the  monks’  commanding  position. 
Thus  the  rivalry,  which  never  ceased,  between 
the  regular  and  the  secular  clergy,  made  the 
clergy  generally  more  willing  to  accept  the  hard 
conditions  exacted  of  them  by  the  policy  of  their 
rulers.  So  at  least  it  was  in  Western  Christen¬ 
dom.  In  the  East  there  was  a  more  complete 
severance  between  the  monks  and  the  secular 
clergy,  the  former  being  debarred  more  closely 
from  intercourse  with  the  world,  and  the  latter 
acquiescing  in  what  was  for  them  ecclesiastically 
a  lower  standing.]  [I.  G.  S.] 

It  is  obvious  that  just  in  proportion  to  the 
stringency  with  which  the  law  of  celibacy  was 
carried  into  effect  were  its  evils  likely  to  shew 
themselves.  One — and  that  for  a  time  a  very 
formidable  one — will  form  the  subject  of  a  seyia- 
rate  article.  If  men  had  not  wives,  while  the 
habits  of  .society  made  them  dependent  on  the  do¬ 
mestic  services  of  women,  they  must  have  house¬ 
keepers.  The  vei’y  idealism  of  purity  which  held 
that  husband  and  wife  might  live  together  as 
brother  and  sister,  seemed  to  imply  that  any  man 
and  any  woman  might  live  together  on  the  same 
footing  without  risk  or  scandal.  The  scandal 
came,  however,  fast  enough — and  the  Sub-imtko- 
UUCTAE  or  ’ZwiicaKToa  came  to  occupy  a  very 
prominent  position  in  the  legislation  of  the 
Church.  [E.  H.  ?.] 

[See,  further,  Alteserrae,  Asceticon  vel  Origo 
Eei  Monasticae,  Par.  1671-;  S.  Bonaventurae, 
Sentent.  iv.  xxxvii.  0pp.  Venet.  1751  ;  Hallier, 
Dc  Sacr.  Elect,  et  Ordiaat.  v.  i.  10,  Paris,  1536; 
Gersou,  Dialogus  sup.  Coelibatu,  0pp.  ii.  p.  617, 
Aatverp.  1606;  Feri'aris,  Bibliotheca.,  s.  vv.  Cle- 
ricus,  Conjuges,  Venet.  1778;  Launoy,  hnpedi- 
laent.  Ordin.  0pp.  I.  ii.  p.  742,  Colon.  1731  ; 
Schramm,^  Compend.  Theolog.  iii.  p.  694,  Augs¬ 
burg,  1768  ;  Bingham,  Origines  Eccles.  VII.  iv. 
Bond.  1727  ;  Concina,  De  Cuelibatu,  Romae,  1755  ; 
Paleotimo,  De  Coelib  ;tu,  Suintna  Orig.  Eccles. 
Venet.  1766;  Mich,  de  Medina,  De  Sacr.  Hom, 
Continentid,  Ven.  1568;  Camj)egius,  De  Coelib. 
Sacerdotum.  Ven.  1554;  G.  Callixtus,  De  Conjug. 
Cleric.  Helmstadt,  1631 ;  Osiander,  E.cam  Coelib. 
Cleric.  Tubingen,  1664  ;  H.  C.  Lea,  Ilistorg  of 
Christia/i  Celibacy,  Philadelphia,  1867.]  [I.  G.  S.] 

CELLA  or  CELT. A  MEMORIAE,  a  small 
memorial  chapel  erected  in  a  sepulchral  arrtt 
over  the  tomb  of  the  deceased,  in  which  at  stated 
times,  especially  the  anniver.sai'y  of  his  decease, 
his  friends  and  dependents  assembled  to  celebrate 
•An  agape,  and  partake  of  a  banfjuet  in  his  honour. 
These  were  often  built  over  the  tombs  of  martvrs, 
and  were  then  known  as  Martyria,  Memoriae 
Marty  rum,  C  n-'Uia  M  otyrum,  and  Con'cssiones. 
Sepulchral  buildings  of  this  character  were  com¬ 
mon  both  to  heathens  and  Christians.  Indeed 
here,  as  in  so  much  el.se,  Chri.stianity  simplv  in¬ 
herited  existing  customs,  purged  them  of  licen¬ 
tious  or  idolatrous  taint,  and  adopted  them  as 
their  own.  Thus  heathen  and  Christian  monu¬ 
ments  mutually  throw  light  on  one  another.  A 
Christian  inscription,  recording  the  formation  <'f 
an  area  and  the  construction  of  a  cella,  is  given 
in  the  article  Cicmkteuv. 

Directions  for  the  erection  of  a  building  bearing 


328 


CELLA 


CELT.ITAE 


the  same  title,  and  devoted  to  a  similar  ptirpose 
by  a  pagan,  are  given  in  a  very  curious  will, 
once  engraved  on  a  tomb  at  Langres,  a  copy  of 
a  portion  of  wliich  has  been  discovered  in  the 
binlinv  of  a  MS.  of  the  10th  centurv'  in  the  Li- 
brary  at  Basle.  The  will  is  printed  by  l)e  Rossi 
in  the  IhiUe'tiuo  di  Arc.  Crist.,  Dec.  186.S.  In  it 
we  hnl  most  j)articular  directions  for  the  com¬ 
pletion  of  the  cella  m’lnoriae,  which  the  testator 
had  already  begun,  in  exact  accordance  with  the 
])lan  he  left  behind  him.  This  celUx  stood  in  the 
centre  of  an  area.  In  front  of  it  was  to  be  erected 
an  altar  of  the  finest  Carrara  marble  in  which  the 
testator’s  ashes  were  to  be  deposited.  The  cella 
itself  was  to  contain  two  statues  of  the  testator, 
one  in  bronze,  one  in  marble.  Provision  was  to 
be  made  for  the  easy  opening  and  shutting  of 
the  cella.  There  was  to  be  an  exedra,  which  was 
to  be  furnished  with  couches  and  benches  on  the 
days  on  which  the  cella  was  opened.  Coverlets 
{lodices')  and  })illows  (cervicalia)  to  lay  upon  the 
seats  were  also  to  be  provided,  and  even  gar¬ 
ments  {ahollac  and  tunicae')  for  the  guests  who 
assembled  to  do  honour  to  the  departed.  Orchards 
anJ  tanks  (lacus)  formed  part  of  the  plan.  It 
was  also  ordered  that  all  the  testator’s  freedmen 
were  to  make  a  yearly  contribution  out  of  which 
a  feast  was  to  be  provided  on  a  certain  day,  and 
partaken  of  on  the  spot.  Additional  light  is 
thrown  upon  the  last-named  provision  by  the 
terms  of  a  long  and  curious  inscription  relating 
to  a  colle  jium  for  the  burial  of  the  dead,  consist¬ 
ing  chiefly  of  slaves,  of  the  year  a.d.  133.  One 
of  the  regulations  was  that  the  members  of  the 
confraternity  were  to  dine  together  six  times  in 
the  year  (Xorthcote,  B.  S.  p.  51).  These  cellae 
wei'e  memorial  halls  for  funeral  banquets.  The 
Christians  were  essentially  men  of  their  country 
and  their  age,  following  in  all  things  lawful  the 
customs  of  the  time  and  place  in  which  their  lot 
was  cast.  The  recent  investigations  of  De  Rossi 
do  much  to  dispel  the  idea  of  the  specific  and 
exclusive  character  of  the  Christianity  of  the 
primitive  Church.  Rejecting  the  abuses  arising 
from  the  license  of  ))agan  morals,  there  was 
nothing  in  itself  to  take  exception  at  in  the 
funeral  feast.  Indeed  the  primitive  agapae  or 
love-feasts  were  often  nothing  more  than  funeral 
banquets  held  in  cellae  at  the  tombs  of  the  faith¬ 
ful,  the  expenses  of  which,  in  the  case  of  the 
j)oorer  members,  were  provided  out  of  the  area 
communis  ov  church-chest.  We  are  familiar  with 
pictorial  rej)resentations  of  banquets  of  this  na¬ 
ture  derived  from  the  Catacombs.  Bottari  sup- 
)>lies  us  with  two  such  of  remarkable  interest 
from  the  cemetery  of  SS.  Marcellinus  and  Peter 
(Bottari,  Pitture,  tom.  ii.  tav.  107,  109,  127), 
and  one  from  St.  Callistus  (thid.  tom.  iii.  p.  1, 
110, 118).  [Catacombs.]  There  was  a  remarkable 
con-espondence  between  the  arrangements  of  the 
Christians  and  heathens  in  these  matters.  In 
both  not  only  was  the  cost  of  the  funeral  banquet 
paid  out  of  the  general  fund,  but  suitable  cloth¬ 
ing  was  also  provided  for  those  who  were  present 
at  these  banquets.  In  an  inventory  of  furniture 
confiscated  in  the  Diocletian  persecution  in  a  house 
where  Christians  were  in  the  habit  of  meeting  at 
Cirta  in  Numidia,  in  addition  to  chalices  of  gold 
and  silver,  and  lamps,  &c.,  we  find  articles  of 
attire  and  shoes  (tunicae  muliebres  Ixrxii,  tunicae 
viriles  xvi,  caligae  viriles  paria  xiii,  calig  te  m-di- 
ebres  paria  xlviij,  and  other  entries  of  a  similar 


nature.  These  cellae  were  not  only  used  for  the 
funeral  feasts,  v,'hich  were  nece.ssarily  infrequent, 
but  also  formed  oratories  to  which  the  faithful 
re.sorted  at  all  times  to  offer  up  their  devotions 
over  the  remains  of  their  departed  brethren. 
The  name  cella,  as  applied  to  such  places  of 
reunion,  seems  to  have  been  restricted  to  non- 
subterranean  buildings  erected  in  the  funeral 
area,  above  the  grave  of  the  individual  whom  it 
was  desired  to  commemorate.  Chambers  con¬ 
structed  for  this  purpose  in  the  subterranean 
cemeteries  were  known  as  cuhicula  [Catacomb]. 
Another  aj)pellation  by  which  they  were  known 
whether  above  ground  or  below,  was  memoriae 
martgrum  or  martgria  until  they  lost  their  pri¬ 
mitive  name  of  cellae,  and  became  known  as 
basilicae  (Hierom.  Ep.  ad  Vigilant.).  In  fact,  the 
magnificent  basilicas  erected  above  the  tombs  of 
the  martyrs  in  the  age  of  the  peace  of  the  Church, 
by  Constantine  and  other  Christian  emperors, 
were  nothing  more  than  amplifications  of  the 
humble  cellae  or  memoriae  built  in  the  area  of 
the  cemeteries. 

We  know  from  Anastasius  (§  21)  that  many 
buildings  were  erected  in  the  cemeteries  by  the 
direction  of  Pope  Fabianus  (a.d.  238-354),  “mul- 
tas  fabricas  per  coemeteria  fieri  praecepit.” 
These  fnbricae  we  may  safely  identify,  w'ith 
Ciampini,  Ansaldi,  De  Rossi,  &c.  with  the  cellae 
memoriae  of  which  we  have  been  speaking. 
“  They  were  probably  little  oratories  constructed 
either  for  purposes  of  worship,  or  the  celebra¬ 
tion  of  the  agap  le,  or  of  mere  guardianship  of 
the  tombs  according  to  the  common  practice 
of  the  Romans  ”  (Northcote,  B.  S.  p.  86).  The 
peace  which  the  Church  had  at  this  time  enjoyed 
for  nearly  50  years  would  have  encouraged  the 
erection  of  such  buildings,  and  rendered  the  use 
of  them  free  from  apprehension. 

Cella  and  cellula  were  employed  at  a  later  time 
for  sepulchral  chapels  built  along  the  side  walls 
of  a  church.  It  is  used  in  this  sense  by  Pauli- 
nus  ofNola,  in  whose  writings  such  chapels  are 
more  frequently  termed  cubicula.  [Cubiculum.] 

An  example  of  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  sense 
of  a  monastic  cell  is  given  by  Combefis,  De 
Templo  S.  Sophiae  p.  260,  bfborai  K\r]p(f>  /cat 
/ceAAta  els  to  7rept|  Kara  ttjv  auTwi'. 

[E.  V.] 

CELLERARIUS,  Cellarius,  KeWdpios,  Ke\- 
\apirris.  One  of  the  highest  officials  in  a  monas¬ 
tery.  As  the  prior  was  next  to  the  abbat  in 
spiritual  things,  so  the  Cellerarius,  under  the 
abbat,  had  the  management  and  control  of  all 
the  secular  affairs.  He  was  sometimes  called 
oeconomus  (oIkouS/xos),  dispensator  or  procurator. 
According  to  most  commentators  on  the  Bene¬ 
dictine  Rule  he  was  to  be  appointed  by  the  abbat 
with  consent  of  the  seniors,  and  was  to  hold 
office  for  one  year  or  more  (Beg.  S.  Bened.  c.  31, 
cf.  Concord.  Begul.  c.  40).  [I.  G.  S.] 

CELLI'FAE,  KeAAictJrat.  A  class  of  monks, 
midway  between  hermits  and  coenobites.  Strictly 
speaking,  they  were  the  anchorites,  dvaxf^pV'rai, 
so  called  because  they  withdrew  or  retired  from 
the  coenobia,  wherein  the  monks  dwelt  together, 
to  small  cells  in  the  immediate  vicinity.  On 
festivals  they  repaii’ed  to  the  church  of  the 
monastery,  and  thus,  being  still  semi-attached 
to  the  community,  they  differed  from  the  her¬ 
mits,  epgfi'iTai,  who  were  independent  of  control 


CELIJTAE 


CEMETERY 


329 


(Suic.  Thes.  s.  v.).  As  preferring  the  more 
complete  privacy  and  quiet  of  these  cells  to 
living  in  common,  they  were  sometimes  called 
hesychastae,  rjO’vxO’CTTai,  and  their  cells  fjavxa- 
aTTjpla  (Bingh.  Orij.  VII.  ii.  14. ;  Justin.  Novell. 
V.  3).» 

The  word  “  cella,”  KeWlov,  originally  meaning 
the  cave,  den,  or  separate  cell  of  each  recluse 
(Soz.  H.  E.  vi.  31 ;  Greg.  Dial.  ii.  34),^  soon 
came  to  be  applied  to  their  collective  dwelling- 
place  ;  in  this  resembling  the  term  monasterium, 
which  signified  at  first  a  hermit’s  solitary  abode, 
and  subsequently  the  abode  of  several  monks 
together.  “  Cella,”  in  its  later  use,  was  applied 
even  to  larger  monasteries  (Mab.  Ann.  v.  7); 
but  usually  to  the  offshoots  or  dependencies  of 
the  old  foundation  (Du  Cange,  s.  v.)  “  Celiula  ” 
is  used  for  a  monastery  by  Gregory  of  Tours 
{Fist.  vi.  8,  29,  &c.).  In  the  Rule  of  St.  Fruc- 
tuosus  “cella”  stands  for  the  “black-hole,”  the 
place  of  solitary  confinement  for  oft'enders  against 
the  discipline  (Mab.  Ann.  xiii.  41).  The  Regula 
Agaunensis  forbad  sepai'ate  cells  for  the  monks ; 
but  it  is  not  clear  whether  this  prohibition  refers 
to  cells  within  the  walls  or  to  the  cells  outside 
of  the  “  cellitae.” 

Cassian,  in  his  account  of  the  different  kinds 
of  monks  in  Egypt,  condemns  the  “  Sarabaitae,” 
who  dwelt  together  in  small  groups  of  cells 
without  rule  or  superior  (Cass.  Coll,  xviii.  17). 
The  same  distrust  of  what  inevitably  tended  to 
disorder  and  licence  is  shown  in  the  decrees  of 
Western  Councils  (c.  g.  Concc.  Aurel.  I.  c.  22 ; 
Agath.  c.  38).  But  the  cells  of  the  “Cellitae,” 
properly  so  called,  resembled  rather  a  “  Laura  ” 
in  Egypt  and  Palestine,  each  Laura  being  a 
quasi  coenobitic  cluster  of  cells,  forming  a  com¬ 
munity  to  which,  in  the  earlier  days  of  monachism, 
the  abbat’s  will  was  in  place  of  a  written  rule. 
The  first  of  these  “  Lauras  ”  is  said  to  have  been 
founded  by  St.  Chariton,  about  the  middle  of  the 
4th  century,  near  the  Dead  Sea  (Bulteau,  Hist, 
l^lon.  d’ Orient.  282).  Other  famous  lauras  were 
those  of  St.  Euthymius,  near  Jerusalem,  in  the 
next  century,  and  of  St.  Sabas,  near  the  Jordan ; 
to  the  former  only  grown  men  were  admitted,  to 
the  latter  only  boys  (Helyot,  Hist,  des  Ordr. 
Mon.  Dissert.  Prelim.  §  5). 

The  motive  for  withdrawing  from  a  monas¬ 
tery  to  one  of  those  little  cells  clustering  round 
it  was,  apparently,  a  desire  in  some  cases  of  soli¬ 
tude,  in  others  of  a  less  austere  mode  of  life. 
Each  cell  had  a  small  garden  or  vineyard,  in 
which  the  monk  could  occupy  himself  at  pleasure 
(Du  Cange,  s.  v.).  But  sometimes  the  “Cellita” 
was  a  monk  with  aspirations  after  more  than 
ordinary  self-denial.  Thus  it  was  a  custom  at 
Vienna,  in  the  6th  century,  for  some  monk,  se¬ 
lected  as  pre-eminent  in  sanctity,  to  be  immured 
in  a  solitary  cell,  as  an  intercessor  for  the  people 
(Mab.  Ann.  iv.  44,  cf.  vii.  57). 

A  strict  rule  for  “Cellitae”  was  drawn  up  in 
the  9th  century  by  Grimlac.  Their  cells  were 
to  be  near  the  monastery,  either  standing  apart 
one  from  another  or  communicating  only  by  a 
window.  The  cellitae  were  to  be  supported  by 


•  KeAAiwnis  also  meant  an  imperial  chamberlain  at 
the  couit  of  Constantinople. 

''  “  Ad  nropriam  cellam  revertlsset”  is  taken  by  some 
commi  niaiors  as  r*  ferrlng  to  a  convent  of  nuns  already 
fo’-Uided  by  S‘»-  Scholastica  (Greg.  Dial,  ii,  34). 


their  own  work  or  by  alms  :  they  might  be  either 
clergy  or  laymen.  If  professed  monks,  they 
were  to  wear  the  dress  of  the  order;  if  not,  a 
cape  a-s  a  badge.  None  were  to  be  admitted  into 
the  “  Cellitae  ”  except  by  the  bishop  or  the 
abbat,  nor  without  a  noviciate.  They  were  to 
have  their  own  chapel  for  mass ;  and  a  window 
in  the  wall  of  the  church,  through  which  they 
might  “  assist  ”  at  the  services,  and  receive  the 
confessions  of  penitents.  A  seal  was  to  be  set 
by  the  bishop  on  the  door  of  each  cell,  never  to 
be  broken,  except  in  urgent  sickness  for  the 
necessary  medical  and  spiritual  comfort  (Helyot, 
Diss.  Pret.  §  5  ;  Bulteau,  Hist,  de  I'Ordre  S.  B.  I. 
ii.  21). 

The  term  cellulanus  has  been  supposed  equiva¬ 
lent  to  cellita.  It  is  used  by  Sidonius  Apolli- 
naris  for  the  Lei-inensian  monks  (IX.  Ep.  3,  ad 
Faust.').  According  to  Du  Cange  it  sometimes 
means  a  monk  sharing  the  same  cell  with 
another.  [1.  G.  S.] 

CELSUS.  (1)  Child-martyr  at  Antioch  un¬ 
der  Diocletian,  is  commemorated  Jan.  9  (^Mart. 
Pom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  with  Nazarius  at  Milan,  June  12 
(^Murt.  Usuardi). 

The  Mart.  Pom.  Vet.  places  the  invention  of 
the  relics  of  these  saints  on  this  day,  the  mar¬ 
tyrdom  on  July  28.  The  Cal.  Byzant.  comme 
morales  them  on  Oct.  14.  [C.J 

CEMETERY  (KoturiTTjptov,  Coemeterium). 
In  the  familiar  term  cemetery  w'e  have  an  ex¬ 
ample — one  among  many — of  a  new  and  nobler 
meaning  being  breathed  by  Christianity  into  a 
word  already  familiar  to  heathen  antiquity.  Al¬ 
ready  employed  in  its  natural  sense  of  a  “  sleep¬ 
ing  place  ”  (Dosid.  apud  Athenaeum,  143,  C.),  it 
became  limited  in  the  language  of  Christians  to 
the  places  where  their  brethren  who  had  fallen 
asleep  in  Christ  were  reposing  until  the  morning 
of  the  Resurrection.  Death,  through  the  Resur¬ 
rection  of  Jesus  Christ,  had  changed  its  nature 
and  its  name.  “  In  Christianis,”  writes  St.  Je¬ 
rome,  Ep.  29,  “  mors  non  est  mor.s,  sed  dorrnitio 
et  somnus  appellatur.”  “  Mortuos  consuevit 
dicere  dormientes  quia  evigilaturos,  id  est  resur- 
recturos  vult  intelligi”  (Aug.  Ps.  in  J's.  Ixxxvii.). 
And  the  spot  where  the  bodies  of  the  departed 
were  deposited  also  changed  its  designation  and 
received  a  new  and  significant  title.  The  faithful 
looked  on  it  as  a  Koiyr}Ti}piov,  “  a  sleeping-place  ;” 
the  name  being,  as  St.  Chi-ysostom  says,  a  per¬ 
petual  evidence  that  those  who  were  laid  there 
were  not  dead  but  sleeping :  Sia  Tovro  alnhs 
6  tJttos  Koip.r\ri}piov  wi/J/xacrrat  'Iva  fidOrfs  brt 
ol  TeXeuTTj/fJres  Ka\  cpravda  Keipcvoi  ov  t60j/7j- 
Kaai  aWa  Koi/xwyTui  Kal  KaSiv^ovai.  (^Homil. 
Ixxxi.) 

The  earliest  example  of  the  use  of  the  word 
is,  perhaps,  in  the  Philosophumena  of  Hippolytus, 
c.  222,  where  we  read  that  Zephyrinus,  bishop 
of  Rome,  “  set  ”  Callistus,  afterwards  his  suc¬ 
cessor,  “  over  the  cemetery F  tls  rh  KoiyrtTrfpiou 
KaT(o-TT)a(v  (I'hilosophum.  lib.  ix.  c.  7).  Here  the 
word  is  recognized  as  an  already  established  term. 
That  its  origin  was  exclusively  Christian,  and 
that  in  its  new  sense  it  was  a  term  unknown, 
and  hardly  intelligible  to  the  heathen  authorities, 
is  evidenced  by  the  form  of  the  edicts  which 
supply  the  next  examples  of  its  u.se.  In  the  pei- 
secution  under  V^ilerian,  a.d.  257,  Aemilianus 


330 


CEMETERY 


CEMETERY 


the  prefect  prohibited  the  Christians  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  ets  Ta  KahovfXfPa  Koi/xTjr-fipia  elcrt- 
4vai.  This  edict  was  revoked  by  Gallienus  on 
the  cessation  of  the  persecution,  c.  259,  and  an 
imperial  rescript  again  permitted  the  bishops 
Tix  Twv  KaXov  fJLiv  <ji3V  Koi/xr]Tt]p'ia}V  a-KoKap.- 
^dueiv  Had  the  term  been  one  in  familiar 

use  among  the  heathen  inhabitants,  it  would 
have  been  needless  to  have  thus  specilied  them. 

A  distinction  between  the  burial  places  of 
Christians  and  those  of  another  faith  had  its 
origin  in  the  very  first  ages  of  the  Church.  This 
principle  of  jealous  separation  after  death  be¬ 
tween  the  worshippers  of  the  True  God  and  the 
heathen  was  inherited  from  the  Jews.  The  Jews 
wherever  they  resided  had  their  own  places  of 
sepulchre,  from  which  all  but  their  co-religionists 
were  rigidly  excluded.  In  Rome  they  very  early 
had  a  catacomb  of  their  own  in  the  Monte  Verde 
on  the  Via  Portuensis,  outside  the  Trasteverine 
quarter  of  the  city,  which  was  their  chief  place 
of  residence.  Another  has  been  investigated  by 
De  Rossi  on  the  Via  Appia;  the  construction  of 
which  he  considers  takes  us  back  as  far  as  the 
time  of  Augustus.  So  also  the  Christians,  in 
death  as  well  as  in  life,  would  seek  to  carry 
out  the  apostolic  injunction  to  “  come  out,  and 
be  separate,  and  touch  not  the  unclean  thing.” 
The  faithful  brethren  of  the  little  flock,  the 
“  peculiar  ]5eople,”  lay  apart,  still  united  by  the 
ties  of  a  common  brotherhood,  waiting  for  “the 
great  and  terrible  day”  which  according  to  the 
universal  belief  of  the  primitive  church  was  so 
near  at  hand.  As  an  evidence  of  the  abhorrence 
felt  in  very  early,  though  not  the  earliest,  times 
of  uniting  Christians  and  pagans  in  one  common 
sepulchre,  we  may  refer  to  the  words  of  Cyprian, 
A.D.  254.  This  Father  upbraids  a  lapsed  Spanish 
bishop  named  Martialis,  among  other  crimes,  with 
having  associated  with  the  members  of  a  heathen 
funeral  college  and  joined  in  their  funeral  ban¬ 
quets,  and  having  buried  his  sons  in  the  cemetery 
over  which  they  had  superintendence — “  Praeter 
gentilium  turpia  et  lutulenta  convivia  et  collegia 
diu  frequentata,  filios  in  eodem  collegio,  exter- 
arum  gentium  more,  apud  profana  sepulchra 
depositos  et  alienigenis  consepultos  ”  (Cyprian. 
Ejjist.  67).  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  c.  860,  also  com¬ 
menting  on  the  text,  “  let  the  dead  bury  their 
dead,”  asserts  the  same  principle,  “  Ostendit 
Dominus  ....  inter  fidelem  filium  patremque  in- 
fidelem  jus  paterni  nominis  non  relinqui.  Ron 
obsequium  humandi  patris  negavit,  sed  .  .  .  ad- 
monuit  non  admisceri  memoriis  sanctorum  mor- 
tuos  infideles  ”  {Cumm.  in  Matt.  cap.  vii.).  These 
Christian  cemeteries  were  in  their  first  origin 
private  and  individual.  The  wealthier  members 
of  the  Church  were  buried  each  in  a  plot  of 
ground  belonging  to  hinr),  while  the  tombs  of 
the  poorer  sort,  like  that  of  their  Lord,  were 
dug  in  the  villas  or  gardens  of  rich  citizens  or 
matrons  of  substance  who  had  embraced  the  faith 
of  Christ,  and  devoted  their  property  to  His 
service.  The  titles  by  which  many  of  the  Roman 
cemeteries  are  still  designated,  though  often 
confused  with  the  names  of  conspicuous  saints 
and  martyrs  who  in  later  times  wore  interred  in 
them,  are  derived  from  their  original  possessors, 
some  of  whom  may  with  great  probability  be 
referred  to  very  early  if  not  apostolic  times. 
The  cemeteries  vvhich  are  designated  as  those  of 
Lucina,  Donjitilla,  Commodilla,  Cyriaca,  Priscilla, 


Practextatus,  Pontianus,  &c.,  were  so  called,  not 
as  being  the  burial  places  of  these  individuals, 
but  because  the  sepulchral  area  which  formed  the 
nucleus  of  their  ramifications  had  been  their  pro¬ 
perty.  Not  that  in  every  instance  the  original 
cemetery  received  this  large  extension.  Under¬ 
ground  Christian  tombs  have  been  found  in  the 
vicinity  of  Rome  consisting  of  no  more  than  a 
single  sepulchral  chamber,  so  that  some  of  these 
cemeteries  may  have  been  always  limited  to  the 
members  and  adherents  of  a  single  family.  The 
only  necessary  restriction  was  that  of  a  common 
fiith.  A  few  years  ago  a  gravestone  was  found 
in  the  catacomb  of  Nicomedes  outside  the  Porta 
Pia,  bearing  an  inscription  in  which  a  certain  Va¬ 
lerius  Mercurius,  according  to  the  Roman  custom, 
bequeathed  to  his  freedmen  and  freedwomen  and 
their  posterity  the  right  of  sepulture  in  the  same 
cemetery,  provided  that  they  belonged  to  his 
own  religion.  At  (ad)  rkligionem  pertine.vtes 
MEAM.  We  liave  another  example  of  the  same 
kind  in  an  inscription  which  may  Still  be  seen  in 
the  most  ancient  part  of  the  cemetery  of  Nereus 
and  Achilleus.  In  this  it  is  recorded  that  M. 
Antonins  Restitutus  made  a  hypogaeum  for  him¬ 
self  and  his  family  trusting  in  the  Lord,  “sibi 
et  suis  fidentibus  in  Domino.”  We  have  no 
example  of  language  of  this  kind  in  any  heathen 
epitaph.  The  strongest  tie  of  brotherhood  among 
Christians  was  a  common  faith.  This  bond  out¬ 
lasted  death,  and  nowhere  was  its  power  more 
felt  than  in  their  burials.  Nor  was  there  any¬ 
thing  in  the  social  or  religious  position  of  the 
first  Christians  in  Rome  and  elsewhere  to  curtail 
their  liberty  in  the  mode  of  the  disposing  of 
their  dead.  They  lived  in,  and  with  their  age, 
and  followed  its  customs  in  all  things  lawful.  No 
existing  laws  interfered  with  them.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  all  the  ordinances  of  the  Roman  legislation 
under  which,  as  citizens,  they  lived,  vvere  favour¬ 
able  to  the  acquisition  and  maintenance  of  burial 
places  by  the  Christians.  In  Rome  land  used 
for  interment  became  ipso  facto  invested  with  a 
religious  character  which  extended  not  only  to  the 
area  in  which  the  sepulture  took  place,  but  to 
the  hypogaea  or  subterranean  chambers  beneath 
it,  and  perhaps  also  to  the  cellae  memoriae,  the 
gardens,  orchards,  and  other  appurtenances  be¬ 
longing  to  them.  The  violation  of  a  tomb  was 
a  crime  under  the  Roman  law  visited  with  the 
severest  penalties.  According  to  Paulus  (Digest, 
lib.  xlvii.  tit.  xii.  §  11)  those  convicted  of  remov¬ 
ing  a  body  or  digging  up  the  bones  were,  if  per¬ 
sons  of  the  lowest  rank,  to  suffer  capital  punish¬ 
ment  ;  if  of  higher  condition,  to  be  banished  to 
an  island,  or  condemned  to  the  mines.  This 
privilege  reached  even  to  those  who,  as  martyrs, 
had  forfeited  their  lives  to  the  law.  The  I  iyect 
contains  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  most  eminent 
Roman  lawyers  that  the  bodies  of  criminals  might 
legalh"  be  given  up  to  those  who  asked  for  them. 

Corpora  animadvex'sorum  quibuslibet  petenti- 
bus  ad  se))ulturam  danda  sunt  ”  (Paulus  ap. 
Digest,  lib.  xlviii.  tit.  xxiv.).  LTpian  (^i'nd,  §  1) 
adduces  the  authority  of  the  Emperor  Augustus 
for  the  restoration  of  the  bodies  of  criminals 
to  their  relations.  In  his  own  time,  he  re¬ 
marks,  a  formal  petition  and  permissii>n  was 
requisite,  and  the  request  was  sometimes  refused, 
chiefly  in  cases  of  high  treason.  This  exception 
may  have  sometimes  interfered  with  the  Chris¬ 
tians  obtaining  possession  of  the  body  of  a  'martyr 


CEMETERY 


CEMETERY 


831 


who  had  refused  to  swear  “  by  the  fortune  of 
Caesar.”  But  for  the  first  two  centuries  there 
is  no  evidence  of  any  such  prohibition,  and 
unless  the  “  Acts  of  the  martyrs  ”  are  to  be 
altogether  discredited,  the  nucleus  of  many  of 
the  existing  catacombs  was  created  by  the  burial 
of  some  famous  martyr  on  the  private  property 
of  a  wealthy  Christian.  The  facilities  for  burial 
would  be  also  further  enlarged  by  the  existence 
of  lescalized  funeral  guilds  or  confraternities 
(coUe(jia),  associated  together  for  the  reverent 
celebration  of  the  funeral  rites  of  their  members. 
The  Christians  were  not  forbidden  by  any  I’ules 
of  their  own  society,  or  laws  of  the  empire,  to 
enter  into  a  corporate  union  of  this  kind.  The 
jurist  Marcian,  at  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  as  quoted  in  the  Digests  (^De  Colleg,  ei 
Corpor.  lib.  xlvii.  tit.  xxii.  1),  when  stating  the 
prohibitions  against  collegia  sudalicia,  soldiers’ 
clubs,  and  other  illicit  combinations,  expressly 
excepts  meetings  the  object  of  which  was  re¬ 
ligious,  “  religionis  causa  coire  non  prohibentur,” 
provided  they  were  not  forbidden  by  a  decree  of 
the  senate ;  as  well  as  associations  of  the  poorer 
classes  meeting  once  a  month  to  make  a  small 
payment  for  common  purposes,  one  of  which  was 
the  decent  burial  of  their  members,  “  permittitur 
tenuioribus  stipem  menstruam  conferre,  dum  ta- 
men  semel  in  mense  coeaut  ”  (Digest,  ibid.).  That 
such  associations  existed  among  Christians  with 
the  object,  among  others,  of  defraying  the  funeral 
expenses  of  their  poorer  brethren,  is  clear  from 
the  Apology  of  Tertullian.  He  says,  speaking 
of  the  area  publica,  or  public  chest :  “  Every  one 
makes  a  small  contribution  on  a  certain  day  of 
the  month  (modicarn  unusquisque  stipem  men¬ 
strua  die.  .  .  .  apponit),  or  when  he  chooses,  pro¬ 
vided  only  he  is  willing  and  able,  for  none  is 

compelled . The  amount  is,  as  it  were,  a 

common  fund  of  piety.  Since  it  is  expended  not 
in  feasting,  or  drinking,  or  indecent  excess,  but 
in  feeding  and  burging  the  poor,  &c.  (egenis 
alendis  humandis-(\ne).'’  Tertull.  Apolog.  c.  xxxix. 
The  first  historical  notice  we  have  of  any  in¬ 
terference  with  the  Christian  cemeteries  is  found 
in  Africa,  A.D.  203.  And  this  was  not  an  act  of 
the  civil  power,  but  was  simply  an  outbreak 
of  popular  bigotry.  “Areae  non  sint,”  Tertull. 
ad  iscapul.  c.  iii.  [AREA].  We  do  not  find 'any 
general  edict  aimed  at  the  Christian  cemeteries 
before  that  of  the  Emperor  Valerian,  A.D.  2b7  ; 
and  even  this  is  directed  not  against  the  ceme¬ 
teries  themselves  but  against  religious  meetings 
in  the  sacred  precincts,  and  is  absolutely  silent 
as  to  any  prohibition  of  burial.  After  this,  the 
cemeteries  became  expressly  recognized  by  the 
civil  power. 

We  cannot  doubt  that  places  of  interment 
must  have  been  provided  by  the  Church,  in 
its  corporate  capacity,  for  its  members  at  a 
very  early  period.  It  was  not  evei’y  Christian 
v/hose  dead  body  would  be  sure  of  receiving 
the  pious  ^are  that  attended  the  more  distin- 
gui.-.hed  members  of  the  Church.  Their  ab¬ 
horrence  of  cremation,  and  repugnance  against 
admixture  with  the  depai’tcd  heathen  forbad 
their  finding  a  resting  place  in  the  heathen 
columbaria.  The  horrible  puticuli  where  the 
bodies  of  the  lowest  slaves  were  thrown  to  rot  in 
an  undistinguished  mass,  could  not  be  permitted 
to  be  the  last  home  of  those  for  whom,  equally 
with  the  most  distinguished  members  of  the 


Church,  Christ  died.  “  Apud  nos,”  writes  Lac- 
tantius,  “inter  pauperes  et  divites,  servos  et  do¬ 
minos,  intere.st  nihil  ”  (Lact.  Div.  Inst.  v.  14,  1 5). 
A  common  cemetery  would  be  one  of  the  first 
necessities  of  a  Christian  Church  in  any  city  as 
soon  as  it  acquired  a  corporate  existence  and 
stability.  Rome  could  not  have  long  dispensed 
with  it.  And  when  we  read  of  Callistus  being 
“  set  over  the  cemetery,”  by  Pope  Zephyrinus 
(c.  202),  we  cannot  reasonably  question  that  the 
cemetery  which  we  know  from  Anastasius  “Cal¬ 
listus  made  (fecit)  on  the  Appian  way,  and  which 
is  called  to  the  present  day  the  cemetery  of  Cal¬ 
listus”  (Anastas.  §  17),  was  one  common  to  the 
whole  Christian  community,  formed  by  Callistus 
on  a  plot  of  ground  given  to  him  for  this  purpose 
by  some  Roman  of  distinction.  It  is  a  plausible 
conjecture  of  De  Rossi  that  the  example  of  tho.^-e 
who  had  bestowed  this  cemetery  on  the  Christian 
community  would  speedily'  be  followed  by  other 
believers  of  wealth,  and  that  others  of  the  larger 
cemeteries  which  surround  Rome  ow'e  their  origin, 
or  fuller  development  to  this  epoch.  This  pro¬ 
bability  is  strengthened  when  we  find  it  recorded 
by  Pope  Fabian,  in  the  early  part  of  the  same 
century  (a.d.  238),  that  “after  he  had  divided 
the  regions  among  the  deacons  he  ordered  nu¬ 
merous  buildings  to  be  constructed  in  the  ceme¬ 
teries  ”  (multas  fabricas  per  coemeteria  fieri 
praecepit),  Anast.  §  21.  It  was  in  one  of  these 
memorial  chapels  that  in  all  probability  Pone 
Xy'stus  II.  was  martyred,  a.d.  261,  “  in  coemeterio 
animadversum,”  Cyprian,  Ep.  80  (81).  Anas¬ 
tasius  records  that  the  charge  under  which  he 
suffered  was  contempt  for  the  commands  of  Va¬ 
lerian  (Anast.  §  25),  and,  as  we  have  seen,  one  of 
the  persecuting  edicts  of  that  emperor  forbad  the 
Christians  to  enter  their  cemeteries.  Among 
the  internal  arrangements  of  the  church  attri¬ 
buted  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis  to  Dionysius  (a.d. 
261-272)  is  the  institution  of  cemeteries,  “coe¬ 
meteria  instituit  ”  (Anast.  §26).  From  this  pe¬ 
riod  large  public  cemeteries  became  a  recognized 
part  of  the  organization  of  the  Christian  Church, 
it  was  considered  a  duty  incumbent  on  the  richer 
members  to  provide  for  the  revei'ent  interment  of 
the  poor,  and  where  other  means  were  wanting, 
St.  Ambrose  sanctioned  the  sale  of  the  sacred 
vessels  by  the  Christian  community  rather  than 
that  the  dead  should  want  burial  (Ambros.  de 
Offic.  lib.  ii.  c.  28). 

The  form,  position,  and  arrangements  of  the 
early  Christian  cemeteries  were  not  regulated 
by  any  uniform  system,  but  were  modified  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  customs  of  the  country,  the  nature 
of  the  soil,  and  the  conditions  of  climate. 
Attention  having  been  for  a  long  time  chief! v 
drawn  to  the  subterranean  cemeteries  of  Rome, 
it  has  been  too  hastily  inferred  that  all  the  earlv 
Christian  burial  places  were  underground  vaults. 
But  as  Mommsen  says,  “the  idea  that  the  dead 
were  usually  buried  in  such  vaults  in  earlv 
Christian  times  is  as  erroneous  as  it  is  prevalent  ” 
(Co7itempor.  liev.,  May  1871,  p.  166).  We  know 
that  at  Carthage  the  Christian  dead  were  buried, 
not  in  hgpogaea^  but  in  open  plots  of  ground, 
areae  sepultu>'arum  nostrarum."  Against  these 
burial  places  the  populace  dii’ected  their  mad 
attack  with  the  wild  cry,  “  Down  with  the  burial 
places”  (areae  non  sint),  and  with  the  fury  of 
Bacchanals  dug  up  the  graves,  dragged  forth  the 
decaying  corpses,  and  tore  them  into  traginonts 


332 


cp:metery 


CEMETERY 


(Tei'tull  ad  Soap,  3,  Apolog.  c.  xxxvii.).  Half  a 
century  later  we  find  the  word  in  use  at  Car¬ 
thage.  St.  Cyprian  was  buried  “  ad  areas  Ma- 
crol)ii  Candidiani  procuratoris  ”  (Kuinart,  Acta 
Martyrum  Sincera,  p.  263).  It  also  occurs  in  the 
Acts  of  Montanus  and  Lucius,  “  in  medio  eorum 
in  area  solum  servari  jussit  (Montanus)  ut  nec 
sepulturae  consortio  privaretur”  (^ib.  279).  The 
same  term  is  found  in  connection  with  a  monu¬ 
mental  cemetery  chapel,  cella  memoriae,  in  a  very 
remarkable  inscription  from  Caesarea  in  Maure¬ 
tania  (lol)  given  by  De  Rossi  (^Bullet,  di  Arch, 
Crist.  April,  1864)  : — 

“  Aream  at  (ad)  scpulchra  cultor  verbl  contulit, 

Et  cellam  stnixii  suis  cunctis  sumptibus. 

Kclesiae  sanctae  hanc  reliquit  inemoriatn. 

Salveie  fratres  puro  corde  et  siinplici, 

Euf'lpias  VOS  satos  sancto  Spiritu. 

Eclesia  Fratrum  liunc  rostitult  titulum. 

Ex  ing.  Asteri.” 

“This  graveyard  was  given  by  the  servant  of 
the  VVord,  who  has  also  built  the  chapel  entirelv 
at  his  own  expense.  He  left  the  memoria  to  the 
Holy  Church.  Hail,  brethren!  Euelpias  with 
a  pure  and  simple  heart  greets  you,  born  of  the 
‘Holy  Spirit.”  The  remainder  of  the  inscription 
records  the  restoration  of  the  titulus,  which  had 
been  damaged  in  one  of  the  former  persecutions, 
by  the  Ecclesia  Fratrum.  The  concluding  words, 
“  ex  ingenio  Asterii,”  give  the  name  of  the  poet. 

We  find  sufficient  evidence  of  this  custom  of 
burying  in  enclosed  graveyards,  according  to  the 
modern  usage,  prevailing  in  other  districts.  The 
language  of  St.  Chrysostom  with  respect  to  the 
immense  concourse  of  people  who  assembled  on 
Easter  Eve  and  other  special  anniversaries  for 
worship  and  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  in 
the  cemeteries  and  at  the  martyria,  with  which 
the  city  of  Antioch  was  surrounded,  can  only  be 
interpreted  of  cemeteries  above  ground.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  reference  to  subterranean 
vaults,  which  would  have  been  altogether  inade¬ 
quate  to  receive  the  multitudes  who  thronged 
thithei'  (cf.  Chrysost.  Horn.  81,  €ts  rb  ovoya  kol- 
/j-yrripiov  ]  Horn.  65,  de  Ma7'tyrihus ;  Horn.  67, 
in  Dt'O'.idem).  The  same  inference  as  to  the 
position  of  the  cemeteries  may  be  legitimately 
drawn  from  other  passages  of  early  writers. 
This  is  the  only  satisfactory  interpretation  of 
the  passage  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions 
(lib.  vi.  c.  30),  relating  to  assemblies  held  in 
the  cemeteries  “  for  reading  the  sacred  books, 
singing  in  behalf  of  the  martyrs  which  are 
fallen  asleep,  and  for  all  the  saints  from  the 
besfinnino;  of  the  world  and  for  the  brethren  that 
are  asleep  in  the  Lord,  and  offering  the  accept¬ 
able  Eucharist.”  We  learn  also  from  Athanasius 
(Apoloy.  pro  Fuja,  p.  704)  that  during  the  week 
after  Pentecost  the  people  fasted  and  went  out 
to  pray  ire  pi  ra  KoiyrjTr^pia.  The  prohibitions  of 
the  Council  of  Elvira  (a.d.  305,  Canon,  34,  35) 
of  the  custom  of  females  passing  the  night  in 
the  cemeteries,  which  was  the  cause  of  many 
scandals  under  the  colour  of  religion  (cf.  Pe- 
tron.  Arbit.  Matrona  Ephes.),  and  of  the  light¬ 
ing  of  candles  in  them  during  the  day-time, 
“  placuit  cereos  in  coemeteriis  non  accendi,  inqui- 
etandi  enim  Sanctorum  spiritus  non  sunt  ”  (cf. 
1  Sam.  xxviii.  15,  “Quaj’e  inquietasti  me  ui  sus- 
citarer?”),  indicate  open-air  cemeteries  fur¬ 
nished  with  martyria,  monuments,  and  memorial 


chapels,  not  subterranean  vaults.  We  would  ex- 
j  plain  in  the  same  way  the  110th  canon  of  thf 
Council  of  Laodicaea  (a.d.  366)  forbidding  mem 
bers  of  the  Church  to  resort  to  the  cemeteries 
or  rruirtyria  of  heretics  for  the  purpose  of  prayer 
and  divine  service,  eux'/js  ^  depaneia^  tVe/ca. 
Sidonius  Apollinaris,  bishop  of  Clermont,  d.  482, 
describes  the  burial  place  of  his  grandfather  as 
a  grave  (scrobs)  in  a  field  (campus)  (Sidon.  Apoll. 
lib.  iii.  ep.  12). 

Nor  even  in  Rome  itself,  though  the  actual 
place  of  interment  was  as  a  rule  in  a  subter¬ 
ranean  excavation,  now  known  as  a  catacomb, 
does  the  word  coemeterium  exclusively  denote 
these  underground  vaults.  De  Rossi,  following 
Settele  (Atti  della  Pont.  Acad,  d'  Arch.  tom.  ii. 
p.  51)  has  abundantly  shown  in  his  Roma  Sot- 
terranea  (cf.  vol.  i.  pp.  86,  93,  &c.),  that  coeme¬ 
terium.  when  it  occurs  in  the  Lives  of  the  Pojies 
and  other  early  documents  frequently  denotes 
the  monumental  chapels  and  oratories,  together 
with  the  huts  of  the  fcssores  and  other  officials, 
erected  in  the  funeral  enclosure.  “  The  long 
peace  from  the  I'eign  of  Caracalla  to  that  of  De- 
cius  might  well  have  encouraged  the  Christians  to 
erect  such  buildings,  and  allowed  them  to  make 
frequent  use  of  them  notwithstanding  occasional 
disturbances  from  popular  violence  ”  (Northcote, 
R.  S.  p.  86-87).  When  we  read  of  popes  and 
other  Christian  confessors  taking  refuge  in  the 
cemeteries  and  living  in  them  for  a  considerable 
period,  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  they  actually 
passed  their  time  underground,  under  circum¬ 
stances  and  in  an  atmosphere  which  would  render 
life  hardly  possible,  but  in  one  of  the  buildings 
annexed  to  the  cemeteries,  either  for  religious 
purposes,  or  for  the  gua)’dianship  of  the  sacred  en¬ 
closures.*  Thus  when  we  read  in  Anastasius  (§  60) 
that  Boniface  1.  in  the  storm}  period  that  ac¬ 
companied  the  double  election  to  the  popedom, 
A.D.  419,  “  habitavit  in  coemeterio  Sanctae  Fe- 
licitatis,”  we  find  Symmachus,  his  contemporary, 
writing  without  any  allusion  to  the  place  of  his 
retirement,  “  extra  murum  deductus  non  longe 
ab  urbe  remoratur  ”  (Symmach.  Ep.  x.  73).  We 
have  a  distinct  example  belonging  to  the  same 
period,  of  residence  in  a  cella  of  a  cemetery.  This 
is  the  priest  Barbatianus,  who  having  come  from 
Antioch  to  Rome  retired  to  the  cemetery  of  Cal- 
listus,  “  clam  latens  in  cellula  sua  ”  (Agnellus, 
Vitae  Pont.  Ravenn.).  Ptolemaeus  Silvius,  quoted 
by  De  Rossi,  Bulletthio,  Giugno,  1863,  writing  A.D. 
448,  speaks  of  the  innumerable  cellulae  dedicated 
to  the  martyrs  with  which  the  areas  of  the 
cemeteries  were  studded.  All  these  buildings 
taken  collectively  were  often  comprised  under 
the  name  coemeterium.  Onuphrius  Panvinius 
(d.  1568),  one  of  the  earlie.st  writers  on  Christian 
interment,  De  Ritu  sepeliend.  Mort.  apud  vet. 
Christ.,  p.  85,  expressly  states  that  “  inasmuch 
as  worshippers  were  wont  to  assemble  in  large 
numbers  at  the  tombs  of  the  martyrs  on  the 
anniversaries  of  their  death,  the  name  of  cemetery 
was  extended  to  capacious  places  adjacent  to 
the  cemeteries,  suitable  for  public  meetings 
for  prayer.”  “We  read,”  he  continues,  “that 
the  early  Roman  pontiffs  were  in  the  habit  of 
keeping  these  stations,  that  is,  performing  all 
their  public  pontifical  acts  among  the  tombs  of 


*  Express  reference  is  made  by  Ulpian  to  the  habit  of 
dwelling  lu  sepulchres  (Digest.  Ub.  xlvii.  tit.  xii.  ^  3). 


CEMETERY 


CHALCEDON 


333 


the  mnvtyrs.  And  thus  these  cemetevies  were 
to  the  Christians  as  it  were  temples,  and  places 
of  prayer  in  which  bishops  used  to  gather  their 
fivnods,  administer  the  sacraments,  and  preach 
the  word  of  God.”  [Churchyard.] 

That  the  term  cooneterium  was  not  restricted 
to  the  subterranean  places  of  interment  is  also 
clear  from  the  fact  that  though  interment  in  the 
catacombs  had  entirely  ceased  in  the  5th  cen¬ 
tury,  we  read  of  one  pope  after  another  being 
buried  in  coemeterio  (cf.  Siricius,  A.D.  398,  Anast. 
§55;  Anastasius  A.D.  402,  f6.  §  56 ;  Bonifacius, 
A.D.  422,  ib.  §  61  ;  Coelestinus,  A.D.  432,  ib.  §62). 
Even  of  Vigilius,  who  died  A.D.  555,  long  after 
the  catacombs  were  disused  for  burial  and  had  be¬ 
come  nothing  more  than  places  of  devotion  at  the 
tombs  of  the  martyrs,  we  read  {ib.  §  108),  “  cor¬ 
pus  .  .  .  sej)ultum  est  ...  in  coemeterio  Priscil- 
lae  ”  (Anast.  §  108).  Hadrian  I.  in  his  celebrated 
letter  to  Charlemagne  on  images,  also  makes 
mention  of  the  pictures  executed  by  Coelestinus 
“in  coemeterio  suo”  {Concilia,  Ed.  Mansi  xiii. 
p.  801).  (For  fuller  particulars,  see  De  Rossi, 
Bom.  Soft.  vol.  i.  p.  216,  217).  There  is  an  ap¬ 
parent  exception  in  the  case  of  Zosimus,  A.D.  418, 
Sixtus  III.  A.D.  440,  and  Hilarius,  A.D.  468,  all 
of  whom  are  stated  to  have  been  buried  “ad 
Sanctum  Laurentium  in  crypta  ”  (Anast.  §  59, 
65,  71).  But  as  De  Rossi  remarks  the  exception 
only  proves  the  rule.  For  this  crypt  did  not 
at  this  time  form  part  of  the  extensive  cemetery 
of  St.  Cyriaca,  but  was  the  substructui-e  of  the 
altar  {confessio)  of  the  Basilica  erected  over  it 
by  Constantine,  A.D.  330,  of  which  it  formed  the 
nucleus.  The  result  of  his  investigation  is  thus 
summed  up  by  De  Rossi,  u.  s. :  “  It  is  manifest 
that  the  cemeteries  in  which  during  the  fifth  cen¬ 
tury  the  bodies  of  the  popes  were  interred  were 
all  buildings  under  the  open  sky,  and  that  history 
is  in  accord  with  the  monuments  in  presenting 
no  single  example  in  that  period  of  a  burial 
performed  according  to  the  ancient  rites  in 'the 
primitive  subterranean  excavations.” 

Although  the  words  Koipyrripiou,  coemeterium, 
were  generally  apjdied  to  the  whole  sepulchral 
area,  and  the  buildings  included  within  it,  yet 
instances  are  not  wanting  in  which  it  is  used  of 
a  single  grave.  The  examples  adduced  by  De 
Rossi  {B.  S.  p.  85)  are  exclusively  Greek.  He 
refers  to  Corpus  Inscr.  Graec.,  n.  9298  ;  9304—6  ; 
9310-16:  9439-40;  9450;  and  mentions  a  bi¬ 
lingual  inscription  from  Narbonne  of  the  year 
527,  in  which  the  tomb  is  styled  KTMETEPION. 
In  Boldetti,  p.  633,  we  have  an  inscription  from 
Malta  stating  that  the  KOIMHTHPION  had  been 
purchased  and  restored  by  a  Christian  named 
Zosimus.  Aringhi  also  {Bom.  Subt.  tom.  i.  p.  5) 
adduces  an  example  of  a  sarcophagus  bearing 
this  designation,  KOIMHTHPION  TOTTO  HK- 
TABIAAH  TH  lAIA  FTNAIKI  AATAAKIE. 
The  word  is  of  exce.ssive  rarity  in  the  catacombs 
themselves.  The  epitaph  of  Sabinus  (Ferret  V. 
xxix.  67),  in  which  we  read  Cvmrterium-  Bal- 
BIXAE,  is  perhaps  the  only  instance  known. 

The  Latin  equivalents  for  KoiprjTripiov  most 
usually  found  were  either  donnitorium  —  e.  g.. 
Fecit  in  pace  Domini  Dormitorium  (cf.  Reines, 
Syntagm.  Inscr.  Antiq.  356) ;  “  Pompeiana  nia- 


•>  In  the  Sacramevla.rium  Eccl.  Roman,  the  Missa 
in  Cijmi-teriis,  cap.  103,  contains  prayers  for  the  souls 
"  ontnium  hdelium  in  hac  Basilica  quiesceutium." 


trona  corpus  eju.s  de  judice  emit  et  imposuit  in 
dormitorio  suo  ”  {Acta  S.  Maximil.  apud  Ruinart, 
p.  264) — or  in  Africa,  acculntorium  (De  Rossi, 
B.S.  i.  p.  86).  A  long  list  of  other  names  by  which 
at  various  ej)ochs  and  in  ditlerent  countries, 
Christian  places  of  interment  were  designated 
may  be  found  in  Boldetti  {Osservazioni,  pp. 
581-586). 

(Bingham,  Grig.  Eccl.  bk.  viii.  ch.  8-  10,  bk. 
xxiii.  ch.  1-2 ;  Boldetti,  Osservazioni  sopra  i 
Cimeterii;  Bottari,  Sculture  e  pitture  sagre ; 
Bosio,  Boma  Sotterranea  ;  Aringhi,  A’o/na  Subter- 
ranea  ;  Panvinius,  De  Bitu  Sepeliendi ;  Anasta- 
sius,  De  Vitis  Bom.  Pontif.  ;  Raoul-Rochette, 
lableau  des  Catacombes  ;  De  Rossi,  Boma  Sotter¬ 
ranea  ;  Northcote  and  Brownlow,  Boma  Sotter¬ 
ranea).  [E.  V.] 

CENSER.  [Thurible.] 

CENSURIUS,  bishop  and  confessor  at  Aux- 
erre  (about  a.d.  500,  is  commemorated  June  10 
{yiart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CEREAIjIS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome  under 
Hadrian,  is  commemorated  June  10  {Mart.  Bom. 
Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Soldier,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Decius, 
Sept.  14  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CEREMONIALE.  A  book  containing  direc¬ 
tions  or  rubrics  for  the  due  performance  of  cer¬ 
tain  ceremonies.  The  more  ancient  term  for  such 
a  book  is  Ordo,  which  see.,  [C.] 

CEREUS.  [Taper.] 

CEREUS  PASCHALIS.  [Maundy 
Thursday.] 

CHAIR.  [Cathedra:  Throne.] 

CHALCEDON  (Councils  of),  (i)  a.d. 
403,  better  known  as  “the  Synod  of  the  Oak” — a 
name  given  to  a  suburb  there — at  which  St. 
Chrysostom  was  deposed.  To  appreciate  its 
proceedings,  we  should  remember  that  St.  John 
Chrysostom  had  been  appointed  to  the  see  of 
Constantinople  five  years  before,  and  that  Theo- 
philus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  had  been  summoned 
thither  by  the  emperor  Arcadius  to  ordain  him. 
Theophilus  had  a  presbyter  of  his  own  whom  he 
would  have  preferred,  named  Isidore,  so  that  in 
one  sense  he  consecrated  St.  Chrysostom  under 
constraint.  It  was  against  the  2nd  of  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan  canons  likewise  for  him  to  have 
consecrated  at  all  out  of  his  own  diocese :  but  in 
another  sense  he  was  probably  not  loth  to  make 
St.  Chrysostom  beholden  to  him,  and  be  possessed 
of  a  pretext  himself  for  interfering  in  a  see 
threatening  to  eclipse  his  own,  where  he  could 
do  so  with  effect.  Hence  the  part  played  by  him 
at  the  Synod  of  the  Oak,  over  which  he  presided, 
and  in  which  no  less  than  12  sessions  were  occu¬ 
pied  on  charges  brought  against  St.  Chrysostom 
himself,  and  a  13th  on  charges  brought  against 
Heraclides,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  who  had  been  or¬ 
dained  by  him  (Mansi  iii.  1141-54).  The  num¬ 
ber  of  charges  alleged  against  St.  Chrysostom 
was  29  at  one  time  and  18  at  another.  When 
cited  to  appear  and  reply  to  thcrti,  his  answer 
was:  “Remove  my  avowed  enemies  from  your 
list  of  judges,  and  I  am  ready  to  appear  and 
make  my  defence,  should  any  pei’son  bring  aught 
against  me ;  otherwise  you  may  .send  as  often  as 
you  will  for  me,  but  you  will  get  no  farther.” 
And  the  first  of  those  whom  he  reckoned  as  such 


334 


CHALCEDON 


CHALCEDON 


was  Theophilus.  One  of  the  charges  against 
him  was  some  unworthy  language  that  he  had 
used  to  St.  Epiphanius,  lately  deceased,  who  had 
supported  Tirnotheus  in  condemning  the  origi- 
nists,  regarded  by  St.  Chrysostom  with  more 
favour.  The  others  refer  to  his  conduct  in  his 
own  church,  or  towards  his  own  clergy.  The 
synod  ended  by  deposing  St.  Chrysostom,  having 
cited  him  four  times  to  no  purpose ;  when  he 
was  immediately  expelled  the  city  by  the  em¬ 
peror,  and  withdi’ew  into  Bithynia,  to  be  very 
shortly  recalled. 

(2)  The  4th  general  — held  its  first  session, 
October  8,  A.D.  451,  in  the  church  of  St. 
Euphemia  —  for  the  architectural  arrangements 
of  which  see  Evagidus  (ii.  3) — having  been  con¬ 
vened  by  the  emperor  Marcian  shortly  after  his 
elevation.  In  his  circular  to  the  bishops  (Mansi, 
vi.  551—4),  he  bids  them  come  to  Kicaea — the 
place  chosen  by  him  originally — to  settle  “  some 
questions  that  he  says  had  arisen  apparently 
respecting  the  orthodox  faith,  and  been  also  shown 
him  in  a  letter  from  the  archbishop  of  Rome.” 
But  in  reality  St.  Leo  had  urged  a  very  different 
course.  In  his  last  epistle  to  the  late  emperor 
he  had  indeed  petitioned  that  a  council  might  be 
held  in  Italy,  should  a  council  be  required  at  all 
(j6.  83-5) :  and  when  Marcian  applied  to  him 
“  to  authoi'ise  ”  the  council  about  to  be  held  («6. 
93—4),  his  reply  was  that  he  would  rather  it 
were  postponed  till  the  times  w'ere  more  favour¬ 
able  (i6.  114—5).  It  was  only  when  he  found 
his  advice  unheeded  that  he  decided  on  sending 
representatives  thither  (i5.  126-9),  and  then  on 
the  solemn  understanding  that  there  should  be 
no  resettlement  attempted  of  the  Nicene  faith. 
Even  so,  he  reminds  the  empress  (ib.  138-9)  that 
his  demand  had  been  for  a  council  in  Italy ;  and 
tells  the  council  expressly  that  his  representa¬ 
tives  are  to  preside  there,  custom  forbidding  his 
own  presence  (i6.  131-5).  His  representatives, 
on  their  part,  warn  the  emperor  that  unless  he 
is  present  in  person  they  cannot  attend  (j6.  557- 
8).  Hence,  to  facilitate  this  arrangement,  the 
council  is  transferred  to  Chalcedon.  Bishops  to 
the  number  of  360  attended,  in  some  cases  by 
deputy,  the  1st  action,  and  19  of  the  highest  lay 
dignitaries  represented  the  emperor.  Usually 
630  bishops  are  said  to  have  been  at  the  council 
sooner  or  later  (Bever.  ii.  107).  It  might  have 
been  supposed  this  total  had  been  gained  origi¬ 
nally  by  placing  the  6  before,  instead  of  after, 
the  3  :  still  there  are  470  episcopal  subscriptions 
to  the  6th  action,  and  members  of  the  council 
themselves  spoke  of  it  as  one  of  600  bishops 
(Mansi,  vii.  57,  and  the  note). 

As  to  their  places  in  church,  the  lay  dignitaries 
occupied  the  centre,  in  front  of  the  altar-screen ; 
and  one  of  the  most  remarkable  traits  of  this 
council  is  their  control  of  its  proceedings  all 
through.  On  their  left  were  the  legates  from 
Rome,  and  next  to  them  Anatolius  of  Constan¬ 
tinople,  Maximus  of  Antioch,  Thalassius  of  Caesa¬ 
rea,  Stephen  of  Ephesus,  and  other  Easterns.  On 
their  right  were  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria,  Juvenal 
of  Jerusalem,  with  the  bishops  of  Egypt,  Illyria, 
and  Palestine  generally.  On  the  motion  of 
Paschasiuus,  the  first  legate,  Dioscorus  was 
ordered  by  the  magistrates  to  quit  the  seat  occu¬ 
pied  by  him  in  the  council,  and  to  take  his  place 
in  the  midst  where  the  accused  sat.  The  charges 
alleged  against  him  by  the  legates  were  that  he 


had  held  a  council  and  sat  as  judge,  without 
permission  of  the  apostolic  see.  Eusebius  of 
Dorylaeum,  sitting  in  the  midst  as  his  accuser, 
complained  of  the  iniquitous  sentence  passed 
upon  Flavian  and  himself  at  the  council  of 
Ephesus  (see  the  art.  on  thi.s)  two  years  before. 
Dio.scorus  begged  its  acts  might  be  read.  This 
was  done :  but  meanwhile  Theodoret,  bishop  of 
Cyrus,  who  had  been  deposed  there,  having  since 
been  restored  by  St.  Leo,  and  invited  to  this 
council  by  the  emperor,  entered  and  took  his 
seat,  amidst  vehement  protests  from  the  bishops 
on  the  right.  After  the  acts  of  the  “  Robbers’ 
Meeting”  had  been  read,  which  included  those 
of  the  two  synods  of  Constantinople  pi-eceding  it, 
all  agreed  that  Dioscorus,  Juvenal,  Thalassius, 
and  three  more,  who  had  been  most  forward  in 
deposing  Eusebius  and  Flavian,  deserved  to  be 
deposed  themselves.  The  rest  might  be  par¬ 
doned,  as  having  acted  in  ignorance  or  under 
coercion. 

Action  or  session  2  followed,  October  10. 
The  judges  or  lay  dignitaries  proposing  that  the 
faith  should  be  set  forth  in  its  integrity, 
the  bishops  replied  that  they  were  limited  to  the 
creed  of  Nicaea,  confirmed  at  Ephesus,  and  in¬ 
terpreted  by  the  letters  of  SS.  Cyril  and  Leo 
more  particularly.  On  this  it  was  recited  bv 
command  of  the  judges,  from  a  book  by  Euno- 
mius,  bishop  of  Kicomedia,  amidst  shouts  of 
adhesion.  And  immediately  after,  without  a 
word  more,  by  order  of  the  same  judges,  Aetius 
or  Atticus,  deacon  or  archdeacon  of  the  church 
of  Constantinople,  recited  from  a  book  what 
purported  to  be  the  creed  of  the  150  fathers, 
that  is,  of  the  2nd  general  council,  on  which 
some  remarks  hav'e  been  made  elsewhere. 
[CONC.  Const,  and  Antioch.]  But  the  abrupt¬ 
ness  of  its  introduction  here  merits  attention, 
especially  when  viewed  in  connection  with  a 
short  scene  in  the  1st  action  (Mansi,  vi.  631-2). 
Diogenes,  bishop  of  Cyzicus,  there  remarked  that 
Eutyches  had  dealt  fraudulently  in  professing 
his  faith  in  the  words  of  the  creed  of  Xicaea,  as 
it  stood  originally ;  for  it  had  received  additions 
from  the  holy  fathers  since  then,  owing  to  the 
false  teaching  of  Apollinarius,  Valentinus,  Mace- 
donius,  and  their  followers;  two  such  being 
“  from  heaven  ”  after  “  descended,”  and  “  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ”  after  “  in¬ 
carnate.”  This  is  the  first  clfear  reference  to  the 
new  clauses  of  the  Constautinopolitan  creed  in 
this  or  any  other  council  extant  And  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  even  the  creed  of  Xicaea,  quoted 
in  the  definition,  contains  them.  But  Diogenes 
had  hardly  finished  his  sentence,  when  the 
Egyptian  bishops  exclaimed,  “nobody  will  hear 
of  any  additions  or  subtractions  either:  let  what 
passed  at  Xicaea  stand  as  it  i.>!.”  Dioscorus  had 
ura:ed  this  all  along.  Thus  advantage  was 
promptly  taken  of  his  condemnation  to  promul¬ 
gate  this  creed  in  the  same  breath  with  that  of 
Nicae?i,  while  the  account  given  of  the  additions 
occurring  in  it  by  Diogenes  is  such  as  to'  connect 
it  at  once  with  those  synods  of  Antioch  and 
Rome,  at  which  the  errors  of  Apollinarius  and 
Macedonius  were  condemned.  Its  recital  was 
followed  bv  the  same  shouts  of  adhesion  as  the 
older  form,  which  is  the  more  remarkable  as,  up 
to  that  time,  stress  had  been  laid  exclusively, 
both  here  and  at  the  synods  rehearsed  in  the 
first  action,  on  the  ci'eed  of  Xicaea,  confirmed  at 


CHAI.CEDON 


CHALCEDON 


335 


Ej)hesus,  without  the  slightest  reference  to  any- 
tliing  that  had  ever  passed  at  Constantinople. 
After  this,  the  two  letters  of  St.  Cyril  were  read 
that  had  been  heard  already  from  the  acts  of  the 
council  under  Flavian,  and  then  the  letter  of  St. 
lyco  to  Flavian — the  reading  of  which  had  been 
prevented  at  the  “Robbers’  Meeting”  —  in  a 
Greek  translation.  Three  passages  in  it  were 
called  in  question  by  the  bishops  of  Illyria  and 
Pale.stiue ;  but  Aetius  and  Theodoret  producing 
similar  expressions  from  St.  Cyi’il,  they  were 
accepted.  Five  days  were  allowed  for  further 
deliberation. 

At  the  3rd  action,  however,  October  13, 
two  days  in  advance  from  which  the  lay  dig¬ 
nitaries  Avere  absent,  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum 
having  brought  another  indictment  against  Dios- 
corus,  fresh  charges  were  produced  against  him 
also  by  tAvo  deacons  and  one  layman  of  his  own 
church,  and  he  not  appearing  to  meet  them, 
after  having  been  twice  summoned,  Avas  formally 
deposed — the  Roman  legates,  by  general  consent, 
delivering  their  judgment  first,  and  the  rest  in 
order  assenting  to  it — but  the  sentence  of  his 
deposition  was  framed  on  the  model  of  that  of 
Kestorius.  Letters  were  written  to  the  emperor 
and  empress  and  to  his  own  clergy,  acquainting 
them  Avith  it. 

Action  4  followed,  October  17,  or  rather  15 
(see  Mansi,  vii.  83),  Avhen  the  judges  appeared 
true  to  their  engagement.  By  their  order 
minutes  of  the  1st  and  2nd  actions  were  read 
out,  to  the  marked  exclusion  of  what  had  passed 
at  the  3rd.  They  then  called  upon  the  bishops 
to  declare  what  had  been  decided  by  them  re¬ 
specting  the  faith.  The  legates  replied  by  pro¬ 
nouncing  the  faith  of  Nicaea,  Constantinople,  and 
Ephesus  to  haA"e  been  embraced  by  the  council 
and  expounded  faithfully  by  St.  Leo  in  his  epistle 
to  Flavian.  To  thi.s,  all  present  assented ;  and 
.luA’enal,  Thalassius,  Eusebius,  Basil,  and  Eusta¬ 
thius,  the  five  bishops  who  had,  in  the  1st  action, 
been  classed  Avith  Dioscorus,  Avere  permitted  to 
sit  in  the  council  on  subscribing  to  it.  Con¬ 
sideration  of  a  petition  from  13  Egyptian  bishops 
who  objected  to  do  so  Avas  adjourned  till  they 
had  elected  a  new  archbishop.  Eighteen  priests 
and  archimandrites  Avho  had  petitioned  the  em¬ 
peror  Avere  next  heard.  Among  them  Avas  Bar- 
sumas  the  Syrian,  accused  of  having  murdered 
Flavian.  The  burden  of  their  petition  was  that 
Dioscorus  should  be  restored.  The  4th  and  5th 
canons  of  Antioch  were  quoted  from  a  book — in 
it  numbered  as  canons  83  and  4 — against  them, 
and  they  were  allowed  30  days  for  consideration 
whether  to  submit  to  the  council  or  be  deposed. 
Lastly,  Photius  of  Tyre  was  heard  in  behalf  of 
the  rights  of  his  chui'ch  against  Eustathius  of 
Berytus,  Avhose  city  had  been  created  a  metro- 
j)olis  by  the  late  emperor.  The  council  ruled, 
and  the  judges  concurred,  that  the  question  be¬ 
tween  them  should  be  settled  according  to  the 
canons,  and  not  prejudiced  by  any  pragmatical 
constitutions  of  the  empire. 

On  the  5th  action,  commencing  October  22, 
the  judges  called  on  the  bishops  to  produce  what 
had  been  defined  by  them  on  the  hiith.  When 
read  it  gave  offence  to  the  legates  and  some  few 
Easterns,  as  not  including  the  letter  of  St.  Leo. 
The  former  threatened  to  leaA'e,  and  Avere  told 
they  might ;  but  on  reference  to  the  emperor, 
he  said  a  synod  should  be  held  in  the  West,  if 


they  could  not  agree.  A  committee  Avas  there* 
fore  formed  of  the  principal  bishops,  and  at 
length  the  definition  appeared  Avith  the  creeds 
of  Nicaea  and  Constantinople  folloAving  in  suc- 
ce.ssion,  but  authori.sed  equally,  in  the  fii’st  part 
of  it;  and  in  the  second,  the  synodical  letters  of 
St.  Cyril  to  Nestorius  and  to  the  Easterns,  and 
the  letter  of  St.  Leo  to  Flavian,  as  their  received 
exponents  on  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation. 
On  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  those  creeds,  it 
was  particularly  said,  required  no  further  expla¬ 
nation  ;  nor  Avas  any  other  faith  to  be  taught,  or 
creed  proposed  for  acceptance,  to  converts  from 
Avhat  heresy  soever,  under  pain  of  deposition  in 
the  case  of  the  clergy  and  excommunication  in 
that  of  the  laity. 

At  the  5th  action,  October  25,  all  subscribed 
to  this  definition — the  Roman  legates  attesting 
merely  that  they  subscribed,  the  rest  that  they 
defined  as  Avell.  This  Avas  done  in  the  presence 
of  the  emperor  Marcian,  the  empress  Pulcheria, 
and  a  splendid  suite ;  the  emperor  telling  them 
in  a  short  address  that  he  had  come  thither,  like 
Constantine,  to  confirm  what  they  had  done,  not 
to  display  his  poAver.  After  Avhich,  he  approA'ed 
of  their  definition,  and  announced  his  intention  of 
punishing  all  Avho  contravened  it,  according 
to  their  station.  At  his  instance  three  rules 
Avere  made ;  one  for  making  monks  more  depen¬ 
dent  upon  bLshops,  and  two  more  forbidding  the 
clergy  to  undertake  secular  posts,  or  migrate 
from  the  church  to  Avhich  they  belonged.  And 
here  the  council,  doctrinally  speaking,  ends. 

The  other  actions,  to  the  14th  inclusively,  re¬ 
lated  to  matters  betAveen  one  bishop  and  another, 
and  occupied  the  re.st  of  October.  At  action  7 
sanction  Avas  given  to  a  territorial  arrangement 
between  the  bishops  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem, 
by  which  the  former  was  in  future  to  haA'e 
jurisdiction  OA'er  the  tAvo  provinces  of  Phoenicia 
and  that  of  Arabia — the  latter  over  the  three 
called  Palestine.  At  the  8th  action  Theodoret,  Avho 
had  already  subscribed  to  the  definition  Avith  the 
rest,  Avas  called  upon  to  anathematise  Nestorius, 
Avhich  he  did,  including  Eutyches,  and  three 
more  bishops  similarly  called  upon  did  the  same. 
The  9th  and  10th  actions  passed  in  enquiring  into 
Avhat  had  been  decided  at  the  synods  of  Tyre  and 
Berytus  respecting  Ibas,  bishop  of  Edessa,  three 
years"  before.  Their  acts  having  been  rehearsed, 
and  the  sentence  passed  upon  him  at  the  “  Rob¬ 
bers’  Meeting”  summarily  cancelled,  he  Avas 
declared  orthodox  on  anathematising  Nestorius 
and  Eutyches,  and  restored  to  his  see.  Yet,  in¬ 
consistently  enough,  in  another  case,  that  of 
Domuus  of  Antioch,  the  judgment  of  the  “Rob¬ 
bers’  Meeting  ”  was  alloAved  to  stand,  his  suc¬ 
cessor,  Maximus,  having  been  consecrated  by 
Anatolius  of  Constantinople,  recognised  by  St. 
Leo,  and  receiA'ed  at  this  council.  Domuus, 
Avhose  piety  Avas  admitted  by  all,  Avas  adjudged 
a  pension  out  of  the  reA'enues  of  the  see  in  Avhich 
he  had  been  uncanonically  superseded.  The 
Greek  account  of  this  proceeding  indeed  has 
been  lost,  but  tAvo  of  the  Latin  versions  contain¬ 
ing  it  purport  to  have  been  made  from  tlie  Greek 
(Mansi,  vii.  177-8,  269-72,  and  771-4).  Actions 
11  and  12  Avere  taken  up  in  hearing  a  con¬ 
tention  betAA-een  Bassianus  and  Stephen  for  the 
see  of  Ephesus,  as  bishop  of  which,  Stephen  had 
hitherto  sat  and  A’oted  at  this  council.  Neither 
had  been  canonically  ordained  in  the  judgment 


336 


CHALCEDON 


CHALCEDON 


of  the  council,  so  that  a  fresh  election  had  to  be  ' 
made,  but  both  were  allowed  their  i-ank  and 
ordered  a  pension  of  200  aurei  respectively  out 
of  the  revenues  of  that  see.  In  the  foi  mer  of 
these  actions,  the  16th  and  17th  canons  of 
Antioch  were  read  out  of  a  book  by  Leontius, 
bishop  of  Magnesia,  numbered  as  95th  and  96th, 
and  applied  to,  their  case.  At  the  13th  action 
Eunomius,  bishop  of  Nicomedia,  complained  that 
the  privileges  of  his  church  had  been  infringed 
by  the  bishop  of  Nicaea.  Imperial  constitutions 
were  quoted  on  both  sides,  which,  according  to 
the  judges  themselves,  had  nothing  at  all  to  do 
with  the  rights  of  bishops :  and  the  4th  Nicene 
canon  which  Eunomius  read  out  of  a  book  as  the 
6th,  settled  the  question  in  his  favour.  The  in¬ 
sertion  of  a  salvo  to  the  see  of  Constantinople, 
proposed  by  its  archdeacon,  was  negatived  by 
the  judges,  who  said  that  its  rights  of  ordaining 
in  the  provinces  would  be  declared  in  their 
proper  order.  At  the  14th  action,  Athanasius 
and  Sabiuianus,  who  had  each  sat  and  subscribed 
as  bishop  of  Perrhe,  submitted  their  respective 
claims — the  former  adducing  two  letters  in  his 
favour  from  SS.  Cyril  and  Proclus,  the  latter  the 
acts  of  the  .synod  of  Antioch  under  Domnus,  de¬ 
posing  his  rival,  and  the  fact  of  the  “  Robbers’ 
Meeting  ”  having  restored  him.  For  the 
judgment  of  the  council,  see  Concil.  llierap. 
A.D.  445. 

What  is  printed  as  the  15th  action,  without 
date  or  preface,  would  seem  to  be,  strictly 
speaking,  a  mere  continuation  of  the  10th  action 
by  the  hierarchy  for  framing  canons  after  the 
judges  had  retired.  This  would  follow  from  what 
is  said  to  have  passed  in  the  16th  action,  October 
28 — at  least,  if  this  date  is  correct.  There  the 
legates  complained  to  the  judges  of  what  had 
been  done  yesterday,  after  the  latter  had  retired, 
and  subsequently  to  their  own  withdrawal  also. 
Kow,  October  27  had  been  the  day  of  the  10th 
action,  and  the  11th  action  was  not  till  October 
29.  Consequently  there  was  just  the  interval 
required  for  them  to  have  complained  on  October 
28,  and  had  the  canon  to  which  they  objected 
read  out  publicly.  Thus,  when  Ibas  had  been 
acquitted,  the  judges  withdrew,  and  the  bishops, 
probably  not  expecting  any  more  business,  re¬ 
mained  to  make  canons.  Twenty-seven  in  all, 
including  those  previously  recommended  by  the 
emperor,  were  drawn  up,  and,  according  to  one 
of  the  oldest  Latin  versions  extant,  were  sub¬ 
scribed  to  by  all,  not  excepting  the  legates 
(Mansi,  vii.  400-8).  After  the  legates  had  re¬ 
tired,  the  Eastern  bishops  again  remained,  and 
agreed  to  three  more,  making  a  total  of  30 ;  but 
to  the  last  three  the  legates  had  not  been  parties, 
and  equally  declined  subscribing  the  day  after 
(Mansi,  ib.  429-54).  As  Beveridge  remarks, 
they  are  omitted  as  well  by  John  Scholasticus 
as  by  Dionysius  Exiguus  (ii.  124),  nor  have  they 
ever  been  received  in  the  West. 

Only  the  28th,  however,  demands  any  notice. 
Those  who  were  most  interested  in  it  said  in  their 
defence  that  they  had  asked  the  legates  to  take 
part  in  framing  it,  and  they  had  replied  that 
they  were  without  instructions.  The  judges,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  bade  them  refer  it  to  the 
council.  And  doubtless  it  was  as  much  a  ques¬ 
tion  for  the  council  as  those  which  had  been 
settled  in  the  7th  and  13th  actions.  In  one 
seuse  it  merely  renewed  the  3rd  canon  of  Con¬ 


stantinople,  A.D.  381,  conferring  honorary  pre¬ 
cedence  (7rp€<T0€?a,  throughout — erroneousl}  ren¬ 
dered  by  the  Latins  in  each  case  “  primatum  ”) 
upon  the  bishop  of  that  city  next  after  Rome, 
and  for  the  same  reason  as  had  there  been  given. 
And  if,  in  addition,  it  gave  the  bishop  of  that 
city  the  right  of  ordaining  metropolitans  in  the 
dioceses  of  Asia,  Pontus,  and  Thrace,  still  this 
was  afterwards  proved  to  have  been  done  with 
the  full  consent  of  the  bishops  of  those  dioceses. 
And  so  we  are  brought  to  what  really  pa.ssed  at 
the  16th  action,  opening  abruptly  with  a  speech  of 
the  legate  Lucentius  (Mansi,  vii.  441),  as  reported 
in  the  Greek  version.  Here  both  sides  were 
called  upon  by  the  judges  to  produce  the  canons 
on  which  they  relied  ;  and  the  legates,  in  quoting 
the  6th  of  Nir^aea,  substituted  for  the  first  clause 
of  it,  “  Quod  ecclesia  Romana  semper  habuit 
primatum.”  No  protest  was  actually  made  to 
these  words,  but  it  was  cited  in  its  genuine  form 
afterwards  by  the  Constantinopolitan  archdeacon. 
And  as  for  the  3rd  of  Constantinople,  Lusebius 
of  Dorylaeum  testified  to  having  read  it  himself 
at  Rome  to  the  Pope,  and  to  his  having  received 
it  (j5.  449).  The  judges  at  last  having  delivered 
their  opinion  that  the  primacy  before  all,  and 
chiefest  honour,  according  to  the  canons,  should 
be  preserved  to  the  archbishop  of  elder  Rome,  but 
that  the  archbishop  of  Constantinople  ought  to 
have  the  honour  and  power  ass'gned  him  in  this 
canon,  it  was  accepted  by  all  present,  in  spite  of 
the  legates,  who  had  pi'eviously  desired  to  have 
their  protest  recorded  against  what  had  been 
passed  m  their  absence,  for  this  2nd  speech  of 
Lucentius  clearly  followed  the  reading  out  of  the 
canon,  October  28.  Afterwards  it  was  denounced 
in  a  series  of  epistles  by  St.  Leo,  who  neverthe¬ 
less,  neither  by  his  legates,  nor  in  his  own  name, 
seems  ever  to  have  objected  to  the  9th  and  17th 
canons  of  this  council,  authorising  appeals  to  the 
see  of  Constantinople  far  more  fully  than  the 
Sardican  canons  ever  had  to  Rome  (Bever.  ii. 
115-6).  Yet  these  form  part  of  the  27  subscribed 
to  by  all,  including  the  legates,  and  received  in 
the  West.  No  others  among  them,  save  the  first, 
are  worth  noticing ;  but  these,  perhaps,  have 
never  been  sufficiently  noticed.  By  the  first  it 
is  decreed  that  “  the  canons  of  the  Holy  Fathers, 
made  in  every  synod  to  this  present  time,  be  in 
full  force  ” — in  other  words,  the  collection  of 
canons  jmblished  by  Beveridge,  Justellus,  and 
others,  as  the  “  code  of  the  universal  Church,”  is 
ordered  to  become  law  (Bever.  ii.  108;  Cave, 
Hist.  Lit.  i.  486-7).  It  only  remains  to  observe 
that  EA'agrius  attributes  no  more  than  14  actions 
to  this  council  (ii.  18),  and  seems  to  say  that 
most  of  the  canons  were  framed  at  the  7th. 
Other  accounts,  that  of  Liberatus,  for  instance 
(Brev.  i.  13),  vary  from  his.  Before  separating, 
the  bishops  addressed  the  emperor  in  vindication 
of  their  definition,  and  the  Pope  in  vindication 
of  their  28th  canon  (Mansi,  vii.  455-74  and  vi. 
147-61),  telling  St.  Leo  that  he  had  interpreted 
the  faith  of  Peter  to  them  in  his  epistle,  and 
•presided  over  their  deliberations  in  the  person  of 
his  legates,  as  the  head  over  the  members.  The 
Pope  was  deaf  to  all  argument  on  the  subject  of 
the  canon,  while  setting  his  seal  to  their  definition. 
In  one  of  his  letters  to  Anatolius  (Mrnsi,  vi.  203) 
he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  3rd  canon  of 
Constantinople  had  never  been  notified  to  the 
apostolic  see,  though  Eusebius  of  Doryiaeum  had 


CHALDAEI 


CHALICE 


337 


testified  at  the  council  to  his  having  publicly 
received  it  himself.  In  the  same  spirit  it  is, 
perhaps,  too,  that  he  never  once  mentions  the 
creed  of  the  150  fathers  ;  in  other  words,  that  of 
Constantinople,  by  name,  though  he  must  have 
received  it  with  the  definition  of  this  council : 
and  indeed  he  said  of  it  latterly,  “tarn  plenis 
atque  perfectis  definitionibus  cuncta  firmata  sunt, 
ut  nihil  ei  regulae  quae  ex  divina  inspiratione 
prolata  est,  aut  addi  possit  aut  minui  ”  {Ep.  ad 
Leon.  Iinp.^  Mansi,  vi.  308).  Such,  however, 
was  his  zeal  against  the  canon  that  he  was  at 
one  time  thought  not  to  have  approved  of  the 
definition. 

Edicts  in  succession  issued  from  the  emperor, 
ordering  all  persons  to  submit  to  the  council, 
and  forbidding  all  further  discussion  of  the 
points  settled  by  it.  The  law  of  the  late  em¬ 
peror,  confirming  the  acts  of  the  “  Robbers’ 
Meeting,”  was  repealed  ;  Eutyches  deprived  of 
the  title  of  priest ;  and  Dioscorus  exiled  to 
Gangra  in  Paphlagonia.  Great  opposition  was 
nevertheless  made  to  its  reception  by  their  ad¬ 
mirers,  in  Egypt  especially,  to  which  the  “Codex 
Encyclius,”  or  collection  of  letters  in  its  favour, 
addressed  for  the  most  part  to  the  emperor  Leo, 
on  his  accession,  A.D.  458,  was  intended  to  be  a 
counter-demonstration  (Mansi,  vii.  475-627  and 
785-98).  [E.  S.  F.] 

CHALDAEI.  [Astrologers.] 

CHALICE.  (Latin,  calix  ;  Greek,  iroT-fipiop, 
KvireWov  ]  French,  cal  ice  ;  Italian,  calice ;  Ger¬ 
man,  Kelch;  Anglo-Saxon,  calic.')  The  cup  in 
which  the  wine  is  consecrated  at  the  celebration 
of  the  Holy  Communion,  and  from  which  the 
communicants  drink.  Chalices  have  been  divided 
into  several  classes,  of  which  the  more  important 
are — ofiertorial,  in  which  the  wine  brought  by 
the  communicants  was  received ;  communical, 
in  which  the  wine  was  consecrated ;  and  mini¬ 
sterial,  in  which  it  was  administered  to  the  com¬ 
municants. 

Vessels  of  this  description  being  indispensably 
required  for  the  celebration  of  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  of  the  rites  of  the  Christian  religion  it  is 
obvious  th.at  from  the  very  earliest  period  some 
such  must  have  been  in  use,  but  it  does  not 
seem  possible  to  determine  how  soon  they  began 
to  be  distinguished  by  form,  material,  or  orna¬ 
ment  from  the  cups  used  in  ordinary  life.  Per¬ 
haps  the  earliest  notice  which  we  have  of  any 
mark  by  which  a  cup  used  for  eucharistic  pur¬ 
poses  was  distinguished  from  those  in  ordinary 
use,  is  the  passage  in  Tertulliau  (/)e  Pudlcit.  c. 
10) :  “  Si  forte  patrocinabitur  pastor,  quern  in 
calice  depingis,  prostitutorem  et  ipsum  Chris- 
tiani  sacramenti,  merito  et  ebrietatis  idolum  et 
moechiaj  asylum  post  calicem  subsecuturae.” 

It  seems  indeed  quite  possible  that  at  that 
early  period  when  the  administration  of  the 
Eucharist  was  connected  both  as  regards  time 
and  locality  with  the  feasts  of  charity  {agapae) 
the  distinction  between  the  vessels  used  for 
each  purpose  was  less  strongly  drawn  than 
afterwards  came  to  be  the  case,  and  that  in 
the  earliest  centuries  there  was  little  or  no  dis¬ 
tinction  of  either  form  or  decoration  between 
the  eucharistic  cup  and  that  of  the  domestic 
table. 

The  eventually  exclusive  adoption  of  the  word 
“  calix  ”  as  signifying  the  eucharistic  cup,  mav 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


perhaps  be  deemed  to  imply  that  the  form  of 
cup  most  generally  employed  in  the  celebration 
of  the  Communion,  was  that  specifically  called 
“  calix.”  This  word  is  held  usually  to  denote  a 
cup  with  a  somewhat  shallow  bowl,  two  handles 
and  a  foot.  Vases  of  various  forms  are  often 
depicted  on  the  walls  or  vaults  of  the  catacombs, 
but  it  is  generally  uncertain  how  far  these  aro 
merely  ornaments,  and  it  would  not  appear  that 
in  any  one  instance  a  representation  of  what  can 
with  certainty  be  assumed  to  be  a  eucharistic 
chalice  has  been  observed  among  these  paintings. 
It  would  at  first  sight  appear  extremely  probable 
that  among  these  numerous  representations  of 
vases,  some  at  least  should  be  intended  to  repre¬ 
sent  that  which  was  above  all  precious  to  those 
for  whom  these  decorations  were  executed,  but 
the  paintings  of  the  earlier  period  are  with  hardly 
an  exception  allegorical  or  symbolical,  scarcely 
ever  in  a  primary  sense  historical,  and  never 
liturgical,  unless  the  allusions  to  the  sacraments 
conveyed  by  figures  of  fishes,  baskets  of  bread, 
and  the  like  deserve  to  be  so  called. 


Vases  from  Sarcophagus  at  Bordeaux. 


It  has  been  supposed  by  some,  Boldetti  (^Osser- 
vazioni  sopra  i  Cimiteri  dei  SS,  MaHiri)  among 
others,  that  the  glass  vessels  decorated  with 
gold  leaf,  the  bottoms  of  which  have  been  found 
in  considerable  numbers  in  the  catacombs  at¬ 
tached  to  the  plaster  by  which  the  tiles  closing 
the  loculi  were  fixed,  were,  if  not  actually  cha¬ 
lices,  at  least  drinking-v^essels  in  which  the  com- 


Vase  from  the  Sarcophagus  of  Ataulphus  at  Milau. 


municants  received  the  consecrated  wine,  and 
from  which  they  drank.  Padre  Garrucci  (  Vetri 
Ornnti  cf  Oro,  Pref.  xi)  has  however  shown  that 
this  opinion  does  not  rest  on  any  secure  founda¬ 
tion.  It  has  also  been  thought  that  the  figures 
of  vases  so  often  found  incised  on  early  Christian 


333 


CHALICE 


CHALICE 


memorial  stones  were  intended  to  represent  cha- 
li  'es,  and  thereby  to  indicate  that  the  deceased 
person  was  a  priest.  Though  this  may  possibly 
have  sometimes  been  the  case,  other  and  more 
probable  explanations  of  the  occurrence  of  these 
figures  of  vases  may  be  suggested ;  but  there  is 
a  marked  similarity  between  the  type  of  vase 
usually  employed  and  the  forms  of  the  earliest 
chalices  of  which  we  have  any  positive  know¬ 
ledge. 

The  woodcut  represents  one  of  these  vases  as 
shown  in  low  relief  on  the  sarcophagus  in  the 
chapel  of  St.  Aquilinus  attached  to  the  church 
of  S.  Lorenzo  at  Milan,  which  is  supposed  to  have 
contained  the  remains  of  Ataulphus  king  of  the 
Goths  (ob.  A.D.  415),  or  of  his  wife  Placidia. 

The  earliest  chalice  still  existing  is  probably 
that  found  wuth  a  paten  at  Gourdon  in  France, 


Cbalic<j  found  at  Gourdon. 


and  now  preserved  in  the  Bibliotheque  Imperiale 
in  Paris.  This  is  represented  in  the  annexed  wood- 
cut,  and  is  of  gold  ornamented  with  thin  slices 
of  garnets.  With  it  were  found  104  gold  coins 
of  Emperors  of  the  East,  25  of  which  of  Justin  I. 
(518-527)  being  in  a  fresh  and  unworn  condition 
and  the  latest  in  date  of  the  entire  hoard,  it  is 
reasonable'to  conclude  that  the  deposit  was  made 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  6th  century. 

Of  not  much  later  date  were  the  splendid  cha¬ 
lices  belonging  to  the  basilica  of  Monza,  no  longer 
in  existence,  but  of  which  representations,  evi¬ 
dently  tolerably  accurate,  have  been  preseiwed  in 
a  large  painting  probably  executed  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  15th  century,  and  now  in  the  library 


Chalices  from  Monza. 


of  that  church.  This  painting  represents  the 
restitution  to  the  basilica  of  the  contents  of  its 
treasury  which  took  place  in  1345.  These  cha¬ 
lices  are  represented  in  the  accompanying  wood- 
cuts,  both  were  of  gold  set  with  jewels;  their 
weight  is  variously  stated  at  from  105  to  170 
ounces.  These  there  Is  ground  to  believe,  wei*e 


in  the  possession  of  the  church  of  Monza  before 
the  year  600,  and  may  indeed  with  great  proba¬ 
bility  be  supposed  to  be  of  even  greater  age.  A 
rude  sculpture  over  the  west  doorway  of  that 
church,  believed  to  date  from  circa  A.D.  600, 
represents  several  chalices  of  various  sizes,  some 
with  and  some  without  handles. 

Chalices  of  glass  of  very  similar  fonn  are  met 
with,  and  may  with  much  probability  be  attri¬ 
buted  to  the  6th  or  7th  centuries;  two  examples 
are  in  the  British  Museum  ;  these  are  of  blue 
glass  and  somewhat  roughly  made.  As,  however, 
these  bear  neither  inscriptions  nor  any  Christian 
symbol,  it  cannot  be  affirmed  with  certainty  that 
they  were  sacramental  chalice.'i.  Moroni  (^Diz. 
di  Erudizione  Storico  -  Ecclesiast.)  mentions  a 
chalice  of  blue  glass  as  being  preserved  in  the 
church  of  the  Isola  S.  Giulio  in  the  lake  of  Orta 
in  Lombardy,  as  a  relic  of  the  saint  who  lived  in 
the  5th  century ;  this,  he  says,  was  without  a 
foot.  It  is  not  now  to  be  found  there. 

In  the  sacristy  of  the  church  of  Sta.  Anastasia 
at  Rome  a  chalice  is  preserved  as  a  relic,  as  it  is 
said  to  have  been  used  by  St.  Jerome  ;  the  bowl 
is  of  white  opaque  glass  with  some  ornament  in 
relief,  the  foot  is  of  metal. 

A  chalice  is  preserved  (?  at  Maestricht),  which 
is  believed  to  have  belonged  to  St.  Lambert, 
bishop  of  that  city  (ob.  708) ;  it  is  of  metal 
(?  silver)  gilt,  the  bowl  hemispherical,  the  foot 
a  frustum  of  a  cone ;  the  whole  without  orna¬ 
ment. 

A  chalice  of  exactly  the  same  form  is  to  be 
seen  in  an  illumination  in  the  very  ancient 
gospels  preserved  in  the  library  of  Corpus  Christi 
College  at  Cambridge,  and  known  as  St.  Au¬ 
gustine’s. 


Chalice  formerly  at  Chelles. 


Until  the  vear  1792  the  abbey  of  Chelles,  in 
the  diocese  of  Paris,  possessed  a  most  splencid 


CHALICE 

example  of  a  golden  chalice  (see  woodcut),  which 
ancient  inventories  asserted  to  have  been  the 
"work  of  St.  Eligius  (or  Eloi),  and  therefoi-e  to 
date  from  the  first  half  of  the  7th  century. 
Fortunately  an  engraving  of  it  has  been  pre¬ 
served  in  the  Panoplia  Sacerdotalis  of  Du  Saussay, 
and  the  character  of  the  work  corresponds  with 
the  alleged  date.  It  is  obviously  an  instance  of 
transition  from  earlier  to  later  forms,  though 
somewhat  exceptional  from  the  great  depth  of 
the  bowl.  It  was  about  a  foot  high  and  nearly 
ten  inches  in  diameter,  and  held  about  the  half 
of  a  French  litre. 

A  singular  exception  in  point  of  form  was  the 
chalice  which  was  found  with  the  body  of  St. 
Cuthbert  when  his  relics  were  examined  in  the 
year  1104- ;  this  is  described  as  of  small  size  and 
in  its  lower  part  of  gold  and  of  the  figure  of  a 
lion,  the  bowl  which  was  attached  to  the  back  of 
the  lion  being  cut  from  an  onyx  (Acf.  Sanct. 
Boll.  2  Mart.').  It  may  be  surmised  that  this 
was  not  really  made  for  a  chalice,  but  had  been 
presented  to  him  and  converted  to  that  use. 

Of  the  next  century,  the  8th,  a  very  remai-k- 
able  example  still  exists  in  the  convent  ofKrems- 


Riu'nster  m  Upper  Austria ;  this  chalice  is  (vide 
woodcut)  of  bronze  ornamented  with  niello  and 
incrustations  of  silver.  As  the  inscription  shows 
that  it  was  the  gift  of  Tassilo,  duke  of  Bavaria, 
it  is  probably  earlier  than  A.D.  788,  the  year 
when  that  prince  was  deposed  by  Charles  the 
Great. 

One  of  the  bas-reliefs  of  the  altar  of  S.  Am- 
brogio  at  Milan  (finished  in  835)  gives  a  good 
example  of  the  form  of  a  chalice  in  the  beginning 
of  the  9th  century.  It  has  a  bowl,  foot,  and 
handles. 

So  much  may  be  gathered  from  still  existing 
examples,  or  representations  of  them  ;  much  may 
also  be  collected,  especially  as  regards  the  size 
and  weight  of  chalices  and  the  materials  of  which 
thej  were  composed,  from  the  notices  to  be 


CHALICE  339 

found  in  various  historical  documents,  and  par¬ 
ticularly  in  the  Li')er  Pojitif  calls. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  in  the  apostolic  age 
chalices  of  wood  were  in  use  :  but  for  this  asser¬ 
tion  there  is  no  early  authority  ;  St.  Boniface  in¬ 
deed  is  reported  in  the  18th  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Tribur  to  have  said  that  once  golden  priests 
used  wooden  chalices,  and  Platina  (I)e  Vii.  Pont.) 
asserts  that  Pope  Zephyrinus  (a.d.  197-217) 
ordered  that  the  wine  should  be  consecrated  not 
as  heretofore  in  a  wooden  but  in  a  glass  vessel. 
The  Liber  Pontificalis  in  the  life  of  Zephyrinus, 
however,  merely  says  that  he  ordered  patens  of 
glass  to  be  carried  before  the  priests  when  mass 
was  to  be  celebrated  by  the  bishop.  Glass  was 
no  doubt  in  use  from  a  very  early  date ;  St. 
Jerome  (ad  liustic.  Mon.  Ep.  4)  writes  of  Exu- 
perius,  bishop  of  Toulouse,  as  bearing  the  Lord’s 
blood  in  a  vessel  of  glass,  and  St.  Gregory 
(Dialog,  lib.  i.  c.  7)  says  that  St.  Donatus,  bishop 
of  Arezzo,  repaired  by  prayer  a  chalice  of  glass 
broken  by  the  heathens.  The  use  of  wood  for 
chalices  was  prohibited  by  several  ])rovincial 
councils  in  the  8th  and  9th  centuries  (Cone. 
Tribur.  can.  18),  of  horn  by  that  of  Ceal- 
chythe  (Cone.  Calcut.  can.  10),  and  Pope  Leo 
IV.  (847-855)  in  his  homily,  De  Cura  Pas- 
torali,  lays  down  the  rule  that  no  one  shoula 
celebrate  mass  in  a  chalice  of  wood,  lead,  or 
glass.  Glass,  however,  continued  to  be  occa¬ 
sionally  used  to  a  much  later  date.  Martene  (De 
Antiq.  Keel.  Pit.  t.  iv.  p.  78)  shows  from  the 
life  of  St.  Wiuocus  that  in  the  lOth  century  thf 
monks  of  the  convent  in  Flanders  founded  by 
him  still  used  chalices  of  glass.  Pewter  was 
also  in  use,  and  it  would  seem  was  considered  as 
a  material  superior  to  gla.ss,  for  we  are  told  of 
St.  Benedict  of  Aniane  (ob.  821)  that  the  vessels 
of  his  church  were  at  first  of  wood,  then  of  glas.s, 
and  that  at  last  he  ascended  to  pewter  (see  his 
Zi/i?,  by  Ardo,  c.  14,  in  Mabillon’s  Act.  SS.  ord. 
S.  Benedicti,  Saec.  iv). 

A  chalice  of  glass  mounted  in  gold  is  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  will  of  Count  Everhard,  A.D.  837 
(Miraeus,  Op.  Dip.  t.  i.  p.  19).  A  chalice  of  ivory 
and  one  of  cocoa-nut  (?)  (de  nuce)  set  with  gold 
and  silver  are  mentioned  in  the  same  document ; 
those  however  may  have  been  drinking-cups,  not 
sacramental  chalices. 

The  use  of  bronze  appears  to  have  been  excep¬ 
tional  and  perhaps  peculiar  to  the  Irish  monks. 
St.  Gall  (Mabillon’s  Act.  SS.  07'd.  S.  Ben.  Saec.  2, 
p.  241),  we  are  told,  refused  to  use  silver  vessels 
for  the  altar,  saying  that  St.  Columbanus  was 
accustomed  to  offer  the  sacrifice  in  vessels  of 
brouze  (aereis),  alleging  as  a  reason  for  so  doing 
that  our  Saviour  was  affixed  to  the  cross  by 
brazen  nails.  This  traditional  use  of  bronze  was 
no  doubt  continued  by  the  successors  of  the  Irish 
missionaries  in  the  South  of  Germany,  and  ex¬ 
plains  why  the  Kremsmiinster  chalice  is  of  that 
material,  a  circumstance  which  has  caused  the 
question  to  be  raised  whether  that  ve.ssel  was 
anything  but  a  mere  drmking  cup.  The  u.se  of 
niello  and  of  damascening  with  thin  silver  in 
the  decoration  of  this  ves.sel,  and  the  peculiar 
patterns  of  its  ornamentation,  connect  it  closely 
with  the  Irish  school  of  artificers,  who  were  in 
the  habit  of  employing  bronze  as  the  main  mate¬ 
rial  of  their  works. 

The  precious  metals  were  however  from  a 
very  early,  perhaps  the  earliest,  period  most  pro- 

z  ■ 


340 


CHALICE 


CHALICE 


bably  the  usual  material  of  the  chalice.  The 
earliest  converts  to  Christianity  were  not  by  any 
means  exclusively  of  humble  station,  and  it  was 
not  until  it  spread  from  cities  into  remote  vil¬ 
lages  that  many  churches  would  have  existed 
whose  members  could  not  afford  a  silver  chalice  : 
nor  do  we  until  a  later  age  find  traces  of  a  spirit  of 
asceticism  which  would  prefer  the  use  of  a  mean 
material.  We  have  at  least  proof  of  the  use  of 
both  gold  and  silver  in  the  sacred  vessels  in  the 
beginning  of  the  4th  century,  for  we  are  told  by 
Optatus  of  Milevi  that  in  the  Diocletianian  perse¬ 
cution  the  church  of  Carthage  possessed  many 
“  ornamenta  ”  of  gold  and  silver  (Opt.  Mil. 
De  Schism.  Donat,  i.  17).  The  church  of  Cirta 
in  Numidia  at  the  same  time  possessed  two  golden 
and  six  silver  chalices  (^Gesta  Furgat.  Caeciliani, 
in  the  Works  of  Optatus.).  That  it  was  believed 
that  the  churches  possessed  such  rich  ornaments 
at  an  earlier  period  is  shown  by  the  language 
which  Prudentius  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the 
Praefectus  Ur  bis  interrogating  St.  Lawrence — 

“  Argenteis  scyphis  ferunt, 

Fumare  sacrum  sanguinem,"  Sfa 

{Peristej)h.  Hymn  iii.  C9). 

The  passages  in  the  Lib.  Pont,  which  relate 
the  gifts  of  Constantine  to  various  churches  are 
with  reason  suspected  as  untrustworthy,  but 
are  at  least  of  value  as  recording  the  traditions 
existing  at  an  early  age.  They  make  mention 
of  many  chalices,  some  of  gold,  some  of  silver; 
40  lesser  chalices  of  gold,  each  weighing  1  lb., 
and  50  lesser  ministerial  chalices  of  silver,  each 
weighing  2  lbs.,  are  said  to  have  been  given  to  the 
Constantinian  Basilica  (St.  John  Lateran),  and 
in  lesser  numbers  and  of  very  various  weights 
to  many  other  churches.  Whatever,  however, 
may  be  the  historical  value  of  these  passages, 
that  churches  in  the  4th  and  5th  centuries  pos¬ 
sessed  great  numbers  of  golden  or  silver  chalice.s, 
cannot  be  doubted.  Gregory  of  Tours  {ffist. 
Franc.  1.  iii.  c.  x.)  tells  us  that  Childebert  in  the 
year  531  took  among  the  .sp>oils  of  Amalaric 
sixty  chalices  of  gold.  Many  instances  of  gifts  ot 
chalices  of  the  precious  metals  to  the  churches 
of  Rome  by  successive  popes  are  to  be  found  in 
the  Lib.  Font.  Of  these  the  following  may  de¬ 
serve  special  mention :  a  great  chalice  (calix 
major)  with  handles  and  adorned  with  gems, 
weighing  58  lbs.  ;  a  great  chalice  with  a  syphon 
(cum  scyphone)  or  tube,  weighing  36  lbs. ;  a 
covered  (spanoclystus,  i.e.  i-jrapdoKKeicrTos)  cha¬ 
lice  of  gold,  weighing  32  lbs.  ;  all  three  given 
by  Pope  Leo  III.  (795  j. 

Little  is  to  be  found  as  to  the  decoration  of 
chalices ;  occasionally  they  bore  inscriptions,  as 
in  the  case  of  that  made  by  order  of  St.  Remigius 
(Remi,  ob.  533),  which  Frodoard  tells  us  boi’e 
the  following  verses  : — 

“  Hauriat  hinc  populus  vitam  de  sanguine^sacro, 

Injeito  aeternus  qnem  fudit  vuliiere  CLristus, 
Remigius  reddit  Domino  sua  vota  sacerdos.” 

The  golden  chalices  of  Monza,  it  will  be  seen 
by  the  woodcuts,  were  splendidly  adorned  with 
gems,  which  in  the  painting  from  which  these 
figures  have  been  drawn,  are  coloured  green  and 
red,  but  the  only  symbol  betokening  their  desti¬ 
nation  is  the  cruciform  arrangement  of  the  larger 
gems  on  one  of  them.  The  chalice  found  at 
^jurdon  also  has  neither  inscription  nor  Chris- 
tiin  symbol,  and  if  it  had  not  been  found  in 


company  with  a  paten  bearing  a  cross  its  desti¬ 
nation  might  have  been  a  matter  of  doubt. 

On  the  chalice  of  Kremsmiinster  are  on  the 
bowl  half-length  figures  of  Christ  and  the  four 
Evangelists,  on  the  foot  like  figures  of  four 
prophets. 

The  division  of  chalices  into  various  classes 
evidently  belongs  to  a  period  when  primitive 
simplicity  of  ritual  underwent  a  change  to  a 
moi  e  complex  and  elaborate  system.  The  earlier 
Ordo  Fomanus  speaks  of  a  “  calix  quotidiauus,” 
and  opposes  to  this  the  “  cali.x  major  ”  to  be 
used  on  feast-days  (“  ditbus  vero  festis  calicem 
et  patenam  majoi-es  ”),  but  says  nothing  of  any 
distinction  between  the  “  calix  san«tus  ”  and  the 
“  calix  ministerialis.”  Reasons  of  convenience 
no  doubt  caused  the  use  of  chalices  of  very 
different  sizes.  The  great  number  of  chalices  of 
small  size  mentioned  in  the  Lib.  Fontif.  and 
elsewhere  may  lead  to  the  suppo.sition  that  at 
one  period  the  communicants  drank  not  from  one 
but  from  many  chalices  ;  but  this  matter  is  in- 
Amlved  in  doubt. 

A  practice  existed  of  communicating  the  clergy 
alone  by  means  of  the  chalice  in  which  the  wine 
was  consecrated,  and  of  pouring  a  few  drops  from 
this  into  the  larger  chalice  which  was  offered  to 
the  laity.  When  this  practice  originated  or  how 
long  it  lasted  seems  obscure.  It  is  suggested  in 
the  article  “  Calix,”  in  Ducange’s  Glossary,  that 
the  verses  engraved  by  order  of  St.  Remi  on  the 
chalice  which  he  caused  to  be  made  (o.  ante) 
allude  to  this  practice ;  but  this  does  not  seem 
certain.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  Ordo  Bom.  (c. 
29),  but  the  vessel  in  which  the  drops  of  con¬ 
secrated  Avine  w'ere  mixed  with  the  unconse¬ 
crated,  and  from  which  the  laity  drank  through 
a  “  fistula  ”  or  “  pugil laris,”  is  called  scyphus, 
and  is  apparently  the  same  vessel  as  that  carried 
by  an  acolyte  at  the  time  when  the  oblations 
were  received  from  the  laity  and  into  which  the 
contents  of  the  calix  major  (c.  13)  were  poured 
when  the  latter  had  become  filled.  Pope  Gregory 
11.  (a.d.  731-735),  in  his  epistle  to  Boniface, 
disapproves  of  the  practice  of  placing  more  than 
one  chalice  on  the  altar  (“  congruum  non  esse 
duos  vel  tres  calices  in  altario  ponere  ”).  When 
this  practice  was  in  use  we  may  conclude  that 
the  large  chalices  with  handles  were  those  used 
for  the  laity. 

The  large  chalices  were  also  u.sed  to  receive 
the  wine  which  the  intending  communicants 
brought  in  amulae  ;  as  in  the  1st  Ordo  Rom.  c. 
13  (“  Archidiaconus  sumit  amulam  Pontificis  .  .  . 
et  Mefun  lit  super  colum  in  calicem  ”).  When 
used  in  this  manner  it  is  called  “  offertorius  ”  or 
“ ofierendarius.”  “Calices  baptismi”  or  “  bap- 
tismales  ”  were  probably  those  used  when  the 
Eucharist  was  administered  after  bapti.mi,  and 
possibly  for  the  milk  and  honey  which  It  was  the 
custom  in  some  churches  (Cone.  Carth.  iii.  c.  24) 
to  consecrate  at  the  altar  and  to  administer  to 
infants.  Pope  Innocent  1.  (a.d.  402—417)  is  said 
in  the  Lib.  Fontif.  to  have  given  “ad  ornatxim 
baptisterii  ”  (apparently  of  the  basilica  of  SS. 
GeVva.sius  and  Protasius  at  Rome)  three  silver 
“  calices  baptismi,”  each  weighing  2  lbs.  Whe¬ 
ther  the  baptismal  chalices  differed  from  other 
chalices  in  form  or  in  any  other  respect  is  not 
known. 

Besides  the  chalices  actually  used  in  the  rites 
of  the  church,  vessels  called  “  calices  ”  were  sus- 


CHALICE 


CHAPEL 


341 


pended  from  the  arches  of  the  ciborium  and  even 
from  the  intercolumniations  of  the  nave  and 
other  parts  of  the  church  as  ornaments.  In  the 
Lib.  Pontif.  we  find  mention  of  sixteen  “calices” 
of  silver  placed  by  Pope  Leo  IV.  (847-8)  on  the 
enclosure  of  the  altar  (super  circuitu  altaris)  in 
the  Vatican  basilica,  of  sixty-four  susjiended  be¬ 
tween  the  columns  in  the  same  church,  and  of 
forty  in  a  like  jmsition  at  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  m.  Many 
of  these  were,  however,  most  probably  cups  or 


vases,  not  such  as  would  have  been  used  for  the 
administration  or  consecration  of  the  Eucharist. 
The  di-awings  in  MSS.  show  suspended  vessels  of 
the  most  varied  forms  ;  some  exami)les  taken  from 
the  great  Carlovingian  bible  formerly  in  the  Bibl. 
Imp.  Paris,  now  in  the  Muse'e  des  Souverains  in 
the  Louvre,  are  shown  in  woodcuts.  [A.  N.] 

CHALICE,  ABLUTION  OF.  [Purifi¬ 
cation.] 

CHALONS-SUR-SAONE,  COUNCILS  OF. 
[Cahillonknse],  provincial:  —  (1)  a.d.  470,  to 
elect  John  bishop  of  Chalons  (Labb.  Cone.  iv. 
1820).  (2)  A.D.  579,  to  depose  Salonius  and  Sa¬ 

gittarius,  bishops  respectively  of  Embrun  and 
Gap,  deposed  by  a  previous  council  (of  Lyons, 
A.D.  567),  restored  by  Pope  John  III.,  and  now 
again  deposed  (Greg.  Tur.  Hist.  Franc,  v.  21,  28; 
Labb.  Cone.  v.  963,  964).  (3)  A.D.  594,  to  re¬ 

gulate  the  psalmody  at  the  church  of  St.  Mar- 
cellus  after  the  model  of  Agaune  (Labb.  Cone. 
V.  1853).  (4)  A.D.  603,  to  depose  Desiderius, 

bishop  of  Vienne,  at  the  instigation  of  Queen 
Brunichilde  (Fredegar.  24;  Labb.  Cone.  v.  1612). 
(5)  A.D.  650,  Nov.  1,  of  thirty-three  bishops, 
with  the  “  vicarii  ”  of  six  others,  enacted  20 
canons  respecting  discipline  :  dated  by  Le  Comte 
A  D.  694  (Labb.  Cone.  vi.  387).  [A.  W.  H.] 

CHANCEL  (ra  fvSov  tS)V  KiyK\'iSci)v,  Theo- 
doret,  II.  E.  v.  18).  The  space  in  a  church  which 
contains  the  choir  and  sanctuary,  and  which  was 
generally  separated  from  the  nave  by  a  rail  or 
grating  (cancelli),  from  which  it  derives  its  name. 
“  Cancellus,  cantorum  excellens  locus  ”  (Papias, 
in  Ducange,  s.  v. ;  compare  Cancelli).  It  is  a 
characteristic  difference  between  Eastern  and 
Western  churches  that  in  the  former  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  the  bema  (or  sanctuary)  and 
the  choir  is  much  more  strongly  marked  than 
that  between  the  choir  and  the  nave,  in  the 
latter  the  distinction  between  the  nave  and  the 
choir  is  much  more  strongly  marked  than  that 
between  the  choir  and  the  sanctuary.  Compare 
Choir,  Presbytery.  [C.] 

CHANT.  [Gregorian  Music.] 

CHAPEL.  A  building  or  apartment  used  for 
the  performance  of  Christian  worship  in  cases  in 


which  the  services  are  of  an  occasional  character, 
or  in  which  the  congregation  is  limited  to  the 
members  of  a  family,  a  convent,  or  the  like. 
Greek,  irap€kK\r](riai  Latin,  capella,  oratorium. 
In  the  languages  of  the  Latin  and  Teutonic  fa¬ 
milies  a  moditication  of  the  word  ‘  caj)ella’  is  in 
use,  as  also  in  Polish.  In  Ru.ssian  pridel. 

The  derivation  of  the  word  ‘capella’  is  a 
matter  of  doubt.  The  Monk  of  St.  Gall  (^Vita 
Car.  Mag.  i.  4)  states  that  the  name  was  de¬ 
rived  from  the  ‘capa’  or  cloak  of  St.  Martin: 
“Quo  nomine  (i.e.  ‘capella’)  Francorum  reges 
propter  capam  St.  IMartini  sancta  sua  apj)ellare 
solebant.”  The  word  ‘  capella  ’  is  said  to  be  found 
in  inscriptions  in  the  Roman  catacombs  in  the 
sense  of  a  sarcophagus,  a  grave,  or  place  of 
burial.  It  occurs  at  a  later  time  as  used  for  a 
reliquary,  and  for  the  chamber  in  which  i-eliques 
were  preserved ;  as  in  a  charter  of  Childebert  of 
A.D.  710,  published  by  Mabillon  (^De  Re  Dipl.')., 
in  which  the  passage  “  in  oratorio  suo  seu  capella 
S.  Marthini  ”  occurs.  The  canopy  over  an  altar 
was  also  called  ‘capella’  (compare  Cupella).  In 
the  sense  of  a  chamber  or  building  employed  for 
divine  worship,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  in 
use  in  early  times.  Among  early  instances  of  its 
employment  Avhich  have  been  noticed,  are,  in 
the  capitularies  of  Charles  the  Gi’eat  (Capit.  v. 
182),  where  it  is  applied  to  chapels  in  or  an¬ 
nexed  to  palaces ;  and  in  the  passage  in  the 
laws  of  the  Lombards  (iii.  3,  22),  “  ecclesiae 
et  capellae  quae  in  vestra  parochia  sunt,”  where 
detached  buildings  are  probably  referred  to.  In 
the  earlier  centuries  “  oratorium  ”  would  no 
doubt  have  been  used  in  either  sense,  as  in  the 
21st  cap.  of  the  Council  of  Agde,  a.d.  506.  “Si 
quis  etiam  extra  parochias  in  quibus  legitimus 
est  ordinari usque  conventus  oratorium  in  agio 
habere  voluerit  reliquis  festivitatibus  ut  ibi 
missas  teneat  propter  fatigationem  familiae  justa 
ordinatione  permittimus ;”  but  with  the  proviso 
that  the  greater  festivals  should  be  celebrated 
“  in  civitatibus  aut  in  parochiis.” 

Chapels  may  be  divided  into  several  classes  : — 
1st,  as  regards  their  relation  to  other  churches ; 
being  (A)  dependent  on  the  church  of  the  parish, 
or  (B)  independent,  in  some  cases  even  exempt 
from  episcopal  visitation.  2dly,  as  regards  their 
material  structure ;  being  (A)  apartments  in 
palaces  or  other  dwellings;  (B)  buildings  form¬ 
ing  part  of  or  attached  to  convents,  hermitages, 
or  the  like  ;  (C)  buildings  forming  parts  of  or 
attached  to  larger  churches  ;  (D)  sepulchral  or 
other  wholly  detached  buildings.  No  stidctly 
accurate  division  is,  however,  possible,  for  in  some 
cases  buildings  might  be  placed  in  either  of  two 
classes. 

It  is  here  proposed  to  speak  of  chapels  with 
regard  to  their  material  aspect  only ;  and  build¬ 
ings  which  from  an  architectural  point  of  view 
do  not  differ  from  churches  will  be  mentioned 
under  the  head  CiiURCK.  As  however  it  is  im 
possible  to  draw  a  clear  line  between  churches 
and  chapels',  several  buildings  will  be  found 
treated  of  under  Church,  which  in  strictness 
should  perhaps  be  rather  deemed  chapels;  some 
of  these,  as  Sta.  Costanza  at  Rome,  being  too 
important  in  an  historical  point  of  view,  or 
too  extensive  and  magnificent,  to  be  omitted 
from  any  attempt  to  trace  the  progress  of  church 
building  in  its  main  line. 

Gatticus  (^Dc  Orat.  Dom.)  has  collected  many 


342 


CHAPEL 


CHAPEL 


proofs  of  the  early  existence  of  domestic  or 
private  chapels;  but  the  earliest  existing 
example  of  the  first  class  is  probably  the  small 
chapel  now  known  as  the  Sancta  Sanctorum 
(originally  St.  Lawrence)  in  the  fragment  of 
the  ancient  palace  of  the  Lateran  which  still 
remains.  It  was  the  private  chapel  of  the 
popes,  and  appears  to  have  existed  as  early  as 
A.D.  383 ;  for  -Pope  Pelagius  II.  then  placed 
there  certain  relics  (MSS.  Bibl.  Vat.  ap.  Baronius). 
It  is  a  small  oblong  apartment  on  an  upper  floor. 
The  example  next  in  date  has  fortunately  been 
singularly  well  preserved.  It  exists  in  the  palace 
of  the  archbishops  of  Ravenna,  being  their  private 
chapel.  It  was  constructed,  or  at  any  rate  deco¬ 
rated  with  mosaic,  by  the  Archbishop  Peter  Chiy- 
sologus  (elected  in  A.D.  429).  It  is  a  simple  oblong 
with  a  vaulted  roof.  Of  the  same  character  is 
the  chapel  atCividale  in  Friuli,  which,  although 
forming  part  of  a  Benedictine  convent,  as  it  mea¬ 
sures  only  30  feet  by  18  feet,  can  hardly  have 
been  other  than  a  private  chapel,  probably  of  the 
abbat.  It  is  attributed  on  historical  evidence  to 
the  8th  century.  It  is  a  parallelogram  without 
an  apse,  about  two-fifths  being  parted  off  by  ? 
low  wall,  to  serve  as  a  choir. 


as  the  Oratory  at  Gallerus  in  Kerry,  shewn  in  the 
woodcut,  may  be  considered  to  be  the  first  erected 
for  Christian  uses,  and  as  ancient  as,  if  even  not 
more  ancient,  than  the  conversion  of  the  Irish  by 
St.  Patrick.  This  example  measures  externally 
23  feet  by  10,  and  is  16  feet  high,  the  walls 
being  4  feet  thick.  It  has  a  single  window 
in  its  east  end.  On  each  of  the  -gables  were 
small  stone  crosses,  of  which  the  Sockets  only 
now  remain. 

Of  somewhat  later  date,  but  Mr.  Petrie  thinks 
as  early  as  the  5th  or  6th  centuries,  are  such 
buildings  as  Tempull  Ceannanach,  on  the  middle 
island  of  Arran,  in  the  bay  of  Galway.  This  mea¬ 
sures  internally  16  feet  by  12,  and  is  built  of  verv 
large  stones,  one  not  less  than  18  feet  in  length. 
The  church  of  St.  MacDara,  on  the  island  of 
Cruach  Mhic  Dara,  off  the  coast  of  Connemara, 
measures  internally  15  feet  by  1 1.  Its  roof  was  of 
solid  stone,  built  in  courses  until  they  met  at  the 
top. 

The  above-mentioned  examples  are  simple 
quadrangular  buildings  without  distinction  be¬ 
tween  nave  and  chancel,  but  others  are  met 
with,  apparently  of  equal  antiquity,  in  which 
a  small  chancel  is  attached  to  the  nave  and  en¬ 
tered  hj-  an  archway.  In  no  case 
is  an  apse  found  in  Ireland. 

The  buildings  of  this  class  are 
so  rude  and  simple  that  it  is 
not  easy  to  establish  .satisfactorily 
any  chronological  arrangement 
founded  on  their  architectural 
character ;  it  would  apj)ear,  how¬ 
ever,  that  buildings  of  similar 
character  were  constructed  until 
in  the  11th  or  12th  centuries  more 
ornate  structures  were  erected. 
Many  of  these  small  chapels 


however,  constructed  of 
and  the  whole  class  was 


Oratory  at  Gall-ims. 

Buildings  of  the  second  class,  viz.,  conventual 
chapels,  were  intended  for  the  private  and 
daily  use  of  the  community  ;  the  larger  churches 
for  celebration  on  great  festivals,  when  large 
numbers  of  strangers  attended  the  services.  In 
some  instances  even  more  than  two  chapels 
existed  in  a  monastery ;  for  Adamnan  (i)e  situ 
terrae  Sanctae,  ii.  24)  says  that  at  Mount 
Thabor,  within  the  wall  of  enclosure  of  the  monas¬ 
tery,  were  three  churches,  “non  parvi  aedificii.” 
In  the  tower  or  keep  of  the  convent  of  St.  Ma¬ 
carius  in  the  Nitrian  valley  are  three  chapels, 
one  over  the  other  (Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson,  Hand¬ 
book  of  Egypt)',  but  it  does  not  appear  what  their 
date  is.  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  (^Handbook  of 
Egypt,  p.  305)  states  that  a  tradition  among  the 
monks  attributes  the  foundation  of  the  convent 
to  the  5th  century. 

In  Ireland  still  exist  some  small  chapels  which 
may  be  assigned  with  probability  to  x'ory  early 
dates.  Mr.  Petrie  (  The  Ecclesiastical  Architecture 
of  Ireland,  p.  133)  thinks  that  such  stnictures 


were, 
wood, 

known  (Petrie,  p.  343)  as  ‘duir- 
theachs,’  or  ‘  dertheachs,’  the  pro¬ 
bable  etymology  of  which  is  “  house 
of  oak.”  It  appears  from  a  frag¬ 
ment  of  a  commentary  on  the 
Brehon  laws  (Petrie,  p.  365)  that 
15  by  10  were  customary  dimen¬ 
sions  for  such  buildings,  and  the 
stone  chapels  are  usually  found 
not  to  differ  very  greatly  from  them. 

Buildings  of  very  similar  character  exist  in 
Cornwal*,  and  their  foundation'  is  attributed  to 
missiona  ies  from  Ireland :  such  was  the  cha})el 
of  Perra.  zabuloe,  or,  St.  Piran  in  the  sand,  said 


eOUTM  Dooa 
ft  STEPS 

St  Piran, 


to  have  been  founded  by  St.  Piinn  (or  as  he  is 
called  in  Ireland  St.  Kioran)  in  the  5th  centui  y. 
It  had  been  completely  buried  in  the  shifting 
sand  of  the  coast,  but  in  1835  the  sand  was  re- 


CHAPEL 


CHAPEL 


343 


moved,  and  the  building  discovered  in  an  almost  j 
pertec“t  state ;  it  is  29  ft.  long  externally  by  16^  | 
broad  ;  as  will  be  seen  from  the  plan,  it  was  a 
simple  parallelogram,  but  divided  into  two  parts 
by  a  wall  or  screen.  The  tomb  of  the  saint 
apparently  served  as  an  altar. 

The  chapel  of  St.  Maddern  is  very  similar  in 
plan,  but  has  the  peculiarity  of  having  a  well 
in  one  angle  j  that  of  St.  Gwythian  has  both  nave 
and  chancel,  the  latter  entered  by  a  narrow  door¬ 
way.  Mention  of  several  others  of  like  chai-acter 
will  be  found  in  a  paper  by  the  Rev.  W.  Haslam, 
in  vol.  ii.  of  the  Architectural  Journal.  The  ma¬ 
sonry  of  these  buildings  is  very  rude  and  irre¬ 
gular,  but  the  huge  stones,  and  roofs  construc¬ 
ted  of  stone,  which  are  found  in  Ireland  do 
not  seem  to  occur  in  Cornwall.  A  building  of 
like  character  was  disinterred  from  the  sands 
of  the  coast  of  Northumberland  in  1853,  near 
Ebb’s  Nook,  not  far  from  Bamborough;  it  closely 
resembles  the  Cornish  oratories.  The  name  seems 
to  connect  it  with  St.  Ebba  (ob.  683),  sister  of 
St.  Oswald,  king  of  Northumberland. 

Some  of  the  Cornish  chapels  were  perhaps 
rather  those  of  hermitages  than  of  convents,  and 
the  same  observation  may  be  applied  to  the  like 
buildings  in  Ireland. 

Chapels  of  the  third  class,  those  attached  to 
churches,  may  be  divided  into  three  sections : 
A,  those  forming  part  of  the  main  building  above 
ground  ;  B,  those  connected  with  the  main  build¬ 
ing,  but  distinct  from  it ;  C,  those  under  ground, 
or  crypts. 

Although  very  many  churches  built  before 
A.D.  800,  exist  in  such  a  state  that  we  may  feel 
tolerably  certain  that  we  possess  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  their  original  ground-plans,  scarcely 
any  clear  examples  of  chapels  which  could  be 
placed  in  the  fii’st  section  can  be  pointed  out.  We 
cannot  suppose  the  apartments  which  are  found 
in  very  many  of  the  churches  of  the  5th  and  6th 
centuries  in  central  Syria  on  either  side  of  the 
nai’thex  to  have  been  chapels  in  the  sense  of 
having  been  used  for  divine  worship ;  nor  were 
the  lateral  apses  originally  constructed  for  a  like 
use,  since  we  liaA-e  contemporary  testimony  (Pau- 
linus  of  Nola,  Ep.  xxxii.)  that  one  was  used  as 
a  sacristy,  and  the  other  as  a  place  in  which 
the  devout  might  read  the  sci'iptures  and  offer 
prayers  ;  if,  however,  w’e  define  the  word  chaj)el  so 
as  to  admit  apartments  destined  to  serve  as  places 
for  prayer,  but  not  for  tbe  celebration  of  the 
rites  of  the  church,  we  must  consider  the  lesser 
apse  on  the  left  of  the  great  apse  as  a  chapel. 
In  the  description  which  St.  Paulinus  has  given 
(A/>.  xxxii.)  of  the  basilica  of  St.  Felix,  mention 
is,  however,  made  of  ‘  cubicula  ’  in  the  following 
passage:  “Totum  exti’a  concham  basilicae,  spa- 
tium  alto  et  lacunato  culmine  geminis  utrinque 
porticibus  dilatatur,  quibus  duplex  per  singulos 
arcus  columnarum  ordo  dirigitur.  Cubicula  intra 
porticus  quaterua  longis  basilicae  lateribus  in- 
terta  secretis  orantium  vel  in  lege  Domini  medi- 
tautium  praeterea  memoriis  religiosorum  et  fa- 
miliarium  accommodates  ad  pads  aeternae  re¬ 
quiem  locos  praebent.”  [Cubigulum.] 

This  passage  seems  to  show  clearly  that  in 
some  instances  apartments  were  placed  by  the 
sides  of  the  nave,  but  this  was  probably  very  ex¬ 
ceptional,  for,  as  has  been  said  above,  no  example 
of  such  a  plan  now  exists.  It  should,  however, 
be  noticed  that  in  two  churches  of  very  early 


date  openings  have  existed  in  the  side  walls  with 
which  cha))els  may  have  been  connected ;  these 
are  the  churches  of  Sta.  Croce  in  Gerusalemme 
and  that  of  Sta.  Balbina,  both  at  Rome;  in  the 
first  were  five  openings  on  each  side  of  the  nave, 
in  the  second  six.  The  first  of  these  buildings 
is,  however,  held  to  have  been  the  hall  of  the 
palace  of  the  Sessorium,  and  not  originally  con¬ 
structed  to  serve'  as  a  church ;  the  second  is 
believed  to  date  from  the  5th  century,  but  to 
have  been  reconsecrated  by  St.  Gregory  about 
A.D.  600. 

At  a  very  much  later  date  we  find  in  the 
church  of  Sta.  Christina  at  Pola  de  Lena,  near 
Oviedo,  in  S2)ain,  apartments  attached  to  and 
entered  from  the  nave.  These  are  no  doubt  con¬ 
temporary  with  the  church,  the  date  of  which  is 
probably  near  A.D.  809.  These  apartments  may 
have  been  chapels,  but  it  has  been  surmised  that 
they  were  really  built  to  serve  as  sacristies. 
The  like  arrangement  occurs  at  Sta.  Maria  de 
Naranco,  near  Oviedo,  which  dates  from  A.D.  848. 

One  almost  unique  example  exists  in  the  chui'ch 
of  Remain  Metier,  where  the  upper  story  of  the 
narthex  has  a  small  apse  on  the  east,  and  was 
therefore  probably  intended  to  serve  as  a  chapel  ; 
it  is  nearly  square  in  plan,  and  divided  into 
three  aisles  by  two  ranges  of  columns  supporting 
groined  vaults.  As  the  church  of  which  this 
forms  a  part  was  a  large  conventual  one,  this 
was  probably  intended  to  serve  as  the  smaller 
chapel  generally  found  in  convents.  The  church 
is  believed  to  date  from  753,  the  narthex  to  be 
somewhat  later. 

The  chapels  which  belong  to  the  second  section, 
viz.  those  attached  to  churches,  but  distinct 
buildings,  are  not  very  numerous,  and  in  most 
cases  their  primary  object  was  sepulchral.  Such 
the  three  attached  to  the  church  of  St.  Lorenzo 
at  Milan  would  appear  to  have  been,  though  it 
has  been  suggested  that  that  on  the  south  was 
a  baptistery,  and  that  on  the  north  a  porch  or 
vestibule. 

That  on  the  south,  now  called  the  church  of 
St.  Aquilinus,  is  octagonal  externally,  while  in¬ 
ternally  semicircular  and  rectangular  niches  al¬ 
ternate,  one  in  each  face ;  in  it  are  two  massive 
sarcophagi,  one  of  which  is  believed  to  contain 
the  remairs  of  Ataulphus,  king  of  the  Goths. 
The  conchs  of  two  of  the  niches  retain  some 
mosaics  of  a  A'ery  early  period,  perhaps  the  6th 
century.  Thic  building  is  connected  with  the 
church  by  a  vestibule,  supposed  by  Hiibsch  (A/f- 
Christliche  Kircken,  p.  22)  to  be  of  later  date ; 
it  is  a  square  vaulted  chamber  with  apses  east 
and  west.  The  chapel  of  St.  Sixtus  on  the  north 
side  has  exactly  the  same  plan,  but  is  much 
smaller;  that  of  St.  Hippolytus  at  the  east  end 
of  the  church  is  also  octangular  externally,  but 
internally  forms  a  cross  with  four  equal  limbs. 
All  three  are  probably  not  remote  in  date  from 
the  church  itself,  which  would  seem  to  have  been 
built  about  the  end  of  the  4th  or  the  beginning 
of  the  5th  century. 

In  like  manner  Pope  Hilarus  (461-467)  added 
to  the  baptistery  of  the  Lateran  chapels  dedi¬ 
cated  in  honour  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  and 
St.  John  the  Evangelist. 

Of  the  early  part  of  the  9th  century  we  have 
a  most  interesting  example  in  the  chapel  of  St. 
Zeno  attached  to  the  church  of  St.  Praxedis  (Sta. 
Prassedc)  at  Rome,  built  by  Pope  Paschal  I. 


344 


CHAPEL 


CHAPEL 


about  819,  and  fortunately  preserved  almost  un¬ 
altered.  It  is  in  plan  a  square  with  three  rect¬ 
angular  recesses,  the  walls  are  covered  with 
marble  and  the  lunettes  and  vaults  with  mosaic. 

This  chapel  is  entered  from  the  nave,  and  the 
doorway  is  very  remarkable,  being  partly  made 
up  of  ancient  materials  and  partly  original  work, 
as  the  inscription  testifies,  of  Pope  Paschal’s 
time.  Over  this  doorway  is  a  window,  and  the 
wall  around  it  is  covered  with  medallion  por¬ 
traits  of  our  Lord,  the  Apostles,  and  some  other 
saints  in  mosaic.  The  execution  is  but  rude. 
This  chapel  is  contemporaneous  with  the  church 
to  which  it  is  attached,  and  is  perhaps  the  earliest 
undoubted  instance  of  such  an  arrangement ;  it 
IS,  however,  so  constructed  as  both  externally 
and  internally  to  seem  an  independent  building 
attached  to  the  church  and  not  a  portion  of  it. 

The  practice  of  constructing  such  appendages 
to  a  church  seems,  however,  to  have  continued 
exceptional  until  the  end  of  our  period.  None 
appear  on  the  plan  for  the  monastery  of  St.  Gall, 
no  doubt  prepared  between  820  and  830 ;  nor  do 
any  seem  to  have  formed  parts  of  the  minster  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle. 


Crypt  under  Bipon  Cathedral. 

In  the  East,  as  the  rule  that  there  should  be 
only  one  altar  in  a  church  has  always  existed, 
chapels  (in  the  sense  of  apartments  in  which 
celebrations  of  the  eucharistic  service  could  take 
place)  have  rarely  formed  parts  of  churches,  but 
sometimes  are  found  attached  to  them.  One  in¬ 
stance  of  a  chapel  attached  to  a  church  would 
appear  to  exist  in  the  church  of  St.  Demetrius  at 
Thessalonica,  where  a  small  triapsal  building  is 
attached  (v.  Texier  and  Pullan,  Byzantine  Arch. 
pi.  xviii.)  to  the  east  end  of  the  south  side  of  the 
church.  It  has  been  suggested  that  this  was  a 
sacristy,  but  its  form  seems  to  show  that  it  was 
really  a  chapel  ;  it  may  possibly  have  belonged 
to  the  adjacent  monastery.  To  the  church  of 
the  convent  of  St.  Catherine  on  Mount  Sinai 
six  chapels  are  attached  on  each  side  of  the 
nave,  but  these  are  doubtless  not  of  the  original 
fabric. 

The  third  class,  viz.  subterranean  chapeV^, 
doubtless  had  their  origin  from  the  chambers  in 


the  catacombs  in  which  the  remains  of  martyrs 
or  confessors  had  been  placed.  What  could  be 
more  natural  than  that  when  a  church  or  an 
oratory  was  built  over  the  spot  where  a  martyr 
had  been  interred,  the  chamber  should  be  pre¬ 
served  and  made  accessible  ? 

We  have  probably  an  instance  of  one  of  these 
chambers  preserved  in  the  remains  of  the  basilica 
of  St.  Stefano,  in  Via  Latina,  built  by  Pope  Leo  L, 
440-461.  Where,  however,  no  chamber  existed, 
a  crypt  was  not  constructed.  Hence,  in  the 
earlier  churches  of  the  city  of  Rome,  we  find  no 
crypt  forming  part  of  the  original  plan,  but 
small  excavations  under  the  altar,  to  receive 
some  holy  corpse  brought  from  the  extramui'al 
cemeteries.  [Coxfkssio.] 

St.  Gregory,  we  are  told,  “  fecit  ut  super 
corpus  beati  Petri  et  beati  Pauli  Apostolorum 
Missae  celebrarentur.”  He  probably  formed  a 
crypt  and  placed  the  ‘loculus’  in  it,  erecting 
an  altar  in  the  church  above  over  the  bodies. 
After  this  time  frequent  mention  is  made  of 
the  confe.ssion  as  a  vault  with  stairs  leading  into 
it.  In  those  churches  of  the  earlier  period  at 
Rome,  which  remain  in  a  tolerably  unaltered 

state  as  Sta.  Sabina 
(a.d.  425)  and  Sta. 
Maria  in  Trastevere, 
only  very  small  vaults 
are  found  as  confes¬ 
sions,  but  in  S.  Apol- 
linare  in  Classe,  at 
Ravenna,  a  crypt  ap¬ 
pears  as  part  of  the 
original  structure ;  it 
consists  of  a  passage 
running  within  the 
wall  of  the  apse,  and 
another  passing  under 
the  high  altar. 

French  antiquaries 
(Martigny,  Diet,  dei 
Antiq.  Chre't.  art. 
‘  Crypte  ’)  have  claimed 
a  very  high  antiquity 
for  crypts  under  seve¬ 
ral  churches  in  France, 
e.  g.  that  under  the 
church  of  St.  Mellon 
( ?  St.  Gervais),  at 
Rouen,  is  alleged  to 
show  the  construction  of  the  4th  century.  It 
would  seem  probable  that  in  most  cases  where 
they  belong  to  early  periods  they  are  ancient 
sepulchral  chapels  or  oratories,  or,  possibly, 
tombs  of  the  Roman  period,  and  not  structural 
crypts.  Two  crypts,  however,  exist,  which 
were,  it  would  seem,  structural ;  these  are  those 
of  St.  Irenaeus  at  Lyons  and  of  St.  Victor  at 
Marseilles.  The  first  of  these  has  a  central  and 
side  aisles  divided  originally  by  columns  which 
caiTy  arches,  the  courses  of  which  are  of  brick 
and  stone  alternately,  above  there  is  a  string 
and  a  barrel  vault.  The  central  aisle  ends  in  an 
apse ;  the  church  is  said  to  have  been  founded 
in  the  4th  century.  The  crypt  of  St.  Victor  is 
in  connection  with  some  catacombs,  the  original 
church  dated  from  the  5th  century.  The  crypt 
consists  of  a  series  of  vaulted  compartments 
divided  by  very  massive  rectangular  piers. 

Two  remarkable  crypts  exist  in  England,  those 
in  the  cathedral  of  Rip^n  and  in  the  abbey  church 


CITArEL 


CHAPEL 


345 


of  Hoxham  :  both  are  attributed  to  St.  Wilfrid, 
who  founded  monasteries  at  both  places;  that  at 
Kipon  between  (>70  and  678,  that  at  Hexham 
about  673.  It  appears  from  the  testimony  of 
Leland  {Itin.  i.  83,  2nd  ed.)  that  the  actual 
cathedral  of  Ripon  does  not  occu})y  the  same 
place  as  the  church  of  the  abbey  built  by  WillVid, 
Hud  there  is  much  uncertainty  whether  the  like 
is  not  true  of  the  church  of  Hexham. 

The  similarity  of  the  i)lans  and  the  peculiarity 
of  the  structures  can  leave  no  doubt  that  one 
person  planned  both,  and  this  can  hardly  have 
been  any  other  than  St.  Wilfrid.  The  model 
which  he  followed  was  evidently  not  the  con¬ 
fession  of  a  church  but  the  cubiculum  and 
galleries  of  a  Roman  catacomb,  and  the  principal 
vault  in  each  does  in  fact  bear  considerable  re¬ 
semblance  to  the  cubiculum  adjacent  to  the 
cemetery  of  St.  Callixtus  (about  two  miles  from 
Rome  in  the  Via  Appia),  in  which  the  bodies  of 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul  are  said  to  have  ]-emained  for 
a  considerable  time. 

The  vault  in  question  (Marchi,  Eoma  Sott. 
pi.  xli. ;  Catagomus,  p.  310)  has  an  arched  roof 
nearly  semicircular,  but  really  formed  by  five 
small  segments  of  circles,  and  has  the  same 
height,  about  9  feet,  and  the  same  width,  8  feet,  as 
the  two  crypts,  but  being  in  plan  nearly  square, 
while  the  crypts  are  oblong,  is  only  8  feet  long, 
while  they  are  11'3  and  13’4.  It  is  evidentl}'’ 
by  no  means  unlikely  that  St.  Wilfrid  may 
have  intended  to  construct  models  of  a  place 
in  his  time  most  highly  venerated  and  much 
resorted  to,  just  as  models  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre 
were  built  in  later  times.  Some  of  the  small 
niches  in  the  walls  were  pi-obably  intended  to 
contain  relics  or  to  hold  lamps.  The  ante-cham¬ 
ber  to  the  principal  vault  is  stated  to  be  covered 
by  a  demi-vaulted  roof,  as  Mr.  Walbran  sur¬ 
mises,  in  order  that  the  steps  of  the  altar  might 
be  carried  on  it.  If  these  structures  were  not 
beneath  churches,  probably  small  “  cellae  me¬ 
moriae,”  such  as  will  be  hereafter  noticed, 
coveied  and  protected  the  access  to  them. 
Whether  they  were  originally  provided  with 
altars  is  uncertain. 

A  crypt  existed  in  the  Saxon  church  of  Canter¬ 
bury,  and  was,  we  are  told  by  Kdmer,  the  chanter 
(quoted  by  Gervase,  Be  Combust,  et  Rep.  Dorob. 
Keel.'),  “ad  instar  confessionis  S.  Petri  fabricata,” 
it  was  beneath  a  raised  choir,  and  appears  to  have 
had  several  passages  or  divisions.  Whether  this 
formed  part  of  the  early  church,  or  was  one  of 
the  additions  made  by  Archbishop  Odo  (cir.  950), 
is  unknown. 

A  crypt  also  appears  in  the  plan  for  the  church 
of  St.  Gall  (made  cir.  a.d.  800).  It  consisted  of 
two  parts,  a  “  confessio,”  Avhich  was  reached  by 
steps  descending  between  two  flights  ascending 
to  the  raised  pi-esbytery,  and  a  “  crypta,”  which 
seems  to  have  consisted  of  two  pas.sages  entered 
from  the  transepts  on  either  side,  but  running 
outside  the  walls  ;  a  third,  connecting  the  former 
two,  and  running  in  front  of  the  apse,  and  another 
short  passage  running  from  the  last  mentioned 
to  a  spot  beneath  the  high  altar.  There  is  a 
close  re.semblance  between  this  arrangement  and 
that  in  the  Roman  churches  of  the  same  period 
(as  Sta.  Cecilia)  where  the  crypt  follows  the  line 
of  the  wall  of  the  ap.se.  Altars  were  placed  in 
both  crypt  and  confe.ssiou. 

In  the  church  of  Brixworth,  in  Northampton¬ 


shire,  which  there  is  evidence  for  believing  to 
date  from  cir.  A.D.  700,  is  a  crypt  running  round 
the  apse  externally,  originally  covered  with  a 
vault ;  and,  according  to  Mr.  Poole  (^Reports  and 
Papers  of  Arch.  Soc.  of  Aorthants,  York,  and  TAn- 
coln,  i.  122)  there  are  also  traces  of  a  short 
]iassage  running  westwards  from  this  to  the  pro¬ 
bable  position  of  a  “confessio”  below  the  high 
altar.  Mr.  Watkins,  however  {T/ie  Basilica  &c. 
of  Brixuorth),  asserts  that  there  could  have  been 
no  cryi)t  under  the  apse,  as  the  original  floor  was 
on  a  level  with  the  rest  of  the  church.  [Cfiurcii.] 

A  remarkable  crypt  or  “  confessio  ”  exists 
under  the  raised  presbytery  of  the  church  of  St. 
Cecilia  at  Rome,  and  apparently  dates  from  the 
construction  of  the  building  by  Pope  Paschal  1. 
(817-824).  It  consists  of  a  A%aulted  sface  .south 
of  the  altar  (the  church  .stands  nearly  nortii  and 
south),  a  pas.sage  running  round  the  interior  of 
the  apse,  and  another  passage  running  south 
from  the  north  end  of  the  former,  but  stoj)ped 
by  a  ma.ss  of  masonry  supporting  the  high  altar. 
Within  this  mass  is  a  sarcophagus,  containing 
the  body  of  the  saint.  The  passages  are  lined 
with  slabs  of  marble  set  on  end :  many  of  the.so 
have  early  inscriptions,  and  were  probably 
brought  from  an  adjacent  cemeter)\  The  same 
arrangement  exists  at  Sta.  Prassede,  and  nearly 
the  same  at  SS.  Quattro  Coronati  and  St.  Pau- 
crazio — all  at  Rome — and  it  seems  to  have  been 
the  normal  arrangement  about  this  j)eriod.  It 
will  be  observed  that  it  is  very  much  the  same 
as  that  at  Brixworth  and  St.  Gall.  At  Fulda, 
in  He.sse  Cassel,  is  a  ciypt  which  is  usually  attri¬ 
buted  to  the  9th  century.  It  consists  of  a  circu¬ 
lar  pa.ssage,  within  which  is  a  circular  space,  the 
vault  of  which  rests  on  a  short  clumsy  column, 
with  a  rude  imitation  of  an  Ionic  capital. 

Buildings  of  the  fourth  class,  i.e.  sepulchral 
chapels,  were  constructed  at  a  very  early 
period.  The  practice  of  erecting  large  structures 
for  such  purposes  being  familiar  to  several  nations* 
of  antiquity  before  the  Christian  era  it  is  not 
surprising  that  when  they  became  converts  to 
Christianity  they  continued  a  practice  which 
their  new  faith  would  rather  encourage  than 
reprehend. 

The  greater  part  of  the  chambers  in  the  cata¬ 
combs  near  Rome  may  be  considered  as  belonging 
to  the  class  of  sepulchral  chapels.  [See  Cata- 
COMDS.] 

At  what  time  the  practice  of  placing  an  altar 
and  of  celebrating  the  eucharistic  service  in  a 
sepulchral  chapel  was  first  introduced  cannot  be 
stated  with  precision.  We  are  indeed  told  in  the 
/.iber  Pontificalis  of  Poj)e  Felix  I.  (250-274), 
that  he  “  constituit  super  sepulcra  martyruin 
mi.ssas  celebrari,”  but  altars  not  placed  over 
tombs  may  have  already  been  used.  As,  however, 
the  pnwdice  of  praying  for  the  dead  existed  in 
the  4th  and  even  in  the  3rd  century,  it  seems 
not  unlikely  that  the  practice  of  jjlacing  altars 
in  sepulcjtiral  chapels  may  have  come  into  use  in 
the  former  of  those  periods.  Perhaps  the  ear¬ 
liest  undoubted  instance  of  a  chapel  having  been 
constructed  to  serve  at  once  as  a  place  of  sepulture 
and  of  divine  worship  is  that  of  the  “Temj)lum 
Probi,”  a  small  basilica  attached  to  the  exterior 
of  the  apse  of  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome,  and  built  by 
Sixtus  Anicius  Petronius  Probus,  who  died  a.D. 
395.  He  and  his  wife  were  undoubtedly  buried 
in  it,  and  its  form  makes  it  highly  improbablo 


346 


CHAPEL 


CHAPEL 


that  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist  within  it  was 
not  contemplated  by  the  builder. 

Cav.  de  Rossi,  however,  appears  di  Arch. 

Crist.  1864,  p.  25)  to  think  that  in  the  earlier 
centuries  the  chief  use  of  such  “cellae  memoriae” 
was  to  afford  a  fit  place  for  the  banquets  held  in 
honour  of  the  dead,  and  such  buildings  he  be¬ 
lieves  to  have  bpen  erected  in  arkai:,  or  en¬ 
closures  set  apart  for  sepulture  outside  the  walls 
of  cities,  as  early  as  the  2ud  century,'or  probably 
even  at  an  earlier  period.  That  such  buildings 
were  also  used  as  oratories  there  can  be  little 
doubt,  since  Sozomen  (Eccl.  Hist.  ix.  2)  states 
that  the  martyr  St.  Eusebia  was  placed  in  a 
fvKT-fipiov  near  Constantinojde,  on  the  spot 
where  the  church  of  St.  Thyrsus  was  afterwards 
built.  [CiiLLA  Memorial:.] 

An  example  has  been  recently  discovered  out¬ 
side  the  gates  of  Rimini  of  V'ery  similar  plan, 
which  is  described  as  that  of  a  Greek  cross, 
before  which  is  an  oblong  apartment.  Some 
remains  of  bas-reliefs,  and  a  sepulchral  ins  -"ip- 
tion  dated  Maximo  Cousule  (i.e.  a.d.  526),  give 
ground  for  the  presumption  that  the  building  is 
not  of  later  date  than  the  6th  century.  The 
remains  of  an  altar  were  discovered ;  but  as  this 
contained  a  “se})ulcrum”  in  which  was  a  leaden 
box,  doubtless  containing  relics,  it  could  hardly 
have  been  coeval  with  the  building. 

Of  about  the  same  date  were  apparently  the 
chapels  at  the  cemetery  of  St.  Alessandro,  about 
six  miles  from  Rome,  discovered  a  few  years  ago  : 
these  had  been  formed  from  chambers  in  the  first 
level  of  a  catacomb,  and  are  partly  below  the 
ground.  There  were  two  chapels  with  a  space 
between  them ;  one  of  these  ends  with  an  aj)se, 
on  the  chord  of  wliich  is  what  appears  to  be  the 
substructure  of  an  altar;  the  other  has  a  rectan¬ 
gular  termination :  at  the  end  of  this  was  found 
a  marble  cathedra  raised  upon  a  platform,  and 
below  this  platform  an  altar,  under  which  is  a 
shallow  grave  lined  with  slabs  of  marble,  from 
which  the  body  of  St.  Alexander  is  believed  to 
have  been  removed.  Another  chapel  opened 
from  this,  and  is  of  an  irregular  square  form, 
with  a  small  apse.  The  general  character  of 
the  pavements  and  such  ornamental  portions  as 
remained  is  of  circa  A.D.  500,  and  a  monumental 
inscription  boi’e  the  names  of  consuls  of  443 
and  527. 

Of  sepulchral  chapels  or  mausoleums  of  un¬ 
doubted  date,  perhaps  the  earliest  is  the  tomb  of 
the  Em])ress  Helena,  outside  Rome  (cir.  A.  D. 
328),  a  circular  building  standing  on  a  square 
basement,  in  which  is  a  vault.  In  the  circular 
portion,  which  is  about  66  feet  in  diameter  inter¬ 
nally,  are  on  the  floor,  eight  large  niches,  and 
above  them  as  many  windows;  the  whole  is 
covered  by  a  dome.  It  may  be  said  that  this  Is 
merely  a  tomb,  but  the  large  size  of  the  windows 
points  to  an  use  other  than  that  of  a  sepulchre. 
The  Liber  Fontificalis states  that  it  was  provided  by 
the  Emperor  Constantine  with  an  altar  of  silver 
and  much  church  furniture  and  many  vessels, 
but  the  trustworthiness  of  this  part  of  the  book 
is  doubtful.  Of  nearly  the  same  date  is  Sta. 
Costanza,  the  mausoleum  of  a  daughter  of  the 
Emperor  Constantine,  also  a  circular  building 
with  a  dome,  but  which  has  an  internal  peristyle 
and  had  also  one  externally.  Further  descrip¬ 
tion  of  this  building  will  be  found  under 
Church, 


Another  circular  mausoleum,  which  no  longer 
exists,  was  that  built  by  the  Emperor  Honorius 
in  connexion  wdth  the  Vatican  Basilica  ;  it  was 
about  100  feet  in  diameter  and  very  similar  to 
that  of  the  Em])ress  Helena,  in  the  ruins  of  this, 
in  1543,  a  marule  sarcojjhagus  containing  the 
remains  of  one  or  both  of  his  wives  was  dis¬ 
covered. 


The  building  next  to  be  mentioned  is  one  of 
peculiar  interest  having  come  doxvn  to  our  time 
almost  uninjured,  and  containing  the  sarcophagi, 
which  it  was  constructed  to  receive,  unviolated; 
this  is  the  chapel  at  Ravenna  now  called  the 
church  of  SS.  Naz- 


zaro  e  Celso,  erected 
by  the  Empress  Galla 
Placidia,  as  a  mauso¬ 
leum  for  herself  and 
family  before  the 
year  450,  it  has,  as 
will  be  seen  by  the 
plan,  the  form  of  a 
Latin  cross.  There 
was  originally  a  por¬ 
tico  by  which  it  was 
connected  wdth  the 
atrium  of  the  adja¬ 
cent  church .  of  Sta. 

Croce.  Three  im¬ 
mense  sarcophagi  are  placed  in  the  three  upper 
arms  of  the  cross,  and  contain  the  remains  of 
the  Empress  Galla  Placidia,  and  of  the  Emperors 
Honorius  H.  and  Constantins  HI.  Between  these 
stands  the  altar,  but  this  is  said  to  have  been 
brought  from  the  church  of  St.  Vitale.  The 
chapel  is  paved  and  lined  wdth  rich  marbles  up 
to  the  springing  of  the  arches  which  carry  the 
dome  ;  this  last,  the  lunettes  below'  the  dome 
and  the  arches  and  the  soffits  of  the  arches  are 
all  covered  with  mosaics  of  very  beautiful  cha¬ 
racter. 

Of  the  highest  interest,  both  architecturally 
and  historically,  is  the  tomb  of  Theodoric  (ob. 
526),  outside  the  walls  of  Ravenna ;  this  is 


8S.  Naz/aro  e  C«Iso  Kavenna. 


Manaoleum  of  Theodoric, 


of  two  stories,  the  lower  externally^ decagonal, 
but  enclosing  a  cruciform  crypt.  The  upper 
story  is  circular  and  was  surrouuded  by  a  range 
of  small  pillars  carrying  arches;  opposite  tD  the 
entrance  is  a  niche,  w'hich  no  doubt  once  contained 
an  altar  ;  this  story  is  covered  by  a  low  dome 
30  feet  in  diameter  internally,  hollowed  cut 
from  a  single  slab  of  Istidan  marble.  There  are 
many  peculiarities  of  detail  in  this  building, 


CHAPEL 


CHAPTER 


347 


amoug  them  a  small  window  in  the  form  of  a 
cross  with  limbs  of  equal  length,  all  the  bound¬ 
ing  lines  of  which  are  convex.  The  sarcophagus 
containing  the  body  of  the  king  was  probably 
placed  in  the  centre  of  the  upper  chamber. 

In  one  very  remarkable  instance,  however, 
that  of  the  Minster  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  the  great 
Emperor  founded  neither  an  episcopal  nor  a 
conventual  church,  but  constructed  a  building  on 
a  magnificent  scale  indeed,  but  essentially  on  the 
plan  of  a  mausoleum  of  the  earlier  Empire; 
whether  or  not  it  was  the  intention  of  Charle¬ 
magne  to  construct  at  once  a  Minster  and  a 
s))leudid  tomb,  it  is  certain  that  it  has  ever  been 
looked  upon  as  the  “memoria”  of  that  great 
man.  An  account  of  this  vei-y  remarkable 
building  will  be  found  under  Church. 

Detached  chaj)el-like  buildings  not  attached  to 
convents,  and  not  sepulchral,  are  not  often  met 

with,  though  pro- 


bably  once  com¬ 
mon.  In  most 
instances  they 
have  perished 
either  from  time 
or  neglect.  In 
the  Haoui-an, 
however,  where 
since  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury  the  ruined  cities  have  been  uninhabited 
and  the  country  a  desert,  many  buildings  which 
Count  de  Vogiie'  (Aa  Syrk  Centrale,  Avant- 


Piaii  ot'  Ka]>be. 


nave,  a  square  central  portion,  and  three  large 
semi-circular  niches  or  apses,  the  so-called  trans¬ 
verse  triapsal  arrangement.  Such  a  plan  was 
often  adopted  in  order  to  afford  place  for  three 
sarcophagi,  and  hence  it  may  be  thought  that  this 
chapel  was  really  built  as  a  “  cella  memoriae;” 
but  it  exists  in  the  church  of  Bethlehem,  where 
it  certainly  could  not  have  been  chosen  with  that 
intention. 


CHAPLET.  (1)  It  was  anciently  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  some  churches  to  crown  the  newly  baptized 
with  a  chaplet  or  garland  of  flowers.  See  Bap¬ 
tism,  p.  164. 

(2)  For  chaplet  in  the  sense  of  a  succession  of 
prayers  recited  in  a  certain  order,  regulateil  by 
beads  or  some  such  device,  see  Rosarv.  [C.] 

CHAPTER  [Oapitulum],  the  body  of  the 
clergy  of  a  cathedral,  united  under  the  bishop 
(for  other  senses  of  the  Latin  term  see  Capi- 
tulum). 

1.  The  origin  of  chapters  themselves,  apart 
from  the  name,  begins  from  a  very  eaidy  date. 
The  presbyters,  and  subordinately  the  deacons  of 
each  diocese,  constituted  from  the  beginning  the 
council  of  the  bishop  of  that  diocese  [Bishop], \ 
joined  in  his  administration  of  it,  and  in  the 
approval  of  candidates  for  ordination,  ^c.,  and  in 
fact,  though  not  in  name,  were  his  chapter.  And 
these,  at  first,  all  lived  in  the  cathedral  city ; 
and  as  country  cures  came  gradually  to  exist, 
served  them  from  that  city.  In  time,  however, 


Kalyb^  at  Omm-es-Zeitoum 


propos,  p.  8)  considers  to  nave  been  oratories 
or  chapels  still  exist,  a  good  example  of  these 
Kalybes  is  that  of  Omm-es-Zeitoun,  which 
an  inscription  engraved  on  its  front  shows  to 
have  been  built  in  A.  D.  282.  It  must,  however, 
be  observed  that  there  seems  to  be  in  them  no 
trace  of  any  altar  or  of  any  place  to  receive  it, 
and  that,  in  that  at  Chagga,  is  a  vault  below  the 
building,  which  latter  circumstance  gives  rise  to  a 
doubt  whether  they  may  not  have  been  sepulchral. 

One  example  may  be  mentioned  of  a  detached 
chapel  of  an  early  date,  which  was  not  certainly 
sepulchral,  that,  namely,  built  by  Pope  Damasus 
(367-385)  near  the  baptistery  of  the  Lateran  at 
Rome,  but  not  now  in  existence,  it  liad  a  short 


country  presbyters  became  fixed  in  their  several 
localities.  And  a  distinction  grew  up  accord¬ 
ingly,  by  the  period  of  the  great  Nicene  Council, 
between  town  and  country  presbyters, — civit  t- 
tenseSy  and  dioecesani  or  Tncrales  presbyteri, — the 
latter  being  reckoned  as  a  somewhat  lower  grade 
than  the  former.  In  accordance  with  this  dis¬ 
tinction,  and  as  a  natural  result  of  their  distance 
from  the  bishop’s  residence,  the  country  presbyters 
(and  deacons)  became  in  etiect,  although  never 
formally,  excluded  from  the  Episcopal  council  or 
(so  to  call  it  by  anticipation)  chapter.  At  Rome 
this  state  of  things  became  permanent,  so  that 
all  the  city  clergy,  and  they  only,  became  the 
chapter  ;  and  hence,  after  a  lapse  of  centuries  and 


348 


CHAPTER 


CHAPTER 


Bome  other  ehjuigcs,  the  onrdinal-bishops,  priests, 
and  'deacons.  Jn  gc'iieral,  liowever.  time  brought 
about  two  further  but  equally  gradual  changes. 

1.  'I'he  bishop  and  his  more  immediate  clergy 
took  to  living  a  life  in  common,  although  each 
still  retaining  his  own  special  share  of  church 
goods  and  living  upon  it.  And  thus  the  town 
clergy  in  general  became  separated  from  those, 
who  specially  served  the  cathedral  but  had  no 
cure  in  the  city  itself.  And  the  cha))ter  (so  to 
call  it)  became  gradually  restricted  to  the  latter, 
vix.,  the  cut/u'd/'ules  proper,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  former,  or  general  body  of  the  town  clergy; 
a  right  disused,  as  before,  ceasing  naturally  in 
time  to  be  recognised  as  a  right  at  all.  2.  The 
cathcdrules  themselves  became  increased  in 
number  by  the  addition  of  various  diocesan 
officers:  as  e.  g.  the  archdeacon,  archpresbyter, 
priiaicerius  or  custos,  scliolusticus ;  or  again, 
thi'ough  the  musical  services  of  the  cathedral, 
the  archicuntur ;  and  through  the  engrafting 
upon  the  bishoji’s  establishment  of  seminaries 
for  youths  and  clergy,  the  pri(ej,ositus  or  provost, 
&c.  And  thus  a  body  of  officers  grew  up,  who, 
through  their  position  and  s])ecial  attachment  to 
the  bishop  and  the  cathedral,  helped  yet  more  to 
exclude  outsiders.  The  time  of  St.  Augustine 
and  of  Eusebius  of  Vercelli  may  be  taken  as  the 
period  whence  the  first  of  these  changes  began; 
the  latter  bishop  endeavouring  also  to  engraft 
the  monastic  life  upon  the  common  life  of  him¬ 
self  and  his  clergy,  which  St.  Augustin  did  not; 
and  the  monastic  bishoprics  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
church,  established  by  St.  Gregmy  and  the  Can¬ 
terbury  St.  Augustine,  and  copied  through  Anglo- 
Saxon  missions  in  Germany,  helping  on  the 
practice.  The  British  monastic  bishops  may  be 
also  referred  to,  who  were  anterior  to  the  Canter¬ 
bury  mission  ;  but  the  Celtic  monasteries,  with 
their  dioceseless  and  often  subordinate  bishops, 
are  anomalous,  and  irrelevant  to  the  present 
question.  The  progress  of  the  change  may  be 
marked,  1,  by  the  Councils  of  Tours,  ii.  a.d.  567, 
and  of  Toledo,  iv.  a.d.  663,  which  require  the 
presbyters,  deacons,  and  all  his  c/crict,  manifestly 
the  town  clergy,  to  reside  with  the  bishop,  the 
latter  making  an  exception  for  tho.se  only  of 
whom  health  or  old  age.  rendered  it  desirable 
that  they  should  live  apart  in  their  own  houses; 
and  by  Cone.  Emerit.  A.D.  666,  can.  12,  which 
empowers  a  bishop  to  recal  a  country  presbyter 
and  make  him  a  cathed'  alis\ — 2,  by  the  gradual 
limitations  of  the  word  Cunonici,  which  in  the 
Councils  of  Clermont,  a.d.  549,  can.  15,  and 
Tours  ii.  a.d.  567,  still  included  all  the  clergy, 
even  the  minor  orders,  while  the  3rd  Council  of 
Orleans,  A.D.  538,  uses  it  for  all  on  the  roll,  and 
the  4th,  A.D.  549,  speaks  still  of  “matricula 
ecclesiae ;  ”  but  which  Gregory  of  Tours  (//.  F. 
X.  sub  fin.),  who  wrote  about  the  close  of  the  6th 
century,  speaking  of  “  mensa  canonicorum  ”  and 
a  charter  of  Chili)eric,  A.D.  580  (quoted  by  Du 
Cange),  restrict  to  the  cathedral  clergy  (the 
distiiudion  of  regular  and  secular  canons  and  the 
special  sen.se  of  the  term  belonging  to  the  later 
period  after  Chi’odegang) ;  so  that  in  A.D.  813, 
Cone.  Mognnt.  and  Tmon.  iii.,  tliere  had  grown 
accordingly  to  be  two  classes  of  “  Canonici,” 
chajders  under  a  bishop,  and  colleges  under  an 
abbat  (.see  also  Council  of  Calchythe,  A.D.  785, 
can.  4);  aiul  these  two,  under  the  name  of  Capi- 
tula,  are  mentioned  in  Cone.  Vern  ,  A.D.  755,  can. 


11,  the  monks  living  “.secundum  regulam  t.  c., 
of  St.  Benedict,  the  clergy  of  the  cathedral  “sub 
ordine  canonico.”  Yet  even  in  the  time  of 
Charlemagne  “canonicus”  still  had  a  double 
meaning,  being  either  in  general  any  clergyman 
on  the  roll  (and  “  canonical  ”  life  meaning 
“  clerical  ”  life),  or  in  particular  the  clergy  who 
lived  in  common  under  the  bi.shop  [Canonici]. 
The  second  change  abov'e  noticed  was  also  of 
gradual  growth.  The  offices  of  archj>re.>byter 
and  archdeacon  were  no  doubt  ancient  [Aitcii- 
I'liicsiJVTER,  Archdeacon],  but  did  not  become 
attached  at  once  to  the  cathedral,  prob.ably  not 
until  the  6th  or  7th  centuries.  The  Priniiccrius 
and  Arcliicantor  were  of  later  date  still  [Pre¬ 
centor,  Pri.micerius]  ;  and  so  also  the  Scholas- 
ticus  [ScnOLASTiccJs].  Two  further  changes 
however  were  needed  in  order  to  complete  the 
establishment  of  the  modern  chaj)ter, —  1,  The 
appointment  of  a  dean,  which  grew  out  of  the 
office  of  praeposiim.  The  latter  came  into 
existence  under  the  bishop,  in  analogy  with  the 
praepositns  under  the  abbat  among  Chrodegang’s 
canons,  but  his  office  being  gradually  re.stricted 
to  external  administration,  a  decunus  was  aj)- 
pointed  to  conduct  the  internal  dis(^jdiue,  after 
the  analogy  apparently  of  monastic  decani;  the 
10th  century  being  the  period  of  the  first  insti¬ 
tution  of  the  office;  and  the  dean  gradually  sup 
planted  the  provost  [Decanus].  2.  The  cou- 
v'ersion  of  the  prebends  (in  fact  though  not  in 
name)  into  benefices,  i.  e.  of  customary  separate 
^layments  to  individual  cathedral  members  out 
of  the  church  stock  into  a  common  treasury  of 
the  body,  together  with  fixed  rights  of  individual 
members  to  definite  shares.  The  first  “commune 
aerarium  ”  in  France  is  attributed  to  Kigobert, 
Archbishop  of  Rheims,  after  A.D.  700;  so  that 
canonici  quasi  koivuvikoX,  although  a  bad  deriva¬ 
tion,  yet  represented  at  first  a  real  fact ;  as  does  also 
the  more  plausible  derivaition  t'rom  canon  =.  a 
fixed  pen.sion,  called  sportula  by  St.  Cyprian,  and 
“  consuetum  clericorum  stipondium  ”  by  Cone. 
Valentin.,  Hispal.,  and  Agath.,  quoted  by  Du 
Cange.  Prebends  also  began  to  be  founded  by 
bishops  and  other  patrons  about  the  same  period. 

2.  For  the  history  of  the  word  chapter,  see 
Capitulum.  It  was  used  as  early  as  a.d.  755, 
Cone.  \  ern.,  and  so  at  Aix  in  789,  and  Mayence 
in  813.  &;c.,  for  the  episcopal  chapter,  as  well  as 
that  of  Chrodegang’s  canons.  And  about  that 
time  it  was  that  bishops  began  to  make  the 
cathedral  clergy  their  special  council.  Its  re¬ 
striction  to  this  only,  followed  in  the  course  of 
another  two  centuries. 

3.  The  functions  of  the  cathedral  chajiter  were 
simply  deriv^ed,  and  (so  to  say)  usurped,  from 
those  of  the  original  council  of  the  bishop,  viz. 
the  diocesan  clergy.  And  the  8th  century  may 
be  taken  as-the  period  when  the  “  chapter  ”  thus 
absorbed  into  itself  the  right  of  being  the  special 
council  of  the  bishop.  Administration  of  the  dio¬ 
cese  in  the  bishop’s  ab.sence  or  during  a  vacancy, 
naturally  fell  to  the  bishop’s  “senate;”  and  ac¬ 
cordingly,  even  in  early  times,  it  was  fouuu 
necessary  to  enact,  “  ut  presbyteri  sine  conscien- 
tia  epi.scopi  nihil  faciant  ”  (Cone.  Arelat.  i.  c.  19  ; 
and  see  Can.  Apost.  38,  &c.).  Ordinations,  how¬ 
ever,  were  of  course  always  excluded  ;  but  not  sc 
the  patronage,  under  the  like  circumstances,  ol 
the  bishojfs  livings.  And  this  became  the  pri¬ 
vilege  of  the  chapter  about  the  8th  century. 


CHAPTER  OF  BIBLE 


CHARISMATA 


349 


The  right  of  electing  the  bishop  was  not  so  > 
speedily  usurped.  It  did  not  become  customary 
for  the  chapter  only  to  elect  until  the  11th  cen¬ 
tury.  And  the  final  decree,  absolutely  restrict¬ 
ing  the  right  of  election  to  that  body  (to  the 
exclusion  of  the  comju-ovincial  bishops,  as  well 
as  of  the  other  diocesan  clergy),  only  dates  from 
Pope  Innocent  III.  in  the  13th.  The  change  had 
run  parallel  with  that  which  restricted  the  elec¬ 
tion.  of  the  pope  to  the  cardinals.  The  charge 
of  the  cathedral  services  of  course  belonged  to 
the  chapter.  Other  privileges  enumerated  by 
Mayer  (i.  73)  for  the  most  part  are  merely  such 
as  belong  to  any  corporate  body  as  such ;  as,  e.  g. 
the  possession  of  a  common  seal  (the  earliest, 
however,  known  to  Mabillon,  dating  only  A.D. 
1289),  the  right  of  making  bye-laws,  the  power 
of  punishing  the  excesses  or  misconduct  of  indi¬ 
vidual  members.  For  the  schools  attached  to 
cathedrals,  see  Schools. 

4.  The  constituent  members  of  a  chapter  varied 
in  almost  every  cathedral.  The  dean,  as  has  been 
said,  was  a  comjiaratively  late  addition,  of  at 
earliest  the  10th  century ;  while  in  most  cathe¬ 
drals  there  was  no  such  office  until  late  in  the 
11th.  The  archpresbyter  appears  to  have  been 
at  first  the  principal,  under  the  bishop ;  until  he 
was  supplanted  by  the  archdeacon.  And  these 
two,  with  the  custos,  or  primicerius  (so  called  at 
Rome,  i.  e.  as  the  first  entered  on  the  wax  tablet 
or  list),  were  styled  the  “  tria  culmina  ecclesiae.” 
Chorepiscopi,  in  name  but  in  nothing  else,  lingered 
on  in  a  very  few,  mostly  French,  cathedrals.  A 
scholasticus,  a  sacrista  or  cimeliarcha,  an  archi- 
cantor,  &c.,  also  occur ;  for  whom  see  under  the 
several  titles.  And  there  were,  besides,  a  staff 
of  clergy  for  the  general  service  of  the  cathedral 
church,  together  with  lectores^  ostiarii,  exorcistae, 
acolgthi,  &c.  A  praepositus,  or  provost,  also 
occurs  in  the  8th  and  9th  centuries.  But  the 
complete  organization  of  a  modern  or  a  medieval 
chapter — the  bishop,  the  quatuor  personae,  sc. 
dean,  precentor,  chancellor,  and  treasurer,  the 
archdeacons,  canons,  &c. —  belongs  to  Norman 
times  and  the  12th  century.  And  minor  canons, 
and  vicars  choral,  &c.,  are  an  abuse  of  like  date. 

5.  In  the  Eastern  Church,  the  body  of  clergy 
serving  a  cathedral  church  was  often  exceedingly 
numerous:  e.g.  under  Justinian,  the  “Great 
Church,”  out  of  the  four  at  Constantinople, 
is  said  to  have  been  served  by  60  presbyters, 
100  deacons,  40  deaconesses,  90  subdeacons,  100 
readers,  25  cantores^m  all  415;  besides  100  os- 
tiarii,  who  served  all  four  churches.  There  were 
also  special  officers  in  Eastern  cathedrals,  as  e.  g. 
TTpcuT^TraTTas,  TrpwTO\pd\Trjs,  x°'P'’'o<pv\a^,  (TKevo- 
<pv\a^,  Sic. ;  for  whom  see  under  the  several  titles. 
But  no  such  development  of  the  chapter  took 
place  as  in  the  West,  so  as  to  restrict  to  it  the 
offices  of  electing  the  bishop,  acting  as  his  council 
or  representative,  &c.  &c. 

[Thomassin ;  Du  Cange ;  Mayer,  Thes.  Abr. 
Stat.,  4'C.,  Eccles.  Cathedr.  et  Coll,  in  Ger¬ 
mania;  Walcott,  Cathedralia,  and  Sacr.  Archae¬ 
ology.-]  [A.  W.  H.] 

CHAPTER  OF  BIBLE.  [Lectionary.] 

CHAPTER  -  HOUSE,  a  place  of  assem¬ 
bly  for  monks  or  canons,  forming  part  of  the 
conventual  buildings ;  called  capitulum,  says 
Papias,  because  there  the  capitula,  or  chapters 
of  the  monastic  rule,  were  read  and  expounded. 


For  the  ancient  custom  was  that  after  prime, 
before  the  monks  went  forth  to  their  labour, 
a  chapter  of  the  rule  was  read  aloud  to  them. 
The  meeting  of  the  monks  for  the  jmrpose  of 
hearing  such  a  reading  was  itself  called  Cali- 
TULUM  (Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.  Capitulum). 
The  ancient  plan  of  St.  Gall  contains  apparently 
no  chapter-house ;  and  perhaps  the  fii'st  instance 
of  a  house  built  especially  for  the  general  meet¬ 
ings  of  a  brothei’hood  or  college  for  other  than 
devotional  purposes  is  that  mentioned  in  the  life 
of  Abbot  Ansegis  of  Fontanelle  (c.  9,  in  Acta  tiS. 
Ben.  saec.  iv.  pt.  1,  p.  635),  who  is  said  to  have 
built,  about  A.D.  807,  near  the  apse  of  the  church 
of  St.  Petei*,  and  on  the  northern  side  of  it, 
a  house  which  he  called  conventus  or  curia,  in 
Greek  huleuterion,  because  in  it  the  brethren 
were  wont  to  assemble  for  the  purpose  of  taking 
counsel  on  any  matter  (Martene,  Be  Hit.  Monach. 
lib.  i.  c.  V.  §  3).  [C.] 

CHAPTER,  THE  LITTLE.  [Capitulum.] 

CHARALAMPES,  martyr,  a.d.  198,  com¬ 
memorated  Feb.  10  ifial.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

CHARALINUS,  martyr  at  Chartres,  is  com¬ 
memorated  May  28  (^Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CHARIOTEERS.  Among  the  callings  which 
were  regarded  by  the  Church  of  the  first  three 
centuries,  that  of  the  charioteer  held  a  j)romi- 
nent  place.  It  had  its  chief,  if  not  its  sole, 
sphere  of  action  in  games  which  were  insei)arably 
connected -with  the  old  religion  of  the  empire. 
The  men  who  followed  it  were  commonly  nmre 
or  less  disreputable,  and  had  been  excluded,  even 
by  Roman  law,  from  most  of  the  privileges  of 
citizenship  (Tertull.  de  Spectac.  c.  22).  It  was, 
through  the  eager  excitement  which  attended  it, 
incompatible  with  meditation  and  prayer  (Tertull. 
1.  c.).  We  find  accordingly  that  such  persons 
were  not  admitted  to  baptism,  unless  they  re¬ 
nounced  their  occupation  {Constt.  Apost.  viii. 
32).  If  they  returned  to  it  after  their  admis¬ 
sion  to  Christian  fellowship  they  were  to  be  ex¬ 
communicated  (C.  Elib.  c.  62,“  1  C.  Arelat.  c.  5). 
When  the  games  of  the  circus  were  reproduced 
under  Chidstian  emperors,  the  rigour  of  the 
Church’s  discipline  was  probably  relaxed. 

[E.  H.  P.] 

CHARITAS,  virgin,  martyr  under  Hadrian, 
commemorated  Aug.  1  {3Iart.  Usuardi).  As 
Agape,  Sejff.  17  (CaL  Byzant.).  Compare  Sa- 
piENTiA,  Sophia.  [C.] 

CHARITINA,  martyr,  is  commemorated 
Oct.  5  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

CHARITON,  holy  father  and  confessor,  .A  D. 
276,  is  commemorated  Sept.  28  {Cal.  Byzant  ). 

[C.] 

CHARISMATA:  literally  “graces”  which 
are  the  effect  of  grace  ;  that  is,  of  the  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  consequent  on  the  Ascension 
of  our  Lord  into  heaven, — all,  jiroperly  speaking, 
subjective  :  yet  St.  Paul  calls  the  pardon  of  sin 
in  one  place  (Rom.  v.  15),  and  eternal  life  in 
another  {ib.  vi.  23),  a  “  charisma  ” ;  that  is,  a 
gracious  or  tree  gift  on  the  part  of  God  through 
Christ.  Again,  subjective  graces  have  been  dis- 


•  A  various  reading  gives,  however,  “augur,”  instead 
of  “  auriga.”  It  is  possible  that  this  may  be  a  sign  of  a 
diminished  horror  of  the  charioteer’s  calling. 


350 


CHARITY  SCHOOLS 


CHERUBIC  HYMN 


tin^uished  into  two  classes :  1.  those  conferrino; 
mere  power  (gratiae  gratis  datae)  ;  and  2.  those 
wliich  atfect  the  chai-acter  {gratiae  graturn  fa- 
dentes').  The  locus  classicus  for  both  is  1  Cor.  xii. 
to  the  end  of  ch.  xiv.  (on  which  see  Bloomfield, 
Alford,  Cornelius  k  Lapide,  and  others),  where 
they  are  thrown  together  without  much  system 
or  classification.”  Of  the  former  class,  some  were 
neither  permanent  nor  universal,  as  the  gift  of  heal¬ 
ing  :  others,  as  for  instance,  that  which  he  affirms 
elsewhere  to  be  in  Timothy  by  the  laying  on  of 
his  hands  (2  Tim.  i.  6 ;  comp.  1  Pet.  iv.  10)  ;  in 
other  words,  the  gift  conferred  upon  all  ministers 
of  the  Gospel  at  their  ordination,  fitting  them 
for  their  respective  posts,  were  permanent,  but 
not  universal.  Both  were  bestowed  primarily  for 
the  edification  of  the  whole  body;  not  but  that 
it  would  fare  better  or  worse  with  each  individual 
possessed  of  them  according  to  the  way  in  wliich 
they  were  used.  “  The  manifestation  of  the  Spirit 
is  given  to  every  man,  to  profit  withal.”  Of  the 
latter  class  all  were  permanent  and  universal, 
being  designed  primarily  for  individual  sanctifi¬ 
cation  :  all  had  them  therefore  without  exception  ; 
an  1  any  body  might  double  or  quadruple  his  share 
of  them  by  his  own  exertions.  Where  they  lay 
dormant  in  any,  the  fault  was  his  own.  Wherever 
they  were  cultivated,  they  would  bring  forth, 
some  thirty,  some  sixty,  and  some  a  hundredfold. 
“  Follow  after  charity,”  says  the  Apostle  :  this  is 
a  gift  of  the  same  character  with  faith  and  hope, 
permanent  {gevei)  and  bestowed  on  all.  Therefore 
the  degree  to  which  you  may  become  possessed 
of  it  rests  with  yourselves.  As  you  follow  after 
it,  so  you  will  obtain  it.  For  those  gifts  which 
are  not  given  to  all  you  can  only  pray ;  still  I 
enjoin  you  to  pray;  and  of  these  “pray  rather 
that  ye  may  prophecy ;”  in  other  words,  that  ye 
may  “understand  the  Scriptures  ”  (cornp.  Luke 
xxiv.  45),  and  be  able  to  interpret  them  for  the 
benefit  of  others,  as  well  as  your  own  ; — a  gift 
which  is  permanent,  and  for  the  good  of  all,  like 
charity.  Of  ordinary  gifts,  I  have  devoted  a 
whole  chapter  to  shew  that  charity  should  occupy 
the  first  place  :  of  extraordinary  gifts,  I  proceed 
to  shew  in  the  ensuing  chapter  my  reasons  for 
considering  prophecy,  taken  in  its  widest  sense, 
to  be  first  also ;  one  is  for  practice,  the  other  for 
information:  to  understand  the  Scriptures,  and 
to  act  upon  them  aright,  for  general  as  well  as 
for  private  profit  and  edification,  is  to  fulfil  every 
purpose  for  which  grace  is  vouchsafed.  Prophecy, 
therefore,  will  mean  here  the  gift  of  expounding, 
rather  than  of  foretelling  (Corn,  i  Lap.  ad.  l.\ 
and  to  the  nine  extraordinary  “charismata”  set 
down  here,  correspond  the  nine  ordinary,  described 
as  “  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit,”  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians  (v.  22),  To  these  last  three  more 
have  been  added,  making  twelve  in  all ;  while 
faith,  hope,  and  charity  have  been  contrariwise 
classified  by  themselves  as  the  three  theological 
virtues.  [E.  S.  F.j 

CHARITY  SCHOOLS.  [Schools.] 
CHARMS.  [Amulets.] 

CHARTOPHYLAX.  One,  says  Beveridge 
(Synod,  ii.  167),  who  kept  the  archives  and  docu¬ 
ments  or  charters  of  the  church.  This  in  the 
Church  of  Constantinople  was  a  high  office ;  so 
much  so,  that  under  Andronicus  Junior  he  was 
called  “  Magnus  Chartophylax”  who  discharged  it. 


His  duties  were  by  no  means  those  of  a  mere  libra¬ 
rian  or  registrar,  but  included  with  them  those  of 
a  chancellor.  He  wore  sus))ended  round  his  neck 
the  ring  or  seal  of  the  patriarch  ;  received  and 
examined  all  letters  intended  for  him,  with  the 
exception  of  those  coming  from  other  patriarchs; 
furnished  the  list  of  those  who  should  be  pro¬ 
moted  to  vacant  benefices  of  all  sorts ;  and  was 
entrusted  with  the  authorisation  of  the  nuptial 
benediction.  When  the  6th  Council  opened,  it 
was  the  chartophylax,  or  keeper  of  the  archives 
of  the  great  church,  whom  the  emperor  ordered 
to  fetch  the  books  of  the  previous  oecumenical 
councils  from  the  patriarch’s  library,  then  the 
depository  for  all  authentic  ecclesiastical  records. 
As  both  volumes  of  the  5th  Council  were  subse¬ 
quently  proved  to  have  been  tampered  with 
[CoNciL.  Constant.  34],  there  must  have  been 
one  dishonest  chartophylax  at  least  in  the  130 
years  intervening  between  the  5th  and  6th 
councils.  For  the  rest,  see  Gretser  and  Goar, 
c.  4  of  their  Commentaries  on  Codinus  ;  c.  1,  Du 
Fresne’s  Gloss.  Graec.  et  Lot.;  Suicer’s  Thesaur. 
s.  V.  [E.  S.  F.] 

CHARTULARIUS.  An  officer  entrusted 
with  the  keeping  of  charters  or  registers ;  and  in 
the  Eastern  Church  subordinate  to  the  charto¬ 
phylax.  Such  was  his  position,  at  all  events,  in 
the  Church  of  Constantinople,  according  to  the 
ecclesiastical  list  of  Codinus  (c.  1,  with  Gretser 
and  Goar’s  Commentaries,  c.  13)  ;  but  from  his 
next  chapter  we  see  there  was  a  superior  officer 
called  “  the  great  chartularius  ”  attached  to  the 
imperial  household  (c.  2,  and  Gretser  and  Goar, 
c.  3).  Elsewhere  we  read  of  “  chartularii  ” 
belonging  to  the  army,  navy,  and  several  other 
departments  of  state,  whose  records  were  vo¬ 
luminous  ;  while  the  number  of  ecclesiastical 
“  chartularii  ”  for  the  different  dioceses  of  the 
East  is  regulated  by  Justinian  in  the  first  book 
of  his  Code  (tit.  ii.  c.  25).  St.  Gregory  the  Great 
calls  a  monk  named  Hilary,  whom  he  employed 
in  Africa  to  transact  business  for  him,  indif¬ 
ferently  his  “chartularius”  or  “notary”;  shew¬ 
ing  both  offices  to  have  been  synonymous  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  then  {Ep.  i.  77,  ed.  Migne,  and 
the  note).  And  Photius,  two  centuries  and  a  half 
later,  addresses  one  Gregory  several  times,  in 
corresponding  with  him,  as  “  deacon”  and  “  char¬ 
tularius  ”  (A)?.  iii.  ed.  Valetta).  Later,  a  very 
different  sense  sometimes  attached  to  this  word  : 
“  Qui  per  epistolam  liber  fiebat,”  says  Sirmondus 
(ad  tom.  ii.  Concil.  Gall.  p.  679),  “  chartularius 
dicebatur.”  Again,  “  chartularium,”  in  the 
neuter  gender,  stands  for  the  place  where  char¬ 
ters  and  such  like  documents  were  kept  literally  ; 
but  in  the  West  it  has  long  served  to  denote 
those  volumes,  often  called  Red  or  Black  Books 
from  the  colour  of  their  binding  or  their  rubrics, 
and  written  on  parchment,  in  which  the  charters 
and  customs  and  properties  belonging  to  each 
monastery  were  transcribed  (Du  Fresne,  Gloss. 
Lat.  et  Graec.  s.  V.).  [E.  S.  F.] 

CHASUBLE.  [Casula.] 

CHEESE,  IN  EUCHARIST.  [Elements.] 

CHERSONESUS,  the  martyrs  of,  a.d.  296, 
are  commemorated  March  7  {Cal.  Byzaid.).  [C.] 

CHERUBIC  HYMN.  [Hymn,  the  Che¬ 
rubic.] 


CHEST 


CHILDREN 


351 


CHEST.  [Arca  :  Capsa.] 

CHILDBIRTH.  [Churching  of  Women."] 

CHILDEBERT,  king,  deposition  at  Paris, 
Dec.  23  (^Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CHILDREN.  It  is  the  object  of  this  article 
to  bring  together  the  materials  for  a  picture  of 
the  home  life  of  Christians  of  the  first  eight 
centuries,  so  far  as  it  affected  the  treatment  of 
their  children  and  their  thoughts  about  them. 
It  is  obvious  that  every  such  picture  must  be 
more  or  less  idealised,  that  in  practice  its  com¬ 
pleteness  was  marred  by  valuations  at  different 
periods  and  in  different  churches,  by  the  more 
or  less  perfect  triumph  of  Christianity  over 
heathenism.  Making  allowance  for  this,  how¬ 
ever,  it  is  hoped  that  the  representation  here 
given  will  enable  the  reader  to  estimate  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  religion  of  Christ  in  this  phase  of 
human  life  with  some  distinctness.  It  is  obvious 
also  that  in  the  course  of  the  inquiry  we  must 
come  in  contact  with  many  questions  which, 
separately,  demand  a  more  dogmatic  and  more 
exhaustive  discussion.  These  it  will  be  enough 
to  notice  briefly. 

(1.)  We  may  start  with  the  fact  that  the  new 
faith  taught  men  to  set  a  higher  value  upon  the 
sacredness  of  human  life.  The  corrupt  morals 
of  the  empire  had  all  but  crushed  out  the  natural 
OTTopy^  which  binds  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to 
the  children.  Infants  were  looked  upon  as  in¬ 
cumbrances  to  be  got  rid  of.  The  mothers  of 
illegitimate  children,  sometimes  even  mothers 
who  were  married,  killed  or  deserted  their  child¬ 
ren  without  scruple,  or  called  in  the  aid  of 
women  who  made  a  business  of  the  art  of  abor¬ 
tion.  Against  all  such  pi-actices  Christian  purity 
raised  its  voice.  Barnabas  enumerates  the  sins 
in  question  among  the  things  incompatible  with 
the  “  way  of  light  ”  (c.  19).  The  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  Diognctus  speaks  of  the  freedom  of  the 
Christian  society  from  these  practices  as  one  of 
the  marks  of  difference  between  them  and  the 
heathens  among  whom  they  lived  (c.  5).  Athe- 
nagoras  condemns  those  who  expose  children,  or 
procure  abortion,  as  alike  guilty  of  murder 
(^Legat.  c.  35).  Justin  speaks  against  the  expo¬ 
sure  as  a  common  offence,  and  dwells  on  the 
enormities  that  followed,  children  so  deserted, 
male  and  female,  being  the  chief  supply  of  the 
market  for  prostitution  (^ApoL  i.  29).  The  prac¬ 
tice  lingered,  however,  even  among  Christians, 
and  the  Council  of  Elvira  had  to  treat  them  as 
excluding  a  female  catechumen  from  all  but 
death-bed  baptism,  one  who  was  already  bap¬ 
tized  even  from  death-bed  communion  (C.  Elib. 
c.  63,  68).  The  Council  of  Ancyra,  about  the 
same  time,  acknowledging  that  the  severer  pen¬ 
alty  had  been  the  rule  of  the  Church,  reduced  it 
to  ten  years’  penance  (c.  20),  that  of  Lerida 
(c.  2)  to  seven,  subject  however  to  the  condition 
of  continuance  in  a  penitential  life;  and  if  the 
offenders  wero  in  orders,  to  exclusion  from  litur¬ 
gical  functions. 

(2.)  We  start,  then,  with  the  Christian  con¬ 
viction  that  children  were  a  “  heritage  and  gift 
that  Cometh  fr'om  the  Lord,”  to  be  received  as  a 
trust  for  which  parents  would  have  to  render 
an  account.  It  might  have  seemed  that  that 
feeling  would  have  found  universal  expression  in 
the  dedication  of  infants,  as  soon  as  might  be 
after  their  birth,  by  the  sacred  rite  of  baptism. 


Our  Lord’s  command,  “Suffer  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,”  might 
seem  to  sanction,  if  not  to  command,  the  practice. 
It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  the  traces 
of  infant  baptism  in  the  first  150  years  are  but 
scanty,  that  the  evidence  of  the  New  Testament 
is  far  from  decisive.  The  statement  of  Suicer 
(^Thesaur.  ii.  1136)  that  for  the  first  two  centu¬ 
ries  no  one  was  baptized  who  could  not  make  a 
conscious  profession  of  his  faith  is,  pei  haps,  over¬ 
strained,  but  it  is  true  that  the  evidence  on  the 
other  side  is  meagre.  Justin’s  statement  that 
“many  had  been  made  disciples  of  Chi’ist,  e/c 
Traidwi/”  (Apol.  ii.  p.  62)  is  somewhat  strained 
when  these  words  are  translated,  as  Bingham 
does,  “  from  their  infancy.”  The  witness  of  Ire- 
naeus,  who  says  that  “  infantes  ”  (as  well  as 
parvuli  ”)  “  renascuntur  in  Deum  ”  (ii.  22),  and 
identifies  regeneration  with  baptism  is,  however, 
more  distinct.  That  of  Origen,  however,  that 
the  Church’s  practice  was  “  etiam  parvulis  bap- 
tismum  dari  ”  (//om.  viii.  in  Levit.)  is  rendered 
less  so,  by  the  distinction  drawn  by  Irenaeus 
between  the  parvuli  ”  and  the  “  infantes.”^  The 
treatise  in  v/hich  Tertullian  urges  “cunctatio  bap- 
tismi  ”  as  the  safer  and  better  course  is  rather 
in  the  tone  of  one  who  is  contending  against  a 
growing  practice  than  of  one  who  rejects  a  tra¬ 
dition  of  the  universal  Church  (de  Bapt.  c.  18). 
Wall  on  Infant  Baptism  is,  of  course,  the  great 
storehouse  of  arguments  in  favour  of  the  primi¬ 
tive  and  universal  use  of  the  rite  for  infar.t 
children.  It  may  be  noted,  however,  (1.)  that 
the  command  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  seems  to  imply 
capacity  for  discipleship  as  a  condition  of  baptism ; 
(2.)  that  the  “  holiness  ”  of  Christian  children 
is  made  to  depend,  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  not  on  bap¬ 
tism,  but  on  the  faith  of  one,  at  least,  of  the 
parents  ;  (3.)  that  the  mention  of  “  households  ” 
as  baptized  is,  at  best,  a  precarious  foundation  for 
a  wide  generalisation.  If  baptism  were  thought 
of  as  limited  to  those  who  could  make  a  confession 
of  faith,  it  would  not  be  deemed  necessary  to  men¬ 
tion  infiints  as  not  included  in  the  “  household  ” 
that  was  baptized,  any  more  than  it  would  be  ne¬ 
cessary  to  except  them  if  one  were  speaking  of  a 
whole  household  going  forth  to  fight  against  the 
enemy.  It  may  fairly  be  conceded,  however,  that 
at  least  from  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  Origen,  Tei‘- 
tullian,  the  practice  was  common.  The  further 
question  remained,  at  what  stage  in  their  infancy ; 
and  here  the  answers  varied.  Some  pressed  the 
analogy  of  circumcision  and  argued  for  the  eighth 
day,  but  this  was  rejected  by  Cyprian  {Epift.  ad 
Fidum,  lix.  al.  Ixiv.)  and  by  a  Council  of  Car¬ 
thage  under  his  guidance.  Gregory  of  Nazian- 
zum,  on  the  other  hand,  urged  a  delay  of  three 
yeai's,  more  or  less,  that  the  child  might  be  able 
to  utter  its  profession  of  faith  with  its  own  lips 
(Orat.  xl.  de  Bapt.).  The  Council  of  Elvira 
(c.  22)  sanctioned  the  earlier  age ;  but  this  was 
done  not  as  resting  on  an  immemorial  practice,  but 
on  a  special  dogmatic  ground,  “quia  non  suo 
vitio  peccarunt,”  as  though  it  needed  a  justifica¬ 
tion.  Generally,  except  in  cases  of  necessity, 
their  baptism,  like  that  of  adult  converts,  was 


»  We  have  in  both  these  passages  to  content  ourselves 
with  a  Latin  translation  of  a  Greek  original.  A  passage  in 
the  [.Jitin  version  of  Origen’s  Horn,  in  Lnc.  xlv.  seems  to 
bring  even  children  who  are  just  bom  wiihin  the  range  of 
the  "  par-vuli." 


352 


CHILDREN 


CHOIR 


postponed  till  the  Easter  following  their  birth 
(Socrates,  H.  E.  v.  22;  G.  Antissiod.  c.  18; 
August.  Serin,  de  Temp.  110  ;  Ambros.  de  Mmter. 
Tasch.  c.  b.).**  The  case  of  Augustine  shows, 
however,  that  even  a  mother  like  Monica,  act¬ 
ing,  it  may  be,  under  the  influence  of  the  feeling 
of  which  Tertullian  had  been  the  spokesman, 
could  postj'oiie  her  child’s  baptism  indefinitely, 
only  eager  to  hasten  it  if  there  were  any  immi¬ 
nent  fear  of  death  (August.  Conff.  i.  11).<= 
Even  where  baptism  was  postponed,  however,  the 
child  was  claimed  for  Christ,  was  signed  with 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  made  to  taste  of  the  salt 
which  was  known  as  the  “  mysterium  ”  or  “  sacra¬ 
ment  ”  of  catechumens  {Ibid.).  [Catechumens.] 
Afteran  interval,  varyingaccording  tothediflerent 
viewsjust  stated,  the  child  was  brought  to  the  font, 
stripped  of  its  clothes,  and  baptized,  making  its 
acts  of  renunciation  and  adherence,  if  old  enough, 
with  its  own  lips;  if  still  in  infancy,  through 
its  sponsors.  [Sponsors.]  Where  children  were 
left  orphans,  or  were  deserted  by  their  parents, 
they  were  brought  by  benevolent  Christians, 
who  in  the  sight  of  the  Church  took  charge  of 
them.  The  priest  announced  the  fact  from  the 
altar,  and  the  child  became  the  “a/wmnus”  or 
foster-child  of  the  person  so  adopting  him  ^ 
(1  C.  Vasens.  c.  9). 

Baptism  in  such  cases  was  followed,  after  an 
interval  of  uncertain  duration,  by  confirmation. 
If  a  bishop  were  present  at  the  baptism,  the  I’ule 
was  that  both  rites  were  administered  in  imme¬ 
diate  succession.  As  soon  as  the  child  was  taken 
from  the  water  he  received  the  sacred  unction 
and  the  im2)osition  of  hands.  (Tertull.  de  Bapt. 
c.  7,  de  Resurr.  Cam.  c.  8.)  In  the  absence  of 
the  bishop  there  was,  of  course,  a  delay ;  but 
the  modern  practice  of  Protestant  churches  of 
treating  confirmation  as  the  personal  acceptance 
by  the  adult  of  what  had  been  promised  by  the 
infant,  was  altogether  foreign  to  the  life  of  the 
ancient  Church,  as  it  is  now  from  that  of  the 
East.  In  both  cases,  indeed,  in  order  to  guard 
against  any  inconvenience  which  might  follow 
from  the  prolonged  absence,  of  the  bishop,  the 
priest  was  allowed  to  administer  confirmation  as 
well  as  baptism. 

The  admission  of  the  infant  to  the  privileges 
of  Cnristian  fellowship  did  not,  however,  stop 
here.  There  is  almost,  if  not  altogether,  as 
weighty  evidence  for  infant  communion  as  there 
is  for  infant  bapti.sm.  It  was  the  recognised 
practice  of  the  African  Church  in  the  time  of 
Cvprian  {De  laps.  c.  25).  The  Apostolical 
Constitutions  (viii.  12,  13)  show  that  it  was 
also  the  custom  of  the  East.  It  was  vehe¬ 
mently  urged  by  Augustine  as  essential  to  the 
complete  salvation  even  of  the  baptized  {Epist. 
23  ad  Bonifac.  De  Peccat.  Merit,  i.  20)  and  was 
defended  against  the  scorn  of  unbelievers  by  the 
mystic  pseudo-Dionysius  {de  Hierarch.  Eccles. 
vii.  11).  The  Sacramentary  of  Gregory  and  the 
Council  of  IMacon  (c.  6),  a.d.  588,  are  witnesses 
to  its  prevalence  in  the  churches  of  Rome  and 
Gaul.  The  first  intimation  of  any  wish  to  stop 


•>  The  Sunday  before  Easter  was  known  in  consequence 
as  the  “  Ochivae  Infantmu.” 

«  Augustine  blames  the  d(  lay,  it  is  true,  but  it  is  with 
reference  to  a  baptism  in  boyhood,  not  in  infancy. 

d  The  word  occurs  in  this  sense  in  Christian  epitanhs. 
(De  Rossi,  i.  46.) 


it  is  found  in  the  third  Council  of  Tours  (c.  19), 
in  A.D.  813,  and  that  continued  inopei-ative  foi 
nearly  three  centuries.  In  this  i-espect  the 
Churches  of  the  East,  as  in  the  case  of  confirma 
tion,  follow  in  the  footstep.s  of  antiquity. 

So  far,  then,  the  child  of  Christian  parents 
was  met  at  its  birth  with  these  symbols,  and,  as 
it  was  believed,  assurances  of  salvation.  The 
work  of  moral  training  began  with  the  first  dawn 
of  consciousness.  He  would  be  taught  to  make 
the  sign  of  the  cross  upon  his  brow,  or  lips,  oi 
chest,  on  rising  or  lying  down  to  sleep,  or  when 
he  bathed  or  put  on  his  clothes  (Tertull.  de  Cor. 
MU.  c.  2).  Soon  a  pious  parent  would  tell  him 
the  story  of  the  Gospels,  as  Monica  did  to  Augus¬ 
tine,  even  though  unbaptized  {Co/iff.  i.  17),  or 
give  him  daily  some  te.xts  of  Scripture  to  be 
learnt  by  heart,  as  Leonidas  did  to  Origen  (Euseb. 
//.  E.  vi.  2).  He  would  learn  the  Lord’s  Prayer 
and  the  Creed  as  things  for  daily  use,  would  be 
taught  to  pray  at  midnight,  at  sunrise,  and  at 
every  meal  (Tertull.  de  Oral.  c.  20).  The  stories 
of  martyrs  who  had  suffered,  sometimes  the 
actual  spectacle  of  those  sufferings,  would  kindle 
his  emotions.  The  range  of  instruction  would 
become  wider  as  he  would  be  led  first  to  the 
didactic,  or  sapiential,  books  of  Scripture,  the 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes ;  then  the  Gospels, 
the  Acts,  and  the  Epistles :  last  of  all  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  the  historical  books,  and  the  Prophets 
(Hieron.  Epist.  bl,  ad  Laetam).  For  his  general 
education,  however,  he  would  have  to  go  to  any 
school  that  might  be  opened,  and  these  were,  for 
four  centuries  or  more,  in  the  hands  of  heathens. 
For  those  who  went  to  such  schools  Homer  was 
still  the  groundwork  of  intellectual  culture 
(August.  Conff.  i.  23).  Grammar,  dialectics,  rhe¬ 
toric,  geometry,  completed  the  course  of  teaching 
(Euseb.  //.  E,  vi.  2).  It  would  be  naturally  a 
time  of  anxious  watchfulness  for  Christian  pa¬ 
rents.  When  this  was  over  the  child  would 
2)ass  to  the  responsibilities  of  adolescence.  Nega¬ 
tively  we  may  be  sure  that  no  true  Christian 
would  allow  his  child  to  be  a  spectator  of  the 
games  of  the  circus  or  the  mimes  of  the  theatre ; 
that  wherever  this  was  tolerated  it  would  be 
looked  on  as  a  sign  of  spiritual  decav.  [Actors.] 

[E.  H.  P.] 

CHILDREN,  COMMUNION  OF  [Infant 
Communion.] 

CHIONIA,  martyr  at  Thessalonica,  under 
Diocletian,  April  1  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae) ; 
April  3  {Mart.  Usuardi) ;  April  5  {Mart.  Hieron.); 
April  16  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 


CHIROTHECAE.  [Groves.] 

CHLODOALD,  presbyter  and  confessor,  is 
commemorated  Sept.  7  {Mart.  Bedae,  Usuardi). 

[C.] 

CHOIR,  ARCHITECTURAL  {CJiorus,  Suggest  US  ; 
‘'Afj.fiuu).  Every  complete  church  consists  of  at 
least  three  parts ;  bema  (or  presbytery),  choir, 
and  nave.  The  bema,  entered  in  ancient  times 
by  none  but  the  clergy,  was  devoted  to  the  cele¬ 
bration  of  the  holy  mysteries ;  the  choir  was  for 
the  “clerks,”  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word  ; 
the  nave  for  the  general  body  of  the  faithful. 
The  bema  corresponds  to  the  sjiace  east  of  the 
altar-rails  (called  the  sanctuary  or  presbytery) 
in  an  ordinary  English  church,  and  the  choir  to 
the  remaining  portion  of  the  chancel.  In  mo¬ 
nastic  churches  the  choir  is  the  place  when  the 


.  CHOREPISCOPUS 


CHOIR 

brethren  assemble  to  say  the  ordinary  daily 
offices. 

It  is  extremely  difficult  to  determine  the 
antiquity  of  the  division  between  sanctuary  and 
choir.  Most  of  the  passages  of  ancient  authors 
bearing  upon  the  matter  give  the  impression  that 
the  rail  or  screen  [Cancelli]  separated  the 
whole  space  devoted  to  the  clergy  from  that 
devoted  to  the  people,  and  that  there  was  no 
‘chorus’  distinct  from  the  sanctuary.  It  is,  in 
fact,  probable  that  Honorius  of  Autun  (Gemma 
Anbn  ie,  i.  140)  is  right  in  saying  ‘‘  olim  in  modum 
coi’onae  circa  aras  cantantes  stabant,”  though 
his  etymology  is  wrong.  The  canon  of  the  fourth 
council  of  Toledo,  in  the  7th  century,  quoted 
below,  is  perhaps  the  earliest  instance  in  which 
the  threefold  division,  sanctuary,  choir,  and  nave, 
is  clearly  recognised.  The  remains  of  ancient 
churches  give  us  but  little  information  on  this 
point,  as  screens  are  the  most  destructible  and 
changeable  portions.  When  w'e  do  meet  with 
authentic  testimony  as  to  the  arrangements  of 
churches,  we  find  generally  that  the  whole  of  the 
eastern  apse  was  occupied  by  the  sanctuary, 
which  was  screened  off  from  the  rest  of  the 
church,  while  the  choir  was  a  raised  space  im¬ 
mediately  west  of  the  screen  of  the  sanctuary 
[CiiURCi!,  p.  375].  Whether  the  Greek  Soleas 
was  identical  with  this  raised  space  or  suggestus 
IS  doubtful. 

The  description  of  a  church  in  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  (ii.  57)  implies  that  bishop,  pres¬ 
byters,  and  deacons  occupied  the  space  at  the 
east  end  of  the  church,  which  was  set  apart  for 
them,  but  does  not  mention  any  barrier  between 
clerks  and  people.  We  find  however  such  a 
barrier  existing  in  the  4th  century,  when  the 
laity  were  forbidden  to  enter  the  enclosure  set 
a])art  for  the  altar  and  the  clergy.  This  appears 
from  the  fact  that  St.  Ambrose  deprived  the 
emperors  of  the  exceptional  right  which  they 
had  enjoyed  of  passing  within  the  screen  [Can¬ 
celli].  See  Sozomen,  Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  25 ;  Theo- 
doret,  //.  E.  v.  18.  To  this  the  emperors  sub¬ 
mitted  ;  and  the  edict  of  Theodosius  the  younger 
and  Valent inian  lays  down  that  the  emperors  are 
to  approach  the  altar  only  for  the  purpose  of 
making  their  offering,  and  to  withdraw  imme¬ 
diately.  In  accordance  with  this  the  Trullan 
council  (canon  69),  while  forbidding  the  laity 
generally  to  enter  the  sanctuary  (Uphv  dvaiaffTr,- 
piov),  expressly  permits  the  emperors  to  enter  for 
the  purpose  of  offering  their  gifts,  “  according  to 
very  ancient  custom.”  This  privilege  Tarasius, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  (f  SQG),  threatened 
to  withdraw  from  Constantine  VI.  if  he  con¬ 
tracted  the  marriage  which  he  was  meditating 
(Life  by  Ignatius,  in  Acta  SS.  Feb.  iii.  p.  584). 

The  same  privilege  which  was  granted  to  empe¬ 
rors  seems  in  ancient  times  to  have  been  conceded 
to  unordained  monks  (Jerome,  Ad  Ileliodorum). 

The  4th  canon  of  the  second  council  of  Tours 
(a.d.  567)  forbids  the  lay  people  to  stand  among 
the  clergy,  whether  at  vigils  or  at  mass,  and  re¬ 
serves  all  that  portion  of  the  church  which  is  on 
the  altar-side  of  the  screen  for  the  clerks  engaged 
in  the  service  (choris  psallentium  clericorum)  ; 
yet  the  sanctuary  (sancta  sanctorum)  was  to  be 
open  for  the  purpose  of  praying  and  communi¬ 
cating  both  to  laymen  and  to  women  [Com¬ 
munion].  The  same  canon  was  repeated  in 
effect  by  the  council  of  Autun  in  the  year  672. 

CHRIST.  ANT, 


353 

So  too  a  Capitulary  of  the  year  744  (art.  9,  ed. 
Baluz.)  forbids  the  laity  to  be  within  the  screen 
in  time  of  divine  service,  whether  mass  or  vigil. 
So  the  council  of  Koine  under  Eugenius  II., 
canon  33. 

The  liberty  which  in  Gaul  was  given  to  lay 
people,  of  entering  the  choir  to  communicate, 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  given  in  Africa. 
St.  Augustine  (Cerm.  392)  speaks  of  the  screen 
(cancelli)  as  the  place  where  laymen  ordinarily 
communicated  ;  neophytes,  however,  seem  to  have 
drawn  near  the  altar  for  their  first  communion 
(Serm.  224).  In  Spain  the  fourth  council  of  To¬ 
ledo  (can.  18)  of  the  year  633  enjoins  the  [minis¬ 
tering]  priest  and  deacon  to  communicate  before 
the  altar,  the  rest  of  clerks  in  the  choir,  the 
people  outside  the  choir. 

Women  were  generally  not  permitted  to  enter 
the  choir  (Cone.  Laodic.  c.  44),  unless  for  the 
purpose  of  communicating.  And  although  nuns 
were  probably  excepted  in  ancient  times  (Augus¬ 
tine,  Epist.  iii.),  their  exclusion  seems  in  the  9th 
century  to  have  been  general,  at  least  in  Gaul 
(Theodulf  of  Orleans,  Capituhre,  c.  6).  Ahito, 
bishop  of  Basle  in  the  early  part  of  the  9th  century 
(Capitulare,  c.  16),  ordains  that  no  woman  should 
approach  the  altar ;  and  that  when  the  altar- 
cloths  required  washing,  they  should  be  taken  off 
by  the  clerks,  and  handed  to  the  women  at  the 
door  of  the  screen.  The  presbyters  were  also  to 
receive  the  women’s  offerings  outside  the  screen. 
(Ducange’s  Gloss  try,  s.  v.  Chorus;  Martene,  De 
Ritih'is  Antiquis,  i.  123  ff'.)  [C.] 

CHOIR  OF  SINGERS.  (Chorus  Cantor- 
urn.)  St.  Augustine  (on  Ps.  149)  says,  “  Chorus 
quid  significet,  multi  norunt  .  .  .  chorus  est  con- 
sessio  cantantium.”  Isidore  of  Sevile  gives  the 
definition,  “  chorus  est  multitude  in  sacris  col- 
lecta,  et  dictus  chorus  quod  initio  in  modum 
coronae  circum  aras  starent  et  ita  psallerent.” 
This  etymology  is  undoubtedly  false,  but  the 
statement  upon  which  it  is  founded  is  by  no 
means  improbable.  Whether  it  be  true  or  not, 
that  in  the  earliest  ages  the  choir  was  grouped 
round  the  altar,  we  know  that  at  a  comparatively 
early  period  the  choir  had  a  space  assigned  to  it 
in  a  church,  [Choir,  Architectural,]  distinct 
from  the  Sanctuary,  which  contained  the  altar. 

“The  choirs  of  our  time,”  says  Amalarius  (de 
Div.  Off.  iii.  4),  early  in  the  9th  century,  “are 
clothed  in  linen  (linum),”  and  he  distinguishes 
between  this  and  the  finer  vestment  of  byssus 
which  the  singers  wore  under  the  Old  Dispensa¬ 
tion  (2  Chron.  v.  12).  Compare  Sciiola  Can- 
TORUM.  [C.] 

CHOREPISCOPUS  (XccpeirltTKOTTOs)  — 
country  bishop,  vicarius  episcopi  (Cone.  Ancyr., 
Neo-Caesar.,  Antioch.,  &c.,  Isid.  Hispal.  De  Offic. 
Eccl.  ii.  6,  &c.),  villanus  episcopus  (Capit.  Car.  M. 
vii.  187),  vicanus  episcopus  (fR'memAv),  as  opposed 
to  the  cathedralis  episcopus  (Du  Cange) ; — to 
be  distinguished,  as  being  stationary,  from  the 
TTfpio^evT^s  or  visitator,  who  itinerated,  although 
the  two  became  often  confounded  together  : — a 
class  of  ministers  between  bishops  proper  and 
presbyters,  defined  in  the  Arabic  version  of  the 
Nicene  Canons  to  be  “loco  episcopi  super  villas 
et  monasteria  et  sacerdotes  villarum  called 
into  existence  in  the  latter  part  of  the  3rd  cen¬ 
tury,  and  first  in  Asia  Minor,  in  order  to  m<!et 
the  want  of  episcopal  supervision  in  the  country 


354 


CIIOREPISCOPUS 


CHOREPISCOPUS 


parts  of  the  now  enlarged  dioceses  without  sub¬ 
division  :  —  first  mentioned  in  the  Councils  of 
Ancyra  and  Neo-Caesarea,  a.d.  314,  and  again  in 
the  Council  of  Nice  (which  is  subscribed  by  fifteen, 
all  from  Asia  Minor  or  Syria);  sufficiently  im¬ 
portant  to  require  restriction  by  the  time  of  the 
Council  of  Antioch,  a.d.  341  ;  and  continuing 
to  exist  in  the  East  until  at  least  the  9th  cen¬ 
tury,  when  they  were  supplanted  by  t^apxoi 
[Exarchi]: — first  mentioned  in  the  West  in  the 
Council  of  Riez,  a.d.  439  (the  Epistles  of  Pope 
Damasus  I.  and  of  Leo  M.  respecting  them  being 
forgeries),  and  continuing  there  (but  not  in 
Africa,  principally  in  France)  until  about  the 
10th  century,  after  which  the  name  occurs  (in  a 
decree  of  Pope  Damasus  II.  ap.  Sigeb.  in  an.  1048) 
as  equivalent  to  archdeacon,  an  office  from  which 
the  Arabic  Niceue  canons  expressly  distinguish  it. 
The  functions  of  chorepiscopi,  as  well  as  their 
name,  were  of  an  episcopal,  not  of  a  presbyterial 
kind,  although  limited  to  minor  offices.  They 
overlooked  the  country  district  committed  to 
them,  “loco  episcopi,”  ordaining  readers, exorcists, 
subdeacons,  but,  as  a  rule,  not  deacons  or  pres¬ 
byters  (and  of  course  not  bishops),  unless  by 
express  permission  of  their  diocesan  bishop.  They 
confirmed  in  their  own  districts,  and  (in  Gaul)  are 
mentioned  as  consecrating  churches  (Du  Cange). 
They  granted  elprjuiKal,  or  letters  dimissory, 
which  country  presbyters  were  forbidden  to  do. 
They  had  also  the  honorary  privilege  (jipw- 
fx^voi)  of  assisting  at  the  celebration  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  in  the  mother  city  church,  which 
country  presbyters  had  not.  (Co?ic.  Ancyr.  can. 
xiii. ;  “  Neo-Caesar,  can.  xiv. ;  Antioch,  can.  x.  ; 
St.  Basil,  M.  Epist.  181 ;  Rab.  Maur.  De  Instil. 
Cler.  i.  5  ;  &c.  &c.)  They  were  held  therefore  to 
have  the  power  of  ordination,  but  to  lack  juris¬ 
diction,  save  subordinately.  And  the  actual  ordi¬ 
nation  of  a  presbyter  by  Timotheus,  a  chorepi- 
scopus,  is  recorded  (Pallad.  Hist.  Lansiac.  106). 
The  office  also  offered  an  opportunity  for  a  com- 
pi’omise  in  cases  of  schism,  of  which  the  Nicene 
Council  availed  itself,  by  authorising  a  Catholic 
bishop  (among  other  alternatives)  to  find  a  place 
as  chorepiscopus  for  any  reconciled  Novatian 
bishop  (Cone.  Nic.  can.  viii.).  And  the  same 
council  (Epist.  Syn.  in  Socrat.  i.  9)  places  recon¬ 
ciled  Meietian  bishops  also  in  a  somewhat  similar 
position,  although  not  calling  it  by  the  name 
itself.  It  was  found  also  a  convenient  mode  of  dis¬ 
posing  of  “  vacant  ”  bishops,  when  such  occurred. 
The  office  continued  to  exist  among  the  later 
Eastern  sects  also :  sc.  among  the  Jacobite 
Syrians,  where  the  chorepiscopus  proper,  who 
presided  over  a  rural  district,  is  distinguished, 
both  from  a  titular  chorepiscopus,  more  propeidy 
archipreshyter  or  proto-pope,  who  was  a  kind  of 
leading  presbyter  in  the  episcopal  city,  and  from 
the  or  visitator,  who  went  circuit ; 

and  among  the  Nestorians,  where  also  both  chor¬ 
episcopus  and  irepioSevT^s  existed,  as  distinct 
classes  (Denzinger,  Hit.  Orient.  Proleg.  116,  sq. ; 
and  see  also  the  Arabic  version  of  the  Nicene 
canons,  cans.  58  to  70).  In  both  these  bodies 
the  chorepiscopi  were  presbyters.  And  in  one 
ritual  they  are  appointed  without  imposition  of 
hands  (Denzing.  ib.).  In  the  West,  i.e.  chiefly 
in  Gaul,  the  order  appears  to  have  preA’^ailed 


“  For  the  meaning  of  this  canon  and  its  various  read¬ 
ings,  see  Routh,  Beliq.  Sac.  iii.  430-439. 


more  widely,  to  have  usurped  episcopal  functions 
without  due  subordination  to  the  diocesan.s,  and 
to  have  been  also  taken  advantage  of  by  idle  or 
worldly  diocesans.  In  consequence  it  seems  to 
have  aroused  a  strong  feeling  of  hostility,  which 
shewed  itself,  first  in  a  series  of  papal  bulls, 
condemning  them ;  headed,  it  is  true,  by  two 
forged  letters  respectively  of  Damasus  I.  and 
Leo  M.  (of  which  the  latter  is  merely  an  inter¬ 
polated  version  of  Cone.  Ilisptl.  11.  A.D.  619, 
can.  7,  adding  chorepiscopi  to  presbyteri,  of  which 
latter  the  council  really  treats),  but  continuing  in 
a  more  genuine  form,  from  Leo  III.  down  to  Pope 
Nicholas  1.  (to  Rodolph,  Archbishop  of  Bourges, 
A.D.  864) ;  the  last  of  whom,  however,  takes 
the  more  moderate  line  of  atfirming  chorepiscopi 
to  be  really  bishops,  and  consequently  refusing 
to  annul  their  oi’dinations  of  presbyters  and 
deacons  (as  previous  popes  had  done),  but  orders 
them  to  keep  within  canonical  limits ; — and 
secondly,  in  a  series  of  conciliar  decrees, — Cone. 
Ratispon.  A.D.  800,  in  Capit.  tit.  iv.  c.  1,  Paris. 
A.D.  829,  lib.  i.  c.  27,  Meld.  a.d.  845,  can.  44, 
Metens.  A.D.  888,  can.  8,  and  Capitul.  v.  168, 
vi.  119,  vii.  187,  310,  323,  324, — annulling  all 
episcopal  acts  of  chorepiscopi,  and  ordering  them 
to  be  repeated  by  “true”  bishops;  and  finally 
forbidding  all  further  appointments  of  chorepi¬ 
scopi  at  all.  The  title  however  lingered  on  for 
some  centuries,  in  France  and  Germany,  as  applied 
to  various  cathedral  dignitaries  in  particular 
cathedrals,  but  in  senses  wholly  irrelevant  to  its 
original  and  proper  meaning  (see  instances  in 
Du  Cange). 

That  chorepiscopi  as  such — i.  e.  omitting  the 
cases  of  reconciled  or  vacant  bishops  above  men¬ 
tioned,  of  whose  episcopate  of  course  no  question 
is  made — were  at  first  truly  bishops,  both  in 
East  and  West,  appears  almost  certain,  both  from 
their  name  and  functions,  and  even  from  the 
arguments  of  their  strong  opponents  just  spoken 
of.  If  nothing  more  could  be  urged  against  them, 
than  that  the  Council  of  Neo-Caesarea  compared 
them  to  the  70  disciples, — that  the  Council  of 
Antioch  authorises  their  consecration  by  a  single 
bishop,  and  that  they  actually  were  so  conse¬ 
crated  (the  Antiochene  decree  might  mean  merely 
nomination  by  the  word  yiueadai,  but  the  actual 
history  seems  to  rule  the  term  to  intend  con¬ 
secration,  and  the  [one]  exceptional  case  of  a 
chorepiscopus  recorded  \^Actt.  Episc.  Cenojnan. 
ap.  Du  Cange]  in  late  times  to  have  been  or¬ 
dained  by  three  bishops  [in  order  that  he  might 
be  a  full  bishop],  merely  proves  the  general  rule 
to  the  contrary), — and  that  they  were  conse¬ 
crated  for  “  villages,”  contrary  to  canon, — then 
they  certainly  were  bishops.  And  Pope  Nicholas 
expressly  says  that  they  were  so.  Undoubtedly 
they  ceased  to  be  so  in  the  East,  and  were  prac¬ 
tically  merged  in  archdeacons  in  the  West.  And 
the  non-episcopal  nature  of  the  functions  to 
which  they  came  to  be  limited  would  naturally 
lead  to  such  a  result.  The  language  of  the 
canons  and  of  the  Fathers  (e.g.  St.  Basil.  M. 
above  quoted,  or  again  St.  Athanasius  [_Apol.  ii. 
0pp.  i.  200],  who  distinguishes  them  both  from 
bishops  proper  and  from  presbyters,  and  again 
both  from  city  and  from  country  presbyters), 
naturally  implies  that  at  first  they  were  bishops 
in  the  common  sense  of  the  word  The  special 
rites  in  the  East  for  their  appointment  probably 
belong  to  a  time  when  they  had  undoubtedly 


CHORISTER 

there  sunk  down  into  presbyters.  It  ought  to 
be  said,  however,  that  authorities  are  divided 
upon  the  question  :  English  writers  mainly  (Be¬ 
veridge,  Hammond,  Cave,  Bingham,  Routh,  to 
whom  may  be  added  the  weighty  authority  of 
Van  Espen)  asserting  their  ei)iscopal  character, 
while  others  (see  a  list  in  Bing.  II.  xiv.  2,  3, 
to  which  may  be  added  Morinus  and  Du  Cange) 
allege  them  to  have  been  presbyters.  It  need 
hardly  be  said  that  they  are  not  identical  with 
either  coadjutors  or  suffragans,  properly  so  called  : 
although  they  do  bear  a  close  resemblance  to 
such  bishops  as,  e.  q.  the  Bishop  of  Dover  in  pre- 
Reformation  times  in  England,  and  to  the  sundry 
Irish  and  foreign  and  other  stray  bishops,  who 
are  found  so  numerously  doing  the  work  of 
English  bishops  for  them  in  the  12th  to  the  16th 
centuries,  and  to  the  suffragans  as  intended  by 
Henry  VIll.,  and  now  actually  revived  in  England. 
(Bellarm.  i)e  Clericis,  c.  17  ;  Cellot.  De  Hierarch. 
iv.  14;  Morinus,  De  Sac.  Ord.  and  Dissert.;  De 
Marca,  De  Concord.,  SfC.  ii.  13  ;  Du  Cange  ;  Suicer  ; 
Bingham;  Van  Espen.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

CHORISTER.  [Cantor.] 

CHRESTIANI.  A  heathen  variation  of  the 
name  Christiani.  Instead  of  Xpiarhs,  the  more 
classical  word,  Xpgarhs,  gracious  or  good,  was 
commonly  supposed  to  have  been  the  name  or  title 
by  which  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  distinguished, 
and  his  followers  therefore  were  called  Chrestiani. 
The  mistake  is  noticed  by  Justin  Martyr,  Ter- 
tullian,  Lactantius,  and  others,  but  the  name 
having  a  good  signification,  thev  do  not  whollv 
reject  it.  Tertullian  however  remonstrates  with 
the  enemies  of  the  faith  for  prosecuting  Chris¬ 
tians  merely  for  their  name,  a  name  which,  ac¬ 
cording  to  either  derivation,  ought  to  command 
admiration  rather  than  hatred.  “  Christianus, 
quantum  interpretatio  est,  de  unctione  deducitur. 
Sed  et  cum  perperam  Chrestianus  pronunciatur 
a  vobis  (nam  nec  nominis  certa  est  notitia  penes 
vos)  de  suavitate  vel  benignitate  compositum  est. 
Oditur  ergo  in  hominibus  innocuis  etiam  nomcn 
innocuum  ”  (Tertul.  Apol.  c.  3 ;  Bingham,  I. 
i.  11).  [D.  B.] 

CHRISM.  (Mupov,  Xplcrga',  Chrisma.  The 
latter  word  is  sometimes  fetninine :  “miscitat 
ipsam  chrismam,”  Ordo  Rom.  I.  c.  42.)  The 
sacred  oil  or  unguent  used  in  the  ceremonv  of 
baptism.  The  term  is  also  used  so  as  to  include 
the  oil  blessed  for  the  unction  of  catechumens  and 
of  the  sick. 

St.  Ba.sil  (De  Spiritu  S.  c.  66  [al.  27])  mentions 
the  blessing  of  the  oil  of  anointing  for  use  in 
baptism  as  one  of  the  observances  derived  from 
the  earliest  times  by  unwritten  tradition.  The 
earliest  extant  testimonies  to  its  use,  whether  in 
baptism  or  in  other  ceremonies  of  the  church, 
are  the  following. 

Tertullian  (De  Baptismo,  c.  7)  says,  “next, 
coming  forth  from  the  baptismal  font,  we  are 
anointed  with  oil  blessed  according  to  the  pri¬ 
mitive  ordinances,  in  accordance  with  which  men 
were  anointed  with  oil  from  the  horn  as  a  con¬ 
secration  for  the  priesthood.”  He  seems  to 
regard  the  anointing  with  oil  as  a  symbol  of  the 
universal  priesthood  of  Christians. 

St.  Cyprian  (Epist.  70,  c.  2,  p.  768,  ed.  HSrtel) 
speaks  of  the  oil  sanctified  on  the  altar,  with 
which  the  baptized  are  anointed  [Baptism];  and 


CHRISM  355 

this  oil,  he  says,  the  heretics  who  had  no  true 
altar  could  npt  have. 

In  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (vii.  43,  §  3, 
and  44,  §  1)  the  direction  is  given,  immediately 
after  baptism,  “  let  the  ministrant  anoint  the 
person  baptized  with  unguent  (p-upw),  saying 
over  it,  ‘  Lord  God  .  .  grant  that  this  unguent 
may  so  effectually  work  upon  him  that  is  bap¬ 
tized  that  the  sweet  savour  of  Thy  Christ  may 
abide  in  him  fixed  and  firm.”  In  this  case,  the 
unguent  was  evidently  perfumed.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  passage  to  suggest  that  it  had 
undergone  any  previous  consecration. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (Orat.  48,  in  Julian.') 
S2)eaks  of  oil  sanctified  or  consecrated  on  the 
spiritual  and  divine  Table;  Optatus  of  Milevis 
(C.  Donatist.  vii.  p.  102)  says  that  this  ointment 
is  compounded  (conditur)  in  the  name  of  Christ ; 
and  the  Pseudo-Dionysius  (De  Hierarch.  Eccles. 
c.  4)  mentions  the  use  of  the  sign  of  the  cro.ss  in 
the  consecration  of  it. 

The  privilege  of  consecrating  chrism  was  in 
comparatively  early  times  strictly  confined  to 
the  episcopal  order.  The  twentieth  canon  of  the 
first  council  of  Toledo  (a.d.  398)  censures  those 
presbyters  who  A'entured  to  prepare  chrism  for 
themselves,  and  desires  them  to  send  a  deacon  or 
subdeacon  to  fetch  the  chrism  from  the  bishop, 
so  as  to  be  in  time  for  the  festivities  of  Easter 
Day.  To  the  same  effect  writes  Bishop  Montauus 
to  the  clergy  of  Palencia  and  to  Theoribius 
(Hardouin’s  Concilia,  ii.  1143). 

The  greater  quantity  of  chrism  was  probably 
at  this  time  consecrated  immediately  before 
Easter,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  the  con¬ 
secration  was  as  yet  limited  to  a  particular  day  ; 
on  the  contrary,  the  canon  above  cited  expressl}' 
lays  it  down  that  the  bishop  might  consecrate 
chrism  at  any  time.  But  in  the^oth  century  it 
became  an  established  custom  to  consecrate  the 
chrism  and  oil  for  use  throughout  the  year  on 
Maiindy  Thursday.  Pope  Leo  complains  in  a 
letter  to  his  namesake,  the  Emperor  of  the  East 
(Epist.  156,  p.  1324),  that  in  consequence  of  the 
murder  of  Proterius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  the 
oblation  was  prevented  and  no  chrism  was  con¬ 
secrated.  Ellgius  of  Noyon  (f  658),  jmeaching 
on  Maundy  Thursday  (Horn.  10  in  Coena  Dom. 
p.  245,  Biblioth.  Patr.  Colon.)  speaks  of  chrism 
being  consecrated  on  that  day  throughout  the 
Christian  world.  In  the  em])ire  the  consecration 
on  Maundy  Thursday  was  enjoined  by  a  capitulary 
of  Charles  the  Great  (Concil.  Germaniie,  i.  342) ; 
yet  at  a  somewhat  later  date  the  custom  had 
probably  not  become  universal ;  for  a  synod  of 
Meaux  of  the  year  845  forbade  (canon  46)  the 
preparation  of  chrism  on  any  other  day,  as  if  such 
preparation  was  even  then  not  (juite  unknown. 

The  Gelasian  Sacramentary  has  a  Missa  Chris- 
malis  on  Maundy  Thursday,  referring  to  the 
consecration  both  of  chrism  and  of  oil  for  the 
unction  of  the  sick  (Migne’s  Patrol.  Ixxiv. 
p.  1099).  The  Gregorian  Sacramentary  has  also 
on  the  .same  day  full  directions  for  the  con¬ 
secration  of  oil  and  chrism  in  the  mass  (pp.  66- 
69);  the  ceremony  consists  of  benediction,  and 
breathing  on  the  prepared  unguent  [Ampulla]. 
With  this  may  be  compared  the  directions  of  ti  e 
Ordo  Rom.  I.  (App.  c.  7,  p.  34),  which  are  pro¬ 
bably  of  about-  the  same  age.  Some  of  the  later 
Ordines  (see  0.  R.  X.  pp.  97,  ff’. ;  XV.  pp.  480  f.) 
also  give  directions  for  the  benediction  of  chrism 

2  A 


356 


CHRISMAL 


CHRISTMAS 


by  the  pope  on  Maundy  Thursday.  It  appears 
from  tlie  Ordo  last  referred  to  that  it  was  at  one 
time  customary  for  the  pope  to  bless  chrism  only 
in  the  year  of  his  coronation,  and  every  seventh 
year  afterwai’ds. 

It  appears  from  the  Euchologion  that  in  the 
Greek  Church  also  the  blessing  of  chrism  is  one 
of  the  ceremonies  of  Maundy  Thursday. 

The  chrism  is  not  sim])le  oil,  but  oil  mixed 
with  balsam.  Eligius  of  Noyon  (//om.  8,  In 
Cocna  Bom.)  tells  us  tha{  the  mingling  of  balsam 
with  the  oil  typifies  the  union  of  regal  and 
sacerdotal  glory.  Compare  Tertullian  {Be  Bapt. 
7),  cited  above.  And  Gregory  the  Great  {In 
Cantic.  i.  13)  refers  the  balsam  of  Engaddi  to 
that  balsam  which,  mixed  with  oil  and  blesseu 
by  the  bishop,  makes  chrism,  typifying  the  gifts 
of  the  Holy  S])irit.  For  the  Eastern  Church, 
the  Pseudo-Dionysius  the  Areopagite  testifies 
(^Hierarch.  Eccl.  c.  4)  that  the  sacred  unguent 
(juLvpov)  or  chrism  is  composed  of  fiuigrant  sub¬ 
stances.  The  modern  receipt  for  its  composition 
(as  given  in  the  Euchologion)  prescribes,  in  fact, 
besides  oil  and  wine,  thirty-six  different  kinds  of 
aromatics. 

For  the  principal  uses  of  chrism,  see  Baptism, 
Confirmation,  Ordination.  [C.] 

CFIRISMAL  {Chrismale).  (1)  The  vessel  or 
flask  in  which  the  consecrated  oil  or  Chrism 
was  contained  [Ampulla]. 

(2)  A  vessel  for  the  reservation  of  the  conse¬ 
crated  Host.  In  the  Rheims  MS.  of  the  Gregorian 
Sacramentarg  (p.  432,  ed.  Menard)  is  given  a 
“  Praefatio  Chrismalis,”  while  the  Ordo  Bomanus 
in  the  corresponding  place  has  the  rubric,  “  Prae¬ 
fatio  vasculi  in  quo  Eucharistia  reconditur.”  It 
is  of  this  kind  of  chrismal  that  Egbert  (Penit. 
xii.  6  ;  in  Haddan  and  Stubbs’  Councils,  iii.  428) 
and  Halitgar  {Penit.  c.  10,  p.  701,  Migne)  speak, 
as  of  a  vessel  which  the  priest  carried  with 
him  and  might  lose.  Some,  however,  take  this 
chrismal  for  the  Corporal. 

(3)  A  cloth  used  to  cover  relics.  In  the  Life 
of  Eligius,  attributed  to  St.  Ouen  (ii.  71),  we 
read  of  a  miracle  wrought  upon  one  who  rubbed 
his  face  with  the  fringe  of  a  chrismal  which 
covered  the  relics  of  the  saint. 

(4)  Old-English  C/imoni.  The  white  cloth  laid 

over  the  head  of  one  newly  baptized,  after  the 
unction  with  chrism  [Baptism,  p.  163].  This 
cloth  is  called  in  Theodore’s  Poenitenticd  (ii.  iv. 
7;  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  iii.  193)  “  pannus  cris- 
matis  in  later  authors,  “  vestis  chrismalis,” 
“  chrismalis  pannus,”  “  mitra  baptizatorum,” 
“  chrismale  capitum.”  (Ducange,  s.  v.)  [C.] 

CHRISM ARIUM.  The  vessel  in  which 
chrism  is  kept  (Council  of  Auxerre,  c.  6).  It  is 
sometimes  however  taken  for  a  reliquary  (Gre¬ 
gory  of  Tours,  Be  Mime.  S.  Martini,  iv.  32  ; 
Fortunatus,  TV^a  Gennani  Paris,  c.  47).  [C.] 

CHRISOM.  [Chrismal.] 

CHRIST,  PICTURES  OF.''  [Jesus  Christ 
in  Art.] 

CHRISTEMPOREIA,  XpitTrcjunropela — the 
selling  of  Christ — a  name  sometimes  employed 
in  the  5th  century  to  signify  simony.  During 
the  ages  of  persecution  there  was  no  place  for 
simoniacal  transactions :  but  when  the  higher 
offices  of  the  Church  brought  wealth  and  dignity 


to  their  posses,  ors,  there  were  not  wanting  am¬ 
bitious  and  woildly  men  who  sought  to  obtain 
such  offices  by  bribery  or  other  unworthy  means. 
To  check  and  prevent  such  discreditable  prac¬ 
tices,  severe  laws  were  enacted  both  in  church  and 
state  as  early  as  the  5th  century.  The  Council 
of  Chalcedou  (c.  2)  decreed  that  if  any  bishop 
gave  ordination  or  an  ecclesiastical  office  or  pre¬ 
ferment  of  any  kind  for  money,  he  himself  should 
lo.se  his  oflice  and  the  party  so  preferred  be  de¬ 
posed.  Other  like  decrees  occur  in  the  so-called 
Apostolical  Canons  (c.  29),  the  Council  of  Coii- 
stantino])le  under  Gennadius,  a.d.  459;  the  2nd 
Council  of  Orleans,  Bracara,  and  many  others. 
The  imperial  laws  also  were  no  less  .stringent  in 
regard  to  this  abuse.  E.g.  it  was  enacted  by  one 
of  Justinian’s  Novels  (123,  c.  1),  that  whenever  .a 
bishop  was  to  be  chosen,  the  electors  should  take 
an  oath  and  insert  it  in  the  election  paper  that 
they  did  not  choose  him  for  any  gift  or  promise 
or  friendship,  or  any  other  cause,  but  only  be¬ 
cause  they  knew  him  to  be  a  man  of  the  true 
Catholic  faith  and  of  unblamable  life  and  good 
learning.  And  in  another  law  (Novel  137,  c.  2) 
it  is  further  provided  that  the  party  elected 
shall  also  at  the  time  of  his  ordination,  take  an 
oath  upon  the  holy  Go.spels  that  he  neither  gave 
nor  promised  by  himself  or  other,  nor  hereafter 
will  give  to  his  ordainer  or  to  his  electors,  or 
any  other  person,  anything  to  procure  him  an 
ordination.  And  for  any  bishop  to  ordain  another 
without  observing  the  rule  prescribed,  is  depo¬ 
sition,  by  the  same  law,  both  for  him.self  and  the 
person  so  ordained. 

These  were  some  of  the  securities  required  by 
the  ancient  Church  against  the  practice  whicli 
they  stigmatized  by  the  designation  of  Christem- 
poreia  (Bingham,  iv.  3,  4).  [D.  B.] 

CHRISTENING.  [Baptism.] 
CHRISTIACUM  CONCILIUM.  [Cressv.] 

CHRISTIANA,  or  CHRISTINA,  virgin, 
IxeyaKofxdpTvs,  martyr  at  Tyrus  in  Italy  (?) 
A.D.  200,  is  commemorated  July  24  (^Mart.  Bedae, 
Bom.  Vet.,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Bgzant.). 

CHRISTMAS  (Festival  of)  76- 

y46\ios,  rd  yev40\ta,  Batalis,  Batalitia,  Ba- 
tivitas,  Bomini,  &c.  From  the  latter  is  derived 
the  name  of  the  day  among  peoples  of  the  Latin 
race  [e.g.  the  French  Noel],  and  also  among  the 
Celtic  nations,  which  were  Christianized  by 
Latin-speaking  missionaries.  In  Germany  the 
day  is  called  the  Weilniachtsfest  from  the  solemn 
vigils  which  preceded  the  festival  itself.  The 
English  Christinas  [so  the  Dutch  Kerstmisse, 
Kersmis,  whence  Kerst-maend,  a  name  for  De¬ 
cember],  analogous  to  such  forms  as  Candlemas, 
Lammas,  Michaelmas,  Childermas,  superseded 
the  older  name  Yule  [Anglo-Saxon,  Geol],  by 
which  the  dav  is  still  known  among  the  Scan¬ 
dinavian  nations). 

1.  Origin  of  Festivtd. 

It  is  not  hard  to  understand  why  the  Christian 
Church  should  have  commemorated  by  an  annual 
festival  the  Saviour’s  Incarnation.  How  far, 
however,  the  church  was  led  by  the  possession 
of  actual  historical  evidence  to  assign,  as  it  has 
done,  December  25  as  the  date  of  the  Nativity,  is 
a  matter  on  which  it  is  impossible  to  speak 


CHRISTMAS 


CHRISTMAS 


357 


otherwise  than  most  doubtfully.*  On  the  one 
hand,  due  weight  must  be  given  to  the  una¬ 
nimous  agreement  of  the  Western  Church  as  far 
as  the  tradition  can  be  traced  back,  and  to  the 
almost  universal  acceptance  of  this  view  by  the 
Eastern  Church  at  an  early  date.  It  is  certainly 
not  altogether  impossible  that  there  may  have 
been  some  trustworthy  tradition,  some  founda¬ 
tion  for  Tertullian’s  remark  as  to  the  archives  of 
the  Jews  stored  up  at  Rome,  some  slight  sub¬ 
stratum  of  truth  underlying  the  legend  as  to  the 
investigation  of  the  day  by  Julius  1.  (vide  infra). 
Further,  sundry  independent  considerations, 
astronomical  and  otherwise,  tend  to  make  it 
probable  that  our  Lord’s  birth  took  place  near 
the  end  of  the  year.  On  this  point  reference 
may  be  made  to  Seyffarth’s  Chronologia  Sacra^ 
which  refers  the  Nativity  to  December  22  (p. 
239),  see  also  Ideler,  Chronologic,  vol.  ii.  pp.  38.5 
sqq.  On  the  other  hand,  some  have  argued  on 
various  grounds  in  favour  of  the  greater  pro¬ 
bability  of  the  Nativity  having  been  in  the 
autumn.  Thus  Lightfoot  (Horae  Hehraicae  et 
Talmudicae,  vol.  ii.  p.  32,  ed.  Gandell)  would 
make  it  coincide  with  the  Jewish  Feast  of  Taber¬ 
nacles,  and  associate  it  with  that  Festival  in  the 
same  way  in  which  the  Passover  and  Easter, 
Pentecost  and  Whitsuntide  correspond.  His 
arguments  mainly  turn  on  the  interpretation  of 
Old  Testament  prophecies ;  e.g.  our  Lord  died  in 
Nisan,  and  if  His  ministry  lasted  three  years  and 
a  half,  as  Lightfoot  infers  from  Daniel  ix.  27, 
then  since  our  Lord  at  the  beginning  of  His 
ministry  was  iruv  rgiaKovra  apxofifros  (Luke 
iii.  23),  we  have,  reckoning  back  from  His  death, 
Tisri  or  September  for  the  season  of  His  birth. 
Again,  he  infers  from  a  comparison  of  Zechariah 
xiv.  16,  17,  that  it  would  be  most  improbable 
that  the  Feast  of  Tabeimacles  alone  of  the  three 
great  Jewish  festivals  should  fail  of  the  honour 
by  which  the  Passover  became  exalted  into  Easter, 
and  Pentecost  into  Whitsuntide.  To  decide  the 
matter  thus,  however,  in  the  absence  of  any  more 
tangible  historical  evidence,  is  obviously  unsafe. 
To  the  same  end  but  on  different  grounds  argues 
Jablonsky  (Dissertaliones  ii.  de  origine  Festi 
Xativitatis  Christi  in  Ecclesia  Christiana  qno- 
tannis  stato  die  celebrari  solita,  in  his  Opuscu'a, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  317  sqq.  Amsterdam  1809.  See  also 
^liinter, /Icr  AF/em  der  Weisen,  p.  110,  Copenhagen 
1827),  maintaining  for  example  that  St.  Luke’s 
statement  (ii.  8),  of  the  shepherds  keeping  watch  ' 
over  their  flocks  by  night  would  hardly  have 
been  possible  on  the  assumption  of  the  December 
date,  seeing  that  it  w'ould  then  have  been  the 
rainy  season,  and  the  flocks  would  therefore  have 
been  under  shelter.  A  further  discussion,  how¬ 
ever,  on  this  point  rather  belongs  to  the  province 
of  Biblical  Chronology. 

Many  learned  men  have  seen  in  the  particular 
period  at  which  we  celebrate  Christmas,  evidence 
m  favour  of  our  viewing  the  Christian  festival 
as  an  adaptation  of  previously  existing  Jewish  or 
heathen  festivals;  to  the  more  striking  views  of 
this  kind  we  shall  now  briefly  refer. 

•  Even  in  very  early  limes  the  great  uncertainty  of  the 
mailer  was  clearly  felt.  Thus  Jacob,  bishop  of  Edessa 
(ob.  578  A.D.),  is  quoted  by  I)iony>ius  Bar-Salibi  as  saying 
"  No  one  knows  exactly  the  day  of  the  nativity  of  the 
Lord :  this  only  is  certain,  from  what  Luke  writes,  that 
He  was  born  in  the  night”  (Assemanl,  Bill.  Or.  vol.  ii. 
?.  163> 


(o)  Some,  as  Oldermann  (De  festo  Encaenionnn 
Judaico,  origine  festi  Nalivitatis  Christi,  1715) 
have  viewed  Christmas  as  a  continuation  and 
development  of  the  Jewish  Feast  of  the  Dedica¬ 
tion,  a  festival  of  eight  days’  duration  beginninrr 
on  Cisleu  25  (=  December  17),  which  was  the 
anniversary  of  the  purification  of  the  temple  by 
Judas  Maccabaeus  after  the  outrages  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  (see  1  Macc.  iv.  52-59;  2  Macc.  x. 
1-8  ;  Josephus,  Antiq.  xii.  7,  6).  Still  while 
there  seem  to  be  several  coincidences  between  the 
two  feasts,  such  a  transference  from  Judaism  to 
Christianity  of  which  no  hint  whatever  is  given 
in  early  times  is  exceedingly  unlikely. 

(6)  Others  have  derived  it  from  some  one  or 
other  of  the  Roman  festivals  held  in  the  latter 
part  of  December,  as  the  Saturnalia,  or  the  Sigil- 
laria  which  followed  them,  or  the  Juvenalia 
established  by  Nero.  A  more  striking  parallel, 
however,  than  any  of  these  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Brumalia,  or  the  NataVs  Invicti  [6'o5's],  when 
the  Sun,  then  at  the  winter  solstice,  was,  as  it 
were,  born  anew,  even  as  Christ  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness  then  dawned  upon  the  world. 
This  is  the  view  of  Wernsdorf,  De  origine  Sollem- 
nium  Ndtidis  C  <risti  ec  festivitate  Natalis  Invicti. 
Wittenberg  1757  ;  of  Jablonsky  partly  [snpra']-, 
also  of  Mr.  King  (Gnostics  and  their  Remains, 
p.  49),  who  derives  the  Roman  festival  from  the 
Mithras-worship  of  the  Sun.  Then  as  Mith- 
raicism  gradually  blended  with  Christianity, 
changing  its  name  but  not  altogether  its  sub¬ 
stance,  many  of  its  ancient  notions  and  rites 
passed  over  too,  and  the  Birthday  of  the  Sun, 
the  visible  manifestation  of  Mithr.as  himself,  was 
transferred  to  the  commemoration  of  the  Birth 
of  Christ.  Numerous  jllustrations  of  the  above 
remarks  may  be  found  in  ancient  inscriptions, 
e.g.  SOLI  INVICTO  ET  LUNAE  AETERNAE 
C.  VETTI  GERMANI  LIB.  DUO  -PARATUS  ET 
HERMES  DEDERUNT,  or  HAIH  MI0PA  ANI- 
KHTfl  (Gruter,  Inscriptiones.A'Btiqiuie,p.  xxxiii.) 
In  the  legend  on  the  reverse  of  the  copper  coins 
of  Constantine,  SOLI  INVICTO  COMITI,  re¬ 
tained  long  after  his  conversion,  there  is  at  once 
an  idea  of  the  ancient  Sun-God,  and  of  the  new 
Sun  of  Righteousness.  The  supporters  of  this 
theory  cite  various  passages  from  early  Christian 
writers  indicating  a  recognition  of  this  view. 
The  sermon  of  Ambrose,  quoted  by  Jablonsky,  is 
certainly  spurious,  and  is  so  marked  in  the  best 
I  editions  of  his  works;  it  furnishes,  however,  an 
interesting  illustration  of  an  early  date.  The 
passage  runs  thus,  “  Bene  quodammodo  sanctum 
hunc  diem  Natalis  Domini  Solcm  novum  vulgus 
appellat,  et  tanta  sui  auctoritate  id  confirmat, 
ut  Judaei  etiam  atque  Gentiles  in  hanc  vocem 
consentiant.  Quod  libcnter  amplectandum  nobis 
est,  quia  oriente  Salvatore,  non  solum -humani 
generis  salus,  sed  etiam  solis  ipsius  claritas  in- 
novatur”  (Serm.  6,  in  Appendlce  p.  397,  ed. 
Bened.).  In  the  Latin  editions  of  Chry.sostom  is 
a  homily,  wrongly  ascribed  to  him,  but  probably 
written  not  long  after  his  time,  in  which  we  read, 
“Sed  et  Invicti  appellant.  Quis  utique 

tarn  invictus  nisi  Dominus  noster,  qui  mortem 
subactam  devicit  ?  Vel  quod  dicunt  Solis  esse 
Natalem,  ipse  est  Sol  Justitiae,  de  quo  Malachias 
propheta  dixit,  Orietur  vobis  timentibus  nomen 
ipsius  Sol  Justitiae  et  sanitas  est  in  perinis  ejus  ” 
(Scrino  de  Nativitate  S.  Joannis  Baptistac : 
vol.  ii.  1113,  ed.  Pari.s,  1570).  Leo  the  Great 


358 


CHRISTMAS 


CHRISTMAS 


fiuils  fault  with  the  baneful  persuasion  of  some 
“quibus  haec  dies  solemnitatis  nostrae,  non  tam 
de  Nativitate  Christi,  quam  de  novi  ut  dicunt 
soli's  ortu,  honorabilis  videtur  ”  (Senn.  22,  §  6, 
vol.  i.  p.  72,  ed.  Ballerini).  Again,  the  same 
father  observes,  “  Sed  hanc  adorandam  in  caelo 
et  in  terra  Xativitatem  nullus  nobis  dies  magis 
quam  hodieruus  insinuat,  et  nova  etiam  in  ele- 
mentis  luce  radiante,  coram  (al.  totam)  sensibus 
uostris  mirabilis  sacramenti  ingerit  claritatem  ” 
{Serm.  26,  §  1,  p.  87). 

We  may  further  cite  one  or  two  instances  from 
ancient  Christian  poets  :  Prudentius,  in  his  hymn 
Ad  Nata/em  Domini,  thus  speaks  (Cathcmerinon 
xi.  init.,  p.  364,  ed.  Arevalus) : — 

"  Quid  est,  quod  arctum  circulum 
Sol  jam  recurrens  de.-^rit  ? 

Christusne  terrls  nascitur 
Qui  Incis  auget  tramilem?” 

Paulinus  ofNola  also  (Poema  xiv.  15-19,  p.  382, 
ed.  Mui'atori) : — 

“  Nam  post  solstitium,  quo  Christus  corpore  uatus 
Solo  novo  gelidae  mutavit  tempora  brumae, 

Atque  salutiferum  praestans  mortalibus  ortum, 
Proc?deiite  die,  secum  decrescere  noctes 
Jussit." 

Reference  may  also  be  made  to  an  extract  in 
Assemani  {Bibl.  Or.  ii.  163)  from  Dionysius  Bar- 
Salibi,  bishop  of  Amida,  which  shows  traces  of  a 
similar  feeling  in  the  East ;  also  to  a  passage 
from  an  anonymous  Syrian  writer,  who  distinctly 
refers  the  fixing  of  the  day  to  the  above  cause; 
we  are  not  disposed,  however,  to  attach  much 
weight  to  this  last  passage.  More  important  for 
our  purpose  is  the  injunction  of  a  council  of  Rome 
(743  A.D.)  “  Ut  nullus  Kalendas  Januarias  et 
hroma  (  =  brumalia)  colei'e  praesumpserit  ”  (can. 
9,  Labbe'  vi.  1548),  which  shows  at  any  rate  that 
for  a  long  time  after  the  fall  of  heathenism, 
many  traces  of  heathen  rites  still  remained.  A 
similar  mention  is  found  also  in  the  proceedings 
of  the  Quinisext  Council  (692  A.D.),  ras  ovtu 
Xeyoiiivas  KaAdvSas  /cal  ra  KaKov^ieva  BpovfidXia 
(can.  66,  Labbe' vi.  1170). 

(7)  Others  have  even  derived  Christm.as  from 
the  Northern  festival  ( Vule)  in  December,  in 
honour  of  Freya  (cf.  Loccenius,  Antiq.  Sv^o-Goth. 
lib.  i.  c.  5,  Holmiae,  1645 ;  Scheffer,  Upsalia 
Antiqua,  p.  296,  Upsal,  1666). 

(5)  Jablonsky,  while  considering,  as  we  haA'e 
said,  that  in  the  festival  of  the  Natalis  Invicti 
is  to  be  found  the  origin  of  the  celebration  of 
our  Lord’s  Nativity  by  the  Roman  Church,  main¬ 
tains  {op.  cit.  pp.  361  sqq.)  that  the  Christians 
derived  this  festival  primarily  from  the  Basili- 
dians.  These,  as  we  learn  from  a  passage  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria  cited  at  length  below, 
celebrated  Christ’s  baptism  as  being  His  mani¬ 
festation  to  the  world  on  Tubi  11  (  =  January  6), 
and  Jablonsky  argues  that  this  particular  day 
was  suggested  to  them  by  the  Egyptian  festival 
of  the  Invenlio  Osiridis  or  Festum  Osiridis  nati 
or  renati  (cf.  Juvenal  viii.  29;  Athenagoras, 
Jjpgatio,  c.  22,  p.  299,  ed.  Maranus),  itself  a  com¬ 
memoration  of  the  renewed  life  of  the  sun  from 
year  to  year,  which  he  thinks  was  celebrated  on 
that  day.  (On  this  last  point,  however,  much 
doubt  exists.  Wyttenbach,  Animadversiones  in 
Piutarchi  Mornlia  ;  De  Iside  et  Osiride,  p.  366  F, 
considers  that  if  Plutarch’s  text  is  correct,  the 
festival  took  place  in  Athyr  or  November,  and 


Kircher,  Oedipus  Aegyptiacus,  vol.  ii.  part  2,  p. 
262,  would  fix  it  in  Choeac  or  December.) 

(e)  Some  writers  have  argued  that  the  Chris¬ 
tian  festival  was  not  so  much  a  transformation 
of  a  previously  existing  non-Christian  one,  as  an 
independent  festival  set  up  as  a  counter-cele¬ 
bration  at  the  same  time  with  the  heathen  fes¬ 
tival  ;  this  distinction,  however,  is  rather  ap¬ 
parent  than  real.  Augusti,  for  example  (Denk- 
icvrdiykeiten,  vol.  i.  p.  226),  sees  in  it  a  standing 
protest  against  those  sects  which  denied  or  ob¬ 
scured  the  great  truth  of  the  Incarnation,  such 
as  the  Manichaeans,  Gnostics,  Priscillianists,  and 
the  like. 

II.  History  of  Festival. 

We  do  not  find  in  the  earliest  Christian  times 
uniformity  of  observance  as  to  the  day  on  which 
our  Lord’s  Nativity  was  commemorated.  The 
earliest  allusion  to  it  is  made  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  and  is  of  so  much  importance  that 
we  shall  give  it  at  length.  After  speaking  of 
the  year  of  our  Lord’s  birth,  he  proceeds  :  “And 
there  are  some  who  over  curiously  (wepiep- 
yorepoy)  assign  not  only  the  year  but  even  the 
day  of  the  birth  of  our  Saviour,  which  they  say 
was  in  the  28th  year  of  Augustus,  on  the  25th 
day  of  Pachon.**  And  the  followers  of  Basilides 
celebrate  also  the  day  of  His  baptism  (of  Se  otto 
B.  KOI  Tov  /SaTTTtV/uaTOs  aiiTov  ttjv  rjpfpay  eoprd- 
Covcri),  spending  the  night  before  in  readings, 
and  they  say  that  it  was  in  the  15th  year  of 
Tiberius  Caesar,  on  the  loth  of  the  month  Tubi, 
but  some  say  that  it  was  on  the  11th  of  the 
same  month.  .  .  .  Further,  some  of  them  sav 
that  he  was  born  on  the  24th  or  2oth  of  Phar- 
muthi.”  {Stromata,  lib.  i.  c.  21,  vol.  i.  p.  407,  ed. 
Potter).  The  two  days  here  specified  as  those 
on  which  the  Nativity  was  celebrated,  Pachon 
25,  and  Pharmuthi  24  or  25,  are  respectively 
^lay  20,  April  21  or  22  (see  Bede,  De  temporum 
ratione,  c.  11;  Patrol,  xc.  345).  Jablonsky  (0;;. 
cit.'),  and  Le  Nourry  {In  Clem.  Alex.  opp.  Diss. 
ii.  art.  5)  infer  from  the  language  of  Clement 
that  Tubi  11  or  15  (January  6  or  10)  was  ob¬ 
served  by  the  followers  of  Basilides  as  the  day 
of  the  baptism  as  well  as  of  the  Nativity.  We 
should  venture  to  doubt  this  idea,  but  it  is  per¬ 
haps  supported  by  the  passage  cited  below  from 
Epiphanius.  Gieseler  also  {Kirchenjescliichte, 
vol.  i.  p.  154,  ed.  3)  considers  the  inference  in¬ 
correct. 

We  may  probably  assume  the  above-quoted 
passage  to  be  decisive  against  any  general  cele¬ 
bration  of  the  Nativity  in  Clement’s  time.  Pos¬ 
sibly  indeed,  though  as  we  have  already  said  the 
inference  seems  doubtful,  he  may  refer  to  a  cele¬ 
bration  of  the  day  by  some  of  the  sects  of  the 
time,  since  he  speaks  of  the  Easilidians  “  observ¬ 
ing  also  the  day  of  the  baptism.”  Further,  it 
would  seem  as  if  Clement  rather  censured  the 
attempt  to  fix  accurately  the  day  of  our  Lord’s 
birth,  itself  conclusive  evidence  against  a  general 
recognition  of  the  festival  in  Clement’s  time. 

It  was  the  general  custom  in  early  times,  in 
the  East,  to  fix  the  Nativity  on  January  6,  which 
thus  served  as  the  anniversary  both  for  the  Birth 


b  Idcler  {op.  cit.  ii.  CS7  n.)  suggests  as  a  reason  for  this 
fixing  of  the  day  on  the  part  of  the  Egyptians,  that  hear¬ 
ing  Christ  was  bom  in  the  9th  month,  they  referred  it  to 
the  9ih  month  of  their  own  calendar. 


CHRISTMAS 


CHRISTMAS 


359 


and  the  Epiphany.  An  illustration  of  this,  not 
however  applying  to  an  Oriental  Church,  may  | 
perhaps  be  derived  from  the  accounts  of  the  visit 
of  Julian  the  Apostate,  when  at  Vienne  in  Gaul, 
to  a  church  with  the  view  of  seeming  in  accord 
with  the  religion  of  his  soldiery.  Ammianus 
Marcellinus  (lib.  xxi.  c.  2)  speaks  of  this  visit 
as  taking  place  on  the  Epiphany  (“  feriarum  die 
quern  celebrantes  mense  Januario  Christiani  Epi- 
phania  dictitant  ”),  and  Zonaras  (^Annal.  lib.  xiii. 
c.  11)  on  the  Nativity  (rijs  y^v^QKiov  (ruTrjpos 
rjfiepas  e^ecTTj/cy/as).  It  is  just  possible,  however, 
that  the  references  may  be  to  different  events. 

To  derive  illustrations  of  the  practice  from 
distinctly  Eastern  sources,  we  may  refer  in  the 
first  place  to  a  letter  attributed  to  Cyril  of  Jeru¬ 
salem,  which  professes  to  be  addressed  by  him 
to  Julius,  bishop  of  Rome,  on  this  subject.  This 
letter,  though  a  palpable  forgery,  affords  inter¬ 
esting  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  practice 
of  combining  the  two  feasts  on  January  6.  We 
derive  our  knowledge  of  it  from  two  sources : 
(1)  a  summary  of  it  given  in  a  letter.  Be  Nati-  \ 
vitate  Domini,  of  John,  bishop  of  Nicaea  (end  of 
the  9th  or  beginning  of  the  10th  century)  to 
Zacharias,  Catholicos  of  Armenia  Major  (Combefis, 
Haeresis  Monothelit.  pp.  298  sqq.) ;  and  (2)  an 
anonymous  'AvayKaia  di-fiy-rjais,  published  by 
Cotelier  from  a  MS.  in  the  Library  of  Paris  (Pa- 
tres  Apostolici,  i.  316,  ed.  1724).  The  general  , 
substance  of  these  is  to  the  effect  that  the  bishop  , 
of  Jerusalem  complained  of  the  inconvenience  of 
celebrating  the  Nativity  and  the  Epiphany  on  j 
the  same  day,  seeing  that  as  he  went  in  person 
to  scenes  commemorated  by  these  events,  Beth¬ 
lehem  and  the  Jordan,  it  was  difficult  to  perform 
both  journeys  in  one  day,  and  the  services  were 
necessarily  mutilated.  He  therefore  requests  in¬ 
formation  as  to  the  proper  day  of  the  Nativity, 
adding  that  Titus  carried  away  to  Rome  the 
archives  of  the  Jews  from  which  the  fact  might 
be  cleared  up.  (For  this  point,  cf.  Tertullian 
contra  Marcionem,  lib.  iv.  c.  7.)  The  pope  in 
answer  declares  that  he  has  examined  the  records 
and  finds  that  December  25  is  the  day  on  which 
the  Nativity  should  be  held.  The  latter  of  the 
two  documents  we  have  referred  to  adds  that 
this  decision  caused  much  murmuring — “  Now 
at  that  time  Gregory  Theologus  [Nazianzen]  ' 
was  at  Constantinople,  and  there  arose  no  small  j 
murmuring  among  the  citizens,  as  though  he  had  j 
been  dividing  the  feast,  and  they  said.  Thou  hast  j 
divided  the  feast,  and  art  casting  us  into  idol-  j 
atry.”  According  to  this  document  the  name  of 
the  bishop  of  Jerusalem  in  question  was  Juvenal, 
a  successor  of  Cyril  (see  Cyril.  Hierosol.  p.  370, 
ed.  Toutt^).<= 

A  possible  allusion  to  this  affair  may  be  cited 


'  The  unhlstorical  character  of  these  documents  is 
equally  obvious  whether  we  take  Cyril  or  Juvenal  :  for 
Julius  was  dead  nearly  a  century  before  the  time  of  the 
latter.  Again  as  for  Cyril,  the  letter,  according  to  Cotelier’s 
obvious  co»-rei  tion,  claims  to  bo  written  not  by  tli^;  well- 
known  Cyril  (“  who  wrote  to  Constantine  ”  [leg.  Con¬ 
stantins]  conceining  the  appearance  of  the  luminous  cross 
over  Jerusalem),  but  a  later  one  In  the  time  of  Valerius, 
mentioned  by  Kplphanius  {Haer.  Ixvi.  20).  This  however 
is  impossible,  for  the  end  of  the  pontificate  of  Julius  only 
Just  overlaps  that  of  Cyril.  Even  if,  in  spite  of  the  letter, 
we  referred  It  to  Cyril  1.,  we  are  no  better  off,  for  it  is 
clear  that  the  practice  of  celebrating  the  Nativity  and  the 
Epiphany  together  continued  in  Jerusal  m  after  his  time. 


from  the  Laudatio  S.  Stephani  by  Basil  of  Se- 
leucia,  who  flourished  at  the  time  of  the  Council 
of  Ephesus  {Patrol.  Gr.  Ixxxv.  469),  who  says  of 
Juvenal  that  he  “  began  to  celebrate  the  glorious 
and  adorable  salvation-bringing  Nativity  of  the 
Lord,"’  which  not  improbably  means  celebrated 
as  a  distinct  festival.  Possibly  the  explanation 
of  the  whole  thing  is  that  Juvenal  initialed  some 
change  in  accordance  with  the  Western  practice, 
which  was  then  explained  as  a  direct  action  of  the 
Roman  See,  and  was  finally  associated  with  the 
more  famous  name  of  Cyril. 

To  show  that  the  change  was  not  at  once  made 
in  Palestine,  we  may  further  appeal  to  the  Latin 
homily  Be  Nativitate  Domini,  found  in  Latin  edi¬ 
tions  of  Chrysostom,  which  though  not  received 
as  a  genuine  writing  of  that  Father,  is  assigned 
by  Touttee  (pp.  cit.  p.  369)  to  the  4th  century 
or  the  beginning  of  the  5th.  d’he  writer  is  con¬ 
tending  that  the  Western  plan  of  dividing  the 
festivals  is  correct,  and  finds  fault  with  Orientals 
who  clung  to  their  old  method  on  the  ground 
that  they  must  know  best  in  whose  land  our 
Lord’s  earthly  life  was  past  (Chrysostom,  vol.  i. 
p.  1116,  ed.  Paris,  1570). 

Important  testimony  on  this  point  may  be  de¬ 
rived  from  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  (Topographia 
Christiana,  lib.  v. ;  Patrol.  Gr.  Ixxxviii.  197), 
who  after  referring  to  the  message  of  the  angel 
to  Zacharias  and  the  visit  of  the  Virgin  to  Eliza¬ 
beth,  says  that  Christians  concur  in  celebrating 
the  Nativity  in  the  ninth  month,  on  Choeac  28 
(^December  24),  “but  the  people  of  Jerusalem, 
as  though  from  what  the  blessed  Luke  .says 
that  Christ  was  baptized  when  ‘  beginning  to  be 
about  thirty  years  old,’  celebrate  the  Nativity 
on  the  Epiphany.”  He  then  appears  to  say  that 
the  people  of  Jerusalem  were  right  in  supposing 
that  our  Lord’s  baptism  fell  on  the  anniversary 
of  His  birth,  but  that  the  Church  had  wisely 
postponed  the  celebration  of  one  of  these  events 
for  twelve  days  lest  either  festival  should  meet 
with  insufficient  attention.  Thus  Jerusalem  Avas 
incorrect  in  taking  the  later  day  for  the  anni¬ 
versary  of  the  Nativity.  “  But  the  people  of 
Jerusalem  alone  by  a  reasonable  conjecture,  yet 
not  accurately,  celebrate  [the  Nativity]  on  the 
Epiphany,  and  on  the  Nativity  they  celebrate 
the  memory  of  David  and  of  James  the  Apostle.” 
We  further  gather  from  the  letter  of  John  of 
Nicaea  already  referred  to  (o/j.  cit.  1141)  that  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  appealed  to  the  authority 
of  James,  the  Lord’s  brother,  for  their  practice 
of  celebrating  the  Nativity  on  January  6.  He 
adds  that  in  the  time  of  Honorius  the  patriarchs 
of  Constantinople  (Chrysostom),  Alexandria,  Je¬ 
rusalem,  and  Antioch  formally  acquiesced  in  the 
Western  plan. 

We  shall  now  adduce  evidence  to  show  that  tlie 
practice  of  the  Alexandrian  Church  agreed  in  this 
matter  with  that  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem. .  In 
his  notes  to  his  Latin  translation  of  the  Arabic  Pre¬ 
face,  Canons  and  Constitutions  of  the  Nicene  Coun¬ 
cil,  Abraham  Ecchelensis  cites  from  the  Constitu¬ 
tions  of  the  Alexandrian  Church,  “  In  die  antem 
Nativitatis  et  Epiphaniae  eo  tempore  quo  conci¬ 
lium  Nicaenum  coactum  fuit,  praeceperunt  ejus 
patres  ut  noctu  missa  celebretur  ”  (Labbe  ii.  402). 

Cassian^  again  (Collutio  x.  c.  2  ;  Patrol.  .\li.\. 


It  would  almost  seem  as  Ihougli  tlieie  were  grounds 
for  believing  the  change  to  have  taken  place  in  Egypt  by 


360 


CHRISTMAS 


CHRISTMAS 


820)  speaks  ef  it  as  the  custom  in  Egypt  in  his 
day  :  “  lutra  Aegypti  regiouem  nios  iste  antiqua 
traditioue  servatur,  ut  peracto  Epiphaniorum 
die  quern  provinciae  illius  sacerdotes  vel  Domi- 
uici  Baptismi,  vel  secundum  carnem  Nativitatis 
esse  defiuiuut,  et  idcirco  utriusqixe  sacramenti 
solemiiitatem  non  bifarie  ut  in  occiduis  pro- 
vinciis,  sed  uha  diei  hujus  festivitate  concele- 
brant  .  .  .  (cf.  Isidore,  De  Eccl.  Off.  i.  27) ; 
Gennadius  (^De  Scriptorihiis  Ecclesiasticis,  c.  58  ; 
Patrol.  Iviii.  1092)  speaks  of  a  certain  Bishop 
Timotheus  who  composed  a  book,  not  now  extant, 
on  the  Nativity  of  our  Lord  “  quam  credit  in 
Epiphania  factam.”  Taken  in  conjunction  with 
what  we  have  already  said  of  the  Egyptian  prac¬ 
tice  this  may  refer  to  Timotheus,  bishop  of  Alex¬ 
andria. 

We  next  pass  on  to  notice  the  evidence  for  the 
practice  of  the  Armenians  in  this  matter.  Euthy- 
mius  {Panoplia  Dorjmatica,  tit.  23  ;  Patrol.  Gr. 
exxx,  1175)  says  of  them  :  “These  deny  the  birth 
of  Christ  according  to  the  flesh  and  the  mystery 
of  the  true  Incarnation,  saying  that  they  took 
place  only  in  appearance  ;  nor  do  they  celebrate 
the  Annunciation  of  the  Mother  of  God  on  the 
day  that  we  celebrate  it,  that  is  on  March  25, 
as  the  inspired  Fathers,  the  great  Athanasius  ® 
and  John  Chrysostom  and  those  of  their  time 
and  after  their  time  have  handed  it  down  to 
us,  but  on  January  5  ;  in  a  very  short  time  they 
fancifully  and  obscuiely  jxretend  that  they  cele¬ 
brate  the  Annunciation  and  the  Nativity  and 
the  Baptism  of  Christ,  to  the  deceiving  of  the 
uncorrupt  and  not  according  to  truth.”  Similar 
evidence  is  forthcoming  from  Nicephorus  (Hist. 
Eccles.  xviii.  53  ;  Patrol.  Gr.  cxlvii.  440)  :  “  They 
deny  also  the  Nativity  of  Christ  according  to  the 
flesh,  and  say  that  He  was  born  only  in  appear¬ 
ance  ;  and  differing  from  us  xvho  observe  them 
separately,  they  extend  the  fast  to  the  15th 
[doubtless  for  iP  here  we  should  read  e']  day  of 
the  month  January,  and  celebrate  together  the 
Annunciation  and  Nativitj'^  and  Baptism.”  The 
inquiry  of  the  Armenian  Catholicos  Zacharias  from 
John  of  Nicaea,  which  called  forth  the  letter  of 
the  latter,  is  also  evidence  throwing  a  light  upon 
the  matter  in  question. 

We  shall  next  cite  from  the  answers  of 
John,  bishop  of  Citrum,  to  Constantine  Cabasilas, 
archbishop  of  Dyrrachium  (quoted  by  Cotelier, 
Patres  Apostolid,  i.  316,  ed.  1724,  from  MSS.  in 
the  Library  of  Paris,  though  not  given  in  the 
printed  editions,  as  Leunclavius,  Jus  Graeco-Ro- 
manum^  p.  323) :  “  We  abolish  the  twelve  days’ 
[fast]  for  the  overthrowing  of  the  fast  of  the  Arme¬ 
nians.  For  they  fast  for  these  twelve  days  before 
Epiphany,  and  so  celebrate  together  on  the  fifth 
of  January  the  three  feasts :  I  mean  the  Annun¬ 
ciation  and  the  Nativity  and  Baptism  of  Christ.” 
He  proceeds  to  attribute  this  to  the  heresiarch 
Ichanius,  who  held  Docetic  views. 

Cotelier  further  quotes  from  a  MS.  in  the  same 


Cassian’s  time  ;  for  In  the  heading  of  a  homily  by  Paul, 
bishop  of  Kmesa,  delivered  at  Alexandria  before  Cyril,  we 
find  K<s\9ela-a  kO'  Xoiax  (=  December  25)  .  . .  eU  ttjv  yeV- 
v7)(fiv  Tov  Kvpiov  y]p.o)v  ’Irjcrov  Xpurrov.  (Cone.  Ephes. 
Pars  iii.  c.  31 ;  Labbe,  iii.  1095.) 

e  The  writer  here  doubtless  appeals  to  the  Quaestiones 
ad  Antiochum  Ducf^ni,  55  (Patrol.  Or.  xxviii.  632),  once 
attributed  to  Athanasius,  but  universally  acknowledged 
now  to  be  spurious. 


Library  a  form  of  renunciation  to  be  gone  through 
by  Armenian  heretics  on  joining  the  Roman 
Church.  Among  other  things  is,  “If  anyone 
does  not  celebrate  on  March  25  the  Annunciation, 
and  on  December  25  the  Nativity  of  Christ, 
let  him  be  Anathema.”  He  had  previously  (op. 
cit.  p.  238)  printed  from  the  same  MS.  an  attack 
on  the  dp-q(TK(ia  ruv  KaKiaTcou  ’Apue- 

p'luu,  where  we  find:  “And  on  January  5  in  the 
evening,  they  celebrate  the  feast  of  the  Annun¬ 
ciation.  .  .  .  And  in  the  morning  they  celebrate 
the  Nativity  of  Christ,  and  in  the  Liturgy  the 
Holy  Epiphany.” 

Finally,  for  the  Armenian  practice  reference 
may  be  made  to  two  invectives  (\6yoi  ctttjAi- 
revTiKoi)  of  Isaac,  Catholicos  of  Armenia,  in  the 
11th  or  12th  century  (i.  3,  ii.  10,  Combefls,  Haere- 
sis  Monothelit.  pp.  33.3,  405).  The  modern  Arme¬ 
nian  Church  still  retains  this  practice  (Neale, 
Hohj  Eastern  Church,  Introd.  p.  741). 

The  Western  Church,  so  far  as  we  can  trace 
the  matter  back,  seems  to  have  kept  the  two 
festivals  of  the  Nativity  and  Epiphany  always 
distinct.^  Jerome  says  unhesitatingly  (Comm,  in 
Ezech.  i.  1,  vol.  v.  6,  ed.  Bened.) :  “Et  dies 
Epiphaniorum  hucusque  venerabilis  est,  non  ut 
quidam  putant  Natalis  in  carne,  tunc  enim  ab- 
sconditus  est,  et  non  apparuit.” 

We  may  cite  the  very  ancient  Calendarium 
Carthaginense  (Patrol,  xiii.  1227),  which  marks 
December  25  thus:  “  viii.  Kal.  Jan.  Domini 
Nosti’i  Jesu  Christi  Filii  Dei,”  with  a  note  of  the 
Epiphany  on  Jan.  6.  We  shall  only  cite  here 
from  two  other  ancient  calendars,  that  of  Buche- 
rius  and  the  Leonine,  which  Muratori  (De  Rebus 
lAturgicis,  c.  4)  refei’s  approximately  to  the  dates 
355,  488  A.D.  respectively.  These  severally 
mark  the  day,  “  Natus  Christus  in  Bethlehem 
Judae,”  “  Natale  Domini  ”  (1.  c.).  Other  Litur¬ 
gical  monuments  will  be  treated  of  separately. 

Evidence,  however,  is  forthcoming  to  show  that 
in  the  Roman  Church  the  Epiphany  was  pro¬ 
bably  the  older  of  the  txvo  festivals,  and  there¬ 
fore  in  some  respects  the  more  important,  for 
the  ancient  Orda  Romanus  (In  vigilia  Theo- 
phaniae,  p.  21,  ed.  Hittorp,  Cologne,  1568) 
remarks :  “  Nec  hoc  praetereundum  est,  quod 
secunda  Nativitas  Christi  (i.e.  the  Epiphany),  tot 
illustrata  mysteriis,  honoratior  sit  quam  prima 
(i.e.  Christmas).”  Still  this  is  after  all  only  a 
matter  of  relative  importance,  and  the  Nativity 
is  evidently  accounted  a  festival  of  the  highest 
order  in  the  Leonine  Sacramentary,  which  is  cer¬ 
tainly  older  than  the  Ordo  which  Hittorp  refers 
to  the  time  of  Pepin  and  Charlemagne. 

We  shall  now  endeavour  to  show  that  the 
change  of  the  day  to  December  25,  in  accordance 
with  the  Western  plan,  began  to  take  place  in 
the  East  towards  the  end  of  the  4th  century. 
The  old  Avay  was  that  believed  in  by  Ephrem 
Syrus  (ob.  378  A.D.),  who  is  cited  as  saying,  “On 
the  10th  day  [of  March]  was  His  Conception, 
and  on  the  6th  day  [of  January]  was  His  Na¬ 
tivity  ”  (Assemani,  Bibl.  Or.  ii.  163).  The 
change,  however,  must  have  been  gradual.  For, 

f  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Western  Church  marks 
the  Epiphany  by  a  Greek  name,  and  the  Nativity  by  a 
Latin  name.  It  is  a  reasonable  inference  that  the  former 
took  its  rise  in  the  East,  and  was  thence  introduced  into 
the  West ;  while  the  latter  as  a  separate  festival  was  of 
distinctly  Western  growth. 


CHRISTMAS 

to  say  nothing  of  Armenians,  we  find  E])i])hanlus 
saying  {Haer.  li.  24,  vol.  i.  p.  446,  ed.  Petavius) : 
“  For  since  He  was  born  in  the  month  of  January, 
that  is,  viii.  Id.  Jan.  which  is  according  to  the 
Romans  January  5,  according  to  the  Egyptians 
Tubi  11,  according  to  the  Syrians  or  the  Greeks 
Audyneus  6,  according  to  the  Cyprians  or  Sala- 
miuians  the  5th  of  the  5th  month,  according  to 
the  Paphians  Julus  14,  according  to  the  Arabians 
Aleom  21,  according  to  the  Cappadocians  Atarta 
13,  according  to  the  Hebrews  Tibieth  (Tebeth) 
13,  according  to  the  Athenians  Maemacterion  6 
.  .  .  .”  It  does  not  appear  whether  Epiphanius 
means  that  all  these  nations  celebrated  the 
Nativity  on  the  day  thus  indicated :  it  is  more 
jirobable  that  he  is  merely  giving  the  various^ 
equivalents  for  the  day  in  different  systems  of 
reckoning.  Indeed  his  mention  of  the  Romans 
is  perhaps  conclusive. 

The  most  important  jiiece  of  evidence,  however, 
towards  fixing  the  date  of  the  change  in  the  East 
by  which  December  25  became  recognized  as  the 
day  of  the  Nativity  is  to  be  found  in  a  Homily 
of  Chrysostom  to  the  people  of  Antioch,  eis  't)]v 
yev4d\iov  ^fiepau  rod  ’XwTripos  Tjpiwv  'lr}(TOv 
XpKTTov  (vol.  ii.  p.  354,  ed.  Montfaucon),  which 
Montfaucon  (p.  352)  e  gives  strong  reasons  for 
believing  to  have  been  delivered  on  December  25, 
386.  After  saying  how  earnestly  he  had  wished 
to  see  on  the  day  of  the  Nativity  a  congregation 
like  that  which  was  then  met  together,  Chry¬ 
sostom  proceeds  :  “  Nevertheless  it  is  not  yet  the 
tenth  year  since  this  day  has  been  made  manifest 
and  plain  to  us,  still  as  though  it  had  been  handed 
down  to  us  from  the  beginning  (auwd(u)  and 
many  years  ago,  it  has  flourished  thus  through 
your  zeal.  And  so  a  man  would  not  err  who 
should  call  it  at  once  new  and  ancient, — new, 
in  that  it  has  recently  been  made  known  to  us ; 
but  old  and  ancient,  in  that  it  has  speedily  won 

an  equality  with  older  festivals . ”  And  as 

jdants  of  good  stock  speedily  grow  up  and  pro¬ 
duce  fruit,  “  so  this  day  too,  known  from  the 
beginning  to  those  who  inhabit  the  West,  but 

brought  to  us  not  many  years  ago . ”  The 

change,  however,  at  first  meets  with  opposition. 
“  I  know  well,”  he  adds,  “  that  many  even  yet 
dispute  with  one  another  about  it,  some  finding 
fault  with  it  and  others  defending  it,  ...  .  since 
it  is  old  and  ancient,  for  the  prophets  already 
foretold  His  birth,  and  from  the  beginning  it  has 
been  manifest  and  notable  to  the  dwellers  from 
Thrace  even  to  Gades.”  Again  (§  2)  he  refers 
his  hearers  to  the  archives  at  Rome  as  a  source 
whence  certain  evidence  on  the  point  could  be  ob¬ 
tained,  and  adds  “  from  those  who  have  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  these  things  and  inhabit  that  city, 
have  we  received  this  day.  For  they  who  dwell 
there,  observing  it  from  the  beginning  and  by  old 
ti'adition,  themselves  sent  to  us  now  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  it.”  Again  (§  5)  after  fixing  April  as 
the  time  of  the  Annunciation,  he  arrives  for  the 
Nativity  at  the  month  Apellaeus  (December), 


8  Montfaucon  here  cites  Athanasius  {Frag.  Comm,  in 
Matth.  vol.  i.  p.  1025,  ed.  Bened.  1787)  as  speaking  of 
December  25  as  the  Nativity.  But  In  the  first  place  the 
Benedictine  editors  had  considerable  doubt  of  the  genuine¬ 
ness  of  the  fragment  (“si  non  aperte  spurium  adniodum 
suspcctura  videtur,  in  quo  sunt  pleraquc  /xvOojSti ;  and 
in  the  next,  it  seems  rather  the  death  of  Herod  which  is 
indicated  than  the  birth  of  our  Lord. 


CHRISTMAS  3G1 

“  this  present  month,  in  which  we  celebrate  the 
day.” 

From  the  above-quoted  language  of  Chry¬ 
sostom,  we  may  notice;  (1)  that  about  the  year 
386  A.D.  the  festival  of  the  Nativity,  as  distinct 
fi'om  and  independent  of  the  Epiphany,  was  a  no¬ 
velty  of  a  few  years’  standing  in  the  East ;  (2)  that 
Chrysostom  believed  that  the  Western  Church 
had  celebrated  an  independent  fe.stival  “  from 
the  beginning  and  by  old  tradition  ;”  (3)  that  the 
change  was  met  with  opposition,  and  therefore 
would  be  gradual. 

Combining,  then,  Chrysostom’s  definite  testi¬ 
mony  with  the  fact  that  Epiphanius  had,  perhajis 
a  little  before  this  time,  concurred  with  the  old 
Eastern  view,  and  that  at  the  time  of  the  Council 
of  Ephesus  the  change  was  tacitly  recognized  at 
Alexandria,  we  may  fairly  argue  that  except  in 
those  parts  of  the  Eastern  Church  where  the  old 
plan  was  still  continued  (Jerusalem  possibly  and 
Armenia  certainly),  the  Western  plan  was  being 
gradually  adopted  in  the  period  which  we  may 
roughly  define  as  the  last  quarter  of  the  4th  and 
the  first  quarter  of  the  5th  century. 

Whether  before  the  time  of  Chrysostom  any 
part  of  the  Eastern  Church  observed  the  Nativity 
on  December  25,  it  is  difficult  to  say.  The 
date  of  the  various  parts  of  the  Apostolic  Con¬ 
stitutions  (see  the  Article)  being  so  doubtful, 
we  shall  merely  cite  from  them  a  passage 
bearing  on  this  point :  “  Observe  the  days  of 
the  festivals,  brethren,  and  first  the  Nativity, 
and  let  this  be  celebrated  by  you  on  the  25th 
day  of  the  ninth  month.  After  this  let  the  Epi¬ 
phany  be  very  greatly  honoured  in  your  eyes, 
on  which  the  Lord  revealed  to  you  His  Own 
Godhead  ;  and  let  this  be  held  on  the  6th  day 
of  the  tenth  month  ”  (v.  13  ;  cf.  also  viii.  33, 
where  the  two  festivals  are  again  distinguished). 
Cotelier  in  his  introduction  (op.  cit.  p.  197)  also 
cites  a  passage  found  in  some  MSS.  of  Anastasius 
which  professes  to  be  quoted  from  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions.!  in  the  present  text  of  which,  how¬ 
ever,  it  is  not  found  :  “  For  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  born  of  the  Holy  Virgin  Mary  in  Bethlehem, 
iv  fiTjvi  Kara  Alyvirriovs  Xoiclk  ue  [probably  a  mis¬ 
take  for  kQ' .  which  =  December  25]  thpa 
rris  Tifxipas  %  ccrrlv  Trph  oktw  KakavSeiu  ’lavova- 

/  99 

The  result  of  all  this  investigation  then 
is  roughlv  this.  In  the  case  of  the  Eastern 
Church  there  is  no  certain  evidence  pointing  to  a 
general  celebration  of  the  Nativity  on  December 
25  before  the  time  of  Chr)'sostom.  Till  then  it 
had  been  held  on  January  6  in  conjunction  with 
the  Epiphany,  and  even  after  this  date  some 
churches  of  the  East  retained  for  some  time 
their  old  plan. 

In  the  West  we  are  told  that  the  festival  had 
been  recognized,  and  celebrated  on  December  25 
“  from  the  beginning.”  We  are  not  able  to  produce 
any  very  ancient  witnesses  from  Western  Fathers, 
but  may  fairly  assume  that  it  had  existed  suffi¬ 
ciently  long  for  Chrysostom  to  be  able  to  use 
reasonably  and  without  fear  of  contradiction 
such  a  word  as  Hi/wOev.  We  have  also  called 
attention  to  the  recognition  of  it  in  ancient 
calendars. 

Since  the  time  of  Chrysostom,  the  Nativity  has 
been  received  by  all  Churches  of  Christendom  as 
one  of  tiieir  most  imi)ortant  festivals.  Thus,  in 
a  sermon  attributed  to  Gregory  of  Nvssa,  but 


362 


CHRISTMAS 


CHRISTMAS 


of  doubtful  authenticity,  it  is  said  :  “  Now  is 
heard  accordant  throughout  the  whole  inhabited 
world  the  sound  of  them  that  celebrate  the 
feast  ”  (^Patrol.  Gr.  xlvi.  1148).  Chrysostom  (/n 
B.  Philogonium  4,  vol.  i.  497)  speaks  of  it  as 
second  in.  importance  to  no  festival,  “  which  a 
man  would  not  be  wrong  in  calling  the  chief 
(/i7jTpd7roA.ts)  of  all  festivals.” 

Sev'eral  sermons  are  extant  of  Pope  Leo  I.  on 
the  subject  of  the  Nativity,  further  exemplifying 
this  statement  {Perm.  21-30,  vol.  i.  pp.  64  sqq. 
ed.  Ballerini). 

It  is  curious  that  in  one  of  his  epistles  Augustine 
does  not  seem  to  recognize  the  Nativity  as  a  fes¬ 
tival  of  the  first  order,  where  after  referring  to 
the  Divine  institution  of  the  Sacraments,  he  pro¬ 
ceeds  to  those  things  “  quae  non  scripta  sed  tra- 
dita  custodimus  ”  on  the  authority  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Church,  “sicut  quod  Domini  Passio  et 
Resurrectio  et  Ascensio  in  caelum  et  Adventus 
de  caelo  Spiritus  Sancti  anniversaria  soleranitate 
celebrantur  ”  {Epist.  54  §  1  [olim  118];  Patrol. 
xxxiii.  200).  Yet  he  deemed  the  festival  of  such 
importance  that  he  has  wi'itten  not  a  few  sermons 
for  the  day,  showing  the  celebration  of  this  festival 
in  Africa  (see  Penn.  184-196,  369-372 ;  Patrol. 
xxxviii.  995  sqq.,  xxxix.  1655  sqq. ;  the  authen¬ 
ticity  of  the  latter  group,  however,  is  doubtful). 

III.  Liturgical  Notices. 

The  Roman  Church  evidently  accounted  the 
Nativity  one  of  the  most  important  feasts  from 
very  early  times.  Their  earliest  Sacramentary, 
that  of  Pope  Leo,  contains  nine  Masses  for  the 
day  (vol.  ii.  148  sqq.).  There  is,  however,  no 
notice  of  a  Vigil.  In  the  Preface  in  the  first  Mass 
it  is  said :  “  Quoniam  quidquid  Christianae  pro- 
fessionis  devotione  celebratur,  de  hac  sumit  solem- 
nitate  principium,  ei  in  hujus  muneris  mysterio 
continetur.”  See  again  the  Preface  in  the  seventh 
Mass  :  “  Atque  ideo  sicut  primis  fidelibus  extitit 
in  sui  credulitate  pretiosum,  ita  nunc  excusa- 
bilem  conscientiam  non  relinquit,  quae  salutaris 
mysterii  veritatera,  toto  etiam  mundo  testifi- 
cante  non  sequitur.” 

In  the  Gelasian  Sacramentary  four  Masses 
altogether  «are  given  :  (1)  For  the  Vigil  at  Nones  ; 
(2)  For  the  Vigil  in  nocte ;  (3)  For  the  Vigil 
Mam  prinia  ;  (4)  For  the  Nativity  fn  cf/e :  that 
is  to  say,  there  are  practically  three  Masses  on 
the  Nativity  itself.  After  this  again  are  several 
prayers  for  the  Nativity,  whether  at  Vespers  or 
Matins. 

The  Gelasian  Sacramentary  borrowed  a  good 
deal  fi'om  the  Leonine  here.  The  Collect  and 
Pecreta  for  the  ser\nces  of  the  Vigil  at  Nones 
and  Alayie  prima,  and  a  Collect  and  the  Preface 
for  the  Nativity  itself  as  well  as  two  (the  2nd 
and  4th)  of  the  added  prayers  all  come  from  the 
large  number  of  Masses  for  the  day  in  the  older 
Sacramentary  (PaD-oL  Ixxiv.  1055  sqq.).  We  now 
pass  on  to  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary.  Here, 
as  iu  the  previous  case,  there  are  altogether  four 
services  with  a  large  number  of  alternative  forms. 
The  second  mass  is  connected  In  some  MSS.  with 
the  church  of  S.  Maria  Major ;  thus,  Natalis 
Domini  ad  S.  Mariam  Majorem  (MS.  Rodradi), 
Nocte  ad  S.  Mariam  (MS.  Ratoldi) ;  and  the  third 
contains  also  the  commemoration  of  S.  Anastasia, 
and  one  INIS,  mentioned  by  Menard  {in  loc.)  gives 
two  prefaces  for  the  day,  one  for  the  Saint  and  i 


I  the  other  for  the  Nativity  (cf.  Greg.  Pacr.  col. 
5  s<jq.  ed.  Menard).  See  also  the  Antiphonarg^ 
where,  as  before,  four  Masses  in  all  are  recog¬ 
nized  {ib.  col.  657  sqq.),  and  a  still  more  elabo¬ 
rate  set  of  forms  is  given  in  the  Liber  liespKtnsalis 
attributed  to  Gregory  {ib.  col.  741  sqq.). 

The  Ordo  liornanus  {ed.  cit.  p.  19)  prescribes 
three  Lections  from  Isaiah  for  the  Vigil  of  the 
Nativity  :  (1)  ix.  j-x.  4;  (2)  xl.  1-xli.  20;  (3) 
lii.  1-15.  The  Ambrosian  Liturgy  of  the  Church 
of  Milan  (Pamelius,  Liturgg.  Latt.  vol.  i.  pp. 
293  sqq.)  gives  one  Mass  for  the  day. 

We  may  now  briefly  examine  the  Liturgical 
monuments  of  the  Gallican  Church.  In  the  an¬ 
cient  Lectionary  of  that  Church,  there  were 
originally  twelve  Lections  for  the  Vigil  of  the 
Nativity.  Tho.se  which  are  yet  extant,  five  in 
number,  are  :  Isaiah  xliv.  23-xlvi.  13 ;  an  ex¬ 
tract  from  a  sermon  of  Augustine  De  Notit i- 
tate  Domini:  Lsaiah  liv.  1-lxi.  7  ;  Malachi  ij.  7- 
iv.  6  ;  St.  John  i.  1-15. 

The  Lections  for  the  Nativity  itself  are  Isaiah 
vii.  10-ix.  8  (with  some  omissions) ;  Danihel 
[Benedicite]  cum  henedictione  ;  Hebrews  i.  1-13  ; 
St.  Luke  ii,  1-19  (Mabillon,  de  Liturgia  Galiicana, 
lib.  ii.  pp.  106  sqq.).  In  illustration  of  this  plan 
of  having  twelve  Lections  for  the  Vigil  of  the 
Nativity,  here  doubtless  equh'alent  to  the  Matins 
of  the  Nativity,  Mabillon  {1.  c.)  cites  from  the 
Pegula  of  Aurelian,  bishop  of  Arles  :  “In  Natale 
Domini  et  in  Epiphania  tertia  hora  surgite :  di- 
cite  unum  nocturnum  et  facite  sex  missas  [  =  lec- 
tiones]  de  Isaia  propheta ;  iterum  dicite  noc¬ 
turnum,  et  legantur  aliae  sex  de  Evangelio  ” 
{Patrol.  Ixviii.  396), 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  the  Gallican  Lectionary 
one  Mass  only  is  pre.supposed  for  the  day  of  tlie 
Nativity,  and  iu  accordance  with  this  the  Gothico- 
Gallic  Mi.ssal  {op.  cit.  pp.  188  sqq.)  gives  us  one 
Mass  for  the  Vigil  and  one  for  the  day.  In  the 
ancient  Gallican  Missal  are  found  forms  of  the  Pre¬ 
face  “  ad  vesperum  Natalis  Domini  ”  and  prayers 
“  ad  initium  noctis  Natalis  Domini,”  “  in  media 
nocte  Natalis  Domini.” 

The  Mozarabic  Missal  gives  us  but  one  Ma.ss 
for  the  day  and  ignores  the  Vigil.  The  Propheti¬ 
cal  Lection,  the  Epistle,  and  the  Gospel  are  re¬ 
spectively  Isaiah  ix.  1-7 ;  Hebrews  i.  1-12 ;  St. 
Luke  ii.  6-20  (ed.  Leslie,  pp.  37  sqq.).  The 
Breviary  gives  Matins  for  the  Vigil;  and  for 
the  day  of  the  Nativity,  (1)  Vespers  — that  is  on 
the  evening  preceding  December  25  ;  (2)  Matins 
and  Lauds.  Into  the  Vesper  service  enters  the 
noble  hymn,  “  Veni  Redempfor  Gentium.” 

It  will  have  been  noticed  that  the  Roman 
Liturgies,  the  Gelasian  and  Gregorian,  give  three 
Masses  for  the  Nativity,  while  those  for  the 
Churches  of  Milan,  Gaul,  and  Spain  give  but 
one.  In  the  case  of  the  Gallican  Church  this 
may  be  illustrated  from  Gregory  of  Tours,  who 
in  the  life  of  Nicetius  of  Lyons  (  Vitae  Patrum, 
viii.  11,  p.  1196,  ed.  Bened.),  says:  “Facta  quo- 
que  hora  tertia,  cum  populus  ad  inissarum  so- 
lemnia  conveniret,  hie  mortuus  in  ecclesiam  est 
delatus.”  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  men¬ 
tion  that  in  a  writing  of  Eldefonsus,  a  Spanish 
bishop,  who  wrote  846  A.D.,  is  an  allusion  to  a 
triple  Mass  op  the  Nativity,  Easter,  Whitsunday, 
and  the  Transfiguration  {Patrol,  evi,  888).  This 


This  passage,  attributed  to  Augustine,  does  not  seem 
to  be  bis,  nor  is  it  included  in  bis  works. 


CHRISTMAS 


CHRISTMAS 


303 


is  probably  a  leaning  to  the  Roman  plan,  or  it 
may  be  a  custom  of  independent  origin. 

Tlie  cause  of  the  triple  Mass  in  the  Gelasian 
and  Gregorian  Sacramentaries  is  thus  explained 
by  Mabillon  (1.  c.),  that  in  consequence  of  three 
being  the  number  of  “  stations”  discharged  in 
ancient  times  in  Rome  by  a  Pope  on  that  day, 
three  Masses  were  instituted.*  ■  We  shall  again 
quote  the  ancient  Ordo  Jiomanus  on  this  point 
(p.  19):  “Prima  die  Vigiliae  Natalis  Domini 
hora  nona  canunt  Missam  ad  S.  Mariam.  Qua 
expleta  canunt  vespertinalem  synaxim,  dehinc 
vadunt  ad  cibum.  In  crepusculo  noctis  intrat 
Apostolicus  ad  vigilias  in  praefatam  Ecclesiam, 
tamen  non  cantant  ibi  invitatorium  ad  introitum, 
sed  expletis  vigiliis  et  matutinis,  sicut  in  Anti- 
phonario  continetur,  ibidem  canunt  primam  Mis¬ 
sam  in  nocte.  Qua  expleta,  vadunt  ad  S.  Anas- 
tasiam  canere  aliam  Missam  de  nocte.  Dehinc 
pergunt  ad  S.  Petrum,  ut  ibi  vigilias  celebrent, 
ab  eo  loco  ubi  invenerit  eos  psallere  qui  ibidem 
excubant.  Ipsi  enim  intrant  ad  vigilias  debito 
tempore  in  processu  noctis  et  canunt  invitatorium 
et  prosequuntur  ordinem  Antiphonarii.  Unde 
etiam  dupla  officia  in  Romanorum  Antiphonariis 
hac  nocte  describuntur.”  The  above  will  account 
for  the  commemoration  of  S.  Anastasia  at  the 
Mass  Mane  prima.  The  Ordo  then  adds  the  ob¬ 
viously  groundless  statement  that  the  institution 
of  these  nocturnal  Masses  is  to  be  referred  to 
Pope  Telesphorus  (ob.  138  A.D.). 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  fact 
of  the  early  recognition  of  the  Vigil  of  the 
Nativity.  In  addition  to  the  examples  cited,  we 
may  further  appeal  to  a  still  older  witness,  Au¬ 
gustine,  who  speaks  of  it  in  one  of  his  letters 
(Epist.  65  ad  Xantippum  [olim  236] ;  Patrol. 
xxxiii.  234).  It  differed  in  this  respect  from 
the  ordinary  type  of  Vigil  in  that  it  continued 
through  the  night,  making  with  the  Nativity 
itself  one  great  solemnity.  Thus  we  read  in  the 
letter  of  the  Bishops  Lupus  and  Euphronius  to 
Bishop  Talasius  :  “  Vigilia  Natalis  Domini  longe 
alio  more  quam  Paschae  Vigilia  celebranda,  quia 
hie  lectiones  Nativitatis  legendae  sunt,  illic 
autem  Passionis.  Epiphaniae  quoque  solemnitas 
habet  suum  specialem  cultum.  Quae  Vigiliae 
vel  maxime  aut  perpete  nocte  aut  certe  in  matu- 
t ilium  vergente  curandae  sunt.  Paschatis  autem 
Vigiliae  a  Vespere  raro  in  Matutinum  usque  per- 
ducitur”  (^Patrol.  Iviii.  66).  In  the  Capitula  of 
I'heodore  of  Tarsus,  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
(ob.  690  A.D.),  the  difference  of  the  practice  of 
the  Latin  and  Greek  Church  in  this  matter  is 
pointed  out,  in  that  the  former  began  the  Vigil 
at  Nones,  the  latter  late  in  the  evening  (Capit. 
66;  Patrol,  xeix.  957).  The  Gelasian,  Grego- 


*  This  seems  more  pn^bable  than  the  view  adopted  by 
Quesnell  In  his  notes  on  the  works  of  Leo  I.  (Kjnst.  9 
'11  ed.  Quesnell],  vol.  ii.  1399),  that  the  custom  arose 
from  a  distinct  authorization  in  the  Roman  Church  to 
hold  several  masses,  as  might  be  found  necessary,  on 
festivals  of  great  importance,  such  as  Christmas  and  Caster, 
when  there  would  be  a  great  concourse  of  people,  more 
than  a  church  could  contain  at  once.  lie  quotes  an  illus¬ 
tration  of  this  from  our  own  church,  when  the  Council  of 
Oxford  (1222  A.D.),  under  Stephen  Langton,  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  enacted  “  ad  haec  duximus  statuendum 
districlius  inhibentes  ne  sacerdos  quispiam  missarqm 
solennia  celebret  bis  in  die,  excepto  die  Nativitatis  et 
Resurrectionis  Domiuicae  vel  in  exequiis  defunctorum.'’ 
(Can.  6;  Labile,  vol.  xi.  p.  274.) 


nan,  and  Pamelius’  Ambrosian  Sacramentaries 
give  also  Masses  for  the  Octave  of  the  Nativitv, 
January  1.  which  would  also  of  necessity  be  the 
anniversary  of  the  day  of  the  Circumcision,  by 
which  express  name  it  is  denoted  in  some  other 
Liturgies.  [Circumcision.] 

The  existence  of  the  group  of  important  fes¬ 
tivals  between  Chri.stmas  and  the  Epiphany  seems 
to  point  to  a  wish  on  the  part  of  the  early 
Church  to  render  the  whole  season  one  great  fes¬ 
tival,  by  redeeming  as  much  as  possible  of  the 
time  from  ordinary  worldly  business,  in  com¬ 
memoration  of  persons  more  or  less  indirectly 
connected  with  our  Lord’s  Nativity.  Thus  a 
Council  of  Tours  declares:  “Inter  Natale  Do¬ 
mini  et  Epiphania  omni  die  festivitates  sunt 
itemque  prandebunt”  {Concil.Turonense  ii.  can. 
17 ;  Labbe,  vol.  v.  856).  From  the  great  import¬ 
ance  of  the  festival,  the  Nativity,  if  happening 
to  coincide  with  a  fast,  claimed  the  right  of 
overriding  the  fast.  Indeed  there  was  a  fast  pre¬ 
ceding  the  Nativity  which  just  stopped  short 
of  it.  Thus  Aurelian,  already  quoted,  says  {1.  c.), 
“A  Calendis  Novembris  usque  ad  Domini  Natale 
quotidie  jejunandum  abs(iue  Sabbato  et  Domi- 
nico.”  Cf.  also  the  canon  we  have  just  cited  of 
the  Second  Council  of  Tours,  “  De  Decembri 
usque  ad  Natale  Domini  omni  die  jejunent.” 
We  may  further  cite  in  illustration  Epiphanius 
(^Adversus  Haereses:  Expositio  Fidei  22,  vol.  i. 
p.  1105),  who,  after  saying  that  there  is  no  fast 
throughout  the  fifty  days  of  Pentecost,  adds, 
“Nor  on  the  day  of  the  Epiphany,  when  the 
Lord  was  born  in  the  flesh,  is  it  lawful  to  fast, 
although  it  happen  to  fall  on  the  fourth  or  the 
sixth  day  of  the  week.”  It  will  be  remembered 
from  a  previously  cited  pas.sage  of  this  writer 
that  he  follows  the  Eastern  plan  in  this  matter, 
so  that  his  day  of  the  Epiphany  is  at  once 
Epiphany  and  Nativity. 

As  a  festival  of  so  great  importance,  Christma.s 
was  one  of  the  seasons,  on  which  it  was  especially 
enjoined  on  all,  clergy  and  laity  alike,  to  com¬ 
municate.  Thus  the  (Council  of  Agde  (506  a.d.) 
orders  :  “  Ut  cives  qui  superiorum  solemnitatum, 
id  est  Paschae  ac  Natalis  Domini  vel  Pentecostes 
fcistivitatibus  cum  episcopis  interesse  neglexerint, 
cum  in  civitatibus  communionis  vel  benedictionis 
accipiendae  causa  sc  nosse  debeant,  triennio  a 
communione  priventur  ecclesiae.”  Again  :  “  Si 
quis  in  clero  constitutus  ab  ecclesia  sua  diebus 
solemnibus  defuerit,  id  est  Nativitate,  Epiphania, 
Pascha  A’^el  Pentecoste,  dum  potius  saecularibus 
lucris  studet  quam  servitio  Dei  paret,  convenit 
ut  triennio  a  communione  suspendatur.  .  .  .” 
{Concil.  Agathense,  can.  63,  64;  Labbe,  iv.  1393). 
Springing  from  the  same  tendency  is  the  injunc¬ 
tion  of  the  First  Council  of  Orleans  (511  A.D.): 
“  Ut  nulli  civium  Paschae,  Natalis  Domini  vel 
quinquagesimae  solennitatem  in  villa  liceat  cele- 
brare,  nis*i  quern  infirmitas  probabitur  renuisse  ” 
(^Concil.  Aurelianense  i.  can.  25;  ibid.  1408).  It 
was  allowed  by  the  Council  of  Epao  (517  a.d.) 
for  people  of  rank  (cives  superiorum  natalium) 
to  invite  their  bishop  to  them.selves  at  Christmas 
or  Easter  to  receive  his  blessing  (^Concil.  Epaon- 
ense,  can.  35;  ibid.  1580), 

IV.  Christmas  Presents.  As  coming  at  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  ecclesiastical  year,  and  as  being 
in  itself  a  time  when  from  the  Great  Gift  then 
given  by  God  to  man,  all  memories  call  to  peace 
and  friendship,  the  season  of  Christmas  has  from 


3C4 


CIIRISTOPHORI 


ClIRYSOTELUS 


time  immemorial  been  associated  witli  the  mu¬ 
tual  giving  of  presents  and  the  interchange  of 
cordial  wishes. 

A  similar  custom  prevailed  among  the  Romans, 
who  on  the  Calends  of  January  oii'ered  to  the 
emperor  or  to  their  patrons  presents  called  strenae 
(hence  French  etrenne).  See,  for  instance,  Sue¬ 
tonius,  Calig.  4'2 ;  cf.  Aug.  d7,  Tib.  34 ;  also 
Dion  Cassius,  liv.  35. 

That  the  Christian  custom  is  derived  from  the 
above  we  do  not  of  course  affirm,  although  we 
are  far  from  denying  the  possibility  of  such  an 
origin. 

Traces  of  the  custom  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Greek  Cliurch,  as  we  learn  from  Goar  (Notes  to 
Codinus,  De  Ogjiciis  Comtantinopolitanis,  c.  6 ; 
Patrol.  Gr.  clvii.  308),  who  speaks  of  boys  and 
youths  running  about  the  streets  at  this  season, 
and  “  ad  amicorum  portas  modulis  sonis  ac 
musices  instrumentis  TroAuxpJz^ia  [wishes  for  long 
life  and  happiness  ;  see  Ducange,  Glossarium  s.  v.] 
perstrepunt,  xenia  reportaturi,  cunctique  xpiO'T- 
ovyivv't]TLKo'is  pro  natalitiis  Christ!  muneribus 
se  cumulaut  certatim.” 

The  custom  of  the  strenae  as  an  offshoot  of 
heathenism,  did  not  find  much  favour  in  the  eyes 
of  the  early  Church.  Thus  in  a  sermon  De  Ca- 
lendis  Januarii,  wrongly  attributed  to  Augustine, 
we  read,  “  Diabolicas  etiam  strenas  et  ab  aliis 
accipiunt  et  ipsi  aliis  tradunt  ”  (^Patrol,  xxxix. 
2002,  2004). 

V.  Literature.  We  must  express  our  obliga¬ 
tions  here  especially  to  Jablonsky’s  Dissertationes 
11. ;  Martene,  De  Antiguis  Ecdcsiae  Eitibus,  vol. 
iii.  pp.  31  sqq.  ed.  Venice,  1783 ;  August!, 
Christl.  Arclidologie.,  vol.  i.  pp.  211  sqq.:  Bin- 
lerim,  Denkn  iirdigkeiten^  vol.  v.  part  1,  pp. 
528  sqq.  Kel’erence  may  also  be  made  to  By- 
naeus,  De  Natali  Jesu  Cliristi,  Amsterdam  1694; 
Kindler,  De  Natalitiis  C/iristi,  Rotterdam  1699  ; 
Kopken,  'laropov/aeua,  Rostock  1705;  Ittig,  De 
Eitu  festuin  Nut.  Christi  celebrandi,  Wernsdorf, 
De  Originibus  Solemnmm  Natalis  Christi,  Witten¬ 
berg,  1757.  [R.  S.] 

CHRISTOPHORI.  A  name  sometimes  ap¬ 
plied  to  Christians  in  the  ancient  Church,  as 
expressing  the  Presence  of  Christ  within  them 
by  His  Spirit.  As  early  as  Ignatius  we  find  the 
appellation  Theophori  in  u.se,  to  signify  that 
Christians  are  the  Temple  of  God ;  and  Christo- 
phori  also  occurs  in  the  early  writers  in  a 
similar  sense :  e.g.  in  the  epistle  of  Phi  leas, 
bishop  of  Thmuis,  recorded  by  Eusebius,  1.  viii. 
c.  10,  we  find  him  speaking  of  the  martyrs  of 
his  own  time  as  XpiaToipdpoi  papropes,  because 
they  were  temples  of  Christ  and  acted  by  His 
Holy  Spirit  (Bingham,  i.  1,  4).  [D.  B.] 

CHRISTOPIIORUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  the 
city  of  Samos,  A.  D.  256,  is  commemorated 
July  25  (Mart.  Eom.  Vet.,  Usuardi) ;  April  28 
(Mart.  Bedae) ;  May  9  (Cal.  Byzant.'). 

(2)  Monk,  martyr  at  Cordova,  Aug.  20  (Mart. 
Usuardi).  ^  [C.] 

CHRONITAE,  Xpov'nai.  A  name  of  re¬ 
proach  given  to  the  Catholics  or  orthodox  Chris¬ 
tians  by  Aetius  the  Arian  and  his  party :  inti¬ 
mating  that  their  religion  was  but  for  a  time, 
that  its  day  was  being  fast  spent,  and  that  it 
must  soon  give  place  to  the  more  enlightened 
system  of  Arianism :  a  conceit  which  has  been 


characteristic  of  heresy  in  all  ages  of  the  Church 
(Bingliam,  1.  iii.  16).  [D.  B.] 

CHRONOLOGY.  The  object  of  the  several 
articles  in  this  work  relating  to  chronology  is  to 
describe  the  methods  used  by  the  writers  of  our 
period  in  measuring  time,  and  the  reduction  of 
their  methods  to  that  at  pre.sent  in  use  in  this 
country.  This  evidently  involves  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  various  non-ecclesiastical  calendars, 
or  modes  of  reckoning  time,  emjdoye<l  by  writers 
of  the  fir.st  eight  centuries,  and  of  the  modi¬ 
fications  introduced  into  them  by  the  influence 
of  Christianity. 

To  place  an  event  in  time,  we  must  have  a 
fixed  epoch  or  era  from  which  to  measure,  and  a 
fixed,  or  at  least  a  determinable,  standard  by 
which  to  measure  the  interval  from  that  era. 
The  principal  epochs  from  which  intervals  of 
time  have  been  measured  are  given  under  Era. 
The  great  natural  divisions  of  time  are  days, 
lunations,  and  solar  years;  and  almost  every 
nation  has  either  endeavoured  to  discover  the 
relation  which  lunations  bear  to  solar  years 
[Epact],  and  so  to  keep  the  lunar  mouths  in 
some  kind  of  correspondence  with  the  seasons  of 
the  solar  year;  or  has  abandoned  the  observation 
of  the  moon  in  its  division  of  time,  and  divided 
the  solar  year  into  twelve  months,  somewhat 
longer  than  lunar  months.  See  Month,  Ykar. 
Further,  nearly  all  nations  have  adopted  for  the 
convenience  of  common  life  purely  conventional 
divisions  of  time,  not  corresponding  to  any 
natural  division,  such  as  the  Roman  Nundinae. 
The  conventional  division  with  which  we  are 
principally  concerned  is  the  Week 

As  the  various  events  of  Christian  history 
received  annual  commemoration,  the  days  of 
such  recurring  commemorations  became  recog¬ 
nised  as  elements  in  chronology  [Calendar]. 
The  principal  modification  which  the  calendar 
underwent  in  consequence  of  eia^lesiastical  con- 
sidei’ations  is  that  which  arose  from  the  annual 
variation  in  the  observance  of  Easter,  and  the 
festivals  connected  with  it.  See  Easter,  Indic¬ 
tion.  [C.] 

CHRYSANTHUS,  martyr  at  Rome  under 
Numerianus  (a.d.  283),  is  commemorated  Dec.  1 
(Mart.  Usuardi);  March  19  (Cal.  Byzant.y  [C.] 

CHRYSOGONUS,  martyr  at  Rome  under 
Diocletian,  is  commemorated  Nov.  24  (Mart. 
Hieron.,  Eom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi).  Some  IMSS. 
of  the  Hieronymiau  Martyrology  giA'e  Aquileia  as 
the  place  of  martyrdom.  [C.] 

CHRYSOSTOM,  LITURGY  OF.  [Li- 

TURGY.] 

CHRYSOSTOM,  ST.  JOHN,  is  commemo¬ 
rated  Nov.  13  (Cal.  Byzant.,  Ethiop.).  Translation 
of  his  relics  to  Constantinople,  in  the  reign  of  the 
younger  Theodosius  (a.d.  435),  Jan.  27.  The 
Byzantine  had  also  in  more  recent  times  a  fes¬ 
tival  of  SS.  Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzenus,  and 
Chrysostom,  on  Jan.  30.  The  Mart.  Eom.  Vet., 
and  Mart.  Usuardi  place  the  Natalis  of  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom  on  Jan.  27,  and  do  not  mention  the 
Translation.  [C.] 

CHRYSOTELUS,  presbyter,  martyr  at  Cor¬ 
dova,  is  commemorated  April  22  (Mart.  Bedae, 
Eom.  Vet.  Usuardi).  [C.] 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


365 


CHURCH  (1),  in  respect  to  the  reverence 
and  the  privileges  attached  to  the  building. 

(1)  It  was  customary  to  wash  the  hands  and 
feet  before  entering  the  church,  for  which  purpose 
a  fountain  was  commonly  provided  in  the  middle 
of  the  atrium  or  court  before  the  church,  called 
cantharus  or  phiala ;  so  Euseb.  H.  E.  x.  4 ; 
Tertull.  De  Orat.  c.  xi. ;  Paulinus  of  Nola,  Epist. 
xii.  ad  Severum  ;  Socrates,  ii.  38 ;  St.  Chrys.,  re¬ 
peatedly  ;  Synes.  Ei  ist.  exxi. :  quoted  by  Bingham. 
Kings  and  emperors  also  left  their  arms,  and 
even  their  diadems,  and  their  guards,  outside 
when  entering  a  church  (Theodos.  Orat.  m  Act.  i. 
C'jUC.  Ephes. ;  Bingham,  VIII.  x.  8).  And  the 
Egyptian  monks,  after  Eastern  custom,  put  off 
their  sandals  (Cassian.  Instit.  i.  2).  It  was 
customarv,  also,  to  show  reverence  to  the  church 
by  embracing,  saluting,  and  kissing,  its  doors, 
threshold,  and  pillars.  So  St.  Athanasius  i^Opp. 
ii.  304,  ed.  1027),  St.  Chrysostom  {Horn.  xxix.  in 
2  Cor.),  Paulinus  (Natal,  vi.  Felicis),  Prudentius 
(Hpnn  II.  in  S.  Laurent.  519,  520),  &c.,  quoted  by 
Bingham,  ih.  9. — (2)  Upon  entering  the  church, 
“  the  Christians  in  the  Greek  and  Oriental 
churches  have,  time  out  of  mind,  used  to  bow  .  . 
towards  the  altar  or  holy  table  a  practice  for 
which  no  known  ancient  canon  exists,  and  which 
looks  therefore  like  a  primitive  practice,  and  one 
probably  borrowed  from  the  Jews  (Mede,  Disc, 
on  Ps.  132,  quoted  by  BinghamV  A  profound 
silence  was  also  to  be  observed  within  the  building 
(Cassian,  Instit.  ii.  2  ;  S.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  xix.). 
And  coughing,  spitting,  &c.,  were  forbidden, — 
“A  gemitu,  screatu,  tussi,  risu,  abstinentes” 
(St.  Ambx'os.  De  Virg.  iii.  9).  And  Nonna  is 
eulogized  by  her  son,  St.  Greg.  Naz.  (Orat.  xix.), 
as,  among  other  things,  never  spitting,  and  never 
turning  her  back  upon  the  altar. —  (3)  Election  of 
bishops  and  of  clergy,  synods,  catechetical  schools, 
and  the  like,  were  allowed  to  be  held  within 
churches.  But  eating  meals  there  was  strictly 
forbidden,  even  in  time  the  kyaizai  : — Ov  Sei  iv 
Tois  KupiaKois  I)  iv  rats  iuKKriffiais  tols  Ae'yo- 
fievas  ayetTras  iroieir  koI  iv  rtp  oXura  tov  0eoC 
iadieir  Ka\  ctKov^ira  (TTpwvuveiv  (Cone.  Laodi- 
cen.  c.  28)  :  — “  Ut  nulli  episcopi  vel  clerici  in 
ecclesia  conviventur,  nisi  forte  transeuntes  hos- 
pitiorum  necessitate  illic  reficiantur;  et  populi, 
quantum  fieri  potest,  ab  hujusmodi  conviviis 
prohibeantur  ”  (Cone.  Carth.  III.  can.  30 ;  Cod. 
Can.  Afric.  42).  St.  Augustin,  however,  is  com¬ 
pelled  to  tolerate,  whilst  he  severely  condemns, 
the  custom  of  feasting  in  the  church  in  memory 
of  the  martyrs — “  Qui  se  in  memoriis  martyrum 
inebriant,  quomodo  a  nobis  approbari  possunt, 
quum  eos,  etiam  si  in  domibus  suis  faciant,  sana 
doctrina  condemnet  ”  (Cont.  Faust,  xx.  21).  The 
Emperor  Leo  also  (Novel.  Ixxiii.),  and  Cone.  Trull. 
can.  97,  forbid  people  from  lodging  in  certain 
galleries  in  the  church,  called  cateehumenia.  And 
the  Cone.  ElV<erit.  can.  35,  prohibits  private  vigils 
of  women  in  the  church  precincts — “  ne  foeminae 
in  coemiterio  pervigilent although  the  practice 
of  spending  whole  nights  there  in  prayer  w.as 
permitted  to  men  (see  e.g.  Theodoret,  v.  24; 

S.  Athanas.  Epist.  ad  derapion.  :  Socrat.  i.  37  ; 
Ac.) ;  and  cubkuh^  or  cells,  were  sometimes  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  purpose  (Paulin.  Epist.  xii.  ad 
Sever.'). — (4)  Holding  assemblies  privately  out 
of  the  church  was  strictly  forbidden  :  Ef  riy 
irapa  iKKKrjaiav  Id'ia  iuKSgaid^oi,  Kal  Kara- 
ippovuv  Trjs  iKK\r)aias  rd  ttjs  eKKAgrrias  id4\oi 


irpaTTfiv,  yUT;  (tvv6vtos  tov  r-peaftyTcpov  Kara 
yrcafirjr  rov  iiriaKStrov,  dvdOeiaa  tarw  (Cone. 
Gangr.  can.  6) ;  and  can.  5  of  the  same  council 
condemns  those  who  despise  the  church  and  its 
assemblies. — (5)  The  church  was  a  j)laceof  safety, 
both  for  valuables  and  for  life  and  person.  Be¬ 
sides  the  archives  and  treasure  of  the  church 
itself,  the  church  treasury  served  as  a  safe  re- 
ceptacle  for  other  pi’ecious  things,  public  or 
private:  as,  e.g.  the  cubit  wherewith  the  in¬ 
crease  of  the  Nile  was  measured,  which  had  been 
kept  in  the  temple  of  Serapis,  was  transferred 
by  order  of  Constantine  to  the  Christian  church, 
and  retransferred  to  the  idol  temple  by  Julian  the 
Apostate  (Ruffin,  ii.  30 ;  Sozom.  i.  8 ;  Socrat.  i.  18). 
—  (6)  Immunity  of  life  and  person  attached  also  to 
such  as  took  refuge  in  a  church  :  for  the  details  of 
which  see  Sanctuary.  (Bingham.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

(2)  The  building  set  apart  for  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  Christian  worship. 

This  article  is  arranged  as  follows  : — 

I.  Names,  p.  365. 

II.  Early  History,  p.  366. 

Ill;  I'be  Period  from  Constantine  to  Justinian,  p.  368. 
IV.  The  Period  from  the  death  of  Justinian  to  the  death 
of  Charles  the  Great. 

1.  The  western  part  of  the  territory  of  the  Eastern 
Empire,  p.  378. 

2  Armenia  and  the  adjacent  provinces,  p.  379. 

3.  Italy,  p.  379. 

4.  France,  Germany,  and  Switzerland,  p.  380, 

5.  Spain,  p.  382. 

6.  1 1  eland,  p.  384. 

7.  .Scotland,  p.  385, 

8.  England,  p  3S6. 

I.  Names.  —  Greek,  Ek/c Arycrm,  KvpiaK^,  or 
rb  KuptaKhu]  'Latin,  Ecclesia,  Dominica  (i.e.  domus 
dominica),  or  Basilica  ;  French,  I^glise  ;  Italian, 
Chiesa  ;  Spanish,  Igreja ;  Roumanic,  Biserica ; 
Anglo-Saxon,  Circ,  Cyric;  Old  German,  Chirichu  ; 
Modern  German,  Kirche ;  Dutch,  Kerb;  Ice¬ 
landic,  Kyrkia  ;  Swedish,  Kyrka  ;  Russian,  Tser- 
koff ;  Polish,  Kosciol,  if  Greco-Russian,  Cerkievo  ; 
Irish,  Domhliag  (i.e.  stone  house),  Tempull,  Eclais, 
Begles ;  Welsh,  Eglwys ;  Hungarian,  Egyhaz, 
Templom. 

The  names  for  a  church  in  the  languages  of 
the  Latin  family  are  evidently  derived  from  the 
Greek  ’E/cKATjeri'a  ;  those  in  the  languages  of  the 
Teutonic  and  Scandinavian  families  apparently 
from  KvpiaKrj. 

Several  other  terms  have  been  used  by  Greek 
and  Latin  writers  of  the  earlier  centuries  when 
speaking  either  of  churches,  or  of  oratories  or 
places  of  assembly.  Such  are  vahs,  tcrnphim,  by 
Lactantius,  St.  Ambrose,  Eusebiu.s,  St.  John 
Chrysostom.  Arnobius  and  Lactantius  use  the 
word  conventiculum,  while  concilium  and  syno- 
dus  are  also  found  in  use  not  only  for  the  assem¬ 
bly  but  for  the  edifice  (v.  Bingham  ii.  84). 
Isidore  of  Pelusium  (lib.  ii.  Ip.  245)  in  the  like 
case  distinguishes  between  'EuKK-rjaia  the  assem¬ 
bly,  and  'EKKKri(Tia(TTT]piov  the  building. 

Descriptive  phrases  were  also  employed,  as 
npo(revKT-f}pia,  OIkoi  EvKT-fjpioi  (by  Eusebius, 
Socrates,  Sozomen,  and  others)  Oratoria,  Domus 
Dei,  Domus  Ecclesiae,  Domus  Divina,  by  various 
writers  from  the  third  century  downwards. 
Bingham,  however,  has  shewn  that  in  the  6th 
century  Domus  Ecclesiae  was  sometimes  used, 
not  to  signify  the  church,  but  the  Bishop’s  house, 
and  that  in  the  5th  century  (and  probably  even 
somewhat  later),  Domus  Divina  was  the  official 
style  for  the  Imperial  palace. 


3G6 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


' hvoLKTopov  [see  Anactokon]  as  equiv'alent  to 
basilica  is  used  by  Eusebius  {JJe  Laude  Comtant. 
c.  9),  but  is  only  rarely  employed. 

Churches  erected  specially  in  honour  of  mar¬ 
tyrs  were  called  Maprupta,  Martyria,  Memoriae, 
Tp^Trata,  Tropaea,  T/rAot,  Tituli. 

d’hose  who  wrote  in  Latin,  in  the  dark  ages, 
appear  to  employ"  the  word  basilica  for  the  most 
part,  when  they  wrote  of  a  large  church,  ora- 
tiorium  when  of  a  chapel  or  oratory.  Those  who 
wrote  in  Gaul,  in  the  6th  and  7th  centuries,  are 
said  by  De  Valois  (v.  Du  Cange,  Gloss,  art.  ‘Basi¬ 
lica  ’)  to  have  used  basilica  for  the  church  of  a 
convent,  and  ecclesia  for  a  cathedral  or  parish 
church.  Gildas  in  the  6th  century  employs 
ecclesia  and  basilica,  adding  to  the  latter  word 
‘  martyrum.’ 

II.  Early  History. — At  what  time  the  Chris¬ 
tians  began  to  erect  buildings  for  the  purpose  of 
celebi’ating  divine  worship  is  unknown,  but  it  is 
obvious  that  inasmuch  as  they  held  frequent 
assemblies  for  religious  purposes,  suitable  places 
for  such  assemblies  would  be  required,  and  that 
when  the  congregations  became  large  rooms  in 
private  houses  would  cease  to  affoi'd  the  requisite 
space. 

The  assertions  of  some  of  the  earlier  Christian 
writers,  as  Arnobius  {Disputat.  ado.  Gent.  lib.  vi. 
c.  1),  Origen  (c.  Cels.  lib.  7,  c.  8),  Minucius  Felix 
(^Octav.  c.  8,  10,  32)  that  the  Christians  had 
neither  temples,  altars  nor  images,  that  God 
could  be  worshijiped  in  every  place,  and  that  his 
best  temple  on  earth  is  the  heart  of  man,  should, 
it  would  appear,  be  understood,  not  literally — for 
there  is  positive  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
churches  in  the  3rd  century — but  that  they 
had  no  temples  or  altars  in  the  Pagan  sense  of 
those  words,  and  that  their  religion  was  spiritual, 
and  not  dependent  upon  places  or  rituals. 

The  passage  from  Clemens  Alexandrinus(5'^?•o?/^. 
vii.  5,  p.  846)  and  those  from  other  writers,  quoted 
by  Bingham  (^Antiq.  bk.  viii.  c.  1,  §  13),  prove 
that  a  certain  place  was  called  eKKXyaia,  but,  in 
strictness,  not  that  it  was  a  separate  building, 
constructed  and  set  apart  for  that  purpose.  The 
documentary  evidence  of  the  next  century,  the 
3rd,  is,  howev^er,  much  more  decisive.  The  chro¬ 
nicle  of  Edessa  (in  Asseraanni,  Bibl.  Orient,  xi. 
397)  mentions  the  destruction  of  temples  of 
Christian  assemblies  in  A.u.  292. 

Aelius  Lampridius  in  his  Life  of  the  Emperor 
Alexander  Severus  (a.d.  222-235),  narrates  that 
the  Christians  having  occupied  a  certain  place,  it 
was  confirmed  to  them  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  better  that  God  should  be  worshipped  there 
after  any  manner,  than  that  it  shouhl  be  given 
up  to  the  adverse  claimants,  the  ‘  popinarii,’  or 
tavern-keepers.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  in  his  life 
of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  bishoj)  cf  Neo-Caesa¬ 
rea,  states  that  he  built  several  churches  there 
and  in  the  adjacent  parts  of  Pontus.  In  addition 
to  which,  many  other  testimonies  of  a  like  nature 
might  be  adduced. 

The  edict  of  Diocletian,  usuall}'  attributed  to 
the  year  302,  ordering  the  destruction  of  the 
churches  and  the  confiscation  of  the  lands  belong¬ 
ing  to  them,  confirms  these  statements,  and 
Lactantius’  account  (/>•<?  Mort.  Persecutorurn,  c. 
12)  of  the  destruction  of  the  church  at  Nico- 
media  in  A.D.  303,  shows  that  some  of  them  at 
least  were  considei’able  edifices. 

There  is  some  ground  for  believing  that  in  the 


3fd  century  those  plans  and  arrangements  of 
churches  which  we  find  to  prevail  in  the  4th 
and  following  centuries  were,  at  least  in  part, 
already  in  use;  St. Cyprian (/f/). 59,  p.  688,  Hartel) 
imagines  Pagan  altars  and  images  usurping  the 
place  of  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  and  entering  into 
the  “sacrum  venerandum  consessum  ”  of  the 
clergy.  In  this  there  seems  to  be  an  evident  allu¬ 
sion  to  the  arrangement  usual  in  later  times,  in 
which  the  altar  was  placed  in  the  apse,  and  the 
clergy  sat  on  a  bench  around  it. 

So  also  in  the  passage  in  7'ertullian  {Dc  Pudieit.  c. 
4),  when  that  writer  speaks  of  certain  sinnei's 
being  removed  not  only  from  the  ‘  limen  ’  but 
also  ‘omni  ecclesiae  tecto,’  not  only  from  the 
threshold  of  the  church  itself,  but  even  from 
every  dependent  building,  such  as  the  narthex, 
the  atrium,  or  the  baptistery.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  any  now  existing  church  can  be  attri¬ 
buted,  upon  good  evidence,  to  this  century.  One 
which  had  been  believed  so  to  date,  is  the  basilica 
of  Reparatus,  near  Orleansville,  in  Algeria,  the 
ancient  Castellum  Tingitanum.  It  i.s  about  80 
feet  long  by  52  wide,  and  is  on  the  “  dromical  ” 
or  as  we  now  say  basilican  plan,  that  is,  in  the 
form  of  a  parallelogram,  longer  than  wide.  It 
was  divided  into  a  nave 
and  four  aisles  by  four 
ranges  of  columns.  It 
has  now  an  apse  at  each 
end,  both  internal  to 
the  line  of  walls.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  an  inscrip¬ 
tion,  still  remaining, 
the  earlier  part  of  the 
building  dates  from 
252,  but  the  era  is  most 
probably  not  that  of 
Christ,  but  of  Mauri¬ 
tania,  and  the  date 
corresponds  with  a.d. 

325 ;  the  other  apse 
was  added  about  a.d. 

403,  to  contain  the 
grave  of  the  saint. 

The  earlier  apse,  with 
the  ground  in  front  of  it,  is  raised  about  three 
feet ;  and  below  it  was  a  vault,  in  which 
were  two  sarcophagi.  It  is  not,  however,  clear 
whether  this  arrangement  was  original.  An- 
other  African  church,  that  of  D’jemila,  which 
is  believed  to  date  from  the  latter  part  of  this 
century,  })resents  the  remarkable  peculiarity  of 
being  without  an  apse.  It  measures  92  feet  by 
52.  Near  the  end  furthest  from  the  entrance 
door  is  an  enclosure  entered  by  a  doorway  in 
front  and  one  on  each  side.  This,  no  doubt,  sur¬ 
rounded  the  altar  and  the  seats  of  the  priests. 

Some  other  churches  which  have  been  supposed 
to  belong  to  this  century,  as  the  cathedral  of 
Treves  (v.  Hiibsch,  Die  altchristl.  Kirchen,  pi. 
vi.),  and  the  small  church  at  Annona,  in  Algeria, 
though  on  the  basilican  plan,  are  much  wider  in 
proportion  to  their  length  than  is  usual  in  the 
later  examples.  In  the  case  of  Treves  the  build¬ 
ing  is,  in  fact,  a  square  (or  very  nearly  so), 
measuring  about  120  feet  internally  with  an 
apse.  The  roof  was  supported  by  two  mono¬ 
lithic  columns  of  granite,  about  40  feet  high, 
on  each  side.  If  the  church  were  not  square, 
but  oblong,  about  which  there  is  some  doubt, 
there  were  probably  three,  and  perhaps  even 


Biisilica  of  Kfipaiatns. 


CHURCH 


five  of  these  columns  on  each  side.  By  some, 
however,  as  by  Kugler,  Gesch.  der  Bauhunst  i. 
404,  this  building  is  attributed  to  about  the  year 
550,  but  it  seems  very  improbable  that  so  bold  a 
plan,  involving  arches  of  great  span,  supported 
on  monolithic  columns  nearly  50  feet  high  (in¬ 
cluding  bases  and  capitals)  was  conceived  and 
executed  at  that  time.  The  church  at  Taffkha, 
in  central  Syria,  exhibits  the  same  square  form, 
with  a  semi-ovoid  apse  projecting  from  the  side 
opposite  to  the  entrance.  This  building,  in  style 
and  construction,  most  closely  resembles  a  basilica 
at  Chagga,  which  M.  -de  Vogiie  ascribes  to  the 
third  century,  and  it  must  be  presumed  that  he 
considers  the  church  to  be  of  the  same  date.  It 


CHURCH  367 

depth  by  a  little  less  in  width,  and  being  about 
20  feet  high  internally. 

Some  of  the  churches  in  Egypt  and  Nubia, 
as  at  Erment  in  Egypt  and  Ibrihm  in  Nubia 
(v.  Kugler,  Gesch.  der  Bauhunst,  i.  376),  are, 
no  doubt,  of  a  very  early  date,  perhaps  of  the 
end  of  the  3rd  or  the  beginning  of  the  following 
century,  but  no  certain  date  can  be  affixed  to 
them.  In  both  those  named  the  apse  is 
enclo.sed  within  the  walls,  the  angles  of  which 
are  occupied  by  chambers.  This  arrangement, 
indeed,  seems  to  have  been  A^ery  early  adopted 
and  very  generally  adhered  to  in  the  East.  Some 
early  examples  of  the  same  plan  may  be  found 
also  in  the  West,  as  in  the  Church  of  St.  Croce 


8.  Simeon  Stylites,  Ealat  Sema’au. 


is  constructed  like  many  other  buildings  in  the 
same  part  of  Syria,  in  a  very  peculiar  manner, 
being  entirely  roofed  with  lai’ge  slabs  of  stone, 
which  rest  on  arches  spanning  tiie  nave  at  inter¬ 
vals  of  about  7  ft.  8  in.  The  flat  roofs  of  the 
aisles  formed  galleries. 

One  very  remarkable  feature  in  this  building 
is  the  tower  which  ranges  with  the  facade  and 
rises  to  a  height  of  about  43  feet.  If  this 
church  be  of  the  date  to  which  it  would  seem  to 
belong,  this  must  be  considered  as  the  first 
appearance  of  a  tower  in  ecclesiastical  archi¬ 
tecture. 

The  church  is  not  large,  measuring  externally 
(exclusively  of  apse  and  tower)  about  57  feet  in 


in  Gerusalemme  at  Rome  :  but  it  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  frequently  used. 

When,  in  the  year  A.D.  31.3,  the  Emperor  Con¬ 
stantine  had  published  ttie  edict  tolerating  the 
Christian  religion,  and  still  more  when,  in 
A.D.  324,  he  took  it  under  his  patronage,  a 
gi-eat  increase  in  the  erection  of  churches,  and 
!  in  the  size  and  splendour  of  the  edifices,  natu- 
I  rally  ensued — the  emperor  himself  setting  the 
example  by  erecting  at  Jerusalem  and  elsewhere 
I  churches  of  great  magnificence, 
j  It  has  been  shewn  that  churches  of  the  basi- 
I  lican  type  were  erected  before  the  period  of 
Constantine,  and  it  is  probable  that  sepulchral 
or  memorial  churches  of  circular  or  polygonal 


3G8 


CIIUIICII 


CIIUllCH 


plan,  and  oratcries  or  eliapels  of  many  various 
forms,  may  have  been  also  built,  but  it  is  not 
until  the  4th  century  that  we  have  examples  of 
all  three  of  these  classes,  the  date  and  character 
of  which  are  well  ascertained.  Typical  foraas 
for  the  two  first  cl:t»>ses  were  established  in  the 
great  buildings  erected  duidng  the  reign  of  Con¬ 
stantine,  anil  have  infiuenced  the  construction  of 
churches  down  to  the  pi'esent  day. 

The  basilican,  or,  as  the  Gi-eeks  called  it,  the 
dromical  plan,  continued,  in  the  great  majority 
of  instances,  to  l>e  in  use  in  the  West  (though 
with  certain  modifications)  until  after  the  period 
embi'aced  by  this  work,  and  in  Rome  until  after 
the  year  1000. 

It  was  almost  equally  prevalent  in  the  East 
until  the  genius  of  the  architect  of  St.  Sophia  at 
Constantinoi)le  had  evolved  from  the  other  ty¬ 
pical  form,  viz.  that  of  the  memorial  church,  a 
new  combination  so  striking  and  impressive  as  to 
have  permanently  infiuenced  the  church  archi¬ 
tecture  of  Asia  and  of  the  east  of  Europe  in 
favour  of  a  modification  of  the  memorial  type ; 
while  in  the  West,  churches  the  plans  of  which 
are  thence  derived,  continue  to  be,  as  they  had 
been  before,  exceptional ;  such  are  S.  Vitale  at 
Ravenna  and  S.  Lorenzo  at  Milan. 

In  the  earlier  period  the  choice  of  form  would 
seem  to  have  been  guided  by  the  intention  most 
strongly  present  to  the  founder.  Where  special 
intention  of  doing  honour  to  the  memory  of  a 
martyr  existed,  the  circular  form  was  chosen, 
but  where  this  was  not  the  leading  thought,  the 
basilican;  the  latter  lending  itself  better  to  the 
celebration  of  divine  services  with  a  large  at¬ 
tendance  of  worshij>pers.  In  several  instances 
a  basilican  and  a  memorial  church  wei-e  placed 
in  close  proximity,  as  at  .Jerusalem  by  Constan¬ 
tine,  Kalat  Sema’an  in  Central  Syria,  at  Nola  by 
Paulinus,  at  Constantinople  in  the  churches  of 
St.  Sergius  and  of  St.  Peter  and  Paul,  and 
several  others,  the  circular  or  pol};;gonal  church 
being  in  almost  all  these  cases  dedicated  in 
honour  of  a  martyr. 

It  will  be  most  convenient  when  describing 
the  churches  erected  from  the  time  of  Constan¬ 
tine  to  that  of  Justinian  to  divide  them  according 
to  the  threefold  division  mentioned  above,  viz., 
into:  1st,  basilican;  2nd,  memorial  or  sepul¬ 
chral  churches  ;  and  3rd,  oratories  (which  are 
treated  of  under  the  head  chapel),  without 
paying  much  regard  to  the  country  in  which 
the  examples  are  found.  During  this  period,  in 
fact,  so  much  unity,  as  well  of  ritual  and  prac¬ 
tice  in  religious  matters  as  of  style  and  feeling 
in  art,  prevailed  throughout  the  Roman  Empire, 
that  the  differences  between  the  ecclesiastical 
architecture  of  its  various  provinces  are  chiefly 
differences  of  detail. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  period  which  follows, 
viz.,  that  from  Justinian  to  Charles  the  Great, 
the  great  development  of  the  Byzantine  style 
took  place,  and  the  architecture  of  the  East  is 
thenceforward  widely  different  from  that  of  the 
West.  Soon  afterwards  the  fragments  into  which 
the  empire  had  divided  were  formed  into  new 
nations,  most  of  whom  developed  something  of 
new  plan  or  new  style  in  their  ecclesiastical 
buildings,  and  it  will  therefore  be  necessary  to 
treat  of  the  architectural  history  of  most  of 
these  nations  separately.  This  part  of  the  sub¬ 
ject  may  be  divided  into  the  following  sec¬ 


tions: — 1,  The  western  part  of  the  territorv  of 
the  Eastern  Empire ;  2,  Armenia  and  the  ad¬ 
jacent  provinces  ;  3,  Italy  ;  4,  France,  Gormany, 
and  Switzerland  ;  5,  Spain;  6,  Ireland;  7,  Scot¬ 
land  ;  8,  England. 

III.  'I he  Period  from  Constarrtine  to  Justinian. 
— It  has  been  thought  by  some  writers  (v. 
Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chr€t.  art.  Basilique), 
that  the  crypts  or  chapels  of  the  catacombs 
near  Rome  have  served  as  models  for  the  pri¬ 
mitive  Christian  churches,  by  which  it  would 
appear  that  churches  of  the  lj«silican  tvpe  are 
meant.  This  opinion  would,  henvever,  appear  to 
rest  on  no  sufficient  foundation,  for  the  so-called 
chapels  are  in  general  either  a  series  of  two, 
three,  or  even  five,  chambers,  usually  not  more 
than  6  or  7  feet  square,  connected  by  doorways, 
as  in  the  instance  of  the  “  chiesa  principale  ”  of 
the  cemetery  of  St.  Agnes  (v.  Marchi,  tav.  xxxv. 
xxxvi.  xxxvii.),  or  hexagonal,  polygonal,  or  ob¬ 
long  excavations,  without  apse  or  any  of  the 
usual  features  of  a  church,  such  as  the  crypt 
discovered  by  Bosio  in  the  cemetery  of  the  Via 
Salaria  Nuova,  but  not  now  accessible,  which  has 
been  held  to  have  been  a  church  (v.  Marchi,  tav. 
xxxii.).  In  this  an  octagon  of  about  23  feet  in 
diameter  is  connected  by  a  doorway  about  4  feet 
wide,  with  an  oblong  chamber  about  12  feet 
wide  by  32  long.  [Catacombs.] 

The  so-called  basilica  of  St.  Hermes,  in  a  ceme¬ 
tery  near  the  Via  Salaria  Vecchia,  of  an  oblong 
form,  terminating  in  an  apse,  was,  no  douJ't, 
reduced  into  its  j)resent  form  by  Pope  Hadrian  L, 
as  the  Lib.  1‘ontif.  tells  us  of  that  pope  that  he 
“  basilicnm  coemeterii  sanctorum  martyrum  Hej- 
metis,  etc.,  mirae  maguitudinis  innovavit.” 

No  church  of  the  period  of  Constantine  bar, 
come  down  to  modern  times  in  a  complete  state, 
but  fortunately  a  contemporary  writer  (Eusebius) 
has  left  us  such  detailed  accounts,  that,  with  the 
assistance  which  we  can  obtain  from  existing 
remains,  we  can  form  a  very  complete  picture  of 
a  church  of  that  period. 

The  earliest  church  of  the  building  of  which 
we  have  a  distinct  account  is  that  which  Pau¬ 
linus  built  in  Tyre  between  A.D.  313  and  a.d. 
322.  Eusebius  {Eccl.  Hist.  bk.  x.  iv.  s.  37)  states 
that  the  bishop  surrounded  the  site  of  the 
church  with  a  wall  of  enclosure;  this  wall, 
according  to  Dr.  Thomson  {The  Land  and  the 
Book.,  p.  189,  c.  xiii.)  can  still  be  traced,  and 
measui-es  222  feet  in  length,  by  129  in  breadth. 
In  the  east  side  of  this  wall  of  inclosure  he  made 
a  large  and  lofty  portico  (jrpS-KvKop),  through 
which  a  quadrangular  atrium  (aWpiop)  wr.s 
entered ;  this  was  suri’ounded  by  ranges  ot' 
columns,  the  spaces  between  which  were  filled  Jiv 
net-like  railings  of  wood.  In  the  centre  of  the 
open  space  was  a  fountain,  at  which  those  about 
to  enter  the  church  purified  themselves. 

The  church  itself  was  entered  through  iuteri<  r 
porticoes  (rots  ipSordTO}  irpoiruKoisf  perhaps  a 
narthex,  but  whether  or  not  distinct  from  tlie 
portico  which  bounded  the  atrium  on  that  side 
does  not  appear.  Three  doorways  led  into  the 
nave  ;  the  central  of  these  was  by  far  the  largest, 
and  had  doors  covered  with  bronze  reliefs;  other 
doorways  gave  entrance  to  the  side  aisles.  Above 
these  aisles  were  galleries  well  lighted  (doubtless 
by  external  windows),  and  looking  upon  the  nave  ; 
these  were  adorned  with  beautiful  work  in  wood. 
Th«  passage  is  rather  obscure,  and  has  been 


CHUECII 


cnuiiCH 


3G9 


varioush’^  translated :  the  above  is  the  sense 
ot’  Bunsen’s  para])hvase  (^Basilihen  dots  Christ, 
Boms,  s.  31).  Hiib-sch  {Alt.  Christ.  Kirchen,  s. 
?.o)  thinks  that  the  word  el<T^o\ds  (entrances) 
stands  for  windows,  and  that  the  woodwork  ‘was 
in  them.  It  seems,  however,  more  probable  that 
the  €tV/3oAat  were  the  openings  from  the  gal¬ 
leries  into  the  nave,  and  the  woodwork  the 
railings  or  balustrades  which  protected  their 
fronts. 

The  nave  or  central  portion  {^acriXcios  oIkos") 
was  constructed  of  still  richer  material  than  the 
rest,  and  the  roof  of  cedar  of  Lebanon.  Dr. 
Thomson  states  that  the  remains  of  five  granite 
columns  may  still  be  seen,  and  that  “  the  height 
to  the  dome  was  80  feet,  as  appears  by  the 
remains  of  an  arch.”  Nothing  which  Eusebius 
says  leads  to  the  supposition  that  it  was  covered 
by  a  dome,  and  the  arch  was  probably  the  so- 
called  triumphal  arch  through  which,  as  at 
St.  Paolo  f.  1.  m.  at  Rome,  and  many  other 
basilican  churches,  a  space  in  front  of  the  apse 
somewhat  like  a  transept  was  entered.  Hiibsch 
has  made  a  conjectural  restoration  of  the  church 
thus  arranged. 

The  building,  having  been  in  such  manner 
completed,  Paulinus,  we  are  told,  provided  it 
v.’ith  thrones  (dpdrois)  in  the  highest  places  for 
the  honour  of  the  presidents  {irpoeSpoDv),  and 
with  benches,  or  seats  {^dOpois),  according  to 
fitness,  and,  placing  the  most  holy  altar  {dyiou 
aylcov  dvcriaa-Tvpiou)  in  the  midst,  suiTOunded 
the  whole  with  wooden  net-like  railings  of  most 
skilful  work,  so  that  the  enclosed  space  might 
be  inaccessible  to  the  crowd.  The  pavement,  he 
adds,  was  adorned  with  marble  decoration  of 
every  kind. 

Then  on  the  outside  he  constructed  very  large 
e.xternal  buildings  (eleSpaz)  and  halls  (oT/coz), 
which  were  attached  to  the  sides  of  the  church 
(t6  ^aaiXetoi'),  and  connected  with  it  by  en¬ 
trances  in  the  hall  lying  between  {rais  (ttI  rhv 
fitaov  oIkov  ^l(r^o\a7s^.  These  halls,  we  are 
told,  were  destined  for  those  who  still  required 
the  purification  and  sprinkling  of  water  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  A.D.  333  Constantine  caused  a  basilica  to 
be  erected  at  Jerusalem  near  the  site  of  the 
sepulchre  of  our  Lord,  which  was  either  included 
in  this  building  or  in  a  circular  or  octagonal  ad¬ 
jacent  .structure,  the  basilica  being  called  czckAtj- 
trz'a  ^wTrjpos — church  of  the  Saviour.  What 
the  plan  and  situation  of  these  buildings  were, 
and  whether  anything  now  existing  be  the 
remains  of  the.se  buildings,  are  questions  full  of 
difficulty  and  have  been  the  subject  of  much 
controversy  (v.  Fergusson,  De  Vogiie,  Eglises  de 
la  Terre-SuinteX 

To  discuss  the  various  theories  and  the  argu¬ 
ments  on  which  they  are  founded  would  occupy 
far  too  much  s])ace.  Eusebius  unfortunately  has 
written  of  the  subject  in  a  somewhat  rhetorical 
manner,  so  that  the  plan  of  the  structure  cannot 
be  clearly  made  out,  but  some  interesting  par¬ 
ticulars  may  be  gathered  from  his  account  of 
the  basilica. 

It  had  {Life  of  Constantine  the  Great,  lib.  iii.)' 
double  porticoes  or,  as  we  should  say,  aisles 
(Sz'ttcwi/  arowv'),  or  rows  of  jiiers  with  colon¬ 
nades  {TrapdaraSei)  in  two  stories  above  and 
below  or  on  the  ground,  which  stretched  through¬ 
out  the  whole  extent  {/jirjKei)  of  the  temple. 

CI.'RlS'r.  ANT. 


By  KaTayCiwv  we  should  perhaps  undei’stand  not 
subterranean  but  on  a  level  with  the  ground,  the 
“  dvdy^iai”  corresponding  with  the  triforium  of 
a  mediaeval  church.  Recent  investigations  have 
shewn  that  extensive  subterranean  galleries 
exist  on  a  part  of  the  site  (az^cording  to  Mr. 
Fergu.sson’s  views)  of  this  church,  but  their 
character  and  date  has  as  yet  not  been  satis¬ 
factorily  ascertained.  The  inner  rows  were  of 
highly  decorated  piers,  the  exterior  of  enormous 
columns  (iii.  c.  37).  If  we  understand  as  Bunsen 
{Die  Basiliken  Roms,  s.  33)  does,  that  the  rows 
stretched  across  the  front  as  well  as  along  the 
sides,  we  may  perhaps  understand  by  interior  {al 
Se  ez'zrcc;  t&v  e/xirpoader')  those  which  ran 
lengthwise,  and  by  the  exterior  {al  itrl  Trpocruwov 
rod  o’Ikov)  those  which  ran  across  the  front. 

The  three  doors  by  which  it  was  entered 
looked  to  the  east.  Opposite  to  these  doors  was 
the  hemispherical  head  region  {KfcpdXaiou  rov 
-iraurhs  r^/JLiacpaipiov)  of  the  whole ;  i.  e.  the 
apse.  This  was  decollated  with  twelve  columns, 
on  which  were  as  many  large  silver  vessels. 
The  walls  were  built  of  hewn  stone  in  regular 
courses,  and  covered  i.iternally  with  slabs  of 
variegated  marble.  The  roofs  were  of  wood 
richly  carved  and  gilt,  and  covered  externally 
with  lead  (c.  36). 

Before  the  entrances  was  an  atrium.  There 
was  a  first  court  with  porticoes,  before  which 
were  the  entrances  of  the  court  ;  then  on  the 
middle  of  the  market-place  the  propylaea  or 
outer  gateways,  whose  magnificence  astonished 
all  who  saw  them.  Mr.  Fergusson  thinks  that 
the  so-called  golden  gateway  ou  the  east  side  of 
the  Haram  enclosure,  is  one  of  these  propylaea. 

Another  building  in  the  Holy  Land,  the  church 
at  Bethlehem,  has  strong  claims  to  be  considered 
as  the  work  of  this  period  (v.  De  Vogue,  Eglises 
de  la  Terre-Sainte,  p.  46).  It  has  an  oblong 
atrium,  a  vestibule  divided  into  three  portions, 
the  central  of  which  alone  opens  into  the-church, 
double  aisles  with  columns  of  the  Corinthian 
order,  and  at  the  end  opposite  to  the  atrium  the 
transverse-triftpsal  arrangement — i.  e.  one  apse 
at  the  end  of  the  building,  and  two  others,  one 
at  each  end  of  a  tran.sept-like  space;  beneath  the 
centre  of  this  space  is  the  crypt  of  the  Nativity. 

As  to  the  churches  built  in  Rome  during  the 
reign  of  Constantine  much  uncertainty  exists : 
the  Liber  I'ontificalis  attributes  to  him  the 
erection  (in  several  cases  at  the  request  ot 
Sylvester,  then  bishop  of  Rome)  of  seven  churches 
in  that  city,  and  describes  at  much  length  the 
ornaments  and  vessels  of  precious  metals  with 
which  they  were  decorated.  As,  however,  these 
accounts  are  for  the  most  part  not  confirmed  by 
other  authorities,  and  cont.iin  many  matters  of 
an  improbable  character,  they  are  not  generally 
accepted  as  trustworthy.  That  the  churches  of 
St.  John  Lateran,  of  St.  Peter,  Sta.  Croce  in 
Gerusalemme,  and  Sta.  Costauza,  were  erected  or 
converted  into  churches  at  this  time  is  however 
universally  admitted.  Of  the  first  nothing  of 
the  period  of  Constantine  is  now  visible  and  no 
distinct  account  of  its  size  or  jilan  has  come  down 
to  us.  Of  St.  Peter’s,  though  it  no  longer 
exists,  we  have  a  full  account  .and  careful  draw¬ 
ings  and  plans.  It  will  be  seen  by  the  accom¬ 
panying  woodcut  that  it  was  of  the  same  type  .a.s 
the  churches  which  Eusebius  describes,  a  five- 
aisled  basilica  ending  in  an  apse,  before  the  front 


370 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


of  which  was  an  atrium.  It  was  a  church  of 
very  large  size,  being  ;-580  feet  long  by  212  wide, 
and  covering  above  80,000  English  square  feet ; 
as  much,  as  ISIi-.  Fergusson  remarks,  as  any 
mediaeval  cathedral  except  those  of  Milan  and 
Seville.  The  transept,  it  will  be  seen,  extends 
beyond  the  width  of  the  nave.  The  interior 
range  of  columns  would  seem  to  have  been  of 
uniform  dimensions  and  to  have  supported  a 
horizontal  entablature,  the  exterior  range  carried 
arches.  Over  the  entablature  was  a  lofty  space 
erf  wall  in  later  times  divided  into  two  layers  of 
panels,  each  containing  a  picture,  and  above  these 
were  clerestory  windows  of  great  size,  one  over 
each  intercolumniation.  It  is  not  certain  that 
the  prolongations  of  the  transept  beyond  the 
walls  of  the  nave  are  part  of  the  original  plans 
for  Pope  Symmachus  (a.d.  498-514)  is  said  in 
the  Lib.  Pontif.  to  have  built  two  cubicula,  or 
cratoria,  in  honour  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  and 


five  arched  openings,  of  which  that  in  the  centse 
is  the  largest.  These  have  been  supposed  by 
Kugler  (^Gesch.  der  Uauhunst,  i.  376)  to  have 
been  originally  windows; ;  they  are  now  built  up, 
but  it  may  be  seen  that  the  masses  of  wall  which 
separate  them  were  covered  with  thin  plates  of 
marble  of  two  or  mure  colours  arranged  in 
patterns.  Above  these  openings  are  a  like  num¬ 
ber  of  immense  windows  measuring,  according  to 
Ciampini  {Vet.  Mon.  i.  75),  about  28  feet  high 
by'  14  feet  6  inches  wide. 

The  church  of  Sta.  Pudenziana  at  Rome  has 
also  been  assigned,  with  much  apparent  proba¬ 
bility,  to  the  earlier  half  of  this  century  ;  it  has 
been  greatly  modernized,  but  retains  in  the  apse 
the  finest  early  Christian  mosaic  in  Rome  (en¬ 
graved  in  Gaily  Knight’s  Italian  Churches,  vol.  i 
pi.  23).  This  mosaic  is  assigned  by  most  com¬ 
petent  judges  to  the  4th  century. 

The  other  church  at  Rome  which  has  been 


St.  Peter,  Rome. 


St.  John  the  Evangelist.  The  “  Confes.sion  ”  was 
a  very  small  vault  under  the  altar,  and  it  is  not 
quito  clear  that  any  vault  at  all  was  part  of  the 
original  construction. 

The  basilica  of  Sta.  Croce  in  Gerusalemme 
deserves  notice  as  an  instance  of  the  alteration 
of  a  hall  or  civil  basilica  into  a  church.  It 
formed  part  of  the  palace  known  as  the  Ses- 
sorium.  When  converted  into  a  church  a  very 
large  apse  was  added  at  the  east  end ;  this 
apse  is  enclosed  by  chapels,  of  which  that  on  the 
south-east  is  covered  by  a  cupola  and  is  believed 
to  be  original,  that  on  the  north-east  is  of  a  later 
date.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  a  chapel 
similar  to  that  *on  the  other  side  originally 
occupied  the  site.  This  is  the  only  instance  in 
Rome  of  this  system  of  enclosing  the  apse,  one 
which,  as  has  been  said,  was  common  in  Africa 
and  in  parts  of  the  Ea.st. 

The  lateral  walls  of  Sta.  Croce  are  pierced  by 


mentioned  as  of  the  Constantinian  period,  Sta 
Costanza,  will  be  descidbed  when  circular  and 
polygonal  churches  are  spoken  of. 

Other  churches  of  the  basilican  type  were 
constructed  by  order  of  Constantine,  as  the 
original  church  ot  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople, 
that  of  the  Apostles  and  others  at  the  same  place, 
but  all  these  have  been  destroyed  or  rebuilt. 

•  Towards  the  end  of  this  century  (a.d.  386) 
the  great  church  of  St.  Paul,  beyond  the  walls 
(fuor  le  mura)  at  Rome,  was  commenced  and, 
until  the  fire  of  1822,  remained  far  less  altered 
than  any  other  building  of  the  period  in  or  near 
that  city.  It  resembled  St.  Peter’s  in  size  and 
in  design,  with  the  exceptions  that  the  transept 
was  of  the  same  width  as  the  nave,  and  that  the 
columns  of  the  nave  supported  arches  instead  of 
architraves.  It  was  lighted  by  (according  to 
Ciampini)  120  xvindows,  each  29  feet  high  by 
14  feet  6  inches  wide. 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


371 


The  church  of  S.  Slofano  in  Via  Latina,  built 
by  Pope  Leo  1.  (a.d.  440-461),  liad  fallen  into 
ruin  and  the  remains  become  coA^ered  with  earth. 
They  Avere  discoA’^ered  in  the  year  1858,  and  pre¬ 
sent  some  points  of  interest.  There  is  a  double 
A’estibule  at  the  east  end  of  the  church,  and  a 
remarkable  arrangement  in  front  of  the  altar 
apparently  arising  from  a  wish  to  preserA'e  a  small 
oratory  already  existing  on  the  spot,  but  what  is 
still  more  interesting  is  that  the  plan  of  the 
“chorus  cantorum”  and  enclosure  of  the  altar  can 
be  traced,  portions  of  the  walls  forming  these 
enclosures  existing;  they  were  Avorked  in  stucco 
and  painted.  As  this  Avork  has  quite  the  cha¬ 
racter  of  the  5th  century  these  are  probably  the 
earliest  remains  of  the  kind  which  haA^e  been 
noticed,  if  Ave  except  those  on  the  basilica  at 
D’Jemilah  in  Algeria,  mentioned  aboA^e.  The 
paA-ement  of  large  slabs  of  marble  is  also  no 
doubt  original. 

The  church  of  St.  John  Studios  at  Constanti- 


SeA'-eral  churches  in  Central  Syria  are  described 
by  Count  de  Vogiie  as  belonging  tothis  period. 

The  other  principal  ty])e  of  church  is,  as  has 
been  said,  the  sepulchral  or  memorial,  in  the 
earlier  examj)les  usually  circular  in  })lan,  in 
later  not  unfrequently  polygonal.  The  models 
from  which  such  buildings  wore  originally  deA'e- 
loped  Avere  doubtless  the  sepulehres  of  a  circular 
form,  many  of  which  AA'ere  erected  at  Rome  at 
the  close  of  the  Republican  period  and  under  the 
emperors.  These  structures  AA’cre  originally 
nearly  solid,  containing  only  small  chambers; 
such  are  the  tomb  of  Cecilia  Metella  and  the 
tomb  of  Hadrian  no\A'  enclosed  in  the  castle  of 
St.  Angelo.  In  later  examples,  as  in  that  of  the 
Tossian  family,  and  that  of  the  Empress  Helena 
(now  commonly  called  Torre  Pignatarra),  the 
upper  story  is  occupied  by  a  chamber,  taking  up 
as  much  of  the  diameter  as  the  necessity  of 
making  the  Avail  strong  enough  to  sustain  a 
dome  permitted.  This  chamber  in  some  cases, 


St.  Panl,  Rome. 


nople,  built  A.D.  463,  now  a  mosque  knoAvn  as 
Imrachor-Dschamissi,  shows  that  as  regards  plan 
and  design  there  Avas  in  the  5th  century  little 
difference  betAveen  a  basilican  church  in  Rome 
and  in  Constantinople.  This  building  has  been 
Avell  illustrated  by  Salzenberg  (^Alt-Christliche 
Baudenhmcile  von  Constant inopeC),  and  it  will  be 
seen  from  his  plates  that  it  consists  of  a  portico 
or  narthex,  a  naA'e  and  aisles  divided  by  columns, 
carrying  a  horizontal  architrave,  and  on  this' 
another  colonnade  supporting  arches,  so  as  to 
furnish  spacious  galleries  over  the  aisles,  and  an 
apse  semi-circular  within,  semi-hexagonal  Avith- 
out.  The  proportion  of  Avidth  to  length  ■  is 
greater  than  is  usual  in  the  basilican  churches  of 
Rome,  perhaps  an  early  indication  of  that  pre¬ 
ference  for  plans  approaching  to  a  square  Avhich 
Byzantine  architecture  afteiuvards  so  strongly 
manifests.  The  most  characteristic  feature  is, 
however,  the  great  size  of  the  galleries,  no 
doubt  intendexl  to  be  used  as  a  gynccaeum. 


as  in  that  of  the  Torre  Pignatarra,  was  Avell 
lighted  bv  large  Avindows.  From  such  a  Luild- 
ing  to  the  church  of  Sta.  Costanza  the  progress 
is  easy,  the  external  peristyle,  as  in  Hadrian’s 
tomb,  was  retained,  and  another  Avas  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  interior  on  which  the  dome 
Avas  supported.  Some  approach  to  a  cruciform 
plan  it  Avill  be  seen  was  produced  by  grouping 
the  tAventy-four  couj)led  columns  Avhich  carry 
the  dome  in  groups  of  six,  and  leaA'ing  a  wider 
space  betAveen  each  group  than  between  each 
pair  of  columns.  A  niche  in  the  aisle  Avail 
corresponds  to  each  inter-columniation,  those 
corresponding  to  the  wider  intervals  being  of 
larger  size  than  the  others.  In  these  larger 
niches  sarcophagi  were  placed  ;  one  of  porphyry 
noAV  in  the  Museum  at  the  Vatican,  Avas  removed 
from  the  niche  opposite  to  the  door.  'fhe 
externa!  peristyle  has  been  entirely  destroyed. 
This  building  has  been  called  a  baptistery,  but 
there  is  no  trace  nor  record  of  the  existence  of 

2  B 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


372 

a  piscina  or  font.  The  probability  would  appeal 
to  be  that  it  was  erected  as  a  mausoleum  for  the 
Constantinian  family.  This  building  is  about 
100  feet  ill  diameter,  the  dome  being  about  40. 

If  we  admit  Mr.  Fergusson’s  theory  that  the 
‘  Kubbet-es-Sakhra,’  or  ‘  Dome  of  the  Rock,’  is  the 
building  erected  by  order  of  Constantine  over 
tlie  sepulchre  of  our  Saviour,  it  must  be  classed 
among  memorial  churches.  This  appropriation 
of  the  building  has  been  the  subject  of  much 
controversy,  but  in  the  present  state  of  our 
knowledge  the  question  can  scarcely  be  satis¬ 
factorily  decided.  Whoever  compares  the  en¬ 
gravings  of  the  capitals  in  the  church  at  Beth¬ 
lehem,  given  by  (Jount  de  Vogiie  (Ejlises  de  la 
Terre  Sninte,  p.  52)  with  that  of  the  capitals  in 
the  ‘Dome  of  the  Rock’  (^'I he  Holy  Sepulchre^ 
by  James  Fergusson,  p.  68),  must  see  that  both 
are  of  one  closely  similar  design  and  probably 
of  the  same  date,  which  there  can^  be  little 
doubt  is  the  earlier  part  of  the  4th  century. 
The  ‘  Dome  of  the  Rock  ’  is  an  octagon  155  feet  in 
diameter,  with  two  aisles  and  a  central  dome, 
this  is  supported  by  four  great  piers,  between 
each  of  which  are  three  pillars  supporting  arches 
springing  direct  from  their  capitals;  the  space 
between  these  and  the  external  wall  is  divided 
into  two  aisles  by  a  screen  of  eight  piers  and 


sixteen  pillars — two  pillars  intervening  between 
each  pier.  On  the  capitals  of  these  pillars  rest 
blocks  which  carry  a  frieze  and  cornice ;  these 
last  carry  arches  above  which  was  a  second  cor¬ 
nice.  The  whole  building  has  undergone  much 
alteration,  and  these  capitals  and  friezes  appear 
to  be  the  best  preserved  portions  of  the  original 
design. 

It  seems  clear  that  one  of  two  hypotheses 
must  be  held  ;  either  that  the  existing  remains 
are  those  of  a  building  of  the  period  of  Con¬ 
stantine,  erected  on  the  spot  and  still  retaining 
their  original  architectural  arrangement,  or  that 
portions  of  such  a  building  have  been  removed 
from  another  site,  and  re-erected  where  we  now 
find  them. 

Eusebius  (J)e  Vito.  Constant,  iii.  50)  tells  us 
of  another  octagonal  church  erected  by  order  of 
Constantine,  of  which  no  trace  now  remains. 
This  was  at  Antioch  ;  Eusebius  describes  it  as 
of  wonderful  height,  and  surrounded  by  many 
chambei's  (oi'kois)  and  exedrae  {i^edpais),  which 
it  would  appear  were  entered  from  the  galleries 
(xwpTjqaTO)!')  which  both  above  and  below  ground 
encircled  the  church. 

A  church  was  also  built  by  Constantine  at 
Constantinople  (Eusebius,  Vita  Constant,  iv.  58, 
59)  as  a  memorial  church  of  the  Apostles  (fiap- 
Tvpiou  cTTi  jj.viijx'y  ruv  anoffrSXwi''),  and  at  the 


same  time  as  a  place  for  his  own  burial.  This 
building  was  destroyed  by  Justinian,  and  its 
precise  form  is  unknown  ;  but  that  it  was  in 
some  manner  cruciform  appears  from  the  dis¬ 
tich  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  in  the  poem  of 
the  dream  of  Anastasius  : — 

2vi/  TOt?  Kal  fx€ya\av\oi^  eSo?  XpiirTOLO  iiaffrjTuii' 
nAevpai?  o’TavpOTVTTOts  T€Tpa\a  rep-vop-tvov. 

It  would  seem  that  it  stood  in  the  centre  of  a 
large  atrium,  surrounded  by  porticoes.  Bunsen 
{Die  Basiliken  des  Christl.  Boms,  s.  .36)  thinks 
that  in  this  edifice  we  may  discern  the  germ  of 
the  Byzantine  type  of  church. 

It  is  a  matter  of  some  difficulty  to  distinguish 
between  a  sepulchral  chapel  or  tomb  and  a  me¬ 
morial  church  ;  the  one  class  in  fact  runs  into 
the  other,  the  distinction  between  them  dejtend- 
ing  upon  the  object  which  the  builder  had  in 
view ;  when  he  constructed  a  large  edifice  in 
which  services  were  to  be  frequently  held,  still 
more  if  this  building  was  intended  to  be  the 
cathedral  church  of  a  bishop  or  the  church  of  a 
district,  the  structure  must  be  considered  as  a 
church,  although  it  was  also  constructed  in  order 
to  honour  a  martyr  and  to  protect  his  tomb  ; 
when  on  the  other  hand  it  was  of  small  size,  and 
its  primary  object  was  to  contain  the  tomb  or 
tombs  either  of  the  builder  or  of  some  saint,  it 
must  be  considered  as  only  a  sepulchral  chapel 
although  containing  an  altar,  and  although  ser¬ 
vices  were  occasionally  celebrated  within  it. 

Several  remarkable  buildings  of  the  5th  cen¬ 
tury  belong  to  the  first  class.  One  of  these  is 
the  church  of  St.  George  at  Thessalonica,  which 
consists  of  a  circular 
nave  79  feet  in  dia¬ 
meter,  covered  by  a 
dome,  a  chancel,  and 
an  apse  ;  the  walls  of 
the  nave  are  20  feet 
thick,  and  in  them 
are  eis:ht  great  re- 
cesses,  two  of  which 
serve  as  entrances 
and  one  as  a  sort 
of  vestibule  to  the 
chancel,  the  roof  is 
covered  with  a  mag¬ 
nificent  series  of  mo¬ 
saics.  The  cathedral 
at  Bosrah,  in  the  Haouran,  the  date  of  which 
is  ascertained  to  be  a.d.  512,  has  a  j)lan  with 
several  points  of  similarity  to  that  of  St.  George, 
particularly  as  regards  the  chancel. 

In  Italy  some  circular  churches  were  con¬ 
structed  to  carry,  not  domes,  but  wooden  roofs ; 
of  these  the  most  remarkable  examj)le  is  St. 
Stefano  Rotondo,  at  Rome,  built  between  a.d. 
467  and  A.D.  483.  This  church  had  originally 
two  aisles  and  is  of  very  large  size,  having  a 
diameter  of  about  210  feet. 

The  church  of  St.  Lorenzo  at  Jlilaii,  once  the 
cathedral  of  the  city,  is  very  remarkable,  as 
shewing  an  attempt  to  combine  the  circular 
with  the  square  plan.  Its  real  date  has  not 
been  ascertained,  but  it  is  probably  of  the  earlier 
part  of  the  5th  century.  The  main  building  has 
lost  all  original  character  through  repairs,  but 
according  to  Hubsch  the  original  walls  exist  to 
a  height  of  nearly  40  feet,  and  the  ground  plan 
may  therefore  be  accepted  as  original. 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


373 


It  will  be  observ^ed  that  chapels  are  annexed 
to  the  church  on  the  north,  south,  and  east ; 
that  on  the  north  is  supposed  by  Hiibsch  to  have 
been  a  vestibule,  that  now  called  St.  Aquiliuo 
on  the  south  is  thought  to  have  been  constructed 
as  a  baptistery,  that  on  the  east  in  all  proba¬ 
bility  was  constructed  to  serve  as  a  sepulchral 
chapel,  a  purpose  to  which,  whether  it  was 
originally  destined  or  not,  the  chapel  of  St.  Aqui- 
lino  was  also  applied  as  early  as  the  beginning 
of  the  5th  century,  if  the  sarcophagus  said  to 
have  contained  the  body  of  Ataulphus  (ob.  A.D. 
415)  really  did  so,  and  if  this  was  its  original 
place  of  deposit. 

Hiibsch,  however,  gives  it  as  his  opinion, 
founded  chiefly  on  the  character  of  the  brick¬ 
work,  that  the  chapels  are  later  in  date  than 
the  main  church. 

In  this  instance  we  have  the  two  classes,  the 
memorial  church  and  the  sepulchral  chapel,  in 
juxtaposition.  A  few  instances  of  the  latter 
class  remain  to  be  mentioned,  and  firstly  the 
two  large  circular  edifices  winch  stood  on  the 
north  side  of  St.  Peter’s  at  Rome,  one  of  which 
was  afterwards  called  the  church  of  St.  Andrew, 


and  the  other  having  been  the  sepulchre  of 
Honorius,  or  at  least  of  his  two  wives  (^Besch. 
der  Stadt  Rom.,  II.  i.  95),  Avas  afterwards  dedi¬ 
cated  to  St.  Petronilla. 

The  building  of  the  church  of  St.  Andrew  is 
attributed  to  Pope  Symmachus  (a.d.  498-514) 
on  the  authority  of  the  Lib.  Pontif.,  but  the 
position  and  connexion  of  the  buildings  w^as  such 
that  it  seems  probable  that  both  were  built  at 
the  same  time,  which  Avas  apparently  that  of 
the  Emperor  Honorius.  According  to  the  plans 
Avhich  haA'e  come  down  to  us  they  had  no  apses, 
but  seA’en  square-ended  recesses  in  the  thickness 
of  the  walls.  They  were  of  large  size,  about 
100  feet  in  diameter. 

A  still  existing  building  of  the  same  class  is 
the  chapel  at  Ravenna,  built  by  the  Empress 
Galla  Placidia  (ob.  450),  Avhich,  though  more  pro¬ 
perly  a  sepulchral  chapel  than  a  chui’ch,  cannot 
be  wholly  passed  over  here.  It  is  in  plan  a  Latin 
cross  without  an  apse :  from  the  intersection  of 
the  arms  rises  a  toAver  enclosing  a  small  dome. 
This  example  is  of  peculiar  interest,  as  the  ear¬ 
liest  Known  instance  of  this  plan  Avhich  aftei’- 


wards  came  to  be  so  extensively  used  in  Western 
Europe.  Recent  excax^ations  have  shown  that 
the  chapel  Avas  originally  entered  by  a  portico, 
which  Avas  in  connexion  Avith  the  atrium  or 
narthex  of  the  adjacent  church  of  Sta.  Croce. 
(De  Rossi,  Bull,  di  Archeol.  Crist.  1866,  j).  73.) 

A  further  account  of  sepulchral  chapels  will 
be  found  under  CifAPEL. 

Although  heathen  temples  were  in  consequence 
of  their  plans  little  suited  for  adaptation  to 
Christian  Avorship,  they  were  occasionally  during 
the  earlier  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  as 
well  as  in  later  times,  conx’-erted  to  this  purpose. 
One  of  the  most  remarkable  eaidy  examples  of 
this  transformation  is  that  of  the  temple  of 
Venus  at  Aphrodisias,  in  Caria,  where  the  ori¬ 
ginal  building  Avas  enclosed  by  a  Avail  and  an 
apse  added  at  one  end,  the  cella  demolished,  the 
columns  of  the  posticum  remoA'ed  and  placed 
in  a  line  with  the  lateral  columns,  and  a  Avail 
pierced  with  Avindows  Avas  raised  on  the  lateral 
colonnades  so  as  to  foi'm  a  clerestory.  A  church 
Avas  thus  formed  of  large  size,  about  200  feet 
long  by  100  feet  Avide.  Messrs.  Texier  and  Pullan 
(Byz.  Arch.  p.  89)  believe  this  transformation 
to  haA'e  taken  place  betAveen  the  periods  of  Con¬ 
stantine  and  of'Theodosius. 

The  pei’iod  of  Justinian  is  one  of  special  im¬ 
portance  in  the  history  of  ecclesiastical  architec¬ 
ture.  From  this  time  the  basilican  plan  went, 
in  the  East,  almost  or  entirely  out  of  use,  and  a 
modification ’of  the  plan  of  St.  Sophia  Avas  almost 
exclusively  adopted,  the  modified  plan  being  a 
quadrangular  figure  approaching  a  square  Avith 
a  dome  coA'ering  the  centre,  and  a  large  internal 
porch  or  narthex  at  the  entrance.  This  plan, 
hoA\'eA’’er,  did  not  originate  Avith  the  architect  of 
St.  Sophia,  the  germ  of  it  is  perhaps  to  be  found 
in  the  domed  oratories  or  Kalybes  of  Syria ; 
from  such  a  simple  dome — a  building  like  the 
cathedral  of  Ezra,  in  Avhich  the  dome  is  sur¬ 
rounded  by  an  aisle,  and  an  apse  added — is 
readily  deriA'ed,  this  example  dates  from  A.D. 
510 ;  and  if  to  such  a  plan  a  narthex  be  added, 
Ave  have  the  typical  Byzantine  plan,  as  in  the 
church  of  SS.  Sergius  and  Bacchus  at  Constanti¬ 
nople,  built  under  Justinian,  but  someAvhat  ear¬ 
lier  than  St.  Sophia.  The  peculiar  feature  of 
the  latter  church  is  the  placing  of  the  dome  not 
upon  piers  and  arches  on  ex'ery  side,  but  upon 
semi-domes  east  and  Avest,  by  which  means  a 
vast  space,  more  than  200  feet  long  by  100  feet 
wide,  totally  unencumbered  by  piers  or  columns, 
was  obtained.  This  construction  has,  hoAvcA'er, 
never  been  copied  in  Christian  churches,  but  it 
has  seiwed  as  a  model  for  the  mosques  of 
Constantinople. 

All  the  minuter  peculiarities  of  construction 
and  of  detail,  hoAvever,  henceforAvard  prevail  in 
the  East,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Roman  style, 
which  previously  was  in  use.  In  the  West, 
examples  of  Byzantine  character  continue  to  be 
very  rare.  St.  Vitale  at  Ravenna  is  pei'haps  the 
only  prominent  example,  until  a  much  later 
period.  The  church  of  St.  Sophia  is,  hoAvever, 
in  itself  a  monument  of  such  importance  as  to 
require  to  be  noticed  in  some  detail. 

It  is  a  building  of  A'ery  considei*able  dimen¬ 
sions,  covering  about  70,000  square  feet,  exclusive 
of  the  portions  of  the  atrium  (or  exo-narthe.x), 
the  baptistery,  and  other  annexetl  buildings. 

Fr-om  the  exo-narthex,  the  principal  or  cso- 


374 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


narthex,  205  feet  in  length  internally,  by  26  feet  with  ornaments  ia  relief;  but  those  now  existing 
m  breadth,  is  entered.  The  principal  mass  of  do  not  seem  to  be  of  the  period  of  Justinian, 
the  building  forms  nearly  a  square  235  feet  north  *  All  the  columns,  capitals,  &c.,  are  of  porphyry 
and  south,  by  250  feet  east  and  west,  with  an  or  marble.  The  floors  and  all  other  flat  spaces 
apse  projecting  on  the  east  side.  The  central  are  covered  with  marble  slabs  of  the  richest 
dome  is  107  feet  in  diameter  by  46  feet  in  height,  colours,  the  domes  and  curved  surfaces  with  gold 
and  rises  180  feet  from  the  floor.  The  semi-  grounded  mosaics. 

domes  are  of  the  same  diameter.  The  aisles  are  |  Little  is  known  as  regards  the  precise  position 
spacious,  but,  in  consequence  of  the  exigencies  of  of  the  various  fixed  appliances  by  which  the 
the  constructional  arrangement,  are  so  divided  as  church  was  fitted  for  divine  worship.  The  altar 


to  form  rather  a  series  of  chambers  than  con¬ 
tinuous  galleries.  There  is,  it  will  be  seen,  but 
one  apse,  in  front  of  which  is  a  shallow  chancel 
space,  covered  by  a  barrel-vault.  On  the  upper 
floor  are  chambers  corresponding  with  those 
below,  which  furnished  places  for  women. 

The  windows  are  filled  with  slabs  of  marble, 
pierced  with  square  openings  filled  with  thick 
pieces  of  cast  glass.  When  the  windows  are  large 
they  are  divided  into  three  or  six  parts  by  co¬ 
lumns  and  architraves.  The  doors  are  of  bronze. 


is  supposed  to  have  stood  in  the  chancel  space  or 
bema,  in  front  of  the  apse;  the  iconostasis  appears, 
according  to  Salzenberg,  to  have  been  placed  at  the 
western  end  of  the  bema,  and  to  have  been  about 
14  feet  high.  From  the  poem  of  Paul  the  Silen- 
tiary,  we  learn  that  it  was  of  silver,  had  three 
doors,  the  central  the  largest,  and  12  columns 
raised  on  a  stylobate,  and  was  adojmed  with  fi¬ 
gures  (probably  bust  figures)  of  our  Lord,  the 
I  Virgin  Mary,  Prophets  and  Apostles,  in  discs  or 
!  medallions.  Whether  tnese  figures  were  in  the 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


375 


frieze,  as  Salzenberg  supposes,  or  between  the 
columns,  is  not  certain ;  but,  as  the  Silentiary 
says  of  the  altar,  that  it  was  not  fit  that  the  eyes 
of  the  multitude  should  look  on  it,  it  would 
seem  probable  that  they  filled  the  spaces  between 
the  columns,  making  a  solid  iconostasis,  as  in 
modern  Greek  churches. 

The  altar  was  of  table  form,  supported  by 
columns,  and  of  gold,  decorated  with  precious 
stones ;  over  it  was  a  splendid  ciborium  of  silver, 
from  the  arches  of  which  hung  curtains  with 


where  they  were  situated.  It  would  seem  pro¬ 
bable  that  the  compartment  north  of  the  tema 
was  the  prothesis  and  that  south,  the  diaconicon. 

The  seat  for  the  emperor  was  on  the  south 
side,  and  near  the  diaconicon ;  that  for  the  em¬ 
press,  also  on  the  south  side,  but  in  one  of  the 
central  divisions  of  the  triforium. 

The  circular  building  was  the  sacristy,  the 
rectangular,  the  baptistery. 

The  same  emperor,  also,  built  a  church  at 
Constantinople — that  of  St.  Sergius,  now  called 


St.  Sophia,  Ck>n3tantinopIe. 


figures  ot  our  Lord,  St.  John  the  Baptist,  St. 
Paul,  and  others,  woven  in  silk  and  gold. 

The  circumference  of  the  apse  was  occupied  by 
the  synthronus  or  seats  for  the  patriarch  and 
bishops.  These  were  of  silver-gilt,  separated  by 
shafts,  probably  carrying  canopies. 

Paul  the  Silentiary  says  nothing  as  to  the 
chorus  or  place  for  the  readers  and  singers,  ex¬ 
cept  that  the  iconostasis  divided  the  portion  set 
apart  for  the  celebration  of  the  mysteides  from 
that  of  the  “  many-tongued  multitude  ”  (ttoAu- 
y\(t)(T(roio  oixlXov).  This  seems  to  show  that  the 
chorus  extended  from  the  iconostasis  to  the  ambo, 
which  the  same  authority  states  to  have  stood 
nearly  in  the  middle  of  the  church,  but  rather 
towards  the  east.  This  space  may,  however, 
have  been  divided  into  two  parts  ;  one,  the 
soleas,  to  the  east,  set  apart  for  the  priests, 
deacons,  and  sub-deacons ;  the  other  for  the 
readers  and  singers.  The  soleas  is  said  by  Codi- 
nus  to  have  been  originally  of  onyx,  but  made 
by  Justinian  of  gold  (xpvcra).  In  the  same  pas¬ 
sage  it  is  said  tliat  the  ambo  was  made  of  gold. 
We  should  no  doubt  under.stand  in  both  cases 
that  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage  is  that 
much  gilding  was  employed  as  a  decoration.  In 
the  case  of  the  soleas  the  gilding  may  probably 
have  been  applied  to  the  seats  or  stalls  for 
the  priests. 

It  would  appear  from  the  measurement  given 
by  Evagrius  {Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxxi.)  that 
the  holy  conch  (ayia  K6yx'n)  commenced  at  the 
western  end  of  the  eastern  semi-dome,  possibly 
therefore  the  line  of  division  between  the  en¬ 
closures  for  the  superior  and  inferior  clerics  ran 
at  this  point,  the  chorus  for  the  readers  and 
singers,  extending  thence  to  the  ambo. 

Two  compartments,  known  as  the  prothesis 
and  diaconicon,  are  mentioned  by  Byzantine 
writers,  but  it  has  been  a  matter  of  dispute 


Kutchuk  Agia  Sophia  (Little  St.  Sophia) — which 
evidently  suggested  the  plan  which  eventually 
became  the  noi*mal  one  of  all  Byzantine  churches. 
In  this  the  peculiar  form  of  capitals  and  treat¬ 
ment  of  foliage,  which  are  characteristic  of 
Byzantine  art,  are  fully  shown. 

The  church  of  S.  Vitale  at  Ravenna,  built 
between  526  and  547,  is,  as  Mr.  Fergusson  has 


■  7  ■ 

St.  Vitale,  Kaveiiua, 


remarked,  so  far  as  the  arrangement  of  the  dome, 
of  the  galleries,  and  of  the  pillars  which  support 
them,  almost  identical  with  St.  Sergius.  But 
S.  Vitale  has  a  sort  of  clerestory  below  the 
dome,  which  is  raised  about  20  feet  higher.  The 
arrangement  of  the  aisles,  choir,  and  exterior 
walls  differ,  it  will  be  seen,  very  much ;  and  it 
would  seem  that  the  architect  had  studied 
the  building  at  Rome  Icnown  as  the  Temple  of 
Minerva  Medica.  S.  Vitale  is  thoroughly  By- 


376 


(JHURCH 


CHURCH 


zantine  in  datail ,  and,  in  spite  of  most  tasteless 
repairs  and  additions,  still  retains  much  that  is 
cliaracteristic  and  interesting,  especially  in  the 
choir,  the  lower  part  of  which  is  lined  with  slabs 
of  })recious  marbles,  and  the  upper  with  the 
well-known  mosaics. 


interior  apse  are  innovations  upon  the  original 
plan. 

Another  basilican  church  of  the  period  of 
Justinian  is  I’nat  of  Dana,  between  Antioch  and 
Bir.  This,  likewise,  has  a  single  ajise,  but  the 
end  of  the  church  is  a  straight  line,  oblong 


While,  however,  churches  with  domes  were 
constructed,  basilican  churches  were  also  built. 
In  connection  with  that  of  St.  Sergius  at  Con- 
stantinojile,  was  a  basilican  church  dedicated  to 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  which  has  been  destroyed. 
The  church  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Catharine, 
on  Mount  Sinai,  which  still  exists,  is  basilican. 
It  has  never  as  yet  been  well  illustrated;  but  the 


apai'tments — no  doubt  to  serve  for  the  prothesia 
and  diacouicon — being  placed  one  on  each  side. 
It  is  remarkable  that  the  arch  of  the  apse  is  of 
the  horseshoe  form,  and  those  of  the  nave  are 
very  much  stilted.  The  capitals  are  Roman  in 
character. 

The  finest  example  of  a  basilican  church  of 
this  period  is,  however,  that  of  S.  Apollinare  iu 


8.  Apollinare  in  Clause,  Bavenna. 


detail  of  the  capitals  appears  to  be  more  Roman 
than  Byzantine.  It  is  a  basilica  with  one  apse ; 
but  in  order  to  form  a  chapel  for  the  supposed 
site  of  the  burning  bush,  an  interior  apse  has 
been  formed.  At  the  .sides  are  four  chapels,  but 
it  would  seem  probable  that  the  chapels  aud  the 


Classe,  at  Ravenna,  dedicated  in  549.  Here  the 
eastern  ends  of  the  aisles  are  parted  off,  and  ter¬ 
minate  in  apses,  of  which  arrangement  this  is, 
perhaps,  the  earliest  instance  of  which  the  date 
'  is  well  ascertained.  It  is  a  church  of  very 
j  noble  proportions,  and  retains  the  decorations  of 


(JHURCH 


CHURCH  377 


the  apse  in  marble  and  mosaic,  in  a  very  com¬ 
plete  state.  The  capitals  are,  as  seems  to  be  usual 
in  the  basilican  churches  of  this  period,  more 
Roman  than  Byzantine  in  character.  Upon  the 
capital  rests  a  block  or  dosseret,  ornamented 
with  a  cross,  .as  in  many  other  churches  of  the 
time. 

Attached  to  the  west  front  is 
a  tall  circular  tower  of  seven 
stages,  which  is  probably  of 
the  same  age,  and  perhaps  the 
earliest  extant  example  of  a 
church  tower.  Though,  according 
to  Hiibsch  (^Alt.  Christl.  Kirchen, 
p.  34),  the  lower  part  of  the 
tower  standing  near  the  cathedral 
of  Ravenna  may  probably  date 
from  the  previous  century,  and 
parts  of  some  other  towers,  both 
at  Rome  and  at  Ravenna,  may 
belong  to  the  beginning  of  the 
6th.  Attached  to  the  church  of 
S.  Vitale  .at  Ravenna  are  two 
small  round  towers,  which  have 
perhaps  never  been  carried  to 
their  full  intended  height. 

The  cathedral  of  Parenzo  in 
Istria,  built  circ.  A.D.  542,  is  too 
interesting  to  be  passed  over, 
particularly  as  it  h.as  undergone 
extremely  little  alteration,  and 
retains  the  atrium  before  the 
front,  and  the  baptistery  opening 
from  the  atrium  on  the  side  op¬ 
posite  to  the  church — the  baptis¬ 
tery,  unfortunately,  in  a  semi- 
ruinous  state.  Here,  it  will  be 
seen,  the  aisles  have  apsidal  ends 
internally,  but  the  wall  is  flat 
externally.  The  apse  is  of  pecu¬ 
liar  interest,  retaining  the  cathe¬ 
dra  for  the  bishop  and  the  bench 
for  the  clergy,  in  apparently  an 
unaltered  state,  while  the  wall 
behind,  to  about  one  half  of  its 
height,  is  covered  with  an  e.x- 
tremely  rich  and  tasteful  decor.a- 
tion  in  “  opus  sectile,”  the  patterns  being  com¬ 
posed  of  pieces  of  the  richest  marbles,  lapis  lazuli,  ' 
and  mother-of-pearl.  Above  the  cathedra  is  a 
cross  standing  on  a  globe,  and  figures  of  dolphins,  ■ 
tridents,  cornucopias,  and  burning  candles 
sparingly  introduced  among  the 
patterns  of  architectural  ch.a- 
racter.  On  the  west  front,  and 
on  the  east  end  above  the  apse, 
are  rem.ains  of  fresco  paintings 
of  an  early  date.  In  this  church, 
although  basilican  in  plan,  the 
capitals  are  Byzantine  in  cha¬ 
racter. 

To  this  accoiAt  of  individu.al 
churches  it  may  perhaps  be 
desirable  to  add,  for  the  sake  of  giving  a  clearei  ] 
idea  of  what  a  church  of  the  period  which  has  1 
been  under  consideration  was,  an  attempt  to  ; 
reconstruct  in  imagination  such  a  building  in  a  i 
complete  state  with  its  fittings  and  decorations.  i 
Existing  remains,  with  the  .assistance  to  be  de¬ 
rived  from  the  writers  of  the  time,  allow  this  to 
be  done  with  sufficient  assurance  of  accuracy. 
A  b;isilic.an  church  of  the  first  class  in  Rome, 


Constantinople,  or  one  of  the  larger  cities  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  may  be  thus  described. 

A  stately  gateway  gave  admittance  to  a  large 
court  (atrium)  surrounded  by  coA’^ered  colonnades, 
in  the  centre  of  which  w.as  a  fountain  or  a  vase 
(cantharus)  containing  Avater,  so  that  ablutions 
might  be  i)erformed  before  the  church  wa.s  en- 


6.  ApoUinare  in  Claaae,  Bavenna. 

tered.  On  one  side  of  this  .atrium  and  entered 
from  it  Avas  the  b.aptistery.  The  b.asilica  itself  Avau 
usually,  when  the  circumstances  of  the  site  per¬ 
mitted,  placed  on  the  Avestern  side  of  the  atrium, 
are  ,  so  that  the  rising  sun  shone  on  its  front.  This 


PareuEO, 

front  was  pierced  by  three  or  Aa'c  doorways  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  number  of  the  aisles,  and  in  that 
part  Avhich  rose  aboA'e  the  colonnade  of  the 
atrium,  AvindoAvs  of  immense  size  admitted  light 
to  the  interior;  the  Avail  betAveen  and  above 
these  AvindoAvs  Avas  coA'ered  sometimes,  in  parts, 
Avith  mosaic  of  glass  in  gold  and  colour,  but 
usually  Avith  plates  of  richly  coloured  marbels 
and  porphyries  arranged  so  .as  to  form  patterns; 


373 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


sometimes,  however,  stucco  painted  was  the 
cheaper  substitute.  When  the  building  was,  as 
was  always  the  case  at  Rome,  of  brick,  the  same 
decoration,  by  means  of  marble  slabs  or  of  stucco, 
was,  if  not  actually  carried  out,  in  all  probability 
almost  always  projected  for  the  whole  exterior 
of  the  building.  In  only  one  case  at  Rome — that 
of  the  transept  of  S.  Pietro  in  Vincoli,  built  a.d. 
442 — is  the  finish  of  the  brickwork  such  as  to 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  intended  to 
remain  uncovered. 

The  doors  were  of  bronze  adorned  with  sculp¬ 
tures  in  relief,  and  frequently  gilt,  or  of  wood, 
often  richly  inlaid  or  carved.  Curtains  of  the 
richest  stuffs,  often  of  purple  or  scarlet,  em¬ 
broidered  with  gold,  hung  at  the  doors,  to  ex¬ 
clude  the  heat  of  summer  or  the  cold  of  winter 
while  the  doors  stood  open. 

In  the  interior  the  whole  floor  was  covered 
either  with  tesselated  pavements  or  with  slabs 
of  many-coloured  marbles  arranged  in  beautiful 
patterns.  The  aisles  were  separated  from  the 
nave  by  ranges  of  marble  columns  whose  capitals 
supported  either  arches  or  horizontal  architraves. 
Tiie  great  width  of  the  nave,  in  a  first-class  basi¬ 
lica  frequently  more  than  80  feet,  and  the  forest 
of  columns  on  either  hand  (one  of  the  colonnades 
often  containing  24  or  more  columns)  when  there 
wei-e  double  aisles,  produced  an  architectural 
effect  of  great  magnificence.  The  clerestory  wall 
was  pierced  by  numerous  immense  windows  with 
arched  heads,  one  of  which  was  over  each  inter- 
columniation.  These  windows  were  no  doubt 
divided  by  columns  or  pilasters  and  architraves, 
and  the  divi-sions  fitted  with  slabs  of  marble 
pierced  in  a  variety  of  patterns — these  perfora¬ 
tions  were  in  many  or  most  cases  fitted  with  talc, 
alabaster,  or  other  transparent  or  semi-trans¬ 
parent  stones,  or  with  glass  either  plain  or 
coloured. 

The  roof  was  flat  and  of  wood,  where  magnifi¬ 
cence  was  sought  it  was  richly  adorned  with  carv¬ 
ing  and  gilt.  The  semi-dome  which  covered  the 
apse  was  covered  with  mosaic  pictures,  the  subject 
being  usually  Christ,  either  seated  or  standing, 
with  his  apostles  ranged  on  each  hand.  The 
earliest  existing  example  of  this  arrangement  is 
in  the  church  ofSta.  Pudenziana  at  Rome,  which 
although  it  has  been  much  injured  and  largely 
repaired,  still  shows  so  much  goodness  of  style  that 
it  can  hardly  be  attributed  to  a  later  date  than 
the  4th  century.  Where  a  transept  existed  it 
was  usually  divided  from  the  nave  by  an  arch, 
the  face  of  which  fronting  the  naA^e  Avas  often 
also  covered  Avith  mosaics ;  a  colossal  bust  of  Christ 
was  often  the  central  object  of  the  picture,  being 
placed  OA'er  the  crown  of  the  arch,  Avhile  on  either 
side  and  beloAv  are  represented  the  seven  candle¬ 
sticks,  the  symbols  of  the  CA'angelists,  and  the 
tu’enty-four  elders. 

Details  as  to  the  arrangement  of  the  fittings 
of  churches  Avill  be  found  under  the  respective 
heads ;  it  may  be  sufficient  here  to  say  that  the 
apse  was  furnished  with  a  bench  following  its 
circumference  for  the  higher  clergy,  in  the  centre 
of  which  Avas  a  raised  seat  (cathedra)  for  the 
bishop ;  that  the  altar  Avas  usually  placed  on 
the  chord  of  the  apse  at  the  top  of  a  flight  of 
steps,  and  parted  off  from  the  nave  by  railings 
(cancelli) ;  below  it  Avas  often  a  platform  or 
space  (soleas),  and  beyond  this  a  quadrangular, 
iLsually  oblong,  enclosure  (chorus,  presbyterium  ; 


the  last  perhaps  improi>erly),  in  which  the  singers 
and  readers  Avere  stationed.  This  enclosure  Avas 
formed  by  railings  or  dwarf  walls,  and  connected 
Avith  these  Avas  the  ambo  or  reading  desk.  At 
Rome,  and  probably  elsewhere,  a  space  on  either 
side  of  the  chorus  was  also  railed  in,  that  on  the 
right  being  called  ‘  senatorium,’  and  appi’opriated 
to  senators  or  other  men  of  rank,  that  on  the 
left,  called  ‘  matroneum,’  to  women  of  the  same 
degrees.  Where  a  gallery,  or,  as  Ave  noAv  say,  a 
triforium  existed,  it  was  set  apart  for  Avomen, 
but  this  arrangement  Avas  not  A'ery  common  in 
the  West. 

Benches  or  other  seats  were  probably  provided 
in  the  chorus,  the  senatorium,  and  the  m.atro- 
neum,  but  the  rest  of  the  church  Avas  left  alto¬ 
gether  open  and  free.  These  seats  AA'ere  either 
of  marble  or  of  carA^ed  wood,  in  many  iu.stances 
gilded,  the  railings  of  the  same  materials  or  of 
bronze.  Over  the  altar  Avas  a  lofty  and  richh' 
decorated  canopy  (ciborium),  from  the  arches  of 
Avhich  hung  curtains  of  stuffs  of  the  richest 
colours  intei-AvoA'en  Avith  gold.  Like  curtains 
often  depended  from  the  arches  of  the  nave,  and 
hung  at  the  doors.  Vases,  croAvns,  and  lamps 
of  silver  or  of  gold  hung  from  the  arche.s,  or 
Avere  placed  upon  the  dwarf  Avails  or  partitions 
Avhich  separated  the  various  diA'isions  of  the 
edifice. 

According  to  the  proposed  plan,  the  history 
of  the  ecclesiastical  architecture  of  the  period 
Avhich  folloAvs,  viz.  from  the  death  of  Justinian 
to  that  of  Charlemagne,  Avill  be  treated  of  under 
separate  sections. 

IV.  The  Period  from  the  death  of  Justinian  to 
the  death  of  Charlemagne. — 1.  The  v:estern  i)art 
of  the  territory  of  the  Eastern  Empire.  — 
During  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Justinian, 
churches  Avere  built  on  the  basilican  plan, 
as  Avell  as  on  one  derived  probably  in  part 
from  such  churches  as  that  at  Ezra,  in  central 
Syria,  in  part  from  the  circular  or  polygonal 
churches  Avhich  had  been  constructed  thiougrh- 
out  Christendom.  Soon  after  the  time  of 
Justinian  the  basilican  type  was  no  longer 
follovved,  but  a  peculiar  plan  Avas  adopted, 
that  in  which  the  building  assumes  a  form 
approaching  to  a  square,  the  central  part 
being  covered  by  a  dome  placed  on  a  drum 
pierced  with  AvindoAvs.  The  period  Avhich 
followed  the  death  of  Justinian  AA^as  one  of 
political  trouble,  and  hence  examples  of  the 
progress  of  Byzantine  architecture  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  6th  and  the  7th  centuries 
are  someAvhat  deficient.  The  church  of  St.  Cle¬ 
ment  at  Ancyra,  hoAvever,  probably  belongs  to 
this  period,  as  the  dome  is  raised  on  a  Ioav  drum 
pierced  Avith  AvindoAvs  ;  in  plan  the  church  ap¬ 
proximates  to  that  of  the  later  Greek  churches. 
The  church  of  St.  Irene  at  Constantinople,  Avhich 
may  probably  date  from  the  earlier  half  of  the 
8th  century,  shows  a  further  adA^ance,  as  the  dome 
is  there  raised  on  a  lofty  drum  pierced  Avith  Avin- 
doAvs;  some  features  of  the  earlier  plan  are, 
however,  preserved,  as  there  is  only  one  apse, 
and  as  its  form  is  oblong.  The  church  of  St. 
Nicholas  at  Myra  is  perhaps  more  modern  than 
either;  it  has  a  double  narthex,  three  apses,  a 
lesser  on  each  side  of  the  larger,  and  a  dome 
raised  on  a  drum  in  Avhich  are  AvindoAA's.  If  the 
remains  of  the  iconostasis  and  ciborium  sheAvn 
in  plate  Iviii.  of  Texier  and  Pullan’s  Byzantine 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


379 


Architecture  are  those  of  the  original  construc¬ 
tion,  the  whole  space  east  of  the  dome  was  parted 
off  from  the  bema.  This  church  is  of  considerable 
dimensions,  about  100  feet  in  extreme  length  by 
60  wide  in  the  eastern  part,  the  nartheces  ex¬ 
tending  in  width  to  about  115  feet. 

Another  church  of  much  interest,  and  pro¬ 
bably  of  about  the  same  date,  is  that  which 
exists  in  ruins  near  the  remains  of  the  ancient 
Trabala  in  Lycia. 

2.  Armenia  and  the  adjacent  provinces. — The 
churches  remaining  in  these  countries  have  not 
as  yet  been  studied  with  sufficient  care  and 
knowledge  to  allow  very  satisfactory  conclusions 
to  be  formed  as  to  the  real  dates  of  those  now 
existing.  The  Persian  invasions  in  the  5th  and 
6th  centuries,  and  the  Mahomedan  conquest  in 
the  7th,  must  have  caused  damage  and  destruc¬ 
tion  to  a  great  portion  of  the  older  buildings  ;  a 
high  antiquity  is  nevertheless  claimed  for  several 
churches,  but  how  much  of  the  existing  building 
is  really  of  early  date,  is  very  uncertain.' 

One  of  the  earliest  is  apparently  that  at 
Dighour  near  Ani  in  Armenia,  which  Mr.  Fer- 
gusson  thinks  may  be  referred  to  the  7th  cen¬ 
tury.  It  bears  an  evident  resemblance  in  style, 
though  not  much  in  plan,  to  some  of  the  churches 
of  the  Haouran  dating  from  the  previous  century,  i 


triforium  carried  over  the  aisles  and  along  the 
wall  of  the  front.  At  S.  Lorenzo  the  aisle  roofs 
have  been  destroyed,  but  no  doubt  once  existed. 
In  other  respects  they  do  not  differ  from  the 
earlier  churches. 

The  church  of  SS.  Vincenzo  ed  Anastasio  alle 
tre  Fontane,  near  Rome,  founded  625-638  and 
rebuilt  772-795,  is  however  very  remarkable  in 
an  architectural  point  of  view,  as  it  is  not  con¬ 
structed  with  columns  taken  from  older  build¬ 
ings,  but  altogether  of  new  material  and  with 
considerable  originality. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  9th  century  three 
churches  were  built  in  Rome  by  Pope  Paschal  I. 
(817-824),  Sta.  Prassede,  Sta.  Cecilia,  and  Sta. 
Maria,  in  Domenica.  All  still  exist,  and  though 
badly  injured  by  repairs  and  alterations,  still 
present  very  much  that  is  interesting  and 
original.  The  first  has  a  nave  and  aisles,  a 
transept,  and  a  single  apse.  The  columns 
dividing  the  nave  from  the  aisles  are  antique 
and  support  an  entablature,  the  ranges  are 
broken  hy  thi-ee  oblong  piers,  which  carry 
arches  spanning  the  nave,  but  these,  according 
to  Hiibsch,  are  not  original,  but  inserted  not 
very  long  after  the  construction  of  the  building. 
The  transept  is  entered  from  the  nave  bv  a 
triumphal  arch,  the  front  and  soffit  of  which 


SS.  Viiicennu  ed  Auaataeio. 


The  church  of  St.  Hripsime  near  Etchmiadzin 
is  believed  by  Dr.  Neale  (^Hohj  Eastern  Church, 
1.  204)  to  date  from  the  6th  century,  and  he  con¬ 
siders  its  peculiar  plan  to  have  been  the  form 
followed  in  a  large  proportion  of  the  Armenian 
and  Georgian  churches.  The  germ  of  the  ar¬ 
rangement,  however,  exists  in  the  cathedral  of 
Bozrah  in  the  Haouran  of  a.d.  512. 

The  two  recesses  in  these  Armenian  churches 
which  flank  the  ap.se  in  which  the  altar  stood, 
were  doubtless  used  for  the  prothesis  and  dia- 
conicon,  but  to  what  use  the  other  two  were 
applied  must  be  matter  of  conjecture. 

The  primatial  church  of  Armenia,  that  of 
Etchmiadzin,  has  something  of  the  same  arrange¬ 
ment,  but  wants  the  western  chaniber.  It  was 
jn-obably  founded  in  524,  but  underwent  many 
alterations  and  reparations,  one  very  important 
one  in  705. 

The  church  of  Usunlar  is  said  to  have  been 
erected  between  718  and  726;  its  plan  is  rather 
Byzantine  than  distinctively  Armenian. 

3.  Italy. — In  Rome  but  few  important  works 
were  undertaken  during  the  6th,  7th,  or  8th 
centuries,  the  rebuilding  of  S.  Lorenzo  fuor  le 
Mura  (578-59U)  (the  present  choir),  and  of  S. 
Agnese  (625-638)  were  among  the  most  consi¬ 
derable  undertakings.  These  buildings  are  alike 
in  one  respect,  viz.  that  they  have  a  gallery  or 


are  covered  with  mosaics,  as  are  also  the  apse 
and  the  wall  on  each  side  of  it.  All  these  were 
placed  there  by  Pope  Paschal,  and  are  most 
valuable  monuments  of  the  state  of  art  of  his 
period. 

Below  the  raised  tribune  is  a  “  confessio  ” — a 
vault  under  the  high  altar.  The  west  end  of 
the  transept  (the  church  standing  nearly  north 
and  south)  was  at  an  early  time  parted  off  by  a 
wall,  and  on  this  a  low  tower  has  been  raised. 
The  part  thus  walled  off  is  of  peculiar  interest, 
as  perhaps  no  portion  of  a  church  of  so  early  a 
date  remains  in  so  unaltered  a  state.  Tlie  walls 
are  covered  with  remains  of  frescoes  which  seem 
to  be  coeval  with  the  mosaics,  and  the  windows 
retain  the  pierced  slabs  of  marble,  the  apertures 
of  which  still  contain  fragments  of  the  laminae 
of  talc  thi'ough  which  light  was  admitted. 

The  chapel  of  S.  Zeno,  attached  to  the  east 
side  of  the  nave,  has  been  noticed  under  Chapel. 
The  doorway  leading  into  it  is  of  great  interest 
to  the  architectural  antiquary,  as  it  shows  that 
in  the  beginning  of  the  9th  century  the  pre¬ 
valent  style  of  ornament  was  that  formed  by 
knots  or  plaited  patterns  of  the  same  character 
as  those  in  use  in  England  and  elsewhere 
between  A.n.  700  and  a.d.  1000.  The  execution 
is  feeble,  scratchy,  and  irregular. 

Sta.  Cecilia  Las  been  greatly  altered,  but 


380 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


retains  very  interesting  mosaics,  also  the  work 
of  Foiie  I’aschal.  The  distribution  and  subjects 
are  mucli  the  same  as  those  at  Sta.  Pi*assede. 

The  Roman  chuixhes  of  this  date,  however 
inferior  in  style  to  those  of  the  earlier  period, 
must  have  presented  an  appearance  of  equal 
splendour ;  mosaic  and  precious  marbles  were 
not  spared,  nor  doubtless  gilded  roofs.  Doors 
were  of  bronze,  or  even  of  more  costly  materials, 
for  Honorius  1.  is  said  in  the  Lib.  Pontif.  to  have 
covered  the  doors  of  the  Vatican  basilica  with 
silver  weighing  975  lbs. 

Examples  of  churches  of  the  period  under 
consideration,  with  wel’i-ascertained  dates,  are 
not  so  I’eadily  to  be  found  in  other  parts  of  Italy 
as  in  Rome  ;  but  a  few  buildings  exist  which 
can  be  assigned  on  historical  data  to  this  period, 
the  character  of  which  is  quite  in  accordance 
with  that  of  those  of  other  countries  whose  date 
can  be  ascertained.  Such  are  the  Duomo  Vecchio 
and  Sta.  Giulia  at  Brescia,  and  SS.  Apostoli  at 
Florence.  The  first  of  these  is  by  some  assigned 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  7th  century,  by  others, 
with  greater  probability,  to  about  A.D.  774;  it 
is  a  large  circular  church  about  125  feet  in 
diameter,  covered  by  a  dome  of  65  feet  internal 
diameter ;  it  is  extremely  plain,  having  no  shafts 
or  columns,  but  piers  carrying  square-edged 


arches  springing  from  very  simply  moulded  im¬ 
posts  ;  the  whole  is  roughly  and  irregularly 
built. 

Sta.  Giulia  forms  part  of  a  convent  founded  by 
Desiderius,  King  of  the  Lombards  (757-773) 
and  is  a  basilican  chui-ch. 

SS.  Apostoli  at  Florence  is  believed  on  respec¬ 
table  authority  to  have  been  dedicated  in  the 
presence  of  Charles  the  Great ;  it  is  a  small 
basilican  church  with  antique  columns,  pro¬ 
bably  brought  from  Fiesole. 

The  Duomo  of  Torcello,  near  Venice,  is  be¬ 
lieved  to  have  been  originally  built  in  the 
7th  century,  but  largely  repaired  or  rebuilt  in 
A.D.  1000.  It  is  on  the  basilican  plan,  with 
ranges  of  columns  dividing  the  nave  from  the 
aisles ;  it  is  particularly  interesting,  as  pre¬ 
serving  in  a  more  iierfect  state  than  elsewhere 
the  internal  arrangement  of  the  apse,  the  bishop’s 
cathedra  being  placed  against  the  central  point 
of  the  curve  at  the  top  of  a  flight  of  stejis,  on 
either  side  of  which  are  six  concentric  i-anges  of 
steps  for  the  presbyters  ;  the  altar  is  jilaced  on 
a  platform  in  front,  and  a  screen  divides  the 
presbytery  or  chorus  from  the  nave.  Under  the 
apse  is  a  small  crypt.  In  front  of  the  church 


are  the  traces  of  a  baptistery,  square  externally, 
octagonal  within.  The  apse  is  flanked  by  two 
minor  apses,  which  may  probably  date  from  the 
rebuilding.  This  church  has  much  resemblance 
to  the  cathedral  of  Parenzo  in  Istria.  Close  tc 
its  west  fi’ont  stands  the  small  church  of  Sta. 
Fosca,  which  by  some  is  believed  to  be  of  the 
Same  date  as  the  Duomo,  by  others  is  referred 
to  the  9th  or  10th  century.  S.  Giovanni  in 
Fonte,  the  baptistery  of  the  Cathedral  of  Ve¬ 
rona,  though  much  altered  and  ixpaired,  pro¬ 
bably  dates  from  a  i)eriod  not  later  than  the 
9th  century  ;  it  is  a  small  building  with  nave, 
aisles,  and  apse. 

4.  France,  Germany,  and  Switzerland. —  Though 
many  and  large  churches  were  constructed  in 
the  opulent  cities  of  the  Roman  provinces  of 
Gallia  during  the  period  of  Roman  occujxation, 
nothing  has  come  down  to  our  time  except  a 
few  fragments.  The  description  given  by  Sido- 
nius  Apollinaris  (PJpist.  xii.)  of  the  gilded  roof, 
the  glass  mosaic  of  the  walls,  the  variously 
coloured  marbles,  and  the  stony  wood  of  columns 
seems  to  shew  that  in  their  pristine  glory  the 
churches  of  Lyons  or  of  “  opulent  Vienna  ”  were 
little  inferior  in  splendour  to  those  of  the 
imperial  city. 

Churches  continued  to  be  constructed  under 
the  rule  of  the  Teutonic  conquerors,  although 
doubtless  of  much  diminished  magnificence. 
Gregory  of  Tours  (Hist.  Franc,  ii.  14)  describes 
the  basilica  built  by  Perpetuus  at  Tours,  in 
honour  of  Eustochius,  in  the  following  words  : 
“Plabet  in  longum  pedes  centum  sexaginta,  in 
latum  sexaginta  ;  habet  in  altuni  usque  ad  came- 
ram  pedes  quadringenta  quinque,  fenestras  in 
altario  triginti  duas,  in  capso  viginti ;  ostia  octo, 
tria  in  altario,  quinque  in  capso.” 

Hiibsch  (Alt-Clirist.  Kirchen,  pi.  xlviii.  figs.  6 
and  7)  has  made  a  conjectural  plan  and  section 
of  this  church,  believing  it  to  have  been  planned 
as  parallel-triapsal. 

The  same  historian  (ii.  16)  describes  the 
church  built  by  St.  Namatius  at  Clermont,  as 
150  feet  long,  60  feet  broad,  and  50  feet  high, 
with  a  round  apse,  and  aisles  on  each  side.  It 
had,  he  says,  42  windows,  70  columns,  and  8 
doors.  The  walls  of  the  altarium  were  adorned 
with  “  Opus  sarsurium,”  i.  e.  sectile  work,  of 
various  marbles. 

At  Perigueux  are  said  (.1.  H.  Parker,  Archco- 
logia,  xxxvii.  248)  to  be  remains  of  a  church  of 
this  period,  remarkable  as  having  barrel  vaults 
carried  on  arches  transversely  across  the  aisles. 
At  Beauvais,  attached  to  the  cathedral,  is  a 
portion,  no  doubt  the  nave  and  aisles,  of  a  much 
earlier  church  known  as  the  Basse  Oeuvre ; 
it  closely  resembles  in  character  the  buildings 
in  Italy,  such  as  SS.  Vincenzo  ed  Anastasio  near 
Rome,  which  are  believed  to  date  from  the  7th 
or  8th  centuries ;  but  it  may  even  be  older,  as 
it  is  simply  a  building  Roman  in  style,  and  so  . 
plain  as  to  give  none  of  that  assistance  towards 
the  formation  of  an  opinion  as  to  the  date  which 
mouldings  or  ornament  afford.  The  gi’eat  size 
of  the  windows  is,  however,  perhaps,  an  indica¬ 
tion  of  early  date.  Several  other  smaller  ex¬ 
amples  of  like  character  are  said  to  exist  within 
the  diocese  of  Beauvais. 

In  the  baptistery  at  Poitiers  we  have  an  ex¬ 
ample  of  a  somewhat  moix  ambitious  attempt 
at  classical  architecture ;  but  the  manner  io 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


381 


which  the  ornamental  pieces  are  put  together 
denotes  an  utter  barbarism  and  want  of  archi-  , 
tectural  knowledge  or  taste.  j 

Somewhat  akin  to  this  building  are  some  ; 
churches  not  far  from  the  Loire,  as  St.  Ge'ne'reux  , 
near  Poitiers,  Savenieres  in  Anjou,  &c. ;  both 
these  shew  a  reminiscence  of  Roman  methods  of  , 
building,  and  the  former  has  much  decoration 
bv  triangular  pediments  and  a  sort  of  mosaic  in 
brickwork,  probably  a  variety  of  the  opus  sar- 
surium  of  Gi’egory  of  Tours.  The  buildings  of 
this  class  are  ascribed  by  the  French  antiquaries 
with  much  probability  to  the  period  from  the  ! 
6th  to  the  8th  century.  [ 

In  the  valley  of  tlie  Rhone  and  the  adjacent  ter¬ 
ritories,  where  are  abundance  of  remains  of  Roman 
architecture  and  plenty  of  excellent  and  durable 
freestone,  the  classical  models  were  so  well  copied 
for  several  centuries  that  it  is  matter  of  great 
doubt  to  what  date  many  buildings  should  be 
assigned.  One  A'ery  characteristic  example  is 


Avork,  but  the  imposts  generally  are  of  the  rudeet 
kind,  though  one  or  two  shew  mouldings  of  a 
somewhat  complicated  character  and  apparently 
properly  cut,  whether  these  are  the  work  of  a 
later  time  or  not  is  not  clear.  Beneath  the 
central  tower  is  a  sort  of  cupola  resting  on  pen- 
denth'es,  and  pierced  in  the  centre  with  a  large 
orifice. 

When,  however,  the  influence  of  Chas-les  the 
Great,  whose  regard  for  architecture  is  well 
known,  began  to  make  itself  felt,  we  find  a 
marked  improvement  in  architecture  ;  besides  the 
most  remarkable  monument  of  his  reign,  the 
minster  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  we  have  several  other 
churches  erected  either  under  him  or  his  imme¬ 
diate  successors,  which  enable  us  to  form  a  defi¬ 
nite  conception  of  the  style  of  the  period. 

Before  these  are  described  one  building  of  very 
anomalous  character  should  however  be  raen- 
I  tioned,  this  is  the  gateway  at  Lorsch,  not  far 
j  from  Worms.  It  is  a  two-storied  parallelogram, 


Beanraifc. 


the  porch  of  the  cathedral  of  Avignon,  which 
has  all  the  character  of  a  building  of  the  lower 
empire,  but  in  Mr.  Fergusson’s  opinion  is  not 
older  than  the  Carlovingian  era.  The  same 
ornaments  are  found  on  this  porch  and  in  the 
interior  of  the  chu*i-ch,  and  it  would  therefore 
seem  that  the  whole  building  is  of  about  the 
same  date.  j 

In  the  Jura,  not  far  from  Orbe,  at  the  con-  | 
A’ent  of  Romain-motier,  a  church  was  dedicated 
in  A.D.  753  by  Pope  Stephen  II.,  and  the  na^-e,  ] 
transepts,  and  tower  now  existing,  are  belieA'ed  ; 
to  be  those  of  the  original  structure.  The  two-  ■ 
storied  narthex  !Mr.  Fergusson  thinks  may  be  a 
century  or  two,  but  BL-ndgnac  {Hist,  de  V Archi-  \ 
tecture  Sacr^e,  &c.)  only  a  little  later.  The 
columns  of  the  naA’e  are  circular  masses,  only 
three  diametei's  in  height,  corbelled  out  square 
at  the  top,  the  bases  quadrangular  blocks.  The 
arches  have  a  sunk  face,  but  no  ornament  or 
moulding.  Some  shafts  in  the  eastern  part  of  ‘ 
the  church  have  capitals  rudely  imitating  Roman  [ 


the  lower  storey  pierced  with  three  large  arch¬ 
ways,  and  was  no  doubt  the  gateway  leading 
into  the  atrium  of  the  church  of  the  monasterv, 
of  which  class  of  buildings  this  is  perhajis  the 
only  existing  example  (at  least  in  the  west),  of 
an  early  date. 

Tue  most  remarkable  and  most  authentic  worK 
of  the  period  in  Germany  or  France  is  the  minster 
of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  the  original  character  of 
which,  though  hidden  by  re]>airs  and  mistaken 
attempts  at  decoration,  c<in  still  be  satisfactorily 
ascertained  :  it  was  commenced  in  796,  and  dedi¬ 
cated  in  804;  it  is  externally  a  polvgon  of  six¬ 
teen  sides,  to  the  west  is  attached  a  tower-like 
building,  flanked  by  two  circular  towers  con¬ 
taining  staircases.  What  the  original  arrange¬ 
ment  of  the  east  end  was  is  unfortunately  un- 
kmnvn,  as  in  the  14th  century  it  was  replaced 
by  a  new  choir.  The  building  is  about  105  feet, 
the  dome  47  feet  6  inches  in  diameter,  and  the 
latter  rises  about  100  feet  above  the  floor. 

In  the  interior  are  eight  compound  piers, 


382 


CHUIiCH 


CHURCH 


made  up  of  rectangular  figures  and  Avithout 
shafts,  which  su[)port  plain  round  arches;  the 
triforium  is  very  lofty,  and  tlie  arclies  ojiening 
from  this  into  the  central  space  have  screens  of 
columns  in  two  stories,  the  lower  carrying  arches 
while  the  upper  run  up  to  the  arch  which  spans 
the  openings.-  Above  there  are  eight  round- 
headed  windows,  and  the  whole  is  covered  by 
an  octagonal  dome.  The  columns  of  the  trifo¬ 
rium  are  antique,  and  so  it  would  appear  were 
their  capitals ;  the  bases  seem  to  have  been 
made  for  the  building,  and  according  to  Kugler 
(Gesch.  der  Baukumt,  i.  409)  are  very  shapeless. 
The  best  preserved  part  of  the  interior  is  the 
belfry  over  the  porch ;  this  is  covered  with  a 
plain  waggon  vault,  and  shews  plain  rectangular 
piers  with  moulded  bases,  and  imposts  carrying 
equally  plain  arches.  The  severely  simple  cha¬ 
racter  of  the  building  is  very  well  seen  in  this 
chamber,  which  is  on  a  level  with  and  originally 
opened  into  the  tidforium.  The  dome  was  once 
covered  with  mosaic,  which  has  wholly  dis¬ 
appeared;  but  Ciampini  (Fcf.  Mon.  ii.  41)  has 
engraved  a  joart  of  it,  three  of  the  eight  segments 
of  which  it  was  composed.  In  the  central  of 
these  is  a  colossal  figure  of  Christ  seated  on  a 
throne,  surrounded  by  concentric  rings  of  colour 
representing  the  rainbow,  the  ground  on  which 
this  figure  was  placed  was  golden  with  red  stars, 
beloAV  are  seven  of  the  twenty-four  elders  of  the 
Apocalypse.  The  simple  grandeur  of  this  picture 
must  have  harmonized  well  with  the  whole 
character  of  the  building.  The  triforium  Avould 
seem  to  have  been  paved  with  mosaic  and  other 
paA'ements  brought  from  Ravenna  or  Rome :  two 
fragments  still  remain,  one  of  black  and  white 
tesserae,  the  other  of  sectile  work,  in  marble 
slabs  of  various  colours.  The  fronts  of  the 
openings  from  the  triforium  to  the  central  space 
are  protected  by  cancel  li  of  bronze,  doubtless 
also  brought  from  Ravenna  or  Rome ;  they  are 
of  seA^eral  patterns,  some  of  classical  Roman 
character,  others  Byzantine. 

^  A'ault  is  said  to  exist  beneath  the  centre  of 
the  church,  and  to  have  served  as  the  burial- 
place  of  the  great  emperor;  but  it  is  not  acces¬ 
sible,  and  nothing  seems  to  be  known  as  to  its 
character.  The  western  doors  are  of  bronze. 

The  exterior  is  very  plain,  the  only  ornament 
being  some  pilasters  at  the  angles  of  the  drum 
of  the  dome  ;  these  have  capitals  of  classical 
character,  but  in  their  wasted  state  it  would  be 
difficult  to  decide  whether  they  are  really  antique 
or  copies  of  antique  work. 

A  document  of  the  utmost  value  as  affording 
information  as  to  the  arrangements  of  a  large 
conventual  church,  is  the  plan  preserved  in  the 
public  library  of  St.  Gall,  and  first  published 
by  Mabillon  (Ann.  Hen.  Ord.).  It  appears  to 
have  been  sent  to  Abbot  Gozpertus,  who  began 
to  rebuild  the  church  and  monastery  in  A.D.  829, 
and  very  probably  Avas  prepared  by  Eginhard, 
Avho  Avas  prefect  of  the  royal  buildings  under 
Charles  the  Great.  The  annexed  cut  represents 
that  part  Avhich  contains  the  church  and  its 
apjAendages. 

The  plan  is  without  scale,  and  little  or  no 
reliance  can  be  ])laced  on  the  proportional  size 
of  the  parts,  as  Professor  Willis  has  observed  ; 
the  church  is  said,  in  legends  Avritten  upon  it, 
to  be  200  feet  long  and  80  feet  broad  ;  but  in 
the  plan,  if  we  assume  the  length  to  be  200  feet, 


the  breadth  would  be  only  5G  feet.  The  draw¬ 
ing  must  no  doubt  be  considered  rather  as  a 
scheme  for  a  great  monast^-y  than  as  a  plan  to 
be  carried  out  by  an  architect ;  its  peculiarities 
Avill  be  readily  seen ;  first  among  these  are  the 
apses  at  each  end,  an  arrangement  aftei-Avards 
common  in  Germany,  but  of  Avhich  Ave  have  no 
earlier  instance.  The  circular  toAvers  are  also 
remarkable.  At  the  east  end  the  drawing  is 
confused  by  the  attempt  to  sheAv  both  the  crvpt 
and  the  choir ;  the  space  marked  by  slanting 
lines  bears  in  the  original  the  legend  “iiiA'olutio 
arcuum,”  and  no  doubt  is  meant  to  represent  an 
arched  passage,  from  Avhence  proceeds  a  short 
passage  to  the  confession. 

The  church  of  Granson,  near  the  lake  of  Xeu- 
chatel,  according  to  Mr.  Fergusson,  is  of  the 
Carlovingian  era,  though  others  are  disposed  to 
place  it  in  the  11th  century. 

In  France  the  most  important  examples  of  the 
Carlovingian  period  seem  to  be  the  nave  of  the 
church  of  Mortier  en  Der,  near  Vassy,  Avhich 
exhibits  a  style  very  nearly  akin  to  that  of  the 
Minster  of  Aix-la-Chapelie,  and  the  remains 
of  the  church  of  St.  Martin  at  Angers.  This 
last  Avas  founded  some  years  before  819,  as  the 
Empress  Hermengarde,  Avho  died  in  that  year 
was  the  foundress,  and  AV'as  interred  Avithin 
it.  It  consisted  of  a  naA'e  and  aisles,  a  central 
toAvex’,  and  a  rather  long  ti’ansept ;  the  eastern 
part  having  been  replaced  by  a  choir  of  the  12th 
century.  The  piers  sepai-ating  the  naA'e  from 
the  aisles  ai’e  oblong,  but  chamfei’ed  at  the 
angles,  and  carry  plain  unmoulded  arches  of 
rectangular  section  ;  thei'e  is  no  trifoidum,  but  a 
clex’estory  of  AvindoAvs  of  i-ather  long  proj)ortiou. 
The  tower  has  a  dome  Avhich  originally  spi’ang 
fi'om  the  capitals  of  four  massiA'e  circular  pillars, 
which,  as  they  ax’e  engaged  in  the  piei’s  Avhich 
carry  the  toAver,  shew  only  the  fourth  of  a 
cii’cle.  The  capitals  haA-^e  some  shall oav  carving, 
chiefly  pattenis  of  plaited  Avork.  In  seA'ei’al 
parts  of  the  church  tAvo  or  three  courses  of  flat 
bricks  are  intx’oduced  betAveen  the  courses  of 
stoneAvork. 

The  chui’ch  of  Germigny-sui'-Loire  is  a  build¬ 
ing  of  very  remarkable  character,  and  in  it, 
incised  on  the  abaci  of  the  tAvo  eastern  capitals 
of  the  tower  piers,  is  an  inscription  I’ecoi-ding  its 
dedication  in  806.  The  plan,  it  Avill  be  seen, 
is  peculiar,  having  a  tower  in  the  middle  of  a 
squai’e,  with  an  apse  pi'ojecting  from  thi’ee  of 
the  faces,  and  two  small  apses  flanking  the  eastern 
apse.  The  piei’s  are  square,  and  have  imposts  of 
blocks  and  some  knotAvork  in  shalloAV  i-elief. 
Among  the  most  peculiar  featux'es  ai’e  the  small 
shafts  attached  to  the  piei’s  at  the  enti'ance  of 
the  eastern  apse.  These  recall  some  of  the 
details  of  Romain-motiei’,  as  the  imposts  do 
those  of  St.  Mai'tin  at  Angei’s. 

5.  Spain. — As  in  Gaul,  little  or  nothing  remains 
in  Spain  of  the  churches  built  before  the  in¬ 
vasion  of  the  bai-bainans ;  and  those  Avhich  the 
latter  constructed  Avere  desti’oyed  by  the  Ax-abs. 
Some  capitals  and  fi’agments,  px’obably  of  en¬ 
closures  of  ‘  chori  cantorum,’  exist  at  Cordova 
(‘  Monumentos  Arquitectonicos  de  Espana  ’),  and 
some  other  fx'agments  and  capitals  have  been 
found  at  Toledo  on  the  sites  of  the  basilicas  of 
St.  Leocadia,  built  A.D.  600,  and  of  St.  Gines, 
said  to  date  from  the  8th  century  (‘  El  ai-tc 
Latino — Bizantino  en  Espana,’  by  Don  Jose  Ama- 


383 


CHUECH 


\A.  The  Church. 

B.  The  Abbot's  Iiodging. 

C.  The  Public  School. 

D.  The  Hospitium  or  Guest  House. 

E.  DispeoBary. 

F.  Kesidence  of  Doctor,  with  Garden  of 

medical  herbs. 

0.  Another  small  double-apse  Church, 
diviiled  by  wall  across  centre. 

E.  Orchard  and  Cemetery. 


I.  Great  Cloister. 

J.  Refectory. 

E.  Kitchen. 

L.  Wine  Cellar. 

M.  Dormitory,  with  rarious  dependent 

buildings. 

N.  Another  Hospitium,  apparently  for 

inferior  class  of  guests. 

O.  Stables  for  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  &c. 

P.  Font. 


R  K.  Open  spaces  or  paradises.  (That  to 
the  west  is  surrounded  by  an  open 
semicircular  porch,  by  which  the 
public  were  to  gain  access  to  the 
Church.) 

8.  Vestry.  T.  Library. 

U.  Schoolmaster's  House. 

V.  Porter’s  House. 

X.  Fnrn.tce. 

Y.  Detached  cbimncy-sliaft  for  ditto. 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


384 

dor  de  los  Rios).  At  Venta  de  Banos,  near 
Palencia,  the  church  built  by  Keccesvinthus  in 
A.D.  661,  is  stated  to  remain  in  a  tolerably  com¬ 
plete  state. 

The  only  other  churches  which  can  be  suj^posed 
to  date  from  a  period  even  as  early  as  the  9th 
century  which  have  as  yet  been  noticed,  ai'e  a 
few  in  the  Asturias,  not  far  from  Oviedo. 

These,  however,  present  many  remarkable 
peculiarities  of  plan,  having  square  ended  chan¬ 
cels,  and  chapels  or  apartments  attached  to 
their  sides.  One  of  the  group,  Sta.  I\Iaria  de 
Naranco  is  stated  to  have  been  built  cir.  848, 
and  as  the  others  are  somewhat  plainer  and 
ruder  in  style  they  are  more  probably  earlier 
than  later.  The  most  remarkable  is  that  of  the 
Ermita  de  Sta.  Christina,  near  la  Pola  de  Lena, 
which  retains  the  original  partition  separating 
the  choir  from  the  nave :  the  choir  is  raised 
above  the  nave,  and  the  altar  recess  above  the 
choir,  these  as  well  as  the  western  part  of  the 
church  are  vaulted  over,  so  that  there  are 
chambers  above  them.  The  central  space  is 
covered  by  a  waggon  vault.  The  circular  panels 
ip  the  upper  part  of  the  choir  screen  are  pierced, 
the  central  panel  below  carved  with  ornament, 
having  much  atiinitv  with  that  to  be  seen  on  the 
crowns  of  the  7th  century  found  at  Puente  de 
Guarrazeo,  near  Toledo. 

S.  Salvador  de  Valdedios,  near  \^illaviciosa, 
has  aisles,  but  the  same  system  of  vaulting  over 
both  ends  of  the  chuixh  exists,  and  as  in  the 
others  there  are  small  chambers  right  and  left 
on  entering  by  the  western  door.  One  of  these 
probably  served  as  a  baptistry,  as  is  the  case  at 
Sta.  Maria  de  Naranco.  A  porch  and  other 
chambers  are  attached  to  the  south  side,  and 
may  have  served  as  dwellings  for  priests  or 
attendants  on  the  church.  This  has  been  at¬ 
tributed  to  A.D.  892. 

Sta.  Maria  de  Nai'anco  is  nearly  on  the  same 
plan,  and  appears  to  have  always  been  a  parish 
church. 

The  upper  chambers  in  all  these  churches  are 
open  to  the  church,  not  closed  as  in  Ireland,  and 
capable  of  being  used  as  dwelling  places. 

These  buildings  are  all  small,  Sta.  Cristina 
being  about  50  feet  long,  Sta.  Maria  de  Naranco 
about  70,  but  have  a  good  deal  of  ornament,  and 
exhibit  a  peculiarity  of  style,  the  origin  of 
which  cannot  be  traced  to  any  other  country, 
and  which  was  probably  developed  from  the 
earlier  imitations  of  Roman  work.  A  clue  to 
the  reasons  for  the  peculiarit}'  of  plan  seems 
altogether  wanting.  The  square  end  of  the 
chancel  may  perhaps  be  thought  to  indicate 
some  Irish  influence  as  that  country  is  the  only 
one  where  this  form  is  anything  but  the  rai'est 
exception. 

Although,  as  has  been  said,  the  churches  of 
the  earlier  period  have  disappeai-ed,  Spain  has 
preserved  in  a  remarkable  manner  some  of  the 
traditions  of  the  arrangement  of  churches  in 
the  earlier  periods;  thus  the  ‘coro,’  instead  of 
beginning  to  the  east  of  the  transepts,  is,  like 
the  “  chorus  cantorum  ”  of  the  early  basi¬ 
licas,  extended  into  the  nave,  and  the  central 
lantern  tower  is  called  the  ‘  cimborlo,’  in 
memory,  doubtless,  of  a  time  when  it  served  as 
the  ‘  ciborium  ’  of  the  high  altar,  now  placed 
in  the  elongated  choir,  or,  as  it  is  called  by  the 
Spaniards,  ‘  capilla  mayor.’  Probably  these 


traditions  were  handed  down  through  a  chain  oi 
numerous  links,  the  earlier  of  which  have 
perished. 

6.  Ireland. — We  find  here  a  great  number  of 
very  small  churches  very  roughly  built,  with  very 
little  attempt  at  any  decoration,  frequently  lighted 
only  by  one  very  small  window,  but  constructed 
usually  with  extremely  large  stones,  and  not  un- 
frequently  built  witli  that  material  exclusively, 
the  roof  being  formed  by  horizontal  courses, 
each  brought  forward  until  thev  met  at  the 
top. 

Such  are  the  churches  or  chapels  of  Tempull 
Ceannanach,  on  the  middle  island  of  the  bay  of 
Galway  (Petrie,  Eccle.  Arch,  of  Ireland,  p.  189), 
of  St.  Mac  Dara  on  the  island  of  Cruach  Mhic 
Dara,  off  the  coast  of  Connemara  (<(i.  p.  190), 
of  Ratass,  O'*.  Kerry  {id.  p.  169),  of  Fore,  C'^. 
Westmeath  (jcf.  p.  174),  and  many  others.  The 
two  first  of  these  churches  form  single  apart¬ 
ments  without  any  division  into  nave  and  chan¬ 
cel,  and  measure,  the  first  16  feet  6  inches,  by 
12  feet  6  inches  internally  ;  the  second  15  feet 
by  11  inches;  both  are  roofed  with  stone  in  th« 
manner  described.  The  two  other  churches  arc 
in  a  less  complete  state,  but  their  doorways 
are  remarkable  for  their  square  heads,  and  the 
immense  size  of  the  stones  of  which  they  art 
constructed  ;  in  that  of  Ratass  the  lintel  is  7  feet 
6  inches  long,  2  feet  high,  and  extends  through 
the  whole  thickness  of  the  wall.  There  appears 
in  this  doorway  an  evident  intention  of  imitating 
the  architecture  of  a  Greek  or  Roman  building 
In  that  of  Fore  the  lintel  is  6  feet  long,  2  fee 
high,  and  3  feet  deep,  and  is  sculptui’ed  with 
cross  within  a  circle,  on  a  projecting  tablet 
Both  these  churches  are  attributed  by  iMr.  Petri/ 
to  the  6th  or  7th  centuiies.  It  is  a  questior 
of  much  interest  whence  the  builders  of  these 
churches  derived  their  ideas  of  architecture 
these  buildings  resembling  in  no  respect  a.ny 
contemporaneous  structures  in  England,  France, 
or  Italy.  Improbable  as  the  suggestion  may  at 
first  sight  appear,  it  would  seem  that  it  was 
Central  Syria  which  furnished  the  models ;  that 
country  abounds  with  churches  and  monasteides 
constructed  between  the  3rd  and  7th  centuries 
in  a  style  founded  u23on  the  Roman  architecture 
of  the  time,  but  with  many  j')ecu Rarities  both  of 
construction  and  of  detail.  Among  the  former 
of  these  is  the  use  of  very  large  stones,  and  the 
pratice  of  roofing  small  buildings  by  advancing 
each  course  somewhat  nearer  the  centre  than 
that  below ;  examples  of  both  will  be  found  in 
plenty  in  Count  Melchior  de  Vogue’s  Syrie  Cen~ 
trale.  Although  in  these  buildings  arched  door¬ 
ways  ai-e  the  most  common,  those  formed  jire- 
cisely  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Irish  examples, 
with  one  large  block  for  a  lintel,  are  frequently 
found ;  and  one  of  these  {Syrie  Centrale,  p.  99, 
fig.  4),  may  almost  pass  for  the  original  of  whlvdi 
the  lintel  at  Fore  is  the  rough  copy.  The  Irish 
buildings  have  far  more  the  appearance  of  such 
copies  of  the  products  of  a  cultivated  school  of 
architecture  as  might  be  achieved  by  native 
workmen  under  the  direction  of  immigrants, 
bringing  with  them  recollections,  rather  than 
accurate  knowledge  of  the  edifices  they  had  left 
behind,  than  that  of  the  fii’st  rude  essays  of  an 
uncivilised  race. 

The  Persians  i^iundered  Syria  in  A.D.  573,  the 
Saracens  invaded  it  in  613,  and  Central  Syria 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


385 


seems  to  have  been  entirely  depopiilatcd  about 
that  peviol.  It  at  that  time  contained  many 
monasteries  and  many  monks,  and  it  is  quite 
possible  that  among  the  numerous  foreigners 
who  sought  an  asvlum  in  Ireland  at  that  period 
may  have  been  Syrian  monks.  In  the  litany  of 
St.  Aengiis,  written,  it  is  believed,  in  the  year 
799  (Petrie,  p.  i:i7),  among  the  scores,  and  even 
hundreds,  of  strangers  of  various  nations,  men¬ 
tion  is  made  of  seven  Egyptian  monks  buried  in 
Disert  Ulidh.  The  greater  part  of  these  immi¬ 
grants  are  in  the  liUuiy  simply  called  “  pere- 
grini,”  without  indication  of  nationality.  Dr. 
Petrie  (p.  127),  however,  seems  to  think  the 
peculiarities  of  construction  of  these  early  build¬ 
ings  are  due  to  the  colonisation  of  the  country 
hy  “  the  Firbolg  and  Tuatha  de  Danaun  tribes, 
which  our  historians  bring  hither  from  Greece 
at  a  very  remote  period  ;  which  tribes,”  he  says, 
“  were  accustomed  to  build,  not  only  their  for¬ 
tresses,  but  even  their  dome-roofed  houses  and 
sepulchres,  of  stone  without  cement,  and  in  the 
St  vie  now  usually  called  Cyclopean  and  Pe- 
lasgic.” 

Besirles  the  small  churches  which  have  been 
mentioned  above,  larger  structures  were  also 
erected  in  Ireland  at  an  early  date.  The  cathe¬ 
dral  church  of  Armagh,  whether  that  erected  in 
the  time  of  St.  Patrick  or  of  a  later  date,  would 
appear  in  the  9th  century  to  have  been  140  feet 
in  length  (Petrie,  p.  157).  The  more  usual 
length  of  a  church  of  the  first  class  would, 
however,  appear  to  have  been  60  feet ;  this 
dimension  having,  according  to  the  tripartite 
life  of  St.  Patrick,  been  prescribed  by  the  saint 
for  the  Domnach  Mor  (Gi^at  Church),  near 
Teltown,  in  Meath,  appears  to  have  been  in¬ 
vested  with  a  sort  of  sacred  character  ;  and  it 
is  worth  notice  that  the  church  at  Glastonbury, 
fi.uuded  according  to  tradition  by  a  St.  Patrick, 
but  undoubtedly  by  missionaries  from  Ireland, 
was  60  feet  long,  by  26  feet  broad  ;  it  seems  to 
have  been  of  wood. 

These  larger  churches  had  usually  a  chancel — 
in  plan  a  parallelogram — attached  to  the  larger 
oblong  which  formed  the  nave. 

Two  peculiarities  mai-k  the  ecclesiastical  ar¬ 
chitecture  of  Ireland,  one,  that  the  altar  end  is 
invariablv  rectangular,  the  other  that  the  towers 
found  near  the  early  churches  are  always  cir¬ 
cular.  Perhaps  the  most  probable  e.xplanation 
of  the  former  is  that  the  form  was  originally 
used  as  that  most  suitable  for  a  very  small 
oratory,  and  perpetuated  in  consequence  of  the 
extraordinary  veneration  which  the  Irish  have 
always  entertained  for  anything  connected  with 
their  early  saints.  [For  the  round  tower  see 
Tower.] 

7.  Scotland. — Irish  ecclesiastics  founded  the 
celebrated  monastei-y  of  Iona,  and  spread  Christi¬ 
anity  through  the  isles  and  mainland  of  Scotland, 
but  very  few  buildings  which  can  be  referred  to 
the  period  under  consideration  have  been  ob¬ 
served.  The  most  remarkable  would  seem  to  be 
the  church  at  Eglishay  in  Orkney,  which  bears 
a  close  resemblance  to  one  of  the  early  Irish 
churches,  and  is  specially  remarkable  as  having 
n  round  tower  attached  to  it.  The  nave  is  .30  ft. 
by  16  ft.,  the  chancel  11  ft.  by  9  ft.  7  in.,  the 
latter  is  covered  by  a  plain  semi-circular  vault, 
ever  which  was  a  chamber  constructed  between 
it  and  the  external  covering  of  stone.  The  nave 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


also  is  stated  to  have  had  a  stone  roof.  The 
tower  is  entered  by  a  door  in  the  west  wall 
of  the  nave  ;  the  chancel  arch  is  described  as  of  a 
horse-shoe  form,  but  this  may  probably  be  occa¬ 
sioned  by  a  settlement  of  the  work.  The  windows 
are  few  and  small,  the  doorways  plain,  round- 
headed  arches.  As  in  the  Irish  islands  there 
were  numerous  oratories  scattered  over  Orkney 
and  Shetland  ;  the  parish  of  Yell  in  the  latter  is 
said  (Hibbert’s  Scotland,  p.  530)  to  have  con¬ 
tained  twenty  chapels.  The  churches  constructed 
by  the  Christian  Piets  were  probably  either  of 
wood  or  of  earth,  which  is  the  reason  of  the 
entire  absence  of  any  buildings  within  their 
territory  which  can  be  assigned  to  a  period  be¬ 
fore  A.D.  800,  it  is  the  more  I’emarkable  as  the 
numerous  sculptured  monuments  show  that  the 
j)eople  who  dwelt  within  the  limits  of  the 
Pictish  kingdom  could  carve  stone  with  extra¬ 
ordinary  skill  for  the  period. 

8.  England. — Though  the  Christiaiis  of  Britain 
must  undoubtedly  have  possessed  chui’ches  of 
considerable  size  before  the  occupation  of  the 
country  by  the  Saxons,  Jute&,  and  Angles,  no 
certain  remains  of  such  buildings  have  as  yet 
been  met  with. 

The  historians  of  Canterbury  assert  that 
Ethelbert  gave  to  St.  Augustine  an  existing 
church  in  that  city  (Willis’  Arch.  Hist,  of  Christ 
Church,  Canterbury,  pp.  20,  30)  which  became  the 
cathedral.  Bede  mentions  the  church  of  St. 
Martin  as  an  ancient  church  given  in  like  manner, 
some  portions  of  wall  in  the  latter  have  been 
thought  to  have  formed  part  of  the  ancient 
church.  Of  the  Saxon  cathedral  nothing  remains. 

Three  influences  it  will  be  seen  contributed 
in  unequal  degrees  according  to  circumstances 
and  locality,  to  form  or  to  modify  ecclesiastical 
architecture  in  England  ;  viz,  1,  that  of  Roman 
architecture  either  as  derived  from  buildings 
still  existing  in  the  country,  or  from  designs 
imported  by  ecclesiastics  and  other  church 
builders  ;  2,  that  of  the  Irish  missionaries  ;  3, 
that  of  the  native  school  of  timber  architecture. 
The  first  of  these  we  may  trace  in  the  plans,  in 
the  style  of  some  churches,  and  in  the  frequent 
assei’tion  that  a  church  was  constructed  “  opere 
Romanorum;”  the  second,  perhaps,  in  the  pre¬ 
ference  of  a  rectangular  east  end  overall  apsidal, 
which  last,  as  we  find  it  all  but  universal  in 
England  in  the  12th  century  and  common  in  the 
13lh,  was  probably  the  prevalent  plan  in  earlier 
centuries;  the  third,  in  construction  evidently 
copied  from  wooden  buildings,  and  in  the  fact  that 
the  baluster  shafts,  which  more  than  anv  other 
feature  characterize  the  ante-Norman  style,  were 
turned  in  a  lathe  as  if  they  had  been  wood.  It 
seems  probable  that  the  Roman  and  the  native 
style  were  concurrent,  for  we  find  the  two 
mixed  together,  as  in  the  curious  doorway  at 
Monkwearmouth  which  there  .seems  to  be  ground 
to  believe  is  part  of  the  church  built  by'  Benedict 
Biscop,  A.D.  671.  Here  we  have  an  arch  and 
impost  which  are  evident  imitations  of  Roman 
work,  supported  by  coupled  balusters,  and  an 
excessively  exaggerated  base  carved  with  inter¬ 
lacing  ornaments  or  snakes  by  a  hand  which  no 
doubt  was  accustomed  to  execute  similar  work 
in  wood. 

The  existing  remains  of  English  churches, 
dating  between  600  and  800,  are  unfortunatelv, 
with  very  rare  exceptions,  only  fragments.  These 


386 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


scanty  rernaiiis,  assisted  and  illustrated  by  what 
contemporary  or  somewhat  later  writers  have 
told  us,  will  however  enable  us  to  form  tolerably 
clear  ideas  as  to  the  character  of  the  churches 
which  were  built  in  the  above-mentioned  period. 

Of  the  metro])olitan  cathedral  of  Canterbury 
we  have  a  detailed  account,  written  by  Edmer 
the  Chanter,  in  which  he  describes  the  edifice  as 
it  existed  before  the  fire  of  1067.  The  annexed 
plan  is  copied  from  that  drawn  up  by  Professor 
Willis  o/C'A.  Ch.  Canterbury')  from  Edmer’s 


description.  The  church,  Edmer  says,  was  built 
“  Komanorum  opere  et  ex  quadam  parte  ad 
imitationem  ecclesiaa  beati  apostolorum  princijiis 
Petri,”  meaning  of  course  the  great  Vatican 
basilica.  The  western  apse  was  probably  added 
by  Archbishop  Odo  about  A.D.  950. 

Of  another  church  of  the  larger  class  we  have 
some  important  remains.  Tliis  is  that  of  Stow,  in 
Lincolnshire,  where  a  bishopric  was  founded  in 
A.D.  678.  The  church  there  is  cruciform,  mea¬ 
suring  150  ft.  from  east  to  west,  with  a  breadth 
of  27  ft.  in  the  nave  and  24  ft.  in  the  chancel  ; 
the  transept  is  90  ft.  from  north  to  south  by 
23  ft.  wide  ;  the  side  walls  are  about  35  ft.  high. 
It  has  been  shown  that  the  transept  is  evidently 
the  work  of  two  periods,  the  wall  up  to  a  certain 
height  having  all  the  appearance  of  having 
suffered  from  fire,  while  that  above  shows  no 
trace  of  such  damage.  There  is  ground  for  be¬ 
lieving  that  in  870  the  church  was  burnt  by  the 
Danes,  and  that  it  was  extensively  rejiaired 
between  1034  and  1050  (y.  Rev.  G.  Atkinson, 
On  the  Restorations  in  Progress  at  Stow  Churchy 
in  Reports  and  Papers  of  the  Architectural  So¬ 
cieties  of  Noi'thants.  York,  and  Lincoln,  i.  315 ; 
and  the  same  writer  in  v.  23  of  the  same  pub¬ 
lication,  On  Saxon  Architecture),  the  existing 
chancel  being  added  in  the  early  part  of  the 
next  century. 

Another  church,  that  of  Brixworth,  in  North¬ 
amptonshire,  has  strong  claims  to  be  considered 


Basilica.  Brixworth. 


to  date  from  the  same  period,  for  Leland  tells  us, 
on  the  authority  of  Hugo,  a  monk  of  Peter¬ 
borough,  that  Lanulphus,  abbot  of  Peterborough, 


about  690,  founded  a  monastery  there,  and  the 
existing  edifice  may  be  reasonably  supposed  to 
be  the  original  church.  The  repairs  which  were 
finished  in  1865  enabled  the  ground  jdan  of  the 
church  to  be  correctly  ascertained,  and  it  will  be 
seen  to  be  somewhat  peculiar,  consisting  of  a 
square  tower,  the  lower  jiart  of  which  forms  a 
porch  at  the  west  end,  with  a  chamber  on  each 
side  opening  into  the  porch  and  also  into  the 
aisles,  a  nave  and  two  aisles  with  chambers  at 
their  east  end.s,  a  short  chancel  without  aisles, 
and  an  ap.se  surrounded  by  a  corridor  or  cry{)t 
entered  by  steps  from  the  chancel.  The  pier? 
are  oblong  masses  ;  the  arches,  which  spring  from 
square  imposts,  are  of  Roman  bricks  in  two 
courses  and  wholly  without  ornament;  over 
each  pier  is  a  rather  small  clerestory  window 
with  arched  head,  ahso  turned  in  Roman  bricks. 
Attached  to  the  west  side  of  the  tower  is  a 
circular  stair  turret  of  different  and  less  careful 
work,  and  therefoi-e  probably  a  later  addition. 
The  bases  of  piers  which  have  been  found  show 
that  at  the  west  end  of  the  chancel  were  probably 
three  arches,  through  which  it  was  entered  from 
the  nave. 

Another  church  still  exists  in  a  state  so  far 
complete  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  it.? 
original  plan,  but  there  is  no  historical  evidence 
as  to  its  date,  and  its  architectural  character  is 
such  as  scarcely  to  warrant  a  decisive  opinion. 
This  is  the  church  in  the  castle  of  Dover,  which, 
in  consequence  of  recent  repairs,  can  be  studied 
more  satisfactorily  than  was  previously  the  case. 
A  short  account  of  it  was  published  by  the  Rev. 
John  Puckle  in  1864  from  which  the  ground 


Church  at  Dover. 


plan  is  taken ;  from  this  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is 
a  cruciform  church,  with  a  tower  between  the 
nave  and  chancel. 

The  churches  described  are  undoubtedly  ex¬ 
amples  of  “  opus  Romanum.”  Some  others  which 
have  been  destroyed  were,  doubtless,  of  like 
character,  and  as  the  contemporary  or  later  de¬ 
scriptions  contain  points  of  interest,  it  will  be  well 
to  cite  them.  The  most  remarkable  is  that  of  the 
church  built  by  St.  Wilfrid,  at  Hexham,  about 
673,  written  by  his  disciple  Stephen  Eddius 
(VitaS.  fUV/nrf/,  ap.  Mabillon,  A  A.  SS.  0.  S.  Ben. 
saec.  iv.,  pt.  i.,  p.  646),  running  as  follows : 
“  cujus  profunditatem  in  terra  cum  domibus 
mirifice  politis  lapidibus  fundatam,  et  super 
terram  multiplicem  domum  columnis  variis  et 
porticibus  multis  suftultam,  mirabilique  lougi- 
tudine  et  altitudine,  murorum  ornatam,  et  variis 
linearum  anfractibus  viarinn,  aliquando  sursum, 
aliquando  deorsum,  per  cochleas  circumductam, 
non  est  m.eae  parvitatis  hoc  sermone  explicare.” 
Richard,  the  prior  of  Hexham,  in  the  12th  cen¬ 
tury,  describes  it  (Tw'ysden’s  Scriptores  Decern, 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


387 


p.  290)  as  a  noble  building  of  hewn  stone,  with 
crypts  beneath,  and  walls  rising  to  a  great  height. 

Unfortunately,  however,  the  church  Avas  not 
in  existence  at  the  time  the  prior  wrote,  having 
been  burnt  by  .  the  Danes,  in  875,  but  his 
testimony  is  not  to  be  altogether  disregarded, 
particularly  as  his  mention  of  crypts  and  subter¬ 
raneous  oratories  and  winding  passages  is 
confirmed  by  the  still  existing  crypt,  a  plan  of 
which  will  be  found  under  Chapel,  p.  344. 

If,  howcA'er,  the  church  had  three  stories  and 
columns,  some  square,  some  of  various  forms, 
it  must  haA'e  been  in  advance  of  any  building 
now  existing  of  as  early  a  date,  and  it  seems 
probable  that  in  his  zeal  for  the  glory  of  St. 
Wilfrid,  the  prior  somewhat  exaggerated  the 
architectural  splendour  of  the  building. 

Of  the  church  built  at  Rijjou  by  the  same 
prelate,  Eddius  tells  us  “in  Hrypis  basilicam 
polito  lapide  a  fundamentis  in  terra  usque  ad 
summum  aedificatam,  A'ariis  columnis  et  porti- 
cibus  sulfultam,  in  altnm  erexit”  (Mabillon, 
AA.  SS.  Ben.  saec.  iv.  pt.  2,  p.  5(33). 

About  the  same  time  Benedict  Biscop  built 
(a.d.  671)  a  monastery  at  Monkwearmouth,  the 
doorway  of  the  church  of  which  has  been  already 
commented  on,  and  Bede  (Hist.  Ab'iatum  Wire- 
muth.  c.  5)  gives  some  very  interesting  notices 
of  his  proceedings.  He  went,  we  are  told,  into 
Gaul,  and  brought  from  thence  “  caementarios  qui 
lapideam  sibi  ecclesiam  juxta  Romanorum,  quern 
semper  nmabat,  morem  facerent,”  and  afterwards 
sent  to  the  same  country  for  makers  of  glass  to 
glaze  the  windows  of  his  church.  At  a  later 
time  he  went  to  Rome,  and  brought  thence  pic¬ 
tures  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  twelve  apostles, 
‘‘quibus  mediam  ejusdem  ecclesiae  testudinem 
ducto  a  pariete  ad  parietem  tabulate  praecingeret, 
imagines  evangelicae  historiae  quibus  australem 
ecclesiae  parietem  decoraret,  imagines  visionum 
Apocalypsis  beati  Johannis  quibus  septentrio- 
nalem  aeque  parietem  ornaret.”  As  it  appears 
from  this  passage  that  there  was  a  nave  with  aisles, 
the  north  and  south  walls  were  probably  the 
ends  of  the  transept,  and  the  church  was  there¬ 
fore  perhaps  ciuiciform.  That  in  the  7th  century 
the  founders  of  churches  in  England  strove  to 
emulate  the  splendour  of  the  Continental 
churches,  we  may  learn  from  the  Akerses  of 
Aldhelm  (pp.  116,  117,  ed.  Giles)  on  the  church 
built  by  Bugge,  daughter  of  Kentwin  : — 

“  Pi  aecelsa  mole  saccllum 
Bugge  construxit  supplcx  vcrnacula  Christi, 

Vua  fulgent  arae  bis  seno  nomine  sacrae, 

Insuper  apsidam  consecrat  Virginia  aram. 

•  •  •  •  • 

Aurea  contortis  flavescunt  pallia  filis, 

Quae  sunt  altaris  sacri  velamina  pulcra. 

Aureus  atque  calix  gemmis  fulvescit  opertus. 

Ut  coelum  rutilat  stellis  anientibus  aptum, 

Sic  lata  argento  constat  fabricata  patena. 

Hie  crucis  ex  auro  fulgescit  lamina  fulvo, 

Argentique  simnl  gemmis  ornata  metalla; 

Hie  quoque  thuribulum  capitellis  undique  clnctam 
Pendet  de  sumnio  fumosa  foramina  pandens, 

De  quibus  ambrosiam  spirabant  thura  Sabaea, 

Quando  sacerdotes  missas  offerre  Jubentur.” 

The  influence  of  the  Irish  missionaries  upon 
church  architecture  in  England  is  perhaps  rather 
to  be  inferred  than  proved  from  existing  ex¬ 
amples  ;  carrying,  as  they  did,  their  principles 
ot  asceticism  even  into  their  churches  their  rude 


and  humble  chapels  offered  no  models  Avhich 
could  compete  Avith  those  supplied  by  the  archi¬ 
tects  brought  from  Gaul  or  Italy  Avho  built  in 
the  manner  of  the  Romans;  but  Avhen  Ave  call  to 
mind  hoAV  large  an  extent  of  country  they  oc¬ 
cupied,  and  more  or  less  Christianized,  and  in 
Avhat  great  A'eneration  they  Avere  held,  it 
difficult  to  believe  that  the  peculiarities  of  their 
ecclesiastical  architecture  Avere  Avholly  without 
influence  upon  that  of  England.  But  for  the 
eventual  triumph  of  the  Roman  system  OA’er 
theirs,  more  tangible  proofs  of  this  Avould  no 
doubt  haA'e  existed,  but  it  is  po.ssible  that  the 
preference  of  a  square  oA^er  an  apsidal  termina¬ 
tion,  which  is  so  strongly  shown  in  English 
churches  from  the  12th  century  doAvnAvar.ls,  is 
really  due  to  the  habit  of  imitating  the  forms 
of  the  oratories  Avhich  St.  Cuthbert,  St.  Aidan, 
or  their  disciple.s,  may  have  constructed.  That 


Church  Tower,  at  Eurls  Barton 


the  influence  of  the  Irish  school  upon  ornamenta¬ 
tion  Avas  A'ery  great,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  at 
it  is  amply  proA^ed  by  existing  manuscripts,  as 
the  Gospels  of  Lindisfarne,  Avritten  about  a.d. 
710.  That  these  patterns  of  interlacing  ribbons 
and  animals  Avere  copied  in  stone  may  be 
observed  in  the  doorway  of  Monkwearmouth, 
and  on  many  crosses  and  other  monuments  of 
the  period. 

No  existing  example  shoAA's  Avhat  a  large 
church  would  have  been  if  constructed  without 

2  C 


388 


CHURCH-BOOKS 


CHURCH 


Roman  influence,  but  the  little  oratories  of 
Cornwall  ami  that  at  Ebb’s  Nook,  in  Northumber¬ 
land  (u.  Cuapkl),  will  soiA'e  to  show  what  was 
the  character  of  their  lesser  relis;ious  buildincrs. 

The  third  influence,  that  of  an  existing  school 
of  timber  architecture,  made  itself  felt  more  in 
the  smaller  class  of  churches  than  in  the  larger, 
and  though  very  many  portions  of  churches 
which  exhibit  marks  of  it  exist,  no  entire  church 
of  any  early  date  which  manifests  it  has  remained. 
The  chief  peculiarity  is  the  use  of  narrow  stones 
placed  upright,  dividing  the  wall  into  sections, 
exactly  in  the  same  manner  as  timber  quarter¬ 
ing.  No  better  example  of  this  can  be  found  than 
tlie  tow'er  of  the  church  of  Earls  Barton,  in 
Northamptonshire  ;  but  it  is  diflicult  to  find  any 
safe  ground  for  assigning  a  date  to  this  building, 
as  it  is  certain  that  the  style  was  continued 
into  the  11th  century.  Another  peculiarity  is 
the  use  of  the  baluster  as  a  shaft,  and  it  has 
been  supposed  that  this  was  copied  from  some 
Roman  example ;  but  the  facts  that  these  balu¬ 
sters  were  turned  in  a  lathe,  that  they  were  in 
use  at  a  very  early  date,  and  in  every  part  of 
England,  all  seem  to  point  to  their  having  ori¬ 
ginated  in  an  indigenous  style  of  wooden  archi¬ 
tecture. 

Many  churches  were  constructed  entirely  of 
wood.  Bede  (^Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  25)  tells  us  that 
Finian,  who  came  from  Iona,  built  at  Lindisfarne 
a  church  “episcopal!  sede  congruam,  quam 
tamen  more  Scottorum  non  de  lapide  sed  de 
robore  secto  totam  composuit  atque  harundine 
texit;  ”  and  according  to  an  Irish  writer  of  the 
11th  century,  Couchubean  (Iff.  8.  Moducnnae, 
A  A.  88.  Boll.  6,  Jul.  11),  the  Scoti  wei’e  accus¬ 
tomed  to  build  with  boards  “  tabulis  dedolatis,” 
or,  as  we  may  perhaps  understand  the  passage, 
with  timbers  not  left  in  the  round,  but  smoothed 
with  the  adze.  In  this  way,  though  no  doubt  at  a 
much  later  date,  the  church  at  Greenstead,  in 
Essex,  was  constructed,  the  slabs  of  oak  left 
after  a  plank  had  been  sawn  out  of  the  middle 
having  been  smoothed  on  the  inside  with  the 
adze,  and  placed  upright  with  the  curved  portion 
outwards,  side  by  side,  so  as  to  form  a  wall. 
Very  many  such  structures,  no  doubt,  -were 
erected  in  districts  where  wood  was  plentiful  and 
stone  scarce.  [A.  N.] 

CHURCH-BOOKS  (Libri  Ecclesiasiict).  Un¬ 
der  this  name  the  following  classes  of  books  are 
understood  to  be  included  :  — 

1.  Such  works  as  were  necessary  for  the  per¬ 
formance  of  the  sacred  offices,  whether  of  the 
altar,  the  baptistery,  or  the  choir  [Liturgical 
Books]. 

2.  Certain  pastoral  letters  of  venerable  bishops, 
canons  of  councils,  and  acts  of  martyrs,  which 
were  occasionally  i-ead  in  public.  For  instance, 
we  have  the  testimony  of  Dionvsius  of  Corinth 
in  Eusebius  (//.  E.  iv,  23,  §  11)  that  the  epistle 
of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  was  preserved  and 
publicly  read  in  the  Corinthian  Church  [Ca¬ 
nonical  Books].  The  so-called  Canons  and  Con¬ 
stitutions  of  the  Apostles  were  probably  regarded 
as  libri  ecclesiastici  in  many  churches.  On  the 
use  of  acts  of  martyrs,  see  Ruinart,  Acta  8incera, 
pref.  §  5. 

3.  Not  unfrequently  in  ancient  times  the  term 

church-books  included  all  books  contained  in  the 
libi'ai’y  of  a  church  [Libuarv].  i 


4.  In  some  cases  the  church-registers,  whether 
of  the  baptized  or  of  the  dead  [Dirtvchs],  seem  to 
be  included  under  the  term  libri  ecclesiastici.  [C.] 

CHURCHES,  MAINTENANCE  OF  (Fa- 
brica  Ecclesiae),  The  funds  for  the  mainte¬ 
nance  of  the  fabric  of  a  church  are,  and  have 
been  from  ancient  times,  derived  from  two 
sources,  —  estates  appropriated  to  that  purpose 
and  voluntary  oflerings.  As  early  as  the  5th 
century  we  find  ordinances,  that  a  definite  j)rc- 
portion  of  the  general  income  of  a  church  should 
be  set  apart  for  the  maintenance  and  repair  of 
the  fabric.  According  to  decrees  of  Pope  Sim¬ 
plicius,  A.D.  475  {Ep.  iii.  in  Binius,  Concilia, 
iii.  582),  and  Pope  Gelasius,  a.d.  494  (^Ep.  ix. 
Binius,  iii.  636),  this  proportion  was  to  be  a 
fourth  part;  while  in  Spain  a  third  part  was  to 
be  appropriated  to  this  purpose.  See  the  Council 
of  Tarragona  (a.d,  516),  c.  8;  the  second  of 
Braga  (a.d.  572),  c.  2 ;  of  Merida  (a.d.  666), 
cc.  14,  16  ;  the  sixteenth  of  Toledo  (a.d.  693),  c.  5. 
In  the  FTankish  kingdom  the  repair  of  the  fabric 
was  provided  for  by  setting  aside  for  that  pur¬ 
pose  a  certain  part  of  the  endowment  of  the 
church  ;  a  provision  the  more  necessary,  as  the 
voluntary  contributions  diminished  in  proportion 
as  the  endowments  increased.  And  as  estates  of 
the  church  often  fell  into  the  hands  of  laics, 
a  Diet  of  the  Empire  held  at  Frankfort  in  794 
laid  down  the  principle,  that  the  maintenance  of 
the  fabric  of  the  church  was  a  charge  upon 
church-lands,  in  whatever  hands  they  were 
(PeKz,  Monumenta  Germ.  iii.  74).  A  similar 
provision  was  made  by  some  of  the  ecclesiastical 
councils  held  in  the  year  813  by  command  of 
Charlemagne ;  as  in  that  of  Mentz  (c.  42),  the 
fourth  of  Arles  (c.  25),  and  the  third  of  Tours 
(c.  46).  At  a  somewhat  later  date,  the  obliga¬ 
tion  of  forced  labour  for  the  benefit  of  the  fabric 
was  laid  upon  the  tenants  of  the  church. 
(Herzog,  Beal-Enciicl.  i.  737).  Thei'e  are  special 
treatises  on  this  subject  by  Helfert  ( Vo7i  tier 
Erbauimg,  Erhaltung  und  Herstellunj  der  kirch^ 
lichen  Gebiiude,  2nd  ed.  1834),  by  Von  Reinhardt 
(Ueber  kirddiche  Baidast,  Stuttgart,  1836),  and 
by  Permaneder  (die  kirchliche  Baidast,  Miinchen, 
1838).  [C.] 

CHURCH  SCHOOLS.  [Schools.] 

CHURCH  (SvMiJOLS  of).  Early  representa¬ 
tions  of  the  Church  of  Christ  are  veiy  numerous, 
and  may  be  divided  into  (A)  personifications  and 
(B)  symbolisms ;  both  of  the  highe.st  antiquitv. 
Those  derived  from  Holy  Scripture  may  be  taken 
first. 

(A)  1.  The  Lord’s  comparison  of  Himself  to  the 
Good  Shepherd,  constantly  represented  in  the 
Catacombs,  and  supposed  to  be  the  most  ancient 
of  purely  Christian  emblems  in  painting  or  sculp¬ 
ture,  has  frequently  united  with  it  pictures  of 
two  or  more  sheep  at  His  feet,  besides  the  one 
carried  on  His  shoulders.  The  word  “  fold  ”  repre¬ 
sents  the  Church,  exactly  as  the  word  “  church  ” 
the  congregation  of  Christ’s  people.  [Lamb, 
Good  Shepherd,  (S:c.]  The  fresco  in  the  Cal- 
lixtine  catacomb  (Bottari,  tav.  Ixxviii.,  and 
Aringhi,  vol.  i.  lib.  iii.  ch.  .xxii.  p.  327,  ed.  Par. 
1657),  of  the  She})herd  sitting  under  trees,  and 
surrounded  by  sheep,  or  sheep  and  goats,  as  here, 
may  be  taken  as  one  example  out  of  many  See 
also  that  at  tav.  xxvi.  In  another  (Bott.  voi.  ii. 


CHURCH 


CHURCH 


389 


fnv.  cxviii.)  the  sheep  are  issuing  from  a  small 
building,  seeming  to  stand  for  a  town,  at  whose 
gate  the  Shepherd  stands,  or  leans  on  His  staff. 
The  sheep  of  the  Gentile  and  of  the  Jewish 
Chui'ches  are  distinguished  in  the  painting  in 
Ciampini  (^Vet.  J/on.),  where  two  flocks  are  issu¬ 
ing  from  separate  towns  or  folds,  Ilierusalem 
and  Bfithleem,  and  moving  towards  our  Lord. 
[See  Bethlehem.]  In  a  woodcut  given  by 
Martigny,  He  stands  on  a  small  rock,  which, 
by  the  winding  lines  at  its  base,  and  the  word 
lORDANES  above,  would  seem  to  I’efer  to  His 
baptism,  and  our  baptism  into  His  death,  by 
which  the  sheep  reach  Him.  (See  Martigny, 
Diet.  s.  V.  “  figlise.”)  * 

In  a  mosaic  mentioned  by  Martigny  at  Sta. 
Sabina’s,  Rome,  the  two  churches  are  represented 
bv  two  female  figures,  standing  each  with  an 
Open  book  in  hand.  (See  also  Aringhi,  lib.  iii, 
c.  xxii.  p.  327.)  Over  one  is  inscribed  ECCLESIA 
EX  CIRCUMCISIONE,  and  St.  Peter  stands  above 
her;  the  other  is  named  ECCLESIA  EX  GEN- 
TIBIJS,  and  above  her  is  placed  St.  Paul. 
(See  Gal.  ii.  7.)  The  same  subject  occurs  in  a 
compartment  of  the  ancient  gates  of  the  cathedral 
of  Verona,  treated  with  somewhat  of  the  quaint¬ 
ness  of  Lombai'd  falicy,  but  quite  intelligible  as 
to  meaning.  The  twofold  church  is  represented 
by. two  women,  shaded  by  trees;  one  suckling 
two  children,  the  other  two  fishes.  [Fisn.] 
Martigny  gives  a  woodcut  of  an  interesting  plate 
in  P.  Garrucci,  Hagioglypt.  p.  222.  It  represents 
two  lambs  looking  towards  a  pillar,  which  sym¬ 
bolizes  the  Church,  and  is  surmounted  by  the 
Lamb  bearing  on  his  back  the  decussated  mono¬ 
gram  of  Christ.  From  it  spring  (apparently) 
palm-branches;  and  two  birds,  just  above  the 
lambs,  may  be  taken  for  doves.  The  figures  of 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  with  their  division  of  the 
Church  into  Jewish  and  Gentile,  seem  to  be 
represented  in  the  fresco  given  by  De  Rossi 
(vol.  ii.  Tav.  d’Aggiunto  A.);  but  are  almost 
destroyed  by  the  opening  of  ^  tomb,  which  has 
been  broken  into  through  the  fi'esco,  as  so  fre¬ 
quently  happens.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  Orantes,  or  praying  female  figures  in  the 
Catacombs,  are  for  the  most  part  personifications 
of  the  Church.  (See  Bottari,  tav.  xxxviii., 
Orante  with  doves  placed  next  to  Good  Shepherd.) 
In  the  corners  of  the  square  ceiling  of  the  well- 
known  crypt  of  Lucina,  in  the  Callixtine  cata¬ 
comb  (De  Rossi,  li.  S.  tav,  x.),  the  Orante 
alternates  with  the  Good  Shepherd.  In  a  re¬ 
cently  discovered  painting  in  St.  Callixtus  (De 
Rossi,  IX0TC,  tav.  i.  u.  2),  the  Orante  is  offer¬ 
ing  the  eucharistic  sacrifice  by  the  hands  of  a 
consecrating  priest. 

2.  A  few  representations  exist  within  our 
range,  of  Susanna  and  the  elders,  as  typical  of 
the  Church  and  its  persecutors,  Jewish  and 
Pagan.  Mai-tigny  names  three  sarcophagi  as  the 
only  certain  examples  of  this  subject  in  old 
Italian  art.  For  one  he  refers  to  Buonarotti, 
Vetri,  p.  1.  Of  the  two  others  one  is  from  the 
Vatican,  the  other  from  St.  Callixtus;.  They  are 
found  in  Bottari,  taw.  xxxi.,  and  Ixxxv,,  sarcoph. 
from  St.  Callixtus.  In  Southern  Gaul  they  are 
more  numerous  (Miilin,  Midi  de  la  F.  pi.  Ixv.  .5; 
Ixvi.  8;  Ixviii.  4).  All  these  are  bas-reliefs, 

*  These  subjects  are  repeateil  very  frequently  in  the 
ancient  mosaics  of  Uome  an;/  Ravtiina.  See  Mr.  J.  H. 
ParkePs  Pbotographs- 


I  containing  the  elders  as  well  as  Susanna  ;  and 
the  third  represents  them  as  eagerly  watching 
her  from  behind  trees.  An  allegory  is  given 
below  in  woodcut,  drawn  from  voL  i.  pi.  Ixxviii. 


of  M.  Perret’s  work,  of  a  sheep  between  two  wild 
beasts:  SUSANNA  and  SINIORIS  are  written 
above. 

3.  The  Woman  with  the  Issue  of  Blood  has 
been  considered  as  a  type  of  the  Gentile  Church, 
which  would  account  for  the  frequent  repre¬ 
sentations  of  that  miracle  to  be  found  on  ancient 
sarcophagi.  (See  Bottari,  taw.  xix.  xxi.  xxxiv. 
xxxix.  xli.  Ixxxiv.  Ixxxv.  Ixxxix.  cxxxv.)  So  St. 
Ambrose  (lib.  ii,  in  Luc.  c.  viii.). 

(B)  Symbolisms  of  the  Church  (it  is  not  generally 
observed  how  important  the  distinction  between 
symbolism  and  personification  is)  begin  with  the 
ark  of  Noah  ;  passing  by  ea.sy  transition  to  the 
ship  of  souls  and  the  ship  of  Jonah  in  the  storm. 
It  is  singular  that  our  Lord’s  similitude  of  the 
net  is  very  rarely  found  illustrated  by  the 
graphic  art  of  early  Christendom.  The  idea  of 
the  Lord’s  drawing  forth  the  sinner  from  the 
waters,  as  with  a  hook  and  line  (.see  Baptism, 
p,  168),  seems  to  have  prevailed  over  that  of 
the  sweeping  net.  The  net  is  perhaps  assigned 
to  St.  Peter  in  the  Vatican  sarcophagus  there 
represented  (Bottari,  tav.  xlii.).  A  small  net 
is  used  on  one  side  of  the  bas-relief.  [Fish, 
Ship.] 

The  ark  is  very  frequently  used  as  a  type  of 
the  Church  militant.  On  tombs  it  is  held  to 
imply  that  the  dead  exjiired  in  full  communion 
with  the  Church.  In  Bottari,  tav,  xlii.,  an 
olive-tree  stands  in  the  ark.  in  the  place  of  Noah. 
It  is  of  a  square  form,  a  chest  in  fact  (Bottari, 
taw.  xl.  cxx.  clxxii.  &c.) ;  and  in  tav.  cxviii. 
it  is  placed  in  a  boat  or  ship.  The  dove  appears 
with  the  olive-branch  in  almost  all  these,  or  is 
represented  by  itself :  in  Bottari,  tav.  cxxxi.,  it  is 
placed  on  the  poop  of  the  .ship  of  Jonah.  In  tav. 
xxxvii.  and  jousstm,  Noah  stands  in  a  .square  chest 
on  the  shore,  receiving  the  dove  in  his  hands; 
Jonah  is  being  thrown  from  a  boat  into  the  .sea 
next  him.  This  ship  represents  th^  Church  mili¬ 
tant,  and  is  one  of  the  most  frequent  of  all  sym¬ 
bolic  works  in  the  Catacombs,  no  doubt  on  account 
of  the  Lord’s  own  comparison  of  Himself  to  the 
pi’ophet.  For  representations  in  the  catacomb  of 
Callixtus  and  elsewhere  see  De  Rossi  and  Bottari. 
The  ship  “covered  with  the  waves”  is  represented 
in  Martigny,  from  a  fresco  lately  discovered  in 
St.  Callixtus.  A  man  stands  in  the  waist  or 
near  the  stern  of  a  sharp-prowed  vessel  with  a 
square  sail,  such  as  are  u.sed  in  the  Mediterranean 
to  this  day.  The  waters  are  dashing  over  her 
close  to  him,  and  he  is  in  an  attitude  of  prayer: 
far  off'  is  a  drowning  man  who  has  made  ship¬ 
wreck  of  the  faith.  The  vessel  in  full  sail 
(Boldetti,  pp.  360,  362,  373)  is  also  common  as 
the  emblem  of  safe-conduct  through  the  waves 
of  this  troublesome  world  ;  that  with  sails 
furled,  as  quietly  in  port  resting  after  her 
voyage  (as  in  Boldetti,  pp.  363,  366),  is  the 


390  CHURCHING  OF  WOMEN 

.symbol  of  the  repose  of  individual  Christians  in 
death. 

An  even  more  interesting  symbolism  is  where 
not  only  the  ship  is  painted  as  analogous  to  the 
Church,  but  the  actual  fabric  of  a  church  is  made 
like  a  shij).  This  was  the  case  with  many  of  the. 
early  Romanesque  churches,  where  the  apse 
which  completed  the  basilica  had  the  bishop’s 
throne  placed  in'  the  centre,  as  the  steersman’s 
place,  with  .semicircular  benches  below  for  the 


CHURCHING  OF  WOMEN 

clergy;  so  that  a  real  and  touching  resemblanic 
followed.  See  the  memorable  passage  in  Ruskiu’s 
Stones  of  Venice,  vol.  ii.,  on  the  ancient  churches 
of  Torcello,  the  mother  city  of  Venice,  and  an 
extract  in  Martigny  (s.  v.  Navis)  of  a  long  pas¬ 
sage  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (ii.  bl)  to 
the  same  effect, — the  bishop  being  likened  to  the 
steersman,  the  deacons  to  seamen,  the  faithful  to 
passengers,  and  the  deaconesses,  strangely,  to  the 
collector  of  fares. 


The  ship  placed  on  the  back  of  a  fish  is  found 
in  a  signet  illustrated  by  Aleandre  (^Nav.  Eccles. 
referent.  Symb.  Romae,  1626  ;  see  also  s.  v.  Fisn). 
Another  such  gem  is  inFicoroni’s  collection 
Ant.  Litt.  tab.  xi.  8,  p.  105).  A  jasper  given 
by  Cardinal  Borgia  Cruce  Velitern.  p.  213  and 
frontispiece)  places  the  Lord  in  a  galley  of  six 
oars  on  a  side,  holding  the  large  steering  oar. 
This  rudder-oar — or  rather  two  of  them — are  in¬ 
serted  in  the  i-udest  ship-carvings,  where  other 
oars  are  omitted. 

The  column  surmounted  by  a  dove  is  mentioned 
by  M.  Leblant  in  his  fnscriptions  Ckretiennes  de  la 
Gaule,  vol.  i.  p.  167,  as  existing  on  a  lamp  said  to 
have  been  found  at  St.  Just.  Another  had  on  it 
the  monogram  of  Christ  on  a  column.  Reference  j 
is  made  to  Bosio,  p.  167,  for  a  column  between 
two  doves  turning  to  look  at  it;  but  is  inclined, 
see  p:  167,  to  regard  it  as  a  symbol  of  Christ 
Himself  rather  than  of  the  Church.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

CHURCHING  OF  WOMEN ;  or.  Thanks¬ 
giving  OF  WOMF.N  AFTER  CHILDBIRTH.  {Muli- 
erum  post  Partum  Purificutio  ;  sometimes  called 
Intkronisatio  pod  partum :  see  Herzog’s  Real- 
Encycl.  xix.  671.) 

The  Mosaic  law  lays  down  (Lev.  xii.)  precepts 
for  the  offerings  and  purification  of  women  after 
childbirth ;  and  these  legal  precepts  were  ob¬ 
served  by  the  Mother  of  the  Lord  herself.  Pos¬ 
sibly  in  Jewish-Christian  communities  this 
observance  pas.sed  over,  like  some  other  cere¬ 
monies,  with  little  change  into  the  Christian 
consresation ;  but  of  this  nothing  certain  is 
known.  There  is  no  mention  of  any  purificatory 
ceremony  after  childbirth  in  the  works  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  the  Apostolical  Con¬ 
stitutions,  or  ill  the  works  of  the  Pseudo-Diony¬ 
sius  the  Areopagite.  The  notion,  however,  that 
childbirth  occasioned  some  kind  of  defilement 
continued  to  prevail  among  the  Christians  of 
the  East,  hence  the  rituals  of  the  Oriental 
Churches  in  relation  to  this  matter  refer  more 
to  purification  from  defilement  than  to  thanks¬ 
giving  for  safety.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
(canon  2  ;  in  Beveridge’s  Pandectae,  ii.  4)  lays 
it  down  as  a  matter  admitting  of  no  question, 
that  a  woman  ought  not  to  be  present  in  church, 
nor  to  receive  the  Holy  Communion,  within  forty 
days  after  having  given  birth  to  a  child.  To  the 


same  effect,  the  ninth  of  the  Arabic  canons  of 
Nicaea  enjoins  :  “  Women  ought  to  abstain  from 
entering  the  church  and  from  partaking  of  Holy 
Communion  for  forty  days  after  a  birth ;  after 
which,  let  the  wmman  carefully  wash  her  gar¬ 
ments  and  bathe  her  person  and  the  child;  then 
let  her,  together  with  her  husband,  present  him 
in  the  church  at  the  steps  of  the  altar;  w'hom, 
with  their  accompanying  friends,  let  the  priest 
receive,  and  say  for  her  the  prayer  of  puriticatiou 
and  bless  the  child  according  to  the  prescribed 
ceremonies  of  the  Church.”  The  forty  d.iy.s’ 
period,  then,  was  clearly  regarded  as  the  neces¬ 
sary  extent  of  the  wmman’s  purification.  Mean¬ 
time,  however,  she  was  not  wholly  neglected  by 
the  Church.  Immediately  after  the  birth,  a 
prayer  was  said  over  mother  and  child,  and  the 
child  signed  with  the  cross.  This  rite  is  thought 
to  be  alluded  to  by  Chrysostom  (on  1  Cor., 
Hum.  12,  p.  108,  ^ed.  Montfaucon).  The  office 
which  accompanies  it  is  believed  by  Goar  to  be 
of  modern  origin.  On  the  eighth  day  the  mid¬ 
wife,  or  some  other  matron,  brings  the  child  to 
the  church.  Before  the  door  the  priest  again 
signs  it  with  the  cross,  and  carries  it  into  the 
church,  when  the  name  is  given  which  it  is  to 
bear  after  baptism.  Such  a  ceremony  took  place, 
though  not  in  a  church,  at  the  birth  of  the 
emperor  Theodosius  II.  (a.d,  401),  related  in  the 
following  manner  in  the  life  of  Porphyrins  of 
Gaza,  a  contemporary  witness :  “  When  seven 
days  were  accomplished  from  the  birth  of  the 
child,  the  empress  Eudoxia  approached  and  met 
us  at  the  door  of  the  chamber,  bearing  the  infant 
wrapped  in  purple.  She  bow'ed  her  head,  and 
said,  ‘  Bless  me,  0  fathers,  and  the  child  which 
the  Lord  hath  granted  me  through  vour  holv 
prayers ;  and  gave  the  infant  into  their  arms, 
that  they  might  sign  it  with  the  cross.  Then 
the  holy  bishops  signed  both  her  and  the  infant, 
and  after  pi’aying  sat  down.”  {Acta  S metorum, 
Feb.  iii.  653).  If  the  child  w'as  in  danger 
of  death  before  the  stated  period  for  baptism,  it 
was  at  once  baptized,  but  the  unclean  mother 
was  no  longer  allowed  to  suckle  it,  or  even  to 
enter  the  room  w'here  it  was  (l\Iansi,  Supplement. 
Cone.  i.  815).  If  the  mother  died  within  the 
period  of  uncleanness,  her  body  w'as  taken  into 
the  church,  and  the  prayers  of  purification  said 
over  it;  after  which  it  was  regarded  as  clean 


CHUKCHING  OF  WOMEN 


CHURCHYARD 


391 


{Canon.  Nicaeno-Arab.  c.  10 ;  in  Hardouin’s 
Concilia,  i.  512). 

On  the  fortieth  dav  after  the  birth,  the  mother 
3nd  the  child,  accompanied  by  the  godfather, 
ivent  solemnly  to  the  church.  Before  the 
church-door  the  priest  received  them,  signed 
the  mother  with  the  cross,  and  said  over  her 
several  prayei’s.  He  then  took  the  child,  made 
the  sign  of  the  cross  with  it,  and  carried  it  up  to 
the  altar;  the  godfather  then  received  it  from 
the  priest  and  left  the  church.  In  the  Ethi- 
opic  Church,  mother  and  child  are  anointed 
on  the  brow  with  holy  oil,  and  receive  the 
Eucharist. 

In  the  Latin  Church,  also,  we  find  traces  of 
the  same  feeling  that  exist  in  the  East  with 
regard  to  the  purification  after  childbirth. 
Even  St.  Augustine  lays  down  that  the  Levitical 
law  of  the  forty  days  was  still  binding  under  the 
new  dispensation  {Qutest.  in  Lent,  lib.  iii. 
quaest.  64).  That  Theodore  of  Canterbury  held 
the  same  opinion  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  as  he 
brought  Oriental  opinions  from  his  early  home 
in  Tarsus.  He  {Penitential,  I.  xiv.  18,  in  Had- 
dan  and  Stubb’s  Documents,  iii.  189)  pi'escribes 
penance  for  a  woman  entering  a  church  within 
forty  days  after  childbirth.  Augustine  of 
Canterbury,  however,  had  previously  appealed 
to  Pope  Gregory  I.  for  his  opinion  on  this  point, 
who  answered,  with  characteristic  largeness 
of  mind,  that  the  Mosaic  law  was  not  binding 
on  Christians,  and  that  if  a  woman  went  to 
church  to  give  thanks  to  God  on  the  very  day 
on  which  she  had  given  birth  to  a  child,  she 
sinned  not,  although  the  old  custom  of  keeping 
at  home  for  forty  days  was  not  to  be  blamed, 
when  it  was  observed  in  a  right  spirit  (Gregorii 
Ep.  xi.  64;  p.  1158).  Gregory’s  decision  influ¬ 
enced  subsequent  capitularies  of  the  Franks  and 
canons  of  councils  in  the  West.  Even  a  council 
of  the  Maronites  (Mansi,  Supplement.  Cone.  vi. 
1217)  rejected  the  “  simplicity  or  superstition” 
of  repelling  women  from  church  for  the  space  of 
forty  days  after  the  birth  of  a  child. 

2.  It  will  readily  be  supposed  that  no  thanks¬ 
giving  followed  the  birth  of  a  child  which  was 
the  fruit  of  adultery  or  fornication.  As  women 
who  sinned  in  such  sort  were  excluded  from  the 
congregation  until  due  penance  had  been  done, 
they  were  of  course  excluded  from  a  service 
which  included  thanksgiving  for  the  fruit  of 
the  womb.  Herard  of  Tours  (t871),  enjoin¬ 
ing  women  to  return  thanks  in  church  as 
soon  as  may  be  after  a  birth,  expressly  makes 
the  exception,  “  nisi  forte  sit  adultera  ”  (canon 
60,  quoted  by  Binterim,  Denhwurd.  vi.  2,  196). 
To  the  same  effect  are  some  decrees  of  later 
councils. 

3.  The  service  to  be  used  in  the  churching  of 
women  was  probably  in  ancient  times  left  to 
the  discretion  of  the  priest,  for  no  formularies  for 
this  purpose  are  found  in  the  ancient  sacramen- 
taries.  Martene  {Dc  Ritih  is  Eccl.  ii.  136,  137) 
gives  only  two  forms,  from  Galilean  codices  of 
probably  the  14th  century.  If  a  larger  number 
of  ancient  benedictionals  had  descended  to  our 
times,  we  might  possibly  have  found  forms  for 
the  benediction  of  women  after  childbirth  ;  but 
these  are  rare.  Binterim  {Denhwiird.  vi.  2. 
199  ff.)  gives  a  churching-service  of  the  Ethiopia 
Church,  that  contained  in  the  Greek  Euchologion, 
and  a  Latin  formula.  The  latter  is  from  a  MS. 


of  the  14th  century,  .and  none  probably  are,  in 
their  present  form,  very  ancient.  [C.] 

CHURCHWARDENS.  These  officers  would 
seem  to  be  the  representatives  in  the  later  Church 
of  the  seniores  ccclesiastici,  of  whom  frequent 
mention  is  made  by  St.  Augustine  and  Optatus. 
We  gather  from  these  writers  that  the  seniores 
ecclesiae  were  a  sort  of  elders  who  were  not  of 
the  clergy,  but  yet  had  some  concern  in  the  care 
of  the  Church.  Thus,  St.  Augustine  inscribes 
one  of  his  epistles  to  his  own  church  of  Hippo, 
“  Clero,  senioribus  et  universae  plcbi.”  Some  of 
these  seniores  were  the  chief  men  or  magistrates 
of  the  place,  such  as  we  still  call  aldermen;  who 
also  formed  a  sort  of  lay  council  of  the  bishops, 
giving  advice  and  assistance  in  many  weighty 
matters  of  the  Church.  But  there  were  others 
known  more  properly  as  seniores  eccleriastici.  who 
were  entrusted  with  the  utensils,  treasure,  and 
outward  affairs  of  the  Church,  but  had  no  con¬ 
cern  in  its  government  or  discipline ;  and  these 
may  be  regarded  as  the  predecessors  of  our 
churchwardens.  The  lay  elders,  so  called,  of 
modern  times  are  ranked  above  the  deacons  in 
their  own  communities,  and  cannot  therefore 
be  identified  with  the  seniores  ecclesiastici  of 
the  ancient  Church,  who,  not  being  reckoned  of 
the  clergy,  were  ecclesiastically  inferior  to  the 
order  of  deacons  (Bingham,  ii.  18).  [D.  B.] 

CHURCHYARD.  The  subject  of  places  sei 
apart  for  Christian  burial  has  already  been  con¬ 
sidered  under  Area,  Catacomb,  and  Cemetery. 
The  present  article  relates  simply  to  burial  in 
the  precincts  of  churches. 

The  laws  of  the  empire  against  burying  in 
cities  of  course  prevented  the  use  of  churchyards 
within  the  walls  for  the  purpose  of  interment  so 
long  as  those  laws  continued  in  force.  The  first 
attempts  to  bury  in  or  near  churches  seem  to 
have  occurred  in  the  case  of  those  churches  or  me¬ 
morial  cells  which  were  built  over  the  remains 
of  apostles  or  martyrs ;  for  both  Theodosius 
{Codex,  lib.  ix.  tit.  17  ;  De  Sepulc.  Viol.  leg.  6) 
and  Justinian  {Codex,  lib.  i.  tit.  2  ;  De  Eccl.  leg.  2) 
expressly  provide  against  such  churches  being 
made  exceptions  to  the  general  law.  When  the 
church  had  kings  for  nursing-fathers,  the  pri¬ 
vilege  of  being  buried  within  the  precincts  was 
sometimes  extended  to  Christian  emperors.  Thus 
Constantine  desired  (Euseb.  Vita  Const,  iv.  71)  to 
be  buried  near  the  apostles  whom  he  had  en¬ 
shrined,  and  his  son  Constantins  carried  out  his 
wish  by  causing  him  to  be  buried  in  the  Atrium 
of  the  church  ;  a  fact  to  which  Chrysostom  moi’e 
than  once  alludes  (On  2  Cor.,  Horn.  26,  p.  929, 
ed.  Paris,  1616 ;  Quod  Cfiristus  sit  Deus,  c.  8,  p. 
839).  Theodosius  the  elder,  Arcadius,  and  Theo¬ 
dosius  the  younger,  are  said  by  a  late  historian 
(Nicephorus,  H.  E.  xiv.  58)  to  have  been  simi¬ 
larly  buried.  The  council  of  Braga  of  the  year 
563  (can.  18)  allows  corpses  to  be  buried,  if  need 
be,  around  the  church  (deforis  circa  murum 
basilicae),  but  utterly  forbids  any  to  be  buried 
within,  alleging  the  respect  due  to  the  relics  of 
saints. 

Archbishop  Theodore  of  Canterbury  laid  down 
{Penitential,  II.  i.  5  and  6,  in  Haddan  and  Stubbs’ 
Councils,  iii.  190)  the  following  rule  :  In  a  church 
in  which  bodies  of  unbelievers  arc  buried  it  is 
not  lawful  to  consecrate  an  altar;  but  if  the 
church  itself  is  of  good  material,  let  it  be  pulled 


392 


CHURCHYARD 


CINGULUM 


down  and  rebuilt  after  the  logs  of  which  it  is 
composed  have  been  planed  or  washed.  If  the 
altar  has  been  previously  consecrated,  mass  may 
be  said  upon  it  if  ‘religious’  persons  are  buried 
there ;  but  if  a  pagan  be  buried  there,  it  is  better 
that  the  altar  should  be  i)urified  and  taken  out 
of  the  building.  It  is  clear  from  this  passage 
that  burials  frequently  took  place  in  the  rude 
wooden  churches  of  the  7th  century  in  England, 
and  that  only  t^e  bodies  of  pagans  were  held 
absolutely  to  desecrate  the  place,  though  the 
j'l’actice  of  burying  in  churches  does  not  seem  to 
be  looked  upon  with  favour.  The  council  of 
Nantes,  held  probably  towards  the  end  of  the  7th 
century,  in  the  6th  canon,  permits  burials  in  the 
atrium  or  fore-court,  in  the  cloister,  and  in  the 
outbuildings  (exedrae)  of  a  church,  but  utterly  for¬ 
bids  them  in  the  church  itself  and  near  the  altar, 
where  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  are.  The 
same  precept  is  repeated  in  the  canons  of  later 
councils,  as  in  the  52nd  of  that  at  Mentz  in  813, 
which  however  expressly  excepts  bishops,  abbots, 
worthy  presbyters,  and  faithful  laymen.  Similar  ' 
to  this  is  the  injunction  of  Theodulf  of  Orleans 
(Capitul.  ad  Preshift,  ix.).  The  council  ofTribur 
(a.d.  895),  repeating  the  prohibition  with  regard 
to  laymen  (can.  17),  implies  that  the  prohibited 
bui’ials  had  already  taken  place,  by  the  provision 
that  bodies  buried  in  chiirches  in  times  past  were 
not  to  be  exhumed ;  but  in  case  the  multitude  of 
tombs  was  such  that  the  ground  could  not  con¬ 
veniently  be  levelled,  it  provides,  in  almost  the 
same  terms  cis  Theodulf,  that  the  altar  should  be 
I'emoved,  and  the  church  made  a  mere  cemetery- 
chapel  or  catacomb. 

In  the  East,  the  Emperor  Leo  VL,  about  the 
yiar  900,  abrogated  (Novell.  53)  all  the  old  laws 
agrinst  burying  in  cities,  and  left  men  at  liberty 
to  bury  either  within  or  without  the  walls;  a 
permission  which  no  doubt  gave  occasion  to 
burving  in  the  precincts  of  city  ohurche.s. 

V/e  conclude,  then,  that  burying  in  the  pre¬ 
cincts  of  churches  was  practised,  in  the  case  of 
very  distinguished  persons,  from  the  4th  cen¬ 
tury  ;  more  generally,  from  the  7th  century  ; 
but  that  the  increasing  practice  of  burying  in 
churches  was  constantly  resisted  by  ecclesiastical 
authorities  during  the  whole  period  with  which 
we  are  concerned,  and  was  held  to  be  almost  a 
desecration. 

Monastic  bodies  had  from  very  ancient  times 
burying-grounds  of  their  own,  that  they  who 
had  consorted  together  in  their  lives  might  rest 
together  in  death  (Isidore  of  Seville,  Pegtila, 
c.  23) ;  the.se  were  however  originally  outside 
the  precincts  of  the  monastery,  as  we  .see  from 
the  instances  of  Pachomius,  Benedict,  and  many 
others.  Bede,  in  the  Life  of  St.  Cuthhert, 
sj)eaks  of  a  dead  monk  being  carried  to  his 
burial  in  a  cart,  which  Avould  not  have  been 
necessary  if  the  interment  had  taken  place  within 
the  monastery.  It  appears  that  in  many  places 
a  chapel  or  oratory  was  built  on  the  spot  chosen 
for  the  interment  of  the  brethren.  For  instance. 
Abbot  Bertiuus  (a.d.  660)  enclosed  a  graveyard 
for  his  monastery  on  a  neighbouring  hill,  and 
built  in  the  midst  of  it  a  church  dedicated  to 
St.  Mary  (  Acta  SS.  Bened.  saec.  iii.  pt.  1,  p.  110). 
Afterwards,  graveyards  were  formed  within  the 
convent  walls,  but  not  within  the  cloister,  and 
were  provided  with  a  separate  church.  Of  this 
kind  IS  believed  to  have  been  the  cemetery  formed 


by  Eigil  at  Fulda,  the  church  of  which  was  dedi¬ 
cated  in  the  year  822  (Life  of  Eigil  by  Candidus, 
c.  20,  in  Acta  SS.  Bened.  saec.  iv.  pt.  1,  p.  238). 
Benedict  of  Aniane  also  cau.sed  an  oratory  to  be 
constructed  in  the  cemetery  of  his  monasterv 
(LAfe.,  c.  39,  in  Ada  SS.  Ben.  saec.  iv.  pt.  1). 
The  ancient  plan  of  St.  Gall  shows  only  a  cro.ss 
In  the  midst  of  the  graveyard  within  the  convent 
walls.  And  in  process  of  time  burials  took  place 
in  the  cloister  itself.  Abbot  Walfrid,  when  dying 
(a.d.  765),  desired  to  be  buried  in  i.he  midst  of 
the  cloister  (Life,  c.  8,  Ada  SS.  Ben.  saec.  iii. 
pt.  2);  and  it  appears  that  other  monks  of  that 
rule  were  buried  in  the  cloister  (u.  5.  c.  14). 
Later  instances  are  frequent.  Monks  of  dis¬ 
tinguished  sanctity  were  occasionally  burie<l  in 
the  church  itself,  as  St.  Vouel  of  Soissons  in  the 
8th  century  (Acta  SS.  Ben.  iv.  2,  p.  550).  Ex¬ 
cept  in  the  ca.se  of  very  saintly  persons,  burial 
was  not  permitted  within  the  first  eight  cen¬ 
turies  in  monastic  more  than  in  secular  churches. 
(Bingham’s  Antiquities,  bk.  xxiii.  c.  1 ;  Marteue, 
jDe  Bitibus  Eccl.  Ant.  Hb.  iii.  c.  7,  §§  10-14; 
De  Bit.  Monach.  lib.  v.  c.  10,  §§  100-104  ;  Bin- 
terim,  L)enkv:urdigkeiten,  vi.  3,  443  ft’.)  [C.] 

CIBORIUM.  [Altar  :  Dove,  Eeciiaristic.] 

CILICIA  (Council  of),  a.d.  423,  at  which 
Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia,  a  town  in  this  province, 
who  was  still  alive,  was  condemned  for  his  errors 
(Mansi,  iv.  473-4).  [E.  S.  F.] 

CINGULUM.  (Ziov'i],  Zcua,  Baltous,  Funis.) 
The  girdle,  in  ancient  times,  was  generally  as¬ 
sociated  with  the  idea  of  active  exertion,  inas¬ 
much  as  it  served  to  confine  and  to  gird  up  the 
long  flowing  garments  which,  when  unconrined, 
interfered  with  all  activity.  But  as  a  richly- 
ornamented  girdle  commonly  formed  a  j>art  of 
the  robes  of  state  worn  bv  Eastern  monarchs,  we 
find  the  girdle  occasionallv  alluded  to  as  a  svm- 

W  t.  • 

bol  of  royal  dignity.  So  Patriarch  Germanus  of 
Constantinople,  c.  715  a.d.,  Myst.  Tkeor.  p.  206, 
speaks  of  the  girdle,  then  worn  as  part  of 
a  priest’s  dress,  as  signifying  the  beauty  where- 
xvith  Christ  entering  upon  His  kingdom  did  gird 
Hiniself  w'ithal,  even  the  beauteous  majesty  of 
Godhead.  See  Vestia  ium  Christianuni,  pp.  84,  85. 
Lastly,  through  yet  other  associations,  which 
will  be  obvious  to  all  students  of  antiquity,  the 
girdle  connected  itself  with  the  idea  of  chastity  ; 
and  it  is  in  this  connexion  that  it  is  commonlv 
referred  to  by  the  later  ecclesiastical  writers. 
See,  for  example,  St.  Jerome  on  Ezek.  xliv. ; 
Celestine,  bishop  of  Rome,  apud  Labbe', 

Concilia,  ii.  1618  (“  in  lumborum  praecinctione 
castitas  .  .  .  indicatur  ”)  ;  Rabanus  Maurus,  de 
Instit.  Cleric,  lib.  i.  c.  17 ;  Pseudo-Alcuinus, 
de  Biv.  Off.  (Vest.  Christ,  p.  Ill);  Ivo  Carno- 
tensis  (ib.  p.  121).  Both  in  East  and  West  it 
formed  part  of  the  monastic  dress  from  the 
earliest  times.  Among  Western  writers  see  the 
lAfe  of  Fnlgentius,  bishop  of  Ruspa,  by  Ferrandus 
Diaconus  (“  pelliceo  cingulo  tanquam  monachus 
utebatur”);  Salvianus,  ad  Eccl.  Catliol.  lib. 
iv'.  (addres.sing  a  monk  of  unworthy  character — 
“  Licet  religionem  vestibus  simules,  licet  fidem 
cingulo  aft'eras,  licet  sanctitatem  pallio  menti- 
aris,”  &c.) ;  Joannis  Cassiani,  de  Coenob.  Instit. 
lib.  i.  c.  11,  apud  Migne,  Patrol,  xlix.  60;  the 
Regula  of  St.  Benedict,  Migne,  Ixvi.  490  (“  vestiti 
dormiant,  ct  cincti  cingulis  aut  funibus  ”). 


CIEBA,  COUNCILS  OF 

Hildemar,  in  the  9th  century  (apud  Migne,  tom. 
c.),  explains  the  distinction  bet'.veen  ‘cingulum’ 
and  ‘funis.’  “Funis  est  qui  de  cannaba  fit  vel 
lino  in  rotundum  ;  cingulus  (sic)  autem  cor- 
i'igia  est  de  lana  vel  lino,  sed  non  in  rotundum 
sicut  funis,  sed  in  latum  sicut  tricia.”  lor 
Eastern  usage  see  St.  Jerome,  Praefat,  in 
Pegulam  S.  Pachomii,  opp.  ii.  49 ;  Palladius, 
Lausiaca^  cap.  38  (Migne,  Ixxiii.  1157)  and 
St.  Germanus  of  Constantinople,  in  a  passage 
above  referred  to.  He  there  says  of  the  monastic 
habit  that  it  was  like  that  of  John  the  Baptist, 
whose  raiment  was  of  camel’s  hair,  and  who 
wore  a  leathern  girdle  about  his  loins.  Celestine, 
bishop  of  Rome,  in  his  letter  to  the  bishops 
of  Vienna  and  Narbonne,  already  referred  to, 
dating  about  430  A.D.,  marks  the  time  when  the 
wearing  of  a  girdle  as  part  of  the  episcopal  dress 
(probably  in  imitation  of  the  monastic  habit) 
was  first  introduced  into  Gaul.  He  reproves 
those  to  whom  he  writes  for  dressing  in  a  pal¬ 
lium  and  wearing  a  girdle  about  the  loins,  and 
so  seeking  to. observe  the  truth  of  Scripture  not 
in  the  spirit  but  in  the  letter.  “  Amicti  pallio, 
et  lumbos  praecincti,  credunt  se  Scripturae  fidem 
non  per  spiritum  sed  per  literam  completuros.” 
See  Labbe,  Concilia^  ii.  1618  ;  Vest.  Christ,  p. 
45.  [W.  B.  M.] 

CIEBA,  COUNCILS  OF.  [African  Coun¬ 
cils.] 

CIECUMCELLIONES.  (1)  A  name  given 
to  the  Donatist  fanatics  in  Africa  during  the 
4th  century,  from  their  habit  of  roving  from 
house  to  house,  plundering  (Aug.  c.  Gaudent.  i. 
32).  They  went  about  in  predatory  gangs,  con¬ 
sisting  chiefly  of  rustics,  on  the  borders  of  the 
Gaetulian  desert,  ravaging  Numidia  and  Mauri¬ 
tania,  provinces  at  that  time  neither  thoroughly 
Christianised  nor  thoroughly  subjected  to  Roman 
law.  According  to  Augustine  they  were  noto¬ 
rious  for  their  lawless  violence  against  the 
Catholics  (Aug.  c.  Gaudent.  i.  28.  32  ;  Haer.  69  ; 
c.  Parinen.  i.  11 ;  c.  Crescon.  iii.  42,  46,  47; 
Epp.  88,  105,  185),  as  well  as  against  property 
(Aug.  Epp.  15,  85,  185).  To  restrain  their  tur¬ 
bulence  their  own  bishops  were  constrained  to 
invoke  the  aid  of  the  Roman  counts.  Augustine 
defends  Macarius  and  Taurinus  from  the  charge 
of  having  been  unduly  severe  against  them,  and 
reproves  the  exultation  of  these  fanatics  OA'er 
the  death  of  Ursacius  (Aug.  c.  Litt.  Petilian.  cc. 
22,  25).  At  the  Conference  of  Carthage  in  411 
A.D.  the  imperial  commissioner  decreed  a  fine  on 
those  districts  wherein -the  “  circumcellioues  ” 
were  not  kept  in  order  (Coleti  Cone.  t.  iii.). 
At  Bagai  they  fought,  but  unsuccessfully,  against 
Roman  cavalry.  The  war-shout  of  these 
“avengers”  or  “champions  of  God,”  as  they 
styled  themselves  {aywvKTTiKoi,  Optat.  Milevit. 
De  Schism.  P)onat.  iii.  4),  “Deo  Landes,”  in 
opposition  to  the  “Deo  Gratias  ”  of  the  other 
party,  was  terrible  to  all  peaceful  people  as  the 
roar  of  a  lion  (Aug.  in  Ps.  cxxxii.  v.  6).  Instead 
of  swords,  which  for  some  time  they  felt  a  reli¬ 
gious  scruple  against  using  (cf.  St.  Matt.  xxvi. 
52),  they  brandished  clubs  at  first,  which  they 
called  “Israels”  (Aug.  in  Ps.  x.  v.  5).  J.ike 
the  Syrian  “  assa.ssins,”  the  followers  of  the 
“Old  Man  of  the  Mountain”  in  the  time  of  the 
Crusades,  the  “  Circumcelliones  ”  courted  death, 
wantonly  insulting  the  Pagans  at  their  festiA’als 


CIECUMCISION,  FESTIVAL  OF  393 

(Aug.  c.  Gaudent.  i.  32,  49;  Epp.  12,  16,  185); 
and,  in  their  frantic  eagerness  for  martyrdom, 
challenging  all  whom  they  met  on  their  way  to 
kill  them  (Aug.  c.  Crescon.  iii.  46,  49;  c.  Litt. 
Petit,  ii.  114;  De  Unit.  Eccl.  50;  Theodoret. 
Haer.  iv.  6).  Among  the  titles  which  they  as¬ 
sumed  was  that  of  “Agnostici,”  to  indicate  their 
contempt  for  learning  (Aug.  in  Ps.  cxxxii.  -v.  6). 
Though  pledged  by  profession  to  celibacy,  they 
were  guilty  of  frequent  outrages  on  women,  if 
their  opponents  may  be  believed  (Aug.  c.  Litt. 
Petit,  i.  16,  ii.  195;  De  Unit.  Eccl.  50).  For 
these  and  similar  offences,  as  well  as  on  the 
charge  of  aiding  the  Vandals,  they  were  ordered 
by  Honorius,  412  a.d.,  to  be  fined  (Hefele  in 
Kirchenlex..,  iii.  261).  Gibbon  compares  these 
“circumcelliones”  to  the  “  camisards  ”  of  Lan¬ 
guedoc  in  the  commencement  of  the  18th  century 
^Decline  and  Fall,  ii.  445,  Bohn,  1855). 

Cii’oumce) Hones  (2)  were  vagabond  monks, 
censured  by  Cassian,  under  the  name  of  Sara- 
baitae,  for  roving  from  place  to  place  {Coll. 
xviii.  7).  Probably  the  name  was  transferred  to 
them  from  the  Donatist  fanatics.  St.  Augustine 
rebuts  this  comparison  as  unmerited,  at  least 
within  his  experience  {in  Ps.  cxxxii.  v.  6).  But 
elsewhere  {De  Oper.  Monach.  28)  he  inveighs 
with  characteristic  Avarmth  against  the  idle, 
A^agraut  monks,  “  nusquam  missos,  nusquam  hxos, 
nusquam  stantes,  nusquam  sedentes,”  kc..,  Avho 
scoured  the  country  for  alms.  Amending  fictitious 
relics.  Benedictus  Anianensis  quotes  Isidorus  de 
Offic.  Eccl.{\\.lb')  against  these  “circumcelliones” 
or  “circilliones  ”  as  spurious  Anchorites  {Con¬ 
cord.  Pegg.  c.  3,  cf.  Menard,  ad  loc.).  These 
vagabond  monks  Avere  condemned  as  unstable 
and  scandalous  {Cone.  Tolet.  Aui.  c.  5) ;  and 
as  mock-hermits  {KvKXdpLoi  \p€vd€p7i/j.7raL')  in 
the  Synodica  Epistol.  Oriental  is  addressed  to  the 
Emp.  Theophilus  (Suicer.  Thesaur.  sub  A'oee). 
They  are  denounced  also  by  Nilus  {Epp.  iii.  19) ; 
and  are  probably  the  “  gyrovagi  ”  censured  in 
the  Pegula  St.  Benedict i  (c.  1).  The  name 
occurs  so  late  as  in  Monachus  Sangallensis,  who 
I’elateshowa  monk,  one  of  the  “circumcelliones,” 
“  ignarus  disciplinae  imperatoris,”  intruded  into 
the  choir  in  the  presence  of  Carl  {De  Gest.  Carol. 
M,  i.  8,  V.  Canisii  Antigu.  Lectmies').  [1.  G.  S.] 

CIRCUMCISION.  As  a  JcAvish  rite,  or  as 
connected  with  the  controA'ersies  of  the  Apostolic 
age,  this  ordinance  does  not  come  Avithin  the 
limits  of  this  Avork.  It  claims  a  place,  how- 
eA'er,  eA^en  in  a  Dictionary  of  Christian  Anti¬ 
quities,  as  haAung  been  adopted  from  a  remote 
period  in  the  Church  of  Abyssinia,  and  as  still  in 
use  there.  In  this,  as  in  many  other  practices, 
the  influence  of  a  large  Jewish  population  has 
made  that  community  the  representatiA’e  of  a 
type  of  Judaeo-Christianity  Avhich  must  haA'e 
been  common  in  the  first  two  centuries,  but 
Avhich  has  since  been  lost.  It  has  to  be  noted 
that  circumcision  is  practised  there  (and  the 
present  usage  rests  upon  an  immemorial  tra¬ 
dition)  before  baptism,  betAveen  the  third  and 
the  eighth  day  after  birth,  and  that  an  ana¬ 
logous  operation  is  applied  to  female  children. 

Stanley,  Eastern  Church,  p.  12.  [E.  H.  P.] 

CIRCUMCISION,  FESTIVAL  OF. 

1.  Origin  of  Festival. — From  the  necessary 
connection  of  the  eA'ent  commemorated  on  this 
day  with  the  Nativity,  we  must  obviously  not 


394  CIRCUMCISION,  FESTIVAL  OF 

look  for  notices  of  its  celebration  at  a  vlate 
earlier  than  that  at  wliich  we  first  meet  with 
those  of  tlie  Nativity  itself. 

It  will  follow  from  the  prescribed  interval 
between  the  birth  of  a  child  and  its  circum¬ 
cision  that  the  festival  of  the  Circumcision  will 
fall  on  the  octave  of  the  Nativity ;  and  con¬ 
sequently  we  continually  find  January  1  thus 
marked,  even  where  the  service  contains  re¬ 
ferences  to  the'  day  as  the  anniversary  of  the 
Circumcision.  It  is  not  until  later  that  we  find 
the  day  to  have  acquired  sufficient  independent 
rank  to  bear  the  title  of  the  Circumcision  rather 
than  of  the  octave  as  its  special  distinguishing 
mark. 

It  is  hard  to  say  when  the  earliest  traces  of 
an  observance  of  the  day  under  either  designa¬ 
tion  are  to  be  found.  There  is  extant  a  long 
homily  by  Zeno,  bishop  of  Verona  in  the  4th 
century,  which  would  appear  to  have  been 
meant  for  delivery  on  this  day ;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Kalenda- 
rium  Carthaginense,  or  in  that  of  Bucherius, 
both  probably  documents  of  the  4th  century. 
Now  it  has  been  shown  elsewhere  [Christmas] 
that  the  first  certain  allusions  to  an  observance 
of  Christmas  as  a  distinct  and  independent  fes¬ 
tival  occur  towards  the  end  of  the  4th  century, 
and  that  this  observ^ance  of  it  was  later  in  the 
East  than  in  the  West.  This  agrees  with  what 
is  said  above,  and  with  the  instances  we  shall 
further  quote,  which  tend  to  disprove  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  any  save  perhaps  a  more  or  less  local 
recognition  of  the  festival  before  the  end  of  the 

O 

4th  century.  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  parent 
festival  of  the  Nativity,  our  earliest  illustrations 
come  from  the  West. 

Thus  we  find  the  day  noticed  in  the  Gelasian 
Sacramentary,  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  and 
Antiphonary,  the  Gallican  Sacramentary  and 
Lectionary,  in  the  Calendar  of  Fronto,  the  Mo- 
zarabic  Liturgy  and  Breviary,  and  the  Martyro- 
logium  Hieronymi. 

Passing  on  to  the  Eastern  Church,  we  find 
that  in  the  calendar  of  the  Coptic  Church  given 
by  Selden  (de  Synedriis  Ebraeorum,  lib.  iii.  c. 
15),  the  Circumcision  is  reckoned  among  the 
minor  festivals,  and  that  the  Apostolic  Constitu¬ 
tions,  a  work  doubtless  of  Oriental  origin,  ignores 
it  altogether. 

In  process  of  time  the  day  became  more  and 
more  recognized,  and  at  last  the  observance 
became  universal. 

A  reason  for  the  Church’s  apparent  slowness  in 
recognizing  and  commemorating  so  important  an 
incident  in  our  Lord’s  earthly  life,  at  which  He 
received  the  name  Jesus — an  event,  one  would 
suppose,  itself  of  more  than  ordinary  interest — 
is  doubtless  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  on  the 
Kalends  of  January  was  held  a  great  heathen 
festival,  characterized  by  an  excessive  amount  of 
riot  and  licentiousness.  The  Christians,  anxious 
to  avoid  an  apparent  toleration  of  these  abomi¬ 
nations  by  holding  a  festival  of  their  own,  even 
though  of  a  totally  different  charactei",  on  the 
same  day,  enjoined  a  solemn  fast,  as  a  whole¬ 
some  protest  and  as  a  means  of  guarding  the 
unwary  from  being  led  astray.  See  Augustine, 
Sermon.  197,  198  (^Patrol,  xxxviii.  1024  sqq.). 

There  is  also  an  allusion  to  this  in  a  canon  of 
the  2nd  Council  of  Tours,  a.d.  567  {Cone.  Turo- 
nense  11.  can.  17  ;  Labbe,  v.  857).  Further  we 


CIRCUMCISION,  FESTIVAL  OF 

find  in  the  Martyrologium  Itom/inum  (Janu¬ 
ary  1),  that  a  certain  Alinachius  sutlered  martyr¬ 
dom  for  saying,  “  Hodie  octavae  Dominici  diei 
sunt,  cessate  a  superstitionibus  idolorum  et  a 
sacrificiis  pollutis.”  If,  as  is  assex’ted,  this 
Almachius  be  the  same  with  the  Telemachus 
mentioned  by  Theodoret  {Hist.  Keel.  v.  26), 
this  event  must  be  referred  to  the  time  of 
Honorius,  and  will  point  to  a  certain  recognition 
of  the  day  by  the  Roman  Church  at  the  end  of 
the  4th  century.  To  the  subject  of  this  fast  we 
shall  briefly  refer  again. 

We  shall  now  i)roceed  to  discuss  the  observance! 
of  the  day  more  in  detail. 

II.  Liturgical  Notices.  —  It  is  impossible  to 
determine  the  character  of  the  evidence  borne  as 
to  this  day  by  the  Leonine  Sacramentary,  for  it 
is  mutilated  at  the  beginning,  and  commences 
with  the  month  of  April.  The  last  section  in  it, 
how'ever,  is  “  In  jejunio  mensis  decimi,”  for 
which  five  Masses  are  given,  thus  furnishing 
evidence  for  the  observance  of  the  time,  though 
none  for  the  name  by  which  the  day  was  known 
(ii.  156,  ed.  Ballerini).  It  may  be  added,  how¬ 
ever,  that  with  this  exception  there  is  no  allusion 
to  the  day  in  the  writings  of  Leo  L,  although  he 
has  many  sermons  on  the  Nativity  itself.  The 
Gelasian  Sacramentary  gives  a  ^lass  for  the  day, 
In  Octabas  Domini,  •i\iv\  there  follows  one  Prohi- 
bendum  ah  idolis,  pointing  to  what  we  have  al 
ready  .said  as  to  the  heathen  festival  on  this  day 
{Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1061),  In  the  former  Mass,  the 
main  idea  is  evidently'  of  the  octave  of  the  Na¬ 
tivity',  and  not  of  any  special  commemoration  of 
the  day  itself,  there  being  merely  a  passing 
allusion  to  our  Lord’s  Circumcision,  as  contrasted 
with  such  expressions  as  “Cujus  hodie  octavas 
nati  celebrantes  ...”  and  the  like. 

In  the  Gregorian  Sacramentarv  the  Mass  for 
the  day  is  headed  In  Octavis  Domini  (Gi’eg. 
Sacr.  col.  1.3,  ed.  Menard),  but  the  Gospel  treats 
of  the  Circumci.sion,  Luke  ii.  21-32.  Of  two 
collects  given,  one  has  .special  reference  to  the 
Virgin,  the  other  to  the  octave,  and  in  Pame- 
lius’  edition  of  the  Sacramentary,  and  in  the 
Cd.  Reg.  Suec.  is  read  Ad  S.  Mariam  ad  Marty  res  ; 
in  the  Ivalendarium  Romanum  is  Natale  S.  Mariae, 
and  thus  in  the  Gregorian  Antiphonary  {op.  cit. 
660)  we  have  De  Sancta  Maria  in  Octava  Do¬ 
mini. 

All  this  points  to  a  twofold  commemoration  of 
the  day,  the  one  having  regard  to  the  octave  of 
the  Nativity  or  the  Circumcision,  the  other  to  the 
Virgin,  and  hence  the  special  prominence  given 
to  the  mention  of  her  in  the  Mass  for  the  day*  in 
the  modern  Romish  Missal.  The  Preface  and 
the  Benediction  in  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary 
do  indeed  refer  to  the  Circumcision  —  “Cujus 
hodie  Circumcisionis  diem  et  Nativitatis  octavum 
celebrantes — but  there  is  a  certain  amount 
of  evidence  against  their  authenticity',  they'  are 
omitted  by  Pamelius  and  are  wanting  in  the 
Cd.  Reg.  Suec.  Possibly,  therefore,  they  are  a 
later  addition. 

We  may  next  briefly  notice  the  ancient  litur¬ 
gical  documents  of  the  Gallican  Church.  The 
ancient  Lectionary  published  by  Mabillon  {de 
Liturgia  Gallicnna,  p.  112),  gives  lections  In 
Circumciaione  Domini  for  matins  and  for  the 
Mass;  for  the  former,  Isaiah  xliv.  24 — xlv.  7, 
and  for  the  latter,  Isaiah  i.  10-20;  with  1  Cor. 
X.  14-31  and  Luke  ii.  21-40  for  the  Epistle 


CLAUDIUS 


305 


CIRCUMCISION,  FESTIVAL  OF 

find  Gospel,  the  Gospel  being  the  same  as  in  the 
Gregorian  and  Mozarabic  liturgy ;  the  pro¬ 
phetical  lection  and  Kpistle  in  this  last  being 
Isaiah  xlviii.  12-20  and  Philippians  iii.  1~8. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  Epistle  in  the  Galli- 
can  liturgy  has  reference  to  the  idol  practices 
which  characterized  the  day.  The  Gotho-Gallic 
Missal  (ib.  200)  gives  an  0)-do  Missae  in  Cir- 
cutncioioyie  Domini  nostri  Jesit  Christ i,  and  the 
Mozarabic  Breviary  and  Missal  style  the  day 
Circuincisio  Domini. 

It  is  thus  probable  that  we  must  look  to  Gaul 
and  Spain  for  early  examples  of  this  title  of  the 
day.  The  first  definite  instance  that  we  have 
observed  is  to  be  found  in  the  canon  of  the  2nd 
Council  of  Tours  (567  a.d.)  already  referred  to, 
which,  after  remarking  that  every  day  was  a  fes¬ 
tival  from  Christmas  to  Epiphany,  adds,  “  ex- 
cipitur  triduiim  illud,  quo  ad  calcandam  Gen- 
tilium  consuetudinem  patres  nostri  statuerunt 
privatas  in  Kalendis  Januarii  fieri  litanias,  et  in 
ecclesiis  psallatur,  et  hora  octava  in  ipsis  Ka- 
Icndis  Circumcisionis  ^lissa  Deo  propitio  cele- 
bretur  ”  (Labbe',  1.  c.).  There  is  also  some  evi¬ 
dence  for  supposing  that  the  title  of  the  Circum¬ 
cision  was  ajjplied  to  the  day  in  Spain  before 
the  death  of  Isidore  (636  a.d,),  for  we  read  in 
one  place,  “  placuit  etiam  patribus  a  die  Natalis 
Domini  usque  ad  diem  Circumcisionis  solemne 
tempus  efficere  ”  (^Bejuki  Monachorum  12 ;  Patrol. 
Ixxiii.  880).  Arevalus  does  indeed  suggest  (not.  in 
loc.'),  from  the  belief  that  the  title  Circumcision 
IS  probably  of  later  date,  that  the  original  words 
of  Isidore  here  may  have  been  Kalendas  Janu- 
arias ;  but  when  the  passage  is  taken  in  con¬ 
junction  with  the  above  quoted  canon,  there  seems 
the  less  reason  for  having  recourse  to  this  hypo¬ 
thesis.  Further,  remarks  in  the  laws  of  the  Visi¬ 
goths  shew  that  by  the  middle  or  latter  part  of 
the  7th  centurv  the  dav  ranked  in  Snain  of  so  high 
lir.portance  that  on  it  the  law  courts  were  closed, 
and  that  it  then  bore  the  name  of  the  Circum¬ 
cision  (Codex  Leg.  Wisigoth.  lib.  ii.  tit.  1,  lex  11 ; 
lib.  xii.  t.  3,  1.  6 ;  in  Hispania  Ilhistrata,  iii. 
863,  1004-,  Frankfort  1606).  Still,  the  old 
name  survived,  for  we  find  it  at  the  end  of  the 
8th  century  in  the  liegula  of  Bishop  Chrodegang 
(^Patrol.  Ixxxix.  1090),  and  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  Council  of  Mainzf  813  a.d.  (Cone.  Mogun- 
timan,  can.  36  ;  Labbe,  vii.  1250). 

Briefly  then  to  sum  up  the  results  so  far 
obtained  :  we  have  seen  that  the  a  priori  ex¬ 
pectation,  which  would  assign  the  end  of  the 
4th  century  as  the  earliest  possible  date  of 
the  recognition  of  the  day  under  either  title,  is 
borne  out  by  the  fact  of  the  absence  of  allusions 
to  it  before  that  date;  and  further  that,  until 
at  the  earliest  the  middle  of  the  6th  century, 
it  was  solely  as  the  octave  of  the  Nativity,  and 
not  as  the  Circumcision  that  the  day  was  known. 
It  may  be  remarked  here  that  the  whole  of 
Christendom  agrees  in  celebrating  the  Circum¬ 
cision  on  January  1  except  the  Armenian  Church, 
which  still  adheres  to  the  old  Eastern  practice 
of  commemorating  the  Nativity  and  Epiphany 
together  on  January  6,  and  necessarily  therefore 
celebrates  the  Circumcision  on  January  13. 

The  primary  idea  of  the  day  as  a  fast  and  not 
a  festival  has  already  been  referred  to.  The 
canon  of  the  2nd  Council  of  Tours  which  we 
have  c  ted  shows  the  state  of  the  case  in  France; 
that  the  same  custom  prevailed  in  Spain  is  shown 


by  an  allusion  in  a  canon  of  the  4th  Council  of 
Toledo,  A.D.  633  (Cone.  Tol.  iv.  can.  11  ;  Labbe, 
V.  1709)  ;  cf.  Isidore,  de  Eccl.  Off.  lib.  i.  c.  46  ; 
although  it  must  be  added  that  a  heading  in  the 
Mozarabic  Breviary  points  to  the  three  days 
before  the  Epiphany  as  the  period  of  the  fast : 
“  Officiurn  jejuniorum  in  Kal.  Jan.  observatm 
tribus  diebus  ante  festum  Epiphaniae.”  Lastlv, 
we  may  refer  to  the  Ordo  Pomanus,  which,  after 
speaking  of  the  heathen  abominations  which  de¬ 
filed  the  day,  adds,  “Statuit  uniA'ersalis  Ecclesia 
jejunium  publicum  in  isto  die  fieri  ”  (p.  20,  ed. 
Hittorp.*). 

It  will,  of  course,  be  inferred  from  what  has 
been  already  remarked  that  there  is  an  absence 
of  homilies  or  sermons  for  the  day  in  the  works 
of  early  patristic  writers.  We  may  here  again, 
however,  refer  to  the  discourse  of  Zeno  of  Verona, 
de  Circumcisione  (lib.  i.  tractat.  13,  p.  99,  ed. 
Ballerini,  where  .see  note  1).  In  an  ancient  MS. 
of  this  of  the  9th  century  (the  Cd.  Remensis)  is 
added  a  note  in  the  margin  of  this  discourse, 
Tn  Octaba  Domini  pontifeis  nona  lectio.  The 
Ballerini  consider  the.se  notes  to  have  been  written 
at  the  time  when  Archbishop  Hincmar  (ob.  882 
A.D.)  gave  the  MS.  to  the  abbey  of  St.  Remigiits  at 
Rheims,  and  while  the  MS.  belonged  to  the 
Church  of  Verona  (Praef.  §  5),  and  that  this 
discourse  was  there  spoken  on  the  octave  of  the 
Nativity.  They  infer  from  the  marginal  note 
the  1‘elative  importance  of  the  day,  considering 
that  such  a  remark  about  the  ninth  lection  would 
be  made  only  in  the  case  of  the  more  important 
festivals.  Bede  has  written  a  homily  for  the  day 
on  Luke  ii.  21  (Horn.  x.  ;  Patrol,  xciv.  53). 

When  the  fast  became  a  festival  it  is  impos¬ 
sible  definitely  to  say.  Probably  the  process 
was  a  gradual  one,  and  the  period  varied  in 
different  countries.  The  statutes  of  St.  Boniface 
(ob.  755  A.D.)  include  it  among  the  special 
festivals  on  which  no  work  was  to  be  done 
(D’Achery,  Spicilegium  ix.  66).  Still,  at  a 
period  subsequent  to  this,  traces  of  the  old  state 
of  things  survived,  the  latest  we  have  observed 
being  in  the  Capitula  of  Atto,  bishop  of  Vercelli 
in  the  10th  century,  who  dwells  on  the  ex¬ 
pediency  of  maintaining  the  ancient  protest 
(Patrol,  cxxxiv.  43).  [R.  S.] 

CIRCUS.  [Charioteer.] 

CIRINUS.  [Cyrinus.] 

CITHINUS,  one  of  the  “  martyres  Sc.llitani” 
at  Carthage,  July  17  (Cal.  Carthaq.,  Bedae,  Rom. 
Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CLARUS,  presbyter,  and  martyr  “  in  pago 
Vilcasino,”  Nov.  4  (Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CI.AUDIANUS.  (1 )  Martyr  in  Egypt  under 
Numerian,  Feb.  25  (Mart.  Rom.  I  cL,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Nicomedia,  March  6  (Mart. 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

CLAUDIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Ostia  under 
Diocletian,  Feb.  18  (J/«/’L  Rom.  \'et.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Mart\u'  at  Rome,  with  Pope  Marcellinins, 
April  26,  A.D.  304  (3/ar^.  Usuardi). 


»  The  allegi'd  Statiita  Kcchsiae  Fikemt^nsis  (l..abb4,  v. 
1691),  attriliutcd  to  Bishop  Sonnatius,  In  which  (c.  in) 
reference  is  made  to  the  Circnnicision  as  one  of  the  days 
“ahsfiue  op  -re  forensi  excolenda,”  are  probably  fabrica¬ 
tions  of  a  later  date. 


396 


CL  A  V  US 


CLERUS 


(3)  Martyr  at  Rome,  with  Xicostratus  and 
others,  July  7  (^Mart.  Mom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  in  Aegea,  Aug.  23  (^Mart.  Hieron., 
Usuiirdi). 

(5)  Martyr  at  Rome,  with  Nicostratus  and 
others,  Nov.  8  (^Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae,  llom.  Vet., 
Usuardi).  Compare  (3). 

(6)  The  tribune,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Nu- 

mei’ian,  Dec.  3  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi) ; 
Aug.  12  {Mart.  Hieron.).  [C.] 

CTjAVUS.  We  continually  find  in  ancient 
Christian  frescoes  and  mosaics  garments  deco¬ 
rated  with  long  stripes  of  purjile,  sometimes  en¬ 
riched  with  embroidery  or  an  inwoven  pattern, 
called  clavi.  These  generally  run  from  the  top 
to  the  bottom  of  the  garment,  and  are  broader  or 
nari'ower  according  to  the  dignity  of  the  wearer. 
Thus,  the  Lord  is  often  distinguished  by  a  broader 
clavus  than  those  of  the  apostles,  as  in  a  fine 
fresco  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Agues  (Ferret, 
Catacombs,  ii.  pi.  xxiv.).  Undistinguished  per¬ 
sons  also  wore  clavi,  but  very  narrow.  In  neaidy 
all  cases  these  clavi  are  two  in  number,  and  run 
from  each  shoulder  to  the  lower  border  of  the 
dress.  This  arrangement  of  the  clavi  is  alluded 
to  in  the  Acts  of  Perpetua  and  Felicitas,  where 
the  Good  Shepherd  is  said  to  have  appeared  to' 
the  former  “  distinctam  habens  tunicam  inter 
duos  clavos  per  medium  pectus”  (Ruinart,  Acta 
Sincera,  p.  32,  ed.  Verona).  Tertullian  {De  Pallio, 
c.  4)  speaks  of  the  care  which  was  taken  in  the 
selection  of  shades  of  colour. 

There  are  a  few  examples  of  the  single  clavus, 
running  down  the  centre  of  the  breast,  which 
Rubenius  believes  to  have  been  the  ancient  fashion 
of  wearing  it.  These  occur  only  in  repre¬ 
sentations  of  the  Three  Children  in  the  fiery 
furnace  (Bottari,  Sculture  e  Pitture,  tav.  cxlix. 
clxxxi.).  Clavi  are  common  to  both  sexes ; 
women  may  be  seen  represented  with  that  orna¬ 
ment,  for  instance,  in  pictures  of  the  Wise  and 
Foolish  Virgins  (Bottari,  tav.  clviii.);  and  female 
figures  are  sometimes  found  adorned  with  two 
clavi  on  each  side.  Jerome  {Epist.  22,  ad  Eu- 
stochium)  alludes  to  the  use  of  the  clavus  by 
women,  single  as  well  as  married.  It  is  also 
common  in  early  art  to  personages  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New ;  it  is  given  to  Moses, 
for  instance,  in  a  painting  engraved  by  Ferret 
(i.  pi.  xxiv.),  and  to  the  apostles  in  nearly  all 
representations  of  them,  whether  in  fresco,  in 
mosaic,  or  in  glass.  Angels  also  wear  the  clavus 
in  early  mosaics,  as  may  be  seen  in  Examples 
given  by  Ciampini  {Vet.  Mon.  i.  tab.  xlvi. ;  ii. 
tab.  XV.),  in  the  Menologium  of  Basil  (see  parti¬ 
cularly  Dec.  16  and  Dec.  29),  and  in  several 
ancient  miniatures. 

These  purple  stripes  were  worn  on  the  penula 
as  well  as  the  tunic:  a  fresco  from  an  arcosolium 
in  the  cemetery  of  Pidscilla  (Bottari,  tav.  clxii.) 
furnishes  three  examj)les.  They  are  found  also 
in  the  pallium  :  a  mosaic  of  St.  Agatha  Major  at 
Ravenna  represents  our  Lord  with  clavi  of  gold 
on  such  a  garment.  The  dalmatic  and  colobium 
were  similarly  decorated  :  the  latter  seems  to 
have  had  only  one  broad  band  of  purple  (latus 
clavus)  descending  from  the  upper  part  of  the 
chest  to  the  feet.  See  the  Christian  sarcophagi 
engraved  by  Bottari  (tav.  xxdi.  cxxxvii.  and 
other.s). 

Priests,  after  the  example  of  the  senatore  of 


old  Rome,  are  said  to  have  worn  the  broad  clavus, 
while  deacons  contented  themselves  with  the 
narrow  one  on  their  tunics  or  dalmatics.  The 
clavus  is  sometimes  represented  as  descendiiig 
only  to  the  middle  of  the  chest :  it  is  in  these 
cases  decorated  with  small  discs  or  sj)angles,  and 
terminates  in  small  globes  or  bullae.  This  is  said 
to  be  the  kind  of  decoration  which  is  sometimes 
called  para(faudis.  (Rubenius,  De  Re  Vestiaria  et 
praecipue  de  Lato  Clavo,  Antwerp,  1665  ;  Mar- 
tigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  chrdt.  s.  v.  Clavus.)  [C.] 

CLEMENT.  (1)  Of  Ancyra,  martyr,  a.d. 
296  ;  is  commemorated  Jan.  23  {Cal.  Pyzant.). 

(2)  Pope,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Trajan,  Nor. 

{Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae,  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi); 

Nov.  24  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(3)  Of  Alexandria  ;  is  commemorated  Dec.  4 

{Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CLEMENTINE  LITURGY.  [Liturgy.] 

CLEMENTINUS,  martyr  at  Heraclea,  Nov. 
14  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CLEONICUS,  martyr,  a.d.  296  ;  is  comme¬ 
morated  March  3  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

CLEOPHAS,  martyr,  at  Emmaus,  Sept.  25 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CLERESTORY,  or  Clearstory.  Al 
upper  story  or  row  of  windows  in  a  church,, 
rising  clear  above  the  adjoining  parts  of  the 
building.  As  the  clerestory  was  a  common  fea¬ 
ture  in  the  old  civil  basilica,  it  was  j)robably 
soon  adopted  in  buildings  of  the  same  type  used 
for  ecclesiastical  purposes.  See  for  instance,  the 
ancient  basilica  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  under 
Church,  p.  370  ;  also  p.  381.  [C.] 

CLERGY.  [Clerus;  Immunities  of  Clergy.] 

CLERMONT,  COUNCILS  OF.  [Galli- 
CAX  Councils.] 

CLERUS,  deacon,  martyr  at  Antioch,  Jan.  7 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CLERUS  (and  Clericus  =  one  of  the  Clerus), 
at  first  equivalent  to  the  whole  body  of  the 
faithful,  as  being  the  lot  or  inheritance  of  the 
Lord  (1  Pet.  v.  3  =  K\Tjp9uopia,  v.  Theodoret,  ad 
loc.,  and  so  still  used  by  e.g.  Theophanes,  Horn. 
xii.  70,  quoted  by  Suicer);  but  appropriated 
almost  immediately  to  all,  “qui  in  ecclesiastici 
ministerii  gradibus  ordinati  sunt  ”  (Isid.  Hispal. 
De  Eccl.  Offic.  ii.  1);  the  distinction  of  clergy 
and  laity  being  found  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  16,  and  in 
St.  Clement  of  Rome,  and  the  term  being  applied 
to  the  former  exclusively,  “  vel  quia  de  sorte 
sunt  Domini,  vel  quia  Ipse  Dominus  sors,  id  est, 
pars  clericorum  est  ”  (St.  Jerpme,  Ad  Ne})otian., 
followed  by  Isidore,  as  above,  and  by  Rab.  Maur. 
De  Instit.  Cleric,  i.  2).  The  more  modern  de¬ 
rivation,  fi’om  the  lots  cast  at  the  appointment 
of  St.  Matthias  (so  e.  g.  Suicer),  seems  set  aside 
by  the  fact,  that  clergy  were  not  chosen  by  lot. 
The  word  clericus  was  further  subdivided  when 
the  minor  orders  came  into  existence ;  all  being 
called  clervci  {iravras  K\T]piKovs  KaXovfifv,  Justin. 
Novell,  cxxiii.  19),  but  the  name  being  also  some¬ 
times  given  in  particular  to  the  lertores,  psalm- 
istae,  ostiariiy  &c.  who  “  clericorum  nomen  reti- 
nent  ”  (Cone.  CarMa(7.  iii.  a.d.  397,  c.  21);  and 
who  in  later  centuries  are  often  so  called  exclu- 


CLETUS 


sively,  while  the  three  proper  orders  became  dis¬ 
tinguished  as  “  primi  clerici  ”  (Coi.  Theodos.  lib. 
xiii.  De  Judaeis  et  CoelicoL),  and  the  lower  orders 
as  “  int'erioris  loci”  (i6.  leg.  41).  See  also  the  Can. 
Apost.  17,  al.  18,  24,  al.  25,  30,  .al.  31,  84 ;  and 
Cone.  Laodiccn.  cc.  24,  27,  30,  the  latter  distin¬ 
guishing  the  UpariKoi  from  the  KX'qpiKoi,  i.e. 
bisho2)s,  priests,  and  deacons,  from  subdeacons, 
readers,  &c.  The  terms  majores  and  minores 
ordines  are  of  much  later  date.  In  Cone. 
Chalced.  a.d.  451,  can.  2,  KXrjpiKhs  appears  to  be 
used  as  coextensive  with  those  in  the  Kaviiv  or 
roll,  and  to  include  expressly  even  the  oeeono- 
tnus  and  the  defensor.!  &c.  In  c.  3  of  the  same 
council  it  is  opposed  to  bishop  on  the  one  hand, 
and  to  layman  and  monk  on  the  other.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  term  is  sometimes  found  actually 
used  of  monks,  even  as  early  as  by  Sozomen  (viii. 
18)  ;  and,  again,  by  St.  Germanus  of  Paris,  by 
Gregory  of  Tours  {De  Glor.  Mart.  ii.  21,  and  fre¬ 
quently),  and  by  many  later  writers  quoted  in 
Du  Cano-e.  The  use  of  the  term  as  meaning  a 
scholar  {ypafXfxaTuv  itnerTr^fiot/fs  only  ought  to  be 
made  clerici,  according  to  Justinian,  Novell,  vi.  4, 
cxxiii.  12)  dates  from  the  11th  century.  The 
introduction  of  monks  made  yet  a  third  class, 
besides  clergy  and  laity.  And  the  term  ‘  regu- 
laris’  coming  into  use  when  Regulae  began  to 
multiply,  and  when  monachism  was  becoming 
regarded  as  ‘  religion,’  i.  e.  about  the  8th  cen¬ 
tury,  the  term  ‘  saecularis  ’  also  lost  gradually 
its  general  sense  of  ‘  worldly,’  and  became 
simply  the  antithesis  of  a  ‘  regular  ’  or  monk  ; 
the  latter  term,  however,  including  canons  also 
at  their  first  institution  (“  Canonici,  idest,  Kegu- 
lares  Clerici,”  in  the  so-called  Egbert’s  Excerpts, 
in  Pref.,  and  so  also  Cone.  Aquisgran.  a.d.  789, 
c.  73).  Clericus  regularis  would  thenceforth 
mean  a  clergyman  who  was  also  a  monk ;  and 
Clericus  saecularis,^.  parish  clergyman,  or  one  who 
kept  a  school,  or  lived  in  any  way  not  under  a 
rule ;  the  class  being  called  ‘  clerici  ’  simply  in 
Capit.  i.  c.  23  of  a.d.  802  =  “  parochitani  pres- 
byteri,”  in  Cone.  Emerit.  A.D.  666,  c.  18.  Canons, 
however,  were  soon  classed  as  distinct  from 
Regulars;  as  e.  g.  in  the  laws  of  Charles  the 
Great  (in  Murator.  tom.  I.  P.  ii.  p.  100.  6,  quoted 
by  Du  Cange), — “  V’’igilauter  curent  [Episcopi],  ut 
Canonici  secundum  canones  et  Regulares  secun¬ 
dum  regulam  vivant.”  In  Cone.  Vernons,  a.d. 
755,  c.  3,  the  clerus  are  distinguished  from  the 
regulares  (Labbe,  vi.  1665),  which  seems  the 
earliest  instance  of  the  use  of  the  latter  term. 
The  further  distinction  of  Canonici  themselves 
into  Regulars  and  Seculars  (canons  who  had,  and 
canons  who  had  not,  a  canon  or  rule)  dates  from 
A.D.  1059,  when  Pope  Nicolas  II.  substituted  a 
new  rule  for  the  original  rule  for  Canons  enacted 
at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  followed  by  a  yet  stricter  rule 
enjoined  by  Ivo,  bishop  of  Chartres ;  those  who 
adopted  the  rule  of  Nicolas  being  styled  Saccular, 
while  those  who  preferred  Ivo’s  were  called 
Regular  or  Augustinian  Canons.  [A.  W.  H.] 

CLETUS,  or  ANACLETUS,  pope,  martyr 
at  Home  under  Domitian,  April  26  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Csuardi).  [C.] 

CLTCHY,  COUNCILS  OF  [Clippiacense], 
near  Paris  ;  provincial : — (1)  a.d.  628,  summoned 
by  Lothaire,  but  nothing  more  known  of  it  (Labb. 
Cone.  V.  1854,  from  Airnain).  (2)  a.d.  633,  in 
the  presence  of  Dagobert,  respecting  the  sanctuary 


CLOVESHO,  COUNCILS  OF  397 

of  St.  Denis  (Labb.  ib.').  (3)  A.D.  659,  in  which 

Clovis  II.  confirmed  certain  privileges  to  St.  Denis 
{ib.  vi.  489,  sq.).  [A.  W.  H.] 

CLBIACUS,  JOHN,  Holy  Father,  i,  avy- 
ypa(p€vs  rrjs  KKipaKos,  A.D.  570  ;  is  comme¬ 
morated  March  30  {Cal.  Byzant.').  [C.] 

CLINIC  BAPTISM.  [Sick,  Visitation  of.] 
CLIPPIACENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Clichy.] 

CLOISTER  {Clan  strum,  Claustra,  fern.). 
The  word  claustrum  applies  strictly  to  the  wall 
or  enclosure  of  a  monastery  ;  as  in  the  phrase 
“  claustra  monasteidorum,”  in  the  22nd  and  29th 
canons  of  the  third  council  of  Tours.  Thence  it 
became  a  name  for  a  monastery.  According  to 
the  definition  of  the  Breviloquium,  “  claustrum 
dicitur  inhabitatio  religiosorum,  vel  domus  in- 
cludens  monachos  et  moniales  sub  certa  regula 
viventes.”  In  this  sense  it  is  frequently  used 
in  the  Capitularies  of  Charlemagne,  where  we 
read  of  “  claustra  monachorum,  canonicoruni, 
clericorum.”  Compare  French  cloitre,  German 
Kloster.  A  Roman  synod  of  the  year  826  (c.  7) 
enjoins  that  a  cloister  should  be  formed  near  each 
church,  for  the  better  discipline  and  instruction 
of  the  clerks. 

But  claustrum  (like  our  word  cloister)  is  ap¬ 
plied  in  a  special  sense  to  the  quadrangle  of  a 
monastery,  or  college  of  canons,  one  side  of  which 
is  generally  formed  by  the  church,  and  the 
others  by  the  conventual  buildings,  and  which 
frequently  has  an  arcade  or  colonnade  running 
round  the  sides,,  to  seiwe  as  an  ambulatory.  This 
was  assigned  in  some  ancient  statutes  as  the 
place  for  the  reading  of  the  monks  in  suitable 
weather.  The  ancient  07'do  Conversnt.  Monast. 
c.  9,  desires  that  the  monks  of  a  convent  should 
assemble  in  one  place  for  their  reading,  or  sit  in 
the  cloister.  Similarly  Hildemar  (MS.  Conime  d. 
on  Benedict’s  Rule,  c.  48,  quoted  by  Martene) 
and  Dunstan  {Concordia,  c.  5)  desire  the  monks, 
after  terce  and  mass,  to  sit  in  the  cloister  to 
read.  • 

The  monks  of  St.  Gall  in  the  9th  centurv  ex- 
eluded  from  their  cloister  all  secular  ])ersons 
whatever,  unless  under  the  guidance  of  a  brother 
and  wearing  a  monk’s  hood.  (Ducange's  Glos¬ 
sary,  s.  V.  Claustrum ;  Martene,  De  Ritibus 
Monachorum,  lib.  i.  c.  vii.  §  4;  lib.  ii.  c.  iii. 

§  19.)  [C.] 

CLOISTER  SCHOOLS.  [Schools.] 

CLOVESHO,  COUNCILS  OF,  provincial; 
locality  unknown,  except  that  it  was  in  the 
kingdom  of  Mercia,  and  probably  near  London 
(Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Counc.  iii.  122).  It  was 
selected  by  the  Council  of  Hertford,  a.d.  673,  as 
the  place  for  the  yearly  synod  of  the  English 
Church  {ib.  120),  yet  (singular  to  say)  the  first 
recorded  Council  of  Clovesho  was  not  until 

(1)  A.D.  716,  when  the  privilege  of  Wihtred  of 
Kent  to  the  churches  of  Kent  was  confirmed  by 
a  gtiieral  .synod  of  the  English  bishops,  under 
Ethelbald,  king  of  Mercia  (Haddan  and  Stubbs, 
Counc.  iii.  300-302).  This  was  followed  by 

(2)  A.D.  742,  a  council,  also  under  Ethelbald, 
for  the  same  purpose  (i6.  340-342);  and  (3)  A.D. 
747,  September,  the  Great  Council  under  Cuth- 
bert  for  reformation  of  abuse.s,  communicated  to, 
but  aj)parently  not  suggested  by,  St.  Boniface  of 
Mentz  (see  the  acts  and  letters,  &c.  ib.  360-385); 


398 


COADJUTOR  BISHOP 


COCK 


which  appointed  also  a  festival  day  foi*  both  St. 
Gregory  the  Great  and  St.  Augustine  of  Canter¬ 
bury.  (4)  A.D.  794,  ciilled  “  Sy nodale  Conci¬ 
lium,”  and  “  Sanctum  Concilium  ”  :  two  grants 
are  extant  made  there  (Kemble’s  Codex  Diplo- 
muticU',  164-167  ;  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils. 
486-485).  (5)  A.D.  798,  referred  wrongly  by 

Spelman  to  a.d.  800 :  some  charters  were  passed 
tliere  (Kemble’s  Codex  Uiplotnoticus,  175,  186, 
1019 ;  Haddan'  and  Stubb.s,  iii.  512-518). 
There  are  intimations  also  of  the  annual  synod 
having  been  held,  but  without  mention  of  the 
place  (^e.g.  a.d.  704,  and  736  or  737,  both 
Mercian  councils,  and  again,  a.d.  755,  Haddan 
and  Stubbs,  ib.  267,  337,  390),  which  may 
easily  therefore  have  been  Clovesho,  and  pro¬ 
bably  was  so.  [A.  W.  H.] 

COADJUTOR  BISHOP,  with  a  right  of 
succession,  was  distinctly  against  canon ;  on  the 
principle  that  such  an  appointment  interfered 
with  the  right  of  election  in  clergy  and  people, 
&c.  [Bishop.]  The  institution  of  chorepiscopi 
appears  to  have  been  among  the  earliest  plans 
for  meeting  the  case  of  overgrown  dioceses.  But 
instances  must  have  occurred  at  all  times  of 
bishops  incapacitated  by  sickness  either  of  body 
or  mind,  or  b}^  old  age.  And  under  such  circum¬ 
stances  resignations  were,  although  grudgingly, 
permitted.  [Bishop.]  Nevertheless,  coadjutors 
also, — meaning  by  the  term  full  bishops,  but 
acting  simply  in  place  of  the  proper  occupant  of 
the  see  (still  remaining  so),  and  with  no  right 
of  succession, — occur,  although  at  first  rarely ; 
almost  eveiy  early  case  being  mixed  up  with  the 
succession-question.  St.  Ambrose  certainly  speaks 
of  a  coadjutor  in  this  special  sense  being  given  to 
Bishop Bassus,  “in  consortium  regendaeecclesiae” 
(EpisL  79).  And  the  5th  Council  of  Paris  (a.d. 
577),  considerably  later,  contemplates  the  case 
as  an  exceptionally  legitimate  one.  “  Nullus 
episcoporum  se  vivente  alium  in  loco  suo  eligat, 

.  .  .  nisi  certae  conditiones  extiterint  ut  ecclesiam 
suam  et  clerum  regere  non  posset  ”  (can.  2). 
And  in  course  of  time  such  coadjutors  became  at 
length  common,  and  were  provided  for  by,  e.g. 
Boniface  VlII.  (in  Sexto  c.  Fastorcdis).  St.  Gre¬ 
gory  the  Great  meets  the  case  of  temporary 
sickness  by  the  temporary  help  of  a  neighbour¬ 
ing  bishop ;  but  in  more  permanent  cases  he 
distinctly  recommends  a  coadjutor,  but  without 
right  of  succession,  as,  e.g.  in  the  case  of  John 
of  Justiniana  Prima  (6f.  Gregory  M.  Epist. 
IX.  41).  [A.  W.  H.] 

COARB  (Coicarb,  Comharba,  Latinized,  into 
Corba,  =  Conterraneus,  or  ejusdem  terrae,  or  dis- 
trictus — so  Colgan),  the  title  in  the  Celtic-Irish 
and  Scottish  churches,  of  the  abbatial  successor 
of  the  original  founder  of  a  monastery.  So  an 
abbat  of  Hy  would  be  called  the  Coarb  of 
Columba;  of  A’^raagh,  the  Coarb  of  Patrick;  of 
Raphoe,  the  Coarb  of  Adamnan,  &c.,  &c.  The 
word  occurs  much  earlier  in  the  Annalists  ;  but 
its  common  use  dates  from  late  in  the  8th  century, 
when  such  abbacies  had  become  hereditary  in 
many  cases,  and  not  only  so,  but  had  passed  into 
the  hands,  in  some  instances,  of  laymen,  while  a 
prior  discharged  the  spiritual  office.  The  trans¬ 
formation  in  lapse  of  time  of  the  Herenach  or 
Airchinneach,  who  was  originally  the  represen¬ 
tative  of  the  lay  Adcocatus  of  the  monastery, 
bu,t  gradually  usurped  the  position  of  hereditary 


lay  posse.s.sor  of  his  original  third  of  the  produce 
of  monastic  lands,  brought  him  also  by  a  different 
line  to  a  condition  closely  resembling  what  the 
lay  coarbs  became  (as  e.g.  at  Dunkeld);  so  that 
the  coarb  became  to  a  monastery  what  the 
herenach  was  to  any  church,  monastic  or  not. 
A  female  coarb  occurs  once  or  twice  (Reeves,  ad 
Adamn.  V.  S.  Columbne,  Add.  Notes,  p.  404). 
Coarbs  that  were  still  clergy,  became  styled 
in  Ireland  in  later  times  Pleh  mi  =  rural  deans, 
or  archpresbyters,  or  chorepiscopi  (in  the  later 
sense  of  the  word),  i.e.  the  head  of  a  “  jdebs 
ecclesiastica,”  viz.  of  clergy  who  served  chaj)els 
under  him  as  rector.  [Reeves,  Colton’s  i'isi- 
tatio7i,  pp.  4  note,  145,  209 ;  Sj)elman,  Gloss, 
in  V.  Corba;  E.  W.  Robertson,  Early  Scotl.  i. 
330.]  [A.  \V.  H.] 

COAT,  THE  HOLY.  Its  miracles  are  com¬ 
memorated  on  Oct.  1  in  the  Georgian  Calendar. 

COCHLEAR.  [Spoon.]  [C. 

COCK.  Representations  of  this  bird  occur 
frequently  on  tombs  from  the  earliest  period. 
When  not  associated  with  the  figure  of  St.  Peter, 
as  Bottari,  tav.  Ixxxiv.,  or  placed  on  a  pillar,  as 
Boldetti,  p.  360 ;  Bottari,  taw.  xxxiv.  xxiii.,  &c., 
it  appears  to  be  a  symbol  of  the  Resurrection,  our 
Lord  being  supposed  by  the  early  Church  to  have 
bi'oken  from  the  grave  at  the  early  cock-crowing. 
A  peculiar  awe  seems  always  to  have  attached  to 
that  hour,  at  which  all  wandering  spirits  have 
through  the  Middle  Ages  been  supposed  to  vanish 
from  the  earth.  Hamlet  and  the  ancient  ballad 
called  The  Wife  of  Usher’s  Well  occur  to  us  as 
salient  examples  of  an  universal  superstition. 
Prudentius’  hymn  Ad  Galli  Cantum  {Cathem.  i. 
16)  adopts  the  idea  of  the  cock-crowing  as  a  call 
to  the  general  judgment  (“  Nostri  figura  est 
judicis  ”) ;  and  further  on  (45  seqq.)  he  says  : 

*  Hoc  esge  signum  praescii 
Noverunt  proniissae  spci, 

Qua  nos  sopore  liberi 
Speramus  adventum  DeL” 

And  again,  65  seqq. : 

"  Hide  est,  quod  onines  crediraus, 
lllo  quietis  tempore, 

Quo  gallus  exultans  canit, 

Cbristum  redisse  ex  inferis." 

See  Aringhi,  vol.  ii.  pp.  328-9  (in  a  complete  list 
of  animal  symbols).  Fighting-cocks  (see  the  pas¬ 
sage  last  quoted)  seem  to  symbolize  the  combat 


CODEX  CANONUM 


CODEX  CANONUM 


399 


with  secular  or  sensual  temptations.  The  prac¬ 
tice  pf  training  them  for  combat  has  probably 
always  existed  in  the  East,  and  certainly  was  in 
favour  at  Athens  (cf.  Aristoph.  Av.,  aipe  v\i]K- 
Tfjou,  et  ixa.')(^e7,  &c.).  tor  a  symbol  drawn  from 
such  a  pastime,  compare  St.  Paul’s  use  ot  the 
word  vircoTrid^w  (1  Cor.  ix.  27).  See  Bottari,  vol. 
iii.  t.  137. 

Two  cocks  accompany  the  Good  Shephei’d  in 
Bottari,  tav.  clxxii.  (from  the  tympanum  of  an 
arch  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Agnes).  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

CODEX  CANONUM  ECCLESIAE 

GRAECAE. 

„  „  „  ROM  AN  A  E. 

„  „  „  UNIYERSAE. 

To  treat  of  them  in  their  chronological  order, 
we  must  reverse  their  alphabetical,  and  proceed 
from  the  last  to  the  first.  Dionysius  Exiguus, 
in  dedicating  his  own  collection  (Migne’s  Patrol. 
Ixvii.  139)  to  Stephen,  bishop  of  Salona,  speaks 
of  two  collections  anterior  to  it ;  one  in  Greek  of 
165  canons,  according  to  him,  terminating  with 
the  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  381 ;  and 
another  in  Latin,  long  ago  translated  from  the 
Greek,  which  he  had  in  fact  been  asked  to  im¬ 
prove  upon.  The  Greek  collection  was  composed 
of  20  canons  passed  at  Nicaea  ;  25  at  Ancyra 
(which  he  reckons  as  24) ;  14  at  Neocaesarea ; 
20  at  Gangra ;  25  at  Antioch ;  59  at  Laodicea  ; 
and  6  at  Constantinople  (which  he  gives  as  3). 
All  had  been  framed  in  the  4th  centurv;  and  as 
they  begin  with  the  first  General  Council  and  end 
with  the  second,  the  probability  is  that  they  were 
put  together  so  as  to  form  a  collection  before 
the  date  of  the  4th  Council,  by  the  1st  canon  of 
which  they  were  confirmed,  and  in  the  acts 
of  which  they  are  more  than  once  cited  as  still 
numbered  iu  this  collection.  [CoxciL.  Chalced.] 
To  it  we  may  suppose  to  have  been  appended 
meanwhile — Justellus  (Patrol,  ih.  p.  29)  thinks 
by  Stephen,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  who  attended  the 
4th  Council,  as  there  seems  to  be  a  collection  of 
his  still  extant  containing  them — the  8  canons 
of  Ephesus  :  and  it  was  further  enlarged  by  the 
canons  of  Chalcedon  on  being  confirmed  there. 
In  this  shape  it  was  ordered  to  have  the  force  of 
law  by  the  Emperor  Justinian  in  his  131st  Novel. 
Whether  it  included  more  than  27  canons  of 
Chalcedon  is,  however,  open  to  question ;  as 
Dionysius,  who  must  have  translated  it  rather 
before  then,  ends  with  the  27th,  telling  Stephen 
expressly,  “  iu  his  Graecorum  canonum  finem  esse 
declaramus.”  And  so  far  is  he  from  standing 
alone  in  this,  that  even  John  Scholasticus,  a 
presbyter  of  Antioch,  who  became  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  in  the  last  year  of  Justinian, 
attributes  no  more  than  27  canons  to  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  in  his  collection,  by  which  he  means 
of  course  the  first  27.  With  these,  therefore, 
this  code  terminated.  The  Ephesiue  canons  in¬ 
deed  are  not  translated  by  Dionysius,  nor  in  the 
o’d  Latin  version  of  which  he  speaks;  but  they 
are  particularly  named  by  Justinian  :  and  John 
S.’holasticus,  though  he  reckons  them  at  seven, 
has  quoted  the  8th,  passing  over  the  7th  in  all 
probability  for  no  other  reason  than  its  irrele¬ 
vancy  to  the  subject-matter  of  his  collection. 
Still  this  code,  though  it  was  probably  con¬ 
firmed  at  Chalcedon,  and  became  law  for  the 
emi)ire  under  Justinian  in  this  shape,  seems 
never  to  have  been  received  in  this  shape  pre¬ 


cisely  by  the  Roman  or  the  Greek  Church. 
John  Scholasticus,  whose  descrij)tion  of  it, 
checked  by  the  number  of  canons  assigned  to  it 
by  Dionysius,  has  been  here  followed  in  pre¬ 
ference  to  the  Greek  version  edite  1  by  Justellus, 
which  is  of  later  date  (v.  append,  ad  op.  S.  Leon, 
ap.  Migne,  Patrol.  Ivi.  p.  18),  prefaces  it. by  85 
canons  of  the  Apostles,  as  he  calls  them ;  inter¬ 
polates  it  with  21  canons  of  Sardica;  and  tacks 
to  it  68  of  St.  Basil.  Similarly,  Dionysius  Exiguus, 
prefacing  it  with  50  canons  of  the  Apostle.s,  omits 
the  Ephesine,  but  appends,  over  and  above  the  21 
Sardican,  no  less  than  138  African  canons  :  in 
other  words,  the  entire  code  of  the  African 
Church  elsewhere  described.  Out  of  these  two 
collections  were  formed  separately,  (1)  the  code 
of  the  Roman,  and  (2)  the  code  of  the  Greek 
Church. 

1.  Dionysius,  as  we  have  seen,  speaks  of  an 
old  Latin  version  anterior  to  his  own ;  and  all  he 
I’emarks  on  it  is  its  “  confusion.”  It  was  first 
pixblished  by  Voellus  and  Henry,  son  of  Chris¬ 
topher,  Justelluf?,  A.D.  1661,  vol.  i.  pp.  276-304 
of  their  Bibliotheca  Juris  Canonici  1  eteris  ;  and 
afterwai'ds  in  a  more  perfect  form,  by  the  Bal- 
lerini,  in  their  learned  disquisitions  “  De  anti- 
quis  collectiouibus  et  collectoribus  canonum,” 
appended  to  their  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  Leo 
(Migne’s  Patrol.  Ivi.  747-816).  It  exhibits  24 
Ancyran  canons,  14  Neocaesarean,  21  Nicene 
(besides  the  ci-eed),  21  Sardican,  20  Gangran,  25 
Antiochian,  27  Chalcedonian,  4  Constantino{)0- 
litan ;  and  then  unnumbered,  but  as  though 
belonging  to  the  last,  the  28th  canon  of  Chalce¬ 
don,  “De  primatu  ecclesiaeConstantinopolitanae.” 
This  doubtless  was  its  “confusion”  in  the  eyes 
of  Dionysius ;  and  of  course  the  canons  of  Con¬ 
stantinople  should  have  preceded  those  of  Chal¬ 
cedon.  But  further,  at  the  head  of  the  bishops 
subscribing  to  the  28th  canon  of  Chalcedon, 
immediately  before  the  Roman  legates;,  is  Nec- 
tarius,  who  had  been  previously  and  rightly 
mentioned  among  the  framers  of  the  Constanti- 
nopolitan  canons.  Dionysius  corrected  this  inac¬ 
curacy  by  omitting  the  28th  canon  of  Chalcedon 
altogether.  The  fact  of  its  existence  there  proxies, 
however,  that  this  old  version  could  not  have 
been  very  much  earlier  than  that  of  Dion)'sius 
himself,  and  also  that  it  could  never  have  been 
of  any  authority  in  the  Roman  Church. 

That  there  was  any  regularly  authorised  col¬ 
lection  in  the  Roman  Church,  in  short,  before 
Dionysius  brought  out  his,  seems  improbable  for 
the  very  reasons  which  the  Ballerini  bring  for¬ 
ward  in  proof  of  qne  ;  namely,  that  till  then  the 
Sardican  and  Nicene  canons,  undistinguished  from 
each  other,  and  cited  under  the  latter  name, 
formed  its  exclusive  code  :  for  this  rather  shews 
— conformably  with  xvhat  pa.ssed  between  Poj'e 
Zosimus  and  the  African  church — that  up  to 
that  time  Rome  was  not  conscious  of  having 
accepted  any  but  the  Nicene  canons.  At  all 
events,  no  earlier  collection  of  a  public  cha¬ 
racter  including  more  than  these,  and  used  there, 
has  been  brought  to  light  on  their  own  shewing 
(i6.  p.  63-88),  as  with  the  collections  obtaining 
in  Africa,  Spain,  Britain,  and  France  we  are  not 
concerned.  That  the  want  of  a  similar  collection 
at  Rome  had  been  felt,  we  may  infer  from  the 
immediate  welcome  given  there  to  that  of  Dio¬ 
nysius.  Cassiodorus,  his  contemporary,  and  a 
Roman  by  birth,  says  iu  his  praise  that  “  he  com- 


4C0 


CODEX  CANONTTM 


CODEX  CANOXUM 


piled  lucidly,  and  with  great  flow  of  eloquence,  [ 
from  Greek  sources,  those  canons  which  the 
Roman  church  was  then  embi'acing,  and  using 
so  largely”  (IHvin.  Lect.  c.  23):  and  Dionysius 
made  them  doubly  acceptable  there  by  suj)ple- 
meuting  them  with  a  collection  of  the  decrees  of 
the  Roman  pontifls  from  Siricius  to  Anastasius  II., 
or  from  A.n.  383  to  498  ;  which,  in  his  dedicatory 
preface  to  Julian,  “presbyter  of  the  title  of  St. 
Anastasia,”  he  says  he  had  arranged  on  the  same 
plan  as  his  translation  of  the  canons— a  work 
that  he  understood  had  given  his  friend  so  much 
pleasure.  Whether  Dionysius  omitted  the  canons 
of  Ephesus,  as  not  being  canons  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  word — which  they  are  not  [Concil. 
El’ll.] — or  because  they  were  not  in  the  old 
Latin  version,  as  observed  before,  or  becau.se 
they  were  not  in  the  particular  Greek  version 
used  by  him,  is  not,  and  probably  will  never  be 
made  clear.  Again,  why  he  added  the  Sardican 
canons,  carefully  distinguished  from  the  Nicene, 
is  another  question  of  some  interest.  What  he 
says  is  that  he  gave  them  as  he  found  them 
published,  in  Latin.  Had  they  not,  then,  been 
published  in  Greek  likewise  ?  Certainly,  whether 
published  in  Greek  as  well  as  in  Latin  originally, 
or  translated  into  Greek  since,  we  know  from 
what  John  Scholasticus  says — of  which  presently 
— that  there  must  have  been  at  least  one  Greek 
collection  of  canons  extant,  at  once  containing 
and  citing  them  as  the  canons  of  Sardica — not  of 
Nicaea — when  he  published  his,  so  that  it  would 
have  been  useless  for  any  Latin  to  have  tried 
keeping  up  the  delusion  of  their  being  Nicene 
canons  any  longer.  But  then  supposing  him  to 
have  been  willing  to  do  .so,  had  it  been  possible, 
his  own  spontaneous  adoption  of  the  African 
canons  would  have  been  a  still  greater  puzzle. 
For  if  the  canons  of  Sardica  distinctly  coun¬ 
tenance,  by  making  provision  for,  appeals  to 
Rome,  the  African  canons  contain  the  most  po¬ 
sitive  declaration  against  them  to  be  found  in 
history.  [African  Councils.]  By  his  adoption 
of  the  African  canons,  therefore,  which  he  says 
existed  in  Latin,  and,  as  there  seems  every  reason 
to  think,  in  Latin  only  then,  from  their  not  being 
included  by  John  Scholasticus,  he  placed  his  own 
candour  beyond  dispute;  thus  enhancing  the  in¬ 
trinsic  merits  of  his  collection.  How  he  came 
by  his  materials  for  the  second  part,  or  appendix 
to  it,  consisting  of  the  decrees  of  the  Roman 
pontiffs  from  the  end  of  the  4th  to  the  end  of  the 
5th  century,  he  omits  to  explain.  He  merely 
says  that  he  had  inserted  all  he  could  find; 
which  is  as  much  as  to  say,  surely,  that  there 
was  no  collection  of  them  extant  to  his  know¬ 
ledge  before  his  own.  That  there  was  one  some¬ 
where,  notwithstanding,  the  Ballerini  think  highly 
probable  {ih.  p.  200-6).  However,  they  readily 
grant  that  in  each  case  the  excellence  of  his  col¬ 
lections  was  so  generally  recog-uized  as  to  make 
them  adopted  everywhere.  One  speedily  became 
styled  “  Codex  Canonum  the  other,  “  Liber  J)e- 
crctorum and  both  were  presented,  with  some 
later  additions  to  each,  as  some  think  of  his  own 
insertion  or  adoption,  by  Pope  Adrian  1.  to  Charle¬ 
magne,  A.D.  787,  with  a  dedication  in  verse  at  all 
events  as  from  himself,  ending  in  these  woi'ds  : 

“  A  lege  nunquam  di.scede,  haec  observans  statuta.” 
It  was  ))rinted  at  Mayence  A.D.  1525,  and  after¬ 
wards  at  Paris,  as  “  Codex  vetus  ecclesiae  lio- 
manae’’'  {Patrol.  Ixvii.  135-8,  and  Ivi.  206-11); 


I  a  title  which  belonged  to  it  long  before  then,  as, 
together  with  all  other  authentic  collections  ia 
the  West,  it  had  been  supplanted  gradually  by 
the  fraudulent  collection  known  as  that  of  Isidore 
Mercator,  or  Peccator,  and  first  published  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  9th  century. 

2.  We  may  now  turn  to  the  code  of  the  Greek 
church,  founded,  as  has  been  said,  on  the  col¬ 
lection  of  John  Scholasticus  ostensibly,  though 
his  was  not  the  earliest  work  of  the  kind  when 
it  came  out.  Like  Dionysius,  he  sj)eaks  of  another, 
or  rather  of  others,  who  had  anticipated  him, 
even  in  his  plan  of  arranging  the  canons,  not  in 
their  chronological  order,  but  according  to  their 
subject-matter  ;  the  only  difference  between  him 
and  them  being  that  they  had  made  their  col¬ 
lection  consist  of  sixty  titles ;  he  of  fifty ;  they 
had  omitted  the  canons  of  St.  Basil ;  he  had  sup¬ 
plied  them.  In  other  respects  his  collection  in¬ 
cluded  no  more  than  theirs,  nor  theirs  than  his  : 
though  he  considered  his  own  arrangement  more 
intelligible,  and  the  more  so  as  he  had  given  a 
list  at  starting  of  the  councils  from  which  he 
had  drawn,  and  of  the  number  of  canons  passed 
by  each.  In  his  own  language,  for  instance, 
the  Apostles  had  published  85  canons  through 
St.  Clement ;  and  there  had  been  ten  synod* 
since  their  time,  Nicaea,  Ancyra,  Neocaesarea, 
Sardica,  Gangra,  Antioch,  Laodicea,  Constan¬ 
tinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedou,  whose  canons 
together  amounted  to  224  (their  respective  num¬ 
bers  have  been  anticipated)  ;  to  which  he  had 
ventured  to  append  68  of  St.  Basil.  His  posi¬ 
tion  as  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  doubtless, 
stamped  his  collection  with  authority  from  the 
first.  But,  like  Dionysius,  he  rendered  it  still 
more  acceptable  for  another  reason,  namely,  that 
he  supplemented  it  by  a  second  work  called  his 
Nomocanon,  from  containing  in  addition  the 
laws  of  the  emperors.  Thus  the  imperial  decrees 
became  mixed  up  with  the  code  of  the  East,  just 
as  the  papal  decrees  with  that  of  the  West. 

The  earlier  of  his  collections  received  autho¬ 
ritative  confirmation,  as  well  as  enlargement,  in 
the  7th  century,  by  the  second  of  the  Trullan 
canons,  given  in  a  former  article.  [CoNCiL. 
Constant.]  And  this  code  was  further  aug¬ 
mented  by  the  102  canons  then  passed,  authori¬ 
tatively  received  in  the  1st  canon  of  the  2nd 
Nicene,  or  7th  Council.  This  Council  added  22 
canons  of  its  own ;  and  the  two  Councils  of 
Constantinople,  called  the  1st  and  2nd  under 
Photius,  17  and  3  more  respectively:  all  which 
wei’e  incorporated  by  Photius  into  two  works  of 
his  own,  corresponding  to  those  of  his  predecessor 
John,  already  described  ;  one  called  his  S'intagma 
Canonum,  and  the  other  his  Nomocanon  (^ligne’s 
Patrol.  Gr.  civ.  441-1218).  But  there  is  also 
a  third  work,  distinct  from  both,  attributed  to 
him  by  Cardinal  Mai,  being  the  identical  text  of 
the  canons  of  each  of  the  councils  previously 
mentioned,  in  their  chronological  order  (exhi¬ 
bited  by  Beveridge,  Synod,  vol.  i.) ;  followed  by 
the  canons  of  the  different  fathers,  enumerated  in 
the  2nd  Trullan  canon  {Synod,  vol.  ii.),  and  by 
the  letter  of  St.  Taraslus  to  Pope  Adrian  1.  against 
simoniacal  ordinations ;  on  which  Balsamon,  Zo- 
uaras,  and  Aristenus  afterwards  commented,  and 
called  his  Synagoge  Canonum  {Patrol,  ib.  p.  431). 
Such  accordingly  was,  and,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is 
still  the  code  of  the  Greek  Church  :  the  differences 
between  it  .and  that  of  the  Roman  Church  may  be 


I 


CODEX 

appreciated  by  concpariug  their  respective  com¬ 
ponents.  [E.  S.  b.] 

CODEX.  [Lituugical  Books.] 

COEN  A  E.  [.\gapak.] 

COENA  DOMINI.  [Maundy  Thursday.] 
C0P:NA  pub  a.  [Good  Friday.] 

COENOBIUM  (koiuS^iov).  The  word  “  coe- 
nobium  ”  is  equivalent  to  “  monasterium  in 
the  later  sense  of  that  word.  Cassian  dis¬ 
tinguishes  the  word  thus.  “  Monasterium,”  he 
.says,  may  be  the  dwelling  of  a  single  monk, 
“  coenobium  ”  must  be  of  several  ;  the  former 
word,  he  adds,  e.xpresses  only  the  place,  the 
latter  the  manner  of  living  (Coll,  xviii.  10).  The 
neglect  of  this  distinction  has  led  to  much  in- 
accuracY  in  attempting  to  fix  the  date  of  the 
first  “  coenobia  ”  or  communities  of  monks  under 
one  roof  and  under  one  government.  Thus  Helyot 
(Hist,  des  Ordr.  Mon.  Diss.  Prelim.  §  5)  ascribes 
their  origin  to  Antony,  the  famous  anchorite  of 
the  Thebaid  in  the  3rd  century.  But  the  counter- 
opinion,  which  ascribes  it  to  Pachomius  of  Tabenua 
a  century  later  is  more  probable  (cf.  Tillem. 
H.  E.  vii.  167,  176,  676);  for  it  seems  to  have 
been  the  want  of  some  fixed  rule  to  control  the 
irregularities  arising  from  the  vast  number  of 
eremitae,  with  their  cells  either  entirely  isolated 
from  one  another  or  merely  grouped  together 
casually,  which  gave  the  first  occasion  to  coe¬ 
nobia.”  ]\Iarteue  indeed  makes  the  community 
monastic  prior  in  time  to  the  solitary  life  (Comm, 
in  Beg.  S.  B.  c.  1) ;  but  in  this  he  appeal’s  to 
be  misled  by  the  common  error  of  attaching  to 
“  monasterium  ”  (g.ovaffTfipiov')  in  the  oldest 
writers  the  meaning,  which  it  assumed  only  in 
course  of  time  (cf.  Tillem.  H.  E.  vii.  102).  Cassian 
himself  in  the  very  passage  cited  by  Martene  in 
support  of  this  theory,  distinctly  traces  back  the 
word  to  the  solitaries  (ot  novd^ovres'),  the  earliest 
of  monks  (Coll,  xviii.  5).  In  allowing  that  the 
earliest  mention  of  Lauras  occurs  a  little  before 
the  middle  of  the  4th  century,  Helyot  supplies 
a  strong  argument  against  himself  (Diss.  Prel. 
§  5).  I^r  the  Lauras  were  an  attempt  at  com¬ 
bining  the  detached  hermitages  into  a  sort  of 
community,  though  without  the  order  and  regu¬ 
larity  which  constituted  a  “coenobium;”  and 
thus  appear  to  have  been  a  stepping-stone  to¬ 
wards  the  “coenobium  ”  of  Pachomius.  In  view 
of  other  considerations  to  the  contrary,  much 
importance  cannot  be  attached  to  the  passage 
which  Helyot  cites  from  the  Vita  Antonii,  called 
by  St.  Athanasius,  as  it  may  probably  be  one  of 
the  many  Interpolations  there ;  nor  to  the  pass¬ 
age  from  Rut}inus(/)e  Verb.  Sen.  31)  which  speak 
of  Pior  being  dismissed  at  the  early  age  of  25 
^by  Antony,  as  already  fit  to  live  alone,  for  there 
is  nothing  here  about  a  community,  only  about 
Pior  being  himself  trained  by  the  great  eremite 
(cf.  Tillem.  H.  E.  vii.  109).  In  fact,  the  growth 
of  coenobitism  seems  to  have  been  very  gradual. 
L.arge  numbers  of  ascetics  were  collected  near 
the  Mons  Nitrius  (Ruff.  /list.  Mon.  30  [v.  Cel- 
litae]),  and  doubtless  elsewhere  also,  even  before 
Pachomius  had  founded  his  coenobium.  But  the 
interval  is  considerable  between  this  very  im¬ 
perfect  organisation  of  monks  thus  herding  law¬ 
lessly  together  (Pallad.  Eist.  Bans.  c.  7),  and 
the  svmmetricjil  arrangement  of  the  Benedictine 
system.  Tabenna  forms  the  connecting  link. 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


COENOBIUM  401 

V'ery  probably  the  earliest  coenobia  were  of 
women ;  for,  though  the  word  no.gdivuv,  in  the 
<account  of  Antony  having  his  sister  in  the 
charge  of  devout  women  (Ath.  Vita  Ant.)  is  by 
no  means  conclusive  (but  cf.  Tillem.  //.  E.  vii. 
107),  the  female  eremites  would  naturally  be 
the  first  to  feel  the  need  of  combination  for 
mutual  help  and  security. 

The  origin  of  the  coenobitic  life  is  traced  back 
to  the  time  befoi’e  the  Christian  era.  Something 
similar  is  seen  in  the  pages  of  Plato  (Legg. 
780,  1),  and  the  Pythagoreans  are  described  by 
Aulus  Gellius,  as  living  together  and  having  a 
community  of  goods  (  Noctes  Atticae,  i.  9). 

Opinions  have  been  divided  among  the  admirers 
of  asceticism  as  to  the  comparative  merits  of  the 
solitary  life  and  the  coenobitic.  Cassian  looks 
up  to  the  life  of  perfect  solitude  as  the  pinnacle 
of  holiness,  for  which  the  coenobitic  life  is  only 
a  preparatory  discipline  (e.  g.  Coll.  xix.  3).  Theo- 
phylact  interprets  “  those  who  bear  fruit  an 
hundredfold  ”  in  the  parable  as  virgins  and 
eremites  (S.  Marc.  iv.  20).  Basil,  on  the 
contrary,  and  the  sagacious  Benedict,  prefer  the 
life  of  the  coenobite  as  safer,  more  edifying,  less 
alloyed  by  the  taint  of  selfishness.  (Bas.  Reg. 
c.  7,  Bened.  Reg.  c.  1.)  So,  too,  Isidorus  His- 
palensis,  one  of  the  founders  of  monasticism  in 
Spain  (De  Off.  Ecc.  ii.  15,  ap.  Cone.  Reg.  iii.), 
and  Cuthbert  of  Lindisfarne  (Mab.  Ann.  xvi. 
72).  Even  Jerome,  his  monastic  fervour  notwith¬ 
standing,  prefers  life  in  the  community  to  life 
in  uttei’  solitude ;  though  at  first  he  seems  to 
have  been  a  zealous  upholder  of  the  contrary 
opinion  (Hier.  Epp.  ad  Rustic.  125;  cf.  ad  Ile- 
liod.  14).  Doubtless  experience  had  impressed 
on  him  the  perils  of  solitude.  Legislators  found 
it  expedient  to  curb  the  rage  for  eremitism. 
Justinian  ordered  monks  to  stay  within  the 
.“  coenobia  ”  (Novell,  v.  ap.  Suic.  Thes.  s.  v.  cf. 
Cone.  Carth.  c.  47 ;  cf.  Cone.  Agath.  c.  38). 
Similarly  the  great  Karl  discouraged  hermits, 
while  protecting  coenobitic  monks  (e.  g.  Cone. 
Francof.  794  a.d.  c.  12),  and  the  7th  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Toledo  censured  roving  and  .solitary 
monks  (Cone.  Tolet.  vii.  c.  5).  Even  in  the 
East  the  same  distrust  prevailed  of  persons 
undertaking  more  than  they  could  bear.  Thus 
the  Council  in  Trullo  enjoined  a  sojourn  of 
some  time  in  a  coenobium  as  the  preliminary 
to  life  in  the  desert  (Cone.  Trull.  692  a.d.  c. 
41).  Benedict  aptly  illustrates  the  difference 
from  his  point  of  view  between  these  two  forms 
of  asceticism.  The  solitary,  he  savs,  leaves  the 
Ijne  of  battle  to  fight  in  a  single  combat  (Reg. 
c.  1,  cf.  Cone.  Regq.  iii.  cf.  Sulp.  Sev.  Dial. 
i.  17). 

“  Coenobium  ”  is  used  sometimes  in  mediaeval 
writers  for  the  “basilica”  or  church  of  the 
monastery  (Mab.  Ann.  Q.  S.  B.  iv.  4).  A  Greek 
equivalent  for  “  coenobitae  ”  is  avroSiTai,  de¬ 
rived  from  (TuudSos  (Bingh.  Orig.  Eccl.  vii.  ii. 
3,  Suicer.  Thes.  .s.  v.).  Gennadius  mentions 
a  treatise  by  Evagrius  Monachus,  “  De  coeno- 
bitis  et  synoditis  ”  (De  Scr.  Ecc.  ap.  Fabric 
Bibl.  Ecc.).  Jerome  gives  “  Sauches,”  or 
“  Sausse.s,”  as  the  Egyptian  equivalent  (Ep. 
22,  ad  Eustoch.).  In  mediaeval  Latin  “  coeno- 
bita”  is  sometimes  ccenobitalis,  -ialis,  -iota,  or 
-ius.  (Du  Cange,  Gloss,  s.  v.',  ;  “  claustrum  ” 
(cloister)  “conventus”  are  frequently  used  for 
“  coenobium.” 


402 


COINTA 


COLIDEI 


Besides  the  authorities  cited,  sec  Hospiuiani 
(^De  Origine  et  Progressu  Mcynachatus,  Lib.  iii. 
Tiguri  1588).  See  also  Asceticism,  Benedic¬ 
tine  Rule,  and  Monastery.  [1.  G.  S.] 

COINTA,  martyr,  Feb.  8.  [Quinta.]  [C.] 
COFFIN.  [Burial.] 

COLIDEI,  = /Serm  Dei  (explained 

also  by  such  authorities  as  O’Reilly  and  Curry, 
as  equivalent  to  Sponsi  Dei,  but,  according  to 
O’Donovan  and  Reeves,  with  less  probability):  in 
Scotch  records,  generally,  Keledei,  which  seems 
the  more  accurate  spelling:  in  Jocelyn  (F.  5. 
Kenteg.'),  Calledei ;  in  Gii-ald.  Camb.  and  in  the 
Armagh  Registers,  Colidei,  as  if  Deicolae  or  Dei 
Cultores,  or  (so  Girald.  Camb.)  Caelicolae  ;  and  in 
Hector  Boece,  and  from  him  in  Buchanan,  and 
thence  in  modern  writers,  corrupted  into  Ciildei 
or  Culdees  •  —  at  first,  simply  an  Irish  rendering 
of  what  was  an  ordinary  Latin  name  for  monks, 
and  so  used  apparently  in  older  Irish  documents  : 
but  appropriated  in  Ireland  about  the  latter  part 
of  (at  least)  the  8th  century  to  a  specially  ascetic 
order  of  monks,  established  by  Maelruain  (ob. 
A.  D.  792)  at  Tamhlacht,  now  Tallaght,  near 

Dublin,  whose  Rule  still  exists  (R)45411  T)4 

CdG''D-U'DC)  5  whom  it  is  also  possible 

that  some  of  their  peculiar  characteristics  were 
borrowed  from  those  of  the  canons  established 
by  Chrodegang  of  Metz  about  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
turv  earlier,  inasmuch  as  the  later  Keledei  of 
both  Ireland  and  Scotland  did  in  many  points 
resemble  secular  canons.  The  name  reappears 
in  Ireland  (elsewhere  than  at  Tallaght)  in  the 
10th  and  llth  centuries.  But  by  this  time,  in 
some  instances,  as  at  Clonmacnois,  the  head  of 
the  Ce'li-De'  was  married,  and  his  office  heredi¬ 
tary  ;  although  there  were  still  instances  to  the 
contrary,  as  in  the  island  in  Loch  Monaincha 
(co.  Ti])perary),  the  “Colidei”  of  which  are  dis¬ 
tinctly  called  “  coelibes  ”  by  the  contemporary 
Giraldus  Cambr.  at  the  end  of  the  12th  century. 
At  Armagh,  also,  and  at  Devenish  in  Loch  Erne, 
the  original  “Colidei”  are  found,  after  Northmen 
ravages  and  at  later  periods,  displaced  by,  but 
coexisting  with,  a  regular  cathedral  chapter  and 
a  priory  of  regular  canons  respectively ;  while, 
in  other  places,  they  were  merged  altogether  into 
the  chapter.  At  Armagh,  indeed,  the  Culdee 
body  lasted  until  the  Reformation,  and  the  name 
until  at  least  a.d.  1628.  In  Scotland,  the  name 
had  a  parallel  but  a  more  notable  history. 
The  order  seems  to  have  been  introduced  into 
that  country  shortly  after  A.d.«  800.  “  Cal¬ 

ledei,”  living  a  specially  ascetic  life,  but  as 
“  singulares  clerici,”  and  “  in  singulis  casulis,” 
were  traditirnally  the  clergy  of  St.  Kentegern’s 
cathedral  of  Glasgow  (Jocel.  in  V.  8.  Kenteg.'); 
and  a  di?t'.nct  connection  is  traceable  between 
St.  Kentegern  and  the  Irish  Church.  But  the 
name  keledei  occurs  historically,  as  a  name  for 
a  clerical  body  of  monks,  used  in  Scotland  by 
writers,  contemporary  (or  nearly  so),  and  in 
charters,  from  the  9th  century;  and  it  becomes 
thenceforward  the  name  simply  of  a  particular 
but  numerous  class  of  the  older  monastic  bodies 
of  the  Irish  type,  all  however  north  of  the 
Forth,  as  distinguished  1,  from  Columbite  Mo¬ 
nasteries,  and  2,  from  the  sjiecial  Augustinian, 
Benedictine;  and  other  orders  introduced  from  the 


end  of  the  llth  century.  And  inasmuch  as  most 
of  those  older  foundations  had  become  lax  indis¬ 
cipline,  and  often  consisted  of  married  men  who 
handed  on  t  heir  Culdeeships  to  their  children, — yet 
at  the  same  time  still  commonly  clerical,  although 
in  some  cases  (like  many  Scotch  monasteries  of 
that  date)  held  and  transmitted  by  lay  abbat.s, — 
the  name  came  to  signify,  not  (as  at  first)  sjtecial 
asceticism,  but  precisely  the  reverse.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  a.d.  1124-1153,  King  David  commenced 
the  great  change,  which  finally  either  superseded 
the  Keledei  by  superadding  to  them  a  superior 
body  of  regular  canons,  as  at  St.  Andrews  and 
Dunkeld,  or  merged  the  Keledei  themselves  into 
the  cha2)ter,  as  at  Brechin,  Ross,  Dunblane, 
Dornoch,  Lismore  (Argyll),  and  the  Isles,  or 
into  a  body  of  regular  canons  in  no  connection 
with  a  bishop’s  see,  as  at  Abernethy,  &c.  The 
middle  or  end  of  the  13th  century  appears  to 
have  completed  in  Scotland  the  suppression  of 
both  name  and  class.  The  name  Colidei  occurs 
also  in  England  at  York  as  early  as  a.d,  936,  as 
applied  to  the  then  officiating  clergy  of  the 
Minster,  who  were  displaced  apparently  (like 
their  Scotch  brethren)  by  the  arrival  of  Norman 
archbishops,  but  continued  under  another  name 
(viz.  as  the  hospital  of  St.  Leonard’s)  until  the 
dissolution  under  Henry  VIII. ;  the  name  Colidei 
being  still  employed  in  their  chartulary,  which 
was  engrossed  in  the  reign  of  Henry  V.  (Dugd. 
Mon.  VI.  ii.  607).  Lastly,  the  same  name  is 
applied  by  Giraldus  Cambr.  to  certain  ascetics 
in  the  Isle  of  Bardsey  in  Wales  in  the  year  1188. 
Neither  in  Ireland  nor  in  Scotland  is  there 
the  slightest  trace  of  foundation,  in  any  really 
authoritative  document,  for  any  supposed  pecu¬ 
liarities  of  doctrine  or  of  church  government, 
derived  by  Culdees  from  some  Eastern  or  other 
source,  and  handed  down  by  them ;  nor  for  any 
other  connection  between  them  and  the  Colum¬ 
bite  monasteries  than  that  both  were  of  Irish 
type.  The  abbey  of  Hy  itself  was  distinctly 
not  Keledean,  although  at  a  very  late  period 
(a.d.  1164)  a  subordinate  body  of  Keledei 
are  found  in  the  island.  The  details  however 
of  the  great  revolution  in  the  organization  of 
the  Scotch  Church,  which  involved  as  part  of 
itself  the  transformation  of  the  older  monastic 
arrangements  into  the  new,  and  (more  noticeable 
still)  the  transfer  of  jurisdiction  from  presbyter 
abbats  to  diocesan  bishops, — both  processes  im¬ 
plying  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  suppression 
of  Keledean  foundations, — belong  to  a  jieriod 
some  centuries  later  than  that  to  which  this 
article  refers.  As  does  also,  much  more,  the 
history  of  the  strange  perversions  of  the  facts 
of  the  case  by  combined  ignorance  and  partisan¬ 
ship,  which  are  hardly,  it  seems,  all  exploded 
everywhere  even  now. 

[This  account  is  abridged  from  Dr.  Reeves’s 
carefully  exact  monograjih  On  the  Cnldees, 
Dublin,  1864;  to  which  is  subjoined  an  Appendix 
of  Evidences,  conclusively  establishing  the  writer’s 
main  positions.  There  is  a  candid  account  of  the 
subject  also  in  Grub’s  Hist,  of  the  Ch.  of  Scot¬ 
land,  vol.  i.,  written  however  before  the  pub¬ 
lication  of  Dr.  Reeves’s  exhaustive  essay  ;  and  a 
brief,  and  on  the  whole  competent,  summary  of 
the  case  in  ch.  x.  of  E.  W.  Robertson’s  Early 
Scotland,  written  also  under  the  like  disad¬ 
vantage.  Earlier  writers,  as  a  rule,  are  not 
worth  mentioning.]  [A.  \V .  H.] 


COLLATION 

COLLATION  (Collatio).  The  reading  from 
the  lives  or  Collationes  of  the  Fathers,  which  St. 
Benedict  {Rejula,  c.  42)  instituted  in  his  monas¬ 
teries  before  compline.  Such  compilations  as,  for 
instance,  the  Cullationes  of  John  Cassian  were 
read,  and  hence  probably  the  name.  Compare 
Isidore,  Rcgula,  c.  8.  Ardo  Smaragdus,  however 
(on  the  Rulcy  c.  42),  says  that  this  service  was 
called  collatio  “quasi  collocutio  vel  confabu- 
latio,”  because  the  monks  questioned  each  other 
on  the  portions  read.  To  the  same  effect  Hono- 
rius  of  Autun,  Gemma  Animae,  ii.  63.  Fructu- 
osus  (Rejula,  c.  3)  desires  the  abbot  or  provost 
to  expound  the  book  read  to  the  more  simple 
brothers. 

The  Benedictine  practice  is  to  hold  this  service 
in  the  church,  and  this  is  probably  in  accordance 
with  the  founder’s  intention  ;  for  he  evidently 
contemplated  the  collation  being  held  in  the 
same  place  as  compline.  (Martene,  De  Ant. 
Monach.  Rit.  lib.  i.  c.  11,  p.  35;  Ducauge,  s.  v. 
Collttio.)  [C.] 

COLLECT  (Collecta,  Collecta  orotio,  oratio, 
missa,  see  below).  The  Collects  of  the  Western 
Church,  for  they  differ  in  some  important  respects 
from  the  pra3’’er-forms  of  the  Eastern  (Freeman’s 
Principles,  &c.,  i.  372)  have  certain  well-marked 
characteristics  which  are  common  to  them  all. 
But  the  question  what  is  the  differentia  of  a 
collect,  what  it  is  that  makes  a  prayer  receive 
this  name,  must  probably  be  determined  by  the 
etymology  or  the  history  of  the  word. 

The  structure  of  collects  consists  of  (1)  an 
invocation  of  God  the  Father  with  some  attri¬ 
bute,  and  the  ascription  in  the  relative  form  of 
some  property  or  action ;  (2)  next  follows  the 
object  desired  by  the  prayer,  often  with  the 
addition  of  ulterior  results  derived  from  it, 
(3)  either  an  ascription  of  gloiy  or  a  plead¬ 
ing  of  the  merits  of  Christ.  Their  general 
character  is  to  “  combine  strength  with  sweet- 
ness,”* *  says  Canon  Bright,  “to  say  much  in 
saving  little,  to  address  the  Most  Hi"h  in  adoring 
awe,  to  utter  man’s  needs  with  profound  pathos 
and  with  calm  intensity,  to  insist  on  the  absolute 
necessity  of  grace,  the  Fatherly  tenderness  of 
God,  the  might  of  the  all-prevailing  name 
they  “  are  never  weak,  never  diluted,  never 
drawling,  never  ill-arranged,  never  a  provocation 
to  listlessness;  thoy  exhibit  an  exquisite  skill  of 
antithesis  and  a  rhythmical  harmony  which  the 
ear  is  loth  to  lose.”  Many  of  the  collects  now  in 
use  are  undoubtedly  of  very  great  antiquity,  and 
are  founded  on  prayer-forms,  such  as  versicles 
or  responses,  still  older ;  and  this  distinction 
between  merely  short  petitions  and  what  is  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  idea  of  collect  is  made  by  Bona  in 
determining  the  date  of  the  introduction  of  the 
collects  “  now  in  use  ”  into  the  Western  Church.^ 

Of  these  he  says  Loo  the  Great  (pope  from 
440  to  461)  and  Gelasius  (pope  from  492  to 
496)  were  the  first  composers,  in  the  form  that 
is  in  which  we  have  them  in  the  Western  Church. 
From  the  S.vcramentaries  attributed  to  Leo, 
Gelasius,  and  Gregory,  are  derived  many  of  the 
collects  of  the  English  Prayer-Book.  And  the 
remote  source  of  these  collects  is  more  ancient 
still.®  “The  idea  of  the  Western  collect,  is  in 

*  Ancient  Collects,  pp.  193-200. 

Bona,  De  Reb.  Lit.  ii.  5.  4.  quoted  by  Freeman,  1.  144. 

'  F.  D.  S.  i.  144-5. 


COT.LECT  403 

all  respects  derived  from  the  consideration  of  the 
Eastern  system.  We  seem  to  sec  comj)rcssed 
into  the  terse  collects  of  Lee,  Gelasius,  or  Gre¬ 
gory,  the  more  diffuse  sjiirit  of  the  Eastern 
hymns,  and  thus  they  would  be,  so  to  speak,  the 
very  quintessence  of  the  gospels  on  which  the 
latter  were  founded.”  “  The  only  innovation 
made  by  the  Western  composers,  and  that  a  very 
natural  one,  was  to  incorporate  the  collect,  not 
with  the  ordinary  service  only  but  with  the 
communion  office  itself.”  Indeed,  in  the  ritual 
of  the  West*^  the  chief  “means  by  which  the 
ordinary  office  is  continually  linked  on  to  the 
eucharistic  is  the  weekly  collect.  In  the  East 
the  vespers  and  lauds  preceding  a  festival  are 
largely  coloured  by  a  variety  of  hymns,  many  of 
them  resembling  prayers,  and  all  referring  to  the 
gospel  of  the  coming  day.  In  the  West,  though 
originally  there  were  several,  we  have  now' 
mostly  only  a  single  prayer,  composed  generally 
out  of  epistle  and  gospel  taken  together,  or  with 
some  reference  to  both.  And  this,  though  used 
at  the  vespers  of  the  eve,  and  characteristic  of 
that  office,  is  also  continued  throughout  the 
week.”  Our  “  first  collect,  then,  is  not  merely 
a  link  betw'een  our  common  and  our  eucharistic 
offices,  but  reflecting  as  it  docs  the  spirit  of  the 
epistle  and  gospel  it  presents  to  us  the  appointed 
variation  of  the  eucharistic  office  for  the  current 
week.” 

It  remains  now  to  speak  of  the  etymology 
of  the  word,  and  it  is  a  question  more  easy  to 
state  than  to  settle.  The  w’ord  may  be  derived  * 
either  (1)  from  the  circumstances  of  those  who 
use  the  prayer,  or  (2)  from  something  in  the 
character  of  the  prayer  itself.  (1.)  In  the  former 
case  the  name  is  taken  from  the  “Collecta,”  or 
people  assembled  for  w'orshijt;  and  this  origin  of 
the  word  has  the  support  of  Krazer,*"  who  says 
that  in  “early  times  the  only  ])rayer  called 
collect  was  that  w'hich  was  wont  to  be  said  for 
the  people  v/hen  assembled  (collectus)  in  one 
church  with  the  whole  bod}'  of  the  clei'gy  for 
the  purpose  of  proceeding  to  another.”  The 
sacramentary  of  Gregory  makes  this  quite 
deal',  in  w’hich  on  the  feast  of  the  Purification 
two  prayers  are  provided,  one  entitled  “  Ad 
Collectam  ad  S.  Adrianum,”  where  clergy  and 
people  were  assembled  to  go  from  -  thence  to  S, 
Maria  Maggiore  ;  the  other  “  oratio  ad  missam  ' 
(as  if  the  first  were  not  an  eucharistic  jirayer), 
“  but  as  time  went  on,”  he  says,  “  all  prayers 
said  ‘ad  Missam’  were  called  collects,  because 
the  priest  rejieated  them  ‘super  populum  collec- 
tum  swe  congregatum.’  ”  This  theory  is  perhaps 
not  so  attractive  as  the  two  others  w'hich  remain 
to  be  mentioned,  but  it  has  probability  on  its 
side,  as  “collecta”  for  “oratio  ad  collectam  ”  is 
just  such  an  abbreviation  as  usage  would  produce, 
while  the  more  recent  eucharistic  association  of 
the  word  would  account  for  prayers  alike  in 
other  respects  being  called,  some  of  them  prayers 
and  others  collects.  Those  who  reject  this 
origin  must  explain  the  phrase  “oratio  ad 
collectam  ”  follow'ed  immediately  bj  “oratio  ad 
missam  ”  on  another  hypothesis. 

(11.)  If  the  prayer  derives  its  name  ‘collect  ’ 
from  its  own  character,  it  maj'  be  so  called  either 
because  (1)  it  is  a  condensation  of  Script ure- 


<*  Freeman,  Principles  of  Divine  .Service,  i.  p  367. 

*  Bright,  A.  C.  202,  sq.  i  De  l.ilurp.  ^  225. 

2  L) 


401 


COLLECT 


COLLECT 


teaching,  anil  more  especially  in  the  case  of  the 
collects  for  Sun  lays  and  holydays,^  because  it  is, 
as  has  been  said,  in  many  cases  the  fiuintessence 
of  the  epistle  and  gospel  for  the  day.  Wheatly 
adopts  this  view  (ch.  iii.  sect,  xix.)  with  regard 
to  the  communion  collect,  and  Archdeacon  Free¬ 
man'*  seems  decidedly  to  incline  to  it,  citing  Ilona 
{[{.  L.  II.  V.  §  3)  in  its  support,  and  saying  that 
at  ail  events  it  renders  very  accurately  one  great 
characteristic  '  of  the  collect ;  or  because  '  (2) 
“  colligit  orationes”  it  sums  up  the  prayers  of 
the  a.ssembly  ;  but  “  the  communion  collect  does 
not  sum  up  any  previous  petitions,”  though  it 
might  be  said  to  gather  and  offer  up  in  one 
comprehensive  prayer  all  the  devotional  aspira¬ 
tions  of  the  people.  And  if  this  be  the  true  idea 
of  the  prayer,  it  must  have  got  the  name  not 
from  summing  up  all  that  had  been  said  in 
prayer  before,  for  these  collectae  were  sometimes 
said  before  the  concluding  part  of  the  service,'' 
but  for  the  reason  just  given,  that  it  collects  and 
presents  to  God  in  a  compendious  form  all  the 
spoken  and  unspoken  petitions  of  the  congrega¬ 
tion  to  Him.  It  is  a  recommendation  of  this 
derivation  that  it  applies  equally  to  all  prayers 
of  the  collect-form,  and  does  not  apply  only 
to  the  communion-collects  and  leave  the  etymo¬ 
logy  of  the  others  undecided,  an  objection  which 
may  be  urged  against  a  former  derivation 
(H.  1). 

It  may  be  said  that  both  these  latter  deriva¬ 
tions  have  an  ex  post  facto  air,  that  they  are 
wanting  in  historical  basis,  and  are  just  such  as 
would  occur  to  persons  who  finding  the  word 
set  themselves  to  discover  the  origin  of  its  use 
from  its  form ;  while  the  first  rests  on  the 
fact  that  in  the  Vulgate,  '  and  by  the  ancient 
fathers,'"  the  word  collect  is  u.sed  to  denote  the 
gathering  together  of  the  people  into  religious 
assemblies,  and  that  in  the  sacramentary 
of  Gregory  a  collect  is  provided  to  be  said 
“  ad  collectam  ad  S.  Adrianum.”  "  Archdeacon 
Freeman®  infers  from  this  that  in  Gregory’s 
time  the  ordinary  office  as  distinguished  from 
the  communion  was  called  “  collecta,”  and  goes 
on  to  say,  “  it  is  very  conceivable  that  a 
prayer  which,  though  also  said  at  commu¬ 
nion  has  this  as  its  characteristic  that  it  was 
designed  to  impart  to  the  ordinary  service  the 
spirit  of  the  eucharistic  gospel,  would  on  that 
account  be  called  colleota,”  which  seems  to  be 
rather  going  out  of  the  way  to  account  for  a 
prayer  being  called  ‘collecta  oratio  ’  which  was 
said  at  a  service  confessedly  called  ‘  collecta.’ 
[Collecta.]  • 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  derivation  of  the 
word  Collecta,  it  is  applied  in  rituals  especially 
to  the  following. 

1.  The  prayers  which  immediately  precede 
the  Epistle  and  Gospel  in  the  Mass.  What  was 
the  number  of  these  in  ancient  times  is  not 
absolutely  certain.  In  the  Sacramentaries  of 
Gregory  and  Gelasius  one  is  given  in  eaeh  mass; 
but  St.  Columbanus  was  blamed  in  a  Council  of 
Miicon  for  having  introduced  the  custom  of 

g  Bright.  A.  C.  203.  »>  P.  D.  S.  146-7. 

t  Freeman,  P.  D.  .S'.  115.  k  Bright,  A.  C.  p.  205. 

1  Lev.  .vxiii.  36.  Heb.  x.  25. 

"  “A.  populi  collectio'.ie  collectae  appellaii  ooeperunt." 
Alenin,  quoted  by  Wbeatly,  ch.  iii.  sect.  xix.  $  2,  n. 

“  Ivra/.cr,  !)e  Liturg.  sect.  iv.  art.  i.  cap.  ill. 

«>  /'.  D.  .S'.  1.  146. 


using  s'vcral  collects,  contrary  to  the  general 
practice  of  the  church,  and  was  defended  by 
Eustasiu.s,  his  successor  in  the  abbey  of  Luxeuil 
(Acta  SS.  Bened.  sec.  ii.  p.  120).  John,  abbat 
of  St.  Alban’.s,  is  said  to  have  limited  the  num¬ 
ber  to  seven  (Matthew  Paris  in  his  Life)',  and 
the  same  rule  is  iciid  down  by  the  anonymous 
author  of  the  Speculum  Ecclesiae,  by  Beleth  (c. 
37),  and  by  Durandus  {Rationale,  iv.  14).  The 
Micrologus  (c.  4)  lays  down  that,  for  mystiail 
reasons,  the  number  of  collects  should  be  either 
one,  three,  five,  or  seven.  (Martene,  De  Antip 
Eccl.  Rit.  i.  133.) 

2.  In  the  Hour-offices.  Only  one  collect  seems 
anciently  to  have  been  used  in  each  office ;  for 
Walafrid  Strabo  (De  Reh.  Keel.  c.  22)  says  that  it 
was  usual,  not  only  at  Mass  but  at  other  assem¬ 
blies,  for  the  highest  in  rank  of  the  clergy  present 
to  conclude  the  office  with  a  short  prayer,  an  ex¬ 
pression  which  seems  to  exclude  the  supposition 
that  more  than  one  of  this  kind  was  used.  The 
assigning  the  collect  to  the  person  of  highest 
rank  accords  with  the  injunction  of  the  fifth 
canon  of  the  first  Council  of  Barcelona  (a.d. 
540),  according  to  one  reading,  “  episcopo  prae- 
sente  orationes  presbyter!  non  [al.  in  ordine] 
colligant.”  But  the  monks  of  the  Thebaid  seem 
to  have  subjoined  a  collect  to  each  psalm,  or  in 
the  longer  psalms  to  have  inserted  two  or  three 
collects  at  intervals  (Cassian,  De  Nocturn.  Orat. 

ii.  cc.  8  and  9).  Fructuosus  of  Braga  (Regtila, 
c.  3)  also  testifies  to  the  same  practice  in  Spain. 
Caesarius  of  Arles  (Ad  Monachos,  c.  20)  enjoined 
collects  to  be  intermingled  with  the  lections. 
The  Rule  of  St.  Benedict  enjoins  only  that  each 
office  be  concluded  with  the  Lord’s  Prayer  and 
missae,  meaning  no  doubt  what  are  elsewhere 
called  orationes  ,•  but  the  practice  mentioned  by 
St.  Isidore  (Regula,  c.  7)  of  mingling  collects 
with  the  recitation  of  the  psalms,  and  also  con¬ 
cluding  the  office  with  them,  was  very  probably 
in  fact  the  custom  of  the  Benedictine  order, 
though  it  does  not  appear  distinctly  in  the  Rule  ; 
for  St.  Benedict  would  scarcely  have  departed 
from  so  general  a  practice  as  that  of  inter¬ 
mingling  collects  with  the  psalms,  especially  as 
he  was  much  influenced  by  Egyptian  precedent : 
and  this  supposition  accounts  for  the  fact  that 
in  many  ancient  MS.  Benedictine  psalters  a  col¬ 
lect  follows  each  psalm.  • 

It  appears  from  Cassian’s  testimony  (De  Noct. 
Orat.  ii.  9)  that  in  the  fifth  century  there  was  a 
difference  of  practice  with  I’egard  to  the  manner 
of  saying  collects  ;  for  some  monks  threw  them¬ 
selves  on  their  knees  to  pray  immediately  after 
the  ending  of  each  p.salm ;  others  said  a  short 
prayer  before  kneeling,  and  knelt  for  a  short 
time  afterwards  in  silent  adoration.  During 
prayer  they  stood  upright,  with  expanded  hands. 
Similarly  Fructuosus  of  Braga  (Regula,  c.  3). 
The  Benedictine  practice  is,  that  all  kneel  from 
the  time  that  the  priest  says  the  Kyrie  Eleison 
to  the  end  of  the  last  collect.  Xhe  collects  were 
said,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  mentioned 
above,  by  the  abbat,  or  the  brother  who  presided 
in  his  place  (Martene  De  Antiq.  Eccl.  Ritibus, 

iii.  15;  iv.  12,  ed.  Venet.  1773).  [E.  C.  H.] 

COLLECTA.  (1)  The  collecting  of  alms  or 
contributions  of  the  faithful.  From  St.  Leo  the 
Great  (Horn,  de  Collectis)  we  learn  that  such  a 
collection  was  sometimes  made  on  a  Sunday, 


COLLECTIO 

ssometimes  on  Monday  or  Tuesday  (feria  secunda, 
tertia),  for  the  benefit  and  sustenance  of  the  poor. 
These  collections  seem  to  have  been  distinct  irom 
Oblations. 

(2)  The  gathering  together  of  the  people  for 
divine  service,  whether  -of  mass  or  houi’s.  Je¬ 
rome  {Hpist.  27  [al.  108],  §  19,  p.  712)  states  that 
the  sound  of  Alleluia  called  monks  to  say  their 
offices  (ad  collectam).  Pachomius  {Refjula,  c.  17) 
speaks  of  the  collecta  in  which  oblation  was 
made,  that  is,  the  mass ;  he  also  distinguishes 
(cc.  181,  18(5)  between  the  “  collecta  domus,”  the 
service  held  in  the  several  houses  of  a  monastery, 
and  the  “  collecta  major,”  at  which  the  whole 
bodv  of  monks  was  brought  together  to  say  their 
offices.  In  this  rule,  as  in  those  of  Isidore  and 
Fructuosus,  collecta  has  very  probably  the  same 
sense  as  Collatio. 

(3)  A  society  or  brotherhood.  The  15th  canon 

of  the  first  council  of  Nantes  is  “  De  collectis 
vel  confratriis  quos  consortia  vocant.”  See  also 
Hincmar,  Capitula  ad  Preshyt.  c.  14.  (Ducang-i’s 
Gloss  wy,  s.  V.)  [C.] 

COLLECTIO.  In  the  Galilean  missals  cei*- 
tain  forms  of  prayer  and  praise  are  called  Collec- 
tiones.  The  principal  of  these  are  the  Collectio 
post  Nomina,  which  follows  the  recitation  of  the 
names  on  the  diptychs ;  the  Collectio  ad  Pacem, 
which  accompanies  the  giving  of  the  Kiss  of 
Peace  ;  the  Collectio  post  Sanctus,  which  imme- 
diatelv  follows  the  “  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,”  and  the 
Collectio  post  Eucharistiam,  after  communion. 
(Martene,  Pe  Piti'jus  Eccl.  Antiq.  i.  c.  iv.  art. 
13.)  [C.] 

COLLECTION.  [Alms  :  Collecta.] 

COLLEGIUM.  Corporations  or  gilds,  called 
colleyia,  of  persons  united  in  pursuit  of  a  com¬ 
mon  object,  were  numerous  in  the  empii'e  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Christian  church.  The  im¬ 
perial  government  of  course  took  cognizance  of 
them,  and  did  not  permit  such  combinations  for 
every  purpose.  Associations  for  the  purpose  of 
maiutainingr  religious  rites  were  however  for  the 
most  part  not  interfered  with ;  but  when  the 
presence  of  Christianity  in  all  parts  of  the  empire 
attracted  attention,  its  collegia,  as  the  several 
churches  seemed  to  be  from  the  jurist’s  point  of 
view,  w'ere  declared  illicit,  and  to  belong  to  them 
a  misdemeanour.  (Gieseler,  Eccl.  Hist.  i.  pp. 
20,  114;  Cunningham’s  Trans.,  Philadelphia, 
1836.)  [Compare  Brotherhood  ;  Canonici  ; 
Chapter.]  [C.] 

COLOBIUM  (ko\6$iop).  a  tunic  with 
very  short  sleeves  only,  and  fitted  closely  about 
the  arm.  A  few  words  of  the  Pseudo-Alcuin 
(de  Div.  Off.')  both  describe  the  dress  and  re¬ 
produce,  with  a  characteristic  modification,  an 
old  Roman  tradition  concerning  it.  “  Pro  tunica 
hyaciuthina  (i.e.  the  tunic  of  blue  worn  by  the 
Jewish  high-priest)  nostri  pontifices  primo  colo- 
biis  utebantui".  Est  autem  colobium  vestis  sine 
manicis.”  The  older  tradition  was  that  Sylvester, 
bishop  of  Rome,  ordered  that  deacons  should 
wear  dalmatics  in  offices  of  holy  ministry,  in 
place  of  the  colobia,  which  had  previously  been 
in  use.  From  this  circumstance  of  the  colobium 
being  regarded  as  the  special  vestment  of  a 
deacon  it  is  sometimes  called  lebiton  (i.e.  leviton) 
or  lebitonarium,  a  word  which  reappears  in  ec¬ 
clesiastical  Greek  of  the  6th  and  later  centuries. 


COLOUR 


405 


It  is  so  used  by  1  illadius  of  Hellenopolis,  in  the 
Historia  Lausiaca  so-called,  cap.  38,  describing 
the  dress  worn  by  the  monks  under  Pachomius 
at  Tabennesis  in  the  Thebaid  (Migne,  Patrol. 
l-xxxiii.  1157),  a  dress  prescribed,  according  to 
the  author,  by  an  angel  in  vision : — “  Noctu 
gestent  lebitones  lineos,  succincti.”  And  again, 
cap.  47  :  rh  8e  (vSv/xa  iju  avrep  6  Sy-irep 

Tires  ko\6^iov  irpocayopevova'i.  The  monastic 
colobium  in  Palestine,  if  not  elsewhere,  had  upon 
it  a  purple  “  sign,”  probably  a  cross.  So  St. 
Dorotheus,  archimandrite  (Migne,  Patrol.  Scries 
Graeca,  Ixxxviii.  1631),  describing  the  monastic 
dress  of  his  day  in  Palestine,  late  in  the  6th 
century;  says : — rb  (Txvpa  h  <popovp.ey  Ka\6$i6y 
iffTi,  jjLi)  exov  Sep/^aTtpr),  Kai 

avaKa&os,  Ka\  kovkov\iov  .  ,  .  *'Exei  rh 
ko\6$iov  <Tr]fxe7oy  ti  iropcpvpovv  (as  a  mark  of 
service,  he  explains,  under  Christ  our  King). 
Examples  of  the  Greek  colobium  may  be  seen  in 
the  ancient  mosaics,  reputed  to  be  of  the  4th 
century,  in  the  church  of  St.  George  at  Thes- 
salonica.  See  Texier  and  Pullan,  Byzantine 
Architecture,  Ill.  xxx.-xxxiii.  ;  Marriott,  Vest. 
Christ.  Ill.  xviii.-xx.  [W.  B.  M.] 

COLOGNE,  COUNCIL  OF  (Agrippinense, 
or  Coloniense  Concilium).  (1)  Said  to  have  been 
held  a.d.  346,  to  condemn  Euphratas,  Bishop  of 
Cologne  (for  denying  our  Lord’s  divinity)  ;  who 
was  however  at  Sardica  as  an  orthodox  bishop 
the  year  after  (Pagi  ad  an.  346,  n.  6  ;  Mansi, 
ii.  1371-1378).  Baronius  and  Cave  think  the 
council  spurious.  Sirmond  supposes  Euphratas 
to  have  recanted;  others  that  he  was  acquitted; 
others  that  there  were  two  successive  bishops  of 
Cologne  so  named. 

(2)  Another  council  is  reported  to  have  been 
held  a.d.  782,  under  Charlemagne ;  but  this 
was  apparently  a  political  council  :  nothing  is 
known  of  it  ecclesiastically  (Labbe  and  Cossart, 
Concilia,  vi.  1827,  from  Eginhard).  [A.  W.  H.] 

COLOUR.  The  assigning  of  special  colours 
in  the  vestments  of  ministers,  &c.  to  certain 
seasons  does  not  belong  to  the  first  eight 
centuries  of  Christianity  (Hefele,  Beitrage  zur 
Archdologie  etc.  ii.  158),  and  is  probably  first 
found  in  the  work  of  Innocent  III.  (tl216), 
De  Sacro  Altaris  Mysterio,  lib.  i.  c.  65.  There 
are,  however,  certain  peculiarities  in  the  use  of 
colour  in  ancient  art  which  may  be  mentioned 
here. 

(1)  White  was  held  to  symbolize  the  pure  bright 
light  of  truth  (Clemens  Alex.  Paedagog.  ii.  10, 
p.  235).  Hence  the  Lord  is  represented  with  .a 
white  robe  as  “the  Truth,”  whether  sitting  in 
the  midst  of  the  Doctors,  or  teaching  His  dis¬ 
ciples.  See  for  instance  the  ancient  mosaics  of 
the  church  of  SS.  Cosmas  and  Damian  (Ciampini, 
Vet.  Mon.  ii.  tab.  xvi.),  and  of  S.  Agatha  alia  Sub- 
urra  at  Rome  (ih.  i.  tab.  Ixxvii.).  It  is  because  of 
its  whiteness  that  Origen  (In  Exodum,  Horn,  vii.) 
finds  the  manna  to  represent  the  word  of  truth. 
Angels  are  generally  represented  on  ancient  mo¬ 
numents  in  white  robes,  which  tyjdfy,  says  Dio¬ 
nysius  the  Areopagite  (De  Hierarch.  Coelest.  c. 
15),  their  resemblance  to  God.  Saints  too  are 
clothed  in  white ;  foi  instance,  on  the  triumphal 
arch  of  the  basilica  of  S.  Paolo  f.  1.  m.  are  repre¬ 
sented  .saints  clothed  in  white  robes  laying  their 
crowns  at  the  foot  of  the  Divine  Throne  (Ciani- 


406 


COLUM 


COMMEMORATION 


pini,  Vet.  Mon.  i.  231).  The  same  circumstance 
may  be  noted  in  the  mosaics  of  the  church  of 
St.  Vitalis  at  Ravenna,  and  elsewhere. 

White,  sometimes  striped  with  purple  [Cla- 
vusj,  was  the  almost  invariable  colour  of  minis¬ 
terial  vestments  for  all  ranks  of  the  ministry  in 
the  early  ages  of  Christianity  (Marriott,  Vesti- 
arium  Christ,  p.  xxii.),  as  it  is  still  for  the  alb, 
the  amice,  and  the  surplice. 

White,  the  symbol  of  purity,  was  worn  by  the 
newly  baptized  during  the  eight  days  which  fol¬ 
lowed  their  baptism. 

It  appears  also  from  the  evidence  both  of  lite¬ 
rature  and  art  that  the  dead  were  shrouded  in 
white  linen.  In  a  fragment  of  ancient  glass 
figured  by  Buonarotti  (Fefn,  tav.  vii.  fig.  1) 
the  grave-clothes  of  Lazarus  are  of  silver,  while 
the  rest  of  the  figures  are  in  gold  ;  and  in  the 
Menologium  of  Basil  the  bodies  of  Adauctus 
(Oct.  4)  and  Philaret  (Dec.  2)  are  represented  as 
wi'apped  in  white.  Prudentius  (^Cathemerinon, 
X.  57)  and  Sulpicius  Severus  (^Vita  S.  Martini, 
c.  12)  also  allude  to  the  white  colour  of  grave- 
clothes. 

(2)  Red  is  the  colour  of  ardent  love.  Hence 
the  Lord  in  performing  works  of  mercy  is  some¬ 
times  represented  clad  in  a  red  tunic  or  pallium, 
and  ahso  in  “  sending  fire  upon  earth  ”  by  the 
mission  of  the  apostles  (Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon.  i. 
tabb.  Ixviii.  Ixxxvi,  Ixxvii.).  Arculf  (in  Bede, 
Hist.  Angl.  v.  16)  describes  the  “  monument  and 
sepulchre  ”  of  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem  as  being 
white  and  reddish  (rubicundo). 

Angels  are  sometimes  found  on  ancient  monu¬ 
ments  represented  with  red  wings,  whether  as 
the  symbol  of  love  or  of  flame,  according  to  one 
of  the  derivations  of  the  word  seraph.  This  is 
the  case  for  inst.mce  in  the  vaults  of  St.  Vitalis 
at  Ravenna  (Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon.  ii.  65). 

(3)  Green,  the  colour  of  living  vegetation,  seems 
to  have  been  adopted  as  a  symbol  of  life,  and 
hence  is  employed  to  denote  the  full  abound¬ 
ing  life  of  the  angels.  See  Dionysius  the  Areo- 
pagite,  De  Hierarch.  Coelest.  xv.  §  7.  Hence, 
angels  and  saints  are  not  uufrequently  clothed 

'  in  green,  especially  St.  John  the  Evangelist.  The 
Virgin  Mary  is  also  sometimes  clothed  in  this 
colour.  And  the  Lord  Himself  is  occasionally 
represented  in  a  green  robe  as  symbolizing  the 
life  which  is  in  Him. 

(4)  Violet,  the  mixture  of  red  and  black,  has  been 
thought  to  symbolize  the  union  of  love  and  pain 
in  repentance.  It  symbolizes,  at  all  events,  some¬ 
thing  of  sorrow ;  hence  some  monuments,  as  the 
mosaic  of  St.  Michael  at  Ravenna  (Ciampini,  Vet. 
Mon.  ii.  p.  63,  tav.  xvii.)  and  that  of  St.  Am¬ 
brose  at  Milan  (Ferrari,  8.  Ambrogio,  p.  156)  re¬ 
present  the  Man  of  Sorrows  in  a  violet  robe.  The 
sorrowing  mother  of  the  Lord  is  also  sometimes 
represented  in  violet,  and  St.  John  Baptist  the 
preacher  of  repentance.  Angels  also  wear  violet 
when  they  call  men  to  repentance,  or  share  in 
the  sorrows  of  the  Lord. 

Abbots  of  the  order  of  St.  Benedict  wore  violet 
up  to  modern  times,  when  they  adopted  black. 
In  ancient  times  virgins  of  recluse  life  wore 
violet  veils  (Jerome,  Epist.  22,  ad  Eustochium). 

Literature. — Portal,  Des  Couleurs  symholiques 
dans  VAntiquite',  Paris,  1837  ;  Martigny,.  Diet. 
desAntig.  chr€t.  s.  v.  Couleurs,  [C.] 

COLUM.  [Strainer.] 


COLUMBA.  (1)  Presbyter  and  confessor 
abbat  of  Iona  (f  598);  is  commemorated  June  9 
{Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Virgin,  martyr  under  Aurelian,  Dec.  31 
{Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae,  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

COLUMBANUS,  abbat,  founder  of  many 
monasteries,  deposition  at  Bobbio,  Nov.  2  {Mart. 
Adonis,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

COLUMBARIUM.  This  word  can  only  find 
its  place  in  a  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities, 
in  order  that  opportunity  may  be  given  to  j^ro- 
nounce  a  decided  opinion  on  the  untenableness 
of  the  view  propounded  by  Keyssler,  and  since 
revived  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Parker  and  others,  that 
this  distinctively  pagan  arrangement,  essentially 
belonging  to  the  practice  of  burning  the  dead, 
which  was  held  by  the  ChrisWans  in  such  abhor¬ 
rence  (“  execrantur  rogos  et  damnant  ignium  se- 
pulturas,”  Minuc.  Fel.),  is  ever  found  within  the 
limits  of,  or  in  close  connection  with  a  Christian 
catacomb.  The  misconception  has  arisen  from 
the  fact  that  the  Christian  excavators  in  carrv- 
ing  forward  their  subterranean  galleries  not  un- 
frequently  came  into  contact  with  the  walls  of 
a  heathen  columbarium.  As  soon  as  this  unin¬ 
tentional  interference  with  the  sanctity  of  the 
tomb  was  discovered,  the  fossores  proceeded  tt 
repair  their  error.  The  gallery  was  abruptly 
closed,  and  a  wall  was  built  at  its  end  to  shut 
it  off  from  the  columbarium.  Padre  March!  de¬ 
scribes  his  discovery  of  a  gallery  in  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Agnese  closed  in  this  way  with  a  ruined 
wall,  on  the  other  side  of  which  was  a  plundered 
columbarium  {Monum.  Primit.  p.  61).  This  is 
probably  the  true  explanation  of  the  fact  that 
a  passage  has  been  found  connecting  a  large 
heathen  tomb  full  of  columbaria  on  the  Via 
Appia,  near  the  Porta  San  Sebastiano,  with  a 
catacomb.  (March!,  Monum.  Prim.  pp.  61  57. ; 
Roestell,  Beschreib.  der  Stadt  Rom,  ]ip.  389- 
390 ;  Raoul-Rochette,  Tableau  des  Catacombes, 
p.  283).  [E.  V.] 


A  vessel  used 


COLYMBION  {Koxipfiiovy 
for  containing  Holy 
Water  at  the  entrance 
of  a  church.  A  re¬ 
presentation  of  such  a 
vessel  is  found  in  one 
of  the  mosaics  of  the 
church  of  S.  Vitale  at 
Ravenna,  and  is  hei’e 
engraved.  It  is  note¬ 
worthy,  that  the  asper¬ 
gillum  which  hangs 
from  the  arch  above  the 
basin  is  in  shape  not  un¬ 
like  those  of  modern 
times.  (Neale’s  Eastern 
Ch.  introd.  p.  215.)  [C.] 

COMES.  [Lection¬ 
ary.] 

C  O  M  M  E  M  O  R  A- 
TION  {Commemoratio). 

The  word  commemoi*a- 
tion  in  its  liturgical  use 
designates  — 

(1)  The  recitation  of  the  names  of  those  for 
whom  intercession  is  made  in  the  mass  [Itip- 
tyc  is]. 


COMMENDATIO 

(2)  The  introduction  of  the  names  of  certain 
saints  or  events  in  tlie  Divine  Office,  called  also 
memorvt  sanctorum  or  suffrayia  sanctorum.  Such 
commemorations  are  generally  ot  the  Cross,  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and 
for  Peace  (Macri  Hierolexicon). 

(3)  According  to  the  rubrics  of  the  Roman 

Breviary  {Ruhricae  Generates^  ix.),  when  a  greater 
festival  falls  on  the  day  of  a  ‘  simple  ’  festival,  the 
latter  is  ‘  commemorated  ’  by  the  introduction  ot 
certain  portions  of  its  proper  service  into  that  ot 
the  greater  festival  (^R.  G.  ix.  §§  8-11).  [C.] 

COMMENDA.  [Diocese:  Monastery".] 

COMMENDATIO  (irapadecrts).  1.  In  the 
third  Council  of  Carthage  (c.  29)  it  is  pro¬ 
vided,  that  if  a  commendatio  of  the  dead  takes 
place  in  the  afternoon,  it  must  consist  of  prayers 
only,  without  the  celebration  of  mass.  In  the 
Codex  Canonum  Eccl.  Afric.  (c.  1U8)  the  set 
forms  to  be  ordinarily  used  in  churches  seem  to 
be  summed  up  under  the  heads,  preces,  prae- 
fationes,  commendationes,  manus  impositiones. 
Similarly  the  second  Council  of  Milevis  (c.  12), 
and  the  fourth  of  Toledo  (c.  13).  In  the  Greek 
version  of  the  41st  canon  of  the  Codex  Eccl.  Afric.., 
which  is  identical  with  the  29th  of  the  third 
Council  of  Carthage,  quoted  above,  the  word  jrapd- 
deffis  is  used  as  equivalent  to  “  commendatio 
which  in  this  case  is  no  doubt  to  be  interpreted 
“  of  the  commendation  of  the  dead  to  the  mercy  of 
God.”  See  Zonaras  on  this  canon  (p.  429),  and 
Balsamon  (p.  655). 

2.  But  the  word  Trapdd€(ris  is  also  used  to 
designate  the  prayers  made  in  the  congregation 
on  behalf  of  the  catechumens.  Alexius  Aristenus 
(quoted  by  Sa'cer,  s.  v.)  explains  the  word  irapd- 
0c(r:y,  designating  a  part  of  divine  service,  as 
“  the  prayers  over  the  catechumens,  whereby  we 
commend  them  (-rrapaTide/j.eda')  to  the  Lord.” 
(Ducange’s  Glossary.,  s.  v.  ‘  Commendationes 
Suicer’s  Thesaurus,  s.  v.  TrapdOems.)  [C.] 

COMMENDATORY  LETTERS.  The  ear¬ 
liest  trace  of  the  practice  connected  with  these 
words  is  to  be  found  in  2  Cor.  iii.  1.  St.  Paul, 
it  would  seem,  had  been  taunted  by  rivals  who 
came  with  letters  of  commendation  (eTrto-ToXal 
avarariKal)  from  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  with 
the  absence  of  such  credentials  in  his  own  case, 
wdth  his  attempts  to  make  up  for  the  omission 
by  reiterated  self-commendation.  The  passage 
show's  that  the  practice  was  already  common. 
It  was,  indeed,  the  natural  protection  of  a  society 
yet  in  its  inffincy  against  the  dangers  to  which 
it  was  exposed,  against  the  tricks  of  impostors, 
the  false  teaching  of  heretics,  the  vices  of  evil¬ 
doers.  It  is  probable  enough  that  letters  of 
tills  kind  had  been  in  previous  use  among  the 
Jews,  and  that  they  thus  maintained  their  unity 
as  a  people  through  all  the  lands  of  the  dis¬ 
persion.  Other  instances  of  it  in  the  Apostolic 
ages  are  to  be  found  in  the  letter  given  to 
Apollos  by  the  disciples  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xviii. 
27),  in  the  mention  of  Zeuas  and  Apollos  in  the 
Epistle  to  Titus  (iii.  13).  The  letter  to  Phi¬ 
lemon,  though  more  distinctly  personal,  has 
somewhat  of  the  same  character.  The  practice 
was  in  itself  so  wise  and  salutary  that  it  be¬ 
came  universal,  and  was  applied  under  many 
name.s,  and  for  many  ditfei'ent  purposes.  As  a 
whole,  it  may  be  said,  without  exaggeration, 
that  no  single  practice  of  the  early  Christian 


COMMENDATORY  LETTERS  407 

Church  tended  so  much  as  this  to  impress  on  it 
the  stamp  of  unity  and  organization. 

The  bishop  of  .any  congregation,  in  any  part 
of  the  empire,  might  commend  a  traveller,  lay¬ 
man  or  cleric,  to  the  good  oflices  of  any  other. 
The  precautions  against  imposture  might  some¬ 
times,  as  in  the  well-known  instance  of  Pere- 
grinus  (Lucian,  de  Morte  Pereyrin.'),  perhaps 
also  in  that  of  the  ivap^iaaKToi  \piv5d5e\(poi  of 
Gal.  ii.  4,  be  insufficient,  but  as  a  rule  it  did 
its  work,  and  served  .as  a  bond  of  union  between 
all  Christi.an  Churches.  Wherever  the  Christian 
traveller  went,  if  he  were  provided  with  these 
letters,  he  found  the  “  commuuicatio  pads,” 
the  “  contesseratio  hospital  itatis  ”  (Tertull.  de 
Praescript.  Haerctic.  c.  20).  Those  outside 
the  Church’s  pale,  however  arrogant  might 
be  their  claims,  could  boast  of  no  such  proof 
of  their  oneness.  They  were  cut  off  from  w'hat 
was  in  the  most  literal  sense  of  the  term  the 
“communion  of  saints”  (^fbid.  c.  32).  It  wa.> 
the  crowning  argument  of  Augustine  (^Epist. 
xliv.  3)  and  Optatus  (^De  Schism.  Donat,  ii.  3) 
against  the  Donatists  that  their  letters  w'ould 
not  be  received  in  any  churches  but  their  own  ; 
that  they  were  therefore  a  sect  with  no  claim  to 
catholicity,  no  element  of  permanence.  It  was, 
in  like  manner,  but  a  necessary  sequel  to  the 
deposition  of  Paul  of  Samosata  by  the  so-called 
Second  Council  of  Antioch,  when  the  bishojvs 
who  passed  sentence  on  him  wrote  to  Dionysius 
of  Rome  and  Maximus  of  Alexandria  (Euseb. 
H.  E.  vii.  30),  requesting  them  not  to  addi-ess  their 
letters  to  him,  but  to  Domnus,  whom  they  had 
appointed  in  his  place.  The  letters  of  Cyprian 
on  the  election  of  Cornelius  {Epist.  xlv.)  and  to 
Stephen  (^Epist.  Ixvii.)  are  examjiles  of  the  same 
kind.  The  most  I'emarkable  testimony,  how¬ 
ever,  to  the  extent  and  the  usefulness  of  the 
practice  is  found  in  the  wish  of  Julian  to  re¬ 
organise  heathen  society  on  the  same  plan,  and 
to  provide,  in  this  way,  shelter  and  food  for  any 
non-Christian  traveller  who  might  be  journeying 
to  a  strange  city  (Sozomen.  If.  E.  v.  16). 

It  was  natural,  as  the  Church  became  wealthier 
and  more  worldly,  that  the  restrictive  side  of 
the  practice  should  become  the  more  promi¬ 
nent  ;  that  it  should  be,  wh.at  the  passport 
system  has  been  in  the  intercourse  of  modern 
Europe,  a  check  on  the  free  movement  of  clergy, 
or  monks,  or  laymen.  Thus  it  w.as  made  penal 
(and  the  penalty  was  excommunication)  for  any 
one  to  receive  either  cleric  or  layman  who  c.ame 
to  a  city  not  his  own  without  these  letters  (Can. 
Apost.  c.  12).  Those  who  brought  them  were 
even  then  subject  to  a  scrutiny,  with  the  alter¬ 
native  of  being  received  into  full  fellowship  if  it 
were  satisfactory,  or,  if  it  were  otherwise,  of 
having  to  be  content  with  some  immediate 
relief  (^Ibid.  c.  33).’'  So  the  Council  of  Elvira 
(c.  25)  seeks  to  maintain  the  episcopal  prero¬ 
gative  in  this  matter,  and  will  not  allow  litterae 
confessoriae  (letters  certifying  that  the  bearer 
was  one  who  had  suffered  in  persecution'*)  to 

»  The  canon  ends  with  a  warning,  significant  enough 
of  the  nature  or  frequency  of  the  abuses  to  which  the 
practice  had  given  rise.  (Etc  KoivtavLav  ovtou?  Trpos- 
&€^r)<Tdf,  ttoAAo.  yap  Kara  avvapnayrju  yCverai.) 

b  A  more  received  rendering  of  the  word  Is  that  the 
letters  were  given  as  a  “  libellum  pads  ”  to  the  "  lapsi  ’’  or 
others,  by  a  “confessor,"  who  thus  usurped  the  pren^' 
gative  of  the  bishop. 


408  COMMENDATOKY  LETTERS 

take  the  place  of  the  regular  litterae  communi-  j 
catoriac.  It  would  appear,  from  one  clause  in 
the  canon,  that  the  abuse  had  spread  so  far  that 
the  “  confessor’s  ”  passport  was  handed  from  one 
to  another  without  even  the  insertion  of  the 
name,  as  a  cheque  payable  to  bearer.  The  same 
practice  is  condemned  by  the  first  Council  of 
Arles  (c.  9).  That  of  Elvira  denounces  also  the 
writing  of  such  letters  (the  “  pacificae  ”)  by  the 
wives  of  presbyters  or  bishops.  The  prevalence 
of  this  abuse  may  perhaps  explain  the  zeal  of 
that  synod  against  the  marriage  of  the  clergy. 
The  Council  of  Chalcedon  (c.  13)  renewed  the 
•prohibition  of  the  Apostolic  canon  against  allow¬ 
ing  any  strange  cleric,  even  as  reader,  to  officiate 
in  another  city  without  the  (rvarariKa  ypa/x- 
Aiara  from  his  own  bishop.  That  of  Antioch 
i(a.d.  341)  forbids  any  strangers  to  be  received 
without  eV.  elpt^yiKal,  forbids  presbyters  to  give 
the  eV.  KavoviKoX,  does  not  allow  even  Chorepi- 
SoOpi  to  give  more  than  the  elprjuiKa'i.  That  of 
Arles  (c.  7)  places  those  who  have  received  the 
litterae  communicatoriae  under  the  surveillance 
of  the  bishop  of  the  city  to  which  they  go,  with 
the  provision  that  they  are  to  be  excommuni¬ 
cated  if  they  begin  “  agere  contra  disciplinam,” 
and  adds,  extending  the  precaution  to  political 
offences,  or  to  the  introduction  of  a  democratic 
element  into  the  government  of  the  Church, 
“  similiter  de  his  qui  rempublicam  agere  volunt.” 
The  system  spread  its  ramifications  over  all 
provinces  (1  C.  Carth.  c.  7 ;  C,  Agath.  c.  52). 
It  was  impossible  for  the  presbyter  who  had 
incuri’ed  the  displeasure  of  his  bishop  to  find 
employment  in  any  other  diocese.  Without  any 
formal  denunciation  the  absence  of  the  commen¬ 
datory  letter  made  him  a  marked  man.  The 
unity  of  the  Church  became  a  terrible  reality  to 
him. 

It  will  have  been  noticed  that  other  terms 
besides  the  original  (rvarariKal  (commendatitiae, 
or  commendatoriae)  appear  as  applied  to  these 
letters,  and  it  may  be  well  to  I'egister  the  use 
and  significance  of  each. 

1.  The  old  term  was  still  retained,  as  in  the 
C.  of  Chalcedon,  where,  the  prominent  purpose 
was  to  commend  the  bearer  of  the  letter,  whe¬ 
ther  cleric  or  layman,  to  the  favour  and  good 
offices  of  another  bishop. 

2.  The  same  letters  were  also  known  as  kovo- 
viKal,  “  in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  the 
Church.”  This  is  the  word  used  in  the  letter 
from  the  Synod  of  Antioch,  already  quoted,  by 
the  Councils  of  Antioch  (c.  8)  and  Laodicea 
(o.  41).  The  Latin  equivalent  seems  to  have 
been  the  literae  forniatae,^  i.e.  drawn  up  after  a 
known  and  prescribed  form,  so  as  to  be  a  safe¬ 
guard  against  imposture.  It  was  stated  at  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  by  Atticus,  Bishop  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  that  it  was  agreed  by  the  bishops  at 
the  Councils  of  Nicaea  that  every  such  letter 
should  be  marked  with  the  letters  n.  T.  A.  n., 
in  honour  of  the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity.** 
In  the  West  the  signature  or  seal  (ti^os)  of  the 
bishop  was  probably  the  guarantee  of  genuine- 


e  The  word  “  formata  ’’  occurs  in  the  Acts  of  the  Synod 
of  Milevis  (c.  20). 

d  The  statement  rests  on  the  somewhat  questionable 
authority  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore ;  but  the  form  is  found  in 
German  documents  of  the  9th  century.  (Herzog,  s.  v. 
LiUraeformatet.) 


COMMERCE 

ness.  The  first  mention  of  the  use  of  a  seal¬ 
ring  occurs,  it  is  believed,  in  Augustine  (^Epist. 
59  ;  al.  217  ®)- 

3.  From  the  use  of  the  letters  a.s  admitting 
clergy  or  laymen  to  communion  they  were  known 
as  KoivujviKoX,  and  are  so  described  by  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  (.4c^.  Ephes.  p.  282).  The  corre¬ 
sponding  Latin,  communicatoriae,  appears  in  the 
Council  of  Elvira  (c.  25),  Augustine  {Ejnst.  43  ; 
al.  162). 

4.  The  inKTToKal  upgviKaX  appear  to  be  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  the  (TvtnariKai  as  commending 
the  bearer  for  eleemosynary  aid.  They  are  to  be 
given  to  the  poor  and  those  who  need  help, 
clerics  or  laymen  (C.  Clutlced.  c.  11),  especially, 
according  to  the  Gi’eek  canonists  (Zonaras  ad 
Can.  ii.  G.  Chalcedi),  to  those  who  had  suffered 
oppression  at  the  hands  of  civil  magistrates. 
The  word  is  used  also  by  the  Council  of  Antioch 
(c.  7,  8),  already  quoted  as  applied  to  letters 
which  might  be  given  by  presbyters  as  well  as 
bishops. 

5.  There  were  the  Ittiitt.  aTro\vriKa\,  the 
“  letters  dimissory  ”  of  modern  times.  The 
word  is  of  later  use  than  the  others,  and  occurs 
first  in  the  Council  in  Trullo  (c.  17),  in  a  con¬ 
text  which  justifies  the  distinction  drawn  by 
Suicer  (s.  v.  a-iroXoriKi]),  that  it  was  used  in 
reference  to  a  permanent  settlement  of  the 
bearer,  the  a-varaTiK^,  when  the  sojourn  in 
another  diocese  was  only  temporary.  [E.  II.  P.] 

COMMERCE.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  in 
either  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament  any  passage 
in  disparagement  of  trade,  whether  combined  or 
not  with  a  handicraft.  la  the  Old  Testament,  if 
the  calling  of  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab  nuts  the  highest 
honour  on  the  skill  of  the  artisan,  the  ordinary  pro¬ 
cesses  of  trade  are  no  less  sanctified  by  connecting 
them  with  God  Himself  and  His  law  in  such  pas¬ 
sages  as  those  of  Lev.  xix.  35-6 ;  Deut.  xxv.  13-15 ; 
Prov.  xl.  1,  xvi.  10,  23,  xxxi.  24;  Micah  vi.  11. 
Nor  is  it  amiss  to  observe  that  the  Jewish  cus¬ 
tom  which  prevails  to  this  day,  of  bringing  up 
every  boy  without  excejition  to  a  business,  trade 
or  handicraft,  appears  to  be  an  immemorial  one, 
and  may  serve  to  exjdain  both  the  calling  by 
our  Lord  of  fishermen-apostles.  His  own  training 
as  a  handicraftsman  (Mark  vi.  3),  and  the  tent¬ 
making  of  Paul,  Aquila,  and  Priscilla  (Acts  xviii. 
3).  No  incompatibility,  therefore,  between  the 
exercise  of  a  trade  and  the  Christian  calling, 
whether  as  a  layman  or  as  a  member  of  the 
clergy,  can  be  coeval  with  the  Church,  and 
all  legislation  to  this  eft’ect  must  belong  to 
what  may  be  termed  the  secondary,  not  the 
primary,  era  of  its  development.  It  must,  more¬ 
over,  be  observed  that  the  places  in  which  the 
Gospel  seems  to  have  preferably  taken  root  were 
busy  commercial  cities,  such  as  Antioch,  Corinth, 
Ephesus ;  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the 
age  in  which  Christianity  first  forced  itself  on 
the  notice  of  the  Pagan  world,  and  was  honoured 
with  imperial  persecution,  the  time  of  Nero,  was 
also  one  of  great  commercial  activity,  as  may  be 
seen  from  the  account,  chiefly  derived  from  Pliny, 
of  the  new  trades  and  inventions  introduced  under 
Nero,  contained  in  the  “Anecdota  de  Nerone  ” 
annexed  to  Naudet’s  Tacitus,  vol.  v.  p.  181  and 
foil.  (Paris,  1820). 

«  See  the  different  meanings  in  Ducange,  s.  v.  For^ 
matae. 


COMMERCE 


COMMERCE 


409 


That  trade  under  the  later  emperors  was  looked 
upon  as  an  occupation  ot'inferior  dignity  is  visible 
from  the  fact  that  a  constitution  of  Theodosius 
and  Valentinian  (a.d,  436)  required  all  bankers, 
jewellers,  dealers  in  silver  or  clothing,  apothe¬ 
caries,  and  other  traffickers  to  be  removed  from 
provincial  offices,  “  in  order  that  every  })lace  of 
honour  and  official  service  (militia)  should  be 
cleared  of  the  like  contagion  ”  (a  contagione 
hujusmodi  segregetur;  Code,  bk,  xii.  t.  Iviii. 
1,  12).  Traders  generally  (except  the  metro¬ 
politan  bankers)  were  again  excluded  from  the 
militia  by  a  constitution  of  Justin  {Code,  bk.  xii. 
t.  XXXV.).  This  word  indeed  must  no  longer,  as 
under  the  Republic,  be  deemed  to  imply  neces¬ 
sarily  military  service,  since  the  constitution  last 
referred  to  expressly  distinguishes  the  armed 
militia  (urmata  militia),  admission  to  which  is 
forbidden  to  .all  tx’aders  alike,  whilst  the  metro¬ 
politan  bankers  (argenti  distractores)  are  by  pri¬ 
vilege  permitted  to  enter  any  other.  Soldiers 
conversely  were  by  a  constitution  of  Leo  (a.d. 
458)  forbidden  to  trade  (bk.  xii.  t.  xxxvi.  1.  15) ; 
and  a  constitution  of  Honorius  and  Theodosius 
forbad  men  of  noble  birth,  conspicuous  dignity, 
or  hereditary  wealth,  to  exercise  a  tr.ade  “per¬ 
nicious  to  towns,  in  order  to  facilitate  mercantile 
transactions  in  the  way  of  buying  and  selling, 
between  plebeians  and  tradesmen  ”  (bk.  iv.  t. 
Ixiii.  1.  3). 

As  respects  the  smaller  trades  and  handi¬ 
crafts  (it  is  alwfiys  difficult  to  distinguish  the 
two  in  the  lower  social  strata)  the  exercise  of 
them  differed  often  little  from  slavery.  A  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  Emperor  Constantine  (bk.  vi.  t.  i. 
1.  5 ;  A.D.  329)  speaks  of  freedraen-artificers 
belonging  to  the  state,  and  desires  them  to  be 
brought  back,  if  enticed  out  of  the  city  where 
they  reside.  Artificers  were  exempted  from  all 
official  functions,  which,  considering  the  miser¬ 
able  condition  of  the  .  curiales,  must  rather 
have  been  a  boon  to  them  (bk.  x.  t.  Ixiv.  and 
passim).  They  formed  collegia  (see  Collegia), 
from  which  they  could  not  withdraw  without 
l^resenting  fit  substitutes  re.ady  to  accept  all 
their  obligations  (1.  15).  The  bakers — if  indeed 
the  constitution  of  Leo  which  refers  to  them 
has  not  been  stretched  by  its  present  title 
beyond  its  original  intent — seem  to  have  been 
in  an  almost  lower  condition'  still,  since  their 
status  is  expressly  treated  as  servile.  Curiously 
enough,  the  swinehei'ds  of  the  capitals,  as  carry¬ 
ing  on  a  restless  Labour  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Roman  people,  were  specially  exempted  from  all 
.sordid  offices  (t.  xvi.  1.  1).  A  special  title  (ix.)  is 
devoted  to  iron-workers  {fabricenses),  who  were 
to  be  m.arked  in  the  arm,  and  who  formed  also 
an  hereditary  caste,  mutually  responsible  for  the 
offences  of  every  member  (1.  5),  and  forbidden  to 
engage  in  agriculture  or  any  other  occupation 
(1.  7).  Yet  being  exempted  from  all  civil  and  curial 
obligations  (1.  6),  and  from  giving  quarters  to 
troops  (bk.  xii.  t.  Ixi.  1.  4),  their  condition  (which 
is  termed  a  mildia)  seems  to  have  been  a  coveted 
one,  since  the  admission  to  it  is  regulated  with 
especial  care  (bk.  xi.  t.  ix.  1.  4).  It  w.as  to  be 
by  deed,  before  the  moderator  of  the  province  or 
other  high  officer.  The  candidate  had  to  show 
that  he  was  neither  the  son  nor  grandson  of 
a  curial,  th.at  he  owed  no  dues  to  the  city, 
and  head  no  obligations  towards  a  citizen.  The 
manufacture  of  arms  was  also  by  the  85th  novel 


limited  to  the  official  “  armifactores,”  or  “  to 
those  who  are  called  fabriciensli  ”  (quaere,  fabri' 
censes). 

Whole  branches  of  trade,  as  we  now  under¬ 
stand  the  term,  did  not  exist.  Instead  of  a  trade 
in  corn,  the  transport  of  corn  to  the  capitals 
was  a  service  attached  to  land  (munus  rei  navi~ 
culariae).  Thus  when  Augustine  was  offered  the 
estate  of  one  Bonifacius,  he  declined  it,  because 
he  would  not  have  the  Church  of  Christ  a  “  na- 
vicularia,”  and  so  incur  the  risk,  in  the  event  of 
a  ship  being  lost,  of  h.aving  to  consent  to  the 
torture  of  the  men  on  board,  as  part  of  the  in¬ 
vestigation  (Aug.  Serm.  355). 

In  the  interior  of  the  empire,  trade  w.as  not 
only  restricted  by  monopolies  which  under  Jus¬ 
tinian  were  carried  to  a  cruel  height  (see  Gibbon, 
c.  xl.),  and  of  which  Dean  Milman  observes  that 
the  state  monopoly  “  even  of  corn,  wine,  and 
oil  was  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  first  cru¬ 
sade,”  but  by  the  reservation  of  various  articles 
for  imperial  use.  Thus  the  wearing  of  gold  and 
silver  tissue  or  embroidery  was  forbidden  to  pri- 
A'ate  per.sons,  nor  could  such  tissue  or  embroidery 
be  woven  or  worked  except  in  the  imperial 
gynecaea  (bk.  xl.  t.  viii.  11.  1,  2,  4).  The  use  of 
the  dye  of  the  “  holy  murex,”  or  any  imitation 
of  its  purple,  was  equally  forbidden  (/6.  11.  3,  4, 
5).  The  employment  of  gems  (among  which 
pearls,  emeralds,  and  jacinths  were  forbidden  to 
be  used  in  horse-tr.appings)  was  also  regulated, 
as  savouring  of  the  imperial  dignity  {lb.  t.  xi.). 
The  85th  novel  forbad  even  all  sale  of  arms  to 
private  persons. 

Buying  and  selling  seems  to  have  been  in  great 
measure  carried  on  at  fairs  and  in  markets,  the 
holding  of  which  was  by  imperial  grant  forfeit- 
able  by  ten  years’  non-user  (Dig.  bk.  1.  t.  xi.  Be 
Hundinis,  1.  1),  and  the  dealing  at  which  wa.s 
invested  with  certain  privileges  (Code,  bk.  iv. 
t.  lx.).  Fairs,  it  may  be  observed,  were  often 
held  on  saints’  days,  though  St.  Basil  in  his 
Liber  Regularum  condemns  the  practice ;  thus 
there  was  a  fair  in  Lucania  on  the  birth-day  of 
St.  Cyprian,  a  30-days’  fair  free  of  toll  in  Edessa 
at  the  feast  of  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle,  &c.  (Mu- 
ratori,  Antiquitates  Medti  Aevi,  vol.  ii.  Diss.  .30). 

Notwithstanding  the  low  estimation  in  which 
trade  was  held,  it  seems  clear  that  until  Justi¬ 
nian’s  time  at  least  it  was  not  held  civilly  in¬ 
compatible  with  the  clerical  office.  The  J  kilo- 
sop’iuinena  of  Hippolytus  (beginning  of  the  3rJ 
century)  show  us  the  future  pope  Callistus  set 
up  by  Carpophoru.s  as  a  banker,  holding  his  bank 
in  the  “  Piscina  Publica,”  and  receiving  dej)osits 
from  widows  and  brethren  (ix.  12).  A  law  of 
Constantine  and  Julian  indeed,  A.D.  357  (Code, 
bk.  i.  t.  ii.  1.  2,  which  exempted  the  clergy  from 
“  prestations  ”  levied  from  merchants),  sought  to 
compel  trader-clerics  (amongst  others)  to  devote 
their  gains  to  charitable  uses :  “  If  by  saving,  oi 
forethought,  or  honourable  trading  they  have 
got  money  together,  it  should  be  ministered  for 
the  use  of  the  poor  and  needy.”  The  next  pas¬ 
sage  indicates  a  custom  still  more  strange  to  us 
— that  of  workshops  and  even  taverns  being  kept 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Church  :  “Or  that  which 
may  have  been  acquired  and  collected  from  their 
workshops  or  taverns,  let  them  deem  it  when 
collected  the  gain  of  religion  and  the  privileges 
of  the  clergy  are  mostly  extended  to  their  men 
who  are  occupied  in  trade  (lb.)  Another  law  ot 


410 


COMMERCE 


COMMERCE 


the  same  emperor,  a.d.  361,  which  however  does  ’ 
not  seem  to  have  been  retained  in  his  Code  by 
Justinian  (^Cod.  Theod.  bk.  xvi.  t.  ii.  1.  15),  ex¬ 
empted  clerics  from  “sordid  offices”  as  well  as 
from  the  imposition  of  the  collatio,  “  if  by  very 
small  trade  they  acquire  to  themselves  poor  food 
and  clothing;”  but  others,  whose  names  are  on 
the  register  of  merchants,  at  the  time  when 
the  collutio  takes  place,  “  must  acknowledge  the 
duties  and  payments  of  merchants.”  We  see 
thus  that  trader-clerics  were  of  all  degrees,  from 
the  humblest  traffickers  to  considerable  mer¬ 
chants. 

The  43rd  Novel  “  De  officinis  sive  tabernis 
Constantiuopolitanae  urbis,”  &c.,  and  the  59th, 

“  De  debita  impeusd  in  exequiis  defunctorum,”  in¬ 
dicate  to  us  the  extent  of  the  trade  which  was 
carried  on  in  the  Eastern  capital  on  behalf  of  the 
Church,  and  the  singular  character  of  a  portion 
cf  it.  In  consideration  of  the  cathedral  church 
undertaking  what  in  modern  French  parlance 
would  be  termed  the  “  Pompes  Funfebres  ”  of  the 
city,  Constantine  granted  to  it  980  ergasteria  or 
workshops,  of  the  various  trades  (“  ex  diversis 
corporibus  ”)  of  the  city,  to  be  held  free  of  all  tax  ; 
Anastasius  added  150  more  (Preface  to  Nov.  59). 
The  total  number  of  these  cathedral  ergasteria  or 
officinae,  as  the  43rd  novel  terms  them,  seems 
from  the  preface  to  the  latter  to  have  practically 
sunk  to  1100  (perhaps  by  failure  of  trade,  see 
nov.  59,  'c.  ii.,  which  saj's  that  even  of  the 
reduced  number  “  plurima  ceciderunt”),  at  which 
figure  it  is  fixed  by  both  novels,  the  earlier  one 
being  grounded  on  the  complaints  of  the  colle- 
giati — say  the  guilds  of  the  city — that  the  number 
of  tax-free  establishments  was  ruining  them.  But 
all  other  officinar  of  the  14  wards  (“  regiones  ”) 
of  the  city,  whether  belonging  to  any  church, 
hospital,  monastery,  orphan-home,  poor-house,  or 
to  any  other  p>erson,  were  required  to  bear  all 
public  impositions.  And  in  speaking  of  these 
ojp.cinae  the  word  tavern  occurs,  not  only  as 
above-shown  in  the  title,  but  in  the  body  of 
the  law  (c.  i.  §  3).  Strange  therefore  as  may 
seem  to  us  the  idea  of  a  church  or  cathedral 
bakery  or  pothouse,  it  is  clear  that  in  the  6th 
century  a  very  considerable  amount  of  trade, 
including  the  liquor-traffic,  was  carried  on  on 
behalf  of  the  Church  and  its  charitable  establish¬ 
ments  in  the  capital  of  the  Eastern  empire. 

If  we  turn  from  the  Roman  to  the  barbarian 
world,  the  barbarian  codes  till  the  tirne  of 
Charlemagne  scarcely  contain  an  allusion  to 
trade,  excejd,  perhaps,  in  reference  to  loans, 
pledges,  or  debts-^see  for  instance  the  Wisi- 
gothic  laws,  bk.  v.  tt.  5,  6.  Under  the  rule  of  the 
Ostrogoths  in  Italy,  the  Formulary  of  Cassio» 
dorus  indicates  that  the  armourers  were  still 
considered  as  a  militia  (“militibus  to  et  fabris 
armorum  ....  praefecimus,”  pt.  ii.  c.  18,  “de 
armorum  factoribus  ”).  Under  the  Lombards, 
a  law  of  Notharis  (a.d.  638  or  643)  refers  to  the 
building  trade  in  dealing  with  accidents  among 
masons,  and  uses  a  term  (m-igistri  Comacini) 
which  shows  that  this  class  of  workmen  were 
then  drawn  mainly  from  the  same  locality  (the 
neighbourhood  of  Como),  which  mainly  furnishes 
them  still  to  Northern  Italy  (c.  144,  and  foil. ;  and 
see  c.  152,  as  to  accidents  among  other  workmen). 
Somewhat  later  again,  the  growth  of  trade  and 
industry  under  the  Lombards  is  indicated  by  a 
s.agular  law  of  Luitprand  (bk.  iii.  c.  4,  a.d.  717), 


'  enacting  that  if  any  man  leave  his  wife  for 
trade  or  for  the  exercise  of  an  art,  and  do  not 
return  after  three  years,  his  wife  may  aj)ply  to 
the  king  for  leave  to  re-marry.  Foreign  trade  is 
referred  to  by  the  Wisigothic  code  (bk.  xi.  t  3) 
in  a  law  “on  traders  from  beyond  the  sea,” 
which  enacts  that  if  such  traders  have  a  matter 
between  themselves,  none  of  the  king’s  household 
shall  presume  to  hear  them,  but  let  them  be 
heard  according  to  their  own  laws  only  oy  their 
toll-takers  (“  apud  telonarios  suos  ”). 

The  legislation  of  the  Church  bears  much  more 
on  commercial  matters  than  that  of  the  bar¬ 
barian  kingdoms,  and  we  have  now  to  consider 
its  history. 

One  form  of  trade,  it  may  be  observed,  w'as 
always  forbidden  by  the  church,  that  of  earning 
a  livelihood  by  usury.  [See  Usury.]  In  other 
respects  it  was  long  before  trade  was  deemed  by 
the  Church  itself  incompatible  with  clerical 
functions ;  though  the  fathers  might  inveigh 
against  it  as  a  form  of  w'orldliness ;  as  w'hen 
Cyprian  in  his  work  De  Lapsis,  written  about 
a.d.  251,  speaks  of  those  who  “  watch  like  fowlers 
for  gainful  markets.”  (Comp.  Ep.  15.)  The 
growth  of  .some  general  feeling  on  the  subject 
is,  however,  to  be  traced  in  the  18th  canon  of 
the  Council  of  Eliberis,  a.d.  305,  by  which 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  are  forbidden  to 
depart  from  their  places  for  the  sake  of  trade,  or 
to  go  round  the  provinces  seeking  lucrative 
markets.  To  obtain  their  livelihood  they  may 
indeed  send  a  son,  a  freedman,  an  agent  {mercu- 
rarium),  a  friend,  or  anyone  else ;  and  if  they 
wish  to  trade,  let  them  trade  within  the  pro¬ 
vince — the  main  object  of  the  canon  being  clearly 
to  preserve  to  their  flocks  the  benefits  of  their 
ministrations,  not  to  put  dishonour  on  trading 
itself. 

A  collection  of  decrees  of  very  doubtful  au¬ 
thority,  attributed  to  the  Nicene  Council,  which 
will  be  found  in  Labbe  and  Mausi’s  Councils,  vol. 
ii.  p.  1029,  and  foil,  under  the  title  :  “  Sauctiones 
et  decreta  alia  ex  quatuor  regularum  ad  Con- 
stantinuro  libris  decerpta,”  contains  amongst 
its  “  statutes  for  priests  ”  (c.  14)  a  provision 
that  the  priest  shall  not  be  a  barber,  a  surgeon, 
or  a  worker  in  iron  {ferramentarius),  the  two 
former  prohibitions  turning  probably  on  blood¬ 
letting  in  its  most  literal  form,  the  latter  on  the 
providing  instruments  for  bloodshed.  The  4th 
Council  of  Carthage,  397,  forbids  clerics  to  go  to 
markets,  except  to  buy,  under  pain  of  degra¬ 
dation  (c.  48),  but  at  the  same  time  enacts  that 
“  a  cleric,  hoAvever  learned  in  the  w'ord  of  God, 
shall  seek  his  livelihood  by  means  of  a  handi¬ 
craft,  artifeio”  (c.  51),  that  “a  cleric  shall 
)rovide  for  himself  food  and  clothing  by  a 
landicraft  or  by  agriculture,  without  detri¬ 
ment  to  his  office  ”  (c.  52),  and  that  “  all  clerics 
who  have  strength  to  work  should  learn  both 
handicrafts  (artijiciola')  and  letters  ”  (c.  53)  ; 
provisions  all  nearly  equivalent  and  which  con¬ 
firm  the  opinion  that  the  canons  of  this  and 
other  Carthaginian  Councils  represent  rather 
the  whole  collection  of  rules  by  which  the 
African  churcdi  was  governed  at  their  respective 
dates  than  specific  enactments  of  those  dates. 
They  appear,  Indeed,  to  indicate  that,  at  all 
events  in  this  quarter  of  the  church,  a  distinc¬ 
tion  was  being  taken  between  trade  and  handi- 
[  crafts,  and  that  the  exercise  of  the  former  by 


COMMERCE 


411 


COMMERCE 

clerics  was  restrained,  whilst  the  latter  was 
enjoined. 

By  the  time  of  tlie  Council  of  Chalcedon  (a.d. 
451)  the  line  between  “secular”  and  “reli¬ 
gious  ”  employments  appears  to  have  become 
much  more  sharply  marked.  The  3rd  canon 
speaks  of  clerics  who  for  filthy  lucre  carry  on 
secular  business,  and  forbids  them  to  do  so, — a 
prohibition  which  would  seem  to  include  every 
shape  of  trade,  but  which  cannot  have  been  so 
considered,  since  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  is 
expressly  named  as  one  of  the  four  to  whose 
canons  force  of  law  is  given  by  Justinian’s  Code, 
A.D.  533  (bk.  i.  1.  i.  c.  7,  §  4),  which  yet,  as 
has  been  seen  above,  expressly  recognises  both 
clerical  ti'adiug  and  trading  on  behalf  of  the 
church. 

In  the  west,  however,  it  seems  clear  that  the 
feeling  against  clerical  trading  became  always 
stronger ;  a  letter  (ix.)  of  Pope  Gelasius  I.  (a.d. 
4f>2--(')  to  the  bishops  of  Lucania  speaks  (c.  15) 
of  his  having  heard  from  Picenum  that  very 
many  clerics  there  are  occupied  with  dishonour¬ 
able  business  and  filthy  lucre,  and  enjoins  them 
to  abstain  from  unworthy  gain,  and  from  every 
device  or  desire  of  business  of  any  kind,  or  else 
from  the  fulfilment  of  clerical  functions — expres¬ 
sions  which,  in  the  light  of  altered  feeling  on 
the  subject,  we  may  also  take  to  apply  to  trade 
generally.  The  Council  of  Tarragona  (a.d.  516) 
enacts  that  “  whosoever  will  be  in  the  clergy,  let 
him  not  be  careful  to  buy  too  cheap  or  sell  too 
dear,or  let  him  be  removed  from  the  clergy”  (c.  2). 
If  a  cleric  lends  a  solidus  in  time  of  need,  in  order 
to  receive  it  back  in  wine  or  wheat  which  it  is 
intended  to  sell  at  a  fixed  time  for  the  sake  of 
traffic,  if  the  actual  thing  be  not  needed  by  him, 
let  him  receive  what  he  gave  without  any  in¬ 
crease  (c.  3) — a  prohibition  both  of  trade  and 
of  usury.  The  3rd  Council  of  Orleans,  a.d.  538, 
in  like  manner,  forbius  clerics  from  the  rank  of 
deacons  upwards  to  carry  on  business  like  public 
traders,  or  to  carry  on  a  forbidden  bu.‘i  less  under 
another’s  name  (c.  27).  In  spite  of  f;  ese  enact¬ 
ments,  we  find  in  the  letters  of  Giegory  the 
Gieat  (a.d.  590-603)  mention  made  of  a  ship¬ 
building  bishop  in  Campania  (see  Labbe  and 
Mansi’s  Counci  s,  vol.  x.  p.  559). 

That  the  enactments  of  the  African  Councils  no 
longer  satisfied  the  temper  even  of  the  English 
church  may  be  judged  from  the  Excerpta  of 
Ecgbert,  archbishoj)  of  7ork  (latter  half  of  8th 
century),  the  3rd  book  of  which  (2ud  .series) 
contains  a  prohibition  to  priests  anti  deacons  to 
be  occupied  “in  any  worldly  affairs,”  except 
those  for  which  they  are  a.ssigned  {intitulati,  c.  8). 
A  canon  of  the  Council  of  Calchyth  (that  is,  Chel¬ 
sea),  A.D.  787,  in  favour  of  honesty  in  weights 
and  measures,  may  also  be  quoted  (c.  17). 

The  capitularies  of  Charlemagne  (mostly,  if 
not  always,  invested  with  the  sanction  of  the 
church),  deal  repeatedly  with  the  subject  of 
trade.  The  ecclesiastical  capitulary  of  789 
enacts  that  measures  and  weights  be  equal  and 
just,  “  whether  in  cities  or  whether  in  monas¬ 
teries,  whether  for  giving  or  whether  for  re¬ 
ceiving  ”  (c.  73.  and  see  the  “  Capitula  minora” 
added  to  the  Salic  law,  A.D.  803,  c.  viii. ;  Canon 
15  of  the  6th  Council  of  Arles  ;  and  c.  45  of  the 
3rd  Council  of  Tours,  same  year).  The  Frankfort 
Ciipitulary  of  794  is  one  of  .several  which  attempt 
to  fix  the  prices  of  victuals  (c.  4 ;  Ca^^itulary  of 


Xoyon,  A.D.  808,  c.  5).  The  pitch  of  actual  cruelty 
is  reached  in  the  “  Capitula  de  Judaeis,”  where 
every  Jew  is  forbidden  to  have  money  in  his 
house,  to  sell  wine,  victuals,  or  any  other  thing, 
under  pain  of  confiscation  of  all  his  goods  and 
imprisonment  till  he  come  into  the  imperial 
presence  (c.  3).  The  utter  absence  of  all  notion 
of  a  possible  right  to  freedom  in  trading  is  well 
expressed  in  one  of  the  Capitula  published  by 
the  imperial  missi,  A.D.  803  :  “  That  no  man 
presume  to  sell  or  buy  or  measure  otherwise 
than  as  the  lord  emperor  has  commanded  ”  (c. 
10). 

Markets  are  not  to  be  held  on  the  Lord’s  Day 
(Excerpts  from  the  Canons,  added  to  the  Ca¬ 
pitulary  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  of  A.D.  813,  c.  15 
and  see  General  Collection,  bk.  i.  c.  139  ;  Oth 
Council  of  Arles,  a.d.  813,  c.  16;  3rd  Council  of 
Tours,  A.D.  813,  c.  40),  except  where  they  have 
been  held  of  old  and  lawfully  (Capitulary  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle  of  809,  c.  9);  a  Lombard  Capi¬ 
tulary  of  779  seems  however  to  enact  generally 
that  “  markets  are  nowhere  to  be  held  except 
where  they  have  been  held  of  old  lawfully” 
(o.  52,  taking  no  notice  of  the  Sunday).  Ford- 
stalling  for  covetousness’  sake  is  forbidden 
(Capitulary  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  of  809,  c.  12). 
The  Council  of  Friuli,  A.D.  791,  even  forbad 
generally  the  carrying  on  of  secular  business  to 
an  immoderate  extent. 

Presbyters  were  by  one  capitulary  forbidden 
to  trade,  or  gather  riches  in  anywise  by  filthy 
lucre  (Capitula  pi-esbyterorum,  a.d.  806).  On 
the  other  hand  the  Council  of  Mayence,  A.D.  813, 
more  guardedly  forbids  clerics  and  monks  to  have 
unjust  weights  or  measures,  or  to  carry  on  an 
unjust  trade  ;  “  neverthele.ss  a  just  trade  is  not 
to  be  forbidden,  on  account  of  divers  nece.ssities  • 
for  we  read  that  the  holy  apostles  traded  ”  (ne¬ 
gotiates  esse), —  the  rule  of  St.  Benedict  being 
referred  to  as  a  further  authority  (c.  14,  see  Ad- 
ditio  4fa,  c.  46).  Trade  was,  however,  forbidden 
to  penitents,  “  because  it  is  difficult  that  between 
the  dealing  of  seller  and  buyer  sin  should  not 
intervene  ”  {General  Collection,  bk.  vii.  c.  62 ; 
perhaps  of  later  date). 

The  exact  meaning  of  some  of  the  later  texts 
above  referred  to  is  rendered  somewhat  doubtful 
through  the  gradual  narrowing  of  the  term 
negotium  and  its  derivatives,  from  the  sense  of 
business  in  its  widest  meaning  to  the  specific  one 
of  trade,  as  in  its  modern  French  offspring  le  ne'joce, 
negooiant.  They  sufficiently  show,  however,  that 
whilst  the  avocations  of  the  early  apostles  were 
still  remembered,  and  the  rule  of  St.  Benedict 
had  raised  the  dignity  of  labour  itself,  the 
growing  Judaistic  distinction  between  “secular’’ 
and  “religious”  acts  and  matters,  so  foreign  to 
the  spirit  of  a  faith  which  is  founded  on  the 
abrogation  of  all  distinctions  except  those 
between  good  and  evil,  light  and  darkness,  life 
and  death,  in  which  the  recognition  that  in 
meats  “  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself,”  but 
“  all  things  indeed  are  pure  ”  (Rom.  xiv.  14,  20), 
that  “  every  creature  of  God  is  good,  and  nothing 
to  be  refused,  if  it  be  received  with  thanks¬ 
giving  ”  (1  Tim.  iv.  4),  was  only  the  type  of  the 
breaking  down  of  “  the  middle  wall  of  partition  ” 
between  Jews  and  Gentiles  (Eph.  ii.  14;  Acts  x. 
10-15,  28),  had  by  the  Oth  century  begun  to 
render  the  very  idea  of  trade  incompatible  with 
the  clerical  calling,  not  so  much  as  in  early 


412 


COMMINATION 


times,  by  reason  of  its  distracting  the  minister 
from  his  sacred  functions,  as  on  account  of  a 
supposed  inherent  dishonour  attached  to  it. 
That  the  distinction  is  in  itself  a  result  of  the 
secularizing  of  the  church  may  be  inferred  from 
a  comparison  with  civil  legislation.  The  ultra- 
refined  ofiTicialism  of  the  later  Roman  empire, 
which  made  the  sovereign  the  only  source  of 
honour,  and  excluded  the  independent  trader  (one 
specially  rich  class  excepted),  even  from  the 
merely  civil  militia,  let  alone  the  military 
service  itself,  on  the  one  hand — the  rude  savagery 
of  the  barbarian  on  the  other,  which  looked  upon 
war  and  warlike  sports  as  the  only  employments 
worthy  of  a  man,  and  almost  utterly  ignored  in 
legislation  the  very  existence  of  the  trader — 
must  both,  whatever  phenomena  to  the  con¬ 
trary  may  present  themselves  in  Justinian’s 
Code,  have  reacted  profoundly  upon  the  spirit 
of  the  church.  The  service  of  God,  which  soon 
claimed  the  title  of  a  militia,  must  have  the 
exclusiveness  of  one,  whether  the  term  were 
used  in  the  Roman  official  sense  or  in  the 
W’arlike  barbarian  one;  whatever  was  incom¬ 
patible  with  the  dignity  of  the  functionary  of 
an  earthly  sovereign,  of  the  soldier  of  an  earthly 
chief,  must  be  incompatible  also  with  that  of  a 
minister  of  God,  a  soldier  in  His  host.  At  the 
same  time,  the  influence  of  this  distinction  had 
not  gone  so  far  as  to  exclude  the  whole  realm 
of  trade  from  church  solicitude,  and  it  is  remark¬ 
able  to  observe  in  the  canons  of  French  Councils 
of  the  begiuiiiiig  of  the  9th  century  similar 
enactments  against  dishonesty  in  trade  to  those 
of  the  Pentateuch.  [See  Dkbtor,  Covetous¬ 
ness,  Usury.]  [J.  M.  L.] 

COMIMINATION.  The  “  denunciation  of 
God’s  anger  and  judgments  against  sinners” 
used  in  the  Anglican  church  on  Ash-Wednesday. 

The  ejection  of  penitents  from  the  church  on 
the  first  day  of  Lent,  with  prayer  that  they  may 
bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance,  seems  to 
be  a  practice  of  considerable  antiquity  (Martene, 
De  Lit.  Eccl.  Ant.  lib.  iv.  c.  17),  although  the 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Agde  which  is  sometimes 
cited  in  proof  of  it  rests  on  no  earlier  authority 
than  that  of  Gratian  (Bingham,  Antiq.  bk.  xviii. 
c.  2,  §  2).  But  the  particular  practice  of  the 
English  church,  of  reciting  “  God’s  cursing 
against  impenitent  sinners”  on  Ash-Wednesday 
seems  to  be  a  continuation  of  the  use  of  the 
“  articles  of  the  sentence  of  cursing  ”  which 
were  read  in  parish  churches  three  or  four  times 
a  year  in  the  Middle  Ages.  (Wheatley,  On  the 
Common  Prayer,  p.  605,  ed.  Corrie.)  [See  Peni¬ 
tence.]  [C.] 

COMMUNICALES.  A  term  used  to  desig¬ 
nate  the  vessels  used  in  Holy  Communion,  which 
on  certain  days  were  carried  in  procession  at 
Rome.  The  Liber  I’onOficalis  (p.  122,  ed.  Mura- 
tori)  tells  us  that  Leo  HI.  (fSlG)  made  commu- 
nion-vessel.s  (communicales)  in  the  several  regions 
of  Ronie,  which  were  to  be  carried  in  procession  ; 
by  acolytes  on  stationary  days ;  these  were  [ 
twenty-four  in  number.  [C.] 

COMMUNICATIVE  LIFE.  [Monasti- 

CISM.] 

COMMUNIO.  (1)  An  anthem  in  the  Roman  j 
and  cognate  missals,  said  by  the  celebrant  after  [ 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 

he  has  taken  the  ablutions.  It  is  so  called,  be¬ 
cause  it  w’as  originally  appointed  to  be  sung 
during  the  communion  of  the  people,  and  was 
sung  antiphonally  after  each  verse  of  a  psalm, 
which  w'as  continued  till  the  priest  gave  the 
signal  for  the  Gloria,  when  the  communion  of 
the  people  was  ended  {Ordo  Pom.  iii.  18).  “  De¬ 

bent  omnes  communicare  interim  cum  Antiphona 
cantatur,  quae  de  Communione  nomen  mutuavit, 
cui  et  Psalmus  subjungendus  est  cum  <iloria 
Patri,  si  necesse  fuerit  ”  {Microl.de  Keel.  Observ. 
cap.  18).  Afterw'ards  the  Cornnvinio  was  looked 
upon  more  as  an  act  of  thanksgiving,  to  be  .said 
after  the  commnnion.  It  varies  with  the  day. 
That  for  the  Missa  in  nocte  Nat.  Dom.  is “  In 
splendoribus  sanctorum  ex  utero  ante  luciferum 
genui  te.” 

(2)  An  anthem  in  the  Mozarabic  mi.ssal  sung 
by  the  choir  after  the  communion  has  taken 
place.  There  are  only  two  forms;  one  used  in 
Lent,  the  other  during  the  rest  of  the  vear. 
This  latter  is :  “  Refecti  corpore  et  sanguine  te 
Laudamus  Domiue.  All:  All:  All:”  [11.  J.  H.] 

COMMUNION,  HOLY.  The  present  article 
does  not  treat  of  the  whole  of  what  in  England 
is  generally  called  the  Commnnion  Office  or  Ser¬ 
vice  [see  Liturgy],  but  of  that  portion  of  it 
which  immediately  relates  to  the  distribution 
and  reception  of  the  con.secrated  elements  in  the 
Eucharist. 

Names. — Koivuvla,  reev  fiv(rTripi(av  Koivuvia 
(Chrysostom) ;  fivari^piop  or  koivw- 

vias,  BeapxiK^  Koivcavia  (Dionysius  Areop.) ; 
fieTd\r]ipis  ayia(TixdTu:v,  evx^pKTTias,  yvaTT}- 
pio}V‘,  ayia  or  fiver ik))  fit-Ta\'r}\f/is.  Tlie  verb 
Koivu'vuv  is  used  absolutely  to  describe  partici¬ 
pation  of  the  Eucharist  (Basil,  Chrysostom), 
and  also  with  a  substantive  descriptive  of 
the  sacred  feast,  as  fiveriKris  KoivuvLiv  dve'ias 
(Philostorgius).  So  fierexfir  foxapterias  (Cone. 
Nic.  1.  c.  13);  and  fiera\afi0di'eip,  absolutely 
(Theophylact),  or  with  a  substantive,  as  axpdp- 
rov  Ovfiaros  fi€Ta\a0e?y  (Philostorg  ),  rov  Aee- 
TTOTiKov  ed'fiaros  Kal  alfiaros  fifraXap^avfiv 
(Theodoret). 

Communio,  commnnicatio ;  they  wffio  partake 
of  the  consecrated  elements  are  said  commimi- 
care,  absolutely  {e.g.  IV.  Cone.  Tolet.  c.  18). 
The  leading  notion  implied  in  the  use  of  these 
wmi’ds  is  expressed  by  Isidore  of  Pelusiwm  (Ep. 
228)  thus:  “  quia  nobis  conjunctionem  cum  Deo 
conciliat,  nosque  regni  ipsius  consortes  ac  parti- 
cipes  reddit;”  by  Papias  (in  Ducange,  s.  v 
Communio'),  thus  :  “  Communio  dicitur  spiritualis 
esca,  quia  in  commune  ad  vivificandas  animas  a 
cunctis  percipitur  dignis.”  Other  terms  are 
perceptio  Cot'poris  et  Sanguinis,  participatio. 
The  word  accipere  is  used  to  designate  the  act 
of  taking  the  bread  or  the  chalice  into  the 
hands  ;  surnere  or  consumere,  the  act  of  eating  or 
drinking  the  particle  or  the  wine. 

The  wmrd  comm'inicare  is  also  used  actively,  to 
denote  the  act  of  presenting  the  consecrated 
j  Bread  ;  the  deacons  following  with  the  cup  are 
said  confrmare  Sanguine  Domit  ico,  or  coujrmare 
simply  :  “  Episcopi  communicant  populum  ;  post 
eos  diaconi  confirmant ;  ”  “  subdiaconus  regio- 
narius  .  .  .  confirmat  populum”  (Oido  Pom.  1. 
c.  20).  The  w'ord  is  used  no  doubt  to  signify 
j  the  completing  or  perfecting  of  the  act  of  om- 
[  munion  {Micrologus,  c.  19). 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 


General  Account  of  Holy  Communion. 

The  earliest  extant  description  of  Holy  Com¬ 
munion  is  the  well-known  passage  of  Justin 
Martyr  {Apol.  I.  c.  65),  already  quoted  under 
Canon  (p.  267).  No  description  is  here  giA-en  of 
posture  or  gesture,  Avhether  of  ministrants  or 
recipients,  or  of  any  Avords  accompanying  admi¬ 
nistration ;  Justin  tells  us  only  that  after  the 
et-Xapio-Tta,  “  those  whom  Ave  call  deacons  giA'e 
to  each  of  those  present  to  partake  of  the  bread 
and  of  the  wine  and  AA’^ater  OA^er  which  thanks 
haA'e  been  giA^en*  (too  €vxapi(TTT]Q4vros  &pTov 
Ka\  oXuov  Ka\  oSaro?),  and  carry  aAvay  to  those 
who  are  not  present.”  He  repeats  substan¬ 
tially  the  same  account  in  c.  67,  using  the  AVords 
5td8o(rts  and  /ieTaA7ji|/js  for  distribution  and 
reception. 

From  Tertullian  aa'C  learn  that  in  the  African 
Church  of  the  2ud  century  the  Eucharist  Avas 
administered  to  all  Avho  Avere  present ;  for  he 
recommends  (^l)e  Oratione,  c.  14)  those  who 
hesitated  to  be  present  at  the  celebration  on 
stationary  days  [Static]  for  fear  of  breaking 
their  fast,  to  be  present  indeed,  but  to  reserve 
the  portion  Avhich  they  received.  This  applies 
to  the  Bread  only ;  it  Avas  consecrated  bread, 
which  some  Avere  in  the  habit  of  putting  to 
their  lips  before  an  ordinary  meal  (Ac?  Uxot'em, 
ii.  5).  The  Eucharist  Avas  received,  not  at  the 
usual  meal-time,  as  the  Lord’s  command  seemed 
to  require  (et  in  tempore  Auctus  et  omnibus 
mandatum  a  Domino),  but  in  assemblies  before 
daAvn  and  from  no  other  hands  than  those  of  the 
presidents  (praesidentium) ;  it  was  giA^en  into 
the  hands ;  for  Tertullian  laments  the  impiety 
of  those  idol-makers  Avho — Avhether  as  clerics  or 
laics  - touched  the  Lord’s  Body  with  hands  so 
contaminated  (Z>e  IdA  c.  7) ;  and  Christians 
felt  an  anxious  dread  lest  any  portion  of  the 
bread  or  the  wine  should  fall  to  the  ground 
(Z>e  Corona^  c.  3),  for  the  Holy  Communion 
was  administered,  ordinarily  at  least,  under 
both  kinds.  Tertullian  has  also  a  probable 
allusion  to  the  Amen  of  the  recipient  in  response 
to  the  Avords  of  administration  (J)e  Spectac. 
c.  25). 

From  Cyprian  Ave  learn  (besides  much  as  to 
the  worthiness  of  communicants)  that  the  deacon 
presented  the  cup  after  consecration  to  those  Avho 
Avere  present,  probably  in  a  certain  order  {De 
Lapsis,  c.  25) ;  the  bread  Avas  received  into  the 
right  hand  {Ep.  58,  c.  9,  Hartel),  and  AA^as  not 
unfrequently  carried  home  in  a  casket  (De  Lapsis, 
c.  26).  Compare  Arca. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom,  i.  c.  1,  p.  318 
Potter),  speaking  of  the  necessity  of  men  trying 
and  examining  themseh'es,  illustrates  his  posi¬ 
tion  by  a  reference  to  the  Eucharist,  “  in  distri¬ 
buting  Avhich  according  to  custom  some  permit 
each  seA’ei’al  person  in  the  congregation  to  take 
his  portion.”  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing 
(Probst,  Lit.  der  Drei  Ersten  Jahr/idte.)  that 
these  rivfs  Avere  schismatics ;  and  the  passage 
seems  to  imply  that  there  Avere  churches  Avhere 
the  ministers,  in  distributing  the  elements,  per¬ 
mitted  all  Avho  Avere  present  to  partake  if  they 


•  This  is  the  translation  usually  given  of  €vxa.pi(TTr)- 
BivTo<:  (see  Alzog’s  Patrologie,  p.  711:  but  it  may  per¬ 
haps  be  interpreted  “  the  bread  presented  as  a  thank- 
offering."  (See  Euch.vkist.) 


COMMUNION,  HOLY  413 

Avould  ;  and  other  churches  where  they  judged 
Avho  among  the  congregation  Avere  or  Avere  not 
Avorthy. 

The  directions  of  the  second  book  of  the  Apo¬ 
stolical  Constitutions  are  as  folloAvs  (c.  57,  §  14): 
“  After  the  sacrifice  has  been  made,  let  eacii 
rank  (ranis')  seA'erally  partake  of  the  Lord’s 
Body  and  of  the  precious  Blood,  aj)i)roaching  in 
rank  Avith  reA’erence  and  godly  fear  as  to  the 
body  of  a  king  ;  and  let  the  Avomeu  draAv  near 
Avith  veiled  heads,  as  befits  the  rank  of  Avomcn. 
And  let  the  doors  be  AA'atched,  lest  any  unbe¬ 
lieving  or  uninitiated  person  entev.”  .  By 
“ranks”  Ave  are  no  doubt  to  understand  the 
several  orders  of  the  clergy  and  ascetics,  ac¬ 
cording  to  dignity,  then  laymen,  then  Avomen. 

The  testimony  of  Origen  (m  Exodum,  Horn.  xi. 
c.  7,  p.  172  ;  xiii.  3,  176)  sheAvs  that,  alter  the 
sermon  the  people  dreAV  nigh  to  the  marriage- 
supper  of  the  Lamb  ;  that  not  the  priest  alone, 
but  the  faithful  also  Avho  Avere  preseift,  re- 
ceiA^ed  the  Sacrament ;  and  that  they  Avere  care¬ 
ful  that  no  particle  of  the  consecrated  elements 
should  fall  to  the  ground,  receiving  the  Bread 
no  doubt  into  their  hands.  His  comment  on 
Psalm  xxxiii.  [xxxiv.]  9,  perhaps  alludes  to  the 
use  of  TevoaoOi  /cal  fSere  as  an  antiphon  during 
communion. 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria  from  248- 
266  (in  Euseb.  H.  E.  A'ii.  9),  mentions  the  prin¬ 
cipal  ceremonies  of  communion,  Avhen  he  speaks 
of  one  Avho  had  long  attended  the  Eucharistic 
Seiwice,  joined  in  responding  Amen,  stood  by  the 
Table,  stretched  forth  his  hand  to  receive  the 
Holy  Food  and  receiA^ed  it,  had  partaken  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  describes  the  manner  of 
receiving  in  his  time  (c.  A.D.  350)  and  country, 
thus  (Cidech.  Afystug.  v.  20-22); 

After  the  Sancta  Sanctis,  “ye  hear  the 
Amice  of  the  chanter  (toG  if/dWorros)  Avith  diAune 
melody  inA'iting  you  to  partake  of  the  holy 
mysteries,  and  saying,  ‘O  taste  and  see  hoAV 
gracious  the  Lord  is.’  Permit  not  the  bodily 
palate  -  no,  but  faith  unfeigned,  to  judge  of 
these  things ;  for  they  Avho  taste  are  bidden  to 
taste  not  of  bread  and  Avine,  but  of  the  copy 
(avTnvTTov)  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 
When  you  approach,  then,  draAv  near  not  Avith 
the  Avrists  straight  out  nor  Avith  the  finders 
spread,  but  making  the  left  hand  a  throne  for 
the  right,  as  for  that  Avhich  is  to  receive  a  king ; 
and  holloAving  the  palm,  receiA'e  the  Body  of 
Christ,  saying  after  reception  the  Amen.  Then 
after  carefully  halloAving  thine  eyes  by  the 
touch  of  the  Holy  Body,  partake  of  it  (iJ.€Ta\d,u- 
/Save),  giving  heed  lest  any  portion  of  it  fall 
aside  and  be  lost ;  for  AvhatsoeA'er  thou  hast  lost, 
by  so  much  hast  thou  suffered  damage  of  thine 
OAvn  members  .  .  .  Then,  after  communicating 
(Koivu}VTi(Tai)  of  the  Body,  draAv  near  also  to  the 
Cup  (iroTrjp'iCf})  of  the  Blood ;  not  stretching 
forth  thy  hands,  but  bending,  and  Avith  an  air 
of  adoration  and  reverence,  saying  the  Amen, 
sanctify  thyself  partaking  also  of  the  Blood  of 
Christ.  Further,  touching  Avith  thy  hands  the 
moisture  remaining  on  thy  lips,  sanctify  both 
thine  eyes  and  thy  forehead  and  the  other 
organs  of  the  senses  (aiad-qr-fipia).  Then,  Avhile 
aAvaiting  the  pra)’ei,  giA’c  thanks  unto  God, 
Avho  hath  thought  thee  Avorthy  of  so  great 
mystei’ies.” 


414  COMMUNION,  HOLY 

In  the  later  J./;os<.  Constitutions  (viii.  14,  §  3), 
after  the  Sancta  Sanctis,  the  directions  proceed  : 
“  And  after  this  let  the  bishop  partake,  then  the 
presbyters  and  the  deacons,  and  subdeacons,  and 
i,he  readers,  and  the  chanters,  and  the  ascetics ; 
and  of  the  women’s  side,  the  deaconesses  and  the 
virgins  and  the  widows ;  then  the  children,  then 
all  the  people,  with  reverence  and  godly  fear, 
without  disturbance.  And  let  the  bishop  minis¬ 
ter  the  oblation  (^Trpo(r<popav,  i.  e.  the  Bread) 
saying,  ‘The  Body  of  Christ,’  and  let  him  that 
receiveth  say  Amen;  and  let  the  deacon  hold  the 
cup,  and  say  as  he  administers,  ‘  The  Blood  of 
Christ,  the  Cup  of  Life,’  and  let  him  that 
drinketh  say  Amen.  And  let  the  33rd  Psalm 
[34th  E.V.]  be  said  while  the  rest  are  partaking 
(fV  Tw  fj.eTaXap.Sdueiv') ;  and  when  all  the  men 
and  women  have  partaken,  let  the  deacons  take 
what  remains  over  and  bear  it  into  the  sacristy 
(ra  Tr(i(TTo<p6pia).”  Then  followed  thanksgiving, 
prayer,  benediction,  and  dismissal. 

In  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  the  Sancta  Sanctis- 
is  followed  by  Fraction  and  Commixtion  ;  then  the 
priest,  after  saying  the  prayer  before  reception, 
administers  to  the  clergy ;  the  antiphon  “  O 
taste  and  see  ”  is  sung ;  when  the  deacons  take 
up  the  patens  and  the  cups  to  administer  to  the 
people,  the  priest  utters  an  ascription  of  glory 
to  God  :  special  forms  of  “  Gloria  ”  are  also  given 
to  accompany  the  placing  of  the  sacred  vessels 
on  the  side-table  or  credence  (^naparpclire^ov'), 
for  taking  them  up  again,  and  for  placing  them 
on  the  Holy  Table  ;  but  no  formula  of  adminis¬ 
tration  is  given  either  in  the  Greek  or  Syriac 
form  of  the  liturgy. 

In  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark,  after  the  Sancta 
Sanctis  and  Fraction,  the  priest  communicates, 
saying  the  prayer  “According  to  Thy  mercy,” 
or  “Like  as  the  hart  desireth  the  water-brooks.” 
And  when  he  administers  the  Bread  to  the 
clergy,  he  says,  “  The  Holy  Body  ;  ”  on  adminis¬ 
tering  the  cup,  “  The  precious  Blood  of  our  Lord 
and  God  and  Saviour.”  Then  follow  thanks¬ 
giving,  prayer,  and  dismissal.  The  form  for  the 
communion  of  the  people  was  in  all  probability 
the  same  as  that  for  the  clergy. 

In  that  of  St.  Basil,  after  the  Sancta  Sanctis 
stands  the  rubric,  “  Then  the  communion  (^era- 
X-ilif/eus)  being  completed,  and  the  Holy  Mys¬ 
teries  lifted  from  the  Holy  Table,  the  priest 
prays ;  ”  then  follow  thanksgiving,  prayer,  and 
dismissal. 

In  the  much  more  fully  developed  Byzantine 
Liturgy  (St.  Chrysostom’s),  the  priest  elevating 
the  Bread  says  the  Sancta  Sanctis,  to  which  the 
usual  response  is  given,  and  the  choir  chants 
the  communion-antiphon  of  the  day  or  the  saint. 
Then  follow  Fraction  and  Commixtion,  and  the 
peculiar  rite  of  pouidng  a  few  drops  of  boiling 
water  into  the  chalice ;  then  “  the  Priest,  taking 
the  Holy  Bread,  gives  it  to  the  deacon  ;  and  the 
deacon,  saluting  the  hand  that  imparts  it  to 
him,  takes  the  Holy  Bread,  saying,  ‘  Impart 
(^fierdSos)  to  me,  sii’,  the  precious  and  holy 
Body  of  our  Lord  and  God  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ.’  And  the  Priest  says,  ‘  To  N.,  sacred 
deacon  (^iepoSiaKoi'ce'),  is  imparted  the  precious 
and  holy  and  undefiled  Body  of  our  Lord  and 
God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  for  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  life  eternal.’  And  he  passes  behind 
the  Holy  Table,  bowing  his  head,  and  prays  as 
the  priest  does.  In  like  manner  the  priest, 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 

taking  one  particle  of  the  Holy  Bread,  says, 
‘  The  precious  and  all-holy  Body  of  our  Lord 
and  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  is  imparted  to 
me,  N.,  priest,  for  forgiveness  of  sins  and  life 
eternal.’  Then,  bowing  his  head  low,  he  prays.” 
Then  follow  directions  for  replacing  the  vessels 
on  the  Holy  Table.  Then  the  door  of  the  sanc¬ 
tuary  (Srjixa),  within  which  the  actions  pre¬ 
viously  described  have  taken  place,  is  opened, 
and  the  deacon  standing  in  the  doorwav  elevates 
the  cup.  This  rubric  follows  :  “  Be  it  known 
that  if  there  are  any  who  desire  to  partake,  the 
;  priest  takes  the  Holy  Cup'*  from  the  hands  of 
the  deacon  and  imparts  to  them,  saying :  ‘  The 
servant  of  God  N.  paidakes  of  the  precious  and 
holy  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  for  forgiveness  of  his  sins  and  life 
eternal.’  ”  Then,  after  a  blessing,  the  priest  and 
deacon  return  to  the  Holy  Table,  and  rubrics 
follow  presci’ibing  the  various  observances  with 
which  the  sacred  vessels  are  carried  to  the 
sacristy. 

Of  the  Western  rites,  we  will  speak  first  of 
the  Roman. 

After  the  Libera  nos  of  the  Canon  follow  the 
Kiss  of  Peace  and  the  breaking  or  Fraction 
of  the  Host,  during  which  the  Agnus  Dei  was 
said. 

Then,  in  the  ancient  form  of  Papal  Mass,  a 
deacon  (or,  according  to  the  Ordines  V.  and  VT., 
an  acolyth)  bore  the  paten  to  the  Pope’s  seat, 
west  of  the  altar ;  the  Pontift'  awaited  his 
coming,  standing  up  with  folded  hands  ;  he  bit 
a  portion  from  the  oblate  on  the  paten,  ffnd 
placed  the  oblate  in  the  chalice  held  by  the 
archdeacon ;  from  this  chalice  he  partook  of 
the  Wine  by  means  of  a  gold  or  silver  pipe 
[Fistula]. 

When  the  Pontiff  has  communicated,  the  arch¬ 
deacon  draws  near  the  horn  of  the  altar  (Ordo 
Rom.  I.  c.  20 ;  IT.  c.  14)^  and  pours  a  little  of 
the  wine  from  the  chalice  which  had  been  used 
in  consecration  into  the  cup  (scyphum)  held  by 
an  acolyth  ;  then  the  bishops  approach  to  re¬ 
ceive  the  communion  from  the  hands  of  the 
Pontiff ;  then  the  presbyters  in  like  manner 
(0.  R.  I.  u.  s.);  according  to  the  Ordo  R.  II. 
the  presbyters  drew  near  not  to  the  Papal  seat 
but  to  the  altar  to  communicate.  The  Ordo  V. 
describes  the  manner  of  communicating  with 
more  detail :  “  let  the  presbyters  also  drawing 
near  communicate,  to  whom  the  bishop  gives  the 
Holy  Body  into  their  hands,  and  lot  them  go  to 
the  left-hand  horn®  of  the  altar  and  kiss  it,  and 
communicate.  In  like  manner  after  them  let 
the  deacons  communicate.”  The  Ordo  IT. 
makes  the  distinction  that  subdeacons  ai’e  to 
receive  the  Body  into  their  mouths,  while  the 
higher  orders  receive  it  into  their  hands. 

After  the  Pontiff  had  ministered  the  Bread, 
the  archdeacon  ministered  the  Wine  to  the 
clei-gy  ;  after  which  he  poured  the  remainder  of 

*>  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  cnp  contains  a 
portion  of  the  consecrated  bread  as  well  as  the  wine ;  and 
that  in  nearly  all  the  Eastern  churches  the  sacred  elements 
have  from  ancient  times  been  administered  to  the  laity 
with  a  spoon  (Aa/3w). 

«  i.e.  the  north  side.  “  Right’'  and  “  left”  in  liturgical 
language  at  present  refer  to  the  right  and  left  hand  of  the 
crucifix  over  the  altar :  but  anciently  they  referred  to  the 
right  and  left  of  a  person  standing  with  his  face  towards 
the  altar.  [Horn.] 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 

the  wine  from  the  chalice  into  the  cup  (scy- 
phurn),  from  which  the  laity  were  to  commu¬ 
nicate  by  means  of  a  tube,  or  pugillaris  [Fistula]. 
The  wine  in  this  cup  was  regarded  as  completely 
consecrated  by  the  infusion  of  the  consecrated 
Wine  from  the  chalice  (see  Mabillon,  CoDim. 
Praevius  in  Ordines  RR.  p.  xciii.).  The  Pope 
delivered  the  bread  to  the  principal  persons  pre¬ 
sent,  the  archdeacon  following  with  the  cup ; 
meantime  the  choir  sang  the  antiphon  Ad  Com- 
munionem.  When  the  principal  persons  in  the 
Senatokium  had  communicated,  the  bishops 
ministei-ed  the  bread  to  the  rest  of  the  laity,  and 
the  deacons  the  cup ;  or  sometimes,  at  the  bid¬ 
ding  of  the  Pontiff,  presbyters  administered  both 
the  bread  and  the  cup  (^Ordo  R.  I.  c.  20,  and  11. 
c.  14).  As  to  the  form  of  words  accompanying 
administration ;  Gregory  the  Great  used  the 
following :  “  Coi’pus  Dom.  N.  J.  Christi  con- 
servet  animam  tuam  ”  (Joann.  Diac.  Vita  Greg. 
ii.  41).  The  Missa  Illyrici  (in  Bona,  De  Reb. 
Lit.  p.  554,  ed.  1072)  gives  the  following.  For 
the  priest  himself  when  he  receives :  “  Corpus 
Domini  Nostri  Jesu  Christi  sit  mihi  remedium 
sempiternum  in  vitam  aeternam,”  and  “  Sanguis 
D.  N.  J.  Christi  custodiat  me  in  vitam  aeter- 
nam.”  On  delivering  the  Body  into  the  hands 
of  priest  or  deacons,  the  form  is  “  Pax  tecum. 
R.  Et  cum  spiritu  tuo;”^  or  “Verbum  caro 
factus  est,  et  Labitavit  in  nobis :  ”  on  delivering 
the  cup,  in  which  a  poi’tion  of  the  consecrated 
bread  is  immersed  [Commixtion],  “  Haec  sacro- 
sancta  commixtio  corporis  et  sanguinis  D.  N. 
J.  C.  prosit  tibi  ad  vitam  aeternam.”  For  the 
subdeacons  and  inferior  oi’ders  the  form  is : 
“  Perceptio  Corporis  et  Sanguinis  D.  N.  J.  C. 
sanctifjcet  corpus  et  animam  tuam  in  vitam 
aeternam.  Amen.”  F^or  the  laity  :  “  Corpus  et 
sanguis  D.  N.  J.  C.  prosit  tibi  in  remissionem 
omnium  peccatorum  et  ad  vitam  aeternam.” 
About  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great,  the  follow¬ 
ing  was  a  common  formula ;  “  Corpus  D.  N.  J.  C. 
custodiat  te  in  vitam  aeternam  ”  (Krazer,  de 
Liturgiis,  p.  561).® 

In  the  Gallican  Church,  after  the  benediction 
and  the  communion  of  the  priest,  the  faithful, 
men  and  women  alike,  drew  near  the  altar  and 
received  the  Eucharist  into  their  hands. 

During  the  time  of  communicating,  a  psalm 
or  canticle  was  chanted.  On  this  point  Aurelian, 
bishop  of  Orleans,  gives  the  simple  rule,  “  Psal- 
lendo  omnes  communicant  ”  (Regula).  Germanus 
of  Paris,  his  contemporary,  calls  the  canticle  or 
antiphon  which  was  sung  during  communion 
Trecanum,  and  says  that  it  signified  faith  in  the 
Holy  Trinity  ;  it  was  probably  either  the  Gloria 
Patri,  cr  something  equivalent  to  the  Unus 
Pater,  Unus  Filius,  Unus  Spiritus  Sanctus,  of 
the  Eastern  Church  [Sancta  Sanctis].  In  the 
Mozarabic  liturgy,  after  the  priestly  benediction 
and  salutation,  the  choir  chants  the  antiphon  Ad 
Accedentes,  during  which  the  people  were  to 
draw  near.  After  the  antiphon,  the  priest  takes 
from  the  paten  the  particle  Gloria  [see  Frac¬ 
tion],  saying  inaudibly  “  Panem  coelestem  de 

d  These  words  were  no  doubt  used  as  appropriate  to 
the  Kiss  of  Peace  given  by  the  mlnlstrant  to  the  recipient, 
as  was  occasionally  done  even  as  late  as  the  12th  century. 
(Innocent  JII,  De  ilyst.  Mifsae,  vi.  9.) 

*  A  good  collection  of  such  formulae  may  be  found 
in  the  work  of  Dominic  Georgi,  de  Liturgia  Rom. 
Fontift 


COMMUNION,  HOLY  415 

mensa  Domini  accipiam  et  nomen  Domini  invo- 
cabo,”  f  and,  holding  it  over  the  chalice,  says 
prayers  for  worthy  recejttion ;  then  consumes 
the  particle  which  he  holds  in  his  hand,  and 
then  the  remaining  particles  on  the  paten.  Im¬ 
mediately  after  he  communicates  the  people. 
He  then  uncovers  the  chalice  and,  after  the 
prayer  “Ave  in  aevum  coelestis  potus,”  and 
“  Corpus  et  Sanguis  D.  N.  J.  Christi  custodiat 
corpus  et  animam  meam  in  vitam  aeternam, 
Amen,”  drinks  thereof,  and  says  prayer  for  bene¬ 
fit  from  reception.  The  choir  chants  the  Coai- 
MUNio,  or  antiphon  for  communicating.  No 
direction  is  given  for  the  communion  of  the 
people  further  than  that  contained  in  the  words 
“  et  statim  populo  communionem  impertit.” 
After  the  ablution  of  the  chalice.  Alleluia  is 
chanted,  post -communion  follows,  salutation  and 
dismissal. 

In  the  Ambrosian  rite,  after  the  Fraction  and 
the  Kiss  of  Peace,  the  priest  thrice  strikes  his 
breast,  saying,  Domine  non  sum  dignus ;  on 
taking  the  bread  into  his  hand,  he  says.  Quid 
retribuam  Domino  ?  and  immediately  before  com¬ 
municating,  “  Corpus  D.  N.  J.  C.  custodiat  ani¬ 
mam  meam  in  vitam  aeternam.  Amen.’'  On 
taking  the  cup  into  his  hand,  he  again  says  the 
Quid  retribuam,  and  before  communicating, 
“  Praesta,  quaesumus,  Domine,  ut  perceptio  Cor¬ 
poris  et  Sanguinis  D.  N.  J.  C.  ad  vitam  nos  per- 
ducat  aeternam  ;”  then  if  any  are  to  commu¬ 
nicate  he  administers  to  them  before  Purifica¬ 
tion.  The  ancient  form  of  administration  we 
learn  from  the  Pseudo-Ambrosius  de  Sacramentis 
(iv.  5) ;  “  dicit  tibi  sacerdos.  Corpus  Christi,  et 
tu  dicis,  Amen,  id  est,  verum,”  which  is  identical 
with  the  (Twya  Xpiarov  of  Eastern  ritual.  The 
form  for  the  cup  was  probably  similar. 

The  prayers  which  accompany  communion 
vary  much  in  different  copies  of  the  Ambrosian 
missal,  and  are  probably  all  of  comparatively 
modern  date. 

All  who  were  present  communicated. — This  is 
contemplated  in  all  the  early  accounts  of  Holy 
Communion ;  hence  the  care  taken  to  e.xclude 
from  the  mysteries  all  who  were  not  fit  to  par¬ 
ticipate.  The  second  canon  of  the  Council  of 
Antioch  (a.d.  344;  compare  Canon.  Apost.  c.  9 
[10])  orders  that  those  who  came  into  the  church 
and  heard  the  service,  so  far  as  the  lections  of 
Scripture,  but  declined  to  partake  in  the  prayers 
of  the  people  or  to  communicate,  should  be  cast 
out  of  the  church  until  they  should  have  con¬ 
fessed  and  repented  of  their  fault.  This  would 
seem  to  imply  that  the  practice  of  some  of  the 
worshippers  leaving  the  church  before  the  more 
solemn  part  of  the  liturgy  (euxf?)  was  com¬ 
menced,  was  already  known  (though  censured) 
in  the  4th  century  ;  for  if  they  had  remained 
in  the  church,  they  could  hardly  have  been  de¬ 
scribed  as  pA]  KoivwvovvTas  €VX7}S  apa  T<p  Aaip. 
Martin  of  Braga  (a.d.  560)  inserted  this  in  his 
Collectio  Canonum  (c.  83)  for  the  use  of  the 
Spanish  Church.  Gratian  (Z>e  Consccrat.  Dist. 
ii.  c.  10)  quotes  a  decree  of  Pope  Auacletus,  which 


f  In  the  printed  missals,  which  are  much  Interpolated, 
the  direction  follows  in  the  rubric,  “  et  dIcat  sacerdos 
memento  pro  movtuis;"  as  to  which  Krazer  (de  Lit.  p. 
621)  notes,  “qui  ritus,  ut  jam  Ins-inuavimus,  Gotho-IIis- 
panus  non  est ;  bine  et  nulla  in  missali  illius  occurrit 
formula.” 


416 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 

distinctly  orders  all  to  communicate  when  con¬ 
secration  was  completed,  if  they  would  not  be 
cast  out  of  the  church.  The  decree  is  of  course 
spurious  ;  but  it  is  interesting  as  indicating  what 
was  the  law  of  the  Roman  Church  at  the  time 
of  trie  Isidorian  forgeries  (about  830),  and  also 
probably  that  the  practice  of  non-communicating 
aCen  lance  had  then  begun  ;  for  the  decree  would 
not  have  been  put  forth  without  a  purpose. 
One  class  of  persons  only  seems  to  have  been 
permitted  in  ancient  times  to  be  present  at  Holy 
Communion  without  communicating — the  con- 
s-istentes  ((Tvvi(TTafi(:Voi)  or  fourth  class  of  peni¬ 
tents,  who  were  permitted  to  be  present  at  the 
whole  service,  but  not  to  make  oblation  or  to 
communicate.  See  Cone.  Hicae.  c.  11;  Ancyra, 
c.  8 ;  Basil,  Ep.  Canon,  c.  56. 

On  the  question  of  private  and  solitary  masses, 
see  Mass. 

Communion  under  both  kinds. — That  in  the 
solemn  public  administi’ation  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper  the  laity  received  under  both  kinds  from 
the  foundation  of  the  Church  of  Christ  to  the 
12th  century  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  (See  Ma- 
billon,  Acta  SS.  Bened.  Saec.  III.  praef.  c.  75.) 
The  danger  of  spilling  the  consecrated  wine  led 
to  the  adoption  of  a  tube,  or  Fistula,  through 
which  it  might  be  drawn. 

When  this  practice  too  was  found  to  have  its 
peculiar  disadvantages,  the  custom  sprang  up  in 
some  churches,  and  continues  in  the  East  to  this 
day,  of  administering  to  the  people  the  Eucha¬ 
ristic  Bread  dipped  in  the  consecrated  wine,  in 
which  case  the  particle  was  administered  by 
means  of  a  SPOON,  made  for  that  purpose.  This 
practice  seems  to  be  alluded  to  in  the  first  canon 
of  the  3rd  Council  of  Braga  (a.d.  675),  which 
condemns  those  who  were  acci;stomed  “  intinc- 
tam  eucharistiam  populis  pro  complemenio  com- 
munionis  porrigere.”  In  this  case,  we  are  not 
to  undei'stand  that  the  administration  of  the 
immersed  particle  was  over  and  above  com¬ 
munion  proper,  for  the  later  portion  of  the 
canon  distinctly  implies  that  this  “  intincta 
eucharistia  ”  was  substituted  for  the  evangelical 
practice  of  administering  separately  the  bread 
and  the  cup.  How  this  practice,  which  was 
condemned  in  the  West  as  schismatical  and 
against  apostolic  tradition,  came  to  be  so  widely 
spread  in  the  East  is  difficult  to  say.  That  in 
the  time  of  Chrysostom  the  deacon  still  minis¬ 
tered  the  cup  to  the  people  may  be  shown  by 
'  various  passages  in  his  works,  which  proves  that 
the  administration  of  ‘‘  eucharistia  intincta  ” 
had  not  then  begun  in  the  Byzantine  Church. 
Nor  is  it  easy  to  say  when  it  was  introduced. 
This  manner  of  communicating  was  widely  pre¬ 
valent  in  ancient  times  in  the  case  of  sick  pei- 
sons  [Sick,  Communion  of]. 

Posture  of  Reception. — All  the  testimonies  of 
ancient  writers  adduced  in  this  article,  so  far  as 
they  detern’ine  anything  on  the  point,  describe 
the  communicants  as  receiving  standing.  As 
this  was  the  usual  posture  of  prayer  and  praise 
oil  every  Lord’s  Day  and  during  the  Easter  solem¬ 
nities,  the  faithful  would  naturally  communicate 
standing  on  such  days.  Nor  are  testimonies 
wanting  that  the  same  was  true  of  other  days 
also,  though  these  concern  rather  the  Eastern 
than  the  Western  Church  (Bona,  De  Reb.  Lit. 
ii.  c.  17,  §  8 ;  Yalesius  on  Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  9). 
In  a  Pontifical  Mass  at  Rome,  the  deacon  still 


communicates  standing,  a  relic  no  doubt  of  the 
ancient  juactice.  On  other  occasions,  the  cele¬ 
brant  alone  communicates  standing,  the  rest, 
whether  clergy  or  laity,  kneeling.  Dr.  Neale 
(^Eastern  CIi.  introd.  p.  524)  mentions  a  capital 
at  Rheims,  probably  of  the  12th  century,  which 
represents  a  standing  communion. 

Delivery  of  the  Bread  into  the  Hand. — There 
is  abundant  proof,  besides  that  already  adduced, 
that  the  Eucharistic  bread  was  in  ancient  limes 
delivered  into  the  hands  of  communicants.  Thus, 
Ambrose  (in  Theodoret,  Hi^t.  Eccl.  v.  17)  asks 
Theodosius,  after  the  massacre  of  Thessalonica, 
how  he  could  venture  to  receive  the  Lord’s 
Body  with  hands  still  dripping  from  the  slaughter 
of  the  innocent ;  and  Augustine  (c.  Litt.  Petiliani^ 
ii.  23)  speaks  of  a  bishop  in  whose  hands  his 
correspondent  used  to  place  the  Eucharist,  and 
receive  it  into  his  own  hands  from  him  in  turn  ; 
and  Basil  {Ep.  289)  says  that  in  the  church 
the  priest  delivers  a  portion  of  the  Eucharist 
into  the  hand,  and  the  communicant  carries  it 
to  his  mouth  with  his  own  hand.  Chrysostom 
(Horn.  20,  ad  Pop.  Antioch,  c.  7)  speaks  of  the 
need  of  having  clean  hands,  considering  what  they 
may  bear.  The  narrative  in  Sozomen  {H.  E. 
viii.  5)  of  a  transaction  of  Chrysostom’s  describes 
a  woman  after  receiving  the  bread  into  her 
hand  bowing  her  head  as  if  to  pray  (iy  cu- 
lojLteVrj  aTr€Kv\f/€),  and  passing  on  the  particle 
she  had  receiv'ed  to  her  maid-servant. 

The  101st  canon  of  the  Trullan  Council  (an. 
692)  reprehends  a  practice  which  had  sprung  up 
of  providing  receptacles  of  gold  or  other  precious 
material  for  the  reception  of  the  Eucharist. 
After  insisting  on  the  truth,  that  man  is  more 
precious  than  fine  gold,  the  canon  proceeds  :  “  if 
any  man  desires  to  partake  of  the  immaculate 
Body  ...  let  him  draw  near,  disposing  his 
hands  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  and  so  receive  the 
communion  of  the  divine  grace ;  ”  and  priests 
who  gave  the  Eucharist  into  such  receptacles 
(Sox^ta)  were  to  be  excommunicated.  John  of 
Damascus  also  (de  Fid.  Orthod.  iv.  14)  desires 
Christians  to  dispose  their  hands  in  the  form  of 
a  cross  to  receive  the  body  of  the  Crucified.  His 
contemporary  Bede  (Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  24)  describes 
Caedmon  on  his  deathbed  (about  680)  as  re¬ 
ceiving  the  Eucharist  into  his  hand.  As  he 
mentions  this  without  comment,  it  was  no  doubt 
the  practice  of  his  own  time  also. 

Before  the  end  of  the  6th  century  women 
were  forbidden  to  receive  the  Eucharist  on  the 
naked  hand,  and  were  comjielled  to  receive  it  on 
a  napkin  called  Dominicale.  See  Cone.  Antis- 
siod.  [Auxerre],  canons  36  and  42.  Caesarius 
of  Arles,  in  a  sermon  printed  as  St.  Augus¬ 
tine’s  (Serm.  252,  de  Tempore'),  exhorts  the 
women  to  have  their  hearts  as  clean  as  the 
napkin  which  they  brought  to  receive  the  Body 
of  Christ.  The  Greek  Fathers  however  say  no¬ 
thing  of  any  such  practice,  and  the  censure  of 
the  Trullan  Council  would  evidently  apply  as 
well  to  linen  as  to  other  materials. 

How  long  the  custom  of  giving  the  Eucharist 
into  the  hands  of  lay  persons  continued  in  the 
Roman  Church  cannot  be  precisely  determined. 
Gregory  the  Great  (Dialogus,  iii.  c.  3)  asserts 
indeed  that  Pope  Agapetus  (535-536)  placed  the 
Eucharist  in  the  mouth  of  a  certain  dumb  and 
lame  person  ;  but  from  a  case  so  peculiar  nothing 
can  be  concluded,  except  that  the  express  men- 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 


417 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 

tion  of  the  sacrament  being  placed  in  the  mouth 
of  this  person  probably  indicates  that  the  general 
practice  was  otherwise.  At  the  time  when  the 
Ordo  R.  VI.  was  drawn  up  (9th  century  ?), 
the  ancient  custom  had  ceased  at  Rome,  for 
the  form  of  reception  which  was  not  per¬ 
mitted  to  subdeacons  was  certainly  not  permitted 
to  the  laity.  A  council  held  at  Rouen  (probably 
in  the  year  880)  strictly  prohibited  presbyters 
from  placing  the  Eucharist  in  the  hand  of  any 
lay  person,  male  or  female,  commanding  them 
to  place  it  in  their  mouths.  This  practice,  which 
probably  originated  in  a  desire  to  protect  that 
which  is  holy  from  profane  or  superstitious  uses, 
gradually  became  the  almost  universal  rule  of 
the  Church.  So  in  1549,  because  the  people 
“  diversely  abused  ”  the  Sacrament  “  to  supei-- 
stition  and  wickedness,”  it  was  thought  Con¬ 
venient  that  the  people  commonly  receive  the 
sacrament  of  Christ’s  Body  in  their  mouths 
at  the  priest’s  hand.  (See  the  first  Prayei*- 
Book  of  Edward  VI.  in  Keeling’s  Litt.  Britt. 
p.  235.) 

Responding  Amen  on  Reception. — Besides  the 
instances  already  given  of  this  practice,  the 
following  may  be  cited  :  Jerome  (^Ep.  62,  ad 
Theoph.  Alex.')  wonders  how  one  could  come  to 
the  Eucharist,  and  answer  Amen.,  when  he 
doubted  of  the  charity  of  the  ministrant.  Au¬ 
gustine  (c.  Faustum  Manic, h.  xii.  10)  speaks  of 
the  responding  Amen  on  reception  of  the  Blood 
of  Christ  as  a  universal  custom. 

Place  of  Communicating. — The  second  synod  of 
Tours  (a.d.  567),  in  the  fourth  canou  (Bruns’s 
Canones,  ii.  226),  prohibited  lay  persons  from 
standing  in  the  space  within  the  rails  (cancelli) 
reserved  for  the  choir  during  the  celebration  of 
the  mysteries ;  but  expressly  allowed  lay  men 
and  women  to  enter  the  sanctuary  (sancta 
sanctorum)  for  the  purpose  of  praying  and  com¬ 
municating,  as  had  been  the  custom  in  times 
past.  The  existence  of  this  custom  is  further 
proved  by  the  story  told  by  Gregory  of  Tours 
{de  Mirac.  S.  Martini,  ii.  c.  14)  of  the  paralytic 
girl,  who,  being  rruraculously  healed,  approached 
the  altar  to  communicate  without  help. 

Yet  at  nearly  the  same  time  the  1st  Council 
of  Braga  (a.d.  563)  in  Spain,  in  the  canon  (13) 
headed  “  Ubi  omnes  communicant,”  ordered  that 
no  lay  person  should  approach  within  the  sanc¬ 
tuary  of  the  altar  to  communicate,  but  only 
clerics,  as  is  provided  in  the  ancient  canons. 

We  have  already  seen,  that  in  the  liturgy 
of  St.  Chrysostom  the  priests  and  deacons  com¬ 
municated  within  the  sanctuary,  the  lay  people 
outside ;  and  some  distinction  of  this  kind  pro¬ 
bably  became  general  from  about  the  6th  century. 
The  di.stinction  between  the  communion  of  the 
clergy  and  that  of  the  laity  always  tended  in 
fact  to  become  broader,  and  as  differences  in¬ 
creased  not  only  in  respect  of  precedence,  but  in 
respect  of  the  manner  and  place  of  communi¬ 
cating,  the  degradation  of  a  clerk  to  lay  com¬ 
munion  became  a  more  marked  punishment 
[Degradation]. 

Conditions  of  Admission  to  Holy 
Communion. 

1.  Communicants  must  be  baptized  persons,  not 
under  censure. — None  could  be  admitted  to  Holy 
Communion  but  baptized  persons  (ooSels  ajSaTr- 
riaros  fieraXafi^dyei,  Theophylact  on  Matt.  14), 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


lying  under  no  censure  [Excommunication]. 
The  competency  of  ordinary  members  of  any 
church  would  be  known  as  a  matter  of  course  to 
the  clergy  administering  the  sacrament.  Persons 
from  a  distance  were  required  to  produce  cer¬ 
tificates  from  their  own  bishops  (^ypaixpara 
KoivuiviKa,  literae  communicatoriae,  formatae ; 
see  Commendatory  Letters)  that  they  were 
in  the  peace  of  the  Church,  before  they  could 
be  admitted  to  Holy  Communion  {Cone.  Car- 
thag.  i.  c.  5 ;  Eliberit  cc.  25,  58 ;  Arles,  i.  c. 
9 ;  Agde,  c.  52).  Some  have  thought  that  t+ie 
expression  commnnio  peregrina  designates  the 
state  of  those  strangers  who,  being  unprovided 
with  such  letters,  were  admitted  to  be  present 
at  divine  service,  but  not  to  communicate  (see 
Bona,  De  Reb.  Lit.  ii.  c.  19,  §§  5,  6  ;  Bingham, 
Antiq.  XVII.  iii.  7). 

2.  It  seems  also  that,  in  some  Cases  at  least, 
within  the  first  eight  centuries.  Private  Con¬ 
fession  was  enjoined  before  communicating.  In 
the  Penitential  of  Archbishop  Theodore  (about 
A.D;  700)  in  the  chapter  De  Communione  Eucha- 
ristiae  (I.  xii.  7)  is  the  provision,  “Confessio 
autem  Deo  soli  agatur  licebit,  si  necesse  est;” 
to  which  is  added  in  some  MSS.  the  note  of  a 
transcriber  of  perhaps  a  century  later,  “  et  hoc 
necessarium.”  The  same  provision  is  repeated  in 
the  Penitential  of  Cumineus,  the  work  almost 
certainly  of  the  later  Cumineus,  an  Irish  monk 
who  lived  and  wrote  near  Bobbio,  in  the  early 
part  of  the  8th  century.  The  purport  of  the 
rule  seems  to  be,  that  confession  to  a  pidest  was 
the  ordinary  practice,  but  that  it  might  be  dis¬ 
pensed  with  in  case  of  necessity. 

That  confession  to  a  priest  was  a  usual,  though 
not  a  necessary,  preliminary  to  Holy  Commu¬ 
nion  is  perhaps  implied  in  the  narrative  of 
Adamnan  {Vita  8.  Columhae,  i.  17,  20,  30,  41, 
50)  and  of  Bede  {Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  25,  27).  The 
whole  subject  is  discussed  in  Ussher’s  Religion 
of  the  Ancient  Irish,  c.  5 ;  and  in  Lanigan’s 
History  of  the  Irish  Church,  iv.  67.  Compare 
Penitence. 

In  the  case  of  reconciliation  of  penitents  after 
excommunication  and  penance,  the  intervention  of 
the  bishop — or  of  a  priest  in  his  absence — was  of 
course  necessary  (Theodore’s  Penit.  I.  xiii.  2,  3) ; 
and  clergy  ordained  by  Scotch  or  British  bishops 
were  not  admitted  to  communion  in  the  Anglican 
church  until  they  had  “  confessed  ”  their  desire 
to  be  restored  to  unity  {Ib.  I.  ix.  3). 

On  the  Communion  of  Children  see  Infant 
Communion. 

3.  Fasting  Reception  of  Holy  Communion. — So 
long  as  Holy  Communion  accompanied  or  followed 
an  Agape,  or  common  meal,  it  is  evident  that 
it  was  not  received  fasting.  But  as,  in  course  of 
time,  the  tone  of  thought  in  the  Church  was 
altered,  and  the  rite  it.self  received  a  different 
colouring  and  different  accessories,  it  came  to  be 
regarded  as  essential  that  both  the  celebrant  and 
the  recipients  should  be  fasting  at  the  time  of 
communion.  Something  of  this  feeling  probably 
underlies  Tertullian’s  words,  when  he  contrasts 
the  Lord’s  own  practice  with  that  of  his  own 
time  in  the  passage  {De  Corona,  c.  3)  quoted 
above,  and  on  stationary  days  {De  Orat.  c.  14), 

,  he  clearly  contemplates  the  fa.st  being  continued 
I  until  reception.  Cyprian  too  {Ep.  63,  cc.  15 
!  .and  16,  quoted  above)  insists  on  the  greater 
’  worthiness  of  the  morning  compared  with  the 


418  COMMUNION,  HOLY 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 


evening  communion. 


But  the  necessity  of  com-  ' 
municating  fasting  does  nut  appear  to  be  dis¬ 
tinctly  recognised  before  the  4th  century.  Tiien 
we  find  Basil  (//om.  ii.  De  Jejunio,  p.  13)  laying 
it  down  that  no  one  would  venture  to  celebrate 
the  mysteries  otherwise  than  fasting;  and 
Chrysostom  (in  1  Cor.  Horn.  27,  p.  231)  insisting 
on  fasting  as  a  necessary  preliminary  to  worthy 
communion ;  and  again  (^Ad  pop.  Antioch.  Serm. 
9,  p.  103)  exhorting  even  those  who  were  not 
fasting  to  come  to  church,  not  indeed  to  commu¬ 
nicate  but  to  hear  the  sermon  ;  and  again  {Ep. 
125,  p.  683)  complaining  that  his  calumniators 
accuse  1  him  of  having  admitted  to  communion 
persons  who  were  not  fasting,  a  charge  which  he 
denies  with  the  strongest  asseverations.  We 
have  already  seen  that  Ambrose  recommended 
the  faithful  to  fast  even  until  evening,  when  the 
communion  was  late.  A  remarkable  passage  of 
Augustine  {Ep.  118,  c.  6;  p.  191,  ed.  Cologne, 
1616)  is  conclusive  as  to  the  practice  of  his  own 
time.  “It  is  beyond  dispute,”  he  says,  “that 
when  the  discijiles  first  received  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  the  Lord,  they  did  not  receive  fasting. 
Are  we  therefore  to  blame  the  whole  Church 
because  every  one  does  receive  fasting  ?  No ; 
for  it  pleased  the  Holy  Spirit  that,  in  honour  of 
so  mighty  a  sacrament,  the  Body  of  the  Lord 
should  pass  the  Christian’s  lips  before  other 
food ;  for  it  is  on  that  account  that  that  custom 
■is  observed  throughout  the  whole  world  .  .  . 
The  Lord  did  not  prescribe  in  what  order  it 
should  be  received,  that  He  might  reserve  this 
privilege  for  the  Apostles,  through  whom  He 
was  to  regulate  the  churches ;  for  if  He  had 
recommended  that  it  should  always  be  received 
after  other  food,  I  suppose  that  no  one  would 
have  deviated  from  that  practice.”  With  re¬ 
spect  to  his  correspondent’s  question,  as  to  the 
custom  to  be  followed  on  the  Thursday  in  Holy 
Week  with  regard  to  morning  or  evening  com¬ 
munion,  or  both,  he  admits  that  the  practice  of 
the  Church  did  not  condemn  communion  on  that 
day  after  the  evening  meal. 

This  rule,  however,  was  not  quite  invariable. 
In  Augustine’s  lifetime  —as  appears  from  the 
epistle  just  quoted — the  custom  prevailed  that 
on  the  Thursday  in  Holy  Week,  the  anniversary 
of  the  institixtion,  the  faithful  receiv^ed  Holy 
Communion  in  the  evening  and  after  eating.  So 
the  Codex  Canoyiurn  Eccl.  Afric.  (canon  41  ;  = 
HI.  Cone.  Cai'th.  c.  29)  provides,  “  ut  sacramenta 
altaris  nonnisi  a  jejunis  hominibus  celebrentur, 
excepto  uno  die  anniversario  quo  Coena  Domini 
celebretur.”  A  canon  of  Laodicea  (c.  50)  which 
is  sometimes  quoted  as  dii’ected  against  this 
custom,  simply  refers  to  the  habit  into  which 
some  had  fallen  of  breaking  their  Lent-fast  on 
the  Thursday  in  the  last  week,  not  specially  to 
non-fasting  communion ;  but  the  Council  in 
I'rullo  (can.  29),  in  the  year  680,  did  expressly 
forbid  the  celebration  of  the  mysteries  even  on 
this  Thursday  by  any  but  fasting  men. 

Socrates  (^Hist.  Eccl.  v.  22,  p.  295)  expressly 
states  that  the  inhabitants  of  that  part  of  Egypt 
which  borders  on  Alexandria  and  of  the  Thebaid 
had  a  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  on  Saturday, 
as  others  had  ;  but  that,  contrary  to  the  general 
custom,  they  communicated  after  taking  their 
evening  meal  without  stint. 

Regulations  intended  to  check  the  practice  of 
con-fasting  communion  were  made  in  Gaul  in  the 


6th  century.  The  council  of  Auxene  (can.  19  ; 
Bruns’s  Can.  ii.  239)  enjoined  that  no  presbyter, 
deacon,  or  subdeacon  should  venture  to  take 
part  in  the  office  of  the  ma.ss,  or  to  stand  in  the 
church  while  mass  was  said,  after  taking  food  or 
wine.  The  reason  for  the  latter  clause  was  no 
doubt  that  clerics  who  were  present  at  mass  always 
in  those  days  communicated.  The  2nd  Council 
of  M'-icon  in  the  year  585  (Cone.  Matisconense  ii. 
can.  9 ;  in  Bruns’s  Canoncs,  ii.  251)  expressly 
forbade  any  presbyter  full  of  food  or  under  the 
infiuence  of  wine  (crapulatus  vino)  to  handle  the 
sacrifice  or  celebrate  mass ;  referring  to  the 
African  canon  already  quoted.  In  Spain  decrees 
on  this  subject  were  made  by  the  1st  Council 
of  Braga  (can.  16),  and  the  second  (can.  10)  in 
the  years  563  and  572  respectively  (Bruns,  ii. 
32  and  42).  The  first  of  these  anathematizes 
those  who,  instead  of  celebrating  mass  fasting  in 
the  church  at  three  in  the  afternoon  of  Maundy 
Thursday,  celebrated  on  that  day  masses  for  the 
dead  at  nine  in  the  morning  without  fasting, 
after  the  Priscillianist  fashion.  The  second,  by 
occasion  of  those  who  consecrated  masses  for  the 
dead  after  having  taken  wine,  condemns  those 
who  ventured  to  consecrate  after  having  taken 
any  food  whatever.  Walafrid  Strabo  (de  Off. 
Bivinis,  c.  19),  referring  to  the  first  of  these, 
rightly  infers  that  if  non-fasting  communion  was 
not  permitted  on  a  day  when  the  practice  of  the 
law  and  a  certain  degree  of  precedent  might  be 
pleaded,  it  was  not  permitted  on  other  days. 
The  abuse  censured  by  the  second  council  pro¬ 
bably  arose  from  the  late  hour  at  which  masses 
for  the  dead  were  held  and  the  presence  of  the 
priest  at  the  funeral-feast.  The  Codex  Eccl. 
Afy  'ic.  (can.  41  =  ///.  Carth.  c.  29)  had  already 
provided  that  services  for  the  dead  held  in  the 
afternoon  should  consist  of  prayers  only,  without 
sacrifice,  if  the  clerics  who  performed  the  service 
were  found  to  have  taken  food.  Gratian  (under 
Presbyter,  dist.  91,  quoted  by  Bona,  E.  L.  i.  c. 
21,  §  2)  refers  to  a  council  of  Nantes  or  Agde, 
which  enjoined  priests  to  remain  fasting  until 
the  hour  fixed,  in  order  that  they  might  be  able 
to  take  part  in  the  funeral-mass. 

In  two  cases  only  non-fasting  communion  is 
expressly  permitted.  The  fii*st  is,  when  the  neces¬ 
sity  suddenly  arises  of  administering  the  Viati¬ 
cum  to  one  in  the  article  of  death ;  in  which 
case  it  is  sanctioned,  says  Cardinal  Bona  (/?.  L.  i, 
21,  2),  by  the  practice  of  the  whole  Church.  The 
second  is,  when  the  celebrating  priest,  from 
sudden  sickness,  is  unable  to  finish  the  office ;  in 
which  case,  if  the  elements  have  been  consecrated, 
another  priest,  even  though  he  be  not  fasting, 
may  complete  it.  See  the  second  canon  of  the 
7th  Council  of  Toledo  (Bruns’s  Can.  i.  262) 
of  the  year  646,  which  at  the  same  time  enjoins 
most  earnestly  that  neither  shall  a  priest  resign 
the  unfinished  service  nor  a  non-fasting  priest 
take  it  up  without  the  most  absolute  necessity. 
And  to  prevent  such  cases,  the  11th  Council 
of  Toledo  (a.d.  675)  ordered  (can.  2,  p.  315) 
that  wherever  it  was  possible  the  priest  saying 
mass  should  be  attended  by  another,  fasting,  who 
might  take  up  the  service  in  case  of  need. 

Time  of  Communion. 

1.  Bays. — Tlie  well-known  passage  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  (ii.  46)  is  commonly  held  to 
prove  that  the  “  breaking  of  bread  ”  for  Holy 


C0:MM UNION.  HOLY 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 

CoiDmuiiion  took  place  daily  in  the  primitive 
Church.  In  the  only  case  in  which  a  particular 
day  is  mentioned  in  the  Acts  on  which  bread  was 
broken  solemnly  (xx.  7),  the  day  is  the  Lord’s 
Day,  the  first  day  of  the  week ;  and  it  seems 
probable  that  St.  Paul,  when  he  prescribed  the 
laying  by  for  the  poor  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
designed  to  associate  almsgiving  with  the  Eucha¬ 
rist.  The  Bithynian  Christians  (Pliny,  Ep.  x. 
97)  met  on  a  fixed  day  for  worship  and  com¬ 
munion  ;  the  expression  “  stato  die,”  which  de¬ 
termines  nothing  as  to  the  particular  day  of  the 
week,  shows  plainly  that  communion  was  not 
daily  (see  Mosheim,  fnstitutiones  Majorcs,  p. 
378  f.).  Justin  Martyr  {Apol.  /.  c.  67)  dis¬ 
tinctly  mentions  Sunday  K^yopevr] 
r)iJ.fpa)  as  the  day  of  Christian  Communion ;  the 
day  on  which  God  made  the  light  and  on  which 
Christ  rose  from  the  dead.  There  is,  in  tact,  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  from  the  first  “Lord’s  Day” 
to  the  present  time  Christians  have  met  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week  to  “break  bread”  as  the 
Lord  commanded. 

The  days  which  next  appear  as  dedicated  to 
Holy  Communion  are  the  fourth  and  sixth  days 
of  the  week,  the  Eies  Stationum  [Static].  These 
days  appear  as  days  of  special  observance  and 
administration  of  Holy  Communion  in  the  time 
of  Tertu Ilian  (De  Oratione,  c.  14).  Basil  (^Ep. 
289)  adds  to  these  days  the  Sabbath,  or  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  which  has  always  been  a  day  of 
special  observance  in  the  Eastern  Church.  “We 
communicate,”  he  says,  “  four  times  in  the  week, 
on  the  Lord’s  Day,  the  fourth  day,  the  Prepara¬ 
tion  Day  \i.e.  Friday],  and  the  Sabbath.”  But 
this  was  not  a  universal  custom ;  for  Epiphanius 
(Expnsitio  Fidel,  c.  22,  p.  1104)  speaks  as  if  the 
celebrations  (a-wd^eis)  of  the  Wednesday,  Friday, 
and  Sunday  were  alone  usual  in  his  time  and 
within  his  knowledge,  which  included  a  large 
part  of  the  East  during  the  latter  portion  of  the 
4th  century.  The  Synod  of  Laodicea,  about 
A.D.  320  [al.  372],  enjoins  that  bread  should  not 
be  offered  in  Lent,  except  on  the  Sabbath  and  on 
the  Lord’svDay;  the  Sabbath  being  in  the  East  a 
festival  approaching  in  joyfulness  to  the  Lord’s 
Day.  In  the  West,  where  the  Sabbath  was 
generally  a  day  of  humiliation,  there  is  no  trace 
of  its  being  prefeiTed  for  the  celebration  of  Holy 
Communion. 

When  Christianitv  became  the  recognised  reli- 
gion  of  the  empire,  daily  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist  soon  became  usual.  For  the  Church 
of  Constantinople  this  is  proved  by  the  testimony 
of  Chrysostom,  who  (m  Ephes.  Horn.  iii.  p.  23) 
complains  of  the  rarity  of  communicants  at  the 
daily  offering.  St.  Augustine  testifies  {Ep. 
98,  c.  9)  that  in  Africa,  in  his  time,  Christ  was 
sacrificed  (immolari)  every  day  for  the  people ; 
yet  he  also  proves  (Ep.  118  ad  Januarium) 
that  this  was  by  no  means  a  universal  custom, 
saying,  “  in  some  places  no  day  passes  without 
an  offering;  in  others  offering  is  made  on  the 
Sabbath  only  and  the  Lord’s  Day ;  in  others  on 
the  Lord’s  Day  only.”  That  the  daily  sacrifice 
was  observed  in  the  Spanish  Church  at  the  end 
of  the  4th  century  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
1st  Council  of  Toledo  (circ.  398),  which  enjoins 
(canon  5)  all  clerics  to  be  present  in  church  at 
tlie  time  of  the  daily  sacrifice.  With  regard  to 
the  Roman  Church,  Jerome,  widting  to  Lucinius 
(Ep.  71)  refers  to  a  question  which  his  correspon- 


419 

dent  had  asked,  whether  the  Eucharist  were  to 
be  received  daily,  “  according  to  the  custom 
which  the  Churches  of  Rome  and  Spain  are  said 
to  observe.”  Although  the  expression  used 
is  not  absolutely  decisive,  Jerome  seems  to 
write  as  if  the  custom  of  Rome  was  in  fact 
the  same  as  that  of  Spain,  where,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  daily  sacrifice  was  customary  at  the 
time  when  he  wrote.  Yet  Socrates  (Hist.  Egcl. 
V.  22,  p.  295)  assures  us  that,  at  Alexandria  and 
Rome,  ancient  tradition  still  forbade  to  celebrate 
the  joyful  feast  of  the  Eucharist  on  the  Sabbath, 
as  was,  the  universal  custom  elsewhere.  Atha¬ 
nasius,  it  is  true,  if  the  treatise  in  question 
be  his  (On  the  Parable  of  the  Sower,  0pp.  iv. 
45),  says  that  Christians  met  together  on  the 
Sabbath  to  adore  Jesus,  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath; 
but  this  proves  nothing  as  to  the  celebration  of 
the  Eucharist,  and  consequently  docs  not  invali¬ 
date  Socrates’  testimony.  Socrates  also  (1.  c.) 
mentions  as  a  peculiar  custom,  that  at  Alex¬ 
andria,  on  Wednesday  and  Friday,  the  Scriptures 
are  read  and  the  teachers  interpret  them,  and 
all  is  done  that  pertains  to  a  meeting  of  the 
congregation,  short  of  the  celebration  of  the  mys¬ 
teries  (nduTa  TO.  awd^coos  yiyveTai  8lx^ 
p,v(rTT]piwu  TeXeTTjs').  The  words  of  Innocent  I. 
(ad  Decentium,  c.  4),  that  on  the  Friday  and  the 
Sabbath  in  the  Holy  Week  no  sacraments  were 
to  be  celebrated,  because  those  two  days  of  the 
first  Holy  Week  were  spent  by  the  Apostles  in 
grief  and  terror,  probably  imply  that  in  ordinary 
weeks  the  sacraments  were  celebrated  on  the 
Sabbath  as  on  other  days ;  and  in  the  so-called 
Comes  Hieronymi  Epistles  and  Gospels  are  given 
for  Sabbaths  as  well  as  other  days  (see  Quesnel, 
De  Jejunio  Sabbathi  Romae  celebratd).  On  the 
want  of  proper  offices  in  the  ancient  Sacramen- 
taries  for  the  Sundays  following  the  Ember-days, 
for  the  Thursdays  in  Lent,  and  for  the  Saturday 
before  Palm  Sunday,  see  Krazer,  de  Liturgiis, 
pp.  646  ff.  Cf.  Static. 

2.  Hours. — There  can  be  little  doubt  that  in  the 
apostolic  age  Holy  Communion  was  at  the  time  of 
the  evening  meal  (bSiirvov,  coena),  as  even  Baronius 
admits  (ad  ann.  34,  c.  61).  Indeed,  it  is  almost 
certain  from  the  nature  of  the  case  that  in  days 
when  Christianity  was  an  illicit  religion,  the 
peculiar  rite  of  Christian  communion  must  have 
been  celebrated  in  such  a  way  as  to  attract  the 
least  possible  attention.  St.  Paul’s  “breaking  of 
bread  ”  in  the  Troad  (Acts  xx.  7,  8)  was  after 
nightfall,  and  the  service  was  not  over  at  mid¬ 
night.  Pliny  (Ep.  x.  97)  sa5’’s  that  the  Chris¬ 
tians  were  accustomed  to  meet  before  dawn. 
The  heathen  calumnies  mentioned  b)--  Justin 
Martyr  (Dial.  c.  I’ryphone,  c.  10)  show  that  the 
meeting  of  Christians  took  place  after  nightfall  ; 
and  the  same  custom  earned  them  the  epithets 
of  “  latebrosa  et  lucifuga  natio,”  which  Minu- 
cius  Felix  (O^tarAus,  c.  8)  tells  us  were  bestowed 
upon  them.  Origen  too  (c.  Celsum,  i  .  3,  p.  5, 
Spencer)  tells  his  opponent  that  it  was  to  avoid 
the  death  with  which  they  were  threatened  that 
Christians  commonly  held  their  meetings  in 
secrecy  and  darkness.  And  still  in  the  3rd 
century  we  find  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and  others 
speaking  of  “  coetus  antelucani,”  “  coiivocationes 
nocturiiae,”  of  “  sacrificiuni  matutinum  et  ves- 
pertinuni.”  See,  for  instance,  Tertullian  ad  Uxo- 
rem,  ii.  4  ;  de  Corona  Mil.  c.  3,  in  the  latter  of 
whicl^passagcs  it  seems  to  be  implied,  that  Chris- 

2.  E 


420  COMMUNION,  HOLY 

tians  communicated  at  the  evening  meal,  as  well 
as  in  assemblies  before  dawn.  Cyprian  {fid  Caeci- 
liuin,  Ep.  63,  cc.  15,  16)  refers  to  some  who 
in  the  morning  sacrifice  used  water  only  in  the 
chalice,  lest  the  odour  of  wine  should  betray 
them  to  their  heathen  neighbours ;  and  warns 
such  not  to  salve  their  conscience  with  the  reflec¬ 
tion  that  they  complied  with  Christ’s  command 
ii^  offering  the  mixed  chalice  when  they  came 
together  for  the  evening  meal  (ad  coenandum) 
at  which  the  rite  had  been  originally  instituted. 
This  no  doubt  implies  some  kind  of  communion 
both  morning  and  evening  ;  but  that  in  the  even¬ 
ing  seems  to  have  been  rather  a  domestic  than  a 
public  rite  ;  for  Cyprian  expressly  says  that  at 
this  the  whole  congregation  (plebs)  could  not  be 
called  together,  so  as  to  make  the  rite — what  it 
oTiglit  to  be — a  visible  token  to  all  of  their 
brotherhood  in  Christ.  And  he  goes  on  to  say, 
that  though  it  was  no  doubt  fitting  that  Christ 
should  offer  at  eventide,  as  foreshadowing  the 
evening  of  the  world  and  being  the  antitype  of 
the  evening  passover-sacrifice  (Exod.  xii.  6);  yet 
that  Christians  celebrated  in  the  morninfj  the 
resurrection  of  the  Lord.  In  short,  he  clearly 
regards  the  morning  as  the  proper  time  for 
})ublic  and  solemn  communion. 

When  the  Church  received  its  freedom,  set 
hours  began  to  be  appointed  for  Holy  Communion. 
The  third  hour  of  the  day  (about  nine  o’clock), 
the  hour  when  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  on  the 
apostles,  was  fixed  at  an  early  date  as  the  hour 
of  morning  sacrifice  on  Sundays  and  festivals. 
The  Liber  Pontificalis  attributes  to  Pope  Teles- 
phorus  (127-138)  the  decree,  “  ut  nullus  ante 
horam  tertiam  sacrificium  offerre  praesumeret ;  ” 
and  this  statement  is  repeated  by  Amalarius  {de 
Eccl.  Off.  iii.  42)  and  others.  It  is  almost  need¬ 
less  to  say  the  decree  is  one  of  the  well-known 
forgeries.  The  same  regulation  is  attributed  by 
the  spurious  Gesta  Damasi  (see  Bona,  de  Beh.  Lit. 
i.  21,  §5)  to  Pope  Damasus  (366-384);  but  here 
too  no  weight  can  be  attached  to  the  authority. 
More  satisfactory  testimonies  are  the  following. 
Sidonius  Apollinaris,  who  died  a.d.  489,  says 
{Ep.  V.  17)  that  priests  held  divine  service  at 
the  third  hour  ;  and  Gregory  of  Tours  in  the 
6th  century  speaks  (  Vita  Nicetii)  of  the  third 
as  the  hour  when  the  people  came  together  to 
ma.ss;  Gregory  the  Great  {in  Evang.  Horn.  37) 
speaks  of  one  who  came  to  offer  the  sacrifice  at 
the  third  hour  ;  and  Theodulph  of  Orleans  (ob. 
821)  orders  {Capit  dare,  c.  45)  that  private  masses 
should  not  be  said  on  the  Lord’s  Day  with  so 
much  publicity  as  to  attract  the  people  from  the 
high  or  ])ublic  mass,  which  was  canonically  cele¬ 
brated  at  the  third  hour.  That  on  ordinary  or 
ferial  days  mass  was  said  at  the  sixth  hour 
(twelve  o’clock)  as  late  as  the  12th  century 
we  have  the  testimony  of  Honorius  of  Autun 
{Gemma  Animie,  i.  c.  113);  but  this  practice 
seems  to  have  been  matter  of  custom  rather  than 
of  canonical  prescription.  On  fast-days  the 
liturgical  hour  was  the  ninth,  probably  because 
the  ancient  Church  was  unwilling  to  introduce 
the  joyful  eucharistic  feast  into  the  early  hours 
of  a  fast-day,  and  because  on  such  a  day  it  was 
not  thought  too  onerous  to  continue  fasting  until 
three  o’clock  in  the  afternoon  (Martene,  de  Bit. 
Anti].  1.  p.  108).  Epiphanius  (.E.cjoosjY/o  c. 
22)  testifies  to  the  fact  that  throughout  the 
year  on  Wednesday  and  Ih-iday  the  litui»gy  was 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 

said  at  the  ninth  hour;  excepting  in  the  fifty 
days  between  Ea.ster  and  Pentecost,  and  on  the 
Epiphany  when  it  fell  on  Wednesday  or  Friday ; 
on  these  days,  as  on  the  Lord’s  Day,  there  was 
no  fasting,  and  the  liturgy  was  said  at  an  early 
hour  in  the  morning  {aff"  ewdei/). 

The  Council  of  Ment^j,  quoted  by  Ivo  of  Chartres 
(pt.  4,  c.  35),  desires  all  men  on  the  Ember-days 
to  come  to  church  at  the  ninth  hour  to  mass. 
The  same  reasons  which  cau.sed  the  mass  to  be 
deferred  at  other  fasting-sea.sous  applied  also  to 
Lent ;  hence  Ambrose,  preaching  in  Lent,  begs 
the  faithful  to  defer  eating  until  after  the  time 
of  the  heavenly  banquet ;  if  they  had  to  wait 
until  evening,  the  time  was  not  so  very  long  ; 
on  most  days  the  oblation  was  at  noon  (on  P.salm 
118  pl9],  Perm.  8,  0pp.  iv.  656,  ed.  Basle,  1567); 
and  Theodulph  ((7c</)i2M^are,  c.  39)  says  that  those 
broke  the  Lenten  fast  who  ventured  to  eat  as 
soon  as  they  heard  the  bell  at  the  ninth  hour, 
an  hour  at  which  he  seems  to  imply  that  the 
“  missarum  solemnia,”  as  well  as  “  vespertina 
officia,”  were  celebrated. 

These  prescriptions  as  to  the  hours  of  mass,  as 
well  as  of  the  ordinary  offices,  have  long  ceased 
to  be  observed  :  in  the  Roman  Church  at  least 
mass  may  be  said  at  any  hour  from  dawn 
(aurora)  to  noon.  But  a  trace  of  the  ancient 
practice  is  found  in  the  following  rubric  (xv.  §  2) 
of  the  Roman  missal  : — “  Missa  autem  Conven- 
tualis  et  Solemnis  sequent  ordine  dici  debet. 
In  Festis  duplicibus  et  semiduplicibus,  in  Domi- 
nicis,  et  infra  Oct.,  dicta  in  Choro  hora  tertia. 
In  Festis  simplicibus  et  in  Feriis  per  annum 
dicta  sexta.  In  Adventu,  Quadragesima,  Quatuor 
Temporibus,  etiam  infra  Octavam  Pentecostes, 
et  Vigiliis  quae  jej unant ur,  quamvis  sint  dies 
solemnes,  Missa  de  Tempore  debet  cantari  post 
nonam.” 

The  celebration  of  Holy  Communion  in  the 
night-time,  once — as  we  have  seen  — common  in 
the  Church,  ceased  at  an  early  date,  except  on 
certain  days  of  special  observance.  Of  these  the 
principal  is  that  on  the  night  of  the  Lord’s 
Nativity.  A  Coptic  tradition  (mentioned  by 
Bona,  B.L.  i.  21,  4)  ascribes  the  institution  of  a 
nocturnal  communion  at  Christmas  and  Epiphany 
to  the  Niceue  Council ;  the  fact  may  perhaps 
have  been,  that  when  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord’s  Nativity  was  transferred  from  the  sixth  of 
January  to  the  twenty -fifth  of  December 
[Christmas],  the  nightly  communion  was  con¬ 
tinued  on  both  days.  In  the  Gregorian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  (p.  5)  besides  the  mass  for  the  Vigil  of 
the  Nativity,  said  at  the  ninth  hour,  is  one  In 
Vigilia  Domini  in  node,  that  is,  to  be  said  in  the 
nio^ht  between  Christmas  Eve  and  Christmas 
Day. 

A  nightly  communion  was  usual  in  ancient 
times  on  the  night  of  the  “  Sabbatum  Sanctum  ” 
or  Easter  Eve.  It  is  probably  to  this  custom 
that  Tertullian  alludes  when  {ad  Uxorem,  ii.  4) 
he  says  that  a  heathen  husband  would  not  per¬ 
mit  a  Christian  wife  to  pass  the  night  from  home 
on  the  Paschal  solemnities;  Jerome  {on  St. 
Matt.  XXV.)  mentions  that  it  was  an  apostolic 
tradition  on  Easter  Eve  not  to  dismiss  the  con¬ 
gregation  before  midnight ;  and  Theodore  Bal- 
samon  (on  the  Council  in  TruBo,  can.  90)  writes 
that  persons  of  especial  piety  were  accustomed 
to  remain  in  the  churches  the  whole  of  that 
Saturday,  to  communicate  at  midnight,  and  at 


COMMUNION,  HOLY 

one  o’clock  in  the  morning  to  begin  Matins. 
The  Ordo  Romanus  Vulgatus  also  orders  that  the 
people  should  not  be  dismissed  before  midnight, 
and  that  at  dawn  of  day  they  should  return  to 
the  churches ;  in  monasteries  it  enjoins  the  bells 
to  be  rung  as  soon  as  a  star  was  seen  in  the  sky, 
a  litany  to  be  chanted,  and  then  the  mass  to 
follow.  The  same  custom  is  mentioned  by  Ama- 
larius  (de  Divin.  Off.  iv.  c.  20 ;  cf.  c.  40),  who 
says  that  all  continue  fasting  until  night,  when 
the  mass  of  the  Lord’s  Resurrection  is  celebrated. 
Durandus  (^Rationale,  vi.  c.  76)  says  that  the 
ancient  rite  was  observed  in  some  churches  at 
the  time  when  he  wrote,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
13th  century.  In  modern  times  the  mass  of 
Easter  Eve  is  said  at  midday,  but  the  unchanged 
collects  still  testify  to  the  fact  that  it  was  for¬ 
merly  said  at  night. 

A  nocturnal  celebration  anciently  took  place 
also  in  the  night  between  the  Vigil  and  the  day 
of  Pentecost ;  hence  in  the  prayer  Communi- 
cantes  on  that  day  we  have  the  words,  “diem 
sacratissimam  Pentecostes  praevenientes  ”  (Gre- 
gorii  Sacram.  p.  97 ;  see  Menard,  note  393). 
.The  Ordo  Romanus  provides  that  at  the  eighth 
hour  of  the  eve  the  vigil  service  or  mass  should 
begin,  and  should  be  finished  before  the  end  of 
the  ninth  hour. 

Four  times  in  the  year,  on  the  Saturdays  of 
the  Ember  weeks,  was  a  nightly  mass,  or  rather 
one  on  the  morning  of  the  succeeding  day,  Avhich 
was  reckoned  to  belong  to  the  Saturday ;  hence, 
as  the  Micrologus  (c.  29)  observes,  the  Sundays 
which  tollow  the  Ember-days  have  no  proper 
offices  in  the  ancient  sacramentaries,  but  are 
called  Dominicae  vacantes ;  for  the  mass  which 
was  celebrated  late  on  the  Saturday  served  for 
the  Sunday  also.  So  the  Council  of  Clermont 
(a.d.  1095)  ordered  (can.  24)  that  the  fast,  if 
possible,  should  be  prolonged  through  the  Satur¬ 
day  night,  that  the  mass  might  be  brought  as 
near  as  possible  to  the  Sunday  morning. 

In  some  cases,  when  we  read  of  missae  vesper- 
tinae  (e.  g.  Cone.  Agath.  c.  30 ;  HI.  Au,  el.  c.  29), 
we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  word  missa  does 
not  in  all  cases  imply  the  celebration  of  the 
mysteries  of  the  altar,  but  was  applied  also  to 
the  hour-offices.  Cf.  Mass  :  MAU^jDY  Thurs¬ 
day  :  and  p.  416. 

Frequency  of  Communion. 

An  ancient  rule  of  the  Church  is  expressed  in 
the  21st  canon  of  the  Council  of  Eliberis  (about 
A.D.  305),  that  if  any  one  dwelling  in  a  town 
should  absent  himself  on  three  Sundays  from 
church,  he  should  be  for  a  time  suspended  from 
communion.  As  at  that  time  in  a  city  having 
a  bishop  Holy  Communion  was  administered  at 
least  every  Sunday,  and  non-communicating  at¬ 
tendance  was  unknown,  we  infer  that  weekly 
communion  was  the  rule  of  the  Chuixh,  to  fail 
in  which  was  to  be  unworthy  of  its  privileges. 
Theodoi-e  of  Tarsus,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
testifies  (about  A.D.  688)  that  in  his  time  this 
was  still  the  rule  of  the  East.  In  the  West, 
signs  of  a  relaxation  of  this  rule  appear  at  a 
comparatively  early  period.  Thus  the  Council 
of  Agde  [Agathense]  in  the  year  506  laid  down 
the  rule  (can.  18)  that  if  a  layman  did  not  com¬ 
municate  at  least  at  Christmas,  Easter,  and  Whit- 
fiuntide,  he  should  no  longer  be  reputed  a  Catho¬ 
lic.  To  the  same  effect  are  the  14th  canon  of 


COMPENDIENSE  CONCILIUM  421 

the  Council  of  Autun  (a.d.  670),  and  the  38th 
of  the  Excerpta  attributed  to  Egbert  of  York 
(A.D.  740).  Bede  {Ep.  ad  Eabert.  p.  311,  ed.  1722) 
desires  his  correspondent  to  Insist  strongly  on  the 
wholesome  practice  of  daily  communion,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  custom  of  the  churches  of  Italy,  Gaul, 
Africa,  Greece,  and  the  whole  East.  But  this,  he 
says,  in  consequence  of  defective  teaching,  is  so 
far  from  being  the  custom  of  English  laymeh, 
that  even  the  more  religious  among  them  do  not 
presume  to  communicate  except  at  Christmas, 
Epiphany,  and  Easter  ;  though  countless  innocent 
boys  and  girls,  young  men  and  maidens,  old  men 
I  and  old  women,  do  not  scruple  to  communicate 
every  Lord’s  Day,  and  perhaps  on  the  days  of 
Apostles  and  Martyrs  besides,  as  Egbert  himself 
had  witnessed,  in  the  Roman  and  Apostolic 
Church. 

The  3rd  Council  of  Tours,  in  the  year  813,  laid 
down  (can.  50)  a  rule  nearly  identical  with  that 
of  Agde;  that  all  laymen,  not  disqualified  by 
heinous  sin,  should  communicate  at  least  three 
times  in  the  year.  The  Council  of  Ai.x-la-Cha- 
pelle  had  previously  (a.d.  788)  re-enacted  (^c.  70) 
the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Antioch  (c.  2)  which 
ordered  all  who  came  to  church  at  the  time  of 
service  but  declined  reception  to  be  suspended 
from  communion  until  they  should  amend  ;  and 
it  was  probably  the  failure  of  this  attempt  to 
revive  the  primitive  practice  which  led  to  the 
much  looser  rule  of  Aix-la-Chapelle. 

If  the  Pseudo-Ambrosius  (de  Sacram.  v.  25) 
is  to  be  trusted,  some  Christians  at  least  of  the 
East  in  the  4th  century  communicated  only  once 
a  year,  and  he  complains  that  this  practice  had 
extended  to  his  own  community,  recommending 
himself  the  practice  of  daily  communion.  [C.j 

COMMUNION  BOOKS.  [Liturgical 
Books.] 

COMMUNION  OF  CHILDREN.  [Infant 
Communion.] 

COMMUNION  OF  THE  SICK  [Sick, 
Visitation  of.] 

COMMUNITY  OF  GOODS.  [Monasti- 

CISM.] 

COMMISTIO  or  COMMIX TIO.  In  the 
Roman  missal,  after  the  breaking  of  the  Host 
[Fraction],  the  priest  places  a  particle  in  the 
chalice,  saying  secreto  :  “  Haec  commistio  et  con- 
secratio  corporis  et  sanguinis  D.  N.  J.  C.  fiat 
accipientil'us  nobis  in  vitam  aeternam.”  And 
this  practice  cf  placing  a  particle  of  the  Host  in 
the  cup  appears  to  be  an  ancient  one,  and  to  be 
considered  as  a  kind  of  consecration  [Consecra¬ 
tion].  It  is  found  in  the  liturgy  of  St.  James 
(Neale’s  I'etralogia,  p.  177),  where  the  priest, 
after  breaking  the  bread,  places  the  portion 
which  he  holds  in  his  right  hand  in  the  chalice, 
saying,  “  The  union  (ej/wais)  of  the  all-holy 
Body  and  precious  Blood  of  our  Lord  and  God 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.” 

The  4th  Council  of  Toledo  (A.D.  633), 
canon  18,  orders  the  commixtion  (conjunctionem 
panis  et  calicis)  to  take  place  between  the  Lord’s 
Prayer  and  the  Benediction.  [C.] 

COMPATRES  AND  COMMATRES. 

[Stonsors.] 

COMPENDIENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Com- 

piegne.] 


422  COMPETENTES 

COMPETENTES.  [Catechumexs.] 
COMPIKGNE,  COUNCIT.S  OF.  [Com- 

PENDIENSE.]  (1)  A.D.  756,  held  in  Pipin’s  palace, 
passed  canons  respecting  marriage,  degrees  of 
consanguinity,  &c.  (Labb.  Cone.  vi.  1694-).  (2) 

A. I).  757  (Eginliard),  or  758  (Ado),  an  fx-sembly 
or  “  placitum  ”  in  the  same  place,  but  rather 
civil  than  ecclesiastical,  its  purpose  being  to  re¬ 
ceive  the  homage  of  Tassilo,  duke  of  the  Ba¬ 
varians,  and  of  his  subjects  (ib.  1884).  [A.  W.  H.] 

COMPLETOEIUM.  (1)  The  last  of  the 
Canonical  hours  of  prayer  [Hours  of  Prayer]. 

(2)  An  anthem  in  the  Ambrosian  rite,  said 
at  Laud  and  Vespers.  Sundays  have  two  at 
Lauds,  and  four  at  Vespers  ;  and  week  days  one, 
varying  with  the  day,  at  Lauds,  and  one,  \m- 
changing,  at  Vespers.  The  first  at  Lauds  on 
Sunday  is  “  Dominus  in  caelo,  paravit  sedem 
suam  :  et  regnum  ejus  omnium  dominabitur. 
Kyr.  Kyr.  Kyr.”  They  are  all  of  the  same 
type.  On  Festivals  the  number  varies  with  the 
office.  [H.  J.  H.] 

COMPLINE.  [Hours  of  Prayer.] 
COMPUTUS.  [Calendar.] 

CONCORDIA,  nurse  of  St.  Hippolytus, 
martyr  at  Rome,  Aug.  13  (Mart.  Bedae,  Usu- 
ardi).  [C.] 

CONCORDIUS,  presbyter,  martyr  at  Spo- 
leto  under  Antoninus,  Jan.  1  (^Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

CONCUBINAGE. — The  relation  between 
the  sexes  which  was  denoted  by  this  word  had, 
under  the  legal  system  with  which  the  early 
Church  was  brought  into  contact,  a  twofold  cha¬ 
racter.  There  was  (1)  the  connexion,  temporary, 
depending  on  caprice  only,  involving  no  obliga¬ 
tions,  concubinage  in  the  modern  sense,  not  dis¬ 
tinguishable  ethically  from  fornication.  But 
there  was  also  (2)  a  concubinatus  recognised  by 
Roman  law,  as  in  the  Lex  Julia  et  Papia  Pop- 
paea,  which  had  a  very  different  character. 
Here  the  cohabitation  was  permanent,  and  in¬ 
volved  therefore  reciprocal  obligations,  and, 
although  it  did  not  stand  on  the  same  level  as 
a  connubium,  and  did  not  entitle  the  issue  of  the 
union  to  inherit  as  legitimate,  it  was  yet  re¬ 
garded,  somewhat  as  a  morganatic  marriage  is 
in  Germany,  as  involving  no  moral  degrada¬ 
tion.  In  dealing  with  this  last  form,  Christian 
feeling  was  divided  between  the  fear  of  recog¬ 
nising  what  might  seem  a  half-marriage  only 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  desire  to  sanction  any 
union  which  fulfilled  the  primary  condition  of 
marriage  on  the  other.  The  question  was  com¬ 
plicated  by  the  fact  that,  for  the  mo.st  part, 
these  unions  were  contracted  with  women  who 
were  slaves  or  foreigners,  and  therefore  not 
ingenuae^  and  that  consequently  to  have  placed 
them  on  a  level  with  connuhia,  would  have  been 
to  introduce  a  mesalliance  into  the  succession  of 
respectable  or  noble  fiimilies.  Cases  where  the 
man  who  kept  the  concubina  had  a  wife  living, 
though  sanctioned  by  the  lax  morality  of  Roman 
society,  admitted,  of  course,  of  no  question,  and 
were  denounced  as  adultery  (August.  Perm.  224). 
Where  the  man  was  unmarried  the  case  was  dif¬ 
ferent.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions,  on  the  one 
hand  (viii.  32),  authorised  the  admission  to  bap- 


CONFESSIO 

tism  of  such  a  slave-concubine  belonging  to  an 
unbeliever,  if  she  were  faithful  to  the  one  man 
with  whom  she  lived.  If  Marcia,  the  concubine, 
first  of  Quadratu.s,  and  afterwards  of  Commodus, 
who  is  known  to  have  favoured  the  Christians, 
had  ever  been  one  of  them,  it  must  have  been  by 
Virtue  of  some  such  rule.  The  case  of  a  Chris¬ 
tian  who  had  a  concubine  was  somewhat  more 
difficult,  and  the  equity  of  the  Church’s  judg¬ 
ment  was  disturbed  by  considerations  of  social 
expediency.  If  she  was  a  slave  he  was  to  get 
rid  of  her,  apparently  without  being  bound  to 
make  any  provision  for  her  maintenance.  If  she 
were  a  free  woman,  he  was  either  to  marry  or 
dismiss  her  (^Apost.  Constt.  viii.  32).  So,  too,  at 
a  later  date,  we  find  Leo  the  Great  treating  this 
dismissal  of  a  mistress  followed  by  a  legal  mar¬ 
riage,  not  as  a  “  duplicatio  conjugii,”  but  a  “  pro- 
fectus  honestatis  ”  (^Epist.  92  ;  ad  Rustic.,  c.  5).® 
In  other  instances,  however,  we  trace  the  influence 
of  the  wish  to  look  upon  every  permanent  union 
of  man  or  woman  as  possessing  the  character  or 
a  marriage  in  the  eyes  of  God,  and  therefore  in 
the  judgment  of  the  Church.  Thus  Augustine, 
speaking  of  a  concubine  who  promises  a  life-long 
fidelity,  even  should  he  cast  her  oft',  to  the  man 
with  whom  she  lived,  says  that  “  merito  duhitatur 
utrum  ad  percipiendum  baptismum  non  debeat 
adrnittP^  (j)e  Fide  et  Oper.  c.  19).*’  The  first 
Council  of  Toledo  went  even  farther,  and  while 
it  excluded  from  communion  a  married  man  who 
kept  a  concubine,  admitted  one  who,  being  un¬ 
married,  continued  faithful  to  the  one  woman 
with  whom  he  thus  lived  (1  C.  Tolet.  c.  17). 
The  special  law  forbidding  a  Jew  to  have  a 
Christian  wife  or  concubine  (3  C.  Tolet.  c.  14), 
implying,  as  it  does,  the  legitimacy  of  the  latter 
relation,  where  both  parties  were  Christians, 
shows,  in  like  manner,  that  it  was  thought  of  as 
ethically,  though  not  legally,  on  the  same  level 
as  a  connubium. 

The  use  of  the  word  concubina  as  a  term  ot 
reproach  for  the  wh'es  of  the  clergy  who  were 
manded,  was,  of  course,  a  logical  deduction  from 
the  laws  which  forbade  that  marriage,  but  the 
unsparing  use  made  of  it,  as  by  Peter  Damiani  and 
Hildebrand,  belongs  to  a  somewhat  later  date 
than  that  which  comes  within  the  limits  of  this 
book.  [E.  H.  P.] 

CONFESSIO.  Originally  the  place  where  a 
saint  or  martyr  who  had  “  witnessed  a  good  con¬ 
fession  ”  for  Christ  was  buried,  and  thence  the 
altar  raised  over  his  grave,  and  subsequently 
the  chapel  or  basilica  erected  on  the  hallowed 
spot.  From  its  subterranean  position  such  an 
altar  was  known  as  Kard^aais  (Theophan.  p. 
362)  or  descensus.  Of  these  subterranean  con- 
fessiones  we  have  examples  in  Rome  in  the 
churches  of  St.  Prisca,  St.  Martino  ai  Monti,  St. 


»  It  may  be  questioned,  however,  which  class  of  concu¬ 
bines,  the  illicit  or  the  legalised,  are  here  contemplated. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  in  this  lenity  of  judgment, 
the  Influence  of  a  tender  recollection  of  one  with  whom 
A  ugustine,  before  his  conversion,  had  lived  in  this  rela¬ 
tion,  and  who  on  parting  from  him  made  a  declaration 
that  she  would  live  with  no  one  else.  (Conff.  vi.  15.) 
She  was  apparently  a  Christian  (“  vovens  tibi,”  sc.  Deo) 
and  Monica,  though  she  wished  her  son  to  marry  and  settle 
respectably,  does  not  seem  to  have  condemned  the  union 
as  sinful,  and  adopted  Adeodatus,  the  issue  of  the  con¬ 
nexion,  into  her  warmest  affections. 


COXFESSIO 

Loi’enzo  fuori  le  Mura,  &c.,  and  above  all  in 
tne  basilica  of  St.  Peter’s.  Not  unfrequently 
they  were  merely  imitative,  and  not  confessiones 
in  the  original  sense,  as  at  St.  Maria  -Maggiore, 
and  in  the  crypts  of  our  early  churches  in 
England.  Confessio  was  also  used  for  the  altar 
in  the  upper  church,  placed  immediately  above 
that  built  over  the  martyr’s  grave,  sometimes 
covered  with  silver  plates  (Anastas.  §§  65-69, 
79,  80,  198),  and  its  ciboriutn,  or  canopy  (j6. 
§  65). 

Other  synonymous  terms  were  concilia  mar- 
tyrum,  memoriae  martyrum,  and  martyria. 

Concilia  martyrum  is  applied  to  the  burial 
places  of  the  martyrs  in  the  catacombs,  e.g., 
“  Hie  (Damasus)  martyrum  .  .  .  concilia  ver- 
sibus  ornavit”  (Anast.  §  54;  cf.  Baron,  ad  ann. 
259,  no.  24).  Jerome  speaks  of  the  graves  the 
young  Nepotian  had  been  in  the  habit  of  de¬ 
corating  with  flowers  as  martyrum  conciliabula 
(Ep.  ad  Helvet.  iii. ;  cf.  Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei,  22,  8). 
The  analogous  Greek  term  was  avyd^eis  rwu 
fj-apTvpwu  (Concil.  Gangr.  Can.  20). 

Memoriae  martyrum  is  a  term  of  constant 
occurrence  in  early  Christian  wu'itings  for  the 
memorial  chapel  of  a  saint  or  martyr,  also  called 
ceila  (August,  de  Civ.  Dei,  xxii.  7,  10 ;  cont. 
Faustin.  xx.  c.  21 ;  Serm.  de  Diver  sis,  101 ;  Op- 
tatus  cont.  Farmen.  ii.  32).  The  correspond¬ 
ing  Greek  term  was  martyrium,  yapropiov 
(Euseb.  de  Vit.  Const,  iii.  48 ;  Soc.  iv.  18  [the 
martyrium  of  St.  Thomas  at  Edessa] ;  ib.  23 
[the  martyria  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  at 
Pome]).  The  church  of  St.  Euphemia,  where 
she  lay  buried,  in  which  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedou  was  held,  is  styled  in  the  acts  of  that 
council  papTupiov  Eucbriylas  (cf.  Soc.  vi.  6) ;  and 
that  erected  by  Constantine  over  our  Lord’s 
sepulchre  on  Calvary,  paprepiov  SuTjjpos,  hua- 
o-Tctcrews,  &c.  (Euseb.  iv.  de  Vit.  Const.  40-49, 
&c.  Cf.  Concil.  Laod.  canon  8.)  The  word 
tropaea,  rd  rpSiraia  twv  diroardKov,  is  used  by 
Caius,  apud  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  25,  for  the  tombs 
of  SS.  IVter  and  Paul  in  the  Roman  cemeteries. 
[Cella  Memoriae.] 

The  Cod.  Theod.  (^De  Sepulchro  violate,  lex  vii) 
contains  an  express  sanction  for  the  erection 
of  a  “  martyrium  ”  in  memory  of  a  saint,  and 
the  addition  of  such  buildings  as  might  be 
desired.  [E.  V.] 

CONFESSION,  LITURGICAL  {Confessio, 

Apologia,  baoKoyia). 

The  acknowledgment  of  sin  made  publicly  in 
certain  services  of  the  Church. 

I.  The  Confession  preceding  the  celebration  of 
the  Eucharist. — It  is  so  natural  to  confess  sin 
and  unworthiness  before  engaging  in  so  solemn 
an  act  as  the  consecration  of  the  Eucharist,  that 
we  scarcely  need  to  search  for  precedent ;  yet  it 
has  been  supposed  by  some  that  the  Christian 
presbyters  borrowed  the  custom  of  confessing  sin 
before  the  Eucharistic  celebration  from  the 
Jewish  pi'iests,  who  before  sacrificing  confessed 
their  sin  in  such  terms  as  these:  “Verily,  0 
Lord,  I  have  sinned,  I  have  done  amiss  and  dealt 
wickedly ;  I  repent  and  am  ashamed  of  my 
doings,  nor  will  I  ever  return  unto  them.”  See 
Morinus  de  Poenitent.  lib.  ix.  ii.  c.  21,  §  4;  Bux- 
torf  de  Synag.  Jtidaica,  c.  20. 

W  hether  the  precedent  of  the  Jewish  sacri- 
ficing  priest  were  followed  or  not,  no  doubt 


CONFESSION,  LITURGICAL  423 

the  same  feeling  which  prompted  the  use  of 
the  Psalm  Judica  [26th]  in  the  early  part  of  the 
liturgy  caused  also  the  use  of  a  public  general 
confession  by  the  priest  and  ministers  before  the 
altar. 

In  many  Greek  liturgies  some  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  sin  and  unworthiness  forms  part  of  the 
office  of  the  prothesis,  said  in  the  sacristy  before 
entering  the  sanctuary :  in  the  liturgy  of  St. 
James,  for  instance,  the  priest  adopts  the  words 
of  the  publican,  “  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sin- 
,  ner,”  and  of  the  prodigal,  “  I  have  sinned  against 
I  Heaven  and  in  Thy  sight.”  The  words  of  the 
prodigal  are  also  adopted  at  greater  length  in 
:  the  opening  of  the  Mozai’abic  liturgy. 

For  the  West,  many  forms  of  the  liturgical 
confession,  or  apologia,  of  the  priest  about  to 
celebrate  are  given  by  Menard  (on  the  Gregorian 
Sacramentary,  p.  242) ;  and  by  Bona  {de  Peb. 
Lit.  ii.  c.  1,  §  1).  Menard  states  that  these  were 
formerly  used  before  the  offertory,  with  which 
the  Missa  Fidelium  began ;  but  in  the  Missa 
Illyrici  and  some  others,  these  apologiae  arc 
directed  to  be  said  immediately  before  the  Introit, 
while  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis  and  the  Gradual 
are  chanted  by  the  choir.  But  the  ancient  for¬ 
mularies  of  the  Roman  Church  contain  no  trace 
of  a  confession  in  a  set  form  to  be  made  publicly 
at  the  beginning  of  mass.  The  ancient  Ordines 
Pomani  only  testify  that  the  celebrant  after  pay¬ 
ing  his  devotions  before  the  altar  in  a  low  voice, 
with  bowed  head  besought  God’s  pardon  for  his 
own  sins.  It  is  an  error,  therefore,  to  attribute 
the  introduction  of  this  rite  to  Pope  Pontianus  or 
Pope  Damasus.  The  very  diversity  of  the  form 
and  manner  in  saying  the  confession  in  difl'erent 
churches  shows  that  no  form  was  prescribed  by 
any  central  authority,  but  that  the  several 
churches  followed  independent  usages. 

The  usual  place  for  the  liturgical  confession 
before  mass  is  the  lowest  step  of  the  altar  ;  but 
there  was  anciently  considerable  diversity  of 
practice  ;  for  the  confession  was  sometimes  made 
(as  in  the  East)  in  the  sacristy,  sometimes  by 
the  side  of  the  altar,  sometimes  in  the  middle  of 
the  presbytery.  A  peculiar  custom,  probably 
derived  from  ancient  times,  was  long  maintained 
in  the  church  of  St.  Martin  at  Tours,  that  the 
celebrant  should  make  his  confession  at  the 
tomb  of  St.  Martin  (Martene  de  Pitibus  Feel. 
lib.  i.'c.  4,  art.  2). 

II.  In  the  Matin  office. — Something  of  the 
nature  of  confession  of  sin  appears  to  have  formed 
part  of  the  matin  office  from  very  early  times. 
This  custom  is  thought  by  some  to  have  been 
inherited  from  the  synagogue,  which  has,  in  the 
ancient  “  Eighteen  Prayers,”  the  form,  “  Have 
mercy  upon  us,  0  our  Father,  for  we  have  trans¬ 
gressed  ;  pardon  us,  for  we  have  sinned.  Look, 
we  beseech  Thee,  on  our  aftlictions ;  heal,  O 
Lord,  our  infirmities.”  Very  similarly,  the 
Greek  matin  office  has,  “  0  most  Holy  Trinity, 
have  mercy  on  us ;  purify  us  from  our  ini¬ 
quities,  and  pardon  our  sins.  Look  down  upon 
us,  0  Holy  One ;  heal  our  infirmities.”  (Free¬ 
man,  Principles  of  Divine  Service,  i.  64  ff.). 

It  is  at  least  certain  that  in  the  4th  century 
the  early  matin  office  of  many  Eastern  churches 
began  with  a  confession ;  for  St.  Basil  {Ep.  63, 
p.  843,  ed.  Paris  1618)  describes  the  early 
matins  of  the  church  of  Neo-Caesarea  in  the  fol  ■ 
lowing  manner.  The  people,  he  says,  at  early 


424 


CONFESSOR 


CONFIRMATION 


dawn  seek  the  house  of  prayer,  and,  after  con¬ 
fession  made  with  sighing  and  tears  to  God, 
rising  at  length  from  their  prayer  pass  to 
the  chanting  of  the  Psalms.  It  appears  then 
that  a  public  liturgical  confession  commenced 
the  matin  office  in  the  days  of  St.  Basil,  and  he 
expressly  states  that  this  practice  was  consonant 
with  that  of  other  churches  known  to  him. 

In  the  Western  matin  office  the  confession  is 
made  in  the  form  called  Confiteor  (q.  v.)  from 
its  first  word. 

III.  Confession  of  past  sins  formed  also  one  of 
the  preliminaries  of  baptism,  as  we  learn  from 
Tertullian,  de  Baptismo^  c.  20.  See  Baptism. 

IV.  An  instance  of  a  profession  of  faith,  com¬ 
monly  called  a  confession,  is  the  following  : — 

In  all  liturgies  of  the  Alexandrine  family,  and 
in  many  other  Oriental  liturgies  there  is  found. 
Immediately  before  communion,  a  confession,  or 
declaration  of  faith  by  the  recipient,  that  the 
bread  and  wine  are  now  really  and  truly  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  For  instance,  in 
the  Coptic  St.  Basil  (Renaudot,  Litt.  Orient,  i. 
23),  the  priest,  holding  the  elements,  says,  “  The 
Holy  Body  and  precious,  pure,  true  Blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  our  God.  Amen.  This 
IS  in  very  truth  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Emmanuel 
our  God.  Annen.”  Compare  the  Coptic  St. 
Gregory  (Ren.  i.  36) ;  the  Greek  St.  Basil  (i.  83) ; 
St.  Gregory  (i.  122),  and  other  passages.  [C.] 

CONFESSOR.  [Penitentiary.J 

CONFESSOR.  ('O^oAoyrjT^s.) 

1.  One  who  has  confessed  Christ  by  suffering 
death  for  Him.  [Martyr.]  Thus,  St.  Ambrose 
(ad  Gratianum,  ii.  p.  63,  ed.  Basil,  1567)  speaks 
of  the  deaths  of  confessors. 

2.  One  who  has  borne  for  Christ  suffering 
short  of  death.  Pseudo-Cyprian  (de  Duplici  Mar¬ 
ty  rio,  G.  31)  says  that  the  Church  martyres 
appellat  eos  qui  violenta  morte  decesserunt,  con- 
fessores  qui  constanter  in  cruciatibus  ac  minis 
mortis  professi  sunt  nomen  Domini  Jesu.”  In 
this  sense  Celerinus  (Cypriani  Epist.  21,  c.  4,  ed. 
Hartel)  speaks  of  Severianus  and  all  the  confessors 
who  had  passed  from  Carthage  to  Rome ;  and 
Sozomen  (H.  E.  i.  10)  speaks  of  the  number  of 
confessors  (opoKoy-yTui/)  who,  after  the  cessation 
of  persecution,  adorned  the  churches,  as  Hosius 
of  Cordova  and  Paphnutius  of  Egypt. 

3.  The  word  confessor  is  used  in  a  more  general 
sense  for  one  who  shews  the  spirit  of  Christ  in 
his  ordinary  life,  “  qui  pacifica  et  bona  et  justa 
secundum  praeceptum  Christi  loquitur,  Christum 
cottidie  confitetur”  (Cyprian,  Epist.  13,  c.  5). 
So  Theodore  Balsamon  (on  Can.  Apostol.  62,  p. 
265)  says  that  the  Church  desires  all  its  ortho¬ 
dox  members  to  be  confessors  (dfw\oyriTds)  of 
the  faith.  Hence,  in  later  times  it  came  to  desig¬ 
nate  persons  of  distinguished  holiness,  who  had 
passed  to  their  rest  without  violence  or  torture. 
Pseudo-Egbert  (  Excerptiones,  c.  28  ;  a  work  not 
earlier  than  the  9th  century)  speaks  of  “  sancti 
Patres,  quos  Confessores  nuncupavimus,  id  est, 
episcopi,  presbyteri  qui  in  castitate  servierunt 
Deo”  (Ducange  s.  v.  Confessor;  Suicer  s.  v. 
bpo\oyi]Ti)s). 

4.  In  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  Feria  iv. 
post  Palmas  (p.  63,  ed.  Menard),  we  have  the 
following :  “  Oremus  et  pro  omnibus  episcopis, 
presbyteris,  diaconibus,  subdiaconibus,  acolythis, 
exorcistis,  lectoribus,  ostiariis,  confessoribus,  vir- 


ginibus,  viduis,  et  pro  omni  populo  sancto  Dei.” 
The  order  of  words  shews  that  the  confessors 
here  are  persons  of  inferior  dignity,  and  Menard 
(ad  locum)  .supposes  chanters  to  be  intended  who 
confess  God  by  singing  His  praise.  See  the  first 
council  of  Toledo,  cc.  6  and  9,  where  the  w'ord 
‘confessor’  seems  to  be  used  in  a  similar  sense, 
the  latter  canon  forbidding  a  professed  religious 
woman  to  sing  antiphons  in  her  house  with  a 
confessor  or  servant  in  the  absence  of  bishop  or 
presbyter.  (Menard  u.  s.)  [C.] 

CONFIRMATION.  The  rite  now  known 
by  this  name  presents  a  singular  instance  of  the 
continued  use  of  a  symbolic  act  in  the  midst  of 
almost  every  possible  diversity  of  practice,  be¬ 
lief,  and  even  terminology.  The  one  common 
element  throughout  has  been  the  imposition  of 
hands,  as  the  sign  of  the  bestowal  of  some  spiri¬ 
tual  gift.  In  all  other  respects  it  will  be  seen 
there  have  been  indefinite  variations. 

The  history  of  the  Apostolic  Church  brings 
before  us  two  special  instances  of  the  irrideais 
Twv  (Acts  viii.  12-17,  xix.  5,  6).  In 

both  it  follows  upon  baptism,  is  administered  by 
apostles,  as  distinguished  fi’om  presbyters  or 
deacons,  and  is  followed  by  special  supernatural 
manifestations  of  spiritual  gifts,  perhaps  by  their 
pei'manent  possession.  It  was  not  directly  con¬ 
nected  with  any  appointment  to  any  office  in  the 
Church,  though  office  might  follow  upon  the 
exercise  of  the  gift  bestowed.  It  was  therefore 
distinct  from  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  which 
such  offices  were  conveyed  (Acts  vi.  6,  xiii.  3), 
as  it  was  from  that  which  was  the  medium  of  a 
miraculous  healing  power  applied  to  the  diseases 
of  the  body  (Mark  xvi.  18,  Acts  ix.  12,  17). 
The  act  referred  to  in  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  and  2  Tim. 
i.  6,  seems  to  hover  between  the  bestowal  of  a 
charisma  and  the  appointment  to  an  office.  The 
position  in  which  the  “  laying  on  of  hands”  meets 
us  in  Heb.  vi.  2,  leaves  it  open  to  take  it  in  its 
most  generic,  or  in  either  of  its  specific  senses, 
with,  perhaps,  a  slight  balance  in  favour  of  con¬ 
necting  it  with  the  act  which  always,  or  in  some 
cases,  supervened  on  baptism.  I'he  absence  of 
any  mention  of  it  in  the  baptisms  recorded  in 
Acts  ii.  41,  xvi.  15,  33,  and  elsewhere  receives  a 
natural  explanation  in  the  fact  that  there  the 
baptizer  was  an  apostle,  and  that  it  was  accord¬ 
ingly  taken  for  granted. 

Beyond  this  the  N.  T.  gives  us  no  infonnation. 
The  “  unction  ”  (xpcffpa)  of  1  John  ii.  27,  the 
“anointing”  of  2  Cor.  i.  21,  the  “sealing”  of  2 
Cor.  i.  22,  Eph.  i.  13,  iv.  30,  can  hardly  be  thought 
of  as  referring  to  a  ritual  act,  though  such  an 
act  may  at  a  very  early  period  have  been  brought 
into  use  as  a  symbol  of  the  thought  which  the 
words  themselves  expressed.  Even  then  it  re¬ 
mains  doubtful  whether  the  “  seal  ”  means  bap¬ 
tism  itself  or  some  rite  that  followed  it.  A  like 
uncertainty  hangs  over  the  use  of  the  word 
“  seal  ”  in  the  story  quoted  by  Eusebius  (II.  E. 
iii.  23),  from  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions  (ii.  c.  14). 

When  we  pass  to  the  age  of  Tertullian  the  case 
is  difiereut.  A  distinct  mention  is  made  (1)  of 
anointing,  (2)  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  as  fol¬ 
lowing  so  close  upon  baptism  as  to  seem  almost 
part  of  the  same  rite  rather  than  a  distinct  one, 
the  latter  act  being  accompanied  by  a  special 
prayer  for  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Tertull. 


CONFIKMATION 


CONFIRMATION 


425 


de  Bapt.  c.  7  ;  de  Eesurr.  Cam.  c.  8).  Cyprian,  [ 
in  like  mannei*,  recognises  the  practice,  contend¬ 
ing  that  it  follows  rightly  upon  a  valid  baptism, 
but  is  not  enough,  in  the  case  of  heretical, 
and  therefore  invalid,  baptism,  to  admit  those 
who  received  it  to  full  communion  with  the 
church.  He  applies  to  it,  as  to  baptism,  the  word 
“sacramentum,”  but  obviously  not  in  the  tech¬ 
nical  sense  of  a  later  theology  (Epist.  72,  ad 
Stephan.').  In  these  passages,  it  will  be  observed, 
no  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  baptizer  and 
the  layer-on  of  hands.  Both  acts  are  spoken  of 
as  if  they  were  performed  at  the  same  time  and 
by  the  same  person.  In  practice,  of  cour.se,  the 
usage  of  the  3rd,  possibly  of  the  2nd,  century, 
which  fixed  on  Easter  as  the  great  baptismal 
season,  allowing  it  at  other  times  only  in  cases 
of  urgent  nued,  would  make  this  combination 
ordinarily  a  very  practicable  one.  It  was  neces¬ 
sary,  however,  to  provide  for  the  exceptions,  and 
this  was  done  accordingly  by  the  Council  of  Elvira 
(c.  77),  which  ordered  that,  in  the  case  of  those 
who  had  been  baptized  by  a  deacon,  “  sine  epi- 
scopo  vel  presbytero,”  the  bishop  “  per  benedic- 
tionem  perficere  debet.”  ®  Jerome,  in  like  man¬ 
ner,  but  with  a  more  rigid  limitation  of  the  act 
of  impo.sition  to  the  higher  order,  recognised  it 
as  a  long-standing  usage  of  the  church.  Bishops 
used  to  travel  round  their  dioceses  in  order  to  lay 
their  hands,  “ad  invocationem  Sancti  Spiritus,” 
on  those  who  had  been  baptized  only  by  a  pres¬ 
byter  or  deacon  (c.  Lucifer,  c.  4).  One  or  two 
facts  may  be  noted  at  this  stage  of  expansion, 
(1)  that  immediate  supernatural  results  are  no 
longer  looked  upon  as  the  ordinary  sequel  to  the 
act  of  imposition,  but  that  it  is  still  connected, 
as  in  the  apostolic  age,  with  the  thought  of  spi¬ 
ritual  gifts  of  some  kind ;  (2)  that  while  it  is 
still  in  theory  a  rite  which  may  be  administered 
immediately  after  even  infant  baptism,  its  limi¬ 
tation  to  the  episcopal  order  tended  to  interpose 
an  interval  of  uncertain  length  between  the  two. 
A  Spanish  council  in  A.D.  569((7.  Bucens.)  recog¬ 
nises  the  fact  that  there  were  some  churches 
which  the  bishop  could  not  possibly  visit  every 
year.  Gradually,  especially  in  Western  Europe, 
the  negligence  or  the  secular  engagements  of  the 
bishop  prolonged  this  interval.  The  East,  how¬ 
ever,  with  its  characteristic  reverence  for  anti¬ 
quity,  refused  to  separate  what  the  primitive 
Church  had  joined,  and  infant  baptism,  infant 
confirmation,  infant  communion,  follow,  in  its 
practice,  in  immediate'  sequence.  Even  in  the 
Roman  Church  the  sacramentaries  of  Gelasius 
and  Gregory  unite  the  first  two  ordinances.  It 
was  not,  even  in  the  judgment  of  eminent  ritual¬ 
ists  of  that  Church,  till  the  13th  century,  that 
the  two  ordinances  were  permanently  separated, 
and  a  period  of  from  seven  to  twelve  years  al¬ 
lowed  to  intervene.  Of  what  may  be  called  the 
modern,  Protestant  idea  of  confirmation,  as  the 
ratification  by  the  baptized  child,  when  he  has 
attained  an  age  capable  of  deliberate  choice,  of 
the  promises  made  for  him  by  his  sponsors,  there 
is  not  the  slightest  trace  in  Christian  antiquity.** 

»  It  is  singular  that  the  canon,  strictly  intetpreted, 
seems  to  sanction  the  performance  of  the  act  implied  in 
the  “perficere’'  by  a  presbyter  as  well  as  by  a  bishop. 
But  tlie  decrees  of  councils  will  seldom  bear  interpretation 
v/ith  the  minuteness  of  a  special  plead-r. 

The  Apostolic  Constitutions,  it  is  true,  sp'‘ak  of  the 
sacred  chrism  as  j3£/3ac<t>crif  rij^  ofxoAoyias  (iii,  17)  ;  but  it 


A  special  aspect  of  confirmation  presents  itself 
in  connection  with  the  reception  into  the  Church 
of  those  who  had  been  baptized  by  heretics. 
With  the  exception,  and  that  only  for  a  time,  of 
the  African,  that  baptism,  if  formally  complete, 
was  recognised  as  valid.  But  the  case  was  other¬ 
wise  with  the  laying  on  of  hands.  Only  in  the 
Catholic  Church  could  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  be 
thus  imparted  (August,  de  Bapt.  c.  Donat  ii. 
16),  and  so,  even  if  the  heretical  sect  had  its 
bishops,  and  they  administered  the  rite,  it  was 
treated  as  null  and  void.  When  those  who  had 
been  memiiers  of  such  a  community  returned  to 
their  allegiance  to  the  Church,  confirmation, 
including  the  anointing  as  well  as  the  laying  on 
of  hands,  was  at  once  theoretically  indispensable, 
in  its  sacramental  aspect,  and  became  practically 
conspicuous  as  the  formal  act  of  admission 
(2  C.  Constant,  c.  7  ;  1  C.  Araus.  c.  8;  Siriciu.s, 
Epist.  i.  1  ;  Leo,  Epist.  37,  c.  2).  It  follows, 
from  all  that  has  been  said,  that,  according  to 
the  general  practice,  and  yet  more,  the  ideal,  of 
the  Church  of  the  first  six  centuries,  the  office 
of  confirming  was  pre-eminently  an  episcopal 
one.  But  it  deserves  to  be  noticed  that  it  was  not 
so  exclusively.  It  did  not  depend  for  its  validity 
upon  episcopal  administration.  As  baptism  was 
valid,  though  administered  by  a  layman,  so  the 
laying  on  of  hands,  in  case  of  urgency,  was 
valid,  though  administered  by  a  priest.  In  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  (vii.  22),  at  least  one  part 
of  the  rite,  the  anointing,  is  assigned  to  either 
priest  or  bishop,  and  the  practice  was  retained 
by  the  whole  Eastern  Church.  In  the  West,  the 
exception  was  recognised  as  legitimate  in  cases  of 
necessity,  as  e.g.  in  that  of  a  possessed  or  dying 
person  (1  C.  Araus.  c.  2 ;  Innocent,  Epist.  1  ad 
Decent. ;  C.  Epaon.  c.  86).  In  these  instances, 
however,  for  the  most  part,  a  special  delegation 
of  authority  was  either  required  or  implied. 
The  letters  of  Leo  (A/i.  88  ad  Gall.)  and  Gelasius 
{^Epist.  9  ad  Episc.  Lucan.),  forbidding  the  prac¬ 
tice,  “  per  impositiones  manuum  fidelibus  bap- 
tizandis,  vel  conversis  ex  haeresi  Paracletum 
Sanctum  Spiritum  t  rad  ere  ”  (Leo  1.  c.)  may  be 
received  as  evidence  that  the  practice  was  be¬ 
coming  more  or  less  common,  even  without  that 
authority,  and  that  it  was  necessary,  in  the  inte¬ 
rest  of  the  episcopal  order,  to  restrain  it. 

Lastly,  it  may  be  noticed,  that  a  ti'ace  of  the 
old  combination  at  one  time  and  place  of  the  two 
ceremonies,  baptism  and  the  imposition  of  hands, 
which  were  afterwards  separated,  may  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  the  anointing,  which  was  origi¬ 
nally  the  connecting  link  between  the  two,  was, 
at  a  later  period,  attached  to  each.  Innocent, 
in  the  letter  already  quoted  {ad  Decent,  c.  3), 
marks  out  the  limits  within  which  the  priest 
might  act.  In  the  absence,  or  even  in  the  presence 
of  the  bishop,  he  might  anoint  the  baptized  child 
with  the  holy  chrism,  provided  always  that  the 
chrism  itself  had  been  consecrated  by  a  bishop, 
but  he  was  not  to  sign  him  on  the  forehead. 
That  was  reserved  for  the  bishops,  when,  by  im- 
jiosition  of  hands,  they  bestowed  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit.  [E.  H.  ?.] 


is  questionable  whether  this  moans,  as  Bingham  asserts 
(xii.  3),  a  continuation  on  man’s  part  of  the  compacts  made 
wl  h  God  in  baptism.  'I'he  analogous  use  of  the  word 
o-<f>payt?  (Covstt.  Apost.  vii.  22)  would  seem  to  imply  that 
it  was  the  seal,  the  confirmation  of  God’s  promises: 


426 


COXFITEOR 


COXSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 


COXFITEOR.  The  f'oi-m  of  general  con¬ 
fession  of  sins  made  in  the  offices  of  the  Church, 
so  called  from  its  first  word.  This  is  prescribed- 

(1)  At  the  beginning  of  the  mass  when  tne 
priest  says  it  standing  at  the  steps  of  the  altar, 
“  profuude  inclinatus.” 

(2)  At  the  administration  of  the  Holy  Com¬ 
munion  at  other  times. 

(3)  At  the  administration  of  Extreme  Unction. 

(4)  Previous-  to  the  absolution  “  in  articulo 
mortis.” 

(5)  In  the  daily  office  at  Compline  ;  and  at 
Prime  when  the  office  is  not  double. 

Sacramental  confession  is  also  directed  to  begin 
with  the  opening  words  of  the  “  Confiteor.” 

It  is  prefaced  by  the  versicle  “  Deus  in  adju- 
torium,”  &c.,  and  is  said  alternately  by  the  priest 
and  congregation,  who  each  respond  with  a 
prayer  for  the  forgiveness  of  the  other,  called 
“  Misereatur,”  from  its  first  word  ;  in  addition 
to  which  the  priest  pronounces  li  short  formula 
of  absolution,  similarly  called  “  ludulgentiam,” 
over  the  people.  This  act  is  sometimes  called  in 
rubrics  “giving  the  absolution.” 

Clear  traces  of  it  appear  in  the  Penitential  of 
Egbert  of  York,  a.d.  730,  who  prescribes  a  form 
of  words  closely  resembling  the  “  Confiteor,” 
as  introductory  to  .sacramental  confession  ;  and 
the  “  Benedictio  super  poeuitentem  ”  is  only  a 
slightly  different  version  of  the  “  Misereatur.” 
A  similar  form  is  given  by-  Chi-odegang,  bishop 
of  Metz  A.D.  742,  who  describes  the  order  in 
which  Prime  was  to  be  said,  to  the  following 
efi'ect.  When  the  clerks  come  together  to  sing 
Prime  in  the  church,  the  office  itself  being  com¬ 
pleted,  let  them  give  their  confessions  before  the 
50th  [51st]  Psalm,  saying  in  turn,  “  Confiteor 
Domino  et  tibi,  frater,  quod  peccavi  in  cogita- 
tione  et  in  locutione  et  in  opere  :  propterea  precor 
te,  ora  pro  me.”  To  which  the  response  is  given, 
“Misereatur  tibi  omnipotens  Deus,  indulgeat 
tibi  peccata  tua,  liberet  te  ab  omni  malo,  con- 
servet  te  in  omni  bono,  et  perducat  te  ad  vitam 
aeteruam  ;  ”  to  which  the  other  answers.  Amen. 
In  Micrologus  de  Eccl.  Observ.  [probably  about 
1080]  a  form  still  more  closely  resembling  the 
present  is  given,  and  the  3rd  Council  of  Ravenna, 
A.D.  1314,  orders  that  throughout  the  province 
of  Ravenna  the  “Confiteor  ”  shall  be  said  in  the 
form  used  at  the  present  time.  Since  the  pub¬ 
lication  of  the  missal  of  Pius  V.  there  has  been 
comjilete  uniformity  in  this  respect  throughout 
the  Roman  obedience.  For  examples  of  early 
forms  of  confession  see  Bona,  de  Eeb.  Lit. ;  Mar- 
tene,  de  Ant.  Eccl.  Pit.  lib.  i.  &c.  Compare 
CONFESSIOX.  [H.  J.  H.] 

CONFRACTORIUM.  An  anthem  in  the 

Ambrosian  missal  at  the  breaking  of  the  Host. 
It  usually  has  some  i-eference  to  the  Gospel  of 
the  day.  [H.  J.  H.] 

COXOX,  martyr  at  Iconium  under  Aure- 
lian,  May  29  {Mart.  Usuardi) ;  March  5  {Ca'. 
Byzant.').  [C.] 

CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES  {Con- 

secratio,  Dedicatio ;  Gr.  a(pi4pcccris,  Euseb.  Vit. 

Const,  iv.  60  ;  hyKaivia,  ib.  iv.  43  ;  cf.  areOriKeu, 
Procop.  de  Aedif.  Justiniani,  i.  3). 

The  essential  idea  of  consecration  is  expressed 
in  the  following  paragraphs  :  —  “  Consecratio 
Ecclesiae  est  dedicatio  ejusdem  ad  cultum  divi- 
num  speciali  j-itu  facta  a  legitimo  ministro,  ad 


hoc  ut  populus  fidelis  opera  religionis  in  el  rite 
exeicere  possit  ”  (Ferraris’  Promta  Bibliothec  t, 
iii.  157).  “  When  we  sanctify  or  hallow 

ch'jrches,  that  which  we  do  is  to  testify  that  we 
make  them  places  of  public  resort,  that  we 
invest  God  Himself  with  them,  that  we  sever 
them  from  common  uses  ”  (Hooker,  Ecc.  P. 
v.  16).  “By  the  consecration  of  a  church,  the 
ancients  always  mean  the  devoting  or  sett  in j 
it  apart  for  Divine  service  ”  (Bingham,  Antig. 
viii.  9).  Compare  Bexedictiox. 

It  seems  almost  a  necessity  to  men  to  have 
their  places  of  common  worship  recognizeu  and 
accustomed.  That  those  places  should  not  onlv 
ac(juire  sacredness  of  association  by  use,  bu^ 
should  previously  have  imparted  to  them  m 
some  sort  a  sacredness  of  object,  seems  also 
consonant  with  natural  religion.  The  fornor 
more  clearly,  and  yet  the  latter  also,  implicitly, 
is  found  in  all  ages,  a  feature  of  all  religions, 
rude  and  civilized,  the  same  with  all  classes,  of 
diverse  nations,  however  widely  separated ;  as 
exemplified  in  groves,  sacred  stones,  pillars, 
altars,  temples,  pagodas.  It  seems  the  dictate 
of  natural  piety  that  we  should  express  thanks 
to  God  on  the  first  use  of  anything.  Greeks, 
Romans,  Jews,  had  their  consecrations  of  houses, 
cities,  and  walls,  not  by  words  only,  but  with 
symbolical  actions  and  sacred  rites.  (See  Deut. 
XX.  5 ;  Psalm  xxx.  Title,  A  Psalm  and  Song 
at  the  Dedication  of  the  House  of  David ;  Xch. 
xii.  27  ;  Du  Cange,  Constantviopolis  Christiana, 
i.  3,  “  Urbis  Encaenia ;”  Lewis,  Historical  Essay 
upon  the  Consecration  of  Churches,  London  1719, 
c.  iii.) 

From  the  expressions  “before  the  Lord,”  “  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  ”  (Gen.  iv.),  it  has  been 
reasonably  inferred  that  “  the  patriarchs  had 
places  set  apart  for  the  worship  of  God,  con¬ 
secrated,  as  it  w-ere,  to  His  service.”  (Blunt’s 
Script.  Coinc.  p.  8.)  Something  like  a  form 
of  consecration  is  indicated  in  Gen.  xxi.  33, 
xxviii.  16,  17,  18,  where  the  Vulgate  rendering 
“  titulum  ”  has  given  rise  to  the  use  of  the 
term,  as  equivalent  to  ‘  church,’  common  in  early 
Christian  writers.  The  consecration  of  the 
tabernacle  is  narrated,  Exod.  xl.,  and  given  with 
further  details  in  Josephus  iii.  9.  The  dedica¬ 
tion  of  the  Temple  of  Solomon  is  contained  in 
1  Kings  viii. ;  wffiich  furnishes  Hooker  {Eccl. 
Pol.  V.  12-16)  w’ith  seA-eral  of  his  arguments  for 
the  consecration  of  Christian  churches.  The 
dedication  of  the  second  temple  by  Zerubbabel  is 
told  in  Ezra  vi.  16 ;  the  purification  and  re- 
dedication  of  the  same  by  Judas  Maccabaeus.  iu 
1  Macc.  iv.  41-44,  54,  56,  57,  59.  The  dedica¬ 
tion  of  Herod’s  beautiful  temple  is  narrated  by 
Josephus  XV.  14.  Less  magnificent  than  these, 
but  still  recognized  and  allowed  to  possess  a 
sacred  character,  were  certiiin  “  high  places  ”  in 
the  ante-Babylonish  history  of  the  Jew-s,  known 
in  later  times  as  Trpocrevxai,  and  the  numerous 
synagogues  in  Palestine  and  elsewhere. 

Christianity  rose  out  of  Judaism,  supplanting 
onlv  what  was  peculiar  to  that  system,  and 
inheriting  all  that  was  of  natural  piety.  The 
Divine  Founfler  of  Christianity  set  the  example 
to  all  His  followers  iu  His  constant  attendance 
at  the  acknowledged  places  of  worship,  and  es¬ 
pecially  in  His  going  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the 
feast  of  the  Dedication.  The  apostles  used  the 
consecrated  temple  as  long  jvs  it  was  permitted 


CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 

them  to  do  so,  and  everywhere  else  they  found 
the  synagogues  or  churches  made  ready  to  their 
hands,  needing  no  new  consecration.  Ti'aces  in 
the  N.  T.  of  a  fxed  place  of  worship  as  a  feature 
of  an  organized  church  are  presented  by  Prof. 
Blunt  {Parish  Priest,  sect.  ix.  p.  281),  who 
quotes  Acts  i.  13;  St.  Luke  xxii.  12;  St.  John 
XX.  19,  26  ;  Acts  ii.  2 ;  Rom.  xvi.  3 ;  1  Cor.  xi. 
22,  xvi.  19. 

That  the  pi'imitive  Christians,  i.e.  before  the 
time  of  Constantine,  not  only  had  churches  to 
worship  in,  but  regarded  them  as  distinct  in 
character  from  other  buildings,  has  indeed  been 
doubted  or  denied,  but  is  allowed  by  even  Hos- 
pinian  (cfe  Origine  et  Progressu  Consecrationum 
et  Dedicationum  Templorum,  Tiguri,  1603,  fol.) 
and  August!  {Denkwiirdigkeiten  aus  der  Christ- 
licheii  Archdologie,  xi.  317,  &c.),  and  has  been 
sutficieutly  settled  in  the  affirmative  by  Petrus 
Cluniacensis,  a.d.  1147  (quoted  in  Hooker,  E.  P. 
v.  12,  5),  Bona,  Tillemont,  Mede,  Lewis,  Chan¬ 
cellor  Harington  {The  Object,  Importance,  and 
Antiquity  of  the  Rite  of  Consecration  of  Churches, 
Rivingtons,  1847),  and  Professor  Blunt.  We 
dismiss  spurious  testimonies  and  dubious  allega¬ 
tions  ;  e.g.  the  affirmation  of  Radul})hus  adduced 
by  Gavanti  (  Thesaur.  tom.  i.  p.  iv.  tit.  xvi.),  that 
“  dedication  is  of  apostolic  authority  the  Cle¬ 
mentines  {Ep.  ''ad  Jacobum)  “  Build  churches 
in  suitable  places,  which  you  ought  to  consecrate 
by  divine  prayers the  Decretals,  quoted  from 
Linus,  Cletus,  Evaristus,  Hyginus,  «Sic.  by  Gratian 
and  Goar  {Euchol.  p.  807);  the  assumption  in 
Duranti  and  Cardinal  Bona,  as  quoted  in  Bingham 
{Antig.  viii.  9,  2) ;  and  others  given  by  Martene 
{Bit.  Eccl.  Ant.  ii.  13).  Yet  we  may  collect 
from  the  very  earliest  times  a  succession  of 
allusions  and  statements  which  warrant  us  in 
the  conclusion  that  places  and  buildings,  of 
whatever  humble  sort  they  might  be,  were 
always  recognized  and  set  apart  for  common 
worship,  the  fact  of  their  consecration  appearing 
first,  and  then  the  accompaniments  and  rites 
of  it. 

The  very  titles  by  which  these  buildings  were 
known  indicated  this;  e.g.  Kopidur],  i.e.  oluia, 
Dominica,  &c.,  discussed  in  August!  {Denkw.  xi. 
320,  &c.).  St.  Ambrose,  in  his  letter  to  his 
sister  Marcellina  {Ep.  22),  calls  the  rite  of 
dedication  of  churches  a  most  ancient  and  uni¬ 
versal  custom.  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  in  an 
oration  (43)  on  the  consecration  of  a  new  church, 
says,  “  that  it  was  an  old  law,  and  very  excel¬ 
lently  constituted,  to  do  honour  to  churches  by 
the  feasts  of  their  dedication.”  And  Daniel 
{Cod.  Liturg.  i.  355)  confirms  the  conclusion  of 
Binterim  {Denkuurd.  iv.  i.  27)  that  this  cere¬ 
mony  is  deeply  rooted  in  the  earliest  age  of  the 
Church.  Mede,  and  others  after  him,  argue 
this  existence  of  churches  from  passages  in 
Clemens  Romanus  {ad  Cor.  i.  41  ;  see  Blunt’s 
Parish  Priest,  lect.  ix.);  Ignatius  {Ep.  ad 
Magncs.  7);  Justin  Martyr  {Apol.  i.  67);  Ter- 
tullian  {De  Idolol.  7);  Cyprian  {de  Op.  et  Eleem. 
12);  Lucian  {Philop).  p.  1126);  and  many  others. 
The  Coenaculum  at  Jerusalem,  to  which,  as  to  a 
known  place,  the  disciples,  after  the  ascension  of 
tlie  Lord,  returned  for  common  prayer,  is  said  to 
have  been  adapted  and  dedicated  to  Christian 
service  long  before  the  time  of  Constantine. 
“The  upper  room,”  says  Bede  (tom.  ix.  de 
Locis  Sanctis'),  “  was  enclosed  afterwards  with  a 


CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES  427 

beautiful  church,  founded  by  the  holy  apostles, 
because  in  that  place  they  had  received  the 
Holy  Ghost.”  To  this,  as  being  already  an 
acknowledged  use,  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  refers 
{Cat.  lect.  xvi.  4);  “Here,  in  Jerusalem,  in  the 
upper  church  of  the  apostles  .  .  .  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  down  from  heaven.  And,  in  truth, 
it  is  most  fitting  that  ...  we  should  speak 
concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  upper  church  ” 
(cf.  Niceph.  ii.  3). 

“There  exist,”  says  Eusebius  {Hist.  Erd. 
viii.  1),  “  the  imperial  edicts  by  which  the 
churches  were  to  be  pulled  down  to  the  ground.” 
These  must  have  been  actual  edifices.  [Ciiuucii.] 
Then  came  the  persecution  of  Diocletian,  when 
“  the  houses  of  prayer  were  pulled  down  from 
the  top  to  the  bottom,  and  their  foundations 
overturned  ”  {ib.  viii.  2).  “  After  these  things 

a  spectacle  earnestly  prayed  for  and  much  de¬ 
sired  by  us  all  appeared,  viz.  the  solemnization 
of  the  festival  of  the  dedication  of  churches 
throughout  every  city,  and  the  consecration  of 
the  newly-built  oratories.  .  .  .  Indeed,  the  cere¬ 
monies  of  the  bishops  were  most  entire,  the 
presbyters’  performance  of  service  most  exact, 
the  rites  of  the  Church  decent  and  majestic. 
On  the  one  hand  was  a  place  for  the  singers  of 
psalms,  and  for  the  rest  of  the  auditors  of  the 
expressions  sent  from  God  ;  on  the  other  was  a 
place  for  those  who  performed  the  divine  and 
mystical  services.  There  were  also  delivered 
the  mystical  symbols  of  our  SaAuour’s  passion. 
And  now  people  of  all  ages  and  sexes,  men  and 
women,  with  the  utmost  xigour  of  their  minds, 
with  joyful  hearts  and  souls,  by  prayer  and 
thanksgiving,  worshipped  God,  the  Author  of 
all  good.  All  the  prelates  then  present  made 
public  orations,  every  one  as  well  as  he  was  able, 
endeavouring  to  set  forward  the  praises  of  those 
assembled  ”  {ih.  x.  3).  In  x.  5  Eusebius  gives 
the  decrees  of  Licinius  and  Constantins  for  re¬ 
storing  the  churches  to  the  Christians,  as  build¬ 
ings  not  private,  to  which  there  had  been  an 
established  title.  Even  the  Magdeburg  Ceu- 
turiators,  who  are  wont  to  disparage  the  im¬ 
portance  of  the  ceremony  of  conseci-ation,  writing- 
on  the  4th  century,  admit  that  it  had  been  in 
existence  earlier  :  “  Usitatae  omnino  magis  quam 
superioribus  saeculis  templorum  fuerunt  dedica- 
tiones,  seu  consecrationes,  et  quidem  festivae.” 
The  church  of  Tyre  was  one  of  those  destroyed 
in  the  persecution  of  Diocletian,  and  rebuilt  at 
the  revival  described  above.  From  the  pane¬ 
gyric  spoken  by  Eusebius  on  the  occasion  to 
Paulinus,  bishop  of  Tyre,  we  gather  that  the 
earlier  church,  a  very  noble  one,  had  been  con¬ 
secrated  before  at  its  first  erection,  and  that 
churches  built  on  old  foundations  were  conse¬ 
crated  again. 

We  owe  to  the  courtly  pages  of  Eusebius  full 
accounts  of  the  consecration  of  the  churches 
built  by  Constantine  at  Jerusalem, Constantinople, 
and  Antioch.  He  undertook  to  build  a  church 
over  the  Holy  Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem  ( Vit. 
Const,  iii.  25),  called  the  “  Martyrium,”  of 
which  the  beauty  and  several  parts  are  de¬ 
scribed  (i6.  iii.  29).  Wlien  all  was  ready,  a.d.  335, 
he  wrote  a  letter  of  invitation  to  the  numerous 
bishops  then  assembled  in  council  at  Tyre,  urging 
them  that  they  should  first  compose  their  in¬ 
ternal  diil'erences,  because  concord  of  priests 
befitted  such  a  ceremony  ( Vit.  Const,  iv.  43  ; 


428  CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 


CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 


Sozom.  Eccl.  Hist.  i.  2G).  From  all  parts  of  the 
East,  accordingly,  eminent  bishops  assembled, 
followed  by  an  innumerable  company  of  people 
out  of  all  the  provinces.  “But  the  ministers  of 
God,”  proceeds  Eusebius,  “adorned  the  festival 
])artly  with  their  prayers,  and  partly  with  their 
discourses.  For  some  of  them  with  praises 
celebrated  the  benignity  of  the  religious  em¬ 
peror  towards  the  univ^ersal  Saviour,  and  in 
their  orations  -set  forth  the  magnificence  of  the 
Marty rium;  others  entertained  their  hearers 
with  theological  discourses  upon  the  divine  dog- 
wafa,  fitted  to  the  present  solemnity ;  others 
/nterpreted  the  lessons  of  the  divine  volumes, 
and  disclosed  the  mystic  meanings.  But  such 
as  were  unable  to  arrive  at  these  things  ap¬ 
peased  the  Deity  with  unbloody  sacrifices  and 
mystic  immolations,  humbly  offering  up  their 
prayers  to  God.  ...  At  which  place  we  our¬ 
selves  also  honoured  the  solemnity  with  various 
discoui'ses  uttered  in  public ;  sometimes  making 
descriptions  in  writing  of  the  stateliness  and 
magnificence  of  the  royal  fabric;  at  others, 
explaining  the  meaning  of  the  prophetic  visions 
in  a  manner  befitting'  the  present  symbols 
and  figures.  There  was  the  feast  of  dedication 
celebrated  with  the  greatest  joy  imaginable.” 
One  discourse  by  Eusebius  (de  Laudi'ms  Con- 
stantini)  is  given  in  full  (iv.  45),  where  it  is 
observed  that  Constantine’s  churches  were  much 
larger  and  handsomer  than  those  before.  The 
consecration  took  place  on  Sept.  13th,  a  Satur¬ 
day. 

Theodoret  (Eccl.  Hist.  i.  31)  says  that  many 
churches  of  Constantine  were  dedicated  by  the 
assembled  bishops  at  the  same  time. 

To  the  dedication  of  the  magnificent  basilica 
at  Antioch,  called  Dominicum  Aureum,  A.D.  341, 
begun  by  Constantine  dnd  finished  by  his  son 
Constantins,  there  came  ninety-seven  bishops, 
on  the  invitation  of  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  who 
had  usurped  the  see  of  Constantinople  (Socr.  ii. 

8  ;  Sozom.  iii.  5). 

A  synod  of  bishops  (Socr.  ii,  39)  assembled  at 
the  dedication  of  St.  Sophia  in  Constantinople, 
A.D.  360,  thirty-four  years  after  the  foundation 
of  the  church  by  Constantine.  Eudoxius  had 
lately  been  inaugurated  as  archbishop.  He 
“made  sacred  prayers”  (Du  Cange,  Constanti- 
nop.  Christ,  iii,  2).  “  It  was  consecrated  with 

prayers  and  votive  offerings”  (Niceph.  viii. 
26).  Ciampini  (de  Aedif.  Constantini,  pp.  165 
sqq.)  gives  a  summary  of  the  dedication  of 
this  celebrated  church  from  the  Alexandrian 
Chronicle,  it  is  also  referred  to  by  the  author  of 
the  Life  of  St,  Athanasius  in  Photius  (Du  Cange, 
u.s  ).  As  Constantine’s  church  had  been  de¬ 
stroyed  by  earthquake,  so  was  this  of  his  son’s 
burnt  with  fii'e,  A.D.  404,  and  wholly  destroyed 
in  the  sedition  of  A.D.  532. 

Further  light  is  thrown  on  the  rite  of  con¬ 
secration  by  a  story  of  Athanasius.  In  his 
Apology  to  the  emperor  Constantine,  A.D.  335, 
he  defends  himself  from  the  serious  charge  of 
using  an  undedicated  church.  He  allows  the 
truth  of  the  fact.  He  said  they  had  certainly 
kept  no  day  of  dedication,  which  would  have 
been  unlawful  to  keep  without  orders  from  the 
emi»eror.  The  building  was  not  yet  complete. 
He  grounds  his  apology  on  the  great  concourse  I 
of  people  in  Lent,  the  grievous  want  of  church  j 
room  elsewhere,  the  pressure  of  all  to  hear  ] 


Athanasius,  the  increa.sed  mass  of  the  crowd  on 
Easter  Day  (when  the  undedicated  church  was 
used),  the  precedents  of  the  Jews  after  the 
captivity,  and  of  buildings  so  used  in  Alexandria, 
Treves,  Aquileia,  the  reasonableness  of  worship¬ 
ping  in  a  building  already  called  “the  Lord’s 
hou.se  ”  from  the  very  time  of  laying  the  founda¬ 
tions  (Apol.  ad  Const.  17-21).  “There  was 
no  dedication,  but  only  an  assembly  for  the  sake 
of  prayer.  You,  at  least,  I  am  sure,  as  a  lover 
of  God,  will  approve  of  the  people’s  zeal,  and 
will  pardon  me  for  being  unwilling  to  hinder 
the  prayers  of  so  great  a  multitude.”  “  May 
you,”  he  adds,  “most  religious  Augustus,  live 
through  the  course  of  many  years  to  come,  and 
celebrate  the  dedication  of  the  church.  The 
place  is  ready,  having  been  already  sanctified  by 
the  prayers  which  have  been  offered  in  it,  and 
requires  only  the  pi-esence  of  your  piety.”  (lb. 
24,  25.) 

The  first  dedication  of  a  new  church  by  Jus¬ 
tinian  is  briefly  described  by  Du  Cange  (Con¬ 
stant.  Chr.  iii.  5),  who  .says,  “The  procession 
started  from  St.  Anastasia,  the  patriarch  Mennas 
sitting  in  the  chariot  of  the  emperor,  and  the 
emperor  himself  going  among  the  common 
people.”  The  “  dedicationis  apparatus  et  cele- 
britas  ”  is  given  in  Codinus  (Orig.  Constant.), 
who  says  that  Justinian  w^ent  in  solemn  pro¬ 
cession  from  the  palace  to  the  Augustaeura  (a 
sort  of  large  forum,  or  TrpoavXiov,  before  the 
church  of  St.  Sophia),  together  with  the  patri¬ 
arch,  to  the  church  built  V)y  himself,  and  broke 
out  into  these  words :  “  Glory  to  God,  who  has 
counted  me  worthy  to  fulfil  so  great  a  w'ork. 
1  have  surpassed  thee,  0  Solomon.”  A  series  of 
earthquakes  de.stroyed  the  dome,  altar,  ambo, 
&:c.,  and  the  same  emperor,  whose  passion  for 
building  was  the  ruling  feature  of  his  life,  cele¬ 
brated  the  second  consecration  twenty-four 
years  later,  of  which  an  account  is  given  by  Du 
Cange  (ih.  iii.  6)  after  Theophanes.  “Nightly 
vigils  preceded  in  the  church  of  St.  Plato; 
thence  the  procession  adx'anced  with  prayers,  the 
emperor  himself  being  present ;  the  patriarch 
Eutychius,  boime  in  a  chariot,  and  dressed  in 
apostolical  habit,  holding  the  holy  gospels  in  his 
hands ;  all  the  people  chanting  ‘  Lift  up  your 
heads,’  ”  &c.  Then  came  the  dvpavoi^'ia  and  the 
(pwTodpSpos,  i.e.  that  part  of  the  ceremony  of 
the  Encaenia,  where  in  the  circuit  of  the  build¬ 
ing  the  lights  are  lighted  on  the  walls,  and 
twelve  cro.sses  are  anointed  with  chrism  by  the 
bishop.  Paul  the  Silentiary,  in  his  poem  on  the 
occasion,  adds,  “  After  thou  hadst  celebrated 
the  festival,  as  was  proper,  forthwith  the  whole 
people,  the  senate,  and  the  middle  and  better 
classe.s,  demanded  an  extension  of  the  days  of 
celebration.  Thou  grantedst  it :  they  flocked 
in :  again  they  demanded  :  again  thou  grantedst 
it,  w'hich  things  being  often  repeated,  thou 
celebratedst  the  festivity  magnificently.”  Pro¬ 
bably  for  seven  days. 

Of  other  churches  in  Constantinople,  Du 
Cange  (ib.  iv.  5)  relates  the  dedication  of  the 
Church  of  the  Apostles.  This  church,  after  its 
demolition,  was  rebuilt  by  Justinian.  The  dedi¬ 
cation  is  described  as  celebrated  by  the  deposi¬ 
tion  in  it  of  the  relics  of  Andrew,  Luke,  and 
I  Tim.othy,  w'hich  had  been  in  the  earlier  church. 

I  Theophanes  says,  that  the  bishop  Mennas,  with  the 
j  holy  relics,  sitting  in  the  royal  chariot,  gilt  and 


CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 

studded  with  gems,  carrying  upon  his  knees  the 
three  shrines  of  the  holy  apostles,  in  such  wise 
celebrated  the  dedication.  Procopius  speaks  of 
the  same  particulars.  i 

The  last-named  writer  (de  Aedif.  Justin.  I.  v.) 
mentions  the  saci'ed  buildings  at  Ephesixs,  Con¬ 
stantinople,  Jerusalem,  which  Justinian  dedi¬ 
cated  (avedrjKi').  | 

\Ve  gather  from  Bede  (^Eccl.  Hist.  i.  6)  that 
while  Diocletian  was  persecuting  in  the  East,  | 
Maximian  was  doing  the  same  in  the  West,  | 
for  ten  years,  by  burning  the  churches,  &c., 
and  that  after  the  cessation  of  the  persecution 
the  Britons  renewed  the  churches  which  had 
been  razed  to  the  ground,  and  founded  and 
finished  basilicas  to  the  holy  martyrs  (ib.  i.  8).  : 
Later  on,  we  read  that  Gregory  instructed  j 
Augustine  and  his  companions  not  to  destroy 
the  idol  temples,  but  to  destroy  the  idols  in  ^ 
them,  and  then  to  prepare  holy  water,  and  ^ 
sprinkle  it,  to  build  altars  and  deposit  relics,  and 
to  make  suitable  provision  for  rendering  the  day  ^ 
of  dedication  attractive  {ib.  i.  30) ;  that  Augus¬ 
tine  “  consecrated  a  church  in  the  name  of  the 
Saviour,  our  God  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ and  ^ 
Laurentius  “  consecrated  the  church  of  the . 
blessed  apostles  Peter  and  Paul  ”  {ib.  i.  33)  ;  that 
the  body  of  Augustine  (after  a  very  early  cus-  j 
tom)  was  laid  near  this  church,  as  it  was  not  ^ 
yet  dedicated,  but  as  soon  as  it  was  dedicated  it 
was  brought  in  and  laid  in  the  north  porch  {ib. 
ii.  3) ;  that,  on  Chad’s  visit  to  Northumbria, 
after  being  in  East  Anglia,  the  son  of  the  king 
gave  him  land  to  build  a  monastery  or  church ;  : 
to  purify  the  spot  he  craved  leave  to  spend  the 
forty  days  of  Lent  (except  the  Lord’s  day)  in  | 
prayer  and  fasting,  as  he  said  it  was  always 
the  custom  he  had  learned,  first  to  consecrate 
the  locality  by  prayer  and  fasting  to  the  Lord.  ^ 
Then  he  built  a  monastery,  and  set  it  on  foot 
according  to  the  rites  of  the  Lindisfarnians,  ' 
with  whom  he  was  educated  {ib.  iii.  23);  that 
the  Abbot  Ceolfrid  sent  to  the  king  of  the  Piets, 
A.D.  710,  architects  to  build  for  him  a  stone 
church  after  the  manner  of  the  Romans,  he 
having  promised  to  dedicate  it  in  honour  of  the 
blessed  chief  of  the  apostles  {ib.  v.  21).  Bede 
tells  a  story  of  Bishop  John  of  Beverley,  how,  j 
after  having  dedicated  a  church  for  the  Earl 
Puch,  he  sent  to  his  countess,  who  was  bed¬ 
ridden,  some  of  the  holy  water  which  he  had 
consecrated  for  the  dedication  of  the  church  by 
one  of  the  brethren,  charging  him  to  give  her 
some  to  taste,  and  that  he  should  wash  her  with  ' 
the  same  water  wherever  he  learnt  her  pain 
was  the  greatest.  The  woman  recovered  {ib.  v. 
4).  A  detailed  account  is  given  of  the  consecra¬ 
tion  of  the  church  of  Ripon  by  St.  Wilfred 
(a.d.  665)  in  his  life.  The  47th  chapter  of 
the  Penitential  of  Archbishop  Theodore,  speaking  ' 
of  a  building  in  which  heathens  had  been  buried,  ' 
but  now  proposed  for  a  church,  adds:  “If  it 
seems  fit  for  consecration,  let  the  bodies  be 
removed,  and  it  shall  be  sanctified,  if  not  con¬ 
secrated  befoi’e.”  In  the  same  chapter  mention 
is  made  of  that  part  of  the  office  of  consecra¬ 
tion  in  which  it  is  said,  “  Locus  a  Deo  iste 
factus  est.” 

2.  Canons  and  decrees  v:hich  relate  to  the  con¬ 
secration  of  churches. — The  4th  canon  of  the 
General  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451  (Bruns’s 
Canonos,  i.  26),  provides  that  “  no  one  shall  any- 


CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES  429 

where  build  or  establish  a  monastery,  or  house  of 
prayer,  without  the  consent  of  the  local  bishop.” 
The  canons  of  Felix  IV.  and  Gregory  1.  {de  Consecr. 
distinct,  i.  c.  17)  are  referred  to  by  Gavanti 
{Thesaurus  Sacr.  Rii.  tom.  i.  p.  iv.  tit.  xvi.  p. 
529).  The  23rd  canon  of  an  Irish  Council  under 
Patrick,  a.d.  450  (Bruns’s  Can.  ii.  303),  directs 
“that  a  presbytei’,  though  he  build  a  church, 
shall  not  offer  the  oblation  in  it  before  he  brings 
his  bishop  to  consecrate  it,  because  this  was 
regular  and  decent.”  Of  Columbanu.s,  howevei-, 
though  not  a  bishop,  Walafrid  Strabo  writes 
{Mart.  ii.  13,  6),  “He  ordered  water  to  be 
brought,  blessed  it,  sprinkled  the  temple  with  it, 
and  while  they  went,  round  singing,  dedicated 
the  church.  Then  he  called  on  the  Name  of  the 
Lord,  anointed  the  altar,  placed  in  it  the  relics 
of  St.  Aurelia,  vested  it,  and  said  mass.”  The 
1st  Council  of  Orange,  a.d.  441,  can.  10  (Bruns’s 
Canones,  ii.  123),  forbids  a  bishop  to  consecrate  a 
church  out  of  his  own  diocese,  even  if  it  has  been 
built  by  himself.  So  the  2nd  Council  of  Arles 
(about  451),  can.  37.  The  3rd  Council  of  Or¬ 
leans,  a.d.  538,  can.  15  (Bruns’s  Can.  ii.  196), 
makes  the  same  provision  about  altars.  The 
3rd  canon  of  the  2nd  Council  of  Saragossa.  A.D. 
592  (Bruns’s  Can.  ii.  65),  enacts  that  “  if  Arian 
bishops,  who  are  converted,  shall  consecrate 
chui'ches  before  they  have  received  the  bene¬ 
diction,  such  shall  be  consecrated  anew  by  a 
Catholic  bishop.”  The  Theodosian  Code  pre¬ 
scribes  how  existing  buildings  should  be  claimed 
and  dedicated  for  the  service  of  the  Christian 
religion:  “  conlocatione  venerandi  religionis 
christianae  signi  expiari  praecipimus”  (lib.  xvi. 
tit.  10).  The  same  rite  was  prescribed  by  Justi¬ 
nian  at  the  beginning  of  any  erection  of  a  church 
{Novell,  cxxxi.,  quoted  by  Bingham,  Antiq.  viii. 
9,  5).  See  more  instances  in  Augusti  {Denkw. 
xi.  355).  Avitus,  bishop  of  V'ienne  in  the  6th 
century,  promises  his  brother  Apollinaids  to  be 
present  at  the  consecration  of  a  church,  and 
commands  the  gifts  that  were  designed  for  the 
poor  at  the  dedication  feast.  The  2nd  Council 
of  Nice,  A.D.  787,  can.  7,  orders  that  no  bishop 
should  consecrate  any  church  or  altar,  on  pain 
of  deposition,  unless  relics  were  placed  under  it, 
“  ut  qui  ecclesia.sticas  traditiones  transgressus 
est.”  The  famous  Council  of  Cealchythe  {i.  e. 
Chelsea),  presided  over  by  Archbishop  Wil¬ 
fred,  A.D.  816,  can.  2,  decrees,  “  when  a  church 
is  built,  let  it  be  consecrated  by  a  bishop  of  its 
own  diocese :  let  the  water  be  blessed,  and 
sprinkled  by  himself,  and  all  things  fulfilled 
in  oi-der,  according  to  the  service  book.  Then  let 
the  Eucharist,  which  is  consecrated  by  the  bishop 
after  the  same  form,  be  deposited  with  the  other 
relics  in  a  chest,  and  kept  in  the  same  church. 
And  if  he  cannot  bring  other  relics,  at  least  he 
can  do  this  chief  thing,  because  it  is  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And  we 
charge  every  bishop  that  he  have  it  painted  on 
the  wall  of  the  oratory,  or  on  a  table,  as  also 
on  the  altars,  to  what  .saints  both  of  them  are 
dedicated.”  The  141st  of  the  Excerpts  of  Arch¬ 
bishop  Egbert,  circ.  A.D.  750,  provides  when  a 
church  will  need  recon.secration.  The  Council  of 
Worms,  A.D.  868,  forbids  bishops  to  exact  any  fee 
or  present  for  the  consecration  of  a  church,  and 
also  forbids  them  to  con.secrate  any  church 
except  thei'e  be  a  writing  under  the  hand  of  the 
I  founder  confirming  the  foundation,  and  signifying 


430  CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 


CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 


what  endowment  he  has  given  for  the  ministers 
and  for  the  lights. 

A  decree  is  quoted  from  Gelasius,  a.d.  492  (cf. 
Socr.  Eccl.  Hist.  ii.  8),  to  the  effect  that  no 
bishop  consecrate  a  church  without  the  leave  of 
the  Apostolical  see.  Gregory  the  Great  wrote 
official  letters,  whence  we  may  gather  the  form 
in  which,  as  bishop  of  Rome,  he  was  accustomed 
to  issue  his  license  to  his  suffragans  for  dedication 
of  a  church  or  chapel,  e.g.,  that  “they  take  good 
heed  that  no  dead  body  were  buried  in  the  place  ” 
(^Epist.  i.  52;  v.  22;  xii.  10);  “if  a  bishop  con¬ 
secrated  an  oratory  in  another  diocese,  what  he 
had  done  was  null  and  void  ”  {EjAst.  xi.  2).  He 
would  not  have  a  new  church  consecrated  unless 
it  were  endowed  with  sufficient  revenue  for  main¬ 
taining  divine  service  and  the  clergy  (see  C<jrp. 
Jur.  Can.  i.  457-461),  Martene  allows  that 
Gelasius  and  Gregory  were  both  intending  to 
prescribe  for  Italy  alone. 

3,  Ritual  of  Consecration. — It  was  customary, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  deliver  sermons  at  the  time 
of  consecration.  There  is  one  extant  by  St. 
Ambrose,  preached  at  the  dedication  of  a  church 
built  by  Vitalianus  and  Majanus,  a.d.  380;  the 
sermon  is  entitled  “  De  Dedicatione  Basilicae,” 
from  the  text  in  St.  Luke,  “He  loveth  our 
nation,  and  he  hath  built  us  a  synagogue.” 
Gaudentius,  bishop  of  Bresse  in  Italy,  early  in 
the  5th  century,  has  left  sermons  “  Die  dedica- 
tionis  basilicae  sanctorum  quadraginta  marty- 
rum  ”  (^Max.  Bibl.  Patrum,  tom.  v.  ;  Migne’s 
Patrol.  XX.),  St.  Augustine’s  works  (tom.  v.) 
contain  sermons  of  the  same  class,  Perm.  256, 
de  tempore,  al.  336-338,  and  in  App.  Perm.  229- 
231,  considered  to  be  those  of  Caesarius. 

Of  other  rites  and  ceremonies  we  find  occasional 
notices.  Thus  of  the  vigil  kept  the  night  pre¬ 
ceding  the  dedication,  St.  Ambrose  writes  (^Ep. 
22)  to  his  sister  Marcelliiia  and  Gregory  of 
Tours,  de  Gloria  Confessorum ;  of  the  translation 
and  deposition  of  relics,  we  read  in  the  same 
epistle  of  St.  Ambrose,  “  When  I  wished  to 
dedicate  the  basilica,  they  began  to  interrupt  me 
as  it  were  with  one  mouth,  saying.  You  should 
dedicate  the  basilica,  as  in  the  case  of  a  Roman 
one.  I  answered,  I  will  do  so,  if  I  find  relics  of 
martyrs.”  The  same  custom  is  mentioned  by 
St.  Basil,  Epist.  49  (iii.  142),  by  St.  Paulinus, 
Epist.  ad  Peverum  (Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  tom.  vi.  193, 
&c.),  by  St.  Greg.  M.  lib.  i.  c.  10,  See  in 
IMartene,  The  relics  were  often  not  the  bodies 
themselves,  but  what  had  been  simply  in  contact 
with  them  [Brandeum],  The  custom  was  at 
first  peculiar  to  Rome,  and  was  then  extended 
and  made  obligatory  by  the  2nd  Nicene  Council. 
Ancient  forms,  given  by  Martene,  prescribe  that 
“  the  Body  of  the  Lord  be  deposited.”  On 
dedication,  Hooker  (E.  P.  v.  13)  and  Bingham 
(Antiq.  viii.  9,  8)  both  quote  St.  Augustine  (de 
C  vit.  Dei,  vm.  27;  xxii.  10;  contra  Faust,  xx. 
21 ;  contra  Maxim,  i. ;  de  Vera  Relig.  c.  55)  as 
showing  how,  and  with  what  interest  and  limi¬ 
tation,  the  original  custom  of  dedicating  churches 
to  the  Lord  only  was  afterwards  extended  to 
their  dedication  under  the  name,  or  as  me¬ 
morials  of  saints  and  martyrs,  or  by  the  title  of 
virtues,  especially  of  wisdom,  as  was  the  case  in 
the  chief  cities  of  the  empire.  Augustine  in 
writing  against  Maximinus  grounds  an  argument 
for  the  deitv  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  this  dis¬ 
tinction  ;  “  that  He  must  be  God,  because 


temples  were  built  and  dedicated  to  Him,  which 
it  would  be  sacrilege  to  do  to  any  other  creature.” 
The  custom  of  lighting  twelve  candles  is  alluded 
to  in  the  Pseudo-Augustine,  Pei-m.  338  (al.  3), 
in  Dedic.  Ecclesiae.  “  This  lesson  occurs  suitably, 
when  the  candelabra  are  blessed,  that  he  who 
works  is  as  a  light  placed  on  a  candlestick.”  The 
very  ancient  rite  of  inscribing  either  the  whole 
alphabets  both  Greek  and  Latin,  or  some  letters 
of  them,  or  one  alphabet,  is  spoken  of  by  Gregory 
in  his  Liber  Pacrameutorum :  “  Then  let  the 
bishop  begin  from  the  left-hand  corner  at  the 
east,  writing  on  the  pavement  with  his  pastoral 
start’  A.  B.  C.,  to  the  right  corner  of  the  west ; 
again  beginning  from  the  corner  at  the  east  he 
writes  A.  B.  C.  and  so  on  to  the  left  corner  of  the 
church.”  Gregory  says  that  some  bi.shops  added 
the  Hebrew  alphabet.  The  inscription  was 
called  the  A.  B.  C.  darium.  See  more  on  the 
custom  in  Martene  (ii.  13,  who  gives  a.d.  980  as 
the  inferior  date  for  it),  and  in  Maskell,  Monum. 
Pit.  i.  173  n. 

It  is  difficult,  however,  from  the  few  and 
scattered  notices  in  primitive  writers,  to  con¬ 
struct  the  probable  course  of  the  ritual  of  conse¬ 
cration  in  early  times.  We  may  say  with 
Bingham,  “  that  the  manner  and  ceremony  of 
doing  this  was  not  always  exactly  one  and  the 
same,  thei’efore  we  are  chiefly  to  regard  the 
substance  of  the  thing,  which  was  the  separation 
of  any  building  from  common  use  to  a  religious 
service.  Whatever  ceremony  this  was  performed 
with,  the  first  act  of  initiating  and  appropriating 
it  to  a  divine  use  was  its  consecration ;  and 
therefore,  in  allusion  to  this,  the  first  beginning 
of  anything  is  many  times  called  its  dedication. 
Whether  churches  had  any  other  cei’emony 
besides  this  in  their  dedication  for  the  first  three 
ages  is  not  certain,  though  it  is  highly  probable 
they  might  have  a  solemn  thanksgiving  and 
pra)’er  for  a  sanctified  use  of  them  also,  over  and 
besides  the  usual  liturgy  of  the  Church,  because 
this  was  in  use.  among  the  Jews  ”  (Antiq.  viii. 
9,  1).  So  also  Lewis  (Historical  Essay)  remarks 
upon  the  difficulty  of  discovering  the  use  of  this 
rite  in  its  particular  parts,  because  the  custom 
of  those  early  times  was  obscure,  yet  “  he  hopes 
to  shew  some  remains  of  the  footsteps  of  this 
ceremony  ”  (p.  29),  and  gathers  them  together 
(p.  105),  as  traced  in  the  several  instances  above 
given. 

Of  the  various  forms  printed  from  MSS.,  the 
Ordo  Romanus  for  the  building  and  consecration 
of  a  church,  &c.,  said  to  be  of  the  8th  century,  is 
given  in  the  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  (tom.  xiii.  p.  715, 
&c.).  Goar  (Euch.  Graecorum)  gives  the  custo¬ 
mary  order  in  laying  the  foundation  of  a  church, 
and  the  prayer  to  be  said  on  the  occasion,  which 
some  call  the  cross-fixing ;  and  the  order  for 
fixing  the  cross  after  the  church  is  finished,  by 
the  patriarch,  under  which  head  there  are  certain 
prayers  attributed  to  Callixtus  on  the  dedication 
of  a  temple,  and  a  very  prolix  rd^is  ual  olko- 
Xovd'ia  eirt  KadiepdxTfi  vaou  (p.  606,  See.,  and  p. 
846).  Martene  (iiCcL  Pit.  ii.  13,  p.  244  &c.)  has 
printed  eleven  forms,  of  which  the  oldest  are  (1) 
from  the  Book  of  Gellone  in  Italy  about  a.d.  800, 
(2)  from  the  pontifical  of  Egbert,  archbishop  of 
York,  A.D.  750,  (3)  from  the  Anglican  pontifical 
in  the  monastery  of  Jumifeges,  a.d.  800,  (4)  from 
the  pontifical  of  St.  Dunstan  of  Canterbury,  (5) 
from  a  codex  of  St.  Mary’s,  Rheims,  a.d.  900,  (6) 


CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 


.  CONSECRATIOiS 


CHURCHES  431 


from  a  pontifical  of  the  Church  of  Noyon,  A.D. 
900.  Maskell  prints  from  the  Sarum  Pontifcal 
the  Ordo  “  De  Ecciesiae  dedicatione,  seu  conse- 
cratione  ”  {Monurnen.  Bit.  i.  162-203),  and 
has  some  remarks  on  the  subject  in  his  pre¬ 
liminary  dissertation,  pp.  cclxv.-cclxxv.  Daniel 
(Cod.  Liturg.i.  355-384,)  prints  the  rite  “Ex 
Pontificali  Romano,”  with  notes  of  collation 
from  other  rituals.  He  holds  that  in  the  most 
ancient  times  it  vsras  not  the  mass  only  that  was 
sufficient  at  the  consecration  of  new  churches 
(which  Binterim  had  argued),  but  that  it  was  the 
mass  proper  for  dedication,  together  with  addi¬ 
tions  of  certain  forms  of  benediction.  Both 
these  writers  allow  that  the  ritual  of  present  use 
scarcely  reaches  the  8th  century. 

4.  Anniversaries  of  consecrations  of  churches 
have  their  natural  origin  in  the  feast  of  dedica¬ 
tion  of  the  temple,  attended  by  our  Lord  (St. 
John  X.  22,  23)  in  conformity  with  1  Macc.  iv. 
56-59  ;  St.  Gregory  Nazian.  (Orat.  43,  ets  r^u 
Kvpio.KT)v  init.)  speaks  of  it  as  an  ancient  custom 
“  to  honour  churches  by  the  feasts  of  their 
dedication  ;  and  that  not  for  once  only,  but  upon 
the  annual  return  of  the  day  of  their  consecra¬ 
tions,  that  good  things  become  not  forgotten 
through  lapse  of  time.”  It  is  doubtful  who 
initiated  the  custom.  Some  make  it  date  from 
the  consecration  of  the  church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem,  on  Sept.  13  [Ana- 
stasis].  (See  Sozom.  H.  E.  i.  26;  Niceph.  viii. 
50.)  Felix  IV.,  A.D.  526,  put  out  a  decree  “  that 
the  solemnities  of  the  dedications  of  churches  are 
to  be  celebrated  every  year.’’  Gregory  the 
Great  confirmed  the  practice,  and  it  was  adopted 
by  Augustine  in  Britain,  together  with  the 
custom  of  building  booths  round  the  church,  and 
Folding  common  festivities  (Bede,  Eccl.  Hist.  i. 
30).  The  memory  of  the  dedication  of  St. 
Sophia  at  Constantinople  was  kept  up  every 
Dec.  22  (Du  Cange,  Const.  Chr.  iii.  6).  Gavanti 
(ii.  250,  &c.),  de  Commimi  Dedicationis  Ec¬ 
ciesiae,  has  rules  and  remarks  on  this  class  of 
festival  and  its  concurrence  with  others. 

The  Sninbolisin  of  the  rite  of  consecration  may 
be  said  to  uppear  in  the  earliest  titles  given  to 
churches  (see  above),  and  in  the  essential  idea  of 
consecration  as  expressed  by  Hooker,  E.  P.  v.  12, 
13  ;  Bingham,  Antiq.  viii.  9,  8  ;  Lewis,  p.  98. 
Alcuin,  de  Coena  Domini,  says,  “  Churches  are 
consecrated  that  the  coming  of  angels  into  them 
may  be  invited,  and  that  men  entering  into  them 
may  be  restrained  from  mean  thoughts.”  St. 
Thomas  Aquin.  {Surnma,  part  iii.  Quaest,  85,* 
art.  3)  says,  “  A  church  is  consecrated  because 
the  Church  is  the  spouse  of  Christ ;  and  when  the 
octave  is  celebrated  for  denoting  the  glorious 
resurrection  of  the  Church  which  is  to  come.” 
Remigius  of  Auxerre,  in  the  10th  century,  has  a 
Treatise  on  the  mystical  signification  of  the  whole 
rite.  Cf.  the  reference  to  this  and  other  writers 
in  INIaskell  (^Monum.  Bit.  i.  162,  3).  The  same 
subject  is  elaborately  drawn  out  by  Durandus, 
Rationale  Div.  Off.  ;  St.  Bruno  Astensis,  Episc. 
Signiensium  (Max.  Bibl.  Pair.  xx.  1725),  of  the 
12th  century,  &c. 

5.  Consecration  of  Altars.  —  Bingham  (AnL 
viii.  9,  10)  says  that  the  consecration  of  altars 
seems  to  have  begun  first  of  all  in  the  6th 
century  ;  he  quotes  the  Council  of  Agde,  A.D. 
506,  can.  14  (Bruns’s  Can.  ii.  145),  as  enacting 
that  “  altars  are  to  be  consecrated  not  only  by 


the  chrism,  but  with  the  sacerdotal  benediction,” 
and  the  Council  of  Epone,  A.D.  517,  can.  26  (ib. 
ii.  170),  that  “none  but  stone  altars  are  to  be 
consecrated  with  the  unction  of  the  chrism.” 
Gregory  of  Tour.s,  in  the  6th  century,  in  his 
De  Gloria  Confessorum,  c.  xx.  (Mi gne,  i’afro^.  71, 
p.  842),  describes  the  dedication  of  an  oratory  at 
Tours,  a  veiy  beautiful  cell,  heretofore  used  as  a 
salt  cellar  :  “  The  altar  was  placed  in  its  future 
position ;  the  night  was  spent  in  vigil  at  the 
basilica  ;  in  the  morning  they  went  to  the  cell 
and  consecrated  the  altar,  then  returned  to  the 
basilica,  and  thence  took  the  relics.  There  were 
present  a  very  large  choir  of  priests  and  deacons, 
and  a  distinguished  body  of  honourable  citizens, 
with  a  large  assembly  of  people.  On  arrival  at 
the  door  a  miracle  of  splendour  took  place,” 
which  Gregory  describes. 

Literature. — Besides  the  several  works  and 
special  treatises  mentioned  in  the  course  of  this 
article,  reference  may  be  made  to  Cardinal  Bona, 
de  Beh.  Liturg.  i.  19,  20  (Antwerp  1677,  4to); 
Fabric!  us  (John),  de  Templis  Christianorum 
(Helmstadii  1704,  foL);  Augusti’s  List  of  the 
Literature  of  Holy  Places  (xi.  317),  Schmid, 
LAturgik,  Knltus  der  Ckrist-Katholische  Kirche 
(vol.  iii.),  LAber  diurnus  Pontif.  Bom.  (Migne’s 
Patrol,  vol.  105),  cap.  v.  p.  89,  &c.,  “  Index 
Generalis  Materiarum  ”  in  Mar.  Bibl.  Patrum 
(tom.  i.)  under  the  head  “  Ecclesia,  16,  Do 
Material!  Ecclesia,  seu  Templo,  ejusque  dedi¬ 
catione,”  where  some  dedication  sermons  and 
mystical  expositions  and  vindications  of  the  rite 
of  consecration  may  be  found  of  the  12th  and 
13th  centuries.  [H.  B - y.] 

6.  Summary. — It  will  be  seen  in  the  instances 
given  above  that  there  are  two  distinct 
periods  in  the  history  of  the  conseci'ation  of 
churches.  In  the  early  ages,  certainly  as  late  as 
the  time  of  Constantine,  a  church  was  inaugu¬ 
rated  by  solemn  ceremonial,  and  dedicated  to  the 
service  of  God  with  prayer.  Then,  as  churches 
built  over  the  tombs  of  martyrs  came  to  be 
regarded  as  endowed  with  peculiar  sanctity,  the 
posses.sion  of  the  relics  of  some  saint  came  to  be 
looked  upon  as  absolutely  essential  to  the  sacred¬ 
ness  of  the  building,  and  the  deposition  of  such 
relics  in  or  below  the  altar  henceforward  formed 
the  central  portion  of  the  consecration-rite.  All 
the  essentials  of  such  a  rite  are  found  in  the 
description  of  the  consecration  of  an  oratory, 
quoted  above  from  Gregory  of  Tours.  [Compare 
Altar.] 

To  the  second  phase  belong  all  the  ancient 
rituals  of  consecration  now  extant,  whether  in 
East  or  West.  We  may  take,  as  a  summary  of 
the  rites  above  referred  to,  the  service  for  the 
consecration  of  churches  given  in  Egbert’s 
Pontifical  (pp.  26-58,  ed.  Surtees  Soc.),  whic’» 
differs  in  no  essential  point  from  that  of  the 
G  r e  g  ori  a  n  sa  era  m  e  n  t a  r y . 

The  relics  were  to  be  watched  the  night  before 
in  some  church  already  consecrated.  In  the 
morning  the  bishop  and  clergy  came  in  procession 
to  the  church  to  be  consecrated ;  candles  are 
lighted,  the  clerks  in  procession  pa.ss  round  the 
church  outside.  The  door  of  the  church  is 
opened  with  appropriate  chants  and  ceremony. 
Prayer  is  said  in  the  midst  of  the  church,  and 
the  procession,  with  litany,  .solemnly  apiiroaches 
the  altar  with  pi-ostration.  Then  follows  the 
A.  B.  C.  darium  (see  above).  Holy  water  is 


432  CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 


CONSECRATION  OF  CHURCHES 


blessed  and  sprinkled  about  the  church  and  the 
altar;  the  altar  is  censed  and  anointed  with  oil 
and  chrism ;  the  slab  is  to  be  laid  on  the  altar, 
the  linen  coverings,  the  fittings  (ornamenta)  of 
the  church,  and  the  vessels  to  be  used  in  divine 
service  are  blessed.  Then  the  relics  are  brought 
in  solemn  procession  from  the  place  where  they 
had  been  deposited.  When  they  come  before  the 
altar  a  curtain  is  drawn  between  the  clerks  and 
the  people ;  the  bishop  makes  the  sign  of  the 
cross  with  chrism  inside  the  confessio  or  cavity 
where  the  relics  are  to  be  placed,  and  at  the  four 
corners  of  the  altar.  After  the  relics  have  been 
placed  in  the  confessio,  the  slab  is  laid  on  the 
top  and  fixed  with  mortar.  The  bishop  says  a 
prayer.  The  altar  is  then  covered  and  decked, 
and  the  paten  and  chalice  are  blessed. 

The  clerks  then  enter  the  vestry  and  put  on 
other  vestments.  Meantime  the  church  is  made 
ready,  and  the  bishop  and  clergy  on  their  return 
say  the  mass  In  Dedicatione  Ecclesiae. 

Forms  are  also  given  in  the  Pontifical  (p.  57) 
for  the  “  Reconciliation  ”  of  an  altar  or  holy 
place  where  blood  has  been  shed  or  homicide 
perpetrated. 

For  other  ceremonies  of  dedication  see  Font, 
Cemetery. 

7.  fnscriptions. — Bianchini  on  the  Liber  Pontif. 
(s.  35,  i.  p.  74,  ed.  Migue)  quotes  the  following 
inscription  as  pi'oving  the  consecration  of  a 
church  at  Rome  in  the  4th  century  by  Damasus 
or  Damasius  : — 

T  .  I  .  X  .  N  .  EGO  DAMASI 
VS  VRB  ROME  EPS  AN 
C  DOMV  COSECRAVI 

.  .  .  N.R.Q.S.M.S.S.PA.S.PE. 

i.e.  Tihdus  in  Christi  nomine.  Ego  Damasius 
urbis  Romae  Episcopus  hanc  domum  consecravi. 
The  interpretation  of  the  i-emaining  portion  of 
the  inscription  is  doubtful,  but  S  .  PA  .  S  .  PE  . 
seem  to  designate  Sanctus .  Paulus,  Sanctus 
Petrus.  On  the  reverse  of  the  stone  is  engraved, 

[/Ac  rcJQVIESCIT  CAPVT 
SCI  CRESCENTINI  M. 

ET  RELIQIE  S.SVPANT. 

The  Abbe  Martigny  (^Dictionnaire,  p.  227)  has 
acutely  remarked,  that  the  epithet  sanctus  is 
not  known  to  be  used  in  this  way  so  early  as 
the  4th  century,  and  that  the  inscription  is 

Erobably  of  a  later  date  than  the  time  of  Pope' 
'amasus.  There  is,  in  fact,  probably  no  inscrip¬ 
tion  testifying  to  the  consecration  of  a  church 
of  so  early  a  date  as  the  time  of  St.  Ambrose, 
\vhen  we  know  that  a  dedication-rite  similar 
in  essentials  to  that  of  later  times  was  coming 
into  use.  [C.] 

8.  Effect  of  Consecration. — Churches  and  their 
sites,  once  consecrated,  wei’e  to  be  reserved 
exclusively  for  the  offices  of  religion.  Eating 
and  drinking  in  them  Avas  forbidden  after  the 
love-feasts  had  been  abolished :  and  w^earing 
arms  in  them  was  never  allowed.  In  virtue 
of  the  2ad  of  these  rules  they  speedily  became 
asylums  or  places  of  refuge  for  all  threatened 
with  violence  :  still  they  could  only  be  used  as 
such  for  a  limited  duration  in  virtue  of  the  first. 
“  Pateant  summi  Dei  templa  timentibus,”  said 
one  law  in  the  Theodosian  code,  not  merely  con¬ 


firming  this  pu’ivilege,  but  extending  it  to  the 
various  surroundings  of  a  church  where  meals 
might  be  taken  and  sleeping  quarters  esta¬ 
blished  for  any  length  of  time;  by  another  law, 
however,  it  was  modified,  by  excluding  public 
debtors,  slaves,  and  Jews,  from  benefiting  by  it 
in  future  (lib.  ix.  tit.  49);  and  Justinian  after¬ 
wards  excluded  malefactors  (^Novel.  17).  Some 
interesting  remarks  on  these  constitutions  may 
be  read  in  a  letter  of  Alcuiu  (Ep.  clvii.  ed. 
Migne)  to  his  two  disciples,  Candidus  and  Na¬ 
thanael  :  modified  indeed  by  the  important  let¬ 
ter  of  Charlemagne  which  follows  it;  and  in 
accordance  with  which  the  rights  of  sanctuary 
are  upheld  in  the  Frank  capitularies  of  the  8th 
century. 

Property  given  to  the  Church  might  never  be 
alienated  from  it,  exce2)t  under  special  circum¬ 
stances  defined  by  the  canons  :  much  more  there¬ 
fore  buildings  that  had  been  solemnly  conse¬ 
crated.  The  canons  forbidding  alienation  are 
numerous  from  the  15th  Ancyran,  A.D.  315 
downwards ;  and  the  31st  and  three  following, 
with  the  65th  Apostolical,  may  be  still  earlier. 
Justinian  has  numerous  regulations  to  the  same 
effect  in  his  Code  (lib.  ii.  tit.  2)  and  7th  Novel. 
In  all  these  church  property  seems  to  be  consi¬ 
dered  inalienable,  rather  as  being  in  trust  for 
others  than  upon  higher  grounds  :  at  ail  CA'ents, 
none  of  them  actually  discuss  consecrated  sites 
and  buildings  as  such.  Charlemagne  was  more 
explicit  in  one  of  his  capitularies  (a.d.  802,  c.  34, 
ed.  Migne)  :  “  Ut  loca  quae  semel  Deo  dedicata 
sunt  ut  monasteria  sint,  maneant  perpetuo  mo- 
nasteria,  nec  possint  ultra  fieri  saecularia  habi- 
tacula.”  This  was  generalized  subsequently,  till 
it  appeared  as  a  maxim  in  the  “  Regulae  Juris,” 
appended  to  the  6th  book  of  the  Decretals,  in 
these  words  :  “  Semel  Deo  dicatum  non  est  ad 
usus  humanos  ulterius  transferendum  ”  (No.  51). 
Even  the  wood  and  stones  used  in  building  a 
church  were  considered  to  have  shared  its  con¬ 
secration,  and  could  not  afterwards  be  removed 
to  subserve  structures  purely  secular,  though 
they  might  be  burnt.  Events  in  this  respect 
have  long  since  proved  stronger  than  the  De¬ 
cretals  :  and  there  are  some  remarkable  words  on 
record  of  Jehovah  Himself  in  taking  possession 
of  the  first  building  ever  dedicated  to  His  service, 
shewing  that  His  acceptance  of  it  was  condi¬ 
tional,  and  might  not,  under  circumstances  which 
actually  took  place,  be  permanent :  “  Now  have 
I  chosen  and  sanctified  this  house,  that  my  name 
may  be  there  for  ever.  .  .  .  But  if  ye  turn  away 
and  forsake  my  statutes  and  my  commandments 
which  I  have  set  before  you  .  .  .  this  house  which 
I  have  sanctified  for  my  name  will  I  cast  out  of 
my  sight,  and  will  make  it  to  be  a  proverb  and 
a  by-word  among  all  nations”  (2  Chron.  vii.  19, 
20).  Canonists  have  forgotten  these  words  alto¬ 
gether  in  estimating  the  “  effects  of  consecration.” 
Comp,  particularly  Lequeux’s  ^lauual.  Tract,  de 
Rebus  Sao'is,  1.  xci.  and  cxxvi.-xxxix.  A  larger 
work  is  Gibert’s  Corp.  Jur.  Canon,  vol.  ii.  Tract, 
de  Eccl.  tit.  xv.  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

CONSECRATION  (Eucharistic).  {Conse- 
cratio,  Sanctificatio,  de^iepoaris,  aytaap-ds.)  For 
the  distinction  betw'een  consecration  and  bene¬ 
diction,  .see  Benediction.  The  general  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  doctrine  of  Eucharistic  consecra¬ 
tion  belongs  to  theology,  and  the  question  is 


CONSECEATION 

considered  here  only  in  its  relation  to  the 
liturgy. 

1.  The  principal  formulae  of  consecration  are 
given  under  Canon  of  the  Liturgy.  It  will 
be  seen  in  that  article  that  the  most  noteworthy 
difference  between  the  forms  of  consecration  used 
in  the  Eastern  and  the  Western  churches  respec¬ 
tively  consists  in  this,  that  in  the  Eastern  Clmrch 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  invoked,  after  the  recitation 
of  the  words  of  institution,  to  descend  upon  the 
elements,  and  make  them  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  [Epiclesis]  ;  and  this  invocation  is 
commonly  thought  to  imply,  that  consecration 
would  be  imperfect  without  it.  This  seems  also 
to  be  distinctly  implied  in  the  weli-known  pass¬ 
age  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  {Catech.  Mi/stag.  v. 
c.  7),  which  speaks  of  the  hallowing  and  changing  j 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  [Canon  of  the 
Liturgy,  p.  269].  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
Western  churches,  the  invocation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  at  this  part  of  the  liturgy  is  generally 
wanting,  and  the  whole  consecrating  virtue  is 
attributed  by  Western  ritualists  to  the  recitation 
of  the  words  of  institution,  accompanied  by  the 
fitting  gestures.  In  the  Mozarabic  liturgy,  how¬ 
ever,  the  variable  prayer  which  fellows  the 
Secreta  frequently  contains  an  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  elements ;  and  such  an 
invocation  is  almost  certainly  an  ancient  rite 
which  the  Latin  Church  has  lost,  not  an  innova¬ 
tion  of  the  Orientals.  Ample  information  on  the 
points  of  difference  in  this  respect  between  East 
and  West  may  be  found  in  Bona  (de  Reb.  Lit. 
ii.  c.  13,  §§  4,  .5),  Renaudot  (Lit.  Orient,  i.  196), 
Toutt^  (note  on  Cyril,  Cat.  M^st.  v.  7),  Le 
Brun  (Ce'rem.  de  la  Messe,  tom.  iii.),  and  Neale 
(Eastern  Ch.  Introd.  pp.  492  ff.). 

2.  In  the  Ordo  Ronianus  ILL.  c.  16,  the  fol¬ 
lowing  rubrical  directions  are  given.  “After 
the  Pope  has  communicated  of  the  cup,  which 
is  held  by  the  archdeacon,  the  latter  pours  a 
portion  of  the  remaining  wine  into  the  larger 
chalice  from  which  the  people  is  to  v'ommunicate  ; 
for  wine  not  consecrated  but  mingled  with  the 
Lord’s  Blood  is  completely  sanctified  (sancti- 
ficatur  per  omuem  modum).”  The  reason  of 
this  custom  probably  was  that  in  a  very  large 
congi'egation  it  was  difficult  to  consecrate  exactly 
the  quantity  of  wine  required.  A  small  quantity 
was  therefore  consecrated  in  the  first  instance, 
and  amplified  according  to  the  number  of  com¬ 
municants  by  pouring  in  fresh  wine.  The  whole 
of  the  wine  in  the  cup  was  held  to  be  completely 
consecrated  by  mingling  with  that  which  had 
been  originally  consecrated.  The  same  practice 
is  enjoined  in  the  Ccremoniale  of  St.  Benignus 
at  Dijon,  in  the  Cistercian  Statutes,  in  the 
Statutes  of  the  Abbey  of  St.  Victor  at  Paris, 
and  in  Lyndwood’s  Constitut.  Provinc.  See  Ma- 
billon  (Comm.  Praevius  in  Ord.  Rom.  pp.  Ixii. 
xcii.). 

3.  The  placing  a  particle  of  the  consecrated 
bread  in  the  chalice  is  sometimes  called  “  con¬ 
secration.”  In  the  Missa  Lllyrici  (Bona,  de  Reb. 
Lit.  p.  553)  the  petition  occurs,  “  Fiat  commistio 
et  consecratio  corporis  et  sanguinis  D.  N.  I.  C. 
omnibus  accipientibus  nobis  in  vitam  aeternam  ;  ” 
and  the  17th  canon  of  the  1st  Council  of  Orange 
directs,  “  Cum  capsa  et  calix  offerendus  est,  et 
admixtione  eucharistiae  consecrandus.”  Com- 
nare  Commistio. 

4.  On  certain  days  it  is  an  ancient  custom  not 

CHRIST’.  ANT. 


CONSENT  TO  MARItTAGE  433 

to  consecrate  the  sacred  elements.  See  Prae- 
SANCTIFIED,  LiTURGY  OF.  [C.] 

CONSECRATION  OF  BISHOPS  [Bishop  : 
Ordination.] 

CONSENT  TO  MARRIAGE.  The  mar¬ 
riage-law  of  all  countries  turns  upon  one  or 
other  of  two  principles.  Either  marriage  is 
viewed  as  a  union  between  persons,  or  as  the 
disposal  of  a  property.  In  the  former  case, 
the  consent  of  the  parties  themselv'es  is  the  main 
element  in  it ;  in  the  latter,  that  of  some  other 
person  or  persons.  Still,  in  legislations  founded 
upon  the  former  principle,  the  element  of  consent 
by  others  conies  in  as  a  salutary  clieck  upon  rash 
self-disposal  by  the  young ;  in  those  founded 
upon  the  latter,  the  recognition  of  a  right  of 
self-sale  in  the  adult  may  equally  check  the  too 
authoritative  interference  of  others. 

The  Jewish  law  is  in  its  inception  essentially 
personal.  Christ  needed  but  to  refer  to  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  in  order  to 
bring  out  the  full  spirituality  of  the  marriage 
relation  (Matt.  xix.  4 ;  Mark  x.  6).  In  Genesis, 
the  woman  is  at  once  brought  before  us  as  the 
one  “  helpmeet  ”  for  the  m.an.  At  the  outset  of 
the  Adamic  history,  there  is  no  question  of 
selling  or  buying,  no  exercise  of  any  third  will 
between  the  two.  God  simply  brings  the  woman 
to  the  man,  who  at  once  recognises  her  as  bone 
of  his  bones,  and  flesh  of  his  flesh  (c.  ii.  vv^  20, 
22,  23).  As  the  history  proceeds,  hovv’^ever, 
other  elements  develope  themselves.  Slavery 
makes  its  appeai’ance,  and  the  slave-owner  is 
exhibited  as  giving  the  slave  in  marriage  (Gen. 
xvi.  3  ;  XXX.  4). 

Throughout  the  patriarchal  history  fGen.  xxiv., 
xxix.,  xxxiv. ;  Ex.  ii.  21),  under  the  Law  (Fx. 
xxi.  4,  7,  8;  xxii.  17;  Deut.  xxii.  16),  in  the 
time  of  the  Judges  (Josh.  xv.  16,  17;  Judg.  i. 
12;  XV.  1,  2;  xxi.  1,  7,  8;  Ruth  iv.  10),  under 
the  Monarchy  (1  Sam.  xvii.  25  ;  xviii.  19,  21,  27  ; 
2  Sam.  xiii.  13 ;  1  Kings  ii.  17),  after  the  Cap¬ 
tivity  (Nehem.  xiii.  25),  in  our  Lord’s  time  (Matt. 
xxiv^  38  ;  Luke  xvii.  27),  in  the  Apostolic  Church 
(1  Cor.  vii.  38),  the  right  of  the  father  to  give 
his  daughter  in  marriage,  of  the  king  to  give  one 
who  was  under  his  control,  is  either  assumed  or 
asserted. 

It  is  nev'ertheless  certain,  as  may  be  seen  in 
Selden’s  treatise  de  Uxore  Ebraicd,  and  as  has 
been  stated  above  under  the  head  Betrothal, 
that  among  the  Jews  the  power  of  self-disposal 
in  marriage  was  singularly  wide  for  either  sex, 
the  man  being  held  of  full  age,  and  capable  of 
marrying  at  his  will  in  the  last  day  of  his  15th 
year,  the  woman  in  the  second  half  of  her  12th, 
whilst  if  betrothed  under  that  age  by  their 
fathers,  girls  could  repudiate  the  engagement 
at  ten.  Yet,  strange  to  say,  the  forms  used  in 
Jewish  practice  belong  to  the  material,  and  not 
to  the  spiritual  view  of  marriage.  The  pro¬ 
minence  given  to  the  Arrha  or  earnest  [see 
Arrha],  and  the  necessity  for  its  being  given  to 
the  woman  herself  either  in  money  or  money’s 
worth,  shew  clearly  that  the  grand  spirituality 
of  marriage,  as  exhibited  in  the  second  chapter  of 
Genesis,  had  been  lost  sight  of,  that  it  had  come 
to  be  viewed  essentially  as  an  act  of  wife-buying  , 
and  yet  the  fact  that  the  woman,  from  earliest 
puberty,  was  reckoned  as  having  the  sole  right 
of  self-sale,  preserved  an  amount  of  Ireedoiu  iu 


434  CONSENT  TO  MARRIAGE 


CONSENT  TO  MARRIAGE 


the  contract  which  would  otherwise  seem  to 
belong  only  to  that  view  of  it  which  the  prac¬ 
tice  contradicts. 

The  Roman  law  exhibits  to  us  a  precisely 
opposite  development ;  it  starts  from  the  ma¬ 
terial  view  to  grow  more  and  more  into  the 
spiritual  one.  Originally  the  father’s  potestas, 
scarcely  to  be  distinguished  from  absolute  owner¬ 
ship,  overshadows  all  the  domestic  relations, 
extending  equally  to  the  wife  and  to  the  children 
of  both  sexes.'  Eventually,  so  far  as  marriage  is 
concerned,  the  potestas  resolves  itself  simply 
into  a  right  of  consent.’  And  consent  is  made 
the  very  essence  of  marriage.  “  Nuptias  non 
concubitus,  sed  consensus  facit,”  are  the  words 
of  Ulpian  {Dig.  bk.  1.  t.  xvii.  1.  30).  The  vali¬ 
dity  of  marriages  contracted  by  mere  consent 
was  admitted  in  a  constitution  of  Theodosius 
and  Valentinian,  A.D.  449,  {Code,  bk.  v.  t.  xvii. 
1.  8). 

This  consent,  moreover,  must  be  at  once  that 
of  the  parties  themselves,  and  of  those  in  whose 
potestas  they  are  (Paulus,  Dig.  bk.  xxiii.  t.  ii. 
1.  2).  As  to  slaves,  indeed,  unlike  the  Jewish 
law,  the  Roman  law  never  recognised  such 
a  thing  as  their  marriage,  and  the  unions  be¬ 
tween  men  and  women  slaves,  which  might  be 
permitted  and  eA'en  respected  by  their  masters, 
were  of  no  more  legal  value  than  the  coupling 
of  domestic  animals,  although,  as  may  be  seen 
hereafter,  they  might  be  recognised  by  the  supe¬ 
rior  morality  of  the  church.  Where,  indeed,  a 
master  gave  away,  or  allowed  another  to  give 
away,  his  slave  girl  in  marriage  to  a  freeman, 
or  constituted  a  dos  upon  her,  Justinian  ruled 
(as  will  be  further  shewn  hereafter  under  the 
head  Contract)  that  this  should  amount  to 
an  enfranchisement  {Code,  bk.  vii.  t.  vi.  1.  9 ; 
22nd  Nov.  c.  11).  But  this  of  itself  shows 
that  marriage  and  slavery  were  held  to  be 
incompatible. 

The  principle  of  the  freedom  of  marriage,  and 
of  its  resting  mainly  on  the  consent  of  the 
parties,  stands  generally  recognised  in  Justi¬ 
nian’s  Code,  and  is  indeed  further  carried  out 
in  it.  “  None,”  says  a  constitution  of  Diocle¬ 
tian  and  Maximin,  “  can  be  compelled  either  to 
marry,  or  to  be  reconciled  after  divorce  ”  {Code, 
bk.  V.  t.  iv.  1.  14;  and  see  1.  12,  as  to  the  flius 
familias). 

On  the  other  hand,  several  enactments  of 
Justinian’s  Code  shew  that  the  law  looked  rather 
upon  marriage,  from  the  woman’s  point  of  view, 
as  the  choice  of  a  husband  for  Tier,  and  there¬ 
fore  held  that  in  the  determination  of  that 
choice,  the  counsel  or  even  the  jxidgment  of 
third  persons  might  be  called  in  {Code,  bk.  v. 
t.  iv.  1.  1,  20). 

The  influx  of  the  barbarian  nations  into  the 
empire  may  be  said  to  have  in  great  measure 
restored,  under  other  names,  those  stricter  views 
of  paternal  authority  which  had  belonged  to 
Rome’s  earlier  ages,  at  least  as  respects  women. 
In  the  Edict  of  Theodoric  we  And  a  provision 
that  “a  father  shall  not  be  compelled  against 
his  will  to  give  his  family  in  marriage  to  any  ” 
(c.  93).  In  the  Lombai’d  laws  the  mnndium 
recalls  the  Roman  potestas,  but  under  a  purely 
pecuniary  form,  and  instead  of  being  conflned 
to  Ihe  ascending  line,  seems  to  have  belonged  to 
the  nearest  male  relation.  Thus  by  a  law  of 
Rotharis  (638  or  643),  if  after  two  years’  be- 


■  trothal  the  man  does  not  claim  his  bride,  “  the 
father  or  brother  or  he  who  has  her  mnndiam  ” 
j  may  prosecute  the  surety  till  he  pays  her  meta 
or  jointure,  after  which  “they  may  give  her  to 
another  husband,  being  a  freeman”  (c.  178), 
A  widow  indeed  has  power,  if  she  choose,  to  go 
'to  another  husband,  being  a  freeman  (c.  182). 

I  And  the  woman’s  consent,  whether  girl  or 
widow,  has  always  great  weight  in  tl)e  eyes  of 
the  law.  Thus  it  takes  account  of  the  cases  of  a 
man  marrying  a  girl  or  widow  betrothed  to 
another,  “yet  with  her  consent”  (c.  190),  and 
in  like  manner  of  his  ravishing  either  with  her 
consent — the  term  apparently  meaning  here, 
carrying  away  without  marriage  (c.  191). 

Where  indeed  a  slave  married  a  freewoman 
with  her  consent,  her  parents  might  kill  her, 
or  sell  her  out  of  the  province  (c.  222).  The 
laws  of  Luitprand,  A.D,  717,  enact  penalties 
against  those  who  betroth  to  them.seives,  or 
marry,  girls  under  twelve,  but  a  father  or 
brother  may  give  or  betroth  his  daughter  or 
sister  at  any  age  (bk.  ii.  c.  6).  And  it  seems 
to  be  admitted  that  a  girl  of  twelve  may  “go 
to  a  hu.sband  ”  without  the  will  of  her  parents 
(bk.  vi.  c.  61,  and  see  c.  66;  a.d.  724).  The 
mnndium,  it  may  be  obseiwed,  appears  also  in 
'  the  law  of  the  Allamans,  latter  half  of  8th 
century.  , 

I  Under  the  law  of  the  Saxons,  a  man  who 
j  wished  to  marry  had  to  give  300  solidi  to  the 
girl’s  parents  (t.  iv.  1),  but  if  he  did  so  against 
the  parent’s  will,  she  consenting,  twice  that 
amount  (1.  2).  If  he  wished  to  marry  a  widow, 
he  must  offer  the  price  of  her  purchase  to  her 
guardian  (apparently  a  Latinized  expression  for 
the  mundoald,  or  mundxald,  holder  of  the  mnn¬ 
dium'),  her  relatives  consenting  thereto  (t.  vii. 
1.  3).  If  her  guardian  refused  the  money,  he 
must  turn  to  her  next  of  kin,  and  by  their 
consent  he  might  have  her,  but  he  must  have 
300  solidi  ready  to  give  to  the  guardian  (1.  4). 
Here  a  power  of  consent  in  the  kinsmen 
generally,  over  and  above  the  specific  powers  of 
the  holder  of  the  mnndium,  is  clearly  admitted. 

I  The  Burgundian  law  (originally  of  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  6th  century)  recognizes  also  some 
freedom  of  choice  in  the  woman,  especially  if  a 
widow.  Where  a  girl  of  her  own  accord  has 
sought  a  man,  he  has  to  pay  only  three  times 
the  “  price  of  marriage  ”  (nuptiale  pretium) 
instead  of  six  times,  which  he  would  have  to 
pay  if  he  had  carried  her  off  against  her  will 
(t.  xii.  cc.  1,  3 ;  see  also  t.  cxc.).  A  widow 
wishing  to  remarry  within  the  year  of  her 
husband’s  death,  is  said  to  have  “free  power” 
to  do  so  (t.  xlii.  c.  2  ;  law  of  A.D.  517).  But  in 
a  later  law,  a  power  of  consent  in  parents  seems 
to  be  indicated  (t.  lii.). 

The  Visigothic  law,  which  has  always  been 
held  to  bear  peculiar  marks  of  clerical  inspiration, 
is  especially  restrictive  of  the  woman’s  self  dis¬ 
posal.  A  law  of  Receswind,  allowing  for  the 
first  time  intermarriage  between  Goths  and 
Romans,  enacts  that  a  freeman  may  marry  a 
freewoman  with  the  solemn  consent  of  the 
ascendants  (“  prosapiae  ”),  and  the  permission  of 
the  court  (bk.  iii.  t.  i.  c.  1).  If  a  man  has 
betrothed  to  himself  a  girl  “with  the  will  of 
her  father  or  the  other  near  relatives  to  whom 
by  law  this  power  is  given,”  the  girl  may  not 
marry  another  against  the  will  of  her  rela- 


CONSENT  TO  MARRIAGE 

tives,  but  both  she  and  her  husband  shall  be  ' 
handed  over  to  the  power  of  the  man  who  had 
betrothed  her  with  the  will  of  her  relatives.”  i 
The  same  course  is  to  be  followed  if  the  father  j 
has  settled  for  the  marriage  of  his  daughter,  and  , 
agreed  upon  the  price ;  and  if  the  father  dies 
before  the  marriage,  the  girl  is  to  be  given  to 
him  to  whom  she  has  been  promised  by  her 
father  “  or  her  mothe'r  ”  (t.  2),  the  last  words 
implying  seemingly  a  power  of  consent  through¬ 
out  in  the  mother. 

The  consent  of  the  parties  is  not,  however, 
altogether  overlooked,  especially  after  betrothal,  [ 
when  neither  can  change  his  or  her  will  if  the 
other  will  not  consent  (c.  3 ;  law  of  Chindas-  I 
winth).  Where  girls  of  full  age  are  betrothed 
to  male  infants,  if  either  party  appears  to  object,  ' 
the  betrothal  cannot  stand  good.  Two  years  (as  ' 
in  the  Roman  law)  is  the  period  beyond  which 
the  fulfilment  of  the  betrothal  contract  cannot 
be  enforced,  unless  by  the  honest  and  projier 
consent  of  jiarents  or  relatives,  or  of  the  be¬ 
trothed  if  of  full  age  (c.  4).  And  a  girl’s 
actual  marriage  without  her  parents’  consent 
holds  good,  though  she  forfeits  her  share  in  their 
succession  (t.  ii.  c.  8  ;  and  see  also  t.  iv.  c.  7). 
And  the  law  admits  that  a  woman  may  be  in  a 
jiosition  to  dispose  of  herself — in  suo  arbitrio 
(t.  iv.  c.  2). 

The  Salic  law  hardly  shows  with  sufficient 
clearness  the  early  Frankish  view  as  to  consent 
to  marriage.  Towards  the  latter  half  of  the 
6th  century,  however,  a  general  constitution  of 
King  Clothar,  recorded  by  Labbe  and  Mansi, 
apparently  as  possessing  ecclesiastical  authority 
(^Councils,  vol.  ix.  p.  761)  enacts  that  “  none  by 
our  authority  shall  presume  to  seek  in  marriage 
a  widow  or  a  girl  without  their  own  will.” 
Two  centuries  later  the  Capitulary  of  Compibgne 
(a.,0.  757)  enacts  in  a  particular  case  that  “  if  any 
man  have  given  his  step-daughter,  being  a  Frank, 
against  her  will  and  that  of  her  mother  and 
relatives  lO  a  freeman,  slave,  or  cleric,  and  she 
will  not  have  him  and  leaves  him,  her  relatives 
have  power  to  give  her  another  husband  ”  (c.  4). 
The  implication  contained  in  the  above  text,  that 
marriage  of  a  freewoman  with  a  slave  might  by 
the  woman’s  own  consent  hold  good,  will  be 
r<»marked.  j 

Substantially,  with  an  exception  to  be  pre¬ 
sently  noticed,  the  Church  did  little  else  than 
follow  the  municipal  law  on  the  subject  of  con¬ 
sent,  eventually  adopting  the  Roman  civil  law  as 
the  basis  of  her  own.  If  we  except  a  canon  of 
doubtful  authority,  to  be  found  in  Gratian  (12th 
century),  attributed  either  to  the  4th  or  5th 
Council  of  Arles  (a.d.  524  or  554),  and  enacting 
that  widows,  before  professing  continence,  may 
marry  whom  they  will, — that  virgins  may  do  the 
same, — and  that  none  should  be  forced  to  accept 
a  husband  without  the  will  of  their  parents, — 
the  earliest  Church  enactments  seem  to  belong 
to  our  own  British  Isles.  An  Irish  synod  of  un¬ 
certain  date,  presided  over  by  St.  Patrick,  speaks 
thus :  “  What  the  father  wills,  that  let  the  girl  j 
do,  for  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man.  But 
the  will  of  the  girl  is  to  be  inquired  of  the  ' 
father  ”  (c.  27).  In  the  so-called  Excerpta  of 
Egbert,  archbishop  of  York,  in  the  8th  century, 
it  is  written  :  “  Parents  ought  to  give  women  to 
be  united  to  men  in  marriage,  unless  the  woman 
absolutely  refuse,  in  which  case  she  may  enter  a 


CONSENT  TO  MARRIAGE  435 

convent”  (bk.  ii.  c.  20);  not  a  very  wide  stretch 
of  female  freedom.  Further  on,  a  singular  provi¬ 
sion  allows  the  husband  whose  wife  has  deserted 
him,  and  refused  for  five  years  to  make  peace 
with  him,  to  marry  another  woman,  “  with  the 
bishop’s  consent  ”  (c.  26). 

The  Council  of  Friuli  (a.d.  791)  forbad  the 
marriage  of  infants,  requiring  parity  of  age  and 
mutual  consent.  The  Carlovingian  capitularies, 
which  have  a  sort  of  mixed  clerical  and  civil 
authority,  enact  amongst  other  things  that  none 
shall  marry  a  widow  “  without  the  consent  of 
her  priest  ”  (bk.  vi.  1.  408) ;  a  provision  which 
I’ecalls  one  already  noticed  from  the  Visigothic 
law,  that  marriage  shall  not  be  lawful  unless 
the  wife  be  sought  for  at  the  hands  of  those  who 
appear  to  have  power  over  the  woman,  and  under 
whose  protection  she  is  (bk.  vii.  1.  463) ;  an  enact¬ 
ment  which  is  either  the  original  or  a  slightly 
varied  replica  of  a  supposed  letter  by  Pope  Eva- 
ristus  (a.d.  112-21),  the  spuriousness  of  which 
has  been  shown  under  the  head  Benediction. 
It  is  however  also  enacted  that  women  are  not 
to  be  compelled  to  marry,  under  penalty  of  treble 
ban,  and  public  penance ;  or,  in  default  of  means, 
of  prison  or  banishment  (1.  470).  Lastly,  it  may 
be  mentioned  that  the  edict  of  Charlemagne  in 
814  requii'ed  inquiry  to  be  made,  amongst  other 
things,  as  to  men  who  had  wives  “  against  the 
will  of  their  parents.” 

On  one  point,  indeed,  we  may  trace  from  an 
early  period  a  marked  divergence  between  the 
practice  of  the  Church  and  the  Roman  law.  On 
the  subject  of  slave-marriages,  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  breathe  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish 
law,  not  of  the  Roman.  Not  only  are  slave- 
marriages  recognized,  but  it  is  treated  as  an 
offence  in  a  Christian  master  if  he  does  not 
“  give  ”  a  wife  to  his  man-slave  (bk.  viii.  c.  32  ; 
compare  Exod.  xxi.  4).  Again,  in  a  work  which 
perhaps  does  not  greatly  differ  in  date  from  the 
later  portions  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
St.  Basil’s  first  Canonical  Epistle,  addressed  to 
Amphilochius,  bishop  of  Iconium,  the  writer, 
treating  evidently  of  slaA^e-marriages,  says:  “A 
woman  who  has  given  herself  to  a  man  against 
her  master’s  will  has  committed  adultery  ”  (c.  40). 
And  again  more  generall)^ :  “  Marriages  without 
the  will  of  those  who  have  authority  (Sveu  rStv 
Kparovi/Twv)  are  adulteries  ;  and  therefore  during 
the  life  of  the  father  or  master  (Setm-oToo)  they 
cannot  be  free  from  impeachment  until  the  assent 
of  such  ”  [termed  here  Kvpioi,  lords]  “  be  ob¬ 
tained  ;  for  then  does  the  marriage  acquire  firm¬ 
ness  ”  (c.  42).  Harsh  as  is  the  tone  of  these 
passages  towards  the  victims  of  slavery,  it  is 
clear  that  for  Basil  the  relation  of  the  slave  to 
the  master  is  not  the  heathen  one  of  the  thing 
to  ito  owner,  but  one  exactly  analogous  to  that 
of  the  child  to  its  father.  Father  and  master 
have  indeed  alike  the  quasi-sovereign  power  of  a 
Kvpios ;  the  marriage  of  those  under  their 
authority  is  void  without  their  assent,  but  it  is 
firm  (Be/Satos)  with  it. 

Somewhat  less  than  two  centuries  later  (a.d. 
541),  the  24th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Orleans 
requires  slaves  who  flee  for  sanctuary  to  churches 
in  order  to  marry  to  be  returned  to  their  masters 
and  separated,  unless  their  parents  and  masters 
will  let  them  marry.  This  is  again  a  harsh- 
toned  enactment,  but  one  which  really  indicates 
a  nse  in  the  slave’s  condition.  Hitherto  the 

2  F 


436 


CONSIGNATORIUM 


inastex’’s  consent  has  been  the  sole  condition  of 
validity  for  the  slave’s  marriage  ;  Basil  himself 
assimilated  his  authority  over  the  slave  to  that  ■ 
of  a  father.  Now  the  existence  of  a  parental 
authority  is  recognized  in  the  slave  himself  to¬ 
wards  his  own  olfspring,  and  the  slave-parent’s 
consent  is  placed  on  a  level  with  that  of  the 
master. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  6th  century,  again  | 
(a.d.  581),  a  .canon  (iO)  of  the  1st  Council  of 
Macon  expressly  enacts  that  if  two  slaves  inter¬ 
marry  with  their  master’s  consent,  after  the 
enfi’anchisement  of  either  the  marriage  is  not 
dissolved,  though  the  other  be  not  redeemable  ; 
a  step  in  advance  of  anything  to  be  found  in  the 
records  of  American  slavery  in  modern  times. 
And  in  the  Carlovingian  era,  the  marriage  of 
slaves  with  the  master’s  consent  obtains  civil 
as  well  as  ecclesiastical  validity.  A  capitulary 
annexed  to  the  Lombard  laws  enacts  “  That  the 
marriages  of  slaves  be  not  dissolved,  if  they  have 
had  different  masters,  ....  but  so  nevertheless 
that  the  marriage  itself  be  legal,  and  by  the  will 
of  their  masters  ”  (c.  129).  The  30th  canon  of 
the  2nd  Council  of  Chalons,  A.D.  813,  is  pre¬ 
cisely  to  the  same  effect. 

On  the  whole  it  may  be  said  that,  except  so 
far  as  relates  to  the  marriage  of  slaves,  the  rule 
of  the  Church  in  respect  of  the  consents  necessary 
to  the  validity  of  marriage  became  hardly  settled 
during  the  period  which  occupies  us.  The 
necessity  for  the  free  consent  of  the  parties 
them.selves  was  never  entirely  lost  sight  of ;  but 
in  outlying  regions,  and  under  the  pressure  of 
barbarian  feelings  in  certain  races,  the  authority 
of  the  father  over  a  daughter  was  almost  acknow¬ 
ledged  as  absolute ;  whilst  elsewhere  a  claim  of 
the  family  at  large  to  interfere  was  at  least 
tacitly  admitted.  Towards  the  end  of  the 
period,  indeed,  in  two  instances  the  priest  or 
bishop  himself  was  made  a  consenting  party.  In 
no  instance  however  is  marriage  when  actually 
contracted  (except  as  between  slaves)  treated 
as  void  or  voidable  for  want  of  the  consent  of 
a  thii-d  person.  As  to  consents  to  Betrothal, 
see  that  word.  See  also  generally  Contract  of 
Marriage.  [J.  M.  L.] 

CONSIGNATORIUM.  To  bless  bv  the  use 
of  the  sign  of  the  cross,  as  in  confirmation,  is 
termed  consignmre ;  hence  the  word  consigna- 
torium  is  occasionally  used  to  designate  the  place 
set  apart  for  that  rite.  John  the  Deacon  of  Naples 
(^Chronicon  Episc.  Neap.')  says  that  Bishop  John 
(about  616)  erected  a  beautiful  building,  called 
consignntorium  ablut07'um,  so  arranged  that  the 
newly  baptized  should  pass  in  on  one  side,  be 
presented  to  the  bishop  who  sat  in  the  midst, 
and  then  pass  out  by  the  other  side.  This 
arrangement  was  probably  somewhat  ])eculiar ; 
the  Pseudo-Alcuin  at  least  (DeEiv.Off.c.  19), 
describing  the  ceremonies  of  Easter-Kve,  says 
that  the  newly  baptized  were  confirmed  in  the 
sacrarinm.  (Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.  ‘  Consig- 
natorium.’)  [C.] 

CONSISTENTES.  [Penitence.] 

CONSTANTIA,  martyr  at  Nuceria  under 
Nero,  Sept.  19  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CONSTANTINE,  bishop,  deposition  at  Gap  in 
France,  April  12  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CONSTANTINE  THE  GREAT,  Emperor. 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

Con.stantiue  and  his  mother  Helena,  IcraTrScrTo- 
Koi,  are  commemorated  May  21  {Cal.  Byzant.)', 
June  18  {Cal.  Arrncn.)',  Magabit  28  =  March 
24  {Cal.  Etkiop.).  Constantine  is  sep irately 
commemorated  on  Nov.  16  in  the  Giorgian 
Calendar.  [C.] 

CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF. 

(1)  A.D.  336  (Mansi,  ii.  1167-70)  held  by  the 
Eusebians  under  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  at  which 
St.  Athanasius  was  exiled  to  Treves,  Marcellus 
of  Ancyra,  with  several  other  bishops  depo.scd, 
and  Aldus  ordered  to  be  received  into  communion 
by  the  Alexandrine  Church.  According  to  Ruf- 
finus  {Hist.  i.  12),  it  was  convened  by  order  of 
the  emperor,  viz.,  Constantine  the  Great,  and 
according  to  Ensebius  the  historian  {cont.  Marcel. 
i.  4),  it  was  exclusively  gathered  together  from 
the  upper  provinces  of  Asia  Minor,  from  Thrace, 
and  the  parts  beyond  it ;  in  other  words,  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  capital.  It  .seems  to  have 
met  in  February,  and  not  separated  till  the  end 
of  July,  so  that  its  proceedings  spread  over  nearly 
six  months. 

(2)  A.D.  339,  or  according  to  Pagi,  340,  by 
order  of  the  Emperor  Constant ius,  to  depo.se 
Paul,  the  newly  elected  bishop  there,  whose 
orthodoxy  displeased  him,  and  translate  Eusebius, 
his  favourite,  from  Nicomedia  to  the  imperial 
see  (Mansi,  ii.  1275). 

(3)  A.D.  360  (Mansi,  iii.  325-36),  composed  of 
deputies  from  the  council  of  Seleucia,  just  over, 
with  some  bishops  summoned  from  Bithynia,  to 
meet  them,  about  fifty  in  all  (Soc.  ii.  41  and  seq.). 
Most  of  the  former  were  partisans  of  the  metro¬ 
politan  of  Caesarea,  whose  name  was  Acacius, 
and  Semi-Arians.  A  creed  was  published  by 
them,  being  the  9th,  says  Socrate.s,  that  had 
come  out  since  that  of  Nicaea.  It  was,  in  fact, 
what  had  been  rehearsed  at  Rimini,  with  tho 
further  declaration  that  neither  substance  nor 
hypostasis  wei’e  permissible  terms  in  speaking  of 
God.  The  Son  was  pronounced  to  be  like  the 
Father  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  Aetius, 
who  maintained  the  contrary  opinion,  Avas  con¬ 
demned.  A  synodical  epistle  to  George,  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  who.se  presbyter  he  was,  conveyed 
the  sentence  passed  upon  him  and  his  followers. 
Several  bishops  were  deposed  at  the  same  time ; 
among  whom  were  Macedonius,  bishop  of  Constan¬ 
tinople,  Eleusius  of  Cyzicum,  Basilius  of  Ancyra, 
and  last,  but  not  least,  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem — 
all  for  various  causes.  Ten  bishops, who  declined 
subscribing  to  these  depositions,  were  to  consider 
themselves  deposed  till  they  subscribed.  Ulphilas, 
bishop  of  the  Goths,  who  had  hitherto  profes.sed 
the  Nicene  faith,  was  one  of  those  present,  and 
joined  in  their  creed.  Eudoxius  managed  to  slip 
from  Antioch  into  the  vacancy  created  by  the 
deposition  of  Macedonius.  On  the  other  hand, 
Eustathius  of  Sebaste  was  not  allowed  CA'en  a 
hearing,  as  having  been  previously  deposed  at 
the  synod  of  Caesarea,  in  Asia  Minor,  under  his 
own  father,  Eulalius. 

(4)  The  2nd  general,  met  in  May,  A.D.  381, 
to  re-asserable  the  following  year,  for  reasons 
explained  by  the  bishops  in  their  synodical  letter 
of  that  date  (Mansi,  iii.  583,  note).  Owing  to 
this  circumstance,  and  to  the  fact  that  its  acts 
have  been  lost,  its  proceedings  are  not  easy  to 
unravel.  Socrates  begins  his  account  of  it  by 
saying  that  the  Emperor  Theodosius  convened  a 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

council  of  bishops  of  the  same  faith  as  himself, 
in  order  that  the  faith  settled  at  Nicaea  might 
prevail,  and  a  bishop  be  appointed  to  the  see  of 
Constantinople  (v.  8).  That  the  bishops  met  at 
his  bidding  is  testified  by  themselves  in  their 
short  address  to  him  subsequ'ently,  to  confirm 
what  they  had  decreed  (Mansi,  ib.  557),  to  say 
nothing  of  other  proofs,  for  which  see  Beveridge 
(^Sipiod.  ii.  89).  Whether  they  re-assembled  at 
his  bidding  we  are  not  told.  Of  their  number 
there  has  never  been  any  dispute,  this  council 
having  in  fact  gone  by  the  name  of  that  of  “  the 
150  (pt^)  fathers”  ever  since.  There  were  36 
bishops  of  the  Macedonian  party  likewise  invited, 
but  they  quitted  Constantinople  in  a  body  when 
they  found  that  it  was  the  faith  of  the  Nicene 
fathers  to  which  they  would  be  called  upon  to 
subscribe.  Of  those  present,  Timothy,  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  St.  Meletius  of  Antioch,  who  presided 
at  first,  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Ascholius,  bishop 
of  Thessalonica,  St.  Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  ^ 
with  the  twoGregories  of  Nazianzum  and  Nyssa, 
were  the  most  considerable,  Nectarius  and  Fla¬ 
vian  being  added  to  their  number  before  they 
separated.  Dionysius  Exiguus  (Mansi,  iii.  568- 
72)  has  presei’ved  the  names  of  all  who  sub¬ 
scribed.  Seven  canons  and  a  creed  would  appear 
at  first  sight  to  have  been  submitted  to  the  em¬ 
peror  by  the  assembled  fathers  for  confirmation 
at  the  close  of  their  labours.  John  Scholasticus, 
however,  the  Greek  collector  of  canons  in  the 
6th  century,  contemporary  with  Dionysius  Exi¬ 
guus,  reckons  only  six  (ap.  Justell.  Uibl.  Jur. 
Canon,  ii.  502).  Dionysius  himself  only  three ; 
but  then  he  has  appended  the  4th  to  the  2nd. 
The  creed  follows  in  his  version  as  in  the  Greek. 
Isidore  Mercator  makes  six  canons  out  of  his 
three,  and  numbers  the  creed  as  a  7th. 
Another  Latin  version  given  in  Mansi  makes  five 
canons  out  of  his  three,  and  omits  the  creed. 
The  Arabic  paraphrase  (ib.')  makes  four  in  all, 
without  the  creed ;  but,  in  addition  to  his  three, 
setting  down  as  a  fourth  canon  6  of  the  Greek 
version.  Whether  any  canons  have  been  lost 
seems  to  admit  of  some  doubt.  Socrates,  as  is 
well  known,  speaks  of  the  establishment  of 
patriarchs  as  one  of  the  things  done  by  this 
council :  and  the  Arabic  paraphrase,  under  a 
separate  heading,  “concerning  the  order  of  the 
prelates,  and  their  rank  and  place,”  explains  this 
as  follows :  “  Honour  besides,  and  the  primacy, 
was  granted  in  this  council  to  the  bishop  of  Rome, 
and  he  was  made  first,  the  bishop  of  Constanti¬ 
nople  second,  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  third,  the 
bishop  of  Antioch  fourth,  and  the  bishop  of 
Jerusalem  fifth” — which  is  the  more  remarkable 
as  neither  it  nor  Socrates  omit  the  canon  ordain¬ 
ing  special  prerogatives  for  new  Rome.  As 
Beveridge  well  remarks,  it  is  one  difficulty  con¬ 
nected  with  these  canons  (Synod,  ii.  98),  that  in 
all  probability  they  were  not  all  passed  at  the 
same  council.  This,  and  a  good  deal  more  bear¬ 
ing  upon  the  history  of  the  council,  will  come 
out  as  we  examine  them.  Canon  1  confirms  the 
doctrine  of  the  318  Nicene  Fathers,  condemning 
in  particular  the  errors  of  the  Eunornians  or 
Anomaeans — in  other  words,  the  extreme  Arians 
— the  Eudoxians  or  Arians  pure,  and  the  Semi- 
Arians  or  Pneumatomachi — fighters  against  the 
Holy  Spirit — with  the  followers  of  Sabellius, 
Marcellus,  Photinus,  and  Apollinaris.  Of  these 
the  Semi-Arians  engaged  most  attention  by 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF  437 

far  here,  from  the  further  error  into  which  they 
had  fallen  of  late  respecting  the  Divinity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  All,  in  short,  that  was  ruled  by 
this  council  on  doctrine  was  directed  against 
them  exclusively.  But,  as  such,  they  were  more 
properly  termed  Macedonians  than  Semi-Arian.s, 
from  Macedonius,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  de¬ 
posed  at  the  synod  held  there  A.D.  360,  for 
various  crimes,  and  afterwards  founder  of  the 
sect  called  “  Pneumatomachi.”  For  obvious 
reasons  they  are  not  designated  here  from  the 
name  of  their  founder.  What  their  errors  were  we 
shall  see  presently.  Canon  2  confines  each  bishop 
to  his  own  diocese,  in  particular  the  bishop  of 
Alexandria  is  restricted  to  Egypt,  the  bishops  of 
the  East  to  the  East  alone,  the  privileges  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch,  in  conformity  with  the 
Nicene  canons,  being  maintained :  the  bishops  of 
Asia,  that  is,  Asia  Minor,  to  the  South-West, 
Pontus  and  Thrace,  similarly  to  their  respective 
limits.  By  the  word  “  diocese  ”  is  meant,  as 
Beveridge  shows  (p.  93),  a  tract  embracing  seve¬ 
ral  provinces.  The  events  which  had  led  to  this 
enactment  require  some  notice.  Immediately  on 
the  death  of  Valens  (Clinton’s  Fasti  F.  a.d.  379, 
col.  4),  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  appeared  at  Con¬ 
stantinople,  whither  he  was  invited  by  the  ortho¬ 
dox  party  refusing  obedience  to  Deinophilus,  the 
Arian  bishop  in  possession.  He  was  consecrated 
by  St.  Meletius  of  Antioch,  who  thus  went  out 
of  his  diocese  to  ordain  him.  Peter,  bishop  of 
Alexandria — then  reckoned  the  second  see  in  the 
world  after  Rome — not  to  be  outdone,  nominated 
Maximus  the  cynic,  as  he  was  called  from  his 
philosophical  antecedents,  to  the  post,  and  de¬ 
puted  three  bishops  from  Egypt  to  carry  out  his 
consecration  on  the  spot.  Maximus  had  pre¬ 
viously  seemed  to  take  part  with  Gregory,  and 
Theodosius  rejected  him,  when  he  appeared  as 
his  rival  (Clinton,  ib.  and  Vales,  ad  Soz.  vii.  9). 
This  conflict  of  the  two  sees,  howev'er,  terminated 
in  the  resignation  of  Gregory,  soon  after  the 
meeting  of  the  council,  though  he  was  declared 
bishop  there,  and  all  that  related  to  Maximu's 
annulled  in  a  special  canon — the  4th. 

Most  probably,  the  3rd  canon,  ordaining  that 
in  future  the  see  of  Constantinople  should  take 
honorary  precedence  (ra  irpea^da  'lys  riyi^s) 
next  after  Rome,  was  intended  to  prevent  the 
bishops  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria  from  ever 
attempting  to  take  such  liberties  with  it  again. 

Another  event  had  occurred  meanwhile  (Clin¬ 
ton,  ib.  col.  4),  which  may  be  supposed  to  ac¬ 
count  for  the  .salvo  to  the  privileges  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch,  exnressed  in  the  2nd  canon. 
St.  Meletius  of  Antioch  had  died  “during  the 
session  between  May  and  July.”  The  funeral 
oration  pronounced  over  him  by  St.  Gregory  ot 
Nyssa  is  still  extant,  but  it  contains  no  historical 
allusions.  There  had  been  a  compact  entered 
into  between  his  party  and  that  of  St.  Paulinus 
at  Antioch  two  years  before — where  they  were 
rival  bishops — that  both  parties,  whenever  either 
of  the  bishops  died,  should  unite  under  the  sur- 
A'ivor  of  them.  In  spite  of  this  understanding, 
Flavian,  who  had  been  one  of  the  chief  j)romoters 
of  it  among  the  supporters  of  St.  Meletius,  w'as 
unanimously  appointed  bishop  in  his  stead  by 
the  council  (Cave,  Hist.  Lit.  i.  277  and  364). 
This  act  not  merely  re-opened  the  schism  at 
Antioch,  but  produced  heart-burnings  elsewhere, 
the  Western  and  Egyptian  bishops  pronouncing 


438  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

more  strongly  than  ever  in  favour  of  St.Paulinus,  ' 
and  the  disapj)robation  shown  for  Flavian  by  St. 
Gregory,  tending  to  alienate  numbers  of  his  own 
friends  from  liim  amongst  the  Easterns.  It  was, 
in  fact,  one  of  the  principal  causes  of  his  retire¬ 
ment.  The  appointment  of  his  successor,  Nec- 
tarius,  at  the  instance  of  the  emperor,  was  pro¬ 
bably  the  last  act  of  tne  council  of  this  year — 
and  a  strong  act  it  was,  as  Nectarius  had  to  be 
baptised  before  he  could  be  consecrated  (Soz.  vii. 
8).  Dionysius  Exiguus,  as  has  been  said,  ends 
his  canons  of  this  council  with  the  4th.  As 
Beveridge,  too,  remarks  (ib.  p.  98),  traces  of  a 
new  series  commence  with  the  5th.  It  runs  as 
follows: — “  Concerning  the  tome  of  the  Westerns, 
we,  too,  have  received  those  who  professed 
their  belief,  at  Antioch,  in  one  Godhead  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.”  What  was  this 
tome  of  the  Westerns?  Beveridge  considers  it 
to  have  been  the  synodical  epistle  received  from 
Pope  Damasus  by  the  Easterns  at  their  second 
meeting,  A.D.  382,  to  which  they  wrote  their 
own  in  reply.  De  Marca,  Cave,  and  others  pre¬ 
fer  to  consider  it  a  synodical  letter  of  Pope  Da¬ 
masus,  addressed  to  the  synod  of  Antioch  A.D. 
378  or  9.  Baronius,  another  of  his  to  St.  Pauli- 
nus  of  Antioch  some  years  before.  May  it  not 
be  that  the  first  tome  of  the  kind  was  the 
letter  sent  by  St.  Athanasius  in  the  name  of  his 
synod  at  Alexandria,  A.D.  362,  to  the  Church  of 
Antioch,  which  he  calls  “  a  tome  ”  himself,  to 
which  St.  Paulinus  is  expres.sly  said  to  have  sub¬ 
scribed,  and  in  which  the  indivisibility  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  from  the  substance  both  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son  is  as  distinctly  set  forth  as 
it  ever  was  afterwards  (Mansi,  iii.  353-4). 
Through  Eusebius  of  Vercelli,  to  whom  it  was 
addressed,  and  by  whom  it  was  in  due  time  sub¬ 
scribed,  it  would  find  its  way  into  the  West  and 
to  Rome,  as  the  rallying  point  of  the  orthodox,  and 
a  bond  of  union,  under  existing  circumstances, 
between  the  sees  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Rome,  whose  acceptance  of  its  doctrine  can  scarce 
have  become  known  to  each  other  before  Mace- 
donius,  the  ex-patriarch  of  Constantinople,  com¬ 
menced  assailing  the  Divinity  of  the  third  person 
in  the  Godhead.  On  this,  it  would  immediately 
give  rise  to,  and  be  the  foundation  of,  a  series  of 
“  tomes  ”  or  epistles  of  the  same  kind  between 
them,  in  which  Constantinople,  being  in  Arian 
hands,  would  take  no  part,  nor  Alexandria  much, 
owing  to  the  banishment  of  its  orthodox  prelate, 
Peter,  from  A.D.  373  to  378,  under  Valens.  St. 
Meletius  had  also  been  d.’dven  from  Antioch  a 
year  earlier;  but  then  we  are  told  expressly  by 
Sozomen  (vi.  7),  his  orthodox  rival,  St.  Paulinus 
was  allowed  to  remain ;  and  this  would  account 
for  the  correspondence  that  v/ent  on  between 
him  and  Pope  Damasus  uninterruptedly  while 
St.  Meletius  was  away,  and  of  which  the  promi¬ 
nent  topic  was  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Now,  as  Mansi  points  out  (iii.  463-8),  the  synods 
of  Antioch  and  Rome  are  confusedly  given  about 
this  time.  There  are  traces  of  a  synod  of  An¬ 
tioch,  as  well  as  of  another  at  Rome,  A.D.  372 ; 
but  the  acts  of  both  have  not  hitherto  been  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  those  of  two  later  synods  at 
Rome,  A.D.  377,  and  at  Antioch,  the  year  or  two 
years  following,  under  St.  Meletius,  on  the  re¬ 
turn  of  the  exiles.  And  one  thing  may  well  be 
thought  to  have  been  agreed  upon  at  the  first  of 
these  synods  of  Antioch,  and  possibly  Rome  too, 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

which  was  afterwards  confirmed  in  the  2nd,  and 
is  evidently  referred  to  by  the  Constantinopolitan 
fathers  in  their  synodical  letter,  namely,  the 
creed  in  its  enlarged  form.  And  for  this  reason 
— St.  Epiphanius,  bishop  of  Salamis  in  Cyprus, 
was  another  of  the  orthodox  bishops  who  was 
not  disturbed  in  his  see;  and  his  see,  whether 
subject  to  Antioch  or  not,  then,  must  have 
brought  him  into  frequent  communication  with 
it,  even  if  he  had  not  been  a  personal  friend  of 
St.  Paulinus,  or  was  not  present  at  the  synod 
held  there  A.D.  372.  Now,  in  c.  119  of  his  woi'k 
called  Ancoratus,  of  which  he  fixes  the  date  him¬ 
self  in  the  next  c.,  viz.,  a.d.  373,  what  was 
rehearsed  afterwards  at  the  council  of  Chalcedon 
as  the  creed  of  the  150  fathers,  that  is,  of  this 
council  of  Constantinople,  is  set  down  word  for 
woj’d,  so  far  as  its  new  clauses  are  concerned,  and 
called  that  of  Nicaea  by  him.  Admit  this  form 
to  have  been  agreed  upon  at  the  synod  of  Antioch, 
in  conjunction,  or  not,  with  that  of  Rome,  A.D. 
372,  and  his  own  use  of  it  the  year  following,  as 
the  authorised  creed  of  the  Church,  is  explained 
at  once,  nor  is  there  any  reason  why  St.  Gregory 
Nyssen,  if  he  comjjosed  it  at  all — as  stated  by 
Nicephorus  alone  (xii.  13)  —  should  not  have 
composed  it  there.  But  Valens  coming  to 
Antioch  in  April  (Clinton,  a.d.  372,  col.  2),  to 
persecute  the  orthodox,  the  probability  would 
be  that  this  synod  was  hastily  broken  up,  and 
remained  in  abeyance  till  A.D.  378  or  9,  when 
its  proceedings  were  resumed  under  St.  Meletius, 
and  confirmed  by  163  bishops,  and  with  its  pro¬ 
ceedings  this  creed.  All  at  the  same  time  then 
and  there  .subscribed  to  the  Western  tome  or 
letter  of  Pope  Damasus.  Hence,  both  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  5th  Constantinopolitan  canon  above 
mentioned,  and  of  the  fathers  who  framed  it,  in 
their  synodical  letter,  where  they  say  that 
“  this,  their  faith,  which  they  had  professed 
there  summarily,  might  be  learnt  more  fully 
by  their  Western  brethren,  on  their  being  so 
good  as  to  refer  to  ‘  the  tome  ’  that  emanated 
from  the  synod  of  Antioch,  and  that  set  forth  by 
the  oecumenical  council  of  Constantinople  the 
year  before,  in  which  documents  they  had  pro¬ 
fessed  their  faith  at  greater  length.”  Now', 
what  they  had  set  forth  themselves  w'as  their 
adherence  to  the  Nicene  faith  and  reprobation 
of  the  heresies  enumerated  in  their  first  canon ; 
what  they  had  received  from  Antioch  and  ac¬ 
cepted  must  have  been  the  creed  which  has  since 
gone  by  their  name,  but  was  certainly  not  their 
composition  ;  and  w'hatever  else  was  confirmed 
there,  A.D.  378,  including  the  Western  tome. 
Which  of  the  letters  of  Pope  Damasus  is  here 
specified  comes  out  as  plainly.  His  letter  to  St. 
Paulinus  was  written  A.D.  372,  W'hen  there  was 
nobody  left  at  Antioch  but  St.  Paulinus  to  write 
to.  The  letter  addre.ssed  in  his  owm  name  and 
that  of  the  93  bishops  with  him,  “  to  the 
Catholic  bishops  of  the  East,”  was  “  the  tome  ” 
received  by  the  synod  at  Antioch  a.d.  378-9 
(Mansi,  ib.  p.  459-62);  to  which  they  replied 
the  same  year  (/6.  p.  511-15).  Both  letters 
being  on  the  same  subject — as  were  the  synods 
of  372  and  378-9 — it  was  easy  to  confuse  them. 
Amphilochius,  bishop  of  Iconium,  held  a  synod 
and  wrote  on  the  same  subject  about  the  same 
time  (i6.  p.  503—8). 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  deal  with  the 
synodical  letter  of  the  reassembled  council 


COxVSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

of  Constantinople  A.D.  382,  and  their  pro¬ 
ceedings  generally.  Finding  there  were  still 
ecclesiastical  matters  of  urgent  importance  to  be 
settled,  most  of  the  bishops  who  had  met  at 
Constantinople  A.D.  381,  returned  thither,  as 
Theodoret  relates,  the  following  summer  (Mansi 
ad  Baron.  A.D.  382,  n.  3).  One  of  their  number, 
indeed,  Ascholius,  bishop  of  Thessalonica,  and 
SS.  Epiphanius  and  Jerome  with  him,  had  gone 
meanwhile  to  Rome.  Being  at  Constantinople, 
they  received  a  synodical  letter  from  the  West, 
inviting  them  to  Rome,  where  a  large  gathering 
was  in  contemplation.  This  letter  having  been 
lost,  we  can  only  guess  at  its  contents  from  what 
they  say  in  reply  to  it,  coupled  with  their  5th 
canon,  which  was  evidently  framed  in  conse¬ 
quence.  The  affairs  of  the  East  being  in  immi¬ 
nent  peril  and  confusion,  they  beg  to  be  excused 
going  away  so  far  from  their  sees.  They  had 
come  to  Constantinople  on  account  of  what  had 
been  written  by  the  West  after  the  synod  of 
Aquileia  the  year  before  to  the  Emperor  Theo¬ 
dosius — evidently  the  letter  in  which  the  conse¬ 
crations  of  Flavian  and  Nectarius  are  mentioned 
disapprovingly  (Mansi,  ib.  p.  631-2) — but  had 
made  no  preparations  for  going  further  from 
home.  The  most  they  could  do  would  be  to  send 
deputies  into  the  VVest.  Cyriacus,  Eusebius, 
and  Priscian  are  named,  to  explain  their  pro¬ 
ceedings,  which  they  then  epitomise,  commencing 
with  what  has  been  anticipated  above  about  their 
faith,  and  ending  with  the  statement  that  Nec¬ 
tarius  and  Flavian  had  been  appointed  canonically 
to  their  respective  sees,  while  St.  Cyril  was 
recognised  by  them  as  bishop  of  Jerusalem  for 
the  same  reason.  Thus  this  letter  explains  the 
framing  of  their  5th  canon,  and  attests  its  date. 
The  same  date  is  assigned  by  Beveridge  to 
canon  6,  restricting  tho  manner  of  instituting 
proceedings  against  bishops,  and  reprobating 
appeals  to  tho  secular  power.  But  canon  7, 
prescribing  the  distinctions  to  be  observed  in 
adm.itting  heretics  into  communion,  is  shown  by 
him  not  to  belong  to  this  council  at  all.  It  is 
almost  identical  with  the  95th  Trullan  canon 
(Bev.  ad  1.).  Of  the  ereed,  little  moi-e  need  be 
added  to  what  has  been  said.  It  was  in  existence 
A.D.  373,  having  been  probably  framed  at 
Antioch,  in  conformity  with  the  synodical  letter 
of  St.  Athanasius,  A.D.  372,  where  it  was  doubt¬ 
less  confirmed  A.D.  378-9,  and  received  more 
probably  by  the  5th  canon  of  this  council  A.D. 
382,  than  promulgated  separately  by  the  council 
of  the  year  preceding.  Possibly  this  may  have 
been  the  creed  called  by  Cassian  (^De  Tncarn.  vi. 
3  and  6)  as  late  as  A.D.  430,  “  peculiarly  tbe 
creed  of  the  city  and  Church  of  Antioch.”  From 
the  portion  of  it  given  by  him  it  is  as  likely  to  have 
been  this,  as  that  of  A.D.  363  (for  which  see 
Soc.  iii.  25),  or  any'  other  between  them.  That 
there  is  a  family  likeness  between  it  and  the 
creed  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  commented  on 
by  St.  Cyril  will  be  seen  on  comparing  them 
(Heurtley’s  De  Fide  et  S.  p.  9-13).  On  this 
hypothesis  alone  we  can  understand  why  no 
notice  should  have  been  taken  of  it  at  the 
council  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  431,  and  in  the  African 
code,  namely,  because  it  had  originated  with  a 
provincial,  and  only  been  as  yet  received  by  a 
general  council.  It  was  promulgated  as  identical 
with  that  of  Nicaea  for  the  first  time  by  the 
fathers  of  the  4th  council. 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF  439 

No  more  remains  but  to  observe  that  the  dog¬ 
matic  professions  of  the  council  of  381  were  con¬ 
firmed  by  Theodosius  in  a  constitution  dated 
July  30  of  the  same  year,  and  addressed  to 
Antonius,  proconsul  of  Asia,  by  which  the 
churches  are  ordered  to  be  handed  over  to  the 
bishops  in  communion  with  Nectarius  and  others 
who  composed  it,  the  Eunomians,  Arians,  and 
Antians  having  been  deprived  of  their  churches 
by  a  constitution  issued  ten  days  earlier  (CW. 
Theod.  xvi.  tit.  1,  1.  3,  and  tit.  5,  1.  8).  And  it 
was  received  by  Pope  Damasus,  and  has  been 
regarded  in  the  West  ever  since,  so  far,  as  oecu¬ 
menical.  Its  first  four  canons,  in  the  same  way, 
have  been  always  admitted  into  Western  collec¬ 
tions.  But  what  pas.sed  at  the  supplemental 
council  of  382  never  seems  to  have  been  con¬ 
firmed  or  received  equally.  It  was  in  declining 
to  come  to  this  last  council  that  St.  Gregory 
Nazianzen  said,  in  his  epistle  to  Procopius  (cxxx. 
ed.  Migne),  “  that  he  had  come  to  the  resolution 
of  avoiding  every  meeting  of  bishops,  for  that  he 
had  never  seen  any  synod  end  well,  or  assuage 
rather  than  aggravate  disorders.”  His  cele¬ 
brated  oration  (i6.  xlii.),  known  as  his  “farewell” 
to  the  council  of  381,  is  inspired  by  a  very 
different  spirit. 

Lastly,  there  was  a  third  meeting  of  bishops 
held  at  Constantinople,  by  command  of  Theo¬ 
dosius,  A.D.  383,  Under  Nectarius,  to  devise 
remedies  for  the  confusion  created  by  so  manv 
sees  passing  out  of  the  hands  of  the  heterodox 
into  those  of  the  orthodox  party  (Soc.  v.  10). 
The  Arian,  Eunomian,  and  Macedonian  bishops 
were  required  to  attend  there  with  confessions 
of  their  faith,  which  the  emperor,  after  examin¬ 
ing  carefully,  rejected  in  favour  of  Nicaea.  The 
Novatians  alone,  receiving  this,  were  placed  by 
him  upon  equal  terms  with  the  orthodox.  Of 
the  heterodox  professions,  that  of  Eunomius  is 
extant,  and  not  without  interest.  It  may  be 
seen  in  Cave  (^Hist.  Lit.  i.  210).  It  is  said  to 
have  been  on  this  occasion  that  Ampbilochius, 
bishop  of  Iconium,  on  entering  the  palace,  made 
the  usual  obeisance  to  Theodosius,  but  took  no 
notice  of  Arcadius,  his  son,  standing  at  his  side. 
When  the  emperor  reproved  him  for  this,  “  You 
see,  sire,”  said  the  bishop,  “  how  impatient  you 
are  that  your  own  son  should  be  slighted ;  much 
more  will  God  punish  those  who  refuse  due 
honour  to  his  only  begotten  Son”  (Theod.  v.  16). 

(6)  A.D.  394 — reckoning  that  of  383  as  the 
5th.  Among  those  present  were  Nectarius  of 
Constantinople,  Theophilus  of  Alexandila,  Flavian 
of  Antioch,  &c.  What  called  them  together,  in 
all  probability,  was  the  dedication  of  a  new 
church  in  honour  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul :  which 
done,  they  sat  in  judgment  on  a  controversy 
between  two  rival  bishops  of  Bo.stra,  Bagadius, 
and  Agapius ;  against  the  former  of  whom  it 
was  pleaded  that  he  had  been  deposed  by  two 
bishops,  since  dead.  The  council  decreed  that, 
in  future,  not  even  three,  much  less  two,  bishops 
should  have  the  power  of  deposing  another,  but 
that,  in  conformity  with  the  apostolic  canons 
(and  this  express  reference  to  them  in  such  an 
assemblage  is  most  noteworthy),  it  should  be 
held  to  belong  to  a  larger  synod,  and  the  bishops 
of  the  province  (Mansi,  iii.  851—4). 

(7)  A.D.  399,  of  22  bishops  under  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom,  to  enquire  into  seven  capital  charges 
brought  against  Antoninus,  bishop  of  Ephesus, 


440  CONSTANTINOrLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

As  he  died  before  the  witnesses  could  be  exa¬ 
mined,  St.  Chrysostom,  at  the  request  of  the 
Ephesine  clergy,  went  over  thither,  and,  at  the 
head  of  70  bishops,  appointed  Heraclides  a  deacon 
in  his  place,  and  deposed  b  bishops  that  had  been 
simoniacally  ordained  by  him.  Their  proceedings 
are  of  some  interest,  and  contain  a  reference  to 
the  canons  of  the  African  Church  (Mansi,  iii. 
991-6).  Strictly  speaking,  this  last  was  a  synod 
of  Ephesus. 

(8)  A.D.  404,  to  sit  in  judgment  on  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom,  who  had  been  recalled  from  exile  by  the 
emperor  and  retaken  possession  of  his  see,  from 
which  he  had  been  deposed  by  “the  Synod  of  the 
Oak.”  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  was  not  present 
on  this  occasion,  having  had  to  fly  Constan¬ 
tinople  on  the  return  of  his  rival.  Still  he  was 
not  unrepresented ;  and  St.  Chrysostom  had  by 
this  time  provoked  another  enemy  (Clinton,  A.D. 
404,  col.  4)  in  the  Empress  Eudoxia,  whose  statue 
he  had  denounced  from  the  games  and  revels 
permitted  to  be  held  round  it  in  offensive  prox¬ 
imity  to  his  church.  At  this  synod  he  seems  to 
have  given  attendance  (vi.  18)  when  the  question 
of  his  former  deposition  was  argued.  Thirty-six 
bishops  had  condemned  him :  but  sixty-five 
bishops,  he  rejoined,  had,  by  communicating 
with  him,  voted  in  his  favour  (Vales,  ad  1.).  It 
is  not  implied  in  these  words,  as  some  seem  to 
have  supposed,  that  a  synod  was  actually  sitting 
in  his  favour  now,  any  more  than  during  the 
Synod  of  the  Oak,  the  deputies  from  which 
found  him  surrounded,  but  not  synodically,  by 
forty  bishops,  in  his  own  palace.  The  4th  or 
12th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Antioch  was 
alleged  by  his  opponents  :  his  defence  was  that 
it  was  framed  by  the  Arians  (Reading,  i6.). 
As  quoted  by  his  opponents,  indeed,  it  was 
differently  worded  from  what  either  the  4th 
or  12th  are  now  ;  so  that  possibly  there  may 
have  been  an  Arian  version  of  these  canons, 
against  which  his  objection  held  good.  The 
synod,  however,  decided  against  him,  and  his 
banishment  to  Comana,  on  the  Black  Sea,  says 
Socrates — to  Cucusus,  in  Armenia,  say  others 
— followed,  where  he  died. 

(9)  A.D.  426,  on  the  last  day  of  February, 
when  Sisinnius  was  consecrated  bishop  there,  in 
the  room  of  Atticus.  Afterwards,  the  errors  of 
the  Massalians,  or  Euchites,  were  condemned,  at 
the  instance  of  the  Bishops  of  Iconium  and  Sida, 
as  we  learn  from  the  7th  action  of  the  Council 
of  Ephesus.  A  severe  sentence  was  passed  on 
any  charged  with  holding  them  after  this  denun¬ 
ciation  (Mansi,  iv.  541-2). 

(10)  A.D.  428,  on  the  death  of  Sisinnius,  when 
the  well-known  Nestorius  was  consecrated 
(Mansi,  iv.  543-4). 

(11)  A.D.  431,  October  25,  four  months  after 
Nestorius  had  been  deposed,  to  consecrate  Max- 
imian  in  his  place  (Mansi,  v.  1045).  This  done, 
Maximian  presided,  and  joined  in  a  synodical 
letter,  enclosing  that  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
with  its  first  six  canons,  as  they  are  called,  to 
the  bishops  of  ancient  Epirus,  whom  attempts 
had  been  made  to  detach  from  orthodoxy  (*6. 
257).  Letters  were  written  likewise  by  him 
and  by  the  emperor  to  Pope  Celestine,  St.  Cyril, 
and  other  bishops,  to  acquaint  them  with  his 
elevation,  at  which  all  expressed  themselves  well 
pleased  (j6.  257-92).  Another  synod  appears  to 
have  been  held  by  him  the  year  following,  for 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OP 

restoring  peace  between  his  own  Church  and  that 
of  Antioch  {ib.  1049-50). 

(12)  A.D.  443,  probably  (Mansi,  vi.  463-6, 
comp.  Cave,  i.  479)  to  consider  the  case  of 
Athanasius,  bishop  of  Perrhe,  on  the  Euphrates, 
afterwards  deposed  at  Antioch  under  Domnus. 
Here  he  seems  to  have  got  letters  in  his  favour 
from  Proclus  (comp.  Cone.  Hierap.  A.D.  445). 

(13)  A.D.  448,  NoA'ember  8,  under  Flavian,  to 
enquire  into  a  dispute  between  Florentius, 
metropolitan  of  Sardis,  and  two  of  his  suffragans: 
but  while  sitting,  it  was  called  upon  by  Eusebius, 
bishop  of  Dorylaeum,  one  of  its  members,  and 
who  had,  as  a  layman,  denounced  Nestorius,  to 
summon  Eutyches,  archimandrite  of  a  convent 
of  three  hundred  monks,  and  as  resolute  an  op¬ 
ponent  of  Nestorius  as  himself,  on  a  charge  that 
he  felt  obliged  to  press  against  him.  The  charge 
was  that  he  recognised  but  one  nature  in  Chri.st. 
Messengers  were  despatched  to  invite  Eutyches 
to  peruse  what  Eusebius  had  alleged  against  him. 
Meanwhile,  two  letters  of  St.  Cyril — his  second 
to  Ne.storius,  recited  and  approved  at  the  Council 
of  Ephe.sus,  and  his  letter  to  John  of  Antioch, 
on  their  reconciliation — were  read  out,  and  pro¬ 
nounced  orthodox  by  all.  A  reply  was  brought 
subsequently  from  Eutyches,  that  he  refused  to 
quit  his  monastery.  A  2nd  and  3rd  citation 
followed  in  succession.  Then  he  promised  at¬ 
tendance  within  a  week.  While  waiting  for 
him,  the  council  listened  to  some  minutes  of  a 
conversation  between  him  and  the  two  presbyters 
charged  with  his  2nd  citation,  w'hen  they  said 
he  expressly  denied  two  natures  in  Christ.  At 
last  he  appeared,  made  profession  of  his  faith, 
and  was  condemned  —  thirty-two  bishops  and 
twenty-three  archimandrites  subscribing  to  his 
deposition  from  the  jjriesthood  and  monastic 
dignity.  Proceedings  occupied  altogether  seven 
sessions — the  last  of  which  was  held  November  22. 
Its  acts  were  recited  in  a  subsequent  council  of 
the  year  following  at  Constantinople ;  at  Ephesus, 
also,  the  year  following,  under  Dioscorus ;  and 
again,  in  the  1st  session  of  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  where  they  may  be  read  still  (Mansi,  vi. 
495-6,  and  then  649-754). 

(14)  A.D.  449,  April  8,  of  thirty  bishops  under 
Thalassius,  archbishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cajipadocia, 
held  by  order  of  the  emperor,  to  re-consider  the 
sentence  passed  on  Eutyches  by  the  council  under 
Flavian,  on  a  representation  from  the  former 
that  its  acts  had  been  falsified.  This,  however, 
was  proved  untrue.  Another  session  was  held 
April  27,  on  a  second  petition  from  Eutyches,  to 
have  the  statement  of  Magnus — the  official  or 
silentiary,  who  had  accompanied  him  to  the 
council  under  Flavian — taken  down,  which  was 
done.  This  officer  declared  to  having  seen  the 
instrument  containing  his  deposition,  before  the 
session  was  held  at  which  it  was  resolved  on. 
The  acts  of  this  council  are  likewise  preserved  in 
the  first  session  of  that  of  Chalcedon  (Mansi,  vi. 
503-4,  and  then  753-828). 

(15)  A.D.  450,  at  which  Anatolius  was  ordained 
bishop  ;  and  then,  some  months  afterwards,  at 
the  head  of  his  suffragans  and  clergy,  made  pro¬ 
fession  of  his  faith  and  subscribed  to  the  cele¬ 
brated  letter  of  St.  Leo  to  his  predecessor 
Flavian,  in  the  presence  of  four  legates  from 
Rome,  charged  to  obtain  proofs  of  his  orthodoxy 
(Mansi,  vi.  509-14,  with  ep.  Ixix.  of  St.  Leo, 
ib.  83-5). 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF  141 


(16)  A.D.  457,  under  Anatolius  by  order  of 
the  Emperor  Leo,  whom  he  had  just  crowned,  to 
take  cognisance  of  the  petitions  that  had  arrived 
from  Alexandria  for  and  against  Timothy  Aelurus, 
who,  on  the  murder  of  St.  Proterius,  had  been  in¬ 
stalled  bishop  there  by  the  opponents  of  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Chalcedon,  and  to  consider  what  could  be 
done  to  restore  peace.  The  council  anathema¬ 
tised  Aelurus  and  his  party  (Mansi,  vii.  521-2 
&  869-70). 

(17)  A.D.  459,  under  Gennadius.  Eighty-one 
bishops  subscribed  to  its  synodical  letter  still 
extant,  in  which  the  2nd  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  is  cited  with  approval  against  some 
simouiacal  ordinations  recently  brought  to  light 
in  Galatia  (Mansi,  vii.  911-20). 

(18)  A.D.  478,  under  Acacius,  in  which  Peter, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  surnamed  the  Fuller,  Paul  of 
E])hesus,  and  John  of  Apamea,  were  condemned  : 
and  a  letter  addressed  to  Simplicius,  bishop  of 
Rome,  to  acquaint  him  with,  and  request  him  to 
concur  in,  their  condemnation  (Mansi,  vii.  1017- 
22,  comp.  Vales.  Obsero.  in  Evag.  i.  2).  A  letter 
was  addressed  at  the  same  time  by  Acacius  to 
Peter  the  Fuller  himself,  rebuking  him  for  having 
introduced  the  clause  “  Who  was  crucified  for 
us  ”  into  the  Trisagion  or  hymn  to  the  Trinity. 
Hitherto  this  letter  has  been  printed  as  if  it  had 
issued  from  a  synod  five  years  later,  when  in 
fact  there  was  no  such  synod  (IHansi,  ib.  1119- 
24). 

(19)  A.D.  492,  under  Euphemius  :  in  favour  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  ;  but  as  he  declined 
removing  the  name  of  his  predecessor  Acacius 
from  the  sacred  diptychs,  he  was  not  recognised 
as  bishop  by  popes  Felix  and  Gelasius,  to  whom 
he  transmitted  its  acts,  though  his  orthodoxy 
was  allowed  (Mansi,  vii.  1175-80). 

(20)  A.D.  496,  by  order  of  the  Emperor  Ana- 
stasius  I.,  in  which  the  Henoticon  of  Zeno  was 
confirmed,  Euphemius,  bishop  of  Constantinople 
deposed  ;  and  Macedonius,  the  second  of  that  name 
who  had  presided  there,  substituted  for  him 
(Mansi,  viii.  186-7). 

(21)  A.D.  498,  by  order  of  the  emperor  Ana- 
stasius  I.,  in  which  Flavian,  the  second  bishop  of 
Antioch  of  that  name,  and  Philoxenus  of  Hiera- 
polis,  took  the  lead  :  condemning  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  and  all  who  opposed  the  Monophysite 
doctrine,  or  would  not  acce^jt  the  interpolated 
clause  “  Who  was  crucified  for  us  ”  in  the  Tris¬ 
agion.  But  it  seems  probable  that  this  council 
took  place  a  year  later;  and  that  another  had 
met  a  year  earlier,  under  Macedonius,  less  hostile 
to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  than  this,  and  of 
which  this  was  the  reaction  (Mansi,  viii.  197- 
200). 

(22)  A.D.  518,  July  20,  by  order  of  the  em¬ 
peror  Justin,  at  which  the  names  of  the  Councils 
of  Nicaea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalce¬ 
don  :  of  St.  Leo  of  Rome,  Avith  Euphemius  and 
Macedonivxs  of  Constantinople,  were  restored  in 
the  sacred  diptychs :  and  Severus  and  all  other 
opponents  of  the  4th  council  anathemati.sed. 
Its  synodical  letter  signed  by  forty  bishops  and 
addressed  to  the  Constantinopolitan  bishop,  John 
IL,  praying  his  assent  to  its  acts,  is  preserved  in 
the  5th  action  of  the  council  under  Mennas,  A.D. 
536,  as  are  his  letters  informing  the  Eastern 
bishops  of  what  had  been  done  there.  Count 
Gratus  Avas  despatched  to  Rome  by  the  emperor 
with  letters  fi-om  himself  and  the  patriarch  to  pope 


Hormisda.s,  hoping  that  peace  might  under  these 
circumstances  be  restored  between  them.  The 
ansAvers  of  Hoimisdas,  his  instructions  to  the 
legates  despatched  by  him  to  Constantinople, 
their  accounts  of  their  reception*  there,  the  pro¬ 
fession  signed  by  the  patriarch,  and  subsequent 
correspondence  betAveen  him  and  the  pope,  may 
all  be  read  amongst  the  epistles  of  the  latter 
(Mansi,  A’iii.  435—65).  The  Easterns  had  to  ana- 
themati.se  Acacius  of  Constantinople  by  name, 
and  to  erase  his,  and  the  names  of  all  others, 
Euphemius  and  Macedonius  included,  Avho  had 
not  erased  his  previously,  from  the  sacred 
diptychs,  before  the  pope  Avould  readmit  them  to 
his  communion  (76.  573-8). 

(23)  A.D.  531,  under  Epiphanius,  Avho  Avas 
then  patriarch,  to  enquire  into  the  consecration 
of  Stephen,  Metropolitan  of  Larissa,  Avithin  the 
diocese  of  Thi-ace,  which,  contrary  to  the  28th 
canon  of  Chalcedon,  had  been  made  Avithout 
consulting  him.  Stephen,  having  been  deposed 
by  him  on  these  grounds,  appealed  to  Rome  ;  but 
the  acts  of  the  synod  held  there  to  consider  his 
appeal  are  defecti\^e,  so  that  it  is  not  known  Avith 
Avhat  success  (Mansi,  viii.  739-40). 

(24)  A.D.  536.  According  to  some,  three 
synods  Avere  held  there  this  year  :  1.  in  which 
pope  Agapetus  presided  and  deposed  Anthimus, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople :  but  this,  as  Mansi 
sheAvs  (viii.  871-2),  the  emperor  Justinian  had 
already  done,  besides  confirming  the  election  of 
Mennas  in  his  stead,  at  the  instance  of  the  clergy 
and  people  of  the  city.  Agapetus,  who  had 
come  thither  on  a  mission  from  Theodatus,  king 
of  the  Goths,  having  previously  refused  his 
communion,  had  unquestionably  procured  his 
ejection :  and  he  afterwards  consecrated  Mennas, 
as  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  had  St.  John  Chry¬ 
sostom,  at  the  request  of  the  emperor.  2.  in 
Avhich  a  number  of  Eastern  bishops  met  to  draAV 
up  a  petition  to  the  pope  requesting  him  to  call 
upon  Anthimus,  SAibsequently  to  his  deposition 
but  previously  to  his  going  back  to  Trebizond 
from  which  he  had  been  translated,  for  a  retrac¬ 
tation  of  his  denial  of  tAA'o  natures  in  Christ : 
but  this  can  hardly  be  called  a  council ;  and  the 
death  of  the  pope  stopped  any  definitive  action 
on  his  part  (76.).  3.  under  Mennas,  after  the 
death  of  the  pope,  consisting  of  five  actions,  the 
first  of  which  took  place.  May  2,  in  a  church 
dedicated  to  St.  Mary  near  the  great  church, 
Mennas  presiding,  and  having  on  his  right, 
among  others,  five  Italian  bishops,  Avho  had  come 
to  Constantinople  from  the  late  pope,  and  re¬ 
mained  there  with  him  on  his  arrival.  The 
first  thing  brought  before  the  council  Avas  a 
petition  from  A'arious  monastic  bodies  in  Con¬ 
stantinople,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and  Mount 
Sinai  to  the  emperor,  begging  that  the  sentence, 
stayed  only  by  the  death  of  the  pope,  against  An¬ 
thimus,  might  be  carried  out ;  a  general  account 
of  Avhat  had  passed  betAveen  them  and  the  pope 
followed,  their  petition  to  him  Avas  produced  by 
the  Italian  bishops  present  and  recited  ;  after  it 
another  petition  to  him  from  some  Eastern 
bishops  on  the  same  subject;  and  his  own  letter 
to  Peter,  bishop  of  Jerusalem  in  reply.  Desirous 
of  following  out  his  decision,  the  council  sent  de¬ 
puties  to  acquaint  Anthimus  Avith  its  proceedings, 
and  bid  him  appear  there  Avithin  three  days. 
The  second  and  third  actions  passed  in  sending 
him  similar  summonses,  but  all  his  hiding-]ila,os 


442  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

having  been  searched  repeatedly  without  finding 
him,  his  condemnation  and  deposition  was  at 
length  decreed  in  the  fourth  action  by  the  coun¬ 
cil  and  its  president,  and  signed  by  seventy-two 
bishops  or  their  representatives,  and  two  deacons 
of  the  Roman  Church.  At  the  fifth  and  last 
action  a  number  of  documents  were  recited.  1. 
A  petition  of  the  bishop  of  Apamea  and  other 
Syrian  bishops  to  the  emperor  against  Anthimus, 
Sever  us,  and  others  of  the  Monophysite  party. 
2.  Another  petition  to  him  from  some  monks  of 
Palestine  and  Syria  to  the  same  effect.  3.  A 
similar  petition  from  the  same  monks  to  this 
council.  4.  Two  letters  of  pope  Hormisdas, 
one  dated  A.D.  518,  and  relating  to  the  Constan- 
tinopolitan  synod  of  that  year;  the  other  ad¬ 
dressed  to  Epii>hauius,  patriarch  of  Constanti¬ 
nople  three  years  later,  requesting  him  to  act, 
and  directing  him  how  to  act,  in  his  stead  in  re¬ 
ceiving  converts  from  the  Monophysites.  5. 
A  petition  from  the  clergy  and  monks  of  Antioch 
to  the  patriarch  John  and  synod  of  Constantino¬ 
ple,  A.D.  518,  against  Severus.  6.  An  address  of 
the  same  synod  to  the  patriarch  John.  7.  A 
petition  of  the  monastic  bodies  in  Constantinople 
to  *  the  same  synod,  with  a  narrative  of  the 
acclamations  amidst  which  its  decisions  had  been 
carried  out  by  John.  8.  His  letters  to  the 
patriarch  of  Jerusalem  and  bishop  of  Tyre 
thereon,  and  their  replies  to  him,  with  another 
narrative  showing  how  rapturously  the  church 
of  Tyre  had  received  them.  9.  A  similar  letter 
from  the  bi.shops  of  Syria  secunda  to  the  same 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  with  a  narrative  of 
proceedings  against  Peter,  bishop  of  Apamea,  for 
his  Monophysite  sayings  :  and  a  petition  pi’esented 
to  them  by  the  monks  of  his  diocese  against  him 
and  Severus.  All  which  having  been  read,  an 
anathema  was  passed  upon  him,  Severus  and 
Zoaras,  one  of  their  followers,  by  the  council 
now  sitting — this  is  ine.xcusably  left  by  Mansi 
(viii.  1137-8)  with  its  corrupt  heading  uncor¬ 
rected,  ascribing  it  to  a  former  synod — and  then 
by  ]\Iennas,  its  president  ;  according  to  the  order 
observed  in  the  4th  action  in  passing  sentence 
upon  Anthimus.  Eighty-eight  bishops  or  their 
representatives,  and  two  deacons  of  the  Roman 
church  as  before,  subscribed  on  this  occasion. 
A  constitution  of  the  emperor  addressed  to 
Mennas  confirmed  their  sentence  (Mansi,  viii. 
869-1162). 

(25)  A.D.  538,  says  Valesius,  541  Cave,  543 
^lansi,  under  Mennas  by  order  of  the  emperor 
Justinian,  in  support  of  his  edict  against  the 
errors  of  Origen,  denounced  to  him  in  a  petition 
from  four  monks  of  Jerusalem,  placed  in  his 
hands,  says  Liberatus  (Bt'ev.  23)  by  Pelagius,  a 
Roman  envoy,  whom  he  had  sent  thither  on  a 
different  errand,  with  the  e.\press  object  of 
injuring  Theodore,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  in  Cappa¬ 
docia,  surnamed  Ascidas,  who  defended  Origen. 
.His  edict,  which  is  in  the  form  of  a  book  against 
Origen  and  addressed  to  Mennas,  is  given  at 
length  by  Mansi  (ix.  487-588).  It  was  commu¬ 
nicated  to  the  other  patriarchs  and  to  pope  Vigi- 
lius.  The  council  backed  it  by  15  anathemas 
against  Origen  and  his  errors,  usually  placed  at 
the  end  of  the  acts  of  the  5th  general  council 
(Mansi,  ib.  395—400)  with  which  this  council 
came  to  be  subsequently  confu.'<eJ,  in  consequence, 
says  Cave,  of  their  respective  acts  having  formed 
one  volume  (Mansi,  ib.  121-4;  and  also  703-8). 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

(26)  A.D.  546,  according  to  Gamier  (7)tss.  orl 
Liberat.  c.  iv.)  under  Mennas  to  as.sent  to  the 
Ist  edict,  now  lost,  of  the  emperor  Justinian 
against  the  three  chapters  the  year  before.  Both 
Cave  and  Mansi  pass  over  this  council,  and  sub¬ 
stitute  for  it  another,  supposed  to  have  been 
held  by  pope  Vigilius  the  year  following,  after 
his  arrival  in  February  (Clinton,  A.D.  547,  col. 
4),  at  which  it  was  decided  to  refer  passing  sen¬ 
tence  upon  the  three  chapters  to  the  meeting  of 
the  general  council  about  to  take  place  (Mansi, 
ix.  125-8). 

(27)  A.D.  553,  the  5th  general,  held  by  order 
of  the  Emperor  Justinian,  and  composed  of  165 
bishops,  with  Eutychius,  patriarch  of  Constanti¬ 
nople,  for  their  president :  Pope  Vigilius  being, 
on  the  spot  all  the  time,  but  declining  to  attend  ; 
indeed,  he  was  not  even  represented  there.  As 
far  back  as  his  election,  a  d.  537,  according  to 
Victor  of  Tunis,  he  had  been  secretly  pledged 
to  the  Empress  Theodora,  who  favoured  the 
Monophysite  party,  to  assent  to  the  copdemna- 
tion  of  the  three  chapters  (Garn.  ad  Lib.  Breviar. 
c.  22) ;  and  this  step,  according  to  Liberatus  {ib. 
c.  24),  had  been  pressed  upon  the  emperor  all  the 
more  warmly  since  then,  in  consequence  of  the 
condemnation  of  the  Origenists  in  a  council  under 
Mennas  the  year  following.  Theodore,  bishop  of 
Caesarea,  a  devoted  Origenist  and  friend  of  the 
empress,  pointed  it  out  in  fact  as  a  means  of  blung¬ 
ing  back  a  large  section  of  the  Monophysites 
to  the  church.  Their  opposition  to  the  4th  gene¬ 
ral  council,  he  averred,  lay  in  the  countenance 
supposed  to  be  given  by  it  to  these  writings — 1. 
The  works  of  Theodore,  bishop  of  Mopsuestia ; 
2.  The  letter  of  Ibas,  bishop  of  Edessa,  to  Maris ; 
and  3,  what  Theodoret,  bishop  of  Cyrus,  had 
published  against  St.  Cyril:  the  third,  however, 
he  forbore  to  name  ;  all  held  to  be  tainted  with 
Nestorianism.  By  condemning  them,  he  seems 
to  have  calculated  the  authority  of  the  council 
that  had  treated  their  authors  at  least  so  favour¬ 
ably,  would  be  undermined.  Justinian,  acting 
on  his  advice,  had  already  condemned  them  twice, 
A.D.  545  and  551  (Gieseler,  i.  325  ;  Cunningham’s 
Tr.,  no  date  is  assigned  to  the  two  pieces  given 
in  Mansi,  ix.  537-82,  and  589-616);  and  the 
first  time  had  been  followed  by  Vigilius,  whose 
“  Judicatum,”  published  at  Constantinople,  a.d. 
548,  is  quoted  in  part  by  the  emperor  in  his 
address  . to  this  council  (Mansi,  ix.  178-86,  and 
again,  582-8)  on  its  assembling.  But  Vigilius 
had,  A.D.  547,  declared  against  coming  to  any 
decision  on  the  subject  till  it  had  been  disci;s.sed 
in  a  general  council  ;  and  to  this  he  went  back 
on  ascertaining  what  indignation  his  “Judi¬ 
catum  ”  had  caused  in  Africa  and  in  the  West, 
and  excommunicated  Mennas  and  Theodore  for 
having  gone  further  (Mansi,  58—61).  Accord- 
ingly,  the  emperor  decided  on  summoning  this 
council  to  examine  and  pronounce  upon  them  ; 
and  Eutychius,  the  Constantinopolitan  patriarch, 
addressed  a  letter  to  Vigilius,  which  was  read 
out  at  its  first  session.  May  5,  requesting  him 
to  come  and  preside  over  its  deliberations.  Vigi¬ 
lius  assented  to  thier  joint  examination  by  him¬ 
self  aud  the  council,  but  was  silent  about  his 
attendance.  Three  patriarchs  and  a  number  of 
bishops  accosted  him  personally  with  no  better 
success.  At  the  2nd  session,  or  collation,  a  second 
interview  with  him  was  reported,  in  which  he 
detinitively  declined  attending ;  and  even  on  n 


_  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

message  from  the  emperor  he  would  not  under¬ 
take  to  do  more  than  examine  tlie  chapters 
by  himself,  and  tiansmit  his  opinion  on  them, 
not  tO’  the  council,  but  to  him.  This  pro¬ 
bably  was  contained  in  his  Constitutum  (Mansi, 
ih.  p.  61  and  seq.);  the  date  assigned  to  which 
indicates  that  it  came  out  between  the  5th 
and  6th  collations.  Some  bishops  of  Africa 
and  Illyria  excused  themselves  equally  to  the 
deputation  sent  to  invite  their  attendance.  At 
the  3rd  collation  the  fathers  commenced  the 
real  business  for  which  they  had  been  convened 
with  a  preface  well  worth  remembering  for  its 
soundness  and  moderation.  They  pledged  them¬ 
selves  to  the  exact  doctrine  ami  discipline  laid 
down  in  the  four  general  councils,  each  and  all, 
preceding  their  own ;  one  and  the  same  confes¬ 
sion  of  faith  had  sufficed  for  them  in  spite  of  ail 
the  heresies  they  had  met  to  condemn,  and  should 
suffice  now.  All  things  in  harmony  with  it 
should  be  received  ;  and  all  things  at  variance 
with  it  rejected.  Having  thus  pledged  them¬ 
selves  to  the  4th  council  among  the  rest,  the 
fathers  proceeded  to  the  examination  of  the  three 
chapters  in  their  4th  collation.  This  was  on 
May  12  :  extracts  having  accordingly  been  read 
out  from  various  works  of  Theodore,  both  he 
and  they  were  judged  worthy  of  condemnation. 
The  next  day,  or  the  5th  collation,  passages  for 
or  against  Theodore,  for  St.  Cyril  and  others, 
were  produced  and  weighed ;  and  authorities, 
particularly  St.  Augustine,  cited  in  favour  of 
condemning  heretics  although  dead.  Enquiry 
having  been  made  when  the  name  of  Theodore 
ceased  to  be  commemorated  in  the  sacred  dip- 
tychs  of  his  church,  it  was  discovered  that  the 
name  of  St.  Cyril  had  long  been  substituted 
there  for  his.  At  the  close  of  the  sitting, 
extracts  from  the  writings  of  Theodoret  against 
St.  Cyril  were  recited  ;  on  which  the  fathers 
remarked  that  the  4th  council  had  acted  wisely 
in  not  receiving  him  till  he  had  anathematised 
Nestorius.  Six  days  intervened  before  the  6th 
collation  took  place.  May  19.  During  this  in¬ 
terval  Vigilius  issued  his  “  Constitutum,”  dated 
May  14,  in  the  form  of  a  synodical  letter  addressed 
to  the  emperor  (Mansi,  ix.  61-106),  answering 
and  condemning  a  number  of  the  positions  of 
Theodore,  but  pleading  for  Theodoret  and  Ibas, 
as  having  been  acquitted  by  the  4th  council. 
However,  the  council  at  its  6th  collation  found 
the  letter  of  Ibas  in  question  contrary  to  the 
Chalcedonian  definition,  and  anathematised  it 
accordingly,  the  principal  speaker  against  it  being 
Theodore,  bishop  of  Cappadocia  ;  but  its  author 
escaped.  At  the  7th  collation.  May  26  or  30, 
for  the  reading  is  doubtful,  a  communication 
was  read  from  the  empei’or  in  deprecation  of 
the  “  Constitutum  ”  addressed  to  him  by  the 
Pope,  May  14,  and  on  which  there  had  been  a 
good  many  messages  between  them  in  vain  since. 
First,  no  less  than  six  documents  were  recited 
proving  Vigilius  to  have  expressly  condemned 
the  three  chapters  as  many  times :  1,  a  letter 
from  him  to  the  emperor ;  2,  to  the  empress,  in 
both  which  the  words  “  imam  operationem  ” 
were  declared  at  the  6th  council  by  the  legates 
of  Agatho  to  have  been  a  later  insertion  of  the 
Monothelite  party  (Baluz.  ap.  Mansi,  ix.  163-72); 
3,  to  his  deacons,  Rusticus  and  Sebastian,  con¬ 
demning  them  for  the  false  stories  they  had 
spread  about  him ;  4,  to  the  bishop  of  Kiew,  in 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF  443 

Russia;  5,  to  the  bishop  of  Arles;  and  6,  a 
deposition  signed  by  Theodore,  bishop  of  Caesarea, 
and  a  lay  dignitary,  to  the  effect  that  Vigilius 
had  sworn  to  the  emperor  in  their  presence  to 
do  all  he  could  for  the  condemnation  of  the  three 
chapters,  and  never  say  a  word  in  their  favour. 
Next,  an  enquiry,  by  order  of  the  emperor,  re¬ 
specting  a  picture  or  statue  of  Theodoret  said  to 
have  been  carried  about  at  Cyrus  in  procession, 
was  reported.  And,  lastly,  the  imperial  man¬ 
date,  which  ordained  that  the  name  of  Vigilius 
should  be  removed  from  the  sacred  diptychs  for  his 
tergiversations  on  the  subject  of  the  three  chap¬ 
ters,  “  Non  enim  patiebamur,  nec  ab  eo,  nec  ab 
alio  quocunque,”  says  the  emperor,  “  inviolatam 
communionem  suscipere,  qui  non  istam  impie- 
tatem  condemnat  .  .  .  .  ne  eo  modo  inveniamnr 
Nestorii  et  Theodori  impietati  communicantes  ” 
(Mansi,  tb.  366-7).  Unity  with  the  apostolic 
see  would  not,  he  adds,  be  thereby  dissolved, 
inasmuch  as  neither  Vigilius  nor  any  other  indi¬ 
vidual  could,  by  his  own  change  for  the  worse, 
mar  the  peace  of  the  Church.  To  all  which  the 
council  agreed.  Finally,  reviewing  at  its  8th 
collation,  June  2,  in  a  singularly  well-written 
compendium  all  that  it  had  done  previously, 
and  vindicating  the  course  about  to  be  pui-sued, 
it  formally  condemned  the  three  chapters,  and 
with  them  the  author  of  the  first  of  them — • 
Theodore — promulgating  its  definitive  sentence 
in  14  anathemas,  almost  identical  with  those 
of  the  emperor-  (Mansi,  ib.  557-64),  and  in 
which  the  heresies  and  heresiarchs  thus  con¬ 
demned  are  specified  :  Origen  among  the  number 
in  the  eleventh,  though  not  in  the  corresponding 
one  of  the  emperor.  He  had  been  previously 
condemned  in  the  council  under  Mennas,  A.D. 
538,  as  we  have  seen.  Of  these  anathemas  the 
Greek  version  is  .still  extant :  of  almost  every 
other  record  of  its  proceedings  the  Latin  version 
alone  remains.  Vigilius,  after  taking  some  time 
to  consider,  announced  his  assent  to  them  in  two 
formal  documents :  the  first  a  decretal  epistle, 
dated  Dec.  8  of  the  same  year,  and  addressed  to 
the  Constantinopolitan  patriarch  (Mansi,  ib.  413- 
32,  with  the  notes  of  De  Marca),  in  which,  as 
he  says,  after  the  manner  of  St.  Augustine,  he 
retracts  all  that  he  had  ever  written  differently  ; 
and  the  second,  another  Constitutum  of  great 
length,  dated  Feb.  23  of  the  year  following 
(Clinton,  A.D.  554,  c.  4),  but  without  any  head¬ 
ing  or  subscription  in  its  present  form  (i\Iansi, 
ib.  457-88).  He  died  on  his  way  home,  and 
Pelagius,  the  Roman  envoy  who  had  been  instru¬ 
mental  in  condemning  Oi’igen,  had  thus,  on  be¬ 
coming  pope,  to  vindicate  the  condemnation  of 
the  three  chapters  by  this  council  in  the  West, 
where  they  had  been  defended  all  but  unani¬ 
mously,  and  were  upheld  obstinately  by  more 
than  three  parts  of  Italy  still.  The  2nd  Pela¬ 
gius,  twenty-five  years  later,  in  his  third  letter 
to  the  bishops  of  Istria,  said  to  have  been  written 
by  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  then  his  deacon 
(Mansi,  ib.  433-54,  and  see  Migne’s  ed.),  apolo¬ 
gised  as  follows  for  the  conduct  of  his  })rede- 
cessors  and  his  own  therein.  Referring  to  the 
occasion  on  which  St.  Peter  was  reproved  by 
St.  Paul  (Gal.  ii.  11),  he  asks,  “Nunquid  Petro 
apostolorum  principi  sibi  dissimilia  docenti,  de- 
buit  ad  haec  verba  responder!  ?  ”  “  Haec  quae 

dicis,  audire  non  possumus,  quia  aliud  ante 
praedicasti  ?  Si  igitur  in  trium  capitulorura 


CONSTANTINOPLE.  COL’NCILS  OF 


444  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 

negotio,  aliud  cum  veritas  quaereretur,  aliud  I 
autein  inventa  veritate,  dictum  est  ;  cur  mutatio 
Ecntentiae  huic  sedi  in  crimine  objicitur,  quae  ' 
a  cuncta  ecclehia  humiliter  in  ejus  auctore  vene- 
ratur?  Non  euim  mutatio  sententiae,  sed  incon- 
stantia  sensus  in  culpa  est.”  St.  Gregory,  when 
pope,  settled  the  matter  by  affirming  that  he 
venerated  the  5th  council  equally  with  the  four 
preceding  (Mansi,  ib.  454).  No  canons  seem  to 
have  been  passed  in  it ;  but  though  two  elabo¬ 
rate  dissertations  have  been  written  on  it  (Garn. 
ad  Liberat.  and  H.  de  Noris,  Op.  P.  ii.),  many 
})oiiits  connected  with  it  are  still  doubtful  ;  and 
the  documents  published  by  Mansi  (ix.  151-651) 
as  belonging  to  it,  greatly  need  re-arranging. 

(28)  A.D.  565,  at  which  the  emperor  Justinian 
endeavoured  to  get  the  errors  of  Julian  of  Hali¬ 
carnassus,  a  well-known  Monophysite,  who  main¬ 
tained  the  incorruptibility  of  the  Body  of  Christ 
antecedently  to  his  resurrection,  approved,  by 
banishing  those  who  opposed  them  (Mansi,  ix. 
765-8). 

(29)  A.D.  587,  at  which  a  foul  charge  brought 
against  Gregory,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  by  a  banker 
of  his  diocese,  was  examined.  He  was  honourably 
acquitted  and  his  accuser  punished  (Evag.  vi.  7). 
Mansi  thinks  this  must  have  been  the  synod 
summoned  as  a  general  one  by  the  Constantino- 
politan  patriarch  John,  in  virtue  of  his  assumed 
title  of  oecumenical  patriarch,  and  for  which  he 
was  so  severely  taken  to  task  by  pope  Pelagius  II. 
— but  for  this  no  direct  proof  is  adduced  either 
by  him  or  Pagi  (ix.  971-4).  It  is  supplied, 
however,  in  a  letter  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great  to 
that  patriarch  {ib.  1217-18),  and  a  further 
letter  of  his  some  time  later,  when  Cyriacus 
was  patriarch,  whose  plan  of  holding  another 
synod  for  the  same  purpose  he  would  seem  to 
have  anticipated  {ib.  x.  159).  Mansi  (/6.  p. 
481-2)  conceives  this  synod  to  have  been  held 
A.D.  598. 

(30)  A.D.  626,  under  Sergius,  to  consider  the 
question  raised  by  Paul,  a  Monophysite  of  Phasis, 
in  Lazica,  and  Cyrus,  its  metropolitan — after¬ 
wards  translated  to  Alexandria — before  the  em¬ 
peror  Heraclius,  whether  one  or  two  wills  and 
opei’atious  were  to  be  ascribed  to  Chi-ist.  Sei'- 
gius,  on  the  authority  of  a  discourse  ascribed  by 
him  to  his  well-known  predecessor  Mennas,  and 
other  testimonies  which  he  abstains  from  naming, 
pronounced  in  favour  of  one  operation  and  one 
will ;  thereby  founding  the  heresy  called  Mono- 
thelism  (Mansi,  x.  585-8).  Clinton  (ii.  171) 
doubts  whether  the  question  did  not  originate 
with  Athanasius,  patriarch  of  the  Jacobites  in 
Syria,  on  his  promotion  to  the  see  of  Antioch  by 
Heraclius  four  years  later.  The  discourse  which 
Sergius  ascribed  to  Mennas  was  proved  a  forgery 
to  the  6th  council  at  its  third  session. 

(31)  A.D.  639,  under  Sergius,  and  continued — 
unless  there  were  two  distinct  councils  this  year 
— under  Pyrrhus,  his  successor,  at  which  the 
“Ecthesis”  or  exposition  of  faith  by  the  em¬ 
peror  Heraclius,  favourable  to  Monothelism,  was 
confirmed  (!Mansi,  x.  673-4).  Parts  of  its  acts, 
with  the  ecthesis  in  full,  were  recited  in  the 
third  sitting  of  the  Lateran  under  Martin  I. 
A.D.  649  {ib.  991-1004). 

(32)  A.D.  665,  by  order  of  the  emperor  Con- 
staun  II.,  at  whi(‘h  St.  Maximu.s,  the  great  oppo^ 
nent  of  the  IMonothelites,  was  condemned  (Mansi, 
xi.  73-4). 


(33)  A.D.  636,  under  Peter,  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  and  attended  by  Macedonius  of 
Antioch  and  the  vicar  of  the  patriarch  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  at  which  St.  Maximus  was  condemned 
a  second  time  with  his  disciples  (Maiisi,  xi. 
73-6). 

(34)  T  he  6th  general,  held  in  the  banqueting 
hall  of  the  palace,  called  Trullus  from  its  domed 
roof  (Du  Fresne,  Constant.  Christ,  ii.  4,  §  19-20), 
and  lasting  from  November  7,  A.D.  680,  to  Sep¬ 
tember  16  of  the  ensuing  year. 

It  was  convened  by  the  emperor  Constantine 
Pogonatus,  as  stated  in  his  epistle  to  Pope  Bonus, 
in  consequence  of  a  request  made  to  him  by  the 
patriarchs  of  Constantiiiojjle  to  permit  their 
removing  from  the  sacred  diptychs  the  name  of 
Pope  Vitalian,  lately  deceased,  while  they  were  for 
retaining  that  of  Honorius  (Mansi,  xi.  199-200). 
In  short,  they  wished  to  commemorate  none  of 
the  popes  after  Honorius  till  some  disputes  that 
had  arisen  between  their  own  sees  and  his  had 
been  settled,  and  some  newly-coined  words  ex¬ 
plained.  The  allusion  is  probably  to  the  ‘ /ufa 
OcavbpiKT)  ir4pyeid’  attributed  to  Christ  by  the 
Monothelite  patriarch  and  synod  of  Alexandria, 
A.D.  633  {ib.  565),  when  Honorius  was  pope. 
Bonus  dying  before  this  letter  could  reach  Rome, 
it  was  complied  with  at  once  by  his  successor 
Agatho,  who  sent  three  bishops,  on  behalf  of  his 
synod,  and  two  presbyters,  and  one  deacon  named 
John — who  subsequently  became  pope  as  John  V.. 
in  his  own  name — to  Constantinojde,  “  to  bring 
about  the  union  of  the  holy  Churches  of  God,” 
as  it  is  said  in  his  life  {ib.  165).  On  hearing 
from  the  “oecumenical  pope,” as  he  styles  him,  to 
that  effect,  the  Emperor  issued  his  summons  tc 
George,  patriarch  of  Constantinople — whom  he 
styles  oecumenical  patriaich — and  through  him 
to  the  patriarch  of  Antioch,  to  get  ready  to  come 
to  the  council  with  their  respective  bishops  and 
metropolitans  {ib.  201).  Mansuetus,  metro¬ 
politan  of  Milan,  who  had  formed  part  of  the 
Roman  synod  under  Agatho,  sent  a  synodical 
letter  and  profession  of  faith  on  behalf  of  his 
own  synod  {ib.  203-8),  and  Theodore,  bishop  or 
archbishop  of  Ravenna,  who  had  formed  part  of 
the  same  synod,  a  presbyter,  to  represent  him 
personally.  The  number  of  bishops  actually 
present,  according  to  Cave,  was  289,  though  the 
extant  subscriptions  are  under  180.  Thirteen 
officers  of  the  court  were  there  likewise  by  com¬ 
mand  of  the  emperor,  who  attended  in  person, 
and  were  ranged  round  him — on  his  left  were 
the  representatives  of  the  pope  and  his  synod,  of 
the  archbishop  of  Ravenna,  and  of  the  patriarch 
of  Jerusalem,  then  Basil,  bishop  of  Gortyna,  in 
Crete,  and  the  remaining  bishops  “subject  to 
Rome” — his  right  being  occupied  by  the  i)atri- 
archs  of  Constantinople  and  Antioch,  a  j))esbyter 
representing  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  the 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  and  “  the  remaining  bishops 
subject  to  Constantinople.”  The  business  of  the 
council  was  concluded  in  18  actions  or  sessions, 
as  follows : — 

1.  The  legates  of  Agatho  having  complained 
of  the  novel  teaching  of  four  patriarchs  of  Con- 
stantino])le — Seigius,  Paul,  Pyrrhus,  and  Peter 
— of  Cyrus,  of  Alexandria,  and  Theodore,  bishop 
of  Pharan,  that  had  for  46  years  or  more 
troubled  the  whole  Church,  in  attributing  one 
will  and  operation  to  the  Incarnate  Word, 
Macarius,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  and  two  suffragans 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF  445 


of  the  see  of  Constantinople  favourable  to  this 
dogma,  briefly  replied  that  they  had  put  out  no 
new  terms  but  only  believed  and  taught  what 
they  had  received  fi'om  general  councils  and  from 
the  holy  fathers  on  the  point  in  question,  par¬ 
ticularly  the  patriarchs  of  Constantinople  and 
Alexandria,  named  by  their  opponents,  and 
Honorius,  formerly  pope  of  elder  Rome.  Where¬ 
upon  the  chartophylax,  or  keeper  of  the  archives 
of  the  great  Church,  was  ordered  by  the  emperor 
to  fetch  the  books  of  the  oecumenical  councils 
from  the  library  of  the  patriarch.  As  nothing 
was  said  of  the  acts  of  the  1st  and  2nd  councils 
on  this  occasion,  we  must  infer  they  had  been 
lost  previously.  The  chartophylax  was  told 
to  produce  what  he  had  got ;  and  immediately 
two  volumes  of  the  acts  of  the  3rd  council  were 
recited  by  Stephen,  a  presbyter  of  Antioch  in 
waiting  on  Macarius,  who  forthwith  contended 
that  some  of  St.  CyriTs  expressions  made  for 
him. 

2.  Two  volumes  of  the  acts  of  the  4th  council 
were  read,  when  the  legates  of  Agatho  pointed 
out  that  two  operations  were  attributed  to 
Christ  by  St.  Leo. 

3.  Two  volumes  of  the  acts  of  the  5th  council 
were  read,  when  the  legates  protested  that  two 
letters  of  Pope  Vigilius,  contained  in  the  second 
volume,  had  been  interpolated,  and  that  a  dis¬ 
course  attributed  in  the  fii'st  to  Menuas,  patri¬ 
arch  of  Constantinople,  was  spurious.  This  last 
having  been  proved  on  the  spot  from  internal 
evidence,  its  recital  was  stopped,  the  emperor 
directing  further  enquiry  to  be  made  respecting 
the  lettei’s  of  the  pope. 

4.  Two  letters  from  Agatho  were  recited — 
one  to  the  emperor,  in  his  own  name,  the  other 
to  the  council,  in  his  own  name  and  that  of  a 
synod  of  125  bishops,  with  Wilfrid,  bishop  of 
York,  among  them,  for  Britain,  assembled  under 
him  at  Rome,  previously  to  the  departure  of  his 
legates.  The  burden  of  both  is  the  same,  namely, 
that  what  had  been  defined  as  of  faith  by  the 
five  genei'al  councils  preceding,  it  was  the  sum¬ 
mit  of  his  ambition  to  keep  inviolate — without 
change,  diminution,  or  addition,  either  in  word 
or  thought  (Mansi,  ib.  235).  Mr.  Renouf, 
indeed,  in  his  second  pamphlet  on  “  Pope 
Honorius  ”  (p.  46-7),  has  pointed  out  several 
passages  in  the  Latin  version  of  these  letters 
on  the  prerogatives  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  are  not  found  in  the  Greek.  Either, 
therefore,  they  have  been  interpolated  in  the 
one,  or  suppressed  in  the  other.  The  decree  of 
the  Council  of  Florence  supplies  a  parallel  of  the 
same  kind.  But  that  Agatho  wrote  these  letters 
in  Greek,  and  that  the  Latin  version  of  the 
entire  acts  of  this  council  that  we  have  cannot 
possibly  be  the  one  made  by  order  of  the  next 
pope,  soon  after  the  council  dispersed,  are  two 
points  which  Mr.  R.  seems  to  have  assumed 
without  pi’oving. 

5.  Two  papers  were  exhibited  by  Macarius, 
and  recited :  of  which  the  first  was  headed  “  Tes¬ 
timonies  from  the  holy  Fathers  confirmatory  of 
there  being  one  will  in  Christ,  which  is  also  that 
of  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.” 

6.  A  third  paper  from  Macarius,  to  the  same 
effect  as  the  other  two,  having  been  read,  the 
sealing  of  all  three  was  commanded  by  the  em¬ 
peror,  and  entrusted  to  his  own  officials  and 
those  belonging  to  the  sees  of  Rome  and  Con¬ 


stantinople.  On  the  legates  affirming  that  the 
quotations  contained  in  them  had  not  been  fairly 
made,  authentic  copies  of  the  works  cited  weje 
ordered  to  be  brought  from  the  patriarchal 
library  to  compare  with  them. 

7.  A  paper  headed  “Testimonies  from  the 
holy  Fathers  demonstrating  two  wills  and  opera¬ 
tions  in  Christ,”  was  pi’oduced  by  the  legates, 
and  read.  Appended  to  it  were  ])assages  from 
the  writings  of  heretics,  in  which  but  one  will 
and  opei-ation  was  taught.  This  paper  was 
ordered  to  be  sealed,  like  those  of  Macarius,  by 
the  emperor. 

8.  The  passages  adduced  by  Agatho  from  th*e 
Fathers,  and  by  his  synod,  in  favour  of  two  wills 
and  operations,  having  been  examined  and  con¬ 
firmed,  were  pronounced  conclusive  by  all 
present  except  Macarius ;  and  the  petition  to 
have  the  name  of  Vitalian  erased  from  the  dip- 
tychs  was  withdrawn  by  George,  the  existing 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  amid  great  applause. 
Macarius  being  then  called  upon  to  make  his 
profession,  proved  himself  a  Monothelite ;  and 
was  convicted  of  having  quoted  unfairly  from 
the  Fathers  in  his  papers  to  support  his  views. 

9.  Examination  of  the  papers  of  Macarius 
having  been  completed,  he  and  his  presbyter 
Stephen  were  formally  deposed  as  heretics  by 
the  council. 

10.  The  paper  exhibited  by  the  legates  was 
taken  in  hand :  and  after  a  m'ost  interesting 
comparison,  passage  by^  passage,  between  it  and 
the  authentic  works  in  the  patriarchal  library, 
was  declared  thoroughly  correct  in  its  citations  : 
a  profession  of  faith  was  received  from  the  bishop 
of  Nicomedia  and  some  others,  in  which  Mono- 
thelism  Avas  abjured. 

11.  A  long  and  remarkable  profession  of  fiiith, 
contained  in  a  synodical  letter  of  Sophronius, 
late  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  first  to 
oppose  Monothelism,  was  recited  :  and  after  it, 
at  the  request  of  the  legates,  some  more  writings 
of  Macarius,  since  come  to  hand,  that  proved  full 
of  heresy. 

12.  Several  more  documents  belonging  to 
Macarius  having  been  received  from  the  emperor 
through  one  of  his  officers,  which  he  professed 
not  to  haA'e  read  himself,  some  were  looked 
through  and  pronounced  irrelevant,  but  three 
letters  w'ere  recited  at  length  :  one  from  Sergius 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  to  Cyrus,  then  bishop 
of  Phasis  ;  another  from  him  to  Pope  Honorius  ; 
the  third  being  the  answer  of  Honorius  to  him. 
Again  the  patriarchal  archives  were  searched, 
and  the  two  first  of  these  letters  compared  witn 
the  authentic  copies  of  them  found  there  ;  while 
the  original  letter  of  Honorius  in  Latin  having 
been  brought  from  thence  was  compared  by  John 
bishop  of  Poi'to,  the  only  delegate  from  the 
Roman  synod  then  present,  with  the  copy  just 
read,  and  the  genuineness  of  all  three  placed 
beyond  doubt.  A  suggestion  brought  from  the 
emperor  that  Macarius  should  be  restored  in  the 
event  of  his  recanting,  was  peremptorily  declined 
by  the  council. 

13.  Both  the  letters  of  Sergius  before  men¬ 
tioned  and  that  of  Honorius  to  him  were  de¬ 
clared  heterodox ;  and  he  and  his  successors, 
Pyrrhus,  Peter,  and  Paul,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria, 
and  Theodore,  bishop  of  Pharan — on  all  of  whom 
Agatho  had  passed  sentence  previously — with 
Honorius,  w'hom  Agatho  had  passed  over,  were 


44 G  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 


CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 


definitively  cast  out  of  the  Church — the  only 
seuteuce  of  the  kiml  ever  decreed  against  any 
j)ojie.  The  letter  of  Soj)hvonius,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  j)ronounced  oi'thodox.  Finally,  search 
having  been  made  for  all  other  works  of  the 
same  kind  in  the  archives,  all  that  could  be 
found  were  brought  out  and  reciteil.  The  list 
uududed  two  letters  from  Cyrus  to  Sergius,  the 
latest  of  them  having  been  written  from  Alex¬ 
andria,  with  a  copy  of  the  terms  of  agreement 
come  to  between  him  and  the  Theodosians,  a 
Monophysite  sect,  enclosed  in  it ;  works  by 
Theodore,  bishop  of  Pharan,  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and 
Peter,  patriarchs  of  Constantinoj)le  ;  a  second 
letter  of  Ilonorius  to  Sergius  ;  and  a  dogmatic 
letter  of  Pyrrhus  to  Pope  John  IV.,  discovered 
in  a  volume  of  dogmatic  letters  by  the  Charto- 
phylax,  George.  All  these  were  pronounced 
heretical,  and  burnt  as  such.  Ix'tters  of  Thomas, 
John,  and  Constantine,  patriarchs  of  Constan- 
tinoi)le,  were  read  likewise,  but  their  orthodoxy 
was  allowed. 

14.  Returning  to  the  letters  of  Pope  Vigilius 
that  had  been  called  in  question,  it  was  ascer¬ 
tained  by  curious  enquiry  that  each  of  the 
volumes  of  the  5th  council  had  been  tampered 
with  ;  in  one  case  by  inserting  the  pa})er  attri¬ 
buted  to  Mennas,  in  the  other  by  interpolating 
the  letters  of  Vigilius,  in  support  of  heresy. 
The  council  ordered  both  falsifications  to  be  can¬ 
celled,  besides  anathematising  them  and  their 
authors.  A  sermon  of  St.  Athanasius  was  pro¬ 
duced  by  the  bishops  of  Cyprus,  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  two  wills  in  Christ  was  clearly  laid 
down.  At  this  sitting  Theophanes,  the  new 
patriarch  of  Antioch,  is  first  named  among  those 
present. 

15.  Polychronius,  a  presbyter,  undertaking  to 
raise  a  dead  man  to  life  in  support  of  his  here¬ 
tical  views,  and  failing,  was  condemned  as  an 
impostor,  and  deposed. 

16.  Constantine,  another  presbyter,  affecting 
to  have  devised  seme  formula  calculated  to 
reconcile  Monothelism  with  orthodoxy,  was 
proved  in  agreement  with  Macarius,  and  simi¬ 
larly  condemned.  In  conclusion,  all  who  had 
been  condemned  were  anathematised,  one  after 
the  other  by  name,  amidst  cheers  for  the 
orthodox. 

17.  The  previous  acts  of  the  council  were  read 
over;  and  its  definition  of  faith  published  for 
the  first  time. 

18.  The  definition  having  been  once  more  pub¬ 
lished,  was  signed  by  all  present ;  and  received 
the  assent  of  the  emperor  on  the  spot  amid  the 
usual  acclamations  and  reprobations.  It  con¬ 
sisted  of  three  parts  : — I.  An  introduction  pro¬ 
claiming  entire  agreement  on  the  part  of  the 
.ouncil  with  the  five  previous  councils,  and 
acceptance  of  the  two  creeds  promulgated  by 
them  as  one.  II.  Recital  of  the  two  creeds  of 
Kicaea  and  Constantinople  in  their  pristine  forms. 
III.  Its  own  definition,  enumerating  all  pre¬ 
viously  condemned  for  Monothelism  once  more 
by  name;  and  mentioning  with  approbation  the 
declaration  of  pope  Agatho  and  his  synod  against 
them,  and  in  favour  of  the  true  doctrine,  which 
it  proceeded  to  unfold  in  course  :  then  reiterating 
the  decree  passed  by  ])revious  councils  against 
the  framers  and  upholdei's  of  a  faith  or  creed 
other  than  the  two  forms  already  specified  ;  ami 
including  finallv  in  the  same  condemnation  the 


inventors  and  disseminators  of  any  novel  terms 
subversive  of  its  own  rulings. 

Proceedings  terminated  in  a  remarkable  ad¬ 
dress  to  the  emperor  on  behalf  of  all  jneseut, 
which  was  read  out,  showing  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  had  been  defined  by  the  two  first 
councils  ;  and  that  of  the  Incarnation  in  the  four 
next,  of  which  this  was  the  last:  and  a  still 
more  remarkable  request  was  appended  to  it, 
— that  he  would  forward  the  definition  signed 
by  himself  to  the  five  patriarchal  sees  of  Rome, 
Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jeru¬ 
salem  ;  which  we  are  told  expressly  was  done 
(Mansi,  ih.  681-4).  In  conclusion,  a  letter  was 
despatched  to  the  pope  in  the  name  of  the  coun¬ 
cil,  informing  him  that  he  would  receive  a  copy 
of  its  acts  through  his  legates,  and  begging  that 
he  would  confirm  them  in  his  reply.  The  em¬ 
peror  on  his  part  exhorted  all  to  receive  them  in 
a  special  edict ;  and  as  he  had  promised,  ad¬ 
dressed  a  letter  in  his  own  name  to  the  Roman 
synod,  dated  Dec.  23,  A.D.  681 — Agatho  dying, 
according  to  Cave,  ‘Dec.  1 — and  another  to 
Leo  II.,  soon  after  his  accession,  the  year  follow¬ 
ing,  bespeaking  their  acceptance.  This  the  new 
})ope  granted  without  hesitation  in  the  fullest 
manner,  even  to  the  condemnation  of  Honorius 
as  having  betrayed  the  faith  ;  all  which  he 
repeated  to  the  bishops  of  Spain  in  sending  them 
a  Latin  translation  of  the  acts  of  this  council 
(Mansi,  ih.  1049-53).  Solely  from  hence  the 
genuineness  of  both  epistles  has  been  denied 
(comp.  Mr.  Renouf’s  Fope  Honorius  ;  Professor 
Botalla’s  reply  to  it ;  and  Mr.  R.’s  rejoinder), 
and  even  the  integrity  of  the  acts  of  the  council 
themselves  in  their  present  state  was  once 
questioned  (Pagi  ad  Baron.,  A.D.  681,  n.  9-12), 
Two  versions  of  them  are  giA^en  by  Mansi  (xi. 
189-922)  ;  in  both  the  arrangement  of  the  con¬ 
cluding  documents  is  chronologically  defective. 
It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  no  canons  were 
pas.  ed.  Several  anecdotes  of  this  coiincil  found 
their  way  into  the  West.  Bede  tells  us,  for 
instance  (He  Temp.  Rat.  A.D.  688),  that  such 
was  the  honour  accorded  there  to  the  legates  of 
Agatho  that  one  of  them,  the  bishop  of  Porto, 
celebrated  the  Eucharist  in  Latin  on  Low-Sundav, 
in  the  church  of  St.  Sophia,  before  the  emperor 
and  patriarch.  Cardinal  Humbert  asserts  it  was 
then  explained  to  the  emperor  that  unleavened 
bread  was  enjoined  by  the  Latin  rite  (ap.  Cani.s. 
Thes.  p,  318).  But  the  two  striking  incidents 
of  this  council  were  :  1.  The  arrangement  of  the 
“  bishops  subject  to  Rome,”  and  those  “  subject 
to  Constantinople  ”  on  opposite  sides ;  and,  2. 
The  anathemas  passed  on  pope  and  patriarch 
alike.  Coming  events  are  said  to  cast  their 
shadows  before  them. 

(35)  A.D.  691,  as  Pagi  shows  (ad  Baron.  A  n. 
692  n.  3-7)  from  the  emended  reading  of  the 
date  given  in  its  3rd  canon  and  rightly  inter¬ 
preted,  in  or  not  earlier  than  September.  The 
fathers  composing  it,  in  their  address  to  the  em¬ 
peror  Justinian  11.  or  Rhinotmetus,  as  he  was 
afterwards  surnamed  from  what  betel  him,  sav 
that  they  had  met  at  his  bidding  to  pass  some 
canons  that  had  long  been  needed,  owing  to  the 
omission  of  the  5th  and  6th  councils,  contrary 
to  the  precedent  of  the  four  first  to  pass  .anv, 
whence  this  council  has  been  commonly  stvled 
the  ()uini-sext,  or  a  suj'jilement  to  both.  It  is 
indeed  best  known  as  the  Trulian,  from  the  hull 


•  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COLTNCILS  OF  447 


of  the  palace  in  which  it  was  held,  although  the 
6th  council  had  met  there  no  less.  The  number 
of  bishops  subscribing  to  its  canons  was  213,  of 
whom  43  had  been  present  at  the  6th  council 
(Mansi  xi.  927) ;  and  at  their  head,  instead  of 
after  them  as  at  the  6th  council,  the  emperor, 
wlio  signs  however  differently  from  the  rest,  as 
accepting  and  assenting  to  merely  what  had  been 
defined  by  them.  A  blank  is  left  immediately 
after  his  name  for  that  of  the  pope,  showing 
clearly  that  the  pope  was  not  represented  tjiere  ; 
and  blanks  are  subsequently  left  for  the  bishops 
of  Thessalonica,  Heraclea,  Sardinia,  Ravenna, 
and  Corinth,  who  might,  had  they  been  present, 
have  been  supposed  acting  for  him  :  Basil,  indeed, 
bishop  of  Gortyna  in  Crete,  is  set  down  as  sub¬ 
scribing  on  behalf  of  the  whole  synod  of  the 
Roman  church  ;  but  then  he  is  similarly  set  down 
among  the  subscriptions  to  the  6th  council,  not 
having  been  one  of  the  three  deputies  sent 
thither  from  Rome  (t6.  pp.  642  and  70),  and 
afterwards  in  the  letter  addressed  to  Agatho  by 
the  council,  only  signing  for  himself  and  his  own 
synod  (ib.  p.  690).  Hence  there  seems  little 
ground  for  supposing  him  to  have  represented 
Rome  there  in  any  sense,  though  Pagi  and  others 
are  willing  to  believe  he  may  have  been  acting 
as  apocrisarius  at  the  time  of  the  council  (ad 
Baron,  ib.  n.  9-13).  Certainly,  Anastasius,  in 
his  life  of  Sergius  L,  who  was  then  Pope,  says 
that  the  legates  of  the  apostolic  see  were  present, 
and  deluded  into  subscribing ;  but  there  is  no¬ 
thing  else  in  the  subscriptions  to  confirm  this ; 
and  of  the  acts  nothing  further  has  been  pre¬ 
served.  Great  controA^ersy  prevails  as  to  the 
extent  to  which  this  council  has  been  received 
in  the  West:  Oecumenical  it  has  never  been 
accounted  there,  in  spite  of  its  own  claim  to  be 
so:  and  Avhen  its  102  canons  were  sent  in  six 
tomes  to  Sergius,  himself  a  native  of  Antioch, 
for  subscription,  he  said  he  Avould  die  sooner 
than  assent  to  the  erroneous  innov^ations  which 
they  contained.  John  VII.,  the  next  pope  but 
one,  was  requested  by  the  emperor  to  confirm  all 
that  he  could,  and  reject  the  rest ;  but  he  sent 
back  the  tomes  untouched — Lupus  (2>fss.  de  Syn. 
TrulL,  op.  Tom.  iii.  168-73),  whom  Pagi  (a.d. 
710,  n.  2)  follows  is  of  opinion  that  Constantine 
was  the  first  pope  to  confirm  any  of  them  :  but 
this  is  inferred  solely  from  the  honourable  re¬ 
ception  given  to  him  at  Constantinople  by  Justi¬ 
nian,  which  may  haA'e  been  dictated  by  other 
motives.  What  Adrian  I.  says  in  his  epistle  to 
St.  Tarasius,  read  out  at  the  7th  council,  is  ex¬ 
plicit  enough  :  “  I  too  receive  the  same  six  holy 
councils  with  all  the  rules  constitutionally  and 
divinely  promulgated  by  them  ;  among  which  is 
contained  ”  what  turns  out  to  be  the  82nd  of 
these  canons,  for  he  quotes  it  at  full  length. 
And  the  first  canon  of  the  7th  council  confirmed 
by  him  is  substantially  to  the  same  effect. 

But  the  exact  truth  is  probably  told  by  Ana¬ 
stasius,  the  librarian,  in  the  preface  to  his  transla¬ 
tion  of  the  acts  of  the  7th  council  dedicated  to 
John  VIII.,  whom  he  credits  Avith  haA'ing  ac¬ 
cepted  all  the  apostolical  canons  under  the  same 
reserve.  “  At  the  7th  council,”  he  says,  “  the 
principal  see  so  far  admits  the  rules  said  by  the 
Greeks  to  have  been  framed  at  the  6th  council, 
as  to  reject  in  the  same  breath  Avhichever  of 
them  should  proA'c  to  be  opposed  to  formep 
canons,  or  the  decrees  of  its  own  holy  pontiffs, 


or  to  good  manners.”  All  of  them,  indeed,  he 
contends  had  been  unknoAvn  to  the  Latins  entirely 
till  then,  neA'^er  having  been  translated :  neither 
AA’ere  they  to  be  found  even  in  the  archives  of  the 
other  patriarchal  sees,  Avhere  Greek  Avas  spoken, 
none  of  Avhose  occupants  had  been  present  to 
concur  or  assist  in  their  promulgation,  although 
the  Greeks  attributed  their  promulgation  to 
those  fathers  Avho  formed  the  6th  council,  a 
statement  for  Avhich  he  avers  they  Avere  unable 
to  bring  any  decisiA’e  proof.  This  shows  how 
little  he  liked  these  canons  himself :  nor  can  it 
be  denied  that  some  of  them  were  dictated  by  a 
spirit  hostile  to  the  West.  The  3rd  and  13th, 
for  instance,  deliberately  propose  to  alter  Avhat 
had  been  the  law  and  practice  of  the  Roman 
church  for  upAvards  of  300  years  respecting  those 
Avho  became  presbyters,  deacons,  or  sub-deacons, 
as  married  men  :  and  make  the  rule  substituted 
for  it  in  each  case  binding  upon  all.  The  55th 
on  the  authority  of  one  of  the  apostolical  canons 
not  received  by  Rome,  interdicts  the  custom  of 
fasting  on  Saturdays  Avhich  had  preA'ailed  in  the 
Roman  church  from  time  immemorial.  And  the 
56th  lays  doAvn  a  rule  to  be  kept  by  all  churches 
in  observing  the  Lenten  fast.  Canons  32,  33, 
and  99  are  specially  levelled  against  the  Arme¬ 
nians.  Of  the  rest,  canon  1  confirms  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  6th  general  council  preceding,  and 
insists  in  the  strongest  terms  upon  its  unalter¬ 
ableness.  Canon  2  renews  all  the  canons  con¬ 
firmed  by  them,  Avith  the  Sardican  and  Afidcan 
m  addition,  besides  the  canons  of  SS.  Dionysius 
and  Peter  of  Alexandria  ;  of  St.  Gregory  Thauma- 
turgus,  St.  Athanasius,  St.  Basil,  and  St.  Gregory 
Nyssen ;  the  canonical  answers  of  Timothy  Avith 
the  canons  of  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Alexandria 
and  two  canonical  letters  of  St.  Cyril  :  the 
canon  of  Scripture  by  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  and 
another  by  St.  Amphilochius,  bishop  '•f  Iconium 
in  Lycaonia,  with  a  circular  of  Gennadius,  pa¬ 
triarch  of  Constantinople,  against  simoniacal 
ordinations.  In  conclusion,  it  receiA’-es  all  thj 
apostolical  canons,  eighty-flA’e  in  number,  though 
at  that  time  but  fifty  Avere  received  in  the  Roman 
church,  as  Ave  learn  from  Anasta.sius,  but  rejects 
the  apostolical  constitutions  as  having  been  in¬ 
terpolated,  and  containing  many  spurious  things. 
By  this  canon  accordingly  the  code  of  the 
Eastern  church  AA'as  authoratiA'ely  settled,  apart 
of  course  fi'om  the  102  canons  noAV  added  to  it, 
Avhich  were  formally  receiA’ed  themseh^es,  as  Ave 
have  seen,  by  the  2nd  Council  of  Nicaea,  and 
reckoned  ever  afteiuvards  as  the  canons  of  the 
6th  council.  As  such  they  are  quoted  by  Pho- 
tius  in  his  Syntagma  canonum,  and  his  Nomo~ 
canon  (Migne’s  Pat.  Gr.  ciA\  431-1218),  and 
continue  to  be  quoted  still  (^Orthod  x  and  Non- 
Jurors,  by  Rev.  G.  Williams,  p.  74).  Their 
general  character  is  thoroughly  Oriental,  but 
without  disparagement  to  their  practical  A'alue 
(Mansi,  xi.  921-1024,  and  xii.  47-56 ;  BcA’er.  II. 
126-64). 

(36)  A.D.  712,  in  the  short-liA'ed  reign  of 
Philippicus  or  Bardanes,  and  under  the  Mono- 
thelite  patriarch  of  his  appointment,  John  VI.  ; 
at  which  the  6th  council  Avas  repudiated  and 
condemned.  The  copy  of  its  acts  belonging  to 
the  palace  Avas  likewise  burnt  by  his  order,  aa 
we  learn  from  the  deacon  Avho  transcribed  them  ; 
and  the  picture  of  it  that  hung  there,  remoA'ed. 
On  the  death  of  the  tyrant  indeed  John  addressed 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


448  CONSTANTINOPLE,  COUNCILS  OF 


a  letter  to  Pope  Constantine  to  apologise  for 
what  had  been  done  ;  but  its  tone  is  not  assuring. 
He  testifies,  however,  to  the  authentic  tomes  of 
tne  6th  council  being  safe  still  in  his  archives 
(Mansi,  xii.  187-208);  and  Pagi  can  see  some 
excuse  for  his  conduct  (ad  Baron,  a.d.  712, 
n.  2-6). 

(37)  A.D.  715,  Aug.  11,  at  which  the  transla¬ 
tion  of  St.  Germanus  from  the  see  of  Cyricus  to 
that  of  Constantinople  was  authorised.  He  had 
been  a  party  to  the  Monothelite  synod  under 
John  three  years  before  ;  but  immediately  after 
his  ti'auslation  he  held  a  synod — most  probably 
this  one  continued — in  which  he  condemned 
Monothelism  (Mansi,  xii.  255-8). 

(38)  A.D.  730,  or  rather  a  meeting  in  the 
imperial  palace,  at  which  the  Emperor  Leo  III., 
better  known  as  the  Isaurian,  called  upon  St. 
Germanus  the  aged  patriai’ch  to  declare  for  the 
demolition  of  images,  which  he  had  just  ordered 
himself  in  a  second  edict  against  them.  The 
patriarch  replied  by  resigning  his  pall  (Mansi, 
xii.  269-70,  and  Pagi,  ad  Baron.,  a.d.  730,  n. 
1-4). 

(39)  A.D.  754,  from  Feb.  10  to  Aug.  8,  held 
by  order  of  the  Emperor  Constantine  Copron)'- 
mus,  and  styling  itself  Oecumenical,  or  the  7th 
council,  though  its  claim  to  both  titles  has  since 
been  set  aside  in  favour  of  the  second  council  of 
Nicaea,  in  which  its  decrees  were  reversed. 
Unfortunately,  there  is  no  record  of  its  acts 
extant,  but  what  is  to  be  found  in  the  6th 
session  of  that  council,  where  they  were  cited 
only  to  be  condemned.  As  many  as  338  bishops 
attended  it,  but  the  chief  see  represented  there 
was  that  of  Ephesus.  Their  proceedings  are 
given  in  six  tomes,  as  follows  :  1.  They  deduce 
the  origin  of  all  creature-worship  from  the  devil, 
to  abolish  which  God  sent  His  Son  in  the  flesh  ; 
2.  Christianity  being  established,  the  devil,  they 
say,  was  undone  to  bring  about  a  combination 
between  it  and  idolatry ;  but  the  emperors  had 
opposed  themselves  to  his  designs.  Already  six 
councils  had  met,  and  the  present  one  following 
in  their  steps  declai'ed  all  pictorial  representa¬ 
tions  unlawful  and  subversive  of  the  faith  which 
they  professed  ;  3.  Two  natures  being  united  in 
Christ,  no  one  picture  or  statue  could  represent 
Christ  as  He  is,  besides  His  only  proper  repre¬ 
sentation  is  in  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice  of  His  own 
institution  ;  4.  There  was  no  prayer  in  use  for 
consecrating  images,  nor  were  representations  of 
the  saints  to  be  tolerated  any  more  than  of 
Christ,  for  Holy  Scripture  was  distinctly  against 
both  ;  5.  The  fathers,  beginning  with  St.  Epi- 
phanius,  having  been  cited  at  some  length  to  the 
same  purpose,  the  council  decreed  unanimously 
that  all  likenesses  of  whatsoever  colour  and 
material  were  to  be  taken  away,  and  utterly  dis¬ 
used  in  Christian  churches  ;  6.  All  clergy  setting 
up  or  exhibiting  reverence  to  images  in  church 
or  at  home  were  to  be  deposed ;  monks  and  lay¬ 
men  anathematised.  Vessels  and  A'estments  be¬ 
longing  to  the  sanctuary  were  never  to  be  turned 
to  any  purpose  in  connexion  with  them.  A  series 
of  anathemas  was  directed  against  all  who  upheld 
them  in  any  sense,  or  contravened  the  decrees  of 
this  council.  St.  Germanus,  the  late  patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  George  of  Cyprus,  and  St. 
John  of  Damascus,  or  Mansur,  as  he  was  called 
by  the  Saracens,  were  specially  denounced  as 
image-worshippers.  The  usual  acclamations  to 


the  emperor  followed.  Before  the  council, sepa¬ 
rated,  Constantine  the  new  j)atriarch  was  pre¬ 
sented  to  it  and  approved.  It  was  then  sitting 
'  in  the  church  of  St.  Mary,  ad  Blachernas,  within 
the  city ;  its  earlier  sittings  had  been  held  in  a 
palace  of  the  emperor,  called  Hieraeon,  on  the 
opposite  shore  (Mansi,  xii.  575-8,  and  xiii.  203- 
350  ;  Cave,  i.  646-7).  [E.  S.  F.] 

CONSTANTINOPLE.  (1)  The  birth  (yc 
v40\ia)  of  Constantinople  is  placed  by  the  Cal. 
Byzant.  on  May  11.  The  dedication  (iyKaivia) 
is  said  to  have  been  performed  by  the  Holy  Fathers 
of  the  1st  Council  of  Nicaea  in  the  year  325. 

(2)  The  Council  of  Constantinople  is  commemo¬ 
rated  in  the  Ar)nenian  Calendar  on  Feb.  16.  fC.] 

CONTAKION  (KovraKiov).  A  short  ode 
or  hymn  which  occurs  in  the  Greek  offices.  The 
name  has  been  variously  derived.  The  expla¬ 
nation  most  generally  received  is  that  it  signifies 
a  short  hymn,  from  the  word  Kovrhs,  little ; 
because  it  contains  in  a  short  space  the  praises 
of  some  saint  or  festival  (Goar,  not.  31  in  oif. 
Laud.).  It  has  also  been  derived  from  Kovrhs. 
a  dart  or  javelin  ;  so  that  Contakion  would  mean 
an  ejaculatory  prayer,  or  a  short  pointed  hymn 
after  the  model  of  an  antiphon.  Some,  again, 
have  considered  the  word  to  be  a  corruption  of 
Canticum,  Romaninus,  a  deacon  of  Emesa,  who 
flourished  about  500  A.D.,  is  said  to  be  the 
author  of  Coidakia.  They  frequently  occur  in 
the  canons  and  other  parts  of  the  office,  and 
vary  with  the  day.  [Canox  of  Odes.]  In  the 
list  of  the  officials  of  the  church  of  Constanti¬ 
nople  we  have  6  twv  KovraKlcou,  named 

among  the  offices  appropiaate  to  priests  (to 
o<p<piKia  TOis  Upev(Ti  KpocrrjKOPTa). 

The  word  “  Contakion  ”  is  also  used  of  the 
volume  containing  the  liturgies  of  St.  Basil,  St. 
Chrysostom,  and  of  the  praesanctified  alone,  in 
distinction  to  the  complete  missal.  In  this  sense 
the  word  is  usually  derived  from  Kovrhs,  a  dart, 
i.e.  the  wooden  roll  round  which  the  MS.  was 
rolled,  “  Kovra^  est  parvus  contus  ....  Inde  et 
KopraKiov,  Scapus  chartarum,  vel  volumen  ad 
instar  baculi”  (Salmas.  Exerc.  Plin.').  Goar,  how¬ 
ever,  prefers  the  derivation  from  koSIkiop, 
“  quasi  brevis  codex.”  In  the  ordination  of  a 
priest,  after  the  ceremonies  of  ordination  are 
completed,  the  newly-ordained  priest  is  directed 
to  take  his  place  among  the  other  priests,  dra- 
yiypuKTKwp  rh  KOPraKiop  (t.  e.  his  book  of  the 
liturgy).  [H.  J.  H.] 

CONTRA  VOTLTM.  A  formula  frequent  in 
epitaphs,  expressing  the  regret  of  survivors  at  a 
loss  suftered  against  their  wishes  and  prayers. 
It  is  of  pagan  origin,  and  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  adopted  by  Christians  before  the  5th 
century.  The  earliest  example  of  the  formula 
given  by  De  Rossi  is  of  the  commencement  of 
that  century,  and  runs  as  follows  :  “  Parentis 
POSVERUNT  TETVLVM  CONTRA  VOTVM  ET  DOLO 
svo.”  It  is  not  confined,  as  has  sometimes  been 
supposed,  to  epitaphs  placed  by  parents  for  their 
children ;  husbands  use  it  of  wives  and  wives  of 
husbands,  brothers  and  sisters  of  each  other ; 
and  in  fact  it  is  very  generally  used  to  express 
the  longing  felt  by  the  survivor  for  the  departed. 
It  is  most  common  in  Northern  Italy.  (Martiguy, 
Eict.  des  Antiq.  Chret.  175.)  [C.] 

CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE.  This  ex- 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE  449 


pression  may  be  considei’ed  in  two  different 
senses,  according  as  it  refers  to  the  agreement  for 
marriage  in  the  abstract,  or,  according  to  later 
continental  usage,  to  its  written  evidence  answer¬ 
ing  to  our  marriage  settlement.  We  shall  consider 
it  separately  under  these  two  heads. 

I.  The  law  of  the  church  on  the  subject  of 
the  contract  of  marriage  is,  as  on  many  other 
points,  compounded  of  the  Jewish  and  Roman 
laws,  under  the  influence  of  New  Testament 
leaching.  It  is  derived  mainly,  in  its  general 
features,  from  the*  latter  system  of  legislation, 
especially  in  regard  to  the  marriage  of  the  laity  ; 
from  the  former  mainly  in  regard  to  that  of 
the  clergy. 

The  validity  of  the  marriage  contract  generally 
depends,  it  may  be  said,  on  two  points,  (1)  the 
inherent  capacity  of  the  parties  to  enter  into  the 
contract  ;  (2)  the  limitations  which  may  be 
placed  upon  the  exercise  of  that  capacity. 

1.  Strictly  speaking,  the  inherent  capacity  of 
the  parties  for  marriage  turns  only  upon  three 
points,  (a)  sufficient  age ;  (6)  sufficient  reason  ; 
(c)  sufficient  freedom  of  will.  On  the  first  point, 
it  may  be  observed  that  the  old  Roman,  like  the 
old  Jewish  law,  attached  the  capacity  for  mar¬ 
riage  by  ago  to  the  physical  fact  of  puberty 
{frist.  bk.  i.  t.  X.  §  1);  and  the  same  principle  is 
pi’actically  followed  in  all  systems  of  legislation 
which  take  notice  of  age  at  all  in  this  matter, 
although  it  is  generally  found  convenient  in  the 
long  run  to  fix  an  age  of  legal  puberty,  without 
reference  to  the  specific  fact.  Thus  already  in 
the  Digest  it  is  provided  that  the  marriage  con¬ 
tract  is  only  valid  on  the  part  of  the  wife  when 
she  has  completed  her  12th  year,  even  though  she 
be  already  married  and  living  with  her  husband 
(bk.  xxiii.  t.  ii.  1.  4).  And  Justinian  himself  in 
his  rnstitutes  professes  to  have  fixed,  on  grounds 
of  decency,  the  age  of  puberty  for  the  male  at  14 
(bk.  i.  t.  xxii.) ;  both  which  periods  have  very 
generally  been  adopted  in  modern  legislation. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  earlier  Roman 
legislation  seems  to  have  even  fixed  an  asre  be- 
yond  which  a  woman  could  not  marry,  since  we 
find  Justinian  in  the  Code  abolishing  all  pro¬ 
hibitions  of  the  Lex  Julia  vel  Papia  against 
marriages  between  men  and  women  above  or  below 
60  ami  50  (^Code,  bk.  v.  t.  iv.  1.  27 ;  and  see  bk. 
vi.  t.  Iviii.  1.  12).  Nothing  of  this  kind  is  to  be 
found  in  later  systems  of  legislation,  although 
disparity  of  age  in  marriage,  as  we  shall  pre¬ 
sently  see,  has  sometimes  been  sought  to  be  sup¬ 
pressed. 

It  may  here  be  observed  that  physical  in¬ 
capacity  in  persons  of  full  age  has  never  been 
held  to  produce  actual  inability  to  enter  into  the 
marriage  contract,  but  simply  to  render  the 
marriage  voidable  when  the  fact  is  ascertained 
(see  Code,  bk.  v.  t.  xvii.  1.  10 ;  Nov.  22,  c.  6 ; 
Nov.  117,  c.  12).  Nor  is  the  fact  one  of  im¬ 
portance  in  reference  to  the  marriage  relation, 
except  where  divorce  is  put  under  restrictions 
(see  Dig.  bk.  xxiv.  t.  i.  11.  60,  61,  62). 

(6.)  As  respects  the  second  point :  Defect  of 
reason,  it  may  be  said,  in  reference  to  the  mar¬ 
riage.  contract,  acts  inversely  to  defect  of  age. 
Thus,  under  the  Roman  law,  followed  generally 
by  modern  legislation,  madness  was  fatal  to  the 
validity  of  the  contract,  but  did  not  dissolve  it 
when  afterward^  supervening  (D/^.  bk.  xxxii.  t.  ii. 
1.  16,  §  2;  and  see  Jul.  Paul.  Recept.  Sent.  bk. 

ClIUIST.  ANT. 


ii.  t.  xix.  §  4).  (c.)  The  freedom  of  will  of  the 

parties,  on  the  other  hand,  can  only  be  testified 
by  their  consent  to  the  marriage  [as  to  which 
see  Consent];  but  it  may  also  be  indirectly 
secured  by  limitations  of  a  protective  character 
placed  on  the  exercise  of  the  capacity  to  contract 
marriage,  which  will  be  considered  presently. 
It  may  be  sufficient  here  to  observe  that  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  jurists  of  the  Digest  a  man  might 
marry  a  woman  by  letters  or  by  proxy  if  she 
were  brought  to  his  house,  but  this  privilege  did 
not  belong  to  the  woman  (bk.  xxiii.  t.  ii.  1.  5  ; 
and  see  Jul.  Paul.  Recept.  Sent.  bk.  ii.  t.  xix. 
§5). 

There  was,  moreover,  one  large  class  of  persons 
in  whom  there  was  held  to  be  no  freedom  of  will, 
and,  consequently,  no  capacity  to  contract  mar¬ 
riage.  It  is  important  to  insist  on  this  point, 
since  Gibbon  in  the  second  chapter  of  his  great 
work  speaks  of  the  Romans  as  having  “  in  their 
numerous  families,  and  particularly  in  their 
country  estates  .  .  .  encouraged  the  marriage  of 
their  slaves.”  A  falser  statement  was  probably 
never  put  forth  by  a  historian,  unless  for  mar¬ 
riage  we  read,  in  plain  English,  breeding.  Mar¬ 
riage  is  simply  impossible  where  the  persons  of 
slaves  of  both  sexes  are  subject,  absolutely  with¬ 
out  limit,  to  the  lusts,  natural  or  unnatural,  of  a 
master  (see,  for  instance,  Horace,  Sat.  i.  2,  116). 
The  slave,  his  master’s  thing,  can  have  no  will 
but  his  master’s ;  in  respect  of  the  civil  law  pro¬ 
perly  so-called,  i.  e.  the  law  made  for  citizens, 
he  does  not  exist ;  (Ulpian,  Dig.  bk.  1.  t.  xvii. 
1.  32),  or  as  the  same  jurist  in  his  grand  lan¬ 
guage  elsewhere  expresses  it,  his  condition  is 
almost  equivalent  to  death  itself  (ibid.  1.  209). 
Thus,  according  to  the  logic  of  the  Roman  law, 
connections  between  slaves  obtain  not  so  much 
as  a  mention  by  either  the  jurists  of  the  Digest, 
or  the  Emperors  in  the  constitutions  of  the  Code. 
Connections  between  slaves  and  serfs,  i.  e.  the 
so-called  adscriptitii  glehae,  are  indeed  mentioned 
(Code,  bk.  xi.  t.  xlvii.  c.  21),  but  without  the 
name  of  marriage,  and  only  to  determine  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  offspring,  which  is  fixed  by  that  of 
the  mother.  Rustici,  a  class  of  peasants  who 
seem  to  have  been  of  higher  status  than  the 
adscriptitii,  could  contract  marriage  inter  se,  and 
the  157th  Novel  is  directed  against  the  land- 
owners  of  Mesopotamia  and  Osrhoene,  who  sought 
to  forbid  their  peasants  to  marry  out  of  their  own 
estates,  and  if  they  did  so,  were  in  the  habit  of 
breaking  up  their  marriages  and  families. 

Wherever,  therefore,  we  find  slaves’  marriages 
mentioned,  we  must  seek  another  origin  for  the 
recognition  of  them  than  in  the  Roman  law'. 
That  origin  seems  unquestionably  to  be  in  the 
Jewish  law.  Although  only  “  Hehi’ew  ”  servants 
are  mentioned  in  the  passage  of  Exodus  on  this 
subject  (c.  xxi.  vv.  3,  4,  5,  6),  it  is  clear  that 
the  Pentateuch  recognized  the  marriage  of  per¬ 
sons  in  a  servile  condition.  And  with  the 
sweeping  away  by  the  Christian  dispensation  of 
all  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile  it  is 
but  natural  to  suppose  that  the  right  of  marriage 
would  be  extended  from  the  Hebrew  slave  to 
the  whole  slave  class.  Such  right,  indeed,  was 
not  absolute,  as  will  have  been  observed,  but 
flowed  from  the  master’s  will,  and  was  subject  to 
his  rights.  The  master  gave  a  wife  to  his  slave  ; 
the  wife  and  her  children  remained  his,  even 
when  the  slave  himself  obtained  his  freedom. 


450  CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


The  B;u‘bari;in  Codes  do  not  materially  vai*y 
from  the  Roman  as  respects  the  marriage  con¬ 
tract,  so  far  as  res])ects  the  conditions  of  age 
and  reason.  It  is  clear,  however,  that,  in  Italy, 
especially  under  the  Lombards,  and  under  the 
Visigoths  of  Spain,  habits  of  early  marriage 
prevailed  which  had  to  be  checked  by  law.  A 
law  of  King  Luitprand,  A.D.  724,  enacts  that 
girls  shall  only  be  maindageable  at  the  exj)iration 
of  their  T2th'  year  (bk.  vi.  c.  59).  An  earlier 
law  of  the  same  king,  A.D.  717,  has  been  already 
referred  to  under  the  head  Biotkotiial  (bk.  ii. 
c.  6).  Although  18  was  fixed  as  the  age  of  ma¬ 
jority  for  male  infant.s,  yet  they  might  befoi’e 
this  age  contract  either  betrothal  or  marriage, 
and  had  full  power  of  settling  proj)erty  (bk.  vi. 
c.  64  ;  A.D.  724).  A  Lombard  capitulary  of  Charle¬ 
magne’s  (a.d.  779)  prohibits  generally  the  marry¬ 
ing.  of  a  boy  or  girl  under  the  age  of  puberty, 
where  there  is  disparity  of  age,  but  allows  them  to 
marry  when  of  equal  age  and  consenting  (c.  145). 
The  same  prohibition  is  contained  in  the  Capi¬ 
tulary  of  Tessiuo  (Pertz),  A.D.  801,  also  added 
to  the  Lombard  law. 

The  Vi.sigothic  law  seems  less  equal  towards 
the  sexes.  A  law  of  King  Chindaswinth  (bk.  iii. 
t.  4)  forbids  on  the  one  hand  women  of  full  age 
from  marrying  males  under  age,  but  on  the  other 
enacts  that  girls  under  age  are  only  to  marry 
husbands  of  full  age.  It  is  not  however  clear 
whether  the  age  referred  to  is  that  of  puberty  or 
general  majority. 

As  respects  the  marriage  of  slaves,  we  find  a 
formula  on  the  subject  among  tho.se  collected  by 
Mabillon  (No.  44).  They  appear  clearly  to  have 
been  recognized  both  by  the  state  and  the 
church  in  the  reign  of  Charlemagne,  as  will  be 
presently  shewn. 

2.  If  we  turn  now  to  what  we  may  term  the 
extrinsic  conditions  of  the  capacity  for  marriage, 
in  other  words  to  the  limitations  placed  upon  the 
exercise  of  that  capacity,  we  find  these  to  have 
been  very  various.  Some  are  purely  or  mainly 
moral  ones;  the  leading  one  of  this  cla.ss,  that  of 
the  amount  of  consanguinity  which  the  law  of 
different  nations  has  held  to  be  a  bar  to  the 
validity  of  the  nuptial  contract,  will  be  found 
treated  of  under  the  heads  of  Cousins-German, 
Marriage.  Another — singular,  because  exactly 
opposite  feelings  on  the  subject  have  prevailed 
in  different  countrie.s — is  to  be  found  in  the  pro¬ 
hibition  by  the  later  Roman  law  of  marriages 
between  ravishers  and  their  victims,  under  severe 
penalties,  both  for  the  parties  themseh^es,  and 
the  parents  who  consented  to  it  (Justinian,  Cod. 
b.  ix.  t.  xiii.  §  1,  Nov.  143,  150). 

A  directly  contrary  rule  prevailed  under  Theo- 
doric  in  the  Ostrogothic  kingdom.  The  59th  chap¬ 
ter  of  his  Edict  compels  the  ravisher  of  a  free¬ 
born  woman,  if  of  suitable  fortune  and  noble 
birth,  as  well  as  single,  to  marry  her,  and  to 
endow  her  wdth  l-5th  of  his  property.  Tlie 
Lombard  law  does  not  seem  to  provide  expressly 
for  the  case;  but  the  “Lex  Romana”  of  the 
Roman  population  in  Italy  must  have  followed 
it  in  its  departure  from  the  legislation  of  the 
cmi)erors,  where,  after  enacting  death  as  the 
penalty  of  rape,  it  provides  that  if  no  accusation 
be  brought  for  five  years,  “  the  marriage  will 
afterwards  be  valid  and  its  issue  legitimate  ” 
(bk.  ix.  t.  xviii.).  Death  was  also  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  rape  among  the  Franks  ;  but  Marculf’s 


formulae  .show  that  marriages  between  ravisher 
and  ravished  were  allowed  (bk.  ii.  f.  16).  A 
Lombard  cajiitulary  of  Charlemagne’s,  however, 
A.D.  779,  forbids  a  ravished  bride  to  marry  her 
ravisher,  even  if  her  betrothed  refuses  to  take 
her  back  (c.  124).  The  law  of  the  Alamans  (t.  lii  ) 
is  to  the  same  erfect.  The  Saxon  law  on  the  con¬ 
trary  (t.  x.)  requires  the  ravisher  to  “  buy  ”  the 
woman  for  300  solidi. 

It  seems  doubtful  whether  a  canon  of  the 
Council  of  lliberis  in  305,  bearing  that  “  virgins 
who  have  not  kept  their  virginity,  if  they  have 
married  and  kept  as  husbands  tiieir  violators,”  are 
to  be  admitted  to  communion  after  a  year  without 
penance,  apjdies  really  to  what  we  should  term 
violation,  or  to  seduction  only.  But  at  any  rate 
the  Visigothic  law  is  sevex'est  of  all  the  barbaric 
codes  against  marriages  between  ravishers  and 
ravished.  Whilst  enacting  that  the  ravisher  with 
all  his  property  is  to  be  handed  over  as  a  slave  to 
the  woman  to  whom  he  has  done  violence,  and  to 
receive  200  lashes  publicly,  it  imposes  the  jie- 
nalty  of  death  on  both  if  they  intermarry,  unless 
they  should  flee  to  the  altar,  when  they  are  to 
be  separated  and  given  to  the  parents  of  the 
woman  (bk.  iii.  t.  iii.  11.  1,  2).  Closely  allied  to 
these  enactments  is  one  of  the  Burgundian  law, 
forbidding  marriages  between  widows  and  their 
paramours  (t.  xliv.).  It  may  perhaps  be  inferred 
from  the  above  that  the  tendency  of  the  bar¬ 
barian  races  had  originally  been  to  favour  such 
marriages,  but  that  the  influence  of  the  oi)posite 
Roman  feeling,  kept  up  no  doubt  traditionally  by 
the  clergy,  generally  prex^ailed  in  the  long  run  in 
the  barbarian  codes. 

There  were  indeed  certain  moral  enormities 
which  in  some  legislations  were  made  a  bar  to 
all  subsequent  marriage.  By  the  Visigothic  law, 
a  freeman  guilty  of  rape  on  a  married  woman, 
after  receiving  a  hundred  lashes,  was  to  become 
slave  to  his  victim,  and  never  to  m.’fry  again 
(bk.  ii.  t.  iv.  1.  14).  But  it  is  the  Carlovingian 
capitularies  which  apply  most  largely  this  kind 
of  prohibition.  By  a  capitulary  of  King  Pepin  at 
Vermerie,  A.D.  753,  if  a  man  committed  adultery 
with  his  step-daughter,  with  his  step-mother,  or 
with  his  wife’s  sister  or  cousin,  neither  could  ever 
marry  again  (cc.  2,  10,  11,  12);  nor  a  wife  who 
had  been  dismissed  by  her  husband  for  conspiring 
against  his  life  (c.  5).  The  Capitulary  of  Com- 
piegne,  A.D.  757,  extends  the  prohibition  to  a 
brother  committing  adultery  with  his  sister-in- 
law,  a  father  seducing  his  son’s  betrothed,  and 
to  their  respective  paramours  (cc.  11,  13);  to  a 
man  living  in  adultery  with  a  mother  and 
daughter,  or  with  two  sisters,  but  to  the  women, 
in  such  case,  only  if  they  were  aware  of  the  in¬ 
cestuous  connexion  (cc.  17,  18).  A  capitulary 
of  the  7th  book  of  the  general  collection  forbids 
also  a  woman  who  has  had  connexion  with  two 
brothers  ever  to  marry  again  (c.  381 ;  and  see 
bk.  v.  c.  168). 

Another  limitation  on  the  marriage  contract, 
which  must  be  considered  rather  of  a  political 
nature,  and  which  pi’evails  more  or  less  still  in 
the  military  code  of  almost  every  modern  nation, 
was  that  on  the  marriage  of  soldiers.  Under  the 
early  Roman  polity,  marriage  was  absolutely  for¬ 
bidden  to  soldiers  ;  but  the  Emperor  Claudius 
allowed  them  the  jus  connubii,  and  it  seems  cer¬ 
tain  that  there  were  married  soldiers  under  Galba 
and  Domitian  (Mur.  T/ies.  Inscr.  i.  p.  306 ;  Gon, 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE  451 


Tnscr.  Antiq.  iii.  p.  144).  Severus  seems  how¬ 
ever  to  have  been  the  first  to  allow  sol  liers  to 
live  with  their  wives  (Herod,  iii.  229).  The 
Philips,  on  the  other  hand,  seem  to  have  re¬ 
stricted  the  jtis  connubii  for  soldier  to  a  first 
marriage  (Mur.  Thes.  Tnscr.  i.  3(32).  Under  Jus¬ 
tinian’s  Code,  the  marriage  of  soldiei  s  and  other 
persons  in  the  militia,  from  the  caligt  his  miles  to 
the  protector,  was  made  free  without  solemnities 
of  any  sort,  so  long  as  the  wife  was  free-born 
(^Constitution  of  Theodosius  aiid  Valentinian,  Code, 
bk.  v.  t.  iv.  1.  21).  There  having  been  no  re¬ 
gular  armies  among  the  barbarian  races,  nothing 
answering  to  the  prohibition  is  to  be  found  in 
their  codes. 

We  pass  now  to  those  restrictions  on  marriage 
which  must  be  considered  to  be  mainly  of  a  pro¬ 
tective  character,  and  intended  to  secure  the  real 
freedom,  as  well  as  the  wisdom  of  choice.  To 
these,  in  the  highest  view  of  the  subject,  belong 
those  which  turn  upon  the  consent  of  parents 
[see  Consent]  ;  although  indeed  this  restriction 
seems  generally  to  have  had  its  historic  oidgin  in 
a  much  lower  sphere  of  feeling, —  that  of  the 
social  dependence  and  slavery  or  quasi-slavery 
of  children  to  their  parents.  Next  come  the 
interdictions  placed  by  the  Roman  law  on  the 
marriage  of  guardians  or  curators,  or  their  issue, 
with  their  female  wards.  This  occupies  a  large 
space  in  the  Corpus  Juris ;  see  Dig.  bk.  xxiii. 
t.  ii.  11.  59,  60,  62,  64,  66,  67  ;  Code,  bk.  v.  t.  vi. 

Lastly  come  the  interdictions  on  the  marriage 
of  officials  within  their  jurisdictions,  which,  as 
Papinian  remarks,  are  analogous  in  principle  to 
those  on  the  marriage  of  guardians  with  their 
wards  (Dig.  bk.  xxiii.  t.  ii.  1.  63).  No  official 
could  marry  (though  he  might  betroth  to  him- 
.self)  a  wife  born  or  domiciled  within  the  province 
in  which  he  held  office,  unless  be  had  been  be¬ 
trothed  to  her  before  ;  and  if  he  betrothed  a 
woman,  she  could,  after  his  giving  up  office,  ter¬ 
minate  the  engagement,  on  returning  the  earnest- 
money  ;  but  he  could  give  his  daughters  in  mar¬ 
riage  within  the  province  (1.  38).  The  marriage 
of  an  official  contracted  against  this  interdiction 
seems  to  have  been  considered  by  Papinian  abso¬ 
lutely  void  (1.  63). 

Under  the  Code,  a  well-known  con.stitution  of 
Gratian,  Valentinian,  and  Theodosiu.s,  A.D.  380, 
known  by  its  title  as  “  Si  rector  Provinciae  ” 
(referred  to  supra  under  Arrhae),  whilst  de¬ 
priving  of  all  binding  force  betrothals  between 
persons  holding  authority  in  any  province,  their 
kinsmen  and  dependents,  and  women  of  the  pro¬ 
vince,  allows  the  marriage  nevertheless  to  be 
afterwards  carried  out  with  the  consent  of  the 
betrothed  women  (bk.  t.  ii.).  And  a  previous 
constitution  of  Gordian  had  provided  that  if  the 
marriage  were  contracted  against  the  law  with 
the  woman’s  consent,  and  after  her  hu.sband  laid 
down  his  office  she  remained  of  the  same  mind, 
the  marriage  became  legal,  and  the  issue  legi¬ 
timate  (t.  iv.  1.  6).  By  another  constitution, 
known  as  “  Si  quacumque  praeditus  potestate,” 
a  fine  of  10.  lbs.  of  gold  was  enacted  against  offi- 
rials  who  should  .seek  to  coerce  women  into 
marriages,  even  though  these  should  not  be 
carried  out  (law  of  Gratian,  Valentinian,  and 
Theodo.sius,  a.d.  380 ;  ih.  t.  vii.). 

We  do  not  find  anything  answering  to  these 
provisions  in  the  Barbarian  Codes,  but  only  in 
the  work  called  the  Lex  Romana  supposed  to 


have  represented  the  personal  law  of  the  Romans 
under  the  Lombard  kings.  Here,  in  barbarous 
Latin,  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  Code  are 
reproduced,  whilst  others  are  widely  departed 
from.  For  instance,  in  place  of  the  protective 
provisions  against  the  marriage  of  guardians  with 
their  wards,  we  have  coarser  ones  providing 
against  the  seduction  of  wards  by  their  guar¬ 
dians,  under  penalty  of  exile  an  I  confiscation 
(bk.  ix.  t.  V.). 

I  Another  class  of  restrictions  on  marriage  may 
I  be  termed  social  ones,  as  depending  chiefly  on 
i  di.sparity  of  social  condition.  The  most  promi¬ 
nent  disparity  of  condition  in  the  whole  ancient 
I  world,  as  it  remains  still  in  much  of  the  modern 
world,  was  that  between  freeman  and  slave. 
According  to  the  Roman  law,  there  could  be  abso¬ 
lutely  no  marriage  between  the  two,  but  only  what 
was  termed  a  contuhernium  (.Jul.  Paul,  liecept. 
Sent.  bk.  ii.  t.  19,  §  3).  Yet  the  .sense  of  human 
equality  was  so  strong,  that  a  senatus-consultum 
had  to  be  issued  under  the  Emperor  Claudius 
against  the  marriage  of  freewomen  with  slaves; 
reducing  the  former  to  slavery  itself,  if  the  act 
were  done  without  the  knowledge  of  the  master, 
— to  the  condition  of  freedwomen  if  with  his  con¬ 
sent  (Tacitus,  Ann.  bk.  xii.  c.  53 ;  a.d.  53). 
Although  this  law  does  not  appear  in  the  Corpus 
Juris — perhaps  because  it  might  seem  indirectly 
to  recognize  slaves’  marriages — it  is  clear  that 
neither  under  the  Digest  nor  under  the  Code  could 
there  be  any  marri.age  between  free  and  slave. 

I  “  With  slave-girls  there  can  be  no  connubium,” 
says  a  constitution  of  Constantine  (bk.  v.  t.  v. 
1.  3) ;  “/or  from  this  contubernium  slaves  are 
^  born”  It  affords  indeed  a  strange  picture  of  the 
^  more  than  servile  condition  of  the  Roman  muni- 
!  cipal  functionaries,  even  at  this  period  of  the 
j  Empire,  that  the  avowed  object  of  the  constitu- 
j  tion  which  opens  with  this  enunciation  of  a 
principle,  is  to  prevent  decurions,  through  the 


passions  of  slave  girls. 


finding 


a  refuge  in  the 


bosom  of  the  most  powerful  families.  The  secret 
marriage  of  a  decurion  with  a  slave  was  to  be 
punished  by  sending  the  woman  to  the  mines, 
the  decurion ,  himself  to  exile  on  some  island, 

I  whilst  his  property  passed,  as  if  he  were  dead, 
to  his  family,  or  in  default  of  such  to  the  city  of 
I  which  he  w'as  a  curial ;  local  officials  who  were 
privy  to  the  offence,  or  left  it  unpunished,  were 
in  like  manner  to  be  sent  to  the  mines.  If  it 
took  place  in  the  countiy,  by  perrni.ssion  of  the 
girl’s  master,  the  estate  where  it  occurred,  with 
all  slaves  and  live  and  dead  stock,  was  to  be  con¬ 
fiscated  ;  if  in  a  city  the  master  forfeited  the 
half  of  all  his  goods.  That  decurions,  however, 
were  not  the  only  per.sons  likely  to  marry  slaves 
is  evident  from  a  constitution  of  Valentinian  and 
Marcian,  A.D.  428  (f6.  1.  7),  which  enumerates 
j  “  the  slave-girl,  the  daughter  of  a  slave-girl,” 
'first  amongst  those  persons  whom  senators  may 
not  marry. 

I  If  any  man  married  a  slave,  believing  her  to 
I  be  free,  the  ma.(riage  was  void  ab  initio  (22nd 
I  Nov.  c.  10).  But  if  a  master  married  his  slave- 
:  girl  to  a  freeman,  or  constituted  a  dos  upon  her, 
j  which  was  considered  to  be  the  privilege  of  the 
free,  a  constitution  of  Justinian’s  enacted  that 
this  should  not  onlv  enfranchise  her,  but  confer 
on  her  the  rights  of  Roman  citizen.'^hip  (Code, 
bk.  vii.  t.  vi.  1.  9).  In  the  22nd  Novel  (c.  11) 
the  same  emperor  went  further  still  and  enactnd, 

2  G 


452  CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


that  when  a  master  either  himself  gave  away  his 
slave-girl  in  marriage,  whether  with  or  without 
dotal  iustrumonts,  or  knowingly  allowed  another 
to  give  her  away,  as  a  freewoman,  to  a  man  ignor¬ 
ant  of  her  condition,  this  should  amount  to  a 
tacit  enfranchisement,  and  the  marriage  should 
be  valid;  and  again  (c.  12),  a  fortiori,  that  if  a 
master  had  long  deserted  either  a  male  or  female 
slave  in  a  state  of  bodily  weakness  {lawfuentes), 
or  shown  no  care  to  lu-eserve  his  rights  over 
them,  they,  as  derelicts,  resuming  possession  of 
themselves,  were  no  longer  to  be  troubled  by  him, 
so  that  the  marriages  of  such  as  free  men  or 
women  would  be  lawful.  Finally,  the  78th  Novel 
provided  that  where  a  man  had  had  children  by 
his  slave-girl,  and  constituted  a  dos  upon  her 
(which  had  the  etlect  of  marriage),  this  of  itself 
had  the  effect  of  manumitting  the  issue  born  in 
slavery,  and  rendering  them  liberi,  and  no  longer 
merely  fHii,  to  the  father  (c.  4). 

Closely  analogous  to  the  condition  of  the  slaA'e 
was  that  of  the  adscript itius  glebae.  The  mar¬ 
riage  of  a  freeman  with  an  adscriptitia  does  not 
however  seem  to  have  been  void,  but  the  children 
retained  their  mother’s  condition.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  marriage  of  a  freewoman  with  an 
adscriptitius  was  declared  to  be  absolutely  void  ; 
they  were  to  be  separated,  and  the  man  punished 
(Code,  bk.  xi.  t.  xlvii.  1.  24;  22nd  Nov.  c.  17; 
but  see  54th  Nov.  preface).  Nor  do  we  find  the 
same  mitigations  of  the  law  in  favour  of  an  ad¬ 
scriptitia  as  of  a  slave  (supra').  As  respects  the 
next  higher  class,  that  of  the  rustici,  we  find  that 
whilst  marriages  between  them  and  free  pei’sons 
seem  to  have  been  recognized,  the  issue  of  such 
marriages  was  divided  in  point  of  condition,  the 
first,  third,  fifth  child,  &c.,  following  that  of  the 
mother  (“  quod  impar  est,  habebit  venter,” 
156th  Novel). 

The  Barbarian  Codes  deal  more  frequently  with 
the  subject  of  these  marriages,  and  in  some  of 
them  we  trace  distinctly  the  threefold  condition 
of  freeman,  serf  or  villain,  and  slave,  the  second 
becoming  more  and  more  superior  to  the  third. 
The  intermarriage  of  man  or  woman  belonging 
to  either  of  the  fii’st  two  classes  involves,  under 
the  Lombard  laws  (a.d.  638)  of  Rotharis  (c.  218), 
and  Luitprand  (a.d.  721)  (bk.  iv.  c.  6),  penalties 
of  greater  or  less  severity.  In  the  Lex  liomana, 
supposed  to  represent  the  personal  law  of  the 
Roman  population  in  Italy  in  Lombard  times,  we 
find  a  provision,  that  if  a  freewoman  marries  her 
own  slave,  she  shall  be  put  to  death  and  the  slave 
burnt  alive  (bk.  ix.  t.  vi.). 

Similar  provisions  are  found  in  the  Alamannic 
law  (circ.  A.D.  750)  (c.  2,  and  foil.),  in  the  Bava¬ 
rian  (Append,  de  popul.  leg.  c.  9)  and  the  Frisian 
(t.  xviii.),  while  the  Visigothic  is  yet  more  cruelly 
severe,  condemning  all  such  unions,  according  to 
their  varying  circumstances,  to  the  penalties  of 
loss  of  freedom,  scourging,  death  by  burning 
(bk.  iii.  t.  ii.  c.  2). 

Finally,  a  law  of  King  Gaba  is  addressed  to 
what  seems  to  have  been  a  peculiar  form  of  semi¬ 
slavery  in  the  service  of  the  Church.  Its  title  is, 
“That  those  who  are  enfranchised,  retaining  ser¬ 
vice  to  the  Church,  should  not  dare  approach  the 
marriage  of  free  persons.”  It  enacts  that  a  church- 
slave  absolutely  freed  may  marry  a  freewoman  ; 
but  if  still  bound  to  the  obsequiutn,  he  is  to  re¬ 
ceive  three  stripes  and  be  separated  from  his 
wife;  otherwise  both  are  to  be  in  slavery  with 


their  issue,  the  ;  roperty  of  the  freewoman  going 
to  her  heirs.  And  the  same  rule  is  enacted  as  to 
such  women  marrying  freemen  (bk.  iv.  c.  7). 

Notwithstanding  the  har.->hness  of  many  of  the 
above  enactments,  it  must  be  inferred  from  them 
that  marriages  between  free  and  slaves  were  in¬ 
creasing  in  frequency.  Indirectly,  moreover, 
those  which  provide  that  a  fieew'oman  choosing 
to  remain  with  her  slave-husband  becomes  a  .slave 
herself,  seem  to  imply,  like  the  senatus-consult 
under  Claudius  before  quoted,  which  was  not 
admitted  into  the  Code,  a  recognition  of  marriages 
between  slaves,  since  the  mere  living  with  a  slave 
would  not  (except  under  the  Visigothic  law) 
affect  the  condition  of  the  freewoman.  There  is 
moreover  evidence  that,  even'  in  the  latter  class 
of  cases,  custom  was  often  milder  than  the  law. 
Marculf’s  Foy-mularies,  which  are  considered  to 
have  been  put  together  about  a.d.  660,  contain  a 
“  charta  de  agnatione,  si  servus  ingenuam  trahit,” 
by  which  a  mistress  grants  the  freedom  of  a  frec- 
woman’s  children  by  her  slave  (f.  29 ;  and  see 
Appendix,  f.  18).  The  ultimate  relaxations  of  the 
law  itself  under  the  Carlovingians  will  be  best 
treated  of  in  connexion  with  the  ecclesiastical 
history  of  the  subject. 

Vast  as  was  the  gap  betw'een  free  and  slave  in 
the  ancient  world,  that  between  the  free  born 
and  the  freed  was  still  considerable, — especially 
as  between  male  slaves  enfranchised  and  their 
former  mistresses,  or  the  female  relatives  of  a 
former  master.  According  to  the  jurist  Paul, 
a  freedman  aspiring  to  marriage  with  hxs patrona, 
or  the  wdfe  or  daughter  of  his  patronus,  was, 
according  to  the  dignity  of  the  person,  to  be 
punished  either  by  being  sent  to  the  mines,  or 
put  upon  public  works  (Jul.  Paul.  P.ecept.  Sentent. 
bk.  ii.  t.  xix.  §  6);  unless  indeed  the  condition 
of  the  patrona  was  so  low'  as  to  make  such  a 
marriage  suitable  for  her  (Dig.  bk.  xxiii.  t.  ii. 
1.  13).  On  the  other  hand,  the  Lex  Papia 
allow'ed  all  freeborn  males,  except  senators  and 
their  children  (i"  which  case  the  marriage  w'as 
void),  to  marry  freedw'omen  (ib.  1.  23),  from 
w'hich  class  seem  however  to  have  been  excej'ted 
those  of  brothel-keepers,  probably  as  presumably 
being  prostitutes  themselves  (Ulpian’s  Fragments, 
t.  xiii.  §  27).  The  marriage  of  a  master  with 
his  fi'eedw'oman  w'as  by  no  means  looked  upon  in 
the  same  light  as  that  of  a  mistress  w'ith  her 
freedman  ;  and  the  patronus  w'as  restrained  fi  om 
marrying  his  freedw'oman  without  her  will 
(ib.  1.  28). 

The  social  restrictions  on  marriage  w'ere,  in 
this  as  in  other  re.spects,  relaxed  by  the  later 
emperors.  The  marriage  to  a  freedwoman  of  a 
man  w'ho  afterwards  became  a  senator  was  de¬ 
clared  by  Justinian  to  remain  valid,  as  well  as 
that  of  a  private  person’s  daughter  to  a  freed¬ 
man,  w'hen  her  lather  was  raised  to  the  .^enate 
(Code,  bk.  V.  t.  iv.  1.  28).  He  removed  the  dis¬ 
ability  to  marriage  which  seems  to  have  been 
considered  to  exist  between  a  man  and  a  girl 
whom  he  had  brought  up  (alumna)  and  en¬ 
franchised  (1.  26).  And  by  the  78th  Novel  he 
allow’ed  persons  “of  whatever  dignity”  to  marry 
freedwomen,  provided  “  nuptial  documents”  were 
drawn  up  (c.  3). 

There  were  moreover  certain  conditions  of  life 
which  were  assimilated  by  their  ignominy  to  the 
servile  one.  A  free-born  man  could  not  marry  a 
procuress,  a  w'oman  taken  in  adultery,  one  con- 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE  453 


dcmned  by  public  judgment,  or  a  stage-player ; 
nor,  according  to  Mauricianus,  one  condemned 
by  the  senate  (Ulpian’s  Fragments,  t.  xiii.).  A 
senator  was  subject  to  the  same  resti'ictions 
(^Dig.  bk.  xxiii.  t.  ii.  1.  44,  §  8 ;  and  see  1.  43, 
§§  10,  12);  the  Lex  Julia  et  Papia  imposing, 
moreover,  a  special  prohibition  on  the  marriage 
of  either  senators  or  their  issue  with  stage-jdaycrs 
or  the  children  of  such  (1.  44).  Under  Valenti- 
nian  and  Marcian,  A.D.  454,  the  “  low  and  abject” 
women  who  were  forbidden  to  marry  senators 
were  declared  to  be  slaves  and  their  daughters, 
freedwomen  and  their  daughters,  players  and 
their  daughters,  tavern-keepers  and  their  daugh¬ 
ters,  the  daughters  of  lenones  and  gladiators,  and 
women  who  had  publicly  kept  shops  (^Code,  bk.  v. 
t.  V.  1.  7).  If  indeed  a  senator’s  daughter  should 
prostitute  herself,  go  on  the  stage,  or  be  con¬ 
demned  by  public  judgment,  her  dignity  being 
lost,  she  might  many  a  freedman  with  impunity 
(Pig.  bk.  xxiii.  t.  ii.  1.  47). 

Thanks,  no  doubt,  to  Theodora’s  influence, 
much  greater  indulgence  was  shewn  under  Jus¬ 
tinian  to  actresses.  Such  women,  if  they  had 
left  their  calling  and  led  a  respectable  life,  were 
enabled  to  intermarry  with  persons  of  any  rank, 
and  their  children  were  relieved  from  disabi¬ 
lities  (bk.  V.  t.  iv.  1.  27,  §  1).  By  another 
constitution  (1.  29),  women  who  had  been  forced 
to  mount  the  stage,  or  who  wished  to  abandon 
it,  were  rendered  capable  of  marrying  persons 
of  the  highest  rank,  without  the  imperial  per¬ 
mission. 

The  jurists  of  the  Digest  had  however  gone 
beyond  all  specific  restrictions  on  marriage. 
Modestinus  had  laid  down  that  “  in  marriages 
one  should  not  only  consider  what  is  lawful,  but 
what  is  honourable.”  And  generally  there  seems 
to  have  grown  up  a  feeling  against  unequal  mar¬ 
riages,  such  as  is  indicated  in  a  before-quoted 
constitution  of  Valentinian  and  Marcian  (Code, 
bk.  V.  t.  V.  1.  7 ;  A.i).  454),  which  provides  that 
“  a  woman  is  not  to  be  deemed  vile  or  abject 
who,  although  poor,  is  of  free  descent and 
declares  lawful  the  marriage  of  such  persons, 
however  poor,  with  senators  or  persons  of  the 
highest  rank.  And  as  it  seemed  to  have  been 
inferred,  from  a  constitution  of  Theodosius  a^d 
Valentinian,  A.D.  418,  which  abolished  the  neces¬ 
sity  for  all  formalities  between  persons  of  equal 
condition  (Code,  bk.  v.  t.  iv.  1.  22),  that  without 
dotal  instruments  such  marriages  between  per¬ 
sons  of  unequal  condition  were  not  valid,  Jus¬ 
tinian  abolished  all  restrictions  on  unequal  mar¬ 
riages,  provided  the  wife  were  free  and  of  free 
descent,  and  there  was  no  suspicion  of  incest  or 
aught  nefarious  (1.  23,  §  7). 

We  do  not  And  much  in  the  barbarian  codes 
on  this  branch  of  the  subject.  The  Roman  law 
against  the  intermarriage  of  freedmen  or  their 
issue  with  the  posterity  of  their  patrons  re¬ 
appears  in  the  Wisigothic  code  (bk.  v.  t.  vii.  e.  17), 
the  penalty  being  reinslavement.  Among  the 
Wisigoths  there  seems  to  hare  been  an  old 
law  forbidding  the  intermarriage  of  Goths  and 
Romans,  which  was  repealed  by  Rueswinth 
(Lex  Wisig.  bk.  iii.  t.  i.),  who  allowed  any  free¬ 
man  to  marry  any  freewoman,”  with  the  solemn 
consent  other  family,  an!  the  permission  of  the 
court.”  The  same  law  must  have  prevailed  in 
Italy  under  the  Lombards,  though  we  miss  it 
from  the  Lombard  code,  since  the  Lex  Romaua 


forbids  intermarriage  between  Romans  and  Bar¬ 
barians  under  pain  of  death  (bk.  iii.  t.  xiv.). 
This  restriction  is  however  one  rather  of  a  poli¬ 
tical  nature. 

Lastly,  certain  restrictions  on'  the  marriage 
contract  are  of  a  religious  character,  an<l  will  be 
best  referred  to  when  we  consider  the  rules  of 
the  Church  itself  upon  the  subject,  which  we 
shall  now  proceed  to  do. 

That  marriage  generally  was  a  civil  contract, 
subject  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  seems  to  have 
been  the  received  doctrine  of  the  early  Church ; 
whilst  at  the  same  time  it  claime<^i  also  power 
to  regulate  it  in  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  as  is 
shewn,  for  instance,  in  the  strictness  of  our  Lord 
and  His  apostles  against  divorce,  altheugh  freely 
allowed  both  by  the  Jewish  and  the  Roman  law. 
Hence  Pagan  betrothals  and  marriages  were,  as 
Selden  observes,  held  valid  by  the  Christians 
( Uxor  Ebraica,  bk.  ii.  c.  24).  The  validity  of 
non-Christian  marriages  seems  to  be  implied  in 
such  passages  as  1  Cor.  vii.  12-16,  referring  to 
the  cases  of  a  convert  husband  and  an  uncon¬ 
verted  wife,  a  convert  wife  and  an  unconverted 
husband ;  in  the  latter  of  which  cases  at  least 
the  form  of  marriage  must  be  supposed  to  have 
been  one  unsanctified  by  the  Church  ;  whilst  both 
would  seem  to  include  the  hypothesis  of  a  con- 
A'ersion  of  either  party  after  such  a  marriage. 
It  must  moreover  be  observed  that,  with  one 
exception,  the  forms  of  marriage  in  use  in  the 
Roman  world  were  purely  civil  ones.  The  only 
religious  maridage  was  that  by  confarreatio, 
which  remarkably  enough  was  indissoluble, 
except  perhaps  by  disfarrentio,  a  practice  of 
which  the  reality  is  doubted.  But  it  is  clear 
from  Tacitus  (Ann.  bk.  iv.  c.  16)  that  by  the 
time  of  Tiberius,  i.e.  the  beginning  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  era,  the  use  of  the  ceremony  had  become 
very  rare.  When  therefoi-e  the  author  of  tne 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  wrote  that  “  marriage  is 
honourable  in  all  ”  (c.  xiii,  4),  and  his  Epistle  was 
admitted  as  authoritative  in  the  Gentile  as  well 
as  the  Jewish  churches,  the  inference  is  that 
the  honour  he  speaks  of  was  felt  to  rest  as 
well  on  the  ordinary  civil  contract  of  the  Gentile 
as  on  any  form  in  use  among  the  Jews.  Again, 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (with  an  exception 
as  to-  the  clergy  to  be  hereafter  noticed)  speak 
simply  of  “  lawful  ”  and  “  unlawful”  marriage. 
Thus,  in  a  sort  of  summary  of  the  faith  con¬ 
tained  in  the  6th  book  (c.  11),  it  is  said: 
“  Every  union  which  is  against  the  law  we  abhor 
as  iniquitous  and  unholy,”  Again  :  “  Marriage 
should  be  lawful ;  for  such  a  marriage  is  blame¬ 
less  ”  (ib.  c.  14) ;  the  expression  “  lawful  con¬ 
nexion”  (vSiuLifios  occurring  repeatedly  in 

later  constitutions  (bk.  vi,  cc.  27,  29).  The 
only  consideration  which  may  Cf^st  a  doubt 
upon  the  application  of  the  idea  of  “  law  ”  in 
such  passages  as  the  above,  as  referring  to  the 
municipal  law,  arises  from  the  circumstance, 
to  be  presently  adverted  to,  that  the  same 
expressions  are  used  in  reference  to  unions 
which  were  not  recognized  by  the  Roman  la;v. 
But  the  most  valuable  testimony  to  the  feeling 
of  the  early  Church  on  this  subject  as  late 
as  the  2nd  and  3rd  centuries,  is  supplied  by 
Tertullian  (a.d.  150-226),  a  writer  whose  Chris¬ 
tian  zeal  ran  always  in  the  direction  of  ultra¬ 
strictness.  In  his  treatise  on  Idolatry,  distin¬ 
guishing  between  those  solemnities  which  a 


154  CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


Christian  man  may  lawfully  attend  and  those 
which  he  may  not,  he  enumerates  marriage 
among  such  as  are  free  from  “  any  breath  of 
idolatry,”  “  pure  by  themselves.”  “  The  con¬ 
jugal  union,”  he  says,  does  not  flow  “  from  the 
worship  of  any  idol.”  “  God  no  more  forbids 
the  solemnizing  of  marriages  than  the  giving  of 
a  name  ”  (c.  Iti). 

As  a  rule,  then,  the  Church  has  followed  the 
municipal  law  in  reference  to  the  validity  of  the 
contract  of  marriage,  and  has  thus  not  had  occa¬ 
sion  to  dwell  much  in  its  legislation  on  the  legal 
iiici  lents  of  the  contract.  The  validity  of  heathen 
niarriage  is  implied  in  the  judgments  and  deci¬ 
sions  of  various  popes  and  councils  (some  perhaps 
antedated)  as  to  pre-baptismal  marriages,  which, 
in  spite  of  one  or  two  weighty  authorities  to  the 
contrarv,  were  held  binding,  and  on  the  express 
ground  that  the  issue  of  such  marriages  were 
lawful  (Jiberi).  See  the  2nd  letter  of  Pope  In¬ 
nocent  I.,  A.D.  402-17,  to  Victricius,  c.  6  ;  his 
22nd  letter,  to  the  Macedonian  bishops,  c.  2 ;  the 
3rd  Council  of  Rome,  A.D.  531  ;  and  the  letters 
of  Leo  to  Auastasius  and  to  the  bishops  of  llly- 
ricum.  The  alleged  decree  of  Pope  Fabian,  A.D. 
238-52,  in  Gratian,  embodying  the  Roman  law 
on  the  effect  of  madness  on  marriage,  is  a  purely 
superfluous  forgery.  Ecgbert,  archbishop  of 
York,  indeed,  in  the  Excerptions  attributed  to 
him,  seems  to  place  the  age  of  puberty  some¬ 
what  later  than  the  Roman  law,  since  he  says 
that  a  girl  of  14  has  power  over  her  own  body, 
a  boy  of  15  over  his  (bk.  ii.  c.  27).  A  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Friuli,  A.D.  791  (c.  9),  con¬ 
tains  the  like  prohibition  as  a  previous  capitu¬ 
lary  before  referred  to  against  marriages  with 
children. 

It  has  already  been  observed,  under  the  head 
“  COXSEXT,”  that  on  one  point  indeed  a  marked 
divergence  is  to  be  traced  between  the  practice 
of  the  Church  and  the  Roman  law.  Slave-mar¬ 
riages  are  recognized,  at  least  in  the  later  por¬ 
tions  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions.  And 
masters  who  refused  to  sanction  them  were  to 
be  excommunicated  (viii.  23).  A  free  man,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  to  dismiss,  not  to  marry,  a 
slave-concubine  with  whom  he  may  have  lived. 
{Ibid.) 

Consistent  with  the  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
the  first  canonical  epistle  of  St.  Basil  (a.d.  326- 
379),  to  Amphilochius,  bishop  of  Iconium,  treats 
slave-marriages  as  adulterous  when  contracted 
without  the  master’s  will,  but  as  “  firm  ”  when 
contracted  with  his  consent ;  assimilating  them 
to  the  marriages  of  minors,  and  using  the  same 
word  {KvpioL)  to  express  the  authority  both  of 
the  father  and  of  the  master.  A  work  of  doubt¬ 
ful  character,  which  claims  authorship  from  the 
Nicene  fathers,  the  SaiiCtio7ies  et  decreta  alia, 
which  in  the  collection  of  councils  by  Labbe'  and 
Mansi  will  be  found  appended  to  the  canons  of 
the  Council  or  Nicaca  (vol.  ii.  p.  1029,  and  foil.), 
but  which  are  evidently  of  much  later  date, 
declares  that  “  marriage  with  slaves,  male  or 
female,  is  not  allowed  to  Christians,  unless  after 
emancipation  ;  whicii  being  done,  let  them  con¬ 
tract  by  the  law  of  marriage  and  freely,  a  dos 
beius:  assigned,  according  to  the  constitution  of 
the  country  which  they  inhabit  (bk.  i.  c.  4). 
One  of  the  alleged  canons  of  the  Nicene  council 
from  the  Arabic,  on  the  other  hand,  implies  the 
practice  of  intermaiTiage  with  slaves  even 


among.st  the  clergy,  in  condemning  as  bigamous 
those  priests  or  deacons  who  having  dismissed 
their  wives,  or  even  without  di.smi.ssing  them, 
marry  others,  whether  free  or  slave  (can.  66,  or 
71  of  the  Kulullensian  version).  But  these 
canons  are  also  evidently  of  much  later  date 
than  that  ascribed  to  them,  though  very  likelv 
rejtresenting  the  practice  of  the  Arabian  church. 
If  we  mention  here  two  alleged  decrees  of  Pope 
Juliu.s  1.  a.d.  336-52,  the  one  against  separating 
slaves  once  married,  the  other  allowing  a  master 
to  marry  his  enfranchised  slave-girl  (Gratian, 
cc.  4,  lU),  it  is  only  on  account  of  their  profe.ssci 
date. 

There  are  indeed  not  wanting  Indications  of  a 
narrower  spirit  among  the  leaders  of  the  Church. 
A  letter  of  Pope  Leo  the  Great  (167),  a.d.  458 
or  9,  addressed  to  Rusticus,  bi.shop  of  Nai'bonue, 
seems  to  imply  the  nullity  of  slaves’  marriages, 
and  reproduces,  on  Old-Testament  grounds,  the 
strictest  views  of  the  Roman  law  against  unequal 
marriage.  “  Every  woman  united  to  a  man  i.s 
not  a  wife,  since  neither  is  every  son  his  father’s 
heir.  The  bonds  of  marriage  are  lawful  between 
the  free  and  between  equals ;  the  Lord  establish¬ 
ing  this  long  before  the  commencement  of  the 
Roman  law  existed.  Therefore  a  wife  is  one 
thing,  a  concubine  another ;  as  also  a  bondmaid 
is  one  thing,  a  freewoman  another”  (quoting 
Gen.  xxi.  10).  [Coxcubixes.]  Suspicion  is 
indeed  cast  upon  this  text  by  its  use  of  the 
word  ingenuus,  free-born,  as  simply  synony¬ 
mous  with  liber,  free,  a  mistake  which  never 
occurs  in  the  Code  or  Novels,  though  nearly  a 
century  later  in  date,  and  (though  it  may  be  said 
that  a  pope  was  not  bound  to  be  strictly  accurate 
in  his  law-language)  it  is  not  impo.ssible  that  it 
may  be  a  forgery  of  the  Carlovingian  era,  in¬ 
vented  to  support  a  caj^itulary  to  the  same 
eflect,  to  be  pre.sently  noticed. 

The  24th  canon  of  the  4th  Council  of  Orleans, 
A.D.  541,  enacts  that  slaves  fleeing  to  the  pre¬ 
cincts  (“  septa  ”)  of  churches  in  order  to  marry 
are  not  to  be  allowed,  nor  are  clerics  to  defend 
such  unions,  but  they  are  to  be  returned  to  their 
masters  and  separated,  unless  their  parents  and 
masters  will  let  them  marrv ; — a  remarkable 
enactment,  as  shewing  a  recognition  of  jxirental 
Imthority  in  a  slave. 

Another  canon  of  the  same  Council,  forbidding 
marriages  between  Jews  and  Christian  slave  girls, 
seems  to  imply  the  intrinsic  validity  of  marriages 
between  free  and  slave  (c.  31).  Another  is  re¬ 
markable  as  repeating,  with  the  severer  penalty 
of  excommunication,  the  enactments  of  the  Roman 
law  against  the  marriage  of  officials  within  their 
provinces  (c.  22). 

A  case  in  which  a  slav'e-inarriage  is  recognised 
occurs  in  a  letter  of  Pope  Pelagius  (a.d.  555-66) 
to  the  sub-deacen  Melleus.  (Labbe'  and  Mansi’s 
Councils,  vol.  ix.  p.  737.) 

On  the  other  hand,  Gregory  the  Great  implies 
the  invalidity  of  a  marriage  between  slave  and 
free  in  a  letter  to  Fortunatus,  bishop  of  Naples 
(bk.  vi.  ep.  1),  in  fav'our  of  a  woman  whom  her 
husband  had  dismissed  as  being  of  servile  condi¬ 
tion  ;  but  who,  being  now  prov'ed  free,  was 
without  delay  to  be  received  back  by  him.  The 
same  pope  however  in  another  letter — to  Mon¬ 
tana  and  Thomas,  slaves  whom  he  enfranchised 
with  the  privileges  of  Romau  citizenshij*— implies 
the  practice  of  slave-ma’  viages,  since  he  speak? 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE  455 


of  the  “  betrothal  gifts  ”  (sponsalia)  which  the 
priest  Gaudiosus  had  given  in  writing  (con- 
scripserat)  to  “thy  mother”  (bk.  v.  ep.  12). 

The  1st  Council  of  Macon,  A.D.  581,  declares 
indissoluble  the  intermarriage  of  two  slaves  with 
their  master’s  consent,  alter  the  enfranchisement 
of  either  (c.  10).  The  30th  canon  of  the  English 
council  held  under  Archbishop  Theodore  of  Can¬ 
terbury,  towards  the  end  of  the  7tli  century, 
bears  that  “  the  free  (or  free-born)  must  marry 
with  the  free.”  Pope  Stephen  (a.d.  754)  in  his 
replies  to  various  consultations  at  Bienz,  follows 
Leo  as  to  the  dismissal  of  the  ancillasand  marry¬ 
ing  a  free  woman.  It  seems  dilHcult  to  ascribe  a 
specific  origin  to  a  prescription  found  among 
some  “  excerpta  de  libris  Romanorum  et  Fran- 
corum,”  appended  to  a  collection  of  fresh  canons, 
probably  of  the  beginning  of  the  8th  century, 
which  bears  that  “  if  any  one  chooses  to  have 
his  slave-girl  in  marriage,  and  has  power  over 
his  property,  if  afterwards  he  would  sell  her,  he 
cannot  do  so ;  he  is  himself  to  be  condemned,  and 
the  woman  handed  over  to  the  priest  ”  (c.  60). 
Perhaps  however  we  have  only  here  a  far-oft'  echo 
of  E.vod.  XX i.  8,  or  Deut.  xxi.  14. 

The  subject  indeed  both  of  slave-marriages 
and  of  intermarriage  between  slave  and  free 
seems  to  have  been  greatly  considered  under  the 
Carlovingians ;  and  both  the  civil  and  ecclesias¬ 
tical  law  (which  indeed  at  this  period  blend 
almost  undistingiiishably  together)  settle  down 
into  the  recognition  of  such  marriages  and  inter- 
mariiatres  as  binding  under  certain  conditions. 
As  respects  the  former.  King  Pepin’s  capitulary 
of  Vermerie,  a.d.  753,  enacts  that  if  a  slave  hus¬ 
band  and  wife  have  been  separated  by  sale,  “  they 
are  to  be  exhorted  so  to  remain,  if  we  cannot 
reunite  them  ”  (c.  19);  a  text  at  least  strongly 
tending  to  the  indissolubility  of  such  unions. 
A  more  singular  one  provides  that  if  a  slave  have 
his  slave-girl  for  concubine,  he  may  dismiss  her 
and  accept  “  his  compeer,  his  master’s  slave-girl 
(comparem  siaam  anciilam  domini  sui  accipere) ; 
but  it  is  better  that  he  keep  his  own  slave-girl  ” 
(c.  7).  In  both  texts  we  see  already  visibly  the  hand 
of  the  Church  endeavouring  to  restrain  the  abuses 
of  slavery.  It  is  moreover  enacted  that  if  a  car- 
tellurius — apparently  a  slave  freed  by  charter — op 
receiving  his  freedom  dismisses  his  slave  partner 
to  take  another  woman,  he  must  leave  the  latter 
(c.  20).  Fifty  years  later,  the  validity  of  slave 
marriages  is  again  implied  in  some  “  Capitula 
misso  cuidam  data  ”  of  the  year  803,  published 
by  Pertz,  and  to  be  presently  i-eferred  to.  And 
ten  years  later  still,  a  capitulary  added  in  some 
Codices  to  the  Lombard  law  (c.  5),  as  well  as  the 
30th  canon  of  the  2nd  Council  of  Chalons  (both 
of  A.D.  813),  enact  the  indissolubleness  of  slaves’ 
marriages,  even  when  belonging  to  different 
masters,  provided  their  marriage  be  legal,  and 
by  the  will  of  their  masters.  Lastly,  to  the 
Carlovingian  period  should  also  perhaps  be  re¬ 
ferred  the  two  alleged  decrees  in  Gratian  of 
Pope  Julius  I.  (supra).  It  is  almost  needle.ss  to 
dwell  on  the  momentous  influence  of  the  change 
of  view  indicated  by  the  above  enactments  on 
the  condition  of  the  slave.  Evidently,  from  the 
moment  a  slave  could  lawfully  marry,  he  was 
no  longer  a  thing,  but  a  person.  It  might  almost 
be  said  that  from  this  period  slavery  properly  so 
c:ille<l  exists  no  longer  within  the  Carlovingian 
world  •  serfdom,  or  a  condition  of  dependence, 


it  might  be  absolute,  of  one  man  on  another, 
has  replaced  it. 

As  respects  inter-marriages  between  slave  and 
free.  King  Pepin’s  capitulary  of  Vermerie,  of  a.d. 
753,  enacts  that  where  a  free-man  knowingly 
marries  a  slave-girl,  he  shall  always  after  live 
with  her  (c.  13).  The  king  does  not  even  treat 
such  marriages  as  absolutely  void,  when  con¬ 
tracted  in  ignorance,  allowing  the  free  person  to 
leave  his  or  her  slave-partner  and  marry  another 
only  if  such  slave  cannot  be  redeeme<l  (c.  6).  The 
contemporary  Council  of  Vermerie  recognized  the 
validity  of  marriage  between  a  freewoman  and  a 
slave,  when  contracted  knowingly  on  her  part,  on 
the  ground  that  there  should  be  one  law  to  the 
man  and  to  the  woman,  and  that  “  we  have  all 
one  Father  in  the  heavens.”  The  capitulary  of 
Compi^gne,  757,  enacts  that  if  a  freewoman 
marries  a  slave,  knowing  him  to  be  such,  he 
shall  have  her  whilst  he  lives  (c.  8).  On  the 
other  hand,  “if  a  Frankish  man  has  taken  a 
woman  and  hopes  that  she  is  free,”  and  after¬ 
wards  finds  that  she  is  not,  he  may  dismiss  her 
and  take  another ;  and  so  of  a  woman  (c.  5, 
otherwise  7), 

The  validity  of  such  unions  is  also  implied 
in  an  enactment,  placing  marriage  with  a  free¬ 
man,  a  slave,  or  a  cleric,  on  exactly  the  same 
footing  (c.  4).  Similarly,  a  Bavarian  council  at 
Dilgelfind,  772,  enacted  that  where  a  slave  mar¬ 
ried  a  woman  of  noble  birth  who  was  ignorant 
of  his  condition,  she  should  leave  him  and  be 
free  (c.  10).  The  same  rule  was  enacted  in  the 
case  of  a  freeborn  Bavarian  woman  marrying  a 
serf  of  the  Church  (“  de  popularibus  legibus,” 
c.  9). 

Among  the  specially  religious  restrictions 
which  were  sought  to  be  placed  on  the  marriage 
contract  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,  the  one 
which  would  first  claim  our  attention  is  that  oh 
the  marriage  of  Christians  with  Gentiles,  or  even¬ 
tually  also  with  Jews  and  heretics.  This  how¬ 
ever  will  not  be  specially  treated  of  here.  The 
next  is  that  connected  with  the  monkish  profes¬ 
sion,  which  must  be  distinguished  from  the  early 
vow  of  virginity  in  the  female  sex,  and  from  the 
institution  of  the  Church-virgins.  The  vow  of 
virginity,  which  for  many  centuries  now  has  been 
considered  an  essential  prerequisite  of  the  mo¬ 
nastic  profession,  was  not  so  by  any  means  in  the 
early  heroic  days  of  monachism.  St.  Basil  in 
the  4th  century,  after  dwelling  upon  the  pro¬ 
fession  of  virginity  by  women,  says  expressly  : 
“  As  to  professions  of  men,  we  know  nothing  of 
them,  except  that  if  any  have  joined  them.selv€s 
to  the  monastic  order,  they  appear,  without 
word  spoken,  to  have  thereby  adopted  celibacy  ” 
(2nd  Can.  Ep.  c.  19).  In  the  5th  century 
however.  Pope  Leo  the  Great  treats  the  marriage 
of  monks  as  a  punishable  offence,  but  not  appa¬ 
rently  as  void  in  itself.  Writing  to  Rusticus, 
bishop  of  Narbonne,  about  a.d.  458  or  459,  he 
places  on  the  same  footing  the  entering  by  monks 
into  the  militia  (a  term  probably  equivalent  at 
this  time  to  the  service  of  the  state,  whether 
militai’y  or  civil)  and  their  marriage.  Those 
who,  leaving  the  mona.stic  profession,  turn  to  the 
militia  or  to  marriage,  are  to  purge  themselves 
by  the  satisfaction  of  public  penance  ;  for  al¬ 
though  the  militia  may  he  innocent  and  marriage 
honourable,  to  have  abandoned  the  better  choice 
is  a  transgression  (Ep.  167,  c.  14).  The  con« 


456  COXTBACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


temporary  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451,  in  like 
manner  excommunicated  alike  the  monk  and  the 
virgin  devoted  to  God  who  enter  into  marriage, 
but  allows  the  local  bishop  to  shew  indulgence 
(c.  1  ()).  And  the  ecclesiastical  validity  of  a 
monk’s  marriage  at  the  beginning  of  the  6th 
century  is  implied  in  the  21st  canon  of  the 
2ud  Council  of  Orleans,  A.D.  511,  which  enacts 
that  a  monk  who  marries  shall  be  incapable  of 
holding  any  ecclesiastical  office.  Later  still  in 
the  East  (.V..D.  535),  the  6th  Novel  only  forbids 
marriage  to  monks  who  have  received  the  cle¬ 
rical  ordination,  reducing  them  to  the  rank  of 
private  persons  (c.  8)  In  the  West,  however, 
the  2nd  Council  of  Tours,  a.d.  567,  not  only  dis¬ 
tinctly  prohibited  the  marriage  of  monks  under 
penalty  of  excommunication,  but  invoked  the  aid 
of  “  the  judge  ”  to  separate  them  from  their 
wives,  under  penalty  of  excommunication  for 
himself  if  he  refused  it  (c.  15) ;  an  evident 
attempt  to  enforce  by  spiritual  terrors  what  the 
state  still  refused  to  erect  into  law. 

This  is  indeed  the  period  when  monks,  at  first 
mere  laymen,  were  beginning  to  be  viewed,  in 
the  West  at  least,  as  partaking  of  the  clerical 
chai'ucter.  The  Council  of  Arles  in  554  had  de¬ 
creed  that  monasteries  both  of  men  and  women 
should  be  subjected  to  episcopal  jurisdiction.  So 
far  as  this  view  prevailed  (for  we  must  not  forget 
that  the  monks  themselves  long  struggled  against 
it),  the  prohibition  of  the  marriage  of  monks  will 
have  been  considered  as  implied  in  that  of  the 
marriage  of  clerics  generally,  though  such  mar¬ 
riages  are  sometimes  specifically  referred  to. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  century,  the  6th  General 
Couucdl,  the  3rd  of  Constantinople,  in  'I'niUo, 
a.d.  692,  enacted  that  a  monk  who  should  marry 
was  to  be  punished  as  a  fornicator  (c.  44).  In 
the  West,  in  the  first  part  of  the  8th  century, 
Gregory  the  2nd,  a.d.  714-750,  in  his  letter  to 
liishop  Boniface,  going  further  than  any  of  his 
predecessoi's,  would  not  allow  those  who  as  chil- 
di’cn  have  been  shut  up  by  their  parents  in 
monasteries  after  puberty  to  leave  such  monas¬ 
teries  and  marry  (^Ep.  13,  c.  7).  The  marriage 
of  monks  was  again  condemned  by  Pope  Zacharias, 
A.D.  741-51,  in  his  7th  letter,  addressed  to  Pepin 
as  mayor  of  the  palace  (c.  26).  About  the  same 
period  the  canons  “  de  remediis  peccatorum  ”  of 
Egbert,  archbishop  of  York,  place  the  monk  on 
the  same  footing  as  to  marriage  with  the  priest 
or  deacon  ;  requiring  one  of  such  who  takes  a 
wife  to  be  ‘‘  depo.sed  ”  in  conscientid  populi^'  i.  e. 
apparently,  with  the  full  knowledge  of  the  people 
(c.  7).  It  may  be  added  that  the  Council  of  Con¬ 
stantinople  in  814  in  like  manner  excommuni¬ 
cated  a  monk  who  should  mai-ry,  and  required 
him  against  his  will  to  be  clothed  in  the  monastic 
robe  and  shut  up  in  the  monastery  (c.  35).  All 
such  prohibitions  indeed  bear  witness  to  the 
existence  of  the  practices  which  they  denounce; 
and  indeed  a  letter  of  Pope  Hadrian  II.  (a.d. 
772-95)  to  Charlemagne  contains  a  complaint 
against  the  marriage  of  monks — apparently  in 
Lombardy — and  asks  the  emperor  to  punish 
them. 

It  is  somewhat  ditficult  for  a  long  time  to 
di.stinguish  in  reference  to  this  subject,  so  far  as 
women  are  concerned,  the  woman  under  vow'  of 
virginity  or  celibacy  (as  to  whom  see.  De  VOX  A), 
and  the  nun  (see  hea'ding  Nun).  In  France,  a 
general  constitution  of  KingClothar  I,  a.d.  560, 


forbids  (c.  8)  all  persons  to  marry  “  sanctirao 
niales.”  Another  of  King  Clothar  II.,  a.d.  614, 
forbids  any  even  “  by  our  precept  ”  to  marj-y 
religious  girls  and  widows,  or  nuns  who  have 
v'owed  themselves  to  God,  as  well  tho.se  wiio 
dwell  in  their  own  hou.ses  Jis  those  who  arc 
placed  in  monasteries.  That  such  marriages 
however  occurred  in  Italy  still,  is  apparent 
from  a  letter  of  Pope  Gregory  I.  the  Great 
(a.d.  590-603)  to  Bishop  Januarius  (bk.  iii.  ep. 
24).  Distinguishing  between  “  veiled  virgins  ” 
and  nuns,  he  says  that  as  respects  women  who 
have  gone  from  monasteries  to  lay  life  and  mar¬ 
ried,  “  Those  who  hav'e  exceeded  against  such 
women  ”  (i.  e.  their  husbands),  “  and  are  now 
suspended  from  communion,  if  penitent,  may  be 
readmitted.”  It  is  difficult  in  many  instances  to 
define  how  far  the  meaning  of  the  terms  “  sacrae  ” 
or  “  sacratae  virgines  ”  is  to  be  extended  or 
restricted.  By  the  8th  century,  indeed,  the 
church-virgin  and  the  private  decota  seem  for 
all  practical  purposes  to  have  merged  in  the  nun. 
Indeed  the  Excerpta  of  Egbert,  archbishop  of 
York,  treat  a  private  vow  of  celibacy  by  man  or 
woman  as  “  foolish  and  impossible,”  and  its  breach 
by  maiTiage  as  only  to  be  punished  oy  three 
wintei's’  fasting  (bk.  ii.  c.  19).  The  1st  Council 
of  Rome  in  721,  “  against  illicit  marriages,” 
expressly  anathematizes  one  who  marries  “  mo- 
nacham  quam  Dei  ancillam  appellamus  ”  (c.  3). 
The  before-(^uoted  Excerpta  of  Egbert  con¬ 
tain  tlie  like  anathema,  using  the  expre.ssiou 
“  monialem,  quae  Dei  spousa  vocatur  ”  (bk.  ii. 
c.  18);  the  parties  are  to  be  separated,  and 
condemned  to  perpetual  penance.  Among  the 
“  answers  ”  of  Pope  Stephen  II.  from  Bierzy  to 
“  various  consultations”  (a.d.  754)  is  one,  that 
it  is  “  not  lawful  for  a  virgin  who  has  conse¬ 
crated  herself  to  God,  likewise  for  a  monk,  to 
marry  :  ”  either  is  to  be  excommunicated  ;  but  the 
bishop  “  may  shew  humanity  and  mercy  ’’  (c.  7). 
The  Synod  of  Metz,  in  753,  includes  marriages 
with  a  woman  consecrated  to  God  among  incests 
(c.  1);  as  does  also  the  Council  of  CalcLuyth 
(i.e.  Chelsea),  a.d.  787,  using  the  term  “sancti- 
monialis”  (c.  15).  See  also  similar  prohibitions 
against  the  marriage  of  nuns  by  the  Bavarian 
Council  of  Dingelfind,  A.D.  772  (c.  4);  and  by 
the  Council  of  Friuli,  a.d.  791  (c.  11),  which 
requires  girls  and  widows  who  have  vowed  vir¬ 
ginity  or  continence,  and  have  been  “  emanci¬ 
pated  to  God,”  if  afterwards  they  marry,  to  be 
subjected  “  by  secular  judgment  to  fit  bodily 
chastisement  ”  before  undergoing  their  spiritual 
punishment. 

The  prohibition  against  the  marriage  of  monks 
and  religious  women  by  degrees  found  its  waj'' 
into  the  civil  law  of  several  of  the  barbarian 
kingdoms  besides  Franco.  Among  the  laws  of 
King  Luitprand  of  Lombardy,  a.d.  721,  or  later, 
we  find  one  of  this  kind  as  to  women,  in  which 
their  position  when  they  have  a.ssumed  the  reli¬ 
gious  habit  is  assimilated  to  that  of  girls  be¬ 
trothed  under  the  civil  law,  whose  marriage 
entails  a  penalty  of  500  solidi  (bk.  v.  c.  1).  In 
the  Wisigothic  code,  a  law  of  Recarode  inflicts 
“  on  incestuous  marriages  and  adulteries,  or  on 
sacred  virgins  and  widows  and  penitents  defiled 
with  lay  vesture  or  marriage  ”  the  penalties  of 
exile,  separation,  and  forfeiture  of  property  (bk. 
iii.  t.  V.  c.  2). 

By  the  time  of  the  Carlovingians,  the  civil  and 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 

ecclesiastical  law  almost  wholly  coalesce.  King 
Pepin’s  capitulary  of  Soissons  in  744  forbids  mar¬ 
riage  with  holy  women  together  with  incestuous 
marriages  and  bigamy  (c.  9).  In  tlie  6th  book 
of  the  Capitularies  we  find  one  (c.  411)  almost  in 
the  same  terms  with  the  law  of  Recarede  above 
quoted,  declaring  that  marriage  with  a  virgin  de¬ 
voted  to  God,  a  person  under  the  religious  habit, 
or  professing  the  continence  of  widowhood,  is  not 
a  true  marriage,  and  requiring  the  parties  to 
be  separated  by  either  the  priest  or  the  judge, 
without  even  any  accusation  being  lodged  with 
him,  the  penalty  being  still  perpetual  exile. 
(Comp,  also  Capit.  414,  424,  bk.  vii.  c.  338.) 
In  the  East,  on  the  contrary,  about  the  end  of 
the  8th  century,  it  is  noted  as  one  of  the  features 
of  Constantine  Copronymus’  tyranny,  that  he 
compelled  monks  to  marry. 

We  shall  now  deal,  though  we  do  not  propose 
to  do  so  at  full  length  in  this  place,  with  the 
contract  of  marriage  as  i-espects  the  clergy  pro¬ 
perly  so  called.  It  need  hardly  be  observed  that, 
so  far  as  such  contract  might  be  recognized  as 
valid,  all  the  restraints  upon  it  in  the  case  of 
laymen  would  apply  also  to  clerics.  Sometimes 
indeed  these  had  to  be  specifically  enacted.  Thus 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451,  provided  that 
no  cleric  should  take  a  heretic,  Jew,  or  pagan,  to 
wife,  unless  he  should  jiromise  to  convert  her, 
under  pain  of  canonical  punishment  (c.  14).  But 
the  Church  had  also  restraints  of  its  own  in  the 
latter  instance.  We  have  said  that,  as  respects 
the  clergy,  the  practice  of  the  Church  in  respect 
to  marriage  was  mainly  founded  on  the  Jewish 
law.  The  marriage  of  priests  was  by  the  Penta- 
teiicli  surrounded  with  peculiar  restrictions.  The 
priest  was  not  to  marry  a  harlot  or  “  profane  ” 
woman,  or  one  divorced,  or  a  widow,  but  a  virgin 
only  (Lev.  xxi.  7, 13, 14).  [According  to  Selden, 
indeed,  the  proliibition  to  take  a  widow  or  person 
who  had  lost  her  virginity  only  applied  to  the 
high-priest ;  but  he  was  also  held  debarred  from 
marriage  with  proselytes  or  freed  women  ;  Uxoi' 
Hehraica,  bk.  i.  c.  7.]  The  Pastoral  Epistles,  in 
requiring  bishops  or  deacons  to  be  “  husbands  of 
one  wife”  (1  Tim.  iii.  2,  12;  Tit.  i.  6),  instead 
of  being  considered  as  substituting  a  new  rule 
for  existing  Jewish  prescriptions,  seem  only  to 
have  been  viewed  as  adding  to  these  a  further 
one  against  Digamy.  What  will  have  to  be  said 
on  this  latter  head  need  not  here  be  anticipated. 
As  a  rule,  however,  we  may  say  that  wherever  it 
is  laid  down  that  the  bishop  or  deacon  shall  be 
the  husband  of  one  wife,  it  is  also  provided  that 
such  wife  shall  answer  to  the  Levitical  prescrip¬ 
tions.  £.  g.  The  Apostolical  Const itutionSy  bk.  ii. 
c.  2,  require  the  bishop  not  only  to  be  the  hus¬ 
band  of  one  woman  once  married,  but  to  have, 
or  to  have  had,  a  “  respectable  ((Tf/j.vijp')  and 
faithful  wife in  the  6th  bk.  c.  17  (a  later 
constitution),  both  requires  all  the  clergy  to  be 
monogamists,  and  forbids  them  all  to  marry 
either  a  harlot  (the  term  seems  rather  too  strong 
as  a  translation  of  the  Greek  eraipa,  albeit  ren¬ 
dered  nu’retrix  in  the  Latin  versions),  a  slave,  a 
widow,  or  a  divorced  woman,  “  as  the  law  also 
saith although  the  Pentateuch  does  not  forbid 
the  priest’s  marriage  with  a  slave,  and  the  re¬ 
striction  is  one  evidently  borrowed  from  the 
Roman  law.  Lastly,  the  Apostolical  Canons  ex¬ 
clude  from  admi.ssion  to  the  clergy  those  who 
have  married  “  a  widow,  or  divorced  person,  or 


CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE  457 

harlot,  or  slave,  or  one  of  those  on  the  stage  ” 
(c.  14,  otherwise  reckoned  17  or  18);  this  last 
restriction  being  also  adojited  from  the  Roman 
law,  as  has  been  shewn  already. 

In  respect  of  the  marriage  of  the  clergy  indeed, 
the  restraint  which  occupies  most  space  in  the 
church  legislation  of  the  period  which  occupies 
us  is  th^t  on  digamous  or  quasi-digamous  mar¬ 
riages,  which  will  be  considered  under  the  head  of 
Digamy.  Meanwhile  however  there  was  grow¬ 
ing  up  a  feeling  against  all  marriage  of  the  clergy 
whilst  in  orders,  tending  to  their  absolute  celi¬ 
bacy,  the  history  of  which  has  been  treated  or 
under  that  head.  [See  Cklibacy.]  The  notices 
which  occur  of  other  restraints  upon  clerical  mar¬ 
riages  are  comparatively  few  and  unimportant. 

The  “  Sanctions  and  Decrees  ”  attributed  to 
the  Nicene  fathers  —  which,  though  extant  in 
Latin,  seem  evidently  to  embody  Greek  practice, 
though  no  doubt  of  a  much  later  date  than  the 
one  ascribed  to  them  —  require,  with  something 
of  a  plethora  of  words,  the  priest  not  to  be 
one  who  has  married  a  slave-girl,  an  adulteress 
or  immodest  woman  (c.  14).  The  Council  of 
Tarragona,  A.D.  516,  requires  readei's  and  ostiarii 
who  wish  to  marry  or  live  with  adulterous  women 
either  to  withdraw  or  to  be  held  excluded  from 
the  clergy  (c.  9).  A  letter  of  Gregory  the  Great 
(A.D.  590—603)  to  John,  bishop  of  Palermo,  implies 
the  invalidity  of  a  deacon’s  marriage  with  a  woman 
who  did  not  come  to  him  a  virgin  (bk.  xi.  ep.  62). 
An  alleged  canon  of  the  same  Pope  forbids  the  or¬ 
dination,  amongst  others,  of  one  who  had  married 
a  harlot  (c.  4).  Yet  the  4th  Council  of  Toledo, 
A.D.  633,  seems  to  imply  that  such  marriages 
might  be  legalized  by  episcopal  permission,  since 
it  excommunicates  those  clerks  who,  “  without 
consulting  their  bishop,  have  married  a  widow, 
a  divorced  woman,  or  a  harlot  ”  (c.  44).  And 
an  “  allocution  of  the  priests  to  the  peo})le  on 
unlawful  marriages,”  appended  to  the  records  of 
the  Council  of  Leptines  in  743,  provides  that  a 
future  priest  is  not  to  marry  a  divorced  woman, 
harlot,  or  widow. 

To  pass  now  from  the  ecclesiastical  to  the 
civil  law,  it  must  be  observed  that  by  the  time 
of  Justinian  the  Roman  law  professes  only  to 
follow  the  “  sacred  canons  ”  as  respects  the  mar¬ 
riage  of  the  clergy,  and  gives  force  of  law  to  the 
prohibitions  contained  in  them.  The  children  of 
clerics  by  women  “  to  whom  they  cannot  be 
united  according  to  sacerdotal  censures  ”  are  de¬ 
clared  incapable  of  inheriting  or  receiving  dona¬ 
tions  from  their  fathers  {Code,  bk.  i.  7,  iii.  1.  45; 
A.D.  530).  The  6th  novel  requires  the  bishop  to 
be  either  a  chaste  unmarried  man,  or  the  hus¬ 
band  of  a  woman  who  came  to  him  a  virgin, 
“  not  a  widow,  nor  divorced,  nor  a  concubine  " 
(the  last  term  apparently  corresponding  to  the 
eraipo  of  the  Apost.  Constitutions,  and  indi¬ 
cating  a  milder  interpretation  than  that  of  the 
Latin  translators) ;  but  requires  the  bishop  not  to 
live  with  his  wife,  and  without  inquiring  into  the 
position  of  tho.se  who  have  been  already  long 
married,  forbids  in  future  the  episcopal  ordi¬ 
nation  of  married  men.  Taken  in  conjunction 
with  this  enactment,  the  rJ.Jrd  novel  may  bo 
considered  as  finally  establishing  as  a  rule  of 
civil  law  that  priucij)le  of  episcopal  celibacy, 
which  still  obtains  in  the  Greek  church.  The 
same  rules  are  substantially  applied  to  the  rest 
of  the  clergy  (c.  v.).  The  123rd  Novel  forbidi 


458  CONTRACT  OF  MARRIAGE 


COPE 


the  oi'daining  of  a  bishop  vvlio  either  does  not 
live  chastely,  or  has  not  had  a  “  wife,  his  only 
and  first,  neither  a  widow',  nor  divorced  from  her 
husband,  nor  otherwise  forbidden  by  the  laws  or 
the  sacred  canons  (c.  i.)-  Other  clerics  may  be 
ordained  having  a  legitimate  wife  of  the  same 
description  (c.  xiii.).  And  the  reader  contracting 
a  second  marriage,  or  marrying  any  other  than 
such  a  wife  as  above  described,  wais  not  to  rise  to 
any  higher  office  (c.  xiv.).  It  hardly  appears, 
however,  that  up  to  this  })eriod  tlie  contract  of 
marriage  itself  was  made  void  if  entered  into 
against  the  prohibitions  of  the  law'  ;  unless  the 
declaring  their  children  bastards  (sjnirii)  may  be 
taken  to  imply  this  {Code,  bk.  i.  7  ;  iii.  1.  45). 
Among  the  barbarian  codes,  the  only  one  which 
appears  to  pi-ohibit  clerical  marriage  is  that  of 
the  Wisigoths,  drawn  up  under  clerical  influence, 
A  law  of  Recarede  forbids  the  marriage  or  adul¬ 
tery  of  ,a  priest,  deacon,  or  sub-deacon,  with  a 
“  widow  vow'ed  to  God,  a  penitent,  or  any  secular 
virgin  or  w'oman,”  under  pain  of  separation  and 
punishment  according  to  the  canon,  the  woman 
to  receive  100  lashes  (bk.  ii.  7 ;  iv.  c.  18).  Nor 
is  it  amiss  to  remark  that  in  spite  of  various 
attempts  by  councils  to  enforce  the  absolute 
celibacy  of  the  clergy,  the  validity  of  clerical 
marriage  is  recognized  by  the  civil  law  under 
Charlemagne  himself.  In  a  capitulary,  “  De 
regulis  clericorum  ”  (bk.  vii.  c.  652),  it  is 
enacted  that  clerics  “  should  also  endeavour  to 
preserve  perpetually  the  chastity  of  an  unpolluted 
body,  or  certainly  to  be  united  in  the  bond  of  a 
single  marriage.” 

II.  We  have  now  to  say  a  few  words  on  the 
subject  of  the  contract  of  marriage  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  expression  is  still  used  in  France 
(“  contrat  de  mariage  ”  =  marriage  settlement), 
of  the  written  evidence  of  the  contract  itself  as 
between  the  parties. 

The  marriage  conti-act  among  the  Romans  was 
habitually  certified  in  w'riting  on  waxen  tablets, 
termed  nuptiales  tabulae,,  which,  however,  might 
also  be  used  after  marriage  ;  e.  g.,  on  the  birth 
of  a  child.  The  tabulae  w'ere  signed  both  by  the 
parties  and  by  witnesses  (Tac.  Ann.  bk.  xi.  c.  27  ; 
Juv.  Sat.  ii.  V.  119;  ix.  vv.  75,  76),  and  the 
breaking  of  them  was  held  to  be  at  least  a 
symbol  of  the  dissolution  of  marriage,  if  it  had 
not  the  actual  effect  of  dissolving  it ;  see  Tacitus 
as  to  the  bigamous  marriage  between  Messalina 
and  Silius  {Ann.  bk.  xi.  c.  30 ;  and  Juv.  u.  s.'). 
Under  the  Code  however,  by  a  constitution  of 
the  Emperor  Probus,  the  drawing  up  of  such 
tabulae  was  enacted  not  to  be  necessai-y  to  estab¬ 
lish  the  validity  of  the  marriage,  or  the  father’s 
potestas  over  his  oftspring  (bk.  v.  t.  iv.  1.  9). 
They  were  perhaps  not  necessarily,  though 
usually,  identical  with  the  “  dotal  tablets  ” 
{tabulae  dotales),  “  dotal  instruments  ”  {instru^ 
menta  dotalia),  or  “  dotal  documents  ”  {docu- 
menta  dotalki),  specifically  so-called  (the  expres¬ 
sions  nuptialia  instrumenta,  dotalia  instmmenta, 
seem  to  be  used  quite  synonymously  in  the  70th 
Novel),  but  must  have  been  comprised  with  them 
at  least  under  the  general  terms  instrumenta  or 
documenta ;  as  to  which  it  is  provided,  by  a 
constitution  of  Diocletian  and  Maximin  {Code, 
bk.  V.  7 ;  iv.  7,  iv.  1.  13),  that  where  there  is  no 
marriage,  “  instruments  ”  made  to  prove  mar¬ 
riage  are  invalid,  but  that  where  there  are  none, 
a  marriage  law'fully  contracted  is  not  void ;  nor 


could  the  want  of  signature  to  such  bv  the 
father  invalidate  his  consent  {ib.  1.  2 ;  law  of 
Severus  and  Antonine).  Nu])tial  instiuments 
were  by  Justinian  made  necessary  in  the  case  of 
the  marriage  of  scenicae  or  stage-players  (1.  29). 
Under  the  74th  novel,  indeed,  all  persons  exer¬ 
cising  honourable  offices,  businesses  and  pro¬ 
fessions,  short  of  the  highest  functions  in  the 
state,  were  required,  if  they  wished  to  marry 
without  nuptial  instruments,  to  appear  in  some 
“  house  of  prayer  and  declare  their  intentions 
before  the  defensor  Ecclesiae’*  who  in  the  pre¬ 
sence  of  three  or  four  of  the  clerks  of  the  church 
was  to  draw  up  an  attestation  of  the  marriage,- 
with  names  and  dates,  and  this  was  then  to  be 
subscribed  by  the  parties,  the  defensor  Ecclcsiae 
and  the  three  others,  or  as  many  more  as  the 
parties  wished,  and  if  not  required  by  them,  to 
be  laid  up,  so  signed,  by  the  defensor  in  the 
archives  of  the  church,  i.  e.  where  the  holy 
vases  were  kept ;  and  without  this  the  parties 
were  not  held  to  have  come  together  nuptiali 
affectu.  But  this  was  only  necessary  where 
there  was  no  document  fixing  a  dos  or  ante¬ 
nuptial  donation  ;  nor  was  it  required  as  to  agri¬ 
culturists,  persons  of  mean  condition,  or  common 
soldiers.  It  will  be  obvious  that  we  have  in  the 
above  the  original  of  our  marriage  certificates. 
(See  further  Dowry,  Marriage.)  [J.  M.  L.] 

CONVERSI.  One  of  the  many  designations 
of  monks.  Just  as,  through  a  popular  feeling  of 
reverence  for  asceticism,  the  word  “  religio  ” 
came  in  the  3rd  and  4th  centuries  to  mean  not 
Christianity  but  the  life  monastic,  so  “  conversi,’ 
though  applied  also  to  those  who  embraced 
Christianity,  or  who  took  upon  themselves  any 
especial  obligations,  as  of  celibacy  or  of  ordination 
(Du  Cange,  s.  v.),  was  ordinarily  restricted  to 
monks  (Bened.  Reg.  c.  1 ;  Fructuosi  Reg.  c.  13 , 
Greg.  M.  Dial.  ii.  18 ;  Salv.  Eccl.  Cathol.  iv. ; 
Isidore  De  Conversis.  cf.  Bened.  Anian.  Cone.  Reg, 
iii.).  But  the  “  conversi  ”  were  properly  those 
who  became  monks  as  adults,  not  those  who  were 
trained  in  a  monastery  from  their  tender  years 
{Cone.  Aurel.  i.  c.  2).  About  the  11th  century, 
according  to  Mabillon,  “conversi”  came  to  mean 
the  lay  brothers,  the  “  oblati  ”  or  “donati,”  the 
“  fr^res  convers,”  who  from  piety  or  for  gain, 
or,  probably,  most  often  from  mixed  motives, 
attached  themselves  to  monasteries,  as  “  associ¬ 
ates”  (to  use  a  modern  phrase)  and  attended  to 
the  business  of  the  monastery  outside  its  wall. 
(Mab.  Ann.  iii.  8 ;  Martene  ad  S.  Bened.  Reg.  c. 
3;  Mab.  Act.  SS.  0.  S.  B.  Saec.  III.  i.  21).  The 
“  Conversi  Barbati  ”  are  classed  with  monks 
rather  than  with  the  laity  (Petr.  Ven.  Staiut. 
24).  [I.  G.  S.] 

COPE.  {Cappa  or  Capa  ;  Fr.  Chape.')  From 
being  used  as  an  out-door  dress  for  defence 
against  rain,  the  cope  was  also  called  Pluviale, 
whence  It.  Piviale ;  and  from  the  cowl  or  hood 
with  which  it  was  furnished  it  was  known  as 
Cuculla.  Such,  probably,  was  the  “cuculla  vil- 
losa  ”  spoken  of  by  St.  Benedict  in  his  Regula 
(Migne,  Patrol.  Ixvi.  777).  “Vestimenta  fratri- 
bus  secundum  locorum  qualitatem  .  .  .  dentur. 
Mediocribus  locis  sulficere  credimus  monachis 
per  singulos  cucullam  et  tunicam ;  cucullam  in 
hieme  villosam,  in  aestate  puram  aut  vetustam, 
et  scanulare  propter  opera  .  .  .  Sufficit  monacho 
duas  tunicas  et  duas  cucullas  habei'e,  propter 


COPIATAE 

noctes  et  propter  lavare  ipsas  res.”  So  Smaragdus 
(t820)  says  expressly  in  his  Commentary  on  the 
liegula  of  St.  Benedict,  apud  Migne,  Patrol. 
cii.  “Cucullam  dicit  ille  quod  nos  modo  di- 
cimus  cappam.”  And  to  the  same  effect  Theo- 
demarus,  writing  from  Italy  to  Charlemagne, 
and  speaking  of  the  dress  worn  by  the  monks  of 
Monte  Cassino  (Ducange,  in  voc.  Capa):  “  Illud 
indumentum,  quod  a  Gallis  mouachis  cuculla 
dicitur,  nos  capam  vocamus.”  Like  other  gar¬ 
ments  originally  designed  for  practical  use  rather 
than  for  ornament,  the  copes  worn  on  occasions 
of  state  or  by  the  higher  clergy  received  greater 
enrichments  from  time  to  time,  whether  in  re¬ 
gard  of  the  materials  or  of  accessory  ornaments, 
particularly  the  “  morse,”  or  clasp  by  which  they 
were  fastened  in  front.  From  what  we  know  to 
have  been  the  shape  of  the  cope  in  all  later  times 
vre  may  infer  that  in  the  earlier  period,  up  to 
800  A.D.,  with  which  we  are  here  primarily 
concerned,  the  cappa  was  shaped  like  a  modern 
cloak,  open  in  front,  and  attached  only  at  the 
neck.  For  full  details  concerning  the  later  copes 
of  ecclesiastical  use,  see  Bock,  Lit.  Gew.  ii.  287  ; 
Keck,  Church  of  our  Fathers,  ii.  23;  Marriott, 
Vestiarium  Christian  an,  p.  224;  Pugin,  Glossary, 
ID  voc.  [W.  B.  M.] 

COPIATAE.  The  name  given  by  Constantine 
in  the  Theodosian  Code,  to  certain  Church  officers 
whose  business  it  was  to  take  care  of  funerals 
and  provide  for  the  decent  interment  of  the 
dead.  The  etymology  of  the  name  is  doubtful 
— Gothofred  derives  it  from  Kond(€ir  to  rest — 
others  from  KOTrerhs,  mourning :  more  gene¬ 
rally,  it  is  referred  to  kowos,  labour  :  whence 
they  have  sometimes  been  called  laborantes. 
Another  name  for  them  is  fossarii,  or  grave¬ 
diggers— and  in  Justinian’s  novels,  they  are 
mentioned  as  lecticarii — as  carrying  the  corpse 
or  bier  at  funerals.  They  are  reckoned  in  the 
Theodosian  Code  among  the  inferior  clerical 
orders,  e.g.  lib.  13.  tit.  1.  de  Lustrali  Coll  at. 
Leg.  I,  “  Clericos  excipi  tantum,  qui  Copiatae 
appellantur,”  &c. 

The  foundation  of  this  Order  is  attributed  to 
Constantine,  before  whose  time  the  care  of  in¬ 
terring  the  dead  was  only  a  charitable  office,  for 
which  every  Christian  made  himself  responsible 
as  occasion  required.  The  order  of  Copiatae,  as 
first  constituted  by  the  emperor  for  this  service 
in  the  city  of  Constantinople  amounted  to  1100 
men.  and  from  this  example  they  probably  took 
their  rise  in  other  populous  cities.  In  Constan¬ 
tinople,  however,  they  formed  a  collegium,  with 
certain  privileges  and  exemptions,  which  may 
not  have  been  extended  to  the  order  in  the  less 
important  Churches. 

The  office  of  the  Copiatae  was  to  take  the 
whole  care  of  funerals  upon  themselves,  and  to 
see  that  all  persons  had  a  decent  and  honourable 
interment.  Especially  they  were  obliged  to  per¬ 
form  this  last  office  to  the  poorer  sort,  without 
charge  to  their  relations.  At  Constantinople 
certain  lands  were  set  apart  for  their  mainte¬ 
nance  ;  but  in  other  Churches  it  is  more  probable 
that  they  were  supported  partly  out  of  the  com¬ 
mon  funds  of  the  Church,  and  partly  by  their 
own  labour  and  traffic,  which  for  their  encou¬ 
ragement  were  generally  exempted  from  paying 
custom  or  tribute  (Bingham,  B.  iii.  c.  8  ;  Kiddle  ; 
Martigny).  [D.  B.] 


CORONA 


459 


COQUUS,  in  the  monastery.  [Hebdoma- 

DARIUS.] 

CORBONA  ECCLESIAE.  [Alms.] 

CORDOVA,  COUNCIL  OF,  a.d.  348,  under 
Hosius,  to  accept  the  determinations  of  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Sardica  (Labb.  Cone.  ii.  98).  [A.  \V.  IL] 

!  CORN,  ALLOWANCE  OF.  This  particu¬ 
lar  provision  for  the  maintenance  of  the  clergy 
deserves  a  special  notice,  from  its  connection 
with  the  early  stages  of  the  recognition  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  by  the  empire.  Constantine,  in  his  zeal 
for  his  new  creed,  ordered  the  magistrates  of  each 
j)rovince  to  supply  an  annual  allowance  of  corn 
(eTTjo-ta  (TiT7]p(<Tiaj,  not  only  to  the  clergy,  but 
to  the  widows  and  virgins  of  the  Church  (Theo- 
doret,  i.  11).  When  Julian  succeeded,  he  trans¬ 
ferred  the  grant  to  the  ministers  of  the  heathen 
cultus  which  he  revived  (Sozom.  v.  5  ;  Philostorg. 

I  vii.  4).  Jovian  restored  it,  but  on  the  lower 
j  scale  of  one-third  of  the  amount  fixed  under 
Constantine.  The  payment  continued,  and  was 
declared  permanent  by  Justinian  (Coe?,  i.  tit.  ii. 
de  SS.  Eccles.).  [E.  H.  ?.] 

CORN,  EARS  OF.  Corn  is  not  so  often 
used  in  early  Christian  art  as  might  be  sup- 
po.sed.  [Loaves.]  The  thoughts  of  early  ico- 
nographers  seem  to  have  gone  always  to  the 
Bread  of  Life  with  sacramental  allusion,  as 
Bottari,  tav.  clxiii.  vol.  iii.  et  alibi.  In  Bottari, 
vol.  i.  tav.  xlviii.,  the  corn  and  reaper  are  re¬ 
presented  in  a  compartment  of  a  vault  in  the 
cemetery  of  Pontianus.  Again,  in  vol.  ii.  tav.  Iv., 
the  harvest  corn  is  oppccid  to  the  vine  and 
cornucopia  of  fruit  (Callixtine  catacomb). 

The  more  evidently  religious  use  of  the  ears 
of  corn  is  in  various  representations  of  the  Fall 
of  Man.  On  the  sarcophagus  of  Junius  Bassus 
(supp.  A.D.  358),  Bottari,  \ml.  i.  tav.  xv.  9,  Adam 
and  Eve  are  carved  ;  the  former  bearing  the 
corn,  in  token  of  his  labour  on  the  earth,  and  the 
latter  a  lamb,  indicating  woman’s  work,  .spinning. 
The  connection  of  this  with  Jack  Cade’s  proverbial 
line,  “  When  Adam  delved  and  Eve  span,”  seems 
probable.  See  again  vol.  ii.  tav.  Ixxxix.  Mar- 
tigny  gives  a  copy  (s.  v.  Dieu,”)  of  a  bas-relief 
in  Bottari,  vol.  iii.  tav.  xxxvii.,  from  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Agnes,  where  two  human  forms,  apparently 
both  male,  are  standing  before  a  sitting  figure, 
whom  Martigny  .supposes  to  represent  the  First 
Person  of  the  Trinity.  It  may  represent  the 
offering  of  Cain  and  Abel ;  at  all  events  the 
corn-ears  and  lamb  are  either  being  received  or 
pre.sented  by  the  standing  figures.  See  also 
Bottari,  taw.  Ixxxiv.  Ixxxvii.  Ixxxix.  As  these 
figures  are  of  no  more  than  mature  (sometimes 
of  youthful)  appearance,  the  Second  Person  may 
be  supposed  to  be  intended  by  them. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

CORNELIUS.  (1)  The  centurion,  bishop  of 
Caesarea,  is  commemorated  Feb.  2  {Mart.  Horn. 
Vet.,  Bsuardi)  ;  Dec.  10  {Cal.  Armen.). 

(2)  Pope,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Decius,  Sept. 
14  {Mart.  Bedae,  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CORNU.  [Altar.] 

CORONA,  martyr  in  Syria,  with  Victor, 
under  Antoninus,  May  14  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae, 
Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CORONA.  [Tonsure.] 


COr.ONA  LUCIS 


COKONA  LUCIS 


400 

COIIOXA  LUCIS.  A  lamp  or  chandelier. 
In  the  early  agc.s  of  Chi  istiaiiity  it  was  by  no 
means  unusual  for  sovereigns  and  other  royal 
personages,  following  an  instinct  of  natural  piety 
of  which  we  have  exam}»les  in  prae  Christian 
times  (cf.  Pliny,  Hist.  Hot.  xvi.  c.  4)  to  dedicate 
their  crowns  to  the  use  of  the  Church.  The 
gifts  thus  devoted  were  known  as  Donaria,  and 
were  suspended  by  chains  attached  to  their 
upper  rim,  above  an  altar  or  shrine,  or  in  some 
consjncuous  part  of  the  church.  Other  chains 
were  attached  to  the  lower  rim,  supporting  a 
li'.mp,  from  which  usually  depended  a  jewelled 
cross.  The  crowned  cross  thus  suspended  above 
the  altar  was  felt  to  be  an  appropriate  symbol  of 
the  triumphs  of  Christianity,  and  its  use  became 
almost  universal.  We  have  several  allusions  to 
it  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paulinus  of  Nola  in  the 
fifth  century,  e.g. 

"Crucem  corona  lucido  cingit  globo.” 

Ep.  32  ad  Severum. 

“  Pavva  corona  subest  variis  circumdata  gemmis, 

Haec  quoqne  crux  Domini  tanquam  diademate  cincta 
Emicat.”  Nat.  xi.  v.  679  sq. 

“  In  cruce  consertam  socia  compage  corouam.” 

Ib.  V.  692. 

Be  la  (Je  Locis  Sanctis,  cap.  2)  in  his  description  of 
Calvary,  specifies  a  large  silver  cross  hanging 
above  the  Holy  Grave,  with  a  bra.ss  circlet  and 
lamps  “  aenea  rota  cum  lampadibus”  attached  to 
it.  In  this  manner  the  crowns  of  Theodelinda, 
queen  of  the  Lombards,  and  of  her  second  hus¬ 
band  Agilulf,  at  the  beginning  of  the  7th 
century,  were  dedicated  to  St.  John  the  Baptist 
in  the  cathedral  of  Monza,  as  stated  in  the  in¬ 
scription  borne  by  the  latter  before  its  destruc¬ 
tion,  and  there  is  little  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
celebrated  iron  crown  of  Lombardy,  preserved  in 
the  same  cathedral,  was  at  one  time  emplo)'^ed 
for  the  same  purpose  (Frisi,  Jfenwr.  della  Chiesa 
Monzese,  Dissert,  ii.  p.  G7  ;  Pacciaudi,  de  Cult. 
Joann.  Bapt.  Dissert,  vi.  cap.  10,  p.  266).  At  a 
much  earlier  period,  according  to  Constantine 
Porjdiyrogenitus  and  Nicetas,  Constantine  the 
Great  had  dedicated  his  crown  to  the  service  of 
the  Church.  In  the  time  of  these  writers,  a 
crown  of  remarkable  beauty  “prae  caeteris  et 
operis  elegantia,  et  lapillorum  pretio  conspicua  ” 
(Ducange,  Constantinop.  Christ,  iii.  §  43),  hang¬ 
ing  with  others  above  the  Holy  Table,  was  pointed 
out  as  having  been  otl'ercd  to  God  by  the  first 
Christian  emperor.®  With  one  of  these  votive 
crowns,  the  lamp  and  chains  being  removed,  in 
the  time  of  Const.  Porjihyr.,  the  new  emperor  of 
the  Last  received  his  inauguration  (Ducange, 
Const  nt.  Christ,  u.  s.).  According  to  the  not 
very  trustworthy  catalogue  preserved  in  Anasta- 
sius  (S.  Silvest.  xxxiv.  §  36)  the  Lateran  basilica 
and  that  of  St.  Peter’s  were  also  enriched  by 
Constantine  with  large  chandeliers  of  pure  gold. 
Clovis  also,  at  the  suggestion  of  St.  Remigius 
early  in  the  6th  century,  sent  to  St.  Peter’s 

coronam  auream  cum  gemmis,  quae  Regnum 
ap])ellari  solet  ”  (Hincmar,  17L  S.  Remig. ; 
Anastas.  S.  Hormisd.  liv.  §  85).  The  very  re¬ 
markable  series  of  crowns  discovered  near  Toledo 
(see  below,  Ckowns)  were,  as  the  inscriptions  | 
borne  by  some  of  them  testify,  a  solemn  offering  i 


*  Tradition  ventured  to  assert  that  he  had  received  it 
by  the  hands  of  an  angel  as  a  present  from  Heaven. 


to  some  Spanish  church,  at  the  hands  of  the  king 
and  queen  and  royal  family.  No  lamps  were 
attached  to  them  when  they  were  discovered, 
but  these  appendages,  as  encumbrances  of  small 
value,  may  have  been  removed  when  the  regalia 
were  buried  to  conceal  them  from  the  Saracen 
spoiler. 

This  custom  for  sovereigns  to  dedicate  their 
actual  crowns  to  the  Church’s  use  led  to  the  con¬ 
struction  of  imitative 
crowns,  formed  for  vo¬ 
tive  purposes  alone.  Of 
this  usage  we  find  re¬ 
peated  notices  in  the 
Liber  Pontificalis,  which 
bears  the  name  of  Ana- 
stasius  Bibliothecarius ; 
as  well  as  in  ancient 
chronicles  and  docu¬ 
ments.  They  are  usually 
described  as  havinof  been 
suspended  over  the  altar, 
and  very  frequently 

mention  is  made  of  pengUe  Cro^n  from  the  “  Pal- 
jewelled  crosses  append-  Uotto,"  St.  Ambrogio,  auiaa. 

ed  to  them.  Small  votive 

crowns  of  this  nature  are  seen  suspended  over 
the  altar  in  several  ancient  representations. 
One  compartment  of  the  celebrated  palliotto  of 
the  church  of  Sant’  Ambrogio  of  Milan,  which 
depicts  the  trance  of  St.  Ambrose  in  which  he 
celebrated  mass  at  Toui's,  represents  one  such 
jewelled  crown  hanging  over  the  altar  at  which 


Pensile  Crowns  from  Bas-relief,  Cathedral  of  Monza. 


;  the  saint  is  officiating  (Ferrario,  Meniorie  di 
I  Sant*  Anibrog.').  A  ba.s-relief,  now  in  the  S.  tran- 
I  sept  of  Monza  cathedral,  representing  a  corona¬ 
tion,  exhibits  several  crowns  suspended  over  the 
altar.  Another  bas-relief  in  the  tympanum  of 
the  west  portal  of  the  same  cathedral,  on  which 


CORONA  LUCIS 

are  o.arved  the  various  gifts  of  Theodelinda  to 
the  church,  shews  us  four  crowns,  three  sus¬ 
pended,  and  the  fourth  being  the  celebrated  iron 
crown.  Macer  in  his  Hiei'olexicon  reters  to  a 
similar  representation  in  the  church  of  San  Cle¬ 
mente  at  Rome,  to  the  left  of  the  entrance. 

Among  the  mosaic  decorations  of  Sant’  Apolli- 
nare  Nuovo  at  Ravenna,  we  find  above  the 
upper  tier  of  windows  a  succession  of  pictures 
of  the  conchs  of  apses,  in  each  of  which  a  crown 
appears  hanging  by  chains  over  the  altar.  These 
suspended  crowns  are  exactly  similar  to  those 
held  by  the  female  saints  as  votive  otterings  in 
the  mosaic  frieze  below. 


lUo^iaic,  St.  A2x>Uiiiai'e  Nuuvo,  liaveima. 


The  convenience  of  the  form  of  these  donative 
crowns  for  the  suspension  of  lamps  doubtless  gave 
rise  to  the  custom  of  constructing  large  chande¬ 
liers  after  the  same  model.  In  these  pensile 
luminaries  the  shape  and  character  of  the  royal 
circle  was  preserved,  but  frequently  in  much 
larger  proportions.  Notices  of  the  presentation 
of  light-bearing  circles  of  this  nature  occur  re- 
peatedly  in  Anastasius  and  other  ancient  autho¬ 
rities.  Besides  the  more  ordinary  name  of 
corona,  the  primary  royal  origin  of  these  lumi¬ 
naries  was  indicated  by  the  designation  regnuin, 
which  is  of  constant  occurrence  (cf.  Anastas. 
Leo  in.  xcviii.  §  393,  “  fecit  regnum  aureum  cum 
gemmis  pretiosissimis;  ”  Leo  IV.  cv.  §  540,  “  fecit 
.  .  .  regnum  ex  auro  purissimo  unum  pendens 
super  altare  maju.s,  cum  catenulis  similiter 
aureis,  sculptilem  habens  in  medio  crucem  au- 
ream  habentem  gemmas  quatuordecim,  ex  quibus 
quinque  in  eadem  cruce  fixos,  et  alias  qua  ibidem 
pendent  novem  ”). 

Many  of  these  coronae  mentioned  by  Anastasius 
are  described  as  having  been  adorned  with 
dolphins  (Anastas.  S.  Silvester  xxxiv.  §  36,  “  co¬ 
ronas  quatuor  cum  delphinis ;  ”  ib.  §  38,  “  co- 
ronam  auream  cum  delphinis  quinquaginta,”  § 
43;  St.  Zachar.  xciii.  §  219;  St.  Adrian,  xcvii. 
§  348 ;  St.  Leo,  iv.  cv.  §  531).  Others  were 
decorated  with  diminutive  towers,  and  (as  we 
see  in  the  relief  in  the  transept  of  Monza)  with 
fleurs-de-lis  (Greg.  M.  Ep.  lib.  i.  ep.  66,  “  Co¬ 
ronas  cum  delphinis  duo,  et  de  aliis  coronis 
lilios;”  Anastas.  St.  Hilar,  xlviii.  §  70,  “tur- 
rem  argenteam  cum  delphinis.”)  Leo,  cardinal 
of  Ostia,  in  his  Chronicon  Cassinense  thus  describes 
a  corona  executed  for  that  lover  of  art  the  abbot 
Desiderius :  “  He  had  a  pharus  made,  that  is  a 
silver  crown  weighing  100  lbs.  and  20  spans  in 
circumference.  On  were  12  towers,  and  36 
lamps  hung  from  it.”  Bells  were  also  sometimes 
suspended  from  the  lower  rim. 

Other  names  by  which  these  chandeliers  were 
known  in  early  writers  are  Lhaims,  Pharocantha- 


CORONATI  QUATUOR  461 

rus,  Spanoclystum  =  4irauwK\(i<rr6v,  Gabhatha, 
and  Rota. 

The  name  Pharus,  though  sometimes,  a.s  we 
have  seen,  used  for  a  corona,  was  more  proj)erly 
a  standing  candelabrum  supporting  lamp.s  or 
candles,  which  from  their  number  of  spreading 
branches  were,  according  to  Ducange,  sometimes 
called  arbores,  trees.  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  lib.  xxxiv. 
c.  3,  speaks  of  “  lychnuchi — arborum  mode  mala 
ferentium  lucentes,”  and  Paul  us  Silentiarius 
yDescript.  S.  Soph,  part  2)  thus  describes  can¬ 
delabra  in  that  basilica — 

Keiva  yap  t)  Kiovolaiv  bpt,rpe<f>eea<Tiv  bp.oia 

SevSpea  ns  KaKeatuu. 

The  most  magnificent  example  of  an  ancient 
corona,  though  long  after  our  date,  is  that  still 
to  be  seen  suspended  in  the  cathedral  at  Aix-la- 
Chapelle,  over  the  crypt  in  which  the  body  of 
Charlemagne  was  deposited.  This  corona  was 
the  oft'ering  of  the  emperor  Frederick  Barbarossa, 
by  whom  the  tomb  was  opened  in  1165.  A  very 
valuable  treatise  on  this  corona,  embracing  full 
details  of  the  form,  arrangements,  and  history  of 
coronae  generally,  has  been  published  by  Dr.  Fr. 
Bock  (^Der  Kronleuclder  Kaisers  Fried.  Barbarossa 
zu  Aachen,  Leipzig,  Weigel,  1864).  The  Melanges 
d’ Archeologie  of  Cahier  and  JVartin,  Par.  1853, 
vol.  iii.  may  be  referred  to,  article  Couronne  de 
lumiere,  for  representations  of  suspensory  crowns 
from  MSS.  and  painted  glass.  See  also  Ciampini, 
vol.  ii.  c.  xii.  p.  89  sq.  Migne,  Kncyclope'die  Theol. 
Dictionnaire  d’  Orfe'vrerie,  v.  Couronnes.  Justi  Fon- 
tanini  Dissertatio  de  Corona  Fcrrea  (Rom.  1719, 
pp.  91-97).  Macer,  Hierolexicon. 

CORONATI  DIES.  [Festival.] 

CORONATI  QUATUOR  (Legend  and 
Festival  of).  The  abov.e  title  is  given  to  four 
martyrs,  Severus,  Severianus,  Cai-pophorus,  and 
Victorinus,  who  suftcred  martyrdom  at  Rome  in 
the  reign  of  Diocletian.  3'he  tradition  respecting 
them  is  to  the  effect  that  they  refused  to  sacrifice 
to  idols,  and  were  then  at  the  command  of  the 
emperor  beaten  to  death  before  the  statue  of 
Aesculapius  with  scourges  loaded  with  lead 
(ictibus  plumbatarum).  The  bodies  having  lain 
where  they  died  for  five  days,  were  then  depo¬ 
sited  by  pious  Christians  in  a  sandpit  on  the 
V'^ia  Lavicana,  three  miles  from  the  city,  near 
the  bodies  of  five  who  had  sufl'ered  martyrdom 
on  the  same  day  two  years  before,  Clamlius, 
Nicostratus,  Symphonianus,*  Castorius,  and  Sim¬ 
plicius.  See,  e.g.  the  Martyrology  of  Ado,  No¬ 
vember  8  (^Patrol,  cxxiii.  392),  who  gives  the 
legend  more  fully  than  others. 

It  is  stated  by  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius 
(  Vitae  Pontificum,  Honorius  :  Patrol,  cxxviii.  699) 
that  Pope  Honorius  I.'*  (ob.  638  a.d.)  built  a 
church  in  Rome  in  their  honour  (“  eodem  tem- 


»  In  the  case  of  this  name  considerable  di  versity  of  sp'  l'.- 
ing  exists:— Symphonianus,  (irtg.  Saar.;  Simphroniauus. 
Cd.  Rhem. ;  Simphorianus,  Cdd.  Ratnldi  and  RtKlnidi ; 
Sympronlus,  Mart.  I/ir.ron. ;  Syn)pronianus.  Usuardus  ; 
and  Symphronianiis,  Ado. 

•>  Before  this  time,  however,  the  Coronati  Quatuor  had 
given  their  name  to  one  ot  the  titidi  of  the  city  of  Rome ; 
for  in  the  subscriptions  to  sundry  dtcrets  of  On  gory  the 
Great  the  last  signature  is  “  Fertunatns  rpn‘sbyter  titulij 
SS.  iv.  Cor.’’  (Gngorii  Decnta:  l  atrol.  Ixxvil.  1339; 
formerly  Epp.  lib.  iv.,  Indict.  13,  c.  44.)  See  also  Ducaug^ 
Glossarium,  s.  v,  titulua. 


4G2  CORONATI  QUATUOR  CORONATI  QIIATUOR 


pore  fecit  ecclesiam  beatorum  martyrum  iv.  Cor., 
quam  et  dedicavit  et  donum  obtulit”).  To  this 
church  the  remains  of  the  martyrs  were  subse¬ 
quently  transferred  by  Pope  Leo  IV.  (ob.  855 
A.D.),  who  had  been  its  officiating  priest  (op.  cit. 
Leo  IV.,  ib.  1305),  and  who,  finding  it  in  a  very 
ruinous  condition  on  his  accession  to  the  ponti¬ 
ficate,  restored  it  with  much  splendour,  and 
bestowed  upon  it  many  gifts  (ib.  1315).  This 
church  was  situated  on  the  ridge  of  the  Coelian 
hill,  between  the  Coliseum  and  the  Lateran  ;  and 
on  its  site  the  present  church  of  the  Santi  QvAxttro 
Incoronati  was  built  by  Pope  Paschal  II. 

As  to  the  appointment  of  the  festival  of  these 
martyrs  on  November  8,  which  is  said  to  be  due 
to  Pope  Melchiades  (ob.  314  a.d.),  a  curious  dif¬ 
ficulty  has  arisen.  Thus  in  the  notice  of  the 
festival  in  the  editions  of  the  Gregorian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  (for  the  words  would  apjiear  to  be 
wanting  in  MS.  authority),  the  remark  is  made 
that  it  being  found  impossible  to  ascertain  the 
natal  day  of  the  four  martyrs  (‘‘  quonim  (bes 
natalis  per  incuriam  neglectus  minime  reperiri 
poterat  ”),  it  was  appointed  that  in  their  church 
the  natal  day  of  the  five  other  saints,  near  to 
whose  bodies  theirs  had  been  buried,  should  be 
celebrated,  that  both  might  have  their  memory 
recorded  together  (Patrol.  Ixxviii.  147). 

Others,  however,  make  this  forgetfulness  to 
be  of  the  names  of  the  martyrs.  Thus  the  Mar- 
tyrologium  Romanum,  after  speaking  of  Claudius, 
&c.,  proceeds :  “  Et  ipso  die  iA\  Coronatorum 
Sei'eri,  Severiani,  Carpophori,  Victorini,  quorum 
festivitatem  statuit  Melchiades  papa  sub  nomi¬ 
nibus  quinque  martyrum  celebrari,  quia  nomiua 
eorum  non  reperiebantur,  sed  intercurrentibus 
annis  cuidam  sancto  viro  revelata  sunt”  (Patrol. 
cxxiii.  173).  See  also  the  Martyrology  of 
Usuardus  (ib.  cxxiv.  669). 

If  however  the  institution  of  the  festival  be 
rightly  assigned  to  Melchiades,  Avho  was  pontiff 
during  the  reign  of  Diocletian,  it  is  strange  how 
this  ignorance  could  have  existed,  seeing  that 
many  Christians  must  have  been  living  who  had 
known  them  personally.  In  Alcuin  (De  Div.  Off. 
31 ;  Patrol,  ci.  2230)  this  strange  idea  assumes 
still  another  form,  in  that  the  forgetfulness  now 
includes  both  the  day  and  the  names  :  (“  quorum 
nomina  et  dies  natalis  per  incuriam  neglectus.” 
The  look  of  the  Latin  however  points  strongly 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  words  nomina  et  are 
a  later  addition). 

No  trace  however  of  this  forgetfulness  is  to 
be  found  in  the  Martyrologium  Hieronymi,  where 
the  notice  is  merely  “  vi.  Id.  Nov.  Romae  natalis 
Sanctorum  Simplicii  .  .  .  et  Sanctorum  Quatuor 
Coronatorum  Severi  .  .  .  .  ”  (Patrol,  xxx.  481). 

A  difficulty  of  another  sort  is  that  Anastasius 
Bibliothecarius  (1.  c.)  seems  to  distinguish  the 
Coronati  Quatuor  from  Severus,  &c. ;  for  after 
describing  how  Leo  IV.  restored  their  chui-ch  at 
Rome,  he  adds  “  et  ad  laudem  Dei  eorum  sacra- 
tissima  corpora  cum  Claudio  . . . . ,  necnon  Severo 
.  .  .  .  quatuor  fratribus  collocavit.”  Doubtless 
however  the  last  words  ai-e  spurious.  It  will 
be  obsei’ved  also  that  Anastasius  speaks  of  the 
Coronati  as  brothers,  the  only  ancient  authority, 
so  far  as  we  have  observed,  who  does  so. 

Another  curious  point  is  that,  in  the  Martyr¬ 
ology  of  Notker  for  July  7,  the  five  saints,  whom 
we  hav'e  seen  associated  with  the  Coronati 
Quatuor,  seem  to  bo  commemorated  on  that  Jay  : 


“  Romae,  passio  beatorum  martyrum  Ni(.ostrati 
primiscrinii,  Claudii  cominentariensis,  Castorii 
sive  Castuli,  Victorini,  Symphoriani  vel  sicut  in 
libro  Sacramentorum  continetur  Semproniani ; 
quorum  natalem  sexta  die  Iduum  Novembris 
eatenus  nos  celebrari  credidiinus,  donee  venera- 
bilis  pater  Ado  alios  et  alios  pro  eis  nobi.s 
honorandos  insinuaret :  de  quihus  in  suo  loco 
vita  comite  commodius  di.sseretur  ”  (Patrol. 
cxxxi.  111,5).  We  cannot  tell  however  how  this 
last  promise  was  redeemed,  for  the  Martyrology 
of  Notker  is  wanting  after  Oct.  26.  The  ^lar- 
tyrology  of  Usuardus  akso  connects  with  July  7 
the  names  of  the  five  above-mentioned  saints 
(Patrol,  cxxiv.  233,  where  see  the  note). 

In  the  Martyrology  of  Rabanus  Maurus  all 
notice  for  Nov.  7  and  8  is  wanting.  In  that  of 
Wandelbert  (Patrol,  exxi.  617),  Nov.  8  is  thus 
marked  ; — 

“  Senas  ornantes  idus  merito  atque  cruore, 

Claudi  Castori  Siniplici  Symphoriane, 

Et  Nicostrate  pari  fulgetis  4uce  coronae 

(al.  Semproniane),  where  it  Avill  be  seen  that 
there  is  no  allusion  to  the  Coronati  thernselve.s, 
unless  indeed  there  be  an  implied  reference  in 
the  last  word  of  the  third  line. 

In  the  Martyrology  of  Bede  the  Coronati  are 
mentioned,  but  under  the  names  of  the  five  saints  ; 
thus,  “  vi.  Id.  No\'.  natale  iA*.  Coronatorum,  Ch,  N., 
Symphoriani,  Castoris,  Simplicii  ”  (Patrol.  xciA'. 
1097). 

We  find  the  festiA^al  marked  in  the  Leonine 
Calendar,  “  v.  (A’el  au.)  Id.  Noa".  natale  SS.  iv.  Co¬ 
ronatorum  ”  (ib.  Ixxiv.  880);  and  the  former  day 
(Noa'.  7)  in  the  calendar  of  Bucherins  (ib.  879) 
as  “  dementis,  Semproniani,  Claudii,  NiCostrati, 
in  comitatum.”  We  find  the  names  again  varied 
in  the  Gelasian  Sacramentary  (ib.  1179),  Avhiclj 
cites  four  of  the  names  of  the  fiA^e  saints  :  “  In 
natal.  SS.  ia'.  Coronatorum,  Costiani,  Claudii, 
Castori,  Semproniani.” 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  presence  of 
this  festival  in  the  Gi'egorian  Sacramentary ; 
see  also  the  Antiphonary  (Patrol.  IxxA'iii.  707). 
The  collect  in  the  Saci’amentary  runs  thus : 
“  Praesta  quaesumus  omnipotens  Deus  ut  qui 
gloriosos  martyres  Claudium,  Nicostratum  .  .  .  , 
fortes  in  sua  confessione  cognovimus,  pios  apud 
te  in  nostra  intercessione  sentiamus ;”  Avhere  it 
Avill  be  noticed  that  only  the  names  of  the  fiA’e 
saints,  and  not  of  the  Coronati,  are  given. 

The  Mozarabic  Missal  mentions  the  festiA’al 
(Patrol.  IxxxA'.  398) ;  but  has  no  special  office 
for  it,  employing  for  this  day  as  Avell  as  for  others 
a  missa  plurimorum  martyrum.  This  Avould 
appear  to  point  to  the  fact  of  the  festiwal  being  a 
late  addition  to  the  Missal. 

It  may  be  added  that  several  ancient  calendars 
mark  Noa\  8  as  the  festiAu\l  of  the  four  Coronati ; 
but  except  the  first,  Avhich  is  English,  they  are 
all  Italian  (Patrol.  Ixxii.  624,  Ixxx.  420,  ci.  826, 
cxxxviii.  1188,  1192,  1202,  1208,  &c.).  Doubt¬ 
less  therefore  the  festiA’al  is  to  be  viewed  as 
essentially  one  of  the  Italian  church,  and  as  one 
Avhich  never  gained  any  special  notoriety  beyond 
the  bounds  of  that  church.  There  are  Acta  of  the 
Coronati  Quatuor,  not  ap))yrently  of  any  s})ecial 
value,  which  Avere  published  in  Mombritius’ 
Sanctuarium,  a’oI.  i.  ff.  162,  sqq. 

In  addition  to  authorities  cite.l  in  this 
article,  special  reference  should  be  made  to 


CORONATION 


463 


CORONATION 

Menard’s  notes  to  the  Gregorian  Sacramentnry 
(in  loc.). 

CORONATION.  The  Coronation  of  kings 
and  emperors,  the  most  august  ceremony  ot 
Christian  national  life,  allords  a  striking  example 
of  the  manner  in  which  Christianity  breathed  a 
new  spirit  into  already  existing  ceremonies,  and 
elevated  them  to  a  higher  and  purer  atmosphere. 
Under  her  inspiration  a  new  life  animated  the 
old  form  :  heathen  accessories  gradually  dropt 
off;  fresh  and  appropriate  observances  were  de¬ 
veloped  ;  and  the  whole  ceremonial  assumed  a 
character  in  harmony  with  the  changed  faith  of 
those  who  were  its  subjects. 

It  has  been  remarked  by  Dean  Stanley  (J/c- 
morvds  of  VVVs^.  Abbey,  p.  42)  that  the  rite  of 
coronation,  as  it  appears  in  the  later  part  ot 
the  period  to  v/hich  our  investigation  is  limited, 
represents  two  opposite  aspects  of  European 
monarchy.  It  was  (1)  a  symbol  of  the  ancient 
usage  of  the  choice  of  the  leaders  by  popular  j 
election,  and  of  the  emperor  by  the  Imperial  j 
Guard,  derived  from  the  practice  of  the  Gaulish 
and  Teutonic  nations,  and  (2)  a  solemn  consecra¬ 
tion  of  the  new  sovereign  to  his  office  by  unction 
with  holy  oil,  and  the  placing  of  a  crown  or 
diadem  on  his  head  by  one  of  the  chief  ministers 
of  religion,  after  the  example  of  the  ancient 
Jewish  Church. 

These  two  parts  of  the  ceremonial,  though 
united  in  the  same  ritual,  have  a  different  origin, 
and  it  will  be  convenient  to  treat  them  sepa¬ 
rately. 

(1)  Among  the  Teutonic  and  Gothic  tribes  the 
custom  prevailed  of  elevating  the  chief  or  king 
on  whom  the  popular  election  had  fallen  on  a 
large  shield  or  buckler,  borne  by  the  leading 
men  of  the  tribe.  Standing  on  this  he  was  ex- 
posed  to  the  view  of  the  soldiers  and  people, 
who  by  their  acclamations  testified  their  joy  at 
his  accession,  and  accepted  him  as  their  sove¬ 
reign  and  head.  The  “  chairing,”  or  carrying 
round  through  the  assembled  crowd,  “  gyratio,” 
usually  three  times  repeated,  followed.  Tacitus 
describes  this  ceremonial  in  the  case  of  Brinno, 
chief  of  the  Batavian  tribe  of  Canninefates 
“  impositus  scuto,  more  gentis,  et  sustinentium 
humeris  vibratus,  dux  deligitur”  (Hist.  iv.  15). 
The  German  soldiers  of  the  Imperial  Guard  intro¬ 
duced  this  custom  to  the  Romans,  and  we  find 
the  later  emperors  inaugurated  in  this  mannei’. 
Thus  Gordian  the  vounger  A.D.  238  was  “  lifted 
up  ”  as  emperor  by  the  Praetorian  Guards : 
“  retractans,  elevatus  est  et  imperatorem  se  ap- 
pellari  permisit  ”  (Capitolinus  in  Gordian',  Hero- 
dian,  lib.  viii.  c.  21).  Julian,  when  before  the 
death  of  Constantins  the  enthusiasm  of  his  troops 
forced  him  at  Paris  unwillingly  to  assume  the 
imperial  dignity  (April  A.D.  360),  submitted  to 
the  same  ceremonial,  “  impositus  scuto  pedestri 
et  sublatius  eminens  Augustus  renuntiatur  ” 
(Amm.  Marcell.  lib.  xx.  c.  4)  ;  iiri  rivos  aairidos 
fi^reupop  &paPT€s  aj/T€?7rdv  re  'S.efiaarhv  Avro- 
Kpdropa  (Zosimus,  lib.  iii.  9.  4).  Valeutinian 
was  desired  to  name  a  colleague  A.D.  364,  kot’ 
avT^v  rv,v  avayopeuaiv  eiri  ttjs  acririSos  (Philo- 
storg.  viii.  8),  to  which  Nicephorus  significantly 
adds,  us  edos.  The  poet  Claudiaa,  writing  of  the 
inauguration  of  the  young  Honorius  as  Augustus 
A.D.  393,  refers  to  the  same  custom — 


So  completely  was  this  custom  identified  with 
the  inauguration  of  a  sovereign  that  the  verb 
eraipeiv  came  into  use  as  the  regular  term  for 
the  recognition  of  a  new  emperor.  Thus  we  find 
Euseb.  Epitome  temp,  of  Marcian  A.D.  450,  avrip 
rep  erei  iirfipdr]  MapKiavhs  ACyovaros,  and  of 
Maximus  A.D.  455  (cf.  Suidas  sab  voce  eiraipeip'). 
Zonaras,  writing  of  Hypatius  set  up  by  a  sedition 
as  a  rival  to  Justinian,  says  M  aairiSos  /uerdp- 
aiop  dpavres  dvayopevovai  fiacriAea  (Zonar.  xiv. 
6).  It  took  its  place  as  a  recognised  portion  of 
the  ritual  of  a  coronation  in  the  Eastern  Empire; 
e.y.  the  coronation  of  Justin  the  younger  in  St. 
Soidiia’s  as  described  by  Corippus,  de  Laudibus 
Jnstini  Augusti  Minoris  (lib.  ii.  137-178).  A 
shield  was  held  up  by  four  young  men.  On  this 
the  emperor  stood  erect,  like  the  letter  I,  with 
which  his  name  and  that  of  his  two  immediate 
predecessors  commenced. 

“  Quatuor  ingentem  clypei  sublimius  orbem 
Altollunt  lecti  juvenes,  nianibusque  levatua, 

Ipse  ministrorum  supra  stetit,  ut  sua  rectus 
Littera,  quae  signo  stabili  non  flectitur  unquam 
Nominibus  sacrata  trlbus." 

We  also  find  it  in  the  elaborate  rituals  drawn 
up  by  Joannes  Cantacuzenus  (c.  1330 ;  Hist.  i. 
c.  41,  printed  by  Martene  ii.  204 ;  and  Habertus 
Po7itifc.  Graec.  p.  604  sq.)  and  Georgius  Codinus, 
Curopaletes  (d.  1460;  de  Officio  et  Officiaiibiis 
Aulae  Constant,  c.  17).  The  only  change  is  that 
the  emperor  no  longer  stands  on  the  slippery 
surface  of  the  buckler,  but  ado])ts  the  much 
securer  position  of  sitting,  “  sessitans.”  The  risk 
of  a  dangerous  and  indecorous  fall  during  the 
ceremony  of  “  gyratio,”  is  prov'ed  by  the  example 
of  Gunbald,  king  of  Burgundy  (a.d.  500),  who 
on  his  third  circuit  “  cum  tertio  gyrarent  ”  fell, 
and  was  w'ith  difficulty  held  up  by  the  people 
(Grego.  Turonens.  Hist.  lib.  vii.  c.  10).  Accord¬ 
ing  to  George  Codinus,  who  may  be  taken  as  a 
probable  evidence  of  the  ritual  prevailing  several 
centuries  before  his  time  in  the  unchanging  East, 
this  ‘‘  levatio  ”  took  place  outside  the  Church 
of  St.  Sophia,  into  which  the  new  emperor  was 
borne  to  receive  the  sacred  rites  of  unction  and 
crowning  at  the  hands  of  the  patriarch.  It  was 
the  rule  that  the  shield  should  be  supported  in 
front  by  the  empei’or  (wffien  the  choice  of  a 
successor  was  made  in  his  lifetime),  the  father  of 
the  newly  created  monarch  if  alive,  and  the 
patriarch,  the  other  highest  dignitaries  of  the 
State  supporting  it  behind. 

The  origin  of  this  custom  being  Teutonic,  it 
was  naturally  continued  by  the  sovereigns  of  the 
Frankish  race.  The  long-haired  Pharamond  was 
thus  inaugui'ated  A.D.  420  :  “  levaverunt  super 
se  regem  crinitum  ”  (Gesta  Regum  Francorum 
apud  Dom.  Bouquet,  ii.  543).  Clovis  received  his 
recognition  as  king  by  the  same  token,  “  clipeo 
impositum  super  .se  Regem  constituunt”  A.D. 
509  (Gregor.  Turon.  lib.  ii.  c.  40).  Sigebert,  son 
of  Clotaire  I.  a.d.  575,  when  “more  gentis,  im¬ 
positus  clipeo  rex  coustitutus”  (Adonis  Chro~ 
nicon ;  Gregor.  Tur.  Hist.  Fraii.  iv.  c.  52),  was 
stabbed  by  the  assassins  of  Queen  Fredegonde. 
A  century  later,  A.D.  744,  w'e  read  of  Hilde¬ 
brand,  grandson  of  Luitprand  king  of  the  Lom¬ 
bards,  “  in  regem  levaverunt  ”  (Paulus  Diaconus, 
vi.  55),  of  Pippin  (a.d.  751  “rex  elevatus  est” 
Annal.  Guelferb.').  And  to  clo.se  the  series,  Otho 
“  sublimatus  est  ”  at  Milan  a.d.  961.  [Cf.  Grimm, 
Rechtsaltei'thiimer,  p.  234.] 


"Sed  mox  cum  solita  miles  te  voce  Itvassef.” 


464 


CORONATION 


CORONATION 


The  ceremonial  is  depicted  in  an  illumination 
of  the  10th  century  engraved  by  Montfaucon 
(^Moimmens,  tom.  i.  p.  xvi.)*  representing  the  pro¬ 
clamation  of  David  as  king.  He  stands  on  a 
round  shield,  borne  aloft  by  four  young  men. 

From  a  passage  in  Constant.  Porphyr.  (jle  Ad- 
minist.  Imper.  c.  38)  this  custom  appears  to 
have  prevailed  among  the  Turks.  It  is  not  found 
in  the  early  Spanish  annals,  but  it  was  certainly 
in  use  in  the  kingdom  of  Arragon  at  a  later 
period  (Ambi’os.  Morales,  lib.  xiii.  c,  11),  and 
traces  of  it  are  found  in  that  of  Castile,  in  Legi- 
bus  Partitarum,  leg.  iii.  tit.  xxii.  part.  iii.  There 
is  no  evidence  of  its  ever  having  been  adopted  in 
England. 

Among  the  Frankish  and  Lombard  nations  an 
additional  ceremony  was  the  delivery  of  a  spear 
to  the  newly-made  monarch.  We  find  this  in 
the  case  of  Hildebrand  a.d.  744  (Paul.  Diac.  vi. 
55) ;  Childeric  a.d.  456  (Chifletius  in  Anastas, 
cvii.  p.  96) ;  Childebert  II.  A.D.  585  (Greg.  Turon. 
vii.  33 ;  Aimionus,  ii.  69).  Martene  (^de  Pit,  ii. 
212)  writes  of  the  Frankish  kings  “tradita  in 
manum  hasta  pro  sceptro,  excelso  in  solio  hono- 
rifice  imponunt.” 

(2)  The  second  aspect  in  which  a  corona¬ 
tion  was  viewed  was  the  religious  one.  As 
soon  as  the  Bible  became  known,  the  practice 
of  the  Jewish  nation  to  consecrate  their  kings 
to  their  high  office  by  the  hands  of  the  chief 
minister  of  religion  became  an  authority  from 
which  there  was  no  appeal.  Of  the  two  cere¬ 
monies  specially  characterizing  the  Jewish  rite, 
unction  and  the  imposition  of  a  crown, '  the 
former  alone  was  strange  to  the  Western  nations. 
From  a  very  early  period,  as  we  shall  see,  the 
crown  or  dhdem  was  known  as  the  symbol  of 
royalty.  The  only  change  was  that  of  the  person 
by  whose  hands  it  was  placed  on  the  monarch’s 
head.  Unction  appears  to  have  been  entirely 
unknown  as  a  part  of  the  ritual,  and  to  have 
come  into  use  with  the  conversion  of  the  em¬ 
perors  to  the  Christian  fiiith. 

(a)  To  speak  first  of  the  imposition  of  the 


cjKrtcn  or  diadem.  For  the  sake  of  clearness,  while 
referring  to  dictionaries  of  classical  antiquities 
for  fuller  details,  it  may  be  desirable  to  remind 
our  readers  that  the  crown,  corona,  ar4<pavos, 
was  a  head  circlet,  wreath,  or  garland  of  leaves, 
flowers,  twigs,  grass,  &c.,  and,  as  luxury  increased, 
of  the  precious  metals,  chiefly  gold ;  while  the  dia¬ 
dem,  5idSi]fia,  “taenia”  or  “  fascia”  (Q.  Curtius, 
iii.  3),  as  its  name  implies,  was  originally  nothing 
more  than  a  linen  band  or  silken  ribbon,  tied 
round  the  temples,  with  the  loose  ends  hanging 
down  be’nind.  This  ribbon  Eastern  magnificence 
afterwards  adorned  with  pearls  and  precious 
stones.  The  nature  of  the  diadem  may  be  illus- 


»  “  Discours  preliminaire,  de  I’inauguration  des  pre¬ 
miers  rois  de  France.” 


trated  from  some  historical  facts.  Thus  Alex¬ 
ander  took  off  his  diadem  to  bind  up  the  wound 
of  Lysimachus  (Justin,  lib.  xv.  c.  3).  Pornpey’s 
enemies  made  it  a  charge  against  him  that  he 
had  bound  up  an  ulcer  on  his  leg  with  a  white 
cloth  like  a  diadem,  it  mattering  not  on  what 
part  of  the  body  the  royal  insignia  was  placed 


(Amm.  Marcell.  xvii.).  Monima,  the  wife  of  Mi- 
thridates,  attempted  to  hang  herself  with  her 
diadem  (Plutarch,  Lucullus.  c.  18). 

Though  the  words  corona  and  diadema  have  not 
unfrequently  been  used  interchangeably,  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  them  is  very  precise.**  “How¬ 
ever”  (writes  Selden,  Titles  of  Honour,  c.  8,  §2), 
“  these  names  have  been  from  antient  times  con¬ 
founded,  yet  the  diadem  strictly  was  a  very  diffe¬ 
rent  thing  from  what  a  crown  now  is  or  was  ;  and 
it  was  no  other  then  than  only  a  fillet  of  silk,  linen, 
or  some  such  thing.  Xor  appears  it  that  any 
other  kind  of  crown  was  u.sed  for  a  royal  ensign, 
except  only  in  some  kingdoms  of  Asia,  but  this 
kind  of  fillet,  until  the  beginning  of  Christianity 
in  the  Roman  empire.”  The  “  diadema,”  not  the 
“  corona  ”  was  the  emblem  and  sign  of  royalty. 
It  is  styled  by  Lucian  ^aaiXdas  yvcttpiafia  (Pise. 
35 ;  cf.  Xenoph.  Cyrop.  viii.  3.  13) ;  and  TrepiTi- 
OHai  Siddvya  is  of  frequent  use  to  indicate  the 
assumption  of  royal  dignity  (Polyb.  v.  57.  4;  Jo¬ 
sephus,  A7it.  xii.  10.  1);  as  in  Latin  “diadema” 
is  identified  bv  Tacitus  with  the  “iusigne  regium  ” 
(^Annal.  xv.  29).  The  diadem  was  of  Eastern 
origin,  and  was  introduced  to  the  Romans  through 
their  Oriental  campaigns  and  intercourse  with 
Asiatic  nations.  When  first  seen  at  Rome  it 
caused  great  offence.  Though  they  submitted  to 
the  reality  of  sovereign  power,  their  susceptible 
minds  could  not  endure  its  outward  symbols.  The 
golden  “corona”  had  raised  no  alarm.  Caligula 
and  Domitian  wore  it  at  the  public  games  without 
objection,  and  it  appears  on  their  coins.  Au¬ 
gustus,  Claudius,  Trajan,  and  many  others  are 
represented  with  rayed  or  “  stellate  ”  crowns, 
imitating  the  majesty  of  the  sun.  Julius  Caesar, 
rightly  interpreting  public  opinion,  refused  the 
tempting  offer  of  a  di.adem  at  Antony’s  hands, 
though  half-veiled  in  a  laurel  wreath  fSidS-qua 
aTe(pdvci}  Sdcbrrjs  TrepLTreirXeyuei'o;^^  and  had  it 
laid  up  in  the  Capitol  (Plutarch,  J.  Caes.  61  ; 
Sueton.  i.  §  79).  Caligula  when  about  to  a.^sume 
the  diadem  was  warned  by  friendly  counsellors 
of  the  danger  of  thus  exceeding  “  principum  et 
regum  fastigium  ”  (Sueton.  iv'.  c.  22).  Titus  pro¬ 
voked  suspicion  of  affecting  the  throne  of  the 
Ea.st  by  wearing  the  diadem,  though  according 
to  the  established  ritual,  when  consecrating  the 
Apis  ox  at  Memphis  (Sueton.  xi.  c.  5).  The  effe- 


“A1  ud  est  corona,  aliud  diadema.  Corona  simplex  cst 
circu'us  aureus  quo  utuntur  rf’gt-s  iii  minoribus  solemni- 
tatibus.  Diadema  est  quasi  duplex  co’ona  quum  ipsi 
conuuie  quasi  alius  oirculus  gcnmiis  siipi.-rpn.siius  super- 
addiiur  ” — Peter  of  Piois,  i^'criun.  >ix.  vol.  iii.  p.  11. 


CORONATION 


CORONATION 


4G5 


minate  Elagab.ilus  adv^anced  a  step  further  and 
wore  it  in  private,  “  diademate  gemniato  usus  ' 
est  domi  ”  (Lanipridius) ;  and  Aurelian,  who  ^ 
had  been  familiar  with  its  use  in  his  Eastern 
campaign,  and  the  attire  of  his  captive  Zenohia  | 
(Trc.bell.  Poll.  c.  xxix.),  first  ventured  to  present 
himself  to  the  public  gaze  with  his  temples  j 
adorned  with  this  badge  of  sovereignty,  and  his 
person  glittering  with  magnificent  attire  a.d.  | 
270:  “Iste  primus  apud  Romanos  diadema  capiti 


It  has  been  erroneously  asserted  by  Martene  {dc 
Ritibus,  ii.  201-237,  ed.  Bassano  1788)  and'Md- 
nard  (Notes  to  the  Sacrainentart/ of  !'t.  Grcijorif, 
p.  397  sq.),  and  repeated  by  Catalani  and  many 
subsequent  writers,  including  Maskell,  thatTijeo- 
dosius  II.  (a.d.  439)  is  the  first  whom  we  know  to 
have  been  crowned  by  a  bishop.  Theoplianes  (p. 
59)  informs  us  that  Theodosius  the  younger  sent 
crowns,  (rrecpawovs  0a(ri\iKous,  to  V  alentinian  II. 
at  Rome,  c.  383,  but  nothing  is  anywhere  said 


innexuit,  gemmisque  et  aurata  omni  veste,  quod 
adhuc  fere  incognitum  Romanis  moribus  vise- 
batur,  usus  est  ”  (Aurel.  Viet.  Epitom.  c.  xxxv.). 
The  diadem  once  intro'duced  was  never  dropped, 
and  became  a  recognized  mark  of  imperial  dig¬ 
nity  ;  but  it  seems  to  have  been  chiefly  worn  on 
state  occasions.  Constantine  was  the  first  to  adopt 
it  as  a  portion  of  his  ordinary  attire — “  caput  ex- 
ornans  perpetuo  diademate  ”  (Aurel.  Viet.  Epit. 
cxli.),  and  his  successors  continued  the  usage. 
As  soon  as  the  emperors  had  become  Christian, 
it  naturally  followed  that  their  inauguration  to 
sovereignty  should  be  accompanied  by  sacred  rites, 
and  receive  the  blessing  of  the  chief  minister  of 
religion,  who  speedily  became  also  the  recognized 
agent  in  setting  apart  the  sovereign  to  his  regal  j 
office  by  the  ceremonies  of  the  imposition  of  the 
crown,  and  at  a  later  period,  of  unction,  borrowed 
from  the  rites  of  the  Jewish  Church.  Originally 
the  crown  was  put  on  by  those  who  had  the 
power  of  giving  it.  The  Imperial  Guard  who 
chose  the  emperor  crowned  him.  When  Julian 
had  been  suddenly  chosen  by  his  troops  as  their 
emperor  at  Paris  (April  a.d.  360),  and  had  been 
raised  on  the  shield  by  the  soldiers,  it  was  they 
who  forcibly  put  the  token  of  power  on  his  un¬ 
willing  head :  iTr(6e(Tau  avv  /3ia  SidSTj/^a  xp 
(Zosim.  Hist.  iii.  9.  4).  The  circum¬ 
stances  of  this  coronation  deserve  mention  from 
their  picturesqueness.  There  being  no  real  dia¬ 
dem  at  hand,  the  troops  demanded  that  he  should  j 
use  his  wife’s  head-ribbon.  Julian  refused,  deem-  j 
ing  a  woman’s  ornament  unworthy  of  the  imperial 
dignity.  Still  more  peremptorily  did  he  reject 
the  horse’s  headband  they  then  proposed.  At 
last  one  of  his  standard-bearers  took  off  the 
gold  torque  from  his  neck,  and  with  that  Julian 
was  crowned  (Amm.  Marcell.  xx.  4).  This  mean 
crown  “  vilis  corona  ”  was  laid  aside  at  Vienne  for 
a  more  ambitious  diadem,  glittering  with  jewels — 
‘‘  ambitioso  diademate  utebatur  lapidum  fulgore 
distiucto  ”  (Amm.  Marcell.  xxi.  1 ;  Zonaras,  xiii. 
10).  His  successor  Jovian  was  also  proclaimed 
king,  crowned  and  vested  in  the  royal  robe  by 
the  army  who  chose  him  A.D.  363,  ttjv  aXovp- 
yida  eydus  koI  rh  SiaSrifia  TT€pid4/x€vos  (Zosim. 
iii.  30 ;  Theodoret,  iv.  1  ;  Theophan.  p.  36) ;  and 
Valentinian  A.D.  364,  “  principali  habitu  cir- 
cumdatus  et  corona,  Augustu.sque  nuncupatus  ” 
(Amm.  Marc.  xxvi.  2).  When  Valentinian  as¬ 
sociated  his  son  Gratian  with  him  in  the  em¬ 
pire,  he  invested  him  with  the  purple  and  crown 
(Amm.  Marcell,  xxvii.  7).  In  none  of  these  cases 
is  there  any  reference  to  a  bishop  or  minister  of 
religion  as  perfi  rming  the  ceremony  of  corona¬ 
tion  ;  nor  can  we  say  with  any  certainty  when 
this  custom  arose.  The  first  hint  at  such  a  cus¬ 
tom  that  we  meet  with  is  in  the  dream  of  Theo¬ 
dosius  before  his  admission  to  a  share  of  the 
imperial  dignity,  c.  379  (?),  in  which  he  saw 
Meletius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  putting  on  iiim  a 
crown  and  the  royal  robe  (Theodoret,  If.  E.  v.  (>). 

CIlRISI.  ANT. 


of  his  own  coronation.  The  passage  ipioted  by 
Martene  from  Theodorus  Lector,  (lib.  ii.  c.  65,) 
speaks  of  the  coronation,  not  of  Theodosius  II. 
but  of  Leo  L,  a.d.  457,  by  Anatolius  the  patri¬ 
arch :  (rre(pde\s  vnh  tow  uvtou  TraTptdpxov.  In 
this  case  the  new  emperor,  a  rude  Thracian  sol¬ 
dier,  had  been  a  military  tribune  and  chief 
steward  of  the  household  of  Aspai-,  the  Arian 
patrician,  by  whose  influence  he  was  raised  to 
the  throne.  It  is  not  improbable  that  episcopal 
benediction  might  be  regarded  as  a  valuable 
support  to  a  feeble  title,  and  that  Leo  felt  a 
special  satisfaction  in  having  the  imperial  crown 
imposed  on  his  brows  by  the  head  of  the  Byzan¬ 
tine  hierarchy.  But  previous  allusions  to  coro¬ 
nation  at  the  hands  of  a  bishop  would  lead  us 
to  question  the  accuracy  of  Gibbon’s  assertion 
(chap,  xxxvi.)  that  “  this  appears  to  be  the  first 
origin  of  a  ceremony  which  all  the  Christian 
princes  of  the  world  have  since  adopted,”  and  it 
would  certainly  be  very  unsafe  to  assert  that  it 
was  the  first  time  that  this  ceremony  was  per¬ 
formed  by  episcopal  hands.  The  next  recorded 
instance  of  episcopal  coronation  is  that  of  Jus¬ 
tin  I.  This  emperor  was  crowned  twice  :  first 
by  John  II.,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  518 
(Theophan.  Ckronograj  h.  p.  162  ;  cf.  the  patri¬ 
arch’s  letter  to  Pope  Hormisdas,  apud  Barouii 
Annul,  anno  519,  no.  lx.:  “  Ideo  coronam  (aliter 
cornu)  gratiae  super  enm  coelitus  declinavit,  ut 
affluenter  in  sacrum  ejus  caput  misericordia 
funderetur :  omnique  annuntiationis  ejus  tem¬ 
pore  cum  magna  voce  Deum  omnium  principem 
glorificaverunt  quoniam  talem  verticem  meis 
manibus  tali  corona  decoravit”);  and  secondly, 
“  pietatis  ergo,”  by  Pope  John  11.  on  his  visit  to 
Constantinople,  a.d.  525  (Anastas.  Bibliothec.  p. 
95,  ed.  Blanchini,  Rom.  1718;  Aimionus,  lib.  ii. 
c.  1).  His  successor  Justinian  received  the  dia¬ 
dem  primarily  from  his  uncle’s  hands  (Zonaras  lib. 
xiv.  c.  5),  in  compliance  with  a  practice  subse¬ 
quently  prevailing  in  the  Eastern  empire,  by  which 
the  symbol  of  royalty  was  originally  l  estowed  by 
the  emperor  himself  on  those  whom  he  wished  to 
succeed  him:  the  ceremony  being  probably  re¬ 
peated  by  the  bishop  or  patriarch.  Thus  Verina 
crowmed  her  brother  Basiliscits,  a.d.  474.  Tibe¬ 
rius  II.  his  wdfe  Anastasia,  A.D.  578  (Theophanes, 
Chton.).  But  the  sanction  of  religion  had  be¬ 
come  essential  to  the  recognition  of  a  new  sove¬ 
reign  by  his  subjects,  and  Justinian  w'as  inaugu¬ 
rated  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the 
patriai’ch  Epiphauius  (Cyril.  Scythopol.  T Vfii 
Sabae  Archimundritne).  From  this  tiTue  corona¬ 
tion  at  the  hands  of  the  patriarch  was  an  esta¬ 
blished  rule.  Justin  II.,  a.d.  565,  was  crowned 
by  John  Scholasticus ;  Tiberius  II.  by  Eutychius, 
Sept.  26,  578,  ten  days  before  Justin’s  death  and 
by  his  order.  His  succe.ssor  Maurice  and  his 
wife  were  crowned  by  John  the  F.istcr,  a.d.  582, 
on  the  day  of  their  marriage  (Theophyl.  Simo- 
catta,  lib.  i.  c.  10),  and  their  .son  Theodosius, 


406 


CORONATION 


CORONATION 


when  four  years  old  (Theoplian.  p.  179).  He-’ 
radius,  with  his  wife  Eudoda,  was  crowned  by 
Sergius,  Oct.  7,  610,  and  in  the  tiiird  year  bf 
lus  reign  his  son  Hei-adius  and  his  daugliter  Kpi- 
pliania  were  also  crowned.  It  is  unnece.s.sary  to 
give  later  examples.  In  the  time  of  .Justinian’s 
successor  Justin  II.  the  ceremonial  of  coronation 
seems  to  have  received  the  form  and  religious 
sanction  it  maintained,  on  the  whole,  till  the  fall 
of  the  empire.  The  ritual  is  elaborately  de¬ 
scribed  by  Corippus.  The  ceremony  took  place 
at  break  of  day.  After  his  elevation  on  the 
shield  (see  above),  the  emperor  was  carried  into 
St.  Sophia’.s,  where  he  received  the  patriarch’s 
benediction,  and  the  imperial  diadem  was  impo.sed 
by  his  hands.  He  was  then  recognized  as  emiieror 
by  acclamation  fii’st  of  the  “  patres  ”  and  then 
of  the  “clientes.”  Wearing  his  diadem  he  took 
his  seat  on  the  throne,  and  after  making  the 
sign  of  the  cross  he  made  an  harangue  to  his 
assembled  subjects : — 

“  Postquam  cuncta  vldet  ritu  perfecta  pviorum, 
Pontificum  summus  plenaque  aetate  venustus, 
Adstantem  benedixit  eum,  caelique  potentem 
Exorans  Dominum  sacro  diademate  jussit 
Augustum  sancire  caput,  summoque  coronam 
Imponens  apici  ‘  Feliciter  accipe  ’  dixit.” 

Corippus  de  Laud.  Justin,  ii.  9,  v.  179  sq. 

With  the  addition  of  the  important  ceremony 
of  unction.,  and  a  considerable  elaboration  of 
ritual,  the  coronation  office,  as  given  by  Joannes 
Cautacuzenus,  afterwards  emperor  (c.  1330),  and 
a  century  later,  by  Georgius  Codinus  (d.  1453), 
corresponds  with  that  described  by  Corippus  in 
all  essential  particulars. 

Of  the  Occidental  use  we  know  little  or 
nothing.  We  may  reasonably  suppose  that  there 
was  no  essential  difference  beween  it  and  the 
Eastern  ritual.  But  the  Western  empire  had 
ceased  before  the  eaidiest  record  of  any  religious 
ceremony  accompanying  the  rite  in  the  East, 
and  when  it  revived  in  the  person  of  the  em¬ 
peror  Charles  the  Great,  coronation  at  the  hands 
of  a  bishop  had  long  been  a  recognized  custom 
among  the  Frankish  nations.  Martene  (ii.  212) 
acknowledges  that  the  coronation  of  Pippin,  the 
father  of  Charles,  is  the  earliest  exami^le  he  can 
discover.  Pippin  was  crowned  twice — first  by 
iSt.  Boniface,  archbishop  of  Mentz,  papal  legate, 
<it  Soissons,  A.D.  752  ;  secondly,  together  with 
Ids  sons  Charles  and  Carlomaun  and  his  wife 
Bertha,  by  Pope  Stephen  at  St.  Denis,  Sunday, 
.July  28,  754  (Pagius,  Brev.  Gesta  Rom.  Pont.). 
Charles  the  Great  was  also  crowned  episcopally 
more  than  once.  In  addition  to  his  boyish  coro¬ 
nation  he  was  solemnly  crowned  in  St.  Peter’s  at 
Rome  by  Pope  Leo.  'This  coronation  took  place 
on  Christmas  Day,  A.D.  800.  It  forms  one  of  the 
great  epochs  in  history,  as  by  this  the  Frankish 
king  was  recognized  by  the  Vicar  of  Christ  as 
the  representative  of  the  emperors  of  Rome  and 
inheritor  of  their  rights  and  privileges. 

The  ceremony  is  thus  described  by  Const.  Ma- 
nasses  in  Chron.  Synops. : — 

eurivffey  a/iiei^ofieuos  KdpovWou  6  Xeoiv 
avayopeuei  Kpdropa  iroAaiOTepa? 

KaX  o’TeT/jo?  nepiTiOrja’iu  <I>s  ot  'Pwp.aiun'  v6p,oi. 

It  h  as  been  repeatedly  asserted  that,  previous 
to  his  coronation  at  Rome,  Charles  had  been 
crowned  with  the  so-called  iron  crown  at  Monza  : 
but  the  fact  is  not  recorded  in  any  early  autho¬ 
rities,  and  it  IS  probably  a  story  of  later  growth. 


Ilis  infant  son  Pipi)in  was  crowne  I  king  of  Italy 
by  Adrian  I.  on  Easter  Dav,  801,  the  day  after 
his  birth.<^ 

One  of  the  very  earliest  instances  on  record  of 
a  royal  coronation  by  an  ecclesiastic  in  Western 
Europe  is  tliat  of  Aidan,  king  of  Scotland,  by 
St.  Columba  in  Iona,  A.D.  .574.'*  It  may  perhaps 
be  reasonably  questioned  whether  this  picturesque 
narrative  is  to  be  received  as  historical.  But  it 
is  accepted  by  some  of  the  latest  and  best  au¬ 
thorities  (e.ij.  Montalembert  and  Burton);  and 
the  kernel  of  the  story  is  probably  authentic. 
According  to  the  tale,  an  angel  was  sent  to 
command  Columba  to  consecrate  Aidan.  He 
reminded  the  saint  that  “  he  had  in  his  hands 
the  crystal-covered  book  of  the  Ordination  of 
Kings  which,  be  it  remarked,  presupposes  the 
existence  of  such  a  ceremony.  St.  Columba  hesi¬ 
tated,  preferring  for  sovereign  Aidan’s  brother 
logen.  The  angelic  messenger  appeared  again 
and  again,  becoming  more  and  more  peremp¬ 
tory,  until  on  the  third  visit  he  struck  the  re¬ 
fractory  saint  with  a  scourge,  leaving  a  weal 
which  remained  on  his  side  all  the  rest  of  his 
life.  On  this  Columba  consented,  and  Aidan 
was  made  king  by  him  on  the  celebrated  Stone 
of  Destiny,  taken  afterwards  from  Iona  to  Dun- 
staffnage,  and  thence  to  Scone,  whence  it  was 
transferred  by  Edward  I.,  as  a  symbol  of  con¬ 
quest,  to  Westminster.  The  words  of  Adamnan 
are  simply,  “  in  regem  ordinavit  imponensque 
manum  super  caput  ejus  ordinans  benedixit.” 
No  mention  is  made  either  of  the  crown  or 
unction  (Adam  nanus,  de  S.  Columh.  Scoto  Confes- 
sore,  t.  iii.  c.  5  ;  Montalembert,  Monks  of  the 
West;  T.  Hill  Burton,  Hist,  of  Scotland,  i.  319). 
Almost  contemporaneous  with  this  are  the  records 
of  the  same  rite  in  Spain.  Leovigild,  king  of 
the  Visigoths,  A.D.  572,  according  to  Isidore, 
Hist.  Gothorum,  vii.  124,  was  the  first  of  those 
sovereigns  to  assume  the  crown,  sceptre,  and 
royal  robe :  “  Nam  ante  eum  et  habitus  et  con- 
sessus  communis  ut  genti  ita  et  regibus  erat.” 
Of  Recared  also,  Leovigild’s  successor,  A.D.  586, 
we  read,  “  regno  est  coronatus  ”  (ib.). 

(b)  Another  essential  portion  of  the  coronation  of 
a  Christian  monarch  was  unction  at  the  hands  of  a 
bishop  or  other  chief  minister.  This  rite  clothed 
the  person  of  the  king  with  inviolable  sanctity. 
It  was  considered  to  partake  of  the  nature  of  a 
sacrament  (August,  adv.  Petilium,  lib.  ii.  c.  112), 
and  to  be  indelible ;  to  convey  spiritual  jurisdic¬ 
tion,  as  the  delivery  of  the  crown  conferred  tem¬ 
poral  power;  and  it  gave  the  chief  significance  to 
the  formula  “  Rex  Dei  gratia,”  which  according 
to  Selden  (  Titles  of  Honour,  p.  92)  could  not  from 


0  The  notion,  once  so  widely  received,  that  the  Western 
emperors  were  crowned  in  three  different  places,  with 
crowns  of  three  different  materials — gold  at  Rome  denoting 
excellence,  silver  at  Alx-la-Chapelle  denoting  purity,  and 
iron  at  Monza  or  Milan  denoting  strength — is  a  mere  myth 
of  an  editor  of  the  Fortifcale  Romanum,  deservedly  ridi¬ 
culed  by  Aeneas  Sylvius  (Pope  Julius  II.),  Hist.  Aust. 
lib.  iv.,  and  refuted  by  Muratori,  de  Cor.  Ferr.  p.  9. 

d  It  is  stated  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Roxburgh  Club 
edition  of  the  “Liber  Regalis,”  1871,  that  “the  earliest 
coronation  of  a  Christian  prince  within  the  limits  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland  is  generally  supposed  to  be  that 
of  Dermot  or  Diarmid,  supreme  monarch  of  Ireland,  by 
his  relative.  Columba,"  circa  560 :  but  this  is  merely  an 
inference  from  the  close  relation  between  the  two  parties^ 
not  an  ascertained  historical  fact. 


CORONATION 


CORONATION 


4G7 


:ts  sacred  chara-cter,  be  applied  to  any  oilier  lav 
person.  Thus  Gregory  the  Great  writes,  “qnia 
ipsa  unctio  sacranientum  est,  is  qui  promovetnr 
foris  ungitur  si  intus  virtute  sacranienti  robo- 
retur  ”  (Ecpos.  lih.  i.  llctjum,  c.  x.).  Kex  unctiis 
non  rnera  persona  laica  sed  mixta”  (Lyndwood,  lib. 
iii.  tit.  2).  Anointing,  it  is  well  known,  was  the 
chief  and  divinely  appointed  ceremony  by  which 
’the  kings  among  the  chosen  people  of  God  were 
inaugurated  to  tlieir  office.  As  early  as  the  time 
of  the  Judges  the  idea  was  familiar;  for  in 
Jotham’s  jiarable  the  trees  propose  to  anoint  a 
king  OA'er  them.  This  shews  that  it  must  have 
been  in  use  among  other  nations  with  whom 
the  Jewish  people  had  intercourse,  and  that 
St.  Augustine  goes  too  far  in  asserting  that  it 
was  a  rite  peculiar  to  the  people  of  God,  and  was 
never  adojited  by  heathen  nations.  “  Nec  in  aliquo 
alibi  ungebantur  reges  et  sacerdotes  nisi  in  illo 
regno  ubi  Christus  prophetabatur  et  ungebatur 
et  unde  venturus  erat  Christi  nomen.  Nusquam 
alibi  omnino  in  nulla  gente,  in  nullo  regno” 
(^Enarrat.  in  Ps.  uliv.  §  10). 

The  earlie.st  authentic  instances  of  the  cere- 
monv  of  unction  forming  an  essential  element 
in  Christian  coronations  appear  in  the  annals 
of  the  Spanish  kingdoms.  The  rite  is  mentioned 
in  the  Acts  of  the  6th  Council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  636. 
Wamba  on  his  coronation  (a.d.  673)  was  anointed 
by  Quirigo,  archbishop  of  Toledo  :  “  Deinde  cur- 
vatis  genibus  oleum  benedictionis  per  sacri  Qui- 
rici  pontificis.  manus  vertici  ejus  infunditur” 
(Julius  Toletanus,  §  4;  cf.  Rodericus  Santius, 
quoted  by  SelJen,  Titles  of  Honour^  p.  155). 
But  the  rite  was  evidently  anterior  to  this.  The 
language  used  evidences  that  the  unction  was  an 
established  custom,  and  that  it  took  place  at 
Toledo.  Wamba’s  is  simply  the  first  unction  on 
record.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  Acts  of  the 
12th  Council  of  Toledo,  which  state  of  Hervigiu.s, 
Wamba’s  successor,  A.D.  680,  that  he  “  regnandi 
per  sacrosanctam  unctionem  succeperit  potesta- 
tem  ”  (Labbe,  Cone.  vi.  1225,  canon  i.). 

Passing  by  the  language  of  Gildas  {de  Excid. 
Prit.  §  21),  “  ungchaiitxir  reges  et  non  per  Deum, 
&c.,”  as  more  oratorical  than  historical,  and  the 
uncertain  reference  to  unction  in  Ina’s  designation 
of  himself,  “by  God’s  grace,  king  of  the  West 
Saxons,”  in  the  opening  sentence  of  his  laws 
A.D.  690,  we  come  down  to  the  form  of  coro¬ 
nation  contained  in  the  Pontificale  of  Egbert, 
archbishop  of  York  A.D.  732-767,  of  which  Mr. 
hlaskell  says,  “  it  is  probably  not  only  the  most 
ancient  English  use,  but  the  most  ancient  extant 
in  the  world”  {fMonum.  Pit.  iii.  74—81).  The 
ritual,  together  with  other  ceremonies,  expressly 
includes  the  anointing  of  the  king’s  head  with 
oil.  “  Benedictio  super  regem  noviter  electum. 
Hie  verget  oleum  cum  cornu  super  caput  ipsius 
cum  antiphone  ‘  unxerunt  Salomonem  ’  et  Psaimo 
‘  Domine  in  virtute  tua.’  Unus  ex  jioutificibus 
dicat  orationem  et  alii  unguant.” 

The  12th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Cealcyth 
\.D.  787,  “  de  ordinationc  et  honore  regum,” 
contains  a  valuable  incidental  mention  of  unction  ' 
as  an  essential  element  of  the  kingly  office,  in 
the  w'ords,  “  Nec  Christus  Domini  esse  valet  nec 
rex  totius  regni  qui  ox  legitiino  non  fuerit  coii- 
nubio  generatus.”  Of  Egferth,  son  of  Otfa,  who 
was  crowned  at  this  council  as  his  father’s  col¬ 
league,  the  language  ofthe  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle, 
in  which  this  is  the  earliest  coronation  men¬ 


tioned,  “hallowed  to  king”  (#o  cyningc  gchahjod) 
can  onl}'  be  intorpi'etcd  of  unction,  and  so  Wil¬ 
liam  of  IMalmesljurv  has  understood  it,  “  in 
regem  inunctum.”  Eardwulf,  king  of  North¬ 
umberland,  is  recorded  to  have  been  consecrated 
(gcbletsod)  and  elevated  to  his  throne  (to  his  cinc- 
stole  ahofen)  by  Archbishop  Eanbald  and  three 
bishops  (Anglo-Sax.  Chron.  A.D.  795).  And  finally 
of  Alfred,  the  same  chronicle  say.s,  a.d.  854,  that 
w'hen  Pope  Leo  IV.  heard  of  the  death  of  Ethel- 
wulf  he  consecrated  him  king  (hletsode  Alured 
to  cin;e').  The  rhyming  Chronicle  of  Robert  of 
Gloucester,  quoted  by  Selden  (Titles  of  Honour, 

р.  150),  in  describing  this  coronation  uses  the 
remarkable  phrase  “  he  oiled  (elcde)  him  to  be 
king :  ” — 

“  Erst  he  adde  at  Rome  ybe,  and  vor  is  gret  wisdomo 

The  pope  I,eon  him  blessede,  tho  he  ihuder  come, 

And  the  king  is  croune  of  this  lond,  yt  in  this  lond 
yat  is : 

And  elede  him  to  be  king,  ere  he  were  king  y\\  i?. 

And  he  was  king  of  Kngelond,  of  all  that  there  come 

That  verst  thus  yeled  was  of  the  Pope  of  Rome. 

And  sutthe  other  after  him  of  the  erchebissop  eehon. 

So  that  biuore  him  tliur  king  was  ther  n-m.” 

From  England  the  custom  of  unction  seems  to 
have  passed  into  France,  where  Pippin’s  anoint¬ 
ing  by  Boniface,  archbishop  of  Mentz,  at  Soissons 
A.D.  752,  is  acknow’ledged  by  Martene  (de  Pit. 
Eccl.  ii.  212;  cf.  Selden,  u.s.  p.  113)  to  have 
been  the  first  regal  unction  the  testimony  for 
which  is  worthy  of  credit.®  According  to  Chif- 
letius,  p.  30  (apud  Maskell  u.  s.),  the  rite  was 
more  than  once  repeated :  “  Pipinus  omnium 
Franciae  regum  primus,  imitatus  Judaeorum 
reges,  ut  se  sacra  unctione  venerabiiiorem  au- 
gustioremque  faceret,  semel  atque  iterum  ungi 
voluit.”  This  second  unction  is  probably  that 
mentioned  by  Baronius,  July  28,  A.D.  754,  wdien 
Pippin  received  anointing  from  Stephen  II.  to¬ 
gether  with  his  sons  Charles  and  Carlomann. 

The  custom  of  unction  was  firmly  established 
in  the  West  by  the  close  of  the  8th  century. 
When  Charles  the  Great  w^as  crowned  in  Rome 
by  Leo  I.  he  was  anointed  with  oil  from  head 
to  foot : — 

KoX  fiYjv  aWa  xp‘'7<rd,u.ei'0?  Koi  vofjLOii  ’lovSalitir, 
eK  K€<f)a\ris  e\aUp  rovror  XpCei. 

Const.  Manass.  in  Chron.  Synops. 

The  East  followed  the  West  in  the  adoption  of 
unction.  It  has  been  carried  back  to  the  time 
of  Ju.stin  and  Justinian,  i.  e.  to  the  middle  of 
the  6th  century  (Onuphrius,  Comit.  Finperator. 

с.  2) ;  but  Goar  (Eucholog.  p.  928)  affirms  that 
“  the  emperors  of  the  East  were  not  anointed 
before  that  Charles  the  Great  was  crowned  in 
the  West”  (cf.  Selden,  v,  s.  p.  146). 

In  the  earliest  ritual  anointing  on  the  head 
alone  sufficed.  That  of  the  whole  person,  adopted 
in  the  case  of  Charles  the  Great,  was  quite  ex¬ 
ceptional.  The  unction  is  thus  limited  In  the 
Pontificale  of  Egbert.  In  the  Greek  ritual,  given 
by  Codinus,  tlie  head  was  anointed  in  the  shape  of 
1  the  cross  (o'Tavpoeidws').  The  mediaeval  English 
rite  is  peculiar  in  anointing  the  head,  breast,  and 

*  The  ridiculous  fable  of  the  sancta  ampulla,  conveye<l 
from  heaven  by  an  angel  with  oil  for  the  coronation  rites 
of  Clovis,  A.D.  481,  was  not  heard  of  till  four  hundred  years 
after  the  date  of  the  supposed  event,  .and  then  in  conn''xion 
with  his  baptism  and  confirmation.  (Hincmar,  Tifa.S’.  Retr. 
ap  Suriam,  Jan.  13.) 

2  H  . 


408 


CORONATION 


CORONATION 


arms,  denoting  g^ory,  sanctity,  and  strength,  j 
The  k'ngs  of  Franco  were  anointed  in  nine  places 
— tlie  head,  breast,  between  the  shoulders,  the 
shoulders  themselves,  the  arms,  and  the  hands. 
I>ut  this  was  a  later  development  of  the  rite. 
Tlie  head  alone  was  anointed  in  three  places,  the 
right  ear,  the  forehead  round  to  the  left  ear, 
anil  the  crown  of  the  head,  when  Charles  the 
Bald  was  crowned  by  Hiucmar,  A.D.  809  (Hinc- 
mai',  ()/>c’ra,  i.  745). 

(c)  The  delivery  of  the  sceptre  and  staff,  which 
appears  in  the  English  ritual  of  the  Pontificale 
of  Egbert,  is  evidently  derived  from  the  custom 
prevailing  among  the  Lombards,  Franks,  and 
other  early  nations,  to  which  we  have  already 
referred,  of  delivering  a  spear  to  the  newly 
elected  sovereign. 

(rf)  The  proft.ssion  of  faith,  which  in  later  times 
formed  part  of  the  ritual  of  an  imperial  coro¬ 
nation,  preceding  the  episcopal  benediction,  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  more  ancient  authorities. 
The  instances  given  by  Martene  {de  Ritibus)  in 
proof  of  its  early  date  are  quite  inconclusive. 
Jovian’s  declaration  of  Christian  faith  on  his 
election  as  emperor  by  the  soldiers  of  his  army, 
was  evidently  entirely  voluntary  (Theodoret, 
//.  E.  iv.  1).  The  demand  made  of  Anastasius 
(A.D.  491)  by  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
Euphomius,  that  as  the  price  of  the  episcopal 
sanction  to  his  election  to  the  imperial  dignity, 
he  would  sign  a  document  declaring  his  adhesion 
to  the  orthodox  faith,  was  quite  exceptional 
(Evagr.  IL  E.  iii.  32  ;  Theod.  Lect.  iii.),  while 
the  profession  of  orthodoxy  required  by  Cyriac 
of  Phocas  A.D.  602,  and  unhesitatingly  given  by 
that  base  and  sanguinary  usurper  to  purchase 
the  patriarch’s  recognition,  can  scarcely  be 
pressed  into  a  precedent.  In  the  Gothic  king¬ 
dom  of  Spain  an  oath  that  he  would  defend 
the  Catholic  faith,  and  preserve  the  realm  from 
the  contamination  of  Jewish  unbelievers,  was  very 
early  exacted  of  the  .sovereign.  Such  a  pledge 
is  declared  essential  in  the  Acts  of  the  6th 
Council  of  Toledo,  A.D.  636  (act  iii.  Labbe, 
Coacil.  V.  p.  1743),  and  in  the  later  councils  held 
at  the  same  place.  It  is  expressly  declared  of 
Wamba  A.D.  673  that  before  the  ceremony  of 
unction  and  after  the  assumption  of  the  royal 
attire,  “  regio  jam  cultu  conspicuus  ante  altare 
divinum  consistens  ex  more  fidem  populis  red¬ 
didit”  (Jul.  Tolet.  §  4).  The  oath  of  King 
Egica  is  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  15th  Council 
of  Toledo  A.D.  688.  No  such  oath  or  profession 
of  faith  appears  in  the  form  of  coronation  in 
the  Pontificale  of  Egbert.  We  are  unable  to 
state  when  it  was  introduced  into  the  ritual  of 
the  Eastern  empire.  But  according  to  Georgius 
Codinus  (ca}).  xvii.  §§  1-7),  the  newly  recognized 
emperor  had  to  give  a  written  jwofession  of 
faith  before  his  coronation,  to  be  publicly  read 
in  St.  So]ihia’s. 

(e)  Leontius  (Vita  Sancti  Joan.  Alex.  Episc.  c. 

1 7)  mentions  a  remarkable  custom  prevailing  in  the 
coronations  of  the  Eastern  empire  in  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury  as  an  iulmonition  of  the  transitoriness  of  all 
earthly  greatness.  After  his  coronation  the  archi¬ 
tects  of  the  impori.il  monuments  approached  the 
emperor  and  presented  specimens  of  four  or  five 
marbles  of  dili'erent  colours,  with  the  inquiry 
which  he  would  choose  for  the  construction  of 
his  own  monument.  The  analogous  ceremony  de¬ 
scribed  by  I’eter  Ihunianus  (^Litt.  lib.  i.  17), 


though  belonging  to  a  later  period,  may  be  men-, 
tioned  here.  The  emperor  having  taken  his  seat 
on  his  throne,  with  his  diadem  on  his  head  and 
his  sceptre  in  his  hand,  and  his  nobles  standing 
around,  was  approached  by  a  man  carrying 
a  box  full  of  dead  men’s  bones  and  dust  in  one 
hand,  and  in  the  other  a  wisp  of  flax  which — as 
in  the  papal  enthronization — was  lighted  and 
burnt  before  his  eyes. 

(/)  This  article  may  be  fittingly  closed  by  an 
epitome  of  the  ritual  prescribed  in  the  Pontificale 
of  Egbert,  A.D.  732-767,  already  repeatedly 
referred  to  as  the  eai  liest  extant  form  of  corona¬ 
tion. 

The  title  of  this  coronation  service  is  “  Missa 
pro  regibus  in  die  Benedictionis  ejus.”  It  com¬ 
mences  with  the  Anti])hon  “Justus  es  Domine, 
&c.”  (Ps.  cxix.  137),  and  the  Psalm  “  Beati  im- 
maculati  (Ps.  cxix.  1).  Then  succeeds  a  Lesson 
from  Leviticus,  “  Haec  dicit  Dominus”  (Lev. 
xxvi.  6-9);  the  gradual,  “  Salvum  fac,  &c.,”  and 
the  verse,  “Auribus  percipe  ”  and  “Alleluia,” 
the  Psalm  “Magnus  Dominus”  (Ps.  xlviii.),  or 
“  Domine  in  virtute  ”  (Ps.  xxi.),  and  a  sequenco 
from  St.  Matthew,  “In  illo  tempore”  (Matt.  xxii. 
15).  Then  follows  the  “  BenedL  io  super  regem 
noviter  electum,”  and  three  collects,  “  Te  invo- 
camus  Domine  sancte,”  “  Deus  qui  populis  tuis” 
(both  of  which  are  found  in  the  Liber  Reqalis\ 
and  “  In  diebus  ejus  oriatur  omnibus  aequitas.” 
The  unction  follows,  according  to  the  form  al¬ 
ready  given.  After  the  collect,  “  Deus  electorum 
fortitude,”  succeeds  the  delivery  of  the  sceptre. 
The  rubric  is,  “  Hie  omnes  pontifices  cum  princi- 
pibus  dant  ei  sceptrum  in  manu.”  Fifteen  Preces 
follow.  After  this  there  is  the  delivery’  of  the  staff 
(“Hie  datur  ei  baculum  in  manu  sua  ”),  with  the 
prayer,  “Omnipotens  det  tibi  Deus  de  rore  coeli,” 
&c.,  and  imposition  of  the  crown  (the  rubric  is, 
“Hie  omnes  pontifices  sumant  galerum  et  ponant 
super  caput  ipsius  ”),  with  the  prayer,  “  Bcnedic 
Domine  fortitudinem  regis  principis,  &c.”  This 
is  succeeded  by  the  recognition  of  the  people, 
and  the  kiss.  The  rubric  runs,  “  Et  dicat  omnis 
populus  tribus  vicibus  cum  episcopis  et  presby- 
teris  Vivat  rex  E.  in  sempiternum.  Tunc  con- 
firmabitur  cum  benedictione  omnis  populus  ”  (Loo- 
fric  Missal,  “  omni  populo  in  solio  regni  ”)  “  et 
osculandum  principem  in  sempiternum  dicit. 
Amen,  Amen,  Amen.”  The  seventh  “oratio”  is 
said  over  the  king,  and  the  mass  follows,  avith 
appropriate  Offertory,  Preface,  kc.  The  whole 
terminate-s  with  the  three  roy'al  pi'ecepts,  to 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  Church,  to  restrain 
all  ra2)acity’  and  injustice,  and  to  maintain  justice 
and  mei'cy  in  all  judicial  proceedings. 

Authorities.  —  Maskell,  Momimenta  Pitnalia 
Ecclesiae  Anylicanae,  iii.  1-142.  Martene.  Pe 
Antiquis  Ecclesiae  Ritibus,  ii.  201-237.  Selden, 
Titles  of  Honour,  part  i.  ch.  vii.  Habertus, 
Pontific.  Graec.  pp.  627  sq.  Catalani,  Comment, 
in  Pontific.  Ronmn.  i.  369-418.  Menin,  Traite' 
dll  Sacre  et  Couronnement  des  Rois  et  Reines  de 
France.  Goar,  Eucholoyium,  pp.  924-9;)0.  ^le 
nard.  Notes  to  Sacramentary  of  Gregory,  p.  397. 
Arthur  Taylor,  Ghn-y  of  Regality.  Montfauoon, 
Afonumens  de  VHistoire  de  France,  tom.  i.  p.  xvi.  sq. 
Discours  preliminaire  de  I' inauguration  dec  pre~ 
miers  Rois  de  France.  Codinus  Curopalata,  De 
Officiis  et  Officialibus  Curiae  et  Ecclesiae  Constanti- 
nopolitanae.  c.  xvii.  Grimm,  Pechtsalte  thih'ier, 
p.  234  sq. 


CORPORAL 


CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT  469 


CORPORAL  {Corporale,  Palla  Corporah's, 
Falla  Dominic cC).  The  cloth  on  which  the  ele¬ 
ments  are  consecrated  in  the  Eucharist. 

It  is  probable  from  the  nature  of  the  case  that 
from  the  most  ancient  times  the  table  on  which 
the  Lord’s  Supper  was  celebrated  was  covered 
with  a  cloth.  [See  Altar-cloths.]  In  process 
of  time,  the  cloth  which  ordinarily  covered  the 
table  was  itself  covered,  when  the  sacred  ele¬ 
ments  were  to  be  consecrated,  by  another  cloth 
called  a  Corporal.  The  Liber  Pontificalis  (p. 
105,  ed.  Muratori)  asserts  that  Pope  Sylvester 
(t  335)  decreed  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar 
should  be  consecrated  not  on  silk  or  on  any  kind 
of  dyed  cloth,  but  only  on  pure  white  linen,  as 
the  Lord’s  Body  was  buried  in  linen.  The  de¬ 
crees  of  popes  of  that  age  lie,  as  is  well  known, 
under.a  good  deal  of  suspicion;  but  at  a  some¬ 
what  later  date  Isidore  of  Pelusium  (Epist.  i. 
123)  lays  down  precisely  the  same  rule  as  that 
attributed  to  Sylvester.  Germanus  of  Paris 
(Expositio  Brevis,  p.  93,  Migne)  also  lays  down 
that  the  corporal  must  be  of  linen,  for  the  same 
reason  as  that  alleged  by  the  preceding  authori¬ 
ties,  and  adds  that  it  should  be  woven  through¬ 
out,  like  the  seamless  coat  of  the  Lord.  Regino 
(De  Discip.  Eccl.  c.  118)  quotes  a  council  of 
Rheims  to  the  following  effect.  The  corporal  on 
which  the  immolation  is  made  must  be  of  the 
finest  and  purest  linen,  without  admixture  of 
any  other  material  whatever.  It  must  not  re¬ 
main  on  the  altar  except  in  time  of  mass,  but 
must  either  be  placed  in  the  sacramentary  or 
shut  up  with  the  chalice  and  paten  in  a  place 
kept  delicately  clean.  When  it  is  washed,  it 
must  first  be  rinsed  in  the  church  itself,  and  in 
a  vessel  kept  for  the  purpose  by  a  priest,  deacon, 
or  subdeacon. 

The  corporal  appears  anciently  to  have  co¬ 
vered  the  whole  surface  of  the  altar.  Hence, 
according  to  the  Ordo  Pomanus  TL  c.  9,  it  re¬ 
quired  the  services  of  two  deacons  to  spread  and 
refold  it.  So  the  Ordo  horn.  /.  c.  11.  It  was 
necessary,  in  fact,  that  it  should  be  sufficiently 
larse  to  admit  of  the  bread  for  a  great  number 
of  communicants  being  placed  upon  it,  and  to 
allow  a  portion  to  be  turned  up  so  as  to  cover 
the  elements.  But  when,  about  the  11th  century, 
it  ceased  to  be  usual  for  the  people  to  communi¬ 
cate,  and  the  bi’ead  came  to  be  made  in  the  wafer 
form,  the  corporal  was  made  smaller,  and  a 
separate  cloth  or  covering  was  placed  over  the 
chalice  (Innocent  III.  De  Myst.  Miss  ie,  ii.  56). 
This  was  often  stiffened  with  rich  material. 
Many  churches,  however,  especially  those  of  the 
Carthusians,  retained  the  more  ancient  use  of 
the  corporal  even  in  modern  times,  as  we  are 
informed  by  De  Mauleon  in  his  Her  Liturg.  pp. 
57,  60,  200,  268.  (Krazer,  De  Liiurgiis,  pp. 
175  ff.) 

For  the  corporals  of  the  Eastern  Church,  see 
Antimexsium.  [C.] 

CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT.  Corporal 
punishment  in  almost  every  form  was  evidently 
allowed  by  the  lex  talionis  of  the  Pentateuch  : 
“  Eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand, 
foot  for  foot,  burning  for  burning,  wound  for 
wound,  stripe  for  stripe  ”  (Exod.  xxi.  24,  25).  It 
was  also  allowed  to  be  used  by  the  master  upon 
his  slave  to  an  almost  unlimited  extent ;  if  in¬ 
deed  he  smote  his  servant  or  his  maid  with  a 


rod,  and  they  died  under  his  hand,  he  was  to  be 
punished,  but  not  if  they  “continued  a  day  or 
two”  («6,  20,  21)  ;  the  slave,  however,  obtaining 
his  freedom  if  his  master  blinded  him  of  an  eye, 
or  knocked  a  tooth  out  (vv.  26,  27).  The  judicial 
bastinado  (L  e.  for  a  freeman)  was  not  to  exceed 
40  strij)es,  lest  “  thy  brother  should  seem  vile 
unto  thee  ”  (Dent.  xxv.  3).  That  the  use  of  per¬ 
sonal  chastisement  remained  prevalent,  is  evident 
from  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  espe¬ 
cially  from  the  Book  of  Proverbs;  though  it  is 
somewhat  dillicult  to  see  by  whose  hand  the 
“rod”  or  “stripes”  which  Solomon  so  zealously 
eulogises  as  the  due  reward  of  fools  could  well 
be  applied.  Not  less  zealously,  it  is  well  known, 
does  he  inculcate  the  use  of  them  for  the  instruc¬ 
tion  of  children. 

It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  how 
much  milder  is  the  tone  of  the  New  Testament 
in  these  respects.  Fathers  were  not  to  “  provoke 
their  children  to  wrath  ”  (Eph.  vi.  4,  and  see  Col. 
iii.  21);  masters  were  to  “  forbear  threatening” 
with  their  slaves  (Eph.  -vn.  9).  At  the  same  time 
the  judicial  use  of  corporal  punishment  is  fre¬ 
quently  mentioned,  and  only  indirectly  censured 
when  in  violation  of  an  established  privilege. 
By  the  old  Roman  law  indeed  a  citizen  could 
only  be  beaten  with  a  vine-branch,  not  with,  rods 
(Justes)  or  with  the  scourge  {flagellum'),  which 
privilege  was  extended  by  Caius  Gracchus  to  the 
Latins;  hence  St.  Paul’s  twice-recoHed  protest 
(Acts  XAU.  37  ;  xxii.  25)  against  being  “  beaten  ” 
or  “  scoui’ged,”  being  “  a  Roman.”  It  is  certain 
however  that  in  the  Roman  army  a  terrible  pu¬ 
nishment  existed,  called  fustuarium,  beginning 
with  a  stroke  of  the  centurion’s  vine-branch  (the 
symbol  of  his  authority),  and  seldom  ending  but 
with  death.  And  as  the  status  of  the  freeman 
became  gradually  lowered,  it  is  clear  that  the 
use  of  the  rod  became  more  prevalent,  till  we 
find  the  jurists  of  the  period  extending  from  Se- 
verus  to  the  Gordians,  such  as  Callistratus  and 
Macer  (end  of  the  2nd  to  nearly  middle  of  the  3rd 
century),  speaking  of  the  fustes  as  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  the  free,  in  cases  where  the  slave  would 
bo  flogged  with  the  flagellum,  or  terming  the 
application  of  the  former  a  mere  “  admonition,” 
but  that  of  the  latter  a  castigation  {Dig.  bk.  xlviii. 
t.  xix.  11.  10,  7). 

A  constitution  ofSeverus  and  Antonine  forbade 
the  chastising  with  the  fustes  either  decemvirs 
or  their  sons  {Code,  bk.  ii.  tit.  xii.  1.  5.  A,D.  199) ; 
The  ignominy,  however,  arose  from  the  sentence, 
if  for  an  oft'ence  deserving  by  law  such  punish¬ 
ment,  not  from  the  mere  act ;  e.  g.  if  inflicted 
by  way  of  torture,  before  sentence,  it  did  not 
dishonour  {Dig.  bk.  iii.  t.  ii.  1.  22 ;  Code,  bk 
ii.  t.  xii.  1.  14 ;  law  of  Gordian,  A.  D.  239) ; 
though  the  torturing  of  decemvirs  under  any 
circumstances  was  eventually  forbidden  (bk.  x. 
t.  xxxi.  1.  33;  Const,  of  Giatian,  Valentinian, 
and  Theodosius,  A.D.  381).  But  a  man  was  in¬ 
famous  after  being  whipped  and  told  by  the 
praeco,  “Thou  hast  calumniated”  (bk.  ii.  1.  16, 
AD.  241).  An  extract  from  the  jurist  Callis¬ 
tratus  in  the  Digest  (bk.  1.  t.  ii.  1.  12)  brings  out 
in  a  striking  way  the  conflict  between  the  old 
civic  pride  of  Rome  and  the  debasement  of  muni¬ 
cipal  government  during  her  decay.  Traders,  he 
says,  though  liable  to  be  flogged  by  the  aediles, 
are  not  to  be  set  aside  as  vile.  They  are  not 
forbidden  to  solicit  the  decurionate  or  other 


470  CORPORAL  PUNISn:\IENT 


CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT 


honours  in  tho  city  of  their  birthplace.  But  it 
does  not  seem  to  him  honourable  to  admit  to  the 
d.ecurion  order  persons  who  have  been  subject 
to  such  chastisement,  especially  in  those  cities 
which  have  an  abundance  of  honourable  men, 
for  it  IS  the  paucity  of  those  who  should  fulfil 
municipal  offices  which  necessarily  invites  such 
])ersons,  if  wealthy,  to  municipal  honours.  And 
the  45th  Novel,  whilst  subjecting  Jews,  Sama¬ 
ritans,  and  hercdics,  to  all  the  charges  of  the 
decurionate,  deprived  them  of  its  privileges,  “as 
that  of  not  being  scourged.” 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  during  the  five  cen¬ 
turies  which  separate  Justinian  from  St.  Paul, 
the  idea  of  corporal  punishment  under  its  most 
usual  forms  as  a  social  degradation  subsisted, 
yet  the  liability  to  it  had  been  greatly  extended. 
The  equality  before  the  law  which  might  have 
been  reached  through  the  extension  of  Roman 
citizenship  itself  had  been  by  no  means  attained, 
but  the  character  of  that  citizenship  itself  had  be¬ 
come  debased,  and  the  exemption  from  corporal 
punishment  which  still  fluttered,  like  a  last  rag 
of  the  toga,  on  the  shoulders  of  the  civic  officers, 
had  been  ah’eady  blown  off  for  some.  There  were 
decurions  who  had  been  flogged,  and  decurions 
who  could  be  flogged.  Such  exemption  was 
indeed  growing  to  be  a  privilege  attached  to  the 
mere  possession  of  wealth.  Thus  delation  if 
proved  false,  or  where  the  delator  did  not  perse¬ 
vere,  should  he  be  of  mean  fortune,  which  he  did 
not  care  to  lose,  was  to  be  punished  with  the 
sharpest  flogging  (gravissimis  verberibus.  Code, 
bk.  X.  t.  xi.  1.  7  ;  law  of  Gratian,  Valentinian 
and  Theodosius,  end  of  4th  century). 

Among  the  offences  w'hich  entailed  corporal 
punishment,  besides  the  one  last  mentioned,  may 
be  named  false  witness  {Code,  bk.  iv.  t.  xx.  1.  13, 
constitution  of  Zeno,  end  of  5th  century).  The 
use  of  it  multiplied  indeed  as  the  character  of 
the  people  became  lowered,  and  the  Novels 
are  comparatively  full  of  it.  The  8th  enacts 
flogging  and  torture  against  the  taking  of 
money  by  judges  (c.  8);  the  123rd  punishes 
with  “  bodily  torments”  those  persons,  especially 
stage-players  and  harlots,  who  should  assume 
the  monastic  dress,  or  imitate  or  make  a  mock 
of  Church  usages  (c.  44);  the  134th  enacts  cor¬ 
poral  punishment  against  those  who  detained 
debtors’  children  as  responsible  for  their  fiither’s 
debt  (c.  7),  or  who  abetted  illegal  divorces  (c.  11), 
and  requires  the  adulterous  wufe  to  be  scourged 
to  the  quick — so  we  must  probably  understand 
the  words  “  competentibus  vulneribus  subactam” 
(c.  10;  and  see  c.  12).  On  the  other  hand,  a 
husband  chastising  his  wife  with  either  the 
fustes  or  flagellum,  otherwise  than  for  conduct 
for  which  he  might  lawfully  divorce  her,  was  by 
the  117th  Novel  made  liable  to  pay  to  her,  during 
coverture,  the  amount  of  l-3rd  of  the  ante-nup¬ 
tial  gift  (c.  14).  The  last  chapti  r  of  the  134th 
Novel  indeed  {De  poenarum  omnium  moderatione, 
c.  13)  professes  to  inculcate  moderation  in  pu¬ 
nishment,  and  enacts  that  from  henceforth  there 
shall  be  no  other  penal  mutilation  than  the  cut¬ 
ting  off  of  one  hand,  and  that  thieves  shall  only 
be  flogged.  Already  under  Constantine  it  had 
been  enacted  {Code,  bk.  ix.  t.  xlvii.  1.  17,  A.D. 
315)  that  branding  should  not  be  in  the  face,  as 
figuring  “  the  heavenly  beauty,” — a  law  in  which 
file  influence  of  Christian  feeling  upon  the  first 
Christian  emperor  is  strikingly  displayed. 


Passing  from  the  legislation  of  the  East  to  that 
of  the  West,  we  find  on  the  whole  a  very  similar 
course  of  things.  Among  the  ancient  Germans, 
according  to  the  account  of  Tacitus,  corporal 
punishment  was  rare.  He  notes  as  a  singularity 
that  in  war  none  but  the  priest  w'as  allowed  to 
punish,  bind,  or  even  strike  (ne  verberare  quidem) 
a  soldier  {De  Mor.  Germ.  c.  vii.).  A  husband 
might  indeed  flog  his  adulterous  wife  naked 
through  the  streets  (c.  xix.);  but  otherwise  even 
slaves  were  rarely  beaten  (c.  xxv.). 

In  the  barbaric  codes,  corporal  punishment  is 
in  like -manner  primarily  a  .social  degradation. 
We  find  it  inflicted  on  a  slave,  as  an  alternative 
for  compensation.  Under  the  Salic  law,  a  slave 
stealing  to  the  value  of  2  denarii  was  to  receive 
120  blows  (ictus)  or  to  pay  three  solid!  {Cactus 
vulgod.  antiq.  t.  xiii.),  the  solidus  being  equiva¬ 
lent  to  40  denarii.  The  same  punishment  was 
inflicted  on  a  slave  committing  adultery  with  a 
slave-girl  (rape  indeed  seems  meant)  where  she 
did  not  die  of  it  (t.  xxix.).  Where  a  slave  was 
accused  of  theft,  corporal  punishment  was  applied 
by  way  of  torture.  Stretched  on  a  bench  (super 
scamnum  tensus)  as  the  really  older  but  so- 
called  recentior  text  has  it,  he  received  120 
blows  {ictus,  or  as  the  other  text  has  it,  121  co- 
laphos).  If  he  confessed  under  torture,  as  already 
mentioned  under  the  head  “  Mutilation  of  the 
Bouv,”  the  penalty  was  castration  if  a  male, 
but  for  a  woman  240  strokes  with  a  scourge,  or 
6  solidi.  A  Constitution  of  King  Childebert 
(middle  of  6th  century),  contained  in  Labbe 
and  Mansi’s  Councils,  enacts  in  certain  cases  of 
sacrilege  that  a  “servile  person”  shall  receive 
100  lashes.  Under  the  Burgundian  law  (in  force 
from  the  beginning  of  the  6th  until  at  least  813, 
when  it  was  still  recognised)  bodily  punishment 
without  the  option  of  composition  was  enacted 
for  the  slave,  where  the  freeman  might  com¬ 
pound.  Thus  for  the  theft  of  a  hog,  sheep,  goat, 
or  of  bees,  the  slave  receiA'ed  300  strokes  with 
the  rod,  and  fustigation  is  in  the  like  manner 
enacted  for  other  offences  by  slaves  (t.  v.  &c.). 
A  Lombard  law  of  A.D.  724  (bk.  vi.  c.  88)  has  a 
singular  enactment,  punishing  with  shaving  and 
whipping  those  women  whom  their  husbands 
send  out  upon  men  of  small  courage  (super  ho¬ 
mines  qui  minorem  habebant  virtutem),  a  text 
which  gives  a  high  idea  of  the  vigour  of  Lombard 
women. 

The  Wisigothic  laws  exhibit  to  us  before  any 
others  the  breaking  down  of  the  previous  free¬ 
man’s  privilege  (analogous  to  that  of  the  Roman 
citizen)  of  exemption  from  corporal  punishment. 
The  corrupt  or  unjust  judge,  if  unable  to  make 
due  restitution  and  amends  was  to  receive  jO 
strokes  with  the  scourge  publicly  (publicc  ox- 
tensus,  Bk.  ii.  c.  20).  The  use  (or  abuse)  of  cor¬ 
poral  punishment  is  indeed  most  conspicuous  in 
this  code.  If  a  free  woman  married  or  com¬ 
mitted  adultery  with  her  own  slave  or  freedman, 
the  puni.shm.ent  was  death,  after  the  public  flagel¬ 
lation  of  both  (bk.  iii.  t.  ii.  1.  2).  If  she  com¬ 
mitted  adultery  with  another’s  slave,  each  was 
to  i-eceive  100  lashes  (1.  3).  A  ravisher  being  a 
freeman,  besides  being  handed  over  as  a  slave  to 
the  ravished,  was  to  receive  200  lashes  in  the 
sight  of  all  (bk.  iii.  t.  iii.  1.  1).  The  brother 
who  forced  a  sister  to  marry  against  her  will 
was  to  receive  50  lashes  {ibid.  1.  4).  The  slave 
ravishing  a  freewoman  received  300  lashes, 


CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT 

with  decalvation,  i.  e.  arcordiug  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  at  this  period,  scalping ;  2()0  and 
decalvation  for  ravishing  a  slave-woman.  Acces¬ 
saries  to  rape,  if  free,  50  lashes,  it  slaves,  100 
(11.  8-12).  So  again  for  the  various  grades  of 
adultery.  A  freeman  committing  adultery  with 
a  goodly  (idonea)  slave-girl  in  her  master’s  house 
vVas  to  receive  100  strokes  without  infamy  (ap¬ 
parently  inflicted  in  private,  and  with  a  stick 
only), — if  with  an  inferior  one,  50  only  ;  a  slave 
receiving  for  the  like  offence  150  lashes,  and  the 
punishment  increasing  if  violence  were  used  (t. 
iv.  11.  1-1—16).  By  a  law  of  Recared  (ib.  17), 
public  flogging  was  also  made  the  punishment 
for  prostitution,  with  some  remarkable  provi¬ 
sions ;  thus  when  pi'actised  by.  a  freewoman  with 
the  knowledge  or  for  the  benefit  of  her  parents, 
each  was  to  receive  100  lashes;  and  when  by  a 
slave  for  her  master’s  benefit,  he  was  to  receive 
the  same  number  of  lashes  as  were  to  be  given 
to  her,  and  50  in  any  case  where  after  being 
flosrsced  and  “decalvated”  she  returned  to  the 
streets.  And  100  lashes  awaited  the  w'oman, 
religious  or  secular,  who  either  married  or  com¬ 
mitted  adultery  with  a  jiriest  (1.  18,  also  of 
Recared).  By  a  law  of  Chindasuinth  (t.  A'i.  1.  2) 
a  husband  remarrying  after  divorce  w'as  to  receive 
200  lashes  publicly,  with  decalvation.  Another 
law  of  the  same  king  (bk.  iv.  t.  v.)  enacted  50 
lashes  against  a  child  striking  a  parent  or  in  va¬ 
rious  other  ways  misbehaving  against  him.  Flog¬ 
ging,  with  or  without  decalvation  is  again  the 
punishment  for  consulting  a  soothsayer  on  the 
health  of  a  man  (bk.  vi.  t.  ii.  1.  1), — that  of  sor¬ 
cerers,  storm-rai.sers,  invokers  of  and  sacrificers 
to  demons  and  those  who  consult  them  (1.  3) ; 
of  judges  or  others  who  consult  diviners  or  apply 
themselves  to  auguries  (1,  5)  ;  of  slave-women 
and  slaves  causing  abortion  (t.  iii.  11.  1,  5,  6)  ; 
generally  for  wounds  and  personal  injuries  by 
slaves,  and  to  some  e.xtent  by  freemen  (t.  iv.) ; 
for  thefts,  either  of  goods  or  slaves  (bk.  vii.  t.  ii. 
t.  iii.),  with  again  the  remarkable  provisions  that 
if  a  master  stole  wdth  his  slave,  or  the  slaA’e  by 
his  master’s  order,  the  master  was  to  receive 
100  lashes  (besides  compounding),  the  slave  to 
be  exempt  from  punishment  (t.  ii.  1.  5,  t.  iii.  1. 
5)  ;  for  certain  forgeries  (t.  v.  1.  2)  ;  for  gathering 
a  crowd  to  commit  murder  (bk.  viii.  t.  i.  1.  3) ; 
for  violently  shutting  up  a  person  within  his  house 
(1.  4)  ;  for  soliciting  others  to  I’ob  or  robbing  on 
the  line  of  march,  the  offence  in  the  tw'O  latter 
cases  being  however  for  freemen  alternative  with 
composition  (11.  6,  9,  10,  11);  for  setting  fire  to 
woods  (t.  ii.  1.  2) ;  in  the  case  of  persons  of  infe¬ 
rior  condition,  for  destroying  crops  (t.  iii.  1.  6), 
sending  animals  into  crops  or  vines  (1.  10) ;  also 
for  breaking  mills  or  dams  and  leaving  them 
unrepaired  for  30  days  (1.  30),  &c.  &c.  Nowhere 
however  is  the  abuse  of  cor])oral  punishment 
more  terrible  than  in  the  case  of  offences  against 
religion.  Blasphemers  of  the  Trinity,  Jews  with¬ 
drawing  themselves,  their  children  or  servants 
from  baptism,  celebrating  the  PassoA'er,  obserA’’- 
ing  the  Sabbath  or  other  festiA'als  of  their  creed, 
.  Avorking  on  the  Lord’s  day  and  on  Christian 
feast  days,  making  distinctions  of  meats,  marry¬ 
ing  Avithin  the  6th  degree,  reading  Jewish  books 
against  the  faith,  &c.,  AA-ere  to  receiA’e  100  lashes 
with  decalvation,  and  Avith  or  without  exile  and 
elaA'ery  (bk.  xii.  t.  iii.  11.  2,  8,  11).  For  marry¬ 
ing  without  priestly  benediction,  or  in  anywise 


CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT  471 

exceeding  the  'hav  as  to  dowry,  tlie  JcAvi.sh  hus¬ 
band,  his  Avife  ani  her  jairents,  Avere  to  receive 
100  lashes,  or  compound  Avith  100  solidi,  A  laAV 
of  Recare, 1  confirming  the  Council  of  Toledo 
punislied  Avith  50  bloAvs  (Avithout  infamy)  any 
person  Avho  disobeyed  the  enactments  of  the 
Council  and  had  no  money  to  lose  (t.  i.  1.  3). 

In  the  ferocity  of  j)miishment  under  this  Code, 
Ave  must  not  hoAvever  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
already  jtointed  out  elscAvliere  in  these  pages 
[Body,  ]\1i:tii,atiox  of  tiik],  that  the  enactment 
of  any  fixed  punishment  constitutes  an  enormous 
ste)A  in  advance  on  the  mere  composition  of  the 
earlier  barbaric  Codes,  Avhilst  in  vaiaous  of  the 
enactments,  such  as  those  exempting  slaves  from 
punishment  Avhere  they  onlv  act  as  the  tools  of 
their  master-s,  Ave  find  a  striving  toAvards  a  higher 
and  more  discriminating  standard  of  justice  than 
that  Avhich  measures  other  contemporary  legis¬ 
lation,  Avhich  equally  bears  testimony  to  the 
infiuence  of  the  clergy  on  Wisigothic  legislation — 
an  infiuence,  indeed,  of  Avhich  Ave  see  the  darker 
side  in  the  atrociou.s  laAvs  against  the  JeAA’s. 

Amongst  our  Anglo-Saxon  forefathers,  corporal 
punishment  seems  in  general  to  haA'e  been  con¬ 
fined  to  shiA'es,  as  an  alternative  for  compensation, 
AvhereAvith  the  slaA'e  “  redeemed  ”  or  “  paid  the 
price  of  his  skin,”  as  it  is  expressed ;  e.g.  for 
sacrificing  to  devils  (hiAvs  of  Wihtraal,  Kent,  a.d. 
691-725),  for  Avorking  on  Sundays  (laAvs  of  Ina^ 
A'.D.  688-728,  iii.).  In  certain  cases  of  theft  the 
accuser  himself  Avas  alloAved  to  flog  the  culprit 
(xxAuii.).  A  foreigner  or  stranger  wandering  out 
of  the  Avay  through  the  Avoods,  who  neither 
shouted  nor  bleAV  the  horn,  Avas  to  be  deemed 
a  thief,  and  to  be  flogged  or  redeem  himself 
(xviii.). 

Capital  punishment  is  again  prominent  in  the 
Capitularies.  The  first  Capitulary  of  Carlomau, 
A.D.  742  (c.  6),  imposes  two  years’  imprisonment 
on  a  fornicating  priest,  after  he  has  been  scourged 
to  the  quick  (flagellatus  el  scorticatus).  The  Capi¬ 
tulary  of  Metz,  755,  following  a  synod  held  at  the 
same  place,  enacts  that  for  incest  a  slave  or  freed- 
man  shall  be  beaten  Avith  many  stripes,  as  also  any 
“minor”  cleric  guilty  of  the  like  offence.  The 
same  enactment,  confined  to  the  case  of  marrying 
a  cousin,  and  in  slightly  different  language,  occurs 
elseAvhere  in  the  general  collection.  A  saA^age  one 
on  conspiracies  (a.d.  805,  c.  10)  is  added  to  the 
Salic  law,  enacting  that  Avhere  conspiracies  have 
been  made  Avith  an  oath — the  principals  suffering 
death — the  accessaries  are  to  flog  each  other  and 
cut  each  other’s  noses  oft’;  even  if  no  mischief 
shall  haA^e  been  done,  to  shaA'e  and  flog  each 
other.  For  conspiracies,  without  an  oath,  the 
shvA'e  only  Avas  to  be  flogged,  the  freeman  clearing 
himself  by  oath  or  compounding.  The  same  laAv 
occurs  in  the  General  Capitularies  (bk.  iii.  9). 
Another  laAV  of  the  7th  book  (c.  123)  enacts 
public  flagellation  and  decah’ation  for  the  slave 
marrying  Avithiu  the  7th  degree  of  consanguinitv, 
and  the  4th  Addition  embodies  much  of  the 
rigorous  Wisigothic  Code  as  toAvards  the  JeAvs, 
who  are  to  be  decah'ated  and  receiA'e  100  lashes 
publicly  if  they  marry  Avithin  the  prohibited 
degrees  (c.  2).  And  the  Wisigothic  j)rovisiou 
against  marrying  Avithout  priestly  benedictions, 
or  exceeding  in  anyAvise  the  laAvs  as  to  doAvry,  is 
by  this  extended  to  JeAvs  as  well  as  Christians. 

There  remains  only  to  shcAV  corporal  punish¬ 
ment  as  either  the  subject  or  as  forming  part  of 


472  CORPOKAL  PUNISHMENT 


CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT 


the  discipline  of  the  church  itself.  Here,  indeed, 
we  find  at  first  a  much  higher  standard  than  that  . 
of  the  civil  law.  Among  the  j)ersons  whose  offer-  ^ 
ings  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  reijuire  to  be  re¬ 
jected  are  such  as  “  use  their  slaves  wickedly,  with 
stripes,  or  hunger,  or  hard  service”  (bk.  iv.  c.  0).  ^ 
Soon  however  a  harsher  law  must  have  j)revailed.  • 
'The  Council  of  Eliberis,  a.d.  305,  enacted  (c.  5) 
tiiat  if  a  mistress,  inflamed  by  jedlousy,  should  ^ 
.so  flog  her  handmaid  that  she  should  die  within 
three  days,  she  is  only  to  be  admitted  to  com-  j 
munion  after  seven  years’  ])enance  (unless  in  case 
of  dangerous  illness)  if  the  act  were  done  wilfully, 
or  after  fine  if  death  were  not  intended — a  pro¬ 
vision  which  speaks  volumes  indeed  of  the  bitter-  | 
ness  of  Spanish  slavery  at  this  period,  but  which  | 
nevertheless  shews  the  church  taking  cognizance 
of  the  slave-owner’s  excesses,  and  endeavouring  j 
to  moderate  them  by  its  discipline,  at  least  in  the 
case  of  women.  On  the  other  hand,  the  right  of 
])ersonal  chastisement  was  often  arrogated  by  the 
clergy  themselves,  since  the  Apostolic  Canons 
enact  that  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  striking 
the  faithful  who  have  sinned,  or  the  unfaithful 
Avho  have  done  wrong,  seeking  thereby  to  make 
himself  feared,  is  to  be  deposed  (c.  19,  otherwise 
,26  or  28),  and  Augustine  clearly  testifies  to  the 
fact  of  corporal  punishment  being  judicially 
inflicted  by  bishops,  in  that  painful  letter  of  his 
to  the  Prefect  Marcellus,  in  which,  whilst  ex¬ 
horting  him  not  to  be  too  severe  in  punishing 
the  Donatists,  he  praises  him  at  the  same  time 
for  having  drawn  out  the  confession  of  crimes  so 
great  by  whipping  with  rods  (virgarum  verberi- 
bus),  inasmuch  as  this  “  mode  of  coercion  is  wont 
to  be  applied  by  the  masters  of  liberal  arts,  by 
jiarents  themselves,  and  often  even  by  bishops  in 
their  judgments  ”  (Ajo.  133,  otherwise  159). 

Corporal  punishment  seems  moreover  to  have 
formed  from  an  early  period,  if  not  from  the 
first,  a  part  of  the  monastic  discipline.  The  rule 
of  St.  Pachomius,  translated  into  Latin  by  Je¬ 
rome  (art.  87),  imposes  the  penalty  of  thirty-nine 
lashes,  to  be  inflicted  before  the  gates  of  the 
monastery  (besides  fasting),  after  three  warnings, 
on  a  monk  who  persists  in  the  “  most  evil  custom” 
of  talking,  as  well  as  for  theft  (art.  121).  The 
same  punishment  may  also  be  implied  in  the 
term  “  corripere  ”  used  in  other  articles,  as  “  cor- 
ripientur  juxta  ordinem,”  “  corripietur  ordine 
monasterii,”  &c.  But  the  word  might  also  apply 
to  mere  verbal  correction,  since  by  art.  97  chil¬ 
dren  who  could  not  be  brought  to  think  of  God’s 
judgment  “  et  correpti  verbo  non  emendaverint,” 
are  to  be  flogged  till  they  receive  instruction  and 
fear.  In  the  4th  book  of  Cassian’s  work,  ‘  De 
coenobiorum  institutis  ’  (end  of  4th  or  begin¬ 
ning  of  5tb  ceatury),  flogging  is  placed  on  the 
same  line  with  expulsion  as  a  punishment  for  the 
graver  offences  against  monastic  discipline  (some 
of  which  indeed  may  appear  to  us  very  slight), 
as  “  open  reproaches,  manifest  acts  of  contemjjt, 
swelling  words  of  contradiction,  a  free  and  un¬ 
restrained  gait,  familiarity  with  women,  anger, 
fighting's,  rivalries,  quarrels,  the  presumption  to 
do  some  special  work,  the  contagion  of  money 
loving,  the  affecting  and  possessing  of  things 
superfluous,  which  other  brethren  have  not, 
extraordinary  and  furtive  refections,  and  the 
like”  (c.  16).  In  the  rule  of  St.  Benedict  (a.d. 
528)  corporal  punishment  seems  implied  in  the 
“major  eraendatio.”  And  “if  a  brother  for  any 


the  slightest  cause  is  corrected  (corripitur)  in 
any  way  by  the  abbot  or  any  prior,  or  if  he 
lightly  feel  that  the  mind  of  any  prior  is  wroth 
or  moved  against  him,  however  moderately,  with¬ 
out  delay  let  him  lie  prostrate  on  the  earth  at 
his  feet,  doing  .satisfaction  until  that  emotion  be 
healed.  But  if  any  scorn  to  do  this,  let  him  be 
either  subjected  to  corporal  punishment,  or  it 
contumacious,  expelled  from  the  monastery” 
(c.  71).  Here,  it  will  be  seen,  corporal  punish¬ 
ment  is  viewed  as  a  lighter  penalty  than  ex¬ 
pulsion. 

We  need  not  dwell  on  a  supposed  Canon  of  the 
above-referred  to  Council  of  Eliberis,  to  be  found 
in  Gratian  and  others  (ex  cap.  ix.),  allowing 
bi.shops  and  their  ministers  to  scourge  coloiii 
with  rods  for  their  crimes.  But  in  the  letters  of 
Gregory  I.  the  Great,  590-603,  the  right  of 
inflicting,  or  at  least  ordering  personal  chastise¬ 
ment  is  evidently  assumed  to  belong  to  tho 
clergy.  In  a  letter  to  Pantaleo  the  Notary  (bk. 
ii.  Ft.  ii.  Ep.  40),  on  the  subject  of  a  deacon’s 
daughter  who  had  been  seduced  by  a  bishop’s 
nephew,  he  required  either  that  the  offender 
should  marry  her,  executing  the  due  nuptial 
instruments,  or  be  “  corporally  chastised  ”  and 
put  to  penance  in  a  monastery,  and  the  Pope 
renews  this  injunction  in  a  letter  (42)  to  the 
uncle.  Bishop  Felix,  himself.  Bishop  Andreas  of 
Tarentum,  who  had  had  a  woman  on  the  roll 
of  the  church  (de  matriculis)  cruelly  whipped 
with  rods,  against  the  order  of  the  priesthood, 
so  that  she  died  after  eight  months,  was  never¬ 
theless  only  punished  by  this  really  great  Pope 
with  two  months’  suspension  from  saying  mass 
(jepp.  44,  45).  Sometimes,  indeed,  corporal  punish¬ 
ment  was  inflicted  actually  in  the  church,  as  we 
see  in  another  letter  of  the  same  Pope  to  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  complaining  that  an 
Isaurian  monk  and  priest  had  been  thus  beaten 
with  rods,  “  a  new  and  unheard  of  mode  of 
preaching  ”  (ep.  52).  But  the  same  Gregory 
deemed  it  fitting  that  slaves,  guilty  of  idolatry 
or  following  sorcerers,  should  be  chastised  w'ith 
stripes  and  tortures  for  their  amendment  (bk.  vii. 
pt.  ii.  ep.  67,  to  Januarius,  Bishop  of  Calaris). 
Elsewhere  the  flogging  of  penitent  thieves  seems 
to  be  implied  (bk.  xii.  ep.  31,  c.  iv.). 

Towards  the  end  of  the  same  century,  the 
16th  Council  of  Toledo,  A.D.  693,  enacted  that 
100  lashes  and  shameful  decalvatio  should  be  the 
punishment  of  unnatural  offences.  With  this 
and  a  few  other  exceptions,  however,  the  enact¬ 
ments  of  the  church  as  to  corporal  punishment 
chiefly  refer  to  clerics  or  monks.  The  Council  of 
Vannes  in  465  had  indeed  already  enacted  that 
a  cleric  proved  to  have  been  drunk  should 
either  be  kept  thirty  days  out  of  communion, 
or  subjected  to  corporal  punishment  (c.  13). 
The  1st  Council  of  Orleans  in  511  had  enacted 
that  if  the  relict  of  a  priest  or  deacon  were  to 
marry  again,  she  and  her  hu.sband  were  after 
“castigation”  to  be  separated,  or  excommu¬ 
nicated  if  they  persisted  in  living  together  (c.  3). 
Towmrds  the  end  of  the  7th  century,  the  Council 
of  Autun  (about  670),  enacted  that  any  monk  who 
w^ent  against  its  decrees  should  either  be  beaten 
with  rods,  or  suspended  for  three  years  from  com¬ 
munion  (c.  15).  In  the  next  century,  Gregory  III. 
(731-41),  in  his  Excerpt  from  the  Fathers  and 
the  Canons,  assigns  stripes  as  the  punishment  for 
thefts  of  holy  things,  and  inserts  the  Canon  of 


CORSICUS 


COUNCIL 


473 


the  Counril  ol  Elibc-ris  as  to  the  penance  of  a 
mistress  flogging  her  slave  girl  to  death  (cc.  2, 
3).  The  Synod  of  Metz,  753,  in  a  canon  already 
quoted  in  part  above  as  a  capitulary,  enacted 
that  a  slave  or  fi*eedman  without  money,  com¬ 
mitting'  incest  with  a  consecrated  woman,  a 
gossip,  a  cousin,  was  to  be  beaten  with  many 
stripes,  and  that  clerics  committing  the  like 
ortence,  if  minor  ones,  were  to  be  beaten  or  im¬ 
prisoned  (c.  i.)-  We  might,  indeed,  refer  the 
reader  under  this  head  to  all  that  is  said  above 
as  to  the  Capitularies,  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
legislation  of  this  period  being  almost  absolutely 
undistiuguishable. 

The  practice  of  the  church  on  this  subject  was 
therefore  in  the  main  accordant  with  civil  legis¬ 
lation,  which  it  seems  nevertheless  to  have 
humanised  to  some  degree  in  favour  of  the  slave. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  mischiefs  of  clerical  influ¬ 
ence  show  fearfully  in  the  enactments  of  the 
Wisigothic  law  against  the  Jews  and  others,  and 
in  the  Carlovingian  legislation  on  the  subject  of 
marriage  within  the  prohibited  degrees. 

[X.B. — Bingham’s  references  on  this  head  are 
more  than  once  misleading.]  [J.  M.  L.] 

CORSICUS,  presbyter,  martyr  in  Africa, 
June  30  (^Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

COSMAS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Aegea,  with  Da¬ 
mian,  under  Diocletian,  Sept.  27  {Mart.  Hieron., 
Bedae,  PiOm.  Vet..,  Usuardi)  ;  as  “  wonder-workers 
and  unmercenary,”  Nov.  1  {Cal.  Byzant.'). 

(2)  ayio-noXiT-qs  Kal  Troiyrys,  Oct.  14  {Cal. 
Byzant.^,  [0.] 

COTTCDUS,  or  QUOTTIDIUS,  deacon, 

martvr  in  Cappadocia,  Sept.  6  {Mart.  Hieron., 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

COUNCIL  \Concilium,  as  early  as  Tertull. 
De  Jejun.  xiii.,  De  Pudic.  x.,  and  'Zvvohos  {=■ 
“  assembly,”  in  LXX.,  and  in  the  translation  of 
Symmachus),  in  Apost.  Canons,  xxxvi.  al.  xxxvii. 
(and  again  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  23,  &c.),  but  the 
latter  term  still  used  also  at  the  same  period  for 
any  Christian  assembly,  e.  g  Apost.  Constit.  v.  20  : 
in  late  medieval  times,  Lyndwood  {Provinc.  II. 
tit.  vii.  p.  115)  appropriates  “council”  to  pro¬ 
vincial,  and  “  synod  ”  to  diocesan  assemblies — 
“  episcopi  in  suis  dioecesibus  faciunt  synodos, 
nietropolitani  vero  concilia  P — Conciliubulum  ap¬ 
propriated  to  the  “  conventicula  haereticorum,” 
as  early  as  Cone.  Cartk.  IV.  c.  70,  a.d.  398,  and 
so  also  ^'eudo-o'vt'odos,  and  ''Vevdo-crvWoyos,  in 
the  Theodos.  Code  :]  =  an  assembly  of  either  a 
part  or  (as  far  as  possible)  the  whole  of  the 
Christian  Church,  for  either  elective,  judicial,  or 
legislative  purposes,  or  else  to  elicit  the  testimony 
of  the  collective  Church  upon  emergent  doctrinal 
questions, —  suggested  by  Apostolic  })recedent, 
and  by  obvious  reason,  and  grounding  itself  also 
(as  time  went  on)  upon  the  promise  of  our  Lord 
to  be  present  where  any  are  gathered  together  in 
His  name  (e.  g.  Cone.  Chalced.,  Epist.  ad  Leon., 
A.D.  451;  Cone.  Constantin.  Act.  xvii.  a.d.  681; 
Cone.  Tolet.  III.  a.d.  527  ;  Facund.  Herm.,  Dcf. 
Trium  Capitul.  c.  vii. ;  &c.),  and  upon  His  in¬ 
junction  to  “  tell  the  Church.” 

Such  councils  are  usually  classified  somewhat 
as  follows — in  an  order  wfiich  also  tallies  with 
the  chronological  order  in  which  each  class  came 
to  exist : — 

1.  A  council  of  a  single  “parochia,”  or  (m  the 


!  modern  sense)  diocese,  consisting  of  the  bishop 
and  j)resbyters,  but  with  the  deacons  and  people 
assisting;  which  will  be  here  called  Dioci:sax 
(called  also  A7?jsco/)a/,  and  in  later  [Frank]  times, 

!  Civile  =  of  one  city  or  see).  Of  such  synods  there 
1  is  no  distinct  mention  until  the  3rd  centuj-v. 
but  it  is  obvious  that,  either  in  a  formal  or  an 
unformal  way,  they  must  have  been  part  of  the 
ordinary  organization  of  the  Church,  at  a  time 
when  each  diocese  consisted  of  the  Christians  of 
a  single  city  in  which  bishop  and  clergy  dwelt, 
with  a  few  country  congregations  only,  gradually 
growing  up, — i.  e.  from  the  very  beginning  ;  and 
that  they  would  be  recognized  in  canons,  only 
when  the  extent  of  dioceses,  and  other  like  causes, 
rendered  canons  on  the  subject  necessary. 

2.  A  council  of  the  bishops  of  several  dioceses, 
i.  e.  a  Provincial  Council,  held  (when  metro¬ 
politan  organization  came  to  exist)  under  the 
metropolitan  of  the  province,  viz.  from  about 
the  latter  half  of  the  2nd  century,  and  from  that 
time  considered  a  “  perfect  ”  (xeAela)  synod  of 
the  kind,  only  if  the  metropolitan  were  present 
{fj  (TvixTTa.pi(TTL  Kul  6  T^s  /.trjTpoTTo Aewx,  Cone. 
Antioch,  a.d.  341,  can.  16,  and,  much  later. 
Cone.  Bracar.  II.  a.d.  572,  can.  9).  And  such 
councils  were  (with  the  diocesan  synods)  the 
essential  framework,  as  it  were,  and  bond  of  union 
and  of  good  government  in  the  Church  ;  and  be¬ 
came  part  of  its  ordinary  machinery  early  in  the 
2nd  century,  and  probably  from  the  very  begin¬ 
ning,  but  are  first  mentioned,  of  the  East,  by 
Firmilianus  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  {Epist.  lb 
ad  Cyprian,  earlier  half  of  3rd  century),  when 
they  regularly  and  of  necessity  (“  necessario  ”) 
recurred  in  Asia  once  a  year,  for  purposes  of  di.s- 
cipline,  and  of  the  West,  by  St.  Cyprian,  at  the 
same  period.  The  “  Councils  of  the  Churches,” 
however,  are  mentioned  by  Tertullian  {De  Pudic. 
X.)  as  if  in  his  time  an  ordinary  church  tribunal, 
which  determined  among  other  things  against  the 
canonicity  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias. 

3.  A  council  of  the  bishops  of  a  patriarchate, 
or  primacy,  or  exarchate,  i.e.  of  a  diocese  in  the 
ancient  sense  of  the  term ;  as,  e.g.  a  council  tvs 
'AvaToXiKrjs  bioiK-qaeas  ordained  Flavian  of  An 
tioch.  Cone.  Constant.,  ap.  Theodor,  H.  E.  v.  9 ; 
called  (as  by  St,  Augustin,  De  Bapt.  c.  Donat. 
i.  7,  ii.  3)  “  Regionis,”  or  national,  or  again 
Plenarium,  and  Universale  (e.  g.  Cone. 
Tolet.  in.  A.D,  527,  c.  18),  and  in  Africa 
in  the  4th  century  Universale  Anniver- 
SARiUM  (e.g.  in  Cone.  Carth.  III.  c.  7);  and 
by  Pope  Symmachus,  speaking  of  a  Roman 
Council  of  the  kind,  Generale.  And  under 
this  head  may  be  reckoned  also ;  —  i.  The 
early  councils,  assembled  incidentally  and  upon 
emergencies,  and  consisting  of  as  many  bisho]>s 
of  neighbouring  provinces  gathered  together 
as  circumstances  allowed,  such  as  t,  ose  which 
Tertullian  mentions  :  “  Aguntur  praecepta  per 
Graecias  illas  certis  in  locis  concilia  ex  universis 
e'-clesiis,”  &c.,  De  .lejun.  xiii.  (implying  that 
hitherto  there  had  been  no  councils  of  the  kiml 
in  the  West)  ;  or  again,  the  councils  in  Asia  Minor 
and  at  Auchialus,  against  the  Montanists,  in  the 
middle  of  the  2nd  century  (Hefele),  mentioned 
by  Eusebius,  II.  E.  v.  16  ;  or  tl  e  various  coun¬ 
cils  respecting  Easter  in  both  East  and  West  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  same  century  (Euseb. 
H.  E.  V.  24);  which  are  the  earliest  councils 
upon  record,  ii.  The  councils  of  the  Eastero 


i74  COUNCIL 

Church  by  itself,  or  of  the  Woslcru  Church  by 
itself,  as  m  the  4th  century.  And  both  these 
classes  were  extraordinary,  and  for  jjarticular 
emergencies,  iii.  The  regular  annual  jndinatial 
councils  (see  Cone.  Constantin.  A.ix  881,  can.  8), 
as,  e.  g.  of  Antioch,  or  more  remarkably,  of 
Africa :  the  latter  of  which,  acc.  to  Cone. 
Carthag.  Til.  a.d.  898,  cans.  2,  7,  41,  48,  was 
to  consist  of  three  bishops  as  legates  from  each 
African  province,  except  that  of  Tripoli,  which 
was  to  send  only  one,  as  having  few  bishojjs, 
thus  admitting  the  princij)le  of  re))resentation 
under  pressure  of  circumstances  ;  while  subse¬ 
quent  councils  permitted  a  “  vicar  ”  instead  of 
the  bishop  in  person  in  case  of  absolute  necessity 
{Cone.  Carthag.  I  V.  can.  21),  and  enacted  a  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  bishops  into  “  duo  vel  tres  turmae,” 
each  “turma”  to  attend  in  turn  {Cone.  Carthag.  V. 
can.  10);  and,  lastly,  altered  the  “yearly” 
meeting  into  one  only  “quoties  exegerit  causa 
communis”  {Cone.  Milevit.  H.  A.D.  410,  can.  9, 
Cod.  Can.  Afrie.  xcv.).  Like  councils  were  (less 
regularly)  held  at  Rome  in  the  5th  century,  as 
e.g.  when  three  delegates  from  the  Sicilian  bishops 
were  directed  by  Pope  Leo  the  Great  {Epist.  iv. 
c.  71)  to  attend  the  autumnal  synod  of  the  two 
to  be  annually  held  at  Rome.  And  occasionally 
elsewhere  also,  as  in  Spain  and  in  Gaul.  National 
councils,  in  later  times  (6th  century  onwards), 
e.g.  in  France,  in  Saxon  England,  and  above  all 
in  Spain,  belong,  xvhere  they  were  purely  eccle¬ 
siastical,  to  the  same  class. 

4.  A  council  of  (as  far  as  possible)  the  bishops 
of  the  whole  Church,  Oecumenical  (first  so 
called  in  Euseb.  V.  Constant,  iii.  6,  and  again  in 
Con.c.  Constantin.  A.D.  381),  not  intentionally 
limited  to  specially  the  Roman  world,  but  in¬ 
cluding  all  Christians  everywhere,  although  at 
that  period  the  Christian  Church  w^as  nearly  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  naiTower  meaning  ; — “  totius  orbis  ” 
(St.  Aug.  Ee  Bapt.  e.  Donat,  i.  7),  “  ex  totoorhe  ” 
(Sulp.  Sev.  ii.),  ‘•‘■plenarium  universae  eeelesiae” 
(St.  Aug.  Epist.  102),  '•‘■plenarium  ex  universo  orbe 
Christiano”  as  distinguished  from  (not  only 
“  provinciarum,”  but)  “  regionum  concilia  ”  (Id. 
De  Bapt.  e.  Donat,  ii.  3).  So  Tertullian  (as  above 
cited)  speaks  of  “  representatio  totius  Christiani 
nomiuis.”  And  Augustin  {De  Bapt.  e.  Donat. 
vii.  58)  distinguishes  “  regionale  ”  from  “ple¬ 
narium  concilium,”  and  rests  the  certainty  of  the 
latter  on  the  “  universalis  ecclesiae  consensio.” 
And  this  \vas  regarded  as  an  extraordinary  re¬ 
medy  for  an  extraordinary  emergency,  to  be 
resorted  to  as  seldom  as  possible ;  and  even  when 
necessary,  yet  an  evil  for  the  time,  as  throwing 
everything  into  disturbance,— as  bad  as  a  tempest 
(“procella,”  St.  Hilar.  De  Synod  is).  And  as  it 
was  first  possible,  so  does  it  appear  to  have  been 
first  thought  of,  in  the  time  of  Constantine  the 
Great. 

To  these  must  be  added,  as  matter  of  history, 
although  all  moi’e  or  less  abnormal  : — 

5.  The  SuyoSot ’EySTjqoCfTat,  at  Constantinople, 
from  the  4th  century,  and  again  at  the  various 
cities  where  the  Roman  emjierors  dwelt,  as  at 
Rome,  and  in  one  case  (under  Maximus)  at  Treves, 
and  again  the  Concilia  Palatina  under  the  Carlo- 
vlngian  emperors,  held  “  in  regum  palatiis ;” 
consisting  in  each  case  of  the  bishops  who  hap- 
})ened  to  be  at  court. 

6.  The  mixed  national  councils  of  the  Euro¬ 
pean  Kingdoms,  after  the  conversion  of  the 


COUNCIL 

Franks,  Saxons,  Spaniards,  &c. ;  P(aci^a,  Witena- 
gemots,  &c. 

The  so-called  Council  of  the  Apostles  (in  Acts 
XV.)  is  a  distinct  precedent,  in  principle,  for 
Church  councils;  as  sanctioning  the  decision  of 
emergent  controversies  and  matters  of  discipline 
by  common  consultation  of  the  whole  Church 
under  the  guidance  and  leadership  of  the 
“apostles  and  elders,” the  bishops  and  pres¬ 
byters.  It  is  “  the  apostles  and  elders  ”  who 
come  together  to  consider  the  matter(Acts  xv.  6). 
Yet  TTULP  tS  TrXijOos  are  present  {ib.  12),  but  as 
listening.  It  is  “  the  apostles  and  elders,  vcit/i 
the  whole  Church,”  who  make  the  decree  {ib.  22). 
And  the  best  MSS.  make  that  decree  run  in  the 
name  of  “  the  apostles  and  elders”  only,  although 
the  reading  is  no  doubt  uncertain  {ib.  23,  read¬ 
ing  01  aTTocTToAot  Kal  ol  Trp€(T^vT€poi  a5e\(poi). 
The  formal  deliberation  and  the  decree,  then, 
emanate  from  the  apostles  and  the  elders,  but  the 
whole  Church,  i.e.  the  laity  also,  are  consulted. 
In  the  same  way,  in  other  cases,  we  find,  e.g. 
the  “prophets  and  teachers”  at  Antioch  sending 
St.  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  their  mission  ;  yet  St. 
Paul  and  Barnabas  report  {h.vi\yyii\av)  to  an 
“  assembly  of  the  Church  ”  of  Antioch  what 
“  God  had  done  with  them  ”  (Acts  xiii.  1,  xiv.  27) ; 
St.  Paul  howev'er  at  a  later  time  reporting  pri¬ 
vately,  for  obvious  reasons,  to  James  and  the 
elders  {ib.  xxi.  18).  And  the  same  two  were 
formally  sent  to  the  council  at  Jerusalem  by 
the  Church  of  Antioch  {npoiT^p.cpdevTes  v-nb  rys 
iuKKrialas),  which  plainly  had  also  appointed 
them  {era^au,  Acts  xv.  2,  3).  In  1  Cor.  v.  4, 
the  Church  of  Corinth  is  represented  as  “  gathered 
together  ”  to  exercise  discipline.  That  St.  James 
presided  at  Jerusalem  naturally  follow’ed  from  his 
office  of  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  Strictly  speaking, 
the  assembly  over  which  he  presided  w'as  an 
assembly  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  only,  to 
receive  a  deputation  from  the  Church  of  Antioch. 
And  it  differed  from  the  Church  councils  also  in 
the  actual  presence  in  it  of  apostles.  But  this 
difference  only  strengthens  the  case  as  a  pre¬ 
cedent  for  mutual  deliberation  on  the  part  of  the 
Church  collectively  :  eSo^ev  rjfuu  yepofievois 
bfxoQvixahov  (Acts  xv.  25).  Other  assemblies  in 
apostolical  times,  mentioned  in  the  Acts — viz. 
Acts  i.  15,  to  appoint  an  apostle  in  the  place  of 
Judas ;  vi.  2,  to  establish  the  diaconate ;  ix.  27, 
to  receive  St.  Paul — have  been  miscalled  Apo¬ 
stolic  Councils,  by  an  obvious  straining  of  the 
term. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  speak,  successively, 
of — 

A.  The  ORDER  of  holding  Ecclesiastical  Coun¬ 
cils  ; 

B.  The  CONSTITUENT  MEMBERS  of  Ecclesias¬ 
tical  Councils ; 

C.  The  AUTHORITV  assigned  to  such  Councils. 
And,  lastly,  to  add  a  few  words  respecting 

D.  Irregular  and  abnormal  assemblies  akin 
to  Councils. 

A.  Linder  the  head  of  the  order  of  holdins: 
a  council,  we  have  to  consider , — 

I,  By  K-hom  couneils  were  stunmoned. 

Diocesan  and  Provincial  Councils  were  sum¬ 
moned  respectively  by  the  bishop  of  the  diocese 
and  by  the  metropolitan  of  the  province  (see 
authorities  in  Bingham),  and  this  after  the  time 
of  Constantine,  as  well  as  before  it.  A  council 
of  two  or  more  provinces  together  wouid  natu* 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


475 


rally  be  summoned  by  the  senior  metropolitan ; 
the  earlier  councils  of  neighbouring  bishops, 
prior  to  the  organization  of  the  metro])olitan 
system,  by  the  leading  bishops  of  the  locality,  as, 
e.fj.  that  at  Antioch,  which  condemned  Paul  of 
Samosata ;  those  of  a  patriarchate  or  primacy, 
as  e.g.  of  Africa,  by  the  patriarch  or  primate. 
The  (TvyoSoL  ivSr)iJ.ov<rai  of  Constantinople  were 
summoned  by  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinojile ; 
the  Concilia  J^alatina  by  the  BT’ank  kings  and 
emiierovs;  the  national  councils  of  the  European 
kingdoms,  which  were  as  much  civil  as  ecclesi¬ 
astical,  by  the  resjiective  kings.  And  in  these 
last-named  cases  the  royal  permission  or  com¬ 
mand  to  hold  them  is  frequently  mentioned, 
Oocumenical  Councils,  consisting  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance  almost  wholly  of  bishops  of  the  Roman 
empire,  were  summoned  by  the  Roman  emperors 
until  the  9th  century  (see  Socrates,  lib.  v.  ZVoom.), 
although,  naturally,  upon  consultation  with  the 
chief  bishops  of  the  Church  herself.  After  that 
period,  those  that  have  been  so  called  have  been 
summoned  by  the  popes  in  the  Western  Church. 
The  great  Council  of  Nice  was  summoned  by 
Constantine  (by  rifirjTiKa  ypdiJ./jiara  [Euseb.,  V. 
Constant,  iii.  6,  and  cf.  Socrat.  i.  9,  Theodoret,  i. 
9],  which  purport  to  be  given  in  a  Syriac  version 
in  B.  H.  Cowper’s  Analecta  Hicaena,  pp,  21-29), 
but  “e.v  sententia  sacerdotum  ”  (Rufin,  H.  E.  i. 
1);  ahd  chiefly,  as  is  plain,  by  the  accounts  of 
Eusebius,  Socrates,  and  Sozomen,  upon  the  advice 
of  Hosius,  bishop  of  Cordova.  Later  documents, 
of  no  value  in  such  a  point,  viz.  the  Liber  Da- 
masi  and  the  Cone.  Constantin.  A.D.  680,  put 
forward  Pope  Sylvester  as  the  adviser.  The 
Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  381,  was  sum¬ 
moned  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius  (Labb.  iv. 
1123,  1124);  that  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  431,  Kara, 
rb  ypapLixa,  or  e/c  6€aTrL(rp.aTos,  of  Theodosius  II. 
and  Valentinian  III.  (AcZ.  in  Mansi,  iv.  1111); 
Pope  Damasus  concurring  in  the  former,  but 
Eastern  patriarchs  (Meletius  of  Antioch,  Gregory, 
and  his  successor  Nectarius,  of  Constantinople) 
really  ‘‘assembling”  it  (even  according  to  the  Cone. 
Constant,  of  A.D.  680,  and  see  Vales,  ad  Theodoret. 
H.  E.  V.  9);  while  Pope  Celestine  similarly  con¬ 
curred  in  the  latter,  but  (as  is  evident  by  his 
own  letters)  did  not  summon  it  (Aefs  of  the 
Council  and  Letters  in  Mansi,  iv.  1226,  1283, 
1291).  The  case  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
A.D.  451,  so  far  differs  from  its  predecessors,  that 
the  pope,  Leo  the  Great,  suggested  and  requested 
it  (desiring,  however,  to  have  it  in  Italy),  yet 
subsequently,  and  when  too  late,  desired  its 
postponement  (Leo  M.  Epist.  44,  54-58,  69,  73, 
76,  89-95).  The  application  was  originally 
made  to  Theodosius  II.  and  Valentinian  Ill.,  but 
the  council  was  actually  summoned  by  Marcian, 
“  e.x  decreto  piissimorum  Imperatorum  Valen- 
tiniani  et  Marciani,”  in  the  words  of  the  council 
itself  (Labb.  iv.  77),  or  in  those  of  Leo,  “ex 
praecepto  Christianorum  principiim  et  consensu 
Apostolicae  Sedis  ”  (Leon.  M.  Epist.  114),  and 
again,  in  Marcian’s  words  to  Leo  (inter  Leon. 
Epist.  “  te  auctore.”  The  2nd  Council  of 
Constantinople,  A.D.  553,  was  convoked  by 
Justinian  (Labb.  v.  4)  after  consultation  with 
Pope  V’igilius  and  with  Mennas  patriarch  of 
Constantinople.  But  Vigilius  after  a  time  put 
liMiiself  in  direct  antagonism  with  the  council, 
and  upon  May  26,  553  was  actually  struck  out 
of  the  diptychs  by  it ;  although,  afte>'  its  termi¬ 


nation,  he  retracted,  and  in  the  end  of  A.D.  55.3, 
and  by  a  Constituium  of  February  23,  A.D.  554, 
accepted  its  decrees.  The  3rd  Council  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  A.D.  680,  was  convoked  by  the 
“piissima  jussio”  of  the  Emperor  Constantine 
Pogonatus  (Labb.  vi.  608,  631),  Pojie  Agatho  only 
sending  legates  when  requested,  and  with  them  his 
own  exposition  of  the  faith,  and  a  pi-ofessiou  of 
his  rea(line.ss  to  pay  “  promptam  obedient iam  ”  to 
the  emjieror.  The  5th  of  Constantinople,  A.D. 
754  (in  Cave’s  reckoning,  the  8th  oecumenical), 
which  condemned  images,  was  summoned  by 
Constantine  Coiironymus  and  Leo  (Labb.  vii. 
397).  The  2nd  of  Nice,  A.D.  787,  was  convoked 
by  the  Empress  Irene  and  her  son  Constantine 
(Labb.  vii.  661),  at  the  I'equest  of  Tarasius, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  with  the  acquiescence 
of  Pope  Adrian  1. ;  the  latter,  however,  speaking 
afterwards  of  the  council  (in  his  letter  to  Charle¬ 
magne)  as  summoned  “secundum  nostram  ordi- 
nationem.”  And,  lastly,  the  Emperor  Basil,  the 
Macedonian,  called  together  the  4th  of  Constan¬ 
tinople,  A.D.  869  (not  acknowledged,  however, 
by  the  Eastern  Church,  which  puts  in  its  place 
that  of  A.D.  879),  after  an  embassy,  sent  to  Pope 
Nicholas  L,  but  received  and  answered  by  his 
successor  Adrian  11.  (Labb.  viii.  1313).  The 
Council  of  Sardica,  intended  to  be  oecumenical, 
was  summoned  by  the  Emperoi’s  Constantins  and 
Constans  (Socr.  ii.  20;  Sozom.  iii.  2;  St.Athanas. 
Hist.  Ariayi.  §  36),  And  the  numberless  smaller 
councils  about  Arianism  were  likewise  sum¬ 
moned  by  the  emperors.  See  the  summary  of 
the  whole  case  in  Andrewes  (^liight  and  Lower 
of  calling  A'semblies,  Sermons,  v.  160-165,  and 
Tortu'-a  Torti,  pp.  193,  422,  sq.).  The  case  of 
the  1st  Council  of  Arles,  A.D.  314,  is  a  pecu¬ 
liar  one.  It  was  not  a  regular  council  of  any 
portion  of  the  Church,  but  rather  a  selected 
ecclesiastical  tribunal,  of  which  the  members 
were  specially  chosen  and  summoned  by  the 
Emperor  Constantine,  and  mainly  from  Gaul 
(Euseb.  IL  E.  x.  5;  Optat.  Hist.  Donat,  p.  181, 
Dupin),  intended  to  be  oecumenical  (the  Emperor 
“assembling  there  a  large  number  of  bishops  from 
different  and  almost  innumerable  parts  of  the 
empire,”  Euseb.  ib.'),  and  actually  called 
“  plenarium,”  and  “  universae  ecclesiae,”  by 
St.  Augustine,  but  not  so  really,  as  neither 
including  all  bishops  nor  any  Eastern  bishops. 
And  its  object  was  to  revise  the  decision  of  a 
tribunal  of  fewer  bishops  held  at  Rome  under 
the  Pope  Melchiades  in  the  previous  year, 
with  which  the  Donatists  were  not  content. 
It  was  simply  an  instance,  therefore,  of  that 
which  afterwards  became  a  rule,  viz.  of  the 
Emperor’s  assigning  episcopal  judges  to  decide 
an  ecclesiastical  case.  Much  like  it  is  the 
summoning  of  the  Roman  councils  about  Pope 
Symmachus,  two  centuries  later,  by  King  Theo- 
doric. 

The  regular  title  for  the  bishop’s  or  metro¬ 
politan’s  letters  of  summons  was  Sgnodicae  or 
Tractoriae  (St.  Aug.  Epist.  217  ad  I  VcZo/’ai.)  ; 
for  the  Emperor’s  like  letters,  Sacrae. 

From  the  summons,  we  go  on  to — 

IL  The  time  when,  and  the  ocoisions  upon 
which,  councils  were  summoned.  Speaking  first 
of  those  councils  which  recurred,  or  were  meant 
to  recur,  regularly,  we  find  the  chief  stress  of 
the  canons  to  be  directed  to  provincial  councils, 
as  being  no  doubt  more  dilHcult  to  enforce,  and 


476 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


idso  in  tlis  interest  of  justice,  such  councils  being 
the  court  of  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  indi¬ 
vidual  bishoits.  In  the  time  of  Kirmilian  and  of 
Cyprian,  as  said  above,  these  were  habitually 
held  once  a  year;  Firmilian’s  words  being  a))])a- 
rently  determined  to  mean  provincial,  not  dio¬ 
cesan,  councils,  by  the  mention  of  “seniores  et 
prae])ositi,”  “  j)resbyters  and  bisho])s  ”  (in  the 
plural).  The  great  Council  of  Nice  (can.  .5) 
increased  them  to  twice  in  the  vea.r,  once  before 
Lent,  once  in  autumn.  And  so  also  the  Apostolic 
Canon  37,  s})ecifying,  however,  the  4th  week 
after  Easter  and  the  12th  of  'TTrepySeperaTo?,  i.e. 
October.  And  twice  a  year,  accordingly,  became 
thenceforward  the  rule  of  what  ought  to  be, 
although  in  actual  fact,  and  by  repeated  con¬ 
cessions  of  councils,  finally  rela.xed  into  once. 
So  Cone.  Antioch,  A.D.  341,  can.  20  (slightly 
vaiying  the  days).  Cone.  Chalccd.  a.d.  451,  can. 
19;  and  for  Africa,  Cone.  Carthag.  Ifl.A.n.  397, 
can.  2,  and  V.  can.  7  (fixing  October  21),  and  Cod. 
Can.  Afric.  c.  18  ;  for  Spain,  Cone.  Tolet.  III.  a.d. 
589,  can.  18,  IV.  A.D.  633,  can.  3  (fixing  May  20), 
XI.  A.D.  675,  can.  15,  XVII.  a.d.  742,  can.  1; 
Emerit.  a.d.  666,  can.  7  ;  for  France,  Cone. 
Eegiens.  a.d.  439,  can.  8  (twice  a  year),  A  ansic.  I. 
A.D.  441,  can.  89,  Aarel.  II.  a.d.  533,  can.  2, 
Altissiod.  A.D.  578,  can.  7 ;  and  for  England, 
Cone.  Calchgth.  a.d.  787,  can.  3  (the  title  of 
which,  however,  seems  to  refer  it  to  diocesan 
councils),  and  before  it.  Cone.  Hendf.  a.d.  673, 
can.  7,  ordering  a  synod  twice  in  the  year,  but 
in  the  next  sentence  limiting  the  number  to  once, 
viz.  upon  August  1,  at  Clovesho,  bn  the  ground 
of  unavoidable  hindrances.  Once  a  year  became, 
indeed,  the  recognized  practice  (but  as  an  un- 
canonical  concession  to  necessity),  and  is  admitted 
by  Gratian  {I)ist.  xviii.  c.  16,  189,  2  c.),  and  in 
England  by  Lyndwood  {Provinc.  lih.  i.  tit.  14) ; 
as  it  had  been  allowed  much  earlier  by  the 
council  in  Trullo,  can.  8,  and  by  Cone.  Nicaen.  H. 
can.  6.  And  similarly,  Gregory  the  Great, 
enjoining  once  a  year  in  Sicily  {Epist.  i.  1),  and 
in  Gaul  {ib.  ix.  106),  adds  in  the  latter  case  that 
it  ought  to  be  twice;  and  enjoins  twice  in  Sar¬ 
dinia  Qb.  iv.  9),  possibly  as  being  an  island  of  no 
great  extent ;  while  in  yet  another  case  (<6.  v. 
54)  he  orders  such  synods  whenever  needed. 
Leo  the  Great,  likewise,  a.d.  446,  commands 
synods  twice  a  year  at  Thessalonica  (^Epid.  xiv.), 
but  A.D.  447,  only  once  a  year  at  Rome,  yet  with 
the  addition  that  it  ought  to  be  twice  (ih.  xvi.). 
See  also  Avitus  Vienn.  (E/rist.  80 — “  It  ought  to 
be  twice  in  a  year,  would  that  it  were  once  in  two 
years  !  ”)  and  Pope  Hormisdas  (Epist.  25 — “  If  not 
two,  at  least  one”).  Finally,  Pij)in,  a.d.  755  (in 
Cone,  ^  crn.  i)ref.  cans.  2,  4),  renewed  the  in¬ 
junction  of  two  a  year,  naming  for  them  March  1 
and  October  1,  but  the  second  of  them  to  be 
attended  only  by  the  metropolitans  and  certain 
selected  clergy.  Yet,  a  century  after,  the  Cone. 
Tull.  A.D.  859,  can.  7,  is  again  compelled  to  sup¬ 
plicate  that  they  might  be  held  once  in  the  year. 

Dioce.san  synods  are  assumed,  in  the  11th 
century  (^Modiis  tenendi  Sgnodos,  in  Wilk.  Cone. 
iv.  784),  to  be  also  held  twice  a  year.  And 
Herai'diis  of  Tours  (^Capit.  c.  91)  similarly  com¬ 
mands  them  to  be  held  twice,  and  each  time  not 
to  last  moi'e  than  15  days.  But  here,  also, 
earlier  rules  speak  of  once.  Cone.  Liptin.  A.D.  743, 
c.  1  (attributed  also  to  Cone.  Tolet.  XVI f.  can.  1), 
Suession.  a.d.  744,  c.  2,  St.  Boniface  {^Ejyist.  105), 


Capit.  Car.  M.  VII.  108;  of  which  autnoriti(j, 
however,  the  last  is  busied  not  so  much  with  a 
synod  as  with  ordering  the  clergy  to  give  account 
of  their  acts  and  receive  instructions,  and  bids 
them  go  “  ))er  turmas  et  per  hebdomadas  ”  to 
the  bishop  (i6.  vi.  163).  It  was  the  office  of  such 
synod.s,  among  other  things,  to  ju'omulgate  to  the 
dioce.se  the  decrees  of  the  j)rovincial  synod.s;  and 
accordingly  we  find  a  provision,  in  Cone.  'Polet. 
XVI.  A.D.  693,  can.  7  (and  cf.  also  Counc.  of  Clove¬ 
sho,  A.D.  747  can.  25,  and  the  nearly  contemporary 
German  Council  under  St.  Boniface,  can.  6,ia  Had- 
danaml  Stubbs,  iii.  371,  377),  that  a  diocesan  synod 
should  be  held  within  six  months  after  the  jno- 
vincial  one.  We  find  also  abbats  and  jiresbyters 
summoned  to  an  annual  synod,  sometimes  to¬ 
gether,  sometimes  separately  (Cone.  Oscens.  A.D. 
598,  c.  1,  for  Spain  ;  Altissiod.  a.d.  578,  can.  7,  for 
Gaul).  Diocesan  synods  were  at  that  time 
commonly  summoned  about  Lent.  In  ear¬ 
lier  times  still,  e,g.  that  of  St.  Cyprian,  such 
councils  would  seem  to  have  been  held  whenever 
needed. 

The  primatial  or  patriarchal  synods  were  in¬ 
tended  to  be  annual,  and  that  of  Africa  was  com¬ 
monly  called  Universale  Anniversarinin.  But 
the  usual  difficulty  of  procuring  attendance  was 
at  once  testified,  and  in  attempt  remedied,  by 
the  provisions  for  representation  mentioned 
already.  Pope  Hilary  {Epist.  3)  also  orders 
such  synods  once  a  year  in  Gaul.  And  Leo  the 
Great  summons  the  Sicilian  bishops  to  attend  by 
representation  at  one  of  two  such  synods  annually 
in  Rome  {Epist.  iv.).  But  circumstances  must 
have  speedily  rendered  such  regular  synods  im¬ 
possible.  The  Council  of  Agde,  a.d.  506,  can.  71, 
seems  to  renew  the  annual  rule.  But  the  2nd 
of  Macon,  A.D.  585,  can.  20,  made  it  triennial 
(“  post  trietericum  tempus  omnes  conveniant  ”) 
for  Gaul.  And  this  is  the  Trideutiue  rule  in 
later  times.  The  Co-ncilia  Palatina  were  at  first 
occasional,  as  the  kings  or  emperors  summoned 
them.  Pipin,  as  above  said,  A.D.  755,  called 
!  some  council  of  the  kind  twice  in  the  year ;  but 
the  actual  practice  remained  irregular.  And 
Cone.  Tull.  A.D.  859,  can.  7,  asking  for  a  pro¬ 
vincial  council  once  a  year,  asked  also  for  a  pala¬ 
tine  council  once  in  every  two  years.  Hincmar, 
how'ever,  speaks  of  twdee  a  year  as  customary 
(“  consuetudo  tunc  temporis  erat,”  speaking  of 
“Placita,”  0pp.  II.  211,  sq.). 

All  these  kinds  of  councils  \vere  parts  of  the 
ordinary  constitution  of  the  Church,  even  the 
Palatine  councils  being  mixed  up  with  ecclesias¬ 
tical  matters.  And  those  of  them  that  were 
])roper  Church  councils  were  needed  at  regular 
times  ;  as  required  (according  to  Cone.  Carth.  III. 
can.  2),  “propter  causas  ecclesiasticas,  quae  ad 
perniciem  plebium  saepe  veterascunt,”  although 
their  functions  were  not  restricted  to  cases  of 
discipline  only.  Other  kinds  of  councils  were 
only  occasional  remedies  for  special  emergencies, 
and  were  held  therefore  when  needed.  Of  the 
six  grounds  usually  enumerated  {e.g.  by  Hefele) 
for  holding  oecumenical  councils,  setting  aside 
all  those  that  belong  to  medieval  time.5.  as,  e.g. 
the  deciding  betw'een  rival  popes,  &c.,  there  re¬ 
mains,  for  earlier  times,  only  one,  which  is  both 
historically  the  ground  upon  which  the  great 
oecumenical  councils  were  actually  summoned, 
and  that  assigned  by  the  Apostolical  canon  {37) 
for  councils  at  all — 'AraKoiyhuaay  aWrjAois 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


477 


[oi  imaKOiroi]  rh  hSyfxara  rrjs  eixre^eias,  Ka\ 
TCLS  i/xTriiTTOvcras  iKK\7i(Tia(TTiKas  apTiXoy'ias 
5ia\v€Tci}<Tav. 

III.  The  place  in  which  councils  were  held, 
when  purely  church  councils,  was  commonly  the 
church  or  some  building  attached  to  the  church  ; 
3.  g.  the  Secretarium  or  AiaKoviK'bv  attached  often 
to  large  churches  (Liberat.  Breciar.  xiii.),  in 
which  kind  of  building  the  3rd  to  the  6th  Coun¬ 
cils  of  Carthage  were  held,  and  others  also  (Du 
Cange  in  v.  Secretariuin) ;  or  the  baptistery  or 
^ujTKTT'npiou,  wherein  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
for  instance,  A.D.  451,  met  (Labb.  Cone.  iv.  235, 
and  see  Suicer  in  v.  (fyuTio-Tripiov)’,  or  the  church 
'  itself,  as  in  the  Council  of  Toledo  IV.  A.D.  633  ; 
or  again  in  much  later  times  (as  A.D.  879  and 
1165,  at  Constantinople),  the  galleries  or  Karg- 
XovpLiva  of  the  church  (Bingh.  VIII.  v.  7).  The 
great  Council  of  Nice  met,  according  to  Euse¬ 
bius  (F.  Constant,  iii.  7)  in  an  oTkov  evKT'fjpios, 
or  as  he  words  it  elsewhere  (i6.  10),  iv  rep  pea-ai- 
rdrep  o’lKcp  tu>v  ^acriXelcov.  Theodoret  (i.  7)  and 
Sozomen  (i.  19)  determine  this  to  mean  a  royal 
palace.  Valesius,  on  the  contrary  (adloc.  Euseb.), 
argues  that  it  must  mean  a  church.  The  words 
of  e.g.  Sozomen  appear  really  to  show,  that  the 
bishops  met  during  their  first  sessions  in  a 
chui’ch,  but  that  when  the  day  of  decision  arrived, 
and  Constantine  in  person  intended  to  be  present, 
then  they  removed  to  his  palace  ;  Avhich  was 
oIkos  piyicrros,  and  where  the  bishops  sat  on 
seats  along  the  wall,  and  the  emperor  on  a 
throne  in  the  middle.  The  next  four  Oecume¬ 
nical  Councils  were  certainly  held  in  a  church  or 
in  a  building  attached  to  a  church,  respectively 
at  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  Chalcedon,  and 
again  Constantinople  (Jo.  Damasc.  Be  Sac.  Irri/ig. 
tract,  iii.,  St.  Cyril.  Alex,  ad  Theodos.  in  Acit. 
Cone.  Ephes.,  Evagr.  H.  E.  ii.  3,  «&:c.).  The 
Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  680,  and  the 
supplemental  Trullau  Council  of  A.D.  692,  were 
held  in  the  secretarium  of  the  Imperial  palace, 
called  Trullus.  The  Council  of  Constantinople 
against  images,  A.D.  754,  was  held,  first  in  the 
imperial  palace  of  Hiera  on  the  shore  opposite 
Byzantium,  and  then  in  a  church  in  Constanti¬ 
nople  itself.  Palatine  councils  and  mixed  national 
councils  were  commonly  and  naturally  held  in 
royal  palaces.  In  Ciampini  (Yet.  Mon.  I.  tab. 
xxxvii.)  is  figured  a  mosaic  of  the  5th  century, 
indicating  a  council,  and  with  a  sug jestus  and 
tlie  open  Gospels  thereon  in  the  middle,  from  the 
Baptistery  at  Ravenna. 

Diocesan  and  provincial  councils  were  held 
naturally  and  ordinarily  in  the  cathedral  and 
metropolitan  cities  respectively.  Why  Clovesho 
was  selected  for  the  provincial  councils  of  Saxon 
England,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  in  the  absence  of 
any  certainty  as  to  where  Clovesho  was.  Pos¬ 
sibly  it  was  a  central  spot,  which  Canterbury 
was  not.  The  outgoing  council  sometimes  named 
the  place  for  that  which  was  to  come  next ;  as 
e.g.  Cone.  Tolet.  IV.  a.d.  633,  can.  4,  enacts  that 
it  shall  do.  So  also  the  place  for  the  first  of 
Pipin’s  two  annual  councils  was  fixed  by  him¬ 
self,  but  that  first  council  determined  the  loca¬ 
lity  of  the  second.  Cone.  Arausic.  /.  a.d.  441, 
can.  29,  forbids  any  council  to  be  dissolved  “  sine 
alterius  conventus  denyntiatione.”  Cone.  Emerit. 
A.D.  666,  c.  7,  and  Cone.  Told,,  iv.  a.d.  633, 
can.  3,  leave’  it  to  the  metropolitan  to  deter¬ 
mine  the  place,  which  was  the  usual  rule.  The 


palace  where  king  or  emperor  happened  to  be, 
commonly  decided  the  locality  of  the  Concilia 
Balatina,  as  e.g.  Clichy,  Braine,  Aix-la-Chapelle, 
&c.  The  localities  of  the  Oecumenical  Gouncils 
were  determined  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  and  the  convenience  of  the  emperors. 
Nicaea,  e.g.  was  close  to  the  emperor’s  palace  at 
Nicomedia.  Ephesus  was  a  convenient  seaport, 
with  great  facilities  of  access  on  account  of  its 
trading  importance,  and  accessible  by  land 
thiough  the  great  road  bv  Iconium  to  the  Eu- 
phrates  (see  Howson  and  Conybeare’s  St.  J^aul, 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  80,  sq.  8vo.  edit.).  Chalcedon  was 
close  to  Constantinople,  yet  apart  from  it.  And 
Sardica  again  was  chosen,  in  A.D.  347,  as  a  place 
most  convenient  for  East  and  West  to  meet  in. 

IV.  Provision  at  the  publie  expense,  was  also 
made,  both  for  the  conveyance  of  the  bishops  to 
the  place  of  meeting,  and  for  their  entertainment 
during  the  sessions,  at  any  rate  during  the  period 
of  the  councils  against  the  Arians.  The  former 
was  ordered  by  Constantine  in  the  cases  of  the 
Councils  of  Arles  I.  and  Nice  (Euseb.  H.  E.  x. 
5,  and  F.  Constant,  iv.  6-9,  &c.)  ;  and  is  bitterly 
complained  of,  somewhat  later,  by  Ammianus 
Marcellinus  (//^s^.  xxi.  fin.),  as  interfering  with 
the  public  system  of  conveyance  to  the  detriment 
of  public  business  and  convenience;  while  ])ope 
Liberius  endeaA'oured  to  obtain  a  council  from  the 
emperor  by  (among  other  motives)  offering  that 
the  bishops  would  waive  the  privilege  and  travel 
at  their  own  expense  (Sozom.  iv.  11).  Of  the  latter 
we  read  at  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  a.d.  359, 
where  only  three  of  the  British  bishops  accepted 
it,  the  others,  with  the  bishops  of  Gaul  and 
Aquitaine,  declining  it  as  interfering  with  their 
independence  (Snip.  Sev.  ii.  55). 

V.  The  eeremonial  of  a  council  is  described  in 
respect  to  a  pi’ovincial  council,  by  an  order  of 
Cone.  To’et.  TV.  a.d.  633,  can.  4,  quoted  and 
abridged,  but  not  quite  accurately,  by  Hefele  (I. 
65,  Engl.  Tr.'),  thus : — “  Before  sunset  on  the 
day  appointed,  all  those  who  are  in  the  church 
must  come  out ;  and  all  the  doors  must  be  shut, 
except  the  one  by  which  the  bishops  enter ;  and 
at  this  door  all  the  ostiarii  will  station  them¬ 
selves.  The  bishops  will  then  come,  and  take 
their  places  according  to  the  times  of  their  ordi¬ 
nation.  When  they  have  taken  their  places,  the 
elected  priests,  and  after  them  the  deacons, 
[‘  probabiles,  quos  ordo  poposcerit  interesse,’] 
will  come  in  their  turn  to  take  their  ])laces.  The 
priests  sit  behin  1  the  bishops,  the  deacons  [stand] 
in  front,  and  all  are  arranged  in  the  form  of  a 
circle.  Last  of  all,  those  laity  are  inti-oduced, 
whom  the  Council  by  their  election  have  judged 
worthy  of  the  favour.  The  notaries,  who  are 
necessary,  are  also  introduced.  [And  the  doors 
are  barred.]  All  keep  silence.  When  the  arch¬ 
deacon  says,  Orate,  all  prostrate  themselves  upon 
the  ground.  After  several  moments,  one  of  the 
oldest  bishops  rises  and  recites  a  prayer  in  a  loud 
voice,  during  which  all  the  rest  remain  vipon 
their  knees.  The  prayer  having  ’oeen  recited, 
all  answer.  Amen  ;  and  they  rise  when  the  arch¬ 
deacon  .says,  Erigite  cos.  While  all  keep  silent, 
a  deacon,  clad  in  a  white  alb,  brings  into  the 
midst  the  book  of  the  canons,  and  reads  the  rules 
for  the  holding  of  councils.  When  this  is  ended, 
the  metropolitan  gives  an  address,  and  calls  on 
those  present  to  bring  forward  their  complaints. 
If  a  priest,  a  deacon,  or  a  layman,  has  any  com- 


478 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


plaint  to  make,  he  makes  it  known  to  the  arch¬ 
deacon  of  the  metropolitan  church;  and  the 
latter,  in  his  turn,  will  bring  it  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  council.  No  bishop  is  to  withdraw  with¬ 
out  the  rest ;  and  no  one  is  to  pronounce  the 
council  dissolved,  before  all  the  business  is  ended.” 
The  synod  concluded  with  a  ceremony  similar  to 
that  of  the  opening ;  the  metropolitan  then  pro¬ 
claimed  the  time  of  celebrating  Easter  (i6.  can. 
5),  and  that  of  the  meeting  of  the  next  synod, 
such  synods  being  annual  by  can.  3. 

Proliably  councils  elsewhere  followed  a  like 
practice  to  those  of  Spain.  The  deacons,  how¬ 
ever,  at  all  times,  did  not  sit  but  stood  (Cone. 
Illiberit.  in  prooem..  Cone.  Tolet.  Bracar.  //., 
several  early  Roman  Councils  in  Bingh.  ii.  xix. 
12,  and  St.  Cyprian’s  African  Councils),  unless 
they  appeared  as  representing  their  respective 
bishops. 

A  ‘■‘'Modus  tenendi  Synodos  in  Ayxglia”  (11th 
cent.  Cott.  MSS.  Cleop.  C.  viii.  fol.  35,  printed  in 
Wilkins’  Concilia  iv.  784-786),  supplies  a  like 
although  later  account  of  a  diocesan  synod. 
After  commanding  such  synods  twice  annually, 
anl  suspending  contumacious  absentees  for  a 
year,  it  proceeds  to  order  the  church  to  be  cleared 
of  all  people,  and  the  doors  closed,  except  one  at 
which  the  ostiarii  are  to  be  stationed.  Then,  at 
an  hour  to  be  fixed  by  the  bishop  or  his  vicar, 
and  in  solemn  procession  with  crosses  and  litany, 
a  seat  having  been  placed  in  the  middle  of  the 
church  with  relics  lying  upon  it,  and  a  “plena- 
rium,”  i.e.  either  a  complete  missal  or  a  com¬ 
plete  copy  of  the  gospels,  and  a  stole,  being 
likewise  placed  thereon,  the  presbyters  are  to 
take  their  seats  according  to  the  times  of  their 
ordination  :  then  the  deacons  are  to  be  admitted, 
but  only  those  who  are  “  probabiles,”  or  “quos 
ordo  poposcerit  interesse  ;  ”  then  chosen  laity  ; 
lastly  the  bishop,  or  at  least  his  vicar.  Forms 
of  prayer  are  then  given,  with  benedictions  and 
lessons,  for  three  days,  which  is  assumed  to  be 
the  right  limit  of  the  duration  of  the  synod. 

From  at  least  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  A.D. 
431  (St.  Cyril  Alex,  ad  The^.dos.  in  Actt.  Cone. 
Ephcs.\  an  open  copy  of  the  Gospels  was  cus¬ 
tomarily  placed  in  the  midst  on  a  throne  covered 
with  rich  stuffs ;  a  precedent  followed  by  other 
Councils,  e.g.  by  that  of  Hatfield  under  Abp. 
Theodore,  A.D.  680  (“prepositis  sacrosanctis 
evangeliis  ”),  down  even  to  that  of  Basle  (see  also 
the  mosaic  in  Ciampini  already  referred  to, 
and  Suicer  in  v.  EvayyeALou).  St.  Cyprian 
describes  a  council  as  “  considentibus  Dei  sa- 
cerdotibus  et  altari  posito”  (h'pist.  xlv.).  In 
the  8th  century,  an  image  of  Our  Lord  is  men¬ 
tioned  as  placed  in  the  midst,  by  Theodorus 
Studita ;  and  about  the  same  time  images  of 
saints  likewise,  by  Gregory  II.  (a.d.  715-731, 
Epist.  IF.  ad  Leon.  Isaur.).  And  in  similar 
times,  or  later,  we  find  also  relics  so  placed, 
as  in  the  Modus  tenendi  Synodos.,  above  quoted. 
Compare  also  the  langiiage  of  Gregory  the  Great 
(^Opj>.  IF.  1288)  in  the  6th  century,  s]>eak- 
lUg  of  a  Roman  provincial  synod  as  assembled 
‘‘  coram  sanctissimo  beati  Petri  corpore,”  Cone. 
Tolet.  xi.  A.D.  675,  can.  1,  prohibited  talking  or 
iaiigliing  or  disorder  of  any  kind  in  a  council. 
Tli'j  ordei’  of  the  Palatine  Councils  is  given  by 
Adeihar-1,  the  Abbat  of  •'Corbey,  and  will  be  re- 
fcj  red  to  below  (under  D). 

VT.  The  President  of  an  ecclesiastical  ccuncil 


was  of  course,  in  provincial  councils,  the  metro¬ 
politan  (such  a  council,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not 
“  perfect  ”  without  him,  and  his  presence  became 
ordinarily  necessary  to  the  due  consecration  of  a 
bishop  [Bishop]);  in  diocesan  councils,  the 
bishop  or  (in  later  times)  at  least  his  vicar ;  in 
primatial  or  patriarchal,  the  primate  or  patri¬ 
arch  ;  the  chief  bishop  ])resent,  at  those  councils 
which  were  made  up  from  neighbouring  pro¬ 
vinces  (e.g.  Vitalis  of  Antioch,  at  Ancyra)  ;  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  in  his  crvuoSoi 
ivdrfjjLovcraL ;  kings  or  emperors  in  the  mixed 
national'  synods  of  later  date.  At  Arles,  in 
A.D.  314,  Marinus  Bishop  of  Arles  signs  the 
synodical  letter  first,  and  therefore  probably 
presided  in  the  synod  itself ;  and  this  probably 
by  appointment  of  the  emperor,  just  as  Mel- 
chiades  had  presided  in  the  previous  year  over 
the  abortive  tribunal  assembled  at  Rome.  In 
the  Oecumenical  synods,  down  to  a.d.  869,  the 
emperor,  either  in  person  or  by  a  representative, 
exercised  a  kind  of  external  presidency — irphs 
evKocr/j.iai'  is  all  that  Leo  the  Great  allows,  in 
his  synodical  letter  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
A.D.  451 — in  occupying  the  seat  of  honour  when 
present,  and  in  regulating  and  enforcing  external 
order  and  the  like.  But  the  presidents  or 
Trp6e8poi,  who  are  distinguished  from  the  emperor 
and  from  his  representative,  and  who  conducted 
the  real  ecclesiastical  business  of  the  council, 
were  either  the  principal  bishops  or  patriarchs, 
or  the  legates  of  the  patriarchs.  At  Nice,  after 
opening  the  proceedings  in  person,  seated  in  the 
place  of  honour,  Constantine,  who  expressly  dis¬ 
claimed  for  himself  the  interfering  with  doctidne, 
and  called  himself  bishop  only  tcci/  cktos  ryjs 
iKK\riaias,  but  the  bishops  themselves,  ru'V  eicro}, 
vapediSov  rhv  Koyov  to7s  ttjs  ^vy68ou  Trpo4~ 
8pois  (Euseb.  V.  Constant,  v.  13).  And  these 
iTp6e8poi,  although  not  expressly  named,  may  die 
gathered  from  the  list  of  chief  members  of  the 
council  (Euseb.  V.  Constant,  iii.  7,  Socr.  i.  13, 
Sozom.  i.  17,  Theodoret,  M.  E.  ii.  15),  to  have 
been,  first  and  above  all,  Hosius  of  Corduba, — 
(employed  by  the  emperor  to  manage  the  pre¬ 
vious  abortive  council  at  Alexandria  [Sozom.  i. 
16],  present  also  at  Elvira  previously,  and  sub¬ 
sequently  president  at  Sardica ;  see  St.  Athanas. 
Apol.  de  Fuga ;  and  that  Hosius  gave  advice 
to  the  emperor  in  the  Donatist  question  also, 
c.  A.  D.  316,  St.  Aug.  c.  F^armenion.  i.  8,  ix. 
43),  Alexander  of  Alexandida  (styled  Kvpios  in 
the  council,  by  the  Cone.  Eicaen.  itself),  Eusta¬ 
thius  of  Antioch  (alleged  by  Theodoret  to  have 
addressed  the  opening  speech  to  the  emperor, 
which  however  Sozomen,  and  the  title  of  c.  11 
of  Euseb.  V.  Const  'nt.  iii.,  attribute  to  Eusebius 
himself,  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  to  Alex¬ 
ander),  Macarius  of  Jerusalem,  and  Vitus  and 
Vinceutius  the  presbyter-legates  of  the  absent 
Bishop  of  Rome.  Such  authorities  also  as  John 
of  Antioch  and  Nicephorus  (v.  Tillemont,  J/em. 
Eceles.  vi.  272),  speak  of  Eustathius  as  presiding. 
That  Hosius  presided  as  legate  of  the  pope  (>0 
Gelas.  Cyzic.,  ab.  a.d.  476,  is  commonly  said  to 
afiirm,but  he  really  says  that  Hosius  “occupied  the 
place  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  at  the  council,  with 
Vitus  and  Vincentius ”  [en-txair  rhv  tottov  tov 
rrjs  jj.eyl(TTr]S  'Pd!)/j.r]s  'ETriaitSirov  'S.iX^iarpov  <tvp 
irp€<r^vT€pois  'PJofarjS  Birupt  Ka\  BiKeyTtcp  (Labb. 
ii.  156)],  which  is  not  quite  the  same  tning),  is  dis- 
I  tiuctly  contradicted  by  the  language  of  Eusebius, 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


479 


Socrates,  and  Sozomen.  At  Constantinople,  A.D. 
381,  the  successive  presidents  were  Meletius  of 
Antioch  (no  higher  patriarch  being  at  first  ])rc- 
sent),  and  on  his  death,  Gregory  of  Nazianziiin 
until  his  resignation,  and  then  Nectarius,  patri¬ 
archs  of  Constantinople.  At  Ephesus,  A.D.  431, 
Candiilianus,  comes  sacrorum  domesticorum,” 
was  the  commissioner  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius  ; 
but  every  one,  “  unless  he  was  a  bishop,”  was 
strictly  forbidden  by  the  emperor  to  intermeddle 
Tofy  iKK\r}(rLa(TTiKois  (rK€/JtiJ.aaiu :  and  Cyril  of 
Ale.xandria,  at  first  alone,  afterwards  with  the 
Pope’s  legates,  presided  ecclesiastically,  Candidian 
indeed  favouring  the  Nestorians.  In  A.D.  451, 
at  Chalcedon,  the  limits  of  imperatorial  inter¬ 
ference  were  less  exactly  kept.  Paschasinus, 
bishop  of  Libybaeum,  the  pope’s  legate,  is  re¬ 
peatedly  said  to  have  presided,  and  signs  first, 
and  as  “synodo  praesidens.”  But  Marcian,  in 
person,  presided  over  the  sixth  session,  proposed 
the  questions,  and  conducted  the  business.  And 
his  commissioners,  generally,  “  had  the  place  of 
honour  in  the  midst  before  the  altar-rails,  are 
first  named  in  the  minutes,  took  the  votes, 
arranged  the  order  of  the  business,  and  closed 
the  sessions”  (Hefele,  from  the  Acts).  At  Con¬ 
stantinople,  A.D.  553,  neither  Justinian  nor  Pope 
Vigilius  took  a  personal  part,  the  latter  expressly 
refusing  to  join  in  it ;  and  the  actual  president 
was  Eutychius  of  Constantinople.  In  A.D.  680, 
Constantine  Pogonatus  interfered  even  more  than 
Marcian  in  451 ;  and  he  is  moreover  expressly 
called  the  president.  But  the  papal  legates  sign 
first,  and  Constantine  only  fit  the  end  of  the 
episcopal  signatures,  and  with  the  phrase,  “  Le- 
gimus  et  consentimus.”  At  Nice,  in  A.D.  787, 
Tarasius  of  Constantinople  really  conducted  the 
business  of  the  council,  but  the  papal  legates 
sign  before  him ;  and  the  Empress  Irene  and  her 
son  were  present  as  honorary  presidents  in  the 
eighth  and  last  session,  but  signed  finally  after 
the  signatures  of  the  bishops.  Lastly,  in  A.D. 
869,  the  papal  legates  with  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople  and  the  representatives  of  the 
other  patriarchs,  were  practically  the  presidents, 
but  the  legates  alone  are  expressly  so  called  ; 
while  in  the  sixth  and  following  sessions  the 
Emperot  Basil  and  his  two  sons  acted  as  presi¬ 
dents  and  are  so  called,  although  refusing  to 
sign  except  after  the  legates  and  patriarchs 
above  mentioned.  Of  other  synods,  Hosius  pre¬ 
sided  at  Sardica,  A.D.  347  (St.  Athanas.  Hist. 
Arian.,  Sozom.,  ii.  12,  Theodoret,  H.  E.  ii.  15, 
and  the  Acts  themselves),  the  two  presbyter- 
legates  of  Pope  Julius .  signing  after  him,  and 
then  the  Bishop  of  Sardica  itself.  At  the 
Latrocinium  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  449,  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  gaA'^e  the  presidency  to  Dioscorus  of 
Alexandria,  after  refusing  it  to  the  papal  legates. 
It  should  be  added,  that  objection  was  taken  to 
the  emperor’s  even  sending  a  commissioner  to  the 
Council  of  Tyre,  A.D.  335  (St.  Athanas.  Apolorj. 
c.  Arian.  n.  viii.) ;  and  that  the  Council  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  A.D.  869,  ruled  that  the  emperor 
not  oulv  need  not  but  ought  not  to  intervene  in 
provincial  synods,  &c.,  but  only  in  such  as  were 
oecumenical.  But  kings  were  present  continu¬ 
ally  even  in  provincial  synods  in  the  West ;  as 
e.g.  at  Toledo  IV.  and  V.,  A.D.  633  and  636,  at 
the  legatine  councils  in  England,  A.D.  787,  in 
Gaul  continually,  and  at  Frankfort  A.D.  794. 
And  the  king’s  commi.ssaries  were  at  the  councils 


of  ^’olodo  VIII.  and  IX..  A.D.  653,  655.  'I’he 
remonstrance  of  Pn))o  Julius  to  the  Ea.stern 
bishojis  respecting  the  Council  of  Antioch,  a.d. 
341 — that  juh  Se?  napa  yudo/xgi'  tuu  ’Ettj- 
aKOTTov  'FaipL-qs  Kavoui^nv  ray  f/f/cATjtriay  (Socr. 
ii.  13,  Sozom.  iii.  9)  —  might  obviously  have 
been  made  by  aiiy  of  the  patriarchs,  the 
church  not  being  truly  rcpre.sented  if  any  chief 
bishop  were  passed  over  ;  and  reads  rather  like 
a  claim,  which  its  maker  felt  it  neces.sary  to 
press,  there  being  no  doubt  about  the  like  laglit 
of  the  older  and  Eastern  patriarchs.  The  second 
Council  of  Nice,  A.D.  787,  requires  all  the  patri¬ 
archs  (or  their  legates)  for  a  really  oecumenical 
council  (Labb.  A’ii.  396). 

VII.  The  order  of  Precedence,  and  of  Signa¬ 
tures,  in  a  council,  which  commonly  went  to¬ 
gether,  followed  ordinarily,  in  respect  io  Bishops, 
the  rule  of  priority  of  consecration  (as  e.g.  in 
Africa,  Cod.  Can.  Afric.  86,  Cone.  Milev.  cans. 
13,  14;  in  Italy  and  Gaul,  Greg.  M.  Epist. 
vii.  112  [to  Syagrius,  Bishop  of  Autun],  and  so 
also  in  Spain,  Co7ic.  Bracar.  I.  A.D.  563,  can.  6, 
and  Co7ic.  I’olet.  IV.  a.d.  633,  c.  4,  and  [as 
may  be  seen  in  the  signatures  to  charters] 
in  England — see  Cuunc.  of  Ilertfoi'd,  A.D.  673, 
can.  8  ;  and  Cone.  Londin.  A.D.  1075,  in  Wilk. 
i.  363).  Here  and  there,  however,  custom 
gave  precedence  to  a  particular  see,  as  in  England 
latterly  to  London,  Durham,  Winchester.  And 
in  an  oecumenical  council,  or  indeed  whereA^er 
present,  the  bishops  of  the  chief  sees,  Avho  in 
due  time  became  patriarchs,  took  precedence  of 
all  others ;  the  order  oeing  fixed  by  the  council 
in  TruUo,  a.d.  692,  as  1.  Rome,  2.  Constanti¬ 
nople,  3.  Alexandria,  4.  Antioch,  5.  Jerusalem ; 
the  preceding  general  councils  of  Constantinople 
(can.  3)  and  Chalcedon  (can.  28),  having  i-aised 
Constantinople  from  a  subordinate  place  to  haA^e 
“  equal  honours  ”  Avith  Rome,  but  to  count  as 
second  (so  also  Justinian,  Novel,  cxxxi.  c.  2). 
Ephesus  and  Caesarea,  as  patriarchates  in  a 
secondary  sense,  folloAved  the  chief  patriarchs ; 
as  e.g.  in  the  4th  and  6th  oecumenical  councils. 
Chorepiscopi,  so  long  as  that  office  existed  as  an 
episcopal  office,  either  in  east  or  west — and  again 
the  titular  and  monastic  bishops  of  the  6th  and 
folloAving  centuries  (mainly  in  north-Avestern 
Europe) — counted  in  a  council  as  bishops.  If 
priests  or  deacons  Avere  present  as  vicars  or 
legates  of  their  respective  bishops,  they  signed, 
in  the  East,  in  the  order  in  which  their  own 
bishop  AAmuld  haA^e  signed,  had  he  been  present  ; 
in  the  West,  usually  after  all  the  bishops  pre¬ 
sent.  In  the  1st  council  of  Arles,  howeA'er,  the 
priests  and  deacons,  Avhom  each  bishop  had  leen 
desired  to  bring  Avith  him,  signed  immediately 
after  their  OAvn  bishop  ;  and  the  Pope’s  legates 
signed  after  seA'eral  of  the  bishops.  In  France 
and  England,  and  in  the  case  of  the  archimand¬ 
rites  in  Ea.stern  councils,  the  a66;(fs,  although  lay¬ 
men,  signed  betAveen  the  bishops  and  priests  (if 
any  signatures  occur  of  the  last  named).  In  Spaia 
as  laymen,  they  signed  at  first  after  the  priests,  but 
afterAvards  (becoming  probably  in  many  instances 
})riests  them.sel\'e.s)  they  signed,  as  elsewhere, 
after  the  bishops  and  before  the  priests.  Of  lay 
signatures,  the  emperor  in  the  great  oecumenical 
councils  signed  after  all  the  bi.shop.s,  except  in 
A.D.  869,  Avhen  the  emperor  and  his  sons  signed 
after  the  great  patriarchs  but  before  all  the 
other  bishops.  Imperial  commissioners  also  took 


480 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


precedence,  in  the  council  itself,  immediately 
after  the  patriarchs  or  their  representatives,  but 
did  not  sign  the  acts  at  all.  In  the  mixed 
European  synods,  lay  signatui’es  also  occur. 
In  England  we  have  in  order — king,  archbishop, 
bishops,  dukes,  abbats,  nobles,  presbyters,  minis~ 
h  i ;  sometimes  abbesses  also  ;  but,  of  course,  in 
mixed  synods  or  rather  witenagemots  only;  and 
all  this,  not  in  the  same  order  always,  for  some¬ 
times  not  only  presbyters  but  deacons  sign  before 
the  nobles,  and  abbats  follow  the  pi-esbyters.  At 
Clovesho,  A.D.  803,  the  bishop,  abbats,  and  pres¬ 
byters  of  each  diocese,  sign  together,  and  in  one 
case  (that  of  Canterbury)  an  archdeacon  also. 
The  list  of  those  present  at  the  IstCouncil  of  Arles, 
A.D.  314,  as  has  been  said,  follows  a  like  order. 
At  Nice  the  signatures,  so  far  as  they  are  pre¬ 
served,  are  of  name  and  see  simply.  At  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  431,  and  thenceforward, 
the  custom  began  of  adding  “  gratia  Christi,”  or 
“  Dei  miseratione,’’  or  “  in  Christ!  nomine,”  and 
also  of  adding  to  the  name  such  epithets  as 
minimus,  peccator,  indignus,  humilis,  &c.  The 
sees  are  omitted  commonly,  but  not  always,  in 
Anglo-Saxon,  in  Frank,  and  in  Spanish  coun¬ 
cils.  The  chief  exceptions  in  England  are 
the  Councils  of  Calchyth,  A.D.  787,  and  Clo¬ 
vesho,  A.D.  803,  where  the  sees  are  certainly 
given.  They  occur,  however,  more  often  in 
France.  But  as  the  lists  are  commonly  copies, 
the  scribes  are  as  likely  as  not  to  have  added 
the  sees  in  some  instances,  although  this  is 
clearly  not  the  case  in  many.  The  addition 
of  “  definiens  (‘Spicras)  subscripsi,”  belonged  to 
bishops  as  such,  and  very  often  occurs,  as  e.  g. 
Cone.  Chalced.  a.d.451,  from  the  5th  centuiy ; 
“  consentiens  subscripsi,”  or  “  consensi  et  sub¬ 
scripsi,”  or  “  subscripsi  ”  simply,  being  the  form 
for  others  as  well  as  bishops.  The  Saxon  “  pom- 
positas  ”  varied  the  form  in  endless  ways,  as 
may  be  seen  in  Kemble’s  Codex  Diphmaticus. 
“  ProDuntians  cum  sancta  synodo,”  also  occurs 
in  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  431. 

VIII.  The  votes  were  taken  no  doubt  by  heads, 
from  the  beginning.  The  plan  of  voting  by  nations, 
the  vote  of  each  nation  being  determined  by  the 
majority  of  individual  votes  within  the  nation 
itself,  was  a  device  as  late  as  the  Council  of  Con¬ 
stance,  intended  to  prevent  the  swamping  of  the 
council  by  Italian  bishops,  and  was  abandoned 
again  after  the  Council  of  Basle.  The  distinction 
between  vota  decisiva  and  vota  consultcdiva,  the 
former  alone  counting  in  the  formal  decisions  of 
the  council,  is  of  modern  date  also,  so  far  as 
the  terms  are  concerned ;  but  the  presence  at 
councils  of  individuals,  and  of  classes  of  persons, 
for  consultation  but  without  a  vote,  is  of  very 
early  origin  (see  beloAv  under  B),  and  indeed 
may  be  most  probably  said  to  date  from  Apo¬ 
stolic  times. 

IX.  Lastly,  councils  Avei’e  confirmed,  in  the  case 
of  the  Oecumenical  Councils,  and  so  as  to  giA-’e 
their  decrees  the  force  of  huv,  by  the  emperors  ; 
although,  in  foro  conscienfiae,  St.  Athanasius’s 
dictum  holds  good, — Trtire  yap  e’/f  rov  alwuos 
ijKOvadn,  TOiavra ;  Trcire  Kpiais  iKKXga'ias  irapa 
fiaaiXitjos  eo  x^  Kvpos ;  (Hist.  Arian.  ad 
Monach.  §  52,  0}»p.  i.  376).  The  decrees  of  the 
Nicene  Council  Avere  enforced  as  laAvs  of  the  em¬ 
pire  by  Constantine  (Euseb.  V.  Constant,  iii. 
17-19;  Socr.  i.  9;  Gelas.  Cyzic.  ii.  36,  in 
Mansi,  ii.  919).  Subscription  to  its  creed  Avas 


enforced  on  pain  of  exile  (Socr.  i.  9;  Rufin,  IT.  E. 
i.  5).  That  of  Constantinople,  in  A.D.  381,  re¬ 
quested  and  obtained  the  legal  confirmation  ol 
Theodosius  the  Great  (July  30,  a.d.  381,  Cod. 
Theod.  xvi.  1.  3).  Theodosius  II.,  after  much 
hesitation,  confirmed  the  principal  decision  of 
the  Council  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  431  (Hefele),  by 
exiling  Nestorius  and  ordering  Nestorian  Avritings 
to  be  burnt  (Mansi,  v.  255,  41.3,  920).  Mar- 
cian’s  edicts  are  extant  of  February  7,  March  13, 
July  6  and  28,  A.D.  452,  Avhich  confirm  the 
decrees  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  of  A.D.  451. 
The  next  four  councils  (in  the  Latin  reckoning) 
of  A.D.  553,  680,  787,  869,  AA^ere  either  signed,  or 
(as  in  the  6th  and  8th)  also  enforced  by  an  edict, 
by  the  emperors  who  respectiA'ely'  summoned 
them.  Councils  also  Avere  commonly  held  in 
the  various  provinces  to  accept  the  decrees  of  a 
General  Council.  And  in  this  Avay  the  sanction 
of  the  bishops  of  Rome  Avas  given  after  some 
delay^to  the  second  council  of  Constantinople,  a.d. 
381.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  pope  in  relation  to  the 
great  Council  of  Nice,  except  by  documents  of  a 
date  and  nature  such  as  to  make  them  Avorthless 
(Hefele  makes  the  best  of  them,  but  his  OAA-n 
statements  are  the  best  refutation  of  his  conclu 
sion).  Leo  the  Great  refused  to  assent  to  the 
decree  of  Chalcedon  respecting  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  Avhile  accepting  the  rest.  And 
both  that  council  (ap.  Leon.  M.  Epist.  Ixxxix.) 
and  Marcian  (ih.  Epist.  cx.)  recognize  in  terms 
the  necessity  of  obtaining  the  pope’s  confirma¬ 
tion  ;  although  Avith  special  reference  to  the 
canon  affecting  the  dignity  of  the  see  of  Rome. 
Yet,  in  A.D.  553,  Justinian  compelled  the  sub¬ 
mission  of  pope  Yigilius  to  the  Council  of,  Con¬ 
stantinople.  And  the  canons  of  the  Trullan 
Council,  in  A.D.  692,  Avere  in  like  manner  forced 
by  the  emperor  upon  pope  Sergius.  The  General 
Councils,  so  called,  of  A.D.  680,  787,  and  869, 
sought  and  receh’ed  the  papal  confirmation. 
For  the  legal  authority  attached  at  A^arioAis 
periods  to  the  canons  of  either  oecumenical  or 
proAuncial  councils,  see  Canon  Laa\'.  The 
“  Canones  Patrum,”  i.e.,  probably  the  collection 
of  Dionysius  Exiguus,  were  brought  forAvard  by 
Theodore,  and  certain  canons  selected  from  them 
accepted  as  specially  needed  for  the  Bhglish 
Church,  at  the  Council  of  Hertford,  A.D.  673 
(Haddan  and  Stubbs,  iii.  119).  Charlemagne, 
in  his  Capitularies,  dealt  with  ecclesiastical 
laAVS  as  Avell  as  civil,  but  consulted  pope  .Adrian, 
and  obtained  a  sort  of  enlarged  Codex  Canonum 
from  him,  A.D.  774  ;  as  Pipin  had  done  before 
him,  A.D.  747,  with  pope  Zacharias.  But  the 
royal  authority  gaA^e  legal  force  to  these  laAvs — 
“a  vestx'a  auctoritate  firmentur”  (Cone.  J/o- 
gunt.  A.D.  813,  in  Praef. ;  and  so  repeatedly) ; 
as  indeed  had  been  the  case  with  Prank  and 
Burgundian  kings,  &c.,  before  Pipin  also. 

The  Council  of  Calchyth,  A.D.  816,  can.  9, 
enacts  that  a  copy  of  decrees  of  councils  should 
be  taken  by  each  bishop,  Avith  date  and  names  of 
archbishop  and  bishops  present  ;  and  that 
another  copy  should  be  given  to  any  one  aflected 
by  the  decree. 

B.  Such  being  (so  to  say)  the  externals  of  a 
council,  the  next  question  relates  to  its  Consti¬ 
tuent  Memders, 

1.  To  speak  first  of  provincial  councils,  there 
can  be  no  question  that  bishops  Avere  essentially 
their  members.  The  Apostolic  Canon  (37)  speaks 


COUNCIL  COUNClli  481 


of  (Tvpo^oi  Tuv  'F,Tri(rK6Trwv  ]  the  5th  canon  cf 
Nice,  of  vav'Tcov  T<Sv  'EirKTKSirwP  ttjs  eTraox^®^? 
&c.  ;  and  similarly  Cone.  Antioch,  a.d.  341, 
can.  20,  and  the  29th  canon  of  Chalcedon,  which 
describes  also  such  (rVvodoi  reSv  'ETriaKSTrctiv  as 
K^Ko.vovi<T}i4vai ",  and  the  earliest  known  synods 
of  the  kind  (the  earliest  indeed  of  any  kind), 
those  of  Hierapolis  and  Anchialus  against  Monta- 
nism,  and  those  held  by  Polycrates  about  Easter, 
respectively  in  the  middle  and  towards  the  end 
of  the  2nd  century,  consisted  of  bishops,  without 
mentioning  (yet  certainly  without  in  terms  ex¬ 
cluding)  any  one  else  (^Lihellus  Synodicus,  and 
Euseb.  V.  16,  24).  See  also  St.  Cyprian  (Epist. 
73),  St.  Hilary  (^De  Syn.  Frooem.),  St.  Ambrose 
{Epist.  32,  “  audiant  [presbyteri]  cum  populo”), 
St.  Jerome  {Apol.  c.  Ruffin,  lib.  II.),  &c.  &c. 
Moreover,  from  early  times  bishops  but  no 
others  were  compelled  to  attend  such  synods, 
under  penalties  ( suspension  for  a  year )  for 
absence,  or  even  for  coming  late ;  and  the  being 
present  in  them  was  a  recognized  and  allowed 
cause  of  non-residence  in  their  dioceses :  e.  y. 
Cone.  Laodic.  c.  A.D.  365,  can.  40 ;  Chalced.  a.d. 
451,  can.  19;  Agath.  a.d.  506,  can.  35;  Vasens. 
ii.  A.D.  529,  Pref. ;  Tarracon.  A.D.  516,  can.  6 ; 
Aurel.  ii.  A.D.  533,  can.  1  ;  Areern.  i.  a.d. 
535,  can.  1 ;  Turon.  ii.  A.D.  567,  can.  1  ;  Eme- 
rit.  A.D.  666,  can.  7  ;  Tolet.  xi.  a.d.  675,  can. 
15:  see  also  Leo  M.  Epist.  vi.  A.D.  444;  and 
Greg.  M.  Epist.  V.  54  (allowing  presbyters  or 
deacons  as  representatives,  if  unavoidable).  In 
the  3rd  century,  however,  as  in  Apostolic  times 
(Acts  XV.),  it  becomes  evident  that  presbyters 
also  took  part  in  such  councils  (“  seniores  et 
praepo.siti,”  Firmilian,  as  befoi-e  quoted,  speaking 
for  Asia ;  ^t.  Cyprian  repeatedly  for  Africa ; 
Euseb.  H.E.  vii.  28,  of  the  Council  of  Antioch 
that  condemned  Paul  of  Samosata  in  A.D.  264  or 
265,  for  Syria  ;  and  the  case  of  Origen,  again,  at 
the  Arabian  synods  respecting  Beryllus  ;  &c.). 
In  the  Council  of  Elvira  (a.d.  305,  Hefele) 
twenty-six  or  twenty-four  presbyters  “  sat  with” 
the  bishops.  In  that  of  Arles  I.,  A.D.  314,  each 
bishop  was  directed  to  bring  two  presbyters  with 
him,  ami  some  brought  deacons  also.  A  series 
of  Roman  councils  (a.d.  461,  487,  499,  502,715, 
721)  contained  also  presbyters,  “  sitting  with  ” 
the  bishops,  and  in  two  cases  “  subscribing  ”  with 
them  (Bingh.  ii.  xix.  12);  and  others  might  be 
added,  as  e.  g.  under  Gregory  the  Great  {0pp.  IT. 
1288).  “Gregorius  Papa  coram  sanctissimo  beati 
Petri  corpore,  cum  episcopis  omnibus  ac  Romanae 
Ecclesiae  presbyteris  residens,  adstantibus  dia- 
conis  et  cuncto  clero.”  So  again  at  Carthage, 
A.D.  387,  389,  401  ;  at  Toledo,  A.D.  400 ;  at  Con¬ 
stantinople,  A.D.  443  ;  at  Braga,  II.  a.d.  572  ;  and 
the  order  of  holding  a  council  given  above  from 
Cone.  Tolct.  iv.  a.d.  633,  as  well  as  the  later 
English  “  ordo,”  also  above  mentioned,  expressly 
provide  for  the  presence  of  presbyters.  They 
are  present  also  at  Calchyth,  a.d.  787,  and 
Clovesho,  A.D.  803.  And  later  still,  presbyters 
subscribe  at  Lyons,  a.d.  830.  At  the  oecume¬ 
nical  councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  they 
were  present,  but  did  not  subscribe.  Three, 
however,  subscribe  in  their  own  names  at  Con¬ 
stantinople,  A.D.  381  (Labb.  ii.  957).  But  then 
it  mu.st  be  added,  1.  That  individual  presbyters 
(and  deacons)  were  sometimes  specially  invited 
to  speak  at  such  councils  on  account  of  their 
personal  eminence  and  talents  :  as,  e.  g.  Malcbion, 
CUHlSr  ANT. 


!  the  priest  of  Antioch,  in  the  council  that  con¬ 
demned  Paul  of  Samosata  (Euseb.  H.  E.  vii.  29) ; 
and  Origen  at  the  Arabian  synods  that  con¬ 
demned  Beryllus;  and  Barsumas  the  Archiman¬ 
drite  at  the  Latrocinium  of  PLj)hesus,  invited  by 
the  emperor  Theodosius  II.  ;  and  St.  Athanasius 
the  deacon  at  Nice  ;  and  W^ilfrid,  still  a  presbyter, 
at  Whitby.  2.  That  priests  as  well  as  deacons, 
KoiX  iravTas  tovs  vojxi^ovras,  i.o.,  lay¬ 

men  also,  are  bid  to  be  present  at  such  synods 
in  order  to  bring  forward  complaints  and  obtain 
justice  {Cone.  Antioch,  a.d.  341,  can.  20,  and  so 
also  in  the  “  ordo  ”  above  quoted  from  Cone. 
Tolet.  of  A.D.  633).  3.  That  St.  Cyprian,  for 

instance,  speaks  of  bishops  only  as  the  members 
of  the  synod,  and  this  where  presbyters  had 
been  present  (Hefele),  and  of  presbyters  as 
“  compresbyteri  qui  nobis  assidebant ;  ”  while 
bishops  only  voted  in  the  African  council  of 
A.D.  256.  4.  That  in  Cone.  Constantin.,  a.d. 

448,  while  the  bishops  signed  with  the  formula 
Sp'iaas  vTTfypaij/a,  the  archimandrites  omit  the 
bp'icras  in  their  signatures.  5.  That,  having 
regard  to  the  judicial  functions  of  such  councils, 
it  seems  impossible  to  suppose  that  any  beside 
bishops  could  have  been  appointed  judges  of 
bishops.  On  the  whole,  then — setting  aside  the 
well  known  practice  whereby  priests  (or  deacons) 
signed  and  voted  with  the  bishops  as  representa¬ 
tives  or  vicars  of  their  own  (absent)  bishops,  and 
reserving  also  the  case  of  abbats — it  would 
seem  that  bishops  were  the  propei',  ordinary,  and 
essential  members  of  a  provincial  council ;  but 
that  the  presbyters  as  a  body  were  consulted,  as 
of  right,  down  to  certainly  the  3rd  century,  and 
not  only  continued  to  be  present,  but  were  ad¬ 
mitted  to  subscribe  in  several  instances  in  later 
centuries ;  but  that  it  must  remain  doubtful 
whether  they  ever  actually  voted  in  a  division, 
and  that  the  apparent  inference  from  the  evi¬ 
dence  is  rather  against  than  for  their  having  done 
so.  The  presence  of  the  metropolitan  in  a  pro¬ 
vincial  synod,  as  aboA'9  said,  was  necessaiy  to 
render  it  a  “  perfect  ”  synod.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  metropolitan  could  not  act,  excejit  of  course 
in  the  exercise  of  his  ordinary  functions,  apart 
from  his  provincial  synod.  Chorepiscopi,  during 
the  4th  century  in  the  east,  and  during  the  9th 
in  the  west,  in  France,  and  the  monastic  and 
titular  bishops  of  north-Avestern  Europe  from  the 
6th  century  onwards,  AA^ere  treated  as  bishops. 
But  besides  presbyters,  deacons  and  laymen  like¬ 
wise  took  part  in  such  synods.  The  usual 
phrase,  both  in  St.  Cyprian  and  in  the  Roman 
councils  under  Symmachus  &c.  just  mentioned, 
is,  “  adstantibus  diaconis,  cum  stantium  plebe  ” 
(=rAvith  the  laity  Avho  had  not  lapsed,  but  Avere 
in  full  communion) ;  and  in  those  Roman  coun¬ 
cils  deacons  subscribe,  and  in  the  same  form  Avith 
the  bishops  and  presbyters ;  and  St.  Cyprian 
repeatedly  states  that  he  did  nothing  as  bishop 
without  consulting  all  his  clergy  and  laity  too  ; 
and  the  order  of  a  council,  draAvn  up  at  Toledo, 
A.D.  633,  specifying  “  invited  deacons  ”  and 
^'chosen  laymen,”  shoAvs  that  these  Avere  not 
supjtosed  to  come  merely  to  bring  forAvard  com¬ 
plaints,  but  to  join  in  consultation.  “  Consi- 
dentibus  presbyteris,  adstantibus  diaconis  cum 
universe  clero,”  is  the  common  ]dirase  re¬ 
specting  councils  of  5th  century  onAvards,  but 
without  mention  of  laity  as  a  rule.  There  were 
laymen,  hoAvever,  at  Toledo,  a.d  653,  as  there 


482 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


had  been  at  Tarragona,  a.d.  51G,  and  at  tlie  2nd 
council  of  Orange,  a.d.  529  ;  and  at  this  last 
named  council  the  lay  members  also  signed,  al¬ 
though  using  the  vaguer  form,  which,  however, 
the  bishops  also  used  at  the  same  council,  of 
“consentiens  subscripsi.”  And  lay  signatures 
occur  in  other  instances  also,  as  at  the  council 
of  Calchyth,  a.d.  787.  The  “seniores  plebis  ” 
also,  who  occur  in  Africa  in  the  time  of  e.g. 
Optatus  (see  Bingh.  ii.  xix.  19),  may  be  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  same  connection.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  archbishop  of  Lyons  (Cone.  Epaon.  A.D. 
817),  “  permits  ”  the  ])re.sence  of  laity,  but  it  is, 
“  ut  quae  a  solis  pontificibus  ordinanda  sunt,  et 
populus  possit  agnoscere.”  At  Lyons  itself, 
however,  a.d.  830,  we  find  not  only  presbyters, 
but  deacons,  laymen,  and  a  chorepiscopus.  The 
signatures  of  emperors  indeed,  or  of  their  com¬ 
missioners,  to  oecumenical  synods  ;  the  presence 
of  notaries  at  synods,  who  however  had  doubtless 
no  votes ;  the  part  taken  by  kings  in  mixed 
national  synods ;  the  attendance  of  invited  ex¬ 
perts  (so  to  say)  as  assessors,  but  without  votes, 
as  of  doctors  of  theology  and  of  canon  law  in 
later  times,  or  of  such  individuals  as  Origen  and 
the  others  above  mentioned,  or,  again,  of  the 
“  magistri  ecclesiae,  qui  canon ica  patrura  sta- 
tuta  et  diligerent  et  nossent,”  at  the  council  of 
Hertford,  A.D.  670  (Baed.  H.E.  iv.  5,  and  cf.  also 
Cone.  Tat'racon.  a.d.  516,  c.  13,  &c.), — are  ob¬ 
viously  exceptional  cases,  which  need  no  explana¬ 
tion.  But  the  language  in  which  the  subject  in 
general  is  mentioned,  coupled  with  Apostolic  pre¬ 
cedent,  establishes  two  things, — one,  that  deacons 
and  laity  had  a  right  from  the  beginning  to  a 
certain  status  in  councils ;  the  other,  that  they 
occupied  a  distinctly  lower  status  there  than  the 
bishops  and  presbyters  did  ; — and  that  while  there 
is  distinct  proof  of  both  classes  having  been  con¬ 
sulted  and  their  opinions  taken  (so  to  say)  en 
masse,  no  proof  at  all  exists  that  the  laity,  and 
no  sufficient  proof  that  the  deacons,  ever  voted 
individually  in  actual  divisions.  The  fair  infer¬ 
ence  from  the  evidence,  as  regards  the  general 
question,  seems  to  be,  that,  as  in  the  election  of 
bishops,  and  in  synods  held  for  that  purpose,  so 
in  provincial  synods  likewise,  the  consent  of  all 
orders  in  the  Church — bishops,  priests,  deacons, 
and  laity — was  at  the  first  held  needful,  although 
the  bishops  alone  as  a  rule  discussed  and  voted ; 
that,  as  the  Church  increased  in  numbers,  the 
presence  of  all,  or  nearly  all,  became  impossible 
as  well  as  mischievous  ;  while  no  scheme  of  repre¬ 
sentation  was  devisecLto  meet  the  difficulty,  except 
partially  in  Africa  (as  already  mentioned)  in  the 
case  of  bishops  ;  and  that,  consequently,  the  pre¬ 
sence  of  classes  of  members  who  did  not  take  an 
active  part  in  the  actual  council  naturally  and 
gradually  ceased,  and  the  bishops  (or  their  vicars) 
came  to  constitute  provincial  councils  alone,  even 
pi-esbyters  no  longer  appearing  there.  It  is  to 
be  added,  that  bishops  were  then  in  some  fairly 
real  sense  the  representatives  of  the  diocese, 
which  had  indeed  elected  them  bishops  ;  and  that 
(again  in  accordance  with  Apostolic  precedent) 
they  are  found  sometimes  giving  account  to  their 
dioceses  of  what  they  had  done  in  councils,  as, 
c.g.,  Eusebius  after  the  council  of  Nice  at 
Caesarea  (cf.  Schaff ’s  Hist,  of  Christ.  Ch.  i.  339). 
Late  medicAml  English  provincial  councils,  i.  e., 
convocations,  which,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  in¬ 
clude  presbyters,  are  the  result  of  an  abortive 


political  scheme,  dating  from  Edward  I.,  for  tax¬ 
ing  the  clergy ;  the  proper  episcopal  synod 
gradually  merging  into  the  convention  of  clergy 
then  devi.sed  (see  a  good  account  of  this  in 
Blunt’s  Theol.  Dictionarg,  art.  Convocations). 
But  in  Anglo-Saxon  England,  as  in  France  and 
Spain,  the  purely  episcopal  synod  was  (at  any 
rate  at  first)  kej)t  distinct  from  the  Witenage- 
mot  or  the  Blacitum,  even  when  held  at  the  same 
place  and  time  (see  Thoma.ssin,  li.  iii.  c.  47,  §  1  ; 
and  below,  under  D).  The  councils  of  Hertford 
and  of  Hat*field  under  Theodore  were  of  bi.ffiops 
only,  as  actual  members  with  votes.  It  is  not 
until  A.D.  787,  that  we  find  laity  also  in  purely 
ecclesiastical  councils  in  England. 

The  case  of  still  remains.  And  here  we 

find,  in  the  East,  archimandrites,  being  pres¬ 
byters,  present  and  signing  at  the  council  of 
Constantinople,  A.D.  448.  In  the  West,  it'  is 
mentioned  as  a  singular  honour,  that  St.  Benedict, 
being  a  layman,  was  invited  by  St.  Gregory  the 
Great  to  a  seat  in  a  Roman  council.  But  from 
the  6th  century  onwards  in  Spain,  and  a  little 
later  in  France,  abbats  formed  a  regular  portion 
of  the  councils,  signing  in  the  former  countrv  at 
first  after,  and  at  a  later  time  before,  the  priests. 
They  sign,  also,  in  France.  In  England  they 
occur  repeatedly,  and  sometimes  abbesses  also 
(although  Hilda  at  Whitby  is  a  merely  excep¬ 
tional  case,  proving  nothing),  but  it  is  either  in 
diocesan  or  in  mixed  synods  [Abdat,  Abbess], 
until  A.D.  787,  at  the  legatine  councils  of  Cal¬ 
chyth  and  in  Northumbria,  which  are  signed  by 
abbats  and  lay  nobles  as  well  as  bishops.  So 
also  at  Clovesho  A.n.  803,  bishops,  abbats,  pre.s- 
byters,  deacons,  sign  in  that  order,  but  by  dio¬ 
ceses  (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  iii.  546,  547).  a.d. 
1075,  Lanfranc  (called  by  a  blunder  Dunstan  in 
Hefele,  i.  23,  Eng.  tr.)  puts  them  on  an  equality 
with  bishops  in  the  privilege  of  addressing  synods; 
as  was  done  also  at  the  same  time  and  place  with 
the  archdeacons.  In  later  times  they  sat  and 
voted,  just  as  the  bishops  did,  and  are  ruled  to 
have  this  right  by  e.g.  the  councils  of  Basle  and 
Trent. 

II.  The  constituent  members  of  a  diocesan 
council,  were  the  Bishop  and  Presbyters,  the 
latter  being  bound  by  canon  to  attend  such 
councils,  just  as  the  bishops  were  bound  to 
attend  the  Provincial  Svnod ;  but  deacons  and 
laity  originally  had  the  right  to  be  present  and 
to  be  consulted,  all  hough  their  actual  right  to  a 
formal  and  individual  vote  is  questionable  at  all 
times,  and,  if  it  ever  existed,  was  certainly  lost 
very  early.  In  later  centuries,  in  Europe, 
abbats  also  were  summoned  with  the  presbyters. 
The  assembly  of  the  presbyters  was  indeed 
the  bishop’s  standing  council  [Bishop,  Priest] 
from  the  beginning:  see  e.g.  Pius  I.  Epist.  H.  ; 
Constit.  Apostol.  II.  28;  S.  Ignatius  passim;  S. 
Cyprian  repeatedly  (“  Placuit  contrahi  presby- 
terium,  ut  .  .  .  consensu  omnium  statueretur,” 
Epist.  46  al.  49  :  “  Cum  statuerem  .  .  nihil 
sine  consilio  vestro  [viz.  of  the  clergy],  et  sine 
consensu  plebis,  mea  privata  sententia  gerere,” 
Epist.  6,  al.  14,  &c.,  &c.) ;  and  so  at  Ephesus,  at 
Alexandria  in  the  condemnation  of  Origen  and  of 
Aldus,  at  Rome  in  that  of  Novatian  (Bingh.  II. 
xix.  8) ;  and  Pope  Siricius  in  condemning  Jovinian 
(Id.  ib.  11):  and  for  later  times.  Cone.  Oscens. 
A.D.  598,  can.  1 ;  Liptin.  a.d.  743  (Labb.  vi, 
1544),  Suess.  A.D.  744,  can.  4;  Vsrn.  A.D.  755, 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


483 


can.  8;  Arclat.  vi.  A.D.  813,  can.  4;  Capit. 
'Theodulfth.  c.  4 ;  Laws  of  Korthurnbrian  P^'iests^ 
44 ;  Eadgar's  Canons,  3-6.  Abbats  were  also 
summoned,  and  a  journey  to  the  synod  was  an 
allowable  canon  of  absence  from  their  monas¬ 
teries  [Ai3BAt].  Theodore  enacts  that  no 
bishop  shall  compel  them  to  come  (^Penitent.  II. 
ii.  3).  In  the  Llandaff  synods  (Ze6.  Landav.,  and 
extracts  in  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  vol.  i.),  the 
bishop,  the  three  great  abbats  of  the  diocese,  and 
the  presbyters  (in  one  case,  electi  ”),  the  deacons, 
and  all  the  c/enca,  form  the  synod.  But  Spanish 
and  Frank  councils,  above  quoted,  require  the  at¬ 
tendance  of  abbats.  Laity  and  deacons  were  ob¬ 
viously  present  and  were  consulted  as  a  body  both 
in  St.  Cyprian’s  time  and  later.  Bishop  Sage,  who 
argues  most  strongly  for  the  negative,  is  plainly 
arguing  against  facts.  But  there  is  always  a 
distinction  drawn,  even  by  St.  Cyprian,  between 
the  consilium  of  the  clergy  and  the  consensus  of 
the  (see  Moberly’s  Bampton  Lectures,  pp. 

119,  305).  The  gradual  changes,  no  doubt, 
which  are  found  in  respect  to  the  people’s 
interest  in  the  election  of  Bishops  [Bishops], 
affected  also  their  position  in  councils  called 
for  other  than  elective  purposes. 

III.  Of  Oecumenical  Councils,  as  of  proAuncial 
ones,  bishops  were  clearly  the  proper  and  es.sen- 
tial  members ;  yet  here  too  presbyters  and  even 
deacons  were  sometimes  present.  At  Nice,  in 
A.D.  325,  presbyters  and  deacons  were  present, 
and  in  great  numbers ;  and  one  deacon  cer¬ 
tainly,  St.  Athanasius,  spoke :  but  there  is  no 
trace  or  probability  of  their  having  voted.  At 
Constantinople,  A.D.  381,  three  presbyters  occur 
among  the  signatures,  signing  to  all  appearance 
in  their  own  names,  and  intermixed  with  the 
bishops  of  the  province  from  xv'hich  they  came. 
But  there  are  many  other  signatures  in  the  list 
of  presbyters  signing  as  representatives  of  bi¬ 
shops.  And  since  the  list  as  it  stands  is  the  work 
of  a  copyist,  it  is  quite  as  likely  as  not  that  these 
three  also  represented  bishops,  but  that  the  few 
words  at  the  end  of  each  name  indicating  the 
fact  have  been  accidentally  omitted.  At  Con¬ 
stantinople,  in  A.D.  448,  presbyter-archimandrites 
sign  exactly'  as  if  they  had  also  voted ;  and  this 
council,  although  itself  not  oecumenical,  is 
embodied  in  that  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451.  At 
Chalcedon  itself  one  presbyter  is  noted  to  have 
spoken;  and  at  the  2nd  of  Nice,  a.d.  787,  one 
presbyter  signs,  apparently  in  his  own  name 
(Bingh.  II.  xix.  13,  from  Habert).  But  ex¬ 
ceptions  of  this  kind  seem  rather  to  prove  the 
rule,  viz.  that  bishops,  and  bishops  only,  each 
as  representing  his  own  church,  wei'e  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  Oecumenical  Councils. 

C.  The  AUTHORITY  assigned  to  Oecumenical 
Councils  was  hardly  made  the  subject  of  formal 
and  sy'stematic  treatment,  until  the  end  of  the 
great  period  of  councils,  viz.  of  the  4th  century. 
It  was  then  limited  in  three  ways.  i.  Their  de¬ 
crees  were  not  unalterable,  in  matters  of  discipline, 
by  a  further  council ;  and  required  external  obe¬ 
dience  but  nothing  more,  as  being  those  of  the 
highest  church  tribunal,  ii.  Their  office,  doctri- 
nally,  was  not  to  enlarge  the  faith,  but  simply 
to  testify  in  express  and  distinct  terms  to  that 
which  had  been  held  implicitly  before.  “Quid 
unquam  aliud  conciliorum  decretis  enisa  est 
[£cclesia],  nisi  ut  quod  antea  simpliciter  crede- 
batur,  hoc  idem  postea  diligen  ius  crcderctur;” 


and  again,  “  nisi  ut  quod  prius  a  majoribus  sola 
traditione  susceperat,  hoc  deinde  posteris  etiam 
per  scripturae  chirographum  consignaret  .  .  .  . 
non  novum  fidei  sensum  novae  appellationis  pi-o- 
prietate  signando  ”  (Vincent.  Lirin.  Commonit.  c. 
xxiii.);  and  this,  so  as  to  be  a  “sedula  et  cauta 
depositorum  apud  se  dogmatum  custos,”  without 
any  the  least  change  in  them,  of  any  kind  what¬ 
soever,  whether  of  diminution  or  addition  (Id. 
iV).  iii.  They  were  not  held  to  be  formally  in¬ 
fallible,  but  to  possess  an  authority  proportioned 
to  their  universality,  to  be  -capable  of  being 
amended  by  subsequent  councils  upon  better  in¬ 
formation,  and  to  be  subordinate  to  Scripture. 
Of  that  which  is  certainly  written  in  the  Bible, 
says  St.  Augustin,  speaking  of  a  doctrinal  ques¬ 
tion,  “  omniuo  dubitari  et  disceptari  non  possit 
utrum  verum  vel  utrum  rectum  sit,”  but  coun¬ 
cils  may  set  aside  Episcopal  dicta  [St.  Cyprian  is 
the  bishop  specially  intended],  and  national  or 
provincial  councils  must  “  plenariorum  concilio¬ 
rum  auctoritati,  quae  hunt  ex  universe  orbe 
Christiano,  sine  ullis  ambagibus  cedere :  ip.saque 
plenaria  saepc  priora  posterioribus  emendari, 
cum  aliquo  experimento  rerum  aperitur  quod 
clausum  erat,  et  cognoscitur  quod  latebat  ” 
(St.  Aug.  De  Bapt.  c.  Donat.  IT.  3,  §  4).  And 
again,  in  Epist.  54,  the  same  St.  Augustin,  set¬ 
ting  canonical  Scripture  first,  places  next  in 
order  universal  customs,  “  non  scripta  sed  tra- 
dita,”  which  must  be  assumed  to  have  been 
enacted  “vel  ab  ipsis  Apostolis,  vel  plenariis  con- 
ciliis,  quorum  est  in  Ecclesia  saluberrima  aucto- 
ritas,”  instancing  the  observance  of  Good  Friday, 
Easter  Day,  Ascension  Day,  Pentecost ;  and  then, 
below  these,  mere  national  and  local  customs. 
Again,  in  arguing  against  Maximin  the  Arian, 
St.  Augustin  confines  the  decision  to  Scripture 
testimonies,  bidding  his  opponent  waive  the 
Council  of  Ariminum,  as  he  himself  waives  the 
“  prejudication  ”  of  that  of  Nice.  So  again,  St. 
Gregory  the  Great,  saying  repeatedly  that  he 
“  quatuor  Concilia  suscipere  et  venerari  sicut 
sancti  Evangelii  quatuor  libros,”  and  that 
“quintum  quoque  Concilium  ”  (the  last  held  up 
to  his  time)  “  pariter  veneror  ”  {Epist.  i.  25  ; 
and  see  also,  iii.  10,  iv.  38,  v.  51,  54),  proceeds 
to  allege  as  his  ground  for  doing  so,  that  the}' 
were  “  univefsali  constituta  consensu.”  St. 
Augustin  indeed  seems  to  consider  the  decision  of 
a  “  plenary  council  ”  to  be  final,  in  a  matter  of 
discipline,  because  it  is  the  highest  attainable — 
“ultimum  judicium  Ecclesiae  ”  {Epist.  43,  Ad 
Glor.  et  Eleus.) ;  and  refers  the  Donatists  to  such 
a  council,  as  the  remedy  which  “  adhuc  resta- 
bat,”  to  revise,  and  if  needful  reverse,  the  sen¬ 
tence  already  delivered  by  the  bishops  at  Rome 
under  the  pope.  The  well-known  passage  in 
St.  Greg.  Naz.  {Epist.  ad  Procop.  Iv.),  denouncing 
synods  of  bishops  as  doing  more  harm  than  good, 
through  ambition  and  lust  of  contention,  is 
simply  an  argument  from  the  abuse  of  a  thing 
against  its  use;  yet  proves  certainly,  that  a  council 
per  se  and  a  priori  was  not  held  to  be  infallible. 
On  the  other  hand,  besides  the  general  phrase 
commonly  prefixed  to  councils,  “  Saiu  to  Spiritu 
suggerente,”  and  the  like,  we  find  Socrates  (i  9) 
declaring  that  the  Nicene  fathers  ovhapws  olctto- 
Xno^o.1  TTjs  a\rj6('ias  iSvvauTo,  because  they  were 
enlightened  vnh  too  0€oo  koI  Trjs  too 

^Aylov  HufV/jLaTos  ;  and  St.  Cyril  {Dc  Trin.  I.) 
calling  their  decrees  a  Divine  oracle  (and  so 

2  1. 


484 


COUNCIL 


COUNCIL 


others,  as  e.(j.  Isid.  Pelus.  iV.  90,  Be6Q(V  t/jLiruev 
(rfleriTa);  and  St.  Ambrose,  declaring  that  “  neither 
death  nor  the  sword  could  sej)arate  him  from 
the  Nicene  Council”  {Epist.  xxi.) ;  and  Leo  the 
Great  declaring  repeatedly,  that  the  faith  of 
Nice  and  Chalcedon  is  a  first  principle,  from 
which  neither  himself  nor  any  one  else  may 
swerve  {Epist.  cv.  cxiv.  &c.  A.i).  452,  453). 
While  .Justinian,  who  ordered  all  bishops  to 
subscribe  to  the  faith  of  the  first  four  councils, 
lays  down  in  his  Novels  (cxxxi.),  that  rciov 
Trpoeipr}p.4v(t>v  ayicou  o'vi/ddcoi'  (viz.  the  four)  to 
Soy  para  KaOdirep'  ras  0€ias  Vpacpds 
Kai  Tovs  Kuvovas  d-s  pSpLOvs  <pv\dTTOfx€i'.  The 
Council  of  Chalcedon  again  speaks  of  the  Nicene 
decrees  as  unalterable.  And  Leo  the  Great 
speaks  of  the  faith  of  Chalcedon  itself  as  an 
“  irretractabilis  consensus.”  And  St.  Ambrose, 
of  the  decrees  of  general  councils  as  “hereditary 
seals  which  no  rashness  may  break  ”  (Ee  Fide 

III.  15).  In  short,  while  no  one  asseids  that 
such  councils  were  formally  incapable  of  erring, 
the  entire  current  of  church  teaching  assumed 
that  they  had  not  erred  ;  and  that  it  would  be  the 
height  of  presumption  and  of  folly  in  any  part 
of  the  church  or  any  individual  Christian  to 
contravene  them ;  while  both  Vincent  of  Lerins, 
and  possibly  Augustin,  would  allow  to  a  succeed¬ 
ing  council  power  only  to  build  doctrinally  upon 
the  foundation  already  laid  by  its  accepted  pre¬ 
decessors.  The  Provincial  Councils  “  began,”  by 
ventilating  the  question ;  the  General  Council 
“  terminated  ”  the  discussion,  by  sealing  as  it  were 
and  formally  expressing  the  decision  which  had 
ripened  to  its  proper  and  natural  close  ;  and  this, 
on  the  assumption  that  such  decision  was  ac¬ 
cepted  “  universali  Ecclesiae  consensione  ”  (“  In 
Catholico  regional!  concilio  coepta,  plenario  ter- 
miuata,”  and  so  “  universali  Ecclesiae  consen¬ 
sione  I’oborata,”  St.  Aug,  De  Bapt.  c.  Donat,  vii. 
53).  And  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins,  in  requiring  to 
anything  “vere  proprieque  Catholicum,”  that 
“ubique,  semper,  ab  omnibus,  creditum  est  ” 
(^Commonit.  c.  2),  obviously  rests  the  certainty  of 
conciliar  decisions  upon  the  acceptance,  implicitly 
or  explicitly,  of  the  whole  church  of  all  times 
(see  Hammond  on  Heresp,  sect,  vi,  §  9,  sq.);  but 
refuses  to  allow  that  any  question  so  decided 
can  be  re-opened. 

The  relative  authority  of  the  pope  and  of  a 
general  council,  did  not  emerge  into  a  formal 
question  until  long  after  our  period ;  although 
St.  Augustin’s  language  about  Pope  Melchiades, 
and  about  the  dicta  of  St.  Cyprian,  sutficiently 
shows  what  at  any  rate  his  decision  would  have 
been,  had  it  been  possible  that  the  question  could 
have  been  raised  at  that  time. 

Whether  Provincial  Councils  could  entertain 
questions  of  doctrine,  is  also  a  question  not  for¬ 
mally  put  until  very  late  times  indeed.  That  they 
did  so  in  point  of  fact  in  earlier  times,  may  be  seen 
in  a  list  of  instances  in  Palmer,  On  the  Church, 

IV.  xiii.  1  §  2.  And  upon  St.  Aifgustiu’s  view 
above  quoted,  it  was  their  proper  office  to  venti¬ 
late  such  questions,  and  as  it  were  ripen  them 
for  the  final  determination  of  the  Oecumenical 
Council.  Their  authority,  of  course,  like  that 
of  diocesan  synods,  was  in  proportion  to  their 
numbers  and  character,  and  to  their  subsequent 
acceptance  by  the  Church  at  large. 

The  Church,  speaking  generally,  has  accepted 
absolutely  the  first  six  Oecumenical  Councils, — of 


Nice,  A.D.  321;  Constantinople.  A, D.  381 ;  E}«hesus, 
A.D.  431  ;  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451;  Constantinople, 
A.D.  553  ;  Constantinople  again,  A.D.  G80.  Where 
the  first  four  are  spoken  of  especially,  it  is,  com¬ 
monly,  either  in  order  to  parallel  them  with  the 
four  Gospels  (as  e.(].  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  who 
adds  that  he  equally  venerates  the  5th,  the  last 
then  held),  or  because  the  Fathers  or  others  who 
speak  of  them  lived  before  the  5th  was  held 
(e.fj.  Theodosius  Coenobiarcha,  in  Baron,  in  an. 
511,  no.  33,  from  St.  Cyril  and  Suidas, — “Si 
quis  quatuor  sanctas'synodos  non  tanti  es.se  exis- 
timat  quanti  quatuor  evaugelia,  sit  anathema  ”), 
or,  lastly,  because  the  5th  and  Gthare  taken  to  be 
as  it  wei’e  supplementary  to  the  3rd  and  4th. 
So  Co'nc.  Lateran.  a.d.  G49,  cans.  18,  19,  accepts 
the  five  councils  already  then  held,  as  being  all 
there  were.  The  Greek  and  Roman  Churches 
accept  a  7th,  viz.  the  Council  of  Nice  in  faA'our 
of  images,  a.d.  787  (rejected  by  the  Western 
Council  at  Frankfort,  a.d.  794,  and  by  the 
English  Church  of  the  same  date ; — see  Haddan 
and  Stubbs,  III.  468,  481) ;  the  Greek  Church, 
however,  fluctuating  considerably  in  the  point, 
accepting  it  A.D.  842,  when  the  KvptaKrj 
T^s  'OpdoSo^'ias  was  appointed  to  celebrate 
the  seven  Oecumenical  Councils,  yet  still  hesi¬ 
tating  in  A.D.  863,  but  finally  recognizing  it  in 
A.D.  879  (see  Palmer,  On  the  Church,  P.  IV.  c. 
X.  §  4).  Pope  Adrian  accepted  it.  The  previous 
Iconoclast  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  754, 
is  called  the  8th  Oecumenical  by  Cave,  who 
counts  the  Trullan  or  Quinisext  Council  of  A.D. 
692  as  the  7th.  An  8th  Oecumenical,  viz.  of 
A.D.  869,  at  Constantinople,  whicR  deposed  Pho- 
tius,  is  accepted  as  the  next  by  Roman  Theolo¬ 
gians.  That  of  A.D.  879,  which  restored  him, 
is  called  the  8th  bv  most  of  those  of  the  East 
(Cave).  The  subsequent  Western  (so  called) 
Oecumenical  Councils  do  not  fall  within  the 
scope  of  the  present  work.  It  is  to  be  observed, 
however,  that  even  in  the  9th  century,  popes 
still  spoke  of  the  six  General  Councils,  as  e.g. 
Nicholas  L,  a.d.  859,  an-d  a.d.  863  or  866  ; 
Adrian  L,  A.D.  871  (see  Palmer  as  above).  The 
English  Church  accepted  the  first  five,  and  also  the 
canons  of  the  Lateran  Council  of  A.D.  649,  re¬ 
specting  the  Monothelites,  which  likewise  accepted 
the  five ;  and  declared  her  own  orthodoxv  about 
Monothelitism  with  a  view  to  the  6th  Genei’al 
Council  of  A.D.  680,  then  impending,  at  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Hatfield,  a.d.  680  (Haddan  and  Stubbs  HI. 
141,  sq.).  And  Wilfrid  had  similarly  professed 
orthodoxy  in  reference  to  Monothelite  views  at 
Rome  itself  in  the  same  3'ear,  on  behalf  of  Eng¬ 
lish,  Scots,  and  Piets  (ib.  140).  The  legatine 
Councils  of  Calchyth  and  in  Northumbria,  a.d. 
787,  accepted  the  six  General  Councils  (can.  i. 
ih.  448).  The  canons  of  Aelfric,  A.D.  957,  ac¬ 
cept  the  first  four,  as  “  the  four  books  of  Christ,” 
and  as  having  extinguished  heresy,  but  add  that 
“many  synods  had  been  held  since,  but  these 
were  the  chief”  (can.  33,  Wilk.  I,  254).  The 
seventh  General  Council  so  called,  of  a.d.  787, 
was,  as  above  said,  not  accepted  by  the  English 
Church. 

As  a  judicial  bod\',  the  Provincial  Council  was 
at  first  the  ultimate  tribunal.  An  appeal  from 
it  to  a  larger  council  gradually  became  recog¬ 
nized  ;  as  at  Cone.  A7itioch.  a.d.  341.  The  appeal 
to  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  or  to  the 
Patriarch  of  Rome,  was  of  later  date  still 


COUNCIL 


COUSINS-GERMAN 


485 


[Appeal].  Cone.  Arvern.  I.  a.d.  535,  can.  1, 
enacts,  that  in  such  councils  no  bishop  shall  pre¬ 
sume  to  introduce  any  business,  until  all  causes 
are  determined  which  peidain  “ad  emendationem 
vitae,  ad  severitatem  regulae,  ad  animae  remedia.” 

For  the  office  of  diocesan  and  provincial  synods 
in  the  election  of  bishops,  see  Bishops. 

D.  Of  IRREGULAR  councils,  a  few  words  must 
be  said.  And  first  of — 

I.  The  (TvyoSoi  ev^rjfxovcrai,  as  e.g.  that  of 
Constantinople  A.D.  536  under  Mennas,  which  is 
expressly  so  called,  and  at  which  also  a  letter  was 
read  from  a  similar  meeting — -rrap^  toSu  cVStj- 
jxovvTonv  'Y.Tri(TK6TTO}v — SC.  fi'om  the  bishops  ot 
the  Patriarchates  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem,  who 
ha])y)ened  at  the  time  to  be  at  Constantinople. 
Justinian,  although  passing  a  law  against 
bishops  coming  to  Constantinople  without  the 
emperor’s  command  or  leave  (De  Episc.  el  Cleric, 
lib.  i.  leg.  42),  yet  frequently  consulted  and  em¬ 
ployed  such  synods.  Bishops  only,  however, 
constituted  them,  and  the  Constantinopolitan 
])atriarchs  summoned  them.  II.  The  Frank 
Concilia  Palatina,  on  the  contrary,  consisted  of 
both  bishops  and  nobles,  under  the  presidency 
of  king  or  emperor ;  as  did  also  the  Witenage- 
mots  on  the  English  side  of  the  channel.  Yet 
the  “  synod  ”  of  bishops  is  distinguished,  as  a  se¬ 
parate  assembly  for  purely  ecclesiastical  matters, 
from  the  “  placitum  ”  or  “  conventus,”  as  e.g. 
at  Cone.  Liptin.  a.d.  743,  the  latter  of  the  two 
consisting  of  bishops,  nobles,  presbyters,  and  ab- 
bats.  So  also  in  Spain :  where  e.g.  Cone.  Tolet.  iv. 
A.D.  633  can.  75,  which  was  a  national  Spanish 
Council,  especially  characterizes  its  decree,  even 
about  the  succession  to  the  throne,  as  “  ponti- 
ficale  decrecum.”  In  England,  while  bishops 
and  nobles  constituted  the  Witenagemot,  Pro¬ 
vincial  Councils,  as  at  Hertford  and  Hatfield, 
consisted  of  the  clergy  only.  The  king  came  in 
time  to  be  usually  present ;  and  larger  excep¬ 
tions  occur  in  later  times,^as  e.g.  at  the  Council 
of  Calchyth,  a.d.  787,  at  which  lay  nobles  were 
present  as  well  as  the  king.  In  Carlovingian 
France,  the  rule  is  laid  down  in  terms  in  Abbot 
Adelhard’s  Ordo  Palatii  (ap.  Hincmar.  0pp.  ii. 
214)  : — “  Utraque  autem  seniorum  susceptacula 
[reception  rooms  for  the  various  divisions  of  the 
Palatine  Councils]  sic  in  duobus  divisa  erant,  ut 
primo  omnes  Episcopi,  Abbates,  vel  hujusmodi 
honorificentiores  clerici,  absque  ulla  laicorum 
commixtione  congregarentur :  similiter  comites 
vel  hujusmodi  principes  sibimet  honorificabiliter  a 
cetera  multitudine  primo  mane  segregarentur, 
quousque  tempus  sive  praesente  sive  absente 
Kege  occurrei-ent :  et  tunc  praedicti  seniores 
more  solito,  Clerici  ad  suam,  Laici  vero  ad  suam 
constitutam  curiam,  subselliis  similiter  honorifi¬ 
cabiliter  praeparatis,  convocarentur :  qui  cum 
separati  a  ceteris  essent,  in  eorum  manebat  potes- 
tate,  quando  simul  vel  quando  separati  residerent, 
prout  eos  tractandae  causae  qualitas  docebat, 
sive  de  spiritalibus  sive  de  saecularibus  seu 
etiam  commixtis:  similiter  si  propter  quamlibet 
vescendi  vel  investigandi  causam  quemcuuque 
convocare  voluissent,  et  re  comperta  discederet, 
in  eoi'um  voluntate  manebat.  Haec  interim  de 
his  que  eis  a  Rege  ad  tractandunxproponebantui'.” 
III.  There  occur,  besides  these,  a  few  exceptional 
cases,  as  e.^.  the  Conference  at  Whitby,  a.d.  664, 
which  can  hardly  be  called  a  council  in  the  propel 
sense.  But  these  need  not  be  here  dwelt  upon. 


[Thomassin ;  Van  Espen ;  Richei'ius,  Ifxt. 
Cone.  General.  ;  the  older  collections,  as  Crabbe’.s  ; 
Labbe'  and  Cossart,  Harduiu,  Mansi;  and  in 
each  country,  special  writers  upon  their  own  na¬ 
tional  councils,  as  for  England,  Spelman,  Wilkins, 
Landon,  Haddan  and  Stubbs ;  for  Spain,  Loaisa, 
Catalani ;  for  France,  Sirmond  ;  for  Germany, 
Harzheim ;  Salmon,  Etudes  sur  les  ConcHes ; 
Hefele,  Concilien-Geschichte ;  Pusey,  On  the 
Councils ;  Cave,  Hist.  Litt. ;  Bingham ;  Mar- 
tigny.]  •  A.  W.  H. 

COURIER.  [Cursor.] 

COUSINS,  MARRIAGE  OF.  [Cousins- 
German  :  Marriage.] 

CO U SINS- G ERM A N.  No  prohibition 
against  the  intermarriage  of  cousins-gerrnan  is 
contained  or  implied  in  Leviticus  xviii.  or  Deu¬ 
teronomy  xxvii.,  nor  can  any  such  be  inferred 
from  any  other  passage  of  the  Old  Testament ;  a 
direct  sanction  is,  on  the  contrary,  given  to  the 
practice  in  the  instance  of  the  five  daughters  of 
Zelophehad,  who  “  were  married  to  their  father’s 
brother’s  sons”  (Numb,  xxxvi.  11).  Nor  does 
any  such  prohibition  occur  in  the  monuments  of 
early  Christianity.  If  we  take  the  so-called 
Apostolical  canons  to  represent  the  customs  of 
the  Church  prior  to  the  Nicene  Council,  325, 
neither  in  the  text,  nor  in  the  ancient  version  of 
Dionysius  Exiguus,  as  given  in  Cotelerius’ 
“  Patres  Apostolici,”  is  such  a  connection  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  canon  (c.  15,  otherwise  10),  which 
forbids  clerical  orders  to  one  who  has  married 
two  sisters,  or  a  niece  (dSeA^iSTji',  rendered  in 
the  Latin  jiliarn  frafris).  But  it  must  be  ob¬ 
served  that  in  the  version  by  Haloander,  which 
is  usually  included  in  the  Corpus  Juris,  the  same 
canon  (numbered  18)  contains  instead  the  larger 
term  consobrinam,  usually  rendered  “  cousin  ” — a 
palpable  tampering  with  the  text  to  meet  later 
ecclesiastical  usage.  At  any  rate  Martene 
(^He  ant.  Eccles.  Pit.  bk.  i.  c.  ix.)  admits  that, 
till  the  end  of  the  4th  century,  marriages  be¬ 
tween  cousins-gerrnan  were  allowed  by  the 
Church.  It  is  therefore  to  be  inferred  that  the 
disfavour  with  which  the  Church,  especially  the 
Western  one,  came  to  look  upon  cousins’  marri¬ 
ages  was  rather  borrowed  from  Roman  feeling 
than  from  Jewish.  It  is  certain  that  marriage 
between  cousins-gerrnan  was  not  practised  in 
early  times  by  the  Romans,  although,  indeed,  it 
had  become  prevalent  in  the  1st  century  of  the 
empire,  since  we  find  Vitellius  adducing  the 
fact  of  the  change  in  public  opinion  in  this 
respect  in  order  to  justify  the  proposed  mar¬ 
riage  between  the  emperor  Claudius  and  his 
niece,  the  younger  Agrippina  (Tac.  A?m.  bk.  xii. 
c.  6).  The  juriits  of  the  Digest  do  not,  however, 
look  upon  first  cousins’ marriages  with  disfavour, 
as  appears  by  Paulus  quoting,  with  approval,  an 
opinion  of  Poinponius,  that  if  a  man  have  a 
grandson  by  one  son  and  a  granddaughter  by 
another,  they  may  intermarry  by  his  sole  autho¬ 
rity  (Dig.  xxiii.  §  ii.  1.  3).  In  the  latter  part  of 
the  4th  century,  indeed,  Theodosius,  by  a  law  of 
which  the  text  is  lost,  forbad  these  unions,  except 
under  special  permission;  and  a  letter  of  Am¬ 
brose  (who  indeed  is  suspected  to  have  advised 
the  prohibition)  to  Paternus,  refers  both  to  the 
law  and  to  its  relaxations  in  special  ca.ses  (Ep.  66). 
Augustine  also,  in  hi.s  City  of  God  (bk.  15,  c.  16) 


486 


COUSINS-GERMAN 


COUSINS-GERMAN 


pays  that  such  marriages,  though  not  prohibited 
by  the  Divine  law,  were  rare  by  custom,  even 
when  not  yet  prohibited  by  the  human  law ; 
“  but  who  can  doubt  that  in  our  time  the  mar¬ 
riages  even  of  cousins  were  more  fitly  (honestius) 
})X-ohibited  ?  ”  And  the  law  is  likewise  alluded 
to  by  Libanius,  in  his  oration  on  Purveyances 
(Trepl  Twy  ayyapeiwy).  A  constitution  of  Arca- 
dius  and  Houorius,  A.D.  396  (Cod.  Theod.  bk.  iii. 
t.  xii.  1.  3),  confirms  the  law,  assimilating  the 
marriage  with  a  cousin  to  that  with  a  niece,  and 
declaring  that,  though  the  man  may  retain  his 
fortune  during  his  life,  he  is  not  to  be  considered 
to  have  either  wife  or  children,  and  can  neither 
give  nor  leave  anything  to  them  even  through  a 
third  person.  If  there  be  a  cfos,  it  must  go  to 
the  imperial  exchequer ;  it  cannot  be  bequeathed 
to  strangei’s,  but  must  go  to  the  next  of  kin, 
except  such  as  may  have  taken  part  in  or 
advised  the  marriage.  Another  law,  of  the  same 
emperor,  indeed  (ih.  t.  x.),  maintains  the  right 
of  praying  for  a  dispensation  (this  is  a  text 
Bingham  has  strangely  misunderstood),  and  a 
third  one  (a.d.  405),  which  took  its  place  per¬ 
manently  in  Justinian’s  Code,  swept  the  prohi¬ 
bition  away.  Professing  to  “  revoke  the  autho¬ 
rity  of  the  old  law,”  it  declares  the  marriage  of 
cousins-german,  whether  born  of  two  brothers 
or  two  sisters,  or  of  a  brother  and  sister,  to  be 
lawful,  and  their  issue  to  be  capable  of  inherit¬ 
ing  (Code,  bk.  v.  t.  iv.  1.  19). 

Narrower  views,  however,  prevailed  in  the 
West,  and  in  Italy  particularly,  to  that  extent 
that  we  might  almost  suppose  the  Theodosian 
legislation  to  have  remained  unrevoked.  In  the 
Formularium  of  Cassiodore,  under  the  Ostro- 
gothic  King  Theodoric  (end  of  5th  century),  we 
find  a  text  implying  its  subsistence,  since  it  is 
that  of  a  state  privilege  legalizing  such  unions — 
the  46  th  Formula  of  the  2nd  part  being  one  “by 
which  a  cousin  may  become  a  lawful  wife.”  And 
the  “  Lex  Komana,”  supposed  to  I’epresent  the 
laws  of  the  Roman  population  under  the  Lom¬ 
bard  rule,  expressly  reckons  marriage  with  a 
cousin  as  incestuous  (bk.  iii.  t.  12).  Finally,  a 
capitulary  of  Arubis,  Prince  of  Benevento,  who 
usurped  the  fief  after  the  death  of  Desiderius,  the 
last  Lombard  king  (a.d.  374),  seems  to  prohibit 
— as  in  the  earliest  constitution  of  Arcadius  and 
Honorius  on  the  subject — all  donations  by  a 
father  to  his  children  by  such  a  marriage  (c.  8). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Lombard  laws  themselves 
exhibit  no  restraint  on  cousins’  marriages ;  and 
it  appears  clear  that,  whether  the  Theodosian 
legislation  in  the  matter  were  inspired  or  not  by 
the  clergy,  it  was  by  the  clergy  that  its  spirit 
was  preserved. 

We  need  not  indeed  rely  as  an  authority  on  an 
alleged  decree  on  consanguinity  by  Pope  Fabian 
(238-52),  to  be  found  in  Gratian,  allowing  mar¬ 
riages  within  the  5th  degree,  and  leaving  those 
in  the  4th  undisturbed ;  nor  on  one  of  Pope 
Julius  I.  (a.d.  336-52),  in  the  same  collection, 
forbidding  marriages  within  the  7th  degree  of 
consanguinity ;  nor  on  an  alleged  canon  to  the 
same  effect  of  the  1st  Council  of  Lyons,  a.d.  517, 
to  be  found  in  Bouchard  (c.  10).  But  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Agde,  in  506,  declared  incestuous  the  mar¬ 
riage  with  an  uncle’s  daughter  or  any  other 
kinswoman,  the  parties  to  remain  among  the 
catechumens  till  they  had  made  amends,  al¬ 
though  existing  marriages  were  not  to  be  dis¬ 


solved  (c.  61) ;  an  injunction  repeated  by  the 
Council  of  Epaone,  517  (c.  30),  and  substantially 
by  the  3rd  Council  of  Orleams,  §  38,  and  by  the 
Council  of  Auxerre,  578,  which  forbad  even  the 
marriage  of  second  cousins  (c.  31);  see  also  the 
3rd  Council  of  Paris,  about  557,  c.  4,  and  the 
2nd  Council  of  Tours,  567,  c.  51.  We  need, 
again,  lay  no  stress  on  an  alleged  canon  without 
a  distinctive  number,  quoted  by  Ivo  as  from  the 
canons  of  the  Council  of  Orleans,  511,  imposing 
for  penance,  in  respect  of  such  marriages,  a 
twelvemonth’s  exclusion  from  church  (during 
which  the  parties  are  to  feed  only  on  bread, 
water,  and  salt,  except  on  Sundays  and  holidays), 
abstinence  during  life,  and  a  prohibition  to  marry 
— a  regulation  sav'ouring  altogether  of  the  later 
Carlovingian  period. 

Pope  Gregory  the  Great  (590-603),  whilst 
recognizing  that  the  law  of  the  Church  was 
upon  this  point  in  opposition  with  the  civil  law, 
sought  to  base  the  prohibition,  in  part  at  least, 
on  a  phy.siological  reason.  In  an  “  exposition  of 
diverse  thing.s,”  in  answer  to  Augustine  of  Can¬ 
terbury,  which  forms  the  31st  in  the  12th  book 
of  his  collected  letters — a  most  valuable  repertory 
of  facts  as  well  for  the  social  as  for  the  Church 
history  of  the  period — he  says  (c.  5)  that  “  some 
earthly  law  in  the  Roman  empire  ”  (he  is  {A’i- 
dently  alluding  to  the  Constitution  of  Arcadius 
and  Honorius,  before  referred  to)  allows  marriage 
between  the  son  and  daughter  of  a  brother  and 
sister  or  of  two  sisters  [or  brothers] ;  but  “  we 
have  learnt  by  experience  that  from  such  a 
mai’riage  no  issue  can  proceed ;  ”  besides  that, 
the  “holy  law”  forbids  the  uncovering  of  a 
kinswoman’s  nakednes.s.  (See  also  Bede,  Hist. 
Eccles.  i.  27.)  A  wide  experience  shows  how  rash 
is  the  former  assertion ;  whilst  it  is  clear  that  so 
far  from  the  “  holy  law  ”  of  the  Old  Testament 
forbidding  generally  intermarriage  amongst  kins¬ 
men,  the  whole  fabric  of  Jewish  society,  in  its 
separation  from  the  heathen,  in  its  distinction 
between  the  tribes  themselves,  is  based  upon  it. 
Cousins’  marriages  were,  however,  forbidden  some 
years  after  Gregory’s  death,  by  the  5th  Council 
of  Paris,  A.D.  615  (c.  14). 

In  the  latter  half  of  the  7th  century  we  find 
marriagre  with  an  uncle’s  daughter  condemned 
by  the  Eastern  Church  itself  at  the  Council  of 
Constantinople  in  Trullo,  691,  and  separation 
of  the  parties  ordered  (c.  54).  It  is  remarkable, 
however,  that  in  the  canons  of  a  council  held  in 
Britain  under  Theodore,  Archbishop  of  Canter¬ 
bury  (end  of  7th  century),  it  is  stated  that, 
“according:  to  the  Greeks,  it  is  lawful  to  marr7 
in  the  3rd  degree,  as  it  is  written  in  the  law — 
in  the  5th,  according  to  the  Romans — yet  they 
do  not  dissolve  the  marriage  when  it  has  taken 
place”  (c.  24,  and  see  also  139),  and  the  Roman 
rule  is  enacted  in  a  later  canon  (108),  which 
would  seem  to  cast  a  doubt  on  the  genuineness 
of  the  Trullan  canon,  about  the  middle  of  the 
8th  century.  The  Excerpta,  attributed  to  Egbei-t 
of  York,  make  it  the  rule  that  marriages  are 
permitted  in  the  5th  degree,  the  parties  not  to 
be  separated  in  the  4th,  but  to  be  separated 
in  the  3rd  (bk.  ii.  c.  28).  Substantially,  first 
cousins’  marriages  seem  for  some  considerable 
time,  when  once  solemnized,  to  have  been 
tolerated.  Thus  Gregory  II.  (714—30),  in  a  long 
letter  (Ep.  13)  to  Boniface,  replying  to  various 
questions,  whilst  stating  that  he  allows  marriages 


COVETOUSNESS 


COUSINS-GERMAN 

after  tlie  4th  degree  (c.  i.),  does  not  expressly 
condemn  those  in  the  4th.  This,  however,  is 
now  repeatedly  done  by  councils  and  by  popes ; 
in  the  1st  Council  of  Rome  against  unlawful 
marriages,  721  (c.  4)  ;  by  Gregory  III.  731-41, 
in  his  excerpts  from  the  fathers  and  the  canons 
fc.  11);  in  the  Synod  of  Metz,  753  (c.  1),  which, 
for  the  first  time  enacts  corporal  punishment — 
the  guilty  party,  if  without  money,  being  a 
slave  or  freed  man,  to  be  well  beaten,  and  if  an 
ecclesiastical  person  of  mean  condition,  to  be 
beaten  or  sent  to  jail :  in  the  6th  Council  of 
Arles,  813  (c.  11);  and  that  of  Mayence  in  the 
same  year  (c.  54). 

We  have  now  to  see  the  influence  of  the  cleri¬ 
cal  view  on  civil  legislation  in  respect  of  first 
cousins’  marriages  after  the  barbaric  invasions. 
With  the  exception  of  Italy,  the  peculiarities  of 
whose  legislation  on  this  head  have  been  pre¬ 
viously  noticed,  the  only  barbaric  code  in  which 
we  find  a  prohibition  before  the  Carlovingian  era 
is  the  Wisigothic  one,  strongly  clerical  in  spirit, 
as  must  always  be  recollected.  Here  a  law  of 
Recarede  forbids  generally  all  marriages  with  the 
kindred  of  a  father  or  mother,  grandfather  or 
grandmother,  to  the  sixth  generation,  unless  con¬ 
tracted  by  permission  of  the  prince  before  the 
passing  of  the  law,  the  parties  to  be  separated 
and  sent  to  monasteries  (bk.  iii.  t.  v.  c.  1).  In 
the  case  of  Jews  indeed  there  was  superadded  to 
separation  the  treble  punishment  of  decalvation 
(scalping),  100  lashes,  and  banishment  (bk.  xii. 
7,  iii.  c.  8).  With  these  exceptions,  all  other 
enactments  adverse  to  such  marriages  belong  to 
the  Carlovingian  rule  or  period.  A  capitulary  of 
king  Pepin  at  Vermerie,  A.D.  753,  only  absolutely 
requires  the  dissolution  of  marriage  in  the  3rd  de¬ 
gree,  allowing  those  in  the  4th,  once  contracted, 
to  stand  good  under  penance,  but  forbidding  them 
for  the  future  (c.  1).  The  capitulary  of  Com- 
pibgne  A.D.  757  (see  Pertz’s  text)  is  to  the  same 
effect  (cc.  1,  2).  On  the  other  hand,  the  law  of 
the  Allamans  (t.  39)  renewed  under  Duke  Laut- 
frid,  supposed  the  2nd  (died  751),  and  the  some¬ 
what  later  law  of  the  Bavarians  (t.  6) — both 
indeed  thought  to  have  been  touched  up  under 
Charlemagne — reckon  all  marriages  between  the 
sons  of  brothers  and  sisters  unlawful,  and  re¬ 
quire  them  to  be  dissolved ;  all  property  of  the 
guilty  parties  to  go  to  the  public  treasury,  and 
if  they  be  “  mean  persons  ”  (minores  personae) 
themselves  to  become  slaves  to  it.  The  Carlo¬ 
vingian  capitularies  proper,  almost  all  of  them 
confirmed  by  Church  synods,  are  scarcely  to  be 
distinguished  from  ecclesiastical  enactments.  The 
text  of  some  of  the  earlier  ones  must  have  been 
tampered  with,  since  even  King  Pepin’s  Compi- 
egne  capitulary  above  referred  to  is  brought  into 
accordance  with  the  far  stricter  rules  of  the 
Synod  of  Metz.  As  the  law  stands  in  the  general 
collection  of  the  capitularies,  if  a  man  marries 
his  cousin,  he  is  not  only  to  lose  all  settled 
moneys,  but  if  he  will  not  amend  his  ways  none 
is  to  receive  him  or  give  him  food ;  he  is  to 
compound  in  60  solidi,  or  be  sent  to  gaol  till  he 
pays.  If  he  be  slave  or  freedrnan,  he  is  to  be 
well  beaten,  and  his  master  to  compound  in  60 
solidi.  If  he  be  an  ecclesiastical  person,  he  is  to 
lose  any  dignity  he  has,  or  if  not  honourable, 
to  be  beaten  or  sent  to  gaol  (A.D.  756-7,  bk.  vii. 
oc.  9,  10).  A  capitulary  of  the  6th  book  (130) 
forbids  marriage  to  the  7  th  degree.  So  does  one 


487 

of  the  Additio  tertia.,  c.  123,  under  pain  of  the 
ban  (at  60  solidi)  and  penance  for  a  freeman  ;  but 
for  a  slave,  of  public  flagellation  and  decalvation, 
and  penance.  If  the  offenders  be  disobedient, 
they  are  to  be  kept  in  jail  “  in  much  wretched¬ 
ness  ”  (sub  magna  aerumna),  nor  touch  any  of 
their  fortune  till  they  do  penance;  and  whilst 
living  in  crime  (c.  124)  are  to  be  treated  as  gen¬ 
tiles,  catechumens  or  energumens.  Jews  mar- 
rying  within  the  prohibited  degrees  are  to  re¬ 
ceive  100  lashes  after  having  been  publicly  de- 
calvated,  to  be  exiled  and  do  penance,  with  for¬ 
feiture  of  their  property  either  to  their  children 
by  any  former  marriage,  not  being  Jews,  or  in 
default  of  such  to  the  prince  (^Additio  quarta^ 
c.  2),  a  provision  borrowed  mainly  from  one  of 
the  Wisigothic  codes  above  referred  to.  See  also 
cc.  74,  75  of  the  Fourth  Addition,  anathematizing 
the  man  who  marries  a  cousin,  and  repeating  the 
prohibition  against  marriages  within  the  7th 
generation.  The  various  enactments  requiring 
inquiry  to  be  made  as  to  consanguinity  before  mar¬ 
riage,  bear  also  on  this  subject;  as  for  instance 
the  Council  of  Frejus  in  791,  c.  6  ;  Charlemagne’s 
first  capitulary  of  802,  c.  35 ;  an  inquiry  which 
by  his  Edict  of  814  is  even  required  to  be  made 
after  marriage,  the  4th  degree  being  expressly 
specified  as  one  of  prohibited  consanguinity. 

On  the  whole,  the  course  of  Church  practice 
on  the  subject  appears  to  have  been  this ;  the 
traditional  Roman  prejudice  against  cousins’  mar¬ 
riages,  although  quite  uncountenanced  by  the 
Jewish  law  or  practice,  commended  itself  in¬ 
stinctively  to  the  ascetic  tendencies  of  the  West¬ 
ern  fathers,  and  through  them  took  root  among 
the  Western  clergy  generally,  embodying  itself 
indeed  temporarily,  towards  the  end  of  the  4th 
century,  in  a  general  civil  law  for  the  Roman 
empire.  But  whilst  this  law  was  abrogated  in 
the  beginning  of  the  5th  century,  and  in  the 
East  such  unions  remained  perfectly  lawful  both 
in  the  Church  and  in  the  State  throughout . 
nearly  the  whole  of  the  period  which  occupies  ' 
us,  never  being  condemned  by  any  Oecumenic 
Council  till  that  of  Constantinople  towards  the 
end  of  the  7th  century,  in  the  West  the  clergy  ad¬ 
hered  to  the  harsher  view  ;  Popes  and  local  synods 
sought  to  enforce  it ;  wherever  clerical  influence 
could  be  brought  to  bear  on  the  barbaric  legis¬ 
lators  it  became  apparent ;  till  at  last  under  the 
Carlovingian  princes  it  established  itself  as  a 
law  alike  of  the  State  and  of  the  Church.  But 
the  history  of  this  restraint  upon  marriage  is 
that  of  all  othei’s  not  derived  from  Scripture 
itself.  Originating  probably  all  of  them  in  a 
sincere  though  mistaken  asceticism,  they  were 
soon  discovered  to  supply  an  almost  inexhaustible 
mine  for  the  supply  of  the  Church’s  coffers, 
through  the  grant  of  dispensations,  prosecutions 
in  the  Church  Courts,  compromises.  The  baleful 
alliance  between  Carlovingian  usurpation  and 
Romish  priestcraft,  in  exchange  for  the  subser¬ 
viency  of  the  clergy  to  the  ambition  and  the 
vices  of  the  earlier  despots,  delivered  over  the 
social  morality  of  the  people  to  them,  it  may  be 
said,  as  a  prey,  and  the  savageness  of  Carlo¬ 
vingian  civil  legislation  was  placed  at  the  service 
of  the  new-fangled  Church  discipline  of  the 
West.  [J.  M.  L.] 

COVETOUSNESS.  The  works  of  the 
earliest  Christian  authorities  are  full  of  \wrnir.g5 


488 


COVETOUSNESS 


COVETOUSNESS 


against  the  different  forms  of  covetousness,  e.q. 
Clem,  ad  Corinth,  bk,  ii.  cc.  5,  6;  Hernias,  bk.  i. 
vis.  1,  and  bk.  ii.  mund.  12  ;  Const.  Apost.,  bk.  i. 
c.  1 ;  ii.  c.  46 ;  iv.  c.  4 ;  vii.  cc.  3,  4.  The 
Apostolical  Constitutions  follow  St.  Paul  in  treat¬ 
ing  covetousness  as  a  disqualification  for  a  bishop  ; 
bk.  ii.  c.  6  ;  and  in  a  later  constitution  also  for  a 
I)riest  or  deacon  ;  bk.  vii.  c.  31.  The  covetous¬ 
ness  of  some  of  the  Church-widows  is  especially 
denounced  ;  “  who  deem  gain  their  only  work, 
and  by  asking  without  shame  and  taking  without 
stint  have  already  rendered  most  persons  more 
remiss  in  giving,”  —  who  “running  about  to 
knock  at  the  doors  of  their  neighbours,  heap  up 
to  themselves  an  abundance  of  goods,  and  lend  at 
bitter  usury,  and  have  mammon  for  their  sole 
oare ;  whose  God  is  their  purse,”  &:c.  (bk.  iii. 
c.  7).  The  oblations  of  the  covetous  were  not  to 
be  received  (bk.  iv.  c.  6).  With  this  may  be 
connected  the  canonical  epistle  of  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,  archbishop  of  Neocaesarea  (about 
A.D.  262)  which  declares  that  it  is  impossible  to 
set  forth  in  a  single  letter  all  the  sacred  writings 
which  proclaim  not  robbery  alone  to  be  a  fearful 
crime,  but  all  covetousness,  all  grasping  at  others’ 
goods  for  filthy  lucre ;  the  particular  object  of 
his  denunciation  being  apparently  those  persons 
who  had  thought  a  late  barbaric  invasion  to  be 
their  opportunity  for  gain  (can.  7  and  foil.). 
Others  of  the  Fathers  in  like  manner  vigorously 
denounced  the  existence  of  the  vice  among  the 
clergy.  The  covetousness  of  Pope  Zephyrinus 
(beginning  of  3rd  century)  is  denounced  by 
Hippolytus  in  his  Philosophumena  (bk.  ix.  c.  7, 
§.  11).  About  the  middle  of  the  century, 
Cyprian,  in  his  book  De  lapsis,  speaks  of  those 
Christians  who  “  with  an  insatiable  ardour 
of  covetousness  pursued  the  increase  of  their 
wealth.”  Ambrose,  in  his  7th  sermon,  describes 
a  cleric  who,  “  not  satisfied  with  the  maintenance 
he  derives,  by  the  Lord’s  command,  from  the  altar, 

.  .  sells  his  intercessions,  grasps  willingly  the 
gifts  of  widows,”  and  yet  flatters  himself  by  say¬ 
ing,  ‘  no  one  charges  me  with  robbery,  no  one 
accuses  me  of  violence  ’—as  if  sometimes  flattery 
did  not  di’aw  a  larger  booty  from  widows  than 
torture.”  Jerome  with  bitter  sarcasm  speaks 
of  some,  “  who  are  richer  as  monks  than  they 
were  as  seculars,”  and  of  “  clerics  who  possess 
wealth  under  Christ  the  poor,  which  they  had 
not  under  the  devil,  rich  and  deceitful,  so  that 
the  Church  sighs  over  those  as  wealthy,  whom 
the  world  before  held  for  beggars.”  And  he 
beseeches  his  correspondent  to  flee  from  the  cleric 
who  from  poor  has  become  rich  as  from  some 
pestilence  0^p.  2,  ad  Nepotianum  ;  and  see  also  Ep. 
3,  ad  Heliodorum).  In  his  long  letter  or  treatise 
addressed  to  Eustochius  again  {Ep.  22),  he  draws 
a  sharply  satiric  picture  of  an  old  cleric  who 
wants  to  force  his  way  almost  into  the  very  bed¬ 
chamber  of  a  sleeper,  and  praise  some  piece  of 
furniture  or  other  article  till  he  at  last  rather 
extorted  than  obtained  it ;  contrasting  with  the 
prevalent  covetousness  of  Roman  society  the 
story  of  the  monk  at  Nitria,  who  at  his  death 
was  found  to  have  saved  100  solidi  which  he  had 
earned  by  weaving  linen.  The  monks  consulted 
v'hat  to  do;  some  were  forgiving  it  to  the  poor, 
some  to  the  Church,  some  for  handing  it  over  to 
the  family  of  the  deceased  ;  but  Macarius,  Pambo, 
Isidore  and  the  other  fathers  of  the  community 
decidejJ  that  it  should  be  buried  with  him. 


Gregory  of  Nyssa,  indeed,  in  his  letter  to 
Letorius,  observes  that  the  fathers  have  affixed 
no  punishment  to  this  sin,  which  he  assimilates 
to  adultery;  though  it  be  very  common  in  the 
Church,  none  inquires  of  those  who  are  brought 
to  be  ordained  if  they  be  polluted  with  it.  Theft, 
A'iolation  of  graves,  and  sacrilege  are,  he  says,  the 
only  vices  taken  account  of,  although  usury  be 
also  prohibited  by  divine  scripture,  and  the  ac¬ 
quiring  by  force  the  goods  of  others,  even  under 
colour  of  business.  Against  this  statement  should 
indeed  be  set  if  not  a  decree  (1)  from  Gratian 
ascribed  to  Pope  Julius  I.  a.d.  336-52,  which 
denounces  as  filthy  lucre  the  buying  in  time  of 
harvest  or  of  A'intage,  not  of  necessity  but  of 
greed,  victuals  or  wine,  in  order  by  buying  to 
sell  at  a  higher  price,  at  least  the  17th  canon  of 
the  Council  of  Nicaea  (A.D.  325),  directed  against 
the  love  of  filthy  lucre  and  usury,  and  enacting 
deposition  as  the  punishment  for  the  cleric.  But 
here,  as  in  a  parallel  canon  (6)  of  the  Synod  of 
Seleucia,  a.d.  410,  it  is  perhaps  to  be  inferred 
that  the  vice  was  chiefly  if  not  solely  aimed  at 
under  the  concrete  form  of  usury  (as  to  which 
see  Usury)  ;  as  also  when  St.  Basil,  in  his  ca¬ 
nonical  epistle  to  Bishop  Amphilochius  of  Iconium, 
writes  that  the  usurer  who  spends  his  unjust 
gains  on  the  poor  and  frees  himself  from  avarice 
may  be  admitted  to  orders  (c.  14).  That  covet¬ 
ousness  was  as  rife  in  the  monastery  as  in  the 
world  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
Cassian’s  work,  De  Coenobiorum  institutis  (end 
of  4th  or  beginning  of  5th  century)  contains 
a  whole  book  (the  7 th)  De  Spiritu  philargyriae. 

The  A’^ery  doubtful  “  Sanctions  and  Decrees  of 
the  Nicene  fathers,”  of  Greek  origin  aj)parently 
(2nd  A'olume  of  Labbe  and  Mansi’s  Councils,  pp. 
1029  and  foil.),  require  priests  not  to  be  giA^en 
to  heaping  up  riches,  lest  they  should  prefer  them 
to  the  ministry,  and  if  they  do  accumulate 
Avealth  to  do  so  moderately  (c.  14).  The  3rd 
Council  of  Orleans,  a.d.  538,  ibrbids  clerics,  from 
the  diaconate  upAvards,  to  carry  on  business  as 
public  ti’aders  for  the  greed  of  filthy  lucre,  or  to 
do  so  in  another’s  name.  As  the  times  wear  on 
indeed,  coA'etousness  seems  often  to  be  confounded 
with  aA^arice,  and  to  be  legislated  against  under 
that  name.  The  Code  of  Canons  of  the  African 
Church,  ending  Avith  the  Council  of  Carthage  of 
A.D.  419,  has  thus  a  canon  “on  avarice,”  Avhich 
it  says  is  to  be  reprehended  in  a  layman,  but  much 
more  in  a  priest  (c.  5).  So  Avith  the  Carlovingian 
Councils  and  Capitularies.  That  of  Aix-la- 
Chapelle  in  789  forbids  avaritia ;  no  one  is  to 
encroach  on  the  boundaries  of  others  nor  pass  his 
father’s  landmark  (c.  32,  and  see  also  c.  64, 
“de  aA^aritia  vel  concupisceutia”).  The  Council 
of  Frankfort,  A.D.  794,  has  a  canon  (34),  and  the 
contemporary  capitulary  of  Frankfort  a  section 
(32  or  34),  “  de  aA^aritia  et  cupiditate.”  The 
capitulary  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  of  801,  according  to 
one  codex,  enjoins  priests  to  abstain  from  filthy 
lucre  and  usury,  and  so  to  teach  the  people 
(c.  25,  and  see  also  the  Admonitio  general  is  ” 
of  the  same  year,  in  Pertz).  The  first  capitulary 
of  802  requires  monks  and  nuns  not  to  be  giA'en 
to  coA'etousness  (cc.  17,  18),  nor  canons  to  filthy 
lucre  (c.  11).  Some  Additions  to  a  Nimeguen 
Capitulary  in  806  (Pertz)  treat  at  some  length  oi 
“  cupiditas  ” — which  is  said  to  be  taken  either  in 
good  or  bad  part,  “  in  bad  part  of  him  Avho  beyond 
measure  will  desire  any  kind  of  thing,”  (c.  3) — 


COWL 


CREED 


489 


of  “  avaritia,”  which  is  “to  desire  the  things  of 
others,  and  having  acquired  them  to  impart  them 
to  none”  (c.  4),  and  of  “filthy  lucre”  (c.  5),  of 
which  an  instance  is  given  in  the  buying  at 
harvest  or  vintage  time,  not  of  necessity,  but  for 
covetousness,  in  order  to  sell  at  a  higher  price ; 
“  but  if  a  man  buy  for  necessity,  that  he  may 
have  for  himself  and  distribute  to  others,  we  call 
it  trade  ”  (c.  7).  The  Ecclesiastical  Capitulary 
of  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  809  again  enjoins  priests  to 
avoid  all  avarice  and  covetousness  (c.  2).  The 
second  Council  of  Kheims,  813,  also  enacted  that 
none  (apparently  of  the  clergy)  were  to  follow 
the  evil  of  covetousness  and  avarice  (c.  28).  The 
second  Council  of  Chalons,  in  the  same  year,  that 
if  clerics  gather  together  the  fruits  of  the  earth 
or  certain  revenues  of  the  soil,  they  should  not 
do  so  to  sell  the  dearer  and  gather  treasures 
together,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  poor  (c.  8). 

One  form  of  covetousness — the  rapacity  of 
judges  and  other  functionaries  in  exacting  fees, — 
would  seem  to  fall  better  under  the  head  of 
Sportulae,  by  which  name  such  fees  were  known 
in  the  Roman  world,  and  are  designated  in  the 
legislation  of  Justinian  (Code,  bk.  iii.  T.  ii.  Novs. 
17,  83,  123).  We  may  however  quote  a  chapter 
of  the  Wisigothic  law  (bk.  ii.  c.  25,  amended  by 
Chindasuinth),  which  says :  “We  have  known 
many  judges  who  by  occasion  of  covetousness 
overpassing  the  order  of  law,  presume  to  take 
to  themselves  one-third  of  the  causes”  {i.e. 
amounts  in  dispute)  ;  and  which  limits  the  judge’s 
fee  to  5  per  cent.,  requiring  him  to  restore  any 
surplus  beyond  this  proportion  which  he  may 
have  taken,  with  an  equal  amount  besides. 

[See  also  Bribers,  Commerce,  Usury.] 

[J.  M.  L.] 

COWL.  [CUCULLA.] 

CRATON,  martyr  at  Rome,  Feb.  15  (^Mart. 
Horn.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CREDENCE  (Lat.  credentia,  Ital.  credenza, 
Gr.  TraparpctTre^oi').  The  table  or  slab  on  which 
the  vessels  and  elements  for  the  Eucharist  ax’e 
placed  before  consecration.  “  Credo ntiam  appel¬ 
lant  niensam  ....  supra  quam  ad  sacrificandum 
necessaria  continentur  ”  {Ceremoniale  liomanum, 
i.  3,  quoted  by  Ducange,  s.  u.).  It  is  doubtful 
whether  such  a  table  or  slab  existed  in  the  sanc¬ 
tuary  within  our  period,  as  it  rather  seems  pro¬ 
bable  that  the  elements  were  brought  from  the 
sacristy  and  placed  at  once  on  the  altar,  when 
they'  ceased  to  be  taken  from  the  ofi'erings  of  the 
faithful.  See  Protuesis.  [C.J 

CREED,  from  the  Latin  credo.  Hence  the 
title  should  be  confined  to  such  confessions  of 
our  Christian  Faith  as  commence  with  the  words 
I  believe,  or  We  believe,  or,  again,  to  any 
interrogatories  as  may  be  addressed  at  baptism 
or  other  occasions.  Dost  thou  believe  ?  but,  in 
practice,  it  has  been  used  in  a  more  general 
sense,  and  any  document  which  has  contained  a 
summary  of  the  chief  tenets  of  the  Christian 
Faith  as  held  by  any  local  or  national  Church, 
has  been  called  the  Creed  of  that  Church. 
Thus  the  Rules  of  Faith,  of  which  we  find  traces 
in  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  and  which 
were  intended  to  guide  teachers  in  the  instruc¬ 
tion  which  they  conveyed,  have  been  called 
Creeds.  So,  also,  have  been  designated  the  in¬ 
structions  which  were  prepared  for  candidates 
for  baptism. 


Names. — (2.)  For  “  Creeds,”  in  this  wider 
sense,  we  find  the  following  words  used  by  early 
Greek  writers :  6  Tr/tTrews  apxaias  Kavwu,  b  Kavwv 
TYis  a\-q9eias,  rh  K^pvyju.a  rh  anoaTo\iK6y,  y 
fvayyeXixrj  Kal  airoaToXiKy  ■jrapdSoo'is.  So  Ter- 
tullian  very  frequently  appeals  to  the  regula  fdei. 
The  creed  of  the  Church,  properly'  so  called,  was 
designated  first  as  y  tt'kttis  or  y  napaSodfiaa 
ypuv  ayla  Kal  dnoaroXiK^  tt'kttis  among  the 
Greeks,  and  as  fdes,  fdes  apostolica  among  the 
Latins.  We  find  the  word  S'/mbolurn  for  the  first 
time  in  Cyprian,  and  after  the  title  became  pre¬ 
valent  among  Latin  writers  it  found  its  wav 
among  the  Greek  authors.  But  even  in  the 
fifth  century  the  Nicene  Creed  was  commonly- 
known  as  y  tt'kttls.  The  words  rh  avfx^oKov  rov 
aTTOKeKapdai,  found  in  Origen,  denote,  not  the 
Creed,  but  Baptism  itself,  or  (possibly)  “  the 
outward  and  visible  sign  in  Baptism.”  And. 
similarly,  we  must  interpret  a  passage  in  Ter- 
tullian  :  “  Testatio  fidei  et  signaculum  symboli.” 
In  a  canon  of  the  Laodicene  council,  however, 
the  word  occu  s  once.  In  later  years  the  words 
(Tvjx^oXov,  and  syniholum  or  sijmbolus,  became  the 
favorite  designation  of  the  baptismal  Creed.  Its 
meaning  will  be  discussed  elsewherfe. 

3.  The  words  of  our  Lord  in  the  institution 
of  Baptism  undoubtedly  gave  the  first  form  to 
the  Baptismal  Creeds  which  we  find  prevailing 
in  the  3rd  century.  His  injunction  that  His 
apostles  should  “make  disciples  of  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,”  seemed 
almost  of  necessity  to  call  forth  on  the  part  of 
the  recipient  of  Baptism  some  avowal  of  belief 
in  God  as  thus  revealed.  The  words  which  we 
read  in  our  English  version  of  Acts  viii.  37,  con¬ 
taining  the  appeal  of  Philiji  to  the  Eunuch  and  the 
reply-  of  the  Eunuch,  are  not  found  in  the  best 
extant  MSS.  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ;  but 
the  incident  thus  recorded  may  be  regarded  as 
not  improbable  ;  and  we  find  indications  in  the 
pages  of  Irenaeus  that  it  was  believed  by  him  to 
have  occurred.  St.  Paul  reminds  Timothy  of 
the  good  confession  which  he  had  made  “  before 
many  witnesses.”  This  is  generally  believed  to 
have  taken  place  at  his  baptism.  Passing  by 
for  the  present,  as  scarcely  applicable  to  our 
immediate  purpose,  the  passage  of  Justin  Martyr 
where  he  relates  how  “  they  who  are  persuaded 
and  believe  that  the  things  are  true  which  are 
taught  by  us,  are  taken  to  some  place  where 
there  is  water,  and  are  there  baptized,”  and  the 
expression  of  Irenaeus  regarding  “the  canon  of 
the  truth  which  every  one  received  at  his  bap¬ 
tism,”  we  come  to  words  of  Tertullian,  in  which 
he  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit  “sanctifying  the 
faith  of  those  who  believe  in  the  Father  and  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.”  [Baptism,  p.  160.] 

4.  Thus  are  we  led  to  infer  that  the  primary 
bapti.smal  confession  corresponded  to  the  bap¬ 
tismal  formula ;  that  as  the  convert  was 
“baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,”  so  was  he  called  upon 
to  state  that  “  he  believed  in  the  Father  and  in 
the  Son  and  in  the  Holy  Sj)irit.”  And  that  our 
inference  is  correct  seems  clear  from  iVagments 
of  liturgies  which  have  come  down  to  us  from 
various  ages  and  different  Churches.  The 
Aethiopic  manuscidpt  of  the  Apostolic  Consti¬ 
tutions  (le.scribes  the  catechumen  as  declaiing  at 
the  time  of  his  baptism  :  “  I  believe  in  the  only 


490 


CKEED 


CREED 


true  God,  the  Father,  the  Almighty,  and  in  Ilis 
only-begotten  Son  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  an'l 
Saviour,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Life-giver.” 
Other  words  follow.  So  the  pseudo-Ambrose, 
in  his  treatise  on  the  Sacraments  (book  ii.  c.  7  ; 
Migne,  xvi.  429),  “Thou  wast  asked,  ‘Dost  thou 
believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty?’  Thou 
saidst,  ‘  I  believe,’  and  thou  wast  immersed. 
Again  thou  wast  asked,  ‘Dost  thou  believe  also 
in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  in  His  cross?’ 
Thou  saidst  again,  ‘  1  believe,’  and  wast  immersed. 
For  a  third  time  thou  wast  asked,  ‘  And  dost 
thou  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit?’  Thou  didst 
reply,  ‘  I  believe,’  and  for  a  third  time  thou  wast 
immersed.”  So,  again,  in  the  formula  for  bap¬ 
tism  found  in  an  old  Gallican  missal  and  printed 
by  Martene  (i.  p.  51);  in  the  old  Roman  Ritual 
as  given  by  Daniel  (i.  p.  173);  and  in  the  foi- 
mula  adopted  by  Boniface,  for  use  among  his 
German  converts  (Migne,  vol.  Ixxxix.  p.  810). 

5.  But  although  this  Baptismal  Formula 
furnished  the  type  of  the  Baptismal  Confession, 
we  find  that,  even  in  Tertullian’s  time,  the  Con¬ 
fession  embraced  something  not  mentioned  in  the 
words  of  Institution.  “  The  Catechumen,”  says 
the  great  African  writer  (de  Corona  militis,  §  3), 
“  was  thrice  immersed,  answering  something 
more  than  the  Lord  commanded  in  His  Gospel.” 
From  his  treatise  (dc  Baptismo,  §  11)  we  may 
infer  what  that  “  something  ”  was.  “  Some 
(Tertullian  writes)  would  depreciate  baptism, 
because  our  Lord  did  not  Himself  baptize.  But 

His  disciples  baptized  at  His  command . 

And  whereunto  should  He  baptize  ?  To  repent¬ 
ance  ? — wherefore,  then.  His  forerunner  ?  To 
remission  of  sins  ? — which  He  gave  by  a  word  ! 
Into  Himself^ — whom  in  His  humility  He 
was  concealing  !  Into  the  Holy  Spirit  ? — who 
had  not  as  yet  descended  from  the  Father ! 
Into  the  Church  ? — which  was  not  yet  founded.” 
From  this  passage  Bishop  Bull  f. Judicium  Eccl. 
Catholicae,  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  139)  infers  (and,  we 
think,  is  entitled  to  do  &o)  that  in  Tertullian’s 
neighbourhood  and  epoch,  at  the  time  of  baptism, 
express  mention  was  made,  not  only  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  the  Son  of 
God,  but  also  of  repentance,  of  remission  of  sins, 
and  of  the  Church.  Thus  we  are  induced  to  say 
that  at  least  these  two  articles  may  have  been 
mentioned  in  Tertullian’s  Creed,  viz.  “  Repent¬ 
ance  unto  the  remission  of  sins  ”  and  “  the 
Church.”  But  in  regard  to  “  the  Church  ”  all 
doubt  is  removed  by  referring  to  a  later  section 
(§  6)  of  the  same  treatise,  where  our  author 
explains  the  origin  of  its  inti-oduction  thus : 

“  Where  the  Three  are,  there  is  the  Church,  the 
Boiy  of  the  Three:  there  the  testatio  fdei;” 
this  on  the  part  of  the  baptized  :  “  there  the 
sponsio  salutis  ;  ”  this  on  the  part  of  God. 

6.  We  purposely  abstain  from  adducing  pas¬ 
sages  bearing  on  the  Rule  of  Faith  to  which 
Tertullian  continually  appeals,  because  in  our 
judgment  such  Rule  of  Faith  was  so  called  as 
being  the  guide  of  the  believer  and  of  the  teacher, 
and  was  of  wider  extent  than  the  Baptismal 
Creed.  So  we  will  proceed  to  ask  what  light  do 
the  works  of  Cyprian  which  have  come  down 
to  us  throw  on  the  baptismal  customs  of  his  day  ? 
He  followed  Tertullian  by  a  generation,  being 
bishop  of  Carthage  from  248  to  258,  and  his 
correspondence  is  in  our  present  investigation 
very  important,  as  it  contains  several  letters 


on  the  subject  of  re-baptizing  tho.se  who  had 
been  baptized  by  heretical  teachers  ;  and  these 
letters  of  course  contain  allusions  (though  the\ 
may  be  little  more  than  allusions)  to  the  cere¬ 
mony  of  Baptism. 

7.  We  will  translate  the  most  interesting . 
“If  any  object  that  Novatianus  holds  the  same 
law  of  faith  which  the  Catholic  Church  holds, 
that  he  b.ip  Jzes  with  the  same  symbol  ”  (the 
first  time  the  name  occurs  in  Latin),  “  knows 
the  same  God  the  Father,  the  same  Son  Christ, 
and  may  therefore  avail  himself  of  the  power  to 
baptize,  because  in  the  baptismal  interrogations 
he  seems  not  to  differ  from  us :  let  such  men 
know  that  we  and  the  schismatics  have  not  the 
same  law  of  symbol,  nor  the  same  interrogations; 
for  when  they  say,  ‘  Dost  thou  believe  remission 
of  sins  and  eternal  life  through  the  Church  ?  ’ 
in  the  question  itself  they  speak  falsely,  because 
they  have  not  the  Church.”  This  is  found  in 
his  letter  to  Magnus  {Ep.  69,  §  vii.).  A  passage 
somewhat  similar  is  found  in  another  letter  (70, 
§  ii.),  and  in  his  epistle  to  Firmilianus  (75,  §  x.), 
he  speaks  of  the  “  usitata  et  legitima  verba  in- 
terrogationis  ”  at  baptism.  From  all  this  w'e 
may  safely  conclude  that  this  “  fixed  and  legal¬ 
ised  form  of  interrogation  ”  did  not  then  contain 
any  reference  to  those  points  of  doctrine  on 
which  Novation  went  wrong  :  probably  it  called 
forth  little  more  than  the  expression  of  belief 
in  the  Father,  the  Son,  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in 
remission  of  sins  and  eternal  life,  of  which  the 
assurance  was  conveyed  when  one  was  rightly 
admitted  into  the  Church  at  Baptism. 

8.  We  must  pass  now  to  consider  the  usage  in 
regard  to  Ci’eeds  in  the  Chui-ches  of  the  East. 

From  the  earliest  years  of  the  Christian  era, 
the  Oriental  Churches  were  more  harassed  by 
strange  teachings  than  were  those  of  the  Latin 
race.  It  was  the  boast  of  Ruffinus  that  no 
heresy  took  its  rise  within  the  Church  of.Eome ; 
and  of  Ambrose  that  the  Church  of  Rome  had 
preserved  undefiled  the  symbol  of  the  Apostles. 
Thus  the  difference  between  the  Eastern  and 
Western  symbols  may  be  learnt  from  the  opening 
clauses  of  their  respective  Creeds.  In  the  former 
(and  among  these  we  of  course  include  the 
“  canon  ”  of  the  Greek-speaking  community  of 
Lyons)  men  professed  their  belief  in  one  God ; 
in  the  latter,  their  belief  in  God.  The  growth  of 
the  latter  creeds  we  will  consider  hereafter ; 
for  the  present  we  confine  ourselves  to  the 
former. 

9.  The  seventh  book  of  the  Apostolic  Con¬ 
stitutions  is  regarded  by  most  critics  as  older 
than  the  Nicene  Council,  and  by  many  as  repre¬ 
senting  the  customs  of  Antioch,  about  the  end  of 
the  third  century.  Dr.  Caspari  assigns  it  to  the 
same  period,  though  he  considei*s  it  to  have 
belonged  to  the  Syrian  Chui'ches.  Herein  we 
have  a  full  account  of  the  ceremonies  which  were 
performed  at  baptism,  and  of  the  confession 
which  the  catechumen  made.  He  said  :  “  I  re¬ 
nounce  Satan  and  his  works,”  .  .  .  “  and  after 
his  renunciation  (proceeds  the  text)  let  him  say, 

‘  I  enrol  myself  under  Christ,  and  I  believe  and 
am  baptized  into  one,  unbegotten,  only,  true 
God,  Almighty,  the  Father  of  Christ,  the  Creator 
and  Maker  of  all  things,  of  whom  are  all  things; 
and  in  the  Loi’d  Jesus  the  Christ,  His  only- 
begotten  Son,  begotten  before  all  creation,  who 
by  the  pleasure  of  the  Father  was  before  all 


CREED 


CREED 


491 


worl  Is ;  begotten,  not  made ;  through  whom 
all  things  were  made  which  are  in  heaven  and 
on  earth,  both  visible  and  invisible ;  who  in  the 
last  days  came  down  from  heaven  and  spsumed 
flesh,  of  the  Holy  Virgin  Mary  being  born,  and 
lived  holily  after  the  laws  of  His  God  and  Father, 
and  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  died 
for  us,  and  rose  again  from  the  dead,  after  his 
suffering,  on  the  third  day,  and  ascended  into 
the  heavens  and  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father,  and  is  coming  again  at  the  end  of 
the  world  with  glory  to  judge  quick  and  dead, 
of  whose  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.  I  am 
baptized,  too,  into  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  is,  the 
Paraclete,  which  wrought  in  all  the  saints  since 
the  beginning  of  the  world,  and  was  afterwards 
sent  from  the  Father,  according  to  the  promise 
of  our  Saviour  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and,  after 
the  Apostles,  to  all  who  believe  in  (eV)  the  holy 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  in  (ets)  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  the  flesh,  and  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  life  of  the 
world  to  come.’  ”  Such  is  the  Creed  which  con¬ 
nects  the  rule  of  faith  which  may  be  found  in 
Irenaeus  with  the  Creed  which  has  received  the 
name  of  the  Nicene. 

10.  It  is  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present 
article  to  examine  and  enumerate  the  errors  and 
the  heresies  to  which  reference  is  made  in  this 
long  baptismal  confession  (^ofxoKoy'ia  ^a-micr- 
fxaTos').  The  Confession  of  belief  issued  by  the 
Synod  of  Antioch  against  Paul  of  Samosata,  and 
those  of  Gregory  of  Neo-Caesarea  and  Lucian 
the  Martyr,  and  others,  were  not  used  in  any 
office  of  the  Church;  and  they  thus  have  the 
character  of  an  exposition  of  the  Faith,  rather 
than  that  of  a  Creed  proper.  Only,  we  must 
note  in  passing,  that  in  the  letter  of  Alexander 
of  Alexandria  to  his  namesake  at  Constantinople, 
we  meet  with  the  phrase,  %u  irvevfia  ayiov 
bfioKoyovfi^v, — we  confess  one  Holy  Spirit,  and 
doubtless  the  conception  of  confession  we  must 
extend  to  other  points  named  in  the  letter ;  and 
thus  we  have  further  intimation  that  a  custom 
of  confessing  God  prevailed,  not  only  at  baj»tism, 
with  the  competentes,  but  amongst  matured 
members  of  the  Churches.  This  doubtless  was 
made  during  some  pai’t  of  their  common  wor¬ 
ship;  and  in  the  same  sense  we  may  perhaps 
understand  his  words,  ravra  SiSdaKO/xey,  ravra 
KT)pvrTOfj.^v  (Migne,  xviii.  p.  549). 

11.  Still  the  passages  in  which  the  Creed  is 
referred  to  speak  almost  exclusively  of  its  use  at 
baptism.  When  Eusebius  wrote  to  his  flock  his 
interesting  account  of  what  had  passed  at  the 
Council  of  Nicaea,  and  transcribed  for  it  the 
Creed  which  he  had  recited  as  that  used  “  when 
he  had  been  a  catechumen,  and  again  when  he  was 
baptized,”  he  makes  no  mention  of  its  use  at  the 
Eucharist.  “  During  his  whole  ministerial  life, 
both  when  he  was  a  presbyter,  and  since  he 
became  a  bishop,  he  had  believed  it  and  had 
taught  it.”  i&o,  again,  when  the  Nicene  Creed 
proper  was  referred  to  in  the  famous  decree  of 
the  Council  of  Ephesus,  the  great  danger  against 
which  the  fathers  were  anxious  to  provide  was 
this :  “  that  no  one  should  offer  or  exhibit  any 
but  the  accepted  faith  to  such  as  wei’e  willing  to 
turn  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  from  Hel¬ 
lenism  or  Judaism.”  No  mention  is  made  of  the 
introduction  of  the  Creed  into  the  other  offices 
of  the  Church.  Eutyches  recited  the  Nicene 


symbol  at  the  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and 
stilted  that  “  in  this  faith  he  had  been  baptized 
and  sealed,  and  in  it  he  had  lived,  and  in  it  he 
hoped  to  be  perfected;”  but  no  reference  is 
made  to  any  other  public  use  :  and  once  more, 
when  at  the  second  session  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  the  deacon  Aetius  read  out  the  Creed 
of  the  holy  Synod  of  Nicaea  and  the  holy  faith 
which  the  150  holy  fathers  put  out  at  Constan¬ 
tinople  agreeing  with  it,  whilst  both  creeds 
met  with  the  cry,  “This  is  the  faith  of  the  Catho¬ 
lics  :  this  is  the  faith  of  all.  We  all  believe 
like  this  :”  in  I'egard  to  the  Nicene  symbol  alone 
they  added,  “  In  this  we  have  been  baptized  : 
in  this  we  baptize;”  but  not  a  word  was  said  as 
to  the  recitation  of  either  at  any  other  service 
(Mansi,  vi.  957),  Only  the  same  limited  use 
is  mentioned  by  Epiphanius  in  the  latter  pages 
of  his  Ancoratus ;  and  in  the  Catechetical  Lectures 
of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 

12.  We  must  not,  howevei*,  omit  to  mention 
that  it  was  the  custom  for  the  bishops  present 
to  subscribe  to  the  Creed  before  they  broke  up 
from  the  great  councils :  thus,  at  the  conclusion 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  “  all  the  most  reli¬ 
gious  bishops  cried  out,  ‘This  is  our  faith,  let 
our  Metropolitans  subscribe  ;  let  them  subscribe 
at  once  in  the  presence  of  the  magistrates : 
things  well  defined  admit  of  no  delay  :  this  is  the 
faith  of  the  Apostles :  by  this  we  all  walk  :  we 
all  thus  think.’” 

13.  Let  us  now  briefly  trace  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  use  of  the  symbols.  Timotheus, 
bishop  of  Constantinople  A.D.  511,  is  stated  by 
Theodorus  Lector  (^Hist.  Eccl.  p.  563)  to  have 
ordered  “  that  the  creed  should  be  recited  /ca0’ 
€Ka(TT^v  (Tvva^iv,  at  every  congregation  ;  whereas 
previously  it  had  been  used  only  on  the  Thurs¬ 
day  before  Eastei*,  when  the  bishops  catechized 
the  candidates  for  baptism.”  As  the  avowed 
object  of  Timotheus  was  to  express  the  continued 
abhorrence  which  the  Church  felt  for  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Macedonius,  it  is  clear  that  the  exposition 
of  Constantinople  was  intended  in  the  order, 
even  though  it  speaks  of  “  the  Creed  of  the  318.”® 
A  similar  direction  had  been  given  by  Peter 
the  Fuller,  Patriarch  of  Antioch  (450  to  488). 
Then  it  seems  to  have  spread  through  the  East, 
and  thus  the  Creeds  seem  to  have  found  their 
way  into  the  liturgies  which  bear  the  names  of 
Chrysostom,  Basil,  and  others.  From  the  East 
the  custom  came  into  the  West.  The  3rd  Council 
of  Toledo,  c.  ii.  (a.d.  589)  directed  that  “  before 
the  Lord’s  Prayer  in  the  liturgy,  the  creed  of  the 
150  should  be  recited  by  the  people  through  all 
the  cJiurches  of  Spain  and  Gallicia,  according  to 
the  form  of  the  Oriental  Churches.” 

14.  The  words  of  Reccared’s  confirming  order 
are  so  interesting,  that  we  may  be  pardoned  if 
we  recite  them  at  length  :  “  Ut  propter  robor- 
andam  gentis  nostrae  novellam  conversionem, 


•  By  the  Creed  of  the  318  is  meant  the  Nicene  Creed, 
By  the  creed  of  the  1 50  the  document  as  it  is  alleged  to 
have  been  expanded  in  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
and  as  it  was  recited  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  The 
chief  difference  between  them  is  that  the  former  after 
the  words  “and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,”  proceeded  to  declare 
the  condemnation  by  the  Church  of  all  who  maintained 
Arian  views  of  the  Saviour :  in  the  latter  the  subsequent 
clauses  were  added  as  we  now  read  them,  save  that  the 
words  were,  “  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  who 
will,”  &c. 


492 


CREED 


CREED 


omnes  Hispaniarum  et  Galliae  (Galliciae)  cccle- 
siae  hauc  rogulam  servent,  iit,  omni  sacrificii 
tempore,  ante  communicatiouem  corporis  Christi 
vel  (O/’  et)  sanguinis,  juxta  orientalium  patrum 
iiiorem,  uiianimiter  clara  roce  sanctissimum  ndei 
recenseant  symholum,  ut  priinum  populi  quam 
credulitatem  teneant  fatcantur,  et  sic  corda  fide 
purificata  ad  Christi  corpus  et  sangiiinem  capien- 
dum  exhibeant”  (Mansi,  ix.  983).  The  priest 
recited  the  creed  whilst  he  held  the  consecrated 
host  in  his  hand  (Mabillon,  Liturg.  Gall.  1685, 
pp.  2,  12,  450).  [We  should  note  that  the  po¬ 
sition  of  the  Creed  in  the  Mozarabic  Liturgy 
answers  to  the  directions  of  Reccared.] 

15.  Bui  the  disputes  regarding  the  inteiqiolated 
Filioque  aiford  us  additional  evidence  of  the  use 
of  tlie  Creed  at  Mass.  Some  monks  of  a  Frank 
convent  on  Mount  Olivet  complained  to  Leo  Ill. 
(about  A.D.  806)  that  they  had  been  “  accused 
of  heresy,  and  partially  excluded  from  the 
Church  of  the  Nativity  on  Christmas  Day,  be¬ 
cause  they  held  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceedeth 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Yea,  they  were 
charged  with  reciting  more  tlian  was  held  in  the 
Roman  Church.  Yet  one  of  their  number  had 
heard  it  so  sung  in  the  West,  in  the  chapel  of 
the  Emperor.  What  were  they  to  do  ?  ”  Other 
complications  followed  :  Charlemagne  was 
anxious  to  retain  the  clause ;  Leo  to  continue  to 
exclude  it.  An  account  of  the  interview  between 
the  Pope  and  the  emissaries  of  the  Emperor  may 
be  seen  in  Dr.  Neale’s  Historic  of  the  Ilolg 
Eastern  Church  (pp.  1164—1166).  The  Pope 
recommended  that  the  “  clause  should  be 
omitted  :  if  difficulty  arose,  let  them  give  up 
the  custom  of  singing  the  creed  in  the  palace  of 
the  Emperor :  it  was  not  sung  in  the  Holy  Church 
in  Borne :  thus  the  cause  of  contention  would  be 
I’emoved,  and  peace  would  be  restored.”  (The 
express  mention  of  the  singing  indicates  that  the 
laity  Avould  miss  the  words  if  they  were 
omitted.)  And  he  begged  again  that  the 
Churches  of  Germany  “  would  say  the  symbolum 
in  the  mysteries  in  accordance  with  the  Roman 
Ritual  ”  (see  Martene,  De  Bitibus,  p.  138  ;  Bin- 
terim,  Denkwiird.  p.  357).  Charlemagne  refused 
to  give  way. 

16.  Thus  it  appears  that  in  the  time  of  Leo  III. 
some  symbolum  was  said  at  Rome  at  the  time  of 
the  Sacrifice ;  whether  the  Roman  Creed,  as 
appears  from  the  Sacramentary  of  Gelasius,  or 
the  original  Nicene  formula,  or  the  uninter¬ 
polated  faith  of  the  150,  is  uncertain.  But  a  few 
)'ears  later,  i.  e.  between  847  and  858,  as  we 
learn  from  Photius  (de  Spiritus  hlystagogia, 
Migne,  vol.  cii.  p.  395),  Leo  IV.  and  his  successor 
Benedict  III.  directed  that  the  Creed  should  be 
recited  in  Greek,  'Iva  /xt}  rh  (rr^vhv  Trjs  SiaXeKTov 
Bh.a,(T(pr],a'ias  napao'xv  'i^p6(pa(nv.  The  words 
are  ambiguous,  but  they  seem  to  mean  : — “  lest 
the  narrow  character  of  the  Latin  language 
should  afford  any  pretext  for  evil  speaking,” 
on  the  part  of  the  Greek  Church.  But  the 
Churches  of  the  West  continued  to  assert 
their  independence  of  Rome.  Aeneas,  bishop 
of  Paris,  informs  us  (about  868)  that  “the 
whole  Galilean  Church  chanted  the  Creed  at 
the  Mass  every  Sunday  ”  (apud  Dacher.  Spici- 
legiuin,  tom.  i.  p.  113,  cxciii.):  Walafrid  Strabo 
(Migne,  cxiv.  p.  947)  notes  that  after  the  depo¬ 
sition  of  the  heretic  Felix,  the  Creed  (as  inter¬ 
polated)  began  to  be  more  frequently  used  in  the 


office  of  the  Mass,  in  the  churches  of  Germany: 
and  Walter,  bishop  of  Orleans,  about  the  middle 
of  the  9th  century,  found  it  necessary  to  enact 
that  m  his  diocese  the  “Gloria  Patri  et  Filio  et 
Si)iritui  Sancto”  and  the  symbol  “Credo  in  unum 
Deum  ”  should  be  sung  by  all  at  the  same  .seiwice 
(Martene,  lib.  i.  c.  iv.  art.  vi.  §§  x.  and  xi. ; 
Migne,  cxix.  p.  727).  At  length  the  popes  gave 
way,  and  under  the  pressure  of  the  Emperor 
Henry  (a.d.  1014)  Benedict  VIII.  consented  to 
sing  the  Creed  and  after  the  form  which  was 
now  universally  received  amongst  the  other 
Churches  of  the  West. 

17.  One  point  connected  with  the  Creed  of 
Constantinople  remains  to  be  noticed — its  use 
in  the  baj)tlsmal  service  of  the  so-called  Gelasian 
Sacramentary.  Dr.  Caspari  (  LYiyec?  iic/.te  Queien, 
part  i.  p.  236)  considers  that  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  and  some  Churches  of  Gaul  and  Germany 
this  Creed  appeared  first  in  the  baptismal  rite. 
The  original  Sacramentarv  is  dated  about  494, 
but  we  conceive  that  the  rite  which  we  are  now 
about  to  describe  cannot  be  regarded  as  older  than 
the  times  of  Leo  IV.  and  Benedict  HE,  the  Popes  of 
Rome  who  directed  that  the  Creed  should  be  recited 
in  Greek,  or  as  more  modern  than  1014,  the  date 
of  the  Emperor  Henry’s  triumph  over  Benedict 
VlIl.  The  Sacramentary  directs  that  at  the  time 
of  a  baptism  the  priest  shall  address  the  elect  on 
the  importance  of  the  faith,  and  bid  them  to 
I'eceive  the  “  sacramentum  of  the  evangelical 
symbol  inspired  by  the  apostles,  whose  words 
indeed  are  few,  but  whose  mysteries  are  great.” 
The  acolyth  takes  one  of  the  children,  a  boy,  and 
holding  his  left  arm  places  his  own  right  hand 
on  the  child’s  head,  and  the  presbyter  enquires, 
“  In  what  tongue  do  they  confess  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ?  ”  The  acolyth  answers,  “  In  GreekJ’ 
The  presbyter  says,  “  State  the  faith  as  they  be¬ 
lieve  it,”  and  the  acolyth  chants  the  Creed  of 
Constantinople  in  Greek :  but,  according  to  the 
MSS.  of  the  Sacramentarv,  wdthout  the  clause 
“  God  of  God  ”  and  without  the  words  “  and  the 
Son”»  (Assemanni  without  any  MS.  authority 
printed  the  words  /col  tou  viov  in  his  Codex 
Liturg.  tom.  i.  p.  12 ;  see  Dr.  Heurtley,  Harm. 
Symbol,  p.  158).  The  acolyth  then  takes  a  girl, 
and  the  question  being  repeated  as  to  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  response,  he  answers  “  in  Latin.” 
In  the  first  instance  the  Creed  is  wudtten  in 
Greek  and  Latin  interlinearly,  the  Greek  in  Latin 
characters,  thus — 

Credo  in  unum  Deum  Patrem  oninipotertem. 

Pisteuo  is  hena  theon  pathera  pantocratorein  ; 

in  the  latter  in  Latin  only.  Possibly  it  is  to  this 
curious  custom,  possibl)'  to  a  direct  following  out 
of  the  rule  of  Benedict  HI.,  that  w'e  owe  three 
interesting  relics  of  the  10th  or  11th  centuries,  of 
which  Dr.  Caspari  has  given  descriptions.  The  one 
is  a  MS.  in  the  library  of  St.  Gall  which  contains 
the  interpolated  Greek  Ci-eed  in  Latin  letters, 
but  with  musical  notes  :  the  other  two  are  MSS. 
in  the  library  at  Dii-sseldorf  and  Vienna  respec¬ 
tively,  w'hich  contain  the  uninterpolated  Greek 
Creed,  w'ritten  in  similar  Latin  characters.  The 
earlier  named  MS.  doubtless  repi'esents  the  Creed 
as  it  w'as  chanted  at  great  festivals  ;  for  Binterim 
(Denkwii  d.  p.  363)  assures  us  that  in  the  9th 
century  the  Germans  sang  the  Creed  both  in 
Greek  and  Latin. 

18.  Turning  now  to  the  symbol  w'hich  for 


CKEED 


CRESCENS 


493 


naany  years  has  been  called  in  the  Western 
Churches  the  Apostles’  Creed,  our  first  remark 
must  be  that  the  Eastern  Churches  denied  all 
knowledge  of  it  at  the  Council  of  Florence. 
Ephesius,  one  of  the  legates  of  the  Oriental 
Churches,  is  said  to  have  there  stated,  T}fj.e7s  of/re 
OOT6  rh  (Tvfj.^o\op  tS>v  p.'ivq(Tt6- 

Kwv  (Waterland,  iii.  p.  196,  note  r ;  Nicolas,  Le 
Symbole  des  Apotres,  p.  270).  Thus  we  must 
look  to  the  Western  Churches  alone  for  evidence 
of  the  growth  and  usage  of  this  Creed. 

19.  In  his  interesting  volume  on  the  Apostles’ 
Creed,  Dr.  Heurtley  traces  its  growth  through 
Ireuaeus  and  Tertullian  and  Cyprian :  then  we 
must  take  a  leap  from  Novatian,  A.D.  260,  to 
Ruffinus,  bishop  of  Aquileia,  A.D.  390,  the  inter¬ 
mediate  space  of  130  years  affording  only  one 
stepping-stone,  furnished  by  the  notes  of  the 
Belief  of  Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  which  he  left  be¬ 
hind  him  on  his  departure  from  Rome  :  he  says 
“  1  learnt  it  and  was  taught  it  out  of  the  holy 
Scriptures.”  This  Belief  resembles  in  great  mea¬ 
sure  the  Creed  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  we 
learn  that  Creed  from  the  pages  of  Ruffinus  ;  but 
Marcellus  does  not  speak  of  its  being  used  in 
any  liturgic  office,  except  so  far  as  his  words 
above  quoted  may  show  that  he  had  received  it 
before  he  was  baptized. 

20.  This  surmise  is  upheld  by  the  account  of 
Ruffinus.  He  describes  the  Creed  of  the  Church 
of  Aquileia  as  resembling  A^ery  nearly  that  of 
Rome  ;  he  says  that  at  neither  Church  had  it 
eA'er  been  pufc»  into  writing  in  a  continuous  form, 
but  adds  that  he  regards  the  type  as  preserved 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  as  probably  of  the 
purest  character,  because  there  the  ancient  prac¬ 
tice  v:as  preserved  of  the  catechumen  reciting  the 
Creed  in  the  hearing  of  the  faithful.  He  speaks  of 
this  as  an  ancient  custom.  At  Aquileia  it  Avould 
appear  that  the  baptism  was  a  private  service. 
About  the  same  time  we  find  Ambrose  describ¬ 
ing  to  Marcellina  (Migne,  xA'i.  995)  the  riot  at 
Milan  :  from  his  account  it  would  seem  that  at 
that  time  the  custom  was  to  deliver  the  Creed 
to  the  competcntes  on  any  Lord’s  Day  after  the 
lessons  and  the  sermon  and  the  dismissal  of  the 
catechumens :  his  Avords  are,  “  Sequente  die, 
erat  autem  L>ominica,  post  lectiones  atque  trac- 
tatum  demissisCatechumeniSjSymbolum  aliquibus 
competentibus  in  baptisteriis  tradebam  basilicae,” 
when  he  A\'as  called  out  to  rescue  an  Arian. 

21.  The  custom  of  preserving  this  symbolum 
uuAvritten  is  referred  to  again  and  again  by  .Je¬ 
rome  and  Augustine.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  the  Faith  of  the  Churches  of  the  East  Avas 
treated  Avith  less  reserve,  although  St.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  desired  that  his  lectures  should  be 
regarded  as  confidential  documents.  We  are  in¬ 
clined  to  believe  that  the  Creed  must  have  been 
committed  to  Avriting  when  it  became  customary 
to  recite  it  at  the  Mass.  The  Gelasian  Sacra- 
mentary  (Avhich,  even  if  interpolated,  must  de¬ 
scribe  the  ritual  of  the  Roman  Church  at  some 
epoch  or  other)  contains  it.  Since  the  time  of 
Benedict  VHI.  as  we  have  seen,  the  NiceneCi'eed 
so  called,  i.e.  the  interpolated  faith  of  the  150, 
has  been  used  at  Rome  in  the  Eucharistic  service. 

22.  We  have  referi'ed  from  time  to  time  to 
the  custom  of  repeating  the  creeds  of  the  earlier 
councils  at  an  early  session  of  each  succeeding 
assembly  of  a  similar  character.  We  haA^e  one 
interesting  proof  that  the  Apostles’  Creed  was 


deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  so  used 
in  a  council  of  the  West.  Etherius,  bishop  of 
Osma,  and  Beatus,  presbyter  of  Astorga,  recited 
it  in  785  as  against  the  errors  of  Elipandus, 
archbishop  of  Toledo.  The  account  is  note¬ 
worthy  :  “Surgamus  igitur,”  they  cried,  “  cum 
ipsis  ajAostolis  et  fidei  nostrae  symbolum,  quern 
(sic)  tradiderunt  nobis  brevi  compendio,  recite- 
mus,  quicunque  unum  Dominnm,  unam  fidem, 
unum  ba2)ti.sma  habemus ;  et  fidem  in  qua  bajj- 
tizati  sumus  in  hac  perversitate  et  duplicitate 
haereticorum  non  negemus  :  sed  sicut  corde  cre- 
demus  ore  proprio  proferamus  publice  et  dicamus 
Credo  in  Deum,  «Sic.”  The  Creed  recited,  Ethe¬ 
rius  added,  “  Ecce  fidem  apostolicam  in  qua 
baptizati  sumus,  quam  credemus  et  tenemus.” 
It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Creed  Avas  here  put 
forth  publicly. 

23.  Nor  should  the  fact  that  there  were  creeds 
thrown  into  an  interrogatory  form  be  entirely 
passed  over.  Of  these  some  Avere  used  from 
an  early  period  at  baptism  ;  and  others  in  later 
years  at  the  visitation  of  the  sick.  Dr.  Heurtley 
has  collected  several  instances  of  the  former 
series ;  and  the  pages  of  MaHene  contain  many 
extracts  from  old  MSS.  giving  the  order  for  the 
latter.  The  earliest  instance  of  such  a  use  at 
confession  that  we  have  found  is  in  the  rule  of 
Chrodegang  (a.d.  750).  [Migne,  89,  p.  1070.] 

24.  The  (so  called)  Athanasian  Creed  appears 
to  have  been  originally  composed  as  an  exposition 
of  the  faith  for  the  instruction  of  believers 
[Cressy,  Council  of],  and  then  it  came  to  be 
sung  at  the  Church  service  as  a  Canticle. 
Gieseler  and  others  consider  that  it  was  this 
Creed  that  was  ordered  to  be  learnt  by  heart 
by  the  Council  of  Frankfort,  794,  Avhen  it 
decreed,  “  Ut  fides  catholica  sanctae  Trinitatis 
et  oratio  Dominica  atque  Symbolum  Fidei  omni¬ 
bus  praedicatur  et  tradatur  but  it  is  more  pro¬ 
bable  that  the  term  fides  catholica  here  is  generic : 
at  all  events  Ave  would  refer  to  the  creed  con¬ 
tained  in  Charlemagne’s  letter  to  Elipandus 
[Migne,  xcviii.  899],  which  is  assigned  to  the 
same  date  (794)  as  being  more  probably  the  fides 
catholica  of  the  Canon.  It  seems  to  have  been 
recited  at  Prime  on  the  Lord’s  Day  at  Basle  in 
the  9th  century :  Ave  hear  that  in  997  it  Avas 
sung  in  alternate  choirs  in  France  and  in  the 
Church  of  England:  in  1133  it  Avas  used  daily 
at  Prime  in  the  Church  of  Autun ;  from  1200  it 
assumed  the  titles  “Symbolum  S.  Athanasii  ” 
and  “  Psalmus  Quictinque  vultf  Avhich  mark  the 
character  it  occupies  in  our  serA'ices.  It  Avas 
daily  used  at  Prime  in  those  English  churches 
which  adopted  the  use  of  Sarum,  but  Avas  always 
folloAved  by  the  recitation  of  the  Apostles’  Creed  : 
as  if  the  declaration  of  the  Faith  of  the  Avor- 
shipper  always  folloAved  on  the  instruction  of  the 
Church  as  to  what  it  was  necessary  to  believe. 

(^Books.  —  Great  use  has  been  made  of  Dr. 
August  Hahn’s  Collection  of  Formulae  :  and  Dr. 
Caspari’s  P rogramme.  Dr.  Hourtley’s  Harmgnia 
Symbolica  has  of  course  furnished  important 
assistance.  To  other  works  reference  has  been 
made  as  requ-ired.)  C.  A.  S. 

CRESCENS.  (1)  Disciple  of  St.  Paul,  bishop 
in  Galatia,  is  commemorated  June  27  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet..,  Usuardi);  April  15  {Cal.  Byzant.'). 

Thus  the  Apostles’  Creed  was  the  bapilsniai  c.reed  ot 
Spain. 


494 


CRESCENTIA 


CROSS 


(2)  One  of  the  seven  sons  of  St.  Symphorosa, 
martyr  at  Tivoli  under  Hadrian,  July  21 
Bedae);  June  27  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Or  Cricscentius,  martyr  at  Tomi,  Oct.  1 

(^M a  t.  Hieron.,  Horn.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CRESCENTIA,  martyr  in  Sicily  un<ler  Dio¬ 
cletian,  June  15  (JMart.  Hieron.,  Horn.  Vet., 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

CRESCENTIANUS.  (1)  Mart>T  in  Sar¬ 
dinia,  May  31  {^Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Africa,  June  13  {Mart.  Bedae). 

(3)  Martyr  in  Campania,  July  2  {Mart. 
Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  at  Augustana,  Aug.  12  {Mart. 
Usuardi). 

(5)  Martyr  at  Rome  under  Maximian,  Nov.  24 

{Mart.  Bedae,  Usuardi);  March  16  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.).  [C.] 

CRESCENTIO,  or  CRESCENTIUS,  mar¬ 
tyr  at  Rome,  Sept.  17  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

[C.] 

CRESSY,  COUNCIL  OF.  [Christiacum.] 
In  Ponthieu,  A.D.  676;  but  according  to  Labb. 
(vi.  535),  at  Aufun,  A.D.  670,  the  canons  being 
headed  with  the  name  of  Leodegarius,  bishop  of 
Autun  :  pmssed  several  canons,  but  among  others, 
one  exacting,  on  pain  of  episcopal  condemnation, 
from  every  priest,  deacon,  subdeacon,  or  “  cle- 
ricus,”  assent  to  the  “  Fides  Sancti  Athanasii 
praesulis.”  [A.  W.  H.] 

CRISPIN  A,  martyr  in  Africa  under  Diocle¬ 
tian,  Dec.  5  {Cal.  Carthag.,  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi) ; 
Dec.  3  {Mart.  Hieron.,  in  some  MSS.).  [C.] 

CRISPINUS.  (1)  Martyr  with  Crispinianus 
at  Soissons  under  Diocletian,  Oct.  25  {Mart. 
Hieron.,  Bedae,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Anglican.). 

(2)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Astyagis,  Nov.  19 
{Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CRISPOLUS,  or  CRISPULUS,  martyr  in 
Sardinia,  May  30  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Rom.  Vet., 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

CRISPUS.  (1)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Rome 
under  Diocletian,  Aug.  18  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Usuardi). 

(2)  The  “  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,” 
martyr  at  Corinth,  Oct.  4  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

CRISTETA,  martyr  in  Spain,  Oct.  27  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CROSIER.  [Pastoral  Staff.] 

CROSS.  The  official  or  public  use  of  the 
cross  as  a  symbol  of  our  redemption  begins  with 
Constantine,  though  it  had  doubtless  been  em¬ 
ployed  in  private  by  all  Christians  at  a  much 
earlier  date.  (See  Guericke’s  Antiquities  of  the 
Christian  Church,  Morison’s  tr.,  1857,  and  Sin¬ 
ter  im’s  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  &c.,  with  Molanus, 
quoted  below.)  In  the  Catacombs,  and  all  the 
earliest  records,  it  is  constantly  used  in  con¬ 
nexion  with  the  monogram  of  Christ ;  and  this 
may  point  to  the  probable  fact  of  a  double  mean¬ 
ing  in  the  use  of  the  symbol  from  the  earliest 
times.  As  derived  from,  or  joined  with,  the 
monogram,  especially  with  the  mono¬ 
gram  in  its  earliest  or  decussated  form, 
the  cross  is  a  general  or  short-hand 
symbol  for  the  name  and  person  of 
Christ.  As  used  with  the  somewhat  later  or 


transverse  monogram,  or  when  separated  from 
the  monogram  and  used  by  itself,  it 
directs  special  attention  to  the  sacrifice 
and  death  of  the  Lord,  and  as  it  were 
avows  and  glories  in  the  manner  of 
His  death.  “  Le  triomphe  de  la  Christianisme 
s’affichait  bien  plus  ouvertement  sur  cet  in- 
.signe  [the  Labarum]  au  moyen  du  monogramme, 
coinme  exprimant  le  nom  du  Christ,  que  par 
I’ide'e  de  la  croix.”  Its  use  as  a  symbol  of 
His  person  is  of  high  antiquity ;  see  Ciampini, 
Vet.  Mon.  t.  ii.  pp.  81  and  82,  tav.  xxiv.,  and 
c.  viii.  tav.  xvii.  D ;  although  some  discredit  may 
have  fallen  on  it  from  the  actual  personification 
of  the  symbol  in  later  days,  after  the  publication 
of  the  Legend  of  the  Cross,  when  churches  were 
dedicated  to  it,  as  St.  Cross,  or  Holy  Rood, 
and  it  became  an  object  of  prayer.®  [Sign  op 
THE  Cross.]  For  the  purely  symbolic  use  of 
the  great  Christian  and  in  part  human  emblem, 
Ciampini’s  plate,  a  copy  of  the  great  “  Trans¬ 
figuration  ”  in  mosaic  in  St.  Apollinaris  at  Ra¬ 
venna,  A.D.  545,  may  be  here  described  as  a 
typical  example.  It  covers  the  vault  of  an 
arch.  The  presence  of  the  Father  is  represented 
by  the  ancient  symbol  of  a  Hand  [see  s.  v.] 
issuing  from  a  cloud  above  all.  Below  it  is  a 
cross  of  the  Western  form,,  slightly  widened  at 
the  extremities,  or  tending  to  the  Maltese,  in¬ 
scribed  in  a  double  circle  or  nimbus.  At  the 
intersection  is  the  Face  of  our  Lord,  scarcely  dis¬ 
tinguishable  in  Ciampini’s  small  engraving,  but 
visible  in  the  now  accessible  photograph  ;  and 


a  Didron,  Iconographie  <1.,  vol.  i.  p.  367  ;  Bohn ; 
“  Christ  is  embodied  in  the  Cross,  as  He  is  in  the  Lamb, 
or  as  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Dove.  ...  In  Christian  Icono¬ 
graphy,  Christ  is  actually  present  under  ihe-  form  and 
semblance  of  the  Cross.  The  Cross  is  our  i;rucified  Lord 
in  person,’'  &c.  In  the  9th  amtury  the  praises  of  the 
Cross  were  sung,  as  men  sing  those  of  a  god  or  a  hero. 
Rhaban  Maur,  who  was  Archbishop  of  Mayence  in  fe47, 
wrote  a  poem  in  honour  of  the  Cross,  De  Laudibus 
Sanctae  Cruris.  See  his  complete  works,  fol.,  Coloniae 
Agrippinae,  1626,  vol.  i.  pp.  273-337.  He  further  quotes 
St.  Jerome’s  comparisons  of  “  species  crucis  forma  qua- 
drata  mundi “  aves  quando  volant,  ad  aethera  forniam 
crucis  assumant .  . .  homo  natans,  vel  orans  .  .  .  navis  per 
maria  antenna  crucis  similata.  Tau  littera  signum  salutia 
et  crucis  describitur.” — (.omment.  in  Marcum. 

The  Pontifical,  or  bishop’s  ofiBce-book,  of  Ecbert  or 
Egbert,  brother  of  Eadbert,  king  of  Northumbria,  and 
consecrated  archbishop  of  York  in  732,  contains  an  office 
for  the  dedication  of  a  cross,  which  certainly  makes  no 
mention  of  any  human  form  thereon  {v.  Surtees  Society, 
1853,  pp.  111-113).  “  .  .  .  .  Quaesumus  ut  consecres  Tibi 


hoc  signum  cru 


cis,  quod  tota  mentis  devotione 


famuli  tui  religiosa  fides  constnixit  trophaeum  scilicet 
victoriae  tuae  et  redemptionls  nostrae.  .  .  .  Radiet  hie 
Unigeniti  Filii  tui  splendor  divinltatis  in  auro,  emicet 
gloria  passionis  in  ligno,  in  criiore  rutilet  nostrae  mortis 
redemptio,  in  spleiidore  cristalli  nostrae  mortis  redemptio : 
sit  suorum  protectio,  spei  certa  fiducia,  eos  simul  cum 
g  nte  et  plebe  fide  confirmet,  spe  solidet,  pace  consociet : 
augeat  triurnphis,  amplificet  secundis,  proficiat  eis  ad  per- 
petuitatem  temporls,  et  ad  vitam  acternitatis,”  &c.  &c. 
A  curiously  mingled  state  of  thought  or  feeling  is  indi¬ 
cated  by  this  passage:  the  cross  is  a  symbol  of  Christ 
and  a  token  of  His  victory ;  It  is  of  material  wood,  gold, 
jewels,  &e. ;  but  a  sacramental  power  seems  to  be  consi¬ 
dered  as  adherent  in  the  sjunbol ;  its  consecration  gives  it 
p<“rsonality ;  and  it  is  to  be  addressed  in  prayer  as  if 
possessed  of  actual  powers. 


CROSS 


CROSS 


495 


verified  on  the  spot,  as  we  understand,  by  M. 
Grimoald  de  St.  Laurent.  (Didron’s  Annales 
ArcMologiques,  vol.  xxvi.  p.  5.)  This  Face  of  the 
Lord  seems  in  a  work  of  the  5th  centui’y  to  im¬ 
port  no  more  than  the  name  or  monogram  :  but 
it  is  found  again  on  the  oil-vessels  of  Monza. 
(See  Martigny,  s.  v.  Crucifix,  and  Didron,  Annales 
Arch.  vol.  xxvi.)  The  A  and  w  are  at  its  right 
and  left,  and  the  ground  of  the  inner  circle  is  sown 
with  stars ;  that  of  the  outer  with  small  oblong 
spots  in  pairs,  which  probably  indicate  only  va¬ 
riations  of  colour  in  the  mosaic.  Further  to 
risht  and  left  are  Moses  and  Elias  adoring  the 
cross,  with  St.  Apollinaris  below.  The  ascent  of 
the  mountain  is  indicated  by  trees  and  birds, 
among  which  are  tlie  universally  present  sheep. 
The  Holy  Dove  is  not  represented,  the  mosaic 
having  reference  to  the  Transfiguration  only. 
Above  the  cross  are  the  letters  IMDVC,  which 
Ciampini  interprets  as  “  Immolatio  Domini  Jesus 
Christi below  it  the  words  “  Salus  Mundi.” 
Didron,  however  {Christian  Iconography,  p.  396, 
vol.  i.),  asserts  on  the  authority  of  M.  Lacroix, 
who  has  given  particular  attention  to  the  church 
of  S.  Apolliuare  in  Classe,  that  these  letters  are 
really  IX0TC.  The  accession  of  Constantine 
seems  to  have  been  an  occasion  of  publicly 
avowing  to  the  Pagans,  and  therefore  of  more 
vigorously  enforcing  on  the  Christian  mind,  the 
sacrificial  death  of  the  Lord  for  man.  The  office 
of  Christ  was  distinguished  from  the  person  of 
Christ :  the  cross  was,  so  to  speak,  extricated 
from  the  monogram ;  and  its  full  import,  long 
understood  and  felt  by  all  Christians,  was  now 
made  explicit.  However  long  the  change  from 
the  symbolic  cross  to  the  realist  or  portrait 
crucifix  may  have  taken — with  whatever  long- 
enduring  awe  and  careful  reverence  the  corporeal 
suffering  of  the  Lord  may  have  been  veiled  in 
symbol — the  progress  of  a  large  part  of  the 
Church  to  actual  representation  of  the  Lord  in 
the  act  of  death  seems  to  have  been  logically 
certain  from  the  time  wdien  His  death  as  a  male¬ 
factor  for  all  men  was  avo\fed  and  proclaimed  to 
the  heathen.  The  gradual  progress  or  transi¬ 
tion  from  the  symbol  to  the  representation  is 
partly  traced  out  s.  v.  Crucifix  ;  and  as  the  words 
“  cross  ”  and  “  crucifix  ”  are  to  a  great  extent 
confounded  in  their  popular  use  in  most  European 
languages,  particularly  in  Roman  Catholic  coun¬ 
tries,  the  following  tentative  distinction  may 
perhaps  hold  good, — that  a  cross  with  any  symbol 
or  other  representation  of  a  victim  attached  to  it, 
or  anyhow  placed  on  it,  passes  into  the  cruci- 
ficial  category. 

The  usual  threefold  division  of  the  form  of  the 
cross  into  the  Crux  Decussata  or  St.  Andrew’s 
cross ;  the  Crux  Commissa,  Tau,  or  Egyptian ; 
and  the  Immissa  or  upright  four-armed  cross, 
seems  most  convenient.  It  would  appear  from 
Ciampini’s  plate  above  quoted,  and  is  historically 
probable,  that  the  distinction  between  the  Greek 
and  Latin  crosses,  by  reason  of  the  equal  or 
unequal  length  of  the  arms,  is  scarcely  within 
our  province.  Its  earliest  origin  dates  perhaps 
from  the  time  succeeding:  the  Iconoclastic  con- 
troversy  (see  Crucifix),  when  the  Latin  mind 
continued  to  insist  specially  on  the  cross  as  the 
instrument  of  the  Lord’s  death,  and  carefully 
selected  the  most  probable  shape  of  the  cross  on 
which  He  suffered.  The  symbol  of  the  inter¬ 
secting  bars  was  enough  for  the  Greek.  As  a 


Christian  emblem,  the  decussated  cross  may  be 
considered  the  most  ancient :  but  all  are  of  the 
earliest  age  of  Christian  work  :  as  are  many 
curious  varieties  of  the  cruciform  figure.  The 
forms  in  the  woodcuts  are  Christian  adoptions  of 
pre-Christian  crosses.  They  are  sup])osed  by 
Martigny  and  others  to  be  what  he  calls  formes 
dissimulees ;  or  ancient  symbols  adopted  by 
Christians  as  sufficiently  like  the  cross  or  tree 
of  punishment  to  convey  to  their  minds  the 
associations  of  the  Lord’s  suffering,  without  pro¬ 
claiming  it  in  a  manner  which  would  shock 
heathen  prejudice  unnecessarily.  Constantine 
appears  to  have  felt  that  a  time  was  come  when 
his  authority  could  enforce  a  different  feeling 
with  regard  to  the  death  of  the  Lord  for  men. 
He  used  the  cross  or  monogram  privately  and 
publicly ;  impressed  it  on  the  arms  of  his  soldiers  ; 
and  erected  large  crosses  on  the  Hippodrome  and 
elsewhere  in  Constantinople.  His  use  of  it  on 
his  standards  is  well  known.  (Cf.  Labarum, 
Draconarius.)  Euseb.,  Vit.  Const,  iii.  3,  refers 
to  the  Triumphal  Cross  made  and  set  above  the 
Dragon  by  Constantine.  For  his  vision  and  the 
making  of  the  Labartim,  see  ibid.  pp.  28-39  ; 
Bingham,  Antiq.  s.  v.  Crucifix.  Of  its  use  on 
coins,  which  appears  to  begin  with  Yalentinian  L, 
A.D.  364—375,  see  coin  of  Valens  in  Angelo 


Engraved  stone  of  earliest  epoch.  ®idron„  ‘  Ic.  Chr^tieune, 
vol.  i.  p.  396.) 

Rocca,  infra.  It  seems  as  if  Constantine  really 
hoped  to  use  the  Christian  symbol  as  a  token 
of  union  for  his  vast  empire,  with  that  mix¬ 
ture  of  sincere  faith,  superstition,  and  ability 
which  characterized  most  of  his  actions.  The 
frequent  recuiTence  of  the  rovrw  vlki  on 
ancient  crosses  shows  the  importance  which 
he  and  others  attached  to  his  vision.  Ter- 
tullian’s  words  may  suffice  to  express  the 
general  use  of  the  cross  in  private  in  his  time 
{De  Cor.  Mil.  c.  iii.) :  “  Ad  omnem  progressum 
atque  promotum ;  ad  omnem  aditum  atque 
exitum :  ad  calceatum,  ad  lavacra,  ad  mensas, 
ad  lumina,  ad  cubilia,  ad  sedilia  : — quaecunque 
nos  conversatio  exercet,  frontem  crucis  signaculo 
terimus.”  This  is  paralleled  by  St.  Chryso¬ 
stom’s  Trarraxov  evpiaKecrdai  (t.  aravphv') — irapa 
&,pX0V(ri,  rrapa  apxop-fvois,  irapa  yvvai^X,  irapa 
&u8pacn,  .  .  .  .  eV  ‘6ir\ois  K.  ev  iraarTamu,  iv 
(TKevidiv  apyupots,  iu  rolx<^>^  ypacpaTs.  Julian 
had  derided  the  Christians  as  (Udras  (rraupov 
<TKiaypa<povvTfS  ev  TqS  p-fTwirw,  &c.  They  were 
accused  of  worshipping  it  as  a  divinity  or  fetiche. 
Seethe  words  of  the  pagan  Caecilius,  in  Minucius 
Felix  Octav.  cc.  ix.  and  xxix. :  Et  qui  hominem 


CROSS 


CROSS 


49r. 


summo  supijlicic  pro  facinore  punitum,  et  crucis 
Jigna  feraiia  eorum  caeremoniis  fabulantur,  con- 
gruentia  porditis  sceleratisque,  ....  ut  id  colant 
q\iod  merentur.”  Ke  is  answered  simply,  “  Cruces 
nec  colimus  nec  optamus.”  This  is  also  referred 
to  by  Molanus,  I)c  Ficiuris,  c.  v.,  with  many 
other  passages.  [See  Sign  of  the  Cross.] 

The  cross  of  course  conveyed  to  earlier  Chris¬ 
tians,  as  to  ourselves,  the  lesson  of  our  own  per¬ 
sonal  sacrifice  or  dedication  to  Christ,  and  the 
thought  of  His  command  to  take  up  the  cross. 
Hence  doubtless  its  constant  use  in  times  of 
actual  or  remembered  persecution.  But  this  use 
of  it  would  necessarily  lead  on  from  the  thought 
of  His  person  to  that  of  His  sacrifice.  See  the 
inscription  by  Paulinus  of  Nola,  who  made  such 
ample  use  of  pictorial  and  other  decorations, 
placed  under  a  cross  at  the  entrance  of  his 
church  : — 

“  Oorne  coronatam  Domini  super  atria  Christi 
Stare  crucem,  duro  spondentem  celsa  labore 
Praemia.  Tolle  crucem,  qui  vis  auferre  coronam." 

(See  Binterim,  vol.  iv.  part  i.,  and  Molanus, 
De  Iinaginibus,  c.  v.  De  Picturis.) 

The  private  use  of  crosses,  or  representations 
of  the  cross,  is  highly  uncertain  before  Constan¬ 
tine,  though  Martigny  refers  to  Ferret  (Cata- 
combes  de  Borne,  iv.  pi.  xvi.  74)  for  certain  stones, 
apparently  belonging  to  rings,  on  which  the  cross 
is  engraved,  and  which  appear  to  be  of  date  prior 
to  Constantine.  It  seems  probable  that  the  use 
of  the  monogram  prevailed  before  and  during  his 
time,  with  sacrificial  meaning  attach¬ 
ing  more  and  more  to  the  cruciform 
in  the  Christian  mind.  (See  Binterim, 
vol.  iv.  part  ii.) 

The  most  interesting  cross  in  existence  of  this 
kind  seems  to  be  the  pectoral  cross  or  iyKSXiriov 
in  gold  and  niello,  described  last  by  M.  St.  Laurent 
in  Didron’s  Annates  Archeologiques.  It  is  said  to 
contain  a  fragment  of  the  wood  of  the  cross,  and 
bears  on  its  front  EMANOVHA  HOBISCVM 
DEVS  on  the  back,  “  Crux  est  vita  mihi ;  mors, 
inimice,  tibi,”  in  same  characters.  It  must  date 
from  near  the  time  of  the  Empress  Helena,  when 
many  like  crosses  beVan  to  be  worn.  Compare 
drawing  of  serpent  below  the  monogram. 

One  example  is  given  by  Boldetti  of  a  taii- 
cross,  dating  A.D.  370  according  to  the  consuls  : 
neither  the  Crux  Immissa  nor  the  Greek  cross 
appear  by  actual  examples  till  the  5th  century. 
This  question  of  date  can  hardly  be  decided  in 
the  Catacombs,  from  the  number  of  crosses  in¬ 
scribed  there  by  pilgrims  of  all  jieriods. 

Theie  is  a  passage  from  Severus  Sanctus 
Endeleohius  or  Entelechius,  a  Christian  poet,  pro¬ 
bably  of  Aquitaine,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  4th 
century,  where  a  Christian  shepherd  has  secured 
his  flock  from  disease  by  planting  or  marking 
between  their  horns  (“  signum  mediis  frontibus 
additum  ”)  the  cross  of  “  the  God  men  worship  in 
great  cities” : — 

“  Signum,  quod  perhibent  esse  crucis  Dei 
Magnis  qui  colitur  solus  in  urbibus, 

Christus,  perpetui  gloria  numinis,”  &c. 

De  Rossi’s  work,  De  Titulis  Christianis  Cartha- 
gi7iiensibus,  speaks  of  4th  century  marbles  beai-- 


b  For  examples  and  discussion  of  this  subject,  see 
Binterim,  vol.  iv.  part  L 


ing  the  cross ;  ana  It  is  possible  that  in  distant 
provinces  the  associations  of  shameful  death  may 
not  have  clung  to  it  so  closely.  M.  Laurent 
makes  the  obvious  remark  that  the  use  of  the 
cross  spread  with  a  rapidity  proportioned  to  the 
advance  of  Christianity,  and  speaks  of  its  earlier 
and  freer  use  in  Africa,  quoting  De  Rossi,  D.  T.  C. 
For  Constantine’s  golden  cross  on  the  tomb  of 
St.  Peter,  see  Anastasius,  Lib.  Pordif.,  In  Syl- 
vesfro,  p.  8,  Scr.  Byz.  (Fabroti);  also  Eusebius, 
Const.  Vit.  iii.  49.  Two  crosses  from  the  Cata¬ 
comb  of  vSt.  Pontianus  given  by  Bottari,  tav.  xliv.- 
xlvd.,  richly  adorned  with  jewels  and  metal-work, 
one  of  which  has  the  A  w  attached  to  it  by 
chains,  may  also  date  from  the  years  imme¬ 
diately  preceding  Constantine,  if  not  works  of 
his  time.  The  great  Cross  of  the  Lateran,  so 
called,  is  referred  to  his  time,  and  apparently 
accepted  as  of  that  date  by  Binterim,  vol.  iv. 
part  i.  frontispiece.  It  is  in  mosaic,  and  though 
restored  by  Nicolas  IV.,  can  hardly  have  been 
altered.  It  is  a  plain  cross,  having  a  medallion 
of  the  Lord’s  baptism  at  its  intersection.  The 
Holy  Spirit,  in  form  of  a  dove,  with  nimbus 
hovers  above ;  and  from  Him  seems  to  proceed 
the  baptismal  fountain,  which  at  the  cross-foot 
becomes  the  source  of  the  four  rivers,  Gihon, 
Pison,  Tigi'is,  Euphrates.  Between  the  rivers  is 


Lateran  Cross.  (Binterim,  vol.  iv.  p.  i.) 


the  Holy  City  of  God,  guarded  by  the  archangel 
Michael,  behind  whom  springs  up  a  palm-tree, 
on  which  sits  the  Phoenix  as  a  symbol  of  Christ. 
[Phcenix.]  Two  stags  below  near  the  waters 
represent  the  heathen,  seeking  baptism  ;  and 
three  sheep  on  each  side  stand,  as  usual,  for  the 
Hebrew  and  Gentile  Churches.  Thi.s  relic  should 
be  compared  with  a  similar  one  given  by  De  Rossi 
{De  Titulis  Carthaginiensibus'),  where  the  cross 
stands  on  a  hill,  and  the  four  rivers  spring  trom 
its  foot,  with  stags,  &c.,  as  both  have  decided 
reference  to  baptism,  and  illustrate  the  earliest 
representative  use  of  the  cross  as  a  symbol  of 
Christ,  with  special  reference  not  to  His  death 
but  His  baptism.  Others  even  in  later  times 
were  made  with  this  view,  and  indeed  with 
ornaments  representing  Old  Testament  types  of 
the  Redeemer.  (See  Crucifix,  accor.nt  of  the 
station-cross  of  Mainz.) 

The  use  of  the  Tau,  patibulary.  or  Egyptian 


CROSS 


CROSS 


497 


Cross, is  general  from  perhaps  the  earliest 
3  period.  Some  special  difficulties  appear 
to  be  connected  with  it,  as  it  is  be¬ 
yond  doubt  a  pre-Christian  emblem, 
and  as  such  connected  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  used  it  with  special,  at  least 
pre-Christian,  meanings.  These  meanings  will 
of  course  be  of  two  classes  :  —  Istly,  the 
interpretations  of  speculative  minds  in  all  ages 
which  connect  the  tau-cross  with  Egyptian 
nature- worship  through  the  Crux  Ansata,  and 
which  include  all  the  Ophite  and  Gnostic 
uses  of  the  symbol,  and  its  connexion  with 
the  serpent,  as  a  sign  of  strength,  wisdom, 
&c. ;  2ndly,  those  of  Hebrew  origin,  connected 
as  types  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  through 
that  with  the  Christian  faith, — the  wood  borne  by 
Isaac,  and  the  tau  or  cross  on  which  the  brazen 
serpent  was  supported.  Didron’s  remark  seems 
appropriate  here,  that  the  tau  is  the  anticipatory 
cross  of  the  Old  Testament.  We  are  not  con¬ 
cerned  with  it  as  such,  and  may  refer  for  much 
interesting  and  erudite  speculation  on  the  pre- 
Christian  cross,  or  decussated  figure,  to  the  text 
and  references  of  an  article  in  the  Edinburgh 
Review  of  April,  1870. 

The  tau  appears  in  the  Callixtine  Catacomb,  in 
a  sepulchral  inscription,  referred  to  the  3rd  cen¬ 


tury,  thus  :  IRE 


r 


NE.  This  frequently 


occurs  elsewhere  (De  Rossi,  Bullet.  1863,  p.  35); 
and  some  of  the  crucifixes  on  the  vessels  of  the 
treasury  of  Monza  are  of  the  same  shape.  (See 
Didron’s  Annales  Archeologiques,  w.  xxvi.-vii.) 
Still  in  some  of  the  earliest  examples  it  may 
possibly  have  been  used,  even  by  Christians,  in 
the  pre-Christian  sense,  as  a  type  of  life  in  the 
world  to  come. 

In  Boldetti,  lib.  ii.  c.  iii.  p.  353,  an  Egyptian 
cross  of  black  marble  mosaic  is  given,  which  may 
probably  be  of  later  date  than  the  catacomb  in 
which  it  was  found ;  but  the  next  page  contains 
an  early  iuscri))tion  of  the  tau  between  A  and  co. 


thus :  A 


He  quotes  the  following 


passage  from  Tertullian  on  this  form  of  the  cross, 
who  refers  to  Ezekiel  thus:  “  Pertransi  medio 
portae  in  mediam  Jerusalem  et  da  signum  Tau 
in  frontibus  virorum.  Ipsa  enim  litera  Grae¬ 
corum  Tau,  nostra  autem  T,  species  crucis.” — 
Adv.  Marciun.  lib.  iii.  22.  This  form  of  cross  is 
specially  appropriated  to  the  thieves  rather  than 
the  Redeemer,  in  some  crucifixions  of  earl}"  medi¬ 
aeval  type.  [Crucifix.] 


Anchor-Cross. 

(Didron’s  *  Annales  Arch^ologiqaes,’  vol.  xxvi.  frontispiece.) 


e  In  T.ipsins,  De  Cruce,  i.  7,  it  is  shown  to  be  of 
Phcenlcian  origin. 

CHRIST.  AJNT. 


Both  Greek  and  Romau  ci’0sse.s,  and  in  parti¬ 
cular  cruciform  churches,'^  sometimes  posse.ss  one 
or  even  two  additional  cross  limbs,  shorter  than 
the  main  or  central  one.  The  upper  additional 


is  supposed  by  Didron  to  stand  for 


the  title  over  the  head  of  the  Crucified  One.  If 
this  be  so,  the  lower  may  be  taken  to  represent 
the  suppedaneum^  a  support  for  His  feet.  In  cases 
where  both  the  shorter  limbs  are  placed  above 
the  main  cross-bar,  as  in  the  cross  represented  in 
Boldetti,  lib.  i.  c.  ii.  p.  271,  they  certainly  re¬ 
present  the  crosses  of  the  malefactors.  [Cru¬ 
cifix.]  See  two  coins  of  Valensand  Antheinius, 
Angelo  Rocca,  Bihl.  Vaticana,  vol.  ii.  p.  253  . 
one,  a  nummus  aereus,  has  the  three  crosses,  the 
other  with  two  smaller  cross-beams  under  the 
large  one. 

The  term  “station-cross”  is  derived  from  the 


On  a  single  Tomb,  Callbctine  Catacomb. 
(Boidetti,  lib.  ii.  c.  iii.  p.  363.) 


Roman  military  term  statio,  and  applied  to  a 
large  cross  on  the  chief  altar,  or  in  some  prin¬ 
cipal  place  of  a  church,  but  occasionally  removed 
or  carried  in  procession  to  another  place,  and 
then  constituting  a  special  place  of  prayer.  (See 
Bottari,  tav.  xlv.,  and  illustration  of  Lateran  . 
Cross.)  Processional  crosses  may  be  traced  to  the 
use  of  the  Labarum  in  Constantine’s  army,  and 
also  of  his  substitution  of  the  Cross  for  the 
Dragon,  or  placing  it  above  the  Dragon  en 
standards  of  cohorts,  &c.  (See  the  Church  use 
of  the  word  Draconarius,  standard-bearer.') 

The  distinction  between  the  Cross  of  the  Re¬ 
surrection,  or  Triumphal  Cross,  and  the  Cross 
of  the  Passion,  is  traceable  to  early  times.  In 
Ciampini,  V.  M.  tav.  xvii.  D  (ch.  viii.),  our  Lord 
in  glory  stands  by  and  suj^ports  a  large  cross, 
having  the  angels  Michael  and  Gabriel  on  either 
hand.  The  Lamb  is  also  frequently  represented 
as  bearing  the  lighter  and  longer  triumphal  cross. 
(See  Crucifix,  and  references  to  the  Vatican  Cross, 
&c.)  It  is  also  borne  by  our  Lord  in  reprcsent.i- 
tions  of  the  Descent  info  Hades.  It  is  symbolic 


I  Constantine’s  ancient  church  of  St.  I  ctor,  S.  Paolo 
fuori  delle  Mura,  and  Sta.  Maria  Mai3giore  v\  ere  ali  ouilt 

n 

in  the  form  of  a  cross.  That  of  S.  Paolo  is  a  '  ||  ' 
with  projecting  apse. 


498 


CROSS 

of  the  victory  gained  by  the  sufferings  to  which 
the  Passion-cross  calls  our  special  attention. 

The  drawing  of  the  engraved  stone  or  signct- 
cioss  at  p.  495,  with  the  motto  “  Salus,”  repre¬ 
sents  a  device  with  the  triumphal  cross.  The 
monogram  of  the  Lord  is  placed  over  the  ser¬ 
pent,  which  vainly  tempts  the  doves,  who  look 
to  the  symbol  of  their  Lord.  But  see  s.  v. 
Serpent. 

The  statement  of  Bede  (Binterim,  vol.  iv.  i.  p. 
501)  relating  to  the  four  kinds  of  wood  of  which  the 
cross  was  made — the  upright  of  cypress,  the  cross- 


(A) 


ii  Cemetery  of  St.  Agnes 


(D) 


i  Cemetery  of  Domitia. 

(Boldetti,  lib.  ii.  c  iiL  p.  363.) 

piece  of  cedar,  the  head-piece  of  fir,  and  the  suppe- 
daneum  of  box — departs  from  the  Eastern  tradi¬ 
tion,  which  substitutes  olive  and  palm  for  the  two 
latter  varieties  of  wood.  This  forms  part  of  the 
legendary  history  of  the  cross,  with  which  we  are 
not  concerned.  The  only  remarks  to  be  made  by 
way  of  conclusion  or  summary  appear  to  be  these  : 
that  a  double,  and  indeed  manifold,  meaning 
Attached  to  the  cross  from  the  earliest  ages. 
Derived  as  a  Christian  sign  from  the  monogram, 
and  connected  with  traditions  of  ancient  learning 
by  its  Egyptian  form,  it  may  be  said  to  have 
stood  for  all  things  to  all  men.  To  the  earliest 


CROSS,  ADORATION  OF 

members  of  the  Church  it  represented  their 
Master,  who  was  all  in  all  to  them ;  and  thus  in 
their  view,  a  somewhat  wider  and  happier  one 
than  in  later  days,  it  represented  all  the  faith — 
the  person  of  Christ,  His  death  for  man,  and  the 
life  and  death  of  man  in  Chri.st.  The  Lateran 
and  other  crosses  point  to  baptism  and  all  its 
train  of  Christian  thought,  without  immediate 
reference  to  the  Lord’s  sacidfice.  [Lamr.]  Con¬ 
stantine  indeed  (.see  Anastat.  Vit.  Fontif.  in 
Sylvestro)  seems  to  have  attached  the  symboho 
Lamb  to  the  Baptist  and  the  .sacrament  he  ad¬ 
ministered,  as  well  as  to  the  Lord’s  Supper  and 
the  showing  forth  of  His  death.  The  tendency 
of  Christian  feeling  towards  special  or  exclusive 
contemplation  of  the  Lord’s  sufferings  and  death 
is  matter  of  ecclesiastical  history ;  and  its  effect 
on  Christian  emotion,  and  therefore  on  Christian 
art,  is  the  transition  from  the  cross  into  the 
crucifix.  (See  s.  v.) 

An  evidence  of  the  feelings  of  subdued  triumph 
with  which  the  cross  was  regarded  in  the  earlie.st 
times,  as  a  symbol  first  of  the  Lord’s  life  and 
death,  then  of  the  life  and  death  of  man,  is 
that  it  is  so  frequently  wreathed,  embossed,  or 
otherwise  ornamented  with  flowers.  Even  as  late 
as  the  Monza  vessels,  it  is  represented  as  a  living 
and  budding  stem  ;  but  the  cross  from  St.  Ponti- 
anus,  given  by  Bottari,  xliv.  is  made  to  put  forth 
golden  or  silver  flowers  half-way  up  its  stem. 

Count  Melchior  de  Vogue  (Bevue  Archdologique, 
vol.  vii.  p.  201)  gives  a  highly  interesting  ac¬ 
count  of  the  ruins,  or  rather  the  scarcely-injured 
remains,  of  four  ancient  Christian  towns,  on  the 
left  bank  of  the  Orontes,  between  Antioch  and 
Aleppo.  They  contain  many  ancient  crosses,  and 
were  probably  deserted  at  the  same  time,  on  the 
first  Mussulman  invasion.  “  On  est  transporte',  ’ 
he  says,  “  au  milieu  de  la  socie'te'  chre'tienne  .  .  . 
non  plus  la  vie  cachee  des  catacombes,  ni  I’ex- 
istence  humiliee,  timide,  souffrante,  mais  une  vie 
large,  opulente,  artistique.  ....  Des  croix,  des 
monogrammes  du  Christ  sont  sculptes  en  relief 
sur  la  plupart  des  portes :  le  ton  de  ces  inscrip¬ 
tions  indique  une  e'poque  voisine  du  triomphe  de 
rEgii.se.  .  .  .  Le  graffito  d’un  peintre  obscur,  qui, 
de'corant  un  tombeau,  a,  pour  essayer  son  pinceau, 
trace'  sur  le  paroi  du  rocher  des  monogrammes 
du  Christ,  et  dans  son  enthousiasme  de  Chretien 
e'mancipe'  e'crit,  eii  paraphra.sant  le  labarum,  Tovto 
viKa,  Ceci  triomphe.”  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

CROSS,  Adoration  of.  (Adoratio  CrnciSj 

T)  Trpo(TKVVr)(TlS  TOV  (TTUUpoC.) 

1.  Adoration  of  the  Cross  from  the  heathen 
point  of  view. — Christianity  being  a  “religion  of 
the  cross,”  the  cross  being  in  every  Christian 
teacher’s  mouth  as  the  watchword  of  the  new 
faith,  the  action  of  signing  with  the  cross  [Sign 
OF  THE  Cross]  being  believed  in  by  the  Chris¬ 
tians  as  a  preservative  against  all  dangers  bodily 
and  spiritual,  what  wonder  is  it  that  the  heathen 
should  have  seen  in  early  Christianity  but  a 
crravpoXaTpe'ia,  and  in  the  cross  but  a  Christian 
idol  not  less  material  than  their  own  ? 

Thus  we  find  Tertullian  feeling  it  necessary 
carefully  to  combat  this  among  divers  false 
views  of  Christian  worship  prevalent  among  the 
heathen.  His  words,  with  the  logic  of  which 
we  have  nothing  to  do,  are  “  Sed  et  qui  Crucis 
nos  religiosos  putat,  consecraneus  erit  noster  — 
Even  if  we  did  worship  the  cross,  we  should  be 
no  worse  than  you,  for  the  cross  enters  directly 


CROSS,  ADORATION  OF 

or  indirectly  into  your  own  objects  erf  worship  ; 
for  example,  as  being  the  structure  around 
which  the  makers  of  images  of  the  gods  would 
first  erect  the  clay  model,  or  as  being  the  frame¬ 
work  of  trophies  reared  in  honour  of  victory 
whom  you  adore  as  a  deity  (^Apol.  c.  IG  ;  and  in 
similar  strain,  Ad  Nationes  i.  c.  12). 

•  We  find  references  to  the  same  heathen  taunt 
in  the  Octavius  of  Minucii^s  Felix,  as  e.g.  in  c.  9, 
where  the  heathen  objector  winds  up  his  re¬ 
marks  “  ut  id  colant  quod  merentur and 
again  (c.  12),  “  et  jam  non  adorandae,  sed  sub- 
euudae  Cruces.”  The  writer  in  meeting  this 
attack  speaks  as  Tertullian  had  done  of  the  way 
in  which  the  cross  entered  into  heathenism,  and 
adds  (c.  29),  “  Cruces  etiam  nec  colimus,  nec 
optamus,”  by  which  he  seems  to  mean,  We 
Christians  do  not  worship  the  cross  so  as  to  give 
such  adoration  and  honour  to  it  as  you  heathen 
to  your  idols.  That  this  misconception  on  the 
part  of  the  heathen  was  not  speedily  overcome 
may  be  seen  from  the  case  of  so  intelligent  a 
man  as  the  Emperor  Julian,  who,  a  century 
after  Minucius  had  written,  taunts  the  Chris¬ 
tians,  as  the  Caecilius  of  that  writer  had  done, 
with  inconsistency,  in  that  while  they  refused  to 
reverence  (irpoa-KweTu)  the  sacred  Ancile  which 
fell  down  from  Jupiter  and  was  preserved  among 
them  as  a  pledge  of  the  protection  ever  to  be 
shown  to  the  city,  they  still  reverenced  the 
wood  of  the  cross,  continually  made  the  sign  of 
it  on  their  foreheads,  and  engraved  it  before 
their  houses  (Cyril  Alex.  Contra  Julianxim,  lib. 
vi.  Patrol.  Gr.  Ixxvi.  795).  The  gist  of  Cyril’s 
answer  is  worthy  of  notice  : — Since  Christ  the 
Lord  and  Saviour  of  all  divested  Himself  of  His 
Divine  Majesty,  and  leaving  His  Father’s  Throne 
was  willing  to  take  upon  Him  the  form  of  a 
servant,  and  to  be  made  in  the  likeness  of  man, 
and  to  die  the  cruel  and  ignominious  death  of 
the  cross,  therefore  we  being  reminded  of  these 
things  by  the  sight  of  the  cross,  and  taught  that 
One  died  thereon  that  we  all  might  have  life, 
value  the  symbol  as  productive  of  thankful 
remembrance  of  Him. 

II.  Point  of  vievj  of  early  Christian  writers. — 
Having  thus  alluded  to  the  adoration  of  the 
cross  as  seen  from  the  heathen  point  of  view,  we 
shall  next  endeavour  to  trace  the  existence  of 
the  idea  among  Christians  of  a  modified  form 
of  reverence  to  be  paid  to  the  cross.  That  idea 
may  be  expressed  roughly  thus  :  No  reverence 
is  paid  to  the  material  cross  as  such  ;  it  is  the 
idea  of  the  cross  for  which  reverence  is  felt ;  but 
it  is  the  reverence  or  worship  due  to  a  most 
holy  or  cherished  thing,  not  that  which  is  due 
to  God,  TTpo(TKvvT](ris,  not  XarpCia.  Certain  it  is 
that  in  this  modified  sense  of  worship  the  early 
Christians  maintained  the  duty  of  reverence  to 
the  sacred  symbol  of  redemption  (see  especially 
Le  Nourry’s  Dissertatio  in  Minuc.  Pel.  c.  xii. 
Art.  4  in  Patrol,  iii.  531).  Thus  Eusebius  says 
of  Constantine,  rhv  viKoiroihv  er'i/aa  (Travp6v 
[Vita  Const,  i.  31;  cf.  ib.  ii.  16;  iv.  21;  and 
Oratio  de  laudibus  Const,  c.  9 ;  also  Sozomen 
i.  4,  del  ToC  ^aaiXecas  r)ye7(r6ai  Kai  TTpoaKwr)- 
trecDS  vevofjLicrTo  irapa  rSiv  (TTpaTiuTtov).  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem  (Ep.  ad  Const,  p.  247)  speaks 
of  rh  awTTjpiop  TOO  aravpov  ^vKov.  The 
above-mentioned  instances  taken  by  themselves 
might  be  viewed  as  due  to  a  somewhat  rhe¬ 
torical  way  of  speaking,  but  the  real  nature  of 


CROSS,  ADORATION  OF  499 

the  feeling  is  shown  by  the  following  moro 
definite  instances. 

Ambrose  {In  ob.  Theodosii,  §  46)  tells  of  the 
Empress  Helena’s  adoration  of  the  cross  after  her 
discovery  of  Pilate’s  superscription,  and  adds  : 

Begem  adoravit,  non  lignum  utique,  quia  hie 
Gentilis  est  error  et  vanitas  impiorum ;  sed 
adoravit  ilium  qui  pependit  in  ligno,  scriptus 
in  Cruce.”  Shortly  afterwards  he  describes  bow 
the  cross  was  placed  upon  kings  by  Helena,  “  ut 
in  regibus  adoretur.” 

Jerome,  again,  in  the  Epitaphmm  Paulae 
Matris  {Ep.  108  ad  Eustochium,  §  9,  Patrol. 
xxii.  883),  says  that  “  Paula  prostrata  ante 
Crucem  quasi  pendentem  Domiuum  cerneret, 
adorabat.” 

In  the  above  instances  Ambrose  and  Jerome 
are  referring  to  the  cross  said  to  be  found  by 
Helena,  but  in  the  case  of  Minucius  and  others 
anterior  to  the  time  of  Constantine  the  allusion 
is  necessarily  to  crosses,  viewed  as  signs  and 
images  of  the  true  cross;  and  the  view  which 
is  controverted  is  the  belief  of  the  heathen 
world  in  the  veneration  paid  by  Christians  to 
the  cross  absolutely  (see  further,  Origen,  in 
Celsum  ii.  47).  Cf.  further  the  distinction  as 
drawn  by  Augustine  {Tract,  i.  in  Johannem., 
§  16):  “  Dicimus  quidem  lignum  vitam,  sed 
secundum  intellectum  lignum  Crucis  unde  acce- 
pimus  vitam.”  The  same  line  is  taken  in  the 
Quaestiones  ad  Antiochum  ducem  (xxxix. :  Patrol. 
Gr.  xxviii.  622),  falsely  attributed  to  Athanasius, 
in  answer  to  the  question.  Why,  when  God  has 
forbidden  through  His  prophets  the  worship  of 
created  things,  do  we  oli'er  adoration  to  images 
and  the  cross  ?  Rusticus  Diaconus,  a  writer  of 
the  time  of  Pope  Vigilius,  carefully  defines  the 
matter  in  the  same  way,  for  after  maintaining 
the  adoration  of  the  cross  as  leading  on  to  that 
of  the  Crucified,  he  adds,  “  non  tamen  Crucem 
coadorare  dicimur  Christo  ”  {Contra  Acephedos  : 
Patrol.  Ixvii.  1218). 

John  Damascenus  (ob.  circa  756  a.d.)  is  careful 
exactly  to  define,  as  the  above-mentioned  writers 
have  done,  the  nature  of  the  reverence  paid  by 
Christians  to  the  cross.  He  says  {de  fide  ortho- 
doxa  iv.  11):  Trpoo'Kvvovpep  Se  Kal  rhv  Tvnov 
rod  Tifiiov  Kal  ^caoiroiov  aravpov  .  ...  ov  ttjp 
vXrjv  rip.5}vris  {fx^  yepoiTo),  aWa  rhu  tvttop 
ws  Xpiarov  avjx^oXov.  And  hereon,  he  adds, 
may  our  adoration  of  the  cross  rest,  ivQa  yao 
txv  ^  rh  arj/xeiov,  iKel  Kal  avrhs  earai. 

Further  illustrations  of  the  wide  spread  of  the 
feeling  are  to  be  found  in  numerous  narratives  of 
the  Fathers,  of  a  more  or  less  legendary  cha¬ 
racter,  referring  to  the  miraculous  power  in¬ 
herent  in  the  sacred  symbol.  Thus  Sozomen 
{Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  3)  gives  us  an  account  of  a  certain 
physician  named  Probianus  who  had  been  con¬ 
verted  to  Christianity,  but  Avho  would  not  ac¬ 
cord  honour  to  the  cross  as  the  sign  of  salva¬ 
tion,  until  when  suffering  from  a  painful  disease 
of  the  feet  he  was  taught  by  a  vision  [cf.  Altar, 
p.  66]  to  find  in  reverence  of  the  cross  a  means 
of  relief,  and  thus  was  cured.  [We  again  find 
this  story,  cited  from  Sozomen,  in  the  Ilistoria 
Tripartita  (ii.  19),  compiled  by  Cassiodorus.] 

A  parallel  incident  is  that  related  by  Evagrius 
(Eccl.  Hist.  iv.  26),  to  the  effect  that  on  the 
burning  of  Antioch  by  Chosroes,  the  bishop  of 
Apamea  consented  to  dis])lay  the  wood  of  the 
cross  to  the  adoration  of  the  people,  that  their 

2  K 


500  CROSS,  ADORATION  OF 

last  kiss  of  the  sacred  relic  might  be  as  it  were 
their  viaticum  to  the  other  world.  Jhe  his¬ 
torian  mentions  that  he  was  present  with  his 
parents,  and  describes  the  scene  at  some  length, 
and  tells  how,  while  the  bishop  made  the  circuit 
of  the  church  carrying  the  cross  wcrTrep  iu  Ta7s 
ic'jp'iais  Twv  TrpoaKvv'p'Tcwv  7]fj.€pais  (Wktto,  he 
was  followed  by  a  large  mass  of  flame,  blazing 
but  not  consuming  :  a  token  of  the  safety  vouch¬ 
safed  to  the  city.. 

Again,  Bede  (Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  2)  tells  us  of 
Oswald,  a  Saxon  king  (635  A.D.),  who,  being  in 
imminent  danger  in  war,  erected  and  otTered 
adoration  to  a  cross,  by  which  victory  was 
secured. 

One  more  illustration  may  suflice.  In  the 
Trullan  Synod  held  at  Constantinople  in  691  A.D., 
it  was  ordained  that  since  the  cross  shows  to  us 
the  way  of  salvation,  and  therefore  we  offer  to 
it  in  words  and  in  thought  our  adoration,  it 
should  be  distinctly  prohibited  to  engrave  crosses 
on  the  pavement,  where  they  would  be  trodden 
under  foot,  and  that  where  these  already  existed 
they  should  be  erased  (can.  73;  Labbe,  Con- 
cilin,  vi.  1175). 

The  above  examples  clearly  prove  the  ex¬ 
istence  amongst  the  early  Christians  of  a  x'enera- 
tion  for  the  cross,  combined  with  the  feeling 
of  the  necessity  of  excluding  from  this  the  idea 
of  absolute  worship.  The  constant  use  of  the 
sign  of  the  cross  [Sign  of  the  Cross]  is  a 
further  exemplification  of  this. 

The  special  character  of  hymns  is  obviously 
such  as  to  admit  of  a  less  exact  style  of  lan¬ 
guage,  but  the  tone  of  the  early  Christian  poets 
shows  clearly  the  nature  of  their  views,  as  to  the 
veneration  of  the  cross.  In  a  poem  (/)<?  Passione 
Domini)  attributed  by  some  to  Lactantius,  it  is 
said  (vv.  50  sqq.)  : — 

“  Flecte  genu  lignumque  Crucis  venerahile  adora 
Flebilis,  iimocuo  terramque  cruore  mad<  ntem 
Ore  petens  hiiniili.”  “ 

Much  again  can  be  gathered  from  Prudentius 
(405  A.D.)  on  this  point.  Thus  we  find  (^Apo¬ 
theosis  446) — 

“  Jam  purpura  supplex 
Sternitur  Aeneadae  rectoris  ad  atria  Cliristi, 
Vfxillumque  Crucis  summus  doniinator  adorat.” 

Again  in  the  description  of  Constantine’s  victory 
over  Maxentius  (Contra  Symmachum  i.  494),  he 
says — 

“  Tunc  ille  senatus 

JMilitiae  ultricis  tit'ilum,  Christique  verendum 
Noiiien  adoravit  quod  collucebat  in  armis.” 

The  allpsion  here  is  to  the  cross  and  the  mono¬ 
gram  on  the  labarum  (cf.  also  Cath.  vi.  129,  and 
Paulinus  Nol.  Poem.  xxx.  97  sqq.). 

Finally,  we  may  cite  the  words  of  Sedulius 
(Carmen  Paschale,  lib.  v.  188 ;  Patt'oL  xix. 
724)— 

"  Neve  quis  ignoret  speclem  Gruels  esse  colendam.” 


a  In  the  prolegomena  to  the  Roman  edition  of  Pru- 
dentius  (^Patral.  lix.  €69),  the  accusation  is  brought 
against  George  Fabricius  of  tampering  with  the  above,  by 
omitting,  through  doctrinal  proclivities,  the  words  “  lig- 
numqne.  .  .  .  flebilis a  proceeding  justly  reprehended 
by  John  Albert  Fabricius :  “  Sane  praestitisset  G.  Fa- 
bricium  ....  passim,  turn  hie  turn  alibi,  non  ita  fuisse  in 
alienis  operibus  quae  edebat  ingeuiosum”  fBibl.  Vet.  Lat. 
p.  70&,  ed.  1712). 


CROSS,  ADORATION  OP 

III.  Adoration  of  the  Cross  in  ancient  Litur~ 
gies. — In  the  Western  Church  such  a  rite  has 
long  been  ob.served  on  Good  Friday.  The  custom 
is  probably  very  ancient,  and  has  possibly  flowed 
hither  from  the  East,  for  the  words  of  Paulinus 
(Ep.  31,  Patrol.  Ixi.  329)  with  reference  to  the 
observance  of  the  like  practice  at  Jerusalem, 
will  carry  back  the  date  to  the  4th  century  : — 
“  Quam  episcopus  urbis  ejus  quotannis,  cum 
Pascha  Domini  agitur,  adorandam  populo  prin- 
ceps  ipse  venerantium  promit.”  According  to 
the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  (Patrol.  Ixxviii.  86), 
at  Vespers  on  Good  Friday  a  cro.ss  is  set  up 
in  front  of  the  altar;  then — “  Venit  Pontifex, 
adoratam  deosculatur  Crucem.  Deinde  episcopi, 
presbyteri,  diaconi  et  caeteri  per  ordinem,  deinde 
populus :  Pontifex  A'ero  redit  in  sedem  usque 
dum  omnes  salutent.”  Whenever  a  salutation 
is  made  (salutante  pontifice  vel  populo)  the 
Antiphon  Eoxe  lignum  Crucis  is  sung  ;  and  then 
when  all  have  saluted,  the  pope  descends  to  the 
front  of  the  altar  and  the  service  proceeds. 
Sundry  differences,  but  of  no  great  moment, 
occur  in  the  form  given  in  the  Gelasian  Sacra- 
mentavy  (Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1103).  A  more  elabo¬ 
rate  ritual,  however,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Mozarabic  Liturgy  (/'ai/’o/.  Ixxxv.  430;  Ixxxvi. 
609),  iu  which  before  Nones  on  Good  Friday, 
after  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  came  the  hymn  Ad 
Salutationem  Ligni  Domini, 

“  Pauge  lingua  gloriosi 
Proelium  cerlaniinis,”  &c. 

This  was  followed  by  the  prayer,  “  0  sancta  Cru.x, 
in  qua  salus  nostra  pepeudit,  per  te  introeamus 
ad  Patrem,  per  te  veniam  mereamur,  per  te 
apud  Christum  habeamus  indulgentiam  et 
veniam ;”  and  this  again  by  three  antiphons  de 
ligno  Domini.  Nothing  further  is  added  here  in 
the  Breviary  as  to  the  adoration  of  the  cross,  pos¬ 
sibly  because  the  rest  is  to  be  found  in  the  Missal. 

From  this  we  learn  the  nature  of  the  cere¬ 
mony  of  adoration  as  performed  at  the  N.ones, 
and  this,  as  in  the  preceding  instance,  we  shall 
briefly  describe. 

Two  priests  hold  before  the  altar  a  cross 
draped  in  black,  standing  first  at  the  left,  then 
at  the  right,  and  lastly  at  the  middle  of  the  altar. 
As  each  position  is  occupied,  the  antiphons  are 
respectively  chanted — I^opule  mens  quid  feci  tibi 
.  .  .  .  Quia  edaxi  te  ...  .  Quid  ultra  debui .  .  .  ., 
with  its  own  response  after  each.  At  the  end 
of  the  third  station  the  officiating  priest  receives 
the  cross  from  the  hands  of  the  two  who  are 
holding  it,  and  standing  successively  at  the 
right  end,  the  left  end,  and  the  middle  of  the 
altar,  he  uncovers  at  each  station  respectively 
the  right  arm,  the  left  arm,  and  the  whole  ot 
the  cross,  saying  on  each  occasion,  with  voice 
growing  louder  each  time,  the  antiphon  Ecce 
lignum  Crucis,  to  which  is  responded.  In  qua 
salus  nostra  pependit,  it  being  ordered  that  as 
each  limb  of  the  cross  is  unveiled,  the  people 
should  bend  the  knee.  The  priest  having  reve¬ 
rently  placed  the  cross  in  front  of  the  altar 
“  statim  presbyteri  cum  suis  ministris  adorent 
Crucem  flectendo  genua  ter,  cum  summa  re- 


b  Paulinus,  it  will  be  observed,  speaks  of  this  rite  as 
taking  place  on  the  "  Pascha but  there  seems  fair 
ground  from  the  contest  for  explaining  this,  with  ilenard, 
of  the  anniversary  of  our  Lord’s  crucifixion.  (Notes  to 
G  reg.  Sacr.  in  Patrol.  Ixxviii.  332.) 


CEOSS,  ADORATION  OF 

vereutia  et  humilitate  osculando  tevram,  et 
oft’erant  oblationem  Cruci,  ut  aliis  pi’aebeant 
exemplum  ;  ”  the  rite  is  then  concluded  by  an 
oratio  ad  Crucem,  in  which,  however,  our  Loi’d 
is  addressed  distinctly,  and  by  the  antiphon 
Crucem  tuam  adorurti’is  Domine. 

Alexander  Leslie,  the  Jesuit  editor,  argues  in 
his  note  on  the  above  passage  for  the  identity 
of  the  terms  adoratio  and  salutatio  as  applied 
to  the  cross,  the  former  wol-d  being  that  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  Gelasian  and  Gregorian  Sacramen- 
taries  and  the  Mozarabic  Missal,  the  latter  m 
the  Mozarabic  Breviary ;  and  Amalarius  (^De 
Eccl.  Off.  i.  14)  cites  the  Ordines  Romani,  “  Prae- 
paratur  crux  ante  altare,  quam  salutant  et  oscu¬ 
lant  ur  omnes.” 

As  Illustrating  our  present  subject,  we  may 
quote  from  the  collect  for  the  Festival  of  the 
Exaltation  of  the  Cross  in  the  Gregorian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  :  “  Concede  propitius  ut  qui  ad  adoran- 
dam  A'ivificam  ejus  Crucem  adveniunt  .  .  . 

At  the  end  of  Mass  on  that  day  a  cross  was  held 
up  by  the  pontitf  for  the  adoration  of  the  people 
(cf.  Alcuin,  Adv.  Elipantum,  lib.  ii.  9,  who  fur¬ 
nishes  us  with  a  collect.  Ad  Elevationem  Sanctae 
Crucis) ;  and  a  parallel  instance  is  to  be  derived 
from  the  Greek  Menology  for  September  13, 
Xa'ipois,  6  CwycpSpos  Trjs  euae^eias,  rh  (ztjtttjtoi/ 
rpoTTaiov,  7]  dvpa  TrfS  TrapaSeiaov,  d  twu  TriaTcav 
(TTifipiyiiSs  .  .  .  I^See  also  Exaltation  and 
Finding  of  the  Cross.] 

The  season  which  in  the  Eastern  Church  has 
been  specially  associated  w'ith  the  adoration  of 
the  cross  is  the  third  Sunday  in  Lent,  with  the 
ensuing  week.  Numerous  sermons  are  extant  in 
the  writings  of  the  Greek  Fathers  having  re¬ 
ference  to  this.  Thus  in  one  wrongly  assigned 
to  Chrysostom,  but  apparently  not  long  subse¬ 
quent  to  his  time,  ejs  Tyu  TTpoffKvvycnv  rov 
Tlfxiov  Kul  ^WOTTOIOV  (TTaVpOV  TT)  lx4(TlJ  ifiSofluSl 

Twv  vrjffTiicou,  the  writer  speaks  of  the  day  as 
yearly  appointed  for  adoration,  and  as  though  he 
would  imply  the  custom  to  be  a  well  established 
one  : — 'Xiip.epov  roiyapovv  irpoa'Kvuija'ifj.os  ypepa 
Tov  Ti/xiou  aravpov  KadeCTyKC.  Again,  in  the 
works  of  Sophronius,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  is  a 
sermon  with  the  same  title  and  occasion  (^Oratio  v. 
Petrol.  Gr.  Ixxxvii.  3309).  Again  (^Oratio  iv.  in 
Exaltationem  S.  Crucis),  in  describing  the  change 
of  the  season  of  the  Exaltation  to  a  time  subse¬ 
quent  to  our  Lord’s  resurrection,  he  speaks  of 
erravpov  Zahovxos  wpoa'Kvvqcris.  Sermons  of  the 
same  character  are  also  extant  by  Theodorus 
Studita  {Patrol.  Gr.  xeix.  691),  and  by  Theo- 
phylact  (ib.  cxxxi.  113).  For  rubrical  directions 
concerning  this  fast,  see  Constantine  Porphyro- 
genitus,  De  Caerimoniis  Aulae  Byzantinae,  i.  5, 
24;  and  especially  ii.  11  (pp.  cit.  cxii.  137, 
196,  1017);  and  cf.  also  Suicer’s  Thesaurus,  and 
Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.  (XTavpoTTpo(TKvvT](Tis,  by 
which  name  and  by  Kupiau^  rris  TTpo(rKvyri(reojs 
the  Greek  Church  knows  the  day.  The  Epistle  and 
Gospel  for  this  day  in  that  Church  are  Heb.  iv. 
14 — V.  6,  and  Mark  viii.  34 — ix.  1.  There  is 
also  in  the  Greek  Church  a  bringing  about  of 
the  cross  for  adoration  on  August  1  and  there¬ 
abouts,  for  which  see  Const.  Porph.  ii.  9  {Patrol. 
Gr.  c.xii.  1009).  This  latter  day  is  marked  in 
the  Menology  thus :  ets  ttjv  irpuryv  y  irpSobos 
T<Sv  TiixictiU  rod  rifiiov  ^wotvoioi)  (Traupou  ; 

and  its  importance  is  testified  to  by  the  fact 
of  its  having  its  irpo^Spria  or  vigil. 


CROSS,  ADORATION  OF  501 

IV.  Disputes  among  Christians  as  to  the  Adora~ 
lion  of  the  Cross. — At  the  Second  Nicene  General 
Council  (787  A.D.),  in  their  fourth  actio,  among 
the  various  testimonies  read  from  the  fathers  in 
support  of  the  use  of  images  in  worship,  was  a 
long  extract  from  the  fifth  of  the  \6yoL  vnep  rrjs 
Xpiariauwy  airoKoyias  Kara  ’lovSaiwr  Kal  nepl 
eiKSuwr  Tuv  ayiwv  of  Leontius,  bishop  of  Neapolis 
in  Cyprus  (oh.  620  or  630,  a.d.).  The  general 
tenour  of  his  remarks  (for  which  see  Labbe',  vii. 
236)  is  as  follows  : — Christians  are  justified  in 
offering  adoration  to  the  cross,  by  way  of  remem¬ 
brance  of  Him  who  died  thereon,  not  with  any 
feeling  of  reverence  for  the  mere  material.  Thus, 
a  decree  sanctioned  by  the  seal  of  the  emperor 
is  reverentially  treated,  not  on  account  of  the 
decree  or  the  lead  of  the  seal,  but  of  him  whom 
the  seal  indicates ;  and  so  we  Christians,  in  our 
adoration  of  the  cross,  honour  not  its  material, 
but  see  in  it  a  seal  and  signet  of  Christ  Who  was 
crucified  thereon,  and  Whom  we  salute  and  adore. 
The  further  illustration  may  be  taken  of  children 
who  cherish  some  memento  of  an  absent  father, 
even  as  all  things  associated  with  our  Lord  are 
for  His  sake  to  be  loved  and  reverenced,  orav 
ovu,  he  concludes,  ^S■ps  Xpicrnai'ovs  TvpoaKvvovvras 
rhv  araophy,  yyu>6i  '6ri  rtp  aravpwQivri  Xpicrxip 
ryv  irpoaKovyaiv  irpoadyovcri  Kal  ov  rw 

A  counterblast  to  the  views  of  the  Nicene 
Council  is  to  be  found  in  a  capitulary  of  Charle¬ 
magne,  De  Imaginibus  (i.  13,  Patrol,  xcviii. 
1034),  where  we  find  an  attack  on  the  argument 
brought  forward  by  the  other  party  based  on  the 
expression,  “  Jacob  .  .  .  adoravit  fastigium  virgae 
ejus”  (Heb.  xi.  21).  The  writer  there  insists  on 
the  “  differentia  crucis  Christi  et  imaginum  pic- 
torum  arte  pictarum,”  and  promises  to  enter 
upon  the  subject  “  quanto  mysterio  Crux  ima¬ 
ginibus  eminent,  sive  quomodo  humanum  genus 
non  per  imagines,  sed  per  Crucem  Christi  re- 
demptum  sit,  quae  duo  illi  vel  paria  vel  aequalia 
putant.”  This  promise  is  fulfilled  subsequently 
(ii.  28 ;  op.  cit.  1096),  where  the  language, 
though  probably  referring  to  adoration  of  the 
cross,  is  to  a  certain  extent  vague:  “Non  sunt 
imagines  Cruci  aequiparrandae,  non  adorandae, 
non  colendae,  .  .  .  et  Tu  solus  adorandus,  Tu  solus 
sequendus,  Tu  solus  colendus  es.” 

The  Clause  of  the  adoration  of  the  cross  and 
of  images  found  a  zealous  champion  in  Theo¬ 
dorus  Studita,  who  expounds  his  views  in  his 
Antirrhetici  iii.  ad  Iconomachos,  in  the  form  of 
a  dialogue  (see  esp.  Antirrh.  i.  15  ;  iii.  3 ;  Patrol. 
Gr.  xeix.  345,  419).  After  an  elaborate  dis¬ 
cussion,  and  after  dwelling  on  the  distinction 
between  PiKcav  and  etScoAov,  in  which  he  care¬ 
fully  repudiates  any  association  of  the  adoration 
of  the  cross  or  image  with  the  latter  term, 
he  sums  up  in  a  number  of  theses  which  main¬ 
tain  the  importance  of  the  adoration,  but 
again  insists  on  the  distinction  referred  to 
above.  Thus  {ib.  349):  “If  any  one  boldly 
calls  the  relative  {ffx^'^^Kyv)  worship  of  Christ 
in  the  image,  worship  of  the  image  and  not 
of  Christ  Himself  ....  he  is  a  heretic.”  For 
further  illustrations  of  the  subject  from  ' the 
writings  of  Theodorus,  see  op.  cit.  691,  1757  ;  cf. 
also  Nicephorus  (Patriarch  of  Constantinople), 
Antirrhet.  iii.  7.  Later  notices  of  the  subject 
may  be  found  in  Photius,  Epist.  i.  1,  Ad  Eico~ 
laiim  Papam ;  i.  8,  20,  Ad  Michael.  Bulgur, 
Principem. 


502  CROSS,  ADORATION  OF 

A  brief  reference  may  here  be  made  in  passing 
to  the  views  on  this  subject  of  the  Paulician 
heretics,  who  first  appeared  towards  the  end 
of  the  7th  century.  They,  generally  speaking, 
were  strongly  opposed  to  any  adoration  of  the 
cross  or  images.  In  regaj-d  to  the  cross,  they 
maintained  that  the  real  cross  was  Christ  Him¬ 
self,  not  the  wood  on  which  He  hung : — 
Xeyoures,  on  (XTavphs  6  Xpi(rT6s  ierriv,  ov  XPV 
Se  TzpocTKvviiaQai  rh  ^v\ov  d)S  KfKaT7]pa/xeyov 
opyavop  (Georgius  Hamartolus,  Chronicon  iv. 
238,  in  Patrol.  Or.  cx.  889).  In  accordance 
with  this  is  what  we  are  told  by  Petrus  Siculus 
(^Ifist.  Manichaeoj'um  29;  ib.  civ.  128-1-;  and  cf. 
Photius,  Contra  Manich.  i.  7 ;  i').  cii.  25),  to  the 
effect  that  a  certain  Timotheus  of  this  sect  was 
sent  by  the  Emperor  Leo  the  Isauriau  to  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  to  be  reasoned  with  ; 
and  on  being  asked,  “  Why  dost  thou  not  believe 
and  worship  the  honoured  cross?”  answered, 
‘‘Anathema  to  him  who  does  not  do  so.”  But 
by  the  cross  he  understood  rhv  Xpiarhy  rfj 
iKidaei  reSv  arauphu  dTroreXovyra.  The 

above  quoted  Georgius  Hamartolus  tells  us 
(^Patrol.  Or.  cx.  892),  with  what  truth  is  pei- 
haps  doubtful,  that  in  cases  of  sickness  they  laid 
a  cross  on  the  patient,  which  cross  on  his 
recovery  they  dared  even  to  break  or  burn  (see 
also  Euthymius,  PanopVa  Dogmat.  Tit.  24;  op. 
cit.  exxx.  il96  ;  and  cf.  Photius,  Bibliotheca  279 ; 
ib.  ciii.  524). 

Much  about  this  time  there  arose  a  contention 
of  like  character  in  the  West.  The  actual  lite¬ 
rary  warfare  in  this  case  belongs  to  the  early 
part  of  the  9th  century,  but  from  its  connection 
with  the  earlier  struggle  in  the  Eastern  Church, 
and  as  throwing  light  on  the  tone  of  thought  on 
this  subject  in  the  Western  Church  durinsr  the 
preceding  period,  it  is  of  too  much  importance 
to  be -passed  over  here. 

The  immediate  cause  of  the  outbreak  was  the 
publication  by  Claudius,  bishop  of  Turin  (820 
A.D.),  of  a  fiei’ce  attack  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
adoration  of  the  cross  and  of  images.  Further 
he  ordered  the  removal  of  crosses  from  all  the 
'churches  of  his  diocese.  When  urged  by  a  letter 
from  a  certain  Abbot  Theodemir  to  reconsider 
his  views,  he  retorted,  in  a  long  treatise,  that 
the  Gauls  and  Germans  were  held  in  the  nets 
of  superstition.  This  work  Jona.s,  bishop  of 
Orleans,  answers  in  detail  in  his  treatise  Be 
Cultu  Imagin'im  (^Patrol,  cvi.  305),  in  which  he 
appeals  largely  to  the  writings  of  the  Fathers 
_  of  the  earlier  centuries,  and  discusses  the  ob¬ 
jections  of  Claudius  seriatim.  See  especially 
op.  cit.  331,  where  he  meets  Claudius’s  remarks 
as  to  the  superstition  of  the  votaries  of  the 
cross ;  “  Nos  ob  recordationem  Salvatoris  nostri 

crucera  pictam . veneramur  atque 

adoramus.” 

Other  writers  of  the  time  joined  in  the  fray, 
as  Theodemir  above  mentioned ;  Eginhard,  the 
biographer  of  Charlemagne,  in  a  work  De  Ado- 
randa  Cntcc  not  now  extant ;  Wistremir,  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Toledo  (cf.  Pseudo-Li utprand,  Chroni¬ 
con;'  Patrol,  cxxxvi.  1103);  and  a  priest 
named  Dungalus,  who  (about  the  year  828  A.D.) 
wrote  a  treatise  dedicated  to  Louis  the  Pious  and 
his  son  Lothaire :  “  Pro  cultu  sacrarum  imagi- 
num  adversus  insauas  blasphemasque  naeuias 
Claudii  Taurinensis  Episcopi  ”  (^Patrol,  cv.  457 
sqq.).  [R.  S.] 


CROSS,  EXALTATION  OF 

CROSS,  ExALTATrox  of  (Exaltatio  Cruets^ 
^  v\pcoa’is  Tov  aravoov).  This  festival,  held  on 
September  14,  most  probably  celebrates  primarily 
the  consecration  of  the  church  of  the  Holy  Se¬ 
pulchre  at  Jerusalem  by  Bishop  Macarius  at  the 
command  of  Constantine  (335  A.D.),  although 
some  would  see  in  it  a  commemoration  of  the 
Vision  of  the  Cross  seen  by  the  Emperor. 

It  is,  however,  to  the  victory  of  Heraclius 
over  the  Persians  and  his  subsequent  restoration 
of  the  Cross  to  its  shrine  at  Jerusalem  that  the 
renown  of  the  festival  is  mainly  due. 

Still  there  are  not  wanting  indications  of  its 
observance  before  that  event,  in  both  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches.  Thus  in  the  Acta  of  the 
Egyptian  penitent  Mary,  whose  death  is  referred 
to  421  A.D.,  it  is  apparently  recognized  as  a 
thoroughly  established  festival  at  Jerusalem  : 

thus,  c.g . TT)s  v\f/cv<recos  eVe/cei'  tov  npLiov 

(TTavpov,  T}Tis  fiep  oXlyas  Tj/xepas  elcode  y'iyea6ai 
(Acta  S.  Mariae  Aepptpt.  c.  19,  in  Acta  Sanctorum. 
for  April  2;  also  in  Patrol.  Or.  Ixxxvii.  3711). 

In  the  life(c.  70)  of  the  Patriarch  Eutychius 
(ob.  582  A.D.)  by  his  chaplain  Eustathius,  this 
festival  is  spoken  of  as  celebrated  in  Constanti¬ 
nople  on  September  14  (Acta  Sancto-um  for  April 
6);  and  in  the  7th  centui-y  the  Patriarch  So- 
phronius  of  Jerusalem  refers  to  it  as  a  feast  then 
widely  known.  He  adds  that  the  Festival  of  the 
Exaltation  had  formerly  (iraXai)  preceded  that 
of  the  dvd<TTa(ns  (that  is,  the  annual  comme¬ 
moration  on  September  13  of  the  dedication  of 
the  church  at  Jerusalem),  but  now  the  order 
had  been  reversed  (Oratio  in  Exaltati>/nem 
S.  Crucis  in  Gretser,  Be  Cruce,  vol.  ii.  p.  90, 
ed.  1608). 

Again,  an  observance  of  the  festival  in  the 
Western  Church  prior  to  Heraclius’s  victory  may 
be  inferred  from  our  finding  it  in  the  Gelasian 
and  Gregorian  Sacramentaries,  and  from  its  de¬ 
signation  Minply  as  Exaltatio  S.  Crucis,  without 
any  allusion  to  Heraclius,  in  the  earlier  Latin 
Martyrologies,  as  in  that  attributed  to  Jerome 
(Patrol,  xw.  Alb'):  it  may  be  added  that  this 
is  also  the  case  with  those  of  Bede  and  Rabani;s 
Maiarus  (ib.  xciv.  1044,  cx.  1168). 

The  circumstances  attending  the  victory  of 
Heraclius  are  briefly  these.  In  the  year  614 
Jerusalem  was  taken  by  the  Persian  king  Chos- 
roes  IL,  and  after  the  slaughter  of  many  thou¬ 
sands  of  Christians,  and  the  destruction,  partially 
at  any  rate,  of  the  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre 
by  fire,  a  long  train  of  captives  was  led  away, 
among  whom  was  the  Patriarch  Zacharias,*  and 
with  him  the  cross  said  to  have  been  discovered 
by  Helena  [Cross,  fiXding  of],  which  was 
sealed  up  in  a  case  by  the  patriarch  himself. 
After  some  years  of  uninterrupted  success  on 
the  part  of  the  Persian  king,  during  which  the 
empire  was  reduced  to  the  very  verge  of  disso¬ 
lution,  Heraclius  at  last  declared  war  (622  A.D.), 
and  after  three  expeditions  the  boldness  of  which 
Avas  justified  by  their  success,  the  tide  was 
turned  and  the  Persian  king  Avorsted,  until  at 

»  Nicephorus(ii'd€  infra)  styles  the  patriarch  ilodestus, 
though  the  othir  historians  unite  in  calling  him  Zachari.is. 
The  error,  for  such  it  probably  is,  has  been  explained  by 
supposing  Modestus  to  have  acted  as  dep  ity  for  Zacharias 
during  his  captivity  (see  Clinton,  Fasti  Romani,  vol.  il. 
p.  170);  or  that  the  latter  died  shortly  after  his  return  to 
Jerusalem,  and  was  succeeded  by  the  former  (PetaAiua 
in  loc.). 


CEOSS,  EXAI-TATION  OF 

last  he  was  deposed  and  murdered  by  his  son 
Siroes  (628  A.D.). 

The  new  sovereign  speedily  concluded  a  peace 
with  the  emperor,  one  of  the  conditions  specially 
insisted  on  by  the  latter  being  the  restoration 
of  the  cross,  with  which  borne  before  him,  as  he 
rode  in  a  chariot  drawn  by  four  elephants,  He- 
raclius  entered  Constantinople.  In  the  following 
spring  he  made  a  pilgrimage  with  the  recovered 
cross  to  Jerusalem,  where  the  patriarch  recog¬ 
nized  his  own  unbroken  seals  on  the  case  con¬ 
taining  the  precious  relic  (ra  ri/xia  Kal  ^woiroia 
^u\a,  as  Theophanes  [vide  infra]  constantly  styles 
it),  thus  preserved  it  is  said  by  Sira  the  wife  of 
Chosroes.  Heraclius  wished  himself  to  carry  the 
cross  to  its  shrine,  but  before  treading  on  the 
sacred  ground  he  was  bidden  to  divest  himself  of 
his  splendid  array,  that  so  barefoot  and  clad  in 
a  common  cloak  he  might  more  resemble  the 
humble  guise  of  the  Saviour.  Some  of  the  Mar- 
tyrologies  referred  to  below  remark  that  the 
emperor  was  held  by  some  invisible  power  from 
entering  upon  the  sacred  precincts  till  he  had 
so  divested  himself^  (cf.  Theophanes,  Chrono- 
graphia,  vul.  i.  pp.  503,  504,  ed.  Classen  ;  Nice- 
phorus,  Breviariurn,  pp.  11  A,  15  A;  Chronicon 
Baschale,  vol.  i.  p.  704,  ed.  Dindorf;  and  more 
generally  for  the  history  of  the  period,  Cedrenus, 
vol.  i.  pp.  717  sqq.  ed.  Bekker ;  also  Gibbon,  De¬ 
cline  and  Fall,  ch.  46). 

Thus  was  the  cross  once  more  “  exalted”  into 
its  resting-place,  and  the  festival  of  the  “  Ex¬ 
altation  of  the  Cross  ”  obtained  fresh  renown. 
Before  long,  possibly  under  Pope  Honorius  I. 
(ob.  638  A.D.),  September  14  came  to  be  observed 
as  a  festival  with  special  memory  of  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  cross  bv  Heraclius :  the  Eastern 
Church,  which  has  not  strictly  speaking  a  sepa¬ 
rate  festival  of  the  Finding  of  the  Cross,  com¬ 
memorates  also  on  that  day  the  original  discovery 
by  the  Empress  Helena. 

This  festival  is  referred  to  more  or  less  fully 
by  all  Martyrologies  under  September  14.  Of 
those  of  Jerome,  Bede,  and  Rabauus  Maurus  we 
nave  already  spokeu.  We  may  further  specify 
that  of  Wandelbert  [deacon  of  monastery  at 
Trhves  in  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Lothaire] 
where  we  find  [Patrol,  exxi.  611) 

“  Exaltata  Crucis  fulgent  vexilla  relatae, 

Perside  ab  iudigna  victor  quam  vexit  Heraclius.” 

In  the  Martvrologies  of  Ado  and  of  Usuardus 
we  find  a  further  addition  :  “  Sed  et  procurrenti- 
bus  annis,  papa  Sergius  mirae  magnitudinis  por- 
tionera  ejusdem  ligui  in  sacrario  Beati  Petri 
Domino  revelante  repperit,  quae  annis  omnibus 
[“  in  Basilica  Salvatoris  quae  appellatur  Con- 
stantiniana.”  Ado]  ipso  die  Exaltationis  ejus  ab 
Omni  osculatur  et  adoratur  populo  ”  [Patrol. 
cxxiii.  170,  356;  exxiv.  467).  See  also  the  Mar- 
tyrology  of  Notker  [ih.  exxi.  1151),  and  for 
various  forms  of  ancient  Western  Calendars  con¬ 
taining  a  mention  of  this  festiv.al,  see  Patrol. 
cxxxviii.  1188,  1191,  &c.  Besides  this,  we  may 
again  refer  to  the  presence  of  this  festival  in 
the  Gelasian  and  Gregorian  Sacramentaries.  The 


>>  It  may  be  remarked  that  the  historians  of  the  reign 
of  Heraclius  vary  somewhat  in  the  dates  they  assign  to 
the  above  events.  We  have  followed  those  given  by 
Clinton,  Fasti  Fomdni,  vol.  ii.  pp.  163,  170.  The  taking 
of  Jerusalem  is  referred  to  a  later  campaign  by  Theo- 
phaae«  [1.  c.). 


CROSS,  FINDING  OF  503 

collect  for  the  day  in  the  latter  of  the.se  has 
been  cited  in  the  article  on  the  Adoration  of  the 
Cross,  that  in  the  former  runs  as  follows  : — 
“  Deus  qui  nos  hodierna  die  Exaltatione  Sanctae 
Crucis  annua  solemnitate  laetificas,  praesta  ut 
cujus  mysterium  in  terra  cognovimus,  ejus  re- 
demptionis  praemia  consequamur.” 

The  Eastern  Church,  as  we  have  already  said, 
includes  in  the  festival  of  September  14  the  two 
festivals  of  the  Finding  and  of  the  Exaltation  of 
the  Cross.  As  in  the  Calendars  of  the  Western 
Churchy  so  also  in  those  of  the  Eastern  Church 
is  it  invariably  found.  Thus  in  the  Greek  me¬ 
trical  calendar  given  by  Papebroch  in  the  Acta 
Sanctorum  (vol.  i.  of  May),  we  find  under  Sep¬ 
tember  13,  fivfjfJLT]  Tcau  iyKaiviwu  rrjs  ay'ias  tx>v 
XpKTTov  Kai  Qeov  rjfiur  at'ao'rctfrecos  kuI  Trpoc6pTia 
T^s  v\pw(rea>s  rov  Ti/uioa  Kal  ^ujottoiov  ffravpov  ; 
that  is,  as  has  been  already  explained,  they  cele¬ 
brated  the  dedication  of  the  Church  built  by  the 
Emperor  Constantine  to  commemorate  our  Lord’s 
resurrection.  We  further  gather  that  the  fes¬ 
tival  of  the  Exaltation  had  its  irpoeopria  or  vigil. 
The  notice  for  September  14  is  u\j/ca0r]  Seicarp 
(TTavpov  IvXov  7;Se  Teraprp  ;  and  the  fact  is  also 
recognized  in  the  pictorial  Moscow  Calendar  ac¬ 
companying  the  preceding.  The  Octave  also  of 
the  festival  (September  21)  is  given  in  the  Meno- 
logy  under  that  day,  eV  ravTr]  rfj  Tj/aspa  anodi- 
dorai  ^  kopTT]  rov  ti/jlIov  (Traupov.  See  also  the 
Calendar  of  the  Arabian  Church  given  by  Selden 
[De  Synedriis  Ehraeorum,  iii.  376,  ed.  1655), 
where  September  14  is  marked  “Festum  Crucis 
gloriosae as  also  in  those  of  the  Ethiopic  or 
Abyssinian  and  of  the  Coptic  Church  given  by 
Ludolf  (p.  3).  We  also  learn  from  him  that  in 
the  case  of  the  latter  of  these  churches,  the 
festival  extends  over  three  days,  September 
13-15,  marked  respectively  “Festum  C.  gl. 
(primum,  &c.).” 

Further,  the  Ethiopic  Church,  as  well  as  seve¬ 
ral  other  branches  of  the  Eastern  Church,  re¬ 
cognizes  in  addition  a  festival  of  the  Cross  in 
May,  possibly  having  more  or  le.ss  reference  to 
the  “  Inventio  Crucis  ”  of  the  Latin  Church  [op. 
cit.  p.  17;  Gretser,  vol.  i.  232;  see  also  several 
Eastern  Calendars  in  Neale,  Holy  Eastern  Church, 
Inti'od.  pp.  775,  799,  813).  The  proper  lessons  for 
this  festival  in  the  Syrian  Church,  as  marked  in 
the  Peshito,  are,  for  Vespers,  Matt.  xxiv. 
(possibly  on  account  of  verse  30);  for  Liturgy, 
Luke  xxi.  5  sqq.;  and  for  Matins,  Mark  xii. 
41  sqq.  (Gretser,  1.  c.). 

In  addition  to  the  works  named  in  this  article, 
reference  should  be  made  to  Binterim,  Denk- 
uiirdigkeiten  der  Christ- Kat hoi.  Kirche,  vol.  v. 
part  1,  pp.  455  sqq.  See  also  Ducange’s  Glossary, 
s.  V.  vxpucris.  [R.  S.] 

CROSS,  Finding  of.  [Inventio  Crucis.) 

I.  Introduction. — By  this  name  is  to  be  un¬ 
derstood  the  discovery  which  traditidn  asserts 
that  the  Empress  Helena,  the  mother  of  Con¬ 
stantine,  made  of  the  cross  on  which  our  Lord 
suffered.  The  earliest  account  we  have  of  the 
exploration  for  the  Holy  Sepulchre  is  that  given 
by  Eusebius  (  Vita  Const,  iii.  26  sqq.),  who  relates 
Constantine’s  determination  to  remove  the  abomi¬ 
nations  that  defiled  the  holy  place  and  build 
there  a  Christian  shrine,  as  deLiiled  in  the  em¬ 
peror’s  letter  to  Macarius,  bishop  of  Jerusalem 
[pp.  cit.  30 ;  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  17 ;  Theo- 


504  CROSS,  FINDING  OP 

doret  i.  18),  but  no  allusion  whatever  is  made 
to  a  discovery  of  the  cross.  Some  have  ind(*ed 
argued  that  an  expression  in  Constantine’s  letter 
to  Macarius  is  better  suited  to  the  discovery  of  the 
cross  than  of  the  grave — rh  yap  yv<t}pi(Tixa  rod 
ayLcardrov  eKeivov  ntdOovs  virh  rfj  yrj  ivakai  Kpv- 
TTTSuevov  . . . ;  but  a  comparison  with  c.  26  would 
sufficiently  account  for  the  above  quoted  lan¬ 
guage,  and  it  is  hard  to  understand  that  Eusebius 
should  have  lost  so  good  an  opportunity  of  glori¬ 
fying  Constantine,  had  a  real  or  supposed  dis¬ 
covery  of  our  Lord’s  cross  taken  place  under  his 
auspices.®  The  date  of  Helena’s  visit  to  Palestine, 
and  consequently  that  of  the  alleged  discovery, 
IS  326  A.D. ;  yet  in  the  Itinemrium  Bwdegalense, 
the  record  of  a  journey  to  Jerusalem  in  333  A.D., 
only  seven  years  after  this  date,  there  is  no  re¬ 
ference  to  the  finding  of  the  cross,  even  in  a 
context  where  we  might  certainly  have  looked 
for  it :  “  Crypta  ubi  corpus  ejus  positum  fuit 
et  tertia  die  resurrexit ;  ibidem  modo  jussu  Con- 
stantini  Imperatovis  basilica  facta  est  ”  (^Patrol. 
viii.  791). 

The  earliest  mention  we  have  of  the  Finding 
of  the  Cross  is  in  the  Gatecheses  of  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  delivered  rather  more  than  twenty 
years  after  Helena’s  alleged  discovery ;  in  which, 
though  he  does  not  allude  to  the  narrative 
in  the  form  given  by  subsequent  writers,  he 
vet  says  that  fragments  cut  off  from  the  cross 
wore  spread  over  the  whole  world  {Catech.  iv.  10  ; 
X.  19;  xiii.  4  ;  Patrol.  Gr.  xxxiii.  468,  685, 
776),  and  he  also  alludes  to  the  Finding  of  the 
Cross  in  a  letter  written  some  years  later  to 
»'!onstantius,  the  son  of  Constantine,  on  the  occa¬ 
sion  of  a  luminous  cross  appearing  in  the  sky 
over  Jerusalem  (^Ep.  ad  Const,  c.  3,  op.  cit. 
1168).  From  the  beginning  of  the  5th  century 
onw'ards  all  ecclesiastical  writers  take  the  truth 
of  the  narrative  in  its  main  form  for  granted, 
though  sundry  variations  of  detail  occur. 

II.  Legend.  —  The  general  tenour  of  the  tra¬ 
dition  is  that  an  attempt  had  been  made  (by 
Hadrian,  or  at  any  rate,  in  his  time,  according 
to  Jei'ome,  Epist.  58,  Patrol,  xx.  321)  to  destroy 
every  trace  of  the  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
that  the  ground  had  there  been  raised  to  a 
considerable  height,  and  temples  and  statues 
to  Jupiter  and  Venus  erected  thereon.  On  the 
death  of  Licinius,  whom  Constantine  charges 
with  the  continuance  of  the  evil,  it  was  detei'- 
mined  to  purify  the  sacred  places,  and  this  reso¬ 
lution  of  the  Emperor  was  carried  out  by  his 
mother  Helena,  who  went  in  person  to  Jerusalem, 
and  by  the  Bishop  Macarius.  By  the  Divine 
guidance  (and  by  the  aid  of  a  Jew,  one  Judas, 
afterwards  baptized  as  Quiriacus,  according  to 
Gregory  of  Tours  and  others,  infra)  the  spot  was 
discovered,  and  the  superimposed  earth  having 
been  removed,  the  sepulchre  was  seen  with  three 
crosses  i/r  ig  near,  and  separate  from  these  the 
superscription  which  Pilate  had  attached  to  that 


»  Montfaucon  (Collectio  Nova  I’atrum,  vol.  i.  p.  viii. 
ed.  1706)  does  indeed  cite  a  passage  of  Eusebius  as  cer¬ 
tainly  referring  to  the  cross :  el  Se  ns  rovy  eTrto-rrjcreie 
TOis  rjfjLai  to  fii^fxa  Kal  to  fiapTvpiov  toO 

24i)t^os  eTTiTeXea-ffeicrc  dav/aatrioiSi  akr)9<ji<:  elcrerai 

oTTtos  neTTAripioTai  epyois  to.  Te6e<rntcrpieva.  {Comm,  in 
Fsal.  IxxxviiL  11).  When,  however,  we  find  Eusebius 
silent,  wliere,  if  anywhere,  he  might  be  &pected  to  speak, 
we  cannot  attach  much  weight  to  a  passage  of,  at  host, 
most  doubtful  reference. 


CROSS,  FINDING  OF 

of  our  Lord.  Not  knowing  which  of  the  three 
crosses  was  the  one  they  sought,  Macarius  caused 
them  to  be  successively  presented  to  the  touch 
of  a  noble  lady  of  Jerusalem  then  lying  at  the 
point  of  death.  The  first  two  crosses  produced 
no  effect,  but  at  the  touch  of  the  third  the  sick 
woman  rose  up  before  them  perfectly  healed, 
thus  showing  that  it  w'as  upon  this  that  the 
Saviour  had  suffered.  One  part  of  the  cross  set 
in  silver  was  entrusted  to  Macarius  to  be  care¬ 
fully  guarded  in  Jeru-salem,  and  the  remainder, 
together  with  the  nails  was  forwarded  to  Con¬ 
stantine.  One  of  the  nails  was  attached  to  his 
helmet,  and  another  to  the  bridle  of  his  horse,  in 
fulfilment,  according  to  sundry  fathers,  of  the  pro¬ 
phecy  of  Zechariah  xiv.  20  ** 

For  the  above  tradition,  see  Socrates  (1.  c.), 
Theodoret  ((.  c.),  Sozomen  (ii.  1),  Ambrose 
{de  obitu  Theodosii,  c.  46  ;  Patrol,  xvi.  1399), 
Sulpicius  Severus  {Hist.  Sacra,  ii.  34 ;  Patrol. 
XX.  148),  Rufinus  (llist.  i.  7,  8;  Patrol,  xxi. 
1475),  Paulinus  of  Nola  {Ep.  ad  Severum  31; 
Patrol.  Ixi.  325),  Gregory  of  Tours  (^Liber 
Miraculorum,  i.  5  sqq. ;  Patrol.  Ixxi.  709).  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  also  (Comm,  in  Zech.  in  loc. ; 
Patrol.  Gr.  Ixxii.  271)  refers  to  it  as  the 
current  history  in  his  day.  Chrysostom  evi¬ 
dently  believed  in  the  discovery  of  the  cross, 
and  speaks  of  the  practice  of  conveying  small 
portions  of  it  about  as  amulets  (Quod  Christas 
sit  Ecus,  c.  10  ;  Patrol.  Gr.  xlviii.  826). 

One  or  two  further  details  may  be  added. 
Socrates  states  that  the  portion  of  the  cross  sent 
to  Constantine  was  by  him  inclosed  in  his  own 
statue,  which  was  placed  on  a  column  of  por¬ 
phyry  in  the  so-called  forum  of  Constantine  in 
Constantinople^  that  thus  the  city  might  be 
rendered  impregnable  by  the  possession  of  sc 
glorious  a  relic.  According  to  Sozomen,  besides 
the  miracle  wrought  on  the  sick  lady,  a  dead 
man  was  instantly  restored  to  life  by  the  touch 
of  the  cross ;  but  Paulinus,  while  mentioning 
this  says  nothing  of  the  other  miracle.  In  Am¬ 
brose,  spite  of  a  protest  to  the  contrary,  we  see 
traces  of  the  feeling  in  which  respect  for  the 
cross,  as  a  token  of  Him  who  hung  thereon, 
drifted  into  an  adoration  of  the  cross  itself. 
Thus  Helena  is  represented  as  saying,  “  Ecce 
locus  pugnae,  ubi  est  victoria?  ....  quomodo 
me  redemptam  arbitroi*,  si  redemptio  ipsa  non 
cernitur  ?  ”  It  ma}’^  be  added  that  according  to 
Ambrose’s  version  of  the  history,  the  inscription 
is  found  adhering  to  the  cross  it  originally  be- 
lono-ed  to.  The  occasion  of  the  notice  in  Pau- 

c5 

linus  is  the  sending  of  a  piece  of  the  cross  to 
Severus  for  a  church  about  to  be  consecrated, 
which  affords  him  a  natural  opportunity  for 
relating  the  story :  he  adds,  that  however  much 
might  thus  be  cut  away  from  the  cross,  the 
bulk  of  the  wood  miraculously  remained  undi¬ 
minished. 

III.  Festival. — With  the  belief  in  the  discovery 
of  the  cross  thus  widely  spread  and  thus  che¬ 
rished,  it  is  only  natural  to  expect  that  an 
annual  festival  to  commemorate  it  would  soon 
be  established ;  though  it  is  impossible  from  the 
want  of  satisfactory  evidence  to  speak  with  any 
certainty  as  to  the  actual  origin  of  such  festival. 


•>  Jerome,  however  {Comm,  in  Zech.  in  loc.),  speaks  of 
it  as  one  might  have  expected,  “nam  seusu  quidem  pio 
dictam  sed  ridiculam.” 


CROSS,  FINDING  OF  CROSS,  FINDING  OF  605 


An  attempt  has  been  made  to  assign  its  first 
appointment  to  Pope  Eusebius  (ob.  310  A.D.),  who, 
in  a  letter  “  Episcopis  Tusciae  et  Campaniae,”  is 
made  to  say  “  Crucis  ei’go  Domini  nostri  Jesu 
Christi,  quae  nuper  nobis  gubernacula  Sanctae 
Romanae  Ecclesiae  tenentibus  quinto  Nonas  Maii 
inrenta  est,  in  praedicta  Kaleudarum  die  Inven- 
tiouis  festum  vobis  solemniter  celebrare  man¬ 
damus”  (^Fat?'oL  vii.  1114). 

Of  course  the  utter  spuriousness  of  this  letter 
is  shown,  if  by  nothing  else,  by  the  fact  that  Pope 
Eusebius  died  before  Constantine  had  embraced 
Christianity,  and  many  years  before  the  work  of 
restoration  besan  at  Jerusalem  at  his  command. 

Nicephorus  {Hist.  Eccles.  viii.  29)  asserts  that 
a  festival  to  commemorate  the  Finding  of  the 
Cross  was  held  at  Jerusalem  in  Constantine’s 
time,  but  appeals  to  no  earlier  authority  in  sup¬ 
port  of  his  statement and  in  the  Chronicon  of 
Flavius  Lucius  Dexter,  if  the  passage  be  genuine. 
Pope  Silvester  1.  (ob.  335  A.D.)  is  claimed  as  the 
originator  of  the  festival:  “Festum  Inveutionis 
S.  Crucis  a  Silvestro  institutum  celebre  multis 
est  ”  {Patrol,  xxxi.  563).  It  is  not  impossible 
that  there  may  have  been  a  festival  peculiar  to 
the  Roman  Church,  before  its  observance  had 
become  general. 

Most  Western  Martyrologies  and  Calendars 
mark  May  3  as  “  Inventio  S.  Crucis,”  including 
the  ancient  Martyrologium  Hieronymi  {Patrol. 
XXX.  435)  ;  but  there  are  grounds  for  doubting 
the  genuineness  of  the  words  here,  more  espe¬ 
cially  from  the  fact  that  they  are  absent  from 
the  very  ancient  Cod.  Epternacensis,  as  is  pointed 
out  by  Papebroch  {Acta  Sanctorum ;  May,  vol.  i. 
p.  369).  It  is  found  in  the  Martyrologium  Bi- 
suntinum  {Patrol.  Ixxx.  415),  the  Mart.  Romanum 
Vetus  {ib.  cxxiii.  158),  and  those  of  Rabanus,  Ado, 
Usuardus,  and  Notker  {ih.  cx.  1142  ;  cxxiii.  256  ; 
exxiv.  15;  cxxxi.  1075);  also  in  a  Gallican  and 
an  English  Martyrology  {ib.  Ixxii.  614,  620),  the 
Mozarabic  and  the  Gothic  Calendar  (<6.  Ixxxv. 
98,  Ixxxvi.  39),  the  Cal.  Mutinense  {ih.  cvi.  821), 
Floriacense  {ih.  cxxxviii.  1187). 

There  is  a  special  office  for  this  day  in  the 
Gothogallic  Missal  {ib.  Ixxii.  285),  in  the  Moza- 
rabic  Breviary  and  Missal  {ib.  Ixxxv.  739,  Ixxxvi. 
1119),' in  the  Gelasian  Sacramentaiy  {ib.  Ixxiv. 
1162),  in  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  and  Anti¬ 
phonary  {ib.  Ixxviii.  101,  687).  To  this  last  we 
shall  again  refer. 

Some,  however,  omit  the  festival  altogether, 
and  some  give  it  a  secondary  place  after  the 
names  of  the  Martvrs  who  are  commemorated  on 
this  day.  Thus  there  is  no  mention  of  it  in  the 
Calendar  of  Leo  (i6.  Ixxiv.  878),  in  the  metrical 
Martyrology  of  Bede  {ih.  xciv.  604),  in  the  Sacra- 
mentarium  Suaviciense  {ib.  cli.  823),  and  some 
others  (see  in  Leslie’s  note  to  the  Mozai’abic 
Missal  in  loc.).  Again  in  the  Martyrology  of 
Bede  given  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum  (March,  vol. 
ii.  p.  xviii.).  a  long  narrative  of  the  Martyrs 
commemorated  on  this  day  is  followed  by  “  Ipso 
die  Inventio  Sanctae  Crucis.”  So  too  runs  the 
metrical  Martyrology  of  Wandelbert  {Patrol. 
exxi.  598): — 

“Praesul  Alexander  quinas  et  Eventius  ornant, 
Theodol usque  Ilei  pariter  pro  nomine  caesi, 

His  quoque  celsa  crucis  radiant  vexilla  repertae." 


The  same  is  the  case  with  an  old  English  Calen¬ 
dar,  which  reads  “  Natale  SS.  Alexaudri.  Event' 
et  Theodoli  presbyteri,  Inventio  Crucis  ”  {ib 
xciv.  1151).  See  also  the  Cal.  Stabulense  and 
the  Cal.  Brixianum  {ib.  cxxx'fiii.  1196,  6270). 

In  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  also  the  men 
tion  of  the  Inventio  Crucis  follows  that  of  the 
Saints  commemorated  on  this  day  (as  also  the 
Antiphonary  in  the  MSS.),  and  Me'uard  (note  in 
loc.)  states  that  in  the  most  ancient  MSS.  this 
festival  is  altogether  wanting. 

In  the  list  of  feasts  to  be  observed  given  in  the 
Capitulare  of  Ahyto  or  Hatto  (appointed  Bishop 
of  Basle  in  806  A.D.)  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
Inventio  Crucis  {Patrol,  cxv.  12),  and  in  the  Ca- 
pi'iUla  of  Walter,  bishop  of  Orleans  (857  A.D.), 
the  festivals  of  the  Inventio  Crucis  and  Exaltatio 
Crucis  are  appended  to  the  end  of  cap.  xvii,. 
“  De  Sanctorum  festivitatibus  indicendis  et  ob- 
servandis  ”  (j6.  cxix.  742),  as  though  they  had 
been  introduced  at  a  later  date  than  the  others 
mentioned. 

All  this  evidence  seems,  as  far  as  it  goes,  to 
point  either  to  the  fact  that  the  festival  w'as 
established  at  a  comparatively  late  date,  or  that 
it  was  for  some  time  of  local  rather  than  general 
observance.  Papebroch  {Acta  Sanctorum  in  loc. 
c.  iii.)  suggests  720  A.D.  as  approximately  the 
date  of  the  general  recognition  of  the  festival, 
but  the  reference  above  to  its  absence  in  docu¬ 
ments  of  even  later  date  will  incline  us  to  look 
upon  the  end  of  the  8th  centuiy  or  the  beginning 
of  the  9th  as  the  earliest  period  we  can  safeh 
fix  on. 

Attention  may  be  called  here  to  the  fact  that 
sevei’al  of  the  above  mentioned  authorities  make 
an  error  of  at  least  half  a  century  in  the  date  of 
Helena’s  alleged  discovery.  Thus  the  Martyro¬ 
logium  Hieronymi  speaks  of  it  as  “  post  Passio- 
nem  Domini  anno  ducentesimo  trigesimo  tertio,” 
in  which  it  is  follow'ed  by  Florus  in  the  additions 
to  Bede’s  Martyrology,  by  Rabanus  and  others.*^ 

The  Greek  Church  has  not,  properly  speaking, 
a  separate  festival  for  the  Finding  of  the  Cross, 
but  celebrates  this  event  on  the  day  of  the 
Exaltation  of  the  Cross,  September  14.  Some 
branches,  how^ever,  of  the  Eastern  Church  do 
observe  a  festival  of  the  Finding  of  the  Cross 
also.  Thus  in  the  Calendars  of  the  Ethiopic 
and  Coptic  Churches  given  by  Ludolf  {FasH 
Sacri  Ecclesiae  Alexandrinae),  March  6  is  marked 
“  Inventio  S.  Crucis  ”  (p.  22),  and,  in  the  case 
of  the  former  Church,  May  4,  “  Helena  reperit 
Crucem  ”  (p.  27). 

Mention  may  be  made  here  of  wudtings  on  the 
subject  of  the  Finding  of  the  Cross  referred  to 
in  the  decrees  of  a  council  held  at  Rome  under 
the  presidency  of  Gelasius:  while  allowed  to  be 
read,  their  statements  are  to  be  received  with 
caution.  “  Item  [recipienda]  scripta  de  Inven- 
tione  Crucis  Dominicae,  ....  novellae  quaedam 
relationes  sunt,  et  nonnulli  eas  Catholici  legunt. 
Sed  cum  haec  ad  Catholicorum  manus  perveuerint, 
beati  Pauli  Apostoli  praecedat  .seiitentia,  omnia 
probate,  quod  bonurn  est  tenete”  {Patrol,  lix.  161). 
Further,  in  the  Acta  Sayiotorum  (IMay,  vol.  i. 
p.  362),  Papebroch  adduces  gi’ounds  for  believing 
the  unhistorical  character  of  much  of  this  writ¬ 
ing, — among  other  things,  the  same  error  in  tlio 


e  Tliis,  however,  is  doubtless  to  be  connected  with  the 
feollval  of  the  Exaltation  of  the  Cross  (vi/^wats). 


<1  Theophanes  {Chronogrophia)  makes  a  similar  mis¬ 
take,  and  refers  the  discovery  to  the  yur  317  a.u. 


CliO^VN 


r)06  CROSS,  APPARITION  OF  THE 

date  of  the  Finding,  amounting  to  more  than  half 
a  century,  into  which  we  have  already  mentioned 
that  several  of  the  late  martyrologies  have  fallen. 
These  writings  seem  to  have  found  their  way  to 
the  East  and  to  have  been  translated  into  Syriac 
(see  Assemani,  Bibliotheca  Orientalis^  vol.  i.  p. 
497). 

In  addition  to  the  books  already  cited  in  this 
article,  reference  may  be  made  to  Binterim, 
Benka  iirdigkeiten-,  vol.  v.  part  1,  pp.  368  scpp,  to 
Newman’s  Essay  on  Miracles  record<d  in  Ecclesi¬ 
astical  History,  pp.  cxliii.  sqq.,  where  the  truth 
of  the  legend  is  strongly  argued  for,  as  also  in 
Gretser,  De  Cruce  Christi,  vol.  i.  lib.  1,  cc.  62-64. 

[R.  S.] 

CROSS,  THE  Apparition  of  the,  at  Jeru¬ 
salem,  about  the  third  hour  of  the  day,  in  the 
time  of  Constantins,  in  the  year  346,  is  comme¬ 
morated  May  7  in  the  Byzantine  and  Ethiopic 
Calendars.  [C.] 

CROSS,  SIGN  OF.  [Sign  of  the  Cross.] 

CROWN.  Referring  to  the  article  Corona¬ 
tion  for  the  distinction  between  the  cronm  or 
garland,  “corona,”  (rrecpauos,  and  the  diadem  or 
fillet,  “  taenia,”  “  fascia,”  5id5riiJ.a,  and  for  fuller 
details  on  both  to  the  Dictionary  of  Classical 
Antiquities,  it  is  proposed  in  this  article  to  fur¬ 
nish  some  description  of  imperial  and  regal 
crowns  belonging  to  our  period,  the  form  and 
ornamentation  of  which  are  known  to  us  either 
from  contemporaneous  representations  or  from 
the  crowns  themselves  having  come  dotvn  to  our 
own  time. 

From  the  portraits  on  their  coins  it  appears 
that  the  early  emperors  adopted  the  diadem, 
worn  either  simply  or  encircling  the  helmet 


Constantine  (rem  medal,  Heraclius,  from 

from  Ferrario,  ‘  Costumi.’  Ferrario,  Costuini.’ 

{galea  diademata),  cidaris  or  tiara,  with  which 
their  head  was  covered.  The  coins  of  Constan¬ 
tine  the  Great  depict  him  wearing  diadems  or 
fillets  of  various  kinds ;  some  ornamented  with 
gems ;  some  enriched  with  a  double  row  of 
pearls,  with  the  loose  ends  of  the  fillet  hanging 
down  over  his  shoulders.  Sometimes  he  wears 
a  helmet  surrounded  by  a  diadem,  with  a  cross 
in  front  (Ferrario,  Costumi,  Europa,  vol.  I.  part 
2  —  Appendice  sulla  Corona  di  Ferro).  This 
combination  is  also  seen  on  the  coins  of  Gratian, 
Valentinian  II.,  Theodosius,  Leo  the  Great,  and 
Basil.  In  a  drawing  given  by  Ferrario  {u.s. 
No.  3),  Heraclius,  a.d.  610-641,  wears  a  helmet 
encircled  by  a  gemmed  diadem  with  pendent 
ends,  and  a  cross  above  the  forehead.  The  com¬ 
bination  of  the  diadem  with  the  cidaris  or  tiara 
was  borrowed  firom  the  Orientals,  among  whom 
it  had  been  in  use  from  ancient  times  (Xenoph. 
Cyrop.  viii.  3—13  :  KCpos  6p6^v  ridyau 

Hal  diddyga  irepl  rrj  ridpa ;  Anab,  ii.  5 ;  Herod, 
vii.  61 ;  Aesch,  Per^.  p.  668).  It  was  worn  by 


Zenobia  (Trebell.  Poll.  xxix. :  “ad  conciones  gale- 
ata  process! t  cum  limbo  purpureo  gemmis  depen- 
dentibus  per  ultimam  fimbnam”),  and  was 
adopted  by  her  conqueror,  Aurelian.  It  is  seen 
in  medals  under  the  form  of  a  peaked  caji  orna¬ 
mented  with  gem.s,  rising  from  a  jewelled  diadem 
or  fillet,  tied  behind.  The  cap  in  later  times 
assumed  the  popular  name  of  tuphan,  Tov(Pa, 
the  origin  of  the  modern  turban.  Zonaras  de- 


Tuphan,  from  Ferrario.  Arch  at  Rome. 


scribes  the  Emperor  Basil ius,  in  the  9th  century, 
as  ridpa  raiviooOels  opdla  rov^pau  naKel  6 
dgpLcabgs  Kai  ttoXvs  dvOpooiros.  Its  origin,  and 
the  history  of  its  adoption,  is  thus  given  by 
Tzetzes,  Chiliades,  viii.  184: — 

Ttdpa  (TKeTTTj  Ke<f>a\^s  rrapa  ITepcrai?, 

vcTTcpoi/  €1/  Ttti?  vLKai<;  6e  htB-v  ol  (rT€<f>r)<}>6pot 
K€<j)Oi\ai^  eneOePTO  Ttapas  tjtoi  TV(f)as, 
olav  e(|)ur7ros  ^opei  6  apSplag  eKelpos 
6  'lovaripidpeiof  rov  kLopo<;  erdpo). 

Another  form  of  the  imperial  headgear  was  a  low- 
crowned  cap,  apparently  destitute  of  diadem  or  an)' 
special  distinction  of  royalty.  This  was  known  as 
Camelaucium  (which  see).  Constantine  appears 
in  this  garb  on  his  triumphal  arch  in  Rome  (Fer¬ 
rario,  u.s.  pi.  30,  No.  2),  and  in  an  illumination 
from  a  MS.  of  the  9th  century,  representing 
the  Council  of  Nicaea,  given  by  Agincourt  {Pein- 
tures,  pi.  32).  Justinian,  m  the  mosaics  of  the 
sanctuary  of  San  Vitale  at  Ravenna,  has  his  head 
covered  with  a  jewelled  cap,  while  the  Empress 
Theodora  wears  a  tiara  surrounded  with  three 
circlets  of  gems.  Strings  of  pearls  and  other 
gems  hang  down  from  each.  These  jewelled 
tassels  were  known  as  Karaafiiard.  (Const. 
Porphyr.  De  Cueremon.  i.  582 ;  ii.  688.) 


Jnatinian  and  Theodora,  from  mosaics  at  St.  Vitalis,  Ravenna. 

The  diadem  in  its  original  form  of  a  linen  or 
silken  riband  or  fillet  gradually  went  out  of  use 
from  Justinian’s  time  (La  Barte,  Arts  indust, 
du  Moyen  Age,  ii.  39),  and  was  replaced  by  a  flex¬ 
ible  baud  of  gold,  <rT€/jL/j.(i,  (rreepapos,  sometimes 
adorned  with  a  band  of  pearls  and  precious 
stones,  representing  the  old  SidSTj.uo.  The  name 
areepavos  was  in  use  for  the  imperial  symbol  as 
early  as  the  time  of  Constantine.  Cyril,  Ep. 
ad  Const-  (repot  .  .  .  d<t)’  wv  exoixrt  r^i> 


CROWN 


CROWN 


507 


rifxlav  (Tov  -rroWaKi^  (TTe<t>ap overt  KeebaA^u,  XP^~ 
ffOKoWrjTovs  (Treepdvovs  \ldois  SianyfOTaTois 
■netroiKiAfx^vQvs  ‘KpoaKoixi^oures.  This  circlet 
was  closed  by  a  cap  of  rich  stuff  decorated  with 
gems.  From  being  shut  m  at  the  top  it  took  the 
name  of  itravdjKXfKXTos^  which  appears  in  Ana- 
stasius  Bibl.  and  other  authors  in  the  perplexing 


form  of  spanoclista  (Anast.  Bibl.  Paschalis,  434, 
&c.).  Examples  of  this  form  of  crown  are  given 
in  the  annexed  woodcuts  of  the  Emperor  Phocas, 
A.D.  602-610,  and  the  Empress  Irene,  wife  of  Leo 
IV.,  A.D.  797-802.  In  the  time  of  Const.  Porphyr. 
the  royal  treasury  contained  circlets  or  stemmata 
of  various  colours,  white,  green,  and  blue,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  enamel  with  which  they  were  coated. 
These  circlets  decorated  with  gemS  are  mentioned 


Pliocaa,  irom  a  madid. 
FeriartO;  pJ.  ;18,  No.  5. 


irenp,  wife  of  I.eo  IV. 
from  a  medal.  Ferrario,  ib. 


by  Claudian  in  connection  with  the  two  sons  of 
Theodosius,  Arcadius,  and  Honorius,  towards  the 
end  of  the  4th  century,  “  Et  vario  lapidum  dis- 
tinctos  igne  coronas  ”  {In  pr.  Cons.  Stilich,  ii.  92.) 

The  most  ancient  examples  of  crowns  are  those 
long  preserved  in  the  treasury  of  the  cathedral 
of  Monza,  in  Lombardy,  belonging  to  the  early 
part  of  the  7th  century.  These  crowns  were 
three  in  number  :  (1)  the  so-called  Iron  Crown, 
“Corona  Ferrea;”  (2)  the  crow'n  of  Agilulf,  an«i 
(3)  that  of  Theodelinda.  Agilulf’s  crown  was 
taken  to  Paris  as  a  prize  of  war  by  Napoleon  I., 
in  1804,  by  mistake  for  the  Iron  Crown,  and 
■was  stolen  from  the  “  Cabinet  des  Me'dailles,”  in 
which  it  was  deposited,  and  melted  down.  The 
most  celebrated  of  these  crowns  is — 

(1)  The  Iron  Crown  of  Lombardy,  the  reputed 
gift  of  Queen  Theodelinda,  who  died  A.D.  628. 
Tins  crown  is  formed  of  six  plates  of  gold,  each 
double,  united  by  as  many  hinges  of  the  same 
metal.  The  face  of  each  plate  exhibits  two 
panels,  divided  by  spiral  threads ;  one  long,  and 
.squarish,  the  other  tall  and  narrow.  The  pla¬ 
fond  is  covered  with  emerald-green  semitrans¬ 
parent  enamel.  The  long  panels  contain  a  large 
gem  in  the  centre,  surrounded  by  four  gold  roses, 
or  floral  knobs,  from  which  ramify  small  stalks 
and  flowers,  in  red,  blue,  and  opaque-white  ena¬ 
mels.  The  taP  narrows  plaques  contain  three 
gems  set  vertically.  One  plaque  has  only  one 
gem,  and  two  rose.s.  The  two  centre  plafonds 
meet  without  an  intervening  plaque.  The  number 


of  gems  is  22;  of  gold  roses,  26;  and  of  enamels, 
24.  Within  the  golden  circlet  thus  formed  is 
the  iron  ring,  from  which  is  derived  the  desig¬ 
nation  of  the  “  Iron  Crown (which,  however, 
Ferrario  asserts,  is  comparatively'  modern,  never 
being  found  in  the  rituals  of  the  churches  of 
Milan  and  Monza  before  the  time  of  Otho  IV., 
A.D.  1175.  Before  this  epoch  even  its  advocate 
Bellani  allows  it  appears  in  the  inventories  as 
Corona  Aurea).  This  is  a  narrow  iron  band 
•04  inch  thick  and  ’4  inch  broad,  united  at 
the  extremities  by  a  small  nail,  and  connected 
with  the  articulated  ]flates  of  the  crown  by  little 
pins.  Bellani  asserts  that  it  was  hammered  into 
shape,  and  bears  no  marks  of  the  flle.  Burges, 
a  more  trustworthy  authority,  states  that  the 
marks  of  the  file  are  clearly  visible.  {Arch. 
Journal,  vol.  xiv.  p.  14.)  This  iron  ring,  as 
is  well-krown,  is  regarded  as  a  relic  of  the 
greatest  sanctity,  being  reputed  to  have  been 
fashioned  out  of  one  of  the  nails  of  the  true  cross. 
This  belief  cannot  be  traced  further  back  than 
the  latter  part  of  the  16th  century.  The  exist¬ 
ence  of  the  band  of  iron  is  mentioned  by  Aeneas 
Sylvius  (Pope  Julius  II.  d.  1464)  in  his  Hist. 
Aust.  lib.  iv.,  but  simply  as  lamina  quaedam 
without  a  hint  at' its  supposed  sanctity,  and  with 
an  expres.sion  of  contempt  for  the  allegorical 
meaning  assigned  to  its  employment  in  the  coro¬ 
nation  of  the  emperors,  as  denoting  streyvjth — • 
“stultae  interpretationi  efficit  locum.”  Accord¬ 
ing  to  Muratori  {De  Coron.  Ferr.  Comment.  A.D. 
1698),  Bugatus  is  the  first  author  who  mentions 


The  Iron  Grown  of  Lombanly,  at  Monza  CathedraL 


it  {Addit.  ad  Hist.  Univ.  1587).  He  was  followed 
by  Zucchius  {Hist.  Cor.  Ferr.  1613),  whose  vio¬ 
lations  of  truth  Muratori  holds  it  charitable  to 
attribute  to  gross  carelessness.  Two  years 
before  the  publication  of  Bugatus’  book,  A.D. 
1585,  a  letter,  sent  from  the  archpriest  of  Monza 
to  Pope  Sixtus  Y .,  quoted  by  Muratori,  speaks 
of  the  Iron  Crown  as  a  most  precious  possession 
of  his  church,  as  having  been  used  from  early 
times  for  the  coronation  of  the  Roman  emperors 
(even  this  fact  is  doubtful),  but  distinguishes  it 
from  the  relics  properly  so  called,  and  makes  no 
allusion  to  its  having  been  wrought  out  of  a  nail 
of  the  crucifixion.  From  the  16th  century  on¬ 
wards  the  belief  gained  strength,  but  having  been 
discredited  by  the  searching  historical  investi¬ 
gations  of  Muratori  in  the  treatise  referred  to 
above,  the  worship  of  the  crown  as  a  sacred  relic 
was  alternately  suspended  and  re-enforced  by 
decrees  and  counter-decrees  of  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  until  in  1688  the  matter  was  laid 
before  the  Congregation  of  Relics  at  Rome.  A 
process  was  instituted,  which  lingered  on  till 
1717,  when  a  diplomatic  sentence  was  pronounced, 
leaving  the  chief  point — the  identity  of  the  iron 
ring  with  the  nail — undecided,  but  sanctioning  its 


508 


CROWN 


CROWN 


exposed  to  the  adoration  of  the  faithful,  and 
carried  in  })rocessions. 

The  cliain  of  e\ddence  connecting  the  Iron 
Crown  with  the  crucifixion  nail  is  very  pre¬ 
carious,  and  shows  some  alarming  gaps.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  statement  of  Justus  Fontaninus 
(Archbishop  of  Ancyra,  De  Caron.  Fcrr.  1719), 
who  wrote  in  defence  of  its  genuineness,  the 
inner  ring  was  believed  to  have  been  formed  out 
of  one  of  the  two  nails  given  by  the  Empress 
Helena,  after  her  discovery  of  the  true  cross  on 
Calvary,  to  her  son  Constantine.  One  of  these 
was  made  into  a  bit  for  the  emperor’s  bridle  (in 
allusion  to  Zech.  xiv.  20);  the  other  was  used 
in  a  head-covering — a  diadem,  according  to  some 
authorities  (Ambros.  De  Obitu  Theod.  Magn.)  ;  a 
helmet,  according  to  others,  and  those  the  most 
credible.  Constantine’s  idea  seems  indeed  to  have 
been  that  so  sacred  an  amulet  affixed  to  his  helmet 
would  be  a  protection  to  him  in  battle,  “  galea 
belli  usibus  aptum  ”  (Rufinus,  Hist.  Eccl.  x.  8 ; 
Socr.  i.  17  ;  Soz.  ii,  1 ;  Theod.  i.  18 ;  Cassiod.  i. 
18).  The  orthodox  theory  identifies  the  Monza 
crown  with  the  diadem  supposed  to  have  been  pre¬ 
sented  b)^  Helena  to  Constantine,  which  passed, 
no  one  knows  when  or  how  (it  is  needless  to 
enumerate  the  more  or  le.ss  probable  hypotheses), 
from  Constantinople  to  Rome,  and  is  affirmed — 
a  fact  of  which  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence — 
to  have  been  sent  as  a  present  by  Gregory  the 
Great  to  Queen  Theodelinda  ;  although  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable  that  Gregory,  who  is 
known  to  have  been  “  tenax  reliquiarum,”  should 
have  parted  with  a  relic  of  such  supreme  sanctity, 
while,  if  such  a  precious  gift  had  been  made,  it 
could  not  fail  to  have  been  mentioned  by  Gregory 
when  describing  his  donations  (Greg.  Mag.  Ep. 
xii.  [vii.]  lib.  xiv.  [xii.]).  The  view  of  Bellani 
(canon  of  Monza,  who  wrote  an  elaborate  treatise 
(Milano,  1819)  in  answer  to  Ferrario’s  Appendice 
sulla  Corona  di  Ferro,  Costumi,  Europa,  vol.  iii.) 
is  that  the  iron  ring  and  the  gold  circlet  were 
originally  distinct ;  that  the  former  is  the  sacred 
relic  affixed  to  the  helmet  of  Constantine,  while 
the  latter  was  primarily  a  diadem,  open  behind, 
and  fastened  to  the  head  by  clasps,  the  extremi¬ 
ties  of  which  were  united  in  the  present  shape 
when  it  was  adapted  to  the  iron  ring.  The  view 
of  Muratori,  which  appears  the  most  probable, 
dissipates  all  notion  of  sacred  interest  attach¬ 
ing  to  the  ii'on  ring,  which  he  considers  to  have 
been  inserted  within  the  gold  circle,  as  in  the 
crown  of  Charlemagne  (see  post),  simply  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  firmness  to  the  articulated 
plates. 

However  it  may  have  reached  Italy,  the  cha¬ 
racter  of  the  workmanship  of  the  Iron  Crown 
proves  its  Byzantine  origin.  La  Barte,  who 
holds  this  as  an  incontrovertible  fact,  remarks 
that  the  art  of  working  in  enamel  had  not  pene¬ 
trated  into  Italy  in  the  time  of  Theodelinda  (^Les 
Arts  industrlels  da  Mogen  Age,  ii.  56  sq.). 

The  small  size  of  the  crown,  barely  large 
enough  for  the  head  of  a  child  of  two  years  old, 
the  internal  diameter  being  6  inches  (its  height 
is  2’4  inches),  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  it  w^as 
never  intended  for  ordinary  wearing,  but  was  a 
suspensory  or  votive  crown,  with  a  cross  and 
lamp  usually  depending  from  it,  hung  over  the 
altar,  and  employed  temporarily,  on  the  occasion 
of  coronations,  for  placing  on  the  sovereign’s 
head  as  a  symbol  of  royalty,  and  then  returned 


again  to  its  place.  Such  crowms  are  seen  hang¬ 
ing  over  the  altar  in  a  bas-relief  of  a  coronation, 
now  in  the  S.  transept  of  Monza  cathedral  (see 
the  woodcut  p.  460),  exactly  resembling  that 
w'hich  is  being  placed  on  the  sovereign’s  head. 
In  the  church  of  St.  Sophia,  at  Constantinople, 
also,  according  to  Codinus,  the  royal  aTeiigara 
w’ere  suspended  over  the  holy  talile,  and  were 
only  worn  on  high  festivals.  Ducange  (Consta  d. 
Christiana)  also  informs  us  that  the  Greek  emjie- 
rors  were  inaugurated  with  one  of  Jhe  lamp¬ 
bearing  crowns  ordinarily  hanging  over  the  altar 
[Corona  Lucis]. 

(For  the  history  of  the  Iron  Crown,  see 
Mui-atori,  De  Coron.  Ferr.  Comment.  Me  liolan.  et 
Lips.  1719;  also  Anecdot.  Latin,  ii.  267  sq. ; 
Fontanini  De  Corona  Ferrea,  1617;  Frisi,  J/--- 
morie  Storiche  di  Menza,  ii.  ;  Zucchius,  Hist. 
Coron.  Ferr.  1617  ;  De  Murr,  Dissert,  de  Coron. 
Reg.  Ital.  vulgo  Ferrea  dicta,  1810  ;  Bellani, 
La  Corona  Ferrea  del  Uegno  d"  Italia,  1819 ; 
Ferrario,  Costurni,  Europa,  iii.  Appendice  sulla 
Corona  di  Ferro  ,*  La  Barte,  Les  Arts  industriels 
du  Aloyen  Age,  ii.  56  sq.). 

(2)  The  Crown  of  Agilulf. — This  hopelessly 
lost  treasui’e  takes  its  name  from  Theodelinda’s 


second  husband,  chosen  by  her  A.D.  591,  on  the 
death  of  Authar.  From  its  .small  .size,  even  less 
than  the  Iron  Crown,  it  is  evident  that  it  was 
not  intended  for  ordinary  wear,  but  was  a  votive, 
suspensory  ci’own.  This  is  also  proved  by  the 
inscription  it  bore :  “  t  Agilulf.  Grat.  D’i.  vir. 
glor.  rex.  totius,  Ital.  offeret.  s'co  Johanni.  Baptist, 
in.  Eccl.  Modiciaf*  A  gold  cross  de})ended  from  it, 
with  a  large  amethyst  in  the  middle,  two  gems 
in  each  arm  and  four  large  pearls.  Seven  little 
chains  with  pendent  acorns  hung  from  the  cross. 
The  crown  itself  was  a  circle  of  gold,  decorated 
with  15  arched  niches  of  laurel  boughs  contain¬ 
ing  figures  of  our  Lord  seated  between  two 
angels,  and  the  Twelve  apostles  standing.  It  bore 
a  circle  of  emeralds,  carbuocles,  and  pearls  above. 


CROWN 


509 


CROWN 

The  in.scn})tion  was  in  enamel.  The  clumsiness 
of  execution  leads  La  Carte  u.  s.  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  and  the  following  crown  were  of  Lom¬ 
bard,  not  Byzantine  workmanship. 

(3)  The  Croion  of  Theodelinda. — This  is  a  plain 
circlet,  enriched  with  a  vast  quantity  of  gems  of 
more  or  less  value,  chiefly  emeralds  and  pearls, 
and  a  great  many  pieces  of  mother-of-pearl. 
From  it'  depends  a  cross,  also  set  with  emeralds 
and  pearls.  (For  these  crowns  consult  Muratori, 
Ant.  It.  i.  460;  Ferrario,  u.  s.  iii.  70;  Frisi, 


Memorie  di  Monza,  i.  pi.  vi.  p.  42;  vol.  ii.  76; 
Agincourt,  Sculpture,  pi.  26 ;  La  Carte,  ii.  56, 
Burges  Arch.  Journ.  vol.  xiv.) 

(4)  Crowns  of  Reccesvinthus,  King  of  the 
Spanish  Visigoths,  and  his  Queen  and  Family. — 
These  eight  gold  crowns  belonging  to  the  7th 
century,  now  in  the  museum  of  the  Hotel  de 
Cluuy,  were  discovei’ed  buried  in  the  earth  at 
Fuente  de  Guarrazar  in  1858,  haAdng  probably 
been  interred  early  in  the  8th  century  on  the 
invasion  of  the  Saracens.  The  whole  of  the  crowns 
found  were  evidently,  from  their  form  and  dimen¬ 
sions,  votive  crowns,  probably  dedicated  by  the 
king  and  queen  and  chief  officers  of  the  court. 
The  crown  of  Reccesvinthus,  who  reigned  A.D. 
653-675,  is  one  of  the  most  gorgeous  and  remark¬ 
able  relics  of  its  age,  composed  of  a  fillet  jointed 
and  formed  of  a  double  plate  of  purest  gold.  It 
measures  about  9  inches  in  diameter,  or  27  inches 
in  circumference.  The  hoop  is  about  4  inches 
broad,  and  more  than  half  an  inch  in  thickness. 
The  rims  of  the  hoop  are  formed  of  bands  of  inter¬ 
secting  circles  in  cloisonne  work  in  red  and  green, 
with  incrustations  of  cornelian.  It  is  enrichec 
with  thirty  uncut  sapphires  of  large  size,  alter¬ 
nating  with  as  many  very  large  Oriental  pearls, 
forming  three  I’ows.  The  intervening  spaces 
are  pierced  with  open  work,  and  engraved  so  as  to 
represent  foliage  and  flowers.  To  the  lower 
edge  of  this  hoop  is  suspended  by  small  chains  a 
very  remarkable  fringe  of  gold  letters  about 
2  inches  long,  incrusted  with  gems,  with  a  pen¬ 
dant  pearl  and  sapphire  attached  to  each,  forming 
the  inscription — 

t  RECCESVINTHVS  REX  OFFERET. 

A  little  below  the  fringe  of  letters  hangs  a  mas¬ 
sive  Latin  cross  mounted  with  six  fine  sapphires 


and  eight  large  pearls,  with  jewelled  pendants 
attached  to  its  foot  and  limbs.  To  the  upper 
margins  are  attached  four  golden  chains  of 
beautiful  design,  by  which  it  might  be  suspended, 
uniting  in  a  foliated  ornament,  and  surmounlel 
by  a  knop  of  rock  crystal,  with  sapphires  hang¬ 
ing  round. 

K  second  crown  discovered  in  the  same  place 
has  been  assigned  with  much  probability  to  the 
queen  of  Reccesvinthus.  In  form  and  arrange¬ 
ment  it  corresponds  to  that  of  the  king,  but  the 
enrichments  are  less  gorgeous.  Like  that,  it  is 
formed  in  two  pieces  with  a  hinge,  to  adapt  it 
to  the  head  of  the  wearer.  The  hoop  is  set  with 
fifty-four  gems,  rubies,  sapphires,  emeralds,  and 


Crown  of  Bocceavintbus. 


opals.  From  the  lower  rim  hang  eight  sapphires. 
There  is  no  inscription.  The  pendant  cross  is 
covered  with  jewels,  but  less  costly  than  those 
on  the  former  one. 

The  six  smaller  crowns  are  reasonably  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  belonged  to  the  younger  members 
of  this  royal  family.  Three  of  these  arc  gold 
hoops  without  pendant  crosses,  jewelled,  enriched 
with  repousse  work  and  mother-of-pearl.  One 
is  decorated  with  an  arcade  of  little  rouud-lieaded 
arches,  and  has  a  fringe  of  rock  crystal.  The 
other  three  are  of  a  very  singular  construction. 
They  consist  of  a  kind  of  open  framework  or 
basketwork  of  gold,  formed  of  three  horizontal 


610 


CROWN 


CROWN 


circlets,  connected  by  numerous  uprights,  gems 
ceing  set  at  the  points  of  intersection.  Each 
crown  is  rudely  decorated  with  as  many  as  fifty- 
bur  precious  stones  and  })earls,  and  is  terminated 
with  the  fringe  of  sapphires  and  the  pendant 
cross.  One  of  the  crosses  presents  the  dedicatory 
inscription — 

t  IN  DEI  NOMINE  OFFERET  SONNICA 
SANCTE  MARIE  IN  SORBACES. 


“  Few  relics  of  the  period,”  writes  Mr.  Albert 
Way,  Archacol.  Journal,  xvi.  258,  “  deserve  com- 


Crown  of  Bvi&tila. 


parison  with  this  precious  regalia,  both  in  bar¬ 
baric  magnificence  of  enrichment,  and  in  the 
impressive  effect  of  so  sumptuous  a  display  of 
natural  gems  remarkable  for  their  dimensions 


and  lustrous  brilliancy.”  (Lasteyrie,  Dcscrtpiion 
du  Tresor  de  Guarrazar,  Paris,  1860,  La  Barter 
Arts  indust.,  i.  499  sq.) 

(5)  The  Crown  of  SrAntila. — Svintila  was  king 
of  the  Visigoths,  a.d.  621-631.  His  crown,  pre¬ 
served  in  the  royal  armoury  at  Madrid,  is  of 
massive  gold  enriched  with  sapphires  and  pearls 
set  rose  fashion  between  two  borders  set  with  deli 
cate  stones.  From  the  lower  rim  hangs  a  fringe  of 
open  letters  of  gold,  set  with  red  glass,  sus- 
jiended  by  chains  of  double  links,  with  pendant 
pear-shaped  sapphires.  The  letters  form  the 
inscription, 

SVINTILANVS  REX  OFFERT. 

f Proceedings  of  the  Soc.  of  Antiq.  ii.  11.  Jos^ 
Amador  de  los  Rios,  £Jl  Arte  Latiao-hizantino^ 
Madrid,  1861.) 

These  Spanish  crowns  are  considered  by 
La  Barte  to  be  of  Spanish  workmanship.  Las 
teyrie,  on  the  other  hand,  assigns  to  them  a 
Gothic  origin,  and,  with  less  probability,  thinks 
that  they  were  brought  into  Spain  by  North 
German  barbarians. 

The  suspensory  form  of  these  crowns  and  the 
inscriptions  some  of  them  present  prove  that 
they  were  of  a  votive  character,  and  were  dedi 
cated  to  God  by  the  king  and  his  family  on 
some  memorable  occasion,  to  be  hung  up  over 
the  altar.  But  this  does  not  preclude  their 
previous  use  as  crowns  for  wearing.  That  such 
was  their  primary  destination  is  rendered  almost 
certain  by  the  variation  in  diameter  of  the  dif¬ 
ferent  circlets,  and  by  the  hinges  and  fastenings 
which  facilitated  their  being  fitted  to  the  wearer’s 
head.  The  queen’s  crown  also  has  little  loops, 
above  and  below,  for  attaching  a  lining  or  cap 
within  the  gold  circlet,  to  prevent  it  from 
galling  the  wearer’s  brows. 

(6)  The  Crown  of  Charlemagne. — This  crown, 
preserved  in  the  treasury  at  Vienna,  is  evidently 
made  up  of  portions  belonging  to  ditierent  epochs. 
It  is  composed  or  eight  round-headed  plaques  of 
gold ;  four  larger,  enriched  with  emeralds  and 
sapphires  en  cabochon,  and  four  smaller,  pre¬ 
senting  enamelled  figures  of  David,  Solomon, 
Hezekiah,  and  Christ.  Strength  and  unity  are 
imparted  to  the  whole  by  the  insertion  of  two 
little  circlets  of  iron.  A  jewelled  cross  rises 
from  the  apex  of  the  front  plaque,  from  which 
an  enamelled  arch  stretches  over  the  head  to 
the  back,  bearing  the  name  of  the  Emperor 
Conrad,  a.d.  1138.  The  costumes  of  the  figures 
in  the  enamels  are  Byzantine.  ( Hangard- 
Mange',  Les  Arts  somptuaires,  Paris,  1858,  pi.  31, 
vol.  ii.  p.  31.) 

Authorities. — In  addition  to  the  treatises  of 
Muratori,  Fontaninus,  and  Bellani,  named  above, 
we  may  refer  the  student  to  the  following : — 
Bayer,  De  duob.  Diadem,  in  Mus.  Imp.  Comment. 
,Acad.  Scient.  Imp.  Petropol.  viii.  1736.  Agincourt, 
Seroux  d’.  Art  par  les  Monuments,  Sculpture,  Pein- 
ture.  W.  Burges,  “  On  the  Treasures  at  Monza,” 
Archaeol.  Journ.  xiv.  Ciampini,  Vet.  Monim. 
cxiv.  i.  p.  107.  Guenebault,  Diction,  iconogr. 
des  Monuments,  Paris,  1843,  and  Glossaire  litur- 
gique  in  Annales  de  Philosophie  chreticnne,  xi. 
Ferrario,  Costume  antico  e  moclerno  TEuropa,  vol. 
i.  pt.  1,  vol.  iii.  pt.  1,  Appen/Hce  sulle  Corona 
Ferrea.  vol.  i.  pt.  2,  Hangard-Mange',  Les  3r‘s 
somptuaires,  Paris,  1858.  La  Barte,  I.es  Arts 
industriels.  iMigne,  Encycl.  Theol.  xxvii.  Die- 


CROWNS  FOR  BRIDES 


CRUCIFIX  511 


tionmire  d’Orfevrerie,  4'C.  Montfaucon,  Memoires 
dd  la  Monarchic  fran(^aise,  i.  Pasthalis,  De  Coro- 
nis,  Paris,  1610.  Sommerard,  du,  Catalogue  du 


Musee  de  Clung, 
Crowns  of  Guarrazar, 


Paris,  i8Gl.  Way,  “  Ou  the 
”  Arch.  Journal,  xvi. 

[li.  V.] 


Crown  of  Charlemagne. 


'CROWNS  FOR  BRIDES.  1  These  two  uses  i 
CROWNS  FOE  BURIALS.)  of  crowns  oi-  ; 
wreaths,  as  connected  u’ith  Christian  social  life,  j 
seem  to  call  for  a  separate  notice.  In  each  case 
there  was  a  custom  belonging  to  a  non-Christian 
period.  The  bridal  crown,  of  Greek  origin,  had 
been  adopted  by  the  Romans,  and  was  in  uni-  ; 
versal  use,  sometimes  worn  by  the  bride  alone,  ’ 
sometimes  by  the  bridegroom  also.  The  rigorous-  1 
ness  of  early  Christian  feeling  rejected  the  use  of  | 
coronae  generally,  as  connected  either  with  the 
excesses  of  heathen  feasts,  or  the  idolatry  of 
heathen  worship.  Christians  were  to  avoid  mar-  j 
riages  with  heathen  women  lest  they  should  be 
tempted  to  put  the  evil  thing  upon  their  brows  | 
(Tertull.  de  Corona,  c.  13).  Flowers  might  be 
worn  as  a  bouquet,  or  held  in  the  hand,  but  not  ^ 
upon  the  head.  It  was  not  long,  however,  before 
the  natural  beauty  of  the  practice  freed  itself 
fi'om  the  old  associations  and  reasserted  its  claim. 
It  is  probable  that  the  objections  to  it  were  never 
very  widely  entertained.  In  the  time  of  Chry¬ 
sostom  it  was  again  a  common  usage.  Bridegroom 
and  bride  were  crowned  as  victors,  assuming  their 
purity,  over  the  temptations  of  the  flesh.  It 
was  a  shock  to  Christian  feeling  when  the  wreaths 
were  worn  by  the  impure  (//ow.  ix.  in  1  Tim.). 
The  bridegroom’s  wreath  was  for  the  most  part 
of  myrtle  (Sidon.  Apollin.  Carm.  II.  ad  Anthem.), 
the  bride’s  of  verbena.  The  prominence  of  the 
rite  in  the  Eastern  church  has  led  the  whole 
marriage  service  to  be  described  in  the  Greek  ; 
E.vxo\6yiQv  as  thj  'Ai€o\ov6ia  tov  arfcparw-  I 


fiaros ;  and  the  ceremony  itself,  as  probably 
handed  down  from  an  early  period,  deserves 
mention  here.  First,  the  bridegroom  solemnly 
crowns  the  bride  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then  the  bride  in  like 
manner  crowns  the  bridegroom.  Lastly,  the 
priest  blesses  them  with  the  thrice-repeated 
words,  “  0  Lord  our  God,  crown  them  with 
glory  and  honour.” 

The  use  of  wreaths  for  burials,  common 
among  both  Greeks  and  Romans,  on  the  head  of 
the  corpse,  on  the  bier,  on  the  tomb,  was  for 
like  reasons  rejected  by  the  more  rigorous 
teachers.  The  disciples  of  Christ  were  Lo  seek 
an  incorruptible  crown,  the  amaranth  which 
grows  on  no  earthly  soil  (Clem.  Alex.  Pacdag. 
ii.  8).  To  those  who  had  been  accustomed  to 
shew  their  honour  to  the  dead  by  this  outward 
sign,  this  refusal  seemed  cruel  and  unfeeling ; 
and  Christians  had  to  defend  themselves  against 
the  charge,  “Coronas  etiam  sepulcris  denegatis” 
(Minuo.  Fel.  c.  12),  with  the  answer,  “  Kec  ad- 
nectimus  arescentem  coronam,  sed  a  Deo  aeternis 
floribus  viridem  sustinemus”  (ibid.  c.  37).  Here 
also,  after  a  time,  though  less  formally  in  the 
case  of  the  nuptial  crown,  the  old  practice  was 
I'evived  with  a  higher  significance.  The  crown 
appears  on  tombs  and  paintings  as  the  symbol 
of  martyrdom ;  and  modern  Christendom  repro¬ 
duces,  without  misgiving,  the  practice  which 
the  ancient  Church  rejected.  [E.  H.  P.] 

CRUCIFIX  and  REPRESENTATIONS 
OF  THE  CRUCIFIXION.  It  is  n-icessary  to 


612 


CEUCIFIX 


CRUCIFIX 


distingubh  bet\reen  the  use  of  the  crucifix  as  an 
object  or  instrument  of  devotion,  and  that  of 
pictorial  or  other  representations  of  the  Cruci¬ 
fixion  as  a  scene.  Every  variety  and  combina¬ 
tion  of  the  arts  of  sculpture,  mosaic,  painting, 
and  engraving  has  been  aj)plied  to  this  great 
subject  from  early  times,  and  to  all  parts  of 
it ;  and  this  distinction  is  one  of  principle  as 
well  as  convenience.  The  modern  crucifix  and 
its  use  of  course  form  no  part  of  the  subject. 
Within  the  limits  of  our  period,  all  representa¬ 
tions  of  the  crucified  Form  of  our  Lord  alone,  as 
well  as  pictures,  reliefs,  and  mosaics,  in  which 
that  Form  is  the  central  ob  ject  of  a  scene,  may 
be  considered  alike  symbolical,  without  historical 
realism  or  artistic  appeal  to  emotion.  There  is 
doubtless  a  divergence  in  the  direction  of  realism, 
and  appeal  to  feeling  by  actual  representation  is 
begun,  whenever  the  human  figure  is  added  to 
the  symbolic  cross.*  The  use  of  the  sculptured, 
moulded,  or  enamelled  crucifix  or  crucifixion  in 
early  times,  is  a  development  of  that  of  the  cross, 
and  the  transition  between  them  may  have  been 
r  certainty  from  the  first ;  but  the  rude  efforts 
of  earlier  days,  with  which  alone  we  have  to  do, 
can  neither  call  on  the  imagination  by  vivid  pre¬ 
sentation  of  the  actual  event,  nor  awaken  feeling 
by  appeal  to  the  sense  of  beauty,  nor  distress  by 
painful  details  of  bodily  suffering.  While  the 
primitive  rules  of  representation  were  adhered 
to,  as  they  are  to  this  day  in  the  Greek  Church, 
the  picture  or  icon  dwells  on  the  meaning  of  the 
event  rather  than  its  resemblance,  and  shadows 
forth,  rather  than  represents,  the  God-Man  in 
the  act  of  death  for  man.  These  rules  were  first 
infringed  by,  or  natm’ally  collapsed  in  the  pre¬ 
sence  of,  increased  artistic  power.  The  paintings 
ofCimabue  and  Giotto,  and  the  reliefs  ofN.  Pisano, 
brought  the  personality  of  the  artist  into  every 
work,  and  introduced  human  motive  and  treat¬ 
ment,  in  the  ai’tistic  sense  of  the  words.  To 
those  whose  minds  are  drawn  to  ascetic  thought 
and  practice,  it  has  always  been  natural  to 
meditate,  and  to  communicate  their  thoughts 
upon,  the  bodily  sufferings  of  the  Saviour  of  man¬ 
kind.  This  was  done  by  Angelico  and  others 
naturally  and  freely  before  the  Reformation ; 
since  that  period  a  somewhat  polemical  and  arti¬ 
ficial  use  has  been  made  of  this  line  of  thought ; 
and  painting  and  sculpture  have  been  applied  to 
embody  it  accordingly  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  It  may  be  remarked,  before  retiring 
within  our  proper  limits  of  time,  that  the  use 
of  blood,  by  Giotto  and  his  followers  down  to 
Angelico,  has  doctrinal  reference  to  the  Holy 
Communion,  and  to  Scriptural  promises  of  cleans¬ 
ing  by  the  blood  of  Christ.*’  Giotto  is  less  in- 


a  I)e  Rossi  (vol.  ii.  tav.  v.  p.  35.5)  gives  a  cro.ss,  with 
two  lambs  apparently  contemplating  it,  below  one  of  the 
usual  pictures  of  the  Good  Shepherd.  Aringhi,  Rom.  Subt. 
ii.  478:  “Crux,  cum  Christo  illi  fixo,  neuticiuam  effigiari 
olim  solebat.”  The  Crucifixion  he  calls  “  mysticis  res  co- 
loribus  adumbrata  ....  emblematicis  figuratisque  modis; 
sub  inniKui  videlicet  agni  juxta  crucis  lignum  placide 
consistcntis  typo.”  SeeBottari,  taw.  xxi.  xxii.  See,  how¬ 
ever  (ib.,  tav.  cxcii.),  the  crucifix  found  in  the  tomb  of 
St.  Julius  and  St.  Valentine  in  the  Catacombs ;  which  so 
much  resembles  the  mosaic  crucifix  of  John  VII.  that  it 
can  hardly  be  of  very  early  date.  It  is  generally  assigned 
to  Pope  Adrian,  about  880. 

As  in  the  Crucifixion  over  the  door  of  the  Convent  of 
St.  Mark’.s,  I’lorence,  where  the  blood  issues  from  the 


dined  to  dwell  for  Terror’s  sake  on  the  bodily 
ruifferings  of  the  Passion,  than  to  dwell  with  awe 
on  its  mystery  as  a  sacrifice  for  man.  But  the 
rise  of  mediaeval  asceticism,  and  its  attribution 
of  sacramental  efficacy  to  bodily  pain,  bore 
painters  with  it  as  w’ell  as  other  men.  And  in 
later  times,  5vhen  Christian  feeling  on  the  subject 
was  lost,  many  men  seem  to  have  considered  the 
final  scene  of  the  Redemption  of  Man  chiefly  as  a 
good  opportunity  of  displaying  newly-acquired 
powers  of  facial  expression  and  knowledge  of 
anatomy. 

If  Hallam’s  division  of  periods  be  accepted, 
which  makes  the  end  of  the  .5th  century  the 
beginning  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the  public  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  Crucifixion  may  be  said  to  be  a 
mediaeval  usage  in  point  of  time.  Further, 
Martigny  (^Dict.  des  Antiq.  Chretiennes,  p.  190, 
s.  V.)  claims  for  France  the  honour  of  having 
possessed  the  first  public  crucifix-painting  which 
ever  existed ;  for  which  he  refers  to  Gregory  of 
Tours  (De  Glor.  Martyr,  i.  23),  and  which  he  says 
must  have  been  at  least  as  old  as  the  middle  of 
the  6th  century.  But  he  says  above,  probably 
with  great  correctness,  that  all  the  mo.st  eminent 
Crucifixions  known  were  objects  of  private  de 
votion,  instancing  the  pectoral  cro.ss  of  Queen 
Theodolinda  and  the  Syriac  MS.  of  the  Medicean 


Tlieodolinda’s  Crucifix. 


Library  at  Florence,  both  hereafter  to  be  de¬ 
scribed.  The  official  or  public  use  of  the  cross 
as  a  symbol  of  Redemption  begins  with  Con.stan- 
tine,  though  of  course  it  had  been  variously 
employed  by  all  Christians  at  an  earlier  date. 
[Cross.] 

Crucifixes,  according  to  Guericke,  did  not 
appear  in  churches  till  after  the  7th  century. 
Such  images,  probably,  in  the  early  days  of  the 
Church,  would  produce  too  crude  and  painful  an 
effect  in  the  Christian  imagination,  and  to  that 
of  the  more  hopeful  Pagan  they  would  be  in¬ 
tolerable  ;  not  only  because  his  feelings  would 
recoil  from  the  thought  of  the  punishment  of 
the  cross,  but  from  superstitious  terror  of  con- 


fcel,  in  a  conventional  form,  as  a  crimson  cord,  which 
is  twined  strangely  beneath  about  a  skull.  (Ruskin,  Mod. 
P.  vol.  ii.  p.  125.) 


CKUCIFIX 

ncotmg  the  Infelix  Ai’bor  with  a  Divine  Being. 
The  Graffito  Blasf’emo  of  the  Palatine  illustrates 
this  (see  woodcut) :  but  Christian  teachers  may 
have  refrained  from  any  addition  to  the  cross, 
as  a  symbol  of  divine  humiliation  and  sufler- 
ing,  from  purely  charitable  motives.  The  cross 
itself  may  have  been  felt  to  be  temporarily 
unwelcome  to  persons  in  certain  stages  of  con¬ 
version 

If  we  set  aside  the  various  monograms  of  His 
name,  and  the  emblematic  fish,  which  is  an  ana¬ 
gram  of  it,  there  are  but  two  classes  of  repre¬ 
sentations  of  our  Lord, — those  which  point  to  His 
divinity  and  lordship  over  all  men,  and  those 
which  commemorate  His  humanity  and  suffer¬ 
ings  for  all  men.  The  earliest  of  the  former 
class  is  the  Good  Shepherd  ;  the  earliest  of  the 
latter  the  Lamb :  and  both  are  combined  in  the 
painting  given  by  De  Rossi,  vol.  ii.  tav.  v.  The 
symbolic  Lamb,  as  will  be  seen  (Gen.  iv.  4, 
xxii.  8  ;  Exod.  xii.  3,  xxix.  38  ;  Is.  xvi.  1  ;  1  Pet. 
i.  18 ;  Rev.  xiii.  8),  connects  the  Old  Testament 
with  the  New,  and  unites  in  itself  all  types  and 
shadowings  of  Christ’s  sacrifice,  from  the  death 
of  Abel  to  St.  John’s  vision  of  the  slain  victim. 
It  is  well  said  by  Martigny  to  be  the  crucifix  of 
the  early  times  of  persecution  ;  and  its  emble¬ 
matic  use  grows  more  significant  as  time  ad- 
vances.  The  cross  is  first  borne  by  the  Lamb  on 
its  head,  in  the  monogrammatic  form  (Bottari, 
Scu’ture  e  Pitture  sagre  estratte  dai  Cimiteri  di 
Roma,  &c.,  Rom.  3  fol.  1737-54,  tav.  xxi.  v.  1), 
about  the  latter  half  of  the  4th  century.  The 
simple  cross  occurs  thus  in  the  5th  century  (Bot¬ 
tari,  tav.  xxii.).  In  the  6th  century  the  Lamb 
bears  the  cross  (Aringhi,  ii.  lib.  iv.  p.  559, 
Roma  Suhterranea),  and  rests  sometimes  on  a 
book,  sometimes  at  the  foot  of  an  altar  (Ciam- 
pini,  Vetera  Monumerda,  vol.  i.  tab.  xv.  p.  26 ; 
vol.  ii.  tab.  xv.  p.  58),  above  which  is  the  cross ; 
and  then  it  is  represented  “  as  it  were  slain,” 
with  evident  reference  to  the  Paschal  feast 
(Ciampini,  V.  M.  t.  ii.  t$ibb.  xv.  xlvi.).  Towards 
the  end  of  the  6th  century  the  Wounds  of  the 
Cross  are  represented  on  the  sides  and  feet  of  the 
Lamb.  In  Ciampini  {De  Saods  Aedificits,  tab. 
xiii.)  the  Lamb  is  raised  on  a  throne  at  the  foot 
of  an  ornamented  cross,  the  throne  itself  bearing 
resemblance  to  an  altar-table. 

The  famous  Vatican  Cross  (for  which,  and  for 
the  Cross  of  Velletri,®  see  Cardinal  Borgia’s 
monographs,  Rome,  4to.  1779  and  1780)  is  the 
6th  century  type  of  symbolic  representation.  A 
medallion  of  the  Lamb  bearing  the  cross,  and 
with  a  nimbus,  is  placed  at  its  central  point  of 
intersection,  and  it  is  accompanied  by  two  half- 
length  figures  of  our  Lord,  with  the  crucform 
nimbus  at  the  top  and  foot  of  the  vertical  limb. 
Two  others  at  the  horizontal  ends  are  supposed 
to  represent  Justin  II.  and  his  Empress  Sophia. 
The  upper  half-length  of  the  Lord  holds  a  book 
in  the  left  hand,  and  blesses  with  the  riglt;  the 
lower  one  holds  a  roll  and  a  small  cross.  The 
embossed  lily-ornaments  are  of  gi'eat  beauty. 


c  The  Cross  of  Velletri,  which  Borgia  attributes  to  the 
8th  or  IGih  centni-y,  contains  the  symbols  of  the  four 
Evang(  li>ts.  The  Vatican  Cross  is  photographed  in  M. 
St.  l.aurent’s  paper  in  Didron’s  llevue  Archeologique  (see 
infra).  The  result  reflects  great  credit  on  the  accuracy 
of  Borgia’s  illustration;  and  M.  St.  Laurent  speaks  higlily 
of  Ciampini  and  others. 

CHUIST.  A.NT. 


CKUCIFIX  513 

and  there  is  an  inscription  on  the  back,  which 
Borgia  reads  thus  : — 

“  Ligno  quo  Chrlstus  humanum  subdidit  hostem 
I)at  Roinae  Justinus  opern  " 

As  it  is  impossible  to  determine  which  is  the 
eailie.st  representation  of  the  Crucifixion  or 
crucifix  now  in  existence  or  on  trustwoithy 
record,  a  few  of  the  oldest  known  may  be  briefly 


Perpendicular  of  Vatican  Cross. 


described  here.  They  wfill  be  found  in  woodcut 
in  Angelo  Rocca,  Thesaurus  Pvntijiciarum  Rcricm, 
vol.  i.  p.  153,  though  the  copies  have  been  made 
by  a  draughtsman  skilled  in  anatomy,  who  has 
quite  deprived  them  of  the  stamp  of  antiquity, 
which  their  originals  undoubtedly  possessed.  The 
first  and  second  are  saiil  by  Rocca  to  be  the 
workmanship  of  Nicodemus  and  St.  Luke.  The 


514 


CEUOIFIX 


CRUCIFIX 


first  is  evidently  of  the  time  of  Charlemagne. 
The  Crucified  is  clothed  in  a  long  tunic,  and  Vjeai's 
a  crown  of  radiatory  bars,  closed  at  top,  rising 
from  the  circlet.  A  chalice  is  at  its  f^eet,  and 
A  CO  on  the  title  overhead. 

The  head  of  the  second,  attributed  to  St.  Luke, 
is  crowned,  and  surrounded  by  a  nimbus.  It  is 
almost  entirely  naked, — the  waistcloth,  at  least, 
seems  to  have  been  purposely  contracted  :  this  of 
itself  would  place  it  at  a  late  date. 

The  third  examj^le  is  historical.  It  is  called 
the  Crucifix  of  John  VII.,  and  represents  a  mosaic 
in  the  old  Basilica  of  St.  Peter’s.  Rocca  dates  it 
706.  It  bears  the  cruciform  nimbus  with  the 
title  INRI.  It  is  clothed  in  a  long  tunic,  the 
form  and  folds  of  which  are  most  graceful, 
and  bear  a  great  resemblance  to  the  painted 
crucifix  found  in  the  Catacombs,  assigned  to 
Pope  Adrian  III.  884. 

The  fourth  is  the  celebra  ted  Crucifix  of  Charle¬ 
magne,  given  to  Leo  III.  and  the  Basilica  of  St. 
Peter’s,  and  dated  815.  It  is  clothed  in  an  ample 
waistcloth,  the  wound  in  the  side  is  represented, 
and  the  head  surrounded  by  a  cruciform  nimbus. 
Four  nails  are  used  in  all  these  crucifixes. 

A  crucifix  is  described  by  the  Rev.  F.  H. 
Tozer,  which,  as  he  considers,  has  a  decided 
claim  to  be  considered  the  most  ancient  in  exist¬ 
ence,  and  which  he  saw  in  the  monastery  of 
Xeropotama  at  Mount  Athos.  It  is  a  reputed 
gift  of  the  Empress  Pulcheria  (414-453),  and 
has  been  spared  no  doubt  for  tl|^,at  reason.  It  is 
a  supposed  fragment  of  the  true  cross,  and  con¬ 
sists  of  one  long  piece  of  dark  wood  and  two 
cross-pieces,  one  above  the  other,  the  smaller 
intended  for  the  superscription.  The  small 
figure  of  our  Lord  is  of  ivory  or  bone.  Near 
the  foot  is  a  representation  of  the  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  in  gold  plate,  and  set  with  dia¬ 
monds  and  sapphires  of  extraordinary  size  and 
beauty.  Below  that,  the  inscription  Kcova-rav- 
rivov  Ev(ppo(Tvur}s  Ka\  ruv  t^kvcov.  Another 
exists  at  Ochrida  in  Western  Macedonia,  dis¬ 
used,  and  of  unknown  history.  Mr.  Tozer  con¬ 
siders  that  it  belonged  to  a  disciple  of  Cyril  and 
Methodius,  and  may  probably  be  connected  with 
the  latter.  He  mentions  a  third,  also  probably 
connected  with  the  Apostle  of  Bohemia,  in  the 
Museum  at  Prague  (see  Murray’s  Handbook  of 
South  Germany'),  and  another  as  existing  in 
Crete  (see  Pashley’s  Travels).  These  are  the 
only  crucifixes  he  knows  of  as  existing  in  the 
Greek  Church.  The  Iconoclastic  controversy, 
he  observes,  took  the  same  course  with  the  cru¬ 
cifix  as  with  other  representations,  painted  or 
carved :  and  when  it  died  away  into  compro¬ 
mise  on  the  distinction  between  icons  and 
images,  the  crucifix  was  treated  as  an  image. 
Tiiis  does  not  necessarily  apply  to  pictures  in 
MSS. ;  but  the  carved  form  may  have  been  the 
more  easily  dislodged  in  the  Iconoclastic  contro¬ 
versy  of  720,  because  it  had  not  been  long 
introduced,  since  it  did  not  exist  till  the  7th 
century.  “  To  the  keener  perception  of  the 
Greeks  ”  (says  Milman,  Latin  Christianity,  vi. 
413)  “  there  may  have  arisen  a  feeling,  that 
in  its  more  rigid  and  solid  form  the  Ima^e  was 
nearer  to  the  Idol.  There  was  a  tacit  compro¬ 
mise”  (after  the  period  of  Iconoclasm) ;  “nothing 
appeared  but  painting,  mosaics,  engi-avings  on 
cup  and  chalice”  (this  of  course  accounts  for 
works  like  the  Cross  of  Velletri,  the  Diptych  of 


Rambona,  and  others),  “  and  embroidery  on  vest¬ 
ments.  The  renunciation  of  sculpture  grew  to 
a  rigid  passionate  aversion  ....  as  of  a  Jew  or 
Mohammedan.”  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
first  step  in  a  j)rogress  which  has  frequently  ended 
in  idolatry  was  made  in  the  Quinisext  Council, 
or  that  in  Trullo,  at  Constantinople  in  091.  It 
is  the  challenge  to  Iconoclasm.  It  decrees  (can. 
82)  that,  as  the  antitype  is  better  than  type  or 
symbol  in  all  representation,  the  literal  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  Lord  shall  take  the  place  of  the 
symbolic  Lamb  on  all  emblems  of  His  sacrifice, 
and  ordains  thus  :  Thv  rov  aXpavTos  T'pu  a/aap- 
riav  K6(rp.ov  'Ayvov  Xpiarov  rov  &eov  rjuuiv, 
Kara  rhu  avdpdoTTLVov  xapaKrripa  Ka\  iv  rdis 
(IkSo'iu  airh  rov  vvu  avrl  rod  TraKaiov  ayvov 
o.vao'riyKovcrQai  bpi^oy^v.'^  [Compare  AgnuS 
Dei.] 

A  very  early  crucifix  of  the  6th  century  seems 
to  be  mentioned  in  the  following  passage,  which 
is  produced  by  Binteidm  {Benhr.urdiyk.  iv.  part  i. 
48)  without  reference,  but  which  he  may  have 
seen  in  some  unpublished  record.  He  is  speak¬ 
ing  of  the  church  of  Hoye  in  the  bishopric  of 
Liege,  destroyed  by  the  Huns  in  the  4th  century, 
and  restored  A.D.  512,  at  the  time  of  the  first 
synod  of  Orleans.  This  church  “  a  suis  civibus 
reedificatur,  et  in  longura  versus  Orientem  ex- 
tenditur  usque  ad  gradus  Chori  sub  cnicifxo, 
altari  tameu  antique  semper  remanente,”  &c. 
Further,  he  quotes  Aegidius  as  stating  that 
Robert,  Provost  of  Liege,  “  sub  crucifixo  sepul- 
tui'am  accepit.”  This  only  proves  the  existence 
of  crucifixes  at  the  time  of  the  writers,  espe¬ 
cially  as  the  original  altar  is  spoken  of  as  re¬ 
maining,  without  mention  of  cross  or  crucifix, 
at  the  end  of  the  choir  which  contained  it.  Had 
the  name  or  date  of  the  author  of  the  passage 
quoted  been  known,  it  would  have  been  of  great 
importance  ;  but  it  may  be,  and  its  Latin  might 
indicate  that  it  is,  from  some  late  chronicler, 
familiar  with  the  appearance  of  the  church,  and 
using  the  words  as  meaning  no  more  than  “  under 
the  present  crucifix,  or  rood  above  the  altar- 
screen.”  Dr.  Binterim  founds  no  argument  on  it 
as  to  the  date  of  the  German  change  from  cross 
to  crucifix,  and  the  passage  may  be  let  pass. 
The  “Santo  Volto,”  “  Vultus  de  Luca,”  or 
Crucifix  of  Lucca  (corrupted  by  William  Rufus, 
for  imprecatory  purposes,  into  the  “  Face  of  St. 
Luke”),  is  carved  in  cedar-wood,  and  is  attri¬ 
buted  to  Nicodemus,  and  supposed  to  have  been 
conveyed  miraculously  to  Lucca  in  782.  It  is 
said  to  be  of  ther'Gth  century,  and  is  certainly 
one  of  the  earliest  crucifixes  in  existence.  It 
bears  the  Lord  crowned  as  king,  and  vested  in  a 
long  pontifical  robe  as  priest,  and  thus  combines 
symbolic  treatment  wdth  realism,  perhaps  in  the 
way  afterwards  intended  by  the  Council  in 
Trullo.  The  idea  is  that  of  the  Crucified  King 
of  Men,  and  the  work  is  an  assertion  of  the  com¬ 
bined  deity  and  humanity,  and  of  the  submis¬ 
sion  to  death  of  the  Lord  of  humanity.  A  cru¬ 
cifix  greatly  resembling  this  was  found  during 
some  operations  at  Christchurch,  Oxford,  and  is 
now  preserved  in  the  Bodleian :  it  was  probably 
an  outer  ornament  of  some  Evangeliarium.  We 
understand  M.  St.  Laurent  to  consider  these 


d  The  author  of  this  paper  can  remember  no  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  Crucifixion  as  existing  either  at  the  Con¬ 
vent  of  Mount  Sinai  or  that  of  Mar  Saba. 


CRUCIFIX 


CRUCIFIX 


515 


examples  to  date  from  the  12th  century  (T'ono- 
graj.hie  de  la  Croix  et  du  Crucijix ;  Didron’s 
Annales  Archeolngiqucs,  t.  xxii.  pp.  5,  137,  213, 
357,  and  t.  xxiii.  pp.  5,  174,  a  most  valuable 
and  exhaustive  summary  of  our  whole  subject, 
admirably  illustrated). 

The  steps  of  the  progress  from  symbolic  to 
literal  representation  will  be  noticed  imme¬ 
diately  ;  but  two  more  Crucifixions  of  great  and 
undoubted  antiquity  (the  first  having  a  claim  to 
be  considered  the  most  ancient  in  existence)  re¬ 
main  to  be  briefly  noticed.  Both  confirm  to  a 
certain  extent  the  remark  insisted  on  or  sug¬ 
gested  by  many  Roman  Catholic  writers,  that  the 
private  use  of  the  crucifix  in  devotion  dates 
from  very  early  times.  The  first  is  the  famous 
Syriac  Evangeliarium  in  the  Medicean  Library  at 
Florence,  widely  known  for  the  probably  unique 
detail  of  the  soldiers,  not  casting  dice,  but  play¬ 
ing  at  the  world-old  game  of  “  Mora  ”  on  their 
fingen ,  for  the  garment  without  seam.  It  is 
represented  in  Assemanni’s  Catalogus  Bibl.  Medic. 
Florence,  1742,  tav.  xxiii.  The  whole  MS.  is 
one  of  the  most  interesting  documents  in  the 
world;  with  many  illuminations,  performed  with 
that  indescribable  grimness  of  earnestness  which 
was  the  root  of  Eastern  asceticism,  and  which  still 
lingers  in  the  handy  work  of  the  stern  Arcagnuoli, 


Upper  half  of  Crucifixion  MS.  of  Habula. 


or  the  brothers  Orgagna.  Assemauni  calls  it 
“  vetusti.ssimus  codex  qui  in  eadem  bibliotheca 
extat,”  and  it  is  described  by  Prof.  Westwood  in 
his  Falaeographia  Sacra,  and  dated  586  by  its 
writer,  the  monk  Rabula.  It  is  composed  with 
instinctive  skill  in  two  groups,  upper  and  lower. 
At  the  top  are  the  sun  and  moon ;  one  a  face,  the 
other  a  crescent.  The  upper  group,  which  is  semi¬ 
circular  or  rather  cycloidal  in  its  shape,  consists 
of  the  three  crosses,  supported  on  their  right  by 
the  Virgin  Mother  and  another  female  figure,  on 
the  left  by  three  more  women.  The  soldiers 
with  the  spear  and  the  sponge  stand  on  each  side 
next  to  the  central  and  largest  cross.  Over  the 
head  of  the  former  is  the  name  AOriNOC.  The 
Lord  wears  the  long  robe,  the  thieves  have  waist- 
cloths,  and  large  drops  of  blood,  in  conventional 
form,  are  falling  from  their  hands.  Four  nails 
are  used  in  each.  At  the  foot  of  the  cross  the 
upper  and  lower  group  are  joined  by  the  soldiers 
playing  for  the  coat.  In  the  centre,  below  the 
cross,  is  a  Holy  Sepulchre  (represented  in  all 
early  Byzantine  and  Italo-  or  Gothic-Byzantine 
work  as  an  upright  structure  of  much  the  same 
shape  as  a  sentry’s  box).  It  is  supported  on  the 
left  by  a  woman,  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  an 
angel ;  on  the  other  by  St.  John,  another  apos¬ 
tolic  figure  in  the  act  of  blessing,  and  other 


adoring  women.  The  base  of  the  composition,  as 
it  were,  is  formed  by  a  group  of  soldiers,  over¬ 
thrown  by  the  stroke  of  visible  substantial  rays 
from  the  sepulchre  ;  the  stone  also  lies  on  the 
left.  The  designer  seems  to  have  thought  much 
of  the  fact  of  its  being  rolled  away,  and  he  has 
accordingly  drawn  it  as  a  disk  like  a  grindstone. 
Grotesque  and  archaic  as  it  is,  this  work  is  com¬ 
posed  exactly  like  Orgagna’s  or  Michael  Angelo’s 
“Last  Judgment,”  Titian’s  “Assumption,”  or 
Ratfaelle’s  “  Transfiguration  ” — i.  e.,  of  two  great 
upper  and  lower  groups,  tied  together  and  sup¬ 
ported  on  both  sides  ;  nor  could  any  work  better 
illu.strate  the  lingering  of  Byzantine  tradition  in 
sacred  subjects.  A  full  description  is  given  by 
Professor  Westwood  in  his  Falaeographia  Sacra, 
also  by  Dom  Gueranger,  Inst.  Liturgiques,  vol. 
iii.  app. 

Of  the  four  Crucifixions  given  by  Gori  in  vol. 


Diptych  of  hambuna. 


iii.  of  his  Thesaurus  Diptychorum  (pp.  116,  128, 
203,  216),  that  at  p.  203,  called  the  “Diptych  of 
Rambona  in  Picenum,”  is  the  most  ancient  and 
extraordinary.  It  contains  a  medallion  of  the 
Fii'st  Person  of  the  Trinity  above,  with  the  sun 
and  moon  below  on  the  right  and  left  of  the  cros.s, 
personified  as  figures  bearing  torches.  There  are 
two  titles,  EGO  SUM  IHS  NAZARENUS  in  rude 
Roman  letters,  with  a  smaller  label,  REX  JU- 


516 


CRUCIFIX 


CRUCIFIX 


DEORUM,  over  the  cross.  The  nimbus  is  cruci¬ 
form,  the  waistcloth  reaches  almost  to  the  knees, 
the  navel  is  strangely  formed  into  an  eye.  The 
Virgin  and  St.  John  stand  under  the  arms  of 
the  cross.  But  the  distinguishing  detail  is  the 
addition  of  the  Roman  wolf  and  twins  below  the 
cross,  with  the  words  ROMVLVS  ET  REMVLVS 
A  LVPA  NUTRITI.  This  wonderful  ivory  is  now 
in  the  Vatican  Museum  (see  Murray’s  Handbook), 
and  is  in  the  most  ancient  style  of  what  may  be 
called  dark-age-Byzantine  art,  when  all  instruc¬ 
tion  and  sense  of  heauty  are  departed,  but  so 
vigorous  a  sense  of  the  reality  of  the  fact  re¬ 
mains,  as  to  render  the  work  highly  impressive 
— as  also  in  the  Medici  MS. 

Professor  Westwood  (Paf.  Sac.  pi.  18)  enables 
us  to  refer  to  a  Crucifixion  found  in  an  Irish  MS. 
written  about  800.  It  is  in  the  Library  of  St. 
John’s  College,  Cambridge,  and  is  partly  copied 
from  the  Falaeo^raj  hia  by  Mr.  Ruskin  (in  The 
Two  Paths,  p,  27),  who  selects  one  of  the  angels 
above  the  cross  as  a  specimen  of  absolutely  dead 
and  degraded  art.  This  is  perfectly  correct,  and 
the  work  is  a  painful  object  of  contemplation,  as 
it  displays  the  idiocy  of  a  contemptible  person 
instructed  in  a  decaying  style,  rather  than  the 
roucrhness  of  a  barbarian  workman  like  the  carver 

O 

of  the  diptych.  The  absurd  interlacings  and  use 
of  dots,  the  sharpening  of  fingers  into  points,  and 
the  treatment  of  the  subject  entirely  as  a  matter 
of  penmanship,  without  either  devotional  sense  of 
its  importance  or  artistic  effort  to  realize  it,  make 
the  MS.  most  disagreeably  interesting  as  far  as 
this  miniature  is  concerned. 

The  plea  or  hypothesis  of  Roman  Catholic 
writers,  that  actual  images  of  the  crucified  body 


of  the  Lord  may  have  been  used  in  the  very 
earliest  times  for  private  devotion,  is  open  to  the 
obvious  remark  that  none  of  them  can  be  pro¬ 
duced,  whereas  symbolical  memorials  of  the 
Crucifixion  are  found  in  regular  .succession,  both 
mural  and  in  portable  forms.  Father  Martigny 
argues  that  the  notorious  Graffito  of  the  Palace 
of  the  Caesars  may  be  a  caricatured  copy  of  some 
undiscovered  crucifix  used  for  Chidstian  worship. 
Father  Garrucci’s  description  of  it,  “  II  Crocifisso 
Graffito  in  casa  dei  Cesari,”  is  given  by  Canon 
Liddon  in  his  7th  Barnpton  Lecture  (p.  397) ;  and 
the  remarks  which  accompany  it  are  most  im¬ 
portant,  as  they  show  “the  more  intelligent  and 


bitter  hostility  of  Paganism  to  the  Church  since 
the  apostolic  mai'tyrdoms  a  century  and  a  half 
before,  when  converts  had  also  been  made  in 
Caesar’s  household.”  He  shows  also,  incidentally, 
that  it  can  hardly  have  been  derived  from  any 
Christian  emblem,  as  the  ass’s  head  connects  it 
evidently  with  the  Gnostic  invective,  which  at¬ 
tributed  to  the  Jews  the  worship  of  an  ass.  This 
Tacitus  mentions  (//tsL  v.  c.  4);  and  Tertullian 
(^Apolog,  16)  notices  Tacitus’  confusion  between 
Jews  and  Christians,  and  appeals  to  his  own  ac¬ 
count  of  the  examination  of  the  Jewish  temple 
by  Pompey,  who  found  “no  image”  in  the  temple. 
For  proof  of  the  confusion  of  the  early  Christians 
with  the  Jews  by  the  pagan  world.  Dr.  Liddon 
refers  to  Dr.  Pusey’s  note  on  the  above  passage 
in  Tertullian,  in  the  Oxford  Library  of  the 
Fathers. 

The  relics  of  the  treasury  of  the  Cathedral  of 
Monza,  closely  described  and  partly  represented 
in  woodcut  by  M.  Martigny,  are  valuable  exam¬ 
ples  of  the  transition  between  symbolic  and  actual 
representation  of  the  Crucifixion.  One  of  the 
ampullae  for  sacred  oil  is  said  to  have  been  pre¬ 
sented  by  Gregory  the  Great  to  Theodelinda,  wife 
of  Antharis  king  of  Lombardy,  probably  some 
time  soon  after  590,  about  a  hundred  years  be¬ 
fore  the  Council  in  Trullo.  It  is  circular,  and 
the  head  of  the  Lord,  with  a  cruciform  nimbus, 
is  placed  at  the  top.  Below,  to  right  and  left, 
are  the  two  thieves,  with  extended  arms,  but 
without  crosses ;  and  below  them  two  figures  are 
kneeling  by  a  cross  which  seems  to  be  budding 
into  leaves.  Two  saints  or  angels  are  on  the 
extreme  right  and  left,  and  the  usual  Holy  Se¬ 
pulchre  below,  with  an  angel  watching  it  on  the 
right  in  the  act  of  benediction,  while  St.  John  and 
St.  Mary  Magdalene  are  (apparently)  approach¬ 
ing  it  on  the  other  side.  Another  vessel  bears  a 
figure  of  the  Lord,  clothed  with  a  long  robe,  with 
the  nimbus  and  extended  arms,  but  without  the 
cross.  Finally,  the  reliquary  of  Theodelinda,  so 
called,  has  the  crucified  Form,  with  the  nimbus 
and  inscription  IC  XC,  clothed  in  the  long  tunic, 
with  the  soldiers,  two  figures  apparently  mock¬ 
ing  Him,  and  the  Virgin  and  St.  John  on  the  right 
and  left.  The  clothed  figure  indicates  symbolical 
treatment,  since  it  must  have  been  well  known 
that  the  Roman  custom  was  to  crucify  naked  ; 
and  Martigny  argues  that  the  Graffito,  which  is 
clothed,  must  therefore  have  been  copied  from 
some  Christian  picture.  But  from  this  time,  or 
from  that  of  the  Council  of  691,  the  artistic  or 
ornamental  treatment  begins.  The  earliest  Cruci¬ 
fixions  are  narrative,  not  dramatic  ;  the  Resur¬ 
rection  being  so  frequently  introduced  into  the 
same  composition,  as  if  without  it  the  subject 
would  be  altogether  too  painful  for  Christian 
eyes.  And,  indeed,  till  the  first  efforts  of  Pisan 
sculpture  and  Florentine  painting,  the  import¬ 
ance  of  the  event  represented  withdrew  all  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  personality  of  the  artist.  In  works 
of  after  days  the  painter’s  power  is  all.  Their 
range  of  excellence  is  as  wide  as  the  difference 
between  the  tender  asceticism  of  Fra  Angelico, 
and  the  mighty  sorrow  of  Michael  Angelo,  and 
the  intense  power,  knowledge,  and  passion  of  the 
great  canvass  of  Tintoret  in  the  Scuola  di  San 
Rocco  at  V'enice.  The  treatment  of  this  picture 
resembles  that  of  the  most  ancient  works.  All 
its  consummate  science  is  directed  to  bringing 
every  detail  of  the  scene  into  a  great  unity,  while 


CRUCIFIX 


CRUCIFIX 


617 


attention  is  expressly  withdrawn  from  the  face  ' 
of  the  Lord,  which  is  cast  into  deep  shadow.  ! 
(See  Ruskin,  Modern  Painters,  vol.  ii.)  In  ' 
all  ancient  work  the  Lord’s  face  is  abstracted  | 
and  expressionless  :  any  attempt  to  represent  ! 
bodily  pain  belongs  to  modern  work  of  the  1 
baser  sort,  which  forms  no  part  of  our  present 
subject. 

For  the  details  and  accessories  of  the  Cruci¬ 
fixion,  whether  things  or  persons,  they  have  been 
for  the  most  part  enumerated  and  described.  The 
nails  are  always  four  in  number  in  ancient  works, 
two  for  the  feet  and  two  for  the  hands.  The 
crossed  legs  and  single  large  nail  or  spike  belong 
to  the  artistic  period.  _^Iartigny  refers  to  St. 
Cyprian  (^De  Passion.  Dni.  inter  Opusc.  p.  83, 
ed.  Oxon.)  as  speaking  of  the  nails  which  pierced 
our  Lord’s  feet  in  the  plural  number.  St.  Cyprian, 
he  says,  had  seen  the  punishment  of  the  cross. 
The  suppedaneum  or  rest  for  the  feet  occui-s  in 
the  crosses  of  Leo  III.  and  of  Velletri,  not  in  the 
Diptych  of  Rambona.  The  Graffito  indicates  its 
presence.  It  seems  to  have  been  occasionally 
left  out,  in  deference  to  those  passages  in  Holy 
Scripture  which  allude  to  the  disgrace  or  curse 
attaching  to  one  “hanging”  on  the  tree.  The 
title  of  the  cross,  which  is  given  with  slight  dif¬ 
ferences  in  St.  Matt,  xxvii.  37,  Mark  xv.  26,  Luke 
xxiii.  38,  John  xix.  9,  varies  greatly  in  different 
representations.  It  is  omitted  in  the  crosses  of 
Lucca  and  Velletri.  Early  Greek  painters  re¬ 
duce  it  to  the  name  of  Christ,  Ic  XC,  or  substitute 
the  A  and  o>.  The  sign  'i>C  {(p^s)  occurs,  as  well 
as  LVX  MVNDI,  frequently  accompanied  by  the 
symbols  of  the  sun  and  the  moon,  as  a  red  star 
or  face  and  crescent,  or  in  the  Rambona  ivory 
[see  page  515]  as  mourning  figures  bearing 
torches.  They  are  introduced  as  emblematic  of 
the  homage  of  all  nature,  or  in  remembrance  of 
the  eclipse  of  the  Crucifixion. 

The  Blessed  Virgin  and  St.  John  appear  in  the 
Medicean  MS.,  and  very  frequently  in  ancient 
works;  the  soldiers  rather  less  so,  though  they 
occur  iu  the  above  MS.  and  the  reliquary  of 
Monza.  The  typical  figure  of  the  first  Adam 
rising  from  the  earth  as  a  symbol  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  the  body,  with  the  Hand  of  Blessing 
above  indicating  the  presence  of  God,  is  given  in 
Ciampiai  (^De  Sacr.  Aedif.  tab.  xxiii.  p.  75). 
The  skull,  whether  human  or  that  of  a  lamb, 
placed  at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  either  as  an 
emblem  of  sacrifice  or  in  reference  to  the  place 
Golgotha,  is  of  late  use,  and  is  almost  the  only 
late  addition  of  symbolic  detail. 

The  rare  addition  of  the  soldiers  casting  lots  is 
said  to  be  found  in  an  ivory  of  the  8th  century 
from  Cividule  in  Friuli  (Mozzoni,  Tavole  crono- 


logiclie  della  Chiesa  universale,  Venezia,  1856— 
63).  The  only  other  representation  of  it  is  in 
the  Medici  MS.  The  wolf  and  twins  are  in  the 
Rambona  diptych  alone.  The  types  of  the  four 
Evangelists  are  on  the  back  of  the  Cross  of  Vel¬ 
letri,  in  the  Gospel  of  Egbert,  of  Trier,  infra, 
and  on  numerous  crosses  of  later  date.  Some 
additional  inscriptions  have  been  mentioned,  as 
well  as  the  addition  (in  the  Vatican  Cross)  of 
medallion  portraits.  Cousiilerable  liberty  in  this 
matter  seems  to  have  been  allowed  in  the  earliest 
times,  as  is  indicated  by  Constantine’s  introduc¬ 
tion  of  the  words  of  his  Vision ;  and  still  more 
strongly  in  an  instance  referred  to  by  Borgia,  in 
Anastasius  (tom.  i.  n.  2,  ed.  Vignolii),  of  a  cross 
given  by  Belisarius  to  St.  Peter — “  per  manus 
Vigilii  Papae” — of  gold  and  jewels,  weighing 
100  lbs.,  “  in  qua  scripsit  victorias  suas.” 

But  even  the  Vatican  Cross  yields  in  interest 
to  two  German  relics  of  the  same  character, 
lately  described  and  well  illustrated  in  No.  45  of 
the  Jdhrhucher  des  Vereins  von  Alterthums- 
freunden  im  Rheinlande,  p.  195,  Bonn,  1868.  The 
first  of  these  is  the  Station-Cross  of  Mainz.  It 
is  of  gilded  bronze,  of  the  Western  form  (Com- 
missa),  and  rather  more  than  one  foot  in  height. 
Herr  Heinrich  Otte  refers  it  to  the  end  of  the  12th 
century,  a  date  far  beyond  our  period.  But  its 
interest  is  paramount,  more  particularly  from 
the  evident  intention  of  the  designer  to  make  it 
embody  a  whole  system  of  typical  instruction, 
and  to  leave  it  behind  him  as  a  kind  of  sculp¬ 
tured  document,  or  commentary,  connecting  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  Thus,  at  the  middle 
or  intersection  of  the  arms  of  the  cross,  the 
Lamb  is  represented  in  a  medallion,  his  head 
surrounded  with  a  plain  nimbus.  On  the  back 
of  the  cross  in  the  same  place  there  is  a  square 
plate,  with  an  engraved  representation  of  Abra¬ 
ham  offering  up  Isaac,  the  angel,  and  the  ram. 
Round  the  latter  is  the  beginning  of  a  hexameter 
line — fCui  patriarcha  suum — which  is  com¬ 
pleted  round  the  medallion  of  the  Lamb  iu  front, 
thus  :  t  Pater  offert  in  cruce  natum.  In  like 
manner,  four  engravings  on  each  side  at  the 
extremities  of  the  cross  refer  to  each  other, 
and  are  described  by  corresponding  halves  of 
hexameters.  The  New  Testament  subjects  are 
all  in  front,  with  the  Lamb  in  the  centre,  as 
antitypes :  the  Old  Testament  or  typical  events 
or  persons  are  at  the  back.  Thus  on  the  spec¬ 
tator’s  left  at  the  back  of  the  cross  is  an  engrav¬ 
ing  of  Moses  receiving  the  Tables  of  the  Law  on 
Mount  Sinai,  with  the  words  Qui  Mogsi  legem. 
Corresponding  to  it  on  the  right  front  is  the 
Descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  dat  alumnis 
Pneumatis  ignem.  The  remainder  as  under — 


Head. 

Back . Elijah  carried  up  to  heaven. 

Front . The  Ascension. 

Ba  k  (right  hand  of  spectator)  .  Samson  and  gates  of  Gaza. 
Front  (left  ditto) . The  descent  into  Hades. 

Foot. 

Back  . . Jonah  and  the  whale. 

Front  .  . . Resurrection. 


Motto. 

f  Qui  levat  Eliam 

f  propriam  sublimat  usiam  {pvaCav). 
•j-  Que  portas  Gaze 
f  vis  aufert  claustra  Jehenne. 

f  Qua  redit  absumptus 
+  Burgit  vlrtute  sepultus. 


The  decorative  scrollwork  is  rather  sparingly 
disposed  with  great  judgment,  and  on  the  s])ike, 
ferule,  or  metal  strap  probably  intended  for 
fixing  the  cross  on  a  staff’  for  processional  or 
other  purposes  [see  Cross,  DraconakmjsJ  is  an 
engraving  of  the  probable  designer  and  donor. 


THEODERIC  ABBAS.  The  graphic  power  and 
exceeding  quaintness  of  the  Scrij)tural  engra¬ 
vings  is  that  of  the  finest  miniatures  of  the  12th 
or  13th  century. 

The  second  of  these  most  interesting  works, 
inferior  as  a  work  of  art  from  its  barbaric  wild- 


518 


CRUCIFIX 


CRYPT A 


ness  and  the  preference  for  ugliness  so  often 
observed  in  Northern-Gothic  grotesque,  is  of 
even  greater  interest  as  a  transitional  cross, 
esj'ecially  when  viewed  in  relation  to  the  changes 
eiit'orced  by  the  decree  of  the  Council  in  Trullo, 
A.b.  b'Jl.  Tliis  is  the  Station-Cross  of  Planig, 
near  Kreuznach  ;  of  the  same  size  and  form 
as  that  of  Mainz,  but  referred  by  Otte  to  the 
lOth  century.  The  ancient  symbol  of  the  Lamb 
is  preserved  on  the  back  of  this  crucifix,  which 
displays  the  human  form  in  front,  as  in  many 
other  Romanesejue  crosses  of  bronzed  copper. 
On  this  combination  —  perhaps  a  compromise 
between  the  feeling  of  the  older  times  and  the 
more  modern  spirit  of  the  Quinisextine  Council 
— Otte  quotes  DurauJus,  Rationale,  lib.  i.  c.  3, 
n.  6  :  “  Non  enim  agnus  Dei  in  cruce  prin- 
ci],>a!iter  depingi  debet;  sed  homine  depicto,  non 
oldest  agnum  in  j)arte  inferiori  vel  posteriori 
depingere.”  He  also  gives  the  express  words  of 
Adj’ian  I.,  in  his  letter  to  Tarasius,  Patriai-ch  of 
Constantinople,  in  785  :  “  Verum  igitur  agnum 
Dominum  nostrum  J.  C.  secundum  imaginem 
humanam  a  modo  etiam  in  imaginibus  pro 
veteri  agno  depingi  jubemus.”  (Z>e  Consecr. 
Dist.  iii.  c,  29;  see  Labbe,  vi.  1177.)  He  refers 
also  to  the  splendid  work  on  Rhenish  antiqui¬ 
ties  called  Kunstdenkmaler  des  christUchen  Miitel- 
alters,  by  Ernst  aus’m  Werth,  Leipzig  fWeigel), 
1857,  taf.  xxiv.-vi.,  for  the  Essen  ana  other 
roods,  which  much  resemble  those  of  Kreuznach 
and  Mainz,  combining  the  Lamb  with  the  human 
form,  and  adding  personifications  of  the  sun  and 
moon  which  remind  us  of  the  Diptych  of  Ram- 
boua,  and  the  symbols  of  the  four  Evangelists,  as 
in  the  Crucifix  of  Velletri.  Space  forbids  us  to 
give  accounts  of  these  most  interesting  relics, 
but  the  subject  appears  to  be  treated  with 
exhaustive  fulness  and  illustrated  to  perfection 
in  the  two  German  works  referred  to.  The 
Planig-on-Nahe  rood,  however,  is  entitled  to  a 
briefly-detailed  description.  In  front  is  the 
crucified  form,  severely  archaic  in  treatment ; 
the  long  hair  is  carefully  parted  and  carried 
back  ;  the  head  is  without  nimbus ;  and  the 
limbs  are  long,  stiff,  and  wasted,  the  ribs  being 
displayed,  as  is  so  commonly  done  in  mediaeval 
crucifixes,  to  complete  the  illustration  of  the 
text,  “  They  pierced  my  hands  and  iny  feet : 
I  may  tell  all  my  bones.”  A  triple  serpentine 
stream  of  blood  runs  from  each  hand,  and  also 
from  the  feet,  being  there  received  in  a  cup 
or  chalice,  the  foot  of  which  is  a  grotesque 
lion’s  head.  The  back  of  the  cross  bears  on  its 
centre  the  Lamb  with  cruciform  nimbus ;  below 
it  a  medallion  of  the  donor,  “  Ruthardus  Gus¬ 
tos  and  four  other  bas-reliefs,  now  wanting, 
occupied  the  four  extremities  of  the  arms,  and 
almost  certainly  represented  the  four  Evange¬ 
lists.  As  in  the  Diptych  of  Rambona,  the  navel 
resembles  an  eye.  Scarcely  inferior  to  these  is 
the  10th  century  miniature  of  a  single  crucifix 
with  the  title  IHS  NAZAREN  REX  lU- 
DEORUM,  and  the  sun  and  moon  above  the 
cross-beam,  within  circles,  and  represented  with 
expressions  of  horror, — seated  in  chariots,  one 
drawn  by  horses,  the  other  by  oxen.  And  it  is 
impossible  to  omit  the  Crucifixion  picture  from 
the  Gospel  of  Bishop  Egbert  of  Trier,  975-993 
(in  Mooyer’s  Onomasticon  C/ironographicon,  Ilie- 
rarcMa  Gennanica,  8vo.  Minden,  54),  now  in  the 
Stadtbibliothek  there.  Here  the  Lord  is  clad  in 


a  long  robe  to  the  ankles ;  the  robbers  are  also 
clad  in  tunics  so  close  to  the  form  as  to  give  the 
appeai'ance  of  shirts  and  trowsers.  Above  are 
tlie  sun  and  moon,  hiding  their  faces.  The 
cross  has  a  second  cross-piece  at  top,  forming  a 
tau  above  the  Western  cross.  The  robbers  are 
on  tau-crosses ;  suspended,  but  with  unpierced 
hands ;  the  passage  in  the  22nd  Psalm  being 
referred  to  the  Redeemer  alone.  Their  names, 
Desmas  the  j>enitent,  and  Cesmas  the  obdurate, 
are  above  their  heads.  The  Virgin-Mother  and 
anotlier  woman  stand  on  the  right  of  the  cross, 
St.  John  on  the  left.  The  soldier  “Stephaton” 
is  presenting  the  sponge  of  vinegar  :®  two  others 
are  casting  lots  below.  This  detail  reminds  us 
of  the  great  Florentine  miniature  of  the  monk 
Rabula,  excepting  that  the  game  of  Mora  is 
thei'e  substituted  for  dice. 

These  works  are  somewhat  beyond  our  period  ; 
yet  as  a  paper  on  Crucifixes  must  contain  .some 
account  of  the  things  whose  name  it  bears,  and 
the  first  eight  centuries  supply  us  with  so  few 
examples  of  what  are  popularly  called  cruci¬ 
fixes,  a  short  inroad  into  early  mediaevalism 
may  be  allowed.  The  Iconodulist  transition 
formally  made  at  the  Council  in  Trullo  was  well 
suited  to  the  Northern  mind,  and  to  the  sacra¬ 
mental  theory  of  pain ;  but  it  fell  in  also  with 
that  tendency  to  personification  advancing  on 
symbolism,  which  the  Western  races  inherit, 
perhaps,  from  ancient  Greece,  and  which  Mr. 
Ruskin,  in  his  late  Oxford  Lectures,  points  out 
as  the  idolatrous  tendency  of  Greek  art.  With 
Cimabue  and  Giotto,  and  from  their  days,  artis¬ 
tic  skill  and  power  over  beauty  are  brought  to 
bear  on  the  crucifix,  as  on  other  Christian  re¬ 
presentations,  for  good  and  for  evil.  Of  the 
cautious  and  gradual  compromise  of  the  Greek 
Church  we  have  already  spoken.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

CRUET.  [Ama:  Ampulla.] 

CRYPTA.  In  the  well-known  passage  of 
St.  Jerome  in  which  he  describes  the  Sunday 
visits  he  and  bis  schoolfellows  at  Rome  paid  to 
the  graves  of  the  apostles  and  martyrs,  he  uses 
the  term  cryptae  to  designate  v/hat  we  now  call 
the  catacombs.  “  Dum  essem  Romae  puer  .  .  . 
solebam  ....  diebus  Dominicis  sepulchra  apo- 
stolorum  et  martyrum  circumire,  crebroque 
cryptas  ingredi  quae  in  terra  profunda  defossae 
ex  utraque  parte  ingredientium  per  parietes 
habent  corpora  sepultorum.”  Hieron.  in  Ezech. 
c.  xl.  We  find  the  word  again  used  meta¬ 
phorically  in  Jerome’s  preface  to  Daniel,  “Cum 
et  quasi  per  cryptam  ambulans  rarum  desuper 
lumen  aspicerem.”  The  word  is  employed  in 
the  same  specific  sense  by  Prudentius,  Peristeph. 
Hymn.  ii. : — 

"  Hand  procul  extreme  culta  ad  pomeria  valla 
Mersa  latebrosls  crypta  latet  foveis. 

Hnjus  in  occultum  gradibus  via  prona  reflexis 
Ire  per  anfractus  luce  latente  docet.” 

Tlie  classical  use  of  crypta  for  an  underground 
passage  or  chamber,  whether  the  drain  of  a  cloaca, 
or  a  subterranean  arcade,  or  a  storehouse  for  fruit 
or  corn,  or  a  tunnel,  such  as  that  of  Pausilipo 
at  Naples,  shews  the  appropriateness  of  the  term. 
(See  for  examples  Facciolati,  Lexicon.)  Crypta 


e  “  Longinus”  is  always  the  lance-bearer.  See  Medici 
(Laurentian)  Crucifix,  supra. 


CTESIPHON  ON  THE  TIGEIS 


CUBICULUM 


519 


seems  to  have  been  sometimes  used  in  Christian 
times  as  synonymous  with  coeineterium.  Thus 
we  have  in  the  church  of  St.  Prassede  an  in¬ 
scription  commemorating  the  translation  thither 
from  the  catacombs  of  the  relics  of  more  than 
two  thousand  saints,  in  which  occur  the  words 
“in  coemeteriis  seu  cryptis.”  We  may,  how¬ 
ever,  mark  this  distinction  between  the  two 
words  that  coemeterium  is  a  word  of  wider  signi¬ 
fication,  including  open-air  burial-grounds,  while 
crypta  is  strictly  limited  to  those  excaA^ated  be¬ 
neath  the  surface  of  the  ground.  Padre  Marchi, 
after  an  elaboi'ate  investigation  of  the  inscrip¬ 
tions  in  which  the  word  crypta  occurs,  endea¬ 
vours  to  demonstrate  that  it  was  employed  to 
indicate  a  limited  portion  of  a  subterranean 
cemetery,  including  seA'eral  burial  chapels  or 
cubicula,  so  that  the  relation  of  the  cuhiculum  to 
the  crypta^  and  again  of  the  crypta  to  the  coeme¬ 
terium,  was  that  of  a  part  to  the  whole.  {MonU- 
menti  primitiv.  pp.  156  sq.,  168  sq.)  His  chief 
authority  for  this  conclusion  is  a  passage  of 
Anastasius,  Vita  S.  Marcellini,  §  30,  which 
appears  to  draw  this  distinction  between  the 
cuhiculum  in  which  the  body  of  Pope  Marcellinus 
was  buried,  and  the  crypta  of  which  it  formed 
part.  There  are  also  inscriptions  v/hich  support 
Marchi’s  view  that  a  crypta  was  a  smaller  divi¬ 
sion  of  a  coemeterium.  One  from  that  of  Pris¬ 
cilla  records  that  Gregory  lies  “  in  the  eleventh 
crypt,”  “  in  uudecima  crypta  Gregorius.”  Others 
speak  of  “  new  crypts  ”  constructed  in  a  ceme¬ 
tery  ;  eg.  an  inscription  now  in  the  Vatican 
“in  cimiteriuni  Balbinae  in  cripta  noba one 
from  St.  Cyriaca  given  by  Boldetti,  “  in  crypta 
noba  retro  sanctus.”  But  Mich.  Stef,  de  Rossi 
has  shown  satisfactorily,  Rom.  Soft.  i.  23  sq. 
that  Marchi  presses  the  supposed  distinction  too 
far,  and  that  it  is  very  far  from  holding  good 
generally.  The  truth  is  that  crypta  Avas  a 
word  of  general  meaning,  and  embraced  eA^ery 
kind  of  subterranean  excavation,  whether  smaller 
or  more  extensiA^e. 

We  sometimes  meet  with  the  expressions 
cryptae  arenarum,  or  cryptae  arenariae,  in  con¬ 
nection  with  tho  interment  of  Christian  martyrs. 
Bosio,  Rom.  Soft.  pp.  192,  186,  481,  300,  &c. 
These  Avould  seem  to  indicate  the  galleries  of  a 
deserted  pozzolana  pit,  as  places  of  sepulture.  But 
it  has  been  shewn  in  the  article  Catacombs  that, 
though  the  subterranean  cemeteries  very  fre¬ 
quently  had  a  close  connection  Avith  these  quar¬ 
ries,  and  were  approached  through  their  adits, 
the  sand-pits  themselves  were  seldom  or  neA^er 
used  for  interment,  for  which  indeed  they  were 
unfit  without  very  extensiA'e  alteration  and  adap¬ 
tation.  The  passages  referred  to,  which  are 
chiefly  found  in  the  not  very  trustworthy  “  Acts 
of  the  Martyrs,”  have  probably  originated  in  a 
confusion  between  the  catacombs  themseh'es  and 
the  quarries  Avith  Avhich  they  Avere  often  so 
closely  connected.  [E.  V.] 

CTESIPHON  ON  THE  TIGRIS  (Council 
of),  a.d.  420,  under  Taballaha,  abp.  of  Seleucia, 
on  the  opposite  bank  of  the  I’iA'er,  where  the 
Nicene  faith  was  received,  and  Avith  it  the  canons 
to  Avhich  the  consent  of  the  rest  of  the  church 
westwards  had  been  given  (Mansi  iv.  441-2). 

[E.  S.  F.] 

CUBICULUM.  In  addition  to  the  use  of  this 
word  to  designate  the  family  grave  chambers  in 


the  subterranean  cemeteries  at  Rome  (for  which 
see  Catacombs,  p.  310),  avo  find  it  employed  to 
denote  Avhat  Ave  should  now  call  the  side  chapels 
of  the  uav^e  of  a  church.  The  first  instance  of  its 
use  in  this  sense  is  in  the  Avritings  of  Paulinus 
ofNola.  Writing  to  his  friend  Severus,  A)?,  xxxii. 
§  12,  he  describes  the  church  recently  erected  at 
Nola,  and  particularizes  these  side  chapels,  which 
were  evidently  novel  features  in  church  arrange¬ 
ment.  There  were  four  on  each  side  of  the  nave, 
beyond  the  side  aisles  (portions),  with  two  verses 
inscribed  over  the  entrance.  Their  object  was  to 
furnish  places  of  retirement  for  those  Avho  desired 
to  pray  or  meditate  on  the  word  of  God,  and  for 
the  sepulchral  memorials  of  the  departed.  The 
passage  is  :  “  Cubicula  intra  portions  quaterna 
longis  basilicae  lateribus  inserta,  secretis  oran- 
tium,  A'^el  in  lege  Domini  meditantium,  praeterea 
memoriis  religiosorum  ac  familiarium  accommo- 
datos  ad  pacis  aeternae  requiem  locos  praebent, 
omne  cubiculum  binis  per  liminum  frontes  ver- 
sibus  praenotatur.”  They  diflered  from  the  side 
chapels  of  later  ages  in  containing  no  altars,  as 
originally  there  Avas  but  one  altar  in  a  church. 
(Remondini,  tom.  i.  p.  412.)  Paulinus  also  speaks 
of  these  chapels  under  the  name  of  cellae  or 
cellulae,  e.g.  when  speaking  of  a  thief  who  had 
concealed  himself  in  one  of  them  all  night, 
he  says  : 

“  Cellula  de  multis,  quae  per  latera  undique  magnis, 
Appositae  tectis  praebent  secura  sepulchris 
Hospitia.” — Foema,  xix.  v.  478  sq. 

Cubicula  is  also  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
Liber  Pontijicalis  of  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius, 
as.  synonymous  with  oratoria.  In  the  description 
of  various  oratoria  erected  by  Symmachus  a.d. 
498-514,  we  find,  §  79,  “  quae  cubicula  omnia  a 
fundamento  perfecta  construxit.”  Of  Sergius, 
A.D.  687-701,  we  read,  §  163,  that  he  repaired 
the  decayed  chapels  around  St.  Peter’s.  “  Hie 
tectum  et  cubicula  quae  circumquaque  ejusdem 
basilicae  quae  per  longa  temporum  stillicidiis  et 
ruderibus  fuerant  disrupta  studiosius  inuovavit 
et  reparavit.”  And  it  is  recorded  of  Leo  III. 
A.D.  795,  that  he  also  rebuilt  the  ruinous  ctibi- 
cula  attached  to  the  same  basilica  (§  412). 
Perhaps  the  earliest  existing  example  in  Rome 
of  such  a  chapel  attached  to  the  body  of  a  church 
is  that  of  St.  Zeno  in  the  church  of  St.  Prassede, 
built  by  Pope  Paschal  I.  about  a.d.  817.  In  an 
early  description  of  the  basilica  of  San  Lorenzo 
fuori  le  Mura,  giA'en  by  De  Rossi,  Bullett.  di  Arch. 
Crist.  Giugno,  1864,  p.  42,  from  a  MS.  in  the 
Vienna  Library,  Ave  find  the  word  used  in  a 
similar  sense :  “  Est  parvum  cubiculum  in  por¬ 
tion  ad  occidentem  ubi  pausat  Herennius  martyr.” 
Paulinus  also  describes  cubicula  or  cellae  of  this 
nature  in  the  porticos  of  the  atrium  of  the 
church  of  St.  Felix.  They  were  intended  for 
private  prayer.  The  altar  of  the  basilica  could 
be  seen  from  them  by  means  of  windows.  They 
were  ornamented  Avith  scriptural  paintings  : 

"  Mctanda  bonis  habitacula  digne 
Quos  hue  ad  sancti  justurn  Felicis  honorem, 

Duxerat  orandi  studium  non  •nra  bibendi.” 

Foem.  xxvi.  v.  395  sq. 

The  last  Avords  quoted  have  reference  to  the 
custom,  the  abuse  of  which,  degenerating  into 
gross  license,  is  severely  inveighed  against  by 
Paulinus,  of  holding  feasts  in  the  cubicula.  Cf. 
Paulin.  Poema  xxvi.  De  Felicis  Natal,  ii.  v.  541. 


620 


CUCUFAS 


CUESUALES  EQUI 


The  word  oIk[<tkos  was  used  in  Greek  in  the 
same  sense.  We  have  an  example  in  a  letter  of 
Nilus  to  Olympiodorus  the  prefect,  relating  to 
the  church  he  had  built,  iu  de  ry  koiu^  diK(f) 
TcoKKois  kclL  Siacpopois  oIkIctkois 
apxetcrdai,  eKaarou  Treir^ypLivcp  (rraupcp. 

From  the  use  of  cubiculum  as  a  chapel,  cubi- 
cularii  came  to  be  employed  in  the  sense  of 
chaplains.  “  Hie  [Leo  I.]  constituit  et  addidit 
supra  sepulchra  apostolorum  ex  clero  Romano 
custodes  qui  dicuntur  cubicularii  quos  modo 
dicimus  capellanos.  Cubiculum  enim  idem  erat 
apud  antiques  quod  hodie  apud  nos  capella.” 
Ciacconius,  Vit.  et  Gest.  Pont.  Roman,  i.  p.  307. 

[E.  V.l 

CUCUFAS,  martyr  at  Barcelona,  July  25 
(^Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CUCULLA,  cucuUus,  cucullio,  is  one  of  the 
few  articles  of  the  monastic  dress  specified  by 
the  founder  of  the  Benedictines  (^Reg.  c.  55)  ; 
and  has  commonly  been  considered  the  badge  of 
monks,  e.g.  in  the  old  proverb,  “  cuculla  non  tacit 
monachum.”  Benedict  ordered  the  “  cuculla,” 
or  hood,  to  be  shaggy  for  winter,  and  for  summer 
of  lighter  texture  (cf.  Cone.  Reg.  c.  62) ;  and  a 
“scapulare”  to  be  worn  instead  out  of  doors,  as 
more  suitable  for  field-work,  being  open  at  the 
sides.  The  “  cuculla  ”  protected  the  head  and 
shoulders,  and,  as  being  worn  by  infants  and 
peasants,  was  said  to  symbolise  humility ;  or, 
by  another  account,  it  was  to  keep  the  eyes  from 
glancing  right  or  left  (Cass.  Inst.  i.  5 ;  Sozom. 
Hist.  Egg.  iii.  13,  14).  It  was  part  of  the  dress 
of  nuns,  as  well  as  of  monks  (Ballad.  Hist.  Laus. 
41),  and  was  worn  by  the  monks  of  Tabenna  at 
the  mass  (Pall.  H.  L.  38).  If,  as  the  words 
seem  to  say,  it  was  their  only  clothing  on  that 
occasion,  it  must  of  course  have  been  longer  than 
a  hood  or  cape.  Indeed,  “  cuculla  ”  is  often 
taken  as  equivalent  to  “  casula  ”  (from  “  casa  ”), 
a  covering  of  the  whole  person  ;  in  later  writers 
it  means,  not  the  hood'  only  (“  cucullus  ”),  but 
the  monastic  robe,  hood  and  all  (“  vestis  cucul- 
lata,”  Reg.  Comm.  S.  Bened.  c.  55,  cf.  Mab.  Ann. 
V.  17).  These  same  monks  of  Tabenna  or  Pacho- 
miani,  like  the  Carthusians,  drew  their  hoods 
forwards  at  meal  times,  so  as  to  hide  their  faces 
from  one  another  (Pall.  48 ;  Ruff.  Vit.  Mon.  3). 
The  “  cappa  ”  (probably  akin  to  our  “  cape  ”),  in 
Italy  seems  to  correspond  with  the  Gallic 
“  cuculla,”  and  both  were  nearly  identical,  it  is 
thought,  with  the  “  melotes  ”  or  sheepskin  of 
the  earliest  ascetics  (Cass.  Instit.  i.  8 ;  Pall. 
Hist.  Laus.  28) ;  and  so  with  the  “  pera  ”  (or 
“  penula,”  according  to  Al.  Gazaeus,  ad  loo. 
citat.),  the  “  pellis  caprina  dependens  ab  humeris 
ad  lumbos  ”  (Isidor.  Orig.  xix.  21,  ap.  Reg.  Comm. 
S.  Bened.).  Of  course  it  is  difficult  to  identify 
precisely  the  technical  names  for  dress  in  various 
countries,  and  in  a  remote  period.  [I.  G.  S.] 

CUCUMELLUM.  A  vessel  mentioned  among 
those  which  Paul,  bishop  of  Cirta,  delivered  up 
to  Felix  (Baronius,  Annales,  an.  303,  c.  12). 
This  cucumellum  was  of  silver,  and  was  probably 
a  cruet  or  flagon  for  use  on  the  altar.  Compare 
A.ma.  (Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.)  [C.] 

CULDEES.  [CoLiDEi.] 

CUNIBERT,  bishop,  deposition  at  Cologne 
(about  A.D.  663),  Nov.  12  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

[C.] 


CUP.  [Chalice  ;  Communion  :  Glass, 
Christian.] 

CUPELLA,  a  small  loculus  or  sepulchral 
recess.  At  present  we  have  only  one  instance  of 
its  use  to  adduce,  which  is  given  by  Warchi 
{Monumenti  I'rhnit.  p.  114).  The  inscription  in 
which  it  is  found  records  the  burial  of  her  two 
children,  Secundina  and  Laurentius,  by  their 
mother  Secunda.  The  solecisms  in  grammar 
and  orthography  with  which  it  is  full  show  that 
Secunda  was  a  person  of  humble  rank.  The 
stone  is  pre.served  in  the  Museum  Kircherianum. 
The  inscription  is  as  follows  : — “  Ego  Secunda 
fcci  cupella  bone  |  mimorie  filiem  meem  Secun  | 
dinem  que  recessit  in  fidem  |  cum  fratrera  suum 
Lauren  |  tium  in  pace  recesserund.”  Cupella  is 
evidently  the  diminutive  of  cupa,  explained  by 
Du  Cange  to  mean  urna,  area  sepulchralis.  This 
sense  is  a  derivative  one  from  its  classical  mean¬ 
ing  of  a  large  cask,  butt,  or  vat  (Caes.  Bell.  Civ. 
c.  11;  Lucan,  lib.  iv.  v.  420;  Varro  apud  Non. 
c.  ii.  No.  113).  It  appears  in  pagan  inscription.s 
but  rarely  :  e.g.,  “  D.  Apuleius  lonicus  fecit  Eu- 
tychiae  sorori  suae  et  Eutycheti  filio  ejus.  In 
hac  cupa  mater  et  filius  positi  sunt  ”  (Gruter, 
Inscr.  p.  845,  No.  Id);  “  D.  M.  Olus  Publicius 
Polytijmus  Tutor  Titi  Flavi  A|gathangeli 
pupilli  sui  Matri  |  Sexetae  Fortunatae  defu| 
nctae  locum  emit,  massam  |  calcavit  cupam  aedi- 
ficavit  de  bon  [is  ejus  omnibus  consumat.”  (Doni 
class.  11,  No.  6).  The  use  of  the  word  survived 
till  later  times,  and  Du  Cange  quotes  from  a 
monkish  writer  “  in  alia  Cuba  juxta  orientem 
sepulchrum  SS.  Victoris,  &c.”  The  idea  has 
been  propounded  by  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Burgon 
{Letters  from  Rome,  p.  206),  that  we  may  find 
in  cupella,  as  a  place  of  Christian  burial,  the 
etymology  of  the  word  capella,  chapel,  which  has 
so  long  perplexed  philologists,  and  of  which  no 
satisfactory  derivation  has  ever  yet  been  dis¬ 
covered.  The  architectural  term  cupola  is  another 
form  of  the  same  root.  [E.  V.] 

CURCODEMUS,  deacon,  martyr  at  Auxerre, 
May  4  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CURIA  ROMANA.  [Appeal:  Council.] 
CURSE.  [Anathema  :  Excommunication.] 

CURSUALES  EQUI,  post-horses,  i.e.  horses 
belonging  to  the  cui'sus  publicus,  called  also  for 
shortness  cursus,  Gr.  dpopos.  The  Roman  posting 
or  postal  system — the  distinction  between  the 
two  belongs  to  a  late  stage  of  civilization — was 
established  by  Augustus.  According  to  the 
“  Secret  History  ”  of  Procopius  (c.  30),  the 
day’s  journey  consisted  of  eight  posts,  some¬ 
times  fewer,  but  never  less  than  fi^’e.  Each 
stable  had  40  horses,  and  as  many  stablemen  or 
stabularii  (who  seem  elsewhere  to  be  called  hip- 
pocomi.  Code,  bk.  xii.  T.  li.  1.  13).  Bingham 
gives  a  quite  incorrect  idea  of  the  system  in 
describing  the  cursuales  equi  as  being  simply  im¬ 
pressed  for  the  army  and  exchequer.  A  constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  Emperor  Constantine,  A.D.  326,  ex- 
jiressly  enacts  that  no  one  but  the  Prefect  has 
the  right  to  go  by  any  other  road  than  that 
which  has  a  “  cursus,”  shewing  that  no  mere 
occasional  impressment  is  meant  (sed  nec  per 
aliam  viam  eundi  quisquam  habeat  facultatem, 
nisi  per  quam  cursus  publicus  stare  dignoscitiir ; 
Code.  bk.  xii.  T.  li.  1.  2).  But  Bingham,  with 
his  almost  habitual  inaccuracy,  seems  to  have  cou- 


CURTAIN 


521 


CURSUALES  EQUI 

fo'.inded  the  cursus  publicus  with  the  evectio  or 
rij^ht  of  gratuitously  using  it,  which  was  connned 
to  officials,  to  envoys,  and  under  certain  circum¬ 
stances  to  senators  (Code,  m.s.,  1.  6,  and  see  also 
11.  11,  16),  and  which  did  in  such  case  resemble 
a  right  of  impressment,  though  the  true  equiva¬ 
lent  for  impressment  seems  to  be  found  in  the 
angariae  or  parangariae.  The  cost  of  providing 
both  the  horses  and  fodder  for  them  was  sujjplied 
by  the  State,  i.e.  as  it  appears,  by  the  provinces 
(the  duty  being  deemed  one  which  belonged  to 
the  land  and  not  to  the  person.  Code,  bk.  x.  1.  4, 
law  of  Valerian  and  Gallienus),  but  it  would 
seem  that  they  were  not  bound  to  maintain  post- 
candages  (paravereda)  or  horses  for  tliem,  since  a 
law  of  Arcadius  and  Honorius,  a.d.  403,  enjoins 
the  rectors  of  the  provinces  to  see  that  the  curials 
or  provincials  were  not  compelled  to  provide 
animals  which  they  did  not  owe  to  the  post 
(ib.  1.  19).  Through  the  roguery  of  the  officers 
employed  the  cost  of  fodder  was,  it  seems,  often 
exaggerated,  whilst  the  animals  were  starved. 
(Code,  u.s.  1. 18  ;  constitution  of  Arcadius  and  Ho¬ 
norius,  A.D.  400,  and  see  also  11.  2,  7, 19.)  By  way 
of  compensation,  the  stable  manure  was  left  to  the 
provinces  (1.  7,  of  Valentinian,  Valens,  and  Gra- 
tian).  The  sale  of  the  public  horses  was  forbidden 
(1. 10);  those  who  used  more  horses  than  they  were 
entitled  to  had  to  pay,  according  to  circumstances, 
four  times  the  price  of  the  horses,  or  a  pound  of 
gold  for  each  (11.  15,  20).  A  curious  constitution 
of  the  Emperor  Constantine,  a.d.  316,  which  is  to 
be  found  at  length  in  the  Theodosian  Code,  bk. 
viii.  T.  V.  1.  66,  but  of  which  only  a  brief  extract 
remains  in  that  of  Justinian  (bk.  xii.  T.  li.  1.  1) — 
anticipating  the  labour's  of  “  the  Society  for  the 
Prevention  of  Cruelty  towards  Animals  ” — enacts 
that  “Forasmuch  as  many  with  knotted  and 
very  thick  sticks  (nodosis  et  validissimis  fustibus) 
at  the  very  outset  of  a  stage  compel  the  public 
animals  to  exhaust  whatever  strength  they  have, 
placet  that  none  in  driving  should  use  a  stick  but 
either  a  rod  or  a  whip,  with  a  short  goad  (aculeus) 
infixed  to  the  point,  which  may  admonish  their 
idle  limbs  with  a  harmless  tickle  (innocuo 
titillo),  without  exacting  what  their  strength 
cannot  compass  ” — the  punishment  varying  from 
loss  of  rank  to  exile  according  to  the  original 
Constitution  ;  but  the  extract  in  Justinian’s  Code 
simply  threatens  punishment  generally  (poena 
non  defutura). 

It  seems  to  be  considered  that  the  clergy  were 
exempt  from  the  obligation  to  pay  tax  for  the 
horses  of  the  cursus,  under  their  general  exemp¬ 
tion  from  sordida  munera,  extraordinary  charges, 
the  “  parangarian  prestation,”  or  the  translatio, 
or  obligation  to  carry  goods  (see  Code,  bk.  iv. 
T.  iii.  1.  2,  of  Constantine,  a.d.  357  ;  T.  ii.  1.  5,  of 
Gratian,  Valentinian,  and  Theodosius,  a.d.  412; 
Nov.  131,  c.  5).  It  seems,  however,  ditlicult  to 
identify  the  ordinary  contribution  for  the  cursus 
p-u'nicits  with  one  of  these.  The  opinion  has  pro¬ 
bably  arisen  from  confounding  it  with  the  lia¬ 
bility  to  the  “  parangaria  praestatio,”  which,  as 
above  intimated,  seems  rather  to  relate  to  oc¬ 
casional  impressment.  Certain  it  is  that  as  one 
of  the  duties  belonging  to  the  land,  which  were 
to  be  borne  by  all  (munera,  quae  patrimouiis 
publicae  utilitatis  gratia  iudicuntur,  ab  omnibus 
subeunda  sunt.  Code,  bk.  x.  t.  xli.  1.  1,  of  Anto- 
nine)  it  does  not  seem  by  its  nature  to  have  been 
one  from  which  the  clergy  would  be  exemjit,  and 


wc  have  proof  from  the  story  of  St.  Augustine 
having  declined  to  accejit  for  the  Church  an 
estate  charged  with  the  patrimonial  munus  termed 
the  “  navicularian,”  i.e.  that  relating  to  the  trans¬ 
port  of  corn  from  Africa,  lest  the  Church  should 
have  to  undertake  such  a  duty,  that  no  ecclesias¬ 
tical  immunity  obtained  in  a  precisely  similar 
case  (the  Digest  classes  together  as  patrimonial 
munera  those  “  rei  vehicularis,  item  navicularis  ;” 
bk.  1.  T.  iv.  1.  1).  [J.  M.  L.] 

CURSOR.  (1)  In  the  days  when  it  was 
dangerous  for  Christians  to  make  known  publicly 
the  times  and  places  of  their  assemblies,  the 
faithful  were  frequently  summoned  by  a  mes¬ 
senger  going  from  house  to  house,  who  was 
called  cursor  or praeco.  To  this  custom  Tertullian 
seems  to  allude  when  (^De  Fuga  in  Persecutione, 
c.  14)  he  says,  speaking  of  the  difficulty  of  holding 
assemblies,  “  Non  potes  discurrere  j)er  singulos  ?” 
An  epitaph  published  by  Brower,  UiiSACius  Cur¬ 
sor  Dominicus  (^Annal.  IVevirens.  i.  53),  is  gener¬ 
ally  referred  to  an  official  of  this  kind  ;  but  this 
Ursacius  may  have  been  an  ordinary  letter-carrier 
of  the  church.  (See  Ducange,  s.  v.  Cyrsor.)  A.s- 
semblies  seem  to  have  been,  at  least  in  some  in¬ 
stances,  announced  in  this  way  in  the  4th  century  ; 
for  Jerome,  writing  to  Eustochium  (Fpist.  22), 
speaks  of  a  praeco  giving  notice  of  the  Agape ; 
and  Eusebius  of  Alexandria  (quoted  by  Binterim, 
Denkwurd.  iv.  1,  281)  speaks  of  the  unreadiness 
of  many  to  go  to  church  when  the  herald  called. 

(2)  An  official  to  whom  was  specially  com¬ 
mitted  the  task  of  circulating  letters  of  popes 
or  other  bishops ;  see  Baronins,  Annales,  an. 
58,  §  102.  “  Romae  adhuc  duraut  Pajme  cur- 

sores,  qui  deferunt  ejus  ordiues  ac  pontificias 
bullas  publicant.”  (Macri  llierolexicon,  s.  v. 
Cursor.  )  [O'] 

CURSUS.  The  divine  office,  or  series  of 
prayers,  psalms,  hymns,  and  versicles  said  daily 
by  the  clergy  in  churches.  Eor  instance,  the 
seventh  canon  of  the  council  of  Chelsea  [Calchut.] 
is,  “  Ut  omnes  ecclesiae  publice  canonicis  horis 
cursum  suum  cum  reverentia  habeant  ”  (Haddan 
and  Stubbs,  Councils,  iii.  451).  See  Hours  of 
Prayer  ;  Office,  the  Divine.  [C.] 

CURTAIN  (cortina,  aulaeum,  velum,  ^riKov, 
TrapatTiTaaixa,  KaraTTiraaixa,  afxcp'idvpov).  Cur¬ 
tains  were  used  in  ancient  churches  for  the  fol¬ 
lowing  purposes.  1.  J'o  hang  over  the  outer 
doorway  of  the  church.  2.  To  close  the  doorway 
between  the  nave  of  the  church  and  the  sanc¬ 
tuary,  or  perhaps  rather  to  fill  the  open  panels 
or  Cancelli  of  the  door,  during  the  time  of  the 
consecration  of  the  Eucharist.  3.  To  fill  the 
space  between  the  pillars  of  the  ciborium,  or 
canopy  of  the  altar.  4.  Curtains  were  also  used 
in  baptisteries. 

1.  The  Paschal  Chronicle  (p.  294)  mentions 
curtains  embroidered  with  gold,  for  the  doors, 
in  enumerating  the  gifts  of  Constantine  to  the 
church  at  Constantinople.  St.  Jerome  {Epitaph. 
Nepot.  Epist.  ad  Ileliod.')  praises  the  priest  Ne- 
potianus  for  the  care  with  which  he  provided 
curtains  for  the  doors  of  his  church  :  “  Erat  sol- 
licitus ....  si  vela  semper  in  ostiis.”  '  We  find 
again  indications  of  this  custom  in  Epi})hauius ; 
and  Paulinus  of  Nola  tells  us  {Poem,  xviii.  30) 
that  those  surpassed  him  in  magnificence  who 
offered  rich  curtains  (vela  foribus)  for  the  doors, 
brilliant  in  the  purity  of  linen,  or  ornamente*! 


522 


CUKTAIN 


CYPiilANUS 


with  coloured  patterns  woven  into  their  sub¬ 
stance.  He  is  yet  more  precise  in  speaking  of 
his  own  church  of  St.  Felix  at  Nola  (JPoetn.  xiv'.  ; 
98),  where  he  says,  “  the  golden  doorways  are  ■ 
ornamented  with  curtains  white  as  snow.” 
Such  curtains  were  suspended  by  iron  or  bronze 
rings,  the  remains  of  which  are  still  to  be  dis¬ 
covered  in  some  ancient  Roman  basilicas,  for 
example  in  those  of  St.  Clement,  St.  Mary  in 
Cosmedin,  St.  Laurence,  St.  George  in  V'elabro, 
&c.  The  office,  of  raising  these  curtains  befoi-e 
the  priests  and  other  dignified  persons  was  as¬ 
signed  to  the  inferior  clerks  {Coacil.  Narbon. 
can.  xiii.  a.d.  589) ;  the  subdeacon  as  well  as 
the  ostiarius  is  to  raise  the  door-curtains  (vela 
ad  ostia)  before  the  elders  (senioribus).  They 
w^ere  sometimes  adorned  with  figures  of  saints  or 
with  crosses,  or  flow'ers,  arranged  in  patterns,  and 
with  various  purple  ornaments. 

2.  It  is  probable  that  from  the  time  of  Con¬ 

stantine  curtains  were  used  to  enclose  the  sanc¬ 
tuary,  or  to  fill  the  apertures  in  the  rails  or 
grating  [Cancelli]  which  surrounded  it.  Atha¬ 
nasius  {Epist.  ad  Solit.,  opp.  i.  847,  ed.  Paris, 
1627),  speaking  of  an  outrage  committed  by  the 
Arians,  says  that  they  carried  out  and  burned 
the  benches,  the  throne,  the  table,  and  the  cur¬ 
tains  (to  /3^Aa)  of  the  church,  where  the  context 
certainly  suggests  that  these  were  the  curtains 
of  the  sanctuary.  Theodoret  (Hist.  Eccl.^  tells 
us  that  St.  Basil  invited  the  Emperor  Valens  to 
enter  into  the  enclosure  of  the  sacred  curtains 
where  he  was  himself  seated ;  that  is,  into  the 
sanctuary  of  his  church,  which  was  enclosed  by 
these  curtains.  And  St.  Chrysostom,  in  a  pas¬ 
sage  containing  much  information  as  to  the 
manner  of  celebrating  the  eucharist  in  his  time, 
says,  “  when  the  sacrifice  is  borne  forth  .  .  . 
when  thou  seest  the  curtains  (to.  afx^ldvpa) 
drawn  back,  then  think  that  the  sky  above  us 
opens,  and  angels  descend”  (In  Ephes.  Horn.  3,  §  5, 
p.  23).  Here  the  curtains  are  clearly  those 
which  closed  the  doorway  of  the  sanctuary,  which 
were  drawn  back  after  consecration,  when  the 
people  communicated.  Evagrius  (Hist.  Eccl.  vi. 
21)  says  that  Chosroes,  after  his  victory  over 
Bahram  (a.d.  590)  sent  to  Gregory  bishop  of 
Antioch,  among  other  presents,  '■*'  kfjicplQvpov  ovv- 
viKov  K€Ko(TiJ.r]fx4uoi'  ”  that  is,  according 

to  the  most  probable  interpretation,  a  curtain 
of  rich  Hunnish  work  for  the  door  of  the  sanc¬ 
tuary.  See  Ducange  (s.  v.  Hunniscu<),  who  cites 
the  word  ILmniscus  from  a  letter  of  Charles  the 
Great  to  Offa  king  of  Mei'cia  (Haddan  and  Stubbs, 
iii.  498),  and  believes  it  to  be  equivalent  to  the 
“  Sarmaticum  ”  of  Gregory  of  Toui’s  (De  Vit. 
Pair.  c.  8).  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (Catena  in 
Joann,  on  c.  ii.  v.  24)  bids  the  guardians  of  the 
divine  mysteries  not  to  admit  the  uninitiated 
within  the  sacred  curtains  (rSru  lepiv  Kararre- 
Taa/xarwu),  nor  to  permit  neophytes  tu  draw 
near  the  Holy  Table.  In  this  case  the  curtain 
or  “  veil  ”  of  the  sanctuary  is  clearly  intended ; 
the  term  itself  is  adopted  from  the  Jewish 
Temple.  Germanus  of  Constantinople  (Hist. 
Eccl.  p.  153,  ed.  Paris,  1560)  says  that  the  cur¬ 
tain  symbolized  the  stone  which  was  rolled  to 
the  door  of  the  sepulchre. 

3.  Curtains  were  also  fixed  to  the  ciborium  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  surround  the  Altar  [Altar, 
p.  65]  upon  certain  occasions.  The  tet  aveia,  or 
pets  of  four  curtains,  which  are  frequently  men¬ 


tioned  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis  among  the  gifts 
of  the  popes  to  certain  Roman  churches  were  no 
doubt  intended  for  this  use.  See,  for  in.stance. 
the  life  of  Sergius  I.  (p.  150  B,  ed.  Muratori),  who 
is  said  to  have  given  to  surround  the  altar  of 
a  church  eight  tetravela,  four  white,  four  scarlet. 
Similar  presents  are  attributed  by  the  same  au¬ 
thority  to  Leo  III.  Some  have  thought  that  the 
Rugae  presented  by  various  popes  to  Roman 
churches  were  curtains,  but  this  does  not  seem 
probable. 

4.  They  were  also  used  in  baptisteries,  as  may 
be  seen  in  a  very  ancient  mosaic  at  Ravenna 
(Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon.  II.  plate  xxiii.);  and  see 
Baptism,  p.  161. 

(Ducange’s  Glossaries  and  Descriptio  S.  So- 
phiae  ;  Suicer’s  Thesaurus  ;  Martigny’s  Diet,  des 
Antiq.  Chr€t.')  [C.] 

CUSTODES  ECCLESIAE.  Either  door¬ 
keepers,  otherwise  called  Ostiarii,  one  of  the  in¬ 
ferior  orders  in  the  ancient  Church,  or,  more 
probably  perhaps,  the  same  officers  who  are 
sometimes  distinguished  as  Seniores  Ecclesiae^ 
and  whose  duties  corresponded  in  certain  points 
with  tho.se  of  the  modern  churchwarden.  [Sec 
Churchwarden.]  Bingham,  iii.  13,  2.  [D.  B.] 

CUSTODES  LOCOEUM  SAXCTORUM. 
The  keepers  of  the  holy  places  of  Palestine,  so 
called  because  of  their  I'elation  to  our  Lord’s 
earthly  history:  e.g.  Bethlehem,  Mount  Gol¬ 
gotha,  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  Mount  Olivet.  Such 
an  office  was  probably  occasioned  by  the  custom 
which  arose  among  (Christians  in  early  times  of 
visiting  these  places  for  purposes  of  piety  and 
devotion  ;  and  that  the  function  of  these  custodes 
was  accounted  a  religious  service  appears  from 
their  having  been  exempted,  by  a  statute  of 
Theodosius,  in  the  same  manner  as  ecclesiastics 
generally,  from  personal  tribute,  in  regard  to 
this  their  special  employment  (Bingham,  iii. 
13,  2).  [D.  B.] 

GUSTOS  ARCAE.  A  name  given  to  the 
archdeacon,  as  having  charge  of  the  treasury  of 
the  Church,  and  the  care  of  dispensing  the  obla¬ 
tions  of  the  people.  In  this  capacity  Caecilian 
was  accused  by  the  Donatists  of  having  prohi¬ 
bited  the  deacons  from  carrying  any  provision 
to  the  martyrs  in  prison.  And  the  4th  Council 
of  Carthage  (c.  17)  directs  the  bishop  not  to  con¬ 
cern  himself  personally  in  the  care  and  govern¬ 
ment  of  widows,  orphans,  and  strangers,  but  to 
commit  the  duty  to  his  archpresbyter  or  arch¬ 
deacon  (Bingham,  ii.  c.  21).  [D.  B.] 

CUTHBERT,  presbyter,  abbat  of  Lindis- 
farne,  March  20  (Mart.  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi)  ; 
ti’anslation  to  Durham,  Sept.  4  (some  MSS.  of 
Mart.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CYCLUS  ANXI.  [Calendar.] 

CYCLES  PASCHALIS.  [Easter.] 

CYMBAL.  The  word  cymbalum  seems  occa¬ 
sionally  to  be  used  for  a  bell,  or  some  sonoroiu' 
instrument  used  instead  of  a  bell.  Thus  Gregory 
the  Great  (Dialo  :us  i.  9)  speaks  of  a  cymbalum 
being  struck  by  way  of  passing-bell ;  and  Duran- 
dus  (R  dionale,  i.  4,  §  2)  of  monks  being  called 
to  the  refecto+’y  by  the  sound  of  a  cymbalum 
which  hung  in  the  cloister.  [C.] 

CYPRIANUS.  (1)  The  famous  bishop  of 
Carthage,  martyr  under  Valerian,  A.D.  258 


CYPiiUS 


DALMATIC 


523 


5ept.  14  (^Gal.  Cco-th.,  Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron,, 
Bodae,  Usuardi);  Oct.  2  (^Cal.  Byzant.'). 

(2)  Bishop,  martyi’  with  Justina,  Sept.  26 
(^Mai't.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  in  Africa  under  Hunneric,  Oct.  12 
(^Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  UsuartK). 

(4)  Abbat  of  Perigord,  commemorated  Dec.  9 

(^Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [C.J 

CYPRUS  (Council  of),  a.d.  401,  as  Pagi 
shews  (ad  Baron,  ib.  n.  20)  under  St.  Epipha- 
nius,  at  the  instigation  of  Theophilus  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  prohibiting  the  reading  of  the  works  of 
Origen.  [E.  S.  F.] 

CYRIACA,  martyr,  a.d.  282,  is  comme¬ 
morated  July  7  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

CYRIACUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Achaia,  Jan.  12 
{Mart.  Bedae). 

(2)  Deacon,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Maximin, 
March  16  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi); 
again  on  Aug.  8  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Usuardi),  supposed  by  some  t(»  be  the  day  of  his 
translation  by  Pope  Marcel) us  (see  Sollier’s  note 
on  Usuard,  Aug.  8);  July  l.b  {Cal.  Byzant.). 
Sometimes  written  Cyricus  or  Cerycus. 

(3)  Martyr  at  Tomi,  June  20  {Mart.  Hieron., 
Bedae). 

(4)  The  Anchoret  (a.d.  448-557),  Sept.  29 

{Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

CYRICUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  the  Hellespont, 
Jan.  3  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Antioch,  June  16  {Mart.  Hieron., 
Rom.  Vet.  Usuardi).  [C.] 

•CYRIL.  (1)  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  is  com- 
memorafed  Jan.  28  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi) ; 
June  9  {Cal.  Byzant.)’,  with  Athanasius,  Jan.  18 
{Cal.  Byzant.). 

(2)  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  March  18  {Cal.  By¬ 
zant.,  Ethiop.). 

(3)  Mai'tyr  in  Syria,  March  20  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(4)  Bishop  and  martyr  in  Egypt  (?),  July  9 
{Mart.  Hieron.,  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

(5)  Martyr  at  Philadelphia,  Aug.  1  {Mart. 

Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

C YRILLA,  daughter  of  Decius,  martyr  under 
Claudius,  Oct.  28  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Usuardi).  [C.] 

CYRINUS,  or  QUIRINUS.  (1)  Martyr  at 
Rome  under  Claudius,  is  commemorated  March  25 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome  under  Diocletian,  April  26 
{Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Milan  under  Nero,  June  12 

{Mart.  Bedae,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CYRINUS.  [Cyricus.] 

CYRION”,  presbyter,  martyr,  Feb.  14  {Mart. 
Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [C.] 

CYRUS,  martyr,  A.D.  292,  wonder-worker 
and  unmercenary,  is  commemorated  Jan.  31 
{Cal.  Byzant.) ;  translation,  .lune  28  {ib.).  [C.] 

CYZTCUS  (Council  of),  a.d.  376,  according 
to  Mansi  (iii.  469),  being  the  meeting  of  semi- 
Arians  mentioned  by  St.  Basil  in  his  letter  to 
Patropliilus,  and  spoken  of  as  a  I’ecent  occurrence 
{Ep.  ccxciv.  al.  Ixxxi.).  “What  else  they  did 
there,  I  know  not,”  says  he  ;  “  but  thus  much 
1  hear,  that  having  been  reticent  of  the  term 
Uomomsion,  they  now  give  utterance  to  the  term 


Homoionsion,  and  join  Eunomius  in  publishing 
blasphemies  against  the  Holy  Ghost.”  [E.  S.  F.] 

CY^ZICUS,  THE  Martyrs  of,  are  commemo¬ 
rated  April  29  [al.  28]  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 


D 

DADAS,  martyr  with  Maximus  and  Quintili 
anus  ;  commemorated  April  28  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

DAEMON.  [Demon.] 

DAFROSA,  wife  of  Fabian  the  martyr, 
martyr  at  Rome  under  Julian;  commemorated, 
Jan.  4  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usua»'di). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

DALMATIC.  {AaXfiaTiK'fi  [AeA.] ;  Dalma- 
tica,  sc.  tunica  or  vestis ;  the  substantive,  as  in 
the  similar  case  of  alba,  is  seldom  expressed.) 

The  dalmatic,  which  derived  its  name  from  the 
province  where  it  was  first  manufactured,  was  a 
species  of  long-sleeved  white  tunic,  with  a  longi¬ 
tudinal  stripe  {clavus)  from  either  side  of  the 
neck  downwards.  (  “  Dalmatica  vestis  primum 
in  Dalmatia  provincia  Graeciae  texta  est,  tunica 
sacerdotalis  Candida  cum  clavis  ex  purpura.” 
Isidore,  Etymol.  xix.  22.) 

There  are  fair  grounds,  however,  for  believing 
that  in  its  original  form  the  dalmatic,  as  worn 
by  men,  was  a  short-sleeved  or  sleeveless  tunic, 
equivalent  to  the  colobion  {xircbv  ax^‘pibwT6s, 
Sozomen,  iii.  14).“  This  is  shown  by  the  way  in 
which  the  two  words  are  used  synonymously,  as 
in  Epiphanius  {Haer.  xv.  vol.  i.  p.  32,  ed.  Petavius), 
AaKpaTiKcts,  elrovv  KuXo^icouas,  ck  TvXarvaiyxuiv 
Sia  TTopcpvpas  aXovpyov(pe7s  KaT€(rKeva(rfx4i'as.  (So 
too  Joannes  Damascenus,  in  Cotelier,  Eccl.  Graec. 
Mon.  Ined.  i.  284.)  Again,  in  a  most  important 
early  document,  to  which  we  shall  subsequently 
refer,  the  edict  of  Diocletian  fixing  the  maximum 
price  of  articles  throughout  the  Roman  empire, 
the  tw'O  words  are  used  as  equivalents  (Wad- 
dington,  L’e'dit  de  Biocletien,  p.  38).  Nor  need 
any  difficulty  be  felt  from  the  occurrence  of 
passages  which  speak  of  the  substitution  of  the 
dalmatic  for  the  colobion.  If  the  above  theory 
be  correct,  such  passages  will  merely  refer  to 
the  adding  of  long  sleeves  to  the  previously 
sleeveless  tunic ;  and  the  change  having  been 
once  made,  it  would  be  natural  to  employ  the 
word  colobion  to  denote  that  form  of  the  gar¬ 
ment  iaiplied  by  the  name,  and  to  retain  the 
neutral  word  dalmatic  to  indicate  the  modified 
form ;  and  indeed  a  passage  from  the  Life  of 
Silvester  I.  to  which  it  will  be  necessary  to 
allude  subsequently,  seems  to  support  the  above 
view,  ....  aXX*  rh  ruu  Sp^x^ovuv  yvp- 

vhv  ii(/4y6TO,  AaXpariKa  pavlKXeia  paXXov 
<tvv4^t\  ovopaadyvai  (lirep  (leg.  ilirep)  KoX6$ta 
(  Vit.  Silvestri,  p.  266,  ed.  Combefis).  It  is  of  course 
also  Just  possible  that  this  term  may  have  been 
susceptible  of  slightly  dilferent  meanings  in  dif¬ 
ferent  countries. 

We  first  meet  with  the  dalmatic  as  a  secular 
dress,  of  a  stately  or  luxurious  character,  worn 

*  Such  was  also  the  Levito  [a\.  Lebitori]  or  lento- 
varium  (words  having  no  connection  with  Levite)  of  Uie 
Egyptian  monks.  (See  Binterim,  Iv.  1.  214.) 


524 


DALMATIC 


DALMATIC 


by  persons  in  high  position.  Thus  there  would 
necessarily  be  something  exceptional  in  the  use 
of  it,  and  then  like  other  articles  of  Roman 
secular  dress  it  became  adopted  by  the  Church 
as  a  dress  for  ecclesiastics.  We  shall  cite  first 
sundry  allusions  to  the  dalmatic  in  the  Historiae 
Aujustae  Scriptores.  Lampridius  charges  Corn- 
modus  [ob.  192  A.D.]  with  unseemly  behaviour  *’ 
in  that  he  appeared  in  the  streets  in  a  dalmatic 
{Vita  Comm.  c.  8;  see  also  Capitolinus,  Vita 
Pert  in.  c.  8).  Heliogabalus  [ob.  222  A.o.]  also 
was  fond  of  appearing  abroad  thus  clad  (Lam 
pridius,  Vita  Jleliogab.  c.  26).  See  also  Trebellius 
I’ollio,  Vita  Claudii,  c.  17. 

The  edict  of  Diocletian  already  cited  furnishes 
us  with  much  interesting  information  as  to  the 
different  A^arieties  of  this  garment  in  use  in  the 
Roman  empire  at  the  end  of  the  3rd  century  a.d. 
It  was  made  of  various  materials,  wool,  silk, 
linen  {\dcrios,  bXocrripiKds,  bOSi/t])]  sometimes 
the  ornamental  clavus  was  present  (A. 
vopcpvpas),  sometimes  absent  {aarj/xos).  Dalma¬ 
tics  both  for  men’s  and  women’s  use  are  men¬ 
tioned  ;  those  for  the  former,  as  we  have  already 
stated,  bearing  the  title  AaKpariKayv  avSpeiwu 
jjroL  koXoI3lcov.  Three  different  qualities  ai’e  given 
for  each  sex,  the  price  varying  both  according  to 
the  quality  and  the  place  of  manufacture,  of 
which  Scythopolis,  Tarsus,  Byblos,  Laodicea,  &c. 
are  mentioned. 

It  may  be  not  uninteresting  to  add  that  the 
price  of  these  various  sorts  varied  from  10,000 
to  1500  denarii;  the  denarius,  it  should  be  re¬ 
membered,  being  of  the  debased  currency  of  the 
earlier  part  of  Diocletian’s  reign,  and  in  value 
about  l^d.  {op.  cit.  pp.  30,  37,  &c.). 

Three  centuries  later  we  find  the  dalmatic 
worn  as  part  of  a  senator’s  dress  in  the  case  of 
Gordian  us  the  father  of  Gregory  the  Great,  who 
was  of  that  order  (Joannis  Diaconi  Vita  S.  Gre- 
gorii,  iv.  83)  ;  and  the  father  and  the  son  are 
both  spoken  of  as  wearing  the  planeta  and  dal¬ 
matic  (cf.  c.  81,  Patrol.  Ixxv.  229). 

In  later  times  the  dalmatic  has  been  a  dress 
worn  by  sovereigns  at  their  coronation  and  on 
other  great  occasions.  [See  Coronation.] 

The  ideas,  then,  of  dignity  and  stateliness  were 
associated  with  the  dalmatic  as  a  secular  dress. 
The  earliest  notice  of  its  ecclesiastical  use  is,  if 
the  document  be  genuine,  in  the  Acta  Martgrii 
of  St.  Cyprian,  of  whom  it  is  said  (c.  5)  that 
when  led  out  to  martyrdom  “  se  lacerna  byrro 
expoliavit .  .  .  .,  et  cum  se  dalmatica  exspoliasset 
et  diacouibus  tradidisset  in  linea  stetit.”  Here 
then,  where  the  dress  is  evidently  that  ordinarily 
used  by  the  bishop  (if  indeed  a  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  everyday  dress  of  the  Christian  minis¬ 
try  and  that  used  by  them  in  divine  service  had 
yet  arisen),  we  find  first  the  under  linen  garment 
{linea),  over  this  the  dalmatic,  and  finally  the 
Birrus  or  cloak. 


*>  It  is  not  quite  clear  in  what  the  impropriety  con¬ 
sisted.  If  we  are  right  in  supposing  that  the  dalmatic  of 
this  time  had  short  sleeves,  there  would  be  an  obvious 
unseemliness  in  a  person  of  rank  being  seen  abroad  with¬ 
out  an  upper  garment.  Others  who  hold  that  even  then 
the  dalmatic  was  a  long-sleeved  dress,  refer  the  cause  of 
the  censure  to  the  implied  effeminacy  of  the  wearer  (cf. 
Aulus  Gellius,  vii.  12,  “Tunicis  uti  virum  prolixis  ultra 
brachia,  et  usque  in  primores  manus,  ac  prope  in  digitos 
Romae  utque  omni  in  I^atio  indecorum  fuit  ”) ;  and  others 
to  the  foreign  nature  of  the  garb. 


About  fifty  years  later  we  come  to  somethir.g 
more  definite  in  the  already  cited  order  of  Pope 
Silvester  I.  [ob.  335  a.d.]  that  deacons  should 
fur  the  future  wear  dalmatics  instead  of  colubia. 
It  is  a  matter  of  small  moment  whether  this 
means  the  substitution  of  one  ve.stiuent  for 
another,  or,  as  we  have  tried  to  show,  a  modi¬ 
fication  in  the  shape  of  the  existing  vestment: 
in  either  ca.se  the  result  i.s  the  same,  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  a  long-sleeved  in  jjlace  of  a  short- 
sleeved  tunic.*-'  Walafrid  Strabo  [ob.  849  A.D,] 
tells  us  that  “  Silvester  appointed  that  deacons 
should  use  dalmatics  in  the  church,  and  that 
their  left  hand  should  be  covered  with  a  cloth  of 
linen  warj)  {palli'nn  linostimum).  Now  at  first, 
priests  {sacrrdotes,  that  is  doubtlessly  bishops 
and  priests  both)  wore  dalmatics  before  chasubles 
were  introduced,  but  afterwards  when  thev  began 
to  use  chasubles,  they  permitted  dalmatics  to 
deacons.  That  even  pontiff's,  however,  ought 
to  use  them  is  obvious  from  the  fact  that  Gre¬ 
gory  or  other  heads  of  the  Roman  see  allowed 
the  use  of  them  to  some  bishops  and  forbad  it  to 
others.  Hence  it  follows  that  at  that  time  the 
permission  was  not  given  to  all  to  do  what  now 
almost  all  bishops  and  some  priests  think  they 
may  do;  namely,  wear  a  dalmatic  under  the 
chasuble.”  {De  Pebus  Ecclesiasticis,  c.  24  ;  cf.  Ra- 
banus  Maurus,  De  Clericorum  Institntione,  i.  7, 
20;  Amalarius,  De  Eccl.  Off.  ii.  21;  Pseudo 
Alcuin,  De  Div.  Off.  c.  39  ;  Anastasius,  Vitae  Pon- 
tificum,  Silvester  I.  p,  35.) 

It  will  be  seen  here  that  the  ordinance  has 
special  reference  to  deacons,  whether  from  the 
higher  orders  of  the  ministry  already  wearing 
the  long-sleeved  tunic,  or,  as  Marriott  {Vesti- 
arium  Christianum,  p.  Iviii.)  suggests,  with  the 
view  of  compensating  for  the  absence  of  a  super- 
vestment  among  deacons. 

Noticeable  in  the  next  place  is  the  reference 
to  permission  granted  or  withheld  by  the  bishop 
of  Rome  as  to  the  Avearing  of  the  dalmatic  by 
other  bishops,  so  that  as  late  as  the  middle  of 
the  9th  century  this  dress  Avas  in  some  special 
way  as.sociated  Avith  the  local  Roman  Church, 
and  considered  the  peculiar  privilege  of  ecclesi¬ 
astics  of  that  Church,  other’s  being  only  allowed 
to  use  it  by  special  permission.  Of  this  state  of 
things,  doubtless  originally  due  to  the  use  of  the 
ve.stment  at  Rome  by  persons  of  high  secular  po¬ 
sition,  numei’ous  illustrations  can  be  given.  Thus 
in  the  life  of  Caesarius,  bishop  of  Arles  [ob.  542 
A.D.],  it  is  mentioned  that  on  his  visit  to  Rome,  the 
then  Pope  Symmachus  granted  him  as  a  sjjecial 
distinction  the  privilege  of  Avearing  the  jiallium 
[Pallium],  and  to  his  deacons  that  of  dalmatics 
after  the  Roman  fashion  ( Vit.  Cues.  Arel.  c.  4, 
Patrol.  Ixvii.  1016). 

Another  instance  occurs  in  a  letter  of  Gregory 
the  Great  to  Aregius,  bishop  of  Va])inoum  (the 
modern  Gap),  in  Avhich  he  accords  to  him  and 
his  archdeacon  the  sought-for  privilege  of  wear¬ 
ing  dalmatics  {Epist.  ix.  107).  An  allusion  to 
the  same  thing  occurs  in  a  letter  ot  Pope  Zacha- 
rias  [ob.  752  a.d.]  to  Austrobert,  archbishop  of 
Vienne  {Petrol.  Ixxxix.  956).  The  genuineness, 
however,  of  this  letter  is  doubtful.  One  or  two 

®  Reference  may  perhaps  be  made  to  Ariimianus  Mar- 
cellinus  (xiv.  9),  who,  writing  in  the  Latter  part  of  the 
4th  century,  still  speaks  of  the  short-sleeved  tunic  in  con¬ 
nection  with  deacons,  showing  that  as  yet  the  change  had 
not  become  wide-spread. 


DALMATIC 


DANCING 


525 


instances  more,  in  which  the  dalmatic  is  associ¬ 
ated  with  the  Roman  Church,  may  suffice.  Eu- 
tychianus,  bishop  of  Rome  [ob.  283  A.D.],  ordered 
its  use  when  a  martyr  was  buried  (Anastasius, 
Vitae  Pont ificum,  Eutychianus,  p.  28).  In  the  Gre¬ 
gorian  Sacramentary  (p.  65),  in  the  rubric  for 
Maundy  Thursday,  we  find  “  ingressi  sacrarium 
induunt  dalmaticas,  tarn  pontifex  quam  omnes 
diaconi,”  where  pontifex  is  doubtless  the  pope. 
Gregory  also  refers  in  his  dialogues  to  the  dal¬ 
matic  of  Paschasius,  a  deacon  of  Rome,  as  laid 
on  his  bier  (Dial.  iv.  40),  and  from  a  decree  of 
the  same  pontiff,  said  to  have  been  given  at  a 
synod  of  Rome  in  595  A.D.,  we  find  the  same 
custom  prevailed  in  the  case  of  popes,  which 
custom  is  here  forbidden  (Opp.  p.  1336  Migne). 

Indirect  evidence  pointing  to  the  same  result 
may  be  gathered  from  tlie  fact  of  the  absence  of 
any  mention  of  the  dalmatic  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Fourth  Council  of  Toledo  [633  A.D.]  among  the 
regulations  as  to  the  dress  of  the  Christian 
ministry  (Concil.  Tol.  iv.  can.  28,  40,  41  ;  Labbe, 
V.  1714,  1716),  showing  that  this  vestment  was 
not  one  then  in  use  in  Spain,  as  indeed  might  be 
further  inferred  from  the  style  of  the  one  solitary 
mention  of  it  in  the  writings  of  Isidore,  under 
whose  presidency  the  council  was  held. 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  province  of  the 
present  article  to  discuss  at  length  the  regu¬ 
lations  of  a  later  date  as  to  the  use  of  the  dal¬ 
matic  by  bishops  and  deacons,  for  the  latter  of 
whom  it  was  the  distinctive  vestment  at  the 
Holy  Communion  (see  e.  g.  the  pontifical  of  Eg¬ 
bert,  archbishop  of  York  [ob.  766  A.D.],  where  we 
find  “  diaconi  dalmaticis  vestiti  ”  in  the  form  for 
the  celebration  of  a  mass  on  Maundy  Thursday ; 
p.  120,  ed.  Surtees  Society).  It  still  continued, 
however,  to  be  used  by  them  on  other  occasions. 
Thus  Amalarius  {De  Eccl.  Off.  ii.  26)  speaks  of 
the  “  dalmatica  diaconi  et  sui  ministri  [i.e.  the 
sub-deacon]  quae  est  itineri  habilis,”  as  emblem¬ 
atic  of  the  activity  to  be  shown  by  them  in  good 
deeds  to  others. 

The  dalmatic  thus  being  a  vestment  which 
even  in  the  West  had  primarilg  only  a  local 
acceptance,  we  are  prepared  to  find  that  in  the 
East  there  is  nothing  which  strictly  speaking 
answers  to  it.  The  arixapiov  or  (TToix^piov,  how¬ 
ever,  is  the  representative  of  the  general  type 
of  white  tunic,  which  under  whatever  name  we 
know  it,  alb,  dalmatic,  or  tunicle,  is  essentially 
the  same  dress  (Goar,  Euchologion,  p.  111). 


mosaic  in  the  Church  of  St.  Vitniis,  at  ICaveuua. 


One  or  two  further  remarks  may  be  made  in 
conclusion  as  to  the  ornamental  str/pes  or  clavi 
[Clavus]  of  the  dalmatic.  As  to  the  colour  of 
these  it  is  stated  by  Marriott  tliat  he  had  met 
with  exclusively  black  clavi  in  all  ancient  i)ic- 
tures  of  ecclesiastical  dalmatics  prior  to  the 
year  600,  as  in  the  well-known  Ravenna  mosaic 
(see  woodcut),  the  earliest  exception  being  a 
mosaic  of  the  date  640  (a  coloured  drawing  of 
which  is  in  the  Windsor  collection)  in  which 
the  Apostles  have  red  clavi  on  their  tunics  («6. 
p.  lix.  n.).  The  red  or  purple  clavi  afterwards 
became  common  (see  the  passage  already  cited 
from  Isidore,  if  iudeed  the  reference  there  be  to 
ecclesiastical  dalmatics ;  also  Rabanus  JMaurus 
/.  c.,  Amalarius  /.  c.,  etc.),  and  the  later  writers 
we  have  referred  to  (^e.g.  Rabanus  Maurus, 
Amalarius,  etc.)  speak  of  these  as  worn  back 
and  front,  “  ante  et  retro  desceudentes,”  but 
whether  this  was  the  case  with  the  original  typo 
of  the  dress  may  perhaps  be  doubted.  Further, 
these  ornamental  stripes  are  found  on  the  borders 
of  the  sleeves;  and  on  the  left  side  in  later 
days  was  a  border  of  fringe,  for  which  various 
writers  have  found  appropriate  symbolical  reasons, 
into  which  however  there  is  no  need  to  enter 
here.*^ 

For  the  matter  of  the  foregoing  article  I  am 
mainly  indebted  to  Marriott’s  Vestiariwn  Ckristi- 
anum,  to  Hefele’s  valuable  essay.  Die  Liturgi- 
schen  Geicdnder  in  his  Beitrdge  zur  Kirchenge- 
schichte,  Archdologie  und  Liturgib,  ii.  203  sqq., 
to  the  articles  Dalmatica  and  Colobium  in  Du- 
cange’s  Glossary.  The  following  books  have  also 
been  consulted  with  advantage  :  Ferrarius  De  Re 
vestiaria,  Padua,  1642 ;  Binterim,  Denkvmrdig- 
keiten  der  Christ- Katholisc hen  Kirche,  vol.  iv. 
pt.  i.  pp.  213  sqq.  [R.  S.] 

DALMATIUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Italy  under 
Maximian  ;  commemorated  Dec.  5  (^Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Holy  Father,  A.D.  368 :  commemorated 
Aug.  3  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DAMASUS,  the  pope ;  martyr  at  Rome 
under  Maximinus:  Natale,  Dec.  11  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi) ;  dej)osition,  Dec. 
10  {Mart.  Hieron.').  [W.  F.  G.] 

DAMIANUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Aegea  with 
Cosmas  under  Diocletian,  A.D.  284 :  commemo¬ 
rated  Sept.  27  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae) ;  with 
Cosmas,  Anthimus,  Leontius,  and  Eujirepius, 
Sept.  27  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi); 
with  Cosmas,  “  QavjxaTovp'yoil  Ka\  drapyupoiff 
July  1  {Cal.  Byzant.)',  with  Cosmas,  and  Theo- 
dote  their  mother,  Nov.  1.  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(2)  In  Africa,  “  Passio  sancti  Damiaui  militis” 
{Mart.  Adonis).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DANCING.  Many  passages  in  the  fathers 
and  many  decrees  of  councils  censure  and  pro¬ 
hibit  promiscuous  and  lascivious  dancing.  St. 
Ambrose  thus  describes  the  dancing  of  drunken 
women  in  his  time  {De  Elia  et  Jejnniis,  c.  18), 
“They  lead  up  dances  in  the  streets  unbecoming 
men,  in  the  sight  of  intemperate  youtlns,  to.ssmg 
their  hair,  dragging  their  unfastened  garments, 
with  their  arms  uncovered,  clapping  their  hands, 

<1  The  remark  often  made  of  the  dalmatic  ns  r'cmg 
"in  modum  cnicis  facta”  (see  e.g.  Rabanus  Maurus,  1.  c.) 
refers  of  course  to  the  apjjearauce  presented  by  it  when 
the  sleeves  are  stretched  out. 


526 


DANII^L 


DEACON 


dancing  with  their  feet,  loud  and  clamourrng  in 
their  voices,  imitating  and  provoking  youthful 
lusts  by  their  theatrical  motions,  their  wanton 
eyes  and  unseemly  antics.”  And  again,  com¬ 
menting  on  the  words,  “  We  have  piped  unto 
you  and  ye  have  not  danced  ”  (Matt.  xi.  17),  he 
cautions  his  readers  that  they  must  not  suppose 
that  the  “  dance  ”  of  Christians  implies  any 
immodest  movement  of  the  body ;  rather,  it  is 
like  the  solemn  movement  of  David  before  the 
ark  (Z)e  Poenit.  ii.  6). 

St.  Augustine  declares  (contra  Parmenianum, 
iii.  c.  ult.)  that  frivolous  and  lascivious  dancing 
was  put  down  by  the  bishops  of  the  church ;  and 
the  author  of  Sermo  215  Pe  Tempore  (in  Augus¬ 
tine’s  Works')  speaks  sorrowfully  of  the  revels 
(balationes)  and  dances  before  the  very  doors  of 
the  churches,  which  were  relics  of  paganism.  To 
the  same  practice  the  60th  canon  of  the  Codex 
Eccl.  Afric.  refers,  which  prohibits  the  lascivious 
dances  which  took  place  in  the  streets  on  fes¬ 
tival  days,  to  the  great  scandal  of  religion,  and 
annoyance  of  those  who  wished  to  worship. 

St.  Chrysostom  also  repeatedly  and  vehemently 
pi’otests  against  it.  He  declares  it  to  be  one  of 
the  pomps  of  Satan  renounced  in  baptism  ;  he 
says,  “  the  devil  is  present  at  dances,  being  called 
thither  by  the  songs  of  harlots,  and  obscene  words 
and  diabolical  pomps  used  on  such  occasions.” 
And  in  another  passage,  speaking  of  the  dancing 
of  Herodias’  daughter,  he  says,  “  Christians  do  not 
now  deliver  up  half  a  kingdom  nor  another  man’s 
head  but  their  own  souls  to  inevitable  destruc¬ 
tion”  (Horn.  47  in  Julian.  Mart.  p.  613,  Horn. 
23  de  Novilun.  p.  264,  ed.  Paris,  1616). 

The  council  of  Laodicea,  a.d.  366,  forbids 
wanton  dancing  ($a\\i(civ  opxPioQai)  at  mar¬ 
riage  feasts  (can.  53). 

The  third  council  of  Toledo  (a.d.  589)  pro¬ 
hibits  dances  with  lascivious  songs  on  solemn 
festivals,  the  use  of  which  they  complain  of  as 
an  irreligious  custom  prevailing  in  Spain  among 
the  common  people,  and  order  to  be  corrected 
both  by  the  ecclesiastical  and  secular  judges 
(can.  23).  The  Decree  of  Reccared  (Bruns’s 
C (nones,  i.  394)  confirming  these  canons,  speaks 
of  these  same  dances  as  “  ballematiae  ”  or  “  bal- 
lemachiae  ”  “ ;  words  which  recal  the  “  jSaAAi- 
^eiv  ”  of  the  Laodicean  canon,  and  the  “  bala¬ 
tiones  ”  of  the  Pseudo-Augustine,  and  are  per¬ 
haps  akin  to  the  modern  Ball  and  Ballet. 

The  council  of  Agde  (a.d.  506)  forbids  the 
clergy  to  be  present  at  marriages  where  obscene 
love  songs  were  sung,  and  obscene  motions  of 
the  body  used  in  dancing  (Cone.  Agathen.  can. 
39). 

DANIEL.  (1)  The  prophet ;  commemorated 
Magabit  23  — March  19  (Cal.  Ethiop.)'.  July  21, 
Natalc,  (Mart.  Bedae) :  with  Ananias,  Azarias, 
and  Misael,  Dec.  17  (Cal.  Byzant.). 

(2)  Stylites,  Holy  Father,  a.d.  467  ;  comme¬ 
morated  Dec.  11  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DARIA,  virgin,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Nu- 
merian ;  commemorated  with  Chrysantus  and 
“qui  cum  eis  passi  sunt,”  Aug.  12  (AlaH. 
Hieron.)‘,  with  Chrysantus  and  others,  No\^  29 
(AJ  trt.  Ilieron.)',  with  Chrysantus,  Dec.  1  (Mart. 
Adonis,  Usuardi) ;  with  Chrysantus,  Mariniauus. 
“cum  infinita  multitudine  martyrum,”  Dec.  1 
(Alart.  Rom.  Vet.).  '  [W.  F.  G.] 

“  There  are  several  various  readings. 


DARIUS,  martyr  at  Nicaea;  commemorated 
Dec.  19  (Alart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.j 

DASIUS,  martyr  at  Nicomedia,  with  Zoticus, 
Gaius,  and  12  soldiers;  commemorated  Oct.  21 
(Alart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[VV.  F.  G.j 

DATIVA,  confessor  in  Africa ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Dec.  6,  with  seven  others  (Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

DATIVTJS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Africa,  with 
Saturninus,  Felix,  Apelius,  and  his  companions; 
commemorated  Feb.  12  (Alart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  under  Decius  and  V^alerian  with 
five  others;  commemorated  Sept.  10  (Mart.  Bom, 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [VVh  F.  G.] 

DAVID,  (1)  “et  tres  pueri;”  commemorated 
June  25  (Cal.  Armen.). 

(2)  of  Thessalonica ;  commemorated  June  26 
(Cal.  Byzant.). 

(3)  King  of  Ethiopia  ;  commemorated  Mas- 
karram  10  =  Sept.  7  (Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(4)  King  of  the  Jews;  commemorated  Sept.  30 
(  Cal.  Armen.) ;  Taksas  23  =  Dec.  1 9  (  Cal.  E:hiop.) ; 
Dec.  29  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(5)  and  Constantine ;  commemorated  Oct.  2 
(Cal.  Georgiae). 

(6)  commemorated  Dec.  23  (Cal.  Armen.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

DAVID,  Among  the  Egyptians,  an  archi¬ 
mandrite,  or  any  head  of  a  monastery  of  what¬ 
ever  rank,  was  called  David ;  so  that  when  a 
monastic  head  gave  letters  of  commendation  to 
any  one,  he  subscribed  himself  as  '■‘■David  illius 
loci  ”  (Gratian  De  Formatis,  quoted  by  Ducange, 
s.  V.)  [C.] 

DAYS,  NAMES  OF.  [Week.] 

DEACON.  AkLkovos,  diaconus ;  StaKwv  (Du¬ 
cange,  Gloss,  quoting  Malaxus,  Hist.  Patriarch.) ; 
diacones  (Cyprian,  Ep.  ad  Sucressnm,  and  repeat¬ 
edly  in  the  decrees  of  councils,  e.  g.  Cone.  E  ib. 
c.  18  and  76,  f  Arelat.  c.  15,  I  Tolet.  1). 

I.  Names. — The  first  idea  contained  in  the 
woi’d  appears  to  be  that  of  service  rendered  in 
an  inferior  capacity.  It  seems  too  as  if  some¬ 
thing  of  a  sacred  character  attached  to  the  word 
even  before  its  use  in  the  Scriptures,  Thus  we 
find  SiaKoufiv  ydy-ov,  “  metaphora  sumpta  ab 
iis  qui  pocula  aut  victum  ministrant  egentibus 
et  petentibus  ”  (Steph.  T lies,  in  verb.  SiaKoricc’, 
comp.  Buttmann’s  Lexilogus,  and  Stanley,  Apio- 
stolic  Age,  p.  69). 

In  the  New  Testament  Skxkovos  is  used :  1.  In 
the  general  sense  of  an  agent  or  instrument. 
Thus  the  sovereign  power  is  called  Qeov  Siolko- 
vos  (Rom  xiii.  4),  and  Timothy  diaKouos  'lrj(7ov 
XpKTTov  (1  Tim.  iv.  5).  Sometimes  “  bishops  and 
deacons”  express  all  the  offices  of  the  Christian 
ministry  (avu  iiriaKdirois  Kal  SiaK6pois,  Phil, 
i.  1).  2.  But  the  word  appears  to  have  assumed 

its  distinctive  ecclesiastical  meaning  at  the  ap¬ 
pointment  of  the  Seven  to  superintend  the  distri¬ 
bution  of  the  alm§.to  the  Hellenist  widows,  tV  rp 
biaKOvia  rp  /cuflp/iepivp  (Acts,vi.  1—6),  when  the 
diaKOuia  twu  Tpa’jre^cov  became  distinct  from  the 
SiaKovla  Tov  Kdyou.  These  seven  are  nev'er  called 
deacons  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  In  the  only 
passage  in  which  mention  is  made  of  them  as  a 
body,  Philip  is  described  as  one  of  “  the  Seven  ” 
(Acts  xxi.  8).  It  has  therefore  been  contended 
that  the  institution  of  the  diaconate  was  not 


DEACON 


DEACON 


527 


really  connected  with  the  appointment  of  the 
Seven,  One  theory  would  identify  the  deacons 
with  the  vewrepoi  or  pcavicTKoi  elsewhere  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  v.  6  and  10) 
as  performing  certain  subordinate  offices  in  the 
church.  But  this  theory  appears  to  be  at  vari¬ 
ance  with  the  account  given  in  the  Acts,  where 
it  is  distinctly  said  that,  at  the  time  of  the  ap¬ 
pointment  of  the  Seven,  the  distribution  of  the 
alms,  ri  SiaKOp'ia  rj  Ko.6r]iJi€pivf},  was  performed  by 
the  apostles  theraseh’es. 

A  theory  something  like  this  has  been  adopted 
by  later  writers.  In  this  case  it  is  alleged  that 
the  appointment  of  the  Seven  was  merely  to 
meet  a  particular  emergency,  and  “  had  probably 
no  connection  with  the  deacons  in  the  later 
period  of  the  apostolic  age,”  though  it  is  admitted 
“  that  they  may  possibly  have  borne  the  name,” 
and  that  “  there  was  in  some  respects  a  likeness 
between  their  respective  duties  ”  (Stanley,  IJssaj^s 
on  Apostolic  Age,  p.  62  ;  comp.  Vitringa,  iii.  2,  5  ; 
Liglitfoot,  Essay  on  Christian  Ministry,  in  Comm, 
on  PkiUppians,  p.  186,  note).  A  passage  from 
St.  Chrysostom  is  brought  forward  in  support  of 
this  theory,  in  wliich  he  distinctly  asserts  that 
the  ordination  (xetpoTOPia')  of  the  Seven  was 
neither  that  of  deacons,  nor  that  of  presbyters, 
nor  that  of  bishops  {Horn,  on  Acts  vi.).  This 
passage  is  incorporated  into  a  decree  of  the 
Council  in  Trullo  (c.  16)  which,  referring  to  the 
institution  of  the  Seven  “  deacons  ”  {p  tSov  wpd- 
lirra  SiaKdvovs  virh  tuv  diroardKoiV 
f  aracTTTjvat  vapadiSuo'ip'),  expressly  distinguishes 
these  ministers  from  the  deacons  proper  who  took 
part  in  the  sacred  ministry  of  the  altar  (6  \6yos 
avroTs  ov  wepl  tup  toTs  pvarttplois  SiaKOPovgepup 
^p  apSpup,  dWd  Trepl  Tr)y  ip  rats 
Tpaire^cSp  virovpyias).  Compare  Thomassin,  Vet. 
et  Nov.  Eccles.  Disdplina,  Part  I.  L.  1,  c.  51, 

§  11,  12. 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  abundant  testi¬ 
mony  that  the  early  church  in  general  consi¬ 
dered  the  order  of  deacons  to  have  originated  in 
the  institution  of  the  Seven.  Irenaeus  speaks  of 
“  Nicolaum  unum  ex  septem  qui  primi  ad  diaco- 
nium  ab  apostolis  ordinati  sunt  ”  \Haeres.  i.  27). 
Sozomen  asserts  that  the  church  of  Rome  retained 
the  custom  of  only  having  seven  deacons,  in  ac¬ 
cordance  witli  the  number  of  those  ordained  by 
the  apostles,  of  whom  Stephen  was  first  {H.  E. 
vii.  19),  so  Constitut.  Apost.  viii.  46  ;  Hilary, 
Comm,  in  1  Tim.  iii.  11,  apud  Ambrosii  Opera; 
Cyprian,  Ep.  65,  ad  Rogatian. ;  Id.  Ep.  68,  ad 
rieb.  Leg. ;  Cone.  Neocaes.  c.  15 ;  Epiphan. 
JIaeres.  I.  De  Tncarn.  4). 

The  name  of  deacon  (/.  e.  servant  or  subordi¬ 
nate)  was  given  to  the  third  order  of  the  ministry 
on  account  of  the  duties  which  they  had  to 
perform,  i^virripeTeiadai  rep  iiri(TK6Tr<p  koX  ro7s 
Trpea^uTfpots,  Tovriari  diaKOPelp  (^Constitut. 
Apjst.  iii.  20) ;  tov  iirtcTKoirov  vTrrjperai  clai 
(Cone.  Nic.  c,  18).  “  Diaconus  ita  se  presbyteri 

et  episcoj)i  miuistrum  noverit  ”  (iv.  Cone.  Carth. 
c.  37  ;  comp.  l.  Cone.  Turon.  c.  1  ;  Cone.  Elib.  title 
of  c.  18,  and  c.  33).  In  the  last  named  canon, 
however,  the  heading  “  De  Episcopis  et  Ministris” 
includes  the  pre.sbyters  and  all  other  orders  of  ' 
the  clergy. 

They  are  also  continually  called  Levites,  from 
the  analogy  of  the  Mosaic  Dispensation ;  oi 
AeviTai  vpup  ot  pvp  hiaKOPOi  (^Constitut.  Apost. 
ii.  25) ;  Kevlrais  iSiai  diaxoplai  iiriKtiprai  (Clem. 


ad  Cor.  i.  40).  Jerome  (^Epist.  ad  Evangelum) 
compai’es  the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  with 
Aaron,  his  sons,  and  the  Levites  respectively. 
(Comp.  I.  Cone.  'Turon.  c.  1,  2.  Salvian,  ad 
Eccles.  Cathol.  ii.  394.) 

II.  Position  of  Deacons.  —  They  are  always 
spoken  of  in  conjunction  with  the  bishops  and 
priests  in  the  service  of  the  church.  The 
canons  of  the  councils  are  almost  invariably 
addressed  to  the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  as 
to  the  three  orders  of  whom  the  clergy  was 
composed,  and  the  same  rule  is  observed  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostolic  fathers  (See  Ign.  Trail. 
c.  3,  Philadelph.  c.  7  ;  Polycarp.  Philipp.  5  ;  Mar¬ 
tyr.  Ignatii,  3).  In  the  Constitutiones  Aposto- 
licae  (viii.  46)  they  are  said  to  be  ordained  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  priests  and  bishops ; 
and  in  another  place  (ii.  26,  28)  a  type  of  the 
threefold  operations  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  found 
in  the  distinctive  offices  of  bishops,  deacons, 
and  deaconesses.  In  many  respects,  indeed, 
their  position  was  put  on  a  level  with  that  of 
the  priests.  The  same  rules  apply  to  the  mar¬ 
ried  deacons  as  to  the  married  priests  (i.  Cone. 
Tolet.  1,  I.  Cone.  Turon.  2).  In  later  days  the 
oath  of  purgation  to  be  taken  by  a  deacon  was 
the  same  as  that  of  a  priest,  and  differed  from 
that  of  the  inferior  orders  of"  clergy  (Cone.  Ber- 
ghim.  c.  18,  19).  Their  share  of  the  first-fruits 
(uTrapxal)  offered  at  tlie  agape  was  the  same  as 
that  of  the  presbyters,  and  was  double  that 
allotted  to  the  irpeo'jSoTiScs  (^Constitut.  Apost. 
ii.  28).  Of  the  Eulogiae  which  remained  after 
the  administration  of  the  Euchari.-t,  the  bishop 
was  to  receive  four  portions,  the  presbyter  three, 
and  the  deacon  two  (^fbid.  viii.  30,  31).  In  some 
churches  it  would  seem  as  if  the  emoluments  of 
the  deacons  were  even  greater  than  those  of  the 
priests,  since  Jerome  warns  them  against  esti¬ 
mating  the  dignity  of  their  ecclesiastical  position 
by  its  pecuniary  results  :  “  Presbyter  noverit  se 
lucris  minorem,  sacerdotio  esse  majorem  ” 
(Hieronym.  Ep.  85,  ad  Evang.  comp.  Comm,  in 
Ezek.  c.  xlviii.). 

There  are  places  also  in  which  their  office  is 
spoken  of  as  sacerdotal  in  the  general  sense. 
Thus  Optatus  speaks  of  it  as  the  third  grade  * 
“Quid  commemorem  diaconos  in  tertio?  quid 
presbytei-os  in  secundo  sacerdotio  institutos?” 
(c.  Donatist.  lib.  i.  35).  Jerome  speaks  of  their 
ordination  to  a  priesthood  (sacerdotium)  in  com¬ 
mon  with  the  bLshops  and  priests  (Hieron.  Apolog. 
Jovini),  and  St.  Augustine  (^Ep.  16)  addresses 
one  Praesiduus  as  a  fellow  priest  (consacerdos),  of 
whom  Jerome,  in  the  epistle  that  follows,  speaks 
as  a  deacon. 

But  notwithstanding  such  expressions  as  these 
their  right  to  be  considered  as  in  any  way  par¬ 
takers  in  the  office  of  the  presbyter,  or  priest  in 
the  narrower  sense,  is  in  many  places  emphatic¬ 
ally  denied.  In  the  Quaestiones  it  is  held  impos¬ 
sible  that  a  deacon  can  in  any  case  discharge  the 
duties  of  a  priest  (sacerdotis),  since  he  is  in  no 
degree  a  partaker  of  the  priestly  office  (Quaest. 
Vet.  et  Nov.  Test  inter  Augustini  Opera,  N.  T., 
46) ;  deacons  are  inferior  to  priests  (Trpea^v- 
'  repoi,  i.  Cone.  Nic.  c.  18) ;  a  deacon  might  be 
ordained  by  one  bishop  only,  because  the  ordina- 
'  tion  was  only  to  a  ministerial,  not  a  priestly 
office  (non  ad  sacerdotium  sed  ad  ministerium 
consecratur,  iv.  Cone.  Carth.  4) ;  and  deacons 
distributed  the  consecrated  elements,  not  as 


528 


DEACON 


DEACON 


priests,  but  as  the  attendants  ujiou  priests  j 
(iep^vai,  Curi'ititut .  Apost.  viii.  28);  so  Ainbrosi-  j 
aster,  “  quanivis  non  sunt  sacerdotes  ”  (^Comm. 
Ep.  Ephes.  iv.  11).  j 

And  this  inferiority  of  office  was  marked  by  , 
the  position  given  them  in  the  discharge  of  the 
duties.  While  the  bishops  and  the  presbyters 
were  seated  on  their  thrones  in  the  church,  the 
deacons  were  to  stand  near  them  (^Constitut.  Apost. 
ii.  57).  The  first  council  of  Nice  (c.  18)  strictly 
forbade  a  deacon  to  sit  among  the  priests  as  con¬ 
trary  to  all  rule  and  order.  So  it  was  ordered 
that  a  deacon  might  only  be  seated  by  express 
permission  in  presence  of  a  priest  (irpecr/Surepov, 
Coiic.  Laod.  c.  20 ;  comp.  Cone.  Agatli.  c.  65,  iv. 
Cone.  Carth.  c.  39) ;  but  the  same  respect  was  to 
be  paid  to  the  deacons  by  the  subdeacons  and  in¬ 
ferior  clergy  (^fbid.).  So  it  is  said  that  even  the 
deacons  of  the  churches  at  Rome,  though  in¬ 
clined  to  presume  on  their  position,  did  not 
venture  to  seat  themselves  during  the  services 
(^Quaestiones,  Q.  i.  10);  and  the  testimony  of  Je¬ 
rome  confirms  this  :  “  In  ecclesia  Romae  presby- 
teri  sedent,  et  stant  diaconi  ”  (^Epis.  85,  ad  Evang.). 
So  I.  Cone.  Bareinon.  c.  4.  In  councils  their 
proper  position  was  standing,  as  is  apparent  in 
several  records  of  their  proceedings  ;  e.  g.  “  con- 
sidentibus  presbyteris,  adstantibus  diaconis  ” 
(l.  Cone.  Tolet.  Prooem.) ;  “  adstantibus  ministris 
vel  universe  clero  ”  (l.  Cone.  Bracar.  Prooem.)  ; 
and  this  was  strictly  enforced  by  canons ;  the 
priests  should  sit  at  the  back  of  the  bishops, 
and  the  deacons  stand  in  front  (iv.  Cone.  Tolet.  4). 
Deacons,  however,  who  held  ecclesiastical  offices 
(^6(p(p'Kia  iKK\r](TLa(rTiKa)  were  allowed  to  be 
seated,  but  on  no  account  before  any  presbyter, 
unless  they  represented  their  own  patriarch  or 
metropolitan  in  another  city,  in  which  case  they 
were  to  take  the  place  allotted  to  the  person 
whom  they  represented  (Cone.  Quinisext.  c.  7). 
Another  canon  provides  that  they  should  not  , 
speak  at  councils  unless  especially  bidden  (iv. 
Cone.  Carth.  c.  40).  [Councils,  p.  481.] 

Thus  in  every  way  their  position  appears  to  ■ 
have  been  associated  with  the  discharge  of  duties 
which  were  recognised  as  honourable  in  them¬ 
selves,  and  conferring  honour  on  those  to  whom 
they  were  entrusted,  yet  distinctly  marked  out 
as  ministerial  rather  than  sacerdotal,  and  care¬ 
fully  kept  apart  fi-om  those  which  specially  be¬ 
longed  to  the  priests. 

III.  Duties. — These  were  of  a  varied  nature, 
but  appear  to  have  been  in  every  case  suggested 
by  those  which  were  originally  allotted  to  them, 
and  to  be  comprehended  in  hi&Kovia  twv  rpa- 
TTf^wu,  as  distinguished  from  the  SiaKOu'ia  rod 
X6you. 

1.  They  were  stewards  of  the  property  of  the 
church  and  of  the  funds  belonging  to  the  widows 
and  orphans.  Thus  Cyprian  speaks  of  Nicostra- 
tus  as  having  not  only  robbed  the  church  but 
defrauded  the  widows  and  wards  (Cyp.  Ep.  49 
[rt/.  52],  ad  Cornelium).  So  Jerome  calls  the 
deacon  “niensarum  et  viduarum  minister” 
(Hieron.  Ep.  85,  ad  Evang.').  They  were  also 
to  distribute  the  oblations  (evXoylas)  which  re¬ 
mained  after  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist 
among  the  different  orders  of  the  clergy,  in 
the  regular  proportions  (Constitut.  Apost.  viii. 
c.  31). 

2.  They  were  almoners  of  the  charities  dis¬ 
pensed  by  the  church.  It  was  part  of  their  duty 


I  to  seek  out  and  visit  the  sick  .and  afflicted,  and 
i  report  to  the  bishop  respecting  such  as  were  m 
affliction  (Constitut.  Apost.  iii.  19).  But  all 
j  alms  were  to  be  distributed  strictly  under  the 
j  direction  of  the  bishop  ([bid.  ii.  cc.  31,  32,  34). 
They  were  also  to  select  the  aged  women  (irpecr- 
fivTepas)  invited  on  the  ground  of  poverty  to 
more  frequent  participation  in  the  aydirai  (Ibid. 
ii.  28). 

3.  The  discipline  of  the  church  was  in  a  great 
measure  intrusted  to  their  hands  as  the  imme¬ 
diate  ministers  of  the  bishop.  In  times  of  per¬ 
secution  it  was  their  duty  to  minister  to  the 
confessors  in  their  prisons,  and  to  bury  the 
bodies  of  the  martyrs  (Euseb.  H.E.  vii.  11). 
They  were  also  to  strengthen  the  fainthearted 
and  exhort  the  waverers.  Thus  it  was  one  of 
the  complaints  against  Xovatian  that  he  jier-' 
sisted  in  remaining  in  his  hiding-place  when 
exhorted  by  the  deacons  to  come  fortli  (Euseb. 
//.  E.  vi.  43).  If  any  for  misconduct  were  cast 
out  from  the  congregation,  the  deacons  were  to 
intercede  for  the  offender,  since,  it  is  added,  Christ 
intercedes  for  sinners  with  the  Father  (Constitut. 
Apost.  ii.  c.  16).  They  were  also  associated  with 
the  bishop  in  the  work  of  seeking  out  and  re¬ 
proving  offenders  ([bid.  ii.  c.  17).  As  deputies 
of  the  bishop  they  were  to  relieve  him  of  the 
lighter  cases  brought  for  adjudication,  leaving 
the  weightier  for  his  own  decision  (Ibid.  ii.  44), 
and  might  even,  in  his  absence,  take  charge  of 
the  diocese  (Bede,  //.  E.  ii.  20).  They  also  appear 
to  have  been  entrusted,  in  the  absence  of  a  pres¬ 
byter,  Avith  some  jurisdiction  over  the  inferior 
clergy  (Constitut.  Apost.  viii.  28).  When  any  of 
tlie  faithful  brought  letters  commendatory  from 
another  diocese,  they  were  to  examine  into  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  (Ibid.  ii.  58).  They 
were  also  frequently  sent  on  embassies  from 
one  church  to  another  (Ignat.  Philadelpk.  c.  10). 
They  also  sometimes  represented  their  bishops 
in  councils  (Cone.  Quinisex.  a.d.  691,  c.  7), 
though  this  was  forbidden  in  the  West,  on  the 
ground  that  a  deacon  being  inferior  to  the 
priests  (presbyteris  junior),  could  not  be  allowed 
to  sit  with  bishops  in  the  council  (Cone.  Emerit. 
A.D.  666,  c.  5).  Thomassin  however  asserts  that 
this  provincial  decree  Avas  neA'er  acted  upon 
(Nova  et  Vet.  Ecel.  Discip.  i.  2,  c.  23,  §  19).  At 
all  councils  a  deifcon  was  to  re?id  the  decrees 
by  Avhich  the  proceedings  Avere  regulated  (caj'itula 
de  conciliis  agendis)  before  the  business  com¬ 
menced  (iv.  Cone.  Tolet.  4).  It  appears  also  to 
haA'e  been  the  duty  of  the  deacons  on  the.se  occa¬ 
sions  to  keep  the  doors,  and  call  for  those  Avhose 
presence  Avas  required  before  the  council  (CoeLw 
Ecel.  Afrieanae,  c.  100). 

4.  In  other  respects  they  Avere  to  be  channels  of 
communication  betAveen  the  bishop  and  the  laitv 
(Constitut.  Apost.  ii.  28).  All  the  olferings  of 
the  people  (ras  dvalas  1)toi  vpoaepopas,  fas 
d-rrapxd’S  Kal  rds  Se/edras  xal  ra  Ixovata),  Avhen 
not  made  directly  to  the  bishop,  Avere  to  be  j)re- 
sented  to  him  through  their  hands  (I bkl.  ii.  27). 
So  various  Avere  their  duties  in  relation  to  the 
bishop  that  thev  are  called  in  one  place  his  ears 
and  eyes  and  mouth  and  heart  (Ibid.  ii.  44);  iq 
another  his  soul  and  perception  (^puxh  Kal  aicr- 
O-qais,  Ibid.  iii.  19). 

5.  These  duties  Avere  connected  Avith  the  Sio- 
Kovia  T<t)v  TpaiTf^wv,  as  relating  to  the  mate¬ 
rial  needs  of  the  community.  Another  class  of 


DEACON 


DEACON 


529 


duties  arose  from  the  “ministry  of  the  Table,” 
considered  in  relation  to  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist.  Thomassin  says  that,  although  the 
occasion  for  instituting  the  order  of  deacons  arose 
from  the  necessities  of  the  common  table,  yet 
that  ft  also  had  reference  to  the  celebration  of 
the  Eucharist,  “  ad  sacram  mensam,  quae  tunc  a 
civili  non  divellebant  ”  ( Fef.  et  Nova  Discip. 
Ecd.  i.  1,  c.  51,  §4;  comp.  Wordswoxdh,  Comm. 
in  Acts  vi.  2,  and,  there  quoted,  Bishop  Pearson, 
“  In  communi  victu  sacrameutum  Eucharistiae 
celebrabant  ”). 

a.  They  were  to  provide  for  the  maintenance 
of  order  in  the  congi’egations  during  the  per¬ 
formance  of  the  various  services.  They  were  to 
see  that  all  the  congregation  took  the  places 
allotted  to  them,  that  no  one  lingered  in  the  en¬ 
trance,  or  whispered,  or  slept,  or  in  any  way 
misbehaved  during  the  service  (^Consiitut.  Apost. 
ii.  57,  viii.  11).  So  Chrysostom  says,  “if  any 
misbehave,  call  the  deacon”  (^Hom.  24  in  Acta)’, 
and  they  were  to  be  particularly  careful  in  as¬ 
signing  honourable  places  and  giving  a  cordial 
welcome  to  the  poor  and  aged  and  to  strangers 
(Const itut.  Apost.  ii.  58).  They  were  to  stand 
at  the  men’s  gate  lest  any  should  go  in  or  out 
during  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  (Ibid. 
viii.  11).  They  also  discharged  the  lesser  offices 
belonging  to  the  Lord’s  Table  ;  they  arranged 
the  altar,  placed  on  it  the  sacred  vessels,  and 
brought  water  for  the  hands  of  the  officiating 
priest.  Their  duty  was  to  minister  both  to  bishops 
and  priests  in  things  pertaining  to  their  several 
offices,  that  all  things  relating  to  the  worship  of 
God  might  be  rightly  celebrated  (Ibid.  viii.  46). 
These  duties,  however,  in  large  churches  where 
there  were  many  clergy,  devolved  on  those  be¬ 
longing  to  the  inferior  orders :  “  ut  autem  non 
omnia  obsequiorum  per  ordinem  agant  multitude 
Licit  clericorum.  Nam  utique  et  altare  porta- 
rent,  et  vasa  ejus  et  aquam  in  manus  funderent 
sacerdotis,  sicut  videmus  per  omnes  ecolesias  ” 
(Quaestiunes,  Q.  101);  and  in  another  place  it  is 
ordered  that  the  subdeacon  should  pour  the 
water  on  the  hands  of  the  officiating  priest,  dird- 
vii^iv  xeipoij/  toTs  tepevai  (Constitut.  Apost. 
viii.  11).  But  there  are  decrees  of  councils 
strictly  forbidding  the  inferior  orders  of  clergy 
(vm^peras)  to  enter  the  Diaconicum  or  touch 
the  sacred  vessels  (Cone.  Laodic.  c.  21,  Agath. 
c.  66).  In  the  decree  of  the  latter  council 
virriperas  is  rendered  “  insacratos  ministros.” 
The  second  canon  of  the  first  council  of  Toledo 
orders  that  a  deacon  who  had  been  subjected  to 
public  penance  should  only  be  received  among 
the  subdeacons,  so  that  he  might  not  handle  the 
sacred  v'essels  ;  and  it  was  expressly  ordered  that 
the  deacons  should  take  the  remains  of  the  con¬ 
secrated  elements  into  the  Pastophoria  or  Sacristy 
(Constitut.  Apost.  viii.  1.3). 

It  was  their  duty  also  to  present  the  offerings 
of  the  people  at  the  altar,  proclaiming  at  the 
same  time  the  names  of  those  who  had  made 
them  ;  ol  diaKouoi  irpoa’a-yeTcvaav  ra  Swpa  tw 
eTTKTKSTTcp  Trphs  rh  Ovaiaa'T^pioy  (Con  tit'd.  Apost. 
viii.  12).  “  Public^  diaconus  in  ecclesia  recitet 

offerentium  nomina,  tantum  offert  ille,  tantum 
ille  pollicitus  e.st  ”  CHieron.  Comm,  in  Ezekiel. 
XViii.).  [DtFTYCHS.] 

They  had  also  an  important  part  to  fill  in  the 
service  itself.  At  the  commencement  of  the 
Communion  Office  the  deacon  who  ministered 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


was  to  stand  near  the  bishop  and  proclaim  with 
a  loud  voice  :  /j-titis  Kara  rivhs,  /jlt)tis  iv  vtto- 
Kpicrei,  “  let  none  come  who  has  ought  against 
any  one,  none  in  hypocrisy  ”  (Constitut.  Apost. 
ii.  54,  57,  §  12).  The  reading  of  the  Gospel  was 
allotted  either  to  a  deacon  or  to  a  presbyter 
(Ibid.  ii.  57,  §  5) ;  though  in  some  churches  it 
appears  to  have  been  the  special  office  of  the 
deacon,  “  Evangelium  Christ!  quasi  diaconus 
lectitabas”  (Hieron.  Epist.  cd  Sabin.).  Sozomen 
says  of  the  church  at  Alexandria,  that  the 
archdeacon  only  read  the  Gospel,  but  in  other 
churches  the  duty  was  discharged  by  the  dea¬ 
cons,  and  in  many  only  by  the  priests  (Soz.  II. 
E.  vii.  19).  The  second  council  of  Vaison  ad¬ 
mitted  that  a  deacon,  in  the  absence  of  a  priest, 
might  be  permitted  to  read  a  homily  of  the 
Fathers  in  the  church,  on  the  ground  that  they 
who  were  worthy  to  read  the  Gospel  of  Christ 
were  not  unworthy  to  recite  expositions  of  the 
Fathers  (ii.  Cone.  Vasense,  c.  2),  and  for  this 
reason  it  was  forbidden  that  a  deacon  should  be 
a]^  pointed  who  could  not  read  (Cone.  Narhon. 
c.  11  ;  comp.  Cyprian,  Ep.  34,  al.  39).  It  was 
perhaps  in  allusion  to  this  part  of  their  office 
that  the  duty  was  assigned  to  them  of  holding 
the  Gospels  over  the  head  of  a  bishop  at  the 
time  of  his  ordination  (Constitut.  Apost.  rdii.  4). 

The  deacon  appointed  for  the  purpose  was  also 
to  give  the  signal  for  the  departure  of  the  unbe¬ 
lievers  (Ibid.  cc.  5,  12),  to  recite  the  appointed 
prayers  for  the  catechumens,  the  energumens, 
those  preparing  for  baptism,  and  the  penitents, 
and  to  dismiss  each  class  in  its  proper  order 
(Ibid.  viii.  cc.  6,  7,  8).  He  was  to  m.ake  the 
proclamation  which  was  the  signal  for  the  kiss 
of  peace  (Ibid.  ii.  c.  57),  and  to  recite  the  prayer 
for  the  universal  church  (Ibid.  ii.  57,  viii.  9,  10, 
11,  13,  35).  Thus  Chrysostom  (Horn.  14  in 
Rom.)  speaks  of  the  deacon  offering  the  prayers 
on  behalf  of  the  people  (tov  Stjjlcou).  In  the 
Liturgy  given  in  the  C'.nstitutiones  under  the 
name  of  St.  James,  it  is  ordered  that  two  deacons 
should  stand  by  the  altar  bearing  fans  [Fla- 
bellum]  made  of  fine  membrane,  or  peacock’s 
feathers,  or  linen,  to  drii^e  away  flies  or  insects 
fx'om  the  sacred  elements  (Constitut.  Apost.  viii. 
c.  12). 

At  the  administration  of  the  Holy  Communion 
it  was  the  duty  of  the  deacons  to  receive  the 
consecrated  elements  from  the  officiating  minister 
in  order  to  distribute  them  among  those  who 
were  present,  and  to  convey  them  to  the  absent 
(Justin  Martyr,  Apolog.  viii.  c.  2);  “  Diaconi 
ordo  est  accipei'e  a  sacerdote  et  sic  dare  plebi  ” 
(Quaestiones,  101).  But  their  peculiar  office  was 
the  administration  of  the  cup ;  o  SiaKovos  Kare- 
XcVco  rb  TroTT)piov  (Constitut.  Apost.  viii.  c.  13); 
“  solennibus  adimpletis  diaconus  offerre  prae- 
sentibus  coepit  ”  (Cyprian,  De  Lapses,  c.  25). 
They  were  strictly  forbidden  to  distribute  the 
bread  if  a  priest  was  present  (ii.  Cone.  Arelat. 
c.  15),  unless  some  necessity  arose  for  doing  so, 
and  they  were  bidden  to  do  so  by  the  priest 
(iv.  Cone.  Carth.  c.  38).  But  it  was  carefully 
noted  that  the  deacon  only  acted  as  the  suboi-di- 
nate  of  the  priest  (Constitut.  Apost.  viii.  28), 
and  had  no  right  whatever  to  ofl’er  the  sacrifice 
(Ibid.  viii.  46).  Priests  under  censure  are  de¬ 
prived  of  the  privilege  of  consecrating,  deacons 
'  of  ministering  (Cone.  Agath.  c.  1);  and  it  was 
forbidden  that  they  should  give  the  consecrated 


530 


DEACON 


DEACON 


bread  to  the  priests,  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
unseemly  that  those  who  had  no  power  to  conse¬ 
crate  should  administer  to  those  who  had  (i.  Gone. 
Nic.  c.  18).  So  .Jerome  says  of  Hilaidus,  the 
deacon,  that  he  had  no  power  without  priests  or 
bishops  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist,  “  Eucharistiam 
conficere  ”  (\\\Q.Yon.  contra  Lucifer.').  And  though 
the  right  of  consecration  appears  to  have  been 
assumed  in  some  jdaces,  it  was  strictly  forbidden 
(i.  Cone.  Arclat.  c.  15). 

There  are,  however,  two  passages  which  may 
seem  to  favour  the  idea  that  deacons  had  some¬ 
times  power  to  consecrate.  One  of  these  is  the 
decree  of  the  council  of  Ancyra,  which  forbids 
deacons  who  have  offered  sacrifice  to  idols  to 
offer  either  the  bread  or  the  wine,  &pTov 
TTOTTjpLou  avdcpepfiu  (^Conc.  Ancijr.  c.  2).  But 
tliis  undoubtedly  refers  either  to  the  ottering  the 
oblations  which  preceded  the  prayer  of  consecra¬ 
tion  (Thomass.  Vet.  et  Kov.  Eccl.  Discip.  i.  2, 
c.  29,  §  14),  or  to  the  distribution  of  the  ele¬ 
ments  after  consecration  (Bingham,  Antiquities^ 
ii.  c.  20,  §7;  comp.  Suicer,  Thesaurus.,  t.  1, 

р.  871).  The  other  is  the  speech  put  by- 
St.  Ambrose  into  the  mouth  of  Laurentius,  the 
deacon,  when  meeting  his  bishop,  Sixtus,  on 
the  way  to  his  martyrdom:  “  Cui  commisisti 
Dominici  sanguinis  consecrationem,  cui  con- 
summandorum  consortium  sacramentorum  ” 
(Ambros.  De  Offic.  i.  41).  But  this  doubtful 
expression  seems  interpreted  by  the  words  im¬ 
mediately  preceding,  “  nunquam  sacrificium 
sine  ministro  offerre  consueveras,”  the  “offerre 
consueveras  ”  clearly  referring  to  Sixtus  him¬ 
self  The  “  sanguinis  consecrationem  ”  probably 
merely  means  “sanguinem  consecratum,”  and 
the  duty  attributed  to  the  deacons  was  the  ser¬ 
vice  they  always  performed  after  consecration 
— uTTTjpeTOU/ievoi  Tov  Kvplov  (rd/xari  /aera 
<p6^ov  {Const  tut.  Apost.  ii.  57 ;  see  Bingham, 
Antiquities,  ii.  26,  §  8). 

After  the  admini.stration  the  deacons  were  to 
take  away  what  remained  of  the  sacr*ed  elements 
into  the  sacristy,  to  recite  {uiqpvTT^iv)  the  Post- 
Communion  Prayer,  and  dismiss  the  people  {Con- 
stitut.  Apost.  viii.  cc.  13,  35,  40).  Thus  it  is  said 
that  Athanasius  commanded  his  deacon  Krjpv^ai 
€vxhv  (Soc.  LI.  E.  ii.  11),  and  Kiqpvrreiv  is 
mentioned  among  the  sacred  offices  from  the 
performance  of  which  the  deacons  who  had  wor¬ 
shipped  idols  were  to  be  suspended  {Cone.  Ancyr. 

с.  2).  It  was  ordered  by  the  fourth  council  of 
Toledo  (c.40),  that  the  deacon  (Levita)  should 
wear  a  stole  over  the  left  shoulder,  “  propter 
quod  orat,  id  est,  praedicat.”  Chrysostom  too 
calls  the  deacons  KripvKes  {Horn.  17  in  Hch.  ix.). 
Thomassin  says  that  the  word  Kr]pvTT(iy,  used 
by  the  council  of  Ancyra,  expressed  the  recital  of 
the  prayers  and  exhortations  and  the  reading  of 
the  Gosjiels,  which  were  done  with  raised  voice 
(Thomassin,  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discip.  i.  2,  c.  29, 
§  14 ;  comp.  Suicer,  Thes.  in  voc.  K-qpvTTHv). 

)3.  It  appears  that  the  daily  services  in  district 
churches  were  sometimes  entrusted  to  the  dea¬ 
cons  and  priests  in  alternate  weeks.  In  this  case 
both  presbyters  and  deacons  were  to  assemble  on 
the  Saturday  evening,  that  the  Sunday-  services 
might  be  celebrated  with  due  honour  {Cone. 
Tarracon.  c.  7).  The  council  of  Eliberis  (c.  77) 
also  speaks  of  a  deacon  in  charge  of  a  parish, 
without  either  priest  or  bishop,  “  regens  plebem 
&ine  episcopo  vel  presbytero.” 


y.  It  does  not  appear  that  preaching  was  among 
the  duties  which  were  usually  entrusted  to  dea¬ 
cons,  though  Philip  and  Stephen  undoubtedly  did 
j)reach.  Hilary,  the  commentator,  holds  that  in 
the  earliest  days  of  the  church,  all  the  faithful 
both  preached  and  baptized,  but  that  afterwards  a 
different  cour.se  was  ado[)ted,  and  separate  offices 
assigned  to  different  members,  so  that  in  his 
days  the  deacons  did  not  preach,  though  he  says 
that  at  first  all  deacons  were  evangelists,  and 
had  commission  given  them  to  preach,  though 
without  any  settled  charge  (sine  cathedra) 
{Comm,  in  Ephes.  iv.  11,  in  Ambrose’s  Works). 
Tet  that  some  faculty  of  preaching  was  inherent 
in  the  office,  at  least  at  the  command  of  the 
bishop,  appears  from  the  language  of  Philostor- 
gius  (//.  E.  iii.  17),  where  he  say-s  that  Leontius 
ordained  Aetius  as  a  deacon,  in  order  that  he 
might  teach  in  the  church,  but  that  he  declined 
to  undertake  the  other  duties  of  a  deacon,  only 
accepting  that  of  preaching  (SiSdcr/cct.v  dveSe- 
^aro)  ;  and  though  Leontius  was  a  heretic,  the 
words  seem  to  indicate  that  this  was  reckoned 
among  the  ordinary  functions  of  a  deacon.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  duty  of  preaching  could  not 
have  belonged  to  them  in  the  Western  church 
in  ordinary  cases,  since  Caesari us,  bbshop  of  Arles, 
in  giving  permission  to  the  priests  and  deacons 
in  his  diocese  to  read  certain  homilies  to  the 
people,  when  he  himself  could  no  longer  preach 
to  them  thi'ough  the  infirmities  of  age,  gives  as 
the  ground  of  his  permission  that,  since  they 
were  allowed  to  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the 
church,  it  could  not  be  wrong  for  them  to  read 
homilies  composed  by  himself  or  by-  other  fathers 
of  the  church  (Thomass.  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Disnp. 
ii.  1,  c.  89,  §8,  9),  words  adopted  by  the  second 
council  of  Vaison,  already  quoted.  And  so  Vigi- 
lius  in  his  letter  to  two  deacons,  Rusticus  and 
Sebastian,  speaks  of  their  execrable  pride  in 
venturing  to  preach  without  permission  of  the 
bishop,  as  contrary  to  all  precedent  and  canon  law, 
“  contra  omnem  consuetudinem  vel  canones  ” 
(Labbe,  Cone.  v.  p.  554). 

5.  They  had  also  certain  duties  to  perform  at  the 
administration  of  baptism.  It  was  to  be  admi¬ 
nistered  by  bishops  and  priests  only-,  with  the 
assistance  of  the  deacons  (e^uTTTjperou/xeVwv  avTois 
rwu  5iaK6uwv  {Constitut.  Apost.  iii.  c.  11).  They 
had  to  undertake  the  preliminary  enquiries  into 
the  circumstances  of  the  candidates  {Ibid.  viii. 
c.  32).  They  were  to  apply  the  unction  which 
preceded  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  to 
the  foreheads  of  the  women  {Ibid.  iii.  c.  15),  and 
to  undertake  all  the  nece.ssary  arrangements  for 
the  male  candidates  {Ibid.  iii.  16).  [Baptism.] 
It  was  theii  duty,  or  that  of  the  subdeacons, 
to  fetch  the  Chrism  from  the  bishop  before 
Easter  (ii.  Cone.  Bra/',  c.  51,  i.  Tolet.  20). 

But  they  were  strictly  forbidden  to  assume 
that  the  administration  of  baptism  was  one.  of 
the  functions  of  their  office.  In  the  Aposh  lic 
Canons  and  Constitutions,  the  decrees  concerning 
baptism  are  directed  only-  to  bishops  and  priest.s, 
though  the  other  general  canons  are  addressed 
to  all  three  orders  of  the  ministry-  {Canones, 
c.  39,  41,  42  ;  Constitut.  viii.  c.  22).  The  Consti¬ 
tutions,  too,  distinctly-  assert  that  it  is  not  lawful 
for  a  deacon  to  baptize  (viii.  c.  28,  iii.  c.  11, 
vii.  c.  46).  In  the  latter  passage  it  is  added, 
that  if  any  argument  is  drawn  from  the  fact 
of  baptism  being  administered  by  Philip  aad 


DEACON 


DEACON 


531 


Ananias,  it  is  for  want  of  perceiving  that  these  | 
men  were  specially  appointed  for  these  duties  by  , 
the  Lord,  the  High-Priest.  Epiphauius  ‘asserts 
that  no  deacon  was  ever  entrusted  with  tlie 
administration  of  a  sacrament  {ixvtJT-iipiov  eVt- 
-eAe?;/;  Haeres.  79,  cap.  4).  So  Hilary,  while 
asserting  that  all  the  faithful  were  once  ac¬ 
customed  to  baptize,  adds,  “  nunc  neque  clerici 
vel  laid  baptizant  ”  {Com.  in  Eph.  iv.  11,  in 
Ambrose’s  TPor^s). 

Yet  it  appears  that  they  were  permitted  to 
baptize  by  command  of  a  bishop,  or  when  in 
charge  of  a  parish  without  a  presbyter.  The 
right  of  baptizing  resides  generally  in  the  bishop 
[Baptism,  p.  166],  but  from  him  may  be  com¬ 
municated  both  to  priests  and  deacons  (Tertul- 
lian.  Be  Baptismo,  c.  17).  So  a  decree  of  the 
j  5th  century,  speaking  of  the  necessity  of  a  holy 
life  even  for  the  laity,  adds,  how  much  more  is 
this  necessary  for  priests  and  deacons,  since 
they  may  be  called  at  any  moment  to  offer 
the  sacrifice  or  baptize  ?  (i.  Cone.  Turon.  1).  In 
another  decree  it  is  ordered  that  if  a  deacon 
having  charge  of  a  parish  (regens  plebem)  with¬ 
out  a  bishop  or  presbyter  should  have  baptized 
any,  the  bishop  should  confirm  it  by  his  blessing, 

“  per  benedictionem  perficere  debebit  ”  {Cone. 
Elib.  77) ;  and  again,  in  another,  it  is  provided 
that  while  priests,  in  cases  of  urgent  sickness, 
may  baptize  at  any  season  of  the  year,  deacons 
may  only  do  so  at  Easter  {Synod.  Rom.  a.d. 
384?  c.  7,  in  Bruns’s  Canones,  ii.  278);  and 
Jerome,  speaking  of  those  who  in  remote  places 
were  baptized  by  priests  and  deacons,  places  the 
right  of  both  to  baptize  on  exactly  the  same 
footing,  as  derived  from  the  license  of  the  bishop 
and  the  possession  of  the  chrism,  “sine  chrismate 
et  episcopi  jussione  neque  presbyteri  neque 
diaconi  jus  habeant  baptizandi  ”  {Dial,  contra 
Luciferum,  c.  4).  It  seems  then  that,  at  least  in 
the  Western  Church,  the  deacons  were  permitted 
to  baptize  when  the  bishop  gaA-e  them  authority 
and  sent  them  the  chrism.  Thomassin  however 
(i.  2,  c.  29,  §  14),  thinks  they  had  less  liberty 
in  this  respect  in  the  Eastern  Church. 

e.  The  power  of  receiving  penitents  appears 
generally  to  have  been  confined  to  bishops  and 
presbyters ;  yet  this  rule  was  not  invariable. 
Thus  Cyprian  allow's  deacons  to  receive  confession 
(exomologesin)  and  bestow  the  parting  blessing 
in  the  case  of  those  penitents  who  had  obtained 
“  libelli  ”  and  were  prex^ented  by  the  near  ap¬ 
proach  of  death  from  receiving  absolution  at  the 
hands  of  a  priest  {Ep.  13,  al.  18,  ad  Cler.).  A 
decree  of  the  first  council  of  Toledo  (c.  2)  pro¬ 
vides  that  those  deacons  w’ho  had  performed 
public  penance  should  be  reduced  to  the  order  of 
subdeacons  lest  they  should  lay  hands  on  any. 
But  it  is  probable  that  this  w’as  not  the  act 
W'hich  conferred  absolution,  but  only  a  ceremony 
w'hich  went  before  the  reception  of  the  Eucharist 
and  prepared  the  penitent  for  its  administration 
(Thomass.  Vet.  et  Bov.  Eccl.  Disc.  i.  2,  c.  29,  §  8). 
A  decree  of  the  council  of  Eliberis  (c.  32)  pro¬ 
vides  that  in  certain  cases  of  urgent  necessity, 
and  at  the  command  of  a  bishop,  the  deacon  may 
receive  a  penitent  to  communion.  But  this  pro¬ 
bably  only  meant  that  the  deacons  might  convey 
the  consecrated  elements,  which,  as  in  the  case 
of  Serapion  recorded  by  Eusebius  (//.  E.  vi.  44), 
might  be  sent  even  by  a  child  (Thomassin,  i..2. 
c.  29  §  9). 


In  these  cases  their  duties  w'ere  evidently  only 
ministerial  and  strictly  limited  to  the  subor 
dinate  functions  belonging  to  their  office.  Theii 
riglit  to  bestow  any  blessing  on  their  own 
authority  is  plainly  denied  {Constitut.  Apust.  viii. 
28,  46).  [Benediction  ;  Dominus  Vobiscum.] 

f.  From  their  bearing  the  chairs  of  priests 
and  bishops  (iv.  Cone.  Brag.  Proem,  c.  5),  it 
would  appear  that  in  some  churches  they  were 
expected  to  perform  duties  scarcely  consistent 
wdth  the  dignity  of  their  office.  But  their 
general  tendency  appears  to  have  been  either 
to  claim  functions  which  did  not  belong  to 
them  (i.  Cone.  Arelat.  c.  15;  Cone.  Qninisext.  c. 
16),  or  to  assume  a  precedence  which  may  in¬ 
dicate  that  they  were  in  some  ca.ses  superior  to 
the  priests  in  wealth  or  social  position.  Thus 
they  are  rebuked  for  administering  in  some 
churches  the  Eucharist  to  priests  and  partaking 
of  it  even  before  bishops  and  presuming  to  sit 
among  the  priests  (i.  Cone.  Aic.  c.  18);  for  their 
pride  in  sitting  in  the  first  choir  and  comjielling 
[iriests  to  take  their  places  in  the  second  (iv.  Cone. 
Tolet.  c.  39) ;  for  claiming  precedence  at  coun¬ 
cils  of  presbyters  when  they  held  any  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  office  {Cone.  Quinisext.  c.  7);  for  exciting 
seditions  against  the  bishop  {Constitut.  Ap:  st. 
ii.  32);  for  bestowing  the  benediction  at  private 
banquets  in  presence  of  priests  (Hieron.  Ep.  85 
ad  Evang.') ;  and  for  esteeming  themselves,  on 
account  of  their  superior  wealth,  as  of  higher 
dignity  than  the  priests  {Idem  Comm,  in  Ezek. 
xlviii.). 

7).  Deacons  were  strictly  limited  in  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  their  office  to  the  parishes  for  which  they 
were  appointed,  and  there  are  many  decrees  of 
councils  forbidding  them  to  wander  elsewhere 
without  the  consent  of  the  bishop  {Canones 
Apost.  c.  12;  i.  Cone.  Nic.  c.  15;  Cone.  Quini¬ 
sext.  c.  17;  i.  Arelat.  c,  21;  ii.  Bracar.  c.  34; 
Agath.  c.  52). 

IV.  Promotion  to  a  higher  order.  —  It  has 
been  doubted  whether  in  the  earliest  ages  ad¬ 
mission  to  the  diaconate  implied,  or  was  a 
necessary  preliminary  to,  advancement  to  the 
priesthood.  That  this  was  the  case  has  been  in¬ 
ferred  from  the  words  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy — 
ol  KaXoSs  SiaKovfjaavres  fiaOphu  eavroTs  KaXhv 
TTfpnroiovpTai  (1  Tim.  iii.  13).  See  Dictionary 
OF  THE  Bible,  i.  417.  It  is  undoubtedly  true : — 
1.  That  in  later  times  fiadphs  was  used  as  a  tech¬ 
nical  term  denoting  degrees  of  ecclesiastical  office. 
So  it  was  said  of  Athanasius,  irao'ap  ttjv  twp 
fiadpup  cLKoXovQiap  die^eXdtop  (Greg.  Naz.  Orat. 
21),  and  in  that  sense  it  repeatedly  occurs  in 
the  decrees  of  councils  {Cone.  Eph.  c.  6 
Chalcedon.  c.  29 ;  Quinisext.  c.  13).  2.  That  the 

elevation  of  deacons  to  the  priesthood  was  part  of 
the  system  of  the  church  in  after  years.  Thus  it 
was  ordered  that  deacons  who  maintained  com¬ 
munication  w'ith  their  wives  should  not  be  ele¬ 
vated  to  the  priesthood  (i.  Cone.  Tolet.  c.  1), 
“  ad  ulteriorem  gradum  non  ascendat  ”  (a.  Cone. 
Turon.  2).  So,  in  the  Quaestiones,  the  priest  is 
spoken  of  as  being  ordained  from  among  the  dea¬ 
cons,  “ex  diaconis  presbyterus  ordinatur  "{Quat  st. 
Q.  101).  And  so  Jerome  argues  the  higher 
office  of  the  priesthood  from  the  fact  that 
the  diaconate  was  a  step  to  the  priesthood,  “ex 
diacono  ordinatur  presbyter”  (Hieron.  Epist. 
ad  Evang.).  But  many  deacons  appear  to  have 
grown  old  and  died  without  promotion  to  the 

2.  M 


DEACON 


532  DEACON 

priesthood  (Thomassin,  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Dlscip. 
i.  2,  0.33,  §9). 

V.  Vebtments.  —  Concerning  the  dress  of  a 
deacon,  it  was  ordained  that  when  engaged  in 
the  services  of  the  altar  their  apparel  should 
not  be  too  flowing,  with  a  view  to  the  ready 
performance  of  their  duties,  for  they  are  like 
sailors  and  boatswains  (roixc^px®**)  in  a  ship 
(^Constitut.  Apost.  ii.  57).  They  were  to  wear 
a  plain  stole,  “  orarium,”  unadorneil  with  gold 
or  colours,  on  the  left  shoulder,  the  right  being 
left  free,  to  typify  the  expedition  with  which 
they  were  to  discharge  their  .sacred  functions  (iv. 
Co7ic.  Ti/let.  c.  40).  The  manner  of  wearing  the 
stole  distinguished  them  from  the  priests;  the 
stole  it.self  was  the  mark  of  their  office,  since  the 
inferior  clergy  were  expressly  forbidden  to  wear 
it  {Co'.ic.  Laod.  c.  22,  23).  Due  care  was  to 
be  taken  that  this  distinctive  portion  of  the 
dress  was  clearly  seen,  “  non  licet  diacono  v’elo 
vel  palla  scapulas  suas  involvi  ”  (Cone.  Auttss. 
c.  13).  In  another  decree  notice  is  taken  of  cer¬ 
tain  deacons  who  were  accustomed  to  wear  their 
stoles  hidden  beneath  their  albs,  so  as  to  re¬ 
semble  a  subdeacon’s,  and  they  are  ordered  to 
display  it  openly  for  the  future  on  the  shoulder 
(i.  Cmic.  Brae.  c.  9).  Those  who  had  been  tem¬ 
porarily  deposed  for  any  offence  were  presented 
on  their  reconciliation  with  an  alb  and  a  stole,  as 
symbols  of  their  restoration  to  their  office 
(iv.  Cone.  Tolet.  c.  28).  It  was  to  the  stole  that 
St,  Chrysostom  alluded  when  he  saw  a  vision  of 
the  wings  of  ministering  angels  in  the  fine  linen 
that  floated  over  the  left  shoulders  of  those  en¬ 
gaged  in  the  service  of  the  altar  (rais  Xeirrals 
oB6vais  Tats  iirl  rcav  apiffTcpup  io/xeay  K€iiJ.4vais ; 
Chrysost.  Horn,  in  Fil.  Prodig.').  [Stole.]  The 
alb  was  to  be  worn  only  at  the  time  of  ministering 
at  the  altar,  or  reading’  the  Gospels — “  Diaconus 
tempoi’e  oblationis  tantum  vel  lectionis  albal 
utatur  ”  (iv.  Cunc.  Carthag.  41 ;  Cone.  Narbon. 
c.  12),  or  when  performing  the  duty  of  the  dea¬ 
con  at  the  opening  of  councils  (iv.  Cone.  Tolet. 
c.  4).  And  this  renders  more  emphatic  a  rebuke 
administered  to  certain  priests  and  bishops  who 
were  accustomed  on  great  festivals  to  be  borne 
on  chairs  or  litters  by  deacons  in  albs — “  albatis 
diaconibus  ”  (iv.  Cone.  Brae.  Proem.  &c.  c.  5). 
They  also  wore  a  Dalmatic  (which  see). 

VI.  Number  of  Deacons.  —  The  number  of 
deacons  allotted  to  each  church  appears  to  have 
varied.  The  council  of  Neocaesarea  (c.  15)  or¬ 
dained  that  thei’e  should  be  seven  deacons  and 
no  more  in  every  city,  however  large,  since  that 
number  had  been  ordained  by  the  apostles  (comp. 
Cone.  Q'linisext.  c.  16),  and  this  appears  to  have 
been  the  normal  number  in  many  churches 
(Constitut.  Aj:ost.  viii.  cc.  4,  46  ;  Euseb.  H.  E. 

vi.  43 ;  Hilary,  Comm,  in  1  Tim.  iii.  8).  But 
the  later  practice  appears  to  have  been  as  stated 
by  Sozomen,  that  the  church  of  Rome  retained 
the  number  of  .seven  deacons,  as  instituted  by 
the  apostles,  but  that  other  churches  acted 
according  to  their  owu  convenience  (Soz.  H.  E. 

vii.  19).  The  number  of  deacons  seems,  how¬ 
ever,  to  have  been  generally  small ;  for  St. 
Jerome  states  that  deacons  derived  a  dignity  not 
belonging  to  their  office  from  their  paucity  in 
number — “  Diaconos  paucitas  honorabilcs,  pres- 
byteros  tui-ba  facit  contemtibiles  ”  (Epist.  ad 
Evang.). 

VII.  Age. — The  age  at  which  deacons  were 


allowed  to  be  ordained  was  universally  fixed  at 
twenty-five  (iii.  Cone.  Carth.  c.  4  ;  Cone.  Agath. 
c.  16:  Cone.  Quinisext.  c,  14;  iv.  Cone.  Tolet. 
c.  20  ;  iii.  Cone.  Aurcl.  c.  6) ;  but  Thomassin 
relates  that  Caesarius,  bishop  of  Arles,  would 
not  permit  any  deacon  to  be  ordained  in  his 
diocese  who  was  undei  the  age  of  thiity,  and 
who  had  not  read  four  times  all  the  books  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  (  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl. 
Discip.  ii.  1,  c.  89,  §  8). 

VIII.  Jurisdiction  over. — A  deacon  could  only 
be  judged  by  three  bishops  (i.  Coric.  Cart'),  c.  11  ; 
ii.  Cone.  Carth.  c.  10,  but  Bruns  gives  a  different 
reading  of  this  canon)  of  whom  one  was  to  be 
his  own  diocesan  (iii.  Cone.  Carth.  c.  8).  See 
Degradation,  p.  542. 

IX.  Diaconus  in  Monasteries.  In  monasteines 

the  name  of  deacon  was  sometimes  given  to  those 
who  discharged  the  office  of  steward  and  almoner 
—  “  oeconomi  et  dispensatoris  ”  [Oeconomus] 
(Thomass.  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discip.  iii.  2,  c.  3, 
§4;3,  c.  29,  §23.)  [P.  0.] 

X.  Cat'dined  Deacon. — A  cardinal  deacon  (dia¬ 
conus  cardinalis)  was  in  ancient  times  a  deacon 
who  was  permanently  attached  (incardinatur) 
to  a  particular  church  (Gregory  the  Great,  Epist. 
V.  2 ;  see  Cardinal,  p.  289). 

The  name  cardinal  seems  also  to  have  been 
given  to  the  deacon  to  whom  seniority  or  pre¬ 
eminence  among  his  fellows  had  been  assigned  by 
competent  authority.  So  Gregory  the  Great, 
writing  to  Liberatus,  a  deacon  at  Cagliari  (Epist. 
i.  81),  warns  him  not  to  set  himself  above  the 
other  deacons,  unless  he  had  been  made  cardinal 
by  the  bishop.  Under  Charlemagne  a  cardinal 
deacon  of  the  city  of  Rome  (diaconus  in  cardine 
constitutus  in  urbe  Roma)  is  mentioned  with 
special  distinction  (Capitula,  anni  806,  c.  23, 
p.  458*,  Baluze ;  and  Capitularium,  i.  c.  133, 

р.  728). 

XI.  A  deacon  was  assigned  to  each  of  the  seven 
Regions  into  which  the  city  of  Rome  was  eccle¬ 
siastically  divided ;  these  were  called  Regionary 
Deacons  (diaconi  regionarii).  The  acolytes  of  each 
region  were  under  the  authority  of  the  regionary 
deacon  (Mabillon,  Corn.  Praev.  in  Ord.  Rom.  p. 
xix.). 

XII.  Stationary  Deacons  were  those  who  mini¬ 
stered  to  the  pope  on  his  going  to  any  Station 
where  an  office  was  to  be  said. 

XIII.  Diaconi  Testimoniales 'were  those  deacons 
who  always  lived  with  and  accompanied  a  bishop, 
for  the  avoiding  of  scandal  (ii.  Cone.  Turon. 

с,  12).  See  Svncellus.  [C.] 

DEACONESS  (^  hiuKovos,  hiaK6viaaa,  Dia- 

conis-ia,  Diacona.)  I.  An  order  of  women  in  the 
Primitive  Church  who  appear  to  have  undertaken 
duties  in  reference  to  their  own  sex  analogous  to 
those  performed  by  the  deacons  among  men.  Their 
office  was  probably  rendered  more  necessary  by 
the  strict  seclusion  which  was  observed  by  the 
female  sex  in  Greece,  and  in  many  Oriental 
countries.  The  word  itself  is  only  once  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  in  the  place  in  which  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  Phoebe  as  biaKovos  rrjs  iKKKg- 
a-ias  (Rom.  xvi.  1);  but  it  was  usually  supposed 
by  ancient  commentators  that  the  “  women  ” 
mentioned  by  St.  Paul  in  the  passage  in  which 
he  enumerates  the  qualifications  of  a  deacon 
(L  Tim.  iii.  11)  were  really  deaconesses,  whether, 
as  the  A.V.  assumes,  wives  of  deacons  (Chrysost., 


DEACONESS 


DEACONESS 


533 


Theophykot,  Theodoret,  Oecumen.,  quoted  by 
Wordsworth,  Comm,  in  loco),  or  women-deacons 
(Lightlbot,  Essay  on  Christian  Ministry  in  Comm, 
on  Fkilippians,  p.  189). 

II.  Qualifications  for  the  Diaconate. —  It  has 
been  thought  that  these  deaconesses  were  widows 
in  the  earlier  days  of  the  Church,  on  the  ground 
of  the  injunction  of  St.  Paul  that  no  widow 
should  be  taken  into  the  number  under  sixty 
years  of  age  (1  Tim.  v.  9,  cf.  Thomass.  Vet.  et 
Eov.  Eccl.  Discip.  i.  1.  3,  c.  50,  n.  10  ;  Hooker, 
Eccl.  Pol.  V.  c,  78,  §  11).  But  it  does  not  appear 
certain  that  St.  Paul  is  in  this  place  speaking  of 
deaconesses  (cf.  Wordsworth,  Comm,  in  loco). 
And  it  aj)pears  certain  that  virgins  were  admitted 
to  the  office.  Thus  Pliny  speaks,  in  his  epistle 
to  Trajan,  of  two  handmaidens  (ancillae)  whom 
the  Christians  called  “  ministrae.”  The  Apostolic 
Constitutions  (vi.  17)  say  that  the  deaconess  should 
be  a  chaste  virgin  -(TrapOeyos  ayvr)')  or  else  a 
widow  (cf.  Just.  Novell,  vi.  6).  The  4th  council 
of  Carthage  (c.  12)  speaks  of  widows  and  conse¬ 
crated  virgins  (sanctimoniales)  who  are  selected 
to  discharge  the  duties  of  deaconesses.  Epipha- 
nius  gives  three  classes  from  whom  they  are  to 
be  chosen,  the  virgins,  the  widows  of  one  husband, 
and  those  who  lived  in  continence  with  one  hus¬ 
band  (^Expositio  Fidei,  n.  21).  The  council  in 
Trullo  also  provides  that  the  wife  of  a  bishop 
who  has  retired  into  a  convent  on  the  consecra¬ 
tion  of  her  husband  may,  if  found  fit  for  the 
office,  be  admitted  to  the  diaconate  {Cone.  Quini- 
sext.  c.  48).  Gregory  Nyssen  (  Vita  Macrinae) 
speaks  of  his  sister  Macrina,  and  of  one  Lampadia, 
as  being  virgins  and  deaconesses.  Sozomen  (//.  E. 
viii.  23)  speaks  of  a  noble  virgin  named  Nicarete 
whom  Chrysostom  urged  without  effect  to  become 
a  deaconess  ;  and  of  one  Olympias,  a  young  widow, 
who  was  ordained  to  the  same  office  (fd.  viii.  9). 
Thus  it  seems  evident  that  the  deaconesses 
cannot  be  absolutely  identified  either  with  the 
widows  or  the  virgins  of  the  early  church,  but 
were  probably  chosen  from  these  orders  as  occasion 
served.  It  would  even  appear  that,  under  some 
circumstances,  married  women  were  admitted. 

The  age  at  which  they  were  to  be  admitted  to 
their  office  was  strictly  defined.  Tertullian  {De 
Vel.  Virg.  c.  9)  lays  it  down  that  they  should 
be  60  yeai’s  of  age,  widows  of  one  husband,  and 
mothers,  that  their  own  experience  may  enable 
them  to  give  sympathetic  help  to  others  (com¬ 
pare  Basil,  Epist.  Canon,  c.  24  and  Jerome,  Ep. 
ad  Salvian.').  The  council  of  Chalcedon  (c.  15) 
fixes  it  at  40,  and  says  they  are  to  be  chosen 
after  strict  enquiry,  giving  as  a  reason  the  dis¬ 
honour  done  to  the  grace  of  God,  if  any,  after 
having  undertaken  this  service,  should  marry. 
The  council  in  Trullo  (cc.  14,  40)  also  assigned 
the  age  of  40  for  the  admission  of  a  deaconess, 
and  60  for  that  of  a  widow,  grounding  the  latter 
rule  on  the  words  of  St.  Paul  (1  Tim.  v.  9),  thus 
proving  conclusively  that,  in  their  opinion,  he 
was  not  speaking  in  this  place  of  deaconesses. 
Theodosius  issued  a  decree  that  no  woman  should 
be  admitted  to  the  diaconate  till  she  had  attained 
the  age  of  60,  and  borne  children  (Soz.  //.  E.  vii. 
16).  Justinian’s  legislation  fixed  the  age  of 
admission  at  40  (Novell.  123  c.  13)  or  50  (Id.  vi. 
6).  Thomassin  thinks  that  only  the  canons 
which  relate  to  women  of  60  years  of  age  refer 
to  deaconesses,  and  the  others  apply  to  widows 
who  have  merely  taken  the  vow  of  continence. 


But  he  is  obliged  to  own  that  he  is  maintaining 
this  opinion  in  the  face  of  the  decree  of  the 
council  of  Chalcedon  (Thomass.  Vet.  et  Nov. 
Eccl.  DEcip.  i.  1.  3,  c.  52,  §  3,  4).  Yet  much 
appears  to  have  been  left  to  the  bishops.  Olym¬ 
pias  is  described  as  a  young  widow,  and  Tertul- 
lian  (De  Vel.  Virg.  c.  9)  expresses  great  indigna¬ 
tion  at  a  case,  with  which  he  says  he  was  him¬ 
self  acquainted,  in  which  a  virgin  under  20  was 
admitted  to  the  order  of  widows  “in  viduatu,” 
under  which  term  the  context  proves  that  he  is 
speaking  of  the  diaconate. 

From  the  passages  already  quoted  it  will  be 
seen  that  it  was  always  requii-ed  that,  if  widow.^, 
deaconesses  should  only  have  been  once  married. 
This  was  probably  in  obedience  to  the  injunction 
of  St.  Paul,  “the  wife  of  one  man”  (1  Tim.  v. 
9).  Other  names  of  female  servants  of  the 
Church  are,  irperr^vTiSes,  womeu-elders,  and  irpe- 
(rfiuTepai,  aged  women.  In  the  N.  T.  the  words 
appear  identical  in  meaning  (cf.  1  Tim.  v.  2,  and 
Titus  ii.  3).  But  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
(ii.  28),  the  TrpefffiuTepai,  the  poorer  of  whom 
were  to  be  invited  more  frequently  to  the  Agapae, 
are  clearly  different  from  the  wpecr^vTidfs  who, 
as  ministers  of  the  church,  are  allotted  a  definite 
share  of  the  first-fruits  then  offered,  while  the 
same  proportion  of  the  “  eulogiae  ”  is  allotted 
in  another  place  to  those  who  are  there  called 
deaconesses  (hiaKoviacrais,  Ibid.  viii.  c.  31).  Epi- 
phanius  appears  to  make  a  distinction  between 
the  two,  when  he  says  that  the  deaconesses  were 
called  widows  (x'fipas),  but  the  elder  of  them 
(tos  6Tt  ypaoTcpas)  were  called  irpea^vriSas^ 
and  notes  carefully  that  the  word  is  quite  different 
from  that  which  designates  women  -  presbyters 
(Trp€(r^vT€piSas)  (Epiph.  Haer.  79,  cap.  4,  cf., 
Cone.  Laod.  c.  11). 

Probably  from  the  difficulty  of  finding  virgins 
qualified  for  the  office,  it  would  appear  that  the 
deaconesses  were  in  a  great  measure  chosen 
from  among  the  widows.  And  thus  they  were 
often  called  although  distinct  from  the 

general  body  of  widows  belonging  to  the  Church. 
Thus  Epiphanius,  in  the  passage  already  quoted, 
speaks  of  the  order  of  deaconesses  (hiaKoviafftHv 
raypa)  who  are  called  widows.  So  there  is  a 
canon  speaking  of  the  ordination  of  widows 
whom  they  call  deaconesses,  “  V'iduarum  conse- 
cratio  quas  diaconas  vocitant  ”  (Cone.  Epaon.  c. 
21) ;  and  Basil  speaks  of  a  widow  who  has  been 
taken  into  the  number  of  widows,  that  is,  re¬ 
ceived  by  the  Church  into  the  diaconate  (Basil, 
Ep.  Can.  c.  3).  Under  this  term  were  included 
all  deaconesses,  whether  they  were  widows  or 
not.  So  Ignatius  speaks  of  the  virgins  who 
were  called  widows,  tos  irapOivovs  ras  \^yop.4pas 
XT^pas  (Ad  Smyrn.  c.  13).  So  that  it  is  probable 
that  the  word  may  have  meant  those  living  with¬ 
out  a  husband,  whether  in  widowhood,  or  under 
a  v'ow  of  continence  (see  Jacobson  in  loco). 

III.  Duties  ofi  Deaconesses. — The  duties  of  the 
deaconesses  were  various.  The  most  impoitant 
related  to  the  administration  of  baptism  to 
women  [Baptism,  p.  160].  Thus  the  4th  coun¬ 
cil  of  Carthage  (c.  12)  speaks  of  them  as  widows 
or  virgins  selected  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  in 
the  baptism  of  women,  and  who  therefoi  e  must 
be  qualified  to  assist  the  unlearned  candidates 
how  to  answer  the  interrogatories  in  the  baj)tis- 
mal  office,  and  how  to  live  after  baptism.  Ej)i- 
phanius  .says  that  the  order  was  instituted  tc 


634 


DEACONESS 


DEACONESS 


assist  at  the  baptism  of  women,  that  all  things 
might  be  done  with  proper  decency  {ffner.  79, 
cap.  3).  In  the  Apost'dic  Con  tilutions  (iii. 
15,  16)  it  is  said  that  the  deaconess  (rr/i/  5ia- 
Kovov)  was  to  be  chosen  for  ministering  to 
women,  because  it  was  impossible  to  send  a 
deacon  into  many  houses  on  account  of  the  un¬ 
believers.  At  the  baptism  of  Avomen  the  dea¬ 
conesses  were  to  administer  the  chrism  before 
baptism,  and  to  undertake  all  the  necessary 
•’rrangements  for  the  women,  as  the  deacon  did 
tor  the  men.  No  woman  was  to  have  any  inter¬ 
course  with  the  bishop  or  deacon  except  through 
the  deaconess  {IbiL  ii.  c.  26).  They  were  also 
to  receiA^e  women  who  Avere  strangers,  and  allot 
them  their  places  in  the  church  {Ibid.  ii.  c.  58), 
and  to  stand  at  the  door  of  that  part  of  the 
church  Avhich  Avas  allotted  to  Avomen  {Pnd,  ii. 
c.  57).  Thus  the  Pseudo-Ignatius  {Ad  Antioch. 
c.  12)  speaks  of  the  deaconesses  who  kept  the 
doors  of  the  church.  They  were  to  attend  to 
the  Avomen  who  Avere  sick  or  in  affliction  as  the 
deacon  did  to  the  men  {Coyistitut.  Apost.  iii.  19), 
and  in  time  of  persecution  to  minister  to  the 
confessors  in  prison  (Cotel.  Annot.  in  Cunstit. 
Apost.  iii.  >5,  quoting  from  Lucian  and  Libanius). 
They  Avere  to  exercise  some  supeiwision  over 
the  general  body  of  AvidoAvs,  Avho  were  to  be 
obedient  to  the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  and 
further  to  the  deaconesses  {Constitut.  Apost.  iii. 
c.  7).  They  also  probably  had  authority  over 
the  A'irgins.  Thus  Gregory  Nyssen,  in  the  life 
of  Macrina,  says  that  Lampadia  Avas  set  oA'er  the 
bodv  of  Aurgins  in  the  diacoiiate.  But  the  latter 
office  appears  to  have  been  sepai'able  from  the 
diacouate.  Sozomen  says  that  Nicai'ete  refused 
either  to  become  a  deaconess,  or  to  preside  over 
the  virgins  of  the  Church,  as  if  she  might  haA'e 
accepted  the  one  position  Avithout  the  other 
(Soz.  II.  E.  viii.  c.  23). 

IV.  Bank  and  Prkileges. — There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  deaconesses  Avere  considered  to  be  an 
order  in  the  Church.  Nectarius  is  said  to  have 
ordained  Olympias  to  the  diaconate,  Skxkovov 
ix^ipoTouryo'e  (Soz.  H.  E.  A'iii.  9),  and  the  same 
Avord  is  used  in  the  decrees  of  the  councils  in 
Trullo  (cc.  14,  40),  and  Chalcedon  (c.  15).  Epi- 
jjhanius  speaks  of  them  as  an  order,  raypa,  in 
the  Church  {Haer.  79,  cap.  3);  and  they 
Avere  to  receive  the  consecrated  elements  imme¬ 
diately  after  the  male  clergy,  taking  precedence 
of  the  Avidows  and  virgins,  and  the  lay  people 
{Constitut.  Apost.  Auii.  c.  13).  Their  ministry  is 
said  to  be  dependent  upon  that  of  the  deacons 
{Ibid.  ii.  c.  26).  A  form  of  ordination  by  the 
bishop  is  also  given  in  Avhich  the  words  iiridT)<T€is 
Tcts  which  express  the  act  of  ordination, 

are  the  same  as  those  employed  in  the  office  for 
the  ordination  of  deacons,  Avhich  the  whole  foi'm 
greatly  resembles  {loid.  viii.  19,  20). 

Tiiomassin  understands  deaconesses  to  be  meant 
in  a  decree  of  the  2nd  council  of  Carthage  (c. 
3),  which  forbids  a  A'irgiu  to  be  consecrated  by 
a  presbyter,  “  puellarum  consecratio  apresbytero 
non  fiat  ”  (ii.  Cone.  Carth.  c.  3),  or,  as  modified 
by  the  dial  council  (c.  36),  without  the  consent 
of  the  bishop  ( Vet.  ct  Noc.  Eccl.  Discip.  i.  1.  3, 
c.  50,  §  11,  12). 

There  is  hoAveA’-er  a  someAA^hat  remarkable  pas¬ 
sage  in  a  decree  of  the  council  of  Nice,  Avhich, 
after  speaking  of  the  Paulianist  clergy  Avho 
were  to  be  reordained  on  their  admission  to  the 


Catholic  Church,  goes  on  to  say  that  the  dea¬ 
conesses  Avho  had  assumed  that  office,  or  habit, 
since  they  had  no  imposition  of  hands,  could  only 
be  reckoned  among  the  laity  (1  Cone.  Nie.  c. 
19).  But  this  ajijiears  simply  to  refer  to  cer¬ 
tain  Avomen  among  the  Paulianists  Avho  had 
assumed  the  habit  or  office  of  deaconess  Avithout 
imposition  of  hands,  and  Avho  therefore  could 
not  be  reonlained  but  simply  reckoned  among 
the  laity  (cf.  Thomassin  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discip. 
i.  1.  3,  c.  50,  §  12).  Indeed  the  same  canon 
speaks  of  deaconesses  as  among  the  clergy  (eV 
t(5  Kav6vi)  and  to  be  receiA^ed  in  the  same  man¬ 
ner.  Thus  clearly  making  a  distinction  betAveen 
those  among  the  Paulianists  Avho  had  been  regu¬ 
larly  ordained,  aud  those  Avho  had  assumed  the 
office  Avithout  ordination.  But  the  reading  is 
doubtful  (see  Bruns,  Cunones,  i.  19),  though 
Thomassin,  in  the  place  above  quoted,  accepts  it 
Avithout  question  as  authentic. 

The  ordination,  hoAvever,  was  expressly  under¬ 
stood  to  confer  no  sacerdotal  functions  of  any 
kind.  The  4th  council  of  Carthage  (c.  100) 
ex))ressly  orders  that  no  Avoman  should  venture 
to  baptize.  It  appears  that  certain  sects  of  the 
Montanists  ordained  Avomen  as  ))riests  and  even 
as  bishops.  In  opposition  to  these  Epiphanius, 
Avhile  speaking  of  them  as  an  order  in  the  Church, 
asserts  that  they  Avere  Avomen-elders,  but  not  , 
priestesses  in  any  sense  {wpefr^uTepiSas  ^  lep'orcras'), 
and  that  their  mission  aauas  not  to  interfere  in 
any  Avay  Avith  the  functions  allotted  to  the  priests 
(/epareuetJ/),  but  simply  to  perform  certain  offices 
in  the  care  of  Avomeu  (Epi])h.  Haer.  79,  cap. 
3).  Tertullian  also  says  that  it  is  not  })ermitted 
to  a  Avoman  to  speak  in  the  church,  nor  to  baptize, 
nor  to  make  the  oblation  (offerre),  nor  discharge 
any  of  the  offices  allotted  to  men  (A'irile  munus) 
(Tert.  de  Vel.  Virg.  c.  9),  and  is  indignant  at 
the  forAvardness  of  Avomen  Avho  take  upon  them- 
seh^es  to  teach  aud  to  baptize  contrary  to  the 
express  command  of  the  Apostle  (Id.  De  Baptis. 
c.  17).  The  Constitutions  (iii.  9)  emphatically 
deny  the  right  of  Avomen  to  baptize,  asserting 
that  priestesses  are  ordained  for  female  deities, 
and  are  a  heathen,  not  a  Christian  institution ; 
aud  that  if  Our  Lord  had  Avished  them  to  baptize, 
he  would  himself  haA'e  been  baptized  by  his  OAvn 
mother  rather  than  by  John  the  Baptist.  The 
latter  argument  is  also  used  by  Epiphanius,  Avho 
says  that  if  Our  Lord  had  ordered  Avomeu  to 
exercise  any  priestly  or  ecclesiastical  ministry, 
he  Avould  first  have  given  that  office  to  the 
Virgin  Mary  {Haer.  79,  cap.  3). 

V.  Celibacy. — It  is  evident  that  the  ordination 
of  deaconesses  included  a  a'oav  of  celibacy.  The 
council  of  Chalcedon  (c.  15)  pronounces  an 
anathema  against  those  who  should  marry  after 
haA'ing  been  ordained  to  the  diacouate.  Aud  Jus¬ 
tinian’s  legislation  ordered  that  those  Avho  married 
should  be  sentenced  to  forfeiture  of  property  and 
capital  punishment  {Novell.  A'i.  6). 

VI.  Discontinuance. — It  is  probable  that  this 
occasioned  the  discontinuance  of  the  order.  Cer¬ 
tainly  it  did  not  last  long.  The  council  of  Laodicea, 
A.D.  320,  forbade  the  appointment  of  any  of 
those  Avho  Avei'e  called  irpea^vribes  {Cone.  Da  d. 
c.  11).  The  1st  council  of  Orange  (c.  26),  A.D. 
441,  simply  forbids  the  ordination  of  any  dea¬ 
coness  Avhatever;  aud  again,  “  Viduarum  conse- 
cratiouem  quas  diaconas  vocitant  ab  omui  rogione 
nostra  penitus  abrogamus  ”  {Cone,  hpaon.  c.  21), 


DEAD 


DEAD 


535 


The  2nd  council  of  Orleans  (cc.  17,  18)  decrees 
that  deaconesses  who  had  married  were  to  be 
excommunicated  unless  they  renounced  their 
'■usbands,  but  none  in  future  were  to  be  ordained 
on  \ccount  of  the  weakness  of  the  sex.  It  would 
appear  that,  in  the  time  of  the  writer  of  certain 
commentaries  which  appear  under  the  name  of  Je¬ 
rome,  the  order  was  quite  extinct  in  the  Western 
Church,  and  only  known  by  report  as  existing  in 
.the  East.  Thus  he  speaks  of  “those  whom  in 
*the  East  they  call  deaconesses  ”  (Hieron.  Comm, 
in  1  Tim.  iii.  11),  and  “In  the  East  women 
deaconesses  ( diaconissae  mulieres)  appear  to 
minister  to  their  own  sex  in  baptism  and  the 
ministry  of  the  word  ”  (Id.  Comm.  Rom.  xvi.  1). 
Thomassiu  thinks  that  the  order  was  extract  in 
the  Western  Church  in  the  10th  or  12tn  century 
(  Vet.  et  Nuv.  Eccl.  Discip.  i.  1.  3,  c.  49,  §  8),  but 
that  it  lingered  on  a  little  longer  in  the  Church 
of  Constantinople,  though  only  in  convents  (Fd. 
i.  1.  3,  c.  47,  §  10). 

The  title  of  deaconesses  was  also  given  some¬ 
times  to  the  wives  of  deacons  (ii.  Cone.  Turon.  c. 
19),  and  to  abbesses  of  convents  (Thomass.  Vet. 
et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discip.  i.  1.  3,  c.  47,  §  10).  [P.  0,] 

DEAD,  Baptism  of  and  for  the. 

DEAD,  Communion  of.  the. 

The  three  practices  thus  grouped  together  had. 
a  common  origin  in  the  feeling  that  baptism  was 
an  indispensable  condition  of  salvation ;  that  for 
those  who  had  been  baptized  the  other  great 
sacrament  of  the  Chnrch  was  almost  as  essential ; 
that  it,  at  least,  brought  with  it  priceless  advan¬ 
tages  to  the  receiver  when  he  entered  on  the 
unseen  world  ;•  that  it  was  the  viaticum  for  that 
last  journey.  The  earliest  trace  of  the  feeling 
and  its  results  is  seen  in  the  strange,  passing 
allusion  by  St.  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  to  the 
fianT i/irep  v^Kpeev.  It  is  not  within  the 
scope  of  the  present  paper  to  enter  fully  into 
the  exegesis  of  that  perplexing  passage.  The 
strange  contrast  which  its  apparent  meaning 
presented  to  the  received  doctrine  and  practice 
of  the  Church  made  the  interpreters  of  a  later 
period  anxious  to  find  a  way  of  esca])e,  and  from 
Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  downward  there 
have  been  those  who  have  seen  in  it  a  reference 
to  the  profession  of  faith  in  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  made  at  baptism.  It  is  believed,,  how¬ 
ever,  that  this  is  simply  a  non-natural  and  unte¬ 
nable  interpretation.  It  is  better  to  take  the 
words  in  their  obvious  sense,  and  to  remember 
that  St.  Paul  simply  draws  from  the  practice  of 
which  they  speak  an  argumentum  ad  hominem, 
and  does  not,  in  the  slightest  degree,  sanction  the 
practice  itself.  However  startling  it  may  seem 
that  a  feeling  so  gross  in  its  superstition  should 
s})ring  up  so  soon,  we  have  to  remember  that  it 
was  more  or  less  analogous  to  the  “  sorrow  with- 
out  hope  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks  in  writing 
to  the  Thessalonians  (1  Thess.  iv.  13),  and  which 
sprang  out  of  the  belief  that  those  who  died 
before  the  coming  of  the  Lord  were  shut  out 
from  all  participation  in  the  glory  of  the  king¬ 
dom.  So  it  was  at  Corinth  and,  it  m.ay  be,  else¬ 
where.  Men  were  told  that  by  baptism  they  were 
admitted  to  the  kingdom  of  God ;  that  it  was  the 
pledge  not  only  of  immortality  for  the  soul,  but 
of  resurrection  for  the  body.  But  what  would 
become  of  those  who,  though  they  had  believed, 
were  cut  off  by  death  before  receiving  baptism  ? 


His  an.swer  led  to  the  expedient  of  a  “  vicarium 
baptisma  ”  (Tertull.  De  Resurr.  Cam.  c.  48,  Adv. 
Marcion.  v.  10),  to  which  the  usages  of  later 
Judaism  offered,  at  least,  some  remote  analogies 
(Lightfoot,  IFor.  Jlcbr.  in  1  Cor.  xv.).  The 
practice  assumed  among  the  Ebionites  (Ejnphan. 
Ilaeres.  30)  and  the  Marcionites  (Chry.sost. 
//om.  40  in  1  Cor.)  a  somewhat  dramatic  form. 
The  corp.se  was  laid  upon  the  bed,  and  beneath 
there  was  concealed  a  living  man.  The  question 
“  Wilt  thou  be  bapti.sed  ?  ”  was  formally  put 
and  answered,  and  then  the  rite  was  performed 
on  the  living  as  the  prox}'^  for  the  dead.  There 
is  no  reason  for  thinking  that  the  practice  ever 
became  common  in  the  Church.  Its  adoption 
by  heretical  sects  probably  secured  its  con¬ 
demnation.  But  the  feeling  had  showed  itself 
in  another  form  more  widely.  The  stronger 
the  feeling  that  baptism  conferred  what  could 
be  conferred  in  no  other  way,  the  more  men 
lamented  over  the  non-fulfilment  of  the  con¬ 
dition  by  those  they  loved.  The  Church  allowed 
baptism  in  articulo  mortis,  it  is  true,  even  where 
the  ordinary  conditions  were  not  fulfilled.  It 
might,  in  case  of  necessity,  be  administered  by  a 
layman  or  even  by  a  woman.  But  still  death 
might  come  beforehand.  What  was  to  be  done 
then?  What  was  to  be  done  in  the  parallel  case 
of  the  baptized  man  dying  without  communion  ? 
In  all  parts  of  the  Church,  and  for  some  centuries, 
we  find  traces  of  the  prevalence  of  the  practice 
of  administering  baptism  to  the  corp.se.  It  is  for¬ 
bidden,  it  is  true,  by  Councils,  but  the  locality 
and  date  of  the  Synods  that  prohibit  it,  are  sig¬ 
nificant  as  showing  how  widely  spread  it  was. 
We  have  canons  against  it  and  against  the  ana¬ 
logous  practice  of  placing  the  Eucharist  within 
the  lips  of  the  dead,  in  the  third  Council  of  Car¬ 
thage  (a.d.  397  c,  6)  ;  in  the  Council  in  Trullo 
at  Constantinople  (a.d.  692,  c.  83) ;  in  that  of 
Auxerre  (a.d.  578,  c.  12)  ;  in  the  Canons  of  Boni¬ 
face,  Bishop  of  Maintz  (Can.  20).  Gregory  of 
Naziaiizum  {Orat.  40)  utters  a  serious  warning 
against  it.  Even  when  the  better  sense  of  the 
Church  rejected  the  more  revolting  usage,  there 
was,  as  has  been  said  under  Burial,  both  in  the 
East  and  West,  the  corresponding  usage,  hardly 
less  superstitious,  of  placing  a. portion  of  the  con¬ 
secrated  bread  upon  the  breast  of  the  corpse  to 
be  interred  with  him,  as  a  charm  against  the 
attacks  of  malignant  spirits.  The  practice  of 
the  baptism  of  the  dead  prevailed  most,  according 
to  one  writer,  among  the  Phrygian  followers  of 
Montanus  (Philastr.  De  Haeres.  c.  2).  [E.  H.  P.] 

DPIAD,  FESTIVAL  OF  THE.  [All 
Souls  Day.] 

DEAD,  PEAYER  FOR  THE.  [Canon 
OF  THE  L4TURGY :  Mass.] 

DEAD,  TREATMENT  OF.  [Burial  of 
THE  Dead.] 

DEAMBULATORIA,  DEAMBULACR  A, 

covered  porticos  for  w'alking  in,  more  particu¬ 
larly  those  .surrounding  the  body  of  a  church, 
d 'ambnlutoria  ecclesiarnm.  These  were  some¬ 
times  of  tw'O  stories.  This  was  the  case  in  the 
church  built  by  Constantine  over  the  Holy  Sepul¬ 
chre,  which  is  described  by  Eusebius  (  IVC  C  nst. 
lib.  iii.  c.  37)  as  having  two  porticos,  Sirral  aToa\, 
on  each  side  of  the  church,  corresponding  to  the 
length  of  the  building,  with  upper  and  lower 
ranges  of  pillars.  Gregory  Nazianzen  also  (OraL 


536 


DEAN 


DEBTORS 


19)  describes  the  church  erected  by  his  father  as 
having  crroal  ^i6po(poi.  The  chur(;h  of  St.  Sophia 
was  similarly  surrounded  with  porticos,  except 
towards  the  east,  on  which  side  they  were  usually 
wanting  (Procop.  dc  Aedif.  lib.  i,  c.  8,  lib.  v.  c.  6), 
and  which  were  of  two  stories  towards  the  west 
(Ducange,  Constant inopolis  Christiana,  lib.  iii.  cc. 
16,  17).  The  “  deambulatoria  ”  sometimes  con¬ 
tained  altars  (Ducange  suh  voc.).  The  term  is 
also  used  for  the  walk.s  of  a  cloister,  “  deambu- 
latoria  claustrorani.”  [Cloistkr.]  [E.  V.] 

Dh^AN.  [Decanus.] 

DEATH,  REPRESENTATIONS  OF.— 

Though  symbolic  images  involving  the  thought  of 
death  are  by  no  means  rare  in  early  Christian  art, 
they  have  reference  almost  entirely  to  the  state 
of  death,  rather  than  the  process,  so  to  speak. 
They  point  to  the  condition  of  the  restored  soul, 
rather  than  to  the  painful  separation  of  body 
and  soul.  Thus  the  thought  and  representa¬ 
tions  of  death  are  generally  without  terror. 
The  Raising  of  Lazarus  [Lazarus]  is  repeated 
(Bottari,  passim)  as  an  earnest  of  the  Lord’s 
power  :  the  Resurrection  accompanies  the  Cru¬ 
cifixion  in  early  art,  as  in  the  Laurentine  MS. 
Flowei's  are  freely  used  to  decorate  tombs,  with 
little  change  from  their  Pagan  employment; 
a  ad  the  bird  set  at  liberty,  the  palm-branch,  the 
car  or  chariot  at  rest,  and  the  ship  at  anchor 
(see  s.  vv.),  occur  the  two  first  passim,  the 
others  occasionally.  Herzog  {Beal-Encyc.,  s.  v. 
“  Sinnbilder  ”)  states  that  the  skeleton  figure  of 
death,  in  its  retrospective  view,  pointing  to  the 
change  from  the  life  and  pleasure  of  this  world 
is  traceable  to  remains  of  Gnostic  symbols.  The 
writer  of  this  article  can  remember  no  earlier 
instance  of  it,  than  Giotto’s  crowned  skeleton  at 
Assisi.  (See  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle’s  Italian 
Painters,  life  of  Giotto.)  Orgagna  and,  lastly, 
Holbein  bring  down  this  Gothic  grotesque  sym¬ 
bol  of  the  visible  change,  and  outer  side  of  the 
subject,  to  modern  days. 

For  the  apparently  Pagan  Chariot  of  Death  in 
the  Catacomb  of  St.  Praetextatus  see  Perret,  Cata- 
com’jes,  &c.,  vol.  i.  pi.  72;  also  Bottari,  vol.  iii. 
219.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DEBTORS.  The  Jewish  law  in  reference  to 
debts  and  debtors,  and  to  the  redemption  of 
pledges,  is  very  peculiar.  That  of  the  Christian 
Church  has  been  mainly  founded  on  the  Roman, 
which,  originally  very  harsh  towards  debtors 
(see  Gibbon,  c.  xliv.,  &c.),  under  the  empire 
was  greatly  mitigated  in  their  favour.  Thus 
by  a  constitution  of  Diocletian  and  Maximin 
(a.d.  294),  it  was  expressly  enacted  that  the 
laws  do  not  sufler  freemen  to  be  compelled  to 
become  slaves  to  their  creditors  by  reason  of 
their  debts  (^Code,  bk.  iv.  Tit.  ix.  1.  12).  Under 
the  older  law  there  had  already  been  introduced 
in  favour  of  the  debtor  the  expedient  of  the 
bonorum  cessio,  something  between  our  bank¬ 
ruptcy,  and  what  a  few  years  back  was  distin¬ 
guished  from  it  as  insolvency  (see  Dig.  bk.  xlii. 
Tit.  iii.).  It  was  a  question  among  the  jurists 
whether,  if  a  man  had  once  given  up  all  his 
goods  to  his  creditors,  any  after  acquired  pro¬ 
perty  of  his  was  subject  to  their  claims.  Sabinus 
and  Cassius  would  have  him  free  (A6iJ.  1.  4), 
thus  assimilating  him  to  the  bankrupt.  Ulpian 
took  a  middle,  and  it  must  be  said,  an  unwise 
course,  holding  that  the  liability  (h;peuded  on 


the  quantum  of  the  subsequent  earnings,  and 
that  he  was  not  to  be  disturbed  in  the  possession 
of  anything  left  or  given  to  him  by  way  of 
charity  for  his  maintenance  (Ibid.  1.  6).  Modes- 
tinus  also  held  the  liability  to  attach,  if  the  pro¬ 
perty  were  sufficient  to  justify  the  action  of  the 
praetor  (Ibid.  1.  7).  Under  the  Code,  by  a  con¬ 
stitution  of  Alexander  Severus  (a  d.  224),  the 
debtor  was  not  held  free  from  his  debt  till  the 
creditor  was  paid  in  full,  but  the  cess'o  bonorum 
exempted  him  from  imprisonment  and  from  tor¬ 
ture  (bk.  vii.  tit.  Ixxi.  11.  1,  8).  It  was  in  the 
option  of  the  creditors  to  allow  the  debtors  five 
years’  delay  instead  of  accepting  the  ce.sio,  such 
option  to  be  exercised,  in  case  of  difference  of 
opinion,  according  to  the  figure  of  the  debt,  so 
that  a  single  creditor  whose  claim  should  amount 
to  more  than  the  sum  total  of  all  the  others  had 
the  fate  of  the  debtor  in  his  hands  (1.  8 ;  Const, 
of  Justinian).  An  attempt  having  moreover 
been  made  to  make  the  cessio  compulsory  on  the 
debtor,  the  135th  Novel  forbade  this. 

Debtors  were  under  the  Christian  emperors 
admitted  to  the  right  of  sanctuary  in  churches 
and  their  precincts,  Jews  only  excepted,  who  pre¬ 
tended  a  wish  to  become  converted  in  oi'der  to 
frustrate  their  creditors,  and  who  were  i.ot  to 
be  admitted  until  they  had  paid  all  their  debts 
(Code,  bk.  i.  t.  xii.  1.  1  ff.),  although  the  public 
imposts  might  be  levied  within  the  churches 
themselves,  and  if  the  collectors  were  subjected 
to  violence  or  seditious  opposition,  the  defensores 
and  oeconomi  of  the  Church  were  made  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  fiscal  dues  not  collected  (Novel  17, 
c.  7) ;  but  otherwise  it  was  expressly  enacted  by 
a  constitution  of  the  Emperor  Leo,  A.D.  466  (bk. 
i.  t.  xii.  1.  6),  that  the  bishops  and  oeconomi 
were  not  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  debts  of 
persons  claiming  sanctuary. 

We  may  moreover  observe  in  the  60th  Novel  a 
law  forbidding  creditors  to  torment  their  dying 
debtors  or  their  families,  place  their  seals  upon 
the  property,  or  interfere  with  the  funeral,  under 
severe  penalties  (c.  i.);  and  in  the  115th  another 
which  forbade  the  pressing  by  creditors  of  the 
heirs,  parents,  children,  wives,  husbands,  agnates, 
cognates,  connexions  or  sureties  of  a  deceased 
debtor  within  nine  days  of  his  death,  the  delay 
not  to  be  reckoned  as  time  running  for  prescrip¬ 
tion  nor  otherwise  to  prejudice  the  creditor 
(c.  v.).  The  134th  Novel  forbids  a  custom  which 
it  speaks  of  as  prevalent  in  various  places,  that 
of  detaining  a  debtor’s  children  as  pledges,  or  as 
slaves  or  servants  for  hire,  under  penalty  of  for¬ 
feiture  of  the  debt,  damages  to  an  equal  amount, 
and  corporal  punishment  (c.  vii.).  As  to  debts 
due  to  bankers,  see  the  136th  No  el,  and  7th 
Edict  of  Justinian. 

Under  the  Ostrogothic  rule  in  Italy,  the 
Edict  of  Theodoric  required  debtors  condemned 
by  judicial  sentence  to  pay  within  two  months, 
under  pain  of  the  sale  of  their  pledges  (c.  124). 
Where,  however,  a  creditor  seized  the  goods  of 
one  who  was  not  under  obligation  to  him,  he  was 
to  pay  fourfold  the  value,  if  sued  ^rithin  the 
year,  otherwise  simply  to  restore  the  amount 
seized;  and  so  of  the  fruits  ot  land  (c.  131). 
Under  the  Lombard  law,  on  the  contrary,  by 
practice  of  seizing  the  person  of  the  debtor  the 
way  of  j)ledge  seems  to  reappear,  although  the 
liability  is  confined  to  himselt  and  his  gaphans, 
or  nearest  future  heir  (Laws  of  Eotharis,  c.  149  j 


DECALVATIO 


DECANUS 


537 


X.D.  638  or  643).  Little,  however,  is  found 
generally  in  the  barbaric  Codes  on  the  subject. 

It  is  not  surprising  to  find  the  Church  occasion¬ 
ally  int'^rfering  either  by  spiritual  penalties,  or 
conversely  by  kindly  assistance  to  the  unfor¬ 
tunate,  where  the  municipal  law  failed  to  take 
efiect  for  their  relief.  A  signal  instance  of  ec¬ 
clesiastical  assistance  to  a  debtor  is  that  which 
*orms  the  subject  of  Augustine’s  215th  or  268th 
letter,  addressed  to  his  congregation,  to  which  he 
appealed  to  repay  Macedonius,  who  had  sufiered 
by  his  kindness  to  one  Fascius,  a  debtor  who  had 
taken  sanctuary. 

An  Irish  Synod  of  the  middle  of  the  5th  cen¬ 
tury  (450  or  456)  enacted  the  excommunication 
of  fraudulent  debtors,  as  if  they  were  heathens, 
till  they  paid  their  debts  (c.  20).  In  the  collec¬ 
tion  of  Irish  canons,  supposed  to  belong  to  the 
end  of  the  7th  century,  there  is  a  whole  book 
(xxxii.)  “of  debts  and  pledges,  and  usury,”  and 
another  (xxxiii.)  “  of  sureties  and  rates.”  There 
is  however  no  reason  for  supposing  that  enact¬ 
ments  like  this  ever  took  efiect  beyond  the  limits 
of  Ireland. 

From  the  letters  of  Gregory  the  Great,  (a.d. 
690-b03)  we  obtain  some  glimpses  of  the  con¬ 
dition  of  debtors  at  the  heart  of  Christendom, 
towards  the  end  of  the  6th  and  beginning  of  the 
7th  century,  and  of  the  behaviour  of  the  Church 
towards  them.  ^Two  of  his  letters  (^Epistt.  ii.  56 
and  iii.  43)  are  occupied  with  the  case  of  a  Syrian 
named  Cosmas,  a  poor  debtoi',  whose  sons,  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  account,  were  detained  by  his  creditors 
as  pledges  for  his  debts,  and  whom  he  was  anx¬ 
ious  to  benefit. 

Several  other  instances  to  the  same  efiect  occur 
in  the  same  collection.  A  letter  (^Epist.  v.  35) 
to  Secundinus,  bishop  of  Taormina,  is  written  in 
favour  of  one  Sincerus,  whose  wife  was  pressed 
to  pay  the  debts  of  her  late  father.  See  also 
Epist.  vii.  pt.  2,  37  and  60,  Compare  Sanc¬ 
tuary  ;  Usury.  [J.  M.  L.] 

DECALVATIO.  [Corporal  Punishments, 
p.  472.] 

DECANATUS  =  1.  the  office  of  dean ;  2.  the 
district  of  a  rural  dean  ;  3.  sometimes  a  farm  or 
monastic  grange,  in  late  charters.  [A.  W.  II.] 

DECANIA,  the  district  under  a  Decanus 
[p.  539],  temp.  Car.  Calvi.  The  word  was  used 
in  later  times  also  for  a  monastic  farm  or  grange 
(Du  Cauge).  [A.  W.  H.] 

DECANICIUM  (AeKau'iKiov').  The  PAS¬ 
TORAL  Staff  borne  before  the  Patriarch  of  Con¬ 
stantinople  on  solemn  occasions :  delivered  to 
him  in  the  first  instance  by  the  emperor  (Suicer’s 
Thesaurus,  s.y.').  Pancirolus  however  (T’.-es'im’Ms 
i.  85)  states  that  the  decanicium  (or  dicanitium) 
was  a  silver  mace.  [C.] 

DECANICUM,  Decania,  or  Decanica  (Ae- 
KaviKor),  an  ecclesiastical  prison,  career  canoni- 
calis  or  demerito  um  d/mus,  a  place  of  confine¬ 
ment  in  which  criminous  clerks  were  incarcerated 
by  their  bishops  and  other  ecclesiastical  supe¬ 
riors.  The  word  is  derived  from  the  dec  mi,  the 
subordinate  officials — the  pa^Zovxoi  or  lictors 
of  the  church — who  were  the  jailers.  By  a 
false  etymology  it  is  sometimes  written  ZiKavinSv. 
Another  form,  SiaKoviKdv,  also  found,  may  be 
justified  by  the  fact  that  the  sacristy  and  other 
annexed  ecclesiastical  buildings  sometimes  served 


the  pui’pose  of  a  prison.  Cf.  the  letter  of  Pope 
Gregory  II.,  a.d.  731-741,  to  the  Emperor  Leo 
Isaurus,  in  which,  comparing  the  mercy  of  the 
ecclesiastical  with  the  severity  of  temporal 
rulers,  he  says  that  when  one  of  the  clergy  was 
proved  to  be  worthy  of  punishment,  instead  of 
hanging  or  beheading  him,  the  bishoj)  hung 
round  his  neck  the  gospels  and  the  cross,  and 
imprisoned  him  in  one  of  the  treasuries  or  dia- 
conica,  or  catechumena  of  the  church  (Labbe, 
Concil.  viii.  p.  25).  The  word  decanicum  is  not 
unfrequently  met  with  in  early  times:  e.g.  in 
the  petition  of  Basil  the  deacon  to  the  Emjieror 
Theodosius,  complaining  of  the  cruel  indignities 
he  and  his  friends  had  been  subjected  to  at  the 
hands  of  Nestorius  (Acta  Concil.  Ephes.  pars  i. 
c.  30,  §  3  <?<  passim;  Labbe,  Concil.  iii,  425-431). 

“  They  had  been  stripped  and  beaten,  and  led 
off  half-naked  to  the  decanicum,  where  they  were 
detained  without  food,  and  again  beaten  by  tlie 
decani. 

The  Decanica  are  named  among  the  buildings  . 
of  which  heretics  were  to  be  deprived,  in  a 
decree  of  Arcadius  and  Honorius  (Justin.  Cod. 
lib.  i.  tit.  V.  c.  3) ;  and  in  the  Novells  of  Justi¬ 
nian  (Ixxix.  c.  3,  p.  211)  we  find  a  decree  ad¬ 
dressed  to  Mennas,  Archbishop  of  Constantinople, 
ordering  that  officers  venturing  to  execute  a 
sentence  of  .secular  courts  on  clerics  should  be 
imprisoned  in  the  so-called  decanica  (KaOetpye- 
adwaau  eV  tois  KaXovpeyois  SeKo.y'iKOis').  [E.  V.] 

DECANUS  (in  an  ecclesiastical  sense)  = 

I.  A  member  of  a  guild,  whose  occupation  was 
that  of  interring  the  dead  [Copiatae]  :  reckoned 
among  clerici  hy  St.  Jerome,  Epiphanius,  the  Cod. 
Theodos.,  &c. ;  called  also  Koiriargs  (Epiphanius), 
fossarius  (Pseudo-Jerom,,  De  VII.  Ord.  Eccl.), 
lecticarius  (Justinian,  Novel,  xliii.  Praef.),  col- 
legiatus  (in  the  laws  of  Honorius,  &c.,  Justinian, 
Theodosius  the  Great),  decanus  (same  laws  ;  and 
Collect.  Constit.  Eccl.  in  Biblioth.  Jur.  Canon. 
p.  1243).  The  office  was  apparently  instituted 
by  Constantine  at  Constantinople,  where  it  num¬ 
bered  in  his  time  1100  members,  but  was 
afterwards  reduced  to  950 ;  but  then  again 
increased  by  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  who  also 
endowed  it  (Justinian,  Novel,  xliii.  lix. ;  Cod.  lib. 
iv.  De  Sacrosanct.  Eccl.').  From  thence  it  sjiread 
to  “  other  populous  churches.”  The  poor  were  to 
be  buried  by  its  members  gratuitously,  at  least 
where  it  was  endowed  (id.  Novel,  lix.).  The 
SfKavol  mentioned  by  St.  Chrysostom  (Horn. 
xiii.)  were  a  different,  and  a  civil,  body  of 
officials,  attached  to  the  emperor’s  palace. 
(Bingham,  Du  Cange,  Meursius,  Suicer.) 

II.  A  presbyter  appointed  to  preside  as  the 
bishop’s  deputy  over  a  division  of  his  diocese  : 
called  at  first  archipresbyter  (Thomassin,  I.  iii.  66, 

§  14;  Dansey,  p.  i.  §  2),  with  the  epithet  of  vica- 
nus  (Cone.  Turon.  II.  c.  19,  a.d.  567  ;  Bruns’s 
Canunes,  ii,  229),  to  distinguish  him  from  the 
urban  archipresbyter  or  protopope,  and  succeed¬ 
ing  under  that  name  to  some  of  the  functions  of 
the  older  chorepiscopus  :  originally  in  the  Church 
of  France  : — first  called  Decanus,  and  his  district 
Decania, — (setting  aside  a  canon,  wrongly  at¬ 
tributed  to  the  Council  of  Agde,  A.D.  506,  but 
really  of  the  date  of  Charles  the  Great,  acc.  to 
Dansey,  and  two  questionable  canons  respectively 
of  Cone.  Tolet.  V.  a.d.  636,  and  VII.  a.d.  646) — 
later  than  about  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great 


538 


DECANUS 


DECANUS 


(soe  Capit.  Car.  Cahi,  tit.  v.  §  3 ;  Cone.  Tolos. 
A.D.  843,  c.  3  ;  Hincmar,  0pp.  i.  738,  c.  a.d.  878)  ; 
called  also  decaniis  ruralis  (e.g.  in  Cone.  Trever. 
A.D.  948,  c.  3),  magister  (by  Hincmar,  v.  Cone. 
^Gallie.  III.  623),  decanus  epjiscopi  (when  intro¬ 
duced  into  England,  a  step  perhaps  facilitated  by 
the  existence  of  the  civil  division  into  tithings, 
about  A.D.  1052,  in  Legg.  Edw.  Confess,  xxxi., 
and  see  Du  Cange,  and  Carpentier’s  Supplem.  to 
Du  Cange),  deeanus  Christianorum  (in  a  charter 
of  A.D.  1092,  ap.  Du  Cange),  and  commonly  after¬ 
wards  deeanus  Cliristlanitatis,  probably  as  having 
to  do  with  courts  Christian,  i.  e.  with  the  bishop’s 
courts.  The  developed  functions  of  the  office 
belong  to  a  period  later  than  that  to  which  the 
present  work  i-elates.  In  Ireland,  the  peculiar 
institution  of  the  court  became  mixed  up  with 
that  of  pleb  tnus,  or  rural  dean.  Beyond  the 
British  isles  and  France,  the  office  does  not  seem  to 
have  existed.  (Dansey,  Horae  Decanieae  Ilurales, 
2nd  edit.  1844;  Du  Cange;  Spelman.) 

III.  The  chief  officer  of  a  cathedral,  deeanus  eeele- 
siae  eathedralis,  as  distinguished  from  the  deeanus 
urhanus  and  ruralis,  or  city  and  country  arch  pres¬ 
byters,  after  the  chapter  of  the  cathedral  had  be¬ 
come  a  separate  and  corporate  body  [Canonici]. 
The  office  so  entitled  dates  in  its  full  development 
only  from  the  10th  or  11th  centuries,  Normandy 
and  Norman  England  being  the  countries  where 
it  first  occurs,  Rouen  having  a  dean  in  the  10th 
century,  and  the  Dean  of  St.  Paul’s,  A.D.  1086, 
being  the  first  English  dean.  But  as  a  cathedral 
officer,  the  decanus  dates  from  the  8th  century, 
when  he  is  found,  after  the  monastic  pattern, 
as  subordinate  to  the  praepositus  or  provost,  who 
was  the  bishop’s  vicegerent  as  head  of  the  chapter. 
The  arrangement  still  survives,  after  a  fashion, 
in  the  relative  positions  of  the  provost  or  head, 
and  of  the  dean,  in  Oxford  and  Cambridge  colleges. 
The  Council  of  Mayence,  A.D.  813,  substituted 
deans  for  provosts.  And  that  of  Aix  la  Chapelle, 
A.D.  817,  subordinated  the  provost  to  the  dean. 
A  series  of  provosts,  afterwards  mostly  con¬ 
verted  into  deans — at  Canterbury  until  the  time 
of  Lanfranc,  at  Worcester  a.d.  872-972,  at  Ely 
A.D.  878,  at  Lichfield  a.d.  818—822,  at  Wells 
before  a.d.  1088,  at  Beverley  a.d.  1070,  at  se¬ 
veral  foreign  cathedrals,  and  in  some  English  col¬ 
legiate  churches — is  given  by  Walcot  (^Catkedraiia, 
p.  38).  The  change  probably  arose  from  the 
abandonment  on  the  part  of  the  provosts  of  the 
spiiitual  and  internal  direction  of  the  chapter, 
through  their  attention  to  its  temporal  and  ex¬ 
ternal  concerns.  The  functions  of  the  dean  are 
laid  down,  for  the  diocese  of  Lincoln,  a.d.  1212, 
as  sanctioned  by  Pope  Alexander  III.  (Wilk. 
Cone.  1.  535,  536),  and  for  that  of  Lichfield 
A.D.  1194,  by  Bishop  Nonant  (ib.  497),  and  for 
that  of  Sarum,  as  adopted  by  Glasgow  (ib.  741). 
But  the  office,  in  this  full  sense  of  the  title, 
belongs  to  a  period  long  subsequent  to  the  date 
of  Charles  the  Great. 

IV.  Deans  of  Peculiar.^,  and  other  special  appli¬ 
cations  of  the  title  of  dean,  belong  also  to  a  like 
later  period.  As  does  likewise  the  deanery  of  the 
province  of  Canterbury,  attached  to  the  bishopric 
of  Loudon.  (Thomassin  ;  Du  Cange  ;  Wa loot’s 
Archaeology  and  Caihedralia.)  [A.  W.  H.] 

V.  Decanus  Mo^iaslicus. — Among  monks  the 
office  seems  to  have  existed  in  Asia  and  Egypt, 
at  least  in  a  rudimentary  form,  from  almost 
the  very  commencement  of  coeuobitism  ;  in 


I  subordination  to  the  ‘  pater,’  ‘  abbas,’  ‘  hegu- 
menos’  or  ‘  archimandrita  ’  (Bingh.  ib.).  The 
‘decanus’  was  deputed  by  him  to  superintend 
the  younger  brethren,  drilling  them  in  self- 
denial  and  encouraging  them  to  confess  to  him 
even  their  secret  thoughts  (Cassian,  Instit.  v. 
8,  9).  Especially  he  was  to  watch  over  the 
novices  just  emerging,  their  first  year  of  pro¬ 
bation  being  past,  from  the  ‘  xenodochium  ’  or 
strangers’  room  (ib.  7),  setting  them  an  example 
of  obedience  by  himself  obeying  the  ‘  praepositus  ’ 
even  in  things  impossible  (ib.  10).  Augustine 
speaks  of  the  ‘  decanus  ’  as  having  charge  over 
ten  monks  (De  Mor.  Eccl.  31);  Jerome,  over 
nine  ;  (Ep.  22  ad  Eustoch.).  The  ‘  decanus  ’  was 
to  provide  for  the  temporal  necessities  of  his 
monks,  for  instance,  by  sending  out  to  them  the 
linen  under-garments ;  (cf.  Ca.ss.  Instit.  iv.  10)  to 
watch  by  night  over  their  cells  ;  to  lead  them 
to  and  from  refection ;  to  assign  to  each  the 
allotted  task  ;  and,  at  the  close  of  the  day,  to 
hand  over  the  work  done  to  the  ‘  oeconomus  ’  or 
steward,  who  was  to  make  a  monthly  report  of 
it  to  the  abbat  (Jerome,  ib.  cf.  Bingh.  u.s.). 

The  great  monastic  legislator  of  M.  Casino 
adopted  cordially  this  important  feature  in  coe- 
nobitism,  prescribing  more  precisely  the  duties 
of  the  ‘  decanus,’  and  placing  him  next  in  rank 
to  the  ‘prior’  or  ‘praepositus.’  Indeed,  Benedict 
preferred  deans  to  priors  as  less  Tikely  to  collide 
with  the  supreme  authority  of  the  abbat  (lieg. 
c.  65  ;  cf.  Cone.  Mogunt.  1.  816, 11).  All  monas¬ 
teries,  except  the  very  smallest,  for  the  words 
‘  major  congregatio  ’  are  taken  to  mean  any  number 
over  twenty  (Mart,  in  Beg.  S.  Bened.  17),  were 
to  have  deans,  one  for  ten  brethren.  He  was  to 
have  charge  of  his  ‘decauia’  in  all  things,  with 
this  proviso,  “  according  to  the  precepts  of  the 
abbat”  (Reg.  21).  He  was  to  be  appointed  not 
by  seniority,  ‘  per  ordinem,’  but  by  merit,  at  the 
choice  of  the  abbat,  or,  according  to  some  com¬ 
mentators,  of  the  abbat  and  seniors  (ib.).  He 
was  to  hold  office  for  an  undefined  period,  one 
year  or  more  (Mart,  in  Reg.  31-2),  in  fact, 
“  quamdiu  se  bene  gesserit,”.but  after  three  ad¬ 
monitions  was  to  be  deprived  (Reg.  21).  He  was 
to  guard  the  morals  and  conduct  of  the  monks 
under  his  care,  especially  the  dormitory  (Reg.  22  ; 
ci  Reg.  Magist.  11);  and  to  hear  their  confessions 
(Reg.  46). 

In  subsequent  adaptations  of  the  Benedictine 
Rule  the  office  of  Dean  is  defined  still  more  pre¬ 
cisely.  By  the  rule  entitled  ‘  Magistri,’  his 
badge  of  office  was  to  be  a  wand  ‘  virga,’  or 
rather  a  crook,  symbolic  of  pastoral  duties  (Reg. 
Mag.  11,  cf.  Menard,  in  Cone.  Reg.  28,  2).  The 
same  rule  orders  two  deans  for  each  decade  of 
monks,  to  relieve  one  another,  so  that  one  or  the 
other  may  be  always  with  them  (ib.).  They  were 
to  preside  at  table  in  the  refectory  (D.).  By 
the  rule  of  Fructuosus,  the  dean  is  to  keep  watch 
over  the  younger  monks,  even  in  minute  points  of 
deportment,  to  receive  their  most  secret  confes¬ 
sions,  and  to  delate  imuenitent  oflenders  to  the 
abbat  or  prior  (R  g-  Fruct.  12).  By  the  council 
of  Aachen,  in  817,  the  eldest  in  rank  of  the 
deans  is  to  superintend  the  other  deans  (Cane. 
Aquisgr.  55). 

According  to  IMenard  (in  Reg.  S.  Bened.  21), 
the  practice  of  the  Reformed  Benedictines  as  to 
the  office  of  dean  has  varied  considerably.  With 
the  Cistercians  it  has  been  unknown  (ib.).  With 


DlilCIMAE 


DECRETAL 


539 


the  monks  of  Clugni,  the  deans  administered  the 
temporalities  of  the  monastery,  being  the  ‘  vil- 
laruin  provisores  ’  or  ‘suffraganei  Prioris '  (i6. 
cf.  Du  Cange,  Glussar.  s.v.).  With  the  monks 
of  M.  Casino,  the  dean  at  one  time  ranked  next 
to  the  abbat  (cf.  Alteser.  Ascetic,  ii.  9)  ;  but  aftei’- 
wards,  the  original  institution  of  deans  was 
revived  (Menard.  f6.).  In  some  monasteries, 
according  to  Du  Cange  (Glossar.  s.v.),  there  was 
a  ‘  foris  decanus  ’  to  look  after  the  interests  of 
the  monastery,  outside  its  walls ;  in  some  a  ‘  de¬ 
canus  operis  ’  or  ‘  operariorum  ’  over  the  work¬ 
people  ;  in  some,  the  tenants  under  the  monastery, 

‘  villici  ’  or  ‘  coloni  ’  were  called  ‘  decani.’  Hence 
the  ‘  decania  ’  or  ‘decanatus’  came  to  mean 
sometimes  a  grange  belonging  to  a  monastery 
(ib.).  In  nunneries  there  were  officials,  ‘  decanae,’ 
corresponding  to  the  ‘decani’  in  the  older  sense 
of  the  word,  to  maintain  order  and  discipline 
(f6.). 

See,  also,  Haefteni  Disquisitiones  Monasticae 
III.  tract  vi.  disquis.  4,  Antverpiae,  1644.  Dic- 
tionnaire  du  Droit  Canonique^  par  Durand  de 
Maillane,  Lyon,  1776,  1786. 

For  the  growth  and  development  of  the  office 
of  ‘  decanus  ’  in  cathedi'al-monasteries  see  under 
Canoxici.  [I.  G.  S.] 

DECIMAE.  [Tithes.] 

DECREE.  [Decretum.] 

DECRETAL.  As  has  been  observed  in  a 
previous  article  [Canon  Law],  a  decretal  in  its 
strict  canonical  sense  is  an  authoritative  rescript 
of  a  pope,  in  reply  to  some  question  propounded 
to  him,  just  as  a  decree  is  an  ordinance  enacted 
by  him,  with  the  advice  of  his  cardinals,  but  not 
drawn  from  him  by  previous  inquiry.®  The 
very  word  therefore  implies  power  and  jurisdic¬ 
tion.  Hence,  though  from  the  4th  century 
downwards  epistles  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  are 
extant,**  the  earlier  specimens  do  not  come  up  to 
the  full  canonical  idea  of  decretals,  inasmuch  as 
they  ])Ossessed,  when  issued,  a  moral  weight 
rather  than  a  legislative  force.  They  are  thus 
spoken  of  by  Gieseler  : — “  Another  source  of  in¬ 
fluence  to  the  Roman  bishops  was  the  custom  of 
referring  to  them  particularly,  as  the  head  of  the 
only  apostolic  Church  of  the  West,  all  questions 
concerning  the  apostolic  customs  and  doctrines, 
which  in  the  Last  were  addressed  indiscrimi¬ 
nately  to  the  bishops  of  any  church  founded  by 
an  apostle.  This  gave  them  occasion  to  issue  a 
vast  number  of  didactic  letters  (epistolae  decre- 
tales),  which  soon  assumed  a  tone  of  apostolic 
authority,  and  w'ere  held  in  high  estimation  in 
the  West,  as  flowing  from  apostolic  tradition.” 
(Gieseler,  Ck.  Hist.,  Second  Period,  chap,  iii.) 

As  the  papal  power  became  firmly  established, 
such  epistles  acquired  more  and  more  force,  until 
at  length  they  occupied  the  position  tersely  ex¬ 
pressed  by  the  canonist  Lancellottus  in  later 

®  Decretalis  epiistola  est,  quando  Papa  ad  c<>nsiiUa- 
tioncni  alicnjus  respondet ;  sive  solus,  sive  de  consilio 
fratrum. .  .  .  Decretum  est,  quod  Papa  de  consilio  tratrimi, 
nulla  consultatione  factti,  super  aliqua  re  siatuit,  et  in  re- 
scriptis  redegii. . . Consliiuiio  estqu' d Papa  prop'io  motu 
sUtui',  et  in  rescriplis  redegit,  sine  consilio  Iratrum  et 
nulla  consultatione  fa  ta. — Hosiiensis,  Aurea  suvima, 
I'lO-jeip.  14. 

>>  .\s  regards  the  3id  century,  see  Phillips,  p.  6,  and 
Bickell,  i.  35,  note.  Cornel. us  is  the  only  Pope  of  whom 
any  lett  js  of  th..t  date  remain. 


days — “  Decreta  Pontificum  Romanorum  canoni- 
bus  conciliorum  pari  potestate  exaequantur  ” 
(lib.  i.  tit.  3).  Conversely,  also,  the  papal  power 
itself  was  mainly  indebted  for  its  development 
to  the  canonical  doctrine  of  decretals.  For  it 
was  the  collection  of  forged  decretals  put  forth 
by  the  Pseudo-Isidore  which  chiefly  jiersuaded 
the  world  that  the  popes  had  from  the  most 
primitive  times  been  in  the  habit  of  issuing 
authoritative  rescripts  ;  and  this  being  once  ad¬ 
mitted,  it  followed  that  they  must  still  have 
power  to  act  in  a  like  manner. Moreover,  the 
pretended  decretals  were  so  full  of  assertions  of 
the  papal  prerogatives,  that  wdien  they  were 
once  accepted  as  genuine  and  valid,  they  were  a 
sufficient  justification  for  the  issue  of  any  sub¬ 
sequent  document  of  the  same  sort,  how'ever  ex¬ 
travagant.  As  the  collection  of  the  Pseudo- 
Isidore  did  not  appear  until  the  middle  of  the 
9th  century,  it  lies  beyond  the  period  to  which 
the  present  work  is  confined.  But  some  notice 
of  it  is  required  on  many  grounds.  It  contains 
numerous  alleged  decretals  of  very  early  popes, 
the  spuriousness  of  which  must  be  pointed  out. 
It  gave  the  chief  support  to  the  canonical  idea 
of  a  “  Decretal,”  and  therefore  enables  us  to 
show  that  that  idea  in  its  full  development  is 
probably  later  than  800  a.d.  It  contains  several 
decretals  taken  from  the  older  collections  of  Dio¬ 
nysius  and  of  the  Spanish  Church,  and  therefore 
gives  us  occasion  to  notice  that  the  idea  in 
question,  though  not  fully  matured,  was  not  un¬ 
known  at  an  earlier  period.  It  may  be  con¬ 
venient  therefore  briefly  to  indicate  the  character 
and  contents  of  the  work. 

It  commences  with  nearly  sixty  letters  of 
various  Bishops  of  Rome,  from  Clement  to  Mel- 
chiades.  These  are  all  fictitious,  and  are  all 
(according  to  Heinschius,  cxxxi.),  with  the  ex¬ 
ception  of  two  letters  of  Clement  (which  are  in 
whole  or  in  part  more  ancient  forgeries),  the 
work  of  the  Pseudo-Isidoi-e. 

Then  follow  various  conciliar  decrees,  with 
which  we  are  not  here  concerned,  but  many  of 
which  are  unauthentic.  In  a  third  part  we  have 
again  decretals  of  popes  down  to  Gregory  11.  In 
this  series  the  first  that  is  genuine  is  that  of 
Siricius  to  Himerius  or  Eumerius,  Bishop  of  Tar¬ 
ragona.**  Among  those  that  follow,  some  are  to 
a  certain  extent  genuine,  or,  at  all  events,  have 
been  taken,  with  more  or  less  exactness,  from 
existing  records.  Others,  on  the  contrary,  are 
either  the  invention  of  the  compiler,  or  have 
been  compounded  by  him  out  of  some  existing 
materials,  or,  lastly,  were  forgeries  found  ready 
to  his  hand.®  Everywiiere,  however,  unwar¬ 
ranted  alterations  and  additions  are  to  be  found. 


c  The  work  is  considered  by  Heinschius  to  h.n  e  appeared 
between  847  and  853,  a.d.  It  has  been  usual  to  trace  its 
origin  to  the  province  of  Mayence,  but  Heinschius  attri¬ 
butes  it  to  that  of  Rheims.  The  author  is  not  certainly 
known  (see  Heinschius.  ccviii.  and  ccxxix.  et  seq.).  liy 
some  he  has  been  Identified  with  Benedictus  lan  it.i;  but, 
according  to  Heinschius,  he  only  availed  himself  ot  mate¬ 
rials  found  in  the  collection  of  Benedictus.  (Heins,  cxliii.) 

^VIth  this  the  original  collection  of  Dionysius  began, 
e  Milman  makes  39,  Phillips  35,  false  decrees  in  this 
part  of  the  work.  It  is  liard  to  .say  with  preci.-ion  how 
many  of  the  forgi  ries  were  previously  in  existence.  On 
this  jxjiiit  the  carelui  analysis  in  the  preface  ol  Heinschius 
should  be  (on.sulted.  S  e  also  I’hillips,  p.  63,  Bickell,  i 
35,  note.  It  Is  imjiosslble  to  condense  the  results. 


540 


DECRETAL 


DECRETUM 


wholly  spurious  letters  being  apparently  mixed 
with  those  that  have  some  title  to  be  deemed 
authentic.^  It  thus  appears  that  the  work  is  not 
a  pure,  unmixed  forgery.  It  rests  in  part  on 
older  collections.  These  are  the  Hispana  col- 
•ectio,  the  so-called  Hadriano-Dionysian  collection 
(or  Codex  Hadrianus),  and  some  other  works  of 
less  importance.  Of  these  some  account  has  been 
already  given  under  a  previous  head  [Canon 
Law],  and  it  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  repeat 
it  here.  As  there  mentioned,  the  work  of  Dio¬ 
nysius  (subsequently  sanctioned  by  Pope  Hadrian) 
was  the  first  which  placed  the  papal  epistles  side 
by  side  with  the  decrees  of  Councils.  This  seems 
to  have  been  the  important  step.  From  this  time 
an  opening  was  given  to  contend  that  they  wei’e 
on  a  par,  and  the  wide  circulation  which  the  work 
obtained  very  materially  assisted  the  pretensions 
founded  on  it.  Then  came  the  Spanish  collec¬ 
tion,  which  yet  further  contributed  to  invest  the 
papal  epistles  with  a  legislative,  as  distinguished 
from  a  moral,  authority  in  the  Church.  It  car¬ 
ried  on  the  series  further  than  Dionysius  had 
doue;l^  and  at  length,  in  the  9th  century,  the 
appearance  of  the  work  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore  (so 
called  to  distinguish  him  from  the  Isidore  to 
whom  the  Spanish  collection  is  attributed),  with 
its  crowd  of  fictitious  epistles  which  an  uncritical 
age  received  in  implicit  faith,  put  into  the  hands 
of  the  popes  the  greatest  weapon  which  they 
have  ever  wielded.  The  result  therefore  is  that 
previously  to  the  year  800  a.d.  the  foundations 
were  really  laid  for  the  superstructure  after¬ 
wards  raised  ;  but  it  was  chiefly  due  to  the  sub¬ 
sequent  work  that  that  superstructure  attained 
its  vast  proportions  and  peculiar  character.  For 
the  forgeries  invented  by,  or  enshrined  in,  that 
work,  not  only  vastly  increased  the  number  of 
papal  epistles,  and  carried  them  back  to  pri¬ 
mitive  times,  but  were  directly  framed  with  a 
view  of  sujjporting  the  highest  claims  of  the 
Roman  see.  There  is  little  or  nothing  in  the 
genuine  epistles  which  could  be  made  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  many  of  the  later  papal  claims,  whereas 
the  fictitious  decretals  furnish  a  basis  for  the 
largest  pretensions.  It  was  for  this  reason  that 

f  As  an  indication  that  the  learned  of  all  communions 
are  substantially  agreed  at  the  present  day  as  to  the  cha¬ 
racter  of  the  work  as  a  whole,  it  may  not  be  uninteresting 
to  cite  the  following  summary  of  the  work  from  the  Bene¬ 
dictine  notes  to  the  Bibliotheca  Cavonica  of  Ferraris,  edit. 
1845:  (stated  to  be  published  *•  Superiorum  permissu  et 
privileglo.")  Under  the  title  “  Canones  ”  the  collection 
of  Pseudo-Isidore  is  thus  spoken  of: — “Continet  collectio 
praeter  quinquaginta  Canones  Apostolorura  ex  Hadrian^ 
collectione,  epistolas  Romanorum  Pontificum  a  Clemente 
usque  ad  Silvestrum,  quarum  omnium  ipse  Isidorus  auctor 
fuit,  exceptis  duabus  dementis  ad  Jacobum  literis;  turn 
canones  plurium  conciliorum,  in  quibus  falsa  habetur  Con- 
stitutio  Constantini  ad  Silvestrum;  postremo  Pontificum 
literas  ab  ipso  Siivestro  ad  Gregorium  M.  aliis  cum  epi- 
stolis  ac  monumeritis,  quorum  pars  ex  aliis  collectionlbus 
sump' a  vera  est  atque  germana,  praeter  epistolas  omnes 
Pontificum  Siricio  antiquiorum  ab  Isidoro  conficta's,  ex¬ 
ceptis  S.  Damasi  ad  Paullnum  Uteris,  pars  altera  cum 
actis  concilii  Romani  sub  Julio  et  Concilil  1.  V.  et  VI.  sub 
Symmacho,  excogitata  et  inventa  est.”  See  another  ac¬ 
count,  also  from  a  Roman  Catholic  point  of  view,  in 
Phillips’  Du  Droit  EccUsiastique,  chap.  i.  §  8. 

g  Phillips  (p.  29)  seems  to  think  that  some  decretals 
purporting  to  proceed  from  the  earliest  popes  had  been 
added  to  the  collection  of  Dionysius  at,  the  end  of  the  7ih 
century,  thus  carrying  the  series  backward  also,  and 
paving  the  way  for  Pseudo- Isidore. 


they  were  brought  at  once  into  pi*omincnce,  and 
that  from  the  time  of  their  ap])earance  decretabs, 
as  di.stinguished  from  other  sources  of  ecclesi¬ 
astical  law,  j)lay  so  large  a  part  in  the  works  of 
the  canonists. 

“The  false  decretals,”  says  Milman  (Lot. 
Christ,  book  v.  chap.  4),  do  not  merely  assert 
the  supremacy  of  the  popes — the  dignity  and  pri¬ 
vileges  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome — they  comprehend 
the  whole  dogmatic  system  and  discii)line  of  the 
Church,  the  whole  hierarchy  from  the  highest  to 
the  lowest  degree,  their  sanctity  and  immunities, 
their  persecutions,  their  disputes,  their  right  of 
appeal  to  Rome.**  They  are  full  and  minute  on 
church  property;  on  its  usurpation  and  spolia¬ 
tion  ;  on  ordinations ;  on  the  sacraments,  on  bap¬ 
tism,  confirmation,  marriage,  the  Eucharist ;  on 
fasts  and  festivals ;  the  discovery  of  the  cross, 
the  discovery  of  the  reliques  of  the  apostles  ;  on 
the  chrism,  holy  water,  consecration  of  churches, 
blessing  of  the  fruits  of  the  field  ;  on  the  sacred 
vessels  and  habiliments.  Personal  incidents  are 
not  wanting  to  give  life  and  reality  to  the  fic¬ 
tion.  The  whole  is  composed  with  an  air  of 
piety  and  reverence :  a  specious  jiurity,  and  oc¬ 
casionally  beauty,  in  the  moral  and  religious 
tone.  There  are  many  axioms  of  seemingly  sin¬ 
cere  and  vital  religion.  But  for  the  too  manifold 
design,  the  aggrandisement  of  the  see  of  Rome 
and  the  aggrandisement  of  the  whole  clergy  in 
subordination  to  the  see  of  Rome  ;  but  for  the 
monstrous  ignorance  of  history,  which  betrays 
itself  in  glaring  anachronisms,  and  in  the  utter 
confusion  of  the  order  of  events  and  in  the  lives 
of  distinguished  men  —  the  former  awakening 
keen  and  jealous  suspicion,  the  latter  making 
the  detection  of  the  spuriousness  of  the  whole 
easy,  clear,  irrefragable  —  the  False  Decretals 
might  still  have  maintained  their  place  in  eccle¬ 
siastical  history.' 

Authorities. — Gieseler,  Text  Book  of  Eccles. 
History ;  Heinschius,  Decretales  Fseudo~Isido~ 
rianae  et  Capitu'a  Anyilrami,  Lipsiae,  18fi3, 
which  is  now  probably  the  standard  work  on  the 
subject ;  Bickell,  Geschichte  des  Kirchenrechts, 
Giessen,  1843;  Milman,  Latin  Christi  inity  ; 
Phillips,  Du  Droit  eccldsiastique  dans  scs  Sources  ; 
Walther,  Kirchenrecht.  [B.  S.] 

DECRETUM,  DECRETALE.  The  letter 
of  the  clergy  and  people  of  a  city,  sent  to  the 
metropolitan  and  the  comprovincial  bishops, 
signifying  the  election  of  a  bishop  of  their  city 
[Bishop,  p.  220],  whom  they  require  to  be  con¬ 
secrated  ;  equivalent  to  ttjs 
\pT)<picr/JLa  (Palladius,  Vita  Chrysos.  p.  39).  Gre¬ 
gory  of  Tours  ( Vita  Maurit.  c.  13,  in  Du- 
cange)  says  that  in  the  choice  of  Mauritius  the 
electors  could  not  “  in  unum  venire  decretum.” 
A  form  for  such  a  letter  is  given  in  the  Ordo 
Bomanus  Vulg.,  under  the  title,  “  Decretum  quod 
clerus  et  populus  firmare  debet  de  electo  epi- 
scopo.”  The  proper  form  of  one  addressed  to  the 
pope  himself  is  given  in  the  Li'>er  Diurnus  Bon- 

»»  It  has  been  thought  by  Gfrbrer  that  one  motive  of  the 
fraud  was  to  beat  dow'ii  the  power  of  the  metropolitans 
over  the  bishops,  by  making  that  of  the  pope  greater  and 
more  immediate  in  Its  nature  over  all  the  clergy.  See 
Milman’s  note,  ibidem. 

»  It  should  perhaps  be  added  that  in  this  article  the 
strict  caiionical  sense  of  “  Decretal  ”  has  been  taken.  1  he 
woid,  like  other  ecclesiastical  terms,  is  sometimes  used  in 
a  looser  and  more  general  sense. 


DEDICATION 

tiff.  Romm.  c.  3,  p.  54.  In  the  same  place  there 
fo'llows  (p.  56)  a  ^^Decretale,  quod  legit  diaconus 
dcsignuto  episcopo.”  The  difference  between  this 
and  the  foregoing  Decretum  appears  to  be,  that 
the  one  was  sent  by  the  hands  of  some  official  of 
the  vacant  see  immediately  on  the  election  of  the 
bishop ;  if  thereupon  the  pope  gave  his  assent, 
the  bishop  became  technically  desijnate,  and  a 
deacon  of  his  church  read  the  Decretalc  or  peti¬ 
tion  for  consecration  (Gamier,  in  loco).  Several 
forms  of  Decreta  on  the  election  of  bishops  may 
be  found  in  Sirmond’s  Concil.  Gall.  ii.  647  ff. 
and  in  Ussher’s  Vet.  Ejjist.  Hihern.,  Kpp.  25,  33, 
40.  [C.] 

DEDICATION.  [Consecration  of 
Churches:  Patron  Saint.] 

DEDICATION,  FESTIVAL  OF  (’£7/^0!- 

v^a).  The  observance  of  the  anniversary  of 
dedication  arose  contemporaneously  with  the 
custom  of  the  solemn  dedication  of  churches. 
It  was  natural  that  an  epoch  so  intimately  con¬ 
nected  with  the  religious  life  of  the  congrega¬ 
tion  should  not  be  allowed  to  drop  into  oblivion. 
By  a  very  intelligible  metaphor  the  day  of  con¬ 
secration  was  considered  the  birthday  of  the 
church,  or  congregation  meeting  for  worship 
within  its  walls.  St.  Leo  (^^enno  Ixxxii.  in 
Ratal.  Machab.)  calls  it  the  “  dies  natalis  ”  of  the 
church.  By  another  metaphor  it  was  regarded 
as  the  day  of  the  church’s  espousals  to  her 
heavenly  Bridegroom.  Most  naturally  therefore 
these  anniversaries  were  celebrated  with  the 
same  joyous  feelings  and  outward  festivities  as 
birthdays  and  wedding-days.  These  celebrations 
havincf  their  first  origin  in  the  time  when  the 
Christians  were  a  poor  and  barely  tolerated  sect, 
exposed  continually  to  persecution,  and  when 
any  outward  pomp  attracting  the  notice  of  the 
heathen  population  around  would  be  fraught 
with  peril,  assumed  a  character  of  magnificence 
in  their  period  of  security  and  opulence.  The 
earliest  instance  on  record  of  the  observance  of 
such  anniversaries  is  in  the  case  of  the  church  of 
“  the  Great  Martyry  ”  erected  by  Constantine  on 
Calvary,  and  consecrated  a.d.  335.  In  memory 
of  this  solemn  dedication,  the  most  magnificent 
the  Christian  world  had  yet  witnessed,  a  yearly 
festival  was  held  for  eight  days  at  Jerusalem, 
attended  by  immense  crowds  not  of  the  citizens 
only  but  of  strangers  from  all  parts  (Soz.  //.  E. 
lib.  ii.  c.  26).  But  the  custom  was  certainly 
anterior  to  this,  for  not  many  years  later,  to¬ 
wards  the  middle  of  the  4th  century,  the  obser- 
A'ance  of  these  anniversaries  is  spoken  of  by 
Gregory  Nazianzen  as  “  an  ancient  usage,”  iyKal- 
via  rifiaaQai  iraKaihs  vSjxos  Kai  KaXws  koI 

toCto  ovx  a7r«|  aWa  Ka\  iroWaKis,  kK(X(TTi]s  tov 
^viavTov  TreptTpoTTTjs  r^v  avTr?*'  Tjfxepav  iTray~ 

o6(T7)s  (Greg.  Naz.  In  Novam  Dominicam.  Orat. 
xliii.).  Two  centuries  later  it  was  laid  down  by 
Felix  IV.  c.  A.D.  530,  as  a  law. of  the  Church  that 
such  anniversaries  should  be  solemnly  kept  for 
eight  days,  “  solemnitates  vero  dedicationum 
ecclesiarum  per  singulos  annos  sunt  celebrandae  ” 
(^Epistola  ad  Episcopos,  Labbe,  Concil.  iv.  1655). 
The  example  of  Christ  attending  the  Feast  of 
Dedication  (John  x.  22),  and  of  Solomon  feasting 
the  people  for  eight  days  at  the  Dedication  of 
the  Temple,  1  Kin.  viii.  65,  66,  were  adduced  as 
authorities  for  this  observance.  At  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  the  next  century  we  find  the  fii’st 


DEDICATION,  FESTIVAL  OF  64t 

indication  of  the  re^elry  with  which  these  festi¬ 
vals  were  subsequently  disgraced,  and  which 
made  them  a  by-word  for  scandalous  licence. 
Gregory  the  Great  writing  to  Mellitus  when  pro¬ 
ceeding  to  join  Augustine  in  England,  a.d.  601, 
after  retracting  the  advice  previously  given  that 
the  heathen  temples  should  be  destroyed,  and  re¬ 
commending  their  purification  and  conversion 
into  Christian  Churches,  proceeds  in  a  similar 
spirit  to  advise  that  the  popular  festivals  for¬ 
merly  held  on  these  consecrated  sites  should  not 
be  wholly  discontinued,  but  that  “as  some  so¬ 
lemnity  must  be  conceded  as  a  compensation,” 
they  should  be  transferred  to  the  anniversaries 
of  the  day  of  dedication,  or  the  nativities  of  the 
martyrs  by  whose  relics  the  churches  were 
hallowed.  On  these  days  he  recommends  that 
huts  or  arbours  should  be  erected,  about  the 
transformed  temples,  in  which  after  “  killing 
cattle  to  the  praise  of  God  in  their  eating,  they 
should  celebrate  the  solemnity  with  religious 
feasting  ”  (Greg.  Mag.  Epist.  ad  Mcllitum,  Had- 
dan  and  Stubbs,  vol.  iii.  p.  37  ;  Bede,  lib.  i.  c. 
30).  In  other  places  Gregory  alludes  to  the 
eagerness  with  which  the  country  folk  flocked 
together  to  these  festive  celebration.s,  and  the 
mixed  crowds  that  were  attracted  by  the  good 
cheer  (Greg.  Mag.  Homil.  in  Evang.  xiv. ;  Epist. 
lib.  i.  52,  54;  Vita,  c.  37.  See  also  Sidonius 
Apollinaris,  Epist.  lib.  iv.  ep.  15).  Such  gather¬ 
ings  of  half-leavened  pagans  inevitably  assumed 
a  character  of  gross  license  entirely  at  variance 
with  their  sacred  intention.  Dramatic  repre¬ 
sentations  were  performed,  drinking  was  pro¬ 
longed  to  intoxication,  and  singing  and  dancing 
were  continued  far  into  the  night.  In  fact  they 
were  characterized  by  all  the  revelry  and  licen¬ 
tiousness  of  a  village  fair,  which  in  so  many 
cases  is  the  lineal  successor  of  the  dedication 
festival,  changed  only  in  its  externals.  These 
gross  scandals  were  not  allowed  to  pass  un¬ 
reproved.  The  serious  attention  of  bishoj)s  and 
councils  was  directed  to  them,  and  earnest 
attempts  were  made  for  their  suppression.  The 
19th  canon  of  the  council  of  Chalons,  a.d.  650, 
is  directed  against  the  custom  (the  prohibition 
indicates  the  practice)  of  bands  of  women  sing¬ 
ing  foul  and  obscene  songs,  “turpia  et  obscoeua 
cantilena,”  at  the  porches  or  churchyard  walls 
on  the  dedication  festivals  (Labbe,  Con:il.  vi. 
391  [compare  Dancing]).  But  so  thoroughly 
had  these  licentious  festivjils  established  them¬ 
selves,  that  their  authoritative  condemnation 
proved  idle,  and  they  lived  on  in  defiance  of  pre¬ 
lates  and  councils. 

Gavanti  lays  down  (^Thes.  Sacr.  Rit.  §  8,  c.  5) 
that  the  Feast  of  Dedication  is  a  festival  of  the 
first-class,  of  greater  dignity  than  that  of  the 
Patron  Saint  or  the  Titulary  of  the  Church. 
The  reason  for  this  superiority  is  assigned  by  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas  (lect.  5  in  Joann,  c.  x.)  because 
the  dedication  festival  is  a  commemoration  of  the 
benefits  conferred  on  the  whole  church,  which 
exceed  those  given  to  any  individual  saint.  The 
Feast  of  Dedication  is  a  “  duplex  majus  ”  and 
has  an  octave.  If  it  happens  to  coincide  with 
any  greater  festival  the  consecrator,  or  after¬ 
wards  the  bishop  of  the  diocese,  may  transfer 
the  anniversary  to  some  Sunday,  or  any  other 
day  convenient  for  the  large  attendance  of  the 
country  people  (Gavanti  u.  s. ;  Bellarmin.  de  cultu 
sanctorum,  lib.  iii.  c.  5,  de  dedicatione  et  conxcru' 


542 


DEDUCTORIUM 


DEGRADATION 


tione  ecclesiarum  ;  Ducange  suh  voc. ;  Bingham, 
Ori(j.  bk.  viii.  c.  ix.  §  14;  Isid.  Hispal.  De  Eccl. 
Off.  lib.  i.  c.  36  ;  Gratian  Decret.  iJe  Consecr. 
Dist.  i.  c.  17  ;  Ivo  Carnot.  Decret.  pars  iii.  c.  24). 

After  the  establishment  of  Christianity  newly 
founded  cities  were  solemnly  dedicated  to  Christ 
and  the  Saints,  and  the  anniversary  of  tlie  dedi¬ 
cation  was  celebrated.  This  was  notably  the 
case  with  Coustantinoj)le,  the  anniversary  called 
•yev^QKios  rr\s  irdKecos  ^ix4pa  [p.  448]  being  kept 
on  the  11th  of  May  (Ducange,  CumtanLinop. 
Christiana,  lib.  i.  c.  3).  [E.  V.] 

DEDUCTORIUM.  A  name  sometimes  given 
to  the  j)i})e  or  channel  by  which  the  baptismal 
water  escaped  from  the  font  (Paschasius,  Epist. 
ad  Lconem  Papani).  [Font.]  [C.] 

DEER.  [Stag.] 

DEFENSOR  ECCLESIAE.  [See  Advo- 
CATUS  Kcclesiae.]  The  Division  into  Defensores 
Ecclesiae,  Pauperum,  Matrimonii,  &c.,  is  one  of 
duties,  not  of  persons.  In  addition  to  their  proper 
work,  already  described  under  Advocatus,  a  law 
of  Justinian  Ixxiv.  4)  imposed  upon  them 

also  in  certain  cases  the  incidental  duty  of  wit¬ 
nessing  and  registering  espousals.  Setting  aside 
on  the  oue  hand  the  case  of  senators  and  persons 
of  the  highest  rank,  who  were  bound  to  have  a 
regular  settlement  of  dowry  and  antenuptial 
gift,  &c.,  &c.,  and  on  the  other  that  of  persons 
of  the  lowest  rank,  who  needed  no  written  docu¬ 
ment  at  all,  Justinian  ordained  that  oHicers, 
merchants,  professional  men,  and  the  like,  if 
they  desired  their  marriage  to  be  lawful,  must 
present  themselves  in  church  in  the  presence  of 
the  Defensor  Ecclesiae  [Contract  of  Mar¬ 
riage,  p.  488] ;  and  that  officer,  with  three  or 
four  of  the  superior  clergy  of  the  church,  is  to 
draw  up  and  sign,  with  at  least  three  of  the  said 
clergy,  a  dated  and  formal  attestation  of  the 
marriage  contract,  one  copy  to  be  deposited  in 
the  archives  of  the  church,  others  to  be  given  if 
required  to  the  parties  themselves  {fBincjh.  XXII. 
iii.  10).  [A.  W.  H.] 

DEGRADATION,  DEPOSITION,  DE- 
ORDINATION,  DEPRIVATION,  were  terms 
at  first  used  indiscriminately  to  signify  the  total 
and  absolute  withdrawal  from  a  clergyman,  by 
ecclesiastical  sentence,  of  his  clerical  office,  and 
the  reducing  of  him  to  simple  lay  communion  : 
derjradare,  ah  officio  removere,  deordinare,  ab  or- 
dine  cleri  amoveri,  KadaipeiaOai,  air'  oIkPiov  ^ad- 
uov  airoir'nrTeiv,  ireTravcrOaL  tov  KXppov,  being 
all  used  of  the  same  thing  ;  which  is  also  ex¬ 
pressed  by  “  deponi  ab  officio  communione  con- 
eessa.”  As  a  punishment  of  clergymen,  it  stood 
midway  between  a  temporary  withdrawal  of  the 
clerical  office,  viz.  suspension,  and  an  exclusion 
from  the  Church  altogether  by  excommunication. 
There  were  also  various  degrees  of  degradation 
itself:  as  e.g.  the  degradation  simply  from  a 
higher  order  to  a  lower;  or  again,  degradation 
from  the  office,  but  with  permission  to  retain  its 
title  and  dignity :  for  which,  and  for  some  minor 
variations,  see  Bingham,  XVII.  iv. 

1.  The  proper  to  inflict  such  a  sentence, 
in  the  case  of  an  inferior  clerk,  was  the  Bishop 
[p.  228],  acting  with  his  presb3flers  and  with  his 
church  in  the  earliest  times,  but  from  the  4th 
century  the  bishop  practically  was  the  judge.  An 
appeal,  however,  was  allowed  from  the  beginning 
to  the  provincial  synod ;  see  e.  g.,  Cone.  JS’icaen. 


and  Cone.  Sardic.,  and  also  under  Appeal.  And 
the  provincial  Council  of  Seville  {llispal.  II.  a.D. 
619,  c.  6)  endeavoured  to  restore  the  older  prac¬ 
tice  also,  and  insist  on  the  bishop  acting  ab  initio 
with  his  council — “  Solus  honorem  dare  potest, 
auferre  solus  non  potest.”  The  rule  how^ever 
gradually  came  to  be,  that  three  bishops  were 
required  to  degrade  or  try  a  deacon,  six  in  the 
case  of  a  priest,  and  twelve  in  that  of  a  bishop. 
[See  Appeal.]  The  synod  of  the  province  indeed 
was  alone  the  tribunal  which  could  depose  a 
bishop,  and  subsequently  a  prie.sl  also. 

2.  As  to  the  crimes  for  which  clergy  were  to 
be  degraded,  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that 
they  were  liable  to  the  penalty  for  all  such  im¬ 
moral  acts  as  would  involve  excommunication  in 
the  case  of  a  layman.  But  in  addition  to  these, 
there  are  special  offences  against  clerical  disci¬ 
pline  to  which  various  canons  attached  the  like 
penalty,  such  as  digamy,  usury,  having  recourse 
to  a  secular  tribunal,  keeping  hawks  or  hounds, 
meddling  with  secular  business,  frequenting  ta¬ 
verns  needlessly ;  besides  such  matters  as  more 
immediately  related  to  their  duties,  as,  e.  g.  alter¬ 
ing  the  form  of  bapti.sm,  despising  fasts  and  festi¬ 
vals,  not  rightly  keeping  Easter,  &c.  The  58th 
Apostolic  Canon  {al.  57)  deposes  for  negligence 
in  pastoral  care,  paOvpia.  See  Bishop,  Priest, 
Deacon. 

3.  There  must  always  have  been  some  cere¬ 
monial  in  the  infliction  of  such  a  sentence, 
although  the  elaborate  details  of  later  customs 
are  not  traceable  in  early  times,  and  date  in 
their  formal  fulness  from  the  Roman  Pontifical 
and  from  a  Bull  of  Boniface  VIII.  ^Martene 
(^De  Bit.  Ant.  Eccl.  lib.  iii.  c.  2)  has  collected 
what  can  be  gathered  of  earlier  practice.  Libe- 
ratus*  Breviarium  supplies  his  earliest  instance. 
The  principle  on  which  the  later  practice  was 
formed  was  so  natural  in  itself,  that  something 
of  the  kind  no  doubt  was  the  rule  from  the  first. 
Since  the  clerical  office  was  conferred  with  the 
accompaniment  of  delivering  to  each  order  cer¬ 
tain  appropriate  iustrumeutSj  and  with  the 
adoption  also  of  certain  vestments,  there  could 
be  no  more  effectual  or  natural  symbol  of  the 
taking  away  of  its  office  than  the  taking  away 
of  these  appropriate  instruments  and  vestments. 
In  the  case  mentioned  by  Liberatus,  accordingh’, 
an  archbishop  is  deprived  by  taking  away  his  pall. 
The  more  elaborate  and  later  ceremonial  in  the 
Pontifical  and  in  Boniface’s  bull  gives  each 
separate  article  and  then  solemnly  takes  it  awa}’, 
with  a  form  of  words  for  each,  and  this  either 
privately,  “  before  the  secular  judge,”  or  on  some 
public  and  elevated  stage  ;  ending  by  scraping  the 
thumb  and  hand  of  the  degraded  clerk,  to  signify 
the  removal  from  him  of  unction  and  blessing. 
The  Donatists  it  appears  proceeded  tc  shave  his 
head  bald  also.  That  some  words  as  well  as  acts 
were  used  from  the  beginning  may  likewise  be 
taken  for  granted  (See  e.g.  Socrates,  //.  E.  i.  24, 
speaking  of  the  deposition  of  Eustathius).  Regular 
and  minute  ritual  forms  are  of  a  late  date.  They 
may  be  found  in  Martene  and  in  Bohmer,  as 
quoted  below. 

4.  After  degradation,  there  still  followed  in 
stricter  times,  and  for  bad  cases,  confinement  to 
a  monasteiy  and  penance,  as  may  be  seen  in  e.g. 
Gregory  the  Great’s  letters;  the  clerk  being  still 
quasi  subject  to  ecclesiastical  law,  although  now 
a  laj'man  only. 


DEICOLAE 


DEMONIACS 


(Bingham, 
lib.  iii.  c.  2 ; 
tit.  xxxvii.  § 


xvii. ;  Martene,  De  Ant.  Hit.  Heel. 
Bohmer,  Jus  Eeeles.  Protest,  lib.  v. 
974,  tom.  V.  pp.  715-766.) 

TA.  W.  H.l 


DEICOLAE  (compare  Colidei).  A  name 
sometimes  applied  to  monks,  as  in  the  Epistle 
of  ^lartin  of  Braga  to  King  Miro,  in  D  Achery  s 
Spieilcgium,  lii.  312  (Ducange,  s.  v.).  [C.] 


DEI  GRATIA.  The  bishops  of  the  Church, 
regarding  themselves  as  called  to  their  office  by 
the  will  of  God,  have  from  ancient  times  been 
in  the  habit  of  using  formulae  implying  a  divine 
call.  Thus  Pope  Felix  II.  (a.d.  356)  calls  him¬ 
self  “per  gratiam  Dei  episcopus”  (Hardouin, 
C'jn'  ilia,  i.  757).  Aurelius  says  that  he  holds 
his  office  “  dignatione  Dei”  (C.  Garth,  iii.  c.  45; 
A.d.  397).  Other  bishops  used  equivalent  ex- 
])ressions,  as  “Dei”  or  “  Christi  nomine,  mise- 
ratione,  misericordia.”  The  German  bishops 
have  used,  from  the  7th  century  onward,  the 
form  “  Dei  gratia,”  to  which  in  later  times  some 
such  phrase  as  “  a})Ostolicae  sedis  gratia”  or 
“providentia”  was  added.  Z^Ww em  (Pr,neipia 
Juris-  Eecl.  iv.  278)  believes  this  addition  not 
to  be  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  and  Thomassin  (^Vetus  et  Nova  Eeel. 
Discip.  pt.  i.  bk.  i.  c.  60,  §  10),  will  not  allow 
that  it  was  used  in  Germany  before  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  fifteenth  ;  but  the  germ  of  it  is 
certainly  found  in  the  writings  of  Boniface, 
the  apostle  of  Germany,  who  styled  himself 
“  servus  apostolicae  sedis  ”  (Hartzheim,  Cuneilta 
Gernvxniae.,  i.  43). 

A  similar  style  was  adopted  by  secular  per¬ 
sons  of  exalted  rank  ;  thus  Agilulf  on  his  crown 
[Crown,  p.  508]  is  described  as  “  Gratia  Domini 
.  .  .  Rex  totius  Italiae  ”  (a.d.  591);  and  Rothar 
(a.d.  643),  in  his  Edict  for  the  Lombards  (Walter, 
Corpus  Juris  Germcmici,  i.  683),  speaks  of  him¬ 
self  as  “  in  Dei  nomine  rex,  anno,  Deo  propi- 
tiante,  regni  mei  octavo.”  In  England,  Ethelbert 
of  Kent,  in  a  charter  of  the  year  605,  styles 
himself,  “  Aethilbertus  Dei  gratia  Rex  Anglorum” 
(Haddan  and  Stubbs,  iii.  55),  Ethelbald  (A.D.  716) 
styles  himself  “  divina  dispensatione  rex  Merci- 
orum  ”  (^Codex  Dipl.').  From  the  days  of  Pepin 
the  form  “  Dei  gratia  ”  seems  commonly  to  have 
been  adoj)ted  by  the  Frankish  kings.  Charles 
the  Great  (a.d.  769)  adopted  the  following  style 
and  title:  “Carolus  gratia  Dei  I’ex  regnique 
Francorum  rector  et  devotus  sanctae  ecclesiae 
defensor  atque  adjutor  in  omnibus  apostolicae 
sedis  ”  (Pertz,  Monuin.  Gennaniae,  iii.  33).  Sel- 
den,  Titles  of  Honour,  in  IVor^s,  iii.  214;  Allen, 
Pojal  Prerogative,  p.  22,  ed.  1849 ;  Herzog, 
Heal- Eneyelopd  lie,  iii.  312.  .  [C.] 

DEITIES,  PAGAN.  [Paganism  in  Art.] 
DELATORES.  [Informers.] 
DELEGATED  JURISDICTION.  [Juris¬ 
diction.] 


DELEGATUS.  [Legate.] 

DELFPIINI.  [Corona  Lucis,  p.  46L] 
DEIMERITORUM  DOMUS.  [Decania.] 

DEMETRIA,  daughter  of  Faustus,  martyr 
at  Rome  under  Julian;  commemoi’ated  June  21 
(J/arL  Horn.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 


DEMETRIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Thessalonica, 
a.d.  296  ;  commemorated  Oct.  8  (^Mart.  Horn. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi) ;  Oct.  26  (JJal.  Byzant.). 


513 

(2)  Bishop  and  martyr  at  Antif)ch  with  Aui- 
anus.  Eustosius,  and  twenty  others;  commemo¬ 
rated  Kov.  U>  GMart.  llieron.,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Saint;  commemorated  Dec.  22,  with  IIo- 
noratus  and  Florus  (^Alart.  Usuardi,  Adonis  in 
Appendice). 

(4)  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  A.  >.  231 ;  com¬ 
memorated  Magabit  12  =  March  8  and  Tekemt 
12  =  Oct.  9  {Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(5)  “  Demetrius  et  Basilius,”  commemorated 

Nov.  12  {C(d.  Armen.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DEMOCRITUS,  Saint,  at  Sinnada  in  Africa  ; 
commemorated  July  31,  with  Secundus  and 
Dionisius  {Mart.  llieron.,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DEMON  (in  Art).  The  evil  spirit  is  al¬ 
ways  represented  in  early  Christian  art  as  the 
enemy  and  tempter  of  mankind  under  the 
form  of  the  sorj)ent,  excepting  in  the  Laurentian 
MS.  [Demoniac]  and  in  the  singular  diptych 
(in  Gori,  Thesaurus,  t.  iii.  tab.  viii.)  which  re-^ 
presents  the  cure  of  a  demoniac.  As  Martigny 
observes,  these  cases  are  in  all  respects  excep¬ 
tional  ;  but  they  are  probably  the  earliest 
works  of  art  in  which  the  devil  or  any  inferior 
evil  spirit  is  represented  in  the  human  form. 
[But  see  Devil.]  It  might  be  expected  that 
as  the  form  of  Job  occurs  frequently  in  early 
carvings  and  paintings  (Bottari,  taw.  xv.  cv. ; 
Perret,  i.  xxv.  &c.)  some  representation  of  the  evil 
one  as  an  agent  of  torment  might  be  found  with 
him  ;  but  this  seems  not  to  be  the  case.  The  figure 
of  the  Serpent  (see  s.  v.)  accompanies  most  re- 
presenti.tions  of  Adam  and  Eve  in  Bottari  and 
elsewhere  :  his  head  is  generally  turned  towards 
Eve.  The  first  known  instance  of  the  human¬ 
headed  serpent  as  tempter  is  found  in  the 
Catacomb  of  St.  Agnes  (Perret,  ii.  pi.  xli.),  if  the 
painting  be  of  the  same  date  as  the  catacomb. 
This  point  involves  great  difficulties,  which  time 
and  inquiry  seem  rather  likely  to  aggravate  than 
to  diminish.  For  the  Serpent  threatening  the 
Doves  see  Dragon  ;  and  Gori,  Thesaurus  Dipty  h. 
iii.  p.  160.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DEMONIACS.  The  Church  inherited  from 
both  Jews  and  heathens  the  belief  that  demons, 
i.e.  “unclean”  or  “evil”  spirits,  could  take 
possession  of  the  bodies  and  the  souls  of  men, 
women,  children,  and  subject  them  to  a  cruel 
bondage.  The  history  of  our  Lord’s  miracles 
naturally  tended  to  confirm  and  deepen  the  be¬ 
lief.  Abnormal  physical  oi  mental  states,  which 
could  not  be  otherwise  explained,  were  referred 
to  demoniacal  possession  as  a  sufficient  cause. 
From  one  point  of  view,  indeed,  it  was  held  as  a 
dogma  that  every  child  born  into  the  world  was 
thus  under  the  power  of  an  evil  spirit,  of  the 
chief  of  evil  spirits,  and  from  an  early  period  a 
formula  of  exorcism  was  employed  as  a  preli¬ 
minary  rite  to  baptism,  and  the  work  of  cate¬ 
chist  and  exorcist  was  thus  brought  into  close 
connection  [Baptism;  Exorcism].  In  the  j>re- 
sent  article,  however,  it  is  proposed  to  deal  only 
with  tho.se  in  whom  the  condition  was  more  or 
less  chronic,  and  who  were  brought  therefore 
under  a  continuous  course  of  treatment. 

It  is  clear  from  the  narratives  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  from  the  records  of  the  Church, 
that  the  class  consisted  chiefly  though  not  ex¬ 
clusively  of  those  who  in  our  own  time  wouhl  be 
classified  as  insane.  They  were  known  a.s  the 
haLpovi^op-ivoi,  the  N.  T.  name  more  frcauently 


544 


DEMONIACS 


as  th  'i  iv^pyov/j-evoi  (energumeni),  men  opoi-ated  ! 
on,  exercised  by,  unclean  spirits,  less  frequently 
as  )(eiiJia^6fjLepoi  (hyemantes)’^  or  K\vSwpi^<iiJ.€voi, 
those  who  are  tossed  to  and  fro  by  the  storms 
and  billows  of  uncontrollable  impulse.  The 
boundary-line  between  mental  and  moral  dis¬ 
order  is  at  all  times  difficult  to  trace,  and  the 
name  is  at  times  extended,  as  by  the  Pseudo-Dio¬ 
nysius  (de  Eccles.  Hierarch,  iv.  3),  to  those  who 
wei  e  the  slaves  of  lust  or  other  master-passions, 
probably  to  those  in  whom  the  moral  evil  as- 
^sumed  the  character  of  a  possession,  overpower- 
•  ing  the  ordinary  restraints  of  prudence  and  self- 
control.  For  the  most  part,  however,  the  ener- 
gurneni,  as  demoniacs,  may  be  identified  with 
those  who  suffered  from  some  form  of  insanity. 
The  symptoms  described  by  Cyprian,  sleepless 
nights,  panic  fears,  restless  agitation  (de  Idol. 
Vanit.  p.  239) ;  the  outward  appearance  of  the 
denioniacs  as  pourtrayed  by  Chrysostom  (Horn. 
IV.  De  incomprehens.  Not.  Dei\  squalid,  foul, 
with  hair  dishevelled,  and  in  rags,  all  point  to 
the  same  conclusion.  It  is  not  within  the  scope  of 
this  article  to  discuss  the  theory  which  referred 
all  these  phenomena  to  an  actual  possession 
of  the  human  nature  by  a  malignant  spiritual 
power.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  it  was  postu¬ 
lated  in  the  whole  treatment  of  such  cases  by 
the  Church.  The  suggestion  of  a  more  scientific 
view  that  the  symptoms  originated  in  excess  of 
bile,  or  the  inflammation  of  a  tissue,  or  other 
physical  cause,  was  rejected  as  the  whisper  of 
unbelief,  itself  the  suggestion  of  the  demons, 
who  wished  thus  to  deprive  men  of  the  prayei’s 
and  incantations  which  were  the  only  effectual 
weapons  against  them  (Horn.  Clern.ix.  12).  Men 
dwelt  with  exultation  on  the  power  which  their 
prayers,  and  the  utterance  of  the  Divine  Name, 
and  the  laying  on  of  hands,  had  to  drive  the 
demon  howling  and  blaspheming  from  his  usurped 
abode  (Cyprian,  de  Idol.  Vanit.  1.  c. ;  ad  Demetr. 
c.  15).  it  might  have  seemed,  looking  at  the 
matter  from  the  modern,  scientific  stand-point, 
as  if  the  Christian  Church  had  itself  got  into 
a  hopelessly  wrong  groove,  from  which  no  good 
results  were  to  be  expected,  which  tended  to 
stereotype  the  delusions  that  fed  the  madness, 
and  were  utterly  at  variance  with  any  rational 
treatment.  It  will  be  found,  however,  it  is 
believed,  that  partly  in  spite  of  the  theory,  partly 
in  consequence  of  it,  the  treatment  of  the  insane 
in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church  assumed  before 
long  a  true  therapeutic  character,  and  brought 
them  under  influences  which  tended,  in  the 
natural  coui-se  of  things,  to  bring  them  to  a 
sound  mind.  Cases  of  instantaneous  expulsion 
of  the  demon,  like  those  described  by  Cyprian, 
became  less  frequent ;  and,  where  the  mastery 
of  a  strong  will  had  for  a  time  calmed  a  paroxysm 
of  frenzy,  were  followed  by  a  relapse.  Putting 
aside  the  case  of  the  symbolic  or  hypothetical 
exorcism  which  preceded  baptism,  we  have  to 
think  of  the  energumeni  as  brought,  by  virtue 
of  the  theory,  within  the  range  of  sympathy  and 
care.  Instead  of  being  left,  as  in  most  eastern 
countries,  to  go  wild,  like  the  Gadarene  and 

»  The  word  xeifxa^ofxevoi  and  its  Latin  equivalent  are 
sometimes  explained  as  pointing  to  the  position  which  the 
demoniacs  occupied  in  the  outer  porch  of  the  church, 
exp*,  sed  to  the  inclemency  of  cold  or  rain.  The  meaning 
given  in  the  text  rests,  however,  on  better  authority. 
Comp.  Suicer,  s.  v.  ;^€ip.a^6jaer’oi. 


DEMONIAC,  HEALING  OF 

other  demoniacs  of  the  N.  T.,  when  the  insanity 
was  not  dangerous,  or  to  be  brutally  chained  and 
fettered  if  it  was,  they  were  marked  out  as  ob¬ 
jects  of  pity  and  of  special  prayer  (Constt. 
Apost.  viii.  7).  They  occupied  a  fixed  place  in 
the  porch  of  the  church,  and  so  were  brought 
within  the  soothing  influence  of  psalms  and 
hymns  and  words  of  comfort  (Dionys.  d'  Eccles. 
Hierarch,  iv.  3).  With  them,  as  fellow-sufferers, 
might  sometimes  be  found  the  lepers  of  the 
neighbourhood;  sometimes  also  those  whose  loath- 
‘  some  depravity  had  made  them  defiled  like  the 
leper,  and  incapable  of  human  society  like  the 
demoniacs  (C.  Ancyr.  c.  17).  When  the  prayer 
was  over  they  were  brought  to  receive  the  bene¬ 
diction  of  the  bishop  (Constt.  Apost.  viii.  7). 
The  church  itself  became  a  kind  of  home  for 
those  who  otherwi.se  would  have  been  homeless. 
There  the  exorcists  paid  them  a  daily  visit,  and 
gave  them  food,  and  laid  their  hand's  upon  them 
(4  C.  Carth.  c.  90,  92).  There,  if  the  nature 
of  the  case  required  it,  they  were  brought  under 
a  discipline  of  abstinence  that  might  subdue  the 
impulses  of  passion  (Horn.  Clement,  ix.  10).  There 
they  were  employed  in  industrial  tasks  that  were 
suited  to  their  condition,  such  as  sweeping  the 
pavement  of  the  church  (4  C.  Carth.  c.  91)  or 
lighting  its  lamps  (C.  Elib.  c..  37).*»  If  they 
were  in  the  status  of  catechumens  they  might 
be  admitted  to  baptism  at  the  hour  of  death, 
even  though  there  had  been  no  complete  cure 
(Constt.  Apost._\m.  32;  Cyprian,  Epist.  76;  1 
C.  Arausic.  c.  15 ;  C.  Elib.  c.  37).  If  they  were 
already  among  the  faithful  they  might  even,  if 
the  insanity  did  not  take  a  violent  form,  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  communion  (Cassian,  Collatt.  vii.  30  ; 
Timoth.  Alex.  Respons.  c.  3),  and  that  daily.  It 
is  almost  needless  to  say  that  they  were  excluded, 
even  after  recovery,  from  ordination.  The  ex¬ 
orcists  were  instructed  to  repeat  their  prayers 
and  other  forms  of  adjuration  memoriter  (Isidor. 
Hispal.  Epist.  ad  Landefred.).  They  were  often 
identical  with  the  catechists,  and  were  therefore 
more  or  le.ss  expeidenced  in  the  work  of  teaching 
(Balsamon  on  C.  Laod.  c.  26).  The  influences 
thus  brought  to  bear  upon  the  real  or  supposed 
demoniacs  were,  it  is  submitted,  calculated  to 
soothe  and  encourage,  to  bring  them  under  the 
influence  of  sympathy.  Even  the  ceremonial 
imposition  of  hands,  over  and  above  the  sacra¬ 
mental  associations  connected  with  it,  and  their 
power  to  soothe  the  paroxysms  of  suicidal  re¬ 
morse,  may  have  had  what  we  have  learnt  to  call 
a  mesmeric  effect,  calming  the  over-excited  brain, 
through  the  tones  of  pity,  into  something  like 
tranquillity.  It  is  not  too  much  to  claim  for 
the  Christian  Church,  whatever  may  be  thought 
of  its  theory  of  madness,  the  credit  of  having 
taken  some  practical  steps,  and  those  steps  the 
first,  towards  a  rational  treatment  of  the  in¬ 
sane.  Here,  also,  as  in  the  institution  of  hos¬ 
pitals,  love  and  pity  w’ere  not  without  other 
fruits  than  those  they  sought  for,  and  minis- 
tei’ed  to  the  attainment  of  a  truth  at  w'hich  they 
did  not  aim.  [E.  H,  P.] 

DEMONIAC,  HKALING  OF  (tn  Art). 
One  instance  only  is  known  to  Father  Martigny 

*>  The  canons  of  the  Council  of  Elvira  cited  in  the  text 
forbid  I  he  practice,  probably  cn  account  of  some  Incon¬ 
venient  results;  but  the  prohibition  shows  that  it  was 
common. 


DEPUTATUS 


545 


DENIS,  COUNCIL  OF  ST. 

of  a  representation  of  this  miracle ;  it  is  one  ot 
the  instances  of  single  sufferers,  perhaps  that  ot 
the  youth  after  the  Transfiguration.  Ihe  evil 
spirit  issues  in  human  form  from  the  head  ot 
the  possessed  (Gori,  Thes.  Piptych.  t.  iii.  tab.  viii.}. 


Our  Lord  holds  a  cross  on  His  shoulders  and 
His  hand  is  extended  using  the  Greek  benedic¬ 
tion.  Another  example  is  in  the  Laurentian 
AJS.  ;  see  woodcut.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DENIS,  COUNCIL  OF  ST.  (ad  S.  Phny- 
siuin,  near  Paris),  a.d.  768,  was  rather  a  national 
council  of  bishops  and  nobles,  at  which  Pipin 
shortly  before  his  death  divided  his  kingdom 
between  his  sons  Carl  and  Carloinan  (Labb.  vi. 
1720,  1721.)  [A.  VV.  H.] 

DENARIUS.  [Pkter’s  Pence.] 

DENUNTIATIO  MATRIMONII.  [Mar¬ 
riage.] 

DEO  DICATUS.  One  of  the  terms  by 
which  pei’sons  who  devoted  themselves  to  religion 
were  designated.  Thus  Hatto  or  Ahito,  bishop 
of  Basle  (Capitulare,  c.  16)  forbade  even  Deo 
dicatae  to  meddle  with  the  service  of  the  altar 
[compare  Devota  Femina]  ;  and  Lucifer  of 
Cagliari,  describing  the  conduct  of  his  enemies, 
says  (in  the  tract  Moriendum  esse,  etc.)  that  they 
tortured  and  slew  even  dedicated  persons  (Deo 
dicatos).  [C.] 

DEO  GRATIAS.  T<^  0«(p  xdpis,  “Thanks 
be  to  God !  ”  A  response  of  the  people,  fre¬ 
quently  occurring  in  divine  service  from  very 
ancient  times,  derived  no  doubt  from  the  apos¬ 
tolic  use  of  the  phrase  (1  Cor.  xv.  57  ;  2  Cor.  ii. 
14).  The  best-known  instance  of  its  use  is  pro¬ 
bably  that  in  which  it  forms  the  response  of  the 
people  to  the  Ite,  missa  est  of  the  priest  at  the 
end  of  the  liturgy. 

According  to  the  Mozarabic  rite  the  people 
said  Deo  <//  atlas,  “  Thanks  be  to  God,”  at  the 
naming  of  the  passage  to  be  read  as  the  “  Pro¬ 
phecy  ”  in  the  Liturgy.  Bona  mentions  this 
phrase  as  being  also  occasionally  used  instead 
ot  Airten,  or  Laus  tibi  C/iriste  when  the  Gospel 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


was  ended  (De  Deb.  Litnry.  ii.  vii.  4).  St.  Au¬ 
gustine  notices  it  as  a  common  mode  of  greeting 
among  the  monks  in  his  time,  for  which  they 
were  ridiculed  and  insulted  by  the  Agonistici, 
as  they  called  themselves,  among  the  Donatists 
(Aug.  in  Psa'rn.  cxxxii.  p.  630).  The  expres¬ 
sion  appears  to  have  been  frequently  used  on 
other  occasions  by  way  of  acclamation.  When 
Evodius  was  nominated  as  Augustine’s  successor 
the  people  called  out  for  a  long  time — “  Deo 
gratias,  Christo  laudes  ”  (Aug.  Ep.  110,  de  Actis 
Evodii).  [C.] 

DEPORTATIO.  One  of  the  usages  of  the 
Gallican  Church  was  that  a  bishop  on  his  way 
to  be  enthroned  was  borne  in  a  chair  by  the 
hands  of  his  fellow-bishops.  Thus  Wilfrid  of 
York,  who  was  consecrated  in  Gaul,  is  said  (Life 
by  Eddius,  c.  12)  to  have  been  borne  to  his  throne 
by  the  hands  of  the  bishops  who  were  pre.sent, 
“more  eorum,”  i.e.  after  the  Gallican  custom 
[Bishop,  p.  225].  Gregory  of  Tours  perhaps 
alludes  to  this  custom  when  he  says(//isf.  Franc. 
iii.  2)  that  the  assembled  bishops  and  people 
placed  (locaverunt)  Quintianus  in  the  episcopal 
throne  of  Clermont.  A  “  chairing  ’’pf  the  bishop 
on  the  shoulders  of  certain  persons  of  rank,  the 
first  time  he  entered  his  cathedral,  was  customary 
in  several  of  the  French  churches  in  the  middle 
ages  (Martene,  De  Ant.  Eccl.  Ritilus,  I.  viii.  10, 

§  19).  [C.] 

DEPOSITION.  [Degradation.] 

DEPOSITION,  IN  Hagiology  (Depositio). 
The  word  depositio  is  explained  in  the  sermon 
of  Maximus,  De  Depositione  8.  Eusebii  (in  the 
of  Ambrose,  ii.  pt.  2,  p.  469)  to  mean, 
not  the  day  of  burial,  but  that  on  which  the 
soul  lays  down  the  burden  of  the  flesh  ;  and  it 
is  probably  with  this  idea  that  it  is  used  in 
calendars  and  martyrologies.  For  instance,  in 
the  Mart.  Hieron.  we  have  on  March  21  “  Z>c- 
pjositio  Benedict!  Abbatis;”  in  the  Mart.  Bedae 
on  the  same  day,  “  Natale  Benedicti  Abbatis,” 
as  if  Depositio  were  exactly  synonymous  with 
Natale,  which  confessedly  means  the  death-day 
of  a  saint. 

Yet  on  July  11,  the  day  on  which  the  Trans¬ 
lation  of  St.  Benedict  is  placed  by  Bede  and  Ado, 
the  Mart.  Hieron.  has  again  Depositio.  We  may 
infer  that  the  word  was  at  least  occasionally 
used  to  designate  the  day  on  which  the  relics 
were  entombed. 

Papebroch,  in  his  Conatus  Chronologico- Histor . 
ad  Catal.  Pontiff.  Roman.  (Acta  Sanctorum,  May, 
vol.  iv.),  contends  strongly  that  Depositio  is  used 
for  the  day  of  death ;  Elevatio,  Cultus,  or  Trans- 
latio  for  that  of  burial. 

In  early  calendars  the  word  Depos’tio  is  said 
to  be  confined  to  bishops  [Calendar,  p.  258]. 
(Binterim’s  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  vi.  pt.  3,  p. 
370  ff.).  [C.] 

DEPRECATORIAE.  In  an  ancient  codex 
quoted  by  Ducange  (s.  v.),  literae  deprecatoriae 
are  explained  to  be  simple  “  letters  of  request  ” 
given  by  presbyters,  who  were  unable  to  grant 
the  formal  “dimissory  letters”  (formatae)  of 
bishops.  [Commendatory  Letters:  Dimissory 
Letters.]  [C.] 

DEPRIVATION.  [Degradation.] 

DEPUTATUS  (AeirovTdros).  The  Greek 
Church  distinguishes  between  persons  properly 


546 


DESCENSUS 


DESEltTION 


in  orders^  set  apart  for  a  certain  work  by  the 
imposition  of  tlie  bishop’s  hands,  and  tiiose 
merely  nominated  to  certain  offices  without  im¬ 
position  of  hands.  Deacons,  subdeacons,  and 
readers  belong  to  the  former  class;  to  the  latter, 
those  who  discharge  purely  subordinate  offices 
under  the  direction  of  the  clergy;  as  the  Theori, 
who  have  the  charge  of  the  sacred  vessels  and 
vestments  ;  the  Camisati  [Camisia],  who  attend 
to  the  thuribles  and  water-vessels  in  the  service 
of  the  altar ;  and  the  Deputati.  The  office  of  the 
latter  is,  in  processions  to  precede  the  deacon 
who  bears  the  Book  of  the  Gospels,  or  the  obla¬ 
tions,  carrying  lighted  tapers  and,  also,  if  neces¬ 
sary,  to  clear  the  way  for  the  bishop  through  the 
crowded  church.  (Permaneder  in  Wetzer  and 
Welte’s  Kirchenlexicon,  iii.  107,  who  quotes 
Morinus,  De  8.  EccL  Ordinationibus^  pt.  ii.  p. 
66,  ed.  Antwerp,  1695). 

These  Deputati  thus  corresponded  with  the 
Ceroferarii  or  Cereostatarii  of  the  Latin  Church  ; 
and  in  the  form  of  their  appointment  (Goar’s 
Euchologion,  p.  237)  their  office  is  said  to  be  that 
of  bearing  the  lights  in  the  holy  mysteries.  See 
Acolyte.  [C.] 

DESCENSUS.  A  word  sometimes  used  to 
signify  the  vault  [Confessto]  beneath  the  altar 
containing  relics  of  saints.  Anastasius,  for  in¬ 
stance  {Hist.  EccL,  an.  5  Leonis  Isaur.'),  uses  it 
as  equivalent  to  the  Kard^acris  of  Theophanes, 
from  whom  he  is  compiling.  [C.] 

DESECKATION  of  Churches  and  Altars 
{Exsecratio). '  So  indelible  a  character  of  holi¬ 
ness  was  thought  to  be  stamped  upon  a  church 
or  an  altar  by  the  act  of  consecration,  that 
nothing  short  of  destruction,  or  such  dilapida¬ 
tion  as  to  render  them  unfit  to  serve  their 
proper  ends,  could  nullify  it  (Barbosa,  De  Off. 
et  Potest.  Episcop.  pt.  ii.).  A  church  might, 
however,  be  so  polluted  as  to  need  Recon¬ 
ciliation  (q.v.)  by  the  perpetration  in  it  of 
homicide  or  other  revolting  crime  ;  and  if  the 
relics  which  had  been  deposited  at  consecration 
were  removed,  the  church  and  altar  lost  this 
sacred  character  until  these  w'ere  restored ;  with 
the  relics  and  the  renewal  of  masses,  the  whole 
effect  of  consecration  returned  (Vigilius,  Pope 
538-555,  Ad  Eutherivm,  Epist.  ii.  c.  4).  Gre¬ 
gory  of  Tours  (Hist.  Franc,  ix.  6)  mentions  an 
instance  in  which  a  church,  in  consequence  of  a 
homicide  having  been  perpetrated  in  it,  lost  the 
privilege  of  Divine  Service  (officium  perdidit). 
Compare  Churchyard,  Sacrilege.  (Martene, 
De  Pit.  Ant.  ii.  284 ;  Thomassin,  Vet.  et  Nov. 
Eccl.  Discip.  i.  458).  [C.] 

DESERTION  OF  THE  CLERICAL 
LIFE.  Sev'eral  centuries  elapse  before  we  find 
desertion  of  the  clerical  life  recognized  as  an 
offence.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  451,  enacts 
(c.  7)  that  those  who  have  once  been  received 
into  the  clerus  are  not  to  desert  it  for  any 
military  service  or  worldly  dignity.  The  Council 
of  Angers  in  453  declared  (c.  7)  tluxt  clerics  who 
leaving  their  order  have  turned  away  to  secular 
warfare  and  to  a  lay  life  are  not  unjustly  removed 
from  the  church  which  they  have  left.  The  1st 
Council  of  Tours,  A.D.  461,  has  an  equivalent 
ju'ovision  expressed  in  somewhat  clearer  lan¬ 
guage  (c.  5),  specifically  enacting  excommunica¬ 


tion  for  the  offence.  We  have  an  instance  of  the 
]>ractice  by  a  Breton  Council  of  uncertain  date 
(suj)posed  about  555),  recorded  by  Gregory  of 
Tours  (Hist.  Franc,  ix.  15),  in  which  a  bishop, 
who  let  his  hair  grow  and  took  back  his  wife, 
was  excommunicated.  Under  J.ustinian’s  Code, 
by  a  constitution  of  that  Emperor  himself,  A  .D. 
532,  renewing  and  extending  a  previous  one  of 
Arcadius  and  Honorius,  if  a  person  deserted  the 
clerical  or  monastic  life  for  a  military  one  (the 
term  militia  with  its  congeners,  did  not  at  this 
period  imply  necessarily  the  use  of  arms)  he  was 
punished  by  being  made  a  curialis  of  the  city 
of  his  birth,  i.e.  charged  with  all  the  burthens 
of  the  state.  If  there  were  already  eery  many 
curiales  in  the  city  he  was  to  be  placed  in  any 
neighbouring  or  remote  one,  or  even  in  any  one 
of  a  different  province  which  should 'happen  to 
be  in  special  want  of  these  political  beasts  of 
burthen.  If  he  hid  himself,  the  curiales  could 
at  once  enter  upon  his  property  and  detain  it  to 
answer  legal  demands  (bk.  i.  tit.  iii.  1.  53  §  1). 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  a  clerk  or  monk  embraced 
an  ordinary  secular  life,  all  his  property  pas.sed 
to  the  church  or  monastery  wdiich  he  had  de¬ 
serted  (Ibid.  1.  56,  §  2) — a  provision  confirmed 
as  to  monks  by  the  5th  Novel,  c.  4.  The  6th 
Novel,  which  extends  the  prohibition  to  sub¬ 
deacons  and  readers,  transfers  the  benefit  of  the 
forfeiture,  as  respects  clerics, —  if  indeed  there  be 
anything  to  forfeit, — to  the  curia,  providing 
moreover  that  if  the  clerk  in  question  be  poor, 
he  shall  be  reduced  to  an  official  condition,  i.e. 
probably  to  that  of  a  mere  servant  to  the  public 
offices  (c.  7);  and  this  forfeiture  to  the  curia  is 
confirmed  by  the  123rd  Novel,  c.  15.  But  as 
respects  monks,  the  same  Novel  (c.  42)  requires 
a  monk  who  betakes  himself  to  a  secular  life — 
being  fii-st  deprived  of  any  office  or  dignity  he 
may  acquire — to  be  sent  to  a  monastery,  to 
which  moreover  it  assigns  all  property  acquired 
by  him  after  his  leaving  his  former  one.  If  he 
absconds  from  this,  the  judge  of  the  p>rovince  is 
to  hold  and  admonish  him. 

In  a  letter  of  Pope  Zacharias  (a.d.  741-51)  to 
king  Pepin,  the  Pope  decrees  that  those  who  have 
once  been  admitted  into  the  clergy,  or  have  de¬ 
sired  monastic  life,  are  not  to  betake  themselves 
to  military  service,  or  to  any  worldly  dignity 
(Ep.  7,  c.  9),  under  pain  of  anathema  if  they  do 
not  repent  and  return  to  their  former  life — a 
provision  substantially  identical  with  that  of  the 
Councils  of  Angers  and  Tours.  In  Charlemagne’s 
Capitularies  also  is  a  provision  “  that  a  priest 
ought  to  continue  in  the  religious  habit”  (Ad- 
ddio  Tertia,  c.  110).  See  also  the  31st  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Frankfort  in  794,  “that  clerics 
and  monks  should  continue  stedfast  in  their  de¬ 
termination.” 

Desertion  of  the  clerical  life  must  of  course 
be  distinguished  from  desertion  of  the  clerical 
functions  in  a  particular  diocese  or  jtarish.  See, 
amongst  other  authorities,  as  to  bishops  leaving 
their  districts  (irapoiKlas),  the  so-called  Aposto¬ 
lical  Canons,  c.  11  (otherwise  13  or  14),  and  the 
123rd  Novel ;  and  as  to  presbyters,  deacons,  and 
other  clerics  so  acting,  Apost.  Cm.  c.  12  (other¬ 
wise  14  or  15);  also  the  16th  Canon  of  the 
Council  of  Nicaea.  One  of  the  temptations  to 
the  breach  of  discipline  in  question  appears  to 
,  have  been  the  serving  in  private  oratories,  as 
'  to  which  see  Novels  57,  58,  and  131.  [J.  M.  L.] 


DESIDEEATA 


547 


DEVOTA  FE:MIXA 


DESIDERATA.  A  name  sometimes  used 
for  the  sacraments,  as  being  desired  of  all  Chris¬ 
tians.  Zeno  of  Verona  {fiivit.  8  ad  Fontem, 
quoted  by  Ducange)  asks  why  his  hearers  delay 
“  ad  desiderata  festinaj-e.”  [C.] 

DESIDERIUS.  (1)  Bishop  of  Vienne,  mar¬ 
tyr  at  Lyons;  Natale,  Feb.  11  (^Mart.  Bedae, 
Adonis  in  Appends  e,  Usuardi).  According  to  Ado 
he  suffered  martyrdom  on  May  23,  and  was 
translated  Feb.  11. 

(2)  Bishop  of  Ferrara;  “  Passio  ”  May  23 
{Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(3)  The  reader,  martyr  at  Naples  under 

Diocletian,  with  Januarius  the  bishop  and  others  ; 
commemorated  Sept.  19  {Mai't.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DESPONSATIO.  [Ajirhae:  Betrothal: 
Marriage] 

DESPOTICAE  (AefTiroTi/col  eopral').  The 
greater  festivals  of  the  Chtirch  are  so  called  by 
the  Greeks ;  they  are  generally  reckoned  to 
amount  to  twelve,  but  authorities  vary  on  this 
point.  [Festivals.]  (Daniel’s  Codex  Liturgicus, 
iv.  235.)  [C.] 

DETRACTION  is  defined  to  be  the  concealed 
and  unjust  attack  in  words  upon  the  reputation  of 
another  person.  It  differs  from  Calumnia  in  that 
the  latter  is  a  false  accusation  made  in  the  course 
of  legal  proceedings,  and  from  Contumelia  in  its 
being  concealed  from  the  person  affected. 

This  sin  has  been  condemned  both  by  fathers, 
as  by  St.  Augustine  (in  horn.  41  De  Sanctii),  St. 
Jerome  {Fp.  2,  al.  52,  ad  Nepotian.  c.  14),  and 
St.  Chrysostom  {De  Sacerd.  5,  G),  and  by  various 
canons  of  councils  (e.g.  Cone.  Carth.  iv.  cc.  55-60) 
under  wdder  words  which  include  other  offences 
against  the  9th  commandment  (Bingham,  Chr. 
Ant.  6,  2,  10,  and  16,  13.  3;  Ferraris  sub  voc. ; 
Thom.  Aq.  Sumina,  2.  2.  quaest.  73  ;  Soto  Ik 
Just,  et  Jure,  5,  10).  [I.  B.] 

DECS  IN  ADJUTORIUM.  The  canonical 
Hours,  according  to  Western  usage,  generally  be¬ 
gin  with  the  words  of  the  70th  [69th  Vulg.]  Psalm. 

V.  Deus  in  adjutorium  meum  intende. 

R.  Domine  ad  adjuvandum  me  festina. 

Cassian  {CoUatio,  x.  c.  10)  tells  us  that  this 
verse  was  frequently  used  by  monks  in  their  de¬ 
votions  before  his  time,  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  it  w'as  definitively  prefixed  to  each  Hour 
before  the  time  of  St.  Benedict,  who  prescribed 
that  use  in  his  Rule  (c.  9). 

The  Roman  use  at  Matins  prefixes  the  verse 
and  response, 

V.  Domine,  labia  mea  aperies. 

R.  Et  os  meum  annuntiabit  laudem  tuam, 
from  the  51st  [50th  Vulg.]  Psalm  ;  in  the 
monastic  breviaries,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Domine,  labia  follows  the  Deus  in  adjutorium. 

In  Compline,  Deus  in  adjutorium  is  preceded  by 

V.  Converte  nos,  Deus  salutaris  uoster. 

R.  Et  averte  iram  tuam  a  nobis, 
from  the  85th  [84th  Vulg.]  Psalm. 

The  verse,  “  0  Lord,  open  thou  our  lips,”  &c., 
.also  occurs  in  the  early  part  of  the  Greek  morn¬ 
ing  office. 

(Bona,  De  Divina  Psahnodia,  ch.  xvi.  4 ; 
Martene,  De  Ant.  Monach.  Rit.  pp.  5,  23  ;  Wetzer 
and  Welte,  Kirchenlexienn,  iii.  122.)  [C.] 


DEVIL  (in  Art).  The  Early  Church  .seems 
to  have  contemplated  the  spiritual  enemy  of  Goa 
and  man  i>rincipally  as  to  his  fuuction.s  of  tempt¬ 
ation  and  po.ssession  in  tins 
world.  Representations  of 
him  as  the  final  accuser 
and  claimant  of  the  souls 
of  the  lost,  or  as  their  tor¬ 
mentor  in  the  ))lace  of  his 
own  condemnation,  belong 
to  mediaeval  rather,  than 
to  primitive  art.  The  pre¬ 
sent  writer  is  not  aware  of 
the  existence  of  any  hell 
earlier  than  the  mosaics  of 
Torcello,  as  that  painted 
by  Methodius,  even  if  its 
story  be  true,  has  alto¬ 
gether  vanished.  On  the 
sarcoj)hagi,  and  later  iii 
Anglo-Saxon  and  Irish 
MSS.  more  particularly, 
the  tempter  is  symbolized, 
as  so  often  in  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  under  the  form  of 
the  Serpent  (see  s.  v.). 

One  instance  there  is,  how¬ 
ever,  given  by  Didron  in 
the  Iconographie  du  Ser¬ 
pent  {Ann.  Arch^ologiques, 

V.  2)  of  a  Gnostic  combi¬ 
nation  of  human  and  serpentine  form,  with  leo¬ 
nine  head  and  face  (see  woodcut).  It  is  taken 
from  a  bronze  in  the  Vatican  collection,  and  is 
derived,  he  says  with  certainty,  from  the  ancient 
Egyptian  symbol  of  a  lion-headed  serpent.  But 
the  human  form  and  expression  are  so  predomi¬ 
nant  as  to  make  it  appear  to  be  an  anticipation 
of  the  personified  serpent  of  the  Jliddie  Ages, 
represented  in  the  Book  of  Kells  and  other 
northern  MSS.  The  Gothic  or  mediaeval  re¬ 
presentations  seem  to  begin  in  Italy  with  the 
fiend  in  the  Chase  of  Theodoric,  which,  till 
lately  destroyed  by  gradual  and  wanton  mis¬ 
chief,  adorned  the  ft’ont  of  St.  Zenone  in  Verona. 

In  the  Laureutian  MS.  of  Rabula  (A.D.  587) 
there  is  an  extraordinary  representation  of  the 
demoniacs  of  Gadara,  just  delivered  from  their 
tormenting  spirits,  who  are  fluttering  away  in 
the  form  of  little  black  humanities  of  mis¬ 
chievous  expression.  [See  Demoniacs.] 

[R.  St  J  T  ] 

DEVOTA  FEiMINA,  or  .simiily  DEVOTA. 
It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  practice  of  vows 
made  to  God  is  recognized  in  the  Pentateuch, 
and  throughout  the  Old  Testament  (Levit.  vii. 
16,  xxvii.  1  and  foil..  Numb.  vi.  2  and  foil.,  xv. 
3,  8,  XXX.  2  and  foil.  &c.).  Such  vows  might  be 
of  persons  as  well  as  thing.s,  as  in  the  instance 
of  the  “singular  vow  ”  mentioned  in  Lev.  xxvii., 
and  of  the  Nazarites  mentioned  in  Numb.  vi.  ; 
with  which  compare  the  applications  in  the  case 
of  Jephthah,  (Judg.  xl.  30)  Samson  (Judg.  xiii.  5) 
and  Samuel  (1  Sam.  i.  11).  Certain  checks  are 
at  the  same  time  imposed  on  the  vows  of  women, 
which  are  required  lo  have  at  least  the  tacit  a.ssent 
of  a  father,  if  the  woman  be  “  in  her  father’s  house 
in  her  youth  ”  (Numb.  xxx.  3-5),.or  of  a  husband, 
if  she  “  had  at  all  a  husband  ”  (j6.  6-8,  10-15); 
“but  every  vow  of  a  widow,  and  of  her  that  is 
divorced,  wherewith  they  have  bound  their  .souls, 
shall  stand  against  her”  ''v.  9). 

2  N 


548 


DEVOTA  FEMINA 


DEVOTA  FEMINA 


Th-‘  exanii)les  of  St.  Paul  (Acts  xviii.  2.3,  24),  ' 
ani  the  four  di.sciples  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  x.xi.  j 
2.1)  show  that  like  practices  were  adopted  by  1 
the  Apostolic  Church.  But  over  and  above 
these  teinjjorary  vows,  it  is  clear  that  the 
cLi.ss  of  church-widows  were  considered  as  per¬ 
sonally  devoted  to  God.  Moreover,  in  his 
mode  of  speaking  of  virgins,  St.  I’aul  clearly 
shews  that  he  considers  tho.se  who  have  autho¬ 
rity  over  them  to  have  power  to  “keep”  them 
for  the  Lonl  (see  1  Cor.  yii.  34,  37,  38).  The 
A/'OSiolicul  C'Distit  'tiom,  besides  their  abundant 
notices  of  the  church-widows,  shew  us  also 
the  rise  of  a  distinct  class  of  church-virgins 
devoted  to  God  in  like  manner.  The  term  cfero^a, 
however,  as  applied  both  to  widows  and  virgins, 
survived  both  organizations  and  spread  beyond 
them,  and  seems  to  serve  as  a  transition  link  be¬ 
tween  them  and  female  monachism.  From  the 
4th  century  downwards  there  are  many  texts 
which  can  hardly  be  applied,  at  all  events  ex¬ 
clusively,  to  either  institute  as  such,  and  antici¬ 
pate  any  organized  female  monachism,  but  which 
clearly  imply  a  practice  of  self-consecration  to 
God  on  the  part  both  of  widows  aud  unmarried 
women,  and  which  serve  as  the  foundation  of  the 
pi’actice  of  the  Chui’ch  in  later  times  in  respect 
to  nuns. 

Thus  the  first  Council  of  Valence,  A.D.  374, 
tieating  “of  girls  who  have  devoted  themselves 
to  God,”  exacts  that  if  they  voluntarily  contract 
“  earthly  ”  marriage,  they  shall  not  even  be  al¬ 
lowed  immediate  penance,  and  shall  not  be  admit¬ 
ted  to  communion  till  they  have  given  full 
satisfaction.  Now  it  was  only  in  the  5th  century 
that  monachism,  under  the  Basiliau  rule,  penetra¬ 
ted  into  Southern  Gaul,  .so  that  the  pudlae  in 
question  cannot  have  been  nuns  properly  so  called. 
The  same  applies  to  the  canons  of  the  1st  Council 
of  Toledo,  A.D.  400,  which  enact  that  a  “  devota  ” 
who  takes  a  husband  is  not  to  be  admitted  to 
penance  during  his  life,  unless  she  preserves  con¬ 
tinence  (c.  16),  or,  with  still  greater  severity, 
that  if  a  bishop’s,  or  priest’s,  or  deacon’s  daughter, 
having  been  devoted  to  God,  sins  and  marrie.s, 
should  her  father  or  mother  restore  their  affec¬ 
tion  to  her,  they  are  to  be  excluded  from  com¬ 
munion;  The  father  may  indeed  shew  cause  in 
council  against  the  sentence,  but  the  woman  her¬ 
self  is  only  to  receive  the  communion  after  her 
husband’s  death  and  penance,  unless  at  her  last 
hour  (c.  19) — a  text  which  indeed  admits  the 
validity  of  the  marriage. 

The  stamp  was  set  on  the  woman’s  devotio 
by  her  taking,  or  rather  receiving  from  the 
priest’s  hands,  the  veil,  symbol  of  her  being 
espoused  to  Christ.  Hence  the  distinction 
which  we  find  made  between  the  gravity  of  mar¬ 
riage  in  the  case  of  the  veiled  and  unveiled ;  as 
to  which  see  Pope  Innocent  I.’s  2nd  letters,  to 
Victricius  Archbishop  of  Ropen,  cc.  12,  13,  and 
certain  canons  of  doubtful  authority,  supposed 
to  be  contemporaneous  “  of  the  Roman  to  the 
Gaulish  bishops,”  cc.  1,  2.  The  devotional  or  vir¬ 
ginal  habit  might  indeed  be  assumed,  at  all  events 
in  the  5th  century,  without  actual  consecration ; 
see  I.eo  the  Great’s  167th  letter,  a.d.  458  or 
459,  to  Rusticus  Bishop  of  Narbonne,  c.  15. 

The  “  virgin  devoted  to  God  ”  is  assimilated 
to  the  monk  in  a  canon  of  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  A.D,  451,  forbidding  both  to  marry  under 
pain  of  excommunication,  but  subject  to  the  iu- 


'  dulgonce  of  the  local  bishop  (c,  15).  The  2n'J 
j  Council  of  Arles,  a.d.  452,  seems  to  confine  ex- 
I  communication  in  such  cases  to  marriage  after 
25,  and  provides  that  a  penance  is  not  to  be 
refused  if  asked  for,  but  communion  only  to  be 
granted  after  long  delay  (c.  52).  An  exagge¬ 
rated  strictness  on  the  other  hand  pervades  a 
letter  of  Pope  Symmachus  (a.d,  498-51.3)  to 
Bishop  Caesarius,  of  Arles.  Not  only  does  he 
require  the  excommunication  of  those  who  have 
sought  to  marry  virgins  consecrated  to  God, 
whether  with  their  own  will  or  against  it,  and 
declare  that  “  we  do  not  suffer  ”  widows  to 
marry  who  have  long  persevered  in  the  religious 
purpose ;  but  he  forbids  those  virgins  to  marry 
“  to  whom  it  may  have  happened  to  pa.ss  their 
age  during  many  years  in  monasteries” — en¬ 
forcing,  in  short,  virginity  without  even  a  j)ro- 
fession. 

The  practice  of  the  religious  profe.ssion,  both 
in  convents  and  outside  of  them,  is  shewn  in  the 
Canons  of  the  5th  Council  of  Orleans,  A.D  529, 
which  excommunicates  alike,  together  with  their 
husbands,  both  girls  who  in  convents  have  put 
on  the  religious  garment,  and  those  who,  whether 
girls  or  widows,  have  assumed  the  habit  in  their 
houses  (c.  19).  On  the  other  hand,  the  1st 
Council  of  Macon  in  581  pronounced  excommuni¬ 
cation  for  life  against  both  parties,  in  case  of 
such  marriages. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  6th  or  beginning  of 
the  7th  century,  in  the  letters  of  Pope  Gregory 
the  Great  (a.d.  590-603),  we  seem  to  perceive 
a  distinction  between  the  “religious”  and  “mo¬ 
nastic  ”  habit,  which  may  have  indicated  that 
between  the  simple  devota  and  the  nun.  Writing 
to  the  Roman  exarch  (bk.  iv,  ep.  18),  he  speaks 
of  women  till  now  “  in  the  religious  and  mo¬ 
nastic  habit  ”  who  have  thrown  off" the  sacred  gar¬ 
ment  and  veil,  and  married,  and  who  are  said  to 
be  under  the  exarch’s  patronage,  and  warns  him 
against  the  iniquity  of  such  protection.  It  will 
not  have  escaped  attention  that  the  “  veil  ”  in 
this  passage  seems  to  correspond,  as  in  later  and 
present  Romish  practice,  with  the  specially  mo¬ 
nastic  profession.  On  the  other  hand,  an  earlier 
letter  of  the  same  pope  (bk.  iii.  ep.  24,  ad  Cau- 
nanwn),  distinguishes  between  veiled  virgins  and 
women  in  convents.  The  incompatibility  be¬ 
tween  marriage  and  the  religious  “habit”  is 
indicated  in  another  letter  of  the  same  pope  to 
bishops  Virgilius  and  Syagrius,  (bk.  vii.  pt.  ii.  c. 
119). 

That  in  .spite  of  all  prohibitions,  marriages 
with  “  religious  ”  women  continued  to  take  place, 
and  to  be  celebrated  even  in  church,  is  evident 
from  an  edict  of  King  Clothair  II.,  issued  at  the 
5th  Council  of  Paris,  a.d.  614  or  615.  No  one 
was  to  carry  off  religious  girls  or  widows,  who 
have  devoted  themselves  to  God,  as  well  those 
who  reside  in  their  own  houses  as  those  who  are 
placed  in  monasteries  (thus  clearly  distinguishing 
between  the  two  classes) ;  and  if  any,  either  by 
violence  or  by  any  kind  of  authority  should 
presume  to  unite  such  to  himself  in  marriage, 
he  was  subject  to  capital  punishment,  or,  under 
special  circumstances  to  exile,  and  forfeiture  of 
goods. 

The  7th  letter  of  Pope  Zacharias  (a.d.  741- 
51),  addressed  to  Pepin  as  mayor  of  the  palace, 
and  to  the  bishops,  abbots,  and  nobles  of  the 
Franks,  refers  to  Pope  Innocent’s  letter  before 


DEXAMENE 


DIADEMA 


540 


mentioned,  as  to  the  distinction  between  the 
marriage  of  veiled  and  unveiled  virgins,  the 
former  of  whom  are  to  be  separated,  the  latter 
only  to  do  “some”  penance  (cc.  20,  21).  On 
the  other  hand,  a  capitulary  of  the  6th  book 
(c.  411)  treats  as  absolutely  null  a  marriage 
with  “a  virgiu  devoted  to  God,  a  woman  under 
the  religious  habit  or  professing  the  continuance 
of  widowhood,”  re-enacting  the  punishment  of 
separation  and  exile  for  the  offenders.  One  of 
the  7th  book  (c.  338)  is  addressed  to  the  case  of 
those  widows  and  girls  who  have  put  on  the 
religious  habit  in  their  own  houses,  either  re¬ 
ceiving  it  from  their  parents  or  of  themselves, 
but  afterwards  marry  ;  they  are  to  be  excom¬ 
municated  till  they  separate  from  their  husbands, 
and  if  they  will  not,  to  be  kept  perpetually  e.x- 
cluded  from  communion.  A  Lombard  capitulary 
of  783,  contains  a  like  enactment  (Pertz,  Leg. 
t.  1).  [J.  M.  L.] 

DEX.\MENE,  AefoucVTj,  a  cistern  or  tank 
for  the  water  needed  for  the  replenishing  of  the 
font  and  the  various  ecclesiastical  offices  (Pi'ocop. 
Ilistor.  Arcan.  c.  iii.).  Erroneously  interpreted  by 
Suidas,  sub  roc.  of  the  altar ;  and  by  Bingham, 
Orig.  bk.  viii.  c.  vii.  §  4,  of  the  font.  [E.  V.] 

DIACONIA.  (1).  The  name  given  to  the 
localities  in  which  food  and  alms  were  distributed 
to  the  poor  by  the  deacons  of  the  Chui’ch  of  Rome. 
Each  was  under  the  administration  of  one  of  the 
seven  deacons,  one  for  each  region,  the  whole 
being  under  the  superintendence  of  an  archdeacon. 
Each  diaconid  had  a  hall  for  the  distribution  of 
charity,  and  an  oratory  or  chapel  annexed.  These 
last  remained  when  the  original  purpose  of  the  dia- 
coni  i  had  passed  away,  and  have  risen  to  the  dig¬ 
nity  of  churches,  of  which  there  are  now  fourteen, 
each  assigned  to  one  of  the  cardinal  deacons. 

The  original  purpose  of  the  diaconia  is  illus¬ 
trated  by  the  following  passages  from  Anasta- 
sius  : — Stephan.  //.  §  229  :  “  foris  muros  .  .  .  duo 
fecit  Xenodochia . . .  quae  et  sociavit  venerabili- 
bus  Diaconis  illic  foris  existentibus  ....  id  est 
Diaconiae  S.  Dei  genetricis,  et  B.  Silvestri  duae.” 
Had  -ian.  I.  §  337  :  “  constituit  Diaconias  tres 
foris  portara  B.  Apost.  Principis  .  . .  et  ibidem 
dispensatione  per  ordinem  pauperibus  consolari, 
atque  eleemosynam  fieri  [constituit].”  Infra, 

§  345 :  “  idem  egregius  Praesul  Diaconia  con¬ 
stituit  .  .  .  coucedens  eis  agros  vineas  etc.  ut  de 
eorum  reditu  . . .  Diaconiae  proficientes  paupei’es 
Chris*^i  reficerentui*.” 

(2) .  The  word  diaconia  was  also  used  for  that 

part  of  the  deacon’s  office  which  consisted  in  dis¬ 
pensing  food  and  money  to  the  poor.  It  is  thus 
employed  by  Gregory  the  Great  in  a  letter  to 
John,  in  which  he  says,  “  te  mensis  pauperum 
et  exhibendae  diaconiae  eligimus  praeponendum 
and  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  money  received  “dia¬ 
coniae  exhibitione  erogandum  ”  (Greg.  Magn. 
Ep.  ad  Joann.  24).  See  Suicer,  Ducange,  Hos- 
pinian.  de  Templis,  p.  18.  [E.  V.] 

(3) .  In  the  earlier  days  of  monachism  this  term 

was  used  for  monastic  alms-giving  (Cass.  Collat. 
xviii.  7 ;  Gregor.  M.  Ep.  22).  The  oldest  mouk 
was  entrusted  with  it  in  Egypt  (Cass.  Collat.  xxi. 
1);  in  the  East  the  “  oeconomus  ”  or  bursar 
(Martene  in  Cass.  ib.  xxi.  8,  9).  [I.  G.  S.] 

DIACOXICA  (^AiaKoviKo,).  Certain  short 
p-ayers  or  “suffrages”  in  the  Liturgy  are  called 
Diaconica,  as  being  recited  by  the  attendant  i 


deacon.  They  are  also  called  E,lprjuiKd,  as  being 
niaiuly  prayers  for  peace.  In  the  consecration 
of  a  bishop  the  Diaconica  are  said  by  bishops. 
(Menard  on  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  p.  523  ; 
Neale’s  Tctralogia  Liturgica,  p.  217.)  [C.J 
DIACONICiUM.  (1)  The  vestry  oi  sacristy 
of  a  church,  so  called  from  being  the  place  where 
the  deacons  performed  their  duties  in  getting 
ready  the  vestments  and  holy  vessels,  heating 
the  water,  preparing  and  lighting  the  incense, 
and  other  essentials  for  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  other  divine  offices.  No  minister 
of  a  lower  grade  was  permitted  to  enter  the 
Diaconicum  {Concil.  Laod.  can.  21  ;  Concil.  Aga- 
thens.  can.  66).  The  diaconicum  was,  as  a  rule, 
placed  on  the  right  or  south  side  of  the  bema  or 
sanctuary,  answering  to  the  prvthcsis  on  the 
north,  and  communicating  with  the  bema  by  a 
door  in  the  parabema  or  side-wall.  It  also  usu¬ 
ally  had  an  independent  entrance  through  an 
external  dooi*.  The  diaconicum  generally  ter¬ 
minated  apsidally,  and  was  always  provided  with 
an  altar  (Qv(na(TTi]piov,  Apophthegmata  Patrum 
apud  Gelas.  No.  3 ;  ay'ia  rpaTre^a,  Eucliolog. 
Goar,  p.  245),  on  which  the  bread  and  wine 
were  placed  prior  to  their  removal  to  the  pro¬ 
thesis.  Its  wall  was  often  adorned  with  pic¬ 
tures  of  saintly  deacons,  Stephen,  Benjamin,  &c. 
Within  it  was  the  treasury,  K(ip.r]Kiapx^^ovy 
or  (TK€vo(pv\6.Kiov,  where  the  sacred  vessels 
and  other  treasures  of  the  church  AVTere  kept 
(Cyril  Scyth.  in  Vita  S.  Sab.  apud  Ducange).  It 
was  also  used  by  the  priests  as  a  vestry,  in 
which  they  changed  their  vestments  and  put  on 
their  euchaidstic  dress  (elo'cA^dvres  a\\d(X(rov(ri 
T^v  UpariKT]v  aroX^v  4v  raj  SiaKoviKuj,  Typicum 
Sabae,  cap.  ii.  ap.  Suicer).  Relics  were  preserved  in 
it  {Catalog.  Patriarch.  Constantinopol.  ap.  Suicer);, 
Worshippers  who  for  disciplinary  reasons  wertj 
excluded  from  the  actual  church  were  permitted, 
to  offer  their  devotions  here,  e.g.  the  Em])eror  Leo 
VI.  when  excommunicated  for  his  fourth  marriage 
(Cedrenus,  Compvnd.  Hist.').  The  diaconicum 
was  sometimes  a  spacious  chamber  annexed  to 
the  church  (diaconicum  majus),  large  enough  for 
the  reception  of  a  provincial  or  general  synod 
[Council,  p.  477].  In  the  diaconicum  of  the 
church  at  Paneas,  the  statue,  supposed  to  be  that 
of  the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood,  removed 
for  safety  from  the  market-place,  was  erected 
(Philostorg.  lib.  vii.  c.  3). 

Other  names  by  which  the  diaconicum  was 
known  were,  ounrao'Tt/fJv  (as  being  the  hall  of 
reception),  (rK€vo<(>v\dKiov,  yerardpiou  or  yira- 
rddpiou  (a  word  of  various  orthography  and  very 
uncertain  etymology,  perhaps  representing  “mu- 
'  tatorium,”  as  the  place  where  the  clergy  changed 
their  vestments),  iraffrorpdpiov,  seoretarium,  on 
j  which  see  Bingham,  Orig,  Eccl.  bk.  viii.  c.  vii. 
§  7  ;  Leo  Allat.  De  Tempi.  Graec.  Pec.,  ep.  i. 
§  13-15 ;  Suicer,  sub  voc. ;  Ducange,  Glossar.  Id. 
Descript.  S.  Sophiae,  ad  Paul.  Silentiar. ;  Neale, 
Hist.  East.  Ch.,  General  Introd.  p.  191,  §9. 

(2)  Diaconicum  also  signifies  the  volume  con¬ 
taining  the  directions  for  the  due  perfoi-mance  of 
the  deacon’s  office,  ^i^Kiov  rrjs  AiaKovlas.  Cf. 
Leo  Allatius,  Dissert,  i.  de  Libr.  Eccl.  Graecor. 

(3)  The  word  is  also  used  for  certain  ])rayers 

said  at  intervals  in  the  service  by  the  deacon ; 
€ux“'‘  SiauSyov,  known  also  as  (ipr}vit(<i.  [DiA- 
CONICA.]  [E.  V.] 

DI.\DEMA.  [Crown;  CoRONAnoN.] 


650 


DIAPASON 


DICE 


DIAPASON,  DIAPENTE,  DIATESSA- 
RON.  These  are  the  three  intervals  ot'  the 
octave,  the  perfect  fifth,  and  the  2)erfect  fourth  : 
the  ratios  which  determine  them  are  I,  |,  and 
They  were  the  only  intervals  that  were  consi¬ 
dered  consonances,  and  w^ere  always  of  the  same 
magnitude  in  every  scale  whether  diatonic,  chro¬ 
matic,  or  enharmonic,  while  the  others  were 
variable  (see  Canon  in  Music,  p.  274).  Although 
the  system  of  reckoning  by  tetrachords  continued 
till  the  time  of  Guido  Aretinus,  yet  the  name 
Diapason  shows  that  the  ancients  attributed  to 
the  octave  a  greater  degree  of  perfection  in 
respect  of  consonance,  which  is  also  shown  by 
the  notation  preserved  by  Alypius,  where  in  the 
modes  above  the  Dorian  in  pitch,  for  most  of  the 
higher  notes  (which  would  be  the  late.st  exten¬ 
sion  of  the  respective  scales)  the  symbols  repre¬ 
senting  the  notes  an  octave  below  were  adopted 
with  the  addition  of  a  acute  accent.  It  is  strange 
that  this  plan  was  not  extended  over  the  whole 
“  diasram  ”  of  the  modes,  which  would  have 
been  a  very  material  simplification,  and  is  indeed 
a  considerable  approximation  to  our  present 
system  of  calling  all  notes  differing  by  an  octave 
by  the  same  name.  This  however  appears  to  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  the  early  Latin  authors, 
although  they  did  make  great  simplifications. 
St.  Gregory  completed  the  recognition  of  the 
octave  by  reducing  the  names  of  notes  to  7, 
which  have  remained  to  this  day. 

The  fifth  and  fourth  together  make  an  octave 
(3X5  =  5),  and  according  as  the  former  or  the 
latter  was  the  lower  in  pitch,  the  octave  was  said 
to  be  harmonically  or  arithmetically  divided ; 
these  divisions  Avere  also  called  authentic  and 
plagal  (q.  V.),  thus  : 


Authentic 


w 


rgy 


Here  the 
value  of  G 
(D  is  the 
®  Harmonic 

mean  between  those  of  C  and  c  (1  and  ^). 


Plagal : 


C  F  c 
mean  between  those  of  C  and  c  (1  and  5) 


Here  the 
value  of  F 
(I)  is  the 
Arithmetic 


But  it  is  worth  noticing  that  if  two  harmonic 
means  be  inserted  between  C  and  c,  F  is  one  of 
them,  which  would  point  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  ancients  were  wrong  in  taking  an  arithme¬ 
tical  division  at  all,  though  it  is  most  natural 
that  that  error  should  have  been  made  by  them. 

This  division  can  be  made  in  any  octave,  ex¬ 
cepting  that  that  from  F  to  f  can  only  be  divided 
authentically  at  c,  and  that  from  B  to  b  can 
only  be  divided  plagally  at  E.  [J.  R.  L.] 


DIAPENTE.  [Diapason.] 

DIAPSALMA.  This  is  the  word  used  in 
the  Septuagint  and  recognised  by  other  writers 
as  the  equivalent  to  “Selah,”  which  occurs  in 
the  Psalms  and  in  the  Canticle  of  Habakkuk. 
Sea  Smith’s  Diet,  of  the  Bible^  sub  voc.  Selah, 
where  the  obscurity  of  the  subject  is  fully 
stated.  As  the  early  Christians  used  the  psalms 
in  public  worship  so  it  is  natural  they  would 
copy  the  Hebrew  method  of  singing  the  psalms. 
The  Liturgy  of  St.  James  prescribes  Pss.  23,  34, 
145,  117  at  the  Fraction,  and  in  Ps.  34  Sid\pa\- 
fia  occurs  in  the  LXX.  where  Selah  is  not  found. 


St.  Jerome  enters  into  the  question  at  some 
length  in  his  letter  to  lilarcella,  but  leaves  the 
matter  in  doubt ;  he  mentions  it  also  in  his  com¬ 
mentary  on  Ps.  4  and  Habak.  3. 

It  appears  to  the  writer  that  an  interpretation 
suggested  by  the  primary  meaning  of  \pdAAfiy 
will  nearly,  if  not  quite,  reconcile  the  conflicting 
opinions  and  perhajis  account  for  them  ;  viz., 
that  it  was  a  direction  for  the  instruments  to 
play,  while  the  chorus  was  silent  or  perhaps 
producing  a  series  of  notes  without  words,  t.  e., 
a  “division,”®  or  “  Pneuma.”  It  has  been 
said  that  the  Jews  used  Pneumata;  if  so,  the 
adoption  of  them  by  Christians  is  obvious ;  but 
in  any  case  it  would  seem  that  they  were  com¬ 
monly  in  use  at  an  early  period.  In  consequence 
of  the  common  use  of  various  musical  instru¬ 
ments  at  feasts  and  entertainments  at  which 
Christian  morality  was  likely  to  be  outraged  in 
the  period  of  the  empire,  the  Christians  were 
chary  of  their  use  in  religious  services,  fear¬ 
ful  doubtless  of  the  association  of  ideas.  Sir 
John  Hawkins  (//isL  0/  Music,  p.  xxvii.)  gives 
a  list  of  fathers  who  have  denounced  musical 
instruments,  but  he  gives  no  references ;  and 
the  writer  has  succeeded  in  verifying  Epiphanius 
only,  who  speaks  of  the  flute  as  a  diabolical 
instrument.  In  the  Eastern  Church  to  this 
day  instrumental  music  is,  we  believe,  unknown. 
Thus  the  Pneuma  may  have  been  invented  by 
the  early  Christians  as  the  nearest  approxima¬ 
tion  to  the  Diapsalma.  [J.  R.  L.] 

DIARETOR.  The  Codex  Eccl.  Afnc.  (c.  78) 
runs  thus  (Bruns’s  Canones,  i.  175) :  “  Rursus 
placuit,  ut  quoniam  Hippouensium  dixretorum 
ecclesiae  destitutio  non  est  diutius  negligenda 
.  .  .  eis  episcopus  ordinetur.”  The  equivalent 
in  the  Greek  version  is  “  ^povritnai  ttjs  ex- 
KA-galas"  “  caretakers  of  the  church  ”  [Inter- 
VENTOR],  as  if  during  a  vacancy  of  the  see, 
which  is  implied  in  the  concluding  words  of  the 
canon.  Ducange  (s.  v.)  conjectures  “  direc- 
torum,”  Hardouin  “  diarrhytorum.”  The  word 
does  not  seem  to  occur  elsewhere.  [C.] 

DIASTYLA,  Atda-TvAa,  the  Cancelli  by 
which  the  beTna  was  separated  from  the  naos 
(Sym.  Thessalon.  apud  Ducange  ;  Sid  ruv  KiyuAi- 
Swv  ^Toi  rav  SiaaTvAwy).  Goar’s  Euchol.  p. 
708.  [E.  V.] 

DIATESSARON.  [Diapason.] 

DICE  {Alea,  kv^oi  ;  Low-Latin,  Decius;  whence 
Fr.  Ee").  The  playing  at  dice,  or  games  of  chance 
generally,  never  looked  upon  favourably  by 
moralists  or  laws  (see  Eict.  of  Greek  and  Rom. 
Antiq.,  s.  V.  Alea),  early  attracted  the  notice 
of  the  censors  of  Christian  manners.  The  Paeda- 
gogue  of  Clement  (iii.  11,  p.  497)  forbids  dice¬ 
playing,  whether  with  cubes  or  with  the  four¬ 
faced  dies  called  da’rpdydAoi  (see  Rost  u.  Palm, 
s.  u.),  out  of  desire  for  gain.  Apollonius  (in 
Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  18,  11),  denouncing  the  Mon- 
tanists,  asks  whether  prophets  jilay  at  tables 
(rdfiAais)  and  dice.  And  gaming  is  one  of  the 
forms  of  vice  which  we  find  denounced  by  the 
Church  in  the  earliest  canons  which  remain  to  us. 
The  Apostolical  Canons  (cc.  41,  42  [al.  42,  43]) 
forbade  either  clergy  or  laity  to  play  with  dice 


““The  lark  makes  sweet  division,” — Romeo  and  Juliet 
lii.  6. 


DICERIUM 


DIGAMY 


651 


on  pain  of  degradation  or  excommunication.  Tlie 
Council  of  Eliberis  (a.d.  305)  also  denounced  the 
penalty  of  excommunication  against  any  of  the 
faithful  who  played  at  dice,  “  that  is,  tables,”  for 
money  (can.  79).  And  at  the  end  of  the  7th 
century  the  Trullan  Council  (can.  50)  repeated 
the  same  penalties  of  degradation  and  excom¬ 
munication.  Nor  was  the  civil  power  indifferent. 
Justinian  (Code,  lib.  i.,  De  Episc.  et  Cler.  1.  17 ; 
Nov.  123,  c.  10)  forbade  the  clergy  of  every  rank 
from  playing  at  games  of  chance  (ad  tabulas 
ludere),  or  even  being  present  at  them,  on  pain 
of  suspension  with  seclusion  in  a  monastery  for 
three  years.  Another  enactment  (Code,  lib.  i., 
De  Episc.  Audien.  1.  25)  commits  the  investiga¬ 
tion  of  such  offences  to  the  bishops,  and  em¬ 
powers  them  to  call  in  the  secular  arm,  if  neces¬ 
sary,  for  the  reformation  of  scandalous  offenders  ; 
and  yet  another  (Ib.  1.  35),  complaining  bitterly 
that  even  bishops  did  not  abstain  from  these 
stolen  pleasures,  denounces  such  laxity  in  the 
severest  terms.  These  imperial  laws  are  all  in¬ 
serted  in  the  Nomocanon  of  Photius  and  John  of 
Antioch. 

The  laws  themselves  indicate  that  Christians 
and  even  clergy  were  by  no  means  exempt  from 
the  almost  universal  passion  for  games  of  chance. 
One  or  two  instances  may  serve  to  confirm  this. 
Jerome  relates  (De  Script.  Eccl.  in  Apol.  Ep. 
.105)  that  Synesius  alleged  his  own  irresistible 
propensity  for  gambling  as  a  reason  why  he 
should  not  be  made  a  bishop.  Gregory  of  Tours 
(Hist.  Franc,  x.  16)  tells  us  that  certain  nuns 
of  the  conv'ent  of  St.  Radegund  at  Poictiers 
accused  their  abbess,  among  other  matters,  of 
dicing ;  whereupon  the  abbess  declared  that  she 
had  done  the  same  thing  in  the  lifetime  of  St. 
Radegund  (f  587)  herself,  and  that  it  was  not 
forbidden  either  by  the  common  law  of  canonical 
life  or  by  their  own  Rule ;  nevertheless,  she 
would  submit  to  the  judgment  of  the  bishops. 
(Thomassinus,  Nova  et  Vet.  Eccl.  Discip.  pt.  iii. 
lib.  iii.  c.  43.)  [C.] 

DICERIUM.  AiK-fjpiov,  cereus  bisulcus,  a 
two-forked  wax  taper  used  by  bishops  of  the 
Greek  Church  in  the  Benediction  of  the  people. 
It  was  also  employed  in  the  benediction  of  the 
Book  of  the  Gospels  lying  on  the  Holy  Table. 
The  bishop  was  said  SiKrjpicp  (T<(>payi^eii/,  The 
double  taper  was  considered  to  symbolize  the 
two  natures  of  Christ. 

Tricerium,  TpiK-fipiou,  cereus  trisulcus,  was  simi¬ 
larly  used,  and  held  to  symbolize  the  Trinity. 

Symeou  Thessalon,  De  Temple,  p.  222,  apAiid  Du- 
cange  s.  v,  KTjohs.  Goar’s  Eucholog.  p.  125.  [E.  V.] 

DICTERIUM.  [Pulpit.] 

DIDYMUS,  martyr  at  Alexandria ;  comme¬ 
morated  April  28  i^Mart.  Rorn.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  (W.  F.  G.) 

DIES.  The  word  dies  is  used,  like  the  Eng¬ 
lish  “  day,”  to  designate  a  festival :  as  (e.  g.)  the 
Annales  Franc,  a.d.  802,  “  Ipse  rex  celebravit 
diem  S.  Joannis  Baptistae.”  The  principal  special 
uses  of  the  word  are  the  following  : — 

1.  Dies  adoratus.  Good  Friday. 

2.  Dies  Aegyptiaci.  Certain  “  unlucky  days” 
once  marked  in  calendars  (see  the  ancient  cal¬ 
endars  published  by  Bucher),  supposed  to  have 
been  discovered  by  the  ancient  Egyptians  from 
astrological  calculations.  Decrees  were  made 


against  the  superstitious  observance  of  these 
AAys(Decret.  pt.  2,  cans.  26,  qu.  7,  c.  16),  and  an¬ 
cient  Penitentials  (see  Ducange,  s.  v.)  forbid  men 
to  avoid  these  days  especially  for  blood-letting 
or  commencing  a  work  ;  indeed  the  superstitious 
preference  for,  or  avoidance  of,  a  day  (Decrei.  u.  s. 
c.  17)  was  forbidden  generally.  A  memorial  verse 
for  showing  when  the  Egyptian  days  fall  is  given 
by  Durandus  (Rationale,  viii.  4,  §  20). 

3.  Dies  honi,  “  les  bons  jours,”  used  for  fes¬ 
tivals  (Sidonius,  Epist.  v.  17). 

4.  Dies  Cinerum,  the  first  day  of  Lent,  or 
Ash-Wednesday. 

5.  Dies  Coenae  Domini.  Maundy  Thursday. 

6.  Dies  Consecrati.  The  Capitularium  Car.  M., 
(ii.  c.  35),  enjoins  that  four  days  at  Christmas 
should  be  observed  as  festivals ;  these  days  are 
referred  to  in  the  council  of  Soissons,  a.d.  853, 
c.  7,  and  in  the  Capit.  Car.  Calvi  at  Compiegne, 
A.D.  868,  c.  8,  as  dies  consecrati,  on  which  no 
courts  were  to  be  held. 

7.  Dies  Dominica.  [Easter  ;  Lord’s  Day.] 

8.  Dies  Magnus,  Feliciss^'mns,  Ea.ster-Day 
(Capitularium  Car.  M.  v.  c.  136);  “dies  mag- 
nus  Coenae,”  Maundy  Thursday  (Capit.  Herardi, 
c.  14).  So  7)  fieydXr]  Tj/xfpa  (Cone.  Ancyr.  c.  6) 
is  used  for  Easter-Day.  “  Dies  magnus  ”  is  also 
used  for  the  Last  Day  (Capit.  Car.  M.  vi.  c.  378). 

9.  Dies  Natalis.  [Natalis.] 

10.  Dies  Neophytorum,  the  eight  days,  from 
Easter-Day  to  its  octave,  during  which  the 
newly  baptised  'wore  their  white  garments. 
Augustine  (Epist.  119,  c.  17)  speaks  of  the 
“  octo  dies  neophytorum  ”  as  days  of  special 
observance. 

11.  Dies  Palrnarum,  or  in  Ramis  Falmarum, 
Palm-Sunday. 

12.  Dies  Sancti,  the  forty  days  of  Lent. 
See  the  Theodosian  Code,  lib.  ii.  De  Feriis,  and 
Baronins,  ad  an.  519,  §  42. 

13.  Dies  Scrutinii,  the  days  on  which  can¬ 
didates  for  baptism  were  examined,  especially 
Wednesday  in  the  fourth  week  of  Lent. 

14.  Dies  Solis,  Dies  Lunae,  and  the  other  days 
of  the  week  ;  see  Week. 

7  % 

15.  Dies  tinearum  or  murium ;  certain  days 
on  which  ceiemonies  were  performed  to  avert 
the  ravages  of  moths  or  mice  (Audoenus,  Vita 
Eligii,  ii.  15).  See  Delrio,  Disqnis.  Magic,  lib. 
iii.  pt.  2,  qu.  4,  §  6. 

16.  Dies  Viridium,  in  some  ancient  German 
calendars,  Thur.sday  in  Holy  Week,  “  Grtindon- 
nerstag.”  [Maundy  Thursday.] 

17.  Dies  votorum,  a  wedding-day  ;  Leges 

Longobard.  lib.  ii.  tit.  4,  §  3.  [C.] 

DIETA.  The  ecclesiastical  CuRSUS  or  daily 
office.  Victor  of  Paris  (MS.  Liber  Ordinis,  c.  27, 
quoted  by  Ducange)  ordei’s  his  book  to  be  carried 
round  whenever  office  is  said  (quando  dieta  can- 
tatur).  See  Beleth,  De  Div.  Off.  c.  21 ;  Dur¬ 
andus,  Rationale,  v.  3,  29.  [C.] 

DIGAMY.  It  has  been  stated  under  the  head 
Bigamy  that  we  propose  to  consider  under  the 
present  head  whatever  concerns  the  entering  into 
marriage  relations  with  two  persons  successively. 
The  subject  is  one  in  respect  to  which  a  different 
morality  has  been  applied  to  the  clergy  and  laity 
As  respects  each  class  moreover,  it  divides  itself 
under  two  branches  —  which,  however,  it  will 
not  always  be  necessary  to  consider  separately 
— that  of  successive  marriages  after  divorce  or 


652  DIGAMY 

separation,  and  after  the  death  of  a  husband  or 
wife. 

I.  In  respect  of  the  clergy,  it  has  been  already 
observed  under  the  head  Bigamy  that  the  pre¬ 
scriptions  as  to  bishops  and  deacons  in  1  Tim.  iii. 
2, 12,  and  Tit.  i.  6,  requiring  them  to  be  husbands 

of  one  wife,”  apply  more  probably  to  successive 
than  to  simultaneous  marriages.  The  explana¬ 
tion  of  them  seems  to  lie  in  those  enactments 
of  the  Pentateuch  (Levit.  xxi.  7,  13,  14),  which 
forbid  the  priest  to  marry  a  widow  or  divorced 
woman.  The  oldest  authorities  support  this  view. 
The  Apostolical  Constitutions  (ii.  2)  require  the 
bishop  to  be  the  husband  of  a  single  woman  once 
manded ;  a  prescription  extended  by  a  constitu¬ 
tion,  evidently  indeed  of  later  date  (vi.  17)  to 
presbyters,  deacons,  and  even  singers,  readers, 
and  porters  ;  the  deaconesses  also  were  to  be  pure 
virgins,  or  at  least  widows  of  one  husband  (as  to 
,whom,  see  also  viii.  25,  no  doubt  later  still). 
The  so-called  Apostolical  Canons  in  like  manner 
provide  that  if  any  one  after  baptism  shall  twice 
enter  into  marriage,  or  marry  a  widow  or  divorced 
woman,  he  cannot  be  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon, 
or  in  anywise  on  the  list  of  the  sacred  ministry 
(cc.  13,  14,  otherwise  16,  17,  or  17,  18).  It  is 
dear  from  the  Philosophumena  of  Hippolytus 
(ix.  12)  that  by  the  beginning  of  the  3rd  century 
the  rule  of  monogamy  for  the  clergy  was  well 
established,  since  he  complains  that  in  the  days 
of  Callistus  “digamist  and  trigamist  bishops, and 
priests,  and  deacons,  began  to  be  admitted  into 
the  clergy.”  Tertullian  recognizes  the  rule  as 
to  the  clergy.  Thus  in  his  De  Exhortatione  Casti- 
tatis  (c.  7),  he  asks  scornfully :  “  Being  a  diga¬ 
mist,  dost  thou  baptize  ?  being  a  digamist,  dost 
thou  make  the  offering?”  And  he  points  (/6. 
c.  13)  to  certain  honours  paid  among  the  heathens 
themselves  to  monogamy. 

The  rule  of  the  Church,  it  will  be  observed, 
forbade  alike  to  the  clergy  both  personal  digamy, 
and  marriage  with  a  digamous  woman.  St.  Am¬ 
brose,  in  the  first  book  of  his  Offices  (c.  50),  further 
considers  the  case  of  prebaptismal  marriage, — 
many  persons,  it  seems,  being  surprised  that 
digamy  before  marriage  should  be  an  impediment 
to  orders. 

We  pass  from  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  to 
that  of  councils  and  popes.  The  so-called  canons 
of  the  Nicene  Council  from  the  Arabic — which 
probably  indeed  only  represent  the  state  of  the 
Church  of  Arabia  at  a  much  later  period — enact 
the  penalty  of  deposition  against  a  priest  or 
deacon  dismissing  his  wife  in  order  to  change  her 
for  another  fairer  or  better  or  richer,  or  “  on 
account  of  his  concupiscence”  (c.  66,  or  71  of 
the  Ecchellensian  version).  The  still  more  pro¬ 
blematical  ‘  Sanctions  and  Decrees  ’  attributed  to 
the  Nicene  fathers  require,  in  accordance  with 
the  previously  existing  laws  of  the  Church,  the 
priest  to  be  “  the  husband  of  one  wife,  not  a 
bigamist  or  trigamist,”  and  forbid  him  to  marry 
a  widow  or  dismissed  woman,  &c.  (c.  14). 

The  first  Council  of  Valence  (a.d.  374)  enacts 
that  “  none  after  this  synod  ....  be  ordained  to 
the  clergy  from  among  digamists,  or  the  hus¬ 
bands  of  previously  married  women  (internup- 
tarum),”  but  decrees  that  nothing  should  be  in¬ 
quired  into  as  to  the  status  of  those  who  are 
already  ordained  (c.  1).  Compare  the  4th  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Carthage  (a.d.  397),  c.  69,  and  the  1st 
Council  of  Toledo  (a.d,  400),  cc.  3  and  4. 


DIGAMY 

The  letters  of  pope  In.iocent  I.  (a.d.  402-17) 
deal  frequently  with  the  subject,  and  more  than 
once  on  the  point  already  treated  by  St.  Ambrose 
of  the  effect  of  prebaptismal  marriage.  In  his 
2nd  to  Victricius  bishop  of  Rouen,  besides  laying 
it  down  that  clerics  should  only  marry  virgins 
(c.  4),  he  dwells  on  the  absurdity  of  not  reckon¬ 
ing  a  wife  married  before  baptism  (c.  6).  The 
23rd  letter  of  the  same  pope,  addres;ed  to  the 
Synod  of  Toledo,  reverts  a  third  time  to  the  error 
of  not  i-eckoning  in  cases  of  digamy  a  prebaptismal 
marriage. 

The  letters  of  Leo  the  Great  (a.d.  440-61)  re¬ 
peatedly  recur  to  the  subject.  See  the  4th,  5th, 
and  6th. 

Second  marriages  were,  however,  still  allowed 
to  the  inferior  clergy.  Thus  the  25th  canon  of 
the  1st  Council  of  Orange,  a.d.  441,  ordained 
respecting  “  those  fit  and  approved  persons  whom 
the  grace  itself  of  their  life  counsels  to  be  joined 
to  the  clergy,  if  by  chance  they  have  fallen  into 
second  marriage,  that  they  should  not  receive 
ecclesiastical  dignities  beyond  the  subdiaconate.” 
The  same  enactment  is  repeated  almost  in  the 
same  words  in  the  45th  canon  of  the  2nd  Council 
of  Arles,  A.D.  452.  In  some  dioceses,  however, 
the  I'ule  was  still  stricter,  if  full  faith  is  to  be 
given  to  a  letter  of  bishops  Loup  of  Troyes  and 
Euphronius  ofAutun  to  bishop  Talasius  of  Angers 
(a.d.  453),  which  lays  it  down  that  the  Church 
allows  digamy  as  far  as  the  rank  of  porters,  but 
excludes  altogether  exorcists  and  subdeacons  from 
second  mai'riage,  whilst  in  the  diocese  of  Autun 
the  porter  himself,  the  lowest  of  the  inferior 
clergy,  if  he  took  a  second  wife  lost  his  office, 
and,  as  well  as  a  subdeacon  or  exorcist  falling 
into  the  same  “  madness,”  was  excluded  from 
communion  (see  Labbe'  and  Mansi’s  Councils,  vol. 
vii.  p.  942).  As  respects  marriages  to  widows, 
we  must  not  overlook  a  Council  of  uncertain 
place,  of  the  year  442-4,  by  which  a  bishop 
named  Chelidonius  was  deposed,  amongst  other 
reasons,  for  having  contracted  such  a  marriage ; 
though  he  was  afterwai-ds  absolved  by  Pope  Leo. 
See  further,  against  the  2nd  marriages  of  the 
clergy  or  other  marriages  to  widows  or  divorced 
women,  the  4th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Angers, 
A.D.  453 ;  the  4th  canon  of  the  1st  Council  of 
Tours,  A.D.  461 ;  the  2nd  canon  of  the  Council 
of  Rome,  a.d.  465  ;  letter  9  of  pope  Gelasius  I. 
(a.d.  492-6)  to  the  bishops  of  Lucania,  cc.  3,  22  ; 
and  two  fragments  of  letters  by  him  to  the 
clergy  and  people  of  Brindisi. 

Among  the  Nestorians  of  the  Ea.st  indeed, 
towards  the  end  of  the  5th  century,  the  re¬ 
marriage  of  the  clergy  was  held  valid.  One  of 
their  synods  held  in  Persia,  under  Barsumas 
archbishop  of  Nisibis  [Bigamy],  expressly  lays 
it  down  that  a  priest  whose  wife  is  dead  is  not 
to  be  forbidden  by  his  bishop  to  marry  again, 
whether  before  or  after  his  orders.®  And  even  in 
the  West  it  is  evident  that  instances  of  digamy  or 
quasi-digamy  must  at  the  beginning  of  the  6th 
century  have  been  so  frequent  in  France  at  least 
as  to  require  toleration.  Thus  the  Council  ol 


®  A  somewhat  later  Nestorian  synod  under  the  pa¬ 
triarch  Babaeus,  however,  seems  to  allow  but  one  wife  to 
the  “  Catholiciis,'’  all  inferior  priests,  and  monks.  It  is 
difiScult,  however,  to  collect  the  exact  purport  of  the 
enactment  from  the  short  notice  in  Labbe  aud  Manei’s 
Councils,  vol.  8,  p.  239. 


DIGAMY 


Acrde,  A.T>.  506,  after  the  canons  and  statutes  of 
the  fathers  had  been  read,  determined,  “  as 
touching  digamists  or  husbands  of  women  before 
married  (internuptarum) — although  the  statutes 
of  the  fathers  had  otherwise  decreed — that  those 
\\'ho  till  now  have  been  ordained,  compassion 
being  had,  do  retain  the  name  only  of  the  priest¬ 
hood  or  diaconate,  but  that  such  persons  do  not 
presume,  the  priests  to  consecrate,  the  deacons  to 
minister  ”  (c.  1).  So  the  Council  of  Epaone,  a.d. 
517,  c.  2;  the  4th  [Mrd]  Council  of  Arles,  a.d. 
524,  c.  3 ;  and  the  4th  Council  of  Orleans, 
A.D.  541,  c.  10.  It  seems  superfluous  to  multiply 
authorities  as  respects  the  Western  Church,  ex¬ 
cept  to  notice  the  introduction  of  the  same  legis¬ 
lation  among  new  communities.  Thus  for  Eng¬ 
land,  a  Council  held  under  archbishop  Theodore  of 
Canterbury,  towards  the  end  of  the  7th  century, 
forbids  the  priesthood  (c.  116)  to  the  husband  of 
a  widow,  whether  married  to  her  before  or  after 
baptism.  The  Collection  of  Irish  Canons,  suj)- 
po.sed  to  be  of  about  the  same  date,  in  its  first 
book  ‘  On  the  Bishop,’  requires  him  to  be  a  man 
“  who  having  taken  only  one  wife,  a  virgin,  is 
content  ”  (c.  9).  And  pope  Gregory  II.  (714-30) 
in  a  capitulary  to  his  ablegates  in  Bavaria,  forbids 
a  digamist,  or  one  who  has  not  received  his  wife 
a  virgin  to  be  ordained  (c.  5).  On  the  other 
hand,  a  Spanish  canon  seems  to  imply  that  quasi- 
digamous  marriages  might  in  that  province  be 
contracted  with  the  advice  of  the  bishop,  since 
the  4th  Council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  633,  enacted 
(c.  44)  that  clerics  who  without  such  advice 
(sine  consultu  episcopi  sui)  had  married  widows, 
divorced  women,  oi'  prostitutes,  were  to  be  ex¬ 
cluded  from  communion. 

The  last  authority  we  shall  quote,  as  embracing 
the  East  as  well  as  the  Vfest,  is  that  of  the  [5th] 
6th  General  Council,  that  of  Constantinople  in 
Trullo,  A.D.  691,  which  treats  of  the  subject  in  a 
manner  proving  that  the  canonical  injunctions 
against  digamous  or  quasi-digamous  marriages 
among  the  clergy  were  yet  in  many  instances 
transgressed.  Those  who  had  become  involved 
in  second  marriages,  and  down  to  a  given  past 
date  had  “  served  sin,”  were  to  be  deposed, 
but  those  who,  having  become  involved  in  the 
disgrace  of  such  digamy  before  the  decree, 
had  forsaken  their  evil  ways,  or  those  whose 
second  wives  were  dead  already,  whether  priests 
or  deacons,  wei'e  ordered  for  a  definite  time  to 
cease  from  all  priestly  ministrations,  but  to  re¬ 
tain  the  honour  of  their  seat  and  rank,  whilst 
praying  the  Lord  with  tears  to  forgive  them  the 
sin  of  their  ignorance.  On  the  other  hand  those 
who  had  married  widows,  whether  priests,  deacons, 
or  subdeacons,  after  a  short  period  of  suspension 
from  ministerial  functions,  were  to  be  restored 
to  their  rank,  but  without  power  of  further 
j)romotion.  For  all  those  committing  the  like 
offence  after  the  date  assigned,  the  canon  was 
renewed  “  which  sa)^s  that  he  who  shall  have 
become  involved  in  two  marriages  after  baptism, 
or  shall  have  had  a  concubine,  cannot  be  bishop, 
or  priest,  or  deacon,  or  in  anywise  a  member  of 
the  sacerdotal  order ;  and  so  with  him  who  hjis 
taken  to  wife  a  widow  or  divorced  woman, 
or  a  harlot,  or  a  slave,  or  a  stage-player  ”  (c.  3). 
It  would  probably  be  difficult  to  assign  the 
original  canon  thus  referred  to.  The  text  is 
moreover  remarkable  as  confining  the  disability 
of  second  marriage  to  post-baptismal  unions  in 


I 


1 


DIGAMY  65i3 

direct  opposition  to  the  authority  of  St.  Amfuoso 
and  others  before  referred  to. 

It  is  sufficient  to  state  here  that  so  long  as  we 
retain  the  female  diaconate  in  sight,  the  same 
obligation  of  monogamy  attache.;  to  the  deacon¬ 
esses  as  to  the  male  clergy  ;  e.  /.,  not  to  speak 
of  Epiphanius  for  the  East,  when  the  female 
diaconate  reappears  in  Gaul  during  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury,  we  find  the  2nd  Council  of  Orleans,  a.d. 
533,  enacting  that  “  women  who  have  hitherto 
received  against  canonical  prohibition  the  diaconal 
benediction,  if  they  can  be  proved  to  have  again 
lapsed  into  marriage,  are  to  be  expelled  from 
communion  but  if  they  give  up  their  husbands 
they  may  be  readmitted  after  jienance  (c.  17). 

It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  civil  law 
of  the  Roman  empire  since  the  days  of  Justiniau 
followed  the  canon  law  on  the  subject  of  clerical 
marriages.  This  is  perhaps  only  implied  in  the 
Code  (see  bk.  i.  t.  iii.  1.  42,  §  1,  and  1.  48),  but 
distinctly  enacted  in  the  Noveh.  Under  one  or 
other  of  these,  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  and  sub¬ 
deacons  were  alike  forbidden  to  receive  ordination 
if  they  had  been  twice  married,  or  had  married 
widows  or  divorced  vvomen  (6th  Nov.  cc.  i.  v. ; 
22nd  N^ov.  c.  xlii.;  123rd  Nov.  cc.  i.  xii. ;  137th 
Nov.  c.  ii.).  Readers  who  remarried  or  con¬ 
tracted  the  like  marriages,  could  rise  to  no  higher 
clerical  rank  (an  indulgence  which  did  not,  how¬ 
ever,  extend  to  a  third  marriage),  or  if  they  ob¬ 
tained  such  irregularly,  forfeited  altogether  their 
clerical  position  (6th  Nov.  c.  v, :  22nd  Nov.  c. 
xlii.;  123rd  Nov.  c.  xiv.).  Deaconesses  must  in 
like  manner,  if  not  virgins,  have  been  only  once 
married  (6th  Nov.  c.  vi.).'’ 

II.  As  respects  the  laity,  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  second  marriages  after  divorce  or  separa¬ 
tion,  and  after  death,  which  is  unimportant  as' 
respects  the  clergy,  becomes  an  essential  one.  In 
both  respects  the  practice  of  the  Church,  instead 
of  being  founded,  as  it  was  with  reference  to  the 
clergy,  on  the  prescriptions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
depends  upon  a  more  or  less  narrow  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  New,  or  on  more  or  less  bold  deductions 
from  its  teachings,  combined  with  the  surround¬ 
ing  influences  of  civil  society.  In  conformity  with 
St.  Paul’s  views  as  to  remarriage  after  death,  we 


•»  A  curious  offshoot  from  the  subject  of  the  proliibiiion 
of  clerical  bigamy  is  the  exte-  sion  of  that  prohibition  to 
the  widows  of  clerics.  Thus,  the  first  Council  of  I’oU  do, 
A.D.  400,  enacted  that  if  the  widow  o'"  a  hisliop,  priest,  or 
deacon  took  a  husband,  no  cleric  or  religious  woman 
ouglit  so  much  as  to  eat  with  her,  nor  sliould  she  l)e 
admitted  to  communion  except  m  arliculo  moitis  (c.  I8). 
The  4  th  Council  of  Oi  leans,  a.d.  511,  required  tlie  widow 
of  a  priest  or  deacon  married  again  to  be  separated  from 
her  husband,  or  if  she  remained  wiih  him,  both  to  l>e 
exclude  d  from  communion  (c.  13).  The  C(>uncil  of  K[«»i6ne 
(a.d.  517),  somewhat  more  sharply  decreed  immediate 
exclusion  of  both,  till  they  should  separate  (c.  32).  The 
Council  of  Lerida  (\.d.  524)  accorditig  to  Suriu^  forbade 
the  communion  to  the  remarried  widow  of  a  bishop,  piiest, 
or  d'acori,  even  in  artuulo  worlis.  The  Council  of 
Auxerre  (a.d.  578),again  forbade  such  marriages  as  respects 
the  widows  of  the  superior  clf-rgy ;  the  Council  of  Macon, 
A.D.  585,  extt  nded  the  prohibition  to  those  of  sulxieacons, 
e.xorci.sts.  and  acolytes,  under  pain  of  confinement  for  life 
in  a  convent  of  women  (c.  16).  Yet  Pope  Gregory  the 
Gr  at  (a.d.  599-603)  did  not  go  so  far,  for  we  find  him  in 
a  letter  to  I^eo,  bishop  of  Catania,  (bk.  ii.  lettc'r  3i)  oMer* 
iiig  a  certain  Honorata.  widow  of  a  subdeacon,  vc  ho  on 
h  r  m.irrying  sgain  had  been  shut  up  In  a  monastery 
to  be  restored  to  her  husband. 


554 


DIGAMY 


DIGAMY 


lind  Hevmas  writing  that  “  whoso  marries  ” — 
i.e.  as  shown  in  the  context,  after  the  death  of 
either  wife  or  husband — “does  not  sin,  but  if  he 
dwells  by  himself,  he  acquires  great  honour  to 
himself  with  the  Lord”  (bk.  ii.  M.  iv,  §  4);  but 
ado[)tiug  the  stricter  view  as  to  remarriage  after 
divorce,  declaring  it  to  be  adultery  in  the  man 
even  when  he  has  put  away  his  wife  for  that, 
ofi'ence  itself,  and  the  same  to  be  the  case  with 
the  wife  Qbid.  §  1).  Negatively,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  may  be  observed  that  the  epistle  of 
Barnabas,  in  enumerating  the  works  of  the  “  way 
of  light,”  does  not  specify  monogamy  (see  c.  19). 

The  Apostolical  Constitutions  (iii.  1)  speak  of 
the  marriage  of  a  church-widow  as  bringing  dis¬ 
grace  to  the  class,  “  not  because  she  contracted 
a  second  marriage,  but  because  she  did  not  keep 
her  promi.se  (67ra'y7€Xiav)  ”  —  a  passage  clearly 
implying  even  in  this  case  the  full  lawfulness  of 
second  marriage.  See  also  cc.  2  and  3,  and 
Apost.  Can.  40,  al.  47  or  48. 

Although  amongst  the  earlier  Romans  there 
was  one  form  of  marriage  which  was  indisso¬ 
luble,  viz.,  that  by  confarreatio,  still  generally 
a  second  marriage  either  after  death  or  divorce, 
was  by  no  means  viewed  with  disfavour.  There 
are,  however,  certain  clear  indications  that 
already  in  the  first  century  of  our  era  con¬ 
stancy  to  a  single  partner  was  in  the  Roman 
world  beginning  to  be  looked  upon  with  favour. 
Thus  Tacitus  speaks  of  Germanicus’s  being  a  man 
“  of  one  marriage”  as  one  of  the  causes  of  his 
influence  (Ann.  ii.  73),  and  mentions  a  little 
further  on  (c.  76)  that  the  daughter  of  Pollio 
was  chosen  to  be  chief  vestal  “  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  her  mother  remained  mar¬ 
ried  to  the  same  man.”  The  same  Tacitus  ob¬ 
serves  of  the  Germans  that  the  best  of  their 
communities  (civitates)  were  those  where  the 
women  only  married  as  virgins,  so  that  they 
never  had  but  one  husband  {De  Mor.  Germ,  c, 
xix.).  And  it  is  perhaps  worthy  of  notice  that 
the  jus  connubii,  when  given  to  soldiers,  was 
restricted  under  Philip  (247-9)  to  the  case  of  a 
first  marriage,  though  this  was  probably  not 
attributable  to  any  moral  considerations  (see 
Muratori,  Thes.  fnscr.  i.  362). 

Meanwhile  an  intensifying  spirit  of  asceticism 
was  leading  many  in  the  church  to  a  condemna¬ 
tion  of  second  marriage  in  all  cases.  Minucius 
Felix  (Octavius,  c.  31,  §  5)  only  professes  on 
behalf  of  the  Christians  a  preference  for  mono¬ 
gamy.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (a.D.  150-220) 
seems  to  confine  the  term  marriage  to  the  first 
lawful  union  (Stromata,  bk.  ii.— quoted,  as  well 
as  several  of  the  following  references,  in  Co- 
telerius,  Patres  Apostol.  vol.  i.  p.  90,  n.  16). 
Athenagoras  terms  second  marriage  “  fair  seem¬ 
ing  adultery.”  Tertullian  (a.d.  150-226)  in¬ 
veighs  against  it  with  unwearied  urgency,  in 
his  two  books  Ad  Uxorem,  in  his  De  Exho'-tatione 
C'lstitatis,  in  his  De  Monogamia,  and  in  his  De 
Fudicitid -i\\e  last  but  one,  however,  written 
when  he  was  altog«^ier  a  Montanist.  In  the 
first  of  thpni,  indeed,  he  admits  that  his  wife 
will  not  actpally  sjq  if  she  marry  after  his  death 
(i.  7),  but  argues  frojn  clerical  to  lay  mono¬ 
gamy.  In  the  Evhortation  to  Cn^stity  (which 
is  addressed  to  a  man)  he  uses  the  same  argument, 
but  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  second  marriage  is 
a  form  of  adultery  (c.  9).  Origen  (184-253)  sp 
far  as  the  Latin  text  of  his  17th  homily  on 


Luke  can  be  trusted,  is  not  much  less  severe. 
Recommending  perseverance  in  widowhood,  h« 
says  :  “  But  now  both  second  and  third  and  fourth 
marriages,  not  to  speak  of  more,  arc  to  be  found, 
and  we  are  not  ignorant  that  such  a  marriage 
shall  cast  us  out  from  the  kingdom  of  God.” 

It  would  seem,  how'ever,  that  when  these 
views  were  carried  to  the  extent  of  absolute 
prohibition  of  second  marriages  generally  by 
several  heretical  sects,  the  Montanists  (see  Au¬ 
gustin,  de  Haeresibus,  c.  26),  the  Cathari  (ib. 
c.  38),  and  a  portion  at  least  of  the  Novatianists 
(see  Cotel.  Patr.  Ap.  vol.  i.  p.  91,  n.  16),  the 
Church  saw  the  necessity  of  not  fixing  such  a 
yoke  on  the  necks  of  the  laity.  The  forbiddance 
of  second  marriage,  or  its  assimilation  to  forni¬ 
cation,  was  treated  as  one  of  the  marks  of  heresy 
(Augustin,  u.  s. ;  and  .see  also  his  De  bono  vidui- 
tatis,  c.  6).  The  sentiment  of  Augustin  (in  the 
last  referred  to  passage)  may  be  taken  to  express 
the  Church  judgment  at  the  close  of  the  4th 
century  :  “  Second  marriages  are  not  to  be  con¬ 
demned,  but  had  in  less  honour  ;  ”  and  see  also 
Epiphanius,  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Catholic  Faith, 
c.  21. 

What  the  “  less  honour  ”  consisted  in  may 
partly  be  inferred  as  respects  the  Greek  Church, 
from  the  ‘  Sanctions  and  Decrees  ’  attributed  to 
the  Nicene  Fathers  (Labbe'  and  Mansi,  Councils, 
vol.  ii.  p.  1029  and  foil.),  which  distinctly  au¬ 
thorize  widowers’  and  widows’  marriages  (i.  7). 
Yet  the  ble.ssing  of  the  crowns  is  not  to  be  imparted 
to  them,  for  this  is  only  once  given,  on  first  mar¬ 
riages,  and  not  to  be  repeated.  .  .  But  if  one 
of  them  be  not  a  widower  or  widow,  let  such  one 
alone  receive  the  benediction  with  the  para- 
nymphs,  those  whom  he  will. 

The  7th  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Neocae.sarea, 
in  A.D.  314  or  315,  bears  that  the  presbvter 
•ought  not  to  be  present  at  the  marriage  fes¬ 
tivities  of  digamists,  as  the  act  would  be  incom¬ 
patible  with  his  assigning  a  penance  to  such  per¬ 
sons.  The  canon  im2)lies,  it  will  be  seen,  that 
the  act  of  second  marriage  entailed  the  infliction 
of  a  penance.  This  appears  more  clearly  from 
the  1st  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  (be¬ 
tween  A.D.  357  and  367),  which  rules,  as  re¬ 
spects  those  who  have  “  freely  and  lawfully” 
contracted  a  second  marriage,  without  any 
secresy,  that  after  a  short  time,  and  some  chastise¬ 
ment  in  prayers  and  fastings,  they  should  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  Communion.  And  Basil  (a.d.  326— 
379)  in  his  Canonical  epistle  to  bishop  Amphi- 
lochius  of  Iconium  fixes  one  year  as  the  period 
of  the  suspension  of  digamists  from  communion. 

We  must  thus  consider  that  two  views  on  the 
subject  of  simple  remarriage  after  the  death  o< 
husband  or  wife  were  abroad  in  the  Church  ;  one 
which,  with  Augustin,  looked  upon  it  as  merely 
less  honourable  than  monogamy,  and  deemed  its 
actual  condemnation  a  mark  of  heresy;  the 
other,  which  looked  upon  it  as  in  itself  an  offence 
deserving  penance,  however  slight  this  might  be. 

The  latter  view  found  most  colour  as  respects 
.second  marriages  after  what  was  deemed  a  re¬ 
ligious  profession,  as  that  of  the  penitent,  and  of 
the  widow.  See  IV.  Cone.  Carth.  c.  104; 
A/.  Arles,  c.  21;  Pope  Symmachus,  Epist.  5, 

§  5  ;  T’’.  Paris,  c.  13,  and  many  others. 

A  more  extraordinary  instance  of  the  enforce¬ 
ment  of  monogamy  on  a  particular  class  of 
women  is  coqfiued  to  Spain.  The  13th  Council 


DIGAMY 


DIGAMY 


555 


of  Toledo,  in  683,  declared  it  to  be  “  an  execrable 
crime,  and  a  work  of  most  inveterate  iniquity, 
after  the  death  of  kings,  to  affect  the  royal  couch 
of  their  surviving  consorts  ”  (c.  5).  This  was 
confirmed  some  years  later  by  the  3rd  Council 
of  Saragossa,  a.d.  691,  which  required  the 
widows  of  the  kings  to  enter  a  convent  for  the 
remainder  of  their  lives  (c.  5). 

The  penance  for  ordinary  digamy  recurs  in  our 
own  country,  in  the  canons  of  a  Council  held 
under  Archbishop  Theodore,  of  Canterbury,  which 
fixes  it  at.  two  days  fasting  from  wine  and  flesh- 
meat  every  week  during  the  first  year,  and  fasting 
for  three  consecutive  Lents,  “  but  without  dis¬ 
missing  the  wife  ”  (c.  26).  But  subject  how¬ 
ever  to  some  such  qualifications,  second  mar¬ 
riage  after  the  death  of  husband  or  wife  remained 
fully  recognised  as  the  right  of  the  laity.  In 
later  times,  indeed,  so  slight  a  feeling  subsisted 
in  the  Romish  Church  against  re-marriage  among 
the  lait}'^  after  the  death  of  a  husband  or  wife, 
that  Muratori  (^Antiquitates  Medii  Aevi,  ii. 
Diss.  20),  says  that  the  Latin  Church  neA^er 
forbade  second,  third,  or  even  more  marriages 
after  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties,  although 
the  ancient  church,  especially  during  the  3rd  and 
4th  centuries,  bore  such  unions  impatiently,  and 
subjected  them  to  penance. 

It  must  now  be  observed  that  the  feeling 
against  second  marriage  traceable  in  early  times 
in  the  records  of  the  Church  gradually  extended 
to  the  Civil  Law,  especially  as  regards  widows. 
The  earliest  laws  which  indicate  this  feeling 
appear  to  belong  to  the  time  of  Theodosius  the 
Great  (a.d.  380-2),  and  are  to  be  found  in  Justi¬ 
nian’s  Code,  bk.  V.  tit.  ix.,  Be  secundis  nuptiis, 
and  bk.  vi.  tit.  Ivi. 

Substantially  the  Roman'  civil  law,  like  that 
of  the  Church,  fully  recognised  the  right  of 
second  marriage  of  a  surviving  husband  or  wife, 
latterly  confining  itself  to  securing  with  especial 
care  the  rights  of  the  issue  of  the  first  marriage. 
The  barbaric  codes  do  not  vary  materially  from 
this  point  of  view.  See  the  Edict  of  Tlieodoric, 
c.  37  ;  the  Laws  of  Notharis  (a.d.  638  or  643), 
cc.  182,  183  ;  Laws  of  Liutprand  (a.d.  724), 
vi.  c.  74.  The  laws  of  the  VVisigoths  recognised 
fully  the  right  of  remarriage  after  the  death  of 
a  partner  among  the  laity.  See  the  Laws  of 
Chindaswinth,  bk.  iii.  tit.  1,  1.  4. 

Among  the  Carlovingian  Capilularies  is  one 
forbidding  marriage  with  widows  without  their 
priests’  (suorum  sacerdotum)  consent  and  the 
knowledge  of  the  people  (bk.  v.  c.  40).  Mar¬ 
riages  with  professed  widows  were  declared  to 
be  no  true  marriages,  and  the  parties  were  to  be 
separated,  without  any  accusation  being  brought 
against  them,  by  the  priest  or  the  judge,  and 
were  to  be  sent  into  perpetual  exile  (ib.  c.  411)  ; 
though  another  enactment  (bk.  vii.  c.  338)  seems 
to  limit  the  ])enalty  to  suspension  from  commun¬ 
ion  till  amendment  of  life,  or  in  default  of  such 
amendment,  to  perpetual  exclusion.  If,  indeed, 
a  widow  who  was  also  a  penitent  remarried,  she 
and  her  husband  were  not  to  be  suffered  to  enter 
the  church  (/'>.  317,  and  see  also  Ac/t/.Q  tartn  c.  88). 
A  woman  who  had  connexion  with  two  brothers 
was  never  to  marry  again  {ib.  381).  A  limit 
was  even  sought  to  be  imposed  on  the  number 
of  marriages  which  might  be  contracted  :  “  Let 
none  take  more  than  two  wives,  sinc(  the  third 
is  already  superfluous”  (bk.  vii,  c.  406), 


III.  We  come  now  to  a  branch  of  the  subject  on 
which  the  law  of  the  Church  has  seldom  riii 
precisely  in  the  same  groove  as  that  of  the  state, 
viz.,  remarriage  not  after  death  of  one  of  the 
pai’ties,  but  after  divorce  or  separation.  Several 
classes  of  cases  have  here  to  be  distinguished. 
The  first  is  that  in  which  physical  sejiaration 
involves  the  presumption  or  at  least  the  jiossi- 
bility  of  death.  The  22nd  Novel  fixed  a  period  of 
five  years,  after  which  the  wife  of  a  captive 
husband,  who  could  hear  no  tidings  of  him, 
might  lawfully  marry  again  (c.  7).  The  Wisi- 
gothic  Code  was  less  indulgent.  One  of  its  older 
laws  enacted  that  no  woman  might  marry  in 
her  husband’s  absence,  till  he  was  known  to  be 
dead ;  otherwise,  on  his  return,  both  she  and  her 
second  husbJnd  were  to  be  giA'en  over  to  him, 
so  that  he  might  do  with  them  what  he  chose, 
whether  by  selling  them  or  in  any  other  way 
(bk.  ii.  t.  ii.  1.  6).  As  respects  the  church,  a 
letter  of  Pope  Innocent  I.  (402-17)  to  Probus 
simply  lays  down  that  where  a  wife  had  been 
carried  into  captivity  and  her  husband  married 
again  in  her  absence,  on  the  return  of  the  for¬ 
mer  the  first  marriage  alone  held  good  {Ep.  9). 
Leo  the  Great  ruled  to  the  same  effect  in  his 
letter  (a.d.  458)  to  Nicetas,  Bishop  of  Aquileia. 
Wives  whose  husbands  had  been  taken  in  war 
were  bound  to  return  to  their  former  husbands 
under  pain  of  excommunication  ;  but  the  second 
husbands  were  not  to  be  held  guilty  for  the  act 
of  marrying  {Ep.  159).  The  Council  in  Trullo 
(a.d.  692),  more  severe,  decreed  that  the  wife  of 
an  absent  husband  marrying  before  she  was 
certain  of  his  death  was  guilty  of  adultery 


(c.  93). 

The  next  group  of  cases  are  those  of  simple 
prolonged  physical  separation.  The  Roman  law 
took  especial  account  of  the  case  of  soldiers. 
The  22nd  Novel  allowed  the  Avife  of  a  soldier 
after  ten  years’  absence,  during  Avhich  she  must 
haA'e  repeatedly  pressed  her  husband  by  lettei'S 
or  messages,  Avhilst  he  either  repelled  her  im¬ 
portunities,  or  wholly  neglected  them,  to  marry 
again,  altering  in  this  respect  a  constitution  of 
Constantine’s  {Code,  bk.  v.  t.  xvii.  1.  7),  Avhich 
seemed  to  fix  four  years  as  a  sufficient  period  of 
separation.  But  the  wife  Avas  required  to  pre¬ 
sent  a  protest,  apparently  a  Avritten  one,  to  the 
soldier’s  superior  officers  (c.  14);  and  the  117th 
Novel  surrounded  this  proceeding  Avith  certain 
formalities,  requiring  moreoA'er  the  Avife  to  wait 
a  year  further  after  taking  the  step  in  question 
before  she  could  laAvfully  marry  again  (1.  11). 
St.  Basil  on  the  other  hand  notices  the  case  in 
his  first  canonical  epistle  to  Amphilochius,  and 
decrees  that  Avhere  the  soldier’s  wife  remarries, 
the  circumstances  should  be  examined  into,  and 
some  indulgence  shewn  (c.  36).  The  Council 
in  Trullo  adopted  this  vieAv,  and  authorized  a 
soldier,  Avho  might  return  after  a  long  absence 
and  find  his  Avife  married  to  another,  to  take  her 
back,  indulgence  being  sheAvn  both  to  the  Avoman 
and  to  her  second  husband  (c.  93). 

Physical  separation  through  captivity  con¬ 
stitutes  the  next  group.  A  council  held  under 
Theodore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  towards 
the  end  of  the  7th  century,  alloAvs  a  layman,  if 
his  wife  AA'ere  by  force  carried  aAvay  into  cajtti- 
vity,  and  he  could  not  recoA'er  her,  to  take  an¬ 
other,  as  being  better  than  to  commit  fornication 
(c.  31).  After  such  a  second  marriage  (which 


556 


DIGAMY 


DIGAMY 


could  be  contracted  after  a  twelvemonth,  c.  140), 
he  was  not  at  liberty  to  take  back  his  former 
wife  if  married  to  another,  but  she  might  her¬ 
self  also  marry  another  husband  (c.  31).  One 
of  the  later  Lombard  laws  (a.d.  721)  enacts  that 
if  any  one  go  away  for  a  matter  of  business  or 
of  trade,  whetlier  within  a  province  or  out  of  it, 
and  do  not  return  within  three  years,  his  wife 
may  apply  to  the  king,  who  may  allow  her  to 
marry  again  (Law  of  Liutprand,  bk.  iii.  c.  4). 

If  we  now  consider  the  case  of  voluntaiy  de¬ 
sertion  or  divoi'ce,  we  shall  find  considerable 
fluctuation  in  the  rules  and  practice  of  the 
Church  as  to  a  second  marriage  following  there¬ 
on.  St.  Paul  had,  indeed,  admitted  that  desertion 
for  thrt  faith’s  sake  dissolved  the  social  obliga¬ 
tions  ox'  marriage:  “If  the  unbelieving  depart, 
let  hiiji  depart ;  a  brother  or  a  sister  is  not 
under  bondage  in  such  cases”  (1  Cor.  vii.  15). 
Did  the  not  being  “  under  bondage  ”  imply  free¬ 
dom  to  marry  again  ?  An  alleged  canon  of 
Gregory  the  Great  is  repoided  to  have  ruled  that 
it  was  no  sin  to  do  so  (c.  17).  The  same  conclu¬ 
sion  may,  perhaps,  be  drawn,  as  respects  heresy 
at  least,  from  a  canon  (72)  of  the  Council  in 
Trullo,  which  not  only  forbids  marriage  between 
an  orthodox  person  and  a  heretic,  but  declares 
it  void  and  dissolved ;  and  seems  only  by  way 
of  permission  to  allow  that  where  two  infidels 
have  married,  and  one  comes  to  the  light  of  the 
truth,  he  or  she  may  remain  in  union  with  the 
other.  And  under  the  canons  of  the  English 
Council  under  Theodore,  the  case  would  be  in¬ 
cluded  in  that  of  desertion  generally,  m  which 
it  was  laid  down  that  a  layman  deserted  by  his 
wife  might  after  two  years  take  another  with 
the  bishop’s  consent  (c.  140).  Indeed  St.  Basil 
in  the  4th  century  had  ruled  in  his  first  canon¬ 
ical  epistle  to  Amphilochius  that  a  woman  who 
married  a  man  deserted  by  his  wife,  if  dismissed 
on  the  latter’s  return,  had  only  fornicated  in 
ignorance,  and  was  not  forbidden  to  maiTy  again  ; 
though  he  thought  it  better  that  she  should 
remain  single  (c.  46),  The  93rd  canon  of  the 
Council  in  Trullo  confirmed  this  view, 

There  was  indeed  one  case  of  separation,  the 
very  converse  of  that  of  a  Christian  husband  or 
wife  deserted  by  an  infidel  partner,  which  Jus¬ 
tinian’s  code  specially  dealt  with,  that  of  the 
husband  or  wife  embracing  the  monastic  pro¬ 
fession.  This  was  held  to  give  freedom  to  the 
other  party  to  marry  again,  although  as  respects 
a  woman,  by  analogy  with  the  law  in  case  of 
remarriage  after  death,  only  after  the  expiration 
of  a  twelvemonth.  She  was,  however',  at  once 
to  send  a  divorce  bond  gratia  to  her  husband 
{Code^  bk.  i.  t.  iii.  1.  53,  §  3  ;  and  see  1.  56 ; 
5th  Nov.  c.  5 ;  22nd  Nov.  c.  5).  The  avoidance 
of  marriage  by  the  religious  profession  was  how¬ 
ever  maintained,  after  the  divorce  bond  gratid 
had  been  forbidden;  see  the  117th  Nov.  cc.  10, 
12,  and  the  123rd,  c.  40. 

The  great  struggle  was,  however,  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  marriage  after  divorce.  Our  Lord’s  teach¬ 
ing  on  the  subject,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 
not  only  in  professed  opposition  to  the  Jewish 
law,  but  in  no  less  signal  opposition  to  the 
Roman,  in  which  the  facilities  for  divorce  were 
simply  scandalous.  The  right  of  divorce  in  spe¬ 
cified  cases,  and  of  subsequent  remarriage  for 
the  innocent  party,  was  maintained  by  the  .state 
for  a  long  time  under  the  emperors  (see  Coae, 


bk.  V.  t.  xvii.).  No  limitation  of  time  for  re¬ 
marriage  was  fixed  for  the  man  (lib.  1.  8,  §  5, 
Constitution  of  Theodosius  and  Valentmian,  A.n. 
449) ;  but  by  analogy  with  the  case  of  re¬ 
marriage  after  death,  the  woman’s  right  to 
remarry  after  divorce  for  her  husband’s  wrong, 
or  after  a  divorce  by  mutual  consent,  was 
limited  to  arise  after  the  expiration  of  a  twelve- 
month  (§  4  and  1.  9,  Constitution  of  Anastasius, 
A.D.  497).  But  if  she  divorced  herself  from  her 
husband  otherwise  than  in  the  cases  specified, 
she  could  not  remarry  within  five  yeans,  and 
if  she  did,  became  infamous,  and  the  marriage 
void  (1.  8,  §  4).  The  i-ight  of  remarriage  by  a 
wife  after  the  year  was  by  the  22nd  Novel 
extended  to  all  cases  of  “  reasonable  ”  divorce 
obtained  by  her ;  the  husband  in  the  like  case 
being  always  free  to  remairy  at  once  (cc.  16,  18). 
The  divorce  by  mutual  consent,  except  for  the 
sake  of  obsei'ving  chastity,  was  however  for¬ 
bidden  by  the  117th  Novel,  c.  10. 

In  Italy  the  right  of  divorce  and  remarriage 
was  maintained  by  the  edict  of  Theodoric  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  old  constitutions  (c.  54),  and  though 
it  cannot  be  traced  through  the  Lombard  laws, 
probably  subsisted  till  the  Carlovingian  conquest, 
when  by  a  capitulary  of  the  year  789,  enacted 
for  Lombardy,  marriage  after  divorce  was  for¬ 
bidden  (bk.  i.  c.  42). 

The  Wisigothic  law  seems  first  to  have  ad¬ 
mitted  divorce,  then  sought  to  forbid  it  alto¬ 
gether.  An  “  ancient  ”  law  prohibited  a  divorced 
woman  from  remarrying,  and  if  she  did,  ordered 
both  her  and  her  second  husband  to  be  given 
over  to  the  former  one  (bk.  iii.  t.  ii.  1.  1). 

If  we  turn  now  to  the  law  of  the  Church,  we 
find  the  Council  of  Eliberis  in  305  forbidding 
communion  even  in  extremis  to  women  lea^-ing 
their  husbands  without  cause  and  marrying 
another  (c.  8).  See  al.o  c.  9  and  c.  10. 

Basil  in  his  canonical  epistle  to  Amphilochius 
dwells  at  length  on  the  subject  of  divorces  (c.  9). 
He  doubts,  indeed,  whether  a  woman  living  with 
a  divorced  man  is  to  be  treated  as  an  adulteress ; 
but  she  is  one  certainly  who  leaves  her  husband 
and  marries  again.  But  the  deserted  husband  may 
receive  absolution  (^trvyyvwa'Ths  ivTi),  and  the 
woman  who  lives  with  him  is  not  condemned ; 
though  it  is  otherwise  if  the  man  himself  leaves 
his  wife  (ib.).  Such  a  man  marrying  again  is 
an  adulterer,  and  only  in  the  7th  year  is  to  be 
readmitted  among  the  faithful  (c.  77).  To  Basil’s 
mind,  a  dismissed  wife  should  remain  unmarried 
(c.  48). 

The  African  Council  of  Milevis,  A.D.  416,  the 
17th  canon  of  which  forbids  generally  dismissed 
women  to  marry  other  husbands,  hardly  agrees 
with  an  Irish  Council  of  uncertain  date  held  under 
St.  Patrick,  which  lays  it  down  that  first  mar- 
I'iages  are  not  made  void  by  second  ones,  “  unless 
they  have  been  polluted  by  adultery”  (c.  28); 
nor  with  the  Council  of  Vannes  eyicticu.n)  in 
465,  which  enacts  excommunication  against  those 
who  having  wives,  except  by  reason  of  fornication, 
without  proof  of  adultery  marry  other  women 
(c.  2).  The  Council  of  Hertfoi'd  in  673  seems 
to  revert  to  the  stricter  view,  enacting  that  a 
man  is  not  to  leave  his  wife  except  for  fornica¬ 
tion,  nor,  if  dismissing  her,  to  marry  another 
(c.  10).  The  Council  in  Trullo  declares  that 
both  the  woman  leaving  her  husband  and  mar- 
I  l  ying  another,  and  the  man  leaving  his  wife  and 


DIGAMY 


DIGNITAS 


557 


marrying  another,  commit  adultery,  and  enacts 
a  graduated  scale  of  penance  for  seven  years 
(c.  88).  On  the  other  hand,  the  English  Council 
under  Theodore  enacts  that  where  a  wife  is  un¬ 
faithful  a  man  might  dismiss  her  and  marry 
another,  the  woman  however  not  to  be  allowed 
to  marry  her  lover  (c.  143).  And  yet  by  a  seem¬ 
ingly  strange  contradiction  it  is  enacted  that  a 
harlot’s  husband  may  not  marry  any  other  woman 
during  her  lifetime  (c.  166),  the  case  aimed  at 
being  probably  that  of  a  marriage  with  a  full 
knowledge  that  the  woman  did  not  mean  to 
leave  her  course  of  life.  Among  the  Excerpts 
from  the  chapters,  “  de  remediis  peccatorum,”  by 
the  same  archbishop,  published  in  the  Anecdota 
of  Martene,  we  find  that  the  penance  assigned 
to  a  man  dismissing  his  wife  and  marrying 
another  is  seven  years  “  with  tribulation,”  be¬ 
sides  five  years  of  lighter  penance.  If  the  wife 
departed,  and  the  husband  married  again,  his 
penance  was  for  one  year  only. 

A  letter  (7)  of  Pope  Zacharias  (a.d.  741-51)  to 
Pepin  as  mayor  of  the  palace,  enjoins  again  the 
excommunication  of  laymen  dismissing  their 
wives  and  taking  others  in  their  place  (c.  7), 
and  reiterates  the  prohibition  against  marriage 
after  divorce  (c.  12),  which  we  find  also  repeated 
in  the  replies  made  by  Pope  Stephen  II.  in  754 
to  certain  queries  put  to  him  when  he  was  at 
Quierry  in  France  (c.  5). 

Under  Charlemagne  -a  different  spirit  be¬ 
comes  obvious.  The  law  is  made  stricter,  but 
the  rulers  are  above  it.  All  injunctions  to 
morality  on  the  part  of  the  popes  were  power¬ 
less  against  the  passions  of  their  Carlovingian 
patrons.  See  the  curious  letter  addressed  by 
Stephen  III.  (a.d.  768-70)  to  Charlemagne  and 
Carloman  his  son,  then  associated  with  him  on 
the  throne. 

The  Council  of  Aix  in  789  (c.  42)  and  the 
Council  of  Friuli  in  791  (c.  10),  endorsing  the 
stricter  construction  of  our  Lord’s  words  as  to 
divorce,  enacted  that  after  a  divorce  for  adultery 
neither  party  should  marry  again.  The  latter, 
however,  “  by  indulgence,”  allowed  those  who 
wei'e  separated  for  consanguinity’s  sake  on 
discovery  to  marry  again,  if  they  could  not  re¬ 
main  unmarried,  which  it  recommended  them  to 
do ;  but  if  they  wilfully  contracted  such  a  mar¬ 
riage  they  were  after  separation  to  do  penance 
all  their  lives  and  never  marry  again,  nor  could 
their  children  inherit  from  them  (c.  8).  The 
pi'ohibitions  against  a  second  marriage  after 
divorce  are  repeated  in  the  Capitularies,  bk. 
vii.  cc.  73,  382  (the  latter  expressly  includ¬ 
ing  the  case  of  adultery);  bk.  v.  c.  300,  Add. 
quarta  cc.  118-161, — the  prohibition  being  here 
extended  to  marrying  again  after  “  killing  a  wife 
without  cause.”  And  the  edict  of  Charlemagne 
(a.d.  814)  directs  inquiry  whether  all  men  noble  [ 
or  ignoble,  have  lawful  wives,  “  not  the  dis-  I 
missed  wives  of  others.”  j 

Strange  to  say,  the  Eastern  empire  presented  ^ 
at  this  same  period  a  similar  scandal  to  that  of 
the  imperial  court  of  the  west.  The  Emperor 
Constantine  had  sent  his  wife  to  a  convent  and 
married  another,  the  Archbishop  Joseph  per¬ 
forming  the  ceremony.  For  so  doing  he  was 
ejected”  by  the  patriarch  Tarasius,  but  received  to 
communion  by  a  Constantinopolitan  synod  in  806 
in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  Theodorus  Studita  and 
oi  the  monks,  and  another  assembly  in  809, 


declared  the  emperor’s  marriage  to  be  lawful,  on 
the  shameful  ground  that  “  the  divine  laws  can 
do  nothing  against  kings.” — It  is  somewhat  curi¬ 
ous  to  add  that  a  Nestorian  synod  held  in  Persia 
in  804,  following  the  stricter  view,  had  laid  it 
down  that  after  a  divorce  for  fornication  neither 
husband  nor  wife  could  marry  again. 

To  sum  up  the  conclusions  of  this  inquiry,  we 
find — 1st,  that  as  respects  the  clergy,  a  rule 
borrowed  from  Leviticus  or  derived  from  its  pre¬ 
scriptions  was  held  by  the  church  to  forbid  to  tlie 
clergy  all  marriages  which  should  on  either  side 
be  of  a  digamous  character ;  and  that  although 
this  rule  was  evidently  constantly  infringed  in 
practice,  and  its  infringements  oftentimes  con¬ 
doned  in  the  past,  it  was  nevertheless  steadily 
upheld  as  binding  throughout  the  whole  jieriod 
to  which  this  work  refers,  and  latterly  extended 
or  sought  to  be  extended  to  the  inferior  clergy; 
the  one  open  protest  against  its  application  being 
that  of  a  Nestorian  synod  in  Persia,  towards  the 
end  of  the  5th  centuiy.  2nd,  that  as  resjiects 
the  laity,  notwithstanding  the  stricter  views 
taken  by  seA'eral  writers  of  the  earlier  church, 
the  right  of  remarriage  after  the  death  of  a 
husband  or  wife  became  firmly  established, 
though  in  the  Eastern  church  such  marriages 
were  subjected  to  some  ceremonial  disjiarage- 
ment,  and  were  generally  sought  to  be  dis¬ 
couraged  by  penances  more  or  less  severe.  3rd, 
that  considerable  fluctuation  in  the  views  and 
pi'actice  of  the  Church  seems  to  have  jirevailed 
on  the  subject  of  remarriage  after  separation  or 
divorce,  and  that  whilst  second  marriages  in  such 
cases  were  generally  condemned  by  the  letter  of 
the  canon  law  towards  the  end  of  the  8th  and 
beginning  of  the  9th  centuries,  the  sovereigns 
both  of  the  East  and  West  set  such  prohibitions 
at  nought  for  themselves,  and  parted  with  their 
wives  to  marry  others  almost  at  their  will. 

(See  also  Bigamy).  [J.  M.  L.] 

DIGNITAS.  A  well-known  classical  word  — 
id,  quo  quis  re  aliquii  dignus  est,  as  Facciolati 
defines  it.  By  degrees  it  was  used  as  a  generic 
term  for  ranks  or  offices,  “  Dignitas  equestris, 
senatoria,  consularis,”  and  so  forth.  From  Pliny 
downwards,  by  “dignitates”  were  frequently 
meant  “magistracies.”  The  well-known  nutitii, 
or  “  Table  of  dignities  of  the  Roman  Emjiire  in 
the  east  and  west,”  which  Paucirolus  thinks 
may  have  been  published  about  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Theodosius  the  younger  in  its  present 
shape,  was  probably  commenced  under  Augustus 
(Bocking’s  Notit.  p.  liii.-v.).  They  form  the 
subject  of  the  6th  book  in  the  Theodosiau  Code, 
and  of  the  1st  and  last  books  in  that  of  Justinian 
(Gothofred  Op.  Jurid.  Min.  pp.  1263,  1374,  and 
1415-18).  All,  of  course,  were  purely  secular ; 
but,  in  process  of  time,  when  ecclesiastics  were 
promoted  to  secular  offices,  and  ecclesiastical 
offices  themselves  began  to  confer  as  much  social 
distinction  as  secular,  people  talked  of  “  digni¬ 
ties  ”  in  the  Church  as  freely  as  in  the  State. 
Hence,  retrospectively,  this  term  might  be  ex¬ 
tended  to  the  offices  of  bishop,  metropolitan, 
archbishop,  patriarch,  pope,  cardinal,  bishop- 
suffragan,  archpriest,  aiubdeacon,  chancelloi’, 
though,  as  matter  of  fact,  it  was  never  applied 
to  them  till  it  had  been  used  to  denote  later  and 
more  suboi'dinate  posts  first.  In  ecclesiastical 
parlance,  says  Ducange,  “  when  a  benefice  in 
eluded  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  atlairi 


DIMISSORY  LETTERS 


558 

with  jurisdiction,  it  was  called  a  dignity.”  And 
ri)onuusin,  to  the  same  purpose,  speaks  of  “  pro¬ 
vosts,  deans,  stewards,  chamberlains,  treasurers, 
cellarers,  and  sacristans,  as  among  the  ‘  dignities  ’ 
inseparable  from  cathedrals  and  abbeys”  (^De  Ben. 
i  ii,  70).  True,  we  meet  with  none  of  these 
words  in  their  received  ecclesiastical  meaning 
bjfoi'e  the  9th  century;  nor  was  it  till  then, 
probably,  that  epclesiastical  offices  of  any  kind 
began  to  be  styled  “dignities:”  still,  practically, 
they  had  been  this  long  before.  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

DIMISSORY  LETTERS.  ^Literae  dimis- 
oriae,forinatae ;  inKTToKal  aTrohvTiKai.)  Letters 
given  by  a  bishop  to  one  of  his  clerks  removing 
into  another  diocese  ;  or  to  a  layman  of  his  dio¬ 
cese  desiring  to  be  ordained  elsewhere.  [See 
Bishop,  p.  232:  Commendatory  Letters.] 

1.  In  ancient  times  a  bishop  was  forbidden  to 
receive  a  clerk  from  another  diocese,  or  to  ad¬ 
mit  to  higher  orders  a  clerk  already  ordained  to 
some  inferior  rank,  or  to  ordain  a  layman  domi¬ 
ciled  in  another  diocese  (alterius  plebis  hominem), 
without  the  express  and  formal  consent  of  the 
bishop  of  that  diocese  (Cone.  Nicaen.  i.  c.  16; 
C.  Sardic.  cc.  16,  19,  A.D.  347 ;  C.  Garthag.  i. 
c.  5,  A.D.  348 ;  C.  Taurin.  c.  7  ;  C.  Aruusic.  i. 
c.  8,  9  ;  C.  in  Trullo,  c.  17 ;  Ordo  Rom.  VI f  1. 
p.  87).  Readers,  psalmists,  and  doorkeepers, 
were  included  under  the  designation  of  clerks 
(C.  Garth,  iii.  c.  21 ;  compare  Augustine,  Epistt. 
23.3,  240,  242).  A  bishop  was  not  to  hinder 
a  presbyter  of  his  diocese  from  being  ordained 
bishop  of  a  church  to  which  he  was  elected, 
nor  was  one  who  had  a  superfluity  of  clerks 
to  refuse  them  to  a  diocese  where  there  were 
too  few  (6'.  Garth,  iii.  c.  45)  The  decision  in 
cases  of  this  kind  seems  to  have  rested  with  the 
metropolitan.  In  a  case  in  which  a  bishop,  Ju- 
lianus,  wished  to  reclaim  a  lector  who  belonged 
to  his  diocese  by  birth,  though  he  belonged  by 
baptism  to  the  bishop  who  had  ordained  him, 
Epigonius,  it  was  ruled  that  the  lector  belonged 
to  the  dioce.se  of  his  baptism,  to  which  he  had 
come  as  a  catechumen  with  commendatory  let¬ 
ters  (C.  Garth,  iii.  c.  44). 

The  rules,  however,  with  regard  to  the  ordi¬ 
nation  of  extraneous  laymen  were  probably  never 
enforced  with  the  same  strictness  as  those  which 
related  to  clerics.  Origen,  an  Alexandrian,  was 
ordained  presbyter  by  the  bishops  of  Caesarea 
and  Jerusalem,  much  to  the  indignation  of  his 
own  bishop,  Demetrius ;  there  was,  however,  in 
Origen’s  case  a  special  reason — his  mutilation — 
why  he  should  not  be  ordained  (Euseb.  //.  E. 
vi.  8,  26,  27).  Jerome  was  oi’dained  priest  at 
Antioch,  neither  the  church  of  his  birth  nor  of 
his  baptism.  And  there  are  other  instances  of 
the  like  kind. 

The  theory  on  which  all  this  rests  is  that  a 
bishop  by  the  act  of  ordination  acquired  a  per¬ 
petual  right  to  the  services  of  the  clerks  whom 
he  ordained  (“Quisquis  semel  in  hdc  ecclesia  oi-di- 
nem  sacrum  acceperit,  egrediendi  ex  ea  ulterius 
licentiam  non  habet.”  Greg.  Magn,  Epist.  v.  38), 
and  even — in  a  less  degree — to  the  services  of 
those  whom  he  baptised.  Hence  letters  dimissiffy 
were  not  merely  letters  testimorial  or  commen¬ 
datory,  but  properly  awoKvTiKai ;  instruments, 
that  is,  setting  the  clerk  free  from  his  allegiance 
to  his  first  bishop,  and  transferring  the  same 
powers  over  him  to  the  bishop  of  his  adopted 


DIOCESE 

diocese  (Thomassin,  Nova  ct  Vetus  Ecclesiae  Dis- 
ciplina.,  ii,  i.  I  ff.). 

2.  It  was  probably  from  the  same  notion,  of 
the  clerks  being  bound  by  a  peculiar  allegiance 
to  their  bishop,  that  the  practice  arose  of  re¬ 
quiring  the  clergy,  and  “religious”  persons 
generally,  to  have  the  sanction  of  the  bishop 
before  they  approached  their  king  or  lord  (dom- 
num)  for  the  purpose  of  asking  benefices  {Gone. 
Aurelian.  i.  c.  7,  A.D.  511.  This  canon  is,  how¬ 
ever,  wanting  in  several  MSS.).  [C.] 

DIXGOLVINGA,  COUNCIL  OY  {Dirugol- 
vingense),  at  Dingolfing,  on  the  river  Isar,  in 
Bavaria,  A.D.  772,  under  Tassilo,  Duke  of  Bavaria, 
passed  13  canons  upon  discipline  and  reformation 
of  manners.  Labb.  Gone.  vi.  1794,  1795  ;  Le 
Cointe,  Annal.  v.  in  an.  770  ;  Harzheim,  Cone. 
German,  i.  130.  [A.  W.  H.] 

DIOCESE.  The  word  SiolKrjffis,  signifying 
in  its  general  sense  any  kind  of  administration, 
came  to  be  specifically  applied  by  the  Romans  to 
a  RrorAncia,  but  to  one  of  the  lesser  sort,  for 
Cicero  speaks  of  his  Provincia  Ciliciensis  “  cui 
scis  tres  SioiK-fjcreis  Asiaticas  attributas  fuisse  ” 
(^Epist.  ad  Earn.  lib.  xiii.  ep.  67). 

At  a  later  period,  however,  when  Constantine 
remodelled  the  civil  divisions  of  the  empire,  a 
diocesis,  instead  of  being  a  minor  province,  con¬ 
tained  within  it  several  provinces.  Thus,  for  in¬ 
stance,  there  were  ten  provinces  in  the  Egyptian 
diocese.  About  the  same  time  the  word  passed 
from  the  terminology  of  the  civil  government 
into  that  of  the  church.  It  was  employed  in  a 
sense  analogous  to  its  secular  application,  and 
signified  an  aggregate  not  merely  of  several  dis¬ 
tricts  governed  each  by  its  own  bishop,  but  of 
several  provinces  (eVapX'^O  presided  over 
by  a  metropolitan.  The  diocese  itself  was  under  an 
Exarch  or  Patriarch  [Exarch].  It  is  in  this  sense 
that  the  Council  of  Constantinople  (can.  2)  speaks 
of  the  Asian  and  Pontic  dioceses,  and  the  Council 
of  Ephesus  of  the  Egyptian  diocese.  Aioiktjo'is 
((TTir  7}  TToWas  iirapx'io.^  exovaa  ev  eavTrj,  says 
Balsamon,  ad  Gan.  IX.  Goncil.  Ghalced.  That  canon 
gives  an  appeal  from  the  head  of  the  province, 
the  metropolitan,  to  the  head  of  the  5ioiKr)(Tis  in 
these  words  :  et  Se  irphs  rhp  rris  avrrjs  eTrapx*®^ 
MeTpoTToAiTTjv  iir'KTKOTTOS  K\7]piKhs  a/jicpia ^7}- 
To'iTj,  KaTa\ap.^av€T(i}  rhy  e^apxov  ttjs  SioiKTr 
treois  rhv  TTjS  ^Sao'iAeuouo'Tjy  Kov(TTayTivovTr6- 
Keoos  Opouov,  Kai  Itt’  avT(S  SiKaC^adw,  About  the 
same  period  the  word  diocese  began  also  to  as¬ 
sume  the  sense  which  has  finally  prevailed  to 
the  exclusion  of  that  just  mentioned,  and  to  be 
used  to  signify  the  district  governed  by  a  single 
bishop.  For  the  three  first  centuries  this  was 
commonly  denoted  by  TrapoiKia,  but  it  now  began 
also  to  be  called  dioecesis,  as  in  the  Council  of 
Carthage  (see  Bing.  Antiq.  bk.  ix.  ii.  §  2)  we 
have  “  Placuit  ut  nemini  sit  facultas,  relicta 
principali  cathedrsi,  ad  aliquam  ecclesiam  in  dioe- 
cesi  constitutam  se  conferre.”  In  point  of  fact, 
howevei’,  the  word,  which  perhaps  retained  to  a 
certain  degree  its  general  rather  than  its  tech¬ 
nical  sense,  is  found  applied  in  turn  to  every 
kind  of  ecclesiastical  territorial  division,  bor, 
while  Hincmar  (^Epist.  ad  Aicolaum')  uses  it  of 
the  province  of  a  metx’opolitan  (“  non  solum  dioe¬ 
cesis,  verum  etiam  parochia  mea  inter  duo 
regua  sub  duobus  regibus  habetur  divisa  ”), 
Suicer  alleges  other  authorities  to  show  that  the 


DIOCKSE 


DIOCESE 


559 


wox’d  IS  sometimes  employed  in  a  sense  closeU 
resembling  our  word  parish,  viz.  the  district  of 
a  single  church  in  a  diocese.  It  has  been  ob¬ 
served  that  this  was  a  Latin,  and  especially  an 
African  use  of  the  term  (Thomass.  1.  I.  c.  H). 

Considered  in  the  acceptation  of  the  word, 
which  has  prevailed  in  later  times  to  the  exclu¬ 
sion  of  the  others,  a  bishop’s  diocese  and  his 
power  over  it  are  thus  spoken  of  in  the  4th 
century — 

"E/cafTTOV  iiricKOTTOU  e^ovcrlau  71)5  Lavrov 

irapoiKias,  SiwKeTv  tc  Karh,  kKaarep 
\ov(Tav  ivXd^eiau,  Kol  Trpdvoiav  rroiuadai  irda'rjs 

T7JS  Tr6\lV"  ws  KUl 

XfipoTOV€7y  npea^vrepovs  Kai  SiaKdvovs,  Ka\ 
/uera  Kpiaews  CKaffTa  SiaKafi^dveiv.  wepaiTfpu  8e 
uTjScj'  vpdrTiiv  iTrix^‘p^7v  Slxo,  rod  ttjs  fnpTpo- 
iroXews  iTraTKoirov,  ix7}5h  abrhv  &U€V  rrjs  ruv 
\onrwv  yv(ap.7\s.  (Goncil.  Antioch,  can.  9.) 

It  has  been  thought  that,  from  every  bishop 
bavins  a  ris:ht  to  erect  new  chui-ches  in  his  own 

o  o 

diocese,  and  to  set  up  a  cross  on  the  spot  where 
they  were  to  be  placed,  his  diocese  has  sometimes 
been  called  aTavpo-ni)yiov  (Bing.  viii.  9,  5). 

The  canonical  rule  was  not  only  that  a  diocese 
should  have  but  one  bishop,  but  that  a  bishop 
should  have  but  one  diocese.  In  subsequent  times, 
however,  the  latter  part  of  this  rule  was  much 
broken  down  by  the  practice  of  “  commenda.” 
This  practice  came  into  use  on  various  grounds. 
One  of  these  is  thus  indicated  by  Thomassin : — 
“  Incursationes  barbarorum  juges  et  cruentis- 
simae  Fundana  civitate  episcopum  plebemque 
propemodum  omnem  effugarant.  Cum  viduata 
tunc  pastore  suo  fui.sset  Terracina,  Fundanum 
sibi  postulavit  episcopum.  Confirmata  est  a 
Gregorio  Magno  ea  electio,  a  quo  jussus  est  Ag- 
nellus  titulum  et  administrationem  gerere  eccle- 
siae  Terracinensis,  et  nihil  secius  veluti  com- 
mendatam  sibi  cui’are  ecclesiam  Fundanam.  ‘Sic 
te  Terracinensis  ecclesiae  cardinalem  constitui- 
mus  e.sse  sacerdotem,  ut  et  Fundensis  ecclesiae 
pontifex  esse  non  desinas  ’  ”  (Thomassin,  pt.  ii. 
lib.  3,  cap.  10). 

In  other  cases  a  vacant  diocese  was  simply 
committed  to  the  care  of  a  neighbouring  bishop 
till  a  successor  could  be  appointed.  This  was  in 
the  earlier  times  the  most  common  species  of 
commenda,  and  was  of  course  temporary  only. 

Sometimes  there  was  a  kind  of  double  com¬ 
menda,  the  pope  commending  to  the  care  of  a 
neighbouring  bishop  a  diocese  whose  own  dio¬ 
cesan  was  occupied  in  administering  the  affairs 
of  another  church  previously  commended  to  him. 

In  other  instances,  again,  where  a  bishop  was 
under  sentence  of  penance,  the  affaii’s  of  his 
church  were  entrusted  to  another,  or  to  the 
metropolitan,  until  he  was  restored.  “  Emeri- 
tense  Concilium  Metropolitano  commendavit 
ecclesias  eorum  episcoporum,  qui  ad  poenitentiam 
secedere  jussi  fuerant,  quod  aConcilio  Provinciali 
abfuissent  ”  (Thomassin,  pt.  ii.  lib.  3,  c.  11). 

In  one  instance  Childeric  appears  to  have  com¬ 
mended  a  diocese  to  the  care  of  an  abbot  (ibid.). 

At  first  the  bishop  to  whom  a  diocese  was 
commended  appeal’s  only  to  have  received  his 
actual  expenses.  Gregory  the  Great,  however, 
W'hen  Paulus  had  charge  of  Naples  during  a  va¬ 
cancy,  directed  as  follows  : — “  Praedicto  Paulo 
centum  solidos  et  unum  puerulum  orphanum 
quern  ipse  elegerit  pro  labore  suo  de  eadem  ec- 
clesiS  facias  dari  ”  (ibid.  c.  10). 


By  degrees  large  profits  were  derived  from  a 
commenda,  and  it  thus  became  an  object  of  am¬ 
bition,  and  was  bestowed  by  popes  and  sovereigns 
without  reason  and  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
Church.  In  later  times  it  became  a  flagrant 
abuse,  but  its  worst  forms  belong  perhaps  mainly 
to  a  period  beyond  our  present  limits.  It  came 
to  be  held  in  perpetuity,  instead  of  for  a  limited 
period,  and  the  revenues  of  two  or  more  sees 
were  accumulated  upon  one  person  as  a  provi¬ 
sion  for  life. 

One  peculiar  kind  of  commenda  must  not  be 
omitted,  viz.  where  a  part  of  the  revenues  of  a 
church  was  assigned  to  a  great  lay  noble,  in 
return  for  his  taking  on  himself  its  defence 
against  its  heathen  or  other  enemies.  Such  pro¬ 
tectorates  were  .common  in  the  more  disturbed 
periods.  They  are  styled  ‘  commendae  militares.’ 
In  the  same  manner  and  on  like  grounds  the 
sovereigns  retained  to  them.selves  portions  of 
church  property.  But  the  subject  of  Commendae 
is  too  large  to  be  discussed  at  length  here.  The 
learning  of  the  whole  subject  will  be  found  in 
Thomassin. 

The  limits  of  dioceses  were  probably  fixed  in 
the  first  instance  by  local  or  accidental  circum¬ 
stances.  “  They  differed  widely  in  size  and  popu¬ 
lation.  Details  on  these  points  will  be  found 
under  Notitia.  It  is  more  important  to  ob¬ 
serve  that  when  too  large  they  were,  not  un- 
frequently,  divided,  as  in  the  following  instance: 
— “  In  the  Council  of  Lucus  Augusti,  or  Lugo, 
under  King  Theodemir,  anno  569,  a  complaint 
was  made  that  the  dioceses  in  Gallaecia  [in 
Spain]  were  so  large  that  the  bishops  could 
scarce  visit  them  in  a  year:  upon  which  an 
order  was  made,  that  several  new  bishoprics  and 
one  new  metropolis  should  be  erected,  which  was 
accordingly  done  by  the  bishops  then  in  council, 
who  made  Lugo  to  be  the  new  metropolis,  and 
raised  several  other  episcopal  sees  out  of  the  old 
ones,  as  declared  in  the  acts  of  that  council  ” 
(Bing.  ix.  vi.  §  16). 

As  his  own  diocese  was  the  proper  sphere  of 
the  action  of  a  bishop,  in  acting  in  the  diocese  of 
another  he  was  under  certain  restrictions.  These 
prevailed  at  all  times  to  a  greater  or^’oiss  degree, 
but  seem  eventually  to  have  been  la.iI  down  in 


*  "  The  Diocese,”  says  Milman,  “  grew  up  in  two  ways — 
1.  In  the  larger  cities  the  rapid  increase  of  the  Christians 
led  neces-sarily  to  the  formation  of  separate  congregations, 
which  to  a  certain  extent,  required  each  its  proper  orga¬ 
nization,  yet  invariably  remained  subordinate  to  the 
single  bishop.  In  Rome,  towards  the  b^gmning  of  the 
4th  century,  there  were  above  forty  churches,  rendering 
allegiance  to  the  prelate  of  the  metropolis.  2.  Chris¬ 
tianity  was  first  established  in  the  towns  and  ciiies,  and 
from  each  centre  diffused  itself  with  more  or  less  success 
into  the  adjacent  country.  In  some  of  these  country 
congregations,  bishops  appear  to  have  been  establifhed, 
yet  their  choreplscopi,  or  rural  bishops,  maintained  some 
subordination  to  the  head  of  the  Mother  Church;  or 
where  the  converts  were  fewer,  the  rural  Christians  re¬ 
mained  members  of  the  Mother  Church  in  the  City.  In 
Africa,  from  the  immense  number  of  bishops,  each  com¬ 
munity  seems  to  have  had  its  own  superior ;  but  this 
was  peculiar  to  this  province.  In  general,  ihe  churches 
adjacent  to  the  towns  or  cities  either  originally  were,  or 
became,  the  diocese  of  the  City  Bishop :  for  as  soon  as 
Christianity  became  the  religion  of  the  State,  the  powers 
of  the  rural  bishops  were  restricted,  and  the  office  at 
length  was  either  abolished,  or  fell  into  disuse.” — History 
0/  Christianity,  Book  iv.  ch.  I. 


660 


DIOCLES 


DIPTYCHS 


the  later  canon  law  as  follows,  viz.  that  a  bishop 
may  perform  divine  offices  and  use  his  episcopal 
habit  in  the  diocese  of  another,  without  leave, 
but  not  perform  any  act  of  jurisdiction  ;  and  it 
has  even  been  said,  that  jurisdiction  cannot  be 
exercised  by  a  bishop  of  another  place,  though 
with  the  consent  of  the  diocesan,  except  over 
such  as  willingly  submit  themselves  to  his 
authority.  And  where  the  holder  of  a  benefice 
in  one  diocese  resides  in  another,  the  bishop  in 
whose  diocese  he  resides  may  proceed  against 
him  for  an  offence,  but  the  punishment,  so  far  as 
it  affects  his  benefice,  is  to  be  carried  out  by  the 
bishop  where  the  benefice  is  (Gibson’s  Codex, 
pp.  133,  134). 

See  also  Bishop  :  Exarch  :  Parish. 

Authorities  :  Thomassinus,  Vetus  et  Nova 
Eedesine  diacAplina.  Bingham.  Ayliffe,  Parergon 
Juris  Cdnonici.  Suicer’s  Thesaurus,  s.  v.  Aiol- 
KTfjais  and  aTavpairriyiov.  [B.  S.] 

DIOCLES,  martyr  at  Histrias  (?  Istria), 
commemorated  May  24  (^Mart.  Horn.  Vet.,  Adonis  ; 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DIODOKUS.  (1)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Rome 
with  Marianus  the  deacon  and  many  others ; 
commemorated  Dec.  1  (^Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  of  Perga,  iepo/xdprvs ;  commemorated 
April  21  (Cal.  Byzarit.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DIODOTUS,  Saint,  of  Africa ;  commemo¬ 
rated,  with  Anesius,  March  31  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

DIOGENES,  Saint,  in  Macedonia;  comme¬ 
morated  April  6  (Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DIOMEDES,  martyr  at  Nicaea,  A.D.  288 ; 
commemorated  June  9  (Mart.  Usuardi) ;  Aug. 
16  (Cat.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DIONYSIA.  (1)  Martyr  at  Lamosacum  with 
Peter,  Andrew,  and  Paul ;  commemorated  May 
15  (Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Africa  with  seven  others;  com¬ 
memorated  Dec.  6  (Mart.  Born.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

DIONYSIUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Lower  Armenia 
with  Emilianus  and  Sebastian ;  commemorated 
Feb.  8  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Ilieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr ;  commemorated  with  Ammonius, 
Feb.  14:  (Ma7't.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  . 

(3)  Martyr  at  Aquileia  with  Hilarius  the 
bishop,  Tatian  the  deacon,  Felix  and  Largus ; 
commemorated  March  16  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(4)  Bishop  of  Corinth  ;  commemorated  April  8 
(Mart.  Usuardi). 

(6)  Saint,  uncle  of  Pancratius ;  commemorated 
May  12  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(6)  Bishop  and  confessor  under  Constantins ; 
deposition  at  Milan,  May  25  (Alart.  Hieron., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(7)  Martyr  at  Sinnada  with  Democritus  and 
Secuudus ;  commemorated  July  31  (Mart.  Usu¬ 
ardi). 

(8)  Saint,  of  Phrygia ;  commemorated  Sept. 
20  (/■/).). 

(9)  The  Areopagite,  bishop  of  Athens  and 
martyr  under  Adrian ;  commemorated  Oct.  3 
(Mai't.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Py- 
zanf.)-,  Oct.  17  (Cal.  Armen.'). 

(10)  Bishop  of  Paris,  and  martyr  with  Rrs- 
ticus  the  presbyter  and  Eleutherius  the  deacon  : 


commemorated  Oct.  9  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Ilieron., 
Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(11)  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  martyr 
under  Valerian  and  Gallienus,  A.D.  265;  com¬ 
memorated  Nov.  17  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi)  •  Maskarram  17  =  Sept.  14  (Cal. 
Ethiop.). 

(12)  The  Pope,  under  Claudius  II. ;  deposition 
at  Rome  Dec.  26  (Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi) ;  Dec. 
27  (Cal.  Bucher.). 

(13)  Martyr  with  Petrus  Lampsacenus  and 
his  companions;  commemorated  May  18  (Cal. 
Byzant.). 

(14)  One  of  the  Seven  Sleepers  of  Ephesus ; 
commemorated  Oct.  22  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.j 

DIOS,  Asceta,  Holy  Father,  under  Theodo¬ 
sius  the  Great;  commemorated  July  19  (Cal. 
Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DIOSCORUS.  (1)  Martyr  under  Numerian  ; 
commemorated  Feb.  25  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  The  reader,  martyr  in  Egypt ;  comme¬ 
morated  May  18  (Mai't.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Alexandria,  with  Heron,  Arse- 

nius,  and  Isidorus,  under  Decius;  commemorated 
Dec.  14  (lb.).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

DIOSCURUS,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  a.d. 
454;  commemorated  Maskarram  7  =Sept.  4,  and 
Tekemt  17  rrOct.  14  (Cal.  Ethiop.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DIOSPOLIS,  or  Lydda,  probably  Ramah 
(Council  of),  a.d.  415,  of  14  bishops  under 
their  metropolitan,  Eulogius  of  Caesarea  ;  where 
Pelagius,  having  been  examined,  by  anathema¬ 
tising  12  propositions  that  had  been  imputed  to 
him,  and  making  profession  of  12  orthodox  pro¬ 
positions  in  their  stead,  was  acquitted,  and  de¬ 
clared  to  be  in  the  communion  of  the  Catholic 
Church  (Mansi,  iv.  311-20).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

DIPPING.  [Baptism.] 

DIPTYCHS.  (AIittvxci,  lepal  SeAxoi,  Kard- 
\oyos ;  diptycha,  matriculae,  nomina,  tabulae.) 
1.  The  name  of  diptych  is  given  to  a  tablet,  pri¬ 
marily  two-leaved,  as  the  word  implies,  in  which 
were  contained  the  names  of  Christians,  living 
and  dead,  to  be  recited  during  the  celebration  of 
the  Eucharist.  It  would  seem  that  the  origin  of 
the  custom  is  to  be  referred  to  the  primitive 
practice  by  which  the  members  of  a  church 
brought  otierings  of  bread  and  wine  from  which 
were  taken  the  sacred  elements.  Then,  before 
the  consecration,  the  names  of  those  who  had 
so  contributed  were  read  aloud,  as  well  as  those 
of  deceased  members  of  the  church  whom  it  was 
wished  specially  to  commemorate. 

This  primary  use  was  subsequently  extended 
so  as  to  include  the  names,  on  the  one  hand,  of 
sovereigns,  patriarchs,  bishops,  and  the  like,  as 
well  as  of  those  who  had  deserved  well  in  any 
way  of  the  church  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
conjunction  with  departed  saints  and  confessors, 
a  special  mention  was  thought  desirable  in  each 
churph  of  those  who  had  previously  been  its 
bishops.  The  great  length  to  which  these  lists 
necessarily  grew  caused  the  habit  of  reciting 
them  fully  to  be  subsequently  abandoned,  but  in 
some  form  or  other  the  practice  has  been  retained 
in  both  the  Eastern  and  the  Roman  Church. 

This  custom  was  doubtless  primarily  suggested 
as  to  its  form  by  the  practice  which  jirevailed 


DIPTYCHS 


DIPTYCITS 


561 


under  the  Roman  Empire,  by  which  consuls, 
praetors,  aediles,  and  other  magistrates  were 
wont  to  distribute  to  their  friends  and  the 
people,  on  the  day  on  which  they  entered  office, 
tablets  inscribed  with  their  names,  and  con¬ 
taining  their  portraits,  in  token  of  the  commence¬ 
ment  of  their  magistracy.  (See  e.  g.  Cod.  Theodos. 
de  expends  ludorum,  15,  tit.  9,  §  1 ;  Symmachus, 
Epist.  ii.  81,  V.  56,  x.  119;  Claudianus,  De  Sec. 
Consulatu  Stilichonis,  347.)  For  another  pos¬ 
sible,  but  certainly  not  probable,  connection  of 
the  use  of  Christian  diptychs  with  an  earlier 
heathen  custom,  see  Casaubon’s  Animad.  in 
Athenaeum^  vi.  14. 

2.  Diptycha  episcoporum  (KaraAoyos  twu  iiri- 
(tk6itwp  ;  comp.  Catalogus  Hieraticus,  p.  317). 
We  shall  now,  however,  confine  ourselves  to  the 
subject  of  diptychs  as  used  in  the  Christian 
Church,  and  shall  refer  first  to  that  class  of  them 
in  which  were  inscribed  the  names  of  deceased 
prelates.  Each  church  would  of  course  specially 
commemorate  its  own  past  bishops,  or  at  any 
rate  the  more  renowned  among  them,  and  thus 
in  these  local  fasti  we  may  see  the  germs  of  later 
calendars  and  martyrologies.  An  interesting 
illustration  of  the  employment  of  these  tahellae 
episcopates  is  furnished  by  the  well  known  case 
of  St.  Chrysostom,  whom  the  persecution  of  his 
inveterate  foes  drove  into  exile  [Chalcedon, 
p.  333J ;  and  even  after  his  death  would  hav'e 
refused  his  name  a  place  on  the  diptychs  as  a 
denial  of  his  orthodoxy  :  the  insertion  of  his  name 
in  the  prayers  of  the  church,  when  his  friends 
were  strong  enough  to  obtain  it,  is  spoken  of  as 
the  usual  privilege  of  departed  bishops  (Socrates, 
Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  25 ;  comp.  Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccl. 
V.  35). 

Another  illustration  may  be  taken  from  Venan- 
tius  Fortunatus  (Po<?m.  vii.  35,  de  S.  Martino; 
Patrol.  Ixxx'viii.  332). 

“  Nomina  vestra  legal  patriarchis  atque  prophetis 
(Jui  hodie  in  templo  Diptychus  edit  ebur.” 

The  names  thus  engraved  on  the  tablets  were 
recited,  as  has  been  said,  during  the  celebration 
of  the  Eucharist.  See,  for  example,  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  the  conference  at  Carthage  between 
the  Catholics  and  Donatists  (411  a.d.),  where  we 
find  the  remark:  “In  ecclesia  sumus,  in  qud 
Caecilianus  episcopatum  gessit  et  diem  obiit. 
Ejus  nomen  ad  altare  recitamus,  ejus  memoriae 
commuiiicamus,  tanquam  memoriae  fratris  ” 
{Coll.  iii.  c.  230 ;  Labbe',  ii.  1490).  See  also 
ConcU.  Constant,  ii.  Coll.  v. ;  Labbd,  v.  478,  495. 

It  will  be  understood  that  such  a  mention  has 
no  connection  with  the  practice  of  prayers  for 
the  dead,  for  the  names  thus  enrolled  were  held 
to  be  of  those  included  among  the  blest,  and  in 
fact  the  word  ‘  canonization  ’  primarily  meant 
a  mention  of  this  kind  in  the  Canon  of  the 
Mass  (see  p.  267).  Conversely,  a  place  would  be 
denied  in  the  diptychs  to  those  who  were  sus¬ 
pected,  rightly  or  wrongly,  of  heretical  or  he¬ 
terodox  views ;  and  further,  names  wrongly  in¬ 
serted,  whether  inadvertently  or  through  set  evil 
design,  might  be  subsequently  removed.  Thus  we 
find  Anastasius  chronicling,  “  deinde  abstulerunt 
de  diptychis  ecclesiarum  nomina  Patriarcharum 
....  Cyri,  Sergii,  Pauli,  Pyrrhi,  Petri  per  quos 
error  orthoJoxae  fidei  pullulavit”  {Vitae  Ponti- 
ficum,  ‘Agatho,’  p.  145). 

This  power  of  refusing  to  a  name  a  place  in 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


the  diptychs,  or  of  removing  a  name  once  en¬ 
tered,  would  doubtless  degenerate  at  times  into 
the  venting  of  personal  spite,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  case  of  the  disgraceful  attempt  to  rob  Chry¬ 
sostom  of  his  well  deserved  honour.  For  a  still 
stronger  case  Peter  the  Fuller  is  re.^ponsible,  in 
that,  on  his  usurpation  of  the  see  of  Antioch,  he 
removed  from  the  diptychs  the  names  of  Ih'o- 
terius  and  Timotheus  Salafatiarius,  and  put  in 
their  stead  those  of  Dioscurus  and  Hellurus  who 
had  murdered  the  former  (Victor  Tunnuuensis, 
Chronicon,  480  A.D.  in  Gallandi  Bibl.  Vet.  Pair. 
xii.  225). 

3.  Diptycha  vivornm. — We  shall  briefly  con¬ 
sider,  in  the  next  place,  the  case  of  the  mention 
of  living  persons,  the  origin  of  which,  as  has 
been  already  said,  would  appear  to  be  found  in 
the  recital  of  the  names  of  those  members  of  a 
church  who  had  furnished  the  elements  for  the 
holy  communion.  As  time  went  on,  it  would  be 
natural  to  add  the  names  of  those  who  held  civil 
and  spiritual  authority,  of  special  benefactors  to 
a  church,  and  generally  to  embrace  all  faithful 
believers ;  the  presence  of  a  name  on  the  list  be¬ 
ing  viewed  as  a  recognition  of  Christian  brother¬ 
hood,  and  thus,  by  implication,  of  the  full  church 
membership  and  orthodoxy  of  the  person  named  ; 
while,  conversely,  its  absence  implied  heresy  in 
belief  or  laxity  in  life  or  discipline  (see  Cyprian, 
Epist.  1,  §  2). 

This  original  association  of  the  practice  with 
the  names  of  the  offerers  was  maintained  in  later 
times.  Thus  we  find  Innocent  I.  (ob.  417  A.D.) 
ordering  that  the  names  of  those  who  offered 
should  not  be  recited  before  the  oblations  were 
made  {Epist.  25,  ad  Decentium,  c.  5)  ;  Jerome 
also  {Comm,  in  Ezech.  xviii.  vol.  v.  209)  refers 
to  it,  “  Publiceque  diaconus  in  ecclesiis  recitet 
offerentium  nomina.”  For  further  injunctions 
to  the  same  effect,  see  Capit.  Aquisgranense,  53 
[789  A.D.],  Capit.  Francoford.  49  [794  A.D.], 
in  Baluze’s  Capitutaria  Regum  Francorum,  i. 
231,  270.  In  this  way  too  it  is  most  natural  to 
understand  the  original  reference  of  the  words 
in  the  corresponding  place  of  the  Roman  canon, 
“  qui  tibi  offerunt  hoc  sacrificium  laudis  et  gra- 
tiarum  actionis.” 

The  commemoration  of  the  faithful  living, 
other  than  the  offerers,  includes  names  of  holders, 
first  of  ecclesiastical  and  then  of  civil  office,  in 
due  order.  We  may  refer,  for  example,  to  Maxi¬ 
mus  Confessor,  who  remarks  {Collatio  cum  Prin- 
cipibus  in  Secretario,  c.  5,  vol.  i.  p.  xxxiv.  ed. 
Combefis),  “  at  the  holy  oblation  on  the  holy 
table,  after  prelates,  priests,  and  deacons,  and 
all  priestly  ranks  {UpaTiuhv  Taypa),  when  the 
deacon  says,  ‘  And  those  laics  who  have  died 
in  faith,  Constantine,  Constans,  and  the  rest,’” 
and  then  proceeds,  ovtcd  Se  Kal  tup  ^uptuv 
fjLPTfiJLOpevfi  ^aaikiup  ycra  tovs  lepuyepovs  wdp~ 
Toy.”  We  find  a  similar  regulation  in  the  Arabic 
canons  of  the  Nicene  Council,  to  the  effect  that, 
“  on  the  Sabbath  and  festivals,  when  the  holy 
elements  are  placed  upon  the  altar,  the  deacon 
shall  make  mention,  first,  of  the  patriarch  by 
name,  then  of  the  chief  bishop,  the  suffragan 
bishop,  the  arch-presbyter,  the  archdeacon,  be¬ 
cause  these  are  the  rulers  of  the  church  ”  (can. 
64;  Labbe^  ii.  312).  • 

In  documents  of  the  Western  Church,  we  meet 
with  injunctions  to  insert  on  all  such  occasions 
the  name  of  the  pope.  See,  e.  g.,  the  order  of 


5G2 


DIPTYCHS 


DIPTYCHS 


the  Second  Council  of  Yasio  (529  A.D.),  “  ut 
nomen  Domini  Papae,  quicumque  sedi  apostolicae 
praefuerit,  in  nostris  ecclesiis  recitetur.”  (can.  4, 
Labbe,  iv.  1(580 :  cf.  Sug;].  ii.  Germani  et  alio- 
rum  post  Ejjist.  40  Honnisd  ie  Pap  le,  ibid.  1484  ; 
whei’e  allu.sion  is  made  to  the  omission  of  all 
names,  save  of  the  pope  only,  in  the  celebration 
of  the  Mass  at  Scampue,  a  usage  of  which  Mar- 
tene,  p.  145  i$,  gives  some  later  examples.) 

After  the  mention  of  the  names  of  ecclesiastics 
of  various  grades  came  that  of  the  sovereign,  as 
mentioned  in  the  above  quoted  passage  of  Maxi¬ 
mus;  and  among  tho.se  who  had  deserved  well 
of  the  church  in  A'arious  ways  we  find  special 
mention  enjoined  by  the  Council  of  Merida 
(666  A.D.)  of  the  names  of  those  who  had  re- 
Wilt  a  church  {Concil.  Eineritense,  c.  19  ;  Labbe', 
vi.  507). 

From  these  diptycha  vivorum  also,  as  we  have 
seen  in  the  previous  case  of  the  tahellae  episco¬ 
pates,  a  name  might  be  removed,  justly  or  un¬ 
justly,  as,  e.g.,  in  the  case  of  Vigiliiis  (Baluzius, 
CoUectio  Nova  Conciliorum,  1542).  Thus  too  we  find 
Augustine  threatening,  in  case  of  certain  conduct 
unbecoming  to  the  clerical  office,  “  delebo  eum 
de  tabula  clericorum  ”  (^Scrin.  356,  vol.  v.  2059, 
ed.  Gaume)  ;  and  in  another  pa.ssage  of  the  same 
father,  we  find  him  protesting  against  an  unjust 
exercise  of  this  punishment  (Epi>t.  78,  vol.  ii. 
276).  Again,  we  find  the  name  of  Pope  Felix  III. 
erased  from  the  diptychs  by  Acacius,  and  after 
his  death  restored  by  Euthymius,  who  erased  at 
the  same  time  that  of  Peter  Mongus  (Theophanes, 
480-81  A.D.  pp.  205,  206,  ed.  Classen).  Felix, 
however,  ungraciously  returned  this  by  refusing 
to  recognise  Euthymius,  from  his  having  retained 
the  names  of  Acacius  and  Phravites  (pp.  cit. 
483  A.D.  p.  209). 

4.  Diptycha  moi'tuorum. — We  shall  now  refer 
briefly  to  the  diptychs  containing  the  names  of 
the  faithful  dead.  And  here  it  will  be  obviously 
seen  that  the  essence  of  the  practice  of  a  recital 
of  names  at  all  was  the  wish  to  maintain  and 
keep  alive  the  spirit  of  Christian  brotherhood  ; 
and  when  Christianity  had  taught  men  that, 
whether  living  or  dead  in  the  flesh,  all  faithful 
were  alike  living  memhers  of  Christ’s  Church,  it 
would  be  natural  to  add  the  names  of  those  who 
had  goue  before  in  the  fiiith  and  fear  of  God. 
How  soon  this  became  complicated  with  the 
idea  of  prayers  for  the  dead  this  is  not  the  place 
to  discuss. 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  the  diptychs  of 
the  dead  are  introduced  in  Greek  liturgies,  we 
find  in  that  of  St.  Mark,  6  SkIkovos  tol  8'nrTvxo. 
Ta>j/  KeKoipLppivwv  (i.  e.  reads),  and,  similarly,  in 
that  of  St.  Chrysostom,  6  SiaKOvos  twv  re  k^koi- 
p.rip.€V03P  Kal  ws  ^ovKerai,  p.VT]p.opevei. 

The  prayer  of  the  priest,  which  follows,  runs  in 
the  former  case  thus,  /cal  toutuv  irdpTuiv  tos 
\pvxd.s  dvdwavaop,  SeairoTa  Kvpie  6  Oebs  fjjuwp,  dp 
rats  Twp  dy'iccp  aov  aKgpois  .  .  This  might  be 

illustrated  by  the  passage  of  Cyprian  already  re¬ 
ferred  to  (Epist.  i.  2)  :  “  Non  est  quod  pro  dor- 
mitione  ejus  apud  vos  fiat  oblatio,  aut  deprecatio 
aliqua  nomine  ejus  in  ecclesia  frequentetur.” 

This  commemoration  of  and  prayer  for  the 
faithful  dead  is  found  in  the  Gregorian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  after  the  consecration,  and  thereupon 
follows  a  prayer,  entitled  in  the  Sacramentary 
Super  Diptycha  (the  CoUectio  post  Nomina  of  the 
Mozarabic  Missal),  which  we  cite  :  “  Memento 


etlam,  Domine,  famulorum  famularumque  tuorum 
///.,  qui  nos  praecesserunt  cum  signo  fidei  et  dor- 
miunt  in  somno  pacis.  Ipsis,  Domine,  et  omni¬ 
bus  in  Christo  quiescentibus,  locum  refrigerii  et 
lucis  et  pacis  ut  indulgeas  deprecamur.” 

Among  other.?,  the  names  of  deceased  emperors 
of  undoubted  orthodoxy  were  mentioned.  Thus 
Pope  Nicholas  I.  (ob.  867  A.D.),  in  a  letter  to  the 
Emperor  Michael  III.,  refers  to  the  mention  of 
the  names  of  Constantine,  Constan.s,  Theodosius 
the  Great,  Valentinian,  and  other  emperors, 
“  inter  sacra  mysteria  ”  (Epist.  86,  Patrol,  cxix. 
959). 

The  regulation  of  the  Council  of  Merida,  al¬ 
ready  referred  to,  ordains  the  mention  of  the 
names  of  special  benefactors,  after  they  have 
departed  this  life. 

Thus  far  we  have  spoken  merely  of  names  of  in¬ 
dividuals  inserted  in  the  diptychs,  but,  besides 
these,  a  commemoration  was  made  of  the  Four 
Oecumenical  Councils,  to  which  jiractice  numerous 
references  are  made  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Council  held  at  Constantinople  in  536  a.d.  under 
Mennas  (See,  e.g.,  Labbe',  v.  85,  165,  185;  the 
last  of  which  passages  furnishes  us  with  a  very 
interesting  illustration  of  the  practice,  describing 
how,  at  the  reading  of  the  diptychs,  the  whole 
multitude  flocked  round  the  sanctuary  to  listen  ; 
and  when  only  the  titles  of  the  Four  Holy  Synods 
were  recited  by  the  deacon,  and  the  names  of 
the  archbishops  Euphemius  and  Macedonius  and 
Leo,  of  blessed  memory,  all  cried  with  a  loud 
voice,  “  Glory  be  to  Thee,  0  Lord)  and  in  tho.?« 
of  the  second  Oecumenical  Council  of  Constanti¬ 
nople  (e.  g.  Collatio  2,  Labbe',  v.  432).  There  is 
also  a  reference  to  this  in  the  Code  of  Justinian, 
in  a  letter  of  the  emperor  to  Epiphaniu.s,  patri¬ 
arch  of  Constantinople,  in  which  he  expresses 
his  intention  of  resisting  any  attempts  to  abolish 
this  practice  (lib.  i.  tit.  1,  §  7 ;  tom.  ii.  pt.  1,  p. 
16,  ed.  Beck.).  Theophanes  records  an  instance 
of  a  daring  attempt  to  break  through  this  cus¬ 
tom,  when  Euphrasius,  patriarch  of  Antioch, 
omitted  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  from  his  dip¬ 
tychs,  and  also  the  name  of  Pope  Hormisdas 
(Theophanes,  A.D.  513,  p.  258). 

5.  A  brief  remark  may  be  made  here  as  to 
sundry  variations  in  the  time  when  the  diptychs 
were  recited  according  to  various  uses.  The 
primary  custom  would  seem  to  be,  that  they 
were  read  after  the  oblation  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  and  before  the  consecration.  This  may  be 
seen,  for  example,  from  numerous  references  in 
the  acts  of  the  council  under  Mennas,  spoken  of 
above,  which  prove  this  to  have  been  the  custom 
of  the  Church  of  Constantinople  (see  esp.  Labb^ 
V.  185,  already  quoted).  It  would  appear  also 
that  in  the  Mozarabic  Missal  and  in  the  ancient 
Gallican  form,  the  diptychs  originally  held  this 
place.  The  same  also  holds  true  for  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  diptychs  in  our  own  Liturgy,  the 
prayer  for  the  Church  Militant.  In  the  Liturgy 
of  Chrysostom,  however,  the  Mozarabic  Missal, 
and  not  a  few  others,  as  we  now  have  them,  the 
diptychs  follow  consecration. 

lu  the  various  forms  of  the  Roman  Liturgy, 
and  in  the  Ambrosian,  the  commemoration  of 
the  living  and  dead  enters  into  the  canon  of  the 
Mass,  that  of  the  living  before,  and  that  of  the 
dead  after,  consecration.  It  has  been  suggested, 
however,  that  this  too  is  a  modification  of  an 
earlier  state  of  things,  from  a  consideration  of  the 


DIPTYCHS 


DIPTYCHS 


6G3 


wording  in  the  Gelasian  Sacramentary.  [Canon 
01’  THE  Liturgy,  p.  271.] 

Sundry  differences  also  e.\ist  as  to  the  manner 
of  reciting  the  names  on  the  diptychs.  (1)  Some¬ 
times  they  were  read  by  the  deacon,  as  is  exem- 
pliffed  by  the  citations  we  have  already  given 
from  tlie  liturgies  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Chryso¬ 
stom,  to  which  others  might  have  been  added. 
See  also  Jerome  (in  Ezech.  1.  c.)  and  Maximus 
(L  0.).  (2)  In  some  churches  it  would  appear 

that  the  subdeacon  recited  the  names  on  the  dip¬ 
tychs  behind  the  altar.  Thus,  in  an  ancient 
Mass  (Codex  Ratoldi)  published  by  Menard  in  his 
edition  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary,  we  find 
(p.  246),  “  Subdiaconi  a  retro  altari,  ubi  memo- 
riam  vel  nomina  vivorum  et  mortuorum  uomi- 
naverunt  .  .  .  .”  (3)  Frequently  the  priest  himself 
repeated  the  names.  (4)  A  curious  plan  is  that 
mentioned  by  Fulcuin  (De  Gcstis  Abbaturn  Lobien- 
sium,  c.  vii.  in  D’Ache'ry’s  Spicilegiurn,  vi.  551), 
where  the  subdeacon  whispered  the  names  to  the 
priest.  (5)  We  find  even  that  in  some  cases  the 
tablets  were  merely  laid  upon  the  altar,  with 
the  names  of  the  offerers  and  benefactors,  of 
whom  the  priest  made  general  mention.  Thus 
we  find  a  form  cited  by  Pamelius  (Liturgg.  Latt. 
)i.  180),  “Memento  ....  quorum  nomina  ad  me¬ 
morandum  conscripsimus,  ac  super  sanctum  altare 
tmun  conscripta  adesse  videntur”  The  two  last 
views,  at  any  rate,  howev^er,  are  clearly  quite  late. 

For  some  remarks  on  a  plan  whereby,  in  the 
church  of  Ravenna,  a  chasuble  was  made  to  serve 
the  purpose  of  diptychs,  see  Ducange  (s.  v.). 

The  name  of  diptych  was  also  given  to  regis¬ 
ters  in  which  were  entered,  as  occasion  required, 
the  names  of  newly  baptized  persons,  as  then 
first  becoming  members  of  the  Chidstian  family 
(Dion.  Areop.  Hier.  Eccl.  c.  11).  [Register.] 

6.  Literature. — For  the  matter  of  the  fore¬ 
going  article  we  are  mainly  indebted  to  Martene, 
De  Antiquis  Ecclesiae  liitibus,  i.  145,  sqq.  ed.  Ve¬ 
nice,  1783;  Ducange’s  Glossaria,  s.  vv.  Diptycha, 
AiiTTvxa;  Bingham’s  Antiquities,  xv.  3;  and  the 
Onomasticon  (s.  v.')  appended  to  Rosweyd’s  Vitae 
Patrum.  Reference  may  also  be  made  to  Salig, 
De  Diptychis  Veterum,  tain  profanis,  quam  sacris, 
Halae  Magd.  1731  ;  Donati,  Dei  dittici  degli  an¬ 
tichi  profani  e  sacri,  Lucca,  1753;  Gibbings, 
Prelection  on  the  Diptychs,  Dublin,  1864.  [R.  S.] 

DIPTYCHS,  EXTERIOE  ORNAMEN¬ 
TATION  OF.— As  the  most  ancient  consular 
diptych  now  known  is  referred  to  Stilicho  in  405 
(see  infra,  and  Gori,  vol.  i.  p.  128,  ed.  fol.  Flor. 
1779),  and  only  one  purely  ecclesiastical  one  is 
mentioned  even  as  conjecturally  earlier  than  the 
5th  century,  it  will  be  inferred  that  the  interest 
of  these  relics  is  historical  rather  than  artistic. 
Martigny  gives  a  highly  reduced  copy  of  one 
from  Donati’s  Dittica  degli  Antic,  p.  149,  attri¬ 
buted  to  a  certain  Areobindus  the  Younger, 
consul,  A.D.  506,  in  tlie  eastern  parts  of  the 
empire,  16th  year  of  Anastasius  (Baronius,  ad 
An.  508).  It  is  beautifully  engraved  in  folio 
size  in  Gori,  v.  i.  Its  ornaments  consist  of  two 
cornucopias,  with  the  titles  of  the  consul  above 
them  and  baskets  of  fruit  and  flowers  below  ; 
they  are  carved  with  leaves  and  connected  by 
wi’eathed  foliage  in  which  the  stiff  conventional 
symmetry  of  Roman-Byzantine  art  begins  to 
show  itself.  Gori  calls  it  the  Diptych  of  Lucca. 
The  use  of  folding  tablets  in  the  services  of  the 


church  seems  to  have  been  a  matter  of  common 
convenience,  like  their  use  anywhere  else.  But 
many  of  these  carvings  remain,  which  have  evi¬ 
dently  been  altered  from  jirofane  uses  to  eccle¬ 
siastical,  and  still  retain  the  original  bas-reliefs 
with  changes  and  adaptations.  Others,  again, 
like  that  of  Rambona,  ai-e  entirely  Christian  in 
their  origin.  The  mo.st  ancient  of  the  latter 
class  is  considered  by  Martigny  to  be  the  pro¬ 
perty  of  the  Cathedral  of  Milan  (Bugati,  ATe- 
morie  di  8.  Cclso  in  fn.f  and  is  referred  to  the 
4th  century  from  the  character  of  its  sculptures. 
He  cites  others,  whose  coverings  are  lost  or 
.separated  trom  them,  whether  they  were  of 
wood,  ivory,  or  metal.  Tiiat  of  Areobindus  bears 
the  cross,  as  also  the  Greek  diptych  of  Flavius 
Taurus  Clementinus  (Gori,  tab.  ix.  and  x.,  p.  260, 
vol.  i.).  The  Rambona  ivory,  though  only  of  the 
9th  century,  is  far  the  most  interesting  in  exis¬ 
tence.  (See  art.  Crucifix  for  a  full  description 
and  woodcut ;  and  Gori,  Thes.  Vet.  Diptychorum, 
vol.  iii.)  It  is  stated  by  MS.  Laurent.  Icono- 
graphie  de  la  Croix  et  du  Crucifix,  in  Didron’s 
Annales  Arche'ologiques,  vv.  xxvi.-vii.,  to  have 
been  presented  to  the  monastery  of  Rambona 
(March  of  Ancona)  by  Agiltrude,  wife  of  Guy, 


d.  of  Spoleto ;  and  is  of  type  more  barbaric  than 
the  Lombard  work  of  Verona,  bearing  great  re¬ 
semblance,  in  the  large  unmeaning  faces  and  eyes 
of  its  figures,  to  many  Irish  and  Saxon  MSS. 
Many  ancient  diptychs  have  been  used  for  bind¬ 
ings  of  more  recent  service-books;  as  a  tablet 
which  now  covers  a  copy  of  the  Gospels  of  St. 
Luke  and  St.  John  in  the  Vatican.  Our  Lord 
between  two  angels  and  the  Magi  before  Herod 
can  be  traced  in  it.  At  the  Cathedral  of  Vercelli, 
at  St.  Maximus  in  Treves,  and  at  Besani,'on,  there 
are  relics  of  this  kind.  Gori’s  Thesaurus,  and 
Raciaudi’s  De  Cultw  8.  Joanms  Baptistae,  contain 

2  0 


564 


DIRECTANEUS 


DISCIPLINA  ARCANI 


many  and  most  interesting  records  and  illustra¬ 
tions,  chiefly  of  i\Iiddle-Age  works. 

The  liainbona  ivory,  with  two  others  of  greater 
antiquity,  are  described  and  represented  in  Buo- 
narotti’s  Vetri,  p.  231.  One  of  them  is  that  of 
the  Consul  Basilius,  in  541  ;  the  other,  which 
Buonarotti  supposes  to  be  more  ancient,  is 
called  the  Diptych  of  Romulus,  and  rejiresents 
his  apotheosis. 

The  Florentine  edition  of  Gori’s  Thesaurv,s  E?- 
terum  Dij'tyc/ioruia,  1755,  contains  a  fine  en¬ 
graving  of  the  half  of  the  Diptych  of  Stilicho 
which  remains  in  existence  (see  woodcut.)  The 
consul  is  seated  at  the  top,  with  the  usual  bar¬ 
baric  stolidity  of  expression,  in  toga  picta,  and 
curule  chair:  the  amphitheatre  and  combats  of 
wild  beasts  are  represented  below.  That  of 
Boethius,  which  succeeds,  has  standing  figures 
of  the  consul,  with  a  head  of  disproportioned 
size,  but  a  countenance  evidently  studied  with 
great  care  :  he  bears  a  sceptre,  surmounted  by 
an  eagle,  drawn  with  much  spirit.  Stilicho  to 
all  appearance,  and  Boethius  undoubtedly,  hold 
the  raappa,  the  signal  of  beginning  the  games,  in 
the  right  hand,  as  also  the  elder  or  prior  Areo- 
bindus.  Gori,  i.  tab.  vii.,  where  the  bestiarii 
and  their  opponents  are  of  considerable  merit. 
The  curule  chairs  are  evident  Iv  the  originals  of 
those  represented  in  Saxon  and  early  Norman 
MSS. 

The  Christian  Diptychs  of  Milan,  in  use  in  the 
12th  century,  and  conjectured  to  belong  to  the 
7th  or  8th,  are  represented  in  Gori,  vol.  iii,  p. 
264,  sqq.  They  represent  the  history  of  the 
New  Testament ;  and  in  particular,  the  Nativity, 
the  Transfiguration,  and  the  Passion  of  our  Lord. 
They  must  certainly  be  well  within  our  allotted 
period  of  the  first  eight  centuries.  Those  of 
Monza  (Murray,  Handbook  N.  Italy,  p.  164)  are 
referred  to  either  Claudian,  Ausonius,  or  Boethius. 
Another,  bearing  two  consuls,  su^-named  David 
and  Pope  Gregory  by  later  possessors  of  the 
diptvch,  is  highly  interesting.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DIRECTANEUS.  Any  psalm,  hymn,  or 
canticle,  said  in  the  service  of  the  Church  in 
monotone,  without  inflection,  was  called  direc- 
taneus.  It  is  probably  to  this  monotone  that 
Isidore  refers  when  he  says  (Z>e  Eccl.  Off.  v.  5) 
that  the  primitive  Church  used  a  very  simple 
kind  of  chant,  more  like  mere  recitation  than 
singing.  Aurelian  {legula,  ad  Virgines,  c.  40) 
gives  the  following  direction  :  “Ad  Lucernarium, 
Directaneus  p.xrvulus,  id  est,  ‘  Regina  teiTae,’ 

‘  Cantate  Deo,’  &c. ;  ”  and  he  further  dii’ects 
that  at  Nocturns  the  directaneus  “  Miserere  mei 
Deus  ”  should  be  said.  Compare  the  Eule  of 
Benedict,  c.  17  ;  and  that  of  Caesarius  of  Arles, 
c.  31.  [C.] 

DIS  MANIBUS.  [CATACOiiBS,  p.  308.] 

DISCIPLINA  ARCANI,  a  term  of  post- 
Reformation  controA-ersy  (it  is  used  by  Tentzel 
and  Schelstrate  in  special  dissertations  a.d. 
1683-5),  is  applied  to  designate  a  number  of 
modes  of  procedure  in  teaching  the  Christian 
faith,  akin  to  one  another  in  kind,  although 
diftering  considerably  in  character;  which  pre¬ 
vailed  from  about  the  middle  of  the  2nd  century 
until  the  natural  course  of  circumstances  ren¬ 
dered  any  system  which  involved  secrecy  or 
reserve  impossible.  So  far  as  these  were  de¬ 


fensible,  they  arose  out  of  the  principles,  1.  of 
im]jarting  knowledge  of  the  truth  by  degrees, 
and  in  methods  adapted  to  the  capacity  of  the 
recipients,  and  2.  of  cutting  off  occa.sion  of  pro¬ 
faneness  or  of  more  hardened  unbelief  by  not 
jn’oclaiming  the  truths  and  mysteries  of  the 
faith  indiscriminately,  or  in  plain  words,  or  at 
once,  to  unbeliever.s.  And  these  principles  find 
their  origin,  and  their  defence,  respectively  in  the 
apostle’s  distinction  between  “milk  for  babes” 
and  “strong  meat”  for  those  “of  full  age” 
(Heb.  V.  12-14),  and  again,  between  speaking  to 
“carnal”  and  to  “spiritual”  hearers  (1  Cor. 
iii.  1) ;  and  in  oiir  Lord’s  j^rohibition  against 
“  casting  that  which  is  holy  to  dog.«,”  or 
“  throwing  pearls  before  swine,”  together  with 
the  habitual  tone  of  His  teaching,  and  in  parti¬ 
cular  its  parabolic  character.  Persecution  also 
at  first  compelled  to  secrecy.  Upon  such  grounds 
there  arose,  as  the  Church  became  systematized 
and  settled,  first,  a  distinction  between  catechu¬ 
mens  and  fideles,  and  between  different  classes  of 
catechumens,  with  respect  to  the  kinds  and 
amounts  of  knowledge  to  be  imparted  to  each 
successiA'ely ;  and,  secondly,  a  spirit,  rather  than 
a  formal  system,  of  habitual  reticence  upon  the 
higher  and  more  mysterious  doctrines  of  the 
faith,  in  Christian  Avritings  or  sermons  likely  to 
be  read  or  heard  by  the  heathen.  But  beyond 
these  natural  and  reverent  practices,  the  desire 
to  meet  the  ancient  philosophers  on  their  OAvn 
ground,  and  on  the  one  hand  to  rationalize 
Christian  doctrines,  on  the  other  to  transcenden- 
talize  the  theories  of  reason  into  anticipations 
and  foreshadowings  of  the  mysteries  of  the  faith, 
assisted  by  the  excess  of  the  allegorizing  prin¬ 
ciple  of  interpretation  current  in  the  Alexandrian 
Church,  produced  a  special  disciplinct  arcani, 
almost  wholly  at  Alexandria,  yet  preA’ailing  in 
a  less  degree  elseAvhere  also,  from  the  time  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  ;  in  Avhich  the 
doctrines  and  facts  of  Scripture  Avere  expounded 
esoterically  to  the  initiated,  who  had  the  key  to 
them  in  the  true  yvaxxis,  while  their  real  and 
deeper  meaning  was  disguised  and  Avithheld  by 
an  “  oeconomy,”  or  “  accommodation,”  from 
others. 

1.  First,  as  regards  catechumens,  the  earliest 
intimation  of  any  system  of  secrecy  is  in  Ter- 
tullian  :  “  Omnibus  mysteriis  silentii  fides  ad- 
hibetur  ”  (^Apol.  A'ii.) ;  and  again,  speaking  of 
heretics,  “  Quis  catechumenus,  quis  fidelis,  in- 
certum  est ;  pariter  audiunt,  pariter  orant : 
etiam  ethnici  si  supervenerint,  sanctum  canibus 
et  porcis  margaritas,  licet  non  A’eras,  jactabunt  ” 
(Fraescr.  adv.  Hacx'et.  xli.).  And  the  latter  com¬ 
plaint,  respecting  catechumens,  is  repeated  Iavo 
centuries  afterwards  by  Epiphanius  (//aer.  xlii. 
n.  3),  and  by  St.  Jerome  (^Comment,  m  Galat.  vi.), 
with  reference  to  the  Marcionites.  Later  writers 
than  Tertullian  specify  particulars,  e.g.  baptism, 
the  eucharist,  and  the  oil  of  chrism,  &  ou5e 
(TroTTreveiv  rots  afiorirois  (St.  Basil.  M., 

De  Spir.  S.  xxvii.);  and  St.  Greg.  Naz.  (^Orat.  xl. 
De  Bapt.},  ‘'Exeis  rod  yvcngpiov  ra  ^Kcpopa  /cal 
Tais  Twv  iroWdiv  uKoais  ovk  anopprjTa,  ra  5e 
&\\a  eiaw  yad-na-r] :  and  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
(^Catech.  vi.  c.  30),  OvSe  twp  pLvaT-ppiwv  cttI 
KaTTJXOVfiduuv  Aeu/ews  \a\ovibLfP,  aWa  iroWa 
TToWeLKis  \eyop.€P  iTriKfKa\viJ.p.€PU)S,  'iva  o' 

TTicTTol  POrfXTOjai,  Kal  ol  fii)  elSdres  /xtj 

And  the  Apost.  Canons  (Ixxxv.)  speak  of  ai  Sta- 


DISCIPLIXA  ARCANT 


566 


DISCIPLINA  ARCANI 

Taya\  .  .  .  fes  ou  XP^  57j/iO<riev€iv  eiri  iravToiv  5ia 
Tu  iy  auTa?9  fivcTTiKd.  Simihu'ly  the  proclamfv- 
tion  in  the  Apost.  Constit.  (viii.  12)  and  in  the 
Liturgies,  Mtj  tis  aKpow- 

p€vwv,  /XT]  Tis  TU'v  dKicTTuiv.  And  the  phiase, 
“  missa  catechumenorum,’  used  in  St.  Aug. 
Sei'rn.  xlix.  A.D.  896,  Cone.  Carthag.  IV .  c.  8d, 
A.D.  898,  and  Cone.  Herd.  a.d.  523,  c.  4,  and  Jo. 
Cassian,  Coenoh.  Lnstitut.  xi.  15,  and  Cone.  \  oXent. 
A.D.  524,  c.  1.  So  Cone.  Arausie.  I.  a.d.  441, 
c.  19,  “Ad  baptisterium  catechumeni  numquam 
admittendi.”  And  while  Cone.  Laodie.  a.d.  865, 
c.  5,  ytiTj  5e?j/  rds  xetporovios  eirl  Trapova'ia 
hKpo'jo(XiVO}v  'ysi’^crOaL  may  possibly  refer  to  the 
consecration,  as  probably  as  to  the  election,  of  a 
bishop:  St.  Chrysostom  certainly  speaks  of  ordi¬ 
nation  (//oOT.  xviii.  in  2  Cor.),  when  he  retrains 
from  detailing  what  takes  place  at  a  x^i-porovia, 
“which  the  initiated  know;  for  all  may  not  be 
revealed  to  the  uninitiated.”  The  eucharist  again 
was  celebrated  with  closed  doors  (St.  Chrys. 
Horn,  in  IMatt.  xxiii.),  not  to  be  opened  to  any¬ 
body,  even  one  of  the  taithtul,  at  the  time  ot 
the  Anaphora  (^Apost.  Constit.  viii.  11),  and  to  be 
guarded  by  the  deacons,  lest  any  unbeliever  or 
uninitiated  person  enter  {ib.  ii.  57).  So  again 
Pseudo-Augustin  {Scrni.  ad  Neophyt.  i.),  “  Di- 
missis  jam  catechumenis,  .  .  .  quia  specialiter  de 
coelestibus  mysteriis  loquuturi  sumus.”  And  to 
the  same  effect,  St.  Ambrose  (^De  IJis  Qui  mysteriis 
Initiantur,  c.  1),  Theodoret  {Quaest.  xv.  in  Num.), 
Gaudentius  (^iierni.  II.  ad  A eojAiyt.'),  and  aboA'e 
all  the  catechetical  lectures  ot  St.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  which  are  framed  expressly  upon 
this  princi])le,  and  the  preface  to  which  forbids 
the  communication  of  their  more  advanced  con¬ 
tents  to  those  who  are  without,  if  any  such 
should  ask  what  St.  Cyril  had  said.  See  also  the 
directionsto  widows  in  iii.  5.  Lastly, 

and  further  still,  besides  this  general  and  perpe¬ 
tually  recurring  distinction  between  initiated 
{ixeyv-rjixeyoi)  and  uninitiated  (d/xuTjrot),  distinc¬ 
tions,  were  made  between  the  more  and  the 
less  advanced  of  the  latter  themselves :  .the 
Lord’s  Prayer;  Constit.  Apostol.  vii.  44;  St. 
Aug.  Enehirid.  c.  71 ;  Theodoret,  Ilaeret.  Fab. 
v.  28,  and  Epit.  Eiv.  Eecret.  c.  xviii.  ;  St. 
Chrys.  Horn.  xx.  al.  xix.  in  Matt.  ;  the  Creed  ; 
St.  Ambrose,  Ad  Mareell.  Epist.  33  (20  ed. 
Bened.);  St.  Jerome,  Epist.  xwviW.  Ad  Pam- 
maeh.  (ed.  Ben.);  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  (St.  Cyril  Hieros.  Cateeh.  A'i.  30), 
being  taught  only  to  the  eompetentes,  the  first, 
in  St.  Augustine’s  time,  only  eight  days  before 
baptism  (St.  Aug.  Horn,  xlii..  Cone.  Agath.  c.  13), 
the  second  at  some  like  period,  and  the  last  men¬ 
tioned  during  the  last  forty  day.s.  Catechumens 
also  were  allowed  to  hear  the  sermon,  but  no 
further,  in  the  African  Church  {Cone.  Garthag. 
as  above),  in  that  of  Gaul  (from  Cone.  Arausie.  1. 
A.D.  441,  c.  18),and  in  that  of  Spain  (from  Cone. 
Valentin,  a.d.  524,  c.  1). 

11.  Apart  from  the  special  discipline  of  cate- 
chumen.s,  the  Christian  fathers,  from  the  2nd  to 
at  least  the  5th  century,  habitually  refrain  trom 
speaking  plainly  of  the  deeper  mysteries  of  the 
faith,  in  writings  or  sermons  accessible  to  the 
heathen.  Origen,  e.g.  {Cont.  Cels.  i.  7,  0pp.  i. 
325),  enumerating  the  doctrines  that  were  not 
hidden,  mentions  the  birth,  crucifixion,  and  re¬ 
surrection  of  our  Lord,  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  and  the  last  judgment,  but  omits  the  doc¬ 


trines  of  tne  Holy  Trinity  and  of  the  Atonement 
(compare  St.  Paul’s  account  of  the  elements  of 
the  fiiith  in  Heb.  vi.).  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
{Leet.  Cateeh.  vi.  30;  Op.  i.  106,  ed.  1720)  tells 
us,  that  it  is  not  permitted  to  speak  to  a  heathen 
of  the  mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  Sozomen 
omits  the  Nicene  creed  from  his  history  (i.  20), 
expressly  because  that  work  Avould  probabl)’-  be 
read  by  heathen  readers.  St.  Chrysostom  will 
not  speak  fully  of  baptism  in  a  homily,  because 
of  the  “uninitiated”  among  his  hearers  {Horn. 
xl.  in  1  Cor.).  St.  Augustine  reckons  both  sacra¬ 
ments  among  the  “  occulta  ”  {in  J’s.  ciii.  ;  see 
also  Horn.  xevi.  in  .Ioann.,  and  in  Ps.  cix.). 
Pope  Innocent  1.  {Ad  Decentium,  c.  3)  will  not 
recite  the  words  even  of  Confirmation,  “  ne 
magis  prodere  videar,  quam  ad  consultationem 
respondere.”  The  last  words  of  the  Apostolie 
Constitutions  forbid  the  making  these  books 
public  (bk.  viii.  in  fin. “preach  of  the  mys¬ 
teries  contained  in  them.”  So  St.  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  {Cont.  Julian,  vii.),  and  ntany  others  ; 
Avhile  the  words  of  Theodoret  {Quaest.  xv.  in 
Num.')  may  be  taken  as  a  summary  :  “  We  speak 
obscurely  of  the  Divine  mysteries  on  account  of 
the  uninitiated  ;  but  when  these  have  with¬ 
drawn,  we  teach  the  initiated  plainly.”  Such 
topics  are  to  be  mentioned  to  persons  in  general 
“  in  enigmas  and  shadows,  mystically,  not 
clearly.”  And  any  statement  about  them  is 
repeatedly  broken  off  with  “  the  faithful,”  or 
“  the  initiated,  know.”  Compare  also  the  dis¬ 
tinction  drawn  by  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  between 
Tr€pir]^e7(rdai  and  iyrjx^iaOai.  The  reasons  as¬ 
signed  for  the  practice  are  ; — 1.  To  avoid  offence 
to  the  weak  or  to  the  heathen,  ovk 
daOeueiav  KaTeyrcofi^u  rCcv  TeXov/x^vcou,  oAA.’ 
eTreiSTj  areAeVrepoy  oi  ttoAAoI  Trphs  avTCt  e/f- 
SiaicuvTai  (St.  Chrys.  Horn,  in  Alatt.  xxiii. 
al.  xxiv.),  or  again,  more  forcibly,  ov  XPV 
TO.  ixvardipia  d/j.vr}TOis  rpayepSur,  'Iva  /xr;  “EA- 
\7]v(s  iJ.hu  dyuoovuTes  yeXccai,  Kar't})(^ovfxfVoi 
5e  TTfpiipyoi  yeuopeuoi  (TKauSaKi^orurai  {Conc. 
Alexandr.  ap.  St.  Athan.  Apol.  ii.).  To  which 
may  be  added  the  still  more  forcible  woi’ds  of 
St.  Clem.  Alex.  {Strom,  i.  pp.  323,  324),  who 
says  that  he  .suppressed  some  portions  of  the 
truth,  not  as  grudging  it,  but  fearing  lest  he 
should  put  a  sword  into  the  hand  of  a  child. 
2.  Out  of  reverence :  “  Adhibuimus  tarn  sanctis 
rebus  atque  Divinis  honorem  silentii  ”  (St.  Aug. 
Serin,  i.  inter,  xl.).  To  which,  3.  St.  Augustine 
adds  another  of  a  more  superficial  kind,  viz.  the 
excitement  of  curiosity  ;  saying  to  catechumens, 
“  Si  non  excitat  te  festivitas  (Paschae),  ducat  ipsa 
curiositas,”  and  therefore,  “da  nomen  ad  baptis- 
mum”  {De  Verb.  Dom.  Horn.  xlvi.). 

It  must  be  added,  in  order  to  complete  the 
case,  first,  that  such  a  principle  of  reticence  is 
not  to  be  looked  for,  for  obvious  reasons,  in  the 
earlier  Apologists  in  persecuting  times;  c.g.  there 
is  no  trace  of  it  in  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian,  Athena- 
goras,  Theophilus  (Bingh.  X.  v.  2).  In  such  cases, 
the  desire  to  avoid  scandal  to  the  weak,  and  the 
feeling  of  reverence  for  the  truth  itself,  must 
needs,  and  rightly,  give  way  to  the  clear  necessity 
of  a  plain  statement  of  the  whole  truth.  Next, 
that  the  reserve  in  que.stion  was  simply  (so  to 
say)  a  temporary  educational  expedient  ;  and  was 
never  practised  towards  the  “  faith  I  ill  ”  them- 
selve.s,  to  whom  the  whole  truth  was  declared 
in  plain  words ;  and  that  there  are  no  grounds 


566 


DISCIPLINA  ARCANI 


DISCIPLINE 


whatever  for  supposing  the  existence  of  an  eso¬ 
teric  system  of  doctrine,  not  appearing  at  all  in 
any  of  the  writings  or  documents  of  the  earlier 
church,  but  brought  to  light  in  subsetjuent  cen¬ 
turies,  although  secretly  held  all  along. 

III.  So  far,  there  can  be  no  question  made  of 
the  defensibleness  of  the  principle  of  reserve, 
thus  applied;  however  plain  it  maybe,  that  it 
must  speedily  have  become  impossible  to  main¬ 
tain  the  })ractice.  It  is  obviously  a  perfectly  fair 
])roceeding,  to  withhold  truths  avowedly  from 
those  to  whom  it  will  do  harm  to  declare  them. 
The  Alexandrian  schools,  however,  seem  to  have 
stretched  the  casuistry  of  truthfulness  to  a  point 
beyond  this.  Controvei'sially,  it  is  no  doubt  both 
allowable,  and  wise,  to  state  the  truth  in  terms 
as  acce])table  to  the  views  and  prejudices  of  an 
opponent  as  sincerity  will  permit,  but  certainly 
no  further.  To  help  a  Platonist,  e.g.  to  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  by  pointing 
out  how  far  Platonism  itself  advances  towards 
such  a  doctrine,  is  plainly  as  consistent  with 
honesty  as  it  is  with  good  sense;  but  so  to  speak 
as  to  imply  the  identity  of  the  two  doctrines  has 
both  actually  proved  to  be  a  fruitful  parent  of 
heresy,  and  is  distinctly  not  honest.  So  again 
it  is  obviously  fair  to  neutralize  an  opponent’s 
objection  by  pointing  out  that  it  includes  in  its 
range  that  opponent’s  own  erroneous  or  incom¬ 
plete  view  as  well  as  the  orthodox  faith  ;  but 
only  if  the  latter  is  not  confounded  with  the 
former  as  though  it  were  the  same  thing.  An 
argumentum  ad  homincm,  used  as  such  avowedly, 
is  of  course  justitiable,  so  that  it  be  not  put  for¬ 
ward  as  the  arguer’s  own  bond  fide  belief.  The 
Alexandrian  school,  however,  seem  to  have 
“  oeconomized,”  in  managing  controversies,  both 
in  fact  and  avowedly,  in  the  extremer  sense  of 
the  lines  of  argument  thus  suggested.  St.  Cle¬ 
ment  of  Alexamlria,  for  instance,  lays  down  as  a 
principle  (Strom,  vii.  9),  that  the  true  Gnostic, 
indeed,  “  bears  on  his  tongue  whatever  he  has  in 
his  mind,”  but  it  is  “  to  those  who  are  worthy  to 
hear adding,  that  “  he  both  thinks  and  speaks 
the  truth,  unless  at  any  time,  medicinally,  as 
a  physician  for  the  safety  of  the  sick,  he  may 
lie  or  tell  an  untruth,  as  the  Sophists  say.” 
(OuTTore  xpevSerai,  k^li/  \pev8os  \€yg,  is  the  Pla¬ 
tonic  way  of  putting  it.)  So  also  (Strom,  vi.  15), 
^evcTTai  Tw  bvri  ovx  oi  (TVix-mpig>ep6g.€voi  5t’ 
oiKOPOfjLiav  (TcoTrfp'ias,  d\\'  ot  ets  rd  KvpLwraTU 
‘TrapaTr'iiTTOPTfS,  Ka\  dderovpTes  fji\v  rhv  Kuptop 
rh  '6(Top  eV’  avroTs,  cnroarepovPTes  §€  tov  Kvp'iov 
TTjp  d\r]$rj  8i8a(TKa\iap.  And  Origen,  as  quoted 
by  St.  Jerome  (Ado.  Bufin.  Apol.  i.  c.  18),  in  like 
manner  lays  down  a  caution,  implying  a 
like  principle,  that  “  homo  cui  incumbit  neces- 
sitas  mentiendi,  diligenter  attendat,  ut  sic  utatur 
interdum  mendacio,  quomodo  condimento  atque 
medicamine,  ut  servet  mensuram  ejus  :  ex  quo,” 
he  adds,  “  perspicuum  est,  quod  nisi  ita  mentiti 
fuerimus,  ut  magnum  nobis  ex  hoc  aliquod  quae- 
ratur  bonum,  judicandi  simus  quasi  inimici  Ejus 
Qui  ait.  Ego  sum  veritas.”  Further,  St.  Clement 
also  appears  to  hold  an  esoteric  traditional  teach¬ 
ing  to  liave  been  delivered  to  St,  Peter,  St.  James, 
St.  John,  and  St.  Paul  (Strom,  i.  1,  vi.  7  ;  and  v. 
Euseb.  11.  E.  ii.  1)  ;  and  Origen  likewise  (Cont. 
Cels.  i.  7)  speaks  of  an  esoteric  Christian  teach¬ 
ing,  but  obviously  means  no  more  by  the  terms, 
at  least  in  this  passage,  than  to  aflirm  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  elementary  teaching  and  the  | 


deeper  doctrines  of  the  faith  as  taught  succes¬ 
sively  to  catechumens.  On  the  other  hand  (Cunt. 
Cels,  vi.)  he  speaks  of  an  oral  traditional  know¬ 
ledge,  ov  ypaTTTfa  irphs  robs  ttoWovs-  oi/de  l>r]ri. 
But  St.  Clement’s  ypuxris  was  not  a  distinct  inner 
.system  of  doctrine  differing  from  that  which  was 
to  be  taught  to  the  ttoAAoI,  but  rather  a  diflerent 
mode  of  apprehending  the  same  truths,  viz.  from 
a  more  intellectual  and  spiritual  stand-point. 
In  actual  fact,  we  find,  by  way  of  instance, 
St,  Gregory  of  Neo-Caesarea,  Oidgen’s  pupil, 
using  language  re.specting  the  Holy  'I'rinity  that 
is  confessedly  erroneous,  and  defended  by  St.  Basil 
(Epist.  ccx.  §  5)  on  the  ground  that  he  was 
“  not  teaching  doctrine  but  arguing  with  an 
unbeliever,”  and  that  in  such  a  case  “  he  would 
rightly  in  some  things  concede  to  the  feelings 
of  the  unbeliever,  in  order  to  gain  him  over  to 
the  cardinal  points.”  The  whole  subject  will  be 
found  ably  and  profoundly  discussed  in  Newman’s 
Arlans,  c.  i.  §  iii.  pp.  40-102  (8rd  edition).  How 
far  the  practice  was  borrowed  from,  or  uncon¬ 
sciously  furthered  by,  the  undisguised  principles 
and  practice  of  Philo-Judaeus  on  the  subject, 
may  be  doubted.  That  writer  certainly,  both  in 
actual  exposition  of  Scripture  and  in  avowed 
principle,  assumes  that  duller  souls  must  be 
taught  “falsehoods  by- which  they  may  be  bene¬ 
fited,  if  they  cannot  be  brought  to  a  sound  mind 
through  the  truth  ”  (Quid  Deus  sit  Immutabilis, 
0pp.  i.  282,  ed.  Mangey).  But  there  is  no  need 
for  looking  beyond  Scripture  itself  for  the  germ 
and  principle  of  a  true  and  legitimate  “  oecono- 
my.”  The  Alexandrian  divines  themselves  are 
only  responsible  for  pushing  that  principle  to  a 
degree  which  made  it  at  least  extremely  danger¬ 
ous,  and  sometimes  barely  honest.  The  applica¬ 
tion  of  e.soteric  meanings  to  Scripture  facts  by 
the  same  school  is  a  parallel  case  of  exagger¬ 
ating  a  principle  of  the  analogous  sort,  posses¬ 
sing  a  foundation  of  truth,  into  extremes  that 
are  utterly  unjustifiable, 

[Newman,  Arfans (as  above  quoted);  Martigny ; 
Bingham;  Schelstrate,  De  Eiscipl.  Arcani ■  3Io- 
sheim.  Be  Beb.  Christ,  ante  Constantin.  §  xxxiv. 
pp.  302-310;  and  a  s]iecial  dissertation,  De 
Accommodatione  Christo  imprimis  et  Apostolis 
tributd,  by  F.  A.  Carus  (Lips.  1793,  4),  is  refer¬ 
red  to.]  •  [A.  W.  H.J 

DISCIPLINE.  (1.)  From  the  earliest  time 
the  Church  has  endeavoured,  in  accordance  with 
the  Lord’s  commands,  to  maintain  its  own  purity 
both  in  life  and  doctrine.  In  the  earliest  ages, 
the  penalties  for  transgressing  the  laws  of  the 
Church,  in  whatever  resj)ect,  were  of  course  of 
a  purely  spiritual  nature,  and  enforced  by  the 
authority  of  the  Church  itself,  which  had  no 
jurisdiction  in  invitos.  The  means  which  the 
Church  employed  for  the  correction  of  offenders 
within  her  pale  were  admonition,  withdrawal  of 
privileges,  the  enjoining  of  acts  of  mortification, 
and,  in  the  last  resort,  exclusion  from  the  Church 
altogether  [Excommunication].  From  this 
constant  effort  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  to 
correct  offences,  and  to  purify  the  Church  from 
scandals  by  its  own  power  arose  the  system  of 
Penitential  Discipline  [Pknitence],  which  is 
common  to  all  members  of  the  Church,  lay  and 
clerical,  secular  and  regular. 

But  besides  the  general  duty  of  maintaining 
holy  life  and  true  doctrine,  which  is  incumbent 


DISCIPLINE 


DISCIPLINE 


567 


on  all  Christians,  the  clergy  and  the  membei’s  of 
monastic  orders  voluntarily  take  upon  them¬ 
selves  peculiar  obligations,  and  the  enforcing  of 
these  by  the  proper  authorities  constitutes  a 
special  subdivision  of  discipline.  On  the  subject 
of  Monastic  and  Canonical  Discipline,  see  below. 

What  has  been  said  applies  to  the  Church  in 
all  ages,  whether  before  or  after  its  connection 
with  the  State.  But  from  the  time  of  Constan¬ 
tine,  when  the  existence  of  Christianity  in  the 
empire  was  formally  recognised,  and  the  Church 
adopted  as  an  institution  guarded  and  respected 
by  the  State,  we  no  longer  find  its  disciplinary 
lav/s  solely  in  its  own  canons  and  decrees,  nor 
its  punishments  solely  spiritual  and  over  persons 
who  ffive  a  voluntarv  submission.  The  several 
codes  of  the  empire  not  only  recognise  gene¬ 
rally  the  fact  that  its  subjects  are  Christian,  but 
frequently  adopt  and  sanction  laws  enacted  ori¬ 
ginally  bv  purely  ecclesiastical  authority  ;  and 
this  in  two  ways.  In  some  cases  ecclesiastical 
laws  and  principles  are  simply  adopted  into  the 
civil  code,  and  enforced  by  civil  tribunals  and  civil 
sanctions  :  in  others  the  ecclesiastical  authority 
[see  Appeal] — generally  the  Bishop  (p.  231) — is 
empowered  to  call  in  the  secular  arm  to  enforce  its 
decisions;  see,  for  instance,  Justinian’s  Code,  lib.  1, 
1.  25.,  De  Episc.  Audien.  It  is  evident  that  this 
change  in  the  relations  of  Church  and  State  con¬ 
verted  many  acts,  which  had  previously  been  dis¬ 
regarded  by  the  civil  power,  into  crimes,  or  offences 
against  the  sovereign  authority,  and  gave  a  dif¬ 
ferent  aspect  to  many  delicts  which  still  remained 
in  the  cognizance  of  the  Church.  Discipline  was 
henceforward  enforced  partly  by  the  spiritual, 
partlv  by  the  secular  arm  ;  the  State  reinforced 
the  Church  with  more  or  less  vigour  according 
to  the  disposition  of  the  rulers  for  the  time 
being ;  and  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  made 
constant  efforts  to  withdraw  the  clergy  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  civil  courts  altogether  [Immu¬ 
nities  OF  THE  Clergy  ;  Jurisdiction  ;  and 
the  articles  on  the  several  offences  which  have 
been  subject  to  censure  or  punishment  in  the 
Church],  [C.] 

(2.)  Jfonastic  LiscipUne.  —  Monastic  punish¬ 
ments  were  of  two  kinds,  corporal  and  spiritual, 
and,  in  each  kind,  more  or  less  severe,  according 
to  the  nature  of  the  offence  or  the  founder’s 
ideas  of  discipline.  Instances  of  both  kinds 
occur  very  early  in  the  history  of  monasticism. 
Thus  Basil  of  Caesarea  speaks  of  various  de- 
gi-ees  of  excommunication  —  from  joining  in 
the  chanting,  from  choir,  and  from  meals 
(Serm.  de  Mon.  Instit.),  while  about  the  same 
date  Jerome  and  Kutfinus  make  mention  of 
fastings  as  a  punishment  (Hiei'on.  Ep.  ad  E^po- 
tian. ;  Ruffin.  De  Verb.  Sen.  29).  Augustine 
speaks  of  offending  monks  (fratres)  being  anathe¬ 
matised,  if  incorrigible  after  reproofs,  and  of 
their  excommunication  by  their  superiors  (prae- 
positi)  of  higher  or  lower  rank,  the  excommuni¬ 
cation  by  the  bisliop  being  the  severest  punish¬ 
ment  of  all  (^De  Corrupt,  et  Grat.  ad  Valent. 
c.  15).  A  pa.s.sage  in  one  of  his  letters  implies 
his  appi'oval  of  fiogging  as  a  chastisement  {Ep. 
ad  Marcellin.,  159).  In  the  writings  of  Cassian, 
early  in  the  5th  century,  monastic  discipline 
becomes  more  closely  defined.  For  slighter 
offences,  such  as  coming  late  to  prayers  or  work, 
making  a  mistake  in  chanting,  breaking  any¬ 
thing,  or  speaking  to  any  other  monk  than  the 


one  who  .shares  the  cell,  the  offender  is  to  pros¬ 
trate  himself  in  the  chapel  during  divine  service 
or  to  make  genuflexions  till  allowed  by  the 
abbot  to  cease  (Cassian,  Inst.  iv.  c.  16).  Ca.ssian 
tells  a  story  of  an  Egyptian  monk  doing  public 
penance  for  having  dropped  three  peas,  while 
acting  as  cook  for  the  week  {Inst.  iv.  20).  For 
graver  offences,  as  bad  language  or  greediness, 
the  punishment  is  flogging  or  expulsion  iv. 

c.  16).  For  lingering  after  nocturns  instead  of 
going  at  once  to  the  cell,  a  monk  is  to  be  ex¬ 
communicated  (ii.  15) ;  no  one  being  allowed  to 
pray  with  him  till  he  has  been  publicly  absolved 
(ii.  16).  Cassian  speaks  of  a  slap  or  buffet, 
“  alapa,”  as  a  punishment  among  monks  {Coll. 
xix.  1,  cf.  Greg.  M.  Dialofj.  i.  2,  ii.  4).  Palladius, 
about  the  same  date,  in  describing  the  monks  of 
Nitria,  relates  that  three,  whips  or  scoui'ges 
hung  from  a  pillar  in  a  part  of  the  church 
apparently  corresponding  to  a  chapter-house, 
one  for  the  correction  of  robbers,  one  for  un¬ 
ruly  guests,  one  for  the  monks  {Hist.  Laus.  2). 
He  speaks  also  of  confinement  in  a  cell  {ib. 
cc.  32,  33).  About  half  a  century  later  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  pronounces  anathema  on 
a  monk  returning  to  the  secular  life  {Cone. 
Chalced.,  c.  7).  Being,  as  a  rule,  at  that  date 
still  laics,  monks  thus  offending  were  anathema- 
ti.sed,  not  degraded.  Dorotheus,  an  Archiman¬ 
drite  in  Palestine,  very  early  in  the  7th  century, 
speaks  of  fasting  as  a  jmnishment  for  monks 
{Doctrina,  c.  14,  ap.  Ducean.  Auciuar.  i.  743). 
One  of  the  strongest  instances  of  monastic 
severity  in  the  East  is  in  the  Scala  of  Joannes 
Climacus,  sometimes  called  Scholastic  us,"  of 
Mount  Sinai,  in  the  preceding  century,  who 
speaks  of  offenders  being  dragged  by  a  rope 
through  ashes,  their  hands  bound  behind  their 
backs,  and  flogged  till  those  who  witnessed  the 
punishment  “  howTed  afterwards  they  were 
to  lie  prostrate  at  the  church-door  till  absolved 
after  public  confession  {Scala,  c.  4). 

In  the  West,  too,  prior  to  the  Benedictine  rule, 
monastic  discipline  was  very  rigorous.  Each 
monastery  had  its  own  code  ;  but,  probably,  in 
Southern  Europe  Cassian’s  influence  was  felt 
largely.  In  the  Regula  Tarnatensis,  the  lule  (c. 
550  A.D.)  of  a  monastery  in  south-eastern  France, 
which  Mabillon  identifies  with  that  of  Tarnay, 
near  Vienne  {Aunal.,  tom.  i.  App.  ii.  Disquis,  5), 
a  monk  who  jests  is  to  be  chidden  (c.  13  ;  cf.  Bas. 
Constit.  Monast.  c.  13,  on  scurrility).  In  the 
rule  of  Ferreolus,  bishop  of  Ezes,  in  Languedoc, 
about  the  same  date,  a  fast  of  three  days  is 
imposed  for  jesting  during  lections  (c.  24),  and 
thirty  days’  silence  for  railing  (c.  22).  But  the 
Regula  Cujusdam  Patris,  suj)posed  by  Menard  to 
be  the  rule  of  Columba  (c.  561  a.d.),  is  stricter 
still,  especially  against  the  murmuring  or  re¬ 
fractory:  even  a  thoughtless  word  is  visited 
wfith  imprisonment  (c.  8).  Columbanus,  of 
Luxeuil  and  Bobbin  (c.  590  A.D.),  trod  in  the 
steps  of  his  ascetic  predecessor.  Six  blows  were 
to  be  the  penalty  for  such  offences  as  speaking 
at  refection,  not  responding  to  the  grace,  not 
being  careful  to  avoid  coughing  in  chanting,  iS:c. 
For  other  similar  transgressions  the  punishmert 
was  the  “  impositio  ”  of  Psalms  to  be  learned  by 
heart,  or  the  superpositio,”  complete  silence  for 


“  Not  Joannes  Scholasticus,  of  the  same  ilate,  of  Antioch 
and  Constantinople  (Cave,  Hist.  Lilt.  s.  v.). 


568 


DiSCOFEl?AE 


DISCOMMUNICANTES 


a  time  {Eeij.  Coluinhim.  c.  10).  Darker  offences 
were  visited  with  proportionate  severity.  'J'hus, 
fora  perjury  the  penalty  was  solitary  confine¬ 
ment  on  bread  and  water  for  three  years  (Colum- 
ban.  De  Penitout.  ]\Iensur.  c.  32  ;  cf.  pass.). 

The  milder  discij)line  of  Benedict  gradually 
extended  itself,  in  the  0th  and  7th  centuries, 
from  Italy  even  into  parts  of  Europe  alrea<ly 
occupied  by  other  rules,  as  was  France  by  that 
of  Columbanus.  He  prescribed  two  rejn-oofs  in 
private,  followed  by  one  in  public,  before  pro¬ 
ceeding  to  severer  remedies.  If  these  were  in- 
efi'ectual,  then  ensued  excommunication,  or  for 
chose  too  young  or  otherwise  disqualified  for 
spiritual  censures,  corj)oral  punishment  {Peg. 
Ben.  c.  23).  The  incorrigible  were  to  be  flogged 
and  prayed  for  ;  and,  as  a  last  resource,  ex])elled 
(c.  28)  :  if  re-admitted,  they  were  to  be  placed 
in  the  lowest  grade  (c.  29)  ;  cf.  Greg.  M.  Lib.  x. 
Ind.  iv.  Ep,  39  ;  Lib.  i.  Ind.  ix.  Ep.  19.  A 
breakage  or  waste  was  lightly  regarded,  unless 
unconfessed  (c.  46)  ;  and  the  confession  of  secret 
faults  was  to  be  made,  not  in  public,  but  to 
the  dean  [Dkcanus,  §  v.]  (seniori  suo,  c.  46). 
Only  the  contumacious,  after  four  admonitions, 
were  to  be  subject  to  the  “disciplina  regularis,” 
flogging,  with,  probably,  solitary  confinement  on 
bread  and  water  (cc.  3,  65). 

Where  not  adopted  as  a  whole,  the  Benedictine 
rule  was  frequently  incorporated  with  other 
rules.  Thus  the  rule  of  Isidore  of  Seville,  in 
the  first  part  of  the  7th  century,  though  more 
minute  in  its  distinctions,  resembles  the  Bene¬ 
dictine  code  of  punishments  (Isid.  Peg.  c.  17  ;  cf. 
Mab.  Ann.  iii.  37,  xii.  42).  Donatus  of  Besan- 
Qon,  about  the  middle  of  this  century,  himself 
a  pupil  of  Columbanus,  blended  the  two  rules  in 
one:  “disciplina”  with  him  seems  to  mean 
flogging  or  solitary  confinement  (Don.  Peg.  ad 
Virg.  c.  2);  silence  or  fifty  stripes  is  the  penalty 
for  idle  words  (c.  28).  Later  in  the  century, 
Fructuosus  of  Braga  in  Portugal,  founder  of  the 
great  monastery  of  Alcala  (Complutum)  near 
Madrid,  borrowed  largely  from  Benedict  (Fruct. 
Peg.  c.  17  ;  cf.  Mab.  Ann.  iii.  37).  The  Council 
at  Vers,  near  Paris,  755  A.D.,  speaks  of  a  prison¬ 
cell  or  flogging-room  —  “locus  custodiae”  or 
“  pulsatorium  ”  {Cone.  Venn.  c.  6).  The  Har¬ 
mony  of  Monastic  Rules,  compiled  in  the  9th 
century  by  the  namesake  of  the  founder  of  the 
Benedictines,  contains  a  gradation  of  punish¬ 
ments,  which  is  on  the  Avhole  equitable,  but  too 
minute  (Bened.  Anian.  Concord.  Pegul.)  In  the 
12th  century  the  influence  of  Petrus  Damiani 
introduced  a  rigour  hitherto  unknown  within 
the  walls  of  Monte  Casino  :  each  monk,  after  his 
confession  every  Friday,  was  to  be  whipped,  by 
himself  or  by  others,  in  cell,  chapter,  or  oratory 
(Altes.  Ascet.  A'i.  4).  In  the  famous  monastery 
of  St.  Gall,  in  Switzerland,  the  whip  for  similar 
purposes  was  suspended  from  a  pillar  in  the 
chapter-house  (i6.). 

Voluntary  flagellations,  or  self-scourgings,  as 
a  recognised  part  of  monastic  discipline,  began 
about  the  middle  of  the  11th  century,  at  the 
suggestion  of  Petrus  Damiani  (Richard  et  Giraud, 
Bibliotk.  Sacr.  s.  v.),  or  according  to  ^labillon 
(Ac^a  SS.  Ben.  Praef.,  Saec.  vi.,  i.  s.  6),  rather 
earlier  (cf.  Boileau,  I’abbef,  Hist.  Flagell.,  1700 
A.D.).  '[1.  G.  S.] 

(3.)  Canontcal  Discipline. — Though  the  rule  of 
the  Canonici  was  easier  than  that  of  the  Monachi, 


their  code  of  punishments  wa.s  severe.  By 
Chrodegang’s  rule,  any  canon  failing  to  maka 
a  full  confession  at  stated  times  twice  a  vear, 
wa.s  to  be  flogged  or  incarcerated  {Chron.  Peg. 
c.  14).  Any  canon  guilty  of  theft,  murder,  or 
any  grave  ofleuce  was  liable  to  both  these  penal¬ 
ties  ;  he  was,  besides,  to  do  public  penance  by 
standing  outside  the  chapel  during  the  “hours,” 
and  by  lying  prostrate  at  the  door  as  the  others 
were  going  in  and  out,  and  to  jiractise  extra¬ 
ordinary  abstinence,  until  absolved  by  the 
bishoj)  (c,  15).  Any  canon  speaking  to  one  ex¬ 
communicated  incurred  excommunication  him¬ 
self  (c.  16).  The  refractory  or  contumacious 
were,  after  two  reproofs,  to  do  open  penance  by 
standing  beside  the  cross  ;  they  were  to  be  pub¬ 
licly  excommunicated,  or,  if  insensible  to  such  a 
punishment,  flogged  (c.  17).  Lesser  ofi'ence.s,  if 
confessed,  were  to  be  treated  lightly ;  if  de¬ 
tected,  .severely  (c.  18).  The  measurement  and 
apportionment  of  penalties  was  in  the  hands  of 
the  bishop  (c.  19).  But  certain  rules  to  guide 
the  bishop’s  subordinates,  “  praelati  inferiores  ” 
(perhaps^ deans),  in  the  exerci.se  of  this  dis¬ 
cretionary  power  were  laid  down  by  the  Council 
at  Aachen,  816  a.d.  Boys  were  to  be  beaten. 
Older  members  of  the  comnrunity  were,  for  more 
venial  faults,  as  neglecting  the  “  hours,”  being 
careless  at  work  or  in  chapel,  late  at  meals,  out 
without  leave  or  beyond  the  proper  time,  after 
three  private  admonitions,  to  be  admonished 
publicly,  to  stand  apart  in  the  choir,  and  to  bo 
kept  on  bread  and  water.  For  a  graver  fault, 
“  culpa  criminalis,”  unless  atoned  for  by  spon¬ 
taneous  penance,  they  were  to  be  publicly  ex¬ 
communicated,  “damnentur,”  by  the  bishop, 
and  to  be  imprisoned,  lest  they  should  “taint 
the  rest  of  the  flock  ”  {Cone.  Aquisgr.  c.  134). 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  it  seems  customary  then 
to  have  a  prison  within  the  precincts  of  the 
monastery  or  canonry  (“  ut  fit  mult  is  in  monas- 
teriis  ”),  and  that  disobedience,  rudeness,  or 
quarrelling  are  not,  as  with  monks,  classed 
among  things  of  a  darker  die  {ib.')  The  same 
council,  in  a  subsequent  session,  enacted  a  similar 
scale  of  punishment  for  nuns,  “  sanctimonialei:,” 
with  the  same  climax  of  solitary  confinement 
for  the  incorrigible  {Cone.  Aquisgr.  lib.  ii.  c.  8). 
The  rule  was  to  be  recited  in  chapter  very  fre¬ 
quently  (cc.  69,  70). 

For  monastic  and  canonical  discipline  gener¬ 
ally,  see  Benedictine  Rule,  Canonici,  ^Ion- 
ACHISil.  [1.  G.  S.] 

(4).  From  the  constant  use  of  the  rod  or 
scourge  in  monastic  discipline  (see  above,  §  2) 
the  word  disciplina  came  itself  to  mean  flogging. 
In  the  Liber  Ord'nis  S.  Victoris  Paris.,  c.  33 
(quoted  by  Ducange)  is  a  full  description  of  the 
manner  in  which  a  monk  ought  to  take  jumish- 
ment  (disciplinam  accipere).  Sometimes  disci¬ 
plina  is  used  with  a  qualifying  word,  as  “  di.scip. 
flagelli”  {Peg.  S.  Anrel.  c.  41);  “  discip.  corpo- 
ralis  ”  {Peg.  Chrodegang.  cc.  3,  4,  14 ;  Capitul. 
A.D.  803,  v.  1).  [Corporal  Punishment.]  [C.] 

DISCOFERAE.  In  convents  of  nuns  the 
sisters  who  bring  the  dishes  to  table  are  some¬ 
times  called  discoferae.  Caesarius  of  Arles  {Ad 
Oratoriain  Abhatissani)  gives  the  direction,  “  ae- 
qualia  cibaria  potionesque  communes  exhibeant 
discoferae  vel  pincernae  ”  (Ducange,  s.  v.).  [C.] 

DISCOMMUNICANTES.  The  second 


DISCUS 


DIVINATION 


569 


council  of  Arles  (c.  10),  referring  to  tlie  eleventh 
canon  of  the  fii'st  council  of  Nicaea,  condemns 
those  who  have  fallen  away  under  persecution  to 
five  vears  among  the  catechumens,  and  two  “  in- 
ter  discommunicantes,  ita  ut  communionem  inter 
poenitentes  non  praesumant.”  The  canon  of 
Nicaea  referred  to  has  “  Suo  cttj  irpoa- 

(popas  KOLVwvt](Tov(Ti  Tw  Ka'p  tcov  TTpocrev^wv.” 
When  all  who  offered  communicated,  this  was 
equivalent  to  a  sentence  of  exclusion  for  two  years 
from  the  mysteries,  though  not  from  the  prelimi¬ 
nary  prayers.  [See  Communion,  p.  415.]  [C.] 

DISCUS.  [Paten.] 

DISPENSATION.  [Indulgence.] 

DISPUTATIO.  In  some  monastic  Rules  a 
discussion  on  Scripture,  called  Disputatio,  is  one 
of  the  exercises  prescribed  to  the  monks.  For 
instance  the  Buie  of  Pachomius  (c.  21)  directs; 
“  Disputatio  autem  Praepositis  domorum  tertio 
fiet.”  [Compare  Collation.]  [C.] 

DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  ELEMENTS. 
[Communion,  Holy,] 

DISTRIBUTION  OF  CHURCH  PRO¬ 
PERTY.  [Alms;  Churches,  Maintenance 
OF ;  Corn,  Allowance  of  ;  Divisio  Mensurna; 
Property  of  the  Church.] 

DIUS.  (1)  Saint,  in  Caesarea ;  commemo¬ 
rated  July  12  (^Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi), 

(2)  Martyr  at  Alexandria,  with  Peter,  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  Faustus  the  presbyter,  and  Am- 
monius,  under  Maximinus ;  commemorated  Nov. 
20  (^Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G,] 

DIVINATION.  It  ivas  all  but  inevitable 
in  the  nature  of  things  that  the  ineradicable 
desire  to  penetrate  the  secrets  of  the  future 
should  show  itself  sooner  or  later  in  some  form 
of  superstition  within  the  Christian  Church. 
Jews  and  heathens  had  alike  been  accustomed 
to  practices  of  which  that  desire  had  been  the 
origin.  The  decay  and  disrepute  of  the  older 
oracles,  of  which  the  legend  that  they  ceased  at 
the  time  of  the  Nativity  of  Christ  was  the  re¬ 
presentation,  forced  men  back  upon  the  more 
mysterious  and  recondite  arts  by  which  the 
secrets  of  the  future  were  to  be  unveiled.  The 
mind  of  the  Church  was,  of  course,  from  the 
first  opposed  to  such  attempts,  and  taught  men 
to  leave  the  future  in  the  hands  of  God.  But  the 
laws  and  canons  which  meet  us  alike  in  East  and 
West  testify  to  the  strength  of  the  superstition 
against  which  the  warfare  was  thus  waged.  It 
can  hardly  be  said,  looking  at  Christendom  as  a 
whole,  to  have  succeeded  in  repressing  it. 

The  revival  within  the  Church  of  the  arts  of 
the  old  Chaldaean  soothsayers  has  been  noticed 
under  A.5Trologers  and  Calculatores.  But 
the  elaborate  system  of  divination  which  Mas 
officially  recognised  in  the  auguries  of  the  Roman 
republic  and  empire,  and  which  had  a  thousand 
ramifications  in  private  and  local  superstitions, 
was  even  more  difficult  to  cope  with.  As  eaidy 
as  the  Council  of  Elvira  (c.  62)  we  find  the  augur 
named  among  those  who  M'cre  not  to  be  admitted 
to  Christian  communion  unless  they  renounced 
their  calling.*  The  Fourth  Council  of  Carthage 
(c.  59)  excommunicated  any  who  addicted  them¬ 
selves  to  practices  that  were  so  essentially 


heathen.  That  of  Ancyra  (c.  24)  condemned 
the  KaTauavTiv6fX(voL  to  five  years’  penance. 
See  also  the  ‘Penitential’  printed  in  Menard’s 
Sacram.  Greg.  p.  467,  Tiie  legislation  of  the 
emperors  was  even  more  stern  in  its  severity ; 
but  the  sharpness  of  the  law  was  in  this  case 
due,  like  the  old  edicts  of  banishment  against 
the  Chaldaei  under  Tiberius,  to  the  infiucace  of 
suspicious  fear.  Diviners,  who  were  consulted  as 
to  the  length  of  the  emperor’s  life  might  help 
to  work  out  the  fulfilment  of  their  own  predic¬ 
tions.  So  we  find  Constantins  inflicting  the 
penalty  of  death  on  all  who  were  known  to  con¬ 
sult  soothsayers  or  observe  omens.  Even  the 
credulous  peasants,  to  whom  the  cry  of  a  weasel 
or  a  rat  was  a  presage  of  evil,  were  hunted  down 
and  condemned  (CW.  Theod.  ix.  tit.  16,  leg.  4; 
Ammian.  Marcell.  xvi.  ]i.  72).  Valens,  iu  like 
manner,  half  believing  in  what  he  sought  to  re¬ 
press,  having  heard  that  it  had  been  declared  as 
the  result  of  such  divining  arts  (in  this  case 
veKvo/xavrela  is  named),  that  the  name  of  his 
successor  should  begin  with  0  E  O  A,  not  only 
enforced  the  law  iu  its  fullest  severity  against 
the  diviner,  but  sought  out  and  put  to  death  all 
whom  he  could  find  whose  names  brought  them 
M’ithin  the  range  of  his  suspicion  (Socrates,  //.  E. 
iv.  19).  It  is  probable  enough  that  the  wide- 
"spread  belief  thus  engendered  really  helped  to 
prepare  the  way  for  Theodosius. 

It  was  comj)aratively  easy  to  condemn  art; 
that  were  manifestly  heathen  iu  their  nature. 
It  was  more  difficult  when  the  practice  came 
with  Christian  associations  and  appealed  to  men’s 
,  reverence  for  the  Sacred  Books.  The  principle 
of  casting  lots  was  recognised  in  Scripture  as  an 
appeal  from  the  ignorance  of  man  to  the  Provi¬ 
dence  of  God  (Acts  i.  26 ;  Prov.  xvi,  33  ;  xviii. 
1%  et  al.).  What  form  of  aortes  could  be  more 
certain  to  direct  men  in  the  right  path  than  an 
appeal  to  the  Written  Word  ?  Here,  too,  both 
Jewish  and  heathen  influences  may  have  helped 
to  foster  the  new  form  of  superstition.  The  Jew 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  so  dealing  u  ith  the  Law, 
opening  it  at  random,  taking  the  verse  on  which 
he  lighted  as  an  oracle  from  God.  It  Avas  his 
substitute  for  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  and 
the  utterance  of  a  prophet’s  voice  (Gemar. 
Hieros.  Schabb.  f.  8).  The  Roman,  anticipating 
the  mediaeval  belief  as  to  the  poet’s  character, 
had  looked  to  the  Aeneid  of  Virgil  as  filling  up 
the  gap  left  by  the  dumbness  of  the  oracles.  The 
sortes  Virgilianae  Avere  in  repute  as  haA'ing  pre¬ 
dicted  the  power  and  character  of  Hadrian  (Spar- 
tian.  Vit.  Had.  p,  5),  and  Alexander  Severus 
(Lamprid,  Vit.  Alex.  p.  341).  So  in  like  man¬ 
ner  the  Bible,  as  a  whole,  or  certain  portions 
of  it,  came  to  be  treated  in  the  4th  century, 
if  not  earlier.  It  aj)pears  to  haA’e  prevailed 
in  the  West  rather  than  the  East,  but  Avas 
neA'er  during  the  period  Avith  Avhich  Ave  are  con¬ 
cerned  in  any  degree  sanctioned  by  the  Church 
or  its  leaders.  Augustine,  who  had  been  con¬ 
sulted  by  Januarius  as  to  its  legitimacy,  thought 
it  a  less  evil  than  seeking  knowledge  from  de- 
mons,  but  condemned  it,  as  bringing  doAvn  the 
Divine  Word  to  base  and  trivial  uses  (Bpist.  ad 
Januariurn,  cxix.  (aliter  Iv.)  c.  37).  The  pro¬ 
vincial  Councils  of  Gaul  in  the  5th  century  con¬ 
demned  the  “ sortes  divinatiouis,”  “sortes  sanc¬ 
torum,”  and  threatened  clergy  or  monks  who 
practised  them  Avith  severe  penalties  ((7.  Venctic. 


*  There  is,  however,  the  various  reading  of  “  auriga.” 


670 


DIVINE  SERVICE 


DOLIUM 


c.  16 ;  Agathens.  42 ;  Aurel.  I.  c.  30).  The 
jractice  grew,  however,  in  spite  of  the  prohi¬ 
bition,  with  the  increasing  power  of  the  Franks, 
and  Gregory  of  Tours  {Hist.  iv.  16)  describes  a 
scene  in  which,  with  great  solemnity,  in  the 
presence  of  bishops  and  priests  in  the  celebration 
Dt  Mass  at  Dijon,  the  volumes  of  the  Epistles  and 
Gospels  were  thus  opened  in  order  to  ascertain 
the  fortunes  of  the  son  of  Clothaire.  [E.  H.  P.] 

DIVINE  SERVICE.  [Communion,  Holy: 
Mass:  Houiis  of  Prayer:  Office,  the  Di¬ 
vine.] 

DIVISIO  APOSTOLORUM.  [Apostles’ 
Festivals,  p.  87.] 

DIVISIO  MENSURNA.  The  division  of 
the  revenues  of  a  church  among  the  clergy  seems 
commonly  to  have  been  monthly  ;  this  monthly 
payment  is  called  by  Cyprkin  “divisio  mensurna,” 
and  a  suspension  from  this  was  equivalent  to 
what  in  later  times  was  called  siispeusion  “  a 
oeneficio,”  which  did  not  necessarily  imply  sus¬ 
pension  from  ministerial  functions  (Cyprian, 
Epist.  34,  c.  3).  [Oblations  ;  Property  of 
THE  Church.]  [C.] 

DIVORCE.  [Marriage.] 

DOCTOR.  Beesids  the  general  sense  of 
“  teacher,”  this  word  early  acquired  certain 
special  significations : — 

1.  Doctor  Audicntiwn,  the  officer  of  fhe  church 
to  whom  was  committed  the  instruction  of  Cate¬ 
chumens  (p.  319).  When  we  read  in  the  Pas^io 
8S.  Perpettiac  ct  Fclic.  (c.  13;  Ruinart.  p.  99) 
that  Aspasius,  “  presbyter  doctor,”  stood  before 
the  door,  we  ought  probably  to  understand  that 
he  was  a  presbyter  who  bore  the  office  of  Doctor 
audientium.  Cyprian,  too,  speaks  {Epist.  29)  of 
“  presbyteri  doctores,”  as  well  as  of  a  reader  who 
held  the  office  of  teacher  of  the  catechumens. 

2.  Persons  whose  teaching  was  of  special 
weight  in  the  church  were  called  Doctores.  The 
Decreta  (c.  1)  of  Celestinus  (a.d.  422—432)  con¬ 
demn  those  who  set  themselves  up  against  the 
Doctors,  meaning  apparently  in  this  case  more 
particularly  St.  Augustine  (c.  2)  and  the  bishops 
of  Rome  (c.  3).  The  same  prohibition  is  repeated 
in  the  Capitularinm  Car.  M.  vii.  c.  44. 

3.  The  term  legis  doctor  seems  to  have  acquired 

a  technical  force  at  a  comparatively  early  date. 
Adrevaldus  {De  Mirac.  S.  Bened.  i.  25)  speaks 
of  a  certain  “  legis  doctor  ” — clearly  a  judge — 
who  deferred  judgment  in  consequence  of  having 
received  a  bribe  ;  and  a  charter  of  Pipin,  mayor  of 
the  palace  (quoted  by  Ducange,  s.  v.  Doctor  Legis'), 
speaks  of  tilings  decided  by  “  proceres  nostri,  seu 
Comites  palatii  nostri  vel  reliqui  legis  doctores,” 
where  the  doctors  are  clearly  persons  who  have 
an  official  right  to  expound  the  law.  [C.] 

DOCTORS,  CHRIST  IN  CONFERENCE 
WITH.  This  subject  is  represented  in  a  fresco 
of  the  first  cubiculum  of  the  Callixtine  Cata¬ 
comb.  See  in  Bottari,  taw.  xv.  and  liv.,  also  tav. 
Ixxiv.  Both  are  conventionally  arranged,  our  Lord 
being  on  a  lofty  seat  in  the  midst,  with  hand 
upraised  in  the  act  of  speaking ;  the  doctors  on 
His  right  and  left,  with  some  expression  of 
wonder  on  their  countenances.  The  only  sarco¬ 
phagus  besides  that  of  Junius  Bassus  (Bottari, 
XV.),  which  indisi  utahhj^  contains  this  subject, 
is  stated  by  Martigny  to  be  that  in  S.  Ambrogio 


at  Milan.  (Allegranza,  Sacra  Monim.  Ant.  de 
Milano,  tav.  iv.)  See,  however,  Bottari,  vol.  i. 
tav.  33.  All  the  surrounding  figures  are  seated 
in  this  example,  but  our  Lord  is  placed  above 
them  in  a  kind  of  stall  or  ediculc,  with  two 
palm-trees  at  its  sides.  He  holds  a  book  or  roll 
in  His  hand,  which  is  partly  unrolled,  while 
the  doctors  have  closed  theirs.  So  also  in  Alle¬ 
granza,  tav.  i.,  a  mosaic  from  St.  Aquilinus  of 
Milan.  The  Lord’s  elevated  seat  is  placed  on  a 
rock,  with  the  Divine  Lamb  below,  probably  in 
reference  to  Rev.  v.  as  “able  to  oj)en  the  Book.” 
On  the  right  and  left,  at  His  feet,  are  Joseph 
and  Mary  in  the  attitude  of  adoration. 

Perret  (i.  pi.  1.)  gives  a  co}>y  of  a  very  skilful 
painting  from  the  catacombs,  which  places  two 
doctors  on  the  Lord’s  right  hand,  who  are  ex¬ 
pressing  attention  and  wonder,  and  Joseph  and 
Mary  on  the  other,  with  looks  of  patient  waiting 
on  Him.  The  figure  on  the  left  is  so  evidently 
feminine,  as  to  repel  the  idea  that  the  four 
evangelists  are  intended. 

The  fine  diptych  of  the  5th  century  at  the 
Cathedral  of  Milan  and  that  of  I\Iurano  (Bugati, 
Mem.  di  S.  Celso  and  Gori,  Thes.  Dipt.  viii.  tab. 
8,  see  Avoodcut)  also  represent  our  Lord  sitting, 


with  the  doctors  standing  before  Him.  These  re¬ 
present  Him  of  more  mature  appearance  and 
stature  than  the  account  in  the  Gospels  quite 
warrants.  The  figure  below  our  Lord’s  feet  is 
supposed  to  represent  Uranus  or  the  Firmament 
of  Heaven  (Ps.  xviii.  9).  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DOLIUM.  This  seems  to  be  the  most  con 
venient  generic  term  for  the  A^arious  representa¬ 
tions  of  casks  and  large  vessels  which  occur  fre¬ 
quently  in  early  Christian  art,  and  have  sym¬ 
bolic  meaning  very  generally  attributed  to  them. 
(Boldetti,  pp.  164-368 ;  Perret,  iii.  3  ;  Bottari, 
tav.  155.)  As  they  are  generally  found  on  tombs 
they  are  taken  as  empty,  representing  the  body 
when  the  soul  has  fled  from  it.  If  the  marriage 
of  Cana  [see  s.  v.  Cana]  can  be  supposed  to  be  so 
frequently  used  on  sarcophagi  as  a  symbol  of  the 
Resurrection,  the  cask  may  be  supposed  to  repre¬ 
sent  a  water-vessel,  and  be  a  short-hand  symbol 
of  the  Miracle.  This  seems  altogether  unlikely, 
and,  moreover,  in  almost  all  cases  the  vessels  re¬ 
presented  are  strictly  “  waterpots  of  stone  ”  or 
hydriae.  The  close  juncture  of  the  staves  of  a 
cask  has  been  taken  to  indicate  Christian  luxity. 


DOLPHIN 


DOMESTICUS 


571 


Martigay  conjectures  (quoting  St.  Cyprian,  Ep. 
xvi.  Ad  Confess.  Rom.  “Vini  vice  sanguinem 
tunditis  ”)  that  the  form  of  a  cask  has  been  given 
to  certain  small  vessels  for  preserving  the  blood 
of  martyrs  (e.g.  Boldetti,  pp.  163—4),  with  allu¬ 
sion  to  tne  power  of  their  self-sacrifice  in  hold-  . 
ing  the  Church  together.  He  concludes,  how¬ 
ever,  on  the  whole,  that  the  picture  of  the 
Dolium  was  very  possibly  only  a  play"  on  words, 
from  its  resemblance  in  sound  to  doleo,  and  its 
inflections.  This  seems  to  be  proved  by  his  ex¬ 
ample  from  Mamachi  (see  woodcut) — two  dolia, 
with  the  inscription  IVLIO  FILIO  PATER 
DOLIENS.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 


DOLPHIN  [sees.  v.  Fish].  As  in  tne  case 
of  other  Christian  symbols,  the  dolpnin  is  used 


from  a  very  early  date  in  two  or  more  senses, 
representing  either  the  Lord  Himself,  the  indi¬ 
vidual  Christian,  or  abstract*  qualities  such  as 
those  of  swiftness,  brilliancy,  conjugal  affection, 
&c.  In  a  painting  given  by  De  Rossi  (vol.  i.  tav. 
viii.),  two  dolphins  bear  (apparently)  vessels  with 
the  Sacramental  loaves.  It  has  been  suggested, 
and  is  not  improbable,  that  the  Dolphin  embra 
cing  the  Anchor,  so  often  found  on  gems,  rings,  &c. 
(Mamachi,  Antig.  Christ,  iii.  23  ;  Lupi,  Epitaph. 
Sever.  M.  64,  note  1),  is  an  emblem  of  the  Cruci¬ 
fied  Saviour,  or,  indeed,  of  the  faithful  follower 
For  its  use  as  an  emblem  of  swiftness,  see  Bol¬ 
detti,  p.  332,  where  is  figured  the  handle  of  a  pen 
found  in  a  Christian  sepulchre,  fashioned  into  the 
dolphin-shape,  which  may  indicate,  as  Martigny 
supposes,  that  the  occupant  was  in  life  a  scribe 
or  short-hand  writer. — Ps.  xlv.  2.  The  fish  with 
extended  fins,  or  back  bent,  as  if  in  the  act  of 
plunging  forward,  seems  to  be  used  to  express 
speed  in  pressing  forward  for  the  prize  of  the 
Christian  race.  See  Lupi,  Epitaph.  Sev.  pp.  53 
and  185.  In  the  latter  he  is  accompanied  by  a 
dov^e,  and  both  are  approaching  a  vase,  which  may 
signify  the  Living  Waters  of  Baptism  or  of  Truth. 
See  Martigny,  s.  v.  Dauphin.  The  dolphins  (see 
woodcut),  placed  two  close  together  on  each  side 
of  the  inscription  over  Baleria  or  Valeria  La- 
tobia,  are  thought  to  symbolize  conjugal  affec¬ 
tion.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 


DOLUS  MALUS.  [Forgery.] 

DOME.  (Commonly  derived  from  Domus 
Dei,  domes  being  at  one  time  so  invariable  a  | 
part  of  churches  as  to  usurp  their  name.  Per-  j 
haps  from  Sw/aa.)  A  concave  ceiling  or  cupola, 
either  hemispherical  or  of  any  other  curve, 
covering  a  circular  or  polygonal  area ;  also  a 
roof  the  exterior  of  which  is  of  either  of  these 
forms  (Parker’s  Gloss,  s.  v.  Cupola). 

The  dome  is  not  usual  in  churches  of  the 
basilica  type,  though  it  is  sometimes  found ;  in  ! 
the  church  of  Sta.  Croce  in  Gerusalemme  (for 
instance),  we  find  a  dome  covering  one  of  the 
chapels  (the  south-eastern)  by  which  the  apse  is 
enclosed.  [Church,  p.  370.] 

In  sepulchral  or  memorial  churches,  usually 
circular,  sometimes  polygonal  in  form,  the  dome, 
as  might  be  exjiected,  is  of  frequent  occurrence. 
The  church  of  Sta.  Costanza  is  of  this  class,  and 
there  we  find  the  dome  supported  on  an  interior 
peristyle.  [Church,  p.  371.]  The  “Dome  of  | 
the  Rock  ”  at  Jerusalem,  classed  by  some  autho¬ 
rities  among  memorial  churches,  has  a  dome  sup¬ 
ported  by  four  great  piers.  Other  examples  may 
be  found  in  the  church  of  St.  George  in  Thes- 
salonica,  5th  cent.,  and  the  cathedral  at  Bosrah 
in  the  Hauran,  of  the  date  a.d.  512.  [CiiURCn, 
p.  372.]  ■  I 

The  sepulchral  chapel  built  by  the  empress 
Galla  Placid  ia  at  Ravenna  has  a  tower  enclosing 
a  small  dome.  [Church,  p.  372.]  One  of  the 
most  remarkable  domes  in  the  world  is  that  of 
St.  Sophia,  both  from  its  size  and  from  the  pecu¬ 
liar  manner  in  which  it  is  supported,  not  by 
piers  or  arches  on  every  side  but  upon  two  semi¬ 
domes,  east  and  west,  by  which  means  a  vast  unen¬ 


cumbered  space — 200  ft.  by  100  ft. — is  obtained. 
[Church,  p.  373.]  After  the  time  of  Justinian 
churches  in  the  East  were  almost  exclusively 
built  after  some  modification  of  the  plan  of  St. 
Sophia,  in  which  the  dome  forms  so  important 
a  feature.  The  germ  of  the  nearly  square  ground- 
plan,  with  a  dome  covering  the  centre,  is  perhaps 
to  be  found  in  domed  oratories  or  Kalybes  of 
Syria.  See  woodcut,  p.  347. 

In  the  church  of  St.  Vitalis  at  Ravenna,  built 
between  A.D.  526  and  547,  there  is  a  sort  of 
clerestory,  20  ft.  high,  below  the  dome.  And 
after  the  death  of  Justinian  we  find  this  con¬ 
struction,  in  which  the  dome  itself  is  placed  on 
a  drum  pierced  with  windows,  frequent  in  the 
i  empire.  The  church  of  St.  Clement,  for  in- 
1  stance,  at  Ancyra,  belonging  probably  to  the 
j  latter  part  of  the  6th  and  beginning  of  the  7th 
!  century,  had  such  a  dome  placed  on  a  low  drum. 
The  church  of  St.  Irene,  at  Constantinople  (earlier 
part  of  the  8th  century),  has  the  dome  on  a  drum 
of  great  height ;  and  a  similar  dome  is  found  in 
the  church  of  St.  Nicholas  of  Myra,  which  is 
perhaps  of  more  modern  date.  [Church,  p.  378.] 
The  Duomo  Vecchio  at  Florence,  by  some  assigned 
to  the  7th  century,  by  others  to  a.d.  774,  is 
covered  by  a  dome  65  ft.  in  internal  diameter. 
[Church,  p.  380.]  [C.] 

DOMESTICUS,  “  belonging  to  the  house  or 
household,”  has  several  ecclesiastical  senses  : — 

1.  Domestici  are  all  who  belong  to  the  “  house¬ 
hold  of  faith  ;  ”  “  omnibus  congruus  honor  exhi- 
beatur,  maxime  tamen  domesticis  fidei  ”  (^Regula 
St.  Bencd.  c.  53). 

2.  In  the  East,  the  principal  dignitary  in  a 
church  choir  after  the  Rrotopsaltes.  There  was 


672 


DOMINICA 


D(JMIO 


one  on  each  side  ot  the  choir,  to  lead  the  singers  in 
antiplional  chanting  (Codinus,  he  c.  vi.  §  ?> ; 
Cioar’s  Eucholofj.  pj),  272,  278;  Ducange,  s.  v.)- 

d.  hornesticns  Ostiorum,  6  Ao/xeariKos  tu'V 
OvpcSv,  the  chief  door-keeper  at  Constantinople 
(Codinus,  he  Off.  c.  i.  §  43).  [C.] 

DOiMINICA. 

DO^MINICA,  6(naiJ.r]TT]p,  commemorated  Jan. 
8  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DOIMINE  LABIA.  [Di:us  in  adjutoiuum.] 

DOIMINICALIS  or  -LE.  A  fair  linen  cloth 
used  by  females  at  the  time  of  the  reception  of 
the  Eucharist.  So  far  all  authorities  are  agreed, 
but  it  is  a  controverted  point  whether  it  was  a 
white  veil  worn  over  the  head,  or  a  napkin  in 
which  females  received  the  Eucharist,  which 
thev  were  forbidden  to  touch  with  the  naked 
hand.  [Communion,  Holy,  p.  416.] 

The  latter  view  is  that  which  has  the  greatest 
currency,  and  can  reckon  among  its  supporters 
such  weighty  liturgical  authorities  as  Cardinal 
Bona  (Aer.  Litnrg.  lib.  ii.  c.  17);  Habert  {Archie- 
rat.,  part.  x.  obs.  viii.)  ;  Mabillon  (de  Liturg.  Gall. 
lib.  i.  c.  V.  r.  xxv.)  ;  Macer  {Hiet'olex.,  sub  voc.); 
Voss.  {Tlies.  Iheol.  de  Symbol.  Coen,  horn.),  and 
others.  It  is  chiefly  based  on  two  canons  of 
the  Council  of  Auxerre,  A.D.  578,  one  (can.  36) 
forbidding  women  to  receive  the  Eucharist 
with  the  bare  hand ;  the  other  (can.  42)  enact¬ 
ing  that  every  woman  when  she  communicates 
should  have  her  dominicalis  or  else  postpone 
her  communion.  These  two  canons  are  inter¬ 
preted  to  refer  to  the  same  subject,  and  the 
dominicalis  has  been  thus  identified  with  the 
fair  linen  cloth  with  which  the  hand  was  to  be 
covered  at  the  time  of  communion.  This  custom 
is  exjji'essly  mentioned  in  a  sermon  printed 
among  Augustine’s,  but  erroneously  ascribed  to 
him,  in  which  we  read,  “  omnes  quando  com- 
municare  desiderant  lavent  manus,  et  omnes 
mulieres  nitida  exhibeant  linteamenta  ut  Corpus 
Christi  accipiant.”  It  will  be  observed^  that 
nowhere  is  this  napkin  expressly  called  dominicale. 

The  other  view — that  the  dominicale  was  a 
head-covering,  a  veil  (cf.  1  Cor.  xi.  13)  is  strongly 
supported  by  Ducange  {sub  voce) ;  Labbe  {ad  Con¬ 
di.  Autissiod.')  and  Baluzius  {Not.  in  Gratian. 
cans,  xxxiii.  quaest.  iii.  c.  19),  and  is  accepted  by 
our  own  Bingham  (bk.  xv.  ch.  v.  §  7).  The  pas¬ 
sage  from  an  ancient  MS.  Penitential  given  by 
Ducange,  forbidding  a  woman  to  communicate 
if  she  has  not  her  “  dominicale  ”  on  her  head, 
“si  mulier  communicans  dominicale  suum  super 
caput  suum  non  habuerit,  kc.”  is  express  for 
this  view  if  it  be  correctly  quoted.  The  canons 
cited  by  Baluzius  (aimd  Bingham,  1.  c.)  from  the 
Council  of  Macon,  “  in  which  the  dominicale  is 
expressly  styled  the  veil  which  the  women  wore 
upon  their  heads  at  the  communion,”  do  not 
appear  in  the  acts  of  either  the  first  or  second 
Council  of  that  name.  This,  however  appears 
the  more  probable  view.  [E.  V.] 

DOMINICXJM.  1.  One  of  the  names  of  a 
Church  (q.  v.),  Greek  KopianSv. 

2.  Equivalent  to  KvpiaKhv  heitrvov.  Cyprian, 
Epist.  63;  “Numquid  ergo  hominicum  post 
coenam  celebrare  debemus?”  And  the  martyrs 
in  Africa,  somewhat  later,  were  accused  of  cele¬ 
brating  “collectam  et  Dominicum,”  the  ordinary 


assembly  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  {Acta  Procons. 
Saiuniini,  etc.,  c.  5  ;  compare  cc.  7  and  8).  [C.j 

DOIMINUS  or  DOMNUS.  1.  Equivalent  to 
“Saint”  as  a  title ;  as  “  Dominus  Joannes”  for 
St.  John,  in  Cyprian’s  of  Caesarius  of  Arle.s. 
Sometimes  in  the  form  homrus ;  St.  Martin,  for 
instance,  is  called  “  Domuus  Martinus  ”  in  the 
jireface  and  in  can.  13  of  the  first  council  oi 
Toui’s.  St.  Peter  is  called  “  Domnus  Petrus 
Ajiostolus  ”  {Cone.  Turon.  JT.  c.  23) ;  St.  I^aul, 
“  Domuus  Paulus  Apo.stolus”  (Gregory  of  Tours, 
Hint.  Franc,  ix.  41).  The  Mar  of  the  Chaldaean 
Christians  (as  in  “  Mar  Markos  ”)  is  equivalent 
to  Dominus. 

2.  Bishops  are  called  Domini,  without  any 

further  designation  of  their  episcopal  dignity. 
For  instance,  a  bishop  is  described  by  Gregory 
the  Great  {Epist.  iv.  27)  as  “  Dominus  Mizenatis 
ecclesiae.”  Dominus  in  this  usage  also  is  fre¬ 
quently  shortened  into  Domnns,  as,  for  instance, 
by  Gregory  of  Tours  and  Gregory  the  Great 
(Ducange,  s.  v.).  [C.j 

3.  Domnus  was  at  first  a  title  of  the  abbat 
{Reg.  Benedict.  63),  afterwards  of  his  sub-officials, 
and,  in  the  middle  ages,  of  monks  generally  (Mar- 
tene  ad  loc.  citat.).  The  word  was  applied  to  saints 
(Sulpic.  Sever.,  Epp.  2,  3  ;  Mabill.  Ann.  0.  S.  B. 
xviii.  9),  to  bishops  {Cone.  Aurel.  iii.  Subscr.), 
and  to  the  pope  (Ducange,  Glossar.  Lat.  s.  v.). 
Hence  the  titles,  “  Dan,”  “  Don,”  “  Donna,”  kc. 
in  the  Eomance,  and,  in  modern  French,  “  Dom,” 
for  monks  (Ducange,  Gloss.  Lat.  u.  s.  Alard.  Gaz. 
Praef.  Cassiani  0pp.'). 

“  Domna  ”  was  used  similarly  of  nuns. 

[1.  G.  S.] 

DOMINUS  VOBISCUM.  1.  The  versicle 
Dominus  Vohiscum,  with  the  response,  et  cum 
spiritu  tuo,  is  found  in  the  Gregorian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  immediately  before  the  Sursum  Corda, 
which  introduces  the  Canon. 

In  the  third  of  the  ancient  canons  read  and 
appi’oved  at  the  First  Council  of  Braga,  A.D.  563, 
(Bruns’s  Canones,  ii.  35),  it  is  provided  that 
bishops  and  priests  should  not  greet  the  people 
in  different  ways,  but  that  both  should  use  the 
form  Dominus  sit  vohiscum  (Ruth  ii.  4),  and 
the  people  respond  Et  cum  spirilic  tuo,  the  forn 
handed  down  from  the  very  Apostles,  and  re¬ 
tained  by  the  whole  Eastern  Church.  The  latter 
assertion  does  not  ajqiear  to  be  founded  on  fact, 
for  the  Eastern  Church  has  constantly  used  the 
form  “  Peace  be  with  you  all.”  [Pax  Vobis- 
CUM.]  The  distinction  which  the  canon  notes 
and  forbids  between  the  priest’s  salutation  and 
the  bishop’s,  was  probably  that  the  former  used 
the  form  Domdns  vob'seum,  the  latter,  as  re¬ 
presenting  more  completely  the  Lord  Himself, 
the  form  Pax  vohiscum.  But  see  Krazer,  De 
Liturgiis,  p.  399  f. 

2.  At  Prime,  in  the  Daily  Office,  Dominus 
vohiscum,  with  the  usual  response,  is  .said  before 
the  Collect. 

3.  When  the  Breviarium  Ilipponense  (can.  I, 

al.  6)  orders  “  ut  lectures  populum  non  salutent,” 
the  meaning  probably  is,  that  they  were  not 
permitted  to  use  the  form  commonly  appro¬ 
priated  to  the  higher  orders,  whether  Dominus 
or  Pax  vobiscum.  [C.j 

DOMIO,  bishop  of  Salona  in  Dalmatia,  mar¬ 
tyr,  with  eight  soldiers  ;  commemorated  April 
11  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 


DOMITIANUS 


DOORS  OF  CHURCHES  573 


DOMITIANUS.  (1)  Abbot  of  Lyons;  de¬ 
position  July  1  (^Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Philadelphia  in  Arabia,  with 
five  others ;  commemorated  Aug.  1  (^Mart.  Horn. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Deacon,  and  martyr  at  Ancyra  in  Galatia, 
with  Eutycus  the  presbyter;  commemorated 
Dec.  28  {Mart,  llieron.,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Bishbp  ofMelitene,  circa  a.d.  570;  com¬ 
memorated  Jan.  10  {Cal.  Bijzant.').  [W.  F.  G.] 

DOMITILLA,  viigin,  martyr  at  Terracina 
in  Campania,  under  Domitian  and  Trajan ;  com¬ 
memorated  May  7  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usxiardi)  ;  IMay  12  {Mart,  llieron.^.  [W.  F.  G.j 

DOMITIUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Syria  ;  comme¬ 
morated  July  5  {Mart.  Rum.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(2)  In  Phrygia,  oo-io^xaprus,  under  Julian ;  com- 
memoi’ated  Aug.  7  {Cal.  Bijzant.')  [VV.  F.  G.] 

DOMNINA  or  DOIMNA,  virgin,  martyr 
with  her  virgin  companions  ;  commemorated 
April  14  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DOMNINUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Thessalonica 
with  Victor ;  commemorated  March  30  {Mart. 
Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Julia,  under  Maximian ;  com¬ 
memorated  Oct.  9  (76.)  [W.  F.  G.] 

DOMUS  DEI.  (1)  Literally,  the  church 
as  a  material  building  (Optatus,  c.  Donat,  iii.  17). 
Hence  Ital.  Duomo,  and  Germ.  Dom. 

(2)  The  Church,  as  the  whole  body  of  Chris¬ 
tian  peo])le  (Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  Fro  Athanasio, 
i.  22  ;  Ducange,  s.  v.)  [C.] 

DONA,  DONARIA.  These  words  are  not 
unfrequently  used  by  Cliristian  writers  in  the 
special  sense  of  ofterings  placed  in  churches,  parti¬ 
cularly  costly  presents  given  as  memorials  of 
some  great  mercy  receiv'ed  by  the  offerers  (Jerome, 
Epist.  27,  ad  Eustoch. ;  Ejnst.  13,  ad  Paulin.: 
Sidonius  Apoll.  lib.  iv.  Ep.  18  ;  Paulinus  of  Nola, 
Natal.  S.  Felicis,  6).  The  corresponding  Greek 
word  is  avad-npa  (Luke  xxi.  5  ;  2  Maccab.  ix.  16), 
which  Suidas  detines  as  irav  rh  acpiepwjULet/ou 
0ey.  See,  for  instance,  the  account  of  tbe  otler- 
ings  of  Constantine  to  the  Anastasis  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem  (Euseb.  Vita  Constant,  iii.  25).  [Corona 
Lucis ;  Votive  Offerings.]  [C.] 

DONATA,  of  Scillita,  martyr  at  Carthage 
with  eleven  others;  commemorated  July  17  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi)  [W.  F.  G.] 

DON  ATI.  [OiiLATi.] 

DONATIANUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Nantes 
with  Rogatianus,  his  brother;  commemorated 
May  24  {Mart.  llieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Bishop  and  confessor  in  Africa,  with  Pre- 
sidius,  Mansuetus,  Germanus,  and  Fuscolus, 
under  Hunnericus  ;  commemorated  Sejff.  6  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DONATILLA,  virgin,  martyr  in  Africa, 
with  IMaxima  and  Secunda,  under  Gallienus; 
commemorated  July  30  {Mart.  llieron.,  Rom. 
Vet.,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Garth.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DONATES.  (1)  INlartyr  at  Rome  with 
Aquilinus  and  three  others  ;  commemorated 
Feb.  4  {Mart,  llie/on.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Concordia  with  Secundianus, 
Romulus,  and  eighty-six  others  ;  commemorated 
Feb.  17  {lb.) ; 


(3)  Martyr  at  Carthage  ;  commemorated  Mar. 
l(/6.); 

(4)  Martyr  in  Africa,  with  Epiphanius  tlie 
bishop,  and  others  ;  commemorated  April  7 
{Mart.  Usuardi),  April  6  {Mart.  J Heron.). 

(5)  Martyr  at  Caesarea  in  Cajipadocia,  with 
Polyeuctus  and  Victorius;  commemorated  May 
21  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi), 

(6)  Bishop  and  martyr  at  Aretium  in  Tuscany 
under  Julian  ;  commemorated  Aug.  7  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  llieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(7)  The  presbyter  and  anchorite  in  a  district 
on  Mount  Jura,  in  Belgic  Gaul  ;  commemorated 
Aug.  19  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(8)  Martyr  at  Antioch,  with  Restitutus,  Vale- 
rianus,  Fructuosa,  and  twelve  others ;  comme¬ 
morated  Aug.  23  (76.). 

(9)  Martyr  at  Capua,  with  Quintus  and  Arc6n- 
tius ;  commemorated  Sept.  5  {Mart,  llieron., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(10)  Martyr  with  Hermogenes  and  twenty- 

two  others  ;  commemorated  Dec.  12  {Mart. 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DOOR  (as  Svmbol).  See  St.  John  x.  9.  It 
seems  most  probable  that  in  the  various  repre¬ 
sentations  of  sheep  leaving  or  entering  their  fold 
or  house,  and  so  representing  the  Jewish  or  Gen¬ 
tile  Church  [Bethlehem  ;  Church],  the  door 
may  be  intended  to  recall  the  words  “  I  am  the 
door,”  to  the  spectator’s  mind.  In  Allegranza, 
Mon.  di  Milano,  ^c.,  tav.  ii,,  the  door  is  seen 
five  times  repeated,  evidently  with  this  sym¬ 
bolic  reference,  and  on  the  porch  or  tympanum 
of  the  old  basilica  of  St.  Aquilinus  in  the  same 
city  the  following  verses  occur : — 

“  Janua  sum  vitae;  precor  onincs  intro  ve’iit'*; 

Per  me  transibunt  qui  cocli  gaudia  qua.  nn.t : 
Virgine  qui  natus,  nullo  de  pane  cicatus, 

Intrantes  salvet,  redeuntes  ipse  gubernet.” 

Lupi,  Diss.  e  Lett.  i.  p.  262  gives  a  bas-relief 
in  gilded  bronze,  which  contains  a  gate  or  door, 
with  the  Lamb  under  it  bearing  the  Cross,  and 
the  words  “  Ego  sum  ostium,  et  ovile  ovi- 
um.”  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DOORS  OF  CHURCHES.  {Januae, 

portae,  valvae  ;  dupa],  nvAai.) 

1.  The  principal  outer  doors  of  a  church  seem 
to  have  been  in  ancient  times  at  the  west,  if  the 
church  was  so  built  that  the  altar  was  at  the 
east  end,  or  at  any  rate  in  the  end  facing  the 
altar.  In  a  basilican  church  of  three  aisles  there 
were  for  the  most  part  three  western  doors  : 

“  Alma  domus  triplid  patet  ingn  dientibus  arcu.” 

J’aulinus  of  Noia,  J:p.  ;i‘2,  ad  Sec. 

In  Constantine’s  great  “  Church  of  the  Sa¬ 
viour  ”  at  Jerusalem,  the  three  doors  faced  the 
east  [Church,  p.  369].  At  these  doors  stood 
during  service  the  “weepers”  {irpoaKXa'iovTes). 
j  If  there  was  a  Narthex,  the  western  doors 
I  gave  entrance  into  this,  and  other  doors  again 
!  from  the  narthex  into  the  nave.  The  nave  was 
j  sometimes  again  itself  divided  into  chorus  and 
I  trajieza — the  portions  for  the  clerics  and  the 
I  peojde  respectively — by  a  screen  or  jiartition 
j  having  doors;  but  more  freiiuently  tho.se  who 
entered  by  the  western  doors  saw  before  them  at 
once  the  Iconostasis,  or  screen  enclosing  the 
sanctuary,  with  its  three  doors. 

2.  The  doors  in  the  Iconostasis  were  known 
generally  as  KayKfWodvoibes,  Troproi  toD  ay'iov 


674 


DOORKEEPERS 


DORMITORY 


^T]fi.aTos the  side  doors  distinctively  as  vXdyiai 
or  trapairSpria.  The  central  doors  were  called  the 
“  Holy  Doors  ”  (dyiai  6vpai)  and  sometimes  the 
“  Royal  Doors  ”  (0arrt\£Kat  dvpai). 

3.  The  great  western  doors  of  the  nave  were 
called  the  “Royal  Gates”  (^aaiXiKal  irvXai); 
and  this  term  was  also  adoj)ted  by  Latin  writers, 
so  that  “  regiae  ”  came  to  be  used  substantively 
for  these  doors.  Anastasius,  for  instance,  says 
(Vitae  Pontiff,  c.  119)  that  pope  Honorius  (a.d. 
626-638)  covered  with  silver  plates  the  great 
royal — the  so-called  “Median” — doors  at  the 
entrance  of  a  church  (regias  in  ingressu  ecclesiae 
majores,  quae  aiipellantur  medianae).  When  the 
church  had  a  narthex,  the  western  doors  of  this 
were  also  sometimes  called  the  “  royal  ”  gates. 

4.  The  great  church  of  St.  Sophia  at  Constan¬ 
tinople  had  nine  dooi’s  between  the  narthex  and 
the  nave.  As  these  were  covered  with  silver, 
not  only  were  they  called  the  “  Silver  Doors,” 
but  the  same  term  came  to  designate  the  doors 
of  other  churches  which  occupied  the  same 
position. 

5.  Another  term,  the  application  of  which 
cannot  be  absolutejly  determined,  is  the  “  Beauti¬ 
ful  Gates”  (wpaiai  irvXai).  These  have  been 
supposed  to  be  the  gates  which  separate  chorus 
and  trapeza  (Goar) ;  those  which  separate  nave 
from  narthex  (Ducange)  ;  or  the  outer  gate  of 
the  narthex  (Neale).  The  latter  application  is 
supported  by  tlie  fact  that  the  term  is  taken 
from  the  “Beautiful  Gate”  of  the  temple,  un¬ 
doubtedly  an  outer  gate. 

6.  The  “  Angelic  Gate  ”  (dyyeXiK^  ttuAtj)  was 
one  which  allowed  a  person  to  enter  the  tivapeza, 
so  as  to  draw  near  the  choir.  Nothing  farther 
is  known  of  it.  It  is  not  improbable  that  it  was 
a  local  term. 

7.  The  word  dvpd  is  consistently  used  to  de¬ 
signate  a  door  within  the  building,  and  the  word 
ttuAtj  to  designate  the  much  larger  “gates” 
which  admitted  the  mass  of  the  congregation 
from  without  into  the  narthex  or  the  nave. 
Epithets  like  “royal  ”  “and  beautiful”  are  per¬ 
haps  not  used  invariably  with  a  special  meaning, 
but  the  “  Holy  Doors  ”  are  always  the  central 
doors  of  the  Bema,  and  no  other. 

8.  The  Holy  Doors  were  opened  at  the  com¬ 
mencement  of  the  Great  Vespers,  at  all  “en¬ 
trances,”  whether  at  Vespers  or  in  the  Liturgy  ; 
and  at  the  end  of  the  Liturgy,  when  the  people 
are  invited  to  approach  for  the  purpose  of  com¬ 
municating  (Neale,  Eastern  Churchy  IntroJ.  pp. 
194-200). 

9.  The  doors  of  churches  were  frequently  of 
rich  material  and  workmanship.  The  outer 
door's  of  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople  were  of 
bronze,  with  ornaments  in  relief  [CilURCii,  p. 
374];  and  those  of  the  Iconostasis,  as  well  as 
those  between  the  narthex  and  the  nave,  of 
silver.  And  elsewhere,  as  not  unfrequently  in 
the  Liber  Pontffcaiis,  we  read  of  doors  of  metal 
gilt,  or  of  wood  richly  inlaid  or  carved.  [C.] 

DOORKEEP KRS  (trvXcopol,  Oupwpol,  Ostiarii\ 
an  inferior  order  of  clergy  mentioned  by  the 
Pseudo-Ignatius  (Epist.  Antioch.'),  by  Eusebius 
(//.  E.  vi.  43),  and  by  Justinian  (Novell,  iii.  1). 
There  is  no  mention  of  them  in  Tortullian  or 
Cyprian,  from  which  Thomassin  ( Vet.  et  Nov. 
Eccl.  Discip.  i.  1.  2,  c.  30,  §  8)  infers  that  in 
the  early  African  church  their  duties  wore 


dischargjd  by  the  laity.  The  council  of  Lao- 
dicea  (c.  24),  speaks  of  them  among  the  inferior 
orders  of  clergy.  At  the  ordination  cf  a  door¬ 
keeper,  after  previous  instruction  by  the  arch¬ 
deacon  he  was  presented  to  the  bishop  who  de¬ 
livered  to  him  the  keys  of  the  church,  with  the 
injunction  to  act  as  one  who  must  render  to 
God  an  account  of  the  things  which  are  opened 
by  those  keys  (iv.  Cone.  Carth.  c.  9).  The  4th 
council  of  Toledo  (c.  4)  provides  that  a  door¬ 
keeper  should  keep  the  door  of  the  church  at 
the  opening  of  councils.  In  the  2nd  canon  of 
another  council  of  Toledo,  held  A.D.  597,  it  is 
ordered  that  a  doorkeeper  should  be  appointed 
by  the  priest  to  pi'ov'ide  for  the  cleansing  and 
lighting  of  the  church  and  sanctuary  (Bruns’s 
Canones,  i.  220).  In  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
(ii.  25)  they  are  spoken  of  as  belonging  to  that 
portion  of  the  clergy  which  represents  the  Le- 
vites,  but  in  the  lowest  grade.  Their  share  of 
the  Agapae  was  the  same  as  that  of  a  Lector  or 
Cantor  (Ibid.  ii.  28);  there  is  no  mention  of 
their  ordination,  and  they  are  named  among  the 
clergy  who  were  not  permitted  to  baptize  (tbid. 
iii.  11).  They  were  to  stand  during  the  time  of 
service  at  the  door  of  the  part  of  the  church 
allotted  to  the  men  (Ibid.  ii.  57).  Thev  were 
allowed  to  marry  (Ibid.  vi.  17).  [P.  0.] 

DORIA,  martyr  with  Chrysanthus,  under 
Numerian  ;  commemorated  March  19  (Cal.  By- 
zant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DORMITIO  (KolfiTjcris),  the  “falling  asleep,” 
used  to  describe  the  state  of  those  who  “  depart 
hence  in  the  Lord  ”  (Cyprian,  Epist.  i.  c.  2). 
More  especially  it  is  used  to  designate  the  day 
of  the  departure  or  “Assumption  ”  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  [Mary,  Festivals  of]  ;  Xanthopulus,  for 
instance  (quoted  by  Ducange,  s.  v.  Eormitio), 
uses  the  expi'ession,  Kolp-qaiv  dyvys,  tt)v  perd- 
(TTacTiv  Xiyoj.  See  Daniel’s  Cudex  Liturg.,  iv.  239  ; 
and  Menard’s  Sacram.  Greg.,  pp.  411,  707.  [C.] 

DORMITORIUM.  A  garment  for  sleeping 
in;  the  “lebiton  linens”  of  Pachomius  (Vita, 
c.  22).  The  gloss  on  the  Pule  of  St.  Benedict 
explains  Dormitoria  by  the  Greek  woi'd  iyuol 
prjOpa  (Ducange,  s.v.).  [C.] 

DORMITORY  (Dormitorium).  It  was  the 
primitive  custom  for  monks  to  sleep  all  together 
in  one  large  dormitory  (Alteser.  Asceticon,  ix.  8). 
Not  till  the  14th  century  (Ducange,  Glossar.  Lot. 
s.  V.)  was  the  custom  introduced  of  using  separate 
sleeping  cells.  By  the  rule  of  Benedict  all  were 
to  sleep  in  one  room,  if  possible  (Boned.  Peg.  c. 
22)  with  the  abbat  in  their  midst  (cf.  Magistr. 
Peg.  c.  29 ;  Bened.  Peg.  c.  22)  or  in  larger  mo¬ 
nasteries  ten  or  twenty  together  with  a  dean 
(Bened.  Peg.  ib. ;  cf.  Caesar.  Arelat.  Peg.  ad  Afo- 
nach.  c.  3  ;  Peg.  ad  Virg.  c.  7  ;  Aureol.  Peg.  c.  6  ; 
Ferreol.  Peg.  cc.  16,  33).  Only  the  aged,  the  in¬ 
firm,  the  excommunicated  were  excepted  from 
this  arrangement  (Cujusd.  Reg.  c.  13).  Each  monk 
was  to  have  a  separate  bed  (Bened.  Peg.  v.  s. ; 
Caesar.  Arelat.  Peq.  v.  s. :  Fructuos.  Peg.  c.  17). 
They  wei'e  to  sleep  clothed  and  girded  (Bened. 
Peg.  V.  s. ;  Mag.  Peg.  c.  11 ;  Cujusd.  Peg.  v.  s.), 
tlie  founder  probably  intending  that  the  monk 
should  sleep  in  one  of  the  two  suits  ordered  by 
his  rule  (Bened.  Peg.  c.  55);  but  in  course  of 
time  the  words  were  loosely  interpreted  as 
meaning  only  the  woollen  tunic  (Marten,  ad  loc. 


DORONA 


DOVE 


oi'cat.')  It  was  particularly  enjoined,  puerile  as 
the  caution  sounds,  by  Benedict  and  others,  that 
the  monks  were  not  to  wear  their  knives  in  bed 
(Bened.  Reg.  c.  22  :  Magist.  Reg.  c.  11).  A  light 
was  to  be  kept  burning  in  the  dormitory  all 
night  (Bened.  Reg.  v.  s. ;  Mag.  Reg.  c.  29 ; 
Cujusd.  Reg.  v.  s.).  All  the  monks  were  to  rise 
at  a  given  signal  {Regg.  Monast.  passim).  The 
dormitory  was  to  be  ke])t  under  lock  and  key 
till  morning  (Mart,  ad  bened.  Reg.  c.  48).  The 
sleeping-room  for  stranger  monks  was  usually 
close  to  the  great  dormitory,  and  not  far  from  the 
chapel  (jNIart.  ad  Bened.  Reg.  c.  53 :  cf.  Capitul. 
Aquisgr.  68). 

In  the  first  fervor  of  monastic  zeal  it  was  a 
common  practice  to  sleep  on  the  bare  ground 
(xajaeui/to  ;  cf.  Altes.  Ascet.  ix.  8  ;  Vit.  St.  Anton. 
c.  6 ;  Theodoret,  Philoth.  1,  &c.).  Others  slept 
on  mats  (ipiadia,  mattae,  stramenta ;  Cassian. 
Collat.  \.  23 ;  .xviii.  11;  Ruffin.  Verb.  Senior,  ii. 
29,  125);  frequently  these  were  made  by  them¬ 
selves  (  Vit.  Fachom.  43),  and  Augustine  speaks 
of  some  strict  Manicheans  as  “mattarii”  (Cont. 
Faustin.  v.  5).  The  rule  of  Benedict  allows 
mattress  (sagutn),  coverlet  (laena  or  Una'),  and 
pillow  (capitate,  v.  s.);  but  in  Egypt  the  mat¬ 
tress  was  considered  a  luxury  in  the  4th  century, 
not  permissible  except  for  guests  (Cass.  Coll. 
xix.  6).  Some  of  the  monks  ofTabenna  slept 
in  their  tunics,  half  sitting,  half  lying  ( Vita 
Pachoinii,  c.  14,  in  Rosweyd’s  Vit.  Pair.). 

The  time  allow'ed  for  sleep  was  for  Egyptian 
monks?  in  the  commencement  of  monachism  very 
short  indeed  (Cass.  Instit.  v.  20 ;  Coll.  xii.  15, 
xiii.  0).  Arsenius  is  said  to  have  contented  him¬ 
self  with  one  hour  only.  Ruffinus  speaks  of 
others  who  allowed  themselves  four  hours  in  the 
night  for  sleep,  assigning  four  for  prayer,  four 
for  work  (Verb.  Sen.  c.  199).  Even  Benedict, 
though  far  more  tolerant,  forbad  his  disciples  to 
retire  to  rest  again  after  nocturns  {Reg.  c.  8  ;  cf. 
Cass.  Instit.  ii.  12).  But  the  rule  was  not  adhered 
to  strictly  (Marten,  ad  Bened.  Reg.  1.  c.). 

The  rules  of  the  canonic!  in  the  8th  and  9th 
century  were  very  similar  to  those  of  the  monks. 
Chrodegang  ordered  all  to  sleep  in  one  chamber, 
unless  with  the  bishop’s  licence  (Reg.  c.  3). 
This  w’as  enforced  on  the  canonic!  in  their 
monasteries  and  on  those  dwelling  under  the 
bishop’s  roof,  by  the  council  of  Tours,  813  a.d. 
(Cone.  Turon.  iii.  cc.  23,  24).  The  council  at 
Aachen,  three  years  later,  oi’dered  bishops  to  see 
that  the  canonic!  slept  in  one  dormitory  (Cone. 
Aquisgr.  cc.  11,  123);  and  in  its  second  session 
repeated  the  decree  of  the  council  at  Chalons 
813  A.  D.,  that  all  nuns,  except  the  sick  and  in¬ 
firm,  should  sleep  in  one  dormitory  on  separate 
beds  (Cone.  Cabill.  c.  59,  cf.  Cone.  Mogunt.  813 
A.D.,  c.  9,  cf.  Cone.  Turon.  ii.  567  A.D.,  c.  14). 
Grimlaic,  in  his  rule  for  solitaries,  orders  that 
no  fancy  work  is  to  be  allowed  on  the  coverlets. 

[I.  G.  S.] 

DORONA,  “  Indus  et  Dorona,”  commemo¬ 
rated  Dec.  19  (Cal.  Armen.)  [W.  G.] 

DOROTHEA,  virgin,  martyr  with  Theophi- 
lus  at  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia;  commemorated 
Feb.  6  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

DOROTHEUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Tarsus  in 
Cilicia,  with  Castor ;  commemorated  Mar.  28 
(Mart.  Usuardi). 


575 

(2)  Bishop  of  Tyre,  martyr  under  Julian 
commemorated  June  5  (Cal.  Byzunt.). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Nicomedia,  with  Gorgonius, 

under  Diocletian  ;  commemorated  Sept.  9  (Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DORYMEDON,  martyr  with  Trophimus 
and  Sabbatius,  a.d.  278  ;  commemorated  Sept.  19 
(Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DOSSAL  (Dorsale,  dorsile  pallium).  A  cur¬ 
tain  hung  on  the  walls  of  the  choir  of  a  church, 
or  other  place  of  dignity,  behind  the  stalls  of  the 
clerks,  “a  dorso  clericorurn  ”  (Durandus,  Ra¬ 
tionale,  I.  iii.  23).  “Cortina  quae  pendet  ad 
dorsum  ”  (The  Monk  of  St.  Gall,  Vita  Car.  Mag. 
i.  4).  Ekkehard  the  younger  (De  Casibus  S.  Galli, 
c.  1),  speaks  of  a  place  decked  “  tapeto  et  dor- 
sili  ”  (Ducange,  s.  v.).  [C.] 

DOTALIA  INSTRUMENTA.  [Contract 
OF  Marriage,  p.  458.] 

DOVE  (as  Symbol).  Like  the  mystic  fish 
and  lamb,  the  dove  has  more  than  one  meaning 
or  ti*ain  of  meaning :  it  is  used  svmbolically  for 
the  Divine  Being  and  for  the  Christian  wor  • 
shipper;  and  is  also  represented  simply  in  its 
own  form  on  graves  and  the  walls  of  cata¬ 
combs.  It  is  used  very  frequently  (see  wood- 
cut)  with  Noah  in  the  ark,  in  the  literal  sense ; 
and  in  all  representations  of  the  Lord’s  baptism 


Fresco  in  the  Catacomb  of  Domitilla,  probably  secSond  centnry. 

and  elsewhere,  the  dove  indicates  the  presence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  one  instance,  an  Orante 
surrounded  by  several  doves  is  opposed  on  one 
medallion  of  the  front  of  a  sarcophagus  to  the 
Good  Shepherd  with  His  sheep  on  another. 


576 


DOVE 


DOVE 


This  use  of  the  dove  is  very  frequent  in  the 
iTionuiuoiits  of  Southern  Gaul  5  where,  as  in 
the  catacombs,  the  birds  which  stand  on  each 
side  of  the  monosiranis  or  crosses  are  often  clearly 
intended  for  doves.  See  Leblant, //iscr.  divsticnncs  ■, 
dc  1(1  Guule  ciutei'icui’cs  ciu  huitictnc  laiis, 

185G. 

As  an  emblem  of  the  Third  Person  of  the 
Trinity,  the  car.ved  or  painted  figure  of  the  dove 
appeared  from  a  very  early  period  in  all  bap¬ 
tisteries  (see  Luke  iii.  24-).  One  of  the  earliest 
examples  of  this  is  the  baptistery  in  the  ceme¬ 
tery  of  St.  Pontianus  (Aringhi,  ii.  275).  The 
painting,  though  considered  by  Martigny  as  of 
later  date  than  the  building,  is  referred  by  him 
to  the  6th  century,  and  represents  the  Lord’s 


Raptlsmal  Dove.  Oatiux)nib  of  roiitianns  ;  seventh  century. 


thought.  One  is  ^latt.  x.  16,  “  Be  ye  wise  as 
serpents  and  harmless  as  doves the  other, 
Ps.  Iv.  6,  “  0  that  1  had  wings  like  a  dove,  then 
would  I  flee  away  and  be  at  rest.”  The  passages 
in  Cant.  i.  15,  ii.  14,  v.  2,  vi.  9,  refer  to  the 
Church,  and  therefore  may  be  taken  as  referring 
simply  to  all  faithful  souls.  Martigny  give.^  a 
drawing  of  a  seal  with  a  dove  in  the  centre, 
surrounded  by  the  words  “  Veni  si  amas,” 
obvious  reference  to  Cant.  ii.  10.  The  dove 
with  the  olive  or  palm-branch,  which  so 
often  accompanies  it,  is  held  equivalent  to 
the  form  “In  Pace.”  As  with  other  birds,  the 
flying  or  caged  dove  has  reference  to  the  de¬ 
liverance  of  the  soul  from  the  fle.sh  in  death, 
or  to  its  imprisoned  state  in  life.  [See  Bird.] 
Aringhi  quotes  St.  Ambrose’s  sermon  on  St.  Euse¬ 
bius,  “  Altiora  facilius  penetrantur  simplicitate 
mentis,  quam  levitate  pennarum and  St.  Au¬ 
gustine  on  St.  Matt.  x.  to  the  .same  purpose. 
In  Aringhi,  ii.  p.  145,  the  dove  is  a.ssociated  with 
the  peacock;  also,  p.  139,  in  a  vault  of  the 
Catacomb  of  St.  Priscilla.  In  Bottari,  tav.  181, 
it  hovers  with  the  olive-branch  above  the  three 
holy  children  in  the  flames. 

Twelve  doves,  representing  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
occur  in  Bottari,  i.  p.  118,  on  a  mosaic  crucifix. 
See  also  Paulinus  of  Nola(A7/>.  ad  Severum,  xx.^ii. 
c.  10).  He  thus  describes  a  mosaic  (musivum 
opus)  in  his  church.  [Cross.] 


baptism  in  Jordan.  The  rude  and  grim  figures 
in  this  painting  remind  us  of  those  of  the  Lau- 
I'entine  and  other  very  early  MSS.  The  sym¬ 
metrical  arrangement  is  also  like  early  Byzantine 
work,  so  called  ;  and  the  river  is  a  winding  trench, 
with  a  curious  tyjiical  resemblance  to  the  actual 
course  of  Jordan,  which  induces  us  to  think  the 
jiainter  had  visited  it.  So  also  in  both  bap¬ 
tisteries  at  Ravenna.  The  mosaic  of  St.  Mark’s 
preserves  this  likeness,  with  the  addition  of  three 
adoring  angels,  a  star  above  the  dove,  fish  in  the 
river,  and  the  double  axe  laid  to  the  root  of  a 
tree.  This  imagery  is  strictly  followed  in  the 
wild  and  powerful  painting  of  Tintoret,  in  the 
Scuola  di  S.  Rocco,  now  scarcely  intelligible 
(Ruskin,  Modern  Pauders,  vol.  ii.).  The  Turin 
miniature  is  remarkable  for  its  topographical 
‘accuracy  as  to  two  of  the  sources  of  Jordan, 

labelled  re.spectively  ^0  T^s  y  and 


^or]S  p. 


Martigny  also  mentions 


figures  of  doves  on  a  font  or  laver  of  very  early 
date  belonginsr  to  the  church  of  Gondrecourt 
(^Pevue  Arche'ologique,  v.  i.  p.  129),  where  how¬ 
ever  only  birds  are  said  to  be  drinking  from 
vases,  and  pecking  at  grapes.  See  also  Pa- 
ciaudi,  De  Cultii  S.  Joannis  Baptistae,  pp.  58, 
69,  where  copies  of  a  miniature  from  a  MS.  in 
the  Royal  Library  at  Turin,  and  of  a  mosaic  in 
St.  Mark’s  in  Venice,  are  given,  both  containing 
the  dove.  A  golden  or  silver  dove  w'as  often 
suspended  above  the  font  in  early  times.  [Dove, 
THE  Eucharistic.]  These  sometimes  con¬ 
tained  the  anointing  oil  used  in  baptism,  and 
extreme  unction  (Martigny,  s.  v. ;  and  Aringhi, 
vol.  ii.  p.  326,  c.  5).  On  lamps  in  form  of  doves, 
see  Aringhi,  ii.  325,  1. 

As  a  svnibol  of  the  believer,  the  dove  of 
course  has  chief  reference  to  two  texts  of  H.  S., 
belonging  to  different  yet  harmonious  trains  of 


“  rieno  coruscat  Trinitas  mysterio : 

Stat  Christus  agno :  vox  Patris  coelo  tonat : 

Et  per  colunibam  Spiritus  Sanctus  fluit. 

Crucem  corona  lucido  cingit  globo  ; 

Ciii  coronae  sunt  corona  apostoli, 

Quorum  figura  est  in  columbarum  choro. 

Pia  Trinitatis  unitas  Christo  coit, 

Habente  et  ipsa  Trinitate  insignia; 

Duin  revelat  vox  paterna,  et  Spiritus : 

Sauctam  fatentur  crux  et  agnus  victimam. 

Eegnum  et  triumphum  purpura  et  palina  indicant 
Petram  superstat  ipsa  petru  ecclesiae, 

De  qua  sonori  quatuor  fontes  meant, 

Evangelistae,  viva  Christi  flumina.’  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DOVE,  THE  Eucharistic.  Pyxes  or  recep¬ 
tacles  for  the  reserved  host  were  not  unfre- 
quently  made  of  gold  or  silver  in  the  shape  of  a 
dove,  and  suspended  over  the  altar.  Doves  ol 
the  precious  metals,  emblematic  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  Avere  also  suspended  above  the  font  in 
early  churches.  In  the  life  of  St.  Basil  by  the 
Pseudo-Amphilochius,  it  is  narrated  that  that 
father,  after  a  vision  that  appeared  to  him  while 
celebrating  the  Eucharist,  divided  the  wafer  into 
three  parts,  one  of  which  he  partook  of  with  great 
awe,  the  second  he  preserved  to  be  buried  with 
him,  and  placed  the  third  in  a  golden  dove  hang¬ 
ing  over  the  altar.  He  afterwards  sent  for  a 
goldsmith,  and  had  a  new  golden  dove  made  to 
contain  the  sacred  morsel  (Amphiloch.  Vit.  Basil., 
c.  6). 

One  of  the  charges  brought  against  the  Ace- 
phalian  heretic  Severus  by  the  clergy  of  Antioch 
at  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  536,  was 
that  he  removed  and  appropriated  to  his  own 
use  the  gold  and  silver  doves  hanging  over  the 
sacred  fonts  and  altars,  apyvpas 

wepirrepas  Kpep-ap-^vas  virepavu  tcou  QPiwv  ko- 
\vp.^r}dpc!>u  Kai  Bv(na(TTTipiwv  ....  i<T(p€T€p'iaaTO 

(Labbe',  Concil.  v.  159). 

Such  doves  are  mentioned  by  Anastasius  in  the 
Liber  Pontijicalis,  e.g.,  St.  Hilar.  70,  “columbam 


DOWRY 


DOXOLOGY 


577 


ani'eam  pensau.  libras  21 Cf.  Ducange,  suh  voc. : 
Durantus,  De  Jiitibus,  lib.  i.  c.  xvi.  §5;  Paulia. 
Rolan.  JCp.  xxxii.  Not.  154,  p.  910.  [E.  V.J 

DOWRY.  [Arriiae  :  Marriage.] 

DOXOIiOGY  (Ao^o\oyla).  The  term  doxo- 
logy  is  usually  confined  (1)  to  the  “Gloria  in 
Excelsis,”' which  is  called  the  greater  doxology, 
and  also  the  Angelical  Hymn,  from  its  opening 
clause  recorded  by  St.  Luke  as  having  been  sung 
bv  the  angels  who  announced  the  birth  of  Christ 
to  the  shepherds  ;  and  (2)  to  the  “  Gloria  Patri,” 
which  is  called  the  lesser  doxology.  The  term 
is,  however,  sometimes  given  to  the  “Trisagion” 
(Holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord  God  of  Hosts,  heaven 
and  earth  are  Aill  of  Thy  glory),  called  also 
the  Sera])hic  hymn,  in  reference  to  the  vision  of 
the  Serajihim  described  by  Isaiah  (c.  vi.) ;  and 
also  to  the  word  Alleluia  (q.  v.),  when  repeated 
again  and  again  as  a  hymn  of  praise. 

The  exact  p<^riods  of  the  origin  of  these  dox- 
ologies  are  unknown,  owing  to  the  extreme 
scantiness  of  early  Christian  literature.  But  it 
may  be  safely  ('’onjectured  that,  in  their  earliest 
forms,  they  came  into  use  soon  after  that  circu¬ 
lation  of  the  GTispel  narratives  which  must  have 
quickly  become  general  among  Christians  in  pro¬ 
portion  to  the  cultivation  of  each  local  church, 
and  its  means  for  communicating  with  the  gene¬ 
ral  body  of  believers.  The  extent  and  rapidity 
of  this  circulation  being  involved  in  extreme 
obscurity,  so  far  as  contemporary  history  informs 
us,  the  positiveness  with  which  later  writers 
have  spoken  of  the  almost  Apostolic  origin  ot 
these  hymns  must  be  set  down  amongst  those 
numerous  assumptions  which  have  clouded  our 
real  knowledge  of  judmitive  Christian  life  and 
devotions.  •  The  “  Trisagion  ”  in  all  probability 
is  the  most  ancient  of  all,  as  it  would  be  the 
natural  expression  of  the  adoration  of  the  Jewish 
Christians,  who  were  already  in  possession  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  who  would  have  been 
familiar  with  the  book  of  Isaiah  before  their 
conversion  to  Christianity.  The  use  of  the 
“  Gloria  in  Excelsis,”  which  originally  consisted 
only  of  its  ojjening  sentence,  would  be  equally 
natural,  wherever  the  narrative  of  St.  Luke  was 
known  ;  and  the  “  Gloria  Patri,”  which  origi¬ 
nally  consisted  only  of  its  first  clause,  would  be 
the  result  of  a  familiarity  with  the  last  verses 
of  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel. 

The  “Gloria  in  Excelsis”  is  unquestionably 
of  Eastern  origin.  Liturgical  speculators,  in¬ 
deed,  have  ineeniously  discovered  a  reference  to 
its  existence  in  very  early  writers.  It  has  been 
frequently  assumed  that  it  was  in  fact  “  the 
hymn,”  which  Christians  sang  on  all  solemn 
occasions,  including  such  as  are  referred  to*  in 
Acts  xvi.  25;  1  Cor.  xiv.  26;  and  Col.  iii.  16. 
When  the  author  of  the  dialogue  attributed  to 
Lucian  speaks  of  the  Christians  as  watching 
all  night  for  the  purpose  of  singing  hymns, 
it  is  supposed  that  their  chief  song  was  the 
“  Gloria  in  Excelsis.”  It  is  also  held  to  have 
been  specially  re  .'erred  to  in  the  famous  passage 
U)  Pliny’s  letter  to  Trajan:  “  Affirmabant  haiic 
fuisse  summam  vel  culpae  suae,  vel  erroris,  quod 
essent  soliti  stato  die  ante  lucem  convenire,  car- 
menque  Christo  quasi  Deo  dicere  secum  invicem.” 
In  reality,  however,  we  first  meet  with  this 
doxology,  and  in  something  very  like  its  final 
form,  in  the  book  known  as  The  Apostolical 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


Consiitufions  (vii.  47).  It  is  there  described  as 
the  “morning  prayer,”  and  stands  as  follows: 

“  Glory  be  to  God  on  high,  and  on  earth  j)eace. 
good  will  towards  men  (e’v  apdpcoirois  euSoKi'a). 
We  praise  Thee,  we  sing  to  Thee  (a/x^'o^'/xeV  ce), 
we  bless  Thee,  we  glorify  Thee,  w'e  worshij)  d'hee, 
through  the  great  High  Priest;  Thee  the  true 
God,  the  only  unbegotten,  whom  no  one  can 
approach  for  the  great  glory.  0  Lord,  heavenly 
king,  God  the  Father  Almighty,  Lord  God,  the 
Father  of  Christ,  the  Lamb  without  s])ot,  who 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,  receive  our 
prayer,  thou  that  sittest  upon  the  Cherubim  ! 
For  thou  only  art  holy,  thou  only.  Lord  Jesus, 
the  Christ  of  God,  the  God  of  every  created 
being,  and  our  king ;  by  whom  unto  Thee  be 
glory,  honour,  and  adoration.”  Unfortunately, 
the  writer  of  the  Constitutions  was  not  exempt 
from  the  spirit  of  falsification,  wdiich  was  by  no 
means  rare  among  early  religious  writers.  As 
it  is  impossible  to  believe  him  when  he  attributes 
a  liturgy  of  palpably  Oriental  character  to  St. 
Clement,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  in  this  record 
of  the  great  doxology  he  has  not  made  alterations 
or  interpolations  of  his  own.  In  the  mention  of 
the  doxology  in  the  treatise  De  Virginitote  (in 
Athanasius’s  Works')  only  the  beginning  is  quoted, 
and  even  here  it  is  not  identical  with  that  given 
by  the  author  of  the  Constitutions.  Giving  direc¬ 
tions  to  the  virgins  for  their  morning  devotions, 
Athanasius  says,  “  Early  in  the  morning  say  this 
Psalm,  ‘0  God,' my  God,  early  will  I  wake  to 
Thee.’  When  it  is  light,  say,  ‘Bless  ye  the 
Lord,  all  ye  works  of  the  Lord,’  and  ‘  Glory  to 
God  in  the  highest,  and  peace  on  earth,  goodwill 
towards  men.  We  sing  to  Thee,  we  bless  Thee, 
we  worship  Thee,’  and  the  rest  (of  the  hymn)” 
(c.  20 ;  tom.  2,  p.  120,  ed.  Benedict.). 

St.  Chrysostom,  on  the  other  hand,  in  de¬ 
scribing  the  morning  devotions  of  those  who  led  ( 
an  austere  life,  says  that  they  sang,  as  the  angels 
did  “Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth 
peace,  goodwill  towards  men  ” ;  making  no  men¬ 
tion  of  the  subsequent  additions  {Horn.  69  in 
Matth.).  How  soon  the  use  of  the  com])lete  hymn 
became  general  in  the  Western  Church  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  say.  The  4th  council  of  Toledo,  a.d. 
633,  treats  of  it  in  its  completeness,  defends  it,  as 
such,  against  certain  rigorists  who  objected  to 
its  repetition  on  the  ground  that  only  its  first 
sentence  was  of  divine  origin.  “  For  the  same 
reason,”  said  the  fathers  of  the  council  (can.  13), 

“  they  might  have  rejected  the  le.sser  doxology, 

‘  Glory  and  honour  be  to  the  b'ather,  and  to  the 
Son,  and  to  the,.  Holy  Ghost,’  which  was  com¬ 
posed  by  men ;  and  also  this  greater  doxology, 
{)art  of  which  was  sung  by  the  angels  at  our 
Saviour’s  birth  ;  ‘  Glory  be  to  God  on  high,  and 
on  earth  peace  to  men  of  goodwill  ;’  but  the 
rest  that  follows  was  composed  and  addt!d  to  it 
by  the  doctors  of  the  Church.” 

The  period  at  which  this  doxology  was  gene¬ 
rally'  introduced  into  the  eucharistic  office  in  the 
West  is  entirely'  a  matter  of  conjecture.  There 
is  no  foundation  for  the  common  idea  that  it 
formed  a  portion  of  the  early  liturgies.  Justin 
Martyr  (^Apol.  i.  c.  65)  in  describing  the  eucha¬ 
ristic  worship  of  his  contemporaries,  makes  no 
mention  of  this  hymn.  St.  Cyrihof  Jerusalem, 
in  his  5th  catechesis  on  St.  Peter’s  1st  Ej)istle, 
.»niic  fixing  certain  details  in  the  eucharistic 
service,  such  as  the  “Sursum  corda,”  &c.,  gives 


578 


DOXOLOGY 


DOXOLOGY 


uo  hint  of  its  use.  Nor  is  it  found  in  any  ot 
the  earliest  liturgies,  whether  Western  or 
Kastern,  which  are  in  existence.  In  the  East,  it 
is  still  used  in  the  non-eucharistic  morning  ser¬ 
vices  of  the  Church,  being  sung  on  Sundays  and 
the  greater  festivals,  and  recited  on  ordinary  days. 
It  was  fii'st  a])])oiuted  (according  to  the  Liber 
Poatif.)  to  be  said  in  the  Roman  Liturgy  by  Pope 
Symmachus,  who  was  raised  to  the  Pontificate  in 
498,  but  only  on  Sundays  and  the  festivals  of 
martyrs,  and  ajijiarently  its  recital  was  held  to 
be  a  special  privilege ;  for  the  Gregorian  Sacra- 
mentary  (p.  1)  gives  the  following  directions  con¬ 
cerning  it :  “  Item  dicitur  Gloria  in  Excelsis  Deo^ 
si  episcopus  fuerit,  tantummodo  die  Dominico, 
sive  diebus  testis.  A  presbyteris  autem  minime 
dicitur,  nisi  in  solo  paschi.  Quando  vero  letania 
agitur,  neque  Gloria  in  Excehis  Deo,  neque  Alle¬ 
luia  canitur.”  Pope  Stephen  the  3rd  directed 
that  on  the  highest  festiv^als  it  should  be  sung 
only  by  bishops,  at  least  in  the  Lateran  Church. 
Pope  Calixtus  2nd  granted,  as  a  privilege  to  the 
monks  of  Tournus  *  that  they  should  use  it  on 
the  Feast  of  the  Annunciation  ;  “pro  reverentia 
B.  Marine  semper  Virginis,  cujus  nomine  locus 
vester  insignis  est,  in  Annunciatione  Domini  Sal- 
vatoris  nostri  hymnum  Angelicum  inter  missa- 
rum  solemnia  abbati  et  fratribus  pronunciare 
concedimus  ”  (Calixti  epist.  ad  Franconem  Ahha- 
tem  monasterii  2'renorchiensis).  From  the  Mo- 
zarabic  ritual  it  seems  to  have  been  about  this 
time  recited  in  Spain  on  Sundays  and  certain 
festivals,  in  the  eucharistic  office ;  but  in  the 
Gallican  Church  it  appears  even  when  introduced 
to  have  been  for  a  long  time  only  sung  on  public 
days  of  thanksgiving.  Its  ultimate  gradual 
adoption  throughout  the  Western  Church  was 
uo  doubt  due  to  the  increasing  influence  of  the 
example  of  Rome.  At  the  same  time  our  modern 
desire  for  uniformity  in  religious  worship  was 
unknown  in  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  not 
merely  because  our  ideas  on  disciplinai-y  organi¬ 
zation  were  as  yet  undeveloped,  but  because  the 
facilities  for  communication,  both  personally  and 
by  letter,  were  comparatively  slight,  and  local 
customs  were  preserved,  as  almost  sacred  in  the 
eyes  of  those  who  had  received  them  from  their 
fathers.  [Gloria  in  Excelsis.] 

2.  The  origin  and  history  of  the  “Gloria  Patri,” 
or  lesser  doxology,  is  even  more  obscure  than 
that  of  the  “  Gloida  in  Excelsis,”  and  in  its 
present  shape  it  is  the  result  of  the  Arian 
controversies  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ. 
It  is  quite  impossible  to  trace  its  use  to  the 
three  first  centuries  ;  if  it  was  really  known 
to  the  primitive  Christians,  it  probably  arose, 
as  has  been  already  suggested,  from  the  juxta¬ 
position  of  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity, 
in  the  command  given  by  the  Lord  to  his 
Apostles  to  teach  and  baptize  all  nations.  For 
several  centuries,  the  clause  “  As  it  was  in  the 
beginning,  &c.,”  was  certainly  unknown  in 
many  parts  of  Christendom.  The  4th  council 
of  Toledo,  A.D.  633,  makes  no  mention  of  this 
clause,  and  at  the  same  time  gives  a  version 
of  the  first  portion  which  is  not  identical 


*  Tournus  was  an  abbey  in  Burgundy,  on  the  SaOne, 
between  Macon  and  Chalons;  and  the  privilege  granted 
by  Stephen  is  reniarkahle  as  one  of  the  earliest  instances 
in  which  the  bishop  of  Rome  claimed  a  right  over  the 
public  forms  of  prayer  in  local  churches. 


with  that  which  subsequently  became  universal, 
reading  it  thus :  “  Glory  and  honour  be  to  the 
Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
world  without  end,  Amen.”  In  the  old  Spanish 
liturgy,  known  as  the  Mozarabic,  supposed  to  be 
of  a  little  later  date,  it  occurs  in  the  same  form 
as  in  the  decree  of  Toledo.  In  the  treatise  of 
Walafridus  Strabo  De  rebus  ecclesiasticis  (c.  25), 
the  different  usages  of  difl'erent  countries  are 
particularly  sjiecified.  “  Dicendum,”  he  says, 
“  de  hymuo,  qui  ob  honorem  sanctae  et  unicae 
Trinitatis  officiis  omnibus  interseritur,  eum  a 
Sanctis  patribus  aliter  atque  aliter  ordinatum. 
Nam  Hispani  sicut  superius  commemoravimus, 
ita  eum  dici  omnimodis  voluerunt.  Graeci 
autem,  ‘Gloria  Patri,  et  Filio,  et  Spiritui  Sancto, 
et  nunc,  et  semper,  et  in  saecula  saeculorum. 
Amen.’  Latini  vero  eodem  ordine  et  eisdem 
verbis  hunc  hymnum  decantant,  addentes  tantum 
in  medio,  ‘  Sicut  erat  in  principio.’  ”  The  writer 
of  the  treatise  De  Vinjinitate  which  is  often 
placed  among  the  works  of  Athanasius,  gives 
the  “Gloria  Patri,”  as  “Glory  be  to  the  Father, 
and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  world 
without  end.  Amen.” 

The  addition  of  the  second  clause  is  enjoined 
in  the  year  529,  by  the  2nd  council  of  Vaison, 
which  at  the  same  time  asserts  that  it  was 
already  universal  among  the  Greeks.  “  Quia 
non  solum,”  says  the  council,  “  in  Sede  Aposto- 
lica,  sed  etiam  per  totum  Orientem  et  totam 
Africam  vel  Italiam,  propter  haereticorum  astu- 
tiam,  qua  Dei  Filium  non  semper  cum  Patre 
fuisse,  sed  a  tempoi*e  fuisse  blasphemant,  in  omni¬ 
bus  clausulis  post  Gloria,  sicut  erat  in  principio 
dicitur,  etiam  et  nos  in  universis  ecclesiis  nostris 
hoc  ita  esse  dicendum  decrevimus.”  From  which 
decree  it  appears  certain  that  the  use  of  the 
additional  clause  was  at  the  least  not  general  in 
Gaul  at  that  time,  though  it  is  likely  that  it 
had  gradually  been  introduced  from  Italy.  It  is 
remarkable,  indeed,  as  the  new  addition  was 
adopted  with  the  direct  object  of  repudiating 
the  Arian  doctrine,  that  it  should  not  have 
spread  more  rapidly  eastward,  after  the  decisive 
action  of  the  council  of  Nice  in  asserting  the 
orthodox  faith. 

From  the  writers  of  the  Arian  period,  again, 
it  would  seem  that  there  wei’e  important  valua¬ 
tions  in  the  traditional  forms  of  the  first  clause, 
to  which  great  significance  was  attached  by  the 
adherents  of  the  opposing  doctrines.  One  of  these 
forms  stood  thus :  “  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and 
to  the  Son,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  ”  and  another, 
“  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  in  or  by  the  Son,  and 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.”  Sozomen  asserts  (//.  E. 
iii.  20)  that  the  form  “  Glory  be  to  the  Father 
through  the  Son  ”  was  adopted  by  the  Arians  as 
distinctly  implying  the  subordination  of  the  Son 
to  the  Father;  and  Valesius  believes  that  the 
aKpoTe\evTia  which  the  Arians  used  in  their 
chanting  (76.  viii.  8),  composed  to  support  their 
own  views  (irphs  tt]v  avrwv  So^ar),  were  doxo- 
logies.  On  the  other  hand,  Philostorgius,  him¬ 
self  an  Arian,  alleges  that  the  ancient  form  was 
really  that  which  the  Arians  preferred,  and  that 
Flavian  of  Antioch  was  the  first  person  who 
introduced  the  form  now  used,  every  one  before 
him  having  said  either  “  Glory  be  to  the  Father 
by  the  Son,”  or  “Glory  be  to  the  Father  in  the 
Son.”  It  is  to  be  noted,  also,  that  St.  Basil 
was  accused  of  having  introduced  a  novelty, 


DKACONAKIUS 


DRAGON 


when  he  said,  “  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to 
the  Son;”  and  that  in  his  vindication  of  himself 
i^De  Spiritu  Sancto,  c.  29  [al.  70  ft'.])  he  declai-es 
that  all  the  thi'ee  forms  were  ancient  and  to  be 
used  in  tne  Micene  sense.  He  says,  too,  that  his  own 
practice  was  that  of  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Rome, 
Dionysius  of  Rome,  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  Diony¬ 
sius  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Athenogenes,  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,  Firmilian,  and  Meletius.  Each 
form  indeed,  was  probably  used  indift'erently, 
during  the  long  period  when  the  faith  of  the 
Church  was  left  undefined,  that  is,  until  the 
council  of  Nice  in  the  early  part  of  the  4th  cen¬ 
tury.  How  soon,  in  its  present  complete  form,  it 
was  generally  used  in  connection  with  the  recita¬ 
tion  of  the  Psalms,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  It  is 
directed  to  be  thus  recited  by  St.  Benedict  (^Regula, 
c.  18)  where  he  writes,  “In  primis  dicantur  versus; 
‘  Deus  in  adjutorium,’  &c.,  ‘  Domine  ad  adjuvan- 
dum,’  &c.,  et  ‘Gloria.’”  But  whether  he  was 
introducing  a  novelty,  or  merely  sanctioning  a 
practice  already  introduced,  is  a  matter  of  mere 
conjecture.  [See  Psalmody.]  [J.  M.  C.] 

DRACONARIUS.  Strictly  speaking  this 
word  denotes  the  bearer  of  the  military  standard, 
on  which  a  dragon  was  represented,  “  vexillifer, 
qui  fert  vexillum  ubi  est  draco  depictus  ”  (Du- 
cange,  s.  r.). 

When  Constantine  after  his  conversion  placed 
the  Christian  symbol  on  the  military  ensigns 
instead  of  the  dragon,  the  name  outlived  the 
change,  and  the  standard-bearer  was  still  called 
draconarius.  Sometimes  we  find  the  ancient 
.symbol  joined  to  the  new,  the  dragon  being 
placed  beneath  the  cross. 

In  the  Christianized  empire  this  name  came 
to  signify  the  official  who  carried  a  standard  or 
banner  in  ecclesiastical  processions ;  a  ti’ansfer- 
ence  which  was  facilitated  by  the  fact  that  the 
official  in  question  often  carried,  as  the  soldiers 
also  did,  the  labarum  with  the  cross,  Constan¬ 
tine’s  chosen  symbol. 

Pellicia  states  (Politia,  ii.  113,  ed.  1780)  that 
in  his  time  an  object  resembling  almost  exactly 
the  ancient  labarum,  as  depicted  on  coins,  was 
still  carried  in  supplications,  and  called  “  gon¬ 
falon  ”  by  the  Italians. 

The  name  Draconarius  seems  also  to  have  been 
sometimes  given  to  the  ci’oss-bearer.  [C.] 

DRAGON  (as  Symbol).  [See  Serpent.] 
Though  the  serpent  from  the  earliest  ages  has 
been  a  symbol  of  both  good  and  evil,  the  dragon, 
wherever  he  occurs  in  early  Christian  art,  seems 
to  repre.sent  the  enemy  of  mankind,  all  his  temp¬ 
tations,  and  the  evil  desires  of  mankind  which 
combine  with  them.  The  images  of  the  Apo¬ 
calypse  have  much  to  do  with  this,  of  course, 
and  the  dragon  appears  in  MSS.  of  that  book,  as 
in  a  Saxon  one  now  in  the  Bodlefan  Library. 
The  dragon-standards  of  cohorts,  on  the  con¬ 
version  of  Constantine,  had  the  Cross  or  mono¬ 
gram  of  Christ  placed  above  the  serpentine 
image ;  the  name  of  the  standard-bearer  [Dra¬ 
conarius]  being  applied  in  after  times  to  bearers 
of  banners  in  Church  processions.  The  labarum 
is  represented  as  planted  on  the  body  of  a  ser¬ 
pent,  in  a  medal  given  by  Aringhi  after  Baro¬ 
nins  (vol.  ii.  p.  705). 

The  fish  or  whale  of  Jonah  is  often  rej)re- 
sented  in  the  catacombs  as  a  sort  of  draconic 
nondescript  (see  Bottari  Ivi.  and  passim,  De 


679 

Ross.,  &c.),  perhaps  with  an  idea  of  carrying 
out  the  symbolism  of  our  Lord’s  passing  under 
and  out  of  the  power  of  hell  and  of  death.  But 
the  idea  of  a  sea-monster  seems  always  intended 
to  be  conveyed.  The  idea  of  the  dragon  as  a 
winged  crocodile  or  lizard  may  have  been  derived 
from  remains  of  the  Sauri :  a  skeleton  of  some 
animal  of  that  family  is  mentioned  by  Mrs. 
Jameson  as  having  been  exhibited  at  Aix  in  a 
fossil  state,  as  the  frame  of  a  dragon  which  had 
long  devastated  the  neighbourhood.  Prof.  Kings¬ 
ley  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  pterodac- 
tyles  of  the  lias  were  literally  flying  dragons  to 
all  intents  and  purposes.  The  Griffin,  as  a  mi¬ 
nister  of  God’s  service,  is  quite  distinct  from  the 
dragon  (see  s.  v.)  »  For  Daniel  and  the  Apocry¬ 
phal  Dragon  or  Serpent  see  Bottari,  v.  1,  tav. 
xix.  and  woodcut. 


The  Gothic  imagination,  in  later  days,  revelled 
in  dragons ;  the  seven-headed  beast,  with  crowns 
and  nimbuses  on  all  his  heads  except  that 
“  wounded  to  death  ”  (Rev.  xii.),  is  a  type  of 
such  art ;  see  Didron’s  Outline,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  162, 
“from  a  12th  century  Psalterium  cum  figuris,” 
in  the  Bibiiotheque  Royale.  In  Constantine’s 
Mosaic,  (Euseb.  de  Vita  Const,  lit.  iii.  c.  3 ;  sec 
also  Didron,  Iconogr.  Chre'tienne,  vol.  i.,  art. 
Croix),  the  serpent  or  dragon  is  associated 
with  the  Cro.ss  as  the  conquei’ed  enemy  of  man¬ 
kind.  The  serpent  is  placed  at  the  foot  of  the 
Cross  of  Lothaire,  and  in  the  missal  of  Charles 
the  Bald  (Essay  by  Mons.  G.  St.  Laurent,  in 
Didron’s  Annales  Archeologiqucs,  vol.  xxv.  See 
Serpent.)  dragons  are  mentioned  as  occupying 
alternate  panels  of  bas-relief  with  doves,  drinking 
or  pecking  at  grapes,  on  a  font  from  the  ancient 
church  of  Godrecourt,  Revue  Archeologique,  vol. 
i.  p.  129. 

Gold’s  representation  {Thesaurus  Diptychorum 
V.  ii.)  of  the  ivory  binding  of  the  Codex  Laures- 
tanus  consists  in  part  of  our  Lord  trampling  on 


•  Bottari  refers  to  Bosio,  de,  Cmce,  vi.  c.  xi. ;  Ciampini, 
Vet.  Mmi.  t.  i.  c.  xxl.  p.  191 ;  Oretzor,  de  Vruce,  t.  iiu 
lib.  1.  c.  33. 

2  P 


680 


DRAMAS 


DRESS 


the  lion  and  dragon,  while  the  serpent  is  carved  I 
also  near  Him.  [See  Skrfknt,]  For  the  doves  ! 
and  temj)ting  sor])ent  on  the  Barberini  gem  see 
same  article,  and  Gori,  2'h.  iJiptiich,  vol.  iii. 

р.  IGO.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DRAMAS,  Christian.  As  works  of  lite¬ 
rature,  dramas  such  as  the  Xpiarhs  iracrx^tiv 
ascribed  to  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  do  not  come 
within  tlie  scope  of  this  Dictionary.  Nor  have  we 
any  suflicient  evidence  that  sacred  dramas  were 
ever  acted  till  after  the  time  of  Charlemagne, 
which  forms  the  chronological  limit  of  its  archae¬ 
ology.  All  that  can  be  said,  therefore,  is  to 
note  the  fact  that  there  is  no  proof  of  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  dramatic  representations  of  sacred  history 
prior  to  that  period,  but  that  probably  those 
which  soon  afterwards  became  very  popular 
were  not  entirely  novelties,  and,  as  the  present 
writer  has  noticed  elsewhere  {Diet,  of  the  Bible^ 
s.  V.  Maijif  that  names  and  descriptions  like 
those  which  Bede  gil-es  of  Caspar,  Melchior,  and 
Belthasar  {de  CoHectan.f  appear  to  imply  a  dra¬ 
matic  as  well  as  pictorial  representation  of  the 
facts  of  the  Nativity.  [E.  H.  P.] 

DREAMS.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  at¬ 
tempt  to  foretel  the  future  by  the  interpretation 
of  ordinary  dreams  was  condemned  by  the  early 
Church  ;  rather  it  was  acknowledged  that  dreams 
might  be  made  the  A^ehicle  of  divine  revelation. 
But  some  of  the  old  heathen  practices  by  which 
men  sought  to  acquire  supernatural  knowledge 
in  dreams,  such  as  sleeping  in  an  idol’s  temple 
wrapped  in  the  skin  of  a  sacrifice  (Virgil,  Aeneid 
vii.  88),  or  under  the  boughs  of  a  sacred  ti'ee, 
were  distinctly  condemned.  Jerome  (in  loco) 
takes  Isaiah  Ixv.  4  to  refer  to  such  practices. 
There  was  no  impiety  (he  says)  which  Israel  in 
those  days  did  not  perpetrate,  “sitting  or  dwell¬ 
ing  in  sepulchres,  and  sleeping  in  the  shrines  of 
idols;  where  they  used  to  pass  the  night  (incu- 
bare)  on  skins  of  victims  laid  on  the  ground  that 
they  might  learn  the  future  by  dreams,  as  the 
heathen  do  in  certain  temples  even  unto  this  day” 
(Wetzer  and  Welte,  Kirchenlex.  xi.  172).  [C.] 

DRESS.  This  article  relates  to  the  ordinary 
dress  of  Christians,  and  the  dress  of  the  clergy 
in  civil  life.  For  the  ministerial  dress,  see  Vest¬ 
ments. 

1.  Dress  of  Christians  generally. — In  the  ear¬ 
liest  days  of  the  Church  Christians  probably  took 
little  thought  for  raiment ;  yet  even  in  the  first 
century  “  gay  clothing  ”  was  found  in  Christian 
assemblies  (St.  James  ii.  2)  as  well  as  in  kings’ 
palaces.  For  Christians  wore  the  ordinary  dress 
of  their  station  and  country  ;  neither  in  speech 
nor  in  manners  did  they  differ  from  other  men ; 
whether  in  cities  of  the  Greeks  or  cities  of  the 
barbarians  they  followed  the  customs  of  the  place 
in  dress  and  manner  of  life  (Epist.  ad  Diognetuin, 

с.  5  ;  Tertullian,  Apohget.  c.  42).  Here  and  there 
a  convert  adopted  or  retained — as  Justin  did — the 
napless  cloak  (rp'i^cor)  which  was  characteristic 
of  the  philosopher,  and  especially  of  the  Cynic ; 
but  this  did  not  distinguish  him  from  the  hea¬ 
then,  but  from  those  who  made  no  profes.sion  of 
philosophy  or  asceticism.  There  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  those  converts  who  had  a  professional 
dress — as  civil  and  military  officials — continued 
to  wear  it  whenever  duty  required. 

But  if  the  Christian  was  not  ',n  early  times 


distinguished  from  the  heathen  by  his  garb, 
there  was  always  in  the  Cburcli — as  there  could 
not  fail  to  be — a  strong  feeling  against  luxury, 
display,  and  immodesty  in  a})parel.  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  who  represents  a  somewhat  ascetic 
tendency,  condemns  (Stromata,  ii.  10,  p.  232  ff.) 
all  kinds  of  dye  for  that  which  is  but  the  cover¬ 
ing  of  man’s  shame,  all  gold  and  jeweliy,  all 
over-nice  })laiting  of  the  hair  or  decoration  of 
the  face  ;  he  seems  even  to  imply  that  there  is 
no  reason  why  men’s  dress  should  differ  from 
that  of  women,  as  in  both  cases  it  serves  but  the 
same  purj)ose  of  covering  and  protecting  from 
the  cold.  He  will  none  of  cloth  of  gold  or  Indian 
silk,  the  product  of  a  poor  worm  turned  to  pur¬ 
poses  of  pride ;  still  less  of  those  fine  materials 
which  display  what  they  seem  to  cover.  Let 
the  stuffs  which  Christians  wear  be  of  their 
natural  colour,  not  dyed  with  hues  fit  only  for  a 
Bacchic  procession.  It  is  permissible  to  weave 
stuffs  soft  and  pleasant  to  wear,  not  gaudy  so  as 
to  attract  the  gaze.  The  long  train  which 
sweeps  the  ground  and  impedes  the  step  is  an 
abomination  to  him,  as  also  the  short  immodest 
tunic  of  the  Laconian  damsel.  In  a  word,  he 
urges  simplicity  and  modesty  in  all  points. 

Clement’s  invective  probably  implies  that 
luxury  in  dress  was  not  unknown  among  the 
faithful  in  his  time;  this  is  certainly  the  case 
with  that  of  Tertullian,  whose  denunciations  are 
expressly  addressed  to  Christians.  In  his  treatise 
on  women’s  dress,  he  charges  on  the  “  sons  of 
God,”  who  lusted  after  the  daughters  of  men, 
the  invention  of  the  adventitious  aids  of  femi¬ 
nine  beauty — the  gold  and  jewehs,  the  brilliant 
dye.s,  the  black  powder  with  which  the  eyelids 
were  tinged,  the  unguent  which  gave  colour  to 
the  cheek,  the  wash  which  changed  the  hair  to 
the  fashionable  yellow,  the  towers  of  false  tresses 
piled  upon  the  head  and  neck  (De  Cultu  Femm- 
arum,  i.  2,  6,  8;  ii.  5,  6,  7).  Why',  he  asks, 
should  Christian  women  clothe  themselves  in 
gold  and  jewels  and  gorgeous  dyes,  when  they 
never  displayed  their  charms  in  processions,  as 
the  heathen  did,  and  needed  not  to  pass  through 
the  streets  except  when  they'  went  to  church 
or  to  visit  a  sick  brother — not  occasions  for 
gorgeous  apparel  (ih.  ii.  11)?  Why  should 
they  imitate  the  Apocalyptic  woman  that 
was  “arrayed  in  ])urple  and  scarlet  colour, 
and  decked  with  gold  and  precious  stones  and 
pearls?”  (ih,  ii.  12).  He  does  not  object  to 
seemly  and  becoming  dress  (cultus),  and  approves 
attention  to  the  hair  and  skin,  but  he  inveighs 
against  such  decoration  (oruatus)  as  seems  in¬ 
tended  to  attract  notice  (ib.  i.  4;  ii.  2).  The 
wrist  accustomed  to  a  bracelet  would  hardly 
bear  a  chain,  the  leg  adorned  with  an  anklet 
would  scarcely  bear  the  fetter ;  some  necks  were 
so  loaded  with  pearls  and  emeralds  as  hardly  to 
afford  room  for  the  headsman’s  sword  (ik  ii.  13). 
Virgins  ought  alway's  to  cover  their  faces  when 
they  had  occasion  to  go  abroad  (De  Virgin. 
Veland.  passim). 

Nor  does  the  vehement  African  spare  the  men  ; 
he  speaks  with  contempt  of  their  foolish  efforts 
to  please  the  other  sex  by'  artistic  clipping  of 
the  beard,  by  dressing  the  hair,  by'  dyeing  white 
locks,  by  singeing  the  down  from  the  skin,  even 
by  using  the  feminine  aids  of  paint  and  powder 
on  the  tace  (De  Cuitu  Fern.  ii.  8).  To  the  same 
effect  Cyprian  speaks  (Dc  Habitu  Virginum^  c. 


DRESS 


DRESS 


581 


12  fF.),  anrl  so  speaks  the  treatise  De  Bono  Budi~ 
citiae  (c.  12)  attributed  to  him. 

From  such  passages  it  is  evident  that  Chris¬ 
tians  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  and  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century,  both  men  and 
women,  followed  the  fashion  of  the  world,  though 
not  without  strong  remonstrance  from  those  who 
took  a  more  serious  view  of  their  Christian  call¬ 
ing.  The  only  exception  probably  was  in  the 
case  of  some  decoration  which  implied,  or  was 
thought  to  imi)ly,  participation  in  idolatry  (Ter- 
tullian.  Be  Idololatrid,  c.  18).  It  was  indeed  a 
part  of  the  torture  applied  to  Christians  to  com¬ 
pel  them  to  put  on  garments  distinctly  indica¬ 
tive  of  such  })articipation  {Acts  of  Berpetua  and 
Felicitas,  c.  18,  in  Kuinart,  p.  100,  ed.  2).  A 
series  of  passages  in  denunciation  of  luxury  in 
dress  might  be  produced  from  the  early  fathers  ; 
see,  for  instance,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catech.  IV. 
p.  94,  ed.  1641 ;  Basil,  lieg.fusius  Tract.  Interrog. 
22  ;  ii.  366,  ed.  Bened. 

Some  canonical  decrees  on  the  subject  relate 
to  the  assumption  by  one  sex  of  the  dress  of  the 
other ;  since  for  women  to  wear  the  dress  ot 
men  was  sometimes  represented  as  meritorious 
asceticism.  Eustathius,  for  instance  (quoted  by 
Bingham,  xvi.  xi.  16)  taught  his  female  disciples 
to  cut  off  their  hair  and  to  assume  the  habit  of 
men.  But  the  council  of  Gangra  (a.d.  370),  in 
canons  13  and  17,  condemns  both  these  practices 
in  the  following  terms  : — “  If  any  woman,  under 
pretence  of  leading  an  ascetic  life,  change  her 
apparel,  and  instead  of  the  accustomed  habit  of 
women  take  that  of  men,  let  her  be  anathema.” 
And,  “  If  any  woman,  on  account  of  an  ascetic 
life,  cut  off  her  hair,  which  God  has  given  her  as 
a  memorial  of  subjection,  let  her  be  anathema, 
as  one  that  annuls  the  decree  of  subjection.” 
These  decrees  are  manifestly  founded  upon  Deut. 
xxii.  5  and  1  Cor.  xi.  6  respectively.  Cyprian 
{Ep.  2,  c,  1,  ad  Eucratiiim)  and  Tertullian  {de 
Spectac.  c.  23),  with  other  writers  (see  Prynne’s 
Histriom'tstix'),  apply  the  Mosaic  prohibition  to 
the  interchange  of  clothing  by  men  and  w'omen 
in  stage  plays,  which  they  condemn  for  this  rea¬ 
son  among  many  others. 

Under  the  Frankish  emperors  the  Mosaic  pro¬ 
hibition  (Deut.  xxii.  11)  of  wearing  a  garment  of 
woollen  and  linen  was  re-enacted  {Cajyitularium^ 
vi.  c.  46). 

The  civil  code  under  the  empire  attempted  to 
repress  luxury  by  specific  enactments  {Codex 
Justiniani,  lib.  xi.  tit.  8),  which  seem  however 
to  contemjjlate,  at  least  in  part,  the  preservation 
of  an  imperial  monopoly  and  of  the  sanctity  of  the 
imperial  insignia.  [Commerce,  p.  409.]  It  was 
utterly  forbidden  to  manufacture  cloth  of  gold 
or  edgings  (paragaudas)  of  silk  and  gold  thread 
for  male  attire,  except  in  the  in-qierial  factories 
(gynaeciariis) ;  nor  was  any  male  to  wear  such 
decorations,  except  imperial  officials.  No  woollen 
garments  were  to  be  dyed  so  as  to  imitate  the 
imperial  purple,  the  blood  of  the  sacred  murex. 
No  one  was  to  wear  imperial  insignia,  nor  to 
manufactiire  privately  any  silk  tunics  or  pallia. 
There  was  probably  a  demand  for  silk  and  cloth 
of  gold  for  male  attire,  when  so  strict  laws  were 
made  against  their  use. 

2.  Civil  Dress  of  the  Clergy. — It  is  certain  that 
during  the  first  five  Christian  centuries  the 
clergy  in  general  were  distinguished  from  the 
laity,  in  ordinary  life,  neither  by  the  form  nor 


the  colour  of  their  garments,  but  only  by  their 
sober  and  unobtrusive  style  (Thomassin,  i.  ii.  43). 
The  lacerna,  byrrus,  and  dalmatic  which  Cyprian 
took  off  before  his  martyrdom  {Acta  Bro'ons. 
c.  5)  seem  to  be  the  ordinary  die.ss  of  a  citizen 
of  that  period.  So  far  were  the  clergy  commonly 
from  adopting  a  peculiar  dress  that  pope  Celes- 
tinus  (a.d.  428)  sharply  blamed  certain  Gallican 
bishops  who  had  chosen  to  make  themselves  con 
spicuous  by  a  dre.ss  different  from  that  of  the 
laity  about  them  {Epist.  2,  in  Binius’  C'^ncilia, 
i.  901).  These  bishoj)s,  it  appears,  had  been 
monks  before  they  were  promoted  to  the  epi¬ 
scopate,  and  retained  as  bishops  the  pallium  and 
girdle  of  the  monk,  instead  of  taking  the  tunic 
and  toga  of  the  su])erior  layman.  Yet  Con- 
stantinus  {]'ita  Germani,  in  Surius,  iv.  360)  says 
that  bishop  Amator,  when  he  ordained  Germanus 
(t448),  afterwards  bishop  of  Auxerre,  })ut  upon 
him  “  habitum  religiouis,”  an  expression  which 
in  all  probability  designates  the  monastic  dress; 
and  other  ecclesiastics  of  special  austerity  no 
doubt  wore  the  rough  dress  of  the  monk,  as  St. 
IMartin  did  (Sulpicius  Severus,  ]'ita  B.  Martini, 
c.  10;  Dialogus  II.  c.  1),  but  the  very  fact  that 
this  costume  was  specially  noticed  shows  that  it 
was  not  the  common  attire  of  the  clergy. 

Nor  do  the  clergy  of  the  East,  more  than  those 
of  the  West,  seem  to  lun'e  adopted  a  distinctive 
dre.ss  in  early  times,  unless  they  were  members 
of  monastic  bodies,  or  remarkably  austere  in  life. 
If  Heraclas  (Euseb.  II.  E.  A"i.  19)  wore  the  gown 
of  the  philosopher,  this  distinguished  him  not 
from  the  laity  but  from  the  uu2)hilosophical, 
whether  lay  or  clerical.  The  dress  of  the  bishops 
whom  Constantine  assembled  round  his  table 
(Euseb.  Vita  Constant,  i.  42)  seems  to  have  had 
no  distinctive  character  except  simplicity.  Sis- 
innius,  a  Novatian  bishop  (Socrates,  //.  E.  vi.  22), 
incurred  the  reproach  of  ostentation  by  wearing 
a  white  robe,  which  contrasted  with  the  more 
usual  sober  colour  of  episcopal  garments.  But 
there  are  indications  at  a  later  date  among  the 
orthodox,  that  a  somewhat  splendid  vesture  was 
thought  to  become  high  station  in  the  hierarchy. 
John  Chrysostom,  for  instance,  a  short  time  before 
his  death,  adopted  the  more  splendid  attire  suited 
to  his  position ;  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  declares 
that  his  own  simple  life  and  mean  dress  was  one 
of  the  reasons  for  his  expulsion  from  Constan¬ 
tinople — implying  that  something  more  distin¬ 
guished  was  looked  for. 

St.  Augustine  too  {Sermo  50,  De  Diver  sis), 
apparently  still  a  priest,  says  that  a  valuable 
byrrus  might  befit  a  bisho}),  which  would  by  no 
means  suit  a  poor  man  like  Augustine.  That 
the  byrrus  was  the  common,  as  opposed  to  the 
ascetic,  dress  of  Christians,  is  shown  by  the  12th 
canon  of  the  council, of  Gangra  (a.d.  358),  in 
which  those  who  wore  the  ascetic  gown  {inpi- 
^oKaiov)  are  warned  not  to  despise  the  wearers 
of  the  byrrus.  Augustine  objects  only  to  wear¬ 
ing  one  more  valuable  than  became  his  station. 

The  account  also  of  Euthymius  {life,  by  Cyril, 
in  Surius,  Jan.  20)  saluting  Anastasius  as  Batri- 
arch,  shows  that  a  dignitary  of  that  eminence 
was  generally  distinguished  by  the  splendour  of 
his  attire. 

We  conclude  then  generally  that  no  especial 
style  of  dress  was  prescribed  for  the  clergy 
within  the  first  five  centuries,  but  that  during 
the  latter  part  of  that  period  it  was  usual  for 


582 


DRESS 


DRESS 


monks  who  became  bishops  to  retain  their  mon¬ 
astic  garb,  and  for  the  liigher  dignitaries — esj)eci- 
ally  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  connected 
as  he  was  with  a  splendid  court — to  wear  such 
garments  as  befitted  a  person  of  rank. 

The  same  inference  may  be  drawn  from  the 
fact  that  the  Pseudo-Dionysius  (^Hierarch.  EccL 
c.  5),  in  describing  the  ordination  of  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons,  probably  in  the  5th  century, 
says  not  a  word  of  any  change  of  dress,  though 
he  is  careful  to  mention  it  in  the  case  of  monks. 

In  the  6th  century  the  civil  dress  ofthe  clergy 
came  to  difi’er  from  that  of  the  laity,  mainly  be¬ 
cause  the  latter  departed  from  the  ancient  type 
to  which  the  former  adhered  ;  for  the  clergy,  in 
the  empire  of  the  West,  retained  the  long  tunic 
and  toga  (or  pallium)  of  the  Romans,  while  the 
laity  adopted  for  the  most  part  the  short  tunic, 
trowsers,  and  cloak  of  the  “  gens  bracata,”  the 
Teutonic  invaders.  It  was  probably  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  this  change  of  dress  that  the  compila¬ 
tion  of  canons  sanctioned  by  the  second  council 
of  Braga,  a.d.  572  (c.  66;  Bruns’s  Canones,  ii.  56), 
especially  desired  the  clergy  to  wear  the  long 
dignified  tunic  (talarem  v'estem).  Gregory  the 
Great  constantly  assumes  the  existence  of  a  dis¬ 
tinctive  clerical  habit.  He  speaks,  for  instance 
(^Kpiat.  iv.  22),  of  men  assuming  the  ecclesiastical 
habit  and  living  a  worldly  life.  And  John  the 
Deacon  ( Vita  Gregor  ii,  ii.  13)  directs  especial 
attention  to  the  fact,  that  the  great  Pontiff  him¬ 
self  tolerated  no  one  about  him  who  wore  the 
barbarian  dress ;  every  one  in  his  household  wore 
the  garb  of  old  Rome  (trabeata  Latinitas),  then 
almost  synonymous  with  the  clerical  habit. 

And  from  the  beginning  of  the  6th  century 
we  find  canons  forbidding  deifies  to  wear  the 
secular  dress.  They  are  not  to  wear  long  hair, 
nor  clothes  other  than  such  as  befit  “religion” 
(Cone.  Agathen.  c.  20);  nor  a  military  cloak,  nor 
arms  (C.  Matiscon.  c.  5) ;  nor  purple,  which 
rather  befits  the  great  ones  ofthe  world  (C.  Kar- 
hon.  c.  1).  And  again,  in  the  8th  century,  priests 
and  deacons  are  desired  not  to  wear  the  laic 
sagum,  or  short  cloak,  but  the  CasULA,  as  be¬ 
comes  servants  of  God  (C.  German,  i.  a.d.  742, 
c.  7), —  where  the  expression  “  ritu  servorum 
Dei  ”  probably  does  not  mean  “  like  monks  ” 
(Marriott,  Vest.  Christ.  201,  n.  416) — and  gener¬ 
ally  not  to  wear  ostentatious  clothes  (pompatico 
habitu)  or  arms  (Boniface,  Epist.  105).  Yet 
about  the  same  time  pope  Zachary,  writing  to 
Pipin,  mayor  of  the  palace  {Cone.  Galliae,  i.  563), 
desires  bishops  to  dress  according  to  their  dignity, 
and  parish  priests  (presbyteri  cardinales)  to  wear 
in  preaching  a  better  style  of  dress  than  that  of 
the  people  committed  to  them  ;  w'arning  them 
at  the  same  time  that  not  the  dress  of  the  body 
but  the  state  ofthe  .soul  is  the  important  thing. 

Yet  even  in  the  latter  part  ofthe  7th  century 
Bede  tells  us  (  Vita  Cudberti,  c.  16)  that  St.  Cuth- 
bert  wore  ordinary  clothes  (vestimentis  com- 
munibus),®  neither  splendid  nor  dirty,  and  that 
after  his  exam})le  the  monks  of  his  monastery 
continued  to  wear  gai  meiits  of  undyed  \vool. 

The  course  of  events  in  the  Bast,  in  respect  of 
clerical  dress,  was  not  very  ditlerent  from  that 
in  the  West,  except  that  as  the  settlements  of 
the  barbarians  were  less  numerous,  the  distinc¬ 


“  Tois  may  mean,  however,  that  Cuthlvrt  as  abbot  did 
not  assume  a  dress  different  fiom  that  of  his  monks. 


tion  between  layman  and  cleric  was  less  obvious, 
both  tvearing  the  long  tunic.  A  law  of  Jus¬ 
tinian  {Nov.  123,  c.  44)  protected  monastic  dress 
from  profane  uses,  but  says  nothijig  of  any  other 
dress  peculiar  to  clerics.  The  council  in  Trullo, 
however,  a.d.  691,  expressly  enacted  (c.  27)  that 
no  one  on  the  roll  of  the  clergy  should  wear  an 
unprofessional  {avoiKnov)  dress,  whether  in  the 
city  or  on  a  journey,  but  should  use  the  robes 
{aroKals')  prescribed  for  those  who  were  enrolled 
among  the  clergy,  under  pain  of  excommuni¬ 
cation  for  a  week.  From  this  point  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  clerical  and  lay  dress  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  established,  though  a  series  of  enactments 
throughout  the  middle  ages  shows  that  the 
clergy  w'ere  constantly  in  the  habit  of  assimilat¬ 
ing  their  dress  to  that  of  the  laity. 

Pope  Zacharias  decreed  (a.d.  743)  that  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons  should  not  use  secular  dress, 
but  only  the  sacerdotal  tunic;  and  that  whes 
they  walked  out,  whether  in  ciiy  or  country — 
unless  on  a  long  journey — they  should  wear 
some  kind  of  upper  garment  or  wrapper  (operi- 
mentum).*’ 

The  second  council  of  Nice,  in  the  year  787, 
condemns  (c.  15)  bishops  and  clerics  who  distin¬ 
guish  themselves  by  the  richness  and  brilliant 
colours  of  their  dress.  So  Tarasius,  patriarch 
of  Constantinople  (f806),  bade  his  clergy  ab¬ 
stain  from  golden  girdles,  and  from  garments 
bright  w'ith  silk  and  purple,  prescribing  girdles 
of  goats’  hair,  and  tunics  decent  but  not  gor¬ 
geous  {Life,  c.  14,  in  Surius,  Feb.  25). 

The  council  of  Aix,  in  the  year  816  (c.  124), 
inveighs  against  personal  ornament  and  splendour 
of  dress  in  the  clergy,  and  exhorts  them  to  be 
neither  splendid  nor  slovenly.  It  seems  to  be 
presumed  that  the  proper  /orw  of  the  clerical 
dress  was  well  known,  for  nothing  is  said  on  this 
point.  It  further  (c.  25)  forbids  secular  or 
canonical  clerks  to  wear  hoods  [Cuculla],  the 
peculiar  distinction  of  monks.  A  somewhat 
later  council  {C.  Metens.  a.d.  888,  c.  6)  forbids 
the  clergy  to  wear  the  short  coats  (cottos)  and 
mantles  (mantellos)  of  the  laity,  and  the  laity  to 
wear  the  copes  (cappa.s)  of  the  clergy.  Early  in 
the  9th  century  also,  presbyters  were  enjoined 
to  wear  their  .stoles  always,  as  an  indication  of 
their  priesthood  {Cone.  Mogiint.  a.d.  813,  c.  28; 
Capitulariuni,  lib.  v.  c.  146). 

We  may  conclude  then,  genei'ally,  that  the 
clergy  w’ore  in  civil  life,  during  the  first  eight 
centuries  of  the  church,  the  long  tunic  which 
was  the  dress  of  decent  citizens  at  the  time  of 
the  first  preaching  of  Christianity.  This  was  at 
first  generally  white  [Alb],  afterwards  of  sober 
colours,  though  not  seldom — in  sjdte  of  canons — 
of  more  brilliant  hue.  To  this  was  added  in 
early  times  the  dignified  toga ;  afterwards  the 
cappa  [Cope;  Casula,  p.  294].  or  pluviale,  not 
then  appropriated  as  a  vesture  of  ministration 
only.  The  long  tunic,  under  whatever  name,  has 
continued  to  be  the  ordinary  dress  of  the  clergy 
to  this  day,  wherever  they  have  worn  a  peculiar 
dress. 

Literature.  —  Bingham’s  Antiquities,  vi.  iv. 


h  The  word  rather  suggests  a  covering  for  the  Aead; 
but  it  is  difficult  to  understaiid  why  u  iiiati  Liking  a  long 
journey  should  be  excused  from  wearing  a  head-covering, 
while  It  is  easy  to  imagine  that  he  might  not  wish  to 
wear  a  cumbrous  cappa  or  casula  in  the  climate  of  Italy 


DROC’iOVEUS 


DEUNKENNESS 


583 


15  ff. ;  Mamachi,  Costumi  dci  Primitive  Cristiani 
(Rome,  1753,  54),  and  (h-igines,  lib.  iii.  c.  7 ; 
Thomassin,  Vet.  et  Nova  Eccl.  Discip.  i.  ii.  43  IF, ; 
J.  Bcileau,  Disquis.  Ilominis  Sacri  vitam  commu- 
nera  more  civili  traducentis ;  Heineccius,  De  Ha- 
bitu  Sacerdot.  [C.] 

DROCTOVEU S,  abbot,  disciple  of  Germanus 
the  bishop;  deposition  at  Paris,  March  10  (Mart. 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DROMIC.  In  the  Oriental  Church  churches 
of  the  basilican  form,  i.  e.  parallelograms,  with 
the  length  considerably  exceeding  the  breadth, 
aud  terminating  in  a  semicircular  apse,  were 
called  “dromic  ”  (Spo/jLiKai),  from  the  similarity  of 
their  plan  to  that  of  a  bpSpos  or  “  stadium.”  The 
notion  of  Leo  Allatius  (de  Templis  Graec.  Recent. 
Ep.  ii.  §  3),  and  Suicer  (sub  voc.  va6s,  adopted 
by  Bingham ;  Origines,  bk.  viii.  ch.  iii.  §  1)  that 
they  were  so  styled  from  having  “  void  spaces 
for  deambulatoria”  within  their  roofs  on  the 
upper  side  of  the  flat  ceilings,  is  quite  unfounded. 
Theod.  Zygomalas  apud  Suicer  correctly  derives 
the  name  “  di'omic  ”  from  the  form,  the  length 
much  greater  than  the  breadth,  like  a  “  narthex  ” 
or  wand  :  SpopLiKbu  Sik^v  vapQpKos'  Trav  bpop.iKhv 
yapdr]^  \4yeTat.  Of  this  plan  was  the  original 
church  of  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople :  iv  rfi 
peyaKg  (KKK-qtriq  rrjs  ayias  '2,o<p'ias  bpopiKg  rh 
irp6r(pov  oberj  (Codin.  Grig.  Constantinopol.  72), 
and  that  of  St.  Anastasia  in  the  same  city :  6  Se 
vahs  TTjs  ayias ' Avaaraffias  (<Tri  dpopiKos  (Con¬ 
stant.  de  Admin.  Imp.  29).  Existing  examples  of 
dromic  churches  in  the  East  are  those  of  St.  De¬ 
metrius  at  Thessalonica  (Texier,  Archit.  Byzant. 
137),  St.  Philip,  and  the  Vii’gin  of  the  Grand 
Monastery  at  Athens  (Couchaud,  pi.  2,  4),  and 
St.  Catherine  on  Mount  Sinai,  built  by  Justi¬ 
nian.  [E.  V.] 

DRUNKENNESS.  Of  the  prevalence  of 
this  vice  in  the  Roman  world  in  the  early  ages 
of  Christianity  it  would  be  needless  to  speak. 
That  it  became  peculiarly  shameless  about  the 
very  opening  of  the  Christian  era,  we  infer  from 
Pliny’s  observation  that  under  Tiberius  men  first 
began  to  drink  fasting,  jejuni  (bk.  xiv.  c.  xxviii.). 
The  neighbouring  races  to  the  Roman  empire 
were  not  more  temperate  than  the  Romans  them¬ 
selves.  To  the  east,  the  same  Pliny  records  that 
the  Parthians  were  great  drunkards.  Of  the 
Germans,  Tacitus  says  that  to  drink  through  a 
whole  day  and  night  was  considered  no  disgrace 
(De  Mor.  Germ.  c.  xxii.). 

It  is  not  necessary  to  go  here  into  the  denun¬ 
ciations  of  drunkenness  contained  both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament.  It  will  be  enough  to 
say  that  St.  Paul  expressly  includes  “drunk¬ 
ards  ”  among  those  who  shall  not  “  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God  ”  (1  Cor.  d.  10).  Early  Church 
writei's  follow  the  same  line,  see  Clement  ad  Cor. 
Ep.  i.  c.  30;  Apost.  Const,  ii.  c.  25;  v.  c.  10; 
vii.  c.  6 ;  and  particularly  viii.  c.  44.  The  Apo~ 
stulkal  Constitutions  there  warn  against  giving 
relief  to  gluttons,  drunkards,  or  idlei's,  as  not 
being  fit  for  the  Church  (bk.  ii.  c.  4).  Drunken 
habits  were  to  afford  a  pi’^sumption  against  a 
person  accused  before  the  Church  Courts  (ib. 
c.  49).  The  oblations  of  drunkards  were  not  to 
be  received  (bk.  iv.  c.  6).  The  true  rule  of  Chris¬ 
tian  temperance  is  given  in  one  of  the  later 
constitutions  (bk.  viii.  c.  44) :  “  Not  that  they 
should  not  drink,  for  this  is  to  condemn  inai 


which  is  made  of  God  for  cheerfulness,  but  that 
they  should  not  drink  to  excess.”  The  A^josfo- 
lical  Canons  in  like  manner  make  drunkenness  a 
ground  of  exclusion  from  communion  for  bishops, 
priests,  deacons,  subdeacons,  readers  or  singers, 
and  also  for  laymen  (c.  35,  otherwise  numbered 
41,  42,  or  42,  43). 

Still  the  vice  flourished,  as  may  be  seen  for 
instance  from  the  injunctions  of  Jerome  to  Nepo- 
tianus  “never  to  smell  of  wine,”  since  “wine- 
bibbing  priests  are  both  condemned  by  the 
apostle  and  forbidden  by  the  old  law  ”  (Ep.  2) ; 
or  to  Eustochium,  that  “  the  spouse  of  Christ 
should  flee  wine  as  poison.”  In  some  countries 
drunkenness  was  even  made  an  accompaniment 
of  the  most  solemn  services  of  the  Church. 
Augustine  complains  (ad  Aur.  Ep.  22,  otherwise 
64)  that  in  Africa  “  revellings  and  drunkenness 
are  deemed  so  allowable  and  lawful  that  they 
take  place  even  in  honour  of  the  most  blessed 
martyrs,”  even  in  the  cemeteries  [Cella  me¬ 
moriae],  as  appears  from  the  sequel  to  the  pas¬ 
sage.  And  so  rooted  does  he  consider  drunken 
habits  to  be  in  his  flock  that  he  advises  them 
to  be  dealt  with  gently,  rather  by  teaching 
than  by  command,  rather  by  warning  than  by 
menace. 

For  a  long  time,  however,  clerical  discipline 
in  respect  of  this  vice  seems  rather  to  have  been 
enforced,  or  attempted  to  be  enforced,  through 
the  well-known  prohibition  to  clerics  to  enter 
taverns.  [Caupona.]  Except  in  the  Aposto¬ 
lical  Canons,  the  first  distinct  Church  enact¬ 
ment  against  drunkenness  appears  to  be  that 
of  the  1st  Council  of  Tours,  461.  “  If  any  one 

serving  God  in  whatever  clerical  office  shall 
not  abstain  from  drunkenness  according  to  the 
order  of  his  estate,  let  a  fitting  punishment  be 
awarded  to  him  ”  (c.  2).  In  Ivo  the  same  canon 
appears  in  an  altered  form  as  directed  especially 
against  clerical  tavern-keepers,  who  sold  wine  in 
their  churches,  so  that  where  nought  should  be 
heard  but  orisons  and  the  word  of  God  and  his 
praise,  there  revellings  and  drunkenness  arc 
found.  Such  excesses  are  forbidden,  and  the 
offending  presbyter  is  ordered  to  be  deposed, 
offending  laymen  to  be  excommunicated  and 
expelled  (see  also  c.  3,  of  same).  No  doubt 
the  vice  was  highly  prevalent  in  France,  for 
a  few  years  later  we  find  the  Council  of 
Vannes  also  enacting  that  “above  all  things 
should  drunkenness  be  avoided  by  clerics  .... 
therefore  we  decree  that  he  who  shall  be  ascei*- 
tained  to  have  been  drunk,  as  the  order  suffers, 
shall  be  either  excluded  for  thirty  days  from 
communion  or  given  over  to  corporal  punishment” 
(c.  13).  The  same  canon  was  re-enacted  by  the 
Council  of  Agde  in  506  (c.  41).  Somewhat  later  in 
the  century,  the  Constitutions  of  king  Childebert, 
after  ordeidng  the  abolishing  of  certain  remains 
of  idolatry,  lament  the  sacrileges  committed, 
when  for  instance  all  night  long  men  spend  the 
time  in  drunkenness,  scurrility,  and  singing, 
even  in  the  sacred  days  of  Easter,  Christmas,  and 
the  other  feasts;  and  enacts  for  penalty  100 
lashes  for  a  servile  person,  but  for  a  freeborn 
one  strict  imprisonment  (districta  inclusjo)  and 
penance,  that  at  least  by  bodily  torments  they 
may  be  reduced  to  sanity  of  mind.  In  the  East 
even,  at  the  Council  of  Constantinople  in  536, 
we  find  mention  of  a  letter  of  the  clergy  of 
Apamea  against  one  bishop  Peter  (deposed  for 


584 


DRUNKENNESS 


DRUNKENNESS 


heresy)  who  used  to  make  drunk  persons  coming 
to  b  iptism  (see  Labbe  and  Mansi’s  Councils^  vol. 
vii.  p,  1104). 

The  West,  however,  seems  to  have  been  the 
chief  home  of  giut+ony  and  drunkenness.  A 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Autun  (a.d.  670  or  there¬ 
abouts)  enacted  that  no  priest  stuffed  with  food 
or  crapulous  with  wine  should  touch  the  sacrifice, 
or  presume  to  say  mass,  under  pain  of  losing  his 
dignity.  In  a  work  of  Theodore,  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  De  Jiemecliis  Peccatorum  (end  of  7th 
century),  it  is  laid  down  that  a  bishop  or  other 
ordained  j)erson  who  has  the  vice  of  habitual 
di'unkenness  must  either  amend  himself  or  be 
deposed.  The  Council  of  Berkhampstead,  in  the 
5th  year  of  Withraed  king  of  Kent  (a.d.  697), 
enacts  that  if  a  priest  be  so  drunk  that  he 
cannot  fulfil  his  office,  his  ministry  shall  cease 
at  the  will  of  the  bishop  (c.  7).  Gildas  (^De 
Poenitentia,  c.  7),  lays  down  that  if  any  one 
through  drunkenness  cannot  sing  the  psalms,  he 
is  to  be  excluded  from  communion.  Some  ex¬ 
tracts  from  a  certain  “  Book  of  David,”  supposed, 
like  that  of  Gildas,  to  have  been  received  by  the 
Irish  Church,  make  some  curious  distinctions.  A 
priest  drunk  through  ignorance  is  to  be  subject  to 
13  days’  penance ;  if  through  negligence,  to  40 
days ;  if  through  contempt*  [of  discipline  ?],  to 
thrice  forty.  He  who  for  civility’s  sake  (humani- 
tatis  causa)  compels  another  to  get  drunk  is  to 
do  penance  as  for  drunkenness.  But  he  who 
through  the  effect  of  hatred  or  luxuriousness,  that 
he  may  shamefully  confound  or  mock  others,  com¬ 
pels  them  to  get  drunk,  if  he  has  not  sufficiently 
repented,  is  to  do  penance  as  a  killer  of  souls 
(c.  1). 

Gregory  III.  (731-41)  in  his  Excerpts  from 
the  Fathers  and  the  Canons,  mentions  the  habi¬ 
tual  drunkenness  of  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon 
as  being  a  ground  of  deposition,  if  he  do  not 
amend  himself  (c.  8).  An  epistle  of  Boniface  him¬ 
self  to  Cuthbert,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  read 
at  the  Council  of  Cloveshoe,  a.d.  747,  bears  fur¬ 
ther  testimony  to  the  prevalence  of  drunkenness 
in  Britain  :  “  It  is  said  also  that  in  your  parishes 
drunkenness  is  a  too  common  evil,  so  that  not 
only  do  the  bishops  not  forbid  it,  but  themselves, 
drinking  too  much,  become  intoxicated,  and  com¬ 
pel  others  to  become  so,  offering  them  larger 
beakers.”  And  the  Canons  of  the  Council  bear 
“  that  monks  and  clerics  should  not  follow  or 
desire  the  evil  of  drunkenness,”  but  should  avoid 
it ;  “  nor  should  they  compel  others  to  drink 
immoderately.”  If  they  have  no  infirmity,  they 
should  not  before  the  third  hour  of  the  day  in¬ 
dulge  in  potations  after  the  manner  of  drunkards 
(c.  21).  So  again  the  Penitential  of  archbishop 
Egbert  repeats,  with  slight  A’ariation  of  lan¬ 
guage,  the  canon  of  the  Council  of  Vannes  as  to 
the  inflicting  of  30  days’  excommunication  or 
corporal  punishment  on  the  cleric  proved  to 
have  been  drunk  (bk.  ii.  c.  9) ;  increasing  the 
punishment  to  three  months  on  bread  and  water 
to  the  cleric  or  monk  who  is  given  to  drunken¬ 
ness  (c.  10).  And  the  canons  of  the  same 
on  “  the  remedies  for  sin,”  reckon  among 
capital  crimes  habitual  drunkenness  (c.  5),  and 
impose  three  years’  penance  for  it  (c.  7), — such 
penance  being  apparently  in  addition  to  the  three 
months’  bread  and  water  above  referred  to,  A 
“  faithful  ”  layman  making  another  drunk  must 
do  forty  days’  penance  (c.  11).  A  definition  is 


given  of  drunkenness,  which  is  also  found  else¬ 
where  :  “  when  the  state  of  the  mind  is  changed, 
and  the  tongue  falters,  and  the  eyes  are  troubled, 
and  there  is  dizzinesss  and  distension  of  the  belly 
followed  by  pains.”  Clerics  guilty  of  such  ex¬ 
cess  must  do  40  davs’  penance  ;  a  rule  followed 
unintelligibly  by  the  enjoining  for  the  same 
offence  of  4  weeks’  penance  for  a  deacon  or  priest, 
5  for  a  bishop,  3  for  a  “  prelate  the  penance- 
to  be  without  wine  or  flesh-meat  (c.  12). 

Drunkenness  must  have  been  widely  spread  over 
the  Continent  also  in  the  8th  and  9th  centuries. 
The  same  Boniface  in  a  letter  to  Pope  Zachari;is 
(a.d.  741-51),  complains,  among  other  scandals 
of  the  contemporary  Romish  Church,  of  its 
drunkard  deacons  ;  and  the  pope  in  reply  only  says 
that  he  does  not  allow  such  deacons  to  fulfil  sacred 
offices  or  touch  the  sacred  mysteries.  The  3rd 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Friuli  (a.d.  791)  is  severe 
against  drunkenness,  referring  to  the  passages  of 
the  subject  in  Titus  i.,  Rom.  xiii.,  Eph.  v.,  Luke  xxi. 
The  Capitularies  of  Theodulf,  archbishop  of  Or¬ 
leans,  to  his  clergy  (797)  enjoin  on  these  both 
to  abstain  themselves  from  drunkenness  and  to 
preach  to  their  flocks  that  they  should  likewise 
abstain  (i.  c.  13) ;  but  reckons  among  minor 
sins  the  intoxicating  others  for  the  sake  of 
mirth  (ii.).  The  26th  of  Charlemagne’s  Church 
GapAtularies  (810)  directs  in  like  manner  the 
elder  clergy  to  forbear  the  vice  themselves  and 
offer  to  the  younger  an  example  of  good  sobriety ; 
the  first  capitulary  of  802  contains  repeated 
injunctions  against  drunkenness  among  monks 
(c.  17),  nuns  (c.  18),  and  canons  (c.  22);  the 
Council  of  Mayence  (812),  speaking  of  drunken¬ 
ness  as  “  a  great  evil,  whence  all  vices  are  bred,” 
directs  all  to  be  excommunicated  who  do  not 
avoid  it,  until  they  amend  their  ways  (c.  46) ; 
the  2nd  Council  of  Rheims  (same  year)  declares 
that  the  bishops  and  ministers  of  God  should  not 
be  too  much  given  to  feastings  (vinolentiis;  c.  18)  ; 
the  Edict  of  Charlemagne  in  814  forbids  clerics 
“  nourishing  ”  drunkenness  and  ordering  others 
to  become  intoxicated  (c.  14).  See  also  the  first 
capitulary  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  of  802,  c.  35  ;  a 
capitulary  of  803  (bk.  vii.  c.  218,  and  again  at 
greater  length,  c.  270)  repeating  at  the  close  the 
15th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Vannes,  but  extend¬ 
ing  the  period  of  suspension  from  communion  to 
40  days ;  the  Additio  Quarta  to  the  capitularies, 
c.  46;  the  3rd  Council  of  Tours,  A.D.  813, 
c.  48  ;  and  the  2nd  Council  of  Chartres  (same 
year),  c.  10. 

The  above  canons  and  rules  relate  chiefly, 
though  not  exclusively,  to  the  clergy,  or  if  to 
the  faithful  generally,  only  in  respect  to  Church 
discipline.  In  the  Carlovingian  era,  however, 
civil  penalties  or  disabilities  began  to  be  inflicted 
for  drunkenness.  In  a  capitulary  of  803,  added 
to  the  Salic  law,  it  is  enacted  that  no  one  while 
drunk  may  obtain  his  suit  in  the  mall  nor  give 
witness;  nor  shall  the  count  hold  a  plea  unless 
before  breaking  his  fast ;  nor  may  any  one  com¬ 
pel  another  to  drink  (cc.  15,  16 ;  and  see  also 
General  Collection,  J)k.  iii,  c.  38,  and  bk.  vi. 
232-3).  The  latter  injunction  is  thus  developed 
in  a  capltularv  of 813 :  “That  In  the  host  none 
do  pray  his  peer  or  any  other  man  to  drink.  And 
whoever  in  the  army  shall  have  been  found 
drunk,  shall  be  so  excommunicated  that  in  drink¬ 
ing  he  use  onlv  water  till  he  know  himself  to 
have  acted  evilly  ”  (bk.  iii.  c.  72).  Another 


DRUSUS 


EAGLE 


585 


capitulary,  i*elating  however  to  the  clergy,  enacts 
that  priests  who  against  the  canons  enter  taverns 
and  are  not  ashamed  to  minister  to  feastings  and 
drunkenness,  are  to  be  severely  coerced  (bk.  v. 
c.  325  ;  see  also  c.  162,  which  however  only  pro¬ 
nounces  excommunication). 

The  data  for  the  above  statements  are  taken, 
except  in  the  first  few  centuries,  exclusively  from 
the  legal  records  of  the  Church,  or  those  of  a 
period  when  it  was  almost  identified  with  the 
state.  They  might  be  abundantly  illustrated 
from  contemporary  writers,  century  by  century. 
But  they  suffice  to  shew  that  the  vice  in  ques¬ 
tion  was  never  absent  from  the  Church  nor  from 
its  clergy,  and  that  it  attained  enormous  pro¬ 
portions  among  the  latter  in  our  own  islands, 
and  in  the  8th  and  9th'  centuries  on  the  Con¬ 
tinent  also.  (See  also  Caupo.)  [J.  M.  L.] 

DRUSUS,  martyr  at  Antioch,  with  Zosimus 
and  Theodorus ;  commemorated  Dec.  14  (^Mart. 
liom.  Vet.,  Hicron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DUCKS.  It  is  quite  uncertain  why  this  bird 
is  represented  in  early  art,  but  it  occurs  repeat¬ 
edly  in  the  bas-reliefs  of  the  Duomo  at  Ravenna, 
on  the  great  piers  at  the  east  end,  and  in  the 
church  of  St.  Giovanni  Evangedista  in  the  same 
place.  It  is  also  drawn  with  great  spirit  and 
evident  enjoyment  by  the  monk  Rabula,  who 
twice  indulges  in  an  archivolt  })atteru  of  ducks 
and  eggs  (Assemani,  Catalog.  Bibl.  Med.  Taw. 
xviii.,  xix.) ;  besides  single  repre.sentations  of 
various  species.  The  bird  may  have  been  do¬ 
mesticated  in  monasteries,  &c.,  and  have  been  a 
favourite  subject  of  illumination  from  its  pretty 
colours.  It  occurs  in  the  Lombard  bas-reliefs 
at  Verona.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

DUEL  {Duellum).  The  notion  of  deciding  a 
matter  in  dispute,  after  ordinary  means  had 
failed,  by  a  single  combat  between  the  parties  or 
their  champions,  came  into  the  empire  with  the 
Teutonic  tribes,  who  were  accustomed  to  settle 
by  arms  their  private  as  well  as  public  disputes. 

The  earliest  formal  recognition  of  the  judicial 
combat  as  an  institution  seems  to  be  in  the  laws  of 
the  Burgundians  (Canciani,  Leg.  Barhar.  iv.  25 ; 
A.D.  502),  which  provide  (tit.  45)  that  a  man 
who  declines  to  clear  himself  by  oath  is  not  to  be 
denied  his  right  of  challenge  to  combat.  After¬ 
wards  the  duel  is  referred  to  in  many  barbarian 
codes,  as  Leges  Alemann.  tit.  44,  §  1  ;  Baiuar. 
tit.  2,  c.  2 ;  Longobard.  lib.  i.  tit.  9,  §  39,  &c. 

It  was  only  under  the  formal  sanction  of  a 
court,  and  as  a  kind  of  appeal  to  a  higher  tri¬ 
bunal,  that  such  combats  were  held  to  be  legal. 

The  further  development  of  the  system,  and 
the  canonical  prescripts  relating  to  it,  belong  to 
the  Middle  Ages  (Sclden,  The  Duello  or  Single 
Combat,  in  IVor^s,  vol.  3 :  Ducange,  s.  v.  Duel- 
lurn).  [C.] 

DULA,  martyr  at  Nicomedia  ;  commemo¬ 
rated  March  25  (Maid.  Bom.  Vet.,  Ilieron.,  Bedae, 
Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

DUMB.  The  49th  (otherwise  56th)  of  the 
Apostolical  Canons  enacts  excommunicatiem 
against  any  cleric  who  should  make  a  mock 
of  the  deaf,  dumb,  or  blind.  By  the  69th  (other¬ 
wise  77th),  the  deaf,  the  dumb,  and  the  blind 
were  excluded  from  the  episcopate,  not  as  defiled, 
but  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Church  should 
not  be  hinde.ied. 


The  capacity  of  the  dumb  to  receive  the  sacra¬ 
ments  or  accept  a  penance  was  the  subject  ol 
some  controversy.  A  whole  work  of  Fulgentius 
(De  Baptismo  Aethiopis')  is  devoted  to  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  validity  of  the  baptism  of  an  Ethiop 
catechumen  after  the  loss  of  his  voice,  and  he 
concluded  that  it  was  entitled  to  the  same  va¬ 
lidity  as  that  of  an  infixnt.  This  view  prevailed 
in  the  Church.  Amongst  other  canonical  autho¬ 
rities,  the  1st  Council  of  Orange,  a.d.  441,  en¬ 
acted  that  a  person  suddenly  losing  his  voice 
might  be  baptized  or  accept  a  penance,  if  his 
previous  will  thereto  could  be  proved  by  the 
witness  of  others,  or  his  actual  will  by  his  nod 
(c.  12).  The  38th  canon  of  the  2nd  Council  of 
Arles  (452)  is  to  the  same  effect  as  regards 
baptism. 

According  to  one  of  Ulpian’s  Fragments  (t.  xx.) 
Ihe  dumb  could  not  be  a  witness,  nor  make  a 
testament,  the  reason  assigned  in  the  latter  case 
being  that  he  could  not  pronounce  the  “  words  of 
nuncupation  ”  technically  required  for  the  pur¬ 
pose.  And  by  a  constitution  of  Justinian,  a.d. 
531  (Code,  bk.  vi.  tit.  xxii.  1.  10)  deaf-mutes  were 
declared  incapable  of  making  a  will  or  codicil, 
constituting  a  donation  morcis  causa,  or  confer¬ 
ring  a  freedom,  unless  the  infirmity  should  not  be 
congenital,  and  they  should  have  learned  to  write 
before  it  occurred,  in  which  case  they  could  exer¬ 
cise  all  these  rights  by  writing  under  their  own 
hand.  The  dumb  were  in  all  cases  allowed  to  do 
so  by  such  writing.  It  was,  however,  heTd  by  the 
old  law  that  the  dumb,  as  well  as  the  deaf  and 
blind,  could  lawfully  contract  marriage,  and  be¬ 
come  subject  to  dotal  obligations  (Dig.  bk.  xxiii. 
tit.  iii.  1.  73).  Deaf-mutes  were  held  excused 
from  civil  honours,  but  not  from  civic  charges 
(ibid.  bk.  1.  tit.  ii.  1.  7).  But  the  dumb  might 
lawfully  decline  a  guardian-  or  curatorship 
(Code,  bk.  v.  t.  Ixvii. :  Const,  of  Bhilip,  a.d. 
247).  [J.  M.  L.] 

DUODECIMA,  the  twelfth  hour,  or  ves¬ 
pers  [Hours  of  Prayer].  “  Duodecima,  quae 
dicitur  Vespera”  (Regula  S.  Bened.  c.  34 ;  Mar- 
tene,  De  Bit.  Monach.  i.  x.  6).  [C.] 

DUREN,  COUNCILS  OF  (Duriense),  at 
Diiren,  near  Aix-la-Chapelle  ;  (i.)  a.d.  748,  under 
Pipin,  a  “  placitum,”  which  commanded  a  synod 
to  be  held,  for  restoration  of  churches,  and  for 
the  causes  of  the  poor,  the  widow,  and  the 
orphan  (Labb.  vl.  1880);  (ii.)  A.D.  761,  a 
national  council  under  Pipin,  in  the  tenth  year 
of  his  reign,  called  by  Regino  a  “  synod  ”  (ib. 
1700);  (iii.)  A.D.  775,  under  Chaidemagne  (ib. 
1821);  nothing  more  is  known  of  these  two 
assemblies  :  (iv.)  A.D.  779,  under  Charlemagne, 
of  bishops,  nobles,  and  abbats,  passed  24  Capit  da 
upon  discipline,  one  of  which  enforces  pavmeut 
of  tithes  (ib.  1824-1826).  [A.  W.  H.] 

DURIENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Duren, 
Councils  of.] 

E 

EAGLE.  It  is  probably  an  instance  of  care¬ 
ful  exclusion  of  all  Pagan  emblems  or  forms 
which  had  been  actual  objects  of  idolatrous  nprship, 
while  merely  Gentile  or  human  tokens  and 
myths  were  freely  admitted,  that  the  form  ot 
the  eagle  appears  so  rarely  in  Christian  orua* 


586 


EBRULFUS 


EASTER 


mentation,  at  least  before  the  time  of  its  adop¬ 
tion  as  the  symbol  of  an  evangelist.  [Kvax- 
GELISTS.]  Aringhi  (vol.  ii.  p.  228,  c.  2)  speaks 
of  the  eagle  as  representing  the  Lord  Himself; 
and  this  is  paralleled  by  a  quotation  of  Mar- 
tigny’s  from  a  sermon  of  St.  Ambrose,  where  he 
refers  to  Ps.  ciii.  (“Thy  youth  is  renewed  like 
the  eagle’s”)  as  foreshadowing  the  resurrection. 
Lebl ant  (/rtscr.  Chretiennes  de  la  Gavle,  i.  147,  45), 
in  illustration  gives  a  palm  between  two  eagles, 
and  Bottari  a  ])late  of  a  domed  ceiling  in  the 
sepulchre  of  St.  Priscilla,  where  two  eagles 
standing  on  globes  form  part  of  the  ornamenta¬ 
tion.  It  refers  evidently  to  some  buried  general 
or  legionary  officer  (vol.  iii.  tav.  160).  Tri¬ 
umphal  chariots  fill  two  of  the  side  spaces,  but 
they  and  the  eagles  can  hardly  be  considered 
Christian  emblems,  though  used  by  Christians. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

EBRULFUS,  abbot  and  confessor ;  comme¬ 
morated  Dec.  29  (^Mart.  Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

EARS,  TOUCHING  OF.  1.  Tn  Baptism. 
As  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  men’s 
hearts  are  opened  to  receive  the  wondrous  things 
of  God’s  law,  so  there  was  a  symbolic  opening  of 
the  ears  in  the  baptismal  ceremony  (Ambrose, 
De  Mysteriis^  c.  X ;  Pseudo-Ambrosius,  De  Sacra- 
mentis,  i.  1;  Petrus  Chrysologus,  Sermo  52;  see 
also  the  ancient  Expositio  Evangeliorum  in 
aurium  gpertione  in  Martene,  De  Bit.  Ant., 
I.  i.  12).  Thus  in  Magnus’s  directions  for  the 
preliminaries  of  baptism  (Martene,  u.s.  art.  17), 
drawn  up  by  command  of  Charles  the  Great,  we 
read,  after  the  instruction  in  the  Creed :  “  tan- 
guntur  aures  et  nares  de  sputo,  et  dicitur 
Effata  [Ephphatha],  id  est,  aperire,”  in  order 
that  the  ears  may  listen  to  the  wholesome  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  Christian  faith  and  reject  the  sophistic 
pleadings  of  the  devil.  Similarly  in  the  ancient 
baptismal  Ordines  of  Gemblours  and  of  Rheims 
(Jh.  art.  18). 

2.  In  Holy  Communion,  it  seems  to  have  been 
the  custom  to  touch  the  organs  of  sense  (alaOri- 
r-fjpia)  with  the  moisture  left  on  the  lips  after 
receiving  the  cup  (Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catech. 
Myst.  V.  22 ;  see  Communion,  Holy,  p.  413). 

[C.] 

EARTHQUAKE.  The  great  earthquake 
which  befel  Constantinople  in  the  year  758  is 
commemorated  Oct.  26  (CaL  Byzant.')  [C.] 

EAST,  Prayer  Towards.  Praying  towards 
the  East,  as  the  quarter  of  the  rising  sun,  the 
source  of  light,  a  natural  symbolism  common  to 
nearly  all  religions,  was  adopted  by  the  Christian 
church  from  its  commencement,  in  accordance 
with  the  very  wise  rule  which  accepted  all  that 
was  good  and  pure  in  the  religious  systems  it' 
came  to  supplant,  breathing  into  the  old  cere¬ 
monies  a  new  and  higher  life.  One  of  the  ear¬ 
liest  testimonies  to  the  prevalence  of  this  custom 
among  Christians  is  that  of  Tertullian,  c.  205 
(^Apoloy.  c.  xvi. ;  coat.  Valentin,  c.  iii.),  who  refers 
to  the  suspicions  entertained  by  the  heathen  that 
Christians  were  sun  worshippers  “  because  they 
were  well  known  to  turn  to  the  East  in  pi’ayer,” 
being  “  lovers  of  the  radiant  East,  that  figure 
of  Christ.”  The  Apostolical  Constitutions  also 
direct  that  the  whole  congregation  “  rise  up  with 
one  consent,  and  looking  to  the  east,  pray  to  God 


eastward  ”  (lib.  ii.  §  vii.  c.  57).  The  same  rule 
is  mentioned  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  {Stromata, 
vii.  7),  who  says  that  “  prayers  are  made  looking 
towards  the  sunrise  in  the  east.”  Basil,  c.  374, 
testifies  to  the  universality  of  the  custom 
{De.  Sp.  Sanct.  c.  27),  and  Augustine  speaks  « 
of  it  as  a  general  usage  {De  Serm.  in  Monte,  lib. 
ii.  c.  5).  To  take  one  later  instance  out  oi 
many,  Joannes  Moschus,  c.  600,  records  an  anec¬ 
dote  of  a  certain  abbot  Zjicchaeus  of  Jerusalem, 
who,  when  praying,  “  turned  to  the  east  and 
remained  about  two  hour.s,  without  speaking, 
his  arms  stretched  out  to  heaven  ”  {Prat.  Spnrit. 

§  102).  The  chapter  of  Joannes  Damascenus  {De 
Orthodox.  Fid.  iv.  13)  “  concerning  worshipping 
to  the  east,”  proves  the  prevalence  of  the 
custom. 

The  true  reason  for  this  custom  is  doubtless 
that  already  alluded  to,  that,  to  adopt  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  Clemens  Alex.,  “  the  east  is  the  image 
of  the  day  of  birth.  For  as  the  light  which 
there  first  shone  out  of  darkness  waxes  brighter, 
so,  like  the  sun,  the  day  of  the  knowledge  of 
truth  has  dawned  on  those  immersed  in  dark¬ 
ness  ”  (Clem.  Alex,  u.s.')  In  close  connection 
with  this  is  the  reference  to  Christ  as  the  “  Day¬ 
spring  from  on  high,”  the  apdroXi],  the  “  Light  of 
the  World,”  which  the  early  writers  delight  to 
recognise  (Chrys.  Homil.  in  Zach.  vi.  12).  Other 
reasons  for,  or  more  properly  speakiii^,  deduc¬ 
tions  from  the  practice,  are  given  %  other 
wi’iters,  one  of  the  most  frequent  and  beautiful 
of  which  is  that  in  praying  to  the  east  the  soul 
is  seeking  and  sighing  for  its  old  home  in 
Paradise,  to  which  it  hopes  to  be  restored  in 
Christ,  the  second  Adam  (Basil  De  Sp.  Sanct.  u.s.. 
Const.  Apost.,  u.s. ;  Greg.  Nyss.  Homil.  V.  de 
Orat.  Domin. ;  Chrys.  ad  Daniel,  vi.  10  ;  Gregen- 
tius  Disputat.  cum  Herb.  JuJ.  p.  217).  Another 
cause  assigned  is  that  Christ  when  on  the  cross 
looked  towards  the  west,  so  that  in  praying  to 
the  east  we  are  looking  towards  Him  (Joan. 
Damasc.  u.  s.,  Cassiod.  ad  Ps.  Ixvii.),  and  that  as 
He  appeared  in  the  east,  and  thence  ascended 
into  heaven,  so  He  will  there  appear  again  at  the 
last  day,  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  being 
like  “  the  lightning  that  cometh  out  of  the  east 
and  shineth  even  unto  the  west  ”  (Matt.  xxiv.  27), 
so  that  in  prayer  Christians  are  looking  for  their 
Lord’s  return  (Hilar,  in  Ps.  Ixvii.).  We  learn 
from  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  and  others  that  the 
Catechumen  at  Baptism  turned  from  the  west, 
the  place  of  darkness,  to  the  east,  the  home 
of  light,  and  to  the  site  of  Paradise  which  by  that 
sacrament  was  reopened  to  him  (Cyril  Catech. 
xix.  9 ;  Hieron.  in  Anv^s.  vi.  14 ;  Ambros.  De 
Initial,  c.  2;  Lactant.  lib.  ii.  c.  10;  Pseudo 
Justin.  Quest,  ad  Orthodox.  118).  (Bona  De  Divin. 
Psahnod.  c.  vi.  §  2 ;  Bingham  Orig.  xi.  7.  4 ; 
xiii.  8.  15.)  [E.  V.] 

E ASTER-EVE.  [Easter,  Ceremonies  of.] 

EASTER.  The  Teutonic  name  of  the  church 
feast  of  our  Lord’s  resurrection  (A.-S.  eastre. 
Germ,  ostem).  Bede  {De  Temp.  Rat.  c.  xv.  De 
mensibus  Anglorum),  gives  as  the  name  of  the 
fourth  month,  answering  nearly  to  April,  Eostur- 
monath,  and  adds :  “  Eostur-monath,  qui  nunc 
Paschalis  mensis  interpretatur,  quondam  a  Dea 
illorum  quae  Eostre  vocabatur,  et  cui  in  illo 
festa  celebrabant,  nomen  habuit :  a  cujus  nomine 
uuQc  Paschale  tempus  cognominant,  concueto 


EASTER 


EASTER 


687 


antjquae  observatioiiis  vocabulo  gaudia  novae 
solennitatis  vocantes.” 

The  name  of  the  festival  in  the  Romance  lan¬ 
guages  (Ital.  Pasqua,  Fr.  Pdques),  like  the  Latin 
Pasc/ia,  takes  us  back  at  once  to  the  historic 
origin  of  the  festival  in  the  passover.  In  N.  T. 
rh  Trd(rxa,  though  in  A.  V.  once  (Acts  xii.  4) 
translated  “Easter,”  refers  either  to  the  Jews’ 
passover,  or  (l  .Cor.  v.  7)  to  our  Lord  as  its  anti¬ 
type.  The  word  irdcrxa  represents  the  Hebrew 
nDS3.  See  Ex.  xii.  Thus  the  history  of  Easter 
of  necessity  starts  from  the  passover. 

The  passover  was  kept  on  the  14th  day  of  the 
month  originally  called  Abib  (Ex.  xiii.  4),  after¬ 
wards  Nisan  (Neh.  ii.  1  ;  Esth.  iii.  7),  Avhich 
month  was  to  be  the  first  month  of  the  yeai’. 
On  the  16th  Kisan,  a  sheaf  (or  rather  handful) 
of  the  new  barley  was  presented  before  the  Lord, 
as  the  firstfruits  of  the  harvest  (Lev.  xxiii.  10; 
Joseph.  Ant.  iii.  x.  v.). 

The  above  observance  led,  as  a  most  important 
consequence,  to  the  fixity  of  the  seasons  (con¬ 
sidered  in  the  average)  in  the  Jewish  year.  It 
may  be  taken  as  established  tha't  the  Jewish 
;^ear  was  luni-solar,  of  twelve  lunar  months, 
which  we  may  say,  in  general  term.s,  consisted 
by  turns  of  twenty-nine  days  and  of  thirty,  with 
‘an  occasional  I3th  intercalary  month,  by  which 
a  correspondence  was  kept  up  with  the  length  of 
tlie  solar  year :  and  for  the  proper  time  of  inter¬ 
calating  this  month^  it  was  onljr  necessary  to 
consider,  at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of 
the  month  Nisan,  whether  the  barley  would  be 
sufficiently  ripe  in  sixteen  days  for  the  observance 
of  the  rite  of  the  firstfruits,  and  if  not,  to  inter¬ 
calate  a  month,  and  thus  postpone  the  ceremony. 
In  this  way,  the  seasons  would  continually  be 
brought  back  to  the  same  point. 

Having  regard  to  the  astronomical  element  in 
later  controversies,  we  now  offer  some  further 
account  of  the  astronomical  data  adecting  the 
passover. 

1.  The  I’elation  of  the  passover  to  the  moon. 
The  night  following  the  14th  Nisan  was  no 
doubt  intended  to  be  and  usually  was  that  of 
the  full  moon.  We  hear  indeed  in  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  the  passover,  not  of  the  full  moon,  but 
of  the  14th  day  of  the  moon,  and  in  the  early 
church  controversies  as  well  as  in  the  modern 
rule  settled  by  Clavius,  everything  still  depends 
technically  upon  the  “  14th  day  of  the  moon.” 
But  Philo  tells  us  (  Vit.  Mosis,  iii.  686)  that  the 
passover  is  celebrated,  /u-fWouros  tou  (reArjj/ia/cou 
kvkKov  y'lveaOai  Tr\T]ai(paovs,  and  again  (c/<?  Sept, 
et  Fest.  1191),  that  it  was  so  fixed  that  there 
might  be  no  darkness  on  that  day ;  and  again, 
“  That  not  only  by  day  but  also  by  night,  the 
world  may  be  full  of  all-beauteous  light,  inas¬ 
much  as  sun  and  moon  on  that  day  succeed  each 
other  with  no  interval  of  darkne.ss  between.” 
This  last  statement  is  extremely  significant,  and 
together  with  the  lunar  date,  the  14th,  very 
clearly  marks  the  point  of  time.  The  first  day 
of  the  moon  means,  in  pre-astronomical  times, 
not  the  day  of  the  conjunction  of  the  sun  and 
moon,  but  the  day  on  the  evening  of  which  the 
new  moon  first  becomes  visible  as  a  thin  streak 
of  light  to  the  left  of  the  sun,  just  after  sunset. 
This  is  possible  in  a  fine  climate,  some  eighteen 
hours  after  cor. 'uuctiou :  if  less  time  had  elapsed, 
the  first  visible  phase  would  be  on  the  next  day. 
Now  an  average  synodic  period  of  the  moon,  or 


lanation,  is  29d.  12  h.  44m.,  and  therefore  the 
average  interval  between  conjunction  and  full 
moon  is  14d.  18  h.  22  m.  Taking  the  average 
length  of  phase  and  of  interval,  we  should  be 
brought  for  full  moon  to  sunrise  on  the  15th 
day  of  the  moon  (inclusive),  which  would  make 
the  night  succeeding  the  14th  day  (inclusive) 
the  night  of  full  moon.  Since  the  half-lunation 
may  be  prolonged  or  shortened  in  rare  cases 
about  twenty  hours,  and  the  length  of  j)hase  »s 
also  variable,  luune  exceptions  must  be  allowed 
for,  but  the  general  correctne.ss  of  the  rule  is 
apparent,  and  also  that  the  night  of  the  14th 
will  more  frequently  precede  the  full  moon  than 
follow  it;  in  other  words,  the  moon  would  rise 
a  little  before  sunset,  instead  of  rising,  as  it 
might  do  in  the  contrary  ca.se  (a  day  later),  nearly 
an  hour  after  sunset.  Thus  Philo’s  statement 
that  there  was  no  interval  of  darkness,  a  fact  of 
a  nature  to  catch  the  attention,  and  about  which 
thei’e  could  be  no  mistake,  leads  us  to  believe 
that  by  calculating  the  time  of  full  moon  from 
the  astronomical  tables,  we  may  assign  the  15th 
Nisan  with  certainty  in  many  cases,  and  with  a 
high  degree  of  probability  in  others.  In  some 
cases  where  it  appears  difficult  to  decide  between 
two  successive  days,  an  examination  of  the  time 
of  the  preceding  new  moon  will  help,  though  it 
will  not  always  suffice,  to  remoA'e  the  doubt. 

2.  We  have  next  to  notice  the  relation  of  the 
passover  to  the  sun.  This  relation  is  apparent 
from  the  regulatloos  as  to  th^  firstfruits  on 
16th  Nisan.  The  season  of  the  year  depends  on 
the  equinox,  and  the  general  statement  is  that 
barley  ears  can  be  procured  in  a  fitting  state  at 
or  soon  after  the  vernal  equinox.  But  this 
relation  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  inference.  Jose¬ 
phus  writes  {Ant.  iii.  x.  5) :  “  In  the  month  of 
Xanthicus,  which  is  by  us  called  Nisan,  and  is 
the  beginning  of  our  year,  on  the  14th  day  of 
the  lunar  month,  when  the  sun  is  in  Aries  .... 
the  law  ordained  that  we  should  in  every  year 
slay  that  .sacrifice  ....  called  the  passover.” 
And  Philo  ( Vita  Mos.  iii.)  :  “  Trjr  apx^v 
iapivrjs  ifftifiepias  irpuTov  di'aypdcpei  p-r^va 
Mwi5<rrjs  Tans  twv  iviavrwv  irep'ioSois.” 

The  first  month  of  the  Jewish  year  was  then 
(as  the  best  authorities  hold),  that  month  which 
contained  the  vernal  equinox,  although  the 
beginning  of  the  month  might  precede  it.  The 
Jews  apparently  had  no  rule  about  not  keeping 
the  passover  before  the  equinox  ;  at  least  if  we 
may  believe  Epiphanius  {1/aeres.  Ixx.  11),  and  a 
definite  instance  given  by  St.  Ambrose,  a.d.  387, 
of  the  Jewish  passover  on  Mar.  20  {Ad  Aemil. 
Episc.  83).  Moreover  it  is  stated  that  the  ante¬ 
rior  limit  of  the  Latins  for  the  14th  of  the  moon, 
viz.  Mar.  18,  was  derived  from  the  Jews. 

In  after  times,  jirobably  from  the  time  of 
Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  247-264,  it  be¬ 
came  one  of  the  sharpest  points  of  controversy: 
'6ri  yUTj  fiAAore  I)  yutTCt  t^v  eapivTjy  larjpfpiav 
'iTpo(rr}K€i  ndcxa  eopr^v  (TTne\(7u  (Eus.  //.  E. 
vii.  15). 

Although,  however,  the  time  of  the  equinox 
became  a  point  of  critical  discussion  in  after 
times,  there  was  so  little  general  knowledge  of 
its  true  position,  that  very  strange  mistakes 
were  made  respecting  it.  The  correct  knowledge 
of  the  equinox  was  in  fact  nearly  confined  to  the 
Alexandrian  astronomers,  and  there  are  several 
misappi-eheuaions  which  still  prevail,  as,  foi 


588 


EASIER 


EASTER 


instance,  that  it  was  originally  on  the  25th  j 
March,  which  was  true  indeed  of  the  mean 
vernal  equinox,  hut  never  of  the  true  vernal 
equinox.  This  misconcej)tion  is  probably  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  25th  of  March  was  marked  as 
the  vernal  equinox  in  the  calendai*  of  .Julius 
Caesar,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Varro, 
Pliny,  and  Columella.  We  have  thought  it 
worth  while  to -calculate,  for  the  purj)oseof  this 
article,  and  now  to  state,  the  princii)al  i)Osi- 
tions  of  the  vernal  equinox  (true)  since  the 
Julian  era. 

Dates  of  {true)  Vernal  Equinox  for  the  Meridian 
of  Alexandria.. 

B.C.  4.5.  Mar.  23  (civil)  4'‘  34'"  A.M. 

ilange  from  Leap-year  to  licap-year. 

Earlier  Limit.  B.C.  45.  Mar.  23  (civil)  4^  34'"  a.m. 

Later  Limit.  B.C.  42.  Alar.  23,  10^  !■"  r.M. 


A.D.  29.  Mar.  22.  O'*  18'"  r.«. 

Range  from  Leap-year  to  Leap-year. 

Earlier  Limit.  A.Ib  28.  Mar.  22.  S'*  29'"  r.ir. 
Later  Limit.  A. I).  31.  Mar.  23  (civil)  8>>  55'"  A.M. 


A.l).  325.  Mar.  20.  2^  17''>  p.m. 

Range  from  Leap-year  to  Leap-year. 

Earlier  Limit.  A.D.  324.  Mar.  20  (civil)  8>>  -JS*"  a.m. 

Later  Limit.  A.D.  327.  Mar.  21  (civil)  St'"  a.m. 

Clavius,  misled  by  the  tables  which  he  used 
(Tabulae  Nicolai  Copcrnici,  sire  Prutenicae)  placed 
the  Vernal  Equinox  at  the  Nicene  Council,  A.D. 
325,  or  March  21st,  6’*  P.M.  nearly  28  hours 
too  late  (Op.  tom.  v.  p.  72).  The  20th  and  21.st 
are  the  very  days  to  which  the  equinox  was 
brought  back  at  the  Gregorian  correction  of  1582, 
when  it  stood  at  Mar.  11th  (civil)  2'*  10”’  A.M., 
the  earlier  limit  being  Mar.  10th,  2*‘  32“’  P.M., 
and  the  later  Mar.  11th  (civil)  8*’  A.M. 

The  connection  of  the  passover  with  Ea.ster  is 
through  that  particular  passover  at  which  our 
Lord  suffered,  but  so  few  are  the  chronological 
details  in  the  gospels,  that  it  is  imj)Ossible  to  fix 
with  absolute  certainty  either  the  year  or  the 
day  of  the  year,  or  perhaps  even  of  the  month 
on  which  our  Lord  suffered.  The  full  investiga¬ 
tion  of  the  subject  would  be  beyond  the  scope  of 
this  article. 

The  points  which  are  beyond  doubt  are  these  : 

I.  Our  Lord’s  death  took  place  under  the  pro- 
curatorship  of  Pontius  I^ilate  :  that  is  to  say, 
between  the  limits  A.D.  28  and  a.d.  33  inclusive. 

II.  It  took  place  at  the  passover. 

III.  All  the  gospels  agi-ee  that  it  took  place 
on  the  irapaiTKev^,  that  is,  on  a  Friday.  In  St. 
John  (xix.  14),  the  Trapao'/feurj  rov  7rd(T)^a  pro¬ 
bably  means  (like  TvpoeToiixaaia  in  the  Chronicon 
Pasdude  i.  15)  the  day  before  the  15th  Nisan, 
which  was  in  a  double  sense  that  year  a  Sabbath 
(John  xix.  31),  but  the  word  was  in  common  use 
to  designate  the  eve  before  the  Sabbath,  and 
came  afterwards  to  mean  simply  “  PT-iday.” 

Astronomy,  while  furnishing  valuable  sugges¬ 
tions  on  this  important  subject,  is  not  competent 
to  decide  absolutely,  either  for  the  particular 
year,  or  between  the  advocates  of  the  14th  and 
of  the  15th  Nisan. 

The  history  of  the  paschal  observance  in  the 
apostolic  and  early  post-apostolic  times  is  ex¬ 
tremely  obscure,  and  has  been  very  variously 
represented.  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  New 
Testament  that  it  existed  at  first  as  an  institu¬ 
tion.  The  ecclesiastical  historian  Socrates  is  no 


doubt  right  when  he  .says  (v.  22):  “The  Saviour 
and  His  apostles  have  enjoined  us  by  no  law  to 
keep  this  feast  ....  The  ajwstles  had  no  thought 
of  apj)ointing  festival  days,  but  of  jtromoting  a 
life  of  blamele.ssness  and  piety.  And  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  feast  of  Easter  has  been  introduced 
into  the  Church  from  some  old  usage,  just  as 
many  other  customs  have  been  established.”  It 
ajipears  (from  Acts  xviii.  21  ;  xx.  6,  1(5)  that  the 
Jewish  Christians  and  even  St.  Paul  still  ob¬ 
served  the  Jewish  feasts,  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  memory  of  the  Loj'd’s  death 
would  be  with  them  the  main  thought  of  the 
passover-night,  and  would  gradually  supersede 
for  them  all  other  associations.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  passover  meal  had  no  place  amongst  the 
habits  of  the  Christians  of  Gentile  descent,  and 
their  anniversary  naturally  attached  itself  to 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  which  was  observed 
both  by  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  as  the 
weekly  festival  of  the  Lord’s  resurrection.  When 
the  time  of  the  passover  came  round,  the  first 
day  of  the  wgek  seemed  to  be  the  actual  day  of 
the  resurrection,  and  this  day,  taken  together 
with  the  preceding  P^riday,  as  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion,  seemed  the  proper  representations  of 
the  gi’eat  act  of  our  redem^ffion.  Amongst  the 
Gentile  Christians  these  institutions,  with  their 
accompanying  rules  of  Lasting,  &c.,  were  appa¬ 
rently  very  gradually  developed,  and  the  conflict 
between  the  two  usages  was  slow  in  coming. 
When  it  came,  we  find  the  cardinal  point  to  be 
the  T-ppeiv  (with  the  Asiatic  Christians),  or  the 
ft?)  Tippdiv  (with  the  Westerns),  the  14th  of 
the 'moon  (Nisan),  and  afterwards  along  with 
this,  and  connected  with  it,  the  correct  deter¬ 
mination  of  the  14th  of  the  moon.  The  point 
insisted  on  most' emphatically  by  the  Alexan¬ 
drians  (whom  the  Westerns  followed),  was,  that 
it  must  not  precede  the  equinox. 

When  the  Western  view  ultimately  prevailed 
in  the  church,  those  who  obstinately  ))ersevercd 
in  the  Asiatic  custom,  and  were  condemned  as 
heretics,  were  called  Quartodecimans,  and  it  is 
usual  and  convenient  to  give  the  same  name  by 
anticipation  to  those  who  observed  the  14th  day 
of  the  moon  in  the  earlier  controversy. 

The  chief  information  we  have  is  derived  from 
Eusebius,  from  several  passages  of  Epiphanius, 
treating  in  his  work  on  all  heresies  of  certain 
Quartodeciman  sects,  and  from  several  fragments 
preserved  in  the  Chronicon  J'aschale,  a  work  of 
about  630  A.D. 

The  following  conclusions  of  Bucherius  from  a 
passage  in  Epiphanius  (Haer.  Ixx.),  will  express 
the  probable  course  of  events.  “  P'rom  this  1 
gather  three  things:  P’irst,  that  so  long  at  least 
as  the  first  fifteen  bishops  of  Jerusalem  (those  of 
Jewish  descent)  continued,  the  pascha  was  cele¬ 
brated  everywhere  by  all  Christians,  or  by  a 
great  majority  of  them,  according  to  the  lunar 
computation  and  method  of  the  Jews.  But  they 
continued  until  the  year  136  a.d.,  or  to  the  end 
of  the  reign  of  the  emperor  Hadrian,  when  ^lark 
was  first  taken  from  the  Gentiles  to  be  bishop. 
(Euseb.  V.  xii.)  Secondly,  that  then  began  a 
time  of  dissension,  as  P^jfiphanius  a  little  before 
more  plainly  testifies  (see  below).  Thirdly,  that 
a  more  general  method  then  came  in,  whether 
the  eighty-four  years  cycle,  or  the  octaeteris 
(amended),  otherwise  that  re{)roach  was  un¬ 
meaning  which  the  Audiaui  launched  against  the 


EASTER 


EASTER 


589 


orthodox — that  they  had  departed  from  the 
ancient  custom,”  &c.  We  subjoin  the  earlier  part 
of  the  chapter  which  is  here  alluded  to. 

“  For  even  from  the  earliest  times  various 
controversies  and  dissensions  were  in  the  church 
concerning  this  solemnity,  which  used  yearly  to 
bring  laughter  and  mockery.  For  some,  in  a 
certain  ardour  of  contention,  began  it  before  the 
week,  some  after  the  week,  some  at  the  begin¬ 
ning,  some  in  the  middle,  some  at  the  end.  To 
say  in  a  word,  there  was  a  wonderful  and  la¬ 
borious  confusion.  Nor  is  it  unknown  to 
learned  men,  how  often,  at  the  various  times 
of  this  feast,  there  have  arisen  from  the  ob¬ 
servance  of  a  diflerent  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
tumults  and  contentions,  especially  in  the  time 
of  Polycarp  and  Victor,  when  the  Easterns  and 
Westerns  would  receive  no  mutual  letters  of 
peace.  Which  also  happened  in  other  times,  as 
in  that  of  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  and 
Crescent  ins,  how  they  wrote  against  each  other 
and  bitterly  fought.  Which  disputes  began  to 
be  agitated  from  the  very  times  of  the  bishops  who 
had  been  converted  to  Christ  from  the  circumci¬ 
sion  and  from  the  sect  of  the  Jews,  even  to  our  own 
times,  on  which  account  those  who  had  gathered 
from  all  sides  to  the  Nicene  council,  the  matter 
having  been  accurately  known,  witli  common 
agreement  from  all,  and  with  fitting  computation 
and  calculation  of  times,  order  it  to  be  kept.” 

Eusebius  (//.  E.  v.  24)  gives  in  a  letter  of 
Irenaeus  the  following  account,  relating  to  the 
events  about  A.D.  160  • 

“  When  the  blessed  Polycarp  was  at  Rome  in 
the  time  of  Anicetus,  and  they  had  also  some 
little  ditfereuce  of  opinion  with  regard  to  other 
points,  they  immediately  came  to  a  peaceable 
understanding  respecting  this  one,  for  they  had 
no  love  for  mutual  disputes.  For  neither  could 
Anicetus  persuade  Polycarp  not  to  observe  (/xr? 
TTjpeii',  i.e.  the  14th  Nisan)  inasmuch  as  he  had 
always  observed  it  with  John  the  disciple  of  our 
Lord,  and  the  other  apostles  with  whom  he  had 
associated  ;  nor  could  Polycarp  pei’suade  Anicetus 
to  observe  for  he  said  that  he  ought  to 

follow  the  custom  of  the  presbyters  before  him.” 

Polycarp  was  bishop  of  Smyrna  in  Asia  Minor, 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  expressed  in 
these  words  the  custom  of  the  Asiatic  churches, 
which  was  rrjpelv,  whilst  that  of  the  Western 
was  TT}pe7v.  That  we  ought  to  supply  after 
TTjpdu,  the  14th  Nisan,  we  learn  from  c.  23 
(referring  to  about  A.D.  190). 

“  There  was  a  considerable  discussion  raised 
about  this  time,  in  consequence  of  a  difference  of 
opinion  respecting  the  observance  of  the  paschal 
season.  The  churches  of  all  Asia,  guided  by 
ancient  tradition,  thought  that  they  were  bound 
to  keep  the  14th  day  of  the  moon,  on  the  oc¬ 
casion  of  the  feast  of  the  Saviour’s  pa.ssover, 
that  day  on  which  the  Jews  had  been  commanded 
to  kill  the  paschal  lamb,  it  being  necessary  fur 
them  by  all  means  to  regulate  the  close  of  the 
fast  by  that  day,  on  whatever  day  of.  the  week 
it  might  ha|)pen  to  fall;  while  it  was  the  custom 
of  all  the  churches  of  all  the  rest  of  the  world, 
which  observed  in  this  respect  an  apostolic  tra¬ 
dition  that  has  prevailed  down  to  our  own  time, 
not  to  celebrate  it  in  this  manner,  it  being 
proper  to  close  the  fast  on  no  other  day  than 
that  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord.” 

“  The  bishops,  however,  of  Asia  ”  (he  continues 


in  the  24th  chap.)  “  persevering  in  observing  the 
custom  handed  down  to  them  from  their  fathers, 
were  headed  by  Polycrates.  He,  indeed,  had 
also  set  forth  the  tradition  handed  down  to 
them,  in  a  letter  which  he  addressed  to  Victor 
and  the  church  of  Rome.  ‘We,’  said  he,  ‘there¬ 
fore  observe  the  genuine  day  :  neither  adding 
thereto,  nor  taking  therefrom.  For  in  Asia 
great  lights  have  fallen  asleep,  which  shall  rise 
again  in  the  day  of  the  Lord’s  appearing  .... 
All  these  observed  the  14th  day  of  the  passover 
according  to  the  gospel,  deviating  in  no  respect, 
but  following  the  rule  of  faith  ;  so  also  do  I, 
Polycrates,  who  am  the  least  of  all  of  you,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  tradition  of  my  relatives,  .some  oi 
whom  I  have  followed.  For  there  were  seven  ol 
my  relatives  bishop.s,  and  I  am  the  eighth  ;  and 
my  relatives  always  observed  the  day  when  the 
people  (i.e.  the  Jews)  threw  away  the  leaven.’” 

“  Upon  this,  Victor,  the  bishop  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  forthwith  endeavoured  to  cut  otf  the 
churches  of  all  Asia,  together  with  the  neigh¬ 
bouring  churches,  as  heterodox,  from  the  com¬ 
mon  unity.  And  ho  publishes  abroad  by  letters, 
and  proclaims  that  all  the  brethren  there  are 
wholly  excommunicated.” 

Many  bishop.s,  however,  remonstrated,  amongst 
others  Irenaeus,  who  wrote  an  epistle,  in  which 
he  maintains  the  duty  of  celebrating  the  mys¬ 
tery  of  the  resuiTection  of  our  Lord,  only  on  the 
day  of  the  Lord ;  but  admonishes  Victor  not  to 
cut  off  whole  churches  of  God,  who  observed  the 
tradition  of  an  ancient  custom. 

In  chap.  XXV.  Eusebius  explains  that  the  bishops 
of  Palestine  agreed  wdth  the  decree,  and  stated 
that  they  observed  the  same  day  with  the  church 
of  Alexandria,  an  important  point,  for  Alexandria 
is  to  be  looked  on,  along  with  the  churches  of 
Rome  and  Asia  Minor,  as  the  third,  and  ulti¬ 
mately  the  most  important,  influence  in  regu¬ 
lating  Easter. 

Considering  how  much  has  been  written  re¬ 
specting  the  Asia  Minor  controversies  in  modern 
times,  it  is  material  to  observe  that  the  state¬ 
ments  of  Eusebius  and  the  whole  course  of  the 
controversy,  leave  no  doubt  of  the  observance  of 
the  14th  day  of  the  moon.  No  other  day  comes 
into  consideration.  Thus  the  facts  are  settled  ; 
to  judge  of  the  motives  from  which  the  day 
was  kept  is,  however,  more  difficult.  Various 
reasons  might  easily  be  alleged  for  the  observ¬ 
ance  of  this  day:  those  who  thought  that  our 
Lord  died  on  the  14th  Nisan,  might  keejj  it  (as 
Ave  believe)  us  the  anniversary  of  our  Lord’s 
death,  or  even  if  they  desired  to  keep  the  anni- 
I  A'ersary  of  the  last  sui)per,  knowing  that  that 
'  supper,  Avhich  was  by  intention  a  })assover,  Avas 
I  only  anticipated  in  point  of  time  by  necessity, 
might  revert  to  its  legal  time  of  celebration, 
j  Avhihst  those  Avho  thouglit  that  our  Lord  died  on 
the  15th  Nisan,  might  yet  keep  the  14th  (as  Baur 
I  and  Hilgenfeld  allege)  in  memory  of  the  supper. 

I  That  St.  John  found  at  Ephesus  a  fesfiA’al  on 
the  14th  and  joined  in  it,  and  gave  it  the  Aveight 
^  of  his  authority,  in  no  Avay  militates,  then. 

against  his  authorship  of  the  gospel,  that  fixes 
j  the  14th  Nisan  for  the  crucifixion,  even  though 
‘  it  Avere  true  that  the  other  chronology  had 
originally  preA'ailed  there. 

!  The  argument  of  Baur,  and  all  the  members 
of  the  Tubingen  school,  is  as  follows; — 'I'he 
Asiatics  celebrated  the  14th  Ni.-un  bv  an  ad- 


590 


EASTER 


EASTER 


miuistration  of  the  Lord’s  supper,  in  comme- 
moi'ation  of  the  passover  which  Jesus  had  on 
that  same  day,  immediately  before  his  death, 
eaten  with  his  disci])les.  The  Asiatic  church, 
therefore,  believed  that  Jesus  ate  on  the  evening 
of  the  14th,  and  that  he  died  on  the  15th,  and 
it  believed  this,  according  to  unimpeachable 
testimony,  on  the  authority  of  the  apostle  John. 
But  now,  what  says  the  4th  gospel  ?  According 
to  it,  the  celebration  of  the  last  supper  bj*  our 
Lord  took  jjlace,  not  upon  the  14th  Nisan,  but 
upon  the  evening  of  the  day  previous,  the  13th, 
while  Jesus  dies  upon  the  cross  upon  the  14th, 
and  therefore  before  the  passover  of  the  law 
could  have  been  partaken  of.  The  conclusion 
is  obvious.  The  apostle  who  is  the  great  au¬ 
thority  for  the  Asiatic,  cannot  possibly  be  the 
author  of  the  gospel,  which  speaks  unmistakeably 
for  the  western  practice. 

There  is  a  simplicity  and  coherence  in  the 
Tubingen  theory,  as  expanded  at  length  in  Hil- 
genfeld’s  I'asc/iasfreit  der  alien  Kirche,  which 
gives  it  a  very  strong  hold  upon  the  mind.  But 
it  rests  upon  more  than  one  untenable  assump¬ 
tion.  Thus  it  assumes  that  the  Asiatic  Christians 
kept  the  14th  evening  as  the  anniversary  of  the 
last  sup))er.  There  is  not,  however,  any  hint  of 
this  in  the  most  important  narratives  of  the 
controversy,  and  the  plain  natural  view  is  that 
the  14th  Nisan  was  observed  in  Asia  by  fasting 
in  memory  of  the  death  of  Jesus ;  while  a  com¬ 
munion  feast  in  the  evening  commemorated  a 
completed  redemption.  The  fact  of  the  fasting, 
to  which  both  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius  bear  wit¬ 
ness,  is  of  itself  a  testimony  that  it  was  the 
solemn  memory  of  the  death  of  our  Lord  that 
was  observed.  Fasting  in  anticipation  of  the 
eucharist,  belongs  altogether  to  a  later  period, 
as  is  truly  observed  In  Steitz’s  article  in  Herzog’s 
Rcal-Encyclo])adie.  [Communion,  Holy,  p.  417.] 

Between  these  controversies,  that  of  Anicetus 
and  Polycarp  (about  160  A.D.),  and  that  of 
Victor  and  Polycrates  (190  A.D.),  there  occurred 
another  in  Laodicea  (between  170  a.d.  and  177 
A.D.),  which  has  become  of  late  the  very  turning- 
point  of  the  whole  discussion,  but  about  which 
Eusebius  affords  us  no  further  information  than 
what  follows  (//.  E.  iv.  26).  “Of  Melito,  there 
are  th&  two  works  on  the  passover  ....  In  the 
works  on  the  passover  he  shews  the  time  in 
which  he  wrote  it,  beginning  with  these  words : 
— ‘  When  Servilius  Paulus  was  proconsul  of 
Asia,  at  which  time  Sagaris  suffered  martyr¬ 
dom,  there  was  much  discussion  in  Laodicea 
respecting  the  j)assover,  which  occurred  at  that 
time  in  its  i)roper  season,  and  in  which  also 
these  works  were  written.’  This  work  is  also 
mentioned  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  his  own 
work  on  the  jiassover,  which,  he  says,  he  wrote 
on  occasion  of  Melito’s  work  (e’l  ulrias  rrjs  rov 
MeAiTcoi/os  ypdcprjs).’' 

But  with  this  dispute  are  connected,  probably 
rightly,  the  two  following  fragments  of  Apol- 
linaris,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  given  in  the  Chro- 
nicon  i'asc/ude: 

1.  “There  are  some  who  now,  through  igno¬ 
rance,  love  to  raise  controversy  about  these 
things,  being  guilty  in  this  of  a  pardonable 
ofience,  for  ignorance  does  not  so  much  de.serv'e 
blame  as  need  instruction.  And  they  say  that 
on  the  14th  the  Lord  ate  the  lamb  with  his 
disciples,  but  that  He  himself  suffered  on  the 


great  day  of  unleavened  bread;  and  they  in¬ 
terpret  Matthew  as  favouring  their  view,  from 
which  it  appears  that  their  sentiment.<  are  not 
in  harmony  with  the  law,  and  that  the  gosjiels 
seem,  according  to  them,  to  be  at  variance.” 

Again,  “  The  14th  is  the  true  pa.ssover  of  the 
Lord,  the  great  sacrifice,  instead  of  the  lamb  the 
Son  of  God,  ....  who  was  lifted  up  upon  the 
horns  of  the  unicorn,  and  was  pierced  in  his  sacred 
side,  who  shed  out  of  his  side  the  two  cleansing 
elements,  water  and  blood,  word  and  spirit,  and 
who  was  buried  on  the  day  of  the  passover,  the 
stone  having  been  jdaced  upon  his  tomb.” 

We  know  very  little  of  Ajtollinaris.  Eusebius 
tells  us  that  he  was  the  author  of  an  Apology  for 
the  Christians,  addressed  to  the  emperor,  and 
that  he  was  an  eloquent  writer  against  the 
Phrygian,  Cataphryglan,  and  other  Montanists, 
and  wrote  two  works  against  the  Jews:  but  we 
are  left  to  conjecture  who  tho.se  opponents  were 
against  whom  he  was  arguing  in  the  work  from 
which  these  fragments  are  taken. 

With  these  fragments  are  associated  quotations 
from  Hippolytus  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  : — 

“Hippolytus,  the  witness  of  religion,  who  was 
bishop  of  the  so-called  Portus,  near  Rome,  has 
written  literally  thus  in  his  Treatise  against 
all  the  Heresies :  ‘  I  therefore  see  that  there  is 
a  contentiousness  in  this  affair.  For  he  (i.e. 
the  adversary,  the  Quarto-deciman)  says  thus : 
Christ  celebrated  the  passover  on  that  very  day, 
and  suffered :  I  therefore  must  also  do  as  the 
Lord  did.’  But  he  is  wrong  from  not  knowing 
that,  when  Christ  suffered,  he  did  not  eat  the 
passover  according  to  the  law.  For  He  was  the 
passover  that  had  been  foretold,  and  which  was 
accomplished  on  the  day  appointed.” 

And  again  the  same  (Hippolytus)  says  in  the 
Treatise  on  the  Passover :  “  He  did  not  eat  the 
passover,  but  he  suffered  (i.e.  as  the  passover) 
ovK  ((payer,  dW*  eiradeu.’* 

Another  passage  from  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
in  his  work  concerning  the  passover  :  “In  the  pre¬ 
ceding  years  then  the  Lord  keeping  the  passover 
ate  that  which  was  slain  by  the  Jews:  but 
when  he  proclaimed  himself  to  be  the  passover, 
the  Lamb  of  God,  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter, 
immediately  he  taught  his  disciples  the  mystery 
of  the  type  on  the  13th,  on  which  also  they  ask  of 
him,  Where  wilt  thou  that  we  make  ready  to 
eat  the  passover,  ....  but  the  Savioui  suf¬ 
fered  on  the  next  day,  being  himself  the  passover 
.  .  .  .”  See  also  Philosophnmena,  274-5. 

These  fragments  are  given  because  they  offer 
almost  the  entire  evidence  on  which  we  have  to 
fix  the  place  of  the  Laodicean  interlude.  Hilgen- 
feld  views  Apollinaris  as  a  representative  of  the 
West,  through  whom  Western  infiuence  has 
gained  a  footing  in  the  heart  of  Asia.  His  oppo¬ 
nent  is  directly  Melito,  but  Melito  as  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  whole  body  of  Asiatic  Christians. 

Now  that  Apollinaris  is  in  the  greatest  har¬ 
mony  with  the  Roman  and  Alexandrian  writers 
whose  fragments  are  associated  with  him  in  the 
Chrunkon  Paschale,  is  manifest :  there  is  great 
probability  also  in  the  conjectui’e  that  he,  like 
Clement,  wrote  on  the  occasion  of  Melito’s  work, 
and  the  absence  of  his  name  from  the  list  of 
Polycrates  suggests  some  discordance  between 
his  views  and  those  of  Polycrates.  But  he 
writes  against  certain  persons  who  are  creating 
a  disturbance,  not  against  the  quietly  existing 


EASTER 


EASTER 


591 


ancient  custom,  nearly  univei'sal  around  him : 
he  seems  to  observe  the  14th  himself,  and  when 
we  notice  the  characteristics  of  his  writings  ae 
directed  against  the  Phrygians,  Cataphrygians, 
and  other  Montanists,  and  against  the  Jews 
(Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  27),  we  may  see  ground  for 
suspecting  that  his  real  antagonist  was  such  a 
man  as  Blastus  (perhaps  the  very  man)  who, 
about  180,  carried  Montanism  from  Asia  Minor 
to  Rome  and  there  provoked  the  opposition  of 
the  church,  which  is  extremely  likely  to  have 
stirred  up  Victor’s  crusade  against  the  customs 
of  Asia  Minor.  We  know  that  Hippolytus,  as 
well  as  Irenaeus,  wrote  against  Blastus,  and 
although  Melito’s  work  may  have  occasioned 
that  of  Apollinaris,  Eusebius  would  hardly  have 
noticed  them  together,  as  he  does,  as  fellow- 
helpers  in  the  church,  if  they  occupied  so  marked 
an  antagonistic  position  as  has  been  supposed. 

We  have  already  seen  from  Epiphanius  that  a 
diversity  of  usages  continued  to  prevail  until 
the  Nicene  council.  At  that  council  the  Western 
usage  may  be  said  to  have  established  its  victory, 
and  those  who  still  persisted  in  the  Asiatic 
practice  fell  into  the  position  of  heretics.  We 
find  in  the  letter  of  the  emperor  Constantine 
to  the  churches  after  that  council  (Socr.  H.  E. 
i.  9) :  “  There  also  the  question  having  been  con¬ 
sidered  relative  to  the  most  holy  day  of  Easter, 
it  was  determined  by  common  consent  that  it 
would  be  proper  that  all  should  celebrate  it  on 
one  and  the  same  day  everywhere.”  Also  that 
“  it  seemed  very  unsuitable  in  the  celebration  of 
this  sacred  feast,  that  we  should  follow  the 
custom  of  the  Jews,”  ....  who,  labouring  under 
a  judicial  blindness,  “  even  in  this  particular 
do  not  perceive  the  truth,  so  that  they,  con¬ 
stantly  erring  in  the  utmost  degree,  celebrate 
the  feast  of  passover  a  second  time  in  the  same 
year.”  This  of  course  refers  to  the  error  of 
celebrating  before  the  equinox.  “  Consider  how 
grievous  and  indecorous  it  is,  that  on  the  same 
days  some  should  be  observant  of  fasts,  w'hile 
others  are  celebrating  feasts  ;  and  especially  that 
this  should  be  the  case  on  the  days  immediately 
after  Easter.  On  this  account,  therefore.  Divine 
Providence  directed  that  an  appropriate  cor¬ 
rection  should  be  effected,  and  uniformity  of 
practice  established,  as  I  suppose  you  are  all 
aware.”  (This  refers  to  the  determination  of 
the  equinox,  which  was  settled  to  be  on  the  21st 
March,  although,  as  we  have  shown  above,  the 
20th  was  the  proper  day,  as  it  only  happened  once 
in  four  years  on  the  21st,  and  then  at  2  a.m.) 
“  And  since  the  order  is  a  becoming  one,  which 
is  observed  by  all  the  churches  of  the  western, 
southern,  and  northern  parts,  and  by  some  also 
in  the  eastern  :  from  these  considerations  all  have 
on  the  present  occasion  thought  it  to  be  expe¬ 
dient.  and  1  pledged  myself  that  it  would  be 
satisfactory  to  your  prudent  penetration,  that 
what  is  observed  with  such  general  unanimity 
of  sentiment  in  the  city  of  Rome,  throughout 
Italy,  Africa,  all  Egypt,  Spain,  France,  Britain, 
Libya,  the  whole  of  Greece,  and  the  dioceses  of 
Asia,  Pontus  and  Cilicia,  your  intelligence  would 
also  concur  in.”  The  epistle  of  the  synod  to 
the  church  of  Alexandria  spe.aks  in  the  like 
terms  (see  Socr.  i.  9) :  “  We  have  also  gratifying 
intelligence  to  communicate  to  you  relative  to 
unity  of  judgment  on  the  subject  of  the  most 
holy  feast  of  Easter :  for  this  point  also  has  been 


happily  settled  through  your  prayers ;  so  that 
all  the  brethren  in  the  East  who  have  heretofore 
kept  this  festival  when  the  Jews  did,  will  hence¬ 
forth  conform  to  the  Romans  and  to  us,  and  to 
all  who  from  the  earliest  time  have  observed  our 
period  of  celebrating  Easter.”  (See  also  Eustb. 
Life  of  Constantine.) 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  no  rule  is  here  give  x 
for  determining  Easter;  the  churches  are  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  ancient  rule  of  the  West. 

It  has  been  often  stated  that  the  council  esta¬ 
blished  a  particular  cycle,  that  of  nineteen  years, 
but  this  is  a  mistake. 

Epiphanius  mentions  three  different  sets  of 
so-called  heretics,  who  persisted  in  the  Quarto- 
deciman  usage,  viz.  the  Audiani  {[lucres.  Ixx.), 
the  Alogi  (li.),  and  the  Quarto-<leciiiians  (1.),  the 
last  being  orthodox  in  all  respects  except  this. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  follow  out  further  the 
history  of  the  decline  of  the  Quarto-decimans. 

We  must  now  give  some  brief  account  of  w'hat 
is  known  respecting  the  various  astronomical 
cycles  employed  for  the  determination  of  Easter. 

The  use  of  cycles  was  very  familiar  to  the  an¬ 
cient  astronomers.  It  arose  out  of  the  neces¬ 
sity,  when  lunar  months  were  in  use  (as  at 
Athens)  of  linking  together  in  some  manner  the 
changes  of  the  moon  and  the  sun.  They  all 
rested  upon  the  mean  motions  of  the  moon, 
which  was  not  only  all  that  could  be  exactly 
calculated  in  the  state  of  their  astronomical 
knowledge,  but  w’hich  is  in  fact  all  that  can  be 
used  with  advantage  for  the  arrangement  of 
ceremonies  and  festival-days.  The  object  was 
to  find  a  period  which  should  contain  an  exact 
number  of  lunations  and  also  of  tropical  years — 
the  former  consisting  of  29  d.  *5305887  or  29  d. 
12  h.  44  m.  2s.  *865. 

1.  The  most  ancient  cycle  was  the  Octaeteris, 
or  cycle  of  8  years.  It  depends  on  the  fact,  that 
8  tropical  years  are  nearly  equal  to  99  lunations. 
The  99  months  contained  2922  days,  three  of  the 
8  years  having  embolisms  or  intercalary  months, 
as  follows.  The  first  year  of  the  period  seems 
to  have  been  variously  taken :  I.  being  the  ar¬ 
rangement  gix-^en  by  Geminus  ;  II.  by  Epiphanius; 
whilst  III.  is  that  adopted  in  Scaliger’s  account 
of  this  cycle,  the  letter  E  denoting  the  embo¬ 
lism. 

I.  II. 


12345678 

E  EE 


III. 


1 

2  3  4 

5  6  7  8 

E 

E 

E 

The  months  were  full  (30  days)  and  hollow  (29) 
by  turns,  except  the  intercalary,  which  were 
always  full.  This  is  exactly  8  years  of  365 J 
days.  But  neither  the  lunation  nor  the  year  is 
here  taken  at  its  true  value,  and  the  8  vears 
really  fall  short  of  99  lunations  by  1  d.  14  h. 
10  m. — an  error  w’hich  would  soon  accumulate 
and  make  the  cycle  useless. 

Cleostratus,  Eratosthenes,  and  others  made 
various  changes  for  the  correction  of  this  cycle, 
which  still  however  remained  imperfect. 

2.  A  great  improvement  upon  this  was  the 


12  3  4 

5  6 

7  8 

E 

E 

E 

592 


easti:r 


EASTER 


<.ycle  of  19  yeai’s  ascribed  by  Geminus  to  Eucte- 
moii,  but  generally  to  Meton,  about  432  ll.'D. 
This  rests  on  the  extremely  close  relation  be¬ 
tween  the  length  of  19  years  and  235  lunations, 
f.ince 

19  years  =  6939  •  60256  days, 

235  lunat.  =  6939 '688348  days, 

a  difference  of  about  2  h.  3  m.  The  actual  ar¬ 
rangement  was  that  out  of  235  months  110  were 
hollow,  making  6940  days,  being  in  excess  of  235 
lunations  by  7^  hours.  In  the  course  of  4  Me- 
tonic  periods  the  accumulation  of  errors  would 
be  30  hours,  and  accordingly  Calippus  proposed 
then  to  leave  out  1  more  day.  There  was  then 
an  excess  of  6  h.  only  in  76  years  or  of  1  day  in 
310  years.  This  jDeriod  of  76  years  is  called  the 
Calippic  period. 

The  first  Paschal  cycle  in  use  seems  to  have 
been  the  Octaeteids.  Epiphanius  refers  to  \l(^Hacr. 
Ixv.),  and  appeals  to  it  in  his  argument  with 
the  Audiani  in  such  a  manner  as  to  imply  that 
they  were  right  in  holding  this  to  be  the  ancient 
church  cycle  :  on  which  account  he  would  rather 
rest  his  argument  u])on  it  than  upon  the  superior 
cycle  of  19  years,  which  must  have  been  familiar 
to  him.  Eusebius  also  mentions  (vii.  20)  that 
Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  in  one  of  his 
Paschal  letters  giA*es  a  canon  for  8  years,  seem¬ 
ing  to  imply  the  use  of  the  Octaeteris  (about 
250  A.D.). 

The  Paschal  cycle  of  112  years  of  St.  Hip- 
poly  tus  attained  some  celebrity  and  was  inscribed  j 
on  the  chair  of  his  statue,  discovered  at  Rome  in  | 
1551,  and  now  in  the  Vatican.  It  was  based  on  a  ' 
double  Octaeteris  of  16  years,  repeated  7  times:  ' 
St.  Hippolytus  having  observed  that  by  using  16  . 
}^ears,  instead  of  8,  the  week-days  recurred  in  * 
succession,  though  in  their  natural  order  re- 1 
versed.  It  extends  from  A.D.  222  to  a.d.  333, 
and  was  evidently  constructed  about  222  A.D.  j 
and  was  based  upon  the  period  of  years  215  to 
222  A.D.  for  which  period  it  is  correct.  Beyond 
this  its  defective  nature  soon  appears,  and  after 
another  period  it  would  be  found  to  be  worthless.  ' 
It  may  he  seen  in  Fabricius’s  Hippolytus.  See 
also  Ideler,  ii.  222,  and  Ordo  Saeclorum,  p.  477.  ! 

The  Paschal  canon  of  St.  Cyprian,  called  the 
Computus  Fiischalis,  which  is  extant,  hut  without 
the  table,  was  a  repeat  of  St.  Hippolytus,  with  a 
new  start  from  a.d.  242,  based  on  the  16  years  ' 
from  228  to  243.  j 

3.  When  the  Western  church  discovered  the 
defective  nature  of  the  Octaeteris,  they  took  up 
or  perhaps  returned  to  a  cycle  of  84  years,  ' 
which  was  employed  by,  according  to  Epiphanius 
and  Cyril’s  Prologue  in  Bucherius,  the  Jews  (per¬ 
haps  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem),  then  probablyby  [ 
some  Quarto-decimans,  and  also  by  some  Latins,  ' 
for  Cyril  in  his  Prologue  implies  that  the  84  | 
years  cycle  was  forsaken  for  that  of  Hippolytus, 
saying,  “  pejus  aliquid  addiderunt.” 

The  84  years  cycle  may  be  regarded  as  con¬ 
sisting  of  a  Calippic  period  of  76  years  (with  the  ' 
correction  of  1  day)  and  a  single  Octaeteris :  and 
as  their  errors  are  in  opposite  directions,  it  has  a 
less  error  in  84  years  than  the  Octaeteris  had  in 
8,  Both  Epiphanius  and  Cyril  ascribe  it  to  the 
Jews,  and  the  fact  that,  84  being  a  multiple 
of  7,  the  Calendar  moons  would  recur  on  the 
same  days  of  the  week  in  each  period,  would 
do'jhtless  give  it  a  value  in  their  eyes.  However 


this  may  be,  it  became  undoubtedly  the  great 
cycle  of  the  Latin  church,  fn-  more  than  two 
centuries,  till  it  was  superseded  by  the  cycle  of 
Victorius  of  532  years,  published  in  the  year 
457.  An  84-year  Easter-table  of  the  Latin 
church  may  be  seen  in  Ideler,  ii.  249,  con¬ 
structed  from  a  “  f'asti  Consulares,”  discovered 
by  Cardinal  Noi'is,  an<l  beginning  with  the  year 
298.  Muratori  published  another  in  his  Anec- 
dota  ex  Airdjrosi  mae  iJihliofliecae  Codicih  is.  In 
both  these  it  appears  that  the  Epacts  and  week¬ 
days  of  the  1st  January  were  employed  for  the 
determination  of  Easter.  Bucherius  akso  gives 
‘  The  Latin  or  Prospor’s  cycle  of  84  Years,’  be¬ 
ginning  at  382,  Since  84  Julian  years  contain 
30681  days,  and  1039  lunations  30682  d.  6  h. 
48  m.,  the  84-year  cycle  gives  at  its  conclusion 
the  new  moon  30  hours  too  early. 

It  may  be  right  here  to  mention  the  fact  that 
Epiphanius,  believing  that  the  Jews  had  this 
84  years  cycle  at  the  time  of  our  Saviour’s  cruci¬ 
fixion  (for  which  there  is  no  evidence  in  Jewish 
writers),  argues  at  length  (^Haer.  li.)  that,  this 
cycle  being  shorter  than  the  moon’s  true  cycle 
(he  means  probably  the  Alexandrian)  the  Jews 
anticipated  the  proper  time  of  the  passover  by 
two  days  in  the  year  of  the  Passion,  and  Bu¬ 
cherius  believes  that  he  is  in  the  main  right, 
and  reasons  quite  correctly  from  his  premisses 
that,  if  the  Alexandrian  cycle  and  84-year  cycle 
started  together  B.c.  161,  the  latter  was  3  days 
in  advance  of  the  moon  and  the  former  1  dav. 
And  Bucherius  holds,  in  agreement  with  Peta- 
vius,  that  there  was  a  division  amongst  the  Jews 
as  to  these  two  calculations,  the  Pharisees  and 
priests  keeping  the  passover  one  day  later  than 
our  Lord  and  his  disciples  and  a  great  part  of 
the  nation. 

There  is,  however,  a  great  fallacy  in  these 
calculations.  The  cycles  give,  of  necessity,  not 
the  true  moon  of  the  heavens,  but  the  mean  moon, 
and  it  does  not  at  all  follow  that,  because  on  the 
whole  they  give  a  good  representation  of  the  mean 
moon,  that  therefore  They  give  the  true  mean 
mooq  in  any  particular  year.  On  the  conti'ary, 
they  all  go  by  fits  and  starts,  according  as  the  em¬ 
bolism  has  just  taken  place  or  not ;  and  it  requires 
not  a  general  calculation,  but  an  exact  knowledge 
of  the  state  of  the  cycle,  starting  from  some  ab¬ 
solutely  certain  date,  before  we  can  argue  with 
any  certainty  from  such  cycles.  We  have  above 
expressed  the  belief  that  the  Jews,  having  been 
for  many  centuries  accustomed  to  the  feasts  of 
the  New  Moon,  did  not  allow  any  cycle  to  cari-y 
them  away  from  a  close  adherence  to  the  actual 
phase  of  the  moon.  And  we  may  add  that  having 
examined  the  three  best  attested  dates — that  ©f 
the  taking  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey,  n.C.  64,  on  the 
day  of  the  Fast  (10  Tisri)  according  to  Josephus, 
and  according  to  Dion  Cassius,  on  a  Sabbath  ; 
the  setting  of  the  Temple  on  fire,  the  9th  Ab  or 
Lous  A.D.  70,  a  Sabbath  ;  and  the  taking  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  by  Titus  on  the  8th  Gorpiaeus,  or  Elul, 
according  to  Josephus — again  a  Sabbath,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Dion  Cassius,  we  find  that  the  phase  ot 
the  moon  gives  in  each  case,  without  anv  ambi- 
guity  and  without  any  doubt,  these  very  day.s, 
viz.  B.c.  64,  Oct.  4,  Saturday;  Aug.  4,  A.D.  70, 
Saturday,  and  September  1,  a.d.  70.  Saturday. 
The  investigation  of  a  few  such  cases  creates 
a  viA’id  impression  that  wc  are  on  firm  ground. 
A  number  of  other  ca*©*,  of  a  more  conjectural 


EASTER 


598 


EASTER  ' 

character,  may  be  seen  in  Browne’s  Ordo  Saeclo- 
rum,  p.  538. 

The  following  results  are  taken  from  the  84- 
ycar  cycle  in  Ideler,  ii.  249,  already  referred  to. 


1 

A.D. 

2 

Easter 

Day. 

3 

Tabular 
Age  of  Moon. 

4 

A.D. 

5 

Real  Age  of  Moon 
(by  Pliase) 
on  Friday. 

448 

4  Apr. 

XVI 

28 

XIX 

449 

27  Mar. 

XIX 

29 

XXI 

450 

16  Apr. 

XX 

30 

XXII 

451 

1  Apr. 

XVI 

31 

-  XVIII 

452 

23  Mar. 

XVlIl 

32 

XX 

453 

12  Apr. 

XIX 

32 

XXII 

Thus  whilst  the  3rd  column  is  correct  for  the 
)  \ars  A.D.  448-453,  it  is  erroneous  by  4  or  5 
days  for  A.D.  28-33.  It  is  remarkable  that  it 
gives  Mar.  25  for  Good  Friday  A.D.  29,  like 
Hippolytus’s  cycle. 

\Ve  have  now  to  trace  the  history  of  the  19- 
vears  or  Metonic  cvcle  in  the  church,  and  its 
final  triumph. 

The  Metonic  cycle  and  the  Calippic  period  had 
long  been  known  to  the  Alexandrians,  and  had 
been  in  use  in  Syria  and  adjacent  countries,  so 
that  it  is  remarkable  that  we  hear  of  the  Octa- 
eteris  rather  than  this  cycle  as  having  been  first 
in  use,  even  at  Alexandria. 

Anatolius,  bishop  of  Laodicea  about  284,  by 
birth  an  Alexandrian,  enjoys  the  credit,  on  the 
authority  of  Eusebius  (vii.  32)  of  having  been  the 
first  to  arrange  the  19-years  cycle  for  ecclesi¬ 
astical  purposes.  But  the  passage  has  greatly 
perplexed  the  commentators,  and  has  called  forth 
elaborate  attempts  at  explanation  or  emendation 
from  Petavius  and  others.  For  Anatolius  declares 
that  the  sun  “is  not  entering  the  first  segment 
(of  the  zodiac)  on  the  22nd  March,  where  he 
places  the  New  Moon  of  the  1st  year  of  the 
cycle,  but  is  already  on  the  fourth  day  passing 
through  it.  But  this  segment  they  generally  call 
the  first  dodecatemorium,  and  the  equinox,  and 
the  beginning  of  the  months,  &c.”  Unless  we 
are  to  reject  all  that  is  said  about  Anatolius’s 
knowledge  and  ability,  we  must  take  him  to 
mean  that,  the  equinox  fell  on  the  22nd,  but  that 
the  sun  was  not  then  at  the  beginning  of  the 
zodiacal  sign,  but  four  days  advanced  in  it.  This 
is  quite  in  consonance  with  the  statements  of 
Pliny  (xviii.  c.  25)  and  Columella  (ix.  13),  who 
after  Eudoxus  place  the  equinoxes  and  solstices 
at  the  8th  part  of  the  signs.  But  the  account 
re.specting  Anatolius  is  further  complicated  by 
the  existence  of  a  Canon  Paschalis  attributed 
to  him,  which  exercised  great  influence  in  the 
British  church,  but  which,  if  it  is  identical  with 
that  given  in  Bucherius,  was  certainly  forged.  It 
is  strange,  too,  that  so  little  is  heard  of  the  cycle 
for  some  time  afterwards.  But  the  19-year  cycle 
probably  gradually  made  its  way  at  Alexandria, 
cnly  it  was  found  that  something  more  than  a 
cycle  Avas  wanted  to  insure  uniformity.  An  actual 
catalogue  of  results  was  necessary.  So  Theo- 
philus,  bishop  (,f  Alexandria  (385-412)  framed 
at  the  command  of  Theodosius  a  cycle  (or  actual 
calendar)  of  418  years  (19  x  22),  which  St.  Cyril, 
who  succeeded  him  in  that  see  in  412,  shortened 
^  into  a  cycle  of  95  years  (19  x  5)  for  conA'cnience’ 
sake.  Part  only  of  St.  Cyril’s  Computus  Paschalis 
remains,  but  his  Prologue  survives  in  a  Latin 
translation  (in  Bucherius).  Theophilus  had  laid 
CHRIST.  ANT. 


down  dii  anctly  the  rule  that  when  the  xiv  of 
the  moon  falls  on  Sunday,  Easter  day  is  the  Sun¬ 
day  after;  and  Cyril  states  distinctly  that  Easter 
may  fall  on  any  of  the  35  days  from  March  22  to 
April  25,  our  modern  mode.  In  fact,  the  two 
chief  sources  of  discrepancy  after  the  Nicone 
council  Avere  these :  the  Latins  often  celebrated 
on  the  Sunday  on  Avhich  the  xiv  fell,  Avhile  the 
Alexandrians  Avaited  a  Aveek ;  and  the  Latins 
made  the  18th  March  the  first  day  on  Avhich  the 
xiv  could  fall,  Avhilst  the  Alexandrians  made 
their  limit  the  2 1st  March.  They  both  agreed 
that  as  the  passover  Avas  to  be  kept  in  the  first 
month,  Easter  Avas  to  folloAV  the  same  rule  ;  but 
the  Latins  made  (as  Bucherius,  &c.  think  the 
JeAvs  did)  the  5th  March  the  earliest  possible 
day  of  the  1st  month,  Avhilst  the  Alexandrians, 
holding  firmly  the  doctrine  that  the  xiv  must  not 
fall  before  the  equinox,  that  is,  according  to  their 
rules,  the  21st  March,  made  the  8th  March  the 
1st  possible  day  of  the  month.  The  Alexandrian 
rules,  as  we  shall  sec,  ultimately  prevailed. 

It  seems  to  be  noAv  the  time  to  explain  the 
actual  method  employed  by  the  Alexandrians. 

The  years  of  the  cycle  of  19  years  being  num¬ 
bered  in  order,  the  number  of  any  giAmn  year 
Avas  called  the  Golden  Number.  So  also  the 
letters  A  B  C  D  E  F  G  being  Avritten  against  all 
the  days  of  the  year  in  succession,  the  letter  A 
being  placed  against  the  first  of  January,  the 
same  letter  Avill  stand  against  any  giA'en  Aveek- 
day  throughout  the  year,  except  in  Leap-year, 
Avhen  a  change  Avill  take  place  after  the  inter¬ 
calary  day.  The  letter  Avhich  stands  against  all 
the  Sundays  is  called  the  Sunday  Letter. 

Again,  the  day  on  which  the  14th  of  the  equi¬ 
nox  moon  falls  is  called  the  Easter  Term.  As  the 
Easter  Terms  recur  every  19  years,  the  knoAvledge 
of  the  Golden  Number  gives  the  Easter  Term, 
and  if  AA^e  know  the  Sunday  Letter  we  can  pass 
on  from  the  Easter  Term,  its  letter  being  knoAvn, 
to  the  next  Sunday,  Avhich  Avill  be  Easter  Day. 

Rule  1.  To  find  the  Golden  Number.  Add  1 
to  the  numei’al  of  the  year,  and  divide  by  19. 
The  remainder  is  the  Golden  Number ;  Avhen  there 
is  no  remainder,  19  is  the  Golden  Number. 

Rule  2.  To  find  the  Sunday  Letter.  To  the 
numeral  of  the  year,  add  its  quotient  on  dividing 
by  4,  and  also  the  number  4;  diA’ide  the  sum  by 
7,  and  subtract  the  remainder  from  7.  This  will 
designate  the  place  of  the  Sunday  Letter  in  the 
alphabet.  Ex. :  325  -f  81  -f  4  =  410  ;  410  7 

leaves  remainder  4 ;  the  3rd  letter  C  is  the  Sun¬ 
day  Letter.  In  Leap-year  the  earlier  tAvo  months 
of  the  year  haA'e  the  letter  next  succeeding. 

The  folloAving  Table  Avill  now  suffice  to  find 
the  Alexandrian  Easter  (old  style). 


Golden 

Nos. 

Easter  Terms, 

Golden 

Nos. 

Easter  Terms. 

1 

5 

Apr. 

D 

11 

15 

Apr. 

G 

2 

25 

Mar. 

G 

12 

4 

Apr. 

C 

3 

13 

Apr. 

!•: 

13 

24 

Mar. 

F 

4 

2 

Apr. 

A  1 

14 

12 

Apr. 

D 

5 

22 

Mar. 

D 

15 

1 

Apr. 

G 

6 

10 

Apr. 

B 

16 

21 

Mar. 

C 

7 

30 

Mar. 

E 

17 

9 

Apr. 

A 

8 

18 

Apr. 

C 

18 

29 

Mar. 

D 

9 

7 

Apr. 

F  . 

19 

17 

Apr. 

B 

10 

27 

Mar. 

B  1 

f 

20 

5 

Apr. 

D 

Ex.— A.D.  29.  Golden  mimber=ll.  Sunday  Letter  B. 
Easter  Temi,  15th  April.  Easter  l)ay=l 7 ih  April. 


594 


EASTER 


EASTER 


It  must  not  be  supjwsed,  however,  that  the 
subject  was  always  regarded  from  this  simple 
point  of  view.  It  was  approached  with  old  tra¬ 
ditionary  notions,  so  that  the  19  years  was  spoken 
of  as  made  up  of  8  and  11 — and  the  years  were 
thought  of  as  lunar  years  with  embolisms — and 
as  it  happened  that  the  Latins  began  their  cycles 
3  years  later  than  the  Alexandrians,  and  so  in¬ 
serted  embolisms  in  different  years,  this  again 
was  a  cause  of  discrepancy, 

Alexandrian  cycle : 

I  2  3  4  6  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 

E  E  E  E  K  £  £ 

Western  cycle : 

17  18  19  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 

E  E  £  £  £  E  E 

We  give  at  the  same  time  the  order  of  the 
cycle  of  Victorius : 

II  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 

E  E  E  E  E  E  E 

During  the  popedom  of  Leo  the  Great  doubts 
occurred,  in  the  year  444  a.d.,  and  455  A.D.,  as 
to  the  proper  day  of  celebrating  Easter.  Leo  wrote 
to  St.  Cyril  to  enquire  respecting  444,  who 
answered  that  the  day  was  April  23,  propter 
rationem  embolismi  anni  (not  26  March,  as  the 
Latins  made  it).  It  was  8  of  the  lunar  cycle  of 
the  Alexandrians,  18  of  Victorius’  cycle.  Leo 
acquiesced. 

In  455  the  contention  was  greater.  Here  it 
was  not  a  question  of  a  month,  but  of  i  week. 
The  Latins  by  the  84-year  cycle  made  it  April 
17  ;  the  Alexandrians  April  24. 

Leo  then  wrote  to  Martian,  emperor  of  the 
East,  and  to  Eudocia  Augusta,  in  which  he  asks 
them  to  interfere  that  the  Alexandrians  may  not 
name  April  24,  alleging  that  the  viii.  kal.  Maii 
is  beyond  the  ancient  limits.  The  emperor  made 
enquiry  of  certain  eastern  bishops  and  of  the 
Alexandrians,  and  Leo  finally  yielded  for  the  sake 
of  peace.  In  the  matter  of  these  limits  the  Alex¬ 
andrians  were  always  firm,  allowing  the  14th  of 
the  moon  to  range  from  March  21  to  April  18, 
Easter-day  from  March  22  to  April  25 ;  while 
the  Westerns  had  shown  much  vacillation.  Their 
old  14th  day  limits  were  March  18  and  April  21, 
then  the  council  ofCaesarea  (a.d.  195)  laid  down 
as  the  limits  of  Easter-day  March  22  and  April 
21,  alleging  that  the  crucifixion  was  on  March  22. 
This  authority,  together  with  that  of  the  Nicene 
council,  ordering  that  Easter  should  not  be  kept 
before  the  equinox,  led  the  Latins  to  yield  the 
first  limit ;  then  Leo  extended  the  2nd  limit  two 
days,  by  understanding  April  21  of  the  cruci¬ 
fixion,  thus  getting  Mai-ch  22  to  April  23,  33 
days.  Finally  the  Latins  had  to  yield  2  days 
more.  But  the  Latins  would  only  keep  Easter 
from  the  16th  to  the  22Dd  of  the  moon,  so  that 
the  passion  might  be  on  the  l4th,  whereas  the 
Alexandrians  often  kept  Easter  on  the  15th.  In 
the  year  463  Victorius  (or  Victorious)  of  Aqui¬ 
taine,  an  abbot  at  Rome,  was  employed  by  pope 
Hilary  to  correct  the  calendar,  and  he  was  the  real 
author  of  the  cycle  of  532  years,  found  by  mul¬ 
tiplying  together  19,  the  cycle  of  the  moon,  and 
28,  the  cycle  of  the  sun.  Thus,  on  the  suppo¬ 
sition  of  the  perfect  accuracy  of  the  19-years 
cycle,  all  full  moons,  days  of  the  week,  &c., 
would  recur  in  the  same  order  from  cycle  to 
cycle,  for  ever.  'The  cycle  is  given  in  Bucherius : 
it  begins  at  a.d.  239  and  ends  770.  Some  days 


are  marked,  as  differently  taken  by  the  Alex¬ 
andrians  and  Latins,  for  Victorius  commenced 
the  cycle  at  the  11th  year  of  the  Alexandrian 
cycle,  and  also  still  adhered  to  the  above-men¬ 
tioned  Latin  rules. 

There  were  many  errors  in  his  tables,  and  the 
revision  of  it  by  Dionysius  Exiguus  obtained  for 
it  the  name  of  the  Dionysian  cycle,  transferring 
to  Dionysius  most  of  the  merit  which  belonged 
to  Victorius. 

But  what  Dionysius  really  did  was  to  continue 
the  95-year  cycle  of  St.  Cyril,  and  he  also  induced 
the  Italians  to  accept  fully  the  Alexandrian  rules. 
He  also  abandoned  the  era  of  Diocletian,  and  was 
the  first  to  introduce  the  modern  Christian  era, 
reckoning  from  the  supposed  date  of  the  birth 
of  Christ.  Victorius  had  made  his  cycle  begin 
from  the  baptism,  A.D.  28. 

But  the  Easte*r  table  of  Victorius  long  held  its 
ground  in  Gaul.  In  the  council  of  Orleans  (541) 
it  was  ordered  that  all  should  observe  Easter 
according  to  the  laterculus  Victorii,  and  Gregory 
of  Tours  says  of  A.D.  577  :  “  In  that  year  there 
was  a  doubt  about  Easter.  In  Gaul  we,  with 
many  other  cities,  celebrated  Easter  on  the  14th 
Calends  of  May :  others  with  the  Spaniards  on 
the  12th  Calends  of  April.  The  former  was  Vic- 
torius’s  date :  the  Alexandidans  kept  Easter  a 
week  later,  the  Spaniards  four  weeks  earlier.” 
It  is  only  at  the  end  of  the  8th  century  that 
traces  of  such  differences  disappear  in  Gaul. 
(Ideler,  iii.  294.) 

The  84-years  cycle  lasted  longer  in  Britain 
than  elsewhere :  and  the  bitter  controversies 
which  were  carried  on  for  a  long  time  between 
the  new  English  church,  founded  by  the  mission 
of  Augustine,  and  the  ancient  British  church 
were  entirely  due  to  the  pei'sistence  of  the  British 
clergy  in  clinging  to  the  old  cycle  of  84  years 
(see  the  letter  of  Althelmus  Anglus  Episcopus, 
about  700  A.D.  in  Bucherius)  and  old  tradition¬ 
ary  maxims  respecting  the  paschal  limits. 

They  kept  the  festival  from  the  14th  of  the 
moon  to  the  20th :  they  placed  the  equinox  on 
the  25th  March,  and  would  keep  no  festival 
before  it,  and  they  used  as  the  later  limit  of 
the  festival  the  old  limit  of  the  Latins,  the  21st 
April. 

For  these  rules  they  appealed  to  tradition  and 
the  example  of  St.  John,  and  also  repeatedly  to 
the  authority  of  Anatolius.  The  discussion  almost 
always  turns  in  Bede’s  narrative,  and  in  the  letters 
preserved,  on  this  point : — Is  the  festival  to  be 
kept  fi’om  the  14th  to  the  20th  of  the  moon  (with 
the  British  church),  or  from  the  15th  to  the  21st 
(with  the  Roman)  ?  And  as  the  battle  turned 
so  largely  on  the  14th  of  the  moon,  the  partisans 
of  the  Roman  use  tried  to  fix  on  the  British 
clergy  the  name  of  Quartodecimans,  and  so  the 
stigma  of  heresy.  But  they  were  in  no  real 
sense  Quartodecimans.  They  observed  the  Easter 
festival  on  a  Sunday  and  kept  the  Friday  before 
it,  not  keeping,  as  did  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor, 
the  14th  of  the.  moon,  fall  when  it  might : 
nor  is  there  any  ground  for  connecting  them,  on 
the  supposition  of  their  being  Quartodecimans, 
with  Asia  Minor.  As  we  have  mentioned  before, 
the  spurious  canon  of  Anatolius,  given  in  Bu¬ 
cherius,  was  perhaps  designed  to  support  the 
cause  of  the  British  Christians.  And  there  is 
some  ground  for  supposing  that  the  laterculus 
of  100  years,  given  in  Bucherius,  may  have  be- 


EASTER,  CEREMONIES  OF, 

longed  to  the  British  church,  as  it  falls  in  with 
their  principles. 

Frequently  as  the  differences  respecting  Easter 
are  mentioned  in  Bede  (Acc/.  Hist.),  there  are 
unfortunately  no  dates  given  which  can  throw 
further  light  on  these  discrepancies ;  but  the 
statement  respecting  Queen  Eantleda  and  her  fol¬ 
lowers  as  still  fasting  and  keeping  Palm  Sunday, 
v/hen  King  Oswy  had  done  fosting  and  was  keeping 
his  Easter,  must  refer  to  some  year  not  for  from 
651 ;  and  the  xiv  of  the  moon  fell  on  Sunday  in 
645,  617,  648,  and  651. 

The  Roman  use  finally  prevailed  in  England. 
Archbishop  Theodore,  a.d.  669,  is  believed  to 
have  arranged  everything  according  to  Roman 
customs,  and  from  that  time  genei’al  uniformity 
existed.  Nothing  further  of  impoidance  occurred 
respecting  Easter  until  the  Gregorian  reformation 
of  the  calendar,  by  which  time  the  accumulated 
errors  arising  from  the  I5  hrs.  excess  of  the 
19-years  cycle  made  the  calendar  moon  about 
four  days  later  than  the  real  moon.  [L.  H.] 

EASTER,  Cerf:monies  of.  The  season  of 
Easter,  as  the  epoch  of  the  great  redemptive  acts 
by  which  the  salvation  of  mankind  was  consum¬ 
mated,  was  from  a  very  early  period  observed 
with  special  solemnity  by  the  Christian  church. 
The  Paschal  season  originally  extended  over  fif¬ 
teen  days,  of  which  Easter  Day  was  the  central 
point,  commencing  wdth  Palm  Sunday  and  ter¬ 
minating  with  Low  Sunday.  The  first  w’eek 
W'as  known  as  irdax^  (Travpuxrtfxov,  the  second 
W'eek  as  irdax<^  dpaardirifiov  (Suicer,  svh  voc.). 
Leaving  to  other  articles  the  solemnities  of  the 
former  period  [Palm  Sunday  :  Good  Friday] 
w-e  propose  to  speak  of  those  of  the  pei'iod  of 
Easter,  proi)erl3'  so  called. 

Easier  Eve. — This  day  w'as  known  by  a  variety 
of  titles  in  the  early  church — rh  ij.4ya  ad^^arov, 
rh  dyiop  (rd^^arop,  pv^  dyyeXiKr)  (Pallad.),  Sabba- 
tum  Magnum^*  Dies  Vigiliarum  Paschae.  (Hieron.), 
^fi4pa  rrjs  vardvris tov irdcrx'^  (Fuseb. 

vi.  34).  It  had  a  double  character,  penitential 
and  jubilant ;  as  the  conclusion  of  the  great 
Lenten  Ifost,  and  as  the  prelude  of  the  Festival 
of  the  Resurrection.  This  was  the  only  Sab¬ 
bath  in  the  wdiole  year  on  wdiich  fasting  was 
permitted  {Aj  ostol.  Con^tit.  vii.  23).  The  fast  of 
Easter  Eve  w'as  of  the  strictest  character,  and 
was  prolonged  at  least  till  midnight.  Good  Friday 
and  Easter  Eve  being  a  continuous  fast,  in  sup¬ 
posed  obedience  to  our  Lord’s  words  (Matt.  ix.  15). 
The  Apostolical  Constitutions  enjoin  fasting  till 
cockcrow  {Ap.  Coiist.  v.  18).  The  synod  of 
Auxerre,  A.D.  578  {Can.  xi.)  forbids  the  breaking 
of  the  fast  till  the  second  hour  of  the  night. 
The  89th  Trullan  canon  {Condi.  Quinisext.  Labbe, 
vi.  1180)  limits  the  fasting  at  midnight.  Jerome 
assigns  as  a  reason  for  the  congregation  not  being 
dismissed  on  Easter  Eve  till  after  midnight,  that 
even  as  the  Paschal  deliverance  of  Israel  took 
place  at  midnight  (Exod.  xii.  29)  it  was  the 
expectation  of  the  church,  according  to  apo¬ 
stolical  tradition,  that  Christ  would  return  to 


»  The  earliest  instance  of  the  use  of  this  designation  for 
Easter  Eve  is  in  the  letter  of  the  chiircli  of  Smyrna  de¬ 
tailing  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  (Euseb.  iv.  15.  12). 
The  day  on  which  Polycarp  was  apprehended  is  doscribi  d 
as  “  the  Great  Sabbath  ’’  -  optos  cratifidrov  ^icyaAov.  The 
term  is  evidently  borrowed  from  John  xix.  31.  yap 
fityuKr)  7}  iip.epa  (KeCvri  toi>  <ro/3^oTO«/. 


EASTER,  CEREMONIES  OF  595 

accompli.sh  the  redemption  ol  His  church  and 
triumph  over  her  enemies  at  the  .same  hour. 
That  hour  being  passed,  the  awe  with  which  the 
Lord’s  coming  was  anticipated  being  relieved,  the 
Easter  Feast  was  celebrated  with  universal  joy 
(Hieron.  In  Matt.  xxv.  6).  The  same  belief  is 
mentioned  by  Lactantius  (Zvfo.  Inst.  vii.  19).  whon 
he  speaks  of  the  night  being  passed  in  watchful¬ 
ness  on  account  of  the  coming  of  our  King  and 
God.  VV'e  have  evidence  that  in  Tertullian’s  time 
it  w^as  spent  in  public  worship,  wdien  he  speaks 
of  the  difficulty  wdiich  w^ould  be  caused  by  the 
absence  of  a  Christian  wife  from  her  heathen 
husband  during  the  whole  night  at  the  time  of 
the  paschal  solemnities  (Tert.  ad  Uxor.  ii.  4).  As 
the  night  advanced  and  Easter  drew  nearer  all 
sign  of  mourning  w'as  laid  aside  for  the  highest 
festal  jubilee.  One  sjiecial  solemnity  indicating 
the  festival  character  of  this  night  was  the  light¬ 
ing  of  lamps  and  candles,  a  custom  which  is 
repeatedly  referred  to  by  writers  from  the  4th 
century  downw'ards.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  in  his  in¬ 
troductory  Catechetical  lecture  (§  15),  speaks  of 
“  that  night,  that  darkness  that  shows  like  day,” 
and  Eusebius  records  {De  l  it.  Const,  iv.  22)  that 
Constantine  observed  Easter  Eve  with  such  pomp 
that  “  he  turned  the  sacred  or  mystical  vigil  into 
the  light  of  day  ”  b)^  means  of  lamps  suspended 
in  every  part,  and  setting  up  huge  waxen  tapers 
as  big  as  columns  {Krjpov  klopus  uif/rjAoTdrous), 
through  the  w'hole  city.  We  find  a  reference  to 
the  same  custom  in  Gregory  Nazianzen  {Orat. 
xlii.  De  Pasch.),  who  speaks  of  persons  of  all 
ranks,  even  magistrates  and  men  and  ladies  of 
rank,  carrying  lamps,  and  setting  up  tapers, 
both  at  home  and  in  the  churches,  thus  turning 
night  intoday  ;  and  again  {Orat.  xliii.)  describes 
this  Upa  pv^,  as  a  “  torch-bearing  ”  {Sabovx'ia), 
being  as  it  were  a  npoSpo/xos  or  forerunner  of 
the  rising  of  the  great  light,  Christ.  Gregory 
Nyssen  also  describes  the  brilliancy  of  the  illu¬ 
mination  as  a  cloud  of  fire  mingling  with  the 
dawmmg  rays  of  the  sun,  and  making  the  eve  and 
the  festival  one  continuous  day  without  any  inter¬ 
val  of  darkness  {In  Christ.  Pesurr.  Orat.  v.)  From 
the  poem  of  Prudentius  {Hymn.  v.  ad  Incensum 
ccrei  Paschalis,  141-148)  we  learn  that  the  church 
was  illuminated  with  lamps  dei)euding  from  the 
roof,  reminding  the  spectator  of  the  starry  firma¬ 
ment.  In  later  times  one  special  w'ax  taper  of 
large  size  was  solemnly  blessed,  as  a  type  of 
Christ’s  rising  from  the  dead  to  give  light  to  the 
world.  The  institution  of  this  custom  was  attri¬ 
buted  to  pope  Zosimus  A.D. 417  [Paschal  Taper]. 

The  latter  hours  of  the  evening  and  the  night 
were  spent  by  the  assembled  congregations  in 
united  prayer  and  supplication,  the  singing  of 
psalms  and  hymns,  reading  the  Scriptures,  and 
in  hearkening  to  the  exhoi  taticns  of  the  bishop 
and  presbyters  {Apost.  Constit.  v.  19 ;  Greg.  Nyss. 
Orat.  iv.  in  Christ.  Pesurrect.). 

Easter  Eve  w'as  the  chief  time  for  the  baptism  of 
catechumens.  The  first  seventeen  catechetical  lec¬ 
tures  of  St.  Cyril  were  delivered  during  the  weeks 
before  Easter  to  those  who  were  preparing  for 
baptism  at  the  ensuing  Easter  Eve,  on  which  day 
the  eighteenth  was  i)ronounced  {Catech.  xvii.  20, 
xviii.  32,  33).  The  nineteenth,  on  Easter  Monday, 
explains  “  the  deep  meaning  of  what  was  done 
on  the  evening  of  their  baj)tism  ”  (xix.  1).  On  the 
Easter  Eve  which  succeeded  Chi  }'^cstom’s  deposi¬ 
tion.  no  fewer  than  three  thousand  catechumens 

2  Q 


596  EASTER,  CEREMONIES  OF 

awaited  baptism  at  Constantinople,  who  were 
dispersed  by  a  body  of  soldiers  bursting  into  the 
baptistery,  many  of  the  female  catechumens  being 
driven  out  only  half  dressed,  having  laid  aside 
their  outer  garments  in  preparation  for  the  sacred 
rite.  The  sacrament,  thus  brutally  interrupted, 
was  resumed  in  the  Baths  of  Constantine,  where 
the  scattered  congregation  reassembled  (Chrysost. 
Kp.  ad  Tnnoc.  i. ;  Ballad.  Vit.  Chrys.  c.  9).  The 
rite  of  baptism  was  preceded  by  the  solemn  bene¬ 
diction  of  the  water  (^Apost.  Comtit.  vii.  43  ; 
Tertull.  I)e  Bapt.c.A]  Cyprian,  Apisf.  70  (69)). 
[Baptism.] 

We  find  in  Rabanus  Maurus,  c.  847  {De 
Clericor.  Instit.  ii.  28)  a  detailed  account  of  the 
mode  of  observing  Easter  Eve  which  would  not 
differ  much  from  that  of  the  preceding  centuries. 
All  the  congregation  remained  in  perfect  silence 
and  tranquillity  awaiting  the  hour  of  the  Resur¬ 
rection.  uniting  from  time  to  time  in  prayer  and 
psalmody.  Towards  nightfall  the  ceremonies  of 
the  Xox  Dominica  began  with  the  benediction  by 
the  archdeacon  of  the  paschal  taper.  This  cere¬ 
mony  tvas  followed  by  lections  from  the  Old 
Testament  and  prayers,  succeeded  by  the  litanies 
of  the  saints.  Then  followed  the  administration 
of  baptism.  The  white-robed  neophytes  ascended 
from  the  font — “  ascendit  grex  dealbatorum  de 
lavacro  ” — and  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist 
commenced,  of  which  all  were  bound  to  partake 
but  the  excommunicate. 

Complaints  of  disorders  consequent  on  these 
nocturnal  assemblies  are  found  as  early  as  the  6th 
century.  These  scandals  led  first  to  the  limitation 
of  the  hours  of  the  vigil,  and  ultimately  to  the 
transference  of  the  observance  to  the  daytime. 

Although  nothing  could  exceed 
the  honour  paid  to  the  Feast  of  the  Resurrec¬ 
tion  by  the  early  church,  by  which  it  was 
justly  regarded  as  the  chief  festival  of  the 
whole  year,  there  is  very  little  to  say  respect¬ 
ing  the  mode  in  which  was  observed.  The 
high-sounding  titles  with  which  the  early 
fathers  delighted  to  decorate  it — “  the  queen  of 
days,”  “  the  feast  of  feasts,  and  assembly  of 
assemblies”  (Greg.  Nyss.  Orat.  xix,  ;  Ibid,  xliii.), 
“  the  desirable  festival  of  our  salvation  ” 
(Chrysost.  Homil.  Ixxxv.  de  Pasch.),  “  the  crown 
and  head  of  all  festivals,”  and  the  like — are  mere 
rhetorical  flourishes  which  never  obtained  general 
currency,  and  need  not  therefore  be  further 
dwelt  upon.  It  was  commonly  known  as  fj 
peyaKr)  KvpiaK-fj.  “  Dominicii  gaudii  ”  seems  also 
to  have  been  a  familiar  appellation  (Bingham, 
Orpj.  XX.  5.  5).  As  a  religious  observance  Easter 
Day  was  not  distinguished  from  other  Sundays 
except  by  the  vastness  of  its  congregations, 
and  the  general  splendour  and  dignity  of  its 
sendees.  Indeed  it  was  ordained  by  pope  Vigi- 
lius  in  the  6th  century  (537-555)  that  the  mass 
on  Easter  Day  should  be  the  same  as  that  on 
other  days,  “  ordine  consueto,”  with  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  the  addition  of  singula  capitula  diebus 
apta  ”  (^Epist.  ad  Euther.  §  5  ;  Labbe,  v.  313). 
By  one  of  the  so-called  Trullan  canons,  a.d.  692 
(Can.  90;  Labbe,  vi.  1180)  it  was  forbidden  to 
kneel  in  prayer  from  the  entrance  of  the  priests 
to  the  altar  on  the  evening  of  Easter  Eve  till  the 
evening  of  Easter  Day,  the  two  days  being  com¬ 
bined  in  one  continuous  celebration  of  the 
Resurrection,  cortV  6AoK\^pu)  ivrevdev  vvxQr]fxepov 
TTavy-yvpi^civ  yp.as  tt)v  avaaraenv.  Gregory  Xys.sen 


EASTER,  CEREMONIES  OF 

draws  a  vivid  pief  ure  of  the  joyous  crowds  who,  by 
their  dress  and  their  devout  attendance  at  church, 
sought  to  do  honour  to  the  festival.  All  labour 
ceased,  all  trades  were  suspended,  the  husband¬ 
man  threw  down  his  spade  and  plough  and  put 
on  his  holiday  attire,  the  very  tavern-keepers 
left  their  gains.  The  roads  were  empty  of 
travellers,  the  sea  of  sailors.  The  mother  came 
to  church  with  the  whole  band  of  her  childi-en 
and  domestics,  her  husband  and  the  whole  family 
rejoicing  with  her.  All  Christians  assembled 
everywhere  as  members  of  one  family.  The 
poor  man  dressed  like  the  rich,  and  the  rich  wore 
his  gayest  attire ;  those  who  had  none  of  their 
own  borrowed  of  their  neighbours;  the  very 
children  were  made  to  share  in  the  joy  of  the 
feast  by  putting  on  new  clothes  (Greg.  Nyssen, 
O/'af.  iii.  in  Christ.  Pesnrrect.).  Evangelical 
lections  were  read  to  the  assembled  convresra- 
tions,  so  arranged  that  the  whole  history  of  the 
Resuri'ection  was  gone  through  on  successive 
days  (Aug.  Serin,  de  Temp.  137,  140),  and  ser¬ 
mons  preached  instructing  the  people  how  to 
keep  the  feast  duly,  Z^ovtws  kop-ri^eiv  (Athanas. 
Epist.  ad  Dracont.  ad  fin.).  When  the  empire 
became  Christian,  the  emperors,  beginning  with 
Valentinian,  A.D.  367,  testified  to  the  universal 
joy  by  throwing  open  the  prisons,  and  granting  a 
general  pardon  (Cod.  Theod.  lib.  ix.  tit.  38,  leg.  3, 
6,  7,  8  ;  Cod.  Justin,  lib.  i.  tit.  4,  leg.  3  ;  Cassiod. 
xi.  Ejnst.  ult. ;  Ambrose  Ep.  33  (14)),  debtors 
were  forgiven,  slaves  manumitted,  all  actions  at 
law  were  suspended  except  in  some  special  cases 
(^Cod.  Justin,  lib.  iii.  tit.  12,  leg.  8;  Cod.  Theod. 
lib.  ii.  tit.  8,  leg.  2 ;  lib.  ix.  tit.  35,  leg.  7),  anc 
liberal  alms  given  to  the  poor.  In  the  words 
of  Gregory  Nyssen  (m.s.)  “  every  kind  of 
sorrow  is  put  to  rest  to-day,  nor  is  there  any  one 
so  overwhelmed  with  grief  as  not  to  find  relief 
from  the  magnificence  of  this  fea.st.  Now  the 
prisoner  is  loosed,  the  debtor  is  forgiven,  the 
slave  is  set  free,  and  he  w'ho  continues  a  slave 
derives  benefit.”  All  games  or  public  spectacles 
were  prohibited  as  being  inconsistent  with  the 
sanctity  of  the  season  (Can.  Trull.  86;  Labbe, 
vi.  1171  ;  Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xv.  tit.  5,  leg.  5). 
What  has  been  said  of  Easter  Day  may  be 
extended  to  the  week  following,  ivhich,  together 
with  that  which  went  before,  was  considered  to 
partake  in  the  sacredness  of  the  festival.  The 
Apostolical  Constitutions  ordain  that  slaves 
should  be  allowed  to  rest  from  their  work  “all 
the  great  iveek  ”  (Holy  Week),  “and  that  which 
follows  it  ”  (^Ap.  Const,  viii.  33).  The  purpose 
of  this  rest  was  religious  edification.  St. 
Chrysostom  states  (Homil.  34  De  Eesurrect. 
Chri  t.')  that  for  seven  days  sacred  assemblies 
were  held  and  sermons  preached.  The  council  of 
Macon  a.d.  585  (Can.  ii. ;  Labbe,  v.  981)  also 
forbids  all  servile  work  for  six  days,  during  which 
all  are  to  assemble  three  times  a  day  for  worship, 
singing  paschal  hymns,  and  ofiering  their  daily 
sacrifices.  The  Trullan  canons  (Can.  86  ;  Labbe, 
vi.  1171)  also  lay  down  that  the  faithful  ought 
to  spend  theiT  time  through  the  whole  week  in 
church,  devoting  themselves  to  j)salmody,  read¬ 
ing  the  Scriptures,  and  the  celebration  of  the 
holy  mysteries. 

The  F.aster  season — Octo  dies  neophytorum 
(August.  Epist.  xix.  ad  Januar.  c.  17)— qlosed 
with  the  following  Sunday  (Low  Sunday  with 
us),  known  by  the  titles  of  avrnrdoxay  y  Kaivh 


ECDICI 


ECCLERTASl'ICAE  EES 


597 


KvpiaK^,  avaKaivfja’ifjLos,  Dominica  in  Octavis 
Paschae,  Fascha  Clausum;  also  with  reference  to 
the  white  dresses  of  the  newly  baptised,  r]  KvpiaK^ 
eV  AevKOis,  Dies  Neophytorum,  Dominica  in  AUns. 
The  appellation  Quasimodo  derived  from 

the  introit  (1  Pet.  ii.  2),  is  of  later  origin.  In  the 
Greek  church  it  has  been  known  as  the  KvpiaKy 
Qcop.a,  and  rjpLipa  ccTrocrTSXcvy,  with  reference  to 
the  gospel  for  the  day  (John  xx.  19-23),  and  the 
appearance  of  Christ  to  Thomas  on  this  day 
(w.  26-29).  The  special  solemnity  of  this  Sunday 
was  the  laying  aside  by  the  newly  baptised  of 
their  white  baptismal  robes,  to  be  deposited  in 
the  sacristy  of  the  church.  St.  Augustine  refers 
to  the  appearance  of  the  neophytes  in  church  in 
their  w’hite  robes  QSerm.  de  Temp).  162 ;  Dominic, 
in  Octav.  Paschae)  :  “  Hodie  vitali  lavacro  resur- 
gens  Dei  populus  ad  instar  Resurrectionis  eccle- 
siam  nostram  splendore  nivei  candoris  illuminat.” 
The  white  bands  that  w'ere  wi'apped  round  the 
heads  of  the  newly  baptised  infants  w'ere  also 
removed  on  this  day,  w'hich  from  this  custom 
sometimes  bore  the  name  of  octavae  infaniium  : 

infantes  vocantur  et  habent  octavas  hodie 

. recludenda  enim  sunt  capita  eorum  ” 

(Aug.  Serm.  de  Temp,  160).  We  learn  from 
Rabanus  Maurus  (^De  Cleric.  Inst.  ii.  38)  that 
in  his  time  the  seven  days  after  Easter  Day  were 
known  as  Dies  Alhae,  because  those  who  had  been 
baptised  on  the  holy  night  wore  their  albs  and 
assisted  at  the  holy  mysteries  in  that  dress,' 
till  the  following  Sunday,  when  the  bishop’s 
hand  was  laid  upon  them  in  confirmation. 
Gregory  of  Tours  mentions  processions — roga- 
tioncs — being  made  every  year  at  Easter  tide 
(Greg.  Turon.  Vit.  Pair.  c.  vi.  p.  1175).  [E.  A^.] 

ECDICI  Q'EkBikoi  or  iKKXgcrieKSiKoi),  certain 
officers  appointed,  in  consequence  of  the  legal 
disabilities  of  clergy  and  monks,  to  represent  the 
church  in  civil  affairs;  see  Advocate  of  the 
Church,  Defensor.  The  place  where  they  met 
officially  wois  called  eKBiKfioy.  [C.] 

ECON  OM  ITS.  [0  EcoNOMus.] 

ECPIIONESIS  Q‘EK(pwvT)(ns')  denotes  that 
portion  of  an  office  which  is  said  audibly,  in  con¬ 
trast  with  that  said  secrete  (plv(ttikus)  ;  especi¬ 
ally  the  doxology,  with  which  the  secret  prayers 
generally  conclude.  [C.] 

ECTENE  or  ECTENIA  (’E/crev^sr  or  iu- 
Teyia).  Omitting  from  consideration  certain 
preparatory  prayers,  the  liturgies  of  St.  Basil 
and  St.  Chrysostom  begin  with  a  litany,  known 
as  Ectene,  Synapte,  Diaconicae,  or  Eirenicae.  The 
name  Ectene  may  refer  to  the  length  or  (more 
probably)  to  the  earnestness  of  the  supplication. 
Litanies  of  a  similar  form  are  also  found  in  the 
Hour-offices.  See  further  under  Litanv.  [C.] 

ECTIIESIS  ("EKfleo-is),  a  doctrinal  formula, 
or  “  setting  forth  ”  of  a  Creed.  Thus  Theodoret 
(Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  17)  speaks  of  the  statement  of 
doctrine  put  forth  by  the  “  conciliabulum  ”  of 
Rimini  as  an  ^kO^ctis.  The  same  word  is  again 
iised  by  the  same  historian  in  speaking  of  the 
creed  of  Eunomius  (//.  El,  ii.  23).  [C.] 

ECTYPOMATA.  [Dona  :  Votive  Offer¬ 
ings.] 

ECIT:MENICAL  councils.  [Councils.] 

ECCIjESIA  ('EKKXrja'id).  The  principal 
senses  of  the  word  Ecclesia  with  which  we  are 
concerned  are  the  followinsc : — 


I.  The  congregation  or  gathering  together  of 
the  faithful.  “Ecclesia  est  convocatus  jiopulus 
per  ministros  ecclesiae  ab  eo  qui  facit  unauimes 
habitare  in  domo.  l])sa  domus  vocatui  Ecclesia, 
quia  Ecclesiam  continet”  (Amalarius,  De  Eccl. 
Off.  iii.  2). 

II.  As  indicated  in  the  extract  above  from  Ama¬ 
larius,  the  word  came  to  designate  the  build¬ 
ing  used  for  the  Christian  assembly  [Church]  ; 
as  in  1  Coi*.  xi.  18:  “Appellamus  Ecclesiam 
basilicam  qud  continetur  populus”  (Augustine, 
Epist.  157).  The  principal  designations  of 
churches  of  different  kinds  are  the  following: — 

1.  'H  eKKXrjaia  is  used  absolutely  to  desig¬ 
nate  the  princijial  church  or  “  cathedral  ”  of 
a  city  ;  as  by  Procojiius  (De  Bello  l^ersico,  ii.  9), 
to  designate  the  catliedral  of  Antioch. 

2.  Ecclesia  Baptismalis,  a  parish  church — to 
use  the  modern  term — in  which  baptisms  are 
celebrated.  Walafrid  Strabo  (De  lieb.  Eccl.  c. 
30)  speaks  of  “  presbyter!  plebium  qui  baptis- 
males  ecclesias  tenent  et  minoribus  presbyteris 
praesunt.”  [Compare  Parish.] 

3.  Ecclesia  Cardinalis.  This  was  also  a  de¬ 
signation  of  parish  churches.  [Cardinal.] 

4.  Ecclesia  Cathedrcdis,  a  church  in  wliich  a 
bishop  set  up  his  throne.  [Cathedra:  Cathe¬ 
dral.] 

5.  Ecclesia  Catholica.  [Catholic.] 

6.  E.  Diocesana  (Leges  Wisigoth.,  lib.  iv.,  tit. 
5,  c.  6)  is  equivalent  to  parochialis.  [Diocese: 
Parish.] 

7.  E.  Mater,  Matricialis,  Matrix,  Matricula, 
may  designate  either  a  cathedral,  as  distinguished 
from  its  subordinate  churches ;  or  a  parish 
church,  as  distinguished  from  mere  oratories. 

8.  Ecclesia  Plebalis  or  Pleheiana,  the  church 
of  a  Plebs,  or  community ;  that  is,  a  parish 
church.  See  the  quotation  above  (II.  2),  and 
Ducange’s  Glossary,  s.  v.  Blebs. 

9.  Ecclesia  Principalis,  a  cathedral  (Leg.  TVfsi- 
goth.  iv.  5,  c.  6). 

10.  Ecclesiae  Patriarchales,  in  the  Roman 
church,  are  those  subject  to  the  immediate 
authority  of  the  pope. 

11.  Ecclesia  per  se,  a  church  having  its  own 
priest,  and  not  dependent  (as  an  oratory  would 
have  been)  upon  another  church  (Hincmar, 
Ejnst.  ed.  Labbe,  quoted  by  Ducange).  [C.] 

ECCLESIAE  MATRICULA.  [Matricula.] 

ECCLESIj^RCH  ('EKKXr^aidpxgsX  in  the 
Eastern  church,  was  the  sacrist,  who  had  general 
charge  of  the  church  and  its  contents,  and  sum¬ 
moned  the  people  to  service  by  the  bells  or  other 
means  of  giving  notice.  The  minor  ollicials  of 
the  church  were  under  his  authority.  The 
Typicum  of  Sabas  (c.  1)  rejiresents  the  Ecclesi- 
arch  as  giving  a  rubrical  direction  in  the  same 
way  that  the  deacon  commonly  does :  Hra  dp- 
X^rai  6  iKKXrja-Ldpxvs,  AeCre,  Trpoa-Kuyj^a-co- 
pev  (Suicer’s  Thesaui-us,  s.  v.  ;  Daniel’s  Codex 
Lit.  iv.  700).  [C.] 

ECCr.ESIASTICAE  LITER  AE.  [Com- 

MENDATORY  LETTERS  :  DiMISSORY  LETTERS.] 

ECCLESIA  STIC  AE  RES.  1.  The  term 
res  ecclesia sticae  is  used,  in  a  wide  sense,  to  de¬ 
note  all  matters  belonsfinsr  to  the  church,  as 

O  O  ' 

opposed  to  7'es  seculares,  terremae,  matters  be¬ 
longing  to  the  world.  Things  ecclesiastical 
are  again  divided  into  res  spirituaics,  func¬ 
tions  or  objects  which  belong  solely  to  the 


598  ECCLESIASTICAL  COURTS 


ELDERS 


priesthood,  as  the  sacraments  and  tlie  altars ; 
and  res  teinp07'n/es,  which  contribute  to  the  wel¬ 
fare  rather  of  the  body  than  the  soul  (Ambrose, 
Epist.  3o,  ud  Marcel linnm'). 

Again,  of  res  spirituales  some  are  immaterial 
(incorporales),  some  material  (corporales).  To 
the  former  belong  the  invisible  gifts  and  graces 
bestowed  on  the  soul  by  God;  to  the  latter,  the 
outward  acts  Or  objects  connected  with  such 
gifts  or  graces,  that  is,  the  sacraments;  certain 
“  res  sanctae,  sacrae,  sacrosanctae,”  as  churches, 
the  vessels  used  in  the  eucharistic  or  other  rites 
of  the  church,  and  the  vestments  of  its  ministers  ; 
and  certain  “  res  religiosae,”  such  as  foundations 
«r  institutions  for  purposes  of  piety  and  benefi¬ 
cence  over  which  the  church  claims  jurisdiction. 
The  molestation  or  injury  of  ecclesiastical  things 
is  Sacrilege. 

2.  In  a  narrower  sense,  the  term  res  eccle- 
siasticue  designates  the  Property"  of  the 
Church.  (Lancelotti  Instit.  Juris  Canon,  ii.  1 ; 
Jacobson  in  Herzog’s  Real-Encyclop.  s.  v.  Kir- 
chensachcn  ).  [C.] 

ECCLESIASTICAL  COURTS.  [Bishop: 
Discipline:  Jurisdiction.] 

ECCLESIASTICAL  LANGUAGE.  [Li¬ 
turgical  Language.] 

ECCLESIASTICAL  LAW.  [Canon  Law.] 

ECCLESIASTICUS.  1.  A  member  of  the 
Catholic  church,  as  opposed  to  a  heretic  or  schis¬ 
matic  (Jerome,  Epist.  62,  c.  1 ;  in  Jtuffinum,  ii.  4). 

2.  Any  person  in  orders,  whether  major  or 
minor.  Thus  the  first  council  of  Vasa  (c.  3) 
desires  presbyters  not  to  send  for  the  chrism  by 
the  hands  of  any  servant  of  the  church  (per 
quemcunque  ecclesiasticum),  but  by  the  hands  of 
a  subdeacon  at  least.  The  word  is  similarly  used 
in  the  Theodosian  code. 

3.  Isidore  of  Seville  (^De  EccL  Off.  ii.  3)  speaks 
of  a  clerk  occupying  his  due  position  in  the  hier¬ 
archy  as  “  clericus  ecclesiastieus,”  in  contradis¬ 
tinction  from  acephali,  or  irregular  clerks. 

4.  Those  who  were  in  any  way  the  “  men  ”  of 

a  church,  so  as  to  be  unable  to  leave  its  terri¬ 
tories  or  its  service,  were  called  in  a  special 
sense  ‘‘homines”  or  “  viri  ecclesiastici  ”  (Car. 
Jlagni  C'pital.  iv.  3).  “Homines  ecclesiastici 
seu  fiscalini  ”  are  mentioned,  and  their  duties  to 
their  lord  prescribed,  in  Car.  Mag.  Capita!,  v. 
303.  They  are  distinguished  froiji  sei'vi  (^Conc. 
Suessio7i.  ii.  c.  12).  [C.] 

EDESSA.  The  translation  of  the  Holy  Icon 
(or  picture)  of  Christ  from  Edessa  is  comme¬ 
morated  Aug.  16  {Cal.  Byzant.').  A  great  festi¬ 
val  (Daniel’s  Codex,  iv.  244).  [C.] 

EDILTRUDIS.  [Etheldreda.] 
EDUCATION.  [Schools.] 

EGARA,  COUNCIL  OF  {Egarense  con- 
cdiuni),  held  a.d.  615  at  Egara,  now  Terassa,  in 
Catalonia :  to  confirm  what  had  boon  enacted  at 
Osca  or  Huesca  seventeen  years  before.  Twelve 
bishops,  whose  sees  are  not  given,  and  a  presbyter 
and  deacon  representing  two  more,  subscribed  to 
it  (Mansyx.  531).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

EGDUNUS,  presbyter,  martyr  at  Nicomedia 
with  seven  others ;  commemorated  March  12 
(Ma)’t.  Adonis  Hsuai’di).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EGESIPPUS.  [Hegesippus.] 


EGYPT.  The  entrance  of  Christ  into  Egypt 
is  commemorated  Ginbot  24  =  May  19  (Cal. 
Ethiop.')',  the  flight  of  Cl  rist  from  Melisa  to 
Roskuama  in  Egypt,  Hedar  6  =  Nov.  2  {Cal. 
Ethiop.').  [C.] 

EGYPT,  FLIGHT  INTO.  It  is  difficult, 
if  not  impossible,  to  name  any  earlier  repre¬ 
sentation  of  this  event  than  the  bronze  casting 
on  the  doors  of  St.  Zenone  at  Verona,  which  is 
at  all  events  one  of  the  earliest  known  of  Chris¬ 
tian  works  in  metal,  and  may  date  from  the 
original  fabric  of  the  9th  century.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

EGG.  There  seems  some  diversity  of  opinion 
as  to  the  use  of  the  egg  as  a  Christian  symbol. 
Boldetti  (p.  519)  speaks  of  marble  eggs  found  in 
the  tombs  of  St.  Theodora,  St.  Balbina,  and 
others  ;  these  were  of  the  size  of  hen’s  eggs.  Egg¬ 
shells  are  occasionally  found  in  the  loculi  of 
martyrs,  and  Raoul  Rochette  refers  them  to  the 
agapae  so  frequently  celebrated  there.  [See 
Eucharist.]  But  Martigny,  with  the  Abbe' 
CaA'edori  {Hagguaglio  crit.  dei  Monam.  delle 
A)'ti  Crist.)  is  inclined  to  think  that  the  egg 
signified  the  immature  hope  of  the  resurrection. 
“  Restat  spes,  quae  quantum  mihi  videtur,  ovo 
comparatur ;  spes  enim  nondum  pervenit  ad 
rem  ”  (Augustine,  Serrn.  cv.  8,  0pp.  t.  v.  379). 
The  Use  of  eggs  at  Easter  has  no  doubt  reference 
to  this  idea;  but  whether  the  idea  was  reallv 
attached  to  the  object  or  not,  in  a  generally 
symbolic  sense,  seems  still  a  dubious  matter.  For 
Eggs  and  Ducks  see  the  Medici  ]\ISS.  in  Asse- 
mann.  Catalog.  Bibl.  Med.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

EILETON  (EiATjTor).  After  the  ecphonesis 
of  the  prayer  of  the  catechumens,  and  imme¬ 
diately  before  the  deacon  warns  the  catechumens 
to  depart  {Lit.  Chrysos.,  Daniel  iv.  349)  the 
priest  unfolds  the  eileton,  or  Corporal,  on  which 
the  chalice  and  paten  are  aftei'jvards  placed. 
What  this  signifies  is  e.xplained  by  Germanus 
of  Constantinople  {Theoria  Mast.  p.  153,  ed. 
Paris,  1560)  thus:  “The  eileton  represents  the 
linen  cloth  in  avhich  the  body  of  Christ  was 
w'rapped  when  it  was  taken  down  from  the 
cross  and  laid  in  the  tomb  ”  (Suicer’s  Thesaurus, 
s.  V.).  [C.] 

EIRENICA  {ElpvviKo).  (1)  The  earlier 
clauses  of  the  great  litany  in  the  Greek  liturgies 
are  frequentlv  called  elprjviKd,  as  being  for  the 
most  part  prayers  for  peace.  Thus  the  great 
litany  in  the  liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom  (c.  14, 

р.  340,  Daniel)  begins  with  “  Let  us  beseech  the 
Lord  in  peace ;  for  the  peace  Avhich  is  from 
above  ;.  . .  .for  the  peace  of  the  whole  world.  . .” 

(2)  See  Pacificae.  [C.] 

EISODOS.  [Entr.ance.] 

ELASIPPUS,  martyr  at  Ferrara,  with 
Speusippus  and  Melasippus,  under  Aureliau; 
commemorated  Jan.  17  {JIart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

ELDERS  {Senioi'es).  There  are  some  traces 
of  elders  recognised  in  the  church,  yet  distinct 
from  the  clergy.  Augustine  addresses  his  epistle 
to  the  church  at  Hippo  {Epist.  137)  to  the 
clergy,  the  elders,  (senioribus),  and  all  the 
people.  In  another  place  {C  nti-a  Crescon.  iii. 

с.  29),  he  mentions  bishops,  presbyters,  deacons, 
and  elders,  (seniores).  Optatus  (i.  c.  41)  says, 
that  when  Mensurius,  bishop  of  Carthage,  waa 


eleazar' 

forced  to  leave  his  diocese  in  the  persecution 
under  Diocletian,  he  committed  the  ornaments 
and  utensils  belonging  to  the  church  to  the 
faithful  elders  (tidelibus  senioribus).  These 
appear  in  some  cases  to  have  been  merely  the 
leading  men  of  the  congregation.  Thus  the 
council  of  Carthage,  A.D.  419,  committed  the 
office  of  meeting  the  leaders  of  the  Donatists  to 
the  magistrates  and  elders  of  the  several  dis¬ 
tricts  (Cod.  Eccl.  Afric.  c,  91).  But  there  also 
appear  to  have  been  others  who  had  a  special 
position,  and  probably  special  duties,  in  the 
church.  Thus,  in  the  Gesta  Purgat.  Caecil.  et 
Felic.  (p.  263,  in  Optatus,  ed.  Paris,  1676)  it  is 
said,  that  in  the  business  of  enquiring  into  cer¬ 
tain  disputes  there  were  associated  with  the 
bishop  and  clergy  certain  elders  of  the  people, 
who  were  also  officers  of  the  church  (seniores 
plebis,  ecclesiasticos  viros).  Compare  Eccle- 
SIASTICUS.  In  the  same  tract  mention  is  made 
in  one  place  of  the  clergy  and  elders,  and  in 
another  of  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  and  elders. 
In  the  decrees  of  the  council  of  Carthage,  A.D. 
419,  mention  is  made  of  certain  elders,  who 
appear  to  have  been  sent  as  delegates  to  the 
council  (Cod.  Eccl.  Afric.  cc.  85,  100).  Compare 
Churchwardens  :  Electoral  Colleges. 

[P.  0.] 

ELEAZAR,  teacher  of  the  Maccabees,  com¬ 
memorated  Aug.  1  (Cal.  Byzant.^]  July  29  (Cal. 
Armen.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELEAZARIUS,  martyr  at  Lyons,  with  his 
eight  children  and  Minervius ;  commemorated 
Aug.  23  (Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELEEMOSYNARIES.  1.  See  Alms,  p.  52. 
2.  The  w'ord  is  occasionally  used  to  designate 
the  distributor  for  pious  uses  of  the  effects  of  a 
person  deceased,  i.e.  the  “executor”  of  his  will. 
Thus  Gregory  of  Tours  (De  Vitis  Patrum,  c.  8) 
speaks  of  one  from  whose  executors  (eleemosy- 
nariis)  no  small  sums  were  received  in  honour  of 
a  saint  (Ducange,  s.f.).  [C.] 

ELECTI.  Some  writers  (as  Bona,  De  Peb. 
Lit.  I.  xvi.  4)  consider  the  Catechumens  [p.  317] 
to  be  divided  into  the  four  classes  of  Audiente.s, 
Substrati  or  Genuflectentes,  Competentes,  and 
Electi  ;  the  latter  being  those  whose  names  were 
actually  inscribed  in  the  church-list  with  a  view 
to  baptism.  Bingham  (Antiq.  X.  ii.  1)  considers 
the  Electi  to  be  identical  with  the  Competentes, 
though  he  also  makes  four  classes  by  adding  one 
of  i^wdov/afyoi.  But  both  these  classifications 
are  of  doubtful  authority.  (See  Martene,  De  Pit. 
A)it.  I.  i.  6.)  [C.] 

ELECTION  OF  CLERGY.  The  first  re¬ 
corded  election  of  clergy  is  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  where  Matthias  was  chosen  by  casting 
lots.  But  this  example  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  followed. 

Clemens  Romanus  (Epist.  Cor.  i.  c.  42)  says 
that  in  the  early  days  of  the  church  the  apostles 
appointed  their  first-fruits,  proving  them  by  the 
Spirit,  bishops  and  deacons  of  those  who  should 
join  the  faith;  and  that  afterwards  the  ministers 
W’ere  appointed  by  other  men  of  consideration 
(avSpwv  iK\oyif/.oiv)  with  the  consent  of  the 
whole  church  (c.  44).  Compare  Pseudo-Clemens 
(Epist.  ad  Jacob,  i.  c.  3).  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
(Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  c.  23,  §  6)  says  that  St.  John 


ELECTION  OF  CLERGY  599 

ordained  such  clergy  as  were  pointed  out  by  the 
Spirit. 

It  appears  to  have  been  sometimes  held  that 
the  bishop  had  the  right  of  selecting  the  inferior 
clergy.  Cyprian  (Ep.  29,  ed.  Hartel)  say  that 
he  had  appointed  Saturus  as  a  lectoi  and 
Optatus  as  a  subdeacon,  insisting  that  he  has  not 
acted  arbitrarily,  but  carried  out  the  wishes  of 
the  church  in  general.  Ambrose  (Epist.  82  ad 
Verccll.)  speaks  of  bishops  as  admitting  other 
clergy  to  orders  and  benefices,  and  (Offic.  i. 
c.  18)  of  a  certain  person  who  was  refused  ad¬ 
mission  into  the  clerical  oi'der  (in  clerum),  by 
himself.  Jerome  (Comm,  in  Tit.  i.  5)  speaks  of 
bishops  as  having  power  to  appoint  (constitu- 
endi)  priests  in  every  city,  and  again  (Epist.  ad 
Nejx)t.)  of  their  selecting  (eligendi)  priests, 
and  (ibid.)  of  their  being  entrusted  with  the 
power  of  placing  in  office  whom  they  would. 
Philostorgius  (II.  E.  iii.  17)  speaks  of  Leontius 
bishop  of  Alexandria  appointing  Aetius  as  a 
deacon.  In  the  Life  of  John  Damascene,  it  is 
said  that  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  acting  by 
divine  inspiration,  sent  for  him  and  ordained 
him  to  the  priesthood  ( Vita  Joann.  Damascen. 
per  Ioann.  Episcop.  Hierosolym.  inter  opp.  Joan. 
Damas.).  Gregory  the  Great,  while  strenuously 
asserting  the  right  of  the  clergy  and  people  to 
the  free  election  of  bishops,  was  equally  firm  in 
re.serving  to  the  bishops  the  power  of  selecting 
parish  pidests  and  deacons,  on  the  ground  that 
in  choosing  a  bishop,  the  clergy  and  people 
transferred  to  him  all  rights  of  election  to  the 
inferior  offices  (Thomassiu,  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl. 
Discip.  ii.  7,  c.  34,  §  10).  The  council  of  Lao- 
dicea  (c.  13)  forbids  the  election  to  the  priest¬ 
hood  (els  lepaTetop)  to  be  entrusteil  to  the 
multitude  (toTs  vx^ois).  But  this  is  some¬ 
times  referred  to  the  election  of  bishops.  The 
4th  council  of  Carthage  (c.  22)  provides  that  a 
bishop  shall  not  ordain  any  without  the  advice 
of  his  clergy,  and  shall  also  seek  not  only  the 
testimony,  but  the  assent  ( conniventiam),  of 
the  people.  A  decree  of  the  council  of  Merida 
(Cone.  Emerit.  c.  19)  speaks  of  a  parish  priest  as 
having  been  put  in  charge  of  his  church,  by  the 
appointment  (per  ordinationem)  of  his  bishop. 
Another  decree  of  the  same  council  (c.  18) 
ordains  that  all  parish  priests  shall  provide  a 
supply  of  inferior  clergy  from  the  household 
(familia)  of  the  church.  The  6th  canon  of  Theo- 
philus  of  Alexandria  associates  the  clergy  with 
the  bishop,  providing  that  at  every  ordination  all 
the  clergy  shall  exercise  the  power  not  only  of 
assent,  but  of  choice  (consentiat  et  eligat),  and 
that  the  candidate  selected  by  the  clergy  shall 
be  ordained  in  presence  of  the  people,  and  that 
the  bishop  shall  enquire  of  them  whether  they 
also  can  bear  testimony  to  his  fitness. 

In  these  instances  it  a])pears  that  the  right  of 
election  rested  with  the  bishop,  or  with  the 
bishop  and  clergy,  and  that  the  people  only 
consented.  There  is  evidence,  however,  that  in 
many  cases  the  people  not  only  bore  witness  to 
the  fitness  of  the  candidates,  but  had  themselves 
a  share  in  the  election.  Cyprian  (Ep.  67,  cc.  3 
and  4)  speaks  of  the  people  as  having  the 
greatest  power  of  choosing  worthy  bishoj's,  since 
by  their  presence  the  merits  of  the  candidates 
will  be  known,  and  the  election  be  just  and 
legitimate  as  confirmed  by  the  general  suflVage 
and  assent.  He  adds  that  this  was  the  apo- 


600  ELECTORAL  COLLEGES 


ELEMENTS 


stolic  rule  not  ouly  in  tlie  election  of  bishops 
and  priests,  but  also  in  that  of  deacons,  Je¬ 
rome  (Epist.  ad  Jhistkai/i)  appears  to  assert 
that  oith(3r  the  bishop  or  the  people  had 
power  to  elect  the  candidates  for  ordination, 

“  vel  poiiulus  vel  pontife-ic  elegerit.”  And,  in 
another  place  {Comm,  in  Ezeh.  c.  33,  v.  6)  spea.ks 
of  either  a  bishop  or  a  priest  being  a  watchman, 
“speculator,”  of  the  church,  because  of  his 
election  by  the  jieople,  “quia  a  populo  electus 
est.”  Siiicius  {Ejjist.  i.  ad  Jfimerum  Taracon. 
c.  10)  speaks  of  elevation  to  the  office  of  priest 
or  bishop  as  depending  on  the  choice  (electio) 
of  the  clergy  and  people.  Chrysostom  {irepl 
'Upws.  iv.  c.  2,  §  376,  379)  speaks  of  the  electors 
to  the  office  of  the  priesthood  {robs  (Ao/jLivovs) 
as  quite  distinct  from  the  bishop  who  or¬ 
dains.  Of  these  electors  he  speaks  as  being  the 
elders  {tG>v  Trarepup,  ibid.  i.  c.  3  §  29)  or 
the  leading  {/xeyuAovs')  members  of  the  con¬ 
gregation  {ibid.  i.  14  §  39).  He  also  speaks 
of  the  election  as  being  decided  by  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  votes  {ibid.  iii.  c.  4  §  171).  Some¬ 
times  indeed  the  people  appear  to  have  brought 
a  candidate  to  the  bishop  and  insisted  on  his 
immediate  ordination,  as  is  said  to  have  been 
the  case  with  St.  Augustine  (Possid.  Vita 
Augustini,  c.  4). 

The  1st  council  of  Orange  (c.  10),  provides 
that  when  a  bishop  is  the  founder  of  a  church 
in  anotlier  diocese,  he  may  select  the  clergy  to 
officiate  in  it.  Justinian  {Novell.  123  c.  18) 
allows  the  founders  of  private  oratories  to  select 
their  clergy,  but  if  any  unworthy  were  chosen, 
the  bishop  was  to  have  the  power  of  selecting 
those  whom  he  thought  fit.  [P.  0.] 

ELECTORAL  COLLEGES.  The  evils  of 
a  popular  election  of  bishops  and  other  clergy  in 
a  great  city,  such  as  Constantinople,  were  so 
manifest  (Chrysostom  de  Sacerdutio,  iii.  15),  that 
attempts  were  sometimes  made  to  commit  the 
choice  of  ministers  to  a  select  body  or  committee. 
We  find  perhaps  a  trace  of  this  in  the  earliest 
times,  when  Clement  of  Rome  {ad  Cor.  i,  44) 
speaks  of  the  successors  of  the  apostles  being 
chosen  by  men  of  consideration  (ott’  iAAoy'ip.oou 
avSpcHv)  with  the  assent  of  the  church.  The 
council  of  Laodicea  (c.  13)  clearly  desires  that 
the  clergy  should  be  chosen  by  some  definitely 
organized  body,  and  not  by  a  mere  mass-meeting 
(toTs  tlxA-cns)  [Election  of  Clergy].  In 
spite  of  this  ordinance,  however,  there  are  only 
too  many  instances  in  later  times  of  the  choice  of 
clergy  by  meetings  which  can  only  be  called 
mobs.  (See  Augustine,  Epist.  155;  Synesius, 
Epist.  67;  Baronius,  an.  303,  §22ff. ;  Baluze, 
Miscell.  ii.  102  If.)  Yet,  generally,  the  infiuence 
of  the  principal  men  in  a  city  could  not  be 
ignored,  and  when  Justinian  {Novel,  cx.xiii.  c.  1 ; 
see  Bishop,  p.  216)  definitely  enjoined  th-at  the 
clergy  and  chief  men  of  a  city  {irpcliToi  ttjs 
ttJAcws)  should  nominate  three  for  a  vacant 
see,  he  probably  did  but  confirm  an  o.xisting 
practice.  From  the  three  thus  nominated,  one 
was  to  be  chosen  by  the  consecrator  (too 
rovovvros),  generally  the  metropolitan. 

If  the  “  chief  men  ”  had  been  defined,  we 
should  have  had  here  an  “  Electoral  College  ”  of 
clergy  and  notables ;  as  they  were  not,  this 
system  generally  led  to  a  struggle  between  the 
clergy  and  the  civil  government.  [C.] 


ELEMENTS.  The  two  parts  of  the  outw'ard 
and  visible  sign  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper. 

I.  Names. — The  Latin  word  elementa  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  u.^ed  in  this  technical  sense 
in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  though  it  is 
a  very  natural  word  to  express  the  component 
parts  of  any  thing.  Possibly  the  use  arose  from 
the  analogy  of  baptism,  where  the  outward  sign 
would  naturally  be  spoken  of  as  the  element  ” 
of  water,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  following  pas¬ 
sage  from  St.  Augustin,  where,  in  speaking  ot 
bajitism,  he  says,  “  Take  away  the  word,  and 
wffiat  is  the  water  but  water  ?  'I'he  word  is 
added  to  ih.Q  clement,  and  it  becomes  a  sacrament, 
itself  as  it  were  a  visible  word”  (accedit  verbum 
ad  eiementum  et  fit  sacramentum.  Augustin  in 
Joan.  XV.  1—3,  Tract.  Ixxx.  3).  Gregory  of 
Tours  {De  Vitis  Patrum,  c.  15)  uses  the  word  of 
both  bread  and  water,  “Nam  esus  illi  panis 
tantum  hordcaceus  erat  et  aqua,  de  utrisque  elc- 
mentis  libras  singulas  per  dies  singulos  sumens.” 
Words  denoting  saciifice  or  ofleriug  were  con¬ 
stantly  used  of  the  Elements ;  ra  ayia  Sdjpa,  as 
in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  6  lepeus  elfrdywv  to 
dyia  hwpa  ;  or  simply  rh.  dyia,  as  in  the  Liturgy 
of  St.  Chrysostom  and  elsewhere ;  so  the  Latin 
Sancta,’^  as  in  Ordo  Horn.  II.  c.  8  (see  Mabillon, 
Comment.  Praev.  p.  xxxvi.) ;  or  again,  simply  to 
Awpa.  npocrcpopd  was  also  generally  used  for 
the  Elements  placed  on  the  altar.  So  the 
Latin  oblatio  and  oblaia  as  in  the  Ordo  Ro- 
mamis  If.  (c.  9),  “  Archidiaconus  suscipit 
oblatas  duas  de  oblationario  . .  ,  et  ponit  [cali- 
cem]  super  altare  juxta  oblationes  pontificis.” 
The  word  Ilostia,  “the  Victim,”  expre.sses  a 
somewhat  different  aspect  of  the  sacrificial  con¬ 
ception. ’’ 

The  unconsecrated  Ele.nents  on  the  altar  are 
called  in  Eastern  liturgies  “the  Mysteries;”  the 
bread  alone  the  “  Seal  ”  {ccppayis),  from  its  being 
divided  by  lines  in  the  form  of  a  cross  (see  below). 

In  certain  Arabic  rubrics  (Kenaudot,  Litt. 
Orientt.  ii.  62)  the  Elements  are  called  Barschin, 
a  corruption  of  the  Greek  d-napxv^. 

In  Syriac  they  bear  the  name  oi  Kourhono,  cor¬ 
responding  nearly  to  the  Greek  8wpor  and  irpoa- 
<popd  and  the  Latin  oblata  ;  the  bread  is  simply 
“Bread  of  the  Sacraments,”  or  “  of  the  Mys¬ 
teries.” 

When  the  Elements  have  been  placed  on  the 
altar,  they  acquire  other  names  having  more 
distinct  reference  to  sacrifice,  as  “  the  Lamb,”  or 
“  the  First-born.”  The  Syrians  too  call  the  por¬ 
tion  imjiressed  with  a  cross  “the  Seal.”  Other 
names  are  given  to  the  various  particles  after 
division  (Ren.  u.  s.  i.  189  ;  ii.  62)  [Fraction.] 

Again,  the  Elements  were  called  aopL^oKa, 
TUTToi,  formae  aspectabiles,  as  outward  repre¬ 
sentations  of  inward  and  spiritual  grace.  The 
word  species,  often  supposed  to  have  the  same 
force,  probably  in  its  origin  meant  no  more  than 
“  fruits  of  the  earth  ” — a  sense  which  it  is  well 
known  to  bear  in  later  latinity,  especially  with 
the  jurists  (Ducange,  s.  v.). 


a  By  the  Sancta,  however,  we  ought  probably  here  to 
understand  the  consecrated  Host  reserved  from  a  pre¬ 
vious  celebration. 

^  See  on  these  names  the  essay  on  sacrificial  terms  in 
Meynorials  of  the  liev.  Wharton  H  Marriott  (London, 
1873). 


ELEMENTS 


ELEMENTS 


601 


II.  What  'cere  the  Elements'! 

Throughout  tho  universal  church  bread  and 
wine  have  always  been  the  recognised  elements  J 
in  the  eucharist,  with  but  few  and  slight  excep¬ 
tions  which  may  be  described  in  a  few  words. 
There  was  an  obscure  sect  called  the  Artotyritae  ^ 
who  added  cheese  to  the  bread.  St.  Augustin 
{dc  Haeres.  c.  xlviii.)  says  “  the  Artotyrites  are 
so  called  from,  their  oblation,  for  they  oiler  bread 
and  cheese,  saying  that  the  first  oblations  which 
were  offered  by  men,  in  the  infancy  of  the  world, 
were  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth  and  of  sheep.” 
Thei-e  were  also  sects  which  used  no  wine  but  ^ 
water  alone,  and  some  who  did  not  use  wine  in 
their  morning  services,  though  they  did  in  the 
evening  (see  below,  §  VI.) 

III.  Composition  of  the  Bread. 

With  regard  to  the  element  of  bread,  whatever  . 
may  have  been  the  practice  of  certain  sects,  1 
there  is  entire  agreement  in  the  church  that  it  i 
should  be  made  of  wheat-flour.  The  mystical  j 
allusions  to  the  superiority  of  wheat  in  Clement  ! 
of  Alexandria  (Strom,  vi.  11’,  p.  787)  and  Origen  ' 
(Horn,  in  Gen.  xii.  c.  5,  p.  247,  Wirceburg,  1780)  | 
strongly  indicate,  what  indeed  there  is  no  reason  ! 
to  doubt,  that  wheaten  bread  and  (ordinarily)  no 
other,  was  used  in  the  mysteries.  Alenin  (Epist.  j 
90)  speaks  specially  of  the  “  grana  tritici,”  from  ' 
the  flour  of  which  the  bread  is  to  be  made.  The  | 
great  controversy  in  the  matter  has  been  ;  Should  : 
the  bread  be  leavened  or  unleavened  ? 

A.  The  princij)al  evidences  bearing  on  this 
question  are  the  following: 

1.  It  has  generally  been  assumed  in  the  West 
that  the  Last  Supper  was  eaten  at  the  feast  of  the 
Passover,  and  that  therefore  the  bread  used  was  ^ 
the  unleavened  bread  which  the  Jews  were  alone  ' 
allowed  to  eat  at  that  time.  But  it  is  contended 
by  some  writers  of  the  Greek  church  that  the 
Last  Supper  was  held  on  the  13th  Kisan,  when 
leavened  bread  was  still  used ;  and  there  is  no 
direct  statement  either  in  the  New  Testament  or 
in  the  writings  of  the  Early  Fathers  to  indicate 
that  azyme,  or  unleavened  bread,  was  used  ;  on 
the  contrary,  the  fact  that  only  “bread”  was  men¬ 
tioned  would  lead  to  the  inference  that  only  com¬ 
mon  bread  was  meant.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
simply  speaks  of  “breaking  bread”  as  a  solemn 
rite,  or  meeting  together  to  “  break  bread.”  j 
Justin  IMartyr  simply  speaks  of  bread,  and  as  ; 
he  is  giving  a  particular  description  of  the 
Christian  rites,  it  seems  most  probable  that  he 
would  have  mentioned  the  fact  had  any  parti¬ 
cular  kind  of  bread  been  used. 

2.  It  is  said  that  as  the  element  of  bread  was 
taken  in  the  early  ages  from  the  offerings  of  the 
people  [Our.ATiON],  which  served  also  for  the 
support  of  the  ministers  and  dependents  of  the 
church,  it  must  have  been  ordinary,  that  is, 
leavened  bread.  But  this  argument  is  by  no 
means  so  conclusive  as  at  first  sight  it  ap})ears  ; 
it  is  good  for  the  age  of  Justin  Martyr;  but  in 
later  times  there  are  evident  traces  of  a  double 
offering;  one  of  ordinary  food,  for  the  use  of  the 
dependents  of  the  church,  and  one  of  bread  and 
wine  for  the  altar.  The  council  of  Nantes  (c.  9, 
quoted  by  Martene)  clearly  distinguished  between 
the  o'llatiorus  which  were  intended  for  consecra¬ 
tion,  and  the  panes.,  or  loaves,  offered  for  the  use 
of  the  church  [Eulogiae].  So  Hincmar  (Capitul. 


K  16).  And  when  such  a  separation  was  n:adc 
between  the  offerings  for  the  ministers  and  the 
offerings  for  the  altar,  the  latter  were  pi-obably 
specially  prepared,  whether  leavened  or  not. 
The  woman  who  smiled  when  Gregory  the  Great 
(Joannes  Diac.  Vita  Greg.  ii.  41)  offered  her  in 
the  eucharist  that  wliich  she  had  herself  pre¬ 
pared,  need  not  be  supj)Osed  of  course  to  have 
taken  the  oblation  from  her  household  loaf. 

3.  Epiphanius  (Haeres.  30,  c.  16)  says  that 

the  Ebionites,  in  imitation  of  the  saints  in  the 
church,  celebrate  mysteries  yearly  in  the  cliurcli 
with  unleavened  cakes  (Sf  using  water 

for  the  other  element  in  the  sacrament.  Here 
the  azymes  seem  to  be  mentioned,  like  the  water, 
as  a  departure  from  Catholic  practice ;  but  Epi¬ 
phanius  does  not  in  terms  reckon  the  use  ot 
azymes  among  the  heretical  practices  of  the 
Ebionites,  so  that  it  is  possible  that  their  depar¬ 
ture  from  orthodoxy  may  have  consisted  in  their 
annual,  instead  of  more  frequent,  celebration, 
and  in  their  use  of  water  for  wine. 

4.  The  words  of  the  Pseudo-Ambrosius  (De 
Sacram.  iv.  4),  “  tu  forte  dicis,  mens  panis  est 
usitatus ;  sed  panis  iste  panis  est  ante  verba 
sacramentorum ;  ubi  accesserit  consecratio,  de 
pane  fit  caro  Christi,”  are  generally  thought  to 
imply  that  the  bread  used  for  consecration  was 
leavened.  But  the  opposition  in  the  writer’s 
mind  is  between  “  common  bread  ”  and  “  the 
Bodv  of  Christ,”  not  between  “  common  ”  and 
“  leavened  ”  bread,  nor  is  such  an  expression  as 
“panis  usitatus”  absolutely  conclusive,  though 
it  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  it  desig¬ 
nates  leavened  bread,  such  as  was  everywhere 
most  commonly  used. 

5.  A  custom  of  the  Roman  church,  mentioned 
by  the  Liber  Pontificalis  (cc,  33,  55)  in  the  lives 
of  Melchiades  and  Siricius,  is  thus  referred  to 
by  Innocent  I.  (Epist.  ad  Lecentium,  c.  5). 
Writing  to  the  bishop  of  Gubbio,  he  sa3's  that  his 
correspondent  had  no  need  to  consult  him  about 
the  “  fermentum  ”  which  on  Sundays  he  (Inno¬ 
cent)  sent  to  the  parish  churches  (titulos), 
because  that  was  a  custom  confined  to  the  city 
of  Rome,  intended  to  prevent  the  parish  priests 
[see  Cardinal],  who  were  detained  in  their 
own  churches  by  their  proper  duties,  from 
feeling  themselves  cut  off’  from  communion  with 
the  mother  church  [Eulogiai:].  Even  in  Rome 
it  was  only  sent  to  the  “  tituli  ”  proj)er,  not 
to  the  presbyters  of  other  churches.  It  has 
been  supposed  (e.  g.  bv'  Bona)  that  the  euchar- 
istic  bread  which  was  sent  by  the  pope  was 
called  “fermentum”  as  being  made  of  leavened 
bread;  but,  unless  the  bread  common! v  con¬ 
secrated  in  the  churches  was  «?ileavened,  this 
supposition  does  not  furnish  a  reason  why  these 
particular  oblates  should  be  called  “  fermentum  ” 
by  way  of  distinction,  as  they  certainly  ap¬ 
pear  to  be  ;  and  the  conjecture  of  Sirniond 
(adopted  by  Mabillon)  seems  by  no  means  im¬ 
probable,  that  this  “fermentum”  was  so  called 

j  as  being  intended  to  leaven  the  whole  mass  of  the 
Roman  church.  Certainly  the  expressions  used 
in  the  Lives  of  Melchiades  and  Siricius,  “quod 
declaratur,  quod  nominatur,  fermentum,”  seem 
to  imply  that  the  term  is  used  in  an  improper, 

,  not  a  strict,  sense. 

6.  The  sixth  canon  of  the  16th  council  of 
Toledo  (a.d.  693)  is  to  this  effect.  It  having 
been  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  council  that  in 


602 


ELEMENTS 


ELEMENTS 


some  parts  of  Spain  priests  do  not  offer  on  tlie 
Table  of  the  Lord  clean  loaves,  specially  prepared 
(panes  mundos  et  studio  praeparatos),  but  take 
off  a  piece  to  form  a  round  disc  (crustulam  in 
rotunditatem)  from  loaves  prepared  for  their 
own  use,  and  offer  it  upon  the  altar  with  the 
wine  and  water;  a  thing  contrary  to  all  prece¬ 
dent  ;  .  .  .  .  the  council  decides  unanimously,  that 
no  other  kind  of  bread  be  placed  on  the  altar  of 
the  Lord,  to  be  hallowed  by  priestly  benediction, 
but  such  as  is  whole  and  clean  and  specially  pre¬ 
pared  (panis  integer  et  nitidus  qui  ex  studio 
fuerit  praeparatus) ;  nor  is  anything  of  large 
size  to  be  offered,  but  only  cakes  of  moderate 
size,  according  to  ecclesiastical  custom  (neque 
grande  aliquid,  sed  modica  tantum  oblata,  secun¬ 
dum  quod  ecclesiastica  consuetudo  retentat). 

This  canon  has  been  claimed  by  the  advocates 
both  of  the  leaven  and  of  the  azymes  ;  but  in 
fact  it  is  not  conclusive  for  either.  It  is  decisive 
as  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Western  church  in  the 
7th  century  oblates  were  specially  prepared,  and 
were  not  portions  of  a  loaf,  but  “Integra;”  but  it 
is  not  proved  that  the  words  “  nitidus  ”  and 
“  mundus  ”  necessarily  imply  the  absence  of 
leaven. 

7.  The  tenth  canon  of  the  council  of  Chelsea 
(^Conc.  Calchut.  a.d.  787 ;  Haddan  and  Stubbs, 
iii.  452)  enjoins  that  the  oblations  be  cakes  or 
loaves,  not  pieces  of  bread  (panis,  non  crusta). 
Probably  the  same  distinction  is  intended  as  that 
laid  down  by  the  16th  council  of  Toledo,  between 
a  whole  cake  prepared  for  the  purpose,  and  a 
piece  taken  from  a  loaf.  The  passage  determines 
nothing  as  to  the  use  of  leaven,  for  “  panis”  may 
be  used  either  of  leavened  or  unleavened  bread, 
as  in  “  panes  azymi  et  crustula  absque  fei’mento  ” 
(Exod.  xxix.  2). 

8.  Another  point  of  which  much  has  been 
made  in  the  discussion  is  this :  that  Photius  of 
Constantinople  (a.d.  867)  never  mentioned  the 
use  of  unleavened  bread  in  the  eucharist  as  one 
of  the  Latin  errors,  while  Michael  Caerularius, 
also  patriarch  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  1054), 
gave  it  a  ])rominent  place  ;  it  has  thence  been 
inferred  that  the  use  of  unleavened  eucharistic 
bread  was  introduced  between  the  years  867  and 
1054.  This  is  however  by  no  means  a  certain 
inference  ;  Photius  may  have  omitted  to  mention 
azymes  among  the  points  of  difference  between 
the  Greek  and  the  Latin  churches,  because  he  was 
content  to  leave  the  question  of  leaven  or  no 
leaven  undetermined,  like  the  Greeks  of  a  later 
age  at  the  council  of  Florence.  All  that  can  be 
certainly  inferred  from  the  .silence  of  Photius  is, 
that  either  the  use  of  unleavened  bread  was  un¬ 
known  to  him,  or  he  regarded  it  as  a  thing  in¬ 
different.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  suppose 
that  Leo  IX.  would  have  written  so  strongly  as 
he  did  to  Michael  Caerularius  (Epist.  ii.  24  ;  vi.) 
as  to  the  immemorial  use  of  azymes  among  the 
Latins,  if  that  use  had  arisen  since  the  time  of 
Photius  ;  i.  e.  not  more  than  a  century  before  his 
own  birth. 

There  is  in  fact  positive  evidence — if  the  docu¬ 
ments  be  genuine — as  to  the  iise  of  unleavened 
bread  in  the  eucharist  in  the  Western  church 
before  that  date. 

9.  Cyprian  (^Epist.  6.6,  c.  13)  says,  that,  as  the 
chalice  is  composed,  not  of  wine  alone,  nor  of 
water  alone,  but  of  the  union  of  the  two;  so  the 
Body  cannot  be  meal  alone,  nor  water  alone,  but 


the  union  of  the  two  into  one  loaf.  This  is  re¬ 
peated  in  almost  the  same  words  by  Lsidore  of 
Seville  (^Ee  Div.  i.  18).  It  is  dilKcult  to 
imagine  that  Cyprian,  and  Isidore  after  him, 
omitted  all  mention  of  so  significant  an  ingre¬ 
dient  as  leaven,  if  it  was  u.sed  in  the  eucharistic 
loaf.  Moreover,  Alcuin  {Epist.  90  [al.  69]  ad 
Fratres  Lmjdunenses,  p.  107)  writing  about  a.d. 
790,  uses  the  very  same  expression  as  to  the 
composition  of  the  bread,  “ex  aqua  et  farina 
panis  fit  qui  consecratur  in  corpus  Christ i,”  and 
adds,  that  it  should  be  perfectly  pure  from 
leaven  or  “ferment”  of  whatever  kind  (absque 
fermento  ullius  alterius  infectionis  debet  esse 
mundissimum).  Somewhat  later,  A.D.  819,  Ra- 
banus  Maurus  {J)e  Clerv-.  /nstit.  i.  31,**  p.  319, 
Migne)  lays  it  down  that  the  eucharistic  bread 
should  be  unleavened,  after  the  manner  of  the 
Hebrew  offerings  (Lev.  viii.  2),  and  holds  that 
the  bread  which  the  Loyd  blessed  in  the  Last 
Supper  was  undoubtedly  unleavened. 

10.  John  Maro  (quoted  by  INIartene),  writing 
at  any  rate  before  the  Trullan  council,  says  that 
those  who  made  the  eucharistic  offering  in  lea¬ 
vened  bread  reproached  the  Western  churches, 
the  Armenians,  and  the  Maronites,  with  offering 
azymes,  which  were  not  bread  at  all  ;  a  clear 
proof  that  the  Western  churches  generally,  in 
fhe  7th  century,  were  thought  to  agree  with  the 
Maronites  and  the  Armenians  in  this  respect. 

11.  Again,  allusions  to  “common”  or  “lea¬ 
vened  ”  bread  would  scarcely  have  been  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  Canon  of  the  Liturgy  [p.  272], 
as  is  done,  for  instance,  in  the  liturgies  of  James 
Baradai  and  Mathew  the  Pastor,  if  the  compilers 
had  not  known  of  some  who  used  unleavened 
bread. 

12.  On  the  whole,  then,  there  is  distinct  evi¬ 
dence  that  unleavened  bread  was  used  in  the 
eucharist  by  the  Latins,  and  by  some  Eastern 
sects,  in  the  7th  and  8th  centuries;  and  there  is 
probable  evidence  that  it  was  used  in  the  3rd. 
In  the  orthodox  Eastern  church,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  leavened  bread  has  been  used  from  a 
very  early  period  indeed ;  if  not  from  the  very 
first,  at  any  rate  from  the  time  when  Judaizing 
sects  insisted  on  using  unleavened  cakes,  like 
those  of  the  Passover,  in  the  Lord’s  Supper. 

B.  Mixture  of  Oil  and  Salt. — The  Syrian 
Christians,  besides  the  leaven  which  is  common 
to  almost  all  oriental  communions,  mix  with  the 
bread  a  little  oil  and  salt — a  practice  which  they 
defend  by  many  mystical  reasons  (Renaudot,  Lift. 
Orient,  i.  191).  The  mixture  of  oil — perhaps 
taken  from  Lev.  ii.  4,  etc.  ;  compare  Justin 
Martyr,  Dial.  v.  Tryj:ho,  c.  41 — was  probably 
always  a  singularity  of  a  small  sect  ;  that  of 
salt  was  more  general  and  more  hotly  defended. 
Thus  Alcuin  (^Epist.  90  [al.  69]  ad  Fratres  Jaiq- 
dunenses)  reprehends  certain  j)ersons  in  Spain 
for  insisting,  against  the  custom  of  Home  and  the 
church  in  general,  that  salt  should  be  put  into 
the  eucharistic  bread ;  and  adds  mystical  reasons 
why  three  things  only,  flour,  water,  and  wine 
should  be  offered  in  the  Mass.  The  modern 
Greeks  eagerly  defend  the  mixture  of  salt,  which 
(they  say)  represents  the  life,  so  that  a  sacrifice 


=  The  genuineness  of  this  treatise  is  doubted  by  Baro- 
nius.  See  Cave,  Hist.  Lit.  s.  v.  Isidore. 

There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  (with  Bona,  De  Reb. 
Lit.  I.  xxiiu  7)  the  genuineness  of  this  passage. 


ELEMENTS 


ELEMENTS 


603 


without  salt  is  but  a  dead  sacrifice  ;  and  one  of 
the  reproaches  coininonly  directed  against  the 
Armenians  was,  that  they  used  oblates  containing 
neither  salt  nor  leaven  (Martene,  A.  E.  I.  iii.  7, 
§1). 

IV.  Preparation  of  the  Bread. 

The  more  minute  directions  for  the  preparation 
of  the  eucharistic  bread  belong  to  a  later  age 
than  that  with  which  we  are  concerned.  Those 
which  fell  within  our  period  are  principally 
these. 

The  canon  already  quoted  of  the  16th  council 
of  Toledo  makes  it  certain  that  special  prepara¬ 
tion  of  the  eucharistic  bread  was  enjoined  in  the 
7th  century.  So  long  as  people  actually  offered, 
they  probably  themselves  prepared  the  oblates 
fcr  the  altar.  Thus  the  emperor  Valens  is  said 
to  have  prepared  with  his  own  hands  the  gifts® 
which  he  offered  for  the  altar  (Qregory  Naziauz. 
Funeral  Oration  on  St.  Basil,  c.  52,  p.  809)  ;  and 
the  Roman  matron  mentioned  by  Joannes  Dia- 
conus  (iL  s.) — probably  a  person  of  rank,  or  she 
would  not  have  received  the  bread  from  the 
pope — had  herself  prepared  that  which  she  re¬ 
ceived.  And  it  seems  that  not  unfrequently 
noble  ladies  undertook  the  preparation  of  the 
oblates  as  a  meritorious  work ;  Candida,  wife  of 
Trajan,  a  prefect,  prepared  bread  for  oblation 
from  flour  which  she  had  ground  with  her  own 
hands  (Martene,  A.  R.  I.  iii.  vii,  24) ;  so  did  St. 
Radegund  (t587),  distributing  the  oblates  to 
different  churches  {hife  by  Fortunatus,  in 
Acta  SS.  Bened.  i.  320).  And  this  task  was  not 
unfrequently  undertaken  by  nuns,  Theodulph 
of  Orleans,  however  (c.  a.d.  797),  desired  that 
duty  to  be  discharged  by  the  presbyters  them¬ 
selves  or  their  “boys”^  in  their  presence, 
in  the  following  terms:  “panes  quos  Deo  in 
sacrificio  offertis  aut  vobis  ipsis  aut  a  vestris 
pueris  c^ram  vobis  nitide  et  studiose  fiant  ” 
{Capitul.  5).  And  since  that  time  the  oblates 
have  generally  been  prepared  by  priests  or 
“religious”  persons.  See  Bethlehem.  For 
further  particulars  of  the  preparation  of  the 
sacramental  bread  in  various  places,  see  Martene, 
A.  R.  I.  iii.  7,  §§  23-25  ;  Renaudot,  Litt.  Orientt. 
1.  189  I  ii.  63  ii'.  ed.  1716, 

V.  Form  of  the  Bread. 

The  loaf  used  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine  seems 
commonly  to  have  been  round,  somewhat  less 
than  an  inch  thick,  and  six  or  eight  inches  in 
diameter.  In  order  that  it  might  be  more  readily 
broken,  it  was  scored  with  lines,  frequently  two 
lines  at  right  angles  to  each  other,  so  as  to  form 
a  cross,  dividing  the  loaf  into  four  portions 
(Aringhi,  Roma  Suhterr.  II.  v.  9,  p.  278,  quoted 
by  Probst,  Sakramente,  p.  201).  And  such  was 
probably  the  form  of  the  eucharistic  loaf  in  the 
early  Christian  church  (see  woodcut).  The  Liber 
Pontificalis  (p.  98a,  ed.  Muratori)  attributes  to 
Zephyrinus  (pope  197-217)  the  order,  that  pres¬ 
byters  should  distribute  round  cakes  (coronas) 
blessed  by  the  bishop — a  statement  probably  of 
no  great  authority.  In  the  4th  century  Epipha- 


e  The  word  Stopa  c  mmoiily  n  fers  to  the  Elements ;  in 
this  place,  however,  Nicetas  takes  the  “  gifts ”  for  golden 
vessels  which  Valens  ha^i  made  (u>r  avrovpybi  fjv). 

f  Meaning,  probably,  those  devoted  to  the  service  of  the 
church—"  oblati.” 


nius  (Ancoratus,  c.  57)  and  Cassarius,  brother  of 
Gregory  Nazianzen  {JDial.  iii.  (juaest.  169),  speak 
of  the  bread  as  round.  Gregory  the  Great  {I)ia- 
logus,  iv.  55)  speaks  of  a  certain  presbyter 


On  an  ancient  tomb.  (From  Mnrtigny.) 

bringing  “duas  oblationum  coronas,”  then  the 
usual  form  ot*  oblation.  These  are  explained  bv 
Joannes  Diaconus(in  Martene,  A.  R.  I.  iii.  vii.  26) 
to  be  cakes  made  of  a  handful  of  fine  flour,  and 
in  form  like  a  crown  (ex  pugillo  similae  et  ad 
speciem  coronae) ;  that  is,  round,  whatever  else 
may  be  intended  by  the  comparison.  And  the 
evidence  of  pictorial  repre.sentations  agrees  with 
this  so  far  as  it  goes.  Whenever  in  ancient  re¬ 
presentations  the  form  of  the  bread  is  distin¬ 
guishable,  it  is  round.  See  Canister,  p.  264 ; 
Eucharist,  p.  627. 

A  passage  quoted  by  Martene  (?<.  s.)  from  a 
treatise  of  Ildephonso,  a  Spanish  bishop,  describes 
the  form  and  comjiosition  of  the  eucharistic  bread 
in  the  beginning  of  the  9th  century  thus  :  “  men- 
sura  trium  digitorum  anguli  in  rotundum  panis 
azymi  sic  composita  est i.  e.  the  azymes  for 
the  eucharist  were  made  in  the  form  of  a  circle 
of  three  “  fingers  ”  radius.s  The  same  authority 
mentions  that  the  oblate  from  which  the  priest 
was  to  communicate  was  larger  than  those  in¬ 
tended  for  the  people. 

That  it  is  an  ancient  custom  to  impress  the 
oblates  with  a  cross  is  probable  from  the  words 
of  Chrysostom  {Quod  Chrisius  sit  Feus,  571  A,  ed. 
Ben.),  where  he  says,  “on  the  Table  is  the  Cross 
.  ...  in  the  mystic  Supper  the  Cross  of  Christ 
shines  forth  with  the  Body  of  Christ.”  The 
woodcuts  represent  the  forms  of  the  Greek  and 


Coptic  oblates,  which  may  probably  be  of  consi¬ 
derable  antiquity.  'I'he  former  bears  the  in¬ 
scription  “  IC  XG  [’ItJCOVS  XpilTTys]  VLKuf'  the 
latter,  “  ayios,  ayws,  ayios,  Kvpios  2a)3a«0.” 

It  is  evident  from  what  has  been  .said  above, 
that  from  a  comparatively  early  age  a  strong 


s  Somewhat  less  than  three  iiicbes. 


60  i 


ET.KMKNTS 


ELEMENT.? 


objection  was  felt  to  the  j)ractice  of  consecrating 
a  portion  of  a  loaf  in  the  eucharist ;  a  whole  loaf 
or  take  was  always  to  be  employed. 


Coptic  Oblate. 

YI.  Composition  of  the  Cnp. 

With  regard  to  the  element  of  Wine  there  has 
been  less  controversy,  though  it  is  an  interesting 
and  unsettled  question  whether  the  cup  was  mixed 
at  the  institution  of  the  sacrament  by  our  Blessed 
Lord  himself.  Pfaff  (after  R.  Ob.  de  Bartenora 
and  Maimonides,  in  Mislinam  de  Benedict,  c.  7, 
§5)  asserts  that  the  Jews  as  a  rule  mixed  water 
with  the  wine  in  their  Cup  of  Blessing.  Light- 
foot  (  Jemple  Service,  i.  691)  says  that  he  that 
drank  pure  wine  performed  his  duty ;  so  that, 
although  it  seems  probable  that  our  Lord  used 
the  mixed  cup,  yet  it  is  not  certain  that  he  did 
so.  Buxtorf  (JJe  prhnae  Coenae  Ititibus  et  Forma, 
§20)  says  that  it  was  indifferent  whether  the 
cup  was  mixed  or  not ;  and  in  his  Synagoga 
Judaica,  where  he  gives  full  details  of  the  Pass- 
over,  does  not  mention  a  cup  of  wine  diluted 
with  water.  Again,  the  Babylonish  Talmud  calls 
water  mixed  with  wine  “the  fruit  of  the  vine;” 
but  it  would  a|)pear  that  the  same  term  is  used 
for  pure  wine  in  Isa.  xxxii.  12;  Hab.  iii.  17; 
so  that  nothing  positive  can  be  ascertained  from 
the  use  of  that  term.  On  the  whole  it  seems 
probable  that  our  Lord  used  a  mixed  cup.  but 
there  is  no  conclusive  evidence  on  the  point. 

It  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands  that,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  heretics,  the  church  used  for 
many  centuries  wine  mixed  with  water.  Justin 
Martyr,  the  first  after  the  apostles  who  gives  any 
account  of  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist,  says, 
“There  is  then  brought  to  the  brother  who  pre¬ 
sides  a  cup  of  water  and  mixed  wine”  (Kpd/xaros). 
And  afterwards  he  tells  us  that  “the  deacons 
distribute  to  each  one  present  that  he  may  par¬ 
take  of  that  bread  and  wine  and  water  which  has 
been  blessed  by  thanksgiving;”  and  this  food,  he 
says,  is  called  Lucharistia  (Apof.  i.  ch.  6.5). 
Irenaeus  also  (adv.  Ilaer.  lib.  v.  c.  2,  p.  294) 
speaks  of  the  mixed  cup  (KeKpa/jLevov  TvorypioF). 
And  again  (lil».  v.  c.  86)  of  the  Lord’s  promise  to 
his  disciples,  “that  he  would  drink  the  mixture 
of  the  cu})  (mistionem  calicis)  new  wdth  them  in 
ihe  kingdom,”  which  shows  that  he  thought  the 
fruit  of  the  vine  and  the  mixed  cup  the  same  thing. 
Cyprian  (Epist.  6.3,  ad  Caecilium)  has  several 
passages  bearing  on  this  question.  He  says : 
(c.  2)  that  to  mix  wine  with  water  is  to  follow 
the  Lord’s  example;  and  again  (c.  13):  “Thus 
in  sanctifying  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  water  cannot 
be  offered  alone,  as  neither  can  wine  be  offered 
alone;  for  if  the  wine  be  offered  by  itself  the 
blood  of  Christ  begins  to  be  without  us,  and 


if  the  water  be  alone  the  people  begins  to  be 
w'ith.yut  Christ.” 

The  third  council  of  Carthage  (c.  24)  orders, 
“that  in  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord,  nothing  else  be  offered  but  what  the 
Lord  himself  commanded,  that  is  bread,  and  wine 
mixed  with  water.”  The  African  code,  both 
Greek  and  Latin,  has  this  same  canon,  with 
furtiier  directions  added  (Cod.  Can.  African. 
c.  37).  All  the  ancient  liturgies  either  contain 
a  direction  for  mixing  water  with  the  wine,  or 
else  in  the  canon  the  mixing  is  alluded  to.  Thus 
in  the  Clementine  Liturgy  (Constt.  Apost.  viii. 
12,  §  16),  in  reciting  the  words  of  Institution 
the  priest  says:  “lJkewi.se  also  mixing  the 
cup  of  wine  and  water  (e|  o^vou  /cal  vdaro?) 
and  blessing  it,  He  gave  it  to  them.”  The 
Liturgies  of  St.  James  and  St.  Mark  contain 
like  words,  while  the  Liturgies  of  .St.  Basil  and 
St.  Chrysostom  order  the  deacon  to  put  wine 
and  water  into  the  cup  before  the  piJest  places 
it  on  the  altar.  In  like  manner,  in  some  form  or 
another,  the  mixing  is  mentioned  in  the  Litursies 
of  Ethioj)ia,  Nestorius,  Severu.s,  of  the  Roman 
and  the  Gallican  churches.  In  most  liturgies, 
when  the  water  is  mixed  with  the  wine,  some 
reference  is  made  to  the  blood  and  water  which 
flowed  from  the  Lord’s  side ;  as  (e.  g.)  in  the  Am¬ 
brosian  rite  :  “  De  latere  Christ!  exivit  sanguis 
et  aqua  pariter.”  Similarly  the  Mozarabic  .  and 
the  Roman. 

A  peculiar  rite  of  the  Byzantine  church  is  the 
mingling  of  /lot  water  with  the  wJne.  In  the 
Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom  (c.  34),  after  the  frac¬ 
tion  of  the  oblate,  the  deacon,  taking  up  the 
vessel  of  boiling  water  (rb  C^or),  says  to  the 
priest :  “  Sir,  bless  the  boiling  water  ;”  the  ju  iest 
then  says :  “  Blessed  be  the  fervency  ({‘eVts)*'  of 
thy  saints  for  evei',  now  and  always,  and  for  ages 
of  ages;”  then  the  deacon  pours  a  small  quantity 
of  the  boiling  water  into  the  chalice,  saying,  “  The 
fervency  of  faith,  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Amen.” 

Various  mystical  reasons  have  been  given  for 
the  mixture  of  water  with  the  xvine.  That  of 
Cyprian  has  been  already  quoted.  Gennadius 
(Be  Eccl.  Bogmat.  c.  75),  besides  the  fact  that 
our  Lord  used  the  mixed  cup  at  the  first  institu¬ 
tion,  alleges  as  a  further  reason  that  blood  and 
water  flowed  from  His  pierced  side.  The  same 
reason  is  given  by  the  Pseudo-Ambro.sius  (Be 
Sacram.  v.  1),  and  generally  by  the  liturgies. 
In  the  comment  on  St.  Mark,  ascribed  to  Jerome, 
another  is  given ;  that  by  one  we  might  be 
purged  from  sin,  by  the  other  redeemed  from 
])un*shment  (On  Mark  XIV.).  Alcuin  (Epist. 
90)  finds  in  the  three  things,  water,  flour,  and 
wine,  which  may  be  j)laced  on  the  altar,  a  mys¬ 
tical  resemblance  to  the  Three  Heavenly  Wit¬ 
nesses. 

The  principal  deviations  from  the  received 
practice  of  the  church  in  this  matter  have  been 
the  opposite  usages  of  the  Aquarians,  who  used 
no  wine  at  all  in  the  eucharist,  and  ot  the  Arme¬ 
nians,  who  mixed  no  water  with  the  wine, 
claiming  the  authority  of  John  Chrysostom. 
Both  these  are  censured  by  the  council  in  Trullo 
(c.  32).  These  Aquarians  or  Hydroporastatae 
l)robably  abstained  from  wine  as  a  bad  thing  in 
itself.  Tike  the  Lbionites  and  the  Tatianists  or 
Encratites  described  by  Epiphanius  (Haeres.  30, 


See  Acts  xviii.  2b ;  Rom.  xii.  11 


ELESBAAN 


ELEVATIO 


605 


16;  46,  2;  47,  1);  but  others  in  early  times, 
though  they  partook  of  the  mixed  cup  in  the 
evening,  used  water  only  in  the  morning,  lest  the 
smell  of  wine  should  bring  scandal  upon  them, 
and  betray  their  celebration  of  the  mysteries  to 
heathen  persecutors.  This  practice  is  noticed 
and  reprehended  by  Cyprian  (Upist.  63,  c.  16). 

Some  in  the  7th  century  otiered  milk  for  wine 
in  the  eucharist ;  others  communicated  the 
people  not  with  wine  pressed  from  grapes,  but 
with  the  grapes  themselves  (oblatis  uvis)  {Cone. 
Bracar.  iii.  c.  1) ;  errors  severely  censured  by 
the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  who  constantly 
insisted  on  the  oti'ering  of  wine,  water,  and  bread 
only. 

A  peculiar  instance  of  an  addition  to  the  cup 
is  the  dropping  of  milk  and  honey  into  it,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Roman  rite,  on  Easter-Eve  (Mar- 
tene,  A.  R.  IV.  xxiv.  32),  the  great  day  of  bap¬ 
tism.  [Baptism,  p.  164.] 

The  Colour  of  the  Wine. 

The  wine  in  use  in  the  church  has  in  general 
been  red,  apparently  from  a  desire  to  symbolise 
as  much  as  possible  the  blood  of  our  Lord.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Talmud  red  wine  was  offered  at 
the  Passover.  Ireuaeus  indeed  {Haeres.  bk.  i. 
c.  13,  §  2)  says  that  Marcus  (a  heretic)  claimed 
to  perform  the  eucharistic  ceremony  over  certain 
mixed  chalices,  and  to  make  them  appear  red 
and  purple,  which  would  lead  to  the  supposition 
that  the  wine  had  been  originally  white.  But 
Cyprian  {Ep.  63,  c.  7)  speaks  as  if  the  Eucha¬ 
ristic  wine  was  blood-red  ;  and  Chrysostom 
(Horn.  82  in  Matt.  xxvi.  34,  35)  speaks  of  the 
tongue  being  empurpled  with  the  blood  of  Christ 
in  the  eucharist.  Later  in  the  history  of  the 
church  many  of  the  synods  have  ordered  red 
wine  to  be  used ;  and  although  there  is  no 
necessity  in  the  matter,  it  certainly  seems  the 
most  appropriate. 

Literature. — Bona,  Rerum  Liturgicarum  Libri 
li.  ;  Martene,  Be  Antiguis  Ecclesiae  Ritibus ; 
Krazer,  De  Antiquis  Ecclesiae  Occidentalis  Li- 
turgiis ;  Bingham’s  Antiquities;  Vossius,  Theses 
Theol. ;  Brett  on  the  Liturgies  \  '^aa.Ws  Eastern 
Church;  Vogan’s  True  iJoctrine  of  the  Eucharist. 
On  the  special  question  of  Azymes,  see,  against 
the  antiquity  of  unleavened  cakes  in  the  eucharist, 
Sirmond’s  treatise  De  Azumo  (1651);  on  the 
other  side,  Mabillon,  in  the  preface  to  Saec.  iii. 
of  the  Acta  SS.  Bened.,  and  in  a  sj)ecial  treatise 
De  Azynio  et  Eermentalo.  [G.VV.P.  and  C.] 

ELESBAAN,  king,  monk  in  the  time  of  the 
emperor  Justin;  commemorated  Ginbot  20  = 
May  15  {Cal.  Ethiop.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELEUTHERIUS.  (1)  Bishop,  and  martyr 
at  Messina,  with  his  mother  Anthia  or  Evanthia; 
commemorated  April  18  {Mart.  Hieron..,  Rom. 
Vet..,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Bishop,  at  Autesiodorum  (Auxerre) ;  com¬ 
memorated  Aug.  26  {Mart.  L'suardi). 

(^3)  ^lartyr  at  Nicomedia  under  Diocletian, 
“cum  aliis-  innumeris ;”  commemorated  Oct.  2 
{Mart,  llieron..,  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Deacon,  martyr  at  Paris,  with  Dionysius 
the  bishop  and  Rusticus  the  presbyter ;  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  9  {Mart.  llieron.,  Bedae,  Rom.  Vet., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(5)  Bishop  of  Illyricum,  martyr  A  l).  290 ; 
commemorated  Dec.  15  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [VV.F.G.] 


ELEVATIO  (in  a  Liturgical  sense). 

»(1).  Eastern  CImreh. — In  all  early  Oriental 
liturgies  an  elevation  of  the  bread  by  the  cele¬ 
brating  priest  is  prescribed  contemporaneously 
with  the  pi-oclamation  ayia  ayiois,  and  before 
the  Fraction.  Thus,  in  the  liturgy  of  St.  Chryso¬ 
stom  “the  priest,  elevating  the  holy  bread, 
exclaims  ‘  Holy  things  for  holy  persons  ;’  ”  of  St. 
James  :  “  then  he  elevates  the  gifts,  and  saith 
‘  Holy  things,’  &c. ;”  of  St.  Basil,  “  the  priest, 
elevating  the  holy  bread,  exclaims  ‘  Holy  things,’ 
&c.” ;  the  Armenian,  “the  ])riest  lifts  up  the 
sacrifice  before  his  eyes,  and  saith  ‘  the  Holy  of 
holies.’  ”  The  original  intention  of  this  rite  was 
clearly  not  that  the  host  might  be  adored  by  the 
people,  for  it  took  place  within  the  Bema,  the 
doors  of  which  being  closed  and  the  curtains 
drawn,  it  could  be  only  seen  by  the  attendant 
ministers.  This  is  acknowledged  by  Goar ;  “Non 
ita  tamen  ut  a  populo  conspiciatur  Dominicum 
corpus  elevat  Graecus  sacerdos  ”  {Eucholo  j.  p.  145, 
note  158,  cf.  pp.  84,  151)  ;  he  adds  that  there  is 
no  allusion  to  eucharistic  adoration  in  the 
earlier  ritualists  :  “  De  majoris  hostiae,  a  populo, 

'  completa  consecratione,  per  elevationem  conspi- 
ciendae,  nihil  apud  anti(iuos  rituum  expositores.” 

I  The  authority  of  St.  Basil,  to  rys  iiriuXiiaiooi 
pryxara  eirl  rys  aj/a5et  |ecos  rod  6.prov  rrjs 
euxupiarias  ris  rG)V  ay'iwv  iyypdcpcDS  i)ixiv  /cara- 
XeXoLTTfj/ ;  {De  Sp.  Sanct.  c.  27),  is  eri'oneously 
'  urged  by  Bellarmin  {De  Eucharist,  ii.  15),  Schel- 
'  strate  {De  Concil.  Antioch,  p.  219),  and  Bona 
'  {Rer.  Liturg.  lib.  ii.  c.  13,  §  2),  in  su})])ort  of  the 
'  later  practice  of  elevating  the  eucharist  to  show 
it  to  the  people.  For  the  word  ardSei^ts  has 
been  abundantly  proved  by  Albertinus,  quoted 
j  by  Bingham  {Grig.  Eccl.  lib.  xv.  c.  5,  §4), 

I  and  is  acknowledged  by  Renaudot  (i.  270),  to 
be  used  here  in  its  classical  sense  of  “  dedication,” 
“consecration,”  not  that  of  “ displaying.”  The 
authorities  alleged  in  supjiort  of  the  earlv  intro¬ 
duction  of  the  practice  of  disjilaying  the  eucharist 
to  the  people  prove  very  weak  on  examination. 
The  Pseudo-Dionysius,  whose  writings^  cannot  be 
placed  earlier  than  the  5th  or  6th  century, 
when  speaking  of  the  priest  “  .showing  the  gifts,” 
(tos  Swpdas  rS.iv  deovpytSv  vwoSel^asf  before 
proceeding  to  communion  {De  Eccl.  Hierarch. 
c.  iii.  §  11)  does  not  in  any  way  assert  that  it 
was  to  the  jieople  that  he  showed  them.  The 
example  of  St.  Euthymius,  adduced  by  Martene 
(p.  423),  is  little  more  to  the  jioint.  All  that 
is  said  is,  that  after  the  nn'phora,  “stretching 
forth  his  hands  to  heaven,  and  as  it  were 
displaying  to  them  the  mystery  administered 
for  the  sake  of  our  salvation,”  {ual  uxnrep 
avrols  VTToSetKvvs  rh  olKOvo/urfdfv  rrjs  awrripias 
xdpLV  rrjs  7)p.erdpas  yvcrr-hpiov),  “  he  cried 
with  a  loud  voice,  rd  dyia  rods  a-^'iois” 
(Cyril  Scythopol.  Vita  S.  Eut'iym.  aj)ud  Coteler. 
Eccl.  Grace.  Monum.  vol.  ii.  j).  268,  §81).  The 
passage  quoted  from  Germanus,  and  accepted  by 
Bingham  as  coming  from  the  patriarch  of  Constan¬ 
tinople  of  that  name,  A.i).  715,  is  from  a  woi’k, 
Theoria  Renim  Dii  in  irum,  correctly  assigned 
by  Cave  to  his  namesake  and  successor  five  cen¬ 
turies  later,  a.d.  1222.  Tlie  most  apjiosite 
passage  is  that  given  by  Renaudot  (i.  267)  from 
James  bishop  of  Edessa,  c.  651,  which,  if  cor- 
I’ectly  quoted,  jirescribes  that  the  priest,  after 
uttering  the  dyia  aylois,  “shall  lift  tlie  sacra¬ 
ments  and  show  them  to  the  whole  people  as  for 


606  ELIBERITANUM  COXCTLIUM 


EMBALMING 


a  witness,”  “  turn  elevat  et  ostendit  sacramenta 
universe  populo  tanquam  in  testimonium.” 

(2)  Western  Clvirch. — Obscure  and  vague  as  is 
the  date  of  the  introduction  of  the  elevation  of 
the  eucharist  in  the  Oriental  church,  there  is 
still  greater  uncertainty  when  it  became  the 
practice  of  the  West.  Goar  humbly  confesses 
his  ignorance  (^llunholoQ.  p.  146,  §  158),  and  Bona 
acknowledges  the  same  (//cr.  Liturg.  lib.  ii.  c.  13, 
§  2),  and  professes  his  inability  to  discover  any 
trace  of  the  jn-actice  in  the  ancient  sacramen- 
taries  or  the  codices  of  the  Ordo  Romanus,  or  in 
any  of  the  ancient  ritual  writers,  Alenin,  Ama- 
larius,  Walafrid,  &c.  Indeed  there  is  little  doubt, 
as  is  acknowledged  by  all  learned  and  candid 
Romanists,  that  the  elevation  owes  its  introduc¬ 
tion  to  the  spread  of  the  tenets  of  Berengarius, 
c.  1050,  against  which  it  was  regarded  as  a  public 
protest  (Muratori,  Lifurg.  Rom  m.  Vetus,  i.  227). 
This  practice  was  the  natural  consequence  of  the 
mediaeval  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  though 
it  had  little  or  no  authoritative  sanction  before 
the  13th  century.  Although  from  its  late  date 
the  Latin  practice  does  not  belong  to  the  period 
embraced  in  this  Dictionary,  we  may  mention 
that  the  position  of  the  deviation  in  the  Roman 
canon  differs  es.sentially  from  that  of  the  Greek 
church,  not  taking  place  until  after  the  fraction 
and  consecration  instead  of  before  it. 

(Binterim,  iJenkwiirdi j.  vol.  iv.  p.  3,  pp.  432, 
sq. ;  Bingham,  Grig.  Eccl.  bk.  xv.  c.  5,  §4  ;  Neale, 
Eastern  (Jh.  vol.  i.  p.  1,  p.  516  ;  Bona,  Rer.  Litarg. 
lib.  ii.  c.  13,  §  2  ;  Goar,  Eucholog.  p.  145  sq. ; 
Marlene,  De  Eccl.  Rit.  vol.  i.  p.  423;  Renaudot, 
JAturg.  Oriental.  Collect,  i.  265-271,  ii.  82,  572, 
608;  Scudamore,  Notit ia  Eucharist,  ch.  vi.  §  10, 
p.  546  sq. ;  ch.  viii.  §  7,  p.  594  sq.)  [E.  V.] 

ELIBERITANUM  CONCILIUM.  [El¬ 

vira,  Council  of.] 

ELIGIUS,  bishop  and  confessor,  “  gloriosus 
in  miraculis,”  at  Noyon ;  commemorated  Dec.  1 
{May't.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELIJAH,  the  prophet ;  commemorated  July 
4  i^Cal.  Armen.\  July  20  (Caf.  Byzant.f  Taksas  1 
=  Nov.  27  {Cal.  Ethiop.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELISHA,  the  prophet ;  commemorated  Senne 
20  =  June  14  {Cal.  Et  hiop.,  Cal.  Byzant.'),  Oct.  12 
{Cal.  Armen.)  \  also  Tekemt  19  =  Oct.  16  {Cal. 
Ethiop.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELIZABETH.  (1)  Mother  of  John  the 
Baptist;  commemorated  Jakatit  16  =  Feb.  10 
{Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(2)  daviJ.arovpy6s,  commemorated  April  24 
{Cal.  Byzaat.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELODIA,  virgin,  and  martyr  with  Nunilo  at 
Osca ;  commemorated  Oct.  22  {3Iart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi;.  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELPIDIPHORUS,  and  companions,  martvrs 
in  Persia,  a.d.  320;  commernoi’ated  Nov.  2  {dal. 

Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ELPIS  (Hope),  daughter  of  Sophia  (Wis¬ 
dom),  is  commemorated  with  her  sisters,  Faith 
and  Love,  Sept.  17  {Cid.  Byzant.)  [C.] 

ELVIRA,  COUNCIIi  OF  {EHberitanum  or 
Illiberitanurn  concilium),  held  at  Elvira  in  Gra¬ 
nada.  There  was  another  Elvira  in  Catalonia. 
The  date  assigned  to  it  in  its  own  acts  is  Era 
CCCLXII  =  A.d.  324.  But  it  has  been  referred  to 
A.D.  305,  313,  and  even  335  by  moderns.  As 


Hosius  of  Coiduba  is  placed  second  of  the  nine-- 
teen  bishops  attending  it,  its  date  cannot  well 
have  been  earlier  than  313,  nor  later  than  324. 
And,  in  either  case,  its  canons  about  the  lapsed 
would  find  their  counterjiart  in  those  of  Ancyra 
or  Nicaea.  Perhaps  the  later  date,  besides  being 
that  of  its  own  acts,  would  accord  best  with  the 
reference  to  it  by  Hosius  himself  in  the  11th 
Sardican  canon,  which  Baluze  points  out.  Its 
own  canons,  all  on  discipline,  seem  to  have 
amounted  to  fourscore  and  one;  but  Gratian 
and  others  cite  several  more  not  now  found  in 
its  acts.  Among  the  former,  absence  from 
church  for  three  con.secutive  Sundays  is  pun¬ 
ished  by  the  21st.  Superpository  fasts — on  which 
see  Bingham  xxi.  i.  25 — to  be  observed  in  all 
other  months,  are  relaxed  in  July  and  August 
by  the  23rd.  Bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  co¬ 
habiting  with  their  wives  are  threatened  with 
depriv'ation  in  the  33rd,  lights  in  cemeteries  are 
forbidden  during  the  day  by  the  34th,  and 
pictures  in  churches  by  the  36th.  A  huge 
dissertation  on  this  council,  in  three  books,  ad¬ 
dressed  to  Clement  VIII.  by  Mendoza,  may  be 
read  in  Mansi,  ii.  58  and  seq.  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

EMANCIPATIO,  in  a  special  sense,  is  the 
setting  free  of  a  monk,  chosen  to  an  ecclesiastical 
dignity,  from  the  obedience  which  he  owes  to  his 
superior.  This  was  done  by  letters  under  the 
hand  of  the  abbat,  called  emancipator iae  literae. 
A  form  of  such  letters  is  given  by  Petit  in  his 
edition  of  Theodore’s  Reniterdial,  p.  143.  (Du- 
cange,  s.  v.).  [C.] 

EMBALMING.  There  are  many  testimonie.s 
to  the  observance  of  this  custom  among  the 
Christians  of  the  early  centuries.  That  it  was 
practised  in  the  case  of  martyrs  appears  from 
the  instance  of  Tharacus  {Acta  Tharaci,  ap. 
Baron,  an.  290,  n.  21),  to  -whom  it  was  denied 
by  his  persecutor  Maximus,  and  his  body  sen¬ 
tenced  to  burning,  in  contempt  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection.  But  embalming  was  not 
confined  to  martyrs ;  it  was  a  reproach  cast 
upon  Christians  generally  by  the  heathen  inter¬ 
locutor  in  Minucius  Felix  {Octav.  c.  12,  §  6),  that 
“using  no  perfumes  for  their  bodies  in  life,  they 
required  all  costly  ointments  for  their  funerals.” 
Tertullian  also  {Apol.  c.  42)  is  a  witness  to  the 
general  observance  of  the  custom :  “  Let  the 
Sabaeans  know  that  more  of  their  costly  wares  is 
spent  in  the  burial  of  Christians  than  in  offering 
incense  (fumigandis)  to  their  gods.” 

The  practice  was  doubtless  derived  from  the 
Jews.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  only  recorded 
examples  are  those  of  Jacob  and  Joseph  (Gen.  1. 
2,  26)  in  conformity  with  Egyptian  usage ;  but  it 
would  seem  to  have  been  observed  more  or  less 
generally  during  their  later  history ;  and  in  St. 
John’s  description  of  our  Lord’s  burial,  we  read 
that  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  and  Nicodemus  “took 
the  body  of  Jesus  and  wound  it  in  linen  clothes 
with  the  spices,  as  the  nutnner  of  the  Jews  is  to 
bury.”  Our  Lord’s  interpretation  of  the  pious 
offering  of  Mary  to  His  person  (Mark  xiv.  8), 
“She  hath  anointed  my  body  to  the  burial” 
{evTa<pi<i(Tp.6v)  implies  the  use  ot  unction  as  a 
recognized  practice.  Various  spices  were  em¬ 
ployed  for  the  embalming,  especially  myrrh ;  so 
Prudentius  {Cathemerin.  hym.  4) — 

“  Aspersaque  myrrha  Sabaeo 
Ck)ri)us-medicaniii)e  servat.” 


EMBEK  DAYS 


EMBER  DAYS 


607 


Although  the  custom  of  embalming  was  com¬ 
mon  to  Christians  and  heathens,  there  was  an 
essential  difference  in  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  practised.  As  a  pagan  ceremony  it  was 
intended  to  facilitate  cremation ;  with  the  Chris¬ 
tians,  on  the  contrary,  to  whom  “  the  old  irre¬ 
verence  of  bui’ning  ”  was  always  abhorrent,  its 
object  was  to  preserve  the  body  from  corruption. 
It  was  doubtless  the  expression  of  that  reverential 
feeling  for  the  body,  as  having  been  the  temple 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  as  destined  for  restora¬ 
tion  to  an  imperishable  existence,  by  which  the 
Christian  faith  was  exclusively  characterised 
among  all  the  religions  of  the  world.  [D.  B.] 

EMBER  DAYS  (jejunta  quatnor  temporum). 
From  the  Latin  title  has  been  derived  the  name 
of  these  seasons  in  most  European  languages, 
whether  by  translation  [«?.  q.  the  French  les 
Quatre-Tanps^  or  the  Swedish  de  fy>'a  faste- 
tider'],  or  by  a  corruption  of  the  original  [e.  g. 
the  German  Quaterrtber,  Dutch  Quatcrtemper,  or 
Danish  KvatcmhcT'].  Hence  too,  if  we  consider 
the  wide-spread  use  of  the  expression  is  a 
probable  derivation  of  the  English  Ember ; 
though  two  others  have  been  proposed,  one 
connecting  it  with  embers  in  the  sense  of  ashes, 
for  which  little  can  be  said,  and  the  other 
identifying  it  with  the  Anglo-Saxon  Ymbren,  a 
revolution  or  circuit,  to  which  it  has  been 
objected  that  all  church  seasons  are  necessarily 
recurrent.  [In  favour  of  this  last  A'ievv,  how¬ 
ever,  may  be  cited  the  phrases  ymbren  dagas,  etc., 
and  such  notices  as  the  canon  of  the  English 
council  of  Aenham,  given  below.]  On  the  sup¬ 
position  that  the  derivation  from  the  Latin  is 
the  true  one,  it  is  interesting  to  note  the  Danish 
form  Tamperdag,  as  marking  an  intermediate 
stage  between  that  of  the  German  and  of  the 
English.  An  exception  to  the  aboA’-e  rule  is  the 
Welsh  name,  Wythnos  y  Cydgoriau,  Aveek  of  the 
united  choirs  or  processions. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  origin  of  the 
solemnity  of  the  Ember  Fasts,  we  find  them  at 
an  early  period  associated  with  the  invoking  of 
God’s  blessing  on  each  of  the  four  seasons  as 
it  came  round  in  its  turn,  and  the  special 
striA'ing  by  prayers  and  fasting  to  merit  such 
blessings.  Still,  on  the  earliest  occasion  on 
Avhich  we  meet  Avith  a  mention  of  these  fasts, 
this  idea  does  not  seem  to  have  been  present  to 
the  mind  of  the  Avriter.  The  passage  in  question 
occurs  in  the  treatise  de  I/aeresibus  of  Philas- 
trius,  bishop  of  Brixia,  in  the  middle  of  the  4th 
centurv.  As  the  [lassage  is  of  some  importance, 
we  think  it  Avell  to  quote  it  at  length.  After 
citing  Zech.  viii.  19,  as  referring  to  the 
subject,  he  proceeds  “  .  .  .  .  ut  mysteria  Chris- 
tianitatis  ipsis  quatuor  jejuniis  nuntiata  cognos- 
ceremus.  Nam  per  annum  quatuor  jejunia  in 
ecclesia  celebrantur;  in  Natali  primum,  delude 
in  Pascha,  tertium  in  E])iphania,  quartum  in 
Pentecoste.  Nam  in  Natali  Salvatoris  Domini 
jejunandum  est,  deinde  in  Paschae  Quadragesima, 
iitque  in  Ascensione  itidem  in  caelum  post 
Pascha  die  quadragesimo,  inde  usque  ad  Pente- 
costen  diebus  decern :  id  quod  jjostea  fecerunt 
beati  Apostoli  post  Ascensionem  jejuniis  ct 
orationibus  insistentes.”  (I/aeres.  119,  in  Patrol. 
xii.  128G.)  It  seems  certain  here,  whatever  the 
explanation  may  be,  whether  of  a  false  reading 
in  the  text,  or  of  an  unusual  meaning  of  the 


word,  that,  as  Fabricius  (not.  in  loc.')  suggests, 
the  fast  in  Epiphanvi  refers  to  the  season  of  the 
Ascension,  both  from  the  position  assigned  to  it 
between  Easter  and  Pentecost,  and  from  the 
subsequent  reference  to  the  Ascension. 

We  now  pass  on  to  the  first  definite  mention  of 
these  fasts  as  associated  with  the  beginnings  of 
the  four  seasons.  Among  the  works  of  Leo  L, 
are  found  numerous  sermons  for  each  of  the 
fasts,  Avhich  are  spoken  of  as  the  fast  decimi 
mensis  (Scrm.  12-20),  the  fast  in  Qvadragesimci 
(Scrm.  39-50),  the  fast  in  Pentecoste  (Serm. 
78-80),  and  the  fast  seytimi  mensis  (Serin. 
86-94)  respectively :  and  in  one  passage  (Serm. 
19,  c.  2;  A'ol.  i.  j).  59,  ed.  Ballerini),  he  thus 
associates  the  fasts  Avith  the  seasons  they 
introduce,  “jejunium  vernum  in  Quadragesima, 
aestivum  in  Pentecoste,  autumnale  in  mense 
septimo,  hiemale  autem  in  hoc  qui  est  decimus 
celebramus.”  Further,  he  appears  to  speak  of 
this  practice  as  resting  on  apostolical  authority 
(Serm.  80,  c.  1  ;  p.  316),  meaning,  probably,  that 
resting  on  the  authority  of  his  church,  they 
claimed  the  respect  due  to  apostolic  ordinances. 
The  autumnal  fast  does  not  seem  to  be  mentioned 
before  the  time  of  Leo  L,  for  it  will  haA'e  been 
observed  that  the  arrangement  in  Philastrius 
is  different.  Pei-haps,  however,  Leo  or  some  of 
his  predecessors  may  haA'e  added  to  three  existing 
ancient  fasts  this  fourth  one,  and  then  associated 
the  four  seasons  of  the  year  with  these  four  re¬ 
gularly  recurring  fasts. 

,  The  particular  days  on  which  it  was  incumbent 
to  fast  at  the  Ember  seasons  according  to  the 
Roman  rule  Avere  Wednesday,  Friday,  and 
Saturday  ;  thus  Leo  (Serm.  80,  c.  4,  p.  320) 
enjoins  “  Quarta  et  sexta  feria  jejunemus, 
Sabbato  autem  apud  beatissimum  Petrum  Apo- 
stolum  A'igilias  celebreraus.”  Augustine  (Ejiist. 
36,  ad  Casulanum,  c.  8  ;  vol.  ii.  105,  ed.  Gaume) 
seems  to  speak  simply  of  the  particular  days  of 
the  week  on  Avhich  the  local  Roman  church  fasted 
in  its  ordinary  practice. 

It  has  been  said  that  ].eo  (Serm.  18,  c.  2;  p.  57), 
asserts  that  the  fasts  of  the  four  seasons  Avere 
celebrated  “  in  uniA'crsa  ecclesia  but  an 
examination  of  the  passage  will  shoAv  that  he  is 
referring  to  the  institution  of  fasts  generally. 
Indeed,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  fasts  of 
the  four  seasons  Avere  at  first  only  observed  in 
that  part  of  the  church  in  immediate  dependence 
on  Rome.  The  language  of  Augustine  Avill  not 
allow  us  to  suppose  that  the  same  state  of 
things  preA'ailed  in  Africa  ;  the  church  in  north 
Italy  differed,  at  any  rate  in  not  making  Satur¬ 
day  a  fast.  (Ambrose  apud  August.,  Epist.  86  ad 
Casulanum  c.  32  ;  ed.  cit.  120).* 

In  the  eastern  church  there  is  no  trace  Avhat- 
ever  of  an  obserA'ance  of  the  Ember  seasons.  The 
passage  of  Athanasius,  Avhich  some  have  quoted 
in  support  of  a  differait  conclusion  de  fuga, 

c.  6 ;  A'oI.  i.  p.  323,  ed.  Bened.),  merely  proves 
the  existence  of  a  fast  at  Pentecost.  With  this 
may  be  compared  an  allusion  in  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions  (lib.  a'.  c.  20). 

Not  only  is  there  thus  a  lack  of  CA'idence 
to  establish  the  existence  of  the  usage  in  early 
times  as  aught  but  a  local  Roman  custom,  but 
Ave  find  Jerome  protesting  against  the  multiply- 


»  S<'e  on  this  point  Quesnell’s  sixth  Dissertation  ap* 
pended  tu  Ins  edition  o1  Leo  I. 


608 


EMBER  DAYS 


EMBER  DAYS 


ing  of  obligatory  fasts,  and  clearly  recognizing 
no  fast  but  Lent  as  of  universal  obligation  (^Kpist. 
41  ad  Marcellum  c.  2;  vol.  i.  189,  ed.  Vallarsi  ; 
cf.  vi.  750). 

Nor  if  we  take  illustrations  from  a  somewhat 
later  period  shall  we  find  the  practice  uniformly 
established.  Thus  the  rule  of  St.  Benedict  (ob. 
circa  542  A.D.),  carefully  specifies  the  fasts  which 
tlie  order  was  to  observe,  but  ignores  the  Ember 
seasons  altogether,  and  indeed,  his  rule  is 
hardly  compatible  with  the  existence  of  the 
latter  (JdeijiUa  S.  JSened.  c.  41  ;  p.  88,  ed.  Venice, 
1723). 

Later  still  Isidore  of  Seville  (ob.  636,  A.D.), 
speaks  of  the  four  fasts  which  are  to  be  observed 
in  the  church,  “  secundum  Scripturas  sacras,” 
mentioning  those  in  Lent,  Pentecost,  the  seventh 
month,  and  [on  the  authority  of  Jeremiah 
xxxvi.  9],  the  Calends  of  November  (de  off.  Eccl. 
i.  cc.  36  sqq.).  He  afterwards  mentions  in 
addition  to  these  four,  that  on  the  Calends  of 
January  and  others. 

As  regards  the  Galilean  church,  the  Ember 
seasons  do  not  seem  to  have  been  established 
much  before  the  time  of  Charlemagne.  The 
second  council  of  Tours  (567  A.D.)  in  prescribing 
the  fasts  to  be  observed  by  monks,  makes  no 
mention  whatever  of  the  fasts  of  the  four 
seasons — the  various  Galilean  Liturgies  published 
by  Mabillon  equally  ignore  them ;  and  the 
language  of  the  council  of  Maintz  [813  A.D.],  in 
ordering  their  observance,  seems  to  imply  a 
recently  established  institution,  “  Constituimus  ut 
quatuor  tempora  anni  ab  omnibus  cum*  jejunio 
observentur,  hoc  est  in  mense  Martio  hebdomada 
prima,  et  feria  quarta,  6t  sexta,  et  Sabbato.  .  .  . 
similiter  in  mense  Junio  hebdomada  secunda,  in 
mense  Septembris  hebdomada  tertla,  in  mense 
Decembris  hebdomada  prima,  quae  fuerit  plena 
ante  vigiliam  Nativitatis  Domini  sicut  est  in 
Romana  hicclesia  traditum.”  {Concil.  Mogxint. 
can.  34;  Labbe  vii.  1249).  We  also  meet 
with  capitularies  of  the  Carlovingian  kings 
to  the  same  effect  (see  e.  g.  lib.  v.  151  ;  vol.  i.  p. 
854,  ed.  Baluzius.  See  also  one  of  769  A.D., 
ib.  p.  192). 

To  return  now  to  the  Roman  church  properly 
so  called,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  reason  to 
doubt  whether  even  there  the  spring  fast  was 
not  at  first  really  Lent  itself,  and  not  the  three 
special  days.  It  is  pointed  out  by  Muratori  (see 
below)  c.  3,  that  while  Leo  in  his  sermons  on 
the  summer,  autumn,  and  winter  fasts,  alludes  to 
the  three  days  Wednesday,  Friday,  and  Saturday  ; 
he  yet  in  his  sermons  on  the  spring  fast  in  no 
way  refers  to  them,  and  indeed  it  is  difficult  in 
any  case  to  see  the  meaning  of  a  fast  within  the 
limits  of  another  fast,  except  it  were  meant  to  be 
of  a  more  rigorous  kind,  of  which  in  the  present 
case  we  have  no  evidence. 

Some  would  attemj)t  to  solve  this  difficulty  by 
supposing  that  the  Ember  seasons  were  originally 
instituted  as  times  for  ordination,  but  it  certainly 
appears  that  this  theory  cannot  be  borne  out  by 
facts  (see  e.  g.  Amalarius  Fortunatus,  de  Eccl. 
Off.  ii.  2,  and  cf.  Muratori  c.  3).  Everything 
points  to  the  conclusion  that  the  solemnity- 
attaching  to  the  seasons  led  to  their  being 
chosen  as  fitting  times  for  the  rite.  The  theory 
of  Muratori  seems  very  probable,  that  the  spring 
fast  is  really  Lent  itself,  and  that  the  fixing  of 
the  three  days  is  due  to  a  later  development. 


Among  other  evidence  referred  to  bv  him  is  the 
fact  that  in  some  ancient  Roman  sacramentaries, 
when  notice  is  appointed  to  be  given  of  the  fa.st3 
of  the  fourth,  seventh,  and  tenth  months,  no 
mention  is  made  of  the  spring  fast.  Lent  being 
assumed  to  be  known  from  other  sources.  (For 
instances  of  this  see  Cardinal  Bona,  lierum 
TAturgg.,  lib.  ii.  c.  16;  vol.  ii.  p.  343,  ed.  Aug. 
Taur.  1753;  and  Thomasius,  Codices  Sacramen- 
torum,  lib.  i.  c.  82 ;  p.  113.)  We  may  further 
refer  to  the  rule  of  tlie  English  coiincil  of 
Cloveshoe  (747  a.d.),  which  orders  that  no  one 
should  neglect  “jejuniorum  temi)ora.  id  est, 
quarti,  septimi  et  deciini  mensis,”  and  that  due 
notice  should  always  be  given  of  each  (Concil. 
Cloves,  can.  18  ;  Labbe  vi.  1578).  It  is  inter¬ 
esting  to  add  here  that  the  introduction  of  the 
fasts  of  the  four  seas'ons  is  refei-red  by  a  later 
English  council  (that  of  Aenham  [1009  A.D.],  the 
locality  of  which  aj)pears  to  be  unknown,)  to 
Gregory  the  Great,  “  et  jejunia  quatuor  tem- 
po'um,  quae  htihren  vocant  et  caetera  omnia 
pr  )ut  sanctus  Gregorius  imposuit  genti  Anglorum, 
conservantor  ”  {Concil.  Aenham.  can.  16  ;  Labbe 
ix.  792). 

Among  other  evidence  in  favour  of  this  theory 
may  be  mentioned  an  epistle  in  the  False  Decre¬ 
tals  bearing  the  name  of  pope  Callistus  (ob. 
223  A.r>.),  which  orders  that  to  the  three  already 
existing  fa.sts,  a  fourth  should  be  added.  Now 
it  may  be  reasonably  argued  that  the  author, 
Isidore,  put  the  matter  in  accordance  with  what 
he  himself  believed  to  be  the  state  of  the  case, 
and  that  thus  we  obtain  an  insight  into  the 
tradition  existing  in  his  time  (circa  800  A.'D.). 
A  similar  remark  as  to  Callistus,  occurs  in  a 
MS.  of  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius,  in  the  Am¬ 
brosian  library.  Although  the  statement  is  of 
course  false,  still  the  origin  of  the  forgeiy  may 
have  been  that  the  writer  wished  to  embody 
what  he  himself  believed  to  be  the  fact,  namely, 
that  the  fourth  (spring)  fast  was  added  on  later 
A  capitulary  also  of  Ahyto  or  Atto,  bishop  of 
Vercellae  about  945  A.D.,  mentions  the  three 
fasts  in  a  similar  way  {Patrol,  cxxxiv.  43). 

Not  only  does  this  doubt  exist  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  spring  fast,  but  there  seems  much  reason 
for  supposing  that  at  one  time  it  did  not  neces¬ 
sarily  fall  in  Lent  at  all,  but  was  fixed  in  the 
first  week  in  March,  though  afterwards  as  a: 
matter  of  convenience  it  was  fixed  within  Lent 
always  ;  also  the  summer  fast  was  at  one  time 
placed  in  the  second  week  of  June,  and  there¬ 
fore  did  not  necessarily  fall  at  Pentecost.  The 
council  of  Maintz,  it  will  have  been  observed, 
speaks  of  the  fast  as  occurring  in  the  first  week  of 
March,  Lent  not  being  mentioned  at  all ;  simi¬ 
larly  also  for  the  summer  fast.  So  too  the  Ordo 
lioinanns,  “in  primo  mense  {i.e.  March)  quarta 
et  sexta  feria  et  Sabbato  in  ])rima  hebdomada 
ipsius  mensis  primum  jejunium  celebratur. 
Secundum  in  quarto  mense  {i.e.  June)  in  secunda 
hebdomada  ipsius  mensis.  Tertium  jejunium 
septimi  mensis,  id  est  Septembris,  tertia  hebdo¬ 
mada  ipsius  mensis.  Quart um  decimi  mensis, 
id  est  Decembris,  quarta  hebdomada  ante  Natalem 
Domini  ”  (i.  33,  ed.  Hittorp ;  cf.  also  Rabanus 
Maurus  de  Inst.  Cler.  ii.  24;  and  Amalarius 
de  Eccl.  off.  ii.  1).  Again  in  many  ancient 
sacramentaries  we  have  many  things  pointing  to 
the  .same  result;  e.g.  in  the  Gelasian  Sacra- 
mentary,  we  find  a  notice  “  Istae  orationes  ouae 


1':mber  days 


EMBOLI  SMUS 


609 


sequuntnr  primo  Sabbato  in  mense  primo  sunt 
diceudao (Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1069,  and  cf.  others 
cited  by  Muratori,  261).  One  inoi-e  example 
mav  suffice :  the  council  of  Aix  la  Chapelle 
(817  A.D.),  orders  that  no  fast  should  he  in  the 
week  of  Pentecost,  “  nisi  statuti  fuerint  dies 
jejunii  ”  (Cone.  A'/nisgran.  can.  51  ;  Labbe  vii. 
1511).  Consequently,  while  the  summer  fast 
might  fall  in  the  week  of  Pentecost,  it  did  not 
necessarily  do  so.  It  seems  therefore  not  un¬ 
reasonable  to  infer  that  at  one  time  the  church 
celebrated  the  fasts  of  the  four  seasons  accoi-ding 
to  this  rule,  a  change  being  subsequently  made 
to  the  present  plan. 

We  must  now  refer  to  the  Ember  seasons  as 
times  specially  fixed  for  the  ordinations  of  the 
clergy.  We  have  before  said  that  they  were  in 
all  probability  fixed  at  these  times  from  the 
solemnity  attaching  to  them,  and  it  is  noticeable 
that  we  find  no  trace  of  such  a  connexion  earlier 
than  the  time  of  Gelasius,  who  enjoins  “ordi- 
nationes  etiam  presbyterorum  et  diaconorum  nisi 
certis  temporibus  et  diebus  exercere  non  debent, 
id  est  quarti  mensis  jejunio,  septimi  et  decimi, 
sed  et  etiam  Quadragesimalis  initii  ac  mediana 
Quadragesimae  die  sabbati  jejunio  circa  vesperam 
noverint  celebrandas  ”  (Epist.  9  ad  Episcopos 
Luermiae  et  B i  xittiorum,  c.  11;  Patrol,  lix.  52). 
It  will  be  observed  that  two  periods  in  Lent  are 
specified  here,  a  piece  of  evidence  in  favour  of 
Muratori’s  view  that  the  spring  fast  is  Lent  itself. 

The  Gelasian  Sacramentary  also  furnishes  a 
form  for  this  ordinance,  which  is  headed,  “  Ordo 
qualiter  in  Romana  sedis  apostolicae  ecclesia 
presbyteri,  diaconi  vel  subdiaconi  eligendi  suit, 
meiisis  i.  i\^  vii.  et  x.  Sabbatorum  die  in  xii. 
lectionibus  .  .  .  .”  Ixxiv.  1069).  Again, 

the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  enjoins  that  the 
greater  orders  are  to  be  conferred  only  “  in 


It  IS  perhaps  not  impossible  that  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  ))ractice  in  the  Roman  church  may 
have  been  something  to  this  effect.  Fasts  at  the 
times  of  Lent,  Pentecost,  and  the  Nativity,  are 
certainly  very  ancient;  the  j)eriods  of  these 
would  roughly  correspond  with  three  of  the 
four  seasons,  and  thus  some  bishop  of  Rome,  Leo 
or  one  of  his  predecessors,  may  have  conceived 
the  idea  of  making  them  symbolize  the  i-eturn  of 
the  seasons,  and  so  added  the  one  necessaiy  to 
complete  the  four.  It  would  soon  come  to  pass 
then  that  they  would  be  spoken  of  as  originally 
ordained  with  that  view.  The  length  of  each 
fiist  having  been  more  or  less  settled,  and  the  fasts 
being  now  more  specially  associated  with  the 
seasons,  the  spring  aii'I  summer  fasts  would 
come  more  and  more  to  be  viewed  independently 
of  Lent  and  Pentecost,  and  hence  they  would  fall 
occasionally  outside  these  seasons.  Finally,  the 
inconveniences  arising  from  such  irregularities 
may  have  caused  the  ultimate  settlement  of  the 
matter  in  its  present  form. 

For  the  matter  of  the  foregoing  article,  I  am 
especially  indebted  to  Muratori’s  De  iv.  Temporum 
jejuniis  disquisitio  (in  his  Anecdota,  vol.  i.  246-266  ; 
Mediolani  1697);  also  to  Bingham’s  Antiquities 
of  the  Church.,  book  xxi.  ch.  2,  and  Binterim’s 
Denhvmrdigkeiten  der  Christ- Katholischen  Kirche, 
vol.  V.  part  2,  133  sqq.  Reference  may  also  be 
made  to  Yalfredus,  De  usu  et  institutione  jejunii 
quituor  temjDorum,  Bononiae,  1771.  [R.  S.] 

EMBLEM.  [Symbol.] 

EMBOLISMUS,  also  EMBOLIS,  EMBO- 
LUM,  (1)  an  inserted  or  intercalated  prayer; 
the  name  given  to  the  prayer  which  in  almost 
all  ancient  liturgies  follows  the  Lord’s  Prayer, 
founded  on  one  or  both  of  the  two  last  petitions. 
It  is  so  called  because  it  is  interposed  here,  and 


Sabbatis  duodecim  lectionum  per  quatuor  tem¬ 
pera  ”  (Greg.  Sac.  219,  and  cf.  Menard’s  note). 
The  same  order  is  laid  down  in  the  Poqtifical  of 
Egbert,  archbishop  of  York  from  732-766  A.D. 
(p.  8,  ed.  Surtees  Society). 

The  irregularity  as  to  the  time  of  the  Ember 
seasons  evidently  continued  down  to  a  late  period. 
Thus  the  plan  laid  down  by  the  council  of  Maintz 
is  repeated  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  after 
(1072  A.D.),  by  a  council  of  Rouen  (Concil.  Po- 
thom.  can.  9  ;  Labbe  ix.  1227) ;  and  the  fre¬ 
quency  with  which  conciliar  rules  occur  on  the 
subject  prove  how  unsettled  the  matter  was. 
(See  e.g.  the  regulations  of  the  council  of  Seli- 
genstadt  [1022  a.d.,  can.  2 ;  Labbe  ix.  845],  of 
those  of  Placentia  [1095  a.d.,  can.  14  ;  ib.  x.  504], 
and  Clermont  [can.  27 ;  ib.  508],  and  even  of 
Oxfoi’d  [1222  A.D.,  can.  8;  ib.  xi.  274],  in  the 
very  last  of  which  we  still  meet  with  the 
mention  of  Martii  prima  hebdomada.)  The 
system  followed  in  later  centuries  is  ordinarily 
referred  to  the  rule  as  laid  down  in  the  councils 
of  Placentia  and  Clermont. 

It  may  be  well  very  briefly  to  sum  up  our 
results.  The  observ'ance  of  the  Ember  seasons 
is  purely  a  western  institution,  there  being 
no  certain  trace  of  it  whatever  in  the  eastern 
church.  It  was  doubtless  at  first  a  rite  merely 
of  the  local  Roman  church,  whence  it  gradually 
spi'cad  throughout  the  west,  and  established 
itself ^in  Gaul  and  Spain  by  the  eighth  centurv, 
and  in  England  po.ssibly  earlier,  through  its 
special  connection  with  Gregorv. 


what  had  been  already  asked  in  the  Lord’s 
Prayer  is  expanded,  and  it  is  more  clearly  ex¬ 
pressed  what  evils  we  seek  to  be  delivei’ed  from, 
viz.  past,  present,  and  future,  together  with  the 
saints  by  whose  intercession  we  strengthen  our 
prayer,  viz.  the  B.  V.  Mary,  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul, 
and  St.  Andrew  (Bona,  Per.  Lit»rg.  ii.  c.  15  §  2). 
Amalarius  (a.d.  810)  says  of  it,  “in  consumma- 
tione  orationis  venit  clausula  universas  petitiones 
et  preces  nostras  collecta  brevitate  concludens” 
(Amalar.  De  ICccl.  Offic.  iii.  29).  The  Embolis- 
mus  was  usualh"  repeated  by  the  ])riest  in  a  low 
voice,  symbolizing  the  silence  during  the  period 
that  our  Lord  lay  in  the  grave ;  but  in  the  Am¬ 
brosian  rite  it  was  always  pronounced  aloud 
(Macri,  Hierolex.  s.  v.).  Thi.s  practice,  which 
has  left  very  faint  traces  in  the  Western  church, 
being  reduced  in  the  Roman  and  Ambrosian 
rites  to  “Libera  nos  quaesumus  Domine  ab 
Omni  malo,”  holds  a  more  important  place  in 
Oriental  liturgies.  The  Emb  lisunis  is  not,  how¬ 
ever,  found  in  the  liturgies  of  St.  Chrysostom 
and  St.  Basil,  but  appears  in  those  of  St.  James, 
St.  Mark,  and  Theodore  the  Interpreter,  as  weL 
as  in  the  Armenian,  Mozarabic,  and  Coptic  St. 
Basil.  As  examj)les  of  the  shorter  Exnbolismus 
we  give  that  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  “And 
lead  us  not  into  temptation,  0  Lord,  the  Lord  of 
Hosts,  who  knowest  our  iniii  mity  ;  but  deliver 
us  from  the  Evil  One,  and  his  works,  and  every 
assault  and  will  of  his,  for  the  sake  ot  Thy  Holy 
name  which  is  called  upon  our  lowliness  ”  (As- 
seman.  vol.  v.  p.  51),  and  the  Syriac  St.  James, 


CHRIST.  ANT. 


610 


EMBOLOS 


ENCHEIRION 


“  0  Lord  our  God,  lead  us  not  jnt'i  temptation 
which  we  devoid  of  strength  are  not  able  to 
bear,  but  also  with  the  temptation  make  a  way 
of  escajie,  that  we  may  be  able  to  bear  it,  and 
leliver  us  from  evil  through  Jesus  Christ,”  &c. 

Renaud.  vol.  ii.  p.  40). 

(Neale,  Easlern  Ch'irch^  part  i.  1,  p.  513; 
2,  pp.  627-629 ;  Scudamore,  Notit.  Euchur. 

р.  572  ;  Binterim,  Iknhvsurd.  iv.  3,  p.  465; 
Maci'i,  Hierolex.  ;  Ducange,  Glossar.s.  v.)  [E.V.] 

(2)  EniboUsnus  also  designates  the  excess  of 
the  solar  year  over  twelve  lunar  months,  com¬ 
monly  called  the  Epact.  See  Durandus,  lin- 
tiomle,  viii.  10.  (Ducange,  s.v.').  [C.] 

EMBOLOS.  A  covered  portico  or  cloister ; 
in  ecclesiastical  language  a  cloister  surrounding 
the  external  walls  of  a  church,  serving  as  an 
ambulatory  in  hot,  rainy,  and  dirty  weather,  and 
al.so  affording  a  convenient  passage  for  the  priests 
and  ministers  of  the  chui’ch  from  the  bema  and 
diaconi::uin  to  the  narthex,  used  at  Constantinople 
by  the  patriarch  when  he  proceeded  to  wash  feet 
in  the  narthex.  Codinus  speaks  of  these  cloisters 
being  vaulted,  and  Goar  of  their  walls  being  orna- 
mented  with  mosaic  pictures.  Such  porticos  ran 
along  the  N.  and  S.  sides  of  the  church  of  St.  Sophia 
at  Constantinople  (Ducange,  Constan.  Christian. 
lib.  iii.  c.  16),  and  surrounded  the  churches  of  St. 
Michael  at  Anaplus,  and  the  Deipara  at  Jerusalem, 
on  all  sides  but  the  east  (Procop.  de  Aedific.  lib.  i. 

с.  8,  lib.  V.  c.  6),  It  was  in  “the  right  embolos” 
of  St.  Sophia — that  the  summaiy  of  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  the  so-called  eighth  general  council,  that 
of  Constantinople  in  870,  were  drawn  up  (Labbe, 
Concil.  viii.  1421).  In  Moschus  (^Prat.  Spiritual. 
§  66  apud  Coteler.  Eccl.  Grace.  Monum.  ii.  390) 
we  read  of  an  archimandrite  named  George,  who 
buried  in  “  the  right  embolos”  of  a  church  he 
was  erecting,  the  body  of  an  ascetic  who  had 
apjieared  to  him  in  a  dream  and  warned  him 
where  he  would  find  his  corpse. 

(Goar,  Eueholof].  p.  627 ;  Allatius,  de  Templis, 
Epist.  ii.  §  4 ;  Ducange,  Gloss.  Grace.').  [E.  V.] 

EMERENTIANA,  virgin,  martyr  at  Rome  ; 
commemorated  Jan.  23  {Mart.  Piom.  Bedae, 
Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 


(3)  Martyr  at  Capua ;  commemorated  Oct.  6 
{Mart.  Jlicran..,  Adonis,  Csuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EMITHERIUS,  martyr  with  Celed'Miius  at 
Calagurris;  commemorated  March  3  {Matt.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

EMPHOT.TON  {'Epcpdriov)  is  one  of  the 
names  for  the  white  robe  {aua$u\iov)  with  which 
persons  were  invested  at  baj)fism.  The  name  is 
no  doubt  derived  from  the  “enlightening”  attri¬ 
buted  to  the  ba])tismal  ceremony.  See  Baptism, 
pp.  156,  163.  [C.] 

EMPHYTEUSIS  {'E/acpuTevan),  a  manner 
of  letting  real  property,  at  first  confined  to  waste 
lands  requiring  much  outlay  to  bring  them  under 
cultivation,  but  afterwards  applied  to  any  real 
property. 

Emphyteusis  is  a  contract  by  which  the  bene¬ 
ficial  ownership  of  real  projierty  (res  immobilis) 

^  is  transferi'ed  by  the  proprietor  to  another, 

'  either  fo’’  a  term  of  not  le.ss  than  ten  years,  or 
for  a  life  or  lives,  or  in  perpetuity,  in  considera¬ 
tion  of  an  annual  payment.  It  differs  from  mere 
letting  (locatio),  in  that  by  emphyteusis  bene¬ 
ficial  ownership  is  transferred  for  the  term, 
while  by  letting  only  the  use  and  enjoyment  of' 
produce  is  transferred ;  in  that  its  use  is  confined 
to  real  property ;  and  in  that  it  cannot  be  for  a 
less  term  than  ten  years.  It  differs  from  feudal 
tenure  (feodum),  in  that  it  requires  periodical 
payments,  not  personal  service,  to  be  given  to 
the  lord  or  proprietor. 

Emphyteusis  is  either  ecclesiastical  or  lay. 
Ecclesiastical  emphyteusis  is  a  contract  by  which 
property  belonging  to  a  church,  monastery,  oi 
other  religious  foundation,  is  granted.  This 
differs  from  lay  emphyteusis  [See  Smith’s  Dicr. 
OF  Greek  and  Roman  Antiq.  s.  u.]  principally 
in  that  it  requires  the  assent  of  the  bishop,  and 
must  clearly  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  church  or 
foundation  which  grants  it ;  a  provision  no  doubt 
i  intended  to  check  the  alienation  of  church  pro- 
I  perty  by  ecclesiastical  persons.  [Alienation 
I  OF  Church  Property  :  Propertv  of  the 
Church.] 

(Ferraris,  Prompta  Bibliotheca,  s.  v.  “Emphy¬ 
teusis.”)  [C.] 


EMERITENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Merida, 
Council  op.] 

EMILIANUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Lower  Ar¬ 
menia  with  Dionysius  and  Sebastian  ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Feb.  8  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Numidia,  with  Agapius  and 
Secundinus,  bishops ;  commemorated  April  29 
{Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Dorostorum ;  commemorated 
July  18  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(4)  Deacon,  martyr  at  Cordova  with  Hiere- 
mias  ;  commemorated  Sept.  17  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(5)  Presbyter  and  confessor  in  Tarragona ; 
commemorated  Nov.  12  {lb.) 

(6)  Confessor  in  Africa ;  commemorated  Dec. 
6  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EMILIUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Africa,  with 
Castas ;  commemorated  May  22  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Carth.). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Sardinia ;  commemorated  May 
28  {Mart..  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 


EMPRESMUS  {'E,uirpr](riJ.6s),  the  great  con¬ 
flagration  ;  commemorated  Sept.  1  {Cal. 
Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EMUNITAS.  [Immunities.] 

ENAFOTA,  ENAFODIA 
In  the  Liber  Pontijicalis,  we  read  that  pope 
Paschal  gave  to  a  church  “  canistra  enafota  ex 
argento  duo,  pens.  lib.  x.”  two  coronae  of  nine 
lights,  weighing  ten  pounds.  And  Valentine  II. 
gave  “canistra  ennafodia  duo  pens.  lib.  xv.” 
Compare  Canister,  Corona,  Exafota.  (Du¬ 
cange,  s.  V.) 

EN  C  AENI  A.  [Dedication-F  estival.] 

ENCHANTMENT.  [Magic.] 

ENCHEIRION  {'Eyx^ipior),  the  napkin 
with  which  the  priest  wipes  his  hands,  worn  at 
the  girdle.  Towards  the  end  of  the  letter  of 
Nicephorus  of  Constantinople  to  pope  Leo  (in  the 
Acta  Cone.  Ephes.  p.  313,  ed.  Commelin,  1591), 
we  read  of  a  stole  and  an  encheirioa  em¬ 
broidered  with  gold.  It  is  described  by  Ger- 
manus  of  Constantinople  {Theoria  Myst.  p.  150, 


ENCYCLICAI.  LETTERS  611 


E>^COIiPION 

cd.  Pans,  1560)  thus :  “  The  encheinon,  which 
hangs  to  the  girdle,  is  the  napkin  which  wipes 
his  hands ;  and  to  have  a  napkin  at  the  girdle  is 
typical  of  him  who  washed  his  hands  and  said, 
‘1  am  innocent’  (Matt,  xxvii.  24).”  (Suicer’s 
Thesaurus,  s.  v.)  [C.] 

ENCOLPION  ('EyK6\Tnoy,  that  which  is 
worn  on  the  breast),  the  name  anciently  given 
to  small  caskets  worn  round  the  necks  of  the 
fiiithful,  containing  usually  either  relics  or  a 
copy  of  the  Gospels. 

The  use  of  these  portable  reliquaries  is  of 
the  highest  antiquity;  Chrysostom  (^Quod  Ckristus 
sit  iJeus,  p.  571  E,  ed.  Ben.)  speaks  of  particles 
of  the  true  Cross  being  suspended  from  the 
necks  both  of  men  and  women,  enclosed  in  gold. 


In  1571  two  such  reliquaries,  made  of  gold, 
were  found  in  tombs  belonging  to  the  ancient 
cemetery  of  the  Vatican;  they  are  square  in 
form,  and  are  furnished  with  rings  which  indi¬ 
cate  their  use ;  on  one  side  they  bear  the  mono¬ 
gram  of  Christ,  between  the  A  and  Cl  (see 
woodcut).  These  probably  date  from  the  4th 
century. 

The  pectoral  cross  worn  by  bishops  was  also 
called  encolpion.  The  oldest  specimen  now 


existing  is  one  which  was  found  not  long  since 
upon  the  breast  of  a  corpse  in  the  basilica  of  St. 
Laurence,  outside  the  walls.  It  came  to  light  in 
clearing  the  intavior  of  that  church,  and  we  are 
indebted  to  De  Rossi  for  a  careful  drawing  of  it 
{BuUetino,  Apr.  1863).  On  one  side  it  bears 
the  inscription,  Em.manovha  [Emmanuel]  No- 
BiscvM  DEVS ;  oa  the  other,  the  following 


words,  addressed  apparently  to  Satan :  Crvx 
LST  VITA  Mini  II  MORS  INIMICE  TIBI ;  a  cavlty 
closed  by  a  screw  appears  to  have  been  intended 
for  relics.  Reliquaries  in  the  form  of  a  cross 
are  first  mentioned  by  Gregory  the  Great.  He 
sent  one  of  them  to  queen  Theodelinda  with  a 
fragment  of  the  true  cross  ;  this  still  exists  at 
Monza,  and  is  used  by  the  provost  of  the 
ancient  church  in  that  city  when  he  officiates 
pontifically.  An  engraving  of  it  may  be  found 
in  Frisi’s  Memorie  della  Chicse  iJomese  (p.  52). 
Two  amulets  given  to  this  princess  by  the 
same  pontiff  for  the  use  of  her  children  ai’e  still 
preserved  among  the  celebrated  treasures  of 
Monza,  one  of  which  contains  a  piece  of  the  true 
cross,  the  other  a  fragment  of  the  Gosjiels  (Greg. 
Magn.  Epist.  xiv.  12).  Engravings  of  those  ob¬ 
jects  are  given  by  Mozzoni  ( Tavole  cron,  della 
stor.  eccl.  vol.  vii.  p.  79).  The  same  volume  of 
the  same  work  also  contains  (pp.  77  and  84) 
drawings  of  other  reliquaries  of  the  highest 
interest — namely,  some  of  the  vases  in  which 
oil  from  the  sacred  lamps  of  the  tombs  of  the 
martyrs  had  been  sent  by  Gregory  to  Theodelinda. 
[Ampulla.] 

Fiom  the  same  pope  we  also  learn  (Epist.  i. 
36 ;  vii.  26)  that  filings  from  St.  Peter’s  chains 
were  sometimes  enclosed  in  small  golden  keys. 
He  himself  had  sent  one  of  these  consecrated 
kevs  to  Childebert,  king  of  the  Franks,  to 
wear  hung  fi-om  his  neck  “as  a  protection 
from  all  evils  ”  —  “  Claves  sancti  Petri,  in 
quibus  de  vincuhs  cateuarum  ejus  inclusum 
est,  excellentiae  vestrae  direximus  quae  collo 
vestro  suspensae  a  malis  vos  omnibus  tueantur” 
(Epist.  vi.  6).  An  illustrious  Gaul  named  Dina- 
mius  also  received,  from  the  same  pontiff,  a 
small  cross  of  gold,  containing  a  similar  relic 
(Epist.  iii.  33) — “  Transmisimus  autsm  B.  Petri 
apostoli  benedictionem  crucem  parvulam,  cui  de 
catenis  ejus  beneficia  sunt  inserta.”  [Eulogiae.] 
Nicephorus,  patriarch  of  Constantinople  (f  828), 
speaks  of  an  encolpion  set  in  gold,  one  side  of 
which  was  formed  of  crystal,  the  other 
of  enamel  (Eikovi<T[x4p7)  St  iyuavaeces')  ; 
containing  another  encolpion,  in  which 
fragments  of  the  true  cross  were  ar¬ 
ranged  in  a  pattern  (ipTervirw/LLfyai) 
(Acta  Cone.  Ephes.,  pp.  312,  313,  ed. 
Commelin,  1591). 

The  whole  subject  of  these  reliquaries 
might  receive  abundant  illustration 
from  the  records  and  the  remains  of 
mediaeval  antiquity,  were  that  period 
within  the  scope  of  the  present  work. 
[See  Amulet.] 

(Meursius’s  Glossarium  and  Suicer’s 
Thesaurus,  s.  v.  iyuoKiriov  ;  De  la 
Cerda,  Adversaria  Sacra,  c.  36  §  7 ; 
Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.)  [C.] 

ENCYCLICAL  LETTERS 

(’EttottoAoI  (yKVK\iot,  ypaju/xarc 
iyKVK\ia).  Letters  of  a  circular  na¬ 
ture,  not  addressed  to  a  particulai 
person  or  community;  a.s,  the  Catholic  Epistles 
(Oecumenius  on  St.  James  i.).  The  letters  in 
which  the  members  of  a  council  signified  their 
j  conclusions  to  all  the  churches  were  called  en- 
!  cyclical;  and  Nicejihorus  Callisti  (/list.  xvi.  3) 
1  speaks  of  the  encyclical  letters  (/yuvuMa 
I  ypdixfxaTo)  which  the  emperor  Basiliscus  wrote 
against  the  fourth  council  (Chalcedon,  A.D 

2  R 


612 


ENDOWMENT 


ENTRANCE 


451),  addressed  to  all  the  bishops  of  the  church. 
The  same  writer  (c.  4)  speaks  of  divine  and 
apostolic  encyclics  (iyKUK\ia).  The  circulars  of 
Basiliscus  just  referred  to  are  styled  by  Evagrius 
(II. l!^.  iii.  4)  ^yKVKXioi  (TvWa^a'i’,  an  encyclical 
letter  of  Photius  is  mentioned  (ih.  v.  2). 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  jjhrase  iyKvKXia 
ypaixfiara  sometimes  (as  Euseb.  II.  E.  vi.  18)  de¬ 
letes  those  subjects  which  the  Greeks  included 
in  the  “  circle  of  the  sciences,”  or  cyclopaedia. 
(Suicer’s  Thesaurus.,  s.  v.  ^Y.yKVKXiosI)  [C.] 

ENDOWMENT.  The  property  given  by  the 
founder  of  a  church  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
edifice  and  of  the  clerks  who  served  it  was 
allied  dos  ccclesiae  or  endowment.  Justtnian 
(Novel  67),  compelled  those  who  built  churches 
also  to  endow  them ;  and  without  a  competent 
provision  for  their  maintenance,  no  clerks  wei-e 
to  be  ordained  to  any  church  (Cone.  Epaon.,  a.d. 
517,  c.  25)  ;  whoever  desired  to  have  a  parish 
church  (dioecesim)  on  his  estate  was  to  set  apart 
a  sufficient  landed  endowment  for  its  clerks 
(Cone.  Aurel.  iv.^  a.d.  541,  c.  33);  a  bishop  was 
not  to  consecrate  a  church  until  the  endowment 
of  it  had  been  regularly  secured  by  a  deed  or 
charter  (Cone.  Bragar.  ii.  [iii.],  a.d.  572,  c.  5) ; 
founders  of  churches  were  to  understand,  that 
they  had  no  further  authority  over  property 
which  they  had  given  to  the  chureh,  but  that  both 
the  church  and  its  endowment  were  at  the  dis¬ 
position  of  the  bishop,  to  be  employed  according 
to  the  canons  (Cone.  Tolet.  iv.,  a.d.  633,  c.  33). 

In  the  ninth  council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  655,  a 
special  provision  was  made  (c.  5),  that  a  bishop 
was  not  to  confer  on  any  monastic  church  which 
he  might  found  within  his  diocese  more  than  a 
fiftieth  part  of  the  funds  at  his  disposal ;  nor  on 
any  non-monastic  church,  or  church  destined  for 
his  own  burial-place,  more  than  one  hundredth 
part  of  the  revenues  of  the  diocese. 

If  one  who  held  a  “  fiscus,”  or  fief,  from  the 
king,  built  and  endowed  churches,  the  bishop 
was  desired  to  procure  the  royal  confirmation  of 
the  gift  (Cone.  Tolet.  iii.,  A.D.  589,  c.  15). 

See  Alms;  Benefice;  Churches,  Mainten¬ 
ance  OF,  p.  388  ;  Property  of  the  Church. 

During  the  period  with  which  we  are  con¬ 
cerned,  the  Bishop  [p.  233],  with  the  advice 
and  assistance  of  his  presbytery,  took  charge  of 
church  endowments. 

(Wetzer  and  Welte’s  Kirchen  -  lexieon,  s.  v. 
Dotalaut :  Ducange,  s.  v.  Bos  Eeelesiae.')  [C.] 

ENERGUMENI.  [Demoniacs.] 

ENOCH,  the  patriarch,  translation  of;  com- 
memoi-ated  Ter  27  =  Jan.  22  (Cal.  Ethiop.) ; 
July  19  (Cal.  Copt.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ENTALMA  (’'EuTaXpa,  ivxaXrripia  ypap- 
para),  the  document  by  which  a  bishop  confers 
on  a  monk  the  privilege  of  hearing  confessions 
(Daniel,  Codex,  iv.  588).  The  form  of  such  a 
letter  is  given  by  Goar,  Eucholog.  p.  300.  [C.] 

ENTHRONIZATION.  1.  The  solemn 
placing  of  a  bishop  on  his  throne.  See  Bishop, 
p.  224. 

2.  The  word  evdpovia^nv  is  also  used  to  desig¬ 
nate  the  placing  or  “enthroning  ”  of  relics  of  the 
saints  in  the  altar  of  a  church  on  consecration 
[Consecration  of  Churches].  Hence  vabs  iv- 
Qpovia(Tp4vos  designates  a  regularly  consecrated 
church  and  not  a  mere  oratory.  Thus  Germa- 


nus  (in  Daniel’s  Codex,  iv.  701)  speaks  of  a 
church  as  dedicated  in  the  name  of  martvrs  and 
consecrated  over  (or  by  virtue  of)  their  holy 
relics  (Iv  toIs  ayiois  avroov  Xeixj/dvoiS'  evOpovi- 
a(rOf?(ra). 

3.  The  word  ivdpovKTpSs  is  perhaps  sometimes 
used  to  designate  the  installation  of  a  presbvter 
in  his  church  (Keiske  on  Constant.  Porphj'rog. 
Be  Caerim.  617).  [C.] 

ENTHUSIASTAE  (ivOouffiacrraX).  Those 
who  pretended  to  prophesy  by  the  motion  of  an 
indwelling  daemon  which  they  thought  to  be 
the  Holy  Spirit  (see  Theodoret,  Hist.  Eecl.  iv. 
11;  Suidas,  sub  voee  fvdovs Bingham,  Ant.  16, 
5,  4). 

In  A.D.  428  Theodosius  and  Valentinian  or¬ 
dained  that  these  heretics  (with  many  others) 
“  nusquam  in  Romano  solo  conveniendi  oran- 
dique  habeant  facultatem.”  This  constitution 
was  inserted  in  the  Theodoslan  Code  (16,  5,  25), 
and  in  that  of  Justinian  (1,  5,  5),  but  with  the 
reading  (if  it  be  the  correct  one)  “  nusquam 
in  Romanum  locum  conveniendi  morandique 
habeant  facultatem.”  The  same  exclusion  is 
decreed  in  general  terms  by  Justinian  in  his 
37th  Novell,  “nulla  omnino  haeresis  domum  aut 
locum  orationis  habeto.”  [I.  B.] 

ENTRANCE  (EferoSos).  Two  of  the  most 
remarkable  ceremonies  of  Eastern  liturgies  arc 
the  Lesser  and  the  Greater  Entrance — that  of 
the  Word  and  that  of  the  Sacrament. 

1.  The  Lesser  Entranee  is  the  bearing  in  of 
the  book  of  the  gospels  in  solemn  procession. 
In  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom  (c.  1 7,  p.  343, 
Daniel)  after  the  prayer  of  the  third  antiphon 
(our  ‘  Prayer  of  St.  Chrysostom  ’)  the  rubric 
runs  :  “  Then  the  priest  and  the  deacon,  standing 
before  the  Holy  Table,  make  three  genufiections 
(Trpo(rKuvripaTa):  Then  the  priest,  taking  the 
Holy  Book  of  the  Gospels  gives  it  to  the  deacon ; 
and  so,  going  out  by  the  north  side,  with  lights 
going  before  them,  they  make  the  Lesser  En¬ 
trance.”  That  is,  the  deacon  and  priest  pass 
from  the  sanctuary  into  the  chapel  of  the  pro¬ 
thesis,  which  is  to  the  north  of  it,  and  so  out 
into  the  body  of  the  church,  where,  by  a  devious 
path,  they  return  to  the  Holy  Doors,  which  are 
open;  the  volume,  often  decorated  with  great 
magnificence,  is  laid  on  the  Holy  Table,  whence 
it  is  again  taken  to  the  ambo  wffien  the  gospel  is 
to  be  read. 

The  rubric  in  St.  Mark’s  liturgy  (Dan.  iv.  142) 
is  simply,  “  uai  yiyvfTai  7}  elcroSos  tov  evay- 

This  “  Entrance  ”  corresponds  to  the  carrying 
of  the  gospel  by  the  deacon  to  the  ambo  or  rood- 
loft  in  the  Western  church,  once  a  rite  of  great 
importance ;  for  the  book  was  preceded  not  only 
by  tapers  but  by  a  crucifix  Durandus,  Ration  de, 
iv.  24.  16).  Compare  Alleluia,  Gradual. 

In  the  Coptic  St.  Basil,  the  Greater  Entrance 
pi’ecedes  the  Lesser.  See  below. 

2.  2he  Greater  Entranee. — This  ceremony  has 
pi'obably,  like  others,  been  developed  from  simple 
beginnings  into  very  great  prominence  and  mag¬ 
nificence. 

The  liturgy  of  St.  James  (c.  17,  Daniel  iv.  98) 
simply  alludes  in  passing  to  the  bringing  in  of 
the  elements  :  “  the  priest  bringing  in  the  Holy 
Gifts  says  the  following  prayer.”  St.  !Mark 
(c.  10,  Dan.  iv.  148)  is  even  more  vague:  “the 


ENTRY  INTO  JERUSALEM 


ERACT 


ITv-ly  Things  (ra  ayia)  are  brought  into  llie 
sanctuary,  and  the  priest  prays  as  follows.” 
Similarly  the  Mozarabic  (Dan.  i.  67),  “  while 
the  choir  chants  Aliehiia,  the  priest  offers  [h  e. 
places  on  the  altar]  the  Host  and  Chalice,  with 
the  prayers  following.”  In  the  Armenian  rite 
(Dan.  iv.  460)  the  celebrant  lies  prostrate  before 
the  altar  while  the  Great  Entrance  is  made;  in 
this  rite  (anomalously)  the  elements  are  spoken 
of  as  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  before  conse¬ 
cration  (Xeale,  East.  Ch.  Int.  42d). 

In  the  much  more  developed  rite  of  Constan¬ 
tinople  (^Lit.  C/iry^ost.  Neale,  u.  s.  373),  after  the 
chanting  of  the  Cherubic  Hymn,  the  ceremony 
proceeds  as  follows.  During  the  previous  part 
of  the  eucharistic  office,  the  elements  have  re¬ 
mained  on  the  table  in  the  chapel  of  the  prothesis. 
At  the  lU’oper  point,  the  deacon  censes  the  altar 
and  the  sanctuary,  and  then  goes  before  the 
priest  into  the  prothesis.  The  priest  then  lifts 
the  “aer,”  or  covering,  from  the  chalice  and 
paten,  and  lays  it  on  the  deacon’s  shoulder,  and 
then  places  upon  it  the  paten,  covered  witii  the 
Asterisk  and  veil.  The  deacon  takes  hold  of 
these  with  his  left  hand,  bearing  the  censer  in 
his  right ;  the  priest  takes  the  chalice  and  fol¬ 
lows  the  deacon,  and  so,  preceded  by  tapers,  they 
move  round  to  the  Holy  Doors,  as  in  the  Lesser 
Entrance.  In  great  churches,  where  there  are 
dignified  clergy  and  many  attendants,  this  pro¬ 
cession  is  one  of  great  magnificence.  Where 
there  is  but  a  single  priest  and  no  deacon,  he 
bears  the  paten  on  his  shoulder,  supporting  it  by 
his  left  hand,  and  the  chalice  in  his  right  hand 
before  his  breast. 

In  the  Coptic  St.  Basil,  the  Great  Entrance  is 
made  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  liturgy ;  the 
directions  for  it  are  very  curious  and  minute. 
“  The  priest  goes  to  the  Takaddemet  [Prothesis] 
from  which  he  shall  take  the  lamb  [Elements, 
p.  600],  looking  attentively  that  there  be  no  flaw 
in  iC  ...When  he  hath  all  that  he  needs,  the 
lamb,  the  wine,  and  the  incense,  ...he  takes 
the  lamb  in  his  hand  and  wipes  it  lightly,  as 
Christ  the  Lord  was  first  washed  with  water 
before  He  was  presented  to  Simeon*  the  priest ; 
then  he  shall  bear  it  round  to  the  altar  in  his 
hands,  as  Simeon  bai-e  Him  round  the  Temple. 
At  last  the  priest  shall  lay  it  down  on  the  altar 
and  shall  place  it  on  the  paten,  which  signifies 
the  cradle ;  and  shall  cover  it  with  a  linen  cloth, 
as  the  Virgin  did  at  His  Nativity”  (Renaudot, 
Litt.  Orientt.  i.  186).  A  deacon  seems  to  have 
borne  the  cruet. 

Compare  Introit.  [C.] 

ENTRY  INTO  JERUSALEM.  This  event 
in  our  Lord’s  life  is  very  frequently  represented 
in  the  earlier  art  of  the  Christian  Church,  occur¬ 
ring  on  some  of  the  first  sarcophagi,  though  not, 
as  far  as  the  present  writer  knows,  in  fresco  or 
mosaic  in  the  catacombs  or  elsewhere,  excepting 
in  an  ancient  mosaic  of  the  Vatican  (Bianchini 
Demonstr.  hist.  Sac.  Saec.  i.  tav.  2,  No.  17),  and 
one  from  the  basilica  at  Bethlehem,  reproduced 
by  Martigny  (p.  331)  from  Count  de  V'ogue' 
(fLes  Eylises  d/'  la  Terre  Ste.  pi.  v.).  The  earliest 
MS.  representation  of  it  is  probably  that  in  the 
Rabula  or  Laurentian  Evangeliary.  The  treat¬ 
ment  is  almost  always  the  same;  the  Lord  is 

•  There  is  an  evident  confusion  here  between  Simeon 
and  the  high-priest. 


C13 

mounted  on  the  ass,  sometimes  accompanied  by 
her  foal,  and  the  multitude  with  their  palm- 
branches  follow,  or  lay  their  garments  before 
Him  (Aringhi  t.  i.  pp.  277  -329;  ii.  p.  159  and 
passim;  Bottari,  tav.  xxi.).  His  right  hand  is 
generally  raised  in  the  act  of  blessing.  The 


multitude  frequently  raise  their  hands  in  thanks¬ 
giving.  In  one  of  the  oldest  MSS.  of  the  New 
Testament  in  existence,  the  Gregorian  Evangeliary 
of  St.  Cuthbert  (^Palaeugraphia  Sacra)  the  Lord  is 
represented  mounted  on  an  ass,  and  bearing  a 
large  whip — evidently  with  reference  to  the 
scourge  of  small  cords  used  in  the  expulsion  of 
buyers  and  seller's  from  the  temple.  There  is  a 
certain  variety  in  the  examples  taken  from  dif¬ 
ferent  carvings.  In  Bottari  (i.  taw.  xvi.  xxii. 
xxxix.)  Zaccheus  is  represented  in  the  “  fig  or 
sycomore  tree  ”  behind  the  Loi'd,  as  if  to  call 
attention  to  the  beginning  of  His  last  journey  at 
Jericho.  In  the  last  example  the  sycomore  and 
palm  branches  are  carefully  and  well  cut.  In  i. 
tav.  40,  garments  are  being  strewn  before  the 
Lord  (as  in  the  others).  See  also  vol  ii.  tavv.  88, 
89 ;  iii.  tav.  133.  In  one  instance,  without 
Zaccheus,  the  colt  accomjianies  the  ass  (iii.  1.34). 
The  .small  stature  of  Zaccheus  is  often  dwelt  on. 
Or  the  figure  may  represent  a  person  in  the  act 
of  cutting  down  branches.  [K.  St.  J.  T.] 

envy— HOW  CENSURED.  Envy  was 

always  reckoned  a  diabolical  sin,  and  one  of  the 
first  magnitude  (Chrys.  Horn.  41  in  Matth.; 
Cyprian,  De  Zelo  et  Livore,  p.  223);  but  there 
are  no  distinctive  penalties  attached  to  it, 
inasmuch  as  before  it  could  bring  a  man 
under  public  di.scipline,  it  required  to  be  dis¬ 
played  in  some  outward  and  vicious  action,  which 
received  its  appropriate  punishment  (Bingham, 
Ant.  16,  14,  1 ;  Thom.  Aq.  Summa  2,  ‘2,  qu.  36). 

[1.  B.] 

EPACT,  inaKTa'i,  SC.  T]/j.(pai ;  Lat.  epactae  ; 
in  Mediaeval  writers,  adjectiones  ^Lunae ;  the 
number  of  days  required  to  make  up  the  lunar 
year  to  the  solar: — and  so  the  numeral  of  the 
moon’s  age  on  the  Ist  January.  Or  we  may 
say,  with  Scaliger,  on  the  1st  IMarch,  which 


614 


EPAGATUS 


comes  to  the  same  thing,  and  has  the  advantage 
of  escaping  the  ambiguity  of  Leap  yea]-.  In  the 
Easter  canon  of  Dionysius  Exigiius,  the  ejiact 
meant  the  numeral  of  the  moon’s  age  on  the 
22  nd  March. 

Tlie  old  Latin  cycles  of  84-  years,  of  which 
we  have  an  example  in  Ideler,  ii.  249,  indicated 
Easter  by  means  of  the  epacts  of  the  1st  January, 
and  the  day  of  the  week  on  which  the  1st 
January  fell. 

The  method  of  determining  the  months  (lunar), 
was  as  follows.  For  the  first  month  of  the  year 
that  month  was  taken,  whose  age  was  expressed 
by  the  ej)act.  The  day  of  December  on  which  it 
commenced  is  found  by  subti-acting  the  epact 
(when  more  than  one)  from  thirty-three.  'I’he 
first  mouth  was  always  counted  full,  then  hollov/- 
and  full  succeeded  by  turns,  so  that  the  last 
mouth  in  the  year  in  a  common  lunar  year  was 
hollow,  in  an  intercalary  year  full.  From  the 
last  begins  the  new  moon  of  the  following  year. 

The  Easter  new  moon  being  found,  Easter-day 
was,  according  to  the  Latin  rules,  that  Sunday 
which  fell  on  or  next  after  the  16th  of  the 
moon,  not  therefore  later  than  the  22nd  of  the 
moon.  The  choice  of  the  month  was  determined 
thus.  New  moon  must  not  be  earlier  than  the 
5th  March,  and  full  moon  not  later  than  the 
21st ;  the  first  of  these  rules  sometimes  having 
to  give  way,  to  save  the  violation  of  the  latter. 

The  following  rule  is  given  for  the  1st 
January  epact,  viz.,  multiply  the  Golden  Num¬ 
ber  by  eleven,  and  divide  the  product  by  thirty, 
the  remainder  is  the  epact.  But  this  rule  will 
not  give  the  epacts  mentioned  above,  which 
Avere  constructed  as  Ave  have  just  described — 
Avith  a  saltus  lunae,  or  addition  of  tweh'e  after 
the  19th  year  of  the  cycle,  &c. 

For  the  determination  of  Easter  according  to 
the  Alexandrian  rules,  Avith  Avhich  the  later 
Roman  rules  agreed,  see  under  Easter. 

The  elaborate  system  of  epacts  afterwards 
devised  by  Lilius,  and  Clavius,  belongs  to  the 
system  of  the  Gregorian  calendar.  [L.  H.] 

EPAGATUS,  martyr  at  Lyons,  under  Marcus 
Aurelius,  with  Photiuus  bishop,  Zacharias  pres¬ 
byter,  and  others;  commemorated  June  2  {Mart, 
llieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EPAPHRAS,  bishop  of  Colossae,  and  mar¬ 
tyr ;  commemorated  July  19  {Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

EPAON,  COUNCIL  OP  {Epaonense  con¬ 
cilium),  held  A.D.  517  at  a  toAvn  in  Burgundy, 
whose  name  is  thought  to  haA-e  been  preserved 
in  the  modern  village  of  lene  on  the  Rhone.  It 
Avas  attended  by  tAventy-fiA’’e  bishops  at  the  joint 
summons  of  Axatus,  bishop  of  Vienne,  and  Viven- 
tiolus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  Avho  presided.  Forty 
canons  on  discipline  are  giA^en  to  it  in  its  acts ; 
but  two  more,  called  canons  of  Epaon  by 
Egbert  of  York,  and  by  Gratian,  are  not  among 
these.  By  the  4th  of  them,  bishops  priests 
and  deacons  are  forbidden  to  keep  haAvks  or 
dogs  for  hunting.  By  the  9th,  no  abbot  may 
preside  OA’^er  two  monasteries.  By  the  26th  no 
altar,  no^  of  stone,  may  be  consecrated  Avith 
chrism.  By  the  39th  slaves,  taking  sanctuary, 
that  haA'e  committed  heinous  crimes,  are  only  to 
be  lot  off  corporal  punishment.  Most  of  these 
rogulalions  had  previously  become  Liav  else-  j 
Avhere  (jMansi,  yiii.  555  and  seq.).  [E.  S.  Ff.j  | 


EPHESUS  (COUNCILS  OF) 

EPARCHIA.  [Province.] 

EPARCHU'S,  monk,  confessor  at  Angouleme  ; 
commemorated  July  1  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EPARP’CHIUS,  commemorated  Avith  Seve- 
rianus  Oct.  29  {Cal.  Annen.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EPENDYTES  (eVei/SuTTjs).  The  ependytes, 
the  “  fisher’s  coat  ”  of  St.  I’eter  (John  xxi.  7), 
Avas  a  kind  of  cloak  used  especially  by  monks, 
and,  as  the  etymology  Avould  seem  to  indicate, 
Avorn  oA'er  another  garment.  Thus  e.g.  in  the 
Graeco-Latin  Glossary  cited  by  Ducange  (s.  a'. 
epidecen),  the  Gi-eek  Avord  is  rendered  Instata 
(leg.  Tnstrata  or  Tnstita)  haec  superaria.  Also 
Augustine  naturally  enough  speaks  of  eTrerSu/na 
as  equiA'alent  to  super  indumentum  {Quaest.  in 
Jud.  41 ;  iii.  938,  ed.  Gaumc).  Suidas  also  ob- 
seiwes  this  distinction  {inroSvTrjp  rb  itrwTfpov 
IjuaTiov,  iTTfvbvTTiv  5e  rb  eTrdrco).  It  is  thus 
surprising  that  some  should  have  taken  it  to 
mean  an  under-garment,  as  e.  g.  the  Lexicon  of 
Zonaras  (col.  788,  ed.  Tittmann),  Avhich  defines 
it  as  zb  f(ru>Tepop  tp-aTiov,  ts  Kal  v-rroKapiKTov 
\4yeTai.  Athanasius  mentions  this  dress  as 
Avorn  by  St.  Antony  ( 17^a  S.  Anton.,  c.  46 ;  i. 
831,  ed.  Bened.),  and  Jerome  refers  to  it  in  the 
case  of  Hilarion  {Vita  S.  Hilar,  c.  4;  ii.  15,  ed. 
Vallarsi).  It  appears,  at  any  rate  in  the  east,  to 
have  been  made  of  skins;  thus  the  pgkoDT-ps  of 
St.  Antony  is  frequently  mentioned,  and  Jerome 
describes  that  of  Hilarion  as  pelliceus.  For  other 
references  to  the  dres.s,  see  Pseudo-Athanas.  de 
Virginitate,  c.  11  (ii.  116),  and  Basil  of  Seleucia, 
Ee  vita  S.  Theclae,  i.  62  {Patrol.  Gr.  Ixx.xa'. 
516). 

The  ependytes  Avould  appear  to  be  the  dress 
worn  by  the  tAvo  figures  (Ardon  and  Sennen, 
victims  of  the  Decian  persecution)  who  are  being 
croAvned  by  the  SaA'iour  in  a  fresco  in  the 
cemetery  of  Pontianus,  on  the  Via  Portuensis, 
near  Rome.  [See  p.  8.]  [R.  S.] 

EPHEMERIS.  [Calendar,  p.  258.] 

EPHESUS  (Councils  of). — (1)  a.d.  197, 
under  Polycrates  its  bishop,  on  the  Easter  ques¬ 
tion.  His  letter  to  Victor  and  the  Roman 
church  is  in  part  preserved  by  Eusebius  (a^.  24), 
shewing  that  it  had  been  customary  there,  down 
from  the  days  of  St.  John  the  Apostle,  to  keep 
Easter  day  on  the  14th  of  the  moon  (Mansi,  i. 
719-24).  The  interest  of  this  fragment  is 
enhanced  from  its  having  been  translated  by 
Rufinus  and  St.  Jerome. 

(2)  A.D.  245,  otherwise  called  Asiatic,  against 
the  errors  of  Noetus  (Mansi,  i.  789-90). 

(3)  A.D.  431,  the  third  general,  held  in  the 
church  there  dedicated  to  St.  Mary,  soon  after 
the  feast  of  Pentecost  in  the  month  of  June,  to 
sit  in  judgment  on  Nestoriusi  patriarch  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  Avho  contended  that  Avhile  the  blessed 
Virgin  might  with  propriety  be  styled  the 
mother  of  Christ,  she  could  not  and  ought  not  to 
be  styled  the  mother  of  God  (Theotocus).  In 
other  Avords  he  looked  upon  Christ  as  a  com¬ 
pound  of  two  persons,  as  AA'ell  as  tAvo  natures, 
instead  of  tAvo  natures,  the  Divine  and  Human, 
hypostatically  joined  together  in  the  single  Per¬ 
son  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  controversy  on  this 
point  culminated  in  the  celebrated  letter  ad¬ 
dressed  by  St.  Cyril  in  synod  to  Nestorius,  ending 
Avith  tAvelve  anathemas,  to  Avhich  he  is  called 


EPHESUS  (COUNCILS  OF)  615 

1323)  it  is  ill  effect  a  corollary.  Then  the 
business  of  the  sixth  session  led  to  the  “defini¬ 
tion,”  since  termed  impro])erly  the  seventh 
canon ;  and  that  of  the  seventh  session  to  the 
decree  since  termed  with  less  impropriet)’^  the 
eighth  canon.  Most  of  the  principal  documents 
relating  to  this  council  are  to  be  found  in  Mansi, 
iv.  577  to  the  end,  and  v.  to  p.  1046,  too  nu¬ 
merous  to  be  specified.  Some  few  more  are 
sup])lied  by  Marius  Mercator  P.  ii.  (Patrol, 
xlviii.  p.  699  and  seq.  ed.  Migne)  Cassian  de 
Iricarn.  (ib.  1.  p.  10  and  seq.)  Soc.  vii.  29-34. 
Evag.  i.  2-7,  with  Garnier’s  five  Diss.  on  Theo- 
doret  (Patrol.  Ixxxiv.  89-864). 

(4)  A.D.  440,  under  Basil  :  reversing  the 
apiiointment  of  Bassianus  to  a  distant  see  by 
Memnon  his  own  predecessor,  and  giving  him 
episcopal  honour  and  rank  at  home  (Mansi,  v. 
1199-1204). 

(5)  A.D.  447  under  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria, 
when  Ba.ssianus  its  bishop  was  deposed  and 
Stephen  appointed  in  his  room.  The  council  of 
Chalcedon,  however,  on  considering  their  case, 
decided  that  neither  had  been  canonicallv  con- 
secrated,  Oct.  30,  A.D.  451  (Mansi,  vi.  493-4, 
and  then  vii.  271-94). 

(6)  A.D.  449,  Aug.  10,  under  Dioscorus  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  convened  by  the  Emperor  Theo¬ 
dosius  like  the  last  general  council,  and  held  in 
the  same  church  of  St.  Marv  where  the  last  had 
been ;  but  its  acts  having  been  reversed  in  the 
first  session  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  where 
they  are  recited  at  length,  it  was  designated  the 
“robbers’  meeting”  {Latrocinalis,  see  the  title 
to  c.  9,  B.  i.  of  Evagrius)  and  abandoned.  It 
was  inspired  throughout  by  the  eunuch  Chry- 
saphius,  who  patronised  Eutyches  and  was  hostile 
to  Flavian.  There  are  three  letters  from  the 
emperor  to  Dioscorus  in  reference  to  its  com¬ 
position.  First  he  was  to  bring  with  him  ten 
of  his  own  metropolitans,  and  ten  other  bishops 
distinguished  for  their  learning  and  orthodoxy, 
but  not  more ;  others  having  received  their 
summons  from  the  emperor  himself  similarly. 
Next  he  was  told  that  Theodoret  had  received 
orders  not  to  appear  there,  unless  invited  unan 
imously  by  the  council  when  assembled.  An¬ 
other  letter  bade  him  admit  the  archimandrite 
Barsumas  to  sit  in  it  as  representing  all  the 

I  eastern  archimandrites.  A  third  letter  assigned 
i  him  the  first  place  in  it,  with  the  archbishops 


EPHESUS  (COUNCILS  OF) 

upon  to  subscribe  (Mansi,  iv.  1067-84),  and  the 
twelve  counter  anathemas  which  formed  his  only 
reply  to  it  (ib.  ]>.  1099). 

To  end  the  disi)ute,  the  emperors  Theodosius 
the  Younger  and  Valentinian  issued  orders  for 
the  meeting  of  a  general  council,  to  which  the 
letter  summoning  St.  Cyril  himself  is  still  ex¬ 
tant.  It  is  dated  Nov.  19,  A.D.  430,  and  directs 
him  to  repair  to  Ephesus  by  the  Feast  of  Pente¬ 
cost  ensuing.  It  forbids  the  introduction  of  any 
innovation  privately  till  then,  and  directs  that 
all  the  disj)utes  that  have  produced  so  much 
strife  shall  be  thei’e  settled  canonically.  Copies 
of  this  letter  had  been  sent  to  all  metropolitans. 

The  council  met  accordingly  for  its  first  session 
June  22,  as  is  stated  in  its  sentence  deposing 
Nestorius  (comp.  Bev.  ii.  103)  which  was  the 
first  thing  done:  St.  Cyril  heading  the  list  of 
the  bishops  present,  as  bishop  of  Alexandria  first, 
and  then  as  vice-gcrent  of  the  archbishop  of 
Rome,  Celestine :  Juvenal  bishop  of  Jerusalem 
came  next :  Memnon  of  Ephesus  followed.  About 
160  were  there  when  they  commenced  :  198  sub¬ 
scribed. 

It  met  for  its  sixth  session,  July  22,  to  publish 
what  it  had  defined  on  doctrine.  First  it  recited 
the  Nicene  Creed;  secondly,  those  passages  from 
the  fathers  which  had  been  quoted  in  its  first 
session;  and  lastly,  its  own  definitive  sentence, 
that  no  other  profession  of  faith  but  that  of 
Nicaea  should  be  framed  or  propounded  to  any 
desirous  of  coming  over  to  the  communion  of 
the  church  from  Paganism,  Judaism,  or  any 
heresy  whatsoever.  Bishops  and  clergy  framing 
or  propounding  any  other  were  deposed,  and  lay¬ 
men  anathematised.  What  induced  the  council 
“to  define”  thi.s,  was  a  case  just  then  brought 
under  its  consideration  by  Charisius,  steward 
and  priest  of  the  church  of  Philadelphia,  shewing 
that  two  priests  who  had  come  thither  from 
Constantinople  had  been  procuring  subscriptions 
to  a  formula  purporting  to  be  the  doctrine  of 
the  church,  but  in  many  respects  heterodox. 

The  council  condemned  all  who  approved  of  it. 

At  the  seventh  and  last  session,  held  August 
31st,  on  the  petition  of  Rheginus,  bishop  of 
Constantia  in  Cyprus,  and  two  of  his  suffragans, 
complaining  of  attempts  made  by  the  bishop  of 
Antioch  to  ordain  in  their  island,  contrarv  to  the 
canons  and  established  custom,  a  no  less  stringent 
rule  was  laid  down  on  discipline ;  “  that  no 
bishop  may  act  in  any  province  which  has  not  '  of  Jerusalem  and  Caesarea  to  support  him.  St. 


always  been  subject  to  him.  .  .”  [Bishop, 
p.  234:  Diocese.]  In  most  of  the  Greek  col¬ 
lections  eight  canons  are  attributed  to  this 
council ;  but  only  seven  by  Photius  and  John 
Scholasticus,  and  none  at  all  in  the  Latin  col¬ 
lections.  Beveridge  shews  conclusively  (ii.  104) 
that  they  were  not  in  fact  published  as  separate 
canons.  The  first  six,  as  he  points  out,  form 
part  of  a  synodical  letter  addressed  by  the  council 
to  all  bishops,  presbyters,  deacons,  and  laymen, 
on  the  defection  of  John  of  Antioch,  and  were 
caused  by  it ;  being  directed  against  all  deserters 


Leo  was  likewise  summoned  from  Rome,  and  sent 
three  representative-s,  one  of  whom  Julius,  bishop 
of  Puteoli,  seems  to  have  sat  next  after  Dioscorus. 
Altogether  128  bishops  were  present,  but  several 
confessed  to  subscribing  through  others  as  being 
unable  to  write.  Eutyches  having  been  intro¬ 
duced,  made  profession  of  his  faith,  and  com¬ 
plained  of  the  treatment  he  had  received  fi’om 
Flavian  in  the  council  of  Constantinople  con¬ 
demning  him.  The  acts  of  this  council,  as  well 
as  of  the  council  held  five  months  afterwards  to 


reconsider  its  sentence,  were  read  out  next;  his 
or  despisers  of  the  council,  whether  favourers  of  |  acquittal  and  re.storation  followed.  Afterwards 
Nestorius,  or  Celestius  the  Pelagian,  and  uphold-  a  j)etition  was  received  from  some  monks  of  his 
ing  all  who  had  been  deposed  by  them.  Wliere  begging  that  his  deposer  might  be  deposed.  On 


this  letter  should  come  in  the  acts  he  omits  to 
explain.  It  is  placed  by  Mansi  without  com¬ 
ment  at  the  end  of  them  (iv.  1469-74).  Its 
proper  place  doubtless  is  at  the  end  of  the  fifth 


this  the  acts  of  the  sixth  session  of  the  third 
general  council  were  recited,  and  both  Eusebius 
of  Dorylaeum  and  Flavian  of  Constantinople 
deposed,  as  having  conti'avened  the  definition 


session,  to  the  final  proceedings  of  which  (ib.  j  respecting  the  creed  that  was  laid  down  there, 


616  EPHESUS,  HOJ.y  OIllLUllEN  OF 


EPIOOXATIOX 


V'liivi.in  who  was  present  saitl  at  once  that  he 
appealed  from  their  sentence.  Hilary,  the 
deacon  iVom  Rome,  “contradicted”  it;  others 
acce))ted  it  only  through  misapprehension,  as 
they  aflirmed  at  Chalcedon  on  recanting.  Ibas  of 
Edessa,  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  Domnus  of  Antioch, 
and  several  more,  were  similarly  dej)rived  of 
their  sees,  as  we  learn  from  Evagrius.  Liberatus 
adds  (Brev.  12)  that  great  intimidation  was 
practised  by  the  soldiers  and  monks  })resent, 
that  Eusebius  and  Flavian  were  both  given  into 
custody,  and  that  the  latter  died  of  the  injuries 
which  he  there  received  (Mansi,  vi.  503-8,  and 
then  587-93(3).  [E.  S.  Ff.j 


I 


I 

I 


EPHESUS,  the  Seven  Holy  Children  of,  or 
Seven  Sleei’ERS,  are  commemorated  Aug.  4 
(^C<d.  Byzant.').  [C.] 

EPHOPvl.  [Bishop,  p.  210.] 

EPHPHATHA.  [Ears,  Opening  of.] 

EPHRAEM,  EPHRAIM,  or  EPHREM. 

(1)  Syrus,  deacon  of  Edessa,  Holy  Father ; 
commemorated  Ter  7  =  Jan.  2  (^Cal.  Ethiop.'),  Jan. 
28  {Cal.  Byzant.),  Hamle  15  =  July  9  (Ca/. 
Ethiop.),  Feb.  1  (^Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi)  ;  depo¬ 
sition,  July  9  (J/arA  Bedae). 

(2)  Bishop  and  martyr,  A.D.  296 ;  commemo¬ 

rated  March  7  (^CaL  Byzant.)]  one  of  the  martyrs 
of  the  Chersonesus.  [W.  F.  G.] 


EPICLESIS  (  'EirlKXrjfTis  )  =  “  invocation,” 
generally  ;  but  specially  the  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  sanctify  the  elements  displayed 
on  the  Holy  Table,  occurring  in  Eastern  litur¬ 
gies  after  the  recitation  of  the  Words  of  Insti¬ 
tution. 

Tl'iO  evidence  of  Irenaeus  in  the  second,  Fir- 
milian  in  the  third,  and  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
and  Basil  in  the  fourth  century,  as  to  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  the  church  with  regal’d  to  the  Epiclesis, 
has  been  already  quoted  [C  anon  of  the  Liturgy, 

р.  269].  To  this  may  be  added  Chrysostom, 
Horn.  In  Coeineterio  (^Opp.  ii.  401,  ed.  Ben.), 
W’here  is  described  the  priest  standing  before  the 
table,  invoking  (^Ka\u>v)  the  Holy  Spirit  to  de¬ 
scend  and  touch  the  elements. 

Of  the  liturgical  forms,  we  may  take  the  Cle¬ 
mentine  {Constt.  Apostt.  viii.  12,  §  17)  as  an 
early  example.  The  priest  beseeches  God  to  send  I 
down  His  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  sacrilice,  “  that  I 
He  may  declare  [or  make]  “  (Ji,iro<pi]vy)  this  bread  i 
the  Body  of  Thy  Christ,  and  this  cup  the  Blood 
of  Thy  Christ,  in  order  tnat  they  who  partake  of 
it  may  be  confirmed  in  piety,  obtain  remission  of 
their  sins,  be  delivered  from  the  devil  and  his 
deceits,  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  made 
worthy  of  Thy  Christ,  obtain  eternal  life.  Thou 
being  reconciled  unto  them,  0  Lord  Almighty.” 
Compare  the  liturgy^  of  St.  James,  c.  32. 

The  Epiclesis  in  the  Byzantine  liturgy  (Chrys. 

с.  30;  Daniel,  Codex  Lit.  iv.  359,  360),  after 
praying  God  to  send  down  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the 
gifts  and  the  worshippers,  proceeds,  “and  make 
(Tto'niaov)  this  Bread  the  precious  Body  of  Thy 
Christ,  and  that  which  is  in  this  cup  the  precious 
Blood  of  Thy  Christ,  changing  them  (^/xiTa^aXwv) 
by  Thy  Holy  Spirit.” 


“  Neale  (Telralogia,  p.  xv.)  compares,  for  this  sense  of 
the  word,  Plato’s  Protag.  349  A.  See  also  von  Drey, 
Ueber  d’c  Constit.  Apostol,  p.  110;  and  Hefele,  Peitrdge 
zur  Archdol.  il.  56. 


.St.  Mark  (c.  17;  Dan.  iv.  162)  has:  “Send 
forth  .  .  .  Thy  Holy  .Sj>irit  u])on  us,  and  upen 
these  loaves,  and  upon  these  cups,  that  He  may 
sanctity  and  consecrate  (rcAeid’trp)  them<  as  God 
Almighty  ,  and  may  make  (iroir}(Tr))  the  bread 
the  liody  and  the  cup  the  Blood  of  the  New 
Covenaiit,  of  the  very  Lord  and  God  and  Saviour, 
our  Almighty  King,  Jesus  Christ.” 

Several  of  the  Mozarabic  J'ost  Secrefa  contain 
similar  invocations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  for  in¬ 
stance,  that  for  the  second  Sunday  after  Ej)i]>hany 
(Neale,  Eastern  Ch.,  Introd.  499)  has  the  follow¬ 
ing:  “We  thy  servants  beseech  Thee,  that  thou 
wouldest  sanctify  this  oblation  by  the  permixturc 
of  Thy  Holy  Spirit,  and  wouldest  conform  it, 
with  full  transformation,  to  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, .that  we  may  merit  to 
be  cleansed  from  the  pollution  of  our  sins  bv 
this  sacrifice,  whereby  we  know  that  we  were 
redeemed.” 

“The  Syrian  churches  post])oned  the  oblation 
until  after  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ; 
while  in  the  Jerusalem,  Alexandrian,  and  Con- 
stantinopolitan  offices  it  precedes  that  prayer.” 
(Neale,  n.s.  500.) 

The  question,  wffiether  the  consecration  is 
complete  without  the  Epiclesis,  has  been  much 
debated  in  modern  times ;  but  for  our  ])urpose  it 
is  sufficient  to  observe  that  an  Epiclesis  is  uni¬ 
versal  in  Oriental  liturgies,  and  common  in  litur¬ 
gies  influenced  by  the  East,  as  the  Mozarabic; 
while  in  liturgies  of  the  Roman  type  it  is  alto¬ 
gether  wanting.  [C.] 

EPICTETUS,  and  companions,  martyrs  at 
Rome,  A.D.  296  ;  commemorated  Aug.  22  (^Mart, 
Bom.  Vet.,  Ilieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EPIGONATION  (^i-Kiyovariov]  also  yova- 
TiQv,  viTuyovaTiov).  This  ornament,  peculiar  to 
the  Eastern  church,  consists  of  a  lozenge-shaped 
piece  of  some  stiff  material,  hanging  from  the 
girdle  on  the  right  side  as  low  as  the  knee, 
whence  its  name.  It  seems  to  have  been  at  first, 
like  the  maniple  in  the  West,  merely  a  handker¬ 
chief,  and  it  apparently  continued  in  this  form 
in  the  patriarchate  of  Antioch,  as  late  as  the 
11th  century  (Ducange,  Glossarium,  s.  v.  vnoyo- 
vanov),  and  in  the  Armenian  church  it  has 
remained  thus  to  the  present  day  (Neale.  Eastern 
Church,  Introd.  p.  311).  Wi  iters  who  delight 
in  finding  symbolical  reasons  for  the  use  or 
vestments,  have  connected  it  either  with  the 
tow'el  with  which  our  Lord  girded  Him.self,  or 
more  generally  with  the  sword  and  Christ’s 
victory  over  death  ;  in  connection  with  which 
latter  idea,  Psalm  xlv.  3,  4,  is  repeated  on 
assuming  this  ornament  {Liturgia  S.  Chryso- 
stomi ;  Goar,  ExLchologion,  pp.  59,  60).  The 
epigonation  is  properly  part  of  the  e))iscopal 
dress,  but  is  allowed  by  the  rubric  in  this  j)lace 
to  be  worn  by  other  ecclesiastics  of  a  certain 
rank  .  ...  el  ecrri  TrpwToa-vyKeWos  rys  yeyaKris 
iKKX-na-'ias  ^  &\Xos  ns  a^tSTyra.  nva 

(Goar,  1.  c.,  and  see  his  note,  p.  112  ;  cf.  also  the 
rule  as  laid  down  at  a  much  later  period  by 
Symeon  Thessalonicensis  in  the  l.)th  century, 
where  the  wearing  of  the  epigonation  by  priests 
is  spoken  of  as  granted  Kara  Scopeav  apxtepa- 
nniiV]  Marriott,  resfwrmHi  Christinvun,  p.  171). 
In  .one  form  given  by  Goar  ot  the  consecration 
of  a  bishop  in  the  Greek  church,  we  find  a 
mention  of  this  ornament  as  given  to  him  imme- 


EPILEPTICS 


diately  after  a  declaration  of  his  faith  and  the 
subsequent  benediction  by  the  presiding  bishop 
(Goar,  p.  310).  [R- 

EPILEPTICS.  The  11th  council  of  Toledo 
(a.I).  675),  after  mentioning  the  case  of  those 
possessed  with  demons  [Demoniacs],  who  are 
excluded  altogether  from  the  service  ot  the  altai’, 
speaks  separately  (c.  13)  of  the  case  ot  those  who 
sometimes  fall  to  the  earth  trom  bodily  disease, 
who  are  excluded  from  ministering  until  they  can 
show  that  they  have  passed  a  whole  year  with¬ 
out  such  attacks ;  and  desires  (c.  14)  that  per¬ 
sons  liable  to  such  attacks  should  (if  possible) 
not  be  left  alone  in  the  performance  of  divine 
offices.  These  provisions  clearly  refer  to  the 
case  of  those  who  are  afflicted  with  epilepsy  or 
(to  use  the  old  English  name)  “  falling  sick¬ 
ness.”  [C.] 

EPIMACHIUS,  martyr  at  Alexandria,  with 
Alexander  ;  commemorated  Dec.  12  (^Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  LIsuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EPIMACHUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome,  with 
Gordianus,  under  Julian  ;  commemorated  May  10 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usu- 
ardi). 

(2)  Martyr  A.D.  255 ;  commemorated  Oct.  31 
{Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EPIMANIKION.  [Maniple.] 

EPINIKION.  [Sanctus.] 

EPIPHANIUS.  (1)  Bishop,  and  martyr  in 
Africa,  with  Donatus  and  thirteen  others ;  com¬ 
memorated  April  6  {Mart.  Hieron.'),  April  7 
{2Iart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Bishop  of  Salami#  in  Cyprus,  A.D.  402  ; 
commemorated  May  12  {2[art.  Bedae,  Adonis, 
Usuardi,  Cal.  Byzant.),  June  17  (Cal.  Armen.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EPIPHANY,  FESTIVAL  OF  {y  eVt- 

(pdi/eia,  TO  eTTKpdvia,  t]  deocpdreia,  to  deocpdria; 
TO.  (pcoTa,  ^fiepa  twv  (pduTwv,  to  dyia.  (pwra  riav 
eirKpaviotiv  to  (pay apduia  : — Epiphania,  Theo- 
phania,  AppariHo,  Manifestatio,  Acceptio,  festum 
trium  regum  \magorum,  sapientum),  festum  stel- 
lae ;  dies  lnmin>im;  festum  lavacri ;  Bethphania, 
dies  nat  tlis  virtutum  Domini.  The  names  of  this 
festival  in  European  languages  are  mainly  either 
0)  as  in  the  case  of  those  of  Latin  derivation 
and  others,  mere  reproductions  of  the  Latin 
name  or  renderings  of  it;  or  (2)  refer ‘to  the 
manifestation  to  the  Magi  as  the  three  kings,  as 
the  Dutch  Drie-koningen-dag,  the  Danish  Hellig- 
tre-kongersdag,  and  an  equivalent  form  in  Bre¬ 
ton  ;  also  the  Welsh  Ystuyll,  if,  as  is  not  impro¬ 
bable,  it  is  a  corruption  of  the  Latin  Stella  ;  or 
(3)  indicate  it  as  the  final  day  of  the  Christmas 
festivity,  as  in  the  familiar  English  Twelfth-day, 
the  old  German  der  Zwelfte,  Dreizehnde,  or  the 
Swedish  Trettonde-dagen). 

1.  History  of  Festical. — It  has  already  been 
shown  in  a  previous  article  [Christmas]  that 
the  festival  of  the  Epiphany  was  originally 
viewed  in  the  Eastern  church  as  a  commemora¬ 
tion  of  o»a-  Saviour’s  manifestation  to  the  world 
in  .n  v/'.dj  sense  ;  including,  that  is.  His  Nativity, 
or  His  Toaniiestation  iu  the  flesh,  together  with 
the  manifestation  of  the  Trinity  at  His  baptism. 
In  the  Western  church,  on  the  other  hand,  so 
far  as  the  matter  can  be  traced  back,  the  Nati¬ 
vity  appears  to  have  been  always  celebrated  as 


EPIPHANY,  FESTIVAL  OF  617 

'  a  separate  festival,  and  in  their  commemoration 
of  the  Epiphany  it  is  the  manifestation  to  the 
Magi  that  is  mostly  dwelt  on :  and  further, 
Christ’s  manifestation  in  yet  another  sense  is 
associated  with  these.  His  Divine  power  and 
goodness,  as  shown  in  His  miracles;  primarily 

I  the  turning  of  water  into  wine  at  Cana  of 
Galilee,  and  sometimes  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand.  Thus  there  are,  besides  the  Nativity 
itself,  three  manifestations  commemorated,  vari¬ 
ously  dwelt  on  and  variously  combined  in  differ¬ 
ent  branches  of  the  church. 

In  the  Eastern  church  till  nearly  the  end  of 
the  4th  century,  we  find,  as  has  been  said,  a 
combined  celebration  of  Christ’s  Nativity  and 
Baptism  on  January  6.“  The  date  of  the  sever¬ 
ance  of  the  two  can  be  approximately  fixed,  for 
Chrysostom  refers  to  it  as  a  matter  of  merely  a 
few  years’  standing,  in  a  sermon  probably  de¬ 
livered  on  the  Christmas  day  of  386  A.D.  How 
far  back  we  are  to  refer  the  origin  of  this  two¬ 
fold  festival  it  is  not  easy  to  determine,  the 
earliest  mention  of  any  kind  being  the  allusion 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria  to  the  annual  com¬ 
memoration  of  Christ’s  baptism  by  the  Basili- 
dians  (Stromata,  lib.  i.  c.  21).^  At  any  rate  by 
the  latter  part  of  the  4th  century  the  Epiphany 
had  become  one  of  the  most  important  and  ven¬ 
erable  festivals  in  the  Eastern  church. 

It  may  not  unreasonably  be  assumed  that  the 
festival  of  the  Epiphany  first  took  its  rise  in  the 
east  and  then  passed  into  the  west.  This  may 
be  argued  (1)  from  the  comparatively  very  early 
date  at  which  we  find  a  trace  of  it  in  the  east; 

(2)  from  the  Greek  name  by  which  the  Western 
church  as  well  as  the  Eastern  knows  it,  while 
Christmas  is  designated  there  by  a  Latin  name  ; 

(3)  from  the  nature  of  the  earliest  allusions  to 
the  existence  of  a  festival  of  the  Epiphany  in  the 
west.  These  it  may  be  well  to  state  somewhat 
fully.*^ 

The  earliest  instance  of  all  is  the  reference  by 
Ammianus  Marcellinus  to  the  emperor  Julian’s 
visit  when  at  Vienne  in  Gaul  to  a  church,  “  feri- 
arum  die  quern  celebrantes  mense  Januario 
Christiani  Epiphania  dictitant  ”  (lib.  xxi.  c.  2); 
and  we  find  Zonaras,  apparently  alluding  to  the 
same  event,  speak  of  it  as  happening  yeve- 
0\iov  SojTTjpos  ypepas  i<pf(TTr\Kvias  {Annal.  xiii. 
11).  Now  if  it  is  remembered  that  this  took 
place  in  Gaul,  where  the  church  had  close  affinities 
with  the  east,  we  are  perhaps  not  claiming  too 
much  in  assuming  that  the  Gallican  church  at 
this  time  celebrated  Epiphany  and  Nativity  to¬ 
gether  on  January  6 ;  and  we  shall  subsequently 
find  a  confirmation  of  this  view  from  an  ex- 


»  In  a  passage  In  one  of  the  spurious  sermons  once 
wrongly  ^ascribed  to  Chrysostom  is  a  mention  of  ihe  Epi¬ 
phany  as  celebrated  on  the  13th  day  of  the  4th  month, 
K0.Ta  ' K(Tiavov^  (0pp.  vol.  vii.  App.  p.  275).  It  is  not 
stated  who  these  Asiatics  were,  but  the  explanation  of 
tlie  reckoning  may  probably  be  found  in  a  comparison 
with  tlial  given  by  Epiphanius  {Haer.  li.  24). 

b  Neander  {Church,  History,  i.  346,  trans.  Rose)  con- 
siders  it  probable  that  this  Gnostic  sect  derived  the  prac* 
lice  from  the  Judaco-Christlaii  churches  in  Palestine. 

'  Besides  the  instances  given  above,  an  early  allusion  to 
the  Epiphany  is  found  in  the  Acta  ot  Philip,  bishop  of 
Heraclea  (in  Iluinart’s  Acta  Hrimorum  Martynim),  who 
suffered  early  In  the  4th  century.  Ii  would  be  unsafe, 
however,  to  argue  from  a  passage  in  a  document  itself  of 
doubtful  data 


618  EPIPHANY,  FESTIVAL  OF 


EPIPHANY,  FESTIVAL  OF 


amination  of  the  Gallican  liturgy,  where  it  is 
rather  the  manifestation  at  the  Baptism  than 
that  to  the  Magi  that  is  dwelt  on.  Again  we 
find  a  mention  of  the  emperor  Valens,  in  the 
course  of  his  futile  attempt  to  overawe  Basil  of 
Caesarea,  entering  the  church  in  that  place  with 
a  great  train  on  the  festival  of  the  Ejdphany 
(Greg.  Naz.  Oral,  xliii.  52).  Another  early 
allusion  may  be  mentioned  :  Augustine  (Serm.  ccii. 
§  2 ;  vol.  V.  i;i28,  ed.  Gaume)  speaks  of  the 
Donatists  as  refusing  to  join  in  the  celebration 
of  the  Epiphany,  “  quia  nec  unitatem  amant, 
nec  orientali  ecclcsiae  .  .  communicant,’'  obviously 
pointing  to  an  eastern  origin  of  the  festival. 
We  may  take  this  opportunity  of  remarking  that 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  Epiphany  in  the 
Calendar  of  Bucherius,  but  in  the  Cal.  Cartha- 
ginense  we  find  xiii.  Id.  Jan.  Sanctum  Epiphania 
\Patrol.  xiii.  1227). 

On  these  grounds  we  think  it  probable  that 
while  on  the  one  hand  the  Eastern  church,  at 
first  commemorating  Nativity  and  Epiphany  as 
one  festival,  afterwards  in  compliance  with 
western,  or  perhaps,  more  strictly  speaking, 
Roman,  usage,  fixed  the  former  on  a  separate 
day  ;  so  too,  the  Western  church,  at  first  cele¬ 
brating  the  Nativity  alone,  afterwards  brought 
in  from  the  east  the  further  commemoration  of 
the  Epiphany,  but  with  the  special  reference 
somewhat  altered.  For  the  early  history  of  the 
Epiphany  in  the  Eastern  church,  and  the  gradual 
severance  from  it  of  the  Nativity,  we  must  again 
refer  to  the  discussion  ah’eady  given  [Christ¬ 
mas],  and  it  may  now  be  desirable  briefly  to 
review  further  historical  notices,  arranging  them 
according  to  the  special  manifestation  of  Christ 
to  which  they  mainly  refer. 

a.  Ilanifcstation  at  the  Baptism. — This  mani¬ 
festation  of  our  Saviour  as  Messiah  and  as  God  is 
the  prevailing  idea  dwelt  upon  throughout  the 
Eastern  church,  though  in  the  Western  church 
as  a  rule  this  commemoration  has  been  quite 
secondary  to  the  manifestation  to  the  Magi. 
References  are  continually  met  with  in  the  writ¬ 
ings  of  Chrysostom  and  .others  of  and  after  his 
time  to  this  idea  of  the  festival.  Thus  Chry¬ 
sostom,  in  a  homily  apparently  delivered  on 
December  20,  386  A.D.,  and  therefore  after  the 
western  plan  of  celebrating  Christmas  separately 
had  been  introduced,  speaks  of  the  Nativity  as 
in  a  certain  sense  the  parent  of  all  the  other 
great  festivals,  for,  to  take  the  case  of  the  Epi¬ 
phany,  had  He  not  been  born — ovk  Uv 
OTTcp  kcrr\  TO.  6eo<pdvia  (^Hom.  6  in  B.  Philv- 
gonium,  c.  3 ;  i.  497,  ed.  Montfaucon).  So  also 
in  a  homily  probably  delivered  on  the  following 
Epiphany,  387  A.D.  (Horn,  de  Baptismo  Christi, 
c.  2 ;  ii.  369).  In  another  place  (^Hom.  de  Sancta 
Pentecoste,  c.  1 ;  ii.  458)  he  says,  toIvvv  Trap’ 
f)ixiv  eopTT]  -jrpwTr)  (i.  e.  in  the  order  of  the  year) 
Ta  'Eiri(f>dyia,  where  Montfaucon  {Monitum  in 
Hom.)  gives  the  probable  explanation  that  Chry- 
.sostom  is  speaking  according  to  the  old  fiishioned 
Avay.  Reference  may  also  be  made  to  an  oration 
of  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  spoken  apparently  on 
the  Epiphany  of  381  a.d.  (Oratio  39  in  Sancta 
Lumina,  c.  1 ;  i.  677,  ed.  Bened.),  and  to  one  of 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  {Orat.  in  Bapt.  Christi,  iii.  577  ; 
ed.  Migne). 

From  this  view  of  the  Epiphany  it  naturally 
became  one  of  the  three  great  seasons  for  bap¬ 
tism,  and  on  this  day  was  the  solemn  consecra¬ 


tion  of  water  for  the  rite  {infra').  Hence  the 
origin  of  the  names  for  the  day,  rd  (pSira,  nptpa 
Twv  (pdoTOJu,  referring  to  the  spiritual  illumina¬ 
tion  of  bapti.srn.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  to 
explain  the  name  by  a  reference  to  the  free  em¬ 
ployment  of  lighted  candles  in  i_e  solemnities  of 
the  day  in  the  Greek  church,  is  a  simple  inver¬ 
sion  of  cause  and  effect.  For  the  strange  mis¬ 
take  of  some  writers  who  lun^e  sujqiosed  that 
“the  day  of  lights”  is  to  be  interpreted  of 
Candlemas  day,  see  Suicer’s  Thesaurus  {s.  v 
<pws,  §  12)  and  Bingham’s  Antiquities  (xx.  4,  7). 

In  the  west  also,  this  manifestation  of  Christ, 
though  not  the  one  most  dwelt  on,  is  still  oc¬ 
casionally  referred  to,  as  by  Maximus  Taurinensis 
{Horn.  22,  23,  29,  32,  33,  &c.,  where  see  the  pre¬ 
fatory  remarks  in  the  Roman  edition),  and  Jerome, 
“quintam  autem  diem  mensis  adjungit,  ut  sig- 
nificet  baptisma,  in  quo  aperti  sunt  Christo  caeli, 
et  Epiphaniorum  dies  hucusque  venerabilis  est, 
non  ut  quidam  putaut,  Natalis  in  came,  tunc 
enim  absconditus  est  et  non  apparuit  ”  {Horn, 
in  Ezech.,  lib.  i.  c.  1,  v.  3;  v.  6,  ed.  Vallarsi). 
To  the  allusions  in  the  Gallican  liturgy  already 
mentioned  we  shall  again  refer,  and  it  will  be 
remembered  that  our  own  church  makes  the 
Baptism  of  our  Lord  the  subject  for  the  second 
lesson  on  the  evening  of  the  Epiphany. 

Furthei’,  the  association  of  this  dav  with  the 
administration  of  baptism  occurred  also  in  the 
west,  for  we  find  Himerius,  a  bishop  of  Tarraco, 
in  Spain,  complaining  to  pope  Damasus  (ob.  384 
A.D.)  of  the  practice  of  baptizing  on  the  Epi¬ 
phany  ;  and  the  latter  having  died,  his  successor, 
Siricius  (ob.  389  a.d.),  enters  his  prohibition 
against  it  and  restricts  baptism  as  a  rule  to 
Easter  and  Pentecost  {Epist.  i.  ad  Ilimerium 
Tarraconensern  Episcopmn,  c.  2 ;  Patrol,  xiii. 
1134);  and  somewhat  later,  Leo  I.  speaks  of  it 
as  “  irrationabilis  novitas  ”  {Epist,  16,  ad  SicHiae 
episcopos,  c.  1 ;  i.  715,  ed.  Ballerini).  The  same 
prohibition  was  laid  down  at  a  still  later  period 
(517  A.D.)  by  the  Spanish  council  of  Gerunda 
(can.  4 ;  Labbe  iv.  1568).  See  also  Codex 
vcterum  can.  Eccl.  Eispanae,  lib.  iv.,  tit.  26  in 
Cajetan  Cenni’s  De  antiqua  Eccl.  Ilisp.  i.,  xcviii., 
where  reference  is  made  to  Leo’s  injunctions. 
Further,  Victor  Vitensis  alludes  to  this  as  the 
practice  in  the  African  church  {de  persecutvmc 
VandaHca,  lib.  ii.  c.  17  ;  Patrol.  Iviii.  216).  Se^i 
also  Pamelius’s  note  to  Tertulliau  de  Baptismo, 
c.  19. 

j8.  Manifestation  to  the  Magi. — It  has  been  on 
this  idea  that  the  Western  church  has  specially 
dwelt,  with  the  exceptions  mentioned  above  ;  but 
even  in  these,  save  perhaps  in  the  Gallican 
liturgy,  the  manifestations  at  the  Baptism  and 
at  Cana  of  Galilee  are  brought  in  as  subsidiary 
to  the  main  topic.  Hence  has  arisen  one  com¬ 
mon  western  name  for  the  day,  fcstiim  tnum 
regum,  in  accordance  with  the  legend  by  which 
the  wise  Magi  of  the  east  became  exalted  into 
kings  and  their  number  restricted  to  three.  We 
shall  speak  briefly  hereafter  of  the  origin  and 
growth  of  this  wide-spread  legend  (below,  §  3). 
We  have  numerous  homilies  of  the  Latin  fathers, 
dwelling  mainly,  or  exclusively  (as  e.  g.  eight  by 
Leo  I.),  on  this  aspect  of  the  day. 

7.  Manifestatim  at  the  Marriage  in  Cana  of 
Galilee. — The  manifestation  of  Christ’s  Divine 
power  by  His  first  miracle  of  turning  the  watei 
into  wine  is  not  unfrequently  dwelt  on  in  docu- 


EPIPHANY,  FESTIVAL  OF 

nients  of  the  Western  church.  Thus  Maximus 
Taurinensis,  to  whom  we  have  already  referred, 
associates  tliis  with  the  two  previous  manifesta¬ 
tions.  See  e.  g.  Horn.  29,  “  ferunt  enim  hodie 
Christum  Dominum  nostrum  vel  stella  duce  a 
gentibus  adoratum,  vel  invitatum  ad  nuptias 
aquas  in  vino  vertisse,  vel  suscepto  a  Joanne 
baptismate  consecrasse  fluenta  Jordanis.”  Hence 
he  speaks  of  the  day  as  virtulum  {Domini)  natalis. 
From  this  cause  comes  the  later  name  Bethphania 
(see  Ducange,  s.  v.).  Cf.  also  Gregory  of  Tours 
{de  miracnlis  S.  3Iartin{,  ii.  26). 

We  find  in  the  Eastern  church  too  traces  of 
an  association  of  the  miracle  at  Cana  with  this 
season,  for  Epiphanius  {Haeresis  li.  c.  30 ;  i. 
451,  ed.  Petavius)  speaks  of  it  as  happening 
about  Tybi  11  (  =  Jan.  6),  and  adds,  doubtlessly 
in  perfect  good  faith,  that  sundry  fountains  and 
rivers  (e.g.  the  Nile)  were  changed  into  wine  on 
the  anniversary  of  the  miracle. 

5.  Ilanifeskdion  at  the  Feeding  of  the  Five 
Thousand. — Less  frequently  met  with  than  any  of 
the  preceding  is  the  commemoration  of  the  above 
act  of  miraculous  feeding,  which  may  be  speci¬ 
ally  associated  with  the  one  preceding.  Under 
this  point  of  view  the  day  was  known  as  (payi- 
(pdvia.  We  have  mentioned  below  a  reference 
to  this  in  the  Gallican  use. 

The  first  three  of  these  manifestations  are  all 
referred  to  by  Isidore  of  Seville  (de  off.  eccl.  ii. 
26),  and  the  Ordo  Romanus  also  adds  the  fourth. 
We  may  also  mention  here  a  passage  in  a  sermon 
once  attributed  to  Augustine,  but  palpably  not 
his,  in  which  all  the  four  manifestations  are 
alluded  to  {Serm.  136  in  Append.;  v.  2702,  ed. 
Gaume). 

For  the  special  association  of  the  festival  of 
the  Innocents  with  that  of  the  Epiphany  refer¬ 
ence  may  be  made  to  the  article  on  the  former. 

Before  we  proceed  to  speak  briefly  of  the 
various  liturgical  forms  for  this  day,  we  may  re¬ 
mark  that  it  was  usual  to  give  notice  on  the 
Epiphany  of  the  day  on  which  the  Easter  of  the 
ensuing  year  would  fall.  Letters  were  sent  about 
this  time  by  metropolitans  to  their  provincial 
bishops  {e/'istolue  Raschales,  heortasticae),  in 
which  at  the  end  of  a  discourse  of  a  more  general 
kind  was  given  the  requisite  information.  An 
allusion  to  the  existence  of  this  practice  in  Egypt 
is  found  in  Cassian,  “  Intra  Aegypti  regionem 
mos  iste  antiqua  traditione  servatur,  ut  peracto 
Epiphaniorum  die  .  .  .  epistolae  pontificis  Alex- 
andrini  per  universas  dirigantur  ecclesias,  qui- 
bus  initium  Quadragesimae  et  dies  Paschae  .  .  . 
significentur  ”  (Co/l.  x.  2  ;  Patrol,  xlix.  820). 
Instances  of  such  letters  are  those  by  Dionysius 
of  Alexandria  (referred  to  by  Eusebius,  Hist. 
Eccles.  vii.  20),  Athanasius  (fragments  of  whose 
once  numerous  series  were  first  brought  to  light 
in  a  Syriac  version  by  Mai,  Nova  Bibliotheca 
Patrum,  vi.  1-168),  Theophilus  of  Alexandria 
(three  of  which  were  translated  into  Latin  by 
Jerome,  and  are  included  among  his  works,  Epp. 
96,  98,  100,  ed.  Migne),  and  Cyril,  no  less  than 
thirty  of  whose  are  .still  extant  (vol.  v.  part  2, 
ed.  Aubert);  and  besides  these  purely  Egyptian 
examples  may  be  further  cited  those  of  Innocent  I. 
{Ep.  14  de  ratione  Paschali ;  Patrol,  xx.  517), 
and  Leo  1.  {Ep.  138  ad  epucopos  Gall,  et  Hi<pan. 
i.  1283,  ed.  Ballerini).  We  find  traces  of  the 
custom  as  existing  in  Spain,  but  there  the  notice 
was  to  be  giv’en  on  Christmas  day,  according  to 


EPirHANY,  FESTIVAL  OF  G19 

the  third  council  of  Braga,  578  A.D.  {Conc.Bracar. 
iii.  can.  9  ;  Labbe  v.  898). 

This  duty  is  insisted  on  by  several  early  coun¬ 
cils  (e.  g.  Cone.  Arelat.  i.  can.  1  ;  Cone.  Carth. 
iii.  cann.  1,  41 ;  Cone.  Carth.  v.  can.  7 ;  Labbe, 
i.  1427  ;  ii.  1167,  1173,  1216),  and  we  cite  espe¬ 
cially  the  fourth  council  of  Orleans  (541  A.D.), 
which  after  enjoining  that  Easter  is  to  be  kept 
uniformly  according  to  the  Paschal  table  of  VTc- 
torius,  adds  “quae  festivitas  annis  singulis  ab 
episcopo  Epiphaniorum  die  in  ecclesia  poj)ulis 
deuuntietur  ”  {Cone.  Aurel.  iv.  can.  1  ;  Labbe, 
V.  381.  See  also  Cone.  Antissiod.  [578  A.D.], 
can.  2,  op.  cit.  957).  The  form  of  the  announce- 
ment  as  given  in  the  Ambrosian  liturgy,  under 
the  Epiphany,  runs  thus :  “  Noverit  charitas 
vestra,  fratres  charissimi,  quod  annuente  Dei  et 
Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  misericordia,  die  tali 
mensis  tails  Pascha  Domini  celebrabimus  ”  (Pam- 
elius,  Litnrgg.  Liit.  ii.  314), 

2.  Liturgical  Notices. — It  need  hardly  be  said 
that  the  festival  of  the  Epiphany  is  recognised  in 
some  form  or  other  in  all  liturgies  both  of  the 
vvest  and  the  east.  The  earliest  form  of  the 
Roman  liturgy,  the  Leonine,  is  defective  for  this 
part  of  the  year,  but  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
a  service  for  the  Epiphany  entered  into  it ;  the 
more  so  that  no  less  than  eight  homilies  for  this 
festival  are  found  in  the  works  of  Leo.  In  the 
next  form,  the  Gelasian,  we  find  a  mass  both  for 
the  festival  of  the  Epiphany  itself,  and  for  the 
vigil.  Throughout  the  service  for  both  days 
the  only  Manifestation  of  our  Lord  referred  to  is 
that  to  the  Magi  {Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1062). 

In  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  we  find  the 
further  addition  of  a  form  for  the  Octave,  though 
it  should  be  added  that  both  this  and  that  for 
the  vigil  are  wanting  in  some  MSS.,  as  the  Codex 
Rodradi  (Greg.  Sac.  15),  and  the  same  remark 
is  true  for  the  Liber  Antiphonarius  {ib.  660). 
In  this  last-named  book  the  seventy-second  psalm 
is  largely  used,  and  very  probably  the  poetic 
imagery  of  this  psalm  suggested  the  special  form 
of  the  legend  of  the  festwn  trium  regum  (Ps. 
Ixxii.  10).  In  this  Sacramentary  also,  from 
which,  it  may  be  remarked,  the  collect  for  the 
day  in  our  own  prayer-book  is  derived,  the  re¬ 
ference  is  solely  to  the  manifestation  to  the  Magi ; 
except  in  the  solemn  eucharistic  benediction, 
where  a  mention  of  the  manifestation  both  at 
the  baptism  and  at  the  marriage  in  Cana  of 
Galilee  is  added,  “  .  .  .  .  qui  super  Unigenitum 
suum  Spiritum  Sanctum  demonstrare  voluit  per 
columbam,  eaque  virtute  mentes  vestrae  exer- 
ceantur  ad  intelligeuda  divinae  Legis  arcana, 
qua  in  Cana  Galilaeae  lympha  est  in  vinum  con- 
versa  ”  {ib.  16),  and  see  also  the  Liber  Respon- 
s  'lis  {ib.  751).  The  Ordo  Romanus  prescribes 
three  lections  for  the  vigil  from  the  prophet 
Isaiah  (Iv.,  lx.,  Ixi.  10-lxiv.  4),  as  well  as  some 
homilie-s. 

The  Ambrosian  liturgy  contains  forms  for  the 
vigil  and  the  festival ;  the  manifestation  to  the 
Magi  is  the  only  one  dwelt  on,  except  in  the 
prefaces  for  the  two  days,  in  the  former  of  which 
the  three  manifestations  are  alluded  to,  and  the 
latter  of  which  refers  .solely  to  the  baptism, 
mentioning  also  the  solemn  consecration  of  the 
water  ;  “  susceperunt  hodie  fontes  benedictionem 
tuam  et  abstulerunt  maledictionem  nostram  ” 
{Missa  Ambros.  in  Pamelius’  Lilurgg.  Latt.  i. 
315). 


C20  EriPIIANY,  FESTIVAL  OF 

We  may  refer  next  to  the  liturgies  of  the  old  | 
Galilean  church,  and  here  as  before  we  find  a  I 
recognition  of  the  festival  and  its  vigil.  In  the 
ancient  Icctionary  ))ublished  by  Mabillon  (dc  [ 
Liturgia  Gallicuna,  lib.  ii.  pp.  116,  117),  the  | 
lection  for  the  vigil  introduces  the  reference  to 
the  Magi,  while  on  the  day  itself  the  jirophetical 
lection,  the  e]tistle,  and  the  gospel,  are  resjiec- 
tively  Isaiah  lx.-  1—16;  Titus  i.  11-ii.  7;  Matt, 
iii.  13-17  ;  Luke  ili.  23;  John  ii.  1-11,  where  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  gospel  is  compounded  of 
passages  from  three  of  the  evangelists  (as  on 
Good  Friday  it  is  compounded  of  all  the  four), 
dwelling  on  the  baj)tism  and  the  miracle  at 
Cana  of  Galilee.  In  the  so-called  Gothico-Gallic 
Missal,  we  first  meet  with  a  number  of  different 
prefaces  and  collects  for  the  vigil  in  which  all 
the  three  manifestations  are  referred  to,  but  that 
to  the  Magi  most  frequently,  and  also  the  mani- 
fiistation  of  the  Divine  power  in  the  miraculous 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand  (lib.  iii.  pp.  207  sqq.). 
In  the  actual  masses  given  for  the  vigil  and  the 
festival,  we  find  that  in  the  case  of  the  former 
the  baptism  is  referred  to  in  the  preface  and  the 
collect,  the  miracle  of  Cana  in  the  preface,  and 
the  manifestation  to  the  Magi  in  the  collectio  ad 
pacem,  while  the  benediction,  as  in  the  Gregorian 
Sacramentary,  embraces  all  three.  In  the  latter, 
the  baptism  forms  the  special  subject  of  the 
collectio  ad  pacem  and  the  contestation  the  miracle 
of  Cana  that  of  the  collectio  post  nomina,  and  the 
manifestation  to  the  Magi  that  of  two  other 
prayers ;  while  in  the  benediction,  besides  the 
manifestation  at  the  baptism  and  at  Cana,  that 
at  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  is  also  re¬ 
ferred  to.  The  same  blending  of  references 
characterizes  also  the  Gallican  Sacrameutary 
edited  by  Muratori  (/bf^ro/.  Ixxii.  471). 

We  pass  on  next  to  the  Mozarabic  or  Spanish 
IMissal.  Here,  as  well  as  in  the  Breviary,  we 
find  a  mention  first  of  a  Sunday  before  Epiphany, 
and  next  comes  a  mass  “  in  jejunio  Epiphaniae,” 
that  is  a  fast  for  January  3-5,  a  relic  doubtless 
of  the  earlier  state  of  things  when  the  subse¬ 
quent  festival  of  the  Circumcision  was  observed 
as  a  fast.**  [Circumcision.] 

For  the  Sunday  referred  to,  the  prophetical 
lection,  epistle,  and  gospel  are  respectively  Isaiah 
xlix.  1-7,  Heb.  vi.  13-vii.  3,  John  i.  1-18;  and 
for  the  following  fast  are  Ecclesiasticus  iv.  23-34, 
Numbers  xxiv.-x'xvi.  with  omissions,  1  Cor.  xv. 
33-50,  John  i.  18-34  (p.  58,  ed.  Leslie). 

The  mass  for  the  festival  itself  is  headed  In 
Apparitvme  seu  Epipliania  Domini  nostri  Jesu 
Christi,  the  title  in  the  Breviary  being  In  fesio 
Apparitionis  Domini.  The  prophetical  lection, 
epistle,  and  gospel  are  Isaiah  lx.  1-20  (with 
omissions),  Galatians  iii.  27-iv.  7,  Matt.  ii.  In 
the  prayers,  &c.,  there  are  passing  allusions  to 
the  baptism  (as  in  the  Officium,  Rom.  vi.  3)  and 
the  miracle  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  but,  as  in  the 
various  Roman  liturgies,  it  is  the  manifestation 
to  the  Magi  that  is  mainly  referred  to.  In  one 
passage  of  the  mass  (p.  63),  as  well  as  in  the 
Breviary,  is  an  allusion  to  a  name  of  the  festival 
evidently  in  use  among  the  Visigoths  in  Spain, 


d  For  an  earlier  allusion  to  the  festival  of  Epiphany  in 
the  Spanish  church  reference  may  be  made  to  a  canon  of 
a  council  of  Saragossa  (381  a.d.)  evidently  aimed  at  the 
Prlscillianist  practice  of  fasting  at  the  Lord's  Nativity 
(Concil,  Gaes.  Aug.  can.  4,  Labbe  ji.  1010), 


EriPIIANY,  FESTIVAL  OF 

acceptio,  an  obvious  reference  to  Christ’s  accept¬ 
ance  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  Gentiles.  We  may 
take  this  opportunity  of  remarking  that  in  Spain 
the  Visigoth  law  enjoined  a  total  cessation  of 
legal  business  on  this  festival  {Codex  lej.  BVst- 
goth.  lib.  ii.  tit.  1,  lex  11  ;  lib.  xii.  tit.  3,  lex  6  : 
in  Ilispania  Illustrata,  iii.  863,  1004;  ed.  Frank¬ 
fort,  1606.  See  also  Cod.  .Justin,  lib.  iii.  tit.  12, 
lex  7),  and  the  Code  of  Theodosius  forbade  the 
public  games  on  this  day  {Cod.  Tneodos.  lib.  xv. 
tit.  5,  lex  5  [where  there  is  an  allusion  to  Christ’s 
baptism],  v.  353,  ed.  Gothofredus,  whose  note  see 
in  loc.).  It  may  be  added  that  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions  (viii.  33)  enjoins  uj)on  masters  the 
duty  of  giving  their  servants  rest  on  the  Epi¬ 
phany,  in  memory  of  the  great  events  comme¬ 
morated.  For  additional  remarks  as  to  the  vigil 
of  the  Epiphany,  reference  may  be  made  to  those 
on  the  vigil  of  the  Nativity.  [Christmas.] 

The  practice  of  the  Greek  church  of  making 
the  Epiphany  one  of  the  solemn  seasons  for  bap¬ 
tism  and  of  the  holding  a  special  consecration  of 
the  water  has  been  already  referred  to.  The 
prophetical  lection,  epistle,  and  go.spel  for  this 
latter  rite  are  respectively  Isaiah  xxxv.,  Iv.,  xii. 
3-6  ;  1  Cor.  x.  1-4,  Mark  i.  9-1 1  (Goar,  Eucho- 
logion,  pp.  453  sqq.,  and  see  his  remarks,  p.  467)  ; 
the  epistle  and  gospel  at  the  liturgy  are  respec¬ 
tively  Titus  ii.  11-14,  iii.  4—7,  and  Matt.  iii. 
13-17. 

We  find  this  practice  of  consecrating  the  water, 
which  was  done  at  night,  alluded  to  by  Chry¬ 
sostom  {supra.,  ii.  369),  who  s])eaks  of  people 
takinof  home  with  them  some  of  the  consecrated 
water,  and  of  their  finding  it  to  keep  good  for  a 
year,  or  even  three  years.  This  nocturnal  cere¬ 
mony  of  consecrating  the  water  is  referred  by 
Theodorus  Lector  to  Peter  Gnapheus,  who  ap¬ 
pointed  itrl  Twv  vddrccu  iv  ro7s  deo(pavLOis 
iv  rg  iairepa  y'lveadai  (lib.  ii.  p.  566;  ed.  \a- 
lesius ;  and  see  also  Cedrenus,  Hist.  Comp.  i.  530, 
ed.  Bekker ;  and  Nicephorus  Callist.,  Hist.  Ecclcs. 
XV.  28 ;  ii.  634,  ed.  Ducaeus).  It  is  however 
justly  remarked  by  Valesius  {not.  in  loc.  p.  169) 
and  Goar  {Euchologion,  p.  467),  that  since  we 
find  Chrysostom  at  an  earlier  period  alluding  to 
this  practice  as  a  familiar  one,  all  that  Peter 
Gnapheus  can  have  done  must  have  been  to 
transfer  the  consecration  from  midnight  to  even¬ 
ing.  (For  remarks  on  the  ceremony  at  a  later 
period,  see  Georgius  Codinus,  de  off.  c.  viii.  [cf. 
c.  vi.],  and  refer  to  Gretser’s  and  Goar’s  observa¬ 
tions,  pp.  303  sqq.  ed.  Bekker.  See  also  Neale, 
Easteryi  Church,  Introd.  p.  754,  for  remarks  as  to 
the  superstitious  ideas  connected  with  this  water 
in  Russia  at  the  present  day.) 

Gregory  of  Tours  mentions  that  on  this  day 
those  who  lived  near  the  Jordan  bathed  in  the 
river  in  memory  of  Christ’s  baptism  and  of  their 
cleansing  through  him  {De  gloria  martymm,  i. 
88). 

Two  miscellaneous  notices  may  be  added  here 
as  illustrative  of  the  ideas  with  which  the  fes¬ 
tival  was  viewed.  Chrysostom  censures  those 
who  communicating  on  the  Epiphany  did  so  be¬ 
cause  it  was  the  custom  rather  than  after  due 
reflection  {Horn.  iii.  in  Eph. ;  xi.  25,  ed.  Gaume); 
and  we  learn  from  a  decree  of  Gelasius  that  the 
dedication  of  virgins  took  place  especially  on  this'; 
day  {Epist.  9  ad  episc.  Lucaniae,  c.  12;  Patrol, 
lix.  52). 

3.  Legend  of  the  Three  Kings. — We  have  al- 


EPIPHANY,  FESTIVAL  OF 


EPISTLE 


621 


ready  alluded  in  passinor  to  the  title  of festiim  tri- 
uin  regum  given  in  the  Western  church  to  the  fes¬ 
tival  of  the  Epiphany,  viewed  as  a  commemora¬ 
tion  of  the  visit  of  the  three  Magi  to  the  infant 
Saviour.  Whence  then  has  tradition  invested 
them  with  royalty,  and  why  has  their  number 
been  fixed  as  three  ?  The  idea  that  the  Magi 
were  kings,  probably  first  suggested  by  an  arbi¬ 
tral-)'  interpretation  of  Psalm  Ixxii.  10  and  simi¬ 
lar  passages,  was  early  believed  in.  Thus  Ter- 
ttillian,  after  alluding  to  the  above-mentioned 
psalm,  adds :  “  Nam  et  Magos  reges  fere  habuit 
Oriens  ”  {adv.  Judaeos,  c.  9),  though  curiously 
enough  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  the  Infancy, 
which  gives  a  somewhat  lengthy  account  of 
the  visit  of  the  Magi,  is  silent  as  to  this  point. 
The  number  three  is  not  improbably  due  to  the 
number  of  the  recorded  gifts,  though  early  pa¬ 
tristic  writers  have  thought  it  to  symbolise 
other  special  reasons.  Thus  some  believed  that 
under  this  number  was  implied  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  others  saw  in  it  an  allusion  to 
the  threefold  division  of  the  human  race,  an  idea 
which  is  also  referred  to  in  sundry  early  repre¬ 
sentations  of  the  Magi.  See  e.g.  Bede’s  Collec¬ 
tanea,  if  indeed  the  work  is  really  his,  where 
this  point  seems  referred  to  (Patrol,  xciv.  541). 
Not  only  did  early  tradition  fix  the  number  of 
the  Magi,  but  it  also  assigned  them  names. 
These  are  variously  giA'en,  but  the  generally  re¬ 
ceived  forms  are  Caspar,  Melchior,  Baltazar, 
which  are  apparently  first  met  with  in  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  Bede  referred  to  above.  These  names 
point,  Mr.  King  thinks,  to  a  Mithraic  origin,  from 
the  apparent  reference  in  their  etymology  to  the 
sun  (Gnostics  arid  their  Ilemains,  pp.  50,  133). 

Merely  to  fix  the  names,  however,  was  not 

sufficient,  and  accordingly  we  find  that  bodies, 

firmly  believed  at  the  time  to  be  those  of  the 
1/  _ 

Magi,  were  brought  by  the  empress  Helena  to 
Constantinople,  where  they  were  received  with 
great  honours.  These  remains  were  subsequently 
transferred  to  Milan  through  the  influence  of 
Eustorgius,  bishop  of  that  see;  and  in  1162  a.d. 
they  were  again  removed  by  the  emperor  Fre¬ 
derick  Barbarossa  to  Cologne,  where  they  still 
remain,  and  hence  has  arisen  the  appellation  by 
which  they  are  so  commonly  known,  the  Three 
Kings  of  Cologne.  A  further  discu-ssion  of  this 
legend  is  beyond  our  present  scope,  and  reference 
may  be  made  to  the  ‘Bible  Dictionary,’  s.v. 
Magi,  and  besides  the  authorities  there  men¬ 
tioned,  a  vast  mass  of  information  on  the  whole 
subject  may  be  found  in  Crombach’s  Priirdtiae 
Gentium  sen  Historia  SS.  trium  regum  magorum. 
Colon.  Agr.  1654. 

4.  Literature. — Reference  has  been  made  to 
Martene,  de  Antiguis  Ecdesiie  Eitibus,  iii.  42  sqq., 
ed.  Venice,  1783;  Bingham’s  Antiquities  of  the 
Christian  Church,  bk.  xx,  ch.  4  ;  Binterim,  Denh- 
uiirdigheiten  der  Christ-Kutholischen  Kirche,  v. 
pt.  1,  pp.  310  sqq. ;  Guericke’s  Antiquities  of 
the  Church,  pp.  163  sqq.  (Eng.  Trans.);  Suicer’s 
Thesaums,  s.  v.  'Emipdreia,  &c.  ;  Ducange’s  Glos- 
saria ;  besides  other  authorities  cited  in  the 
article.  The  following  may  also  be  consulted  : 
Kindler,  De  Epiph  iniis,  Vitebergae,  1684 ; 
Hebenstreit,  De  Epiphanix  et  Kjdphaniis  ajjud 
Gentiles  ct  Christian/js,  Jenae,  1693;  Blumen- 
bach,  Antuiuit'ites  Epiphaniorurn,  Lipsiae,  1737 
(also  in  Volbeding,  Thesaurus,  i.  1,  Lipsiae, 
1846,  uum.  10);  Wernsdorf,  T«  'EnKpcivia  ^  e- 


temm,  ad  illustramlum  Hgmnnm :  Was  furchst 
du  Feind  Herodes  sehr.  Vitebergat',  1759. 

[R.  S.] 

EPIPODIUS,  martyr  at  Lyons  under  Anto¬ 
ninus  and  Verus ;  commemorated  April  22 
(Mart,  llieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

EPISCOPA,  the  wife  of  a  bishop.  The 
second  council  of  Tours  (c.  13)  expressly  forbids 
a  bishop  who  has  no  wife  (episcopam)  to  sur¬ 
round  himself  with  a  set  of  women.  [C,] 

EPISCOPALIA,  the  ring  and  pastoral  .stall’, 
the  distinctive  marks  of  the  authority  of  a 
bishop.  Thus  Gerbod  is  said  (Capitul.  Franco- 
furt.  A.D.  794,  c.  8)  to  haA'e  received  his  Episco- 
pxlia  from  Maguard  his  metropolitan  (Ducange, 
s.  V.).  .  [C.] 

EPISCOPATE.  [Bishop.] 

EPISCOPI  CARDINALES.  [Cardinal.] 

EPISCOPI  SUFFRAGANEI,  YACAN- 
TES.  [Bishop,  ji.  240.] 

EPISCOPUS  EPISCOPORUM.  [Bishop, 

p.  210.] 

EPISTEME,  martyr,  with  Galaction,  a.d. 
285 ;  commemorated  Nov.  5  (Cal.  Bnzant.f 

[\V.  F.  G.] 

EPISTLE.  Lections  from  Holy  Scripture 
form  part  of  every  known  liturgy.  These  lec¬ 
tions,  as  we  learn  from  Justin  Martyr,  were 
originally  taken  from  the  Old  as  well  as  from 
the  New  Testament.  The  Apostolical  Constitu¬ 
tions  speak  of  “the  reading  of  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  and  of  the  Epistles,  and  Acts  and 
Gospels”  (Ap.  Const,  viii.  5;  ii.  57).  Tertullian 
mentions  that  the  African  church  united  the 
reading  of  the  Law  and  the  Projihets  with  that 
of  the  writings  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles 
(De  Praescript.  36).  St.  Augustine  repeatedly 
refers  to  the  first  of  the  lections  being  taken 
from  the  Prophets :  “  primam  lectionem  Isaiae 
prophetae  ”  (Serm.  45,  ed.  Bened.  vol.  a'.  p.  218), 
“  lectio  prima  prophetica  ”  (Serm.  47,  a*.  268), 
though,  as  Ave  shall  see,  this  was  not  uniA'ei’sally 
the  case.  In  comparatiA'ely  early  times  the  Old 
Testament  lection  in  many  places  dropt  out  of 
u.se  on  ordinary  occasions,  and  the  first  Scripture 
lection  in  the  litui-gy  aauas  that  generally  knoAvn 
as  the  Epistle.  The  most  ancient  designation 
Avas  the  Apostle,  the  lections  being  almost  uni- 
A'er.sally  taken  from  the  Avritings  of  St.  Paul. 
Thus  Ave  find,  Apostolum  audivimus,  Psalmum 
audivimus,  EA'angelium  audivimus  ”  (Aug.  .Smu. 
de  Verb.  Apost.  176,  a'oI.  v.  p.  79()),  ‘"sequitur 
apostolus”  (Sacram.  Gregor.  Menard,  p.  2); 
avayiucnaKerai  airSaroAos  (Litnrg.  Chrgs.)  ;  “  in 
quibusdam  Hispaniarum  ecclesiis  laudes  post 
aptostolum  decantantur  ”  (Co/i'uV.  Tolct.  iA'.,  a.d. 
633,  can.  xii. ;  Labbe  v.  1700);  “Statim  post 
Apostolum  id  est  post  Epistolam  ”  (Hincmar, 
Opusc.  vii.  vol.  il.  p.  149)  ;  KaTerreiyfi/  .... 
xpaKr^piov  8i8d^ai  p.e  Ka\  rhu  dn6(rTo\ou 
(Cyrill.  Scythop.  Vit.  S.  Sal'ae). 

In  all  ancient  Sacramentaries  of  the  Western 
church  the  Epistle  succeeds  the  Collkct.  This 
is  not  the  case  in  the  Eastern  liturgies.  In  the 
liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom  Ave  find  a  Proklaik- 
'SOS  (^npoKeipfvovj  or  short  anthem  preceding  the 
Epistle  as  its  epitome,  consisting  of  a  ver.se  and 
response,  generally,  but  not  alway.s,  taken  from 


G22 


EPISTLE 


ERA 


the  Psalms.  Before  the  epistle  the  deacon  im¬ 
posed  silence  attoidairius),  “  not,” 

observes  St.  Chrysostom,  “as  doing  honour  to* 
the  reader  but  to  Him  who  speaks  to  all  through 
Him,”  llomil.  III.,  i.  2  Thess.  After  the  Epistle  is 
read,  the  ])riest  says,  “  Peace  be  to  thee,”  which  is 
technically  called  elpr^pevnv  (Tri(rTo\r]v.  In¬ 
stead  of  this  “Thanks  be  to  God”  follows  in 
the  Mozarabic  liturgy.  In  the  Western  church 
the  anthem  epitomizing  the  Epistle,  taken 
from  the  Psalms,  followed  instead  of  preceding 
It.  From  being  sung  on  the  steps  of  the 
ambo,  it  was  called  the  Gradual  [Alleluia  : 
Gradual].  St.  Augustine  frequently  alludes 
to  its  position  between  the  Epistle  and  Gosjiel, 
e.g.  “  Primam  lectionem  audivimus  apostoli. . . . 
deinde  cantavimus  psalmum  ....  posthaec  evan¬ 
gel  ica  lectio  ”.(Aug.  Serin,  de  Verb.  Apost.  176; 
Senn.  45,  ib.  49,  u.s.').  Neither  in  the  Eastern 
nor  the  Western  church  was  the  Epistle  always 
selected  from  the  writings  of  the  ajwstles.  We 
find  it  sometimes  taken  from  the  Acts  and  the 
Kevelation,  and  in  the  Western,  but  never  in  the 
Eastern  church,  even  from  the  Old  Testament. 
Several  of  the  Oriental  liturgies  present  more 
than  one  lection  in  the  place  of  the  Epistle.  In 
the  Coptic  liturgy  of  St.  Basil  there  is  first  a 
lection  from  an  epistle  of  St.  Paul,  then  the 
CatholiconV  i.  e.  a  lection  from  one  of  the  Catholic 
epistles,  then  a  lection  from  the  Acts,  each  fol¬ 
lowed  by  an  appropriate  prayer;  a  psalm  is 
then  sung,  and  the  Gospel  is  read  (Ftenaudot, 
1.  pp.  5-8).  The  Liturgia  Communis  Aethiopum 
gives  the  same  five  lections  in  the  same  order 
(/6.  pp.  507-510),  in  which  they  also  stand 
in  the  Syriac  liturgies  (Ib.  ii.  p.  68).  Canons 
of  the  Cojitic  church  ordaining  these  five  lections 
— the  psalm  being  counted  as  one — are  given  by 
Renaudot  (Fb.  i.  p.  203).  The  last  lection  is 
alwa3"s  the  Gospel. 

The  origin  and  date  of  the  arrangement  of 
these  Scrij)ture  lections  will  be  more  properly 
discussed  when  the  early  lectionaries  are  treated 
of  [Lectionary].  Binterim  carries  'them  back 
as  early  as  the  3rd  century  (Denhicurdigheit. 
iv.  1.  228-230 ;  2.  323).  If  the  ancient  Lec- 
tionarinm  of  the  Roman  church,  known  by  the 
title  of  Gomes  [Comes],  in  which  we  find  the 
epistles  and  gospels  very  much  as  they  stand  in 
the  English  liturgy  at  the  present  day,  were 
really  drawn  up,  as  is  asserted,  by  Jerome,  we 
should  have  certain  evidence  of  their  arrange¬ 
ment  at  least  as  early  as  the  5th  century. 
But  the  authorship  of  the  Comes  rests  only 
on  the  authority  of  writers  of  the  11th  and  12th 
centuries,  and  though  accepted  by  Bona  (Rer. 
Liturg.  lib.  iii.  c.  6,  p.  624)  and  Binterim  (u.s.'), 
must  be  regarded  as  exceedingly  questionable. 
The  fact,  however,  that  the  same  lections  were 
employed  by  the  fathers  of  the  4th  and  5th 
centuries  as  the  subjects  of  their  homilies  proves 
the  veiy  early  date  of  their  assignment  to  par¬ 
ticular  days  (cf.  the  examples  given  by  Augusti, 
Hand'juch  d.  Christ.  Arch.  bk.  vi.  c.  8,  vol.  ii.  p. 
239). 

a  “  Catholicon.  Ita  vocantur  apud  orientates  Epistolae 
Tacobi,  Petri,  Joannis  et  Judae,  quae  Catholicae  appcl- 
lantur,  quia  ad  oiniies  scrlptae  sunt,  ex  quihus  uuum 
voluinen  conRdiur  quid  Catholicon  dicitur.  Ibique 
cum  Tlieoldci  laudant  aliquam  ex  istis  F.pistolis  senten- 
ti  im  dicunt  Jacobus  in  Catholico,  Petrus,  kc.”  Renau¬ 
dot,  1.  210.  [Catholic.] 


According  to  the  Eastern  ritual  the  Epistle 
was  read  by  the  Header,  standing  at  the  Royal 
Doors.  In  the  Western  church  it  was  read  in 
the  8th  century  from  the  ambo  by  the  subdeacor 
standing  on  the  second  step,  the  Gospel  being 
subsequently  read  by  the  deacon  from  the  third 
step.  Amalarius  (IJe  Offic.  Eccl.  lib.  ii.  c.  11) 
exj)resses  his  surprise  that  this  office  is  assigned 
to  the  subdeacon,  since  it  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  commission  at  his  ordination ;  but  the  4th 
canon  of  the  council  of  Rheims,  A.D.  813,  after 
directing  that  “the  Apostle”  should  be  read  by 
the  subdeacon,  all  sitting,  adds  “qualiter  sub- 
diacoui  ministerium  est  apostolum  legere  ” 
(Augusti,  Ildbch.;  Binterim,  iJenkwiirdigk. ;  Bing¬ 
ham,  Oriq. ;  Bona,  Rer.  Litut'q. ;  Martene,  de 
Eccl.  Rit.).  [E.  V.] 

EPISTOLAE  CANONICAE,  CO:\rMEN- 
DATORIAE,  COMMUNICATORIAE,  EC¬ 
CLESIASTIC  AE,  FORMATAE,  PACI- 
FICAE,  SYSTATICAE.  [Commendatory 
Letters:  Forma.] 

EPISTOLAE  DIMISSORIAE.  [Dimls- 
SORY  Letters.] 

EPISTOLAE  ENTHRONISTICAE.  [Bi¬ 
shop,  p.  224.] 

EPISTOLAE  SYNODICAE.  [Synodical 
Letters.] 

EPISTOLAE  TRACTORIAE.  [Tr.^c- 
toria.] 

EPISTOLIUM.  A  term  used  (IT.  Cone. 
Turon.  c.  6)  for  the  literae  formatae  the  granting 
of  which  is  expressly  limited  to  bishops.  See 
Commendatory  Letters  :  Dimissory  Let¬ 
ters.  [C.] 

EPITAPH.  [Catacombs,  p.  308  :  Inscrip¬ 
tions.] 

EPITRACHELION.  [Stole.] 

EPOCH.  [Era.] 

EPOLONIUS,  martyr  at  Antioch,  with 
Babylas  the  bishop,  under  Decius ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Jan.  24  (Mart.  Bedae,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EPOMADION  CETTUfidSiov),  the  cord  or 
ribbon  by  which  a  pectoral  cross  or  Encolpion 
is  suspended  from  the  neck.  (Suidas ;  Daniel’s 
Codex,  iv.  702.)  [C.] 

EQUI  CURSUALES.  [Cursuales  Equi.] 

ERA.  A  succession  of  years,  reckoned  on 
some  common  principle  from  a  specified  event,  or 
date,  called  its  epoch.  The  terms  era  and  epoch 
are  frequently  used  as  synonv’mous. 

The  Jidian  Period. — 1.  To  compare  dates 
belonging  to  diflerent  eras,  there  is  no  method 
more  useful  than  to  refer  them  all  to  the  Julian 
period,  a  period  introduced  or  revived  by 
Scaliger.  It  consists  of  7980  years,  that 
number  being  formed  by  multiplving  together 
28  X  19  X  15,  the  respective  periods  of  the 
cycle  of  the  sun,  of  the  cycle  of  the  moon,  and  of 
the  indictions,  the  last  being  a  period  used  in 
the  administration  of  the  Roman  empire.  It  is 
the  great  cj'cle  in  which  the  solar,  lunar,  and 
iudictional  cycles  sj’uchronize,  after  the  com¬ 
pletion  of  285  CN'cles  of  the  sun,  420  of  the 
moon,  and  532  of  the  indictions.  The  great 
cvcle  then  recurs  as  before.  No  two  years  in  the 
same  period  agree  in  all  the  three  numerals  of 


ERA 


ERA 


623 


the  subordinate  cycles,  so  that  by  naming  them 
all,  the  year  is  completely  designated. 

2.  The  first  year  of  the  current  Julian  period, 
iL  which  each  of  the  subordinate  cycles  had  the 
numeral  one,  was  the  year  4713  B.C.,  and  the 
noon  of  1st  January  of  that  year,  for  the 
meridian  of  Alexandria,  is  its  chronological 
epoch. 

^  The  years  are  Julian  years,  i.e.,  of  365  days  in 
common  years,  366  in  leap  year,  which  is  every 
fourth  year,  that  year  in  fact  whose  date- 
numeral  being  divided  by  four,  leaves  the 
remainder  one. 

3.  2lo  find  the  place  of  any  specified  year  of  the 
Julian  period. — Divide  its  numeral  by  the 
respective  divisors  28,  19,  15.  The  respective 
remainders  give  the  years  in  the  several  cycles. 
The  remainder  0  is  to  be  construed  28,  19,  15. 

4.  2'o  detennine  the  year  of  the  Julian  period 
from  the  numerals  of  the  three  cycles.—  Multiply 
the  numeral  of  the  solar  cycle  by  4845,  that  of 
the  lunar  by  4200,  and  that  of  the  indictions  by 
6916,  and  divide  the  sum  of  these  products 
by  7980.  The  remainder  is  the  year  sought. 

5.  To  find  the  day  current  of  the  Julian  period 
of  any  date  in  the  Julian  period. — Subtract  one 
from  the  numeral  of  the  year-day,  and  divide  the 
remainder  by  four,  calling  Q  the  integer 
quotient,  R  the  remainder.  Then  will  Q  be  the 
number  of  entire  quadrienuia  of  1461  days  each, 
and  R  the  residual  years,  the  first  of  which  is 
always  a  leap  year.  Convert  Q  into  days  by 
taking  the  right  multiple  of  1461,  and  R  by 
using  the  annexed  table  ;  then  add  the  days  for 
the  current  day  of  the  given  year,  remembering 
February  29th  in  leap  year. 


Residual  Year 

0 

1 

2 

3 

Pay  .  .  . 

0 

366 

731 

1096 

6.  To  convert  a  year  of  the  Julian  period  into 
the  year  B.C.,  or  a.d. — If  the  numeral  be  less 
than  4714,  subtract  it  from  that  number,  the 
difference  will  be  the  year  B.c.  If  the  numeral 
be  greater  than  4713,  take  that  number  from 
the  numei'al,  and  the  difference  will  be  the 
year  a.d. 

2'he  Olympiads. — 1.  The  era  used  in  Greece, 
instituted  in  776  B.C.  (3938  J.  P.)  consisting  of 
four  years.  July  1st  A.D.,  is  considered  to 
correspond  with  the  commencement  of  the  first 
year  of  the  195th  Olympiad. 

2.  To  reduce  any  given  year  of  an  Olympiad 
to  the  Christian  era,  multiply  the  Olympiad 
immediately  preceding  the  one  in  question  by 
four,  and  add  to  the  product  the  number  of 
years  of  the  given  Olympiad.  If  before  Christ, 
subtract  the  amount  from  777  ;  if  after  Christ, 
subtract  776  from  the  amount,  and  the  re¬ 
mainder  will  be  the  beginning  of  the  year 
required,  commencing  from  July. 

3.  For  an  exact  calculation  of  days  tables  are 
required,  showing  the  order  of  the  months  in  the 
different  years  of  the  Metonic  cycle.  These  may 
be  found  in  Ideler  i.  386. 

4.  The  fathers  of  tl)e  Greek  church  and  the 
ecclesiastical  historians,  as  Eusebius  and  Socrates, 
use  the  era  of  the  01ym})iads  in  a  peculiar 
manner.  It  would  have  been  natural  to  begin 
them  with  the  commencement  of  their  civil 


year,  September  1st,  or  ten  months  too  early, 
but  they  really  commence  them  a  year  earlier 
still,  or  nearly  two  years  too  early.  The  same 
reckoning  is  used  in  the  Chronicon  Paschale.  It 
is  necessary  to  add  one  year  and  ten  months  to 
their  date  to  make  them  accord  with  the 
common  era  of  the  Olympiads. 

Era  of  the  Building  of  Home. — Amongst  the 
variety  of  dates  assigned  to  this  event,  the 
Varronian  epoch  is  adopted,  being  April  22nd,  B.c. 

753,  or  3961,  J.  P.  The  consular  year  began  on 
the  1st  January. 

To  reduce  the  year  of  Borne,  to  the  year  before 
or  after  Christ. —  If  the  year  of  Rome  be  less  than 

754,  deduct  its  numeral  from  754;  the  difference 
is  the  year  before  Christ.  If  the  year  of  Rome 
be  not  less  than  754,  deduct  753  from  it,  and  the 
remainder  will  be  the  year  after  Christ. 

Era  of  the  Seleucidae. — The  era  of  the  Seleu- 
cidae,  also  called  the  era  of  the  Greeks,  was 
widely  used  in  Syria,  and  by  the  Jews  from  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees.  It  is  used  in  the 
book  of  the  Maccabees.  It  is  still  used  by 
the  Arabs.  Its  epoch  is  October  1st,  B.c.  312,  or 
4402  J.  P. 

Julian  Beformation  of  the  Calendar. — This 
took  place  707  U.C.,  or  January  1st  B.C.  45. 
4669  J.  P. 

The  Christian  Era. — The  Christian  era  w'as 
first  introduced  by  Dionysius  Exiguus,  a  Scythian 
abbot  in  Rome,  in  the  6th  century,  and  gradually 
superseded  the  era  of  Diocletian,  which  had  been 
used  till  then.  It  was  first  used  in  h'rance  in 
the  7th  century,  but  was  not  universally  es¬ 
tablished  there  till  the  8th  century,  after  which 
time  it  became  general.  Great  diversity,  how¬ 
ever,  long  subsisted  as  to  the  day  on  which  the 
year  should  be  considered  to  commence. 

It  commenced  on  the  1st  day  of  January,  in 
the  middle  of  the  4th  year  of  the  194th  Olym¬ 
piad,  the  753rd  U.C.,  and  the  4714th  of  the 
Julian  period.  It  is  now  generally  acknowledged 
not  to  be  the  true  year  of  the  Saviour’s  birth, 
but  its  use  as  a  chronological  epoch  does  not 
allow  of  its  being  altered. 

The  era  of  Diocletian. — This  era  was  prevalent 
till  the  adoption  of  the  Christian  era ;  its  epoch 
was  29th  August,  A.D.  284.  It  was  introduced 
in  Egypt  by  Diocletian,  after  the  siege  of 
Alexandria,  and  gave  the  Egyptians,  for  the  first 
time,  the  advantage  of  a  fixed  year.  The  first 
Thoth,  the  beginning  of  the  Egyptian  year,  was 
August  31st,  and  it  is  supposed  that  a  change 
was  made  from  a  moveable  to  a  fixed  year,  after 
the  lapse  of  five  years.  This  era  is  still  used  by 
the  Copts.  To  reduce  this  era  to  the  Christian 
era  add  283  years  and  240  days,  and  as  the 
intercalation  was  made  at  the  end  of  the  year,  in 
the  Diocletian  year  next  after  leap  year,  add  one 
day,  from  the  29th  August  to  the  end  of  the 
ensuing  February. 

2'he  era  of  Constantinople. — The  era  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  or  the  Byzantine  era,  first  appears 
in  the  Chronicon  Paschale.  It  fixed  the  creation 
of  the  world  in  the  5508th  year  before  Christ,  so 
that  A.D.  1,  fell  in  the  5509th  year  of  this  era. 
The  Ru.ssians  followed  this  calculation  till  the 
time  of  Pater  the  Great,  having  received  it  from 
the  Greek  church,  by  whom  it  is  still  used. 
The  year  began  on  the  equinox,  March  21st. 
It  was  afterwards  made  to  beg[iu,  for  civil 
purposes,  on  Seiffember  1st. 


624 


ERACLEAS 


EUCHARIST 


The  Alexandrians  had  used  an  era  of  the 
creation,  fixed  at  5502  years  before  Christ;  but 
in  A.D.  285,  they  reduced  the  date  by  ten  years. 

'J'o  pass  Irotn  the  year  of  our  Lord  to  the  era 
of  C<)nstantinoi>le,  or  conversely,  add  or  subtract 
5508  from  January  to  August,  and  5509  for  the 
rest  of  the  year. 

The  Jewish  era. — The  Jews  now  reckon  by  the 
year  of  the  world,  and  they  place  the  creation 
8761  B.c. 


By  adding  952  to  the  numeral  of  the  Jewish 
year  we  get  its  date  in  the  Julian  period;  and 
by  subtracting  952  from  the  year  of  the  Julian 
period  we  get  the  Jewish  date. 

For  the  Christian  era  we  must  subti-act  3761, 
and  add  the  same  for  the  converse  process.  The 
Jewish  year  begins  in  the  autumn. 

The  following  results  are  selected  from  a  Table 
in  Sir  J,  Herschel’s  ‘Outlines  of  Astronomy.’ 


Intervals  in  Days  between  the  Commencement  of  the  Julian  riiBiOD  and  that  of  some  principal 

Chronological  Eras. 


Names  by  which  the  Era  is  usually  cited. 

First  Day 
current 
of  the  Era. 

Chronolo¬ 

gical 

Designation 
of  the  Year. 

Current 
Year  of  the 
Julian 
Period. 

Interval 

Days. 

Julian  Dates 

Julian  Period . 

Jan.  1 

B.C.  4713 

1 

0 

Olympiads  (mean  epochs  in  general  use) 

July  1 

776 

3938 

1,438,171 

Building  of  Rome  (Varronian  epoch,  U.C.)  . 

Apr.  22 

753 

3961 

1,446,502 

Era  of  the  Seleucidae  (or  Era  of  the  Greeks) 

Oct.  1 

312 

4402 

1,607,739 

Julian  reformation  of  the  Calendar . 

Jan.  I 

45 

4669 

1,704,987 

Spanish  Era . 

Jan.  1 

38 

4676 

1,707,544 

Actiun  Era  in  Rome . 

Jan.  1 

30 

4684 

1,710,466 

Actiaii  Era  of  Alexandria . 

Aug.  29 

30 

4684 

1,710,706 

Dionysian  or  Christian  Era,  “of  our  Lord  "  . 

Jan.  1 

A.D.  1 

4714 

1,721,424 

Era  of  Diocletian . 

Aug.  29 

284 

4997 

1,825,030 

[L.  H.] 


ERACLEAS.  [Heracleas.] 

ERACIJUS.  [Heraclius.] 

ERASMUS.  (1)  Bishop,  and  martyr  in 
Campania,  under  Diocletian  ;  commemorated 
June  3  (^Mart.  Horn.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Antioch  ;  commemorated  Nov. 
25  (Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ERAST  US  and  Olympos  and  companions, 
“Apostle;”  commemorated  Nov.  10  (Cal.  By- 
zard.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EREMITES.  [Hermits.] 

ERENAEUS.  [Irenaeus.] 

ERENACH,  or  HERENACH,-  a  term  ap¬ 
plied  to  a  class  of  officials  who  appear  promi¬ 
nently  in  the  annals  of  the  Irish  church  prior  to 
its  reconstitution  in  the  12th  century,  after 
which  time  the  word  was  used  to  denote  an 
ecclesiastic  having  a  position  akin  to  that  of 
archdeacon. 

In  its  earliest  use  the  Erenach,  or  Airchinneach, 
appears  to  have  been  hereditary  steward  and 
tenant  of  the  lands  granted  by  temporal  chiefs 
to  the  church-founding  abbots  of  Ireland  ;  his 
duties  being  to  superintend  the  farmers  or 
tenants  of  the  church  or  monastery — according 
to  Colgan,  “  Omnium  colonorum  certi  districtus 
praepositus  seu  praefectus.”  [J.  S — T.] 

ESICHIUS  or  ESICIUS.  [Hesyciiius.] 

ESPOUSALS.  [Arrtiae  :  Benediction, 
Nuptial:  Betrothal:  Marriage.1 

_j 

ETHELDREDA  or  EDILTRUDIS,  virgin- 
queen,  martyr  in  Britain  ;  commemorated  June 
23  (Mart.  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ETHERIUS,  bishop ;  deposition  at  Auxerre 
July  27  (Mart.  LFsuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

ETHIOPIAN  MONKS.  Monasticism  spread 
rapidly  from  Egypt  into  Ethiopia,  and  gained  as 
fctrong  a  hold  there  as  in  Egypt  or  Syria,  if  not  a 


stronger.  Helyot  (Histoire  des  Ordres  Monas- 
tiques,  I.  xi.)  sjieaks  of  all  the  monasteries  in 
Ethiopia  as  professing  to  obey  the  so-called  “  Rule 
of  Antony,”  but  with  different  observances.  An 
attempt  at  reformation,  such  as  invariably  recurs 
in  the  life  of  a  monastic  order,  was  made  in  the 
7th  century;  Tecla-Haimanot,  as  Helyot  writes 
it,  being  the  second  founder  or  Benedict  of 
Ethiopian  monasticism.  He  endeavoured  to  con¬ 
solidate  the  system  under  a  Superior-General, 
second  in  ecclesiastical  rank  only  to  the  Patriarch 
of  Ethiopia,  who  was  to  visit  and  inspect  the 
monasteries  ])ersonally  or  by  proxv.  Several  of 
them,  however,  preferred  to  retain  their  inde¬ 
pendence,  like  congregationalists.  Plonks  swarmed 
in  Ethiopia,  according  to  Helyot,  long  after  the 
first  fervour  of  asceticism  ;  and  the  constitution 
of  the  Ethiopian  church  was  monastic  (Robert¬ 
son,  Church  Hist.  i.  300).  The  story  of  a  mili- 
ta”y  order  of  monks,  like  the  knight-templars, 
originating  in  the  4th  century  is  purely  fabulous 
(Helyot,  u.  s.  i.  xiii.).  [I.  G.  S.] 

EUCHARIST  (EvxupKrTLa).  This  article 
treats  of  the  use  of  the  word  Eu  -haristii.  For 
the  nature  of  the  offices  accompanying  the  sacra¬ 
ment,  see  Liturgy,  and  the  sevei-al  articles  on 
its  component  parts,  especially  Canon  of  the 
Liturgy  and  Communion,  Holy. 

1.  The  primary  meaning  of  the  word  evxapi- 
(TTia  seems  to  be  a  feeling  of  thankfulness  or 
gratitude  (2  Macc.  ii.  27 ;  Sirac.  xxxvii.  11  ; 
Acts  XXIV.  3). 

H.  The  expression  of  the  feeling  of  gratitude  : 
1.  In  words  =  thanksgiving ;  2.  In  act  =  thank- 
offering. 

I.  Euxapiarla,  in  the  sense  of  thanksgiving, 
occurs  frequently  in  the  New  Testament  ;  it  is 
used  for  the  thanksgiving  in  public  worship 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  16;  2  Cor.  iv.  15,  etc.),  and  for  the 
expression  of  thankfulness  generally. 

2.  Philo  uses  ei/xapiaria  in  a  wider  sense. 


EUCHARIST 


He  speaks,  for  instance  (^De  Victimis,  c.  9),  of 
ev^apiffTia  as  including  hymns,  prayers,  and 
sacrifices ;  of  tcls  8ia  Qvaiciv  evxapiO’Tias  (^Ib. 
c.  4)  ;  and  of  giving  thanks  (or  thank-offering, 
ey;^apt(rT77a'at  TrjV  (vxo-pio’Tiai'^  to  God  for  the 
creation  of  the  world — a  plirase  noteworthy  as 
suggesting  one  of  the  aspects  of  the  Christian 
eucharist  (Irenaeus,  Ilaeres.  iv.  18,  4).  The 
word  does  not  occur  in  the  LXX.  though  it  is 
used  by  Aquila, 

III.  We  have  to  consider  the  application  of 
the  word  ivxapKfria  to  the  Supper  of  the  Lord, 
or  the  elements  used  in  it. 

1.  The  verb  evxapia-TeTp,  like  the  correspoud- 
incr  substantive,  means  both  to  feel  thankfulness 
and  to  e.xpress  it.  The  use  of  the  word  evxa.- 
pKTT-pdfj,  in  2  Cor.  i.  11,  implies  further  that 
fuxapKTTili/  might  be  used  with  an  accusative  of 
the  object  for  which  thanks  are  given. 

The  Lord  in  the  Last  Supper  gave  thanks 
after  taking  the  Cup  (de^dp-ei/os  iror-ppiov  cvxa- 
picTT-fjo-as  direv,  Luke  xxii.  17  ;  \a$wp  noTvpiou 
Kal  eiixapi(rTrj<Tay,  ]\latt.  xxvi.  27) ;  and  before 
breaking  the  Bread  (^^vxo-picr'T'piras  cKKaafv, 
1  Cor.  xi.  24;  Luke  xxii.  19).  Compare  Matt. 
XV.  36;  Mark  viii.  6;  John  vi.  11,  23.  So  the 
disciples  of  the  2nd  centuiy  gave  thanks  over 
the  Bread  and  the  Cup  in  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper,  as  we  see  from  the  description  of 
it  in  Justin  Martyr. 

2.  From  this  uttering  of  thanksgiving  over 
the  elements  of  Bread  and  Wine  in  the  Sacra¬ 
ment,  the  word  €vxapt<TT€7v  came  to  mean,  to 
bless,  halloAV,  or  consecrate  by  the  utterance  of 
the  proper  form  of  thanksgiving  (Grimm,  Lexicon 
Novi  Test.  s.  v.).  Thus  Justin  Martyr  {Apol. 
i.  65)  speaks  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  and  Water 
which  had  been  made  eucharistic  (d/xapiaTT]- 
Ofvros  dpTov  Kal  o'ivou  Kal  vSaros),  immediately 
after  mentioning  the  thanksgiving  {^vxo.pi(TTlav^ 
of  the  president  for  God’s  mercy  in  granting  us 
the  blessings  of  creation  and  redemption.  And 
again  (c.  66),  he  speaks  of  ttjv  5i’  evxvs  \6you 
Tov  Trap’  avTov  evxapi(rTr]dfi<Tau  rporp'fjv  [Canon 
OF  Tiiii  Liturgy,  p.  268].  Compare  “  panem  in 
quo  gratiae  actae  sint  ”  (Irenaeus,  Ilaeres.  iv. 

By  an  easy  transition  the  eoxapirmpd^irra 
rporpT)  or  consecrated  elements  came  to  be  called 
simply  evxapKTTla  (lb.  c.  66).  Similarly  in  the 
Ignatian  letter  ad  Smyrn.  7.  Irenaeus  {Haeres. 
iv.  18,  5)  says  that  the  Bread  after  the  Epiclesis 
is  no  longer  common  bread,  but  eucharistia,  con¬ 
sisting  of  two  parts,  an  earthly  and  a  heavenly. 

3.  But  the  conception  of  thank-offeriny  is  also 
found  in  the  word  eucharistia  and  its  correspond¬ 
ing  verb,  Avhen  applied  to  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  Clement  of  Alex¬ 
andria  (Strom,  iv.  §  132,  p.  623)  speaks  of  the 
martyr’s  blood  poured  out  as  a  thank-offering 
(€vxapi(TTr)d(yTos  a’i;xaTos  [Dindorf’s  text :  vulg. 
evXo.pia'&(:VTos~^’,  and  we  might  interpret  Jus¬ 
tin’s  evxapia-TTjOeia-a  rporp^  in  the  same  way 
were  it  not  for  its  clo.se  connexion  with  evxa- 
pim'ia,  where  the  latter  evidently  means  thanks¬ 
giving.  In  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  (c.  117), 
when  Justin  speaks  of  the  Christian  sacrifice 
which  takes  place  (he  says)  iitl  -rf}  euxapia-Tia 
TOV  dpTov  Kal  TOV  TTOTTip'iov,  it  is  evident  that  he 
regards  the  Bread  and  the  Cup  as  being  them¬ 
selves  made  a  thank-offering  or  eucharistia.  And 
again,  when  (c.  41)  he  refers  to  the  leper’s  offer- 

CHKIST.  ANT.  ‘ 


EUCLIARIST  (in  Christian  Art)  625 

ing  of  fine  flour  as  a  type  of  the  eucharistic 
bread  (tov  dprov  Trjs  (vxapiaTlai)  which  the 
Lord  commanded  us  to  offer  (ttoiui/)  in  thanks¬ 
giving  ("pa  evxapKTTwp.eu')  for  the  blessings  of 
creation  and  redem])tion,  he  regards  the  elements 
as  themselves  an  ex[)ression  of  thankfulness ; 
i.  e.  as  a  thank-offering.  When  Celsus  objected 
to  the  Christians  that  they  were  ungrateful  in 
not  paying  due  thank-offerings  (xapiarlipia)  to 
the  local  deities,  Origen  replied  (c.  Celsuin,\in. 
57 ;  pp.  415,  416,  Spencer)  that  the  bread  called 
eucharistia  (apros  evxapKTTia  KaXovfxfPos)  W'as 
the  symbol  or  outw'ard  token  of  thankfulness 
towards  God  (t^s  -rrpbs  rhp  Sebp  eiixaparTias)  • 
that  is,  he  regards  the  bread  itself  as  of  the 
nature  of  a  thank-offering. 

4.  Whether  the  original  meaning  was,  “  that 
over  which  thanks  have  been  given,”  or  “that 
which  has  been  made  a  thank-offering,”  the  word 
eucharistia  came  to  be  sim})ly  equivalent  to  “  the 
consecrated  elements  of  bread  and  wine,”  or 
sometimes  of  bread  alone.  Thus  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (Strom,  i.  §5,  p.  318)  speaks  of  the 
ministers  distributing  the  eucharist  (rpp  evxa- 
piariav  SiapeifiapTfs),  i.  e.  the  elements,  to  the 
communicants  ;  and  the  epistle  to  Victor  (Euseb. 
H.  E.  V.  24,  §  15)  of  sending  the  eucharist  to 
neighbouring  churches.  [Compare  Eulogiae.] 
Cyprian  (Epist.  w.  c.  1)  explains  euchari  tia  by 
the  words,  “id  est.  Sanctum  Domini  Corpus.” 

5.  The  euchari‘  t  (i.  e.  the  consecrated  bread) 
was  employed  in  the  following  ways,  he.sides 
that  of  ordinary  administration.  It  was  taken 
home  and  preserved  in  a  casket  [Arca]  ;  it  was 
sent  by  bishops  to  other  churches  as  a  token  of 
Christian  brotherhood  [Eulogiae];  it  was  borne 
before  the  pope  at  a  pontifical  mass  (Ordo  Rom. 
i.  c.  8 ;  see  Martene,  R.  A.  1.  iv.  2,  §  2)  ;  it  was 
reserved  in  churches  [Dove:  Reservation]; 
it  was  enclosed  in  altars  at  cons.^cration  [Conse¬ 
cration,  of  Churches];  it  was  carried  on  a 
journey  (Ambrose  DeObitu  SatyripVi.  19);  Gregory 
the  Great  I)e  Off.  iii.  36 ;  Dial.  c.  37) ;  it  was  some¬ 
times  worn  suspended  from  the  neck  in  an  En- 
COLPION  (Giraldus  Cambren.  Topograph.  Ilibern. 
Dist.  ii.  c.  19)  ;  it  was  used  in  the  cure  of  dis¬ 
ease  (Augustine,  c.  Julian,  iii.  162);  it  was 
placed  in  the  mouth  of  the  dead  [Burial  of  the 
Dead]  ;  and  the  administration  of  the  eucharist 
was  one  of  the  forms  of  ordeal  (Martene,  De  Rit. 
Antiq.  1.  V.  4). 

IVL  The  Greeks  interpret  the  ei/xapiariai  of 
1  Tim.  ii.  1  to  be  hymns  or  canticles  sung  to  the 
honour  and  glory  of  God  (Daniel,  Codex  Litura. 
iv.  406).  [C.“] 

EUCHARIST  (in  Christian  Art).  The 
earliest  eucharistic  lepresentations,  as  may  be 
expected,  seem  to  refer  principally  to  the  agapae, 
or  suppers  which  preceded  the  actual  eucha¬ 
ristic  breaking  of  the  bx'ead  in  the  earliest  times 
(1  Cor.  xi.  20.)  It  is  to  be  jxresumed  at  least 
that  the  order  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  itself  was 
followed,  and  that  the  celebration,  or  symbolic 
breaking  of  the  bread,  took  place  after,  or 
towards  the  end  of,  the  meal.  (St.  John  xiii. 
2—4.)  In  the  earliest  days  of  persecution  they 
naturally  began  to  be  celebrated  in  the  catacombs 

•  The  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  his  obligation  to 
the  Rev.  F.  J.  A.  Ilort,  Fellow  of  Emmanuel  CollegCi 
Cambridge,  for  several  suggestions  on  the  tnatUr  treate<l 
in  this  article. 


EUCIIAIIIST  (ix  Chhistiax  Art) 

or  near  the  tombs  of  martyrs.  [Cella  Memo-  | 
RIAK.]  It  is  not  the  business  of  the  present  j 
writer  to  enquire  into  tlie  connexion  of  the 
arrangements  for  public  celebration  of  the  ' 
eucharist  and  Christian  rites  in  general  with  | 
the  ancient  usages  of  funeral  rites.  But  those 
usages  were  so  familiar  to  the  early  church,  that 
it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  agape  at 
least  is  so  frequently  represented  and  the  eucha¬ 
rist  so  distinctly  implied  in  the  various  catacomb 
paintings.  Dr.  Mommsen  (^Contemp.  lievieo.'^ 
May  1871,  16+  and  171)  mentions  an  agape 
with  bread  and  fish  in  that  very  ancient  crypt  | 
of  Domitilla  on  the  Ardeatine  Way,  which  De 
Rossi  refers  to  Flavia  the  granddaughter  of 
Vespasian.*  The  bread  and  fish  occur  again 
repeatedly  in  the  Callixtine  catacomb,  with  a 
man  in  the  act  of  blessing  the  bread ;  seven, 
eight,  or  more  baskets  of  bread  are  placed  near 
a  table  at  which  seven  persons  are  sitting.  The 
table  is  round,  and  fishes  are  also  placed  on  it. 
The  use  of  the  vine  is  frequent  in  the  oldest 
w'ork,  as  in  the  Domitilla  vault,  where  boys  are 
gathering  the  grapes,  and  the  art  is  quite  of 
the  Augustan  age,  and  probably  executed  by 
Pagan  hands.  A  parallel  work  in  mosaic,  of 
later  though  still  very  early  date,  exists  in  the 
church  of  Sta.  Constantia  at  Rome  [Vine]. 
(Parker,  Ancient  Mosaics  at  Rome  and  Ravenna.^ 
A  connexion  must  always  have  existed  in  the 
Christian  mind  between  the  last  supper  at  Jeru¬ 
salem,  the  bread  and  wine,  and  the  last  repast 
of  the  Lord  with  His  disciples,  the  bread  and 
fish  by  the  sea  of  Galilee  (John  xxi.).  And  His 
words  on  the  former  occasion  cannot  have  been 
unconnected  with  this  discourse  of  Himself  the 
bread  of  life  in  St.  John  vi.  58  sqq.  But  the 
earlier  representations  of  a  memorial  banquet 
seem  to  point  rather  to  the  agape  or  com-  i 
memorative  repast,  than  to  the  breaking  of  the 
bread  and  pouring  forth  of  the  wine  in  com¬ 
memorative  sacrifice.  A  sense  of  mystery  and 


EUCHARIST  (in  Christian  Art) 

I  treated  by  M.  Raoul  Pochette  {Mem.  de  V  Inst itut. 
j  des  Inscr.  et  Relies  Lettres,  t.  xiii.  775,  &c.).  They 
may,  he  thinks,  account  for  the  relics  of  cups 
'  and  j)latters,  knife-handles,  and  egg-shells  [see 
J  Egg]  found  in  the  Christian  sepulchres  (Boldetti, 
lib.  ii.  xiv.  tav.  5,  59  and  60,  and  passim),  though 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  as  he  implies,  that  old  Etrus¬ 
can  (or  indeed  human)  custom  or  instinct,  made 
survivors  bury  many  objects  used  in  life  along 
with  their  dead. 

One  of  the  earliest  knowm  representations  of 
the  eucharistic  ofi'ering  is  that  of  the  mosaic  in 
j  St.  Vitale  at  Ravenna,  dating  from  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury.  (See  woodcut.)  On  one  side  Abel  is  repre¬ 


sented  as  standing  with  hands  raised  in  prayer, 
clad  in  cloak  and  short  tunic,  and  just  issued 
from  a  house ;  it  is  possible  that  this,  with  the 
streaked  sky  of  the  mosaic,  may  indicate  a 
morning  or  evening  sacrifice.  At  all  events  the 
presence  of  Abel  connects  the  other  figure  of  the 
priest  and  king  Melchisedech,  with  the  idea  of 
the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb,  and  therein  of  the  death 
of  the  Lord.  ^lelchisedech  is  standing  before  an 
I  oblong  altar-table,  on  which  is  a  chalice  and  two 
loaves  of  bread ;  his  hands  are  raised  in  prayer, 
not  in  the  act  of  blessing,  and  he  is  clad  in  the 
penula  or  cloak  over  a  long  tunic  and  girdle. 


awe,  a  pious  reticence,  which  appears  for  the 
present  almost  erased  from  the  Christian  con- 
sciousne.ss,  seems  to  have  prevented  represen¬ 
tation  of  the  Lord’s  act  of  typical  sacrifice  of 
Himself ;  as  representation  of  His  actual  death 
by  crucifixion  was  also  long  delayed.  [Crucifix.] 
The  subject  of  the  agapae,  and  the  disorders  to 
which  they  sometimes  gave  occasion,  is  admirably 


a  This  vault  is  mentioned  in  Boldetti  (p.  551) ;  it  is 
called  the  Sepulchre  of  SS.  Achilles  and  Nereus,  the  relics 
of  those  martyrs  having  been  conveyed  there.  Of  its  date 
he  says  only,  “tempo  vicino  agli  Apostoli." 


This  mosaic  is  an  important  illustration  of  the 
fundamental  principle  of  Christian  svmbolic 
ornament,  w'hich  appears  to  have  been  from 
the  earliest  times  devoted,  as  a  central  object, 
to  displaying  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  by  the  New.  In  the  Laurentian  MS., 
a.d.  556,  our  Lord  is  represented  as  adminis¬ 
tering  a  small  rounded  object,  evidently  bread, 
to  one  of  eleven  standing  figures.  '  See  woodcut.) 

The*  frequent  introduction  of  the  fish  in  the 
various  representations  of  eucharistic  repasts, 
which  are  found  particularly  in  the  Callixtine 
catacomb,  is  connected  of  course  with  the 


EUCITAKIST  (in  CiipasriAN  Art) 

anagrammatic  meaning  of  the  word  as 

well  as  with  the  miracles  of  the  bread  and 
fish,  or  the  Lord’s  words  in  John  vi.  The 
connexion  of  the  last  repast  by  the  sea  of 
Galilee  with  the  last  supper  is  expressed  in 
the  words  of  Bede,  In  Joann,  xxi.  “  Fiscis  assus, 


Christus  passus.”  It  is  no  part  of  our  duty  to 
pursue  it  here,  except  in  its  frequent  illustrations 
on  the  Avails  of  St.  Callixtus.  These  Avill  be 
found  in  De  Rossi’s  Boma  Sotteranea,  and  the 
author  refers  them,  from  the  beauty  of  their 
execution,  to  an  early  period  of  the  3rd  century. 
It  cannot  be  denied,  howeA'er,  that  a  certain 
uncertainty  and  suspicion  of  repainting  attaches 
more  particulaidy  to  this  catacomb  in  the  minds 
of  many  antiquarians.  XeA^ertheless,  if,  as  Mr. 
Parker  thinks,  the  most  extensiA'e  paintings  and 
repaintings  took  place  in  the  time  of  St. 
Paulinus  of  Nola,  a  highly  respectable  anti¬ 
quity  still  belongs  to  these  subjects.  We  haA'e 
giA’-en  a  Avoodcut  [C.\nister,  p.  264],  of  the 
most  important  of  these  paintings.  Its  subject 
is  the  mystic  fish  bearing  loaves  on  his  back  ; 
they  are  not  decussated  or  crossed,  as  is  most 
frequently  the  case  Avhere  they  are.represented 
[Elements,  p.  603],  but  bear  a  central  mark, 
Avhich,  as  Martigny  thinks,  connects  them  Avith 
Eastern  and  Jewish  otferings  of  cakes  made  from 
first-fruits  of  corn  (called  mamphula  or  Syrian 
bread).  The  fish  bears  them  in  a  basket,  Avhich 
has  in  it  besides  another  object.  This  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  represent  a  vessel  of  Avine,  but,  as  he 
admits,  it  is  not  very  easy  to  decipher  in  the 
original,  and  the  lithograjih  in  De  Rossi  is  some- 
Avhat  of  a  restoration.  What  it  is  like  in  the 
actual  fresco  must  be  A^ery  difiScult  to  deter¬ 
mine.  But  his  rafei’euce  to  St.  Jerome  {Ep.  ad 
Rustic,  c.  XX.),  “  Nihil  illo  ditius  qui  corpus 
Domini  canistro  vimineo,  sanguinem  portat  in 
vitro,”  corresponds  with  great  exactness  and 
A'ery  impressiA’ely  Avith  this  painting.  In  any 
case  there  can  be  no  doubt  AvhateA’er  that  it 
represents  the  Lord  oflering  the  bread  of  life 
to  mankind.  These  paintings  are  in  the  crypt 
named  fi-om  St.  Cornelia ;  another  represents 
seven  persons  at  a  tabic  with  bread  and  fish, 
Avith  seven  baskets  of  decussated  loaves  at 
hand,  referring,  of  course,  to  the  Lord’s  mira¬ 
culous  reproduction  of  them.  Without  disputing 
that  the  anagrammatic  fish  is  a  symbol  of  the 


EUCHARIST  (in  Christian  Art)  627 

greatest  antiquity  for  our  Lord,  and  that  it 
associates  itself  naturally  in  the  mind  Avith  the 
tAvo  miracles,  the  rejiast  of  Tiberias,  &c.,  it 
should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  anagram  is  not  a 
scriptural  emblem.  Our  Lord  never  likened  Him¬ 
self  to  fish  as  to  bread,  and  His  own  use  of  the 
fish  in  parable  makes  them  represent  mankind 
and  not  Himself.  Nevertheless,  His  act  of  bless¬ 
ing  and  breaking  the  fish  on  three  distinct 
occasions  must  always  connect  them  in  our  minds 
Avith  the  eucharistic  banquet.^  (See  woodcut.) 


From  the  Cemetery  of  St.  Priscilla. 


Representations  of  other  cA'onts  or  objects 
symbolic  of  the  body  of  the  Lord,  or  anyhoAv  to 
be  connected  Avith  Him  as  the  bread  of  life,  have 
of  course  a  relation  to  the  eucharist.  The  decus¬ 
sated  loaves  are  offered  to  Daniel  by  Habbacuc, 
on  a  sarcophagus  found  near  the  altar  of  St.  Paul 
Avithout  the  Avails  of  Rome  (Martigny,  Art.  Sat'- 
cophageSi  Avith  Avoodcut),  and  the  author  refers 
to  the  custom  of  sending  a  portion  of  the  eucha¬ 
rist  round  to  imprisoned  confessors  in  time  of 
persecution.  The  manna  and  the  rock  cloven 
for  the  life  of  the  people  are  naturally  connected 
Avith  John  A'i.  59.  [Rock.]  The  latter  is 
frequently  in  bas-relief ;  the  former  appears  to 
occur  only  in  one  unmistakable  example,  though 
those  in  Bottari,  tav.  164,  from  the  cemetery  of 
St.  Priscilla,  and  taA\  57  from  the  Callixtine,  are 
probably  connected  Avith  it. 

The  miracle  of  Cana  has  been  held  in  art  to 
possess  an  eucharistic  signification,  at  all  eA'ents 
since  Giotto’s  fresco  in  the  Arena  chapel  at  Padua. 
Ruskin,  in  Arundel  Societi/s  account  of  that 
building.  But  in  the  earliest  examples,  very 
frequent  as  they  are  on  the  bas-reliefs,  the  Saviour 
does  not  raise  his  hand  in  the  act  of  blessing,  as 
the  artist  might  be  expected  to  represent  him, 
had  he  designed  to  connect  the  miracle  Avith  the 
last  supper.  Nor  is  He  so  dejiicted  on  the 
tablet  of  the  Duomo  at  Ravenna  (Bandini  fn  tab. 
ehurneam.  Florence,  1746),  nor  on  the  beautiful 
sih'er  urceolus  supposed  by  Blanchini  (Not.  in 
Anastas,  in  Vit.  St.  Urban!)  to  be  of  the  4th 
century.  [Cana,  Miracle  of.] 

In  treating  of  repre.sentations  of  the  eucharist 
in  Christian  art,  it  is  not  necessary  for  our 

>>  Martigny  gives  (s.  v.  'lile.sse’)  a  woodcut  of  a  fresco 
from  the  Callixtine  catacomb,  where  the  bread  and  fish 
are  apparentiy  under  the-  act  of  consecration  by  a  man  in 
a  pallium  which  leaves  his  right  arm  and  side  bare,  Avhile 
a  woman  prays  with  uplifted  hands.  She  may  be  the 
tenant  of  one  of  the  tombs  near  wliich  the  fresco  is  placed, 
or  may  represent  the  church,  i  he  date  of  this  Avork 
seems  exposed  to  that  uncertainty  which  hangs  over  so 
many  of  the  catacomb  paintings,  more  particularly  thosa 
of  the  Callixtine  cemeteries. 

2  S 


628 


EUCHARISTIA 


EULOGIAE 


purpose  to  consider  anything  beyond  their  ex¬ 
pressed  meaning — that  is  to  say,  beyond  the 
meaning  which  the  artist  or  inspirerof  the  woi-k 
distinctly  meant  to  convey.  The  further  ideas 
he  may  hav^e  suggested  to  fervent  imaginations, 
or  to  minds  ])redetermined  to  read  meanings 
of  their  own  into  his  work,  are  not  his  or  our 
affair,  though  they  may  often  be  ingenious  and 
beautiful,  and  even  right  and  true  as  matter  of 
spiritual  thought.  [R.  Sx.  J.  T.] 

EUCHARISTIA.  [Maundy  Thursday.] 

EUCHELAION  (Evxf^aiov')  is  the  “prayer- 
oil,”  blessed  by  seven  priests,  used  in  the  Greek 
church  for  the  unction  of  the  sick  ;  see  Sick, 
Visitation  of:  unction  (Suicer’s  Thesaurus, 
s.v. ;  Daniel’s  Codex  Liturg.,  iv.  503,  606).  [C.] 

EUCHERIUS,  bishop  of  Lyons,  and  confes¬ 
sor  ;  commemorated  Nov.  16  {^Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUCHOTjOGION.  The  most  comprehensive 
and  important  Service-Book  of  the  Eastern 
church  coj-responding  to  the  Western  Sacramen- 
tarius,  and  Li’ier  officiorum  of  the  Latins.  In 
its  simplest  state  the  Euchologion  includes  the 
liturgies  of  Chrysostom  and  Basil,  and  that  of 
the  Presanctified,  which  for  no  very  certain 
reason  bears  the  name  of  Gregory  the  Great. 
To  these  are  usually  added  the  offices  of  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  other  sacraments  and  other  forms 
of  prayer,  and  benedictions.  It  cannot  be  affirmed 
with  any  certainty  that  the  present  Euchologion 
existed  previous  to  A.D.  800,  though  the  Eastern 
church  cannot  fail  to  have  had  an  office  book,  or 
books  more  or  less  corresponding  to  it.  The 
edition  of  the  Euchologion  with  learned  notes  by 
James  Goar,  Paris,  1645,  frequently  reprinted, 
is  the  standard  authority  on  the  subject.  (Bin- 
teriin,  Denkwurdig.  iv.  i,  274 ;  Neale,  Eastern 
Church,  i.  2,  828).  [E.  V.] 

EUDOCIA,  btnofxdpTvs,  A.d.  160 ;  comme¬ 
morated  March  1,  Aug.  4  (Cal.  Byzant.'). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EUDOCIMUS,  Martyr  under  Theophilus 
the  Iconoclast;  commemorated  July  31  (Cal 
Byzant).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUGENDUS,  abbot  at  the  monastery  of  the 
Jurenses  in  Celtic  Gaul  ;  commemorated  Jan.  1 
(Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUGENIA.  (1)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Rome 
under  Gallienus ;  commemorated  Dec.  25  (Mart. 
Bom.  \et.,  Hieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi); 
bcno/idpTvs,  commemorated  Dec.  24  (Cal.  By¬ 
zant.). 

(2)  and  Bagan,  virgins;  commemorated  Jan. 

22  (Cal.  Armxn.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUGENIANUS,  martyr;  commemorated 
Jan.  8  (Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUGENIUS.  (1)  martyr  with  six  others  in 
Africa;  commemorated  Jan.  4  (Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

2)  Martyr  at  Neocaesarea  with  three  others ; 
commemorated  Jan.  24  (Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  in  Syria,  with  Paulus,  Cyrillus, 
and  four  others ;  commemorated  March  20 
(Mart.  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  at  Tibur  in  Italy,  with  Sympho- 


0 

rosa,  his  mother,  and  her  six  other  children  ;  com¬ 
memorated  June  27  (Mart.  Born.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi);  July  21  (Mart.  Bedae). 

(•5)  Bishop  of  Carthage,  and  martyr  with  his 
500  companions,  or  more  (“  universi  cleri  eccle- 
siae  ejusdem  ”)  ;  commemorated  July  13  (lb.). 

(6)  Bishop  of  Toledo,  and  confessor ;  comme¬ 
morated  Nov.  13  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(7)  Martyr  at  Paris ;  commemorated  Nov.  15 

(lb.). 

(8)  Martyr  with  Candidus,  Valerianus,  Acylas, 
A.D.  292;  commemorated  Jan.  21  (Cal.  Byzant.). 

(9)  Bishop,  and  martyr  a.d.  296;  commemo¬ 
rated  March  7  (Ib.). 

(10)  ^lartyr,  with  four  others,  A.D.  290  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Dec.  13  (/6.). 

(11)  and  Macarius ;  commemorated  Aug.  5 

(Cal.  Armen.).  .  [W.  F.  G.] 

(12)  Invention  of  the  relics  of  those  who  were 

martyred  with  Eugenius  (e»/  rots  Ebyiviov)’, 
Feb.  22  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [C.] 

EUGRAPHIUS  or  EUGRAPHUS,  martyr 
with  Mennas  (or  Menas)  and  Hermogenes,  a.d. 
304 ;  commemorated  Dec.  10  (Cal.  Byzant.) ; 
Dec.  3  (Cal.  Armen.). 

EULALIA.  (1)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Barcelons 
in  Spain,  under  Diocletian;  commemorated  Feb. 
12  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi);  Dec.  10 
(Mart.  Bedae). 

(2)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Merida  in  Spain  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Dec.  10  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi,  Cal.  Carthag.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EULAIMPIA,  martyr  with  EULAMPIUS, 
her  brother,  a.d.  296;  commemorated  Oct.  10 
(Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EULOGETARIA  (EvKoygrapia)  are  cer¬ 
tain  antiphons  occurring  in  the  Greek  Morning 
Office,  so  called  from  the  frequent  repetition  in 
them  of  the  words  cvXoyriTos  el,  Kvpie.  (Daniel, 
Codex  Lit.  304,  703;  Neale,  Eastern  Church, 
Introd.  919.)  [C.] 

EULOGIAE  in  an  eucharistic  sense. 

(1)  Eulogia  was  used  down  to  the  middle  of 
the  5th  century  as  synonymous  with  evxapicTTla 
for  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.  This 
signification  was  naturally  derived  from  St.  Paul’s 
words,  rh  Tror-ppiov  tvs  evXoylas  h  ev\oyov/j.ev 
(1  Cor.  X.  16).  In  commenting  on  this  passage 
Chrysostom’s  language  shows  that  the  word  was 
beginning  to  be  used  in  this  restricted  sense, 
chXoyiav  otuv  eXiru)  iravra  avairTvcaw  rhp 
TTjs  fvepycaias  too  Qeov  drjaauphv,  k.t.X.  (Chrys. 
Ilomil.  xxiv.  in  1  Cor.  x.  16),  in  which  it  is  of  con¬ 
stant  occurrence  in  the  writings  ofCyril  of  Ale.x- 
andria,  sometimes  by  itself  (Lib.  iv.  c.  2  in  Joann. 
vi.  p.  260 ;  ib.  364  ;  Catena  ad  Joann,  iii.  27, 
p.  343,  &c.);  sometimes  with  a  qualifying  epi¬ 
thet,  iivctik))  evKoyia  (lib.  Glaphyr.  in  I.ecit. 
pp.  351,  367  ;  in  Deut.  p.  414;  de  Adorat.  lib.  ii. 
p.  80);  euA.  TTvevp.a.TiKy)  (ib.  lib.  vl.  p.  177); 
6uA.  ^oioTToibs  (ib.  lib.  vii.  p.  231).  To  this  we 
may  add  “  tuuc  eulogia,  non  alogia  celebratur  ” 
(Aug.  Ep.  86  Casul.  presh.). 

(2)  Eulogia  then  came  to  be  used  specifically 
for  that  portion  of  the  eucharist,  t)  euxapiadeiaa 
Tpo(p^  (Just.  Mart.  A/ioloj.  §  67),  which  was 
conveyed  in  the  primitive  church  by  the  hands 


EULOGIAE 


EULOGIAE 


629 


of  the  deacons  to  those  who  were  absent  as 
W'ell  as  for  that  sent  by  the  bishops,  notably 
those  of  Rome,  to  their  daughter  churches, 
and  to  foreign  bishops  and  churches,  as  a 
symbol  of  Christian  love  and  brotherhood.  Ire- 
naeus  is  the  earliest  authority  for  this  practice, 
which  he  speaks  of  as  long  established.  In  his 
letter  to  Victor  bishop  of  Rome,  at  the  end  of 
the  2nd  century,  in  which  he  entreats  him  not 
to  make  a  ditference  as  to  the  time  of  the  cele¬ 
bration  of  Easter  a  ground  for  breach  of  com¬ 
munion,  he  refers  to  the  example  of  his  pre¬ 
decessors,  who,  notwithstanding  this  difierence, 
were  in  the  habit  of  sending  the  eucharist  to  the 
presbyters  of  other  dioceses  who  observed  the  Ori¬ 
ental  rule  (Iren,  apud  Euseb.  II.  E.  v.  24). 
With  the  increased  reverence  for  the  material 
eucharist  this  practice  dropt  into  disfavour,  and 
was  distinctly  forbidden  by  the  14th  canon  of 
the  council  of  L.aodicaea,  A.D.  365.  This  canon 
prohibits  “  the  sending  of  the  holy  things  into 
other  dioceses,  at  the  feast  of  Easter,  by  way  of 
eulogiae  ”  (ets  Koyov  e  h Koy  iwv').  Easter  seems 
to  be  specially  mentioned  as  the  chief  period 
for  this  interchange  of  pledges  of  communion, 
the  prohibition  itself  being  general.  The  32nd 
canon  of  the  same  council,  which  forbids  the 
reception  of  the  eulogiae  of  heretics,  which  is 
also  prohibited  by  the  second  council  of  Braga, 
A.D.  572,  probably  refers  to  the  eulogiae  of  un¬ 
consecrated,  but  blessed  bread  (see  below). 

Forbidden  in  the  East,  the  practice  lingered 
considerably  longer  in  the  West.  Sirmond,  in¬ 
deed,  the  learneil  Jesuit,  affirms  that  the  custom 
of  sendincr  the  eucharist  round  to  other  churches 
and  congregations  arose  subsequently  to  the 
times  of  Cyprian  and  Tertullian,  since  in  their 
writings  there  is  no  allusion  to  it,  and  all 
Christians  who  were  present  at  divine  service 
had  the  oj)portunity  of  communicating,  and  were 
bound  to  avail  theni-selves  of  it,  and  that  the 
eulogiae  distributed  consisted  of  bread  blessed 
but  not  consecrated  (de  Azymo,  iv.  527  sq.). 
Bat  the  passages  adduced  cannot  be  satisfactorily 
interpreted  on  any  other  hypothesis.  Suicer  un¬ 
doubtedly  states  the  case  correctly  when  he  .says, 
“  evAoytai  istae  quae  mittebantur  per  paroecias 
ipsissimae  erant  Eucharistiae  sive  panis  evxapi- 
cdfVTos,  ex  quo  communio  data  fuerat  ]>raesenti- 
bus,  particulae,  quae  absentibus  Presbyteris  per 
pa  roecias  Dioecesis  mittebantur.  Sic  enim  per- 
fecta  ex  eodem  pane  sanctificato  communio  inter 
omnes  illas  paroecias  unius  dioecesis  institui  vide- 
batur”  {Thes.  sub  voc.  euAoyi'o).  After  the 
church  had  been  invaded  by  heresy,  the  eucha¬ 
rist  was  distributed  to  the  orthodox  presbyters 
by  the  bishop  as  a  pledge  of  their  adhesion  to 
the  true  faith,  as  is  shewn  by  the  ordinances 
relating  to  the  fennentum  of  Melchiades,  a.d. 
311,  and  Siricius,  a.d.  385.  The  letter  of  Inno¬ 
cent  I.  to  Deceutius,  c.  410,  informing  him  of 
the  custom  of  sending  the  “  fermentum  ”  to  the 
presbyters  of  the  “  tituli,”on  Sundays  as  a  token 
of  communion,  and  expressing  his  disa))[)robation 
of  carrying  the  leaven  through  a  whole  diocese, 
“  quia  nec  longe  portanda  sunt  sacramenta,” 
illustrates  the  same  practice  [F*:RMi:NTirM].  A 
practice  very  nearly  allied  to  this  of  which  we  have 
been  speaking,  was  that  which  prevailed  among  the 
faithful  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  of  carry¬ 
ing  home  them.selves  and  transmitting  to  others 
a  portion  of  the  consecrated  bread  to  be  con¬ 


sumed  hereafter.  Thus  Tertullian  speaks  of  Chris¬ 
tian  womec  being  accustomed  “  secretly  before 
all  other  food  ”.  to  partake  of  the  eucharist 
(Tert.  ad  Uxor.  ii.  5),  and  answers  the  objection 
of  some  against  receiving  the  eucharist  on  a  day 
of  abstinence  lost  they  should  break  their  fast, 
by  the  suggestion  that  they  could  “  take  the  borly 
of  the  Lord  and  reserve  it  till  the.  fast  was  over  ’ 
(id.  do  Oral.  19).  Cyj)rian  tells  of  a  woman 
who  had  lapsed  being  terrified  by  the  sudden 
outburst  of  flame  when  she  opened  her  chest 
[Ahca]  in  which  “the  holy  thing  of  the  Lord  ” 
(Domini  sanctum)  was  kept  (Cypr.  de  Lapsis, 
p.  1 32).  Satyrus,  the  brother  of  Ambrose,  when 
fearing  to  be  lost  by  shipwreck  obtained  “  that 
divine  sacrament  of  the  faithful  ”  from  some  of 
his  fellow-passengers  (Ambros.  de  Obit.  Fratris, 
iii.  19).  Gregory  Nazianzen  speaks  of  his  sister 
Gorgonia  “  treasuring  up  with  her  hand  the 
antitypes  of  the  precious  Body  and  Blood  ”  (Greg. 
Naz.  Orat.  xi.  p.  187).  We  learn  from  Basil  that 
it  was  the  almost  universal  custom  at  Alex¬ 
andria  and  in  Egypt  for  the  daity  to  have  “  the 
communion”  in  their  houses;  that  solitaries  did 
the  same,  where  there  was  no  priest  near  ;  and 
that  it  was  generally  customary  in  times  of  per¬ 
secution  (Basil,  Ejjist.  93).  Jerome  sjieaks  of 
some  who  scrupled  to  receive  the  eucharist  at 
church,  but  were  not  afraid  to  take  it  at  home 
(Hieron.  Epist.  ad  Pamrnach.')^  and  of  those  who 
“carried  the  Lord’s  Body  in  a  wicker  basket  and 
His  Blood  in  a  glass  vessel  ”  (id.  Epist.  ad  Rus- 
ticum.,  95).  But  universal  as  this  practice  seems 
to  have  been,  its  natural  tendency  to  degenerate 
into  irreverence  and  superstition  gave  rise  to 
evils  which  led  the  church  to  discountenance 
and  ultimately  to  suppress  it.  There  is  no  trace 
of  its  general  observance  after  the  4th  century 
(Scudamore,  Notitia  Euchnristica,  p.  793). 

(3)  With  the  cessation  of  the  practice  of 
sending  the  consecrated  eucharist  to  persons  who 
were  not  present  grew  up  as  a  substitute  that 
of  distributing  the  unconsecrated  remains  of  the 
oblations  among  those  who  had  not  received  under 
the  name  of  eulogia,  or  in  still  later  times  of 
antidoron  or  substitute  for  the  duipou,  or  eucha¬ 
rist  proper.  According  to  the  rule  laid  down 
in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (lib.  viii.  c.  31) 
these  remains  (tcis  Trepio'afvova’as  eV  toTs  p-vari- 
ko7s  cuAoyias),  were  distributed  by  the  deacons, 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  bishops  or  presbyters,  to 
the  clergy  in  proj)ortion  to  their  rank.  The  rule 
prescribed  by  Theophilus  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
A.D.  385,  permits  “  the  faithful  brethren  ”  to 
share  them  with  the  clergy,  but  prohibits  a 
catechumen  to  partake  of  them.  That  the  cate¬ 
chumens,  however,  in  the  time  of  Augustine  par¬ 
took  of  some  kind  of  sacrament  is  plain  from  his 
words  ((/<?  Peccator.  Meritis,  ii.  26),  “quod  acce- 
peruiit  (catechumeni)  quaiiivis  non  sit  corpus 
Christi,  sanctum  tainen  est  et  sanctius  quain  cibi 
qnibus  alimur,  quoniam  sacramentum  est.”  As 
the  first  love  of  the  church  grew  cold  and  non- 
communicating  attendance  became  common,  the 
unconsecrated  remains  began  to  be  regularly 
distributed  among  tho.se  who  had  not  received, 
that  they  might  not  dejiart  without  a  semblance 
of  a  blessing.  The  Greek  names  for  tliis  prac¬ 
tice,  eu\oyia,  dur'iSupot',  sufficiently  indicate 
where  it  originated,  Tho  word  occurs  in  So¬ 
crates’  account  of  Chry.santhus,  the  bishop  of 
the  Novatians  at  Constantinople  in  the  5th  ecu- 


630 


EULOGIAE 


EULOGIAE 


tury,  who  declined  to  receive  anything  frorri  his 
churches  but  “two  loaves  of  i\\c  eHlo(]iae  Gvery 
Lord’s  Day,”  8vb  &pTovs  eukoyiuiu  (Socr.  II.  K.  vii. 
12).  In  the  liturgies  of  Chrysostom  an<l  Basil 
the  distribution  of  the  antidoron  by  the  priest 
is  prescribed — /uLerar^v  evxv>^  i^fpx^Tui  6  Upeus 
Kul  (rras  eV  ry  orvvpdsi  rbircp  SlSuxri  rh  avri- 
Supou  (Goar,  J'Jnc/iolog.  85,  §  190).  But  this  is 
evidently  an  addition  of  late  though  uncertain 
date.  Bal.'.am'on  deduces  it  from  a  desire  to 
evade  the  force  of  the  threat  of  the  second  canon 
of  Antioch  against  non-cornmunicating  attend¬ 
ance,  so  that  even  those  who  were  not  able  to 
receive  the  undefiled  mysteries  might  take  the 
eu'o(jin  of  the  hallowed  fragment  from  the  hand 
of  tiie  celebrant.  But  if  its  original  be  Greek, 
the  earliest  certain  notice  of  it  is  found  in  Latin 
writers,  and  not  earlier  than  the  9th  century, 
'i'he  decree  of  Pius  I.  A.D.  156  (Labbe,  i.  578), 
wliich  prescribes  it,  is  an  undoubted  forgery,  as  is 
acknowledged  by  Card.  Bona  (^Iler.  Liturg.  lib.  i. 
cap.  23).  This  decree  appears  nearly  verbatim 
both  in  the  G'pi  uln  of  Hincmar,  A.D.  353,  c.  7 
and  c.  16  (Labbe,  viii.  570),  and  in  the  canons  of 
Kantes,  c.  A.D.  896  (Labbe,  ix.  470,  canon  ix.). 
It  runs:  “  ut  de  oblationibus  quae  offeruntur  a 
populo  et  consecrationi  superfluunt,  vel  de  pa- 
uibus  quos  deferunt  fideles  ad  Ecclesiam,  vel 
eerie  de  suis.  Presbyter  convenientes  partes  in- 
cisas  habeat  in  vase  nitido  et  convenienti,  et  post 
missarum  solemuia  qui  communicare  non  fuerint 
parati  Eulogias  omni  die  Domiuico,  et  in  omnibus 
festis  exinde  accipiant,  quae  cum  benedictione 
prius  facial.”  This  canon  prescribes  a  form  of 
prayer  to  be  used  in  the  benediction  (c.  7). 
Leo  IV.  (847-855)  also  commanded  that  “  the 
eulnjiae  be  distributed  to  the  people  after  the 
Masses  on  Feastdays  ”  (Labbe,  viii.  37).  We 
should  be  transgressing  our  assigned  limits  still 
further  if  we  traced  the  custom  any  later.® 

(4)  When  the  custom  of  sending  the  eucharist 
to  one  another  as  a  symbol  of  Christian  com¬ 
munion  had  ceased  among  Christians,  the  prac¬ 
tice  arose  of  distributing  cakes  of  bread,  which 
had  received  a  special  benediction,  as  a  token  of 
mutual  love.  We  have  a  reference  to  this  prac¬ 
tice  in  the  writings  of  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
{Ora.t.  xix.  p.  306)  when  relating  a  dream  of  his 
sister  Gorgonia  when  sick.  “  She  thought  that 
1  .  .  .  .  suddenly  stood  by  her  in  the  night  with 
a  basket  and  loaves  of  the  purest  flour,  and 
having  prayed  over  them  and  signed  them  as 
our  wont  is,  fed  her.”  During  the  disputes  which 
succeeded  the  council  of  Ephesus,  the  bishops  and 
presbyters  of  Cilicia  and  Isauria  sent  Eulogiae  to 
John  of  Antioch,  in  token  of  communion  (Baluz., 
Nov.  Coll.  Concil.  867).  The  writings  of  Pau- 
liuus,  bishop  of  Nola,  contain  many  notices  of  these 
eulo  jiae,  sometimes  under  the  name  of  bcnedic- 
tiones,  which  were  interchanged  between  him  and 
Augustine  and  others.  The  latter  writes  to  Pau- 
linus,  “the  bread  we  have  sent  will  become  a 
riciier  blessing,  for  the  love  of  your  benignity  in 
accepting  it”  (Aug.  Epid.  xxxiA-.).  The  compli¬ 
ment  is  returned  by  Faulinus.  “The  single  loaf 
which  we  hai'e  sent  to  your  charity,  as  a  token  of 
unanimity,  we  bog  that  you  will  bless  (i.e.  make 
a  true  eulogia')  by  accepting  it  ”  (Paulin.  Epist. 


»  Those  who  wish  to  follow  up  this  practice  to  more 
modern  times  will  find  the  materials  in  Scudamore’s 
Notitia  Eucharistica,  ch.  xvi.  ^  2,  pp.  774-780. 


iA\  p.  16).  Paulinus  also  sends  a  trifid  loaf  tc 
Alypius,  “  panem  unum  .  .  in  quo  Triui- 

tatis  soliditas  continetur,”  which  he  will  turn 
into  a  eulogia  by  his  kindne.ss  in  receiving  it, 
(ib.  iii.  p.  12).  He  sends  five  loaves  to  Koma- 
nianus  and  Licinius  {ib.  vii.  p.  27).  To  Severus 
he  sends  “a  Campanian  loaf  from  his  cell,  as 
a  eulogia,”  together  with  a  boxwood  casket, 
and  begs  him,  as  before,  by  accepting  the  loaf  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  to  convert  it  into  a  eulogia 
{ib.  V.  §  21,  p.  30).  The  large  number  of  stories 
in  Gregory  of  Tours  in  which  the  expressions 
eulogias  accipere,  dare,  flagifare,  minidrare,  pe- 
tere,  porrigere,  postulare,  &c.  occur,  jtrove  how 
common  the  practice  was  as  a  token  of  Christian 
communion  and  a  symbol  of  episcopal  benediction 
in  the  6th  century  (Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  iv.  16; 
A^  14,  20 ;  X.  16;  de  Glor.  Confess.  31).  From 
some  of  these  passages  we  learn  that  to  drink  a 
cup  of  wine,  and  to  partake  of  a  morsel  of  bread 
blessed  by  him  in  a  bishop’s  house  was  considered 
equivalent  to  receiving  bis  benediction,  {eu'ogia) 
(id.  Hist.  A’i.  51  ;  idii.  2).  Ducange  {sub  voce) 
affords  a  very  large  number  of  later  references. 
Forms  of  litcrae  salutatoriie  to  accompany  eulo¬ 
giae  sent  by  a  bishop  to  a  king  or  to  another 
bishop,  and  of  acknowledgment,  are  contained  in 
the  Exemplaria  of  Marculfus,  lib.  ii.  42,  44,  45, 
46. 

(5)  This  was  not  the  only  form  which  eulogiae 
assumed.  We  have  seen  Paulinus  sending  a 
Avoodeu  box  as  a  eulogia.  Tiie  presents  sent 
by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  to  Pulcheria  and  the 
ladies  of  the  court  to  induce  them  to  forward 
his  interests  in  his  disputes  Avith  John  of  Antioch 
and  the  Oriental  bishops  Avere  delicately  de¬ 
scribed  as  “  blessings,”  “eulogiae.”  This  use  of 
the  word  is  borroAved  from  Holy  Sciu'pture,  Avhere 
a  gift  is  not  unfrequently  styled  a  blessing,  in 
the  LXX.  eiiAoyia;  see  Jud.  i.  15  ;  1  Sam.  xxv. 
27;  XXX.  26;  2  Kin.  v.  15;  2  Cor.  ix.  5; 
Rom.  XV.  29.  We  find  Gregory  the  Great  using 
this  term  of  some  relics  of  saints  (“  eulogias 
S.  Marci  ”)  sent  him  by  Eulogius,  patriarch  of 
Alexandria ;  and  “  benedictio  ”  of  a  small  cross 
[Encolpion],  containing  some  filings  of  the 
apostles’  chains  (Greg.  Mag.  Epist.  lib.  xiii.  ep.  42). 
Some  of  Augustine’s  opuscula  Avere  brought  to  the 
abbot  Valentinus  under  this  title  (August.  Ep. 
256).  Even  sAveetmeats,  nuts,  and  dry  figs  Avere 
included  under  this  title,  Avben  blessed  by  the 
sender.  Some  curious  stories  illustrative  of  this 
custom  are  recorded  in  the  Vitae  Patrum.  Thus 
some  bellaria  (sweetmeats)  brought  to  the  monas¬ 
tery  Avhere  A’^alens  was  a  monk  by  some  guests 
and  distributed  by  the  abbot  Macarius  to  each 
cell,  Avere  indignantly  rejected  by  Valens,  Avho 
beat  the  bearer  and  sent  him  back  with  the 
message,  “Go  and  tell  Macarius  that  I  am  as 
good  as  he.  What  right  then  has  he  to  send  me 
a  benedict  ion  i’’  (Pallad.  Hist.  Laus.  c.  31).  Ihey 
Avere  Avithheld  from  those  Avho  were  under  ex- 
communication,  and  excommunicated  bishops 
were  forbidden  to  send  them  to  others  (Greg. 
Turon.  Hist.  viii.  c.  20).  Thus  the  abbot  Arsenins 
took  umbrage  at  some  dry  figs  not  being  sent 
him,  and  regardihg  himself  as  excommunicated 
refused  to  attend  divine  seiwice  with  his  brethren 
until  the  ban  AA'as  taken  off  {de  1  it.  Patr.  lib.  a'. 
Migne,  Ixxiii.  p.  053).  The  eulogia  Avas  refused 
to  the  king  Merwig,  who  had  apostatized  (Greg. 
Tui-on.  Hist.  v.  14).  (Bingham,  Grig.  Eccl.  xv 


EULOGITJS 


EUPROBUa 


631 


4,  3,  and  8 ;  Bona,  lierum  Liturg. ;  Ducange’s 
Glossaries ;  ouicer,  Thesaurus  ;  Binterim,  Denk- 
tci/j-dig. ;  Augusti,  Christ.  Arch.  ii.  533).  [E.  V.] 

(G)  Eulogiae  in  monasteries.  In  the  Bene¬ 
dictine  rule  monks  are  forbidden  to  receive 
“  litteras,  eulogias,  vel  quaelibet  munuscula” 
without  the  abbat’s  leave  (^lieg.  Bened.  c.  54,  cf. 
Beg.  Dun<tt.  c.  53).  Here  probably  the  word  is 
used  in  its  widest  sense,  for  any  offering  or 
token  of  esteem  (Martene  ad  loo.  citing  Reg. 
Comment.),  or,  more  particularly,  for  bread  sent 
with  a  blessing.  See  (4)  and  (5)  above. 

In  some  monasteries,  e.  g.  that  of  Fulda 
(Mabill.  Ann.  O.S.D.  Praef.  Saec.  III.  vii.), 
eulogiae  were  distributed  daily  to  the  monks, 
who  had  not  already  received,  in  the  refectory 
before  their  meal ;  in  others  this  was  done  only 
on  Sundays  and  holy-days  (cf.  Reg.  Bened.  Com¬ 
ment.  c.  54).  In  the  life  of  Eligius,  in  the  7th 
century,  it  is  related  that  he  used  to  beg  these 
“  eulogiae  ”  or  pieces  of  blessed  bread  from  the 
monks  of  Solignac  (Mabill.  Ann.^  O.S.B.  XII. 
xxii.).  When  the  abbess  who  succeeded  Rade- 
gunde  in  the  convent  of  Ste.  Croix  at  Poitiers 
was  accused  of  feasting  she  replied  that  the 
alleged  feasting  was  only  the  partaking  of  the 
“ eulogiae  ” (/6.  VII.  liii.  589  A.D.).  “Eulogiae,” 
in  this  sense,  were  sometimes  giv'cn  by  a  bishop 
to  an  excommunicated  person  in  token  of  recon¬ 
ciliation  {Ib.  III.  1.)  The  other  .spelling,  “eulo- 
gium,”  is  condemned  by  Menard  (^Conc.  Regul. 
Bened.  Anian.  c.  61).  [I.  G.  S.] 

EULOGIUS.  (1)  Deacon,  and  martyr  at 
Tarragona,  with  Fructuosus  the  bishop,  under 
Gallienus  ;  commemorated  Jan.  21  (^Mart.  Hieron., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  ^lartyr  at  Constantinople  ;  commemorated 
July  3  (^Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(3)  Presbyter,  and  martyr  at  Cordova ;  com¬ 
memorated  Sept.  20  (hlart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUMENIA,  martyr  at  Augusta,  with  Hilaria 
and  others;  commemorated  Aug.  12  (^Mart. 
Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUM1<1NIUS.  (1)  Bishop  of  Gortyna,  ’6(xios 
Trar^jp  Kal  davgaroupySs ;  commemorated  Sept. 
18  (Cal.  Bgzant.). 

(2  )  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  A.D.  143;  com¬ 
memorated  Tekemt  10  =  Oct.  7  (Cal.  Ethiop.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EUNUCHS,  not  to  be  ordained.  The  feeling 
,  that  one  devoted  to  the  .sacred  ministry  should 
be  unmutilated  was  strong  in  the  ancient  church. 
Hence,  the  council  of  Nicaea  (c.  1)  enacted  that 
if  any  one,  being  in  health  (vyiaivujv)  dismem¬ 
bered  himself,  after  ordination,  he  should  be 
deposed  from  the  ministry,  or,  being  a  layman, 
he  should  not  be  admitted  to  Holy  Orders; 
and  in  the  Apostolical  Canons  (c.  21)  the  reason 
for  such  exclusion  is  added,  viz.,  that  the  offender 
is  a  self-murderer  (avrocpoi^evTrjs  iavrov)  and  an 
•nemy  of  the  workmanship  of  God.  These 
/anons,  and  a  later  one  in  the  2nd  council  of 
Arles  (c.  7),  were  aimed  against  that  perverted 
notion  of  piety,  originating  in  the  misinterpre¬ 
tation  of  our  Lord’s  saying  (Matt.  xix.  12),  by 
which  Origen,  among  others,  was  misled,  and 
their  observance  was  so  carefully  enforced  in 
later  times,  that  not  more  than  one  or  two 
instances  of  the  practice  which  they  condemn 


arc  noticed  by  the  historian.  The  case  waa 
different  if  a  man  was  born  a  eunuch,  or  had 
suffei’ed  mutilation  at  the  hands  of  j)ersecutoi's . 
an  instance  of  the  former,  Dorotheus,  pres¬ 
byter  of  Antioch,  is  mentioned  by  Eusebius 
(II.  E.  vii.  c.  32);  of  the  latter,  Tigiis,  pres¬ 
byter  of  Constantinople,  is  referred  to  both  Ly 
Socrates  (H.  E.  vi.  15)  and  Sozomen  (II.  E.  vi. 
24)  as  the  victim  of  a  barbarian  master  (Bing¬ 
ham,  Antiq.  iv.  iii.  9).  [D.  B.] 

EUNUS,  martyr,  with  Julian,  at  Alexandria; 
commemorated  Feb.  27  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUODUS,  martyr  with  Calliste  and  Hermo- 
genes ;  commemorated  Sept.  1  (Cal.  Byiant.). 

[VV.  F.  G.] 

EUOTUS,  martyr  at  Caesaraugusta  with 
seventeen  others  ;  commemorated  April  16 
(Mart.  Usuardi).  p  ^ 

EUPHEMIA.  (1)  Martyr  at  Chalcedon, 
under  Diocletian,  A.D.  288  ;  commemoratecl 
Sept.  16  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usu¬ 
ardi) ;  IQ  (Cal.  Byzant.) commemoration 

of  the  miracle  which  she  is  said  to  have  wrought 
in  the  church  of  Chalcedon,  July  1 1  (Cal.  Byzant.). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome,  with  Lucia;  commemo¬ 
rated  Sept.  16  (Mart.  Hieron.,  Cal.  Allatii  et 
Frontonis).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUPHRASIA  or  EUPRAXIA.  (1) Virgin; 
deposition  at  Alexandria,  Feb.  11  (Ma'  t.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Virgin ;  deposition  in  the  Thebais,  March 

13  (Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUPHRASIES.  (1)  Bishop,  and  martyr ; 
natale  Jan.  14  (3Iart.  Usuardi);  deposition  Jan. 

14  (Mart.  Hieron.). 

(2)  Confessor  at  Eliturgis  Spain ;  comme¬ 
morated  May  15  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

[VV.  F.  G.] 

EUPHROSIUS,  martyr  in  Africa;  commemo¬ 
rated  March  14  (Mart.  Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

EUPHROSYNE  or  EUFROSINA.  (1) 
Virgin,  of  Alexandria ;  commemorated  Jan.  1 
(Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Virgin,  martyr,  wdth  Domitilla  and  Theo¬ 
dora,  under  Trajan ;  commemorated  May  7  (Ib.) 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EUPHROSYNE,  hala  giiryp,  A.D.  410;  a:)m- 
memorated  Sept.  25  (Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUPLUS,  deacon,  and  martyr  at  Catana  in 
Sicily,  under  Diocletian  and  Maximian,  A.D.  296  ; 
commemorated  Aug.  12  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Adonis,  Usuardi);  Aug.  11  (Cal.  Byzant.). 

[VV.  F.  G.] 

EUPRAXIA,  and  Olympias ;  commemorated 
July  25  (Cal.  Byzant.).  See  Euphkasia. 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EUPREPIA,  martyr  at  Augusta,  with  Hila¬ 
ria  and  others;  commemorated  Aug.  12  (Mart. 

Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W,  F.  G.] 

EUPREPIUS,  one  of  the  three  brothers  of 
Cosmas  and  Damianus,  martyrs  under  Diocletian  ; 
commemorated  Sept.  27  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

EUPROBUS,  bishop  and  martyr,  at  Saintes 
in  Gaul ;  commemorated  April  30  (Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi),  [VV.  F.  G.] 


632 


EUrSYCHIUS 


EVANGELIST 


EUPSY’CHIL^S,  martyr  at  Caesarea,  under 
Julian;  commemoi-ated  April  9  (Ca/.  Bi/zant.'). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EUSEBIUS.  (1)  Palatixus,  martyr  with 
nine  (^Hora.  Vet.  eight)  others  ;  commemorated 
March  5  Horn.  Vet..,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  with  Aphrodisius,  Carilippus,  and 
Agapius  ;  commemorated  April  28  (Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(3)  The  historian,  bishop,  and  confessor,  of 
Caesarea  in  Palestine;  commemorated  June  21 
(J/arf.  Hieron.,  Flori,  Usuardi), 

(4)  Bishop  and  martyr  at  Vercelli  under  Con¬ 
stantins;  commemorated  Aug.  1  (^Mart.  Rom. 
Vet..,  Hieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(5)  Presbyter,  and  confessor  at  Rome,  under 
Constantins  Augustus ;  commemorated  Aug.  14 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal. 
Frontonis). 

(6)  Martyr  at  Rome,  with  three  othei’s,  under 
Commodus ;  commemorated  Aug,  25  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(7)  Martyr  at  Adrianopolis  in  Thrace,  with 
Philip  the  bishop  and  Hermes  ;  commemorated 
Oct.  22  {Mart.  Hiei’on.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(8)  Monk,  and  martyr  at  Tarracina  in  Cam¬ 
pania,  with  Felix  the  presbyter,  under  Claudius  ; 
commemorated  Nov.  5  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(9)  Bishop  of  Samosata,  and  martyr  under 
Valens  ;  commemorated  June  22  {Cal.  Bi^zant.). 

[VV.  F.  G.] 

EUSIGNIUS,  martyr  at  Antioch,  a.d.  361 ; 
commemorated  Aug.  5  {Cal.  Byzant.').  fW.  F.  G.] 

EUSTACHIUS.  (1)  Bishop  and  confessor 
at  Antioch  in  Syria,  under  Constantine  (Constan¬ 
tins,  Ado);  commemorated  July  16  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Presbyter  and  martyr  in  Syria ;  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  12  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(Z)  Placidus,  martyr  at  Rome,  with  his 
wife  and  two  children,  under  Adrian ;  comme¬ 
morated  Nov.  2  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

EUSTATHIUS  or  EUSTASIUS.  (1)  With 

nis  companions,  yLcyaXoixapros,  A.D.  100  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Sept.  20  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(2)  ab  Msketha  or  Mzcheta ;  commemorated 
July  29  {Cal.  Georg.). 

(3)  and  Theodotus ;  commemorated  Oct.  1 
{Cal.  Armen.). 

(4)  Abbot  of  Luxeuil ;  deposition  March  29 

{Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUSTORGIUS,  presbyter  and  martyr  at 
Nicomedia ;  commemorated  April  11  {Mart. 
Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUSTOSIUS,  martyr  at  Antioch  with  De¬ 
metrius  the  bishop,  Anianus  the  deacon,  and 
twenty  others;  commemorated  Nov.  10  {Ih.) 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EUSTRATIUS,  martyr  with  Eugenius  and 
three  others,  A.D.  290 ;  commemorated  Dec.  13 
{Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUTHYMIUS.  (1)  Magnus,  '6<tios  kuI  0€o- 
(fiopos,  A.D.  465 ;  commemorated  Jan.  20  {Cal. 
Byzant.). 

(2)  Deacon  of  Alexandria  ;  commemorated  May 
5  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron,,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 


(3)  of  Athos  ;  commemorated  May  1.1  {Cal 
Georg.). 

(4)  Bishop  of  Sardis,  and  martyr,  a.d.  820 : 
commemorated  Dec.  26  {Cal.  Buzant.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EUTROPIA,  sister  of  Nicasius  the  bishop, 
martyr  with  him  at  Rheims ;  commemorated 
Dec.  14  {Mart.  Usuardi),  [W.  F,  G.] 

EUTROPIUS  (1)  and  companions,  martyr 
A.D.  296 ;  commemorated  March  3  {Cal.  By 
zant.). 

(2)  Bishop,  and  martyr  at  Arausio  in  Gaul; 
commemorated  May  27  {Mad.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  sisters  Zosima  and 
Bonosa ;  commemorated  July  15  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUTYCHIANUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Campania, 
with  Symphorosa  and  eight  others ;  commemo¬ 
rated  July  2  {Mart.  Rom.Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Africa  with  Arcadius  and  two 
others;  commemorated  Nov.  13  {.Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Pope,  and  martyr  under  Aurelian ;  com¬ 

memorated  Dec.  8  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet..  Hieron., 
Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EUTYCHIUS  (1).  Deacon  and  martyr  in 
Mauretania  Caesariensis,  with  two  others ;  com¬ 
memorated  May  21  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Sicily  with  Placidus  and  thirty 
others ;  commemorated  Oct.  5  {Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  in  Spain;  commemorated  Dec.  11 
{Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Presbyter,  and  martyr  at  Ancyra  in  Gala¬ 
tia  with  Domitianus  the  deacon ;  commemorated 
Dec.  28  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(5)  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  551-582  ; 
commemorated  April  6  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EUTYCHUS  or  EUTYCHES.  (1)  Martyr 
in  Thrace  with  Plautus  and  Heracleas ;  comme  ■ 
morated  Sept.  29  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Naples  with  Januarius,  bishop 
of  Beneventum,  and  others,  under  Diocletian ; 
commemorated  Sept.  19  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  in  Italy,  with  ilaro  and  Yictorinus, 
under  Nerva ;  commemorated  April  15  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Disciple  of  St.  John,  and  martyr ;  comme¬ 
morated  Aug.  24  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EVAGRIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Tomi  in 
Scythia,  with  Benignus ;  commemorated  April  3 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Tomi,  with  Priscus  and  Cre- 
scens ;  commemorated  Oct.  1  {Mart.  Rom.  1  d., 
Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EVANGELIARIUM,  EVANGELISTA- 
RIUM  {EvayyfXKTT^pioy),  the  book  contain¬ 
ing  the  passages  of  the  gospels  to  be  read  in  the 
liturgy.  [Gospel  :  Lectioxaky  :  Liturgical 
Books.]  [C.] 

EVANGELIARYL  [Liturgical  Books.] 

EVANGELIST.  The  deacon  is  called  “Evan¬ 
gelist  ”  in  his  capacity  of  reader  of  the  gospel. 
In  the  liturgy  of  Chrysostom  (c.  19,  p.  347, 


EVANGELISTS 


EVANGEIJSTS 


633 


Daniel)  the  deacon  prays  the  priest,  “  Bless,  sir, 
the  evangelist  (€vayyc\i(TTijy)  of  the  holy 
apostle  and  gospel.”  [0.] 

EVANGELISTS.  The  Four  Evangelists  are 
commemorated  Oct.  19  (Cd/.  Armoi.).  [C.] 

EVANGELISTS,  symbolic  representations 
of.  We  find  from  Aringhi  (ii.  285)  that  the 
four  symbolic  creatures  are  (as  might  be  ex¬ 
pected)  not  the  original  emblems  of  the  four 
evangelists.  The  four  rivers  of  paradise  are 
perhaps  intended  to  represent  the  gospel,  and 
the  distinct  channels  of  its  diffusion  through¬ 
out  the  world  (Gen.  li.).  These  are  found  in 
some  of  the  earliest  specimens  of  unquestionably 
authentic  Christian  decoration,  as  in  the  Lateran 
cross  [Cross,  p.  496],  where  the  lamb  and  stag 
are  introduced.  The  four  books  or  rolls  are 
also  found  in  early  work,  Ciampini  (F.  M.  i.  67 
tab. ;  Buonarotti,  xiv.  2).  In  some  instances, 
as  in  the  bapti.sm  of  our  Lord  in  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Pontianus  (Aringhi,  275,  2,  also  at  end 
of  Bottari),  the  animals  are  introduced  drink¬ 
ing  in  the  Jordan.  In  this  case,  either  the 
mystic  river  is  identified  with  the  four  rivers  of 
paradise,  and  made  to  accompany  the  ornamented 
cross  below,  representing  the  gospel,  as  in  the 
Lateran  cross  (see  s.  v.),  or  the  cross  in  St.  Pon¬ 
tianus,  below  the  baptism-picture,  represents  the 
Lord’s  death  and  baptism  thereinto.  Mr.  Parker 
gives  an  admirably  clear  photograph  of  the  pre¬ 
sent  condition  of  this  important  work,  which  he 
dates  from  a.d.  772.  The  Lateran  relic  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  similar  to  the  crosses  of  the  time  of 
Constantine. 

The  adoption  of  the  four  creatures  of  the 
Apocalypse  (iv.  6)  as  images  of  the  evangelists, 
does  not  seem  to  have  taken  place  generally,  or 
is  not  recorded  on  Christian  monuments,  before 


peculiarly  impressive  connexion  between  the 
beginning  of  the  visions  of  Ezekiel,  and  the 
unveiling  of  heaven  to  the  eyes  of  St.  John. 
This  is  unmistakable ;  although  in  the  pro¬ 
phet’s  vision  the  living  creatures  were  not 
only  four  in  number,  but  each  was  fourfold  in 
shape.  “  They  four  had  the  face  of  a  man,  and 
the  face  of  a  lion,  on  the  right  side ;  and  they 
four  had  the  face  of  an  ox  on  the  left  side ;  they 
four  also  had  the  face  of  an  eagle.”  While  in 
the  Apocalypse,  “The  first  beast  was  like  a  lion, 
the  second  like  a  calf,  the  third  had  the  face  of  a 
man,  and  the  fourth  beast  was  like  a  flying 
eagle.”  This  connexion  is  said  by  Mrs.  Jameson, 
(^Sacred  and  Legendary  Art,  79)  to  have  been 
noticed  as  early  as  the  2nd  century,  though  no 
representations  are  found  till  the  5th.  Nor  was 
it  till  long  after  the  four  creatures  had  been 
taken  as  prefiguring  the  four  evangelist.s,  that  a 


special  application  was  made  of  each  .symbol  to 
each  writer.  This  may  be  referred  to  St.  Jerome 
on  Ezekiel  i.  St.  Matthew  has  the  man,  as 
beginning  his  gospel  with  the  Lord’s  human 
genealogy  :  St.  Mark  the  lion,  as  testifying  the 
Lord’s  royal  dignity,  or  as  containing  the  ter¬ 


rible  condemnation  of  unbelievers  at  the  end  of 
his  gospel :  St.  Luke  the  ox,  as  he  dwells  on 
the  priesthood  and  sacrifice  of  Christ :  St.  John 
the  eagle,  as  contemplating  the  Loi-d’s  divine 
nature.  Ingenuity  and  devotion  have  done  their 
utmost  on  this  subject  for  centuries  with  little 
result.  An  ivory  diptych  of  the  5th  century. 


the  earliest  known  representation  of  this  emblem, 
which  does  not  occur  in  the  glass  devices  recorded 
by  Garrucci  or  Buonarotti.  The  well-known 
representation  of  the  four  creature-symbols  in 
the  great  mosaic  of  the  church  of  St.  Pudentiana 
at  Rome,  must  we  think  be  left  out  of  reckoning 
altogether  as  an  historic  document.  (See  Mr. 
J.  E.  Parker’s  photographs,  and  the  articles 
thereon  in  his  Antiquities  of  Rome,  by  the  author 
of  the  present  paper ;  also  Messrs.  Crowe  and 
Cavalcaselle’s  Early  Italian  Art,  vol.  i.  chap,  i.) 
The  symbols  are  placed  above  a  7th  century 


cross,  and  on  close  inspection  of  the  photographs, 
appear  to  have  been  repaired  in  fi-esco,  or  by 
painting  of  some  kind.  The  appearance  of  the 
whole  mosaic  in  fact  is  that  of  a  quantity  of 
material  of  different  ages,  some  doubtless  very 
ancient  and  of  great  merit,  combined  as  a  whole 


634 


EVANGELISTS 


EVENING  HYMN 


by  a  ixvinteT  and  mosaicist  of  the  greatest  skill 
and  power  m  the  16th  century.  However,  the 
use  of  the  qua(lru])le  symbols  is  universal,  in 
east  and  west,  and  tliroughout  the  Christian 
world,  in  every  kind  of  situation,  and  by  use  of  all 
vehicles  and  methods.  They  are  vexy  fx’equently 
placed  on  crosses  of  the  7th  centuiy,  about  the 
same  time  as  that  in  which  the  change  took  place 
from  the  lamb  at  the  iutex-ection  of  the  limbs 
of  the  cross  to  the  human  form  crucified.  They 
occur  on  the  ci’oss  of  Velitrae,  and  on  some  ancient 
German  crosses  mentioned  under  Crucifix,  as  the 
station  cross  of  Planig,  &c.  But  the  most  intei- 
estiug  6th  centurv  rt*presentation  of  them  known 
to  us  is  the  quaintly  but  most  grandly-conceived 
tetramorph  of  the  Rabula  MS.,  which  represents 
the  Loi’d  at  the  ascension,  mounting  a  chaxdot  of 
many  wings  and  cherubic  foi’m.  It  shows  that 
the  Syrian  miniaturist  had  a  most  vivid  ima¬ 
gination,  and  the  highest  power  of  I'eaiising  his 
conceptions,  as  appeal’s  in  so  many  parts  of  that 
extraordinary  work.  The  wheels  of  the  chariot, 
as  well  as  the  cherubic  foi’ms,  connect  the  vision 
of  Ezekiel  with  the  griffins  of  Lombai’d  Chui’ch- 
art  as  at  Verona.  Mrs.  Jameson  gives  a  very 
intei’esting  teti-amorph  or  chei’ubic  foi’m  bearing 
the  evangelic  symbols,  from  a  Greek  mosaic. 
This  symbol  is  certainly  not  of  the  age  of  the 
earlier  catacomb  paintings,  and  occurs  first  with 
frequency  in  the  tessellated  apses  and  tribunes 
of  Byzantine  churches,  and  is  of  course  specially 
worthy  of  note  as  explaining  the  connexion  be¬ 
tween  the  vision  of  Ezekiel  and  that  of  St.  John. 
The  four  animals  separately  represented  occur 
passim,  both  in  Eastern  and  Western  Church- 
work.  (See  Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon.  i.  tab.  48.)  There 
are  grand  examples  in  the  spandrils  of  the  dome 
of  Galla  Placidia’s  chapel  in  Ravenna,  as  in  St. 
Apollinai’is  in  Classe,  and  particularly  in  the 
chapel  of  St.  Satyrus  at  Milan.  [For  a  singular 
specimen  of  Carlovingian  grotesques  of  them 
see  Miniature.]  (The  woodcuts,  p.  633,  are 
from  the  latter.)  The  eagle  given  below  is 
taken  from  the  Evangeliary  of  Louis  le  De- 
bonnaire  ;  but  the  Hours  of  that  emperor  and 
the  MS.  of  St.  Medard  of  Soissons,  also  contain 
whole  page  emblems  of  the  four  evangelists. 

In  St.  Vitale  at  Ravenna  the  .symbols  of  the 
evangelists  accompany  their  sitting  figures.  St. 
Matthew  has  the  man,  St.  Mark  the  (wingless) 
lion  ;  the  calf,  also  wingless,  belongs  to  St.  Luke, 
and  the  eagle  to  St.  John.  The  nimbus  is  some¬ 
times  added,  and  sometimes  the  creatures  bear 
the  rolls  or  books  of  the  gospel  (Ciampini,  V.  M. 
H.  XV. ;  in  St.  Cosmas  and  Damian.  See  also  ibid. 
H,  xxiv.  for  St.  Apolliiiaris  in  Classe,  temp.  Felix 
IV.  about  530). 

There  is  a  very  strange  missal  painting  referred 
to  by  Martigny,  where  the  human  forms  of  the 
evangelists  in  apostolic  robes  are  surmounted  by 
the  heads  of  the  creatures.  This  occurs  also,  he 
says,  in  an  ancient  church  of  Aquiloia  (Bartoli, 
Le  Antichita  di  Aquileia,  404).  Two  examples 
are  given  in  woodcut  by  Mrs.  Jameson,  Sacred 
and  Legendary  Art,  83.  One  is  by  Fra  Ange¬ 
lico,  and  the  hands,  feet,  and  drapery  of  the  other, 
which  is  not  dated,  seem  too  skilfully  done  to  be 
of  early  date. 

But  the  four  creatures  occur  alike  in  bas-reliefs 
on  altars,  on  sacred  vessels  and  vestments,  and 
even  on  bronze  medals.  See  Paciaudi  de  Cultu 
S.  Joan.  Bapt.  p.  163,  for  a  bronze  coin  with  the 


man  and  the  eagle  on  one  side,  the  lion  and  call 
on  the  other,  lettered  respectively  NA0EOC 
{sic),  lOHANNIS,  NAPC,  LVCAS.  Nothing  is 
known  of  the  history  of  this  relic.  It  may  be 
supposed  that  where  the  Lord  is  surrounded  by 
saints  and  apostles  the  bearers  of  books  are 
intended  for  the  evangelists,  especially  if  they 
are  four  in  number,  though  on  the  sai’cophagus 
in  Bottari  cxxxi.  t.  only  tiiree  are  represented. 


probably  St.  Mattliew  and  St.  John,  with  St. 
Mark  as  companion  and  interpreter  of  St.  Peter. 
Four  figures  in  the  baptistery  at  Ravenna  hold¬ 
ing  books,  and  placed  in  niches  of  mo.saic  ara¬ 
besques,  are  considered  of  doubtful  meaning  by 
Ciampini  {V.  M.  i.  tab.  72);  but  Martigny  is 
perfectly  satisfied  that  the  evangelists  are  in¬ 
tended  by  them  (Martigny,  Dictionmire  s.  v. 
Evangelistes).  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

EVE.  [Vigil.] 

EVENING  HYMN.  In  the  vespers  of  tlie 
Eastern  church,  after  certain  fixed  psalms,  con¬ 
cluding  with  Ps.  cxxiii.,  expressive  of  intense 
expectation,  followed  by  the  “Entrance,”  so 
called,  of  the  Go.spels  considered  as  enshrining 
Chri.st  Himself,  with  an  exhortation  to  the  ac¬ 
knowledgment  and  hearing  of  Him  as  there 
present  (“Wisdom,  stand  up”) — the  Evening 
Hymn  is  appropriately  sung ;  the  triumphant 
“  Hymn  of  the  Evening  Light,”  at  once  giving 
thanks  for  the  gift  of  artificial  light,  and  praising 
the  true  “  Light  that  shiiieth  in  darkness,  in 
Whom  is  Life,  and  the  Life  is  the  Light  of  men  ” 
— hence  called  by  St.  Basil  iiriXvxvms  evxapi- 
a-Tia.  “Joyful  Light  of  the  holy  glory  of  the 
immortal  Father,  the  heavenly,  the  holy,  the 
blessed  Jesu  Christ,  we  having  come  to  the 
Setting  of  the  Sun  and  beholding  the  Evening 
light,  praise  God,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
It  is  meet  at  all  times  that  Thou  shouldst  be 
hymned  with  auspicious  voices.  Son  of  God, 
Giver  of  Life  :  wherefore  the  world  glorifieth 
thee,” 

There  is  reference  to  the  “Evening  Psalm” 


EVENTITJS 


EVOVAE 


635 


(_Tov  iiriKv'x^vioi'  \pa\/ubi' ;  t.  <?.  Ps.  cxli.)  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  which  may  be  consi¬ 
dered  to  represent  the  Eastern  system  of  the  3rd 
or  4th  century  (lib.  viii.  c.  35). 

So  in  the  West,  Hilary  (in  Ps.  Ixiv.)  writes— 
“  The  day  is  begun  with  prayers,  and  the  day  is 
closed  with  hymns  to  God.” 

Bingham;  Palmer,  Orig.  Lit.;  Freeman,  Prin¬ 
ciples,  of  Divine  Service.  [H.  B.] 

EVENTIUS,  presbyter  and  martyr  at  Rome 
with  Alexander  the  pope  and  Theodulus  the 
presbyter,  under  Trajan ;  commemorated  May  3 
{Mart.  Bedae,  Mart.  Eon.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi,  Cal.  Frontonis).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EVIGILATOR  CAcpuTryia-Tijs),  an  officer  in 
Greek  monasteries  whose  duty  it  was  to  waken 
the  monks  for  nocturnal  and  matutinal  services. 
Another  officer  of  the  kind  was  the  “  excitator,” 
who  had  to  waken  a  monk  asleep  in  church  (Du- 
cange.  Gloss.  Lat.  et  Gr.  s.  vv.).  [I.  G.  S.] 

EVILASIUS,  martyr  atCyzicus  with  Fausta 
the  Virgin,  under  Maximian ;  commemorated 
Sept.  20  (Mart.  Porn.  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EA^IL  SPIRITS.  [Demon:  Demoniacs: 
Exorcism.] 

EVODIUS.  (1)  Martyr  .at  Syracuse,  with 
Hennogeues ;  commemorated  April  25  (^Mart. 
Usuardi). 

(2)  Bishop,  and  martyr  .at  Antioch  ;  comme¬ 
morate!  May  6  {Mart.  Pom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usu¬ 
ardi). 

(3)  M.artyr  at  Nicaeca,  with  Theodota  his  mo¬ 
ther  and  her  two  other  children,  under  Diocle¬ 
tian  ;  commemorated  Aug.  2  {lb..  Mart.  Bedae). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EA’OVAE  is  an  artificial  word  made  out  of 
the  vowels  in  the  words  “  seculorum  Amen,” 
which  occur  at  the  end  of  the  Gloria  Patri.  Its 
object  was  to  serv'e  as  a  kind  of  memoria  tech- 
nica  to  enable  singers  to  render  the  several  Gre¬ 
gorian  chants  properly ;  each  letter  in  Evovae 
standing  for  the  syllable  from  which  it  is  ex¬ 
tracted.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  psalms, 
&c.,  were  sung  under  antiphons,  and  that  the 
music  of  the  antiphon,  being  constructed  in  a 
particular  ‘  mode  ’  or  ‘  scale,’  such  as  Dorian, 
Phrygian,  and  the  like,  the  chant  or  ‘  tone  ’ 
(i.  q.  ‘  tune  ’)  to  the  psalm,  being  not  intended 
to  represent  a  full  stop  or  close,  might  (and 
usually  did)  not  end  on  the  fin.al  belonging  to 
the  mode,  leaving  that  for  the  concluding  anti¬ 
phon  :  thus  different  forms  of  the  same  mode  or 
tone  would  arise,  and  these  were  called  Evovae 
and  sometimes  differentiae,  finitiones,  conciusiones, 
and  species  seculorum.  This  only  applies  to  the 
latter  half  (cadence)  of  the  chant,  as  in  the  ‘me¬ 
diation’  (at  the  middle  of  the  verse  of  a  psalm) 
scarcely  any  variety  was  admitted,  except  such 
as  arose  from  local  use.  Thus  in  the  various 
works  on  the  subject,  and  in  service  books, 
varieties  of  endings  are  to  be  found  of  greater  or 
less  antiquity.  Gerbert  mentions  the  fact  that 
in  some  cases  the  peculiar  distinctive  marks  of 
the  tones  had  become  confused,  notably  in  the 
1st  and  6th  ;  and  the  only  possible  distinction 
would  seem  to  be  in  the  assignment  of  ac¬ 
cents.  It  does  not  appear  however  that  accent, 
in  the  modern  musical  sense  of  the  word,  was 


recognised  to  any  extent  by  the  ancients,  Ac- 
CENTUS  being  equivalent  to  what  we  should  now 
call  inflection.  [Acoentus  Ecclesiasticus.]  For 
the  first  few  centuries  of  the  Christian  era 
rhythm  w<as  regulated  by  quantity,  which  gra¬ 
dually  gave  place  to  accent;  and  it  seems  to  the 
w'riter  th.at  musical  .accentuation  remained  in  a 
very  uncertain  state  until  the  17th  century. 
Still  the  Evovae  must  be  regarded  .as  containing 
the  germ  of  the  present  accepted  views  respecting 
accent,  as  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the  follow¬ 
ing  forms. 

(1)  Full  form  of  the  1st  tone,  which  is  in  the 
Dorian  mode  ;  the  dominant  or  reciting  note  being 
a,  and  the  final  note  D. 


(<yx  - 

Sic  -  ut  erat  in  principio,  et  nunc,  et  seni  -  per: 


et  in  secula  secu  -  lo  -  rum.  A  -  men.  .  .  . 


This  ending  would  be  written  thus : 


E  V  O  V  A  E. 


The  accents  are  supplied  by  the  writer.  Before 
the  invention  of  notes  the  same  would  be  ex¬ 
pressed  thus : 

a  a  G  F  G  a  G  F  E  D 

E  V  O  V  A  E 

(2)  A  shortened  form  of  the  1st  tone,  whicn 
does  not  end  on  the  proper  final  D,  leaving  that 
correct  cadence  to  be  supplied  by  the  antiphon. 


]^l ^ 

----- 

: 

- - - - - 

Sic  •  ut  erat  in  principio,  et  nunc,  et  sera  •  per 

irz  ^  ^  .. 

«•;.  ■  ■  1  

et  in  secula  secu  •  lo  -  rum,  A  -  men. 

The  accents  are  as  before,  and  the  Evovae  thus  : 


1 


E  V  O  V  A  E. 


(3)  Sixth  tone,  in  the  Hypolydian  mode ;  domi¬ 
nant  a,  final  F. 


4sE 


iz^r: 


<S> - ' 


-rs- 


Sic  -  ut  erat  in  priucipio,  et  nunc,  et  sem  -  per  : 


et  in  secula  secu  -  lo  -  rum.  A'-  men. 

The  Evovae  would  be  expressed  thus  (accents 
being  supplied) : 


E  V  O  V  A  K. 


EVUllTIUS 


EXAMINATION  FOR  ORDEKS 


6oG 

Any  one  acquainted  with  music  can  see  how 
nearly  identical,  so  far  as  notes  are  concerned, 
tiiese  two  last  forms  are,  and  that  the  only  dilfer- 
euce  of  character  they  can  assume  is  by  reason 
of  different  accentuation. 

From  the  uncertainty  of  accent  already  men¬ 
tioned,  it  will  easily  be  seen  that  in  different 
cases  the  same  tone,  ami  the  same  ending  of  it, 
would  receive  dilferent  accentuations  according 
to  the  feeling  of  the  compiler  of  the  Psalter  of 
the  church  in  question;  and  this  gives  authority 
for  the  dilferent  versions  that  will  be  found  in 
the  modern  books  of  Gregorian  tones  which  are 
very  accessible,  and  to  which  the  reader  is  re¬ 
ferred,  as  for  example  the  following  ending  of 
the  sixth  tone  (the  one  most  commonly  heard) 
compared  with  the  one  given  above  : 


EV  0  V  A  E. 


and  these,  which  are  both  alleged  to  be  the  cor¬ 
rect  ending  of  the  second  tone  : 


- - 

I  an< 

- 

EVOV 

A 

E 

J 

^  -  1! 

EVO  V  A  E. 


It  is  almost  needless  to  say  that  modern  notation 
IS  here  adopted  for  the  sake  of  greater  simplicity 
and  definiteness. 

The  chief  authority  made  use  of  here  is  the 
supplemental  essay  in  Dyce’s  edition  of  the  Book 
of  Common  1‘ruyer^  with  plain  tune  (now  rare) 
which  gives  ancient  authorities,  Elias  Salomonis, 
Adam  de  Fulda,  and  the  Tonale  of  St.  Bernard, 
all  I’eferred  to  by  Gerbert.  Although  these  are 
of  later  date  than  the  8th  century,  the  number 
of  variations  which  they  recognise,  and  the  man¬ 
ner  in  which  their  recognition  is  made,  seem  to 
make  it  tolerably  clear  that  these  differences  or 
Evovae  are  of  much  prior  date  to  them.  The 
view  here  taken  by  the  writer  receives  some 
confirmation  from  the  fact  that  a  modern  imita¬ 
tion  of  the  word  Evovae  proposed  by  Mr.  Dyce 
has  never  got  into  use,  and  is  a  mere  curiosity, 
inasmuch  as  our  means  of  expressing  accent  are 
more  obvious.  [J.  R.  L.] 

EVURTIUS,  or  EVORTIUS,  bishop  of  Or¬ 
leans,  and  confessor;  deposition  at  Orleans,  Sept. 
7  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EWALDUS,  or  EGUALDUS,  name  of  two 
English  presbyters,  martyrs  among  the  ancient 
continental  Saxons;  commemorated  Oct.  3  (d/arf. 
Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EXACTIONES  are  extraordinary  revenues, 
whether  drawn  from  a  new  form  of  impost 
(census  de  novo  impositus),  or  from  raising  the 
rate  of  an  old  source  of  revenue  (augmentatio 
census).  Such  exactions  were  in  early  times 
condemned  by  the  church  ;  thus  the  33rd  canon 
of  the  third  council  of  Toledo  (a.d.  589)  and 
the  fifth  of  the  sixteenth  (a.d.  693)  forbade 
bishops  to  levy  exactions  upon  their  dioceses; 


pope  Leo  IV.  (a.d.  853)  also  stigmatized  as 
“  exactioiies  illicitae  ”  any  demands  for  suppEes 
made  by  bishops  “ultra  statuta  patrum.”  Simi¬ 
lar  decrees  were  also  made  by  later  authorities. 
It  is  laid  down  by  canonists  that  an  “  exaction  ” 
must  have  manifest  justification  (manifesta  et 
rationabilis  causa)  and  be  limited  to  the  sum 
absolutely  necessary  to  be  raised  (moderatum 
aiixilium).  (Corpm  Juris  Canon.,  Decret.'V.  ii. 
causa  X.  qu.  3,  c.  6 ;  and  Beer.  Greg.,  lib.  iii.  tit. 
39  ;  Herzog,  Real-Enajcl.  iv.  280.)  [C.] 

EXAFOTI.  The  Lher  Pontif.  tells  us  (p. 
250,  D.  ed.  Muratori),  that  Benedict  llf.  “obtulit 
canistra  exafoci  ex  argento  purissimo,”  where  the 
true  reading  no  doubt  is  exafota  (i.  e.  i^d(pwTa) 
coronae  of  six  lights.  Compare  Enafotia.  The 
same  authority  .speaks  of  a  corona  of  sixteen 
lights,  “  canistrum  excaedecafotii  ”  (€|/fai5e/fa- 
(puTiov)  (Ducange,  s.  v.).  [C.] 

EXA  POSTEILARIA  QE^aTroaTeiXdpia)  are 
Tropaiua,  which  probably  received  their  name 
from  the  fact  that  the  w^ord  e^aTrSaTeiXov  fre¬ 
quently  occurred  in  them,  as  they  were  mainly 
supplications  to  God  to  .send  forth  His  Holy  Spirit 
upon  the  worshij)pers.  When  other  subjects 
were  introduced  into  them  another  etymology 
was  imagined,  that  the  word  “  exaposteilarion  ” 
referred  to  the  “  sending  forth  ”  of  God’s  ser- 
v^ants  into  the  world  to  ])reach  the  gospel. 

(Neale’s  A'asf mi  Church,  Introd.  845  ;  Daniel’s 
Codex  Liturg.  iv.  701.)  [C.] 

EX  A  CUSTODIAN  US  CE^aKovarwhiavhs'), 

one  of  the  seven  sleepers  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  408  ; 
commemorated  Oct.  22  (Cal.  Buzant.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EXALTATION  OF  THE  CROSS. 
[Cross,  Exaltation  of  the.] 

EXAMINATION  OF  COIMIM  UNI¬ 

CANTS.  [Communion,  Holy,  p.  417.] 

EXAMINATION  FOR  ORDERS.  It  ap¬ 
pears  always  to  have  beefi  the  intention  of  the 
church  that  there  should  be  a  cai’eful  examination 
into  the  fitness  of  candidates  for  orders.  As  re¬ 
garded  their  moral  character,  this  was  in  some 
degree  provided  for  by  the  public  testimony  of 
the  people  at  the  time  of  ordination  [Election  of 
Clergy].  So  it  is  said  that  wdien  Alexande*’  Seve- 
rus  was  about  to  appoint  any  governors  of  pro¬ 
vinces  or  other  officials,  he  ordered  that  public 
enquiry  should  be  made  into  their  character,  add¬ 
ing  that  this  w’as  the  custom  both  of  Jews  and 
Christians  in  the  selection  of  their  priests  (Ael. 
Lamprid.  Vita  Alex.  Sever,  c.  4:b).  In  some  cases, 
as  in  that  of  Augustine  (Possid.  Vita  Augud.  c.  4), 
it  appears  that  this  may  have  supplied  the  place 
of  any  further  examination.  The  third  council 
of  Carthage  (c.  22),  decreed  that  a  candidate 
for  ordination  must  be  approved  either  by  the 
testimony  of  the  people  or  the  examination  of 
the  bishop.  But  in  general  the  duty  of  exami¬ 
nation  appears  to  have  rested  with  the  bishop. 
Chrysostom  (irepl  lepwavrrfs  iv.  2,  §  376),  speaks 
of  the  duty  of  the  ordaining  bishop  to  make 
diligent  enquiry  into  the  characters  of  those 
presented  to  him  by  the  electors.  The  6th 
canon  of  Theophilus,  archdeacon  of  Alexandria 
(Balsamon,  ii.  170),  provides  that  when  the 
candidates  have  been  selected  by  the  clergy, 
the  bishop  shall  examine  them.  Basil  how- 


EXARCH 


EXCLUSIVA 


637 


ever  (-£/>.  181),  speaks  of  an  examination  con 
d acted  by  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  then 
referred  to  the  chorepiscopi.  The  canon  too  of 
Theophilus,  already  quoted,  mentions  the 
orthodox  clergy  of  the  district  as  having  the 
right  of  examination  m  certain  cases.  Thomas- 
sin  (  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discip.  ii.  1,  c.  32,  §  11-12), 
thinks  it  probable  that  the  task  of  examining 
candidates  was  delegated  in  the  first  place  to  the 
•  cathedral  clergy,  and  afterwards,  in  the  ])roviuces, 
to  the  priests  and  deacons. 

The  examination  in  these  cases  appears  to  have 
been  chiefly  an  enquiry  into  the  moral  charac¬ 
ter  and  general  fitness  of  the  candidates.  The 
fourth  council  of  Carthage  (c.  1),  directs  that 
every  bishop  should  be  examined  before  ordi¬ 
nation,  as  to  his  personal  qualitie.s,  such  as 
prudence,  morality,  and  learning,  both  profane 
and  sacred,  and  also  as  to  his  holding  the  right 
faith  as  contained  in  the  creeds.  It  is  not  said 
by  whom  the  examination  was  to  be  conducted. 
The  council  of  Narbonne  (c.  11),  forbids  any 
bishop  to  ordain  either  a  priest  or  deacon  who  is 
utterly  unlearned.  This  appears  to  imply  a 
previous  examination  into  literary  as  well  as 
moral  qualifications.  [P.  O.] 

EXARCH.  Generically  the  word  ''E^apxos 
is  applied  to  any  one  who  takes  the  lead.  Hence 
it  is  used  of  one  who  is  chief  in  any  department 
or  undertaking.  So  Plutarch  in  his  life  of  Numa 
has  ''E^apxos  tcov  lepaiu  in  the  sense  of  sacrorurn 
prinecj)s,  or  suniinus  pontifex.^  In  its  specific 
ecclesiastical  application  it  has  more  than  one 
sense. 

1.  It  is  perhaps  most  commonly  and  most 
strictly  applied  to  the  great  prelates  who  pre¬ 
sided  over  the  ‘dioceses’  {AioiK-fjo-eis,  see  Dio¬ 
cese),  as  they  were  called,  which  were  formed 
in  imitation  of  the  civil  dioceses  of  Constantine. 
Each  of  these  ‘  dioceses  ’  comprehended  several 
‘provinces’  (eTrapx'^O?  f^e  metropolitans  of 
these  latter  were  subordinated  to  the  exarchs  of 
the  former.  The  9th  and  17th  canons  of  the 
council  of  Chalcedon  recognise,  or  give,'-  a  right 
of  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  metropolitan 
to  the  exarch.  The  word  therefore  became  nearly 
synonymous  with  patiiarch.  Accordingly,  in 
the  Novels  of  Ju.stinian,  when  imperial  sanction 
is  given  to  the  principle  expressed  in  the  canons 
of  Chalcedon,  the  word  exarch  is  turned  into 
patriarch. Yet  though  every  patriarch  had 
the  power  of  an  exarch,  every  exarch  was  not, 
properly  speaking,  a  patriarch,  the  latter  name 
being  given  only  to  the  heads  of  the  more  eminent 
dioce.ses.  Thus  in  the  ‘Notitia’  given  in  Bing¬ 
ham,  book  ix.  ch.  1,  §  6,  which  seems  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  state  of  things  at  the  end  of  the  4th 
century,  we  find  the  patriarchs  of  Antioch  and 
Alexandria,  but  the  exarchs  of  Asia,  Pontu.s, 
Thrace,  Macedonia,  Dacia,  and  others.**  [Notitia.] 

»  A  well-known  application  of  the  term  in  secular 
government  is  the  title  of  the  exarch  of  liavenna. 

b  “  Utrum  omnes  exarchi  hanc  potestatem  ante  hoc 
concilium  exercuerint  necne,  incertum  est:  Hoc  tamen 
certum,  earn  ab  hoc  concilio  illis  prinib  confirmatam  esse.” 
Beveridge,  Pandect.  Annot.  in  Canon.  Concil.  Chafe. 
p  115. 

c  Si  vero  contra  metropolifcim  tails  aditio  fiat  ab 
episcopo,  aut  clero,  aut  alia  quacumqae  persona,  dio- 
ceseos  illius  beatissimus  patriarcha  simili  modo  causam 
judicet." — yovel  123,  C.  22. 

d  Beveridge  thinks  that  Balsamon  and  Morinus  are  in 


I  Subsequently  Constantinople  absorbed  Pontus, 
i  Asia,  and  Thrace,  becoming  a  patriarchate.  (See 
Neale,  IIol;/  East.  Church,  General  Introduction.) 

2.  The  word  is  also  sometimes  used  in  refer¬ 

ence  to  metropolitans.  For  we  find  the  phrase 
exarch  of  the  province  {e^apxos  rrjs  iirapx'ias^ 
as  well  as  exarch  of  the  diocese  Sioi- 

Kr](Tc<jos).  It  is  used,  for  in.stance,  in  the  6th 
canon  of  the  council  of  Sardica,  where  the  sense 
seems  beyond  doubt.*'  But  the  word  is  hen 
probably  used  in  its  general  sense  of  chief,  rathei 
than  in  any  technical  signification. 

3.  In  later  times  the  name  exarch  was  also 
applied  to  certain  legates  of  the  patriarch  ol 
Constantinople,  who  apj>ear  to  have  been  charged 
by  him  with  the  general  maintenance  of  his 
rights  and  authority,  and  also  entrusted  with 
the  visitation  of  mona.steries  subject  to  him. 
The  name  is  also  given  to  ecclesiastics  dej)uted 
by  him  to  collect  the  tribute  payable  by  him  to 
the  Turkish  government.  These  legates  ap¬ 
pear  to  have  had  large  powers,  and  might  even 
excommunicate,  dei)ose,  or  absolve  in  the  name 
of  the  patriarch.  (See  Beveridge,  Pandectac  Ca- 
nonum.  Annotations  on  the  Canons  of  Chalcedon, 

pp.  120,  121.) 

Authorities. — Suicer,  Thesaurus,  s.v.  ‘'E^apxos  ; 
Beveridge,  Pandeetae  Canonum,  Oxon.  1672; 
Bingham,  Antiquities,  hk.  ii.  ch.  17,  and  bk.  ix. ; 
Thomassinus,  Veins  et  Nova  Eccles.  Discip.  part  i. 
lib.  1,  cap.  17.  [B.  S.] 

EXCAECATIO.  To  deprive  of  sight  was 
not  a  mode  of  punishment  sanctioned  by  the 
Benedictine  rules.  But  in  the  8th  century  some 
abbats  had  recourse  to  this  barbarity  in  the  case 
of  contumacious  monks.  It  was  forbidden  by 
Charles  the  Great  (Capitul.  a.d.  789,  c.  16)  and 
by  the  council  of  Frankfort  (a.d.  794,  c.  18); 
and  abbats  were  strictly  ordered  to  confine  them¬ 
selves  to  the  infliction  of  punishments  ))rescribed 
in  their  rule  (cf.  Peg.  Bened.  Comment,  c.  25  ; 
Mabillon,  Ann.  Ord.  Bened.  Saec.  IV.  Praef.  i. 
139).  [I.  G.  S.] 

EXCEPTOR.  (1)  The  word  excipere  was 
used  in  later  Latinity  to  express  the  “  taking- 
down  ”  of  a  person’s  words.  Thus  Augustine 
(^Epist.  110),  “a  notariis  ecclesiae  excipiuntur 
quae  dicimus.”  Hence  a  reporter  of  judicial 
acts  and  sentences — as  in  the  case  of  Christian 
martyrs — was  called  exceptor.  A  gloss  on  Pru- 
dentius  (a/>?<cf  Ducange)  speaks  of  “  excej)tores  ” 
who  took  down  the  dicta  of  the  judge  and  the 
answers  of  the  martyr.  Compare  NorARV. 
(Ducange’s  Gloss,  s.  v. ;  Bingham’s  Antiq.  HI. 
xiii.  5). 

(2)  The  word  is  occasionally  used  as  equiva¬ 
lent  to  auddoxos  [Sponsor],  for  which  “suscep¬ 
tor”  is  more  commonly  employed.  [C.] 

EXCLUSION  FROM  COMIMUNION. 

[Communion,  Holy  :  Excommunication.] 

EXCLUSIVA  designates,  in  modern  times, 
the  right  claimed  by  certain  Roman  Catholic 

error  in  speaking  of  a  kind  of  metropolituis  set  over 
whole  dioceses,  and  yet  not  p.atriarchs.  May  they  not 
have  meant  such  as  the  exarchs  of  Asia  and  Pontus.’  (See 
Bev.  Pandect.  Can.  Annot.  in  Cone.  Chat  p.  121.)  Valc- 
sius  (06s.  on  Socrates’  Hist.  Kccles.  lib.  3,  cap.  9)  cal's 
these  exarchs  “  minores  patriarchas,”  and  says  “  Pairi- 
archae  nomen  interdum  usurjiarunt.'’ 

®  The  words  arc  fiia  ypaixfcdniiv  ~ov  i^ap\ov  errap^ias, 
Aeytij  fie  too  ent.a'KoiTOv  rri^  juTjTpoTrdAecj?, 


638 


EXCOMMUNICATION 


EXCOMMUNICATION 


powers  of  exclmling  a  particular  cardinal  from 
being  elected  pope, 

Tlie  j)resent  form  of  this  right  is  of  course 
modern,  and  arises  from  the  political  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  age  in  Europe ;  but  traces  of  the 
very  decided  influence  exerted  by  princes  in  re¬ 
straining  the  liberty  of  papal  elections  are  found 
at  a  comparatively  early  date.  The  emperor 
Ilonorius,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  the  double 
election  and  consecration  of  Eulalius  and  Boni¬ 
face,  decided  (a.d,  418)  in  favour  of  Eulalius, 
afterwards  drove  him  from  the  city,  and  (a.d, 
419)  ordered  the  installation  of  Boniface  {Auctu- 
arium  Sijnimacliianum,  Epistt.  19-31  ;  Baronius, 
an,  419,  §§  2  and  11,  etc.).  The  same  emperor, 
at  the  request  of  Boniface,  made  an  ordinance 
that  for  the  future,  in  case  two  candidates  di.s- 
puted  the  papal  chair,  neither  should  be  pope 
but  a  fresh  election  should  be  held  (^Corpus  Juris 
Canon.  Dist.  xcvii.,  cc.  1  and  2  ;  Hardouin,  Concil. 
i.  1237).  Nor  was  the  influence  of  the  temporal 
power  diminished  when  Germans  ruled  in  Italy, 
Odoacer  (a.d.  483)  desired  that  no  papal  election 
should  take  place  without  his  concurrence  (sine 
nostra  consultatione),  and  little  heed  was  paid 
by  subsequent  princes  to  the  canon  of  a  Roman 
synod  under  pope  Symmachus  (a.d.  502)  con¬ 
demning  such  interference  of  the  secular  arm 
(Hardouin,  ii.  977  ;  C.  J.  C.  Dist.  xevi.  c.  1,  §  7). 
Theodoric  repeated  the  enactment  of  Odoacer.  On 
the  reconquest  of  Italy  under  Justinian  the  con¬ 
firmation  of  the  papal  election  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  emperors,  who  exacted  considerable  sums 
in  consideration  of  it,  until  the  fee  was  given  up 
by  Constantine  Pogonatus  in  the  yearG78  (^Liber 
Fontif.,  in  Agatho ;  C.  J.  C.  Dist.  Ixiii.  c.  21). 
Somewhat  later,  in  the  case  of  Benedict  II. 
(a.d.  684)  the  claim  to  confirm  the  pope  was 
also  resigned  by  the  same  emperor.  This,  how¬ 
ever,  le  I  to  so  much  disorder,  that  it  was  found 
necessary  again  to  invoke  the  co-operation  of  the 
civil  power;  and  the  fact  of  the  necessity  of  the 
emperor’s  concurrence  is  recognised  in  the  Liber 
Eiurnus  Pontiff,  Rom.  (c.  ii.  lib.  3;  see  also 
Garnier’s  Dissertation  in  his  edition  of  the  Lib. 
Diurn.),  probably  of  the  end  of  the  seventh  or 
the  betjinnint;  of  the  eighth  century.  The  neces- 
sity  for  the  confirmation  of  the  emperor  con¬ 
tinued  when  the  Frankish  chiefs  acquired  the 
imperial  dignity.  Compare  Pope.  (Jacobson  in 
Herzog’s  Real-Encgclop.  iv.  280.)  [C.] 

EXCOMMUNICATION  (^Abstentio,  Anath¬ 
ema,  Ex^o.nmunicatio,  audOffxa,  a(popia'iJi.6s).  The 
partial  or  total,  temporary  or  perpetual,  exclu¬ 
sion  of  a  member  from  the  privileges  of  the 
church. 

I.  Ordinary  Excommunication. 

Excommunication  belongs  to  the  class  of 
corrective  or  medicinal  penalties  (poenae  medi- 
cinales  or  censurae),  not  to  the  vindictive 
(poenae  vindicativae).  Augustine  (Serm.  351, 
c.  12),  distinguishes  between  “  prohibitio  medi- 
cinalis,”  and  “prohibitio  mortalis,”  meaning 
(apparently)  by  the  one,  exclusion  from  the 
mysteries,  by  the  other,  exclusion  from  the 
church  and  Christian  fellowship  altogether. 
The  canon  law  {Corpus  J.,  c.  37,  can.  xxiv. 
qu.  iii.),  lays  down  generally  that  excommunica¬ 
tion  is  “disciplina,  non  eradicatio the  excom¬ 
municated  person  is  capable  of  being  restored  to 
his  privileges,  upon  repentance  [Penitence]. 


The  exclusion  of  peccant  members  from  social 
privileges  is  a  right  inherent  in  all  societies ;  it 
was  in  practice  among  the  Jews  at  the  Christian 
era,  and  was  incorporated  by  our  Lord  into  the 
constitution  of  His  church.  It  is  no  part  of  our 
purpose  to  discu.ss  the  theological  bearing  of  the 
language  in  which  our  Saviour  conveyed  this 
power  (St.  Matt,  xviii.  15-18,  xvi.  19),  nor  to 
inve.stigate  the  traces  which  the  New  Testament 
contains  of  the  use  to  which  the  apostles  put  it 
(Rom.  xvi.  17;  2  Cor.  vi.  14,  17;  Gal.  i.  8,  9 ; 
2  Thess.  iii.  6,  14;  Tit.  iii.  10;  2  John  10,  11) 
(See  Art.  Excommunication  in  Diet,  of  the  Bible). 
It  is  sufficient  to  note  that  a  power  of  cutting 
off  ofl'enders  was  conferred  on  the  apostles  as 
rulers  of  the  church,  and  was  by  them  made  a 
systematic  part  of  church  government.  There 
are  however  two  instances  of  direct  ex- 
communication  by  St,  Paul,  which  must  be 
noticed  in  more  detail,  because  they  supplied  at 
once  the  language  and  the  model  after  which 
the  church  framed  in  subsequent  ages  her 
censures.  The  apostle  by  a  formal  jmlgment 
delivered  the  incestuous  Corinthian  “  to  Satan, 
for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh  ”  (1  Cor.  v.  5)  ;  a 
sentence  which  cannot  signify'  less  than  this — 
that  the  man  was  thrust  outside  the  Christian 
fold.  When  St.  Paul  wrote  his  second  epistle, 
some  six  or  nine  mouths  later,  the  man  on  his 
repentance  was  readmitted  into  the  church.  A 
similar  sentence,  but  producing  no  similar  peni¬ 
tence,  was  delivered  against  Hyraeuaeus  and  Alex¬ 
ander  (1  Tim.  i.  20).  Hymeuaeus  is  mentioned  in 
2  Tim.  ii.  17,  18,  as  a  teacher  of  heresy.  His 
case  therefore  formed  a  precedent  for  excom¬ 
munication  for  heretical  opinion,  as  that  of  the 
Corinthian  for  immorality.  The  authority  for 
the  use  of  the  formula,  Anathema,  {avaBejia), 
so  common  afterwards  in  the  Penitential  Canons, 
is  to  be  found  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  22 ;  Gal,  i.  8,  9. 

The  proofs  that  the  church  has  always 
claimed  and  exercised  the  power  of  excouimuni- 
catiou,  are  everywhere  patent.  Fathers  {e.g., 
Irenaeus,  Ilaeres.  iii.  3 ;  Cyprian,  Dc  Orot.  Dom. 
c.  18  ;  Epist.  41,  c.  2  ;  59  cc.  1,9,  10,  11  ;  Basil, 
Epist.  61,  ad  Athanas. ;  Leo  the  Great,  Epist. 
32,  ad  Faustum  ;  Ambrose,  Epist.  40,  ad  Theodos.), 
and  councils  {e.g.,  Cann.  Apostt.  c.  8,  A'C.  ; 
iv.  Carth.  c.  73;  W.  Arles,  c.  8;  ^  enet.  c.  3; 
Toledo,  cc.  15,  16,  18),  all  claim  the  power  oi 
excommunication,  of  greater  or  less  severity  and 
duration,  in  the  case  of  offenders,  whether 
against  morality'  or  against  orthodoxy'.  The 
Penitential  Books  mention  numberless  cases 
in  which  excommunication  is  the  penalty'.  See 
for  instance  the  Penitential  of  archbishop  Theo¬ 
dore  (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  and  Docu¬ 
ments,  iii.  173). 

Persons  subject  to  Excommunication. — The 
power  of  excommunicating  was  held  to  be  in 
some  measure  correlative  to  that  of  baptising ; 
those  who  could  admit  into  the  church  could  also 
exclude.  The  unbaptised  were  never  excommu¬ 
nicated,  though  catechumens  might  be,  and  were, 
put  back  into  a  lower  grade,  and  their  baptism 
postponed.  Children  were  not  excommunicated, 
nor  (commonly)  reigning  princes  or  large  sec¬ 
tions  of  the  church.  With  these  exceptions  all 
Christian  people,  men  or  women,  might  be  cut 
off'  from  communion  with  the  faithtul.  But 
the  .sentence  was  invarial)ly'  a  personal  one  for 
personal  offences ;  the  innocent  were  not  ])unisbcd 


EXCOMMUNICATION 


EXCOMMUNICATION 


639 


with  the  guilty.  Such  a  process  as  laying  a 
whole  nation  under  an  interdict  for  some  sup¬ 
posed  offence  of  the  people  or  their  rulers  was 
not  known  in  the  early  ages,  nor  before  the  12th 
century. 

According  to  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (ii. 
cc.  37,  38,  39)  the  course  of  discipline  was  that  if 
any  offender  did  not  voluntarily  come  forward  and 
acknowledge  his  guilt  he  was  to  be  summoned  by 
the  bishop,  first  in  privacy,  then  in  the  pi’esence 
of  two  or  three  witnesses  ;  then  if  he  would  not 
yield,  the  case  was  to  be  told  to  the  church, 
and  if  he  was  still  obdurate,  sentence  would 
proceed  against  him.  No  one  was  to  be  excom¬ 
municated  before  he  had  been  several  times 
admonished,  according  to  the  apostolic  injunc¬ 
tion,  “him  that  is  an  heretic,  after  the  first  or 
second  admonition,  reject.”  Nor  could  any 
offender  be  excommunicated  in  his  absence,  nor 
without  legal  conviction  either  by  his  own 
admission  or  by  credible  witnesses.  On  this 
safeguard  against  abuse  of  power,  Van  Espen 
quotes  a  passage  from  St.  Augustine,  “  We  can¬ 
not  reject  any  from  our  communion  unless  they 
have  either  voluntarily  confessed  or  been  charged 
and  convicted  before  some  secular  or  ecclesiastical 
tribunal  ”  (St.  Aug.  Serm.  351  de  Poenitent.). 
One  witness  was  not  received  as  sufficient  evi¬ 
dence  of  guilt,  even  though  the  one  was  a 
bishop.  No  one  could  incur  excommunication 
for  anything  temporal  ;  such  matters  wei'e  left 
to  the  civil  courts,  and  excommunication  in  the 
early  ages  was  a  spiritual  weapon,  cutting  off 
from  spiritual  privileges.  Gregory  the  Great, 
writing  to  some  bishop  whose  name  has  been 
lost,  severely  rebukes  him  for  using  for  his  own 
private  ends,  power  conferred  upon  him  for  the 
good  of  the  souls  of  his  flock  (^Epist.  ii.  34).  It 
was  forbidden  also  to  excommunicate  for  sins  of 
infirmity  and  frailty.  “  There  are  some  sins,” 
says  St.  Ambrose  {in  exhort,  ad  Poenit.\  “  which 
may  be  daily  pardoned  by  mere  supplication  to 
God,  in  that  petition  ‘  forgive  us  our  trespasses, 
as  we  forgive  them  that  trespass  against  us.’” 
And  it  was  necessary  that  the  offence  should  be 
public;  for  it  was  always  a  maxim  “  De  occultis 
non  judicat  Ecclesia.”  So  St.  Cyprian,  “We  so 
far  as  it  is  committed  to  us  to  see  and  judge, 
look  only  at  the  face  (the  conduct)  of  each  one, 
his  heart  and  his  conscience  we  cannot  investi¬ 
gate  (Cypr.  Epist.  55). 

It  would  be  impossible  within  reasonable  limits 
to  enumerate  the  graver  crimes  for  which  the 
church  cut  off  her  unworthy  members.  They  may 
in  general  be  reduced  under  one  of  the  three  heads 
of  uncleanness,  idolatry,  bloodshed.  Upon  the 
treatment  which  men  guilty  of  these  crimes 
should  receive,  many  of  the  early  controversies  on 
discipline  hinged.  There  were,  moreover,  many 
breaches  of  each  of  the  commandments  which  ren¬ 
dered  the  offender  subject  to  the  highest  censure 
of  the  church,  which  cannot  be  brought  under  this 
classification.  Of  these  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
point  out  a  few  which  were  peculiar  to  the 
times,  or  which  the  opinion  of  the  present  day 
would  deal  with  more  leniently.  The  principle 
underlying  the  whole  system  of  ecclesiastical 
censures,  was  the  preservation  of  sound  members 
of  the  Christian  body  from  the  evil  example  and 
contagion  of  the  unsound.  Hence,  heresy  was 
ever  reckoned  among  the  gravest  sins.  Haidly 
less  dangerous,  and  hardly'^  less  rigorously  puu- 


i.shevf  in  times  c  *  persecution,  or  during  thr 
barbarian  invasions,  was  apostasy  either  tr 
heathenism  or  to  Judaism.  Any  tampering  with 
idolatry  w'as  i^gidly  prohibited.  A  Chri.stiac 
was  forbidden  to  be  a  public  actor,  or  to  be 
present  at  any  theatrical  representation,  which 
commonly  in  that  age  ministered  to  lasci¬ 
viousness  ;  or  to  frequent  the  circus,  for  it 
was  regarded  as  an  appendage  of  false  worship, 
and  detrimental  to  the  majesty  of  God ;  or  to 
use  divination  or  astrology,  for  that  was  to  put 
destiny  in  the  place  of  divine  providence ;  or  to 
follow  any  trade,  such  for  example  as  the  train¬ 
ing  of  gladiators,  which  in  its  nature  was  scan¬ 
dalous  ;  or  to  be  a  talebearer,  a  gambler,  or 
a  vagrant.  See  Gregory  Nyssen’s  canonical  epistle 
to  Letoius  bishop  of  Melitina,  which  contains  an 
elaborate  cla.ssification  of  sins,  and  the  penalties 
to  be  allotted  to  them. 

Degrees  of  Excommunication. — Morinus  dis¬ 
tinguishes  three  degrees  of  excommunication  : 
1st.  All  those  who  were  guilty  of  lighter  sins 
were  punished  by  exclusion  from  the  offering  of 
the  oblations  and  partaking  of  the  communion ; 
2nd.  Those  who  sinned  moi’e  grievously  were  not 
only  altogether  shut  out  from  partaking  of  the 
communion,  but  also  from  being  present  at  that 
service,  and  were  moreover  “  delivered  unto  Sa¬ 
tan,”  i.e.  to  certain  bodily  austerities  and  mortifi¬ 
cations  ;  3rd.  Those  who  persisted  in  offending,  or 
fell  into  deadly  sin,  were  expelled  alike  from  all 
share  in  the  sacred  mysteries,  and  from  the  very 
building  of  the  church.  (Morin,  de  Poenitent., 
lib.  4,  c.  11.)  Van  Espen  considers  that  there 
were  two  degrees  only,  one  of  which  was  called 
“  medicinalis,”  the  other  “mortalis,”  (Aug.  Horn. 
lib.  1.),  or  more  commonly,  “Anathema”  (Van 
Espen  Jiis  Eccl.  Pars  iii.  Tit.  xi.  c.  iv.);  Bing¬ 
ham  also  discovers  two  degx-ees,  lesser  and 
greater  excommunication  (a(f>opi(r,ahs,  acpopicrpos 
TravTeXrjs').  The  foiauer,  which  corresponds  with 
the  first  two  classes  of  Morinus,  excluded  offen¬ 
ders  from  the  eucharist,  and  the  prayers  of  the 
faithful,  but  did  not  exclude  them  from  the 
church,  for  still  they  might  stay  to  hear  psalms 
and  the  reading  of  the  scripture,  and  sermon  and 
prayer  of  catechumens  and  penitents,  and  depart 
when  the  service  of  catechumens  ended.  Greater 
excommunication  was  a  rejection  not  only  from 
the  eucharist  but  from  any  presence  in  church 
whatever,  and  any  association  with  Christian 
men  (Bingham,  Antiq.  lib.  xvi.  c.  11).  There 
remains  a  still  moi'e  terrible  form  of  censure, 
which  undoubtedly  was  sometimes  imposed,  and 
which  was  an  absolute  and  final  excision  from 
the  church.  St.  Cyprian  {Epist.  55  ad  Anton.) 
speaks  of  some  of  his  predecessors  who  closed 
the  door  for  ever  against  adultei’ers,  but  adds, 
that  other  bishops  admitted  similar  offenders 
after  a  period  of  penitence  to  the  grace  of  the 
church.  There  are  various  canons  in  the 
council  of  Elvira  (circa  305  A.D.),  which  utterly 
debar  offenders  from  conimunion  with  the  faith¬ 
ful  for  the  remainder  of  their  lives,  “  nec  in  fine 
communionem  accipere  ”  (Con.  Eliber.  cc.  1,  12, 
13,  71,  73).  Can.  46  declares  that  if  any  persist 
in  sin  after  having  been  already  punished,  he 
should  be  totally  cast  out,  “  penitus  ab  ecclesia  ab- 
jiciatur.”  The  council  of  Ancyra(cc.  9,  16  ;  circa 
315  A.D.)  fixes  a  limit  to  the  penalty  attached  to 
those  very  crimes  for  which  that  at  Eliberis  had 
decreed  final  excision.  It  would  ajq>ear  there- 


610 


EXCOMMUNICATION 


fore  that  total  and  irreniodiable  exclusion  was* at 
Qo  time  a  universal  practice,  but  nevertheless,  at 
certain  periods,  and  in  cei'tain  localities,  where 
nossibly  the  magnitude  of  otl'eiices  required  to 
be  dealt  with  by  a  jjenalty  of  equal  magnitude,  it 
was  unhesitatingly  employed.  The  practice  of 
exconfiinunicating  the  dead  had  no  existence  in 
the  early  centuries,  or  if  here  and  there  it  existed, 
was  supported  by  no  canonical  authority.  The 
second  council  of  Constantinople  (553  A.D.),  first 
introduced  it  into  the  Eastern  church,  and  about 
100  years  later  it  crei^t  into  the  Western  (Morin. 
de  Fomitent.  lib.  x.  c.  9). 

Effect  of  Sentence. — The  punishment  inflicted 
by  a  sentence  (tf  excommunication  varied  not  only 
with  the  gravity  of  the  offence,  but  with  the  dis¬ 
cretion  of  the  bishop,  tlie  customs  of  the  diocese 
or  province,  and  still  more  with  the  age  of  the 
church  in  which  the  offender  lived.  In  the  early 
centuries  the  church  was  ruled  with  a  gentler 
discipline  than  was  possible  when  her  ranks  were 
filled  up  promiscuously  from  the  multitude.  The 
incestuous  man,  whom  St.  Paul  expelled  from 
among  his  Corinthian  converts  with  such  solemn 
denunciation,  was  received  again  on  his  repen¬ 
tance,  probably  within  a  few  months,  certainly 
v/ithiu  the  year.  And  up  to  the  time  of  Mon- 
tanus,  punishments  even  for  grave  breaches  of 
the  law  of  the  gospel  were  equally  lenient. 
The  term  of  the  penalty  was  left  to  the  discre¬ 
tion  of  the  bishop.  Through  the  whole  of 
Tertullian’s  Treatise  de  Poenitentid,  and  in  the 
Apostolic  Canons,  with  one  exception,  there  is 
no  mention  of  any  time  for  the  duration  of  the 
censure.  And  even  in  the  increasing  severity 
which  prevailed  for  the  next  hundred  years, 
purrishmeuts  scarcely  ever  exceeded  one  or  two 
years  (Morin,  de  Poenitent.  lib.  iv.  c.  9). 
Thenceforward,  years  would  not  suffice  where 
weeks  or  months  had  been  deemed  sufficient 
before.  Ten,  fifteen,  twenty  years,  were  no 
uncommon  penalties.  St.  Basil  excludes  a 
murderer  from  the  church  for  twenty  years 
(can.  56).  The  council  of  Ancyra  decrees  that 
a  murderer  should  be  a  penitent  for  the  rest 
of  his  life,  and  be  received  back  into  com¬ 
munion  only  at  the  hour  of  death  (can.  22). 
For  murder  combined  with  other  great  crimes 
the  council  of  Elvira  (can.  11),  forbids  com¬ 
munion  ev'en  in  death.  But  at  no  period  did 
any  hard  and  fast  law  prevail ;  if  an  offender 
voluntarily  confessed  his  guilt,  a  shorter  term  of 
exclusion  was  measured  out  to  him  ;  if  on  the 
other  hand,  a  man  who  had  before  caused 
scandal  was  further  rebelliouri  and  obdurate,  his 
sentence  was  doubly  .severe.  The  le.sser  excom¬ 
munication  carried  with  it  only  an  exclusion 
from  communion,  and  from  the  inner  mysteries 
and  privileges  of  the  faith.  Three  weeks  of  this 
separation  was  the  punishment  assigned  by  the 
council  of  Elvira  to  those  who  wilfully  ab¬ 
sented  themselves  from  church  for  three  succes¬ 
sive  Sundays;  a  year  for  some  more  venial  forms 
of  unchastity ;  another  period  for  eating  food 
in  company  with  a  Jew  ((7on.  Eliber.  cc.  21, 
14,  50).  And  when  the  term  expired  they  were 
received  again  to  all  the  privileges  of  full  com¬ 
munion,  without  being  called  upon  to  submit  to 
public  penance.  Very  different  from  this  was 
the  punishment  attending  the  greater  excom¬ 
munication,  anathema.  For  the  first  300  years 
the  punishment  was  exclusively  spiritual,  laid 


EXCOISIMUNrCATION 

upon  the  souls,  not  the  bodies  of  men,  depriving 
them  of  sjnritual  blessing.s,  and  in  no  way  inter¬ 
fering  with  their  political  relations.  Horesiarchs 
however,  and  dangerous  heretical  teachers,  were 
at  all  periods  treated  with  exceptional  severity  ; 
the  church  was  forbidden  to  hold  any  intercourse 
with  them,  to  receive  them  into  their  houses,  or 
to  bid  them  God  speed.  It  was  only  gradually, 
after  the  empire  became  Chri.stian,  that  the 
weapons  of  the  church’s  warfare  began  to  be 
more  carnal,  and  the  .secular  power  was  invoked 
to  uphold  the  ecclesiastical.  At  no  time  before 
Theodosius,  who  declared  apostates  either  to 
Judaism  or  heathenism  incapable  of  making 
wills  or  receiving  bequests,  and  whose  C(jdex  de 
Haereticis  attaches  other  pains  and  penalties  to 
heretics,  were  any  civil  disabilities  imposed 
upon  those  whom  the  church  had  cast  off. 
Whatever  rights  a  man  had  from  the  laws  of 
God  or  man,  as  father,  master,  magistrate,  these 
he  retained  after  the  door  of  the  church  was 
closed  against  him.  Yet  in  the  primitive  ages, 
when  the  congregations  of  Christians  were  com¬ 
paratively  small  and  the  membejs  known  to 
each  other,  and  the  spiritual  censure  was  fol¬ 
lowed  by  an  immediate  and  literal  banishment 
from  all  sacred  offices,  from  the  society  of  their 
brethren  in  the  faith,  from  all  association  what¬ 
ever  with  holv  men  and  holv  things,  the 
sentence  fell  with  overwhelming  severity.  All 
the  man  most  valued  was  taken  from  him. 
He  was  looked  upon  as  under  the  ban  of  God’s 
wrath ;  he  was  cut  off'  from  the  kingdom  of  God 
on  earth  ;  like  the  leprous  man  among  the  Jews, 
he  had  the  visible  plague-spot  of  sin  upon  him ; 
there  had  been  passed  upon  him  what  was  re¬ 
garded  as  a  presage  of  the  future  judgment,  for 
what  God  had  by  his  ministers  bound  on  earth, 
he  would  certainly,  it  was  believed,  unless  the 
man  repented,  bind  in  heaven.  The  Ajx)stolical 
Canons  (c.  11)  forbad  any  one  even  to  pray  in  a 
house  with  a  man  under  anathema.  The  first 
council  of  Toledo  (400  A.D.),  ordered  (c.  15), 
that  “If  any  layman  is  under  excommunication, 
let  no  clergyman  nor  religious  person  come  near 
him  nor  his  house.  Also  if  a  clergyman  is 
excommunicated,  let  him  be  avoided,  and  if  any 
is  found  to  converse  or  to  eat  with  him,  let  him 
also  be  excommunicated.”  His  name  was  erased 
from  the  Diptvchs,  [p.  561];  and  there  are  in¬ 
stances  of  the  erasure  having  been  made  after 
the  man  had  died,  and  his  sins  had  not  come  to 
light  while  he  lived.  His  oblations  were  not 
received  at  the  altar,  and  even  gifts  which  he 
had  presented  to  the  church  were  rejected  with 
him.  Plis  books  might  not  be  read,  nor  might 
any  intermarry  with  him.  And  when  his  end 
came  he  was  refused  all  sacred  offices  on  his 
deathbed,  and  no  Christian  man  might  attend 
his  funeral,  and  no  Christian  rite  be  performed 
at  it,  unless  he  had  given  proof  of  repentance 
and  passed  away  before  being  formally  absolved. 
Nor  coiild  any  one  hope  to  avoid  judgment  by  a 
voluntarv  exile,  for  notice  was  sent  to  other 
congregations,  and  in  the  discipline  of  the  early 
church,  a  stranger  was  not  admitted  into  com¬ 
munion  unless  he  brought  with  him  Commen¬ 
datory  Letters  from  his  own  diocese.  A  roan 
once  excommunicated  was  never  ordained,  or 
if  it  was  discovered  after  his  ordination,  that 
he  had  been  previously  censured,  he  was  removed 
from  the  ministry  (Cone.  Eliber.  can.  30 ;  Cone 


EXCOMMUNICATION 


EXCOMMUNICATION 


641 


Nic.  10).  This  latter  strictness  was  not  invari¬ 
ably  enforced,  but  the  axiom  “  Poenitentes 
ordinari  non  debent,”  became  universal  in  the 
Western  church,  although  not  always  in  practice 
in  the  Eastern. 

Excommunication  of  Clergy. — In  some  cases 
the  clergy,  for  offences  for  which  laymen  were 
excommunicated,  were  suspended  and  reduced  to 
lay  communion  [Dkgradation]  ;  but  they  might 
incur  both  degradation  and  excommunication. 
The  clergy  were  brought  to  trial  with  morfe  legal 
formalities  than  tlie  laity,  because  if  found  guilty 
they  were  deprived  not  only  of  spiritual  privi¬ 
leges  but  of  oHice  and  emolument.  The  Apos^o^^c 
Canons  (30)  decree  that  any  bishop,  priest,  or 
deacon  guilty  of  simony  shall  be  cut  off  from  all 
communion  whatever.  Mention  is  also  made  of 
reducing  clergy  to  “  peregrina  communio,”  com¬ 
munion  of  strangers,  which  would  seem  to 
signify  that  they  were  to  be  treated  as  strangers 
who  came  without  commendatory  letters,  allowed 
a  mere  subsistence  from  the  offerings,  but  de¬ 
nied  communion  [Communion,  Holy,  p.  417]. 
By  the  council  of  Chalcedon  (451  A.D.)  monks 
wore  subject  to  the  same  discipline  as  laity. 

Form  or  Hite. — Judgment  was  delivered  in 
the  indicative  mood,  inasmuch  as  it  decreed  a 
punishment  then  and  there  inflicted.  It  was 
declared  after  the  reading  of  the  gospel,  the 
bishop  standing  on  the  ambo.  There  is  no  re¬ 
cord  of  any  ceremony  attending  the  delivery  of 
the  sentence  in  the  early  ages ;  but  Martene 
publishes  a  MS.  of  about  the  year  1190  ^which 
prescribes  that  twelve  priests  ought  to  stand 
round  the  bishop  with  lamps  or  toi-ches  in  their 
hands,  and  that  after  the  conclusion  of  the  sen¬ 
tence  they  should  cast  them  on  the  ground  and 
stamp  out  the  light  beneath  their  feet,  and  that 
the  bishop  should  then  explain  to  the  people  the 
meaning  and  effect  of  the  ceremony  they  had 
witnessed.  No  recognised  rite  of  excommunica¬ 
tion  was  in  general  use  before  the  9th  or  10th 
century.  The  formula  ordinarily  employed  was 
founded  on  our  Lord’s  words,  “  Let  him  be  as  an 
heathen  man  and  a  publican.”  The  council  of 
Ephesus  degraded  Nestorius  in  these  terms. 
“  Wherefore  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  ma¬ 
jesty  he  by  h’s  blasphemous  words  has  assailed, 
pi’onounces  Nestorius,  through  this  sacred  synod, 
deprived  of  his  episcopal  rank  and  degraded  from 
the  fellowship  and  office  of  the  priesthood 
throughont  the  world.”  The  sentence  of  excom¬ 
munication  of  Andronicus,  governor  of  Ptolemais, 
by  his  bishop,  Synesius  (410  A.D.),  gives  a  more 
detailed  account  of  the  penalties  involved  in  the 
sentence.  “The  church  of  Ptolemais  makes  this 
injunction  to  all  her  sister  churches  throughout 
the  world.  Let  no  church  of  God  be  open  to  An¬ 
dronicus  and  his  accomplices ;  but  let  every  sa¬ 
cred  temple  and  .sanctuary  be  shut  against  them. 
The  devil  has  no  part  in  paradise  ;  though  he  pri¬ 
vily  creep  in  he  is  driven  out  again.  I  therefore  ad¬ 
monish  both  private  men  and  magistrates  neither 
to  receive  them  under  their  roof  nor  to  their  table  : 
and  priests  more  especially,  that  they  neither 
converse  with  them  when  living  nor  attend  their 
funerals  when  dead.  And  if  any  one  despise  this 
church  as  being  only  a  small  city,  and  receive 
those  that  are  excommunicated  by  her,  let  them 
know  that  they  divide  the  church  by  schism. 
And  whosoever  does  so,  whether  levite,  presbyter, 
or  bishop,  shall  be  ranked  in  the  same  class  with 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


Andronicus.  We  will  neither  give  them  the 
right  hand  of  fellow.ship,  nor  eat  at  the  same 
table  with  them,  and  much  less  will  we  com¬ 
municate  in  sacred  mysteries  with  those  who 
choose  to  take  part  with  Andronicus”  (Synes 
Epist.  58).  [See  Penitencu.] 

The  following,  from  an  Anglican  Pontifical 
preserved  at  Gemblours,  considered  by  Martene 
(^De  Hit.  Ant.  ii.  322;  ed.  Vcnet.  1783)  to  have 
been  written  in  the  8th  century,  may  serve 
as  a  specimen  of  the  later  forms.  The  bishop, 
denouncing  certain  persons  who,  not  having  the 
fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  had  plundered  the 
property  of  the  church,  and  who,  after  being 
thrice  summoned,  contumaciously  refused  to 
appear,  proceeds  :  “  These  therefore  we,  by  the 
authority  conferred  upon  us  by  God  ....  and 
the  statutes  of  the  canons,  excommunicate  and 
cut  off  from  the  bounds  of  the  Holy  Church  of 
God,  and  expel  from  the  congregation  of  Chris¬ 
tian  men  ;  and  unless  they  speedily  come  to  a 
better  mind  and  make  satisfaction  to  us,  we  con¬ 
found  them  with  eternal  malediction  and  con¬ 
demn  with  perpetual  anathema.  May  they  incur 
the  wr.ath  of  the  heavenly  judge;  may  they  be 
deprived  of  the  inheritance  of  God  and  His  elect ; 
may  they  neither  in  this  present  life  have  com¬ 
munion  with  Christians,  nor  in  the  life  to  come 
obtain  part  with  God  and  His  saints ;  but  may 
they  be  numbered  with  the  devil  and  his  ser¬ 
vants,  and  receive  the  punishment  of  avenging 
flame  with  everlasting  mourning.  In  heaven 
and  earth  may  they  be  abominable,  and  he  tor¬ 
tured  for  ever  with  the  pains  of  hell.  Cursed  be 
they  in  the  house,  cursed  in  the  field ;  cursed 
be  their  food  and  their  fruit ;  cursed  be  all  that 
they  possess,  from  the  dog  that  barks  for  them 
to  the  cock  that  crows  for  them.  May  they 
have  their  portion  with  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
whom  hell  swallowed  up  quick,  and  with  An¬ 
anias  and  Sapphira,  who  lied  unto  the  apostles  of 
the  Lord  and  fell  down  dead,  and  with  Pilate, 
and  Judas  who  betrayed  the  Lord  ;  may  they  be 
buried  with  the  burial  of  an  ass,  and  so  may 
their  light  be  quenched  in  the  midst  of  darkness. 
Amen.” 

Minister  of  Excommunication. — The  officer  en¬ 
trusted  with  the  power  of  excommunication  was 
the  bishop  of  the  diocese  to  which  the  offender 
belonged.  [Bishop,  p.  231.]  The  administration 
of  discipline  was  originally  entirely  in  his  hands; 
it  was  he  who  bound  and  he  who  loosed.  As  the 
church  increased,  the  infliction  of  other  forms  of 
penance  was  delegated  to  the  inferior  clergy,  but 
the  great  sentence  of  excommunication  was  a 
weapon  which  the  bishop  kept  exclusively  in  the 
power  of  his  own  order.  Within  his  diocese  his 
jurisdiction  was  supreme ;  he  might  mitigate  or 
increase  censure  at  his  discretion.  In  the  exercise 
of  this  authority  he  was  independent  of  his  pres¬ 
bytery  ;  he  sat  indeed  with  it  to  hear  confessions 
which  might  criminate  others,  or  to  receive  accu¬ 
sations  against  the  brethren,  or  to  decide  rights 
and  causes  brought  before  him,  and  offences  might 
then  be  divulged  which  would  expose  the  offender 
to  excommunication,  but  when  once  guilt  was 
established,  either  by  confession,  or  conviction, 
or  notoriety,  the  bishop  alone  imj)osed  the  sen¬ 
tence.  Instances  also  abound  of  bishops  consult¬ 
ing  with  one  another  in  special  emergencies,  and 
deciding  amongst  themfelves  the  period  of  peni¬ 
tence  to  be  allotted  t'  special  sins,  but  such 


642 


EXCOMMUNICATION 


EXECUTORES 


advice  or  support  put  no  limitation  on  each 
bishop’s  original  jurisdiction.  The  council  of  Nice 
(can.  o)  forbids  any  one  bishop  to  receive  delin¬ 
quents  cut  off  by  another  bishop,  which  clearly 
points  to  each  bishop  posse.ssing  the  power  to  act 
alone.  The  end  of  the  same  canon  decrees  that 
a  synod  of  bishops  shall  be  held  in  each  province 
twice  a  year,  before  Lent  and  in  the  autumn 
(compare  Apost^  Can.  38),  to  examine  into  the 
cases  of  excommunication  which  had  taken  place 
in  the  province.  There  was  thus  a  right  of 
appeal  against  the  sentence  of  an  individual 
bishop,  but  only  to  the  bishops  of  the  province. 
This  probably  explains  instances  of  synodical  ex- 
communication,  which  do  not  imply  that  the 
bishop  had  not  an  independent  power  to  excom¬ 
municate,  but  that  an  appeal  was  made  from  his 
judgment  to  the  provincial  synod,  whose  sentence 
was  onlv  a  more  solemn  confirmation  of  the 
bishop’s. 

The  Apostolical  Canons  (74)  decree  that,  if  a 
bishop  is  accused  he  is  to  be  summoned  by  the 
synod  of  bishops,  and  if  he  refuse  to  come  two 
bishops  are  to  go  for  him,  and  on  his  second  re¬ 
fusal,  to  go  again,  and  if  he  is  still  contumacious, 
the  synod  may  proceed  against  him  in  his  ab¬ 
sence.  Accordingly  the  episcopal  rank  of  Nes- 
torius  required  a  synodical  censure,  which  was 
pronounced  by  provincial  synods  under  Cyril  of 
Alexandria  and  Celestine  of  Rome,  and  confirmed 
431  A.D.  by  the  council  of  Ephesus.  And  Euty- 
ches,  who  was  an  abbot  and  so  far  allowed  the 
privileges  of  a  bishop,  was  tried  at  the  provincial 
synod  of  Constantinople  under  Flavianus,  and  on 
an  appeal  to  a  general  council  was  again  con¬ 
demned  and  excommunicated  at  Chalcedon,  to¬ 
gether  with  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria. 

Literature. — Marshall’s  Penitential  Discipline, 
Lend.  1714,  reprinted  in  ‘  Auglo-Cath.  Library,’ 
Ox.  1844 ;  Bingham’s  Antiquities,  bks,  xvi. 
and  xvii.  ;  iMorinus,  De  Disciplina  in  Administr. 
Sacrament.  Poenitentiae,  Antv.  1682  ;  V^'an  Es^ieu, 
Jus  Ecclesiaslicum,  Yen.  1789,  vols.  4  and  9; 
Martene,  De  Ant.  Eccl.  ritibus]  Augusti,  Denk- 
u-iirdigkeiten  aus  der  christliclien  Archdologie, 
Leip.  1817.  [G.  M.] 

II.  Monastic  Excommunication. 

By  the  Benedictine  rule  contumacious  monks 
incurred  the  penalty  of  the  greater  or  the  lesser 
excommunication  according  to  the  gravity  of  the 
offence,  but  not  till  admonition,  first  private  and 
then  public,  had  been  tried  on  them  in  vain,  nor 
in  cases  where,  owing  to  moral  stupidity,  flogging 
was  likely  to  be  more  efficacious  {Peg.  Bened. 
c.  23).  These  two  kinds  of  excommunication 
are  further  defined  as  excommunication  only 
from  the  common  meal  (a  mensS)  for  slighter 
ffiults,  and  excommunication  from  the  chapel 
also  (a  mensa  et  oratorio)  for  faults  less  venial. 
Thus  the  subdivision  of  monastic  excommunica¬ 
tion  corresponds  in  its  main  features  with  the 
more  minute  subdivisions  of  ecclesiastical  disci¬ 
pline  generally  (7^6.  ce.  24,  25).  Even  under  the 
lighter  ban  the  offender  was  forbidden  to  officiate 
in  the  choir  as  reader  or  “cantor,”  and,’ accord¬ 
ing  to  some  commentators  on  the  rale,  he  was  to 
lie  prostrate  before  the  altar-steps  while  the 
others  were  kneeling.  In  the  refectory  he  was 
to  take  his  fo»)d  alone  after  the  rest  had  finished 
(Martene,  lieg.  Comment,  cc.  25,  44). 

A  monk  under  the  graver  excommunication 


was  debarred  not  only  from  the  common  board,  but 
also  from  all  the  chapel  services  as  well  as  from 
the  benedictory  salutation,  and  indeed  from  all 
intercourse  whatever  with  his  brethren  (^Peg. 
Bened.  c.  25).  He  was  to  lie  outstretched  at  the 
doors  of  the  chapel  till  re-admitted  bv  the  abbat ; 
nor  even  then  might  he  take  any  public  part  in 
the  services  without  express  permission  (Martene, 
u.  s.  c.  44).  Any  monk  speaking  to  an  excom¬ 
municated  brother  was  “ipso  facto”  excommu¬ 
nicated  himself  (/I'e^.  Bened.  c.  26).  But  it  was 
kindly  ordered  by  Benedict,  that  the  abbat 
should  send  some  .sympathising  brother  to  con¬ 
sole  the  offender  in  his  loneliness  ( /6.  c.  27; 
cf.  Peg.  Mag.  cc.  13,  14 ;  Peg.  Caes.  Arelat.  c.  23 ; 
Id.  ad  Virg.  c.  10). 

The  duration  of  the  punishment  varied,  the 
intention  being  correctional  rather  than  merely 
penal.  By  the  rule  of  Fructuosus,  a  monk  for 
lying,  stealing,  striking,  false  swearing,  if  incor¬ 
rigible,  was,  after  flogging,  to  be  excommuni¬ 
cated  and  kept  on  bread  and  water  in  a  solitary 
cell  for  three  months  {Peg.  Fruct.  c.  17).  By 
the  rule  of  Ferreolus,  a  monk  for  bad  language 
was  forbidden  to  be  present  at  the  mass  or  to 
receive  the  kiss  of  peace  for  six  months  {Peg. 
Ferr.  c.  25).  By  the  rule  of  Chrodegang  a 
canonicus  was  excommunicated  for  what  seems 
so  slight  an  offence  as  sleeping  after  nocturns. 
It  was  for  the  abbat  to  fix  the  degree  of  excom¬ 
munication  {Peg.  Bene  I .  c.  24).  Some  commenta¬ 
tors  argue  therefore,  that  the  severest  form  of 
monastic  excommunication  cannot  be  tantamount 
to  the  severest  ecclesiastical  sentence  of  the  kind 
(Mart.  Peg.  Comm.  c.  25). 

Mabillon  cites  instances  {Annal.  x.  46)  of 
monks  (Columbanus  and  Theodorus  Studita) 
excommunicating  lay  people  not  belonging  to 
their  order.  He  relates  an  excommunication  of 
one  of  the  sisterhood  by  an  abbess  in  the  7th 
century  {Tb.  xii.  36).  Abbats  and  abbesses  were 
themselves  liable  to  this  penalty.  Gregory  the 
Great  reproves  a  bishop  for  harshness  in  excom¬ 
municating  an  aged  abbat  of  good  repute.  The 
second  council  of  Tours  in  a.d.  567  decreed  sen¬ 
tence  of  excommunication  against  any  abbat  or 
prior  allowing  a  woman  to  enter  the  monastery 
{Cone.  Turon.  c.  16).  See  further  Bened.  Anian. 
Concord.  Pegul.  cc.  30-34  with  Menard’s  Commen¬ 
tary,  and  Ducange,  Gloss.  Lat.  s.  v.  [1.  G.  S.] 

EXCUBIAE.  [Vigil.] 

EXCUSATI.  (1)  Slaves  who  had  fled  for 
refuge  to  a  church,  and  then — on  the  owners 
making  oath  upon  the  gospels  that  they  would 
not  punish  them — been  restored  to  their  masters, 
were  called  excusati.  If  the  master  broke  his  oath 
he  was  punished  by  excommunication.  See  Cone. 
Aurel.  I.  cc.  1  and  3;  ///.  c.  13;  IV.  c.  24. 

(2)  Those  who  under  some  terror  or  oppression 
had  fled  to  a  church  or  monastery  and  remained 
there  were  also  called  excus  ti  (Charter  of  Charles 
the  Great,  quoted  by  Ducange,  s.r.).  [C.] 

EXECUTORES.  A  name  given  either  to 
the  Defensores  themselves  or  to  officers  who 
performed  analogous  functions.  In  one  of  the 
canons  of  a  council  held  at  Carthage,  A.D.  419 
{Co  l.  Eccl.  Afric.  c.  96),  it  is  decreed  that  per¬ 
mission  should  be  demanded  of  the  emperor  for 
the  appointment  of  five  “  executores,”  who 
should  reside  in  the  provinces,  and  be  employed 
on  all  occasions  of  necessity  on  behalf  of  the 


EXEDRA 


EXILE 


643 


church,  “in  omnibus  desideriis  quae  habet  ' 
ecclesia/’  These  are  evidently  distinct  from  the  j 
“  defensores  scholastici,”  mentioned  in  the  canon  ' 
that  follows.  In  a  capitulary  of  Charles  the  j 
Great,  quoted  by  Thornassin  (  Vet.  ct  Nov.  EccL 
Discip.  i.  2,  c.  99,  §  12),  e.xecutores  are  men¬ 
tioned  in  connexion  with  advocates  and  defen¬ 
ders,  “  executores,  vel  advocati  seu  defensores.” 
Thornassin  {Ibid.  c.  98,  §  8)  speaks  of  tlie  title 
being  given  to  certain  officials  when  employed  in 
carrying  into  execution  the  will  of  the  bishop  of 
Romo,  who  is  himself  the  executor  and  protector 
of  the  canons.  [P.  0.] 

EXEDRA  is  explained  by  Ducange,  Binte- 
rim,  and  others  as  a  general  term  including  all 
buildings  annexed  to  a  church,  or  contained 
within  the  consecrated  area.  In  classical  usage 
an  e.Tedra  was  a  semicircular  room,  or  large 
alcove  with  seats  against  the  wall  for  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  conversation  (Cic.  de  Nat.  Deorum,  i.  6 ; 
de  Orat.  iii.  5).  Excdrae  are  spoken  of  by  Vi¬ 
truvius  (vi,  5)  in  connection  with  oeci  {oIkoi)  as 
rooms  for  conversation  and  other  social  purposes. 
The  two  words,  are  similarly  cou))led  together 
by  Eusebius  (/f.  E.  x.  4,  §  44)  when  describing 
the  church  of  Paulinus  at  Tyre.  Here  Eusebius 
writes  “  he  provided  spacious  exedrae  and  oeci 
on  each  side  (e^eSpas  Kai  o'ikovs  rovs  irap’  e/cd- 
repa  pLcyicTTOus)  united  and  attached  to  the  royal 
fabric  {^aaiXeicp)  and  communicating  with  the 
entrance  to  the  middle  of  the  temple.”  The 
church  built  by  Constantine  at  Antioch  is  also 
described  as  “  being  surrounded  with  a  large 
number  of  oeci  and  exedrae  in  a  circle,”  o^Kots 
re  irXe'ioo'iv  i^4dpais  t€  eV  kvk\<p  (Euseb.  de  yit. 
Const,  lib.  iii.  c.  50),  Augustine  uses  the  word 
in  the  .sense  of  a  large  room  or  hall  annexed  to 
the  great  church  at  Caesarea  {de  Gest.  cum 
Emerito).  The  sixth  canon  of  the  council 
of  Nantes  prohibits  interments  except  “  in  atrio 
aut  portion,  aut  in  exedris  ecclesiae.”®  Bingham 
holds  that  baptisteries  were  included  under 
exedrae.  The  apse  of  a  basilica  was  also  some¬ 
times  termed  exedra  from  its  similarity  in  shape 
to  those  of  the  baths. 

(Bingham,  Grig.  Eccl.  bk.  viii.  c.  7,  §  1 ;  Au¬ 
gust!  Chriit.  Archaeol.  i.  387  ;  Valesius  ad  Euseb. 
Vit.  Const,  lib.  iii.  c.  50.)  [E.  V,] 

EXEiMPTION  OF  MONASTERIES.  In 
the  earlier  stage  of  their  existence,  monasteries 
generally  availed  themselves  gladly  of  the  patro¬ 
nage  of  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  [Bishop,  p.  231], 
but  as  they  increased  in  wealth  and  power,  strug¬ 
gled  to  emancipate  themselves  from  his  control. 
For  instance,  towards  the  close  of  the  6th  century 
the  abbess  of  Ste.  Croix  at  Poitiers,  after  the 
death  ol'  Radegunde  the  foundress,  who  had  be¬ 
come  one  of  the  nuns,  requested  the  bishop  to 
take  the  convent  under  his  protection.  After 
.some  hesitation,  on  account  of  the  royal  rank  of 
the  foundre.ss,  or  because  .she  had  placed  the  con¬ 
vent  under  royal  jurisdiction,  he  consented  “  to 
govern  it  as  the  rest  of  his  parishes”  (Mabill. 
Ann.  0.  S.  B.  VII.  xxxix.  xl.  ;  Gregor.  Turon. 
Hist.  ix.  46).  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  middle 
of  the  7th  century,  or  later,  for  the  exact  date 
of  the  deed  is  uncertain,  a  monastery  at  Vienne, 
apparently  of  monks  and  nuns  under  one  consti¬ 
tution,  obtained  absolute  exemption  from  the 

“  In  Labbe  (C'0J(Ci7.  ix.  470)  the  nading  is  “extra  cc- 
clesiaiii.” 


bishop’s  authority.  By  this  deed,  no  bishop  had 
any  claim  to  any  property  of  the  monastery ; 
no  bishop,  unless  by  invitation  of  the  abbot  or 
abbess,  could  consecrate  altars  or  admit  nuns, 
nor  was  any  fee  to  be  required  for  performing 
these  ceremonies;  and  the  diocesan  was  not  to 
hinder  any  appeal  of  the  monastery  to  the  see 
of  Rome  (Mabill.  Ann.  0.  S.  B.  XIII.  ii.  cf.  App, 
tom.  1).  In  another  fragment  cited  by  Mabillou 
in  the  same  place  no  bishop  even  by  invitation 
was  allowed  to  enter  the  more  private  parts  of 
the  convent ;  nor  was  any  bishop  to  be  enter¬ 
tained  in  the  convent,  lest  this  should  be  an 
expense  and  a  distraction  to  the  inmates,  nor  to 
interfere  with  the  abbess  in  the  correction  of  the 
nuns,  for  she  was  to  be  responsible  only  to  the 
apostolic  see.  Instances  might  easily  be  multi¬ 
plied  of  the  almost  continual  collision  in  Western 
Christendom  between  the  bishops  and  the  monas¬ 
teries  in  their  dioceses  ;  in  which  the  monasteries, 
almost  invariably,  had  the  support  of  the  pope, 
and,  frequently,  of  the  royal  authority  ( cf. 
Martene,  Begul.  Comment.  Bcned.  ap.  l\Iigne, 
Patrol.  Lat.  Ixvi.  pp.  839,  840).  And  the  same 
struggle  was  going  on  at  the  same  time  in  the 
East..  Thus,  in  the  7th  century,  the  emperor 
Mauricius  granted  to  the  monasteries  of  Theo- 
dorus  Siceota  entire  exemption  from  all  epi¬ 
scopal  authority,  except  that  of  Constantinople 
(Mabill.  Ann.  0.  S.  B.  xiv.  23).  Monasteries 
subject  only  to  emperor  or  king,  were  called 
“  imperialia  ”  or  “regalia”  (Ducange,  Gloss. 
Lat.  s.  V.).  [For  exemption  of  monasteries  from 
taxes  see  Monastery.]  [I.  G.  S.] 

EXEMPTIONS.  [Immunities  of  Clergy.] 

EXEQUIES.  [Burial  of  the  Dead  : 
Obsequies.] 

EXERCISES,  PENITENTIAL.  [Peni¬ 
tence.] 

EXHORTATION  {Exhortatio),  is  used  in  a 
special  sense  for  the  admonition  on  the  duties  of 
their  office  addressed  by  the  ordainer  to  a  person 
just  ordained.  See,  for  instance,  the  Coptic 
ritual  of  ordination,  in  Martene,  De  Bit.  Ant.  I., 
viii.  11,  Ordo  23.  [C.] 

EXILE  {Exilinm,  Peregrinatio).  For  certain 
offences  a  penitent  was  ordered  to  leave  his 
country  and  pass  some  period  of  his  penitence  in 
distant  lands.  This  mode  of  penance  is  found 
among  the  canons  ascribed  to  some  of  the  British 
councils  of  the  6th  century  ;  but  there  are  strong 
grounds  for  believing  that  they  are  interpolations 
of  a  later  period,  and  that  the  penance  of  exile 
cannot  be  traced  to  any  earlier  source  than  the 
7th  century.  The  Penitential  of  Theodore  (1.  ii. 
16)  appoints  fifteen  years  of  penance  for  incest, 
of  which  seven  are  to  be  passed  in  a  foreign  land 
(perenni  peregrinatione).  The  Penitential  of 
Egbert  (iii.)  declares  seven  years  of  exile  to 
be  part  of  the  penance  due  to  parricide;  and 
(v.  9)  orders  a  cleric  who  begets  an  illegitimate 
child  to  go  into  exile  for  either  four,  five,  or 
seven  years.  IMorinus,  however,  considers  {de 
Poenit.  vii.  15)  that  these  wanderings  of  peni¬ 
tents  soon  led  to  abuses,  and  were  checked  in  a 
caj)itulary  of  Charles  the  Great  (vi.-373). 

The  practice  thus  begun  in  submission  to  a 
judicial  penalty  was  continued  as  a  voluntary 
self-discipline,  and  in  the  10th  centuiy  it  began 
to  be  considered  a  meritorious  action  to  leave 

2  ’]' 


644 


EXOCATACOELI 


EXOMOLOGESIS 


home  and  country  and  make  a  pilgrimage  to  some 
spot  consecrated  Ijy  association  with  some  holy 
man  ;  tlie  earliest  of  which  places  were  Koine, 
Tours,  and  the  su])posed  burial-place  of  St.  James 
at  Composteila.  This  tendency  received  a  great 
impulse  from  the  Crusades,  and  especially  from 
the  decree  of  the  council  of  Clermont  {Cone. 
Clarom.  c.  2),  which  allowed  a  pilgrimage  to  Jeru¬ 
salem  to  e.'ipiate  all  penance  whatever.  [G.  M.] 

EXOCATACOELI.  Idve  great  dignita¬ 
ries  of  the  patriarchal  church  of  Constantinople, 
■viz.  the  oeconomus  or  steward,  the  senior  and 
junior  keeper  of  the  pui'se  (tra/feAXaptot),  and  the 
senior  and  junior  chartophylax,  were  anciently 
called  e^ooKardKoiXoi.  To  these,  in  the  11th 
century,  the  defensor  of  the  church  was  added. 
The  etymology  of  the  word  is  uncertain.  That 
of  Ducange  {Class.  Graec.)  that  they  received 
their  name  from  having  their  scats  of  dignity 
on  a  raised  platform,  not  in  the  lower  portion 
of  the  floor  {KaraKoiAi)  where  less  distin¬ 
guished  persons  sat,  is  perhaps  as  probable  as 
any.  (Thomassin,  Eccl.  JDiscip.  I.  ii.  99,  §  10 ; 
Daniel,  Codex  Lit'irg.  iv.  702.)  [C.] 

EXODIASTTCON  (’E^oSiao'Tt/cJv).  As  the 
departure  of  a  Christian  was  frequently  spoken 
of  as  e|o5os,  the  service  at  the  death-bed  is  ciilled 
in  Greek  office-books  k^o^iaariKov  (Daniel,  Codex 
Lit.  iv.  608,  634).  [Burial  of  the  Dead  ; 
Sick,  Visitation  of.]  [C.] 

EXOMOLOGESIS  {Exomologesis,  Confessio, 
i^o/noKoygcris,  etayopevais).  The  verb  in  St. 
Matt.  xi.  25  expre.sses  thanksgiving  and  praise, 
and  in  this  sense  was  used  by  many  Christian 
writers  (Suicer’s  Thesaurus.,  s.  v.  i^o/xoX.).  But 
more  generally  in  the  early  fathers  it  signifies 
the  whole  course  of  penitential  discipline,  the 
outward  act  and  performance  of  penance.  From 
this  it  came  to  mean  that  public  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  sin  which  formed  so  important  a  part 
of  penitence.  Irenaeus  (c.  Haeres.  i.  13,  §5) 
speaks  of  an  adulteress  who,  having  been  con¬ 
verted,  passed  her  whole  life  in  a  state  of  peni¬ 
tence  (e^OiUoAoyoL'yueVTj,  in  exomologesi)  :  and  {i'k 
iii.  4)  of  Cerdon  often  coming  into  the  church 
and  confessing  his  errors  {i^o/u.o\oyovfxevos). 
Tertullian  {de  Poenit.  c.  9)  considers  the  Greek 
word  i^o/jLoXoyriaLS  more  suitable  than  the  Latin 
confessio;  and  proceeds  to  define  the  term  as 
“the  discipline  of  humbling  and  prostrating  a 
man.”  At  the  end  of  the  same  treatise  he  speaks 
of  the  king  of  Babylon’s  humiliation  as  an  ex¬ 
omologesis,  and  of  the  king  of  Egvpt’s  neglect 
of  repentance  and  its  attendant  confession.  The 
term  occurs  twice  in  Cyprian  (c?c  Lapsis,  cc.  11, 
18),  and  six  times  in  his  Epistles  {Epistt.  4,  ad 
Pompon,  c.  3 ;  15,  ad  Martyr,  c.  1  ;  ad  Clcr. 
c.  2 ;  17,  ad  Laic. ;  55,  ad  Anton,  c.  24;  59,  ad 
Cornel,  c.  18,  Oxf.  ed.)  in  the  sense  of  the  course 
of  penitence  and  public  humiliation  ;  three  times 
'Epistt.  18,  ad  Cler. ;  19,  ad  Cler. ;  20,  ad  Rom.- 
Clcr.  c.  2)  referring  to  the  confession  of  dying 
penitents  :  and  once  {de  Lapsis,  c.  19)  as  applied 
to  Azariah  and  his  companions,  in  the  sense  of 
confession  of  the  lips  generally.  St.  Basil,  de¬ 
scribing  the  morning  .service  of  his  time  {Epist. 
207,  ad  Cler.  Neocaesar.),  says  that  after  the  anti- 
phonal  chant,  at  daybreak  they  all  burst  forth 
into  the  psalm  of  confession  {rhu  rys  e^opoKo- 
yf](Teu>s  ^aKphu  tw  Kuplcr  dva<p4pav(Ti),  meaning 
jio  4oubt  that  which  is  emphatically  a  psalm  of 


confession,  the  fi:‘ty-first.  This  psalm  is  also 
mentioned  by  Ca^^sian  {De  Instit.  Cb<?no5.  iij.  (I) 
as  occurring  at  the  close  of  matins.  Paciau  in  one 
place  {Paraen.  u.d  Poenit.  p.  372,  Oxf.  eil.)  follow¬ 
ing  Tertullian,  speaks  of  the  degradation  of  Nebu¬ 
chadnezzar  as  exomologesis;  in  another  (tote/. 

р.  373),  in  imitation  of  Cyprian,  applies  the 
term  to  the  song  of  the  “  three  children.”  At 
the  council  of  Laodicea  (can.  2)  it  is  the 
whole  course  of  penitence:  “As  to  those  who 
sin  by  divers  offences  and  persevere  in  prayer 
of  confession  {e^opoK.)  and  repentance.”  With 
Chrysostom  it  is  in  one  place  {Horn.  10  in  S.  Matt. 

с.  4)  the  course  of  penitence  ;  elsewhere  (Horn.  5, 
de  incomp.  Dei  nat.  t.  i.  p.  490 :  Horn.  2,  ad 
ilium.  Catech.  t.  i.  ji.  240,  Bened.  ed.)  it  is  confes¬ 
sion  to  God  only.  Isidore  of  Seville  {Etymol.  vi. 
19)  defines  exomologesis  to  be  that  by  which  we 
confess  our  sins  to  the  Lord.  But  at  the  end  of 
the  same  chapter  he  adduces  an  entirely  dirierent 
meaning  of  the  word.  “Between  litanies  and 
exomologeses  there  is  this  difierence,  that  ex¬ 
omologesis  stands  for  confession  of  sins  only, 
litany  for  prayer  to  God,  and  imploring  His 
pardon ;  but  now  each  word  has  the  same  mean¬ 
ing,  nor  is  there  any  difference  between  the  use 
of  litany  and  exomologesis.”  The  17th  council  of 
Toledo,  A.D.  694  (c.  6),  orders  litanies  (exomolo¬ 
geses)  to  be  said  fora  whole  year  for  the  church, 
for  the  sovereign,  &e.  kc.  And  the  council  of 
Mayence,  a.d.  813  {Cone.  Mogunt.  c.  32)  quotes 
the  exact  words  of  Isidore  on  exomoloo:esis  being 
equivalent  with  litany  (Comp.  Morin,  de  Poenit. 
ii.  2 ;  note  L.  on  Tertull.  de  Poenit.,  in  Oxford 
Li'irary  of  the  Fathers). 

Of  these  meanings  the  first  and  last  are  Quite 
foreign  to  the  general  ecclesiastical  use  of  the 
word  and  need  not  be  pursued  any  further;  that 
which  signifies  the  whole  cour.se  of  j)enitential 
discipline  will  be  discussed  under  the  article 
Penitence  :  this  article  will  relate  to  exomolo¬ 
gesis  only  so  far  as  it  signifies  oral  confession. 

Public  Confession. — i.  Of  public  sins.  —  This 
was  the  first  stage  in  the  restoration  of  a  peni¬ 
tent.  So  long  as  di.scipline  was  in  force,  any  one 
guilty  of  a  notorious  crime  which  had  subjected 
him  to  censure  [Excommunicaiton]  was  re¬ 
quired  to  make  an  open  acknowledgment  of  his 
crime  at  the  beginning  of  his  course  of  penitence. 
The  confession  took  place  after  the  Missa  Cate- 
chumenorum,  and  when  they  and  the  hearers  had 
been  warned  to  withdraw  fiom  the  church  by  the 
deacon.  Then  if  any  one  had  been  recently  con¬ 
victed  of  any  open  sin,  he  confessed  and  bewailed 
it  before  the  church,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
gravity  of  his  offence,  his  penitential  station  was 
assigned  him  by  the  bishop;  sometimes,  how¬ 
ever,  the  bishop,  yielding  to  the  requests  of  the 
clergy  and  people  who  had  heard  the  confession, 
allotted  a  less  remote  station.  The  bishop  then 
addressed  the  congregation  on  the  nature  of  the 
offence,  and  they  offered  up  their  prayers  for  the 
offender’s  repentance.  This  public  confession 
was  addressed  not  merely  to  the  bishop  or  the 
priest  in  the  pre.sence  of  the  congregation,  but  in 
a  loud  voice  to  the  congregation  at  large.  It 
signified  that  as  the  church  had  been  scandalised 
by  an  open  sin  in  one  of  its  membei’s,  reparation 
should  be  made  to  it  by  an  equally  open  admis¬ 
sion  of  sin.  It  also  manifested  the  earnestness 
of  the  offender’s  repentance  that  he  was  willing 
to  undergo  this  public  humiliation.  But  the 


EXOMOLOGESIS 


EXOMOLOGESIS 


645 


cliict  object  was  that  the  oft'ender  might  seek 
tiie  prayers  of  the  congregation  to  support  and 
stimulate  liis  conversion.  If  any  one  who  was 
notoriously  guilty  failed  or  refused  to  confess,  no 
one  would  communicate  with  him,  in  accordance 
with  the  apostle’s  precept  (1  Cor.  v.  11 ;  Ephes. 
V.  11).  Again,  if  he  waited  to  be  convicted, 
his  censure  was  heavier  than  if  he  had  made  a 
sjiontaneous  confession.  The  council  of  Elvira 
{Cone.  Elih.  c.  76)  orders  that  if  a  deacon  before 
his  ordination  had  committed  a  mortal  sin,  and 
afterwards  confessed,  he  should  be  restored  after 
three  years’  penitence  ;  but  if  detected,  after  five 
years,  and  only  to  laj’^  communion.  Basil  {ad 
Amphiloc.  cc.  7,  61)  allows  alleviation  of  punish¬ 
ment  on  three  grounds,  ignorance,  confession, 
and  lapse  of  time.  This  encouragement  to  confes¬ 
sion  reappears  in  the  8th  century  in  the  Rule  of 
Chrodegand  of  Metz  (c.  18),  “  he  who  voluntarily 
confesses  his  lighter  sins  shall  be  visited  with 
lighter  censures.”  And  not  only  was  an  ofl'enJer 
urged  to  confess  for  his  own  sake,  but  any  who 
was  privy  to  his  crime  was  under  a  similar  obli¬ 
gation  to  accuse  him,  for  if  he  failed  or  even 
delayed  to  do  so,  he  was  himself  e.xposed  to  cen¬ 
sure  (Basil,  ad  Aiiiphiloc.  c.  71). 

ii.  Of  secret  sins. — Such  confession  was  at  no 
time  obligatory.  Sometimes,  however,  under  the 
direction  of  a  priest  who  had  been  consulted,  or 
moved  by  a  sudden  contrition  and  remorse,  some 
would  charge  themselves  with  a  secret  sin  before 
the  congregation.  Thus  (Iren.  c.  Haeres.  i.  9)  the 
virgins  seduced  hy  the  heretic  Marcus,  and  the 
wife  of  the  deacon  Asian  us  made  a  public  ac¬ 
knowledgment  of  guilt  which  was  known  only 
to  themselves.  One  of  the  three  men  who  had 
calumniated  Narcissus  of  Jerusalem  (Euseb.  II.  E. 
vi.  9)  publicly  acknowledged  years  afterwards, 
when  his  two  associates  liad  died  from  some 
painful  disorder,  that  his  charge  against  the 
bishop  had  been  false.  Some  of  the  priests  who 
had  joined  Novatian  {ibid.  vi.  43)  spontaneously 
charged  themselves  before  the  church  with 
heresy  and  other  crimes  ;  one  of  the  bishops  who 
had  been  induced  to  consecrate  him  publicly  ac¬ 
knowledged  his  error,  and  Cornelius,  in  deference 
to  the  intercession  of  the  people  who  witnessed 
the  confession,  admitted  him  to  lay  communion. 
But  public  confession  of  secret  sins  needed  at  a 
very  early  ])eriod  to  be  checked  and  regulated  ; 
and  the  people  were  admonished  to  consult  their 
priests  before  divulging  their  sin.s  to  the  church 
[Pi3XiTt:NTi.\JtY].  Anything  which  would  create 
a  scandal  or  endanger  life  or  liberty  was  for¬ 
bidden  to  be  revealed.  So  Basil  {ad  Amphiloc. 
c.  34)  would  not  permit  a  woman  who  had  pri¬ 
vately  admitted  the  guilt  of  adulteiy  to  acknow¬ 
ledge  it  in  the  church  or  even  to  perform  openly 
the  penance  generally  demanded  for  such  a  sin, 
lest  she  should  be  murdered  by  her  husband. 
Similar  precautions  are  laid  down  by  Origen, 
Augustine,  and  Caesarius  of  Arles  (Morin,  de 
Poenit.  ii.  13).  In  the  6th  century  the  practice 
arose  of  making  coufes.sion  of  public  sins  to  the 
bishop,  of  private  to  the  priest. 

iii.  Before  the  bishop  and  his  presbytery. — Ter- 
tullian  {de  Poenit.  c.  9)  says  it  is  part  of  exomo- 
logesis  for  the  penitent  “to  throw  himself  upon 
the  ground  before  the  presbytery,  and  to  fall  on 
his  knees  before  the  beloved  of  God.”  Cy{)rian 
{de  La/, sis,  c.  18)  praises  the  faith  of  those  who, 
having  without  any  overt  act  meditated  idola¬ 


try,  made  a  confession  “  apud  sacerdotes  Dei.” 
Gregory  Nyssen  {Ep.  ad  Lctoium,  in  Marshall 
p.  195)  speaks  of  a  certain  evil  which  had 
been  overlooked  by  the  ancient  fathers,  from 
whence  it  had  come  to  pass,  that  no  j)erson  who 
was  brought  before  the  clergy  to  be  examined  as 
to  his  life  and  conversation  was  at  all  examined 
upon  that  i)oint.  Before  the  i)resbytery  con¬ 
fessions  were  made  which  criminated  others;  and 
this  frequently  happened;  for  any  one  making  a 
public  confession  named  his  confederates,  unless 
by  so  doing  he  exposed  them  to  legal  penalties. 
No  ecclesiastical  censure,  however,  tell  on  any 
who  denied  a  crime  which  his  associate  had  ad¬ 
mitted  :  on  the  principle  that  penitence  was  a 
privilege  not  a  punishment.  The  deacon  and 
virgin  whose  case  is  decided  by  St.  Cyprian  and 
his  presbytery  {E/ns.  iv,  ad  Pompon.)  must  have 
had  an  information  laid  against  them  by  some 
associate,  for  their  guilt  had  been  secret.  This 
mode  ot  confession  was  ati'ected  in  the  East  by 
the  appointment  of  the  Penitentiary  ;  but  in  the 
West  .so  long  as  public  penitence  for  secret  faults 
prevailed,  so  long  did  public  confession  to  bishops 
and  their  assistant  priests.  Probably  this  was 
the  origin  of  the  custom  introduced  into  the 
Benedictine  Rule  of  confession  to  the  abbot  sur¬ 
rounded  by  his  monks. 

Private  Confession. —  i.  General  account. — The 
testimony  of  the  fathers  will  be  discussed  in 
detail  later;  here  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the 
early  fathers  Irenaeus,  Tert  ullian,  Cyprian,  hhrdly 
allude  to  private  confession  at  all ;  and  among  the 
writers  generally  of  the  first  500  years  those  who 
mention  it  do  so  with  some  rcleience  more  or 
less  direct  to  public  discipline.  But  it  is  certain 
that  public  penitence  was  not  assigned  to  all 
sins  which  were  secretly  confessed,  "but  only  to 
such  as  in  the  discretion  of  the  })riest  required 
it.  It  is  easy  to  understand  that  otlences  of  a 
trivial  nature  might  be  confided  to  a  priest,  or 
ofteuces  of  such  a  character  as  would  scandalise 
the  church  were  they  openly  divulged ;  and 
until  this  spiritual  direction  had  been  given, 
the  offender  would  be  in  doubt  whether  or  not 
a  public  acknowledgment  would  be  expected  from 
him.  But  it  is  equally  clear  that  no  absolution 
was  given  after  direction  of  this  sort,  or  until 
penitence  had  been  performed.  Such  at  least 
for  many  centuries  was  the  practice  in  the  Latin 
church  (see  Penitexck,  under  which  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  absolution  will  be  discussed):  in  the 
Eastern  church  a  practice  arose  of  pronouncing 
some  preliminary  absolution  immediately  after 
the  utterance  of  the  confe.ssion,  and  a  second 
absolution  when  the  penance  had  been  performed. 
The  evidence  of  this  practice  is  to  be  found  in 
the  early  Greek  Penitentials  at  the  end  of  the 
6th  century;  but  Alorinus  xvould  carry  back  its 
origin  to  the  time  of  the  abolition  of  the  office  of 
Penitentiary  at  the  end  of  the  4th,  To  resort 
to  a  spiritual  guide  for  comfort  and  counsel 
was  one  thing  ;  to  obtain  through  his  ministry 
by  confe.ssion  penance  and  ab.solutiou,  reconcilia¬ 
tion  with  God  and  communion  with  the  faithful 
was  another:  and  there  is  no  proof  that  the  two 
were  combined,  and  that  private  sacramental 
confession  had  any  existence  in  the  first  500 
years  of  the  Christian  church.  The  term  itself 
is  not  found  in  any  of  the  documents  of  the  first 
eight  centuries:  and  if  the  definition  of'i'homas 
Aquinas  {Surnma,  pt.  iii.  qu.  84-90)  is  to  be 


646 


EXOMOLOGKSIS 


EXOMOI.OGESIS 


accepted  as  a  tlieological  definition  of  the  term, 
its  growth  must  be  assigned  to  a  much  later 
period.  There  existed  undoubtedly  from  a  very 
early  period  private  confession  followed  by  no 
penitence,  but  also  by  no  aV)solution ;  there 
was  also  private  confession  followed  by  public 
penitence,  and  generally  by  subsc(juent  i)ublic 
confession,  to  which  the  private  was  a  prelimin¬ 
ary  :  and  there  was  after  the  beginning  of  the 
6th  century  private  confession  followed  by  j>ri- 
vate  penitence,  but  the  penance  was  always  ex¬ 
acted,  and  differed  only  from  public  penance  in 
solemnity;  there  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in  canons 
or  sacramentaries  or  j)enitentials  one  j)unishment 
for  private  penitence  and  another  for  public. 
The  sins  thus  privately  confessed  with  a  view  to 
penitence  were  those  only  of  a  grievous  character, 
sins  which  excluded  from  communion  or  public 
prayer,  or  even  from  the  church  itself,  Avhich 
required  a  long  and  painful  course  of  penance 
before  they  were  blotted  out,  and  into  Avhich  if 
the  sinner  relapsed,  there  was,  certainly  in  the 
rigour  of  the  primitive  ages,  no  second  door  of 
reconciliation  open  to  him.  Sozomen  indeed, 
writing  at  the  end  of  the  5th  century,  says  in 
reference  to  penitence  that  there  is  pardon  for 
these  who  sin  again  and  again,  but  this  is  not 
the  language  of  antiquity.  There  was  but  one 
admission  to  solemn  penance.  Moreover,  sins  for 
which  ])enance  was  to  be  performed  were  de¬ 
scribed  by  canons  and  in  canonical  epistles,  and 
sins  which  did  not  fall  within  these  canons  were 
neither  confessed  nor  made  subject  to  penance. 
Sins  of  frailty  incidental  to  mankind  were  to  be 
healed  by  daily  prayer  and  confession  to  God 
only.  So,  among  numerous  authorities  that  peni¬ 
tence,  and  confession  as  a  part  of  penitence,  was 
not  exacted  for  venial  sins,  Augustine  {de  Symb. 
ad  Catech.  t.  vi.  p.  555,  ed.  Autv.),  “  those  whom 
you  see  in  a  state  of  penitence  haxm  been  guilty  of 
adultery  or  some  other  enormity,  for  which  they 
are  put  under  it :  if  their  sin  had  been  venial, 
daily  prayer  would  have  been  sufficient  to  atone 
for  it.”  The  Greek  Penitentials  of  the  end  of 
the  6th  century,  and  the  Latin  ones  of  a  cen¬ 
tury  later,  give  no  hint  of  habitual  confession  of 
common  infirmities,  or  of  private  confession  being 
a  matter  of  indispensable  obligation,  still  less  of 
the  doctrine  that  one  may  daily  confess  and  be 
daily  and  plenarily  absolved. 

ii.  fa  the  Western  Church. — In  the  times  of  Ter- 
tullian  and  Cyprian  public  discipline  was  in  full 
vigour,  and  as  part  of  it  a  public  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  sins  :  the  passages  which  have  already 
been  adduced  from  these  fathers  contain  nothing 
to  show  that  they  regarded  confession  in  any 
other  light  than  as  one  stage  of  the  act  of  peni¬ 
tence. 

Ambrose  (c?e  Poenit.  ii.  6)  speaks  of  confession, 
but  it  is  confession  to  God.  “If  thou  wilt  be 
justified  confess  thy  sins  ;  for  humble  confession 
looses  the  bonds  of  sin.”  Another  passage, 
selected  by  Bellarmine  to  support  secret  confes¬ 
sion,  relates  manifestly  to  the  course  of  disci¬ 
pline  ;  for  having  at  the  end  of  the  previous 
section  said  that  “  very  many,  out  of  fear  of 
future  punishment,  conscious  of  their  sins,  seek 
admission  to  penitence,  and  having  obtained  it 
are  drawn  back  by  the  shame  of  public  en¬ 
treat  v,”  Ambrose  thus  proceeds  (ib.  c.  10), 
“  Will  any  one  endure  that  thou  shouldest  be 
ashamed  to  ask  of  God,  who  art  not  ashamed  to  ask 


men  ?  that  thou  be  ashamed  to  supplicate  Him 
from  whom  thou  art  not  hid,  when  thou  art  not 
ashamed  to  confess  thy  sins  to  man  from  whom 
thou  art  hid  ?”  Another  passage  (m  Luc,  x.  22, 
p.  5,  1787)  commenting  on  St.  Peter’s  denial 
of  Christ  and  subsequent  repentance,  is  incon¬ 
sistent  wdth  the  existence  of  a  custom  of  pri¬ 
vate  confession  in  his  time.  “  Let  tears  wash 
away  the  guilt  which  one  is  ashamed  to  confess 
with  the  voice.  Tears  exjiress  the  fault  without 
alarm  ;  tears  confess  the  sin  without  injuring 
bashfulness ;  tears  obtain  the  pardon  they  ask 
not  for.  Peter  wept  most  bitterly,  that  with 
tears  he  might  wash  out  his  olience.  Do  thou 
also,  if  thou  wouldest  obtain  pardon,  wash  out  thy 
fault  with  tears.” 

Augustine’s  own  confessions  contain  no  hint 
that  he  either  practised  or  inculcated  private  con¬ 
fession.  “  What  have  I  to  do  with  men  that 
they  should  hear  my  confession,  as  if  they  could 
heal  all  my  infirmities”  (x.  3).  Bellarmine  quotes 
from  the  same  writer  (on  Ps.  66,  c.  7)— “  Be 
downcast  before  thou  hast  confessed  ;  having 
confessed,  exult  ;  now  shalt  thou  be  healed. 
While  thou  confessedst  not,  thy  conscience  col¬ 
lected  foul  matter;  the  imjiosthume  swelled, 
distressed  thee,  gave  thee  no  rest ;  the  jdiysician 
foments  it  with  words,  sometimes  cuts  it,  em¬ 
ploys  the  healing  knife,  rebuking  by  tribulation. 
Acknowledge  thou  the  hand  of  the  physician  ; 
confess  ;  let  all  the  foul  matter  go  forth  in  con¬ 
fession ;  now  exult,  now  rejoice,  what  remains 
will  readily  be  healed.”  But  Augustine  is 
commenting  on  the  text,  “Sing  unto  the  Lord 
all  the  whole  earth;”  and  confession  can  be  con¬ 
fession  to  God  only,  as  surely  the  physician  who 
heals  by  tribulation  can  be  none  other  than  God. 
In  /S'cr7n.'181  (fin.)  he  speaks  of  daily  prayer  as 
the  sponge  which  is  to  wipe  away  sins  of  infir¬ 
mity  and  contrasts  them  with  death-bringing 
sins  for  which  alone  penitence  is  jierformed. 
Elsewhere  (de  Symb.  cel  Catech.  tom.  vi.  p.  555,  ed. 
Antv.)  he  again  speaks  of  the  “  three  methods  of 
remitting  sins  in  the  church,  in  baptism,  in  the 
Lord’s  Prayer,  in  the  humilitv  of  the  greater 
penitence,”  and  he  limits  penance  and  conse¬ 
quently  confession  to  sins  which  deserve  excom¬ 
munication.  And  in  many  similar  passages  he 
is  a  witness  that  up  to  his  time  no  confession 
was  required  of  any  sins  but  such  as  subjected  a 
man  to  penitential  discipline. 

Leo  in  his  Epistle  to  Theodorus  gives  plain  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  connection  of  confession  with  penance 
{Ep.  91,  c.  2).  But  in  a  letter  to  the  bishops  of 
Campania  he  gives  some  directions  which  mark  if 
they  do  not  make  an  era  in  confession  in  the  Latin 
church.  The  ejdstle  is  too  important  not  to  be 
quoted  at  length  (^Ep.  80,  ce!  Ejiisc.  Camjxoi.). 
“That  ju’esumption, contrary  to  the  apostolic  rule, 
which  1  have  lately  learned  to  be  practised  by 
some,  taking  unduly  ujion  themselves,  I  direct 
should  by  all  moans  be  removed,  an  1  that  a  writ¬ 
ten  statement  of  the  nature  of  the  crimes  of  each 
should  not  be  publicly  rehearsed,  since  it  suffices 
that  the  guilt  of  the  conscience  be  laid  open  to 
the  priests  alone  in  secret  confession.  For  al¬ 
though  that  fulness  of  faith,  which  out  of  the 
fear  of  God  fears  not  to  take  shame  betore  men, 
seems  to  be  praiseworthy,  yet  because  the  sins 
of  all  are  not  of  such  sort,  that  they  who  ask  to 
do  penitence  fear  not  their  being  published,  let 
so  unaivisable  a  custom  be  done  away,  lest 


EXOMOLOGESIS 


EXOMOLOGESIS 


647 


many  be  kept  from  the  remedies  of  penitence  ; 
either  being  ashamed,  or  fearing  that  actions  for 
which  they  may  be  ])iinished  by  the  laws  should 
be  discovered  to  their  enemies.  For  that  con¬ 
fession  suffices,  which  is  made  first  to  God,  then 
to  the  priest  also,  who  draweth  near  to  pray  for 
the  sins  of  the  j)enitents.  For  so  at  length  may 
more  be  stirred  up  to  penitence,  if  the  sins  con¬ 
fessed  by  the  penitents  be  not  published  in  the 
ears  of  the  people.”  In  the  early  ages  imblic 
confession  was  only  remitted  in  case  of  danger 
to  the  individual  or  scandal  to  the  church  :  by 
this  constitution  of  Leo  f.ecret  confession  to  the 
priest  was  to  take  the  place  of  open  confession, 
and  the  priest’s  intercession  of  the  intercession  of 
the  church.  The  door  thus  opened  for  esca})ing 
from  the  shame  of  public  confession  was  never 
afterwards  closed,  and  secret  confession  gradually 
became  the  rule  of  the  church. 

In  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  the  Great,  a 
century  and  a  half  later,  there  is  no  evidence  to 
be  found  of  the  existence  of  public  confession  : 
and  even  after  private  confession  it  was  difficult  to 
bring  men  to  submit  to  public  discipline  (^Lxpos. 
in  1  Hcij.  t.  iii.  15,  p,  34-2).  “The  sign  of  a  true 


confession  is  not  in  the  confession  of  the  lips,  but 
in  the  humiliation  of  penitence .  The  con¬ 

fession  of  sin  is  required  in  order  that  the  fruits 
of  penitence  may  follow .  Saul,  who  con¬ 


fesses  and  is  not  willing  to  humble  and  afflict 
himself,  is  a  type  of  those  who  make  a  sterile 
confession  and  bear  no  fruit  of  penance.” 

In  the  7th  century,  the  stern  rule  that  solemn 
confession  as  a  part  of  penitence  was  received 
only  once,  had  become  obsolete,  but  habitual  con¬ 
fession  had  not  yet  taken  its  place.  The  fii'st 
council  of  Chalons,  a.d.  650  (1  Gahil.  c.  8),  de¬ 
clares  that  all  agree  that  confession  to  the  priest 
is  a  proof  of  penitence.  The  Penitential  of  Theo¬ 
dore  (I.  xii.  7)  gives  a  rule  which  shows  that 
auricular  confession  was  not  yet  obligatory. 
“  Confession  if  needful  may  be  made  to  God  only.” 
[COM.M UNION,  Holy,  p.  417.]  Bede  (tom.  v.  Exp. 
in  S.  Jnc.  v.)  reverting  to  the  old  practice  di-aws  a 
distinction  between  the  confession  of  frailties  and 
of  heinous  sins.  “  We  ought  to  use  this  discretion, 
our  daily  light  sins  confess  to  one  another,  and 
hope  that  by  our  prayers  they  may  be  healed  ; 
but  the  pollution  of  the  greater  leprosy  let  us 
according  to  the  law  open  to  the  priest,  and  in 
the  manner  and  the  time  which  he  directs, 
jmrify  ourselves.”  The  second  council  of  Cha¬ 
lons,  A.r>.  813  (2  Co7ic.  Cabil.  c.  32)  complains  that 
people  coming  to  confess  neglect  to  do  so  full}'-, 
and  orders  each  one  when  he  comes  to  examine 
himself  and  make  confession  of  the  eight  capital 
sins  which  prevail  in  the  world — which  are  then 
enumerated — and  by  implication,  of  no  others. 
Theodulph’s  Capitulary  (c.  30)  draws  a  distinc¬ 
tion  between  confession  made  to  a  priest  and  that 
to  God  only,  and  (c.  31)  mentions  the  same  eight 
princi))al  sins  as  the  council,  and  appoints  that 
everyone  learning  to  confess  should  be  examined 
on  what  occasions  and  in  w'hat  manner  he  had 
been  guilty  of  any  of  them,  and  consequently  be 
subjected  co  no  further  examination.  Chrodegand 
(c.  32)  orders  “  confession  to  be  made  at  each  of 
the  three  fasts  of  the  year,  ‘  et  qui  plus  fecerit 
melius  facit and  monks  to  confess  on  each  Sun¬ 
day  to  their  bishop  or  })rior.”  But  there  is  no 
other  document  showing  that  confession  had 
yet  become  periodical.  That  secret  confession 


w’as  not  yet  a  matter  of  obligation  is  clear 
from  the  canon  of  the  council  of  Chalons 
(2  Co7ic.  C (bil.  c.  33).  “Some  say  they  ought 
to  confess  their  sins  to  God  only,  and  some 
think  they  are  to  be  confessed  unto  the  priests, 
both  of  which  not  without  great  fruit  are  jirac- 
tised  in  the  Holy  Church  ....  the  confession 
which  is  made  to  God  purgeth  sins,  that  made 
to  the  priests  teacheth  in  what  way  those  sins 
should  be  purged.”  And  so  it  remained  an  ojien 
question  for  the  next  300  years,  for  Gratian 
{de  Poenit.  Dist.  i.  89)  summing  up  the  op'inions 
of  dillerent  doctors  on  necessity  of  confession 
leaves  it  still  undecided.  “  Upon  w'hat  autho¬ 
rities  or  upon  what  strength  of  reasons  both 
these  opinions  are  grounded,  I  have  briefly  de¬ 
clared  ;  wdiich  of  them  w-e  should  rather  cleave 
to  is  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader;  for  both 
have  for  their  favourers  wise  and  religious  men.” 
And  it  w'as  not  determined  till  the  famous  de¬ 
cree  of  the  Lateran  council,  A.D.  1215  (4  Cone. 
Latcran.  c.  21)  ordering  all  of  each  sex  as  soon  as 
they  arrived  at  years  of  discretion  to  confess  at 
least  once  a  year  to  their  own  priest. 

iii.  In  the  Eastern  Church. — 'fhe  duty  of  con¬ 
sulting  a  priest  when  the  conscience  is  burdened 
is  urged  more  strongly  by  the  Greek  than  by  the 
Latin  fathers;  there  are  consequently  more  dis¬ 
tinct  traces  of  secret  confession  to  be  found  in 
the  Eastern  than  in  the  Western  church.  Origen 
has  one  passage  speaking  directly  of  confession, 
not  to  God  only  but  to  the  ministers  of  the 
church ;  the  purpose  of  the  confession  however 
is  not  to  obtain  absolution,  but  spiritual  guid¬ 
ance  ;  after  having  spoken  of  evil  thoughts 
which  should  be  revealed  in  order  that  they 
might  be  destroyed  by  Him  who  died  for  us,  he 
continues  (//om.  17  in  Luc.  fin.),  “  if  we  do  this 
and  confess  our  sins  not  only  to  God,  but  to  those 
also  who  can  heal  our  wounds  and  sins,  our  sins 
will  be  blotted  out  by  Him,”  &;c.  In  anotlier 
passage,  which  is  even  more  explicit,  he  speaks 
of  the  care  required  in  choosing  a  discreet  and 
learned  minister  to  w'hom  to  open  the  grief,  and 
the  skill  and  tenderness  required  in  him  to  whom 
it  is  confided  (Afom.  2  in  Ps.  37,  t.  11,  p.  688,  ed. 
Bened.). 

Athanasius  (T7L  Ant.  Erem.  p.  75,  ed.  Augs.) 
narrates  an  injunction  of  Anthony  to  his  fellow- 
recluses,  that  they  should  write  down  their 
thoughts  and  actions  and  exhibit  the  record 
to  one  another,  which  probably  was  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  habitual  confession  among  monastic 
orders,  where  there  are  many  grounds  for  sup¬ 
posing  it  prevailed  long  before  it  became  the 
custom  of  the  church.  Basil  lays  it  down  even 
more  definitelv  than  Orisren,  that  in  cases  of  doubt 
and  difficulty  resort  should  be  had  to  a  ])riest ; 
and  in  his  time  such  a  priest  was  specially 
appointed  in  each  diocese,  whose  office  it  was 
to  receive  such  private  confessions  and  decide 
whether  they  should  be  afterwards  oj)enly 
acknowledged.  [Pknitkntiary.]  Thus  in  Basil, 
Reg.  breo.  tract.  (Q.  229)  the  question  is  pro¬ 
posed,  “  Whether  forbidden  actions  ought  to 
be  laid  open  to  all,  or  to  whom,  and  of  what 
sort?”  And  the  answer  is,  that  as  with  bodily 
disease,  “  so  also  the  discovery  of  sins  ought 
to  be  made  to  those  able  to  cure  them.”  Again 
(().  288)  Basil  asks,  “  he  who  wishes  to  con- 
fe.ss  his  sins  ought  he  to  (lonfess  them  to  all, 
or  to  any  chance  person,  or  to  whom  ?”  and  re- 


648 


EX0M0L0GE8IS 


EXOMOLOGESIS 


plies,  “  it  is  necessary  to  confess  to  those  en-  [ 
trusted  with  the  oracles  of  God.”  There  would  | 
have  been  no  necessity  for  regulations  like  these 
had  not  private  confession  been  in  frecjuent  prac¬ 
tice.  In  Senn.  Ascct.  (t.  ii.  p.  323,  ed.  Bened.)  ; 
monks  are  directed,  by  a  rule  similar  to  that 
of  Anthony,  to  tell  to  the  common  body  any 
thought  of  things  forbidden,  or  unsuitable 
words,  or  remissness  in  prayer,  or  lukewarmness 
in  psalmody,  or  desire  after  ordinary  life,”  that 
through  the  common  prayers  the  evil  may  be 
cured.  Like  instructions  are  found  in  the  lieg. 
fus.  tract.  (Q.  26)  “On  referring  everything, 
even  the  secrets  of  the  heart,  to  the  superior.” 

Gregory  Nysseu  (^Ep.  ad  Lctoium,  in  Mar¬ 
shall,  p.  100)  in  one  place  speaks  of  secret 
confession  which  is  to  be  followed  by  penance  : 

“  he  who  of  his  own  accord  advances  to  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  his  sins,  as  by  his  voluntary  accusation 
of  himself  he  gives  a  specimen  of  the  change  that 
is  in  his  mind  towards  that  which  is  good,  will 
deserve  lighter  correction,”  alluding  to  the  well- 
established  rule  that  voluntary  confession  was 
allowed  to  mitigate  the  subsequent  penance : 
in  another  place  he  writes  as  if  he  com¬ 
mended  the  custom  of  confessing  all  transgres¬ 
sion  of  positive  law  whether  it  involved  penance 
or  not,  “if  lie  who  has  transferred  to  himself  the 
jiroperty  of  another  by  secret  theft  shall  unfold 
his  offence  to  the  priest  by  secret  confession,  it 
will  be  sufficient  to  cure  the  guilt  by  a  contrary 
disposition.” 

The  abolition  of  the  office  of  the  Penitentiary 
made  undoubtedly  a  great  break  in  the  practice 
of  confession  in  the  Eastern  church.  The  ac¬ 
count  is  given  in  Socrates  (^ff.  E.  v.  19)  and 
Sozomen  {H.  E.  vii.  16).  [Pexitenti.\rv.] 
It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  scandal  which 
had  arisen  in  connection  with  the  Peniten¬ 
tiary  had  not  some  iuffiience  on  the  teaching  of 
St.  Chrysostom,  who  immediately  afterwards  suc¬ 
ceeded  to  th<;  see  of  Constantinoijle.  He  both 
recommended  and  enforced  penitence,  but  any 
confession  which  had  not  immediate  reference  to 
discipline,  he  taught  should  be  made  to  God 
alone.  Xone  of  the  fathers  bear  equally  strong 
testimony  against  auricular  confession  (^flom.  5 
de  incomp.  Dei  nat.  p.  490).  “  I  do  not  bring 

you  upon  the  stage  before  your  fellow-servants, 
nor  do  I  compel  you  to  discover  your  sins  in  the 
presence  of  men,  but  to  unfold  your  conscience 
to  God,  to  show  Him  your  ail  and  malady,  and 
seek  relief  from  Him.”  So  {Horn.  20  in  Gen.  p. 
175).  “  He  who  has  done  these  things  (grievous 

sins)  if  he  would  use  the  assistance  of  conscience 
for  his  need,  and. hasten  to  confess  his  sin,  and 
show  his  sore  to  the  physician  who  healeth  and 
reproacheth  not,  and  converse  with  Him  alone, 
none  knowing,  and  tell  all  exactly,  he  shall 
soon  amend  his  folly.  For  confession  of  sins  is 
the  effacing  of  offences.”  For  numerous  other 
examples  compare  Daille  (iii.  14,  iv.  25),  Hooker 
(vi.  c.  iv.  16),  note  on  Tertull.  de  Poenit.  in  Ox¬ 
ford  Library  of  the  Fathers,  p.  401. 

From  the  time  of  Chrysostom  to  the  time  of 
the  Greek  Penitentials  there  is  no  material 
evidence.  Joannes  Climacus  (cited  by  Daille) 
has  a  rule  which  points  to  the  existence  of  con¬ 
fession  in  the  eastern  monasteries  of  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury  :  a  similar  notice  from  Theodorus  Studites, 

•<  ' 

in  his  life  of  Plato,  shows  that  the  practice  had 
a  greater  hold  on  the  monks  of  the  9th  century. 


It  appears  from  the  Penitentials  that  some 
form  of  absolution  was  given  in  the  east  im¬ 
mediately  after  confession,  a  piMctice  of  which 
there  is  no  trace  for  many  centuries  later  in  the 
Latin  church.  Joannes  Jrjunator  orders  that 
immediately  after  the  confession  is  over  and  the 
priest  has  said  tlie  seven  prayers  of  absolution. 
i.  e.,  absolution  in  the  precatory  form,  he  is  to 
raise  the  penitent  from  the  ground  and  kiss  him, 
and  exhort  him  thus — “  behold  by  the  mercy  oi 
God  who  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  you 
have  fled  for  refuge  to  penitence,  and  made  a 
confession,  and  been  freed  from  all  your  former 
wicked  works,  do  not  therefore  corrupt  yourselt 
a  second  time,  &c,  &c. after  this  the  j^enitence 
is  imposed,  in  the  contemporary  Penitential  ot 
Joannes  Monachus  the  form  of  absolution  directly 
after  confession  is  still  stronger.  “  May  God 
who  for  our  sake  became  man,  and  bore  the  sins 
of  all  the  world,  turn  to  your  good  all  these 
things  which  you,  my  brother,  have  confessed  to 
me.  His  unworthy  minister,  and  free  you  trom 
them  all  in  this  world,  and  receive  you  in  the 
world  to  come,  and  bring  all  to  be  saved,  who  is 
blessed  for  ever.”  But  this  absolution  did  not 
entitle  the  penitent  to  Holy  Communion,  nor  do 
away  with  the  necessity  of  subsequent  penitence, 
which  often  continued  for  years  after  this,  and 
at  the  end  of  it  another  and  more  formal  and 
perfect  absolution  was  gi'anted.  (Morin,  de 
Poenit.  vi.  25.)  On  the  practice  of  confession 
among  the  sects  which  broke  awav  from  the 
Orthodox  church,  see  Daniel  (^Codex  Lituryicus, 
iv.  p,  590). 

iv.  Confession  before  receiviny  Holy  Communion 
may  have  been  an  occasional  practice,  but  the  pre¬ 
sumption  is  very  strong  against  its  having  been 
a  general  one.  Socrates  (/f.  E.  v.  19),  in  his 
account  of  the  abolition  of  the  office  of  the 
Penitentiary,  states  that  Nectarius  was  advised  to 
strike  his  name  from  the  roll  of  ecclesiastical 
officers,  and  allow  each  one  henceforwai’d  to 
communicate  as  his  own  conscience  should  direct  ; 
a  notice  which  seems  to  imply  that  in  the  time  of 
Nectarius,  who  was  Chrysostom’s  predecessor  at 
Constantinople,  it  had  been  the  custom  for  the 
people  to  consult  with  the  Penitentiary  before 
presenting  themselves  to  receive  the  eucharist. 
But  the  passage  is  an  isolated  one  ;  it  is  supported 
by  no  other  authority  ;  and  whatever  value  it 
mav  have,  it  is  a  two-edged  testimony,  for  if  it 
proA'es  that  the  custom  prevailed  at  that  time, 
it  also  proves  that  after  that  time  it  ceased. 
On  the  other  hand  there  is  this  class  of  indirect 
evidence,  that  no  such  preparation  was  generally 
enforced.  Eusebius  (//.  E.  vi.  43).  relates  that 
during  the  episcopate  of  Cornelius  at  Lome, 
1050  widows  and  destitute  people  received  alms 
from  the  church  ;  the  Roman  church  must 
therefore  at  that  time  have  consisted  of  many 
thousands,  to  minister  to  whom  were  the  bishop 
himself  and  forty-six  presbyters;  and  when  the 
frequency  with  which  the  faithful  communicated 
even  at  the  latter  half  of  the  3rd  century,  is 
borne  in  mind,  it  would  seem  to  be  almost 
physically  impossible  that  each  one  should  make 
an  individual  confession  before  communicating. 
Similar  evidence  is  furnished  from  the  ancient 
liturgies,  in  which  special  directions  are  given 
to  the  deacon  to  warn  to  depart  from  the  church 
the  catechumens,  penitents,  and  others  who  wei'e 
not  allowed  to  communicate,  but  no  hint  is 


EXOMOLOGESIS 


EXOMOLOGESIS 


649 


given  that  those  who  had  failed  to  confess  were 
to  be  excluded.  Stronger  evidence  is  su})j)lied  by 
the  absence  of  any  mention  of  confession  among 
the  preparations  required  for  a  worthy  reception 
of  the  sacrament.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom. 
!.  1,  p.  318,  Potter)  seems  to  imply  that  some 
ministers  judged  who  were  or  were  not  worthy 
[Communion,  Holy,  p.  413],  though  he  himseif 
thought  the  individual  conscience  the  best  guide. 
tJhrysostom  (//ow.  27  in  Gen.  p.  268,  ed.  Bened.) 
similarly  leaves  each  one  to  judge  of  his  fitness, 
“  If  we  do  this  [reconcile  ourselves  with  the  bre¬ 
thren],  we  shall  be  able  with  a  pui’e  conscience 
to  approach  His  holy  and  awful  table,  and  to  utter 
boldly  those  words  joined  to  our  prayers — the 
initiated  know  what  1  mean  ;  wherefore  I  leave 
to  everyone’s  conscience  how,  fulfilling  that  com¬ 
mand,  we  may  at  that  fearful  moment  utter 
these  things  with  boldness.”  Augustine  also 
tells  his  hearers  that  their  own  conscience,  and 
that  alone,  must  determine  their  fitness  (Serm. 
46  de  Verb.  Dom.),  “  considering  your  several 
degrees,  and  adhering  to  what  you  have  professed, 
approach  ye  to  the  flesh  of  the  Lord,  approach 
ye  to  the  blood  of  the  Lord  ;  whoso  proveth  him¬ 
self  not  to  be  such,  let  him  not  approach.”  The 
second  council  of  Chalons  (2  Cone.  Cabil.  c.  46), 
gives  detailed  directions  on  the  manner  and  order 
of  receiving,  but  no  word  about  confession — an 
omission  which  bears  so  much  the  more  strongly 
upon  the  question,  because  private  confession 
had  undoubtedly  begun  to  take  the  place  of 
penitential  confession  in  the  9th  century. 

V.  At  the  hour  of  death. — The  evidence  on 
this  head,  still  more  than  on  the  preceding,  is 
negative.  If  confession  immediately  before  death 
had  been  customary,  some  notice  of  it  would 
have  found  a  place  in  the  narratives  of  the  last 
hours  of  the  saints  and  fathers  of  the  early 
church.  But  no  such  records  appear.  Cyprian 
in  three  of  his  epistles  (J^p.  18-20,  Oxf.  ed.), 
allows  the  confession  of  the  lapsed  to  be  received 
on  their  deathbed  preparatory  to  imposition  of 
hands;  but  this  was  only  to  meet  the  emergency 
of  sudden  illness  overtaking  penitents  ;  it  was 
no  part  of  a  systematic  practice.  Athanasius  in 
his  account  of  the  death  of  Anthony  (in  Vit.  Ant. 
Eremit.  fin.),  has  no  allusion  to  a  previous  con¬ 
fession.  Equally  silent  is  Gregory  Nazianzen 
(Orat.  21),  on  the  death  of  Athanasius;  and 
(Orat.  19),  on  the  death  of  his  own  father, 
Gregory  bishop  of  Nazianzum ;  and  (Orat.  20), 
in  the  eulogy  which  he  delivered  at  the  tomb  of 
Basil.  Gregory  Nyssen  (de  Vit.  Greg.  Thaumat.') 
has  no  account  of  the  deathbed  confession  of 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus  :  nor  has  Ambrose  (de 
Obit.  Theod.)  of  that  of  Theodosius.  Augustine 
(Confess,  ix.  10,  11),  records  the  last  hours  of  his 
mother,  but  he  records  no  last  confession ;  his 
own  last  hours  which  Possidius  (de  Vit.  Aug. 
c.  31)  has  described,  Avere  spent  in  penitence, 
but  the  only  confe.ssion  made  was  to  God,  “  He  was 
wont  to  say  to  us  that  even  proved  Christians, 
whether  clergy  or  laity,  should  not  depart  from 
life  without  a  full  and  fitting  penitence,  and  this 
he  carried  out  in  his  last  illness.  For  he  had  the 
penitential  psalms  copied  out  and  arranged  against 
the  wall  in  sets  of  four,  and  read  tnem  as  he  lay 
in  bed,  all  through  his  sickness,  and  freely  and 
bitterly  wept.  And  he  begged  that  he  might 
not  be  interrupted,  and  that  we  would  not  go  into 
his  room  except  when  his  physicians  came,  or  he 


needed  food.  And  all  that  time  we  neither  read 
nor  spoke  to  him.”  Bede,  narrating  (Eccl.  Jlis. 
iv.  3),  the  death  of  bishop  Ceadde,  and  (ib.  iv.  23), 
the  abbess  Hilda,  and  (Cuth.  ]  it.  c.  39)  Cuthbert, 
states  that  each  received  the  Holy  Communion 
at  the  last,  but  not  that  it  was  preceded  by  con¬ 
fession.  Similar  is  Eginhard’s  account  (  Vit.  Car. 
Mag.),  of  the  death  of  Charles  the  Great  (see 
Daille'  iv.  3,  where  the  evidence  is  drawn  out 
in  detail). 

vi.  2\me  and  Manner. — The  time  of  public  con¬ 
fession  was  originally  whenever  the  penitent  lelt 
moved  to  acknowledge  his  sin  before  the  church  ; 
afterwards,  in  common  with  the  whole  course  of 
discipline,  the  time  was  restricted  to  certain 
seasons  [Penitence].  Private  confession  not 
being  part  of  the  recognized  order  of  the  church, 
had  necessarily  no  time  assigned  to  it.  The 
capitulary  of  Theodulph  (c.  36)  indeed  orders 
confessions  to  be  made  the  week  before  Lent, 
but  this  is  an  excejdional  instance.  There  is 
an  example  of  a  confession  made  in  writing  by 
Potamius,  archbishop  of  Braga  to  the  10th 
council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  656,  charging  himself 
with  misdemeanours.  The  confession  was  entirely 
spontaneous,  for  the  council  having  no  suspicion 
of  his  guilt  could  not  at  fii-st  believe  him  ;  but  on 
his  reaffirming  the  fact,  he  was  deposed  and 
subjected  to  penitence  for  the  remainder  of  his 
life  ;  allowed,  however,  out  of  compassion  to  retain 
his  title,  his  successor  signing  himself  bishop  and 
metropolitan.  Robert,  bishop  of  the  Cenomani 
(Le  Mans),  also  made  a  written  confession,  but 
the  council  to  which  it  was  made  absolved  him 
(Morin,  de  Poenit.  ii.  2  ;  v.  10). 

It  appears  from  the  Greek  Penitentials  that  con¬ 
fession  was  made  sitting  ;  the  penitent  kneeling 
only  twice  while  making  his  confession,  at  the 
beginning,  when  the  priest  asked  the  Holy 
Spirit’s  aid  to  move  the  man  to  disburden  his  soul 
completely,  and  at  the  end,  when  a  prayer  was 
offered  that  he  might  obtain  grace  to  perform  his 
sentence  conscientiously.  The  origin  of  this 
custom  was  the  great  length  to  which  the  form 
and  process  of  confessing  extended.  The  practice 
has  since  continued  in  the  Greek  church,  for  both 
priest  and  penitent  to  sit  (Martene  de  Bit.  i.  3  ; 
Daniel  Codex  Ltturg.  iv.  p.  588).  The  Penitential 
of  Joannes  Jejunator  gives  the  following  instruc¬ 
tions  on  the  order  and  manner  of  confessing ; 
“he  who  comes  to  confess  ought  to  make  three 
inclinations  of  the  body  as  he  approaches  the 
sacred  altar,  and  say  three  times  ‘I  confess  to 
thee  0  Father,  Lord  God  of  heaven  and  earth, 
whatever  is  in  the  secret  places  of  my  heart.’ 
And  after  he  has  said  this  he  should  raise  himself 
and  stand  erect ;  and  he  who  receives  his  con¬ 
fession  should  question  him  with  a  cheerful 
countenance,  which  he  who  confesses  should  also 
if  possible  present,  and  kiss  his  hand,  esj)eciallv 
if  he  sees  the  penitent  to  be  depre.ssed  by  the 
severity  of  his  sorrow  and  shame,  and  after  that 
he  should  say  to  him  in  a  cheerful  and  sentle 
voice  ”  ...  .  and  then  follow  95  questions,  and 
the  priest  orders  the  penitent,  if  not  a  woman,  to 
uncover  his  head  even  though  he  wear  a  crown : 
he  then  prays  with  him  :  after  that  he  raises 
him  and  bids  him  recover  his  head,  and  sits  with 
him,  and  asks  him  what  penance  he  can  bear. 
The  Penitential  of  Joannes  Monachus  directs 
that  the  priest  should  invite  the  penitent  into  a 
church  or  some  other  retired  spot,  with  a  cheer- 


650 


EXONARTHEX 


EXORCISM 


fill  countenance,  as  though  he  were  inviting  him  i 
to  some  magnificent  feast,  and  exliort  him  to 
make  a  confession  of  his  sins  to  him  :  the  priest 
should  then  recite  with  him  the  C9th  Psalm,  and 
the  Trisagion,  and  bid  him  uncover  his  head,  and 
neither  should  sit  down  before  the  priest  has 
minutely  investigated  all  that  is  in  his  heart. 
The  penitent  should  afterwards  pi'ostrate  himself 
on  the  earth  and  lie  there,  while  the  ])riest  prays 
for  him  :  the  Jndest  is  then  to  raise  him  and  kiss 
him,  and  lay  his  hand  upon  his  neck  and  comfort 
him,  after  that  they  are  to  sit  together.  Alcuin, 
or  the  author  of  l)e  Dioinis  oj^ciis,  orders  the 
penitent  coming  to  confess  to  bow  humbly  to  the 
priest,  who  is  then  on  his  own  behalf  to  say 
“  Lord  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,”  and  after¬ 
wards  to  order  the  penitent  to  sit  opposite  to  him, 
and  speak  to  him  about  his  sins ;  the  penitent  is 
then  to  rehearse  the  articles  of  his  faith,  and 
afterwards  kneel  and  raise  his  hands,  and  implore 
the  priest  to  intercede  with  God  for  all  the  sins 
which  have  been  omitted  in  the  confession ;  he  is 
then  to  prostrate  himself  on  the  ground,  and  the 
priest  is  to  sutler  him  to  lie  there  awhile,  and 
afterwards  raise  him  and  impose  a  penance  upon 
him :  afterwards  the  penitent  is  again  to  pros¬ 
trate  himself,  and  ask  the  priest  to  pray  that  he 
may  have  grace  given  him  to  persevere  in 
performing  his  penance  ;  the  priest  then  offers  a 
prayer,  which  is  followed  by  six  others,  which 
are  found  in  all  the  Western  Penitentials  ;  the 
penitent  then  rises  from  the  ground  and  the 
priest  from  his  seat,  and  they  enter  the  church 
together,  and  there  conclude  the  penitential 
service.  Compare  Morinus  (tfe  Poenit.  iv. 
18-19). 

Literature. — Morinus  (ele  Poenit.  lib.  ii.  et 
passim)  who  is  however  hampered  by  the  Roman 
doctrine  of  obligatory  confession,  and  contains  far 
fewer  details  on  this  than  on  the  other  stages  of 
discipline.  What  is  to  be  said  on  the  distinctively 
Roman  side  of  the  controversy  will  be  found  in 
Bellarmine  (de  Poenit.  lib.  iii.) ;  and  on  the 
Protestant  side  in  fJssher  {Answer  to  a  Challemje, 
s.v.  Confession,  Pond.  1625).  The  subject  is 
more  thoroughly  treated  from  the  same  side  in 
Daille  (de  Auric.  Confess.  Genev.  1661),  a  very 
learned  controversial  work,  and  the  source  of 
most  of  the  subsequent  Protestant  writings, 
w'hich  deal  with  confession.  Also  Bingham  (Anli']. 
xviii.  o),  Marshall  (Penitential  Discipline).,  and 
a  long  note  on  confession,  founded  on  Daille, 
appended  by  the  editor  of  the  Oxf,  Lib.  of  Fathers 
to  Tertullian  (de  Poenit-)-  [G.  M.] 

EXONARTHEX  ('E(ct>rdp0riO<  Monastic 
churches  sometimes  have  (besides  the  ordinary 
Nautiiex  at  the  west  end)  an  outer  narthex, 
where  the  monks  may  say  those  portions  of  their 
devotions  which  boar  the  character  of  penitence 
without  being  disturbed  by  the  influx  of  the 
general  congregation.  Cedrenus  says  that  the 
great  church  of  St.  Sophia  at  Constantinople  had 
four  nartheces,  but  other  authorities  attribute 
to  it  only  two  (Daniel,  Code-v  Lit-  iv.  202).  [C.] 

EXORCISM  (f6pK'j3(TlS,  i^OpKKrfxhs,  iirop- 
Ki<r/j.hs,  a.(popKio‘p.hs-  adjuratio,  incocatio)  is  the 
employment  of  adjuration,  and  ospooially  the 
naming  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  with  a  view 
to  expel  an  evil  spirit.  “  Exorcismus  est  sermo 
increpationis  contra  immundum  spiritum  in  en- 
ergumeais  sive  catechumenis  factus,  per  quern 


i  ab  illis  diaboli  nequissima  virtus  et  inveterata 
malitia  vel  excursio  violeuta  fugetur  ”  (Isidore, 
iJe  Div.  Off.  ii.  20). 

1.  To  the  early  Christians  the  heathen  world 
presented  itself  as  under  the  dominion  of  evil 
spirits ;  everywhere  they  recognized  the  need  of 
driving  these  sjnrits  from  their  ancient  seats, 
whether  in  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men,  in  the 
brute  creation,  or  in  inanimate  objects.  They  saw 
themselves  surrounded  by  squadrons  and  gross 
bands  of  daemonia,  sujjernatural  beings  who 
worked  for  evil  under  their  several  captains 
(Origen,  contra  Celsum,  bk.  vii.  p.  378,  Spencer; 
viii.  p.  399);  daemonia  were  the  great  officers 
of  the  evil  world,  and  might  well  have  fasces 
and  toga  praetexta  (Tertullian,  De  Idolol.  18); 
the  gods  of  the  nations  were  daemonia  (ih.  20; 
Grig.  c.  Cels.  p.  378,  quoting  Ps.  xcvi.  5);  dae¬ 
monia  were  by  some  devilish  magic  compelled  to 
inhabit  the  statues  in  aiv  idol’s  temple  (Minucius 
Felix,  Oct.  c.  27;  Tert.  u.  s.  7  and  15;  Grig, 
c.  Cels.  vii.  p.  374) ;  the  theatre  was  the  very 
special  dominion  of  evil  spirits  (Tertul.  de 
Spectac.  26).  Demons  ruled  the  flight  of  birds, 
the  lots,  the  oracles ;  they  troubled  men’s  minds, 
disturbed  their  rest,  crept  with  their  subtle  in¬ 
fluence  into  bodies  and  caused  disease,  distorted 
limbs;  they  compelled  men  to  worship  them,  in 
order  that,  fed  with  the  savour  of  the  oHerings, 
they  might  release  those-  whom  they  had  boun.-l 
(Minucius,  Oct.  c.  27).  And  the  members  of 
this  great  supernatural  army  were  driven 
from  their  seats  by  the  mere  word  of  a  simple 
Christian  naming  over  them  the  name  of  Christ 
(Acts  xix.  13;  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  ii.  c.  8; 
JAcd.  w.  Trppho,  c.  85;  Tertul.  ad  Scapmlam. 
cc.  2  and  4,  Ajjol.  c.  23 ;  Grig.  c.  Cels.  iii.  p.  133) 
with  no  parade  of  incantations  or  magic  formulae, 
by  mere  prayers  and  adjurations  (opKouTfaiu, 
Grig.  c.  Cels.  vii.  p.  334),  or  by  sentences  of 
Scripture  (ib.  p.  376);  and  that  not  only  from 
the  bodies  and  souls  of  men,  but  from  haunted 
places  and  from  the  lower  animals ;  for  these  too 
fell  under  the  tyranny  of  demons  (1.  c.).  Fruin 
such  expressions  as  these  it  is  evident  that 
exorcism  was  practised  from  a  very  early  period 
in  the  church. 

In  one  form,  indeed,  exorcism  was  practised 
by  the  Lord  Himself  and  His  disci})les,  namely, 
in  the  casting  out  of  evil  spirits  from  those  who 
were  in  a  special  sense  “possessed”  or  “de¬ 
moniac;”  and  such  exorcism  was  continued  for 
some  generations  in  the  church  [Dkmoxiac: 
Exoucist].  But  we  are  at  present  concerned 
with  tho  more  general  form  of  oxorci.-'.m,  by 
which  tho  inherent  evil  demon  was  to  be  ex¬ 
pelled  from  some  creature  or  substance  not 
specially  “possessed,”  but  belonging  to  the  “evil 
world.” 

2.  It  Is  not  wonderful  that  when  the  minds  of 
men  were  full  of  the  conception  of  an  all-per¬ 
vading  army  of  evil  spirits  in  the  world  around 
them,  they  should  ouLleavour  to  tVee  from  this 
influence  those  whom  they  received  from  hea¬ 
thenism  into  tho  holy  ground  of  the  church. 
Hence,  at  a  comparatively  early  period,  we  rind 
candidates  for  baptism  not  only  renouncing  for 
themselves  all  allegiance  to  Satan  and  his  powers, 
but  having  pronounced  over  them  a  formula  of 
exorcism. 

It  is  probable  that  in  the  first  Instance  the  use 
of  exorcism  was  confined  to  tho  case  of  those 


EXORCISM 


EXORCISM 


651 


who  entered  the  chui'ch  from  heathenism  ;  but 
in  the  4th  century,  if  not  earlier,  it  was  clearly 
applied  to  all,  for  it  is  constantly  appealed  to  as 
a  conclusive  proof  that  the  church  recognized 
the  presence  of  original  sin  even  in  infants. 
Thus  Optatus((;.  Donutist.  iv.  6,  p.  75)  insists  that 
no  one,  even  though  born  of  Christian  parents, 
can  be  destitute  of  a  foul  spirit,  which  must  be 
driv'en  out  of  the  man  bel'ore  he  comes  to  the 
font  of  salvation  ;  this  is  the  work  of  exorcism, 
by  which  the  foul  spirit  is  driven  forth  into  the 
wilderness.  And  ])ope  Celestiuus  (A(i  Episcop. 
Gall.  c.  12)  says  that  none  came  to  baptism, 
whether  infants  or  “juvenes,”  until  the  evil 
spirit  had  been  driven  out  of  them  by  the  ex¬ 
orcisms  and  insufflations  of  the  clerics.  Compare 
Augustine,  Epist.  194,  ad  Sixtum,  §  46  ;  De  Stjm- 
bolo  ad  Catechu)ne7ios,  i.  5  ;  Conti-a  Jidianum,  i.  4. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  {Procatechesis,  c.  9,  p.  7  : 
Catech.  i.  c.  5,  p.  18)  begs  his  catechumens  to  be 
earnest  in  receiving  their  exorcisms  (iTropKia- 
uovs);  whether  tlu  v  had  been  insufflated  or 
exorcised  (/c&v  epDi'arjdr]^  Khv  kiropKiaOr]s\  he 
prays  that  they  luay  he  blessed.  And  again 
(c.  lo)  he  says,  “  w  'oa  ye  have  entered  before 
the  hour  of  the  exoi  isms,  let  every  one  speak 
things  that  conduce  to  piety,”  as  if  the  exorcisms 
began  the  catechetic  offlce  on  each  occasion. 
These  instructions  ai-e  evidently  for  all  the 
catechumens,  and  not  for  those  only  \vho  had 
come  over  from  heathenism.  And  Chrysostom 
(^Catech.  1.  ad  Initial,  c.  2,  p.  227)  speaks  of 
the  catechumens,  after  instruction,  proceeding 
to  hear  the  words  of  those  who  exorcise  (rwv 
i^opKi^ovTwy) ;  to  this  exorcism  they  went  bare¬ 
footed  and  stripj)ed  of  their  upper  garments. 
There  can  of  course  be  no  doubt  that  the  great 
body  of  those  whom  Chrysostom  catechised  were 
born  of  Christian  families. 

3.  Formulae  of  Exorcism. — Celsus,  who  wrote 
against  the  Christians  probably  in  the  middle  of 
the  2nd  century,  sa3's  that  he  had  seen  in  the 
possession  of  certain  presbyters  “  barbaric  books 
containing  names  of  daemons  and  gibbeidsh  (repa- 
Tcias)  ”  (Orig.  c.  Celsum,  vi.  p.  302) ;  and  again 
the  same  opponent  says  that,  “  to  name  the  de¬ 
mons  in  the  barbarous  tongue  {^ap^apeos)  is 
efficacious ;  to  name  them  in  Greek  or  Latin  is 
useless”  (fb.  viii.  p.  402),  Origen,  in  answer  to 
this,  alleges  that  Latin,  Greek,  or  other  Chris¬ 
tians  in  their  prayers  use  the  name  of  God  in  the 
tongue  in  which  they  were  born ;  but  he  does 
not  deny  the  superior  efficacy  of  names  or  for¬ 
mulae  in  one  language  over  those  in  another. 
On  the  contrary,  he  admits  (i6.  i.  p,  19)  the 
mystic  power  of  Hebrew  names,  and  declares 
that  Egyptian,  Persian,  and  other  names  have  a 
peculiar  efflearw  over  certain  demons ;  and  else-* 
where  (/ri  Matt.  ser.  110,  p.  232,  ed.  VV4rceb.) 
oomplains  that  those  who  practised  exorcisms 
(adjurationibus)  used  improper  books,  ns,  for 
instance,  books  derived  from  Jewish  sources. 
From  all  this  it  seems  clear  that  formulae  of 
exorcism  which  to  a  Roman  seemed  “  barbaric  ’* 
were  in  use  in  the  2nd  century.  That  written 
forms  of  exorcism  wore  used  in  the  4th  is  clear 
from  the  7tli  of  the  Statuta  Antiqua  [Couo. 
Garth.  /!'.].  which  orders  the  bishop  to  deliver 
to  an  ExoitciST  on  ordination  a  book  containing 
such  forms. 

With  regard  to  the  form  of  exmcism,  we  find 
iu  ancient  authovities  the  following  particulars. 


VV«  have  already  seen  that  to  name  the  name 
of  Christ  was  regarded  as  being  of  the  utmost 
efficacy  for  the  expulsion  of  evil  spirits.  The 
passage  of  Justin  Martyr  (Jdial.  c.  85;  com))are 
c.  30)  which  says  that  every  spirit  {batfj.6viov') 
is  conquered  a-od  subjected  on  being  adjured  by 
the  Name  of  the  Sou  of  God  and  7a-.st-born  of 
every  creature.  Who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  and 
became  Man  cajiable  of  suffering  (iradijTov),  was 
crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate  by  your  [the 
Jewish]  people,  and  died,  and  rose  again  from 
the  dead,  and  ascended  into  heaven,”  renders  it 
probable  that  a  recitation  of  the  redeeming  acts 
of  the  Lord  accompanied  the  na'ming  of  his  name. 
And  the  same  thing  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the 
words  of  Origen  (c.  Cels.  i.  p.  7),  who  says  that 
demons  were  expelled  by  the  name  of  Jesus, 
“together  with  the  recitation  of  the  acts  related 
of  Him  ”  (jueTCL  rf/s  d7ra776A.fas  Twr  irepl  aurhu 
lo'Topiuv').  See  Probst,  p.  49. 

The  words  of  Tertullian  again  (^Apol.  23),  that 
the  power  of  Christians  over  evil  spirits  derives 
its  force  from  naming  Christ,  “  and  from  the 
making  mention  of  those  ]junishments  which 
await  them  from  God  through  Jesus  Christ  the 
judge,”  make  it  probable  that  the  awful  punish¬ 
ment  which  was  to  overtake  the  evil  ones  was 
spoken  of  in  the  formula  of  exorcism.  So  Ter¬ 
tullian  :  “representatione  ignis  illius”  (^Apol.  23). 
And  if  in  another  passage — “  Satanas  .  .  .  quern 
nos  dicimus  malitiae  angelum  ”...  (^De  Testim. 
Animae,  c.  3) — we  are  to  take  “  dicimus  ”  in  a 
ritual  sense,  it  would  apjiear  that  the  exorcists 
of  Tertullian’s  time  cursed  and  reviled  Satan. 

That  prayer  was  added  to  the  exorcism  proper 
we  know  from  the  testimony  of  Minucius  Felix 
(^Octav.  c.  27,  §5). 

The  actions  which  formed  part  of  the  rite  of 
exorcism  were  touching  and  breathing  on  the 
afflicted,  and  signing  them  with  the  cross. 

As  to  the  fii'st,  Tertullian  tells  us  {A^l.  2.3), 
that  the  evil  spirits  depart  unwillingly  from  the 
bodies  of  men  at  the  touch  and  on-breathing  of 
Christians  (de  contactu  deque  afilatu  nostro). 
^'incentius  of  Thibari  (^Sententiae  Episcoportim, 
No.  37,  in  Cyjudan’s  U’or/is),  contending  that 
heretics  require  baptism  at  lea.st  as  much  as 
heathens,  distinctly  refers  to  the  imj)osition  of 
hands  in  exorcism,  quoting  (incorrectly)  Mark 
xvi.  17,  18.  So  Origen  {on  Jo  hua,  Horn.  24,  c.  1) 
speaks  of  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  exor¬ 
cists  which  evil  spirits  could  not  resist.  Simi¬ 
larly  the  Arabic  canons  of  Hij)polytus  {Can.  19, 
§  6,  and  Can.  29,  quoted  by  Probst,  p.  50).  The 
same  canon  enjoins  the  exorcist,  after  the  adju¬ 
rations,  to  “sign”  (no  doubt  with  the  cross)  the 
breast,  forehead,  ears,  and  mouth.  And  at  an 
even  earlier  date,  when  Justin  {iJial.  o.  131) 
speaks  of  the  outstretched  arms  of  Moses  ns  a 
type  of  Christ,  and  then  immedlatel)'  atlor  of 
the  power  of  Christ  cracifed  over  evil  sj)irits,  it 
Is  not  Improbable  that  he  alludes  to  the  use  of 
the  sign  of  the  cross.  So  when  we  read  (Origen 
on  Exodus,  Horn.  6,  §8)  how  the  demons  tremble 
before  the  cross  which  they  see  on  Christians, 
we  may  well  believe  that  the  reference  is  to  the 
use  of  the  cross  in  exorcism.  Lactantius  {l>iv. 
Inst.  iv.  27)  di.stinctly  mentions  the  use  of  the 
sign  of  the  cross  (signum  passionis)  for  the 
expulsion  of  evil  spirits.  The  first  council  of 
Constantinople  (c.  7)  describes  the  course  of 
proceeding  with  those  heretics  who  were  to  be 


652 


EXORCISM 


EXORCISM 


received  as  non-Christians  (is  "EWtji/os)  as 
follows:  “  the  first  day  we  make  them  Christians ; 
the  second,  catechumens;  then  the  third  we 
exorcise  them,  after  breathing  thrice  upon  the 
face  and  ears,  and  so  we  catechise  them,  and 
cause  them  to  stay  in  the  church  and  hear  the 
Scriptures;  and  then  we  baptize  them.” 

The  ceremony  took  place  in  the  church. 

“  Shameless  is  he,”  says  Pseudo-Cyprian  (^De 
Sj  ectac.  c.  4),  ‘-‘who  exorcises  in  a  church  de¬ 
mons  whose  delights  he  favours  in  a  theatre.” 
During  the  exorcism  the  jiatient  lay  prostrate  on 
the  ground  (Origen  on  Mutt.  Horn.  13,  §  7). 

Most  of  the  characteristics  of  the  form  of 
exorcism  which  we  have  traced  in  ancient  times 
are  found  in  existing  rituals.  For  instance,  in 
the  ancient  Roman  form  of  receiving  a  heathen 
as  a  catechumen  (Daniel,  Codex  Lit.  i.  171), 
after  the  admonition  to  renounce  the  devil  and 
believe  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  priest  “exsufflat 
ab  eo  saevam  maligni  spiritus  potestatem  dicens — 
‘Exi,  immuude  sjiiritus,  et  da  locum  Spiritui 
Sancto  Paraclito.’  ”  Then  he  signs  him  with 
the  cross  on  the  forehead  and  breast.  At  the 
seventh  scrutiny  [Scrutixicm],  which  took 
place  on  Easter  Eve,  after  the  recitation  of  the 
Creed  by  the  candidates  for  baptism,  the  priest 
lays  his  hand  on  the  head  of  each  severally, 
saying — ‘‘  Xec  te  latent,  Satanas,  imminei’e  tibi 
tormeuta,  imminere  tibi  diem  judicii,  diem  sup-  I 


plicii,  diem  qui  venturus  est  velut  clibanus 
ardens,  in  quo  tibi  atque  universis  angelis  tuis 
aeternus  veniet  interitus.  Proinde,  damnate,  da 
honorem  Deo  vivo  et  vero :  da  honorem  Jesu 
Christo  filio  ejus  et  Spiritui  Sancto,  in  cujus  no¬ 
mine  atque  virtute  praecipio  tibi  ut  exeas  et 
recedas  ab  hoc  famulo  Dei,  quern  hodie  Dominus 
Deus  noster  Jesus  Christ  us  ad  suam  sanctam 
gratiam  et  beuedictionem  fontemque  baptismatis 
vocare  dignatus  est,  ut  fiat  ejus  templum  per 
aquam  regenerationis  in  remissionem  omnium 
peccatorum :  in  nomine  Domini  nostri  Jesu 
Christi,  qui  venturus  est  judicare  vivos  et  mor- 
tuos  et  saeculum  per  ignem  ”  (Daniel,  u.s.  177). 
Then  follows  the  epheta  [Ears,  touching  of], 
and  the  anointing  on  the  breast  and  between  the 
shoulders  with  holy  oil. 

In  the  Vetus  Missale  Gallkanum,  published  by 
Thomasius  and  reprinted  by  Mabillon  {Lit.  Gail. 
bk.  iii.  p.  338)  the  essential  part  of  the  form  of 
exorcism  is  as  follows :  “  Aggredior  te,  immun- 
dissime  damnate  spiritus  .  ,  .  Te,  invocato  Do¬ 
mini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  nomine,  .  .  .  adjuramuf 
per  ejusdem  majestatem  adque  virtutem,  pas- 
sionem  ac  resurrectionem,  adventum  adque  judi¬ 
cium  ;  ut  in  quacumque  parte  membrorum 
latitas  propria  te  confessione  manifestos,  exagi- 
tatusque  spiritalibus  llagris  invisibilibusque 
tormentis  vas  quod  occupasse  aestimas  fugias 
expiatumque  post  habitationem  tuam  Domino 


dei’eliuquas  .  .  .  Abscede,  abscede  quocunque  es, 
et  corpora  Deo  dicata  ne  repetas.  Interdicta  smt 
tibi  ista  in  perpetuo.  In  nomine  Patris  et  Filii 
et  Spiritus  Saucti,  et  in  gloria  dominicae  pas- 
sionis,  cujus  cruore  salvantur,  cujus  adventum 
expectant,  judicium  confitentur.  PerDomiuum.” 

The  Gelasiau  Sacramentani  (i.  33),  in  the 
Exorcismi  super  Eicetoi-,^  gives  the  following 
form.  The  acolytes,  laying  their  hands  on  the 
candidate,  after  praving  God  to  send  forth  His 
angel  to  keep  them,  proceeds  :  “  Ergo,  maledicte 
diabole.  reccgnosce  sententiam  tuam,  et  da 
honorem  Deo  vivo  et  vero,  et  .  .  .  Jesu  Christo 
Filio  ejus  et  Spiritui  Sancto ;  et  recede  ab  his 
famulis  Dei ;  quia  istos  sibi  Deus  .  .  .  vocare  dig¬ 
natus  est;  per  hoc  signum  sanctae  crucis,  fron- 
tibus  eorum  quod  nos  damns,  tu,  maledicte 
diabole,  nunquam  audeas  violare.  .  .  .  Audi, 
maledicte  Satanas,  adjuratus  per  nomen  aeterni 
Dei  et  Salvatoris  nostri  Filii  Dei,  cum  tua  victus  j 
iuvidia,  tremens  gemensque  discede.” 

And  again,  the  foul  spirit  is  adjured  to 
depart,  in  the  case  of  the  males,  in  the  name  of 


Him  who  walked  the  water  and  stretched  out  His 
right  hand  to  Peter ;  in  the  case  of  the  females, 
in  the  name  of  Him  \vho  gave  sight  to  him  that 
was  born  blind,  and  raised  Lazarus  from  his  four 
days’  death. 

The  form  given  from  the  Roman  ritual  by 
Probst  (p.  53)  presents  a  remarkable  parallelism 
with  the  passage  of  Tertullian  {Apol.  c.  23)  be¬ 
fore  referred  to. 

Greek  forms  similar  in  character  to  those 
given  above  may  be  seen  in  Daniel’s  Codex 
Liturg.  iv.  493  f. 

4.  Representation  of  Exorcism. — Paciaudi  (De 
Christianorum  Balneis,  pp.  136  tf.,  143  ff.)  describes 
an  urn  or  water-vessel  found  near  Pisaura,  which 
he  believes  to  be  not  of  later  date  than  the  7th 
century.  One  of  the  bas-reliefs  on  this  vessel 
(see  woodcut)  evidently  represents  an  exorcism. 
The  contortions  of  the  person  on  the  ground 
seem  to  show  that  it  w.as  an  exorcism  of  one 
possessed.  Now,  if  the  vessel  was  a  font  for 
holding  the  baptismal  water,  it  would  seem  more 
appropriate  to  repre.sent  upon  it  the  ordinary 
pre-baptismal  exorcism.  It  seems  therefore 
more  probable  that  it  was  intended  for  the 


»  i.  c,  the  accepted  c;mdidates  for  biiptism. 


EXORCISTS 


EXPOSING  OF  INFANTS  653 


Atrium  of  a  church,  where  it  might  be  used  to 
contain  Holy  Watiir. 

5.  Besides  human  beings,  various  inanimate 
objects  were  exorcised.  Of  these  we  may  men¬ 
tion  especially  water  [Baptism,  §§  30,  42  :  Font, 
Benediction  of  :  Holy  Water],  salt  for  use 
in  sacred  offices  [Salt,  Benediction  of],  and 
oil  for  various  uses  [CiiRiSM  :  Oil,  Holy]. 

(i\iarteiie,  De  Ritibus  Antiquis ;  Probst,  Sakra- 
viente  vnd  Sahrainentalicn,  Tubingen,  1872  ; 
F.  C.  Baur,  Kirchcnjeschickte  der  Drei  ersten 
Jahrhwiderte,  c.  6.)  [0.] 

EXORCISTS.  Exorcists  are  only  once  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  xix.  13),  and 
then  without  any  reference  to  the  ])ower  given 
to  Christians  to  cast  out  devils.  [See  Dict.  of 
Bible.]  In  the  early  days  of  the  church,  it 
appears  to  have  been  considered  that  the  power 
of  exorcising  evil  spirits  was  a  special  gift  of 
God  to  certain  persons,  who  are  therefore  called 
exorcists.  In  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
(viii.  c.  26),  it  is  said  that  an  exorcist  is  not 
ordained,  because  the  power  of  exorcising  is  a 
free  gift  of  the  grace  of  God,  through  Christ, 
and  that  whoever  has  received  this  gift  will  be 
made  manifest  in  the  exercise  of  it.  It  is  added 
that  if  expedient  an  exorcist  may  be  ordained 
bishop,  priest,  or  deacon.  Exorcists  are  not 
named  among  those  who  received  ecclesiastical 
stipends,  nor  are  they  mentioned  in  the  Aqjostolic 
Canons,  though  probably  their  office  is  alluded  to 
in  the  direction  that  a  Gentile  convert  who  has 
an  evil  spirit  may  not  be  received  into  the 
church  till  he  has  been  purified  (KaOapiadds, 
Can.  70).  Thomassin  (  Vet.  et  A'ov.  Eccl.  Discip. 
\.  2,  c.  30,  §  1,  8),  thinks  that  exorcists  were 
either  priests  or  deacons.  So  Eusebius  makes 
mention  of  one  Romanus,  as  deacon  and  exorcist 
in  the  church  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine  (^De 
Martyr.  Palest,  c.  2). 

Tertullian  speaks  as  if  all  Christians  were 
exorcists,  driving  away  evil  spirits  by  the 
exorcisms  of  their  prayers.  Thus  (^De.  Idol.  c.  11), 
he  forbids  Christians  to  hax'e  anything  to  do 
with  the  sale  of  things  used  for  the  purposes  of 
idolatry,  asking  with  what  consistency  they 
could  exorcise  their  own  inmates,  to  whom 
they  had  offered  their  houses  as  a  shrine 
(cellariam) ;  and  in  another  place  (^De  Cor.  Mil. 
c.  11),  uses  as  an  argument  against  Christians 
entering  the  military  service,  that  they  might  be 
called  u{)on  to  guard  the  heathen  temples,  so  as 
to  defend  those  by  night  whom  by  their  exor¬ 
cisms  they  had  put  to  flight  during  the  day. 

But  it  is  evident  that  in  later  times  they  were 
reckoned  among  the  minor  orders  of  clergy. 
Cyprian  {Ep.  69,  May.  Eil.),  speaks  of  exorcists 
as  casting  out  devils  by  man’s  word  and  God’s 
power,  and  in  his  epistle  to  Firmilian  {E^x  75), 
says  that  one  of  the  exorcists,  inspired  by  the 
grace  of  God,  cast  out  a  certain  evil  spirit  who 
had  made  pretensions  to  sanctity.  Cornelius  in 
his  epistk-  (Euseb.  11.  E.  i.  c.  43)  names  forty- 
two  exorcists  among  the  clergy  of  the  church 
of  Rome.  Epiphanius  (^Expos.  Fid.  c.  21),  men¬ 
tions  them  among  the  clergy,  ranking  them 
with*  the  hermeneutae,  immediately  after  the 
deaconesses.  Paulinus  of  Nola  (De  S.  Felic.  Natal. 
carm.  4),  speaks  of  St.  Felix  as  having  been 
promoted  from  the  order  of  lectors  to  the  oilice 
of  exorcist.  The  council  of  Eaodicea  (c.  24), 


mentions  them  among  the  minor  clergy,  placing 
them  between  the  singers  and  the  doorkeejiers, 
and,  in  another  canon  (c.  26),  forbids  anv  to 
exorcise  either  in  church  or  in  private  houses, 
who  had  not  been  ajipointed  to  the  otlice  by  the 
bishops.  The  council  of  Antioch  (c.  10),  places 
them  after  the  subdeacons,  among  the  clergv 
who  might  be  appointed  by  the  chore])iscopi. 
The  4th  council  of  Carthage  (c.  7),  provides  an 
office  for  the  ordination  of  an  exorcist.  He  was 
to  receive  from  the  hands  of  the  bishop  a  book, 
in  which  were  written  forms  of  exorcism,  with 
the  bidding,  “  Take  and  commit  to  memory',  and 
receive  power  to  lay  hands  on  energumens 
whether  baptized  or  catechumens.”  The  same 
council  also  provided  that  exorcists  might  lay 
hands  on  an  energumen  at  any  time  (c.  90),  and 
(c.  92)  gave  it  into  their  charge  to  jirovide  the 
energumens  with  their  daily  food  while  remaining 
in  the  church.  [Demoniacs.] 

The  names  of  four  exorcists,  designating  them- 
seh'es  by'  no  other  titles,  are  found  among  the 
signataries  of  the  first  council  of  Arles  (Routh’s 
lielliq.  Sac.  iv.  p.  312). 

There  seems  little  reason  for  connecting  the 
exorcists  with  the  form  of  exorcism  that  was 
used  in  the  case  of  all  catechumens.  Their  work, 
as  expressly  allotted  to  them  by  the  4th  council 
of  Carthage  (c.  7),  lay'  among  all  energumens, 
whether  baptized  or  not.  [Ifi  0.] 

EXPECTATION  WEEK  (Hehdomada  Ex- 
pectationis'),  the  week  jireceding  Whitsunday, 
because  in  that  week  the  aj)ostles  uaited.  for  the 
Comforter  from  on  high,  which  the  Lord  had 
promised  at  His  Ascension.  (Ducange,  s.  v.  Heb- 
dom  ida.)  [C.] 

EXPEDITUS,  martyr  in  Armenia  with  five 
others;  commemorated  April  19  (Mart.  Rem. 
Vet.,  Ilieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EXPOSING  OF  INFANTS  [compare 
Foundlings].  The  frequency  of  the  exposi¬ 
tion  of  infants  among  the  ancient  heathens  is 
a  fact  to  which  both  the  mythology  and  the 
history  of  Greece  and  Rome  bear  frequent 
witness.  Among  the  early  Christian  writers 
we  find  exposition,  together  with  actual  in¬ 
fanticide,-  constantly'  cast  in  the  teeth  of  their 
Pagan  oi)ponents.  “I  see  you,”  writes  IMinucius 
Felix,  “  now  casting  forth  the  sons  whom  ve . 
have  begotten  to  the  wild  beasts  and  to  the 
fowls  of  the  air”  (Octavius,  c.  30,  §  2;  31, 

§  4).  Lactantius  (bk.  vi.  c.  20)  inveighs  against 
the  false  pity  of  those  who  expose  infants. 
Justin,  Tertullian,  Augustine  and  others  might 
be  quoted  to  much  the  .same  effect. 

A  law  of  Alexander  Severus,  wliich  has  been 
retained  in  Justinian’s  Code  (bk.  viii.  t.  lii.,  1.  i. ; 
A.D.  225),  allowed  the  recovering  of  an  infant 
exposed  against  the  will  or  without  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  owner  or  person  entitled  to  the 
services  of  its  mother,  whether  slave  or  adscrip- 
titii,  but  only  on  condition  of  rej)ay'ing  the  fair 
cost  of  its  maintenance  and  training  to  a  trade, 
unless  theft  could  be  established — an  enactment 
obviously'  framed  only  to  secure  the  rights  of 
slave-owners,  and  not  insjured  by  any  considera¬ 
tion  of  humanity  for  the  infants  them.selves. 
There  is  something  of  a  higher  spirit  in  a  law  of 
Diocletian  and  Rlaximin,  a.d.  295  (('ode,  bk.  v., 
t.  iv.,  1.  16),  enacting  that  where  a  female  infant 
had  been  cast  forth  by  her  father  and  brought 


654  EXPOSING  OF  INFANTS 


EXPULSION  FROM  A  ]\ION ASTER Y 


up  by  another  person,  who  sought  to  marry  her 
to  his  own  son,  the  father  was  bound  to  consent 
to  the  marriage,  or  in  case  of  i-efusal  (if  we  con¬ 
strue  the  text  aright),  to  pay  for  his  daughter’s 
maintenance.  Constantine  (a.d.  331),  by  a  law 
contained  in  the  Theodosian  Code  (bk.  v.,  t.  vii., 
1.  1),  but  not  reproduced  by  Justinian,  enacted 
that  whoever  took  up  an  infant  cast  forth  from 
its  house  by  the  will  of  a  father  or  master,  and 
nourished  it  till  it  became  strong,  might  retain 
it  in  whatever  condition  he  pleased,  either  as  a 
child  or  as  a  slave,  without  any  fear  of  recoveiy 
by  those  who  have  voluntarily  cast  out  their 
new-born  slaves  or  children.  The  growth  of 
Christian  humanity  is  shown  in  a  constitution  of 
Valentinian,  Valens  and  Gratian,  adopted  by 
Justinian  (Code,  bk.  viii.,  t.  Hi.,  1.  2;  A.D.  374), 
which  absolutely  forbade  masters  or  patrons  to 
recover  infants  exposed  by  themselves,  if  charit¬ 
ably  saved  by  others,  and  laid  down  as  a  duty 
that  everv  one  must  nourish  his  own  offspring. 
A  constitution  of  Honorius  and  Theodosius,  in 
the  Theodosian  Code  (a.d.  412),  repeated  the 
prohibition,  observing  that  “  none  can  call  one 
his  own  whom  he  contemned,  while  perishing,” 
but  required  a  bishop’s  signature  by  way  of 
atte.station  of  the  facts  (bk.  v.,  t.  vii.,  1.  2). 

The  law  last  referred  to  may  seem  in  some 
degree  to  explain  a  canon  of  the  council  or  synod 
of  Vaison,  a.d.  442.  There  is  a  universal  com¬ 
plaint,  it  says,  on  the  subject  of  the  exposition 
of  infants,  who  are  cast  forth  not  to  the  mercy 
of  others,  but  to  the  dogs,  whilst  the  fear  of 
lawsuits  deters  others  from  saving  them.  This 
therefore  is  to  be  observed,  that  according  to  the 
statutes  of  the  princes  the  church  be  taken  to 
witness ;  from  the  altar  on  the  Lord’s  day  the 
minister  is  to  announce  that  the  church  knows 
an  exposed  infant  to  have  been  taken  up,  in 
order  that  within  ten  days  any  person  may 
acknowledge  and  receive  it  back ;  and  any  who 
after  the  ten  days  may  bring  any  claim  or  ac¬ 
cusation  is  to  be  dealt  with  by  the  church  as  a 
manslayer  (cc.  9,  10).  A  canon  almost  to  the 
same  effect,  but  in  clearer  language,  was  enacted 
by  the  slightly  later  2nd  council  of  Arles,  a.d. 
452,  indicating  that  which  serves  to  explain 
both  the  law  of  Honorius  and  the  two  canons 
just  referred  to,  viz.,  that  it  was  the  practice  to 
-expose  infants  “before  the  church”  (c.  51). 
The  council  of  Agde,  in  506,  simply  confirmed 
former  enactments. 

In  the  East,  the  full  claims  of  Chi'istian 
humanity  were  at  last  admitted  by  Justinian, 
as  towards  foundlings  themselves,  though  with¬ 
out  sutficient  consideration  for  parental  duties. 
He  not  only  absolutely  forbade  the  re-vindica¬ 
tion  of  exposed  infants  under  anv  circumstances, 
but  also  the  treating  of  them,  by  those  who 
have  taken  charge  of  them,  either  as  slaves, 
freedmen,  colord  or  adscriptitii,  declaring  such 
children  to  be  absolutely  free  (Code,  bk.  viii., 
t.  Hi.,  1.  3  ;  A.D.  529 ;  see  also  bk.  i.,  t.  iv., 
1.*  24 ;  .4.D.  530).  This  applied  to  infants  cast 
away  either  in  churches,  streets  or  any  other 
place,  even  though  a  plaintitf  should  give  some 
evidence  of  a  right  of  ownership  over  them  (bk. 
viii.,  t.  Hi.,  1.  4).  The  153rd  Novel,  however, 
shows  that  it  was  still  the  practice  in  certain 
districts  ( Thessalonica  is  .specified  )  to  expose 
new-born  infants  in  the  churches,  and  after  they 
had  been  brought  up  to  reclaim  them  as  slaves'; 


and  it  again  expressly  •‘nacts  the  freedom  of 
exposed  infants. 

The  Wisigothic  law  contains  .some  rather  re¬ 
markable  provi-sions  as  to  the  exposition  of 
infants  (bk.  iv.,  t.  iv.,  cc.  1.  2).  Where  a  person 
has  out  of  compassion  taken  up  a  foundling  of 
either  sex,  wherever  exposed,  and  when  it  is 
nourished  up  the  parents  acknowledge  it,  if  it 
be  the  child  of  a  free  j>er.son,  let  them  either 
give  back  a  slave  in  its  ])lace  or  pay  the  price  of 
one  ;  otherwise,  let  the  foundling  be  redeemed 
by  the  judge  of  the  territory  from  the  owner¬ 
ship  of  the  parents,  and  let  these  be  subject  to 
perpetual  exile.  If  they  have  not  wherewithal 
to  pay,  let  him  serve  for  the  infant  who  cast  it 
forth,  and  let  the  latter  remain  in  freedom, 
whom  the  pity  of  strangers  has  in-eserved.  If 
indeed  slaves  of  either  sex  have  cast  forth  an 
infant  in  fraud  of  its  masters,  when  he  has  been 
nourished  up,  let  the  nourisher  receive  one-third 
of  its  value,  the  master  swearing  to  or  j)roving 
his  ignorance  of  the  exposing.  But  if  he  knew 
of  it,  let  the  foundling  remain  in  the  power  of 
him  who  nourished  it. 

In  a  collection  of  Irish  canons,  ascribed  to  the 
end  of  the  7th  century,  is  one  “on  infants  cast 
forth  in  the  church,”  which  enacts,  in  very 
uncouth  and  obscure  Latin,  that  such  an  infant 
shall  be  a  slave  to  the  church  unless  sent  awav : 
az.d  that  seven  years’  penance  is  to  be  borne  by 
those  who  cast  infants  forth  (bk.  xH.,  c.  22). 

A  capitulary  of  uncertain  date  (supposed 
about  744)  enacts,  in  accordance  with  the  canon 
of  the  synod  of  Vaison  before  referred  to,  that 
if  an  infant  exposed  before  the  church  has  been 
taken  iq)  by  the  compassion  of  any  one,  such 
person  shall  affix — probably  on  the  church  door 
— a  letter  of  notice  (contestationis  ponat  .  . 
epistolam).  If  the  infant  be  not  acknowledged 
within  ten  days,  let  the  person  who  has  taken  it 
up  securely  retain  it  (c.  1). 

The  “  Lex  Romana,”  supposed  to  represent  the 
law  of  the  Roman  population  of  Italy  in  Lom¬ 
bard  times,  contains  a  less  liberal  provision  on 
this  subject,  founded  on  the  earlier  imperial 
law.  If  a  new-born  infant  has  been  cast  out  by 
its  parents  either  in  the  church  or  in  the  pre¬ 
cincts  (platea),  and  any  one  with  the  knowledge 
of  the  father  or  mother  and  of  the  master  has 
taken  it  uj)  and  nourished  it  by  his  labour,  it 
shall  remain  in  his  power  who  took  it  up.  And 
if  a  person  knew  not  its  father  or  mother  or 
master,  and  wished  nevertheless  to  take  it  up, 
>3t  him  present  the  infant  before  the  bishop 
(pontificem)  or  the  clerics  who  serve  that 
church,  and  receive  from  the  hand  of  that 
bishop  and  those  clerks  an  epMola  coUectionis, 
and  thenceforth,  let  him  have  power  either  to 
give  such  infant  liberty,  or  to  retain  it  in  per¬ 
petual  slaveiT  (bk.  v.,  t.  vii.).  [J.  M.  L.] 

EXPULSION  FROM  A  MONASTERY. 
So  soon  as  there  began  to  be  any  sort  of  disci¬ 
pline  among  the  ascetics  who  dwelt  together  in 
a  community,  expulsion  inevitably  became  r- 
necessarv  part  of  it.  In  the  so-called  “  Rule  of 
Pachoraius,”  expulsion  (or  a  flogging)  was  the 
penalty  for  insubordination,  licentiousness,  quar¬ 
relling,  covetousness,  gluttony  (cf.  Cass.  Inst.  iv. 
16).  Menard,  however,  thinlqs  that  this  was 
only  expulsion  for  a  stated  time  (Bened.  Anian. 
Concord.  Jiegg.  xxxi.  5).  By  the  Begula  Oricntalii 


FACITEKGIUM 


EXSEGRATIO 


655 


(c.  35)  obstinate  offenders  are  to  be  expelled. 
Benedict,  with  characteristic  prudence,  prescribed 
expulsion  for  contumacy  c.  71),  on  the 

principle  that  the  gangrened  limb  must  be  lopped 
off,  lest  the  rest  of  the  body  should  be  infected 
with  the  poison  (ib.  c.  28),  while  with  charac¬ 
teristic  gentleness  he  allowed  such  offenders  to 
be  re-admitted,  if  penitent,  so  often  as  thrice,  on 
condition  of  their  taking  the  lowest  place  among  j 
the  brethren  (/6.  c.  29).  Some  commentators, 
however,  take  this  permission  as  not  extending 
to  the  case  of  a  monk  expelled  for  such  vices 
as  could  hardly  fail  to  corrupt  the  community 
(Mart.  Beg.  Comm.  loc.  cit.).  The  Benedictine 
reformers  generally  made  expulsion  more  com¬ 
mon  and  readmission  more  dilHcult.  Fructuosus  ^ 
orders  all  incorrigible  oU'enders  to  be  expelled 
{Beg.  cc.  8,  18);  and  the  Begula  Ctijusdam,  still 
more  severe,  enacts  expulsion  for  lying,  forni¬ 
cation,  persistent  murmuring,  and  even  abusive 
language  (cc.  8,  8,  16,  18).  At  a  later  period, 
under  the  stern  discipline  of  Citeaux,  a  monk 
was  to  be  unfrocked  and  expelled,  even  for  theft 
above  a  certain  value  (Mart.  Beg.  Comm.  c.  33). 
Obviously  the  frequency  or  infrequency  of  such 
a  penalty  as  expulsion  depended  on  the  monas- 
terv  beins:  regarded  rather  as  a  reformatory  or 
as  a  place  of  ideal  perfection.  [I.  G.  S.] 

EXSEGRATIO.  [Anathema  :  Desecra¬ 
tion.] 

EXSUPERANTIUS,  deacon  and  martyr  at 
Spoletum,  with  Sabinus  the  bishop,  and  others, 
under  Maximian ;  commemorated  Dec.  30  {Mart. 
Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EXSUPERIA,  martyr  at  Rome  with  Simpro- 
nius  and  others;  commemorated  July  26  {Mart. 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EX.8UPERIUS.  (1)  One  of  the  Theban  legion, 
martyr  at  Sedunum  in  Belgic  Gaul  (the  Valais), 
under  Maximian  ;  commemorated  Sept.  22  {Mart. 
Bom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Bishop  and  confessor  at  Toulouse ;  com¬ 
memorated  Sept.  28  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Vienna  with  Severus  and  Feli- 

cianus ;  commemorated  Nov.  19  {Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuanli).  [W.  F.  G.] 

EXTRExME  UNCTION.  [Sice,  Visita¬ 
tion  OF  THE :  Unction.] 

EX  VOTO.  [Votive  Offerings.] 

EYES,  TOUCHING  OF.  1.  The  fir.st 
council  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  381)  laid  it  down 
(c.  7)  that  Arians  and  certain  other  heretics 
were  to  be  received  into  the  church,  without  re- 
baptism,  on  renouncing  their  heresy  and  being 
crossed  or  anointed  with  holy  unguent  {/xupcf}) 
on  tile  forehead,  eyes,  &c.  So  in  the  form  of  j 
baptism  given  by  Daniel  {Codex  Lit.  iv.  507)  ] 
from  the  Greek  Euchologion,  the  priest  after 
baptism  anoints  the  neophyte  with  holy  unguent, 
mak  g  the  sign  of  the  cross  on  forehead,  eyes, 
nostrils,  mouth,  ears,  breast,  hands,  and  feet, 
saying,  “  the  seal  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Amen.''  Compare  Martene,  De  Bit.  Ant.  I.  i.  17, 
Old.  24,  25. 

2.  In  extreme  unction,  the  eyes  are  anointed 
with  holy  oil.  Thus,  in  the  Katold  MS.  of  the 
Gregorian  Sacramejitarg  (p.  549,  ed.  Menard),  tlie 
priest  is  directed  to  anoint  the  eye.s,  with  the 
words:  “  Ungo  oculos  tuos  de  oleo  sanctificato,  ' 


lit  quicquid  illicito  visit  deliquisti  per  hujus  olei 
unctionein  expietur.” 

3.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  custom  to  touch 
the  eyes,  as  well  as  the  other  organs  of  sense 
with  the  moisture  remaining  on  the  lips  after  com¬ 
municating  (Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catech.  Myst. 
V.  22  :  see  Communion,  Holy,  p.  413  ;  Ears! 
TOUCHING  of).  ■  rc.] 

EZEKIEL,  the  prophet  ;  commemorated 
April  10  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usu¬ 
ardi) ;  Miaziah  5  =  March  31,  and  Hanile  27  = 
July  21  {Cat.  Ethiop.)',  Sept.  ^  {C d.  Armen.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

EZRA,  the  prophet ;  commemorated  Jakatit 
10  =  Feb.  4,  and  Hamle  6  =  June  30  {Cal. 
Ethiop.),  July  13  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 


F 


FABARIUS.  The  Cantores  anciently  fasted 
the  day  before  they  were  to  sing  divine  offices, 
but  ate  beans,  as  being  supposed  to  benefit  the 
voice  (Pliny,  Nat.  hist.  xx.  6);  whence  thev 
were  called  by  the  heathen  Eabarii  (Isidore,  De 
Dio.  Off.  ii.  12).  [c.] 

FABIANUS,  the  pope,  martyr  at  Rome  in 
the  time  of  Decius ;  commemorated  Jan.  20 
{Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usu- 

[\V.  F.  G.] 

FABIUS,  martyr  at  Caesarea  ;  “  Passio  ” 
July  31  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 


FABRIGA  EGCLESIAE.  [Churches, 
Maintenance  of,  p.  388.] 

FACE,  BRANDING  IN  THE.  It  was 
enacted  under  Constantine  {Code,  lib.  ix.  tit.  47, 
1.  17),  that  branding  should  not  be  in  the  face, 
as  disfiguring  the  heavenly  beauty  [Corporal 
Punishments,  p.  470].  [c.] 


FACIPERGIUiM  (also  facietergium,  facis- 
iergium,  facitergula;  facialis,  faciale).  This,  as 
its  name  indicates,  is  a  handkerchief  for  wipino" 
the  face  (“  facitergium  et  manitergium,  a  ter- 
gendo  faciem  vel  manus  vocatur.’’  Isidore,  Etipn. 
xix.  26).  Mention  of  this  is  occasionally  found 
in  various  monastic  rules.  It  is  ajipointed  as 
part  of  the  furniture  of  a  monk’s  couch  in  the 
Rule  of  St.  Isidore  (c.  14;  p.  127,  part  2,  in 
Holstenius,  Codex  BegiUarum :  ed.  Paris,  1663). 
See  also  Magistri  Begula,  cc.  17,  19,  81  {op.  cit. 
pp.  214,  216,  257).  The  last  passage  ordains 
that  there  shall  bo  dealt  out  “singula  facitero-ia 
per  decadam.”  Gregory  of  Tours  {Vitae  Ba- 
trmn,  viii.  8;  p.  1191,  eel.  Ruinart)  .speaks  of  the 
value  set  upon  the  “facitergium  dependentibus 
villis  intextum,  quo'd  Sanctus  [i.e.  Nicetius  Lucr- 
dunensis]  super  caput  in  die  obitus  sui  habuit.” 
The  facitergia  used  by  nuns  were  at  times  em¬ 
broidered  (Caesarii  Begula  ad  ]’irgines,  c.  42; 
Holstenius,  part  3,  p.  22).  Again,  Venantius 
Fortunatus,  in  his  life  of  St.  Radegundis  of 
trance,  describes  her  on  one  occasion  as  “circa 
altare  cum  facistergio  jacentem  ])ulverem  col- 
ligons”  (c.  2;  /Vitro/. 'ixxii.  653).  One  more 
example  may  sullice,  wliere  the  word,  perhaps, 
ajipears  in  the  transitional  state  of  its  meaning: 
“donata  otiam  particula  sancti  orarii,  id  est 


65G 


FAITH 


facialis”  (Tli/pomnesticon  de  Anastasia  Apocri- 
siario,  etc.,  in  Anast.  Bihlioth.  Collectanea:  Pa¬ 
trol.  cxxix.  685).  For  further  c‘xamj)les,  see 
Ducange’s  Glossariuin,  s.  vv.  [R.S.] 

FAITH.  [SoiMiiA.] 

FAITHFUL.  The  present  article  is  in¬ 
tended  to  give  an  account  of  the  j)rincii)al  names 
a|)plied  to  Christians  in  early  times,  whether  by 
themselves  or  by  others. 

The  names  most  common  among  Christians  in 
the  apostolic  and  sub-apostolic  ages  seem  to  have 
been  Saints  (ayioi),  Elect  (e/cAe/cTol),  Brethren 
(aSeA^oi),  and  Faithful  (ttjo'toi),  often  followed 
by  the  words,  iv  MrytroD  Xpiarw. 

The  words  iriarhs  and  Fidelis  were  also  used 
in  a  special  sense  to  distinguish  the  baptized 
Christian  from  the  catechumen.  Thus  Augustine 
(^Tract.  in,  Joan.  44,  c.  9)  says  that  if  a  man  tells 
us  that  he  is  a  Christian,  we  have  to  ask  further, 
whether  he  is  catechumen  or  “  fidelis.”  Hence 
such  an  inscription  as  CiiRiSTiAXA  Fidelis  (Le 
Blant,  Inscrijit.  de  la  Gaule,  i.  373)  is  not  a  mere 
pleonasm.  So  the  council  of  Elvira  ((7.  Elib. 
c.  67)  seems  to  distinguish  between  “fidelis” 
and  “  catechumena.”  In  the  liturgies,  the  portion 
of  the  office  at  which  catechumens  were  not 
allowed  to  be  present  was  called  Missa  Fidelium, 
and  the  Lord’s  Prayer  Fidelium  Oratio.  See 
Suicer’s  Thesaiu  us,  s.v.  ni(rTds.  Eusebius 
Evang.  i.  1)  repudiates  the  charge  that  Chris¬ 
tians  were  called  ttkxtoI  from  their  credulity. 

Fidelis  is  a  frequent  epithet  in  inscriptions, 
particularly  in  the  case  of  young  children,  who 
might  otherwise  be  supposed  to  have  died  un- 
baptized.  Thus  an  inscidption  given  by  Maran- 
goni  {Acta  S.  Victorini,  103)  runs  thus:  me 
REQVIESCrr  IX  PACE  EILIPPUS  1|  INFAS  FIDELIS. 
Similar  inscriptions  aiv  given  in  the  case  of  a 
child  who  died  at  the  age  of  a  year  and  nine 
months  {fb.  p.  109),  and  of  another  who  died  at 
the  age  of  five  years  and  five  months  {Ib.  p.  96). 
Another  may  be  seen  in  Cavedoni  (Ant.  Cimit.  di 
Chiusi,  p.  33).  On  a  marble  at  Florence  (Gori, 
Tnser.  Ant.  Etrur.  iii.  314)  it  is  said  of  a  child  of  i 
three  years  and  three  months,  ITICTH  ETEAET- 
THCEN.  In  one  case  given  by  Marini  {Frat. 
Areal,  p.  171),  the  inscription  describes  an 
ancestress  (major)  begging  baptism  for  a  child  at 
the  point  of  death :  petivit  ab  ecclesia  UT 
FIDELIS  DE  SECVLO  RECECISSET  (i.  e.  recederet). 
In  another  case  (Oderico,  Inscr.  IVf.  p.  267),  one 
of  two  brothers,  who  died  at  eight  years  old, 
is  described  as  NEOFItvs,  while  the  brother,  who 
died  at  seven,  is  described  as  fidelis.  And 
again  a  guardian  described  as  fidelis,  erects  a 
monument  to  a  nursling  who  was  yet  among 
the  “  audientes  ”  or  catechumens:  alvmxae 
AVDIEXTI  (Gori,  u.  s.  i.  228). 

Such  inscriptions  as  VixiT  IX  PACE  FIDELIS, 
or  REQVIESCIT  FIDELIS  IN  PACE,  are  too  common 
to  need  particularizing  (Martigny,  Diet,  des 
Antiq.  Chre't.  s.  v.  Fidelis). 

Other  names  given  to  Christians  were  perhaps 
either  (1)  Designations  of  some  peculiarity  of  their 
practice  or  profession,  rather  than  recognized 
titles;  more  epithets  than  names;  or  (2)  names 
given  them  by  the  outside  world,  either  in  deri¬ 
sion  or  by  mistake. 

1.  Under  the  fii'st  head  may  be  classed  (a)  Te<r- 
(ratc;,  Jessaeans,  a  name  which  Epiphanius  {Hacr. 
29,  n.  4)  says  may  be  derived  from  Jesus,  or  (as 


FAITHFUL 

seems  far-fetched  and  improbable)  from  Jesse, 
the  father  of  David.  Ejiiphanius  (w.  s.)  considers 
this  name  earlier  than  that  of  “  Christian.” 

Another  such  name  was  (5)  'yvwa'TiKoi,  applied 
to  Christians  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom. 
i.  p.  294;  ii.  p.  383;  vi.  p.  665;  vii.  p.  748)  as 
having  the  true  knowledge.  Later  we  find 
Athanasius  (ap.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  23)  using 
the  term  of  the  Ascetics  of  Egypt,  and  Socrates 
{ibid.)  tidls  us  that  Evagrius  Bonticus  svrote  a 
book  for  the  use  of  these  Ascetics,  called  “The 
Gnostic,  or  Buies  for  the  Contemplative  Life.” 

(c)  Qeo(p6poi,  a  name  claimeil  by  Ignatius  in 
his  interview  with  Trajan  {Acta  Ljn  it.  ap.  Grabe, 
Spicil.  t.  ii.  p.  10),  because  he  “  carried  ilhrist  in 
his  heart,”  and  seemingly  conceded  especially  to 
him,  was  commonly  used  of  all  Christians,  as 
Pearson  {Vinl.  [gnat.  par.  ii.  c.  12,  p.  397) 
shows  by  quotations  from  many  writers  of  the 
2nd  century. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  agreeing  about  the 
meaning  of  the  name,  gives  the  varieties  of  it 
Qeocpopcov  and  Qiocpopovfxfuos,  and  Eusebius  (viii. 
10)  quotes  a  letter  of  Phileas,  bishop  of  Thmuis, 
to  his  flock,  in  which  he  calls  the  martyrs  Xpia- 

TO^SpOl. 

{d)  St.  Ambrose  {de  obit.  Valentin,  t.  iii.  p.  12) 
speaks  of  Christians  as  Christi,  i.e.  “anointed,” 
and  justifies  his  use  of  the  title  by  reference  to 
Ps.  cv.  15,  “  nolite  tangere  Christos  meos,”  all 
Christians  receiving  the  unction  of  the*  Holy 
Spirit,  and  Jerome  commenting  on  the  passage 
(Ps.  civ.  [cvxj),  justifies  it  by  the  same  refer¬ 
ence. 

{e)  The  name  Ecclesiastici  was  used  within 
the  Christian  body  (Bingham,  i.  1,  §8)  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  the  clergy  from  the  laity,  and  with  a 
modification  of  this  meaning  of  the  word  Eusebius 
(iv.  7)  speaks  of  “  ecclesiastical  writers;”  and  it 
was  also  used  of  Christians  generally  in  contrast 
to  those  who  did  not  belong  to  the  e/c/cXrjo-i'a,  as 
Jew.s,  infidels,  and  heretics.  Bingham  quotes 
Eusebius  (iv.  7,  v.  27),  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
{Catech.  15,  n.  4),  as  employing  the  word  in  this 
sense,  and  Valesius  (not.  in  Euseb.  1.  ii.  c.  25) 
finds  the  same  use  of  it  in  “  Origen,  Epiphanius, 
Jerome,  and  others”  [Ecclesiasticus]. 

{f)  Bingham  asserts  that  Christian.?  were 
called  ot  tov  bSyparos,  “They  of  the  laith,” 
giving  as  his  authority  for  this  statement  the 
rescript  of  Aurelian  against  Paul  of  Samosata, 
quoted  by  Eusebius  (vii.  30),  in  which  the 
bishops  of  Rome  and  of  Italy  are  called  iir'i- 
(TKOTToi  TOO  dSy/aaros. 

{g)  Christians  also  called  themselves  Catholic 
[see  the  word];  and  (it)  Pisciculi.  alluding  to  the 
mystic  Fish  [Baptism,  p.  171  ;  Fisii]. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  says  Bingham  (i.  1,  §6) 
that  all  these  names  express  some  relation  to 
God  or  to  Christ,  and  that  none  of  them  were 
taken  from  the  names  of  men,  as  was  the  case 
with  the  heresies  and  sects.  He  quotes  Chry¬ 
sostom  {Horn.  33  in  Act.),  Epiphanius  {f/acr.  42. 
Marcionit.,  also  Ilaer.  10.),  Gregory  Xazianzen 
{Oral.  31,  p.  506)  and  others  as  noticing  the.se 
opposite  tendencies.  The  name  ot  Christian  was 
neglected  by  the  heretics  for  the  names  of  their 
leaders,  while  the  Christians  thought  it  enough 
without  any  other  title  derived  from  parents, 
country,  city,  quality,  or  occupation;  see  the 
case  of‘  the  deacon  Sanctus  martyred  in  the 
reign  of  Antoninus,  related  by  Eusebius  (v.  1). 


FAITHFUL 


FAITHFUL 


657 


II.  Among  (lie  names  given  to  Christians  from  ' 
without  (heir  body  arc  probably  to  be  reckoned  | 

(1)  Xp^aroi,  a  name  which  would  easily  arise  | 
irom  a  misunderstanding  or  mispronunciation  of 
the  name  XpiffToi,  and  was  naturally  not  refused 
by  Christians  ;  referred  to  by  Justin  Martyr 
{Apol.  i.  4),  Lactantius  (^Inst.  iv.  7),  Tertullian 
(Apol.  c.  3),  and  others. 

(2)  It  was  quite  to  be  expected  that  they 
would  be  called  .lews  by  the  heathen  world,  and 
there  is  evidence  of  this.  Bingham  (i.  I,  §  10) 
reiers  to  a  passage  in  Dio’s  Life  of  Domitian,  in 
which  he  speaks  of  the  Christian  martyr  Ocilius  ' 
Glabrio  (Baronius,  an.  94,  §  1),  being  put  to 
death  for  turning  to  the  Jev:s'  religion. 

Again,  Suetonius  says  (Claud,  c.  26)  that 
Claudius  “  expelled  the  Jews  from  Rome  because 
they  made  disturbances  at  the  instigation  of 
Chrestus  and  Spartianus  (in  Caracal,  c.  i.)  says 
that  Caracalla’s  playfellow  was  a  Jew,  Caracalla, 
according  to  Tertullian  (ad  Scapul.  c.  4),  having 
been  “  lacte  Christiano  educatus.” 

(3)  There  remains  to  be  considered  the  word 
Christian,  a  name  which  differs  from  those 
already  spoken  of  in  being  traceable  to  a  par¬ 
ticular  locality,  and  with  great  probability  to  a 
particular  year.  Tiie  reason  why  the  name  arose 
when  and  where  it  did,  is  probably  to  be  found 
in  the  long  stay — “  a  whole  year  ” — (Acts  xi. 
26)  made  in  Antioch  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  after 
their  return  from  Tarsus,  in  the  assembly  of  the 
church  there  for  the  same  time,  and  in  the  pub¬ 
licity  given  to  the  teaching  of  Christ  by  frequent 
addresses  to  the  people. 

The  question  whether  the  Christians  assumed 
the  name  themselves  or  received  it  from  the 
Jews,  or  from  the  Gentiles,  can  only  be  deter¬ 
mined  with  an  ajiproach  to  certainty. 

(a)  The  only  reason  for  thinking  that  the 
Christians  assumed  this  name  is  the  language 
of  Acts  xi.  26,  \pT]ixaTi(Tai  re  'wpwrop  iv  ’Avti- 
oxeia  Tovs  padrjras  Xpiariavovs,  because  XPV~ 
paTi^w,  when  used  of  acquiring  a  name  gener¬ 
ally  means  to  assume  one ;  but  on  .the  other 
hand,  both  in  the  Acts  and  in  the  Epistles, 
Christians  speak  of  themselves  as  “  brethren,” 
“  believers,”  “  disciples,”  “  saints,”  and  only  in 
three  places  in  the  N.T.  is  the  word  Christian 
used  (Acts  xi.  26,  xxvi.  28  ;  1  Peter  iv.  16),  in 
only  one  of  which,  and  there  doubtfully,  is  the 
word  used  by  Christians  of  themselves. 

(&)  Nor  is  it  likely  that  the  Jews  would  give 
them  a  name  which  would  virtually  concede  the 
claim  made  by  Christians,  and  so  sti’enuously 
denied  by  Jews.  P’or  “  Christ  ”  being  the  Greek 
equivalent  of  “  Messiah,”  to  call  the  followers 
of  Christ  “Christians”  would  be  to  acknowledge 
Christ  as  the  Messiah ;  nor  would  they  have 
used  so  sacred  a  name  in  derision  even  for  the 
sake  of  insulting  a  despised  and  hated  sect. 
When  they  wanted  to  designate  them,  they  used 
a  name  derived  from  a  place  they  held  in  con¬ 
tempt  (John  i.  46,  vii.  41  ;  Luke  xiii.  2),  and 
called  St.  Paul  “a  ringleader  of  the  sect  of  the 
‘  Nazarenes  ’  ”  (Acts  xxiv.  5). 

(c)  But  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  Gentiles, 
seeing  the  wide  aim  of  this  new  community,  its 
readiness  to  admit  all  sorts  of  people,  and  even 
to  dispense  with  the  rite  of  circumcision  in  its 
converts,  should  have  early  come  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  sects  of  the  Jews,  with  which  they 
very  naturally  at  first  confounded  it,  and  so 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


should  have  attached  to  it  a  new  name.  And 
this  probability  is  increased  when  we  remembej 
that  “.Christ”  was  the  title  of  the  head  of  the 
new  sect,  represented  his  peculiar  ofiice  to  them, 
and  was  the  name  by  which  he  was  generally 
known  in  their  letters  and  conversation.  It 
would  be  adopted,  of  course,  by  the  Gentiles 
from  them,  as  we  know  it  was  (Tacit.  Ann.  xv. 
44),  and  in  a  city  like  Antioch,  “notorious  for 
inventing  names  of  derision,  and  for  turning  its 
wit  into  channels  of  ridicule  ”  (cf.  Procopius, 
Bell.  Bers.  ii.  8,  quoted  by  Conybeare  and 
Howson,  vol.  i.  p.  130),  the  new  society  would 
soon  get  its  name.  The  form  of  tiie  word  indi¬ 
cates  its  Roman  origin  (cf.  Sullani,  Pompeiani, 
and  later  Othoniani  and  Vitelliani),  and  that  it 
was  first  used  as  a  term  of  reproach  may  be 
gathered  from  the  use  made  of  it  by  Tacitus  in 
the  passage  referred  to  above,  “quos  per  flagitia 
invisos  vulgus  Christianos  appellabat.”  The 
great  increase  in  the  number  of  Gentile  converts 
would  soon  turn  what  was  at  first  a  nickname 
into  a  title  of  honour,  and  the  predominance  of 
Rome  in  the  world  naturally  made  the  Roman 
name  what  it  has  become,  the  universal  one.  It 
is  interesting  to  contrast  with  “  Christian  ”  the 
name  “Jesuit,”  as  unlike  the  other  in  its  com¬ 
paratively  modern  date  and  Greek  form  as  in  its 
history  and  significance. 

See  Conybeare  and  Howson  (vol.  i.  p.  129  ff.), 
from  whom  this  note  on  the  word  Christian  is 
derived.  [E.  C.  H.] 

HI.  The  following  names  were  appellations  of 
scorn,  or  “nick-names,”  given  to  Christians  by 
their  enemies. 

1.  That  they  shoujd  be  called  Atheists  was 

inevitable  in  an  empire  in  which  the  vulgar  at 
least  knew  of  no  gods  that  could  not  be  repre¬ 
sented  by  art  and  man’s  device.  And  Atheism 
was  in  fact  a  common  charge  against  them.  See 
Athenagoras  (Leg.  pro  Christ,  c.  3)  and  Justin 
Martyr  [ApA.  I.  c.  6).  “  Down  with  the  Athe¬ 

ists  ”  (a?pe  TOWS  adiovs)  was  a  mob-cry  against 
the  Christians  (Euseb.  IL  E.  iv.  1-5,  §  6). 

2.  From  the  time  that  Christians  were  first 
recognised  as  a  sect,  they  were  contemj)tuously 
called  Nazarenes  (Acts  xxiv.  5;  Epiphanius, 
Haeres.  29,  c.  1 ;  Jerome  on  Isaiah  XIjIX,  ; 
Prudentius,  Peristeph.  ii.  25).  This  no  doubt  at 
first  designated  the  suppo.sed  origin  of  the  Lord 
and  t’ne  disciples  from  Nazareth  ;  but  the  variety 
of  ways  in  which  the  word  is  written  (Na^iapTji/ol, 
Na^apaToj,  Xa^ojpaloi,  Na^rjpaloi,  Xa^ipaioi) 
seems  to  show  that  in  later  times  various  senses 
were  attached  to  it.  It  was  also,  perhaps,  some¬ 
times  used  to  designate  a  sect  of  Judaizing 
Christians,  rather  than  the  whole  body  of  the 
church. 

3.  The  name  Galilaei  was  one  which  the  phi¬ 
losophic  emperor  Julian  (EpiJt.  7)  endeavoured 
to  fix  upon  the  Christians  (see  Gregory  Na- 
zianz.,  Orat.  iii.  p.  81  ;  Socrates,  11.  E.  iii. 
12),  meaning,  no  doubt,  to  exiuess  the  con¬ 
tempt  of  a  cultivated  man  for  a  sect  which  aro.se 
in  a  despi.sed  district  of  Palestine,  among  shep¬ 
herds  and  fishermen.  His  last  words  were,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Theodoret  (H.  E.  iii.  21).  vfvlKrjKas, 
FaXiXate,  “Thou  hast  conquered,  0  Galilaean  !” 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  (c.  Jidian.  iii.  p.  39)  sets 
himself  to  show  that  the  name  “Galilaean,”  if 
it  implied  roughness  and  want  of  culture,  was 

1  no  more  applicable  to  Cliyistians  than  to  Julian 


658 


FALDESTOLIUM 


FAMILY 


and  his  friends  (Gibbon’s  Borne,  ch.  23;  iii.  162, 
ed.  Smith). 

4.  Graecuo,  Graecuhis.  It  was  probably  with 
reference  to  the  falseness  and  want  of  principle 
attributed  to  tlie  Greeks,  in  the  days  of  the  em¬ 
pire,  that  Christians  came  to  be  called  “Gi'eeks,” 
that  is,  impostors.  The  Christian  in  the  streets 
was  saluted  with  the  cry,  6  Tpainhs  c-iriderris 
(Jerome,  Epiat.  10,  ad  Fiiran.).  If  his  tunic  was 
not  white,  he  was  “impostor  et  Graecus”(/6. 

Epist.  19,  ad  Marcell.).  The  recognising  a  Chris¬ 
tian  by  the  want  of  the  “  tunica  alba,”  perhaps 
imlicates  a  time  when  the  Ai.n  had  become  with 
them  almost  wholly  a  ministerial  dress. 

5.  Si/billists  was  an  appellation  given  to  Chris¬ 
tians  by  Celsus  (Origcn  c.  Cels.  bk.  v.  p.  272, 

Spencer).  The  early  Christians  did  in  fact  pay 
great  respect  to  the  Sib}lline  books  (Tertullian, 
ad  Nationes,  ii.  12),  and  discovered  in  them  clear 
prophecies  of  Christ.  Celsus  accused  them  of  sudden  changes,  except  in  those 


and  would  better  apply  to  a  pulpit.  Faldvitonum, 
originally  employed  for  any  jiortable  seat,  be 
came  limited  in  ecclesiastical  use  to  a  low  arm- 
loss  folding-chair,  in  which  a  bishop  or  mitred 
abbot  sat  at  the  altar  after  his  enthronisation, 
or  on  other  solemn  occasions,  offered  himself  to 
the  gaze  of  the  people  in  his  full  official  attire. 
According  to  Macri  (s.  v.)  it  was  also  placed  at  the 
epistle  corner  of  the  altar  for  the  bishop,  when 
celebrating  in  a  church  in  which  he  had  no  juris¬ 
diction,  or  if  a  superior  dignitary  was  present 
(Macri,  Ifierolex.  s.  v. ;  Ducange,  s.  v. ;  Augusti, 
Hdbch.  der  Christ.  Arch.  iii.  556).*  [E.  Y.] 

FALSE  WITNESS,  [Peiuury.] 

FAIMILY.  The  influence  of  the  Christian 
religion  upon  the  customs  and  habits  of  family 
life  was  very  considerable,  even  from  the  first": 
although  it  did  not  aim  at  making  anv  abrupt  or 

things  which 

were  necessarily  sinful. 

The  great  Christian  doctrines  which  .so  power¬ 
fully  afiect  the  feelings,  hopes,  and  whole  inner 
life  of  those  who  heartily  receive  them,  led  at 
once  to  the  renunciation  of  idolatry  in  all  its 
forms,  and  of  the  exce.sses  and  licentiousnesses 
then  so  common  and  so  little  thought  of ;  and  in¬ 
culcated  new  principles  of  thought  and  action, 
which  operated  more  or  less  powerfullv  in  evcrv 
called  ovpavokaTpai,  Coelicolae,  sky-worship-  j  direction.  But  the  ordinary  usages  of  domestic 
pers,  seems  somewhat  doubtful ;  and  the  same  ^  life,  which  were  not  directly  connected  with 
may  be  said  of  Hijpsistarii.  That  they  were  '  the  religious  and  moral  obliquities  of  the  old 
called  Siin-worshippers  and  Ass-icorshippers  is  *  polytheism,  were  apparently  left  untouched  bv 
certain.  [Asinarii  ;  Calumnies  against  Chris- j  any  positive  interference  or  command.  Chri.^- 
ITANS.]  1  tiauity  proved  itself  the  salt  of  the  earth  bv 

7.  The  miracles  of  the  early  church  procured  ,  gradually  interpenetrating  the  surrounding  ma.ss 
Christians  the  reputation  of  being  Magicians,  of  pagan  civilisation,  and  not  by  shrinking  from 
[Magic.]  Hence  Suetonius  (Xero,  c.  16)  calls  *  all  contact  with  it. 

Christians  “  gens  homiuum  superstitionis  male-  The  elevation  of  the  female  sex  was  one  of  the 
ficae,”  a  set  devoted  to  the  black  art.  The  stead-  ^  most  conspicuous  of  the  indirect  results  which 
fast  endurance  of  torture  was  often  thought  *  rapidly  followed  the  reception  of  the  new  reli- 
the  effect  of  some  charm.  A.sclepiades  (I’ru-  !  gion.  The  position  of  women  among  the  Jews, 
dentius,  Peristeph.  xii.  868),  ascribed  to  magic 
the  endurance  of  Romanus  the  martvr;  and 


having  interpolated  the^e  books. 

6.  From  peculiarities,  or  supposed  peculiari¬ 
ties,  of  their  xvorship,  they  were  called  cross- 
worshippers,  crTavp6\aTpai,  or  Criicicolae,  a  re¬ 
proach  as  old  as  the  days  of  St.  Paul,  often 
repeated  (Tertul.  Apol.  16  and  Ad  Xat.  i.  7,  12), 
and  from  which  they  were  not  slow  to  vindicate 
themselves  (Minucius  Fel.  Oct.  29).  Whether 
Christians  in  general,  or  a  sect  of  them,  were 


St.  Ambrose  (Serm.  90,  in  Agnen)  mentions 
that  the  crowd  shrieked  against  her,  “Tolle 
magam  !  tolle  maleficam  !  ” 

8.  SeA'eral  nick-names  were  criven  bv  the  hea- 
then  to  the  Christians  in  consequence  of  their 
inexplicable  endurance  of  martyrdom.  They 
were  ^loddyarot,  as  dying  violent  deaths,  often. 


'  and  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  had  received  them 
as  his  disciples  and  friends,  must  have  taught  the 


apostles,  if  they  needed  any  such  teaching,  what 
place  women  were  entitled  to  hold  in  the  social 
economy  of  the  church.  And  accordingly, 
wherever  Christ  was  proclaimed,  women  were 
invited  and  welcomed  into  the  Christian  commu¬ 
nities,  and  were  admitted  equally  with  men  to  all 
Christian  privileges.  Hence  in  a  Christian 


as  it  Seemed,  little  better  than  suicides.  They  :  family  the  wife  and  mother  held  an  honourable 


were  Parabolani  (-n-apa^oXaroi)  and  Desperati, 
as  freelv  risking  their  lives.  Thev  were  Sar- 
mentitii,  from  the  faggots  (sarmenta)  which  con¬ 
sumed  them  ;  and  Se^niaxii,  from  the  stake 
(semiaxis)  to  which  they  were  bound.  (Tertull. 
Ajjof.  50).  They  were  Cinerarii,  from  the  re¬ 
spect  which  they  paid  to  the  ashes  of  their 
martyrs. 

(Bingham’s  Antiq.  i.  ii. ;  Augusti’s  Handbuch 
der  Christl.  Archdol.  II.  i.)  [C.] 


place ;  and  the  con  jugal  union,  the  source  of  all 
other  family  relationships,  being  thus  honoured, 
'  communicated  a  happy  influence  throughout  the 
household. 

I  Another  result,  only  less  important  than  the 
:  foi’iner,  was  the  amelioration,  and,  in  the  course 
t,f  time,  the  abolition  of  slavery.  Apostolic 
j  Christianity  did  not  endeavour  to  remove  this 
nefarious  but  inveterate  evil  by  any  direct  or 
;  violent  denunciation,  which,  if  successful,  would 
j  have  rudely  upset  the  existing  framework  ot 


FALDESTOLIUM,  or  FAI.DISTORIU^L  society,  and  would  have  proved  as  ruinous  to  the 


The  first  form  of  this  word  points  to  its  true 
etymology  and  signification.  It  is  connected 
with  the  German  falden,  “  to  fold,”  and  itiihl, 
“a  chair,”  and  indicates  a  folding-chair,  “sella 
plicatilis,”  answering  to  our  modern  “  camp- 
stool”  (Muratori,  tom.  iii.  p.  646,  not.  18).  A 
false  etymology,  often  given,  “  fandistolium 
ciu.usi  fandi  locus”  is  at  variance  with  its  use. 


slave,  as  it  would  have  seemed  to  be  unjust  to 
the  master  ;  but  it  distinctly  taught  the  equality 
of  all  men  in  Christian  privilege  and  religious 
position  ; — it  taught  most  emphatically  the  duty 
of  caring  for  others; — it  taught  the  master  that 
he  had  a  Lord  over  him  who  was  no  respecter  of 
persons,  and  the  slave  that  he  was  Christ’s 
iVeedman.  And  thus  slaverv  in  a  Christian 


FAiNIILY 


FAMILY 


659 


tamily  was  relieved  from  some  of  its  most  gall¬ 
ing  burdens.  This  ha]){)y  change,  however,  it 
must  be  remembered,  depended  entirely  upon  the 
personal  feeling  and  will  of  the  master;  for 
slavery  was  not  legally  and  publicly  alleviated 
to  anv  great  extent,  until  the  tin’e  of  Justinian, 
who  did  much  to  promote  its  extinction,  after 
which  it  was  gradually  discontinued  or  changed 
to  serfdom  (Milman,  Hist.  Christ,  iii.  343,  and 
Latin  Christ,  i.  391  ;  and  Slavkky  in  this 
work).  In  the  mean  time  Christians  in  general 
did  not  think  it  wrong  to  have  bondmen  in  their 
service  (Clem.  Alex.  Paedag.  iii.  12). 

But  besides  particular  results  of  this  nature, 
Christianity  to  some  extent  changed  the  general 
habits  of  men,  and  tended  to  make  them  more 
domestic  ainl  less  public  in  their  feelings  and 
pursuits.  ^lore  esjiecially,  while  Christians  were 
small  communities  separate  and  distinct  from  the 
general  mass  of  the  poj)ulation,  they  f^lt  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  withdraw  themselves  in  some  degree 
from  public  aft'airs ;  they  were  less  frequent  in 
their  attendance  on  courts  of  law ;  they  could 
not,  without  scruples  and  repugnance,  be  present 
at  many  of  the  ordinary  amusements  and  popular 
festivities,  mixed  up  as  they  were  with  the 
idolatry  and  some  of  the  worst  moral  abomina¬ 
tions  of  paganism.  Thus  they  were  thrown  back 
more  upon  the  society  of  each  other,  and  upon 
their  own  family  life.  And  although  afterwards, 
when  the  new  religion  became  dominant,  and 
was  at  length  the  religion  of  the  people,  the 
objections  to  public  life  greatly  disappeared,  the 
family  life  with  its  attractions  and  its  virtues 
continued  to  maintain  a  wholesome  influence, 
which  has  indeed  never  since  been  lost.  (See 
Milman,  Hist.  Christ,  iii.  134.) 

But  to  look  more  closely  at  the  family  life  of 
Christianitv,  it  must  be  observed  that  the  abne- 
gat  ion  of  idolatry  caused  a  displacement  of  the 
household  and  hearth  gods — the  Penates  and 
Lares  of  the  Romans, — together  with  all  family 
rites  which  savoured  of  idol  worship,  and  a  sub¬ 
stitution  of  Christian  observances  in  their  stead. 
And  as  it  seems  to  have  been  the  custom  of  reli¬ 
gious  Romans  to  ofl’er  their  prayers  the  first 
thing  in  the  morning,  in  the  Lararinm,  or  house¬ 
hold  shrine  (Lampridius,  Alex.  Sever.  29.  31)  ; 
so  family  prayer,  in  which  the  difi'erent  members 
of  a  Christian  household  joined,  appears  to  have 
had  its  place  from  the  beginning  of  the  new 
religion.  Such  united  prayer  seems  to  be  alluded 
to  in  the  remark,  “that  your  prayers  be  not 
hindered  ”  (1  Pet.  iii.  7).  And  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
testifies  to  the  same  thing  when,  commenting  on 
the  words,  “where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  in  my  name,”  he  says  that  the  three 
mean  a  husband,  a  wite,  and  a  child  (^&vSpa,  Kal 
ywoTiKa,  Ka\  t€kpou  tovs  rpus  Stromat. 

iii.  10).  And  the  same  author  speaks  expressly 
of  “prayer  and  reading  of  the  Scrij)tures  (eux'^ 
Kal  a.va.yvw(Tis)  in  Christian  families  (^Paedag.  ii. 
194). 

it  is  evident  from  the  words  of  Tertul  .ian  (ad 
Uxorem,  ii.  4)  and  subsequently  of  Cyprian  [He 
Lapsis,  c.  26)  that  Christians  were  in  the  habit 
of  taking  home  portions  of  the  eucharistic  bread, 
and  eating  a  small  piece  of  it  every  morning,  as 
an  act  of  devotion  [Bulogiae,  p.  629]. 

The  practice  also  of  making  the  sign  of  the 
cross  upon  the  forehead,  to  which  at  a  later 


period  so  much  eflicacy  ivas  siq  erstitiously 
ascribed,  had  become  before  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century  a  perpetually  repeated  ceremony 
in  Christian  families,  being  u.sed  “  on  getting  up 
and  going  to  bed,  on  putting  on  their  clothes  or 
their  shoes,  on  walking  out  or  sitting  down,  at 
table  or  at  the  bath  in  short  in  every  act  or 
movement  of  the  day  (see  Tertullian  de  Cor.  Mil. 
§  3).  This  little  symbolical  action  may  in  the 
early  time#  have  been  a  useful  memento  to 
Christians  in  the  midst  of  so  many  things  of  a 
contrary  tendency,  however  much,  like  some 
other  practices  once  innocent  and  salutary,  it 
was  subsequently  used  in  the  service  of  formalism 
and  error.  And  the  same  desire  of  being  con¬ 
stantly  reminded  of  their  Christian  position  led 
them  to  adorn  their  goblets  with  the  figure  of  a 
shepherd  carrying  a  lamb,  and  their  seal-rings 
with  a  dove,  an  anchor,  and  other  similar 
devices.  (Neander,  Hist.  Christ,  p.  399.) 

Besides  these  there  were  other  domestic 
observances  which  from  time  to  time  interested 
the  piety  as  well  as  the  natural  all'ections  of 
Christian  households,  especially  those  which 
were  connected  with  the  ba])tism  of  children, 
mai’riages,  and  funerals,  more  particularly  noticed 
in  separate  articles  [Baptesm,  Children,  Mar¬ 
riage,  Burial].  Christians  cherished  the  me¬ 
mory  of  departed  relatives  as  those  with  whom 
they  trusted  to  be  reunited  in  rest  and  glory, 
and  not  unfrequently  held  family  banquets  over 
their  remains  in  a  room  provided  for  that  pur¬ 
pose  [Cell A  Memoriae]. 

But  besides  those  festivals  which  were  exclu¬ 
sively  Christian,  there  were  some  celebrations  of 
an  older  date,  in  which,  as  they  were  not  mixed 
up  with  any  idolatrous  rites,  Christian  families 
might  unite  with  their  pagan  neighbours,  and 
which  they  might  retain  for  their  own  use. 
Even  Tertullian,  w'ho  was  so  strict  in  forbidding 
all  semblance  of  participation  in  idol  worship, 
saw  no  objection  to  Christians  joining  in  the 
domestic  ceremony  of  “  putting  on  the  toga 
virilis,”  which  corresponded  wdth  our  “coming 
of  age,”  or  to  their  being  present  at  weddings,  or 
the  “  naming  of  children  ”  (Nominalia  or  Dies 
lustrici  ;  Tertul.  de  Idolol.  16). 

As  the  facility  of  divorce  was  a  primary  prin¬ 
ciple  of  corruption  in  Roman  social  and  family 
life  ;  so  Christianity,  having  invested  marriage 
with  a  religious  sanctity,  and  not  allowing 
divorcement  under  any  circumstances,  except 
those  mentioned  by  Christ  himself,  drew'  more 
closely  together  not  only  the  husband  and  wife, 
but  all  other  members  of  the  family. 

The  relationship  between  parents  and  children 
was  greatly  influenced  for  good.  The  barbarous 
practice  of  infanticide,  which  prevailed  among 
the  Greeks  and  Romans,  was  immediately  dis¬ 
continued.  Under  the  old  Roman  law  parents 
might  at  any  time  put  their  children  to  death, 
or  sell  them  as  slaves  ;  but  this  .severity  was  at 
once  voluntarily  softened  in  Christian  families; 
and  the  pow'er  was  afterwards  taken  aw'ay  by 
Christian  emperors;  who  further  directed  that 
in  cases  of  great  poverty,  when  parents  might 
be  tempted  to  sell  their  children,  relief  might 
be  given  them  out  of  the  public  revenues,  thus 
affording  an  example  of  an  inci])ient  poor-law 
(Cod.  Thcod.  vi.  27,  in  Bingham,  xvi.  ix.  1). 

Parental  authority,  however,  and  family  ties 
W’ere  strongly  upheld.  Children  were  not  al- 

2  U 


660 


FAMILY 


FAMILY 


Jo\yo(l  to  in<in'y  witliout  tlie  consent  of  their 
]);irents  (Tertul.  ml  Uxor.  ii.  9),  an'l,  under  the 
Christian  emperors,  in  the  case  of  daughters  thus 
marrying,  the  most  dreadful  })unishments  were 
ordered  to  be  inflicted  on  all  who  were  consenting 
pai  ties  to  the  marriage  {Cod.  Theod.  ix.  24). 

The  education  of  their  children  assumed  a  new 
interest  with  Christian  parents,  but  at  the  same 
time  caused  them  new  anxieties  and  cares ;  since 
in  “bringing  ti'em  up  in  the  nurture  and  ad¬ 
monition  of  tlie  Lord,”  it  was  needful,  more 
especially  in  the  earlier  times,  to  guard  them 
from  the  evil  influeuces  in  the  midst  of  which 
they  lived, — from  the  contact  of  idolatry  all 
around  them, — from  the  contagion  of  companions 
on  every  side.  Further  difficulties  too  presented 
themselves  in  connection  with  the  future  occu¬ 
pation  of  their  children,  inasmuch  as  many  em¬ 
ployments  open  to  others  were  closed  against 
them.  For  a  Christian  jiad  to  avoid  all  the 
numerous  trades  and  arts  which  were  connected 
with  idols  and  idol-worship,  together  with  some 
offices  of  civil  and  military  life. 

While  children  were  young  their  superin- 
tendanoe  and  education  engaged  especially  tne 
mother’s  care  and  vigilance  ;  but  besides  this 
and  other  strictlv  domestic  duties,  it  was  usual 
for  Christian  women  to  devote  a  portion  of  their 
time  to  doing  good  beyond  their  own  homes  ; 
and  Tertullian  shows  that  in  his  days  it  was  ex¬ 
pected,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  they  would 
attend  on  the  sick,  go  round  to  the  houses  of  the 
poor,  relieve  the  needy,  and  visit  imprisoned 
martyrs  (Tertul.  ad  Uxor.  ii.  4). 

One  source  of  uneasiness  was,  it  must  be  con¬ 
fessed,  introduced  into  the  household  in  Christian 
times,  which  had  not  existed  previously.  After 
the  institution  of  monastic  orders,  a  husband,  a 
wife,  or  a  cliild  might  desire  to  adopt  the  “  re¬ 
ligious  ”  life,  even  without  the  consent  of  those 
who  had  a  claim  upon  their  services  and  society. 
Where  the  persons  interested  consented,  as  in 
the  cases  of  Ammon  and  his  wife  (Socrates,  //.  E. 
iv.  23;  Palladius,  Hist.  Laudac.  c.  8),  and  of 
Martianus  and  Maxima  (Victor  Uticensis  [or 
Vitensis],  Be  Persec.  Vand  d.  i.  5),  no  harm  was 
done  ;  but  in  many  cases  monastic  fanaticism  dis¬ 
turbed  the  peace  of  households  and  sundered 
their  members.  It  is  evident  from  the  references 
to  the  matter  (for  instance)  by  Paulinus  (liJjjist. 
14,  ad  Celant.)  and  Augustine  {Epist.  45  [al. 
127],  A  rmentario  et  Paidinae ;  Epist.  199  [al. 
262],  ad  Ecdiciarn),  that  in  the  4th  century  the 
question  of  the  relative  claims  of  domestic  duty 
and  ascetic  life  was  felt  to  be  a  pressing  one. 
Basil  the  Great  in  the  Larger  Rule  (Qu.  12) 
directs  that  a  married  person  offering  to  enter  a 
monastery  should  be  questioned  as  to  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  other  party ;  yet  he  thinks  that  the 
precept  about  hating  father,  mother,  wife,  or 
children  to  be  Christ’s  disciple  (Luke  xiv.  26) 
applies  to  this  case;  and  in  anothei-  place  {Epist. 
45,  ad  Monachum  Lapsum)  he  certainly  mentions 
a  man’s  declining  domestic  cares  and  the  society 
of  his  yoke-fellow,  for  an  ascetic  life,  without 
the  smallest  censure.  Jerome  {Epist.  14,  ad 
Ecliod.)  expresses  similar  views.  The  feeling  of 
the  church  on  this  subject  was  distinctly  pro¬ 
nounced  in  the  6th  century,  for  the  legislation 
of  Justinian  {Codex,  lib.  i.  tit.  3,  Be  Episo.  et 
Cler.  leg.  53)  allowed  married  persons  to  desert 
their  yoke-fellows  for  “  religion  ”  with  impunity, 


and  to  reclaim  their  own  fortunes.  So  in  the 
case  of  children.  The  council  of  Gangra  in  the 
4th  century  (c.  16)  anathematized  children — 
especially  children  of  Christians — who  should 
withdraw  from  their  parents  on  prgtence  of  re¬ 
ligion  (fleocre/Setas)  and  refu.se  them  due  honour. 
So  Basil  {Rcq.  Maj.  qu.  15)  enjoined  that  chil¬ 
dren  should  not  be  received  into  monasteries  un¬ 
less  offered  by  their  parents,  if  the  parents  were 
alive.  But  here  again  the  legislation  of  Justinian 
(u.  s.  leg.  55)  betrays  the  presence  of  a  feeling 
that  “religion”  might  override  domestic  obliga¬ 
tions,  in  that  it  forbids  parents  to  restrain  their 
children  from  becoming  monks  or  clerics,  or  to 
disinherit  them  for  that  cause  alone.  And  this 
feeling,  in  spite  of  the  not  unfrequent  pi-otests 
of  jurists,  was  very  prevalent  from  that  time 
onward.  On  the  other  hand,  the  power  of  parents 
to  devote  their  children  to  “  religion  ”  oecame 
in  time  almost  absolute ;  they  who  had  been 
devoted  by  their  parents  were  as  much  bound  as 
those  who  had  entered  of  their  own  accord  in 
mature  age  {Cone.  Tolet.  IV.  c.  49,  a.d.  633; 
see  OlJLATi). 

In  our  view  of  the  family  life  of  Christians, 
their  use  of  music  and  singing  must  not  be  un- 
noticed.  Among  the  Greeks  especially,  and  to 
some  extent  among  the  Romans  also,  their  songs 
occupied  a  conspicuous  place  in  their  social  life. 
These,  however,  from  their  generally  expressing 
and  encouraging  some  of  the  worst  evils  of  the 
old  religions,  could  not  be  used  in  the  Christian 
family  circle.  But  the  want  was  rapidly  sup¬ 
plied.  Christian  songs  and  hymns  were  soon 
composed  and  extensively  multiplied ;  and  these 
became  an  abundant  source  of  recreation  to  all 
the  members  of  the  household,  while  at  meal 
times,  and  in  all  family  or  friendly  unions,  they 
thus  expressed  their  habitual  faith,  and  hope, 
and  joy. 

Before  Christianity  became  the  prevailing  and 
established  religion,  families  were  in  continual 
danger  of  being  molested  by  popular  violence, 
and  of  being  utterly  broken  up  in  times  of  legal¬ 
ised  persecution.  But  besides  these  dangers  and 
troubles  there  were  sometimes  others  hardly 
less  painful  within  the  family  itself,  when  only 
a  part  of  the  household  had  become  Christians. 
The  antagonism  and  consequent  discomfort,  if 
not  positive  misery,  must  then  have  been  almost 
perpetual  ;  and  the  difficulty  of  maintaining  re¬ 
ligious  faithfulness,  without  losing  family  affec¬ 
tion  or  breaking  family  ties,  must  have  been 
very  great.  Jesus  him.self  had  warned  his  dis¬ 
ciples  beforehand  that  “  a  man’s  foes  might  be 
those  of  his  own  household  ;”  and  that  his  re¬ 
ligion,  in  such  cases,  might  bring  “not  peace  but 
a  sword.”  St.  Paul,  while  desirous  that  this 
difference  of  religion  should  not  actually  separate 
a  husband  and  wife,  admitteil  that  it  would  and 
must  sometimes  have  this  effect.  Tertullian  {ad 
Uxor.  ii.  4)  describes  in  detail  the  sort  of  hin¬ 
drances,  opposition,  and  ridii:ule,  which  a  Chris¬ 
tian  woman  must  expect  if  she  married  a  hus¬ 
band  who  was  an  unbeliever  ;  and  how  impos¬ 
sible  she  would  find  it  to  fulfil  in  peace,  if  she 
could  fulfil  at  all,  her  Christian  duties, — even  if 
nothing  worse  occurred.  But  in  time;  of  perse¬ 
cution,  or  of  any  strong  excitement  of  antichris- 
tian  feeling,  it  was  not  merely  difficulties  and 
discomforts  that  had  to  be  encountered.  The 
strongest  words  of  Christ  were  then  often  liter- 


FAMILY— THE  HOLY 


FAST  IN  (} 


661 


nllv  i*ealised,  when  the  most  powerful  natural 
ii..e(tious  were  shattered,  and  Christians  were 
betrayed  and  denounced  by  their  nearest  rela¬ 
tives  and  given  up  to  the  persecutor’s  sword. 
See  an  early  instance  of  this  in  Justin  Martyr, 
Apol.  li.  2.  [G.  A.  J.] 

FAMIIiY — THE  HOLY.  The  subject  which 
bears  this  title  in  modern  art  is  generally  a 
group  consisting  of  the  Virgin  Mother  bearing 
the  ftacred  Infant,  of  St.  Joseph,  and  frequently 
of  the  younger  St.  John  Baptist,  and  occasionally 
of  St.  Elizabeth.  It  is  frequently  treated  in  an 
academic  or  purely  artistic  spirit,  and  chosen 
mainly  for  the  sake  of  opposing  the  age  of  St. 
Elizabeth  or  maturity  of  St.  Joseph,  to  the  high 
ideal  of  feminine,  infantine,  or  youthful  beauty 
in  the  Blessed  V’irgin,  the  infant  or  St.  John. 
As  a  coin})lete  and  isolated  group  of  this  kind 
the  subject  is  hardly  ever  treated  in  art  of  the 
earliest  Christian  age,  unless  the  three  Oranti 


given  by  Martigny  (from  Bosio  Roma  Sott.  p. 
279;  see  woodcut)  are  to  be  considered  as  re- 
j)resenting  it.  He  is  inclined  to  think  so,  though 
Bosio,  Aringhi,  and  Bottari  consider  the  group 
as  an  ordinary  Christian  family  in  the  attitude 
of  prayer,  and  though  the  boy  is  more  decidedly 
in  that  attitude  than  either  the  father  or  the 
mother.  He  mentions  another  lately  discovered, 
but  also  somewhat  conjectural  monument,  in 
the  cemetery  of  St.  Priscilla,  and  says  that  the 
subject  occurs  on  sarcophagi  of  the  South  of 
France,  naming  one  in  the  museum  of  Arles,  j 
No.  26,  where  St.  Joseph  leads  the  Saviour  by  j 
the  hand  to  the  Virgin  Mother,  probably  rejire- 
senting  Luke  ii.  48,  “Son,  why  hast  thou  thus 
dealt  with  us?”  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

FAMILY  TOMBS.  [Catacombs,  p.  300  ; 
Cllla  Memoriae;  Cemetery.] 

FAN.  [Flabellum.] 

FANATICI.  From  their  frequenting  Fana, 
shrines  of  heathen  deities,  all  heathen  were 
sometimes  called  “  fanatici  ” ;  thus  Clovis  be¬ 
fore  his  conversion,  is  said  {Gesta  Reg.  Franc. 
c.  10),  to  have  been  “  fanaticus  et  paganiis.”  In 
a  special  sense,  priests  of  idol -temples  were 
“  fanatici  ”  (Iso  Magister  on  Prudentius,  quoted 
by  Ducange,  s.v.) ;  and  those  who  professed  to 
prophesy  by  the  aid  of  the  demon  attached  to 
the  place  [Exorcism;  and  see  Jerome  on  Isaiah, 


c.  6,  and  Augustine  on  Psalm  40];  these  were 
condemned  with  others  who  piacti.sed  such  evil 
arts  (CooJt’,  lib.  ix.  tit.  16,  1.  4;  Macri,  llierolex. 
s.  V. ;  Bingham’s  xvi.  V.  4).  [C.] 

FANDILA,  presbyter,  martyr  at  Cordova; 
commemorated  June  13  (^Mart.  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

FANON.  (1.)  A  head-dress  worn  by  the 
pope  when  he  celebrated  ma.ss  pontilically.  It 
is  described  by  Ciampini  (^Vct.  Mon.  i.  239)  and 
Macri  {fJierolex.  s.v.)  as  a  veil  variegated,  like 
the  Mosaic  ephod,  with  four  colours,  symbolising 
the  four  elements,  put  over  the  head  after  the 
j)ope  was  vested  with  the  alb,  and  tied  round  the 
neck,  forming  a  kind  of  hood,  the  tiara  or  other 
head-dress  being  put  on  above  it.  The  lower 
part  was  concealed  by  the  planeta  (Bona,  Rer. 
Litnrg.  i.  24.  15).  Ciampini  gives  the  annexed 
figure  from  a  small  brass  statue  on  the  doors  of 
the  oratory  of  St.  John  Baptist  at  the  Lateran. 
At  the  PedilaKium  the  “Caerimoniale  Komanum  ” 
directs  that  the  pope  should  wear  the  fanon 
alone  without  the  mitre. 


(2.)  The  napkin  or  handkerchief,  mappula, 
stidarmm,  used  by  the  priest  during  the  celebra¬ 
tion  of  the  mass  to  wipe  away  perspiration  from 
the  face,  &c.  (Bona,  Rer.  Liturg.  i.  24.  5 ;  Rab. 
Maur.  de  Inst.  Cler.  i.  18 ;  Augusti,  Ilandbch. 
der  Christ.  Arch.  iii.  504).  [Facitergium.] 

(3.)  In  later  times  the  white  linen  cloth  in 
which  the  laity  made  their  oblations  at  the  altar. 
“Populus  dat  oblationes  suas,  id  est  panem  et 
vinum,  et  offerunt  cum  fanonihus  candidis”  Ordo 
Roinanus ;  “cum  fanonihus  offerunt,”  Amalar. 
de  offic.  Miss.  ;•  Martene,  de  Eccl.  rit.  lib.  i.  c.  4, 
§  6  ;  Augusti,  u.  s.  ii.  649.  The  word  is  some¬ 
times  erroneously  spelt  “favones.” 

(4.)  A  still  later  use  of  the  word  is  for  the 
church  banners,“  vexilla  Ecclesiastica,”  employed 
in  processions.  This  is  perhaps  not  earlier  than 
the  French  and  German  writers  of  the  11th  cen¬ 
tury  (Augusti,  V.  s.  iii.  348,  355). 

(5.)  The  strings  or  lappets  of  the  mitre  (Wil- 
lemin.  Monuments  ine'dits.  pis.  68,  76,  90)  [E.  V.] 

FARA,  virgin,  of  Meaux ;  “Natalis”  Dec.  7 
(J/arf.  Usuardi y  [\\L  I'.  G.] 

FARO,  bishop,  and  confessor  at  !Meaux  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Oct.  28  (d/urA  Usuardi).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

FAST  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  DESERT, 
THE,  is  commemorated  in  the  Aethiopic  Calen¬ 
dar  on  Feb.  4  (Daniel’s  Codex,  iv.  252).  [C.] 

FASTING  {vr](TTeia,  jejunium,  abst inentia'). 
Fasting  w’as  total  or  partial  abstinence  from  food 
for  a  certain  period;  it  also  signified  abstinence 
from  pleasure,  or  from  the  celebration  of  birthdays 
or  marriages  or  church  festivals  ;  and  it  had  the 
further  spiritual  signification  of  abstinence  from 


662 


FASTING 


FASTING 


sin.  See  tlie  passages  collected  in  Gunning  {Lent 
Fast,  pp.  130-150)  on  the  spiritual  meaning  of 
tasting. 

1.  The  stated  fasts  of  the  Western  church 
were  tliese : 

(i.)  The  great  ante-paschal  Fast  of  Li:nt 
{Quadra  jrsiuia). 

(ii.)  The  fasts  of  the  first,  fourth,  seventh,  and 
tenth  months,  called  also  EMUiiu  Fasts,  or  the 
fasts  of  the  four  seasons  {jejnnia  quatuor  tern- 
'foruni). 

(iii.)  The  weekly  fasts  of  the  Stations,  Wed¬ 
nesday  and  Friday  {feria  quart  i  et  sexta,  stationes, 
seniijejunia,  rerpas  Ka\  irapaaK^vi}'). 

(iv.)  The  Rogations  {rogationes,  litaniae'). 

(v.)  The  Vigils  or  Eves  of  holy  days  {pernoc- 
tationes,  pervigi/ia). 

2.  The  Greek  church  kept  in  addition  to  Lent 
three  fasts  of  a  week  each :  1st  the  Fast  of 
the  Holy  Apostles,  immediately  after  Pentecost 
[Apostlks’  Festivals  and  Fasts]  ;  2nd  the 
Fast  of  the  Holy  Mother  of  God  {Sanctae 
Deiparae')  in  August ;  3rd  the  Fast  of  the 
Nativity  (Suicer  Thesaurus  s,  v.  vgarTia',  Neale 
Introduction  to  Eastern  Church,  p,  731).  Some 
have  supposed  (Morinus  de  Penit.,  Appendix, 
p.  124)  that  the  Fast  Sanctae  Deiparae  at  one 
})eriod  lasted  forty  days,  and  began  originally  on 
6th  of  July  and  afterwards  on  1st  of  August, 
and  that  the  Fast  of  the  Nativity  was  also  one 
of  forty  days,  and  began  on  15th  of  November. 

3.  Other  fasts  had  only  a  local  or  partial 
observance.  The  council  of  Eliberis  (c.  23)  in¬ 
troduced  into  Spain  fasts  of  superposition  (jejn- 
niorum  superpositiones)  for  every  month  in  the 
year  except  July  and  August.  It  does  not  appear 
on  what  days  of  the  month  they  were  kept,  but 
their  name  implies  that  they  were  something 
over  and  above  the  usual  fasting  days.  Bingham 
{Antiq.  xxi.  11  §  5)  quotes  from  Philastrius  the 
mention  of  a  fast  of  three  days  before  Epiphany. 
In  the  Dialogue  of  Egbert  of  York  (Haddan  and 
Stubbs’  Councils  and  Eccl.  Documents,  vol.  iii. 

р.  413)  there  is  the  appointment,  in  addition  to 
the  Ember  fasts,  of  a  period  of  twelve  days  before 
the  Nativity  to  be  spent  in  fastings,  watchings, 
prayers,  and  alms;  on  which  twelve  days  not 
only  were  the  clergy  but  laity  also,  with  their 
wiA'es  and  households,  exhorted  to  resort  to  their 
confessors.  The  seventeenth  council  of  Toledo 
a.d.  694  (c.  6)  orders  litany-fasts  (exomolo- 
geses)  to  be  kept  every  month  in  the  Spanish 
and  Gallic  churches  to  supplicate  “  for  the  safety 
of  the  sovereign,  for  the  preservation  of  the 
people,  and  the  pardon  of  their  sins,  and  the 
expulsion  of  the  devil  from  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful.”  The  fasts  to  be  observed  throughout 
the  vear  in  the  western  monasteries  are  given  in 
detail  by  the  second  council  of  Tours  (a.d.  567, 

с.  17):  “  From  Easter  to  Pentecost  let  dinner  be 
served  to  the  brothers  every  day  except  on  Ro¬ 
gation-days  ;  after  Pentecost  let  them  fast  an 
entire  week ;  thence  till  the  1st  of  August  let 
all,  except  those  who  are  suffering  from  illness, 
fast  three  days  a  week,  second,  fourth,  and 
sixth  days.  In  August  because  the  MSsa  Sanc¬ 
torum  is  daily  celebrated,  let  them  eat  their 
dinner ;  through  the  whole  of  September,  Octo¬ 
ber,  and  November,  fast  three  days  a  week,  and 
in  Decembe.'  every  day  till  the  Nativity.  And 
because  between  the  Nativity  and  the  Epiphany 
all  days  are  festivals,  with  the  exception  of  the 


three  when  private  litanies  are  to  be  said,  they 
shall  eat  their  dinner  ;  and  from  Epiphany  to 
Lent  fast  three  days  a  week.” 

4.  Special  fasting  was  occasionally  ordered  or 
advi.sed  in  a  diocese  by  the  bishop,  as  Tertullian 
{de  Jejun.  c.  13),  after  he  became  a  Montanist 
unwillingly  bears  witness.  It  was  also  one  of 
the  means  used  for  preparing  for  the  reception 
of  a  sacred  ordinance.  Fasting  before  Holy  (lom- 
munion,  if  not  invariable,  had  become  a  common 
practice  in  the  4th  century  [Communion].  Fast¬ 
ing  before  baptism  can  be  traced  to  a  much 
earlier  date.  Justin  Martyr  {Apolog.  i.  61) 
mentions  among  the  customs  of  the  Christian 
church  that  candidates  “are  taught  to  pray 
fasting,  we  fasting  and  jn-aying  with  them.”  Ter¬ 
tullian  {dp  Bapjt.  c.  20)  exhorts  those  who  are 
about  to  receive  baptism  to  pray  with  frequent 
prayers  and  fastings.  And  the  fourth  council  of 
Carthage,  A.D.  398  (c.  85),  appoints  abstinence 
from  wine  and  meat  among  the  preparations  for 
baptism  {Apost.  Constt.  vii.  22).  The  only 
authority  which  Martene  {de  Hit.  viii.  4)  dis¬ 
covers  for  the  practice  of  fasting  before  ordination 
is  from  Leo,  who  {Ep.  ad  Diosc.')  with  reference 
to  ordinations  taking  place  on  Sundavg  sjieaks  of 
the  Saturday’s  fast  continuing  both  for  candidates 
and  bishop  till  the  ordination  was  over.  No 
notice  of  fasting  before  confirmation  is  to  be 
found  before  the  13th  century  (Martene  de  Lit. 
iv.  1). 

5.  Penitential  Fasting. — For  the  first  500 
years  fasting  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
imposed  as  a  special  penance,  or  to  have  taken 
place  of  other  penitential  exercises;  but  in  all 
ages,  so  long  as  penitential  discipline  was  in 
force,  a  penitent  was  required  to  abstain  from 
delicacies  of  food  as  from  all  other  bodily  grati¬ 
fications  during  his  period  of  punishment.  Ter¬ 
tullian  {de  Penit.  c.  9)  defines  a  true  exomologesis 
to  consist,  among  other  duties,  in  “  the  use  of 
simple  things  for  meat  and  drink,  and  in  cherish¬ 
ing  i)rayer  by  Lists.”  Pacian  {Paraen.  ad  Penit. 
c.  19)  makes  his  penitent,  when  invited  to  a 
feast,  reply,  “These  things  belong  to  the  happy, 
but  as  for  me  I  have  sinned  against  the  Lord.” 
In  the  6th  century  fasting  began  to  be  inflicted 
as  a  special  and  separate  mode  of  penance.  One 
of  the  canons  of  the  council  of  Agde,  a.d.  506 
(c.  60),  appoints  to  those  who  lapse  into  heresy, 
in  place  of  the  longer  term  of  penitence  allotted 
by  the  early  church,  a  fast  of  two  years,  to  be 
kept  on  the  third  day  of  the  week  without  any 
break  ;  if  at  least  that  is  the  meaning  of  the 
rather  ob.scure  language  of  the  canon  (ut  biennio 
tertio  sine  relaxatione  jejunent).  The  jienance 
of  fasting  is  found  in  the  early  British  penitential 
canons  attributed  to  Gildas  ;  and  in  the  Peni¬ 
tential  of  Theodore  sentences  of  a  fist  of  so  many 
davs  or  weeks,  or  even  years,  are  verv  common 
{Penitential  1.  viii.  3, 4,  8,  9  ;  xii.  8  ;  xiv.  9), 
and  no  less  so  in  the  Penitential  of  Bede  (iii.  5; 
vii.  11),  and  in  that  of  Egbert  (iv.  6;  v.  3  ;  xiii. 
4).  The  crimes  for  which  these  sentences  were 
inflicted  in  these  early  English  penitential  books 
are  such  as  could  exist  only  among  a  jieojde  just 
emerging  from  heathenism.  In  the  Penitential 
of  Theodoi-e  (II.  xiv.  i.)  is  found  the  first  notice 
of  the  appointment  of  three  regular  fasts  of  forty 
days  in  the  year  (tria  legitima  quadragesima), 
forty  days  before  Easter,  forty  days  before  the 
Nativity,  and  forty  davs  after  Pentecost.  The 

W  7  vT  • 


FASTING 


FASTING 


C63 


Rule  of  Chrodegang  (c.  32)  with  reference  to  the 
same  observance,  orders  confessions  to  be  made 
at  each  of  these  three  annual  quadragesimal  fasts. 
And  the  Capitularies  of  Charles  the  Great  (vi. 
184-)  repeat  in  identical  v^ords  the  injunction  of 
Theodore  on  the  three  quadragesimal  fasts,  and 
add  that  “although  some  of  them  lack  canonical 
authority,  yet  it  is  well  for  all  of  us  together  to 
observe  this  custom  in  accordance  with  the 
practice  of  the  people  and  of  our  forefathers.” 
These  fasts  were  probably  first  a])pointed  as 
a])propriate  penitential  seasons  for  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  long  periods  of  penance ;  afterwards,  as 
may  be  inferred  from  the  canon  in  the  Capitu¬ 
laries,  they  came  into  partial  use  with  the  ])eople 
at  large.  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  existed 
earlier  than  the  7th  century,  for  the  councils 
prior  to  Theodore  which  are  strict  in  ordering 
the  people  to  keep  Lent  (e.g.  Cone.  A()ath.  c.  12 ; 
4  Cone.  Aurelian.  c.  2),  contain  no  hint  of  there 
being  move  than  one  such  season  in  the  year  ; 
and  the  canon  of  the  second  council  of  Tours 
which  enumerates  the  fasts  of  the  monks,  and 
ap})roaches  nearer  the  time  of  Theodore,  evidently 
recognises  no  Pentecostal  Quadragesima,  for  it 
orders  monks,  whose  self-denial  would  be  more 
severe  than  that  of  the  rest  of  the  church,  to  fast 
only  three  days  a  week  from  Pentecost  till 
August.  Hence  it  is  probalrle  that  Theodore 
introduced  these  as  penitential  fasts  into  the 
Western  church  from  the  Last,  for  in  the  Greek 
Penitential  of  Joannes  Jejunator  two  fasts  of 
forty  days  in  addition  to  Lent  are  imposed  upon 
penitents,  the  former  of  which  was  called  the 
Quadragesima  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and  the 
latter  the  Quadragesima  of  St.  Philip.  One  of 
the  councils  of  the  Carlovingian  kings,  about 
A.n.  821  (Gone,  apud  villam  Theodonis  cc.  2-5) 
held  for  the  purpose  of  devising  means  for  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  the  clergy,  inflicts  five  quadragesimal 
fasts  on  any  one  slandering  or  wounding  a  sub¬ 
deacon,  six  on  the  slanderer  of  a  deacon,  twelve 
of  a  priest,  and  a  lifelong  fiist  on  the  slanderer  of 
a  bishop.  Even  after  absolution,  a  penitent  was 
sometimes  ordered  to  fast  one  day  a  week  for  the 
remainder  of  his  life — a  sentence  opposed  to  the 
earlier  practice,  by  which  admission  to  commu¬ 
nion  was  a  sign  of  the  forgiveness  of  all  past 
ollences. 

The  penitential  fasts  were  observed  with 
various  degrees  of  severity.  In  the  East  the 
Penitential  of  Joannes  Jejunator  allows  })enitents 
on  the  second,  fourth,  and  sixth  days  of  the  week 
to  eat  oil  and  beans  with  oil,  but  orders  them  to 
abstain  from  cheese,  eggs,  flesh,  and  fish  ;  on  the 
third  and  fifth  days  eat  ev^erything  freely  except 
flesh ;  and  on  the  first  and  seventh  days  use 
wine  and  flesh  as  if  under  no  punishment.  In 
the  Anglo-Saxon  church  Egbert  (^Pen  tential  iv. 
15)  directs  penitents  to  fast  three  days  each 
week,  without  specifying  the  days,  from  wine, 
mead  (medo),  and  flesh,  till  the  evening,  and  eat 
only  dry  food  ;  and  also  keep  three  quadragesimal 
fasts  in  the  year  on  dry  food,  two  days  a  week 
till  the  evening,  and  three  days  till  three 
o’clock.  Burchard  {Decret.  xix.  9,  10)  referring 
to  this  direction  from  the  Penitential,  states  the 
following  to  have  been  the  manner  in  which  a 
fast  of  two  years  on  bread  ana,  water  was  kept. 
“For  first  year  fast  three  days  in  each  week, 
second,  fourth,  and  sixth,  on  bread  and  water  ; 
and  three  days,  third,  fifth,  and  seventh,  abstain 


f)-om  wine,  mead  (medo),  beer  flavoured  with 
honey  (rnellita  cervisia)  flesh  and  blood,  cheese, 
eggs,  and  rich  fish  of  various  sorts,  and  eat  only- 
small  fish  if  they  are  to  be  got,  but  if  not,  fish 
of  one  kind  only,  and  beans,  and  herbs,  and 
apples,  and  drink  beer.”  This  list  makes  no 
mention  of  Lent,  because  it  is  assumed  to  be 
spent  entirely  on  bread  and  water.  “  The  next 
year  the  penitent  should  fast  two  days,  second 
and  fourth,  till  the  evening,  and  then  refresh 
himself  with  dry  food,  i.e.  bread  and  dry  cooked 
beans,  or  apples,  or  raw  herbs;  let  him  select 
one  of  these  three,  and  drink  beer  sparingly  ;  on 
the  sixth  day  let  him  fast  on  bread  and  water.” 
In  some  cases  no  additional  time  of  abstinence 
was  imposed,  but  only  a  greater  rigour  during 
the  ordinary  ecclesiastical  fasts.  A  very-  old 
sacramentary,  assigned  by  Morinus  to  the  8th  cen¬ 
tury-,  directs  the  actual  incarceration  of  a  penitent 
through  Lent;  “Take  him  in  the  morning  of 
the  first  day-  of  Lent  and  cover  him  with  ashes, 
and  pray  for  him,  and  shut  him  up  till  the 
Thursday  of  Holy  Week  (feria  quinta  in  coena 
Domini),  and  on  the  Thursday  of  Holy-  Week  he 
may-  come  forth  from  the  place  in  which  he  has 
performed  his  penance.”  A  Gothic  codex  from 
the  monastery  of  Kemigius  of  Kheims,  dating 
probably  from  the  next  century,  also  orders 
imprisonment  through  Lent,  but  instead  of  the 
whole  body  of  the  penitent  being  covered  with 
ashes,  directs  that  a  few  should  be  sprinkled  on 
his  head,  and  that  they  should  be  blessed.  This 
severity  was  relaxed  before  the  10th  century-, 
and  penitents  were  assigned  a  parish  or  district 
in  which  to  confine  themselves  through  Lent. 
But  both  incarceration  and  confinement  within 
bounds  were  deviations  from  an  older  practice  of 
shutting  up  a  penitent  in  a  monastery-  (1  Cone. 
Matiscon.  cc.  5,  8). 

6.  Exemptions  from  Fasting. — A  superstitious 
abstinence  from  flesh  and  wine  on  pretence  of 
keeping  a  stricter  fast  was  forbidden.  The 
Ap  jstolical  Canons  (cc.  52,  53)  direct  that  if  any 
of  the  clergy  abstain  from  marriage,  flesh,  or 
wine,  not  for  exercise,  but  abhorrence,  forgetting 
that  God  made  all  things  very  good,  they  shall 
be  deposed  {Cone.  Aneyr.  c.  14;  Cone.  Gangr.  c. 
2).  The  first  council  of  Braga,  a.d.  563  (c.  14), 
orders,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  clergy 
who  have  been  in  the  habit  of  abstaining  from 
meat,  to  eat  x-egetaoies  boiled  with  meat,  ic 
order  to  avoid  the  suspicion  of  being  infected 
with  the  Priscillian  heresy. 

Fasting  was  strictly  forbidden  on  all  Sundavs 
throughout  the  year  in  every  part  of  the  church. 
The  reason  of  this  prohibition  was  that  fasting 
was  held  inconsistent  with  the  observance  of  so 
high  a  festival.  [Lord’s  Dav.] 

The  observ-ance  of  Saturday  was,  as  is  well 
known,  one  of  the  points  in  dispute  between 
the  Eastern  and  Western  churches.  In  the  East 
it  was  always  observed  as  a  festival,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Paschal  Vigil,  the  Great  Sabbath, 
in  which  Christ  lay  in  the  grave,  which  was 
kept  as  a  fast  both  in  East  and  West  {Apost. 
Const t.  ii.  59  ;  v.  15.  20  ;  vii.  23  ;  viii.  33  ;  Cone. 
Laod.  cc.  49,  51 ;  Cone,  in  Trull,  c.  55).  [Sab¬ 
bath.] 

It  was  not  customary  to  fast  on  any-  festivals, 
nor  consequently-  to  hold  festivals  during  seasons 
of  fasting.  The  council  of  Laodicea,  A.D.  320 
(c.  51),  forbids  the  celebration  of  festivals  of 


664 


FASTING 


FASTING 


martyrs  ia  Lent,  but  orders  them  to  be  kept  on 
Saturdays  and  Sundays.  Another  canon  (c,  52) 
forbids  the  celebration  of  marriages  or  birthdays 
in  Lent.  The  Greek  church  lield  no  festival 
through  Lent  excejjt  the  Annunciation,  a  festival 
which  the  tenth  council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  656  (c.  1), 
ordered  to  be  held  eight  days  before  Christmas. 
[Mary  the  Virgin,  Festivals  of.]  The 
church  at  Milan  held  no  missa  sanctorum  what¬ 
ever  throughout  Lent. 

The  non-observance  of  a  fast  was  permitted  in 
the  case  of  weakness  or  sickness  (^Apost.  Can.  68, 
2  Cone.  Turon.  c.  17).  To  these  grounds  of 
excuse  the  eighth  council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  653  (c.  9), 
adds  old  age  or  strong  necessity.  The  council  of 
Eliberis  (c.  23)  had  allowed  the  Spanish  churches 
to  omit  the  monthly  fasts  in  the  sultry  heat  of 
July  and  August. 

7.  jilanner  of  Fasting. —  A  fast  day  in  the  early 
church  was  kept  by  a  literal  abstinence  from 
food  till  the  evening,  and  then  a  simple  meal  was 
eaten.  Ambrose  (de  Elia  et  Jejun.  c.  10)  speaks 
of  the  fast  during  Lent  continuing  through  the 
whole  day ;  and  Chrysostom  (//om.  6  in  Gen. 

р.  60;  Bum.  8  m  Gen.  p.  79)  rebukes  the  folly 
of  those  who  abstain  all  day  from  food  and  do  not 
abstain  from  sin.  There  was  no  restriction  upon 
the  kind  of  food  eaten  at  the  evening  meal, 
provided  only  it  was  partaken  of  sparingly. 
Many,  no  doubt,  refused  meat  or  wine  during 
the  greater  fasts,  and  contented  themselves  with 
bread  and  water,  Xerophagia  (Tertullian  de  Jejun. 

с.  11);  but  that  there  was  no  settled  rule,  and 
that  the  choice  of  diet  was  left  very  much  to 
individual  discretion  is  evident  from  the  account 
given  by  Socrates  (//.  E.  v.  22)  of  the  variety  of 
the  observances  of  the  Western  church  ;  “  some 
abstain  from  every  sort  of  creature  that  has  life  ; 
others  eat  fish  only  of  living  creatures;  others 
eat  birds  as  well  as  fish,  because,  according  to 
the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation,  they  too 
sprung  from  the  Avater;  others  abstain  from 
fruit  coA’ered  with  a  hard  shell,  and  from  eggs ; 
some  eat  dry  bread  only,  others  not  even  that ; 
others  again  when  they  have  fasted  till  three 
o’clock  eat  varieties  of  food.”  The  Greek 
church  kept  Lent  very  strictly,  eating  neither 
fish,  nor  eggs,  nor  milk,  nor  oil  ;  but  on  the 
other  Lists,  except  on  the  fourth  and  sixth  days, 
these  were  allowed.  The  great  Sabbath  fast  of 
the  Paschal  Vigil  was  sustained  not  only  till  the 
evening,  but  till  cockcrowing  on  Easter  morning 
{Apost.  Const.  V.  18).  But  the  other  appointed 
seasons  were  kept  ivith  less  rigour  than  that  of 
Lent,  and  the  fast,  instead  of  continuing  till  the 
evening  meal,  was  broken  at  the  ninth  hour 
(three  o’clock),  the  hour  on  which  our  Lord 
expired  on  the  cross.  This  was  the  hour  at 
which  the  fast  of  the  Stations  ceased  (Epiphanius 
Expos.  Fid.  c.  22).  And  the  English  council  of 
CloA'esho,  A.D.  747  (c.  16),  orders  the  Rogations 
to  be  kept  till  three  o’clock.  The  food  which 
was  thus  saved  by  abridging  the  number  of 
meals  it  was  considered  a  pious  act  to  bestow 
upon  the  poor  (Origen,  Horn.  10.  in  Levit.  ;  Leo, 
Serm.  3  de  Jejun.  Pentecost. ;  Chrysol.  Senn. 
8  de  Jejun.j.  Another  practice  mentioned  by 
Tertullian  (de  Oral.  c.  18)  was  refraining  from 
the  kiss  of  peace  while  a  fast  lasted.  A  change 
of  dress  during  fasting  was  confined  chiefly  to 
penitents  [Penitence],  although  Tertuilian 
(Apolog.  c.  40),  if  his  language  is  not  merely 


rhetorical,  speaks  of  pious  Christians  in  contrast 
with  heathen  self-indulgence,  “  being  dried  up 
with  fasting  and  prostrating  themselves  in  .sack¬ 
cloth  and  ashes.”  And  at  a  much  later  date  the 
council  of  Mayence,  a<:d.  813  (c.  33),  ordei-s  the 
greater  Litany  to  be  observed  for  three  days  by 
all  Christians,  “  not  riding  nor  clothed  in  rich 
garments,  but  barefoot  and  clothed  in  sackcloth 
and  ashes.”  [G.  M.] 

8.  Fast  after  Communion. — St.  Chrysostom, 
on  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthian.s,  s])eaks 
as  follows :  “  Before  receiving  thou  fastest,  that 
thou  mayest  by  any  means  appear  worthy  oi 
the  communion.  But  when  thou  hast  received, 
it  being  thy  duty  to  persevere  in  self-control, 
thou  undoest  all.  Not  that  .sobriety  before  this 
and  afterwards  are  of  equal  importance.  For  it 
is  our  duty,  indeed,  to  exercise  self-control  at 
both  times,  but  especially  after  receiving  the 
Bridegroom  ;  before  this  indeed  that  thou  mayest 
be  worthy  to  partake  ;  but  afterwards  that  thou 
mayest  not  be  found  unworthy  of  that  of  which 
thou  hast  partaken.  What !  Ought  we  to  fast 
after  partaking?  I  do  not  say  so,  nor  do  I  use 
constraint.  For  indeed  this  also  is  good,  but  I 
am  not  enforcing  it,  only  advising  you  not  to  be 
self-indulgent  to  excess  ”  (//om.  xxvii.  ad  c.  xi. 
V.  27.)  \Ve  should  infer  from  this  passage  that 
the  hearers  of  St.*  Chrysostom  neither  had  them¬ 
selves,  nor  knew  of,  any  custom  of  abstaining 
from  ordinary  food,  for  however  short  a  time, 
after  receiving  the  Holy  Communion.  Nor  have 
we  any  evidence  that  his  advice  led  to  the  for¬ 
mation  of  such  a  habit  in  the  members  of  the 
Greek  or  Oriental  churches.  In  the  West,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  meet  with  occasional  notices 
of  the  practice  from  the  6th  century  downwards  ; 
and  it  is  probable  that  it  survived,  as  the  pious 
custom  of  a  few,  to  the  14th,  or  even  later.  A 
canon  of  the  council  of  Macon  held  in  585  con¬ 
tains  the  earliest  reference,  if  the  writer  mistake 
not,  to  this  post-communion  fast.  We  give  the 
decree  in  full :  “  Whatever  relics  of  the  sacrifices 
shall  be  left  over  in  the  sacrarium  after  the 
mass  is  finished,  let  innocent  children  be  brought 
to  the  church  on  Wednesday  or  Friday  by  him 
who.se  business  it  is,  and,  let  them,  being  enjoined 
a  fast,  receive  the  said  relics  sprinkled  with 
wine  ”  (Can.  6 ;  Labb.  Co7ic.  tom.  v.  col.  982). 
Among  the  Forged  Decretals  is  an  epistle  pur¬ 
porting  to  be  written  by  Clement  of  Rome  to 
St.  James  the  Lord’s  brother.  The  greater  jiart 
of  this  epistle  appears  to  have  been  composed  in 
the  8th  century,  and  in  that  earlier  portion  we 
find  a  direction  to  this  effect,  viz.  that  the  re¬ 
mainder  of  the  consecrated  elements  is  not  to 
be  kept  till  the  morning,  but  is  by  the  care  of 
the  clerks  to  be  consumed  with  fear  and  trem¬ 
bling.  But  they  who  consume  the  remainder  of 
the  Lord’s  body,  which  has  been  left  in  the 
sacrarium,  are  not  to  assemble  forthwith  to 
partake  of  common  food,  nor  to  presume  to  mix 
food  with  the  holy  portion  ....  If  therefore 
the  Lord’s  portion  be  given  to  them  at  an  early 
hour,  let  the  ministers  who  have  consumed  it  fast 
till  the  sixth;  and  if  they  hax'e  received  it  at 
the  third  or  the  fourth,  let  them  fast  till  even¬ 
ing  ”  (I’l-aecepta  S.  Petri,  inter  0pp.  S.  Leoni.s,  ed. 
Bailer,  tom.  iii.  p.  674).  There  is  a  law  of 
Charlemagne,  A.D.  809,  Avith  this  heading, 
“Touchinsr  those  who  have  communicated,  that 
they  Avait  three  hours,  on  account  of  the  mixing 


FATHER 


FEBRONIA 


665 


of  the  food.”  The  decree  itself  says  “  two  or 
three  hours  (^Capitularia  Jx’egum  Franconum, 
tom.  i.  col.  1213.  Similarly  col.  1224).  Regino 
(Z)e  Feel.  Diseipl.  lib.  1.  c.  cxcv.)  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  10th  century,  and  Gratian  {Deer.  P. 
iii.  Dist.  ii.  c.  xxiii.)  in  the  12th  give  the  passage 
from  pseudo-Clement  as  above  quoted.  It  was 
therefore  well  known  during  the  latter  pai’t  of  | 
the  Middle  Ages.  In  the  loth  centuiy  we  find 
it  cited  from  Gratian  by  Thomas  Aquinas,  who 
acknowledges  the  principle,  while  he  declares  the 
rule  obsolete  {Sumrna  2'heol.  P.  iii.  Qu.  Ixxx.  Art. 
viii.  ad  6m).  There  is,  however,  as  we  have  already 
intimated,  some  reason  to  think  that  the  practice 
which  Aquinas  evidently  considered  altogether 
gone  by  was  yet  observed  by  some  long  after  his 
time.  In  England  John  de  Burgo,  a.d.  1385, 
refers  to  our  subject  in  this  manner :  “  After 
taking  the  eucharist  it  is  meet  for  reverence 
thereof  to  abstain  for  some  time  from  food,  but 
not  very  long.  For  preparation  by  abstinence 
and  devotion  is  more  required  before  receiving 
the  eucharist  than  after.  For  the  sacrament  has 
its  etlect  at  the  reception  itself,  and  therefore 
actual  devotion  is  required  then ;  but  after  the 
reception  habitual  devotion  suffices”  {Pupilla 
Oeuli,  P.  iv.  c.  viii.  ad  lit.  H.).  It  is  also  thus 
mentioned  by  Duranti,  who  was  murdered  by 
the  partisans  of  the  League  in  1589,  “  Not  only 
ought  men  to  be  fasting  when  about  to  sacrifice 
and  communicate,  but  they  ought  also  in  honour 
of  the  sacrament  to  abstain  from  all  food  some 
time  after  ”  {De  Fit.  Feel.  L.  ii.  c.  vii.  §  6.) 

[W.  E.  S.] 

FATHER  {Pater).  1.  A  name  rhetorically 
given  to  the  priests  of  any  religion  (Arnobius, 
Adv.  Gent.  lib.  4,  c.  19). 

2.  Commonly  applied  to  Christian  bishops. 
Epiphanius  {Haeres.  Adv.  Aerian.  n.  4)  says  that 
the  reason  of  the  title  is  that  by  their  right  of 
ordaining  they  beget  fathers  to  the  church. 
Jerome  {Fp.  52,  ad  Theoph.  ed.  Migne)  says  that 
bishops  are  content  with  their  own  honour,  for 
they  know  that  they  are  fathers  and  not  lords. 
Augustine  {Comm,  in  Ps.  44)  says  that  the 
church  itself  calls  them  fathers.  Chrysostom 
{Horn.  3,  ad  Pop.  Antioeh.)  speaks  of  looking  to 
the  bishop’s  throne  and  not  seeing  the  father 
upon  it.  The  decrees  of  the  council  of  Nice  are 
usually  cited  as  those  of  the  318  fathers  (/.  Cone. 
Fie.  Proem. ;  1.  Cone.  Constantin,  c.  1). 

3.  To  a  godfather.  In  the  life  of  Epiphanius 
it  is  said  that  one  Lucian  became  his  fiither  in 
holy  baptism  {Epiph.  Vita,  n.  8).  So  Ruffinus 
{in  Micron.  Inveet.  c.  1)  says  that  the  same 
person  was  his  instructor  in  the  creed  and  his 
father. 

4.  It  is  said  that  Charles  Martel  sent  his  son 
Pepin  to  Luitprand,  king  of  the  Lombards,  who 
cut  his  hair  according  to  custom,  “juxta  morem,” 
and  thus  became  his  father,  “  ei  pater  efl'ectus 
est  ”  (Paulus  Diaconus,  Hist.  Longobard.  vi.  53). 

5.  To  the  priest  by  whom  baptism  was  ad¬ 
ministered.  Avitus  of  Vienne  (//om.  de  Fogat.), 
says  that  Mamertus  was  both  his  predecessor 
and  his  spiritual  father  by  baptism,  “spiritalis 
a  baptismo  pater.”  So(Theodori  Cantuar.  Poeni- 
tentiale,  II.  iv.  8)  it  is  stated  that  one  father  is 
sufficient  to  administer  baptism,  “  in  catechumeno 
et  confirmatione  et  baptismo  unus  potest  esse 
pater.” 


6.  To  a  confessor.  One  of  the  Benedictine 
rules  provided  that  no  monk  should  become  a 
spiritual  father  without  the  consent  of  the 
abbot  {Feg.  Tarnat.  a.d.  circa  570;  Migne’s 
Patrol,  t.  66,  coll.  977). 

7.  The  title  “father  of  fathers  ” -was  some¬ 
times  assigned  to  eminent  bishops.  In  one  place 
it  is  given  to  the  apostle  Paul  {Quaest.  ad  Ortho¬ 
dox.  c.  119,  apud  Justin  Mart.  0pp.).  Athana¬ 
sius  {ad  Solitar.  Vit.  Agent,  c.  1)  speaks  of 
Hosius  as  being  by  universal  consent  called  the 
father  of  bishops.  Gregory  Nazianzen  {0}'at.  19  ; 
De  Funeb.  Patr.  §  44)  says  that  his  father  was 
called  the  father  of  all  the  bishops  {apxiepeas). 
Gregory  the  Great  {Epist.  vi.)  addresses  Lupus 
of  Troyes,  as  “  father  of  fathers,  bishop  of 
bishops.”  In  a  letter  from  the  African  bishops 
which  was  read  at  the  1st  Lateran  council,  at 
the  close  of  the  epistle,  Theodore,  bishop  of  Rome, 
is  styled  “father  of  fathers.”  In  a  letter  read 
at  the  6th  council  of  Constantinople  (Act  13), 
Sergius  is  addressed  in  the  same  manner.  At  the 
2nd  council  of  Nice,  A.D.  787  (Act  6),  Gregory 
Nyssen  is  said  to  have  been  called  “  father  of 
fathers  ”  by  universal  consent. 

8.  The  head  of  a  monastery  was  naturally 

called  Pater  by  Latins,  as  Abbas  by  Orientals ; 
thus  Augustine  {De  Mor.  Feel.  Cath.  i.  31) 
speaks  of  the  respect  to  be  paid  by  the  Decani  to 
the  one  “  quern  Patrem  appellant ;”  and  Gregory 
the  Great  {Dial.  i.  1  ;  cf.  ii.  3  ;  iii.  23)  speaks 
of  one  who  was  “  Pater  ”  in  a  monastery  over 
200  monks.  [P.  0.] 

FAUSTA.  [Evilasius.] 

FAUSTINUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Brescia  ;  com¬ 
memorated  with  Jovita,  vii'gin,  Feb.  15  {Mart. 
Usuardi),  Feb.  16  {Mart.  Hieron.). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  Simplicius,  his 
brother,  and  Beatrix,  his  sister,  in  the  time  of 
Diocletian  ;  commemorated  July  29  {Mart. 
Fom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal. 
AUatii  et  Frontonis). 

(3)  Martyr  at  Milan  in  the  time  of  Aurelius 

Commodus;  commemorated  Aug.  7  {Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

FAUSTUS.  (1)  [Felix  (5).] 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  Bonus  the  pres¬ 
byter,  Maurus,  and  seven  others  ;  commemorated 
Aug.  1  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Holy  Father,  A.D.  368  ;  commemorated 
Aug.  3  {Cal.  Bgzant.). 

(4)  Martyr  at  Milan;  commemorated  Aug.  7 
{Mart.  Fom.  Vet.). 

(5)  Saint,  at  Antioch;  commemorated  with 
Timotheus,  Sept.  8  {Mart.  Usuardi,  Hieron.). 

(6)  Martyr  at  Cordova  with  Januarius  and 
Martialis ;  commemorated  Sept.  28  {Mart.  Fom. 
Vet.,  Adonis)  ;  “Passio  ”  Oct.  13  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(7)  Deacon  and  martyr ;  commemorated  Nov. 
19  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi) ;  with  Eusebius 
{Mart.  Fom.  Vet.). 

(8)  [Dius  (2).]  [W.  F.  G.] 

FEASTS  OF  CHARITY.  [Agapae.] 

FEBRONIA.  (1)  With  Marina,  virgins  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Sept.  24  {Cal.  Armen.). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Nisibis,  a.d.  286;  commemorated 
June  25  {Cal.  Bgzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 


FELIX 


660  FEET,  WASHING  OP 

FEET,  WASHING  OF.  [Baptism,  §§  34, 
67;  Maundy  Thuksuay,] 

FEILIKE,  THE,  of  Aengus  the  Culdee. 
Tlie  word  I'eilire,  derived  from  “  feil  ”  the  Irish 
equivalent  of  vigilia,  is  applied  to  the  metrical 
festology  composed  by  Aengus  the  Culdee  about 
the  year  780.  It  is  the  most  ancient  of  five 
martyrologies  belonging  to  Ireland.  The  others 
are  (1.)  The  -martyrology  ofTamhlacht,  which 
must  have  been  written  after  845.  (2.)  That  of 

Maelmuire  ua  Gorman,  dating  from  between 
1156-1173.  (3.)  The  Saltair  na  Rann,  which, 

however,  contains  only  four  Gaelic  entries  ;  and 
(4.)  The  Kalendar  of  the  Drummond  Missal, 
published  in  Bishop  Forbes’  Kalendars  of  the 
Scottish  saints. 

Of  the  personal  history  of  Aengus  we  know 
that  he  was  educated  in  Cluain  Ednach  in 
Queen’s  County,  and  travelling  into  Munster 
founded  Disert  Aengusa  in  co.  Limerick.  At  the 
time  of  the  expedition  of  king  Aedh  Oirdnidhe 
against  Leinster  in  799  he  was  residing  at  Dis¬ 
ert  Bethec  near  Monasterevin.  Latterly  he  went 
to  abbot  Maelruain  at  Tamhlacht,  when  he  from 
humility  concealed  his  gifts,  and  passing  himself 
as  a  serving  man  was  entrusted  with  the  charge  of 
the  mill  and  kiln,  till  at  last  his  learning  was 
discovered  by  accident. 

The  Feilire  consists  of  three  parts.  1.  Five 
quatrains  invoking  a  blessing  on  the  poet  and 
his  work.  2.  A  preface  of  220  quatrains ;  and 
3,  The  festology  itself  in  365  quatrains  for 
every  day  in  the  year  (O’Curry,  Earlu  EccL 
MSS.  of  Ireland.,  pp.  359-371.  [A.  P.  F.] 

FELICIANUS.  (1)  Martp-  at  Rome  with 
Fortunatus,  Firmus,  andCandidus;  commemor¬ 
ated  Feb.  2  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  Primus  under  Dio¬ 
cletian  and  Maximian ;  commemorated  June  9 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal. 
Allatii  et  Frontonis,  Sacramentarium  Gregorii). 

(3)  [Victor  (10).] 

(4)  Martyr  in  Lucania  with  Jacinctus,  Qui- 
ritus,  and  Lucius ;  commemorated  Oct.  29  {Mart. 
Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(6)  [Exsuperius  (3).]  [W.  F.  G.] 

FELICISSIMA,  virgin,  martyr  at  Falari 
with  Gracilianus;  “  Passio  ”  Aug.  12  {Mart. 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FELICISSIMUS.  (1)  [Heraclius  (3).] 

(2)  [Felix  (14).] 

(3)  [Sixtus  (2).] 

(4)  Martyr  in  Africa,  with  Rogatianus,  the 
presbyter,  under  Decius  and  Valerian;  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  26  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usu¬ 
ardi). 

(5)  Saint,  of  Perugia  in  Tuscany ;  “Natalis” 
Nov.  24  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FELICITAS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Tuburbo  (at 
Carthage,  Bede')  with  Perpetua,  Revocatus,  Sa- 
turninus,  and  Secundolus,  under  Severus ;  com¬ 
memorated  March  7  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron., 
Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Bucher.). 

(2)  Martyr  under  Antoninus ;  commemorated 
Nov.  23  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FELICULA.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome  with 


Vitalis  and  Zeno;  commemorated  Feb.  14  {Mart 
Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usu.ardi). 

(2)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Rome;  commemorated 
June  13  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usu¬ 
ardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FELIX.  (1)  Saint,  at  Hei-aclea  ;  comme¬ 
morated  with  Januarius,  Jan.  7  {Mart.  Hieron., 
Usuardi). 

(2)  Presbyter,  confessor  at  Nola  in  Campania  ; 
commemorated  Jan.  \\{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron., 
Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Carth.). 

(3)  [Dativus  (1).] 

(4)  [Hilary  (2).] 

(6)  Martyr  at  Caesaraugusta  with  seventeen 
others:  Apodemu.s,  Cassianus,  Cecilianus,  Evotus, 
Faustus,  Fronto,  Januarius,  Julitis,  Lupercus, 
Matutinus,  Martialis,  Optatus,  Primitivus,  Pub¬ 
lius,  Quintilianus,  Sucoessus,  Urbanus;  comme¬ 
morated  April  16  {Mart.  Usuardi),  April  15 
{Mart.  Adonis). 

(6)  Saint,  of  Alexandria;  commemorated  with 
Arator,  presbyter,  Fortunus,  Silvius,  and  Vita¬ 
lis,  April  21  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(7)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Valence  in  France 
with  Fortunatus  and  Achilleus,  deacons;  com¬ 
memorated  April  23  {  fb.). 

(8)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Spoletum  under  Maxi¬ 
mian  ;  commemorated  May  18  {MaH.  Usuardi). 

(9)  Martyr  in  Istria  with  Zoellius,  Serviliu.s, 
Silvanus,  and  Diodes ;  commemorated  May  24 
(76.). 

(10)  Saint,  in  Sardinia ;  commemorated  with 
Aemilius,  Priamus,  Lucianus,  May  28  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  U.suardi). 

(11)  The  pope,  martyr  at  Rome  under  the 
emperor  Claudius;  commemorated  May  30  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(12)  Martyr  in  Aquileia  with  Fortunatus 
under  Diocletian  and  Maximian;  “  Passio  ”  June 
11  {lb.). 

(13)  Presbyter,  martyr  in  Tuscany;  comme¬ 
morated  June  23  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(14)  Martyr  in  Campania  with  Aristo,  Cre- 
scentianus,  Eutychianus,  Felicissimus,  Justus, 
Martia,  Symphorosa,  Urbanus,  and  \italis;  com¬ 
memorated  July  2  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(15)  Son  of  Felicitas  (2),  martyr  in  the  time 
of  Antoninus ;  commemorated  with  his  six  bro¬ 
thers,  Alexander,  Januarius,  Martialis,  Philip, 
Silvanus,  Vitalis,  July  10  {Mart.  Rom.  \et., 
Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(16)  Martvr  in  Africa ;  commemorated  with 
Januarius,  Marinus,  and  Nabor,  July  10  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(17)  [SCILLITA.] 

(18)  The  pope,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Con¬ 
stantins  Augustus ;  commemorated  July  29 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Usuardi);  “Passio” 
Nov.  10;  deposition  Nov.  17  {Mart.  Adonis). 

(19)  Martyr  at  Gerona  in  Spain;  commemo¬ 
rated  Aug.  1  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(20)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  Aprilis,  Martialis, 
Saturninus,  and  their  companions;  commemo¬ 
rated  Aug.  22  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(21)  [Georgius  (4).] 


FEMORALIA 


FERIA 


667 


(22)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Rome  with  Adauctus 
under  Diocletian  and  Maximian  ;  commemorated 
Aug.  30  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usu- 
ardi,  Cal.  Allatii  et  Ft  ontonis). 

(23)  Bishop  ofTubzoca,  martyr  at  Venixsia  in 
Apulia  in  the  time  of  Diocletian,  with  Audactus 
and  Janxxarius,  presbyters,  Fortunatianus  and 
Septiminus,  readers  ;  commemorated  Aug.  30 
(Mart.  Bedae),  Oct.  24  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
IJsuardi). 

(24)  Bishop,  martyr  in  Africa  with  Neme- 
sianus  and  Lucius,  bishops ;  also  with  Dativus, 
Felix,  Jader,  Litteus,  Polianus,  and  Victor,  under 
Decius  and  Valerian ;  commemorated  Sept.  10 
(Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(25)  [Felix  (24).] 

(26)  Martyr  at  Nuceria  with  Constantia,  under 
Nero ;  commemorated  Sept.  19  (Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(27)  Martyr  at  Autun,  with  Andochius,  pres¬ 
byter,  and  Tyrsus,  deacon,  under  the  emperor 
Aurelian  ;  commemorated  Sept,  ?4  (Mart.  Bedae, 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(28)  Bishop,  martyr  in  Africa  with  Cyprian 
and  4976  others,  under  Hunnericus ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Oct.  12  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usu- 
ai’di). 

(29)  [Eusebius  (8).] 

(30)  Martyr  at  Toniza  in  Africa ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Nov.  6  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(31)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Nola  in  Campania  with 

thirty  others;  commemorated  Nov.  15  (Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

FEMORALIA  or  FEMINALIA.  These 
are  drawers  or  breeches  covering  the  thighs  and 
loins,  as  the  derivation  implies.  (See  Isidore 
Hispal.  Etym.  xix.  22.)  They  were  an  essential 
part  of  the  dress  of  the  Levitical  priesthood 
(Ex.  xxviii.  42,  43),  and  as  such  are  often  re- 
feri’ed  to  by  the  fathei’s  (see  e.  g.  Jerome,  Epist. 
64,  ad  Fahiolam;  i.  360,  ed.  Vallarsi),  many  of 
whom  are  delighted  to  find  a  symbolical  meaning 
in  this  as  in  other  vestments. 

The  injunction  as  to  the  wearing  of  breeches 
during  divine  service  is  repeated  in  sundry 
monastic  rules.  Thus  the  Buie  of  Fructuosus, 
bishop  of  Bracara,  when  settling  the  dress  to 
be  worn  by  monks,  permits  the  use  of  femoralia 
to  all,  but  “  maxime  his  qui  ministerio  impli- 
cantur  altaris”  (Uegula  S.  Fructuosi,  c.  45:  in 
Holstenius,  Codex  Regularum,  part  2,  p.  139,  ed. 
Pari.s,  1663;  cf.  Grimlaici  Solitariorum  Begula, 
c.  49;  op.  cit.  p.  341).  For  general  rules  as  to 
this  and  other  articles  of  monastic  dress  see 
Magistri  Begula,  c.  81  (op.  cit.  p.  257).  The 
Rule  of  St.  Benedict  enjoins  that  monks  who 
were  going  on  a  journey  should  borrow  femoralia 
from  the  Vestiarium,  and  on  their  return  should 
restore  them  thither  wa.shed : — “  femoralia,  ii 
qui  diriguntur  in  via,  de  Vestiario  accipiant,  qui 
revertentes  lota  ibi  restituant”  (c.  55  ;  p.  117,  ed. 
Venice,  1723).  For  further  references,  see  Du- 
cange’s  Glossarium,  s.  vv.,  and  Menard’s  note  to 
the  Concordia  Regularum  (Patrol,  ciii.  1235). 

[R.  S.] 

FENCING-MASTERS.  [Gladiators;  La- 

NISTAE.] 


FERETRUM,  a  bier  on  which  the  corpse, 
after  washing,  was  placed  and  carried  to  burial 
[Burial  of  the  Dead].  It  was  as  a  rule  made 
of  wood,  in  which  Ambrose  (in  Luc.  vii.  14)  sees 
a  mystical  allusion  to  the  resurrection,  drawn 
from  the  miracle  at  Nain  (Durant,  de  Bitib.  lib. 
i.  c.  23).  feretrum  of  Constantine  the  Great 
appears  to  have  been  of  gold,  like  his  coffin 
(Euseb.  Vit.  Const,  lib.  iv.  c.  66).  The  bier  was 
covei-ed  with  a  jjall,  more  or  less  costly,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  I’ank  of  the  deceased.  That  of  Con¬ 
stantine  was  of  purple  (a\ovpytKf)  aKoupyidi). 
That  of  Blesilla,  the  daughter  of  Paula,  was  of 
cloth  of  gold,  against  which  Jerome  remonstrated 
vehemently  as  an  unchristian  extravagance 
(Hieron.  Ep.  25).  Constantine’s  bier  was  sur¬ 
rounded  with  a  circle  ot  lights  burning  in  golden 
candlesticks  (Euseb.  n.  s.).  The  bier  was  carried 
to  the  grave  sometimes  by  relations  or  near 
friends,  sometimes  by  officials  designated  to  that 
duty  (Copiatae,  decani,  lecticarii),  and  in  the  case 
of  persons  of  high  dignity  or  sanctity  by  bishops, 
and  nobles,  e.g.,  Basil  by  his  clergy  (Greg.  Mag. 
Orat.  XX.),  his  sister  Macrina  by  Gregory  Nyssen, 
and  other  clergy  (Greg.  Nys.  Vit.  Macr.  tom.  ii. 

р.  201) ;  Paula,  by  the  bishops  of  Palestine, 

“  cervicem  feretro  subiicientibus  ”  (Hieron.  Ep. 
27).  [E.  V.] 

FERIA.  The  proper  sense  of  this  word  is 
that  of  a  holyday,  of  a  festival  viewed  in  the 
aspect  of  a  day  of  freedom  from  worldly  business. 
It  is  in  this  meaning  that  we  find  the  word  in 
classical  Latin,  though  here  it  occurs  exclusively 
in  the  plural.  Besides  this,  however,  the  xvoid 
has  been  used  in  a  special  sense  in  the  Christian 
church  from  very  early  times  to  denote  the  days 
of  the  week,  feria  secunda,  tertia,  &c.,  for  Mon¬ 
day,  Tuesday,  &c. 

The  origin  of  this  svstem  of  notation  cannot 
be  stated  with  absolute  certainty.  It  is  explained 
by  Ducange  (Glossarium,  s.  v.)  as  arising  from 
the  fact  that  the  week  following  Easter  Dav  was 
appointed  by  the  emperor  Constantine  to  be  ob¬ 
served  as  one  continuous  festival,  and  that  origi¬ 
nally  the  year  began  with  Easter.  Hence  the 
Monday,  Tuesday,  &c.,  of  Easter  Week  would  be 
respectively  secunda  feria,  tertia  feria,  Sio.,  and 
in  this  way,  following  the  example  of  the  first 
week  of  the  year,  the  names  passed  to  all  other 
Mondays,  &c.,  of  the  year.  The  great  objection 
to  this  view,  which  seems  to  have  found  many 
supporters  (see  e.g.  Pelliccia,  De  Christianae  Ec- 
clesiae  politia,  i.  277,  ed.  Colon.  1829),  is  that 
long  before  the  time  of  Constantine  we  find  Ter- 
tullian  speaking  of  Wednesday  and  Friday  as 
quarta  and  sexta  feria  (de  jejunio  adv.  Psychicos, 

с.  2). 

It  seems  more  reasonable  to  explain  the  phrase 
as  being  akin  to  and  probably  derived  from  the 
Jewish  system  of  notation  under  which  such  an 
expression  as  e.g.  f)  pia  tuv  (ra^^arwr  (Mark 
xvi.  2 ;  Acts  xx.  7,  and  often  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment)  means  the  “  first  day  of  the  week.”  This 
extension  of  the  word  Sabbath,  which,  besides  the 
instances  adducible  from  the  New  Testament, 
occurs  also  in  the  Targums(see  e.  g.  Esther  ii.  9), 
is  merely  a  natural  transference  of  a  word  from 
its  primary  meaning  of  the  point  of  time,  as  it 
were,  to  express  the  {)eriods  marked  out  by  such 
points;  and  an  exact  parallel  is  found  in  the 
Hebrew  which  is  primarily  the  new 


6G8 


FEHIALKS 


FERMENT  EM 


nioou,  and  hence  the  month,  or  period  between 
two  new  moons.  The  real  feriu  then  being  Sun¬ 
day,  the  other  days  of  the  week  are  reckoned  as 
in  the  above  instances  with  reference  to  this.  On 
this  view  see  Heinichen  on  Eusebius,  Jfist.  Eccles. 
(vol.  iii.  p.  87).  The  explanation  given  by  Du¬ 
rand  us  (fixation  fie  dicinoruiu  offi,cioram,\\\.  1.  11) 
deserves  to  be  quoted,  though  of  course  not  ad¬ 
missible  as  a  solution — “  vocantur  ergo  feriae  a 
feriando,  (j'Uta  ^o^o  temjtore  a  vitiis  feriari,  id  est 
V  (care,  debeitnis,  non  quod  sit  a  uecessariis  vitae 
operibus  feriandum.” 

With  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  the  name 
SEbattcin  was  so  closeh'  associated  that  it  was 
nearly  always  used  instead  of  septima  feria, 
though  Ducange  (s.  f  )  gives  an  example  of  this 
last  phrase.  In  like  manner,  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  from  its  association  with  the  Resurrection, 
became  “  the  Lord’s  Day  ”  from  apostolic  times, 
and  thus  though  the  phrase  prim  i  feria  does  now 
and  then  occur  (see  e.  g.  in  one  of  the  spurious 
sermons  once  attributed  to  Augustine,  Patrol. 
xxxix.  2005),  Puiiiinica  is  the  regular  word  for 
Sunday  in  ancient  liturgies.  The  days,  however, 
from  Monday  to  Friday  inclusive  are  habitually 
designated  as  secumla  fori  i,  &c.,  of  which  practice 
an  examination  of,  e.  g.,  the  Gregorian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  will  furnish  abundant  examples.  A 
good  illustration,  showing  how  completely  the 
word  feria  had  passed  into  this  now  sense,  is  fur¬ 
nished  by  the  use  of  the  phrase  feriae  legitimae 
in  the  Libri  Poenitentiales  of  Theodore  of  Tarsus 
and  of  Bede,  as  when  for  some  offence  a  special 
fast  is  enjoined  “  praeter  legitimas  ferias  ”  (see 
e.  g.  Patrol,  xcix.  968),  that  is,  in  addition  to 
those  days  of  the  week  which  were  fasts  under 
all  circumstances. 

For  furthei  remarks  on  this  subject  see  Du- 
cauge’s  Glossarium,  (s.  v.),  and  August i’s  Hand- 
buch  der  christlichen  Archdolo^ie,  i.  467  sqq. 

[ll.  S.] 

FERIALES  (i.e.  Libri)  were  books  contain¬ 
ing  a  record  of  the  festivals  of  the  martyrs. 
Thus  Chromatius  and  Heliodorus,  writing  to 
Jerome  (Hieron.  Epist.),  beg  him  to  search  for 
the  Feriales  from  the  archives  of  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea,  as  a  guide  to  the  feast-days  of  the 
martyrs  [Calendar:  Martyrology]  (Ducange, 
s.  T.).  [C.] 

FERMENTUM.  I.  The  earliest  Ordo  Po- 
manus  extant,  which  is  supjiosed  to  represent 
the  ritual  of  Rome  in  the  age  of  Gregory  the 
Great,  a.d.  590,  orders  a  portion  of  reserved 
eucharist  (Sancta)  to  be  brought  into  the  church 
before  the  celebration  by  a  subdeacon,  to  be  de¬ 
livered  bv  him  to  the  archdeacon  after  the  canon, 
and  to  be  ymt  into  the  chalice  by  the  latter, 
saying,  “The  Peace  of  the  Lord  be  with  you 
alway.”  (^Ord.  R.  /.  nn.  8,  17,  18,  in  Mus.  Ital. 
tom.  ii.  pp.  8,  12,  13).  The  bishop  of  Rome  is 
sup))osed  to  be  present,  and  to  celebrate.  The 
particle  thus  used  was  called  Fennentum,  the 
leaven,  n.  22,  p.  16.  If  the  pope  was  not  pre¬ 
sent,  “a  particle  of  the  leaven,  which  had  been 
consecrated  by  the  apostolical,  was  brought  by 
the  oblatiouary  subdeacon,  and  given  to  the  arch¬ 
deacon  ;  but  he  handed  it  to  the  bishop,  who, 
signing  it  thrice,  and  saying,  •  The  Peace,  &c.,’ 
put  it  into  the  chalice.”  The  reason  of  the 
name  Fennentum  is  now  obvious.  Leaven  is 
dough  reserved  from  one  baking  to  be  mixed 


with  that  ])repareJ  for  another,  and  may  be 
said  to  make  the  bread  of  both  one.  The  eucha¬ 
rist  ic  leaven  connected  successive  celebrations 
with  each  other  in  the  same  manner,  and  was 
at  the  same  time  a  token  of  union  between  con¬ 
gregations  locally  separated  from  each  other. 
If  we  may  trust  to  the  Liber  Pontificalis,  the 
custom  of  sending  the  Fermentum  to  the  several 
churches  in  Rome  originated  with  Melchiades. 
A.D.  311.  The  same  authority  tells  us  that 
Siricius,  a.d.  385,  “  ordained  that  no  presbyter 
should  celebrate  masses  through  the  whole 
week  unless  he  received  a  certified  (declaratum), 
consecrated  (portion)  from  the  bishop  of  the 
place  appointed  (for  a  station),  which  is  called 
the  leaven  ”  (Anast.  Biblioth.  de  Vitis  Pont. 
Rom.  nn.  32,  39,  pp.  12,  22).  The  custom  is 
noticed  at  some  length  in  a  letter  ascribed  to 
Innocent  L,  a.d.  402,  but  apparently  composed 
by  a  later  and  inferior  writer.  From  this  docu¬ 
ment  we  learn  that  the  pope  “  sent  the  leaven 
per  titulos,'’  i.  e.  the  churches  within  the  city 
only  (those  without  being  in  the  suburbicarian 
dioceses),  and  that  it  was  done  on  Sundays, 
“  that  the  presbyters  who  on  that  day  could 
not  meet  him  (in  worship)  on  account  of  the 
people  committed  to  them,  might  not,  above  all 
on  that  day,  feel  themselves  cut  off  from  com¬ 
munion  with  him  ”  (Innoc.  Ep.  ad  Decent,  in 
Cigheri,  F.  PP.  Theolog.  Unit',  tom.  iv.  p.  178). 
The  writer  had  been  asked  by  another  bishop, 
if  it  was  proper  to  send  the  Fermentum  about 
through  a  diocese  (f.  e.  beyond  the  walls  of  an 
episcopal  city).  The  question  shows  that  the 
practice  had  spread.  In  the  writings  of  Gregory 
of  Tours,  A.D.  573,  xve  meet  with  a  story  which 
proves  incidentally  that  it  was  not  unknown  in 
France.  We  are  told  of  a  certain  deacon,  in  a 
town  in  Auvergne,  who,  “  when  the  time  to 
offer  the  sacrifice  was  come,  having  taken  the 
tower  in  which  was  kept  the  my.stery  of  the 
Lord’s  Body,  began  to  carry  it  to  the  door  (of 
the  church),  and  entered  the  temple  to  place  it 
on  the  altar,”  «S:c.  (J/fme.  L.  1.  cap.  86). 

Before  the  custom  became  obsolete,  its  observ¬ 
ance  was,  it  appears,  reduced  by  authority  to  a 
few  days  in  the  year.  For  in  an  ancient  gloss 
on  the  letter  a.scribed  to  Innocent,  found  by 
Mabillon  in  the  library  of  St.  Emmeran  at  Ratis- 
bon,  the  following  statement  occurs :  “  Touch¬ 
ing  the  leaven,  which  he  mentions,  it  is  the 
custom  of  the  Romans  that  a  portion  be  re¬ 
served  from  the  mass  which  is  sung  on  Maundy 
Thursday  and  the  Easter-Eve,  and  on  the  holy 
day  of  Easter,  and  at  Pentecost,  and  on  the 
holy  day  of  the  Lord’s  Nativity,  throughout 
the  year ;  and  that  of  the  said  mass  there  be 
put  into  the  chalice,  everywhere  at  the  stations, 
if  the  pope  himself  be  not  present,  when  he 
says.  The  Peace,  &c.  .  .  .  and  this  is  called  Fer¬ 
mentum.  Nevertheless,  on  Easter-Eve,  no  pres¬ 
byter  in  the  baptismal  churches  communicates 
any  one  before  there  be  sent  to  him  of  that  very 
same  holy  thing  which  the  Lord  Pope  hath 
offered  ”  (Mabillon,  Itin.  Geiynan.  Descript.  p. 
65;  Hamb.  1717)..  The  rite  was  observed  at 
Rome  under  the  second  Ordo  Romanus.  now  ex¬ 
tant  (pp.  43,  9),  which  is  probably  at  least  a 
century  later  than  the  first.  Amalarius,  who 
wrote  about  the  year  827,  cites  some  words  that 
relate  to  it  from  Ordo  Tl.  §  12  (ji.  49)  ;  but  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  he  undei’stood  them  of 


669 


FERREOLUS 

the  “  commixture  ”  of  a  particle  of  the  newly- 
consecrated  oblate  (^De  Eccles.  Off.  lib.  iii.  c.  31). 

II.  There  was  another  use  of  the  reserved 
element,  somewhat  similar  to  the  above,  at  the 
ordination  of  bishops  and  priests.  The  earliest 
notice  occui's  in  a  very  ancient  Roman  directory, 
and  refers  (as  indeed  all  the  strictly  Roman 
documents  doj  to  bishops  only.  The  pope  at  the 
communion  which  followed  the  consecration, 
gave  a  whole,  oblate  to  the  newly-made  bishop, 
of  which  he  took  a  part  at  the  time,  but  “  re¬ 
served  the  rest  of  it  to  serve  for  communions  for 
forty  days”  (Ordo  VII I.  p.  89).  The  practice 
may  haA'e  spread  from  Rome,  but  it  was  at  one 
time  so  widely  observed  that  we  are  compelled 
to  assign  its  origin  to  a  very  early  though  not 
primitive  date.  In  the  opinion  of  Morinus  (/><? 
Sacr.  Ordin.  P.  III.  Exerc.  VIII.  c.  ii.  §  iv.),  it 
sprang  up  in  Italy  in  the  8th  century.  Fulbert, 
bishop  of  Chartres,  who  was  born  in  the  10th  cen¬ 
tury,  asserts  that  it  was  observed  by  all  the  bishops 
of  his  })i‘ovince  at  the  ordination  of  presbyters, 
and  he  believed  it  to  be  uirversal  {Ep.  IT.  ad 
Einard.  apud  Martene,  de  J  ,<,t.  Eccl.  Bit.  L.  I. 
c.  viii.  Art.  IX.  n.  xx.).  Rubrics  presciibing  it 
at  the  consecration  of  bishops  are  found  in  old 
pontificals  of  Concha,  in  Spain  (Martene,  u.  s. 
Art.  X.  n.  xxi.);  of  Saltzburg  (/'6'c/.  Art.  XI. 
Ord.  VIII.')  \  of  Toulouse,  Rouen,  Rheims  (Mo¬ 
rinus,  de  Sacr.  Ord.  P.  II.  p.  281  ;  and  B.  III.  p. 
130),  and  the  Latin  church  of  Constantinople 
(Mart.  u.  s.  Ordo  XIV.  note  at  end),  where  the 
term  was  foviy  days  ;  and  of  Mayeneo  (Morinus, 
P.  II.  p.  278),  where  it  was  thirty.  The  pon¬ 
tificals  of  Ccnipibgne  (Mart.  u.  s.  Ord.  F/A)  and 
of  Saltzburg  (Ibid.  Ord.  IX.)  testify  to  the  cus¬ 
tom  at  the  ordination  of  priests,  the  former  fix¬ 
ing  forty  days  for  them,  and  the  latter  only 
.seven.  In  the  pontifical  of  the  Latin  church  of 
Apamea  in  Syria,  the  pope,  who  is  supposed  to 
consecrate,  is  directed  to  give  a  “  whole  Host  ” 
to  the  new  bishop,  but  its  use  is  not  mentioned. 
Afterward  however,  it  is  said  that  “  for  forty 
days  from  tl  e  day  of  his  consecration  he  ought, 
if  possible,  to  sing  mass  daily  for  the  people  com¬ 
mitted  to  him.”  (Mart.  u.  s.  Ord.  XIV.).  This 
evidently  indicates  the  original  purpose,  and 
makes  it  highly  probable  that  wherever  in  the 
west  we  tin  I  an  order  that  the  newly  ordained 
shall  celebrate  for  forty  days  (and  this  W'as  a 
common  rule :  see  Morinus,  P.  III.  Exerc.  VIII. 
c.  ii.  §  vii.  p.  132),  there  had  also  existed  in  con¬ 
nection  with  it  the  custom  of  reserving  for  tho.se 
celebrations  from  the  communion  at  the  ordina¬ 
tion. 

Mabillon  {Co  inn.  in  Ord.  Bom.  p.  xxxix.)  states 
expressly  that  the  particles  of  the  reserved  oblate 
were  put  day  bv  day  into  the  chalice  by  the 
newly-made  bishop  or  priest,  as  in  the  rite  be¬ 
fore  de.scribe  1.  d'his  is  more  than  probable ; 
but  it  is  right  to  mention  that  he  gives  no  refe¬ 
rence,  and  that  no  direct  evidence  of  the  fact 
has  come  within  the  knowledge  of  the  present 
writer.  [VV.  E.  S.] 

FERREOLUS.  (1)  Presbyter,  martyr  at 
Bcsan7on  with  Ferrutio,  the  deacon  ;  comme¬ 
morated  .June  16  {Mart.  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  IMartyr  at  Vienna ;  commemorated  Sept. 
18  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FERRUTIO.  [Fkrreolus.] 


FESTIVA  L 

FERTUM  is  “the  oblation  which  i.s  brought 
to  the  altar,  and  sacrificed  by  the  priest  ”  (Du- 
cange,  s.  v.  quoting  Isidore  and  Papias);  i.  e.  the 
element  of  bread  offered  on  the  altar  and  conse¬ 
crated.  [(j.d 

FERULA.  [Narthex  ;  Pastoral  Stafi  .] 

FESTIVAL  (eopr-lf,  festnm,  dies  festns).  The 
history  of  the  fir.st  ri.se  of  festivals  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  church  is  a  subject  involved  in  much 
obscurity.  During  the  first  few  year.s,  while 
the  essentially  Jewish  character  of  the  church 
continued,  the  Jewish  yearly  festivals  were 
doubtlessly  ob.served,  especially  the  Passover  and 
Pentecost,  which  later  events  had  raised  to  a  far 
higher  pitch  of  dignity.  The  Sabbath  also  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  observed,  and  with  it  the  first  day 
of  each  week  became  a  le.sser  Easter  day. 

As  time  went  on,  the  Jewish  element  in  the 
church  became  proportionately  diminished,  with 
the  breach  between  it  and  the  Gentile  part  con¬ 
tinually  widening.  Indeed  the  tone  of  the 
language  used  by  Christian  writers  in  the  2nd 
century,  Avith  reference  to  the  Jewish  nation,  is 
on  the  Avhole  one  of  undisguised  hostility.  It  is 
obvious  therefore  that  the  tendency  would  be 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  to  reject  such  Jewish 
festivals  as  had  not  in  some  sort  been  made 
Christian,  and  thus,  e.g.,  though  some  have  seen 
in  Christmas  a  higher  form  of  the  feast  of  the 
Dedication,  it  may  be  considered  that  the  inheri¬ 
tance  of  the  younger  from  the  older  church, 
so  far  as  festivals  are  com-erned,  consists  of  the 
ennobled  PassoA'er  and  Pentecost.  The  “  first 
day'  of  the  Aveek  ”  Avas  no  doubt  a  Christian 
festiA’al  from  the  earliest  times.  Up  to  the  end 
of  the  2nd  century,  Ave  have  no  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  any  other  festival  than  these 
three.  Gradually,  hoAvever,  from  a  belief  in  the 
lessons  of  good  deriA'able  from  a  celebration  of 
great  events  in  the  history  of  our  faith,  and 
perhaps  too  from  the  analogy  of  the  numerous 
festiA'als  of  the  older  religions,  fresh  commemora¬ 
tions  arose,  the  earliest  being  that  of  the  Ei)iphany, 
from  Avhich  afterwards  arose  the  celebration 
of  Christmas  as  a  separate  festival.  The  exact 
time  ot  the  first  rise  ot  these,  and  of  the  connec¬ 
tion  betAveen  the  tAvo,  is  uncertain  ;  reference 
may  be  made  to  the  separate  articles.  [Christ¬ 
mas,  Erirhany'.]  The  time,  too,  from  Easter  to 
Pentecost  came  to  be  viewed  as  one  long  festal 
season,  and  in  this  period  a  special  distinction 
began  to  be  attached  to  Ascension-day,  in  the 
3rd  or  more  probably  in  the  4th  century.  To¬ 
gether  Avith  these  festiA'als  and  similar  ones 
Avhich  Avere  gradually  added  {e.g.  those  of  the 
Presentation  and  Annunciation  in  the  6th 
century),  all  commemorative  of  the  great  events 
in  the  foundation  of  the  faith,  we  find  also 
festiA'als  of  another  kind,  the  celebration  of  the 
anniA'ersary  of  a  martyr’s  death,  vieAved  as  his 
natal  day  into  the  better  life.  These  Avould  be 
at  first  confined  more  or  less  to  special  churches, 
but  Avould  subsequently  obtain  in  many  cases  a 
general  observance.  Thus  by  the  end  of  the 
4th  century  we  find  a  Avide-sj)read  obsorA'ance  of 
fe.stivals  of  e.g.,  St.  Stephen,  SS.  Peter  and  Paul, 
and  the  Maccabees.  ‘  The  festi\'al  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  Avhich  at  an  early  period  became  one  of 
great  importance  (see  e.g.  the  canon  of  the  council 
of  Agde,  cited  beloAv),  is  not  hoAvever  of  the  above 
class,  being  a  commemoration  of  the  actual  birth- 


FESTIVAL 


670  FESTIVAL 


day,  as  one  intimately  associated  with  that  of  the 
Saviour  Himself. 

We  find,  however,  considerable  diversity  of 
feeling  in  the  primitive  church  on  the  subject  of 
festivals.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was  most  Justly 
felt  that  a  festival,  as  being  a  cessation  from  the 
world’s  everyday  cares  and  pleasures,  should 
claim  regard  as  a  special  means  of  help  for  the 
soul  in  its  heavenward  way  ;  on  the  other  hand, 
it  was  urged  with  equal  truth,  that  when  the 
shadows  of  Judaism  had  become  the  realities 
of  Christianity,  to  lay  any  special  stress  on  the 
observance  of  times  and  seasons  was  at  any  rate 
to  incur  the  danger  of  losing  sight  of  the  reason 
why  festivals  were  established  at  all,  and  the 
rather  that  in  Christianity  every  day  was  in  a 
new  sense  consecrated  to  God.  It  was  the  dis¬ 
regard  of  one  or  other  of  these  two  co-ordinate 
truths  to  which  must  be  attributed  much  of  the 
false  ideas  that  have  been  held  on  the  subject  of 
festivals.  Protests  on  the  second  point  were 
deemed  necessary  by  our  Lord  Himself  (Matt, 
xii.  8 ;  Mark  ii.  27),  and  by  St.  Paul  (Romans 
xiv.  5,  6  ;  Gal.  iv.  9-11  ;  Col.  ii.  16).  In  like 
manner  too,  Origen  (contra  Celsum  viii.  22) 
urges  that  the  Christian  who  dwells  on  the 


Omni  theatrorum  atque  Circensium  voluptate 
per  universal  urbes  earundem  populis  denegata.” 
(2)  In  like  manner  all  legal  Imsiness  had  to  be 
suspended.  (C>i<J.  Theodor,  lib.  ii.  tit.  8,  11.  1,  2  ; 
vol.  i.  pp.  118,  121 :  C<A.  Justin,  lib.  iii.  tit.  12, 
11.  7,  11  ;  pp.  207,  208).  A  .special  exemption 
was  allowed  in  the  case  of  emancipation  or  manu¬ 
mission  (6W.  Theodos.  lib.  ii.  tit.  8,  1.  1 ;  supra). 
(8)  The  celebration  of  public  w'orship  was  of 
course  a  necessary  concomitant  ui  a  festival. 
The  council  of  Ehberis  [305  a.i>.]  condemns  the 
man  who  on  three  consecutive  Sundavs  was 
absent  from  the  church  (can.  21  ;  Labile  i.  973). 
The  council  of  Agde  (506  a.d.)  while  sanctioning 
generally  the  juactice  of  communicating  in 
private  chapels,  forbids  it  elsewhere  than  in  the 
public  assembly  on  the  more  im[iortant  festivals* 
These  are  specified  in  another  canon  of  the  same 
council  as  Easter,  Christmas,  the  Epiphanv, 
Ascension-day,  Pentecost,  the  Nativitv  of  St. 
John  the  Baptist,  “  vel  si  qui  maximi  dies  in 
festivitatibus  habentur.”  (cann.  18,  21  ;  Libbe 
iv.  1386:  cf.  Concil.  Aurel.  iv.  [541  A.D.]  can. 
3;  Labbe  v.  382).  (4)  Fasting  was  a  thing 

utterly  foreign  to  the  idea  of  such  days;  indeed 
it  was  a  distinguishing  mark  of  sundrv  heretics 


thought  of  Christ  our  Passover,  and  of  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  every  day  keeping  an 
Easter  and  a  Pentecostal  feast.  Similar  remarks 
are  found  also  in  Chrysostom  (Horn.  i.  de  S. 
Pentecoste,  c.  i. ;  vol.  ii.  458,  ed.  Montfaucou  : 
cf.  Horn.  xv.  in  1  Cor.  c.  3 ;  vol.  x.  128).  These 
passages,  however,  are  not  to  be  viewed  a.s  objec¬ 
tions  brought  against  the  celebration  of  festivals, 
but  rather  as  answers  to  those  who  saw  in  them  but 
a  relic  of  Judaism.  Tertullian,  in  very  sweep¬ 
ing  language,  condemns  the  practice  of  holding 
festivals  altogether  on  this  ground, — “  Horum 
igitur  tempera  observantes  et  dies  et  menses 
et  annos,  galaticamur.  Plane,  si  judaicarum 
caerimoniaruin,  si  legalium  sollemnitatum  ob¬ 
servantes  suinus.  .  .  .”  and  asks  why  in  the 
face  of  St.  Paul’s  language  as  to  times  and 
seasons,  Easter  is  celebrated,  and  why  the  period 
from  thence  to  Whitsunday  is  spent  as  one  long 
season  of  rejoicing  (dejejunio  adv.  Psychicos,  c.  14). 
Jerome,  on  the  other  hand,  while  endorsing  such 
views  as  those  which  we  have  referred  to  as 
held  by  Origen  and  Chrysostom,  proceeds  further 
to  maintain  the  definite  advantages  arising 
from  the  observance  of  festivals  (Comm,  in  Gal. 
iv.  10  ;  vol.  vii.  456,  ed.  Vallarsi :  cf.  Socrates, 
Hist.  Eccles.  V.  22). 

We  sliall  now  briefly  notice  the  chief  points  in 
which  a  festival  was  specially  distinguished  in 
its  observance  from  ordinary  days.  (1)  The  essential 
idea  of  a  Christian  festival  was  obviously  such 
as  to  make  ordinary  festivities,  other  than  those 
of  a  religious  character,  unseemly  at  such  times ; 
and  thus  numerous  imperial  edicts  were  promul¬ 
gated  from  time  to  time,  prohibiting  public 
games,  etc.  on  Christian  holy  days  (Eusebius, 
Vita  Constantini  iv.  18,  23  :  Sozomen,  Hist. 
Eccles.  i.  8 :  Cud.  Theodos.  lib.  xv.  tit.  5,  11.  2, 
5 ;  vol.  iv.  pn.  350,  353,  ed.  Gothofredus :  Cod. 
Justin,  lib.  iii.  tit.  12,  1.  li  ;  p.  2t8,  ed.  Gotho¬ 
fredus).  Of  the  two  references  to  the  Theodosian 
Code,  the  former  enjoins  that  “  Nullus  Solis  die 
populo  spectaculum  praebeat the  latter  specifies 
Sundays,  Christina-s,  the  Epiphany,  Easter,  and 
the  anniversary  of  apostolic  martyrdoms  as  the 
days  to  which  the  prohibition  extended,  “.  .  .  . 


to  turn  the  festivals  into  seasons  of  fasting.  The 

so  called  Apostolic  Canons  censure  those  who 

w'ould  fast  on  the  Lord’s  dav  or  the  Sabbath 

•/ 

(i.e.  Saturday,  which,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 
regarded  in  the  East  as  a  day  of  distinctly  festal 
character),  and  orders  that  any  of  the  clergy  who 
does  so  shall  be  deposed  (KadaipelaOu^,  can.  65, 
al.  66,  Labbe  i.  40) ;  and  a  previous  canon 
(52  al.  51)  had  spoken  of  a  bishop,  priest  or 
deacon,  who  abstained  from  flesh  and  wine  on 
a  festival  as  “  a  cause  of  scandal  to  many.”  (See 
also  Tertullian,  de  Cororux  Militis  c.  3;  C nicil. 
Gajigrense  [circa  324  A.D.]  can.  18;  Labbe  ii. 
424 ;  Concil.  Carting,  iv.  [398  A.D.]  can.  64 ; 
Labbe  ii.  1205).  On  these  days  in  earlier  times 
were  held  Agapae  [Agapae],  a  custom  which 
was  afterwards  changed  into  the  plan  of  the 
richer  members  of  a  Christian  community  feeding 
the  poorer  (cf.  e.g.,  Tertullian,  Ajol.  c.  39).  (5) 

Among  minor  but  significant  ways  of  distinguish¬ 
ing  a  festival  it  may  be  added  that  at  such  times 
it  was  usual  to  ofler  prayer  standing,  not  kneel¬ 
ing  ;  “  die  dominico  nefas  .  .  .  .  de  geniculis 
adorare.  Eadem  immunitate  a  die  Paschae  in 
Pentecosten  usque  gaudemus”  (Tertullian,  de 
Corona  Militis  c.  3).  Irenaeus,  in  referring  to 
the  same  practice,  speaks  of  this  absence  of  kneel¬ 
ing  as  figurative  of  the  resurrection  (Frag. 
7 ;  vol.  i.  p.  828,  ed.  Stieren  :  cf.  Justin  ^Martyr, 
Quaest.  et  Resp.  ad  OrthoJoxos  115:  Jerome 
Dialogus  contra  Luciferianos  c.  8;  vol.  ii.  180: 
Epiphanius  Expos.  Fidei  c.  22  ;  vol.  i.  1105,  ed. 
Petavius :  Isidore  de  Eccl.  Off.  i.  33  :  Rabauus 
Maurus  de  Inst.  Cler.  ii.  42.  See  also  Concil. 
Eicaenum  i.  [325  A.D.]  can.  20;  Labbe  ii.  37  : 
also  Dr.  Pusoy’s  note  to  the  Oxford  tran>latiou 
of  Ephrem  Syrus,  pp.  417  s(jq.). 

Festivals  may  be  divided  into  ord'nary  and 
extraordinary  (feriae  statutae,  indict  le),  accord¬ 
ing  as  they  came  in  regular  course  in  the 
Christian  year,  or  were  specially  a])poiuted  in 
consequence  of  some  particular  event.  The 
former  may  again  be  divided  into  immoveable  and 
moveable  (feriae  hnmobiles,  mobiles),  according  a* 
they  did  or  did  not  fall  on  the  same  day  in  every 
year ;  those  in  the  latter  division  obviously  con- 


FESTUM 


sisting  of  such  as  depended  on  Easter,  the  time  of 
which,  depending  on  the  Jewisli  or  lunar  calendar, 
to  which  the  Paschal  festival  originally  belonged, 
varies  with  reference  to  its  place  in  the  Julian 
or  solar  year  [Easter].  It  follows  that  the  num¬ 
ber  of  Suuilays  between  Christmas  and  Easter, 
and  again  between  Easter  and  Christmas,  is  vari¬ 
able.  Besides  the  obvious  divisions  of  feriae 
mnjores,  minores,  there  is  further  that  into 
feriae  integrae,  intercisae,  according  as  the  festival 
lasted  for  the  whole  or  part  of  a  day.  Such 
divisions  as  those  made  by  the  Roman  church 
of  festum  simplex,  duplex,  semiduplex,  to  say 
nothing  of  further  subdivisions  (princApale  du¬ 
plex,  majus  duplex,  etc.),  fall  quite  beyond  our 
period.  (For  information  concerning  them  see 
Ducange’s  Glussarium,  s.  c.  Fettum).  On  the 
subject  of  the  repeated  commemorations  of  the 
more  important  festivals,  see  Octave,  and  for 
the  preliminary  preparation  for  festivals,  see 
Vigil. 

Among  the  literature  on  the  subject  of  Chris¬ 
tian  festivals  may  be  mentioned  the  following  : — 
Hos])inianus,  Festa  Christianorum ;  Tiguri, 
1593.  Dresser,  de  festis  diebus  Christianorum, 
Judaeo  um  ct  Ethnicorum  liber,  quo  origo,  causa 
ritus  ct  usus  eorum  exponitur.  Lipsiae,  1594. 
GrQisQY,  de  festis  Christianorum,  Ingolstadt,  1612. 
Gueti,  Hcortologia.  Parisiis,  1657.  Lambertini, 
Commentami  duo  de  Jesu  Christi  matrisque  ejus 
Festis  et  de  Missae  Sacrifeio.  Patavii,  1752. 
August!,  die  Feste  der  alten  Christen.  Leipzig, 
1817.  Ullmann,  Vergleichende  Zusommenstellung 
des  Chrittlichen  Fefcyclus  mit  Vorchristlichen 
Festen,  als  Anhang  zu  Creuzers  Sgmbolik.  Leipzig, 
1821.  Nickel,  Die  heiligen  Zeiten  und  Feste 
nach  ihrer  Geschichte  und  Feicr  in  der  Katholi- 
schen  Kirche.  Mainz,  1825-38.  Binterim, 
Denknurdigktiten  dec  Christ- Katholischen  Kirche 
(vol.  V.  part  1,  pp.  119  sqq.)  Mainz,  1825-38. 
Staudenmaier,  Der  Geist  des  Christenthums, 
dargestcllt  in  den  heiligen  Zeiten,  heiligen  Hand- 
lungen  und  der  heiligen  Kunst.  Mainz,  1838. 

[R.  S.] 

FESTUM.  [Festival.] 

FESTUS.  (1)  [Januaries  (10).] 

(2)  Saint  in  Tuscany;  commemoraftd  with 
Joannes,  Dec.  21  (^Alart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Ado¬ 
nis,  LTsuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FIDKI  ADVOCATES.  [Advocates;  De¬ 
fensor.] 

FIDKJUSSORES.  [Sponsor.] 

FIDEI.ES.  [FAiTfiFUL.] 

FIDELII'M  MISSA.  [Missa.] 
FIDELIUM  ORATIO.  [Ia^rd’s  Prayer.] 
FI  DES.  (1)  [Sophia.] 

(2)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Agen ;  commemorated 
Oct.  6  (^Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

FILIOLA  (Spanish,  Ilijuela),  a  name  given 
in  the  Mozarabic  liturgy  to  the  Veil  of  the 
chalice.  One  of  the  rubrics  relating  to  the 
oblation  of  the  elements  is  :  “  [The  Priest]  jilaces 
the  chalice  on  the  altar,  and  takes  the  Filiola, 
and  without  blessing  it  puts  it  on  the  chalice.” 
(Mabillon,  Liturg.  Gall.  p.  42;  Neale,  Eastern 
Church,  introd.  439).  [C.] 


FIR-TREE  (OR  PINE)  671 


FILLET,  THE  BAI>TISMAL.  [Baptism, 
p.  163;  Chrismal.] 


FINCHAT;E,  COUNCIL  OF  {Finchallense 
Concilium),  held  A.D.  798  or  9,  at  Finchale,  near 
Durham,  and  presided  over  by  Eanbald, .  arch¬ 
bishop  of  York,  in  which,  after  the  faith  of  the 
fii'st  five  general  councils  had  been  rehearsed 
from  a  book,  a  declaration  of  adhesion  to  them 
was  reiterated  in  the  words  of  archbishop  Theo¬ 
dore,  and  the  council  of  Hatfield,  A.D.  680  (see  c. 
of  H.),  and  other  regulations  for  the  good  of  the 
church  in  Northumbria  and  elsewhere,  and  for 
the  keeping  of  Easter,  were  passed  (Haddan  and 
Stubbs,  Councils  iii.  527).  [E.  S.  FT’.] 

FINES  (mulcta,  emenda,  eViTiyuia).  Mulcta 
signified  a  fine  paid  by  way  of  penalty  to  the 
judge  :  emenda,  satisfaction  made  to  the  Injured 
party.  On  the  variations  from  this  usage,  see 
Du  Cange,  s.  v.  Emenda.  Fines  are  found  in 
the  records  of  the  early  English  church  among 
the  penalties  inflicted  for  ecclesiastical  offences. 
The  laws  of  Ethelbert  of  Kent,  a.d.  597-604 
(c.  i.)  require  the  following  compensation  to  be 
made  for  injuries  ;  “  to  the  property  of  God  and 
the  church  twelve  fold,  a  bishop’s  property 
eleven  fold,  a  priest’s  property  nine  fold,  a 
deacon’s  six  fold,  a  clerk’s  property  three  fold.” 
The  laws  of  lue,  king  of  Wessex,  a.d.  690  (c.  2), 
order  a  man  to  have  his  child  baptized  within 
thirty  days,  “if  it  be  not  so,  let  him  make 
‘  bot’  with  thirty  shillings,  but  if  it  die  with¬ 
out  baptism,  let  him  make  ‘bot’ for  it  w’ith  all 
that  he  has ;”  (c.  3)  a  lord  to  pay  thirty  shillings 
who  compels  his  ‘  theouman’  to  work  on  Sunday,  a 
freeman  workinof  w'ithout  his  lord’s  command  to 
pay  sixty  shillings  ;  and  (c.  13)  any  one  committing 
perjury  before  a  bishop  to  pay  one  hundred  and 
twenty  shillings.  In  the  laws  of  Wihtred  of 
Kent,  a.d.  696,  it  is  decreed  (c.  9)  that  if  an 
‘  esne  ’  do  work  contrary  to  his  lord’s  command 
from  sunset  on  Saturday  to  sunset  on  Sunday,  he 
must  make  a  ‘  bot  ’  of  eighty  shillings.  The 
Penitential  of  Egbert  (vii.  4)  directs  an  offender 
for  certain  crimes  either  to  do  penance  or  pay  a 
flne  to  the  church,  or  divide  money  among  the 
poor;  and  elsewhere  (xiii.  11)  allows  a  fine  to 
take  the  place  of  fasting  ;  but  this  latter  instance 
is  rather  of  the  nature  of  a  Redemption  than  a 
direct  penance:  (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils 
and  Eccl.  Documents,  vol.  iii.  pp.  42,  214,  233.) 

[G.  M.] 

FINTANUS,  presbyter,  and  confes.sor  in  Ire¬ 
land ;  commemorated  Feb.  17  (^Mart.  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 


FIR-TREE  OR  PINE.  See  Aringhi,  vol. 
li.  p.  632-3.  “  Praeter  cupressum,  et  pinus 

quoque  et  myrtus  pro  mortis  symbol o,  etc. 
Et  pinus  quidem,  quia  semel  excisa  nunquam 
reviviscit  et  repullulascit.”  These  are  rather 
general  or  human  reasons  for  choice  of  the  pine 
as  an  emblem  of  death,  than  as  conveying  any 
specially  Christian  thought.  See  Herodotus  vi. 
37,  on  the  threat  of  Croesus  to  the  people  of  Lamp- 
sacus.  But  the  fir,  or  some  tree  much  resembling 
it,  accompanies  the  figure  of  the  Good  Shepherd, 
Aringhi,  ii.  293,  from  the  cemetery  of  St.  Pris¬ 
cilla.  Also  at  pp.  75  and  25;  an  I  it  is  certainly 
intended  to  be  represented  among  the  trees 
which  surround  the  same  form  in  vol.  i.  577.  The 
latter  j)ainting  is  from  the  Callixtinc,  and  is 


672 


FIRE,  KINDLING  OF 


FIRST  FRUITS 


certainly  an  adaptation  from  the  common  fresco- 
subjects  of  Orpheus.  The  she{)herd  hears  the 
syrinx  or  leeds,  but  sits  in  a  half-reclining  posi¬ 
tion,  as  Orj)hcus  with  the  lyre ;  and  various  trees 
are  surrounding  him.  This  association  of  the  fir 
or  pilie  with  the  Good  Shepherd,  and  of  both 
with  Orpheus,  would  account  for  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  diderent  species  of  “  trees  of  the  wood,'*’ 
the  fir  being  also  characteristic  of  the  mountains 
or  wilderness  in  which  the  lost  sheep  is  found. 
Herzog  thinks  it  was  placed  on  Christian  graves 
(as  well  as  others),  as  an  evergreen  tree,  and 
therefore  a  symbol  of  immortality;  which  is  by 
no  means  unlikely.  1_R.  St.  J.  T.] 

FIRE,  KINDLING  OF.  In  the  first  Ordo 
lionianus  (c.  32,  p.  21  ;  cf.  p.  31),  among  the 
ceremonies  of  Maundy  Thursday,  the  following 
IS  mentioned.  At  the  ninth  hour  fire  is  pro¬ 
duced  by  a  flint  and  steel  sufficient  to  light  a 
candle,  which  ought  to  be  placed  on  a  reed ;  a 
lamp  lighted  from  this  is  kept  unextinguished 
in  the  church  untl;  Easter  eve,  to  light  the 
Paschal  tapei-,  which  is  to  be  blessed  on  that  day. 
The  directions  of  pope  Zacharias  {Epist.  12,  ad 
Bonif.)  are  different.  He  says,  that  the  tradi¬ 
tion  of  the  Romish  church  was,  that  on  Maundy 
Thursday,  three  lamps  of  more  than  usual 
capacity  were  set  alight  in  some  hidden  spot  in 
the  church,  with  oil  sufficient  to  last  till  Easter 
eve,  and  that  from  these  on  the  latter  day  the 
baptismal  taj^ers  were  to  be  lighted.  “  But,”  he 
continues,  “as  to  the  crystals  which  you  mention 
we  have  no  tradition.”  The  latter  words  seem 
to  prove  incontestably  that  the  custom  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  Ordo  Rom.  /.,  of  striking  fire  from 
flint  or  “  crystal,”  was  not  introduced  at  Rome 
in  the  time  of  Zacharias  (t752),  when  it  was 
already  practised  in  some  churches — probably  in 
Gaul  or  Germany — known  to  Boniface.  Pojie 
Leo  IV.,  however  (fSoS),  recognises  it  as  an 
established  custom  to  produce  fresh  fire  on  Easter 
eve,  saying  (//o/n.  l)e  Cura  Past.  c.  7),  “in 
sabl>ato  paschae  extincto  veteri  novus  ignis  bene- 
dicatur  et  per  populum  dividatur.”  Amalarius 
{De  Ord.  Antiph.  c.  44)  says  that  he  learned 
from  Theodorus,  archdeacon  of  Rome,  that  no 
lamps  or  tapers  were  u.sed  in  the  Roman  church 
on  Good  Friday,  but  that  on  that  d{\y  new  fire  is 
kindled,  the  flame  from  which  is  j^reserved  until 
the  nocturnal  office.  Compare  Martene,  Pit. 
Ant.  IV.  xxiii.  6. 

For  the  kindling  of  tapers  on  Candlemas  Day, 
see  MAJtY  THE  Virgin,  Festivals  of.  [C.] 

FIRE,  ORDEAL  OF.  [Ordeal.] 

FIRMAIMENT.  The  male  figure  observed 
beneath  the  feet  of  our  Lord,  in  representation^ 


No.  1 


of  the  dispute  with  the  doctors  (.see  Bottari, 
tav.  XV.,  Sarcojihagus  of  Juniu.s  Bassus,  and  wood- 
cut  No.  1)  is  said  to  be  intended  for  Uranus,  or 
the  firmament  of  heaven.  It  is  always  holding  a 
veil  or  cloth  above  its  head,  which  ajipears  to 
symbolize  the  stretching  out  of  the  heavens  like  a 
curtain,  P.s.  civ.  2  ;  Is.  xl.  22;  and  more  parti¬ 
cularly  Ps.  xviii.  9,  of  “  the  darkness  under 
God’s  feet.” 

In  another  instance,  from  a  tomb  in  the  Vati¬ 
can  (Bottari,  tav.  xxxiii.,  woodcut  No.  2),  a 


feminine  bust  is  snown  holding  a  floating  drapery 
over  its  head,  which  seems  inflated  by  the  wind. 
The  figure  above  seems  to  walk  firmly  over  it. 
On  the  significance  of  this,  see  Buonarruoti, 
Vetri,  p.  7  ;  Bottari,  i.  p.  41  :  Visconti,  M.P.C. 
tom.  iv.  pi.  418.  Garrucci  (^Hngi',gl;iptn,  p.  92, 
note  1)  does  not  assent  to  the  common  belief  that 
this  represents  the  firmament.  (Martigny,  Diet, 
des  Antiq.  Chret.,  s.  v.  Ctel).  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

FIRMATUS,  deacon  ;  depo.sition  at  Auxerre, 
Oct.  5  (Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FIRMINUS.  (1)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Amiens  ; 
commemorated  Sept.  2.5  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Bishop,  confe.ssor  at  Uzetia ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Oct.  11  (?6.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FIRMUS.  [Felicianus  (1).] 

FIRST  FRUITS  (Prvnitiae.,  of  animals  or 
men,  ttpcotStokw,  of  raw  produce,  irpoo'royevvr,- 
pLura ;  of  prepared  produce,  atrapxui.  Aug. 
Quaest.  in  Num.  xviii.).  Compare  Fruits,  Of¬ 
fering  OF. 

The  custom  of  dedicating  first  fruits  to  God 
obtained  early  in  the  church  (Orig.  c.  Cels.  viii. 
33,  34).  Irenaeus  thinks  that  Christ  enjoined 
them  when  he  took  bread  and  wine  at  the  last 
supper  (Uoer.  iv.  32),  and  that  they  ought  to 
be  paid  (Oportet,  ih.  34).  Origen  says  their  pay¬ 
ment  is  becoming  and  expedient,  and  refusal  is 
unworthy  and  impiou.s,  yet  he  distinctly  states 
that  the  Levitical  law  of  first  fruits  is  not  bin  1- 
ing  in  the  letter  upon  the  Christian  church. 
(Num.  xviii.  Horn.  xi.).  But  as  the  idea  grew 
that  the  clergv  had  succeeded  to  the  }K)sition 
and  to  the  rights  of.the  Levites,  first  fruits  were 
considered  obligatory,  to  withhold  them  was  to 
defraud  God;  they  are  more  incumbent  upon 
Christians  than  Jews,  for  Christ  bids  his  followen? 
to  sell  all  they  have,  and  also  to  exceed  the 


FISH 


FISH 


673 


righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees;  the  ! 
priest  whom  they  support  will  bring  a  blessing  1 
on  the  house  by  his  prayers,  the  ofl'erer  by  his 
spirit  of  thankfulness.  (.Jerome  inEzek.  xliv.  ;  in 
Mai.  iii. ;  Greg.  Ni\z.  Epist.  80,  Oral.  15.  Apost. 
Const,  ii.  25.)  Yet,  though  the  payment  was  so 
vigorously  pressed,  we  find  in  Cassian  (Collat. 
xxi.  1  seq.)  that  abbot  John  regards  first  fruits  as 
voluntary  gifts,  while  Theonas  says  he  has  not 
even  heard  the  reason  for  paying  them  before. 
The  council  of  Friuli  (a.d.  791,  can.  14),  quotes 
Malachi  iii.  as  conclusive  proof  of  the  obligation 
of  first  fruits. 

Most  stress  is  laid  upon  paying  first  fruits  of 
the  corn-floor  and  the  wine-press,  but  the  Aposto¬ 
lic  Constitutions  mention  others  and  regulate 
their  distribution.  First  fruits  of  the  corn-floor 
and  wine-press,  of  sheep  and  oxen,  of  bread  and 
honey,  of  wine  in  cask,  are  to  be  paid  for  the 
support  of  the  priests,  but  of  clothing,  money, 
and  other  possessions  for  the  orphan  and  widow 
(^Const.  vii.  30).  The  bishop  alone  has  the  right 
to  receive  and  apportion  first  fruits  (ii.  25). 
At  first  they  were  brought  with  the  other  I 
oblations  at  the  celebration  of  the  euchiu'ist. 
This  was  found  inconvenient,  and  it  was  ordered 


I  tural  or  anagrammatic  meaning  is  perhaps  the 
most  popular  at  the  present  day.  In  Matt,  xiii 
47-49;  Luke  v.  4-10;  it  is  used  in  the  parable 
of  the  net  for  the  members  of  the  churcli  ;  and 
our  Lord  there  assigns  it  its  significance;  His 
parabolic  use  of  it  is  frequently  imitated  in  early 
Christian  art,  whei’e  the  fishes  in  the  church’s 
net,  or  caught  by  the  hmik  of  the  fisher,  corres 
pond  exactly  to  the  lambs  of  the  fold,  or  to  the 
doves,  which  also  re])resent  the  faithful  on  many 
Christian  tombs  and  vaultings  (see  s.  vv.)  But 
the  anagrammatic  use  of  the  word  IX0TC  ap¬ 
pears  to  have  been  very  early.  H  was  derived, 
as  all  know,  from  the  initials  o^  the  word ; 
’iTjcrous  Xpiarhs  ©eof  Tihs  '2,wri\p.  This  appears 
to  be  in  the  mind  of  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(^Paeda'j.  iii.  c.  11,  p.  106),  and  to  have  been  so 
well  understood  in  his  time  as  to  have  required  no 
explanation,  since  he  recommends  the  use  of  the 
symbol  on  seals  and  rings,  without  giving  an 
explanation  of  its  import.  The  other  devices  he 
commends  are  the  dove,  ship,  lyre,  and  anchor. 
At  so  early  a  period  as  the  middle  of  the  2nd 
century,  and  under  the  continual  dangers  of 
persecution,  the  use  of  such  a  symbol  for  the 
person  of  the  Lord  was  pei'fectly  natural,  as  .it 


{Canon.  Ap,  4)  that  they  should  not  be  brought 
to  the  altar,  but  to  the  bishop  and  presbyters, 
who  would  distribute  to  the  deacons  and  other 
clerics.  The  church  of  Africa  {Cod.  Can.  Afr. 
37),  made  an  exception  in  favour  of  honey  and 
milk,  which  were  needed  as  accompaniments  of 
the  sacrament  of  baptism. 

The  jvayment  of  first  fruits  was  accompanied 
by  a  special  formula  (Jerome  on  Ezek.  xlv.); 
lo,  I  have  brought  to  thee  first  fruits  of  the  pro¬ 
duce  of  the  earth,  which  thou  hast  given  me,  0 
Lord.  The  priest  replied  with  the  blessing 
written  in  Deut.  xxviii.  3.  A  special  form  of 
thanksgiving  is  found  in  Apost.  Const,  viii,  40. 

The  amount  of  first  fruits  was  not  fixed  by  the 
Levitical  law,  but  left  to  the  liberality  of  the 
worshipper.  Tradition  handed  down  one-sixtieth 
as  the  minimum,  those  who  were  more  religious 
gave  one-fortieth,  the  rest  something  between. 
(Jerome  on. Ezek.  xlv.;  Cassian  Coll.  xxi.  3).  [J.  S.] 

FISH.  [See  Eucharist  in  Christian  Art, 
p.  625.] 

.  The  Pish  IS  a  symbol  of  almost  universal  occur¬ 
rence  in  the  painting  and  sculpture  of  the  primi¬ 
tive  church.  Like  the  Dove  or  the  Lamb  it  is 
used  in  more  than  one  sense ;  and  its  non-scrip- 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


would  attract  no  notice  from  the  outer  world ; 
and  in  the  same  manner,  with  even  more  obvious 
reasons,  the  form  of  the  cross  was  frequently 
disguised  up  to  the  time  of  Constantine.  [See 
Cross.]  But  see  also  Tertullian  {De  Baptismo, 
c.  1)  “  Nos  ])isciculi  secundum  Ixdvv  nostrum 
in  aqua  nascimur.”  Also  Jerome  ad  Bonosnm, 
Ep.  43,  “  B.  tanquam  IxGvos  filius  aquosa  petit.” 
[Baptism,  p.  171.]  But  the  mystic  senses  as¬ 
signed  to  the  emblem  by  various  fathers  often 
seem  to  the  modern  mind  somewhat  gratuitous 
and  ill-founded.  They  strain  their  imaginations, 
apparently,  to  find  reasons  in  the  nature  of  things 
for  a  devoutly  ingenious  arrangement  of  initial 
letters  ;  and  .seem  to  assume  that  there  must  be 
real  analogy  between  the  Divine  Lord  and  the 
fish,  because  the  initials  of  the  name  and  titles  of 
the  one  made  the  Greek  name  of  the  other.  The 
pleasure  derived  from  the  anagram,  or  the  facilitv 
it  may  have  given  for  concealing  Christian 
doctrine  from  the  heathen,  seem  occasionally  to 
have  overcome  the  thought  that  the  Lord  Him¬ 
self  used  the  fish  as  an  emblem  of  His  people 
only,  not  of  Himself — of  the  sheo^i,  not  the 
Shepherd.  Aringhi  dwells  more  naturally  on  the 
Scriptural  meaning,  and  the  various  example.** 
he  gives  (vol.  ii.  p.  684 ;  ii.  p.  620  ;  also  that 


674  FISH 

from  the  inscription  made  in  Stillcho’s  consulsliip 
A.D.  400,  vol.  i.  p.  10)  all  speak  of  the  fish  in 
the  Scriptural  sense  as  a  type  of  the  discijile. 
The  lamp  in  Aringlii  (ii.  620 ;  see  woodcut)  has  the 
monogram  on  the  handle,  and  ilie  two  fishes  on 
the  central  part.  He  also  refers  to  the  dolphin 
as  king  of  fishes,  speaking  of  its  reported  love 
for  its  offspring ;  with  reference  to  the  tomb  of 
Baler ia  or  Valeria  hatobia,  now  in  the  Vatican. 
Martigny  states  that  because  Christ  is  man,  He 
therefore  is  a  fish  of  His  own  net,  and  gives 
prophetic  significance,  following  Aringhi,  to  the 
story  of  Tobias  and  the  fish  which  delivered 
Sara  from  the  power  of  the  evil  spirit.  This 
he  literally  accepts,  and  follows  the  various 
attempted  connexions  of  the  anagram  with  the 
fish  of  the  last  repast  at  the  sea  of  Galilee  ;  and 
sees  in  them  the  sacramental  representatives  of 
the  body  of  our  Lord,  quoting  St.  Augustine, 
( Tract  cxxiii.  in  Joann,  xvi.)  and  Bede’s  observ^a- 
tion  on  the  same  passage,  Piscis  assus,  Christus 
est  passus.  These  analogies  are  difficult  to  follow, 
especially  when  we  consider  the  Scriptural  use 
of  the  emblem  from  the  Lord’s  own  mouth. 

The  fish  as  the  believer,  (Ambrose,  iv.  in  Luc. 
V.  “  pisces  qui  hanc  enavigant  vitam  ”)  is  more 
frequently  represented  on  the  hook  of  the  gospel 
fisherman,  than  in  the  net  of  the  church.  [See 
Fisherman.]  Bread  and  fish  are  the  universal 
viands  of  the  representations  of  earlier  Agapae, 
as  frequently  in  the  Callixtine  catacomb.  The 
genuineness  of  some  at  least  of  these  paintings  is 
generally  allowed,  and  Dr.  Theodore  Mommsen 
mentions  in  particular  an  Agape  with  bread  and 
fish,  in  the  vault  named  after  Domitilla,  the 
grand-daughter  of  Vespasian,  on  the  Ardeatine 
way  and  near  the  ancient  church  of  SS.  Nereus 
and  Achilles.  In  this  painting  so  impai'tial  and 
accurate  an  observer  has  full  confidence,  as  coeval 
with  the  vault ;  though  he  thinks  the  case  in¬ 
complete  for  the  vault  itself  being  so  early  as 
95  B.c. ;  and  observes  that  the  painting  of  this 
subject,  as  of  those  of  Daniel,  Noah,  and  the 
Good  Shepherd,  is  less  excellent  than  that  of  the 
vine  in  the  vaultings  of  the  original  chamber  of 
Domitilla  without  the  catacomb,  which  is  quite 
like  a  work  of  the  Augustan  age. 

The  use  of  this  emblem  is  connected  by 
j\Iartigny  with  the  “disciplina  arcani  ”  of  the 
early  church.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
reA’creut  mystery  was  observed  as  to  the  eu- 
charist,  and  that  in  ages  of  persecution,  till  Con¬ 
stantine’s  time,  no  public  use  of  the  cross  was 
made,  as  a  sign  of  the  person  of  the  Lord.  Till 
then,  the  fish-anagram  was  perhaps  in  special 
and  pi-evailing  use,  and  it  may  have  yielded  its 
place  from  that  time  to  the  cross,  the  sign  of 
full  confession  of  Jesus  Christ.  For  the  secret 
discipline  after  the  time  of  Constantine  seems  to 
have  consisted  mainly  in  the  gradual  nature  of 
the  instructions  given  to  catechumens,  and  the 
fact  that  for  a  time  the  chief  doctrines  of  the 
faith  were  not  brought  before  them. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

The  tesserae  given  to  the  newly-baptized  were 
frequently  in  the  form  of  the  symbolical  fish,  as 
pledges  or  tokens  of  the  rights  conferred  in  bap¬ 
tism  (Allegranza,  Opns  •.  Erud.  p.  107).  Of  this 
kind  is  ymobably  the  bronze  fish  given  by  Cos- 
tadoni  {Del  7‘csce,  iv.  22\  inscribed  with  the 
word  CojCaIC.  See  woodcut. 


FISHERMAN 

Boldetti  {Ossercazwnif  p.  516)  discovered  in 
the  catacombs  three  glass  fishes,  with  a  numljer 
inscribed  upon  each  ;  thus,  x.  xx.  xxv.  The  pur- 
pose  of  the  numbers  is  altogether  uncertain. 


The  custom  of  decorating  baptisteries  w’ith 
fish  has  a  similar  origin.  In  the  ruins  of  an 
ancient  baptistery  near  the  church  of  St.  Prisca 
at  Rome,  two  beautiful  mosaics  representing  fish 
were  discovered,  w’hich  are  now  in  the  Kircher 
museum  (Lupi,  Dissert,  i.  83).  See  Baptism, 
P-171.  [c.] 

FISHERIMAN.  Our  Lord  or  His  disciples 
are  frequently  represented  as  the  fishers  of  men 
in  ancient  art,  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria  uses 
the  simile  for  both.  Hymn  to  the  Saviour,  v. 


24  sqq. ;  Paedagog.  n\.  \QQ.  See  also  Aringhi,  iu 
620.  Martigny  gives  an  example  (see  cut  No.  1.) 
from  an  article  by  Costadoni,  Del  pesce  (vol.  41, 
p.  247,  in  the  collection  of  Calogera,  Venice, 
1738-1787),  representing  a  man  clothed  in  the 
skin  of  a  fish,  bearing  a  sporta  or  basket,  which 
may,  as  Polidori  supposes,  represent  the  divine 
or  apostolic  fisher,  or  the  fish  of  the  church’s 
net.  The  net  is  more  rarely  represented  than 
the  hook  and  line,  but  St.  Peter  is  represented 


casting  the  net,  in  an  ancient  ivory  in  Mamacln 
{Costumi  \.  prefaz.  p.  1).  The  net  of  St.  Peter, 
w'ith  the  Lord  fishing  with  the  line,  is  a  device 
of  the  papal  signets.  In  the  Callixtine  cata¬ 
comb  (De  Rossi,  IX0TC  tab.  ii.  n.  4)  the  fisher¬ 
man  is  drawing  forth  a  huge  fish  from  the 
'.vaters  which  flow  from  the  rock  in  Horeb  (see 
cut  No.  2).  See  also  Bottari,  tav.  xlii.,  and  a  cor¬ 
nelian  given  by  Costadoni,  l^esce  tav.  xxx.,  on  a, 
small  glass  cup  given  by  Garrucci  (  Vetri,  vi.  10), 
a  figure  in  tunic  and  pallium  (supposed  to  re¬ 
present  the  Lord)  holds  in  his  hand  a  large  fish 


FISI1ER3IAN’S  RING 


FLABELLUM 


675 


No.  3. 


as  if  just  drawn  fi'om  the  sea  (cut  No,  3).  At  I 
St.  Zcnonc  in  Verona,  the  patron  saint  is  thus: 

represented,  and  this  sub¬ 
ject,  with  those  of  Abni- 
liam’s  sacrifice,  Noah’s  ark, 
and  others,  on  the  bronze 
doors  and  marble  front  of 
that  most  important  church, 
are  specially  valuable  as 
connecting  the  earlier  Lom¬ 
bard  carvings  with  the  most 
ancient  and  scriptural  sub¬ 
jects  of  primitive  church- 
work.  This  symbol,  like  the  Vine,  is  ado])ted 
from  Pagan  decoration,  wdiich  of  course  proves 
its  antiquitv.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

FISHERMAN’S  RING.  [Ring.] 

FISTULA  (called  also  calamus,  canna,  can- 
nu’a,  siphon,  arundo,  pipa,  jni pilaris).  A  tube, 
usually  of  gold  or  silver,  by  suction  through 
wdiich  it  w'as  formerlv  customary  to  receive  the 
wdne  in  communicating.  The  ancient  Ordo  Ro- 
manus  thus  e.xplains  its  use  :  “  Diaconus  tenens 
calicem  et  fistulam  stet  ante  episcopum,  usque- 
dum  ex  sanguine  Cliristi  quantum  voluerit  su- 
mat ;  et  sic  calicem  et  fistulam  subdiacono  com- 
mendet.”  Among  other  instances,  five  silver- 
gilt  fstulae  ad  cornmunicandum  are  enumerated 
among  the  sacramental  vessels  of  the  church  of 
IMayence  ;  and  at  a  later  date,  pope  Victor  III. 
left  to  the  monastery  of  Monte  Casino,  “fistulam 
auream  cum  angulo,  et  fistulas  argenteas  duas.” 
Pojie  Adrian  I.  is  said  by  Anastasius  to  have 
offered  “  calicem  majorem  fundatum  cum  siphoiie 
jiensantem  libras  xxx.”  ;  and  the  ancient  Carthu¬ 
sian  statutes  recite  that  the  Order  has  no  orna¬ 
ments  of  gold  or  silver  in  its  churches,  “  praeter 
calicem,  et  caiamum,  quo  Sanguis  Domini 


sumitur.” 

The  adoption  of  the  fistula  doubtless  arose 
from  caution,  lest  any  drop  from  the  chalice 
should  be  spilt,  or  any  other  irreverence  occuh 
in  communicating.  This  seems  intimated  by 
the  rule  of  the  Cistercian  Order  (Xf6.  Us.  Ord. 
Cist.  cap.  53),  wdiich  says  that  the  fistula  is  not 
necessary  in  J//ssa  solennis,  when  the  ministers 
alone  communicate ;  but  that  wdien  more  com¬ 
municate  it  should  be  used,  Gregory  of  Tours 
(//<sf.  Franc,  iii,  31)  states  that  it  was  the  cus¬ 
tom  of  the  Arians  to  communicate  by  drinking 
from  the  chalice,  as  if  the  use  of  the  fistula  was 
for  that  reason  preferred  by  the  orthodox. 

The  fistula  has  fallen  into  disuse  since  the 
practice  of  communicating  in  one  kind  has  pre¬ 
vailed.  It  is,  however,  still  retained  in  solemn 
papal  celebrations  for  the  communion  of  the 
pope.  The  senior  cardinal  bishop  purifies  the  ! 
tube  (caiamum  aureum  Papae)  with  wine,  and, 
after  kissing  it,  places  it  in  the  chalice,  which 
he  delivers  into  the  right  hand  of  the  pope,  W'ho 
communicates  by  suction.  Cardinal  Bona  states 
that  the  fistula  w'as  used  in  his  time  in  the  Bene¬ 
dictine  monastery  of  the  congregation  of  St. 
l^Iaur,  in  France,  wdiere  also  the  assistants  com¬ 
municated  in  both  kinds. 

The  fistula  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
adopted  in  tlyi  Pastern  church,  which  made  use 
of  a  spoon  for  communicating.  [See  Voigt, 
Ilistoria  fistulae  Eu''haristicae  ;  Krazer,  Lit.  ])p. 
204--5;  Bona,  Rer.  lAt.  ;  ^larteue,  J)e  ant.  lit. 
Lib.  iv.  ;  Catalani,  Caercnn.  &c.]  [H.  J.  H.] 


FIjABELLUM  (piTTiSioi/,  piiriy).  Among 
the  evidences  of  the  Kastern  origin  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  is  the  use  of  {nus,  flabella,  during 
the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist.  Having  its 
birthjilace  and  earliest  home  in  a  climate  teem¬ 
ing  wdth  insect  life,  where  food  expo.sed  uncovered 
is  instantly  blackened  an<l  polluted  by  sw'arms 
of  flie.s,  it  was  natural  that  the  bread  and  wine 
of  its  sacramental  feast  should  be  guarded  from 
defilement  by  the  customary  precautions.  The 
jlabellum,  or  muscariu  n,  having  been  once  intro¬ 
duced  among  the  furniture  of  the  altar  for 
necessary  uses,  in  process  of  time  became  one 
of  its  regular  ornaments,  and  was  thus  trans¬ 
ferred  to  the  more  temjierate  climates  of  the 
West,  wdiere  its  original  purpose  was  almost 
forgotten. 

The  earliest  notice  of  the  flabellun  as  a  litur¬ 
gical  ornament  is  in  the  ApostolFal  Cunstitxdions 
(viii.  12),  which  direct  that  after  the  oblation, 
before  and  during  the  prayer  of  consecration, 
two  deacons  are  to  stand,  one  on  either  side  of 
the  altar,  holjling  a  fan  made  of  thin  membrane 
(parchment),  or  of  peacock  feathers,  or  of  fine 
linen,  and  quietly  drive  away  the  flies  and 
toher  small  insects,  that  they  may  not  strike 
against  the  vessels.  In  the  liturgies  also  of  St. 
Chrysostom  and  St.  Basil,  the  deacons  are 
directed  to  fan  the  holy  oblations  during  the 
prayer  of  consecration.  This  fanning,  according 
to  Germanus  {Contemp.  rer.  Exl.  ]».  157),  tvho, 
though  a  late  authority  (a.d.  1222),  may  be 
taken  as  an  evidence  of  earlier  usage,  ceased 
wdt-h  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  and  was  not  resumed. 
Early  writers  furnish  many  notices  of  the  use  of 
the  flabelluni  as'an  essential  jiart  of  the  liturgical 
ceremonial.  Cyril  of  Scythopolis,  in  his  Life  of 
St.  Euthymius,  §  78  (c.  a.d.  550),  describes 
Domitian  standing  at  the  right  side  of  the  holv 
table,  while  St.  Euthymius  wuis  celebrating,  wdth 
the  mystical  fan  ((Uera  rys  pvariuris  ^nriSos) 
just  before  the  Trisagion.  Moschus  also  {Prat. 
Spirit.  §  196)  wdien  narrating  how  some  shepherd 
boys  near  Apamea  w'ere  imitating  the  celebration 
of  the  Eucharist  in  childish  sport,'"*  is  careful  to 
mention  that  two  of  the  childi-eu  stood  on  either 
side  of  the  celebrant,  vibrating  their  handker¬ 
chiefs  like  fans  (toTs  (paKiok'iois  [fasciolis]  ippi- 
TTi^ov).  The  life  of  Nicetas  (ap.  Suriutn,  Aiiril 
3)  describes  St.  Athanasius  assisting  at  the 
divine  mysteries,  “  ministerii  fiabellum  tenens 
erat  enim  diaconus.”  Among  the  ornaments  of 
the  church  of  Alexandria  specified  in  the  in¬ 
ventory  given.  Chronic.  Alexand.  a.d.  624  (ap. 
Menard,  ad  Sacr.  Gregor,  p.  319)  are  ripia 

piTTi^ia. 

As  the  deacons  xvere  the  officers  apjiointed  to 
wave  the  fan  over  the  sacred  oblations,  the  de¬ 
livery  of  the  jlabellum,  or  pi-Kibiov,  constitutes  a 
part  of  many  of  the  Oriental  forms  for  the  ordi¬ 
nation  to  the  diaconate.  Thus  Eucholog.  p.  253, 
after  the  updpiovor  stole  has  been  given  and  placed 
on  the  left  shoulder,  the  holy  fan  {dytov  piiri- 
Sior),  is  put  into  the  deacon’s  hands,  and  he  is 
placed  “at  the  side  of  the  holy  table  to  fan;” 
and  again,  p.  251,  the  deacon  is  directed  to  take 
the  piTvihiov,  and  stand  at  the  right  side  of  the 
table,  and  wave  it  over  the  holy  things 


»  We  may  compare  with  this  the  well  known  story  of 
St.  Athanasius  acting  (he  Iniy  bishop  and  Ixipllslng  hia 
companions  on  the  shore  at  Alexandria. 

2  X 


G76 


FLABELLUM 


FLABELLUM 


iTrdvco  Twu  ayiuv')  (cf.  M'U’tene,  dc  Hitlh.  Keel. 
ii.  525).  Martene  gives  similar  examples  from 
the  ordination  of  the  Maronite  deacons  (de  Hit. 

ii.  54:5),  chorepiscopi  (“dia- 
coni  tenentes  flabella,”  ib. 
p.  554),  and  patriarchs 
(z\  559) ;  as  well  as  of  the 
Jacobite  deacons  ('b.  579, 
580).  Renaudot  (ii.  80) 
asserts  that  though  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  ordination  ser¬ 
vices,  the  piTtihiov  does  not 
appear  in  the  Syrian  litur¬ 
gies.  A  jlabellum,  formed 
of  a  silver  disk,  was  used 
in  the  Armenian  church,  as 
it  still  is.  Neale  {Eastern 
Ch.  p.  396)  remarks  that 
the  use  of  the  jiahellurn 
was  much  more  frequent 
amons:  the  Armenians  than 
ill  the  Greek  church. 

The  flabellum  in  ordinary 
use  in  the  Greek  church 
From  .Martiguy.  represented  a  cherub  or 
seraph,  with  six  wings,  in 
allusion  to  Is.  vi.  2.  These  wings  were  by  pre¬ 
ference  made  of  peacocks’  feathers,  originally 
on  account  of  their  beauty,  subsequently  with 


N6.  2.  Armenian  Deacon,  with  Flahellum.  From  Martigny. 


mystical  reference  to  the  living  creatures  of 
the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  iv.  6,  8).  Goar  {Euchol. 
p.  137)  gives  the  annexed  figure  of  a  Greek 


No.  3.  Flabella  with  pendent  Bells.  From  the  ‘  Book  of  Kells. 
Westwood  s  /aig.-Sa.x.  and  Irish  MSS. 


by  the  six  wings  surrounding  the  tace  (Bona, 
Her,  Liturg.  lib.  i  c.  25,  §  6).  'I'he  flabella  of  the 
Armenians  and  Maronites  were  formed  of  discs 


No.  4.  Figure  holding  Flahellum  and  the  Holy  Knife.  From  the 
‘Gosiajls  of  Treves.’  (Westwood,  Ang -Sax.  and  Irish  MSS.) 


of  silver  or  brass,  surrounded  with  little  bells. 
The  figure  (No.  2)  given  by  Martigny  from  Le 
Brun  (vol.  v.  p.  58)  represents  an  Armenian 


No.  5.  Deacon  with  Flabellum.  From  Boldettl. 


deacon  with  his  flabellum.  We  give  also  similar 
examples  from  the  Book  of  Kells  (No.  3)  and  the 
Gospels  of  Treves  (No.  4),  derived  from  West- 


No.  6.  Deacon  with  Flabellum.  From  MS.  in  the 
Barberini  Library. 


flabellum  Qlo.  1),  consisting  of  an  angelic  head  wood.' ^  Anglo-Saxon  and  hash  MSS.  fl\.  53,  No.  7, 
affixed  to  the  end  of  a  handle,  the  fan  formed  and  pi.  20  (see  also  p.  153). 


FLABELLUM 


FLABELLUM 


677 


Althoiif'li  there  is  no  mention  of  the  flobcllum, 
ill  the  Ordo  liOmcrnus.  or  Latin  ritual  books, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  "it  \yas  used  by  the  West¬ 
ern  church  at  an  early  time,  ihis  is  evidenced 
bv  a  story  given  by  Jloschus  (^Prat.  Spiritual. 
§“l50)  of  'a  deacon  who  had  falsely  accused  his 


bishop,  being  removed  from  the  altar  when  he 
was  ho'ding  the  fan  in  the  presence  of  pope 
Agapetus,  a.d.  535,  because  he  hindered  the  de¬ 
scent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  gifts.  An  earlier 
example  is  furnished  by  a  gilded  glass  found  in 
the  catacombs,  representing  a  deacon  fanning 
the  infant  Saviour,  seated  on  the  knees  of  His 
Virgin  Jlother  (Boldetti,  Osservazioni,  p.  202), 


ment  attached  to  a  handle.  Bona,  u.  s.,  cites 
also  the  ancient  Cluniac  Consnetudiual,  and  that 
of  St.  Benignus  of  Dijon,  together  with  a  Ponti¬ 
fical  Ceremonial  of  the  time  of  Nicholas  V.  c. 
1447.  The  flabellum  often  appears  in  inven¬ 
tories  of  church  furniture.  In  that  taken  at 
St.  Riiiuier,  near  Abbeville,  in  831,  mention  is 
made  of  a  “flabellum  argenteum  ad  muscas  a 
j  sacrificiis  abigendas.”  Other  later  examjiles, 

I  including  some  from  our  own  country,  will  be 
found  in  RIi\  Albert  W^iy’s  pajier  on  the  Flahelluin 
(^Archaeol.  Journ.  v.  203),  sulficiently  establish¬ 
ing  its  use  in  the  churches  of  the  West,  where 
it  could  be  scarcely  regarded  as  requisite  as  re¬ 
garded  its  original  intention.  W^e  may  cite  also 
a  letter  of  St.  Hildebert  of  Tours,  c.  1098  (^Ep. 
2,  71),  accompanying  the  present  of  a  flabel- 
lum  made  to  a  friend,  in  which  the  writer  ex¬ 
pounds  its  mystical  signification;  the  flies  repre¬ 
senting  the  temptations  of  the  devil  to  be  driven 
away  by  the  Catholic  faith. 

The  jiahellum  appears  to  have  gradually 
fallen  into  disuse  in  the  W^estern  church,  and 
to  have  almost  entirely  ceased  by  the  14th 
century.  At  the  present  day,  the  only  relic  of 
the  usage  is  in  the  magnificent  fans  of  peacocks’ 
feathers,  carried  by  the  attendants  of  the  pope 
in  solemn  processions  on  certain  great  festivals. 

Though  the  original  intention  of  the  flabellum 
was  one  of  simple  utility,  various  mystical  mean¬ 
ings  collected  round  it.  Reference  has  been  already 
made  to  the  idea  that  these  feather  fans  typified 
the  cherubim  and  seraphim  surrounding  the 
heavenly  throne,  ot  pnr'ides  els  tvttov  eial  rS>u 
Xepov^'ifi  (German,  u.  s.  }>.  163),  ra  ^nriSia  ual 
ol  diaKovoi  ejxcpaivovcn  ra.  e^airrepaya  'S.epacp'ijj, 
Kai  rT]V  Twv  TroAvoixfidrcou  XepovfSlfx  ijXtpepeiai' 
(^Ib.  p.  169).  Germanus  also  holds,  according  to 
Neale  (^Eastern  Ch.  p.  396),  that  the  vibration 


t7o.  8.  The  Monza  Flabollnm.  From  •  Archaeological  Journal.’ 


of  which  we  give  a  woodcut  (No.  5).  The  an¬ 
nexed  engraving  (No.  6),  showing  a  deacon  vi¬ 
brating  his  fan  during  the  celebration  of  the 
eucharist,  is  from  a  miniature  in  the  Barberini 
Library  (Martigny,  de  V  usage  du  flab'dluni).  In 
the  next  illustration  (No.  7)  from  an  illumina¬ 
tion  in  a  IMS.  in  the  Public  Library  at  Rouen,  a 
bishop  is  seen  bowing  his  head  in  the  act  of  ele¬ 
vating  the  wafer,  over  which  the  attendant  dea¬ 
con  waves  a  flabellum^  apparently  made  of  parch- 


of  the  flabella  typifies  the  tremor  and  astonish¬ 
ment  of  the  angels  at  our  Lord’s  Pa.ssion.  W^e 
find  the  same  idea  in  a  passage  from  the  monk 
.Job,  given  by  Photius  (cod.  ccxxii.  lib.  v.  c.  25), 
who  also  states  that  another  purpose  of  the  vi 
bration  of  the  flabella  was  the  raising  of  the  mind 
from  the  material  elements  of  the  eucharist,  and 
fixing  them  on  the  spiritual  realities. 

.  Two  flabella  are  still  pre.served,  1  hat  of  Theo- 
deliuda  of  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  century,  in 


G78 


FLABELLUM 


FLAGELLATION 


the  treasuiy  of  the  Cathedral  of  ^lonza,  and 
that  of  tlie  Abbey  of  Toiirnus,  now  in  the  Mu¬ 
seum  of  the  Hotel  deCluny,  assigned  by  l)u  Som- 
inerard  to  the  niiitli.  The  former  (No.  8)  is  con¬ 
structed  like  a  modem  lady’s  tan,  only  cii'cular, 
formed  of  j)ur|>le  vellum,  illuminated  with  gold 
and  silver,  with  an  inscrijition  round  the  up])er 
edge  on  either  side,  describing  its  )>urpose, 
which  was  evidently  domestic  and  not  liturgical. 
The  fan  is  contained  in  a  wooden  case,  with  silver 
oi  naments,  probably  a  reconstruction  on  the  ori¬ 
ginal  plan  (W.  Burges,  ArchacoL  Joiirn.  xiv.  jjp. 
17-li'L  The  Tournus  fan  was  liturgical  (No.  9). 


Ko.  9.  riabel'ura  of  the  Abbey  of  Tonmns.  From  Bn  Sommemrd 
‘  Les  Arts  tlu  iloyen  Age.’  ’ 

It  is  described  by  Du  Sommerard,  Arts  du  Moyen 
Aye  (ii.  195,  iii.  251,  v.  2.31),  and  figured  in  his 
Atlas  (ch.  xiv.  ))1.  4),  and  Album  (ix.  serie,  p.  17). 
It  is  circular  wlien  fully  exptanded,  and  is  orna¬ 
mented  with  the  figures  of  fourteen  saints,  in  two 
concentric  zones  on  either  side.  On  one  side 
are  represented  four  female  saints,  the  Blessed 
Virgin  with  Our  Lord  in  her  arms,  St.  Lucy, 
St.  Agnes,  and  St.  Cecilia,  in  one  zone,  and  St. 
Pettu’,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Andrew,  in  the  second  ; 
on  the  other  side,  the  two  zones  contain  male 
figures  alone,  St.  Maurice,  St.  Denvs,  St.  Phili¬ 
bert,  5t.  Hilary,  and  St.  Martin,  with  a  “  Judex,’-’ 
and  a  “Levita.”  Latin  hexameters  and  penta¬ 


meters  are  inscribed  on  three  concentric  bands  on 
the  fan,  describing  its  use  an  I  irs  oblation  in 
honour  of  Ooel  and  St.  Philibert.  Tlie  relics  of 
this  saint,  who  died  in  68 1,  >vere  ti-anslated  to 
the  Abbey  of  Tournu.s,  where  he  was  held  in 
especial  honour.  The  verses  are  very  curious. 
We  give  one  of  the  three  series.  It  will  be 
observed  that  some  words  have  been  misplaced 
by  the  painter  to  the  confusion  of  tiie  metre  : — 

“Sunt  (tno  fpiae  modicum  confert  f state  flabellum 
lufestas  ab  git  muscas  et  tnitigat  e>tmu, 

Kt  sine  dat  tedio  gu.stare  nianu>  citK.)nun.  (.«'‘c) 
Proi)t<Tea  cali  lum  qui  vult  traii^ir-  ptr  annum, 

Et  tutus  cupit  ab  atri.s  existere  niu-ci>  t«ic) 

Omni  se  studeat  estate  muniri  fiatx-llo  (nc) 

Hoc  quoque  flabellum  tranquillas  exeit  .t  auras 
Estus  cum  favet  (f<  rvet .')  ventum  tacit  atque  sercnuro 
Fugat  ct  obscenas  importun-isque  volucres.” 

The  handle  is  of  ivory,  measuring  about  2  tee'- 
in  length ;  round  the  )iommel  is  in.scribed  the 
maker’s  name,  “  -f-  Johel  me  scae  fecit  in  honore 
Marine.”  When  shut  up  it  goes  into  a  case  orna¬ 
mented  with  ivories,  repre.senting  subjects  from 
Virgil’s  Ecloyues. 

The  making  of  fans  of  palm  leaves,  both  for 
ecclesiastical  and  domestic  jnirposes,  employed 
the  leisure  of  the  Syrian  solitaries.  .St.  Pul- 
gentius,  bishop  of  Kuspium,  while  still  an  anclio- 
rite,  is  recorded  to  have  made  fans  for  the  use 
of  the  altar  (up.  Surium,  ad  Jan.  1).  The  fans 
sent  by  Marcella  to  the  Roman  ladies,  for  which 
she  is  thanked  by  St.  Jerome  (lib.  i.  Ejnst.  41), 
were  for  ordinary  not  religious  use. 

(Martigny,  de  I'usage  du  jiahelluin  ;  Bingham, 
viii.  6,  §  21,  XV.  3,  §  6 ;  Bona,  Her.  Liturg.  i. 
25,  §  6;  Martene,  ll.  cc. ;  Augusti,  Christ!.  Ar~ 
chdol.  iii.  536  sq.  ;  Archaeol.  Journ.  v.  200,  xiv. 
17.)  [E.  V.] 

FLAGELLATION  {Flgelhtid).  Flogging 
was  a  punishment  inflicted  on  certain  orders  of 
the  clergy,  on  monks,  nuns,  serfs,  and  slaves ; 
but  all  orders  of  the  clergy  were  forbidden 
(^Apost.  Can.  28)  themselves  to  strike'  an  ofl'ender 
either  for  correction  or  in  self-defence,  Augustine 
is  a  witness  (Ap.  159  Marcell.)  that  this  mode 
of  discipline  was  employed  not  only  by  school¬ 
masters  and  parents,  but  by  bishoj)s  in  their 
courts.  In  the  church  of  Mount  Nitria  (Palladius, 
Hist.  Lausiac.  o,  6,  quoted  by  Bingham)  three 
whips  were  kept  hanging  up;  one  for  chasti.sing 
offending  monks,  anotlier  for  robbers,  and  the 
third  for  strangers  who  misconducted  themselves. 
The  council  of  Agde,  a.d.  506  (c.  38),  orders 
monks  who  will  not  listen  to  admonition  to  be 
corrected  with  stripes,  and  (c.  41)  the  secular 
clergy  who  are  guilty  of  drunkenness  to  be 
flogged.  The  1st  council  of  Macon  (c.  8)  sen¬ 
tences  any  of  the  junior  clergy  wiio  summon 
an  ecclesiastic  before  a  lay  tribunal  to  receive 
“forty  stri])es,  save  one”  {Cone.  \  enet.  c.  6; 
Cone.  Ef.aonens.  c.  15),  The  rule  of  Isidore  of 
Seville  (c.  17)  directs  that  minors  snail  not 
be  excommunicated  but  be  beaten.  The  higher 
orders  of  the  clergy  are  exempted  from  the 
degradation  of  personal  chastisement  by  the  4th 
council  of  Braga,  a.d.  675  (c.  6).  Tlie  laws  of 
Ine  king  of  Wes.sex,  a.  d.  690  (Haildan  and 
Stubbs,  Councils  and  Eccl.  Eocuuruts.  vol.  iii. 
p.  214)  grant  a  pardon  from  his  scourging  to  any 
one  who  takes  ret'uge  in  a  church.  [G.  M.] 


FLAMEN 


FLOWERS 


679 


FLAIMEN.  Bishops  are  supposed  by  Du- 
cange  (s.  v.)  to  be  called  by  the  old  ethnic  title 
of  fianien  in  the  second,  thii-d,  and  fourth  canons 
of  the  council  of  Elvira.  But  the  “tlaniines” 
there  mentioned  are  almost  certainly  priests  of 
heathen  deities,  who  are  waj-ned  against  relap¬ 
sing  into  their  former  jfl-actices  after  conversion 
(Bingham,  An!i(j.  X\'l.  iv.  8).  [C.] 

FLAIMINA.  A  name  occa.sionally  u.sed  for 
the  banners  borne  in  a  procession.  Thus  Wolf- 
hard,  in  the  life  of  St.  Waljmrgis  (iii.  11,  in  Acta 
SS.  Feb.  25)  sjieaks  of  crosses  and  “.signifera 
flamina,”  being  borne  in  a  procession  (Ducange, 
s.  V.).  [C.] 

FLATTERY.  [Captatorks.] 

FLAYIANA.  virgin;  deposition  at  Auxerre, 
Oct.  5  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FLAYIANUS,  martyr;  “Passio”  Jan.  30 
{.Vart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FLAYILS,  martyr  at  Nicomedia  with  Augus¬ 
tus  and  Augustinus;  “Passio”  ]\Iay  7  {Mart. 
Adonis,  Usuardil,  [W.  F.  G.] 

FLFiXTFS.  [Penitence.] 

FLORA,  with  Maria,  virgins ;  martyrs  at 
Cordova ;  commemorated  Nov.  24  {Mart.  Usu¬ 
ardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FLORENTTA,  martyr  at  Agde  with  Mo- 
destus  and  Tiberius,  in  the  time  of  Diocletian ; 
commemorated  Nov.  10  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

FLORENTINUS.  [Hilary  (6).] 

FLORENTIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Carthage 
with  Catulinus,  the  deacon,  Januarius,  Julia,  and 
Justa  ;  commemorated  July  15  {Mart.  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(2)  Presbyter,  confessor  in  Poitou  ;  comme¬ 
morated  Sept.  22  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  jMartyr  with  Cassius  and  many  othei's ; 
commemorated  Oct.  10  (i6,). 

(4)  Bi.shop  of  Orange ;  commemorated  Oct. 
17  {^[art.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(5)  Martyr  at  Trichateau  in  France;  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  27  (i6.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FLORIAXUS,  martyr  in  Austria;  comme¬ 
morated  May  4  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

FLORUS.  (1)  Martyr  ;  commemorated  with 
Laurus,  Aug.  18  {Cal.  Byzant.'). 

(2)  [Demetrius  (3).]  [W.  F.  G.] 

FLOWERS.  1.  Use  of  natural  flowers. — The 
early  Christians  rejected  the  ancient  heathen 
custom  of  strewing  the  graves  of  the  dead -with 
flowers  and  wreaths.  This  is  clear  from  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Minucius  Felix,  \w\io{Octav.  12,  §6  ;  cf. 
38,  §3),  makes  the  heathen  Caecilius  reproach  the 
Christians  with  refusing  wreaths  even  to  sepul¬ 
chres.  But  thev  had  adopted  the  practice  in  the 
4th  century  ;  thus  St.  Ambrose  {L>e  obituValenti- 
niani,  c.  5o)  says,  as  of  a  lawful  custom,  “I  will 
not  sprinkle  his  tomb  with  flowers,  but  with  the 
sweet  scent  of  Christ’s  Spirit;  let  others  sprinkle 
basketfuls  of  lilies ;  our  lily  is  Christ ;”  and 
Jerome  {Epist.  20,  ad  Pammachium)  say.s,  “other 
husbands  strew  over  the  tombs  of  their  wives 
violets,  roses,  lilies,  and  purple  flowers,  and 


soothe  their  grief  of  heart  by  the.se  kind  offices.” 
So  also  Prudentius  has  an  allusion  to  it  {Cathe- 
merin.  hymn  x.,  circa  exequias  Defunctorum, 
177-8). 

“  Nos  tecta  fovebimus  ossa 
Violis  tt  fronde  frcqucnti.” 

And  the  same  writer  again  (Peristeph.  ix. 
201,  fl‘.)  exhorts  the  votaries  of  St.  Eulalia  on  her 
festival  (Dec.  10),  to  pluck  such  flowers  as  the 
genial  winter  yielded  —  the  violet  and  the  crocus 
— to  heap  their  baskets,  while  he  (the  poet) 
would  bring  his  garlands  of  verse,  woven  in 
dactylic  strain;  “thus  should  we  venerate  the 
relics,  and  the  altar  set  above  the  relics.” 

In  course  of  time  the  churches,  many  of  which 
in  their  origin  were  but  memorials  or  vast 
sepulchres  of  martyrs,  came  to  be  adorned 
with  garlands  of  leaves  and  flowers.  The 
basilica  of  Paulinus  at  Nola,  for  instance,  appears 
to  have  been  ornamented  in  this  manner. 
Jerome  {Epist.  ad  Heliudoruni)  notes  it  as  especi¬ 
ally  praiseworthy  in  Nei)otianu.s,  that  he  had 
decorated  both  basilicas  and  memorial  churches 
of  martyrs  (basilicas  ecclesiae  et  martyrum  con- 
ciliabula),  with  various  flowers  and  foliage  and 
vine  -  leaves,  mentioning  distinctly  the  two 
classes  of  churches,  those  which  were  built  over 
the  i-emains  of  martyrs,  and  those  which  were  not. 
St.  Augustine  mentions  {De  Civ.  I)ei,  xxii.  8)  a 
blind  woman  bringing  flowers  to  the  tomb  of 
St.  Stei)hen,  when  the  relics  were  translated. 
Venantius  Fortunatus,  in  a  poem  addressed  to 
St.  Khadegund  {Carmina,  viii.  9),  gives  a  some¬ 
what  more  detailed  description  of  the  floral 
decoration  of  a  church  for  Easter.  In  spring¬ 
time  (he  says)  when  the  Lord  overcame  hell, 
vegetation  springs  more  freshly.  Then  do  men 
decorate  the  door-posts  and  desks  with  flowers ; 
women  All  their  laps  with  roses,  these  too  for  the 
temples.  The  altars  are  covered  with  wreaths  ; 
the  gold  of  the  crocus  is  blended  with  the  purple 
of  the  violet;  white  is  relieved  with  scarlet.  So 
rich  are  the  flowers  that  they  surpass  gems  in 
colour,  frankincense  in  odour.  Gregory  of 
Tours  {De  Glor.  Mart.  c.  50)  tells  us  that  the 
basilica  of  Severinus  was  decorated  with  lilies ; 
and  further  {u.  s.  c.  91),  that  at  Menda,  in 
Spain,  three  trees  were  planted  before  the  altar 
of  St.  Eulalia,  the  flowers  of  which,  being  carried 
to  the  sick,  had  often  wrought  miracles.  lie 
also  informs  us  {De  Gloria  Confess.  31)  that  St. 
Severus  used  to  gather  lilies  and  other  flowers  to 
decorate  the  walls  of  his  church.. 

At  Whitsuntide  a  profusion  of  flowers  was 
(in  some  places)  showered  down  from  some 
elevated  spot  to  the  floor  of  the  church,  to  sym¬ 
bolize  the  outpoining  of  the  gifts  of  the  Si)irit 
(Martene,  De  Bit.  Ant.  1\L  xxviii.  17). 

2.  Sculptured  or  painted  flouers.—'fho  word 
“  paradise  ”  (meaning  garden)  having  been  used 
in  the  church  from  an  early  period  to  designate 
the  future  abode  of  the  blessed,  the  custom 
would  easily  and  naturally  arise  of  ornamenting 
with  flowers,  the  cemeteries  and  crypts  contain¬ 
ing  the  venerated  remains  of  martyrs,  and  even 
the  humble  graves  of  the  faithful.  Here  accord¬ 
ingly  we  find  flowers  lavished  in  every  direction, 
and  in  every  device,  in  wreath.s,  in  bunches,  in 
crowns,  in  vases,  in  baskets.  In  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Agnes  we  trace  a  beautiful  idea  from  the 
antique  in  the  decoration  of  the  entrance  to  the 


680 


FOIJATI 


first  chamber — little  winged  genii  carrying  on 
their  shoulders  small  baskets  filled  with  flowers, 
to  be  strewed  on  the  graves  of  the  saints  who 
repose  within  (l>ottari,  Si:ult’ire  e  PiUure,  tav. 
cxxxix.).  lu  the  churclies  of  Rome  and  Ravenna 
the  mosaics  of  the  ajise  usually  represent  the 
delights  of  paradise  ;  there  we  find  figures  of 
our  Lord  with  the  Virgin  and  other  saints  ujion 
a  groundwork  of  grass  and  flowers  (Ciampini, 
Ft'f.  rnoiiiin.  1.  tab.  xlvi.  et  passim).  The 
bottoms  of  ancient  glass  cups  have  been  found 
embellished  with  the  same  subjects  treated  in 
the  same  manner  [Glass,  Christian], 

A  flower  rising  out  of  a  crown  placed  between 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  in  the  place  where  the 
monogram  generally  ajipears  has  been  thought 
to  be  a  symbol  of  the  Lord.  An  example  may 
be  seen  on  a  gilt  vase  (Buonarruoti,  Franmenti 
di  Vetro,  xvi.  1). 

(Martene,  iJe  Fit.  Ant.  lib.  iii.  c.  10,  §  13; 
Binterim’s  Dcnkt  iirdujkeiten^  iv.  1,  130;  Mar- 
tigny,  Dictionnaire,  s.  v.  Fleurs).  [C.] 

FOLIATI.  [Shoe.] 

FONT,  BAPTISMAL.  In  the  article  Bap¬ 
tistery,  full  particulars  have  been  given  of  the 
building  or  chamber  set  apart  for  the  admini¬ 
stration  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  It  remains 
now  to  speak  of  the  cistern  or  vessel  for  contain¬ 
ing  the  water.  This  was  known  under  different 
names  ;  the  general  Greek  appellation  being  koK~ 
vfji^riQpa,  the  Latin,  piscina.  Other  names  were 
K6y)(^ri,  v7rou6p.os.  lavacrum,  natatorium  (Du- 
cange,  Constantinopol.  Christ,  lib.,  iii.  c.  81,  p.  73). 

The  material  in  the  Western  church  was,  as 
a  iTile,  stone  ;  frequently  porphyiy,  or  other 
rich  marbles.  It  was  permitted  by  the  council 
of  Lerida,  a.d.  524,  that  if  the  presbyter  could 
not  procure  a  stone  font,  he  might  provide 
himself  with  a  “  vas  conveniens  ad  baptizandi 
officium  ”  of  any  material  (Labbe,  Condi,  iv. 
1615),  which  was  to  be  reserved  for  that  sacra¬ 
ment  alone  (Leo.  IV.  de  Cura  Pastoral.;  Labbe, 
Condi,  viii.  37).  In  the  Eastern  church  the 
font  was  usually  of  metal  or  wood,  and  seldom 
or  never  possessed  any  beauty.  (Neale,  Eastern 
Church,  i.  214.) 

The  usual  form  of  the  font  was  octagonal, 
with  a  mystical  reference  to  the  eighth  day,  as 
the  day  of  our  Lord’s  resurrection,  and  of  re¬ 
generation  by  the  S})irit  (cf.  Ambros.  Epist.  20, 
44).  This  explanation  of  the  octagonal  form  is 
given  in  the  following  lines  attributed  to  St. 
Ambrose,  first  j)ublished  by  Gruter,  Thes.  Tnscr. 
p.  1166,  descriptive  of  the  baj)tistery  of  the 
church  of  St,  Theda,  in  which  Alypius  and  his 
companions  were  baptized  by  him,  Easter,  a.d. 
387. 

“  Octachoruni  sunctos  templnm  consurgit  in  usus, 
Octagonus  Kens  est  nmnere  (Jignus  eo. 

ilcc  inimero  decuit  sacri  Baptismatis  aulam 
Surge rc  qua  populis  vera  salus  rediit. 

Luce  resurgeniis  Chi  isti  qui  claustra  resolvit 
Slertis  et  a  tuniulis  suscipit  exaniines, 

Coiifes.sosque  reos  inaciileso  criniiue  solvens 
Fontis  puriflui  diliiit  irriguo.” 

The  })iscina  is  sometimes  found  of  a  circular 
form,  and  is  occasionally,  though  very  rarely  (as 
at  Aquileia)  hexagonal  (cf.  Baptistery,  wood- 
cut,  p.  175).  Gregory  of  Tours  (c/t?  Glor. 
Martyr,  lib.  i.  c.  23),  speaks  of  a  font  in  the 


FONT,  BENEDICTION  OF 

shape  of  a  cross  in  Spain.  The  form  of  a 
sepulchre  is  stated  to  have  been  sometimes 
adopted,  in  allusion  to  the  Christian’s  burial  with 
Christ  in  baptism  (Rom.  iv.  4). 

The  piscina  usually  formed  a  basin  in  the 
centre  of  the  baptistery,  rather  beneath  the  level 
of  the  pavement,  surrounded  with  a  low  wall. 
It  was  entered  by  an  ascent  and  de.scent  of  steps. 
According  to  Isidore  Hisjjal.  {jJriy.  xv.  4  ;  de  Die. 
Off.  ii.  24)  the  normal  number  was  seven  ;  three 
in  descent  to  symbolize  the  triple  renunciation  of 
the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil  ;  three  in 
ascent  to  symbolize  the  coufe-ssion  of  the  Trinity, 
and  a  seventh,  “sejdimus  .  .  .  qui  et  quartus  ” 
at  the  summit  of  the  enclosing  wall,  for  the 
officiating  minister  to  stand  on.  But  the  rule 
concerning  the  number  was  not  invariable.  At 
Nocera,  the  number  of  steps  is  five,  two  in 
ascent,  and  three  in  descent.  The  descent  into 
the  piscina  of  St.  .John  Lateran  is  by  four  steps. 
We  find  frequent  references  in  the  fathers  to 
the  catechumens  going  down  into  the  font  for 
immersion,  e.y.  Cyril,  J/ysL  ii.  §  4 ;  “ye  weie 
led  to  the  pool  of  Divine  baptism  ....  and 
descended  three  times  into  the  water,  and  as¬ 
cended  again;”  Id.  Myst.  iii.  §  1.  “After  you 
had  come  up  from  the  pool  of  the  sacred 
streams”;  Ambrose,  de  Sacr.  lib.  i.  c.  2.  “Ve- 
nisti  ad  foutem,  ingressus  es.”  The  most  detailed 
description  of  a  bajitismal  font,  is  that  given  in 
the  life  of  St.  Sylvester,  in  the  Bihl.  Pap.  of  the 
so-called  Anastasius  (§  37).  This  font  is  said  to 
have  been  presented  by  Constantine  the  Great 
to  the  church  of  the  Lateran,  in  which  he  is 
falsely  recorded  to  have  been  bajitized  himself. 
The  description  is  at  any  rate  of  value  as  indi¬ 
cating  the  decoration  and  arrangements  of  an 
early  font.  The  cistern  is  stated  to  have  been  of 
porphyry,  overlaid  v.dthin  and  without  with 
silver.  In  the  middle  of  the  font  were  two 
pillars  of  porphyry,  carrying  a  golden  dish,  in 
which  the  Paschal  lamp  burnt,  fed  with  balsam, 
and  with  an  asbestos  wick.  A  lamb  of  pure  gold 
on  the  brim  of  the  basin,  and  seven  silver  stags, 
in  allusion  to  Ps.  xlii.  1,  poured  out  water;  on 
either  side  of  the  lamb  were  silver  statues  of 
Christ,  and  the  Baptist.  The  font  erected  by  St. 
Innocent  at  the  church  of  SS.  Gervasius  and 
Protasius,  c.  410,  was  also  ornamented  with  a 
silver  stag,  pouring  out  water  (Anastas  §  57). 
Over  the  fonts,  doves  of  silver  or  gold  were 
sometimes  suspended,  in  allusion  to  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  Christ’s  baptism.  [E.  V.] 

FONT,  BENEDICTION  OF.  In  the  4th 
century,  the  ceremony  of  blessing  the  water  to 
be  used  in  baptism  was  already  regarded  ns  of 
high  antiquity.  Basil  the  Great,  says  expressly 
{De  Spiritu  S.  c.  27),  that  the  benediction  of  the 
baptismal  water  was  one  of  the  rites  which  the 
church  had  received  from  ecclesiastical  tradition, 
not  directly  from  Scripture;  i.  e.  it  was  then  of 
immemorial  usage.  The  principal  traces  cf  it 
in  the  remains  of  early  literature  are  the  fol¬ 
lowing. 

The  passage  sometimes  cited  from  the  Ignatian 
letter  to  the  Ephesians  (c.  18),  that  Christ  was 
oaptized  to  purify  the  water,  is  very  far  from 
proving  that  any  special  benediction  of  the  water 
took  place  at  the  time  of  baptism.  Nor  is  it  by 
any  means  certain  that  the  heretics  mentioned 
by  Irenaeus  {Ilueres.  i.  21,  §4),  who  poured  oil 


FOOTPEINTS 


681 


FONT,  BENEDICTION  OF 

and  water  over  the  head  of  those  whom  they 
baptized,  did  so  as  imitating  the  consecration  of 
the  water  by  pourhig  in  chrism,  as  practised  by 
the  orthodox.  But  when  Tertullian  (ii(?  \ 

c.  4),  after  speaking  of  the  aboriginal  consecra¬ 
tion  of  the  element  of  water  at  creation  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  goes  on  to  say,  “Therefore  all 
waters  acquire  the  blessing  of  consecration  (sacra- 
mentum  sanctificationis)  from  their  primaeval 
])rerogative,  God  being  invoked  (iuvocato  Deo),” 
he  probably  alludes  to  a  special  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  water  which  took  place 
before  baptism.  Some  years  later,  Cyprian  (^Epist. 
70,  C.  1)  says  that  the  water  for  baptism  should 
first  be  cleansed  and  sanctified  by  the  priest.  So 
bishop  Sedatus  of  Thuburbum  (^^eatentiae  Episc. 
n.  18,  in  Cyprian’s  Bbr/’s),  speaks  of  baptismal 
water  consecrated  by  the  prayer  of  the  priest 
(aqua  sacerdotis  prece  in  ecclesia  consecrata). 
The  Arabic  canons  of  Hippolytus  (can.  19,  p.  75, 
quoted  by  Probst,  p.  77),  direct  the  candidates 
for  baptism  to  stand  by  the  font  of  pure  water 
made  ready  by  benediction.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
(^Catech.  iii.  3)  says  that  simple  water,  having 
uttered  over  it  the  invocation  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit,  acquires  a  power  of  holiness 
(^ayi6rriTos).  Ambrose  (De  iis  qui  iuitiantur^  c. 
5)  mentions  exorcism,  benediction,  invocation  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  and  prayers.  We  have  here, 
perhai)s,  the  earliest  distinct  mention  of  the 
exorcism  of  the  baj)tism:Ll  water.  An  example 
of  the  form  of  exorcism  jnay  be  seen  in  Baptis.v, 

§  30,  p.  158. 

With  regard  to  the  form  of  benediction,  we 
have  already  seen  that  Tertullian  speaks  of  an 
invocation  over  the  water.  Probably  the  earliest 
form  extant,  wjiich  cannot  be  assumed  with 
certainty  to  be  older  than  the  beginning  of  the 
4th  century,  is  that  of  the  Apostolical  Constitu¬ 
tions  (vii.  43),  in  which  the  priest,  after  a  recita¬ 
tion  of  the  mercies  of  God  analogous  to  the 
Preface  of  the  eucharistic  office,  proceeds, 

“  Look  down  from  heaven,  and  sanctify  this 
water,  and  grant  grace  and  power  that  he  who 
is  baptized  according  to  the  command  of  Thy 
Christ,  may  with  Him  be  crucified  and  die  and 
be  buried  and  rise  again  to  the  adoption  which  is 
in  Him,  by  dying  unto  sin,  but  living  unto 
righteousness.”  Compare  Dionysius  Areop.  Hier¬ 
arch.  Eccl.  c.  2. 

Another  ceremony,  the  pouring  in  of  chrism, 
generallj’^  so  as  to  form  a  cross  on  the  surface  of 
the  water,  was  probably  of  later  introduction, 
though  it  is  found  at  least  as  early  as  the  6th 
century  [Baptism,  p.  159].  Gregory  of  Tours 
(^De  Gloria  Mart.  i.  23)  after  a  curious  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  miraculous  filling  of  certain  fonts  in 
Spain,  proceeds  to  say  that  the  water  was  sancti¬ 
fied  by  exorcism  and  sprinkled  over  with  chrism  ; 
a  passage  which  proves  that  in  the  time  of 
Gregory  (f594),  the  pouring  in  of  chrism  was 
regarded  as  a  matter  of  course.  And  it  may  be 
mentioned  in  illustration,  that  according  to  Flo- 
doard’s  description  of  the  baptism  of  Clovis 
(//jsA  Eemens.  Eccl.  i.  13),  it  was  after  the 
benediction  of  the  font  that  chrism  was  found 
wanting,  and  supplied  by  the  advent  of  the 
miraculous  Ampulla;  on  receiving  which,  St. 
Remi  sprinkled  the  font  with  chrism  (chris- 
mate  fontem  conspersit). 

In  Mabillou’s  Vetus  Missale  Gallicanum  (c.  25, 
p.  362),  we  find  exhortation,  prayer,  exorcism 


of  the  water,  preface,  benediction  of  the  font, 
another  preface  (called  Contest  itio  Fontis) 
then  the  rubric,  “  Postea  facis  tres  cruces  dc 
chrisma.”  In  the  Gallican  Sacramcntnnj  printed 
by  IMartene  (1.  i.  18,  ordo  3)  from  a  MS.  at 
Bobbio,  a  somewhat  more  explicit  description  is 
given  of  the  making  of  the  cro.ss  on  the  water 
with  chrism,  “  Deiude  in  fonte  chrisma  decur- 
reute  signum  f  facis.”  And  again  (Martene, 
u.  s.  ordo  10),  the  priest  “  accipiens  vas  anreum 
cum  chrismate  fundit  chrisma  in  fonte  in 
modum  crucis,  et  exjiandit  aijuae  cum  manu 
sua.”  It  may  be  observed  that  in  the  Missale 
Aethiojyicum  quoted  by  Biiiterim  (I.  i.  86),  where 
the  threefold  infusion  of  oil  in  the  form  of  a 
cross  is  described,  it  is  expressly  stated  to  be 
unconsecrated  oil  (oleum  non  benedictum). 

The  description  in  Amalarius  {iJe  Eccl.  Off.  i. 
25)  corresponds  generally  with  that  of  these 
sacramentaries.  Amalarius  expressly  mentions 
insufflation  as  one  of  the  rites  in  Exorcism  [see 
that  word].  After  the  expulsion  of  the  evil 
sjiirit  by  exorcism,  he  simply  says,  “  munitur 
aqua  crucis  signaculo,”  not  distinctly  mentioning 
the  pouring  in  of  chrism  in  the  form  of  a  cross. 

In  the  Gregorian  Bacramentarxj  (pp.  71-73)  is 
mentioned  another  rite,  that  of  plunging  tapers 
into  the  water  to  be  consecrated.  'I’wo  lighted 
tapers  are  carried  before  the  bishop  to  the  font ; 


after  the  benediction,  the  aforesaid  two  tapers 
are  plunged  into  the  ftmt,  and  the  bishop  “  in¬ 
sufflates  ”  on  the  water  three  times.  After  this 
the  chrism  is  poured  into  the  font,  and  the 
children  are  baptized.  This  dipping  of  the  taper 
into  the  font  is  represented  in  the  accompanying 
woodcut,  from  a  Bontifical  of  the  9th  century 
[compare  the  cut  on  p.  159],  where  however 
only  one  taper  is  given.  The  ceremony  mentioned 
by  Amalarius  {De  Eccl.  Off.  i.  25)  of  plunging 
the  tapers  of  the  neophytes  [Baptism,  p.  162, 
§59)  into  the  font,  seems  to  be  distinct  from  this. 

(Martene,  De  Hit.  Ant. ;  Binterim’s  Denk- 
viirdiyheiten ;  Probst,  Sakramente  u.  Sak7'ainen- 
talicn.  )  [c.] 

FOOTPRINTS  ox  sepulchral  slaps,  axd 

SEAL  RINGS.  Sej)ulchral  slabs  have  been  found 
in  the  catacombs  and  elsewhere,  incised  with  foot- 
prints.'^  The  two  feet  as  a  rule  j)oint  the  same 


»  The  white  marble  slab  preserved  in  the  church  of  St. 
Sebastian  outside  Rome,  said  to  have  been  brought  fn  m 
the  chapel  of  “  Doniine  quo  vadis,”  b.  aring  the  prints  of 
two  feet,  piously  believed  to  be  those  of  our  Blessed  Lord, 
when  met  by  St.  Pi  ter  coming  to  be  crucified  a  second 
time,  in  the  city  irom  vhiih  his  apostle  w  as  fleeing,  ia 
probably  nothing  more  than  a  sepuKhral  stone  of  the 
kind  described  above,  round  which  the  exquisiUdy  beau¬ 
tiful  legend,  found  first  in  .4nibrosc,  has  crystallized.  It 


FOOTPRINTS 


FORMA 


682 

way,  though  sometimes,  hut  rarely,  they  are  | 
tunied  in  oj)posite  directions  (Fabretti,  Inscript. 
Antiq.  p.  47‘2).  A  slab  in  the  Kircherian  Museum, 
given  by  hui)i  {1‘lpitaph.  Sever.  Mart'ir.  p.  68), 
bears  two  pairs  of  footprints  pointed  contrary 
ways,  as  of  a  person  going  and  returning  (fig._  1). 
Some  of  these  slabs  are  certainly  Christian, 
thou<^h  the  fact  in  other  cases  is  uncertain.  A 
slab  given  by  Boldetti  (c.  vii.  p.  419),  inscribed 
with  lANOTPIA  EN  0  (.Janmria  in  Deo)  at 
one  end,  bears  the  sole  of  a  foot,  with  in  di-:o 
incised  upon  it,  at  the  other.  Perret  gives  ^a 
slab  erected  bv  a  Christian  husband  to  his  wile, 
with  a  pair  of  footprints  incised  on  it,  not  bare, 
as  is  customary,  but  shod  in  shoes  or  sandals 
(^Catacombes,  vol.  v.  pi.  26,  No.  5o).  Sometimes 
but  more  rarely  w^e  find  a  single  foot  seen  in 
profile  (/f>.  ph  52,  No.  37). 

The  signilication  of  this  mai’k  is  much  con¬ 
troverted.  Boldetti  (p.  507)  and  others  regard 
the  footprint  as  the  symbol  of  pos.session,  de- 
notius:  that  the  burial-place  had  been  purchased 
by  the  individual  as  his  own.  Ihis  view'  is 
based  on  the  folse  etymology  of  “  possessio,” 
quasi  pedis  positio,”  given  by  Paulus  {Dig.  41, 
tit.  2,  §  1),  and  probably  needs  no  refutation. 


The  idea  of  Pelliccia  {de  Christ.  Eccl.  Polit.  iii. 
225)  and  Cavedoni  {Ra  jguagl.  di  mmum.  dell'  Art. 
Crist,  p.  40)  that  a  sense  of  their  loss  and  a  deep 
regret  and  aflection  for  the  departed  was  thus 
indicated,  is  a  mere  romantic  fancy.  More  may 
be  said  for  Lupi’s  view  (it.  s.  p.  69),  that  as 
such  emblems  w'ere  sometimes  dedicated  as  votive 
offerings  by  travellers  on  their  return  from  a 
journey,  they  w'ere  intended  on  a  Christian  slab 
to  indicate  a  holy  thankfulness  for  the  safe  com¬ 
pletion  of  the  earthly  pilgrimage  of  the  departed. 
Another  more  prosaic,  but  by  no  means  improb¬ 
able,  interpretation,  especially  of  a  single  foot,  is 
that  found  in  Thomassinus  (de  Donariis,  c.  7)  and 
Fabretti  (Inscript.  c.  vi.  p.  467),  quoted  by  Lupi 
(u.  s.),  that  it  was  a  thank-offering  for  recovery 
from  gout  or  other  disease  affecting  the  foot. 


should  he  remarked  that  the  basilica  of  St.  Sebastian 
was  erected  over  one  of  the  chief  Christian  cemeteries, 
that  from  which  the  name  catacomb  has  been  trans¬ 
ferred  to  the  rest,  so  that  the  presence  of  such  a  memo¬ 
rial  slab  is  easily  accounted  for.  In  the  church  of  St. 
Radegund  at  Poitiers  a  well  defined  footmark  in  the 
stone  supposed  to  indic<rte  the  spot  where  our  Saviour 
appeared  to  that  saint,  pr..bably  has  a  similar  origin. 
The  Roman  remains  at  Poitiers  are  numerous.  The 
footprints  shown  as  our  Lord’s  in  the  church  of  the 
Ascension  on  ihe  Mount  of  Olives  mentioned  by  Augus¬ 
tine  (in  Joann.  Horn,  xlvii.  4;  Jerome  de  locis  Hebraic. ; 
Beda  de  noni.  loc.  in  Act.  Apost.)  arc  stated  by  Stanley 
(S.  ds  P.  p.  452)  to  be  “nothing  but  a  simple  cjivlty  in 
the  rock  with  no  more  resemblance  to  a  human  foot  than 
to  anything  else.” 


The  same  emblem  is  froquenlly  found  on  seal 
rings.  The  sole  of  the  loot  bears  .somelimes  the 
name  of  the  owner,  e.g.,  i-oitTVNivs  (Boldetti, 
p.  506;  Perret,  vol.  iv.  pi.  .\i.  No.  4);  jvs'ivs 
(Aringhi,  ii.  698  ;  Agincourt,  jil.  viii.  No. 

23),  from  the  catacomb  of  St.  Agnes;  some¬ 
times  a  Christian  motto  or  device,  c. //.,  si*i:s 
IN  DKO  (fig.  2)  (Perret,  M.  s..  No.  5),  and  the  mono¬ 
gram  of  Christ  (/'>.  No.  6).  In  an  e.xample 
given  by  Peiret  (vol.  iv.  p.  .xxiii.  No.  2 1),  we 
see  the  stamp  of  such  a  seal  bearing  the  sole 


of  a  foot,  with  pavli  incised  on  it,  five  times 
repeated  on  the  mortar  in  which  a  gilt  glass 
had  been  embedded,  in  the  catacomb  of  St 
Sixtus.  [K.  V,] 

FORGERY  is  a  particular  case  of  the  offence 
called  Falsum. 

Falsum  is  any  perversion  or  corruption  of 
truth  done  with  malice  (dolo  malo)  to  the  pre¬ 
judice  of  another.  It  may  be  committed  either 
by  word,  as  in  the  case  of  perjury ;  by  act,  as  in 
the  case  of  coining  base  money;  or  by  writing, 
as  in  the  case  of  forgery.  In  the  case  of  the 
latter,  the  crime  of  falenm  is  equally  committed 
w’hether  a  man  has  written  a  document  which  is 
not  w'hat  it  professes  to  be,  or  forged  a  sea!  or  a 
signature,  or  erased  or  destroyed  the  whole  or  a 
portion  of  a  document  maliciously  to  the  preju¬ 
dice  of  another.  Falsum  was  punished  under 
the  empire  by  deportation,  or  even  (in  extreme 
cases)  by  death  (Codex  Tlieod.  lib.  ix.  tit.  1 9,  ll. 
1  et  2).  The  special  precautions  taken  by  the 
authorities  of  the  church  against  the  forgery  of 
ecclesiastical  documents  seem  to  belong  to  a  later 
jieriod  than  that  with  which  we  are  concerned  ; 
but  no  doubt  the  falsarius,  like  other  otlendcrs 
against  the  laws  of  truth  and  justice,  incurred 
ecclesiastical  censures.  ( Ferraris,  Bibliotheca 
Prompta,  s.  v.  Falsum  ;  Bingham’s  Antiq.  xvi. 
xii.  14.)  [C.] 

FORM.\.  An  impression  or  representation, 
as  (for  instance)  the  stamp  on  coins,  whether 
effigy  or  mark. 

(1.)  It  is  used  for  the  impression  of  a  seal ;  and 
it  seems  highly  probable  that  liteme  formatae 
[COMMEND.4TORY  LETTERS,  DiMISSORY  LeTT'ERS], 
derived  their  name  from  the  fact  that  seals  were 
appended  to  them.  Sirmond  quotes  a  Vatican 
gloss  w'hiiffi  interprets  the  term  “formata  epi- 
stola  ”  by  “sigillata,”  and  the  Greek  iuterpretci 
of  the  23rd  canon  of  the  Codex  Feel.  Afric.  [3 
Garth,  c.  28],  renders  “  formatam  ”  by  Teri/Trco- 
fxevpv,  clearly  in  the  sense  of  “  sealed.”  The 
second  council  of  Chalons  (c.  41),  testifies  to  the 


6S3 


FORMA  RIUS 

fact  that  seals  wore  appended  to  such  docu¬ 
ments. 

And  not  only  is  the  word  fonrata  used  abso¬ 
lutely  for  a  scaled  oHioial  document,  but  forma 
came  to  be  used  in  the  same  sense.  Thus  Capi- 
tolinus  describes  Antoninus  as  consulting  his 
friends  before  he  drew  up  authoritative  docu¬ 
ments  (formas) ;  and  the  word  is  similarly  used 
by  Christian  writers  (Ducange,  s.  vv.  Forma, 
Formafae). 

(2.)  From  the  same  use  of  the  word  Forma 
for  an  effigy  or  stamp,  it  arises  that  the  word 
Formata  designates  the  formed  or  stamped  bread 
used  in  the  Holy  Eufcharist.  The  Ordo  Eomanus 
in  the  rite  for  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  has 
the  following;  “cum  autem  venerit  ad  com- 
municaudum  Dominus  Pontife.x  porrigit  ei  for- 
matam  atque  sacratam  oblationem  integram.” 
Menard  takes  this  to  mean  an  “  epistola  for¬ 
mata but  it  seems  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable  that  the  consecrator  would  present 
an  ofKcial  document  to  the  newly  -  ordained 
bishop  at  the  moment  of  communicating,  and 
Ducange  (s.  v.  Formata')  has  shown  that  the 
word  is  elsewhere  used  to  designate  the  eucha- 
ristic  bread. 

(3.)  The  word  Forma  is  also  used  to  designate 
the  scats  or  stalls  used  by  clo’ks  or  monks  when 
saying  their  offices  in  choir  The  gloss  on  the 
rule  of  St.  Benedict  {De  Supellect.)  explains 
Forma  as  “sella  arcuata,  OpSvos.”  The  desk 
in  front  of  such  a  stall,  on  which  its  occupant 
might  lean,  seems  to  be  sometimes  called  for¬ 
mula  (Supplex  Lib.  Monach.  FulJ.  Car.  Magno, 
c  5,  in  Migne’s  Patrol,  cv.  p.  419;  compare 
Gj-egory  of  Tciu’s,  Do  Glor.  Confess,  c.  92 ;  Ifist. 
Franc,  viii.  31).  [C.] 

FORMARIUS,  the  person  in  a  monastery 
who  was  especially  appointed  to  promote  the 
spiritual  welfare  of  the  brethren,  and  to  be  a 
model  of  life  to  them,  “  qui  in  bonis  sit  forma  ” 
(Pe jula  S.  Ferreoli,  c.  17) ;  an  elder  brother 
fitted  to  benefit  the  souls  of  the  monks,  who 
should  studiously  devote  himself  to  watching 
over  them  (Peg.  S.  Benedict!,  c.  68).  The  corre¬ 
sponding  person  in  a  monastery  of  women  was 
called  For  maria  {Erg.  S.  Caesarii  ad  Virgines, 
0.  37  ;  Ducange,  s.  v.).  [C.] 

FORxMATA.  [Forma.] 

FORNICATION  (^Fornicatio,  rroprila)  is  de¬ 
fined  to  be  “  copula  carnalis  soluti  cum  soluta”; 
a  sin  committed  by  two  pei'sons,  male  and  female, 
who  are  not  connected  by  blood  within  the  prohi¬ 
bited  degrees  of  kindred,  and  are  neither  married 
nor  contracted.  This  is  in  substance,  Augustine’s 
definition  (^Quaest.  in  JJeuteron.  n.  37).  The  older 
definitions  of  fornication  seem  to  refer  almost 
entirely  to  the  freedom  of  the  woman  from  the 
marriage  bond,  without  regard  to  the  condition 
of  the  man  [Adultkry].  Thus  Basil  (ad  Amp/n- 
loch.  c.  21)  regards  the  sin  of  a  married  man 
with  an  unmarried  woman  as  simple  iropreia,  not 
goixFia',  and  Gregory  of  Ny.ssa  (h'pist.  Canonica) 
defines  fornication  to  be  a  gratification  of  lust 
which  takes  place  without  wronging  another ; 
which  words  Balsamon  (in  loco)  explains  to  meas, 
intercourse  with  a  woman  who  is  not  married 
(Tlopueia  Xe-yeroi  rj  aSiKia^  kripov  pl^is, 

jjyouv  r]  nphs  iKivdepav  ardpbs  yvvaina).  To  the 
same  effect  Theophylact  (on  St.  Matt.  v.  32)  says 
that  fornication  is  committed  with  a  woman  not 


FORTUNATUS ‘ 

under  marriage  bond  (e/’s  aTroXeXvgfi  r]i').  Am¬ 
brose,  however,  lays  down  the  wiiler  and  truer 
principle,  “  nec  viro  licet  quod  mulieri  non  licet  ; 
eadem  a  viro  (luae  ab  uxore  debetur  castimonia  ” 
(Dc  Patriarch,  i.  4).  Concul>inage,  the  continued 
cohabitation  of  an  unmarried  man  with  an  un¬ 
married  woman,  is  a  sj/ecial  case  of  fornication. 

The  word  fornicatio  is  also  used  to  designate 
all  kinds  of  sexual  .sin  and  unnatural  crime;  see, 
for  instance,  Theodore’s  Peniterdud,  I.  ii.  Forni¬ 
cation  in  this  wider  sense  is  commonly  called 
luxurv  by  later  canonists. 

It  was  one  of  the  first  cares  of  the  apo.stolic 
church  to  repress  this  evil  held  so  venial  among 
the  Gentiles  (Acts  xv.  20;  1  Cor.  vi.  18;  Kph. 
V.  3,  5);  nor  were  the  rulers  of  the  church  in 
later  times  less  anxious  to  put  down  all  forms 
of  uncleanness.  Basil  (ad  Amphil.  c.  22)  lays 
down  the  rule,  that  men  practising  concubinage 
after  seduction  should  be  excluded  from  com¬ 
munion  for  four  years,  in  the  first  of  which 
they  are  to  be  excluded  from  the  i)rayer:q 
and  weep  at  the  door  of  the  church  ;  in  the 
second  to  be  received  as  hearers;  in  the  third  to 
penitence  (els  perdvoiar)  in  the  fourth  to  attend 
divine  service  with  the  congregation,  abstaining 
from  the  offering;  and  then  to  be  admitted  to 
communion  of  the  good  (Koipooviav  tov  ayadov). 
In  the  case  of  concubinage,  the  great  bishop 
evidently  feels  that  the  times  will  not  bear  due 
severity.  He  holds  (ad  Amph.  o.  2o)  that  it 
is  best  that  persons  living  together  in  fornica¬ 
tion  should  be  separated  ;  but  if  they  persist  in 
living  together',  “  let  them  be  warned  of  the 
penalty  of  fornication ;  but  let  them  not  be 
meddled  with  (dcpie/rOio/rap),  lest  a  worse  thing 
come  upon  them.”  So  previously  (c.  21)  he 
acknowledges  the  difficulty  of  treating  certain 
cases,  and  confesses  that  custom  is  too  strong 
to  be  contended  against.  For  fornicators  in 
general  he  enjoins  (7).  c.  59)  seven  years’ 
exclusion  from  the  sacraments  ;  two  among  the 
Flentcs,  two  among  th&  AuHcnfe<,  two  among 
the  Substrati,  and  one  among  the  Consistentes 
[Penitexce]. 

The  treatment  of  sins  of  uncleanne.ss  occupies 
a  large,  perhaps  an  undue  space  in  later  Peniten- 
tials;  as  (e.g.)  in  those  of  Theodore  (I.  ii.),  Bede, 
(c.  3),  Egbert  (cc.  2  and  4),  Halitgar  (i.  16,  17), 
and  others. 

Periods  of  penance  are  prescribed,  varying 
according  to  the  condition  of  the  offender,  and 
the  nature  of  the  offence.  The  offence  of  a  cleric 
was  naturally  more  heinous  than  that  of  a  simple 
lay  person,  and  might  be  punished  by  degrada¬ 
tion,  as  well  as  by  the  same  kind  of  penalties  as 
those  inflicted  on  the  laity.  Ami  it  is  evident 
from  the  rejieated  denunciations  of  such  sins  by 
bishops  and  councils,  and  the  elaborate  provision 
made  to  separate  the  clergy  and  the  monks  from 
the  society  of  women,  that  the  celibate  clergy 
were  only  too  liable  to  fall  into  the  sin  of  incon 
tiaence  (Thomassin,  Vetus  et  Nova  Feel.  JJiscip. 
I.  ii.  61,  §<  8-12).  [C.J 

FORTUNATIANUS.  [Feli.x  (23).] 

FORTUNATUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Smyrna 
with  Kevocatus  and  V'italis;  commemorated  Jan. 
9  (Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  [Feliciaxus  (1).] 

(3)  [Felix  (7).] 


684 


FORT  UNI 'S 


FOUNDLINOS 


(4)  [Fklix  (12).] 

(5)  Martyr  in  Africa;  commemorated  with 
Cre.scentianus  and  Lucianus,  June  13  (J/urA 
Bedae). 

(6)  [Hkrmagoii.vs.] 

(7)  Bishop  at  Todi ;  “  Natalis  ”  Oct.  14  {Mart. 
Usuardi). 

(8)  Saint,  of  Rome  ;  commemorated  Oct.  15 

{ih.).  '  [\V.  F.  G.] 

FORTUNUS.  [Fklix  (G).] 

FORUM.  [Jurisdiction.] 

FOSSARII  or  FOSSORES.  The  grave¬ 
diggers  or  sexton.s  of  early  Christian  antiquity 
were  known  by  these  designations.  [C0Pl.\TAE; 
Decaxus.] 

Padre  Marchi  has  drawn  a  very  definite  picture 
of  guilds  of  fo.' sores,  organized  under  special  re¬ 
gulations,  attached  to  each  of  the  titnli  of  Rome, 
and  acting  under  the  directions  of  the  bishops 
and  presbyters.  {Mointm.  rrimit.  pp.  87-91.) 
But  the  evidence  he  adduces  is  of  the  slightest 
texture;  and  the  good  father  probably  did  not 
intend  his  description  to  be  regarded  as  more 
than  a  pleasing  hypothesis. 

The  term  fossor  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
the  inscriptions  of  the  catacombs.  IMai'chi,  p.  91, 
gives  several  epitaphs  of  fossores.  Boldetti,  i.  15, 
gives  the  following  from  St.  Callistus  :  “Sergius 
et  Junius  Fossores  |1  B.  N.  M.  in  pace  bisom.” 
But  the  most  common  appearance  of  the  term 
is  in  the  later  epita})hs,  which  testify  to  the 
purchase  of  gi'aves  from  individuals  of  this  class. 
The  burial  of  the  departed  was  probably  at  first 
a  work  of  Christian  charit}',  performed  without 
fee  or  reward  by  their  surviving  brethren. 
Afterwards,  when  the  church  had  become  more 
numerous,  it  was  carried  out  at  the  public  ex¬ 
pense  under  the  special  care  of  the  presbyters  of 
the  tituii  of  Rome.  When  Christianity  became 
the  established  religion,  the  fossores  evidently 
established  a  kind  of  property  in  the  catacombs, 
which  authorized  them  to  sell  graves  either  to 
living  persons  fur  their  own  burial,  or  to  the 
friends  of  the  deceasedi  This  state  of  things 
seems  to  have  had  a  wide-spread  but  transient 
existence.  The  examples  are  almost  innumerable 
in  which  the  purchase  of  graves  of  the  fossores 
is  plainly  stated  in  the  epitaph.  No  trace  of  such 
bargains  appears  before,  the  latter  years  of  the 
4th  century,  nor  later  than  the  first  quarter  of 
the  5th  century.  According  to  l)e  Rossi  {E.  S. 
i.  p.  2U)),  the  last  known  mention  of  fossores  is 
A.D.  42G.  As  examples  of  these  bargains,  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  time  when  interment  had  become  the 
private  enterprise  of  the  fossores,  and  Christian 
burial  had  been  degraded  into  a  trade,  we  mav 
refer  to  the  instances  already  given  under 
Catacomrs.  The  eager  craving  after  sepulture 
in  the  iwoximity  of  the  holy  dead,  to  which  some 
of  these  epitaphs  bear  witness,  has  been  the 
cause  of  the  desti'uction  of  many  j)aintings  of 
high  interest.  The.  fossores  could  not  afford  to 
have  a  taste  either  archaeological  or  artistic,  and 
pierced  the  painted  walls  to  make  new  highly- 
priced  loculi,  as  rei;klessly  as  the  exquisite 
carved  work  of  so  many  of  our  cathedrals  has 
been  cut  away  for  the  erection  of  tasteless 
monuments. 

The  fossor  at  his  work  appears  frequently  in 


the  fre.scoes  of  the  catacombs.  (Bosio,  pp.  305, 
335,  339,  373;  Aringhi.  ii.  pj).  2.3,  63,  67,  101.) 

Bottari,  tom.  ii.  tav.  118,  gives  two  pictures 
from  the  catacomb  of  Marcellinus  and  Peter. 
One  represents  a  young  man,  his  beaid  closely 
shaven,  in  a  short  tunic,  girt  round  his  waist, 
his  legs  and  feet  bare,  excavating  the  rock  with 
his  pick,  a  lamp  hanging  by  his  side.  The  other 
depicts  an  older  man  in  a  long  tunic,  not  at 
work,  holding  a  lamp  a/fixed  to  a  long  handle 
ending  in  a  sharp  jjoint,  and  a  little  below'  on  the 
shaft  a  hook  for  susj)eusion. 

The  most  curious  and  interesting  of  these  re¬ 
presentations  is  that  of  a  fossor  named  Diogene.s, 
from  the  cemetery  of  Callistus  (see  woodcut). 


He  wears  a  tunic  m.arked  with  garnmadia  on  its 
hem,  carries  a  pick  over  his  right  shoulder,  and  a 
lamp  in  his  left  hand,  and  is  surrounded  by  a 
heap  of  levers,  picks,  and  other  tools  employed 
in  his  work.  Above  is  the  inscription  :  “  Dio¬ 
genes  Fossor  in  pace  depositus  Octabu  Kalendas 
bctobris.”  (Boldetti,  lib.  i.  cap.  15;  Bottari,  tom. 
ii.  p.  126,  tav.  99.)  A  fossor's  pick  has  been  dis- 
coA'ered  by  De  Rossi  in  the  cemetery  of  Callistus, 
much  oxidised,  but  still  recognizable.  (Martigny, 
Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.  p.  281.)  [E.  V.] 

FOUNDATION.  [Endow^ment  ;  Property 
OF  TJiE  Church.] 

FOUNDER.  [Patron.] 

FOUNDLINGS  {Alumni).  Compare  Ex¬ 

posing  OF  Infants. 

From  an  early  period  the  church  provided 
Orphanages  [see  the  word]  for  the  reception  of 
children  left  destitute  by  the  death  or  desertion 
of  their  parent-s  But,  independently  of  such 
institutions,  it  also  maintained  a  large  number 
by  appeals  to  individual  charity,  and  exhorted 
the  faithful  to  feed  and  shelter  the  innocent 
creatures  in  their  own  houses.  The  number  of 
these  alumni,  “  nurslings,”  was  large  ;  the  rescue 
of  a  deserted  infant  being  considered  as  an  act 
specially  inspired  by  Christian  charity.  The 
word  .alumnus  consequently  occurs  much  oftener 
in  Christian  than  in  pagan  inscriptions.  Some¬ 
times  we  find  the  adopting  parents  raising  a 
tomb  to  their  alumnus  (Perret,  Catacombes,  v. 
xlvi.  13).  In  the  cemetery  of  Pontianus  the 
name  of  a  young  person  de})arted  is  inscribed 
upon  a  circular  ivory  tablet  thus :  kmerinvs  H 
victorinae  11  ALVXINAE  SVAE  (Fabretti,  /?»- 


FOUNTAi:N  OR  WELL 


FOUNTAINS  AT  CHURCHES  685 


script.  Antiq.  iii.  331).  In  other  instances  the 
titulus  is  a  token  of  the  child’s  gratitude  to  his 
benefactors,  whom  he  calls  father  and  mother 
(Ferret,  .\lii.  4).  Felicissuivs  Alvmnvs  in  the 
following  inscription  expresses  the  happiness  of 
the  adopted  sou  under  the  care  of  his  tutelary- 
parents. 

ANTONIVS  DISCOEIVS  FILIVS  ET  BIBIVS 

FEI.ICISSIMVS  ALVMNVS  VALEBIE  CRESTENI 

MATUI  BIDVE  ANNORVM  INTERIANTOS. 

De  Rossi  (^Inscript.  Christ,  i,  46)  gives  the 
epitaph  of  an  alumnus  of  the  date  a.d.  340. 
Le  Blant  {fascr.  Chret.  de  la  Gaule'),  mentions  an 
inscription  at  Treves  to  the  memory  of  an 
alumna  who  survived  only  one  month  and  a  few 
days.  Infants  were  generally  exposed  at  the 
doors  of  churches  {Cone.  Arles  II.  can.  51,  a.d. 
451). 

A  person  wisiiing  to  adopt  an  exposed  child 
was  required  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the 
minister  of  the  church  near  which  it  was  found 
a  written  statement  giving  the  sex  of  the  child 
with  the  time  and  place  of  its  discovery,  in  order 
that  it  might  he  restored  to  its  parents  if  they 
wished  to  reclaim  it.  If  no  such  claim  were  put 
forward  within  ten  days  after  its  exposure,  the 
child  belonged  by  right  to  those  who  had  given 
it  shelter  (Wartigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret..,  s.  v. 
Infants  2'romes).  [C.] 

FOUNTAIN  OR  WELL.  [See  Rock,  and 
Evangelists,  Representations  of.]  Our  Lord 
is  represented  (in  Bottari,  tav.  xvi. ;  Buonarotti, 
^ctri,  tav.  vi.  et  passhii)  as  the  Source  of  the 
Gospel  and  Fons  Fietatis,  from  under  whose  feet 
flow  the  four  Rivers  of  Faradise.  [See  Four 
Rivers.]  In  the  Laterau  [Cross,  p.  496]  and 
other  baptismal  crosses  the  Holy  DoA^e  is  the 
fount  or  source  from  which  the  sacred  rivers 
flow.  The  well  springing  in  the  wilderness  is 
rather  a  Hebrew,  Arab,  or  universally  Eastern 
image,  than  a  specially  Christian  one.  In  some 
early  baptisms  of  our  Lord,  as  that  in  the  ancient 
baptistery  of  Ravenna,  the  river-god  or  presiding 
deity  of  the  source  of  Jordan  is  introduced.  For 
the  fountain  or  stream  flowing  from  the  Rock  of 
Moses,  and  fishes  therein.  [See  Fisherman.] 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

FOUNTAINS  AT  THE  ENTRANCE  OF 
CHLHICHES.  The  natural  symbolism  which 
required  external  purity  in  the  worshippers,  as 
an  index  of  the  cleanness  of  heart  necessary  for 
approaching  God  with  acceptance,  dictated  the 
erection  of  fountains  or  cisterns  of  water  in. the 
atria,  or  forecourts  of  the  jirimitive  churches,  for 
the  peojile  to  wash  their  hands,  feet,  and  faces, 
before  they  entered  the  sacred  building.  Such  a 
fountain  was  known  by  different  designations, 
Kpi]vr]  (Euseb.  H.E.  x.  4  ;  Chrys.  Ilom.  57,  Ed. 
SaviL),  fppiap  (Socr.  //.  Zf.  ii.  38),  <pid\r}  (Faul. 
Silentiar.  ii.  A^ers.  177),  ip-^arps  (Theophanes), 
Kokvp^iiou  (Eucholog.),  Cantharus  (Faul.  Nolan. 
Ep.  xiii.  xxxii.),  Nijmphaeum  (Anastas.  §  69). 
The  earliest  notice  we  have  of  this  arrangement 
is  in  Eusebius’  description  of  the  church  erected 
by  Faulinus  at  Tyre  (Euseb.  FI.E.  x.  4).  He 
speaks  of  “  fountains  ”  being  placed  as  “  symbols 
of  puriflcalion  ”  in  the  centre  of  the  cloistered 
atrium,  affording  means  of  cleansing  to  those 
who  Avere  going  into  the  church.  A  similar 
basin  Avas  erected  by  Faulinus  of  Nola,  in  the 


atrium  of  the  basilica  of  St.  Felix,  its  purpose 
being  expressed  by  the  following  A'erses  over 
one  of  the  arches  of  the  opposite  cloister — 

“Sancta  nifens  fanmils  inttrluit  atria  lyniphis 
Cantharus,  Inlrantumquc  inanns  luA'at  amne  ministro.” 

Paul.  Nolan.  Ep.  32  ad  Sever. 

This  “cantharus”  Avas  protected  by  a  brazen 
canopy,  or  turret  of  lattice  Avork  — 

“Quem  Cixncc'llato  tegit  aerca  culniine  tiirris.” 

Paulin.  I’onn.  26  {.\at.  x.) 

Other  brazen  basins  supjdied  from  the  same  source 
stood  in  different  parts  of  the  forecourt,  as  Avel! 
as  a  roAV  of  marble  basins,  conehae,  at  the 
entrance  of  the  church  (ib.). 

Faulinus  also  describes  a  “  cantharus  ”  in  the 
atrium  of  the  basilica  of  St.  Feter  at  Rome  (^Ep. 
13,  p.  73),  “  ministra  manibus  et  oris  nostris 
fluenta  ructantem.”  This  Avas  covered  by  a 
dome  or  thohis,  of  brass,  suj)])orted  on  four 
columns,  typifying  the  fountain  of  living  Avater 
floAving  from  the  four  gospels,  the  foundation  of 
the  eAumgelical  faith.  This  cantharus  and  its 
quadriporticus  Avere  adorned  Avith  marbles  and 
mosaic  by  Symmachus,  c.  500,  Avho  also  erected 
another  external  fountain  beloAV  the  steps  of  the 
atrium  for  the  convenience  of  the  peojjle  throng¬ 
ing  thither  “ad  usum  necessitatis  humanae  ” 
(Anastas,  de  Vit.  Font.  §  79).  Another  Avas 
placed  by  Leo  HI.  c.  800,  outside  the  silver  gates 
of  the  same  basilica  {ib.  §  360).  The  popes  vied 
Avith  one  another  in  the  magnificence  of  these 
fountains.  Leo  the  Great,  c.  450,  ])laced  a  A^ery 
remarkable  one  in  the  atrium  of  the  basilica  of 
St.  Faul,  on  the  Ostian  way,  for  the  supply  of 
Avhich  he  recovered  a  long-lost  spring,  as  re¬ 
corded  in  the  verses  of  Ennodius. 

“Perdiderat  laticum  longaeA’a  incuria  cursns 
Quos  tibi  nunc  pleno  cantharus  ore  vomit. 

Provida  pastoris  per  totum  cura  Leoiii.-' 

Haec  ovibus  Chrisli  larga  fluenta  dedil." 

Eiinod.  Carm.  149,  ed.  Sirmond. 

Anastasius  also  describes  a  “nymphaeum” 
erected  by  Hilarus,  c.  465,  in  the  triportictis  of 
the  oratory  of  St  Cross,  adorned  Avith  columns  of 
A'ast  size,  and  pillars  of  jxuqxhyry  from  apertures 
in  Avhich  the  Avater  floAved  into  a  porj)hyry  basin 
(Anastas,  u.  s.  §  69).  Ennodius  also  («.  s.)  speaks 
of  the  Avater  of  the  baptistery  of  St.  Stephen 
coming  through  the  columns,  “  per  columnas.” 
In  other  cases  the  Avater  i.ssued  from  a  statue 
in  the  centre,  sometimes  of  grotesque  form,  or 
from  lions’  mouths,  from  Avhich  arrangement  the 
basin  erected  by  Justinian  in  front  of  St.  Sophia 
at  Constantinople  Avas  called  Xearrapiov  (Du- 
cange,  Constantniop.  Christ,  lib.  iii.  c.  22). 
This  fountain  Avas  made  of  jasj)er,  Avith  incised 
crosses.  There  Avere  other  smaller  basins  in  the 
cloisters  for  the  lustrations  of  the  people  (Du- 
cange,  u.  s.).  A  cantharus  discovered  at  Cou- 
stantino])le  bore  the  palindrome  giA'cn  by  Gruter 
{^[moript.  p.  1046). 

NITON  ANOMHMA  MH  MONAN  OTIN. 

These  fountains  Avere  usually  supplied  Avith 
Avater  from  running  springs,  as  that  at  St.  Faul’s 
already  mentioned.  Where  springs  Avere  ab.sent, 
the  sui)ply  came  from  rain  water  tanks,  as  at 
the  basilica  of  St.  Felix  at  Nola  (Faul.  Nolan. 
loein.  27  {Nut.  ix.)  v.  463,  sq.). 

Such  fountains  Avere  .solemnly  con.secrated  and 


G86 


FRACTION 


FOUR  RIVERS,  THE 


blesse'l  on  the  nnnuiil  T'ccurrence  of  tlie  vigil  of 
the  Kpipliany  (idontifieil  in  j)i  iinitive  times  with 
tl)e  (lay  of  our  Cord’s  baptism, 
when  the  element  of  water 
was  hallowed,  Chrys.  Hom'd, 
ia  liiijit.  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  869, 
fdontf.),  or  of  the  festival 
its(.df  (Itucange,  u.  s.)-  The 
odiee  is  given  in  the  Eucho- 
logion. 

We  find  frequent  reference 
in  the  early  fathers  to  this 
custom  of  washing  the  hands 
and  fa(;e  befoi-e  entering  the 
church,  c.(j.  Tertuli.  dc  Oral. 
c.  11;  Chrysost.  Homil.  51, 
i:i  }Antt.  ;  in  Joann.  72  ; 
Homil.  8,  in  Ephcs. ;  in  Psalm. 
140,  ad  Pop.  Ant.  86,  ifcc.  Cf. 
also  Baronins,  al  ann.  57,  No. 
106-110.  [Holy  Watkr.] 
The  accompanying  woodcut 
from  one  of  the  mosaics  of 


Fn  Ill  a  Mosaic,  St.  Vitale, 
Itavenna.i 


St.  Vitalis  at  Ravenna,  re¬ 


presenting  the  dedication  of 
that  church  by  Justinian  and  Theodora,  gives 
a  contemporary  picture  of  one  of  these  foun¬ 
tains.  [E.  V.] 

FOUR  RIVERS,  THE.  In  ancient  art  our 
Cord  is  frequently  represented,  either  in  person 
or  under  the  figure  of  a  lamb,  standing  upon  a 
hillock  from  whence  issue  four  streams  of  water. 
(See  woodcut.)  These  are  siipposed  by  many 
to  signify  the  four  rivers  of  Eden,  which  went 
forth  to  water  the  earth  (Gen.  ii.  10);  others 
(Cyprian,  Ep.  73,  §  10,  ad  Jubaiun. ;  Bede, 
Expos,  in  Ocn.  If.  ;  Theodoret,  In  Psalm. 
XL  V. ;  Ambrose,  Pe  Paradiso,  c.  3)  discern 
in  them  the  four  gospels,  flowing  from  the 
source  of  eternal  life  to  spread  throughout  the 
world  the  riches  and  the  life-giving  powers 


The  lour  liivcio  under  the  Lord's  feet.  From  Martig^y. 


St.  Ambro.se  again 


of  the  doctrine  of  Christ. 

(m.  s.)  is  ot  opinion  that  the  four  rivers  are 
emblems  of  the  four  cardinal  virtues.  The 
four  first  oecumenical  councils,  so  often  by 
early  writers  jdaced  on  a  jiar  with  the  gos- 

the 
Amiens 

in  the  eighth  century,  in  writing  to  his  clergy, 
thus  illustx-ates  the  veneration  due  to  these 


\ni  a  jj<ii  WILU  IJlti  ^ 

pels  themselves,  are  sometimes  compared  to  t 
tour  rivers  of  Paradise.  Jesse,  bisht'p  of  Ami( 


This  fountain  is  incorrectly  represented  at  p.  4C6. 


august  assemblies  (Eongueval,  Hist,  de  I'Egl. 
Gallicane,  tom.  v.  j).  144). 

In  several  sal  cojihagi  of  ancient  Gaul,  we  find 
two  stags  (juenching  their  thirst  at  these  streams; 
these  are  sufiposed  to  represent  Christians  par¬ 
taking  in  the  gosjiels  ainl  the  eucharist  of  the 
“well  of  water  .sjiringing  up  into  everla.sting 
life.”  [Cross,  p.  496.]  The  two  stags  are  occa¬ 
sionally  found  in  mosaic.s,  in  that  of  the  ancient 
Vatican  for  example^  (Ciampini,  JJe  Sacr.  Aedif. 
tab.  xiii.). 

However  we  explain  it,  this  subject  was  ex¬ 
tremely  jiopular  in  the  primitive  church  ;  we  find 
it  re[»eated  over  and  over  again  in  the  catacombs, 
either  in  fre.scoes  or  in  the  sculptured  ornaments 
of  sarcophagi,  and  sometimes  on  the  bottoms  of 
gla.ss  cups,  which  have  been  di.scovere  1  therein.  It 
ajipears  also  in  the  mosaics  of  some  basil ica.s,  for 
instance,  in  that  which  is  described  bv  Paulinas 
{Epist.  32,  ad  Pete  .\  and  in  that  mentioned 
by  Floras,  deacon  of  Lyons  (Habillon,  Analect', 
p.  416,  ed.  Paris.  See  also  Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon. 
ii.  tab.  xxxvii.  xlvi.  xlix.  Hi.,  &c.).  To  illus¬ 
trate  this  passage  of  Paulinus, 

“Petrani  superstat  ipsf?  Petra  Ecclesiae 
De  qua  sonori  quatuor  fontes  meant,” 

Rosweid  refers  to  the  mo.saic  of  St.  John  Lateran, 
and  the  sarcophagus  of  Probus  and  Proba,  as  re¬ 
presented  by  Bosio.  We  are  informed  by  Spon 
Xjiecherches  curieuses.,  p.  34)  that  the  four  rivers 
of  Paradise  in  human  form,  with  their  names  be¬ 
neath,  are  represented  in  mosaic  on  the  pave¬ 
ment  of  Rheims  Cathedral  (Martigny,  Diet,  des 
Antiq.  Ghret.').  [C.] 

FRACTION.  The  rite  of  breaking  the  bread  in 
the  celebration  of  the  Holv  Eucharist  istechnicalh' 
so  called.  There  are  three  kinds  of  fractions, 
wdiich  are  in  use  at  the  present  time  ;  though 
but  one  of  them  is  essential  to  the  sacrament, 
and  can  be  traced  with  certainty  to  the  infancy 
of  the  church.  The  three  are,  (1)  a  fraction 
illustrative  of  the  words  of  institution,  and 
therefore  a  direct  imitation  of  our  Lord’s  action, 
(2)  purely  symbolical  fractious  after  the  conse¬ 
cration  has  been  completed,  (3)  the  necessarv 
fraction  for  the  distribution  of  the  bread  among 
the  communicants. 

(1)  The  first  of  these  has  a  jilace  in  the  English 
office,  the  celebi-ant  being  ordered  to  “break  the 
bread”  while  he  utters  the  w'ords,  “He  brake 
it.”  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  that 
in  reciting  the  words  of  institution,  the  priest 
should  “suit  the  action  to  the  word,”  and  break 
the  bread  as  “  He  brake  it.”  It  is  very  jirobable, 
therefore,  that  this  was  a  common,  if  not  the 
universal,  practice,  in  wdiat  we  may  call  the  first 
ritual  period.  Traces  of  it  are  found  both  in  the 
East  and  West.  In  the  Cojitic  liturgy  of  St. 
Basil,  the  celebrant  is  ordered  at  those  words 
to  “break  the  oblation  into  three  parts;”  but  he 
is  at  once  to  reunite  them,  “so  that  they  be  in  a 
manner  as  not  divided.”  (Renaudot,  Litnrp. 
Orient,  i.  p.  15.)  They  are  put  together  again  with 
a  view  to  a  later  au(l  purely  .symbolical  fraction. 
There  is  but  one  extant  Latin  missal,  which  is 
reported  to  contain  an  order  for  the  actual  fraction 
at  this  time,  viz.,  that  of  Rheims,  of  the  middle  of 
the  16th  century,  in  which  the  following  rubric 
occurs,  “  Dicens  fregit  fraugit  modicum.”  (De 
Vert,  Explication  des  Ce'remonies  de  OEglise,  tom. 
i.  p.  262.)  In  our  ow'u  country  the  missals  of 


FRACTION 


FRACTION 


687 


Sarum  and  York  to  the  last  ordered  tne  celebrant 
to  “touch  the  host,”  while  a  nianuscri])t  I\Ianual 
in  the  possession  of  the  Rev.  W.  J.  Blew  goes 
furtluM-,  and  ])rescribes  “the  sign  of  a  fraction.” 
The  frequeiK^y  of  the  latter  custom  in  England 
may  be  likewise  inferred  from  its  condemnation 
•by  John  de  Burgo,  A.i).  1385  (^Pupilla  Oculi, 
jiars  iv.  cap.  x.),  and  its  prohibition  in  the 
]\Ianual  authorised  by  Cardinal  Pole  in  the  reign 
of  iMary.  Tlic  foregoing  facts  are  mentioned 
because  they  ajipear  to  support  the  antecedent 
probability  that  the  fraction,  which  is  now 
peculiar  to  the  English  and  Coptic  liturgies,  was 
once  general.  The  reason  for  giving  it  u|)  need 
not  be  sought  for.  When  the  bread  was  once 
broken,  it  would  not  be  possible  for  the  priest  to 
perform  the  subsequent  symbolical  fraction, 
introduced  at  a  later  period,  with  the  same  con¬ 
venience  and  effect. 

(2)  From  an  early  period  we  find  other  cere¬ 
monial  fractions,  more  or  less  elaborate,  em¬ 
ployed,  the  evident  intention  of  which  was  to 
develope  and  enforce  the  devotional  allusion  to 
our  Lord’s  sufferings  on  the  cross.  No  frac¬ 
tion  of  any  kind  is  mentioned  in  St.  Cyril’s 
account  of  the  liturgy  of  Jerusalem  (^Cute- 
chesis  Mystafj.  v.  cc.  17,  18),  nor  in  the  Cle¬ 
mentine  liturgy,  which  exhibits  the  ritual  and 
worship  of  the  3rd  or  4th  century.  [Aposto¬ 
lical  COXST’ITUTTONS.]  Ill  that  of  St.  Mark, 
which  from  its  long  disuse  has  undergone  less 
change  than  any  other  which  was  ever  in  actual 
use,  the  fraction  for  distribution  is  alone  men¬ 
tioned  (Renaudot,  tom.  i.  p.  162).  In  St. 
James,  which  is  still  used  at  stated  times,  and 
has  been  much  altered  in  the  course  of  ages,  the 
celebrant  “  breaks  the  bread,  and  holds  half  in 
his  right  hand,  half  in  his  left,  and  dips  that  in 
the  right  in  the  cup,  saying,  ‘the  union  of  the 
all-holy  body  and  the  precious  blood  of  our  Lord 
and  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.’  ”  (Assemani, 
tom.  V.  p.  54.)  In  the  Office  of  Prothesis  in  the 
common  Greek  liturgy,  there  is  a  preparation  of 
the  bread  by  the  aid  of  a  knife  (^oyxv),  accom- 
jianied  by  symbolical  allusions.  [Protiilsis.] 
After  the  Sancta  Sanctis,  which  follows  close 
upon  the  Consecration,  “The  priest  dividing  it 
(‘the  holy  loaf ’)  into  four  parts  with  care  and 
reverence  says  ‘The  Lamb  of  God,  the  Son  of  the 
Father,  is  dismembered  and  divided,  &c.’  Then 
he  takes  the  uppermost  part  of  the  holy  loaf 
(which  is  stamped  with  the  letters  ic,  for  ’I77- 
(Tovs'),  and  holds  it  in  his  hand,  and  the  deacon 
pointing  with  his  orarion  to  the  holy  cup,  says, 
Fill,  iMaster,  the  holy  cup.  And  the  priest  says. 
The  fulness  of  faith  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  he 
makes  the  sign  of  the  cross  and  casts  it  into  the 
holy  cup”  (^Eucholojiuin,  Goar,  pp.  60,  81,  175). 
These  rites,  though  not  perhaps  in  their  present 
form  precisely,  must  have  been  in  use  before  the 
separation  of  the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians 
from  the  church ;  but  whether  they  were  known 
to  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom,  the  alleged  re¬ 
modellers  of  the  Greek  liturgy,  it  is  impossible 
to  say.  On  the  first  })art  of  the  foregoing 
ceremony,  Symeon  of  Thessalouica,  the  mys¬ 
tical  expositor  of  that  rite,  observes,  “  He 
divides  the  bread  into  four  parts,  and  these  he 
arranges  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  and  in  this 
he  beholds  Jesus  crucided.”  JJe  Tc.aplo  ^-c. 
printed  in  Goar,  p.  228.  In  the  Coptic  liturgies 
the  rite  is  still  more  elaborate.  There  is  lirst  a 


special  prayer,  Prooemiumante  fraciionem,  prece¬ 
ding  it  ;  wliich  is  in  fact  an  act  of  thanksgiving, 
and  ^is  called  a  lienediction  in  the  office  itself. 
After  crossing  both  the  bread  and  the  cup  with  a 
finger  dijiped  in  the  latter,  he  says  a  “  Prayer  of 
Fraction.”  Later  on,  in  preparation  for  the  com¬ 
munion,  “  he  divides  the  body  into  three  parts,  as 
he  had  done  before  at  the  words  lie  brake  it 
but  this  time  transversely  to  the  former  fractures. 
The  piece  from  the  middle  of  the  Corban  is  the 
largest,  and  from  this  he  takes  a  small  jiiece 
(Isbodicon,  or  in  the  Greek  Alexandrian  liturgies 
SttouSikoV,  corruptions  of  Afo-TroriKiJj/,  tlie  Lord’s 
body),  which  he  sets  aside.  The  larger  piece 
from  which  it  is  taken  is  put  in  the  middle  of 
the  paten,  and  the  other  eight  are  jilaced  about  it 
so  as  to  form  a  cross.  Tiie  allusion  to  the 
Passion  is  thus  expressed  by  an  act  rather  than 
by  words.  The  priest  next  breaks  uji,  in  pre¬ 
scribed  order,  all  but  the  large  piece  in  the 
middle,  and  “collects  about  that  the  holy  body 
which  he  has  broken.”  The  Is'todicon  is  put 
into  the  cup;  a  rite  corresponding  to  the  Corn- 
mixtio  of  the  West.  The  fi'action  how  described, 
into  which  a  devout  pidest  could  evidently  infuse 
great  solemnity  is  common  to  the  three  Coptic 
liturgies;  which  fact  implies  that  the  former 
fraction  at  the  words  lie  brake  it  is  so  also  ; 
although  it  is  only  prescribed  in  that  of  St. 
Basil.  (See  Renaud.  tom.  i.  ])p.  19-23;  and 
Gabriel’s  Riturdi<,  ibid.  p.  258.)  Whether  the 
same  ceremonies  were  observed  in  the  Greek 
liturgies  of  Egypt  cannot  be  decided,  owing  to 
the  brevity  of  the  rubrics  and  the  absence  of 
commentaries  ;  but  the  Coptic  of  St.  Basil  carries 
us  up  to  a  period  earlier  than  the  conquest  of 
Amrou  in  the  7th  century.  The  rubrics  of  the 
Ethiopic  liturgy  do  not  prescribe  any  fraction, 
but  as  it  was  derived  from  the  Coptic,  and 
retains  the  Coptic  Gratia  Fr  ictionis,  we  may 
infer  that  it  had  a  solemn  fraction  similar  to 
that  which  we  have  described. 

In  the  Syrian  rite  the  priest  (in  a  short  office 
of  Prothesis)  “divides  the  bread  into  as  many 
pieces  as  may  be  necessary,  censes  them,  and 
sets  them  on  the  altar,  saying,  He  was  led  like  a 
lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep,  etc.” 
(Renaudot,  tom.  i.  p.  3.)  After  the  consecration 
he  breaks  a  small  piece  off  with  the  words, 
“Thou  art  Christ  our  God,  who  on  the  top  of 
Golgotha  in  Jerusalem  wast  j)ierced  in  Thy  side 
for  us,  etc.,”  or  something  conveying  the  same 
allusion,  {[bid.  pp.  22,  40,  etc.)  Before  the  com¬ 
munion  he  dips  this  particle  (pearl)  “into  the 
chalice  and  siirns  the  rest  with  it  crosswise,  sav- 
ing,  The  Blood  of  the  Lord  is  sprinkled  on  His 
Body,  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,”  etc.  The 
pearl  thus  used  is  then  put  into  the  chalice  with 
a  prayer  alluding  to  the  union  of  the  Godhead 
and  Manhood  in  Christ  (Renaudot,  tom.  ii.  pp. 
3,  41).  Another  .symbolical  action,  viz.  that  of 
touching  the  body  in  the  jjaten  with  the 
moistened  pearl,  is  not  marked  in  the  rubrics. 
It  is  done  in  allusion  to  the  piercing  of  our 
Lord’s  side  with  a  si)ear  (Barsalibi,  ibid.  p.  111). 
Among  the  Nestorians  the  consecrated  oblate  is 
broken  into  two  parts.  One  of  these  is  laid  on 
the  paten,  and  with  the  other  the  priest  crosses 
the  cup.  He  then  dips  the  latter  to  the  middle 
in  the  cuj),  and  “signs  with  it  the  body  which  is 
in  the  paten.’'  Both  signs  are  m.ide  with 
appropriate  words.  He  then  unites  the  two 


688 


FRACTION 


FRACTION 


j)ieces  of  the  oblate;  and  it  is  here  that  we  find 
the  passion  symbolized,  the  wounded  and  bleed¬ 
ing  body  of  our  blessed  Lord  being  evidently 
represented  by  the  broken  and  wine-stained  bread. 
He  further  with  his  right  thumb  crosses  the 
oblate  “so  as  to  make  a  slight  crack  in  it,  where 
It  has  been  dipped  in  the  blood,  and  puts  a  part 
of  it  into  the  chalice  in  the  form  of  a  cross.” 
(Renaud.  tom.  ii.  p.  .'394.)  The  Armenian  cele¬ 
brant  breaks  the  oblate  into  two  parts  over  the 
chalice,  .saying,  “The  fulne.ss  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
'i’hen  dividing  one  part  into  three  he  casts  them 
into  the  chalice  of  the  blood  in  the  form  of  a 
cross  ”  (Le  Brun,  ExiAkatvya  de  In  Messe,  Diss.  x. 
Art.  XX.). 

There  are  no  directions  for  any  fraction  in  the 
early  Roman  sacramentaries,  nor  for  the  com¬ 
mixture  which  now  follow's  the  symbolical 
fraction ;  but  in  the  first  Ordo  Romanus,  a 
directory  of  worship  of  the  8th  century,  if  not 
earlier,  we  find  the  following  method  prescribed, 
'i'he  bishop  (for  a  pontifical  celebration  is  de¬ 
scribed)  “breaks  an  oblate  on  the  right  side,  and 
leaves  on  the  altar  the  piece  (particulam)  which 
he  breaks  off.”  It  is  explained  that  this  is  done 
“  in  order  that  the  altar  be  not  without  .sacri¬ 
fice,”  while  the  mass  is  performed,  a  piece  (fer- 
mentum)  reserved  from  a  foinuer  celebration, 
and  placed  on  the  altar  before  the  service  began, 
having  just  before  been  put  into  the  chalice. 
Thi.s  is  the  only  fraction  before  that  for  dis¬ 
tribution,  and  there  is  nothing  to  give  it  a 
symbolical  character  (^Ordo  Rom.  i.  §  19,  p.  1.3). 
There  a])pears  to  have  been  no  symbolical  or 
merely  ritual  fraction  in  the  primitive  liturgy 
of  Milan,  although  for  “many  ages”  an  oblate 
has  been  broken  before  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  with 
the  words,  “  Thy  Body  is  broken,  0  Christ,”  etc. 
(Muratori,  Liturjia  Rom.  T^et.  Diss.  c.  x.  tom.  i. 
col.  134).  An  anthem,  called  Confractorium,  is 
sung  during  this  fraction,  but  with  no  special 
reference  to  the  Passion  (Paraelii  Liturgicon, 
tom.  i.  p.  304).  There  is  some  evidence  of  a 
symbolical  fraction  in  the  Galliciin  church  before 
its  liturgy  was  tyrannically  suppressed  by 
Adrian  1.  and  Charlemagne.  In  an  exposition  of 
the  old  Galilean  liturgy  written  by  Germanus 
bishop  of  Paris,  A.D.  555,  or  one  of  his  disciples, 
we  read,  “The  confraction  and  commixture  of 
the  body  of  the  Lord  was  set  forth  of  old  by  the 
holy  fathers  ”  (Martene  de  Ant.  Eccl.  Rit.  i. 
c.  iv. ;  Art.  xii.  Ord.  i.).  The  sacramentaries  are 
wdthout  rubrics ;  but  several  of  the  prayers, 
post  seercta,  which  were  said  immediately  after 
the  fraction,  refer  expressly  to  the  sufferings  of 
the  cross.  Thus,  for  example,  in  the  Missale 
Gothicum  in  the  Post  Secreta  for  Christmas : 
“We  believe,  0  Lord,  Thy  Advent;  we  com¬ 
memorate  Thy  Passion.  For  Thy  Body  was 
broken  (confractum)  in  the  remission  of  our  sins  ; 
Thy  holy  Blood  w^as  shed  for  the  price  of  our 
redemption”  (Mabillon,  Liturgia  Gallicana., 
p.  192).  In  the  semi-Oriental  ritual  of  Gothic 
Spain  and  Gallia  Narbonensis,  the  priest  broke 
the  oblate  in  halves  and  divided  one-half  into 
fiv-e  part.s,  the  other  into  four.  He  then  formed 
a  cross  with  seven  of  them,  putting  five  in  a  line 
to  make  the  stem,  and  one  on  each  side  of  the 
second  from  the  top  to  mak6  the  arms.  Each 
piece  had  a  name  given  it.  The  uppermost  in 
the  stem  was  called  Corporatio  (i.e.  Incarnation). 
Then  followed  in  order  Katii>itas^  Circumcisio, 


'  Apparitio  (Epiphan)'),  Passio.  The  piece  which 
formed  the  left  arm  of  the  cro.ss  (taken  from  the 
spectator)  was  called  Mors;  that  on  the  right 
Resurrectio.  The  two  remaining  pieces  Gloria 
and  Regnum  were,  placed  in  the  jiaten  below 
Resurrectio  in  a  line  with  it.  See  the  illustra- 
j  tion  below.  Thus  the  whole  course  of  our  Lord’s 
I  being,  acting,  and  suflering  in  the  flesh,  with  the 
;  fruits  of  it,  was  in  a  manner  repre.sented  (.I/fs- 
i  sale  Mixtum  dictum  Mozarahes,  ed.  Leslie,  i)p. 
5,  6,  230-1). 


i 

1 

Corporatio 

1 

Mors 

Nativltas 

1 

Resurrectio  1 

1 

1 

1 

Circumcisio 

Gloria 

Apparitio 

Regnum 

Passio 

In  some  of  the  ancient  liturgies  the  fraction 
now  described  took  place  before,  and  in  some, 
after  the  Lord’s  Prayer  which  followed,  or  more 
properly  closed,  the  prayer  of  consecration.  In 
the  Greek,  Roman,  and  Egyptian  St.  Mark  it 
comes  after.  In  the  Gallican  (JLitnrg.  Gall. 
p.  192),  the  ^Milanese,  Mozara.bic,  Coptic,  and 
apparently  in  all  the  Syrian  liturgies  (Renaudot, 
tom.  ii.  ])p.  22,  38,  131,  138,  etc.)  it  comes 
before.  To  these  we  may  add  the  Ethiopic,  but, 
in  that  liturgy,  as  in  our  own,  the  Lord’s  Prayer 
is  .said  after  the  communion  (Renaud.  tom.  i. 

р.  518). 

(3)  The  earliest  notices  of,  or  allusions  to,  a 
fraction  refer  only  to  the  necessary  division  of 
the  bread  for  distribution  among  the  commu¬ 
nicants.  St.  Augustine  :  “  That  which  is  on  the 
Lord’s  Table  ...  is  ble.ssed  and  hallowed,  and 
broken  small  (comminuitur)  for  distidbution  ” 
(Epist.  cxlix.  ad  Paulin.  §  16).  Clement  of 
Alexandria:  “Some  having  divided  the  eucharist 
according  to  custom,  permit  every  one  of  the 
people  to  take  his  own  share  ”  (^Ptrom/da,  L.  i. 

с.  i.  §  5).  Pseudo-  Dionysius  :  “  Having  exposed 
to  view  the  bread  that  was  covered  and  undivided, 
and  divided  it  into  many  parts,  and  having 
divided  the  oneness  of  the  cup  unto  all,  he  symbol¬ 
ically  multi])lies  and  distributes  unity.”  Again  : 
“  Bringing  into  sight  the  covered  gifts,  and 
dividing  their  oneness  into  many  parts  ...  he 
makes  those  who  partake  to  have  communion 
(with  each  other)  in  them  ”  (De  Eccles.  Hier¬ 
arch.  c.  iii.  §  iii.  nn.  12,  13).  In  the  liturgy  of 
St.  Mark,  in  immediate  preparation  for  the 


FiiACTION 


coniinunion,  “  the  prie.st  breaks  tlie  bread,  and 
says,  Praise  ye  God  in  [«'.<?.  Psalm  cl.  as  in  the 
Stptuagint].  The  priest  divides  the  bread,  say¬ 
ing  to  those  present  [h  e.  to  the  deacons,  &c. 
who  assist],  The  Lord  shall  bless  and  minister 
with  you,”  &c.  Then,  after  a  few  versicles 
entirely  free  from  any  mystical  allusion,  he 
communicates.  In  St.  .lames  the  later  Greek 
rite  of  putting  the  bread  into  the  chalice  has 
been  adopted.  “  When  he  distributes  a  single 
])ortion  into  each  chalice,  he  says,  A  holy  por¬ 
tion  of  Christ,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  of  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  whom  be  glory, 
&c.  Then  he  begins  to  divide  [i.  e.  the  bread 
in  the  chalices  with  a  spoon],  and  to  say.  The 
Lord  is  my  Shepherd,”  &c.  (Ps.  xxiii.).  In  the 
common  Greek  rite,  a  second  part  of  the  pre¬ 
pared  loaf  which  is  stam])ed  XC  (for  XpiaTSs)  is 
divided  for  the  communion  of  the  priest  and  his 
assistants,  who  receive  the  elements  separately. 
The  other  two  (marked  NI  and  KA ;  see  Elk- 
MENTS,  p.  603)  are  also  divided  according  to  the 
number  of  the  other  communicants,  and  put  into 
the  chalice.  As  intinction  began  to  appear  in 
Spain  in  the  7th  century  (see  Can.  ii.  Cone. 
Braccar.  Labb.  tom.  vi.  col.  563),  the  method  of 
fraction  now  described  as  attendant  on  it  was 
probably  in  use  among  the  Greeks  so  early  as  the 
6th.  In  the  4th  and  5th  we  find  Cyril  of  Jeru¬ 
salem,  Basil,  Chrysostom,  and  Cyril  of  Alexan¬ 
dria,  still  recognizing  the  practice  of  receiving 
-  in  the  hand  (see  Scudamore’s  Notitia  Eucliaris- 
tica,  p.  632,  and  Cojimunion,  Holy,  p.  416), 
which  is  incompatible  with  intinction.  We 
have  already  de.scribed  the  last  fraction  in  the 
Coptic  liturgy.  The  rubrics  do  not  specify  any 
further  preparation  for  the  communion.  Nor  are 
those  of  the  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  or  Syriac  more 
explicit.  The  last  named  liturgy,  however,  may 
receive  illustration  from  the  Nestorian,  in  which 
“another  fraction  of  the  same  Host  into  lesser 
particles  for  the  distribution  of  the  communion” 
is  expressly  ordered,  though  no  method  is  pre¬ 
scribed  (Renaudot,  tom.  ii.  pp.  595,  611). 

In  the  West  the  Rlozarabic  priest  preparing 
for  the  communion  put  the  “  particle  ”  called 
Begniim  into  the. chalice,  received  himself  that 
called  Gloria,  and  if  any  others  received  must,  it 
is  presumed,  have  used  the  remainder  for  their 
communion,  breaking  them  up  as  the  number  of 
communicants  might  require.  We  saj presumed, 
for  the  present  rubrics,  which  recognize  but  one 
Host,  divided  as  before  described,  direct  him 
afterwards  to  consume  all  the  particles  in  order. 
The  tract  of  Eldefonsus,  printed  by  IMabillon  in 
an  appendix  to  his  dissertation  De  Pane  Eucha- 
ristico  (^Analecta  Vttera,  p.  549),  prescribes  the 
use  of  several  Hosts,  the  number  varying  with 
the  f  estival  or  season.  We  have  no  information 
respecting  the  early  practice  of  the  Gallican  and 
Italian  churches.  In  an  Ordo  Pomamis  which 
probably  carries  us  up  to  the  7th  century,  and 
certainly  to  the  8th,  the  last  fraction  is  thus  de¬ 
scribed.  The  bishoj)  of  Rome,  it  should  be  said, 
is  the  chief  officiant.  “Then  the  acolytes  go 
behind  the  bishops  about  the  altar  ;  the  rest  go 
down  to  the  presbyters  ;  that  they  may  break 
the  Hosts  [which  were  then  small  loaves].  A 
paten  goes  before  near  the  throne,  two  regionary 
subdeacons  carrying  it  to  the  deacons,  that  they 
may  break.  But  they  look  on  the  face  of  the 
pontiff  that  he  may  give  the  signal  to  break. 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


FEAXKFOIIT,  COUNCIL  OF  689 

And  when  he  has  given  it  by  a  mofion  of  the 
head,  having  again  saluted  the  ])ontifL  they 
break  them”  (^Ordd.  Pom.  i.  ii.  iii.  pp.  14,  49, 
59).  [W.  E.  S.] 

FKANKFOET,  COUNCIL  OF  (Franco^ 
ford  ense  concilium'),  held  at  Frankfort,  a.d.  794, 
“  by  favour  of  God,  authority  of  the  pope,  and 
command  of  Charlemagne,  who  was  ])resent  and 
attended  by  all  the  bishops  of  the  kingdom  of 
Fi-ance  and  Italy,  with  the  province  of  Aijuitaine” 
(300  in  number,  according  to  later  writers),  as 
we  read  in  the  first  of  the  fifty-six  canons 
ascribed  to  it.  From  the  same  canon  we  learn 
that  the  first  thing  discussed  in  it  was  the  heresy 
of  the  Spanish  j)relates  Felix  and  Elipand,  since 
called  Adoptionism,  which  was  condemned;  and 
from  the  second  canon  that  a  decree  of  a  recent 
synod  of  the  Greeks,  visiting  all  with  anathema 
who  would  not  worship  and  serve  the  images 
of  the  saints  as  they  would  the  'I'rinity,  was 
repudiated  as  well  as  condemned.  This  is  about 
all  we  know  of  what  passed  at  Frankfort  ;  at 
any  rate  we  have  no  direct  authentic  record 
extant  of  its  proceedings  beyond  its  canons.  And 
of  these  the  second  has  been  made  a  subject  of 
hot  controversy  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
times.  Contemporaries  aver  that  bishops  Theo- 
phylact  and  Stejihen  (without  naming  their  sees) 
represented  pope  Adrian  at  Frankfort,  and  that 
the  council  repudiated  there  was  that  “falsely 
called  the  7th.”  In  the  modern  heading  to  this 
council,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  asserted  that 
“the  acts  of  the  2ud  Nicene  council  respecting 
images  were  confirmed  there.”  There  are  four 
dogmatic  epistles  printed  in  the  collections  of 
councils  as  having  emanated  from  Franktort. 
(1)  A  letter  from  pope  Adrian  to  the  bishops  of 
Spain.  (2)  Another  from  the  bishops  of  Italy 
against  Elipand.  This  is  better  known  as  “  the 
sacrosyllabus  ”  of  Paulinus  of  Aquileia,  but  it  is 
said  to  have  been  published  at  Frankfort,  and 
sent  by  order  of  the  council  into  Spain.  (3)  A 
third  is  from  the  bishops  of  France  and  Germany 
to  the  bishops  of  Spain.  (4)  A  fourth  from 
Charlemagne  to  Elipand  and  the  rest  of  the 
Spanish  bishops.  In  this  the  three  preceding  arc 
stated  to  have  been  sent  by  him  after  holding  a 
council,  and  conferring  with  the  pope  on  the 
subject  of  which  they  treat,  without  however 
naming  Frankfort.  Still,  after  reading  the  1st 
canon  of  Frankfort,  we  may  not  dunl  t  their 
having  been  brought  out  there.  As  little  can  we 
doubt  another  work  having  been  brought  out 
there  also,  for  the  light  it  throws  upon  canon  2. 
The  title  given  originally  to  this  work  was  “the 
capitulary  respecting  images;”  but  it  is  in  four 
books,  now  known  as  the  “Caroline.”  It  has 
been  ascribed  to  Alcuin,  Angilbert,  and  Angil- 
ramn  in  turn;  it  is  ascribed  to  Alcuin  still 
fBibl.  Per.  Germ.  tom.  vi.  220).  What  it  savs 
of  itself  (/Vne/.)  is,  that  it  was  jointly  composed 
by  Charlemagne  and  his  prelates  in  refutation 
of  two  councils  “  held  in  the  parts  of  Bithyni;;  ” 
(both  calling  themselves  the  seventh) ;  one  icono¬ 
clastic  (tnat  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  754),  the 
other  in  favour  of  images  (the  2n<l  Nicene, 
A.D.  787),  and  within  three  years  of  this  last  (oi 
four  years  before  it  was  brought  out).  But, 
in  reality,  there  was  no  need  of  refuting  the 
first  of  them,  as  this  had  been  already  done  by 
the  last  (Art.  Cone.  Etc.  ii.).  The  last  alone 


FRKSCO 


GOO  FKATEIl,  FRATEUNITAS 

chevetore,  now  stood  for  refutation.  “Decw_/?<s| 
dcstructione,”  says  Ilincinar  (i'n  cci’i^d  Ilinc.  L.  c, 
20),  “non  inodicuni  volunien,  quod  in  palatio 
adolesoentulus  legi,  ab  eodeni  iinperatore  Roinain 
est  i)er  ([UGsdam  episcopos  inissuin  ” — and  then 
follows  a  refej-ence  to  c.  28  of  the  fourth  book, 
which  identities  it  at  once.  Further,  not  only 
was  it  .‘ient  to  Rome,  but  it  elicited  a  formal 
reply  from  the  poi)e,as  pope,  vindicating  in  detail 
the  teaching  of 'the  2nd  Kiceue  council  which  ho 
had  continued  himself  (Mansi  xiii.  759  and  seep). 
In  this  work  it  is  the  2nd  Kicene  council  accord¬ 
ingly  which  is  attacked  all  through  :  the  creed  of 
Pelagius  the  heretic  (St.  Aug.  Up.  x.  App.  pt.  ii. 
Ivl.  lien.)  is  paraded  in  the  opening  c.  of  the  3rd 
book  as  St,  .Jerome’s,  and  called  “the  tradition 
of  the  Cathhlic  faith  in  its  integrity,”  in  o])po- 
sition  to  that  of  the  2nd  Niceiie  council,  which 
is  attacked  further  on  for  wanting  the  “  Filioque” 
clause  (c.  8):  while  c.  17  of  the  same  book  un¬ 
ravels  the  statement  of  canon  2  of  this  council, 
by  shewing  that  what  is  condemned  there  as 
having  been  decreed  by  the  2nd  Nicene  council 
under  anathema,  was  no  more  than  the  informal 
utterance  of  one  of  the  bishojis  who  spoke  there, 
named  Constajiitinus.  If  the  jiope  then  was 
really  rejiresented  at  F'rankfort  by  his  legates, 
they  must  have  left  after  the  condemnation  of 
Adoptionism,  or,  at  all  events,  before  this  canon 
was  framed.  Most  of  the  other  canons,  indeed, 
are  couched  in  a  style  of  their  own,  “Statutum,” 
or“detinitum  est  a  Domino  Rege,  et  a  sancta 
synodo.”  The  33rd  canon  runs  thus  :  “Ut  Catho- 
lica  lilies  sanctae  Trinitatis,  et  oratio  Dominica, 
et  symbolum  lidei  omnibus  praedicetur  et 
tradatur.”  It  has  been  assumed  that  what  was 
me.int  here  by  “Catholica  tides”  is  the  Atha- 
nasian  Creed.  Rut  it  would  seem,  rather,  from 
the  two  verbs  which  follow,  that  as  by  the 
Loi’d’s  Prayer  and  Creed  are  meant  what  had  to 
be  delivered,”  no  by  the  “Catholic  faith”  is 
meant  merely  what  had  to  be  '■‘'preached.” 
Besides,  this  jihrase  was  ajqdied  to  so  many 
things  then  (Ffoulkes’  Ath.  C.  Ajipend.  p.  32  and 
seq.),  that  its  actual  meaning  cannot  be  assumed 
where  the  context  is  not  ex})licit.  The  55th  is 
remarkable  as  shewing  how  Angilramn  had  been 
employed.  “  Dixit  Dominus  rex  .  .  ,  se  a  sede 
apostolical  .  .  .  licentiam  habuisse,  ut  Angilram- 
num  archiepiscopum  in  suo  iialatio  assidue 
haberet,  jiroptei'  utilitates  eccdesiasticas.”  Now 
the  only  work  extant  with  which  his  name  is 
associated,  is  a  collection  of  canons  said  to  have 
been  given  by  him  to  the  pope,  or  received  from 
the  pope  when  he  was  at  Rome,  containing  indis¬ 
putable  germs  of  the  false  Decretals.  In  the 
next  canon  Alcuin  is  commended  to  the  fellow- 
.ship  and  prayers  of  the  council.  There  is  a 
strong  family  likeness,  in  conclusion,  between 
this  council  and  that  of  Paris,  A.D.  825,  which 
should  not  be  overlooked  by  anybody  wishing  to 
form  a  just  nation  of  either  (Mansi  xiii.  859  and 
8G3  and  seq.).  [F.  S.  Ff.] 

FRATEIl,JFRATERNITAS.  1.  The  name 

Fruter  was  applied  among  themselves  to  all 
Christians  [Faithful].  Tertullian  (^Apolog.  c. 
39)  says  that  those  who  recognise  one  God  as 
their  lather,  and  have  drunk  of  one  Spirit,  are 
called  brethren.  Jerome  {De  Perpet.  Pirg.  c. 
15)  says  that  all  Christians  are  called  brothers. 
The  Pseudo  Clemens  {Epist.  ad  Jacob.  Proem.) 


speaks  of  the  priests  and  deacons,  and  all  the 
other  brethren.  Hence  the  title was 
commonly  aj)plied  to  all  the  members  of  the 
church,  or  of  a  ]jarticular  church,  regarded  col¬ 
lectively  ;  as  }>y  Tertullian  {Apolog.  c.  39;  and 
))erhai)s  Ve  Virg.  Vel.  c.  I  t),  and  Cyprian  (Epiit. 
51,  c.  1)  where  “  fraternitas”  is  equivalent  to 
“  clems  et  ])lebs.” 

Fiater  and  Fraternitas,  in  this  sen.se,  are  fre¬ 
quently  found  in  inscriptions.  Thus,  in  an  Alge¬ 
rian  in.scrij)tion  (Reinier,  /ns.  de  V Algerie,  No. 
4025),  a  church  is  designated  kccllsia  fkatkvm. 
In  a  tlreek  epitaph  copied  by  Jlarini  (^Arval. 
Prefaz,  )>.  xx.),  from  the  Olivieri  collection  at 
Pesaro,  the  body  of  the  faithful  is  addres.sed  with 
the  salutation,  “  peace  to  the  brethren,’’  EIPHNHN 
EXETE  AAEAd’OI.  Another  (Muratori,  'Ihesaur. 
t,  iv.  p.  JiDCCCXXiVL  9)  is  dedicated  by  “the 
brethren”  (fratres  reddiderunt)  to  Alexander, 
their  brother.  Another  (Rrunati.  ]>.  108)  appeals 
to  the  “good  brothers”  (fratres  boni).  In 
another,  from  the  cemetery  of  Priscilla,  “the 
brethren  ”  bid  farewell  to  Leontius. 

Some  ju'oper  names  appear  to  have  arisen  from 
this  idea  of  brotherhood.  As  that  of  Adelphius, 
which  is  found  on  a  marble  in  the  mu.seum  of 
Lyons  (Boissieu,  p.  597,  Ixi.).  ( Martigny,  JJiction- 
naire  des  Antiq.  Chre't.  ;  Art.  Fraternity). 

2.  Persons  of  the  same  oOicial  body  styled 
each  other  Fratres;  thus,  not  only  does  Cyprian 
s})eak  of  fellow-bishops  as  Fratres,  but  he  ad¬ 
dresses  jtresbyters  and  deacons  by  the  same  title 
(e.  g.  Epist.  IG).  When  in  the  same  epistle  (c.  2), 
he  says,  that  “fraternitas  nostra  ”.  has  been 
deceived  by  certain  persons,  it  seems  douJjtful 
whether  he  means  the  body  of  bishops,  or  the 
members  of  the  church  in  general.  Hosius  (Cone. 
Sardic.  c.  8)  speaks  of  a  fellow-bishop  as  “  frater 
et  coei)isco])us.”  h'rom  this  official  use  of  the 
word  “  Frater,”  it  arose  that  the  members  of  a 
council  speak  of  themselves  as  “  concilium  frater- 
nitatis”(/'.  Cone.  Lugd.  c.  6),  i.  e.  of  the  epis¬ 
copal  brotherhood.  So  I.  Syn.  liom.c.2",  I\'. 
[///.]  Syn.  Pom.  c.  1. 

3.  A  monastic  order  is  emphatically  a  brother¬ 
hood  (fraternitas),  and  its  members  Fratres,  or 
Fratres  Sjrir  it  ■tales  (Fructuosi  Pegula,  cc.  4  and 
8).  See  Buothkrhood,  Monastery.  [P.  0.] 

FRATERNUS,  bishop  and  confessor  at 
A.uxerre  ;  commemorated  Se2)t.  29  (J/arL  Usu- 
ardi) ;  de2)Osition  Sept.  29  (J/arf.  Hieron.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

FRESCO.  The  object  of  this  article  is  tc 
furnish  a  brief  historical  sketch  of  the  rise  and 
progress  of  2)ictorial  decoration  in  the  religious 
buildings  of  the  early  Christians.  Kmbellishments 
in  mosaic  will  be  treated  of  in  a  se2)arate  article, 
but  all  other  wall  decorations  will  be  included, 
not  those  only  strictly  comprehended  under  the 
title  fresco,'^  i.  e.  when  the  colours  are  mixed 

*  The  woxA  fresco  is  by  a  poi)ular  on-or  commonly  used 
for  ail  kinds  of  wall-painting.  Accurately  sj-ieaking  it  is 
restricted  to  that  which  the  word  indicates,  painting  on 
/m7iZy-/aut  plaster,  executed  while  the  wall  is  still  damp, 
in  wabr  colours  and  pigments  not  liable  to  be  injured  by 
the  lime.  Dry  fresco  is  painting  on  old  plaster  wetted 
afresh.  Distemper  (a  tempera)  is  on  a  dry  wall  with 
opaque  colours,  made  uji  with  some  viscous  medium, 
size,  whit  '  of  egg,  milk,  or  gum,  diluted  or  “  tempered  “ 
witli  water.  Lncaiistic painting  is  painting  with  wax  aa 
a  vehicle,  the  colours  being  burnt  in  afterwards. 


FRESCO 


FRESCO 


691 


with  water  simply,  and  applied  to  fresh  plaster 
while  wet.  This  was  the  ordinary  mode  of 
colouring  walls  amon?  the  wealthier  Romans: 

O  V  ' 

but  the  care  and  skill  it  required,  and  the  tedious 
processes  necessary  for  preparing  the  walls  for 
the  colours,  forbade  its  use  where  economy  was 
an  object.  In  the  better-class  houses  at  Pom¬ 
peii,  Rome,  and  elsewhere,  the  wall-decorations 
are  executed  in  fresco ;  but  the  greater  part  of 
the  paintings  in  ordinary  dwellings  are  in  dis¬ 
temper  of  various  degrees  of  excellence.  We 
are  at  present  deficient  in  accurate  information 
as  to  the  exact  process  em)>loyed  in  the  paintings 
of  the  catacombs ;  but  considering  the  general 
absence  of  wealth  among  the  primitive  Chris¬ 
tians,  it  is  probable  that  the  less  expensive  me¬ 
thod  would  be  adopted.  Whenever  paintings 
were  repainted  or  touched  up,  the  plaster  being 
dry,  the  distemper  process  must  have  been  ne¬ 
cessarily  employed.  That  encaustic  painting  in 
wax  was  also  employed  in  early  religious  pic¬ 
tures  is  certain  from  the  references  in  the  fathers 
to  that  process.  Chrysostom  and  Basil  (^C^ntra 
Sabelliun.  p.  805)  in  the  East,  and  Paulinus  in  the 
West,  may  be  cited.  The  latter  speaks  of  “ima¬ 
gines  ceris  liquentibus  pictas  ”  (^Ep.  xxx.  §  6), 
while  Chrysostom  more  than  once  refers  to  Kr)p6- 
XVTos  ypa(f)r].  Hermogenes,  the  African  painter, 
is  reproached  by  the  vehement  Tertullian  as 
being  “  bis  falsarius,  et  cauterio  et  stilo  ”  (Adc. 
Hennog.  c.  1).  The  fact  is  that  Christian  art 
followed  the  technical  rules  of  the  period,  and 
adopted  whatever  processes  were  in  use  among 
the  artists  of  the  day,  and  were  most  suited  to 
the  particular  work  in  hand,  whether  fresco, 
tempera,  or  encaustic. 

Nor  was  it  only  in  the  processes  adopted  but 
also  in  the  character  of  the  pictorial  decorations 
themselves  that  the  early  Christians  conformed 
to  the  practice  of  the  age  in  which  they  lived. 
Indeed,  it  could  not  be  otherwise.  As  has  been 
remarked  with  perfect  truth  by  Raoul  Rochette, 
“  un  art  ne  s’imj)rovise  pas.”  A  school  of  paint¬ 
ing  is  the  result  of  a  long  previous  train  of  edu¬ 
cation,  and  cannot  spring  into  existence  in  a 
moment  “  fully  formed,  like  Minerva  from  the 
brain  of  Jupiter  ”  (Xorthcote,  Bom.  Soft.  p.  198). 
There  was  nothing  exceptional  about  Christian 
art.  It  was  no  more  than  the  continuation  of 
the  art  Christianity  found  already  existing  as 
the  exponent  of  the  ideas  of  the  age,  with  such 
modifications  as  its  purer  faith  and  higher  mo¬ 
rality  rendered  neces.sary.  The  artists  employed 
were  not  necessarily  Christian  ;  indeed,  in  most 
cases,  esj)ecially  in  the  earliest  times,  they  would 
pi'obably  be  pagans,  working  in  the  style  and 
depicting  the  subjects  to  which  they  were  ac¬ 
customed,  only  restricted  by  the  watchful  care 
of  their  emj)loyers  that  no  devices  were  intro¬ 
duced  which  could  offend  the  moral  tone  of 
Christians.  In  the  earliest  examj)les  there  is 
absolutely  nothing  distinctive  of  the  religion 
professed.  “  At  first,”  writes  ^Ir.  Burgon  (/,<?i- 
ters  from  Borne.,  p.  250),  “they  even  used  many 
of  the  same  (levices  for  mural  decoration  as  the 
pagans  had  used,  always  excepting  anything  that 
was  immoral  or  idolatrous ;  introducing,  how¬ 
ever,  every  here  and  there,  as  the  ideas  occurred 
to  them,  something  more  significant  of  their  own 
creed,  until  by-and-by  the  whole  was  exclu¬ 
sively  Christian.”  The  deep-rooted  aversion  of 
the  early  Christians  to  all  sculptured  or  pictorial 


representations,  natural  in  a  community  that  had 
sprung  from  the  bosom  of  the  Jewish  church, 
for  a  considerable  period  forbade  all  attempts  to 
depict  the  person  of  the  Saviour  or  the  events" 
of  either  Testament,  and  limited  the  efforts  of 
Christian  art  to  the  simple  naturalism  of  the 
decorations  already  common,  or  the  arabesques 
in  which  the  fancv  of  the  art i.sts  loved  to  indulge. 
The  earliest  Christian  fi-escoes  with  which  we 
are  acquainted  present  the  same  subjects  from 
pastoral  life  and  the  vintage,  the  trellised  vines 
and  bunches  of  grapes,  the  bright-plumaged  birds 
and  painted  butterflies,  the  winged  genii  and 
gracefully  draped  female  figures,  with  which  we 
are  familiar  in  the  wall-decorations  of  the  Roman 
baths  and  the  houses  of  Pompeii.  By  degrees 
the  natural  instinct  for  the  beautiful  asserted 
itself,  and  the  desire  to  make  the  eye  a  channel 
for  the  reception  of  the  truths  of  revelation  led 
to  the  introduction  of  symbolic  representations, 
which,  without  attempting  directly  to  depict 
sacred  things,  conveyed  to  the  initiated  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  the  truths  believed  by  them.  The 
actual  change  in  the  character  of  the  subjects 
represented  was  at  first  inconsiderable.  The 
vine  laden  with  clusters  became  a  recognised 
symbol  of  Christ  “the  True  Vine  ”  and  the  “much- 
fruit,”  by  which  Chri.stians,  as  “branches,” 
were  called  to  glorify  the  Father.  The  pastoral 
subjects,  especially  those  in  which  the  Shepherd 
was  the  principal  figure,  at  once  led  the  mind  of 
the  worshipper  to  the  contemplation  of  Christ 
the  “  Good  Shepherd.”  To  the  devout  imagina¬ 
tion  a  Fish  represented  at  once  the  Saviour  Him¬ 
self,  the  anagrammatic  IX0T2,  and  the  human 
object  of  His  salvation,  the  Christian  deriving 
his  life  from  the  waters  of  baptism  (cf.  Tertull. 
de  Baptism,  c.  i.),  while  the  Fisherman  spoke  of 
Him  who  bj'  the  Gos])el-hook  takes  men  for  life, 
not  for  death.’’  [Fish;  Fisherman.]  Not  only 
were  these  natural  emblems  made  to  breathe  a 
Christian  spirit  by  the  infusion  of  a  new  element 
of  life,  but  even  directly  mythological  personages 
were  pressed  into  the  service  of  the  church. 
Orpheus  captivating  the  wild  beasts  by  the  sound 
of  his  lyre  was  adopted  as  a  symbol  of  Christ 
subduing  the  savage  passions  of  men  by  the 
melody  of  the  gospel,  and  Ulysses  deaf  to  the 
alluring  voices  of  the  sirens  repi'e.sented  the  be¬ 
liever  triumphing  over  the  seductions  of  worldly 
and  sensual  pleasure  (Martigny,  Bkt.  des  Ant. 
Chret.  pp.  447, .643;  De’  Ros.si,  Bulletino,  1863, 
p.  35).  The  hold  which  the  old  forms  still  main¬ 
tained  long  after  the  ideas  of  which  they  were 
the  exponents  had  pa.ssoci  away,  is  seen  in  the 
combination  with  Scriptural  scenes  of  those 
personifications  of  Nature  under  the  human  form 
so  frequent  in  ])agan  times,  which  lasted  even 
down  to  a  late  date.  In  the  delineation  of  the 
ascension  of  Elijah,  one  of  the  most  frequently 
repeated  subjects  of  early  Christian  art,  the 
Jordan  is  represented  as  a  river  god,  with  his  urn. 


b  This  image  is  beautifully  developed  in  the  grand 
Orphic  hymn  attributed  to  Cl  ment  of  Alexandria,  thus 
nobly  rendered  by  Dr.  W.  L.  Alexaiider  {Ante  Skem 
Fathers,  vol.  i.  p.  344): — 

“  Fisher  of  men  whom  I'hou  to  life  dost  bring; 

From  evil  sea  of  .Mn, 

And  from  the  billowy  strife. 

Gathering  pure  fishes  in 

Caught  with  sweet  bait  of  life.” 

2  Y 


692 


FRESCO 


FRESCO 


Tims  also  “a  mountain  is  occasionally  repre¬ 
sented  by  a  mountain  god,  a  city  by  a  goddess 
with  a  mural  crown,  night  by  a  female  figure 
with  a  torch  and  star-bespangled  robe,  &c.” 
(Kugler,  Handhook  of  Paintmj,  j)art  i.  p.  9). 

So  slow  and  timid  was  the  commencement  of 
Christian  art.  The  profane  abuse  of  sculpture  and 
painting  which  had  associated  these  forms  of  art 
with  idolatry  and  licentiousness  formed  an  almost 
insuperable  barrier  to  its  recognition  as  the  hand¬ 
maid  of  religion.  The  earlier  fathers  viewed  all 
sculptural  or  pictorial  representations  with  sus¬ 
picion  if  not  decided  disapprobation.  The  stern 
Tertullian,  transferring  the  prohibitions  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  theKew,  absolutely  condemned 
ail  representations  of  religious  objects,  and  re¬ 
proached  Hei'mogenes  as  vehemently  for  painting 
as  for  his  defence  of  second  marriages  :  “  pingit 
illicite,  nubit  assidue,  legem  Dei  in  libidinem 
defendit,  in  artem  contemnit  ”  (Tertull.  adv. 
Hennog.  c.  i. ;  De  Iddolatr.  c.  5 ;  cf.  Xeander, 
Antignosticus,  Bohn’s  tr.  pp.  225,  451).  We  find 
similar  but  milder  condemnations  of  the  pictorial 
art  in  Clement  Alex.  {Frotrept.  c.  4)  and  Origen 
(co/tf.  Cels.  lib.  iv.  c.  31).  Sacred  art  being  thus 
frowned  on  it  was  only  by  gradual  and  cautious 
steps  that  symbolism  gave  way  to  direct  historical 
representation,  the  events  selected  to  be  depicted 
being,  at  first,  themselves  symbolical  of  those 
great  gospel  facts  which  a  deep-seated  reverence 
as  yet  forbade  them  to  porti-ay.  The  persons 
and  incidents  of  the  Old  Testament  included 
within  the  limited  cycle  in  which  Christian  art 
originally  moved  had  all  a  typical  or  allegorical 
reference  to  the  leading  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
and  reminded  the  devout  worshipper  of  the  Sa¬ 
crifice,  Resurrection,  and  Redemption  ot  Christ. 
This  will  be  apparent  from  the  cycles  of  0.  T. 
subjects  given  in  the  latter  part  of  this  article. 

It  was  something  that  in  spite  of  the  profane 
and  licentious  associations  of  pictorial  art,  and 
the  aversion  of  some  of  its  most  influential 
teachers,  painting  should  have  secured  admission 
thus  far  into  the  service  of  Christianity.  But  it 
was  still  halting  at  the  threshold,  and  timidly 
shrinking  from  the  province  of  its  greatest  tri¬ 
umphs,  so  long  as  it  was  restricted  to  allegory. 
It  could  only  accomplish  its  object  in  elevating 
the  mind,  and  connecting  beautiful  and  ennobling 
ideas  with  the  external  facts  on  which  the  faith 
is  founded,  when  it  adequately  depicted  the  Person 
of  tlie  Saviour  and  chief  events  of  His  saving  life. 
Referring  to  the  article  Jesus  Christ  for  fuller 
details  of  the  pictorial  history  of  the  Redeemer, 
and  of  the  slow  degrees  with  which  the  pious 
horror  of  any  direct  delineation  of  His  outward 
form  was  broken  down  (of  the  persistence  of 
which  feeling  the  notorious  decree  of  the  council 
of  ElAdra,‘=  A.D.  305,  forbidding  the  depicting  of 
the  objects  of  w'orship  and  adoration  on  the 
walls  of  churches  is  a  remarkable  evidence),  it 
will  !  e  enough  here  to  say  that  portrait-like  re¬ 
presentations  of  bur  Blessed  Lord  are  found 
among  the  early  wall-paintings  in  the  Roman 
catacombs,  and  that  a  limited  number  of  events 
from  His  life  on  earth,  belonging  to  a  strictly- 
defined  cycle,  are  of  constant  occui-rence  in  the 
same  localities.  It  deserves  notice  that  this 


=  “Placuit  picturasin  ecclesia  esse  non  debere,  ne  qued 
colitur  et  adoratur  in  parietibus  depingatur  "  {Cone.  Illib. 
can.  3t!;  Labbo,  Concil.  vol.  i.  p.  974). 


cycle  does  not  include  any  representations  of  the 
history  of  the  Passion  or  Crucifixion.  A  feelin? 
of  awful  reverence  forbade  any  attempt  to  por¬ 
tray  the  atoning  death  of  Christ  in  any  but  a 
symbolical  or  allegorical  form.  “The  catacombs 
of  Rome  .  .  .  offer  no  instance  of  a  crucifixion, 
nor  does  any  allusion  to  such  a  subject  of  art 
occur  in  any  earl  v  writer  ”  (Hilman,  v..  s.  p.  398). 
The  most  ancient  instance  known  does  not  date 
earlier  than  the  8th  century  (Hunter, 
p.  77).  Beyond  the  domain  of  sacred  allegorv 
and  Scriptural  painting,  Christian  art  busied 
itself  in  the  representation  of  saintly'  personages 
and  of  the  martyrdoms,  the  memory  of  which 
was  .still  so  vivid  in  the  church.  It  is  difficult 
to  point  to  indubitably  early  examples  of  the  first 
cla.ss,  and  all  traces  of  the  latter  class  have 
perished.  That  representations  of  holy  persons 
were  not  unfrequent  in  the  time  of  St.  Augustine 
is  certain  from  his  reference  to  wall-paintings  of 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  as  commonly  existing, 
“  pluribus  locis  .  .  .  pictos  ”  {de  Consens.  Evang. 
i.  10).  But  the  paintings  of  St.  Cornelius  and  St. 
Cyprian,  in  the  crypt  ofCornelius,  in  theCallistine 
catacomb,  are  in  the  style  of  the  8th  century,  while 
the  Oranie  called  St.  Cecilia  by  De’  Rossi,  in  the 
crypt  bearing  her  name,  is  of  the  9th ;  and  the 
figure  of  St.  Urban,  in  the  same  crypt,  “can  hardly 
have  been  executed  before  the  10th  or  11th” 
(Northcote,  u.  s.  p.  159).  The  paintings  of  saints 
in  the  catacombs  of  Naples  may  be  assigned  to  an 
earlier  period  :  some  belonging  to  the  5th,  others 
to  the  8th  century.  Although  all  representa¬ 
tions  of  martyrdoms  have  perished,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  such  existed.  Prudentius  (c.  405) 
speaks  of  a  picture  of  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Cas- 
sianns,  of  which  he  says  expre.ssly',  “  Historiam 
pictura  refert  ”  {F’eristeph.  Hginn.  ix.  v.  5),  and 
he  elaborately’ describes  the  paintings  of  the  mar¬ 
tyrdom  of  St.  Hippolytus,  which  embellished  the 
walls  of  the  chapel  in  which  the  body  oT  the 
saint  had  been  deposited  {Peristepdi.  Hgmn.  xi.  v. 
141  sq.).  Pauliuus  of  Nola  also  at  the  commence¬ 
ment  of  the  5th  century,  decorated  a  chapel 
erected  by  him  with  martyrs  {Poein.  xxviii.  v. 
20,  21).  At  a  still  earlier  period  we  have  the 
testimony  of  St.  Gregory  Nyssen  as  to  tlie  pre¬ 
valence  of  this  practice  in  the  Eastern  church. 
He  describes  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Theodore  as 
painted  on  the  walls  of  a  church  dedicated  to 
that  saint,  “  The  fiery  furnace,  the  death  of  the 
athlete  of  Christ  .  .  .  the  painter  had  expre.ssed 
by  colours  as  in  a  book  .  .  .  The  dumb  walls 
speak  and  edify”  {Orat.  in  Theod.  tom.  iii.  p. 
579).“ 

Early  Christian  paintings  mav  be  conveniently 
treated  of  under  three  divisions,  Roman,  Byzan¬ 
tine,  and  Lombardic. 

I.  Roman. — All  the  earlier  Christian  buildings 
above  ground  having  yielded  to  time  and  human 
violence,  the  catacombs  are  the  only  source  of 
examples  of  primitive  Christian  art.  In  them, 
as  has  been  already  remarked,  the  earliest  ex¬ 
amples  offer  nothing  exclusively  Christian,  and 
differ  hardly  at  all  from  the  contemporaneous 
pagan  decorations.  Agincourt  long  since  called 
attention  to  this  fact  in  his  great  work  {L'lIisPirt 
de  V Art  par  les  Ilunninem),  proving  by  compai-a- 
tive  representations  in  successive  plates  {Peinture, 


<1  See  Pusey,  Xote  to  Ttrtiillian's  Apology,  Lib.  of  the 
Fathers,  vol.  x.  p.  109  sq. 


FRESCO 


FRESCO 


693 


pi.  y.  vi.),  that  the  first  Christian  sepulchral 
chambers  were  arranged  and  decorated  after 
heathen  models.  The  artists  probably  adhered 
to  the  old  faith  ;  and  even  if  this  were  not  so, 
they  were  only  accustomed  to  work  in  one  style, 
and  could  not  extemporize  a  new  one.  In  some  of 
the  most  ancient  chapels  of  the  catacombs  it  has 
been  truly  said  that  “  you  are  not  certain 
whether  you  are  looking  on  a  pagan  or  a  Chris¬ 
tian  work.  There  is  the  same  geometrical  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  roof,  the  same  general  arrangement 
of  the  subjects,  the  same  fabulous  animals,  the 
same  graceful  curves,  the  same  foliage,  fruit, 
flowers,  and  birds  in  both”  (Burgon,  Letters 
from  Borne,  p.  250  ;  Northcote,  u.  s.  p.  190). 
Agincourt  could  discover  no  difference  in  style, 
except,  perhaps,  what  was  not  unnatural,  greater 
signs  of  hurry,  and  coarser  execution.  It  is  only 
the  occurrence  of  the  figure  of  the  Good 
Shepherd,  which  usually  occupies  the  central 
position,  or  some  Scriptural  subject,  such  as 
Jonah  or  Daniel,  or  some  Christian  symbol,  that 
clears  up  the  doubt  as  to  the  religion  of  the  art 
we  are  studying.  The  entire  absence  of  all 


No.  1.  Painting  on  Ceiling.  From  the  Cemetery  of  St.  Domitllla. 


gloomy  associations  in  connection  with  death 
deserves  remark.  The  cheerful  symbolical 
decorations  which  adorn  the  sepulchral  chambers 
— the  graceful  vine,  the  clustering  grapes,  the 
birds  and  bright  landscaj)es — be.speak  a  faith 
which  nerved  its  posse.ssors  to  meet  the  most 
terrible  sufferings  with  calmness  and  even  with 
delight,  as  the  path  to  never-ending  joys,  and  to 
view  death  as  the  door  to  eternal  life,  the  true 
birthday  of  the  soul.  Every  thing  that  meets 
the  eye  excites  pleasurable  emotions,  and  indi¬ 
cates  a  heart  full  of  peace  and  happiness. 

As  an  example  of  Christian  mural  decorations 
of  the  very  earliest  period  we  may  instance  the 
Catacomb  of  Domitilla  on  the  Ajipian  way  (see  p. 
314).  This  catacomb  is  attributed  to  Flavia  Domi¬ 
tilla,  a  near  relative  of  the  emperor  Domitian — 
perhaps  his  niece,  the  daugliter  of  his  sister  who 
bore  the  same  name.  She  was  the  wife  of  Flavius 
Clemens,  the  cousin  of  Domitian,  and  his  colleague 
in  the  consulship  a.d.  95,  who  was  accused  of 
“atheism,”  by  which  we  are  almost  certainly  to 
understand  Christianity,  and  put  to  death  by 
the  emperor.  Domitilla  was  banished  on  the 


same  charge  to  the  island  of  Pontia  (Di-ilionary 
of  Christian  Biography,  Domitilla).  In  thi? 
burial-place,  therefore,  we  have  work  of  the  end 
of  the  1st  or  the  beginning  of  the  2nd  century 
The  frescoes  which  ornament  the  walls  and  ceil¬ 
ings  of  the  sepulchral  chambei'sand  their  reces.ses 
or  cubicnla,  are  clearly  contemporaneous  with 
the  original  building,  and  are,  especially  in  the 


No.  2.  Spring.  From  tbe  Cemetery  of  SS.  Nereus  and  Achiileus. 

subordinate  embellishments,  of  rare  beauty 
There  is  a  vaulted  roof,  over  which  a  vine 
trails  with  all  the  freedom  of  nature,  laden  with 
clusters,  at  which  birds  are  pecking,  while  winged 
boys  are  gathering  or  pressing  out  the  grapes, 
of  which  no  decorative  artist  of  the  Augus¬ 
tan  age  need  be  ashamed  (Mommsen,  Contemp 
Bev.  May  1871,  p.  170).  The  annexed  wood 
cut  (No.  1)  gives  a  faint  idea  of  its  exquisite 
grace  and  beauty.  Traces  of  landscapes  also  still 
exist  here,  which  are  of  rare  occurrence  in  later 
Christian  burial  vaults.  In  the  portion  of  this 
catacomb  known  by  the  names  of  St.  Domitilla’s 
chamberlains,  St.  Nereus  and  St.  Achilleus,  a 
painted  cubiculum  exhibits  representations  of  the 
four  seasons,  which  are  very  curious.  They  are 
represented  as  female  figures,  with  small  butter- 
flv  wings  attached  to  their  shoulders.  ^Ye  give 
woodcuts  of  Spring  and  Ai^tumn  (Nos.  2,  3). 


No.  3.  Autumn.  From  the  Cemetery  of  SS.  Nereus  iind  Ac)iii!eus 


The  latter  has  an  attendant  genius  emptying  out 
a  cornuco])ia  of  fruit.  There  is  an  entire  absence 
of  anything  distinctively  Cliristian  in  the.se  deco¬ 
rations,  which  reproduce  the  wall-paintings  of 
the  best  period  of  Greco-Koman  art.  On  the 
walls,  however,  we  find  the  usual  allegorical  and 
Scriptural  subjects  —  the  Good  Shepherd,  the 


694  FRESCO 

Fisliermau,  an  Agape,  Daniel  in  the  Lions’  Den, 

Another  equally  beautiful  specimen  of  the 
vine  ornamentation  is  exhibited  on  the  vault  of 
a  square  chamber  of  the  cemetery  of  Praetextatus, 
otherwise  known  as  that  of  St.  Urban,  lieneath 
the  church  of  the  same  name,  lying  to  the  east 
of  the  Via  Ajipia,.  near  the  circus  of  Maxentius, 
This  burial-p'ace  belongs  to  the  earliest  period, 
and  the  character  of  the  decorations  corresponds 
with  heathen  art  of  the  2nd  century,  and  is  not 
at  all  inferior  to  the  best  w'orks  of  the  age. 
The  accompanying  woodcut  (No.  4)  gives  an 
imperfect  notion  of  the  elaborate  beauty  of  the 
design.  The  vault  of  the  chamber  is  divided 
into  foul'  bands,  each  containing  a  continuous 
wreath  of  foliage  and  flowers,  among  which  are 
nests,  and  the  birds  visiting  their  young.  The 
highest  wreath  is  of  laurel  or  bay,  a  symbol  of 
victory,  indicative  of  the  Christian  triumph. 
Immediately  round  the  arch  of  the  arcosolium  is 
a  band  of  reapers  cutting  down  corn  and  Iiinding 
up  the  sheaves.  The  plafond  of  the  recess  origi- 
nallv  bore  the  Good  Shepherd  with  a  sheep  upon 
his  shoulders ;  but  the  design  has  been  almost 


destroyed  by  the  excavation  of  later  loculi.  The 
paintings  are  small  and  exquisitely  beautiful, 
even  in  their  present  state  of  decay.  The  family 
to  whom  this  burial-place  belonged  was  evidently 
one  of  considerable  wealth  and  dignity.  But  the 
specimens  already  adduced  seem  to  have  been 
surpassed  by  the  great  vine  of  the  Callistine 
catacomb  (Bottari,  vol.  ii.  tav.  15),  the  “antique 
style  of  beauty  ”  of  which  is  noticed  by  Kugler. 
A  stem  of  a  vine  encircles  each  side  of  the  arch 
of  an  arcosolium  with  its  graceful  spirals,  lovely 
little  naked  boys  standing  on  its  branches  and 
plucking  the  clusters.  The  soffit  of  the  arch  is 
similarly  decorated  with  vintage  scenes.  The 
wall  of  the  recess  presents  what  is  commonly, 
but  erroneously,  designated  the  Dispute  icith  the 
Doctors.  Clirist,  represented  as  a  beardless 
young  man  seated  on  a  curuie  chair,  holds  a 
scroll  in  his  left  hand  and  turns  towards  a 
number  of  hearers,  probably  intended  for  his 


®  The  very  early  date  of  these  decorations  Is  acknow- 
'ledged  by  Le  Normant,  who  considers  some  of  the 
paintings  in  St.  Domitilla’s  cemetery  to  be  of  the  same 
.style  as  those  in  the  well  known  pyriunidal  tomb  of  Caius 
€e.\tlu%  B,c.  32, 


FRESCO 

apostles,  some  of  whom  are  seated  and  others 
standing  (woodcut  No.  5). 

The  general  arrangement  of  the  mural  deco¬ 
rations  of  the  sepulchral  chambers  or  cxdncula  of 
the  Roman  catacombs  is  remarkably  uniform.  The 
arch-headed  tiujib  recesses  or  arcosolia,  which 
occupy  three  .side.-,  of  the  square  chambers,  have 
the  back  wall,  the  soffits  of  the  arches,  and  the  wall 
above  them  ]<ainted,  in  the  earlier  examples  with 
mere  ornamental  arabesques,  in  the  later  with 
subjects  drawn  from  the  narrow  .Scriptural  or 
symbolical  cycle  to  which  reference  has  alreadv 
been  made.  The  ceilings  are  even  more  richly 
decorated,  the  subjects  being  usually  depicted  in 
panels  distributed  round  a  central  picture,  which 
most  commonly  exhibits  a  representation  of  the 
Saviour  under  a  tyj»ical  form.  The  general 
appearance  of  these  cubicul  t,  and  the  distribution 
of  the  paintings,  is  shown  in  the  accompanying 
illustration  from  the  cubiculum  of  the  Ocean  in 
the  catacomb  of  St.  Callistus  (No.  6).  The 
paintings  are  early — probably  of  the  3rd  century 
—  representing  trellis  work  overgi'own  with 
flow'ers,  peacocks  and  other  birds,  and  winged 
genii.  In  the  centre  of  the  vault  is  the  head  of 
Ocean,  giving  its  name  to  the  chamber.  The 
ornamentation  of  an  early  ceiling  is  exhibited  in 
woodcut  No.  7,  repre.senting  the  roof  of  the 
chapel  of  St.  Callistus,  The  central  panel  con¬ 
tains  Christ  under  the  typical  form  of  Orpheus. 
Four  of  the  eight  circumscribing  panels  contain 
Biblical  .siibjects — (1)  Moses  smiting  the  Rock; 
(2)  Daniel  in  the  Lions’  Den;  (3)  The  Raising 
of  Lazarus  ;  (4)  David  armed  with  his  Sling. 
The  intermediate  panels  represent  pastoral  sub¬ 
jects — two  of  sheep,  two  of  cattle.  Another 
chamber,  depicted  by  De’  Rossi  (vol.  i.  pi.  10), 
called  that  of  Orj)heus,  is  quite  Pompeian  in 
character.  The  ceiling  is  a  beautiful  work  of 
art.  Orpheus  is  seen  in  the  centre,  surrounded 
by  heads  of  genii  wdth  dishevelled  and  flowing 
hair,  and  suj)ported  by  eight  oblong  panels,  two 
containing  the  Good  Shepherd,  two  female  orantes, 
and  the  remaining  four  winged  genii  bearing 
crooks,  floating  lightly  in  the  air.  The  panelled 
walls  are  embellished  with  a  rich  profu.sion  of 
arabesques,  combining  doves,  peacocks,  and  other 
birds,  dolphins,  and  sea  monsters,  the  only  un¬ 
mistakably  Christian  emblem  being  the  lamb 
bearing  the  eucharistic  bread. 

The  style  of  these  earliest  efforts  of  Christian 
art  has  been  unduly  depreciated.  They  are  cha¬ 
racterized  by  Lord  Lindsaj' (///sf.  of  Christ.  Art, 
vol.  i.  p.  39)  as  “  poor  productions,”  where  “  the 
meagreness  of  invention  is  only  equalled  by  the 
feebleness  of  execution,”  “  inferior,  genei-ally 
speaking,  to  the  worst  specimens  of  contemporary 
heathen  art.”  Such  a  verdict  evidences  but 
slender  acquaintance  with  the  paintings  which  are 
the  subjects  of  his  criticism.  The  earlier  Christian 
frescoe.s,  as  we  have  seen,  are  quite  on  a  level 
with  the  best  specimens  of  pagan  art  of  the  time, 
and  the  ra})id  decadence  manifested  in  the  later 
examples  belongs  not  to  Christian  art  alone  but 
to  art  in  general.  The  judgment  of  Kugler  is 
far  more  favourable.  He  speaks  of  the  “grandeur 
of  arrangement  ”  exhibited  by  the  earliest  paint¬ 
ings,  and  admires  tiie  “peculiar  solemnity  and 
dignity  of  style  ”  which  characterize  them, 
though  he  acknowledges  that  these  excellencies 
are  “accompanied  by  certain  technical  defi¬ 
ciencies,”  chiefly  such  as  naturally  arose  from 


FRESCO 


FRESCO 


695 


slight  hasty  execution  (Kugler,  u.  s.  p.  14). 
The  mode  of  execution,  according  to  Crowe 
and  Cavalcaselle  was  as  follows  (^Hist,  of 


outlines  of  their  figures  with  strong  dark  lines. 
The  eyes,  nose,  and  mouth  were  similarly  defined 
with  black  lines.  A  dash  of  warm  yellow -red 


No.  5.  Arcosoliunu  From  tlic  Cemetery  of  St.  Callistus. 


No.  6.  The  Cubiculum  of  Ocean.  From  the  Cemeterj  of  St.  CaUiatos.  From  Ue’  Itoeel. 


Painting,  vol.  i.  p.  3,  note).  The  artists  boldly 
stained  the  rough-coated  walls  with  light  water¬ 
colours  of  a  lively  tint,  and  rapidly  defined  the 


tone  was  thrown  over  the  flesh  portions  of  tlie 
figure,  the  shadows  being  worked  in  in  broad 
masses  with  a  deeper  tint  of  the  same  warm  hue. 


m 


FKESCO 


FKESCO 


The  details  were  almost  eutirely  left  to  the  ima¬ 
gination  of  the  beholder.  The  dra))eries  were 
coloured  in  the  primary  keys,  indicating  a  tole- 
lable  acquaintance  with  the  laws  of  harmony. 
The  general  efl'ect  of  these  simple  processes  is 
pronounced  by  the  same  critics  to  be  good.  The 
“attitudes  are  not  without  grandeur,  nor  the 
masses  of  light  and  shade  without  breadth,  nor 
the  drapery  without  simplicity.”  The  artists 
were  evidently  capable  of  much  better  things. 

With  the  lapse  of  time  and  the  general  decay 
of  artistic  power  in  liome,  corresponding  to  the 
universal  deterioration  of  taste  and  genius  which 
characterized  the  later  days  of  the  empire,  we 
notice  a  very  sensible  decline  in  the  decorations 
of  the  catacombs.  The  design  becomes  increas¬ 


ingly  rude  and  clumsy,  and  the  execution  shows 
greater  carelessness  and  neglect  of  detail.  The 
figures  are  ill-proportioned  —  sometimes  square 
and  short,  at  others  inordinately  elongated.  The 
free  play  of  the  earlier  designs  is  succeeded  by  a 
lifeless  rigidity.  This  mechanical  stiffness  was 
fostered  by  the  narrowness  of  the  cycle  of  Scrip¬ 
tural  subjects  represented,  and  the  unimaginative 
sameness  of  the  mode  of  representation.  Each 
subject  had  received  a  well-defined  traditional 
type,  consecrated  by  repetition,  from  which  it 
was  deemed  irreA'erence  to  deviate.  Thus  Chris¬ 
tian  art  became  “almost  hieratic  in  its  character, 
as  in  ancient  Egypt  or  modern  Greece,  so  fixed 
and  immovable  were  its  types ;  always  like  one 


another  and  always  unlike  nature”  (Northcote, 
u.  s.  p.  197).  In  fact,  as  Dean  Mi'rnan  has 
truly  remarked  (Lat.  Christ.  A'i.  OO.o),  the 
characteristic  of  Christian  painting  was  not 
art  but  worship,  and  its  highest  aim  was  tc 
awaken  religious  emotion  and  suggest  religious 
thought.  Thus  imitation  took  tlie  place  of  in¬ 
vention,  and  imagination  was  crushed  by  prece¬ 
dent.  The  gradual  decadence  of  the  art  may  be 
clearly  traced  in  the  chronological  series  given 
in  Agincourt’s  ))lates  (^I'einture,  i>l.  v.— xii.).  flie 
exceller''-e  of  design,  freedom  of  drawing,  and 
harmony  of  colouring  which  mark  the  earlier 
frescoes  gradually  disajtpear  as  we  advance.  We 
find  proofs  of  declension  at  the  end  of  the  3rd 
century  (PI.  viii.).  The  drawing  is  noj.  bad,  but 


there  is  no  movement  and  little  expression,  and 
the  treatment  is  monotonous.  In  the  two  succeed¬ 
ing  centuries  the  deterioration  proceeds,  though 
the  decline  is  not  so  rapid  as  might  liave  been 
anticipated.  Classic  forms  continued  till  the 
end  of  the  5th  and  first  half  of  the  dth  centuries. 
Cavalcaselle  instances  as  an  example  of  the  art 
of  this  period  a  chapel  in  the  catacomb  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Marcellinus  (otherwise  called  St. 
Helena).  The  vault  is  decorated  with  a  large 
figure  of  Christ  seated  in  a  curule  chair,  in  the 
act  of  benediction.  The  .head  is  very  fine  and 
pure.  Below,  above  the  tomb,  are  figures  of  St. 
1  Peter  and  St.  Marcellinus  and  two  others  ranged 
;  on  either  side  of  the  Holy  Lamb  standing  oc  a 


No.  7,  Ceiling  of  the  Cubicnlum  of  St.  Caliistns.  From  Ferret, 


FRESCO 


FRESCO 


697 


rock,  whence  issue  the  four  rivers  of  Paradise. 
The  frames  are  long  and  attenuated,  the  heads 
small,  the  hands  and  ft^t  defective  in  drawing. 
Another  typical  e.xample  is  the  colossal  head  of 
Christ  in  the  act  of  benediction,  from  the  ceme- 
terv  of  St.  Pontianus.  For  the  first  time  the 
jewelled  nimbus  bears  the  Greek  cross.  The 
Saviour  is  of  imposing  aspect,  but  conventional. 
The  execution  is  hasty,  and  the  decline  marked. 
It  probably  belongs  to  the  7th  century,  but  is 
assigned  by  Martigny  to  Hadrian  1.  772-775. 
The  celebrated  paintings  which  decorate  the  well 
or  baptistery,  the  jewelled  cross,  and  the  Baptism 
of  Christ  are  described  in  the  articles  Baptistery, 
p.  174;  and  Catacomhs,  p.  313.  These  pic¬ 
tures,  in  their  present  state,  are  probably  restora¬ 
tions  of  the  originals,  coarsely  painted  over  an 
older  underlying  picture  at  the  time  of  the  repair 
of  the  catacomb  by  Hadrian  I.  (cf.  Tyrwhitt,  Art 
Teaching  of  Primitive  Church,  p.  173).  These 


duces  the  original  painting,  and  that  any  argu¬ 
ments  founded  upon  such  uncertain  data  must  be 
precarious.  The  words  of  IHr.  St.  John  Tyrwhitt, 
with  regard  to  a  jjarticular  instance,  may  be 
applied  to  a  large  number  of  these  frescoes,  “  the 
workmanship  is  so  grossly  ru<lc  and  careless, 
that  one  is  led  to  suspect  that  ancient  retouchings 
have  taken  place  at  some  time  in  the  bathos  of 
art;  and  the  addition  of  the  coarsest  outlines, 
both  on  the  lighted  and  shaded  side  of  the  objects, 
seems  to  show  that  the  original  jiainting  had 
nearly  vanished  from  the  wall  when  some  well- 
meaning  and  totally-ignoraut  restorer  made  an 
attempt  at  securing  its  meaning’’  (Ait  'Teaching, 
&c.,  p.  130).  The  fact  of  these  restorations  has 
been  lately  made  jiatent  to  those  who  have  no 
opportunity  cf  examining  the  originals  by  the 
invaluable  series  of  photographs  taken  in  the 
catacombs  by  the  magnesium  light,  which  we 
owe  to  the  unwearied  zeal  and  munificent  libe- 


No.  8.  Ceiling  of  the  Vestibnle  of  the  Cataoomba  of  Naples.  From  Bcllerraann. 


restorations  may  be  taken  as  examples  of  the 
retouchings  and  repaintings  of  earlier  originals 
which  prevailed  so  extensively  when  the  cata¬ 
combs  became  the  objects  of  religious  visits,  and 
which  render  it  so  difficult  accurately  to  de¬ 
termine  the  date  of  any  particular  picture.  In 
the  catacombs  at  Naples  which  have  not  been 
so  much  cared  for,  and  are  less  tampered  with 
by  modern  restorers,  the  wall-pictures  may  be 
seen  in  several  instances  peeling  off,  disclosing 
successive  strata  one  behind  another.  There  is 
no  reason  to  question  the  good  faith  of  the 
original  restorers,  who  probably  followed  the 
outlines  of  the  decaying  subjects  as  far  as  they 
could  make  them  out,  and  only  supplied  forms  and 
details  when  the  original  had  quite  disappeared. 
But  it  must  always  be  borne  in  mind,  in  examin¬ 
ing  the  frescoes  of  the  catacombs,  that  we  are  in 
all  probability  looking  at  a  w’ork  of  the  8th  or 
even  a  later  century,  which  only  partially  repro- 


rality  of  Mr.  J.  H,  Parker.  The  rude  later 
touches  and  hard  outlines  are  in  many  instances 
clearly  to  be  traced  over  the  original  painting. 
It  is  needless  to  pursue  the  melancholy  history 
of  the  decline  of  religious  art  any  further.  The 
power  of  drawing  grew  feebler  and  feebler,  all 
sense  of  beauty  of  form  perished,  proportion 
was  disregarded,  the  colouring  became  crude 
and  inharmonious,  until,  with  the  close  of  the 
8th  century,  a  period  of  darkness  set  in,  when 
Christian  art  was  lost  in  the  Western  world, 
and  only  dragged  on  an  unnatural  and  mechanical 
existence  in  the  traditional  Byzantine  art  of  the 
East. 

The  remarkable  series  of  frescoes  which  em¬ 
bellish  the  catacombs  of  Naples  must  not  be 
passed  over.  They  have,  however,  been  so  fully 
described  in  a  previous  article  (Cat.4.combs, 
p.  316),  that  it  is  needless  to  enlarge  upon  them 
here.  The  chief  authorities  for  these  paintings 


698 


FRESCO 


FRESCO 


are  the  plates  of  Bellermann’s  work  (Hamburg, 
1839).  The  greater  part  there  given  are  no 
longer  visible.  T)ie  vault  of  the  vestibule  is 
painted  in  the  Pomj'eian  style,  and  probably  by 
pagan  artists,  some  of  the  subjects  being  dis¬ 
tinctly  heathen.  It  belongs  to  the  first  half- 
century  of  the  Christian  era  (No.  8).  The  vault 
has  been  sub.setiuently  plastered  over,  and  a 
second  set  of  subjects  of  the  8th  century  painted 
over  it.  But  the  new  coat  did  not  adhere  well, 
and  has  fallen  off  to  a  large  extent,  exhibiting 
the  first  painting  below  it.  Thei'e  is  also 
a  good  painting  of  a  peacock,  with  vases 
and  flowers,  belonging  to  the  first  period. 
Among  the  paintings  that  decorate  the  chapels 
we  may  eall  attention  to  one  presenting  full- 
length  figures  of  St.  Paul  with  a  scroll,  and  St. 
Laurence  with  his  crown  of  martyrdom  in  his 
hand.  They  are  not  nimbed,  and  are  assigned 
by  Mr.  J.  H.  Parker  to  the  5th  century  (No.  9). 
Half-lengths  of  St.  Desiderius  and  St.  Agutius, 
in  another  recess,  deserve  notice  as  exemplifying 
the  bad  drawing  of  the  8th  century.  The  faces 
are  elongated,  the  sockets  of  the  eyes  exaggerated 
in  size,  the  hands  enormous  and  clumsy,  and  the 
whole  displays  a  barbaric  ignorance  of  form  and 
blindness  to  beauty. 


No.  9.  SS.  Paul  and  Laurence,  Catacomb  at  Naples. 


11.  Byzantine. — Up  to  the  commencement  of 
the  7th  century  there  was  no  decided  difference 
between  Eastern  and  Western  art.  Wherever 
Roman  civilization  extended  Christian  art  was 
essentially  the  same.  It  was  not- till  the  middle 
of  the  7th  century  that  the  distinction  between 
Roman  and  Byzantine  art  began  to  arise.  That 
was  the  epoch  of  the  greatest  decadence  of  art  in 
the  West,  crushed  by  the  Lombard  invasion,  while 
in  the  East,  under  the  emperor  Justinian,  a  new 
and  vigorous  intellectual  life  was  rapidly  deve¬ 
loping  itself  and  manifesting  its  energy,  as  else¬ 
where,  in  the  domain  of  art.  This  new  influence 
rapidly  made  itself  felt  through  the  civilized 
world.  The  style  of  art  universally  preA-ailing 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  7th  and  the  8th  cen¬ 
turies  and  onward  was  that  which,  as  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  the  Roman  school,  is  known  by 
the  title  of  Byzantine  (Kugler,  Handbook  of 
Painting,  i.  p.  47).  The  characteristic  mental 
difterences  of  the  West  and  the  East  were 
reflected  in  their  artistic  works.  The  con¬ 
templative  prevailed  in  the  productions  of  the 
Byzantine  art  schools,  as  the  practical  did  in 
those  of  Rome.  The  idea  of  dramatic  historical 
painting  was  alien  to  the  Byzantine  genius. 
Even  the  movements  of  life  were  distasteful. 
Calm,  motionless  figures  offered  themselves  to 
the  doyotjon  of  the  worshippers  in  dignified 


repose.  Ease  stiffened  into  rigidity,  tradition 
usurped  the  place  of  invention,  the  study  ol 
nature  was  laid  aside,  and  the  artist  followed  a 
strictly  prescribed  type  which  allowed  no  scope 
for  the  play  of  the  imagination,  and  ended  in  a 
system  of  mere  mechanical  copying,  where,  in 
Kugler’s  words  (u.  s.  p.  off),  “the  capacity  of 
the  artist  was  only  regulated  by  the  number  and 
quality  of  the  ti-acings  which  he  had  been  able 
to  procure  from  the  works  of  his  predecessors.” 
A  fuller  discu-ssion  of  Byzantine  art  and  the 
chief  examples  remaining,  must  be  reserved  for 
the  article  treating  on  mosaic  decorations 
(Mosaics).  Byzantine  frescoes  of  the  6th,  7th, 
and  8th  centuries,  it  is  believed  do  not  exist ; 
though,  from  the  permanence  of  the  traditional 
type,  and  the  strict  adherence  to  artistic  rules, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  later  compositions  enable 
us  to  realise  their  character  with  great  accuracy. 
We  have  no  account  of  catacomb  paintings  in 
the  East,  though  it  is  possible  that  such  are  only 
awaiting  more  thorough  research.  One  such 
was  not  long  since  discovered  at  Alexandria,  and 
is  described  by  De’  Rossi  {Bulletino,  Novemb. 
1864;  Agost.  1865),  and  Northcote  {Rom.  Sott. 
p.  221).  It  contains  a  liturgical  painting,  appa¬ 
rently  representing  the  particijiation  in  the 
eucharist,  together  with  the  miracle  at  Cana 
and  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves  and  fishes, 
with  Greek  inscriptions  over.  But  it  belongs  to 
a  period  anterior  to  the  development  of  Byzan¬ 
tine  art,  and  differs  little,  if  at  all,  from  the 
paintings  of  the  Roman  catacombs. 

III.  Lombardh. — The  relics  of  the  new  style  of 
art  consequent  on  the  Lombard  invasion  in  the 
6th  and  7th  centuries  are  A-ery  scanty,  and  quite 
insufficient  to  furnish  data  for  determining  its 
character  with  any  minuteness.  It  is  probable, 
hoAvever,  that  the  “  naturalism  and  insistence  on 
fact,  the  vigorous  imao'inatiou  of  truth  and  Avild 
play  of  fancy  in  fiction,  the  delight  in  action, 
motion,  and  contest,  the  taste  for  hunting  and 
battle,  the  irresistible  or  unresisted  taste  for 
the  humorous  grotesque,”  described  so  vividly 
by  Mr.  Ruskin  (»S'ffi?ies  o/  Venice,  Ami.  i.  append.  8), 
as  characterizing  their  more  lasting  Avorks  in 
architecture  and  sculpture,  Avere  exhibited  in 
their  pictorial  efforts,  in  Avhich,  with  all  their 
rudeness  and  total  license  of  style,  there  lay,  as 
Kugler  remarks  (p.  45),  “a  germ  of  freedom  from 
Avhich,  later,  a  ncAV  school  of  deA'elojunent  aa'us  to 
spring.”  The  historical  subjects  which  Queen 
Theodelinda  caused  to  be  painted  on  the  walls  of 
her  palace  at  Monza,  at  the  beginning  of  the  7th 
century,  have  unhappily  perished,  if,  indeed, 
they  were  frescoes  and  not  mosaics. 

Some  account  is  giA'en  by  Von  Rumohr  {Itul. 
Forschung.  Ami.  i.  p.  193,  Berl.  1827)  of  the 
examples  of  the  Lombardic  style  still  existing  in 
the  remains  of  the  frescoes  in  the  tribune  of  the 
subterranean  church  at  Assisi,  and  in  the  crypt 
of  SS.  Nazaro  e  Celso  at  Verona.  The  former 
are  pLaceil  by  him  in  the  8th  century.  The 
lights  are  laid  on  in  impasto,  an  art  subsequently 
lost.  The  frescoes  at  Verona  are  very  similar  in 
design  and  execution.  SoA'eral  Biblical  scenes  arc 
there  rudely  painted  on  a  coarse  white  ground. 

IV.  Cycles  of  Scriptural  Subjects. — Attention 
has  been  already  draAvn  to  the  remarkable  fact 
that  out  of  the  almost  infinite  Avealth  of  his¬ 
torical  subjects  in  the  Old  and  Ncaa^  Testa- 
raeuts  suitable  for  pictorial  representation,  by 


FIIESCO 


FKESCO 


which  important  doctrines  are  set  forth  or 
holy  lessons  imparted,  a  comparatively  small 
number  were  selected,  and  that  the  limits  thus 
laid  down  were  scarcely  ever  transgressed  by 
the  artists.  Nor  were  these,  generally  speak¬ 
ing,  precisely  the  subjects  that  we  should  have 
a  priori  expected  to  have  been  the  object  of  ex¬ 
clusive  ])refereiice.  Many  of  the  most  striking 
events  of  the  0.  T.,  and  the  most  characteristic 
incidents  of  the  life  of  Christ  are  entirely  passed 
ov'er,  -while  some  which  appear  to  us  subordinate 
are  repeated  times  without  number.  The  ex¬ 
planation  of  this  procedure  is  to  be  sought  in  the 
principle  of  typical  parallelism  which  guided  the 
church  from  the  first  in  her  choice  of  subjects 
for  delineation.  Her  leadino-  idea  was  to  veil 
the  great  facts  of  Redemption  “  under  the  parallel 
and  typical  events  of  the  patriarchal  and  Jewish 
dispensation — admitting  no  direct  representations 
from  gospel  history  but  such  as  illustrated  the 
kingly  office  of  the  Saviour  and  the  miracles  by 
which  He  prefigured  the  illumination  of  the 
spirit  and  the  resun-ection  of  the  body”  (Lord 
Lindsay,  Christian  Art,  vol.  i.  p.  48).  It  fol¬ 
lowed  therefore  that  even  these  events  were  not 
treated  so  much  as  facts  of  history,  to  be  por¬ 
trayed  with  any  idea  of  rej)rodncing  the  incident 
as  it  may  bt  conceived  to  have  occurred,  but  as 
types  in  which  the  spiritual  meaning  was  pre¬ 
dominant.  Consequently,  not  the  choice  of  the 
subject  alone  but  the  mode  of  treating  it  was 
matter  to  be  regulated  by  authority.  Nothing 
beyond  the  minor  details  and  the  mode  of  exe¬ 
cution  was  left  to  the  artist.  The  church  dic¬ 
tated  what  should  be  painted  and  how.  “The 
symbolical  system  of  this  hieratic  cycle,”  says  De’ 
Rossi,  “is  established  beyond  all  dispute,  not 
only  by  the  choice  and  arrangement  of  subjects, 
but  also  by  the  mode  of  representing  them.” 
“  Christ’s  resurrection,  with  that  of  the  church  in 
His  Person,  is  the  theme  on  which  in  their  pecu¬ 
liar  language  the  artists  of  the  catacombs  seem 
never  weary  of  expatiating”  (Lord  Lindsay,  n.  s. 
p.  51),  and  representing  to  the  eyes  and  hearts 
of  the  beholders  under  every  varied  form  of 
symbol,  type,  and  allegory.  The  earliest  allusion 


699 

1  every  sarcophagus  of  the  early  Christian  church. 
I  The  same  events,  with  the  others  belonging  to 
}  this  cycle,  are 'continually  referred  to  in  the 
writings  of  the  early  fathers,  who  thus  evi¬ 
denced  the  hold  they  had  taken  of  the  popular 
mind,  as  familar  illustrations  of  the  truths  of 
revelation. 

We  may  select  one  or  two  of  the  subjects  of 
most  frequent  recurrence  in  eaidy  Chri.'.tian  arr, 
to  illuij^rate  what  has  been  said  as  to  the  ad¬ 
herence  to  a  traditional  type,  even  when  quite 
at  variance  with  all  historical  probability.  No 
subject  meets  us  more  constantly  than  Noah  in 


the  ark  receiving  the  dove  with  the  olive-branch, 
in  evident  allusion  to  the  sacr.mieut  of  baptism 
and  salvation  in  the  church  (1  Pet.  iii.  31).  But 
with  slight  modifications  of  detail  the  type  never 
varies.  As  in  the  illustration  given  above  (No. 
10),  the  ark  is  always  a  small  square  box  with 
an  open  lid,  out  of  which  a  man  many  sizes  too 
large  for  his  recejitacle  appears,  and  welcomes 
back  the  dove.  Abraham’s  sacrifice  of  Isaac  is 
of  peiqietual  recurrence J  Both  are  usually  clad 
in  tunics.  In  an  example  from  the  cemetery  of 
Priscilla,  Abraham  wears  high])!  iest  ly  robes. 


to  a  cycle  of  this  kind,  not,  it  is  true,  containing 

any  reference  to  pictorial  representation,  occurs 

in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (lib.  v.  c.  7). 

Some  of  the  Scriptural  events  there  spoken  of  as 

types  or  pledges  of  the  resurrection  of  man,  viz. 

tlie  deliverance  of  Jonah  trom  the  whale’s  belly, 

*  ' 

the  preservation  of  the  three  children  in  the 
fiery  furnace,  and  of  Haniel  in  the  lions’  den, 
from  the  0.  T.,  and  the  cure  of  the  man  sick  of 
the  palsy,  and  of  the  blind  man  on  whose  eyes 
Christ  laid  clay,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand, 
the  miracle  of  Cana,  and  the  raising  of  Lazarus, 
are  those  which  meet  us  peiqietually  jiaiifted  in 
almost  every  cubiculwn,  aivl  carved  on  almost 


The  ram  is  a  frequent  accessory.  The  his 
tory  of  Jonah,  the  tyjie  of  His  work,  death, 
and  resurrection,  chosen  by  Christ  himself, 
in  its  three  scenes,  when  once  seen  will  be 
universally  recognised,  from  the  sameness  of 
the  form  of  the  sea-monster  and  the  details  of 
the  picture.  In  our  illustration  (No.  U)  all 
these  typical  events  are  combined  into  one 
jiicture.  Daniel  in  the  lions’  den,  infinitely  re¬ 
peated,  adheres  on  the  whole  to  the  same  form 
and  arrangement.  One  given  by  Perret  repre- 


f  Augustine  speaks  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  “  tot  loclfl 
picturo  ”  (f/wL  /'(iMsf.  lib.  x,\ii,  c.  7'.^). 


700 


FRESCO 


FRESCO 


sents  him  as  wearing  the  Phrygian  cap,  which 
also  usually  distinguishes  hi"  companions  the 
three  children  in  the  furnace,  another  of  the 
most  commonly  occurring  types  of  deliverance 
(No.  12).  The  permanence  of  one  type  sanctioned 
bv  ecclesiastical  tradition  exhibited  in  the.se  and 
almost  every  other  Scriptural  representation  in 
these  early  paintings,  anticipates  the  authorita¬ 
tive  statement  of  the  church  made  some  centuries 


Ko.  12.  riie  TLiee  Clixldren.  From  the  Cemetery  of  Sf.  Hermes. 
(Bosio,  p.  565.) 


later  in  the  iconoclastic  controversy,  “  Non  est 
imaginum  structura  picturarum  inventio,  sed 
ecclesiae  catholicae  probata  legislatio  et  traditio” 
(Cone.  Nic.  ii.  art.  vi.,  Labbe  Concil.  vol.  vii.  p. 
831). 

The  same  restriction  to  one  c)'cle  and  adhe¬ 
rence  to  one  authorised  pictorial  form  are  seen 
in  the  frescoes  from  the  N.  T.  (See  Jesus 
Christ.) 

The  following  may  be  accepted  as  a  tolerably 
complete  account  of  the  cycle  of  the  0.  T.  subjects 
found  in  the  catacombs.  We  have  only  included 
those  which  had  received  a  fixed  traditional 
form,  and  were  constantly  repeated,  excluding 
those  only  occurring  once  or  twice  : —  s 

I.  (1)  The  Fall,  with  Adam,  Eve,  the  tree,  and 
the  serpent.  (2)  The  Offering  of  Cain  and  Abel. 
(3)  Noah  receiving  the  Dove.  (4)  The  Sacrifice 
of  Isaac.  (5)  Moses  removing  his  Shoes.  (6) 
Closes  striking  the  Ifiak.  (7)  David  with  his 
Sling.  (8)  Elijah’s  Translation.  (9)  The  Three 
Children  in  the  Fiery  Furnace.  (10)  Daniel  in 
the  Lions’  Den.  (11)  Jonah  («)  Swallowed  by 
the  Whale  ;  (6)  Disgorged  ;  (c)  Reposing  under 
his  Booth.  (12)  Job  on  the  Dunghill;  to  which 
ma)'-  be  added,  though  of  much  rarer  occurrence, 
(13)  Tobias  with  the  Fish,  and  (14)  Susanna  and 
the  Elders. 

The  New  Testament  cycle,  under  the  same 
restriction,  is  as  follows  : — 

II.  (1)  The  Adoration  of  the  Magi.  (2)  The 
Jliracle  at  Cana.  (3)  Christ  and  the  Woman  of 
Samaria.  (4)  The  Healing  of  the  Paralytic,  the 
man  cai'rying  his  bed.  (5)  The  Healing  of  the 
Blind  Man.  (6)  The  Cure  of  the  Woman  with 


g  The  most  detailed  description  of  the  members  of  ‘hese 
Scriptural  cycles,  with  references  to  the  localities  in 
which  they  may  be  .‘•ouxht  for,  is  supplied  by  the  Danish 
bishop  Dr.  Fred.  Munter,  in  his  work  of  learned  re^earch, 
Sinnbilder  und  Kunstvorstdlungen  der  alter  Chnslen, 
Altoua,  1825. 


the  Issue  of  Blood.  (7)  The  Multiplication  of 
the  Loaves  and  Fishes.  (8)  The  Raising  of  La¬ 
zarus.  (9)  Zacchaeus.  (10)  The  Triumphal 
Entry  into  Jerusalem.  (11)  Christ  before 
Pilate,  the  latter  washing  his  hands.  (12) 
Christ  and  the  Ajmstles  on  the  Shore  of  the 
Sea  of  Galilee,  after  the  Resurrection,  with 
bread  and  fish.  To  these  may  be  added,  though 
not  strictly  belonging  to  the  cycle,  (13)  the 
Annunciation  (Bottari,  tav.  176),  (14)  Our  Lord’s 
Baptism,  in  the  catacomb  of  St.  Pontianus,  and 
(15)  the  Five  Wise  Virgins,  from  St.  Agnes 
(Perret,  ii.  42). 

We  must  not  omit  to  mention  the  frescoes 
rej^resentiug  tho,  A(jape  which  so  frequently  meet 
us.  In  many  of  these  there  is  nothing  dis¬ 
tinctively  Christian,  and  ^Ir.  Tyrwhitt  remarks 
on  the  close  resemblance  between  the  Agape  of 
the  catacombs  of  St.  Domitilla,  and  St.  Callistus, 
and  the  confessedly  heathen  banquet  of  the  seven 
priests  in  the  Gnostic  catacomb.  That  of  which 
we  give  a  woodcut  (No.  13),  from  the  catacomb 
of  SS.  Marcell inus  and  Peter,  already  described 
(p.  312),  presents  nothing  by  which  we  can  de¬ 
termine  whether  the  feast  depicted  had  a  reli¬ 
gious  character  or  not.  In  other.s,  however,  the 
decussated  loaves,  the  bread  and  fish  in  seven 
baskets,  and  the  seven  persons,  in  evident  allu¬ 
sion  to  the  interview  between  Christ  and  seven 
of  hii  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Galilee,  evidence  the 
Christian  origin  and  purpose  of  the  painting. 


No.  13.  AfjHpe.  From  the  Cemetery  of  SS.  Marcellinus  and  Petins 

( Bosio.) 


We  have  already  lamented  the  entire  absence 
of  all  examples  of  religious  paintings  derived 
from  churches  or  basilicas,  owing  to  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  the  buildings  themselves,  or  of  the  decay 
or  removal  of  the  pictures.  This  want  however 
is  in  some  degree  compensated  for  by  contem¬ 
poraneous  lists  of  the  subjects  represented,  and 
to  some  extent  of  the  manner  in  which  they 
were  depicted,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  St. 
Ambrose  and  St.  Paulinus  of  Nola. 

In  the  latter  half  of  the  4th  century  the  Am- 

•/ 

brosian  basilica  at  Milan  was  decorated  with  a 
cycle  of  21  Scriptural  paintings,  all  but  four 
of  which  represented  0.  T.  subjects.  They  are 
described  in  the  “  Disticha  ad  picturas  sicras  in 
Basilica  Amhrosiana''  given  in  the  ’"Tnni  Since  ndi 
Sant’  Ambrojio,”  published  by  Biraghi  (Milano, 
1862).  The  subjects  are  (1)  Noah  and  the  Dove. 
(2)  Abraham  beholding  the  Stars.  (3)  Abra¬ 
ham  entertaining  the  Angels.  (4)  The  Sacrifice 
of  Isaac.  (5)  The  Meeting  of  Isaac  and  Rebecca. 
(6)  Jacob  craftily  obtaining  the  Birthright.  (7) 
Jaco?  and  the  Speckled  and  Ring-straked  Flocks. 
(8)  Joseph’s  Coat  shown  to  Jacob  by  his  Sons. 


FliESCO 


701 


(9)  Joseph  sold  by  his  Brethren.  (10)  Joseph 
and  Potiphar’s  Wife.  (H)  Joseph’s  Dreams. 
(12)  Absalom  caught  by  his  Hair.  (13)  Jonah 
swallowed  by  the  Great  Fish.  (14)  The  Wolf 
lying  down  with  the  Kid.  (15)  Jeremiah’s 
Prophetical  Commission.  (16)  The  Ascension 
of  Elijah.  (17)  Daniel  in  the  Lions’ Den.  (18) 
The  Annunciation.  (19)  Zacchaeus  in  the  Syca¬ 
more  Tree.  (20)  The  Transfiguration.  (21) 
St.  John  reclining  on  Christ’s  Breast.  This 
cycle  is  remarkable  as  including  several  subjects 
seldom  or  never  occurring  in  existing  remains. 
Subjects  (1),  (4),  (13),  (10),  and  (17)  are  among 
the  most  frequent,  but  all  the  rest  are  found 
most  rarely,  while  of  the  majority  it  would  be 
dilfioult  to  name  an  example. 

The  most  detailed  accounts  of  the  decoration 

of  a  church  with  Scriptural  paintings  are  those 

given  by  Pauiinus  of  Nola  in  the  early  years  of 

the  5th  century,  when  describing  the  basilica 

erected  by  him  in  honour  of  St.  Felix  (Poem, 

xxvii.L  We  here  find  the  first  direct  enunciation 
/ 

of  the  principle  set  forth  by  Joannes  Damascenus 
(Orat.  I.  de  Iitvxgin.  vol.  i.  p.  314),  and  con¬ 
stantly  repeated  since,  that  “pictures  are  the 
books  of  the  unlearned.”  The  festival  of  St. 
Felix,  which  occurred  in  the  winter,  gathered 
together  an  immense  concourse  of  country  folk, 
who  thought  to  do  honour  to  the  tomb  of  the 
saint  by  passing  the  night  in  feasting,  too  usually 
resulting-  in  a  gro-ss  debauch  : 

“  male  crcdula  sanctos 
Perfusis  halante  mero  gaudere  sepulcbris.” 

(/6.  V.  563.) 

In  the  hope  of  beguiling  the  gross  minds  of 
these  illiterate  peasants  from  the  sensual  de¬ 
lights  which  were  their  chief  attractions,  and 
awakening  purer  thoughts  and  holier  aspirations 
by  the  examples  of  the  holy  personages  there 
depicted,  and  at  the  same  time  with  the  view  of 
imparting  to  them  some  knowledge  of  the  chief 
facts  of  sacred  history,  and  at  any  rate  of  leaving 
them  less  leisure  for  their  coarser  pleasures, 
Pauiinus  adopted  the  somewhat  unusual  expedient 
(raro  more)  of  embellishing  the  portico  of  the  new 
basilica  with  a  series  of  Scriptural  paintings.  They 
occupied  either  the  ceiling  or  the  upper  portion  of 
the  wall,  only  to  be  seen  with  up-turned  face 
and  head  thrown  back  (ib.  vv.  511-513),  The 
series  embraced  subjects  from  the  Pentateuch, 
Joshua,  and  Ruth.  Those  particularised  by  Pau- 
linus  (ih.  vv.  515  -535,  607-635)  are  the  Creation 
of  Man,  Abraham’s  Departure  from  Ur,  the 
Angels  received  by  Lot,  Lot’s  Wife,  the  Sacrifice 
of  Isaac,  Isaac  opening  the  Wells,  Jacob’s  Dream, 
Joseph  and  Potiphar’s  Wife,  the  Crossing  of 
Jordan,  Naomi  and  her  Daughters-in-law,  and 
the  Passage  of  the  Red  Sea.  The  titles  of  the 
various  pictures  were  written  over  them  : 

“  ut  litt  ra  monstret 
Qiiod  manus  exp  icuit.” — (/b.  5S4  ) 

The  description  of  the  last  two  subjects  indicates, 
as  Dean  Milman  remarks  (Hist,  of  Christianity, 
vol,  iii.  p.  399  note),  if  it  was  drawn  from  the 
picture  itself,  considerable  talent  on  the  painter’s 
part  for  composition  and  landscape  as  well  as  for 
the  drawing  of  figures.  Not  content  with  these 
pictorial  embellishments  of  his  new  basilica, 
Pauiinus  decorated  the  old  basilica  of  St.  Felix 
in  a  similar  manner,  selecting  subjects  from  the 


FRIULI,  COUNCIL  OF 

New  Testament,  that  thus  “  that  which  was  new 
might  be  an  ornament  to  the  old,  and  the  old  to 
the  new.”  These  occupied  a  lower  position,  and 
could  be  viewed  “  lumine  recto  ”  (/^o<?/n.  xxviii. 
vv.  167-179).  Three  nari-ow  chapels  (cellae') 
opening  out  of  the  atrium,  exhibited  examples  of 
male  and  female  virtue.  One  was  painted  with 
the  history  of  Job  and  Tobit ;  another  with  those 
of  Esther  and  Judith.  That  in  the  centre  com¬ 
memorated  martyrs  of  both  sexes  (ib.  vv.  15-27). 
The  paintings  in  the  apse  of  the  basilica  at  Fondi 
are  also  described  by  Pauiinus  in  a  letter  to  his 
friend  Severus  (Ep.  xxxii.  17).  The  subjects 
were  of  the  same  nature  as  many  still  extant  in 
the  apses  of  basilicas;  a  crowned  cross  standing 
in  the  flowery  meads  of  Paradise,  and  the  Holy 
Lamb  anointed  by  the  Dove  and  crowned  by  the 
Father,  with  the  shec-p  and  goats  on  either  hand. 
These  may  have  been  worked  in  mosaic. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  walls  of 
civil  and  domestic  buildings  were  also  decorated 
with  paintings,  .sometimes  secular,  sometimes  re¬ 
ligious.  Those  of  the  2>^»hice  of  Queen  Theode- 
linda  at  Monza  have  been  already  referred  to. 
Sidonius  Apollinaris  describes  the  villa  of  his 
friend  Pontius  Leontius  at  Bourg,  at  the  conflu¬ 
ence  of  the  Dordogne  and  Garonne,  as  profuselv 
ornamented  with  wall-})aintings,  one  series  repre¬ 
senting  the  Mithridatic  camj)aign  of  Lucullus, 
another  the  eai-ly  history  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
“  recutitorum  primordia  Judaeorum.”  Sidonius 
expresses  his  astonishment  at  the  lustre  and 
durability  of  the  colours  (Sid.  Apoll.  Carm.  xxii.). 
We  learn  from  Ernandus  Nigellus  (lib.  iv.)  that 
the  whole  Scripture  history  vv-as  painted  on  the 
walls  of  Charlemagne’s  palace  at  Ingelheim.  It 
is  needless  to  say  all  these  have  perished. 

Authorities. — Alt,  HeUiyenbUder  ;  Bellermann, 
Katakomben  zu  Neapel ;  Bingham,  Oriyines,  bk. 
viii.  c.  8;  Boldetti,  Osservazioni ;  Bosio,  PiOma 
Sotterranea  ;  Bottari,  Scxdtnre  e  pithire ;  Ciam- 
piui,  Vetera  Mowimenta;  Kugler,  Handbook  of 
Paintiny ;  Lindsay,  Lord,  Sketches  of  Christian 
Art;  Munter,  Sinnbilder ;  Northcote  and  Brown- 
low,  Iloma  Sotterranea  ;  Parker,  J.  H.,  Photo¬ 
graphs  :  Perret,  Les  Catacombes  de  Pome  ;  Pij)er, 
Mythol.  u.  Symbol,  der  Christlich.  Kunst ;  Raoul 
Rochette,  Tableau  des  Catacombes  ;  Discours;  Rio, 
Art  Chre'ticnne ;  Rossi,  De’,  Roma  Sotterranea ; 
Seroux  d’Agincourt,  U Histoire  de  VArt  par  les 
monumens ;  Tyrwhitt,  Art  Teaching  of  the  Primi¬ 
tive  Cnurch.  [E.  V.] 

FRIDAY,  GOOD.  [Good  Friday.] 

FRIULI,  COUNCIL  OF  (Forojuliense  con¬ 
cilium),  held  at  Friuli,  A.D.  796,  not  791,  as  Pagi 
shews  (Mansi  xiii.  854)  under  Pauiinus,  j)atriarch 
of  Aquileia,  whose  letter  to  Charlemagne,  for¬ 
merly  misconnected  with  the  synod  of  Altino, 
A.D.  802  (ibid.  p.  827),  assigns  three  causes  for 
its  meeting:  (1)  the  orthodox  faith;  (2)  eccle¬ 
siastical  discipline,  and  (3)  recent  outrages,  ]>ro- 
bably  by  the  Huns.  The  first  of  tiicse  is  exj)lained 
in  his  speech,  which  is  an  elaborate  aj)ology  for 
the  reception  into  the  Western  creed  of  tlie 
“Filioque,”  which  Charlemagne  had  attacked, 
and  the  jiope  vindicated,  the  2nd  Niccne  council 
two  years  before  for  not  having  in  theirs  :  Pau- 
linus  him.self  endeavouu-ing  to  prove  both  right 
The  resemblance  between  parts  of  this  speech 
and  the  .4thanasian  creed  has  been  remarked 
and  is  very  close.  Besides  which  it  is  observable 


702  FRUITS,  OFFERING  OF  FRUITS,  OFFERING  OP 


that  all  priests  are  required  to  commit  to  memory 
the  entire  exj)osition  of  “the  Catholic  faith,” 
with  which  he  concludes:  while,  for  everybody 
else,  the  learning  by  heart  of  the  Creed  and 
the  Lord’s  Prayer  is  jirescribed.  Of  the  canons, 
the  1st  threatens  simony;  the  2nd  drunken¬ 
ness;  the  4th  and  5th  deprecate  secular  employ¬ 
ments  and  amusements  for  the  clergy.  IJy 
the  10th  divorced  couples  are  forbidden  to 
remarry  till  one  of  the  two  dies  ;  and  by  the 
13th  all  are  inhibited  from  working  on  Sundays 
and  holidavs  (Mansi  xiii.  830  and  seq.). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

FRUITS,  OFFERING  AND  BENEDIC¬ 
TION  OF.  I.  The  Eastern  Hite. — In  the  so- 
called  Apostolical  Constituti'  ns  (vii.  29)  the  duty 
is  inculcated  of  giving  to  the  jiriests  the  first- 
fruits  of  the  press  and  of  the  fioor,  of  honey, 
grapes,  shell-fruits,  &c.,  and  the  firstlings  of  the 
flock  and  herd,  that  the  stores  of  the  giver  and 
the  jiroduce  of  his  land  may  be  blessed  (eoAo- 
yqOwffLv).  As  this  precept  or  exhortation  comes 
in  the  midst  of  others  r«kUiting  to  the  Holy  Com¬ 
munion,  we  might,  perhaps,  infer  from  it  alone 
that  in  the  East  those  things  were  offered  and 
blessed  during  the  celebration  of  that  sacrament. 
They  were  at  least  brought  to  the  altar,  and  at 
that  time ;  for  the  third  (or,  as  in  some  editions, 
the  second)  apostolical  canon  forbids  anything 
but  ears  of  new  corn  and  grapes  in  their  seasons, 
oil  for  the  lamps,  and  frankincense,  to  be 
“  brought  to  the  altar  at  the  time  of  the  holy 
sacrifice.”  At  a  later  period  they  certainly  were 
blessed  during  the  liturgy;  for  the  council  in 
Trullo  (a.d.  391)  found  that  in  some  churches 
the  grapes  brought  to  the  altar  were  “joined  to 
the  unbloody  sacrifice  of  the  oblation,  and  both 
distributed  together  to  the  peojile  ;”  whereui)on 
it  decreed  that  “  the  priests  should  bless  the 
graj)e  separately”  (^Can.  xxviii.).  In  book  viii. 
c.  xl.  of  the  Constitutions  is  a  thanksgiving  for 
first-fruits  offered.  In  the  book  it  follows  the 
“  morning  laying  on  of  hands ;  ”  but  as  it  comes 
after  the  dismissal,  it  is  clearly  independent  of 
that.  It  might,  for  aught  that  appears,  be  used, 
when  occasion  required,  at  the  celebration  or  any 
other  service.  It  begins  thus,  “We  give  Thee 
thanks,  0  Lord  Almighty,  Creator  and  Provider 
of  all  things,  through  Thine  only  begotten  Sou 
Jesus  Chi  ist  our  Lord,  not  as  we  ought,  but  as 
we  can,  for  the  first-fruits  offered  unto  Thee.” 
The  whole  form,  which  is  rather  long,  is  a 
thanksgiving  in  this  strain.  Later  forms,  though 
apparently  of  very  great  antiquity,  are  conceived 
in  a  different  spirit,  and  approjndately  entitled, 
“  Prayers  on  behalf  of  those  who  offer  first- 
fruits  ”  (^Euchologion,  pp.  655,  656,  ed.  Goar). 
They  are,  with  one  exception,  I’ather  petitions 
for  a  benefit,  than  ascriptions  of  praise.  They 
are  used  at  the  benediction  of  “  grapes,  figs, 
))omegranates,  olives,  ai)])les,  ])eaches,  plums.” 
Grajjes,  if  ripe,  were  blessed  in  the  Greek  church 
on  the  6th  of  August  (Euchologion,  p.  695). 

11.  27ie  Western  Hite. — One  proof  of  the  great 
antiquity  of  the  benediction  of  grapes  is  that  it 
took  place  in  the  West  (as  a  rule)  on  the  6th 
of  August,  as  well  as  among  the  Greeks  {^Sacram. 
Gregor,  in  Lit.  Rom.  Vet. ;  Muratori,  tom.  ii.  col. 
109).  The  earliest  extant  forms  are  in  the  Ge- 
lasian  sacramentary.  the  substance  of  which  is 
at  least  as  old  as  the  fifth  century.  There, 


among  the  Orationes  et  TGcces  for  Ascension 
Day,  we  find  this  rubric  and  prayer:  “Then  a 
little  before  the  end  of  the  canon  thou  shalt 
bless  the  new  fruits  (fruges  novas).  The  Bene¬ 
diction  follows :  Bless,  0  Lord,  these  new  fruits 
of  the  bean,  which  Thou,  0  Lord,  hast  vouch¬ 
safed  to  ripen,  &c.,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ;  by  whom  Thou,  0  Lord,  dost 
alway  create  all  these  good  things,  &c.  Finish 
the  Caii'-n”  (Muratori,  tom.  i.  col.  588).  Else¬ 
where,  in  the  same  sacramentary,  the  praver 
occurs  again  slightly  altered,  and  with  the  alter¬ 
natives,  “  grai)e  or  bean”  {Ibid.  col.  746).  It  is 
here  followed  by  another  benediction  of  first- 
fruits'  of  any  kind  (piimitias  creaturae  Tuae), 
and  by  a  “  Benediction  of  Apples.”  From  some 
MSS.  of  the  later  Gregorian  sacramentary,  we 
learn  that  aj)iJes  were  blessed  on  the  viii.  Kal. 
Aug.,  i.e  ,  on  St.  James’  Day  (Marteue,  Ee  Antiq. 
Eccl.  Hit.  L.  iv.  c.  xxxiii.  §  xi.).  The  prayer  from 
which  we  have  quoted  above  is  preserved  in  the 
last-named  sacramentary  as  a  iJenedictio  Uvae 
(Muratori,  tom.  ii.  col.  109).  The  oldest  MS.  of 
the  Gelasian  does  not  reach  beyond  the  eighth 
centurv,  nor  that  of  the  Gregorian  bevond  the 
ninth ;  but  we  have  proof  that  the  custom  was 
known  in  the  West  before  the  eighth  century, 
and  therefore  that  the  recognition  of  it  in  the 
Roman  sacramentaries  was  not  an  interpolation 
of  that  period.  The  prayei'  above  cited  from  the 
Gelasian  occurs  with  the  title,  Benedictio  omni 
(sic)  croaurae  (sic)  Homorum,  in  the  manuscript 
Gallican  sacramentary,  written  in  the  seventh 
century,  if  not  earlier,  found  by  Mabillon  in  the 
monastery  at  Bobio,  in  Italy,  and  probably 
carried  thither  fi'om  Luxeuil  by  its  founder,  St. 
Columbanus,  a.d.  613,  or  by  one  of  his  followers 
(see  the  Alusaeum  Italicum,  tom.  i.  p.  390 ;  or 
Muratori,  u.  s.  tom.  ii.  col.  959).  In  the  Lec¬ 
tionary  of  Luxeuil,  another  ha})py  discovery  of 
Mabillon,  we  find  the  Eucharistic  lessons  Ad 
Missam  de  novos  Fructus  (sic).  The  prophecv  is 
taken  from  Joel  ii.  21-27 ;  the  epistle  from 
1  Cor.  ix.  7-15;  and  the  gospel  from  St.  John, 
vi.  49-52  {De  Liturgiu  Gallicanu,  p.  161).  From 
this  coming  after  the  I^egenda  of  the  Passion  of 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  Sept.  24  {Liturg.  Gall. 
p.  458),  and  from  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
lessons,  we  infer  that  it  is  the  benediction  of  the 
new  corn  for  which  jirovision  is  here  made.  The 
rite  was  ])robably  carried  by  our  countryman 
Boniface  (Winfred),  a.d.  723,  with  the  common 
Roman  offices,  to  his  converts  in  Germany  ;  ibr 
we  find  the  Gelasian  benedictions  of  fruit,  &c., 
with  certain  others,  among  the  3Ionumenta 
Veteris  Liiurgiae  Alcmannicae,  published  by  Ger- 
bert  (Part  I.  p.  307).  A  very  brief  examj)lc 
peculiar  to  this  collection  may  be  given : — 
“Bless,  0  Lord,  this  fruit  of  now  trees,  that 
they  who  use  thereof  may  be  sanctified  ;  through, 
&c.”  It  is  interesting  to  add  that  similar  bene¬ 
dictions  were  practised  in  our  own  country.  In 
the  pontifical  of  Egbert,  who  became  archbishop 
of  York  in  732,  are  the  six  following  formu¬ 
laries  :-J(i.)  Benedictio  ad  omnia  quie  volhcrts ; 
(ii.)  Benedictio  ad  Fruges  not  as  ;  (iii.)  Benedictio 
Homorum ;  (iv.)  Alia  ;  (v.)  Benedictio  Hani<t  novi ; 
(vi.)  Alia.  There  is,  of  course,  no  mention  of 
grajies,  nor  is  the  Gelasian  j)rayer  that  we  have 
cited  given  with  any  other  application.  Of  the 
above,  ii.  and  v.  are  not  in  the  Roman  sacra¬ 
mentaries.  The  last  runs  thus;  “Bless,  0  Loi'd, 


FEONTAL 


this  creature  of  bread,  as  Thou  didst  bless  the 
five  loaves  iu  the  wilderness,  that  all  who  taste 
thereof  may  receive  health  both  of  body  and  of 
soul ;  througl),  &c.”  {J^ontijicale  Ecgberhti,  p. 
115;  ed.  Surtees  Society,  1854). 

It  will  be  perceived  that  in  the  West,  as  well 
as  East,  the  offering  of  first-fruits  as  a  token  of 
gratitude  to  tlie  Giver  of  All  soon  degenerated 
into  a  mode  of  asking  for  a  blessing  on  the  con¬ 
sumption  of  His  gifts.  It  should  be  understood, 
also,  that  both  iu  the  East  and  West  the  first- 
fruits  brought  to  be  blessed  were  left  for  the  use 
of  the  priests.  “  It  is  becoming  and  expedient,” 
says  Origen,  A.D.  230,  “  that  the  first-fruits  be 
offered  also  to  the  priests  of  the  Gospel.”  “  For 
if  one  believed  that  the  fruits  of  the  earth  were 
given  to  him  by  God,  he  would  surely  know  how 
to  honour  God  from  His  gifts  and  benefits  by 
giving  thereof  to  the  priests  ”  (^Hom.  xi.  iu  Num. 
§2,  tom.  X.  pp.  105,  106;  ed.  Loinmatzsch). 
Similarly  St.  Jerome,  commenting  on  Ezekiel 
xliv.  30:  “The  first-fruits  of  our  foods  are 
offered  to  the  priests  ;  that  we  may  taste  nothing 
of  the  new  fruits,  before  the  priest  has  tasted 
them.  For  we  do  this,  that  the  priest  may  lay 
up  a  blessing  and  our  offering  in  his  house  ;  or 
that  the  Lord  may  bless  our  houses  at  his 
prayer.” 

We  have  already  quoted  a  rubric  from  the 
Gelasian  sacrameutary,  which  orders  that  the 
benediction  of  fruits  shall  take  place  “  a  little 
before  the  end  of  the  canon.”  The  prayer  was  in¬ 
serted  immediately  after  the  words,  “  not  weigh¬ 
ing  our  merits,  but  pardoning  our  offences  ”  (now 
in  our  first  Post-Commuiiion  Collect),  and  im¬ 
mediately  before  the  concluding  clause,  “  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.”  This  clause  (altered  in 
this  manner,  “in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ”)  was  thus  made  to  close  the  benediction. 
After  it  the  priest  added,  “  Per  quern  haec  omnia, 
Domine,  semper  bona  creas,  sanctificas,  vivificas, 
benedicis  et  praestas  nobis.  Per  ipsum,”  &c. 
These  words  are  now  a  permanent  part  of  the 
canon ;  but  they  do  not  seem  to  belong  to  it. 
The  words,  “haec  omnia”  cannot  with  any  pro¬ 
priety  be  applied  to  the  eucharistic  elements 
alone.  Hence  some  ritualists,  as  e.  g.  Grancolas 
{Ancien7ies  Liturgies,  p.  657),  and  De  Vert  (^Ex- 
plic.  des  Ceremon.  tom.  iv.  Remarque  xxx.),  &c., 
suppose  that  this  doxology  was  at  first  only  used 
when  other  things  were  oflered  to  be  blessed,  and 
formed  no  part  of  the  service  of  the  mass.  Le 
Bruu  (^Explication,  p.  iv.  art.  xvi.).  Bona  (^Rer. 
Lit.  1.  2,  c.  xiv.  §  V.),  D’Achery  (^SpicV.  tom.  iv. 
Praef.),  and  others,  maintain  that  it  was  a  con¬ 
stant  part  of  the  liturgy,  but  that  when  there 
was  a  benediction  of  fruits,  it  applied  to  them 
as  well  as  to  the  elements.  [W.  E.  S.] 

FRONTAL  {Frontalis  or  Frontale)  is  defined 
by  Lindwood  to  be  “  apparatus  pendens  in  fronte 
altaris, qui  alias dicitur Pa//a.”  [Altar-cloths; 
Antependium.]  The  word  is  not  uncommon  in 
ancient  documents.  Thus,  for  instance,  a  charter 
of  Chindasuintha,  king  of  the  Goths,  of  the  year 
645  A.D.  (quoted  by  Ducange,  s.  v.)  runs :  “  of- 
ferimus  .  .  .  vestimenta  altaris  omnia  ad  ple¬ 
num,  sive  frontalia,  sive  principalia  ...”  A 
later  charter,  quoted  by  the  same  authority, 
speaks  of  “  quatuor /Vonfa/cs  de  serico.”  [C.] 


FUGITIVES  703 

commemorated  April  14  (J/arf.  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(2)  [Felix  (5).] 

(3)  Bishop  at  Petragoricas ;  commemorated 
Oct.  25  (Mart.  Adonis,  Hsuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FRUCTUOSA.  [Do.xatus  (8).] 

FRUCTUOSUS,  bishop,  martyr  at  Tarra¬ 
gona  with  Augurius  and  Eulogius,  deacons,  in 
the  time  of  Gallienus;  commemorated  Jan.  21 
(Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.j 

FRUCTUS  MEDII  TEMPORIS.  [Va- 

CANCr.] 

FRUMENTIES.  (1)  Martyr  in  Africa  with 
Victorianus  and  another  Frumentius,  under  Hun- 
nericus  ;  commemoi'ated  March  23  (Mart.  lioin. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  or  Salama  ;  commemorated  Maskarram  23 
=  Sept.  20  (Cal.  Eihiop.)  [Salama].  [W.  F.  G.] 

FUGITIVES  (from  a  monastery).  Monastic 
codes  shew  that  their  framers  had  to  guard  on 
the  one  hand  against  a  leniency  which  might 
encourage  desertion  on  the  part  of  monks  tired 
of  their  seclusion  and  eager  for  the  world,  and 
on  the  other  against  a  severity  which  might  close 
the  door  too  fast  against  deserters  wishing  to  be 
readmitted.  The  rule  of  Benedict,  as  always, 
is  very  lenient  on  this  point.  A  monk  who  escapes 
from  a  monastery,  like  one  who  is  expelled,  is 
to  be  received  again  if  he  vows  amendment,  even 
after  three  desertions  (Leg.  Den.  c.  29,  cf.  Deg. 
Cuj.  ad  Virg.  c.  21),  but  only  into  the  lowest 
grade  (Reg.  Ben.  ib.  cf.  Reg.  Rachom.  c.  79,  Reg. 
Fruct.  c.  20,  Reg.  Cuj.  ib.).  Some  commenta¬ 
tors,  indeed,  take  this  rule  as  implying,  that 
the  abbat  may  readmit  even  after  a  fourth  de¬ 
sertion,  though  the  culprit  has  no  right  to 
require  it  (Martene,  Reg.  Coiwment.  in  loc.).  But 
later  commentators  (e.g.  Menard,  Haeften)  in¬ 
terpret  it  more  strictly  (IMartene,  Reg.  Comm, 
ib.)  The  first  council  of  Orleans,  A.D.  511,  cen¬ 
sures  abbats  lenient  to  fugitive  monks,  or  who 
receive  monks  from  other  monasteries  (Cone. 
Aurel.  i.  c.  19).  The  second  council  of  Tours, 
A.D.  567,  allows  fugitives  to  be  re-admitted  on 
doing  penance. 

In  the  same  spirit  of  wi.se  tolerance  Benedict 
is  silent  as  to  the  steps  to  be  taken  to  bring 
back  the  fugitive,  apparently  judging  it  best  to 
leave  him  alone,  if  without  any  desire  to  return 
(Mart,  Reg.  Comm.  ib.).  But  Ferreolus  pi-e- 
scribes  that  the  I'ugitiye  is  to  be  recalled  (Leg. 
Ferr.  c.  20),  and  Fructuosus  forbids  him  to  be 
admitted  into  another  monastery  ;  and  orders 
him  to  be  broqght  back,  by  force  if  necessary, 
as  a  criminal,  with  hands  tied  behind  his  back 
(Reg.  Fruct.  c.  20).  It  was  enacted  by  Justi¬ 
nian  that  a  monk  returning  to  the  secular  life 
should  be  degraded  by  the  bishop  and  governor 
of  the  province  from  his  civil  ])osition,  and  be 
sent  back  with  his  worldly  goods  to  his  monas¬ 
tery  ;  if  he  deserted  again,  he  was  to  be 
drafted  into  the  army  (Novell.  123).  A  similar 
decree  was  passed  by  the  seventli  council  of 
Toledo,  A.D.  646  (Cone.  Tolet.  c.  5).  The  second 
council  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  553,  sentenced  an 
abbat  who  should  be  remiss  in  .seeking  to  bring 
back  the  stray  sheep  into  the  monastic  fold  to 
deprivation. 

Later  enactments  are  very  severe  against  fugi- 


FRONTO,  (1)  Abbot,  martyr  at  Alexandria  ; 


70-i 


FULGENTIUS 


FUSCOLUS 


tivcs.  The  Cistercian  rule  forbids  the  reception 
•  even  into  the  lowest  rank  of  a  monk  who  has 
deserted  twice,  or  has  stayed  awa}'  more  than 
eleven  days.  The  renegaile  is  in  any  case  to 
wear  a  distinctive  dress,  as  badge  of  his  disgrace, 
and  to  be  excluded  from  the  choir ;  the  abbat 
who  fails  to  enforce  this  rule  is  to  do  penance. 
The  original  statutes  of  the  Carthusians  unfrock 
the  renegade  ;  the  modern  compel  him  to  re¬ 
sume  the  dre.ss  of  his  order.  The  Augustinian 
rule  tempers  severity  with  merc3^  The  rene¬ 
gade  is  to  live  outside  the  monastery  itself,  but 
under  the  care  of  the  bishop,  and  the  abbat  is 
to  shew  kindness  to  him,  if  penitent  (Mart.  Beg. 
Comm,  in  loc.  cit.).  [1.  G.  S.] 

FULGENTIUS,  bishop  in  Africa  ;  comme¬ 
morated  Jan.  1  (^Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usu- 
ardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

FUNERAL.  [Burial  OF  THE  Dead  ;  Obse¬ 
quies.] 

FUNERAL-FEAST.  [Catacombs,  p.  312; 
Cella  jMemoriae.] 

FUNERAL-SERMONS  {Bpitaphia,  \6yoi 
i-TTirdcpLOi).  Christians  followed  the  old  custom 
of  many  of  the  heathen  nations,  of  holding  an 
oration  over  the  remains  of  famous  men  departed 
[Burial  of  the  Dead,  p.  253].  To  say  no¬ 
thing  of  the  discourses — triumphal  rather  than 
sorrowing — delivered  overthe  remains  of  martyrs, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  held  funeral  orations  on  the 
death  of  the  empresses  Pulcheria  and  Placilla,  and 
of  bishop  Meletius.  On  the  death  of  Constantine 
the  Great,  several  bishops  celebrated  his  praises, 
conspicuous  among  whom  was  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  exercised  his 
pathetic  eloquence  over  the  bier  of  his  brother 
Caesarius,  of  his  father  and  his  sister,  and  over 
that  of  Basil  the  Great ;  Ambrose  preached  on 
the  death  of  his  brother  Satyrus,  of  Valentinian, 
and  of  Theodosius.^  The  tone  of  these  orations 
is,  for  the  most,  eulogistic  of  the  “famous  men  ” 
througii  whom  “  the  Lord  hath  wrought  great 
glory  ”  (Ecclus.  xliv.  1,  2). 

Jerome  (^Epist.  ad  Heliod.  c.  1)  says  that  the 
old  custom  was  for  sons  to  speak  the  funeral 
orations  over  parents.  He  alludes  here  probably 
to  a  pagan  custom,  of  which  there  are  many 
examples  (Kirchmann,  Be  Fun.  Bom.  lib.  ii.  c. 
18) ;  but  Chri.stianity  also  (as  we  have  seen) 
furnishes  examples  of  a  similar  practice.  Nor 
were  the  clergy  the  only  orators  in  such  cases ; 
Constantine  himself  did  not  disdain  to  pronounce 
a  funeral  oration  on  one  of  his  court,  in  which, 
says  Eusebius  (  Vica  Const,  iv.  55)  he  spoke  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul,  of  the  blessings  of 
the  righteous,  and  the  misery  of*the  wicked. 

Funeral  sermons  were  not  always  delivered  at 
the  time  of  the  burial,  though  some — as  several 
of  Gregory  Nazianzen’s — contain  indications  that 
the}^  were  so  delivered.  Eusebius  ( Vita  Cmst. 
iv.  71)  gives  us  to  understand  that  the  funeral 
orations  over  Constantine  A'ere  delivered  while 
the  remains  of  the  departed  lay  in  state  on  a 
lofty  bier  [Feretrum].  Ambrose  evidently  de¬ 
livered  his  sermon  over  Satyrus  (see  §  78)  while 
the  body  was  yet  waiting  to  be  carried  to  the 
grave.  His  oration  on  Valentinian,  on  the  con- 


•  Wo  might  almost  include  in  funeral  orations  Jerome's 
Epituphiuni  NepoLiani,  though  it  is  in  form  a  letter  to 
Heliodorus. 


trary,  was  delivered  two  months  (see  Opera,  ii. 
1170,  ed.  Beued.),  that  on  Theodosius  forty  days, 
after  the  death  of  the  ])erson  commemorated. 
The  death  of  bishop  Meletius  was  the  occasion  of 
sermons  everywhere  (Theodoret,  II. E.  v.  8); 
that  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  was  ])robably  delivered 
on  the  day  when  the  remains  of  Meletius,  brought 
from  Constautinoj)le,  were  received  at  Antioch. 
That  ot  Chrysostom  on  the  same  bishop,  was  de¬ 
livered  on  the  fifth  anniversary  of  his  death. 
The  oration  of  Gregory  Nazianzen  on  Basil  was 
delivered  over  his  tomb  on  the  fii'st  anniversary 
of  his  death,  in  the  presence  (it  is  said)  of  150 
bishops. 

When  the  sermon  took  place  at  the  time  of  a 
commemorative  service  for  the  dead,  it  probably 
took  place  at  the  point  in  the  liturgy  where  the 
sermon  was  ordinarily  introduced.  The  Pseudo- 
Dionysius  (^Hierarch.  Eccl.  c.  7)  speaks  of  the 
funeral-sermon  being  delivered  after  the  catechu¬ 
mens  had  departed,  but  while  the  penitents 
remained.  The  eulogy  of  Hilary  of  Arles  on 
Honoratus  (quoted  by  Binterim,  Vi.  lii.  442), 
which  proves  incidentally  that  the  corpse  was 
carried  uncovered,  and  that  the  oeoj/le  ]>ressed 
round  to  kiss  the  face,  or  the  coffin  of  the 
illustrious  dead — was  probably  delivered  at  the 
end  of  some  office.  The  orations  over  the  remains 
of  Constantine  were  clearly  delivered  after  the 
funeral  service  (Euseb.  u.s.  iv.  71;  Binterim’s 
Denkvciirdigkeiten,  vi.  iii.  435,  ff’.).  [C.] 

FURNACE.  In  Bottari  (clxxxvi.  6)  the  three 
Hebrew  brethren  are  represented  standing  in 
something  like  a  kiln  or  smelting  furnace  (see 
woodcut) ;  also  cxcv.  and  perhaps  cxliii.  Ixi. ; 
also  in  Parker’s  photographs  from  the  catacomb 
of  St.  Marcellinus.  The  furnace  is  literally  in¬ 
sisted  on,  in  a  way  which,  as  it  appears  to  the 


author,  may  possibly  have  been  adopted  from  one 
of  the  ustrina  (or  ae)  used  for  cremation  in  Rome. 
One  of  these,  or  its  remains  or  traces,  the  author 
believes  he  saw  in  Pompeii,  Christmas  1859.  See 
Murray’s  Handbook  for  South  Itah/,  p.  327. 

^[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

FURSEAS,  bishop,  confessor  at  Peronne; 
commemorated  Jan.  16  {3Iart.  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

FUSCIANUS,  martyr  at  Amiens;  comme¬ 
morated  Dec.  11  (J/a/  f.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

FUSCOLUS.  (1)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Orleans ; 
commemorated  Feb.  2  (J/arf.  Usuardi). 

(2)  [Doxatianus  (2).]  [W.  F.  G.] 


GABALUM 


GALLERIES 


705 


G 

GABALUM,  COUNCIL  OF  {Gahilitanum 
concilium),  at  which  the  wife  of  the  count  of 
Auvergne  was  condemned  for  adultery,  says  Sir 
H.  Nicolas  {Chron.  p.  222),  A.D.  590.  Gabalum, 
where  it  was  held,  was  not  far  from  Mende,  on 
the  river  Lot  {Gall.  Christ,  i.  83).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

GABATHA  or  GABATA.  A  name  of  pen¬ 
sile  lamps  suspended  in  churches.  The  word  is  of 
uncertain  orthography  and  etymology.  We  find 
the  forms  Grabata,  Gavata,  and  Carata,  which  last 
points  to  the  derivation  given  by  Isidore  His- 
palensis  (Eti/mol.  lib.  xx.  c.  4)  from  cavns 
“hollow.”  The  original  meaning  of  the  word  is 
“  a  dish  ”  or  “  bowl ;  ”  in  which  sense  it  is  used 
by  Mai-tial  {Epujr.  vii.  47  ;  xi.  32),  and  of  which 
'the  Glossary  of  Ducange  furnishes  abundant  ex¬ 
amples.  From  its  shape  it  came  to  be  employed 
for  a  lamp,  which  is  its  most  usual  ecclesiastical 
signification.  The  annexed  woodcut  from  Maori 


Gabbatlia,  from  Maori 


shows  one  of  two  bowl-shaped  preserved 

in  the  pontifical  chapel  of  the  Lateran,  in  which 
in  his  time  a  wax  light  was  always  burning 
before  the  sacrament.  Gab.ithae  frequently  occur 
in  the  catalogues  of  papal  gifts  to  the  churches 
of  Lome  contained  in  Anastasius.  Thus  Leo  III. 
(a.p,  795-816)  gave  to  the  basilica  of  St.  Peter’s 
15  gabathae  of  purest  gold  set  with  gems,  to 
hang  on  the  screen  (pergula)  before  the  altar 
(§  382),  and  6  of  silver  with,  an  appended  cross 
to  hang  before  the  Arch  of  Triumph,  3  on  each 
side  (§  389).  These  gabathae  were  of  different 
metals,  gold,  silver,  brass,  and  electrum.  They 
were  frequently  embossed  {anaglgpha  §  392, 
fcc.),  or  decorated  in  bas-relief  (interrasiles),  and 
ornamented  with  lilies  (liliatae)  heads  of  gry¬ 
phons  (§  366)  or  lions  (as  in  the  w’oodcut),  or 
even  fashioned  in  the  form  of  that  animal  “  in 
modum  leonis.”  Like  the  coronae  used  for  light- 
ing,  they  very  often  had  crosses  attached  to 
them  {sijnochristae,  §  418,  &c.).  The  epithet 
filopares  is  frequently  applied  to  gabathae  in 
Anastasius,  and  would  seem,  from  a  comparison 
with  the  exj)ression  pari  flo  (Lucr.  ii.  341),  to 
signify  of  equal  size  or  thickness.  The  epithet 
saxicae  or  saxiscae  is  irterpreted  by  Ducange  to 
mean  of  Saxon  workmanship;  but  tiiis  interpre¬ 
tation  is  precarious.  [E.  V.] 

GABINIUS.  (1)  Presbyter,  and  martyr  at 
Rome  in  the  time  of  Diocletian;  commemorated 
Feb.  19  {Mart.  Ron.  Vet..  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Sardinia  with  Crispedus,  under 
Adrian;  commemorated  May 30 (/6.).  [W.  F. G.] 

CIIftlST.  A  N'T. 


GABRA.  (1)  Mantis  Kodus  (*.  e.  servant  of 
the  Holy  Spirit),  saint  of  Ethiopia;  commemo¬ 
rated  Magabit  5  =  March  1  {Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(2)  Maskal  (t.  e.  servant  of  the  Cross),  king  of 
the  Ethiopians  ;  commemorated  Hedar30  =  Nov. 
26  {Cal. Ethiop.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GABRIEL,  IN  ART.  [Angels.] 

GABRIEIj,  the  archangel  ;  commemorated 
March  26  and  July  13  {Cal.  Byzant.)  ;  Magabit 
30  =  March  26,  Senne  13  =  June  7,  Taxas  19  = 
Dec.  15  {Cal.  Ethiop.)',  also  with  John,  July  12 
{Cal.  G<Kjrg.),  a^d  with  Michael  and  All  Angels, 
Nov.  8  {Cal.  Armen.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GAIANA,  and  companions,  virgin-martyrs  ; 
commemorated  June  4  {Cal.  Armen.)  [\V.  F.  G.] 

GAIUS,  saint  at  Bologna  ;  commemorated 
with  Aggeus  and  Hermes,  Jan.  4  {Mart.  Usu- 
ardi).  See  Caius.  [W.  F.  G.] 

GALACTION.  [Episteme.] 

GALATA,  martyr  at  Militana  in  Armenia, 
with  Aristonicus,  Caius,  Expeditus,  Hermogenes, 
Rufus;  commemorated  April  19  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Adoni.s,  Usuardi).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

GALILAEI.  [Faithful.] 

GALILEE.  [Narthex.] 

GALNABIS  (also  Galnape,  Galnapes  [Isid 
Hispal.  Ettym.  xix.  25],  Gaunape).  This  is  a  kind 
of  rough  blanket  or  rug,  forming  part  of  the 
furniture  of  a  monk’s  couch,  which  according  to 
the  Rule  of  St.  Isidore  is  to  include  “  storoa  et 
stragulum,  pellesque  iauatae  duae,  galnabis 
quoque  et  facistergium,  gemiuusque  ad  caput 
pulvillus”  {Regula  8.  Isidori,  c.  14;  in  Hols- 
tenius.  Codex  Regularum,  part  2,  p.  127,  ed. 
Paris,  1663).  Similarly  the  Rule  of  Fructuosus, 
bishop  of  Bracara  in  Spain,  speaks  of  “  calnabes 
yillatus  ”  (c.  4 ;  op.  cit.  part  2,  p.  139).  The 
galnabis  was  apparently  used  sometimes  as  an 
article  of  personal  dress,  for  in  the  testament 
of  Caesarius,  bi.shop  of  Arles,  we  read  “  simul 
cum  casula  villosa  et  tunica  vel  galnape,  quod 
melius  dimisero”  {Patrol.  Ixvii.  1140). 

The  etymology  of  the  word  is  doubtful  :  wc 
may  perhaps  connect  it  with  the  word  gaunac’nn, 
used  by  Varro,  and  possibly  also  with  the  Greek 
yavi/dKTfs,  Kavj/aKrjs,  which  is  defined  by  Hesychius 
(under  the  latter  spelling)  (npwgara,  1)  ini- 
fioKaia  iTepopaWri.  Another  derivation  has 
been  suggested,  connecting  the  word  with  galba- 
num,  and  making  it  descriptive  of  the  colour, 
but  this  is  very  improbable.  For  further  refer¬ 
ences,  see  Ducange’s  Glossarium  s.  v.  [R.  S.] 

GALLERIES.  The  only  galleries  known  in 
early  ecclesiastical  architecture  were  construc¬ 
tional  integral  parts  of  the  building,  not  additions 
to  it.  In  this  they  corresponded  to  the  triforia 
of  mediaeval  churches,  which  in  their  original 
idea  were  galleries  for  the  reception  of  worshij)- 
pers  or  auditors,  for  which  purpose  they  are 
still  used  in  Germany,  and  where  they  exist  in 
Italy  {e.g.  St.  Ambrogio  at  Milan),  and  to  some 
extent  in  England.  The  first  Christian  churches 
in  the  West  were  either  basilicas,  or  buildings 
erected  on  the  basilican  plan,  and  they  naturally 
retained  the  upjier  gallery,  running  entirely 
I'ound  the  building  above  the  principal  colonnade, 


706 


GALT.ERIES 


GALLERIES 


for  the  accomiiiodation  of  s])ect:itors,  inen  on  one 
side  and  women  on  tlie  other,  which  we  know 
to  have  formed  an  essential  portion  of  the  basi¬ 
lican  arrangement  (Vitruv.  v.  1).  Like  them 


the  cliurch  galleries  w^ere  reached  by  an  outside 
staircase,  and  were  protected  towards  the  nave 
by  a  low  wall  or  balustrade  (plutens).  The 
only  Roman  basilican  churches  that  exhibit  this 
arrangemeut  are  those  of  St.  Agnes  (tig.  1), 


Sophia,  (or  SS.  Sergius  and  Basilius,)  erected  by 
Justinian  (fig.  .3),  also  exhibits  a  gallery  or  up))er 
story  running  all  round  it.  In  the  churches,  in 
what  is  commonly  known  as  the  Bvzantine  stvle, 
of  which  St.  Sophia  is  the  most  magnificent 
example,'  the  side  gallery  played  a  very  imjior- 
tant  part.  There  is  a  good  examjjle  in  the 
church  of  St.  Vitale,  at  Ravenna  (see  woodcut, 
p.  .376). 

Its  usual  designation  was  gunneconitis,  from 
being  the  place  where  the  women  were  accom¬ 
modated.  It  was  also  called  the  cutbchumeniurn, 
because  the  women  assembled  there  to  listen  to 
instruction  (Leo.  Novell.  73,  apud  Ducange  Con- 
stantinopol.  Clo'ist.),  or  simply  “  the  upper  cham¬ 
bers,”  vTrepcf>a  (Raul.  Silent,  i.  2.36).  These  gal¬ 
leries  ran  along  the  side  of  the,  trapeza  or  nave, 
sometimes  quite  up  to  the  .sanctuary  or  hema.  The 
Pseudo- Amphilochius  records  that-  St.  Basil, 
having  detected  a  xvoman  making  signs  to  the 
deacon  attending  upon  him  at  the  altar,  gave 
orders  that  curtains  should  be  hung  over  the 
gallery  to  prevent  such  indecorum. 

The  women’s  galleries  at  St.  Sophia  are  of 
vast  size  (fig.  4),  ranged  to  the  north  an  1  south 


No.  2.  Section  of  St.  Michele,  Pavia. 


St.  Laurence,  in  its  more  ancient  portion,  and 
the  church  of  the  Quattro  Santi  Coronati,  on  the 
Coelian.  A  similar  upper  gallery  occurs  also  in 
the  Lateral!  baptistery  of  Constantine.  The 
passion  for  mosaic  pictures  of  sacred  subjects 
led  to  the  abolition  of  th’s  gallery  in  the  basilican 
churches,  the  space  it  should  have  occupied  being 
devoted  to  pictorial  representations,  as  at  St. 
Maria  Maggiore,  St.  Paul’s,  and  the  old  St. 
Peter’s,  at  Rome  (see  illustrations  on  pages 
370,  371),  and  S.  Apollinai-e  in  Classe,  and  St. 
Apollinare  Nuovo,  at  Ravenna.  But  it  reap¬ 
peared  in  the  early  Lombard  churches,  as  at 
S.  Ambrogio  at  Milan,  and  S.  Michele  at  Pavia 
(fig.  2),  where  there  are  well  developed  triferial 
galleries.  But  the  arrangement  never  took  root 
in  Italy,  and  was  soon  lost. 

In  the  East,  when  the  “  dromic  ”  or  basilican 
form  was  adopted,  it  carried  with  it  the  upper 
gallery  above  the  side  aisles.  Of  this  we  have 
an  example  in  the  church  of  St.  John  at  Con¬ 
stantinople  (a.d.  463),  illustrated  in  Salzenburg’s 
work.  The  domical  church  of  the  lesser  Santa 


of  the  central  area,  occupying  the  upper  story  of 
the  transeptal  .space.  Each  gallery  is  supported 
by  four  monolithic  colunAis  of  Egy))tian  granite, 
and  is  itself  faced  by  an  arcade  of  six  smaller 


No.  3.  Section  of  the  Church  of  SS.  Sergiue  anil  Ilasilins, 
Conalantinople 


pillars.  The  galleries  are  vaulted  and  paved 
with  marble,  and  protected  towards  the  church 
by  a  low  marble  wall,  four  feet  high,  shajed 


GALLERIES 


GALLERIES 


707 


like  a  desk,  on  which,  according  to  Paul  the 
Silentiary,  the  women  reposed  their  arms. 

“"EvOa  KKiOelarai, 

ipyonouovi  ayKMvaf  enripeCaavTO  ywaiKei.—i.  263. 


of  the  cupola.  On  the  same  level  as  the  women’s 
galleries,  further  east,  were  tw^o  large  vaulted 
apartments  to  the  right  and  left  of  the  bema,  in 
one  of  which  the  empress  had  her  position  with 


[□□□□ 


onnn 


•^0.0*0 


j 

J 

These  galleries  were  approached  by  external 
staircases  contained  in  the  immense  buttresses 


her  ladies  at  the  time  of  divine  service.  In  the 
Eastern  church  the  women’s  gallery  by  degrees 


2  Z 


708  GALLICAN  COUNCILS 


GAMING-TABLE 


became  disused,  the  narthex  serving  its  purpose. 
(Ducange,  Constant inopol.  Christ,  lib.  iii.  c.  38-40  ; 
■  SNWWs,  Arch,  of  the  Middle  Ages.,  p.  109,  sqq.; 
Neale,  Eastern  Church,  art.  i. ;  Evag.  Hist.  Eccl. 
lib.  iv.  c.  31 ;  Paul.  Silentiar.  i.  256-263  ;  ii.  125.) 

[E.  V.] 

GALLICAN  COUNCII-S;  councils  known 
to  have  been  celebrated  in  France,  but  at  some 
place  unknown. 

1.  A.D.  355.  At  Poitiers  or  Toulouse  possi¬ 
bly:  3vhere  St.  Hilary,  writing  to  the  Easterns 
A.D.  360,  says  he  five  years  before  then  with 
the  bishops  of  France  withdrew  from  the 
communion  of  the  Arian  bishops  Ursacius  and 
Valens,  and  of  Saturninus  of  Arles,  who  had 
espoused  their  cause.  The  opening  chapters 
of  his  work  addressed  to  Constantius  are 
thought,  in  shoi’t,  to  have  emanated  from  this 
council  (Mansi,  iii.  251). 

2.  A.D.  376.  At  least  there  seems  a  reference 
to  one  such  in  a  law  of  that  year,  dated  Treves, 
in  B.  xvi.  tit.  ii.  §  23,  of  the  Theodosian  code  ; 
but  it  is  not  known  where  or  for  what  object 
(Mansi,  iii.  499). 

3.  A.D.  444,  in  which  Hilary  of  Arles  pre¬ 
sided,  and  Chelidonius  of  Besan^on,  where  this 
council  may  have  met  therefore,  was  accused  of 
being  husband  of  a  widow  and  deposed.  On 
appealing  however  to  St.  Leo  he  was  restored ; 
as  having  been  condemned  on  a  false  charge. 
Both  their  letter  to  him  and  his  answer  are 
preserved  among  his  epistles  {^Ep.  xcix.  and  cii. ; 
comp.  Mansi,  vii.  873). 

4.  A.D.  678,  at  some  place  unknown:  when 
St.  Leodegar  or  Leger  bishop  of  Autun  was 
degraded  as  having  been  accessory  to  the  death 
of  king  Childeric  II.  five  years  before  (Sirmond, 
Cone.  Gall.  i.  510 ;  comp.  Mansi,  xi.  173  and 
1095). 

5.  A.D.  678  or  679,  against  the  Monothelites: 
as  appears  from  the  reference  made  to  it  by  the 
Gallican  bishops  subscribing  to  the  Roman  synod 
under  pope  Agatho,  preserved  in  the  4th  act  of 
the  6th  council  (Mansi,  xi.  175  and  306),  but 
they  do  not  say  where. 

6.  A.D.  796,  at  Tours  possibly,  where  Joseph, 
bishop  of  Mans  and  a  suffragan  of  Tours,  was 
deposed  for  cruelty  (Mansi,  xiii.  991). 

7.  Three  more  councils  may  be  grouped  under 
this  head,  usually  called  councils  of  Auvergne, 
but  this  name  is  misleading,  as  it  means  the  town 
formerly  so  called,  not  the  province.  When, 
however,  the  town  changed  its  name  to  Clermont, 
councils  held  there  subsequently  were  styled  by 
its  new  name,  while  the  earlier  retained  its  old. 
We  may  save  confusion,  therefore,  by  classing 
them  under  Gallican.  Of  these  the  first  met  8th 
November,  A.D.  535,  in  the  second  year  of  king 
Theodebert,  and  passed  sixteen  canons,  to  which 
•Qfteen  bishops,  headed  by  Honoratus,  metropolitan 
of  Bourges,  subsci'ibed :  his  suffragan  of  Auvergne 
subscribing  second.  Their  canons  deprecate  lay 
influences  in  the  appointment  of  bishops,  and 
lay  interference  between  bishops  and  clergy.  No 
furniture  belonging  to  the  church  may  be  used 
for  private  funerals  or  marriages.  The  appoint¬ 
ment  of  Jews  as  judges,  and  marriages  between 
Jews  and  Christians  are  denounced.  Presbyters 
and  deacons  marrying  are  to  be  deposed.  In  a 
collective  note  to  king  Theodebert,  the  bishops 
entreat  that  neither  the  clergy,  nor  others. 


living  in  his  dominions  may  be  robbed  of  their 
rightful  possessions,  and  in  their  fifth  canon  they 
declare  all  spoliations  of  church  pnqierty  null 
and  void,  and  the  spoilers  excommunicate,  where- 
ever  it  occurs.  Several  other  canons  are  given 
to  this  council  by  Burchard  (Mansi,  viii.  859- 
67). 

The  second,  A.D.  549,  was  attended  by'  ten 
bishops,  but  only  to  receive  the  canons  passed 
at  the  5th  council  of  Orleans  (Mansi,  ix.  141-4). 

The  third,  A.D.  588,  was  occupied  solely  with 
a  dispute  between  the  bishops  of  Nodes  and 
Cahors  (Mansi,  ix.  973).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

GALLICANUS,  martyr  at  Alexandria  under 
Julian;  commemorated  June  25  (J/arf.  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GALLICIA  COUNCIL  OF,  held  a.d.  447 
or  448,  in  the  proA'ince  of  that  name  in  Spain  on 
the  north-west  against  the  Priscillianists :  in 
consequence  perhaps  of  the  letter  of  St.  Leo  to 
Tuv.-ibius,  bishop  of  Asturia,  who  had  appealed 
to  him  for  advice  (^Ep.  xv.  ;  comp.  Mansi,  vi. 
491)  ;  but  is  that  letter  genuine  ?  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

GALLUS,  presbyter  and  confessor  in  Ger¬ 
many  ;  commemorated  Feb.  20  (J/arf.  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GAMALIEL,  invention  of  his  relics  at  Jeru¬ 
salem,  Aug.  3  (J/arf.  Horn.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usu¬ 
ardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GAMING.  [Dice.] 

GAMING-TABLE  (Tabida  lusoria,  irXiv- 
Olov).  Besides  the  natural  feeling  which  led  the 
survivors  to  place  in  the  tombs  articles  dear  to 
the  deceased  in  his  lifetime,  the  comparison  of 
the  life  of  man  to  a  game  of  chance  was  a  fiimi- 
liar  thought  to  the  ancients.  We  mav  trace  it 
through  all  their  literature,  whether  Greek  or 
Roman  (see  Raoul-Rochette,  Me'm.  de  I'  Academ. 
dcs  insc7'ipt.  tom.  xiii.  p.  634).  Hence  astragali 
and  dice  occur  more  frequently  in  the  Greek  and 
Roman  tombs  of  the  Campagna  than  playthings 
of  any  other  description,  though  the  amuse¬ 
ments  of  every  age  and  condition  are  there 
represented.  The  dice  (tali,  tesserae,)  are  usually 
made  of  ivory,  occasionally  of  bone;  the  dice- 
box  (fritillus,  turricula)  is  generally  of  ivory, 
and  the  gaming-table  marble. 

Five  of  these  gaming-tables  have  come  down 
to  our  times  with  inscriptions  which  leave  no 
doubt  of  their  use.  It  is  a  curious  circumstance 
that  in  several  Christian  cemeteries  in  Rome 
sepulchral  niches  have  been  found  closed  with 


^vicTvy jl  Olebate^ 
^  tVDERBjf^  C 1 5 

inA'LVSO^  ^'^■^ORlLOCVi^ 


these  marble  gaming-tables,  as  occasionally  with 
other  incised  marbles.  One  ot  the  tables  taken 
from  the  cemetery  of  Basilla  may'  be  seen  in  the 
Kircher  museum,  and  was  firsu  described  by  Lupi 
(^Dissert,  in  nuper  invent.  Sevirae  epitaph,  p.  57, 
tab.  ix.  n.  6).  An  engraving  A  it  is  given  above. 


GAMMADIA 


709 


The  inscription,  which  was  turned  inside  the 
tomb,  is  easily  read :  VICTVS  lebate  \\  lvdere 
NESCIS  II  DA  LVSORI  LOCV  1|. 

Boldetti  (Osservazioni,  p.  449)  gives  a  second 
from  the  cemetery  of  St. 
Agnes  bearing,  the  following 
inscription :  domine  frater 
II  ILARIS  SEMPER  ||  LVDERE 
TABVLA  II — ;  also  a  dice-box 
found  elsewhere,  used  for  the 
same  game.  The  interior  of 
the  box  is  here  shewn,  di¬ 
vided  into  three  sections  as 
I  -j  a  security  against  fraud  in 
I  S  throwing  ;  .two  dice  are  lying 
■^^■1  at  the  bottom. 

A  third  table  of  the  same 
kind  from  the  Capponi  museum  is  reproduced  in 
^luratori’s  collection  (i.  dclxi.  3),  and  bears 
an  inscription  almost  identical  with  the  fore¬ 
going  :  SEMPER  IN  HANG  1|  TABVLA  HILARE  \\ 
LVDAMVS  AMICI  || .  The  fourth  table,  from  the 
cemetery  of  Calixtus,  is  given  by  JIarangoni 
(^Acta  S.  Victorini  in  append,  p.  140).  The 
words  of  the  inscription,  though  evidently  re¬ 
lating  to  play,  are  difficult  of  interpretation. 
Of  the  remaining  table  the  place  of  discovery 
is  uncertain.  Cardinal  Passionei  '^Inscr.  Ant. 
appendix,  p.  176)  transcribes  a  gaming-table 
inscription  which  Raoul-Rochette  quotes  as  an 
additional  example,  but  it  appears  more  likely 
to  be  that  of  the  Kircher  museum  incorrectly 
copied. 

These  having  all  been  discovered  in  Christian 
sepulchres,  it  seems  natural  to  suppose  that  they 
were  in  use  amongst  Christians.  Nothing  in 
the  gaming-tables  themselves,  nor  in  their  in¬ 
scriptions  militates  against  such  a  supposition  ; 
and  in  fact  it  is  well  known  that  the  business  of 
making  dice,  and  articles  of  a  similar  nature, 
was  one  followed  by  Christians.  Boldetti,  for  in¬ 
stance,  gives  (p.  416)  a  Christian  sepulchral  in¬ 
scription  over  an  artifex  artis  tessalarie, 
who  is  generally  considered  to  have  been  a  maker 
of  dice.  (Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.,  s.  v. 
“  Jeu,  Tables  de.”)  See  Dice.  [C.j 

GAMMADIA  (yafx^d'Bia,  or  yaiJLfxdTta).  A 
cruciform  ornament,  embroidered  on  the  borders 
or  woven  into  the  texture  of  ecclesiastical  vest¬ 
ments,  both  in  the  West  and  East.  It  takes  its 
name  from  being  composed  of  four  capital  gammas 
placed  back  to  back,  thus  forming  a  voided 
j  Greek  cross.  The  gammas  were  also  some- 


nr 


times  placed  face  to  face,  so  as  to  consti¬ 


tute  a  hollow  square,  in  the  centre  of 
which  a  cross  was  inscribed.  Vestments  so 
decorated  were  known  by  the  name  of  poly- 
stauria  (TroAocTaopja).  St.  Nicholas  and 
.  +  I  St.  Basil  are  depicted  in  robes  (thus  semee 
^  of  crosses)  in  the  illustrations  to  Ducange 
(Gloss.  Graec.  lig.  vii.).  Balsamon  a.ssigns,  among 
other  marks  of  the  patriarchal  dignity,  the 
“  robe  distinguished  by  gammas,”  Sia  yafxfidrwv 
(TTixdpiov  (de  Patr'arcU.  p.  446).  These  crosses 
were  peculiar  to  the  white  eucharistic  vest¬ 
ments,  those  of  a  i)urple  colour  being  destitute 
of  them  (Ducange,  s.  v.  Tro\v(TTavpiov).  In  the 
Western  church  the  word  gammadia  is  of  fre¬ 
quent  occun-encc  in  the  later  papal  biographies 
in  Anastasius,  in  the  lists  of  oflerings  made  to 
the  basilicas  and  churches,  e.g.,  Leo  IIL,  among 


GAXGRA  (Council  of) 

gifts  to  the  church  of  St.  Su.sanna,  gave  a  purple 
vestment,  “  habentem  in  medio  crucem  de  chry- 
soclavo  ,  .  .  atque  gammadias  in  ipsa  veste 
dtrysocAavets  quatuor  ”  (§  366),  and  Leo  l\\  to 
the  church  of  St.  Mary  at  Anagni,  “  vestem  .  .  . 
cum  gammadiis  auro  textis  ”  (§  536).  These 
gammadia  were  of  gold,  others  were  of  silver 
(§  397),  or  of  Tyrian  velvet  (§  46ii),  (cf.  Goar, 
Eucholog.  p.  315,  col.  2).  Not  gammas  alone 
but  other  letters  also  are  fivquently  seen  em¬ 
broidered  on  the  borders  of  the  robes  of  the 
sacred  personages  represented  in  early  Christian 
mosaics  and  frescoes,  especially  H.  1.  T.  X.  The 
precise  meaning  of  these  marks  has  not  been 
satisfactorily  determined  (cf.  Bosio.  Rom.  Rott. 
c.  xxxviii.  p.  638).  [Letters  on  Vestments.] 

[E.  V.] 

GANGRA  (Council  of),  for  which  widely 
different  dates  have  been  assigned;  some  placing 
it  before  that  of  Nicaea,  some  not  long  after; 
others  indefinitely,  between  it  and  that  of 
Antioch,  a.d.  341  (see  the  notes  of  Valesius  and 
Reading  on  Soc.  ii.  43,  and  Mansi,  ii.  1095) :  all 
which  discrepancies  may  be  traced  to  the  fact 
that  one  of  the  Latin  versions  of  the  synodical 
letter  addressed  by  the  assembled  bishops  to  their 
colleagues  in  Armenia  contains  the  name  of 
Hosius  of  Corduba  amongst  the  former.  But 
the  episcopate  of  Hosius,  as  Cave  shews  (Hist. 
Lit.  i.  V.),  extends  over  a  ])eriod  of  seventy  years, 
ending  with  A.D.  361 :  accordingly  Pagi  finds  it 
possible  to  place  this  council  as  late  as  A.D.  358 
and  admit  Hosius  to  have  been  there,  on  his  way 
back  to  Spain.  And  this  was  unquestionably 
the  year  of  the  council,  as  we  shall  see  from 
other  considerations,  so  that  the  absence  of  his 
name  in  the  Greek  heading  of  the  letter  need 
not  be  pres.sed.  His  presence  was  always  coveted 
by  the  Easterns ;  but  as  his  name  occurs  among 
the  last  on  the  list,  we  may  assume  that  he 
attended  in  no  other  capacity  than  that  of  a 
simple  bishop.  The  object  of  holding  the  council 
is  stated  in  its  synodical  epistle  to  have  been  to 
condemn  the  errors  of  Eustathius — otherwise 
written  Eustasius  or  Eustachius — and  his  fol¬ 
lowers  ;  and  him  Socrates  and  Sozomen  are 
doubtless  correct  in  making  identical  with 
Eustathius  bishop  of  Sebaste  in  Armenia  Minor 
—else  why  should  the  bishops  of  either  Armenia 
have  been  addressed  on  the  subject  ?  The  father 
of  bishop  Eustathius  was  Eulalius  bishop  of 
Caesarea,  or  rather  Neo-Caesarea,  in  Pont  us,  nnd 
it  was  at  a  council  held  there  under  his  own 
father  this  same  year,  according  to  Pagi,  that  he 
was  first  deposed.  Sozomen  indeed  seems  to  say 
that  he  had  been  already  condemned  as  a  pres¬ 
byter  by  his  father ;  if  so,  this  would  account 
for  the  severity  of  the  new  sentence  passed  upon 
him,  particularly  had  he  been  propagating  his 
errors  as  bishop  in  his  father’s  see.  Then,  on 
his  resisting  this  sentence,  as  there  seems  fair 
reason  for  supposing  he  would,  his  father  would 
naturally  have  recourse  to  the  provincial  synod, 
which  we  may  assume  to  have  met  on  this 
occasion  at  Gangra,  as  the  first  bishop  on  the 
list  is  Eusebius,  clearly  the  metropolitan  of 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  whom  St.  Basil  suc¬ 
ceeded,  and  in  whose  jurisdiction  Gangra  lay, 
while  the  name  of  Eulalius  occurs  further  on. 
Dius  (probably  Dianius,  the  predecessor  of 
Eusebius^  is  intended)  whom  the  LiMlus  synod- 


710 


GATES  OF  CHURCHES 


GANGRA  (Council  of) 

icus  asserts  to  have  presided,  is  not  found  in  [ 
either  version.  Gangra  therefore  was  held  to  , 
confirm  what  had  jjassed  at  Neo-Caesarea  respect¬ 
ing  Eustathius.  The  similarity  of  names  seems 
to  liave  led  Sozomen  to  assert  that  he  was  first 
deposed  by  Eusebius  of  Constantinople,  who  died 
as  far  back  as  a.d.  342  :  and  Socrates,  who  says 
in  one  place  (ii.  43)  that  the  synod  of  Gangra 
was  -ubsequent  to  the  Constantinopolitan  synod 
of  A.D.  330,  contradicts  himself  in  the  very  next 
chapter  by  telling  us  that  Meletius  succeeded 
Eustathius  at  Sebaste,  and  then  either  as  bishop 
of  Sebaste  or  Beroea — it  does  not  much  matter 
which — attended  the  council  of  Seleucia,  which 
we  know  met  A.D.  359,  and  in  so  doing  fixes  the 
true  date  of  the  synod  of  Gangra,  namely,  mid¬ 
way  between  it  and  that  of  Neo-Caesarea  the 
year  before.  These  places  Avere  not  remote 
from  each  other ;  and  it  Avould  appear  that 
there  had  been  synods  held  at  Antioch,  that,  for 
instance,  of  a.d.  358  under  Eudoxius,  and  at 
Melitine  in  Armenia,  unfavourable  to  Eustathius, 
whose  judgments  he  had  set  at  nought  equally 
with  that  of  Neo-Caesarea.  Hence  the  greater 
solemnity  with  which  that  of  Gangra  Avas  con¬ 
vened,  far  enhanced  hoAvever  by  the  Aveight 
Avhich  has  attached  to  it  eA'er  since  ;  Pope  Sym- 
machus  in  a  Roman  synod  A.D.  504  going  so  far 
as  to  say  that  its  canons  had  been  framed  by 
apostolic  authority,  meaning  that  of  his  see  -  in 
other  Avords,  that  his  predecessors  had  receiv'ed 
and  approA’ed  them  (Pagi  ad  Baron.  A.D.  319,  n. 
A\).  Of  these  there  are  tAventy  in  number,  and 
almost  all  in  condemnation  of  the  errors  ascribed 
to  Eustathius  and  his  folloAvers  in  the  synodical 
letter  before  mentioned,  “  foi'bidding  to  marry, 
commanding  to  abstain  from  meats,”  and  so 
forth.  Their  reception  by  Rome  lends  additional 
interest  to  canon  4,  Avhich  says ;  “  Should  any 
separate  himself  from  a  jiresbyter  that  ho.s 
married— AS  though  it  AA’ere  not  right  to  partake 
of  the  oblation  Avhen  he  is  celebrant — let  him  be 
anathema.”  And  the  epilogue,  reckoned  in  some 
collections  as  a  21st  canon,  is  Avorth  tran¬ 
scribing,  not  only  for  “the  admirable  temper 
and  good  sense”  Avhich  distinguishes  it,  as* Hr. 
Johnson  remarks  ( Vude  Mecum,  ii.  86),  but 
because  it  may  Avell  be  thought  to  account  for 
their  having  been  incorporated  into  the  code  of 
the  universal  church.  The  rulings  of  fifteen,  or, 
if  Hosius  Avas  there,  sixteen  bishops  only,  must 
haA^e  owed  their  place  there  to  some  great  in¬ 
trinsic  excellence.  “  We  commit  these  canons 
to  Avriting,”  so  they  terminate,  “  not  as  if  we 
would  cut  off  those  Avho  exercise  themselves  in 
works  of  severity  and  mortification  in  the  church 
of  God  according  to  the  Scriptures :  but  those, 
Avho  under  pretence  of  such  exercise,  do  insult 
those  Avho  liA’e  in  a  more  plain  and  simple  man¬ 
ner,  and  Avould  bring  in  inuoA^ations  contrary  to 
the  Scriptures  and  the  canons  of  the  church. 
We  therefore  admire  virginity,  if  attended  Avith 
humility  and  a  regard  for  continence,  if  accom¬ 
panied  Avith  true  piety  and  gravity,  and  a  retreat 
from  Avorldly  business,  Avith  a  modest  humble 
temjier.  But  at  the  sime  time  we  honour 
honest  marriage,  nor  do  Ave  despise  riches  Avhen 
employed  in  good  Avorks  and  in  doing  justice. 
We  commend  a  plain  and  coarse  habit,  Avithout 
art  or  gaudiness,  and  have  an  aversion  to  all 
luxurious  ostentation  of  apparel.  We  honour 
the  houses  of  God,  and  affectionately  embrace 


[  the  assemblies  made  therein  as  holy  and  bene- 
;  ficial ;  not  as  if  we  confined  religion  within  those 
houses,  but  as  having  a  respect  to  every  plao; 
that  is  built  to  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and 
approve  of  the  church  assemblies  as  being  for 
the  public  good  ;  and  pronounce  a  beatitude  ujjou 
signal  acts  of  charity  done  to  our  brethren,  as 
being  done  to  the  poor  of  the  church  according 
to  tradition ;  and  to  say  all  in  a  Avord,  Ave  can¬ 
not  but  Avish  that  all  things  may  be  done  in  the 
church  according  to  the  traditions  of  Holv 
Scripture  and  the  apostles.”  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

GARLANDS.  [Baptism,  p.  1G4;  Cuown, 
p.  511;  Flowers.] 

GARDEN  OF  EDEN.  Represented  by 
trees  in  A’^arious  bas-reliefs  of  the  Fall  of  Man, 
as  on  the  tomb  of  Junius  Bassus  (Bottari, 
taA^  XV.  &c.  &c.).  A  most  ancient  ^13.  picture 
of  the  Garden  of  Eden  occurs  in  the  Vienna  MS. 
of  the  Book  of  Genesis  Avhich  is  giA'^^n  by  D'Agin- 
court.  Professor  WestAvood  has  shoAvn  the  jtre- 
sent  Avriter  an  extraordinary  reiu-esyntation  of 
the  Fall  of  Man,  from  a  Greek  MS.  of  the  Old 
Testament  noAv  in  the  Vatican  of  the  7th  or  8th 
century,  Avhere  the  garden  is  much  dAvelt  on. 
There  is  a  quadruped  serpent  or  dragon  looking 
up  at  the  tree  of  knoAvledge.  These  pictures 
were  brought  to  this  country  in  facsimile  by 
bishop  Forbes.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

GARDEN  OF  GETHSEMANE.  During 
the  first  four  centuries  and  a  half  at  least  the 
subject  of  our  Lord’s  passion  seems  to  have  been 
ajjproached,  but  not  entered  upon — as  by  repre¬ 
sentations  of  the  betrayal,  the  scene  before 
Pilate,  &c.  In  No.  90  of  Professor  WesI  Avood’s 
ivory  carvings,  he  is  brought  before  Pilate  and 
Herod  together,  or  perhajts  Annas  and  Caiaphas. 
This  is  a  part  of  the  great  casket  of  the  Biblio- 
teca  Quiriniaua  at  Brescia,  and  is  referred  to  the 
5th  or  6th  century,  to  the  period  immediately 
preceding  that  of  the  Rabula  MS.  Avhen  the  cruci¬ 
fixion  began  to  be  represented  (see  Crucifix). 
The  Garden  of  Gethsemane  is  one  of  the  earliest 
of  these  approaches  to  actual  delineation  of  our 
Lord’s  sufferings.  The  MS.  Gospel  of  St.  Augus¬ 
tine,  A"ery  possibly  made  use  of  by  the  bishop 
himself,  contains  a  most  interesting  picture  of 
the  betrayal  in  the  garden,  Avhich  is  represented 
not  only  by  trees,  but  by  a  curious  serpentine 
representation  of  the  brook  Kedron,  bursting  out 
of  a  rock  like  the  Barada  at  Ain  Fifi,  or  the 
Jordan  at  Tell-el-Khady.  This  subject  is  carved 
on  the  casket  of  the  Brescian  library  (WestAvood, 
ivory  casts.  No.  90),  dating  from  the  5th  or  6th 
century. 

Indications  of  a  garden  occur  in  various  Greek 
representations  of  the  crucifixion  combined  Avith 
the  resurrection.  See  crucifixion  in  the  liabula 
3IS.  in  Assemani,  Bibli.  Laurent.  Catalogus,  Avhere 
olive-trees  are  certainly  intended. 

In  later  MSS.  it  occurs  in  the  Bible  of  Alcuin, 
and  in  a  IMS.  giA’en  by  count  Bastard,  Avhich 
belonged  to  Drogon,  grandson  of  Charlemagne. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.j 

GATES  OF  CHURCHES.  Our  Lord’s  .le- 
signation  of  Himself  as  “  the  Door  ”  of  His 
church  (John  x.  7,  9)  impressed  a  deej)  religious 
signification  in  the  minds  of  the  early  Christians 
on  the  entrances  to  their  sacred  buildings,  Avhich 
they  evidenced  by  the  care  displayed  in  their 
constructio’’  and  the  richness  of  their  ornamenta- 


GATES  OF  CHIJECIIES 


GELASIUS 


711 


tiou.  As  a  rule  the  actual  gates  (valvac)  of 
churches  were  of  wood  of  the  most  excellent  and 
durable  kind.  The  doors  of  the  basilica  of  St. 
Paul  at  Home  were,  until  its  destruction  by  fire 
in  1823,  of  wood,  roughly  chiselled,  and  were 
reported  to  have  been  brought  from  Constantin¬ 
ople.  The  doors  of  the  church  of  St.  Sabina  on 
the  Aventine  are  of  cypress  wood,  carved  in  re¬ 
lief  with  subjects  from  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments.  They  are  of  great  antiquity,  though 
Mamachi,  the  annalist  of  the  Dominican  order, 
gives  them  too  early  a  date  in  placing  them 
before  the  7th  century.  The  church  of  the 
monasteiy  of  St.  Catherine  on  Mount  Sinai  re¬ 
tains  the  ancient  richly-carved  doors  of  cypress 
wood  erected  by  the  emperor  Justinian,  stated 
by  Mr.  Curzon  to  be  as  perfect  as  when  first  set 
up  (Neale,  Hist,  of  East.  Gh.  Introd.  p.  258). 
Doors  of  wood  were  very  commonly  overlaid 
with  plates  of  the  precious  metals  and  inlaid 
with  ivory  (Hieron.  Ep.  ad  Demetr.  viii.),  for 
the  purpose  of  decoration.  These  plates  were 
frequently  richly  sculptured  with  scriptural 
subjects  in  relief.  Thus  Paulinus  of  Nola  speaks 
of  “aurea  limina  ”  {Poem.  xiv.  98),  and  com¬ 
mends  the  piety  of  those  who  covered  the  doors 
of  the  church  of  St.  Felix  with  metal  plates— 

"  Saiictaque  praefixis  obducant  limina  lamnis.” 

{Poem,  xviii.  34). 

The  papal  memoirs  of  Anastasius  supply  re¬ 
peated  references  to  this  mode  of  ornamentation. 
[Doors,  §  3,  p.  574.]  The  “portae  argenteae  ” 
of  St.  Peter’s  are  often  mentioned.  These  were 
overlaid  by  pope  Hadrian  (a.d.  772-795)  with 
silver-gilt  plates  embossed  with  the  effigy  of  our 
Lord  and  othei's  (Anastas.  §  332).  Pope  Hilary 
(a.d.  461-467)  erected  silver  gates  at  the  Con- 
fessio  of  the  basilica  of  Holy  Cross,  and  gates  of 
bronze  inlaid  with  silver  at  the  oratory  of  St. 
John  Lateral!  {Ih.  §69).  This  last  is  arw  early 
example  of  those  doors  of  bronze  of  which  we 
have  in  later  times  so  many  magnificent  ex¬ 
amples,  bearing  representations  of  Biblical  events 
in  high  relief,  which  reached  their  artistic  climax 
in  the  western  doors  of  the  cathedral  of  Pisa  and 
those  of  the  baptistery,  “le  porte  del  Paradiso  ” 
at  Florence.  We  have  another  early  example  in 
the  gates  of  the  “  eso-narthex  ”  of  St.  Sophia. 
These  are  of  bronze  exquisitely  embossed  with 
floriated  crosses  set  in  doorcases  of  marble.  The 
great  central  doorway  has  above  it  ail  image  of 
Christ  in  the  act  of  giving  benediction  to  a 
kneeling  emperor  with  the  virgin  and  St.  John 
the  Baptist  on  either  hand.  The  chief  entrance 
of  the  cathedral  of  Novgorod  has  bronze  doors  of 
very  early  date.  They  are  de.scribed  by  Adelung 
{die  Korsun’schen  Thiiren  zu  Nougorod)  as  11  feet 
high  by  3  feet  broad,  divided  into  24  comi)art- 
ments  containing  scriptural  reliefs. 

Church  doors  were  often  furnished  with  in¬ 
scriptions  either  upon  or  above  them.  These 
included  texts  of  Scripture,  doxologies,  prayer.s, 
pious  aphorisms,  &c.  Paulinus  of  Nola  {Ep. 
xxxii.  §  12)  gives  the  following  inscription  placed 
by  him  over  the  principal  entrance  of  the  basi¬ 
lica  of  St.  Felix  : — 

“  Pax  tibi  sit  qnicumque  Del  penetralia  Christ! 

Pectore  pacifii.o  Candidas  ingrederls.” 

Above  the  entrance,  he  informs  us,  was  a  crowned 
cross  with  these  lines  : — 


Cerne  coronatam  Domini  super  atria  Christi 
Stare  cruceni  duro  s-poiidentem  celsa  labor! 
lYaemia.  Tolle  crucem  qui  vis  auferre  coronam.” 

The  door  of  the  outer  basilica,  which  was  en¬ 
tered  through  a  garden  or  orchard,  he  also  tells 
us,  has  these  inscriptions  on  the  outer  face  : — 

“  Coelestes  intrate  vias  per  amoena  vireta 
Christicolae:  ei  lac  tis  decet  hue  ingressus  ab  hoi  tis 
Unde  sacrum  mentis  datur  e.xitus  in  paradisum." 

And  this  on  the  inner  : — 

“Quisquis  ab  aede  Dei  p'^rfectis  ordine  votis 
Egrederis,  remea  corpore,  corde  mane.” 

Church  doors  were  also  often  inscribed  with 
the  names  of  the  builders  and  the  date  of  the 
building.  [E.  V.] 

GATIANUS,  bishop  and  confessor  in  Tou- 
raine ;  commemorated  Dec.  18  {Mari.  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GAUDENTIA,  virgin,. saint  at  Rome  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Aug.  30  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

GAUGERICUS,  bishop  and  confessor  at 
Cambray  (f619A.D.);  commemorated  Aug.  11 
{Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GAZA  in  Palestine  (Council  of),  a.d.  541,  • 
to  which  Pelagius  the  first  pope  of  that  name, 
then  a  deacon  and  envoy  from  Rome,  came  by 
order  of  the  Emperor  Justinian,  ivith  letters 
ordering  the  deposition  of  Paul  bishop  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  which  was  accordingly  carried  out 
(Mansi,  ix.  706).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

GAZOPHYLACIUM.  The  treasury  or 
storehouse  attached  to  a  church,  for  the  recep¬ 
tion  of  the  offerings  of  the  faithful,  made  either 
in  bread  and  wine,  or  in  money,  for  the  service 
of  the  altar,  the  sustentation  of  the  ministers, 
or  distribution  among  the  poor  (Possid.  Vit.  S. 
Augustin,  c.  24).  These  oblations  were  depo¬ 
sited  in  the  gazophylacium  either  after  having 
been  offered  on  the  altar,  or  until  enquiry  had 
been  made  by  the  deacons  whether  the  offerers 
were  orthodox  and  persons  of  good  life,  that  the 
table  of  the  Lord  might  not  be  profaned  by  the 
gifts  of  the  unholy  (Binius  in  Can.  iv.  Apost. 
Labbe  i.  53).  By  the  93rd  canon  of  the  fourth 
council  of  Carthage,  a.d.  399,  the  reception 
before  enquiry  even  into  “  the  gazophylacium  or 
sacrarium  ”  (the  modern  sacristy)  was  forbidden. 
Chrysostom  {Homil.  22  de  E/eenios.)  speaks  of 
treasuries  in  the  churches,  to  ya^o(pu\dKia  rd 
evTavOa  Keipeua',  Augustine  appears  to  recognize 
their  existence  “quid  est  gazophylacium?  Area 
Dei  ubi  colligebantur  ea  quae  ad  indigentiam 
servorum  Dei  mittebantur”  {Homil.  in  Ps.  63); 
and  Possidius  in  his  life  of  that  father  {u.  s.) 
records  his  having  warned  his  hearers,  as  Am¬ 
brose  had  also  done,  of  the  neglect  of  the 
“  gazophylacium  and  secretariuni,  from  which 
the  necessaries  for  the  altar  are  brought  into  the 
church.”  Cyprian  refers  to  the  place  of  oflering 
as  corbona  {de  Op.  et  Eleemos.  c.  5),  and  Paulinus 
of  Nola,  as  mensa,  which  he  complains  stood  too 
often  for  sight  rather  than  u.se,  “  visui  tantum 
non  usui  ”  {Serm.  de  Oazophijl.  Ep.  34).  [E.  V^.] 

GELASIUS,  martyr  at  Rome  with  Aquili- 
nus,  Donatus,  Geminus,  JIagnus;  commemorated 
Feb.  4  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 


712 


GEMELLIONES 


GEMS 


GEMELT.IONKS.  Among  the  vessels  to 
be  borne  before  the  pope  in  the  great  Easter 
procession  are  mentiorei  (J)nlo  Rom.  I.  c.  3) 
“  geinelliones  argentei.”  The  purjiose  ot‘  these 
is  uncertain,  but  it  seems  probable  that  (like  the 
“  urceola  argentea  ”  mentioned  elsewhere)  they 
were  water-vessels  (Binterim’s  Denkwurdijkeiten, 
iv.  i.  18  4-).  [C.] 

GEMINIANUS,  martyr  at  Rome  with 
Lucia  under  Diocletian;  commemorated  Sept.  16 
(J/arL  Rom.  Vet.,,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[\V.  F.  G.] 

GEMIXUS.  (1)  Martyr  in  Africa  with 
A'luilinus,  Eugenius,  Martianus,  Quintus,  Theo- 
dotus,  Tripho ;  commemorated  Jan.  4  (J/arL 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  [Gelasius.]  [W.  F.  G.] 

GE^IS  were  employed  in  very  early  times 
for  a  great  variety  of  ecclesiastical  purjwses, 
some  articles  being  made  wholly  of  stones  more 
or  less  precious,  and  others  being  decorated 
therewith.  Thus  Chalices  and  other  sacred  ves¬ 
sels  w’ere  occasionally  made  of  precious  stones, 
but  more  frequently  ornamented  with  them;  and 
little  crystal  Fish,  probably  used  as  hospitable 
emblems,  have  been  found  in  the  catacombs  of 
Rome.  The  walls,  the  Altaks,  the  Altar- 
cloths,  the  service-books  [Liturgical  Books], 
and  other  furniture  of  churches  wei’e  from  the 
fourth  century  onward  often  ornamented  with 
gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones,  as  were  also 
Crosses  and  the  Crowns  and  diadems  of  Christian 
sovereigns.  In  the  following  article,  however, 
account  will  be  taken  of  such  gems  only  as  are 
engraved,  and  these  wei'e  mostly  used  as  orna¬ 
mental  or  signet  rings,  more  rarely  for  other 
purposes. 

The  following  passage  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
{Paed  tg.  iii.  1 1,  p.  246d)  is  the  locus  classicus 
relating  to  Christian  signet  gems : — “  A  man 
should  not  wear  the  ring  on  the  finger  joint,  for 
this  is  effeminate,  but  upon  the  little  finger,  as 
low  down  as  possible;  for  the  hand  will  thus  be 
most  free  for  action,  and  the  seal  least  likely  to 
slip  off,  as  being  guarded  by  the  larger  joint. 
But  let  our  signet  devices  be  a  dove  or  a  fish,  or 
a  ship  coursing  against  the  sky,  or  a  musical 
lyre,  which  Polycrates  employed,  or  a  ship’.s 
anchor,  which  was  the  seal  of  Seleucus,  or  if  it 
be  a  fisherman,  it  will  remind  us  of  an  apostle 
and  of  boys  saved  from  water.”  Subjects  de¬ 
rived  from  heathen  mythology  or  representa¬ 
tions  of  weapons  and  drinking  vessels  he  con¬ 
demns  as  unfit  for  Christians.  A  little  before  he 
allows  Christians  only  one  ring  as  a  signet, 
saying  that  all  other  idngs  should  be  eschewed  : 
a  wife  also  may  have  a  gold  signet  ring  for  the 
safe  keeping  of  her  husband’s  goods. 

The  number  of  engraved  stones  which  can  be 
securely  referred  to  the  early  Christian  centu¬ 
ries  is  not  very  considerable,  but  their  rarity  has 
perhaps  been  somewhat  exaggerated.* 


“  “  Intagli  representing  purely  Christian  subjects  are  of 
the  rarest  possible  occurrence,  that  is  in  works  of  indu¬ 
bitable  antiquity”  (King,  Antique  Gems,  p.  352,  London, 
1860).  Some  that  have  been  published  are  now  known 
to  be  false  (Martigny,  Diet.  p.  39).  The  Christian  gems 
beiiring  Greek  inscriptions  have  been  published  by 
Kircboff  in  Bdekh’s  Corp.  Inscr.  Graec.  n.  9077-9109. 


The  principal  subjects  of  extant  works  if  this 
kind,  including  all  those  mentioned  by  C.ement, 
are  as  follows ;  various  specimens  of  oacli  tyjie 
are  described  at  length,  others  more  brieflv. 

(i.)  Christ  as  the  Good  Shepherd. — Tiiis  type, 
though  not  mentioned  by  Clement,  deserves  to 
hold  the  first  place,  being  so  often  toand  in  very 
early  Christian  works  of  art  of  different  kinds. 
Mr.  Fortnum,  who  observes  that  forgeries  of 
this  subject  are  frequent,  describes  and  figures 
a  red  jasper  in  his  own  possession  (purchased  at 
Rome)  in  its  original  octagonal  bron/.e  setting  : 
the  shepherd  is  standing  on  his  left  leg,  the 
right  leg  being  bent  ;  he  supjwrts  himself  by  a 
staff  in  his  hand,  and  holds  out  a  branch  (per¬ 
haps  of  olive,  as  a  symbol  of  peace)  to  two  sheep 
at  his  feet.  Behind  him  is  an  olive  (?)  tree. 
Christian  work  of  the  third  or  fourth  century 
(^Archaeological  Journal,  xxvi.  141  [1869];  xxviii. 
275  [1871]).  The  British  Museum  has  seven 
intagli  in  which  the  Good  Shepherd  bears  a 
lamb  on  his  shoulders.  In  one  of  them  (a  tiny 
onyx)  he  stands  between  two  fish,  or  rather  ]>er- 
haps  between  a  fish  and  a  palm-branch  ;  in  two 
others  (red  and  brown  jaspers)  he  holds  a  staff, 
haAung  a  dog  at  his  feet,  which  looks  up  at  him,  a 
tree  being  behind  ;  in  a'^urth  (cornelian)  are  tw'o 
dogs  at  his  feet,  looking  up,  and  an  obscure  and 
barbarous  legend,  which  has  been  read  ESIVKEV 
(Hertz,  Cat.  n.  2344;  King,  An'^icnt  Gems,  p. 
353),  “  in  which  the  name  of  Jesus  appears  to  be 
intended,  together  with  some  other  appellation 
or  title,”  perhaps  Lord {Kvpie)  Jesus  (King,  Gnos¬ 
tics,  p.  142),  or  Jesus,  Son  of  God  (lESSV  VE 
TEV,  Greek  in  Latin  letters  and  barbarised) ;  an¬ 
other  of  the  same  type  (niccolo)  has  no  legend  : 
the  sixth  has  only  the  shepherd  bearing  the 
lamb,  but  is  inscribed  IH.  XP.  (plasma);  in 
the  seventh  (red  jasper)  he  is  accompanied  by 
sheep  and  a  dove  on  a  tree.  One  in  the  Bib- 
liothfeque  Impe'riale,  in  niccolo,  set  in  a  silver 

Among  them  are  several  which  may  be  referred  with 
little  or  no  doubt  to  a  period  later  than  that  with  which 
we  are  concerned ;  and  as  nothing  is  said  about  the  pro¬ 
bable  antiquity  of  almost  all  of  them,  it  has  been  neces¬ 
sary  to  employ  the  work  with  some  caution.  Possibly 
the  hooks  referred  to  under  the  particular  gems  may  give 
some  information  upon  this  point.  In  the  Biitish  Mu¬ 
seum  are  contained  upwards  of  twenty  early  Christian 
gems  seen  by  the  writer,  and  there  ma}’  probably  at  this 
time  (1874)  be  more.  In  various  private  collections  in 
this  country  (as  of  Messrs.  Fortnum,  King,  and  Lewis) 
are  contained  a  fair  number  of  others.  The  Bibliotheque 
Imperiale  at  Paris  contiiined,  in  1858,  only  eight  purely 
Christian  engraved  stones,  excluding  Byzantine  Ciimei 
(Chaboaillet,  Catal.  pp.  191,  282,  who  says  that  Chri^tian 
intagli  are  ”  d'une  grande  narete  ”).  About  fiftj-  casts  of 
Christian  gems  have  been  received  from  Signor  Saulini, 
Via  Babuino,  Rome,  some  of  which  are  in  the  Vatican, 
others  in  the  Museo  Vettori,  now  aatuired  for  the  Vatican ; 
but  the  general  absence  of  indication  either  of  the  collection 
or  the  kind  of  stone  employed  greatly  detracts  from  their 
value:  fourteen  of  them  give  the  Good  Shepherd,  eight 
have  an  anchor  (with  or  without  accompaniments),  three 
have  a  boat  or  ship,  five  bear  a  dove,  others  have  fish 
(written  in  Greek,  or  depicted),  the  chrisma.  or  the  CVi>ss. 
Others  which  are  of  large  size,  exhibiting  the  Crucifixion 
or  the  figure  of  Christ  or  the  Virgin,  are  probably  later 
than  800  a.d.  Among  some  casts  from  gems  in  Rome, 
received  from  Signor  Odelli  of  Rome,  are  a  few  which 
are  evidently  Christian,  the  most  remarkable  being  an  in 
taglio  representing  the  raising  of  Lazarus  in  a  stylo  of 
art  like  that  which  we  have  in  the  catacombs,  where  the 
same  subject  is  represented. 


GEMS 


GEMS 


713 


ring,  has  the  Good  Shepherd  as  before  bearing 
a  sheep  on  his  shoulders,  with  two  other  sheep 
at  his  feet  (Chabouillet,  Cat.  p.  282,  n.  2166). 
Another  examjde,  in  red  jasper,  represents 
the  shepherd  still  as  before,  having  two  dogs, 

or  rather  perhaps  having 
one  dog  and  one  sheep, 
at  his  feet  and  a  star 
and  crescent  in  the  field, 
with  retrograde  legend 
lAHN,  perhaps  for  Jah 
is  his  name.  This  fine 
gem  is  considered  by  Mr. 
King,  who  possesses  it, 
to  be  a  work  of  about 
the  end  of  the  second 
century.  He  considers 
The  Good  Shepherd  (King).  the  Suii  and  Moon  Con¬ 
joined  ”  as  “  emblems  of 
the  Divine  presence  ”  (Prccibws  pp.  160, 

431) ;  they  may,  however,  be  indications  of 
astral  genii,  and  if  so,  the  gem  may  be  the  work 
of  a  Christian  Gnostic.  “  The  most  interesting 
of  all  examples  of  this  type,’-however,  he  ob¬ 
serves  {Ant.  Gems  and  Rings,  vol.  ii.  p.  30, 
London,  1872),  “  occurs  on  a  large  cornelian 
brought  recently  from  the  North  of  India  (Col. 
Pearse),  on  which  the  Good  Shepherd  stands, 
bearing  his  lost  and  found  lamb  across  his 
shoulders,  surrounded  by  the  mystic  letters 
I.X,0.T.C.,  the  reverse  engraved  with  XPICTE 
CcoZE  KAPniANON  AEOOTE  (sic)  :  ‘  0  Christ, 
save  Carpianus  for  ever.’  This  is  cut  in  exactly 
the  same  coarse  lettering  and  similarly  arranged 
in  consecutive  lines  as  the  Gnostic  legends  of 


the  fourth  century.”  Three  others  are  men¬ 
tioned  in  Bockh’s  Corp.  Inscr.  Graec.  One 
(n.  9084)  figured  by  Ferret  {Catac.  de  Rome, 
iv.  t.  xvi.  n.  12),  where  the  shepherd  bears  a 
lamb  accompanied  by  a  dove  and  branch,  and 
by  an  anchor  and  fishes,  with  legend  IX0TC ;  an¬ 
other  (n.  9098),  figured  by  Paciaudi  {De  Bain, 
Christ,  on  the  title-page)  in  a  square  hematite, 
having  on  one  side  the  Good  Shepherd  with 
tvvom^ws,  and  ai4egend  on  the  other,  seemingly 
meant  for  ^h'ya.Quiva  Bovdr]  ;  and  a  third  (n. 
9107),  figured  by  Le  Plant  {Bull,  de  I’Athen. 
Fran^.  Feb.  1856,  t.  1,  n.  10),  on  plasma,  where 
the  Good  Shepherd  is  accompanied  by  the  legend 
AOTKI[OT],  the  owner  of  the  gem.  There  are 
sev^eral  other  gems  on  which  this  subject  is  re¬ 
presented  slightly  differing  from  the  preceding. 
(See  note  at  the  beginning.) 

(ii.)  The  following  five  types  are  mentioned  by 

Clement;  of  which  Christ 
as  the  Fish  occurs  per¬ 
haps  more  frequently 
than  any  other.  The 
examples  here  given  may 
suffice,  but  the  enumera¬ 
tion  might  be  extended. 
One  on  some  burnt  stone, 
Fish.  (King.)  figured  by  Mr.  King,  is  of 

good  early  wmrk,  repre¬ 
senting  some  large-heaued  fish,  and  reads  bou- 
strophedon  HA  EIC  |  SX  HI,  i.  e.  Jesus  Christ  j 
is  one  God  (El) ;  see  his  ingenious  remarks  in  ' 
Ant.  Geins  and  Rings,  ii.  27.  A  similar  fish,  ac-  i 
companied  by  a  crook  and  palm  branch  is  on  a  sard 
preserved  in  the  British  Miuseum,  which  also  con-  i 
tains  the  following  intagli :  A  fish  on  which  rests  a  j 
cross;  a  dove  on  each  limb  IHCQTC  above  and 


Fish  supporting  a  Cross ;  Dovo 
on  each  limb.  (Urlt.  Museum.) 


below,  in  a  broken  cornelian  :  a  fi.sh  upon  which 
is  a  dove,  a  sprig  behind  her ;  to  the  left  is  the 
chrisma  (;^)  to  the  right  the  owner’s  name, 
RVFl,  in  cornelian  :  also 
a  fish  well  engrav'ed, 
in  an  emerald  set  in  a 
massive  gold  ring  of 
angular  form ;  on  the 
opposite  side,  a  dove 
seated  on  a  branch 
between  the  letters 
AE  1  Ml  I  LIA,  cut  on 
the  bezel  itself.  An 
intaglio,  the  stone  is 
not  particularised,  in 
the  Kircherian  Museum 
at  Rome  bears  the  en¬ 
graving  IX0YC  MT 
“around  an  anchor  in 

the  loop  between  its  lower  arms,  which  are 
recurved,  and  upon  the  stem  of  which  a  fi.sh  is 
placed  ”  {Archueol.  Journ. 
xxviii.  288  [1871]).  A  sard 
published  by  Le  Plant  has 
a  representation  of  a  fish, 
with  IX0YC  (retrograde) 
below  it :  the  Copenhagen 
Museum  possesses  a  gem 
having  the  same  type  and 
legend,  but  written  in  the 
usual  way  :  and  the  legend 
only,  the  X  being  converted 
into  the  chrisma,  is  found  on  a  gem  in  the  Vati¬ 
can  (Bbckh,  nos.  9083,  9085,  9086).  The 
legend  IX0TC  inclosed  in  a  wreath  is  inscribed 
on  a  cornelian  in  the  British  Museum.  A  sard, 
figured  by  Ficoroni  {Gcrnm.  litt.  t.  xi.),  has 
IX0TC  only.  A  very  curious  ancient  gem, 
which  is  best  mentioned  in  this  place,  is  figured 
by  Martigny  {Diet.  p.  546).  It  represents  an 


Fish,  Peve.  and  Chrisma, 
inscribed  KVFI.  (Brit. 
Museum.) 


episcopal  chair  with  legend  IXT0  (for  IX0YC) 
inscribed  upon  it,  besides  a  monogram  on  either 
side,  as  being  the  chair  of  Christ,  in  which  the 
bishop  sits.  The  same  chalcedony  is  figured  by 
Passei’i,  who  has  a  dissertation  upon  it  {I'hes. 
Gemm.  Astrif.  iii.  221),  and  is  now,  having  under¬ 
gone  various  fortunes,  in  the  Berlin  Museum 
(Bockh,  n.  9o80). 

Other  gems  which  are  of  this  type,  but  with 
out  any  suggestive  adjuncts,  are  either  known 
or  suspected  to  be  Christian.  Mr.  King  ((??iosijcs, 
pi.  V.  n.  3)  figures  a  fish  neatly  engrav’ed  on  a  nic- 


i*  Badly  figured  by  Ferret,  u.  s.  n.  26,  and  misdescribed 
in  Bockh,  C.  J.  G.  9039. 


714 


GEMS 


GEMS 


colo,  bearing  the  owner’s  name,  T.  ACI.  AGLAVS, 
whom  he  regards  as  a  Christian.  The  LTzielli  Col¬ 
lection  (Robinson’s  Catal.  n.  293  [277]')  had  an 
intaglio  of  bloodstone  in  its  original  bronze 
setting,  bearing  a  dolphin,  which  is  considered 
to  be  “  probably  early  Christian and  Signor 
Castellarii  possesses  a  tine  amethyst  cameo** 
about  1.^  inch  by  presumed  to  be  Christian, 
from  one  side  of  which,  the  more  convex,  a  fish 
of  the  form  of  a  carp  projects  boldly,  the 
other  side  bearing  the  name  of  the  possessor, 
VALERIAE,  in  incised  letters.  But  the  most 
interesting  exami)le  of  this  kind  is  the  epis- 
coj)al  ring  of  Arnulphus,  consecrated  bishop 
of  Metz  in  a.d.  614,  now  preserved  in  the  cathe¬ 
dral  treasury  ;  it  is  set  with  “  an  opaque  milk- 
white  cornelian,”  about  half  an  inch  in  diameter, 
representing  a  fish  whose  head  appears  above  the 
containing  basket,  on  either  side  of  which  is  a 
smaller  fish  :  the  work  is  presumed  to  be  earlier 
than  the  fourth  century.  This  is  regarded  by 
Cav.  de  Rossi  as  a  curious  illustration  of  a  pas¬ 
sage  in  Tertullian  (Zle  Ikipt.  c.  1)  :  “  Nos  pisci- 
culi  secundum  Piscem  nostrum  in  aquis  nasci- 
mur,  nec  nisi  in  aquis  permanendo  salvi  sumus  ” 
(Pitra,  Spicil.  Solesm.  tom.  iii.  p.  578,  tab.  iii. 
n.  4.  Paris,  1855.  Waterton  in  Arc7t.  Journ.  xx. 
237  [1863];  Fortnum,  ibid,  xxviii.  274  [1871]; 
Marriott,  Test,  of  Catac.  p.  123  [with  a  figure], 
Lond.  1870).  This  type  occurs  also  in  subordina¬ 
tion  to  that  of  the  anchor,  about  to  be  mentioned. 
Besides  the  gems  of  the  fish  type  here  enume¬ 
rated,  the  writer  is  acquainted  with  the  casts  of 
some  others,  and  would  also  direct  the  reader  to 
Didron,  Christ.  Icon.  p.  345  (Millington’s  trangl. 
in  Bohn’s  Scient.  Libr.)  ;  Perret,  v.  s.  ;  Martigny, 
Diet.  s.  V.  “  Poisson  ”;  and  Fortnum,  Arch.  Journ. 
xxviii.  274,  for  further  information  and  refer¬ 
ences.  “  De  Rossi  alone  ”  [in  his  De  Christ, 
monum.  IX0TN  exhib.  in  Spicil.  Solesm.  iii.  555, 
576,  577  ;  see  Pitra’s  Auct.  578,  Paris,  1855], 
says  the  last-named  author,  “  describes  about 

thirty  genuine  gems 
on  which  the  fish 
and  variations  of  the 
word  IX0TC  occur.^ 
Some  others  Rave 
since  been  found.  .  . . 
It  is  moreover,”  he 
tells  us,  “  more  fre¬ 
quently  forged  than 
perhaps  any  other.” 
A  remarkable  sard 
intaglio,  in  the  pos¬ 
session  of  the  writer, 
may  be  mentioned  as 
a  kind  of  postscript. 
The  device  is  a  fan¬ 
tastic  compound  animal,  a  gryllus  of  the  common 
type,  being  probably  Roman  work  of  the  second 
or  third  century.  Some  Christian  possessor  has 
written  the  word  IX0TC  about  it,  in  order,  it 


'  The  number  in  the  brackets  is  that  of  the  sale  cata¬ 
logue  (compiled  from  Mr.  Robinson’s  privately  printed 
catalogue),  London,  1861. 

d  A  drawing  has  been  sent  by  the  Rev.  C.  W.  Jones. 
With  the  exception  of  late  Byzantine  works  Christian 
camei  are  very  rare.  Signor  Saulini  sends  a  cast  of  a 
cameo  (?)  gem,  stone  not  specified,  of  a  still  larger  size, 
representing  two  similar  fishes,  looking  opposite  ways, 
the  lower  inverted ;  it  is  also  figured  by  Perret,  u.  s. 


Christianised  Gryllns.  (In  the 
Collection  of  the  writer.) 


would  seem,  to  christianize  such  a  heathen 
production.  See  IX0TC. 

(iii.)  Anchor. — The  anchor,  originally  as  Cle¬ 
ment  observes,  the  signet  ofSeleucus  (see  Eckhe!, 
Doct.  Num.  Vet.  iii.  212),  and  frequently  oc¬ 
curring  on  the  coins  of  the  Seleucidae,  whence  it 
passed  over  to  the  Jewish  money,  was  frequently 
employed  as  a  gem  type  by  the  Christian.s,  and 
so  much  the  more  readily  from  its  resemblance 
to  the  cross;  whence  the  motto.  Crux  mea  an- 
chora.  This  type  occurs  both  in  connection  with 
the  preceding  and  also  independently  of  it.  Of 
the  former  sort  the  British  Mu.seum  contains 
the  four  following  examples,  all  probably  of 
Christian  work  ;  anchor 
between  two  fish,  around  it 
the  letters  APP,  in  black 
jasper;  another  with  dol¬ 
phin  twisted  round  it,  like 
the  modern  Aldine  device, 
about  it  the  preceptive 
legend  EniTTXANOY 
(^Laxj  hold)  in  red  jasper ; 
anchor  between  two  fishes, 
in  niccolo ;  another  be¬ 
tween  two  branches  and 
two  fishes,  on  whose  arms 
two  doves  are  seated,  in 
chalcedony.  But  the  fol¬ 
lowing  are  more  important  and  unquestionably 
Christian.  A  sai»d  figured  by  Miinter  {Antiq. 
Abhandl.  1816,  p.  57,  t.  i.  n.  3),  of  an  octa¬ 
gonal  form,  gives  an  anchor  with  two  fishes  and 
the  legend  IHCOT  (Bockh,  n.  9090).  The  Berlin 
Museum  has  recently  acquired  a  gem  bearing  an 
anchor  and  a  sheep  and  the  legend  IX0TC  :  upon 


ADchor  and  Dolphin. 
(British  Moseoni.) 


the  anchor  sits  a  dove  with  an  olive  branch  in 
its  mouth  (Bockh,  n.  9081).  Passeri  (^Thes. 
Gemm.  Astrif.  iii.  278)  figures  a  ring  cameo  in 
the  Vettori  Museum,  inscribed  IHCOYC  above, 
XPEICTOS  below,  having  between  the  words  an 
anchor,  with  a  fish  hanging  from  each  end  of 
the  stock.  An  ojial  in  the  same  museum,  figured 
by  Martigny  (Diet.  p.  545),  has  on  one  side  a  cru¬ 
ciform  anchor,  on  the  other,  enclosed  in  an  orna¬ 
mented  border,  the  legend  IX0TC  written  Kiovrj- 
SoV.  The  Berlin  Museum  has  a  red  jasper 
having  the  word  IX0TC  and  the  letters  MT, 
perhaps  the  owner’s  initials,  disposed  around  an 
anchor  (Bockh,  n.  9079).  But  the  anchor  has 
also  other  accompanying  symbols.  Thus  an¬ 
other  gem  in  the  same  museum  (Bockh,  n.  9082) 
has  around  the  figure  of  an  anchor  the  boustro- 
phedon  legend  IH  |  (Jesus  Christ).,  and  also 
the  accompanying  symbols  of  a  tree,  a  sheep, 
doves,  a  palm,  and  a  human  hand.  (F'or  others 
see  above  under  the  Good  Shepherd.)  There  are 
also  gems,  presumed  to  be  Christian,  of  which 
casts  have  been  received  from  Signor  Saulini,  in 
which  the  anchor  is  figured  by  itself  alone. 


GEMS 


GEMS 


715 


(iv.)  Dove. — This  type,  usually  symbolical  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  has  been  already  mentioned  as 
occurring  on  gems  in  conjunction  with  other 
Christian  types.  Besides  these,  Passeri  (^Thes. 
Gemm.  Astrif.  iii.  235)  describes  and  figures, 
after  Mamachi,  a  gem  in  which  occurs  the  dove 
on  a  palm  branch,  a  star  above,  and  the  chrisma 
on  the  left.  The  British  Museum  has  a 
garnet  with  the  same  device,  but  no  chrisma ; 
and  also  a  portion  of  a  cornelian  ring,  on  the  flat 
bezel  of  which  is  engraved  a  dove  holding  a 
branch,  considered  by  Mr.  Fortnum  to  be  Christian 
work  of  the  second  or  third  century  (^Arch,  Journ. 
1869,  p.  140).  A  sapphire  in  the  same  collection 
bears  the  same  device.  The  French  collection  con¬ 
tains  a  cornelian,  the  work  of  which  appears  to  be 
of  the  sixth  century,  on  which  is  engraved  a  dove, 
a  palm,  and  a  crown,  with  a  monogram  of 
Veranus  (?),  in  style  resembling  those  of  the 
Ostrogothic  kings  of  Italy  (Chabouillet,  Catal. 
n.  2167).  The  dove  occurs  also  on  Christian 
gems  found  in  Rome  or  preserved  in  the  Roman 
collections,  in  most  cases  accompanied  by  the 
chrisma  (Saulini,  Ferret).  A  pale  sard *  *  intaglio 
in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Ready  has  two  rudely- 
engraA'ed  doves  with  a  cross  between  them. 
“  One  of  the  prettiest  devices  of  the  class 
that  has  come  to  my  knowledge,”  says  Mr.  King 
(^Ant.  Gems  and  Rings,  vol.  ii.  p.  26,  note), 
“shews  the  dove  with  olive  twig  in  beak, 
perched  upon  a  wheat-sheaf,  apt  emblem  of  the 


Church,  having  for  supporters an^erpent. 
It  to  be  wise  as 

serpents  and  harmless  as  doves.  (In  possession 
of  F.  Taylor.)”  The  British  Museum,  in  fine,  has 
a  gem  of  large  size  and  late  work,  reading  in 
minuscule  letters  avaaraai.  rov  Sg/jLov',  below 
the  legend  is  a  sheaf  of  corn,  and  two  doves 
with  olive  branches  below,  indicating  that  the  in¬ 
gathering  of  the  harvest  of  souls  w'ill  be  in  peace. 
Other  examples  are  named  by  Martigny,  u.  s. 

(v.)  Fisherman. — The  typ6  alludes  to  the 
Saviour  and  the  apostles  as  fishers  of  men.  It  is 
rarely  found  on  Christian  gems,  but  we  have  a 
feAV  examples.  M.  de  Belloc,  in  his  work  en¬ 
titled  La  Vierge  au  Poisson  de  Raphael  (Lyon, 
1833)^  figures  an  engraved  cornelian,  which  he 
considers  to  be  Christian,  upon  which  is  a  fisher¬ 
man  holding  a  basket  in  one  hand,  and  in  the 
other  a  line  from  which  a  fish  is  suspended ;  the 
word  IX0T2  is  written  near  the  fish  (Didron, 
Christian.  Iconogr.  pp.  345,  364  in  Bohn’s  Illustr. 
Libr.).  This  would  seem  to  be  a  different  gem 
from  a  cornelian  mentioned  by  Vallarsi  in  his  notes 
on  St.  Jerome  (i.  18),  of  the  same  type  with  the 
same  inscription  (Didron,  u.  s.  p.  349);  Martigny  | 
speaks  of  it  as  excellent  in  workmanship  and 
probably  of  great  antiquity:  he  regards  tlie 
fisherman  as  the  Saviour  (Z>»ci.  p.  518  ;  Garrucci, 

*  [This  proves  to  be  a  paste,  and  belongs  to  glass,  $ 
iii.  c.a)  -  j 


Hagiogl.  p.  111).  A  sard  intaglio,  regarded  by 
Mr.  King  as  “  purely  Christian,”  in  his  own 
collection  is  figured  in  his  Gnostics,  pi.  x.  n.  7  ; 
it  gives  two  winged  figures,  probably  Cupid.s,  in  a 
boat,  one  fishing,  the  other  steering ;  “  the  mast 
with  the  yard,  making  a  true  cross,  forms  a 
significant  and  conspicuous  feature  in  the  design  ” 
(p.  224).  Its  Christianity,  however,  seems 
rather  questionable.® 

(vi.)  Boat  or  Ship. — These  occur  on  Christian 
gems,  as  being  typical  of  the  church,  and  then 
sometimes  resting  on  a  fish,  or  of  the  voyage 
of  the  soul  to  the  harbour  of  eternal  rest. 
Mr.  Fortnum  describes  and  figures  a  fragment 
of  a  ring  of  dark  green  jasper,  probably  of  the 
second  or  third  century,  purchased  in  Rome,  on 
the  bezel  of  which  is  engraved  a  boat  bearing  a 
bird  and  a  branch,  probably  a  cock  and  palm 
branch.  The  boat  is  supposed  to  be  the  church, 
and  the  victory  of  the  soul  over  the  world  to  be 
indicated  by  the  other  types^  (^Arch.  Jour.  1869, 
p.  140).  Aleander  (lYav.  Eccles.  Ref.  Symh.  p.  13, 
Rom.  1626)  figures  a  ring-stone and  Ficoroni 
gives  another  {Gemme  Antiq.  p.  105,  t.  xi.  8),  on 
which  the  ship  seems  to  rest  on  a  fish.  A  ring 
figured  by  cardinal  Borgia (Z)e  CruceVclit.  p.  213) 
is  set  with  an  antique  jasper  intaglio,  the  subject 
of  which  is  a  ship,  having  six  rowers  on  one  side, 
which,  supplying  the  corre¬ 
sponding  six  on  the  other,  would 
represent  the  twelve  apostles ; 
there  is  also  a  pilot,  or  helms¬ 
man,  and  the  name  IHCOT  in¬ 
scribed  on  the  reverse  (Fort¬ 
num  in  Arch.  Journ.  1871,  pp. 

274,  275;  ^lart.  Diet.  p.  432). 

A  cornelian  in  the  British  JIu- 
seum  (intaglio)  has  a  ship  with 
mast  and  yard-arm  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  bear¬ 
ing  also  a  cross  at  the  prow.  A  fine  black  jasi)er 
intaglio,  in  the  possession  of  Rev.  S.  S.  Lewi;, 
shows  a  boat  with  a 
Greek  cross  in  the 
centre.  A  cornelian, 
belonging  to  count 
Marcolini,  an  impres¬ 
sion  of  which  is  pub¬ 
lished  by  Lippert  (iii. 

361),  bears  a  trireme 
with  the  labarum,  on 
which  is  the  chrisma 
and  two  palm  trees ; 
the  prow  is  in  the 
form  of  a  bird’s  head  ; 
the  vessel  enters  into 
port,  and  the  sea  is  marked  by  a  fish  :  in  the 
field  are  two  stars  and  the  unexplained  letters 
E.  T.  RA.;  below,  VGBP.  (Raspe’s  Cat.  of  Lassie’s 
Engraved  Gems,  n.  2715).  Other  gems,  whose 


e  The  gem  reproduced  by  M.irtigny  (u.  s.)  from  Co.sta- 
doni,  showing  a  6sh  in  human  form  holding  a  baskeL, 
which  Polidori  interprets  to  be  the  Saviour,  is  rather,  to 
judge  by  the  figure,  an  A.ssyrian  or  Babj’lonian  gem,  re¬ 
presenting  Dagori  (see  Smith’s  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  vol.  i. 
p.  381). 

*  With  this  may  be  compared  an  antique  paste  in  the 
Hertz  Collection  (No.  2525),  having  a  ship  with  cock- 
shaped  prow,  rowed  by  four  benches  of  sailors;  a  butter¬ 
fly  above.  The  allusion  to  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
can  hardly  be  doubted,  but  the  emblem  is  pagan  rather 
than  Christian. 

e  This  gem  Is  more  fully  described  below,  ^  xii. 


Boat  with  Crucifoim  Mast.  (In  the 
Collection  of  Rev.  S.  S.  Lewis.) 


Boat  with  Cross. 
(British  Museum.) 


716 


GEMS 


GEMS 


impressions  have  been  sent  from  Home,  bear  a 
boat  with  the  chrisma,  or  tlie  chrisma  accom¬ 
panied  by  a  jialm  above.  A  sard  (intaglio)  with 
the  same  type  is  set  in  a  ring  in  the  Naples 
Museum  (^Arch.  Journ.  1871,  ]).  280). 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  we  have  examples  of 
all  the  types  mentioned  by  Clemens  Alexandrinins, 
the  lyre  only  excepted,  occurring  on  gems  which 
are  either  certainly  known  or  reasonably  pre¬ 
sumed  to  be  Christian.  This  type  also  occur.s, 
but  it  is  uncertain  whether  any  gem  on  which 
it  is  found  is  to  be  considered  of  Christian  work. 


(vii.)  Ayre.— Employed  probably  as  the  type 
of  harmony  and  concord.  The  only  example 
known  to  Martigny  {Des  Anneaux  chez  les  pre¬ 
miers  Chretiens,  Macon,  1858)  which  he  could 
regard  as  Christian  is  one  in  the  Royal  Library 
of  Turin,  of  very  indifferent  work,  in  a  style  like 
many  Christian  gems,  figured  by  Ferret,  Cata- 
comhes  (vol.  iv.  pi.  xvi.  n.  60).  Nor  can  he  add 
another  in  his  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities, 
written  seven  years  later  (p.  40).'* 

The  following  types  are  not  mentioned  by 
Clemens ;  the  first  three  of  them  have  been 
already  indicated  in  connection  with  those  gems 
which  have  been  described  5  but  they  occur  on 
other  gems  also. 

(viii.)  Falm. — This  symbol  of  victory,  among 
Pagans,  Jews,  and  Christians,  occurs  frequently 
on  engraved  stones  and  metal  rings,  and  it  is 
sometimes  difficult  to  decide  whether  a  given 
engraving  is  to  be  considered  Pagan  or  Christian 
{Arch.  Journ.  1871,  pp.  275,  276,  280,  282).  It 
has  already  been  noticed  that  the  palm  occurs 
as  an  accessory  type  on  some  of  the  Christian 
gems  above  described  ;  it  occurs  also  in  other 
combinations.  On  a  cornelian  in  the  British 
Museum  a  hand  holds  a  palm 
branch  erect,  the  chrisma  is 
above  and  MNHMONETE 
below.  In  the  same  museum 
is  a  cornelian,  presumably  of 
Christian  work,  on  which  is 
a  palm  branch  placed  verti¬ 
cally,  inclosed  in  a  wreath  of 
laurel :  on  opposite  sides  of  the 
branch  are  the  proper  names 
ZoTIKOC  and  TEPTVAAA, 
who  may  possibly  have  been 
in  the  Rev.  C.  W.  King’s 
palm  branch  placed  horizon- 


IV in,  and  Chrisma  above 
(llritisli  Museum;. 


martyrs. 

collection 


A  sard 
bears  a 


tally,  and  below  it  the  acclamation  (probably 
Christian),  SVLE  VIVE  (letters  partly  in¬ 
verted).  The  palm  branch  occurs  also  by 
itself  or  accompanied  by  inscriptions  on  various 
other  gems  and  rings,  which  are  reasonably 
supposed  or  suspected  to  be  of^  Christian  work, 
Avhich  is  distinguished,  in  Mr.  Waterton’s 
opinion,  by  the  rude  manner  of  the  representa- 
truly  figuring  the  natural  object 


tion,  more 


Among  those  bearing  this  type  described  by  Raspe 
(it.s.  Nos.  30.32-3044),  or  contained  in  tiie  Hertz  Collec¬ 
tion  (Nos.  1094-1097),  there  is  not  one  which  can  safely 
be  pronounced  to  be  Christian,  but  there  are  two  antique 
pastes  in  the  latter  (Nos.  i094,  1095)  in  which  the  sides  of 
the  lyre  are  formed  of  dolphins  or  fishes.  The  sounding- 
board  of  one  of  these  has  the  form  of  a  sleeping  animal. 
The  original,  as  it  would  seem,  of  this,  a  plasma  intaglio. 
Is  In  the  collection  of  the  Rev.  S.  S.  Lewis.  The  occur¬ 
rence  of  fish  in  this  connection  suggests  that  the  gems 
may  be  Christian,  but  as  the  dolphin  is  connected  willi 
Apollo  the  inference  is  hazardous. 


{Arch.  Journ.  1871,  p.  276).  For  some  of  these 
see  King’s  Cat.  of  Leake's  Gems  in  Fitzwilliam 
Museum,  Cambridge,  p.  9.  Fortnum  in  Arch. 
Journ.  1869,  p.  142;  and  1871,  ]>.  276. 

(ix.)  Cross. — This  tyjje,  in  connection  with 
the  dove,  or  in  a  di.sguised  form  as  yard  and 
mast,  has  been  more  than  once  described  above. 
But  it  occurs  on  other  gems  without  disguise.* 
A  Greek  cro.ss  in  conjunction  with  a  lion,  suj)- 
posed  to  allude  to  the  church  of  St.  Mark  at 
Alexandria,  occurs  on  an  onyx  intaglio  in  the 
possession  of  Mr.  Fortnum  {Arch.  Journ.  1869, 
p.  147).  An  iron  ring,  set  with  a  cornelian  in¬ 
taglio  (burnt),  is  contained  in  the  British 
Museum  ;  the  device  is  a  cross,  accompanied  by 
some  animal  very  rudely  engraved  (Fortnum, 
Arch.  Journ.  1869,  p.  146).  Beger  (  T/tes.  Pa/af.) 
figures  a  gem,  having  a  tall  Latin  cross,  from  the 
arms  of  which  hang  two  fishes.''‘  Garrucci(VM- 
mism.  Costantin.  p.  261,  (at  the  end  of  his  Vetri 
Ornati,  Rom.  1864)  mentions  other  gems  with  the 
cross  type,  three  of  which  are  in  the  posse.ssiou  of 
M.  Van  den  Berghe.  Mr.  Fortnum  describes  a 
massive  gold  ring  in  the  Castellani  collection, 
embossed  with  figures  of  doves  in  the  shoulders, 
which  is  set  with  a  garnet,  on  the  face  of  which 
is  engraved  a  draped  figure  seated  betw'een  two 
Greek  crosses  potent  {Arch.  Journ.  1871,  p.  281). 
It  is  now  in  the  British  Museum,  and  seems  late 
work.  The  Museum  has  also  a  burnt  cornelian 
inscribed  TATPINOC,  where  a  female  holds  a 
cross.  A  gem  is  figured  by  Garrucci  {Ilagio- 
glyqda,  praef.  p.  v.),  where  a  Greek  cross  is  pre¬ 
fixed  to  the  acclamation  Vivas  in  (Deo,  sc.), 
Martigny,  in  fine,  observes  that  on  several  gems 
(one  is  figured  by  Ferret,  vol.  iv.  jil.  xvi.  n.  74), 
some  of  which  appear  to  be  considerably  older 
than  Constantine,  we  haA'e  engraved  representa¬ 
tions  of  the  cross  *  {Diet.  p.  185).  See  also  §  xvii. 

(x.)  Chrisma,  or  Alonogram  of  Ghribt. — This 
emblem  which  is  thought  by  high  autho¬ 

rities  to,  be  ei^djer  than  Constantine  (^lart. 
Diet.  p.  416),  IS  fouM'’¥!T111W‘f>y*i4isMf  or  in 
various  combinations  upon  a  considerable  number 
of  gems,  and  somewhat  varying  in  form.  A  fine 
spherical  sapphire,  “  where  the  preciousness  of  the 
material  attests  the  rank,  perhaps  patriarchal,  of 

>  De  Corte  (Syntag.  de  Anmdis,  p.  125,  Antv.  1706) 
thinks  that  Eusebius  {Demonstr.  Evangel,  vi.  25)  speaks 
of  an  universal  custom  of  Christians  wearing  the  life- 
giving  sign  (i.  e.  the  cross)  on  their  rings,  “  Salutari  sigiio 
pro  annuli  nota  utentes.”  This  is  taken  from  the  Batin 
version  of  F.  Viger:  the  Greek,  however,  has 
xpeagevot?  ;  and  the  allusion  seems  rather  to  belong  to 
the  practice  of  signing  themselves  with  the  cross. 

Referred  to  by  King  (^Gnostics,  p.  142).  • 

1  It  may  perhaps  just  be  wonh  mentioning  here  that 
certain  iarge  pieces  of  crystal  bearing  tlie  figure  of  the 
cross  may  be  as  early  as  the  period  embraced  in  the  pre¬ 
sent  work.  Douglas  (Xaen.  Brit.  t.  xx.  f.  11)  figures  a 
crystal  exhumed  in  1758  in  a  barrow  near  Lowestoft 
along  with  coins  of  Avitus  (a.d.  456)  and  other  money 
of  the  Lower  Empire,  now  in  the  Ashmolean  llluseuni  at 
Oxford.  It  is  a  boat-shaped  piece  (1  X  in.),  on  which  is 
engraved  in  intaglio  a  Latin  cross  potent.  It  may  pro¬ 
bably  be  of  the  Saxon  ivrioii,  and  it  looks  as  if  it  might 
once  have  been  inserted  in  a  liturgical  book  cover  or  in 
the  lid  of  a  box.  But  it  is  not  eas}'  to  speak  of  the  dates 
of  these  crystals  and  oilier  stones,  some  of  which,  en¬ 
graved  or  plain,  have  been  also  found  m  Ireland  (Val- 
lancey.  Coll,  de  Beb.  Ililcrn.  vol.  iv.  pi  li.  n.  13;  Wilde, 
Cat.  of  Mus.  of  Roy.  Irish  Acad.  pp.  127,  128).  Most  of 
them  appear  to  have  been  amulets. 


GEMS 


GEMS 


717 


the  possessor”  (King,  Antique  Gems  and  Rings, 
ii.'  28),  in  the  British  Museum  gives  the  mono¬ 
gram,  having  a  straight  line  at  right  angles  to 
the  P  on  its  summit  ^  which  forms  a 

Tau,  allusive  to  the  cross.  This  is  also  the  case 
with  a  crystal  signet  ring,  “  annulus  vetustis- 
simus,”  formerly  in  cardinal  Barberini’s  museum 
(its  resting-place  being  now  unknown,  Fortnum, 
in  Arch.  Journ.  1871,  p.  272),  figured  by  De  Corte 
(Syntag.  de  Ann.  p.  120),  where  a  serpent,  pecked 
by  two  cocks,  entwines  itself  about  the  base  of 
the  Tau  :  on  either  side  of  the  upper  part  are 
the  letters  A  and  w,  and  the  stone  is  also  in¬ 
scribed  beneath  the  bezel  with  the  word  SALVS. 

Mr.  Fortnum  has  a  ring  of  excellent  workman¬ 
ship,  purchased  at  Athens,  of  massive  gold,  set 
with  an  onyx  intaglio  bearing  the  chrisma,  “  the 
P  being  crossed  w'ith  the  third  stroke  ”  (Arc/t. 
Journ.  1869,  p.  142).  Mr.  King  {Gnostics,  p.  142) 
mentions  a  ring  cut  out  of  crystal,  bearing  the 
chrisma  alone,  on  the  face  of  an  oblong  tablet, 
said  to  have  been  found  in  Provence.  The  same 
author  {1.  c.  p.  141)  mentions  an  elegant  device 
given  in  Gorl.  Dactyl.  211,  where  the  sacred 
monogram,  cut  on  the  face  of  a  solid  crystal 
ring,  rests  upon  the  head  of  a  Cupid  (or  angel?) 
on  each  side  of  whom  stands  a  dove.  This  style 
he  considers  to  have  been  derived  from  the 
Sassanian  stone  rings.  Passeri  {Thes.  Gown. 
Astrif.  vol.  ii.  p.  220,  t.  cc.)  figures  a  gem  on 
which  the  chrisma  is  surmounted  by  a  star,  the 
X  being  formed  b)"^  two  branches  of  palm.  This 
symbol  is  also  sometimes  accompanied  by  inscrip¬ 
tions  both  Greek  and  Latin.  Martigny  {Diet. 
p.  418)  mentions  a  cornelian  given  by  Macarius 
{IJieroghjpta,  p.  235,  ed.  Gar.),  inscribed  with  the 
word  IX0TC,  the  X  being  combined  wdth  a  P  to 
express  the  chrisma  ;  possibly  the  same  gem  as 
that  described  above  under  §  ii.  The  Berlin 
Museum  has  a  heliotrope  in  w^hich  the  chrisma 
is  accompanied  by  a  fruit-bearing  tree  and  the 
following  inscription  :  iwiKaKovfjLai  Arjo'ovi'  Xpei- 
(TThv  'Nu^apTjuhi/  riarepa  .  .  .  (Bockh,  n.  9094  ; 
the  fragment  is  here  given  in  part  only  and  in 

minuscules).  The  Bri¬ 
tish  Museum  contains  a 
cornelian  bearing  the 
acclamation,  Devsdedit 
VIVAS  IN  Deo,  to  the 
right  of  w'hich  is  the 
chrisma,  and  to  the  left 
a  small  wreath.  Mr. 
King  figures  a  gem  in 
the  Vernon  Collection 
{Antique  Gems  and  Rings, 
ii.  28,  37)  where  the 
chrisma  of  a  not  quite 
usual  form  appears  in 
the  middle  of  an  olive- 
garland,  with  the  name 
of  the  pos.«essor,  4>01BEIwN,  Pheebion  (like 
Hephaestion,  from  Hephaestus),  of  which  the 
work  is  unusually  fine.  The  sacred  monogram 
under  various  foi’ms  is  found,  as  Mr.  Fortnum 
observes  {Arch.  Journ.  1871,  p.  271),  “more  fre¬ 
quently  than  any  other  on  Christian  rings.  .  .  . 
We  fibd  it  alone  and  accompanied  by  almost 
all  the  other  emblems,  with  inscriptions  and 
monograms.”™ 


“  Various  Impressions  of  gems  bearing  the  chrisma, 
which  are  more  or  less  similar  to  those  described  abo\e, 


(xi.)  Animals. — It  has  been  already  noticed 
that  “  a  lion,”  which  Mr.  Fortnum  connects  with 
St.  Mark,  occurs  on  an  onyx  accompanied  by  a 
Greek  cross.  Ennodius,  bishop  of  I\avia  about 
511,  has  an  epigram,  De  annulo  Firminae,  from 
which  we  learn  that  it  bore  a  lion.: 

“  Gestandus  manibus  saevlt  leo." 

Whether  the  lion  was  intended  to  have  any 
Christian  significance  is  uncertain.  The  jihenix 
occurs  on  an  engraved  stone  in  conjunction  with 
the  palm,  a  combination  wdiich  occurs  on  other 
monuments  which  arc  indubitably  Christian, 
Perret  (vol.  iv.  pi.  xvi.  68;  Martigny,  Diet. 
p.  534).  In  the  British  Museum  are  more  than 
one  gem  bearing  sheep,  from  the  collection  ot 
the  abbe  Hamilton,  of  Rome,  whkh  are  pre¬ 
sumed  to  be  Christian.  On  one  are  two  sheep, 
on  each  side  a  dolphin  ;  on  another  are  two 
sheep  and  palm  branches.  It  might  not  be 
difficult  to  increase  the  enumeration  of  these 
ambiguous  tyjies  ;  but  they  are  scarcely  worthy 
of  a  more  extended  notice." 

Before  proceeding  further  we  may  observe  that 
the  British  Museum  cpntains  a  large  pale  sard 
in  which  the  pastor,  the  chrisma,  dove  and 
branch,  fish,  dolphin,  ship,  and  various  adjuncts 
are  combined ;  another,  of  smaller  size,  in  two 
compartments,  has  the  jiastor,  dove,  anchor, 
fishes,  with  other  figures  and  animals  ;  they  w^ere 
formerly  in  the  Hamilton  Collection,  and  are 
figured  (with  several  others  from  the  same  col¬ 
lection,  which  is  now  in  the  British  Museum)  by 
Ferret  (iv.  pi.  xvi.  figs.  5,  8). 

The  following  subjects  appear  to  have  been 
introduced  upon  gems  at  a  later  period  than  the 
types  already  mentioned.® 

have  been  sent  from  Rome  by  Signor  Saulini ;  on  one  the 
X  is  formed  of  two  fishes,  one  holding  a  wreath  (crown  of 
thorns?)  the  other  having  a  dove  on  its  tail;  palm  on 
either  side  of  the  monogram. 

“  Mr.  King  {Antique  Gems  and  Rings,  ii.  p.  2S)  men¬ 
tions  that  the  frog,  whose  body  passes  through  so  many 
stages,  was  employed  for  a  Christian  signet  as  an  emblem 
of  the  Resurrection ;  he  does  not  however  refer  to  any 
authority  for  this.  In  Raspe’s  Catalogue,  of  Tassie’s  Gems 
(No.  13,355)  is  a  gem  bearing  a  frog  with  palm  and  a 
serpent ;  these  adjuncts  rather  suggest  that  the  work 
may  be  Christian.  See  Glass. 

°  The  first  place  would  be  due  to  representations  of 
God  the  Father,  if  such  really  existed  in  the  period  em¬ 
braced  in  this  work,  abhorrent  as  such  images  may  appear 
to  many.  Mr.  King  ( Antique  Gems  aend  Rings,  ii.  32) 
mentions  “  a  large  niccolo  in  an  antique  massy  gold  ring, 
engraved  with  the  Heavenly  Father  enthroned  amidst  the 
twelve  patriarchs,  the  work  canfully  finished  and  well 
drawn.”  This  gem,  which  he  saw  in  the  possession  of 
the  late  Mr.  Forrest,  appeared  to  him  to  date  from  the 
times  of  the  Western  Empire.  But  there  seems  to  be 
some  error  here.  “  During  the  first  centuries  of  Christi¬ 
anity,"  says  Didron  {Christian  Iconogr.  p.  201,  Engl, 
trans.),  “  even  as  late  as  the  12th  century,  no  portraits  of 
Go<l  the  Father  are  to  bo  seen.”  The  hand  seems  to  have 
been  the  only  permitted  symbol.  Either,  therefore,  the 
work  is  likely  to  be  later  than  the  12th  century,  or  (more 
probably)  the  interpretation  of  the  group  is  erroneous. 
One  might  suspoct  the  Saviour  aisd  the  apostles  to  be 
intended.  Upon  a  cornelian  formerly  in  thq  possession 
of  Dr.  Nott,  the  Saviour  is  represented  on  a  column,  with 
extended  arms,  liaving  six  figures  on  each  side,  in  the 
exergue  a  sheep :  in  the  field  and  exergue  EHCO  (»ic,  for 
IHCOTC)  XPECTOC.  It  is  obvious  that  these  are 
tlv  twelve  apo'tles,  but  the  Jewl-h  ami  Gentile  churchts, 
as  symlxdised  by  them,  are  most  probably  intended.  See 
^  .\iii.  and  Gl.vss.  (A  cast  sent  from  Rome  l  y  .Signcf 
Saulini.) 


(Thrisma.  (King.) 


718 


GEMS 


GEMS 


(xu.)  The  Saviour. — In  the  earlier  gems  the 
Saviour  appears  only  in  the  form  of  emblems, 
as  tlie  Good  Shej)lierd  and  the  Fish,  and  (more 
rarely)  as  the  Fisherman;  but  from  about  the 
fourth  century  onwards  the  rejjresentations 
become  more  realistic.  Le  Blant  has  a  sardony.v, 
bearing  a  dead  Clirist,  with  the  inscription, 
SALVS  KLSTITVTA,  ascribed  to  the  fourth 
century  (Martigny,  Des  anneaux  chez  les  prem. 
Chret.  p.  dO).  An  ancient  onyx,  figured  by  Ferret 
(iv.  pi.  xvi.  85),  exliildts  the  Saviour  reaching 
out  his  hand  to  St.  Peter  as  he  is  about  to  sink 
in  the  waves;  their  names  (in  an  abbreviated 
form)  are  written  near  them  in  Greek  charac¬ 
ters :  IHC.  riET.  ;  the  boat  is  seen  tossed  by  a 
storm,  a  fish  just  below  (Mart.  5d9.  See 

also  Aleander,  ic.  s. ;  Mamachi,  Ori;j.  et  Antiq. 
Christ,  t.  iv.  p.  260,  ed.  Matr.,  and  Garrucci  in 
Macarius,  Ilagiogl  ij  ta,  p.  237).  A  green  jasper 
intaglio  in  the  British  Museum,  considered  by 
Mr.  King  to  belong  most  probably  to  the  date  of 
the  Western  emjiire,  exhibits  Christ’s  entry  into 
Jerusalem,  the  Saviour  being  accompanied  by 
tliree  figures,  one  bearing  a  palm  ((7«osf.  p.  140). 
When  the  coffin  of  bishop  Agilbert,  of  Paris 
(seventh  century)  was  opened,  De  Saussay,  who 
was  present,  saw  on  his  finger  a  gold  ring  with 
a  jewel,  on  which  was  a  likeness  of  our  Lord  and 
St.  Jerome  (j\Iarriott,  Vestiar.  Christ,  p.  222, 
London,  1868).  A  cameo  in  agate,  probablv 
early  mediaeval  Italian  work  of  uncertain  date, 
represents  the  Saviour  teaching  the  three 
favoured  disciples,  one  by  his  side,  the  others 
fronting  him  ;  two  angels  behind  :  the  disciples 
are  bearded,  the  Saviour  beardless;  in  the  Bibl. 
Imperiale  (Chabouillet,  n.  294 ;  King,  Antique 
Gems  and  Rings,  ii.  35,  36).  With  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  Byzantine  cameos,  and  of  one  or  two  gems 
presumed  to  be  Gnostic,  “  no  ancient  portraits 
of  the  Saviour  exist  on  gems  ”  (King’s  Gnostics, 
p.  137). P  Among  the  earlier  Byzantine  camei 
is  to  be  mentioned  a  fine  oval  plaque  of  lapis- 
lazuli,  probably  the  gift  of  the  emperor  Hera- 
clius  to  king  Dagobert  (A.D.  628-638),  which 
remained  in  the  Treasury  of  St.  Denys  for  a 
thousand  years :  on  one  side  was  the  bust  of  the 
Saviour,  on  the  other  that  of  his  mother  (King, 
Handbook,  p.  104;  id.  in  Arch.  Journ.  1870, 
p.  185). 

The  French  collection  contains  several  Byzan¬ 
tine  camei  bearing  portraits  of  Christ.  Some 
of  these  on  amethyst  and  jasper,  with  legend, 
ic^  )CC.  (i-6.  'It](to\!s  XptcTos),  represent  Him 
with  a  cruciform  nimbus,  in  a  long  robe,  holding 
the  gospels  in  the  left  hand,  and  giving  the 
benediction  with  the  right  (Chabouillet,  Cat. 
nos.  258-260).  These  remind  us  of  the  coins 
of  Justinian  H.  (a.d.  685-711),  and  may  perhaps 


p  For  the  Emerald  Vernicle  of  the  Vatican  (now  lost), 
said  to  preserve  a  true  likeness  of  the  Saviour,  executed 
by  command  of  Tiberius,  which  Bujazet  II.  gave  to  pope 
Innocent  VI  il.  about  a.d.  1188,  see  C.  W.  King  in  Arch. 
Journ.  1870,  pp.  181-190,  and  A.  Way  in  Arch.  Joum. 
1872,  pp.  109-119.  The  gem  was  probably  a  plasma  of 
the  early  Byzantine  school.  Paintings  copied  from  the 
Vernicle  In  the  16th  century  exist ;  and  also  engravings 
professedly  copies  of  the  same  gem,  from  which  photo¬ 
graphs  have  been  made  which  are  now  everywhere  in 
circulation.  But  the  engraving  is  In  fact  a  mere  repro¬ 
duction  of  the  Saviour’s  head  in  Baphael's  cartoon  of  the 
Miraculous  Draught  of  Fishes,  which,  however,  may  have 
been  influenced  by  these  paintings. 


be  earlier  than  a.d.  800.  So  much  can  hardly 
be  said  of  a  large  bloodstone  in  the  Briti.sh 
Mu.seum,  which  repre.seuts  the  bust  of  the 
Saviour  in  high  relief;  the  stvle  rather  re¬ 
sembles  that  of  the  age  of  John  Zimisces  (tenth 
century),  (King  s  Gnostics,  p.  141).  A  chalcedony 
in  the  .same  museum,  representing  the  Saviour, 
half-length,  holding  a  book,  and  in  the  act  ot 
blessing  (IjfjX^  inches)  appears  to  be  earlier. 

(xiii.)  Christ  as  the  Ijiimh  of  God. — Garrucci 
(in  Macar.  //a^.  pp.  222,244;  Martigny,  Diet. 
p.  226,  with  figure)  has  published  an  annular 
engraved  stone,  representing  the  Lamb  of  God 
surrounded  by  a  nimbus  which  includes  the 
chrisma,  standing  ou  a  column,  the  symbol  of 


I - 1 

The  Lamb  of  God.  Garrucci.) 


the  church ;  twelve  gems  (Rev.  xxi.)  on  it  repre 
sent  the  twelve  apo.stles ;  at  the  base  of  the 
column  on  either  side  are  two  lambs,  the  Jewish 
and  Gentile  believers,  looking  up  at  Him  :  around 
is  the  acclamation,  lANVAKl  VIVAS.  For  the 
same  subject  see  Glass. 

(xiv.)  The  Annunciation  of  the  Blessed  Virgin. 
— The  British  Museum  has  a  small  sardonyx 
cameo  of  black  and  white  strata  (from  the  Hertz 
collection,  n.  1825),  of  very  neat  Byzantine  work, 
and  possibly  of  very  high  antiquity,**  represent¬ 
ing  the  Annunciation.  The  Virjjin  stands  in- 
dined  towards  the  winged  Cupid-like  angel : 
above  is  the  legend,  O  XAIPETICMOC,  and  the 
names  of  the  figures,  FABPIHA  and  MP.  ©Y. 
{fjiilTrip  0eoG,  Le.  mother  of  God)  are  written  near 
them.  The  British  Museum,  the  Hertz  collec¬ 
tion  (n.  1824),  and  the  Paris  collection  (Cha¬ 
bouillet,  nos.  262,  283),  have  other  larger  camei 
on  sardonyx  (an  inch  or  more  wide),  representing 
the  same  subject,  bearing  the  barbarous  legend, 
XAIPE  (or  XEPE),  KEXAPITOMENH  (or  KAI- 
XAPITOMENH),  O  KC.  META  COT  (Luke  i.  28). 
The  second  of  these  is  referred  to  “  the  oldest 
Christian  period”*"  (Hertz,  Catalogue,  p.  125); 

q  Mr.  King  (Ant.  Gems  and  Bings,  il.  31)  thinks  that 
it  may  probably  date  as  far  back  as  Constantine’s  reign. 
But  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  title,  /arj-i-rjp  (>eov, 
goes  so  far  back.  See  Pearson,  On  the  Creed,  Ari  III. 
With  regard  to  the  style  of  the  gtm  itself,  ihe  writer 
is  inclined  to  put  it  considerably  later  than  the  fourth 
century. 

-  This  gem  passed  into  the  Uzielli  Collection  (Robiu- 
son’s  Cat.  No.  1119  [646,  a.]),  where  it  is  called  “  Byzan¬ 
tine  Greek  work  of  uncertain  period.” 


GEMS 


GEMS 


719 


the  others  are  considered  by  Chabouillet  to  be 
of  the  fifth  century.  Perhaps  they  may  be 
rather  regarded  as  early  mediaeval  (see  King’s 
Handbook,  p.  111). 

(xv.)  The  Virgin  and  Child. — An  intaglio  in  the 
British  Museum,  green  jasj)er,  of  very  rude  work¬ 
manship,  “  executed  with  the  peculiar  technique 
of  Gnostic  work,”  and,  if  this  be  admitted,  ap¬ 
parently  about  the  fourth  century®  (see  King, 
Antique  Gems  and  Rings,  ii.  31),  represents  the 
Virgin  and  Child  seated,  with  an  angel  on  each 
side,  two  others  hovering  overhead.  The  Ma¬ 
donna  and  child  in  her  arms  (both  with  nimbus), 
accompanied  by  their  names,  xc.  MP. 
0T.,  is  represented  on  a  Byzantine  cameo  of  red 
jasper,  in  the  Paris  collection  (Chabouillet, 
u.  265).  A  similar  one  on  bloodstone  (IfgXlj'g 
inches)  is  in  the  British  Museum.  These  may 
perhaps  be  early  mediaeval. 

In  the  Uzielli  collection  (n.  284  [300])  was  an 
intaglio  on  cornelian  (^  by  |  of  an  inch),  with  the 

Virgin  and  Child,  with  XAIPE  and  ^., 

which  INIr.  J.  C.  Robinson  calls  “  Byzantine  or 
mediaeval  Greek  work  of  uncertain  date.”  A 
gem,  published  by  Oilerico,  giA'es  the  Virgin  and 
Child  with  legend,  MP.  0T.  H  nHFH,  i.e.  the 
image  of  the  Madonna  in  the  church  of  the  Foun¬ 
tain,  erected  at  Constantinople  by  Justinian,  but 
this  gem  may  be  of  much  later  date  (Bockh, 
C.  I.  G.  n.  9109).  It  is  probable  that  this 
general  type  would  be  engraved  on  Byzantine 
gems  during  a  great  part  of  the  middle  ages, 
from  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  onwards. 

(xvi.)  Saints  or  persons  tmknown. — Bosio  and 
^Mamachi  (Dei  costumi  dei  primit.  Grid.  Prefaz.) 

figure  a  cornelian,  on 
which  are  engraved  the 
heads  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul  (Mart.  Diet.  pp.  40, 
539).  A  red  jasper  inta¬ 
glio,  a  graceful  new  year’s 
gift,  exhibits  a  female 
saint,  perhaps  St.  Agnes, 
kneeling  before  an  execu¬ 
tioner,  who  is  about  to 
cut  off  her  head  with  a 
great  razorlike  sword  ;  be¬ 
fore  her  a  dove  holds  a 
branch ;  above  is  the 
chi  isma,  to  declare  the  presence  of  her  Redeemer 
in  the  hour  of  trial ;  in  the  field  are  the  letters 
AN  FT  (Annum  noium  felicem  tihi):  good  work, 
probably  about  the  age  of  Constantine  ‘  (King, 
Jino.  Gems,  pp.  352,  353,  figured). 

A  cameo  in  the  British  Museum,  cut  in  a 
beautiful  sardonyx,  possibly  as  early  as  the 
fourth  century, “  gives  a  full-length  'figure  of 
St.  John  the  Baptist  with  his  name  (King, 
Antique  Gems  and  Rings,  ii.  31)r  The  same 
saint  is  represented  on  a  cornelian,  published  by 
Vettori  (pars  ii.  c.  ix.).  The  Berlin  I\Iuseum  has 
a  black  jasper  intaglio,  reading  EIC  0EOC,  and 
having  rudely  engraved  upon  it  a  female  with 


»  In  this  case  also  it  s''eni8  possible  that  the  date  may 
be  much  later. 

‘  In  his  lat"St  work  (Antique.  Getns  and  Rings,  ii.  33) 
Mr.  King  thinks  that  it  “cin  Imrdly  be  placed  lower  than 
the  age  of  Tli-  odosius,  wliose  best  coins  it  certainly  re¬ 
sembles  both  in  style  and  workmanship.*' 

"  It  seems,  however,  that  it  may,  with  at  least  equal 
probability,  be  assigned  to  about  the  tenth  century. 


hands  uplifted  in  prayer  (Bockh,  C.  I.  G.  n. 
9103).  The  British  Museum  has  a  Virgin,  half- 
length,  with  circular  nimbus,  and  uplifted  hands, 
a  cameo  on  bloodstone,  with  the  legend  MP.  0T. ; 
which  may  perhaps  be  erady  medieval.  Besides 
these  examples  still  existing,  wc  have  the  fol¬ 
lowing  literary  notices  of  rings  bearing  similai 
types  being  worn  by  bishops  and  others. 

St.  Chrysostom  tells  us  that  in  his  time  many 
Christians  of  .4ntiooh  wore  in  their  rings  the 
likeness  of  St.  Meletius  (who  died  a.d.  381),  and 
impressed  it  on  their  seals  (Horn,  de  S.  Mclet, 
t.  ii.  p.  519,  ed.  Venet.  1734).  St.  Augustine, 
writing  to  bishop  Victorinus,  says  that  his 
epistle  is  sealed  “  annulo  qui  exprimit  faciem 
hominis  attendentis  in  latus  ”  [Epist.  59  [217]). 
Ebregislaus,  bishop  ofMeaux  in  060,  wore  in  his 
ring  an  intaglio  representing  St.  Paul,  the  first 
hermit,  on  his  kxiees  before  a  crucifix,  and  above 
his  head  the  crow,  by  which  he  was  miraculously 
fed  (Annal.  S.  Benedict,  t.  i.  p.  456  ;  Waterton  in 
Arch.  Journ.  1863,  p.  225).* 

To  the  above  should  perhaps  be  added  a  By¬ 
zantine  cameo,  nearly  two  inches  in  diameter^ 
of  streaked  jasper,  representing  St.  John  the 
Evangelist,  with  the  nimbus,  seated,  and  holding 
the  gospel  in  his  hand.  In  the  field  O  A  (5 
ayios)  Iw  O  0EOAOrOC  ;  in  the  Biblioth&que 
Imperiale  (Chabouillet,  Cat.  n.  266).  This  gem 
may  possibly  fall  within  oxir  ])eriod,  and  is 
classed  near  to  some  that  probably  do  so :  but 
the  difficulty  of  fixing  the  particular  age  of 
medieval  Byzantine  caniei  is  almost  insuperable. 
The  greater  part  of  thoTu,  in  T\Ir.  King’s  skilled 
judgment,  belong  to  the  age  of  the  Comneni 
(Ant.  Gems  and  Rings,  i.  307). 

(xvii.)  Imperial  or  Rogal  Personages  with 
Christian  Accessories.  —  The  art  of  cameo-en¬ 
graving,  which  had  fallen  into  complete  abey¬ 
ance  from  the  time  of  Septimius  Severus,  who 
has  bequeathed  to  posterity  many  fine  camei- 
portraits  of  himself  and  his  family,  sprang  into 
a  new  but  short  life  uniler  Constantine.  Camei 
portraits  of  himself  and  his  sons,  “  admirable  for 
the  material,  and  by  no  means  despicable  for 
the  execution,”  are  found  in  various  private 
and  public  collections,  on  .saialonyx  stones  of 
laige,  sometimes  very  largo,  dimensions  (King, 
Ant.  Gems  and  Rings,  i.  304).  One  fine  gem,  at 
least,  marks  the  change  of  the  imperial  religion  ; 
it  is  not  however  exactly  a  cameo,  but  a  solid 


»  A  sardonyx,  published  by  F.  Vettori,  has  on  the  ob¬ 
verse  a  portrait  of  the  Virgin  with  the  usual  letters 
MP.  ©Y.,  and  on  the  reverse  a  cross  with  contracted 
legend  KEB.  (for  Kv'pie  PogOei),  AEOTI  AECnOT., 
i.e.  0  Lord!  help  Lord  Leo!  Conjeclurally  referred  to 
Leo  (the  Wise'l  a.d.  8S6-911,  but  without  sufficient  rea¬ 
son  ;  it  is  just  possible  that  the  gem  may  have  been  exe¬ 
cuted  within  the  period  embraced  in  this  work.  See 
Bockh,  C.  I.  G.  n.  9100.  A  very  interesting  gem  is  in¬ 
serted  in  a  silver  plate  (gilt)  of  the  age  of  Justinian;  the 
great  martyr  (jneyaAopiapTVs)  Demetrius  is  invoked  as  a 
mediator  with  God  (p.ecriTevcrov  Trpb?  6ew')  to  aid  Justi¬ 
nian,  "king  of  the  Romans  upon  earth,”  and  in  the  midst 
of  the  plate,  just  above  a  picture  of  St.  Demetrius,  “opere 
tesselato,”  is  “amethystus  insculpta,  more  carneolae  fiicie 
imberbi.”  This  may  probably  be  meant  for  Demetrius 
aLo,  but  as  ic  XC  (Jesus  Chri.st)  NIKA  (viKq)  occtirs 
higher  up,  it  is  not  very  clear  wliether  it  may  not  be  a 
portrait  of  the  Saviour.  The  inscription  is  g’ven  at  length 
in  Kickh’s  C.I.G.  n,  8012,  from  Marlni’n  p.ip''T8,  pub¬ 
lish'd  by  Mai.  (o'eript.  Vet.  A'or.  ("oil.  v.  30,  no  figures.) 


Martyrdom  of  a  Soiat. 
(King.) 


720 


GEMS 


GEMS 


bust.  An  ngate,  measuring  nearly  four  inches,  in 
the  Liibliotheque  Iinperiale,  shows  his  bust  with 
the  paludamentum  and  cuirass,  on  the  latter  is  a 
cross.  His  head  is  naked,  and  his  eyes  are  raised 
to  heaven,  as  on  some  of  his  coins.  Formerly 
the  ornament  of  the  extremity  of  the  choir-statF 
(loth-century  work)  in  La  Sainte-Chapelle. 

Chabouillet,  Cat.  n.  287,  who  refers  to  Morand’s 
Hist,  dc  la  Sainte  fChaidle  da  J'ahns,  (p.  56)  for 
a  figure  of  the  gem  incorporated  with  the  baton.) 
Besides  this  noble  piece  we  have  several  others 
also,  but  of  inferior  execution. 

Passeri  describes  and  figures  a  gem,  preserved 
at  Venice,  representing  a  horseman  spearing  a 
dragon  with  a  long  lance  terminating  in  a  cross 
above  :  he  regards  it  as  a  representation  of  a 
Christian  emperor,  conquering  his  enemies  with 
the  cross ;  a  star,  an  emblem  of  Divine  pi'ovi- 
deuce,  in  his  judgment,  is  seen  above  i^T/ies. 
Gemm.  Astnf.  t.  2,  })p.  289-297).  This  inter¬ 
pretation  is  somewhat  confirmed  by  the  types 
of  certain  coins  of  the  fourth  centurv,  to  which 
age  this  coin  may  probably  be  assignel. 

The  Mertens-Schaufl’haussen  collection  pos¬ 
sessed  an  agate  intaglio,  which  passed  into  the 
Leturcq  cabinet,  exhibiting  a  full-faced  bust  of 
the  emperor  IMauritius,  wearing  the  imperial 
crown  of  the  lower  empire,  and  holding  a  globe, 
on  which  rests  a  Greek  cross  inscribed,  D.  N. 
MAVRITIVS  P.  P.  A.  Supposed  to  be  a  work 
of  the  sixth  century,  Leturcq,  Catal.  n.  210.^ 
The  Leturcq  collection  contained  also  a  green 
jasper  intaglio,  giving  full-faced  portraits  of  Con- 
stans  11.  (crowned)  and  of  his  son  Constantine  IV. 
(Pogouatus),  both  bearded,  with  a  Greek  cross 
between  their  busts,  having  a  scorpion  engraved 
on  the  back  in  the  rude  style  of  the  so-called 
Gnostic  gems  (n.  211).  The  same  collection  in 
fine  had  an  agate  intaglio  bearing  busts  of  Leo  IV. 
and  his  son  Constantine  VI.  (Flavius),  inscribed, 
D.  X.  LEO  ET  CONSTAXTINVS  P.  P.  A.,  both 
full-faced  and  crowned,  and  holding  between 
them  a  double-handled  cross  (n.  212).  These 
rare  portraits  of  the  Byzantine  Caesar.s,  of  the 
si.xth,  seventh,  and  eighth  centuries,  appear  to  be 
in  the  same  general  style  as  those  which  appear 
on  their  money  (see  Sabatier,  Monn.  Bjz.  pi. 
xxiv.  xx.viv.  xli.). 

There  is  one  more  gem  of  this  class,  which 
falls  a  few  years  later  than  the  chronological 
limits  of  this  work,  but  which  ought  hardly  to 
be  passed  over  here  in  consequence  of  its  extreme 
interest  in  helping  to  fix  the  limits  of  gem- 
engraving  in  the  West  before  the  age  of  the 
Renaissance.  The  magnificent  gold  cross  of  king 
Lotharius,  said  to  be  of  about  the  date  823,  now 
preserved  in  the  treasury  of  the  cathedral  ofAi.x- 
ia-Chapelle,  is  remarkable  for  the  variet}’^  of 
gems,  rubies,  sapphires,  amethysts,  and  emeralds 
with  which  its  surface  is  studded.  At  the  in¬ 
tersection  of  the  arms  is  inserted  a  verv  fine  j 
onyx  cameo  of  Augustus,  probably  a  contem¬ 
porary  work,  and  just  below  this  an  OA'al  intaglio 
of  rock  crystal,  of  Frankish  work  and  of  very  l 
tolerable  execution,  two  inches  long  and  an  inch 
and  a  half  wide,  giving  the  bust  of  Lotharius, 


r  Mr,  King,  however,  has  some  doubt  about  its  genuine¬ 
ness  (^Antique  Gems,  pp.  163,  164).  The  Leturcq  Oibinet 
was  sold  by  Messrs.  .Sotheby,  )Vilkinson,  and  Hodge,  in 
18(4,  the  accompanying  catalogue  by  the  owner  being 
m  French  and  English. 


“his  head  covered  with  a  close-fitting  lielmet, 
with  a  slightly-projecting  frontlet,  like  those  ot 
the  latest  Roman  period ;  around  the  bnst  is  the 
legend,  in  well-formed  Roman  letters,  -|-  XPE 
ADIVVA  HLOTH.UilVM  REG.”  (figured  in 
Cahier  et  Martin,  Mel.  d’Arch.  vol.  i.  pi.  xxxi. ; 
King’s  Ant.  Gems,  p.  305;  King’s  Handbook  of 
Engraved  Gents,  p.  116). 

There  still  remain  to  be  considered  some  an¬ 
cient  gems  bearing  manifest  traces  of  Christianity, 
which  may  be  separately  classed,  viz.,  the  Gnostic 
and  the  Sassanian. 

Gnoitic  Gems. — A  Gnostic  origin  has  been 
hesitatingly  a.ssigned  to  one  or  two  gems  alreadv 
mentioned,  and  a  great  number  of  gems  called 
Gnostic  have  been  described  in  Chal*ouillet’s 
Catalogue.  (See  also  Akrasax  in  the  Dic¬ 
tionary  OF  Christian  Biography.)  Of  these, 
a  considerable  number  boar  the  word  ABPA- 
CAH,  more  rarely  (in  the  Greek)  ABPAHAC,  (vari¬ 
ously  written  in  Latin) ;  and  this  in  itself,  in 
the  judgment  of  some,  proves  a  Gnostic  origin. 
Assuming  that  Basilides,  a  Christian  Gnostic  of 
the  second  century,  be  the  inventor  of  the  werd,* 
as  St.  Jerome  evidently  thought  and  as  several 
other  Christian  writers  appear  to  intimate  (see 
the  authorities  collected  by  Jablonski,  Opvsc. 
t.  iv.  pp.  82-86,  and  Bellermanu,  Ueher  die 
Gernmen  der  Alten  init  dem  Abraxas-Bilde,  Erst 
Stiick,  pp.  10-28),  the  numerous  stones  on  which 
the  word  is  written  must  either  be  looked  on  as 
Gnostic  or  else  as  derived  through  Gnosticism  to 
other  forms  of  faith  or  superstition.  The  latter 
view  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  the  more  probable  ; 
for  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  word,  as  tran.s- 
formed  into  the  magical  Abracadabra,  passed 
OA’er  to  the  pagans,  and  was  even  employed  in 
Christian  times  until  quite  lately  as  a  charm 
against  various  forms  of  disease  (Passeri,  He 
gemm.  Basilid.  in  Thes.  Gemm.  Astrif.  vol.  ii. 
p.  236,  sqq. ;  King  in  ArJi.  Journ.  1869,  p,  33; 
Hall i  well.  Diet,  of  Archaic  IVorrfs,  s.  v.  Abraca¬ 
dabra).  We  have  Abraxas  occurring  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  names,  lAH  (Jehovah),  CABAce©, 
AAwNAI,  and  with  the  titles  or  representations 
of  Harpocrates,  Mithras,  Mercury,  &e.  (see  Pas¬ 
seri,  a.  s.  ^'c.),  but  in  no  single  instance  known 
to  the  writer,  though  very  possibly  such  may 
exist,®  does  this  word  occur  on  any  engraved 
stone  in  any  connection  which  can  be  safely 
counted  upon  as  Christian.  These  stones  con¬ 
sequently,  as  well  as  all  others  which  have  been 
called  Gnostic,  but  shew  no  manifest  sign  of 
Christianity  are  passed  over  in  this  article. 
Very  few  of  them,  if  any,  can  be  fixed  to  any 
particular  Gnostic  sect  or  to  Gnosticism  gene- 


»  Some,  as  Mo.^sbelm  (De  Reb.  Christ,  ante  Constant. 
p.  350)  have  thought  that  the  word  is  probably  older  than 
Basilides:  on  what  grounds  we  know  not.  This  matter 
deserves  a  searching  examination. 

»  A  very  few  monuments,  which  must  needs  b® 
Christian,  boar  the  word  ABP.A.C.\S.  A  large  ivory 
ring,  found  at  Arles,  bears  the  monogram  of  Christ  be¬ 
tween  and  il  (as  it  appeiU'S  on  the  coins  of  Constantius  JI. 
kc.  of  the  fourth  century),  but  accompanied  by  the  title 
ABPAC.AH,  “a  sufficient  proof  of  the  identity  of  the  two 
personages  in  the  estiination  of  its  owner”  (King's  A»j- 
tique  Gems,  p,  358).  A  cop^rer  amulet  found  at  Keff 
(Sicca  Venerea),  which  is  very  distinctly  Christian,  con¬ 
tains  the  same  word  app;rrently,  but  in  a  corrupt  form 
(PA.XCACA),  See  Lnscbiitioxs. 


GE-NTS 


GEMS 


721 


rally,’’  by  much  the  greater  part  appear  to 
have  been  charms.  The  following  very  scanty 
list,  however,  of  unmistakeahly  Christian  gems 
may  be  with  some  reason  looked  on  as  Gnostic  : — 
(1.)  A  portrait  of  Christ,  beardless,  to  the 
right  ;  XPICTOT  above, 
a  fish  underneath.  Figured 
by  Raoul-Rochette  (^2'ablea't 
des  Ciitaconibes  de  Home, 
frontispiece.  Raids,  1853) 
who  regards  it  as  Gnostic 
(p.  265)  from  the  original 
in  the  possession  of  the 
marquis  de  Fortia  d’Urban, 
formerly  in  the  Lajard 
collection.  The  stone  is 
white  chalcedony,  the  form 
is  oval ;  ascribed  to  the  second  or  third  century 
(Mart.  Diet.  p.  40). 

(2.)  Another  portrait  with  the  same  types  and 
legend,  on  a  truncated  cone  of  white  chalcedony, 
in  the  Bibliotheque  Impe'riale  (Chabouillet,  n. 
1334).  This  gem,  probably  of  Eastern  fabric, 
is  considered  to  be  not  later  than  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century,  and  “presents  the  combina¬ 
tion  of  the  ancient  Oriental  form  and  of  Greek 
decoration  in  the  same  monument  ”  (King, 
Gnostics,  p.  143).  Figured  by  Ferret,  u.  s.  n. 
47  ;  very  similar  to  the  pi'eceding. 

Epiphanius  makes  it  a  charge  against  the 
Carpoci’atians  that  they  kept  painted  portraits 
and  images  in  gold  and  silver,  and  other  mate¬ 
rials,  which  they  pretended  to  be  portraits  of 
Jesus  (f [acres,  c.  27,  §  6).  These  gems,  therefore, 
may  probably  be  the  work  of  some  Gnostic  sect.' 


b  The  seven  vowels,  the  “  Music  of  the  Spheres”  occur 
frequently  on  this  class  of  stones,  and  are  also  mentioned 
in  tlie  lately  discovered  Gnostic  work  entitled  Pistis, 
Sophia ;  but  their  veneration  or  magical  use  can  hardly 
be  regarded  as  exclusively  Marcosian  or  Gnostic  (see 
Walsh,  Essay  on  Ancient  Coins,  Medals,  and  Gems,  pp. 
48-51;  King’s  Gnostics,  p.  93;  King  in  Arch.  Journ. 
1863,  pp.  105-107).  From  the  names  of  the  angels  men¬ 
tioned  Matter  (//ist.  Crit.  du  (>nost.  Pi.  p.  16,  t.  1.  E.  9) 
thinks  that  a  gem  wliich  he  figures  after  Chifflet  (fig.  24) 
may  belong  to  the  sect  of  the  Ophites.  One  of  the  very 
few  gems  which  really  appear  to  savour  of  the  Gnostic 
philosophy  is  a  sard,  of  which  an  impression  has  been 
sent  by  the  Rev.  W.  T.  T  Drake;  reading  o  6ia  navTwv 
vov<;.  aiOrjp,  irup,  7ri/eU|aa.  eKoietu,  eAweij/ ;  i.  e.  Elohim  ; 
there  was  also  an  inscription  round  the  edge  which  has 
been  a  good  deal  brokett ;  in  the  field  are  monograms  or 
mystic  characters.  The  letters  may  be  of  the  third  or 
four.h  century. 

If  indeed  we  could  with  Bcllermann  (Gemmen  mit 
dem  Abraxas- Bilde,  iii.  pp  11,12)  interpret  the  letters 
CEMEC  EIAAM  (misread  by  him)  occurring  on  gems  with 
the  ABPACAH  legend  or  figure,  to  mean,  This  is  the  Mes¬ 
siah  of  God,  n'  n’'*k^D  nt.  the  number  of  Gnostic  gems 
might  be  increased  considerably;  but  in  truth  the  words 
signify  in  Hebrew  Eternal  'tun  (Matter,  u.s,  pp.  17,29, 
1. 1.  F,  5  ;  King,  Gnostics,  p.  76) 

c  The  numerous  portraits  of  the  .Saviour  which  existed 
in  St.  Augustine’s  time  difTered  much  from  each  other; 
so  that  his  face  “  innumerabilinm  cogitationum  diversl- 
tate  variatur  et  fingitur,  quae  tamen  una  erat,  quaecum- 
que  erat”  (Aug  De  Trinit.  viii.  4).  A  poitrait quite  dif¬ 
ferent  from  the  above  is  nulely  engraved,  apparently  by 
a  much  later  hand,  on  the  back  of  a  tiny  ancient  cornelian 
in  the  possession  of  M.  Forgt  t,  which  bears  on  the  other 
side  a  fi.*^h  only ;  it  is  figured  by  Le  Blant,  Inscr.  Chret. 
de  la  Gaule,  vol.  1.  p.  371.  The  realistic  represeniation  is 
here,  as  in  both  the  preceding  gems,  combined  with  the 
symbol. 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


(3.)  Tlie  sun  between  two  stars,  EICVVC. 
XP  i'  .  rABPlE[A.]  ANANIA.  AME[N.]  in 
two  lines  (Passeri,  T/ies.  Gcmm.  Asirif.  ii.  jn  277, 
who  does  not  name  the  stone).  The  names  of 
angels,  as  planetary  or  astral  genii,  were  in¬ 
voked  by  the  Ophites,  and  j)robably  by  other 
Gnostic  sects  ;  Gabriel  presided  over  the  serpent 
(King,  Gnostics,  j).  88).  This  gem  (n.  155  in 
the  Cappello  Museum),  which  is  doubtless 
magical,  may  well  have  been  produced  by  some 
Christian  Gnostic,  perhaps  of  the  fourth  century, 
when  similar  barbarous  orthograjdiy  occurs. 

(4.)  Four-winged  deity,  standing  on  a  circle 
formed  by  a  serpent,  holding  two  scei)tres  ;  legend 
obliterated.  R.  The  chrisma  in  the  midst  o. 
a  circle  formed  by  a  serpent  biting  its  tail. 
Hematite,  in  the  Bibliotheque  Impe'riale  (Cha¬ 
bouillet,  n.  2178).  The  figure  is  a  good  deal 
similar  to  one  on  another  gem,  bearing  the  in¬ 
scription  ABPAHAC  (Chabouillet,  n.  2176); 
the  reverse  shows  it  to  be  the  work  of  a  Chris¬ 
tian,  perhaps  of  a  later  Basilidian. 

(5.)  lao  (Jehovah)  under  the  form  of  a  four- 
wdnged  mummy,  which  has  the  heads  of  a  jackal, 
a  vulture,  and  a  hawk ;  in  the  field  three  stars, 
legend  effaced;  below  on  a  cartouche,  lAfl.  R. 
Trophy  between  a  monogram  made  up  of  I  and 
N  (possibly  for  Jesus  of  Nazareth)  and  the 
chrisma;  at  the  base  of  the  trophy  is  another 
chrisma.  In  the  Bibliotheque  Impe'ri.ale;  ser¬ 
pentine  (Chabouillet,  n.  2220). 

Chabouillet  regards  the  trophy  as  a  figure  of 
the  cross  triumphant,  and  thinks  the  gem  belongs 
to  one  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  who  especially  re¬ 
vered  the  Saviour. 

Later  Persian  and  Sassanian  Gems. — This  is  a 
class  of  enjiraved  stones,  which  mav  best  be 
treated  separately  as  being  of  a  different 
form,  conical  or  hemi.spherical,  to  those  already 
named ;  and  bearing  legends,  when  legends  are 
present,  in  the  Pehlevi  character  The  following 
meagre  list  consists  wholly  of  intagli ;  those  in 
the  French  collection  are  thought  by  Chabouillet 
to  be  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen¬ 
tury  ;  but  some  aj)pear  to  be  later. 

( 1.)  Ihe  Sacrifice  of  Abraham. — The  patriarch 
holds  the  knife  to  slay  his  son  lying  on  an  altar 
(shaped  like  a  Persian  fire-altar);  he  turns  back 
and  sees  the  angel  pointing  out  the  ram  ;  striped 
sardonyx.  Bibl.  Impe'riale  (Chabouillet,  n.  1330). 
Another  gem,  of  which  ]\Ir.  King  sends  an  im¬ 
pression,  represents  an  aged  Jew,  in  the  field 
a  child :  whether  this  be  the  same  subject  or 
not,  is  uncertain. 

(2.)  Hie  Visitation  of  the  Virgin. — St.  Elizabeth 


Po;  trait  of  Ctirist.  (Raoul 
Uocliette.) 


722 


GEMS 


GEMS 


and  the  Virgin  standing,  joining  hands  ;  star 
and  crescent  (sun  and  moon)  between  them : 
Pehlevi  legend,  characters  connected;  cornelian; 
French  collection  (Chabouillet,  n.  1332).  Same 
subject  probably,  but  without  legend  ;  long  ci’oss 
between  the  figures ;  sard  (King,  Anti'iue  Gems 
and  liinjs,  ii.  ]).  45,  pi,  iv.  n.  13).  The  latter 
gem  is  supposed  by  ]\Ir.  King,  its  owner,  to  be 
“  the  signet  of  Some  Nestorian  Christian.” 

(3.)  The  Vinj in  and  Child. — The  Virgin  Maiy 
seated,  holding  the  infant  Saviour:  Pehlevi  le¬ 
gend  ;  garnet  ;  Biblioth^que  Impe'riale  (Ohabou- 
illet,  n.  1331).  The  cursive  form  of  the  Pehlevi 
character  indicates  a  late  age,  i.  e.  that  it  is 
probablv  of  Nestorian  work  (King,  Handbook, 
p.  103).' 

(4.)  The  Fish. — Fish  placed  in  the  middle  of 
the  Christian  monogram,  which  is  formed  of  the 
letters  IX  (Jesus  Christ).  Annular  seal ;  cor¬ 
nelian  ;  same  collection  (Chabouillet,  u.  1333), 

(5.)  The  Cross. — An  elegant  cross  patee,  en¬ 
graved  on  a  seal,  accompanied  by  a  Pehlevi 
legend  in  the  latest  character  (E.  Thomas,  Notes 
on  Sass  inian  mint-marks  and  Gems,  with  a  figure  ; 
King,  Gnostics,  p.  144). 

Before  bringing  this  account  of  Christian  gems 
to  a  close,  it  remains  to  be  mentioned  that  some 
of  them  bear  inscriptions  only,  both  Greek  and 
Latin,  and  these  may  better  be  named  here  than 
under  the  article  Inscriptions. 

(1.)  Greek  Inscriptions. — A  red  jasper  in  the 
British  Museum,  in  an  antique  gold  setting  of 
corded  wire,  is  inscribed,  0EOC  ©EOT  TIOC 
THPEI,  i.e.  0  God,  Son  of  God,  guard  me !  A 
gem,  figured  by  Ficoroui,  has  XPICTOY,  sc. 
SouAoy  (Bockh,  C.  I.  G.  n.  9091).  On  a  sar- 
donvx,  published  by  Le  Blant,  we  read  — 
XPEICTOC  IHCOTC  MET  EMOT,  i.e.  Jesus 
Christ  be  with  me!  (^Td.  n.  9096).  A  broken 
gem  in  the  Copenhagen  Museum,  reads  more 
at  length  to  the  same  effect  {Id.  9095).  An 
inscription  on  a  gem  published  by  Qiiaranta,  at 
Naples,  whose  date,  though  uncertain,  may  be  sus¬ 
pected  to  be  late,  very  possibly  later  than  the 
period  embraced  by  this  work,  reads,  inCHd* 
CYNnAPACTAGHTI  1  EMOI  KAI  TOIC  EP- 
rOIC  I  MOT  KAI  AOC  MOI  XAPIN,  i.e.  0 
Joseph,  aid  me  and  my  works,  and  grant  me  grace ! 
(/cf.  9099),  A  few  other  unimportant  gems  bear 
inscriptions,  sometimes  in  raised  lettei’s,  which 
may  probably  be  Christian,  such  as  MAPIA 
ZHCAIC  nOAAOIC  ETECIN,  and  the  like  (see 
Bockh,  nos.  9104—9106). 

(2.)  Latin  Inscriptions.  —  The  acclamation 
VIVAS  IN  DEO  occurs  (varied)  on  several 
engraved  stones,  figured  by  Ficoroni  (Gemm. 
A7it.  Lit.  tabb.  vii.  xi. ;  Martignv,  Diet.  p.  8); 
we  have  also  MAXSENTI  VIVAS  TVIS  F. 
(for  cum  tuis  feliciter).  (Perret,  t'ol.  iv.  t.  xvi. 
11.  58  ;  Martigny,  u.  s.y  On  a  cameo  sard  found 
in  a  Christian  grave  we  read  ROXANE  D 
(^dulcis),  B  (bene),  QVESQVAS  (quiescas),  (Buon- 
arotti,  Vetr.  Cimit.  p.  170,  t.  24).  Occasionally 
the  inscription  is  figured  in  metal  round  the 
st-me,  as  in  a  gold  ring  inscribed  VIVAS  IN  DEO 
ASBOLI,  found  in  the  Soane,  the  stone  of  which 
is  lost ;  supposed  to  be  of  the  third  or  fourth 


d  This  gem  bears  three  heads,  doubtless  those  of 
Alaxentius  and  his  family:  it  does  not  strictly  fall 
■within  this  section,  bat  is  placed  here  to  accompany  the 
other  timilar  acclamations. 


century  (Le  Blant,  Inscr.  Chr€t.  de  la  Gaule, 
tom.  i.  p.  64,  pi.  n.  6).  It  was  not  uncommon 
from  the  sixth  century  onwards  for  signet  rings, 
both  in  stone  and  metal,  to  be  marked  with  the 
owner’s  name  in  monogram.  Avitus,  bishop  of 
A^ienne,  had  such  a  signet  in  iron ;  and  a  red 
jasper  of  the  Lower  empire,  in  the  Bosanquet 
collection,  reads,  AKTONINVS,  in  monogram, 
which  may  not  improbably  be  Christian  (King, 
Handbook,  p.  107).  One  of  the  earliest  episcopal 
gems  extant  is  probably  one  which  was  found  at 
Villaverde  in  Spain,  set  in  a  bronze  ring,  inscribed 
FEBRV'ARiVS  |  EPiSCOPVS  (the  stone  is  not 
specified);  it  may  in  all  likelihood  be  referred 
to  the  Visigothic  period  (Hdbner,  Inscr.  Hispjan. 
Christ,  n.  205).  The  series  may  fitly  close  with 
a  red  cameo  gem,  preserved  in  the  public  library 
at  Madrid,  reading  in  three  lines,  the  text  of 
Joh.  xix.  36.  OS  NON  COMINVEIIS  ES  (sic) 
EO.  (Hiibner,  u.  s.  n.  208). 

The  preceding  enumeration,  though  profess¬ 
edly  incomplete,  is  more  full,  it  is  believed, 
than  any  hitherto  published ;  the  great  rarity 
of  Christian  gems  renders  an  apology  for  a  de¬ 
tailed  catalogue  uunecessarv.  A  few  words  in 
conclusion  on  the  materials  and  the  style  of  art 
and  uses  of  these  gems.  The  most  usual  material 
is  the  sard,  of  which  the  cornelian  ®  is  only  an 
inferior  form,  and  the  allied  stones,  the  onyx, 
sardony.x,  and  chalcedony  ;  next  to  these  in  point 
of  number  may  be  placed  other  kindred  stones, 
the  jaspers,  whether  red,  green,  or  black.  Some¬ 
times  the  stone  is  heliotrope  (or  bloodstone), 
niccolo,  ciystal,  amethyst,  plasma,  emerald,  opal, 
lapis  lazuli,  serpentine,  and,  very  rarely,  sapphire. 
Garnet  is  occasionally  found,  a  stone  in  which 
the  Sassauian  gem-engravings  are  often  formed, 
and  among  these  we  have  a  Christian  example. 
The  hematite  is  especially  the  material  on  which 
the  syncretistic  designs,  commonly  called  Gnostic, 
are  engraved  ;  and  one  of  the  few  Christian  gems 
of  that  class  in  this  enumeration  is  of  that 
material. 

In  engravings  which  range  in  all  likelihood 
from  the  second  to  the  ninth  century  (and  some 
of  those  here  mentioned,  being  of  uncertain 
date,  may  be  later  even  than  that),  we  must 
expect  that  there  will  be  a  considerable  amount 
of  variation  in  the  stvle  and  excellence-  of  the 
workmanship.  When  the  work  is  fine,  the  fact 
has  been  recorded,  if  known  to  the  writer.  Much 
more  commonly  the  work  is  mediocre.  “  The 


®  These  are  not  well  distinguished  in  the  preceding 
enumeration ;  the  nomenclature  here  adopted  is  that  of 
the  author  who  names  the  gem  ;  and  this  remark  must  be 
extended  to  the  other  stones  mentioned.  For  much  in¬ 
formation  in  a  small  space  on  the  materials  of  gems 
Prof.  Story  Maskelyne’s  Introduction  to  the  Marlborough 
Gems  (f'p.  xxvii.-xxxvi.  1870),  may  be  consulted ;  as  well 
as  Mr.  King’s  elaborate  work  on  Frecious  Stones  and 
Gems,  London,  1865. 

I  It  is  but  rarely  that  anything  s.ive  the  work  of  the 
stone  itself  supplies  date  for  conjecturing  its  age.  How¬ 
ever  the  fine  emerald  bearing  a  fish,  described  above, 
is  enclosed  in  an  hexagonal  gold  setting,  which  Mr.  King 
calls  “  a  pattern  announcing  for  date  the  early  years  of 
the  third  century”  (Antique  Gtms  and  Kings,  ii.  29), 
De  Rossi  admits  the  great  difficii’ty  of  fixing  the  age  of 
Christian  gems,  but  thinks  that  a  good  many  of  those 
which  bear  the  fish  (type  or  legend)-  and  anchor  are  of 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  none  being  later  (in  Pitra’s 
Spicil.  Solesm.  iii.  555,  556). 


GENERALIS 


GENUFLEXION 


723 


art  exhibited  in  early  Christian  gems  is  almost 
invariably  of  a  low  order,”  observes  Mr.  Fort- 
num  ;  “  they  were  for  tlie  most  part  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  a  period  of  decadence.  The  greater 
number  have  been  cut  by  means  of  the  wheel. 
Hence  arises  an  additional  dilficulty  in  distin¬ 
guishing  the  genuine  from  the  false.  Their 
rude  workmanship  is  easy  to  oojiy  with  the  same 
instrument  as  that  with  which  they  were  cut  ; 
antique  stones  are  abundant  at  hand,  and  Roman 
artists  are  apt  and  facile  in  imitation  ”  (^Arch. 
Journ.  1871,  p.  292). 

Bv  much  the  greater  part  of  the  gems  men¬ 
tioned  were  used  for  finger-rings,  those  in  intaglio 
being  also  employed  as  seals.  Others,  however, 
especially  the  Gnostic,  were  amulets,  and  carried 
about  the  person,  suspended  or  otherwise,  as 
charms.  The  larger  camei,  of  the  Byzantine 
period,  appear  to  have  been  made  for  the  purpose 
of  decoi'a^ing  church  plate  or  other  ecclesiastical 
objects.  (Martigny,  Bes  anneanx  chez  les  pre¬ 
miers  Ghre'tiens  et  de  Vannean  episcopal  en  par- 
ticulier^  Macon,  1858;  Fortnum  in  Arch.  Journ. 
1869  and  1871;  Earhj  Christian  Finger-rings; 
and  King,  Antipie  Gems  and  Jtings,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
24—37  {Farlg  Christian  Glyptic  Art),  Bond.  1872, 
as  well  as  his  eariier  books  referred  to  above. ^ 
Much  information  also  is  to  be  gleaned  from 
various  catalogues  of  gems  and  other  books, 
to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  above  w'orks 
and  in  this  paper.)  [C.  B.] 

GENERALIS.  [Victor  (14).] 
GENEROSA.  [Scillita.] 

GENEROSUS.  [Scillita.] 

GENESIUS.  (1)  Martyr  at  Rome  in  the 
time  of  Diocletian ;  commemorated  Aug.  25 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi) ;  Aug.  24 
{Mart.  Hieron.,  Cal.  Allatii  et  Frontonis). 

(2)  Martyr,  of  Arles  (circa  a.d.  303);  comme¬ 
morated  Aug.  25  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Rom.  Vet.,  Ado¬ 
nis,  Hsuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GENETHLIA.  [Calendar;  Festival.] 

GENETHLIACI,  says  Augustine,  who  con¬ 
demns  all  such  arts  {De  Doc.  Christ,  ii.  21), 
were  so  called  on  account  of  their  founding  their 
predictions  on  the  jilanets  which  ruled  a  man’s 
birthday  {ysuedAia)  ;  a  more  common  name  was 
Mathematici  [Astrologers  ;  Divination].  He 
again  I’efers,  in  the  Confessions  (i\L  3;  vii.  6), 
to  the  folly  and  impiety  of  supposing  that  a 
man’s  vices  were  attributable  to  the  fact  that 
the  planets  Venus,  Mars,  or  Saturn  presided  over 
his  birth.  The  passage  relating  to  this  matter 
given  in  the  Decree  of  Gratian  (causa  26,  qu. 
4,  c.  1 )  as  from  Augustine,  is  in  fact  from 
Rabanus  Maurus  De  Mag.  Praestig.,  and  was 
by  him  compiled  mainly  from  Augustine  and 
Isidore.  In  another  passage  of  Augustine 
{Conff.  iv.  3,  quoted  in  De  ret.  can.  26.  qu.  2, 
c.  8)  Gratian  seems  to  have  read  “  j)lanetarios  ” 
for  the  “  pianos  ”  of  recent  editions.  All  augurs, 
aruspices,  mathematici,  and  other  impostors  of 
that  kind  w'ere  condemned  bv  a  law  of  Con- 

a' 


g  To  the  last-named  author  the  writer  is  deeply  in¬ 
debted  for  impressions  of  several  gems  and  for  the  'oan  of 
his  beautiful  plates  for  the  present  article:  they  are 
drawn,  like  all  the  others  (when  not  copied  from  other 
books),  to  twice  the  diameter  of  the  originals. 


stantius,  A.D.  357  {Code,  lib.  v. ;  De  Malefcis  et 
Mathematicis,  in  Van  Esj)en,  Jus  Ecclesiasticum, 

р.  iii.  tit.  iv.  cc.  12-14).  [C.] 

GENIUS  OF  THE  EMPEROR.  In  the 

early  centuries  of  the  church,  one  of  the  tests 
by  which  Christians  were  detected  was,  to  re¬ 
quire  them  to  make  oath  “by  the  genius  or  the 
fortune  of  the  emperor ;  ”  an  oath  which  the 
Christians,  however  willing  to  pray  for  kings, 
constantly  refused  as  savouring  of  idolatry. 
Thus  Polycarp  (Euseb.  II.  E.  iv.  15,  §  18)  was 
required  to  swear  by  the  fortune  {Tvxvr)  of 
Caesar.  And  Saturninns  {Acta  Mrirtt.  Scillit. 

с.  1,  in  Ruinart,  p.  86,  2nd  ed.)  adjured  Speratus, 
one  of  the  martyrs  of  Scillita,  “  tantum  jura 
per  genium  regis  nostri ;  ”  to  which  he  replied 
“  Ego  imperatoris  mundi  genium  nescio.” 

Minucius  Felix  {Octavius,  c.  29)  reprobates 
the  deification  of  the  emperor,  and  the  heathen 
practice  of  swearing  by  his  “  genius  ”  or  “  dae¬ 
mon  ;  ”  and  Tertullian  {Apol.  c.  32)  says  that, 
although  Christians  did  not  swear  by  the  genius 
of  the  Caesars,  they  swore  by  a  more  august 
oath,  “per  salutem  eorum.”  We  do  not,  says 
Origen  (c.  Celsum,  bk.  8,  p.  421,  Sj)encer),  swear 
by  the  emperor’s  fortune  {rvxw  ^acriK^ws),  any 
more  than  by  other  reputed  deities ;  for  (as 
some  at  least  think)  they  who  swear  by  his 
fortune  swear  by  his  daemon,  and  Christians 
would  die  rather  than  take  such  an  oath  (Bing¬ 
ham’s  Antiquities,  xvi.  vii.  7).  [C.] 

GENII.  [Fresco,  p.  693.] 

GENOFEVA  or  GENOVEFA,  virgin- 
saint,  of  Paris  (f  circa  514  a.d.);  commemorated 
Jan.  3  {Mart.  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi);  transla¬ 
tion  Oct.  28  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GENT  ILLY,  COUNCIL  OF  {Gentiliacense 
Concilium),  held  A.D.  767,  at  Gentilly,  near 
Paris,- but  authentic  records  of  its  proceedings 
are  wanting.  Annalists  of  the  next  age  say  that 
it  was  assembled  by  Pepin  to  consider  a  twofold 
question  that  had  arisen  between  the  Eastern 
and  VV’estern  churches  respecting  the  Trinity  and 
the  images  of  the  saints  {Pertz,  i.  144).  Quite 
possibly  the  iconoclastic  council  of  Constanti¬ 
nople,  A.D.  754,  may  have  been  discussed  there, 
but  there  is  no  proof  that  the  dispute  between 
the  two  churches  on  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  commenced  as  yet.  The  letter  of 
pope  Paul  to  Pepin  (Mansi,  xii.  614)  is  much  too 
vague  to  be  relied  on,  and  what  embassies  are 
recorded  to  have  come  from  the  east  in  his  reign 
are  still  less  to  the  purpose  {Ibid.  p.  677  ;  comp. 
Pagi,  ad  Baron.  A.D.  766,  n.  3).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

GENUFI.ECTENTES.  [Penitents.] 
(4ENUF LEXION,  PROSTRATION,  ETC. 

The  early  Christians  used  five  ditfereut  postures 
in  their  worship.  They  stood  upright,  or  with 
the  head  and  back  bent  forward,  they  knelt  on 
both  knees,  and  they  prostrated  themselves  at 
length  {prostrato  omni  corpore  in  terra  ;  said  of 
penitents  at  their  reconciliation,  Sacram.  Gelas. 
lib.  i.  nn.  xvi.  xxxviii.  in  Liturg.  Rom.  Vet.  Mu¬ 
rat.  tom.  i.  coll.  504,  550). 

Standing  had  been  the  more  common  posture 
in  prayer  among  the  Jews  (Neh.  ix.  2-4  ;  St. 
Matt.  vi.  5;  St.  Luke  xviii.  11,  13);  but  they 
knelt  (2  Chron.  vi.  13  ;  Dan.  vi.  10  ;  Ezra  ix.  5) 
and  prostrated  themselves  also  (Xuni.  xiv.  5; 

3  A 


724 


gexuflp:xion 


genuflexion 


Josh.  V.  14  ;  1  Kings  xviii.  39,  &c.)  ;  and  the  first 
converts  to  the  gospel  imported  their  former 
customs  into  the  church.  Thus  Stephen  knelt 
in  his  last  j)rayer  (Acts  vii.  60);  St.  I'eter  knelt 
when  he  besought  God  for  the  life  of  Dorcas  (ix. 
40);  St.  Paul,  when  at  Ej)hesus  he  prayed  for 
the  elders  (xx.  36);  the  brethren  at  Tyre  and 
their  wives  and  cliildren  knelt  with  him  on 
the  shore,  when  he  left  them  to  go  to  Jerusalem 
(xxi.  .b).  In  the  language  of  the  same  apostle, 
“  bowing  the  knee  ”  to  God  is  synonymous  with 
“praying”  to  liim  (Eph.  iii.  14).  The  Christian 
knelt  in  prayer  more  than  the  unconverted 
Jew  ;  and  this  was  natural,  for  the  greater  know¬ 
ledge  of  God  produced  a  stronger  sense  of  un- 
worthiuess,  and  thus  led  to  more  marked  and 
frequent  expressions  of  humility  in  drawing  nigh 
to  him.  “The  bending  of  the  knees  is  as  a  token 
of  penitence  and  sorrow  ”  (Cassian.  Coll.  xxi.  c. 
XX.  p.  795).  This  was  the  recognized  principle, 
and  it  ruled  the  occasions  on  which  the  posture 
was  employed.  “  The  knee,”  says  St.  Ambrose, 
“  is  made  flexible,  by  which,  beyond  other  mem¬ 
bers,  the  offence  of  the  Lord  is  mitigated,  wrath 
appeased,  grace  called  forth  ”  (^Hexaemeron^  lib. 
vi.  c.  ix.  u.  74). 

Before  we  proceed  it  should  be  explained  that 
the  early  church  made  no  distinction  in  language 
between  “  kneeling  ”  and  “  prostration.”  It  is 
evident  that  men  did  not  kneel  upright,  but 
threw  themselves  more  or  less  forward,  so  that 
the  posture  might  have  either  name.  Some¬ 
times  indeed  they  so  supported  themselves  by 
putting  their  hands  or  arms  on  the  ground,  that 
“  kneeling”  was  a  position  of  rest  compared  with 
standing.  Thus  Cassian  complains  that  some 
western  monks,  when  prostrate  on  the  ground, 
“  often  wished  that  same  bowing  of  the  limbs 
(which  he  expressly  calls  genu  flectere')  to  be 
prolonged,  not  so  much  for  the  sake  of  prayer 
as  of  refreshment”  (^Instit.  lib.  ii.  c.  7).  The 
same  inference  may  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that 
the  third  class  of  public  penitents  were  indiffe¬ 
rently  called  kneelers  or  prostrators,  were  said 
either  yovv  kKIvuv,  genu  flectere,  or  inroiriiTTeiv,  se 
suhsternere.  Thus  in  a  canon  made  at  Neocaesarea 
in  Pontus  about  A.D.  314,  we  read,  can.  v.,  “  Let 
a  catechumen  ....  who  has  fallen  into  sin,  if  he 
be  a  kneeler  {y6vv  kKIpwu),  become  a  hearer.” 
Similai'ly  the  eighty-second  canon  of  the  so-called 
fourth  council  of  Carthage  held  in  398 :  “  Let 
penitents  (the  prostrators  were  especially  so 
called)  kneel  even  on  days  of  relaxation.”  But 
the  same  class  were  far  more  frequently  described 
as  prostrators.  For  example,  in  the  eleventh 
canon  of  Xicaea,  A.D.  325,  it  is  decreed  that  cer¬ 
tain  offenders  “  shall  be  prostrators  (^viroir^aovr- 
rat)  for  seven  years.”  (Compare  can.  xii. ;  Cone. 
Ancyr.  cann.  iv.  v.  &c.  ;  Greg.  Thaum.  viii.  ix.  ; 
Basil,  ad  Amphiloch.  Ivi.  Ivii.  tS:c.  ;  and  many 
others.)  A  more  direct  piece  of  evidence  comes 
from  the  7th  century.  Pseudo-Dionysius  (Z)<? 
Eccles.  Hierarch,  c.  v.  sed.  iii.  §  2,  tom.  i.  p.  364) 
says  that  “  the  approach  to  the  Divine  altar  and 
the  prostration  (of  candidates  for  holy  orders) 
intimates  to  all  who  are  admitted  to  priestly 
functions  that  they  must  entirely  submit  their 
personal  life  to  God,  from  whom  their  consecration 
comes,”  &c. ;  whereupon  his  scholiast  Maximus, 
A.D.  645,  explains  “prostration”  to  mean  “  kneel¬ 
ing  ”  (p.  375).  So  in  the  West,  as  late  as  the 
9th  centur}',  in  the  same  canon,  “  fixis  in  terram 


genibus  ”  and  “  humiliter  in  terram  prosterni  ” 
(Cbnc.  Turon.  .a  d.  813,  can.  37)  are  employed 
to  describe  the  same  posture.  Other  indications 
of  similar  usage  will  be  observed  in  some  passages 
below. 

Kneeling  or  prostration  was  probably  the 
general  posture  of  the  early  Christians  in  prayer 
not  regulated  by  public  authority.  Thus  Cle¬ 
mens  Romanus,  in  a  general  exhortation,  “Let 
us  fall  down  before  the  Lord,  and  beseech  Him 
with  tears,”  &c.  (Epist.  i.  rd  Cor.  c.  48).  When 
St.  Ignatius  prayed  for  the  churches  before  his 
martyrdom,  it  was  “cum  genuflexione  omnium 
fratrum  ”  (^Martyrium  S.  fgn.  c.  vi.).  Hermas 
represents  himself,  before  his  first  vision,  “  kneel¬ 
ing  down  and  beginning  to  pray  to  God  and  con¬ 
fess  his  sins”  (lib.  i.  vis.  i.  §  1).  Hegesippus, 
A.D.  170,  relates  that  St.  James  the  Just  “  u.sed 
to  enter  the  temple  alone,  and  to  be  found  lying 
on  his  knees  (Kfipevos  eVl  toTs  ^Jj/arrt)”  (Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  ii.  c.  xxiii.).  He  adds  that  his 
knees  from  continual  kneeling  became  callous 
like  tho.se  of  a  camel.  When  Eusebius  relates 
the  story  of  the  Melitine  legion  in  the  Mar- 
comauuic  war,  about  174,  he  says  of  the  Christian 
soldiers,  “  They  put  their  knees  on  the  ground, 
as  our  custom  is  in  prayer”  (/6u/.  lib.  v.  c.  v.). 
Tertullian,  having  referred  to  the  same  event 
some  sixteen  years  after  its  occurrence,  asks, 
“  When  have  not  even  droughts  been  driven 
awa}*^  by  our  kneelings  and  fastings  ?  ”  (AJ 
Scaptdam,  c.  iv.).  We  read  in  the  Life  of  St. 
Cyprian,  by  Pontius  his  deacon,  that  on  his  way 
to  death  he  “  knelt  on  the  earth,  and  prostrated 
himself  in  prayer  to  God  ”  (  Vit  i  0pp.  praefixa). 
Eusebius  tells  us  that  Constantine  the  Great 
used  “  at  stated  times  every  day,  shutting  him¬ 
self  up  in  secret  closets  of  his  palace,  there  to 
converse  alone  with  God,  and  falling  on  his  knees 
to  ask  importunately  for  the  things  whereof  he 
had  need  ”  (  Vita  Constant,  lib.  iv.  c.  xxii.).  In 
his  last  illness,  “kneeling  on  the  ground,  he  was 
a  suppliant  to  God,”  &c.  {Ibid.  c.  Ixi.).  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  speaking  of  his  sister’s  habits  of  devo¬ 
tion,  mentions  “  the  bowing  of  her  knees  become 
callous,  and  as  it  were  grown  to  the  ground” 
{Orat.  viii.  §  13.  Compare  St.  Jerome  in  Epist. 
ad  Marcellam  de  Aselld).  Augustine,  relating  a 
miraculous  answer  to  prayer  in  the  healing  of 
a  sick  person,  says,  “  While  we  were  fixing  our 
knees  and  laying  ourselves  on  the  ground  (terrae 
incumbentibus)  in  the  usual  manner,  he  flung 
himself  forward,  as  if  thrown  heavily  down  by 
some  one  pushing  him,  and  began  to  pray,”  &C. 
{De  Civ.  Dei,  lib.  xxii.  c.  viii.  §  2).  Elsewhere 
the  same  father,  speaking  of  private  prayer, 
says,  “They  who  pray  do  with  the  members 
of  their  body  that  which  befits  suppliants,  when 
they  fix  their  knees,  stretch  forth  their  hands,  or 
even  prostrate  themselves  on  the  ground”  {De 
Curd  pro  Mortnis,  c.  v.).  Only  in  this  last  passage, 
it  will  be  observed,  are  kneeling  and  prostration 
distinguished  from  each  other. 

But  the  early  Christians  knelt  or  prostrated 
themselves  as  each  chose,  in  the  stated  common 
worship  of  the  church  also.  Thus  Arnobius  : — 
“To  Him  {i.  e.  Christ)  we  all  by  custom  prostrate 
ourselves  :  Him  with  united  (collatis)  pra\'ers  we 
adore  ”(4c?u.  Cent.  lib.  i.  c.  27).  EpipLanius : 
“  The  church  commands  us  to  send  up  prayers 
to  God  without  ceasing,  with  all  frequency,  and- 
earnest  supplications,  and  kneeling  on  the  ap- 


GENUFLEXION 


GENUFLEXION 


725 


printed  days,  by  night  and  in  the  day,  and  in 
suine  places  they  celebrate  si/nnxes  even  on  the 
sabbath,”  &c.  (JJe  Fide,  §  24).  St.  Jerome  says 
that  it  is  according  to  “  ecclesiastical  custom  to 
bend  the  knee  to  Christ  ”  (Uoz/jm.  in  hai.  c.  xlv. 

'  V.  23)-.  St.  Chrysostom  {Horn,  xviii.  in  2  Cor. 
viii.  24),  of  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Commu¬ 
nion  : — “  Again,  after  we  have  shut  out  from  the 
saci’ed  precincts  those  who  cannot  partake  of  the 
Holy  Table,  there  must  be  another  kind  of  prayer, 
and  we  all  in  like  manner  lie  on  the  door  {d/xoiws 
iF  (Sdfpous  Kel/xeda),  and  all  in  like  manner  rise 
up.”  We  understand  this  better  on  a  reference 
to  the  liturgy  in  tlie  so-called  Apostolical  Con- 
stit'itions.  There  we  find  (lib.  viii.  c.  ix.  Coteler. 
tom.  i.  p.  396)  that  the  “  first  prayer  of  the 
faithful”  was  said  by  all  kneeling,  the  deacon 
crying  out,  “  Let  us,  the  faithful,  all  kneCl.” 
During  the  rest  of  the  liturgy  all  stood. 

At  other  times  of  service  the  rule  was  for  all 
to  kneel  in  prayer,  except  on  Sundays  and  be¬ 
tween  Easter  and  Whitsuntide.  Few  customs 
are  more  frequently  mentioned  by  early  writers, 
and  none  perhaps  more  frequently  said  to  be  de¬ 
rived  from  the  age  of  the  apostles.  The  earliest 
witness  is  Ireuaeus,  in  a  fragment  of  his  work  on 
Easter  preserved  in  the  “Questions  and  Answers 
to  the  Orthodox,”  Quae  t.  115,  ascribed  to  Justin 
Martyr.  Irenaeus  traced  it  to  the  apostles.  In 
answer  to  a  question  respecting  the  reason  and 
origin  of  the  custom,  ttie  latter  writer  says, 
“Since  it  behoved  us  always  to  remember  both 
our  own  fall  into  sins  and  the  grace  of  oui- Christ 
through  which  we  have  arisen  from  the  fall, 
therefore  our  kneeling  on  the  six  days  is  a  sign 
of  our  fall  into  sins,  but  our  not  kneeling  on  the 
Lord’s  day  is  a  sign  of  the  rising  again,  through 
which,  by  the  grace  of  Christ,  we  have  been 
delivered  from  our  sins  and  from  death,  their 
due,  now  itself  ])ut  to  death.”  Ibid.  Other  wit¬ 
nesses  are  Tertullian,  speaking  both  of  Sunday 
and  the  paschal  .season  {De  Cor.  Mil.  c.  iii. ; 
similarly,  De  Oral.  c.  xxiii.) ;  Peter  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  A.D.  301,  can.  xv.  of  Sunday  only.  The 
council  of  Xicaea,  325,  both  of  Sunday  and  the 
days  of  Pentecost,  can.  xx. ;  St.  Hilary,  also  of 
the  “  Week  of  Weeks  ”  and  the  Lord’s  day  both 
(^Prolog,  in  Psalm.  §  12),  who  refers  it  to  the 
apostles.  His  expression  is,  “No  one  worships 
with  his  body  prostrated  on  the  ground.”  E])i- 
phanius,  also  of  both  {De  Fide,  §  22).  St.  Basil, 
of  both,  as  an  apostolical  tradition  {De  Spiritu 
Saacto,  c.  Ixvi.,  al.  xxvii.).  St.  Jerome,  likewise 
of  both  {Ditd.  contr.  I.uciferianos,  c.  iv.) ;  and 
again,  of  the  fifty  days,  in  Prooem.  in  Fp.  ad 
Fph.,  “  We  neither  bend  the  knee  nor  bovv  our- 
telves  to  the  ground.”  St.  Augustine,  after 
giving  the  Scriptural  reason,  says,  “On  this 
account  both  are  fasts  relaxed  [during  the 
paschal  quinquagesima]  and  we  pray  standing, 
which  is  a  sign  of  the  resurrection,  whence  also 
the  same  is  observed  at  tlie  altar  on  all  Lord’s 
days.”  {Fp.  Iv.  ad  .lanuar.  c.  xv.  n.  28.  Compare 
c.  xvn.  n.  32.)  From  St.  Maximus  of  Turin, 
A.D.  422,  we  learn  the  same  facts  and  the  reason 
{Horn.  iii.  De  Pentec.).  Cassian,  a.d.  424,  men¬ 
tions  the  restriction  on  kneeling  at  those  times 
{Tnstit.  lib.  ii.  c.  xviii.  ;  Collat.  xxi.  c.  xx.).  In 
the  collection  of  canons  put  forth  by  Martin,  a 
Pannonian  b}'  birth,  but  bishop  of  Bracara  in 
Spain,  A.D.  560,  the  same  prohibition  occurs, 
borrowed  from  a  Greek  or  oriental  source  (can.  I 


Ivii.)  His  words  are,  “non  prostrati,  nec  hum!- 
liati.”  The  90th  canon  ol'  the  Tnillan  council, 
held  at  Constantino})le  in  691,  forbids  kneeling 
“from  the  evening  entrance  of  the  juicsts  to  the 
altar  on  Saturday  until  the  next  evening  on  the 
Lord’s  day.”  The  council  does  not  mention  the 
longer  period,  and  its  object  seems  to  have  been 
merely  to  .settle  the  hours  at  which  tlie  obser¬ 
vance  should  begin  and  end. 

From  the  fact  that  the  20th  canon  of  Nicaea 
is  not  found  in  the  abridgement  of  canons  by 
Ruffinus  {Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  x.  c.  v.),  nor  in  an 
ancient  codex  supposed  to  be  the  authorised  col¬ 
lection  of  the  church  of  Rome,  Quesnel  {Diss. 
xii.,  at  the  end  of  St.  Leo’s  Works,  c.  v.)  supposed 
that  the  custom  of  not  kneeling  on  Sunday,  &c. 
was  never  received  at  Rome.  See  Routh,  0/  US- 
cula,  tom.  ii.  p.  444,  or  Reliquiae  Pacriie,  tom.  iv. 
p.  75,  ed.  2.  We  find,  however,  that  the  prohi¬ 
bition  was  enforced  in  the  dominions  of  the 
Frankish  princes  after  they  had  imposed  the 
Roman  office  on  their  subjects.  Those  times 
were  excepted  from  the  general  order  for  kneel¬ 
ing  at  prayer  made  by  the  third  council  of  Tours, 
A.D.  813,  can.  37.  It  was  forbidden  by  a  capitu¬ 
lary  of  Louis  the  Godly,  a.d.  817  {Capit.  Reg. 
P'ranc.  tom.  ii.  col.  586,  cap.  li.)  during  “the 
Pentecost  week.”  Rabanus  Maurus,  also,  at 
Mentz,  A.D.  847,  says,  as  if  vouching  for  a  present 
fact,  “On  those  days  the  knees  are  not  bent  in 
prayer.”  “  On  the  Lord’s  day  we  pray  standing  ” 
{De  Distit.  Cler.  lib.  ii.  cc.  41-2).  It  is  verv 
improbable,  therefore,  that  the  custom  was  not 
known  and  observed  at  Rome. 

In  all  the  ancient  liturgies  except  the  Roman, 
if,  indeed,  that  be  an  exception  (see  Scudamore’s 
Notitia  Eucharistica,  p.  579),  the  bishop  gave  a 
blessing  before  the  communion.  In  all  but  the 
Clementine  this  was  preceded  bya'monition  from 
the  deacon:  e.g.,  in  St.  James  and  St.  Basil, 
“Let  us  bow  down  our  heads  unto  the  Lord;” 
in  St.  Chrysostom,  “  Bow  down  your  heads  unto 
the  Lord”  {LPurg.  PP.,  pp.  32,  66,  102);  in 
St.  Mark,  “  Bow  your  heads  to  Jesus  Christ  ” 
(Renaud.  tom.  i.  p.  160);  in  the  Mozavabic, 
“Humiliate  vos  benedictioni  ”  {Missale,  Leslie, 
pp.  6,  246);  in  a  Roman  Ordo,  earl),  but  of  un¬ 
certain  date,  “Humiliate  vos  ad  benedictionem  ” 
(Ord.  Au.  §  11,  Mus.  Ltal.  tom.  ii.  p.  75).  Several 
liturgies  had  a  benediction  after  the  communion 
also,  for  which  the  people  bowed  themselves. 
In  some,  indeed,  the  deacon  here  repeated  his 
direction.  See  St.  James  {Lit.  PP.  j).  39) ;  the 
Greek  Alexandrine  of  St.  Basil  and  of  St.  Cyril 
(Renaud.  tom.  i.  pp.  85,  125).  In  Egypt,  for  this 
reason,  benedictions  were  usually  called  “  Prayers 
of  Inclination,”  or  “  Of  Bowing  the  Head  ”  (Re¬ 
naud.  u.  s.  pp.  35,  36,  50,  77,  &c.).  The  same 
gesture,  similarly  bidden  by  the  deacon,  was  em¬ 
ployed  in  other  parts  of  the  service.  See  St. 
James,  u.  s.  p.  9,  and  Renaud.  u.  s.  })p.  77,  79, 
105,  &c.  In  particular,  the  catechumens  bowed 
while  the  prayer  j)roper  to  them  was  said  before 
their  dismissal.  Thus  the  deacon,  in  St.  Basil 
and  in  St.  Chrysostom  :  “  Ye  catechumens,  bow 
down  your  heads  unto  the  Lord”  {Lit.  J*P.,  pp. 
48,  87).  The  Malabar:  ‘Incline  your  heads  for 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  receive  the  blessing” 
{Llist.  Eccl.  Malab.  Raulin,  p.  304). 

Two  sermons  of  Caesarius,  bishop  of  Arles, 
A.D.  602,  illustrate  our  subject,  as  regards  the 
habits  of  the  people,  in  a  graphic  manner: — “I 


720  GEOGRAPHY,  ECCLESIASTICAL 

intreat  and  admonish  you,  dearest  bretlueii,  that  I 
as  often  as  ))rayer  is  said  by  the  clergy  at  the 
altar,  or  j)rayer  is  bidden  l)y  the  deacon,  ye  faith¬ 
fully  bow,  not  yo\ir  hearts  only,  but  your  bodies 
also;  for  when  I  often,  as  1  ought,  and  heedfully 
take  notice,  as  the  deacon  cries,  ‘Let  us  bend  our 
knees,’  I  see  the  greater  part  standing  like  up¬ 
right  columns.”  “Let  it  not  be  grievous  to 
him,  who  from  some  weakness  cannot  bend  his 
knees,  either  to  bow  his  back  or  incline  his  head.” 
Again:  “In  like  manner  1  admonish  you  of  this, 
dearest  brethren,  that  as  often  as  the  deacon 
shall  j)roclaim  that  ye  ought  to  bow  yourselves 
for  the  benediction,  ye  faithfully  incline  both 
bodies  and  heads  ;  because  the  benediction, 
though  given  to  you  through  man,  is  yet  not 
given  from  man.”  (^Scnn.  Cues.  Ixxxv.  1,  5 ; 
Sim.  Ixxxiv.  §§  1,  2.) 

The  priest  himself  often  inclined  his  head 
during  the  prayers.  (See  St.  James,  u.  s.  pp.  7, 
13,  17,  &c.,  and  St.  IMark,  u.  s.  pp.  150,  153.) 
Many  observances  of  this  kind  are  lost  to  us 
from  the  want  of  rubrics  in  the  ancient  liturgies, 
or  from  their  incompleteness.  This  is  especially 
the  case  with  those  of  the  West ;  but  there  is  one 
Ordo  of  the  age  of  Charlemagne  in  which  the 
priest  is  directed  to  say  the  prayer  In  spiritu 
humilitatis  “  bowed  before  the  altai*.”  (Martene, 
Be  Ant.  Eacl.  Hit.  lib.  i.  c.  iv.  art.  xii.  ord.  v.). 
We  might  here  also  cite  the  Mozarabic  and 
Milanese  missals,  if  the  antiquity  of  their  rubrics 
vere  not  generally  uncertain. 

From  pseudo-Dionysius  we  learn  that  while 
bishops  and  ))riests  at  their  ordination  knelt  on 
both  knees,  deacons  knelt  on  one  only  {Be  Keel. 
Ilier.  c.  V.  §  ii.  tom.  i.  p.  364).  [W.  E.  S.J 

GEOGRAPHY,  ECCLESIASTICAL.  [No- 

TITIA.] 

GEORGIUS.  (1)  Chozebita,  Holy  Father, 
A.D.  820 ;  commemorated  with  Aemilianus,  Jan. 

8  {Cal.  Byzant.'). 

(2)  Of  Malaeum,  Holy  Father’,  (saec.  v.  vi.)  ; 
commemorated  April  4  {fb.). 

(3)  Bishop  of  Mitylene  (f  circa  816),  Holy  Fa¬ 
ther  ;  commemorated  April  7  {lb.). 

(4)  Deacon,  martyr  at  Cordova  with  Aurelius, 
Felix,  Nathalia,  and  Liliosa,  A.D.  852  ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Aug;  27  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(6)  MeyaXofxdpTvp  Kal  rpoiraiocpSpos,  A.D. 
296;  commemorated  April  23  {Cal.  Byzant.)'^ 
“Natale,”  April  23  (d/arL  Bedae) ;  the  dedica¬ 
tion  {iyKOLivia)  of  his  church  in  Lydia  is  comme¬ 
morated  on  Nov.  3  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(6)  De  monte  Atho ;  commemorated  June  27 
{Cal.  Georg.). 

(7)  Victoriosus;  commemorated  Sept.  28  {Cal. 

Armen.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GKRASIMUS,  Holy  Father,  b  ivAopUvy, 
in  the  time  of  Constantine  Pogonatus;  comme¬ 
morated  March  4  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GEREON,  martyr  with  318  others  at  Co¬ 
logne  under  Maximian ;  commemorated  Oct.  10 
{Mart.  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi ).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GERMANICA  CONCILIA,  councils  cele¬ 
brated  in  Germany,  but  at  places  unknown. 

1.  A.D.  743,  probably,  being  the  first  of  five 
.'■•aid  to  have  met  under  St.  Boniface  by  his 
biographer,  but  great  obscurity  hangs  over  their 
date,  number,  and  canons,  to  say  the  least. 


GERONA,  COUNCIL  OF 

Mansi  really  settles  nothing  (xii.  355  and  seq.\ 
and  tlie  Oxford  editors  of  Wilkins  still  less  (iii. 
382,  note).  Again,  in  the  ))reface  to  this 
council  it  is  Carloman,  mayor  of  tlie  j)alace  who 
sjjeaks,  and  its  seven  canons,  besides  running  in 
his  name  foim  the  first  of  his  capitularies 
(Mansi,  ib.  366,  and  App.  104).  Certainlv, 
the  first  of  them  constituting  Boniface  arch¬ 
bishop  over  the  bishops  of  his  dominions  cannot 
have  been  decreed  but  by  him.  True,  there  is  a 
letter  from  Boniface  to  pojje  Zachary  requesting 
leave  for  hohling  a  synod  of  this  kind,  which 
was  at  once  given  (Mansi,  ib.  312-19),  and  in 
another,  purporting  to  be  from  Boniface  to  arch¬ 
bishop  Cuthbert  (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Couneih, 
iii.  376),  three  sets  of  canons  are  quoted  as 
having  been  decreed  by  the  writer,  of  which 
these  form  the  second.  Still,  even  so,  when  and 
where  were  the  other  two  sets  ])assed  ?  What 
Mansi  prints  (xii.  38.’))  as  “  statutes  of  St.  Boni¬ 
face  ”  in  one  place,  were  probably  tlie  work  of  a 
later  hand,  as  he  says  in  another  {ib.  362). 

2.  A.D.  745,  at  Mayence  possibly,  where  Alde- 
bert  and  Clement  were  jn  onounced  heretics,  and 
Gervilion  of  Mayence  deposed  to  be  succeeded  by 
Boniface  (l\Iansi,  ib.  371). 

3.  A.D.  747,  at  which  the  first  four  general 
councils  were  ordered  to  be  I'eceived.  Possibly 
the  tenth  of  the  letters  of  po})e  Zachaiw  may 
relate  to  this  (Mansi,  ib.  409  and  342). 

4.  A.D.  759,  at  which  Othmar,  abbot  of 

St.  Gall,  xvas  unjustly  condemned  (Mansi,  ib. 
660).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

GERMANICUS,  martyr  at  Smyrna  under 
Marcus  Antoninus  and  Lucius  Aurelius  ;  comme¬ 
morated  Jan.  19  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis.  Usu¬ 
ardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GERMANUS.  (1)  Bishop  of  Paris  and 
confessor  (tb76  A.D.)  ;  commemorated  l^Iay  28 
(J/arL  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi);  translation  {de¬ 
position,  Ado)  July  25  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Bishop  of  Auxerre  and  confessor  ;  “  iran- 
situs  ”  commemorated  July  31  {Mart.  Jlieron., 
Adonis,  Usuardi) ;  Aug.  1  {Mart.  Bedae) ;  trans¬ 
lation  {natalis,  Ado)  Oct.  1  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  [Donatiakus  (2).] 

(4)  Martyr  in  Spain  with  Servandus ;  com¬ 
memorated  Oct.  23  {Mart.  Bom.  1  et.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(5)  Martyr  at  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  with 
Caesarius,  Theo])hilus,  andYitalis,  uudei’ Decius : 
commemorated  Nov.  3  {Ib.). 

(6)  Of  Constantinople,  a.d.  730  ;  commemo¬ 
rated  May  12  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GERONA,  COUNCIL  OF  {Gerundense  eon- 
eilium),  held  a.d.  517,  at  Gerona  in  Catalonia, 
and  passed  ten  canonS  on  discipline,  to  which 
seven  of  the  ten  bishops  present  at  the  synod  of 
Tarragona  the  year  before  subscribed.  By  the 
first  the  order  laid  down  for  celebrating  mass  and 
saying  the  psalter  and  ministering  in  general 
throughout  the  province  of  Tarragona  is  to  be 
that  of  the  metropolitan  church.  By  the  last 
the  Lord’s  prayer  is  to  be  said  on  all  days  after 
matins  and  vespers  by  the  priest.  By  the 
second  and  third  rogation  days  are  to  be  kept 
with  abstinence  twice  a  year:  viz.,  the  three  last 
davs  of  Whitsun  week,  and  the  first  three  davs  in 
November  ;  or,  one  of  the’.u  being  a  Sunday,  ttie 


GERONTIUS 


GIRDLE 


727 


three  last  days  of  the  week  following  (Mansi, 
viii.  547  and  seq.).  [K.  S.  Ff.] 

GERONTIUS,  bishop  of  Sevilla  la  Vioja  in 
Spain  (saec.  i.) ;  commemorated  Aug.  25  (Mart. 
Usuardi).  F.  G.] 

GERTRUDIS,  virgin,  martyr  in  Ireland ; 
commemorated  March  17  (Mart.  Bedae,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GERUNDENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Gerona, 
Council  of.] 

GERVASIUS,  martvr  at  Milan  with  Prota- 
sius,  his  brother,  under  Nero  ;  commemorated 
June  19  (Mart.  Bedae,  Flieron.,  Cal.  Carthaj., 
Cal.  et  Sacrament.  Frontonis,  Mart.  Adonis,  Usu¬ 
ardi);  also  with  Nazarius,  and  Celsus,  June  19 
(Mart.  Bom.  Vet.),  and  Oct.  14  (Cal.  Biizant.). 

[VV.  F.  G.] 

GERVASIUS  AJND  PROTASIUS,  SS., 
IN  Art.  The  ba.silica  of  St.  Ambrose  in  Milan 
was  dedicated  by  him,  June  19th  387,  to  these 
martyrs,  whose  bones  he  transferred  to  it.  The 
name  of  the  church  has,  however,  been  derived 
by  posterity  from  that  of  its  founder.  The 
author  may  refer  to  the  personal  testimony  of 
Father  Ambrose  St.  John  of  the  Oratory,  as  to 
a  late  discovery  of  bones  in  the  Basilica  of  St. 
Ambrose,  which  seems  strongly  to  confirm  the 
tradition  of  the  burial  of  actually  martyred 
persons  among  its  foundations.* 

St.  Gervasius  api)ears  repeatedly  in  the 
paintings  of  the  Ambrosian  basilica,  especially 
m  the  great  mosaic  of  the  apse  (Sommerard, 
Album  des  Arts,  pi.  xi-x:.  9  serie).  St.  Protasius 
is  with  him,  as  in  other  parts  of  the  church. 
This  mosaic  cannot  be  later  than  the  9th  century, 
and  may  probably  be  of  the  same  date  as  that  in 
the  great  church  of  St.  Apollinaris  in  Classe  at 
Ravenna,  7th  century.  (See  Ciampini  Vet.Monu- 
menta,  tom.  ii.  pi.  xxv.  No.  11,  and  p.  95  in  text.) 
Two  portrait  medallions  of  these  saints  are  to 
be  seen  in  the  church  of  St.  Vitale  in  the  same 
city.  [R.  St,  J.  T.] 

GETULIUS,  martyr  at  Rome  with  Aman- 
tius,  Cerealis,  and  Primitivus,  in  the  time  of 
Adrian  (circa  124  a.d.)  ;  “  passio,”  June  10 
(Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GIDEON  or  GEDEON,  the  prophet ;  com¬ 
memorated  with  Joshua,  Sept.  1  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet., 
Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GIFTS.  [Arrhae;  Elements,  p.  600.] 

GILBERTUS,  “in  territorio  Parisiacensi, 
VICO  Christoilo commemorated  with  Agoadus, 
and  innumerable  others  of  both  sexes,  J^ine  24 
(Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GILDARDUS,  bishop  of  Rouen  (fpost  508); 
“  natalis  ”  June  8  (Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GILDING.  A  frequent  mode  of  decorating 
the  interiors  of  churches  was  by  gilding.  The 
earliest  reference  we  have  to  it  is  in  the  letter 
of  the  emperor  Constantine  to  Macarius,  bishop 
of  Jerusalem,  relating  to  the  church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre,  which  he  was  about  to  have  built, 
consulting  him,  among  other  points,  as  to  the 

*  See  note,  p.  433,  J.  II.  Newman’s  Historical  Sketches, 
Pickering,  1872.  A  letter  of  the  greatest  interest,  which 
seems  to  leave  little  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  authenticity 
of  the  bodies  of  St,  Ambrose  and  the  two  martyrs. 


character  of  the  ceiling  he  wished  to  have  con¬ 
structed.  The  emperor  evidently  inclined  to  a 
ceiling  divided  into  panels  (Aa/cwvapia,  laqucata), 
inasmuch  as  it  could  be  decorated  with  gold 
(Euseb.  Vit.  Const,  iii.  c.  32).  This  ])lan  was 
carried  out  on  the  most  magnificent  scale,  and, 
“  bv  means  of  compartments,  stretched  its  vast 
expanse  over  the  whole  basilica,  covered  through¬ 
out  with  resplendent  gold,  so  as  to  make  the 
whole  temple  dazzling  as  with  a  blaze  of  light  ” 
([b.  c.  36),  The  beams  of  the  roof  of  the  basilica 
of  St.  Paul  at  Rome  were  originally,  A.D.  386, 
covered  with  gold-leaf. 

“Bracteolas  trabibus  sublevit.  ut  omnis  aurulenta 
Lux  esset  intus.  ceu  jubar  sub  ortu.” 

(I’fctron.  I’assio  Beat.  Apost.) 

The  church  built  by  St.  Paullnus  at  Nola  had 
also  a  panelled  ceiling,  “  alto  et  lacunato  cul- 
mine  ”  (Paulin.  Epist.  xxxii.  12),  but  gilding 
is  not  expressly  mentioned.  References  to  these 
ceilings  of  gilded  panelling  are  freciuent  in 
Jerome,  who  speaks  of  “  the  laquearia  and  roofs 
gleaming  with  gold,”  “the  gilded  ceilings,”  and 
the  like,  with  some  expression  of  regret  that  so 
much  that  might  have  been  devoted  to  Christ’s 
poor  was  lavished  on  architectural  decoration 
(Hieron.  lib.  ii.  in  Zach.  viii. ;  Epist.  ii.  ad  Nepot. ; 
Epiit.  viii.  ad  Demetriad.).  From  the  last-quoted 
passage  we  learn  that  the  capitals  of  the  pillars 
were  also  gilt,  and  that  the  altai’s  were  orna¬ 
mented  with  gold  and  jewels.  In  the  moi-e  mag¬ 
nificent  churches  erected  in  Justinian’s  reign, 
the  altars  were  often  of  silver  plated  with  gold. 
The  altar  given  by  Pulcheria,  a.d.  414,  to  the 
church  at  Constantinople  was  elaborately  con¬ 
structed  of  gold  and  precious  stones  (Soz,  II.  E. 
ix.  1).  This  was  surpassed  by  the  altar  given 
by  Justinian  to  St.  Sophia,  which  w'as  all  of  gold 
resplendent  with  gems  (Ducange,  Constantinop. 
Christ,  lib.  iii.  p.  47).  The  altar  at  St.  Ambrogio, 
at  Milan,  made  A.D.  835,  is  covered  with  plates 
of  gold  and  silver,  with  subjects  in  high  relief 
[Altar,  p.  64].  The  domes  which  crowmed  the 
early  churches  in  the  East  were  often  gilt  ex¬ 
ternally.  (Bingham,  Grig.  Eccl.  VIII.  viii.  5; 
Neale,  Eastern  Church,  Introd.  p.  182.)  [E.  V.] 

GIRDLE  (^dov-f]',  balfeus,  cingulum,  zona). 
Amonv  nations  who  wore  long  flowing  robes,  it 
is  obvious  that  the  use  of  the  girdle  w’ould  be 
necessary  for  convenience  in  walking,  or  in  active 
W’ork.  This  very  way,  how'ever,  of  using  the 
girdle  would  cause  it  to  be  more  or  less  hidden 
by  the  dress :  and  thus  w'C  are  a  priori  prepared 
for  the  fact  that,  while  in  the  early  Christian 
centuries  we  continually  meet  with  the  girdle 
used  as  a  matter  of  practical  convenience,  it 
is  not  till  the  eighth  century  that  we  find  it 
recognized  as  an  ecclesiastical  vestment  strictly 
so  called.  The  use  of  it  in  these  earlier  times 
seems  not  unfrequently  to  have  carried  with  it 
the  idea  of  an  imitation  of  the  ancient  Jewish 
prophets,  and  thus  to  have  been  worn  by  those 
who  followed  a  monastic  life,  and  those  who 
profe.ssed,  in  reality  or  in  seeming,  to  imitate 
their  austerities.  We  find,  for  example,  pope 
Celestinus  I.  (ob.  432  a.d.)  finding  fault  with 
those  who,  by  affecting  this  style  of  dress 
(“amicti  pallio  et  lumbos  praecincti ’*),  seemed 
to  claim  for  themselves  a  .sanctity  of  life  not 
rightly  theirs  (E/Avt.  4  ad  Episc.  Vienn.  et 
Narh.  c.  2 ;  Batrol,  1.  431).  Salvianus  (ob, 


728 


GIRDLE 


GLADIATORS 


circa  495  a.d.)  refers  to  the  same  idea,  in  the 
words  addressed  to  an  unworthy  monk,  “  licet 
fideni  cingulo  afferas  ”  {Adv.  avaritiam  iv.  5 ; 
I'otrol.  liii.  232).  See  also  Basil  (Epist.  45  ad 
mona»hum  lipS'im ;  Patrol.  Gr.  xxxii.  366).  To 
take  an  instance  of  a  dilferent  type,  Kulgentius 
(ob.  533  A.D.)  on  his  elevation  to  the  see  of  | 
Ruspe,  is  said  in  his  biography  (formerly  attri-  j 
buted  to  Ferrandus  Diaconus)  to  have  retained 
the  girdle  with  the  re.st  of  the  monastic  habit — 

‘‘ pelliceo  cingulo  tanquam  monachus  utebatur” 
(c.  37 ;  Patrol.  Ixv.  136).  The  Rule  of  St. 
Benedict  forbad  the  laying  aside  of  the  monastic 
girdle  even  at  night ;  for  the  monks  were  to 
.sleep  “  vestiti  .  .  .  et  cincti  cingulisaut  funibus  ” 
(^Regula  S.  Benedicti^  c.  22  :  see  also  Regula  S. 
Donati,  c.  65). 

It  may  further  be  remarked  that  the  gii*dle 
was  commonly  worn  as  an  ornament  by  so¬ 
vereigns  and  nobles.  Thu.s,  in  a  homily  once 
assigned  to  Chrysostom,  but  now  generally  be¬ 
lieved  to  be  a  work  of  the  sixth  century,  the 
girdle  is  spoken  of  as  an  ordinary  ornament  of 
kings,  and  with  this  royal  use  of  it  is  compared  the 
girdle  of  our  Lord  (i/om.  de  Uno  Legislatore,  c.  3  ; 
vol.  vi.  409,  ed.  Montfaucon).  It  will  readily 
be  seen  how  important  a  bearing  the  above  facts 
have  on  the  main  general  question,  to  which  we 
can  only  refer  thus  in  passing,  as  to  whether 
the  dress  of  the  early  Christian  ministry  -was 
derived  from  that  of  the  Levitical  priesthood. 
In  this  last,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  girdle 
was  a  very  important  element. 

It  has  been  said  that  it  was  not  till  the  8th 
century  that  v/e  meet  with  the  girdle  as  an  eccle¬ 
siastical  vestment  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
word.  It  is  true  that  we  do  meet  with  references 
to  it  at  an  earlier  period,  as  to  tiiat  worn  by 
Gregory  the  Great,  which  later  generations  are 
said  by  his  biographer  to  have  regarded  as  a 
precious  relic  ( Joannis  Diaconi  Vita  S.  Greg. 
Magni^  iv.  80;  Patrol.  Ixxv.  228).  Still,  it  must 
be  remembered,  the  use  of  an  article  of  dress  by 
ecclesiastics  is  a  totally  different  thing  from  their 
use  of  it  because  they  are  eccle.siastics ;  and  for 
instances  of  this  latter  we  must  pass  on  to 
a  later  period. 

Perhaps  the  earliest  reference  of  this  kind  is 
one  by  Germanus,  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
(ob.  740  A.D.),  in  his  description  of  the  various 
priestly  vestments  (^Historia  Ecclesiastica  et 
Mystica  Conte mplatio ;  Patrol.  Gr.  xcviii.  394), 
in  which  he  also  alludes  to  the  napkin  attached 
to  the  girdle  worn  by  deacons  (r-h 
€7rl  rys  Rabanus  Maurus,  in  his  trea¬ 

tise  de  Institutione  Clericorum  (i.  17  ;  Patrol. 
evii.  306),  a  work  probably  written  about  the 
year  819  a.d.,  refers  to  the  girdle  as  one  of  the 
regular  Christian  vestments,  and  dwells  on  the 
svmbolism  of  it  at  some  length.  A  curious  in- 
junction,  for  which  a  curious  reason  is  given,  as 
to  the  wearing  of  the  girdle,  is  found  in  one  of 
the  so-called  Arabic  canons  of  the  council  of 
Nicaea,  edited  by  Abraham  Ecchelensis  (can.  66  ; 
Labbe  ii.  335).  According  to  this,  the  clergy 
are  forbidden  to  wear  a  girdle  during  divine 
service. 

In  earlier  times  the  girdle  was  often  doubt¬ 
lessly  richly  adorned :  the  reference  we  have 
already  given  to  its  regal  use  is  illustrative  of 
this,  and  we  may  further  cite  Chrysostom  {Horn, 
in  Psal.  48;  vol.  v.  521),  where,  inveighing 


against  various  articles  of  luxury  in  dre.«s,  he 
speaks  of  golden  girdles.  Apparently,  too,  this 
state  of  things  juevailed  after  the  girdle  became 
a  recognised  eccle.siastical  vestment,  the  exces¬ 
sive  ornamentation  being,  it  would  seem,  viewed 
as  a  secular  element  in  the  ecclesiastical  dress. 
Thus  we  find  Durandus  (ob.  1296  A.D.)  speaking 
of  the  clergy  in  the  time  of  the  emperor  Louis 
I.,  the  son  of  Charlemagne,  as  laying  aside 
“  Cingula  auro  texta,  exquisitas  vestes,  et  alia 
secularia  ornamenta  ”  {Rata/nale  Die.  Off.  iii.  1). 
A  further  illustration  of  this  is  furnished  by  the 
will  of  Riculfus,  bishop  of  Helena  (ob.  915  a.d  ), 
n  which  he  bequeaths,  among  other  precious 
articles,  “  zonas  quinque,  una  cum  auro  et  gem- 
mis  pretiosis,  et  alias  quattuor  cum  auro  ”  {Patrol. 
cxxxii.  468). 

Later  liturgical  writers  Houorius  Augus- 
todunensis  {Gemma  Aninuie,  i.  206  ;  Patrol. 
clxxii.  606),  Innocent  iii.  {de  Sacra  Altaris  mys- 
terio,  i.  52  ;  Patrol,  ccxvii.  793),  and  Durandus 
{Rat.  Div.  Ojff.  iii.  4)]  speak  further  of  an  under 
girdle  {subcingulum^  suhcinctorium.,  succincto- 
rium),  and  generally  as  a  vestment  peculiar  to 
bishops.  So  in  the  ancient  mass  given  bv 
Menard  {Greg.  Sacr.  col.  249)  from  the  Cd. 
Ratoldi,  the  bishop  puts  on  both  a  cingulum  and 
a  halteus,  the  former  perhaps  the  unseen  anc 
simple  primitive  girdle,  the  latter  the  elaborate 
ornament  of  later  times.  This  subject,  however, 
falls  beyond  our  limits ;  reference  may  be  made 
to  Bona  de  Rebus  Liturg.  i.  24.  15. 

A  brief  remark  may'  be  made  in  passing  as  to 
the  special  significance  of  the  girdle  in  reference 
to  the  bestowal  or  deprivation  of  office.  Thus 
Gregory  the  Great  congratulates  a  friend  “  ju-ae- 
fecturae  vos  suscepisse  cingula  ”  {EpVt.  x.  37  ; 
Patrol.  Ixxvii.  1094).  Atto,  bishop  of  Ver- 
cellae  (ob.  circa  960  a.d.),  writing  to  one  bishop 
Azo,  orders  that  a  man  who  should  contr;:ct  a 
marriage  within  the  prohibited  degrees  “  t  i:;_nli 
sui  patiatur  amissionem  ”  {Epist.  5;  P  t‘r>.l. 
cxxxiv.  107).  Similar  references  are  often 
found  in  the  Theodosian  code,  and  elsewhere 
(see  e.g.  Cod.  Theodos.  lib.  viii.  tit.  i.  1.  11  ;  lib. 
X.  tit.  26,  1.  1),  in  a  way  that  often  suggests  the 
belt  of  knighthood  of  later  times. 

For  further  references  to  the  subject  of  the 
girdle  in  its  different  aspects,  see  Ducange’s 
Glossarium  s.  vv.  ;  Marriott’s  Vestiarium  Chris- 
tianum,  p.  213,  etc.  ;  Hefele,  Die  liturgischen 
Gewander,  pp.  178  sqq. ;  Bock,  Geschichte  der 
lituraischen  Geudnder  des  Miiteldlters,  ii.  pp.  50 
.sqq.  [R.  S.] 

GLADIATORS.  A  passion  for  gladiatorial 
combats  had  a  strong  hold  upon  the  popular 
mind  of  pagan  Rome ;  and  under  the  empire 
magnificent  amphitheatres  were  built  for  such 
exhibitions,  and  others  of  an  almost  equally 
barbarous  nature,  w'hich  seem  to  have  presented 
a  peculiarly  fascinating  attraction  both  to  men 
and  women  in  those  times. 

Augustine  mentions  a  case  in  which  even  a 
Christian,  having  been  induced  to  be  present  at 
one  of  these  exhibitions,  and  having  kept  his  eyes 
closed  for  a  time — on  opening  them,  at  a  sudden 
outcry  which  he  heard,  instead  of  being  shocked 
or  disgusted  at  the  sight,  was  hurried  along  with 
the  spirit  of  the  assembled  people — was  over¬ 
come  with  a  wild  and  savage  delight  at  beholding 
the  scene  of  bloodshed  and  death,  and  carried 


GLADIATOES 


GLASS 


729 


away  with  him  an  inextinguishable  desire  to 
witness  the  same  spectacles  again  (August. 
Conf.  vi.  8). 

Some  pagan  moralists  expressed  more  or  less 
strongly  their  disap])robation  of  the  gladiatorial 
shows,  as  being  inhuman  and  demoralizing 
(Seneca,  Ep.  vii.  and  Pliny,  Ep.  iv.  22);  but 
they  were  too  popular  to  be  checked  by  such 
remonstrances;  and  nothing  effectual  was  done 
to  stop  them  until  they  were  opposed  and  finally 
suppressed  by  the  intervention  of  Christian  prin¬ 
ciples  and  Christian  heroism. 

The  church  expressed  its  abhorrence  of  these 
barbai'ous  games  as  soon  as  it  came  in  contact 
with  them,  not  only  by  discountenancing  attend¬ 
ance  at  them,  but  by  refusing  to  admit  gladiators 
to  Christian  baptism  (see  Constit.  Apostol,  viii. 
32).  In  this  canon,  charioteers,  racers,  and  many 
others,  are  included  in  the  same  condemnation ; 
probably  because  the  public  exhibitions  in  which 
they  took  a  part  were  more  or  less  connected 
with  idolatry.  And  for  the  same  reason  such 
persons,  if  they  had  already  been  received  into 
the  church,  were  to  be  punished  by  excommuni¬ 
cation  {Concil.  Are! at.  i.  4). 

The  first  imperial  edict  prohibiting  the  exhi¬ 
bition  of  gladiators  was  issued  by  Constantine  in 
A.D.  325,  just  after  the  council  of  Nice  had  been 
convened  {Cod.  Theod.  xv.  12,  1).  Forty  years 
later  Valentinian  forbade  that  any  Chi'istian 
criminals  should  be  condemned  to  fight  as  gladi¬ 
ators ;  and  in  A.D.  367  he  included  in  a  similar 
exemption  those  who  had  been  in  the  imperial 
service  about  the  court  (Palatini)  {Cod.  Theod. 
ix.  40,  8  and  11). 

Honorius,  at  the  end  of  this  century,  ordered 
that  no  slave,  who  had  been  a  gladiator,  should 
be  taken  into  the  service  of  a  senator  ((7o(7.  Theod. 
XV.  12,  3). 

All  these  edicts  resulted  from  the  operation  of 
Christian  principles  and  feelings,  and  they  show 
the  rise  and  growth  of  a  more  civilized  opinion, 
which  these  imperial  utterances  also  helijed  to 
promote ;  but  they  produced  little  or  no  direct 
effect  in  putting  a  stop  to  such  exhibitions. 

The  decree  of  Constantine  seems  to  have  ap¬ 
plied  only  to  the  province  of  Phoenicia — to  the 
pi-efect  of  which  it  was  addressed ;  or,  at  any 
rate,  it  very  soon  became  a  dead  letter ;  for  a 
few  years  later  Libanius  alludes  to  gladiatorial 
shows  as  still  regularly  exhibited  in  Syria 
(Libanius,  de  vita  sua,  3).  And  although  they 
^were  never  seen  in  Constantinople  —  where  a 
passion  for  chariot  races  seems  to  have  supplied 
their  place  —  yet  at  Rome  and  in  the  Western 
empire  they  continued  unrestricted,  except  by 
some  trifling  regulations.  Even  Theodosius  the 
Great,  though  in  some  things  very  submissive  to 
church  authorities,  compelled  his  Sarmatian 
prisoners  to  fight  as  gladiators ;  for  which  he 
was  applauded  by  Symmachus,  as  having  imi¬ 
tated  approved  examples  of  older  times,  and 
having  made  those  minister  to  the  pleasure  of 
the  people,  who  had  previously  been  their  dread 
(Symmachus,  Ep.  x.  61). 

Thus  these  sanguinary  games  held  their  place 
among  the  popular  amusements,  and  afforded 
their  savage  gratification  to  the  multitude  until 
their  suppression  was  at  last  effected  by  the 
courage  and  self-devotion  of  an  individual 
Christian. 

In  the  yeai’  404,  while  a  show  of  gladiators 


was  being  exhibited  at  Rome  in  honour  of  the 
victories  of  Stilicho,  an  Asiatic  monk  named 
Telemachus,  who  had  come  to  Rome  for  the 
purpose  of  endeavouring  to  stoj)  this  barbarous 
practice,  rushed  into  the  amphitheatre,  and 
strove  to  separate  the  combatants.  Tlie  spec- 
tatoi's — enraged  at  his  attempt  to  dej)rive  them 
of  their  favourite  amusement  —  stoned  him  to 
death.  But  a  deep  impression  was  produced. 
Telemachus  was  justly  honoured  as  a  martyr, 
and  the  emperor  Honorius — taking  advantage  of 
the  feeling  which  had  been  evoked — elfectually 
put  a  stop  to  gladiatorial  combats,  which  were 
never  exhibited  again  (Theodoret,  H.  E.  v.  26). 

[G.  A.  J.] 

GLASS,  (i.)  Window  glass. — The  use  of  glass 
in  windows  in  Roman  times  was  much  more 
common  than  was  formerly  supposed,  and  ex¬ 
amples  of  such  glass  have  been  met  with  not 
only  in  Pompeii,  but  in  our  own  country  in 
various  places.  It  was  also  used  by  Christians 
in  early  times,  though  perhaps  not  very  com¬ 
monly,  for  the  windows  of  their  churches,  and  then 
it  was  sometimes  coloured.  Thus  Prudentius, 
speaking  of  the  Basilica  of  St.  Paul,  built  by 
Constantine,  says  :  “  In  the  arched  window  ran 
(panes  of)  wonderfully  v'ariegated  glass  :  it  shone 
like  a  meadow  decked  with  s{)ring  flowers.”  “ 
Glass,  probably  of  the  church  destroyed  A.D.  420, 
has  been  lately  found  at  Trfeves  {Archaeol.  xl.  194). 
Venantius  Fortuuatus  {circa  560)  thus  speaks 
(lib.  ii.  poem.  11)  of  the  windows  of  the  church 
in  Paris  : 

“  Prima  capit  radios  vitreis  oculata  fenestris ; 

Ai  tificisque  manu  clausit  in  arce  diem." 

From  Gaul  artists  in  glass  were  first  introduced 
into  Britain  (a.d.  676)  by  Benedict  Biscop 
for  the  church  windows  at  Weremouth  in  Dur  ¬ 
ham,  “  ad  cancellandas  ecclesiae  porticuumque  et 
coenaculorum  ejus  fenestras  ”  (Bed.  Vit.  S.  Bene¬ 
dict.  §  5).  Other  early  examples  nmy  be  seen 
in  Ducagge,  s.  v.  Vitreae,  and  Bentham’s  Bist. 
and  Ant iq.  of  Ely,  p.  21  (ed.  2).  Pope  Leo  III. 
{circa  79b)  adorned  the  windows  of  the  apse  of 
the  basilica  of  the  Lateran  with  glass  of  sevei-al 
colours,  “  ex  vitro  diversis  coloribus  ”  (Anastasius 
Vitae  Pordiff.  p.  208,  C.  ed.  Murat.) ;  and  this, 
as  some  think,  “  is  the  earliest  instance  of  the 
kind  that  can  be  cited  with  confidence”  (Winston, 
Anc.  Glass  Paint.,  }).’2  ;  Fleury,  H.  E.  xlvi.  20). 

Painted  glass  belongs  apparently  to  an  age 
a  little  later  than  the  present  work  embraces. 
“  It  is  a  fact,”  says  M.  Labarte,  “  acknowledged 
by  all  archaeologists,  that  we  do  not  now  know 
any  painted  glass  to  which  can  be  assigned  with 
certainty  an  earlier  date  than  that  of  the  11th 
century  ”  {Handbook,  p.  69).  The  invention 
itself,  however,  may  perhaps  have  been  somewhat 
earlier.® 

“  “  Turn  camuros  liyalo  Inslgni  varle  cucurrit  arcus. 

Sic  prata  vernis  florlbus  renident.” 

I'erisUph.  xii.  53,  54. 

The  above  interpretation,  which  is  substantially  that  of 
Emeric  David  and  Labarte,  seems  much  preferable  to  that 
which  makes  hijalo  mean  mosaics  (Labarte,  Handbook  of 
Arts  of  Middle  Ages,  c.  ii.  p.  66,  ICngl.  trans.). 

b  Two  examples  only,  Ixjlonging  lo  this  century,  are 
figured  by  M.  l.aisteyrie  in  his  great  work,  Ilistoire  de  la 
Ptinture.  sur  Vert  e. 

c  'I'he  art  is  described  with  many  details  by  the  monk 
Theophilus,  whose  age  is  unfortunately  uncertain.  Lessing 


730 


GLASS 


GLASS 


(ii.)  Glass  vessels. — These  were  used  by  the 
Christians  as  well  as  by  the  heathen  for  inter¬ 
ment  with  the  dead,  and  the  so-called  lacryma- 
tories,  which  are  really  ungtient  bottles,  hav^e  been 
found  in  the  catacombs  of  Home  (Seroux  d’Agin- 
court,  /list,  de  V Art  'par  ses  Monum.  t.  viii.  f.  21, 
“Sculpture”),  and  elsewhere,  as  Todi,  Villeja, 
and  Sardinia :  the  vessels  are  of  various  kinds, 
and  are  sometimes  ornamented  with  letters  and 
sometimes  with  palm-branches  (De  Rossi,  Bull. 
Arch.  Crist.  1864,  p.  89).  Ferret  figures  a  long 
drinking-glas.s,  copied  here,  ornamented  with 
palms  (incised),  from  the  catacombs ;  at  the 
bottom  is  some  red  substance :  see  below.  The 
Slade  Collection,  recently  acquired  by  the  British 
Museum,  contains  a  vessel  of  the  same  general 
form,  of  white  glass,  found  at  Cologne,  probably 
of  the  4th  or  5th  century,  with  incised  figures 
of  Adam  and  Eve,  and  of  Moses  striking  the  rock. 


The  Sloane  Collection  in  the  same  museum  has 
a  plain  glass  beaker  from  the  catacombs  em¬ 
bedded  in  the  original  plaster :  likewise  a  glass 
ampulla  marked  with  a  cross  and  on  each  side, 
also  from  the  catacombs.  At  the  bottom  of  some 
of  the.se  small  vessels  has  been  found  a  dark 
crust,  and  it  has  been  made  a  question  whether 
this  is  the  sediment  of  the  blood  of  the  martyr 
buried  there  or  of  some  other  substance.  There 
are  even  some  vessels  inscribed  SANGVIS,  or 
SANG,  or  SA  (Aringhi,  Rom.  Suht.  t.  i.  p.  499) ; 
but  De  Rossi,  Garrucci,  and  Martigny  (^Dict. 
p.  592  q.  V.)  are  agreed  that  they  are  forgeries. 
These,  however,  do  not  necessarily  prove  that 
the  substance  found  in  genuine  glass  vessels  is 
never  in  any  case  blood  ;  and  according  to  Mar¬ 
tigny,  the  chemical  researches  of  Broglia  in  1845, 


gupposed  that  he  wrote  in  the  9th  century;  if  this  were 
BO,  the  invention  may  have  been  before  800 ;  but  it  is 
now  generally  admitted  tliat  his  age  must  be  later;  La- 
barte  thinks  that  he  probably  lived  in  the  12th  century. 
His  Diversarum  artium  Scfiedula  does  not  speak  of  the 
art  of  glass  as  being  a  new  invention,  See  Labarte  u.  s. 
pp.  4S--51, 


and  others,  have  shewn  that  at  the  bottom  of 
glass  veo.sels  found  in  Christian  tombs  at  Milan 
blood  is  still  to  be  recognised.  Without  im¬ 
pugning  the  honesty  or  the  correctness  of  these 
researches,  although  as  regards  the  latter  it 
would  be  satisfactory  if  some  confirmatory 
evidence  should  be  discovered,  it  is  allowable  to 
suppose  that  the  usual  unguents  (or  perhaps 
wine)  may  have  been  contained  in  other  of  these 
vessels.  The  early  Christians  al.so  employed 
glass  as  one  of  the  materials  for  chalices.**  See 
Chalice.  Their  most  remarkable  gla.ss  ve.ssel.s, 
however,  are  those  which  have  figures  in  gold  leaf 
inside  their  flat  bases;  and  these  have  hitherto 
been  found  almost  e.\clusively  in  the  Roman 
catacombs,  and  are  generally  considered  to  have 
been  made  in  Rome  alone.  Of  these  some  (about 
thirty)  are  in  the  British  Mu.seum,  a  smaller 
number  in  Paris,  a  few  others  in  various  Italian 
museums  and  in  private  continental  and  English 
collections,  more  particularly  that  of  Mr.  Wil- 
shere ;  from  which  last  the  South  Kensington 
Loan  Court,  and  the  Leeds  Art  Exhibition  in 
1868,  having  been  largely  enriched,  these  curievs 
relics  have  become  tolerably  familiar  to  many  of 
our  countrymen.  It  i.s,  however,  in  the  Kirche- 
rian  Museum  and  in  that  of  the  Propaganda,  and 
above  all,  in  the  Vatican  at  Rome,  that  the 
greatest  number  are  preserved.  From  these 
vaiious  sources,  and  from  the  works  of  Aringhi, 
Buonarotti,  Boldetti,  &c..  Padre  Garrucci  drew 
up  his  great  work  on  the  subject,  entitled  \etri 
ornati  di  figure  in  oro,  fol.  with  42  plate.s,  com¬ 
prising  figures  of  about  320  specimens,^  many, 
however,  being  quite  fragmentary  and  of  little 
value.  The  first  edition  appeared  in  Rome  in 
1858,  the  second  (much  enlarged)  in  1864.  As 
nearly  all  that  is  known, of  them  is  contained  in 
this  one  work,  which  has  been  also  used  in  illus¬ 
tration  of  various  articles  in  this  Dictionary, 
a  somewhat  slight  notice  may  suffice  for  this 
place.  The  greater  part  of  these  glasses  are 
manifestly  the  bottoms  of  drinking  cups  (the 
inscriptions  on  many  of  them  implying  as  much), 
some  few  have  been  plates.  “  Their  peculiarity,” 
say  Messrs.  Northcote  and  Brownlow,  “  consists 
in  a  design  having  been  executed  in  gold  leaf  on 
the  flat  bottom  of  the  cup,  in  such  a  manner  as 
that  the  figures  and  letters  should  be  seen  from 
the  inside.  .  .  .  The  gold  leaf  was  protected  by  a 
plate  of  glass  which  was  welded  by  fire,  so  as  to 
form  one  solid  mass  with  the  cup.  These  cups, 
like  the  other  articles  found  in  the  catacombs, 
were  stuck  into  the  still  soft  cement  of  the 
newly  closed  gi’ave  ;  and  the  double  glass  bottom 
imbedded  in  the  jdaster  has  resisted  the  action 
of  time,  while  the  thinner  portion  of  the  cup, 
exposed  to  accident  and  decay  by  standing  out 
from  the  plaster,  has  in  almost  every  instance 
perished.  Boldetti  informs  us  that  he  found  two 
or  three  cups  entire,  and  his  representation  of 
one  of  them  is  given  in  Padre  Garrucci’s  work, 
t.  xxxix.  7%?'’”  {Roma  Sotterranea,  p.  276). 

d  The  far-famed  Sacro  C.itino  of  Genoa,  taken  by  the 
Crusaders  at  Caesarea  in  1101,  made  of  glass  (not,  as  for¬ 
merly  supposed,  of  a  single  emerald)  has  been  fabled  to  be 
the  dish  used  at  the  Saviour’s  Last  Supper;  but  although 
it  is  undoubtedly  very  ancient,  it->  history  is  quite  un¬ 
known.  Some  account  of  it  is  ftivni  in  Murray’s  Hand¬ 
book  of  ^'ortheni  Italy,  under  “  Genoa.” 

e  About  twenty  others  arc  described  only ;  the  genuine 
neps  of  some  of  them  is  suspected. 


GLASS 


The  cup.  whose  figure  is  referred  to,  is  a  species 
ol’cylix,  \vitli  two  small  hiindles  (their  l>ases  being 
recurved)  at  the  sides,  without  a  stem  :  upon  its 
flat  bottom  are  two  three-quarter-length  figures 
in  a  medallion,  inscrilied  PETRV^S,  PAVLVS, 
the  two  apostles  who,  above  all  persons,  are 
by  far  the  most  freciuently  represented  in  the 
glass  of  the  catacombs.  Garrucci  figures  a  frag¬ 
ment  of  another  vessel  with  channelled  ribs, 
which  must  have  been  nearly  of  the  shape  of  our 
tumblers  (t.  xx.xviii.  f.  9,  b).  He  thinks  that 
others  must  have  been  in  the  form  of  a  half-egg 
{Pref.  p.  vii.).  Many  of  the  medallions  found  in 
the  catacombs  are  of  very  small  size,  little  more 
than  an  inch  in  diameter ;  these  were  long  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  centres  of  the  bottoms  of  small 
drinking-cups,  but  the  discovery  in  1864  and 
1866  of  two  flat  gilded  glass  plates  at  Cologne 
(both  broken)  has  revealed  their  real  character. 


On  one  of  these  plates,  found  near  the  church  of 
St.  Severinus.Libout  10  inches  in  diameter,  made 
of  clear  glass,  were  “  inserted,  while  in  a  state 
of  fusion,  a  number  of  small  medallions  of  green 
glass  exactly  similar  to  those  found  in  Rome, 
and  which  together  form  a  series  of  scriptural 
subjects.*:  These  medallions  being  of  double  glass 


f  “The  patcna  found  near  the  church  of  St.  Ursula 
differs  from  the  other  discovered  two  years  before,  in 
having  the  subj  ct-;  depicted  in  gold  and  colours  on  the 
surface  of  the  glass  in>t(  ad  of  being  within  medallions  of 
double  jjlass.  The  drawing  Is  aLso  of  a  better  style  of 
art.  It  is  now  in  the  Slade  Collection ’’ (Brownlow  and 
Northcote,  u.s.  pp.  277  294  ;  figured  in  Catalogue  of  Slade 
Collection,  p.  50)  The  subjects  represented  on  this  glass 
arc  Moses  at  the  Red  Sea,  Jonah,  Daniel  in  the  lions’  den. 
the  three  children  in  the  fiery  furnace,  the  sacriQce  of 
Isaac,  the  Nativity,  and  the  healing  of  the  man  sick  of 
the  palsy. 

g  A  figure  of  the  two  fragments  of  this  plate  is  given 
by  Messrs.  BrownU  w  and  Northcote,  u.s.  p.  290.  They 


.  GLASS  731 

h.avc  resisted  the  r.avages  of  time  .and  .accidents, 
which  have  destroyed  the  more  thin  and  fragile 
glass  of  the  patcna.  De  Rossi  has  seen  in  the 
jrlaster  of  loculi  in  the  catacombs  the  impression 
of  large  plates  of  this  descrijition,  which  have 
probably  perished  in  the  attemjit  to  detach  them 
from  the  cement”  (Brownlow  and  Northcote, 
u.  s.  p.  291). 

The  cups,  whose  bottoms  (or  parts  of  them) 
now  remain,  were  of  various  dimensions  ;  the 
largest  hitherto  found  have  medallions  of  about 
five  inches  in  diameter,  others  are  about  half 
that  size :  around  the  painted  juirt  there  was  a 
margin  of  plain  glass.  Sometimes,  but  very 
rarely  as  it  would  seem,  the  .side  of  the  cup  as 
well  as  the  bottom  was  ornamented  with  figures 
in  gold  leaf.  Garrucci  figures  one  fragment  of 
such  a  side  which  is  preserved  in  the  Kircherian 
Museum  **  (t.  xxxix.  f.  9).  The  figures  on  the 
gold  leaf  were  rendered  more  distinct  by  edging 
the  outlines  and  other  parts  with  dark  lines; 
and  other  colours  as  green,  white,  and  red  of 
various  tints  were  sparingly  introduced  :  also 
on  the  outside  of  the  glass  bottoms  various 
colours  are  found,  especially  azure,  also  green, 
violet,  indigo,  and  crimson  (Garrucci,  Pref. 
p.  vii.).i 

The  subjects  represented  on  these  glasses  may 
now  be  considered.  A  few  of  them  are  taken 
from  the  cl.assical  mythology  or  rejiresent  secu¬ 
lar  subjects,  whether  games  or  trades,  and  these 
may  probably  not  have  been  the  works  of  Chris¬ 
tian  artists  .at  all.*‘  It  is  indeed  an  unexplained 


contain  twenty  medallions.  Eight  of  these  have  only 
a  star  in  the  centre.  Three  others  appear  to  have  the 
three  children  in  the  Babylouian  furnace,  one  figure  in, 
each  medallion.  Four  others  have  the  history  of  Jonah 
in  as  many  parts; — in  the  ship;  under  the  gourd;  swal¬ 
lowed  by  the  whale;  and  vomited  out  by  the  same. 
Another  gives  Adam  and  Eve,  the  serpent  round  the  tree 
being  between  them.  The  interpretation  of  the  others  is 
less  certain.  One  has  a  figure  holding  a  rod,  w  hich  is 
supposed  to  be  the  Saviour  ;  probably  another  medallion 
contained  Lazarus.  It  is  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  I’epys  of 
Cologne.  See  De  Rossi,  Bull.  Arch.  Crist.  1864,  pp.  89-91  „ 
and  a  beautiful  figure  in  gold  and  colour. 

h  He  observes  :  “  b  I’unico  esempio  di  figura  dipinta  in- 
torno  al  corpo  di  una  tazza  e  non  sul  fondo. . .  .Ihippre- 
senta  poi  I’estremo  lembo  di  un  p.illio  orlato  di  una 
striscia  di  porpora,  e  notato  ancora  del  segno  I  in  color  di 
porpora  ”  p.  82. 

i  The  figures  in  Garrucci’s  work  are  uncoloured,  at  least 
no  coloured  copy  has  been  seen  by  the  w  riier.  in  Messrs. 
Brownlow  and  Northcote’s  w.  rk,  so  often  laid  under 
contribution,  are  two  beautiful  plates  (.wii.  and  xviii.) 
shewing  the  pale  bluish  colour  of  the  glass  and  the  pen¬ 
cilling  of  the  gold  leaf  with  deep  green,  ^lartigny  gives 
examples  of  the  use  of  colour  in  the  follow  ing  specimens, 
figured  by  Perret,  vol.  iv.  Purple  in  bands  on  the  dra¬ 
pery  (pi.  xxxiii.  114)  :  green  in  the  sea-waves  (xxix.  76): 
flesh-colour  in  the  face  of  the  Saviour  (xxxiii.  102). 
Silver  is  occasionally  used  for  white  garments  and  the 
bandages  of  a  corpse  (Lazarus),  in  other  cases  we  have 
gold  or  silver  figures  on  an  azure  ground  {l)kt.  p.  279). 

^  Garrucci  aud  Wiseman  consider  this  art  to  have  been 
exercised  by  tin*  Christians  a'one;  Imt  this  is  both^Wmd 
facie  improbable  and  does  not  very  well  acc.  rd  with  the 
existence  of  pagan  types  on  some  spi  ciinens  "  such  as  no 
Christian  artist  of  the  early  ag  s  would  ever  have  thought 
of  depiiting,”  being  w  holly  incapable  of  any  Christian 
adaptation.  S^e  Brownlow  and  Northcot",  u.s.  p.  278. 
It  must  be  confess  d,  however,  thatG  irriicci  (pref.  p.  xiv.) 
is  able  to  refer  to  a  silver  casket  hearing  Christian  em¬ 
blems  and  also  a  triton  and  a  nereid ;  as  w  1 11  as  to  -Sidoniue 


GLA;^S  . 


GLASS 


7r>2 

ditliculty  how  such  glasses  as  represent  Hercules, 
Minerva,  Serapis,  and  the  like  shouM  have  been 
found  in  Christian  catacombs  at  all  ;  if  indeed  it 
be  cerlain  that  they  were  found  there.*  It  is 
beside  the  present  purpose  to  say  more  of  these."’ 
The  greater  j)art  of  the  designs,  however,  are 
connected  with  the  Jewish  or  Christian  religion; 
and,  as  has  been  already  seen  in  part,  subjects 
from  the  Old  and  New  'J'estaments  are  sometimes 
grouped  together  on  the  sanie  glass.  A  descrip¬ 
tion  of  two  perfect  bottoms  of  cups,  forming  in 
each  case  a  circular  medallion,  will  show  the 
mode  of  treatment. 

(1)  A  bust  draped  in  the  centre,  enclosed  in  a 
circle  with  legend  ZKShS  (Am.'  /  i.e.  enjoi/  life!). 
Around,  without  distinction  into  compartments, 
but  with  leaves  and  pellets  interspersed,  are: 
Jesus  turning  the  water  into  wine;  Tobit  and 
the  fish  ;  Jesus  ordering  the  man  sick  of  the 
palsy  to  carrv  his  bed  ;  Jesus  present  with  the 
Three  Children  in  Nebuchadnezzar’s  furnace 
(Garrucci,  t.  i.  f.  1). 

(2)  Two  busts  (a  man  and  his  wife  ?)  draped 
in  the  centre,  enclosed  in  a  circle  as  before,  with 


Group  of  Scriptural  subjects  on  bottom  of  a  glass  vcscol, 
(Garrucci.) 


legend  PIE  ZESES  {Drink!  live!).  Around,  in 
the  same  style  as  before,  are  the  following  sub-_ 


Apollinaris  and  Ennodius  for  examples  of  the  same  kind 
of  thing:  yet  without  dwelling  on  the  fact  that  the  mo¬ 
nument  no  less  than  the  authors  very  possibly  belongs  to 
a  period  when  paganism  had  no  longer  any  vigorous  life 
(Visconti,  Opere  \'arie,  t.  1,  p.  212,  thinks  it  is  of  the 
fourth  or  fifth  century,  the  latter,  to  judge  from  the 
monument  itself,  which  now  reposes  in  the  British 
Museum,  seems  at  h-ast  as  probable  as  the  former),  and 
might  therefore,  as  now,  afford  subjects  for  Christian 
artists,  yet  the  paganism  on  these  glasses  is  more  seriously 
pronounced:  e.p.  t.  XXXV.  1,  “  In  nomine  llerculis  Acher- 
omini  (wrongly  written  Acerontino)  .  ,  .  felices  bibatis.” 
See  also  t.  xxxvr  8. 

I  Mes^rs,  Brownlow  and  Northcote  observe'  of  the 
Vatican  Collection  of  Christian  Antiquities,  that  but  very 
rarely  has  any  account  of  the  locality  in  which  they  have 
been  discovered  been  preserved.  It  is  to  be  suspected 
that  some  glasses  with  pagan  subjects  are  from  unknown 
localities,  ami  have  been  assumed  to  come  from  Christian 
catacombs  where  so  many  works  of  this  fabric  have  been 
discovered. 

“  They  are  figured  in  Garrucci,  t.  xxxiii.-xxxvi.,  and 
are  briefly  noticed  in  Brownlow  and  Northcote,  u.  s. 
p.  279. 


jects :  Christ  foretelling  redemption  to  Adam 
and  Eve  ;  the  sacrifice  of  I.saac ;  Moses  striking 
the  rock  ;  Jesus  telling  the  sick  man  to  carry  his 
bed  ;  Jesus  raising  Lazarus  (id  t.  i.  f.  3). 

More  usually,  however,  a  single  subject  occu¬ 
pies  the  bottom  of  the  glass.  Thus  we  have  on 
one  (t.  vi.  f.  1)  Christ  as  the  Good  Shepherd  bcar- 


The  GcxmI  Shepnera.  (Garrucci.) 


ing  a  lamb  on  his  shoulders,  with  a  sheep  and  tree 
on  each  side,  all  enclosed  in  a  circle  ;  and  the 
Greek  legend  enclosed  in  another  circle  outside, 
POY4>E  niE  ZHCAIC  META  TwN  CcuN 
nANTcoN  BOIT  (for  BIOT  ?),  i.e.  Drink,  Fufus, 
may  you  enjoy  life  with  all  yours!  long  life  to 
you!  On  another  glass  (t.  vi.  f.  9)  occurs  the 
same  subject  treated  a  little  differently,  with 
the  nearly  equivalent  Latin  legend:  Dignitas 
AMi(X>RVM  VIVAS  CVM  TVis  FELiciTER,  i.e.  Here’s 
to  our  worthy  friends  !  may  you  live  hapjyily  with 
all  yours  !  Diynitas  ainicorum,  a  frequently  re¬ 
curring  acclamation  on  these  glasses,  is  thought 
to  be  equivalent  to  diqni  amici,  the  form  in 


Christ  turning  Water  into  Wine.  (Garrucci.) 


which  a  Roman  host  drank  his  friends  health. 
On  another  (t.  vi.  f.  7),  bearing  the  same  subject 
enclosed  in  a  square,  we  have  the  legend :  Bibas 
(doubtless  for  vivas)  IN  PACE  Dei  concordi,  a 
double  border  of  dentels  being  enclosed  in  another 
outside  square.  On  another,  Christ  is  repre¬ 
sented  at  full  length  in  the  midst  of  seven  water* 


GLASS 


GLASS 


733 


pots  (for  the  six  of  the  Gospel  are  invariably 
changed  into  seven,  probably  from  a  symbolical 
feeling,  and  with  a  secret  reference  to  the 
eucharist),  surrounded  by  the  legend  Dignitas 
AMICORUM  VIVAS  IM  (sic)  PACE  DkI  ZkSES  : 
where  vivas  may  either  be  taken  for  b^as,  or 
(which  seems  better)  zeses  may  be  regarded  as 
a  superfluous  repetition  o(  vivas  (t.  vii.  f.  2). 

It  will  now  probably  be  thought  sufficient  to 
indicate  briefly  the  subjects  from  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  including  the  Apocrypha  and  from  the 
New,  w’hich  can  be  recognised  with  certainty  or 
probability  upon  these  glasses,  excluding  those 
on  the  Cologne  fragments.  They  are  all  con¬ 
tained  in  the  first  eight  plates  of  Garrucci’s 
work,  but  are  here  set  down  nearly  in  their 
Biblical  order.  Adam  and  Eve ;  Noah  in  the 
Ark;  Sacrifice  of  Isaac;  Joseph  in  the  pit  (?) ; 
Moses  striking  the  rock  ;  Moses  lifting  up  the 
brazen  serpent-  (?) ;  the  candlestick  and  other 
instruments  of  Mo-saic  worship ;  the  Spies  bear¬ 
ing  the  grapes  of  Canaan  ;  Joshua  commanding 
the  Sun  to  stand  still  (?) ;  Jonah’s  history  (in 
several  parts);  the  Three  Children  in  Nebu¬ 
chadnezzar’s  furnace;  Daniel  and  the  lions; 
Daniel  destroying  the  Dragon ;  Susannah  and 
the  Elders  (?);  Tobit  and  the  Fish. 

The  Wise  Men  offering  gifts  (?)  ;  Christ  turn¬ 
ing  water  into  wine  ;  Christ  healing  the  sick  of 
the  palsy ;  Christ  multiplying  the  seven  loaves ; 
Christ  raising  Lazarus ;  Christ  as  the  Good 
Shepherd. 

The  chrisma  or  monogram  of  Christ  is  also  of 
frequent  occurrence,  sometimes  in  connection 
with  Saints,  sometimes  interposed  between  a 
husband  and  wife,  sometimes  between  a  and  w 
(taw,  i.  vii.  xi.  xiv.  xvii.  xx.  xxv.  xxag.  xxix. 
xxxix.). 

The  only  representation  of  the  Crucifixion 
(t.  xl.  1)  is  considered  to  be  false. 

“The  Blessed  Virgin  is  represented  sometimes 
alone,  with  her  name  (MARIA)  over  her  head, 
praying  between  two  olive-trees,  sometimes  with 
the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul  on  either  side  of  her  ; 
sometimes  accompanied  by  the  virgin  martyr 
St.  Agnes”  (Brownlow  and  Northcote,  u.  s. 
p.  280).  The  apostles  most  frequently  repre¬ 
sented  (on  more  than  seventy  glasses)  are  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul,  their  names  being  added; 
sometimes  singly,  more  often  conjointly.  “  The 
two  apostles  are  represented  side  by  side,  some¬ 
times  standing,  sometimes  seated.  In  .some  in¬ 
stances  Christ  is  represented  in  the  air  .... 
holding  over  the  head  of  each  a  crown  of  vic¬ 
tory  ;  or  in  other  instances  a  single  crown  is 
suspended  between  the  two,  as  if  to  show  that 
in  their  death  they  were  not  divided.  This 
crown  becomes  .sometimes  a  circle  surrounding 
the  labarum  or  chrisma,  which  is  often  sup¬ 
ported  on  a  pillar,  thus  symbolising  ‘  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth  ’  ”  (Brownlow  and 
Northcote,  u.  s.  p.  285)."  We  have  also  single 


“  These  learned  writers  try  to  persuade  themselves 
that  these  glasses  gi\e  us  real  portraits  of  the  apostles, 
“excepting  a  few  wliich  are  of  very  inferior  execution.” 
Thej’  rely  principally  on  their  resemblance  to  a  bronze 
medal  said  to  have  lieen  found  in  the  cemetery  of  Domi- 
tilla,  now  in  the  Vatican,  of  which  they  give  a  beautiful 
figure  (pi.  xvii ),  and  which  they  say  "  has  every  appear¬ 
ance  of  having  been  executed  in  the  liine  of  the  Flavian 
emperors,  when  Grecian  art  still  flonrishetl  in  Home.” 
De  Kossi,  who  also  figures  this  medal  (^Bull.  Arch.  Crist. 


exam|)les  of  the  names  of  John,  Thomas,  Philip, 
and  Jude,  most  probably  the  apostles;  and  two 
or  three  other  names  which  occur  in  the  New 
Testament,  are  also  found  :  Lucas.  Silvanus,  Timo- 
theus,  Stephen  (written  Istephanus);  these  are 
probably  the  same  persons  whose  names  are  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  New  Testament.  (For  the  gla.sses 
on  which  these  names  occur,  see  Garrucci’s  Index, 
p.  109.) 

There  are,  besides  the  persons  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  a  good  many  others  which  are  of  note 
in  ecclesiastical  history.  St.  Agnes  occurs  more 
than  a  dozen  times,  St.  Laurence  seven  times, 
and  St.  Hippolytus  four  times ;  the  following 
among  others  occur  less  frequently,  St.  Cal- 
listus,  St.  Cyprian,  and  St.  Marcellinus,  the  last 
of  whom  was  martyred  under  Diocletian,  a.d.  304 
(see  Garrucci’s  Index,  as  above).  Besides  these, 
many  other  proper  names,  probably  of  the  pos¬ 
sessors,  occur  either  along  with  their  miniatures 
or  without  them  (see  Garrucci’s  Index,  as  before). 
There  is  nothing  which  deserves  to  be  called  a  real 
portrait  in  any  of  these  representations,  which 
are  mostly,  perhaps  all,  executed  in  the  debased 
style  of  the  4th  century  ;  and  as  the  saints  have 
no  emblems  attached  their  figures  have  but  little 
interest.  We  have  also  on  these  glasses  scenes 
of  domestic  Christian  life — married  life,  and 
family  life.  The  occurrence  of  the  chrisma 
makes  their  Christian  character  certain :  where 
this  or  the  name  of  Christ  or  God  does  not  occur, 
it  is  rash  to  say  anything  definite  (Garrucci, 
tavv.  xxvi. -xxxix.). 

A  few  more  words  may  suffice  for  the  inscrip¬ 
tions.  The  acclamations,  of  which  several  speci¬ 
mens  have  been  given,  are  mostly  of  a  convivial 
character,  and  either  in  Greek  (rarely),  or  in 
Latin  (most  usually),  or  in  a  mixture  of  the 
two  (not  unfrequently) :  °  none  of  them  at  all 
favour  the  supposition  that  they  were  used  as 
chalices.  Other  acclamations,  as  Vivatisin  Deo; 
and  Martvra  Epectete  vivatis,  express  good 
wishes  to  the  married  couple  {id.  t.  xxvi.  11,  12). 
On  a  x'ery  few  of  the  gla.sses  we  have,  as  it  ap¬ 
pears,  invocations  of  saints  or  legends  which 
acknowledge  their  ])atronage.  Thus  a  broken 
fragment  has  PETR  VS  PROTEG. ;  whether  any 
letters  followed,  it  is  impossible  to  say :  the 
word  may  either  be  protegit  or  protegat  or  even 
protege  {id.  t.  x.  f.  1).  Another  fine  but  meagre 
fragment  exhibits  the  Saviour  (apparently)  with 
the  chrisma  and  the  a  and  w,  bearing  a  Latin 
cross  with  legend,  ,.  . .  ane  (iSa/rfanc,  or  some 
other  proper  name)  vivas  I^r  Cr[isto  et]  Lav- 
rentio(2J.  t.  XX.  f.  1)  Another  ('/.  s.  f.  2),  which 
is  also  broken,  but  slightly,  has  ViTO  (or  perhaps 
Victor)  [viv]as  IN  nomine  Lavreti  (for  Zuw- 
renti).  The  inscrijjtion  PETRVS,  written  in  two 
instances  against  Moses  striking  the  rock  {id.  t.  x. 


Nov.  1861),  tliinks  it  Is  of  the  second  or  third  centurj-. 
Notwiihstanding  these  high  but  somewhat  discordant 
authorities,  the  writer  ventures  to  express  his  own  strong 
suspicion  that  the  style  of  th'*  medal  bespeaks  the  age  of 
the  Ilf-ndis.sance :  it  is  most  probably  of  the  15th  century 
or  thereabouts. 

o  We  give  here  two  or  three  of  this  mixed  character ; 
CV.M  TVIS  FKLICITKB  ZKSHa  (Garr.  t.  xii.  1);  DltiXITAS 
ASIICOKVM  riE  ZIBES  CVM  TVIS  OMMBVS  lilBE  KT  PBO- 
riNA  (t.  xii.  2).  (Both  the  above  glasses  have  figures  of 
Peter  and  Paul,  with  their  names  added.)  On  the  same 
plate  are  other  examples  of  bilingu.il  reiiundancy:  such 
as— Vivas  i*ie  ZKSts,  viva.s  cvm  tvis  zkses. 


734 


GLASS 


GLASS 


f.  9;  Brownlow  and  Northcote,  w.  s.  pi.  xvii.  2, 
and  p.  287),  i.s  also  of  some  theological  import¬ 
ance  as  indicating  tliat  Peter  was  then  looked 
upon  as  the  Moses  of  the  new  Israel  of  God,  as 
Prudentius  speaks.  The  honour,  however,  ap¬ 
pears  to  be  divided  between  Peter  and  Paul  on 
another  glass,  unfortunately  mutilated.  Christ 
stands  on  a  hill  between  Peter  and  Paul.  Above 
is  the  common '  legend  PIE  Z[ESES]  :  below  are 
the  words  IKRVSALE  .  lORDANES  .  BECLE 
(for  Bethlehem.  C-  0  ?).  Peter  is  here  the  apostle 
of  the  Jew.s,  Paul  of  the  Gentiles,  who  first  wor- 
.'hipped  the  Saviour  at  Bethlehem.  Below  are 
sheep  adoring  the  Lamb  on  a  hill  between  them, 
symbolising  both  churches  (Garrucci,  t.  f.  8.) 

The  orthography  of  the  legends  is  sometimes 
barbarous.?  Thus  Jesus  is  written  ZESVX 
(viii.  5) ;  Zesvs  (vii.  17),  &c.  Christvs  is 
spelt  Cristvs  (viii.  5,  .xii.  1,  &c.) ;  Timothevs 
becomes  Timoteys  (xvii.  2);  Hippolytvs,  Epo- 
LITVS  (xix.  7),  or  Ippoltvs  (xxv.  5) ;  Cypriaxvs, 
Cripranvs  (xx.  6);  SvciNVS,  Tzvcixvs  (xxviii. 
6);  Severe,  Sebere  (xxix.  5);  Philippvs, 
Filpvs  (xxv.  6).  We  have  also  Bibas  for  Vivas 
(vi.  7);  ViBATis  for  ViVATiS  (xxix.  4);  Im  pace 
for  In  Pace  (vii.  2,  xv.  3) ;  PIE  for  niE 


(i.  3,  kc.)  ;  PiEZ  for  TTipj  (xxvi.  10).  There  are 
a  few  other  instances  of  similar  orthographic 
changes,  to  say  nothing  of  such  blunders  as 
Digntias  for  Dignitas,  and  Critsvs  for  Cristvs 
(^Christus)  (Garr.  p.  53). 

The  dates  of  these  works  are  defined  to  some  ex¬ 
tent  by  their  subjects.  On  one  of  them  (xxxiii.  5) 
a  heap  of  money  is  depicted,  among  which  we  re¬ 
cognise  the  coins  of  Caracalla  and  one  of  the  Faus¬ 
tinas.  On  another,  as  has  been  said,  occurs  the 
name  of  Marcellinus,  probably  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  martyred  a.d.  304.* *!  The  martyrdom  of 
St.  Agnes,  who  is  so  often  represented,  probably 
took  place  about  the  same  time.  The  appear¬ 
ance  of  the  dress,  arrangement  of  the  hair,  and 
of  the  general  art  and  orthography  induces  Gar¬ 
rucci  (/Vc/.  p.  ix.)  to  consider  them  all  anterior 
to  Theodosius  (a.d.  380).  De  Rossi  attempts  a 


P  Garrucci  lays  stress  on  this  orthography  for  fi.xing 
the  date :  “  questa  nianiera  di  scrittiira  coA  costante  rin- 
via  al  secolo  quarto"’  (prcf.  p.  i.\.).  He  appears  to  con¬ 
sider  that  these  glasses  all  bek  ng  to  that  century. 

*1  The  martyrdoms  ot  Vincentius  and  of  Genesins, 
whose  names  similarly  occur,  also  tovk  place  under  Dio¬ 
cletian  (Garrucci,  pref.  pp.  viii.  ix.). 


more  precise  limitation,  and  thinks  that  thev 
range  from  the  middle  of  the  3rd  to  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  4th  century  (Brownl.)w  and 
Northcote,  u.  s.  p.  279).  We  shall  probably  be  not 
far  wrong  in  saying  that  few  or  none  of  them  are 
much  earlier  or  later  than  the  4th  century.''  The 
art  of  the  coins  of  that  century,  as  well  as  of  the 
MS.  illuminations  which  are  assigned  to  about 
the  same  age.  strongly  remind  us  of  these  glasses, 
more  especially  of  those  on  which  the  chrisma 
is  dei)icted.®  The  execution  of  some  glasses  is 
indeed  better  than  that  of  others,  and  occasion¬ 
ally  reaches  considerable  excellence  ;  but  to  speak 
generally,  they  belong  to  a  period  m  which  taste 
and  vigour  and  correctness  of  drawing  have  sen¬ 
sibly  declined.  They  po.s.sess,  however,  apart  from 
their  main  subjects,  much  interest  as  showing  the 
styles  of  borders  and  other  ornamentations  then 
prevalent,  besides  giving  costume  and  a  variety 
of  domestic  objects.* 

With  regal’d  to  the  uses  of  these  glasses  a  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  types,  coupled  with  the  inscrip¬ 
tions,  will  lead  us  to  secure  conclusions.  Eve.n 
if  it  were  well  established  “  that  in  Tertullian’s 


>■  Mr.  Marriott  {Testim.  of  the  Catacombs,  p.  16),  after 
observing  that  “  these  gla.sses,  with  few  exceptions,  belong 
to  a  period  of  very  degraded  art,  ’  couAders  that  “  there 
are  very  strong  reasons  of  a  technical  kind,  in  reference  to 
the  use  of  the  nimbus,  for  assigning  many  of  them  to  the 
5th,  if  not  to  the  6lh  century.”  Hut  if  these  glasses  were 
found  in  the  catacombs,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  place  any 
of  them  later  than  the  first  quaner  of  the  5th  century: 
after  the  year  410  no  inscriptions  occur  in  the  catacombs, 
and  they  have  become  rarer  and  rarer  from  the  b  ginning 
of  the  last  quarter  of  the  4th  century.  See  Jnsckiitioxs. 
It  is  true  that  “  Popes  Syinmachus  Vigilius  and  John  III. 
did  their  best  to  repair  the  damage  which  had  been  done 
in  the  catacombs  by  the  Lombards  and  others”  in  re¬ 
storing  the  inscriptions  of  Pope  Dair.asus,  but  they  would 
scarcely  have  replaced  the  glass  vessels  which  had  bee-n 
stuck  into  the  cement  which  closed  the  graves.  See 
Brownlow  and  Northcote,  u.s.  p.  170. 

*  The  chrisma  with  the  a  and  tu  (xxxix.  1)  is  identicril 
in  treatment  with  the  same  types  up<jn  the  coins  of  Cou- 
stantius  II.,  Magnentius,  and  Decentius.  And  thi-i  mono¬ 
gram,  whenever  it  occurs,  with  scarcely  an  exc  ption  (see, 
however,  xvii.  7,  where  the  general  style  and  art  differ 
also),  is  of  the  same  form  that  is  usual  on  the  coins 
of  the  fourth  ceuturj' :  another  form  is  said  to 

occur  on  a  coin  of  Licinius  jun.  (Garrucci,  Xurnism.  Con¬ 
stantin.  p.  102;  appendix  to  his  Vetri  Omati)  . 

»  Martigny  observes  that  those  of  the  best  work  (in¬ 
stancing  the  Good  Shrplierd,  Garr.  vii.  1,  rei'roduced  here, 
which  is  perbapj  the  best  executed  of  all  and  the  oldest) 
have  Greek  legends,  being  probably  the  work  of  Greek 
artists  (Diet.  p.  279). 

“  Is  it  altogether  certain  that  calices  are  chUices  for 
the  communion?  St.  Ambrose  sp>eaks  of  those  “qui 
calices  ad  sepulcra  martyrum  deferunt  atque  illic  in 
vespei'am  bibunt  ”  (De  obtest,  et  sacr.  pUont.).  If  not,  it 
may  then  well  be  that  Tcrtullian  is  alluding  to  some 
such  glasses  as  these :  but  scarcely  any  which  remain  to 
us  can  be  so  early  as  a.u.  200.  Chrysostom  (l/oniil.  in 
S.  Mdel.)  says  that  the  portrait  of  .Meletius  was  de¬ 
picted  ev  eKTTu>aa<TL  <cal  (fuoAais ;  such  vessels  may  pos¬ 
sibly  have  been  similar  to  those  of  which  we  have  speci¬ 
mens;  if  so,  the  art  will  pro^iably  be  Asiatic  as  well  as 
European.  We  have  indeed  a  bt)ttom  of  a  small  glass 
vessel  which  simply  reads  Mf.liti  (for  .Meleti  prolvxbly) 
DVLCis  AXiMA  (xx.xviii.  4):  j'et  this  can  hardly  be  the 
same  person;  it  may  be  a  present  from  a  parent  to  a 
child,  or  the  like.  The  remark  of  Cardinal  Wiseman 
appears  to  be  well  founded,  that  “  not  a  single  author, 
Certainly  not  a  single  profane  author,  mentions  the 


GLASS 


GLASS 


735 


time  the  Good  Shepherd  was  depicted  on  chalices, 
possibly  r/fess  chalices  (“  jiroceilant  ipsae  picturae 
calicuni  vestrorum,  si  vel  in  ill  is  perlucebit  inter- 
pretatio,”  Dc  pudicit.  c.  7  ;  see  also  c.  10),  there 
is  certainly  nothing  in  these  glasses  bearing  that 
type  or  any  other  type,  which  would  bear  out 
the  conclusion  that  they  were  chalices  tor  the 
communion.*  They  were  at  once  sacred  and  con¬ 
vivial,  and  must  therefore  have  been  used  in 
meetings  which  were  both  one  and  the  other. 
Such  wei-e  the  aqapae  such  were  the  commemo¬ 
rations  of  martyrs,  such  were  Christian  mar¬ 
riages.  On  all  such  occasions,  and  perhaps  others, 
these  glasses  were  used  ;  more  especially,  it  may 
be,  in  the  commemorations  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul  (so  often  represented  thereon),  which  were 
“  observed  as  a  general  holiday  in  Rome  during 
the  fourth  century,  very  much  as  Christmas  now 
is  among  ourselves  ”  (Brownlow  and  Northcote, 
u.  s.  p.  28.'3).  In  a  well-known  passage  of  St. 
Augustine  (Confess,  vi.  2),  he  mentions  that  his 
mother  Monica  never  took  more  than  one  cup 
(pociltuin)  to  the  commemoration  of  the  various 
martyrs — implying  that  some  took  more  ;  per¬ 
haps  bearing  effigies  of  the  particular  martyrs  to 
be  commemorated. 

With  regard  to  the  plates,  large  fragments  of 
which  have  been  found  at  Cologne  and  smaller 
ones  at  Rome,  as  well  as  impressions  in  mortar 
of  entire  plates  at  the  latter  place,  the  most 
obvious  and  natural  interpretation  of  them  would 
be  that  they  were  made  use  of  in  the  same  fe.s- 
tivities  as  those  in  which  the  glass  cups  were 
employed.  Monica,  at  Milan,  as  her  son  informs 
us,  “brought  to  the  commemorations  of  the 
Saints,  as  was  the  custom  in  Africa,  pulse  and 
bread  and  wine”  (Confess,  vi.  2).  We  may  then 
reasonably  suppose  that  these  plates  were  for  the 
purpose  of  holding  the  bread  or  other  solid  food 
used  in  the  same  commemorations  as  those  in 
which  wine  was  drunk.  A  different  view,  how¬ 
ever,  as  was  ))erhaps  to  be  expected,  is  taken  of 
them  by  those  who  (like  Messrs.  Brownlow  and 
Northcote)  think  that  “  it  is  quite  possible  that 
some  of  our  crfiisses  mav  be  fracrments  of  chalices” 
(u.  s.  p.  29.3).  Anastasius  in  the  Vitae  Pontif. 
s.  V.  Zephyrinus,  says  “that  he  made  it  a  consti¬ 
tution  of  tlie  church,  that  ministers  should  carry 
glass  pa'ens  (patenue  vitreaf)  into  the  cliurch  in 
front  of  the  priests,  while  the  bishop  celebrated 
mass  with  the  jrriests  standing  before  him,  and 
that  in  this  manner  .  .  .  the  ])riest  should  re¬ 
ceive  the  bread  to  administer  it  to  the  people.” 
]\Ies.srs.  Brownlow  and  Northcote,  commenting  on 
this  passage,  say  (u.  s.  p.  29ii)  :  “The  fragments 
of  the  two  large  patenae  discovered  at  Cologne, 
corres})ond  exactly  to  the  kind  of  glass  here  men¬ 
tioned.  The  scriptural  subjects  and  the  absence 
of  any  allusions  to  secular  feasting  ”  there  are  no 
inscriptions  at  all  on  these  glasses  “accord  well 
with  so  sacred  a  purj)Ose,  and  we  may  therefore 
fairly  presume  that  those  other  smaller  glasses” 
found  in  Rome,  “  of  which  we  have  also  spoken, 
may  also  be  remains  of  the  patenae  used  to 

e.xistenco  of  tliis  art"  {lecture,  p.  7).  'I'he  most  that 
can  be  said  is  that  Tertnllian  and  Chiysostom  may  i)Os- 
sibly  allude  to  it.  the  ptissage  quoted  by  Garrucci  from 
the  monk  Tlicophibis  UHu.  .Art.  Sched.  c.  13),  who  pio- 
bably  lived  about  the  12  h  century,  refers  to  a  different 
mode  of  decoration,  as  he  bimsi  If  of  sn  ves  (pref.  p.  vi.). 

»  As  Boldettl  and  various  otliers  have  thought.  Their 
arguments  are  discussed  by  Garrucci  (pref.  p^r.  x.-xill.) 


convey  the  Blessed  Sacrament  from  the  pope’s 
altar  to  the  pari.sh  churches  of  Rome.  Padre 
Garrucci  thinks  this  not  im[>robable,  although 
he  does  not  admit  that  any  of  our  catacomb 
glasses  ever  formed  portions  of  eucharistic  cha¬ 
lices.”  The  reader  must  be  left  to  form  his  own 
opinion,  but  the  subjects  on  the  patenae  being 
much  the  same  as  those  on  the  bottoms  of  the 
cups,  it  seems  to  be  by  far  the  most  probable 
supposition,  that  the  purpose  of  the  plates  and 
of  the  cups  was  one  and  the  same,  whatever  that 
purpose  was.  (Garrucci,  Vetri  ornati  di  figure  in 
oro,  Roma,  1858  and  1864  (ed.  2),  fol.  42  plates : 
the  preface  contains  an  account  of  the  literature 
of  the  subject,  pp.  xvii.  xviii.  and  a  discussion 
of  the  date  and  use  of  these  ve.ssels ;  De  Rossi, 
Bidl.  Ai'ch.  Crist,  for  1864  and  1866;  Brownlow 
and  Northcote,  Roma  Sotterranca.,  c.  vii.  1869. 
Wiseman  (Card.),  Lecture  delivered  in  Dublin, 
1858,  published  by  M.  Walsh,  Dublin,  1859  ;  cer¬ 
tainly  not  revised  by  the  Cardinal  himself,  but 
giving  a  fair  view  of  the  subject  in  a  short 
space.) 

(iii.)  Glass  pastes. —  Another  use  of  glass 
among  Christian  as  well  as  other  artists  was  to 
make  imitations  or  copies  of  gems  therein.  A 
few  such  have  come  down  to  our  time.s.  A  paste 
iu  imitation  of  red  jasper,  published  by  Le  Blunt, 
which  exhibits  a  Pastor  Bonus  of  the  usual  type, 
with  the  legend  AOTAOC  XPICTOT,  may  serve 
as  an  example  (Bbckh,  C.  T.  G.  n.  9093).  Other 
gem  pastes  in  imitation  of  niccolo  and  garnet 
exhibit  varieties  of  the  chrisma  (British  Museum, 
Castellani  Collection).  Of  more  importance  are 
the  following.  A  Nativity,  in  green  glass,  pub¬ 
lished  by  Venuti  (Acad,  di  Cortona,  t.  vii.  p.  45), 
and  described  and  figured  by  Martigny  (Diet.  p. 
431),  which  is  ascribed  to  the  6th  century  ;  it 
is  a  semicircular  plaqtie,  bearing  tne  words  H 
FENNHCIC  above,  and  a  defaced  legend  below: 
the  Magi  adore  the  Saviour,  at  whom  an  ox  and 
an  ass  are  gazing:  Mary  is  lying  on  a  bed,  and 
Joseph  is  seated  in  meditation.  The  Vettori  Mu¬ 
seum,  now  in  the  Vatican,  has  a  large  oval  plaque 
of  coloured  glass  (Vettori,  Nurn.  Aer.  expl.  p.  37  ; 
Martigny,  Diet.  p.  431,  with  a  figure),  which 
seems  to  be  early  medieval ;  it  is  also  a  Nativity  : 
the  infant  Saviour  has  a  cruciform  nimbus  ;  two 
oxen  look  at  him  in  the  manger ;  Joseph  and 
Mary  are  seated  near  him ;  the  moon  and  the 
star  of  the  Magi  are  in  the  field.  (A  cast  sent 
from  Rome;  the  British  Mu.seum  has  three  other 
examples  cast  from  the  same  mould  ;  one  is  red, 
in  imitation  of  jasper ;  the  others  are  of  deep 
colour.)  See  Nativitv.  A  large  glass  plaque 
of  the  same  general  form,  but  less  regular  (IJ 
by  2^  inches),  now,  it  is  believed,  in  the  V^atican, 
of  uncertain  date,  represents  a  dead  saint  pros¬ 
trate ;  in  the  centre  a  semiaureole  resting  upon 
her,  including  the  Virgin  with  cruciform  nimbus 
and  Child  without  any  nimbus,  a  glorified  head 
with  circular  nimbus  (Joseph  ?)  near  the  Virgin’s 
knees,  li’;  XG  in  field  :  outside  the  aureole  on 
both  sides  saints  and  angels  (both  with  circular 
nimbus)  in  the  act  of  adoration  :  ])erhaps  early 
medieval.  (A  cast  sent  from  Rome.)  We  have 
also  glass  pastes  nearly  an  inch  in  diameter 
which  are  supposed  to  have  been  pendants  for 
necklaces,  and  are  consiilered  to  go  back  to  the 
early  Christian  centuries :  one  in  green  glass 
shews  two  Israelites  contemplating  the  brasen 
1  sei’pent ;  another,  a  red  paste,  has  the  Saviour 


736 


GLEBE 


GLORIA  IN  EXCELBIS 


blessing  the  twelve  apostles;  a  third,  probably 
Christian,  has  a  frog,  which  was  sometimes  taken 
as  a  svmbol  of  the  Resurrection,  being  found  on  a 
Christian  lamp,  accompanied  by  a  cross  and  the 
inscription,  EFtu  EIMI  ANACTACIC  (Chabou- 
illet,  nos.  3474,  3475,  3453).  M.  Le  Blant  has 
a  small  oblong  glass  plaque,  which  he  acquired 
in  Rome,  which  was  once,  he  thinks,  part  of  an  an¬ 
cient  Christian  necklace  ;  it  bears 
in  golden  characters  the  word 
in  two  lines,  enclosed  in  a  paral¬ 
lelogram  and  a  crenulated  outer 
margin.  He  regards  it  as  a 
“  concise  expression  of  the  charity  which  should 
unite  all  men  ”  (//isc.  Chrec.  de  la  Guide,  vol.  i. 
p.  43,  with  a  figure).  The  British  l\Iuseum 
and  the  French  Collection  contain  various  other 
Christian  works  in  this  material,  some  of 
which  are  more  or  less  similar  to  those  which 
have  been  already  described,  or  to  the  Byzantine 
camei  named  under  Gems  ;  but  as  they  are  of 
uncertain  date  (perhaps  none  of  them  being 
earlier  than  the  9th  century^'  while  some  may 
probably  be  much  later)  they  need  hardly  be 
mentioned  here. 

(iv.)  Mosaics. — Glass,  in  fine,  was  employed 
from  very  early  times  in  the  construction  of 
mosaics.  The  cubes  were  sometimes  coloured ; 
sometimes,  in  the  ages  of  the  Lower  Empire, 
underlaid  with  a  ground  of  gold  or  silver  leaf, 
“  b)*^  this  means  shedding  over  the  large  works  of 
the  artists  in  mosaic  a  splendour  before  un¬ 
known  ”  (Labarte,  u.  s.  p.  94).  See  Mosaics. 

[C.  B.] 

GLEBE.  The  word  Gleba  is  used  for  a  farm 
or  estate  in  the  Theodosian  Codex  (Leg.  72,  De 
Deciirion.) ;  but  the  technical  sense  in  which 
it  is  used  by  English  writers,  to  designate  certain 
lands  belonging  to  an  ecclesiastical  benefice,  is 
later  than  our  period.  See  Endowment,  Pro- 
PERTV  OF  THE  ChURCH.  [C.] 

GLORIA.  [Nimbus.] 

GLORIA  IN  EXCELSIS.  There  is  con¬ 
siderable  difficulty  in  tracing  out  the  history  of 
this  hymn,  because  at  one  period  both  it  and  the 
Sanctus  were  entitled  indiscriminately  Hymnus 
Angelicus.  In  later  years  the  latter  is  called 
Uymnus  Seraphicus ;  whilst  the  title  Hymnus 
Angelicus  or  Hymnus  Angelorum  is  confined  to 
the  former.  The  hymn  is  found  in  various 
forms. 

1.  We  have  simply  the  words  of  St.  Luke,  ii. 
14.  This  is  of  course  the  primitive  form,  every¬ 
thing  that  has  been  added  to  it  having  been 
composed, — as  the  4th  council  of  Toledo  (a.d. 
633,  !Mansi,  x.  623)  reminds  us, — by  the 
ecclesiastical  doctors.  For  this  reason  the  coun¬ 
cil  would  not  allow  any  expanded  form  to  be 
sung  in  the  churches.  In  this  short  form  the 
words  were  recited  by  the  priest,  according  to 
the  liturgy  of  St.  James,  when  the  priest 
‘‘  sealed  ”  the  gifts.  (Daniel,  Codex  Littcrgicus, 
iv.  103.)  The  s.ame  simple  form  may  be  seen 
elsewhoi’e :  and  is  continued  to  this  day  in  the 

y  A  tust  of  the  Saviour  (to  be  compared  with  the 
earlier  Byzantine  coins)  on  a  ciaular  plaque  of  blue  glass 
(li  inch  in  diameter)  brought  from  Constantinople,  now 
in  the  Slado  Coll'^etion:  aud  a  paste  polychr<jrae  rosette, 
inscribed  BENEDICAT  NOS  1J3  (Chabouillet,  n.  3478) 
may  probably  not  be  later  than  that  century. 


morning  service  of  the  Horolovv  (p.  35,  ed. 
Venice,  1870). 

2.  The  .seventh  book  of  the  Apostolic  ConsGtu- 
lions,  c.  47,  contains  an  enlarged  form  of  the 
hymn, — without  any  introduction  in  the  oldest 
manuscript ;  but  two,  of  the  14th  and  16th  cen¬ 
tury  respectively,  entitle  the  chapter  “  Morning 
Prayer.”  (Lagarde,  p.  229.)  This  version  has  u 
peculiar  reading:  “  VV'^e  worship  Thee  through 
the  great  High  Priest,  Thee  who  art  one  God,  un¬ 
begotten,  alone,  inapproachable.”  We  read  too 
“  0  Lord,  only  begotten  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  and 
Holy  Spirit,”  The  hymn  ends  “Thou  only  art 
holy.  Thou  only  art  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father.  Amen.” 

3.  The  treatise  which  is  ascribed  to  Athana¬ 
sius  “  de  Virginitate  ”  (Migne,  xxviii.  251)  is  un¬ 
doubtedly  spurious,  but  it  gives  some  insight 
into  the  life  of  a  Greek  virgin,  within  our  chro¬ 
nological  limits.  In  §  20  (Migne,  ut  sup.  275) 
we  read  “  In  the  morning,  say  the  Psalm  0  God, 
my  God,  early  will  I  seek  Thee  (Psalm  Ixii.). 
At  dawn,  the  ‘Benedicite’  and  Glory  to  God  in 
the  Highest,  and  the  rest.”  This  is  the  reading 
of  the  Basle  and  English  MSS.  But  others  j»ro- 
ceed  with  the  first  three  clauses:  “We  hvmn 
Thee,  we  bless  Thee,  we  worshij)  Thee,  and  the 
rest.”  As  this  dilference  of  the  text  maybe  due 
to  a  late  interpolation,  we  are  left  in  uncertainty 
as  to  the  words  of  the  hymn  when  this  treatise 
was  comj)oseJ.  (Mr.  Palmer,  Orff/.  Liturg.ii.  158 
does  not  note  the  doubts  regarding  this  passage.) 

4.  The  famous  Cod  x  Alexandrinus  in  the 
British  Museum,  of  the  close  of  the  5th  century, 
puts  some  of  our  doubts  at  rest.  This  manu¬ 
script,  after  the  psalms,  contains  the  thirteen 
canticles  of  the  Greek  church:  i.  the  song  of 
Moses  in  Exodus;  ii.  ditto  in  Deuteronomy;  iii. 
the  prayer  of  Hannah  ;  iv.  prayer  of  Lsaiah 
(xxvi.  9-20):  v.  prayer  of  Jonah  ;  vi.  of  Habak- 
kuk ;  vii.  of  Hezekiah  (Isaiah,  xxxviii.) ;  viii.  of 
Manasseh  ;  ix,  prayer  of  the  three  children 
(€u\6yriTos,  Daniel  iii.  26)  :  x.  hymn  of  the  three 
children  (our  Benedicite)  entitled  “  Hymn  of  our 
fathers;”  xi.  pra)'er  of  Mary,  the  Mother  of 
God;  xii.  ofSymeon;  xiii.  ofZachariah  (compare 
Canticles).  These  conclude  with  the  Gloria  in 
Excelsis  in  Greek,  the  hymn  being  entitled 
vfjLVOs  icvUipos.  This  •'•ersion  has  been  often 
printed,  as  by  Usher,  m  his  tract  De  symbolo 
Romano:  Bunsen,  Analecta  ante-Xicaena,  iii.  86; 
Dr.  Campion,  Tn'erleax  ed  Prayer  Book.  1873,  p. 
321.  It  differs  slightly  from  the  version  of  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions,  and  proceeds  with  words 
which  distinctively  mark  it  as  a  morning  hymn, 
some  of  which  words  have  passed  into  our  Te 

!  Deum.  It  is  thus  found  in  the  beautiful  Zurich 
psalter  reprinted  by  Tischendorf  in  his  Monu- 
menta  Sacra,  and  in  other  great  psalters  ;  and, 
in  a  form  very  nearly  resembling  this,  it  is  used 
m  the  Greek  communion  to  this  day  (Horology, 
ut  sup.  pp.  69,  70). 

5.  A  Latin  translation  of  this  Greek  version  of 
the  “  Gloria  in  Excelsis,”  adapted  for  evening 
praver,  is  contained  in  the  book  of  hymns  of  the 

I  ancient  Irish  church,  which  once  belonged  to 

I  Archbishop  Usher,  and  which  has  been  edited  for 
the  Irish  Archaeological  and  Celtic  Society  by 
Dr.  Todd  (part  ii.  p.  179).  In  the  famous  Bangor 
antiphonai'y  discovered  at  Milan  by  Muratori, 
and  reprinted  imperfectly  by  him  in  his 
tom.  iv.  pp.  121,  kc.  (see  Migne,  tom.  72)  wt 


O  M  N 
I  B  V  S 


GLOEIA  IN  EXCELSIS 


GOD  THE  FATHER 


tmd  at  the  very  end  “  ad  vesperum  et  ad  niatu- 
tinum  :  Gloria  in  Excelsis  Deo  et  in  terra  pax  &c.” 
but  Muratori  unhappih^  did  not  copy  it  out. 
Thus  we  are  ignorant  of  the  text.  However,  the 
hymn  given  by  Thomasius  (Psalterium  cum 
canticis,  Rom.  1G97,  p.  760,  or  Oper.  tom.  iii.  p. 
613)  as  the  Ilymnus  Anyelicus  of  the  Ambrosian 
breviary,  is  another  and  independent  translation 
of  the  Greek  form  of  the  hymn.  It  was  directed 
to  be  used  daily  at  matins. 

6.  Thus  it  seems  clear  that  when  the  well 
known  Latin  form  of  the  hymn  was  inserted  in 
the  Latin  psalters,  it  was  used  in  the  daily  or 
weekly  hour  services  of  the  clergy.  We  have 
additional  evidence  of  this  in  the  rule  of  Caesa- 
rius,  c.  xxi.  and  in  that  of  Aurelian.  It  is 
there  ordered  to  be  used  at  matins  on  Sundays. 

7.  This  Latin  form  Bunsen  considered  to  have 
been  as  old  as  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  to  whom 
indeed  Alcuin  ascribed  the  additions  to  the  scrip¬ 
ture  words.  The  Roman  Catholic  ritualists  are 
not  satisfied  with  the  testimony  of  Alcuin,  and 
seem  to  consider  that  the  hymn  in  the  modern 
Latin  form  is  of  more  recent  origin.  Yet  it  is 
found  in  this  form  in  a  very  interesting  manu¬ 
script  in  the  British  Museum — Royal  2  A  xx. — 
which  is  of  the  eighth  century :  in  the  famous 
Codex  Bobiensis,  from  which  Mabillon  extracted 
the  “  Sacramentarium  Gallicanum  ”  (^Museum 
Italicum,  i.  273;  Muratori,  Liturg.  Bom.  Vet.  ii. 
776;  or  Migne,  72,  p.  455):  in  the  so-called 
Mozarabic  liturgy  ascribed  to  St.  Isidore  (see 
Migne,  8-5,  p.  531)  and  in  a  form  very  slightly 
different  in  the  Gothic  breviary  (Migne,  86,  p. 
886). 

8.  The  first  introduction  of  the  “  Gloria  in 
Excelsis  ”  into  the  Eucharistic  service  has  been 
ascribed  to  Telesphorus,  but  no  confidence  can  be 
placed  in  the  tradition.  The  sacramentary  of 
Gregory  directed  that  a  bishop  might  use  the 
“  Gloria  in  Excelsis  ”  on  all  Sundays  and  festi¬ 
vals  :  a  presbyter  only  at  Easter.  This  rule 
continued  long  in  the  Roman  church,  and  con¬ 
stituted  one  point  of  difference  between  the 
Roman  and  Gallican  churches,  in  the  latter  of 
which  no  such  difference  between  bishop  and 
presbyter  had  been  observed.  Etherius  and 
Beatus  shew  that  in  Sj)ain  they  always  sang  it 
on  Sundays  and  festivals  ;  but  they  quote  only 
the  scriptural  words,  and  if  we  bear  in  mind  the 
decree  of  Toledo,  we  may  suppose  that  only 
these  words  were  used  (the  Mozarabic  liturgy 
shews  many  marks  of  interpolations).  In  the 
liturgies  the  hymn  was  generally  sung  at  the 
commencement  of  the  service;  but  Mr.  Palmer 
notes  that  in  the  Gallican  sacrameiitary  (see 
above)  it  was  used  amongst  the  thanksgivings 
after  communion. 

9.  The  absence  of  the  hymn  from  St.  Ger- 
manus’s  account  of  the  Gallican  liturgy  has  been 
noted.  He  says  that  the  words  at  the  end  of  the 
gospel,  “  Glory  be  to  Thee  0  Lord,”  were  uttered 
in  imitation  (.?)  of  the  angels’  words  “  Glory  to 
God  in  the  highest  ”  (clamantibus  clericis  Gloria 
tibi  Domine  in  specie  angelorum  qui  nascente 
Domino  Gloria  in  excelsis  pastoribus  apparenti- 
bus  cecinerunt.  Migne,  72,  p.  91).  St.  Herma¬ 
nns  died  about  the  year  585  or  587.  This 
seems  to  give  a  superior  limit  to  its  introduction 
into  the  eucharistic  service. 

10.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  whilst  the 
Alexandrine  manuscript  has  in  the  text  of  St. 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


rrO  "7 
tot 

Luke  ei/SoKias  (the  reading  of  B*  D)  yet  in 
the  morning  hymn  it  as  well  as  all  the  other 
copies  of  the  hymn  read  (vboKia.  [C.  A.  S.] 

GLORIA  PATRI.  [Doxology.] 

GLOVES.  (x^‘p(>^VKr]  ’  Chirotheca,  Gantus, 
Gwantus.,  Vantus,  Wanhis,  Wanto.')  It  would 
seem  that  gloves  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word 
were  unknown  to  the  early  Greeks  and  Romans. 
(See  on  this  point  Ca.saubon’s  Aniimidv.  in  Athe¬ 
naeum,  xii.  2.)  That  they  were  in  use,  how¬ 
ever,  among  the  ancient  Persians  apjiears  from 
Xenophon  {Cyropaedia,  viii.  8.  17).  The  Euro¬ 
pean  custom  of  wearing  them  seems  to  have 
originated  with  the  German  nations,  as  the 
Teutonic  origin  of  the  common  Latin  word  for 
them  clearly  shews :  and  although,  as  an  eccle¬ 
siastical  vestment,  properly  so  called,  gloves  do 
not  appear  till  the  12th  century  (the  first  extant 
mention  of  them  in  that  character  being  in 
Honorius  Augustodunensis,  ob.  circa  1152  a.d.), 
they  had  been  used  for  centuries  as  articles  of 
practical  convenience.  Thus  we  find  them  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  life  of  St.  Columbanus,  by  Jonas 
Bobbiensis  (formerly  included  among  the  works 
of  Bede)  —  “  tegumenta  manuurn  quae  Galli 
wantos  vocant”  {Vita  S.  Colnmbani,  c.  25; 
Patrol.  Ixxxvii.  1026).  In  the  above  instance, 
the  gloves  are  spoken  of  as  used  “  ad  operam 
laboris,”  but  sometimes  they  were  obviously  of 
a  costly  nature,  for  in  the  will  of  Riculfus, 
bishop  of  Helena  (ob.  915  a.d.),  in  a  long  list  of 
valuable  articles,  he  mentions  “annulum  aureum 
unum  cum  gemmis  pretiosis  et  vuantos  paria 
unum  ”  {Patrol,  cxxxii.  468). 

The  employment  of  a  glove  in  connection  with 
the  granting  or  bequeathing  of  land,  is  a  custom 
which  hardly  falls  within  our  present  limits : 
an  example  may,  howev'er,  be  given.  (See 
Notgeri  Leodiensis  [ob.  1008  a.d.]  Vita  S.  Had  i- 
lini,  c.  10;  Patrol,  cxxxix.  1146:  also  Martene, 
Anecd.  i.  57.)  For  further  early  references  to 
the  subject  of  gloves,  see  Ducangc’s  Glossarium. 
s.  vv.  [R.  S.]  ■ 

GLYCERIA,  martyr  a.d.  141  ;  commemo¬ 
rated  May  13  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GNOSTIC.  [Faithful.] 

GOAR,  presbyter  and  confe.ssor  at  Ti’eves 
(saec.  VI.);  “natalis”  July  6  {Mart.  Pom.  Vet., 
Usuardi);  deposition  July  6  {Mart.  Adonis). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

GOD  THE  FATHER,  Rkprkskntations 

OF.*  For  the  first  four  centuries,  at  least,  no 
attempt  was  made  at  representing  the  actual 
Presence  of  the  First  Person  of  the  Trinity.  It 
was  indicated  invariably  by  the  symbolic  HAND 
proceeding  from  a  cloud.  Martigny  quotes  the 
words  of  St.  Augustine  {Epist.  cxlviii.  4),  “Quum 
audimus  mauus,  operationem  intelligere  dcbe- 
mus,”  from  which  it  would  seem  that  the  great 
father  saw  a  tendency  to  anthropomorphic  mis¬ 
application  of  the  words  hand  and  eye,  or  ear 
of  God,  as  they  are  frequently  used  in  the  Old 
Testament.  The  distinction  between  analogy 
and  similitude  has  been  so  (.ftcn  neglected,  that 
bodily  parts  as  well  as  passions  (like  those  of 
anger,  repentance,  &c.)  are  often  attributed  to 


a  MoEt  representations  of  the  Divine  preseno«  have 
their  proper  place  under  the  word  Trinitv. 


738 


GODFATHERS 


GOOD  FRIDAY 


the  incorporeal  and  infinite  being.  This  has 
been  repeatedly  noticed,  as(e.  q.)  by  Drs.  Whately 
and  Maiisel.  St.  Augustine’s  expressions  show 
that  he  was  thoroughly  awake  to  the  miscon¬ 
ception,  and  consequent  irreverence,  involved  in 
the  forgetful  use  of  such  terms  as  the  Divine 
hand  or  eye  for  the  Divine  power  or  know¬ 
ledge.  “  Quidquid,”  he  says,  “  dum  ista  cogitas, 
corporeae  siinilitudinis  occurrerit,  abige,  abnue, 
uega,  respue,  fuge.” 

The  symbolic  hand  appears  in  Christian  repre- 
.sentatious  of  several  subjects  from  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  principally  connected  with  events  in  the 
lives  of  Abraham  and  Moses.  The  two  are  found 
corresponding  to  each  other  in  Bottari  (Sculture  e 
Pitt,  s  igre,  vol.  i.  tav.  27  ;  also  i.  tav.  89).  Moses 
is  receiving  the  book  of  the  law  in  ii.  tav.  128. 
Elsewhere  Abraham  is  alone  (vol.  ii.  tav.  59, 
and  i.  tav.  33,  fi'om  the  Callixtine  catacomb). 
In  vol.  iii.  37  (frcin  cemetery  of  St.  Agnes),  the 
Deity  appears  to  bo  represented  in  human  form. 
He  is  delivering  to  Adam  and  Eve  respectively 
the  ears  of  corn  and  the  lamb,  as  tokens  of  the 
labours  of  their  fallen  state,  and  their  sentence 
to  “  delve  and  si)in.”  See  also  Buonaruotti,  p.  1. 
Cardinal  Bosio,  and  latterly  M.  Ferret  (vol.  i.  57 
pi.),  give  a  copy  of  a  painting  of  Moses  striking 
the  rock,  and  also  in  the  act  of  loosening  the 
shoe  from  his  foot.  Ciampini’s  plates  (  J/on. 
t.  ii.  pp.  81,  tav.  xxiv.  also  taw.  xvi.  and  xx. 
tav.  xvii.  D.)  are  important  illustrations  of  this 
symbol,  more  especially  those  of  the  mosaic  of 
the  Transfiguration  in  St.  Apollinaris  in  Classe, 
and  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Isaac  in  St.  Vitale.  The 
author  does  not  find  the  hand  as  representing 
the  First  Person  of  the  Trinity  in  pictures  of  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord ;  but  it  probably  occurs  in 
that  connexion. 

The  hand  proceeding  from  clouds  appears  in 
the  Sacrameutary  written  for  Drogon  bishop  of 
Metz,  and  son  of  Charlemagne,  above  the  Canon 
of  the  Mass. 

The  Creator  is  represented  in  the  MS.  of  Al- 
cuin.  See  Westwood’s  Palaeographia  Sacra. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

GODFATHERS.  [Sponsors.] 

GOI.DEN  NUMBER.  [Easter.] 

GOOD  FRIDAY.  The  anniversary  of 
Christ’s  Passion  and  Death  was  from  very  early 
times  observed  with  great  solemnity  by  the 
church.  It  was  known  by  various  names,  qfxepa 
Tov  (XTavpov,  crwT'qpia,  or  ra  (XWTTjpia  ;  Trctcxa 
crravpaKTiixov,  in  contrast  to  Tvdaxo.  duaffTaaipLou, 
Easter  Day;  or,  adopting  the  Jewish  designation 
(Joh.  xix.  14,  31,  42),  rrapaaKevri,  either  alone, 
or  with  the  adjectives  /xeyaXg,  or  dyia :  in  the 
Latin  church  Parasceue,  Feria  Sexta  in  Para- 
scene  (^Antiphonar.  Gregor.').,  Sexta  Feria  Major, 
in  Ifieriisalem  (Sacramentar.  Gregor.).  The  day 
was  observed  as  a  strict  fast,  which  was  conti¬ 
nued  by  those  who  could  endure  it  to  beyond 
midnight  on  the  following  day  {Apost.  Constit. 
V.  18).  The  fourth  council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  633, 
severely  condemned  those  who  ended  their  fast 
on  this  day  at  3  p.m.  and  then  indulged  in 
feasting,  and  ordered  that  all  save  the  very 
young  and  the  very  old  and  the  sick  should  ab¬ 
stain  from  all  food  till  after  the  services  of  the 
day  ^*ere  concluded.  All  who  refused  obedience 
to  this  rule  were  denied  a  participation  in  the 


I  Paschal  Eucharist  (can.  viii. ;  Labbe,  Concil.  v. 
1707).  Not  food  alone,  but  the  use  of  oil  and 
the  bath  were  forbidden  by  a  canon  of  Gangra 
(Nomocanon,  can.  434,  apud  Coteler.  Eccl. 
Graec.  Monum.  i.  1.38)  with  the  indignant  apo¬ 
strophe,  'O  XpiCTOi  iu  Tcp  (TTavpcp  Kai  av  4v  Tip 
^aXaviiip  ;  In  process  of  time  the  day  came  to 
be  distinguished  by  a  peculiar  ritual  and  cus¬ 
toms  marking  the  solemn  character  of  the  day. 
The  bells  were  silent  from  the  midnight  of  Wed¬ 
nesday  {Ordu  Poman.  ajmd  IMuratori,  ii.  714). 
The  kiss  of  peace  was  ju-ohibited  (Tert.  de  Orat. 
18).  The  altar  was  stript  of  its  ornaments,  and 
even  of  its  covering.  The  processions  were  without 
chanting  (^Sacrum.  Gelns.  Muratori  i.  559).  The 
lamps  and  candles  were  gradually  extinguished 
during  matins  (Ordo  Pi.oman.  u.  s.).  A  long 
series  of  intercessory  collects  was  used.  A  cross 
was  erected  in  front  of  the  altar,  bles.sed,  and 
adored  {Sacram.  Gelas.  «.  s.).  There  w'as  no 
consecration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  but  the  re¬ 
served  eucharist  of  the  j)revious  day  was  par¬ 
taken  of  by  the  faithful. 

This  communion  subsequently  received  the 
name  of  “  the  Mass  of  the  Presanctified,”  Missa 
Praesanctificatorum,  but  incorrectly,  the  terra 
Missa  usually  implying  consecration.  Thus 
Amalarius  states  that  on  Good  Friday  “  the  mass 
is  not  celebrated  ”  (de  Eccl.  Offic.  iv.  20 ;  Rab. 
Maur.  de  Instit.  Cler.  ii.  37';  pseudo-Alcuin, 
Hittorp  col.  251).  The  rea.son  of  this  prohibi¬ 
tion  of  celebration  is  evident.  The  eucharist 
being  the  highest  Christian  feast,  was  deemed 
out  of  harmony  with  the  penitential  character 
of  the  day,  for  “  how,”  says  Balsamon  (Bevereg. 
Pandect,  i.  219),  “can  one  mourn  and  rejoice  at 
the  same  time  ?”  As  early  as  the  council  of 
Laodicea,  c.  a.d.  365,  this  prohibition  was  ex¬ 
tended  to  the  whole  of  Lent,  with  the  exception 
of  Saturdays  and  Sundays  (can.  49  ;  Labbe  Concil. 

i.  1506).  In  the  letter  to  Decentius  ascribed  to 
Innocent  1.  c.  a.d.  402,  but  probably  not  to  be 
placed  so  early,  the  restriction  is  limited  to 
Good  Friday  and  Easter  Eve,  on  which  days  the 
tradition  of  the  church  was  that  the  sacraments 
xvere  not  to  be  celebratetl  at  all ;  “  isto  biduo 
sacramenta  penitus  non  celebrari  ”  (Labbe  Concil. 

ii.  1246).  At  this  period  there  was  no  com¬ 
munion  of  any  kind  on  Good  Friday.  How'  early 
the  natural  desire  to  receive  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord’s  Bodv  and  Blood  on  the  dav  when  it 

s'  y 

was  offered  for  us  on  the  cross,  led  to  the  reser¬ 
vation  of  the  previously  consecrated  elements  for 
the  purpose  of  communion,  we  have  no  certain 
knowledge.  It  is  evident  from  a  decree  of  the  4th 
council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  6.33,  that  in  the  first  half  of 
the  seventh  century,  there  was  no  celebration  of 
the  Lord’s  Supper  on  Good  Friday  in  Spain.  At 
that  time  it  was  a  wide-spread  custom,  which 
the  council  condemned,  to  keep  the  doors  of  the 
churches  closed  on  Good  Friday,  so  that  there 
was  no  divine  service,  nor  any  preaching  of  the 
Passion  to  the  people.  The  council  ordained  that 
the  Lord’s  death  should  be  preached  on  that  day, 
and  that  the  people  should  pray  for  the  pardon 
of  their  sins,  that  so  they  might  be  better  fitted 
to  celebrate  the  resurrection  and  partake  of  the 
eucharist  at  Easter  (can.  viii.  Labbe  Concil.  v. 
1707).  We  learn  also  from  the  acts  of  the 
16th  council,  held  sixty  years  later,  A.D.  693, 
that  on  that  day  “  the  altars  w'cre  stript  and 
no  one  w'as  permitted  to  celebrate  mass  ”  (Fo.  vi. 


GOOD  FRIDAY 


1355).  In  the  Greek  church  the  custom  of 
commviniciiting  in  the  ])revicu.sly  consecrated 
elements  was  established  before  the  middle  of 
the  seventh  century,  for  we  find  it  mentioned 
as  a  general  j)ractice  during  the  whole  of  Lent, 
in  the  acts  of  the  Trullan  (or  Quinise.xt) 
council  A.D.  692  (can.  52,  Labbe  vi.  1165).  It 
first  aj)})ears  in  the  West  in  the  Bcqnla  Magistri^ 
a  monastic  rule  compiled  probably  in  the  seventh 
century,  printed  by  Lrockie  {Codex  IleguL  1.  ii. 
p.  269).  It  was  established  in  Rome  before  the 
end  of  the  eighth  century,  when  the  ritual  of 
Good  Friday  is  prescribed  in  the  Ordo  liornanus 
(Muratori  Liturg.  Lorn.  Icf.  ii.  995).  The  observ¬ 
ance  of  Good  Fri(lay  commenced  at  midnight,  when 
all  rose  for  service.  Nine  Psalms  were  said  with 
their  responsions,  these  were  followed  by  three 
lections  from  the  Lamentations,  commencing 
Lam.  ii.  8,  “  Cogitavit  Dominus  dissipare three 
from  the  Tractatus  of  St.  Augustine  on  Psalm 
63,  aiid  three  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
beginning  c.  iv.  11,  “  Festinemus  ergo  &c.” 
IVlattins  then  followed,  during  whicli  the  lights 
in  the  church  were  gradually  extinguished, 
beginning  at  the  entrance,  until  by  the  end  of 
the  third  nocturn  only  the  seven  lamps  burning 
at  the  altar  were  left  alight.  These  were  also 
put  out,  one  by  one,  alternately  right  and  left  at 
the  commencement  of  each  Psalm,  the  middle 
lamp,  the  last  left  burning,  being  extinguished  at 
the  gospel.  At  the  third  hour  all  the  presbyters 
and  clergy  of  the  city  assembled  in  expectation 
of  the  pontiff.  On  his  arrival  the  subdeacon 
commenced  the  lection  from  Hosea  v.  15,  “  Haec 
licit  Dominus  Deus  ;  in  tribulatione  sua,  &;c.,” 
and  then  was  sung  as  an  antiphon  Hab.  iii.  1-3, 
Domine  audivi,  &c.”  After  some  prayers  said 
b}"  the  jjontifi',  and  the  second  lection,  Exod.  xii.  1, 
“  In  diebus  illis  dixit  Dominus  ad  Moy.sen  et 
Aaron,  &c.,”  Ps.  xci.  or  cxl.  was  sung,  and  the 
Passion  according  to  St.  John  was  recited  by  the 
deacon.  This  over,  two  deacons  stript  the  altar 
of  the  white  linen  cloth,  previously  put  on 
“  sub  evangelio,”  in  a  stealthy  manner, 
“  in  modum  furantis.”  The  pontiff  came 
before  the  altar  and  recited  a  series  of  eighteen 
prayers,  a  portion  of  which  form  the  ba.sis  of  the 
Good  Friday  collects  of  the  church  of  England. 
The  first  and  last  collect  stand  alone.  The  other 
sixteen  are  in  pairs.  Before  each  pair  the  deacon 
warned  the  people  to  kneel  and  after  it  to  rise. 
“  Adnuntiat  diaconus  Jlc^tamus  genua;  iterum 
dicit  levate.”  These  collects  are — (1)  for  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  church  ;  (2)  for  perse¬ 
verance  in  the  faith  ;  (3)  for  the  pope  and  chief 
bishop  (antistes) ;  (4)  for  the  bishops  of  thair 
diocese  ;  (5)  for  all  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  sub¬ 
deacons,  &c.  ;  (6)  for  all  orders  of  men  in  the 
holy  church  ;  (7)  for  the  emperor ;  (8)  for  the 
Roman  em])ire  ;  (9)  (DDfbr  catechumens;  (11) 
against  sicKne.'S,  lamine,  pestilence,  and  other 
evils;  (12)  for  all  in  trouble;  (13)  (14)  for 
heretics  and  schismatics;  (15)  (16)  for  Jews; 
(17)  (18)  for  pagans  and  idolaters.  A  direction 
is  given  that  the  j)rayers  for  the  Jews  are  not  to 
be  said  kneeling.  The  collects  are  given  in  the 
Sacramentary  of  Gregory,  as  printed  by  Pamelius, 
and  in  that  of  Gelasius,  :is  well  as  in  the  old 
Gallican  missal.  This  last  contains  the  direction 
to  the  celebrant  “  eadem  die  non  Siilutat  (i.e. 
does  not  say  pax_  rohiscutu),  nee  i)sallet.”  These 
collects  finished,  all  were  to  leave  the  church 


GOODS,  COMMUNITY  OF  739 

in  silence :  the  pi'e.sbyters  going  to  jierform  the 
same  service  in  their  own  churches. 

“  Adoration  of  the  cross  succeeds.”  The 
cross  is  placed  a  little  distance  in  front  of  the 
altar,  supported  on  cither  side  by  acolytes.  A 
kneeling  stool  being  placed  in  front,  the  pontiff 
kneels,  and  adores  and  kisses  the  cross,  followed 
by  the  clergy  and  j)eople  in  order.  The  Ambro¬ 
sian  missal  given  by  Pamelius  contains  four 
prayers  for  the  ceiemony  :  “  Oratio  super 

crucem  ;”  “  Benedictio  crucis  “Oratio  ad 
crucem  adorandam ;”  “Oratio  post  adoratam 
crucem.”  In  the  Antiphonarium  of  Gregoi-y  also 
given  by  Pamelius  we  have  an  “  Antiphon  ad 
crucem  adorandam.”  The  adoration  of  the  cross 
was  followed  by  the  communion  of  the  pre¬ 
sanctified.  “Two  presbyters  enter  the  sacristy 
or  other  place  in  which  the  Body  of  the  Lord 
which  remained  from  the  previous  day  was  placed, 
and  put  it  in  a  paten,  and  let  a  subdeacon  hold 
before  them  a  chalice  with  unconsecrated  wine, 
and  another  the  paten  with  the  Body  of  the 
Lord.  One  presbyter  takes  the  paten,  the  other 
the  chalice,  and  they  carry  and  .set  them  on  the 
stript  altar”  {Ord.  Rom.  u.  s.).  The  cross  is 
meanwhile  saluted  by  the  laity,  while  the 
hymn  Ecce  lignum  Crucis  is  sung,  and  Ps.  cxix. 
recited.  The  salutation  of  the  cross  being  com¬ 
pleted,  the  Lord’s  Pj-ayer  is  recited,  “  and  Avhen 
they  have  said  Amen  the  pontiff  takes  of 
the  holy  thing,  and  puts  it  into  the  chalice 
saying  nothing  (nihil  dicens),  and  all  communi¬ 
cate  cum  silentio,”  The  rubrics  of  the  Gelasian 
Sacramentary  agree  in  the  main  with  the  Ordo, 
except  that  they  speak  of  the  reservation  of  the 
Blood  as  well  as  of  the  Body  of  the  Lord,  and 
direct  that  the  reserved  sacrament  be  brought 
out  of  the  sacristy  and  set  on  the  altar  by 
deacons  instead  of  presbyters.  The  adoration  of 
the  cross  by  the  clergy  succeeds  the  placing  of 
the  consecrated  elements  on  the  altar,  and  is 
followed  by  the  actual  communion  (Muratori  n.s. 
i.  559,  sq.)  It  merits  notice  that  all  early 
authorities  prescribe  a  general  communion  on 
Good  Friday,  “  all  communicate  silently.”  This 
custom  had  entirely  ceased  in  Rome  at  the 
beginning  of  the  9th  century  (Amalar.  de  Eccl. 
Off.  i.  15),  and  though  it  lingered  for  a  long  time 
in  some  parts,  it  gradually  died  out  in  the  West, 
and  at  the  present  day  in  the  Roman  church  no 
one  but  the  celebrant  communicates  on  Good 
Friday.  The  ])ontiff  })ronouuces  peace  to  them 
“  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.”  The  people 
answer,  “and  with  thy  spirit.”  “After  a  little 
space  each  says  his  vespers  ])rivately,  and  .so  they 
go  to  table”  (Muratori  ii.  995-996).  [E.  V.] 

GOODS,  COMMUNITY  OF.  The  idea 
that  all  property  should  belong  to  a  communitv 
and  not  to  individuals  may  be  traced  to  a  verv 
high  antiquity.  The  Pythagorean  .society  is 
commonly  suj)posed  to  have  been  constituted  on 
the  basis  of  a  community  of  goods,  though  pro¬ 
bably  only  those  who  had  reached  the  highest 
grade  of  the  initiated  I’enounced  all  private 
posse.s.sions  (Ritter  and  Preller,  Hist.  /Vo7., p.  58). 
Plato,  also,  in  his  imaginary  Rej)ublic,  condemns 
the  institution  of  juivate  ])ropeity  in  the 
strongest  manner,  as  the  source  of  all  greed  and 
meanne.ss;  he  therefore  allows  it  onlv  to  the 
third  and  lowest  class  of  his  citizens — those  who 
are  bv  nature  qualified  to  seek  onlv  low  and 

3.  ii  • 


f40  GOODS,  COMMUNITY  OF 

material  ends  in  life,  and  arc  consequently 
excluded  from  all  share  in  the  government  of 
the  state.  The  two  higher  classes  are  to  live 
wholly  for  the  state,  a  coinlition — the  philosopher 
holds  —  Incompatible  with  the  possession  of 
prfvate  property  (^Politia^  iv.,  p.  421  C  fl'. ; 

LC'ies,  V.  j).  7;>9  I5.). 

To  turn  from  heathen  to  Jewish  social  insti¬ 
tutions,  Josephus-  tells  us  (^Dellurn  Jud.  ii.  8, 
§  3)  of  tlie  Essenes,  that  each  member  on 
entrance  tlirew  liis  goods  into  the  common  stock, 
so  tliat  tliere  was  found  among  them  neither 
poverty  nor  riches.  In  like  manner  the  Thera- 
peutae  on  Lake  Moeris  had  all  things  in  common. 

It  was  while  the  Therapeutae  and  Essenes 
were  still  flourishing  communities  that  the 
gosjiel  of  Christ  was  first  proclaimed.  And  here, 
too,  we  read  of  the  earlier  church  of  Jerusalem, 
that  they  “had  all  things  common”  (Acts  ii. 
44) — a  passage  which  has  often  served  fanatical 
sects  as  a  justification  of  their  communism.  And 
yet  it  is  clear  from  the  book  of  the  Acts  itself 
that  property  made  over  to  the  community 
was  of  the  nature  of  a  voluntary  gift;  those 
who  entered  the  church  were  not  deprived  of 
the  right  to  jiossess  property  (Acts  v.  4) ; 
Ananias  was  not  punished  for  failing  to  con¬ 
tribute  the  whole  of  his  property,  but  for  fraud 
and  lying  in  jiretending  to  give  the  whole  while 
he  only  gave  part. 

In  the  a[)osto]ic  age  generally  it  is  past  all 
controversy  that  nothing  like  a  community  of 
goods  existed  in  the  church.  The  churches  are 
eridently  contemplated  as  containing  the  .same 
variety  of  wealth  and  station  as  ordinary  society  ; 
contributions  are  made  of  freewill  ;  the  rich  are 
charged  to  “  be  rich  in  good  works,  ready  to 
distribute,  willing  to  communicate;”  the  cheer¬ 
ful  giver  is  commended  (2  Cor.  ix.  7  ;  1  Tim.  vi. 
17,  18).  The  disturbed  state  of  the  Thessalonians, 
and  their  unwillingness  to  labour  while  they 
expected  the  immediate  advent  of  Christ,  had 
(so  far  as  appears)  no  connexion  with  any  com¬ 
munistic  views.  Nor  does  the  testimony  of  the 
next  age  favour  the  idea  that  the  earliest 
Christian  society  was  communistic.  The  writer 
of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus  (c.  5)  speaks  of  a 
“  common  table,”  and  no  more.  Tertullian,  in¬ 
deed  (Apolog.  c.  39),  says,  in  so  many  words, 
that  Christians  had  all  things  in  common  except 
their  wives  (omnia  indiscreta  sunt  apud  nos 
praeter  uxores) ;  but  it  is  evident  that  this  is 
nothing  more  than  a  characteristically  violent 
expression  for  their  mutual  love  and  charity; 
for  in  the  very  same  chapter  he  states  expi-essly,. 
that  the  contributions  of  the  brethren  to  the 
common  fund  were  wholly  voluntary  (modicam 
unusquisque  stipem  menstrua  die,  vel  quum 
velit,  et  si  modo  velit,  et  si  modo  possit,  apponit). 
i.actantius  {/.'pit.  Div.  Institt.  c.  38)  especially 
condemns  communism  as  one  of  the  cardinal 
vices  of  Plato’s  Republic,  which  he  would  hardly 
have  done  if  he  had  supposed  the  same  principle 
to  have  animated  the  first  society  of  believers. 
The  interpretation  of  Acts  ii.  44  as  relating  to 
an  absolute  community  of  goods  seems  in  fact  to 
have  taken  its  rise  from  Chrysostom  {Horn.  xi. 
in  Acta  Appi).  Some  writers  in  modern  times 
have  seen  in  this  supposed  communism  of  the 
early  Christians  at  Jerusalem  an  indication  of  an 
Essene  iiiriuence.  (See  against  this  view  Yon 
Wegnern,  in  Illgen’s  Zdtschrift  xi.  2.  p.  1  ff.). 


GOSPEL,  THE  LITURGICAL 

As,  however,  within  the  church  so  strong  an 
expression  was  given  to  the  duty  of  mutual  love 
and  succour,  and  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  in 
Christ,  it  could  scarcely  fail  but  that  here  and 
there  enthusiastic  sects  would  exaggerate  and 
develope  these  ])rinci]jles  into  absolute  renun¬ 
ciation  of  property.  This  was  in  fact  the  case. 
During  the  ecclesiastical  troubles  in  Africa  in 
the  4th  century,  the  Donatists  were  never  wearv 
of  rej'roaching  their  orthodox  opponents  with 
the  wealth  and  power  which  they  derived  from 
their  connexion  with  the  state.  Some  of  their 
own  adherents,  in  consequence  of  these  denun¬ 
ciations,  renounced  private  po.ssessions  altogether 
— a  renunciation  which  led  to  vagabondage  and 
mendicancy  rather  than  to  holiness.  These 
CiRCUMCELLiONS — as  they  came  to  be  called — 
became  the  nucleus  of  a  band  of  discontented 
peasants  and  runaway  slaves,  whose  excesses  at 
last  required  the  forcible  interference  of  the 
government  to  put  them  down.  And  other  sects 
also  rejected  the  idea  of  property  ;  the  Apotactici 
or  Apostolici,  as  they  arrogantly  called  them¬ 
selves  (says  St.  Augustine,  De  JIneres.  c.  40), 
admitted  none  into  their  community  who  lived 
with  wives  or  possessed  private  property  (res 
proprias  iiabentes)  ;  and,  a  common  characteristic 
of  heresy,  denied  salvation  to  all  outside  their 
own  sect.  The  Eustathians  also,  who  were  con¬ 
demned  at  the  council  of  Gangra  about  the  year 
370  {Cone.  Gangr.  Praef.)  held  that  those  who 
did  not  give  up  their  private  wealth  were  beyond 
all  hope  of  salvation.  The  laws  of  the  empire 
imposed  upon  Apotactici  the  same  penalties  that 
were  laid  upon  other  heretics,  except  the  con¬ 
fiscation  of  goods  ;  they  could  not  be  deprived  of 
that  which  they  had  already  renounced  {Codex 
Theod.  lib.  xvi.  tit.  5,  de  H  <eret.  11.  7  et  11). 

When  Pachomius  (f  348)  first  drew  together 
into  one  body  [Coexobtum]  a  number  of  an¬ 
chorites  and  wandering  mendicants  at  Tabennae 
in  Upper  Egypt,  he  instituted  a  system  of 
organized  labour  and  common  participation  in 
the  fruits  of  laboui-.  Stewards  [Oecoxomus] 
managed  the  proj)erty  of  the  society  for  the 
benefit  of  the  whole,  and  distributed  the  excess 
of  income  to  the  poor  and  needy  of  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood.  St.  Basil,  St.  Benedict,  and  other 
founders  of  monastic  orders,  enjoined  the  same 
rule  of  individual  poverty  on  the  members 
their  societies,  and  so  there  arose  throughout 
Christendom,  in  East  and  West,  religious  societies 
of  celibates  organized  on  communistic  principles 
[Moxasticism].  From  the  8th  century  onward 
the  secular  clergy  also,  who  lived  the  canonical 
life,  adopted,  to  some  extent,  the  principle  of 
community  of  goods  [Caxoxici].  [C.] 

GORDIANUS.  (1)  [Epimaciius  (1).] 

(2)  Martyr  with  Macrinus  and  Valerianus  at 
Nyon;  commemorated  Sept.  17  {Mart.  Usuardi, 
llieron.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GORDIAS,  martyr,  circa  320  A.D. ;  comme¬ 
morated  Jan.  3  {Cal.  /igzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

GORGONIUS.  [Dorotueus  (3).] 

GOSPEL,  THE  LITURGICAL.  I.  In¬ 
troduction. — Among  the  Jews,  certainly  from  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  })robably  before,  one 
les.son  from  the  Pentateuch  and  another  from  the 
“Prophets”  {i.e.  from  some  of  the  later  histo¬ 
rical  books,  and  from  those  more  properly  called 


GOSPEL,  THE  LITURGICAL 

prophetical)  were  read  in  the  synagogues  every 
sabbath  dav.  Fifty-four  jwrtions  from  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  (called  Paraschioth),  and  as  many  from 
the  “Prophets”  (Haphtoroth),  were  appointed 
for  this  ]>urpose.  As  the  Jews  intercalated  a 
month  everv  second  or  third  year,  this  number 
was  required.  When  there  were  not  fifty-four 
sabbaths  in  a  year,  they  read  two  of  the  shorter 
lessons  together,  once  or  twice  in  the  year,  as 
might  be  necessary ;  so  that  the  whole  of  both 
selections  was  read  through  annually.  The 
Pai-aschioth  are  generally  very  long,  some  ex¬ 
tending  over  four  or  five  chapters ;  but  the 
Haphtoroth  are  as  a  rule  short,  often  only  a 
part  of  one  chapter.  Tables  of  both  may  be 
seen  in  Horne’s  Introduction  to  the  Scriptures,  pt. 
iii.  ch.  i.  sect.  iv.  The  foregoing  facts  will  enable 
the  reader  to  judge  how  far  the  first  Christians 
were  indebted  to  the  traditions  of  the  synagogue 
for  the  practice  of  reading  Holy  Scripture  in 
their  synaxis,  and  for  the  method  of  reading  it. 
At  all  events  we  may  be  certain  that  the  Old 
Testament,  so  long  the  only  known  repository  of 
the  “  oracles  of  God,”  and  still  acknowledged  to 
be  “able  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation 
through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus”  (2  Tim. 
iii.  15),  would  be  no  more  neglected  in  tlieir 
common  exercises  of  religion  than  it  was  in  their 
private  study.  At  the  same  time  it  was  in¬ 
evitable  that,  when  the  New  Testament  came  to 
be  written,  lessons  from  that  should  be  read 
either  in  addition  to  or  instead  of  those  from  the 
Old.  There  was,  however,  a  short  period  during 
which  the  Old  Testament  only  would  be  re  id  in 
Christian  assemblies,  viz.  before  the  events  of 
the  Gospel  wei’e  committed  to  writing;  and 
there  is  in  the  most  ancient  liturg}’-,  that  of  St. 
James,  a  rubric,  evidently  genuine,  which  ap¬ 
pears  to  have  been  framed  during  this  interval. 
“Then  the  sacred  oracles  of  the  Old  Covenant 
and  of  the  Prophets  are  read  at  great  length  (Sj- 
(^o^iKcl'TaTa,  some  understand  “  consecutively,” 
but  the  Jewish  precedent  favours  the  former 
reading);  and  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  His  sufferings,  His  resurrectiosn  from  the  dead, 
and  ascension  into  heaven,  and,  again,  His  second 
coming  with  ^lerv,  are  set  forth.”  As  Mr. 
Trollope  points  out  (^The  Greek  Liturg if  of  St. 
James,  j).  42),  we  have  here  the  Old  Testament 
read,  but  the  great  events  of  the  Gospel  related 
to' the  ]teo|)le  as  it'  not  yet  in  writing. 

II.  E'ideiice  if  ire. — Justin  Martyr,  a.d.  140, 
describing  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist,  says, 
“  The  commentaries  of  the  apostles  and  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  are  read  as  time  per¬ 
mits”  {Ap  'l.\.  c.  67).  A  lesson  from  the  gospels 
was  without  doubt  included  under  the  former 
head.  St.  Cypidan,  a.d.  250,  speaks  of  a  con- 
fe.ssor  whom  he  had  ordained  lector,  as  “  reading 
the  precept.s  and  the  gospel  of  the  Lord  ”  from 
the  stand  (pulpitum)  {Ep.  xxxix.).  Eusebius, 
A.D.  315,  says  that  St.  Peter  authorised  the  use 
of  the  gospel  of  St.  ^lark  “in  the  churches.” 
For  this  he  refers  to  the  J/gp  itgposcs  of  Clemens 
of  Alexandria  (not  of  Home,  as  Bona  and  others) 
and  to  Papias ;  but  elsewhere  he  cites  both  pas¬ 
sages,  and  neither  of  them  contains  the  words 
“in  the  churches.”  W'hat  he  says,^  therefore, 
does  not,  as  many  have  imagined,  prove  from 
Papias  the  custom  of  the  apostolic  church,  but 
is  only  a  proof  of  the  practice  of  his  own  age,  in 
the  light  of  which  he  read  those  earlier  writers  j 


GOSPEL,  THE  LiTURGICAL  741 

(see  /list.  Ecd.  nb.  ii.  c.  xv. ;  and  compare  lib.  v.. 
c.  xiv.,  lib.  iii.  c.  xxxix.).  Cyril  of  Jeru.salem, 
A.D.  350,  speaks  vaguely  of  the  “  reading  of 
Scripture”  (Praef.  in  Catech.  §§  iii.  iv.);  nor 
are  any  of  his  catechetical  homilies  on  le.ssons 
from  the  gospel.  Optatus,  A.D.  368,  addressing 
the  Donatist  clergy,  says,  “  Ye  begin  with  the 
lessons  of  the  Lord,  and  ye  expand  your  ex¬ 
positions  to  our  injury ;  ye  bring  forth  the 
go -pel,  and  make  a  reproach  against  an  absent 
brother  ”  (/><?  Schism.  Dunat.  lib.  iv.  c.  v.).  Th» 
so-called  Constitutions  of  the  Apostles  put  an 
order  into  their  mouths,  which  begins  thus : 
“  After  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets 
and  our  epistles,  and  the  acts  and  the  gospels, 
let  ”  &c.  (lib.  viii.  c.  v.  Cotel.  tom.  i.  p.  392). 
Pseudo-Dionysius  tells  us  that  in  the  liturgy, 
after  the  Psalms,  “follows  the  reading  of  the 
tablets  of  holy  writ  by  the  ministers  ”  {De 
Eccles.  Hierarch,  c.  iii.  §  ii.  tom.  i.  p.  284). 
These  tablets  are  explained  by  Maximus  the 
scholiast  on  Dionysius,  a.d.  645,  to  be  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  {Ibid.  p.  305).  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom  frequently  gave  notice  of  the  text  on 
which  he  proposed  to  preach  some  days  before  ; 
but  in  one  homily  he  says,  “  On  one  day  of  the 
week,  or  on  the  sabbath  (Saturday),  at  least,  let 
each  take  in  his  hands,  and,  sitting  at  home,  read 
that  section  {TrfpiKoirrir)  of  the  gospels  which  is 
going  to  be  read  among  you  ”  {Horn.  xi.  in  St.Joh. 
Ev.  §  1).  This  implies  that  they  knew  what  the 
lesson  from  the  gospels  would  be  ;  and  therefore 
that  a  table  of  such  lessons  was  drawn  up  and 
acce.ssible  to  all.  St.  Augustine,  in  Africa,  often 
preached  on  the  gospel.  Thus  one  of  his  ser¬ 
mons  begins,  “The  chapter  of  the  holy  gospel 
which  we  heard,  when  it  was  just  now  read,” 
&c.  {Serm.  Iv.  §  1).  Another  :  “  VVe  heanl,  when 
the  gospel  was  read,”  kc.  {Serm.  Ixii.  §  1).  The 
council  of  Laodicaea,  probably  about  365,  has  a 
canon  ordering  the  “  gosjjcls  to  be  read  with 
other  scriptui’es  on  the  sabbath”  (Can.  xvi.). 
The  omission  of  the  gospel  on  Saturdaj"  had 
without  doubt  been  merely  a  local  custom.  A 
council  of  Orange,  a.d.  441,  can.  xviii.,  ordered 
that  thenceforward  the  gospel  should  be  read  to 
the  catechumens,  as  well  as  the  faithful,  in  all 
the  churches  of  the  province.  That  of  Valen¬ 
cia,  A.D.  524,  ordered  that  “  the  most  holv  gospels, 
be  read  in  the  mass  of  the  catechumens  before 
the  illation  of  the  gifts,  in  the  onler  of  lessons 
after  the  apostle,”  i.e.  the  epistle  (Can.  i.). 
In  France,  554,  a  constitution  of  Childebert 
mentions  the  gospels,  prophets,  and  apostle,  as 
read  from  the  altar  {Capit.  Peg.  Franc,  ed. 
Baluz.  tom.  i.  col.  7).  Germanus  of  Paris, 
A.D.  555,  in  his  exposition  of  the  liturgy,  simi¬ 
larly  recognises  the  prophecy,  apostle,  and  gospel 
(printed  by  Martene,  De  Ant.  Eccl.  Hit.  lib.  i.  c. 
iv.  art.  xii.).  Gregory  of  Tours,  A.D.  573,  tells  a 
story  of  certain  clerks  in  the  days  of  Childebert, 
who  “having  laid  the  three  books,  i.  c’.  of  the 
prophecy,  the  apostle,  and  the  gos/jels  on  the 
altar,”  prayed  for  an  augury  from  the  passages 
at  which  they  should  open,  each  “  having  made 
an  agreement  among  themselves  that  everv  one 
should  read  at  mass  that  which  he  first  opened 
on  in  the  book”  {//ist.  Franc,  lib.  iv.  c.  xvi.). 
This  implies  that  in  Gaul  at  least  the  les¬ 
sons  were  still  left  to  the  choice  of  those  who 
were  to  read  them.  In  the  next  century,  how 
ever,  the  Gallicau  church  had  a  lectionaiy,  a 


GOSPEL,  THE  LITURGICAL 


742  GOSPEL,  THE  LITURGICAL 

copy  of  which,  nearly  complete,  in  Merovingian 
charactei's,  was  found  by  Mabillon  in  the  monas¬ 
tery  at  Luxeuil.  It  i)]-ovides  a  gospel  for  every 
mass  {Jjitur(j.  Gall.  lib.  ii.  pp.  97-173).  Luxeuil 
is  in  the  j)rovince  of  Besanf/on ;  but  the  eucha- 
ristic  lessons  (of  which  the  gosj)el  is  always  one) 
in  the  Sacramentarv  found  at  Bobio,  which  is 
believed  to  be  of  the  use  of  that  province,  and  is 
certainly  of  about  the  same  age  as  the  lectionary, 
differ  nevertheless  from  those  in  that  book. 
From  this  we  may  perhaps  infer  that  although 
the  lessons  were  then  generally  fixed,  every 
bishop  was  at  liberty  to  make  his  own  selection. 
There  is  another  ancient  lectionary,  ascribed  to 
St.  Jerome,  and  known  as  the  Liber  Comitis,  or 
Comes  Hierowjmi ;  but  from  internal  evidence 
shown  to  be  the  work  of  a  Gallican  compiler  in 
the  8th  century.  This  has  been  printed  from 
two  MSS.,  one  of  which  provides  three  lessons 
for  above  two  hundred  days  and  occasions  ;  the 
other  for  the  most  part  only  two  ;  but  the  gospel 
is  never  omitted  in  either.  The  shorter  recen¬ 
sion  may  be  seen  in  the  Ilitiiilis  SS.  Patrum  of 
Pamelius,  tom.  ii.  pp.  1-61.  The  longer  is 
printed  by  Baluze  in  the  Cap'tnlaria  Itegum 
Frunconnn,  tom.  ii.  coll.  1309-1351. 

III.  Provision  for  use. — In  the  West,  generall}’’, 
a  gospel  has  been  always  provided  for  every 
Sunday  and  for  other  holy  days.  The  number 
of  gospels  (and  other  lessons)  in  the  Liber  Comitis 
already  mentioned  suggests  that  at  one  time 
there  was  a  partial  attempt  to  assign  proper 
lessons  to  every  day  in  the  year.  However  tliis 
may  be,  the  Roman  use  retained  them  for  every 
day  in  Lent,  and  the  Mozarabic  for  every  Wed¬ 
nesday  and  Friday  (except  the  first)  during  that 
season  (see  Mismle  Mixtum,  Leslie,  pp.  89-154). 
There  was  no  such  provision  in  the  Gallican 
Sacramentary  found  at  Bobio  (see  Mui’at.  Liturg. 
Pom.  Vet.  tom.  ii.  coll.  815-835,  or  Mns.  Ital. 
tom.  i.  pp.  301-319),  nor,  so  far  as  we  can  judge 
in  the  Lectionary  of  Luxeuil  (Mabillon,  Liturg. 
Gall.  p.  124).  Eight  leaves  are  missing  in  this 
MS^.  between  Ash  Wednesday  and  Palm  Sunday, 
but  they  could  hardly  have  contained  more  than 
the  Sunday  lessons.  The  ancient  Irish  Sacra¬ 
mentary,  of  which  but  one  copy  exists  in  manu¬ 
script,  ]>robably  of  the  6th  century,  is  singular 
in  the  West  in  having  but  one  gospel  and  e])istle 
for  the  whole  year,  the  former  being  the'  sixth 
chapter  of  St.  John,  the  latter  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  St.  Paul’s  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians.  See  O’Connor’s  Append,  to  vol.  i. 
of  the  Catal.  of  the  MSS.  at  Stowe,  p.  45.  The 
fact  is  also  attested  by  Dr.  Todd  (see  Pref.  to  the 
Liber.  Loci,  de  B.  Terrenaui  de  Arbuthnott, 
p.'xxiv.). 

In  the  West  the  gospels  appear  to  have  been 
chosen  without  any  reference  to  their  place  in 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  But,  in  the 
Greek  church,  those  four  books  have  been 
divided  into  lessons  {rjxigxaTa,  fxfpr},  Tr^piKoirds, 
auayruxTuara,  arayruxreis)  •  so  that  they  may 
be  read  through  in  order,  only  interrupted  when 
a  festival  with  its  proper  lesson  intervenes  (Leo 
Allatius,  De  lAbr.  Led.  Gr.  Diss.  i.  p.  35).  It 
is  probably  in  accordance  with  this  arrangement 
that  the  canon  of  Laodicaea,  already  cited,  does 
not  order  le.ssons  from  the'gospels,  or  sections, 
or  portions,  or  the  like,  to  be  read  on  Saturday 
with  other  scriptures,  but  themselves, 

i.e.  the  four  books  so  called.  From  this  it  may 


be  inferred  that  the  Greek  meihod  was  the 
normal  practice  of  the  whole  Eastern  church 
before  the  separation  of  the  Nestorians  and 
Monophysites.  There  was  an  excejjtion,  how¬ 
ever,  at  one  period,  whether  beginning  before  or 
after  that  separation,  in  the  church  of  Malabar, 
the  ancient  liturgy  of  which  jn-esents  but  one 
epistle  and  gos])el  for  every  celebration — the 
former  compo.sed  from  2  Cor.  v.  1-10,  and  Heb. 
iv.  12,  13;  the  latter  taken  from  St.  John  v. 
vv.  19-29.  As  neither  have  any  special  refe¬ 
rence  to  the  Eucharist,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  peculiarity  was,  unlike  that  of  the  Irish 
missal,  \inintentional,  and  resulting,  probably, 
from  the  destruction  of  sacred  books  in  a  season 
of  persecution,  and  from  the  ignorance  that 
followed  it. 

IV.  The  Book  of  the  Gospels. — The  book  which 
contained  the  four  gospels  as  divided  for  eucha- 
ristic  use  was  called  by  the  Greeks  Ei»a776A(oj/. 
The  oldest  writer  cited  as  using  the  word  in  this 
specific  sense  is  Palladius,  a.d.  400  :  ‘‘He  bring.s 
the  ‘  gosjiel  ’  to  him  and  exacts  the  oath.”  (Hist. 
Ixtusiac.  c.  86.)  Another  proof  of  the  antiquity 
of  the  usage  is  the  fact  that  the  Nestorians, 
who  were  cut  off  from  the  church  in  the  5th 
century,  retain  the  term  Euanghelion  in  this 
limited  sense  to  the  present  day  (Badger’s  Xesto- 
riuns,  v.  ii.  p.  19).  The  book  is  similarly  called 
“  the  gospel”  in  the  liturgy  ofSt.  Mark  (Ilenaud. 
tom.  i.  p.  136)  and  others. 

V.  Bg  whom  read. — In  Africa  the  eucharistic 
gospel  was  read  by  those  of  the  order  of  readers 
in  the  3rd  century  (see  Cypr.  Ep.  xxxix.  and  Ep. 
xxxviii.).  It  was  generally,  however,  assigned 
to  a  higher  order:  “After  these  {i.e.  the  other 
lessons),  let  a  deacon  or  presbyter  read  the  gos¬ 
pels  ”  {Constit.  Apmtol.  lib.  ii.  c.  Ivii.).  Sozomen, 
A.D.  440,  tells  us  that  among  the  Alexan<lrians 
the  “archdeacon  alone  read  that  sacred  book  (of 
the  gospels);  but  among  others  the  deacons,  aud¬ 
io  many  churches  the  priests  only”  {Hist.  Eccl. 
lib.  vii.  c.  xix.).  He  adds  that  “  on  high  days 
bishops  read  it,  as  at  Constantinople,  on  the  first 
day  of  the  paschal  feast.”  The  liturgies  of  St. 
Mark  (Renaud.  tom.  i.  p.  138),  St.  Basil,  and  St. 
Chrysostom  (Goar,  pp.  161  and  69)  give  this 
office  to  the  deacon.  This  was  also  the  common 
practice  in  the  West.  Thus  St.  Jerome  says  to 
Sabinian,  “Thou  wast  wont  to  read  the  gospel 
as  a  deacon  ”  {Ep.  xciii.).  St.  Isidore  of  Seville, 
writing  about  the  year  610,  is  a  witness  to  the 
same  practice  {De  Eccl.  Off.  lib.  ii.  c.  8).  We 
observe  it  also  in  the  most  ancient  “  Ordines 
Romani”  (J/ms.  Ltal.  tom.  ii.  pp.  10,  46);  and  it 
became  the  rule  throughout  Europe,  when  a 
deacon  was  present. 

VI.  Where  read.  —  The  gospel  was  perhaps 
generallv  read  from  a  stand  called  Ambo  (’ A/x- 
/Scei/)  or  Pulpitum  even  in  the  earliest  ages.  It 
certainly  was  so  when  the  celebrant  him.selt  did 
not  read  it.  Thus  St.  Cy])rian,  as  before  (juoted. 
sj)caks  of  Celerinus,  the  reader,  as  officiating 
“on  a  })ulpit,  i.e.  on  the  tribunal  of  the  church,’’ 
and  generally  of  confessors  raised  to  that  order 
as  “  coming  to  the  puljut  after  the  stocks  ” 
(Epp.  xxxviii.,  xxxix.).  The  Ordo  Romanus  in 
use  in  the  8th  century  orders  the  gospel  to  be 
read  from  the  higher  step  of  the  ambo,  the  epistle 
having  been  read  from  a  lower  {Ord.  ii.  nn.  7,  8). 
In  some  churches  there  was  a  separate  ambo  for 
the  gospel.  An  example  occurred  in  the  church 


GOSPEL,  THE  LITUKGICAL 

of  St.  Clement  at  Eoine,  where  also  the  gospel 
ambo  was  a  “little  liigher  and  more  ornate’’ 
(Martene,  De  Ant.  Ecd.  Hit.  lib.  i.  c.  iv.  art.  iv. 
n.  iii.).  This  became  to  some  extent  a  rule 
(Scu  larnore,  Kotiti  i  L'ucharistica,  p.  222).  We 
hear  jf  the  ambo  in  the  East  also.  Thus  Sozo- 
men,  speaking  of  a  tomb  over  which  a  church 
had  been  built,  says  that  it  was  “near  the  ambo, 
that  is  to  say,  the  rostnun  (^rjjua)  of  the  readers’* 
{Nisi.  Eccl.  lib.  ix.  c.  ii.).  The  same  historian  tells 
US  that  St.  Chrysostom,  that  he  might  be  better 
iieard,  used  to  preach  at  Constantinople  “sitting 
on  the  of  the  readers  ”  (lib.  v.  c.  v.),  and 

Socrates,  referring  to  a  particular  occasion, 
speaks  of  him  as  “seated  on  the  ambo,  from 
which  he  was  wont  also  before  that  to  preach  in 
order  to  be  heard  ”  {J/ist.  Eccl.  lib.  au.  c.  v.). 
The  council  in  Trullo,  A.to.  691,  forbade  any  who 
had  not  received  the  proper  benediction  to 
“  proclaim  the  words  of  God  to  the  people  on 
the  ambo”  (can.  xxxiii.).  In  the  liturgy  of  St. 
Chrysostom,  the  deacon  who  reads  the  gospel 
“stands  elevated  on  the  ambo  or  in  the  appointed 
place  ”  (Goar,  p.  69). 

VH.  Ec’d  towards  the  South.  —  It  w'as  an 
early,  but  we  think  not  primitive,  custom  in  the 
West  for  the  gospeller  to  “  stand  facing  the  south, 
where  the  men  were  w'ont  to  assemble”  (Ord. 
Horn.  ii.  c.  8).  Amalarius,  an  early  commentator 
on  the  Ordo  Romanus,  suggests  that  this  w'as 
because  the  men  were  supposed  to  receive  the 
gospel  first,  and  to  teach  it  to  their  wives  at  home 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  35).  See  his  Ecloga,  n.  xv.  Mus.  Ital. 
tom.  ii.  p.  553.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  a 
different  custom  prevailed  at  the  same  time  in 
France,  or  very  soon  after.  For  in  the  latter 
pait  of  the  9th  century  Remigius  of  Auxerre 
tells  us  that  “the  Levite  (deacon),  when  about 
to  pronounce  the  w^ords  of  the  gospel,  turns  his 
face  towards  the  north,”  as  defying  Satan,  who 
was  sujiposed  (from  Isai.  xiv.  13)  to  dwell  there 
Celeb.  Jh'ssae^  ad.  calc.  Libri  Pseudo-Alcuini, 
de  Div.  Off.  Flittorp,  col.  280). 

VIII.  Attendant  rites. — From  a  very  early 
period  the  reading  of  the  gospel  was  attended 
with  circumstances  of  solemnity.  In  the  Greek 
church  it  has  for  many  ages  been  brought  into 
the  church  out  of  the  chapel  of  Prothesis  in  a 
rite  known  as  the  Little  Entrance,  the  bringing 
in  of  the  gifts  being  the  Great  Entrance.  While 
the  choir  is  singing  the  Glorij  at  the  end  of  the 
third  anti]>hon  the  priest  and  deacon,  after  bow¬ 
ing  thrice  before  the  altar,  go  out  for  the  book 
of  the  gospels.  They  return  into  the  church, 
the  deacon  carrving  the  gospel,  preceded  by 
lights,  and  welomed  by  a  special  anthem.  After 
a  circuit  of  some  length  on  the  north  side  of  the 
church  they  stop  at  the  holy  doors,  where  the 
])riest  says,  secretly,  the  “  Prayer  of  the  En¬ 
trance.”  The  deacon  then  asks  for,  and  the  priest 
gives,  a  “  blessing  on  the  Entrance,”  trofiaria 
being  sung  meanwhile.  When  they  are  ended, 
the  deacon  shows  the  gospel  to  the  people,  say¬ 
ing,  “  Wisdom.  Stand  up.”  They  then  enter 
the  bema,  and  the  book  is  laid  on  the  holy  table 
till  required  for  use  (Eucho'o</ium,  Goar,  pp.  67, 
124,  160).  This  is  found  in  the  older  liturgy  of 
St.  Basil,  hs  well  as  that  of  St.  Chrysostom,  but 
it  is  imj)os.sil  le  to  say  how  much  of  it  was  ))rac- 
tised  in  the  j,ge  of  those  great  bishojis.  There 
i.s  no  trace  of  the  Little  Entrance  in  the  liturgy 
of  Jerusalem,  from  which  that  of  Caesarea  (St. 


GOSPEL,  THE  LITURGICAL  743 

Basil)  was  derived,  nor  in  the  Nestorian  litur¬ 
gies,  which  came  from  an  independent  source 
before  the  5th  century.  C)n  the  other  hand, 
there  is  a  simpler  fnim  of  the  rite  in  the 
Armenian  liturgy,  which  was  borrowed  from 
Caesarea  in  the  time  of  St.  Basil,  and  influenced 
in  its  subsequent  growth  by  the  residence  of 
St.  Clirysostom  in  Armenia,  where  lie  died 
(Le  Brun,  Eiss.  sur  les  Liturgies,  x.  artt.  iv. 
xiii.).  We  observe,  also,  an  elaborate  render¬ 
ing  of  the  same  rite  in  liturgies  that  can 
hardly  have  been  indebted  to  those  of  the  Greek 
church  after  the  6th  century  at  least.  “As  the 
book  of  the  gospels,”  remarks  Renaudot,  “  is 
carried  to  the  ambo  with  great  ceremony  among 
the  Copts,  so  it  is  certain  that  it  is  in  like  man¬ 
ner  done  among  the  Syrians;  and  they  received 
it  from  the  Greeks  ”  (tom.  ii.  p.  69).  For  the 
Coptic  Entrance  see  tom.  i.  p.  210.  A  short 
rubric  in  the  liturgy  of  St.  Mark  tells  us  when 
the  Entrance  takes  i)lace ;  but  it  is  not  de.scribed 
(Renaud.  tom.  i.  p.  136). 

Another  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Little 
Entrance  is  found  in  its  resemblance  to  a  cere¬ 
mony  practised  at  Rome  in  certain  pontifical 
masses  of  the  7th  and  8th  centuries.  The  gospel 
was  brought  in  a  case  or  casket  from  the  basilica 
of  St.  John  Lateran  to  the  regionary  church  in 
which  the  celebration  took  place  by  an  acolyte 
in  attendance  on  the  bishop,  but  under  the  care 
of  the  archdeacon.  It  was  made  ready  by  the 
reader  at  the  door  of  the  Secretarium,  while  the 
bishop  was  within  preparing  for  the  service. 
The  acolyte  then  carried  it  “  into  the  presbytery 
to  before  the  altar,”  preceded  by  a  subdeacon, 
who  then  took  it  from  him,  and  “with  his  own 
hands  placed  it  with  honour  upon  the  altar” 
(^Ord.  ll(,in.  i.  §§  3,  4,  5 ;  ii.  2,  4,  5). 

As  an  example  of  the  ritual  when  the  gospel 
was  to  be  read,  we  may,  for  the  East,  cite  St. 
Mark :  “  The  deacon,  v:hen  about  to  read  the 
gospel,  sags,  ‘  Bless,  sir.’  The  priest,  ‘The  Lord 
ble.ss  and  strengthen,  and  make  us  hearers  of  His 
holy  gospel,  wbo  is  God  blessed  now  and  ever, 
and  for  ever.  Amen.’  The  deacon,  ‘Stand,  let 
us  hear  the  holy  gospel.’  The  priest,  ‘  Peace  be 
to  all.’  The  people,  '•  Xi\<\  to  thy  spirit.’  Then 
the  deacon  reads  the  gospel” — (Renaud.  tom.  i. 
p.  138).  At  Rome,  in  the  pontifical  masses 
before  mentioned,  the  deacon  having  received  a 
blessing  from  the  bishop,  “The  Lord  be  in  thy 
heart  and  on  thv  lips,”  after  kissing  the  gGS])els, 
took  the  book  off  the  altar,  and  went  towards 
the  ambo,  preceded  by  two  subdeacons—  one  witli 
incense— and  followed  by  a  third.  There  llie 
acolytes  made  a  passage  for  the  })receding  sub¬ 
deacons  and  the  deacon.  The  latter  then  rested 
his  book  on  the  left  arm  of  the  subdeacon  with¬ 
out  a  censer,  who  oj)ened  it  at  the  j)lace  already 
marked.  The  deacon  then,  Avith  his  finger  in 
the  jjlace,  went  up  to  that  stage  of  the  ambo 
from  which  he  was  to  read,  the  two  subdeacons 
going  to  stand  before  the  steps  by  which  he 
would  descend.  The  gos))el  ended,  the  bishop 
says,  “Peace  be  to  tbee,”  and  “The  Lord  be 
with  you.”  Resp.,  “And  with  thy  spirit.”  As 
the  deacon  came  down,  the  subdeacou  who  had 
opened  the  book  took  it  from  him,  and  handed  it 
to  the  third  subdeacon  who  had  followed.  He, 
holding  it  on  his  ])laneta,  before  his  breast,  offers 
it  to  be  kissed  by  all  engaged  in  the  rite,  and 
then  puts  it  into  the  case  or  casket  before 


GOSPEL,  THE  LITURGICAL 


744  GOSPEL,  THE  LITURGICAL 

mentioned,  held  ready  by  the  acolyte  who  had  | 
brought  it  into  the  church  )rd.  Horn.  i.  §11). 
An  Urdo,  somewhat  later,  but  not  lower  than  the  j 
8th  century,  tells  us  that  ‘‘the  candles  were  ex-  j 
tinguished  in  their  place  after  the  gospel  was  | 
read”  i^Ord.  ii.  §9).  The  custom  of  lighting 
candles  at  the  reading  of  the  gospel  came  from 
tne  East,  where  it  prevailed  in  the  4th  century. 
“Through  all  the  churches  of  the  East,”  says 
St.  Jerome,  “  when  the  gospel  is  to  be  read,  lights 
are  burned,  though  the  sun  be  already  shining  ” 
(^Contra  Viijilant.  §7).  St.  Isidore  of  Seville,  in 
a  work  written  in  636,  says  that  “acolytes  in 
Greek  are  called  ceroferarii  in  Latin,  from  their 
bearing  wax  candles  when  the  gospel  is  to  be 
read,”  &c.  (^Etyrnol.  lib.  vii.  c.  xii.  §  29).  This 
is  probably  the  earliest  notice  in  the  West, 
though  the  first  Oi’do  Homanus  belongs  almost 
certainly  to  the  same  century.  The  symbolism 
of  the  lights  needs  no  e.vplanation  (see  St.  John 
i.  9 ;  viii.  12). 

IX.  Heard  stccnding. — It  was  probably  from 
the  very  first  the  custom  for  the  people  to  hear 
the  gospel  standing,  out  of  reverence.  Thus  the 
Apostolical  Constitutiuns,  lib.  ii.  c.  Ivii. :  “  When 
the  gospel  is  being  read,  let  all  the  presbyters 
and  the  deacons  and  all  the  people  stand  with 
great  quietness.”  Philostorgius,  A.D.  425,  says 
that  Theophilus  the  Indian,  when  visiting  his 
native  country,  about  the  year  345,  found  that 
the  people  “performed  the  hearing  of  the  gospel 
lessons  sitting,  and  had  some  other  practices 
which  the  Divine  law  did  not  sanction  ”  {Hist. 
Eccl.  lib.  iii.  §5).  His  language  shows  how  im¬ 
portant  the  rite  was  considered.  Isidore  of  Pelu- 
siura,  412,  says,  in  the  same  spirit,  “  When  the 
True  Shepherd  becomes  present  through  the 
opening  of  the  adorable  gospels,  the  bishop  both 
rises  and  lays  aside  the  habit  (the  w/aocpSpiot/') 
which  he  wears  symbolical  of  Him  ”  {Ep.  cxxxvi. 
Hermiao  Comiti).  In  accordance  with  this, 
Sozomen  {Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  vii.  c.  xix.)  tells  us  that 
there  was  “a  strange  custom  among  the  Alex¬ 
andrians,  for,  when  the  gospels  were  read,  the 
bishop  did  not  stand  up,  which,”  he  adds,  “  1 
have  neither  known  nor  heard  of  among  others.” 
The  same  rule  prevailed  in  the  West.  Ama- 
larius,  writing  about  827,  says:  “During  the 
celebration  of  these,  i.  e.  the  lesson  (epustle)  and 
the  prophecy,  we  are  wont  to  sit,  after  the  cus¬ 
tom  of  the  ancients.”  Then,  when  he  speaks  of 
the  gospel:  “Up  to  this  time  wo  sit;  now  we 
must  rise  at  the  words  of  the  gospel  ”  {He  Eccl. 
Off.  lib.  iii.  cc.  11,  18).  At  the  same  time  all 
turned  to  the  East,  and  laid  down  the  staft’  on 
which,  at  that  period,  they  commonly  leaned, 

“  nor  was  there  crown  or  other  covering  on  their 
heads”  {Ord.  Horn.  ii.  §  8  ;  Amal.  u.s.  c.  18). 

X.  The  Doxologies. — The  doxology  now'  com¬ 
mon  after  the  announcement  of  the  gospel  is 
mentioned  by  w'riters  within  our  period.  Thus 
Heterius  and  Beatws,  in  Spain,  a.d.  785:  “The 
deacon  commands  all  to  be  silent,  and  says,  ‘  The 
lesson  of  the  holy  gospel  according  to  Matthew'.’ 
All  the  people  answer,  ‘Glory  be  to  Thee, 0  Lord  ’” 
{Adv.  Elip.md.  lib.  i.  c.  Ixvi.),  Compare  the 
Mczarabic  Missal  (Leslie,  pp.  2,  45,  &c.).  Ama- 
laiius  only  recommends  it.  After  advising  the 
pe-tple  to  pray  for  a  profitable  hearing,  he 
adds :  “  Let  him  who  is  not  quick  to  take  in 
the  w'ords  of  the  gospel,  at  least  .say,  ‘Glory,’” 
&c.  (lib.  iii.  c.  18).  The  practice  probably 


came  through  Spain,  like  several  other  riles, 
from  the  East.  In  the  homilv  He  Circo.  ascribed 
incorrectly  to  St,  Chryso.stom,  we  read,  “  When 
the  deacon  is  about  to  ojien  the  gospel,  w'e  all 
fix  our  eyes  on  him  and  keej)  silence;  but  when 
he  begins  the  course  of  reading,  we  forthwith 
stand  up,  and  resjiond,  ‘  Glory  be  to  Thee,  0 
Lord’”  {0pp.  St.  Chrys.  tom.  viii.  p.  723,  ed. 
Gaume).  Compare  the  liturgies  of  St.  Basil  and 
St.  Chry.sostom  (Goar,  pp.  161  and  69).  The  use 
of  this  form  w'as  probably  not  verv  extensive 
before  the  6th  century,  or  w'e  should  have  found 
it  in  all  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  rites.  The 
liturgy  of  Malabar  (Nestorian),  however,  does 
give  “Glory  to  Christ  the  Lord”  {Hi  t.  E  cl. 
Malah.  Raulin,  p.  306);  the  Ethiopic,  “Glory 
be  to  Thee  alway,  0  Christ,  our  Lord  and  God,” 
&c.  (Renaud.  tom.  i.  p.  510) ;  and  the  Armenian, 
“Glory  be  to  Thee,  0  Lord,  our  God”  (Neale’s 
Eastern  Church,  Introd.  p.  414). 

Thei'e  is  no  very  early  evidence  of  a  doxology 
after  the  gospel.  The  liturgy  of  Malabar  repeats 
that  given  above.  The  Ethiopic  has,  “The  che¬ 
rubim  and  seraphim  send  glory  up  to  Thee.” 
The  Armenian,  like  the  Malabar,  has  the  same 
after  as  before.  There  w'as  none  in  the  early 
Roman  liturgv,  andA/ncn  seems  to  have  been  the 
common  response  in  the  middle  ages  {Xotitia 
Eu  'h  (ristica,  p.  228). 

XL  In  u'h/.d  language  read. — As  the  fir.st  con¬ 
verts  to  the  gospel  spoke  Greek,  all  the  liturgies 
were  originally  in  that  language.  It  is  not 
know'n  w'hen  Latin  w'as  adopted  in  the  services 
at  Rome,  but  the  church  there  had  been  founded 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half  before  it  pro¬ 
duced  a  single  Latin  w'riter.  It  was,  therefore, 
natural  that  Greek  should  be  occasionally  and 
partially  used  in  the  services  after  the  general 
use  of  Latin  had  begun.  In  particular  the 
eucharistic  lessons  were  on  certain  days  roiid  in 
both  languages.  The  chief  evidence  of  this  is 
the  fact  that  it  continued  as  a  traditionary  cus¬ 
tom  throughout  the  middle  ages  (see  Xotitia 
Euch.  p.  207);  but  w'e  also  find  some  early  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  usage.  Thus  Amalarius ;  “  Six 
lessons  were  read  by  the  ancient  Romans  [on  the 
Saturdays  of  the  Ember  weeks]  in  Greek  and 
Latin  (w'hich  custom  is  kept  up  at  Constan¬ 
tinople  to  this  day),  for  tw'o  reasons,  if  I  mistake 
not ;  the  one,  because  there  were  Greeks  present, 
to  w’hom  Latin  w'as  not  known  ;  the  other,  be¬ 
cause  both  peo])le  w'ere  of  ’>ue  mind  ”  {He  Eccl. 
Oif.  lib.  ii.  c.  1).  This  statement  obtains  col¬ 
lateral  support  from  the  earliest  Ordo  Romanus, 
in  W'hich  the  four  lessons  used  at  the  general 
baptism  on  Easter  Eve  are  ordered  to  be  read  in 
Greek  and  Latin  (§  40).  Nicholas  L.  a.d.  85S, 
writing  to  the  emperor  4IichaeL  con  linns  the 
statement  of  Amalarius  as  to  the  practice  at 
Constantinople.  He  atfirms  that  “daily,  or  any 
how,  on  the  principal  feasts,”  the  church  there 
was  “reported  to  recite  the  apostolic  and  evan¬ 
gelic  lessons  in  that  language  (the  Latin)  first, 
and  afterw'ards  pronounce  the  very  same  lessons 
in  Greek,  for  the  sake  of  the  Greeks”  (/.p.  viii., 
Labb.  Co)ic.  tom.  viii.  col.  298).  When  John  VllL, 
in  the  same  century,  gave  permission  for  the 
celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion  in  the 
Sclavonic  tongue,  he  made  this  provi.svi,  tliat, 
“  to  show  it  greater  honour,  the  gospel  should 
be  read  in  Latin,  and  afterwards  published  in 
Sclavonic  in  the  ears  of  the  people  who  did  not 


GOSPELLER 

understand  Latin ;  as  appears  to  be  done  in  some 
churches  ”  (^Ep.  ccxlvii. ;  Labb.  Cone.  tom.  ix. 
col.  177).  In  the  chui'ches  of  Syria  the  gospel 
and  epistle  ai-e  still  read  both  in  the  old  Syriac 
and  in  the  better  understood  Arabic  (Renaud. 
tom.  ii.  p.  69) ;  and  in  Egypt  in  both  Coptic  and 
Arabic  (Renaud.  tom.  i.  pp.  5-8).  When  they 
were  first  i-ead  in  Arabic  we  do  not  know ;  but 
it  was  probably  before  the  9th  century,  as  both 
countries  were  conquered  and  overrun  by  the 
Arabs  in  tlie  former  half  of  the  7th. 

XII.  From  the  6th  century  downward  we 
meet  with  repeated  instances  of  a  custom  of 
inclosing  the  gospels  in  cases,  covers,  or  caskets, 
adorned  with  gems  and  the  precious  metals. 
The  Hrst  Ordo  Romanus,  in  giving  directions  for 
the  pontifical  mass,  to  which  we  have  referred 
above,  orders,  that  on  festivals  the  keeper  of  the 
vestry  at  St.  John’s  Lateran  shall  give  out  “  a 
larger  chalice  and  paten,  and  larger  gospels 
under  his  seal,  noting  the  number  of  the  gems 
that  they  be  not  lost  ”  (§  3).  Childebert  I., 
A.D.  531,  is  said  by  Gregory  of  Tours  to  have 
returned  from  an  expedition  into  Spain,  bringing 
with  him,  among  other  spoils,  “sixty  chalices, 
fifteen  patens,  twenty  cases  for  the  gos2:)els 
(evangeliorum  capsas),  all  adorned  with  pure 
gold  and  precious  gems  ”  (//ist.  Eranc.  lib.  iii. 
c.  X.).  The  same  writer  tells  us  that  ono  of  the 
emperors  of  Rome  caused  to  be  made  for  the 
church  at  Lyons  “a  case  for  inclosing  the  holy 
gospels  and  a  paten  and  chalice  of  pure  gold 
and  precious  stones”  (De  Glor.  Confess,  cap. 
Ixiii.).  Gregory  the  Great  gave  to  the  king  of 
the  Lombards  “  a  lectionary  (lectionem)  of  the 
holy  gospel  inclosed  in  a  Persian  case  (theca)” 
(^Kpp.  lib.  xii.  Ep.  vii.  ad  Theodel.)  [W.  E.  S.] 

GOSPELLER.  [Gospel,  §  V.  p.  742.] 

GOSPELS,  '  BOOK  OF.  [Liturgical 
Books:  Gospel,  §  IV.  p.  742.] 

GOSPELS  IN  ART.  [See  Four  Rivers, 
Evangelists.]  The  sources  of  the  four  rivers, 
rcpre.5euted  continually  on  the  sarcophagi  (Bot- 
tari,  ScuUure  c  Pitture,  tav.  xvi.  and  passim) 
have  doubtless  reference  to  the  four  gos^^els,  as 
well  as  to  the  streams  which  watered  the  garden 
of  Eden.  See  also  the  woodcut  of  the  Lateran 
Cross  s.  V.  Cross. 

Rolls  of  the  gospels,  or  other  sacred  books 
are  often  represented  on  glasses  and  cups  (Buo- 
uaruotti,  Vetri,  tav.  ii.  viii.  1,  xiv.  2).  A  ca.se 
containing  the  gospels  is  represented  in  the 
chapel  of  Galla  Placidia  at  Ravenna  (see  Ciam- 
pini.  Vet.  Mon.  I.  Ixvii.).  They  are  generally 
rolls,  sometimes  with  umbilici  and  capsae.  In 
Buonaruotti,  Frammenti  di  vasi  antichi,  tav. 
viii.  1,  the  rolls  of  the  four  gospels  surround  a 
representation  of  the  miracle  of  the  seven  loave.s, 
with  probable  reference  to  ]\Iatt.  iv.  4,  “  Man 
shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word 
that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.” 

The  portraits  or  symbolic  representations  of 
the  Evangelists  very  commonly  bear  the  gospels 
from  the  earliest  date  :  indeed  the  symbol  of  four 
scrolls  or  books,  j)laced  in  the  four  angles  of  a 
Greek  cro.ss,  are  asserted  by  Mrs.  Jameson  to  be 
the  earliest  type  of  the  Four  Evangelists,  and 
must  certainly  be  among  the  earliest.  In  the 
baptistery  at  Ravenna  (Ciainpini,  I'.  M.  I.  p. 
234)^  there  is  a  mosaic  of  the  four  go.spcis 


GRACE  AT  MEALS  74.5 

resting  on  four  tables,  each  with  its  title.  This 
dates  B  om  a.d.  451. 

The  figures  cf  apostles,  passim  in  ancient  me¬ 
diaeval  and  modern  art,  bear  rolls  or  volumes  in 
their  hands;  but  Martigny  remarks  very  inge¬ 
niously  and  thoughtfully,  that  in  the  earliest 
examples  of  apostles  the  volume  must  be  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  that  of  the  Law  and  tlie  Prophets, 
to  which  and  to  whom  they  referred  all  men  in 
their  preaching,  even  from  the  day  of  Psnteco.st. 
In  one  instance  a  picture  at  the  bottom  of  a  cuj) 
representing  an  adoration  of  the  Magi  (Buona¬ 
ruotti  ix.  3)  the  book  of  the  gosj)els  is  i)laced  near 
one  of  the  three,  in  token  of  their  being  the  first, 
with  the  shepherds,  to  bear  Uie  good  tidings  of 
the  Saviour  of  Mankind. 

A  symbol  of  the  gospel,  and  of  the  evangelists, 
of  the  highest  antiquity  (indeed,  as  Mr.  Hemans 
thinks,  of  the  Constantinian  period)  is  the  paint¬ 
ing  of  four  jewelled  books  at  the  juncture  of  the 
arms  of  a  large  cross,  also  jewelled,  on  the  A^ault 
of  a  hall  belonging  to  the  Thermae  of  Trajan ; 
consecrated  for  Christian  worship  by  poj;e 
Sylvester  in  the  time  of  Constantine,  and  still 
serving  as  a  crypt-chapel  below  the  church  of 
SS.  Martino  e  Silvestro  on  the  Esquiline  Hill. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

GRACE  AT  MEALS.  The  Jews  _were 
wont  to  give  thanks  at  table,  one  of  the  com¬ 
pany  saying  the  prayer  “  in  the  i)lural  number. 
Let  us  bless,  &c.,”  and  the  rest  answering  Amen 
(Beracoth  cap.  vii. ;  Lightfoot  Horae  Hebr.  in  St. 
Matt.  XV.  36).  When  our  Lord  was  about  to 
feed  the  multitudes  He  took  the  loaves  and  fishes, 
and  “blessed”  (St.  Matt.  xiv.  19;  St.  Mark  vi. 
41;  St.  Luke  ix.  16)  or  “gave  thanks”  (St. 
Matt.  XV.  36;  St.  Mark  viii.  6;  St.  John  vi.  11) 
before  He  distributed  them.  This  was  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  Jewish  custom,  which  thus,  with 
the  sanction  of  our  Lord’s  example,  passed  into 
His  church.  St.  Chrysostom,  commenting  on 
Matt.  xiv.  19-21,  says  that  He  then  “taught  us 
that  we  should  not  touch  a  table  before  giving 
thanks  to  Him  who  provides  this  food  ”  (//om. 
xlix.).  In  commenting  on  the  account  of  the 
Last  Supper,  he  refers  to  the  “Grace”  said 
after  meat  also  : — “  He  gave  thanks  before 
distributing  to  the  disciples,  tliat  we  may  give 
thanks  too.  He  gave  thanks  and  sang  liymus 
after  distributing,  that  we  may  do  the  same 
thing  ”  (Tu  St.  Matt,  xxvi,  30  ;  Horn.  Ixxxii.). 
That  this  was  the  general  practice  of  the  early 
Christians  is  proved  by  many  testimonies.  St. 
Paul,  to  whatever  else  he  may  allude  beside, 
certainly  recognizes  it  in  1  Tim.  iv.  3-5.  Meats, 
he  there  teaches,  were  “  created  to  be  received 
with  thanksgiving  of  them  which  believe  and 
know  the  truth.”  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  A.D. 
192,  both  owns  the  principle,  and  vouches  for 
the  observance.  “As  it  is  meet  that  before  tak¬ 
ing  food  we  ble.ss  the  Maker  of  all  these  things, 
so  akso  does  it  become  us,  when  drinking,  to 
sing  psalms  unto  Him  ;  forasmuch  as  we  are 
partaking  of  His  creatures”  {Paedmj.  lib.  ii. 
c.  iv’.  §  44;  see  also  §  77).  Of  the  model  Cliris- 
tian,  he  says,  “His  sacrifices  are  jtravers  ami 
praises,  and  the  reading  of  Scripture  before  the 
banqueting  ;  psalms  and  hymns  after  it  ”  {Stt'om. 
lib.  vii.  c.  vii.  §  49).  Again  :  “  Refei-ring  the 
reverent  enjoyment  of  all  things  to  God,  he  ever 
oilers  to  the  giver  of  all  things  the  first-fruits 
of  moat  and  drink  and  anointing  oil,  yielding 


746 


GRACE  AT  MEALS 


GRADUAL 


thanks,”  &c.  (^Thid.  §  36).  Tertnllian,  writing 
probably  in  202  :  “  We  do  not  recline  (at  an 
entertainment)  before  prayer  be  first  tasted 
.  .  .  After  water  for  the  hands  and  light-s,  each, 
as  he  is  able,  is  called  out  to  sing  to  God  from 
the  Holy  Scidptures.  or  from  his  own  mini.  In 
like  manner  prayer  puts  an  end  to  the  feast” 
{Liber  Aj.ol.adv.  Gentes,  c.  x.vxi.x.).  St.  Cyprian, 
writing  in  246  :  “  Nor  let  the  banqueting  hour 
be  void  of  heavenly  grace.  Let  the  temperate 
entertainment  resound  with  psalms,  and  do  ye 
each  undertake  this  wonted  duty  according  to  the 
strength  of  your  memory  or  excellence  of  voice  ” 
{Ad  Don  it.  sub  fin.).  St.  Basil,  a.d.  .370:  “Let 
prayers  be  said  before  taking  food  in  meet  ac¬ 
knowledgment  of  the  gift.s  of  God,  both  of  those 
which  He  is  now  giving  and  of  those  which  He 
has  put  in  store  for  the  future.  Let  prayers  be 
said  after  food  containing  a  return  of  thanks  for 
the  things  given,  and  request  for  those  pro¬ 
mised  ”  {Dp.  ii.  ad  Greg.  Naz.  §  6).  Sozomen, 
A.D.  440,  says  of  the  younger  Theodosius,  that  he 
would  eat  nothing  “before  he  had  blessed  the 
Creator  of  all  things”  {Hist.  Eccles.  Orat.  ad 
Imp.  libro  i.  praefixa). 

Examples  remain  of  the  early  Graces,  both  of 
the  East  and  West.  E.g.  the  Apostolical  Con¬ 
stitutions  (lib.  vii.  c.  49)  furnish  the  following 
EL»xr?  eV’  aplcTTw,  Prager  at  the  middag  meal: 
“  Blessed  art  Thou,  0  Lord,  who  feedest  me  from 
my  youth  uj),  who  givest  food  to  all  flesh.  Fill 
our  hearts  with  joy  and  gladness  ;  that  always 
having  a  sutficiency  we  may  abound  unto  every 
good  work,  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  through 
whom  be  glory  and  honour  and  power  unto  Thee, 
world  without  end.  Amen”  {Patres  Apostol.CoiGl. 
tom.  i.  p.  385).  This  prayer  (slightly  varied)  is 
also  given  to  be  said  after  meals  in  the  treatise 
De  Virginitate  ascribed  (most  improbably)  to  St. 
Athanasius.  The  writer  first  gives  it  and  then 
proceeds  as  follows  :  “And  when  thou  art  seated 
at  table  and  hast  begun  to  break  the  bread, 
having  thrice  sealed  it  with  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  thus  give  thanks,  ‘  We  give  thanks  unto 
Thee,  our  Father,  for  Thy  holy  resurrection  [f.  e. 
wrought  and  to  be  wrought  in  us,  if  the  reading 
be  correct] ;  for  through  Thy  Son  Jesus  Christ 
hast  Thou  made  it  known  unto  us  ;  and  as  this 
bread  upon  this  table  was  in  separate  grains,  and 
being  gathered  together  became  one  thing,  so 
let  Thy  church  be  gathered  together  from  the 
ends  of  the  earth  into  Thy  kingdom ;  for  Thine 
is  the  power  and  the  glory  for  ever  and  ever. 
Amen.’  And  this  prayer  thou  oughtest  to  say 
when  thou  breakest  bread  and  desirest  to  eat ; 
but  when  thou  dost  set  it  on  the  table  and  sittest 
down,  say  Our  Father  all  through.  But  the 
prayer  above  written  (Blessed  art  Thou,  0  God 
[Lord,  Const.  Apost.'fi)  we  say  after  we  have  made 
our  me.al  and  have  risen  from  table”  (§§  12,  13, 
inter  Athanas.  0pp.).  A  short  paraphrase,  as  it 
appears,  of  an  Eastern  Grace  at  meals  may  also 
be  seen  in  the  anonymous  commentary  (probably 
of  the  sixth  century)  on  the  Book  of  Job  printed 
with  the  works  of  Origen  (lib.  iii.). 

The  following  examples  from  the  Gelasian 
Sacramentary  are  probably  the  most  ancient 
Graces  of  the  Latin  church  now  extant :  Prayers 
before  Meat.  (1)  “  Refresh  us,  0  Lord,  with  Thy 
gifhs,  and  sustain  us  with  the  bounty  of  Thy 
riches ;  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Amen.” 
(2)  “  Let  us  be  refreshed,  0  Lord,  from  Thy 


grants  and  gifts,  and  satiated  uith  Thy  blessing 
through,  &c.”  (3)  “  Protect  us,  Lord  oui 

God,  and  afford  needful  sustenance  to  our  frailtv  • 
through,  &c.”  (4)  “  Bless,  0  Lord,  Thy  gifts." 

which  of  Thy  bounty  we  are  about  to  take; 
through,  &c.”  (5)  “0  God,  who  dost  alway 

invite  us  to  spiritual  delight.s,  give  a  blessing  on 
Thy  gifts;  that  we  may  attain  to  a  sanctified 
reception  of  those  things  which  are  to  be  eaten 
in  Thy  name;  through,  &c.”  (6)  “  IMay  Thv 

gifts,  0  Lord,  refresh  us,  and  I’hy  grace  console  us'; 
through,  &c.”  P  ragers  after  Me  tls. — (1)  ‘Satis¬ 
fied,  0  Lord,  with  the  gifts  of  Thy  riches,  we 
give  Ihee  thanks  for  these  things  which  we 
receive  from  'I’hy  bounty,  beseeching  Thv  merev 
that  that  which  was  needful  for  our  boclies  mav 
not  be  burdensome  to  our  min  Is  ;  throucrh,  &c.” 
(2)  “We  have  been  satisfiel,  0  Lonl,  with  Thv 
grants  and  gifts.  Replenish  us  with  Thy  merev. 
Thou  who  art  blessed  ;  who  with  the  Father  and 
Holy  Ghost  livest  and  reiguest  Goa  for  ever  and 
ever.  Amen.”  Muratori,  J.iturgia  Rom.  Vetus. 
tom.  i.  col.  745.  Compare  the  lienedictio  ad 
Mensam,  and  Benedictio  po  t  Mensam  levatam  in 
the  Gallican  Sacramentary  of  the  7th  centurv 
found  at  Bobio  {Ibid.  tom.  ii.  col.  959). 

[W.  E.  S.] 

GRACILIANUS.  [Fklicissima.] 

GRADO,  COUNCIL  OF  {Gradense  con¬ 
cilium).,  held  A.D.  579  at  Grado  for  the  transfer 
thither  of  the  see  of  Aquileia,  supposing  its  acts 
genuine,  but  Istria  was  at  this  time  out  of  com¬ 
munion  with  Rome  for  not  accepting  the  5th 
council,  and  the  part  assigned  to  Elias,  bishop  of 
Aquileia,  throughout  is  suspicious.  A  legate 
from  Royie  at  his  instance  exhibited  a  letter  as 
from  po])e  Pelagius  II.  to  him  authorising  this 
change,  which  was  accordingly  confirmed.  Then 
he  requested  that  the  definition  of  the  4th 
council  might  be  I’ecited,  which  was  also  done. 
In  the  subscriptions  which  follow  his  own  comes 
first,  after  him  that  of  the  legate,  nineteen 
bishops  or  their  representatives  follow,  and  last 
of  all  twelve  presbyters  in  their  own  names. 
Mansi  regards  it  as  a  forgery  (ix.  927). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

GRADUAL  {Responsorium  Graduale  or  Gra- 
dale ;  or  simply  Responsorium  or  Responsttm ; 
or  Graduale.  In  mediaeval  English  Gragl 
spelt  variously.) — I.  This  was  an  anthem  sung 
after  the  epistle  in  most  of  the  Latin  churches. 
Originally,  it  seems  that  a  whole  psalm  was 
sung,  at  least  in  Africa,  as  we  gather  from  seve¬ 
ral  allusions  in  the  Sermons  of  St.  Augustine. 
Thus  in  one  he  sa)"s,  “To  this  belongs  that  which 
the  apostolic  lesson  (Col.  iii.  9)  before  the  can¬ 
ticle  of  the  psalm  presignified,  saying  ‘  Put  off, 
&c.’  ”  {Serin,  xxxii.  c.  iv.).  “  We  have  heard 

the  apostle,  we  have  heard  the  psalm,  we  have 
heard  the  gospel”  {Senn.  clxv.  c.  i.).  Again  : — 
“  We  have  heard  the  first  lo.ssou  of  the  apostle, 

‘  This  is  a  foithful  saying,  See.'  (1  Tim.  i.  15) 
. Then  wo  sang  a  psalm,  mutually  ex¬ 
horting  one  another,  .saying  with  one  voice, 
one  heart,  ‘  0  come,  let  us  worship,’  &c. 
(Ps.  xcv.  6).  After  the.se  the  gospel  lesson 
showed  us  the  cleansing  of  the  ten  lepers  ” 
{Senn.  clxxvi.  c.  i.).  In  his  Retractations  (lib. 
ii.  c.  xi.)  St.  Augustine  speaks  of  a  custom  which 
began  at  Carthage  in  his  .ur^e  of  “saying  hymns 
at  the  altar  from  the  Book  of  Psalms,  either 


GRADUAL 


GRADUAL 


747 


before  the  oblation  or  when  that  which  had 
been  offered  was  being  distributed  to  the  people.” 
The  hyinn  before  the  oblation  has  been  under¬ 
stood  by  some  to  be  the  j)salm  before  the  gospel  ; 
but  a  hymn  sung  before  the  catechumens  left 
would  hardly  have  been  called  by  so  precise  a 
writer  as  Augustine  a  hymn  before  the  oblation. 
He  must  rather  have  meant  the  offertory  which 
immediately  preceded  the  offering  of  the  ele¬ 
ments.  Nor  was  the  Gradual  sung  at  the  altar, 
but,  as  we  shall  see,  from  the  lector’s  ambo.  We 
infer,  therefore,  that  the  psalm  after  the  epistle 
was  a  custom  of  the  church  before  the  age  of 
St.  Augustine.  Gennadius  of  Marseilles,  a.d. 
495,  tells  us  that  Musaeus,  a  presbyter  of  that 
city,  A.D.  458,  at  the  request  of  his  bishop, 
selected  “  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  lessons  suit¬ 
able  to  the  feast-days  of  the  whole  year,  and 
besides,  responsory  chapters  of  psalms  adapted 
to  the  seasons  and  lessons  ”  (^De  Viris  Illust.  c. 
Ixxi.v.).  Another  witness  is  Gregory  of  Tours, 
who  relates  that  on  a  certain  occasion  in  the 
year  585,  his  deacon  “who  had  said  the  re- 
spoosory  at  the  masses  before  day  ”  was  ordered 
by  king  Guntram  to  sing  before  him,  and  that 
afterwards  all  the  priests  present  saug  a  respon¬ 
sory  psalm,  each  with  one  of  his  clerks  {Hist. 
Franc.  L.  viii.  §  iii.).  The  Antiphonary  ascribed 
to  Gregory  I.  must  have  undergone  changes 
down  to  the  11th  or  12th  century,  if  it  was  not 
originally  compiled  then.  It  contains  Graduals 
(there  called  Responsories)  for  use  throughout 
the  year ;  but  from  our  uncertainty  about  their 
age,  we  need  only  state  the  fact.  It  was  printed 
by  Pamelius  {Litiirgicon.,  tom.  ii.  p.  62),  and  by 
Thomasius  at  Rome  in  1683.  The  earliest  Ordo 
Romanus  extant,  which  describes  a  pontifical  mass 
of  the  7th  century,  fully  recognizes  the  use  of 
the  Gradual:  “After  he  (the  subdeacon)  has  read 
(the  epistle)  the  cantor  ascends  [the  steps  of  the 
ambo]  with  the  cantatory,  and  says  the  Re¬ 
sponse”  (§  10;  Mus.  Ital.  tom.  ii.  p.  9).  Again  : 
“  With  regard  to  the  Gradual  Responsory,  it  is 
[in  Lent]  sung  to  the  end  by  him  who  begins  it, 
and  the  verse  in  like  manner”  (§  26,  p.  18). 
Compare  Ordo  ii.  §  7.  Amalarius  {Prol.  in  Lib. 
de  Ord.  Antiph.  Hittorp.  col.  504)  explains  the 
term  ‘cantatory.’  “That  which  we  call  the 
Gradual  {Gradate)  they  (the  Romans),  call  Canta- 
torium  ;  which  in  some  churches  among  them  is 
still,  according  to  the  old  custom,  comprised  in 
one  vmlume.”  It  was,  in  foct,  a  book  containing 
all  the  Graduals  for  the  year. 

II.  Strictly  only  the  first  verse  of  the  anthem 
was  called  the  Gradual.  The  rest  was  technically 
called  the  “  vei'se.”  The  mode  of  singing  it  was 
not  everywhere  the  same;  but  Amalarius  de¬ 
scribes  at  some  length  how  this  was  done  at 
Rome,  whence,  he  assures  us  {De  Eccles.  Off. 
L.  iii.  c.  11  ;  De  Ot'd.  Ant.  u.s.),  the  Gradual  was 
derived  to  other  churches : — “  The  precentor  in 
the  first  row  sings  the  Responsory  to  the  end. 
The  succentors  respond  {i.  e.  sing  the  Responsory) 
in  like  manner.  The  jirecentor  then  sings  the 
verse.  The  verse  being  ended,  the  succentors  a 
second  time  begin  the  Responsory  from  the  first 
word,  and  continue  it  to  the  end.  Then  the 
precentor  sings,  ‘Glory  be  to  the  Father  and  to 
the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost.’  This  being 
ended,  the  succentors  take  up  the  Responsory 
about  the  middle,  and  continue  it  to  the  end. 
Lastly  the  precentor  begins  the  Responsory  from 


the  first  word  and  continues  it  to  the  end. 
Which  being  over  the  succentors  for  the  third 
time  repeat  the  Responsory  from  the  beginning 
and  continue  it  to  the  end.”  Amalarius  also 
tells  us  that  “  the  Gloria  was  not  sung  with 
Responsories  from  the  first  ”  {J)e  Ord.  Antiph, 
c.  18);  from  which  we  infer  with  probability 
that  they  were  in  use  before  that  doxology  was 
composed. 

HI.  The  mode  of  singing  adojifed  for  the  Gra¬ 
dual,  in  which  one  sang  alone  for  a  wliile  and 
many  responded  was  probably  in  use  from  the 
very  infancy  of  the  church,  in  the  Aj.ostolical 
Constitutions  the  apostles  are  made  to  direct 
that  at  the  celebration  of  the  holy  eucharist 
one  of  the  deacons  shall  “  chant  the  hymns  of 
David,  and  the  people  subchant  the  ends  of  the 
verses”  (L.  ii.  c.  Ivii.).  When  Sf.  Athanasius 
(a.d.  356)  found  his  church  surrounded  by  more 
than  5000  soldiers,  and  a  violent  crowd  of  Ari- 
ans,  he  placed  himself  on  his  throne  and  “di¬ 
rected  the  deacon  to  read  a  psalm,  and  the 
people  to  respond,  ‘For  His  mercy  endureth  for 
ever’”  {Apol.  de  Fugd  sud,  §  24).  Eusebius, 
too,  citing  Philo’s  account  of  certain  “  Ascetae  ” 
in  Egypt,  among  other  of  their  customs  which 
he  declares  to  belong  to  the  Christians,  mentions 
that  one  would  “  chant  a  psalm  in  measured 
strains,  the  I’est  listening  in  silence,  but  singing 
the  last  parts  of  the  hymns  together  ”  (Euseb. 
Hist.  L.  II.  c.  xvii.).  Whether  those  ascetics 
were  Jews  or  Christians  the  narrative  of  Philo 
shows  that  the  practice  must  have  been  known 
to  the  Jewish  converts  of  the  1st  century,  and 
may  even  then  have  been  adopted  by  them. 

IV.  From  Easter  Eve  to  the  Saturday  in 
Whitsun  week  inclusively  the  Gradual  was  fol¬ 
lowed,  and  at  last  supj)lanted  by  the  Alleluia. 
This  had  been  long  known  in  the  West  and  used, 
though  not  prescribed,  on  public  occasions  oi 
religious  joy.  At  Rome  it  was  only  sixng  on 
Easter  day,  as  Sozomen  informs  us  {Hist.  Feel. 
lib.  vii.  cap.  xix.),  and  his  statement  is  copied  by 
Cassiodorius(//isf.  A’c’c/.  Tripart.  L.  xiii.  c.  xxxix.), 
who  lived  at  Rome,  a.d.  514.  Their  authority, 
however,  can  only  prove  the  fact  for  an  age 
before  their  own;  for  Gregory  I.  affirms  that  it 
was  introduced  at  Rome  in  masses  by  St.  Jerome 
(who  had  learnt  it  at  Jerusalem)  in  the  time  of 
Damasus,  a.d.  384  {Fjdst.  lib.  vii.;  Ep.  Ixiv.). 
This,  of  course,  refers  to  its  use  between  Easter 
and  Pentecost ;  as  Gregory  himself  extended  it 
“  beyond  the  time  of  Pentecost  ”  {ibid.).  In 
the  Antiphonary  ascribed  to  him  it  is  only 
omitted  between  Septuagesima  Sunday  and 
Easter  (Pamel.  Liturg.  tom.  ii.  pp.  81-110). 
Amalarius  (u.s.  cap.  13)  speaks  of  it  as  “sung 
on  feast  days.” 

V.  Tlie  Tract  was  another  anthem  sometimes 
sung  after  the  epistle.  Originally  it  was  always 
from  the  Book  of  Psalms;  and  like  the  Gradual 
was  a  remnant  and  evidence  of  their  early  use 
in  celebrations  as  a  part  of  Holy  Scripture. 
The  Tract  and  Gradual  differed  at  first,  in  all 
probability,  only  in  being  sung  dilferently;  or 
in  other  words  the  Tract  was  nothing  more  than 
the  Gradual  as  it  was  chanted  in  seasons  of 
humiliation.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  treat 
of  tliem  together.  Very  soon,  however,  a  Tract 
was  often  sung  after  the  Gra<tual ;  or,  as  it 
would,  wo  presume,  be  then  viewed,  a  third 
verse  was  added  to  the  anthem,  which  was  sung 


748 


GREETiyO-HOUSE 


GRADUAL 

tractim  ;  i.  c.  continuously  by  tlie  cantor  without 
any  assistance  from  the  choir.  Although  the 
language  is  obscure,  we  may  ])erhaj)S  infer  that 
they  were  sometimes  sung  together  under  the 
first  OrJo  Komanus.  “  If  it  siiall  be  the  time 
for  the  Alleluia  tO  be  said,  well ;  but  if  for  the 
Tract,  well  again;  but  if  not  let  the  response 
(Gradual)  only  be  sung”  (§  10).  The  Tract  is 
never  used  without  a  respousory  in  the  so-called 
Gregorian  Antiphonary.  Though  properly 
penitential  (Amalarius  De  Keel.  Ojf.  lib.  ii.  c.  3), 
the  Tract  was  not  always  of  a  mournful  cha¬ 
racter.  Sometimes,”  says  Amalarius,  “  the 
Tract  e.xpresses  tribulation,  sometimes  joy  ” 
lib.  iii.  c.  13).  It  was  sung  from  the 
same  place  as  the  Gradual  (^Orcl.  llom.  /.  §  10 ; 
II.  §  7),  and  at  first  by  the  same  cantor  (fJrd.  T. 
§  7)  ;  but  later  on  by  another  (^Ord.  III.  §  9).  The 
origin  of  the  name,  from  cantus  traetus,n  sustained 
unbroken  chant,  appears  certain.  Honorius  of 
Autun,  A.D.  1130,  is  the  earliest  extant  authority 
for  it  (^Gemma  A^iimae,  lib.  i.  c.  96) ;  but  it  is 
approved  by  all  the  best  ritualists. 

The  mode  of  chanting  the  Tract  w'as  probably 
borrowed  from  the  early  monks,  who  sang  the 
psalms  by  turns,  one  at  a  time.  Thus  Cassian, 
A.D.  424,  ‘‘  One  rises  to  sing  psalms  unto  the 
Lord  before  the  company  ”  {De  Coenob.  Instil. 
lib.  ii.  c.  V.).  “  They  divide  the  aforesaid  num¬ 

ber  of  twelve  psalms  in  such  a  manner  that  if 
two  brethren  be  present,  they  sing  six  each ;  if 
three,  four;  if  four,  three”  {Ibid.  c.  xi. ;  see 
also  c.  xii.).  St.  Jerome  has  an  allusion  to  it 
when,  writing  to  a  monk  {Kp.  xiv.  ad  Rustie. 
J/o?i.),  he  reminds  him  of  the  obligation  to  rise 
before  sleep  would  natui'ally  leave  him  and 
“  say  a  psalm  in  his  tuim.” 

VI.  The  Gradual  and  Tract  were  sung  from 
the  same  step  of  the  ambo  from  which  the 
epistle  was  read.  According  to  the  second  Ordo 
Romanus  (§  7),  the  Epistoler  “went  up  on  to 
the  ambo  to  read,  but  not  on  to  its  upper  step 
(or  stage,  gradum\  which  only  he  who  read  the 
gospel  was  wont  to  ascend.  After  he  had  read 
the  cantor  ascended  with  the  cantorium  (  =  can- 
tatorium)  ....  not  to  a  higher  place ;  but  he 
stood  in  the  same  place  as  the  reader.”  It  was 
for  this  reason  that  tire  anthem  was  called 
Gradual:  it  was  the  chant  from  the  step  of  the 
ambo.  This  explanation  of  the  term  is  given  by 
Rabanus  IMaurus,  A.D.  847,  and  is  accepted  b)' 
Bona,  Le  Brun,  Gerbert,  Martene,  and  j^erhaps 
all  the  great  writers  on  ritual. 

VII.  The  fact  that  the  Gradual  and  Tract  were 
both  sung  from  the  lesson  desk,  and  that  by  a 
single  cantor,  detached  thither,  like  the  readers, 
from  the  choir,  seems  to  indicate  their  common 
origin  in  that  extended  use  of  the  Book  of  P.salms 
with  the  rest  of  Holy  Scripture  which  we  know 
to  have  prevailed  during  the  first  ages.  Both 
arrangements  Avere  appropriate  and  natural  if 
the  psalms  wei’e  said  in  some  sort  as  a  lesson  ;  but 
inappropriate  as  well  as  inconvenient  for  a  mere 
anthem.  The  sense  of  this  at  length  led  to  the 
Gradual  being  sung  by  the  cantor  in  his  usual 
place.  Amalarius,  indeed,  exhibits  the  cantor  as 
a  teacher  and  preacher  no  less  than  those  who 
read  the  other  Scriptures.  “  By  the  office  of  the 
cantor  we  may  understand  that  of  a  prophet 
....  By  the  resj)onsory  we  may  understand  the 
preaching  of  the  New  Testament  ....  The  cantor 
discharges  the  functions  of  a  faithful  preacher,” 


&c.  {Dc  Eecl.  Off.  1.  iii.  cap.  11).  This  was,  we 
presume,  the  traditional  view.  It  is  suggested 
by  St.  Augustine’s  manner  of  referring  (.see  above) 
to  the  psalms  which  in  his  day  formed  part  of 
the  eucharistic  service  in  Roman  Africa,  as  well 
as  to  the  ejdstles  and  gospels.  The  .same  thought 
underlies  the  mystical  comment  of  Pseudo-Dio¬ 
nysius.  The  p.salms  sung,  according  to  him,  put 
the  soul  into  harmony  with  things  divine,  and 
then  those  things  which  have  been  mvsticallv 
shadowed  forth  in  them  are  plainly  and  fullv 
taught  in  the  lessons  from  the  other  ])arts  of 
Holy  writ  {De  Keel,  llier.  c.  iii.  n.  iii.  §  5). 
Psalms  are  to  this  day  sung  before  the  gospel  in 
the  Coptic  rite  (Kenaud.  tom.  i.  pp.  7,  210).  In 
the  Armenian  “  a  suitable  psalm  is  recited  ”  im¬ 
mediately  before  the  first  eucharistic  lesson 
(the  prophecy)  is  read  (Le  Brun,  Diss.  x.  art. 
xiv.).  In  the  Milanese  a  Psalmellus  (Pamelii 
Liturgieon,  tom.  i.  p.  295),  and  in  the  Mozarabic 
an  anthem  headed  Psallendo  (Leslie,  Miss.  Moz. 
pp.  1,  222),  in  Lent  a  Tractus  {ibid.  pp.  98,  101, 
&c.)  is  sung  between  the  prophecy  and  the 
epistle.  In  these  psalms  or  anthems  we  find 
the  evident  remains,  akin  to  the  Roman  Gradual 
and  Tract,  of  the  psalmody  which  accompanied 
the  reading  of  the  other  Scriptures  in  the  primi¬ 
tive  church.  There  was  also,  we  may  mention 
in  conclusion,  a  substitute  for  it  left  in  the  Old 
Gallican  liturgy  in  the  Hymn  of  Zacharias, 
often  called  the  prophecy,  which  was  sung  be¬ 
fore  the  Old  Testament  Lesson  ( S.  German! 
Expos.  Brec.  in  Martene  De  Ant.  Eeel.  Bit.  1. 

i.  c.  iv.  art.  xii.  ord.  i. ;  Mabill.  Liturg.  Gall.  1. 

ii.  pp.  251,  322,  &c.),  and  in  the  Song  of  the 

Three  Children  (Germanus,  u.  s. ;  Mabill.  ibid 
p.  107)  which  was  sung  between  the  epistle  and 
gospel.  [W.  E.  S.J 

GRANATARIUS,  in  a  monastery,  one  of 
the  four  deputies  or  assistants  of  the  house- 
steward  (“suffraganei  cellerario,”  quaintly  styled 
‘•’■solatia  cellerarii”  in  the  old  Benedictine  rule), 
the  receiver  of  the  yearly  corn-harvest  of  the 
monastery,  and  keeper  of  the  granary  (Mart. 
Reg.  Bened.  Comm.  c.  31)  and  of  the  farm  stock 
(Isidor.  Reg.  c.  19).  In  some  monasteries  his 
office  was  to  provide  all  household  necessaries 
(Ducange  Gloss.  Lat.  s.  v.).  The  word  is  also 
spelt  “  granarius  ”  or  “  granetarius.”  [1.  G.  S.] 

GRATA.  [Photixcs.] 

GRATIAS  DEO.  [Deo  Gratias.] 

GR  AVES.  [Arcosolium  ;  Area  ;  Bisomus  : 
Catacombs;  Cemetery;  Cella  JIemoriae  ; 
Churchyard.] 

GREAT  WEEK.  [Holy  Week.] 

GREEK,  USED  IN  SERVICES.  [Creed, 
§  17  ;  Gospel,  §  XL  p.  744.] 

GREEN  THURSDAY.  [Maundy  Thup^ 

DAY.] 

GREETING.  [Salutation.] 

GREETING,  THE  ANGELICAL.  [Hail, 
Mary.] 

GREETING -HOUSE,  a  reception-room 
{aanoLcrriKos  oIkos.  reeeptorium,  salutatorium, 
salle  d’entre'e,  parloir)  next  to  the  proaula  or 
I  proaulium  (Ducange  GIoe<.  L  t.  s.  v.  saluta- 
!  torium).  In  the  narrative  of  the  famous  iuter- 
[  view  between  Ambrose  and  Theodosius,  the 


GREGOKIAN  MUSIC 


GRIFFIN 


749 


bishop  is  described  as  sitting  in  his  reception- 
room  before  going  to  the  church  (Theodoret, 
Ecc.  Hist.  V.  18),  and  Gregory  the  Great  speaks 
of  a  bishop  as  proceeding  from  his  rece))tion- 
room  to  church  (Greg.  M.  Ep.  iv,  54).  Bingham 
corrects  the  opinion  of  Scaliger  that  the  place 
spoken  of  by  Theodoret  was  a  part  of  the  bishop’s 
palace  used  for  entertaining  strangers,  and  pro¬ 
nounces  it  “  a  place  adjoining  the  church  ” 
(“  e.xedra  ecclesiae  adjuncta,”  Ducange,  v.  s.)  for 
the  bishop  “  to  receive  the  salutations  of  the 
people  ”  coming  for  his  “  blessing,”  or  on  “  busi¬ 
ness  ”  (Bingh.  Grig.  Eccles.  viii.  vii.  8 ;  cf. 
Vales.  Annotat.  in  Theodoret.  1.  c.).  It  is  re¬ 
corded  of  St.  Martin  of  Tours  that  he  sat  on  a 
three-legged  stool  in  a  room  of  this  kind,  in  pre¬ 
ference  to  using  the  bishop’s  throne  which  was 
there  (Snip.  Sev.  Vit.  S.  Mart.) ;  and  that  on  his 
visitations  he  spent  night  and  day  in  this  room 
(Snip.  Sev.  Ep.  1).  In  this  “  salutatorium  ”  the 
rule  of  the  convent  was  read  over  to  candidates 
for  admission  (^E-eg.  Aurel.  ad  Virgines,  c.  1).  The 
nuns,  and  even  the  abbess,  were  forbidden  to  see 
any  stranger  here  alone  (^Eeg.  Donat,  ad  Virg.  c.  57  ; 
Ee g.  Caesarii  ad  Vtrg.  c.  35) ;  and  by  the  council 
of  Macon,  A.D.  581,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons, 
as  well  as  laymen,  were  prohibited  from  entering 
the  reception-room  of  a  nunnery,  .Jews  especially 
being  excluded  (Gone.  Alatiscon.  c.  2).“  On  the 
same  principle,  women,  even  nuns,  were  excluded 
from  the  bishop’s  “ salutatorium” (Ducange, s.v.). 
In  a  Benedictine  monastery  this  chamber  was 
usually  on  the  east  side  of  the  quadrangle,  be¬ 
tween  the  chapter-house  and  the  south  transept 
of  the  church  (Whitaker’s  Hist,  of  Whalleg, 
p.  124,  4th  ed,  1874). 

A  room  of  this  kind  was  used,  according  to 
Mabillon,  for  robing,  for  hearing  causes,  for 
synods,  for  keeping  relics  in,  and  sometimes  for 
temporary  residence  (Mabill.  Ann.  Bencd.  Saec. 
iv.  i.  p.  370,  cited  by  Ducange  Gloss.  Lat.  v.  s. ; 
cf.  Snip.  vSev.  Ep.  i.).  According  to  Menard, 
there  was  a  similar  room  for  the  use  of  the 
priests  (  Bened.  Anian.  Concord.  Eegul.  v.  25 ;  cf. 
Sulp.  Sev.  Dial.  II.  i.). 

This  receiving-room,  or  audience-chamber, 
seems  identical  with  the  “  sacrarium,”  or  vestry, 
where  the  vessels  for  use  in  church  were  kept 
(Ducange  Gloss.  Lat.  s.  v.)  See  Diaconicum, 
Gazophylacium.  [I.  G.  S.] 

GREGORIAN  MUSIC.  [Music.] 

GREGORY.  (1)  Bishop  of  Nyssa  in  Cappa- 
docia(t  390  A.D.);  commemorated  March  ^{Mart. 
i?om.  T  c^.,  Adonis)  ;  Jan.  10 (Ga/.  Bgzant.')\  Iledar 
2(>  =  Xov.  22  (Ga/.  Etliiop.)',  dejiosition  March  9 
(Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Magnus,  the  pope,  “apostolus  Anglorum  ” 
(1  604  A.D.);  commemorated  with  Innocent  I., 
March  12  (Mart.  Eom.  Vet.,  Ilieron..,  Adonis, 
Usu.ardi)  ;  deposition  March  12  (Alart.  Bedao). 

(3)  Bishoj)  and  confessor  of  Kliberis  (Elvira) 
(saec.  IV.) ;  commemorated  April  24  (Mart. 
Usuardi). 

(4)  T  heologus,  bishop  of  Naisianzus  and  of 
Constantinople  (f  389  A.D.);  commemorated  Jan. 

»  I’he  reading  in  the  text,  “extra  salutatorium,’’  ob¬ 
viously  wrong,  is  corrected  by  Ii;d)be  in  the  margin  to 
“infra.”  'Ilie  “  ovatoriuni  ”  here  mentioned  and  in  the 
passage  quoted  above  from  the  Rule  of  Donatus,  is 
perhaps  another  place. 


25  (Cal.  r>iizant.,  Mart.  Bedae)  ;  May  9  (Mart. 
Eom.  B(?/.,  Adonis,  Usuardi);  Aug. 3  (Ga/.  Amen.). 

(5)  Thaumaturgus,  bishop  of  Neo-Caesare.a 
and  martyr  (j  circa^  270  A.n.)  ;  commemorated 
July  3  (J/a?’/.  A’om. 'Jc'/.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usu¬ 
ardi);  July  27  (Cal.  Armen.)',  Nov.  17  (Mart. 
Bedae,  Cal.  Byzant.)',  Hedar  21  =  Nov.  17  (Cal. 
Ethiop.). 

(6)  The  Illuminator,  bishop  and  patriarch  of 
Greater  Armenia  in  the  time  of  Diocletian 
(t  325-330  A.D.),  iepoudpTvs;  commemorated 
Sept.  30  (Cal.  Byzant.)-,  March  23  (Cal:  Armen., 
Cal.  Georg.)’,  Maskarram  19  =  Sej)!.  16  (Cal. 
Ethiop.)',  invention  of  his  relics,  Oct.  14  (Ga/. 
Armen.). 

(7)  Bishop  of  Agrigentum  ;  commemorated 
Nov.  23  (Cal.  Byzant.). 

'  (8)  Bishop  of  Auxerre  ;  commemorated  Dec.* 
19  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(9)  Presbyter  and  martyr  at  Sj)oletum  in 
Tuscany,  in  the  time  of  Diocletian  and  Maxi- 
mian;  commemorated  Dec.  24  (Mart.  Eom.  Vet., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(10)  Ab  Shandzai  ;  commemorated  Oct.  5 

(Cal.  Georg.).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

GRIFFIN.  See  “  Cherub  ”  in  Dictionary 
OF  THE  Birle,  vol.  i.  pp.  300  sqq. ;  and  Buskin’s 
Modern  Painters,  vol.  iii.  p.  112. 

The  connexion  between  the  various  symbolisms 
of  Cherub  and  GrilHn  in  Biblical  and  Northern 
tradition  is  strengthened  by  the  etymological 
resemblance  of  the  words.  There  is  certainly  a 
great  likeness-  between  the  names  ypvir  (with  s 
afformative)  and  Both  are  titles  of  the 

most  ancient  existing  symbols  of  Divine  om¬ 
nipotence  and  omniscience ;  as  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  the  sphinxes  of  Egypt  and  winged 
bulls  or  lions  of  Assyria  conveyed  kimlred  ideas 
to  the  hieratic,  or  indeed  the  popular  mind.  It 
would  seem  that  all  the  chief  races  of  men  have 
been  taught  to  set  forth  such  mysterious  forms ; 
as  this  composite  idea  is  so  nearly  universal. 
Some  figure  of  this  kind  must  have  been  the 
])opular  shape  of  the  cherub  or  gryiis  known  to 
the  children  of  Israel  :  and  the  fact  that  it  was 
a  permitted  and  prescriheil  imago,  taken  toge¬ 
ther  with  the  command  to  make  the  brazen 
serpent,  forms  a  very  large  jiortion  of  the  sub¬ 
structure  of  iconodulist  arguments.  See  Johannes 
Damascenus  De  fmaginib  is,  Orat.  ii.  Such  in¬ 
stances  of  griffin  forms  as  ajipear  in  the  earliest 
Christian  decoration  seem  to  the  writer  to  bo 
in  all  probability  merely  ornamental ;  as,  in 
fact,  unmeaning  adajjtations  of  Gentile  jiatterns. 
See,  however,  Guendbault,  Di<  tionnaire  leoao- 
graphapie,  s.  v.  “Griffon.”  The  use  of  the  sym¬ 
bolic  griffin  by  the  Lombard  race,  however, 
dates  from  well  within  our  period  ;  though  the 
great  Veronese  works  so  frequently  mentioned 
by  Professor  Buskin  are  {irobably  as  late  as  the 
11th  century.  Those  of  the  duomo  of  Verona 
and  the  church  of  San  Zenono  deserve  especial 
mention. 

That  the  grilfin  is  the  Gothio-Christian  lopre- 
sentation  of  the  cherub,  the  “  Mighty  one,”  or 
the  “Carved  Imago”  of  Hebrew  .scul|)tur6, 
seiyus  highly  probable,  further,  rrom  the  Ibllow- 
ing  connexion  of  ideas  in  dilferent  ages. 

The  glorified  forms  of  living  creatures  and  of 


750  GROTESQUE 

wheels  in  the  great  oj)ening  vision  of  I'^zekiel  have 
necessaiily  been  always  connected  with  those  of 
the  Zoia,  the  lieasts  of  the  Apocalypse  [See  Ev'AN- 
GKLISTS,  p.  Go8].  The  latter,  as  representing 
the  writers  of  the  four  gosj)els,  are  an  universal 
symbol  after  the  5th  century.  It  did  not  escape 
the  eye  of  Professor  lluskin  that  the  marble 
wheel  by  the  side  of  his  Veronese  griffin  is  an 
indisputable  reference  on  the  part  of  the  un¬ 
known  Lombard  artist  to  the  first  chapter  of 
Ezekiel  (Ezek.  i.  21):  “When  those  (Living 
Creatures)  went,  these  went:  and  when  those 
stood,  these  stood,  and  when  those  were  lifted 
up  from  the  earth,  the  wheels  were  lifted  up 
over  against  them :  for  the  spirit  of  the  Living 
Creatures  was  in  the  wheels.”  And  this  is  fully 
confirmed  (were  that  necessary)  by  Dr.  Hay- 
man’s  researches  in  the  Dictioxarv  of  the 
Bihle.  But  the  wheels  appear  in  a  more  an¬ 
cient  work  by  a  great  and  mystical  genius 
whose  name  and  date  alone  remain  to  us,  the 
monk  Rabula,  scribe  and  illustrator  of  the 
great  Florentine  MS.,  A.D.  586  (See  Assemani’s 
Cataloijuc  of  the  Laurentian  lAhrarii').  A  wood- 
cut  of  this  is  given  in  this  work,  p.  85.  It 
represents  the  Ascension ;  our  Lord  is  borne  up 
by  two  ministering  angels  on  a  chariot  of  cloud, 
under  which  appear  the  heads  of  the  Four  Crea¬ 
tures  :  the  flaming  wheels  are  on  each  side,  with 
tw'O  other  angels,  who  are  apparently  receiving 
His  garments,  the  vesture  of  His  flesh.  The 
sun  and  moon  are  in  the  upper  corners  of  the 
picture ;  which  is  one  of  the  most  important 
works  in  Christian  art  as  a  specimen  of  imagin¬ 
ative  symbolism  of  the  highest  character,  and 
also  as  a  graphic  illustration  of  the  connexion 
between  Hebrew  and  Christian  vision,  or  Apoca¬ 
lypse  of  the  Unseen.  And  to  this  the  Veronese 
griffin  and  its  wheel,  and  the  whole  Christian 
usage  of  that  composite  form  as  a  symbol,  really 
refers.  “  The  winged  shape  becomes  one  of  the 
acknowledged  symbols  of  Divine  power :  and  in 
its  unity  of  lion  and  eagle,  the  workman  of  the 
middle  ages  always  meant  to  set  forth  the  unity 
of  the  human  and  Divine  natures.  In  this  unity 
it  bears  up  the  pillars  of  the  church,  set  for  ever 
as  the  corner  stone.” 

In  its  merely  ornamental  use  it  is  derived 
simply  from  Heathen  or  Gentile  art  and  litera¬ 
ture.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

GROTESQUE.  We  have  the  authority  of 
Prof.  Mommsen  for  assigning  the  word  k^vtvtw 
as  the  original  derivation  of  this  adjective,  formed, 
probably,  immediately  from  grot  or  grotto,  a 
cavern  or  subterranean  recess,  and  therefoi-e 
connected  in  its  use,  as  a  word  of  Renais¬ 
sance  origin,  with  ideas  of  Pan,  the  Satyrs,  and 
other  cavern-haunting  figures,  combining  noble 
with  ignoble  form.  The  very  numerous  and 
various  meanings  of  the  word  all  point  to  the 
idea  of  novel  contrast ;  either  between  the  noble 
and  ignoble,  or  less  noble,  or  of  the  beautiful  with 
the  less  beautiful.  In  Christian  art,  moreover, 
both  of  earlier  and  later  date,  a  large  number  of 
works  may  be  called  grotesque  in  the  general  or 
popular  sense  of  the  word,  because  they  are  very 
singular  in  their  appearance.  This  may  arise  in 
one  or  in  two  ways,  or  be  caused  by  one  or  both 
of  two  conditions :  either  by  the  difficulty  of 
the  subject,  or  the  archaic  style  of  the  workmen, 
or  by  a  mixture  of  originality  of  mind  and  im- 


GROTESQUE 

perfect  skill  in  craft.  Many  heathen  grotesques 
of  the  earlier  empire,  as  those  of  Pompeii,  the 
Baths  of  Hadrian,  and  the  newlv-discovei'ed 
frescoes  of  the  Doria  Pamphili  Villa  (see  Parker, 
Aniiiiuities  of  Lome,  and  appendix  by  the  present 
writer)  are  extremely  beautiful  and  perfect  in 
workmanship,  and  come  under  the  first  or  second 
classes  mentioned,  where  the  less  pleasing  form 
is  contrasted  with  the  more  beautiful ;  this  is 
the  principle  also  of  much  cinque-cento  gro¬ 
tesque.  Early  Christian  work  of  this  kind  is 
not  unfrequent  in  the  catacombs,  as  in  the 
“Seasons”  of  the  catacombs  of  SS.  Domitilla 
and  Nereus,  in  many  of  the  mo.saic  orna¬ 
ments  of  St.  Constantia  and  the  other  Graeco- 
Roman  churches.  The  emj)loyment  of  actual 
ugliness  for  surprise  or  contrast  seems  to  be  a 
characteristic  of  the  art  of  the  Northern  race.s, 
found  in  Italy  only  in  the  earlier  work  of  the 
Lombard  race,  and  then  always  distinguishable 
in  its  manner  from  that  of  the  French  or  Ger¬ 
mans.  Excepting  the  carvings  of  St.  Ambrogio 
at  Milan,  and  the  churches  of  St.  Michele  at 
Pavia  and  Lucca,  this  species  of  grote.sque  is  not 
part  of  our  period;  but  the  most  characteristic 
and  important  of  all  the.se  buildings,  St.  Zeuone 
at  Verona,  cannot  be  altogether  omitted.  It 
seems  as  well  to  classify  the  various  meanings 
of  the  Grotesque  as  follows,  according  to  the 
examjdes  found  in  various  places  and  periods. 

1.  Grotesque,  whe]-e  more  elaborate  or  serious 
representations  are  contrasted  with  easier  and  less 
important  work  by  the  same  hand,  as  in  orna¬ 
mental  borders  round  pictures,  fillings-up  of 
vaultings  or  surfaces  round  figures,  ikc.  'Idiis 
embraces  all  the  earlier  grotesque  of  ornament, 
as  in  the  fre.scoes  of  Hadrian’s  villa,  or  the  Doria 
Pamphili  columbarium. 

2.  Grotesque  where  the  importance  of  the 
subject,  and  the  workman’s  real  interest  in  it, 
are  for  a  time  played  with  ;  he  being  led  to  dc 
so  by  the  natural  exuberance  of  his  fancy,  by 
temporary  fatigue  of  mind,  or  other  causes — this 
includes  the  Lombard  work. 

3.  Grotesque  where  either  the  imperfection  of 
the  workman’s  hand,  or  the  inexpre.ssible  nature 
of  his  subject,  render  his  work  extraordinary  in 
ap])earance,  and  obviously  imperfect  and  unequal. 
This  applies  to  the  j)roductions  of  all  times  and 
places  where  thoughtful  and  energetic  men  have 
laboured.  Among  its  greatest  and  most  cha¬ 
racteristic  examples  are  the  Triumph  of  Death 
by  Orgagna  at  Pisa,  and  the  Last  Judgment  of 
Torcello  ;  its  most  quaint  and  absurd  aj)pearance 
may  be  in  the  strange  Ostrogothic  mosaic  in  the 
sacristy  of  St.  Giovanni  Evangelista  at  Ravenna ; 
or  see  Count  Bastard’s  Peintures  des  iJSS.  j)assim; 
but  this  description  of  grotesqueness  apjffies  to 
almost  all  the  Byzantine  apses  and  arches  of 
triumph  where  the  s})iritual  world  is  depicted, 
and  indeed  to  all  Byzantine  work  in  as  far  as  it 
attempts  naturali.st  representation,  unless  it  be 
in  the  single  pictures  of  birds,  found  in  MSS., 
and  occasionally  in  mosaic,  as  at  St.  Vitale  at 
Ravenna. 

Few  of  the  works  of  the  catacombs  have  anv 
pretence  to  beauty.  The  birds  and  vine  orna¬ 
ment  of  the  tomb  of  Domitilla  (perhaps  the 
earliest  Christian  sepulchre,  which  is  known  by 
dated  bricks  to  be  certainly  not  later  than  Ha¬ 
drian,  and  is  very  probably  the  actual  grave  of 
a  granddaughter  of  Vespasian)  arc  of  the  same 


GROTESQUE 


GROTESQUE 


751 


date  as  the  tomb,  which  is  anterior  to  the  cata¬ 
comb.  These,  with  some  remains  of  the  paint¬ 
ings  in  the  catacomb,  and  the  2nd  century  paint¬ 
ings  of  the  catacomb  of  St.  Praete.xtatus,  are 
beautiful  examples  of  playful  naturalistic  orna- 
mtmt,  probably  the  work  of  heathen  hands, 
under  Christian  direction,  and  taken  in  the 
Christian  sense.  They  are  mentioned  here, 
rather  as  parallel  works  to  the  beautiful  secular- 
Roman  grotesques,  than  as  true  grotesques 
themselves.  They  are  symbolic  in  the  strict 
sense  (see  J.  H.  Parker’s  J'hotogrnphs  and  Anti¬ 
quities  of  Home,  and  art.  ‘  Symbolism  ’  in  this 
Dictionary). 

The  grotesqueness  of  the  early  mosaics  is  of 
the  same  nature  as  that  of  the  forms  and  figures 
in  the  best  glass-painting.  In  both,  the  advum- 
tages  of  light  and  shade,  correct  drawing  and 
oerspective,  are  sacrificed  entirely  to  colour  and 
graphic  force  of  impression.  To  exi)ress  the 
jdaiuest  meaning  in  the  brightest  and  most  gem¬ 
like  colour  is  the  whole  object  of  the  artist.  Of 
course  in  the  works  from  the  5th  to  the  8th 
century,  down  to  the  bathos  of  Graeco-Roman  art, 
the  rigid  strangene.ss  of  the  mosaics  may  have 
mucTi  to  do  with  the  incapacity  of  the  work¬ 
men.  Nevertheless  the  gift  of  colour  is  seldom 
wanting  ;  and  this,  together  with  the  painful 
asceticism  of  faces  and  forms  in  these  works, 
points  to  an  Eastern  element  in  the  minds  and 
education  of  these  artists.  The  great  Medici  IMS. 
of  Rabula  is  perhaps  the  central  example  of  the 
genius  and  originality  of  design  and  graphic 
power,  possessed  by  some  of  the  unknown  ascetics 
of  Syria  and  the  East.  The  mosaic  of  the  Trans¬ 
figuration  at  Mount  Sinai,  of  the  age  of  Justi¬ 
nian  and  many  of  those  in  Rome,  as  the  apses  of 
SS.  Cosmas  and  Damiqnus,  of  St.  Venantius, 
and  above  all  St.  Prassede,  are  instances  giving 
evidence  of  necessarily  imperfect  treatment  of  a 
transcendent  subject.  Those  of  Ravenna  have 
been  already  mentioned;  but  their  workmanship 
greatly  excels  that  of  the  Roman  mosaics,  and 
their  quaiutness  strikes  one  less  than  their 
beauty. 

The  Lombard  invasion  of  Italy  dates  568  A.D., 
and  it  is  in  the  earliest  work  of  this  extraor¬ 
dinary  race  that  the  Christian  grotesque,  pro¬ 
perly  speaking,  may  be  said  to  arise.  The  best 
account  of  some  of  its  examples,  in  Pavia,  Lucca 
and  Verona,  is  to  be  found  in  Appendix  8  of 
Ruskin’s  Stones  of  Venice,  vol.  i.  p.  360-65, 
accompanied  by  excellent  descriptive  plates,  and 
comparisons  between  the  Lombard  subjects  and 
workmanship  in  St.  I\Iichele  and  St.  Zenone, 
and  the  Byzantine  ma.soury  and  carvings  of 
St.  Mark’s  at  Venice.  Invention  and  restless 
energy  are  the  characteristics  of  the  new  and 
strong  barbarian  race  ;  graceful  conventionalism 
and  exact  workmanshij),  with  innate  but  some¬ 
what  languid  sense  of  beauty,  belong  to  the 
Greek  workmen.  Neither  of  them  can  ever  be 
undervalued  by  any  one  who  is  interested  in  the 
bearings  of  art  on  history;  for  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  that  as  the  Lombard  churches  are  the 
first  outbreak  of  the  inventive  and  graphic 
spirit  which  grew  into  the  great  Pisan  and  Ho- 
rentine  schools  of  painting  and  sculfiture,  so  the 
Romauo-Greek  or  Eastern  influence,  generally 
called  Byzantine,  extended  over  all  the  Christian 
world  of  the  early  mediaeval  ages.  To  trace  the 
(..'hristian  grotesque  northward  and  westward 


through  early  MSS.,  bas-reliefs,  and  church  deco¬ 
ration  would  be  to  write  a  history  of  Christian 
art  in  the  dark  ages.  One  of  the  first  accom- 
j)lishments  of  the  denizens  of  a  convent  would 
of  course  be  calligraphy,  and  to  multijdy  Evan¬ 
gel  iaria  and  missals  was  a 
earliest  missionary  work. 

On  the  edge  of  every  wave 
of  progre.ss  made  by  the 
Faith,  the  convents  arose 


part  e  ’en  of  the 


things,  and  the 


first  of  all 

monks  at  once  employed 
them.selves  on  copies  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Now  it 
cannot  be  doubted,  that  a 
Schola  Graeca,  a  regular 
set  of  artists  working  ac¬ 
cording  to  Greek  traditions 
of  subject  and  treatment  in 
art,  existed  in  Rome  from 
the  6th  century,  if  not  be- 
fore,  and  received  a  great 
acce.ssion  of  strength  in 
the  8th  during  the  Icono¬ 
clastic  struggle  in  Constan- 
tinople,  when  many  eccle¬ 
siastical  artists  must  have 
withdrawn  thence  to  Rome. 

There  in  fact,  as  elsewhere, 
the  first  faint  revival  of 

•Christian  art  took  })lace  entirely  in  churches 
and  convent.s,  and  under  what  are  called  By¬ 
zantine  forms.  Whether  Bvzantinism  he  con¬ 
sidered  as  the  last  embers  of  Graeco-Roman 
art,  kept  alive  by  Christianity  for  the  Northern 
races,  or  as  the  first  sparks  of  a  new  light 
feebly  struggling  for  existence  through  all  the 
centuries  from  the  6th  to  the  11th,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  characteristics  of  Bvzantinism 


No.  1.  Mero7inf»ian  Initial 
and  Bird. 


No.  2.  Carlovinpinn,  8th  century.  (Ba-stard,  vol.  i.) 


— many  of  them  characteristics  of  weakness,  no 
doubt — prevailed  in  Chri.stian  ornamental  work 
of  all  Icinds,  and  were  grotesque  in  all  the  senses 
of  the  word.  The  beautifully  illustrated  works 
of  Prof.  Westwood  on  Saxon,  Irish  and  Northern 
MSS.  in  particular,  are  of  the  highest  value  in 
this  connection,  and  are  in  tact  almost  the  only 
works  generally  accessible  in  this  cottntry,  whitrh 
illustrate  the  connection  between  the  Eastern  and 
English  churches  through  the  Irish,  by  way  ot 
Iona  and  Lindisfarne  (see  Miniaturk). 

The  splendid  works  ol  D’Agincouri  and  Count 
Bastard  are  the  best  authority  and  sources  of 
information  on  the  Southern  Grotesque  in  niinia- 


752 


GUARDIANS 


GYRO VAGI 


lure  carving  within  the  limits  of  our  period, 
and  the  art  of  photography  is  now  bringing  the 
remains  of  tl)e  ancient  Lombai’d  churches  within 
reach  of  most  persons  interested  in  them.  De¬ 
scriptions  fail  in  great  measure  without  illustra¬ 
tion,  and  few  pictures  or  drawings  are  really 
trustworthy  for  details  of  ornamental  work  (see 
Stones  of  Venice,  App.  vol,  i.  ubi  suj).).  Mr. 
Rusk  in  has  secured  many  valuable  records  by 
his  own  j)encil  and  those  of  his  trusted  workmen. 
Didron’s  Annales  Archeohgiques  contain  much 
excellent  illustration  ;  and  a  parallel  work  of 
equal  value  is  still,  we  believe,  carried  on  in 
Germany,  called  the  .]ahrhu''h  des  Vereins  von 
Altertkums-freunden  in  Rheinlande.  Mr.  Parker’s 
photogi'aphs  and  Roman  Antiquities  above  men¬ 


tioned,  are  of  great  value  to  the  historical  student 
of  art  or  of  archaeology.  The  Northern  Teutonic 
grotesque  of  actual  sj)ort  of  mind,  ultra-natu¬ 
ralism,  and  caricature  extends  far  beyond  the 
limits  of  our  period.  But  the  term  grotesque 
is  generally  applied  to  so  many  things  within 
it,  that  some  early  specimens  of  Gothic  humour 
seem  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  this  Dic- 
tionaiy  ;  and  three  selections  from  Count  Bas¬ 
tard’s  work  are  accordingly  given.  No.  1  is  a 
Merovingian  initial  letter ;  No.  2  Carlovingian 
of  the  8th  century;  and  No.  3  is  the  initial 
portrait  of  a  monk-physician  in  a  lettres-a-jour 
jMS.  of  the  8th  century  of  the  medical  works  of 
Orbaces,  Alexander  of  Tralles,  and  Dioscorides.  All 
will  be  found  in  colour  in  Count  Bastard’s  first 
volume,  with  innumerable  others.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

GUARDIANS.  The  duties  and  liabilities  of 
guardians  as  defined  by  the  old  Roman  laws, 
were  but  slightly  afiected  by  the  Christian 
religion  [See  Dict.  of  Greek  and  Rom.  Antiq. 
s.  V.  2'utor']. 

The  principal  church  regulation,  which  con¬ 
cerned  them,  arose  from  the  generally  admitted 
maxim,  that  the  clergy  ought  not  to  be  entangled 
in  secular  affairs.  Hence  a  guaiaVian  was  not 
allowed  to  be  ordained  to  any  ecclesiastical  func¬ 
tion,  until  after  the  expiration  of  his  guardian- 
shifi.  {Goncil.  Carthag^  /.  c.  9,  A.D.  348.)  For  the 
same  reason  none  of  the  clergy  were  allowed  to 
be  appointed  guardians;  and  those  who  nomi¬ 
nated  any  of  them  to  such  an  office  were  liable  to 
church  censures.  Thus  Cyprian  mentions  the 
case  of  a  person  named  Geminius  Victor,  who 
having  by  his  will  appointed  a  presb3'^ter  as 


guardian  to  his  children,  had  his  name  struck 
out  of  the  Dii'TVCHs,  so  that  no  praj'er  or  obia- 
tion  should  be  olfered  {'vv  him.  (Cyprian 
66,  ad  Clentm  Furnit.) 

Under  the  old  Roman  law  a  guardian  was 
forbidden  to  marry  his  ward,  or  to  give  her  in 
marriage  to  his  son,  except  by  sj)ecial  license 
from  the  emperor  (Cod.  Justin,  v.  6). 

But  Constantine  altered  this  restriction,  so  far 
as  to  allow  such  marriages,  provided  that  the 
ward  was  of  age,  and  that  l)er  guardian  had 
offered  her  no  injury  in  her  minority,  in  which 
case  he  was  to  be  banished  and  his  goods  confis¬ 
cated.  (Cod.  Tkeod.  ix.  8.)  [G.  A.  J.] 

GUBA  on  the  Euphrates  (Council  of), 
A.D.  58.0,  a  meeting  of  the  ]\lonophysites  of 
Antioch  under  their  patriarch  Peter  the  j'ounger, 
to  enquire  into  the  opinions  of  an  archimandrite 
named  John,  and  Probus,  a  so])hist,  his  friend, 
and  ending  in  their  condemnation  (Mansi,  ix. 

965-8).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

GUDDENE,  martyr  at  Carthage,  a.d.  203; 
commemorated  July  18  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

GURIAS,  martyr  of  Edessa,  A.D.  288;  com¬ 
memorated  with  Abibas  and  Samonas,  Nov.  15 
(Cal.  Ryzant.,  Cal.  Armen.).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

GUTHBERTUS.  [Cuthbert.] 
GYNAECONITTS.  [Galleries.] 

GYROVAGI,  vagabond  monks,  reprobated 
by  monastic  writers.  Benedict,  in  the  very 
commencement  of  his  rule,  excludes  them  from 
consideration,  as  un  worth)'  of  the  name  of  monks 
(Bened.  Reg.  c.  1).  He  pronounces  them  worse 
even  than  the  “  sara'baitae,”  or  “  remoboth  ” 
(Hieron.  Ep.  22  ad  Eustoch.  c.  34),  who,  though 
living  together  by  twos  and  threes,  without  rule  or 
discipline,  at  any  rate  were  stationaiy,  and  built 
themselves  cells  ;  whereas  the  “  gyrovagi  ”  were 
always  roving  from  one  monastery  to  another. 
After  staying  three  or  four  days  in  one  monas¬ 
tery,  they  would  start  again  for  another  ;  for 
after  a  few  davs’  rest  it  was  usual  for  strangers 
to  be  subjected  to  the  discipline  of  the  monas¬ 
tery,  to  the  same  fare,"  labour,  &c.,  as  the  in¬ 
mates  (Martene  Reg.  Comm,  ad  loc.  cit.)‘  always 
endeavouring  to  ascertain  where  in  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood  they  would  be  mo.st  likely  to  find 
comfortable  quarters  (Reg.  Magist.  c.  2 ;  cf. 
Isidor.  Pelus.  I.  Ep.  41,  Joann.  Climac.  Seal.  Grad. 
27).  Martene  (v.  s.)  and  ilehard  (Bened.  Anian. 
Concord.  Re,ul.  iii.  ii.)  identify  these  “gyrovagi” 
with  the  “  circumcelliones,”  or  “  circelliones.” 
[v.  CiRCUMCELLiONES.l  They  were  of  import¬ 
ance  enough  to  be  condemned  in  one  of  the  canons 
of  the  Trullan  council,  a.d.  691,  and  are  there 
described  as  wandering  about  in  black  robes  and 
with  unshorn  hair  :  thej'  are  to  be  chased  away 
into  the  desert,  unless  they  will  consent  to  enter 
a  monastery,  to  have  their  hair  trimmed,  and  in 
other  ways  to  submit  to  discipline  (Cone.  Qui- 
nisextum  c.  42).  Bingham  (Origin.  Eccles.  vii. 
ii.  12)  and  Hospinian  (de  Orig.  Monach.  ii.  i.) 
merely  repeat  what  is  contained  in  the  rule  of 
Benedict.  [I.  G.  S.] 


HABAKKUK 


HAGGAI 


753 


H 

HABAKKUK,  the  prophet ;  commemorated 
oiutrt't  24  =  May  19,  and  Hedar3  =  0ct.  30  (C'a/. 
Ethiop)'^  also  Dec.  2  (^Cal.  Jhyxant.').  See  also 
Ahacuc.  [W.  F.  G.] 

HABIT,  THE  MONASTIC.  {Habitus 

monasti -US,  tr^n/ua  fj-ova^iuhv  or  pouaxiuSu).  A 
distinctive  uniform  was  no  part  of  monachisrn 
originally.  Only  it  was  required  of  monks  that 
their  dress  and  general  api)earance  should  indi¬ 
cate  “  gravity  and  a  contempt  of  the  world  ” 
(Bingh.  Oi’iij.  Kccles.  Vil.  iii.  6).  Hair  worn 
long  was  an  effeminacy  (August,  de  Op.  Mon.  c. 
31.  Hieron.  Ep.  22,  ad  Eustoch.  c.  28,  cf. 
Epiidian.  adi\  Hacres.  Ixxx.  7),  the  head  shaven 
all  over  was  too  like  the  priests  of  Isis  (Hieron. 
Comm,  in  Ezek.  c.  44.  Ambros.  Ap.  58  ad  Sabin.). 
In  popular  estimation  persons  abstaining  from 
the  use  of  silken  apparel  were  often  called 
monks  (Hieron.  Ep.  23  ad  MarcelL).  The  same 
writer  defines  the  dress  of  a  monk  merely  as 
“  cheap  and  shabby  ”  (Ep.  4  a  t  Rustic.,  Ep.  13 
ad  Paulin.).  And  the  dress  of  a  nun  as  “  sombre  ’* 
in  tint,  and  “coarse”  in  texture  (Ep.  23  ad 
4[arccll.).  He  warns  the  enthusiasts  of  asceti¬ 
cism  against  the  eccentricity  in  dress,  which  was 
sometimes  a  mere  pretence  of  austerity,  a  long 
untrimmed  beard,  bare  feet,  a  black  cloak, 
chains  on  the  wrists  (Ep.  22  ad  Eustoch.  c.  28, 
cf.  Ballad.  Hist.  Laus.  c.  52).  So  Cassian  pro¬ 
tests  against  monks  wearing  wooden  crosses  on 
their  shoulders  (Coll.  viii.  3).  Hair  closely  cut, 
and  the  cloak  (j)allium),  usually  worn  by  Greek 
philosophers  and  lecturers,  were  at  first  badges 
of  a  monk  in  Western  Christendom  ;  but  even 
these  were  not  peculiar  to  him.  The  cloak  was 
often  worn  by  other  Christians,  exposing  them 
to  the  vulgar  reproach  of  being  “Greeks”  and 
“impostors”  (Bingh.  Orig.  Eccles.  l.  ii.  4),  and 
any  one  appearing  in  public  with  pale  face,  short 
hair,  and  a  cloak,  was  liable  to  be  hooted  and 
jeered  at  by  the  unbelieving  populace  as  a  monk 
(Salv.  de  Cube  mat.  viii.  4). 

Ca.ssian  is  more  precise  on  a  monk’s  costume, 
and  devotes  to  it  the  first  book  of  his  Institutes. 
But  he  allows  that  the  sort  of  dress  suitable  for 
a  monk  in  Egypt  or  Ethiopia  may  be  very 
unsuitable  elsewhere,  and  he  condemns  sack¬ 
cloth,  or  rather,  a  stuff  made  of  goats’  hair  or 
camels’  hair  (cilicina  vestis)  worn  outside  as  too 
conspicuous.  He  si)eaks  in  detail  of  the  various 
parts  of  a  monk’s  dress;  the  iiood"(cucu11us), 
which  is  to  remind  the  monk  to  be  as  a  little 
child  in  simplicity ;  the  sleeveless  tunic  (COLO- 
lUL'ii),  in  Egypt  ma  le  of  linen,  which  reminds 
him  of  self-mortification  ;  the  GIRDLE  or  waist¬ 
band  (cingulum),  to  remind  him  to  have  his  “  loins 
girdid  ”  as  a  “good  soldier  of  Christ the  cape 
over  the  shoulders  (mafors,  palliolum);  the 
sheepskin  or  goatskin  round  the  waist  and  thighs 
(melotes,  ))era,  ])enula) ;  and  for  the  feet  the 
sandals  (caligae),  only  to  be  worn  as  an  oc¬ 
casional  luxury,  never  during  the  divine  service 
(Cassian  Instit.  i.  cc.  1-10  cf.  Ruffin.  Hist.  Mon. 
c.  3). 

Benedict  characteri.stically  passes  over  this 
item  in  the  monastic  discipline  very  quickly; 
summing  up  his  directions  about  it  in  one  of  the 
last  chapters  of  his  rule  ;  and  discreetly  leaving 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


questions  of  colour  and  material,  as  indifferent, 
to  be  decided  by  climate  and  other  ::ircumstances 
He  lays  down  the  general  princij  le,  that  there 
are  to  be  no  superfluities,  adding,  that  a  tunic 
and  hood,  or,  for  outdoor  work,  a  sort  of  cape  to 
protect  the  shoulders  (scapulare),  instead  of  the 
hood,  ought  to  suffice  generally  ;  two  suits  of 
each  being  allowed  for  each  monk,  and  some 
suits  of  rather  better  quality  being  kept  for 
monks  on  their  ]»eregrinations.  The  worn  out 
articles  of  dress  are  to  be  restored  to  the  keei)er 
of  the  wardrobe,  for  the  poor.  Benedict,  how¬ 
ever,  “  to  avoid  disputes  ”  aj)})P:ids  a  short  list, 
corresponding  very  nearly  to  Cassian’s,  of  things 
necessary  for  a  monk,  all  which  are  to  be 
supplied  to  the  brethren,  at  the  discretion  of  the 
abbat,  and  none  of  them  to  be  the  propertv  or 
“  peculiare  ”  of  any  one.  The  only  addition  to 
the  Egyptian  costume  is  that  of  socks  (pedules) 
for  the  winter;  the  Benedictine  “bracile” 
apparently  corresponding  with  “  cingulum,”  and 
the  “scai)ulare”  with  “palliolum.”  Benedict 
allows  trowsers  [femoralia]  on  a  journe}',  and 
on  some  other  occasions ;  underclothing  he  is 
silent  about ;  consequently  commentators  and 
the  usages  of  particular  monasteries  differ  on  this 
point.  To  the  list  of  clothing  Benedict  adds,  as 
part  of  a  monk’s  equipment,  a  knife  (cultellus) 
a  pen  (graj)hium),  a  needle  (acus)  a  handkerchief 
or  handcloth  (mappula),  and  tablets  for  writing 
on  (tabulae).  He  specifies  also  as  necessaries 
for  the  night,  a  mattress  (matta),  a  coverlet 
(sagum),  a  blanket  (laena),  and  a  pillow  (capi- 
tale)  (Bened.  Reg.  c.  55).  Martene  quotes 
Hildemarus  for  the  traditional  custom,  by  which 
each  monk  was  provided  with  a  small  jar  of 
soap  for  himself  and  of  gi-ease  for  his  .shoes 
(Reg.  Bened.  Comment,  ad  loc.). 

Laxity  of  mona.stic  discipline  soon  began  to 
provoke  fresh  enactments  about  dress,  sometimes 
more  stringent  and  more  minute  than  at  first 
(e.g.  Reg.  Isidor.  c.  14,  Reg.  Mog.  c.  81).  Coun¬ 
cils  re-enact,  and  reformers  protest.  The  council  of 
Agde,  A.D.  506,  and  the  4th  council  of  Toledo, 
A.D.  633,  repeat  the  canon  of  the  4th  council  of 
Carthage  A.D.  398,  “  ne  clerici  comam  nutriaut  ” 
(Cone.  Agath.  c.  20  ;  Cone.  iv.  Ihletan.  c.  40 ; 
Cone.  iv.  Carthag.  c.  44).  Ferreolus,  in  southern 
Gaul,  A.D.  558,  repeats  the  old  edict  against 
superfluities,  and  forbids  his  monks  to  use  per¬ 
fumes,  or  wear  linen  next  the  skin  (Ferreol. 
Reg.  cc.  14,  31,  32).  In  Spain,  Fructuosus  of 
Braga,  A.D.  656,  insists  on  uniformity  of  apparel. 
Irregularity  about  dress  seems  with  monks,  as 
in  a  regiment,  to  have  been  an  accompaniment 
of  demoralisation.  (See,  further,  ^lenard  Cone. 
Regul.  Ixii. ;  Alte.serr.  Asceticon.  v. ;  IMiddendorp. 
Origin.  Ascet.  Sylva.  xiii.) 

The  Greek  Euchologion  gives  an  office  for  the 
assumption  of  the  ordinary  habit  of  a  mouK 
(oLKoXovdia  rod  fxiKpov  (rxvyarus),  and  another 
for  a.ssuming  the  greater  or  “angelic”  habit 
distinctive  of  those  ascetics  who  were  thought 
to  have  attained  the  perfection  of  monastic  life 
(a.K.  rod  p^yaXov  Kat  ayyfXiKod  uxT^uaros).  See 
Daniel’s  Codex  Lit.  iv.  659  ff.  [See  Novice.] 

[I.  G.  S.] 

HAEREDIPETAE.  [Cartatores.] 

HAGGAI,  the  pr(q)het;  commemorated  Tak- 
sas  20  =  Dec.  16  (Cal.Ethiop.,  Col.  Bezant.). 

[W.  F.  G.J 


754 


HAGIOSIDEROX 


HAIL  MARY 


HAGtlOSIDP^RON.  One  of  the  .substitutes 
for  liKi.LS  still  used  in  the  Hast  is  the  Hagiosi- 
dei'on  (rb  (Xibrjporv,  Kpova/iia)  [see  SiCMANTilOX]. 
These  usually  consist  of  an  iron  ))late,  curved 
like  the  tire  of  a  wheel,  which  is  struck  with  a 


hammer,  and  produces  a  sound  not  unlike  that 
of  a  gong.  They  are  occasionally  made  of  brass. 
The  illustration  is  taken  from  Dr.  Neale’s  work 
(Neale’s  Eastern  Church,  Jnt.  217,  225;  Daniel’s 
Codex  Lit.  iv.  199).  [C.] 

HAIL  MARY  or  AVE  MARTA.  An  ad¬ 
dress  and  prayer  commonly  made  to  St.  IMary  the 
Virgin  in  the  unrefornied  Western  churche.s. 

it  is,  and  vhen  used. — It  consists  of  two 
parts:  1.  The  words  used  by  the  angel  Gabriel 
in  saluting  St.  Mary,  as  rendered  by  the  Vulgate, 
slightly  altered  by  the  addition  of  St.  Mary’s 
name,  Hail  Mary,  full  of  grace  ;  the  Lord  is 
with  thee  followed  by  the  words  of  Eliza¬ 
beth,  “  Blessed  art  thou  among  women,  and 
blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb.”  2.  A  2)rayer, 
subsequently  added  to  the  salutation,  “  Holy 
Mary,  IMother  of  God,  pi'ay  for  us  sinners  now, 
and  at  the  hour  of  our  death.” 

This  formula  is  ordered  by  the  breviary  of 
po2)e  Pius  V.  to  be  used  daily,  after  the  recita¬ 
tion  of  compline,  and  before  the  recitation  of 
each  of  the  other  canonical  hours,  i.e.,  matins, 
2')rime,  terce,  sext,  nones,  and  vespers.  It  is  also 
commanded,  on  the  same  authority,  to  be  u.sed 
before  the  recitation  of  the  “  Olhee  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin,”  and  before  each  of  the  hours  in  the 
“Little  Ortice.”  It  is  also  used  nine  times  every 
day  in  what  is  called  the  “Angelus.”  It  is  also 
used  sixty-three  times  in  the  devotion  Called  the 
“  Crown  of  the  Virgin,”  and  one  hundred  and 
fifty  times  in  the  “  Kosary  of  the  Virgin.”  It 
also  occurs  in  many  of  the  public  offices,  and  is 
used  before  sermons,  and  it  most  commonly 
forms  a  part  of  the  sj^ecial  devotions  ap2)oiuted 
by  bishoj)s  for  obtaining  indulgences. 

Its  — Cardinal  Baronins  and  Cardinal 

Bona  have  used  an  expression  which,  while  not 
committing  them  to  a  declaration  of  fact,  or  a 
statement  of  their  own  belief,  has  yet  led  sub¬ 
sequent  writers  (see  Gaume,  loc.  inf.  cit.)  to  claim 
their  authority  for  the  assertion,  that  the  second, 
or  jjrecatory,  jrart  of  the  Ave  Maria  was  adopted 
in,  or  immediately  after,  the  council  of  Ephesus, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  5th  century.  “At  that 
time,”  says  Baronins  {(oc.  inf.  cit.'),  “the  an¬ 
gelical  salutation  is  believed  to  have  received  that 
addition,  ‘  Holy  IBary,  Mother  of  God,  pray  for 
us,  &c.,’  which  came  to  be  constantly  repeated 
by  the  faithful.”  “  The  angelical  salutation,” 
says  Bona  {loc.  inf.  cit.),  “  is  believed  to  have  re¬ 
ceived  this  addition  in  the  great  council  of  Ephe¬ 
sus.”  It  is  quite  certain  that  the  two  cardinals 
and  their  followers  have  ante-dated  this  jrart  of 
the  Ave  jMaria  by  more  than  a  thousand  years. 
The  first,  or  Scriptural,  part,  consisting  of  the 
words  of  the  angel  and  of  Elizabeth,  is  older  by 
some  five  hundred  years  than  the  second,  or  pre¬ 
catory,  part,  which  has  been  attached  to  it,  and 
the  first  part  did  not  become  used  as  a  formula 


until  the  end  of  the  11th  century.  The  earliest 
injunction  authorising  its  being  taught  together 
with  the  previously  existing  formulas  of  the  Creed 
and  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  is  found  in  theConstitutions 
of  Odo,  who  became  bishoj)  of  Paids  in  the  year 
1196.  The  Benedictines  of  St.  Stephen  of  Caer, 
in  1706,  maintained  the  following  thesis:  “The 
angelical  salutation  began  to  be  in  use  in  the 
12th  century,  but  these  words  ‘Holy  Miry, 
Mother  of  God,  pray  for  us.  See.,’  seem  to  have 
been  added  a  long  time  afterwards,  in  the  16th 
century:”  a  thesis  which  was  denounced  bv  the 
then  bishop  of  Bayeux  as  scandalous,  but  was 
defended  and  maintained  against  him  by  P^re 
Massuet.  The  earliest  known  use  of  the  first,  or 
scriptural,  part,  is  in  the  IJber  Antiphonianvs, 
attributed  by  John  the  Deacon  to  St.  Gregory 
the  Great,  and  generally  published  with  his 
works.  If  St.  Gregory  is  the  author  of  the 
lAher  Antiphonianns,  and  if  the  antiphon  m 
which  these  words  occur  (p.  657,  Ed.  inf.  cit.'\ 
is  not  a  later  insertion  (the  same  w'ords  in  the 
previous  i)age  are  undoubtedly  a  modern  in¬ 
sertion),  the  angelical  salutation,  as  found  in  the 
Bible,  was  used  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the 
7th  century;  not,  however,  as  a  formula  of 
devotion,  but  as  Ave  might  use  an  anthem  on  one 
day  of  the  year.  This  passage  from  St.  Gregory 
is  the  only  thing  which  brings  the  Ave  Maria 
within  the  chronological  limits  assigned  to  this 
Dictionary,  for  it  is  allowed  (see  IMabillon,  loc. 
inf.  cit.)  that  similar  words  in  the  so-called 
liturgy  of  St.  James  the  Less  are  of  late  intro¬ 
duction  there. 

The  addition  of  the  second,  or  precatory,  part 
of  the  Ave  IMaria,  is  stated  by  Pelbertus  to  have 
been  made  in  consequence  of  a  direct  injunction 
of  St.  IMary,  who  appeared  to  a  pious  woman, 
and  gave  her  instructions  to  that  etiect.  The 
use  of  it  sprang  up  in  the  15th  century,  and  is 
first  authorised  in  pojje  Pius  Vth’s  breviary,  in 
the  year  1568. 

The  “Crown  of  the  Virgin  ”  consists  of  sixtv- 
three  recitations  of  the  Ave  I\Iaria,  one  for  each 
year  that  St.  Mary  was  supposed  to  have  lived, 
with  the  recitation  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer  after 
every  tenth  Ave  Maria.  Its  institution  is  attri¬ 
buted  by  some  to  Peter  the  Hermit.  It  a])pears 
to  have  sprung  up  and  spread  in  the  12th  and 
13th  centuries. 

The  “  Rosary,  or  Psalter  of  the  Blessed  Virgin” 
consists  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  Ave  Marias, 
after  the  number  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  to¬ 
gether  with  fifteen  Pater  Nosters,  distributed  at 
equal  intervals  among  the  Ave  Marias.  Its  in¬ 
stitution  is  attributed  by  some  to  St.  Dominic, 
and  to  the  year  1210; 

The  “  Angelus  ”  consists  of  three  recitations 
of  the  Ave  Maria  at  the  sound  of  the  Angelus 
bell  in  the  morning,  three  at  midday,  and  three 
at  night.  On  each  occasion  the  first  Ave  IMaria 
is  to  be  preceded  by  the  sentence,  “  The  angel  of 
the  Lord  announced  to  iMary,  and  she  conceived  or 
the  Holy  Ghost ;”  the  second,  by  “  Behold  the 
handmaid  of  the  Lord.  Be  it  unto  me  according 
unto  thy  word  ;  ”  the  third,  by  “  The  Word  was 
made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us.”  The  Angelus 
appears  to  have  been  originated  in  the  year 
1287,  by  Buonvicino  da  Riva,  of  IMilan,  of  the 
order  of  the  Humiliati,  who  began  the  practice 
of  ringing  a  bell  at  the  recitation  of  the  .4ve 
Maria.  In  1318  John  XXII.  gave  an  indulgent'e 


HAIR,  WEARING  OF 

of  ten  days  for  saying  an  Ave  ^laria  to  the  sound 
of  a  bell  rung  at  night.  In  1  158,  Calixtus  111. 
gave  thre<  years  and  one  hundred  and  twenty  days’ 
indulgence  for  reciting  the  Ave  Mar*-"',  and  the 
Pater  Xoster  three  times  a  day.  In  1.518,  Leo 
X.  oi’dered  that  the  Angelus  bell  should  be  rung 
three  times  a  day,  and  he  gave  500  days’  in¬ 
dulgence  for  saying  the  Angelus  morning,  mid¬ 
day,  and  evening.  Finally,  Benedict  XIII.  and 
Benedict  XIV.  gave  a  plenary  indulgence,  to  be 
obtained  once  a  month,  to  all  who  recited  it 
three  times  daily. 

The  dates,  therefore,  are  as  follow  : — • 

The  earliest  known  use  (in  the  form  of  an 
antiphon,  or  anthem)  of  the  Scriptural 
words,  afterwards  adopted  as  the  first  part 
of  the  Ave  ^laria — the  7th  century. 

The  earliest  known  use  of  the  same  jiart  as  a 
formula — the  11th  century. 

The  earliest  authoritative  recommendation  of 
the  said  formula — the  12th  centurv. 

The  Crown  of  the  Virgin — the  12th  century. 

The  Rosary  or  Psalter  of  the  Virgin — the  13th 
century. 

The  Angelus — the  14th  centuiy. 

The  earliest  known  use  of  the  prayer  which 
forms  the  second  part  of  the  Ave  Maria — 
the  15th  century. 

The  earliest  authoritative  recommendation 
and  injunction  of  the  same  —  the  16th 
century. 

Authorities  and  Ileferences. — Breviarium  Bo- 
manum  Pii  V.  Pont.  M.  jussu  editum  ;  Baro¬ 
nins,  Annal.  Ecctes.  ad  anti.  431,  tom.  vii.  p.  404, 
num.  179,  Lucae,  1741  ;  Bona,  Bivinae  Psal- 
modiae,  c.  16,  §  2,  p.  497,  Antverpiae,  1694; 
Gaume,  Catechismo  di  Ferseveranza,  vol.  iii.  p. 
506,  !Milan,  1859 ;  Marchantius,  Hortus  Fas- 
torum,  tract  iv.  Lugd.,  1672  ;  Bollandus,  Acta 
Sanctorum,  Mar.  25,  Aug.  4,  pp.  539,  422,  Ant¬ 
verpiae,  1668,  1733  ;  S.  Gregorii  Magni  Ofera, 
tom.  iii.  p.  657,  ed.  Ben.  Venet.  1744;  Hospi- 
nianus,  De  Festis,  p.  69,  Genevae,  1674;  Mabillon, 
Fraefationes  in  Acta  Sanctorum  Ordinis  S.  Bene- 
dicti;  Praefatio  in  Sued.  v.  p.  439,  Venet.,  1740; 
Migne,  Summa  aurea  de  Laudibus  Virginis,  tom. 
iv.,  Liturgii  Mariana :  De  cultu  publico  ah  Ec- 
clesia  B.  Marine  exhi'ito :  Dissertationes  iv.  v.  vi. 
vii.  auctore  J.  C.  Trombelli,  p.  209,  Parisiis, 
1862  ;  Zaccaria.  Dissert  izioni  varie  Italiane,  Dis- 
scrtazione  vi.  tom.  ii.  p.  242,  Romae,  1780; 
Enciclopedia  delC  Ecvlesiastico,  s.  v.  “Ave  Maria,” 
Napoli,  1843.  [F.  M.j 

HAIR,  AVEARING  OF.  The  regulations 
of  the  ancient  church  on  this  subject  may  be 
divide  1  into  three  distinct  classes,  as  relating — 
i.  to  the  clergy;  ii.  to  penitents;  iii.  to  be¬ 
lievers  in  general. 

i.  The  hair  in  ancient  times  appears  to  have 
been  sometimes  worn  at  great  length.  Thus 
Eusebius  (ff.  E.  ii.  23),  speaking  of  James  the 
Apostle,  notes  that  a  razor  never  came  upon 
his  head.  But  shortened  hair  appears  to 
have  been  considered  a  mark  of  distinction 
between  the  heathen  ])hilosopher  and  the 
Christian  teacher.  Thus  Gregory  Nazianzen 
(^Orat.  28)  says  of  Maximus,  that  he  brought  no 
qualification  to  the  pastoral  office  except  that  of 
shortening  his  hair,  which,  before  that  time,  he 
had  worn  disgracefully  long.  It  is  also  recorded 
of  one  Theotimus,  bishop  of  Scythia,  that  he 


HAIR,  WEARING  OF  75o 

still  retained  the  long  hair  which  he  had  worn 
when  a  student,  in  token  that,  in  becoming  a 
bishop,  he  had  not  abandoned  philo.sophy  (Soz. 
H.  E.  vii.  26).  But  this  liberty  waj  restricted 
by  various  decrees  of  councils.  The  fourth 
council  of  C:irthage,  a.d.  398  (c.  44),  ju-ovides 
that  the  clergy  shall  neither  j)ermit  their  hair 
nor  beards  to  grow.  Another  reading  of  this 
decree  is,  that  they  were  neither  to  let  their  hair 
grow  nor  shave  their  beards.  The  first  synod  of 
St.  Patrick,  a.d.  456  (c.  6),  ]>rovides  that  the 
hair  of  the  clergy  should  be  shorn  according 
to  the  Roman  fasliion,  and  (c.  10)  that  any 
who  allow  their  hair  to  grow,  should  bo  ex¬ 
cluded  from  the  church.  The  council  of  Agde, 
A.D.  506  (c.  20),  ordains  that  clergy  who  retain 
long  hair,  shall  have  it  shortened,  even  against 
their  will,  by  the  archdeacon.  The  first  council 
of  Barcelona,  A.D.  540  (c.  3),  ])rovides  that  no 
clergyman  shall  let  his  hair  grow  nor  shave  hi.s 
beard.  The  first  council  of  Braga,  a.d.  563  (c. 
11),  provides  that  lectors  shall  not  have  love¬ 
locks  (granos),  hanging  down,  after  the  heathen 
fashion.  The  second  council  of  Braga,  a.d.  572 
(c.  66),  decrees  that  the  clergy  ought  not  to 
discharge  their  sacred  functions  with  long  hair, 
but  with  closely-cut  hair  and  open  ears.  The 
fourth  council  of  Toledo,  a.d.  633  (c.  41), 
denounces  certain  lectors  in  Gallicia,  who, 
w'hile  retaining  a  small  tonsure,  allowed  the 
lower  portion  of  the  hair  to  grow.  The  council 
in  Trullo,  A.D.  692  (Gone.  Quinisex.  c.  21), 
ordains  that  clergy  who  have  been  deprived  of 
their  office,  should,  on  their  repentance,  be  shorn 
after  the  fashion  of  the  clergy  ;  if  they  refused 
this,  their  hair  was  to  be  left  long,  in  token  of 
their  preference  of  a  worldly  life.  At  a  council 
held  at  Rome,  A.D.  721  (c.  17),  anathema  was 
pronounced  against  any  of  the  clergy  who  should 
allow  his  hair  to  grow.  The  same  was  repeated 
at  another  Roman  council,  held  a.d.  743  (c.  8). 

These  decrees,  however,  appear  to  have  been 
difficult  of  enforcement.  Heretical  sects  espe¬ 
cially  appear  to  have  been  fond  of  adopting 
eccentric  fashions  of  wearing  the  hair  and  beard 
as  badges  and  tokens  of  their  opinions.  Epi- 
phanius  (Ilaeres.  in  Massil.  n.  6,  7)  denounces 
certain  heretical  monks,  dwelling  in  Mesopo¬ 
tamia,  in  mona.steries  which  he  calls  “  Mandras,” 
who  w’ere  in  the  habit  of  shaA'ing  the  heard  and 
letting  the  hair  grow,  and  contends  that  such 
practices  are  contrary  to  the  apostolic  injunc¬ 
tions.  Jerome  (^Comm.  in  Ezek.  c.  44)  says  that 
the  clergy  should  neither  have  their  heads 
closely  shaven,  like  the  priests  of  Isis  and  Sera- 
pis,  nor  let  their  hair  grow  to  an  extravagant 
length,  like  barbarians  and  soldiers,  but  "that 
the  hair  should  be  worn  just  so  long  as  to  cover 
the  head.  In  another  place  18,  al.  22, 

ad  Eustoch.),  he  denounces  certain  monks  who 
indulged  in  beards  like  goats  and  ringlets  like 
women.  In  his  ‘  Life  of  Hilarion,’  he  commends 
the  saint  for  cutting  his  hair  once  a  year,  at 
Easter.  Augustine  (j9<?  Op.  J/o/j.  c.  31)  sjieaks 
of  certain  monks  who,  fearing  lest  thev  mio'ht 
lose  reverence  bv  their  shorn  heads,  “  ne  vilior 
habeatur  tonsa  saactitas,”  allowed  their  hair  to 
grow,  in  order  to  suggest  to  those  who  saw 
them  a  resemblance  to  Samuel  and  the  elder 
prophets.  Against  the.se  he  quotes  the  saying  ot 
the  apostle,  that  in  Christ  the  veil  shall  l^e 
taken  away  (2  Cor.  iii.  14).  Gregory  the  Great 


756 


HAIR-CLOTH 


HAIR,  WEARING  OF 

(PastoraL  p.  2,  c.  7)  says  that  priests  are  rightly 
forbidiien  either  to  shave  their  heads,  or  to  let 
their  hair  grow  long.  The  hair  on  the  head  of 
a  priest,  is  to  be  kept  so  long  that  it  may  cover 
the  skin,  and  cut  so  close  that  it  may  not  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  eyes.  The  practice  seems  to  have 
been,  to  wear  the  hair  short  and  the  beard  long. 
Sidonius  Apollinaris  (^Epist.  iv.  24)  speaks  of 
one  Maximus  Palatinus,  a  clergyman,  as  wearing 
his  hair  short  and  his  beard  long.  Gregory  the 
Great  is  described  as  wearing  a  beard  of  the  old 
fashion  and  of  moderate  size,  a  large  round 
tonsure,  and  his  hair  neatly  curled,  “  intorto,” 
and  hanging  to  the  middle  of  his  ears  (Joann. 
Diac.  Vita  Greg.  Max.  c.  4,  c.  83).  Bede  (^Eccl. 
Hist.  1.  4,  c.  14),  describing  a  vision  of  SS.  Peter 
and  Paul,  says  that  the  one  was  shaven  (at- 
tonsus),  as  a  clergyman,  the  other  wore  his 
beai  d  long.  For  other  particulars  regarding  the 
hair  of  the  clergy,  see  Tonsure. 

ii.  Closely-cut  hair  was  always  enjoined  on 
penitents,  as  a  condition  of  their  reception  into 
the  church.  The  council  of  Agde  (c.  15)  pro¬ 
vides  that  no  penitents  shall  be  received  unless 
they  have  parted  with  their  hair,  “  comas  depo- 
suerint.”  The  first  council  of  Barcelona  (c.  6) 
speaks  of  the  shaven  heads  of  male  penitents. 
The  third  council  of  Toledo  (c.  12)  provides  that 
the  first  step  to  the  admission  of  a  male  penitent, 
shall  be  to  shave  his  head.  So  Optatus  (^Contra 
Donatist.  1.  23)  finds  fault  with  the  Donatists 
for  having  shaven  the  heads  of  certain  priests 
whom  they  had  admitted  to  penance.  With 
regard  to  women,  Ambrose  (Ad  Virg.  Laps. 
c.  8)  speaks  of  cutting  off  the  hair,  which  by 
vain  glory  had  tempted  to  the'  sin  of  luxury; 
but  Jerome,  in  describing  the  repentance  of 
Fabioia  (^Ep).  30,  al.  84,  ad  Ocean.),  speaks  of  her 
dishevelled  hair.  But  before  their  restoration,  pe¬ 
nitents  and  excommunicated  persons  were  obliged 
to  let  the  hair  and  beard  grow.  Thus  a  certain 
Lrsicinus,  bishop  of  Cahors,  being  excommuni¬ 
cated,  was  forbidden  to  cut  either  his  hair  or 
his  beard  (Greg.  Turon.  Hist.  Franc.  1.  8,  n.  20). 
In  general,  neglected  hair  appears  to  have  been 
a  sign  of  mourning.  Chrysostom  {Scrm.  3,  on 
Job)  says  that  many  in  time  of  mourning  let 
the  hair  grow,  whereas  Job  shore  his.  The 
reason  being,  that  where  the  hair  is  honoured,  it 
is  a  sign  of  mourning  to  cut  it  short,  but  where 
it  is  worn  short,  it  is  a  sign  of  mourning  to  let 
it  gi-ow,  Baronius  {Aniialcs,  A.D.  631,  n.  4) 
speaks  of  a  certain  bishop,  named  Lupus,  exiled 
by  Clothaire,  who  came  mourning  to  the  king  with 
long  dishevelled  locks,  and  the  king,  in  token  of 
forgiveness,  commanded  his  hair  to  be  shorn. 

iii.  The  laity  were  sometimes  recognised  as 
usually  wearing  their  hair  long.  The  council  in 
Trullo  (Co?^c.  Quinisext.  c.  21)  ordains  that  de¬ 
linquent  and  impenitent  clergy  should  wear  their 
hair  long,  as  the  laity.  Yet  immoderately 
lengthened  hair  apj^ears  to  have  been  considered 
a  token  of  effeminacy  and  luxuriousness.  When 
the  emperor  Heraclius  succeeded  to  the  throne, 
his  hair  was  immediately  cut  short  (Baronius, 
Annal.  A.D.  610,  n.  5).  Many  attempts  were 
therefore  made  to  restrain  tlie  liberty  of  the 
laity,  in  this  respect,  within  due  bounds,  founded 
partly  on  a  sense  of  what  was  decent  and 
becoming,  partly  on  the  principle  that  it  is  not 
right  either  for  men  or  women  to  obliterate  the 
.characteristics  of  their  sex.  The  council  ia 


Trullo  (c.  96)  a.sse’-ts  that  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  bapti.smal  profession,  that  baptised  men 
should  wear  their  hair  in  cunningly  woven 
piaits  or  tresses,  and  orders  that  such  as  would 
not  obey  this  admonition,  should  be  excommuni¬ 
cated.  The  council  of  Gangra  (c.  17)  anatlic- 
matizes  any  women  who,  through  pretended 
asceticism,  should  cut  close  the  hair  which  was 
given  to  them  as  a  token  of  subjection.  The 
decree  was  confirmed  by  the  emperor  Theodosius, 
with  the  addition  that  any  bishop  who  should 
admit  such  women  into  the  church,  should  be 
deprived  of  his  office  (Soz.  //.  E.  vii.  26).  In 
the  Apiostolic  Const ihit ions  (i.  3),  the  followers 
of  Christ  are  ordered  not  to  ])romote  the  growth 
of  their  hair,  but  rather  to  restrain  and  shorten 
it.  Men  are  forbidden  to  wear  ringlets,  or  to 
use  ointments,  or  in  any  way  to  imitate  the 
adornments  in  use  among  women.  They  are  al.so 
forbidden  to  collect  their  hair  into  a  knot  or 
crown,  TToieiv  els  ev  o  i<TTi  (rirardKiov,  or  to 
indulge  in  ti'e.sses,  either  artfully  dishevelled  or 
carefully  arranged,  ^  aTroxofia  t)  ixefxefnffpevqv., 
or  to  curl  and  crisp  it,  or  dye  it  yellow'.  They 
are  also  forbidden  to  shave  the  beard,  as  if 
thereby  obliterating  the  peculiar  distinction,  tt^v 
pop<pnv,  of  manhood.  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
(^Paedagog.  ii.  c.  8)  speaks  of  the  folly  committed 
hy  aged  w'omen  in  dyeing  their  hair  ;  and  (/6. 
iii.  3)  reprehends  the  folly  of  which  some  men 
were  guilty,  in  eradicating  the  hair,  apparently 
not  only  from  their  beards,  but  from  all  parts  ot 
their  bodies,  with  pitch  plaisters.  He  also  (/'>. 
iii.  11)  gives  full  directions  for  the  arrangement 
of  the  hair.  The  hair  of  men  is  to  be  cut  close, 
unless  it  is  crisp  and  curlv,  ovXas.  Long  curls 
and  love-locks  are  strictly  forbid  len,  as  effemi¬ 
nate  and  unseem Iv.  The  hair  is  not  to  be  al- 

V 

lowed  to  grow  over  the  e^'es,  and  a  closely- 
cropped  head  is  alleged  not  only  to  be  becoming 
a  grat'e  man,  but  to  render  the  brain  less  liable 
to  injury,  by  accustoming  it  to  endure  heat  and 
cold.  The  beard  is  to  be  allowed  to  grow,  since 
an  ample  beard  becomes  the  male  sex  ;  if  cut  at 
all,  the  chin  must  not  be  left  quite  bare.  The 
moustache  may  be  clipped  with  scissors,  so  that 
it  may  not  be  dirtied  in  eating,  but  not  shorn 
with  a  razor.  Women  are  to  wear  the  hair 
modestly  arranged  upon  the  neck,  and  fastened 
with  a  hair  pin.  The  habit  of  wearing  false 
hair  is  strongly  denounced,  since,  it  is  said,  in 
such  cases,  wdieu  the  priest,  in  bestowing  his 
bene  fiction,  lays  his  hand  upon  the  head,  the 
blessing  does  not  reach  the  wearer  of  the  hair, 
but  rests  upon  the  person  to  whom  the  hair 
belongs.  [P.  0.] 

HAIR-CLOTH  (^Cilicium').  The  rough  hair¬ 
cloth  for  which  Cilicia  was  anciently  famous 
was  used  in  several  ways,  both  as  an  actual 
instrument,  and  as  a  symbol,  of  mortification. 

1.  The  hair-shirt  has  frequently  been  worn, 
as  is  well  known,  as  a  means  of  mortifying  the 
flesh  without  ostentation.  Thus  Jerome  (^Epn- 
t'lph.  Xepot.  c.  9)  says  that  .some  other  may 
narrate  how  the  young  Nepotianus,  when  in  the 
imperial  service,  ,  wore  hair-cloth  under  his 
chlamys  and  fine  linen.  And  Paulinus  Petricor- 
diensis  (Vita  S.  Ma?’tini.  ii.  p.  1019  D,  Migne) 
says  of  the  monks  of  St.  Martin  : 

“  Afnltis  v;stis  erat  setis  contexta  camelL" 

So  in  Hucbald’s  Life  of  St.  Rictrudis,  who  died 


HALLELUJAH 


a^out  A.D.  G88  (c.  9,  in  Mabil Ion’s  Acta  S3. 
JJeaed.  Saec.  ii.),  we  read  that  the  saint  wore  an 
inner  garment  of  hair-cloth  (esoi)horio  amicitur 
cilicino).  One  of  the  saints  who  boro  the  name 
of  Theodore  was  distinguished  as  Tp'-x^pas  from 
his -constant  habit  of  wearing  a  hair-shirt  (Macri 
Ilierolcx.  s.  V.  Tric/nnas). 

Monks  frequently  used  the  hair-shirt.  Cassian, 
however  (histit,  i.  1)  dees  not  consider  it  suit¬ 
able  for  their  ordinary  garb,  both  as  savouring 
of  over-righteousness  and  as  hindering  labour 
[Habit,  the  Monastic].  In  his  time — Cassian 
died  about  A.D.  430 — few  monks  seem  to  have 
used  it  ;  in  after  times  we  find  it  constantly 
used,  at  any  rate  by  those  who  claimed  superior 
sanctity.  On  the  whole  subject,  see  0.  Zockler, 
Krit.  Geschiclite  der  Askese,  p.  82  [Frankf.-a.- 
M.  1803]. 

2.  Of  the  symbolic  uses  of  hair-cloth  the 
following  are  the  principal : — The  candidates  for 
baptism  anciently  came  to  the  preliminary  e.x- 
amination  [Scrutinium]  with  bare  feet,  and 
standing  on  hair-cloth  (Augustine,  De  Sijmb.  ad 
Catech.  ii.  1;  compare  iv.  1).  Penitents  in  the 
ceremonies  of  Ash  Wednesday  were  clothed  with 
a  hair-cloth,  as  well  as  sprinkled  with  ashes 
(Martene,  Hit.  Ant.  IV.  c.  .xvii.;  Ordd.  7,  16, 
etc.).  The  altar  was  sometimes  covered  with 
hair-cloth  in  times  of  affliction  (/Z).  Ill.  iii.  2). 
The  dying  were  covered  with  a  hair-cloth 
blessed  by  ^he  priest  (/6.  I.  vii.  4,  Ordo  19). 
The  bodies  of  the  dead  were  sometimes  wrapped 
in  hair-cloth ;  as,  for  instance,  that  of  Bernard 
of  Hildesheim  c.  43;  in  Surius,  Nov.  20). 

Cliarles  the  Great  was  buried  in  the  hnir-shirt 
which  he  had  worn  in  life  (Life  by  the  monk  or 
Augouleme,  c.  24;  quoted  by  Martene,  111.  xii. 
13).  In  an  ancient  form  for  the  reception  ot 
penitents  on  Maundy  Thursday,  given  by  Mar¬ 
tene  (IV.  xxii.  §  ii.  Ordo  6)  from  a  Sarum  missal, 
a  banner  of  hair-cloth  (vexillum  cilicinum)  is 
directed  to  be  borne  in  the  procession  to  the 
church.  [C.] 

HALLELUJAH.  [Alleluia.] 

HAND,  TPIE,  is  used  as  symbolic  of  the 
manifested  presence  of  the  First  Person  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  God  the  Father. 

The  declining  skill  of  the  earliest  Christian 
workman,  and  their  utter  technical  incapacity 
after  the  time  of  Constantine,  appears  in  the 
strongest  light  in  their  attempts  to  delineate 
the  extremities  of  the  human  figure.  _  Mar- 
tignv  remarks  that  the  hands  of  the  martyrs 
presenting  or  receiving  their  crowns  in  heaven 
are  covered  or  concealed  in  token  of  adoration ; 
but  this  applies  only  to  the  left  h.and.  The 
eomparative  skill,  or  want  of  skill,  with  whieffl 
these  parts  of  the  body  are  treated,  might 
possibly  be  a  test  of  ancient  work  in  the  cata¬ 
combs,  could  paintings  be  discovered  of  very 
ancient  date,  and  thoroughly  a.scertained  authen¬ 
ticity  without  modern  retouch. 

The  hand  representing  God  occurs  in  the 
great  Transfiguration  of  St.  Apolliuaris  in  Classe 
at  Ravenna  (Martigny,  j).  639,  s.  v.  Trausligu- 
ration).  Also  in  a  carving  of  the  same  sub¬ 
ject  on  the  Ivory  Casket  of  the  Library  at 
Brescia  (Westwood,  FicGle  Ivory  Casts,  94,  p.  37, 
catalogue).  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

HANDS,  IMPOSITION  OF.  [Imposition 
OF  Hands.] 


HANDS,  THE  LIFTING  OF  757 

I  HANDS,  THE  LIFTING  OF  IN 
PKAYEU.  I.  The  strict  observance  of  this  cu.s- 
tom,  and  the  importance  attached  to  it  among 
the  early  Christians,  will  hardly  be  understood, 
unle.ss  we  take  into  consideration  the  habits  and 
opinions  of  their  Jewish  and  heathen  forefathers. 
It  was  a  rite  that  had  descended  to  them  from 
both.  Among  the  children  of  Israel  it  accom¬ 
panied  acts  of  praise  as  well  as  prayer.  Witness 
the  Book  of  Psalms: — “Thus  will  I  bless  Thee 
while  I  live:  I  will  lift  up  my  hands  in  Thy 
name”  (Ps.  Ixiii.  4);  “Lift  up  your  hands  in 
holiness,  and  bless  the  Lord  ”  (Ps.  cxxxiv.  2). 
Before  Ezra  read  the  law  to  the  people  after 
their  return  from  Babylon,  he  “  blessed  the 
Lord,  the  great  God,  and  all  the  peo])le  answered 
Amen,  Amen,  with  lifting  up  of  their  hands” 
(Nell.  viii.  6 ;  compare  1  Esdr.  ix.  47).  In  prayer 
the  gesture  was  so  universal  that  to  i)ray  and  to 
lift  up  the  hands  were  almost  convertible  terms. 
Thus  in  Lamentations,  “Lift  up  thv  hands  to¬ 
wards  Him  for  the  life  of  thy  young  children  ” 
(Ch.  ii.  19).  Again  in  Psalm  xxviii.  2:  “Hear 
the  voice  of  m}'-  sup])lications,  when  I  cry  unto 
Thee  ;  when  I  lift  up  my  hands  toward  Thy 
holy  oracle.”  When  Heliodorus  came  to  take 
away  the  treasures  in  the  temple,  the  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  Jerusalem  “all  holding  their  hands  to¬ 
ward  heaven,  made  supplication  ”  (2  Macc.  iii. 
20;  comp.  xiv.  34;  Ps.  cxli.  2;  Is.  i.  15;  1 
Esdr.  viii.  73 ;  Ecclus.  li.  19).  This  gesture  in' 
prayer  was  without  doubt  so  highly  valued 
among  the  Jews,  partly  in  conse((uence  of  the 
victory  obtained  over  the  Amalekites,  while  the 
hands  of  Moses  were  held  up  (Exod.  xvii.  11); 
but  it  was  nevertheless  “  not  of  Moses,  but  of 
the  fathers.”  We  might  infer  this  from  the 
manner  in  which  the  story  is  related;  but  more 
conclusively  from  the  fact  that  the  same  rite- 
prevailed  among  the  Gentiles.  “  All  we  ot 
human  kind,”  says  Aristotle,  “  stretch  forth  our 
hands  to  heaven,  when  we  pray  ”  (/><?  Mundo,  c. 
vi.  comp.  Horn.  IL  viii.  347  ;  Virg.  Acn.  iii.  176; 
X.  667).  Minutius  Felix  proves  that  it  was 
still  common  among  the  heathen  in  the  3rd 
century,  “1  hear  the  common  people,  when  they 
stretch  their  hands  towards  heaven,  say  nothing 
but  God  ”  (  Octavias,  c.  5). 

IL  A  practice  thus  universal  and  of  such  anti¬ 
quity,  could  not  fail  to  have  a  ])lace  in  the  re¬ 
ceived  ritual  of  the  first  Christians.  It  is  more 
than  once  recognized  in  the  New  Testament 
itself;  as  when  St.  Paul  says,  “  I  will  therefore 
that  men  i)ray  everywhere  lifting  up  holy 
hands”  (1  Tim.  ii.  8).  Clemens  of  Alexandria, 
A.D.  192,  is  an  early  witness  to  the  continued 
ob.servance  of  the  rite.  After  defining  prayer 
to  be  “  converse  with  God,”  he  ju  oceeds  to 
say  that  therefoie,  as  if  reaching  up  to  Him, 
we  “raise  the  head  and  lift  the  hands  to¬ 
wards  heaven  ”  (Strom,  vii.  c.  vii.  §  40).  Ter- 
tullian,  his  contemporary: — “  Worshif)ping  with 
modesty  and  humility  we  the  more  commend 
our  prayers  to  God,  not  even  lifting  up  our 
hands  too  high,  but  with  self-restraint  and  be¬ 
comingly”  [De  (Jrat.  c.  xiii.).  Again:  “We 
Christians,  looking  upwards,  with  hands  out¬ 
spread,  because  free  from  guilt;  with  he.ad  bare, 
because  we  are  not  ashamed;  lastly,  without  a 
remembrancer  [of  the  names  of  the  gotl-s],  be¬ 
cause  we  jn-ay  from  the  heart”  (Apol.  c.  xxx.). 
Origen,  A.D.  230,  says  that  among  the  many 


758  HANDS,  THE  LIFTING  OF 

gestures  of  the  body,  we  ought  without  doul)t 
in  ])rayer  to  prefer  “the  stretcliing  forth  of  the 
hands  and  the  lifting  uj)  of  the  eyes  ”  {De  Oral. 
c.  31);  and  that  when  the  devout  man  prays  he 
“  stretches  forth  his  soul  towards  God,  beyond 
his  hands,  as  it  were,  and  his  mind  further  than 
his  eyes  ”  (Ibid.).  According  to  Eusebius,  Con¬ 
stantine  had  himself  represented  on  coins  and  in 
<)ictures  “  looking  up  to  heaven,  and  stretching 
forth  his  hands  like  one  praying”  (Vita  Con- 
st'fiit.  1.  iv.  c.  xv^).  See  the  epitaph  of  Petronia, 
under  ToJin. 

111.  The  hands  when  thus  lifted  up  were 
often,  and  perhaps  generally,  so  extended  on 
either  side  as  to  make  the  tigure  of  a  cross  with 
the  body.  See  the  boy  in  the  group  on  p.  661. 
“  We  ”  (Christians),  says  Tertnllian  (in  contrast 
with  the  Jews),  “not  only  lift  up  our  hands,  but 
spread  them  out  too,  and  disposing  them  after 
the  mode  of  the  Lord’s  Passion  and  praying,  (so) 
confess  Christ  ”  (^De  Orat.  c.  xi.).  In  allusion  to 
this  he  says  elsewhere,  “  The  very  attitude  of  a 
Christian  at  prayer  is  prepared  for  every  inflic¬ 
tion  ”  {Apol.  c.  XXX.).  Asterius  Amasenus,  A.  D. 
401  :  “  The  erect  attitude  of  prayer,  in  which 
one  holds  the  hands  outstretched,  by  its  figure 
represents  the  passion  of  the  cross  ”  {Horn,  de 
Fh'tris.  et  Puhl.  in  Photii  Bihiioth.  cod.  271). 
St.  Haximus  of  Turin:  “  We  are  taught  to  pray 
with  uplifted  hands  that  by  the  very  gesture  of 
our  members  we  may  confess  Christ  ”  (/>e  Cruce ; 
Horn,  de  Pass.  ii.).  St.  Ambrose,  when  dying, 
“  prayed  with  hands  spread  in  the  form  of  a 
cross  ”  (  r«7a,  a  Paulino  conscr.  §  47).  Pruden- 
tius,  describing  the  death  by  fire  of  certain 
martyrs,  relates  that,  when  their  bonds  were 
burnt,  they  lifted  up  the  hands  thus  .set  free 
“  to  the  Father  in  the  form  of  a  cross  ”  {De 
Coron.  Hymn  vi.  1.  107).  Many  Christian 
writers  believed  that  this  was  the  manner  in 
which  the  hands  of  Moses  were  held  up  during 
the  battle  with  the  Amalekites,  and  that  the 
victory  was  thus  granted  to  the  cro.ss.  See 
Ep.  Barnah.  c.  xii.  ;  Justin  M.  Dialog,  cum  Trgpdi. 
cc.  91,  111  :  Tertull.  Ado.  Jud.  c.  x. ;  Cyi)rian 
Adv.  Jud.  1.  ii.  c.  xxi. ;  Maximus  Taur.  u.  s. 
Gregory  Xazianzen  : — “  They  held  up  the  hands 
of  Moses  that  Amalek  might  be  subdued  by  the 
cross  so  long  before  shadowed  forth  and  figured  ” 
{Oral.  xii.  §2  ;  Sim.  Carmina,  lib.  ii.  §  1,  c.  1). 

IV.  At  baptism  the  early  Christians  lifted  the 
hand  as  in  defiance  of  Satan.  Thus  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  addressing  the  newly-baptized  : 
“  Standing  with  your  face  to  the  West,  ye  heard 
yourselves  commanded  to  stretch  forth  the  hand 
and  renounce  Satan  as  present  ”  {Catech. 
Algstag.  1.  c.  ii.).  Pseudo-Dionysius  describes 
the  same  thing;  but  from  him  we  learn  further 
that  after  the  candidate  had  thrice  renounced 
Satan,  the  priest  “  turned  him  towards  the  East, 
and  commanded  him  to  look  up  to  heaven,  and 
lifting  up  (avarPivavTa)  his  hand  to  enter  into 
compact  with  Chidst  ”  (AVc/.  Hierarch,  cap.  ii. 
§  6  ;  comp.  c.  iii.  §  5).  St.  Basil,  when  exhorting 
catechumeng  not  to  defer  their  baptism,  ajipears 
to  allude  to  this  second  lifting  of  the  hands: 
“  Why  dost  thou  wait  until  bapti.sm  becomes  the 
gift  of  a  fever  to  thee,  when  thou  wilt  not  be 
able  to  utter  the  salutary  words  .  .  .  nor  to  lift 
up  thy  hands  to  heaven,  nor  to  stand  up  on  thy 
feet?”  (Horn.  xiii.  Exhort,  ad  S.  Baj  tism.  §  3). 
The  office  of  the  modern  Greek  church  {Euchol. 


HANDS,  WASHING  OF 

Goar,  i».  338)  still  witnesses  to  the  lifting  up  of 
the  hands  at  the  renunciation;  but  they  are  now 
held  down  when  the  desire  to  take  service  under 
Christ  is  professed.  The  reader  will  ob.serve 
that  the  authorities  now  cited  all  belong  to  the 
East.  There  is  no  evidence  so  far  as  the  present 
writer  knows,  to  show  that  the  custom  before  us 
prevailed  in  the  West  also.  [W.  E.  S.] 

HANDS,  WASHING  OF.  I.  In  the  law  or 
Moses  (Exod.  xxx.  18-21)  it  was  ordaineil  that 
“between  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  and 
the  altar”  there  should  stand  a  brazen  laver  lull 
of  water,  at  which  the  priests  were  to  “  wash 
their  hands  and  their  feet  ”  before  they  entered. 
When  the  temple  was  built,  this  laver  was  re¬ 
placed  by  the  “  molten  sea,”  “  for  the  priests  to 
wa.sh  in  ”  (2  Chron.  iv.  2,  6).  Again,  when  murder 
had  been  committed  by  an  unknown  jierson,  the 
declaration  of  innocence  made  by  the  elders  of 
the  nearest  city  was  associated  with  a  ceremonial 
washing  of  the  hands  (Deut.  xxi.  6).  These  two 
provisions  of  the  law  would,  it  is  conceived,  be 
quite  sufficient  of  themselves  to  create  among 
those  subject  to  it  a  general  custom  of  washing 
the  hands  before  drawing  near  to  God  in  the 
more  solemn  acts  of  worship  and  religion.  That 
such  a  rite  prevailed  and  was  held  to  be  of  a 
highly  sacred  character  may  be  inferred  from 
more  than  one  allusion  in  the  Book  of  Psalms. 
“I  will  wash  mine  hands  in  innocency  ;  so  will  I 
compass  Thine  altar”  (Psalm  xxvi.  6);  “Verily 
I  have  cleansed  my  heart  in  vain,  and  washed 
my  hands  in  innocency  ”  (Ixxiii.  16).  The 
metaphor  of  “  clean  hands  ”  to  denote  righteou.s- 
ness  could  not  have  come  into  such  frequent  use 
(Job  ix.  30 ;  xvii.  9;  xxxi.  7  ;  Ps.  xviii.  20,  24; 
xxiv,  4),  if  there  had  been  no  familiar  rite  ot 
washing  the  hands  befoi-e  entering  into  God’s 
presence.  To  give  an  example  of  later  usage, 
Josephus  tells  us  that  the  seventy-two  who 
translated  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek  at  the 
instance  of  Ptolemy  were  wont  each  morning  to 
“  wash  their  hands  and  purify  themselves,” 
before  they  entered  on  their  sacred  task  {Antiq. 
b.  xii.  ch.  ii.  §  13).  It  is  most  j)robable,  how¬ 
ever,  that  the  custom  before  us  was  much 
older  than  the  law  of  Moses,  for  it  appears  to 
have  been  general  among  the  heathen  at  an 
early  period.  Thus  Hesiod  gives  a  warning 
“never  with  unwashed  hands  to  pour  out  the 
black  wine  at  morn  to  Zeus  or  the  other  im¬ 
mortals”  {Opera  et  Dies,  line  722).  He  also 
forbids  the  passage  of  a  stream  on  foot  before 
washing  the  hands  in  it  with  })rayer  {ibid.  1. 
735).  According  to  some  ancient  authorities 
temples  were  called  delubra  from  dehi  ',  because 
they  generally  had  fountains,  or  pools  so  called, 
attached  to  them  for  the  use  of  those  who 
entered  (Servius  ad  Virg.  Aen.  ii.  225).  Nor 
was  the  kindred  rite  before  mentioned  unknown 
to  the  heathen.  Pilate  “  took  water  and  washed 
his  hands  before  the  multitude,”  when  he  ])ro- 
tested  his  innocence  of  the  blood  of  Christ 
i^St.  Matt,  xxvii.  24).  Compare  Virg.  Aen.  ii.  719. 
Generally,  indeed,  “it  was  a  custom  with  the 
ancients,  after  the  killing  of  a  man  or  other 
slaughters,  to  wa.sh  the  hands  with  water  to 
remove  the  pollution  ”  (Scholiast,  in  Sophocl. 
Ajac.  1.664,  vol.  i.  p.  80;  Lund.  1758). 

II.  A  rite  thus  familiar  to  ail  classes  of  the 
early  converts,  and  so  patient  of  a  Christian 


HANGINGS 


759 


HANDS,  WASHING  OF 

adaptation,  was  certain  to  be  retained  in  some 
form  or  other.  To  facilitate  its  observance  there 
was  in  the  atrium  of  many  churches  a  foun¬ 
tain  or  reservoir  of  water  resembling  those 
with  which  the  temples  had  been  furnished. 
Thus  Paulinus,  bishop  of  Tyre,  at  the  beginning  of 
‘the  4th  century,  in  an  ojien  space  before  a  church 
which  he  buijt  in  that  city,  caused  to  be  made 
“  fountains  opposite  the  temple,  which  by  their 
plentiful  flow  of  water  afforded  the  means  of 
cleansing  to  those  who  passed  out  of  the  sacred 
precincts  into  the  interior  ”  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 

1.  X.  c.  4).  In  the  West,  Paulinus  of  Nola, 
A.D.  393,  gives  a  poetical  description  of  a  basin 
(cautharus)  in  the  court  of  a  church  built  by 
him.  “  With  its  ministering  stream,”  he  says, 

“  it  washes  the  hands  of  those  who  enter  ”  {ad 
Sever.  Ep.  xxxii.  §  15).  From  the  same  writer 
we'  learn  that  there  was  a  cantharus  in  the 
atrium  of  the  basilica  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome, 
which  “spouted  streams  that  ministered  to  the 
hands  and  faces  ”  of  the  worshippers  (ad  I'am- 
mach.  Ep.  xiii.  §  13).  St.  Chrysostom  says,  “  It 
is  the  custom  for  fountains  to  be  placed  in  the 
courts  of  houses  of  prayer,  that  they  who  are 
going  to  pray  to  God  may  first  wash  their 
hands,  and  so  lift  them  up  in  jirayer”  (Horn,  de 
Div.  N.  T.  loc.  n.  xxv.  on  2  Cor.  iv.  13).  Socrates 
tells  us  that  in  a  riot  at  Constantinople  in  the 
reign  of  Constantins  “  the  court  of  the  church 
(of  Acacius  the  martyr)  was  filled  with  blood, 
and  the  well  therein  overflowed  with  blood” 
(Hist.  Eccl.  1.  ii.  c.  38). 

III.  Frequent  allusions  to  the  practice  for 
which  public  provision  was  thus  made  occur  in 
Christian  writers.  For  example,  Tertullian, 
A.D.  192:  “What  is  the  sense  of  entering  on 
prayer  with  the  hands,  indeed,  washed,  but  the 
spirit  unclean  ?”  (De  Oixit.  c.  xi.).  This  is  said 
of  all  prayer,  private  as  well  as  public.  i  With 
regard  to  private  prayer  in  the  morning,  the 
Apostolic  d  Constit  dions  give  the  following  direc¬ 
tion  :  “  Let  every  one  of  the  faithful,  man  or 
woman,  when  they  rise  fi’om  sleep  in  the  morn¬ 
ing,  before  doing  work,  having  washed  [not 
bathed  the  whole  body,  but  yi\l/d/xeuut,  having 
washed  parts  of  it,  especially  the  hands]  pray  ” 
(lib.  viii.  c.  32).  St.  Chrysostom  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  passage  is  speaking  of  public  worship  in 
general  :  “  1  see  a  custom  of  this  sort  prevailing 
among  the  many,  viz  ,  that  they  study  how  they 
may  come  (into  church)  with  clean  clothes,  and 
how  they  may  wash  their  hands,  but  consider 
not  how  they  may  present  a  clean  soul  to  God. 
And  I  do  not.  say  this  to  prevent  your  washing 
hands  or  face,  but  because  1  wish  you  to  wash, 
as  is  beritting,  not  with  water  only,  but  with  the 
virtues  correlative  to  the  water  ”  (Horn.  li.  in 
St.  Matth.  Ev.  c.  xv.  17-20). 

More  frequently  it  is  spoken  of  as  part  of  the 
preparation  for  Holy  Communion.  For  example, 
^t.  Chrysostom :  “  Tell  me,  wouldst  thou  choose 
to  draw  near  to  the  sacrifice  with  unwashen 
hands?  I  think  not;  but  thou  wculdst  rather 
not  draw  near  at  all  than  with  filthy  hands. 
¥/ouldst  thou,  then,  while  thus  careful  in  the 
little  matter,  draw  near  having  a  filthy  soul  ?” 
(Horn.  iii.  in  Ep.  ad  Eph.  c.  i.  20-23).  Similarly 
in  the  West,  Caesarlus  of  Arles,  a.d.  502  :  “All 
the  men,  when  they  intend  to  approach  the 
altar,  wash  their  hands,  and  all  the  women  use  1 
faij  linen  cloths  on  which  to  receive  the  body  of  j 


Christ  ...  As  the  men  wash  their  hands  witli 
water,  so  let  them  wash  their  souls  with  alms,” 
&c.  (Senn.  ccxxix.  §  5  in  App.  iv.  ad  0pp. 
S.  August.').  Again:  “If  we  are  asha  ned  and 
afraid  to  touch  the  eucharist  with  filthy  hands, 
much  more  ought  we  to  be  afraid  to  receive  the 
same  eucharist  in  a  polluted  soul  ”  (Serm.  ccxcii. 
§  6  ;  ibid.). 

IV.  The  celebrant  and  his  assistants  washed 
their  hands  between  the  dismissal  of  the  cate¬ 
chumens  and  the  offering  of  the  gifts.  Thus  in 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  :  “  Let  one  subdeacon 
give  water  to  the  priests  for  washing  their 
hands,  a  symbol  of  the  purity  of  souls  consecrated 
to  God”  (lib.  viii.  c.  11).  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  : 
“  Ye  saw  the  deacon  who  gave  to  the  priest  and 
to  the  elders  surrounding  the  altar  of  God 
(water)  to  wash  (their  hands,  yiil/aadat)  .  .  . 
The  washing  of  the  hands  is  a  symbol  of  guilt¬ 
lessness  of  sins”  (Cutech.  Mystug.  v.  §  1). 
Pseudo-Dionysius :  “  Standing  before  the  most 
holy  symbols  the  high  priest  (i.e,  the  bishop) 
washes  his  hands  with  the  venerable  order  of  the 
priests  ”  (De  Eccl.  Hierarch,  cap.  iii.  sect.  3, 
§  10  ;  sim.  sect.  ii.).  We  find  the  same  rite  in  the 
West.  Thus  in  one  of  the  Questions  out  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  probably  compiled  bv 
Hilary  the  deacon,  a.d.  354,  it  is  implied  that 
at  Rome  the  deacons  did  not  “  pour  water  on  the 
priest’s  hands,  as  ”  (adds  the  writer)  “we  see  in 
all  the  churches  ”  (Qu.  ci.  On  the  Arrogance  of  the 
Roman  Levites  in  App.  iii.  ad  0pp.  Aug.).  We 
may  remark,  in  passing,  that  the  Clementine 
liturgy,  as  above  quoted,  assigns  th«  office  to  a 
subdeacon.  In  the  earliest  Ordo  Romanus  ex¬ 
tant,  probably  of  the  7th  century,  it  is  ordered 
that,  after  the  reception  of  the  gifts,  the  bishop 
“  return  to  his  seat  and  wash  his  hands,”  and 
that  “  the  archdeacon  standing  before  the  altar 
wash  his  hands,  when  the  receiving  (of  the  obla¬ 
tions)  is  completed  ”  (Ord.  i.  §  14 ;  Miis.  Ital. 
tom.  ii.  p.  11 ;  compare  Ord.  ii.  §  9,  p.  47). 

Since  the  clergy,  as  well  as  the  people,  washed 
their  hands  before  they  entered  the  church,  it 
may  be  asked,  how  they  came  to  do  so  a  second 
time?  Ancient  writers  give  only  a  symbolical 
reason,  but  it  is  not  probable  that  the  custom 
originated  in  that.  The  words  of  the  Ordo 
Romanus  suggest  that  the  hands  might  be  soiled 
by  the  oblations,  which  at  that  time  were  large 
and  various  in  kind.  They  certainly  wei’c 
washed  immediately  after  these  were  taken  from 
the  offerers,  and  before  the  celebrant  proceeded 
to  offer  the  elements  selected  out  of  them  for 
consecration.  Another  reason  which  might 
make  it  necessary  is  suggested  by  Sala  (Rota  (1) 
in  Bona,  Rer.  Lit.  1.  ii.  c.  ix.  §  6),  viz.,  that  a 
little  time  before  the  bishop  and  priests  had 
laid  their  hands  on  the  heads  of  the  catechumens 
and  penitents.  The  washing  of  the  hands,  or 
rather  fingers,  by  the  celebrant  after  his  com¬ 
munion,  now  ordered  in  the  church  of  Rome, 
was  not  practised  for  more  than  a  thousand 
years  after  Christ.  [W.  E.  S.] 

HANGINGS.  Some  few  notices  may  be 
added  to  those  already  given  under  CURTAINS. 
The  curtains  which  closed  the  doors  of  the 
chancel  screen  in  later  times  often  bore  the 
pictorial  representation  of  .some  saint  or  angelic 
1  being.  At  the  present  day  St.  Michael  is  often 
[  represented  upon  them  as  prohibiting  all  access 


7G0 


HARE 


to  the  bema  (Neale,  Eastern  Ch.  i.  19'>).  it 
was  ou  the  curtain  of  the  hema  of  the  church  at 
Anablatha  that  Sf.  Epiphanius  saw  the  j)aiiited 
figure  which  gave  Ivim  so  much  offence,  and 
caused  him  to  tear  the  curtain,  and  desire  that  it 
should  be  replaced  by  one  of  a  single  colour 
(Epiphan.  Epist.  ad  Joann,  p.  yi9).  The  censure 
passed  by  Asterius  of  Amasia  on  the  excessive 
luxury  displayed  in  the  textile  fabrics  of  his  day 
proves  that  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  re¬ 
presentations  of  sacred  facts  were  woven  in  the 
stuffs  in  ordinary  use  for  hangings,  and  even  for 
dresses.  The  same  author  also  describes  the 
painted  hangings  of  the  sepulchre  of  St.  Euphe- 
mia  at  Chalcedon  representing  the  martyrdom  of 
that  saint  (Aster.  Amas.  Humil.  de  Divit.  et 
Lazaro;  Enar rat.  in  martyr.  Eaphem.).  Paulinus 
of  Nola  is  another  authority  on  the  decoration 
of  these  vela  with  pictorial  designs  : — 

“Vela  coloratis  textum  fucata  figuris.” 

A  velum  concealing  the  altar  from  the  gaze 
of  the  laity  is  mentioned  in  the  office  for  the 
dedication  of  a  chui’ch  in  the  Sacramentary  of 
Gregory.  When  the  bishop,  having  brought  the 
relics  which  w'ere  to  be  deposited  within  it, 
had  arrived  at  the  altar,  he  was  to  be  concealed 
from  the  sight  of  the  people  by  a  veil,  before 
he  proceeded  to  anoint  the  four  corners  with 
the  chrism  (extenso  velo  inter  clerum  et  popu- 
lum,  Muratori,  ii.  481).  An  offering  of  hangings 
vela  was  made  to  the  church  of  St.  Peter’s  by  a 
lady  of  rank  named  Rusticiana,  which  were 
carried  to  their  destination  by  the  whole  body 
of  the  clergy  chanting  a  litany  (Greg.  Magn. 
Epist.  ix.  38).  The  supposititious  Second  Epistle 
of  Clement  to  James  the  l.ord's  brother.,  “  de 
sacratii  vestibus  et  vasis,”  gives  minute  direc¬ 
tions  for  the  washing  of  the  altar  cloths  and 
other  vestments  of  the  church  by  the  deacons 
and  other  ministers  of  the  church,  in  vessels 
specially  set  apart  for  the  purpose,  near  the 
sacristy.  The  door-keepers  are  also  enjoined  to 
take  care  that  no  one  thoughtlessly  wiped  his 
hands  on  the  curtain  of  the  door,  and  to  remind 
those  who  were  guilty  of  such  irreverence  that 
“  the  veil  of  the  Lord’s  Temple  is  holy  ”  (Labbe, 
Concil.  i.  99).  Gregory  of  Tours  informs  us  that 
on  the  conversion  of  Clovis,  solemn  processions 
were  instituted  in  the  streets,  which  were 
shaded  with  painted  veils,  while  the  churches 
were  adorned  with  w'hite  curtains  (Greg.  Turon. 
Hist.  Franc,  ii.  31).  According  to  Hefele  (^Bei- 
trd ye  zur  Archdologie,  ii.  252),  tapestry  curtains 
were  employed  to  protect  the  apertures  of 
windows  in  chui’ches  before  the  general  intro¬ 
duction  of  glazing.  [E.  V.] 

HARE.  The  boy  who  represents  Spring 
among  the  Four  Seasons  frequently  carries  a 
haie  in  his  hand.  The  idea  of  speed  in  the 
Christian  course  was  associated  with  it.  It  is 
sometimes  connected  with  the  horse  (Perret  v. 
Ivii.)  or  with  the  palm  (Boldetti,  506).  Its 
presence  in  Christian  decoration  seems  to  be  con¬ 
nected  with  the  Roman  taste  for  ornamenting 
their  rooms  with  domestic,  agricultural,  or  hunt¬ 
ing  subjects.  Many  places  of  assembly,  no  doubt, 
contained  pictures  by  Pagan  hands  in  the  earliest 
days ;  and  the  ingenuity  of  Christian  preachers 
would  in  all  probability  make  use  of  them  for 
type  and  metaphor ;  and  so  the  animal  or  other 
object  would  become  a  recognized  and  customary 


HALF  I  ELD,  COUNXTL  OF 

subject  of  Christian  ornament,  acquiring  a  sym¬ 
bolical  meaning.  In  such  examj)les  as  the  vine 
or  shej^herd,  that  meaning  of  course  existed 
before;  and  the  distinction  between  scriptural 
and  all  other  symbols  is  on  the  whole  sufficiently 
well-marked  in  early  work.  [R.  St.  J.  T.j 

HARIOLI.  [Astrology  ;  Divination.] 

HARLOTS.  Compare  Fornication.  The 
maintaining  and  harbouring  of  harlots  was 
severely  punished  by  the  laws  of  the  emi»ire ;  a 
man  who  permitted  his  house  to  become  a  jdace 
of  assignation  for  improper  purposes  was  jmnishe  I 
as  an  adulterer  (^Pandect,  lib.  xlviii.  tit.  5,  1.  8); 
if  a  man  discovered  his  wife  to  be  a  jirocuress,  it 
was  a  valid  ground  of  divorce  {Codex  Theod. 
lib.  iii.  tit.  16,  1. 1);  careful  provision  was  made 
against  fathers  or  masters  prostituting  their 
childi-en  or  slaves  {Codex  Just.  lib.  xi.  tit.  40, 
1.  6).  Soci'ates  {H.  E.  v.  18)  commends  Theo¬ 
dosius  the  Great  for  demolishing  the  houses  of 
ill  fame  in  Rome.  Theodosius  the  younger  jier- 
formed  the  same  service  for  Constantinojile, 
enacting  that  keepers  of  infamous  houses  should 
be  publicly  whipped  and  expelled  the  city,  while 
their  slaves  were  set  at  liberty  (Theodos.  Hovel. 
18,  de  Lenonihus').  All  these  laws  were  confirmed 
by  Justinian  {Hovel.  14)  who  also  increased  the 
severity  of  the  punishments. 

The  church,  as  was  natural,  visited  prostitu¬ 
tion  with  the  severest  censure.  Baptism  was 
denied  to  harlots  {ir6pvas')  and  to  those  who 
maintained  them  {-Kopvo^oaKovsf  {Constf.  Aptost. 
viii.  32).  The  council  of  Elvira,  A.T).  305,  ordains 
that  if  a  parent,  or  any-  Christian  whatever, 
exerci.se  the  trade  of  a  procurer,  forasmuch  as 
they  set  to  sale  the  person  of  another,  or  rather 
their  own,  they  shall  not  be  admitted  to  com¬ 
munion,  no,  not  at  their  last  hour  ;  and  the  same 
penalty  is  denounced  (c.  70)  by  the  same  council 
against  a  wife  who  prostitutes  herself  with  her 
husband’s  connivance.  [(b] 

HATFIEI.D,  COUNCIL  OF  {Haethfel- 
thense,  or  HeJtfeldense,  Concilium),  17  Sept. 
A.D.  680,  at  Bishop’s  Hatfield  in  Hertfordshire, 
attended  by  all  the  bishops  of  Britain,  Theo¬ 
dore,  archbi.shop  of  Canterbury,  presiding,  held 
for  making  a  declaration  against  Eutychian- 
ism  and  Monothelism.  Pope  Agatho  wished 
that  Theodore  should  have  attended  his  council 
of  125  bishops  at  Rome,  March  27  of  the  same 
year,  preliminarily  to  the  6th  general  council,  and 
had  sent  John,  precentor  of  his  church  of  St. 
Peter,  with  the  acts  of  the  Laterau  council 
under  pope  Martin  I.,  A.D.  649,  against  Mono¬ 
thelism,  to  invite  him  thither.  But  Tiieodore, 
being  either  unable  to  leave  for  other  reasons,  or 
unwilling  to  come  from  knowing  that  Wilfrid, 
bishop  of  York,  whose  case  had  caused  so  much 
strife,  was  already  there,  collected  this  council 
instead,  and  despatched  a  copy  of  its  synodical 
letter  to  Rome  by  John,  where  it  was  ri;ad  with 
great  satisfaction,  and  probably  before  the  6th 
council,  which  met  Nov.  7,  had  commenced. 
Bede,  who  was  about  eight  years  old  when  this 
synod  took  place,  gives  three  different  extracts 
from  its  letter,  in  substance  as  follows: — 

1.  The  bishops  declare  that  “  they  have  set 
forth  the  right  and  orthodox  faith,  as  delivered 
by  our  Lord  to  His  disciple.s,  and  handed  down 
in  the  symbol  of  the  holy  fathers,  and  by  all  the 
sacred  and  universal  synods,  and  by  the  whole 


HAWKING 


761 


bouv  of  approved  doctors  of  the  Catholic  church. 
Following  whom,  they  also  confess  the  lather, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  the  Holy  Trinity  in  Unity, 
consubstaiitial,  and  the  Unity  in  Trinity,  one 
God  in  three  consubstantial  Persons  of  equal 
honour  and  glory.” 

2.  They  “receive  the  five  general  councils,” 
mentioning  each  by  name. 

3.  “  Likewise  the  synod  of  Rome,  A.D.  649, 
under  Martin  I.,”  after  which  they  say :  “  We 
receive  and  glorify  our  Lord  Jesus,  as  they 
glorified  Him,  neither  adding  nor  subtracting 
anything.  We  anathematise  from  the  heart  all 
they  anathematised,  and  receive  all  they  re¬ 
ceived:  glorifying  God  the  Father  without  be¬ 
ginning,  and  His  only  begotten  Sou,  born  of  the 
Father  before  all  worlds,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
proceeding  ineffably  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
according  to  the  preaching  of  the  above-named 
holy  apostles  and  prophets  and  doctors,  to  all 
which  we  have  subscribed,  who  with  archbishop 
Theodore  have  expounded  the  Catholic  faith.” 
This  assertion  of  procession  from  the  Son  as  well 
as  the  Father,  which  is  not  found  in  any  docu¬ 
ment  received  by  the  6th  council,  may  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  inteiqiolated  form  of  the  creed 
had  got  into  Britain  by  then  ;  but  it  may  be 
explained  in  another  way.  We  are  told  in 
another  place  by  Bede,  that  when  Theodore  was 
consecrated  at  Rome  by  Vitalian,  it  was  ex¬ 
pressly  stipulated  that  abbot  Adrian  should  ac¬ 
company  him  into  England:  “  Et,  ut  ei  doctrinae 
cooperator  existens,  diligenter  attenderet,  nequid 
ille  contrarium  veritati  fidei,  Graecorum  more,  in 
ecclesiam  cui  praesset,  introduceret  ”  (A*. //.  iv. 
1).  Adrian  remained  in  that  capacity  till  his 
death,  A.D.  710,  and  Theodore  commenced  work, 
“  per  omnia  comitante  et  cooperante  Adriano  ” 
(j6.  c.  2).  Now  Adrian  was  a  foreigner,  as  well 
as  Theodore.  He  was  a  learned  African,  and 
Africa  was  the  country  that  boasted  of  the 
clearest  authorities  as  yet,  for  procession  from 
the  Son  as  well  as  the  Father,  in  SS.  Austin  and 
Fulgentius.  In  conclusion,  Bede  tells  us  that 
John  the  precentor  also  took  part  in  this  synod, 
and  was  flocked  to  by  the  whole  country  for 
instruction  in  the  Roman  chant  (Mansi,  xi.  175- 
80 ;  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  iii.  141-51). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

HAWKING.  [Hunting.] 

HEAD,  COVERING  OF  THE.  Christian 
men  in  ancient  days  prayed  with  uncovered 
head,  according  to  the  apostolic  injunction 
(1  Cor.  xi.  4,  5).  Chrysostom’s  comment  on  the 
passage  shows  clearly  that  this  was  the  practice 
of  his  own  time,  as  well  as  of  the  apostolic  age. 
Tertullian  (^Apol.  c.  30)  says  that  Christian  men 
prayed  with  bare  head,  as  having  no  need  to 
conceal  a  blush,  insinuating  that  the  heathen 
might  well  blush  for  some  of  the  prayers  which 
they  uttered ;  and  Cyprian  may  perhaps  be  al¬ 
luding  to  the  same  custom,  when  he  .says  (^De 
Lapsis,  c.  2)  that  the  head  of  a  Christian  was 
uncontaminated  by  the  head-covering  of  the 
heathen  sacrificer.  On  the  other  hand,  as  both 
the  apostolic  precept  and  the  custom  of  the  East 
made  it  indecent  for  women  to  be  seen  with  un¬ 
covered  head,  the  women  of  the  Oriental  and 
African  churches  covered  their  heads  not  only  in 
the  congregati  in,  but  generally  when  they  ap¬ 
peared  in  public.  The  breaking  in  upon  this 


HEATHEN,  THE 

custom  led  Tertullian  to  write  his  treatise  De 
Viryinibuis  Velandis,  in  which  he  contends  that 
not  only  matrons,  but  maidens — who  had  been 
allowed  a  somewhat  greater  licence — should 
cover  their  heads  effectually.  He  is  especially 
severe  (c.  17)  on  those  who  wore  a  simple  band 
or  fillet,  which  did  not  cover  the  top  of  the 
head  ;  or  laid  a  mere  slip  of  linen  on  the  top  of 
the  head,  which  did  not  reach  even  to  the  ears; 
he  insists  that  the  veil  or  head-covering  shouhl 
at  any  rate  come  down  to  meet  the  top  of  the 
dress;  the  whole  space  which  would  be  covered 
by  the  hair  if  it  were  let  down  should  be  covered 
by  the  A’^eil ;  and  he  holds  up  for  admiration  and 
imitation  the  Arab  women,  who  so  covered  the 
head  and  face  as  to  leave  only  one  eye  visible. 
Contrary  to  Roman  pi'actice,  they  preferred  to 
see  rather  than  to  be  seen.  But  most  of  all  does 
he  inveigh  against  those  women  who,  even  when 
psalms  are  said  and  the  name  of  God  named, 
continued  uncoA'ered,  or  with  veils  thrown  back 
(retectae  pei’.severant) ;  who  even  in  prayer  fan¬ 
cied  them.selves  covered  with  a  strip  of  lace  or 
fringe  on  the  top  of  the  head.  But  Tertuilian’s 
rigorous  views  were  not  those  of  the  Church  at 
large ;  as  a  general  rule  Christian  women  have 
worn  the  head-dresses  of  their  country  and 
station,  and  have  cov'ered  their  heads  in  the 
place  of  assembly.  Men,  to  speak  generally, 
have  always  prayed  with  uncovered  head.  Yet 
about  the  8th  century  the  Ordo  Fomanus  11. 
(c.  8,  p.  46)  says  that  at  the  reading  of  the 
Gospel  neither  crown  nor  any  other  covering  is 
kept  on  the  head,  an  expression  which  seems  to 
imply  that  during  the  saying  of  some  portions 
of  the  office  crowns  or  other  coverings  were 
retained. 

2.  With  regard  to  the  head-covering  of  clerics, 
the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  (p.  38)  lays  down 
the  rule,  that  no  cleric  stands  in  the  church  at 
any  time  with  covered  head,  unless  he  have  an 
infirmity.  In  spite,  however,  of  the  generality 
of  the  expression  “  ullo  tempore,”  the  meaning  of 
the  sentence  is  probably  limited  by  the  words 
which  stand  at  the  head  of  the  rubric,  “  per 
totam  Quadragesimam.”  That  some  kind  of 
ceremonial  head-dress  was  worn  by  bishops  and 
priests  from  the  4th  century  onward  seems 
certain.  See  Infula,  Mitue. 

3.  For  the  head-covering  of  monks,  see  Cu- 

CULLA,  Hood.  [C.] 

HEAD  OF  ALL  CHURCHES.  The  emperor 
Justinian  in  a  rescript  {Codex,  lib.  1,  tit.  2, 1.  24) 
giv'es  to  the  patriarchal  church  of  Constantinople 
the  title  of  “  Head  of  all  the  Churches  ” — “  Con- 
tantinopolitana  ecclesia  omnium  aliarum  est 
caput.”  See  Patriarch  ;  Pope.  [C.] 

HEARERS.  [Audientes;  Catechumens; 
Doctor.] 

HEATHEN,  THE,  in  relation  to  the  Church. 

1.  The  duty  of  j)raying  for  the  heathen  was 
amply  recognized  by  the  early  Christians.  Thus 
in  the  Ignatian  letter  to  the  Ephesians  (c.  10) 
we  find  the  exhortation,  “pray  abso  without 
ceasing  for  the  rest  of  mankind  ;  for  there  is  in 
them  a  hope  of  repentance,  that  they  may  attain 
to  God.”  St.  Augustine  {Epist.  217,  orf  Vitafem, 
c.  2)  declares  that  one,  who  did  not  believe  that 
the  seed  of  faith  was  sown  in  the  heart  by  God, 
mu.st  needs  mock  at  the  words  of  the  priest  at 
the  altar  exhorting  the  people  to  pray  fur  un- 


762  HEATHEN,  THE 

believers,  that  God  may  turn  them  to  the  faith. 
And  again  {l)e  D^no  Persev.  c.  22,  §  63)  he  asks, 
“  When  was  not  prayer  made  in  the  Church  for 
unbelievers  aud  for  its  enemies,  that  they  might 
believe?”  Prosper  {l)e  Vocut.  Gentium,  i.  12) 
tells  us  that  “  the  Church  prays  to  God  eveiy- 
where,  not  only  for  the  holy  and  those  already 
regenerate  in  Christ,  but  also  for  all  unbelievers 
and  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  for  all  wor¬ 
shippers  of  idols.  .  .  .  And  what  does  she  ask 
for  them,  but  that  leaving  their  errors  they  may 
be  converted  to  God  ?”  Such  prayers  occur  in 
the  liturgies  ;  in  that  of  St.  Mark,  for  instance, 
we  have  (Kenaudot,  Litt.  Orient,  i.  153),  “Turn 
back  those  who  have  gone  astray,  enlighten  those 
who  are  in  darkness.”  So  the  Clementine 
^Constt.  Apnst.  viii.  15):  “We  beseech  Thee  on 
behalf  of  those  who  hate  us  and  persecute  us  for 
Thy  Name’s  sake,  for  those  outside  the  Church 
and  in  error,  that  Thou  mayest  turn  them  to 
good  and  soften  their  hearts.”  In  the  West,  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen  was  an  especial  subject 
of  prayer — as  it  is  still  in  the  English  church — 
on  Good  Friday.  Thus,  in  the  Gelasian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  (i.  41 ;  Migne’s  Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1105  B) 
the  deacon,  after  bidding  prayer  for  heretics, 
schismatics,  and  Jews,  proceeds,  “  Let  us  pray 
also  for  the  pagans,  that  Almighty  God  may  take 
away  the  wickedness  from  their  hearts,  and  that 
forsaking  their  idols  they  may  turn  to  the  true 
God  and  His  only  Son  Jesus  Christ.”  So  in  the 
Gregorian  (p.  64),  the  prayers  to  be  used  on  the 
Wednesday  and  Friday  in  Holy  Week  include 
one  for  the  pagans.® 

2.  While  it  is  clear  that  heathen  were  care¬ 
fully  excluded  from  the  Christian  mysteries,  it  is 
equally  clear  that  from  the  earliest  times  they 
were  admitted  to  that  part  of  Christian  worship 
which  consisted  mainly  of  instruction.  St.  Paul 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  23)  evidently  contemplates  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  heathen  entering  the  place  where 
preaching  took  place,  whether  it  were  in  the 
shape  of  an  utterance  in  “tongues,”  or  prophesy¬ 
ing.  At  the  end  of  the  2nd  century,  all  portions 
of  divine  worship  were  not  open  to  all  alike  ; 
for  Tertullian  (^De  Praescript.  c.  41)  reproaches 
certain  heretics  with  their  want  of  order  and 
discipline,  in  that  not  only  catechumens  were 
admitted  to  the  same  privileges  as  the  faithful, 
but  even  heathen,  if  they  chanced  to  enter  the 
place,  had  equal  access ;  so  did  the  heretics  cast 
their  mock-pearls  before  swine.  In  this  it  is 
implied  that  the  orthodox  were  more  careful  of 
their  treasure.  [Disciplixa  Arcani.]  The 
words  of  Origen  (c.  Cclsum,  iii.  p.  142,  Spencer), 
where,  speaking  of  the  care  bestowed  upon  cate¬ 
chumens,  he  says  that  Christians  had  in  view  to 
l)revent  persons  of  evil  life  from  coming  to  their 
common  assembly  (cttI  rby  Koivhv  avrwv  (rvWo- 
you),  seem  to  imply  that  some  kind  of  scrutiny 
took  place  before  men  were  admitted  to  any 
Christian  assembly  whatever;  for  he  contrasts 
the  Cynic  practice  of  receiving  all  comers  to  their 
harangues  with  that  of  the  Christians,  and  the 
word  avWoyos  does  not  appear  to  be  taken  (like 
avva^is)  in  the  limited  sense  of  “  the  Eucharistic 
mystery.”  However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain 
that  at  the  end  of  the  4th  century  the  African 
canons  (/E.  Cone.  Garth,  c.  84)  specially  provide 


For  the  substance  of  this  paragraph  the  writer  is 
indebted  to  the  Kev.  W.  E.  Scudamore. 


HEATHEN,  THE 

that  the  bishop  is  not  to  hinder  any  one,  whether 
heathen,  heretic,  or  Jew,  from  entering  the 
church  and  hearing  the  word  of  God,  as  far  as 
the  dismissal  of  the  catechumens  (usque  ad 
mis.sam  catech.) ;  and  a  later  Council  (Cone. 
Vallctanum,  c.  1  ;  a.d.  524)  orders  the  Gospel  to 
be  read  after  the  Epistle,  before  the  bringing  in 
of  the  gifts  [Entranck,  §  2]  or  the  dismi.ssal  of 
catechumens,'^  in  order  that  not  only  catechu¬ 
mens  and  penitents,  but  all  who  belong  to  the 
contrary  part  (e  diverso  sunt)  may  hear  the 
wholesome  precepts  of  the  Lord  Jesus  or  the 
sermon  of  the  bishop  (sacerdotis) ;  for  many  had 
been  drawn  to  the  faith  by  the  preaching  of  the 
prelates  (pontificum).  The  liberty  which  was 
granted  to  heathen  does  not  seem  in  all  cases  to 
have  been  allowed  to  heretics  (Cone.  L  'od.  c.  6). 
The  liturgies  themselves  contain  evidence  that 
heathen  were  j)erinitted  to  be  present  din  ing  tlie 
introductory  portion  of  the  Eucharistic  otiice. 
In  the  Clementine,  for  instance  (Cons  t.  Apostt. 
viii.  12),  the  deacon  proclaims  before  the  offer¬ 
tory,  “  Let  no  one  of  the  catechumens,  no  one 
of  the  hearers,  no  one  of  the  unbelievei’s  (rwv 
airia'rcot'),  no  one  of  the  heterodo'x  [be  presentl;” 
from  which  it  appears  that  heathens  had  not 
been  excluded  during  the  whole  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  service. 

3.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  infant  children 
of  heathen  parents,  remaining  in  the  heathen 
family,  were  in  ancient  times  ever  baptized.  It 
would  have  been  held  a  profanation  of  the  .sacra¬ 
ment  to  baptize  those  who  were  likely  to  be 
brought  up  as  pagans.  But  baptism  was  not 
refused  to  children  of  heathen  slaves  brought  to 
baptism  by  their  owners,  who  could  of  course 
ensure  them  Christian  nurture  ;  and  orphans  and 
foundlings — the  latter  at  any  rate  almost  always 
the  offspring  of  heathen — were  frequently  pre¬ 
sented  for  baptism  by  the  virgins  or  others  who 
had  taken  chai-ge  of  them  (Augustine,  Epist.  23, 
ad  Bonifac.  ;  compare  Pseudo-Ambros.  de  Vocat. 
Gent.  ii.  18).  We  may  probably  discover  in  this 
presentation  of  infants  for  baptism  by  persons 
other  than  their  parents  the  origin  of  Sponsors. 

When  the  time  came  that  Paganism  was  pro¬ 
scribed  and  Christianity  enjoined,  special  care 
was  taken  that  whole  families  should  be  brought 
within  the  pale  of  Christianity,  and  that  the 
head  of  a  household  should  not  undergo  baptism 
pro  forma,  while  the  household  remained  heathen. 

“  As  for  those  who  are  not  yet  baptized,”  says 
the  Code  of  Justinian  (lib.  i.  tit.  ii.  de  Paganis, 
1.  10),  “let  them,  with  wives  and  children  aud 
all  their  households,  betake  themselves  to  the 
holy  churches;  and  let  them  provide  that  their 
infants  (parvuli)  be  baptized  without  delay;  but 
let  the  older  children  (majores)  before  baptism 
be  instructed  in  the  Scriptures  according  to  the 
canons.  But  if  any,  with  a  view  to  entering  the 
public  service,  or  to  acquiring  an  office  or  a  pro¬ 
perty,  go  through  a  form  of  baptism  (fingant 
baptizari)  and  leave  in  their  error  their  children, 
wives,  and  others  who  belong  to  and  depend  upon 
them  ;  they  are  to  be  punished  by  confiscation  oi 
goods  and  other  penalties,  and  excluded  from  the 
public  service.”  The  sjiecial  case  of  the  Samari¬ 
tans  is  provided  for  by  another  law  (Novel.  144, 
c.  2);  adults  were  to  pass  through  two  years’ 


This  is  given  from  the  text  of  Bruns  (Canones,  ii.  25^ 
some  texts  have  “  in  mhsa”  for  “  vel  missam.” 


HEAVICN 


IIKBDOMADARIUS 


7(33 


iQstruction  and  pi'obation,  while  children  not 
capable  of  instruction  in  the  doctrines  of  the 
faith  were  to  be  admitted  to  baptism  at  once. 
Both  these  laws  were  incduiled  by  Photius  in  his 
Noinocanon  (tit.  iv.  c.  4,  p.  907)  [Codex 
Canon  UM,  p.  400]. 

4.  'It  does  not  appear  that  the  Church  in  the 
earliest  times  had  special  organizations  for  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen.  It  was  of  course  the 
duty  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  any  church  to 
endeavour  to  bring  over  to  the  faith  those  pagans 
who  dwelt  about  them,  and  men  were  raised  up 
from  time  to  time  who  went  forth  into  lands 
entirely  heathen.  The  monastic  orders,  in  par¬ 
ticular,  e.’.pecially  that  of  St.  Columba,  were 
constantly  active  in  propagating  the  f;\ith  of 
Christ  [Monasticism].  The  lives  of  the  great 
missionaries  will  be  found  in  the  Dictionary  of 
Christian  Biography. 

It  is  worth  observing,  that  in  the  Coronation- 
office  given  by  Menard  with  the  Gregorian 
Sacramentary  (Ac?  Iteyinam  benedicendam,  pp. 
263,  264)  the  conversion  of  heathen  nations  is 
regarded  as  especially  the  work  of  a  queen. 
After  putting  on  the  ring,  the  consecrating 
bishop  prays  that  the  queen  on  the  point  of 
being  crowned  “  may  be  enabled  to  call  barbarous 
nations  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.” 

5.  The  social  intercourse  of  heathen  and 
Christian,  while  paganism  was  still  a  flourishing 
system,  was  rendered  difficult  by  two  circum¬ 
stances  ;  the  prevalence  of  more  or  less  idolatrous 
practices  in  the  family  life  of  heathens — liba¬ 
tions,  feasts  on  sacriflcial  meats,  songs  implying 
the  recognition  of  pagan  deities,  and  the  like; 
and  afterwards  by  the  horror  and  hatred  with 
which  the  heathen  came  to  regard  the  votaries  of 
what  they  thought  an  “  ill-omened  superstition,” 
destructive  of  the  greatness  of  the  empire. 
[Family  ;  Idolatry.] 

Christians  who  feasted  with  the  heathen  in  a 
spot  appropriated  to  heathen  festivities,  even  if 
for  fear  of  defilement  they  took  with  them  their 
own  food  and  ate  no  other,  were  sentenced  to  a 
two-years’  penance  among  the  Substrati  [Peni¬ 
tence].  (Cone.  Anc  /r.  c.  7 ;  a.d.  314.) 

6.  Until  Christianity  had  developed  a  litera¬ 

ture  of  its  own,  those  Christians  who  studied 
literature  at  all,  beyond  the  limits  of  Scripture, 
of  course  studied  pagan  literature ;  but  at  the 
end  of  the  4th  century  we  find  the  peremptory 
prohibition  {TV.  Cone.  Cartli.  c.  16),  “that  the 
bishop  should  not  read  the  books  of  the  gentiles.” 
It  is  not  to  be  supposed  however  that  this  precept 
was  literally  and  universally  observed  ;  the  vast 
pagan  learning  (for  instance)  of  Jerome  and 
Augustine  is  matter  of  notoriety,  and  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  it  was  wholly  acquired  before 
they  entered  the  Christian  ministry.  Jerome, 
indeed  (^Epist.  10  [al.  70]  ad  Magnum),  e.xpressly 
defends  Christian  writers  against  the  charge  that 
they  were  ignorant  of  pagan  writings,  and  points 
with  pride  to  the  long  series  of  writers  who  had 
defended  Christianity  with  weapons  drawn  from 
the  pagan  armoury.  See  further  under  Pro¬ 
hibited  Books.  [C.J 

HEAVEN.  [See  Fir.mament.]  The  veubd 
figure  on  the  .sarcophagus  of  Junius  Bassus 
(Bottari,  tav.  xv.  and  elsewhere  a  female  head, 
id.  tav.  xxxiii.)  is  always  held  to  represent 
the  firmament  of  heaven.  Considering  tb«  word 


as  denoting  the  future  spiritual  state  of  ha])piness 
in  the  pifsence  of  God,  we  can  hardly  j)ass  over 
the  symbolic  representations  of  the  Lord  in 
glory  which  seem  from  the  6th  centurv  to  have 
been  the  accustomed  decorations  of  Byzantine 
churches.  The  choir  and  ap.^e  of  a  church  from 
that  date  were  constantly  made  to  symbolize 
heaven  and  earth:  the  churches  triumphant  and 
militant,  the  new  heaven  of  glory,  and  the  re¬ 
newed  earth  of  the  soul  regenerated  in  baptism. 
The  churches  of  SS.  Cosmas  and  Damianus, 
St.  Venantius,  and  especially  of  St.  Prassede,  at 
Rome,  may  be  taken  as  tyj)es  of  the  Byzantine 
treatment  of  this  great  subject.  In  the  former 
Our  Lord  stands  on  the  firmament  of  clouds,  a 
figure  of  indescribable  grandeur.  He  is  not  only 
come  to  His  sanctuary,  and  present  with  a  con¬ 
gregation  of  the  church,  but  he  is  also  and  at 
the  same  moment  in  heaven,  apart  from  time, 
with  the  church  triumphant.  Accordingly,  here, 
and  in  St.  Prassede,  the  apse,  and  the  uj>per  part 
of  the  arch  of  triumph  in  advance  of  it,  reprc.sent 
Him  in  glory  with  His  own  ;  saints  and  martyrs, 
in  white  robes  on  gold  ground,  casting  their 
crowns  before  Him.  But  at  their  feet  flows  the 
mystic  Jordan,  the  river  of  bajitism  into  His 
death,  and  also  the  river  of  death,  the  Lethe  of 
life  and  death.  It  separates  the  glorified  church 
in  heaven  from  the  sheep  of  the  fold  below,  who 
are  yet  militant  on  earth. 

Parallel  representations  of  the  adoration  of 
saints  and  martyrs  in  glory  are,  of  course,  uni¬ 
versal  from  the  6th  century;  the  great  proces¬ 
sions  at  St.  Apollinare  Nuova,  in  Ravenna,  will  be 
remembered  as  belonging  to  the  time  of  Jus- 
tinian.  The  Last  Judgment  of  Torcello  has  its 
side  of  accepted  souls  (see  s.  v.).  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

HEBDOMADARIUS.  The  word  signifies  a 
weekly  officer,  and  was  applied  in  monasteries  to 
those  monks  who  served,  a  week  in  rotation,  the 
office  of  cook  or  reader  during  reibetiou.  In 
Egypt  and  theThebaid  it  was  customary  in  the  5th 
century  for  all  the  monks  in  turn  to  act  as  cooks, 
and  Cassian  traces  the  custom  to  the  monasteries 
in  the  East  (Cass.  Inatit.  iv.  19,  cf.  Hieron. 
Beg.  Pachom.  Prol.  Ep.  22  ad  Eustoch.  c.  35). 
But  see  Cass.  Instil,  iv.  22.  Similarly  Benedict 
ordered  that  none  should  be  excused  from  this 
duty  except  on  the  score  of  health  or  urgent 
occupations,  intending  thus  to  promote  a  fellow¬ 
ship  of  brotherly  feeling;  but  with  his  usual 
consideration,  he  allowed  those  who  might  be 
unskilful  in  this  sort  of  work  to  have  assistants 
(Bened.  Beg.  c.  35). 

By  the  rule  called  of  Magister  each  “decad” 
or  “  decuria  ”  (ten  monks)  under  its  two  deans 
(praepositi),  was  to  hold  this  office  for  five 
weeks  together,  two  of  the  number  in  turn  with 
one  dean  being  told  off  each  week  for  the  kitchen, 
and  the  rest  under  the  other  dean  working  in 
the  field  (Beg.  Mag.  c.  17).  Even  abbats, 
though  not  unfrequeutly  of  illustrious  birth, 
were  not  always  exempt.  By  the  rule  of  Fei’- 
reolus,  written  in  the  south  of  France  during 
the  6th  century,  the  abbat  was  to  be  cook  on 
three  great  festivals  in  the  year,  at  Christmas, 
at  Pentecost,  and  on  the  Faunder’s  Day  (Beg 
Ferreol.  c.  38).  It  is  recorded  of  Benedict  us 
Aniansis  the  compiler  of  the  Concordit  Begu- 
laruin,  that  he  would  be  intent  on  literary  work 
while  at  work  in  the  kitchen  (  Vita  Bened.  Anian, 


v64 


HEBDOMADARIUS 


HEGIRA 


c.  14).  By  the  rule  of  Cuesririus,  bishop  of 
Arles  Ml  tile  Gtli  century,  abhats  and  priors  were 
excused  altogether. 

In  some  monasteries  it  was  part  of  the  duty 
of  the  hebdomadarii  to  prepare  the  dinner-table, 
and  to  act  as  waiters,  iienedict  indeed,  dis¬ 
tinguishes  the  “  Septimaiiarii  coquinae  ”  from 
the  “  servi tores  ”  (liencd,  cc.  35,  38);  but 
the  rule  of  Isidorus,  bishop  of  Seville,  in  the  7th 
century,  combines  the  offices  (Isid.  lieg.  c.  11); 
and  in  the  rule  of  “  Magister”  the  cooks  or  their 
assistants  are  ordered  not  only  to  wait  at  table, 
but  to  carry  water,  chop  wood,  clean  shoes,  wash 
towels,  dust  the  mats  in  the  oratory,  and  per- 
foi  m  A'arious  other  menial  tasks  {li^g.  Mag.  c. 
19).  In  the  same  rule  it  is  })rovided,  that  if  the 
weekly  oiKcers  are  negligent  in  having  the  table 
ready  for  the  refection,  the  abbat  himself  is  to 
put  them  to  the  blush  by  doing  it  himself 
publicly  (/6.  c.  23).  In  the  Cluuiac  and  Cis¬ 
tercian  monasteries  the  hebdomadarii  were 
waiters  as  well  as  cooks  (Marten,  lieg.  Bened. 
Comm,  ad  loc.  cit.). 

The  week  of  the  hebdomadarii  commenced  on 
Sunday  by  a  solemn  form  of  admission  in  the 
oratory  after  “matins”  (A'er/.  Bened.  c.  35),- or 
after  “prime”  i^Lieg.  Mag.  c.  19);  the  monks 
going  out  of  office,  as  well  as  those  just  coming 
in,  entreating  the  prayers  of  their  brethren,  and 
the  blessing  of  their  abbat.  On  the  Saturday 
those,  whose  term  of  office  was  over,  were  to 
deliver  up  to  the  “cellarer”  tor  the  use  of  their 
successors  all  the  utensils  &c.  under  their  charge 
in  perfect  order  (/Aj;.  Bened.  v.  s.  lieg.  Mag.  v.  s.). 
It  was  an  old  custom,  symbolic  of  humility  and 
brotherly  love,  for  the  hebdomadarii,  closing 
and  commencing  their  week,  to  wash  the  feet  of 
their  brethren,  during  which  operation  silence 
was  to  be  ke2)t,  or  psalms  chanted  (Cassian. 
Instil,  iv.  1  9,  Bened.  lieg.  v.  s.).  By  the  rule 
of  “  Magister,”  they  were  to  set  about  i>reparing 
the  refection  three  hours  before  the  hour  fixed 
for  it;  immediately  after  “nones”  if,  as  was 
usual,  the  dinner  was  at  midday,  immediately 
after  “  sext  ”  for  a  dinner  ao  three  in  the  after¬ 
noon  {lieg,  Mag.  v.  s.).  The  refection  was  to  be 
.served  on  the  stroke  {Beg.  Bened.  v.  s.);  for  any 
•unpunctuality  they  were  to  be  mulcted  of  the 
ration  of  bread  or  a  j>art  of  it  for  certain  days 
{lieg.  Mag.  c.  19) ;  the  Concordia  Begularum 
quotes  an  anonymous  rule  (not  the  “  Regula 
Cujusdam,”  usually  ascribed  to  Columbanus) 
sentencing  hebdomadarii  guilty  of  any  trivial 
irregularity  to  twenty-five  strokes  of  the  02>en 
hand  {Reg.  Cujusd.  c.  12),  just  as  Cassian 
cautions  them  against  losing  even  a  pea  (Cass. 
Tnstit.  iv.  20).  Benedict  wisely  arranged  that 
the  cooks  should  have  some  refreshment,  a  jiiece 
of  bread  and  a  small  cup  of  beer,  (panem  ac 
singulos  bibere.s)  an  hour  before  the  refection,  on 
ordinary  days  ;  on  festivals  they  were  to  wait 
till  after  the  midday  mass  (Bened.  Reg.  v.  s.). 
Various  reasons  are  supposed  by  commentators 
for  the  latter  part  of  this  injunction  (Martene 
Reg.  Comm,  ad  loc.  h 

The  “  lector  hebdomadarius  ”  or  reader  aloud 
during  refection  held  office,  like  the  “  coqui,” 
for  a  week ;  but  Benedict  ordered  that  only 
those  brethren  should  be  readers,  whose  reading 
was  likely  to  edify  (Bened.  Reg.  c.  38),  On  the 
Sunday  commencing  his  week  of  office  the 
reader  was  thrice  to  rG]ieat  in  the  oratory  the 


“  Doniine,  aperi  os  meum,”  and  before  beginning 
to  read  was  to  ask  the  prayers  of  his  hearers, 
lest  he  should  be  elated  with  jmide  {Ih.).  Not  a 
word  was  to  be  spoken  during  the  lection  even 
by  way  of  asking  a  question  on  what  was  being 
read;  unless  the  prior  (or  abbat  i,  should  think 
right  to  interpose  an  explanation  or  exhortation  ; 
the  monks  were  to  help  another  to  anything 
wanted  without  a  word  (/6.).  The  reader  was 
to  have  a  little  bread  and  wine  (for  so  “  mix- 
tum  ”  is  to  be  understood,  according  to  Martene, 
and  not  as  wine  and  water),  just  before  reading, 
for  fear  of  faintness  or  exhaustion ;  he  was  to 
dine  with  the  other  hebdomadarii  after  the  public 
meal  {lb.').  The  passages  for  reading  were  chosen 
by  the  abbat  either  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  or 
from  lives  of  saints.  Cassian  derives  the  custom 
of  reading  aloud  at  refection  from  Cappadocia 
(Cass.  Instil,  iv.  19).  [See  also,  Alteser.  Asceticon 
ix.  10].  [I.  G.  S.] 

HECATONTARCHAE.  The  council  in 
Trullo  (c.  61)  condemns  to  six  years’  excom¬ 
munication  those  who  resort  to  “  the  so-called 
hecatontarchae,  or  such-like  per.sons  ”  (rots 
Xeyo/xlvois  eKaTovTdpxo.LS  ^  tkti  toiovtois)  with 
the  view  of  learning  from  them  what  they  may 
choose  to  reveal.  The  title  of  “  hecatontarches,” 
is  said  by  Balsamon  (quoted  by  Van  Espen,  iii. 
415)  to  be  equivalent  to  “  Primicerius ;”  and  to 
have  been  conferred  on  certain  old  men  who  gave 
themselves  out  to  be  po.sses.sed  of  supernatural 
knowledge  and  deceived  the  simple.  Gothofred 
(quoted  by  Bingham,  Antig.  XVI.  v.  6)  thinks 
that  these  hecatontarchae  are  to  be  identified 
with  the  “  centenarii  ”  of  the  Theodosian  Code 
(lib.  xvi.  tit.  10,  1.  20),  who  were  officers  of 
certain  corj)orations  or  companies  for  managing 
idolatrous  pomps  and  ceremonies,  and  frequently 
claimed  the  jiower  of  divination.  [Divinatiox  ; 
Soothsayers.]  '  [C.] 

HEDFELDENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Hat¬ 
field,  Council  of.] 

HEDISTIUS,  martyr  at  Ravenna  (saec.  iv.); 
commemorated  Oct.  l2{Ma>-t.  Rom.  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

HEGESIPPUS,  historian,  “  Vicinus  Aposto- 
licorum  temporum  ”  (fcirca  180  a.d.)  ;  comme¬ 
morated  April  7  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Horn.  Vet., 
Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

^  c  c  -o 

HEGIRA  OR  HUE  AH  !)•  The 

era  commonly  used  by  the  Mohammedan  his¬ 
torians  is  that  of  the  Hijrah,  or  flight  of 
Mohammed  from  Mecca  to  Medina.  The  epoch 
is  the  first  daj'  of  the  first  month,  Moharrem,  of 
the  year  in  which  this  took  place  (not  the  day 
itself,  which  was  about  sixty-seven  days  later). 
The  epoch  fell,  according  to  the  best  Arabian 
authors  and  astronomers,  cited  in  Ideler  {Hand- 
buch,  ii,  483),  on  Thursday,  July  15,  a.d.  622  ;  but 
according  to  civil  usage  and  the  phase  of  the 
moon,  a  day  later.  This  discre])ancy  has  to  be 
noted.  We  shall  take  as  the  epoch  July  16,  a.d. 
622,  or  5335  Julian  Period,  with  interval  days 
from  Christian  era  [Era],  227,014. 

In  Mohammedan  autliors  the  year  is  a  lunar 
year  of  30  and  29  days  alternately,  having  354 
days.  In  intercalary  years,  of  which  there  are 
11  in  every  30  years,  viz.,  those  marked  *  in 


HEGUMENOS 


HEMIPHOEION 


765 


Table  I.,  the  last  month  has  one  more  day.  In  ' 
a  complete  cycle  of  30  years  there  are  10,631 
days. 

To  convert  a  Mohammed  in  Date  into  Old 
Style. — Find  the  number  of  cycles  by  dividing 
the  Mohammedan  year-date  less  1  by  30.  Let  Q 
be  the  quotient,  K  the  remainder.  Multiply  Q 
by  10,631,  to  which  add  tlje  number  of  days 
corresponding  to  R  in  Table  I.  and  the  number 
of  days  corresponding  to  the  months  and  days  in 
Table  II.,  and  also  227, OIL,  the  interval  days  from 
the  Christian  era.  The  number  of  days  divided 
by  1461  will  give  the  number  of  quadriennia 
A.D.,  and  table  in  Era  §  h,  p.  623,  will  suffice  to 
find  the  residual  year  and  day  of  year. 

Add  1  for  the  current  year. 

To  convert  an  0.  S.  Date  into  Mohammedan. — 
Convert  into  days  from  Christian  era,  by  same 
rule  as  in  Era,  §  5.  Subtract  227,014 ;  divide 
remainder  by  10,631.  Let  quotient  be  Q  and 
remainder  R.  'I'o  30  x  Q  add  the  number  of 
years  corresponding  to  the  number  of  days  in 
Table  1.  next  less  than  R,  and  with  those  over 
lind  the  months  and  days  in  Table  II. 

Add  1  for  the  current  year. 


Table  I. 


Years. 

Days. 

Years. 

Days. 

Years. 

Days. 

1 

354 

11 

3898 

21* 

7442 

2* 

709 

12 

4252 

22 

7796 

3 

1063 

13* 

4607 

23 

8150 

4 

1417 

14 

4961 

24* 

8505 

5* 

1772 

15 

5315 

25 

8859 

6 

2126 

16* 

5670 

26* 

9214 

7* 

2481 

17 

6024 

27 

9568 

8 

2835 

18* 

6379 

28 

9922 

9 

3189 

19 

6733 

29' 

10277 

10* 

3544 

20 

7087 

30 

10631 

Table  II. 

Months.  Days. 

Months.  Days. 

Months.  Days. 

1 

30 

5 

148 

9 

266 

2 

59 

6 

177 

10 

295 

3 

89 

7 

207 

11 

325 

4 

118 

8 

236 

12  354  or  355 

Observe  tliat  two  Mohammedan  years  may 
begin  in  the  same  Julian  year.  This  happens 
every  33  or  34  years. 

It  may  be  worth  noting  that  the  Persian  era 
of  Yezdegird  commenced  June  16,  632,  ten  years 
later.  [L.  H.] 

HEGUIMENOS.  (^'Wyovjxevos')  The  Hegu- 
menos  of  a  monastery  in  the  Creek  church  cor¬ 
responds  to  the  Latin  Abbat  (see  that  word). 
He  was  also  termed  archimandrite.  But,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Helyot  {Hist,  des  (irdr.  Monast.  Diss. 
Prelim,  c.  11),  the  term  archimandrite  passed 
in  time  from  the  superior  of  a  monastery 
to  the  superior-general,  originally  called  the 
exarch,  whose  office  it  was  to  “  visit  ”  all  the 
monasteries  in  a  province.  Any  monastery  so 
desirous  at  its  foundation  was  exempted  from 
the  bishop’s  jurisdiction  and  placed  under  the 
sole  authority  of  the  patriarch  ;  and  the  supe¬ 
rior  general  of  these  monasteries  was  a  grand 
archimandrite  (cf.  'I'homass.  Disc.  Eccles.  I.  iii. 
23).  The  words  Hegumene  (‘H'yoo/ufVrj),  Hegu- 
meneion  {‘‘H'YovjXiPiior').,  and  Ilegumeneia  (‘Hyou- 
(levtia)  (all  from  the  classical  term  for  the  head¬ 
ship  of  a  confederaoy)  signify  abbess,  monastery 


(or  abbat’s  rooms),  and  office  of  abbat.  (Suic. 
IVies.  L'ccles.  s.  v.)  [I.  G.  S.] 

HEILETON.  [Eileton.] 

HELENA.  (1)  Mother  of  Constantine  the 
Great  (feirca  328  a.d.)  ;  commemorated  Aug.  18 
(il/a?'^.  Usuardi);  Maskarram  18  =  Sept.  15  (CaL 
Fthiop.).  See  also  Consi’anti.ve. 

(2)  Virgin-saint  of  Auxerre:  “Natalis”  May 
22  (^Mart.  Usuardi)  ;  translation  and  deposition 
May  22  (^Murt.  Adonis,  in  Appendice). 

[VV.  F.  G.] 

HELIAS,  presbyter  and  martyr  at  Cordova 
with  Isidorus  and  Paulus,  monks;  commemorated 
April  17  (^Mart.  Usuardi;.  [VV.  F.  G.] 

HELIMENAS,  or  HELYMAS,  presbyter 
of  Babylonia,  and  martyr  at  Cordula,  under 
Decius,  with  Chrysotelus  and  Parmenius,  pres¬ 
byters,  and  the  deacons  Lucas  and  Mucius  (or 
Lucius  and  Mucas);  commemorated  April  21 
(^Murt.  Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

HELIODOUUS,  martyr  in  Africa  with  Ve-- 
nustus  and  seventy-five  others  ;  commemorated 
May  6  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [\\L  F.  G.]  ,  . 

HELIOLATRAE.  [Faithful.] 

HELISAEUS,  HELIZAEUS,  or  ELISHA)/" 
the  prophet;  commemorated  June  14  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  See  also 
Elisha.  [W.  F.  G.] 

HELL.  A  frequent  subject  of  mediaeval 
Christian  art  in  the  sense  of  the  appointed  place 
or  state  of  future  })unishment;  but  the  writer 
is  not  aware  of  any  such  representation  of  un¬ 
questionable  date  and  authenticity  within  the 
first  eight  centuries,  unless  the  judgment- 
mosaic  of  Torcello  may  be  considered  an  ex¬ 
ception,  which  is  very  doubtful.  See  Last 
Judgment.  The  Book  of  Kells,  and  Saxon  and 
Irish  MSS.  contain  numerous  dragons,  and  even 
grotesque  devils ;  but  they  certainly  seem  to 
have  more  to  do  with  the  prevailing  taste  for 
lacertine  or  serjjentine  ornament,  and  general 
melancholy  or  ferocity  of  mind,  than  with  any 
doctrinal  idea  of  evil  spirits.  The  regular 
Inferno  begins  with  the  early  Florentine  revival, 
in  the  baptistery  of  St.  Giovanni.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

HELLADIUS,  Upo/jLaprvs ;  commemorated 
May  28  {Cal.  Ryzant.).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

HELPIDIUS,  bishop  and  confessor  at  Lyons  ; 
commemorated  Sept.  2  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

HEMIPHOEION  {i]pa<p6piov),  seemingly 
some  kind  of  ujiper  garment,  worn  by  men  and 
women.  Epiphanius  {Ifaeresis  69,  §  3)  describes 
Aldus  as  wearing  a  colobion  (see  the  word)  and 
a  hemiphorion ;  the  latter  probably  over  the 
former,  which  was  a  close  tunic.  And  Palladius 
{/list.  Lausiac  I,  p.  148)  says  that  the  younger 
Melania  gave  her  silken  hemij)horia  to  make 

Ka\vfijj.ara  to7s  0v(ria(rTr)p'iois,”  hangings  for  the 
sanctuary,  or  altar-cloths,  whichever  it  may  be. 

Hesychius  and  Suidas  write  the  word  vp-Kpdpiop, 
connecting  it  with  (pdpos  (a  shawl  or  wrapper), 
and  translating  it  “  dimidium  vestis,”  “dinii- 
diata  vestis.”  It  was  ju'obably  therefore  one  of 
the  many  forms  of  the  j)a!Iium,  smaller  than 
that  commonly  worn.  (Suicer’s  Thaaunis,  s.  v.). 


766 


HEOTHINA 


HERESY 


HEOTHI.VA  (ra  k(t}Qiva).  'J'he  Heoihinon  is 
an  anthem  sung  in  the  Greek  office  of  lauds  (rh 
opdpov),  and  occurs  after  the  aluui  \  (i.e.  on  ordi¬ 
nary  days,  Pss.  cxlviii.,  cxlix.,  cl.,  on  Sundays 
and  important  festivals,  a  short  equivalent) ;  and 
certain  versicles  called  Stichoi  and  short  anthems 
called  SUcliera  which  follow  them,  and  is  placed 
between  the  clauses  of  the  doxology,  “  glory, 
&c.”  (5d|a),  and  “  both  now,  &c.  ”  {koI  vvv).^ 
The  Heothiuou  varies  with  the  musical  tone  of 
the  week  :  there  being  one  to  each  tone ;  and 
they  are  Ibund  in  the  Paracletice,  or  book  con¬ 
taining  the  various  antiphons  or  troparia, 
arranged  according  to  the  different  tones.  The 
form  of  the  Heothinon  is  that  of  any  other  Greek 
antiphon. 

(2.)  TCL  ewOiua  ((vayyeXia).  These  are  Gospels 
relating  to  the  Resurrection,  one  of  which  is 
read  on  Sundays  in  the  Greek  office  of  lauds. 
They  are  eleven  in  number.  [H.  J.  H.] 

HERA  C LEAS.  (1)  Patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
A.D.  246  ;  commemorated  July  14  (Mart.  Usu- 
ardi),  Taksas  8  =  Dec.  4  (Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Thrace  with  Euticus  and 
Plautus;  commemorated  Sept.  29  (Mart.  Usu- 
ardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HERACLIDES,  martyr  at  Alexandria  with 
Heros,  Plutarch  us,  Potamiena,  Serenus,  and 
three  others;  commemorated  June  28  (Mart. 
Horn.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HERACLIUS.  (1)  Bishop  and  confessor  at 
Sens  (f circa  522  A.D.) ;  commemorated  June  8 
(Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Saint,  of  ^syon ;  commemorated  with 
Paulus  Aquilinus,  and  two  others.  May  17  (lb.) 

(3)  Martyr  at  Tuder  in  Tuscany,  with  Feli- 
cissimus  and  Paulinus ;  commemorated  May  26 
(Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HERASTUS,  or  ERASTUS,  bishop  of  Phi¬ 
lippi,  and  martyr  ;  commemorated  July  26 
(Mart.  Usuardi,  Ado  de  Fediv.  SS.  Apostolorum). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

HERCULANUS.  (1)  Saint,  of  Rome  :  “  Na¬ 
talis  ”  Sept.  5  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuai’di). 

(2)  Soldier,  saint  at  Lyons ;  commemorated 
Sept.  25  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Perugia;  commemorated 
Nov.  7  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

HERESY,  considered  as  a  delictum,  or  offence 
against  the  law  of  the  church. 

The  Greek  word  alpeais  imports  (1)  a  choosing 
(Lev.  xxii.  18,  LXX. ;  1  Maccab.  viii.  30);  (2)  that 
which  is  chosen,  especially  an  opinion  which  one 
chooses  to  hold,  as  alpeaets  airwXf'ias  (2  Pet.  ii. 
1);  used  by  ecclesiastical  writers  for  opinions 
deviating  from  the  true  Christian  faith ;  (8)  a 
body  of  men  holding  a  particular  opinion,  as 
(e.  g.)  those  holding  parti(uilar  opinions  in  phi¬ 
losophy  (Diog.  Laert.  i.  13  etc.).  In  the  New 
Testament  it  is  useil  of  the  Sadducees  (Acts  v. 
17),  the  Pharisees  (/6.  xv.  5,  and  perhaps  xxvi. 
5),  of  the  Christian  community  (Ib.  xxiv.  5,  14; 


»  The  Greek  fi  rm  of  doxology  after  the  Psalms  does  not 
contain  the  clause  ‘‘Sicut  erat  in  principio”  (Goar 
EucImI.  notae  in  Laud.  Off.). 


xxviii.  25).  So  Constantine  (Euseb.  H.  E,  x  h, 

.  §§  21,  22)  speaks  of  the  church  as  ^  alpeais  7} 

!  KaQoXiKT],  7)  ayiwTaTT)  alp^ais.  We  are  con¬ 
cerned  with  the  term  mainly  in  the  second  ot 
these  significations. 

t  ^ 

The  word  was  u.sed  bv  the  earlv  fathers  with 
a  good  deal  of  latitude  to  designate  systems 
which  adojited,  or  profe.ssed  to  adopt,  any 
Christian  element  whatever  (Burton,  Bampton 
Led.  p.  12);  so  the  Trullan  council  (c.  95) 
applies  the  word  “  heretic  ”  alike  to  those  who 
were,  and  to  those  who  were  not,  reckoned 
Christians  ;  but  it  is  generally  apjilied  to  those 
who,  holding  the  leading  truths  of  the  faith, 
deviate  in  some  point  or  points. 

To  define  heresy  is,  as  St.  Augustine  says  (De 
Haeret.  Praef.),  “altogether  impossible,  or  at 
any  rate  most  difficult;”  and  when  first  asked 
to  write  a  book  on  heresy  himself,  he  illustrated 
the  difficulty  by  pointing  out  (Ep.  222,  ad  Quod- 
vult.)  that  Philastrius  bishop  of  Brescia,  in  his 
book  of  heresies,  enumerated  28  which  had 
originated  among  the  Jews  before  Christ,  and 
128  afterwards,  but  that  Epiphanius  of  Cvprus 
discovered  only  80  altogether.  But  he  is  careful 
to  note  (Epist.  43)  that,  whatever  be  the 
definition,  it  is  not  the  mere  falseness  of  an 
opinion,  but  the  sjiirit  in  which  it  is  held,  that 
constitutes  heresy ;  they  who  do  not  defend  a 
wrong  opinion  in  an  obstinate  temper  (pertinaci 
animositate),  especially  they  who  are  in  error 
mainly  by  the  accident  of  birth,  are  not  to  be 
reckoned  heretics.  With  which  accords  the 
common  definition,  that  heresy  is  “  pertinax 
defensio  dogmatis  ecclesiae  universalis  judicio 
condemnati.”  See  Decretum  Grat.  Cau.  xxiv. 
qu.  iii.  c.  29  ff.  The  law  of  the  emperor  Arcadius, 
dated  A.D.  395,  and  given  m  the  Codex  Theod. 
(XVI.  A'.  28),  is  the  first  legislative  definition. 
“  Qui  A'el  levi  argumento  a  judicio  catholicae 
religionis  et  tramite  detect!  fuerint  deviare,” 
which  is  modified  by  another  expression  of  the 
same  Arcadius  (b'ode,  L.  13,  De  Raganis),  “qui 
a  Catholicae  Religionis  dogmate  deviare  con- 
tendunt,'’’  where  the  word  “contendunt”  is  held 
to  refer  to  the  same  pertinacity  in  maintaining 
an  opinion  on  which  Augustine  dwells  (Van 
Espen,  pt.  iii.  tit.  iv.  c.  22  tf.).  Van  Espen  con¬ 
siders  this,  if  not  an  absolutely  accurate  descrip¬ 
tion,  to  be  that  which  has  governed  the  sub¬ 
sequent  practice  of  the  church.  He  maintains 
its  soundness  as  a  definition,  because  on  the  one 
hand  it  allows  no  deviation  whatever  from  the 
Catholic  creed,  and  on  the  other  tolerates  a 
reasonable  latitude  of  speculation  by  taking  no 
cognizance  of  constructive  heresy.  To  con¬ 
stitute  the  canonical  offence  the  heresy  must 
consist — i.,  in  a  dejiarture,  not  from  the  implied 
belief  of  Christianity,  but  from  that  Avhich  the 
church  through  her  creeds  and  canons  has 
declared  to  be  a  matter  of  faith;  ii.,  the  error 
must  be  persistent  and  wilful,  and,  as  Augustine 
points  out  (De  Civ.  Dei,  xviii.  51),  after  admo¬ 
nition  ;  iii.,  it  must  not  only  be  suspected  but 
detected  and  adjudicated  upon.  (Van  Espen, 
Jus  Eccl.  HI.  iv.  2 ;  Field,  Gf  the  Church,  iii. 
cc.  3,  4). 

2.  i.  The  cognizance  of  heresy  Avas  A'ested  in 
the  bishops  separately,  as  Avell  as  collectively. 
It  belongs  exclusively  to  the  spiritual  office, 
says  Ambrose  (Ep.  21),  addressing  the  empei’or 
Valeutinian,  to  decide  on  matters  of  doctrine. 


HERESY 


HERESY 


767 


The  episcopate  was  held  to  be  one,  where  the 
faith  was  concerned,  and  each  bishop  was  charged 
with  maintaining  it,  although  for  practical  con¬ 
venience  his  government  extended  only  over  a 
single  diocese.  This  jurisdiction  granted  to  the 
bishop  in  matters  of  faith  appears  fi’om  the 
power  possessed  by  him  in  the  ante-Nicene 
church  of  varying  the  expressions  of  the  creed 
in  use  in  his  diocese,  in  onler  to  meet  prevailing 
heresies ;  provided,  of  course,  that  the  fun¬ 
damental  unity  of  the  faith  was  unimpaired ; 
instances  of  such  variations  are  given  in  Bing¬ 
ham,  Antiq.  II.  vi.  3.  The  reference  to  the 
belief  of  individual  bishops  as  a  standard  of 
doctrine  is  further  evidence  in  the  same  direction. 
Thus  Theodosius  in  a  rescript  quoted  in  Sozomen 
{H.  E.  vii.  4)  exhorts  his  subjects  to  keep  the 
faith  delivered  by  St.  Peter,  and  by  Damasus  of 
Rome,  and  Peter  of  Alexandria.  Other  references 
of  the  kind  are  collected  in  Gothofred’s  com¬ 
mentary  on  Codex  Theod.  xvi.  1,  de  fide  Catholicd. 
It  w'as  an  exorcise  of  this  authority  by  Gelasius 
bishop  of  Rome,  a.d.  492-6,  condemning  in  a 
decretal  epistle  the  w'ritings  of  Faustus  the 
Semi-pelagian  archbishop  of  Riez,  which  gave 
rise  to  the  first  Roman  catalogue  of  forbidden 
books.  After  the  empire  became  Christian, 
attempts  were  made  by  some  of  the  emperors  to 
arrogate  to  themselves  this  spiritual  jurisdiction 
of  the  bishops.  The  first  instance  of  the  kind, 
unless  the  laws  of  Theodosius  on  heretics  are  to 
be  regarded  as  such,  is  that  of  the  usurper 
Basiliscus,  emperor  of  the  East,  475-7,  who 
issued  an  encyclic  letter  condemning  the  council 
of  Chalcedon,  and  laying  down  definitions  of 
faith.  An  example  followed  with  more  success 
by  Justinian,  whose  edicts  on  doctrine  as  well  as 
discipline  obtained  acceptance  by  being  pro¬ 
mulgated  through  the  patriarchs,  metropolitans, 
and  bishops.  The  ecclesiastical  legislation  of 
Charlemagne  also  trenched  upon  the  same  pre¬ 
rogative;  discussion  was  permitted  in  the  synods 
'summoned  by  him,  but  the  emperor  reserved  the 
decision  to  himself,  and  issued  the  decrees  in  his 
own  name.  But  no  ecclesiastical  authority 
superseded  that  of  the  bishops  till  a.d.  1204, 
when  two  Cistercian  abbots  were  sent  by 
Innocent  III.  to  the  south  of  France  to  inves¬ 
tigate  the  Albigensian  heresy;  and  in  1231 
Gregory  IX. 'issued  a  commission  to  the  Domini¬ 
cans  to  constitute  a  special  court  of  heresy  ;  this 
was  the  beginning  of  the  Inquisition.  (Van  Espen, 
^Jus.  Eccl.  I.  xxii.  3.) 

ii.  The  general  power  of  each  bishop  to  defend 
the  faith  was  restricted,  in  dealing  with  an 
individual  heretic,  to  his  own  diocese.  If  the 
accused  was  one  of  the  clergy,  the  bishop  was 
required  in  the  African  church  to  take  neigh¬ 
bouring  bishops  to  sit  with  him  (1  Cone.  Corthag. 
c.  1 1 ;  2  Cone.  Carthag.  c.  10);  but  this  rule 
was  not  confined  to  accusations  of  heresy.  With 
the  bishop  in  some  instances  sat  the  presbyters — 
whether  or  not  this  privilege  w'as  universally 
conceded  to  them.  The  synod  of  Antioch,  a.d. 
264,  which  condemned  Paul  of  Samosata,  con¬ 
tained  presbyters  (Euseb.  II.  E.  vii.  28).  So  the 
first  condemnation  of  Arius  was  not  pronounced 
by  .Alexander  bishop  of  Alexandria,  A.D.  319,  till 
he  had  summoned  the  presbytery  and  some  other 
bishops  to  hear  the  charge  (Epiphan.  Ilaer.  69,  c. 
3).  And  the  accusation  against  Pelagius  was  first 
heard  before  John,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  a 


synod  of  his  presbyters,  a.d.  415.  If  objection 
was  made  to  the  decision  of  the  bishop,_an  appeal 
lay  to  a  larger  council,  either  of  the  province,  or 
finally  of  the  whole  church ;  instances  of  which  are 
too  notorious  to  need  citing.  A  bi.shop  charged  with 
heresy  could  be  tried  only  by  a  synod  of  bishops. 
The  officer  charged  with  the  preliminary  inves¬ 
tigation  is  designated  by  one  of  the  law's  of 
Justinian  (Vorc/.  137,  c.  5).  “If  any  clergvman 
is  accused  in  point  of  faith,  if  he  is  a  bishoj)  he 
shall  be  examined  before  his  metropolitan,  but 
if  he  is  a  metropolitan  then  before  the  patriarch,” 

3.  The  penalties  attached  to  heresy  w'ere  both 
ecclesiastical  and  civil. 

i.  By  ecclesiastical  law  an  obstinate  heretic 
was  excommunicated,  and  if  he  continued  con¬ 
tumacious,  his  exclusion  from  church-member¬ 
ship  was  made  more  rigorous.  The  6th  canon 
of  the  council  of  Laodicea  forbids  those  who 
continue  in  their  heresy  to  enter  the  house  of 
God.  But  this  exclusion  could  not  have  been 
universal, .  for  the  4th  council  of  Carthage^. 
A.D.  398  (c.  84)  distinctly  prohibits  the  bishop 
from  preventing  Gentiles,  Jews,  or  heretics  from 
being  present  in  church  during  the  Missa  Cate- 
chumenorum  ;  and  the  council  of  Valentia,  a.d. 
524  (c.  i.)  orders  the  gospel  to  be  read  before 
♦the  oblations,  so  that  heretics,  among  others, 
may  have  an  opportunity  of  hearing  [cf. 
Heathen].  Another  stigma  affixed  to  heretics 
was  the  rejection  of  their  evidence  in  any 
ecclesiastical  court  against  a  Catholic.  The 
Apostolical  Canons  (c.  74)  say  expressly  that  the 
evidence  of  a  heretic  shall  not  be  received  against 
a  bi.shop.  The  129th  canon  of  the  African  code 
also  mentions  heretics  among  other  infamous 
persons  whose  testimony  was  inadmissible 
(4  Cone.  Carthng.  c.  96).  The  so-called  6th 
canon  of  the  council  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  381, 
guards  this  disability  from  abuse  by  confining 
it  exclusively  to  ecclesiastical  causes  ;  if  a  heretic 
had  a  civil  cause  of  complaint  against  a  bishop, 
the  council  allowed  him  his  remedy ;  but  the 
Justinian  code  deprived  him  even  of  this. 
Another  class  of  penal  enactments  was  directed 
to  the  protection  of  the  orthodox  from  the 
infection  of  heresy.  One  of  the  Apostolical 
Canons  (c.  45)  forbids,  under  pain  of  suspension, 
any  bishop,  presbyter,  or  deacon,  to  pray  with 
heretics,  or  permit  them  to  officiate ;  another 
(c.  63)- inhibits  either  clergy  or  laity  from  wor¬ 
shipping  in  a  synagogue  of  heretics.  The  council 
of  Laodicea  (c,  9)  would  not  permit  Catholics 
to  frequent  the  cemeteries  or  celebrations  of 
so-called  martyrdoms  of  heretics,  nor  (c.  33) 
tolerate  any  devotions  with  them.  The  4th 
council  of  Carthage,  A.D.  398  (c.  71),  pronounces 
the  assemblies  of  heretics  to  be  not  churches  but 
conventicles;  and  (c.  72)  prohibits  both  praying 
and  singing  psalms  with  them.  The  Spanish 
council  of  Lerida,  a.d.  523  (c.  13),  rejects  the 
oblation  of  any  who  has  presented  liis  children 
for  baptism  by  a  heretic  ;  this  must  mean,  not 
in  a  case  of  necessity,  where  it  would  be  admitted, 
but  deliberately.  (Bingham,  Antiq.  X\’l.  i,  4). 
Social  intercour.se  with  heretics  was  also  pro¬ 
hibited.  “A  clergyman  must  avoid  both  the 
entertainments  and  the  .society  of  heretics” 
(4  Cone.  Corthag.  c.  70;  1  Cone.  Tolet.  c.  15; 
1  Cone.  Turoti.  c.  S;  Con  :.  \'enef.  c.  ii).  Augustine 
relates  (^Confess,  iii  .  11)  that  while  he  was  a 
Mauichaeau  his  mother  would  not  sit  at  the 


768 


HERESY 


HERESY 


s:ime  table  with  him.  The  council  of  Laodicea 
(c.  32)  forbids  Christians  to  receive  the  EuloCtIAE 
of  heretics,  and  also  (cc.  10,  31)  to  intermarry 
with  them.  This  last  j)rohibition  appears  to 
have  been  universally  enforced  (Cone.  Eliber. 
c.  16;  Cone,  in  Trull,  c.  72).  The  laws  of  the 
church  are  not  so  strict  as  the  civil  edicts  after¬ 
wards  became  in  prohibiting  the  study  of  here¬ 
tical  books  ;  there  is  one  canon  (4  Cone.  Carthag. 
c.  16)  which  forbids  a  bishop  to  read  heathen 
authoi’s  under  any  circumstances,  and  heretical 
ones  unless  time  or  necessity  require. 

ii.  The  civil  proceedings  against  heretics  began 
with  some  edicts  of  Constantine  against  the 
Donatists,  a.d.  316;  but  a  much  more  extensive 
series  of  laws  was  enacted  by  Theodosius  the 
Great  with  a  view  to  put  an  end  to  the  divisions 
of  the  church  arising  from  the  controversies  of 
the  4th  century,  and  to  enforce  uniformity  of 
belief  by  legal  penalties.  The  first  of  these  was 
passed  immediately  after  the  general  council  of 
Constantinople,  A.D.  381,  and  between  that 
period  and  a.d.  394,  fifteen  other  such  edicts 
were  published.  A  further  law  was  enacted  by 
Honorius,  a.d.  408,  and  others  in  the  East  by 
Arcadius  and  the  younger  Theodosius,  and  others 
again  by  Justinian,  a.d.  529.  The  laws  are 
chiefly  contained  in  book  xvi.  tit.  v.  de  Haereticis 
of  the  Theodosian  Code,  although  a  few  are  to 
be  found  under  other  titles.  Here  it  will  be 
sufficient  to  give  a  bare  abstract  of  the  most 
severe  of  them.  Heretics  were  deprived  of  all 
offices  of  profit  or  dignity  in  the  state ;  they 
could  neither  receive  nor  bequeath  property  ;  no 
civil  contract  with  them  was  binding  ;  they  were 
fined,  banished,  subjected  to  corporal  punishments, 
and  even  sentenced  to  death.  Other  laws  were 
designed  to  prevent  the  propagation  of  heresy. 
No  heretical  assemblies  might  be  held,  nor  con¬ 
venticles  built,  nor  clergy  ordained  ;  their  books 
were  to  be  burnt  and  their  children  disinherited. 
These  edicts  were  not  directed  against  all  heretics 
indiscriminately,  but  against  various  sects  which 
were  held  to  be  most  dangerous  to  faith  or 
morals.  From  the  account  of  Sozomen  (//.  E. 
vii.  12),  they  were  intended  to  strike  terror 
rather  than  to  be  executed  ;  but  heretics  were 
always  exposed  to  them,  and,  in  one  conspicuous 
instance,  the  most  severe  penalty,  that  of  death, 
was  inflicted  on  Priscillian  and  some  of  his 
adherents;  the  first  example  in  the  church  of 
any  one  being  put  to  death  for  his  opinions. 

4.  i.  The  admission  of  heretics  to  the  church 
is  closely  involved  with  the  controversies  of  the 
4th  century  on  the  validity  of  heretical  baptism 
[Baptism,  Iteration  of,  p.  172].  Their  bear¬ 
ing  on  the  reconciliation  of  heretics,  and  the 
further  question  of  the  relation  in  which  the 
practice  of  anointing  converts  from  heresy 
stands  towards  the  rite  of  confirmation,  are 
discussed  in  Morinus  (de  Poenit.  ix.  7-11). 
This  article  is  concerned  only  with  any  rites  or 
terms  of  admission  which  indicate  the  course  of 
canonical  discipline.  The  council  of  Eliberis 
(c.  22)  appoints  ten  years’  penance  to  those  who 
had  deserted  the  faith  and  afterwards  returned, 
with  a  proviso  that  if  they  had  lapsed  in  infancy 
they  should  be  received  back  without  delay. 
Later  councils.( (7onc.  Agcdh.  c.  60;  Cone.  Epaon. 
c.  29)  deprecating  this  severity,  reduce  the  term 
to  two  years,  on  condition  that  the  penitent 
fusts  three  days  a  week  and  comes  frequently  to 


church.  Longer  penalties  were  exacted  from 
those  who  had  submitted  to  re-baptism  among 
the  heretics,  the  earlier  practice  in  this  too  being 
more  severe  ;  the  1st  council  of  Valence,  a.d.  374 
(c.  3),  denies  communion  to  them  till  the  hour 
of  death,  that  of  Lerida,  A.D.  523  (c.  9),  only  for 
nine  years.  In  this,  however,  as  in  other  points 
of  discipline,  much  was  left  to  the  discretion  of 
the  bishop  (Cone.  Agcdh.  c.  60;  4  Cone.  Aurel. 
c.  8).  In  general  the  practice  of  the  church, 
which  is  involved  in  some  obscurity,  appears  to 
have  been  to  admit  converts  without  any  actual 
penance,  submitting  them  however  to  some  out¬ 
ward  form  or  ceremonial  of  penitence  (sub  imagine 
poenitentiae,  Innocent:  Ep.  18,  ad  Alexaii.  c.  3). 
A  letter  of  Gregory  the  Great  (Epiat.  ix.  61,  ad 
Quirin.')  directs  that  those  who  had  once  been 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  should 
be  received  by  imposition  of  hands,  which  was 
the  Western  use,  or  by  unction,  which  was  that 
of  the  East,  or  by  a  profession  of  faith. 

'  Of  these  forms  of  reconciliation  that  by  impo¬ 
sition  of  hands  was  the  earliest.  It  is  spoken  of 
by  Eusebius  (H.  E.  vii.  2)  as  a  practice  which 
was  ancient  in  the  time  of  Stephen,  bishop  of 
Rome,  A.D.  253-7  ;  Cyprian  also  calls  it  the 
ancient  custom  in  his  time  (Ep.  ad  Quintuni). 
It  was  prevailing  in  the  time  of  Innocent  (Epp. 
2  ad  1  ictric.  c.  8,  22  ad  Epis.  Maeedon.  cc.  4, 
5) ;  it  was  known  to  Augustine  (de  Bapt.  c. 
Bonat.  iii.  1 1,  ibid.  vi.  15),  and  was  the  subject 
of  the  decrees  of  various  councils  ( 1  Cone.  Arclat. 
c.  8  ;  Cone.  A'icaen.  c.  8).  By  a  canonical  epistle 
of  Siricius,  bishop  of  Rome,  a.d.  384-98,  heretics 
were  to  be  admitted  by  imposition,  together  with 
invocation  of  the  Spirit.  But  the  statement  of 
Gregory  that  imposition  of  hands  was  the  Western 
custom,  and  unction  the  Eastern,  is  only  partialh* 
correct.  Unction  was  in  use  in  both  the  Spani.^h 
and  the  Gallic  churches  (1  Cone.  Arausie.  c.  1 ; 
Cone.  Epaon.  c.  16),  and  it  is  likely  that  when 
Gregory  wrote  he  was  referring  only  to  the 
principal  church  of  the  West,  that  of  Rome 
(Martene  de  Bit.  iii.  6). 

ii.  In  the  4th  century,  converts  from  some 
heresies  were  received  into  the  church  by  unction, 
with  formal  renunciation  of  their  errors  (Cone. 
Laod.  c.  7  ;  1  Coiie.  Cons!a7it.  c.  7).  The  Trullau 
council,  following  the  1st  of  Constantinople,  de¬ 
scribes  the  manner  of  admission  :  “  We  receive 
Arians,  Macedonians,  Novatians,  Quartodecimans, 
and  ApolKnarians,  when  they  give  in  written 
forms  of  belief  (\i^eWous  ;  for  instances  of  this 
practice  see  Soc.  II.  E.  iv.  12,  8oz.  H.  E.  iii.  22), 
and  anathematize  everv  heresv  not  according 
with  the  mind  of  the  holy  and  apostolic  church  ; 
sealing  (that  is,  anointing)  them  with  the  holy 
ointment  on  the  forehead,  and  eyes,  and  nostrils, 
and  mouth,  and  ears;  and  as  we  seal  them,  we 
say,  ‘The  seal  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.’" 
The  Arabic  version  of  the  Nicene  canons  (c.  31, 
Hardouin,  vol.  i.  p.  468)  has  another  form  of 
admission.  “  If  any  one  is  converted  to  the 
orthodox  faith  he  must  be  received  into  tlie 
church  by  the  hands  of  the  bishop  or  presbyter, 
who  ought  to  instruct  him  tc  anathematize  all 
who  oppose  the  orthodox  faith  and  contradict 
the  apostolic  church.  He  ought  also  to  ana^the- 
matize  Arius  and  his  heresy,  and  openly  and 
sincerely  profess  the  faith.  After  this  the  bishop 
or  priest  whose  office  it  is,  shall  receive  him  and 
auoint  him  with  the  unction  of  Chrism,  and  sign 


aiatESV: 


h?:rmes 


769 


him  three  times  while  anointing  him,  and  pray¬ 
ing  over  him  in  the  jirayer  of  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite,  and  prayer  shall  be  made  earnestly 
to  God  for  him,  and  then  he  may  be  received.” 
With  regard  to  other  heresies,  the  canon  of  the 
Trullan  council  already  cited  proceeds  to  make 
the  following  provisions.  “  About  the  Pauli- 
anists  the  Catholic  church  defines,  that  they  are 
to  be  baptized  anew  ;  but  as  to  the  Eunomians, 
who  baptize  with  one  immersion,  the  Montanists 
....  and  the  Sabellians  ....  and  all  the 
other  heresies  ,  .  .  .  ;  all  who  will  come  over 
to  orthodoxy  from  these  we  receive  as  conv^erts 
from  paganism  (ws  ’’EW-nvas) ;  and  the  first  day 
we  make- them  Christians,  the  second  catechu¬ 
mens,  and  on  the  third  day  we  exorcise  them, 
after  breathing  thrice  on  the  forehead  and  ears 
[Exorcism]  ;  and  so  we  go  on  to  catechise  them, 
and  cause  them  to  tarry  in  the  chiu’ch  and  listen 
to  the  Scriptures ;  and  then  we  baptize  them. 
And  the  Manichaeans,  and  the  Valentinians,  and 
the  Marcionites,  and  those  who  come  fi'oni  such¬ 
like  heresies  must  give  in  libelli,  and  anathema¬ 
tize  their  own  heresy,  and  Nestorius  and  Euty- 
ches,  and  Dioscorus  and  Severus,  and  the  other 
ringleaders  of  such-like  heresies,  and  those  who 
hold  their  own  and  the  other  aforenamed  here¬ 
sies ;  and  so  they  may  be  admitted  to  Holy 
Communion.” 

iii.  In  the  case  of  those  who  came  into  the 
orthodox  faith  from  the  heresies  of  Nestorius  and 
Eutyches,  the  church  appears  to  have  been  satisfied 
with  a  solemn  profession  of  faith  by  the  convert. 
This  is  frequently  insisted  upon  by  Leo  (^Epp.  i. 
6 ;  vi.  2 ;  xiv,  xxvii.  4).  The  2nd  council  of 
Seville,  a.d.  618,  received  in  this  form  at  its 
twelfth  sitting  an  heretical  Syrian  bishop.  The 
bishop  made  a  solemn  statement  of  his  errors  and 
of  the  truth,  and  confirmed  it  with  an  oath.  In 
later  periods  an  oath  became  an  indispensable 
part  of  the  ceremonial.  A  Roman  synod  under 
Leo  III.,  A.D.  799,  required  a  certain  bishop 
Felix  not  only  to  abjure  his  here.sy  and  write  out 
a  form  of  faith,  but  also  to  swear  over  the  holy 
mysteries  to  observe  his  orthodox  profe.ssion ;  he 
was  then  required  to  place  it  over  the  body  of 
St.  Peter,  and  swear  he  would  never  dare  repeat 
his  heretical  opinions.  Cotelerius  (^Apost,  Const., 
V.  13,  note)  prints  part  of  an  ancient  Eastern 
ritual  containing  a  form  of  renunciation  of  the 
Armenian  heresy,  which  concludes  with  the  fol¬ 
lowing  imprecation:  “If  I  make  this  profession 
with  hypocrisy,  or  return  to  my  heresy  openly 
or  secretl)',  may  all  calamities  overtake  me,  the 
dread  of  Cain  and  the  leprosy  of  Gehazi,  and  in 
the  world  to  come  may  I  be  anathema  and  cata- 
thema,  and  may  my  soul  be  sent  to  Satan  and 
his  devils.” 

iv.  The  form  of  admission  in  use  in  the  East  in 
the  8th  century  is  given  by  Morinus  (de  Poenit. 
ix.  9)  from  a  very  ancient  Greek  Euchologion. 
Those  to  be  received  must  fist  ten  or  fifteen 
days,  and  prostrate  themselves  in  prayer  morning 
and  evening  like  the  Catechumens  ;  they  may  then 
be  thought  worthy  of  the  orthodox  faith  and  be 
initiated.  The  ])riest  is  to  bring  each  into  the 
baptistery,  and  say  to  him,  “Curse  N.  and  his 
doctrines,  and  those  who  agree  with  him,  for  I 
renounce  him  and  every  heretical  doctrine,  and  I 
believe  in  the  holy  and  consubstantial  Trinity.” 
And  the  priest  shall  say  to  the  convert  three 
times,  “Dost  thou  believe  in  the  holy  and  con- 

CIIRIST.  ANT. 


substantial  Trinity  ?”  and  the  converi  -hall  reply 
“I  do.”  He  shall  then  kneel,  and  the  priest 
shall  lay  his  hand  upon  his  head  and  pi  ay  as 
follows  ....  After  which  he  shall  anoint  him 
with  oil  with  the  same  form  as  if  he  were  a 
neophyte,  and  say  this  prayer  .  .  .  The  convert 
may  then  communicate,  and  he  must  be  instructed 
not  to  eat  flesh  seven  days,  nor  wash  his  face, 
but,  as  the  baptized  do,  persevere  for  seven  days, 
and  on  the  8th  day  wash  and  be  dismissed. 

The  following  example  of  a  prayer  used  for 
those  who  were  reconciled,  after  having  been 
rebaptized  by  hei-etics,  is  from  a  ritual  found  at 
Toulouse,  at  Rheims,  and  in  Sicily:  “God  who 
restorest  man,  made  after  thine  own  image,  to 
that  which  Thou  hast  created,  look  down  in 
mercy  upon  this  Thy  servant,  and  whatever 
ignorance  and  heretical  perverseness  has  crept  into 
him,  do  Thou  in  Thy  pity  and  goodness  pardon, 
so  that  any  wickedness  which  he  has  committed 
through  the  fraud  of  the  devil  or  the  iniquity  of 
the  Arian  falsehood,  may  not  be  laid  to  his 
charge,  but  that  having  been  transformed  by 
Thy  mercy,  and  having  received  the  communion 
of  Thy  truth  at  the  sacred  altars,  he  may  be 
restored  a  member  of  the  catholic  church.” 

Heresy  as  a  canonical  offence  is  dealt  with  by 
Van  Espen  {Jus  Eccl.  Pars  iii.  tit.  iv,  c.  2). 
The  admission  of  heretics  to  the  church  is  a  very 
complicated  subject,  owing  to  the  endless  varieties 
of  heretical  sects.  See  Martene  {de  Pit.  iii.  6), 
Morinus  {de  Poenit.  ix.  7-11),  Suicer  (s.  v.  atpe- 
TiKos),  and  Bingham  {Antin.  XIX.  ii.),  A  list  of 
the  early  and  mediaeval  writers  on  heresy  i.s 
given  in  the  preface  to  Burton’s  Bampton  lectures 
on  Heresies  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  [G.  M.] 

HERETICAL  BAPTISM.  [Baptism,  Iter¬ 
ation  OF,  p.  172.] 

IIERMAGORAS,  bishop  and  martyr  under 
Nero  at  Aquileia,  with  Fortunatus  his  arch¬ 
deacon  ;  commemorated  July  12  {^fa>■t.  Pom. 
Vet.,  Adoui.s,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HERMAS,  saint  (supposed  bishop  of  Phi¬ 
lippi)  ;  commt'lmorated  May  9  {Mart.  Usuardi, 
Ado  de  Festiv.  Apostolorum).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

HERMEAS,  of  Comana,  Upopdprvs  under 
Antoninus ;  commemorated  May  31  {Cal.  Bij- 
zant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HERMELANDUS,  abbot  in  Antron,  an 
island  of  the  Loire  (fcirca  720  a.d.);  comme¬ 
morated  March  25  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HERMELLUS;  martyr  at  Constantinople ; 
commemorated  Aug.  3  {.Mart.  Pom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 

Usuardi).  [\V.  F.  G.] 

HERMENEGILDUS,  son  of  Leovigildus, 
king  of  the  Goths,  martyr  in  Spain  (fbSG  A.D.); 
commemorated  April  13  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

HERMENEUTAE.  [Interpreter.]  ' 
HERMES.  (1)  [Gaius.] 

(2)  Saint  at  Marseilles;  commemorated  with 
Adrianus,  March  1  {.Mart.  Hieroii.,  Usuardi). 

(3)  One  of  the  seventy ;  commemorated  with 
Agabus,  Asyncritus,  Herodion,  Ph logon,  Rufus, 
April  8  {Cal.  Pgzant.). 

(4)  Martyr  at  Rome  (a.d.  1 16);  commemorated 
Aug.  28  {Mart.  Bedae,  Usuardi). 


770 


HERMITS 


HERMITS 


(5)  [El'Sebius  (7).] 

(6)  Exorcista,  saint  of  Retiaria ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Dec.  31  (Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.j 

HERMITS.  Some  mediaeval  writers  on 
monasticism  define  hermits  (eremitae)  as  soli¬ 
taries  in  cells,  and  anchorites  (anachoretae)  as 
solitaries  without  any  fixed  dwelling  place; 
more  correctly  anchorites  are  solitaries  who 
have  passed  a  time  of  probation  as  coenobites,  and 
hermits  those  who  enter  on  the  solitary  life 
without  this  preparation  (Martene,  Ferj.  Comm. 
Bened.  c.  1  ;  Isid.  De  Div.  Off.  ii.  15Y  Generally 
the  word  “  eremite  ”  includes  all  solitary  ascetics 
©f  one  sort  or  another ;  other  designations  of 
them  in  early  ecclesiastical  writers  are  a6\T)Tai, 
aaKTiTai,  fxord^ouT€5,  <pi\6dioi,  (pi\o(ro(f>ovrTes, 
Kareipy/xeroi,  viri  Dei,  renunciantes,  continentes, 
cellulani,  inclusi,  reclusi,  monachi,  &c. ;  and, 
later,  religiosi.  The  words  fxovaxhs  and 
lxova<TT‘t]piov  Avere  soon  transferred  from  the 
hermit  in  his  solitary  cell  to  the  coenobite  in  his 
communitv. 

The  asceticism  of  the  desert  was  among 
Christians  the  first  step  towards  the  asceticism 
of  the  cloister.  It  was  prompted  by  a  passionate 
longing  to  fly  from  the  world  to  escape  not 
merely  the  fury  of  the  Decian  or  Diocletian  per¬ 
secutions,  but  the  contaminations  of  surrounding 
heathenism.  It  commended  itself  to  devout 
Christians  by  reasons,  which,  however  specious, 
really  contradict  and  cancel  each  other,  for  it 
seemed  at  once  a  refuge  from  spiritual  dangers, 
and  a  bolder  challenge  to  the  powers  of  darkness 
to  do  their  worst ;  at  once  a  safer,  quieter  life 
than  the  perilous  conflict  day  by  day  with  an 
«vil  world,  and,  in  another  aspect,  a  life  of 
sterner  self-denial.  In  the  pages  of  its  pane¬ 
gyrists  the  solitaiy  life  presents  itself  now  in 
one  and  now  in  the  other  of  these  irreconcileable 
phases,  according  to  the  mood  or  temperament  of 
the  writer.  It  may  be  replied,  that,  far  from 
being  either  more  heroic  or  more  free  from 
danger,  it  is  neither. 

Until  about  the  middle  of  the  3rd  century  the 
more  austere  Christians  were  only  distinguished 
by  such  epithets  as  ot  airovSdioi  or  ol 
(KKeicTOTfpoi,  without  withdrawing  from  the 
society  of  their  fellows  (e.  g.  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  11  ; 
Clem.  Alex.  Humil.  “  Quis  Dives  ?  ”  n.  36). 
About  that  time,  Antony  and  Ammon  in  Egypt, 
and  Paul  in  the  Thebaid  led  the  way  to  the 
desert ;  and  their  example  soon  found  a  crowd  of 
imitators  (Socr.  H.  E.  iv.  23  ;  Soz.  H.  E.  i.  13, 
14;  Hier.  Ep.  22,  ad  Eustoch.').  In  Syria 
Hilarion,  in  Armenia  Eustathius,  bishop  of 
Sebaste,  in  Cappadocia  Basil  urged  on  the  move¬ 
ment.  It  spread  quickly  through  Pontus,  lllyri- 
cura,  and  Thrace  westwards;  and  the  personal 
prestige  of  Athanasius,  an  exile  from  his  see, 
helped  to  make  it  popular  in  Italy  at  Rome 
(Niceph.  H.  E.  ix.  16;  Aug.  de  Op.  Mon.  c.  23  ; 
Hier.  Ep.  16;  Epitaph.  Marcel.).  But  the  soli¬ 
tary  life  never  found  .so  many  votaries  in  Europe, 
as  in  Egypt  and  in  the  East ;  partly  because  of 
the  comparative  inclemency  of  the  climate,  and 
the  proportionate  need  of  more  appliances  to 
support  life,  partly  of  the  more  practical  cha¬ 
racter  of  the  West. 

The  institution  of  Lauras  was  the  connecting 
link  between  the  hermitage  and  the  monastery, 
in  the  later  and  mo]-e  ordinary  use  of  that  word. 


Pachomius  at  Tabenna  in  Upper  Egypt  had 
already  begun  to  organise  a  community  of  her¬ 
mits,  by  arranging  that  three  should  occupy 
one  cell,  and  that  all  who  were  near  enough 
should  meet  together  for  the  daily  meal  (Soz. 
H.  E.  iii.  14  ;  Pal  lad.  Hist,  l.aus.).  The  monks 
of  Mons  Nitrius,  too,  near  the  Lake  Mareotis, 
though  many  of  them  in  separate  cells  (o<K'<j/iaTa 
povax'^Ka  <xiropa^r}P,  to.  KeAAta,  Soz.  //.  E,  vi.  31) 
had  refectories  for  common  use,  chapels  in  their 
midst  for  common  w'orship  on  Saturdays,  Sun¬ 
days  and  holy  days,  certain  presbyters  appointed 
to  officiate  in  these.  an<I  certain  lay  officers, 
(oeconomi)  elected  •  by  the  older  hermits  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  their  temporal  wants,  such  as  they  were, 
and  to  transmit  their  .scanty  alms  (diaconia) 
derived  chiefly  from  the  .sale  of  the  rush  mats 
which  they  wove  (Cass.  Inst.  v.  26,  40;  Coll. 
iii.  1 ;  X.  2  ;  xviii.  5  ;  xxi,  9).  In  the  Thebaid  a 
hermit  named  Joannes  presided  over  a  large 
number  of  hermits  (Soz.  H.  E.  vi.  28,  29).  One 
of  the  first  “  Lauras,”  or  irregular  clusters  of 
hermits  dw'elling  close  together,  was  at  Pharan 
near  the  Dead  Sea  in  the  4th  century;  another 
w'as  founded  near  Jerusalem  in  the  next  century 
by  Sabas  a  hermit  from  Cappadocia,  under  the 
patronage  of  Euthymius. 

The  early  ecclesiastical  histories  teem  with  the 

almost  suicidal  austerities  of  the  more  celebrated 

hermits.  Not  content  with  imposing  on  them- 

seh'es  the  burden  hard  to  be  borne  of  a  lifelong 

loneliness — for  even  without  anv  vow  of  con- 

© 

tinuance  it  was  very  rarely  that  a  hermit  re¬ 
turned  to  the  companionship  of  his  fellow's — and 
of  a  silence  not  to  be  broken  ex'en  by  prayer, 
they  vied  with  one  another  in  devising  self- 
tortui'es;  w'andering  about,  almost  naked,  like# 
wild  beasts;  barely  supporting  life  by  a  little 
bread  and  water,  or  a  few'  herbs;  only  allowing 
their  macerated  frames  three  or  four  hours  sleep 
in  the  twentv-four,  and  those  on  the  bare  rock 
or  in  some  narrow  cell  w'here  it  was  impossible 
to  straighten  the  limbs ;  counting  cleanliness  a 
luxuiy  and  a  sin ;  maiming  themselves,  some¬ 
times  w'ith  their  ow'n  hands,,  to  escape  being 
made  bishops  by  force  ;  and  shunning  a  moment’s 
intercourse  even  with  those  naturally  dearest 
(Cass.  Inst.  v.  26,  40;  Coll.  ii.  6,  17;  Socr. 
H.  E.  iv.  23  ;  Soz.  H.  E.  vi.  29,  34 ;  cf.  Rosweyd 
Vitae  Patr.  pass.).  It  was  only  in  the  decline  of 
this  enthusiasm  that  hermits  began  to  take  up 
their  abode  near  cities.  The  “  father  of  hermits  ” 
used  to  compare  a  hermit  near  a  town  to  a  fish 
out  of  water  (Soz.  H.  E.  i.  13). 

Usually  the  hermit’s  abode  w’as  in  a  cave,  or 
in  a  small  hut  which  his  ow’n  hands  had  rudely 
put  together  (Evagr.  H.  E.  i.  21);  but  some, 
like  the  “  possessed  with  evil  spirits  ”  in  Gadara 
mentioned  in  the  New'  Testament,  had  their 
dw'ellings  in  tombs  (Theodoret.  Phdoth.  c.  12); 
hence  they  were  called  pepopirai,  and  the  keeper 
or  superintendent  of  these  tombs  the  p€popo(pv\a^ 
(Altes.  Ascetic,  i.  7).  Others  roved  about  inces¬ 
santly,  to  avoid  the  A’isits  of  the  curious,  like  the 
“  gyrovagi  ”  in  having  no  fixed  abode,  but  unlike 
them  in  keeping  always  alone  (Snip.  Sev.  Dial, 
de  Mon.  i.  9),  and  in  feeling  only  on  the  Avild 
herbs  which  they  gathered  [see  Bosci].  Others, 
the  ‘‘Stylitae,”  aspiring  to  yet  more  utter  isola- 


”  ITospinianiis  wroncly  speaks  of  the  presbyteri  as  thos 
elected  (De  Orig.  Monach.). 


HERMITS 


HERMITS 


771 


tion,  planted  themselves  on  the  summit  of  solitary 
columns.  Of  these  the  most  famous  were  the 
Simeon,  who  in  Syria  during  the  5th  century  is 
said  to  have  lived  forty-one  years  on  a  tall  pillar 
the  top  of  whicli  was  barely  three  feet  in 
diameter  (Evagr.  II.  E.  i.  Id;  ii.  9;  Theodoret, 
Fkiloth.  c.  26) ;  his  namesake  who  followed  his 
example  in  the  6th  century  (Evagr.  H.E.  vi. 
22)  ;  and  a  Daniel,  who  chose  for  the  scene  of  his 
austerities  a  less  dreary  neighbourhood,  a  suburb 
of  Constantinople  (Theodor.  Lect.  H.E.  i.  32). 
Other  ‘‘stviitae’'  are  mentioned  by  .Joannes 
Moschus  {Prat.  cc.  27,  28,  57,  129).  This  pecu¬ 
liar  form  of  eremitism  was  very  unusual  in 
Europe.  A  monk  near  Treves  in  the  6th  century 
tried  the  experiment  on  the  top  of  a  column 
rising  from  tlie  summit  of  a  cliff;  but  by  order 
of  the  bishop  soon  relinquished  the  attempt  on 
account  of  the  rigour  of  the  climate  (Greg.  Turon. 
Hist.  viii.  16). 

The  reverence  with  which  hermits  were 
popularly  regarded  led  to  their  aid  being  fre¬ 
quently  invoked  when  contTOversies  were  raging. 
Thus  in  the  close  of  the  4th  century  Antony,  who 
IS  also  said  to  have  more  than  once  broken  the 
spell  of  his  seclusion  in  order  to  go  and  plead  the 
cause  of  some  poor  client  at  Alexandria  (Soz. 
H.  E.  i.  13),  being  appealed  to  in  the  Arian  con¬ 
flict  not  only  addressed  a  letter  to  the  emperor, 
but  made  a  visit  in  person  to  Alexandria  on 
behalf  of  Athanasius  (Soz.  //.  if.  ii.  31  ;  Hieron. 
Ep.  33,  ad  Castruc.).  The  hermit  Aphraates 
boldly  confronted  the  emperor  Valens,  as  did 
Daniel,  the  later  of  the  two  pillar-hermits  of 
that  name,  the  emperor  Basiliscus  (Theodoret, 
H.  E.  i\\  23  ;  Theod.  Lect.  Collectan.  i.  32,  33). 
The  great  Theodosius  consulted  the  hermit 
.loannes  (Soz.  //.  E.  vii.  22).  The  hermits 
near  Antioch  interceded  with  good  effect  when 
the  magistrates  of  that  city  were  about  to 
execute  the  cruel  orders  of  the  exasperated 
emperor  (Chrys.  Homil.  ad  Ant.  xvii.).  But 
not  rarely  the  unreasoning  zeal  of  the  her¬ 
mits  provoked  great  tumults ;  and  sometimes  in 
a  misguided  impulse  of  indiscriminating  pity  they 
endeavoured  hy  force  to  liberate  criminals  con¬ 
demned  by  the  law.  Nor  were  their  sympathies 
always  on  the  side  of  the  orthodox.  When 
Theophilus  of  Alexandria  denounced  the  error  of 
the  Anthropomorphitae,  almost  all  the  Saitic 
monks  were  fiercely  incensed  against  him  as  an 
atheist  “  in  their  simplicity  ”  as  Cassian  adds, 
(Cass.  Coll.  X.  2). 

On  the  comparative  excellency  of  the  eremitic 
or  of  the  coenobitic  life  there  has  been  much  dif¬ 
ference  of  opinion  among  writers  who  extol 
asceticism  ;  the  same  writer  inclining  now  to  the 
solitary  life,  and  now  to  the  life  in  a  community, 
as  he  views  the  question  from  one  side  or 
another.  Sozomen  calls  the  eremitic  life  the 
“  peak  of  philosophy  ”  {II.  E.  vi.  31 ).  Chrysostom 
and  Basil  speak  to  the  same  effect  (Chrys.  Ep.  1 ; 
Bas.  Kp.  ad  Chiton.).  But  Basil  in  the  rule  for 
monks  ascribed  to  him  commends  the  coenobitic 
life,  as  more  truly  un.seltish,  more  rich  in  oppor¬ 
tunities  both  for  helping  and  for  being  helped 
{Beg.  c.  7)  ;  and  .so  speaks  his  friend,  Gregory  of 
Nazianza  {Orat.  21).  Jerome,  with  all  his  love 
of  austerity,  cautions  his  friend  and  pupil  against 
the  dangers  of  solitude  {Ep.  4,  ad  Bustic.). 
Augustine  praises  hermits ;  and  yet  allows  that 
coenobites  have  a  more  unquestionable  title  to 


veneration  {De  Alor.  Eccl.  c.  31).  Cassian  often 
speaks  of  hermits  as  having  climbed  to  the  summit 
of  excellence  (e.g.  Inst.  v.  36  ;  Coll,  xviii.  4) ; 
at  other  times  he  deju'ecates  the  solitary  life  as 
not  good  for  all,  and  as  beyond  the  reach  ol 
manv  ;  and  he  relates  how  a  devout  monk  crave 
up  the  attempt  in  de.sj)air,  and  returned  to  his 
brother  monks  {Coll.  xix.  2,  3;  xxiv.  8). 

It  was  from  the  first  very  earnestly  enjoined 
by  the  leaders  of  asceticism,  that  none  should 
venture  on  so  great  an  enterprise  as  the  solitary 
life,  without  undergoing  probation  as  a  coenobite 
(Hieron.  Ep.  4  ad  Lust. ;  Cass.  Inst.  v.  4.  36  ; 
Coll,  xviii.  4;  Joan.  Clim.  Scala,  iv.  27).  Bene¬ 
dict  compares  the  hermit  to  a  champion  ad¬ 
vancing  in  front  of  the  army  for  single  combat 
with  the  foe,  and  therefore  insists  on  liis  proving 
himself  and  his  armour  beforehand  {Beg.  c.  1). 
Councils  repeatedly  enforce  this  probationary  dis¬ 
cipline  {Coyic.  Venet.  a.d.  465,  c.  7  ;  Cone.  Tolet. 
iA^  A.D.  633,  c.  63 ;  vii.  a.d.  646,  c.  5 ;  Cone. 
Trull,  a.d.  692,  cc.  41,  42).  The  permission  of  the 
abbat  was  required  (Sulp.  Sev.  Dial.  i.  5),  some¬ 
times,  also,  the  consent  of  the  brethren  (Martene, 
Comm,  in  Beg.  Ben.  c.  1)  and,  sometimes  of  the 
bishop  {Cone.  Franeof.  a.d.  794,  c.  12).  The 
length  of  this  period  of  probation  varied  (Mart.r.s. 
cf.  Isid.  De  Div.  Off.  ii.  15).  Even  those  who 
most  admired  the  hermit-1  ii'e  fenced  it  round 
with  prohibitions  as  a  risk  not  lightly  to  be 
encountered. 

The  civil  authorities  were  naturally  jealous  of 
this  subtraction  of  so  many  citizens  from  the 
duties  of  public  life.  Theodosius  ordered  all 
those  who  evaded  theiv  public  responsibilities  on 
pretence  of  asceticism  to  be  deprived  of  their 
civil  rights  unless  they  returned  to  claim  them 
{Cod.  Theodos.  xii. ;  Tit.  1;  I.ex  63);  and  it 
was  forbidden  for  slaves  to  be  admitted  into  a 
monastery  without  their  masters’  leave  {Cone. 
Chale.  A.D.  451,  Act  xv.  c.  4).  In  Western 
Europe  Chaides  the  Great  decreed  that  all  her¬ 
mits  infesting  towns  and  cities  for  alms  should 
either  return  to  their  hermitages  or  be  shut  up  in 
monasteries.  By  the  law  of  the  Eastern  church 
a  bishop  who  became  a  hermit  was  ipso  facto 
deprived  of  his  office. 

It  was  not  unusual,  particularly  in  the 
mcnasteries  of  Provence  and  Languedoc,  for  one 
of  the  brethren  most  advanced  in  asceticism  to 
be  immured  in  a  separate  cell,  sometimes  under¬ 
ground,  always  within  the  precincts,  as  an  inter- 
cesEor  for  the  monastery  (Menard,  Observ.  Crit. 
in  Bened.  Anian.  Cod.  Begul.  ii.).  After  a  solemn 
religious  ceremony  the  devotee,  thus  buried 
alive  by  his  own  consent,  was  left,  with  no  other 
apparel  than  what  he  was  wearing,  to  end  his 
days  alone.  The  doorway  was  walled  up,  or  the 
door  nailed  to  and  sealed  with  the  bishop’s  ring, 
whose  consent,  as  well  as  that  of  the  abbat  and 
chapter,  was  requisite.  Only  a  little  aperture 
was  left,  not  such  as  to  allow  the  inmate  to  see 
or  be  seen,  for  letting  down  provisions  to  him 
(Menard,  u.  s.).  These  “  inclusi  ”  are  not  to  be 
confounded  with  the  aged  or  sickly  monks, 
allowed  separate  cells  because  of  their  inhrmities 
(Cass.  Inst.  ii.  12;  Cone.  Agath.  c.  38).  [See 
Hksycmastai:.]  The  rule  “for  solitaries”  of 
Grimlaicus,  probably  a  monk  in  or  near  Metz 
about  the  end  of  the  9th  centurv,  seems  in¬ 
tended  not  for  a  separate  order,  l)ut  for  these 
“inclusi”  genorallv  (Bened.  Anian.  ?<.  s.).  It 

3  D 


772 


HEEMOGENES 


HIEMANTES 


IS  a  characteristic  difference  between  Asiatic 
and  F.uroj-ean  asceticism,  that  the  eremites,  or 
desert  monks  of  the  east  find  their  western 
counterpart  in  solitaries  within  the  precincts  of 
the  community. 

As  might  be  expected  for  obvious  reasons  there 
have  been  few  female  hermits.  Gregory  of 
Tours  mentions  a  nun  of  the  convent  of  Ste. 
Croix,  Poitiers,  .who  retired  to  a  hermitage  by 
permission  of  the  abbess  Radegunda  (Ihst.  vi. 
29).  Usually  these  female  solitaries  had  their 
cells  in  close  contiguity  to  the  wall  of  a  church 
or  of  a  monastery  (Martene,  v,  s.). 

[See  further  Rosweydii  Vitae  Patrum,  Ant- 
verpiae,  1628;  Hospinianus  De  Monachis,  Tigur. 
1609  ;  Middendorpii  Orujinuni  Anachoretarum 
Sylva,  Col.  Agrij>p.  1615  ;  Anton.  Dadin.  Alte- 
serrae  Asceticon,  Par.  1674  ;  Bingham’s  Origlnes 
Ecclesiaffticae  (Bk.  vii.)  Bond.  1840.  See  also 
Asceticism  in  this  Dictionary,  Antony  (St.)  &c. 
in  the  Dictionary  of’Christian  Biographv.] 

[i.  G.  S.] 

HEEMOGENES.  (1)  [Peter  (6).] 

(2)  [Galata.] 

(3)  [Evodius  (1).] 

(4)  [Ev'oous.] 

(5)  [EUGRAPHirS.] 

(6)  [Donates  (10).]  [W.  F.  G.] 

HERMOGEATES.  [Hermolaus.] 

HERMOLAUS,  presbyter  of  Nicomedia, 
lepofidpTvs,  A.D.  304  ;  commemorated  with  the 
brothers  Hernempus  and  Hermogrates,  July  27 
(Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi) ;  and  July 
25  (Cal.  Bi/zant.).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

HERMYLUS,  martyr  with  Stratonicus ; 
(+315  A.D.)  commemorated  Jan.  13  (Cal.  By- 
zant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HERNEMPUS.  [Hermolaus.] 

HERODION.  [Hermes  (3).] 

HERON,  or  HEROS.  (1)  Bishop  of  An¬ 
tioch,  successor  to  Ignatius  :  “  Natalis,”  Oct.  17 
(Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  [Dioscorus  (3-).] 

(3)  [Her.\clides.]. 

HERTFORD,  COUNCIL  OF  (Hemifordiae 
conciliuni).  Held  at  Hertford  A.D.  673,  Sept.  24; 
all  the  bishops  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  church  then 
living,  except  Wini,  the  simoniacal  bishop  of 
London,  being  present  in  per.son  or  by  deputy 
(Haddan  and  Stubbs’  Councils  and  Documents,  iii. 
121,  note).  Archbishop  Theodoi-e,  who  had 
summoned  them,  recited  ten  canons  from  a  book, 
in  all  probability  the  collection  of  Dionysius 
Exiguus  from  their  being  all  found  there,  to 
which  all  subscribed  (Ih. ;  comp.  Mansi  xi.  127). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

HERUDFORDENSE  CONCILIUM. 
[Hertford,  Council  of.] 

HESACHASTAE  ('Ho'ux’oo'to/).  Etymo¬ 
logically  a  term  equivalent  to  “  quietists.”  It 
was  applied  to  those  members  of  a  monastery 
who  were  allowed  to  have  separate  cells  within 
the  precincts  that  their  meditations  might  be  un¬ 
interrupted.  (Bing.  07'ig.  liccles.  Vll.  ii,  14; 
IMenard  on  Bened.  Anian.  Concord.  Regul.  c.  29; 
cf.  Justinian  Novell.  5,  33.)  Riddle,  how'ever. 


(Chr.  Antiq.  VII.  vii.),  takes  it  as  a  designation  of 
monks  bound  to  silence;  and  Suicer  (Thes. 
Eccles.')  as  meaning  anchorites,  although  the 
passage  which  he  quotes  from  Balsainon  (ad 
Cone.  Nic.  II.  A.D.  787)  distinguishes  Hesy- 
chasteria  from  “monasteria”  and  the  cells  of 
“  anachoretae.”  In  the  14th  century  it  was 
applied  to  the  mystics  of  Mount  Athos  (Herzog 
Beal-Encgklop.  s.  v.).  [I.  G.  S.] 

HESYCHIUS,  ESICHIUS  or  ESICIUS. 

(1)  Bishop  and  confessor  at  Circesium  (saec.  i.)  ; 
commemorated  with  Euphrasius,  ludalecius,  Se- 
cundus,  Tesiphon,  and  Torquatu.s,  May  15  (Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Mesia  ;  commemorated  June  15 
(Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

HETAERIAE  (kraiplai)  were  originally 
political  clubs ;  but  the  word  came  to  signify 
any  association  of  men  for  objects  not  recognized 
by  the  law.  Thus  Trajan  (Plinii  Epist.  x.  34 
[al.  43])  was  unwilling  to  sanction  a  companv 
(collegium)  of  firemen  at  Nicomedia,  because  he 
had  found  that  in  that  district  such  companies 
were  liable  to  degenerate  into  hetaeriae  ;  and  it 
was  as  hetaeriae  that  the  assemblies  of  the 
Christians  became  objects  of  suspicion  to  the 
state  (Ib.  X.  96  [al.  97],  §  7),  and  so  persecuted 
(August!,  Handbuch,  i.  40)  [C.] 

HETERODOXY.  [Heresy.] 

HEXAPSALMUS  (kmaXpios).  By  this 
name  are  denoted  six  unvarying  Psalms,  which 
are  said  daily  in  the  Greek  office  of  lauds  (rh 
opdpov).  They  are  Pss.  iii.,  xxxvii.  (xxxviii.), 
Ixii.  (Ixiii.),  Ixxxvii.  (l.xxxviii.),  cii.  (ciii.),  cxlii. 
(cxliii.)  They  occur  near  the  beginning  of  the 
office;  and  are  introduced  by  the  clause  “Glory 
to  God  in  the  Highest,  and  on  earth  peace, 
good  will  among  men,”  and  by  the  verse  “  Thou 
shalt  open  my  lips,  0  Lord,  and  my  mouth  shall 
show  thy  praise.”  After  the  first  three  Psalms 
are  said  the  priest  comes  out  from  the  bema,  and 
while  the  last  three  are  being  said,  recites  the 
twelve  morning  prayers  (rds  ^udiyds  evxds) 
secretly  before  the  icon  of  our  Lord.  They  are 
concluded  with  three  Alleluias;  and  three 
Reverences.  [H.  .1.  IL] 

HEZEKIAH,  the  king  of  Judah  ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Nahasse  4  =  July  28  (Cal.  Ethiop.). 

[VV.  F.  G.] 

HIBERNICA  CONCILIA.  [Ireland, 
Councils  of.] 

HIEMANTES.  The  word  x^^f^d.^^(r6ai 
means  primarily  “  to  be  storm-tossed  ”  (Acts 
xxvii.  18).  Thence,  by  a  natural  metaphor,  it 
passed  on  to  the  tempest  of  the  soul.  Thus 
Chrysostom  (Horn.  liii.  in  Matt.')  says  that  the 
mind  of  a  man  who  has  many  artificial  wants  is 
storm-tossed  (xeipd^iffBai).  Compare  James 
i.  6. 

The  seventeenth  canon  of  the  council  of  An- 
cyra  (a.d.  314)  orders  those  who  have  committed 
unnatural  crimes,  or  who  are  or  haA'e  been 
lej)ers,  to  be  placed  at  public  prayer  among  the 
storm-tossed  or  storm-beaten  (fls  tovs 
fiivovs  €vxf<v6ai).  This  is  rendered  in  the 
“  V^'ersio  Prisca,”  “  cum  eis  qui  tempestatem 
patiuntur  orare  ;”  by  Dionysius  Exiguus,  “inter 
eos  orare  qui  spiritu  poriclitantur  immundo;” 


HIKMOS 


773 


HIEEAPOLIS,  COUNCILS  OF 

I  7  Lsidorus  Mercator,  “  qui  tempestate  jactantiir, 
qiii  a  nobis  energumeni  appellantur  [jd.  furiosi 
sive  energumeni  intelliguptur],”  To  the  same 
effect  Martin  of  Braga  (^Collect.  Can.,  c.  81), 
“  inter  daemoniosos  orare.”  The  use  of  the  word 
in  the  Clementine  liturgy  (^Constt.  Apost.  viii.  12, 
§  20) — TTapaKaKovjjt.fv  <re  virlp  ra>v 
virh  Tov  aWoTpiov — makes  it  almost  certain  that 
the  or  Hiemantesare  identical  with 

the  Energumeni  or  Demoniacs,  who  had  a  special 
place  assigned  them  outside  the  church  proper, 
whether  in  the  porch  or  in  the  oj)en  air. 
(Suicer’s  Thesaurus,  s.  v.  Xetixd^ofiai ;  Van 
Espen,  Jus  Keel.  iii.  132;  ed.  Colon.  1777).  [C.] 

HIERAPOLIS,  COUNCILS  OF.  (1)  a.d. 
173,  of  twenty-six  bishops,  under  its  bishoj),  Apol- 
linarius,  against  the  errors  of  Montanus,  which 
gave  rise  to  a  sect  called  from  the  province  in 
which  it  originated,  and  in  which  Hierapolis  was 
situated,  ‘'Cataj)hryges”  (Mansi,  i.  691-4).  Euse¬ 
bius  has  preserved  extracts  from  a  work  written 
by  Apollinarius  himself  against  them  (v.  16). 

(2)  A.D.  445,  under  Stephen,  its  metropolitan, 
when  Sabinianus  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Perrhe 
instead  of  Athanasius,  deposed  at  Antioch  under 
Domnus  the  year  before.  Later,  Athanasius  was 
restored  by  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria.  But  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  Oct.  31,  A.D.  451,  deciding 
for  the  moment  in  favour  of  Sabinianus,  referred 
the  final  adjudication  of  the  question  to  Maximus, 
bishop  of  Antioch,  and  a  synod  to  be  held  by  him 
within  eight  months  to  enquire  into  the  chai-ges 
brought  against  Athanasius.  Should  they  not  have 
been  made  good  by  then,  he  was  to  j’egain  his  see, 
and  Sabinianus  to  be  allowed  a  pension.  (Mansi, 
vi.  465-6  ;  and  then  vii.  313-58.)  [E.  S.  Ef.] 

HIERARCHY.  1.  The  word  Updpxvs  de¬ 
notes  properly  a  steward  or  president  of  sacred 
rites  (Bockh,  Inscrip,  i.  749).  By  Christian 
writers  it  is  occasionally  used  to  designate  a 
JiiSiiOP  (p.  210).  Thus  Maximus,  commenting 
on  the  Kcclesiastioal  Hierarchy  of  the  Pseudo- 
Dionysius,  says,  “  KaAeii’  (IwOfu  rovs 

(■KicTKOTvovs,"  lic  commouly  calls  the  bishops 
hierarchs  (Suicer’s  Thesaurus,  s.  v.).  Hence  the 
word  lepapx'ia  came  to  designate  the  order  of 
bishops.  Bingham,  however  (Ant.  III.  i.  6), 
considers  the  hieiairchy  of  Pseudo-Dionysius  to 
include  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  quoting 
Hallier’s  Defensio  Hierarch.  Eccl.  (lib.  i.  c.  3; 
lib.  iii.  sec.  ii.  cc.  1  and  2). 

2.  In  a  wider  sense,  the  word  Hierarchy  is 
taken  to  include  the  whole  series  of  the  orders 
of  ministry  in  the  Christian  church.  See 
Bishop,  Orders.  [C.] 

HIERATEION.  [Bema.] 

HIPIREMIAS.  (1)  [Jeremiah.] 

(2)  [Peter  (9).] 

(3)  [Emii.ianus  (4).] 

HIERIUS,  presbyter  at  Alexandria  in  the 
time  of  the  emperor  Philip;  commemorated  Nov. 
4  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HIERONYMUS.  (1)  Presbyter  (t420  a.d.); 
deposition  at  Bethlehem  Judah,  Sejit.  30  (Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuartli). 

(2)  With  Anthemius,  commemorated  Sept.  26 
(Cal.  Armen.).  [\\.  F.  G.] 

HIEROSOLYMITANA  CONCILIA. 

[Jerusalem,  Councils  of.] 


HIEROTHEUS,  bishop  of  Athens;  comme¬ 
morated  Oct.  4  (Cal.  Byzant.),  [VY.  F.  G.] 

HIERURGIA.  [L  ITURGY.] 

HILARIA.  (1)  [Eumenia.] 

(2)  Wife  of  Claudius,  the  tribune;  martyr 

with  Claudius  and  their  two  .sons,  Jason  and 
Maurus,  and' seventy  soldiers,  under  Numerian; 
commemorated  Doc.  3  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HILARINUS,  monk  at  Ostia,  martyr  under 
Julian:  “  Passio,”  July  16  (Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HILARION.  (1)  The  younger  (^  i/eos),  A.D. 
845;  commemorated  March  28  and  June  6  (Cal. 
Byzant.). 

\2)  '  I'he  Great  (o  p^yas),  Holy  Father,  a.d. 
333  ;  commemorated  Oct.  21  (.Mart.  Rom.  I’cA, 
Hieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Byzant.). 

(3)  Commemorated  Nov.  19  (Cal.  Georq.). 

[W.'  F.  G.] 

HILARIUS,  or  HILARY.  (1)  Bishop  of 
Poitiers  and  confessor  (t369  a.d.);  commemo¬ 
rated  Jan.  13  (Mart.  Rom.  l  eL,  Ailonis,  Usuardi); 
deposition  Jan.  13  (Mart.  Bedae,  Hieron.). 

(2)  Bishop  of  Aquileia  (1285  a.d.);  martyr 
w'ith  Tatian  the  deacon,  Felix,  Largus,  and  Diony¬ 
sius ;  commemorated  March  16  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(3)  Bishop  of  Arles  and  confessor  (f 449  A.D.)  • 
commemorated  May  5  (Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  with  Proclus,  A.D.  106 ;  comme¬ 
morated  July  12  (Cal.  Byzant.). 

(6)  The  pope  (t467  A.D.) ;  commemorated 
Sept.  10  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(6)  Martyr  with  Florentinu.s  at  Semur;  com¬ 
memorated  Sept.  27  (Mart.  Usuardi). 

(7)  Bishop  and  confessor  in  Gavalis  [Gevaudan 

in  Languedoc];  commemorated  Oct.  25  (Mart. 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HIPPO,  COUNCIL  OF.  [African 
Councils.] 

HIPPOLYTUS,  Romanus,  martyr  at  An¬ 
tioch,  UpopidpTus,  A.D.  269:  ‘‘ Pas.sio,”  Jan.  30 
(Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  C  1.  By¬ 
zant.)’,  Revelatio  corporis,  Jakabit  6  =  Jan.  31 
(Cal.  Kthiop.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HIRELING.  The  flight  of  the  hireling  from 
the  wolf,  as  contrasted  with  the  form  of  our 
Lord  standing  in  the  door  of  the  shcopfold  pre¬ 
pared  to  defend  His  flock,  is  beautifully  carved 
on  the  Brescian  casket,  5th  or  6th  century. 
(Westwood,  Fictile  Ivory  Casts,  p.  36,  no.  93. ) 

[K.  St.  J.  T.] 

HIRMOLOGION.  An  office  book  in  the 
Greek  church  consisting  mainly  of  a  collection  of 
the  Hirmoi ;  but  containing  also  a  few  other 
forms.  [H.  J.  H.] 

HIRIMOS  (elpfjids).  The  Canons,  which  form 
so  important  a  part  of  the  Greek  offices,  arc 
divided  into  nine  odes,  or  practically  into  eight, 
as  the  second  is  always  omitted.  Each  ode  con¬ 
sists  of  a  varying  number  (three,  four  or  live  are 
the  numbers  most  frequently  found)  of  trop  iria, 
or  short  rhythmical  stroplies,  each  formed  on  the 
model  of  one  which  jirecedes  the  ode ;  and  which 
is  called  the  Hirmos.  I'he  Jlirmos  is  usually 
independent  of  the  ode,  t  hough  containing  a  refer 


77-1:  HISrALENSIA  CONCILIA 


HOLY  PLACES 


ence  to  tlie  sul)ject  matter  of  it;  sometimes 
however  the  first  troparion  of  an  0(Je  is  called  the 
Hi  nnos.  It  is  distinguished  by  inverted  commas 
(“  ”)  in  the  oliice  books.  Sometimes  the  first 

words  alone  of  a  Hirmos  are  given,  and  it  is  not 
unfrequently  placed  at  the  end  of  the  ode  to 
which  it  belongs.  The  name  is  considered  to  be 
derived  from  the  Hirmos  dra'i-imj  the  Troparii 
after  its  model i.e.  into  the  same  rhythmical 
arrangement.  [H.  J.  H.] 

HI8PALENSIA  CONCILIA.  [Seville, 
Councils  oe.] 

HISPANUM  CONCILIUM.  Held,  a.d. 
793,  at  some  jilace  in  Spain,  under  Elipand,  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Toledo  ;  from  whom  the  document 
criticised  in  the  letters  despatched  to  Spain  from 
Frankfort  emanated  (Mansi,  xiii.  So? ;  comp. 
865  and  sqq.).  [E.  S.  Ff.j 

HOLIDAYS.  [Festivals.] 

HOLY!  HOLY!  HOLY!  [Sanctus.] 

HOLY  OF  HOLIES.  In  instituting  a 
parallel  between  the  arrangements  of  the  Jewish 
Temple  and  that  of  a  Christian  church,  the 
Bema  or  sanctuary  of  the  church,  containing 
the  altar,  was  naturally  held  to  correspond  with 
the  Holy  of  Holies  of  the  Temple  (rb  ayiov  rwv 
ayioip),  and  was  freciuently  called  by  that  name. 
But  with  the  Nestorians  the  “Holy  of  Holies” 
IS  not  the  sanctuary,  but  a  small  recess  at  the 
east  end,  into  which  not  even  the  priest  enters, 
containing  nothing  but  a  cross  (Neale,  Eastern 
Churchy  pp.  177,  189,  quoting  Etherege,  Syrian 
Churches,  p.  109).  '  [C.] 

HOLY  BREAD,  [eulogiae.] 

EIOLY  OIL.  [Oil,  Holy.] 

HOLY  PLACES.  I.  By  this  phrase  were 
understood,  in  the  first  three  or  four  centuries 
after  Christ,  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  the 
scenes  of  our  Lord’s  nativity,  death,  resurrection, 
and  ascension.  Of  these,  therefore,  we  will 
speak  first.  In  212,  Alexander,  the  friend  of 
Origen,  “  made  a  journey  to  Jerusalem,  for  the 
sake  of  prayer  and  investigation  of  the  places  ” 
(rwv  TOTTojp  iffTopias,  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  1.  vi. 
c.  11).  St.  Jerome  (^De  Vir.  /llustr.  cap.  Ixii.) 
says  that  he  was  drawn  thither  “  desiderio  sancto¬ 
rum  locorum.”  If  this  was  the  motive,  and  there 
is  no  good  reason  to  doubt  it,  Alexander  is  the 
first  on  record  whom  religious  feeling  drew  to 
those  hallowed  spots.  Origen  himself  seems  to 
have  carried  with  him  to  the  Holy  Land  more 
of  the  spirit  of  a  learned  and  devout  traveller  of 
our  own  day.  He  was  in  Palestine  in  216  on  a 
i-ather  short  visit.  In  231,  he  began  a  residence 
of  some  duration  at  Caesarea,  in  that  country, 
and.  after  an  absence  of  uncertain  length,  in  238 
he  ojtened  a  catechetical  school  there.  He  must, 
therefore,  have  known  the  Holy  Land  well,  and 
his  writings  show  it ;  but  it  is  instructive  to 
observe  how  he  uses  his  knowledge.  In  one 
passage,  as  a  critic,  he  expresses  his  conviction 
that  “  Bcthabara,”  not  “  Bethany,”  ought  to  be 
the  reading  in  St.  John  i.  28,  “as  he  had  been 
in  the  })laces,  on  a  search  after  the  footsteps  of 
Jesus  and  his  di.sciples,  and  the  prophets”  (^Com¬ 
ment.  in  Ev.  Joann,  tom.  vi.  §  24-).  In  another 
work,  writing  against  an  unbeliever,  about  247, 


he  alleges  the  ca”e  of  Bethlehem  as  a  piece  of 
evidence.  If  any  one  desire  further  proof  than 
Scripture  affords  of  our  Lord’s  birth  in  that 
place,  “  the  cave  is  shown  where  He  was  born, 
and  the  manger  in  which  He  vvas  swaddled  ,  and 
that  which  is  shown  is  widely  sj)oken  of  in  those 
places,  even  among  aliens  from  the  faith,  viz., 
that  Jesus,  who  is  worshipped  and  reverenced  by 
the  Christians,  was  born  in  that  aw q”  {Contra 
Celsum,  1.  i.  §51).  From  the  writings  of  Origen, 
we  should  not  infer  that  either  he  him>elf  had 
visited,  or  that  it  was  the  custom  of  his  day  to 
visit,  the  holy  places  for  the  exju’ess  purpose  of 
stimulating  devotion,  or  under  the  notion  that 
prayer  in  them  was  more  acceptable  to  God 
than  when  made  elsewhere.  The  spirit  which 
animated  the  pilgrims  of  a  later  age,  had  not  yet 
been  awakened.  Its  awakening  was  })robablv 
much  delayed  by  the  attem}>ts  of  tlie  heathen  to 
obscure  the  locality  of  events  .sacred  to  the 
Christian.  Thus,  in  the  time  of  Hadrian,  a  vast 
mound  of  earth  was  raised  over  the  spot  where 
our  Lord  was  buried  and  rose  again,  and  a 
temple  dedicated  to  Venus  was  built  on  it 
(Euseb.  Vita  Constant  ini,  1.  iii.  c.  26 ;  Hieron. 
Ep.  xlix.  ad  Patdin.). 

The  first  great  impulse  given  to  the  veneration 
of  the  holy  places,  came  from  Helena,  the  motiier 
of  Constantine,  who,  in  the  year  326,  when 
nearly  80  years  of  age,  travelled  to  Jerusalem, 
that  she  might  so  “  pay  the  debt  of  j)ious  feeling 
to  God  the  king  of  all,”  for  the  elevation  of  her 
son,  and  the  general  prosperity  of  her  family. 
After  due  reverence  done  to  the  footsteps  of  the 
Sanour,  she  “  left  a  fruit  of  her  piety  to  jjos- 
terity  ”  in  two  churches  which  she  built,  “one 
at  the  cave  of  the  nativity,  the  other  on  the 
mount  of  the  ascension”  (Euseb.  u.  s.  cc.  42, 
43).  On  the  site  of  the  burial,  Constantine, 
after  his  mother’s  visit,  first  caused  an  oratory 
to  be  built,  and  later  sent  directions  to  Macarius, 
the  bishop,  for  the  erection  of  a  magnificent 
church  {Ibid.  cc.  25-40).  To  this  period,  and 
perhaps  to  Constantine  and  Helena,  we  may  pro¬ 
bably  refer  two  “very  small  oratories,”  one 
built  on  Mount  Calvary,  the  site  of  the  passion, 
the  other  on  the  spot  where  our  Lord’s  body 
was  said  to  have  been  embalmed  and  the  cross 
found,  which  the  Latira,  when  they  took  Jeru¬ 
salem,  inclosed  within  the  same  wall  with  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  (Gulielmi  Tyrii,  Hist.  Ecruin 
Transmar.  lib.  viii.  c.  3).  They  were  only  a 
stone’s  throw  from  each  other  (Tillemont,  note 
iv.  snr  Ste.  Helene')-,  and  hence  the  church  of 
the  Resurrection,  or  Holy  Sepulchre,  was  often 
spoken  of  as  on  Golgotha  (Cyrill.  Hieros.  Cat.  i. 
§  1  ;  xiii.  §  12  ;  xvi.  §  2).  Very  soon  after  the 
recovery  of  these  important  sites  we  find  them 
noticed  in  the  Ttinerarium  of  a  Christian  tra¬ 
veller  from  Bordeaux,  who  visited  Jerusalem  in 
333.  He  saw  the  “crypt  where  His  body  was 
placed  and  rose  again  on  the  third  day”(rtf. 
Aom.  Itineraria,  p.  594,  Amstel.  1735),  and  “the 
little  hill  Golgotha  where  the  Lord  was  cruci¬ 
fied  ”  (p.  593).  He  also  w'ent  to  “Bethlehem, 
where  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  born.  There,” 
he  adds,  “  a  basilica  was  built  by  the  command 
of  Constantine  ”  (p.  598). 

11.  From  this  time,  the  holy  places  were 
visited  by  believers  of  every  rank  and  almost 
every  age.  Some  of  the  more  wealthy  settled 
at  Jerusalem,  and  by  their  alms  assisted,  and 


HOLY  PLACES 


HOLY  PLACES 


775 


perhaps  attracted,  many  of  the  poorer.  The 
city  grew  rapidly  in  population  and  j)rosperity  ; 
and  soon,  as  an  almost  necessary  consequence, 
became  as  notorious  for  crime  and  profligacy, 
as  it  was  famous  for  its  religious  monuments. 
About  the  year  380,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  was  called 
thither  by  the  affairs  of  the  church,  and  received 
impressions  which  it  will  be  well  to  put  before 
the  reader  in  his  own  words.  In  an  epistle, 
written  not  long  after,  he  tells  his  friend  that 
he  learned  there  w'hat  it  was  to  keep  holy  day 
to  God,  ‘‘  both  in  beholding  the  saving  symbols 
of  God  the  giver  of  our  life,  and  in  meeting  with 
souls  in  which  like  signs  of  the  grace  of  God  are 
spiritually  contemplated;  so  that  he  believes 
liethleliem,  Golgotha,  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and 
the  Resurrection  to  be  verily  in  thejieart  of  him 
who  has  God  ”  {Ep.  ad  Eustathi  mi,  &c.,  p.  16, 
ed.  Casaub.).  The  latter  thought  in  this  sen¬ 
tence  then  carries  him  away,  and  he  seems, 
probably  out  of  tenderness  to  the  devout  women 
to  whom  he  wrote,  to  avoid  further  reference  to 
the  holy  places.  Some  years  afterwards,  how¬ 
ever,  he  wrote  a  tract,  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to 
some  unknown  friend,  in  which  he  earnestly  dis¬ 
suaded  from  visiting  Jerusalem  on  religious 
grounds.  He  begins  by  denying  that  it  is  any 
})art  of  a  Christian’s  duty  “  to  visit  the  places  in 
Jerusalem  in  which  the  symbols  of  our  Lord’s 
sojourn  in  the  flesh  ai-e  to  be  seen,”  and  then 
proceeds  as  follows  :  “  Why,  then,  is  there  such 
zeal  about  that  which  neither  makes  a  man 
blessed,  nor  fit  for  the  kingdom  ?  Let  the  man 
of  souse  consider.  If  it  were  a  profitable  thing 
to  be  done,  not  even  so  would  it  be  a  thing 
good  to  be  zealously  affected  by  the  perfect. 
But  since,  when  the  thing  is  thoroughly  looked 
into,  it  is  found  even  to  inflict  injury  on  the 
souls  of  those  who  have  entered  on  a  strict 
course  of  life,  it  is  not  worthy  of  that  great  zeal, 
but  rather  to  be  greatly  shunned.”  He  next 
enlarges  on  the  danger  to  the  morals  and  repu¬ 
tation  of  all,  but  especially  women,  in  their 
travels  thi’ough  the  luxurious  and  profligate 
cities  of  the  East;  and  then  proceeds  to  ask, 
“What  will  one  gain  by  being  in  those  places? 
— As  if  the  Lord  were  still  in  bodily  presence  in 
them,  but  departed  from  us,  or  as  if  the  Holy 
Ghost  were  overflowing  abundantly  at  Jerusalem, 
but  were  unable  to  come  over  to  us.”  So  far 
from  this  being  the  case,  he  declares  that  city  to 
be  in  the  lowest  stage  of  moral  degradation. 
“  There  is  no  species  of  impurity  that  is  not 
dared  therein.  Flagitious  actions  and  adulteries 
and  thefts,  idolatries  and  witchcrafts,  and  envy- 
ings  and  murders ;  and  this  last  evil,  above 
others,  is  common  in  that  place,  so  that  nowhere 
else  is  there  such  a  readiness  to  commit  murder 
as  in  those  places  ”  (Z)cf  Euntibm  Hierosohjm't, 
pp.  6-13,  ed.  Petr.  Molinaei).  Speaking  for 
himself,  he  adds,  “  We  confessed  that  Christ  who 
appeared  (there)  is  true  God,  before  we  were  at 
the  place ;  nor  afterwards  was  our  faith  either 
lessened  or  increased.  And  we  knew  the  incarna¬ 
tion  through  the  Virgin  before  we  went  to  Beth¬ 
lehem,  and  believed  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead  before  we  saw  the  monument  of  it,  and 
acknowledged  the  ascension  into  heaven  to  be 
true,  apart  from  our  seeing  the  mount  of  Olives, 
This  is  the  only  benefit  from  our  journey,  that 
we  know,  by  comparison,  our  own  parts  to  be 
much  more  holy  than  foreign.  \Wjerefore,  ye 


that  fear  the  Lord,  praise  Him  in  thos->  places  m 
which  ye  are”(/6j^.  p.  14).  St.  Jeiome,  who 
lived  at  Bethlehem,  sometimes  speaks  very  much 
in  the  same  strain.  At  other  times  he  en¬ 
courages  and  praises  those  who  visited  the  holy 
places,  especially  if  their  intention  was  to  dwell 
in  retirement  near  them.  This  is  easily  under¬ 
stood.  The  multitude  would  be  injured  by  fami¬ 
liarity  with  the  memorials  of  Christ’s  life  on 
earth  ;  while  the  few  might  through  them  be 
brought  into  closer  spiritual  communion  with 
Him.  It  may  well  be  doubted,  too,  whether  he 
would  have  encouraged  any  one  to  stay  at  Jeru¬ 
salem,  except  under  the  protection  of  the  mo¬ 
nastic  life ;  and  even  that  he  was  far  from 
thinking  altogether  safe  in  such  a  city.  Writing, 
in  393  or  thereabouts,  to  Paulinus,  afterwar>ls 
bishop  of  Nola,  St.  Jerome  says,  “  Not  the  having 
been  at  Jerusalem,  but  having  lived  well  there 
is  to  be  praised  ....  The  court  of  heaven  is 
equally  open  from  Jerusalem  and  Britain.  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  within  you.  Anthony,  and 
all  the  swarms  of  monks  of  Egypt  and  j\Iesopo- 
tamia,  of  Pontus,  Cappadocia,  and  Armenia,  saw 
not  Jerusalem  ;  and  the  gate  of  Paradise  is  open 
to  them  without  (a  knowledge  of)  this  city. 
The  blessed  Hilnrion,  though  he  was  a  native  of 
Palestine,  and  lived  in  Palestine,  only  saw  Jeru¬ 
salem  on  a  .single  day  ;  that  he  might  not  appear 
to  despise  the  holy  places  on  account  of  their 
nearness,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  to  confine  God 
to  place.”  He  warns  Paulinus  not  to  “think 
anything  wanting  to  his  faith,  because  he  had 
not  seen  Jerusalem  ”....“  If  the  places  of  the 
cross  and  of  the  resurrection  were  not  in  a  city 
of  very  great  resort,  in  which  there  is  a  court,  a 
military  station,  in  which  there  are  harlots, 
players,  buffoons,  and  all  things  that  are  usual 
in  other  cities ;  or  if  it  were  frequented  by 
crowds  of  monks  alone,  an  abode  of  this  kind 
would  in  truth  be  one  that  should  be  sought  for 
by  all  monks ;  but  as  things  are,  it  is  the  Jieight 
of  folly  to  renounce  the  world,  to  give  up  one’s 
country,  to  forsake  cities,  to  profess  oneself  a 
monk,  and  then  to  live  among  greater  crowds, 
with  greater  danger  than  you  would  in  your 
own  country”  (^Epist.  xlix.).  Nevertheless, 
when  Desiderius  and  his  sister  had  resolved  to 
visit  Jerusalem,  he  wi’ote  (about  396)  to  en¬ 
courage  them,  begging  them  to  visit  him  and 
Paula  “on  occasion  of  the  holy  places.”  “At 
least,”  he  adds,  “  if  our  society  shall  be  un¬ 
pleasing,  it  is  an  act  of  faith  (or  perhaps,  “  a 
part  of  your  vow,”  pars  fidei  est)  to  have  wor¬ 
shipped  where  the  feet  of  the  Lord  have  stood, 
and  to  have  seen,  as  it  were,  the  recent  traces  of 
His  nativity,  and  cross  and  passion  ”  {Kpist. 
xlviii.).  In  the  same  spirit  he  invites  Marcella 
(about  389)  to  Bethlehem  {Epist.  xlv.) ;  and 
bids  Rusticus  (4.D.  408)  seek  peace  of  mind  at 
Jerusalem.  “  Thou  art  a  wanderer  in  thy  own 
country ; — or  rather  not  in  thy  country,  for 
thou  hast  lost  thy  country.  That  is  before  thee 
in  the  venerable  places  of  the  resurrection,  the 
cross,  and  the  cradle  of  the  Lord  the  Saviour” 

^  {Epist.  xc.).  In  the  famous  epistle  of  Paula 
I  and  Eustochium  (about  389)  to  Marcella,  every 
\  inducement  is  held  out  to  her  to  join  them  at 
Bethlehem  ;  the  number,  eminence,  and  holiness 
of  those  who  visited  the  holy  places  from  every 
part  of  the  world,  the  psalms  of  praise  in  every 
tongue  continually  ascending  from  them,  the 


776 


HOLY  PLACES 


HOLY  PLACES 


high  religious  iuterest  of  the  places  themselves, 
aad,  in  particular’,  the  great  piety  of  the  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  Bethlehem  and  its  neighbourhood  ;  but 
the  truth  is  not  lost  sight  of,  that  men  might  be 
as  holy  and  devout  elsewhere  :  We  do  not  say 
this  to  deny  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within 
us,  and  that  there  are  holy  men  in  other  coun¬ 
tries,  too,”  &c.  (^Inler  Epp.  Ilieron.  ep.  xliv.). 

III.  Before  the  middle  of  this  century  (about 
347),  it  was  reported  throughout  the  Christian 
world  (see  Cyrill.  Hier.  Catech.  iv.  §  7  ;  x.  §  9 ; 
xiii.  §  2)  that  the  very  cross  on  which  our 
Saviour  died  had  been  discovei’ed,  and  was  ex¬ 
hibited  at  Jerusalem.  According  to  Cyril,  who 
was  bishop  of  Jerusalem  from  350  to  386,  the 
discovery  took  place  in  the  time  of  Constantine 
(^Epist.  ad  Constantium,  §  2).  As  he  died  in  337, 
and  not  a  word  is  said  of  the  cross  or  its  dis¬ 
covery  by  the  traveller  from  Gaul,  already  cited, 
who  was  at  Jerusalem  in  333,  the  story  must 
have  arisen  and  the  exhibition  of  the  supposed 
relic  must  have  begun  some  time  between  those 
years.  Later  writers  (as  Ambrose,  de  Obitu 
Theodosii,  §§  43—47  ;  Paulinus,  Ep.  xxxi.  §  5 ; 
Ruffinus,  Hist,  EccL  1.  i.  c.  7  ;  Sulpicius,  and 
later  on  Theodoret,  Socrates,  Sozomen,  &c.)  as¬ 
sert  that  it  was  found  bv  Helena,  the  mother  of 
Constantine;  but  that  princess  died  five  years 
before  the  anonvmous  Gaul  visited  Jerusalem  ; 
and  even  if  we  had  not  his  negative  testimony, 
the  silence  of  Cyril  with  regard  to  Helena,  and 
the  silence  on  the  whole  subject  of  Eusebius,  who, 
in  Ms  panegyric  on  Constantine,  written  in  337, 
has  zealously  heaped  together  whatever  could 
tend  to  his  honour,  or  his  mother’s,  throw  just 
doubt  on  her  connection  with  the  discovery^  even 
if  that  be  true  [CROSS,  Finding  of,  p.  59*3],  It 
is  painful  to  suspect  that  the  cross  exhibited  was 
not  authentic,  but  when  we  find  that  by  the 
middle  of  the  6th  century  (See  Greg.  Turou. 
Mirac.  1.  i.  c.  7),  if  not  long  befoi’e,  the  lance, 
reel,  sponge,  crown  of  thorns,  &c.,  used  at  the 
Passion  were  all  exhibited,  and  reverenced  with 
equal  confidence,  we  surely  have  (not  to  mention 
certain  dilficulties  in  the  story'  itself)  some 
excuse  for  hesitating  to  affirm  that  the  cross 
shown  at  Jerusalem  in  the  4th  century'  and 
downward,  was  that  upon  which  our  Saviour 
died.  It  was  believed,  however,  and  our  business 
is  chiefly  with  the  consequence  of  that  belief. 

“  Prostrate  before  the  cross,”  says  Jerome, 
speaking  of  Paula’s  first  visit  to  Jerusalem, 

“  she  worshipped,  as  if  she  saw  the  Lord  hang¬ 
ing  thereon  ”  {Ep.  Ixxxvi.  ad  Eustoch.).  Paula 
hei’self  refers  to  it,  when  urging  Marcella  to 
join  her  in  Palestine  :  “  When  will  that  day  be 
on  which  it  will  be  permitted  us  to  enter  the 
cave  of  the  Saviour ;  to  weep  with  sister,  to 
weep  with  mother,  in  the  sepulchre  of  the  Lord  ; 
then  to  kiss  (lambere)  the  wood  of  the  cross ; 
and  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  to  be  lifted  up  in 
desire  and  mind  with  the  ascending  I.a)rd.^” 
This  will,  perhaps,  sufficiently  illustrate  the 
importance  of  the  alleged  discovery,  as  a  means 
of  attracting  pilgrims  to  Jerusalem.  From 
Paulinus  we  learn  that  the  cross  was  only  exhi¬ 
bited  “to  be  adored  by  the  people”  on  Good 
Friday ;  but  that  sometimes  it  was  shown  to 
“  very  religious  ”  persons,  who  had  travelled 
thither  on  purpose  to  see  it  (Ep.  xxxii.  §  6). 

IV.  From  one  cause  or  another,  then,  the 
resort  to  the  holy  places  in  Palestine  continued  | 


and  increased.  E.g.  Cassian,  a.d.  424,  speaks 
incidentally  of  some  monks  who,  while  he  was 
at  Bethlehem,  had  “come  together  at  the  holv 
places  from  parts  of  Egypt  orationis  causa  ”  (lie 
Coenob.  Instit.  1.  iv.  c.  31).  Eudocia,  the  wife  of 
Theodosius,  bound  herself  by  a  vow  to  visit  Jeru¬ 
salem,  if  she  should  live  to  see  her  daughter 
married,  which,  with  the  consent  of  her  husband, 
she  fulfilled  in  the  year  438  (Socr.  Hist.  Eccl. 
1.  vii.  c.  47).  Palladius,  a  Galatian  by  birth, 
who  had  spent  many  years  in  Palestine,  writing 
in  421,  tells  us  that  Melania  the  elder  showed 
hospitality  to  pious  persons  going  to  visit  the 
holy  places  from  Persia,  Britain,  and  almost 
every  part  of  the  world  (Hist.  Lausiaca,  c.  118). 
Gregory'  of  Tours  mentions  a  Briton  who,  in  his 
time,  came  to  Tours  on  his  way'  to  Jerusalem 
(Hist.  Franc.  1.  v.  c.  22).  Towards  the  end  of 
the  7th  century,  Arculfus,  a  bishop  of  Gaul, 
“  went  to  Jerusalem  for  the  sake  of  the  holy' 
places,”  and  being  afterwards  a  guest  of  Adam- 
nan,  abbot  of  Iona,  gave  him  an  account  of  them. 
The  latter  put  it  in  writing,  and  his  work  is 
still  extant  (Acta  Bened.  saec.  iii.  p.  ii.  See 
Bede,  Hist.  Eccl.  Angl.  1.  v.  cc.  15-17). 

V.  From  the  middle  of  the  4th  century',  or 
thereabouts,  some  other  places  had  been  ac¬ 
quiring  such  a  character  for  holiness,  as  the 
scene  of  a  martyi-’s  triumph  or  the  shrine  of  his 
relics,  that  they'  were  visited  by  pilgrims  from  a 
distance,  and  even  received  the  conventional  title 
of  Loca  Sancta.  Thus  Rome  was  famous  for  the 
martyrdoms  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  St. 
Chrysostom,  alluding  to  the  chain  with  which 
St.  Paul  was  bound,  says,  “I  would  be  in  those 
places,  for  the  bonds  are  said  to  be  there  still. 

.  ,  .  .  I  would  see  those  bonds,  at  which  devils 
are  afraid  and  tremble,  but  which  angels  rever¬ 
ence  ”  (Horn.  viii.  in  Ep.  ad  Eph.  c.  iv.  1).  But 
with  him  such  a  pilgrimage  would  have  been 
only  yvjLLiucria  Trphs  ;  for  he  more 

than  once  tells  his  hearers  that  they'  need  not 
cross  the  sea,  foi’  God  will  hear  them  equally 
where  they  are.  “  Let  us  each,  man  and  woman 
[remaining  here  at  Antioch],  both  when  gather¬ 
ing  in  church  and  staying  in  our  houses,  call 
very  earnestly  on  God,  and  He  will  certainly 
answer  our  prayers  ”  (Horn,  de  Statuis,  iii.  §  5  ; 
cf.  Horn.  i.  in  Ep.  ad  Phi/ern.  c.  i.  1-3).  And  he 
claims  a  similar  sanctity  for  Antioch,  in  which 
city  he  then  lived,  a.d.  388,  as  having  been  the 
“  tabernacle  of  the  apostles,  the  dwelling-place 
of  the  righteous  ”  (Ibid.  §  3).  St.  Augustine, 
A.D.  404,  sent  two  persons,  who  accused  each 
other  of  crime  to  a  “  holy'  place,”  viz.  the  shrine 
of  St.  Felix,  at  Nola,  in  the  hope  that  “  the 
more  terrible  workings  of  God  ”  there  “  might 
drive  the  guilty  one  to  confession,  by'  punish¬ 
ment  (divinely  inflicted)  or  by  fear  ”  (Ep.  Ixxviii. 
§3).  He  ask.s,  “is  not  Africa  full  of  the  bodies 
of  holy  martyrs  ?  And  y'et,”  he  adds,  “  we  do 
not  know  that  such  things  are  done  anywhere 
here  ”  (Ibkl.).  Nevertheless,  in  the  last  book  of 
the  Citg  of  God,  which  was  written  about  the 
beginning  of  the  year  427,  he  records  many 
wonders  as  wrought  in  Africa,  within  the  few 
years  previous,  at  the  Memoriae  of  St.  Stephen 
and  other  martyrs  (De  Civ.  Dei,  1.  xxii.  c.  8). 
Prudentius,  himself  a  native  of  Spain,  a.d.  405, 
celebrating  the  praise  of  two  martyrs,  who 
suffered  at  Calahorra  in  that  country,  says  that 
the  dwellers  in  that  city'  “  frequented  the  sands 


HOLY  SPIRIT 


stained  with  their  sacred  blood,  beseeching  with 
voice,  vows,  gift ;  that  foreigners,  too,  and  the 
inhabitants  of  the  whole  earth  came  thither,” 
and  that  “  no  one  there,  in  his  supplication, 
multiplied  pure  prayers  in  A^ain.”  The  poet 
affivins  that  many  miracles  were  wrought  there 
by  the  power  of  the  martyrs,  and  that  Christ 
conferred  that  blessing  on  the  town,  when  He 
gave  their  bodies  to  its  keeping  (^De  Coronis, 
Hymn  I.).  We  must  remember  that  the  writer 
is  a  poet,  but  hardly  moie  could  haA'e  been  said 
of  a  popular  shrine  in  the  9th  century. 

VI.  Probably  not  very  long  after  the  time  of 
the93  writers,  a  custom  began  of  sending  peni¬ 
tents  to  various  shrines  (ad  limina  sanctorum), 
partly  as  a  penance,  and  partly  that  they  might 
more  effectually  obtain  the  intercession  of  the 
martyr  of  the  place.  Most  writei’s,  following 
Morinus  {De  Sac7-atn.  Poenit.  1.  vii.  c.  15),  have 
supposed  that  this  form  of  penance  was  not  in 
use  till  the  7th  century;  but  a  passage  in  one  of 
the  Homilies  of  Caesarius  of  Arles  (a.d.  502  ), 
hrst  printed  by  Baluzius  in  1669,  implies  that 
it  was  known  in  France,  at  least,  before  the  close 
of  the  5th  : — “  Frequenting  the  thresholds  of 
the  saints,  they  (penitents)  would  ask  for  aid 
against  their  own  sins,  and,  persevering  in  fast¬ 
ings  and  prayers,  or  in  almsgiving,  would  strive 
rather  to  punish  than  to  nourish,  or  add  to, 
those  sins  ”  {Horn.  iii.  p.  23).  The  great  evils  to 
which  this  practice  would  soon  lead  are  obvious, 
and  we  need  only,  in  conclusion,  cite  a  canon  of 
the  council  of  Chalons-sur-Saone,  a.d.  813,  by 
which  Charlemagne  and  his  advisers  sought  to 
restrain  them: — “A  great  mistake  is  made  by 
some,  who  unadvisedly  travel  to  Rome  or  Tours 
(to  the  shrine  of  St.  Martin),  and  some  other 
places,  under  prete.xt  of  prayer.  There  are 
presbyters,  and  deacons,  and  others  of  the  clergy, 
who,  living  carelessly,  think  that  they  are  purged 
from  their  sins  and  entitled  to  discharge  their 
ministry,  if  they  reach  the  aforesaid  places. 
There  are  also  laymen  who  think  that  they  sin, 
or  have  sinned,  with  impunity,  because  they 
frequent  these  places  for  prayer.”  Some  of  the 
powerful,  it  adds,  under  pretext  of  a  journey 
to  Rome  or  Tours  “  for  the  sake  of  prayer  or 
visiting  the  holy  places,”  oppressed  the  poor  by 
their  exactions,  while  many  of  the  poor  made 
such  pilgrimages  an  occasion  of  begging  with 
more  success :  some  falsely  pretending  to  be  on 
their  way  to  the  holy  places,  others  going  there 
in  the  belief  that  they  would  be  “  cleansed  from 
sins  by  the  mere  sight  ”  of  them  (can.  xlv.  Cone. 
Cabil.  I/.).  [W.  E.  S.] 

HOLY  SPIRIT.  The  dove  is  the  invariable 
and  exclusive  symbol  which  expresses  special 
manifestation  of  the  presence  of  the  Third  Person 
of  the  Trinity,  and  the  article  under  that  word, 
will  be  found  to  contain  some  information  as  to 
the  use  of  the  symbol  in  this  its  highest  sense. 
Luke  iii.  22,  Matt.  iii.  16,  Mark  i.  10.  The  bap¬ 
tistery  of  St.  Pontianus,  in  the  catacomb  of  that 
name  (Aringhi  ii.  275),  contains  one  of  the 
earliest  of  these  paintings  of  the  Holy  Dove, 
referable  to  the  early  7th  century;  but  the 
Lateran  cross  is  reputed  to  be  of  the  period  im¬ 
mediately  succeeding  Constantine,  and  is  a  yet 
more  striking  e.xample.  [See  Dove,  p.  576.] 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 


HOLY  WATER  777 

HOLY  THINGS.  [Ecclesiastigae  Res.] 
HOLY  THURSDAY.  [Ascension  Day.] 

HOLY  WATER.  I.  The  use  of  lustral 
water  in  the  Christian  church  appears  to  have 
had  a  manifold  origin. 

(1)  At  an  early  period  we  find  fountains,  oi 
basins,  supplied  with  fi'esh  water,  near  the  prin¬ 
cipal  doors  of  churches,  especially  in  the  East, 
that  they  who  entered  might  wash  their  hands 
at  least  [see  Hands,  washing  of],  before  they 
worshipped.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
ritual  use  of  water  under  the  name  of  holy 
water  (aqua  benedicta,  ayiacr/xos,  vSutu  ev- 
\oylat,  &c.)  arose  in  a  great  measure  from  the 
undue  importance  which  naturally  attached 
itself  to  this  custom,  as  ignorance  and  supersti¬ 
tion  began  to  prevail  amid  the  troubles  of  the 
Western  empire. 

(2)  Again,  under  the  Mosaic  law  a  person 
legally  unclean  was  not  restored  to  social  inter¬ 
course,  and  to  communion  in  prayer  and  sacrifice, 
until  he  had  been  sprinkled  with  the  water  of 
separation,  and  had  washed  his  clothes  and 
bathed  himself  in  water”  (Numb.  xix. ;  compare 
Ezekiel  xxxvi.  25). 

(3)  The  courts  of  heathen  temples  were  com¬ 

monly  provided  with  water  for  purification;  but 
it  is  probable  that  as  a  belief  in  the  gods  declined 
through  the  influence  of  Christianity,  many 
would  neglect  to  use  it  as  they  entered.  Hence, 
we  may  suppose,  the  custom  for  a  priest  to 
sprinkle  them  at  the  door,  lest  any  should 
present  themselves  unpurified.  An  instance  is 
mentioned  by  Sozomen.  When  Julian  was  about 
to  enter  a  temple  in  Gaul,  a  “  priest  holding 
green  boughs  wet  with  water  sprinkled  tho.se 
who  went  in  after  the  Grecian  manner  ”  (Hint. 
Eccl.  1.  vi.  c.  6).  This  bore  such  a  resemblance 
to  the  later  rite  of  Christians  as  to  mislead  one 
transcriber  of  the  work  of  Sozomen,  and  induce 
him  to  substitute  'EKKAria-iaaTiK^,  Ecclesiastical, 
for  'E\\r]viK(2,  Grecian  (^Annot.  Vales,  in  loco, 
p.  109).  • 

(4)  We  may  add  that  the  notion  of  a  lustra¬ 
tion  by  water  prevailed  also  among  the  earliest 
heretics.  Some  of  the  Gnostics  threw  oil  and 
water  on  the  head  of  the  dying  to  make  them 
invisible  to  the  powers  of  darkness  (Iren.  Haeres. 
1.  i.  c.  2,  §  5).  The  Ebionites  immersed  them¬ 
selves  in  Avater  daily  (Epiphan.  Haer.  xxx.  §  16). 
The  founder  of  the  sect  is  said  by  Epiphanius  to 
have  been  Avont  to  plunge  into  the  nearest  water, 
salt  or  fresh,  if  by  chance  he  met  one  of  the 
other  sex  {ibid.  §  2). 

II.  Many  miracles  are  said  to  haA'e  been 
wrought  by  means  of  AA-ater,  and  to  this  also  Ave 
attribute  a  certain  influence  in  giving  both 
authority  and  shaj)e  to  the  superstitions  which 
arose  with  regard  to  holy  Avater.  Count  Joseph 
in  the  time  of  Constantine  the  Great,  sprinkled 
an  insane  person  Avith  Avater  over  Avhich  he  had 
made  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  his  reason  Avas 
restored  (Epiphan.  u.  s.  §  10).  We  are  told  that 
by  the  same  means  he  dispersed  the  enchant¬ 
ments  by  Avhich  the  JeAvs  sought  to  hinder  the 
erection  of  a  church  at  Tiberias  {ibid.  §  12).  An 
evil  spirit  who  hindered  the  destruction  of  the 
temple  of  Jupiter  at  A})amea,  a.d.  385,  Avas, 
according  to  Theodoret,  driven  aAvay  by  the  u.se 
of  Avater  which  the  bishop  had  blessed  Avith  the 
sign  of  the  cross  {Hist.  Eccl.  1.  v.  c.  21 ;  Cassiod 


HOLY  TABLE.  [Altar.] 


778 


HOLY  WATER 


HOLY  WATER 


Tripart.  1.  ix.  c.  34),  Gregory  of  Tours 
describes  a  cei  taiu  recluse  named  Kusitius  (a.d, 
532),  ill  the  diocese  of  J-imoges,  as  so  gifted  with 
power  to  cure  tliose  afflicted  with  quartan  fever, 
that  by  “  giving  them  water  to  drink  merely 
blessed  (by  him),  he  restored  them  forthwith  to 
health  ”  (‘De  Glor.  Confess,  c.  82).  Water  from 
a  well  dug  by  St.  Martin  “gave  health  to  many 
sick,”  and  in  particular  cured  a  brother  of 
St.  Triez,  who  was  dying  of  fever  (^De  Mir. 
S.  Martini,  1.  ii.  c.  39)  ;  and  many  were  in  like 
mauuer  said  to  have  been  healed  by  the  waters  of 
a  spring  at  Brioude,  in  Auvergne,  in  which  the 
head  of  the  martyr  .Julian  (a.d.  304)  had  been 
washed  (^Mirac.  I.  ii.  c.  3  ;  see  also  cc.  25,  26, 
and  the  Liber  de  Passione  S.  Juliani).  The 
same  author  relates  how  a  certain  bishop  “  sent 
water  that  had  been  blessed  to  a  house  ”  in  which 
many  had  died  of  fever,  and  how,  “  when  it  was 
sprinkled  on  the  walls,  all  sickness  was  forthwith 
driven  away  ”  (  Vitae  I'atrum,  c.  iv.  §  3). 

III.  The  tendency  to  ascribe  virtue  to  water 
blessed  by  the  priest,  was  without  doubt  greatly 
promoted  by  a  superstition  with  regard  to 
baptism,  and  by  the  use  sometimes  made  of  the 
water  employed  at  it.  St.  Augustine,  writing 
in  408,  says  that  some  persons  in  his  day  brought 
their  children  to  be  baptized  not  for  the  sake  of 
any  spiritual  benefit,  but  “  because  they  thought 
that  they  would  by  this  remedy  retain  or  recover 
their  bodily  health  ”  (^Ep.  xcviii.  §  5,  ad  Bonif. 
Com.').  In  the  last  book  of  the  City  of  God, 
written  about  the  year  427,  the  same  father  tells 
us  of  two  persons  who  were  at  their  baptism 
suddenly  and  entirely  cured  of  very  serious 
maladies  of  long  continuance  (lib.  xxii.  c.  8, 
§§  4,  5).  It  was  but  a  short  step  from  belief  in 
such  miracles  to  suppose  that  the  water  used  at 
a  baptism  might  have  virtue  available  for  the 
benefit  of  others  than  those  who  were  baptized 
in  it.  It  would  be  often  tested,  and  several 
alleged  results  of  the  trial  are  on  record.  At 
Osset,  near  Seville,  was  a  font  in  the  form  of  a 
cross,  which,  according  to  Gregory  of  Tours,  was 
every  year  miraculously  filled  with  water  for  the 
Easter  baptisms.  From  this  font,  after  it  had 
been  duly  exorcised  and  sprinkled  with  chrism, 
every  one  “  carried  away  a  vessel  full  for  the 
safety  of  his  house,  and  with  a  view  to  protect 
his  fields  and  vineyards  by  that  most  w'holesome 
aspersion  ”  (^Mirac.  1.  i.  c.  24  ;  see  also  Hist. 
Franc.  1.  vi.  c.  43).  A  mother  put  on  the  mouth 
of  her  daughter,  who  was  dumb  from  birth, 
“  water  w'hich  she  had  sometime  taken  from  the 
fonts  blessed  ”  (by  St.  IMartin),  and  she  became 
capable  of  speech  {De  Mirac.  S.  Mart.  1,  ii.  c.  38). 

In  the  East,  even  in  the  time  of  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom,  the  water  from  the  baptisms  at  the 
Epiphany  was  carefully  kept  throughout  the 
year,  and  believed  to  remain  without  putrefac¬ 
tion.  “This  is  the  day  on  which  Christ  was 
baptized,  and  hallowed  the  element  of  water. 
Wherefore  at  midnight  on  this  feast,  all  draw  of 
the  waters  and  store  them  up  at  home,  because 
on  this  day  the  waters  were  consecrated.  And  a 
manifest  miracle  takes  place,  in  that  the  nature 
of  those  waters  is  not  corrupted  by  length  of 
time  ”  {De  Bapt.  Christi,  §  2).  In  the  West  two 
centuries  or  so  later  we  find  a  similar  reservation, 
pi-actised  at  Rome  at  least,  but,  as  might  be 
expected,  with  a  more  definite  purpose.  There, 
after  the  consecration  of  the  water  on  Ejister 


eve,  “  The  whole  people,  whoever  wi.shed,  took  a 
blessing  {benedictionem ;  compare  the  u.se  of 
ayia(Tp.6s)  in  their  vessels  of  the  water  itself, 
before  tbe  children  were  baptized  in  it,  to 
sprinkle  about  their  houses,  and  vinevards,  and 
fields,  and  fruits  ”  {Ordo  Bom.  i.  §  42  ;  Mtesae. 
Ital.  tom.  ii.  p.  26).  It  will,  be  observed  that 
the  water  was  now  considered  holy  for  this 
puipose  after  being  blessed,  and  before  any  one 
had  been  baptized  in  that  font.  It  was  an  easy 
transition  from  this  stage  of  ])ractice  and  belief 
to  the  benediction  of  water  without  any  reference 
to  baptism,  which  .should  nevertheless  have  the 
same  power  of  protecting  and  benefitting  house, 
field,  and  jterson,  that  was  ascribed  to  water 
taken  from  the  baptismal  font. 

IV.  The  earliest  example  of  an  independent 
benediction  of  water  for  the  above-mentioned 
uses  occurs  in  the  so-called  Apostoiicid  Cous'itn- 
tiovs,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  being  one 
of  the  corrupt  additions  made  to  the  original  re¬ 
cension  probably  in  the  5th  century.  “Let  the 
bishop  bless  water  and  oil.  If  he  is  not  present 
let  the  presbyter  bless  it,  in  the  presence  of  the 
deacon.  But  if  the  bishop  be  there,  let  the 
presbyter  and  deacon  assist.  And  let  him  say 
thus  :  ‘  Lord  of  Sabaoth,  God  of  hosts,  creator  of 
the  waters  and  giver  of  the  oil  .  .  .  who  hast 
given  water  for  drink  and  cleansing,  and  oil  to 
cheer  the  flice  .  .  .  Thyself  now  by  Christ 
sanctify  this  water  and  the  oil  .  .  .  ami  give  it 
virtue  imparting  health,  expelling  di.seases,  put¬ 
ting  to  tlight  devils,  scattering  every  evil  design, 
through  Christ,”  &c.  (lib.  viii.  c.  29).  From 
Balsamon  we  learn  that  holy  water  was  “  made  ” 
in  the  Greek  church  at  the  beginning  of  every 
lunar  month.  The  observance  of  any  festival  at 
the  new  moon  was  forbidden  by  the  council  of 
Constantinople,  a.d.  691  ;  and  he  regarded  this 
rite  as  in  some  manner  a  sub-stitute  for  that  relic 
of  heathenism.  “  Owing  to  this  decree  of  the 
canon,  the  feast  of  the  new  moon  has  ceased  trom 
time  beyond  memory,  and  instead  of  it,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  propitiatory  prayers  to  God  and 
benedictions  {ayiaapol)  by  the  faithful  people 
hax'e  place  at  the  beginning  of  every  month,  and 
we  are  anointed  with  the  w’aters  of  blessing,  not 
of  strife  ”  {Comm,  in  Can.  Ixv.). 

In  the  West  the  earliest  mention  of  holy 
water  not  blessed  for  baptism,  occurs  in  one  of 
the  Forged  Decretals,  ascribed  to  Ale.\ander  L, 
A.D.  109,  but  composed  probably  about  830.  It 
is  certain,  however,  that  these  fictitious  orders, 
put  forth  in  the  names  of  early  bishops  of  Rome, 
did  not,  except  possibly  in  a  very  few  cases, 
create  the  practices  which  they  pretended  to 
regulate.  The  rite  existed  before,  at  least  in 
some  locality  familiar  to  the  author  of  the  fraud. 
The  following  decree,  therefore,  is  witness,  we 
may  assume,  to  a  custom  already  of  some  stand¬ 
ing.  “We  bless  water  sjirinkled  with  salt,  that 
all  being  therewith  besprinkled  may  be  sanctified 
and  purified.  Which  also  we  command  to  be 
done  by  all  priests  ”  (Gi'atian,  p.  iii.  De  Cons. 
d.  iii.  c.  20).  In  the  same  century  Leo  IV., 
A.D.  847,  in  a  charge  to  his  clergy,  says,  “  Every 
Lord’s  day  before  mass  bless  water  wherewith 
the  people  may  be  sprinkled,  and  for  this  have 
a  proper  vessel”  {Cone.  Labb.  tom.  viii.  col.  37). 
The  same  order  occurs  in  three  similaf  “  synodal 
charges  ”  of  about  the  same  period,  which  have 
been  printed  by  Baluze  (Ajip.  ad  lib.  Reginonis 


HOLY  WEEK 


HOLY  WEEK 


779 


dc  Eccl.  Discipl.  pp.  503,  6,  9).  In  a  “  visitation 
article  ”  of  the  9th  century,  H  is  asked  whether 
the  presbyter  blesses  water,  as  directed,  every 
Sunday  {Ibid.  p.  10).  Hincinar  of  Rheims,  the 
contemporary  of  Leo,  after  directions  similar  to 
his,  adds  a  permission  that  all  who  wish  may 
cafrv  some  of  the  water  home  “  in  their  own 
clean  vessels,  and  sprinkle  it  over  their  dwellings, 
and  fields,  and  vineyards,  over  their  cattle  also, 
and  their  provender,  and  likewise  ov^er  their  own 
meat  and  drink  ”  (cap.  v.  Cone.  Labb.  tom.  viii. 
col.  670). 

We  have  argued  in  effect  that  the  prevalence 
of  a  custom  in  the  9th  century  implies  that  it 
was,  to  say  the  least,  not  unknown  in  the  8th. 
In  the  present  case  we  have  a  direct  proof  beside. 
In  the  Pontifical  of  Egbert  (p.  34 ;  Surtees 
Society,  1853),  who  was  archbishop  of  York  from 
732  to  766,  are  forms  of  prayer  for  exorcising 
and  blessing  the  water  to  be  used  in  the  conse¬ 
cration  of  a  church.  Referring  to  the  Gelasian 
Sacramentary  {Litnrgia  Horn.  Vet.  Murat,  tom.  i. 
col.  738),  we  find  the  same  torms  to  be  used  over 
water  for  the  purification  of  any  house,  the 
exorcism  only  being  adapted  by  Egbert  to  the 
occasion.  The  same  benediction  occurs  in  the 
Gregorian  Sacramentary,  and  an  abbreviated 
form  of  the  same  previous  exorcism  {Ibid. 
tom.  ii.  col.  225).  As  it  is  almost  certain  that 
Egbert  borrowed  his  formulae  from  a  Roman 
source,  we  infer  that  the  oflice  for  makins:  holv 
water  was  in  the  Roman  Sacramentaries  a  century 
before  the  practice  was  enjoined,  as  we  have 
seen,  by  Leo  IV.  It  should  be  mentioned  that 
the  headings  of  these  prayers  .speak  only  of  water 
“  to  be  sprinkled  in  a  house,”  and  they  were 
obviously  drawn  up  with  reference  to  that  only 
(Murat,  tom.  i.  col.  738) ;  but  as  they  are 
followed  closely  (as  in  the  modern  Eituale)  by 
benedictions  of  new  fruits,  &c.  (/6jc/.  col.  742 ; 
tom.  ii.  col.  231),  and  no  other  express  benediction 
of  water  is  prescribed  (except  in  the  Gelasian,  for 
the  dispersion  of  thunder),  we  may  perhaps  infer 
that  water  once  blessed  for  one  purpose  was  con¬ 
sidered  available  for  general  use.  In  all  the  offices 
to  which  reference  has  been  made,  the  salt  which 
is  to  be  mixed  with  the  water  is  itself  previously 
exorcised  and  blessed.  [W.  E.  S.j 

HOLY  WEEK  [Easter  Eve,  Maundy 
Thursday,  Good  Friday].  The  week  imme¬ 
diately  preceding  the  great  festival  of  Easter, 
commencing  with  Palm  Sunda}^,  and  including 
the  anniversaries  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  the  Passion,  and  Resurrection  of  Christ  was 
observed  with  peculiar  solemnity  from  the  early 
ages  of  the  church  (Chrysost.  Horn.  xxx.  in  Genes.; 
Hom.  in  Es.  cxlv.).  It  was  designated  by  various 
names — e/35o/xas  ij.eya\r},  ayla,  or  Ta>^'  aylwv ; 
Hebdomas  major,  sun-  ta,  the  former  being  the 
earlier  title  in  the  Western  church  {Missal. 
Ainhros.  apud  Painel.  p.  339)  anthentica  (ibid.) 
uHima  (i.  e.  of  Lent)  (Ambros.  Epist.  33).  From 
the  restriction  as  to  food  then  enjoined  it  was 
called  6/35.  ^r]po<pay'ias  (Epiph.  llaer.  Ixx.  12) 
Hebdomas  Xeroplnujiae :  as  commemorating  our 
Lord’s  sufferings,  435,  Twr  ayiwv  irddwp\  r}p€pai 
iradriP’d.Twv,  aTai  puxrinai ;  Helxl.  poenosa,  luc- 
tuosa,  nigra,  lamented iomcm ;  from  the  cessation  of 
business,  4/85.  dirpaKTos,  Ilebd.  muta :  and  as 
ushering  in  the  Paschal  absolution.  Hebdomas 
Indulgentiac, 


The  observance  of  Holy  Week  belongs  to  very 
early,  if  not  to  primitive,  antiquity.  As  the 
historian  Socrates  has  justly  remarked  (//.  E. 
v.  22),  no  commemorative  seasons  were  appointed 
by  the  apostles,  or  found  any  j)lace  in  the  ritual 
of  the  apostolic  church.  But  as  Easter  naturally 
succeeded  to  the  commemoration  of  the  de¬ 
liverance  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  so 
the  anniver.sary  of  the  ])assion  took  the  place 
of  that  of  the  slaying  of  the  paschal  lamb,  while 
the  sanctity  of  these  holy  days  was  gradually 
extended  to  the  whole  week  preceding  Easter, 
which  therefore  assumed  a  special  character  in 
the  Christian  year.  The  observance  of  Holy 
Week  is  accordingly  fdosely  connected  with  that 
of  Easter,  and  is  probably  but  little  later  in  its 
origin.  The  earliest  notice  of  Holy  Week,  which 
speaks  of  it  as  universally  accepted,  is  in  the 
ApOitolical  Constitutions,  which  represent  the 
Eastern  custom  towards  the  end  of  the  3rd 
century.  About  the  same  time,  c.  260,  Diony¬ 
sius  of  Alexandria  also  mentions  it  as  of  uni¬ 
versal  observance.  If  we  may  accept  as  genuine 
the  ordinance  of  Constantine  the  Great  given 
by  Scaliger  {de  Emendat.  Temp.  p.  776)  and 
Beveridge  {Pandect,  ii.  103)  the  sanctity  of 
this  week  as  well  as  of  the  succeeding  one  was 
consulted  by  enforced  abstinence  from  public 
business  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  whole  week  was,  as  far  as  jiossible,  kept 
as  a  strict  fast,  from  midnight  on  Palm  Sunday 
till  cockcrow  on  Easter  Day. 

By  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (v.  18,  19), 
abstinence  from  wine  and  flesh  was  commanded, 
and  the  diet  restricted  to  bread,  and  salt,  and 
vegetables,  with  water  as  a  beverage.  Total 
abstinence  was  enjoined  on  Friday  and  Saturday, 
or  at  least  on  Saturday  “  when  the  bridegroom 
shall  have  been  taken  from  them,”  while  on 
the  other  days  of  the  week  no  food  was  to  be 
eaten  till  3  p.m.  or  the  evening,  according  to 
ability.  The  fast  was  observed  in  this  manner  in 
the  time  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (c.  a.d.  260), 
who  in  his  canonical  epistle  speaks  of  some  who 
fasted  through  the  whole  six  days  {ripepas  irderas 
virtpTidlaaii'  daiTOi  SiaTe\oOrT€s),  others,  two, 
three,  or  four  days,  according  to  power  of 
physical  endurance;  while  some  kept  no  fast  at 
all,  and  others  faring  delicately  during  the  first 
four  days  sought  to  make  up  for  their  self-in¬ 
dulgence  by  excessive  strictness  on  Friday  and 
Saturday  (Dionys.  Alex.  Ep.  Canon.,  Routh.  Eeliq. 
Sacr.  iii.  229).  Epiphanius  describes  the  j)ractice 
in  his  days  almost  in  the  same  words  {virapTidi- 
pivoi  5t6TeA.oi»j/) ;  some,  he  adds,  ate  every  two 
days,  others  every  evening  (Epijffian.  Haeres. 
xxix.  5;  Expos.  Fid.  22).  Tertullian  speaks  of 
the  continuous  fasts  of  this  week  in  the  phrases 
jejunia  conjungrre,  Sabb  ttuin  continuare  jejuniis 
Parasceves.  (Tertull.  de  Patient.  13;  de  Jejun. 
14.)  Epiphanius  in  another  place  describes  the 
bodily  mortifications  practised  this  week,  such  as 
sleeping  on  the  ground,  strict  continence,  watch¬ 
ings,  xerophagy,  &c  ,  and  charges  the  Arians 
with  passing  the  time  in  jollity  and  merriirti.x 
(Epiph.  Haeres.  Ixxv.  3).  Sozomen  {H.E.  i.  11) 
relates  an  anecdote  of  Spyridon^  bishop  of  Trimy- 
thus  in  Cyprus,  illustrating  the  habit  of  con¬ 
tinuous  fasting,  (TTKTvvdivTiiv  TTjv  vT]cn(iau,  at 
this  season.  All  work  was  as  far  as  possible 
laid  aside,  and  business,  private  and  public, 
suspended  during  the  week.  From  the  time  of 


780 


HOLY  WKKK 


HOMICIDE 


Theodosius  (a.d.  389)  actions  at  law  ceased,  and 
the  doors  of  the  courts  were  closed  for  seven 
days  before  and  after  Easter  (CocZ.  Thcodos. 
lib.  ii.  tit.  viii.  ;  De  Fer.  leg.  ii.  [see  Gothofred’s 
Commentary^  vol.  i.  p.  124]  ;  Cod.  Justin,  lib.  iii. 
tit.  xii. ;  de  Fer.  legg.  vii.  viii. ;  August.  Serm. 
-xi.v. ;  Ed.  Bened.  vol.  i.  p.  741).  Those  in  prison 
for  debt  and  other  oifences,  with  the  e.xception 
of  those  guilty  of  more  heinous  crimes,  were 
ordered  to  be  released  by  a  law  of  Valentinian’s, 
A.D.  367,  the  earliest  of  the  kind,  according  to 
Gothofred  Comment,  vol.  ii.  p.  273  (Corf.  Thcodos. 
lib.  ix.  tit.  xxxviii. ;  de  Induly.  Crim.  legg.  iii.  iv. ; 
Ambros.  Epist.  33  ;  (jhrysost.  u.  s.).  Slaves  were 
manumitted,  and  there  was  a  general  cessation 
from  labour  during  this  and  the  following  week, 
not  only  to  atfoid  the  servants  rest  but  also 
opportunity  of  instruction  in  the  elements  of 
the  faith  (Apost.  Constit.  viii.  33  ;  Greg.  Nyssen. 
Earn.  III.  de  Fesurr.  tom.  iii.  p.  420 ;  Cod. 
Justin,  lib.  iii.  tit.  xii. ;  de  Fer.  leg.  viii.).  The 
week  was  also  distinguished  by  liberal  alms¬ 
giving  (Chrysost.  u.  s.). 

The  observance  of  the  week  may  be  said  to 
Hiive  commenced  with  the  ])receding  Saturday, 
when,  with  reference  to  John  xii.  1-9,  the  church 
commemorated  the  raising  of  Lazarus — an  event 
assigned  erroneously  by  Epiphanius  to  that  day 
(Ej)iphan.  Hotnil.  els  to.  fidia  tom.  ii.  pp.  152, 
153;  Neale  Eastern  Ch.  ii.  747).  The  Gallican 
liturgies  commemorated  this  miracle  the  next 
day  (Palm  Sunday),  known  therefore  as  Dominica 
Lazari.,  as  apj)ears  from  the  collects  of  the 
Missjle  Gallicum  ]'etus,  and  the  Sacrayn.  Galli- 
cauM/n  (Muratoi  i  ii.  718,  834).  On  the  Saturday 
the  pope  was  accustomed  to  give  special  alms 
at  St.  Peter’s,  in  allusion  to  Christ’s  words 
spoken  that  day  (Mar.  xiv.  7).  (^Coryies  Uieronymi 
apud  Pamel.  ii.  21 ;  Sacrayn.  Greyor.  ib.  244.) 

The  Sunday  next  before  Easter,  the  first  day 
of  Holy  Week,  was  distinguished  by  many  difi'er- 
ent  names.  The  earliest  and  most  constant, 
indicating  the  great  event  of  the  day,  being  Palm 
Suyiday  ;  /ci/pta/crj,  eoyrr]  rdyv  fialwu  ;  7}  /3aio<f)6pos 
eopTT] ;  Do/Jiiyiica  1‘almaruyyi,  or  in  Palmis. 
Floruyn,  or  Payyioram,  or  Osawia.  A  later 
appellation  derived  from  the  same  event  was 
Pascha  Jioruyn,  or  floriduyyi.  From  the  Easter 
absolution  which  followed  it  was  known  as 
Doyni/iica  hidulgeyitiae ;  and  with  reference  to  the 
great  Paschal  baptism,  Pascha  petitum.,  or 
coyyipeteyitiuyn  (Ordo  Poyyvmus'),  while  the  mass 
was  styled  Missa  m  Si/ynboli  traditioyie,  because 
on  this  day,  or  accoi-ding  to  fhe  Ambrosian  rite 
the  day  before  (Miss.  Ambros.  apud  Pamel.  i. 
336)  the  creed  was  recited  to  the  competentes, 
or  candidates  for  baptism,  to  be  learnt  by  Easter 
eve,  as  was  ordained  by  the  13th  canon  of  the 
council  of  Agde,  a.d.  506  (Labbe,  Concil.  iv. 
1385;  cf.  Isid.  de  Eccl.  Off.  i.  27.  ii.  21).  The 
works  of  Augustine  and  other  fathers  contain 
sermons  delivered  on  this  and  the  following  days 
to  the  coyyipeteyites  in  exposition  of  the  creed 
(Aug.  Seryii.  de  I'eynp.  113-135).  Palm  Sunday 
was  also  called  capitilavium  because  on  that  day 
the  heads  of  the  catechumens  were  washed  in 
preparation  for  baptism  and  confirmation  (Raban. 
De  Inst.  Cler.  c.  35). 

The  ceremony  of  the  benediction  of  the  palm 
branches,  or  other  branches  that  were  substituted 
for  them,  e.speciaily  olive  boughs,  appears  in  the 
Sacramentary  of  Gregory,  where  it  has  a  special 


collect  (Pamel.  ii.  245).  The  jubilant  processions 
which  have  long  formed  so  characteristic  a  part 
of  the  ritual  of  Palm  Sunday  in  the  East  as  in 
the  West,  are  mentioned  by  Gregory  Nyssen  (/.  c.) 
and  were  introduced  almost  universally  by  the 
end  of  the  7th  century  (Augusti  lldbch.  der 
Christ.  Arch.  Mi.  338). 

Each  day  in  this  Holy  Week  was  one  of  special 
sanctity,  designated  ueyiXr]  Sevrepa,  p.eyd.\r\ 
Tpirr),  &c.  (Bevereg.  Pandect,  ii.  163),  the 
observances  gradually  rising  in  solemnity  to 
the  Thursday  m  Coenu  Dom/ni  [Mauxdy  Thurs¬ 
day],  and  the  Friday,  Passio  Doynini  [Good 
Friday].  The  history  of  our  Lord’s  Pa.ssion  was 
recited  on  successive  days,  beginning  with  that 
by  St.  Matthew  on  Palm  Sunday,  and  closing 
with  that  by  St.  John  on  Good  Friday.  [E.  V.] 

HOMICIDE  (Hoynicidium,  <p6vos').  Murder 
was  regarded  by  the  church  as  one  of  the  gravest 
crimes.  It  is  joined  by  Cyprian  (de  Pat.  c.  9) 
with  adultery  and  fraud,  by  Pacian  (Pay’aen.  ad 
Poenit.  c.  9)  with  fornication  and  idolatry,  by 
Augustine  (de  Fid.  et  Op.  c.  19)  also  with  forni¬ 
cation  and  idolatry,  as  one  of  the  three  mortal 
sins  w’hich  W'ere  always  to  be  visited  with 
excommunication.  By  the  laws  of  the  Christian 
emperors  murderers  were  expressly  excepted 
from  the  general  pardons  granted  to  criminals  on 
occasions  of  great  festivals  (Cod.  Theod.  IX. 
xxxviii.  1,  3,  4,  6,  7,  8),  and  were  refused  the 
right  of  appeal  (ibid.  XL  xxxvi.  1).  In  some 
dioceses  the  peace  of  the  church  was  denied  for 
ever  to  wdlful  murderers  (Tert.  de  Pudicit.  c.  12, 
Gregor.  Thaumat.  Cayi.  Ep.  c.  7,  Comp.  Cyprian 
Ep.  55  ad  Anton,  on  the  practice  of  some  of  liis 
predecessors  with  reference  to  the  other  great 
crime  of  adultery).  But  in  general  a  murderer 
w'as  re-admitted  to  the  church  after  a  long  term 
of  exclusion.  By  a  decree  of  the  council  of 
Ancyra  a.d.  314,  c.  22,  this  term  w'as  lifelong; 
by  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (Ep.  ad  Letoi.)  it  was 
fixed  at  twenty-seven  years ;  by  Basil  (ad 
Amphil.  c.  56)  at  tw'enty.  In  the  Penitential  cf 
Theodore  (1.  iv.  1),  a  murder  committed  to 
revenge  a  relation,  Avas  punished  by  seven  or  ten 
years’  penance;  but  if  restitution  was  made  to 
the  next  of  kin,  half  the  term  w’as  remitted.  If 
one  layman  slew  another  (ibid.  c.  4),  he  must 
either  relinquish  aTms  or  do  penance  .'even  years, 
three  of  them  without  wine  and  flesh  ;  but  (ibid. 
c.  5)  if  a  monk  or  one  of  the  inferior  clerg)'  w’as 
slain,  the  slayer  must  either  relinquish  arms  and 
serve  God  the  remainder  of  his  life,  or  do  penance 
seven  years,  as  the  bishop  should  direct ;  if  a 
presbyter  or  bishop  was  the  victim,  the  matter 
was  to  be  brought  before  the  king  (Bed.  Poeyii- 
tent.  iv'.  1-8,  Egbert  Poenitcyit.  iv.  10,  11).  In 
the  Dialogue  of  Egbert  (Haddan  and  Stubbs 
Councils  and  Eccl.  Doc.  iii.  403),  there  is  some 
variety  in  the  penalty ;  a  layman  who  slew’  a 
bishop  was  to  pay  the  fine  and  submit  to  the 
term  of  penance  a  council  should  appoint,  if  he 
slew  a  priest  the  fine  w’as  to  be  eighty  shekels  ; 
if  a  deacon,  sixty  ;  if  a  monk,  forty.  The  eccle¬ 
siastical  law  in  these  instances  being  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  well-known  system  of  early 
English  jurisprudence,  which  allowed  homicide 
and  every  variety  of  personal  injury  to  be 
expiated  by  money  payments.  See  the  laws  of 
Ethelbert,  between  a.d.  597,  and  604,  on  the 
payments  to  be  made  for  murders  (cc.  5-7,  13), 


HOMICIDE 


HOMILY 


781 


and  for  injuries  to  the  person  (cc.  33-72).  The 
laws  of  lue  of  Wessex  a.d.  690  (c.  76),  contain 
the  provision  that  if  a  man  slew  another’s  god¬ 
son  or  godfather,  he  must  pay  “  hot  ”  (Hue  to 
justice),  as  well  as  “  wer  ”  (recompence  to 
kindred) ;  and  that  if  the  slain  was  a  bishop’s 
son  (i.e.  confirmation  son),  only  half  the  payment 
was  to  be  exacted.  For  a  full  account  of  the 
laws  on  injuries  to  the  person,  see  Turner 
Anglo-Saxons,  vol.  ii.  pp.  436-447,  ed.  1852. 

Murder  joined  with  other  great  crimes  was 
more  severely  punished.  One  who  used  magical 
arts  to  slay  another,  thereby  adding  idolatry  to 
murder,  was  denied  communion  even  at  the  last 
(Cone,  li liber,  c.  6),  The  same  sentence  was 
decreed  against  a  woman  who  added  murder  to 
adultery  by  slaying  the  oftspring  which  she  had 
conceived  in  the  absence  of  her  husband  (ibid.  c. 
63),  and  the  council  of  Lerida  a.d.  523,  more 
than  two  centuries  after  that  of  Elibeiis,  when 
the  terms  of  penance  had  become  much  easier, 
assigned  (c.  2)  a  lifelong  exclusion  to  any  who 
used  sorcery  to  get  rid  of  the  offspring  of 
adultery.  In  an  English  Penitential  code 
(Theodor.  Poeaitent.  I.  vii.  1)  the  punishment  of 
homicide  combined  with  adultery,  was  seclusion 
in  a  monastery  for  life.  The  parricide  or  the 
slayer  of  any  near  blood  relation  was,  by  the 
civil  law  (Cod.  Theod.  IX.  xv.  1),  in  imitation  of 
the  old  Roman  custom,  to  be  sewn  in  a  sack 
with  serpents  and  thrown  into  the  water :  and  if 
this  were  generally  executed  there  would  be 
no  opportunity  for  the  early  church  to  attach 
any  special  stigma  to  the  crime.  In  England  a 
woman  who  slew  her  son,  was  to  do  penance 
fifteen  years,  with  no  relaxation  except  on  the 
Lord’s  day  (Theodor.  Poenitent.  1.  xiv.  25).  The 
parricide  or  fratricide  was  assigned  by  some 
seven  years,  by  others  fourteen,  of  which  half 
were  to  be  passed  in  exile  (Egbert  Poenitent. 
iv.  10). 

The  modern  distinction  between  murder  and 
manslaughter  was  not  invariably  observed.  In 
the  council  of  Ancyra  a.d.  314  (cc.  22-23) 
a  shorter  term  is  imposed  upon  involuntary  than 
upon  wilful  homicide.  But  in  the  canonical 
epistle  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  involuntary  homicide 
is  explained  to  mean  that  which  occurs  through 
simple  accident;  but  homicide  which  is  the 
result  of  passion,  is  treated  as  if  it  were  wilful 
murder,  even  if  deliberation  and  intention,  which 
constitute  the  legal  crime  of  murder,  are  absent. 
The  distinction  however  appears  in  the  Peni¬ 
tential  of  Theodore,  where  it  is  decreed  (I.  iv.  7) 
that  if  a  man  kills  another  by  accident,  he  shall 
do  penance  one  year ;  if  in  a  passion,  three 
years  ;  if  over  the  wine  cup,  four  years ;  if  in 
strife,  ten.  Homicide  committed  at  the  com¬ 
mand  of  a  master  or  in  war  was  to  be  subject 
(ibid.  I.  iv.  6)  to  forty  days’  penance.  The 
chastisement  of  a  slave  with  such  severity  that 
lie  died,  which  was  a  crime  on  the  borderland  of 
manslaughter  and  murder,  was  not  dealt  with  so 
severely  as  wilful  homicide  (Cone.  Eliber.  c.  5, 
Cone.  Epaon.  c.  34). 

Causing  abortion  in  any  stage  of  conception, 
or  taking  or  even  administering  drugs  for  that 
purpose,  was  treated  as  a  form  of  murder,  and  a 
i'jug  period  of  penance  was  allotted  to  it  (Tert. 
Apolog.  c.  9;  Basil  Amphiloc.  cc.  2,  8;  Cone. 
.Ancijr.  c.  21 ;  Cone.  Herd.  c.  2 ;  Cone,  in  2'rull. 
c.  91).  But  that  there  was  some  laxity  of 


opinion  on  the  crime,  aj-pears  from  one  of  the 
English  Penitentials  (Bed.  Poenitent.  iv.  12); 
which  excludes  from  communion  for  a  longer 
term  a  woman  who  ])rocured  abortion  in  order 
to  conceal  her  shame,  than  one  who  did  .so 
because  she  was  too  jmor  to  maintain  her  child. 
Clo.sely  allied  to  this  crime  was  the  i:xi’OsiNG 
OF  INFANTS.  [See  that  head.] 

Anger  and  strife  as  tending  to  murder  (Matt. 
V.  22)  were  brought  under  discipline.  In  the 
African  church  (Stat.  Eecl.  Antiq.  c.  93,  ed. 
Bruns)  the  oblations  of  those  who  were  at 
enmity  with  their  brethren  were  received  neither 
at  the  altar  nor  in  the  common  treasury,  and 
they  were  consequently  excluded  from  com¬ 
munion.  A  similar  decree  juevailed  in  the 
Gallic  church  (2  Cone.  Arelat.  c.  50),  those  who 
broke  out  into  open  strife  were  to  be  removed 
from  all  church  assemblies  till  they  were  recon¬ 
ciled.  'fhe  discipline  of  the  English  church  was 
more  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  law.  He  who  wounded  another  in 
strife  was  to  pay  him  a  recompence,  and  help 
to  support  him  till  he  had  recovereil,  and  do 
half  a  year’s  penance ;  if  he  was  unable  to  suji- 
port  him,  the  penance  was  to  extend  to  a  whole 
year  (Bed.  Poenitent.  iv.  9).  [G.  M.] 

HOMILY  AND  HOMILIARIUM.  The 
word  ojxiXia  designates  generally  “intercourse,” 
implying  the  intei  changc  of  thought  and  feeling 
by  words.  In  a  special  sense,  it  is  used  for  the 
instruction  which  a  philosopher  gave  his  jmpils 
in  familiar  conversation  (Xenophon,  Mem.  1.  ii. 
6  and  15).  In  this  sen^e  of  “familiar  instnu;- 
tion  ”  it  passed  into  Christian  u.sage.  'I’hns 
St.  Luke  uses  the  word  6ixi\i](Tas  of  the  same 
addi-ess  which  he  had  previously  described  by 
the  word  hiaKiyog-^vos  (Acts  xx.  9,  11).  Com¬ 
pare  Euset  Il.E.  vi.  19,  §  17.  Bhotius  (Bib- 
lioth.  no.  174,  4,  in  Suicer’s  T/ics.  s.  v.)  notices 
that  the  discourses  of  Chrysostom  were  properly 
called  bjULiXiai,  rather  than  \6yoi,  as  being 
simple,  inartificial,  popular  addresses,  in  a  style 
rather  conversational  than  formal,  while  a  Aoyos 
was  constructed  according  to  the  rules  of  art, 
and  with  a  certain  dignity  and  elevation  oi 
style.  Similarly  the  French  Confe'rence.  The 
council  of  Ancyra  (c.  1)  a.d.  314,  forbidding 
presbyters  who  have  sacrificed  to  idols  Trpos<p€g(iy 

d/aiXeiv  oXus  XeiTOupydif  seems  to  use  the 
word  d/xiXuv  as  the  common  technical  ex¬ 
pression  for  the  address  of  tlie  presbyter  in  the 
liturgy. 

Probably  the  earliest  extant  addresses  com¬ 
monly  called  Homilies  are  those  of  Origen,  who 
(if  he  him.self  applied  the  term  to  his  discourses) 
no  doubt  took  it  from  the  schools  of  jdiilosophv. 

The  word  seemingly  diil  not  pa.ss  into  common 
use  in  Latin  before  the  fifth  century;  for  Victor 
Vitensis  (Persee.  VandU.  i.  3,  p.  10,  Kuinart), 
writing  towards  the  end  of  that  century,  speaks 
of  Augustine’s  popular  addresse.s,  “quos  Graeci 
hornilias  vocant,”  as  if  “homilia”  were  still  to 
some  extent  strange  to  his  Latin  readers. 

Augustine  had  himself  made  a  similar  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  word  (in  Ps.  118  [119],  Pref.  ; 
Epist.  2,  ad  Quodt  tilldtuiu).  And  he  also  sup¬ 
plies  abundant  evidence  that  these  homilies  were 
intentionally  careless  and  colhxjuial  in  style.  So 
long  as  all  are  instructed  (i.e  says),  let  us  not 
fear  the  critics  (Serin.  37,  c.  10,  p.  187);  let 


Y82 


HOMILY 


HOMILY 


not  word-cavohers  ask  whether  it  is  Latin,  but 
Christians  whether  it  is  true  {Serm.  299,  p. 
1213);  it  is  better  that  the  preacher  should  be 
barbarous,  and  his  hearers  understand,  than  the 
preacher  scholarly  and  the  people  lacking  (On 
Ps.  36,  Scnn  3,  p.  285);  it  is  better  that 
critics  should  blame,  than  that  the  people  should 
miss  the  meaning  (On  Ps.  138,  jj.  1545). 

See  further  on  preaching,  and  its  place  in  the 
liturgy,  under  Skrmox. 

At  a  comparatively  early  j)eriod  we  find  that 
the  custom  arose  of  delivering  the  sermons  of 
others  in  churches  where  the  priest  was,  for 
some  reason,  unable  to  preach.  Mr.  Scudamore 
(p.  290)  gives  the  following  instances: — 

Augustine  (De  Duct.  Chr.  iv.  62)  thinks  it 
well  that  those  who  have  a  good  delivery,  but 
no  power  of  composition,  should  adopt  the 
sermons  of  others.  Isidore  of  Pelusiura  (a.d. 
412)  wrote  a  homily  to  be  delivered  by  his 
friend  Dorotheas,  which  was  declaimed  with 
much  applause  (Epist.  iii.  382).  Cyril  of  Ale.v- 
andria  is  said  by  Gennadius  (De  Mr,  lllust.  c. 
57  in  Fabricii  Bblkith.  EccL  p.  27)  to  have  com¬ 
posed  many  homilies,  which  (he  adds)  are  com¬ 
mitted  to  memory  by  the  Greek  bishops  for 
delivery.  The  same  author  relates  (u.  s.  c.  67, 
p.  31)  that  Salviau  of  Marseilles  made  many 
homilies  for  bishops.  Some  of  the  Dictiones 
Sacrae  of  Ennodius,  bishop  of  Ticino  (a.d.  511) 
are  manifestly  written  to  be  preached  by  some 
other  than  the  writer,  and  two  of  them  bear  the 
titles :  “  Sent  to  Honoratus,  bishop  of  Novara, 
at  the  dedication  of  the  ba.silica  of  the  Apostles,” 
and  “  Given  to  Stephanus  .  .  to  be  pronounced 
by  Maximus  the  bishop.”  The  second  council 
of  Vaison,  A.D.  529,  licenses  all  presbyters  to 
preach  in  their  districts,  and  provides  (c.  2) 
that,  in  case  the  presbyter,  from  sickness,  is 
unable  to  preach,  homilies  of  the  Holy  Fathers 
should  be  recited  by  the  deacons  [Deacon,  p. 
529].  Caesarius  of  Arles  (t  542)  is  said  (Life 
bv  Cyprian,  c.  31 ;  in  Acta  SS.  Ben.  i.  645)  to 
have  composed  homilies,  which  the  bishops  in 
the  Frank  territory,  the  Gauls,  Italy,  or  Spain, 
to  whom  he  sent  them,  might  cause  to  be 
preached  in  their  churches.  To  read  the 
sermons  of  others  seems  indeed  to  have  been  a 
recognised  practice  in  the  Gallican  church. 
Thus  Germanus  of  Paris  (Expositio  Brevis,  in 
Migne’s  Patrol.  Ixxii.  91)  says,  that  the  homilies 
of  the  saints  which  are  read  after  the  Gospel,  are 
to  be  taken  merely  as  preaching,  that  the  pastor 
or  doctor  of  the  church  may'  explain  in  popular 
language  to  the  people  what  has  been  delivered 
m  the  Prophecy,  Epistle,  or  Gospel. 

This  constant  habit  of  using  the  sermons  of 
others  led  in  process  of  time  to  the  formation  of 
collections  of  homilies,  of  which  those  who  were 
unable  or  unwilling  to  compose  sermons  might 
avail  themselves.  Bede’s  Homiliae  de  Tempore 
are  said  to  have  been  much  used  in  this  way. 
This  collection  contains  33  homilies  for  the 
summer  half  of  the  y'eir,  15  for  the  winter;  22 
for  Lent ;  32  for  the  Saints’  Days  of  the  summer 
half,  16  for  those  of  the  winter  half ;  and 
various  Sermones  ad  Pop'dnm.  Probably  several 
other  collections  were  in  circulation  before  the 
end  of  the  eighth  century.  See  ^labillon,  Acta 
SS.  Bencd.  iii.  pt.  1,  p.  556  ff.  But  in  the  time  of 
Charles  the  Great  all  the  homiliaries  in  common 
use  in  the  Fiankish  kingdom  were  found  to 


labour  under  great  defects ;  the  homilies  which 
they  contained  were  in  many  cases  written  by 
men  of  no  authority,  and  they'  were  full  of 
errors  both  of  style  and  matter.  The  king, 
therefore,  commissioned  Paul  Warnefrid,  the 
well-known  historian  of  the  Lombards,  to  draw 
up  a  collection  of  homilies  from  the  Fathers 
which  should  be  free  from  these  faults.  This 
task  he  accomplished  before  the  end  of  the 
eighth  century,  probably  not  later  than  a.d. 
780;  for  Charles,  in  the  recommendation  pre¬ 
fixed  to  the  book,  does  not  style  hinrself  Im- 
perator.  In  this  preface  (Mabillon’s  Analect. 
Vet.  p.  75,  ed.  1723)  the  king  states  that  in 
gratitude  to  God  for  the  protection  which  He 
had  given  him  in  war  and  peace,  he  had  set 
himself  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  church 
and  the  advancement  of  knowledge;  he  refers  to 
the  etforts  which  he  had  made  to  secure  a 
correct  text  of  the  Scriptures  [Canonical 
Books],  and  then  proceeds  to  recommend  the 
homiliarium  for  adoption  in  theGallican  churches, 
which  his  father  Pepin  had  already  furnished 
with  chants  after  the  Roman  model  (Romanae 
traditionis  cantibus).  In  this  collection*  the 
discourses  are  arranged  according  to  the  series 
of  Sundays  and  Festivals ;  that  form  of  the 
Yulgate  text  is  adopted  in  quotations  from 
Scripture  which  had  been  in  common  use  since 
the  days  of  Gregory'  the  Great. 

In  the  year  813  the  council  of  Rheims  (c.  15) 
enjoined  the  bishops  to  pi-each  sermons  of  the  Holy 
Fathers  in  the  dialect  of  their  several  diocese.s, 
so  that  all  might  understand,  and  in  the  same 
year  the  third  council  of  Tours  (c.  17)  ordered 
that  every  bishop  should  have  homilies  prepared 
containing  needful  admonitions  for  the  use  of 
those  under  them,  and  that  each  should  en¬ 
deavour  to  translate  the  said  homilies  clearly 
into  the  rustic-Roman  or  the  Teutonic  tongue, 
so  that  all  might  more  easily  understand  the 
things  spoken.  To  the  same  effect  the  council 
of  Mayence  (c.  2),  in  the  year  847. 

The  collection  of  Aelfric  (generally'  sup;>osed 
to  be  the  archbishop  of  York,  1023-1051)  does 
not  fall  within  our  period ;  but  it  was  prooably 
the  successor  of  various  other  collections  of 
English  homilies,  some  of  which  may  have 
existed  before  the  time  of  Charles. 

John  Beleth  (a.d.  1162)  calls  the  Book  of 
Homilies  (Div.  Off.  Expl.  o.  60)  the  Homelio- 
narias,  and  mentions  a  Sermolojus  separately 
among  the  books  which  a  church  ought  to  have. 


»  It  was  commonly  attributed  in  the  Middle  Ages  tx) 
Alenin,  and  bears  in  the  Cologne  edition  of  1530  the  fol¬ 
lowing  title ;  “  Homiliae  sen  mavis  sermones  sive  con- 
cioncs  ad  populnm  praestantisjiniorum  ecclesiae  doctorum 
Hieronymi  .\ugustini  Ambrosii  Gregorii  Origenis  Chry- 
sostomi  Bedae  etc.  in  hunc  orditiem  digestae  per  Al- 
ct)uinum  levitam  id'jne  injiingente  ei  Carolo  Mag.  Rom. 
Imp.  cui  a  sec'etis  luit.”  Possibly  the  mistake  arose 
from  the  fact  that  Alenin  revised  the  so-called  Comes 
Hieronymi  [I.ectionakyJ  ;  or  he  may  have  revised  the 
work  of  Warnefrid.  See  on  this  point  Mabillon  (Ann. 
O.  S.  Ben.  ii.  328;  and  Rivet  (Hist.  Lit.  de  la  France, 
iv.  337).  The  Ediiio  Prinops  is  that  of  Speyer,  1482. 
The  author  of  the  ancient  Life  of  Alcuin  (Mabillon, 
Ada  N.S.  Ben.  Saec.  iv.  pt.  i.  p.  158)  says  that  .\lcuin 
collected  two  volumes  of  Homilies  from  the  works  of  the 
Fathers.  if  he  did — which  is  scarcely  probable  when 
Warnefrid’s  collection  had  just  been  authorised— the 
work  is  lost. 


HONEY  AND  MILK 


HOOD 


783 


Durandus  uses  (^Rationale,  vi.  i.  §§  28.  32)  the 
form  Homiliarius  [i.e.  Liber]  as  well  as  Honnelio- 
narius. 

(Biaterim’s  Denkwiirdigkeitcn,  iv.  3.340  ff. ; 
Wetzer  and  Welte’s  Kircheulexicon,  v.  307  ; 
Scudamoi’e’s  Notitia  Rucharistica,  290  ff. ;  Ranke 
in  Studied  und  Kriti/un,  1855,  ii.  p.  387  ff.)  [C.] 

HONEY  AND  MILK.  1.  The  giving  of 
honey  and  milk  to  a  person  newly  baptised,  as  a 
symbol  of  the  nouidshment  of  the  renewed  soul, 
has  already  been  mentioned  [Baptism,  §  66, 
p.  1641. 

2.  Among  the  things  enumerated  by  the 
Apostolical  Canons  (c.  3),  which  the  bishop  is 
forbidden  to  bring  to  the  altar  [or  sanctuary], 
are  honey  and  milk.  The  24th  canon  of  the 
third  council  of  Carthage  also  excludes  honey 
and  milk  from  the  offerings  on  the  altar,  in  that 
it  forbids  anything  to  be  placed  upon  it  but 
bread  and  wine  mixed  with  water.  But  the 
27th  of  the  African  canons,  repeating  this,  adds: 
“Primitiae  vero,  sou  mel  et  lac  quod  uno  die 
solemnissimo  in  infantum  mysterio  solet  offerri, 
quamvis  in  altari  ofi'erantur,  suam  tamen  habeant 
propriam  benedictionem,  ut  a  Sacramento  Do- 
minici  Corporis  et  sanguinis  distingaantur ;  nec 
amplius  in  primitiis  offeratur  quam  de  uvis  et 
frumentis.”  It  is  evident  from  this,  that  at  the 
time  when  these  canons  were  drawn  up,  the 
custom  had  arisen  of  placing  on  the  altar  the 
honey  and  milk  for  the  neophytes  at  Easter,  and 
(apparently)  of  consecrating  them  with  the 
bread  and  wine.  It  is  this  latter  practice  which 
is  here  forbidden  ;  the  honey  and  milk  are  to 
have  a  benediction  of  their  own,  but  not  that 
given  to  the  eucharistic  elements.  At  the  end 
of  the  seventh  century  the  placing  of  honey  and 
milk  on  the  altar  was  wholly  forbidden  (Cone,  in 
Trullo,  c.  57 ;  cf.  c.  28). 

(Bingham,  Ant.  XV.  ii.  3;  Van  Espen,  Jus 
Eccl.  iii.  329,  414;  ed.  Colon.  1777.)  [C.] 

HONOR.  1.  The  word  is  used  specially  of 
ecclesiastical  dignities  or  orders.  Thus  Optatus 
of  Milevis  (c.  Donat,  ii.  24)  says,  speaking  of  the 
attempts  of  the  Donatists  to  annul  the  orders  of 
Catholic  priests,  “quid  prodest  quod  vivi  sunt 
homines  et  occisi  sunt  honores  a  vobis?”*  So 
Augustine,  Adv.  Kpist.  Fin-inen.  ii.  11;  and 
Cone.  Arelat.  /T.  cc.  1  and  2.  In  Charles  the 
Great’s  Capital  tries  (v.  8).  “  honorabilis  persona  ” 
is  used  apparently  to  distinguish  one  in  major 
orders  from  “  ecclesiastici  viri”  who  wei’e  only 
in  minor  orders  (Ducange,  s.  r.). 

2.  The  second  council  of  Braga,  a.d.  572,  lays 
down  (c.  2)  that  no  bishop  making  a  visitation 
of  his  diocese  should  take  anything  from  the 
churches  besides  the  customary  honorarium  to 
the  see  (praeter  honorem  cathediae  suae)  of  two 
solidi.  We  may  j)erhaj)s  discern  here  the  germ 
of  the  later  use,  according  to  which  “  honor  ” 
means  a  benefice.  [C.] 

HONOR ATUS.  (1)  Bishop  of  Arles  (t429 
A.D.);  commemorated  Jan.  16  (J/arf.  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(2)  [Demetrius  (3).]  [W.  F.  G.] 

HOOD  (^KOVKOvWlOV,  KOVKOvXlOV,  KOVKOVWa, 
KaiTOVT^iov,  &VUI  Ka/xaKavxV ;  (xtintiuin,  caputi/on^ 


•  Dnpin reads,  “quia  vivunt  homines, et  honore  a  volas 
coclfli  sunt?” 


cucnllus,  cuculla,  cucullio,  capa,  cappa).  Gar 
ments  intended  for  outdoor  wear  were  very 
frequently  provided  with  a  hood  as  a  protection 
for  the  head  against  rain  or  cold,  which  might 
be  drawn  forward  when  need  required,  or  might 
be  allowed  to  fall  back  upon  the  shoulders. 
This  would  of  course  be  ordinarily,  but  not 
necessarily,  attached  to  the  dress.  The  lacerna, 
for  example,  was  generally  furnished  with  a 
hood  or  cowl  (.see  e.g.  Martial  xiv.  132,  139;  and 
cf.  Juvenal  vi.  117,  330  ;  viii.  145)  ;  so  also  was 
the  caracalla,  which  was  introduced  into  Rome 
from  Gaul,  and  from  which  the  emperor  Aurelius 
Antoninus  derives  the  name  by  which  he  is 
ordinarily  known.  Jerome  refers  to  it  by  way 
of  illustration  in  his  description  of  the  ephod  of 
the  Jewish  high-priest,  “in  modum  caracal- 
larum,  sed  absque  cu  ullis  ”  {L)  ist.  64  ad 
Fabiolam,  §  15;  vol.  i.  364,  ed.  Vallarsi),  where 
the  last  words  imply  what  was  the  ordinary 
fashion  of  it.  A  hood  was  also  the  appendage  of 
the  casula,  which  Isidore  (rfe  Origin,  xix.  24) 
describes  as  vest  is  cuculuUa  ;  of  the  colobion  (see 
e.g.  Honorius  Augustodunensis,  Gemma  Animae, 
i.  211 ;  Patrol,  clxxii.  607),  and  of  the  cope 
(see  e.g.  Durandus,  Rat.  Div.  Off.  iii.  1.  13,  who 
speaking  of  the  symbolism  associated  with  the 
phiviale,  or  cappa,  adds  “  habet  etiam  caputium, 
quod  est  supernum  gaudium  ”).  As  regards  the 
last  of  these,  we  may  take  this  opportunity  of 
remarking  that  Isidore  (de  Origin,  xix.  31)  use.s 
the  word  cappa  distinctly  in  the  sense  of  hood, 
“  cappa  .  .  .  quia  capitis  ornamentum  est.”  As 
an  example  of  this  more  restricted  meaning  of 
the  word,  we  may  cite  a  remark  in  a  letter  of 
Paulus  Diaconus,  in  the  name  of  abbot  Theo- 
demar,  to  Charlemagne  afs  to  the  dress  of  the 
monks  of  Monte  Cassmo,  “  illud  autem  vestimen- 
tum,  quod  a  Gallicanis  monachis  cuculla  dicitur, 
et  nos  capam  vocamus  .  .  .”  (Pauli  Diac. 
Epist.  i. ;  Patrol,  xcv.  1587).  He  had  just  be¬ 
fore  remarked  that  the  word  cuculla  with  them 
meant  the  same  dress  “quam  alio  nomine  casu- 
1am  vocamus.”  A  latei  instance  is  found  in  the 
records  of  a  council  of  Metz  (a.d.  888),  which 
enjoins  the  use  of  the  cajM  (in  the  sense  of  hood) 
to  monks  and  forbids  it  to  laymen  (can.  6, 
Labb.  ix.  414).  An  earlier  council,  that  of  Aix- 
la-Chapelle  (A.D.  816),  had  restricted  the  use  of 
the  cuculla  to  monks,  excluding  other  ecclesiastics 
(can.  125,  Labb.  viii.  1395).  It  may  be  added 
here  that  the  congress  of  Gallican  abbots  and 
monks,  held  at  the  same  place  in  the  following 
year,  carefully  fixed  the  size  of  the  cowl,  “  men- 
sura  cucullae  duobus  con.sistat  cubitis  ”  (cap.  21  ; 
op.  cit.  1508).  With  reference  to  the  foregoing 
prohibitions,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the 
Theodosian  code  had  exj)ressly  permitted  to 
slaves,  with  certain  exceptions,  the  use  of  the 
bgrrus  and  cucullus  (Cod.  Tlieodos.  lib.  xiv. 
tit.  10,  1.  1). 

The  most  prominent  instance  of  the  u.se  of  the 
hood  is  to  be  found  in  that  of  the  monastic  cowl, 
which  is  frequently  referred  to  in  various  Rules, 
and  which  formed  a  si>ecial  part  of  the  monkish 
dress  at  least  as  early  as  the  time  of  Jerome. 
The  hermit  Hilarion  was,  according  to  this 
father,  buried  “  in  tunica  cilicind  et  cuculla  ” 
( Vita  S.  Hilar,  cc.  44,  46 ;  vol.  ii.  39,  40,  ed. 
Vallarsi).  We  meet  with  several  allusions  ^o 
the  cuculla  in  Jerome’s  translation  of  the  Rule  of 
1  the  Egyptian  Pachomius  (see  e.g.  cc.  81,  91,  99  , 


784 


HOPE 


HOllTULANUS 


op,  cit.  fi7,  sqq.).  Thus  the  monks  in  this 
system  were  to  h^ve  two  cowls,  which  were  to 
bear  tokens  indicative  of  the  particular  monas¬ 
tery,  and  without  his  cowl  and  “pellicula”  no 
monk  was  to  appear  at  divine  service  or  at  meals. 
Tlie  Rule  of  St.  Benedict  allowed  to  each  monk, 
in  the  case  of  dwellers  in  temperate  climates,  a 
frock  and  hood  ('McMeVa),  the  latter  to  be  “in 
hyeine  villosa.  in  aestate  pura  aut  vetusta  ” 
(jieg.  S.  Bened.  c.  .^>5  ;  in  Holstenius,  Codex  Rcgu- 
htrum,  pt.  ii.  p.  32  ;  ed.  Paris,  16G3).  The  same 
distinction  between  hoods  for  summer  and  winter 
wear  is  also  found  in  the  Rule  of  St.  Fructuosus 
(c.  4  ;  op.  ci^.  p.  139),  which  allows  a  couple  to 
each  monk,  “  villata  et  simplex.”  The  Begula 
Magistri  lays  down  a  wholesome  provision  as  to 
the  hoods  and  frocks  of  the  monks  who  dis¬ 
charged  the  weekly  office  of  cook  (c.  81  ;  op.  cit. 
p.  257).  The  word  cucul  a  passed  from  Latin 
into  Greek,  where  it  appears  as  kovkovKKiov,  etc. 
Thus,  for  e.xam])le,  it  is  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  monastic  dress  by  Sozomen  (^Hist. 
Kccles.  iii.  14,  where  he  remarks  on  the  Egyptian 
monks),  Pseudo-Athanasius  {d.e  Yirginitate.,  c.  1 1  ; 
vol.  ii.  116,  ed.  Montfaucon),  and  by  Germanus, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  (ob.  740,  a.d.),  who 
also  appears  to  allude  to  the  cross  on  the  cowl, 
still  worn  by  bishops  and  fTTavpo(popoL  in  the  Greek 
church  {IJis  ‘ji-ia  Ecclesiastica  et  Mystica  Con 
templatio ;  Patrol.  Gr.  xcviii.  396).  The  name 
&VW  Ka/jLrjXavxiov  (variously  spelled)  is  given  to 
the  hood  which  covers  the  under  headdress  (/caro) 
Ka/j.rjKavxiov)  worn  by  a  Greek  patriarch  who 
has  been  a  member  of  a  monastic  order  (see 
Dueange’s  Glossarium  Grnec.  s.v.  KuyeXavKiou). 
An  illustration  of  this  may  be  seen  in  Goar’s 
Euchologvm  (p.  156;  cf.  also  p.  518),  where  the 
patriarch  Bekkus  is  thus  figured.  This  name, 
however,  belongs  to  a  date  subsequent  to  our 
period. 

We  may  briefly  refer  in  passing  to  the  hood 
worn  after  baptism,  which  is  spoken  of  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  white  baptismal  robe,  but  as 
distinct  from  it  (see  e.g.  Theodulf,  bishop  of 
Orleans  [ob.  821  A.D.],  de  Ordine  Baptismi,  c.  16  ; 
Patrol,  cv.  234 :  Jesse  Ambianensis  [ob.  836 
A.D.],  Epist.  de  Baptismo,  ib.  790 :  Rabanus 
Maurus,  de  Inst.  Cler.  i.  29 ;  Patrol,  cvii.  313). 
We  may  pei’haps  further  refer  to  an  epistle  of 
Gregory  the  Great,  who  blames  one  Peter,  a  Jew, 
for  having  on  the  day  after  his  baptism  entered 
a  synagogue  and  placed  there,  among  other 
things,  “  birrum  album,  quo  de  fonte  resurgens 
indutus  fuerat  ”  (Epist.  lib.  ix.  ep.  6  ;  vol.  iii. 
930,  ed.  Bened.).  For  further  remarks  on  this 
species  of  hood,  reference  may  be  made  to  Mar- 
tene,  de  Antiguis  Ecclesiae  Bitihus,  i.  54,  ed. 
Venice,  1783 ;  Ducange’s  Glossarium  Grace,  s.v. 
KovKovWa ;  Goar’s  Euchologion,  p.  366.  [R.  S.] 

HOPE.  [Sophia.] 

HOROLOGIUM  (Scipo\6yiov).  An  office 
book  of  the  Greek  churchj  containing  the  daily 
hours  of  prayer,  and  certain  other  forms,  and 
which  therefore  corresponds  in  a  general  manner, 
though  with  important  differences,  to  the  Latin 
breviary. 

The  contents  of  the  Great  Horologium  , 
(i}po\6yiov  TO  fieya)  which  is  the  fullest  form,  j 
as  described  in  the  edition  published  at  Venice 
1856,  and  approved  by  the  oecumenical  patriarch, 


are  arranged  in  three  generic  parts  (rpia  ytviKii 
fi^pr))  as  follows : 

1.  The  office  for  the  day  and  night  hours  of 
the  church  from  matins  to  compline  (airh  rov 
p.fO'ovuKTiKov  rov  awo^ttirrov). 

This  part  therefore  corresponds  in  the  main  to 
the  “  Psalterium  cum  Ordinario  Officii  de  Tem¬ 
pore  ”  of  the  Latin  breviary. 

2.  The  variable  antiphons  and  hymns,  by 
whatever  name  they  are  distinguished,  taken 
from  the  Menology  (which  answers  to  the  Roman 
Martyrology)  and  from  the  other  office  books 
which  contain  the  variable  portions  of  the  oflice  ; 
and  wffiatever  is  sung  in  it  on  Sundays,  festivals, 
and  ordinary  days. 

This  part  therefore  corresponds  in  some 
measure  to  the  “  Proprium  de  Tempore  ”  of  the 
Latin  breviary. 

3.  Various  short  offices  (oucoAoufliai),  prayer.s, 
and  canons;  independent  of  Xmh  hours ;  and  for 
occasional  use.  into  the  details  of  these  it  is 
unnecessary  to  enter ;  and  would  be  impossible 
without  considerable  explanation. 

This  part  therefore  may  be  compared  to  the 
collection  of  short  offices  and  forms  of  |)rayer 
which  are  found  at  the  end  of  the  Latin  bre¬ 
viary  ;  though  the  offices  contained  in  it  are  for 
the  most  ])art  diflerent  from  and  more  numerous 
than  those  in  the  breviary. 

The  Horologion  is  often  prefaced  by  the 
calendar  of  the  Menology.,  which  begins  with 
September  ;  sometimes  (as  in  a  copy  I  possess, 
printed  at  Venice  1523)  by  “the  gospel  ”  ac¬ 
cording  to  St.  John:  i.e.  the  introduction,  and 
four  last  chapters :  and  sometimes  (as  in  another 
copy  in  my  pos.session,  printed  at  Venice  1775 
“  con  Licenza  de’  Superiori  ”),  by  the  Athauasian 
creed  in  Greek,  of  course  without  the  words 
which  imply  the  double  procession.  [H.  J.  H.] 

HORRES,  martyr  at  Nicaea  with  Aj-abia, 
Marcus,  Nimpodora,  Theodora,  Theusetas ;  com¬ 
memorated  March  13  (Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HORSE.  The  horse  is  represented  attending 
on  the  Orpheus  shepherd  [Fresco,  p.  696].  As 
a  servant  or  companion  of  mankind,  he  occurs 
frequently  in  representations  of  the  Magi  (Bottari, 
tav.  cxxxiii.  &c.).  Two  horses  act  as  cross-bearers 
(tav.  iii.) ;  and  horses  of  course  occur  in  the 
numerous  representations  of  the  translation  of 
Elijah  which  are  found  on  sarcophagi  and  else¬ 
where.  The  horses  of  Egypt  are  commemorated 
in  representations  of  Pharaoh  and  the  Red  Sea 
(Aringhi,  vol.  i.  p.  331),  where  a  mounted  horse¬ 
man  accompanies  the  chariots.  In  Bottari  (tav. 
clx.)  there  are  two  quadrigae,  with  horses  deco¬ 
rated  with  palm-branches  or  plumes.  Martigny 
states  in  this  connexion  that  the  horse  symbol 
has  been  very  frequently  found  in  the  graves 
of  martyrs,  quoting  the  titulus  of  the  youth 
Florens  (Lupi,  Dissert,  elett.  i.  p.  258),  and  the 
horses  loose  and  grazing  in  the  tribune  of  the 
cemetery  of  Basilla  (Bianchini  Not.  ad  Anast. 
Prolegomena,  t.  iii.).  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

HORSE-RACING.  [Charioteers.] 

HORTULANUS,  the  gardener  of  the  monas¬ 
tery.  The  rule  of  Benedict  provided  certain 
deputies  (solatia)  to  assist  the  cellarer  (cellei- 
arius)  in  the  larger  monasteries.  These  were, 
usually,  a  farm  bailifl’  (granatarius),  a  butler 


HOSANNA 


HOSPITALS 


785 


(custos  panis  et  vini),  an  ’  a  gardener  (hortulanus) 
(^Reg.  Bened.  c.  31  ;  cf.  liened.  Anian.  Concord. 
Regul.  Ixxi.  17).  [I.  G.  S.] 

HOSANN  A  (or  Osanna).  This  word,  adopted 
from  the  salutation  of  the  populace  at  Christ’s 
entry  into  Jerusalem,  occurs  in  the  Mass  at  the 
end  of  the  Sanc'tus,  which  ends  thus  :  “  Hosanna 
in  cxcelsis.  Benedictus  qui  venit  in  nomine 
Domini.  Hosanna  in  excelsis.”  The  same  words 
are  found  in  the  Greek  form  of  the  Sanctus, 
called  iiTiviKios  vg-vos  ;  as  given  in  the  liturgies 
of  SS.  Basil,  Chrysostom,  &c. 

The  word  also  frequently  occurs  in  the  anti¬ 
phons  and  other  parts  of  the  service  for  Palm 
Sunday  as  given  in  the  Latin  Processionals,  as 
for  instance  in  the  hymn  at  the  Procession : 

“  Israel  es  tu  Rex,  Davidis  et  inclyta  proles, 

Nomine  qul  in  Domini,  Rex  benedicte,  venis : 

Gloria  laus  et  honor  tibi  sit,  Rex  Christe  Redemptor, 
Cui  puerile  decus  prompsit  Osanna  pium." 

[H.  J.  H.] 

HOSE  A,  the  prophet ;  commemorated  Jaka- 
bit  27 --Feb.  21  {Cal.  Ethiop.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HOSPITAL  ARIUS.  [Hospitium.] 

HOSPITALITY.  Hospitality,  or  a  friendly 
recej)tion  and  entertainment  of  strangers,  was  a 
Christian  virtue  strongly  inculcated  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  practised  m  )st  liberally  by  the 
early  Christians,  until  long  after  the  apostolic 
times. 

The  feeling  of  Christian  union  and  sympathy 
was  so  strong,  that  every  Christian  was  ready  to 
receive  another  as  a  friend  and  brother,  although 
previously  unknown :  a  circumstance  which  ex¬ 
cited  the  astonishment,  and  even  the  hatred  and 
misrepresentations  of  pagan  opponents  (Tertul. 
Ajoo/.  39  ;  de  mort.  perig.  13).  And  one 

of  the  means  by  which  Julian  hoped  to  restore 
the  old  Roman  paganism  was  an  imitation  of  this 
Christian  liberality.  In  a  letter  of  his,  addressed 
to  Arsaces  a  chief  priest  of  Galatia,  the  emperor 
urges  him  to  take  great  care  of  strangers,  and  to 
establish  houses  for  their  reception  (lej/oSoxeta) 
[Hospitals]  in  eveiy  city,  after  the  example  of 
the  Christians  (Sozomen,  v.  16). 

All  Christian  families  in  the  earlier  times 
considered  it  their  duty  to  exercise  this  hospi¬ 
tality,  and*  Tertullian  mentions  it  as  one  great 
objection  to  a  Christian  woman  marrying  a 
pagan,  that  she  would  not  be  able  to  entertain 
any  Christian  strangers  in  her  house  (Tertul.  ad 
Ux.  ii.  4). 

But  presbyters,  and  afterwards  bishops,  were 
specially  expected  to  excel  in  this  virtue.  Thus 
Jerome  extols  the  liberal  hospitality  of  the  young 
presbyter  Nepotian  {Epit.  Nepotiani  c.  10).  And 
Chrysostom  mentions  it  as  a  high  pi*aise  of 
Flavian,  bishop  of  Antioch,  that  his  house  was 
always  open  to  strangers  and  travellers,  where 
they  received  so  kind  and  generous  an  entertain¬ 
ment,  that  it  might  be  doubted  whether  it  ought 
not  to  have  been  called  the  travellers’  home, 
instead  of  his  (Chrys.  in  Genes,  i.  4). 

Monasteries  also  were  distinguished  by  their 
ready  hospitality  to  Christians  coming  from  dis-, 
tant  parts  [Hospitium],  Palladius  (Ihsloria  Laii- 
siaca,  c.  6)  describes  the  hospital  or  guest-house 
(IfpoSox^mp)  which  adjoineci  the  church  of  the 
Nitrian  monk.s,  in  whicli  pilgrims  might  stay,  if 
they  chose,  two  or  three  years;  the  first  week  a 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


guest  was  not  required  to  work  ;  if  he  stayed 
longer,  he  must  work  in  the  garden,  the  bake¬ 
house,  or  the  kitchen ;  or  if  he  was  a  person  ol 
too  much  consideration  for  menial  labour,  the 
monks  would  give  him  a  book  to  read.  In  our 
monastery,  says  Jerome,  hospitality  is  our  delight. 
We  receive  with  a  joyful  welcome  all  who  come 
to  us,  with  the  exception  of  heretics  (Jer. 
adv.  Ruff.  iii.).  In  the  Rule  of  Benedict 
of  Aniane,  drawn  up  at  the  end  of  the  eighth 
century,  particular  directions  are  given  for 
the  reception  and  entertainment  of  the  poor 
and  of  strangers.  They  were  first  to  join  in 
prayer  with  the  monks  ;  they  then  received  the 
kiss  of  peace  ;  water  was  bi'ought  for  their  hands 
and  feet;  and  in  their  subsequent  entertainment 
the  strict  monastic  rules  of  fasting  were  to  be 
relaxed  in  honour  of  the  guests.  There  was  a 
distinct  kitchen  for  the  strangers’  use,  with 
officers  to  superintend  it,  so  that  the  regular 
order  of  the  monastery  might  not  be  disturbed 
{Concor.  Reg.  S.  Benedict.  §  60,  de  hospitibus 
suscipiendis).  This  relaxation  of  strict  ascetic 
rules  on  occasion  of  hospitality  to  strangers  is 
also  mentioned  with  approbation  by  Cassian 
{Collat.  i.  26,  and  xxi.  14,  &c.).  The  council  of 
Aix  in  816  (ii.  c.  28),  desired  a  place  to  be  pre¬ 
pared  at  the  gate  of  a  monastery  where  all 
comers  might  be  received. 

The  openhanded  hospitality  of  Christians  natu¬ 
rally  led  sometimes  to  the  practice  of  deceit  and 
imposture  on  the  part  of  applicants;  and  to 
guard  against  the  admission  of  pretenders,  or 
otherwise  unworthy  and  dangerous  persons,  it 
became  customary  for  letters  of  recommendation 
[Commendatory  Letters]  to  be  required. 
Christians  going  into  a  foreign  country,  or  to 
any  place  where  they  were  not  known,  com¬ 
monly  took  with  them  such  letters  from  theii 
bishop,  or  some  other  well-known  Christian ; 
which  letters  were,  if  necessary,  to  be  ex¬ 
amined,  on  their  presentation,  by  the  deacons  of 
the  place  (Constit.  Apostol.  ii.  58). 

In  the  earlier  times  Christians  received 
strangers  into  their  own  homes ;  but  at  a  later 
period,  when  such  hospitality  became  incon¬ 
venient,  and  hardly  sufficient  for  what  was 
needed,  houses  were  specially  built  or  prepared 
for  the  reception  of  strangers  (^tyoSox^Ta). 
These  were  established  in  places  where  travellers 
were  most  likely  to  resort,  or  where  Christian 
strangers  were  commonly  most  numerous,  such 
as  along  the  lines  of  travel  taken  by  pilgrims, 
when  the  practice  of  making  pilgrimages  to  holy 
places  had  become  usual. 

At  these  houses  Christian  travellers  were 
entertained  according  to  their  need,  and  were 
sent  forward  on  their  way  in  peace. 

A  singular  remnant  of  this  ancient  hospitality 
still  remains  at  St.  Cross  near  Winchester,  where 
any  one  who  applies  at  the  porter’s  lodge  re¬ 
ceives  gratuitously  a  glass  of  beer  and  a  slice  of 
bread.  [G.  A.  J.] 

HOSPITATjS.  1.  General  account  of  Hospi¬ 
tals. — The  remarkable  outflowing  of  benevolence 
and  sympathy  with  others,  which  marked  the 
very  commencement  of  Christianity,  led  imme¬ 
diately  to  a  care  for  the  poor,  especially  in  times 
of  sickness  and  distress. 

From  the  earliest  times  the  funds  of  the  church 
were  applied  to  the  maintenance  of  widows 


786 


HOSPITALS 


HOSPITALS 


and  orphans,  sick  and  poor,  prisoners  and  so¬ 
journers  (Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  I.  c.  67).  It 
was  the  special  duty  of  the  deacons  and  dea¬ 
conesses  to  attend  to  the  sick  at  their  own 
houses  {Constit.  Apost.  iii.  19,  and  Epiphan. 
Fidei  Expos.  21).  But  all  Christians,  particu 
larlv  the  women  who  had  the  most  leisure  for 
this  purpose,  considered  it  incumbent  on  them 
to  visit  and  relieve  the  sick  poor  (^Epist.  ad 
Zen.  et  Reren.  c.  17,  in  Justin  Martyr’s  Works., 
p.  416  ;  Tertull.  ad  Uxor.  ii.  4).  And  this  they 
did  without  being  deterred  by  any  fear  of  infec¬ 
tion  in  the  case  of  plagues  or  other  contagious 
di.seases;  of  which  a  notable  example,  among 
many  others,  was  seen  in  the  heroic  conduct 
of  the  Christians  at  Alexandria  during  the  great 
plague  there  in  the  time  of  the  emperor  Gal- 
licnus  (a.d.  260-268).  See  the  account  given  in 
Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccles.  viii.  22). 

Public  hospitals  for  the  reception  of  the  sick, 
the  needy,  and  the  stranger,  began  to  be  erected 
as  soon  as  Cliristianity,  being  freed  from  per¬ 
secution,  could  display  its  natural  tendencies 
without  danger  or  restriction.  Houses  were  set 
apart  for  the  reception  of  travellers  or  sojourners 
(|e»'o5oxem),  for  the  poor  (iTTOJXO'^ptxpi^a.'),  for 
orphans  (op^ai/oTpocpeta),  for  foundlings  ()8pe</>o- 
rpoepeta),  and  for  the  aged  {yepouTOKOfida),  as 
well  as  for  the  sick  (vocroKoasTa).  [Hospitality, 
Exposing  or  Children,  Foundlings.]  Several 
of  these  objects  were  often  combined  in  one  esta¬ 
blishment,  so  that  it  is  most  convenient  to  treat 
of  them  under  one  head. 

Epiphanius  (^Haeres.  75,  c.  1)  mentions  that 
Aerius,  afterwards  known  as  a  heretic,  about 
the  middle  of  the  4th  century  was  made  by  the 
bishop  Eustathius  superintendent  of  the  hospital 
(|€j/o5oxftop.  says  Epiphanius,  called  in  Pontus 
TTTuxoTpofpeiov)  at  Sebaste  in  Pontus.  It  does 
not  appear  that  the  hospital  was  then  first  esta¬ 
blished,  and  Epiphanius  mentions  it  as  a  common 
custom  for  bishops  of  the  church  to  provide  for 
the  maimed  and  infirm  by  setting  up  such  esta¬ 
blishments. 

The  most  complete  hospital  of  which  we  have 
any  account  in  antiquity  was  built  by  Basil  the 
Great,  soon  after  his  accession  to  the  see,  near 
Caesarea  in  Pontus.  St.  Basil,  defending  himself 
from  the  charge  of  seeking  to  gain  unJue  in¬ 
fluence,  which  had  been  brought  against  him 
before  the  prefect  of  the  place,  says  (^Epist.  94 
[al.  372]  ad  ffeliam),  “Whom  do  we  injure,  in 
building  lodgings  (Karaywyia)  for  the  strangers 
who  stay  with  us  in  passing  through,  and  for 
those  who  need  attendance  {depaireias)  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  infirmity  ?  What,  in  supplying  neces¬ 
sary  comfort  for  these  persons,  nurses,  medical 
attendants,  means  of  conveying  them  (to 
yuiTocpopa),^  and  persons  to  take  charge  of  them 
in  removal  (tous  TrapoTre^Troi/Tas)  ?  And  these 
things  must  of  necessitv  carry  with  them  handi- 
crafts,  both  such  as  are  required  for  sustenance 
and  such  as  conduce  to  decorum,  and  these  again 
require  workshops.”  He  also  (Epist.  142  [al.  374]) 
begs  an  official  of  the  empire  to  exempt  his  poor- 
house  from  state  taxation,  and  speaks  (^Epist.  143 
[al.  428])  of  its  being  managed  by  a  chorepiscopus. 
St.  Basil’s  hospital  is  thus  spoken  of  by  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  (who  had  himself  seen  it)  in  his  pane¬ 
gyric  on  the  saint  (^Orat.  20,  p.  359,  ed.  Colon. 


1690).  “  Go  forth  a  little  from  the  city,  and 

behold  the  new  city,  the  treasure-house  of  godli¬ 
ness  ....  in  which  the  superfluities  of  wealth 
— nay,  even  things  not  superfluous — have  been 
laid  up  in  store  at  his  exhortation ;  ...  in 
which  disease  is  investigated  (^^iKoaocpilrai)  and 
sympathy  proved  .  .  .  We  have  no  longer  to 
look  on  the  fearful  and  pitiable  sight  of  men  like 
corpses  before  death,  with  the  greater  part  of 
their  limbs  dead  [from  leprosy],  driven  from 
cities,  from  dwellings,  from  public  places,  from 
water-courses  .  .  .  Basil  it  was  more  than  any 
one  who  persuaded  those  who  are  men  not  to 
scorn  men,  nor  to  dishonour  Christ  the  he<ad  of 
all  by  their  inhumanity  towards  human  beings.” 
From  this  it  appears  that  at  least  a  portion  of 
St.  Basil’s  hospital  was  for  lepers.  Sozomen, 
again  (AT.  E.  vi.  34)  speaks  of  Prapidius  having 
been  principal  of  this  “  Basiliad,  that  most 
famous  lodging  for  the  poor  founded  by  Basil, 
from  whom  it  received  the  appellation  which  it 
still  retains.”  Of  St.  Chrysostom,  too,  Palladius 
(  Vita  Chrys.  p.  19,  ed.  Montfaucon)  relates  that 
he  diverted  the  superfluous  expenses  of  his  see  to 
the  maintenance  of  the  hospital  {voaoKO/xeiou'), 
and  that  as  the  need  ir.'’reased  he  founded  several, 
over  which  he  set  two  presbyters  of  high  cha¬ 
racter  ;  he  engaged  fprther  physicians  and  cooks, 
and  kind  unmarried  attendants  to  work  under 
them.  St.  Chrysostom  himself  (//o/n.  66  [al.  67] 
in  Matt.)  pointing  triumphantly  to  the  large- 
handed  bounty  of  the  church,  says,  “  consider 
how  many  widows,  how  many  virgins,  the  church 
sustains  day  by  day  ;  the  number  on  the  roll  is 
not  less  than  three  thousand  [in  Constantinople]. 
And  she  provides  also  for  those  who  are  in  dis¬ 
tress  in  the  guest-house ;  for  those  who  are 
maimed  in  body ;  and  yet  her  substance  is  not 
diminished.”  It  is  evident  that  a  regular  system 
of  providing  for  the  poor  in  connexion  with  the 
church  was  organised  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century ;  for  the  council  of  Chalcedon  (c.  3) 
especially  recognises  the  care  of  widows  and 
orphans,  and  the  needy  generally  as  one  of  the 
justifications  for  a  cleric’s  engaging  in  secular 
affairs  I^Koa/jLiKa]  SioiKpcfis),  if  he  does  it  at  the 
command  of  his  bishop. 

The  emperor  Julian  recognised  the  importance 
of  institutions  such  as  those  of  St.  Basjl ;  “  the.se 
impious  Galilaeans,”  says  he  {Fragment,  p.  305, 
quoted  by  Rheinwald)  “  give  themselves  to  this 
kind  of  humanity  ;  as  men  allure  children  with  a 
cake,  so  they,  starting  from  what  they  call  love 
and  entertaining  and  serving  of  tables,  bring  in 
converts  to  their  impiety  ;  ”  and  again  he  bids 
Arsacius  {Epist.  49,  u.  s.),  “  establish  abundance  of 
hospitals  in  every  city,  that  our  kindness  may  be 
enjoyed  by  strangers,  not  only  of  our  own  people, 
but  of  others  who  are  in  need.” 

Placilla,  the  wife  of  Theodosius  the  Great, 
devoted  herself  much  to  the  care  of  the  sick. 
She  cared,  says  Theodoret  {Hist.  Eccl.  v.  19),  for 
those  who  were  maimed  and  injured,  not  devolv- 
j  ing  the  charge  of  them  on  subordinates,  but 
attending  to  them  personally,  going  into  the 
places  where  they  were  received  (ras  tovtuv 
Karayccyds)  and  supplying  their  several  wants. 
So  also,  making  the  round  of  the  hospitals 
{^ftfcovas)  of  the  churches,  she  attended  on  those 
who  were  confined  to  bed.  herself  handling  the 
pots  and  tasting  the  broth,  bringing  bowls, 
breaking  bread,  and  oflering  mouthfuls,  washing 


•  Compiire  Xenoph.  Cyrop.  vi.  2,  34. 


HOSPITALS 


HOSPITALS 


787 


cups,  aud  performing  other  services  which  are 
generally  done  hy  domestics. 

Samson  of  Constantinople  received  the  name  of 
“  Xenodochus  ”  from  his  devotion  to  the  care  of 
hospitals  and  asylums,  and  is  said  to  have  per¬ 
suaded  the  emperor  .Justinian  to  give  up  his  own 
palace  for  the  purposes  of  a  xenodochion  (see  the 
Byzantine  Menuea,  June  27).  Procopius  how¬ 
ever  {De  Aedif.  Just.  i.  2)  gives  a  somewhat 
different  account  of  the  matter.  There  was,  he 
says,  a  hospital  for  the  sick  and  infirm,  built  in 
former  years  by  the  j)ious  care  of  one  Samson,  of 
which  there  were  in  Justinian’s  time  some  re¬ 
mains  in  a  ruinous  condition.  This  the  emperor 
restored,  decorated,  and  amplified  in  the  most 
liberal  manner.  He  increased,  says  Procopius, 
both  the  number  of  wards  (ot/ctSta)V,  domuncu- 
larum)  and  the  annual  revenue.  Whether  by  the 
ex])ression  oIkiSiwv  we  are  to  understand  detached 
buildings,  or  rooms,  is  doubtful  ;  if  the  former, 
Justinian’s  hospital,  like  that  of  Basil  previously 
described,  would  resemble  a  little  town,  a  place 
of  many  buildings  within  a  wall.  Justinian  fur¬ 
ther  built,  in  concert  with  Theodora,  two  other 
hospitals  {^evcouas).  Of  the  empress  Eudocia  it 
is  related  (  Vita  Euth;imii,  c.  16,  in  Acta  S8. 
January,  vol.  ii.  p  617)  that  she  built  many 
churches,  gerontocomia,  ptochotrophia,  and  mon¬ 
asteries.  vShe  is  said  also  to  have  prepared  food 
for  the  sick  with  her  own  hands. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  go  through  the  long  list 
of  pious  foundations  for  the  benefit  of  the  sick 
which  we  meet  with  in  the  history  of  the  church. 
But  it  may  be  mentioned  as  an  instance  of  the 
general  recognition  of  the  duty  of  providing  for 
sick  and  infirm  brethren,  that  by  the  so-called 
Arabic  canons  of  Nicaea  the  bishop  was  expressly 
bound,  in  virtue  of  his  office,  to  institute  hos¬ 
pitals.  Canon  70.  (Hardouin,  Concilia,  i.  475) 
prescribes,  that  in  every  city  a  place  should  be 
set  apart  for  strangers,  sick,  and  poor,  which 
should  be  called  a  xenodochium  ;  and  that  the 
bishop  should  select  one  of  the  monks  of  the 
desert,  himself  a  foreigner,  far  from  home  and 
family,  and  a  man  of  iiitegi’ity,  to  take  charge  of  - 
the  hospital,  to  procure  for  it  beds  and  whatever 
may  be  necessary  for  the  sick  and  poor ;  and  that 
if  the  ju'operty  of  the  hospital  be  inadequate,  he 
should  make  a  collection  from  the  Christians, 
according  to  their  several  means,  and  Avith  this 
provision  sustain  the  brethren  Avho  are  strangers, 
poor,  or  sick,  as  each  may  have  need. 

Most  of  these  instances  belong  to  the  Eastern 
church  ;  but  the  Western  church  was  not  behind 
in  the  good  work.  Paulinus  of  Nola  has  left  us 
(Poem.  XX.  114)  a  brief  description  of  the  hospital 
which  he  himself  built,  which  appears  to  have 
been  rather  for  the  reception  of  the  poor  and  old 
than  of  the  sick,  as  such  : 

“  Dispositi  trino  per  lonpra  sedilia  coetu 
Obstrepuere  senes,  inopuni  mi.serabile  vulgus, 

Et  socio  canae  rcsidentes  agmine  matres.” 

This  description  suggests  long  wards,  proAuded 
with  “sedilia” — perhaps  “berths,”  or  divans 
running  along  the  wall — in  Avhich  the  inmates 
Avere  separated  into  three  classes — poor,  old 
men,  and  old  Avomen. 

Jerome,  in  a  letter  to  Pammachius  (Epist.  66 
[al.  26],  c.  11,  Avritten,  according  to  Vallarsi, 
A.D.  387)  speaks  of  a  xenodochium  Avhich  the 
latter  had  built  in  the  Portus  Romanus,  of 


which  he  (Jerome)  had  just  heard.  This  was 
probably  attended  to  by  Pammacdiius  himself 
and  the  monks  for  Avhom  he  had  ))rovided  a  con¬ 
vent  in  the  neighbourhood.  Jerome  himself 
founded  a  hospital  for  the  reception  of  the  sick 
and  the  stranger  in  Bethlehem  ;  finding  his 
means  insufficient  to  finish  it,  he  sent  his  brother 
Paulinianus  (it.  S.  c.  14)  to  sell  his  remaining  pro¬ 
perty  in  his  native  country,  to  jirovide  money  for 
its  completion.  Fabiola,  the  friend  of  Jerome,  also 
founded  a  hospital  at  Rome.  Having  been 
obliged  to  obtain  a  divorce  from  her  first  husband 
on  account  of  his  intolerable  profligacy,  she 
married  another  before  his  death.  On  becoming 
a  Avidow  she  learned  that  according  to  church 
law,  of  which  she  had  been  jireviously  ignorant 
(“  nec  evangelii  vigorem  noverat,”  says  Jerome 
Ep.  77  [al.  30],  c.  3),  it  Avas  unlaAvful  for  her 
to  have  married  again  during  her  first  husband’s 
life,  however  justly  she  had  .se))arated  from  him. 
Upon  this  she  submitted  to  a  humiliating  pen¬ 
ance  ;  and  afterwards  devoted  all  her  jiroperty 
to  charitable  purposes,  and  among  other  good 
Avorks  built  a  hospital,  where  she  ministered  to 
the  sick  Avith  her  own  hands  (i6.  c.  6). 

Jerome  remarks  that  Eabiola  Avas  the  first 
person  Avho  founded  a  hospital  (prima  omnium 
voaoKopeiou  instituit).  But  this  perhaps  only 
means  the  first  hospital  in  Rome  or  Italy.  And 
the  fact  that  Jerome  uses  the  Greek  Avord 
uo(TOKope7ov,  and  not  the  Latin  valetudinarium, 
tends  to  confirm  the  account  which  points  to  the 
Eastern  church  as  the  first  to  exhibit  such  acts 
of  benevolence. 

Rome  itself  had  an  ancient  fame  for  its  care  of 
the  sick  and  poor  (Prudentius,  Peristeph.  ii. 
140  tf.).  Its  hospitals  were  frequently  the  ob¬ 
jects  of  the  munificence  of  the  po])es.  Anastasius 
(Vitae  Pontt.  134  a,  ed.  Muratori)  tells  us  of 
Pelagius  II.  (578-590),  that  he  caused  his  oavu 
house  to  be  made  a  refuge  for  the  poor  and 
aged  (ptochium  pauperum  et  senum).  His  suc¬ 
cessor,  Gregory  the  Great  (Dialogus,  iii.  35, 
p.  243)  seems  to  say  that  he  had  taken  Amantius 
from  his  OAvn  dAvelling  to  pass  some  days  in  the 
infirmary;  and  John  the  Deacon  relates  of  him 
that  he  set  over  the  several  hospitals  careful  and 
conscientious  men,  Avho  had  to  submit  their 
accounts  to  himself,  that  the  beneficence  of  the 
people  towards  those  institutions  might  not  be 
checked  by  mismanagement  of  the  funds.  He 
also  proA'ided  Probus  Avith  money  to  build  a 
xenodochium  on  a  large  scale  at  Jerusalem,  and 
supported  it  by  an  annual  subvention  (Vita 
Greg.  ii.  7).  Other  hospitals  in  Rome  of  an 
early  date  are  knoAvn  to  us  at  least  by  name. 
Pope  Symmachus  (498-514)  is  said  by  Ado 
(Ckronicon,  in  Migne’s  Patrol,  cxxiii.  106  b)  to 
have  founded  or  restored  three  hospitals  (pau- 
peribus  habitacula)  knoAvn  by  the  names  of  St. 
Peter,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Laurence  respectively. 
Stephen  III.  (752—757)  is  said  by  Anastasius 
(  Vitae  Pontiff,  p.  165,  c.  D.)  to  haA’e  restored  four 
xenodochia  and  founded  two  others,  Avhich  Avere 
placed  in  the  charge  of  the  regionary  deacons  of 
St.  Maria  and  St.  Sih’ester ;  and  Adrian  I. 
(772-795,  ih.  p.  190,  D  )  to  haA'e  founded  three 
Diaconiae  (see  the  Avord)  “  foris  portam  Beati 
Apostolorum  Principis.” 

Nor  Avas  it  only  in  Rome  that  such  institutions 
were  found.  In  Gaul  they  e-xisted  at  any  rate 
before  the  death  of  St,  Remi  (^532),  if  Ave  may 

3  E 


788 


HOSPITALS 


HOSPITALS 


trust  Flodoard.  The  saint  is  made  (^Hist.  Be- 
mens.  i.  18)  to  entreat  his  successors  to  preserve 
inviolate  his  statutes  for  the  management  of  his 
poor-houses  (ptochia),  coenobia,  martyria,  dia- 
coniae  and  xenodochia,  as  he  had  done  those  of  his 
predecessors — an  expression  which  implies  that 
some  at  least  of  these  foundations  existed  before 
St.  Remi  came  to  the  see  of  Reims  before  496. 
The  fifth  council  of  Orleans,  a.d.  549,  places  (c. 
13)  the  j)ro[)erty  of  xenodochia  on  the  same  foot¬ 
ing,  with  regard  to  alienation,  as  that  of  churches 
and  monasteries  ;  and  (c.  15)  makes  special  pro¬ 
vision  for  the  magnificent  hospital  which,  under 
the  influence  of  its  bishop  Sacerdos,  Childebert 
with  his  queen  Ultragotha  had  founded  in  Lyons, 
forbidding  the  bishop  of  that  city  to  merge  any 
of  its  propei’ty  in  that  of  his  church,  or  to  dimi¬ 
nish  its  privileges  in  any  way,  and  enjoining  him 
to  take  care  that  active  and  God-fearing  super¬ 
intendents  (praepositi)  be  always  appointed,  and 
that  the  care  of  the  sick  and  the  entertainment 
of  strangers  be  always  maintained  according  to 
the  statutes. 

We  do  not  trace  the  existence  of  hospitals  in 
the  African  fathers  or  councils.  In  Victor’s 
account  of  the  Vandal  persecution  (i.  8),  we  find 
that  Deogratias  bishop  of  Carthage,  a.d.  455, 
turned  two  churches  into  hospitals  for  the  re¬ 
ception  of  the  wretched  captives  who  were  poured 
on  the  African  shores  from  Italy ;  but  this  was 
a  temporary  expedient,  such  as  has  often  been 
adopted  in  times  of  calamity.  But  we  are  not 
to  suppose  that  the  sick  of  the  African  church 
were  ill-cared  for  ;  the  houses  of  the  bisihops,  the 
clergy  and  the  monks  often  served  for  the  recep¬ 
tion  of  the  sick.  Augustine  (Possidius,  Vita 
Aug.  cc.  22,  23)  exercised  constant  care  for  the 
sick  and  poor,  and  (^Itegnla,  ad  Servos  Dei,  c.  5) 
gives  directions  to  monks  as  to  their  reception 
and  treatment  of  the  sick  and  infirm  ;  directions 
in  which  he  seems  to  contemplate  the  case  not 
only  of  feeble  members  of  the  monastic  body,  but 
of  sick  persons  brought  in  from  without. 

In  the  Teutonic  countries,  we  have  of  course 
no  accounts  of  hospitals  of  so  early  a  date  as 
those  which  have  been  mentioned  in  Italy  and 
Gaul.  Chrodegang,  however  (^Segula,  c.  45,  in 
Migne’s  Patrol.  89,  1076),  recommends  that  a 
guest-room  (hospitale)  should  be  formed  in  a 
suitable  place,  convenient  for  the  brothers  to 
visit ;  and  desires  the  brothers  of  his  Rule,  even 
if  they  cannot  maintain  a  hospital  at  other 
times,  at  least  in  Lent  to  wash  the  feet  of  the 
poor  in  a  hospital  or  guest-room.  The  famous 
Alcuin  at  a  somewhat  later  date  also  warned  the 
bishops  of  the  great  nece.ssity  there  was  for  form¬ 
ing  hospitals,  and  probably  also  directed  the  at¬ 
tention  of  his  patron  Charles  the  Great  to  the 
same  subject.  To  Eanbald,  as  soon  as  he  entered 
on  his  see,  Alcuin  wrote  urging  him  to  establish 
“  xenodochia,  id  est,  hospitalia  ”  (^Epist.  56,  ad 
Eanh.,  Ale.  0pp.  i.  65)  in  which  the  poor  and  the 
strangers  might  be  received.  In  accordance  with 
the  Rule  of  Chrodegang  and  the  wish  of  Alcuin, 
the  synod  of  Aix,  in  the  year  816,  ordered  (c.  28) 
that  every  ecclesiastical  foundation,  whether  ca¬ 
nonical  or  monastic,  should  provide  accommoda¬ 
tion  for  the  poor,  the  sick,  the  widows,  and  the 
strangers.  The  poor-house  was  to  be  placed  near 
the  church,  and  a  priest  was  to  be  its  superin¬ 
tendent  ;  the  infirmary  was  to  be  within  the  con¬ 
sent,  as  were  also  the  wards  for  the  widows  and 


poor  maidens,  though  probably  in  a  building  sepa¬ 
rate  from  that  which  contained  the  cells  of  the 
canons  or  monks  {Cone.  Germ.  i.  539).  The 
Frankish  Capitularies  also  take  order  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  j)oor  and  sick.  Thus  it  is 
ordered  (i.  c.  70,  a.d.  789)  that  “  hospites,  pere- 
grini  et  pauperes  ”  have  the  due  entertainment 
in  various  places  to  which  they  are  entitled  by 
the  canons  ;  a  passage  in  which  “  peregrini  ”  are 
probably  monks  from  other  hou.ses,  “hospites”  ai  e 
lay  guests.  And  again  (ii.  c.  29)  they  bring  xeno¬ 
dochia,  ptochotro[)liia,  nosocomia,  orphanotro- 
phia,  gerontocomia,  and  brephotroj^hia  under  the 
same  law  as  churches  an  I  monasteries  with  re¬ 
gard  to  the  non-alienation  of  their  property. 

The  establishment  of  many  of  the  hospitals 
which  existed  in  the  uorthei-n  countries  in  the 
8th  and  9th  centuries  is  due  to  the  Irish  mis¬ 
sionaries,  who  cared  for  the  bodies  as  well  as  the 
souls  of  the  peo])le  among  whom  they  preached. 
Hence  they  received  the  name  of  “  Hospitalia 
Scotorum,”  an  expression  found  both  in  the 
canons  of  Meaux  (C.  Meldense,  c.  40),  and  in  the 
petition  of  the  bishops  of  the  provinces  of  Reims 
and  Rouen  to  Lewis  the  Pious  (c.  10,  Baluze,  CojOiV. 
Franc. i\.  111).  These  hospitals  were  closely  con¬ 
nected  with  the  monasteries  founded  by  the  .same 
missionaries.  Gretser  {Ad  Vit.  S.  Willibaldi, 
lib.  i.  observ.  19  ;  Grets.  Opera.,  x.  778)  enume¬ 
rates  some  of  the  hospitals  of  their  foundation. 

2.  Administration  of  Hospitals. — In  the  first 
instance,  the  hospitals,  like  other  institutions  of 
the  church,  were  under  the  immediate  supei*- 
intendence  of  the  bishops.  In  many  cases,  as  we 
have  seen,  they  were  founded  by  the  bishops 
themselves  from  the  funds  placed  at  their  dis¬ 
posal  by  the  church,  and  so  the  over.sight  of 
them  naturally  fell  to  the  founder  and  his  suc¬ 
cessors.  And  even  when  endowed  by  private 
persons,  such  foundation  was  regarded  as  of  the 
nature  of  alm.s,  and  so  given  into  the  hands  of 
those  who  were,  directly  or  indirectly,  the 
universal  almoners.  The  property  of  hospitals  was 
regarded  (as  has  been  shewn  above)  by  kings  and 
rulers  as  being  of  the  same  kind  as  the  property 
of  the  church.  And  the  attendants  on  the  sick 
were-,  at  least  in  very  many  cases,  drawn  from 
the  neighbouring  monasteries  or  houses  of  canons. 
When  the  duty  was  laid  upon  bishops  of  pro¬ 
viding,  so  far  as  in  them  lay,  food  and  clothing 
for  those  who  in  con.sequence  of  infirmity  were 
unable  to  earn  their  own  living  {Cone.  Aurel.  I. 
c.  16),  it  naturally  followed  that  they  super¬ 
intended  and  directed  the  establishments  for  at¬ 
taining  this  end. 

It  must  however  have  been  from  the  first 
impossible  for  a  much-occupied  bishop  to  give 
personal  attention  to  all  the  details  of  a  large 
hospital,  and  therefore  other  clerics  wei’e  em¬ 
ployed  under  him  on  this  behalf.  We  have  seen 
already  that  Aerius  was  a  hospltal-supei*intendent 
under  his  bishop  Eustathius ;  and  as  early  as 
the  cmincil  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451,  we  find  the 
clerics  attached  to  the  poor-houses  (tJJi/  TTroix^t- 
(t3v)  placed  on  the  same  footing  as  those  of  the 
monasteries  and  martyr-churches,  and  admonished 
to  obey  their  bishops  according  to  the  ti-adition 
of  the  fathers  (c.  8),  a  passage  which  probably 
indicates  that  they  had  been  disposed  to  assert 


b  It  mu.-t  be  borne  in  mind  that  by  “  Scoti  ”  at  this 
period  we  are  to  underst md  natives  of  Ireland, 


HOSPITALS 


HOSPITIUM 


789 


too  great  independence.  The  legislation  of  Jus¬ 
tinian  provided  carefully  for  the  due  administra¬ 
tion  of  hospitals.  Thus  {Codex,  1.  42,  §  9,  De 
Episcopii  et  Clericis)  it  is  jirovided  that  prefects 
of  hospitals  (of  whatever  kind)  shall  be  appointed 
according  to  the  judgment  and  with  the  approval 
of  the  bishop  of  the  place  ;  and  again  (/6.  1.  46, 
§  8)  bishops  are  enjoined  not  to  administer  the 
hospitals  within  their  dioceses  personally,  but 
to  appoint  su))erintendents,  and  to  act  themselves 
as  visitors  and  auditors,  in  case  of  need  removing 
the  otHcials.  The  same  law  desires  that  men  be 
appointed  to  such  offices  who  have  before  their 
eyes  the  fear  of  God  and  of  the  dreadful  day  of 
judgment.  The  same  code  (1.  28)  makes  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese  the  executor  of  a  will 
containing  a  bequest  for  pious  uses,  where  no 
executor  has  been  named  in  the  will  itself  r  and 
desires  him  (1.  49)  in  cases  where  the  testator 
has  not  designated  special  objects  of  his  bounty, 
to  apj)lv  the  bequest  to  the  benefit  of  the  hospital 
of  the  city,  or  to  the  poorest  hospital,  where  there 
were  more  than  one.  In  deciding  the  question, 
which  is  poorest,  he  is  to  take  counsel  with  his 
clergv.  But  in  case  there  be  no  hospital  (xenon) 
ill  the  citv,  then  the  oeconomus  or  the  bishop  is 
to  take  the  bequest,  and  apply  it  for  the  benefit 
of  the  poor.  In  case  the  bishop  is  negligent  in 
discharging  this  duty,  then  the  metropolitan  of 
the  province  or  the  archbishop  of  the  diocese 
[see  Diocesb]  may  enquire  into  the  matter  and 
compel  the  bishop  to  act.  Or  (1.  46,  §  6)  any 
inhabitant  of  the  city  interested  in  the  matter 
may  compel  the  carrying  out  of  the  will. 

That  in  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great  the 
xeuodochia  were  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
bishop  is  clear  from  several  passages  in  his 
letters.  Thus  {Epist.  iv.  27).  he  desires  Janua- 
rius,  bishop  of  Cagliari,  to  take  care  that  the 
xenodochi  render  their  accounts  to  him  ;  and 
begs  him  not  to  let  the  hospitals  fall  to  decay 
by  his  neglect ;  and  he  desires  that  men  of  proved 
integrity  may  be  appointed  prefects  of  xenodo- 
ohia,  and  these  only  ecclesiastics  (religiosi),  who 
cannot  be  harassed  by  lay  tribunals.  To  those 
whom  he  himself  had  appointed  prefects  of  dia- 
coniae  or  xenodochia  he  gave  full  power  over  the 
funds,  expressly  exempting  them  from  rendering 
an  account  to  any  one  (Joan,  Diaconus,  Vita  Greg, 
ii.  c.  51). 

The  bishops  of  the  provinces  of  Reims  and 
Rouen,  in  their  petition  to  Lewis  the  Pious,  son 
of  Charles  the  Great,  beg  that  the  rectors  of 
monasteries  and  xenodochia  be  made  subject  to 
the  authority  of  their  bishops  (e.  10,  in  Baluze 
Capit.  Franc,  ii.  111). 

3.  Dedication. — Martigny  (referring  to  Werns- 
dorf  De  Columbae  Simulacris)  says  that  hospitals 
were  in  ancient  times  commonly  dedicated  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  which  was  represented  under  the 
form  of  a  dove,  either  on  the  fa<,ade,  or  on  some 
other  conspicuous  part  of  the  building.  The 
principal  hospital  in  Rome  bears  this  designation, 
and  has  borne  it  from  a  very  remote  period 
(Fantucci,  Tr  dt.  di  tutte  le  opere  pie  neW  alma 
cittci  di  Eoma,  c.  1,  quoted  by  Martigny). 

(Thomassin,  Vetus  et  Xova  Eccl.  Disciplina, 
P.  I.  lib.  ii.  c.  89  ;  Van  Espen,  ./us  Ecclesiasticum, 
P.  II.  sec.  iv.  tit.  6  ;  Binterim,  Denkviirdijkeiten, 
Bd.  VI.  Th.  iii.  p,  32  tf. ;  Rheinwald,  Kirchlic/ie 
y.rchdologie,  §  41,  p.  103  tf. ;  Martigny,  Diet,  des 
AnLiq.  Chre'e.  s.  v.  Hopitaux.')  [G.  A.  J.  and  C.] 


HOSPITIUjM  (also  Ilospitale).  One  of  the 
characteristics,  perhaps  the  most  commend¬ 
able,  of  monasticism,  was  its  unvarying  hos 
pitality  to  all  comers.  None  were  to  be  re¬ 
fused  admission ;  all  were  to  be  made  welcome 
(Bened.  lieg.  c.  53);  especially  monks,  clergy, 
poor,  and  foreigners  {Iteg.  Pachom.  c.  51  ; 
Isidor.  Peg.  c.  23;  Mart,  ad  Bened.  Peg.  c.  53). 
No  questions  were  to  be  asked  {Peg.  Pair.  c.  4) 
unless  by  the  abbat’s  order  {Pi  g.  Tarnat.  c.  7.) 
Even  passing  wayfarers  were  to  be  pressed  to  eat 
before  going  on;  if  they  could  not  wait  for  the 
usual  hour,  the  dinner  was  to  be  served  three 
hours  sooner  than  usual  ;  or,  if  they  could  not 
stay  even  so  long,  they  were  to  have  their  meal 
separately  {Peg.  Mag.  c.  72).  Everything  was 
to  be  done  in  courtesy,  and  for  the  comfort  of 
the  guests.  The  prior  (or  .some  others  of  the 
brethren),  was  to  meet  them,  and,  after  a  few 
words  of  prayer  by  way  of  salutation,  as  well  as  bv 
way  of  precaution  against  any  Satanic  illusion, 
was  to  give  and  receive  the  kiss  of  peace  ;  on  their 
arriving  and  departing  he  was  to  make  obeisance 
to  them,  as  recognising  in  them  a  visit  from  the 
Saviour  (Bened.  Peg.  c.  53).  He  was  to  lead 
them  straightway  on  arrival  to  the  oratory  or 
sacristy,  (usually  in  Benedictine  monasteries 
close  to  the  entrance-gate),  and  after  praying 
together  (cf.  Peg.  Pachom.  c.  51)  awhile,  was  to 
sit  with  them,  reading  aloud,  first  some  holy 
book  (lex  divina),  the  Scriptures  especially 
(Mart.  luc.  cit.),  and  then,  these  primary  duties 
attended  to,  conversing  amicably  (“  Omnis 
humanitas  praebenda,”  Bened.  Peg.  v.  s.)  The 
abbat  himself  was  to  bring  water,  this  was  to  be 
done  at  bedtime,  and  the  footsore  were  to  be 
rubbed  with  oil,  according  to  the  rule  (c.  10)  of 
Fructuosus,  and  with  certain  brethren  in  rota¬ 
tion  (so  Martene  understands  “  omnis  congre- 
gatio  ”)  was  to  wash  the  feet  of  all  without 
distinction,  repeating  a  verse  of  the  Psalms 
(Bened.  Reg.  v.  s.).  In  compliment  to  the 
guests,  the  prior,  though  not  the  other  monks, 
was  excused  from  observing  a  fast  day,  unless  one 
of  special  obligation  (i6.).  If  sick  or  delicate, 
some  dainties  (“  pulmentaria  ”)  were  to  be  pro¬ 
vided  for  them  (Fruct.  Peg.  c.  10).  Nor  were 
the  guests  to  leave  the  monastery  empty-handed; 
for  the  journey,  the  best  that  the  monastery 
could  afford  was  to  be  supplied  as  a  parting  gift 
(viaticum). 

In  the  annals  of  the  monastery  of  Micy  (ilici- 
anum),  it  is  recorded  in  praise  of  an  abbat  in  the 
6th  century,  that,  though  the  monastery  was  then 
very  poor,  its  guests  were  always  regaled  with 
wine,  without  being  allowed  to  see  that  the 
brethren  were  drinking  only  water  (Mab. 
A.  A.  0.  S.  B.  I.  ad  fin.).  Caesarius  of  Arles  is 
similarly  extolled  by  his  biographer  for  keeping 
oj)en  house  as  abbat  (  Vit.  Cues.  Arelat.  i.  37,  ap. 
Mab.  i6.). 

Such  hospitality  was  sure  to  be  largely  used 
in  days  when  travelling  was  so  difficult  and  so 
dangerous.  Benedict  wisely  provides  for  a  con¬ 
stant  influx  of  strangers  (“  nunquam  desunt 
monasterio,”  Peg.  c.  53).  Nowhere  indeed  in 
his  rule  is  its  tenderness  and  forethought  more 
remarkable  than  about  the  reception  of  guests. 
In  some  of  these  arrangements  he  had  been  anti¬ 
cipated.  Cassian  speaks  of  one  of  the  older 
monks  being  stationed  by  the  abbat,  with  the 
I  advice  of  the  seniors,  near  the  entrance  of  the 


700 


HOSPITIUM 


HOST 


monastery,  to  receive  strangers  as  they  arrived 
(Cass,  [iistit.  iv.  7).  Benedict  placed  them 
under  the  general  supervision  of  the  cellarer,  or 
house-steward  {ileg.  c.  81),  and  his  deputies.  Sub¬ 
sequently,  a  distinct  officer  was  created,  the 
“  hospitalarius,”  corresponding  to  the  eastern 
“  |fj/o5dxos  ”  (Mart,  ad  loc.  cit.  Alte.serr.  .ds- 
ceticon,  ix.  9 ;  Du  Cange,  s.  v  v.),  whose  duties, 
however,  did  not  extend  to  the  refectory.  One 
of  the  brethren,  selected  as  a  specially  God¬ 
fearing  man  (“  Cujus  aliimam  timor  dei  habeat  ”) 
was  aj>pointed  by  Benedict  to  look  after  the 
guests’  dormitory  (“  cella  hospitum  ”)  (Bened. 
lieg.  c.  58)  (usually  on  the  east  side  of  the  Bene¬ 
dictine  quadrangle,  over  the  “  hospitium  ”  ; 

and  two  others  were  told  off  annually  for  the 
guests’  kitchen,  which  adjoined  the  abbat’s 
kitchen  (usually  on  the  south  side  of  the  quad¬ 
rangle  ®  with  a  window  between  (Mart.  ad.  loc.)  ; 
these  officials  were  to  have  extra  assistance,  as 
occasion  required  (*5.).  Every  precaution  was 
taken,  lest  the  influx  of  strangers  should  either 
disturb  the  placidity  of  the  “  house  of  God”  (i6.), 
or  lead  to  the  propagation  of  silly  rumours  about 
it  (i’5.).  Their  sitting-room,  dormitory,  and 
kitchen  were  all  to  be  separate  from  those  of  the 
monks  («6.  cf.  c.  56).  None  of  the  monks,  unless 
expressly  ordered,  might  exchange  even  in  pa.ssing 
a  word  with  a  guest,  except  to  ask  a  ble.ssing 
(i6.  cf.  Heg.  Mac.  c.  8).  Nor  were  the  guests  to 
be  trusted  to  themselves  without  supervision. 
Care  was  to  be  taken  that  the  monks’  wallets 
were  not  left  about  in  the  guests’  dormitory ;  and 
two  of  the  monks,  whose  turn  it  was  to  help  in 
the  kitchen  and  otherwise  for  the  week  (“  heb- 
doniadarii  ”),  were  to  keep  close  to  the  guests 
night  and  day  (^Reg.  Mag.  c.  79).  It  is  not  clear 
whether  Benedict  intended  the  guests  to  be 
entertained  in  the  refectory  at  a  separate  table 
with  the  abbat,  or  with  him  in  a  separate  table 
(Bened.  Reg.  c.  56);  Martene  thinks  in  the  re¬ 
fectory  (^Reg.  Comment,  ad  loc.  cit. ;  cf.  Cone. 
Aquisgr.  c.  27).  The  abbat  on  these  occa¬ 
sions  might  invite  a  few  of  the  brethren  to  his 
table,  leaving  the  charge  of  the  rest  to  the  prior, 
and  might  make  some  addition  to  the  ordinary 
fare  (Bened.  Reg.  c.  56  ;  Mart,  ad  l.c.  ;  Mab.  Ann. 
0.  S.  B.  V.  xiii.).  It  was  strictly  forbidden  by 
the  council  of  Saragossa,  a.d.  691,  for  lay  persons 
to  be  lodged  in  the  quadrangle  of  the  monastery 
(“  intra  claustra  ”),  even  with  the  abbat’s  special 
permission,  lest  contact  with  them  should 
demoralise  the  brethren  or  give  rise  to  scandals  ; 
they  were  to  be  lodged  in  a  separate  house 
wdthin  the  precincts  (intra  septa)  (Cone.  Caesar- 
august.  A.D.  691 ;  cf.  Mab.  Ann.  0,  S.  B.  xviii. 

XV.) 

Benedict  orders,  that  monks  coming  from 
another  country  (peregrini)  may,  if  orderly,  pro¬ 
long  their  stay  in  the  monastery  (^Reg.  c.  61)  for 
one,  two,  or  even  three  years  (Mart.  Reg.  Com¬ 
ment.  1.  c.) ;  and  that  any  suggestions  which 
they  make  for  its  better  management  are  to  be 
welcomed  as  providential  (Bened.  Reg.  ib.).  They 
are  then  either  to  be  dismissed  kindly 
(“  honeste  ”)  or  formally  admitted,  not,  how'ever, 
unless  they  bring  commendatory  letters  from 
their  former  abbat,  or  otherwise  gjve  proof  of  his 
consent.  Once  admitted,  they  may  be  promoted 
without  delay  at  the  abbat’s  discretion,  to  places 


*  Whitaker’s  History  of  Whalley,  4th  ed.  1874,  p.  124. 


of  authority  ;  as  may  clergy  similarly  admitted 
(lb.).  Laymen,  willing  to  stay  on,  are  either  to 
take  the  vow,  or  to  make  themselves  useful  to  the 
monastery  in  some  sort  of  work  in  return  for 
board  and  lodging  (  Reg.  Mag.  c.  79). 

It  was  part  of  the  discipline  of  candidates  for 
the  novitiate  to  wait  on  the  guests  in  their  sit¬ 
ting-room  (“  cella  hospitum,”  or  “  hospitium  ”), 
according  to  the  rule  of  Benedict,  for  some  days 
(Reg.  c.  58),  or,  according  to  some  later  rules, 
for  three  months  (Isid.  Reg.  c.  5  ;  Fruct.  Reg.  c. 
21 ;  Menard  ad  Bened.  Anian.  Conojrd.  Regid. 
Ixii.)  [see  Novice]. 

History  shows  how'  the  simple  and  frugal  hos¬ 
pitality  enjoined  by  Benedict  and  monastic  law- 
makei's  degenerated  in  time  into  luxury  and  dis¬ 
play,  burdensome  to  the  revenues  of  the  monas¬ 
teries,  demoralising  to  their  inmates,  and  one  of 
the  proximate  causes  of  their  fall.  [1.  G.-  S.] 

HOST,  from  the  Latin  Hostia,  a  victim.  It 
w'as  applied  to  sacrifices,  or  ofierings  of  various 
kinds  in  the  ecclesiastical  language  ot'  the  West. 
E.g.  in  the  Vulgate  version  of  Horn.  xii.  1,  we 
have  “  Ut  exhibeatis  corpora  vestrar  hostiam  ” 
(E.  V.  sacrifice)  “  viventem,  sanctam,  Deo  placen- 
tem,  rationabile  obsequium  vestrum:”  and 
similarly  in  the  Missale  Gothicum,  the  people  are 
bid  to  pray  that  God  “  may  cleanse  the  hearts  of 
all  the  oflerers  unto  (i.e.  that  they  may  become) 
a  sacrifice  (hostiam)  of  sanctification,  reason¬ 
able  and  w’ell-pleasing  unto  Himself”  (Liturg. 
Gall,  ed  Mabill.  p.  237).  In  the  Vulgate  of 
Phil.  iv.*18,  it  is  used  of  almsgiving,  “Hostiam 
acceptam,  placentem  Deo.”  Christ,  the  one  true 
victim,  is  called  hostia,  as  in  Eph.  v.  2,  “  Tra- 
didit  semetipsum  pro  nobis  oblationem  et  hos¬ 
tiam.”  Similarly  Heb.  x.  12  :  “  Unam  pro  nobis 
offerens  hostiam.”  Compare  Heb.  ix.  26.  This 
is  frequent  in  the  old  Latin  liturgies.  Thus  in 
the  Gothic  Missal,  “  Suppliant  to  Thee  who  wast 
slain  a  victim  (hostia)  for  the  salvation  of  the 
world,  we  pray,  &c.”  (Lit.  Gall.  p.  285) ;  and 
“Whom  Thou  didst  will  to  be  delivered  up  a 
sacrifice  (hostiam)  for  us  ”  (ibid.  p.  257  ;  comp, 
p.  198).  In  the  following  example  the  church 
commemorates  and  pleads  that  sacrifice  : — “  We 
offer  unto  thee,  0  God,  an  immaculate  victim 
(hostiam),  w'hom  the  maternal  womb  brought 
forth  without  defilement  to  virginity  ”  (Missale 
iWozar.  Leslie,  p.  39).  As  the  thank-offering 
(Eucharist)  of  the  Mosaic  law'  had  been  called 
hostia  laudis  (Ps.  cxvi.  17),  or  hostia  gratiarum 
(Lev.  vi.  13),  so  was  the  Christian  thank-offer¬ 
ing,  the  sacramental  commemoration  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  E.g.  “Receive  w'e  beseech  thee,  0 
Lord,  the  sacrifice  (hostiam)  of  propitiation  and 
praise,  and  these  oblations  of  Thy  servants” 
(i/(ss.  Goth.  u.  s.  p.  253). 

As  the  w'ord  properly  expresses  a  concrete 
notion,  it  would  readily  pass  from  the  last  mean¬ 
ing  to  attach  itself  to  the  material  symbols 
offered  in  the  rite.  In  the  Missale  Gothkum,  in 
a  prayer  said  after  the  conseci-ation,  we  read, 
“  We  offer  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  this  immaculate 
host,  reasonable  host,  unbloody  host,  this  holy 
bread  and  salutary  cup”  (u.  s.  p.  298).  The 
following  example  is  from  the  Mozarabic  Missal : 
— “This  host  of  bread  and  wine,  which  have 
been  placed  on  Thy  altar  by  me  unworthy” 
(Leslie,  p.  445).  It  will  be  observed  that  in 
these  extracts  the  bread  and  wine  (after  conse- 


HOST,  THE  ADORATrON  OF 

cration)  are  together  called  the  host.  Even  in 
the  11th  century  Anselm  affirmed  correctly, 

“  One  host  in  bread  and  wine.  .  .  .  They  call  both 
together  by  one  name,  oblation  or  host  ”  (Ad 
Walemnnum,  c.  2).  L(>ng  before  this,  however, 
it  was  sometimes  I'estrained  to  the  bread  alone, 
as  in  the  three  earliest  Ordines  Romani,  which 
range  from  the  7th  to  the  9th  century: — “The 
acolytes  (carrying  the  consecrated  bread)  go 
down  to  the  presbyters  that  they  may  break  the 
hosts  ”  {Musaeuin  Ital.  tom.  ii.  pp.  13,  49,  59). 
In  these  ancient  directories  the  unconsecrated 
loaves  are  always,  and  the  consecrated  more  fre¬ 
quently,  called  by  the  older  name  of  “oblates.” 

When  the  phrase  “immaculate  host”  was  in¬ 
troduced  into  the  Roman  Missal  towards  the 
11th  century  (Le  Brun,  Explic.  dc  la  Messe, 
P.  iii.  art.  6)  from  that  of  Spain,  the  mistake 
was  made  of  applying  it  to  the  unconsecrated 
bread.  See  Scudamore’s  Notitia  Eucharistica, 
p.  370.  [W.  E.  S.] 

HOST,  THE  ADORATION  OF.  In  the 
modern  church  of  Rome,  the  worship  of  latrit, 
i.e.  such  worship  as  is  due  to  God,  is  paid  to  the 
consecrated  symbol  of  our  Lord’s  body  in  the 
eucharist,  under  sanction  of  the  dogma,  that 
the  bread  is,  in  all  but  appearance  and  other 
“  accidents,”  converted  into  that  body,  and  that 
His  human  soul  and  His  divinity^,  being  united 
to  His  body,  are  therefore  in  that  which  has 
become  His  body ;  so  that  whole  Christ,  God 
and  man,  is  in  it,  and  in  every  particle  of  it 
{Catech.  Trident,  p.  ii.  de  Euch.  cc.  33,  35).  Of 
such  adoration  of  the  host  the  church  knew 
nothing,  and  could  know  nothing,  before  the 
.opinions  w'hich  at  last  shaped  themselves  into 
that  dogma  had  taken  possession  of  the  minds  of 
men.  But  the  Latin  word  adoratio,  and  the 
Greek  irpocrKvvricns,  like  the  old  English  worship, 
have  a  great  latitude  of  meaning,  and  are  ap¬ 
plied  to  the  simplest  outward  tokens  of  respect, 
no  less  than  to  that  highest  homage  of  the  body, 
soul,  and  spirit,  which  is  due  to  God  alone.  For 
example,  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  7,  9,  where  the  English 
has  “did  obeisance,”  the  Septuagint  gives  irpoae- 
Kvvrjaav  and  irpoaeKvvovv ;  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
adorarc.  Exod.  xi.  8  :  Eng.  “  Thy  servants  .... 
shall  bow  down  to  me  ” ;  Sept.  TTpo(rKvvi](Tov(Ti 
fxc  ;  Vulg.  adorabunt  me.  See  Scudamore’s 
Notitia  Eucharistica,  p.  844.  In  this  lower 
sense,  we  find  the  word  “  adoration,”  and  its 
equivalents,  employed  within  the  period  which 
it  is  our  part  to  illustrate,  to  denote  the  expres¬ 
sion  of  reverence  to  the  bread  and  wine,  which 
are  the  sacramental  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

With  this  previous  explanation,  we  give,  in  chro¬ 
nological  order,  a  catena  of  passages,  which  will 
exhibit  sufficiently,  as  we  hope,  both  the  feelings 
of  reverence  which  the  early  Christians  had  for 
the  sacred  symbols,  and  the  manner  in  which 
they  expressed  it  by  word.c,  or  gesture,  or  care¬ 
ful  handling,  and  the  like.  Among  these  are 
several  which  have  often  been  mistakenly  ad¬ 
duced  as  affording  testimony  to  the  antiquity  of 
the  Roman  worship  of  the  host. 

Tertullian,  a.d.  192,  “  We  are  disti’essed,  if 
any  of  our  cup,  or  even  bread,  be  cast  on  the 
ground  ”  (^De  Cor.  Mil.  c.  iii.).  The  context  1 
shows  that  the  allusion  is  to  a  religious  rite.  ! 
Origen,  a.d.  230 :  “  Ye  who  are  wont  to  be 
present  at  the  Divine  Mysteries,  know  how,  [ 


HOST,  THE  ADORATION  OF  791 

when  ye  take  the  body  of  the  Lord,  ye  keep  it 
with  all  care  and  reverence,  lest  any  paiticle 
fall  therefrom,  lest  aught  of  the  consecrated 
gift  be  spilled.  For  ye  believe,  and  rightly 
believe,  yourselves  to  be  guilty,  if  aught  fall 
therefrom  through  negligence.  But  if  ye  use, 
and  justly  use,  so  great  care  about  the  keejiing 
of  His  body,  how  do  ye  think  it  involves  less 
guilt  to  have  been  careless  about  the  word  of  God, 
than  to  have  been  careless  about  His  body  ?”(//om. 
in  Exod.  xiii.  §  3).  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  a.d. 
350:  “When  thou  drawest  near,  do  not  ilraw 
near  with  hands  expanded  or  fingers  wide  apart ; 
but  making  thy  left  hand  a  throne  for  thy  right, 
as  about  to  receive  a  king,  and  making  the  jialm 
hollow,  receive  the  body  of  Christ,  answering 
Amen.  Partake,  therefore,  having  heedfully 
sanctified  thine  eyes  with  the  touch  of  the  holy 
body,  taking  care  that  thou  drop  nought  of  it. 

. Then,  after  the  communion  of  the  body 

of  Christ,  approach  thou  also  to  the  cuj)  of  His 
blood,  not  stretching  forth  thy  hands ;  but  with 
head  bowed,  and  with  gesture  of  adoration  (jrpoa- 
Kvwfiaews)  and  reverence,  saying  Amen,  be  thou 
sanctified,  partaking  also  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 
And  w'hile  the  moisture  is  still  on  thy  lips, 
touching  them  with  thy  hands,  sanctify  both  eyes 
and  forehead,  and  the  other  organs  of  sense  ” 
{Catech.  Myst.  v.  §§  18,  19).  Pseudo-Dionysius, 
who  may  have  written  as  early  as  362,  in  a 
highly  rhetorical  passage,  makes  the  following 
apostrophe  to  the  sacrament :  “  But,  0  most 
divine  and  sacred  celebration  (reKerr]  ;  in  the 
Latin  translation,  Sacramentum'),  do  thou,  un¬ 
folding  the  enigmatic  wrappings  that  with 
symbols  enshroud  thee,  manifest  thyself  to  us  in 
clear  light,  and  fill  our  mental  vision  with  the 
only  and  unshrouded  light  ”  (De  Eccl.  Hier. 
cap.  iii.  n.  iii.  §  2).  Owing  to  the  word  TeAerirj 
(celebration  of  mysteries)  having  been  rendered  by 
Sacramentum,  this  passage  has  been  often  brought 
forward  as  an  address  to  “  the  Sacrament i.e. 
to  the  consecrated  host  (Bellarm.  Disput.  tom. 
iii.  1.  iv.  c.  29  compared  with  1.  ii.  c.  3).  Had 
the  word  been  capable  of  that  meaning,  it  would 
still  have  been  only  an  apostrophe,  not  an 
example  of  adoration  directed  to  the  sacred 
element.  Gorgonia,  the  sister  of  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen,  A.D.  370,  is  said  by  him,  in  a  dangerous 
illness,  to  have  “prostrated  herself  before  the 
altar,  and  called  with  a  loud  voice  upon  Him 
who  is  honoured  thereon  ”  (^Orat.  viii.  §  18). 
This  has  been  understood  ( Bellarm.  u.  s. ) 
to  mean  that  she  worshipped  the  host  on  the 
altar ;  which  for  several  centuries  after  that 
time  was  not  reserved  there.  St.  Gregory  him¬ 
self  goes  on  to  tell  us  that  “  she  mingled  with 
her  tears  whatever  her  hand  had  treasured  of 
the  antitypes  of  the  precious  body  and  blood.” 
St.  Ambrose,  a.d.  374,  commenting  on  the  words 
of  the  98th  Psalm,  adorate  scabcllum  pedum  Ejus, 
considers  that  “  by  the  footstool  the  earth  is 
meant,  and  by  the  earth,  the  flesh  of  Christ, 
which  to  this  day  we  adore  in  the  mysteries,  and 
which  the  apostles  adored  in  the  Lord  Jesus  ” 
{De  Spir.  S.  lib.  iii.  c.  11,  n.  79).  Here  it  is 
implied  that  a  reverence  is  due  to  the  conse¬ 
crated  earthly  elements,  not  equal  to  that  which 
is  due  to  Christ  Himself,  but  in  such  jiroportion 
to  it,  more  or  less,  as  our  loyal  respect  for  the 
insignia  of  royalty  has  to  that  which  we  enter¬ 
tain  for  the  person  of  the  king  himself.  St. 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


792  HOST,  THE  ADORATION  OF 

Augustine,  a.d.  396,  explains  the  same  passage 
at  greater  length,  but  does  not  lead  us  to  a 
different  v'iew  of  the  adoration  intended:  “He 
took  earth  of  the  earth ;  for  flesh  is  of  the  earth, 
and  He  took  flesh  of  the  flesh  of  Mary.  And 
because  He  walked  here  in  the  flesh  itself,  and 
gave  His  flesh  itself  to  be  eaten  by  us  unto  sal¬ 
vation,  but  no  one  eats  that  flesh  unless  he  has 
first  adoi’ed,  we  have  found  out  how  such  a  foot¬ 
stool  of  God  may  be  adored,  and  how  we  not 
only  do  not  sin  by  adoring,  but  sin  by  not 
adoring  ”  {Enarr.  in  J^s.  xcviii.  §  9).  Com¬ 
menting  on  Ps.  xxi.  29  (Lat.  30),  the  same 
father  says :  the  rich  of  the  earth  “  have  them¬ 
selves  been  brought  to  the  table  of  Christ,  and 
take  of  His  body  and  blood ;  but  they  only 
worship, — ai'e  not  also  satisfied,  because  they  do 
not  imitate  ”  (Ajo.  cxl.  ad  Honoratum,  cxxvii. 
§  66  ;  Sim.  Enarr.  i.  in  Ps.  xxi.  v.  30).  Here, 
however,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  writer  had 
at  all  in  view  the  reverence  paid  to  the  sacra¬ 
mental  body.  He  rather,  perhaps,  is  thinking  of 
communion  as  accompanied  by  prayer,  and  as 
the  crowning  act  of  the  eucharist,  or  thanks¬ 
giving.  The  following  words  of  St.  Chrysostom, 
A.D.  398,  have  been  supposed  (Bellarm.  u.  s.)  to 
refer  to  the  adoration  of  the  eucharist :  “  Are 
thy  garments  filthy,  and  it  concerns  thee  not  ? 
But  are  they  clean  ?  Then  recline  (avdireaai, 
rendered  improperly  odorale)  and  partake  ” 
{Horn.  iii.  in  Ep.  ad  Ejyh.  c.  i.  vv.  20-23 ;  often 
quoted  from  the  cento  known  as  Horn.  Ixi.  ad 
Antioch.').  Again,  a  worship  of  the  elements 
has  been  inferred  (Bell.  u.  s.)  from  this  .sentence: 
“This  table  is  in  the  place  of  the  manger,  and 
here  also  will  the  body  of  the  Lord  lie ;  not, 
indeed,  as  then,  w’rapped  in  swaddling-clothes, 
but  clothed  all  around  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  initiated  understand.  And  the  Magi  then 
did  nothing  but  adore;  but  \ve  will  permit  thee 
both  to  receive,  and  having  received  to  return 
home,  if  thou  draw  near  with  a  clean  conscience” 
(JJe  Beat.  Philogono,  §  3).  Other  passages,  to 
vv'hich  controversialists  refer,  in  the  works  of  St. 
Chrysostom  (as  Horn.  Ixxxiii.  in  St.  Matt.  ;  xxiv. 
in  Ep.  i.  ad  Cur.  &c.),  only  exalt  the  sacrament, 
do  not  speak  of  any  adoi-atiou.  Theodoret,  A.D. 
423 :  “  The  mystic  symbols  do  not,  after  the 
consecration,  pass  out  of  their  own  nature ;  for 
they  remain  in  their  foi’mer  substance,  and  form, 
and  appearance,  and  are  visible  and  palpable,  as 
they  were  before  ;  but  they  are  mentally  per¬ 
ceived  as  what  they  have  become,  and  are 
believed  to  be,  and  are  adored  as  being  W’hat 
they  ai’e  believed  to  be  ”  (^Dialog,  ii.  tom.  iv. 
p.  85).  Here  the  worship  of  latria  cannot  pos¬ 
sibly  be  intended,  because  the  author,  in  the 
same  sentence,  teaches  that  the  “creatures  of 
bread  and  wine  ”  are,  after  consecration,  bread 
and  wine  still.  It  may  be  remarked  also,  that 
aknougn  many,  or  perhaps  all,  of  the  foregoing 
extracts  may  be  seen  quoted  in  favour  of  the 
modern  cultus  of  the  host,  there  is  not  one  that 
is  really  to  the  purpose.  Nor  ‘s  it  until  the  7th 
century,  an  age  in  which  the  outward  observ¬ 
ances  of  religion  multiplied  rapidly,  that  we  find 
any  definite  gesture  of  respect  to  the  host  men¬ 
tioned.  It  was  the  custom  at  Rome  then  to 
i*eserve  a  portion  of  the  eucharist  [see  Feu- 
MEXTUMj,  to  be  put  into  the  chalice  at  the  next 
celebration.  The  earliest  Ordo  Romanus  (§  8, 
Musae.  Ital.  tom.  ii.  p.  8)  directs  that  when  this 


j  is  brought  out  for  use,  “  the  bishop  or  deacon 
salute  the  holy  things  {sancta)  w'ith  an  inclina¬ 
tion  of  the  head.”  In  Ordo  II.,  which  is  a 
!  revision  of  the  first,  and  perhaps  a  century  later, 
i  the  bishop,  “his  head  bowed  toward  the  altar, 

I  first  adores  the  holy  things,”  &c.  (§  4,  p.  43). 
See  also  the  Ecloga  of  Amalarius,  who  comments 
on  this  Ordo  (§  6,  p.  550).  The  significance  of 
the  action  may  be  estimated  by  the  similar 
respect  paid  in  some  churches  to  the  gospel,  e.g. 
“  The  priests  and  bishops  standing  by  uncover 
their  heads,  lay  down  their  sticks,  and  worship 
the  gospel  by  an  inclination  of  the  head”  (AiYu- 
alis  Gabriel,  Renaud.  tom.  i.  p.  211).  The  last 
passage  to  which  we  shall  call  attention,  occurs 
in  the  Acts  of  the  council  of  Constantinople,  a.d. 
754:  “  As  that  which  He  took  of  us  is  only  the 
matter  of  human  substance,  perfect  in  all  things, 
without  expressing  the  proper  form  of  a  person, 
that  no  addition  of  person  may  take  place  in  the 
Godhead,  so  also  did  He  command  the  image, 
chosen  matter,  to  wit  the  substance  of  bread,  to 
be  offered,  not,  however,  fashioned' after  the  form 
of  man,  lest  idolatry  should  be  brought  in” 
(in  Act.  vi.  Cone.  Nic.  ii.  Labb.  tom.  vii.  col.  448). 
It  is  evident  that  the  adoration  of  the  host, 
in  its  modern  sense,  could  not  have  been  known 
when  this  was  written. 

As  elevation  is  often  supposed  to  imply  adora¬ 
tion,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  there  was  no 
elevation  of  the  consecrated  elements  in  the  West 
before  the  twelfth  century;  and  that  the  so- 
called  elevation  of  the  East  was  merely  a  “show¬ 
ing  of  the  gifts,”  designed  to  second  the  invitation 
to  communicate  conveyed  by  the  proclamation, 
“  Holy  things  for  the  holy  ”  (see  Notitia  Eucha- 
ristica,  pp.  546,  595).  [W.  E.  S.] 

HOURS  OF  PRAYER.  I.  This  phrase 
was  inherited  from  the  elder  church.  “Peter 
j  and  John  went  up  together  into  the  temple  at 
the  Hour  of  Prayer,  being  the  ninth  hour  ” 
(Acts  iii.  1).  At  first  the  observance  of  the 
hours  was  of  devotion  onlv,  but  it  was  after- 
j  wards  made  obligatory  by  canon  on  the  clergy 
j  and  monks,  and  they  began  to  be  called 
Canonical  Hours.  The  earliest  use  of  this  ex¬ 
pression  is  found,  we  think,  in  the  rule  of  St. 
Benedict  (c.  67 ;  in  Holstenii  Codex  Begtiloj-um, 
P.  ii.) ;  but  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  very 
common  within  the  period  of  which  we  treat. 
It  occurs  in  the  Regula  of  St.  Isidore  of  Seville 
who  died  in  636  (cap.  7  ;  Holst.  «  .  s.).  St.  Eloy, 
A.D.  640,  employs  it :  “  To  whom  should  it  be 
said  that  ‘  men  ought  always  to  pray  and  not  to 
faint  ’  (St.  Luke  xviii.  1),  if  not  to  him  who  daily 
at  the  Canonical  Hours,  according  to  the  rite  of 
ecclesiastical  tradition,  praises  and  beseeches  the 
Lord  without  ceasing  in  the  accustomed  psalmody 
and  prayers”  (ZTom.  xi.  in  Biblloth.  PP.  tom. 
xii.).  Bede  in  our  own  country  (a.d.  701),  in  his 
I  commentary  on  those  words  of  St.  Luke,  copies 
i  this  sentence  from  St.  Eloy.  The  “  Canonical 
j  Hours  ”  are  mentioned  in  the  excerptions  of 
1  Ecgbriht,  A.D.  740  (can.  28  ;  Johnson’s  Engl. 
Canons),  and  in  the  canons  of  Cuthbert,  747  (c. 
15 ;  ibid.). 

II.  What  is  meant  by  an  Hour. — By  an  hour 
was  understood  a  twelfth  part  of  the  natural 
day,  reckoned  from  sunrise  to  sunset,  of  what¬ 
ever  length  it  might  be.  Upon  the  use  of  this 
natural  measure  of  time  by  the  Jews  is  founded 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


793 


that  saying  of  our  Lord  :  “Are  there  not  twelve 
hours  in  the  day  ?  If  a  man  walk  in  the  day,  he 
stumbleth  not ;  because  he  seeth  the  light  of 
this  world  ”  (St.  John  xi.  9).  The  Romans  are 
said  to  have  adopted  this  division  of  the  day 
about  B.c.  291.  Martial  refers  to  it  as  in  use 
among  them,  when  he  tells  a  friend  that  he 
might  read  his  book  in  less  than  an  hour,  and 
that  not  one  of  summer’s  length  {Epigr.  lib.  xii. 
n.  1,  ad  Friscum).  In  the  Fseudolus  of  Plautus 
an  “  hour  in  winter  ”  is  said  to  be  “  shortest  ” 
(Act  V.  sc.  2,  1.  11).  The  Greeks  had  learnt 
this  method  in  the  6th  century  before  Christ, 
when  the  sun-dial  became  known  to  them  pro¬ 
bably  through  Anaximander  (see  Diogenes  Laert. 
lib.  1.  c,  7) ;  and  they  retained  it  during  their 
subjection  to  the  Roman  empire.  Thus  in  the 
Sentences  ascribed  to  Secundus  of  Athens  in  the 
time  of  Hadrian,  a  day  is  defined  to  be  “  the 
space  given  to  toil,  the  course  of  twelve  hours  ” 
{Sent.  4).  As  the  time  of  labour  varied,  so 
must  the  hours  have  been  longer  or  shorter.  It 
IS  employed  beyond  our  period  by  Cassianus 
Bassus,  A.D.  940,  as  when  he  tells  the  tiller  of 
the  land  at  what  hour  the  moon  sets  and  rises 
on  each  day  of  the  month  {Gcoponica  lib.  i.  c.  7). 
St.  Augustine  speaks  as  if  he  knew  of  no  other, 
“The  hour  in  winter,  compai’ed  with  the  hour 
in  summer,  is  the  shorter”  {De  \era  lielig.  c. 
xliii.  §  80).  Hence  we  infer  that  the  natural 
day  and  hour  were  also  employed  by  the  church 
in  his  day.  Amalariusat  the  close  of  our  period 
uses  the  same  division  of  time  with  express 
reference  to  the  Hours  of  Prayer ;  prefacing  his 
account  of  them  thus :  “  The  people  properly 
call  the  presence  of  the  sun  above  the  earth  the 
complete  day.  From  this  definition  it  may  be 
understood  that  a  day  of  twelve  hours  ought  to 
begin  at  the  rising  and  end  at  the  setting  of  the 
sun  ”  {De  Ordine  Antiphonarii,  c.  6  ;  see  also  cc. 
16,  70).  By  the  first  hour,  then,  we  are  to 
understand  that  twelfth  part  of  the  natural  day 
which  began  at  sunrise ;  by  the  sixth  that  which 
ended  when  the  sun  cro.ssed  the  meridian ;  the 
twelfth  that  which  immediately  preceded  the 
sun.set. 

The  day  and  the  night  were  further  divided 
into  four  equal  parts.  Each  quarter  of  the  day 
consisting  of  three  hours  was  named  after  the 
last  hour  in  it.  Thus  the  first  quarter,  con¬ 
taining  the  first,  second,  and  third  hour,  was 
called  the  third  hour  (Tertia,  Terce),  that  is  to 
say,  by  the  “third  hour”  we  often  have  to 
understand  the  whole  interval  between  sunrise 
and  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  (smaller)  hour. 
Similarly  Sext  is  the  space  of  the  three  hours 
that  follow,  viz.  the  fourth,  the  fifth,  and  the 
sixth,  ending  at  noon,  or  twelve  o’clock.  None 
embraces  the  seventh,  eighth  and ’ninth  hours; 
and  the  last,  called  Duodecima,  contains  the 
tenth,  eleventh,  and  twelfth,  ending  at  sunset. 
This  is  satisfactorily  shown  by  Francolinus  {De 
Tcmporihus  Horar.  Canon,  c.  xxi. ;  Romae,  1571). 
Hence  St.  Benedict  (Fegula,  c.  48)  was  free  to 
direct  that  from  Easter  to  the  Kalends  of  October 
None  should  be  said  “  in  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
hour,”  and  that  from  the  latter  time  to  Ash- 
Wednesday  “  Terce  should  be  performed  at  the 
second  hour.” 

III.  The  Prayers  called  Hours,  Sfc. — By  the 
Hours  of  Prayer  and  the  Canonical  Hours  were 
also  understood  the  devotions  themselves,  con¬ 


sisting  for  the  most  part  of  psalms  and  prayers, 
which  were  used  at  the  stated  times  more  pro¬ 
perly  so  called.  Equivalents  in  this  secondary 
sense  within  the  first  eight  centuries  were 
Ofllcium  Divinum,  or  Officia  Divina  (see  e.  g. 
Bened.  Fegula,  cc.  8,  43;  Isidore  of  Seville,  De 
Eccl.  Off.  lib.  i.  c.  19),  Cursus  (sc.  Divinus) 
(Greg.  Turon.  de  Gloria  Mart.  lib.  i.  c.  11  ;  Hist. 
Franc.  1.  viii.  c.  15;  ix.  c.  6,  &c.) ;  Cursus  eccle- 
siastici  (Greg.  Tur.  Hist.  Franc.  1.  x.  c.  31 ;  n. 
19);  Missa  {Cone.  Agath.  A.D.  506,  cap.  30; 
Cassian.  Coenob.  Instil.  L.  ii.  c.  7);  and  so 
Missa  nocturna  (Cass.  u.  s.  1.  ii.  c.  13),  Vigiliarum 
Missa  {i'iid.  1.  iii.  c.  8),  &c. ;  Mis.sa  Canonica 
{ibid.  c.  5)  (though  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
in  Cassian’s  time  the  thought  of  dismissal  was 
entirely  ab.sent  when  that  word  was  used) ; 
Orationes  Canonicae  {ibid.  1.  ii.  c.  12).  We  find 
used  also  the  more  general  teims  Diurna  Cele- 
britas,  Solemnitas,  Agenda,  or,  from  tlie  staple 
of  the  devotions  used,  Psalmodia.  J'he  word 
synaxis  (assembling)  employed  by  the  Egyptian, 
Syrian,  and  Grecian  monks,  conveyed  to  the 
mind  alike  the  notion  of  the  times  at  which  and 
of  the  purpose  for  which  they  assembled  {ibid. 
lib.  ii.  0.  10  ;  Collat.  viii.  c.  16,  &c.).  It  was 
often  thus  used  in  the  West,  but  at  first  needed 
explanation.  Hence  in  the  rule  of  St.  Columban, 
abbot  of  Luxeuil  in  Burgundy,  and  afterwards  of 
Bobio  in  Italy  from  589  to  615,  we  read,  “  con¬ 
cerning  the  synaxis,  that  is,  the  course  of  p.salms 
and  the  canonical  method  of  prayers  ”  (cap.  7, 
Holst,  u.  s.  sira.  Fegula  Donati,  c.  75,  Holst.  P. 
iii.).  In  England  the  following  example  occurs 
in  740,  “These  seven  synaxes  we  ought  daily  to 
offer  to  God  with  great  concern  for  ourselves 
and  for  all  Christian  people”  {Excerptions  of 
Ecgbriht,  c.  28).  It  was  Latinised  by  Collecta, 
as  in  the  version  of  the  rule  of  Pachomius  (ad 
calc.  0pp.  Cassiani),  and  by  St.  Jerome,  who  says 
“Alleluia  was  sung,  by  which  sign  they  were 
called  to  collect  ”  {Epitaph.  Paulae,  Ep.  Ixxxvi.). 
By  the  Greeks  the  daily  course  was  also  called 
the  canon,  because  it  was  the  prescribed  rule  or 
norm  of  prayer.  Thus  Antioch  us,  A.D.  614, 
“Our  canon  is  called  Psalmody”  {Horn.  CV. 
Auct.  Gr.  Lat.  Biblioth.  PP.  tom.  i.).  Compare 
John  Moschu.s,  A.D.  630,  Limonarion,  c.  40. 
There  is  perhaps  a  much  earlier  instance  in  St. 
Basil,  A.D.  370,  “Every  one  keeps  his  proper 
canon  ”  i.  e.  observes  the  prayers  assigned  to  him 
{Fegulae  Breviores,  Resp.  ad  Qu.  147).  St. 
Benedict  gave  to  the  daily  offices  of  his  monks 
the  expressive  name  of  Opus  Dei,  God’s  Work 
{Fegula,  cc.  43,  44,  &c.),  a  title  soon  adopted  by 
others  (Caesarii  Fegula  ad  Mon.  c.  19,  Holst. 
P.  ii. ;  Aureliani  Fegula,  c.  29,  ibid.  &c.).  It 
was  used  conventionally  as  a  comi)lete  equivalent 
to  Officium  Divinum  ;  e.  g.  Opus  Dei,  celebratur, 
expletur  {Peg.  Bened.  cc.  44,  52) ;  dicitur, 
canitur  {Fegula,  SS.  Pauli  et  Stephani,  cc.  8, 
11,  Holst.  P.  ii.).  Opus  Divinum  is  also  found 
as  in  Benedict  {Fegula,  c.  19),  Cassiodorius, 
A.D.  562  {De  Instit.  Div.  L\tt.  c.  30),  &c.  Obse- 
quium  Divinum  also  occurs  at  the  beginning 
of  the  9th  century  {Cone.  Aquisgr.,  a.d.  816, 
cap.  131).  This  use  of  obsequium,  service,  may 
be  traced  to  the  Vulgate.  See  St.  John  xvi.  2  ; 
Rom.  ix.  4;  xii.  1  ;  xv.  31  ;  Phil  ii.  17,  30. 

IV.  The  several  Hours  of  Prayer  and  their 
various  Names. — Three  hours  of  prayer,  the 
third,  the  sixth,  and  the  ninth  were  observed  by 


794 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


the  Jews.  “  Evening  and  morning  and  at  noon 
will  I  pray.”  was  the  resolve  of  David  (Ps.  Iv. 
17).  Daniel  “  kneeled  upon  his  knees  three 
times  a  day,  and  prayed  and  gave  thanks  before 
his  God”  (Dan.  vi.  10).  Two  of  these  hours 
were  determined  by  the  times  of  the  daily  sacri¬ 
fices  (Joshua  ben  Levi  in  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Hebr. 
in  Act.  Apost.  iii.  1),  which  were  offered  “  in 
the  morning  an<l  about  the  ninth  hour”  (Josephus, 
Antiq.  L.  xiv.  c.  4.  §  3).  The  force  of  St.  Peter’s 
argument  in  Acts  ii.  15,  “These  are  not  drunken 
as  ye  suppose,  seeing  it  is  but  the  third  hour  of 
the  day,”  depends  on  the  fact  familiar  to  his 
hearers  that  the  Jews  generally  did  not  break 
their  fast  (See  Grotius  and  others  in  loc.)  before 
the  morning  sacrifice  and  prayer.  This  there¬ 
fore  was  about  the  third  hour.  We  are  expressly 
told  that  “  the  hour  of  praj’^er”  at  which  Peter 
and  John  went  up  to  the  temple  was  the  “  ninth 
hour  ”  (Acts  iii.  1).  At  the  ninth  hour  Cor¬ 
nelius,  a  proselyte  of  the  gate,  “  prayed  in  his 
house  ”  (Acts  x.  30).  St.  Peter  “  went  up  upon 
the  house-top  to  pray  about  the  sixth  hour  ” 
{ibid.  V.  9).  “  We  read,”  says  Ardo  Smaragdus, 

and  he  may  speak  for  many,  “  that  the  third, 
sixth,  and  ninth  hours  were  observed  by  the 
apostles”  {Comm,  in  S.  Bened.  Begulam,  c.  16). 

The  three  hours  of  the  apostolic  church  were 
transmitted  to  the  succeeding  ages.  Tertullian, 
A.D.  192,  speaks  of  “  those  common  hours  which 
mark  the  divisions  of  the  day,  the  third,  sixth, 
and  ninth,  which  we  may  observe  in  Scripture 
to  be  more  solemn  than  the  rest  ”  {De  Oral. 
c.  25.  See  De  Jejun.  adv.  Psychicos,  c.  10). 
Clemens  Alex.,  A.D.  192,  “If  some  assign  stated 
hours  to  prayer,  as  the  third,  sixth,  and  ninth, 
the  man  of  knowledge  prays  to  God  throughout 
his  whole  life  ”  {‘'•trom.  1.  vii.  c.  7,  §  40). 
“  There  are  three  times,”  observes  St.  Jerome, 
“  in  which  the  knees  are  to  be  bent  to  God. 
Ecclesiastical  tradition  understands  the  third, 
the  sixth,  and  the  ninth  hour”  {Comm,  in  Dan. 
c.  vi.  V.  10). 

In  the  3rd  century,  however,  w’e  begin  to  hear 
of  five  stated  times  of  prayer.  St.  Cyprian, 
A.D.  252,  after  citing  the  Scriptural  examples 
given  above,  goes  on  to  say,  “  But  beside  the 
hours  observed  of  old,  both  the  durations  and 
sacraments  of  prayer  have  increased  for  us  now. 

For  we  ought  to  pray  in  the  morning . 

Also  when  the  sun  withdraws  and  the  day  fails, 
we  must  by  a  necessary  obligation  pray  again  ” 
{De  Orut.  Dom.  sub  fin.).  St.  Basil  in  Cappadocia 
speaks  of  these  hours  of  prayer  as  necessary  and 
suitable  for  monks ;  the  morning,  the  third 
hour,  the  sixth,  the  ninth,  and  the  evening 
{Begulae  fusius  Tract.  Resp.  ad  Qu.  37,  §§  3-5). 

The  morning  office  now  introduced  is  called  by 
Cyprian  {u.  s.)  matutina  oratio;  matutinae 
oratioues  by  Aurelian  {Regula  c.  28)  ;  by  Cassian 
matutina  solemuitas  {De  Coenoh.  Inst.  lib.  iii. 
c.  3).  By  others  it  was  called  laudes  matutinae, 
from  the  use  in  it  of  the  three  last  psalms, 
which  were  called  emphatically  by  the  Latins 
“  laudes,”  and  by  the  Greeks  atuoi.  Hence  the 
later  common  appellation  of  lauds.  From  this 
the  office  also  took  the  name  of  matutinae  (Greg. 
Turon.  Hist,  Franc.  L.  ii.  c.  23:  IVL  Pair.  c.  4, 
&c. ;  Ferreoli  Regtda,  c.  13  in  Holsten.  P.  ii. ; 
Guidonis  Reg,  c.  39  in  Hergot,  Vet.  Discipl.  Mon. 
Par.  1726).  It  was  also  called  matutinum 
sacrificium,  as  by  Fructuosus  {Reg,  c.  3 ;  Holsten, 


u.  s.  and  matutinum  officium  ;  Isidor.  Reg.  c.  7 
Cone.  Bracar.  a.d,  560,  can.  i.);  whence  also 
simply  matutinum  (Isid.  ibiR.).  Matutinale  offi¬ 
cium  is  also  found  (  Vita  S.  .Joann.  Gorz.  in  Acta 
SS.  Ben.,  saec.  v.  p.  392)  anfl  matutinus  {sc.  cur- 
sus)  {Regiila  Magistri,  c.  34,  Holsten.);  also  matu- 
tinarius  (Caesarii  Reg.  c.  21),  and  matutinarii 
canonic!  (Aurel.  Ord.  post  Reg.).  But  the  most 
common  name  was  matutini,  from  the  psalmi, 
which  formed  the  chief  part  of  the  office.  This 
was  employed  by  Benedict  {J.egula,  cc.  12,  13, 
&c.)  and  was  naturally  adopted  by  many  in  the 
same  age  (Pseud.-Aug.  /.eg.  §  i ;  Caes.  Reg 
c.  21  ;  Aurel.  Ord.  u.  s.  &c.). 

Among  the  Greeks  this  ollice  is  called  by  St. 
Basil  {Regulae  fus.  Tr.  u.  s.)  rh  opBpov,  the  office 
cf  dawn,  a  name  which  it  retains  to  this  day ; 
by  St.  Epiphanius,  a.d.  368,  “morning  {eudiuoi) 
hymns  and  morning  prayers”  {De  Fide,  c.  23); 
in  the  so-called  Api>  tolical  Constitutions  the 
“prayers  of  dawn”  (lib.  viii.  c.  34),  and  the 
“thanksgiving  at  dawn”  (c.  38). 

The  evening  office  was  generally  called  vespera 
in  the  West  (Bened.  Reg.  c.  41 ;  Isidor.  Hisp.  de 
Eccl.  Off.  lib.  i.  c.  20),  and  vespertinum  officium 
(Isid.  Reg.  c.  7).  St.  Ambrose  {De  Virginibus, 
lib.  iii.  c.  4,  §  18)  calls  it  the  “hour  of  incense” 
in  allusion  to  the  Jewish  rite  (Exod.  xxx.  8 ; 
Ps.  cxli.  2 ;  St.  Luke  i.  10).  It  was  sometimes 
called  lucernarium,  as  in  a  comment  on  the 
119th  Psalm  ascribed  (incorrectly,  we  think)  to 
St.  Jerome.  “  We  (monks)  pray  at  the  third 
hour.  We  pray  at  the  sixth  hour;  at  the  ninth. 
We  make  the  Lucernarium.  We  rise  in  the 
middle  of  the  night.  Finally  we  pray  at  cock¬ 
crow  ”  (ad  fin.  Breviar.  in  Psalm.  See  also 
Rejul.  Tarnat.  c.  9,  in  Holst.  P.  ii.).  Another 
form  was  Lucernarii,  as  in  Regula  .Magistri, 
(c.  36,  Holst,  u.  s.).  In  Spain,  as  we  shall  see, 
the  Lnceruarium  was  only  considered  the  first 
part  of  vespers.  Vespers  were  also  called  thi 
twelfth  (hour),  as  in  the  Regula  Magistri  (c.  34) 

“  Prime  ought  to  be  said  in  the  same  manner  as 
Twelfth,  which  is  called  vespers.”  The  2nd 
council  of  Tours,  a.d.  567,  says,  “  The  statutes 
of  the  fathers  have  prescribed  that  .  .  .  twelve 
psalms  be  said  at  the  Twelfth  with  Alleluia, 
which  moreover  thev  learnt  from  the  showing 
of  an  angel”  (can.  18).  A  reference  to  Cassian 
{De  Coenob.  Inst.  L.  ii.  c.  5),  who  tells  the  story, 
proves  that  the  Twelfth  is  here  an  equivalent  to 
solemnitas  vespertina.  Compare  the  Ordines  at 
the  end  of  the  Regulae  of  St.  Aurelian  in  Holsten. 
P.  ii.  pp.  110,  112;  P.  iii.  pp.  69,  72.  St. 
Columban  does  not  use  the  words  vespers  and 
completorium  in  his  rule,  but  (c.  7)  orders  a 
certain  service  to  be  said  “ad  initium  noctis.”  It 
appears  more  probable  that  this  refers  to  vespers, 
the  older  office  which  must  certainly  have  been 
said  in  his  monastery,  though  Menard  and  others 
think  that  compline  in  meant.  In  the  Greek 
church,  as  partially  in  the  Latin,  the  lighting 
of  the  lamps  gave  the  office  its  common  name 
XvxviKov,  though  it  is  also  called  more  properly 
rb  kaTrfpiv6v  (Goar  io  Euchologio,  p.  30).  In 
the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (lib.  viii.)  the  whole 
office  is  called  rb  (o-Trepit/Sy  (c.  35),  It  begins 
with  a  Psalm  (the  140th)  called  einXvxuios ; 
prayers  are  then  said  for  the  catechumen.s,  ener- 
gumens,  &c.  These  are  then  dismissed,  and  the 
faithful  say  a  prayer  and  thanksgiving  by  them¬ 
selves,  both  of  which  are  qualified  by  the  title 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


795 


eViA.iJxi'ios  (cc.  36,  37).  At  the  council  of  Con-  ! 
stantinople  A.D.  536,  on  one  occasion  the  patriarch 
announced  rh  \vxvi-k6u  on  Saturday  evening  in 
the  oratory  of  St.  Mary  (Act  V.  Labb.  Cone.  tom. 
V.  col.  212).  The  council  held  there  in  691  (in 
Trullo)  ordered  that  there  should  be  no  kneeling 
from  Saturday  evening  until  Sunday  evening,  “on 
which  they  again  knelt  ”  iv  T<f}  (can.  90). 

St.  Jerome  at  Bethlehem  mentions  at  least  six 
hours  as  kept  by  the  religious  women  whom  he 
advised:  “There  is  no  one  who  knows  not  the 
third,  the  sixth,  the  ninth  hour,  the  dawn  also 
and  the  evening  ....  In  the  night  we  should 
rise  twice  or  thrice  ”  (Ad  Eiistoch.  Ep.  xviii.). 
To  Demetrias  he  says,  “  Beside  the  order  of  the 
Psalms  and  prayer,  which  thing  is  to  be  always 
practised  by  thee  at  the  third  hour,  the  sixth, 
the  ninth,  at  even,  midnight,  and  morning, 
settle  at  how  many  hours  thou  shouldst  learn  the 
Holy  Scripture,”  &c.  (Epist.  xcvii.).  Of  Paula 
and  her  community  he  says,  “  They  sang  the 
psalter  in  due  course  at  the  morning  hour,  at  the 
third,  the  sixth,  the  ninth,  at  even,  at  midnight” 
(Ad  Eustoch.  Epitaph.  Fa>dae,  Ep.  Ixxxvi.),  and 
he  advised  that  one  preparing  for  that  mode  of 
life  be  trained  “  to  rise  in  the  night  for  prayers 
and  psalms,  to  sing  hymns  in  the  morning,  to 
stand  in  the  field  like  a  good  soldier  of  Jesus 
Christ  at  the  third,  sixth,  and  ninth  hour  .... 
and  to  render  the  evening  sacrifice  when  the 
lamp  is  lighted  ”  (Ad  Laetam,  Ep.  Ivii.).  The 
author  of  tne  Apostolical  Constitutions  says, 
“Make  prayers  at  sunrise,  at  the  third  hour,  the 
sixth,  the  ninth,  at  evening,  and  at  the  cock¬ 
crow  ”  (i.  e.  evidently  at  midnight)  (lib.  viii. 
c.  34). 

The  ordinary  night  office  of  the  monasteries  is 
called  by  Cassian  solemuitas  nocturna  (Tnstit. 
lib.  ii.  c.  4),  and  nocturni  psalmi  et  orationes 
(ibid.  c.  13);  by  Pseudo-Augustine  (Eegula, 
App.  i.  ad  Op}).)  and  others  nocturnae  orationes; 
whence  sim})ly  nocturnae,  as  in  the  rule  of 
S.  Ferreol,  c.  13.  Nocturni  (sc.  psalmi  as  in 
Bened.  Eegula,  c.,  15;  Aurelian  Ordo  Regulae 
affix. ;  Regula  Magistri,  c.  33  ;  &c.)  was  common. 
It  was  also  called  Nocturnum  Officium  (Reg. 
Mag.  u.  s.) ;  Officium  Vigiliae  (Isidoid  Regula, 
c.  7);  and  apparently  the  word  vigiliae  itself 
conveyed  the  notion  of  the  .service  used  in  the 
nightly  vigil  (Benedicti  Regula,  c.  9 ;  Isid.  Reg. 
c.  7  ;  &c.).  The  Greek  name  for  the  nocturnal 
office  is  ij.^<tovvktik6p  (Orc/o  Phi lothei  in  Euchol. 
Goar,  p.  7 ;  Ty])icon  Sabae.  c.  5 ;  see  Leo  Alla- 
tius,  De  Libr.  Eccl.  Gruec.  Diss.  i.  p.  65). 

In  the  4th  century  there  ap})ears  a  desire  to 
conform  the  rule  of  prayer  to  the  standard 
which  was  su})}w.sed  to  be  set  up  in  the  119th 
Psalm,  “  Seven  times  a  day  do  1  praise  thee” 
(v.  164).  St.  Ambrose,  a.d.  374,  asks,  “If 
the  prophet  say.s.  Seven  times,  &e.,  who  was 
taken  up  with  the  affairs  of  a  kingdom,  what 
ought  we  to  do,  who  read.  Watch  and  }>vay,  that 
ye  enter  not  into  temptation  !  Certainly  solemn 
prayers  ai-e  to  be  otieved  with  giving  of  thanks 
when  we  rise  from  slee|),  when  we  go  forth, 
when  we  pre|jare  to  take  food,  when  we  have 
taken  it,  and  at  the  hour  of  incense  (St.  Luke, 
ii.  10),  lastly  when  we  go  to  bed”  (De  Virgi- 
nibus,  lib.  iii.  c.  4,  n.  18;  Comm,  in  Luc.  Ev. 
lib.  vii.  §  88).  If  such  were  to  be  the  practice 
in  private  life,  it  would  be  felt,  how  much  more 
•ignally  should  monks  observe  the  Psalmist’s 


rule  ?  The  argument  had  weight  even  with 
those  who  understood,  as  St.  Augustine  (Senn. 
xxxi.  in  Rs.  cxviii.  §  4)  and  St.  Hilary  (Tract,  in 
Ps.  eund.  lib.  xxi.  §  4)  did,  the  Scid|)tural  use  of 
that  number.  Because  it  is  “  uuiversitatis  indi¬ 
cium,”  therefore  (argues  the  former)  “  the 
church  with  reason  has  praised  God  for  His 
righteous  judgments  seven  times  a  day.”  Cassian, 
A.D.  424,  claims  for  his  monastery,  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  Paula  at  Bethlehem,  the  honour  of  having 
settled  the  rule.  This  was  by  the  addition  of  a 
matin  office,  afterwards  called  prime,  between 
the  matin  lauds  and  terce.  The  lauds  were 
“said  in  the  monasteries  after  a shortinterval  of 
time  when  the  nocturn  |)salms  and  jiravers  were 
over;”  i.e.  shortly  before  sunrise,  while  the  new 
matin  office,  or  prime,  was  said  after  it.  We  are 
not  told  when  it  was  introduced,  but  in  Cassian’s 
time,  though  of  Eastern  origin,  it  was  observed 
“  chiefly  in  the  regions  of  the  W est  ”  (De  Ci'Cnob. 
Tnstit.  1.  iii.  c.  iv.).  Nevertheless  there  is  no 
mention  of  prime  in  the  rules  of  St.  Caesarius 
(bishop  of  .Arles,  a.d.  506)  for  monks  and  nuns 
on  week  days,  and  only  in  one  MS.  of  the  latter 
is  it  prescribed  for  Sundays  (Martene,  Ih  Ant. 
Alonach.  Rit.  1.  i.  c.  iv.  n.  2)  ;  nor  does  he  men¬ 
tion  it  in  his  homilies,  though  he  entreats  the 
devout  to  rise  early  in  Lent  for  vigils,  and  before 
all  things  to  assemble  for  “  terce,  sext,  none  ” 
(Horn.  cxi.  §  2,  in  App.  0pp.  Aug.).  He  assumes 
of  course  that  they  would  be  present  at  matins 
and  evensong;  and  in  the  duties  proper  to  litan) 
days  we  find  him  including  attendance  at  church 
at  “the  six  hours”  (//ow.  clxxv.  §  3).  Some 
sixty  years  later  Cassiodorus  omits  }>rime  in  his 
enumeration  of  the  seven  hours  observed  by  the 
monks  (Expos,  in  Ps.  cxviii.  v.  164).  Nor  is  it 
recognised  by  St.  Isidore  of  Seville  a  century 
later  either  in  his  rule  (Holstenii  Codex  Regul. 
Monast.  p.  ii.),  or  in  his  work  De  Officiis.  In  the 
latter  (lib.  i.  c.  23)  he  even  quotes  what  Cassian 
says  of  prime  as  if  it  referred  to  the  older  matin 
lauds,  thus  showing  ignorance  of  the  institution 
of  another  matin  office.  It  was  however  already 
known  in  France,  being  ordered  (and  that  as  if 
already  known)  in  the  rule  of  Aurelian,  a  suc¬ 
cessor  of  Caesarius  at  Arles,  a.d.  555  (Ordo 
Regulae  affix.  Holst.  P.  ii.  p.  Ill  ;  P.  iii.  }>.  71). 
Before  the  middle  of  the  7th  century  it  had 
found  its  way  into  S})ain  ;  for  it  is  mentioned  in 
the  rule  of  Fructuosus  (Holsten.  P.  ii. ;  Regida, 
c.  2)  the  founder  of  the  Complutensian  monas¬ 
tery  and  many  others,  who  dieil  in  675.  It  had 
been  introduced  in  Italy,  and  an  office  for  it 
prescribed  by  St.  Benedict,  a.d.  530  (Holst,  u.  s. 
Regula,  c.  17).  It  a|)|)ears  also  in  two  other 
Western  rules  of  unknown  authorship  and  coun¬ 
try  ;  one  (Pseudo-Aug.  u.  s.)  of  the  6th  century, 
and  the  other  (Regula  Magistri,  c.  35,  Holsten. 
P.  ii.)  belonging  to  the  7th.  It  was  without 
doubt  largely  owing  to  Benedict  and  his  fol¬ 
lowers  that  it  now  became  universal  in  the 
Latin  church. 

The  use  of  seven  offices  for  the  day  and  night, 
and  whore  prime  was  adojited,  of  seven  for  the 
day  alone,  was  attained  in  the  6th  century  by 
erecting  the  last  brief  })rayers  said  before  going 
to  bed  into  a  formal  and  common  service  under 
the  name  of  Compline.  St.  Ambrose,  as  already 
quoted,  probably  referred  to  i)rivate  |)ravcr  onlv  ; 
but  St.  Chrysostom,  though  the  Greek  monks 
did  not  adopt  any  set  service  answering  to  the 


796 


HOUES  OF  PRAYER 


HOURS  OF  PRAY^EP. 


Western  Compline,  appears  to  speak  of  hymns 
sung  together  when  he  describes  the  life  of 
monks  in  his  day.  He  says  that  they  rise  at 
cockcrow  for  psalmody  and  prayer,  going  to  rest 
again  a  little  before  light,  that  after  completing 
the  morning  prayers  and  hymns  they  turn  to  the 
reading  of  the  Scriptures,  .  .  .  then  observe  the 
third,  sixth,  and  ninth  hours,  and  the  evening 
])rayers,  and,  di^’^ding  the  day  into  four  parts, 
honour  God  in  each  part  by  psalmody  and 
prayer ;  .  .  .  and  after  sitting  (at  table)  a  short 
time,  closing  all  with  hymns,  take  their  rest 
(//om.  xiv.  in  1  Tim.  §  4).  St.  Basil  again,  re¬ 
ferring  to  the  custom  of  monks: — “When  the 
day  is  ended,  thanksgiving  for  the  things  that 
have  been  suj)i)lied  to  us  and  been  prosperously 
ordered,  and  confession  of  omissions  voluntary  or 
otherwise,  &c.,  are  made  (i.e.  in  the  evening 
office)  .  .  .  and  again,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
night,  prayer  {alrrjais),  that  our  rest  may  be 
undisturbed  and  free  from  illusions”  {Beg.  Fus. 
2'ract.  Kesp.  ad  Q.  37,  §  5).  John  Climacus,  A.D. 
664,  in  his  Liber  ad  Fastorein,  snys  that  a  certain 
abbot  when  vespers  were  over  would  order  one 
monk  to  say  ten  psalms  (psalmorum  odaria),  an¬ 
other  thirty,  a  third  a  hundred,  before  they  went 
to  sleep.  The  present  writer  has  observed  no 
trace  in  the  East  within  our  period  to  secure  any 
such  last  act  of  devotion  by  appointing  a  form  of 
prayer  for  constant  use ;  but  in  the  Latin  church 
the  rule  of  St.  benedict,  A.D.  530  (cc.  16,  17), 
speaks  of  Compline  as  if  it  were  already  as  well 
known  as  Terce  or  Sext.  He  does  not  claim  to 
introduce  it ;  nor  does  he  oft'er  any  explanation. 
At  the  same  time,  his  adoption  of  the  new  hour 
would  cause  it  to  be  widely  received.  Cassio- 
dorus,  who  probably  borrowed  from  St.  Benedict 
(see  Garet’s  Dissert.  aj)j)ended  to  the  lAfe  in 
Cas.iiod.  Opp.\  in  his  commentary  on  the  llOth 
Psalm,  written  about  560,  remarks  on  the  words, 
“Seven  times  a  day,”  &c.  (v.  164),  “If  we  desire 
to  understand  this  number  literally,  it  signifies 
the  seven  times  at  which  the  pious  devotion  of 
the  monks  solaces  itself;  i.e.  at  matins,  terce, 
sext,  none,  luceruaria  (vespers),  completoria,  noc- 
turns.” 

The  word  completorium  has  been  said  to  refer 
rather  in  its  origin  to  the  completion  of  the 
ordinary  acts  of  daily  life  (Amalarius  De  Eccl. 
Off.  lib.  iv.  c.  8;  De  Urdine  Autiph.  c.  7)  than  to 
the  completion  of  the  daily  round  of  devotion. 
This  is  the  name  of  most  frequent  occurrence, 
owing  exndently  to  its  adoption  by  St.  Benedict 
(cc.  16,  17);  but  completa  is  also  found  as  in  the 
Ordines  of  Aurelian  (Holst.  P.  ii.  p.  112:  P.  iii. 
p.  72),  and  in  the  work  of  Isidore  De  Eccl.  Off. 
(lib.  i.  c.  21);  though  in  his  rule  (c.  7)  comple¬ 
torium  is  u.sed.  A  corrupt  reading  in  the  2nd 
Canon  of  Merida,  A.D.  666,  which  orders  that 
A  esjters  be  said  on  feasts  prius  quam  sonum  has 
led  to  the  conjecture  that  in  Spain  compline  was 
sometimes  called  somnum.  No  name  is  given  to 
the  office  by  Kructuosus  of  Braga,  656,  w’ho  ap¬ 
pears  however  to  refer  to  compline  when  in  his 
rule  (c.  2)  he  says,  “in  the  night  season  there¬ 
fore  the  first  hour  of  the  night  is  to  be  celebrated 
with  six  prayers,  &c.”  After  describing  the 
office,  he  speaks  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
monks  shall  letire  to  rest.  When  the  Greeks  at 
length  prescribed  a  constant  form  answering  to 
the  Latin  comiiletorium,  they  called  it  aTrJSetTri/ov 
beoause  it  followed  the  last  meal  of  the  day. 


Perhaps  the  earliest '  authority  is  the  Typtcon 
a.scribed  to  St.  Sabas,  who  died  in  the  6th  cen¬ 
tury,  but  which  cannot  in  its  present  form  be 
earlier  than  the  11th. 

In  some  monasteries  a  ninth  office  was  said, 
called  Lvcernarium.  There  was  from  an  early 
period  a  pious  custom  of  praying  when  lamps 
were  lighted  in  the  evening,  an  action  so  marked 
among  the  old  Romans  as  to  give  name  to  that 
part  of  the  day  (prima  fax,  or  prima  lumina). 
“  It  seemed  good  to  our  fathers,”  says  St.  Basil, 
“not  to  receive  in  silence  the  gift  of  the  evening 
light,  but  to  give  thanks  as  soon  as  it  ap[>earedl 
But  who  was  the  author  of  those  words  of  thanks¬ 
giving  at  the  lighting  of  lamps  w'e  are  unable  to 
tell.  The  people,  however,  utter  the  ancient 
saying,  and  by  no  one  have  they  ever  been 
thought  guilty  of  impiety,  who  say,  ‘  We  praise 
the  Father  and  the  Son  and  Holy  Sjtirit  of  God  ’  ” 
{De  Spir.  Sanct.  c.  Ixxiii.).  In  the  Mozarabic 
Breviary  are  the  following  directions  for  the 
performance  of  this  rite  : — “  A  commencement  is 
made  by  the  invocation  of  Jesus  Christ  (the 
Lord’s  Prayer  preceding  it,  ‘  Lord,  have  mercy, 
Christ  have  mercy.  Lord  have  mercy ;  Our 
Father  ’  being  said  in  a  low  voice)  in  a  loud 
voice,  ‘  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  light  with 
peace  ;’  that  is,  the  light  offered.  Those  who 
stand  round  respond  ‘  Thanks  be  to  God.’  And 
the  presbyter  says,  ‘  The  Lord  be  with  you 
always.’  Eesp.  ‘  And  with  thy  spirit.’  And  the 
order  of  vespers  whether  it  be  a  festival  or  not, 
follows  in  this  manuer.  This  may  be  illus¬ 
trated  from  other  Spanish  sources.  E.g.  the  rule 
of  St.  Isidore  says,  “  In  the  evening  offices,  first 
the  lucernarium,  then  two  psalms,  one  respon.sory 
and  lauds,  a  hymn  and  prayer  are  to  be  said  ” 
(cap.  7).  The  lucernarium  is  here  considered 
the  first  part  of  vespers.  The  second  canon  of 
the  council  of  Merida,  666,  mentions  that  vespers 
were  said  “after  the  offering  of  the  light.”  In 
the  East  the  140th  Psalm,  called  the  psalm  at 
the  lighting  {iiriKvxvtos)  was  said  before  vespers 
(Compare  Constit.  Apost.  lib.  viii.  c.  35,  with 
lib.  ii.  c.  59).  St.  Jerome  at  Bethlehem  :  — “  Let 
her  be  trained  to  offer  the  evening  sacrifice  when 
the  lamp  is  lighted  ”  {Ad  Lactan.  Epist.  Ivii.). 
Socrates  says  that  “  in  Greece  and  at  Jerusalem, 
and  in  Thessaly  they  say  the  prayers  at  the 
lighting  of  lamps  very  much  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  Novatians  at  Constantinople”  {Eccl.  Hist. 
lib.  V.  c.  22).  Naturally,  ve.spers  which  followed 
these  prayers  came  to  be  called  in  some  churches 
by  the  name  of  lucernarium,  which  appeared  to 
be  the  first  part  of  it;  but  sometimes  the  lucer- 
narium  was  enlarged  into  a  distinct  office,  said 
some  little  time  before  vespers.  Thus  the  rule 
falsely  ascribed  to  St.  Augustine  {0pp.  App.  i.), 
after  prescribing  the  psalm  for  matins,  prime, 
&c.,  says,  “  Let  the  same  thing  be  observed  at 
ve.spers  and  compline;  but  at  lucernarium  let 
there  be  the  (proper)  psalm,  one  responsory, 
three  antiphons,  three  lessons.”  So  in  the  rules 
of  Aurelian  : — “At  lucernarium  let  there  be  said 
in  the  first  place  at  all  sea.sons,  both  on  festivals 
and  ordinary  days,  a  psalm  in  monotone  (dii'cct- 
aneus),  then  two  antiphons.  In  the  third  place 
let  there  be  said  with  Alleluia,  one  day  the 
hymn  Deus,  qui  certis  legibus ;  another  Deus 
creator  omnium.,  and  a  little  chapter.  At  Twelfth 
(vespers)  eighteen  psalms,  an  antiphon  and 
hymn,  a  lesson  and  little  chapter.  When  ye  are 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


797 


about  to  take  your  rest,  let  compline  be  said  in 
the  school  in  which  ye  remain  ”  (^Reijula  ad  Mon. 
Holst.  P.  ii. ;  Sim.  ad  Virg.  ibid.  P.  iii.).  Here  a 
distinction  is  clearly  made  between  the  lucern- 
arium  and  vespers.  They  are  distinct  offices.  It 
is  probable,  however,  from  the  })aucity  of  such 
notices,  that  the  former  was  treated  as  a  separate 
service  on  the  same  footing  with  the  ancient 
hours  only  in  a  very  few  communities. 

V.  Grounds  of  Observance. — For  Matins,  rea¬ 
sons  of  natuivil  piety  were  often  urged,  as  by 
St.  Basil,  “  Tliat  the  first  motions  of  tlie  soul 
and  mind  may  be  dedicated  to  God,  and  we  admit 
nothing  else  into  our  mind  before  we  have 
rejoiced  in  the  thought  of  God  ”  (AV/.  Fus.  Tr. 
Resp.  ad  Q.  37,  §  3);  and  in  the  Apostolical  Con¬ 
stitutions  (lib.  viii.  c.  34),  “To  give  thanks 
because  the  Lord,  causing  the  night  to  pass  away 
and  the  day  to  come  on,  hath  given  us  light.” 

There  was  the  Scriptiiral  reason  too,  “That 
the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  which  took  place 
m  the  morning,  may  be  celebrated  by  prayer  ” 
(Cyprian,  De  Or.  Dom.  u.  s.).  Similarly,  Isid. 
Hispal.  De  Eccl.  Off.  1.  i.  c.  22;  Cone.  Aquisgr. 
caj).  130. 

There  was  a  practical  reason  for  the  institution 
of  Prime,  as  well  as  the  ground  of  religious  sen¬ 
timent,  to  which  we  have  already  had  occasion 
to  refer.  It  was  found  that  the  long  interval 
between  the  matin  lauds  and  terce  was  often 
spent  in  comparative  idleness  and  sloth.  The 
new  office  was  therefore  introduced  to  prevent 
this  (Cassian,  Coenob.  Inst.  1.  iii.  c.  4).  With 
this  statement  compare  the  provision  of  a 
Western  rule:  “After  morning  prayers  let  it 
not  be  lawful  to  return  to  sleep ;  but  when 
matins  are  finished  let  prime  be  said  forthwith. 
Then  let  all  employ  themselves  in  reading  to  the 
third  hour”  (Aurel.  Peg.  ad  Monach.  c.  28). 

The  third,  sixth,  and  ninth  hours,  which  were 
observed  earlier  than  any  other,  were  thought 
to  have  beeu  selected  in  honour  of  the  Holy 
Trinity.  Thiis  St.  Cyprian — “  We  find  that  the 
three  children  with  Daniel,  strong  in  faith  and 
conquerors  in  captivity,  ob.served  the  third,  sixth, 
and  ninth  hours  for  a  .sacrament  of  the  Trinity, 
which  was  to  be  manifested  in  the  last  time; 
for  the  first  hour  coming  to  the  third  exhibits 
the  full  number  of  a  Trinity,  and  again  the 
fourth  proceeding  to  the  sixth  declares  another 
Trinity,  and  when  the  ninth  is  completed  by 
three  hours  from  the  seventh  a  perfect  Trinity 
(f.  e.  a  Trinity  of  Trinities)  is  numbered  ”  (^De 
Orat.  Dorn,  sub  fin.).  Similarly  Isid.  Hispal.  De 
Eccl.  Off.  lib.  i.  c.  19 ;  Concil.  Aquisgr.  a.d. 
816,  c.  126.  The  significance  of  these  hours 
taken  separately  will  be  shown  below. 

Terce,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  continuation 
of  a  Jewish  custom,  as  were  Sext  and  None.  But 
there  were  Christian  reasons  of  great  weight  for 
retaining  it.  “  The  Holy  Ghost,”  says  Cyprian, 

“  descended  on  the  disciples  at  the  third  hour  ” 
(De  Or.  Djin.  u.  s.  ;  Sim.  Basil,  u.  s. ;  Resp.  ad 
Q.  37 ;  Hieron.  Comm,  in  Dan.  vi.  10 ;  Isid. 
Hisp.  u.  s.  &c.). 

Another  ground  alleged  was  that  “  at  that 
hour  the  Lord  received  sentence  from  Pilate  ”  i 
(Cons.  Apost.  1.  viii.  c.  34).  St.  Mark  xv.  25  ! 
refers  the  crucifixion  to  the  third  hour,  i.  e.  to  ! 
the  third  of  the  twelve  hours  between  sunrise 
and  sunset ;  but  if  the  condemnation  took  place 
between  that  and  sunrise,  it  was  also  correctly 


said  in  ecclesiastical  language  to  have  been  at 
the  third  hour.  So  John  xix.  14,  reckouinsr 
apparently  from  midnight,  places  the  condemna¬ 
tion  at  “  about  the  sixth  hour,”  which  brings  it 
down  to  the  third  hour  understood  of  the  larger 
space  of  time,  and  reckoned  from  sunrise. 

With  reference  to  Sext,  it  was  observed  that 
St.  Peter  “  at  the  sixth  hour  went  up  to  the 
house-top,  and  was  both  by  sign  and  by  the  voice 
of  God  warning  him,  instructed  to  admit  all  to 
the  grace  of  salvation  ”  (Cypr.  u.  s.  comp.  Hieron. 
u.  s.).  Another  and  more  important  reason  was 
that  “The  Lord  was  crucified  at  the  sixth  hour” 
(Cypr.  u.  s.  Sim.  Constit.  Apost.  u.  s.  Isid.  Hispal. 
u.  s.  Cone.  Aquisgr.  u.  s.),  a  statement,  which  if 
taken  to  the  letter,  can  only  be  reconciled  with 
that  of  St.  Mark,  by  supposing  the  “  .sixth  hour  ” 
to  cover  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  of  the  smaller 
hours.  If  however  it  means  no  more  than  that 
our  Lord  hung  on  the  cross  at  that  hour,  it  needs 
no  explanation. 

None  was  said  to  be  observed  because  “  Peter 
and  John  went  up  to  the  temple  at  the  ninth 
hour  of  prayer”  (St.  Basil,  u.  s.  ;  St.  Jerome, 
u.  s.)  ;  but  more  than  all  because  “at  the  ninth 
hour  Christ  washed  away  our  sins  with  His 
blood  ”  (Cypr.  Constit.  Aj  ost.  &c.  as  before). 

The  pious  sentiment  which  dictated  the  prayers 
developed  in  some  religious  houses  into  a  dis¬ 
tinct  office,  called  lucernarunn,  came  before  us 
while  we  traced  the  origin  of  that  rite. 

Evensong  was  especially  an  office  of  thanks¬ 
giving.  St.  Basil — “  Is  the  day  ended  ?  Thank 
Him  who  hath  given  us  the  sun  to  minister  to 
the  works  of  the  day  ”  ( Horn,  in  Mart.  Jnlittam, 
§  2).  “In  the  evening  giving  thanks  that  God 
has  given  us  the  night  for  a  season  of  rest  from 
the  labours  of  the  day  ”  (Const.  Apost.  u.  s.). 

Another  thought  is  connected,  with  it  by  St. 
Cyprian  : — “  Because  Christ  is  the  true  sun  and 
the  true  day,  when,  at  the  departure  of  the  sun 
and  day  of  the  world,  we  jiray  and  beseech  that 
the  light  may  come  on  us  again,  we  are  praying 
for  the  coming  of  Christ,  who  will  give  the 
grace  of  everlasting  light  ”  (De  Oral.  Dom.  u.  s.). 
A  third  ground  of  this  observance  is  suggested 
by  Ca.ssian,  viz.,  that  the  eucharist  was  “de¬ 
livered  to  the  apostles  by  the  Lord  the  Saviour 
in  the  evening”  (fnstit.  1.  iii.  c.  3 ;  so  Isidore, 
De  Eccl.  Off’.  1.  i.  c.  20 ;  Cone.  Aquisgr.  c.  127) ; 
and  with  this  was  associated  the  completion  of 
the  passion  on  the  following  dav  towards  the 
evening,  and  about  the  time  of  the  evening 
sacrifice  (Isid.  &c.  u.  s.). 

For  Compline  there  was  the  strong  natural 
reason,  often  alleged  for  private  prayer  before 
going  to  sleep  at  night,  as  e.  g.  in  a  tract  doubt¬ 
fully  ascribed  to  St.  Chrysostom  : — “  With  what 
hope  wilt  thou  come  to  the  season  of  night ; 
with  what  dreams  dost  thou  ex])ect  to  converse, 
if  thou  hast  not  walled  thyself  round  with 
prayers,  but  goest  to  sleep  unprotected?”  (De 
Precat.  Or.  1.  sub  fin.).  The  zeal  of  David 
(Ps.  cxxxii.  3-5)  was  held  up  as  a  model : — 
“This  thing  ought  jmwerfully  to  admonish  us 
that,  if  we  wish  to  be  ‘  a  i)lace  for  the  Lord  ’ 
and  desire  to  be  accounted  His  tabernacle  and 
temple,  we  should  follow  the  examjiles  of  the 
saints,  lest  that  which  is  read  should  be  said  of 
us,  ‘They  have  slept  their  sleep,  and  none  of  the 
men  of  might  have  found  their  hands’”  (Isid. 
u.  s.  Li.  c.  21  ;  so  Cone.  Atpiisgr.  c.  128  j 


798 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


HOURS  OF  PRAYER 


Raban.  «.  s.  1.  ii.  c.  7).  “  Every  one,”  says 

Amalarius  (Be  Eccl.  Ojf.  1.  iv.  c.  8),  “  who  has 
even  a  little  sense,  knows  how  many  dangers 
may  assail  a  man  from  without  when  sleeping 
more  than  when  waking.  This  office  is  in  some 
sort  analogous  to  that  commendation,  by  which 
a  man  commends  himself  to  God,  when  he  is 
passing  away  from  this  world.  Sleep  is  the 
image  of  death,”  &c. 

Eocturns  originated  in  the  pious  custom  of 
prayer  when  one  woke  in  the  night.  'I'ertullian 
says  of  the  meals  of  Christians,  “They  are  so 
tilled  as  they  who  remember  that  even  in  the 
night  God  is  to  be  worshipped  by  them  ”  (Apol. 
c.  39).  St.  Cyprian : — “  There  can  be  no  loss 
from  the  darkness  of  night  to  those  who  pray ; 
for  there  is  day  even  in  the  night  to  the  sons  of 
light”  (Be  Orat.  Bom.  sub  tin.).  Clemens  of 
Alexandria  (Paedag.  1.  ii.  c.  9,  §  79): — “Often  in 
the  night  should  we  rise  from  bed  and  ble.ss  God ; 
for  happy  are  they  who  watch  unto  Him,  thus 
making  themselves  like  the  angels  whom  we  call 
watchers  ”  (Dan.  iv.  13,  &c.).  “  Without  this 

prayer  ”  (Le.  prayer  expressed  in  words),  says 
Origen,  “  we  shall  not  pass  the  season  of  the 
night  in  a  fit  manner”  (Be  Orat.  c.  12).  He 
refers  to  David  (Ps.  cxix.  62).  and  St.  Paul  and 
Silas  (Acts  xvi.  25).  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
asks,  “  When  is  our  mind  more  intent  on 
psalmody  and  prayer  ?  Is  it  not  in  the  night  ? 
When  do  we  most  frequently  come  to  the  re¬ 
membrance  of  our  sins  7  Is  it  not  in  the  night  ?” 
(Catech.  ix.  §  4).  St.  Ambrose  cites  the  example 
of  Christ: — “  The  Lord  Himself  passed  the  night 
in  prayer,  that  by  His  own  example  He  might 
invite  thee  to  pray  ”  (Expos,  in  Ps.  cxviii.  v.  62  ; 
Se7'm.  viii.  §  45).  Elsewhere  he  says: — “In  th}^ 
chamber  itself  I  would  have  psalms  by  frequent 
alternation  interwoven  with  the  Lord’s  Prayer, 
either  when  thou  hast  waked  up  or  before  sleep 
bedews  the  body,  that  sleep  may  find  thee  at  the 
very  entrance  on  rest  free  from  care  of  worldly 
things  and  meditating  on  divine  ”  (Be  Virginibus, 
lib.  iii.  c.  iv'.  §  19).  “D.avid  every  night  watered 
his  couch  with  tears  ;  he  rose  also  in  the  middle 
of  the  night  that  he  might  confess  to  God,  and 
dost  thou  think  that  the  whole  night  is  to  be 
assigned  to  sleep?  Then  is  the  Lord  to  be  the 
more  entreated  by  thee ;  then  is  protection  to  be 
(more)  sought,  fault  to  be  (more)  guarded  against 
when  there  appears  to  be  secrecy,  and  then  above 
all,  when  darkness  is  round  about  me  and  walls 
cover  me,  must  I  reflect  that  God  beholds  all 
hidden  things  ”  (m  Ps.  cxviii.  Expos.  Serm.  vii. 
§31).  The  example  of  our  Lord  was  urged  : — 
“The  day  is  not  enough  for  prayer.  We  must 
rise  in  the  night  and  at  midnight.  The  Lord 
Himself  passed  the  night  in  pra3’er;  that  He 
might  invite  thee  to  pray  bv'  His  own  example  ” 
(^ibid.  Sei'm.  viii.  §  45).  St.  Hilary,  after  dwell¬ 
ing  on  the  w'ords  of  David,  adds,  “  The  mind  is 
not  to  be  released  bv  the  dangerous  idleness  of 
wakefulness  in  the  night,  but  to  be  emploved  in 
prayers,  in  pleadings,  in  confessions  of  sins;  that 
w'hen  occasion  is  most  given  to  the  vices  of  the 
body,  then  above  all  those  vices  may  be  subdued 
b}'  the  remembrance  of  the  divine  law  ”  (dract 
in  Ps.  cxviii.  lit.  vii.  §  6).  To  these  motives  St. 
Basil  adds,  “  Let  the  night  supply  other  grounds 
of  prayer.  When  thou  lookest  into  the  sk\"  and 
gazest  on  the  beaut}-  of  the  stars,”  &c.  (Horn,  in 
Mart.  Julitt.  §  3). 


VI.  The  Times  of  the  Offices. — For  Eoctums 
some  rose  at  cockcrow,  as  prescribed  in  the  Apo~ 
stolical  Constitutions  (lib.  viii.  34).  So  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom  : — “  As  soon  as  the  cock  crows  the  prefect 
is  standing  by  (the  sleeping  monk),  and  strikes 
him  as  he  lies  lightly  with  his  foot,  and  so  wakes 
all  straightw-ay  ”  (Horn.  xiv.  in  1  Tim.  §  4).  St. 
Columban’s  rule  says  the  “middle  ”  of  the  night 
(■'.  7);  and  in  Gregoj-y  of  Tours  one  speaks  of 
himself  as  rising  “about  midnight  ad  redden¬ 
dum  cursum  ”  (Hist.  Franc,  lib.  viii.  c.  15).  St. 
Benedict  orders  his  monks  to  ri.se  for  vigils  “at 
the  eighth  hour  of  the  night  in  winter  ;  i.c.  from 
the  Kalends  of  November  to  Ea.ster,”  but  duiiug 
the  rest  of  the  year  the  time  of  vigils  was  to  be 
regulated  by  that  of  matin.s,  which  it  was  to 
precede  by  a  “  very  short  interval  ”  (Peg.  caj).  8). 
Another  rule,  of  the  7th  century,  orders  nocturns 
to  be  said  before  cockcrow  in  winter,  and  after  it 
in  summer,  when  it  was  to  be  “soon  ”  followed 
by  matins  (Pegula  Magistri,  c.  3.3).  In  Spain 
the  severe  rule  of  St.  Fructuosus  prescribed  two 
or  three  offices  for  the  night  according  to  the 
season,  one  “before  midnight,”  and  a  second  “at 
midnight,”  throughout  the  year,  and  in  winter 
a  third  “  after  midnight  ”  (Peg.  cap.  3)  ;  thus 
carrying  out  to  the  letter  the  exhortation  of  St. 
Jerome  to  Eustochium,  “  Tou  should  rise  twice 
or  thrice  in  the  night  ”  (Epist.  xviii.). 

From  the  union  of  nocturns  with  matins,  of 
which  we  have  seen  the  beginning,  the  double 
office  was  at  a  later  period  called  iudiflerently, 
nocturns  or  matins,  or  lauds. 

Matins,  properly  so-called,  were  said  in  the 
morning  watch,  or  fourth  watch  of  the  night; 
that  is  to  say,  at  any  part  of  that  space  of  three 
natural  hours  which  preceded  sunrise.  They 
were  to  be  over  by  dawn :  Post  matutinum 
tempus  sequitur  diluculum  (Amal.  de  Oi'd.  An- 
tiph.  c.  5).  St.  Benedict  ordered  matins  to  be 
said  “  when  the  light  began  ”  (Peg.  c.  8).  If  it 
surprised  them  at  nocturns,  the  latter  were  to  be 
shortened  (c.  11).  So  early  as  the  beginning  of 
the  5th  century,  matins  (solemnitas  matutina) 
were  “  wont  to  be  celebrated  in  the  monasteries 
of  Gaul  a  short  interval  of  time  after  the  night 
psalms  and  prayers  were  finished  ”  (Cassian, 
Instit.  lib.  iii.  c.  4), 

Prime  was  said  in  the  first  natural  hour  after 
sunrise.  This  appears  from  Cassian’s  account  of 
its  origin.  The  monks  were  to  be  allowed  to 
rest  after  matins,  “usque  ad  solis  ortum,”  and 
were  then  to  rise  for  the  new- office  (Instit.  u.  s.). 
And  so,  four  centuries  later,  Amalarius: — “We 
begin  the  first  of  the  day  from  the  rising  of  the 
sun”  (Be  Ord.  Ant.  c.  6);  and  Rabanus  fixes  it 
“at  the  beginning  of  the  day  when  tiie  sun  first 
appears  from  the  east  ”  (Be  Instit.  Cler.  lib.  ii, 
c.  3). 

Terce  might  originally  be  said  at  any  part  of 
the  three  hours  which  began  at  sunrise  (see 
before  §  ii.);  but  after  the  institution  of  prime 
it  could  only  be  said  during  the  two  last.  It 
was  not  in  practice  always  confined  to  the  last  ; 
for  in  the  rule  of  an  unknown  author,  formerlv 
ascribed  to  St.  Jerome,  it  is  expresslv  provided 
that  on  fast-days,  terce,  sext,  and  none,  be  each 
said  an  hour  earlier  than  usual  (cap.  34 ;  intei 
0pp.  S.  Hieron.  tom.  v,  ed.  Ben,).  See  also  the 
rule  of  St.  Benedict,  as  cited  in  §  ii. 

As  the  lamps  were  lighted  in  preparation  for 
evening  prayer,  the  Lucernat'ium,  as  a  merely 


HOUSE 


799 


HUESCA,  COUNCIL  OP 


preliminary  act  of  devotion  would  be  said  imme¬ 
diately  before  that ;  and  it  was  in  fact  as  we 
have  seen,  often  considered  an  actual  part  of  the 
office.  Where  it  became  a  distinct  service,  there 
would,  we  j)resume,  be  an  interval  of  some  length 
before  vespers  began ;  but  we  have  no  informa¬ 
tion  on  the  subject. 

“  It  becomes  evening  when  the  sun  sets  ”  (St. 
Aug.  in  Ps.  xxix.  v.  6,  Enarr.  ii.).  Nevertheless 
vespers  were  more  generally  said  in  the  hour 
before  sunset.  This  is  why  the  office  was  called 
Duodecima  (see  before  §  iv.).  “  We  celebrate  the 
evening  synaxis,”  observes  Amalarius,  ‘‘  about 
the  12th  hour,  which  hour  is  about  the  end  of 
the  day  ”  {De  Ord.  Antiph.  c.  G)  ;  “  most  fre¬ 
quently  before  sunset  ”  (ibid.  c.  70  ;  comp.  c.  16  ; 
Isid.  Hisp.  de  Eccl.  Off.  lib.  i.  c.  20;  Rabfln. 
IVIaur.  De  Instit.  Cleri,  lib.  ii.  c.  7).  Benedict, 
in  fact,  made  a  rule,  which  must  have  influenced 
the  custom  greatly,  that  vespers  should  be  said 
at  all  seasons  while  it  was  yet  daylight;  and 
that  in  Lent,  when  refection  followed  vespers, 
they  should  be  said  at  such  an  early  hour  that 
the  meal  might  be  ov'er  before  the  light  failed 
(Deg.  cap.  41).  Another  authority  says,  “  Ves¬ 
pers  ought  to  be  said  while  the  rays  of  the  sun 
are  still  declining.”  “  In  summer,  on  account  of 
the  short  nights,  let  lucernaria  (here  vespers) 
be  begun  while  the  sun  is  still  high  ”  (AV^u/u 
Magistri,  c.  34). 

The  history  of  compline  has  shown  the  proper 
time  of  saying,  viz.  before  retiring  to  rest ;  and 
this  was  the  time  observed  by  the  monks  within 
our  period.  Thus  a  MS.  of  the  Regula  of  pseudo- 
Augustine,  now  1200  years  old: — “After  this 
(i  e.  after  certain  lessons  read  at  night)  let  the 
usual  psalms  be  said  before  sleep  ”  (Note  of 
Bened.  editors,  App.  i.  0pp.  Aug.).  St.  Isidore: 
— “Compline  being  ended,  the  brethren,  as  the 
custom  is,  having  wished  each  other  good  night 
before  sleeping,  must  keep  still  with  all  heed  and 
silence  until  they  rise  for  vdgils”  (Deg.  c.  7). 
St.  Fructuosus,  after  presciibing  the  office  of 
“the  first  hour  of  the  night,”  orders  his  monks 
to  bid  each  other  good-night  and  retire  to  their 
dormitories  (Reg.  i.  c.  2).  Another  rule  forbids 
the  monks  to  speak,  eat,  drink,  or  do  any  work 
after  compline  (Regula  Magistri,  c.  30).  Ama¬ 
larius  (De  Eccl.  Off.  lib.  iv.  c.  8)  tells  us  that 
compline  was  said  in  the  conticinium;  i.e.  in  the 
third  part  of  the  night,  reckoning  from  sunset, 
when  it  was  divided,  as  by  the  Romans,  into 
seven. 

When  vespers  were  said  earlier  compline  was 
put  earlier  too,  and  one  writer  at  the  close  of 
our  period  gives  it  the  name  of  Duodecima 
(Smaragdus,  Comment,  in  S.  Ben.  Reg.  c.  16).  It 
had  already  taken  possession  of  the  hour  so  long 
occupied  hy  vespers.  At  length  it  became  the 
common  opinion  that  it  ought  to  be  said  at  the 
twelfth  hour  (Francolinus,  u.  s.  cap.  18). 

For  a  description  of  the  several  offices,  see 
Office,  the  Divine.  [W.  E.  S.] 

HOUSE.  In  Aringhi,  i.  p.  522,  ii.  658,  are 
woodcuts  of  houses  from  ancient  trmbs  [Tomh]. 
This,  perhaps,  refers  to  the  grave  as  the 
house  of  the  dead,  an  idea  or  expression  inherited 
from  heathenism  (Horace  Carm.  i.  iv.  19,  and  Bol- 
detti,  p.  463  ;  even  Domus  Aeterna,  Pei  ret  v.  pi. 
36,  X.  110),  or  to  the  deserted  house  of  the  soul, 
the  buried  body  (2  Cor.  v.  i.),  “  For  we  know  that 


I  if  our  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  were  dis¬ 
solved,  we  have  a  building  of  God,”  &c.  In  one 
of  the  plates  from  Aringhi  above  referred  to 
(ii.  658)  there  is  a  house  of  the  grav’e,  with  a 
small  mummy  of  Lazarus;  laid  up  alone  (de- 
positus  or  repositus)  to  abide  the  resurrection. 
The  houses  of  Jerusalem  and  Bethlehem,  repre¬ 
senting  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  churches,  occur 
frequently  in  ancient  paintings  and  mosaics. 
[Bethlehem.]  How  far  the  word  Beth,  as  part 
of  Bethlehem  (“house  of  bread”),  may  be  con¬ 
nected  with  the  Christian  import  of  this  symbol, 
is  hard  to  say.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

HOUSE  OF  CLEKGY.  [Manse.] 

HOUSE  OF  PRAYER.  [Church  ;  Ora- 

TORY.] 

HRIPSIMA,  and  companions,  virgin-martyrs 
under  Tiridates ;  commemorated  June  3  (Cal. 
Armen.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HUBERT  (Hucrertus),  bishop  and  confes¬ 
sor  (f  727  A.D.);  commemorated  May  30  (Mart. 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HUCKSTERS.  The  mind  of  the  church 
has  of  course  always  been  against  all  unprin¬ 
cipled  gain  in  traffic,  even  when  permitted  by 
law  and  custom.  Adulterators  or  fraudulent 
dealers  (Ka-mjKoi)  are  enumerated  (Apost.  Constt. 
iv.  6,  §  2)  among  those  whose  oblations  are  not 
to  be  received."  And  again  (Ib.  viii.  32,  §5) 
the  KdirrjKos  is  chissod  with  the  stage-players 
and  dancers,  among  those  who  must  abandon 
their  profession  before  they  can  be  admitted  to 
the  church.  Lactantius  (IHo.  Inst.  V.  c.  16) 
emphatically  rejects  the  doctrine  of  Carneades, 
that  the  seller  is  not  bound  to  declare  the 
faults  of  the  article  which  he  has  for  sale,  and 
insists  that  the  Christian  conscience  requires 
perfect  frankness  and  openness  in  such  a  matter, 
in  the  same  spirit  St.  Augustine  (Tract.  41  in 
Joan.)  puts  fraud  on  the  same  level  as  fornica¬ 
tion  and  theft,  and  gives  high  praise  (De  Trin. 
xiii.  3)  to  one  who,  in  buying  a  book,  declined  to 
overreach  the  seller,  who  was  ignorant  of  its 
value.  So,  too,  Hilary  (on  Ps.  cxix.  [cxviii. 
Vulg.]  139)  enumerates  cheating  (falsitates) 
among  the  things  which  make  our  bodies  a  den 
of  thieves.  In  short,  all  kinds  of  unprincipled 
dealers  (padiovpyoi)  and  sorcerers,  all  who  give 
short  weight  or  me.asure  ((vyoKpovarai  Kal  5o\o- 
perpai)  are  condemned  (Apost.  Const,  iv.  6,  §  1). 

Tertullian  (De  Idolol.  c.  11 ;  cf.  Epiphanius, 
Expos.  Fid.  c.  24)  and  some  others  regard  with 
disfavour  all  gain  derived  from  mere  buying  and 
selling  of  goods,  considering  the  labour  of  the 
hands  the  proper  means  of  earning  a  living. 
But  Leo  the  Great  (i'.pist.  92,  ad  Rustic,  c.  9) 
reasonably  distinguishes  between  honest  and  un¬ 
principled  gain  (quaestus  honestus  aut  turpis); 
the  culj)ability  or  innocence  of  gain  (he  holds) 
depends  upon  its  character ;  there  is  no  harm 
in  profit  not  derived  from  fraudulent  practice. 
Compare  Com.merce. 

(Bingham’s  Antiq.  XVI.  xii.  17).  [C.] 

HUESCA,  COUNCIL  OF  (Oscense  c.),  at 
the  town  so  called  in  the  north  of  Arragon,  in 
Spain,  A. I).  598,  or  the  thirteenth  year  of  king 


®  The  rt’ord  (ioes  not  seem  to  be  used  here  in  the  limited 
sense  of  the  Latin  Vaupo,  a  tavern-keeper. 


800 


HUMERALE 


HYDROMAXTIA 


Eeccared.  Xo  furthei’  particulars  are  preserved 
of  it,  than  that  it  provided  for  the  holding  of  a 
synod  every  ywir  in  each  diocese,  to  inquire  into 
the  morals  of  the  monks  and  clergy,  and  pre¬ 
scribe  rules  for  their  conduct  (Mansi,  x.  479-82). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

HUMERALE.  [Amice.] 

KUXTlNCx. .  Field-sports  have  been  under 
the  censure  of  the  church  from  an  early  period, 
and  in  the  many  canons  relating  to  them  there  is 
very  little  trace  of  any  disposition  to  relax  the 
severity  of  absolute  prohibition,  or  to  allow  ex¬ 
ceptional  cases  in  which  they  might  be  necessary 
or  desirable. 

By  the  55th  canon  of  the  council  of  Agde 
((7.  A(jathense),  a.d.  544,  bishops  and  presbyters 
are  forbidden  to  keep  hawks  and  hounds  for  the 
chase  under  penalty  of  three  months’  excommu¬ 
nication  in  the  case  of  bishops,  and  of  two 
months’  in  the  case  of  priests,  and  of  one  in  the 
case  of  deacons.  The  same  abstinence  is  enjoined 
on  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons,  under  the 
same  penalty  by  the  4th  canon  of  the  council  of 
Epaon.  By  the  3rd  canon  of  the  council  of  Sois- 
sons,  not  only  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons, 
but  all  ecclesiastical  persons  (clerici)  are  forbid¬ 
den  to  hunt  with  hounds  or  to  take  out  hawk.s. 
In  the  8th  canon  of  the  third  council  of  Tours, 
priests  are  cautioned  against  the  hunting  of  birds 
and  wild  animals,  and  the  second  council  of 
Chalons  (c.  9)  addresses  a  similar  warning  against 
devoting  their  time  to  “  hounds,  hawks,  and 
falcons,”  to  laity  as  well  as  to  clergy.  It  seems 
that  certain  bishops  kept  dogs  under  the  pretence 
that  they  were  necessaiy  for  the  defence  of  their 
houses ;  but  they  are  reminded  by  the  13th 
canon  of  the  second  council  of  Ma^on,  a.d.  585, 
that  not  “  barks  but  hymns,  not  bites  but  good 
works  are  the  proper  protection  of  a  bishop’s 
house,  which  ought  to  welcome  and  not  repel 
men,  and  certainly  not  subject  any  who  came  for 
the  relief  of  their  sorrows  to  the  risk  of  being 
torn  dogs. 

Among  prohibitions  against  the  same  pur¬ 
suits  issued  by  individuals,  is  to  be  found  a  letter 
of  Boniface,  bishop  of  Mayence  (Epist.  105), 
probably  written  on  the  authority  of  pope 
Zachary,  forbidding  “  huntings  and  excursions 
with  dogs  through  the  woods,  and  the  keeping  of 
hawks  and  falcons;”  and  the  same  prohibition  is 
repeated,  totidem  verbis,  in  the  2nd  canon  of  the 
council  of  Liptine,  a.d.  743,  over  which  Boniface 
presided.  In  the  Liber  Poenitentialis  of  pope 
Gregory  III.  one  year’s  penance  is  decreed  against 
one  in  minor  orders  (clericus),  two  years’ 
against  a  deacon,  and  three  years’  against  a  priest, 
for  hunting. 

Ferreolus,  bishop  of  Uzes,  in  his  Rule  (about 
A.D.  558),  forbids  his  monks  to  hunt  and  hawk 
on  the  ground  that  such  pursuits  dissipate  the 
mind  ;  he  allows  them  however  to  set  dogs  at 
the  wild  animals  which  waste  their  crops,  but 
only  that  they  may  “drive  them  away,  not  that 
they  may  catch  them.”  Jonas,  bishop  of 
Orleans,  a.d.  821-844,  (de  Lnstitut.  laic.  ii.  23, 
quoted  by  Thomassiu),  vents  his  indignation 
against  the  nobles  for  spending  so  much  money 
on  hawks  and  hounds  instead  ^f  on  the  poor ; 
and  is  even  more  fierce  against  them  for  the 
hardships  and  cruelties  w'hich  for  the  sake  of 
their  sport  they  indicted  on  the  poor.  The 


frequent  recurrence  of  these  prohibitions  and 
the  number  of  years  over  which  they  extend, 
show  how  rooted  was  the  taste  for  field-sports 
among  the  Teutonic  clergy  ;  and  the  language 
of  some  of  the  canons  indicates  that  these  sports 
sometimes  became  as  ojipressive  as  the  Forest 
Laws  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

Looking  on,  or  being  present  at  the  hunting, 
o"  baiting,  or  fighting  of  wild  animals  in  the 
amphitheatre  is  just  as  strictly  forbidden.  The 
council  in  Trullo  {Quinisrxtum),  can.  51,  orders 
both  laity  and  clergy  to  avoid  “  the  spectacles  of 
huntings,”  on  jiain  of  excommunication,  and 
hunting  is  so  freiiuently  mentioned  in  connection 
with  games,  dances,  and  dramatic  j>erformauces, 
that  it  must  be  concluded  that  the  sports  of  the 
amphitheatre  are  intended.  The  Cudex  Eccl. 
Africanae  (c.  61)  entreats  the  emperors  to  put 
an  end  to  spectacles  on  great  festivals,  such  as 
the  octave  of  Easter,  and  begs  that  no  Christian 
may  be  compelled  to  attend  them.  By  the 
council  of  Mayence  (addit.  3,  c.  27)  it  is  ordered 
that  if  any  ecclesiastical  person  attend  any 
spectacle  he  is  liable  to  three  years’  suspension. 
By  the  3rd  council  of  Tours  and  the  second 
council  of  Chalons,  quoted  above,  the  condemna¬ 
tion  of  hunting  is  coupled  with  that  of  theatrical 
spectacles,  so  that  to  look  at  a  spectacle  of  hunt¬ 
ing  in  the  amphitheatre  would  be  by  the  same 
act  to  commit  two  offences  against  the  canon. 
The  8th  canon  of  the  council  of  Friuli  (^Foroju- 
liensc)  issued  a  canon  against  the  woiddly  pomps 
and  vanities  in  vogue,  in  which  “  huntings  ”  are 
mentioned  with  other  amusements  manifestly 
scenic. 

Theodosius  the  younger  abolished  contests 
between  men  and  brutes  in  the  circus  on  the 
ground  that  “  cruel  sights  made  him  shudder  ” 
(Socrates,  H.E.  A’ii.  22). 

(Thomassin,  Vet.  et  Nova  Ecclesiae  Disciplina, 
III.  iii.  cc.  42,  43.)  [E.  C.  H.] 

HYACIXTHUS,  or  JACIXCTUS.  (1) 
Martyr  at  Rome  with  Amantius,  Irenaeus,  and 
Zoticus;  commemorated  Feb.  10  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  at  Rome ;  commemorated  July  26 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Csuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  with  Alexander  and  Tiburtius,  in 
the  Sabine  district;  commemorated  Sept.  9 
{Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  Protus  under  Gal- 
lienus  ;  commemorated  Sept.  11  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Bucher.,  Frontonis, 
Sacramentarium  Gregorii). 

(5)  Martyr  at  Caesarea,  A.D.  108 ;  commemo¬ 
rated  July  3  {Cal.  Bipant.). 

(6)  Of  Amastris  in  Paphlagonia,  martyr ; 
c  mimemorated  Julv  18  {Cal.  Bi/zant.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

HYDROMANTIA.  The  Decretum  Gratiani 
(cau.  26,  qu.  5,  c.  14,  §3)  has  the  following  in 
the  enumeration  of  magic  arts  which  are  con¬ 
demned  : — “  Hydromantici  ab  aqua  dicti ;  est 
enim  Hydro:naniia  in  aquae  inspectione  umbras 
daemonum  eyocare,  et  imagineas  ludificationes 
eorum  videre,  ibique  ab  eis  aliqua  audire,  ubi 
adhibito  sanguine  etiam  inferos  perhibentur 
suscitare.”  The.  chapter  from  which  this  is 
extracted  is  taken  wholly  from  Rabanus  Dc 


HYDKOMYSTA 


HYMXS 


801 


Magorwn  Praestu/iis,  which  is  again  a  compila¬ 
tion  from  Augustine  and  Isidore  of  Seville.  The 
passage  of  Augustine  on  which  the  account  of 
Hydvomantia  is  mainly  founded  is  De  Civ.  Dei, 
vii.  35,  and  is  to  this  ed’ect ;  that  Numa,  having 
no  real  divine  inspiration,  was  compelled  to 
practise  hydromancy,  so  as  to  see  in  water 
images,  or  rather  false  semblances  (ludifica- 
tiones),  of  the  gods,  and  learn  from  them  what 
he  was  to  ordain  with  regard  to  the  sacra  of  his 
people  ;  and  from  this  use  of  w’ater  for  divining 
purposes  (says  Varro)  Numa  gained  the  reputa¬ 
tion  of  having  consulted  the  nymph  Egeria. 

It  is  evident  (as  indeed  Augustine  says)  that 
this  hydromancy  was  a  form  of  necromancy. 
What  was  its  exact  nature  is  not  apparent,  but 
it  was  probably  similar  to  the  divining  by 
msans  of  a  mirror,  or  of  a  dark  fluid  poured 
into  the  jtalm  of  tlie  hand,  which  is  frequently 
mentioned  in  accounts  of  magic.  [C.] 

HYDROMYSTA  (v^pofiva’r-qs),  the  pejson 
who  had  the  care  of  the  holy  water  in  a  church, 
ami  sprinkled  with  it  those  who  entered  (Sy- 
nesius,  Epist.  121,  quoted  in  Macri  Hierolex. 
s.  V.).  [C.] 

HYMN  (the  Cherubic).  A  hymn  so  called 
from  the  reference  to  the  cherubim  which  it 
contains,  which  occurs  in  the  chief  eastern 
liturgies  shortly  after  the  dismissal  of  the  ente- 
cliumens,  and  immediately  jmeceding  the  “  great 
entrance  ”  {i.e.  that  of  the  elements).  It  is 
found  in  the  same  position  in  the  liturgies  of  St. 
James,  St.  Basil,  St.  Chrysostom,  and  St.  Mark  ; 
and  also  in  the  Armenian,  in  which  however  it  is 
only  sung  on  special  occasions,  other  hymns 
being  appointed  in  its  place  on  other  days.  It  is 
not  found  in  the  “heretical  liturgies which, 
inasmuch  as  these  underwent  less  alteration  than 
the  orthodox,  is  an  argument  against  the  anti¬ 
quity  of  the  hymn.  Cedrenus  (Dupin  Bibl.  des 
Aut.  Eccles.  Wme  Siecle)  a  Greek  monk  who 
flourished  towards  the  middle  of  the  11th 
century,  and  who  wrote  “  annals  ”  from  the 
creation  of  the  world  down  to  the  reign  of  Isaac 
Comnenus,  says  that  Justinian  first  ordered  it  to 
be  sung  in  the  churches  ;  and  it  appears  to  have 
been  composed  about  that  time.  Its  object  is 
described  as  being  to  excite  the  minds  of  the 
faithful  to  a  devout  attention  to  the  mysteries 
about  to  be  celebrated.  While  it  is  being  sung, 
the  priest  says  secretly  a  prayer  called  “  the 
prayer  of  the  cherubic  hymn,”  The  words  of 
the  hymn  are :  ot  ra  P-vcttikoSs 

flKovi^ovTcs,  Ka\  Tq?  C^ottoi^  Tpiddi  rhv  rpicrd- 
yiou  {jfxvou  aSovres,  Trdaav  fiiwTiKrjv  d-rro- 

Owfieda  [xipifivav,  us  rhv  fiaaiXea  ruv  ‘6\uu 
viro^e^dfiepot  raTs  dyy€\iKa7s  dopdrus  8opu(^€- 
popevou  rd^iffiv.  ’A\Ar)\ovia.  [H.  J.  H.] 

HYMNARIUM.  The  book  containing  the 
hymns  sung  in  the  services  of  the  church.  Gen- 
nadius  (De  Script.  Eccl.  c.  49)  says  that  Paulinus 
of  Nola  composed  “  Sacramentarium  et  Hymna- 
rium;”  see  Gavanti,  Tkes.  Sacr.  Rituum,  ii.  115. 
Pelliccia  (^Politia,  i.  159)  gives  Cantionalia,  Libri 
Chorales,  as  common  designations  of  such  books, 
but  supplies  no  instances  of  their  use.  [C.] 

HYMNISTA,  a  singer  of  hymns  in  the 
church.  Thus  Prudentius  (i.  118): 

"Stall  nunc  hymnistae  pro  rcceptis  parvulls,” 
where  the  irregularity  of  the  metre  is  not 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


perhaps  a  sufficient  reason  for  arbitrarv'  coi'- 
rection  (Macri  Hierolex.  s.  v.),  Obbar,  however, 
reads, 

“State  nunc,  hymuite  inatres  pro  rcccpiis  parvulis." 

[C.] 

HYMNOLOGIA  (v/xvoKoyia)  seems  to  be 
equivalent  to  the  service  chanted  at  the  Hours. 
Thus  Gregory  of  Tours  (Hist.  Rem.  c.  25)  says 
that  St.  liemi  with  the  brother.s,  “  horaruin 
laudes  persolvebat  hymnologiarum,”  meaning 
(seemingly)  that  he  observed  the  course  set 
down  in  the  Hymnologies,  the  term  being  usetl 
so  as  to  include  psalms,  canticles,  antiphons,  etc. 
Macro  (Hierolex.  s.  v.)  supposes  that  Dionysius, 
the  Pseudo-Areopagite  (Hierarch.  Eccl.  iii.  2), 
when  he  speaks  ot  t]  KadoXiKr]  VfxvoKoyia 
having  beeji  uttered  as  a  confession  (irpoofMoAo- 
ynde'ia-rjs)  before  the  elements  were  placed  on 
the  altar,  meant  the  Creed,  This  is  of  course 
possible,  and  Pachymeres  (Paraphr.  in  loco) 
seems  to  have  taken  it  so ;  for  they  had,  he 
says,  even  then,  pidd-q/xd  ri  nal  (rujujudOvjua 
TTia-Teus  [Creed].  [c.] 

HYMNS.  In  the  following  article  no  at¬ 
tempt  will  be  made  to  deal  with  the  literary 
or  theological  history  of  Christian  hymuody. 
All  that  can  be  here  undeidaken  is  to  give  a 
sketch  of  what  is  known  respecting  the  litur¬ 
gical  use  of  hymns  within  the  limits  to  which 
this  xvork  is  restricted.  Much  of  the  difficulty 
connected  with  the  subject  arises  from  our  un¬ 
certainty  as  to  how  much  was  covered  by  the 
word  v/upos  in  early  Christian  writers.  Almost 
everything  sung,  or  rhythmically  recited,  which 
was  not  one  of  the  Davidic  Psalms,  was  called  a 
hymn,  or  said  to  be  “  hymned.”  Even  as  late  as 
the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  Walafrid 
Strabo  (De  Rebus  Eccl.  c.  25)  warns  us  that 
by  “hymns”  he  does  not  mean  merely  such 
metrical  hymns  as  those  of  Hilary,  Ambrose, 
Prudentius,  or  Bede,  but  such  other  acts  of 
praise  as  are  oftered  in  fitting  words  and  with 
musical  sounds.  He  adds  that  still  in  somie 
churches  there  were  no  metrical  hymns,  but 
that  in  all  “  generales  hymni,  id  est  laudes,” 
were  in  use.  The  well-known  passage  of  St. 
Augustine  (Enarr.  in  Ps.  Ixxii.),  which  was  for 
centuries  the  formal  definition  of  a  hymn  in 
every  ritual  writer,  gives  us  the  same  rule.  A 
hymn  might  or  might  not  be  in  verse ;  but  it 
was  always  something  meant  to  be  sung,  and 
sung  as  an  act  of  divine  worship.  So  Gregory 
Nazianzen  defines  a  hymn  as  alpos 
Further,  Christian  writers  gradually  learned  to 
use  the  term  in  contradi-stinction  to  the  Psalm 
of  the  Old  Dispensation ;  though  both  words 
were  for  a  time  interchangeable. 

It  is  obvious  that  from  the  very  fii-st,  Gentile 
disciples  must  have  sought  and  found  some 
further  expre.ssion  for  the  praise  of  God  than 
the  translation  of  Hebrew  Psalms,  or  of  the 
canticles  from  the  Hebrew  ])rophets,  could 
afford.  But  at  what  period  Christian  songs  of 
praise  first  found  their  place  in  common  worship, 
it  is  impossible  to  say.  None  can  tell  in  what 
words  Paul  and  Silas  {ifxpovp  tup  0eJj/”  in 
prison  (Acts  xvi.  25);  nor  can  we  say  with 
certainty  that  the  rhythmic  passages  in  the 
Epkstles  (e.  g.  Eph.  v.  14;  1  Tim.  iii.  1(3,  vi.  1.5, 
16;  2  Tim.  ii.  11-13)  are  quotations  from 


802 


HYMNS 


HYMNS 

> 

hymns,  though  this  has  been  frequently  main¬ 
tained.  The  j)ara]lel  passages,  again,  Eph.  v. 
19,  20,  and  Col.  iii.  16,  17,  though  evidently 
pointing  to  some  form  of  Christian  song,  yet 
appear  to  connect  these  with  social  and  festive 
gatlierings  rather  than  with  worship.  Probably 
they  bore  the  same  relation  to  the  forms  used  in 
public  worship  which  the  Sjiiritual  Songs  of 
Luther,  the  “  Ghostly  Psalms  ”  of  Coverdale,  or 
the  early  Wesleyan  hymns,  did  to  the  existing 
forms  of  service  in  their  day;  and  it  may  be 
that,  like  some  of  the  first  and  last  of  these, 
they  were  subsequently  adopted  into  divine 
service.  This  we  know  to  have  been  the  case 
at  a  later  period  with  the  ipws  iXapop  referred 
to  by  St.  Basil  (^De  ^p.  Sari'  to,  c.  29)  as  being 
(in  his  time)  of  ancient  use;  it  is  still,  as  is  well 
known,  a  part  of  the  daily  oilice  of  the  Greek 
church.  If  this  hymn  were  really  the  work  of 
Athenagenes  (f  169),  it  would  doubtless  be  the 
eaidiest  hymn  now  in  use ;  but  a  reference  to 
the  passage  in  St.  Basil  will  show  that  he  did 
not  believe  Athenagenes  to  be  the  author.  This 
hymn,  with  the  early  form  of  the  Gloria  in 
Excllsis,  the  latter  being  given  as  the  morning 
hymn  of  the  church  in  the  Apostolical  Consti¬ 
tutions  (vii.  48  Coteler.),  jirobably  represent  in 
their  rhvthmic  but  unmetrical  structure  many 
eai'ly'  Christian  hymns  now  lost.  Of  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  such  hymns,  from  the  time  of  Pliny’s 
vvell-known  letter  to  Trajan  {Episf.  97),  we 
have  abundant  evidence.  The  “  hymning  to 
God  the  giver  of  all  good  things,”  by  the  Roman 
Christians  after  the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius 
(d/urf.  S.  Ljn.  vii.),  may  have  been  a  burst  of 
extemporaneous  thanksgiving;  but  early  in  the 
following  century  a  Roman  writer  cited  by 
Eusebius  (fl.  E.  v.  28)  tells  us  how  rpaXpol  5e 
bVot  Kal  (p8al  a8e\(pwu  ott’  apx^s  vrrb  iriCTuv 
ypatpelcrai,  rbv  Koyov  ruv  0eou  rhu  Xpicrby 
vfxvouai  OeoXoyovPTfs ;  and  again  1  he  Clementine 
Epitome  Dc  gestis  Petri,  §  152,  refers  to  UpHv 
vpLPwi/  euxV  P^'i't  of  worship.  Of  Alexan¬ 
dria,  again,  Origen  testifies  (c.  Celsum,  viii.  c.  67) 
vfivovs  yap  els  jxovov  rbv  eirl  iTa(Ti  Keyop.ev  Qebv 
Kal  rbv  fjLOvoyevri  avrov  0ebv  Aoyov  [al.  t.  k.  a. 
\6yov  Kal  0601/].  (Cf.  also  Fragm.  in  Ps.  148.) 

Again,  an  early  tradition  reported  by  Socrates 
(//.  E.  vi.  8)  attributes  to  Ignatius  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  antiphonal  singing  at  Antioch,  as  the 
result  of  a  vision  of  the  angelic  worship  which 
was  revealed  to  him  [Antiphon].  The  monks 
of  the  Svrian  deserts,  in  the  time  of  Sozomen 
(//.  E.  vi.  33,  2)  continued  in  prayers  and  hymns 
according  to  the  rule  of  the  church  (QeerpLov 
rrjs  fKKXrirr'ias).  The  point  to  which  all  these 
allusions  tend  is  the  veiy  early'  use  of  hymns 
both  in  the  East  and  West.  Of  the  East,  indeed, 
we  can  speak  more  ])Ositively.  The  Epistle  of 
the  second  council  of  Antioch  (a.d.  269)  to  the 
bishops  of  Rome  and  Alexandria,  against  Paul 
of  Samosata,  makes  it  one  of  the  charges  against 
him,  that  he  had  “  jnit  a  stop  to  the  psalms  that 
were  sung  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  being 
innovations,  the  work  of  men  of  later  times;” 
while,  to  the  horror  of  every  one,  he  had  ap- 
piintcd  women  to  say'  psalms  on  Easter  Day  in 
his  own  honour  (els  eavrbv)  [Euseb.  H.  E.  vii. 
30].  This  last  exjiression  may  simply'  refer  to 
his  position  on  a  throne  of  unusual  height  and 
dignity  in  the  church ;  and  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  Paul  sought  to  confine  the  singing  strictlv 


to  Jewish  psalmody.  Another  inference  de- 
ducible  from  this  jiassage  is  ‘hat  metrical 
hymns  were  as  yet  unknown  in  Antioch.  It  is 
a  disputed  point  whether  metre  was  used  m 
divine  service  before  the  fourth  century;  but 
probabilities  are  against  its  use.  If  used  at  all, 
it  must  have  been  in  Greek  hymns,  for  reasons 
which  will  presently  appear.  No  metrical 
hymns  are  now  used  in  the  Orthodox  Eastern 
church,  but  all  its  ecclesiastical  vej-se  since  the 
eighth  century  has  been  simiily’  rhythmic  and 
accentual,  like  the  earliest  Latin  seijuences ;  but 
it  is  impossible  to  say’  whether  for  a  time  metrical 
hymns  found  their  way  into  Greek  offices.  The 
so-called  “earliest  Christian  hymn,”  the  epilogue 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria  to  his  TlaiSayuySs,  is 
not,  except  in  a  loose  modern  sense,  a  hymn  at 
all.  The  same  may’  be  said  of  the  sacred  verses 
of  Gi'egory  Nazianzen  ;  those  of  Sophronius 
approach  nearer  to  the  hymnic  form,  but  it  is 
unlikely  that  his  Anacreontic  verse  could  have 
found  its  way'  into  divine  service. 

The  fourth  century',  however,  saw  a  great 
impulse  given  to  the  liturgical  use  of  hymns 
successively  in  Sy'ria,  Constantinople,  and  the 
West,  under  the  influence  of  three  eminent  men, 
and  with  the  same  object,  the  enlisting  popular 
feeling  on  the  side  of  orthodoxy  in  times  of 
fierce  controversy.  The  earliest  of  these  move¬ 
ments  was  that  of  Ephraim  at  Edessa.  Greek 
metres  and  music  were  introduced  into  Syriac 
either  by  Bardaisan  [see  Bardesanks  in  Dict. 
OF  Chr.  Biogr.],  or  (more  probably)  by  his 
son  Harmonius,  whose  hy’inns  Ephraim  found 
to  be  so  popular,  that  he  felt  anxious  to 
counteract  their  influence  by  the  substitu¬ 
tion  of  orthodox  hy'mns  which  might  be  sung 
to  the  same  tunes.  According  to  the  Syriac 
life  of  St.  Ephraim  (quoted  by  Augusti),  he 
trained  choirs  of  virgins  to  sing  to  these  tunes 
hymns  which  he  proceeded  to  write  on  the 
Nativity,  Baptism,  Fasting,  Passion  and  Resur¬ 
rection  and  Ascension  of  our  Lord,  and  on  other 
divine  mysteries ;  to  which  he  added  others  on 
the  martyrs,  on  penitence,  and  on  the  departed. 
The  young  women  of  this  association  attended 
divine  service  on  the  festivals  of  our  Lord,  and 
of  marty'rs,  and  on  Sunday’s;  Ephraim  himself 
standing  in  the  midst,  and  leading  them  (cf. 
Sozomen,  If.  E.  iv.  16  ;  Theodoret,  iv.  29).  From 
that  time  forward  metrical  hymnody  became  a 
fixed  element  in  the  worship  of  the  Syriac¬ 
speaking  churches,  and  has  tilled  a  very  large 
place  not  only  in  their  daily  offices,  but  in  the 
Eucharistic,  and  indeed  in  all  others.  It  is 
not  so  easy  to  understand  precisely  what  was 
effected  in  Constantinople  under  Chrysostom; 
because  we  do  not  know  what  singing  was 
already  in  use  in  the  churches  there.  Theodoret 
(H.  E.  ii.  24)  attributes  the  introduction  of  anti¬ 
phonal  singing  into  Constantinople  to  two  priests 
under  Constantine,  named  Flavian  and  Diodorus. 
In  most  ritual  matters  Constantinople  followed 
the  lead  of  Antioch ;  and  this  custom  may  have 
been  an  imitation  of  what  was  already  in  use 
there.  We  cannot  doubt,  however,  that  the  device 
of  Chrysostom  for  silencing  or  outbidding  the 
Arians,  as  related  by  Sozomen  (IT.  E.  viii.  8,  1-5), 
led  to  a  much  freer  and  more  abundant  use  of 
hy’mns  in  divine  service.  The  Arians  had  been 
expelled  by’  Theodosius  from  the  churches  of  the 
city ;  but  their  numbers  were  still  very  great, 


HYMNS 


HYMNS 


803 


and  they  had  places  of  assembly  outside  the 
walls.  On  Saturdays  and  Sundays  they  as¬ 
sembled  in  crowds  in  the  oi)en  spaces  of  the  city, 
singing  Arian  hymns  and  antiphons,  and  went 
in  procession,  with  these  hymns,  to  their 
churches.  Chrysostom  determined  to  organize 
rival  processions  of  the  orthodox.  The  empress 
Eudocia  entered  into  the  scheme,  and  a  eunuch 
of  the  imperial  household  was  instructed  to 
furnish  the  necessary  materials  for  the  ceremonial, 
at  her  expense.  It  is  curious  to  find  that  these 
included  not  merely  crosses  and  torches,  but 
also  hymns;  so  unimportant  did  the  words  sung 
appear  to  Chrysostom  in  reference  to  the  end  in 
view.  But  whether  the  hymns  were  good  or 
bad,  the  midnight  processions  popularised  their 
use;  and  from  the  night  offices  of  the  church 
they  seem  to  have  passed  into  other  hours.  The 
midnight  singing  of  the  “  Golden  Canon  ”  of  St. 
John  Damascene,  so  graphically  described  by 
Neale  {Hymns  of  Eastern  Ch.  p.  35),  which 
forms. so  marked  and  picturesque  a  feature  of 
the  Greek  Easter,  is  doubtless  the  true  historical 
representation  of  Chrysostom’s  nocturnal  pro¬ 
cessionals  (cf.  Socrates,  vi.  8  ;  Cassiodorus,  Hist. 
Trip.  X.  8;  Nicephorus,  viii.  8,  9).  It  was  not, 
however,  according  to  Neale  (m.  s.  p.  13),  till  the 
period  of  the  Iconoclastic  controA'ersy  (a.d.  726- 
820)  that  Greek  hymnology  reached  its  full  de¬ 
velopment.  Its  great  names  are  Andrew  of 
Crete  (660-732),  John  Damascene  (f  780),  Cos- 
rnas  the  melodist  (1760),  Theophaiies  (759- 
818),  Theodore  of  the  Studium  (f  826),  and 
Methodius  (f  836).  How  marvellous  its  de¬ 
velopment  was  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact 
alleged  by  Neale  that  out  of  the  five  thousand 
quarto  pages,  which  he  computes  to  be  the  con¬ 
tents  of  the  whole  body  of  Greek  office-books,  at 
least  four  thousand  are  poetry.  For  a  full  and 
elaborate  account  of  the  structure  and  contents 
of  a  Greek  canon,  or  group  of  odes,  which  forms 
the  staj)le  of  the  morning  office,  the  reader  is 
referred  to  the  articles  Canon  (p.  277)  and  Ode. 
The  other  subsidiary  forms  of  hymn  are  ex¬ 
plained  in  the  same  volume. 

By  a  singular  coincidence  the  establishment  of 
hyinnody  as  a  constant  element  of  divine  service 
in  the  West,  had  been  brought  about,  a  few 
years  before,  by  similar  disputes  between  Arians 
and  Catholics.  The  facts  are  related  by  Augus¬ 
tine,  who,  with  his  mother  Monica,  was  at 
Milan  at  the  time  {Conf.  IX.  vii.),  as  well  as 
more  briefly  by  Paulinus,  St.  Ambrose’s  deacon 
(  Vita  S.  Amb.  p.  80  ;  ed.  Bened.  Paris,  1632).  St. 
Ambrose,  in  consequence  of  his  refusal  to  give 
up  to  the  empress  Justina  one  of  the  basilicas 
of  Milan  for  Arian  worship  at  Easter,  A.D.  385, 
had  incurred  her  resentment.  In  the  following 
year  sentence  of  exile  was  passed  upon  him.  He 
refused  to  obey  ;  and  the  population,  who  were 
devoted  to  him,  guarded  the  gates  of  his  house, 
and  kept  watch  night  and  day  in  his  church,  to 
defend  him  from  capture  by  the  imperial  troops. 
This  company  of  perpetual  watchers  Ambrose 
organized  into  a  band  of  per})etual  worshippers. 
A  course  of  offices,  psalmody,  prayer,  and 
hymns,  was  established,  and  once  e.stablished, 
became  a  permanent  institution  [Houus  OF 
Prayer].  Augustine  expressly  says  that  this 
was  an  imitation  of  the  Eastern  custom  ;  by 
which  he  probably  means  the  course  of  dailv  and 
nightly  psalmody  and  prayer — the  practice  of 


Oriental  a.scetics,  both  Jewish  (cf.  Philo  de  Vita 
contemphtkd,  c.  x.  [ii.  481,  Mangey]  quoted  by 
Euseb.  //.  E.  ii.  17)  and  Christian. 

But  it  is  especially  to  these  services  organized 
by  St.  Ambrose,  as  all  subsequent  writers  agree, 
that  we  of  the  Western  churches  owe  the  incor¬ 
poration  into  our  offices  of  metrical  hymnody 
(cf.  Isidore  of  Seville,  de  Keel.  Off.  i.  6  ;  Wala- 
frid  Strabo,  de  Rebus  Eccl.  xxv.  &c.  and  Pau¬ 
linus,  1.  c.).  Unlike  Chrysostom,  Ambrose  was 
able  to  supply  his  congregations  with  words,  and 
himself  to  set  them  to  music  (see  Ambrosian 
Music,  and  Koch,  Kirchenlied.,  vol.  i.  pp.  61,  sqq.). 
Of  the  metrical  hymns  which  are  undoubtedly  his, 
Biraghi  {Inni  Sineeri  di  Sant’  Ambrorjio')  enu¬ 
merates  eighteen,  Koch  twenty-one.  But  Milan 
became  a  school  of  Ambrosian  hymnody,  which 
has  left  its  mark  upon  the  whole  of  the  West. 
Ninety-two  hymns  of  this  school  are  given  by 
Daniel  {Thes.  Hymn.  vol.  i.).  Yet,  though 
Ambrose  is  the  true  founder  of  metrical 
hymnody  in  the  West,  it  is  possible  that  hymns 
were  already  in  use  elsewhere.  Hilary  of 
Poictiers  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  the  first  to 
introduce  them;  he  certainly  was  a  hymn 
writer,  and  his  hymn  “  Lucis  largitor  optime 
(al.  spleudide),”  sent  from  his  exile  in  Phrygia, 
as  early  as  A.D.  358,  to  his  daughter  Abra, 
found  its  way  into  church  use.  Pseudo-Alcuin 
{de  Din.  Off.  §  10)  attributes  to  him  the  com¬ 
pletion,  in  its  present  Western  form,  of  the 
“  Gloria  in  Excelsis,”  and  it  is  at  least  possible 
that  he  may  have  introduced  other  innovations, 
especially  as  some  of  his  hymns  (notably  a  well- 
known  Lenten  one,  “  Jesu  quadragenariae),” 
though  common  in  Germany  and  England,  were 
not  in  use  in  Italy.  The  work  of  St.  Gregory 
the  Great  is  not,  as  a  hymnographer,  distinct 
from  that  of  St.  Ambrose;  he  introduced  no 
new  species  of  hymn,  nor,  it  would  appear,  any 
new  u.se  for  hymns;  his  ritual  and  liturgical 
work  lay  in  other  directions,  though  he  made 
many  important  contributions  to  the  now 
rapidly  increasing  stock  of  metrical  hymns. 
But  the  progress  of  hymnody  for  the  next  four 
centuries  will  be  best  illustrated  by  a  table  of 
the  sources  from  which  the  leading  Breviary 
hymns  have  been  derived.  In  the  subjoined 
list,  the  numbers  in  the  first  column  are  from 
Daniel,  who,  without  attempting  perfect  ac¬ 
curacy,  arranges  under  the  name  of  each  author 
the  hymns  traditionally  assigned  to  him  ;  those 
in  the  second  column  from  Koch,  who  has  en¬ 
deavoured  to  assign  to  each  author  the  hymns 
known  to  be  his,  but  has  not  consulted  so  wide 
a  ranse  of  breviaries  as  Daniel : — 


Hymns  assigned  to  . .  . .  D. 

Hilary  cf  Poictiers  (f  368)  7 

1  )aniasus  . .  . .  . .  2 

Ambrose  and  tlie  Am-  \ 
bn >sian  school  5’’ 
Augu.stine  (incorrectly)  .  1 

Sedulias  ..  ..  ..  2 

Prud  ntius  ..  ..  15 

Enmxlius  ..  ..  ..  16 

Elpis  . .  . .  . .  1 

Venanlius  Eortnnatus  ,.  7 

Gregory  the  (Iroat  ..  0 

Isidore  of  Swille  (636)  . .  2 

Elavius  of  Chalons  (580)  — 

Cyrilla  . .  . .  . .  1 

Eug'  uius  of  Toledo  (  . 

(006-653)  (  ' ■ 

Ildefonsus  (658-660) )  _ 

Julian  (680-630)  J 


K. 

2 

1 


2  or  3 
10  (centos. 


7 

19 

(?) 

1 

1 

Some. 
3  F 


804 


HY^INS 


HYPACOE 


Utmns  assiftned  to 
Bede 

I'aulus  Diaconus  .. 

Akuiii 

Charlemagne 

Anonymous  hymns , 
cent,  vi.-ix.  ' 


D. 

11 

2 


13 


K. 

11  (several  doubtful) 
Several. 

Several. 


V.  cent, 
vi.  cent, 
vii.  c  nt. 
viii.  cent. 


19 

12 

7 

2 


The  use  of  Ambrosian  and  other  hymns  of 
Italian  origin  wa.s  much  extended  by  the  esta¬ 
blishment  of  the  monastic  orders,  each  with  its 
own  set  of  onices  for  the  hours.  Benedict 
especially  is  expressly  mentioned  by  Walafrid 
Strabo  as  having  inserted  in  his  olHces  many 
Ambrosian  hymns.  Other  countries  began,  as 
the  above  lists  will  show,  to  produce  hymno- 
graphers  of  their  own,  especially  Spain,  of 
whose  rich  store  of  hymns  the  IMozarabic  Bre¬ 
viary  is  an  evidence.  There  are  signs,  however, 
that  this  influx  of  hymns  did  not  evei’ywhere 
meet  with  favour.  The  complaint  made  by  the 
orthodox  against  heretics  that  they  had  inno¬ 
vated,  could  now  be  turned  against  themselves 
(Ambrose,  Ep.  873,  72);  and  among  Catholics 
there  were  some  who  doubted,  like  the  Genevan 
reformers  later,  whether  it  were  right  to  use  in 
worship  any  but  the  words  of  Scripture.  Others, 
as  time  went  on,  became  accustomed  to  the  Am¬ 
brosian  hvmns,  but  hesitated  to  receive  fresh 
ones.  At  the  second  council  of  Tours  (567-8), 
bv  canon  23,  the  admission  of  other  hymns  of 
merit,  in  addition  to  the  Ambrosian,  was  form¬ 
ally  sanctioned.  At  Toledo,  again,  complaints 
were  made  that  some  still  rejected  the  hymns 
of  Hilary  and  Ambrose,  as  not  scriptural  (Wala¬ 
frid  Strabo,  1.  c.).  At  length,  on  Dec.  5,  633,  at 
the  fourth  council  of  Toledo,  under  the  presidency 
of  Isidore,  a  canon  (c.  13)  was  passed  threatening 
with  excommunication  all  in  France  or  Spain 
who  opposed  the  use  of  hymns  in  divine  service. 
Yet,  as  we  have  seen,  there  were  still  some 
churche.s,  even  in  the  ninth  century,  which  did 
not  admit  metrical  hymns  into  their  offices. 

Two  points  remain  to  be  noticed — the  metre 
of  Latin  hymns,  and  the  offices  to  which  they 
were  restricted. 

Ambrose  found  in  the  lambic  Dimeter  (our 
present  L.  M.)  a  metre  admirably  adapted  to  the 
concise  and  solemn  language  of  his  hymns,  and 
equally  well  fitted  for  singing.  This  accordingly 
has  been  the  normal  metre  of  Latin  hymnology, 
down  to  the  invention  of  sequences.  But  it 
was  by  no  means  used  in  strict  conformity  to 
classical  models ;  accent  and  quantity,  it  must 
be  confessed,  were  both  at  times  disregarded. 
Some  attempts  were  made,  however,  at  other 
metres.  Among  the  so-called  Ambrosian  hymns 
appears  one  on  St.  ,Iohn  Baptist,  in  four-line 
stanzas  of  Alcaic  Hendecasyllables — 

“  Aim!  prophctae  |  progeni  |  es  pia,” 

and  four  others,  one  for  fair  weather,  one  for 
rain,  and  two  in  time  of  war,  in  a  peculiar  form 
of  the  lesser  Asclepiad,  with  spondee  instead  of 
dactvl  in  the  last  place. 

“  Obduxcre  polum  nubila  coeli.” 

The  poems  of  Prudentius,  not  being  originally 
intended  for  church  song,  supply  other  irregu¬ 
larities,  as  lambic  Trimeter — 

“  0  Nazarene,  lux  Bethlem,  verbum  Patris,” 


and  the  Anacrci  ntic  (Iamb.  Dim.  Catal.) — 
“Cultor  Dei  memento.” 

The  fine  cento  from  his  “  Da  puer  plectrum,” 
beginning — 

o  o 

‘‘Cor.ie  natus  ex  Parentis  ante  mundi  exordium,’- 

first  introduced  into  church  song  the  Trochaic 
Tetrameter  Gatalecticus  of  Greek  tragedy,  which 
has  been  so  great  and  permanent  a  gain.  He 
has  also  a  hymn  in  stanza.s  of  four  Sapphic  lines 
(without  the  final  Adonius) — 

“  Inventor  rutili  dux  bone  luminls.” 

Two  centos  from  Fortunatus — 

“  Crux  benedicta  niut,  dominus  qua  came  pependit,” 

and  the  well-known  “Salve  festa  dies,”  are  the 
earliest  instances  of  elegiac  verse  in  church 
song.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  both  were  pro¬ 
cessionals.  St.  Gregory  the  Great  wrote  Saijphic 
hymns  for  the  hour.s — 

“Nocte  surgentes  vigilemus  omnes," 

and 

“  Ecce  jam  noctis  tenuatur  umbra,” 

and  thenceforth  their  use  was  not  infrequent. 

A  few  other  irregularities  may  be  mentioned, 
but  they  are  unimportant. 

The  use  of  hymns  till  now  was  threefold  : 
(1)  as  processionals;  (2)  in  the  canonical  hours; 
(3)  at  certain  special  offices,  such  as  the  Bene¬ 
diction  of  Paschal  tapers,  &c.  As  yet  no  metrical 
hymns  were  used  in  any  part  of  the  Eucharistic 
office.  Walafrid  Strabo  mentions,  however,  that 
Paulinus  “  Patriarcha  Forojuliensis  ”  (Paulinus 
of  Aquileia)  had  frequently,  especially  in  private 
masses,  introduced  hymns  either  of  his  own  or 
of  others,  “  circa  immolationem  saevamentorum  ” 
{i.e.  at  the  Illation  or  Preface  following  the 
Sursum  cordci).  He  adds  that  so  greaf  a  man 
would  not  have  done  this  without  authority  or 
reason.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  there 
were  other  instances  of  the  interpolation  of 
hymns  into  the  Ma.ss.  One  such  is  known  to 
us,  the  verses  attributed  by  Daniel  to  Eugenius 
of  Toledo  — 

“Sancti  venite,  corpus  Christi  sumite,” 

sung  as  a  Communio,  or  Antiphona  ad  acccdentcs, 
before  the  reception  of  the  elements;  Neale 
(^Chr.  Remembrancer,  Oct.  1853)  assigns  this  to 
the  seventh  or  eighth  century.  These  excep¬ 
tional  uses  Avere  foreshadowings  of  the  great 
outburst  of  sequences  in  the  beginning  of  the 
tenth  century,  which  was  destined  to  add  so 
much  to  the  splendour  and  variety  of  Latin 
hymnody.  • 

[Daniel,  Thesaurus  Hymnologicus,  vol.  i.-v., 
Leipsic,  1855-6.  Mcne,  Ilymni  Latini  Medii 
Aevi,  Freiburg,  1853.  Koch,  Geschichte  dcs 
Kirchenlieds  und  Kirchengesanys  der  Christlichen 
(4  vols.)  vol.  i.  (part  i.  treats  of  hymns  of  the 
first  eight  centuries),  Stuttgart,  1856.  He  gives 
ample  lists  of  authorities  on  special  points. 
August!,  De  hymnis  Syrorum  sacris,  Wratislaw, 
1841.  Neale,  Hymns  of  the  Eastern  Church, 
London,  1863.  Mediaeval  Hymns  and  Se¬ 
quences,  1863.  Biraghi,  Luii  SmGe7'{  e  Carmi  dt 
Sanf  Ambrogio,  Milan,  1862.  Ebert,  Geschichte 
der  Christlich-Lateinischen  Literatur,  Leipsic, 
1874.]  [J.  E.] 

HYPACOE  (viraKort).  Certain  rhythmic 
compositions,  or  hymns,  Avhich  follow  upon  and 
echo  (as  it  were)  the  sense  of  that  which  pre- 


HYPAPANTE 


IX0TC 


805 


coded,  are  called  vnaKoal,  because  they  depend 
upon  (viraKovohfTi)  that  which  has  gone  before,  as 
a  servant  on  a  master.  This  is  the  explanation 
of  Coresi,  Goar,  however  (quoted  in  Daniel’s 
Codex,  iv.  723),  prefers  the  explanation,  that 
such  hymns  relate  some  wonderful  work  of  God, 
by  listening  to  which  the  church  may  be  edified. 
Neither  explanation  is  perhajis  quite  satisfactory, 
but  the  latter  can  scarcely  be  considered  to  give 
any  reason  at  all  why  these  hymns  should  be 
called  Hypacoae  more  than  many  other  parts  of 
the  office.  [C.] 

HYPAPANTE  (often  written  Hvpaxte),  a 
name  given  to  the  festival  of  the  Purification  of 
the  Virgin  Hary,  from  her  meeting  {virairauTT]) 
with  Simeon  and  Anna  in  the  Temple.  [Mary 
THE  Virgin.  Festivals  of.]  [C.] 

HYPATIUS,  bishop  of  Gangra  in  Paphla- 
gonia,  daimaTovpyos  ;  commemorated  March  31 
{Ctl.  Byzmit.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

HYPOCAUSTOIUUIM,  a  room  warmed  by 
a  hypocaust,  or  furnace  under  the  floor.  Thus 
Thiadildis,  abbess  of  Freckenhorst,  in  Westphalia, 
is  said  to  have  built  in  her  monastery  “refec- 
torium  hiemale  et  aestivale,  hypocaustorium, 
dormitorium,  cellarium,  domum  arearum,  etc.” 
(^Vita  S.  Thiad.  c.  7,  in  Acta  Sanctorum,  30 
January,  A))p.  vol.  ii.).  [C.] 

HYPOPSALIHA  (vTro\l/a\/aa),  a  particulai- 
manner  of  chanting  the  Psalms.  The  Apostolical 
Constitu' ions  (ii.  57,  §  5)  give  the  direction, 
“after  every  two  lections  let  some  other  chant 
(\l/aA\eTw)  the  hymns  of  David,  and  let  the 
people  chant  responsive  (uTroil/aWeTcc)  the  ends 
of  the  verses.”  Such  a  replication  of  the  body 
of  the  congregation  to  the  voice  of  the  single 
chanter  was  called  vircxpaA/ua.  Compare  ANTI¬ 
PHON  (Bingham’s  Ant.  XIV.  i.  12).  [C.] 

I 

IX0TC.  (Compare  Fish,  p.  673.)  The  fish  is 
found  in  an  allegoric  or  symbolic  sense  in  the 
ancient  remains  of  almost  every  nation.  Among 
the  Assyrian  fragments  discovered  by  Mr. 
Layard,  for  instance,  are  frequent  instances  of 
monsters  partly  formed  of  fish.  See,  as  examples. 
Monuments  of  Aineveh,  pi.  39,  67  B,  68,  71,  72, 
&c.  The  gem  figured  on  p.  674  of  this  work,  in 
which  a  man  appears  covered  with  the  skin  of 
a  fish,  is  probably  a  representation  of  this  kind 
of  monster,  rather  than  of  the  Apostolic  fisher¬ 
man.  The  coins  of  Tyre  and  Phoenicia,  mari¬ 
time  nations,  show  on  their  coins  fish,  or  monsters 
ending  in  fish.  The  same  object  is  found  on 
Egyptian  monuments,  though  much  more  spa¬ 
ringly,  for  the  fish  was  an  abomination  to  the 
Egyptians  (Clemens  Alex.  Strom,  vii.  6;  p.  850, 
Potter;  compare  v.  7,  p.  670).  Nor  is  the 
symbolic  fish  wanting  in  the  remains  of  the 
Indo-Germanic  races  (Sir  W.  .Tones  in  Asiatic 
Besearches,  i.  p.  230;  Ann.  de  Vhilosophie  Chre't. 
V.  p.  430).  The  doli)hin  in  particular  is  con¬ 
tinually  rejiresented  in  art  and  lauded  by  the 
poets ;  and  we  not  unfrequently  meet  with 
allusions  to  a  mysterious  fish,  the  KaWi^dvs, 
from  the  presence  of  which  all  noxious  things 
fled  away  :  ’Ei/  roTs  koI  udWix^os  iirwyv/jLOS, 
lephs  Ix^vs  (Oyipian.  .Halieut.  i.  185). 


When  we  find  it  in  Christian  symbolism,  the 
question  arises,  whether  the  fish,  like  so  many 
other  symbols  and  formulae,  was  adopted  by  the 
early'  Christians  from  the  already  existing  art  ? 
Looking  at  the  general  character  of  early  Chris¬ 
tian  art,  considering  its  constant  adoption  even 
of  symbols  and  representations  obviously’  pagan, 
it  would  seem  j)robable  that  special  sense  was 
given  to  an  already  existing  mode  of  representa¬ 
tion.  And  this  particular  symbolism  seems  to 
have  been  determined  by  the  discovery  of  the 
acrostic  from  which  tlie  fish,  many  times 

mentioned  in  the  gospels,  received  a  mystic 
significance. 

It  is  quite  uncertain  when  it  was  first  observed 
that  the  word  Ix^vs  is  formed  of  the  initials  of 
the  sentence  'Itjctovs  Xparrhs  ©eou  Tihs  SwTTjp. 
We  may  perhaps  assume,  that  whenever  the 
fish  was  recognised  as  the  symbol  of  the  Lord, 
it  was  in  consequence  of  the  acrostic  meaning 
having  been  discovered,  and,  if  this  was  the  case, 
it  must  have  been  recognised  from  the  very 
earliest  day’s  of  Christianity’.  The  Clavis  attri¬ 
buted  to  Melito  of  Sardis,  which,  if  genuine, 
belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century’, 
lay’s  it  down  that  Piscis  =  Christus  (c.  iv.  §  xl. : 
Spicil.  Solcsm.  ii.  173);  but  the  date  and  cha¬ 
racter  of  that  work,  although  Dom  P  tra  seems 
to  entertain  no  doubts,  cannot  be  considered  '->3 
beyond  question.  The  Sibylline  verses  give  ^fib. 
viii.  217-250)  the  famous  acrostic  on  the  letters 
of  the  sentence  ’It}(tovs  Xpnarhs  0eoO  Tibs 
^ojT^p,  (TTaupos.  At  the  time  when  this  was 
written,  the  mystic  meaning  of  lx6vs  was  clearly 
recognised,  but  the  date  of  the  verses  is  bv  no 
means  certain.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Paedag. 
iii.  11,  §  59;  see  Gehis,  p.  712)  numbers  the 
fish  among  Christian  symbols,  but  does  not  state 
its  special  significance;  elsewhere  (^Strom.  vi.  11, 
§  94)  he  regards  the  “  five  barley’  loaves  and 
two  small  fishes  ”  as  typical  of  the  preparatory 
discipline  of  Jew.s  and  Gentiles.  In  Clement’s 
contemporary  Tertulhan  we  arrive  at  firmer 
ground ;  he  writes  (De  JJaptisrno,  c.  i.)  “  Nos 
pisciculi,  secundum  IX0TN  nostrum,  in  aqui 
nascimur.”  Here  we  have  both  the  primary 
and  the  secondary  application  of  the  fish-svmbol. 
First,  the  Fish  is  Christ,  and  that  clearly’  as 
IX0TC,  showing  that  Tertullian  had  the  acrostic 
in  his  mind ;  secondly,  they  who  are  born  of 
Christ  are  in  their  turn  “smaller  fishes,”  a 
symbolism  which  also  took  a  firm  hold  on  the 
mind  of  the  early’  Church,  and  is  often  alluded 
to  [Fisherman,  p.  674] ;  thirdly,  a  fresh  signi¬ 
ficance  is  added  to  the  conception  of  the  believer 
as  the  fish,  inasmuch  as  it  is  through  the  water 
of  baptism  that  they  are  born  from  above.  It 
is  to  be  observed  that  Tertullian  gives  no  expia¬ 
tion  of  the  IX0TC  which  would  be  intelligible 
to  the  uninitiated  ;  the  syml)ol,  whether  written 
or  pictured,  was  part  of  the  secret  language  of 
the  early  Church.  This  reti(;ence  was  probably 
maintained  during  the  centui-ies  of  persecution  ; 
but  when  the  need  of  concealment  ceased,  w’e 
find  the  true  significance  of  the  symbol  pro¬ 
claimed.  Thus,  the  writer  of  the  work  De  pro~ 
mission,  ct  benedict.  Dei,  attributed  to  I’j-osper  of 
Aquitaine  (ii.  39),  seems  to  give  positive  testi¬ 
mony  on  this  point.  “  IX0TN,  latine  piscem, 
sacris  litteris  majores  nostri  interjuctati  sunt, 
hoc  ex  sibyllinis  versibus  colligentes.”  Augus¬ 
tine,  too,  speaking  of  the  Siby  l,  says  (De  civit. 


806 


IX0YC 


IX0YC 


Dei,  xviii.  23),  ‘‘If  you  join  the  first  letters  of 
the  five  Greek  words  ’irjcroDs,  Xptarhs,  &eov, 
Tibs,  you  will  have  IX0TC,  fish,  in 

which  word  Christ  is  mysteriously  designated. 
Compare  Optatus  c.  Donatist.  iii.  2.  And  when 
the  Empire  became  Christian,  and  it  was  no  longer 
necessary  for  Christians  to  conceal  the  great 
object  of  their  faith  under  a  symbol,  its  use 
began  to  decline.  De  Ro.ssi,  the  highest  autho¬ 
rity  on  such  a  matter,  assures  us  that  at  Home, 
at  least,  it  is  scarcely  ever  found  in  cemeteries 
formed  after  the  age  of  Constantine,  but  is 
almost  confined  to  the  catacombs,  and  to  the 
most  ancient  portions  of  these.  It  was,  he 
believes,  growing  obsolete  in  the  4th  century, 
and  was  scarcely  ever  used  merely  as  a  symbol, 
whether  at  Rome  or  in  the  provinces,  in  tlie  5th. 
'I’he  symbolic  fish,  indeed,  is  found  on  anamboin 
the  church  of  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  at  Ravenna, 
which  is  shown  by  an  inscription  to  be  of  the 
year  597  ;  and  the  IX0TC  is  found  on  the  large 
cross  in  the  apse  of  St.  Apollinaris  in  Classe, 
near  the  same  city,  which  Ciampini  *  ( Vet. 
Mownn.  ii.  79,  ed.  2)  maintains  to  be  a  work  of 
the  year  567.  These,  however,  are  rather  in¬ 
stances  of  the  use  of  ancient  symbols  by  an 
artist  for  decorative  purposes,  than  of  the  con¬ 
tinued  use  of  the  symbol,  as  such.  When  the 
symbols  occur  in  inscriptions,  where  mere  orna¬ 
ment  is  evidently  not  intended,  we  may  be  sure 
that  they  are  still  used  as  a  sign  for  believers. 
In  representations  of  scenes  from  the  gospels,  or 
from  hagiology,  fish  are  of  course  found  in  all 
ages  of  Christian  aid. 

Although  the  IX0YC  was  originally  an  acros¬ 
tic,  there  is  only  one  ancient  inscription  known 
in  which  it  actually  appears  as  such.  In  all 
other  cases  it  stands  separate,  at  the  beginning 
or  end  of  an  inscription,  or  both  ;  generally  it  is 
written  horizontally  in  the  ordinary  manner, 
but  sometimes  vertically  (Fabretti,  Inscript. 
Expl.  p.  329  ;  compare  gems,  p.  714).  It  would 
indeed  be  imj'ossible  to  arrange  IX0YC  as  an 
acrostic  in  a  Latin  inscription,  and  all  the  IX0TC 
monuments  which  have  come  down  to  us  are 
Latin,  with  the  one  exception  just  referred  to. 
This  famous  slab  was  found  in  the  year  1839, 
beneath  the  surface,  in  an  ancient  cemetery  ** 
near  Autun,  and  was  first  published  by  Dom 
(now  Cardinal)  Pitra  (^Annales  de  1‘hil.  Chret.  2® 
ser.  t.  xix.  p.  195).  Since  that  time  a  consider¬ 
able  literature  has  gathered  round  it.  It  is  a 
sepulchral  inscription  over  one  Pectorius,  son  of 
Aschandius.  It  is  imperfect,  but  as  to  the  re¬ 
storation  of  the  first  six  lines  there  is  no  very 
great  difference  of  opinion  among  palaeographers 
and  scholar.s.  Mr.  W.  B.  Marriott  {Testimony, 
p.  118)  gives  the  inscription  thus  : 

’iX^uos  o\ypoLviov  ay~\iov  'yeVos  Tjropt 

Xprjcre  &y^poTou  iu  ^poreoLS 

idecriTCcr'ioiv  vdaruv’  SaATreo 


®  Ciampini  misreads  the  1X0YC:  bnt  Gori  {Diptych,  iii. 
291)  gives  the  correct  reading. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  this  cemetery  is  locally 
called,  not  cimetiere,  but  polyandre,  i.  e.  noXvdvSpLoi^ — a 
curious  relic  of  the  time  when  Greek  was  spoken  at 
Autun.  Probably  this  was  the  very  name  used  in  the 
time  of  Gregory  of  Tours,  who,  in  his  Ignorance  of  Greek, 
took  it  for  a  Gallic  word  (Df  Gloria  Confess,  c.  73,  quoted 
try  Marriott,  Testimony,  p.  127). 


"TSaciv  aeudois  ttAoutoSJtou  rrjepiys, 

2,cx)Trjpos  5’  ay'twu  fieXiriSea  Xdfx^avi  ^puxnv, 
''Eadie  TTiudcov  ‘Ix^ur  exa»z/  TraAd/unuy. 

X^ . cipo  AtAafeo  beernora 

2&:Tep 

En) 

or  •  •  •  •  '^VP  o'e  AiTa(o,ue  (pus  to  va- 
vdvreov. 

^AerxarSTe  -redrep,  ry,  *p.u  /eexaptfr/ueVe  dvfxos 

ervv  fi . o7mi'  (fju>7<nu 

I  .  .  .  Ile/fTopiou. 


For  C^T]v  we  should  perhaps  read  Trriyiiv' 
The  word  XP^o-e  may  be  taken  either  for  exP’?'’’^? 
or  for  xP^o'at,  as  Knd^opii  for  Xird^opai  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  inscrijttion.  Uirdur  is 
for  TTeivduv.  The  hiatus  in  the  last  line  but  one 
may  perhaps  be  filled  by  the  words  (tvv  fxrjTpl 
yXvKepfj  ical  db(K(peio7(nu  4p.o7(Tiv  (Franz),  or 
sometliing  equivalent;  and  the  last  may  perhaps 
run  ’Ix^uv  ibuu  vlov  ixv{](T€o  HeKTopjov.  Mr. 
Marriott  translates  the  whole  as  follows : — 
“  Offspring  of  the  heavenly  Ichthu.s,  see  that  a 
heart  of  holy  reverence  be  thine,  now  that  from 


Tlie  Autun  InstTiption.c 


divine  waters  thou  hast  received,  while  yet 
among  mortals,  a  fount  of  life  that  is  to  immor¬ 
tality.  Quicken  thy  soul,  beloved  one,  with  the 
ever-flowing  waters  of  wealth-giving  wisdom, 
and  receive  the  honey-sweet  food  of  the  Saviour 
of  the  saints.  Eat  with  a  longing  hunger, 
holding  Ichthus  in  thy  hands. 

To  Ichthus  .  .  .  come  nigh  unto  me.  my 
Lord  [and]  Saviour  [be Thou  my  gui  le]  1  entreat 
Thee,  Thou  light  of  them  for  whom  the  hour  of 
death  is  past. 

Aschandius,  my  Father,  dear  unto  mine  heart, 
and  thou  [s\veet  mother  and  all]  that  are  mine 
.  .  .  remember  Pectorius.” 

The  first  portion  seems  to  be  an  admonition  to 
the  Christian  passer-by  who  read,  ,  the  second 
a  praver  of  the  deceased  himself;  the  third  an 
address  to  his  ])arents  and  friends. 

This  inscription  has  been  referred  to  very 
various  dates,  from  the  end  of  the  2ud  century 
(Pitra)  to  the  end  of  the  6th  (Rossignol).  Pro¬ 
bably  the  judgment  of  Jlessrs.  Franks  and  C.  T. 
Newton,  of  the  British  IMuseum  (in  Marriott  s 

c  For  the  tracing  from  which  this  engraving  was  made 
the  writer  is  indebted  to  Prof.  Churchill  Babjngtou. 


IX0Y3 


ICONOSTASIS 


807 


Tesiimony,  etc.  p.  133),  who  assign  it  to  the 
4th  or  5th  century,  is  not  far  from  the  truth. 
With  this  agrees  the  decision  of  Kirchoff,  the 
editor  of  the  fourth  volume  of  the  Corpus  In- 
scriptiomun  Graecarwn,  which  contains  this  in¬ 
scription  (No.  9890). 

Mr.  Marriott  (u.  s.  p.  141)  conjectures  that 
-the  spac^  at  the  lower  corner  of  the  marble,  to 
the  spectator’s  right,  was  occupied  by  a  sculp¬ 
tured  fish,  whether  alone  or  in  combination  with 
some  other  sy'-mbol. 

Costadoni  (i-v.  35)  gives  a  gem  (no.  xi.  in  his 
plate)  engraved  with  two  fishes,  with  this  in¬ 
scription  in  three  lines:  IX  j]  CwTHP  H  0V  : 
evidently  the  IX0TC,  differing  from  the  form 
common  elsewhere  in  having  CtwTHP  written 
at  full  length,  instead  of  being  separated  by  its 
initial  letter  like  the  other  words  of  the  acrostic. 
The  CctiTHP  is  probably  placed  between  the  IX 
and  the  Q'J  because  that  shape  of  the  inscription 
best  suits  the  space. 

Of  seventv-Hve  sculptured  slabs  containing 
the  symbol  which  Dc  Rossi  has  examined,  not 
more  than  eight  contain  the  ix^vs  alone,  and 
onlv  twenty — of  which  four  are  fragments  of 
slabs  which  may  have  contained  other  symbols — 
the  sculptured  fish  alone ;  the  rest  give  also 
other  symbols.  Seventeen  join  with  the  fish 
the  dove  and  olive-branch  ;  a  conjunction  which 
seems  cleajdy  equivalent  to  Spiritus  in  pace  in 
Christo  ;  or — if  the  olive-branch  be  omitted — 
Spiritus  in  Christo.  Spiritus  iuus  in  pace  is  a 
common  form  of  acclamation  in  Christian  epi¬ 
taphs.  Twenty-three  add  the  anchor  to  the  fish, 
whether  separate  or  intertwined ;  a  conjunction 
also  extremely  common  on  gems  [p.  714].  As 
the  Anchor  [p.  81]  unquestionably  symbolizes 
Hope,  we  may  read  these  symbols  Spes  in  Christo., 
one  of  the  most  common  of  Christian  sepulchral 
formulae.  A  sepulchral  slab  from  the  cata¬ 
combs,  now  in  the  Kircher  Museum,  exhibits  an 
anchor  between  two  fishes,  with  the  inscription 
IX0YC  ZcdNTcdN.  (See  further  under  GEMS,  p. 
713).  Of  the  fish  swimming  in  the  water  and 
supporting  a  ‘.hip  on  its  back,  clearly'  signifying 
that  Christ  bears  up  the  church,.  De  Rossi  has 
seen  three  instances. 

There  remains  the  conjunction  of  loaves  and 
fishes.  That  these  in  some  instances  simply 
form  part  of  a  representation  of  the  Lord’s 
miracle  of  the  loaves  is  clear  from  the  fact  that 
in  at  least  one  of  De  Rossi’s  Monumenta  (No.  71, 
from  the  cemetery  of  St.  Hermes,  now  in  the 
Kircher  Museum)  there  are  five  loaves  and  two 
fishes ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  fishes 
and  loaves  conjoined  were  intended  to  convey 
the  further  meaning  that  Christ  is  the  Bread  of 
Jdfe,  and  that  with  special  reference  to  the 
Eucharist  [Canister,  p.  264 ;  Eucharist  in 
Art,  p.  625].  This  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
Autun  inscription,  given  above,  where,  according 
to  the  most  probable  restoration,  the  fish  is 
spoken  of  as  in  the  hands.  VVe  can  scarcely 
doubt  that  these  words  refer  to  the  receiving  of 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  So  when  Augustine 
(^Confess,  xiii.  23,  §  34),  after  mentioning  the 
sacrament  of  bajitism,  goes  on  to  speak  of  that 
other  “solemnitas  ...  in  qua  ille  piscis  ex- 
hibetur  quern  levatum  de  profundo  terra  pia 
comedit,”  he  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  sacra¬ 
ment  of  the  Eucharist.  It  ought  however  to 
be  noticed,  that  some  at  least  of  the  paintings 


I  commonly  supposed  to  be  Eucharistic  are  in¬ 
tended  rather  to  represent  the  heavenly  mar¬ 
riage-supper  which  Christ  makes  for  his  faithful 
ones  (Rolidori,  Dei  convivi  effigiali  a  simbolo  ne* 
monomenti  Cristiani.  Milano,  1844). 

Ample  information  on  this  curious  subject 
may  bo  found  in  Costadoni,  Sopra  il  Pesce  come 
simbolo  di  Gesu  Christo  presso  yli  antichi  CrCtiani, 
in  Calogiera’s  collection,  vol.  xli.  p.  247  ff.  ;  in 
J.  B.  De  Rossi’s  treatise,  De  Christianis  Monu- 
mentis  IX0TN  exhihentibus,  and  in  Ritr.i’s  De 
Pisce  Alleyorico  ct  Symbolico,  both  in  Ritra’s 
Spicilegium  Solesinense,  vol.  iii.  ;  and  in  the  late 
Mr.  Wharton  Marriott’s  Es.say  on  the  Autun  In¬ 
scription,  in  his  Testimony  of  the  Catacombs,  p. 
115  fl'.  (London,  1870).  [C.] 

ICONIUM,  COUNCIL  OF.  The  date  gene¬ 
rally  assigned  to  it  is  A.D.  378  (Mansi,  iii. 505-10), 
this  being  the  y'ear  in  which  St.  Basil  died  ;  and 
Amphilochius,  bishop  of  Iconium,  who  presided, 
speaking  of  him  as  having  been  expected  there, 
but  kept  away  by  severe  illness.  St.  Basil  him¬ 
self  (A/?,  ccii.  al.  ccxcvi.)  had  asked  to  have  it 
put  ofl'in  the  hope  that  his  health  ndght  improA'e. 
But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  this  is  not  the 
meeting  of  which  he  speaks  in  a  subsequent  letter 
(eexvi.  al.  cclxxii.),  when  illness  equally  com¬ 
pelled  him  to  return  home.  Mansi  thinks  his 
words  here  prove  that  he  actually  was  at  this 
meeting  :  they  may  mean  no  more  than  that  he 
had  commenced  his  journey  with  that  intention, 
but  after  he  had  got  as  far  as  Neo-Caesarea,  which 
he  may  have  gone  to  first,  he  was  taken  ill  and 
had  to  return.  This,  according  to  Mansi,  took 
place  A.D.  375;  and  the  question  is,  whether 
Amphilochius  must  necessarily  be  su])])osed  to 
have  been  speaking  of  a  later  illness.  To  make 
up  for  his  absence,  his  treatise  on  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  read  there,  to  attest  his  sentiments  on  the 
subject  of  which  it  treats,  says  Amphilochius  ; 
in  all  probability,  therefore,  this  council  had  to 
do  with  the  followers  of  Macedonius.  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

ICONOSTASIS.  In  the  ecclesiology  of  the 
Eastern  church  this  designation  is  given  to  the 
screen  or  partition  wall,  tabulatum,  which  cuts  oflF 
the  bema  or  s  wrarium  from  the  Sdeas  and  the 
choir.  From  its  general  similarity  in  form  to 
the  chancel  screens  of  Western  churches,  the 
iconostasis  is  often  identified  with  them.  This, 
however,  is  based  on  an  erroneous  idea.  The 
screen  of  western  ecclesiology  separates  the  nave, 
the  place  of  the  laity,  from  the  choir,  the  place 
of  the  clergy.  The  iconostasis,  on  the  other 
hand,  invested  with  far  greater  dignity  and 
importance,  has  its  position  further  eastward, 
and  corresponds  in  locality  to  the  altar  rails. 
Thus  it  divides  the  choir,  or  place  of  the  clergy, 
into  two  parts,  separating  “  the  holiest  of  all,” 
containing  the  holy  table  and  the  place  for  the 
celebrant  and  his  assistants,  from  the  “  holy 
place,”  on  either  side  of  which  arc  arranged  the 
stalls  for  the  clergy.  The  iconostasis  in  its 
original  construction  was  a  comparatively  light 
and  open  screen,  the  KiyK\'i5fs,  bpixpaKra,  or 
cancelli  of  primitive  times,  very  much  resembling 
the  ordinary  type  of  western  chancel  screens. 
The  present  arrangement,  by  which  it  has  been 
converted  into  a  close  partition  with  curtained 
doors,  entirely  concealing  the  holy  mysteries 
from  those  who  stand  outside  it,  cannot  be  carried 
higher  than  the  8th  century,  aud  in  its  exuding 


808 


ICONOSTASIS 


ICONOSTASIS 


development  is  probably  later  still.  The  name  ' 
ilKOPoffraais  is  derived  from  the  icons  (^(Ik6v(s) 
or  sacred  pictures  painted  on  it.  I 

These  screens  in  the  larger  and  more  dignified  , 
churches  were  of  the  richest  materials  attainable,  ' 
and  were  adorned  with  all  the  resources  of  art.  The  ; 
elaborate  description  given  by  Paul  the  Silentiary, 
enables  us  to  realize  the  form  and  character  of 
that  in  St.  Sophia,  as  rebuilt  by  Justinian,  in  the 
middle  of  the  6th  century.  The  material  was 
silver.  It  consisted  of  a  epKos,  or  partition, 


described  as  being  of  ivory,  tortoiae-sholl,  and 
silver. 

According  to  Goar,  the  iconostasis  owes  its  pre¬ 
sent  close  form  to  a  reaction  against  the  icono¬ 
clastic  fury  of  the  8th  century,  as  atiording  a 
more  ample  space  for  the  exhibition  of  sacred 
pictures.  His  words  are,  Reticula  ilia  lignea  ” 
(the  wooden  trellis  work,  such  as  that  in 
Paulinus’  church  at  Tyre)  ‘‘mutavit  Ecclesia 
Orientalis  in  tabulata  solida  a  tempore  quo 
iconoclastarum  furore  turbata  plures  et  I'requen- 


Iconostasis  at  Tepekermann  ;  from  Fergrusson. 


formed  by  a  stylobate,  ornamented  with  ara-  j 
besque  Hower  work.  On  this  stood  pairs  of  ‘ 
twisted  columns,  twelve  in  number,  surmounted 
by  an  architrave  of  chased  metal.  The  spaces 
between  the  columns  were  filled  in  with  panels, 
bearing  in  oval  medallions  the  icons  of  Our  Lord, 
the  Blessed  Virgin,  the  apostles  and  prophets. 
In  the  centre,  above  the  “  holy  doors,”  the  inter¬ 
twined  monogram  of  Justinian  and  Theodora  was 
to  be  seen,  surmounted  by  the  crucifix  in  an  oval 
panel  (Paul  Silentiar.  part  ii.  v.  265,  sq.) 

The  Church  of  the  Apostles,  erected  by  Con¬ 
stantine  at  Constantinople,  had  its  screen  of  gilt 


tiores  sanctorum  imagines  ibi  dejnctas  esse 
voluit”  (^Exvcholog .  p.  18).  Early  examples  of 
the  solid  iconostasis  are  hard  to  find.  The  par¬ 
tition  has  been  invariably  removed  by  the  Turks 
in  the  churches  converted  by  them  into  mosques, 
so  that  not  a  single  instance  appears  in  the 
churches  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  of  Central  Syria, 
drawn  by  De  Vogue,  nor  in  those  given  in 
Texier  and  Pullan’s  Byzantine  Architecture,  or  in 
Hiibsch’s  Altchristliche  Kirche.  The  earliest  ex¬ 
ample  known  to  Dr.  Xeale  is  that  in  the  Arian 
crypt  church,  at  Tepekermann,  in  the  Crimea, 
which  he  thinks  “  may  be  referred  to  about  a.d. 


Cave-Church  of  Uie  Ajiccalypse  iu  Patmcs ;  from  Calmet. 


copper  (Euseb.  Yit.  Const,  iv.  59).  They  were 
often  of  brass,  or  bronze.  In  that  rebuilt  by 
Paulinus,  at  Tyre,  the  screen  was  a  trellis  work 
of  wood  of  the  most  slender  and  graceful  work¬ 
manship  (Euseb.  H.  E.  x.  4,  §  14).  That  of  St. 
Peter  in  the  Palace,  built  by  Ba.sil  the  IMace- 
donian  (a.d.  867-886),  was  of  marble  (Theophan. 
Ceram.  Homil.  Iv.).  The  screen  in  the  convent 
church  of  St.  Catherine  on  Mount  Sinai,  is 


350,”  of  which  a  woodcut  is  annexed.  This  is  not 
a  close  screen,  but  consists  of  four  pillars  standing 
on  a  solid  stylobate,  the  panels  of  which  are 
ornamented  with  boldly  incised  crosses.  The 
columns  reach  to  the  roof  of  the  cave.  The 
openings  between  them  may  have  been  probal  ly 
closed  with  curtains  (Neale,  Hist,  of  East.  Churchy 
vol.  i.  p.  193).  According  to  Guenebault  (^Dict 
des  Monwnens,  Art.  Iconostase),  one  of  the  luois 


ICONOSTASIS 


ICONOSTASIUM 


800 


ftccicnt  examples  of  a  closed  screen  known  is  also 
iii  a  cave  church,  the  Grotto  of  the  Apocalypse, 
at  Patmos.  From  the  woodcut  given,  taken 
from  Calmet  {Diet,  de  la  Bible),  it  will  be  seen  to 
be  a  plain  boarded  partition,  reaching,  in  two 
divisions,  from  the  lloor  to  the  spring  of  the 
vault,  and  very  much  resembling  a  Jacobean 
chancel  screen  in  England.  It  has  a  central 
arched  door,  and  two  arched  windows  on  either 
side,  surrounded  with  arabesque  work,  and 
closed  with  curtains.  The  upper  division  ex¬ 
hibits  an  icon  of  Our  Lord  to  the  right,  and  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin  to  the  left,  with  the  crucifix 
above. 

According  to  the  normal  arrangement,  an  icono¬ 
stasis  had  three  doorways,  that  to  the  right  hand 
leading  to  the  diaconicon  ;  that  to  the  left  to  the 


the  pre.sent  day.  The  iconostasis,  according  to 
Dr.  Neale,  is  “  now  generally  maiie  of  wood  ;  what 
would  be  the  pierced  j)art  in  a  western  rood 
screen  being  panelled  and  painted.  In  Attica 
they  are  found  of  plain  deal.”  (Neale,  u.  s.  •, 
Texier  and  Pullan’s  Byzantine  Architecture,  p.  62.) 
The  iconostasis  in  the  churches  of  Russia  is 
always  a  feature  of  considerable  magnificence, 
which,  from  its  size  and  elaborate  decoration,  is 
the  object  that  first  attracts  attention  on  enter¬ 
ing,  being  rather  an  architectural  feature  of  the 
edifice  than  a  mere  piece  of  church  furniture. 
It  is  very  possible  that  more  comjdete  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  the  ecclesiology  of  Russia  will  bring 
to  light  earlier  examj)les  of  the  iconostasis  than 
those  hitherto  known.  The  annexed  example 
from  a  church  near  Kostroma,  in  Eastern  Russia, 


prothesis,  through  which  the  “  Great  Entrance  ” 
was  made.  The  central  doorway,  ayiat  dvpai, 
always  the  largest,  and  most  highly  decorated 
with  carvings,  opened  on  to  the  benm.  It  was 
protected  in  the  lower  part  by  two  gates,  about 
the  height  of  a  man,  meeting  in  the  middle,  the 
upper  portion,  as  well  as  the  two  side  doorways,  i 
being  closed  with  curtains  [Curtains,  Hang-  I 
INGS].  On  the  right  of  the  holy  doors  was  in-  i 
variably  the  icon  of  Our  Blessed  Lord  ;  on  the  ! 
left  that  of  His  Virgin  mother.  On  the  panels 
on  either  side,  and  on  tho.se  above,  other  icons 
were  depicted,  according  to  the  taste  or  devotion 
of  the  founders  of  the  church,  and  to  the  saints 
under  whose  invocation  it  was  placed.  This  ar-  j 
rangement  remains  on  the  whole  unchanged  to  I 


given  by  Mr.  Fergusson  in  his  History  of 
Architecture,  is  not  of  very  early  date,  but  is 
pronounced  by  him  to  be  “  a  favourable  specimen 
of  its  class.”  y  j 

ICON  OSTASIUIM,  eiKovocTTaaiov,  in  the 
Greek  church,  a  moveable  stand  for  the  suspen¬ 
sion  of  icones  or  sacred  pictures.  Such  a  piece  of 
church  furniture  is  mentioned  by  Codinus  {de  Off. 
Aul.  Constantinop,  c.  vi.  §  2),  when  describing 
the  imperial  ceremonial  of  Christmas  Day. 
After  mattins  the  canonarchs  brought  out  the 
iconostasiuin,  and  set  it  in  its  place,  with  an  ana- 
logium,  or  reading  desk,  bearing  a  copy  of  the 
gospels  in  front  of  it.  On  it  they  suspended  an 
icon  of  the  nativity,  and  three  or  four  others. 


810 


IDrOMELA 


TDOT.ATRY 


The  emperor  on  entering  the  church  kissed  the 
icons,  and  again  on  leaving.  Ducange,  s.  v. 
identifies  the  iconostasiu/n  generally  with  a  small 
domestic  chapel,  or  oratory,  and  considers  that 
that  described  by  Codinus  was  a  portable 
shrine.  Gretser  is  more  correct  in  defining  it  as 
“  omne  illud  in  quo  stant,  vel  ex  quo  pendent 
sacrae  imagines.”  Goar  strangely  interprets  it 
of  a  carved  picture  frame,  [E.  V.] 

IDIOMELA  (i,  e.  aTixvp^  l^i6/x€\a).  These 
are  Stichera  or  Strophes,  which  have  no  hirmos 
{eTpfjLos),  the  rhythm  of  which  they  follow,  but 
which  are  independent  as  to  rhythm.  They  are 
usually  said  at  lauds  and  at  vespers  on  days  of 
special  observance.  At  lauds  one  only  is  said  as 
a  rule,  though  not  invariably,  as  in  the  Holy 
week  when  there  are  several,  after  the  (ttlxoi  fol¬ 
lowing  the  alvoi  (i.  e.  Pss.  148,  149,  150).  At 
vespei’s  we  find  sometimes  one  only,  as  on  certain 
week-days  in  Lent,  Sometimes  several,  four  or 
five  being  the  usual  number;  and  occasionally 
more,  e.  g.  nine  on  St.  John-Baptist’s  day,  and  of 
these  one  or  more  is  often  repeated.  The  tone 
to  which  they  are  said  is  specified,  and  the  name 
of  the  author  is  often  given.  Their  character  is 
that  of  other  troparia  used  in  the  Greek  offices ; 
but  they  are  often,  though  not  invariably,  longer 
than  others.  Idiomela  are  also  used  in  other 
offices,  e.  a.  in  the  office  for  the  burial  of  a  priest. 

[H.  J.  H.] 

IDIOTA  (’iSiWTrjy).  1.  An  illiterate  person, 
as  contrasted  with  a  “  clerk.”  Thus,  Gregory 
the  Great  (Epist.  ix.  9)  speaking  of  the  use  of 
jnctures  from  sacred  history,  says  that  pictures 
are  the  bible  of  the  uneducated — “  quod  legen- 
tibus  scriptura,  hoc  idiotis  praestat  pictura  cer- 
nentibus.”  Bede  {Epist.  ad  Egbert. ;  Migne’s 
'Patrol,  xciv.  659  c)  wishes  the  idiotae — that  is, 
he  explains,  those  who  have  no  knowledge  of 
any  tongue  but  their  own — to  learn  by  heart 
the  Apostle’s  Creed  and  the  Lord’s  Prayer  in 
their  own  tongue.  In  the  Middle  Ages,  when 
an  educated  man  was  almost  of  course  in  holy 
orders,  the  word  “  idiota  ”  came  to  mean  simply 
a  layman. 

2,  The  word  Idiotae  was  also  used  to  desig¬ 
nate  those  who  attached  themselves  to  some 
convent  as  helpers,  without  being  regular  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  brotherhood,  i.  e.  lay-brothers  [Cox- 
VERSi]  (Ducange,  Gloss.  Lat.  s.  v.).  [C.] 

IDLENESS.  [Mendicancy.] 

IDOLATRY  (J^dololatria,  flSuKoKarpeia^ 
The  object  of  this  article  is  to  describe  the  laws 
of  the  ancient  church  relating  to  idolatry,  or 
any  rites  or  customs  connected  with  it.  The 
treatment  of  Christians  who  went  back  alto¬ 
gether  to  heathenism,  belongs  to  Apostasy  ;  of 
those  who  succumbed  for  a  time  under  pressure 
of  persecution,  to  Lapsed. 

Few  canons  directed  against  idolatry  appear 
in  the  councils,  until  Christianity  had  become 
the  dominant  religion  in  the  different  countries 
of  Europe.  The  first  law  which  interfered 
with  the  free  exercise  of  Paganism,  was  an 
edict  of  Constantine,  A.  D.  319,  against  private 
sacrifices  (Cod.  Theod.  IX.  xvi.  1,  2),  but  it  is 
questionable  whether  this  was  issued  solely 
in  the  interest  of  Christianity.  Later  laws 
were  undoubtedly  levelled  against  idolatry. 
In  A.D,  324,  Constantine  forbade  (Euseb.  Vit. 


Const,  il.  45)  the  erection  of  images  of  the 
gods,  or  (ibid.  iv.  16)  of  his  own  statu  i  in 
the  temples;  he  (ibid.  ii.  44-5)  prohibited  all 
state  sacrifices,  and  {ibid.  iii.  54-8)  shut  uj' 
many  of  the  temples,  converted  others  into 
churches,  and  destroyed  some  which  had  been 
the  scene  of  immoral  rites.  Laws  of  Constantins 
forbade  (Cod.  'Theod.  XVI.  x.  4,  6)  all  sacrifices 
whatever  on  pain  of  death ;  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  ])enalty  was  ever  exacted.  But 
that  which  is  considered  to  have  given  the  death¬ 
blow  to  Paganism,  is  a  comprehensive  law  of 
Theodosius,  A.D.  392  (Cud.  Theod.  XVI.  x.  12); 
sacrifice  and  divination  were  declared  treason¬ 
able  and  punishable  with  death  ;  the  use  of  lights, 
incense,  garlands,  and  libations,  was  to  involve 
the  forfeiture  of  house  or  land  where  they  were 
used  ;  and  all  who  entered  heathen  temples  were 
to  be  fined.  But  that  Pagan  rites  lingered  after 
this  appears,  among  other  proofs,  from  a  petition 
addressed  to  the  emperor  by  a  Carthaginian 
council  (a.d.  399),  requesting  him  to  destroy 
some  rural  temples,  and  forbid  certain  idolatrous 
banquets,  which  were  held  on  Saiuts-Days,  and 
which  the  Christians  were  compelled  to  attend 
(Cod.  Eccl.  Afric.  cc.  58-60).  And  two  centuries 
later  Gregory  has  occasion  (Epp.  iv.  23-6)  to 
rebuke  some  landowuei's  in  the  remote  parts  of 
Italy,  who  suffered  their  peasants  to  continue  in 
heathenism ;  and  in  a  letter  (Epist.  ix.  65)  to 
the  bishop  of  Cagliari,  he  recommends  that  if 
the  rustics  will  not  listen  to  preaching,  they 
shall  be  fined,  imprisoned,  or  chastised.  On 
the  disappearance  of  Paganism,  see  Robertson, 
Church  Hist.  iii.  5. 

2.  Local  Edicts. — In  the  Gallic  church,  a 
fragmentary  letter  ot  Childebert,  a.d.  554  (Har- 
douin.  Cone.  iii.  334),  commands  all  landlords 
who  have  images  or  idols  on  their  estates,  to 
remove  them,  and  assist  the  priests  in  destroying 
them.  The  worship  of  sacred  trees  or  groves®  or 
stones  or  fountains,  is  frequently  forbidden,  and 
the  bishops  are  admonished  to  be  more  zealous 
in  checking  it  (2  Cone.  Arelat.  c.  23 ;  2  Cone. 
'Turon.  c.  22 ;  Cone.  Francoford.  c.  43).  A 
Frankish  council  pre.sided  over  by  Boniface,  A.D. 
742  (Cone.  German,  c.  5,  in  Hartzheim’s  Cone. 
i.  49)  prohibits  incantations  and  auguries,  and 
.sacrifices  which  were  offered  to  martyrs  in  place 
of  the  old  Pagan  deities ;  other  councils  forbid 
the  “  sacrilegious  fire-burnings  which  are  called 
Nedfrates”  (Cone.  Liptin.  c.  4 ;  Cone.  Sucss.  c.  6). 
Appended  to  the  council  of  Liptina  (probably 
Lestines,  Hartzheim,  i.  51),  a.d.  743,  is  a  curious 
list  of  forbidden  Pagan  superstitions.  It  contains 
mention  of  the  widespread  worship  of  sacred 
trees  and  stones ;  of  sacrificing  to  saints ;  of 
various  omens  and  charms,  such  as  observing 
tempests,  horns,  and  snails,  and  the  brain  and 
dung  of  animals,  and  fire  on  the  hearth  ;  or 
superstitions  connected  with  the  state  of  the 
moon,  particularly  women  hoping  to  attract  men 

»  On  the  Teutonic  religion  of  wor.'-hipping  in  groves, 
see  Mllman,  iMt.  Christ,  iii.  2.  The  most  recent  and 
satisfactory  Investigation  into  the  history  and  meaning 
of  sacred  stones  will  be  found  in  Fergusson's  Rude  Stone 
Monuments. 

*>  On  the  derivation  and  meaning  of  need-fire,  see  Du¬ 
cange,  s.  v.  Nedfri.  It  appears  to  have  been  a  supersti¬ 
tious  practice  in  certain  parts  of  Germany  of  striking  fire 
from  dry  wood  on  the  eve  of  St.  John  [John,  St.,  Fib* 
of]. 


IDOLATRY 


IDOLATRY 


811 


by  lunar  influences.  Compare  a  similar  super¬ 
stition  in  Englaml,  where  people  are  warned 
against  trusting  to  cries  and  sorceries  during 
an  eclipse  of  the  moon  (Egbert.  Penit.  viii.  3). 
An  edict  of  Charlemagne  issued  after  the  con- 
quest  of  the  Saxons,  a.d.  785,  contains  some 
severe  enactments  against  the  heathen  practices 
of  the  vanquished  {^dc  Parhbus  Saxon.’  in  Baluze’s 
Capitularia,  i.  250).  Death  is  to  be  the  penalty 
of  (c.  4)  ostentatiously  and  defiantly  eating  meat 
in  Lent ;  of  (c.  b)  burning  a  witch  because  of  sup- 
po.sed  cannibalism,  and  tiien  superstitiously  eating 
her  flesh ;  of  (c.  7)  burning  a  dead  body  and  col¬ 
lecting  the  ashes  ;  the  bodies  of  the  dead  (c.  22) 
are  to  be  buried  in  cemeteries  and  not  in  the  Saxon 
tumuli.  A  more  merciful  clause  (c.  14)  contains 
a  singular  provision  that  if  any  one  who  has  ex¬ 
posed  himsell' todeath  by  such  crimes,  shall  confess 
his  offence  to  the  priest,  and  be  willing  to  do 
penance,  the  extreme  i)enalty  may  be  remitted 
on  the  testimony  of  the  judest.  This  capitulary 
was  to  some  extent  repealed  by  a  more  lenient 
one,  A.D.  797,  which,  according  to  the  general 
practice  of  the  Teutonic  races,  allowed  a  money 
payment  to  compound  for  the  capital  olfence. 

The  Spanish  councils  contain  evidence  of  the 
lino'erins:  of  the  old  heathenism  at  the  end  of  the 
7th  century,  and  that  even  the  clergy  were  not 
free  from  complicity  with  it.  The  3rd  council  of 
Toledo,  A.D.  589  (c.  1(3),  complains  that  the 
“  .sacrilege  of  idolatry  ”  was  prevalent  through 
both  i^xiin  and  Gaul,  and  declares  that  the 
bishops  and  priests  neglecting  to  assist  in  its 
extirpation  shall  be  excommunicated.  The  12th 
council,  A.D.  681  (c.  11),  threatens  death  to 
slaves  worshij)ping  idols  or  stones  or  fountains  or 
trees,  or  ligiiting  torches ;  but  if  their  masters 
will  be  answerable  fur  their  abstaining  from  such 
rites  for  the  future,  the  extreme  sentence  may 
be  commuted  to  a  flogging  or  to  being  shackled 
with  iron :  if  the  masters  decline  such  responsi¬ 
bility,  they  lose  all  rights  over  the  slaves,  and 
are  themselves  subject  to  excommunication. 
The  same  practices  are  enumerated  by  the  16th 
council,  A.D.  69.!,  and  the  bishop  or  priest  who 
is  negligent  in  searching  them  out,  is  sentenced 
(c.  2)  to  a  year’s  penance ;  and  further,  any  one  who 
puts  obstacles  in  the  way  of  priest  or  otficer  is 
to  be  put  under  anathema,  and  if  a  noble,  pay 
3  pounds  of  gold  to  the  treasury,  if  low  born, 
receive  100  stripes,  have  his  head  shorn,  and 
forfeit  half  his  proj)erty. 

In  England,  Gregory  had  given  directions  to 
Augustine  (A/j/sL  xi.  76)  that  heathen  idols  were 
to  be  destroyed,  but  the  temples  preserved,  that 
the  fabric  should  be  sprinkled  with  holy  water, 
that  altars  should  be  constructed  in  them  and 
relics  deposited,  and  so  the  building  be  converted 
to  the  worship  of  God  on  spots  already  consecrated 
in  the,  popular  imagination  ;  even  the  sacrifices 
of  oxen  were  to  continue,  but  transferred  to 
Saints  Days.  Gregory  defends  this  policy  on  the 
ground  that  he  who  asinrcs  to  the  highest 
place,  must  be  content  to  ascend  step  by  step, 
and  not  at  one  bound.  The  English  Penitentials 
disclose  the  idolatrous  customs  which  seem  to 
have  had  the  most  tenacious  hold  on  the  people. 
Those  who  sacrifice  to  devils  on  slight  occasions 
are  to  do  penance  for  a  year,  on  great  occasions 
for  ten  (Theod.  Penitent.  1.  xv.  I  ;  Egbert.  Peni~ 
tent.  iv.  12).  Any  woman  who  places  her 
daughter  on  the  roof  of  u  house,  or  in  an  oven, 


to  cure  her  of  a  fever,  is  .sentenced  to  seven  years 
(Theod.  Pen.  I.  xv.  2 ;  Egbert.  Pen.  viii.  2). 
Burning  grain  in  any  house  where  a  dead  body 
has  been  deposited,  as  a  charm  to  protect  the 
survivors,  is  punished  by  five  years  (Theod.  Pen. 
1.  XV.  3).  The  witches  who  invoke  storms  are 
to  be  penitents  seven  years  (Egbert.  Pen.  iv.  14). 
In  the  laws  of  Wihtred  of  Kent,  a.d.  696  (c.  12), 
it  is  decreed  that  if  a  husband  without  his  wife’s 
knowledge  makes  an  offering  to  a  devil,  he  shall 
be  liable  in  all  his  substance  ;  and  if  they  both 
agree,  they  shall  both  be  liable;  but  that  if  a 
“  theow  ”  makes  the  otfcring,  he  (c.  13)  shall 
make  a  “  hot  ”  of  six  .shillings  or  his  hide.  There 
are  intimations  that  ecclesiastical  law  extended 
to  other  practices  which,  though  not  connected 
with  religion,  were  regarded  as  badges  of  idola¬ 
try.  The  Legatine  Synod  held  in  A.D.  787  (Iladdau 
and  Stubb.s,  Councils  and  Eccl.  Documents,  iii. 
458),  in  its  report  to  Adrian  1.,  com{)lains  (c.  19) 
that  the  people  dre.ss  after  the  manner  of  the 
heathen  ;  that  they  follow  the  heathen  custom  of 
mutilating  their  horses  by  clijqfing  their  tails 
and  splitting  their  nostrils  and  joining  their 
ears;  and  also  that  they  eat  horse-flesh,  which 
no  Christian  does  in  the  East  (Orientalibus,  Italy 
and  Germany).  In  the  previous  century  the 
eating  of  horse-flesh,  though  not  prohibited  was 
regarded  with  disfav'our  (Theod.  Penitent.  II.  xi. 
4).  A  prohibition  against  heathen  dress  is  also 
found  in  the  ancient  Welsh  code  of  tlie  7th 
century  (^Canones  Wullici,  c.  61).  “  If  any 

Catholic  let  his  hair  grow  long  after  the  manner 
of  the  heathen,  he  shall  be  expelled  Christian 
Society.” 

3.  Idolatrous  offices  or  customs. — The  council 
of  Elvira,  A.D.  305  (c.  4),  orders  Flameus  who 
wish  to  become  Christians  to  undergo  two  years’ 
additional  probaticn  as  catechumens;  if  after 
baptism  they  wear  the  sacrificial  garland  (c.  55), 
to  do  penance  two  years ;  if  they  provide  a 
public  spectacle  (munus)  (c.  3),  to  be  denied 
communion  till  death  ;  and  if  they  sacrifice 
(c.  2),  to  be  excommunicated  for  ever.  The 
same  council  requires  a  Duumvir  to  separate 
himself  from  the  church  during  his  vear  of 
office.  See  also  Actors,  Gladiators.  The 
grounds  of  such  prohibitions  are  stated  by 
'I’ertullian  (de  Spectac.  c.  12).  The  same  father 
condemns  {de  Spectac.  cc.  20-22)  the  actors  in 
each  of  the  four  sorts  of  shows. 

The  social  festivities  of  the  heathen  were  not 
regarded  with  the  same  suspicion.  Tertullian 
{de  Idolol.  c.  16)  sees  no  harm  in  a  Christian 
being  present  at  the  solemnity  of  assuming  the 
lofja  virilis,  or  of  espousals  or  nuptials,  or  of 
giving  a  name  to  a  child.  But  this  toleration 
was  not  extended  to  festivities  of  a  less  innocent 
character.  [Hkatiien,  §  5,  p.  76.3.]  The  sui)er- 
stitious  lighting  of  torches  and  burning  of  lamps 
is  forbidden  both  in  the  4th  and  7th  centuries 
{Cone.  Kliber.  c.  37 ;  Cone,  in  Trull,  c.  65). 
Another  canon  of  Elvira  (c.  34)  i)rohibits  the 
burning  of  wax  candles  in  the  cemeteries  lest 
the  spirits  of  the  saints  should  be  disturbed  ;  a 
reference  probably  to  the  idolatrous  j)ractices 
associated  w'ith  lighting  lamps  on  heathen  fes¬ 
tivals  (Tort.  Apoioij.  c.  35;  de  Idolol.  c.  15). 
The  irregularities  attending  the  observance 
ot  the  feast  of  the  Kalends  of  .lanuarv  (the 
new  year)  form  the  subject  of  one  of  Chryso¬ 
stom’s  Homilies  (m  Kalend.  t.  i.  p.  697,  ed. 


812 


IDOLATRY 


ILLITERATE  CLERGY 


Rened,),  from  which  it  appears  that  Christians 
set  u]»  lamps  in  the  market  ])lace,  and  adorned 
their  doors  with  garlands,  and  gave  themselves 
up  to  excess  and  made  divinations  of  their 
future.  “  You  will  prosper,”  says  Chrysostom,' 
“  in  the  coming  year,  not  if  you  make  yourself 
drunk  on  the  new  moon,  but  if  you  do  what  God 
approves  ”  (Tert.  de  Idulol.  c.  14  ;  Ambrose,  Serm. 
17  ;  Cone.  Autiss.  c.  1  ;  Cone,  in  Trull,  c.  62). 
The  2nd  council  of  Tours,  A.i).  567,  states  (c.  17) 
that  it  was  a  custom  in  the  church  to  have 
special  Litanies  on  the  three  days  of  the  Kalends 
of  January,  as  a  protest  against  the  heathen 
licentiousness  [Circumcision].  The  observance 
of  the  heathen  festivals  lingered  long  after 
heathenism  itself  was  extinct ;  at  the  end  of 
the  7th  century  the  Trullan  council  (c.  62) 
after  denouncing  the  Kalends,  declares  that  the 
church  will  excommunicate  any  who  keep  the 
solemnities  of  the  Bota  (Yota),  or  the  Brumalia 
(the  winter  feast),  or  the  1st  of  March  ;  and 
fbrbids  the  heathenish  customs  of  those  festivals, 
the  public  dancing  of  women,  the  interchange  of 
dress  between  men  and  women,  w'earing  comic 
or  satyric  or  tragic  masks,  ciilling  on  the  name 
of  Bacchus  and  simulating  a  Bacchic  frenzy 
while  treading  the  grapes. 

Making  gain  from  idolatry  was  considered 
idolatrous.  No  artisan  might  assist  in  making 
an  idol.  “  Canst  thou,”  says  Tertullian  (de 
Idolol.  c.  6),  “  preach  the  true  God,  who  makest 
false  ones  ?  ‘  1  make  them,’  says  one,  ‘  but  I 
worship  them  not.’  Verily  thou  dost  worship 
them,  and  that  not  with  the  spirit  of  any  worth¬ 
less  savour  of  sacrifice,  but  with  thine  own ; 
not  at  the  cost  of  the  life  of  a  beast,  but  of  thine 
own.”  Similarly  he  exposes  {ibid.  c.  8)  the 
sophistries  of  those  who  made  their  livelihood 
by  building  or  adorning  heathen  shrines  ;  and 
{ibid.  cc.  5,  6,  8,  11,  17)  the  dealers  in  victims 
and  incense,  and  the  guardians  of  the  temples 
and  the  collectors  of  their  revenues.  A  landlord 
who  reckoned  in  his  accounts  any  property  of  an 
idol,  was  subject  to  five  years’  separation  {Cone. 
Eliher.  c.  40) ;  a  man  or  woman  lending  vest¬ 
ments  to  decorate  idolatrous  pomp,  to  three 
{ibid.  c.  57). 

The  rule  which  was  to  goA’ern  Christians  in 
rating  food,  which  might  have  been  previously 
oflered  to  an  idol,  is  laid  down  by  St.  Paul 
(1  Cor.  x.  25,  30).  A  great  part  of  the  animals 
used  in  the  sacrifices  was  frequently  sold  by  the 
priests,  and  afterwards  retailed  in  the  public 
shambles.  This  the  Christians  were  at  liberty 
to  eat.  But  any  attendance  at  a  temple  for  the 
sake  of  the  sacrifice  was  strictly  prohibited  {Cone. 
Eiiber.  c.  59).  The  council  of  Ancyra,  a.d.  314 
(c.  7),  forbids  any  one  to  eat  in  a  place  conse¬ 
crated  to  idolatry,  even  if  he  took  his  own  food. 
But  by  the  direction  of  Leo  {Ep.  ad  AjccL),  a 
captive  among  the  barbarians  who  from  hunger 
or  terror  eat  idol  food,  was  to  be  leniently  dealt 
with.  Directions  with  regard  to  eating  food 
offered  to  idols  appear  frequently  in  subsequent 
councils;  it  is  the  same  as  eating  carrion,  and 
exposes  the  offender  to  excommunication  (4  Cone. 
Aurel.  c.  20) ;  oft’ering  food  to  the  dead  on  the 
festival  of  St.  Peter,  and  after  receiving  the 
body  of  Christ  going  home  and  eating  meat 
consecrated  to  devils,  incurs  a  like  penalty 
(2  Cone.  Turon.  c.  22)  ;  other  superstitions 
w.th  food  are  to  be  reprimanded  {Cone.  Remen. 


c.  14) ;  not  even  the  sign  of  the  cross  will 
purify  an  idol  offering  (Gregory  11.  Con.  Epist. 

c.  6).  [G.  M.] 

IGNATIUS.  (1)  Bishop  of  Antioch,  tepo- 
fxdpTus,  martyr  under  Trajan  (a.d.  109) ;  com¬ 
memorated  Feb.  1  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi);  translation  to  Antioch,  Dec.  17  (/6.), 
and  Jan.  29  {Cal.  Byzant.)',  “Natale,”  Dec.  17 
{Mart.  Bedae) ;  also  commemorated  Dec.  16 
{Cal.  Ay'inen.)-,  Dec.  20  {Cal.  Byznnt.)',  Hamle  7 
=  July  1,  andTaksas  24  =  Dec.  20  {Cal.  Ethiop.'). 

(2)  Martyr  in  Africa  with  Celerinus,  deacon 
and  confessor,  Laurentinus,  and  Celerina  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Feb.  3  {Mart.  Rom.  Yet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

ILERDENSE  CONCILIUM.  [Lerida, 
Council  of.] 

ILLATION.  This  in  the  Mozarabic  litv.rgy 
is  the  equivalent  to  the  Prefaee  (Praefatio)  of 
the  Roman  and  Ambrosian  liturgies.  In  the 
Gallican  liturgy  the  corresponding  prayer  is 
called  Immolatio  or  Contestatio.  The  Mozarabic 
Illation  is  usually  much  longer  than  the  Roman 
Prefaee,  and  varies  with  each  mass.  It  begins 
with  the  words  “  Dignum  et  justum  est,”  and 
leads  up  to  the  Sanetus.  [v.  Preface.  ] 

[H.  J.  H.] 

ILLIBEEITANUM  CONCILIUM.  [El¬ 
vira,  Council  of.] 

ILLITERATE  CLERGY.  Pope  Uilary 
(a.d.  461-468)  decreed  that  an  illiterate  person 
(litterarum  iguarus)  incun  ed  irregularity,  i.  e., 
disqualification  for  holy  orders.  And  this  rule 
was  repeated,  under  varying  jihrases,  by  a 
council  at  Rome  during  his  pontificate  and 
by  Pope  Gelasius  afterwards.  But  the  stan¬ 
dard  of  knowledge  required  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  exactly  defined.  We  learn  from 
St.  Augustine  {Epist.  76),  that  the  same  rule 
applied  to  monks  who  were  candidates  for 
orders.  In  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great  (a.d. 
590-604)  it  was  sutficlent  to  be  able  to  read. 
But  the  offices  were  repeated,  it  seems,  to  a  con¬ 
siderable  extent  memoriter,  especially  by  the 
clergy  of  the  lower  grades.  He  ordered  the 
deacons  from  country  cures  to  be  examined  as  to 
hoAv  many  psalms  they  could  say  by  heart. 
Thus,  too,  the  Second  Council  of  Orleans  (a.d. 
545),  in  its  15th  canon,  forbids  the  ordination  as 
priest  or  deacon  of  an}'  man  who  could  neither 
read  nor  repeat  the  Baptismal  office.  And  the 
First  of  Macon  (A.D.  581)  ordered  the  clergy  to 
fast  every  Monday,  Wednesday,  and  Friday  from 
Martinmas  to  Christmas,  and  to  employ  these 

d. iys  in  learning  the  canons.  The  Council  of 
Narbonue  (a.d.  589)  even  tried  to  enforce  learn¬ 
ing  by  suggesting  that  a  cleric,  obstinately  illi¬ 
terate,  had  no  right  to  his  share  of  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  revenues,  and  should  be  sent  to  a 
monastery,  since  he  could  not  edify  the  people 
{Can.  10). 

AVe  find  much  the  .same  state  of  things  in 
Spain.  The  Fourth  Council  of  Toledo  (cimi  a.d. 
630)  describes  ignorance  as  the  mother  of  all 
other  eiTors,”  and  orders  that  a  bishop  when  he 
ordained  a  parish  priest,  should  give  him  an 
office  book  to  use  {Canons  25,  26).  It  is  implied 
that  ho  would  be  able  to  read  this. 

Respecting  the  Eastern  Church  our  informa¬ 
tion  is  much  less  precise.  Justinian  {Xovell. 


ILLUMINATION 


IlMAGES 


813 


v’j.  c.  5)  forbad  the  adv'ancing  to  any  grade  of 
the  ministry  those  who  were  unable  to  read. 
During  grefit  part  of  the  8th  century  the  Ico¬ 
noclastic  controverey  was  raging,  and  destroyed 
almost  entirely,  says  Balsanion,  the  habit  of 
study  among  the  Catholics.  Therefore  the 
Seventh  General  Council  at  Nicaea,  in  a.d.  787 
ordered  in  its  2nd  canon  that  no  bishop  should 
be  consecrated  who  couhl  not  repeat  the  psalter ; 
and  who  was  not  well  acquainted  with  the 
gospels,  the  ejiistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  whole 
scri])tures,  and  the  canons  :  a  very  considerable 
requirement  for  the  time. 

With  the  accession  of  Charlemagne  a  move¬ 
ment  upwards  began.  In  many  capitularies 
of  that  sovereign,  stringent  regulations  against 
ignorance  in  the  clergy  were  laid  down  (for 
details  see  Thomassin,  p.  ii.  lib.  i.  cc.  90,  96 
passim).  These  details,  by  the  moderation  of 
the  .standard  set  up,  serve  to  show  the  existing 
lack  of  knowledge.  Even  these  it  was  impos¬ 
sible  to  enforce  with  any  strictness.  Lupus, 
Abbot  of  Ferrara,  writing  during  this  reign  to 
Hincmar,  apologises  for  a  bishop,  who  was  un¬ 
able  to  teach  his  flo.jk  otherwise  than  by  his 
good  example,  because  of  his  ignorance.  And 
Agobard,  in  a  letter  to  Bernard  of  Vienne, 
concludes  that  ignorance  in  parish  priests  would 
do  even  more  harm  than  an  evil  life.  Charle¬ 
magne  himself,  lamenting  this  prevailing  igno¬ 
rance,  writes  to  Alcuin :  “Oh,  that  I  had  twelve 
clerks  as  learned  and  as  perfectly  taught  in  all 
wisdom,  as  Jerome  and  Augustine  were  !  ”  Al- 
cuin’s  reply  is  worth  recording:  “The  Creator 
of  heaven  and  earth  had  only  two  such,  and  you 
wish  to  have  twelve !  ”  The  complaint  of  the 
English  Alfred,  reported  by  Asser,  is  well  known, 
that  “from  the  Humber  to  the ‘Thames  there 
were  very  few  priests  who  understood  the  liturgy 
in  their  mother  toncjue,  or  who  could  translate 
the  easiest  piece  of  Latin  ;  and  that  from  the 
Thames  to  the  sea,  the  ecclesiastics  were  still 
more  ignorant”  (^De  Jieb.  Gest.  Alfred,  apud 
Camden,  Anglica.,  p.  25).  We  must  not  suppose, 
however,  that  there  were  no  exceptions.  Bede, 
Alcuin,  John  Scotus  Erigena,  and  Hincmar,  are 
proofs  to  the  contrary.  But  this  sudden  blaze 
of  learning  was  a  good  deal  adventitious,  rested  on 
the  personal  influence  of  Charlemagne,  and  died 
out  again  after  his  decease  (IMuratori,  Antiqui- 
tates ;  Thomassin,  Vetus  et  Nova  Keel.  Disciplina, 
Pars  II.  lib.  i. ;  Maitland,  Dark  Ages).  [S.  J.  E.] 

ILLUMINATION.  [Miniature.] 

IIXYRIAN  COUNCIL  {Illyricum  or  Tllyri- 
cianuni  Concilium  according  to  Cave).  Held  in 
Illyria,  but  it  is  not  agreed  in  what  year:  Pagi 
contending  for  a.d.  373,  others  for  375,  Cave  for 
367,  and  older  authorities  for  365.  Pagi  says 
it  had  been  preceded  by  the  second  (he  should 
have  said  rather  the  third)  of  the  Roman  councils 
under  pope  Damasu.s,  in  conformity  with  whose 
letter  to  the  bishops  of  Illyria,  a  letter,  asserting 
the  consubstantiality  of  the  three  Persons  in 
the  Trinity,  was  now  addressed  by  them  to  the 
bishops  of  Asia  Minor.  'I'his  view  is  at  least 
countenanced  by  the  letters  themselves;  audit 
must  be  allowed  that  the  letter  of  Valentinian, 
Valens,  and  Gratian  to  the  bishoi)s  of  Asia  Minor 
expresses  the  declaration  of  the  Illyrian  bishops 
on  this  occa.sion  (Mansi,  iii.  386-94  ;  and  455-68. 
Comp.  Homan  Councils^  19). 


Three  more  councils  are  given  under  this 
heading.  1.  a.d.  415,  according  to  Sir  H.  Nicolas 
(^Chron.  of  IJist.  217),  at  which  Peregrine  was 
appointed  bishoj)  of  Patras. 

2.  A.D.  515,  according  to  Mansi  (Sir  H.  Nicolas 
A.D.  516,  as  lilyrien.se)  when  the  bishop  of  The.s.sa- 
lonica  having  joined  Timothy  of  Constantinople, 
forty  bishops,  whose  metropolitan  he  was,  re¬ 
nounced  his  communion,  and  declared  for  com¬ 
municating  with  pope  Hormisdas  (Mansi,  viii. 
538). 

3.  A.D.  550,  according  to  Mansi,  in  defence  of 

the  three  chapters  (ix.  147).  [E.  S.  Ff.J 

IMAGES.  1.  From  the  time  of  the  Macca¬ 
bees  the  second  commandment  was  generally 
understood  by  the  Jews  to  forbid  not  only  the 
worship  of  the  likeness  of  any  living  thing,  but 
even  the  making  of  it.  It  is  probable  that  they 
were  led  to  this  view  by  their  abhorrence  of  the 
acts  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  his  agents. 
Among  other  outrages  these  had  set  up  “  chapels 
of  idols  ”  in  the  cities  of  Judah  (1  IMacc.  i.  47), 
and  even  “  sought  to  paint  the  likene.ss  of  their 
images  ”  in  the  book  of  the  law  ( Ibid.  iii.  48). 
Hence  Josephus  (Antiq.  viii.  c.  7,  §  5)  condemns 
Solomon  for  making  the  twelve  oxen  on  which 
the  molten  sea  was  set  in  the  temple  (1  Kings 
vii.  25 ;  comp.  29),  and  the  lions  that  were 
about  his  throne  {Ibid.  c.  x.  19,  2u),  though  no 
degree  of  reverence  was  paid  to  either  of  them. 
In  the  days  of  Herod  the  Great  a  sedition  was 
nearly  caused  in  Jerusalem  by  his  exhibition  of 
trophies,  such  as  the  Romans  display  after  their 
victories,  the  Jews  supposing  that  the  armour 
was  put  on  the  effigy  of  a  man.  They  declared 
that  they  would  never  “  endure  images  of  men 
in  the  city,  for  it  was  not  their  country’s 
custom”  (Jos.  Antiq.  xv.  c.  8,  §§  1,  2).  In  the 
same  spirit  a  band  of  zealots  destroyed  a  golden 
eagle  which  Herod  had  put  over  the  great  gate 
of  the  temple  (^l)e  Hello  dud.  i.  c.  33,  2,  3). 

When  Vitellius  was  marching  through  Judaea 
to  meet  Aretas,  the  inhabitants  entreated  him 
to  take  another  route  on  account  of  the  fiorures 

O 

which  they  observed  on  his  standards  (^Antiq. 
xviii.  c.  6,  §  3).  Origen,  A.D.  230,  even  asserts 
of  the  Jews  in  general  that  “  there  was  no 
maker  of  images  among  their  citizens  ;  neither 
painter  nor  sculptor  was  in  their  state”  ((7. 
Cels.  iv.  §  31). 

It  appears,  then,  that  most  of  the  Jewish  con¬ 
verts  would  enter  the  church  thoroughly  imbued 
with  a  dislike  to  all  images ;  and  it  is  ])robablG 
that  many  of  the  heathen  would  be  similarly 
affected  towards  them  out  of  mere  horror  at  the 
idolatry  which  they  had  foi-saken.  There  were 
some  also  of  the  latter  who,  even  before  their 
conversion,  were  pre])ared  by  the  higher  tradi¬ 
tions  of  philosophy  to  renounce  the  use  of  images 
in  connection  with  religion.  Pythagoras,  we 
are  told,  forbade  his  disciples  to  “  wear  rings 
or  to  engrave  images  of  gods  on  them  ”  (Clem. 
Alex.  Strom,  v.  c.  5,  §  28).  Zeno,  the  founder 
of  the  Stoic  school,  maintained  that  men  “  ought 
not  to  make  temj)les  or  images”  {[bid.  c.  11, 
§  77).  It  was  a  tradition  among  the  Romans 
that  Numa  had  “forbidden  them  the  use  of  any 
image  of  God  in  the  likeness  of  man  or  in  the 
form  of  any  animal,  and  that  there  was  among 
them  ])reviously  no  image  of  God  either  painted 
or  fictile  ;  but  that  for  the  first  170  years  when 


814 


IMAGES 


IMAGES 


they  built  cemjtles  and  set  up  chapels  they  made 
no  images  in  any  shape,  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  an  unholy  thing  to  liken  the  better  to  the 
worse,  and  impossible  to  reach  God  otherwise 
than  with  the  mind  ”  (Plutarch  in  Numa,  c. 
viii.),  Varro,  in  a  passage  preserved  by  St. 
Augustine  (Cw.  Dei,  iv.  c.  31),  also  affirms  that 
for  the  period  specified,  the  Romans  “  worshipped 
the  gods  without -an  image  (simulachro).”  He 
thought  that  if  the  law  had  continued,  “  the 
gods  would  have  been  more  purely  woi'shipped 
and  after  referring  to  the  example  of  the  Jews, 
he  adds  that  “  they  who  first  set  up  images  of 
the  gods  for  the  people  relieved  their  states 
(civitatibus,  but  probably  civibus,  their  fellow- 
citizens),  from  a  fear,  and  involved  them  in  an 
error  ”  (0pp.  Varr.  Fragmenta,  p.  46  ;  Amstel. 
1623). 

II.  That  many  of  the  early  Christians  adopted 
the  Jewish  interpretation  of  the  second  com¬ 
mandment  is  evident.  Tertullian,  A.D.  192,  ev^en 
thought  it  wrong  to  make  such  masks  as  actors 
wore  ;  for,  if  God  foi'bade  the  likeness  of  any 
thing,  how  much  more  of  His  own  image  ?  ” 
(Z><?  Spect.  c.  23).  He  thought  painting  a  sin  in 
Hermogenes  (^Ade.  Ilenn.  c.  1);  and  he  teaches 
that  “  the  law  of  God,  in  order  to  eradicate  the 
material  of  idolatry,  proclaims.  Thou  shalt  not 
make  an  idol;  adding  also.  Nor  the  likeness  of 
ang  thing  .  .  .  Over  the  whole  world  hath  it 
forbidden  such  arts  to  the  servants  of  God  ”  (^De 
Idololatr.  c.  iv.).  Clemens  Alex.,  A.D.  192,  appears 
to  hold  the  same  rigid  view :  “  It  has  been 
manifestly  forbidden  us  to  practise  deceptive 
art ;  for,  saith  the  prophet.  Thou  shalt  not 
make  the  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven 
or  in  the  earth  below.”  (^Protrept.  c.  iv.  §  62.) 
Origen  says  that  painting  and  sculpture  were 
disallowed  among  the  Jews,  lest  the  effect  on 
senseless  men  should  be  to  “  draw  the  eyes  of 
the  soul  off  God  on  to  the  earth”  (C.  Cels.  iv. 
§  31)  ;  a  reason,  which,  if  v'alid,  ought  to  debar 
Christians  from  the  exercise  of  them  also. 

III.  All  held  that  representations  of  God,  even 
of  the  Second  Person  as  man,  were  unlawful. 
Thu^  Clemens  Al.  :  “  It  were  ridiculous,  as  the 
philosophers  themselv'es  say,  for  man,  who  is  the 
toy  of  God  (Plato,  de  Legibus,  vii.  §  10)  to  make 
God,  and  for  God  to  be  made  of  sportive  art,” 
&c.  (^Strom.  vii.  c.  5,  §  28).  Origen :  “  The 
statues  and  ornaments  that  become  God  are  not 
made  by  handicraft  artisans,  but  aix*  those 
wi'ought  by  the  word  of  God  and  formed  within 
us,  the  virtues  (to  wit)  which  are  imitations  of 
the  first-born  of  every  creature  ”  (  C.  Cels.  viii. 
§  17).  Minutius  Felix,  A.D.  220  :  “  What 
image  should  I  make  of  God,  when,  if  you  think 
aright,  man  is  himself  the  image  of  God  ”  (^Octav. 
c.  9).  Lactantius,  A.D.  303  :  “  An  image  of  God, 
whose  spirit  and  power  being  diffused  cv'ery- 
where,  can  from  nowhere  be  absent,  must  be 
always  superfluous  ”  (Instit.  ii.  c.  2  ;  see  also  the 
Epjit.  c.  25).  Arnobius,  A.D.  303,  after  ridicu¬ 
ling  the  images  of  the  heathen,  says,  “  So  far 
are  we  from  attributing  corporeal  features  to 
God,  that  we  even  fear  to  ascribe  to  so  great  a 
being  the  ornaments  of  minds,  and  the  virtues 
themselves  in  which  excellence  has  been  hardly 
ascribed  to  a  few.  For  who  would  .say  that  God 
was  brave,  constant,”  &c.  (Adp.  Gent,  iii.), 
Eusebius,  the  historian,  in  a  letter  to  Constan¬ 
tin  Augusta  (the  daughter  of  Constantine  and 


wife  of  Caesar  Gall  us),  who  died  in  3.54  :  “  Since 
thou  hast  written  about  some  image,  it  seems  of 
Christ,  wishing  the  said  image  to  be  sent  to  thee 
by  us,  what,  and  or'  what  kind,  is  this  image 
which  thou  callest  that  of  Christ?  .  .  .  Has  this 
Scripture  alone  escaped  thee,  in  which  God  by 
law  forbids  to  make  the  likeness  of  any  thing  in 
heaven,  or  on  the  earth  beneath  ?  Hast  thou 
ev'er  seen  such  a  thing  in  a  church  thyself,  or 
heard  of  it  from  another  ?  Have  not  such  things 
been  banished  throughout  the  whole  world,  and 
driven  far  off  out  of  the  churches;  and  has  it 
been  proclaimed  to  us  alone  among  all  men  that 
it  is  not  lawful  to  do  such  a  thing?  ”  (Epist. 
put  together  from  fragments  by  Boivin,  in  note 
to  Niceph.  Gregoras ;  Ilist.  Bgzant.  tom.  ii.  p. 
130,  ed.  Bonn).  Eusebius  proceeds  to  say  he  had 
taken  from  a  woman  two  pictures  of  persons 
di-essed  like  philosophers,  which  she  called  por¬ 
traits  of  Christ  and  St.  Paul,  “lest,”  he  adds, 
“  we  should  .seem  to  carry  our  God  about  in  a 
i'epresentation  like  idolaters.”  St.  Augustine 
writing  in  393:  “It  is  not  to  be  thought  that 
God  the  Father  is  circumscribed  by  human  form 
.  .  .  h.  is  unlawful  to  set  up  such  an  image  to 
God  in  a  Christian  temple.  Much  more  is  it 
wicked  to  set  it  up  in  the  heart  where  the 
temple  of  God  truly  is  ”  {JJe  Fide  et  Syndiolo, 
c.  7  ;  comp,  in  Ps.  cxiii.  ;  Enarr.  Serm.  ii.  §  1, 
&c.).  Asterius  of  Amasea,  a.d.  401  :  “  Do  not 
depict  Christ.  For  the  one  humiliation  of  the 
Incarnation  sulficeth  Him,  which  He  took  on 
Himself  by  choice  for  our  sake.  But  bear  and 
carry  about  the  incorporeal  Word  mentally,  in 
thy  soul  ”  (^Horn.  in  Dix\  et  Lazar.  Auctar.  Graec, 
Combef.  tom.  exeg.  col.  5).  A  writer  quoted  as 
Epiphanius  Cyprius  (the  famous  bishop  of  Cou- 
stantia)  by  the  council  of  Constantinople  in 
754  :  “  Remember,  dear  children,  not  to  bring 
images  into  churches,  nor  into  the  cemeteries  of 
the  saints  ;  but  have  God  ever  in  vour  hearts 
through  remembrance  of  Him  ;  nor  indeed  into  a 
common  house  ”  (Act.  vi.  Cone.  Nic.  ii.).  Even  in 
the  8th  century  there  were  no  representations  of 
God  the  Father,  but  unhappily  not  always  from 
principle.  “  Why,”  says  Gregory  II.  in  726,  “  do 
we  not  represent  and  paint  the  Father  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  Because  we  do  not  know 
what  He  is,  and  it  is  impossible  to  represent  and 
paint  the  nature  of  God.  But  if  we  had  seen 
and  known  Him,  as  we  have  His  Son,  then  should 
we  have  been  able  to  represent  and  paint  Him 
also,  that  you  might  call  His  image  too  an  idol  ” 
{Fp.  /.  ad  Leon.  Labb.  Cone.  tom.  vii.  col.  13). 
John  Damascene  in  the  East  at  the  same  period, 
A.D.  728,  who  is  equally  vehement  on  the  general 
question,  says  to  the  same  effect :  “  Wo  should 
indeed  be  in  error  if  we  made  an  image  of  the 
invisible  God  ”  (()rat.  de  Sacris  Iniag.  ii.  §  5). 

After  the  period  in  which  all  painting  was 
condemned,  it  is  not  so  common  to  find  passages, 
which  forbid  pictures  of  saints,  or  deny  that  the 
church  used  them.  There  are  such,  however  ; 
although,  as  we  shall  see,  such  pictures  were 
then  looked  on  only  as  lessons  in  history.  For 
example,  St.  John  Chrysostom,  A.D.  398  :  “  We 
enjoy  the  presence  of  the  saints  through  their 
writings,  having  images  not  of  their  bodies  but 
of  their  souls.  For  the  things  said  by  them  arc 
images  of  their  souls  ”  (Act.  vi.  Cone.  A  ic.  ii.  ;  sim, 
Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  ibid.).  An  author  whom 
the  council  of  Constantinople  already  mentioned, 


IMAGES 


IMAGES 


815 


cites  tinder  the  name  of  Theodotus  of  Ancyra  :  J 
“  Concerning  them  he  teaches  thus,  that  we  have 
not  been  taught  by  tradition  to  form  the  like¬ 
nesses  of  the  saints  in  images  out  of  material 
colours ;  but  we  hat'e  learnt,  through  those 
things  which  are  written  of  them,  to  copy  their 
virtues,  which  are,  as  it  were,  living  images  of 
them  ”  (Labb.  Cone.  tom.  vii.  col.  492). 

IV.  There  \vas  a  consensus  against  the  worship 
of  images,  in  ev'er}  sense  of  the  words  TrpocrKvrrjcns 
and  adoratio.  At  first  this  extended  to  material 
representations  of  the  cross.  “  We  neither  wor¬ 
ship  crosses,”  says  Minutiiis,  “  nor  wish  to  do 
so”  (^Octav.  c.  9).  With  regard  to  images  of  our 
Lord  and  the  saints,  the  evidence  is  ample.  Thus 
Irenaeus,  a.d.  167,  condemns  the  error  of  some 
Gnostics,  who  crowned  images  painted  in  colours, 
and  of  other  materials,  which  they  asserted  to 
be  likenesses  of  our  Lord  (Adv.  Haer.  i.  c.  25, 

§  6).  Epijihanius  who  repeats  this  {Haer.  xxvii. 

§  6)  says  that  some  of  the  images  were  of  gold 
and  silver,  and  that  they  “  set  them  up  and 
worshipped  them.”  (See  also  Aug.  De  Haer.  n. 
7.)  Origen  :  “  We  do  not  honour  statues,  that 
as  far  as  in  us  lies  we  may  avoid  falling  into  the 
notion  that  the  statues  are  other  gods  ”  {C.  Cels. 
vii.  §  66).  The  council  of  Eliberis,  about  the 
year  305,  decreed  “  that  pictures  ought  not  to 
be  in  a  church,  lest  that  which  is  worshipped 
and  adored  be  painted  on  walls  ”  (Can.  xxxvi.). 
St.  Augustine  :  “  Who  worships  an  image  (simu- 
lachrum)  or  prays  looking  on  it,  that  is  not  so 
affected  as  to  fancy  that  he  is  heard  by  it,  as  to 
hope  that  what  he  desires  is  granted  him  by 
it  ?  .  .  .  Against  this  affection,  by  which  human 
and  carnal  weakness  can  be  easily  ensnared,  the 
Scripture  of  God  sings  [as  a  nurse  waking 
infants]  things  very  familiar,  by  which  to  stir 
memory,  and  to  rouse,  as  it  were,  the  minds  of 
men  asleep  in  custom  of  their  bodies.  The 
images  of  the  heathen,  it  says,  are"  silver  and 
gold”  {Enarr.  in  Ps.  cxiii.  Serm.  ii.  §  5).  Else¬ 
where,  when  he  dwells  on  the  feeling  excited  by 
images,  he  speaks  also  of  its  contagious  nature  : 

“  Who  doubts  the  idols  being  destitute  of  all 
sense  ?  Yet  when  they  are  set  in  their  places, 
exalted  for  honour,  so  that  they  may  be  atten¬ 
tively  regarded  by  those  who  pray  and  sacrifice, 
then  through  the  very  resemblance  of  living 
limbs  and  senses,  though  senseless  and  lifeless 
themselves,  they  affect  weak  minds,  so  that  they 
seem  to  live  and  breathe  ;  especially  when  there 
is  besides  the  veneration  of  a  multitude,  by 
whom  a  worship  so  great  is  paid  to  them  ”  {Ad 
Deogr.  Ep.  cii.  quaest.  3,  §  18).  It  is  undeni¬ 
able  that  the  objection  here  urged  is  as  appli¬ 
cable  to  the  image  of  a  Christian  saint  as  to 
that  of  a  heathen  god.  Other  testimonies  will 
occur  in  the  following  sections. 

V.  The  figures  first  used  among  Christians  in 
any  reference  to  their  faith  were  merely  symbo¬ 
lical.  The  earliest  was  the  momentary  sign  of 
the  cross  made  by  the  hand.  “  At  every  journey 
and  movement,”  says  Tertullian,  “at  every 
coming  in  and  going  out,  at  the  putting  on  of 
our  clothes  and  shoes,  at  baths,  at  meals,  at 
lighting  of  candles,  at  going  to  bed,  at  sitting 
down,  whatever  occupation  employs  us,  we  wear 
our  forehead  with  the  sign  ”  {l)c  Cor.  Mil.  c. 
iii. ;  compare  Ad  Uxor.  ii.  5  ;  S.  Cyrill.  Hier. 
Cat.  iv.  c.  10  :  xiii.  cc.  11,  18,  and  others).  The 
first  permanent  representation  of  the  cross  is 


J  probably  that  set  up  at  Rome  beside  the  statue 
j  of  Constantine  after  the  defeat  of  Maxentius  in 
312  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  ix.  9)  ;  but  Eusebius  tells 
us  also  that  “  the  symbol  of  the  salutai’y  passion 
composed  of  various  and  precious  stones  was  set 
up  ”  by  Constantine  in  a  room  in  his  palace  {De 
Vit.  Const,  iii.  49).  The  same  prince  had,  the 
arms  of  his  soldiers  marked  with  a  cross  (Sozom. 
Hist.  Eccl.  i.  8).  Julian  the  emperor,  a.d.  361, 
says  to  Christians  in  reproach:  “Ye  worship 
the  wood  of  the  cross,  making  shadowy  figures 
of  it  on  the  forehead,  and  painting  it  at  the 
entrance  of  your  hou.ses.  ’  St.  Cyril  of  Alex¬ 
andria  in  hi-i  reply  justifies  the  practice  of  j)aint- 
ing  “the  sign  of  the  precious  cross”  (Lib.  VI.  ad 
calc.  0pp.  Jul.  194).  From  St.  Jerome  we  learn 
that  the  sign  of  the  cross  was  made  in  the  4th 
century,  as  it  is  now,  in  witness  to  written 
documents  {Comm,  in  Ezeh.  ix.  4).  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom  :  “  This  shines  at  the  sacred  table,  at  the 
ordination  of  priests,  and  again  with  the  body  of 
Christ  at  the  mystic  sapper.  It  may  be  seen 
everywhere  displayed,  in  houses,  in  market¬ 
places,  in  deserts,  on  roads,  on  mountains,  in 
groA^es,  on  hills,  on  ships  and  islands  in  the  sea, 
on  beds,  on  dre.sses,  on  arms,  on  couches,”  &c. 
{Contra  Judae.  et  Gentil.  §  9).  Severian,  A  D. 
401,  calls  the  cross  “  the  image  of  the  immortal 
king  ”  {Horn,  de  Cruce,  inter  0pp.  St.  Chrys.  ed. 
SaAulle,  V.  899).  Paulinus  of  Nola,  writing  in 
403,  speaks  of  “  the  ensign  of  the  cross,”  sur¬ 
mounted  with  the  crown  of  thorns,  painted  on 
the  Avails  of  his  churches  at  Nola  and  Fundi 
{Ep.  xxxii.  ad  Sever.  §§  12-17).  Nilus,  a.d.  440^ 
recommends  Olympiodorus,  Avho  Avas  about  to 
erect  a  martyrium,to  “set  the  figure  of  a  single 
cross  in  the  sacrarium  on  the  east  of  the  most 
sacred  precincts  ;  for  by  one  saving  cross  is  man¬ 
kind  completely  saved  ”  {Ep.  iv.  61). 

Tertullian  is  the  first  witness  to  the  use  of 
other  symbolical  figures :  “We  may  begin  from 
the  parables  in  which  is  the  lost  sheep  sought 
by  its  osvner,  and  brought  home  on  his  shoulder.®. 
Let  the  A^ery  pictures  of  your  chalices  stand  forth  ” 
(as  Avitnesses).  “  The  Good  Shepherd  Avhom 
thou  paintest  on  the  chalice  ”  {De  Pudic.  7,  10). 
Clemens  A\qx.  {Paedag.  iii.  11,  §59)  mentions 
several  devices  which  he  considered  permissible 
on  seals.  [Gems,  p.  712.]  “Symbols  of  the  Good 
Shepherd  ”  Avere  placed  by  Constantine  in  the 
fora  of  Constantinople  (Euseb.  Vita  Const,  iii. 
49).  A  mosaic  in  the  church  built  by  Paulinus 
at  Nola  represented  Christ  by  a  lamb,  the  Spirit 
by  a  doA'e,  Avhile  “the  Amice  of  the  Father 
thunders  from  the  sky”  (“This  is  My  beloved 
Son  ”  [Matt.  iii.  17],  being  probably  in  lettei’s). 
The  Apostles  [p.  107]  Avere  figured  by  twelve 
doA'es  round  a  cross,  and  the  church  Avas  seen 
set  on  a  rock  from  Avhich  issued  four  streams, 
the  doctrines  of  the  four  EAmngelists  {Ep.  Pau- 
lini  xxxii.  §  10).  At  Fundi  the  picture  of  a 
shepherd  separating  the  goats  from  the  sheep 
suggested  the  Day  of  .ludgment  {/hid.  §  17). 

VI.  (1)  When  religious  art  advanced  from 
symbolism  to  jiortraiture,  its  works  of  the  new 
type  Avere  at  first,  perhaps  in  every  instance, 
partly  historical  and  partly  ideal.  There  Avas, 
for  example,  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Priscilla  at 
Rome,  a  jdeture  of  the  Virgin  and  Child,  accom¬ 
panied  by  the  figure  of  a  man,  whose  dress  and 
action  (he  is  pointing  to  a  star)  are  so  clearly 
suggestive  of  a  symbolical  meaning  that  he  i.s 


816 


IMAGES 


IMAGES 


supposed  l>y  De  Rossi  to  rei)vcsent  the  prophets 
who  foretold  the  coming  of  Christ  (Marriott’s 
Vestiarium  Chrislianuin,  ]).  234,  and  ])1.  x.).  Other 
pictures  belonging  to  this  period  of  transition, 
being  apparently  of  the  5th  century,  show  our 
Lord  blessing  a  child,  or  rai^ing  Lazarus,  but 
with  “  the  rod  of  His  power  ”  (I’s.  cx.  2)  in  His 
hand  (Aringhi,  Roma  i^uhterr.  ii.  33,  37,  &c.  ; 
De  Rossi,  Roma  Soterr.  ii.  tav.  14,  24).  In  one  of 
the  same  class  and  probably  of  the  same  age,  our 
Lord  appears  with  an  open  book  in  His  hand, 
and  an  Apostle  and  rolls  of  writing  on  either 
side  (Aringhi,  ii.  91  ;  Marriott,  pi.  xii.).  The 
rolls  evidently  reju'esent  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments;  and  the  Apostles  are  probably  St.  Peter, 
the  great  converter  of  the  Jews,  and  St.  Paul, 
whose  chief  mission  was  to  the  Gentiles.  The 
thought  conveyed  is  that  Christ  is  the  great 
teacher.  He  “  opened  the  Scriptures  ”  to  the 
Apostles,  that  they  might  instruct  the  world. 
Works  of  this  twofold  character  Hre  frequent 
after  the  strictly  historical  treatment  of  religious 
subjects  had  quite  established  itself.  See  ex¬ 
amples  in  Aringhi,  ii.  83,  88,  129,  &c. 

(2)  We  come  now  to  pictorial  images,  which 
were,  so  far  as  appears,  of  a  purely  historical 
character.  St.  Augustine  writing  about  the  year 
400,  says  of  some  misbelievers  who  had  forged 
epistles  as  from  our  Lord  to  SS.  Peter  and  Paul, 
that  he  supposed  those  Apostles  “  occurred  to 
them  because  they  saw  them  painted  together 
with  Him  in  many  places  ”  (^l)e  Consensu  Evang. 
i.  X.  n.  16).  He  speaks  also  of  the  ofienng  of  Isaac 
as  a  “  noble  deed  sung  by  so  many  tongues, 
painted  in  so  many  places”  (C.  Faust,  xxii.  73). 
A  painting  on  this  subject  is  described  by  St. 
Gi'egory  of  Nyssa:  “  I  have  often  seen  the  image 
of  his  suffering  in  a  picture,  and  passed  the  sight 
not  without  tears,  so  vividly  did  the  art  of  the 
painter  bring  the  story  before  the  eyes  ”  (De 
Deit.  Fit.  et  Sp.  Orat.  ;  compare  Greg.  II.,  Ep. 
I.  ad  Leon.  Labb.  Cone.  vii.  16).  It  was  a 
favourite  subject,  because  it  symbolised  the 
death  of  Christ,  which  as  yet  men  did  not 
venture  to  represent  directly.  St.  Gregory  tells 
us  also  that  the  martyrdom  of  Theodore  in  all 
its  circumstances  was  depicted  on  the  walls  of  a 
church  built  to  his  memory  (^Encom.  Theodori). 
The  people  of  Antioch  in  the  time  of  St.  Chry¬ 
sostom  had  the  figure  of  St.  Meletius  “  in  the 
besils  of  rings,  on  stamps,  on  bowls,  on  the  walls 
of  chambers,  and  everywhere  ”  (Chrysost.  in  St. 
Melet.  §  1).  Paulinus,  in  a  poem  written  about 
the  year  402,  describes  several  scenes  from  the 
Old  Testament,  which  he  had  caused  to  be  painted 
in  his  church  at  Nola.  He  owns  that  it  was  an 
unusual  thing  (raro  more,  line  544),  and  explains 
his  reason  for  it  at  length.  It  was  an  experi¬ 
ment  by  which  he  hoped  to  interest  and  instruct 
the  rude  converts  of  that  neighbourhood,  and 
especially  to  keep  them  from  the  excesses  which 
prevailed  among  them,  when  they  assembled  in 
great  numbers  on  the  festivals  (^Poema  xxvii. 
De  8.  Fel.  Eat.  carm.  9).  Pictures  of  Paulinus 
himself  and  St.  Martin  had  been  placed  by  Sul- 
picius  Severus  in  the  baptistery  of  his  church 
at  Primuliac,  near  Beziers.  Paulinus,  hearing 
of  this,  sent  him  some  verses  to  be  set  over  them, 
in  which  he  describes  St.  Martin  as  an  example  of 
holiness  to  the  newly  baptized,  and  himself  of 
penitence  {Ep.  xxxii.  §§  2,  3).  From  Asterius 
we  learn  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  5th  cen¬ 


tury  some  persons  had  subjects  from  the  New 
Testament,  as  Christ  and  the  Ajtostles  and 
miracles  wrought  by  them,  embroidered  on  their 
dress,  a  jmactice  which  he  strongly  condemns 
{De  Div.  et  Jar.  u.  s.).  The  same  writer  de¬ 
scribes  at  length  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Fu])hemia 
as  painted  in  a  church  {u.  s.  col.  207).  Pruden- 
tius,  A.D.  405,  saw  in  the  Forum  Cornelianum 
at  Rome  a  jneture  of  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Cas- 
sianus,  a  schoolmaster,  whom  his  j)Upils  at  the 
command  of  the  heathen  magistrate  had  stabbed 
to  death  with  their  stgli  {IM  Coronis,  Hymn.  ix. 
9).  He  also  describes  a  picture  on  the  tomb  of 
Hippolytus,  in  which  that  martyr  was  repre¬ 
sented  being  torn  asunder  by  horses  {fbid.  x. 
126).  Heraclides  of  Nyssa,  A.D.  440,  wrote  two 
epistles  against  the  Messalianites,  in  the  latter 
of  which  was  a  “  testimony  to  the  antiquity  of 
tlie  venerable  images  ”  {Fikovuiv,  the  Gi-eek  paint¬ 
ings)  (Photius,  Ribliotk.  cod.  i.).  We  have  reason 
to  think  that  the  custom  of  placing  in  churches 
the  portraits,  either  painted,  or  in  mosaic,  of  the 
patriarchs  or  other  eminent  men,  was  becoming 
common  about  this  time.  St.  Nilus  advised 
Olympiodorus  ‘‘to  fill  the  holy  temple  on  all 
sides  with  stories  from  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ment  by  the  hand  of  the  finest  i)ainter,  that 
those  who  did  not  know  letters  and  were  not 
able  to  read  the  Holy  Scri])tures  might  by  con¬ 
templating  the  jdeture  be  reminded  of  the  virtue 
of  those  who  served  God  truly,”  &c.  {Epjist.  iv. 
61).  An  author  in  Suidas,  supposed  to  be  Mal- 
chus,  A.D.  496,  says  that  in  a  church  at  Con¬ 
stantinople  there  was  a  mosaic,  put  up  in  the 
lifetime  of  Gennadius  (a.d.  458  to  471),  in  which 
that  patriarch  and  Acacius,  who  became  his  suc¬ 
cessor,  were  represented  with  our  Lord  between 
them,  and  that  the  clergy  set  up  pictures  of 
Acacius  in  the  oratories  (Suidas  in  Acacius,  i. 
76).  We  find  incidentally  that  the  partisans  of 
i\Iacedonius  had  portraits  of  him  in  their  churches 
(Theodorus  Lector,  Excerpt,  ii.).  Evagrius,  A.D. 
594,  mentions  a  pictui'e  on  the  ceiling  of  a 
church  at  Apamia,  representing  a  miracle  of 
which  he  had  himself  been  witness  when  at 
school  there  {Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  26).  Gregory  of 
Toui's,  his  contemporary,  mentions  pictures  (jco- 
nicae)  of  the  apostles  and  other  saints,  which 
wei’e  in  an  oratory  at  Arverna  (  Vitae  PP.  xii. 
§  2).  When  Augustine  and  his  companions  had 
their  first  interview  with  Ethelbert  in  597,  they 
came  “  bearing  a  silver  cross  for  banner,  and  an 
image  of  the  Lord  the  Saviour  painted  on  a 
board  ”  (Bede,  Hist.  Earl.  i.  25).  But  the  ear¬ 
liest  authentic  account  of  pictures  in  an  English 
church  occurs  in  Bede’s  life  of  Benedict  Biscop, 
his  first  abbot,  who,  in  648,  “  brought  from 
Rome  paintings  of  sacred  images,  to  wit,  of  the 
blessed  Mary  and  of  the  twelve  Ajwstles,  besides 
I'epresentations  of  the  Gospel  history,  and  of  the 
visions  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and  placed 
them  in  his  church  ;  so  that  all  who  entered  the 
chui’ch,  even  those  ignorant  of  letters,  whither¬ 
soever  they  turned  their  eyes,  might  contemplate 
the  ever-lovely  countenance  of  Christ,  and  of  his 
saints,  though  in  an  image ;  or  might  more 
heedfully  call  to  mind  the  grace  of  the  Lord’s 
Incarnation  ”  {Hagiogr.  sect.  i.).  In  685  {Ibid. 
720)  lie  brought  other  pictures  from  Rome, 
many  of  saints  and  Gospel  subjects,  as  before ; 
but  some  also  illustrating  the  relation  of  the 
New  Testament  to  the  Old,  as  Isaac  bearing  tbo 


IMAGES 


IMAGES 


817 


<vood  beside  Christ  bearing  His  cross,  the  brazen 
serpent  on  the  pole  by  Christ  on  the  cross.  Pic¬ 
tures  of  this  character  probably  abounded  in 
Rome  at  this  time  ;  for  a  great  number  are  men¬ 
tioned  as  to  be  seen  there  by  Cregory  II.  in  his 
first  reply  to  Leo  the  emperor,  a.d.  726  (Labb. 
Cone.  vii.  16). 

VII.  Scarcely  had  portraits  of  holy  persons 
become  common,  before  pictures  of  fabulous 
origin  were  brought  forward,  and  superstitious 
notions  and  practices  began  to  abound.  For 
example,  Theodoret  had  heard  that  the  Romans 
hold  Symeon  the  Stylite  in  snch  esteem,  as  to 
“set  up  small  portraits  of  him  in  all  the  en¬ 
trances  of  their  workshops,  deriving  thence  pro¬ 
tection  and  safety  for  themselves  ”  {Hist.  Jicli- 
giosa,  c.  xxvi.).  Theodorus  Lector  reports  that 
Eudocia,  the  Augusta,  sent  to  Pulcheria  (about 
A.D.  456)  a  “likeness  of  the  mother  of  God 
which  the  Apostle  Luke  painted  ”  {Excerpta,  i. 
prope  init.).  The  same  writer  relates  that  a 
painter  of  Constantinople  in  the  time  of  Gen- 
nadius,  had  “dared  to  paint  the  Saviour  as 
Zeus.”  For  this  his  arm  withered,  but  was 
restored  at  the  prayer  of  the  patriarch.  The 
historian  adds  that  “  the  other  representation 
of  the  Saviour,  with  curling  short  hair,  is  the 
more  correct  ”  {Ibid.  i.  554).  When  Edessa  was 
besieged  by  Chosroes,  king  of  Persia,  about  544, 
the  mound  erected  by  him  against  the  walls 
was,  according  to  Evagrius  {Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  27), 
destroyed  by  fire,  the  heat  and  power  of  which 
had  been  miraculously  intensified  by  water  that 
had  been  sprinkled  over  a  picture  of  Christ 
(“  the  God-made  image  which  the  hand  of  man 
wrought  not  ”),  sent  by  himself  to  Abgarus  a 
former  king  of  that  city.  Evagrius  finished  his 
history  in  594.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Pi*o- 
copius  {De  Bello  Fersico,  ii.  27),  who  wrote  soon 
alter  the  Persian  war,  and  from  whom  Evagrius 
took  the  rest  of  his  account,  does  not  mention 
the  miraculous  picture.  In  a  later  war  with 
Persia,  a.d.  590,  another  portrait  of  CJirist,  said 
also  to  be  of  divine  origin,  accompanied  the 
Roman  army,  and  gave  courage  to  the  soldiers 
(Theophyl.  Simoc.  Histo7'iarum  ii.  3,  70,  ed. 
Bekker).  At  this  time  imagination  readily  con¬ 
nected  miracles  with  the  icons  of  the  saints. 
Thus  both  Evagrius  and  Gregory  of  Tours  tell 
the  story  of  a  Jewish  boy  at  Constantinople, 
who,  having  with  others  of  his  age  partaken  of 
the  remains  of  the  Eucharist  according  to  the 
custom  there,  was  cast  by  his  enraged  father  into 
a  burning  furnace.  The  next  day  he  was  found 
in  it  uninjured.  Evagrius  {u.  s.  c.  36)  merely 
says  that  he  declared  that  “  a  woman  clothed  in 
purple  ”  had  appeared  to  him  and  saved  him ; 
but  in  the  version  of  Gregory  of  Tours  {Mh-ac. 
i.  10),  “  the  woman  seated  in  a  chair  and  carry¬ 
ing  an  infant  in  her  bosom,  who  was  in  the 
basilic,  where  he  receiv'ed  the  bread  from  the 
table,  had  covered  him  with  her  mantle  that 
the  fire  might  not  devour  him.”  Another  im¬ 
provement  of  the  same  kind  in  a  miraculous 
story  should  be  mentioned  here.  Paulus  Warne- 
fridi,  in  his  History  of  the  Lombards  (ii.  13),  re¬ 
lates  how  the  bad  eyes  of  two  persons  were  healed 
by  oil  from  “  a  lamp  set  tc  give  light  ”  near  the 
altar  of  St.  Martin,  in  a  church  at  Ravenna. 
When  this  story  is  told  in  France,  as  it  is  in 
some  of  the  manuscript  copies  of  Gregory  {Be 
Mirac.  S.  Martini,  i.  15),  the  lamp  stands 
CHRIST.  ANT. 


“  under  an  image  of  the  picture  of  the  blessed 
Martin.”  Such  variations  appear  to  indicate  the 
growth  of  a  feeling  which  ascribed  to  the  image 
a  part  of  the  supposed  ])owers  of  the  .saint  him¬ 
self.  Other  stories  told  by  Gregory  of  Tours  are 
of  a  picture  of  Christ,  which  was  said  to  have 
shed  blood,  when  maliciously  injured  by  a  Jew 
{Mirac.  i.  22);  and  of  another  at  Narbonne, 
respecting  which  our  Lord  in  a  vision  expressed 
His  displeasure,  because  it  rei)resented  Him  on 
the  cro.ss,  not  fully  clothed,  but  “  girt  with  a 
linen  ”  only  {Tb  d.  c.  23).  Such  stories  were 
quite  as  common  in  the  .East,  e.g.  Leontius, 
bishop  of  Neapolis  in  Cyimus,  a.d.  590,  speaks 
of  the  flow  of  blood  from  images  as  of  frequent 
occurrence  {A},ol.  in  Act.  iv.  Cone.  Nic.  ii.  Labb. 
vii.  240).  At  Constantinople  thei’e  was  a  pic¬ 
ture  of  our  Lord  “  at  which  many  miracles  took 
place.”  This  image  Gregory  11. ,  writing  in  726, 
calls  without  any  qualification  “  the  Saviour.” 
When  the  emperor  Leo  ordered  it  to  be  de¬ 
stroyed,  the  officer  sent  to  execute  the  decree 
was  murdered  by  women,  whom  the  pope  de¬ 
scribes  as  full  of  zeal,  and  honours  with  a  title 
{fj.vpo(p6poi)  which  antiquity  gave  to  those  holy 
w’omen  who  “  prepared  spices  and  ointments  ” 
wherewith  to  embalm  the  body  of  Christ  {Epist. 
ad  Leon.  I.,  Labb.  Cone,  vii.*  19).  The  murder  is 
equally  approved  by  the  Greek  author  of  the 
‘  Life  of  Stephen  the  Younger  ’  {Analecta  Graeca 
Bened.  t.  i.  p.  415). 

It  is  evident  that  men  who  had  arrived  at 
this  stage  of  superstition  were  ripe  for  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  direct  idolatry.  Serenus,  a  bishop  of 
Marseilles,  contemporary  with  Gregory  of  Tours, 
found  this  so  rife  among  his  people  that  he  had 
the  images  in  his  church  destroyed.  We  learn 
this  from  an  epistle  of  Gregory  L,  who  concurred 
with  him  in  principle,  while  he  condemned  the 
deed :  “  It  hath  i-eached  our  ears  some  time  ago 
that  your  fraternity,  seeing  certain  worshippers 
of  images,  has  broken  and  cast  forth  the  said 
images  out  of  the  chuj  ch.  And  indeed  we  praise 
you  for  being  zealous  lest  aught  made  by  the 
hand  should  be  worshipped  ;  but  we  think  that 
you  ought  not  to  have  broken  the  said  images. 
For  painting  is  used  in  churches,  that  they  who 
are  ignorant  of  letters  may  at  least  read  on  the 
walls  by  seeing  them  what  they  cannot  read 
in  books  ”  {Epist.  vii.  111).  “It  is  one  thing  to 
adore  a  picture,  another  to  learn  by  the  story  of 
the  picture  what  ought  to  be  adored  ...  If  an)* 
one  wishes  to  make  images  bv  no  means  forbid 
him ;  but  by  all  means  stop  the  worship  of 
images  ”  {Epist.  ail  eund.  ix.  9).  In  both  these 
epistles  now  quoted  Gregory  teaches,  and  in  the 
second  at  great  length,  that  pictures  were  placed 
in  churches  '•‘•only  to  instruct  the  minds  of  the 
ignorant  ”  (non  ad  ador<mdiim,  sed  ad  instrucndns 
solunirnodo  rnentes  nescient  him')  ;  but  elsewhere  he 
indicates  another  use  which  experience  has  shown 
to  lead  rapidly  to  direct  worship  :  “  We  do  not 
prostrate  ourselves  before  it  (‘  the  image  of  our 
Saviour  ’)  as  befoi-e  the  Godhead  ;  but  we  worship 
Him  whom  by  help  of  the  image  we  call  to  mind 
as  born,  as  suffering,  or  even  sitting  on  His 
throne.  And  while  the  picture  itself,  like  a 
writing,  brings  the  Son  of  God  to  our  memorv, 
it  either  rejoices  our  mind  by  the  suggestion  of 
His  resurrection,  or  consoles  it  bv  His  passion  ” 
{Ep.  ad  Secund.  vii.  54).  In  the  Greek  church, 
however,  we  find  the  worship  of  pictures  already 


818 


IMAGES 


IMAGES  • 


av'owed  and  defended ;  as  by  Leontius,  above  | 
mentioned  :  “  1,  worshipj)ing  the  image  of  God, 
do  not  worship  the  material  wood  and  colours  ; 
God  forbid  ;  but  laying  hold  of  the  lifeless  repre¬ 
sentation  of  Christ,  1  seem  to  myself  to  lay  hold 
of  and  to  worsi\ip  Christ  through  it  ”  {Apol.  in 
Act.  iv.  Cone.  Nic.  ii.  Labb.  vii.  237).  He  com- 
])ares  this  worship  to  that  which  a  Jew  pays  to 
the  book  of  the  law  ;  but  as  he  dwells  much  on 
miracles  wrought  by  images,  and,  like  Gregory, 
on  the  emotions  which  the  sight  of  a  cro.ss  or 
picture  ought  to  raise  in  the  beholder,  it  is  clear 
that  in  practice  the  w'orship  of  them  was  very 
diflereut  from  the  reverence  shewn  to  the  law. 
Indeed  it  is  very  probable  that  the  simple  plea 
of  instruction  tor  the  ignorant,  however  just 
when  properly  applied,  was  soon  so  e.x tended  as 
to  cover  practices  which  could  not  be  distin¬ 
guished  from  idolatry.  For  as  Gieseler  notices 
{Keel.  Hist,  per,  i.  div.  i.  p.  i.  §  1)  the  only  reply 
to  the  complaint,  “This  generation  has  made 
gods  of  the  images,”  which  a  fanatical  image- 
woi'shipper  of  the  8th  century  could  oft'er,  was 
that  by  which  Gregory  I.  had  defended  the 
merely  didactic  use  of  them  ;  viz.,  “  You  must 
teach  the  unlearned  people  ”  {Orat.  de  iinag. 
Adv).  Constantinwn  Cabal,  c.  13  ;  inter.  0pp.  S. 
Joann.  Damasc.). 

VHI.  By  the  beginning  of  the  8th  century 
the  worship  of  images  had  become  such  a  scandal 
in  the  Fast  that  a  Mahometan  prince,  Izid,  or 
Jesid,  the  sou  of  Omar,  thought  himself  justified 
in  interfering.  In  715  he  accordingly  commanded 
all  pictures  to  be  removed  from  the  churches  of 
his  dominion  (Theophanes,  Chronographia  ad  a.  m. 
6215).  A  little  later,  Leo  the  Isaurian,  who 
became  emperor  in  716,  made  his  hostility  to 
the  practice  known.  He  claimed  to  be  influenced 
by  a  horror  of  idolatry,  and  there  is  no  evidence 
of  any  other  motive.  His  sentiments  w'ere  pro¬ 
bably  well-known  from  the  first  (Theophan.  ad 
ann.  6217)  ;  but  we  gather  from  the  testimony 
of  two  adversaries  (Greg.  II.  Kpist.  ad  Leon. 
Labb.  vii.  9  ;  T7^a  Steph.  Jun.  u.  s.  p.  412)  that 
he  had  reigned  ten  years  before  he  ventured  on 
any  overt  act.  In  the  year  726  he  issued  a  de¬ 
claration  against  the  wmrship  of  images,  but  did 
not  command  them  to  be  “  destroyed,  only  placed 
higher,  so  that  no  one  might  kiss  them,  and 
thus  bring  discredit  on  that  which  was  other- 
wise  w'orthy  of  respect”  (TV^a  Steph.  u.  s.). 
However,  about  the  same  time  he  .seems  ro  have 
ordered  the  image  already  mentioned,  to  w’^hich 
miracles  w^ere  ascribed,  to  be  removed  from  a 
public  place  in  Constantinople.  He  also  wrote 
to  the  bishop  of  Rome,  w'ho  quotes  his  letter 
thus  :  “  Thou  sayest  that  the  images  occupy  the 
place  of  idols,  and  that  they  who  wmrship  them 
are  idolaters.”  “  Thou  hast  written,  that  w’e 
ought  not  to  worship  things  made  by  the  hand, 
nor  the  likeness  of  any  thing  .  .  .  and,  inform 
me  who  hath  taught  by  tradition  the  reverence 
and  worship  of  things  made  by  the  hand,  and  I 
will  confess  that  it  is  the  law  of  God  ”  {Epist. 
Greg.  II.  u.  s.).  In  a  most  insolent  and  un- 
chi'istian  reply,  the  pope  dwells  much  on  his 
own  feelings  before  a  sacred  picture  (coll.  14, 
16) ;  but  does  not  meet  the  complaint  that  such 
objects  were  abused  to  idolatry.  About  the  same 
time  John  of  Damascus  wrote  his  three  “  Orations 
against  those  w'ho  reject  the  holy  images.”  In 
his  demand  for  adoration  he  does  not  go  further 


i  than  “  worshipping  and  ki.ssing  and  embracing 
the  image  both  with  lips  and  heart  ;  as  the  like¬ 
ness  of  the  Incarnate  God,  or  of  His  mother,  or 
of  the  Saints.”  He  says  that  pictures  are  the 
“  books  of  the  unlearned  ”  (Orat.  ii.  §  10).  Leo. 
how'ever,  persevered.  A  second  letter  to  the 
pope  (Labb.  u.  s.  col.  23)  being  met  in  the  same 
spirit  as  the  former,  and  Germanus  of  Constanti¬ 
nople  proving  equally  impracticable,  in  730  he 
ordered  all  images  to  be  removed  out  of  churches 
(Theophan.  ad  an.  6221).  Constantine  V.,  his 
son  and  successor,  published  another  edict  agdnst 
images  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  741  ;  and 
is  even  said  to  have  exacted  an  oath  from  his 
subjects  that  they  would  not  worship  them 
(Theophan.  ad  an.  6233  ;  Vita  Steph.  p.  444). 
Such  images  as  had  been  left  w'ere  now  effaced 
by  scraping  or  w'hitewashing  the  walls  (Vita 
Steph.  p.  445)  ;  but  merely  decorative  paintings 
of  trees,  flowers,  birds,  &c.,  were  allowed.  That 
the  party  of  the  image-w'orshippers  was  at  this 
time  strong  and  numerous,  is  clear  from  the  fact 
that  the  rebel  Artavasdes  won  many  adherents 
by  declaring  himself  in  their  favour,  and  setting 
up  icons  in  the  cities.  Anastasius  the  patriarch 
went  over  to  him  (Cedrenus,  Hist.  Compend.  ii. 

4  ;  ed.  Bonn),  and  he  was  recognized  by  Zacha- 
rias  of  Rome,  who  dated  letters  from  his  assump¬ 
tion  of  the  purple  (Ep.  iv.  v.  Labb.  vi.  1503- 
5).  From  this  time  image-worshippers  ■would 
naturally  be  suspected  of  disloyalty,  and  would 
suffer  much  in  that  age  of  cruelty  on  the  sup¬ 
pression  of  the  levolt  in  743.  In  754  Constan¬ 
tine  convened  a  general  council  at  Constantinople, 
at  which  338  bishops  (Labb.  tom.  vii.  col.  417) 
were  present,  but  none  of  the  great  patriarchs. 
At  this  synod  it  was  maintained  that  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  images  was  in  a  great  measure  due  to, 
and  that  in  return  it  fostered,  a  tendency  to 
those  heresies  respecting  the  nature  of  Christ 
which  had  been  condemned  by  earlier  councils 
(ib.  coll.  429-453),  their  characteristics  being 
either  to  lower  the  Divine  nature,  or  to  dwell 
on  the  human  as  apart  from  it,  or  to  confound 
the  two.  After  a  careful  review  of  the  scrip¬ 
tural  and  patristic  evidence  (ih.  coll.  473-504) 
the  following  decree  was  made : — “  Whosoever 
shall  from  this  time  present  dare  to  make  or 
worship  or  set  up«in  a  church  or  private  house 
or  conceal  an  image  (ei/coV  f),  if  he  be  a  bishop, 
presbyter,  or  deacon,  let  him  be  degraded  ;  if  a 
monk  or  layman,  let  him  be  anathematized  and 
punished  by  the  imperial  laws,  as  contrary  to 
the  commandments  of  God  and  an  enemy  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Fathers  ”  (ib.  col.  508  ;  see  also 
506).  At  the  same  time  it  was  forbidden,  undei 
pretence  of  compliance  with  this  decree,  to  lav 
hands  on  sacred  vessels,  vestments,  &:c.,  that  had 
any  figure  wrought  on  them,  but  they  might  be 
recast  or  made  up  afresh  with  licence  from  th< 
patriarch  or  emperor  (ib.  coll.  510,  511).  This 
caution  w'as  necessary,  and  only  partially  effec¬ 
tual.  E.  g.,  a  fanatical  bishop  was  accused  to 
the  council  of  having  “  trampled  on  the  holy 
paten  of  the  undefiled  mysteries  of  God,  because 
it  w'as  engraved  with  the  venerable  image  of 
Christ,  and  of  His  mother,  and  of  the  Precursor  ” 

(  Vita  Stephani,  u.  s.  p.  480).  We  read  too  that 
many  books  containing  pictures  were  burnt  or  . 
defaced  by  the  “iconoclasts”  (Labb.  ti.  s.  coll. 
372-377)  ;  and  a  general  com])laint  is  made  by 
Germanus  of  Constantinople  that  they  were  not 


BIAGES 


IMAGES 


819 


content  with  oheving  the.  order  for  the  removal 
of  images,  but  mu.'^t  needs  destroy  “  any  symbo¬ 
lical  ornament  on  the  ‘  venerable  vessels,’  and 
‘defacing  altar  cloths’  embroidered  in  gold  and 
purple,  would  put  them  uj)  in  their  own  houses,” 
&c.  (^De  Synod,  ct  llaeres.  §  42,  in  Maii  Spicil. 
Roman,  tom.  viii.  p.  1  ;  comp.  Vita  Steph.  p. 
445).  The  decree  is  said  to  have  been  carried 
out  with  great  cruelty,  but  we  cannot  believe 
all  the  charges  brought  by  his  enemies  against 
Constantine  ;  as,  for  example,  that  the  governor 
of  Natolia,  with  his  approbation,  having  assem¬ 
bled  at  Ephesus  in  770  all  the  monks  and  nuns 
of  Thrace,  gave  them  the  choice  of  marriage  or 
the  loss  of  their  eyes  (Theophanes,  ad  an.  Const. 
30).  However  this  may  be,  it  appears  certain 
that  from  the  date  of  the  council  no  images  that 
could  be  made  the  object  of  worship  were  per¬ 
mitted  in  the  churches  of  the  East  until  after  the 
death  of  Leo  IV’".  (Chazarus),  the  son  of  Constan¬ 
tine,  in  780. 

In  786  the  widow  of  Leo,  Irene,  who  had  been 
brought  up  an  image-worshipper,  being  regent 
of  the  empire  in  the  minority  of  her  son  Con¬ 
stantine  \"L,  resolved,  in  conjunction  with  her 
creature  Tarasius  the  patriarch  (785-806),  to 
make  every  effort  for  the  restoration  of  the  icons. 
A  council  assembled  at  Constantinople  was  dis¬ 
persed  by  a  tumult  among  the  soldiers  who  were 
faithful  to  the  convictions  of  their  former  master  ; 
but  it  met  again  the  next  year  (787)  at  Nicaea. 
There  were  pre.sent  375  bishops.  Two  legates 
from  Rome  attended,  and  two  represented  jointly 
the  patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jeru¬ 
salem.  In  the  second  session  a  letter  was  read, 
addressed  by  Hadrian  of  Rome  to  Irene  and  her 
son,  in  which  the  pope  maintained  that  a  relative 
worship  was  due  to  images  (Labb.  tom.  vii.  col. 
113).  This  had  been  the  teaching  of  his  pre¬ 
decessor  Gregory  II.  in  his  letter  to  Leo  (ou 
\aTpfVTiK(S$,  a\Ka  (Tx^tikws,  ib.  col.  13),  and 
it  appears  in  several  of  the  authorities  read  be¬ 
fore  the  council  (coll.  304,  353,  356,  &c.).  The 
principle  was  fully  accepted  by  the  synod,  and 
stated  in  the  conclusion  at  which  it  arrived,  viz., 
that  “  the  venerable  and  holy  images  should  be 
set  up  in  the  same  manner  as  the  figure  of  the 
precious  and  life-giving  cross  ;  both  those  which 
are  in  colours  or  tesselated  work,  and  those  of 
other  suitable  material,  iu  the  holy  churches  of 
God,  on  sacred  vessels  and  vestments,  on  walls 
and  boards,  on  hou.ses,  and  by  the  wayside  ;  the 
images,  to  wit,  of  our  Lord  and  God  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  one  undefiled  Lady,  the 
holy  mother  of  God,  and  of  the  honourable 
angels,  and  all  saints  and  holy  men.  For  the 
more  frequently  they  are  seen  in  their  pictured 
resemblance,  the  more  are  those  who  behold 
them  stirred  up  to  the  recollection  and  love  of 
their  prototypes,  and  to  render  to  them  (the 
images)  salutation  and  honorific  worship ;  not 
indeed  true  supreme  worship  (Aarpeiay),  accord¬ 
ing  to  our  faith,  which  is  due  to  the  Divine 
nature  alone,  but  that,  as  the  pious  custom  of 
the  ancients  held,  an  otlering  of  incense  and 
lights  should  be  made  in  their  honour  in  the 
same  manner  as  to  the  figure  of  the  precious 
and  life-giving  cross,  and  to  the  holy  gospels, 
and  to  other  sacred  ornaments.  For  the  honour 
of  the  image  passes  on  to  the  original,  and  he 
who  worships  the  image  worships  in  it  the  per¬ 
son  of  him  who  is  therein  depicted  ”  (Labb.  u.  s. 


col.  556).  If  lights  and  incense  had  not  been 
mentioned,  we  should  hanlly  have  suspected 
these  words  to  demand  a  greater  reverence  for 
images  than  a  devout  mind  naturally  feels  for  a 
copy  of  the  Bible,  or  indeed  for  anything  that 
brings  God  immediately  before  it ;  but  to  arrive 
at  their  full  significance,  we  must  also  take  into 
consideration  the  habits  of  the  age,  and  especi¬ 
ally  the  arguments  and  testimonies  on  which  the 
decree  professed  to  be  founded.  Many  pictures 
were  deemed  miraculous,  and  any  one,  in  the 
belief  of  the  people,  might  become  so,  while 
prayers  were  already  addressed  directly  to  the 
icons,  and  many  superstitious  practices  existed 
in  connection  with  them  without  rebuke  from 
those  who  framed  this  decree.  In  a  passage  read 
with  applause  at  the  council  from  the  Limon- 
arium  of  Sophronius  or  John  Moschus  (a.d.  630), 
worshipping  the  image  of  Christ  Is  spoken  of  as 
worshipping  Christ,  and  not  to  do  so  as  a  deadly 
sin  (Labb.  col.  381).  -  Such  indeed  was  the  con¬ 
stant  language  of  the  iconolaters.  He,  savs 
Photius,  “  who  does  not  worshij)  the  image  of 
Christ,  does  not  worship  Christ,  though  he  may 
think  he  worships  him  ”  (Epist.  lib.  ii.  n.  102). 
In  another  passage  from  the  Limonarium,  also 
approved  by  the  council,  we  are  told  that  a  cer¬ 
tain  anchorite,  when  about  to  visit  any  holy 
place,  used  to  light  a  candle  before  a  picture  of 
the  Virgin  with  Christ  in  her  arms,  and  “  re¬ 
garding  her  picture  to  say  to  the  Lady,  ‘  Holy 
Lady,  mother  of  God,  seeing  I  have  a  long  wav 
to  go,  a  journey  of  many  days,  take  care  of  thy 
candle  and  keep  it  unquenched  according  to  my 
intent ;  for  I  depart  having  thy  aid  on  the  way.’ 
And  having  said  this  to  the  image  he  departed.” 
The  light  burned  on  till  his  return  (ih.  col.  384). 
(For  the  direct  address  compare  Greg.  II.  ad 
Leon.  Ep.  i.  col.  13,  and  Germanus  of  Constan¬ 
tinople,  ad  Tnom.  col.  312.)  Other  important 
fitcts  are  recorded  in  a  letter  of  Michael  Balbus 
to  Ludovicus  Pius.  “  They  not  only  sang  psalms 
and  worshipped  them,  and  asked  for  help  from 
the  said  images,”  but  many,  hanging  linen  cloths 
on  them,  placed  their  children  in  them  as  they 
came  out  of  the  font,  thus  making  them  sponsors  ; 
and  monks  receiving  the  tonsure  had  the  hair 
held  over  them  so  as  to  fall  into  their  lap. 
“  Some  of  the  priests  and  clerks,  scraping  the 
colours  of  the  images,  mixed  them  w’ith  the 
oblation  and  wine,  and  after  the  celebration  of 
masses  gave  of  this  oblation  to  those  who  wished 
to  C9mmunicate.  Others  put  the  Lord’s  Body 
into  the  hands  of  images,  from  which  they  caused 
those  who  desired  to  communicate  to  receive  it. 
Some  despising  the  church  used  the  Hat  surface 
of  pictures  for  altars  in  common  houses  and 
celebrated  the  sacred  liturgy  on  them ;  and 
many  other  like  things,  unlawful  and  contrary 
to  our  religion,  were  done  iu  churches”  {Luper. 
Deer,  de  Cultu  Imag.  p.  618,  ed.  Goldast.  Fran- 
coL  1608). 

In  797  Constantine  VI.  was  depriv'ed  of  his 
kingdom  and  sight  by  the  contrivance  and  com¬ 
mand  of  his  unnatural  mother  (Cedrenus,  tom.  ii. 
p.  27),  who  after  five  years  of  undivided  power 
was  supplanted  by  Micephorus.  He  is  said  to 
have  favoured  the  iconoclasts  (Cedr.  u.  s.  p.  49), 
but  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  action  in  support 
of  their  cause.  His  death  in  battle,  July  811, 
was  in  two  months  followed  by  that  of  his  son 
and  successor  Stauratius,  who  had  been  wounded 

3  G 


B20 


IMAGES 


IMAGES 


at  the  same  time.  Michael  Khangabe,  who 
deposed  the  dying  Stauratius,  seems  to  have 
j)iuiished  with  impartial  hand  both  those  who 
worshipped  images  and  those  who  broke  them. 
Leo  the  Armenian,  who  deprived  him  of  his 
throne  in  813,  was  a  decided  enemy  to  image- 
worship,  He  thought  that  the  heathen  were 
permitted  on  that  account  to  obtain  victories 
over  tlie  Christians.  “  I  desire,”  he  declared, 

to  overthrow  them  (the  images).  For  observe, 
all  the  emj)erors  who  have  received  and  wor¬ 
shipped  them  have  died,  some  pursued  to  death, 
some  falling  in  battle:  and  only  those  who  did 
not  worship  them  have  ended  their  reigns  each 
by  a  natural  death,  and  been  buried  with 
honour,”  See.  (^Xirratio  de  Leone  Arm.  Imp. 
auctoris  incerti,  in  0pp.  Theophanis,  p.  435,  ed. 
Pari.s).  The  people  generally  seem  to  have  been 
with  him ;  for  he  is  also  reported  to  have  re¬ 
monstrated  in  this  manner  with  the  patriarch 
^sicephorus: — “The  people  are  scandalized  by 
the  images,  and  say  that  we  do  ill  to  worship 
them,  and  that  for  this  reason  the  heathen  lord 
it  over  us.  Conde-scend  a  little,  and  use  manage¬ 
ment  with  the  people,  and  let  us  pare  away 
trifles.  But  if  you  are  not  willing  to  do  this, 
give  us  the  grounds  on  which  you  worship  them, 
for  the  Scripture  is  by  no  means  clear  on  the 
point  ”  (<6.  p.  437).  In  reply  Nicephorus  merely 
asserted  the  antiquity  of  the  practice.  In  815 
Leo  procured  the  condemnation  of  the  second 
council  of  Nicaea  by  another,  which  he  convened 
at  Constantinople  (Labb.  tom.  vii.  col.  1299). 
The  acts  of  this  council  are  not  e.xtant ;  but  an 
edict  of  Leo,  issued  at  the  time,  is  probably  in 
complete  accord  with  its  decrees.  In  that  the 
emperor  alleges  the  unlawfulness  and  absurdity 
of  image-worship,  and  the  duty  of  removing  the 
cause  of  offence  (IMichael  Mouach.  in  Vita  Theo- 
dori  Stud.  c.  63  ;  opp.  Sirmondi,  tom.  v.).  It  is 
related  of  Michael  II.  (Balbus),  A.D.  820,  that 
“  though  he  was  of  the  heterodo.x  party  (an  image- 
worshipper  is  speaking)  he  had  nevertheless  no 
wish  to  trouble  those  who  did  not  defer  to  him, 
but  allowed  every  one  to  do  as  he  chose  ”(lVfa 
The:d.  Stud.  c.  102).  He  also  recalled  those  who 
had  been  banished  by  Leo.  He  at  first  contented 
himself  with  forbidding  the  word  “saint”  to  be 
inscribed  on  images,  wherever  they  might  be 
(Cedren.  tom.  ii.  p.  110)  ;  but  it  is  probable  that 
he  afterwards  became  more  severe  (i6.  p.  74).  A 
letter  is  extant  addressed  by  this  emperor  and 
his  son  Theophilus  to  Louis  the  Godly,  in  which 
he  describes  the  course  of  action  adopted  by  his 
predecessors  of  like  mind: — “  By  common  coun¬ 
sel  they  caused  images  to  be  removed  from  too 
low  situations  (in  churches),  and  allowed  those 
set  in  higher  to  remain  where  they  were,  that 
the  painting  might  serve  for  Scripture,  lest 
they  should  be  worshipped  by  the  more  ignorant 
and  weak ;  but  they  forbade  the  lighting  of 
lamps  or  burning  of  incense  to  them  ”  (^Lpist. 
ad  Ludov.  apud  Goldast.  u.  s.  p.  619).  Theo¬ 
philus,  on  his  accession,  required  strict  obedi¬ 
ence  to  the  law,  and  even  forbade  the  painting 
of  icons  (Theophan.  Cuntinuat.  lib.  iii.  c.  10 ; 
Cedr.  tom.  ii.  p.  110). 

On  the  death  of  Theophilus  in  842,  his  widow, 
Theodora,  who  governed  for  her  infant  son 
Michael  III.,  restored  the  icons  and  their  wor¬ 
ship,  notwithstanding  an  oath  that  she  would 
Dot  do  so,  exacted  by  her  dying  husband  (Cedr. 


tom.  ii.  p.  142).  The  sanction  of  the  church 
was  obtained  through  a  council  held  at  Constan¬ 
tinople  (Labb.  tom.  vii.  col.  1782);  and  the 
triumjdi  of  images  celebrated  by  the  institution 
of  an  annual  feast  on  the  first  Sunday  in  Lent, 
thence  called  by  the  Greeks  r)  KvpiauT]  rrjs  6p6o- 
So^i'as  (Philothei  Serr.i.  in  Doni.  I.  Quudr.  in 
Gretser’s  note  to  Cod.nus  De  (>j[fic.  c.  xv.,  and 
Narnit.  de  Tm  iqinihm  Jiestit.  in  Combefis.  Auc- 
tar.  tom.  hist.  col.  738).  From  the  2)jpicon  of 
Sabas,  c.  42,  we  learn  that  the  occasion  is  marked 
by  a  procession  of  crosses  and  jdcture.s,  and  the 
public  reading  of  the  decree  of  Nicaea  (Gretser, 
u.  s.).  Opposition,  however,  was  not  whollv  ex¬ 
tinguished ;  for  about  the  year  860  we  find  Pho 
tins,  who  had  u.surped  the  patriarchate  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  proposing  to  Nicholas  of  Rome  that 
another  general  council  should  be  held  to  com¬ 
plete  the  suppression  of  “  the  heresy  of  the  icono- 
ma chi  ”(  Tiia /(/nidiV  a  Niceta  conscr.  in  Labb. 
tom.  viii.  col.  1204).  The  council  met  the  next 
year  and  pronounced  the  deposition  of  Ignatius, 
whom  Photius  had  supplanted,  but  its  action  in 
regard  to  images  is  not  recorded.  In  869  an¬ 
other  council,  convened  by  the  emperor  Basil 
especially  for  the  condemnation  of  Photius,  de¬ 
nounced  the  iconoclasts,  upheld  pictures  as  use¬ 
ful  in  the  instruction  of  the  people,  and  declared 
that  we  ought  to  “  worship  them  with  the  same 
honour  as  the  book  of  the  holv  gospels”  (can.  iii. 
Labb.  tom.  viii.  col.  1360).  Here  the  history  of 
the  struggle  closes  in  the  East. 

IX.  The  position  of  the  Nestorians  and  Euty- 
chians  with  respect  to  images  is  interesting  and 
instructive.  The  former  were  cut  off'  from  the 
church  in  431,  before  images  of  any  kind  were 
common.  Their  antagonism  to  the  church  would 
make  them  keen-sighted  to  the  evil  springing  up 
within  her,  and  naturally  lead  to  their  entire 
rejection.  We  find  accordingly  that  “  the  Nes¬ 
torians  have  no  images  or  pictures  in  their 
churches,  and  are  very  much  opposed  to  the  use 
of  them,  even  as  ornaments,  or  as  barely  repre¬ 
senting  historical  facts  illustrative  of  sacred 
Scripture”  (Badger’s  Kestoi'iuns,  vol.  ii.  p.  132). 
The  Eutychians,  condemned  in  451,  were  a  verv 
small  body  until  the  time  of  Jacob  Baradaeus, 
who  died  in  588.  They  became  very  numerou.^;, 
under  the  name  of  Jacobites,  in  the  7th  century, 
and  when  they  left  the  church  they  carried  with 
them  the  custom  of  image-worship,  as  it  was  then 
understood  and  practised.  At  a  later  period  the 
Greeks  observing  a  difference  and  not  knowinsc  that 
they  had  themselves  changed,  accused  the  Jaco¬ 
bites  of  error  :  “  They  think  it  indifferent  whether 
they  worship  or  do  not  worship  them,  but  if 
ever  they  chance  to  worship,  thev  do  not  kiss  the 
image  itself,  but  touching  it  with  a  finger  only, 
kiss  the  finger  instead”  (Demetr.  Cyzicen.  De 
Jacob.  Haeres.  Max.  Biblioth.  PP.  tom.  814). 
One  division  of  the  Monophysites,  whom  some 
identify  with  the  Armenians,  were  called  Chat- 
zitzarii,  from  the  Armenian  Ckatzus  a  cross,  be¬ 
cause  they  reverenced  the  cross  only  (j6.).  Of 
the  Armenians  Nicon  says,  “They  do  not  adore 
the  venerable  images,  and  what  is  more,  their 
Catholicus  with  the  rest  anathematizes  those  who 
adore  them  ”  (^De  Armen.  Itetij.  Max.  Biblioth. 
tom.  XXV.  p.  328). 

X.  We  turn  now  to  the  West.  In  767  Pipin 
held  a  council  at  Gentilly,  at  which  legates  from 
Rome  and  Constantinople  were  present.  One 


IMAGES 


IMAGES 


821 


object  was  to  consider  the  “  cultus  of  images.” 
Tt.c  decision  was  that  “  images  of  saints  made  up 
(tictas,  i.e.  mosaics)  or  painted  for  the  ornament 
and  beauty  of  churches  might  be  endured,  so 
that  they  were  not  had  for  worship,  veneration, 
and  adoration,  which  idolaters  practise  ”  (Con- 
stit.  fmper.  Goldast.  tom.  i.  p.  16).  The  decree 
of  Nicaea  was  transmitted  by  the  bisliop  of  Rome 
to  Charlemagne  and  others,  but  tlie  French 
church  was  not  even  then  prepared  to  accept  the 
worship,  though  long  accustomed  to  the  sight,  of 
images,  in  790  a  strong  protest  appeared  in  the 
famous  TAbri  Can  (ini  or  Capitu'are  Prolixiim,  a 
treatise  in  four  books,  expressly  directed  against 
those  abuses  which  the  council  and  the  jiope  had 
sanctioned.  It  is  not  probable  that  Charlemagne 
composed  it  himself,  but  it  is  written  in  his 
name.  The  author  speaks  of  king  Pipin  as  his 
father  (lib.  i.  c.  6),  and  of  legates  sent  into 
Greece  by  his  father  and  himself  (lib.  iii.  c.  8); 
and  Hadrian,  in  his  controversial  reply,  addresses 
Charles  as  the  writer  (Labb.  Cone.  tom.  vii.  coll. 
915,  916,  960).  A  brief  quotation  will  show  the 
practice  of  the  church  in  France  at  that  time  : — 
“  We  do  not  banish  from  the  basilics  effigies  set 
up  for  the  commemoration  of  events,  or  for  orna¬ 
ment,  but  we  restrain  a  most  strange,  or  rather 
most  superstitious  adoration  of  them,  wliich  we 
do  not  anywhere  find  to  have  been  instituted  by 
the  apostles,  or  by  apostolical  men  ”  (lib.  ii.  c. 
10)  “  In  the  year  792,”  says  Roger  Hoveden, 

our  English  annalist,  did  Charles  the  king  of 
the  Franks  send  a  synodal  book  to  Britain,  which 
had  been  forwarded  to  him  from  Constantinople, 
in  which  book  were  found,  alas !  many  unmeet 
things  and  contrary  to  the  true  faith  ;  chiefly 
that  it  had  been  defined  by  the  unanimous  as.ser- 
tion  of  nearly  all  the  eastern  doctors,  and  not 
less  than  300  or  more  bishops,  that  we  ought  to 
adore  images,  which  the  church  of  God  alto¬ 
gether  execrates.  Against  which  Albinus  (Al- 
cuin)  wrote  an  epistle  admirably  confirmed  by 
the  authority  of  the  Divine  Scriptures,  and  pre¬ 
sented  it,  with  the  said  book,  in  the  name  of  our 
bishops  and  princes,  to  the  king  ”  (C/tromeu 
ad  ann.  792  ;  Sim.,  Simeon  Dunelm.  Hist.  Hegum. 
and  Matth.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.  ad  eund.  ann.) ; 
in  794  a  council  was  held  at  Frankfort-on-thr- 
Maine,  “  which  rejected  with  contempt  and 
unanimously  condemned  the  adoration  and  ser¬ 
vice  ”  which  the  synod  of  the  Greeks  had  de¬ 
clared  under  anathema  to  be  due  to  “the  images 
of  the  saints  as  to  the  Divine  Trinity  ”  (can.  ii.). 
Thus  the  matter  rested  during  the  life  of  Charle¬ 
magne.  In  824  Louis  the  Godly  received  from 
^lichael  Balbus  the  epistle  to  which  we  have  al¬ 
ready  referred,  and  was  induced  by  it  to  convoke 
a  synod  at  Paris  in  the  following  year.  Having 
read  the  letter  of  Hadrian  to  Irene,  the  bishops 
assembled  declare,  in  an  address  to  Louis  and 
Lothair,  that  as  the  pope  “justly  re])roves  them 
who  in  those  parts  rashly  presumed  to  break  the 
images  of  the  saints,  so  is  he  known  to  have  acted 
Indiscreetly  in  that  he  commanded  to  give  them 
superstitious  worship”  (Constit.  hnper.  tom.  i.. 
p.  154).  They  support  their  judgments  by  an 
ample  catena  from  the  fathers.  At  this  time 
Eugenius  II.  was  pope,  and  a  letter  is  ascribed  to 
him  (the  contents  of  which  make  the  authorship 
doubtful)  in  which,  after  quoting  a  letter  from 
IiOiiis  and  Lothair  to  himself,  he  exp>resses  dis- 
aj)probation  of  pictures  of  saints  altogether,  and 


ev'en  blames  the  Greek  emperors  Michael  and 
Theophilus,  to  whom  he  writes,  for  “allowing 
any  one  who  chose  to  have  images  j)ainted  oi 
chased”  (i6.  p.  186).  Claudius,  wlio  became 
bishop  of  Turin  in  821,  l)y  the  choice  of  the 
emperor  Louis,  finding  the  basilics  of  his  diocese 
full  of  images  superstitiously  worshipped,  ordered 
them  to  be  removed  {Decreta  de  Culhi  fiuaginum, 
Goldast.  p.  763).  He  even  effaced  the  j^ainted 
figure  of  the  cross.  His  argument  was,  “  If  you 
worship  a  cross  because  Christ  died  on  one,  why 
not  a  manger,  because  he  lay  in  one,  and  a  ship 
because  he  taught  from  one  ;  ....  a  lamb,  be¬ 
cause  he  is  the  lamb  of  God  ;  but  those  perverse 
dogmatics  will  devour  lambs  that  have  life,  and 
adore  them  painted  on  walls  ”  {ib.  p.  767).  The 
Apology  of  Claudius  was  j.ublished  after  the 
council  of  Paris  was  held.  As  he  went  beyond 
that,  he  was  opposed  by  many  who  approved  of 
the  acts  of  the  council.  Among  these  was  Jonas 
the  bishop  of  Orleans,  Avho.se  work  in  three  books 
(^Adeersus  Claudii  Taurinensis  ApoloyeCcum')  is 
extant,  and  has  preserved  to  us  whatever  remains 
of  that  of  Claudius.  In  it  he  distinctly  dis¬ 
allows  the  worship  of  images,  while  protesting 
vehemently  against  the  extreme  opinions  and 
high-handed  measures  of  his  opponent: — “’Per¬ 
mit  the  images  of  saints  and  ))ictures  of  holy 
Avorks  to  be  painted  in  churches,  not  that  they 
may  be  adored,  but  rather  that  they  may  lend 
to  them  a  certain  beauty,  and  impart  to  the 
senses  of  the  unlearned  the  history  of  past 
events”  (lib.  i.  sig.  C.  Colon.  1554).  A  fcAv  years 
later,  823,  Dungalus,  a  monk  of  St.  Denys  at 
Paris,  published  a  violent  attack  on  Claudius. 
His  Avork  (^Liber  l{esponsionn>u  vdv.  Clatid.,  &c.) 
is  printed  in  the  Maxima  Biblioth.  PP.  tom.  xiA'. 
A  more  able  production  than  either  of  the  above 
is  the  Liber  de  Picturis  et  fmaginibiis,  Avritten 
by  Agobard,  archbishop  of  Lyons,  probably  about 
840.  This  author  maintains  that  “  the  images 
of  the  apostles  and  of  the  Lord  Himself  Avere 
painted  and  kept  by  the  ancients  rather  for  love 
and  remembrance  than  religious  honour  or  any 
veneration  after  the  custom  of  the  Gentiles  ” 
(c.  20)  ;  and  that  “  none  of  the  ancient  catholics 
ever  thought  that  they  are  to  be  Avorshipped  and 
adored  ”  (c.  32).  He  laments  the  later  practice 
as  “  near  to  or  like  the  heresy  of  idolatry  or  of 
the  anthropomorphites,”  and  thinks  that  it  was 
“rightly  decreed  by  the  orthodox  fathers  (in 
the  council  of  Elvira),  in  order  to  put  down  this 
kind  of  superstition,  that  pictures  ought  not  to 
be  in  churches  ”  (c.  33).  This  Avas  j)robably  the 
last  clear  note  of  warning.  Walafrid  Strabo, 
abbot  of  Reichenaii,  a.d.  842,  gives  an  uncertain 
sound.  “We  kiioAv,”  he  sa)'.s,  “  that  icons  are 
not  to  be  adored  or  worshipped  ”  (colendas),  but 
he  demands  for  them  “seemly  and  moderate 
lionours  ”  (De  Ptb.  Heel.  c.  8).  Hincmar,  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Rheims,  a.d.  845,  at  the  request  of  his 
comprovincials  Avrote  a  treatise,  now  lost,  to 
explain  “in  Avhat  manner  the  images  of  our 
Lord  and  His  saints  are  to  be  reverenced  ”  (veu- 
erandae ;  Flodoard.  Hist.  Ecci.  Pemens.  lib.  iii. 
c.  29).  His  teaching  is  not  further  indicated  by 
our  authority ;  but  it  may  be  safely  inferred 
from  his  contemptuous  language  with  respect  to 
the  Greek  and  Roman  practice,  Avhich  he  stigma¬ 
tizes  as  “  doll-Avorship  ”  (puparum  cultus),  and 
from  his  open  rejection  of  the  second  council  ot 
Nicaea  (Opusc.  Iv.  udv.  Hincmar.  Laud.  c.  ix.). 


822 


IMAGINES  CLIIM^ATAE 


XI.  Tlie  “  images  ”  of  which  we  have  spoken 
were  all  either  pictures,  like  the  modern  Greek 
icons,  or  mosaics.  Some  writers,  however,  to 
prove  that  statuary  was  not  unemployed  by  the 
early  church,  allege  the  image  of  our  Lord 
which  was  said  to  have  been  set  iip  at  Paneas 
(Cesarea  Philij)pi  or  Dan)  by  the  woman  whom 
He  healed  of  an  issue  of  blood.  (See  the  Hist. 
Ecc'.  of  Lusebius,  lib.  vii.  c.  18 ;  Philostorgius,  ex 
lib.  vii.  §8;  Sozomen,  lib.  v.  c.  21;  Asterius 
Amas.  in  Photii  IHb'ioth.  cod.  271.)  If  this  were 
indeed  a  statue  of  our  Lord,  the  solitary  act  of  a 
semi-heathen  would  be  no  indication  of  the  mind 
of  the  apostolic  church.  But  opposite  the  prin¬ 
cipal  figure  was  the  brazen  statue  of  a  woman 
in  a  beseeching  attituile,  kneeling,  and  with  hands 
raised,  not  behind  and  furtively  touching  the 
hem  of  his  garment,  as  in  the  gospel  story.  This 
suggests  that  the  erection  of  the  group  was  an 
expression  of  gratitude  to  some  earthly  ruler 
who  had  granted  a  petition.  The  costliness  of 
the  work  creates  another  difficulty  (see  St.  Luke 
viii.  43).  Nor  can  we  build  anything  on  the  fact 
related  by  Lampridius  that  Alexander  Severus 
had  the  images  of  Christ,  Abraham,  Orpheus, 
&:c.,  in  his  larnrium  (  Vita  Al.  Sev.  c.  29).  It  is 
possible  that  in  the  9th  century  there  was  some 
use  of  statues  among  Christians;  but  we  cannot 
with  Mabillon  {Pnief.  I.  in  S  lec.  IV,  S.  0.  B. 
c.  29)  think  it  a  certain  inference  from  these 
words  of  Agobard  (^De  Imag.  c.  31): — ‘‘Who¬ 
ever  adores  any  picture,  or  molten  or  moulded 
statue,  is  not  giving  worship  to  God,  is  not 
honouring  the  angels  or  holy  men,  but  showing 
reverence  to  (their)  images”  (simulachra). 

[W.  E.  S.] 

IMAGINES  CLIPEATAE.  The  Pvomans 
gave  this  name  to  the  heads  painted  on  the 
shields  usually  hung  up  in  their  temples  (Buo- 
narruoti,  Osservaz.  sopra  ale.  medaglioni,  p.  9-11). 
We  find  in  ancient  Christian  art  a  similar  mode 
of  treatment  applied  to  portraits  of  our  Lord. 
In  some  instances  the  bust  of  the  Saviour  is 
painted  on  a  circular  space  in  the  form  of  a 
shield.  This  is  notably  the  case  in  the  vaulting 
of  the  chapel  in  the  cemetery  of  Callixtus 
[Jesus  Christ],  probably  the  most  ancient  ex¬ 
ample  of  a  type  that  became  traditional.  Cli- 
peatae  of  the  Good  Shepherd  as  a  standing  figure 
are  frequently  met  with  in  the  vaultings  of 
crypts  in  the  catacombs.  In  the  mosaic  of  the 
great  arcli  of  St.  Paul  without  the  walls  we  find 
the  bust  of  our  Lord  in  clipeo  (Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon. 
tab.  Ixviii.).  Also  in  ancient  ivory  diptychs, 
Buch  as  that  of  Rambona  (Buonarruoti,  Vet.  p. 
262),  in  which  the  clipeus  is  supported  by  two 
winged  angels.  Another  diptych  exhibits  the 
shield  or  crown  carried  in  a  similar  manner  by 
two  angels,  and  bearing  in  the  midst  a  Greek 
cross  instead  of  the  figure  of  the  Saviour  (Calo- 
gera’s  Raccolta,  vol.  xl.  p.  295).  That  this  mode 
of  treatment  lasted  till  the  7th  century  is 
proved  by  a  painting  in  the  roof  of  the  oratory 
of  St.  Felicitas  ;  there  the  bust  of  our  Lord 
appears  in  clipeo  (Raoul-Rochette,  Disc,  sur  les 
types  imit.,  p.  25).  Examples  may  also  be  quoted 
in  later  times  (Du  Cange,  Gloss,  s.  vv.  Scutum, 
Thoracida). 

Many  of  the  sarcophagi  found  in  Roman  ceme¬ 
teries  exhibit  the  effigies  of  a  husband  and  wife 
carved  within  a  shield  or  shell,  as  in  the  in- 


IMI\IENITIES  OF  THE  CLERGY 

stance  figured  below  (Bottari’s  pi.  xx.).  Some 
times  a  single  figure  is  thus-represcntel  ( Af 
xxxvi.  xl.  Ixxxix.). 

(Martigny,  Diet.  de$  Aidiq.  Ckrei.  s.  v.).  [C.] 


IMIZILUM  (also  Lmizinum,  Mizilum.  Mi- 
CILUM,  Mvzinum).  J'his  word,  variously  spelt, 
occurs  several  times  in  the  Vitae  Fontijicum  of 
Anastasius  Bibliothecarius.  It  appears  to  denote 
some  material  of  a  silky  nature,  used  for  articles 
of  dress  of  a  costly  descrijHion.  The  etvmologv' 
of  the  word  is  doubtful ;  according  to  one  view 
it  is  akin  to  the  Italian  ermesino,  but  Ducange 
(s.  w.)  rather  connects  it  with  camisile  {^'itae 
Pontifeum,  Leo  111.  p.  418  ;  Paschalis  I.  p.  4+9; 
Sergius  II.  p.  490;  Nficolaus  I.  p.  584).  [li.  S.] 

IMMERSION.  [Baptism,  §49,  p.  161.] 

IMMUNITIES  OF  CHURCHES.  [Church 
(1),  p.  365.] 

IMMUNITIES  AND  PRIVILEGES  OF 
THE  CLERGY.  Before  the  time  of  Constan¬ 
tine  the  clergy  of  the  Christian  church  enjoved 
no  immunities  or  privileges.  With  the  conver¬ 
sion  of  the  emperor  to  the  Christian  faith,  the 
ministers  of  what  became  the  state  religion  began 
to  be  exempted  from  burdens  boi'ne  by  other 
members  of  the  community,  and  to  have  special 
honours  conceded  to  them.  This  policy  reached 
its  height  in  the  Middle  Ages,  when  its  results 
caused  a  reaction  to  ensue  w'hich  is  operating  at 
the  present  day. 

By  immunities  we  understand  in  the  present 
article  exemptions  from  ordinary  burden^,  bv 
privileges,  extraordinary  honours,  or  prerogatives, 
whether  sanctioned  by  custom  only  or  by  law. 
Both  immunities  and  privileges  may  be  best  re¬ 
viewed  under  three  heads,  as  I.  Judiciai., 
11.  Pecuniar V,  HI.  Official  and  Social. 

1.  Judicial.  Under  this  head  we  have  to 
distinguish,  1.  Rights  maintained  and  confirmed, 
2.  Immunities  allowed,  3.  Privileges  granted. 

1.  Pi  flits  maintained  and  conjirmed.  (1)  De¬ 
cisions  in  matters  of  faith  and  in  ecclesiastical 
causes. — Christianity  had  growm  up  in  antagonism 
to  the  imperial  power  of  Rome,  and  managing  its 
own  affairs  under  its  own  oliicers,  unaffected  by 
any  internal  interference  on  the  part  of  the  civil 
authority.  It  jealously  guarded  its  independence 
when  the  worldly  power  exchanged  its  attitude 
of  hostility  for  one  of  friendship  and  alliance. 
In  matters  ecclesiastical  ecclesiastical  authority 
continued  supreme.  This  was  no  immunity  oi 
privilege  granted  now  for  the  first  time  as  a 


823 


IMMUNITIES  AND  PRIVILEGES  OF  THE  CLER&Y 


favoui  bestowed  by  a  friendly  chief  magistrate,  | 
but  a  prescriptive  right  maintained.  The  right  j 
was  afterwards  impaired  by  servility  on  one 
side,  and  by  the  exertion  of  might  on  the  other ; 
for  the  co-operation  of  the  emperor  was  found  so 
useful  for  enforcing  the  acceptance  of  conciliary 
decrees  that  it  was  appealed  to  by  contending 
factions,  and,  when  appealed  to,  the  civil  power 
naturallv  enough  took  upon  itself  to  decide  w’hich 
faction  it  should  support  and  why  it  .should 
support  it.  This  led  imperceptibly  to  the  civil 
power  being  regarded  as  having  a  right  to  judge 
in  things  spiritual  as  well  as  in  things  civil. 
But  it  was  rather  in  its  political  than  in  its 
judicial  character  that  such  claim  was  made  or 
admitted.  Ecclesiastical  causes,  strictly  so 
called,  such  as  trials  for  heresy,  were  never 
brought  before  courts  taking  their  authority 
from  the  state.  This  is  evidenced  by  laws  of 
successive  emperors,  of  Constantius,  A.D.  355 
(JJod.  Theod.  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  leg.  12,  tom.  vi. 
p.  37,  ed.  Gothofred.  Lugi.  1G65),  of  Valen- 
tinian  and  Gratian,  .4.  D.  376  (^Ibid.  leg.  23,  p.  52), 
of  Arcadius  and  Honoriu.s,  A.D.  399  {fbid.  tjt.  11, 
leg.  i.  p.  298).  These  ’  laws  are  of  the  same 
tenor,  giving  the  sanction  of  law  to  the  already 
existins:  custom  that  in  ecclesiastical  causes 
judgment  was  given  by  church  officers  and  not 
by  the  state  courts.  “  On  questions  of  religion,” 
says  the  law  of  Arcadius  and  Honorius,  “  bishops 
are  to  be  judges;  other  cases  must  be  carried 
before  the  law  courts  ”  (^.  c.). 

(2)  Trials  of  ecclesiastical  persons  for  moral 
offences. — In  addition  to  offences  against  the 
faith,  those  offences  against  morality  on  the  part 
of  the  clergy  which  w'ere  not  civil  crimes  were 
by  prescription  under  the  cognisance  of  ecclesi¬ 
astical  authority  alone.  This  could  not  be  other¬ 
wise,  as  acts  that  were  not  offences  against  the 
law  could  not  be  carried  into  the  law  couids. 
The  bishop  was  judged  by  his  peers,  members 
of  the  other  clerical  orders  by  their  bishop ; 
judgment  being  in  accordance  with  the  canons  of 
discipline  promulgated  by  the  recognized  au¬ 
thority  of  church  synods.  In  the  continuance  of 
this  jurisdiction  the  state  simply  permitted  the 
exercise  of  a  right  which  it  found  the  church 
already  possessed  of. 

2.  Immunities  allowed.  (1)  Exemption  of  the 
clergy  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  secular  courts 
in  respect  to  minor  offences. — Hitherto  we  have 
not  arrived  at  any  novel  immunity  or  pidvilege 
granted  by  the  state  as  a  matter  of  grace.  But 
soon  episcopal  jurisdiction  over  the  clergy  was 
extended  from  cases  of  morality  to  petty  crimes, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  clergy  were  withdrawn 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  courts  in 
respect  to  those  crime.s.  There  was  a  recognized 
distinction,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Roman 
empire,  between  great  and  petty  crimes ;  the 
first  were  called  atrocia  delicta^  the  last  lecia 
delicti.  By  the  imperial  favour  the  clergy 
became  exempted  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
secular  courts  in  respect  to  the  levia  delicta^ 
while  subject  to  them,  as  much  as  any  other 
citizens,  in  cases  of  grave  crime,  such  as  murder, 
rebellion,  and  the  like.  In  the  reign  of  Jus¬ 
tinian,  A.D.  539,  this  exemption  w'as  allowed  to 
apply  to  monks  and  nuns  as  well  as  to  the  clergy 
(^Juitm.  Novell.  79,  83;  Corpui  Juris  CiviliSj 
tom.  ii.  pp.  166,  174,  ed.  Beck,  Lipsiae,  1829) ; 
and  in  the  reign  of  Heraclius,  A.D.  610,  it 


appears  to  have  been  extended  from  petty  offences 
to  all  criminal  cases  (^Constitutioncs  hnper  ttori  ie^ 
ad  calc.  Cod.  Justin. ;  Const.  3,  p.  808,  Paris, 
1628).  When  one  of  the  parties  was  a  clergy¬ 
man  and  the  other  a  layman,  the  clergyman’s 
immunity  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  secular 
court  did  not  hold  good,  except  by  the  consent  of 
the  layman  (  Valentin.  Novell.  12). 

(2)  Exemptim  of  bishops  from  being  summoned 
into  court  as  witnesses. — By  Justinian,  possibly 
by  Theodosius,  it  was  enacted  that  no  bishop 
should  be  required  to  appear  at  the  tribunal  of 
a  secular  judge  for  the  purpose  of  giving  his 
testimony  in  any  case  before  the  court.  The 
judge  was  required  to  send  his  officer  to  take  the 
bishop’s  testimony  at  his  own  house.  The  words 
of  Justinian’s  law  are  “No  judge  is  to  compel 
bishops  to  come  to  a  trial  to  exhibit  their  tes¬ 
timony,  but  he  is  to  send  to  them  some  of  his 
subordinate  officers  ”  (/wsfen.  Novell.  123,  c.  7; 
Corpus  Juris  Civilis^  tom.  ii.  p.  250). 

'  (3)  Exemption  of  bishops  from  having  to  take 
an  oath  in  giving  their  testimony. — By  the  law 
of  Justinian  above  quoted  it  was  enacted  that  the 
word  of  bishops,  given  on  the  holy  gospels, 
should  be  accepted  in  place  of  an  oath,  an  oath 
being  regarded  .as  derogatory  to  tlieir  holy 
character.  “  That  the  bishops  having  the  iioly 
gospels  before  them  may  say  what  they  know,  as 
becomes  priests  ”  {Ibid.). 

(4)  Exemption  of  bishops  and  presbyters  from 
being  examined  by  torture  while  bearing  testimony. 
— According  to  the  laws  of  the  Roman  empire, 
witnesses  might  be  scourged  and  otherwise 
tortured  in  order  to  extract  from  them  the 
truth  {Cod.  Justin,  lib.  ix.  tit.  41  ;  Corpus  Jnr. 
Civ.  p.  323 ;  Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xiii.  tit.  9,  leg.  2, 
tom.  V.  p.  105  ;  St.  Aug.  Serm.  ccch'.  tom.  v. 
p.  1572,  ed  Migne,  al.  2>c' 49  ;  Synesius, 
Ep.  58,  Op.  p.  201  ;  Paris,  1631).  Theodosius, 
with  some  hesitation  and  ambiguity,  exempted 
bishops  and  presbyters  from  this  liability.  His 
words  are:  “Presbyters  are  to  give  testimony 
without  being  liable  to  torture,  provided,  how¬ 
ever,  that  they  do  not  pretend  what  is  false. 
But  the  rest  of  the  clergy  below  them  in  order 
or  rank,  if  they  have  to  give  their  testimony,  are 
to  be  treated  as  the  laws  direct  ”  {Cod.  Theod. 
lib.  xi.  tit.  39,  leg.  10,  tom.  iv.  p.  331). 

3.  Judicial  privileges.  (1)  Episcopal  coercive 
jurisdiction  in  civil  causes. —  It  had  been  the 
custom  of  Christians,  in  accordance  with  the 
injunctions  of  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  vi.  4),  to  settle 
their  differences  before  one  of  themselves,  instead 
of  going  to  the  heathen  law  courts.  Very  soon, 
and  very  naturally,  the  office  of  arbitrator  be¬ 
came  attached  to  that  of  bishop,  the  bishop  being 
the  best  qualified  person  to  exercise  the  judicial 
function.  We  find  instances  of  the  exercise  of 
judicial  power  in  Sidonius  Apollinaris  (lib.  lii. 
Ep.  12  ;  lib.  vi.  Ep.  4,  Op.  p.  160),  Synesius 
{Ep.  105,  Op.  p.  247),  St.  Ambrose  {Ep.  Ixxxii. 
Ad  Marcelium,  Op.  tom.  ii.  p.  1100  ;  Paris,  1690), 
St.  Augustine  {Confess,  vi.  3,  tom.  i.  p.  720,  ed. 
Migne).  Down  to  the  time  of  Constantine 
episcopal  decisions  thus  given  had  not  any  force 
in  law.  Litigants  were  bound  only  by  their 
free  choice  or  by  contract  to  abide  bv  the 
verdicts  given.  But  now  coercive  jurisdiction 
was  given  to  the  bi.shop’s  court.  It  was  still 
necessary  for  both  parties  to  the  suit  to  con.sent 
to  carry  it  before  the  bishop,  but  when  it  waa 


824 


IMMUXITILS  AND  TKIVILEGHS  OF  THE  CEEKGY 


once  cavriecl  to  him  his  sentence  was  final,  and 
was  executed  by  the  secnhiiv  authorities.  From 
Sozomen’s  Ecciedastical  Jlistorn  (i.  9,  p.  21,  Can- 
tab.  1720)  it  would  appear  that  this  })rivilege 
was  granted  by  Constantine.  It  is  clearly  re¬ 
cognized  bv  a  law  of  Arcadius  and  Honorius 
(^Coci.  Justin,  lib.  i.  tit.  4,  leg.  8,  tom.  ii.  j).  33). 
Valentiniau  HI.  carefully  distinguislies  between 
religious  causes,  in  which  bishops  and  presbyters 
aad  a  prescriptive  right  to  judge,  ami  civil 
causes,  in  wliich  they  had  no  inherent  right  to 
act  judicially ;  but  he  recognizes  their  juris¬ 
diction  in  the  civil  causes  when  the  free  choice  of 
the  litigants  has  selected  them  in  preference  to 
the  state  judges  (^Valentin.  Novell.  12,  ad  calc. 
Cod.  I'heod.).  Thus  bishops  were  made,  by 
virtue  of  their  office,  not  only  arbitrators  be¬ 
tween  members  of  their  flocks,  but  also  magis¬ 
trates  before  whom  any  that  pleased  might  carry 
their  suits  to  be  by  them  finally  and  legally 
settled.  The  burden  of  judicial  business  became 
30  heavy  (.see  St.  Augustine,  Epidola  xxxiii. 
Migne,  al.  147),  that  it  was  devolved  upon 
presbyters  (St.  Aug.  Epist.  ccxiii.  Migne,  al.  110), 
deacons  (Condi.' Tar racon.  can.  iv. ;  Hard.  Co7i- 
dl.  tom.  ii.  p.  1042,  Paris,  1714),  and  laymen 
(Socrates,  Hist.  Keel.  vii.  37,  p.  321 ;  Oxon, 
1844);  whence  probably  there  arose  the  existing 
custom  of  the  bishops  appointing  lay  chan¬ 
cellors  to  preside  in  their  courts.  Episcopal 
jurisdiction  did  not,  however,  extend  to  criminal 
causes,  but  was  confined  to  civil  questions  and 
pecuniary  suits.  Bishops  were  forbidden  by 
canon  law  to  interfere  with  criminal  cases  (see 
Co7icil.  To'racon.  can.  iv.). 

(2)  Epiteopal  intereession. — In  pecuniary  cases 
bishops  were  magistrates,  in  criminal  cases  they 
were  intercessors.  Wherever  the  arbitrary  will 
of  a  despotic  sovereign  has  power  over  life  and 
liberty,  a  right  of  intercession  is  sure  to  become 
vested  in  the  ministers  of  religion,  the  reason 
being  that  the  religious  character  alone  invests 
its  possessor  with  so  much  awe  as  to  enable  him 
to  dare  to  resist  the  passionate  and  capricious 
fury  of  otherwise  uncontrolled  powei'.  Such  a 
right  begins  in  the  courageous  act  of  some  brax-e 
ecclesiastic,  and  first  being  recognized  by  custom, 
is  afterwards  confirmed  by  law.  When,  at  a 
more  advanced  stage  of  civilisation,  punishments 
are  calmly  meted  out  by  the  scales  of  justice,  the 
right  of  intercession  necessarily  ceases.  The  pro¬ 
priety  of  the  privilege  is  argued  in  two  letters 
that  passed  between  Macedonius  and  St.  Augus¬ 
tine  (Ep.  clii,  cliii.  Migne,  al.  53,  54) ;  the 
latter,  in  interceding  with  the  tribune  Marcel- 
linus  for  the  fanatics  called  Circumeelliones, 
advances  very  strong  claims :  “  If  you  do  not 
listen  to  a  fidend  who  asks,  listen  to  a  bishop 
who  advises ;  though,  as  I  am  speaking  to  a 
Christian,  I  shall  not  be  too  bold  if  I  say  that  in 
such  a  case  as  this  you  ought  to  listen  to  your 
bishop  that  lays  his  injunction  on  you,  my  noble 
lord  and  dear  son  ”  (Kp.  cxxxiii.  Migne,  al.  159). 
He  addresses  the  proconsul  Apringius  on  the 
same  occasion  in  the  same  strain  (Ep.  cxxxiv. 
Migne,  al.  160).  Flaxdan,  when  the  people  of 
Antioch  had  rai.sed  a  futile  rebellion  against 
Theodosius,  proceeded  to  Constantinople.  “  I  am 
come,”  he  said  to  the  emperor,  “  as  the  deputy  of 
our  common  Master,  to  address  this  word  to  your 
heart,  ‘  If  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses^,  then 
will  your  heavenly  Father  also  forgive  you  your 


trespasses.’”  He  returned  with  a  message  of 
jsirdon.  Eparchius,  a  monk  who  lived  in  Angou- 
icune  in  the  Gth  century,  exercised  so  great  an 
influence  over  the  neighbouring  magistrates  that 
the  populace  rose  and  compelled  a  judge,  who 
was  about  to  yield  to  his  intercession,  to  execute 
a  robber  that  had  been  guilty  of  murder  (Greg. 
Turon.  Jlid.  Fixinc.  vi.  8,  p.  879;  ed.  Migne, 
1849).  In  the  7th  centurv  (a.d.  633)  a  canon  of 
the  fourth  council  of  Toledo,  repeated  in  the 
sixth  council  of  Arles  (a.d.  813),  enjoins  on 
bishops  the  duty  of  protecting  the  poor,  reprov¬ 
ing  over-sevci-e  judges,  ami,  if  necessary,  report¬ 
ing  to  the  king  (Cone.  Tolet.  iv.  can.  xxxii.; 
Cone.  Ai'clat.  vi.  can.  xvii. ;  Hard.  Condi,  tom.  iii. 
p.  587  ;  tom.  iv.  p.  1005). 

Closely  connected  with  the  privilege  of  inter¬ 
cession,  were  the  further  privileges  of  protection 
of  the  weak,  of  asylum,  of  censorship  of  the 
public  morals;  all  of  which,  like  the  right  of 
intercession,  are  based  upon  the  character  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  minister  of  religion,  not  upon  the 
decision  of  an  arbitrary  statute. 

(3)  Interfet'ence  in  behalf  of  the  veak. — Tiiis 
practice,  begun  at  the  risk  of  the  bishop,  became 
sanctioned  by  the  law's  of  the  empire.  Widows 
and  orphans  were  counted  the  especial  charge  of 
the  bishop,  and  their  property  was  placed  under 
his  guardianship.  St.  Ambrose  tells  his  clergy 
that  they  vill  do  well  if  through  their  means 
the  attacks  of  the  pow'erful,  which  the  widows 
and  orphans  cannot  resist,  are  beaten  back  by 
the  protection  of  the  church.  He  warns  them 
not  to  let  the  favour  of  the  rich  have  weight 
with  them,  and  reminds  them  how  often  he  had 
himself  resisted  assault  in  behalf  of  the  widow, 
and  indeed  of  any  one  who  required  his  help 
(De  Officiis  Minist.  ii.  29.  Op.  tom.  ii.  p.  105). 
Justinian  legalized  the  bishop’s  right  of  protec¬ 
tion  in  the  case  of  prisoners,  of  children  stolen 
from  their  parents,  of  lunatics,  of  foundlings,  of 
minors,  of  oppressed  xvomen  (Cod.  Justin,  lib.  i. 
tit.  4,  legg.  22,  24,  27,  28,  30,  33 ;  tom.  ii. 
pp.  35-39).  The  fifth  council  of  Orleans  (a.d. 
549),  decreed  that  the  archdeacon  or  other 
church  officer  should  visit  the  prisons,  and  see 
that  the  prisoners  were  cared  for,  and  further, 
that  the  bishop  should  provide  them  w'ith  food 
(Cone.  Aurel.  v.  can.  xx. ;  Hard.  Cone.  tom.  ii. 
p.  1447).  Gregory  of  Tours  describes  a  good 
bishop  as  getting  justice  for  the  people,  helping 
the  poor,  consoling  the  wddow,  and  protecting  the 
minor,  as  parts  of  his  official  duties  (Greg. 
Turon.  ix'.  35). 

(4)  Sanetuary. — Out  of  the  rights  of  inter¬ 
cession  and  protection  there  necessarily  grew  on 
the  one  side  the  right  of  sanctuary,  on  the  other 
the  right  of  censure.  If  the  weak  and  the 
accused  could  look  to  the  bishop  for  help,  they 
naturally  fled  to  him  when  help  xvas  needed ;  and 
if  the  bishop  might  adx'ocate  the  cause  of  the 
accused  and  of  the  suffering,  he  had  to  make  but 
one  step  to  censuring  the  judge  and  the  oppressor. 
That  churches  or  temples  should  be  places  of 
asylum  is  founded  on  natural  piety,  not  on 
positix'e  law :  and  until  law  is  all  poxverful,  it  is 
necessary  that  there  should  be  such  retuges  trora 
sudden  fury.  They  existed  under  the  Jewish 
and  the  x'arious  pagan  religions,  as  xvell  as  under 
the  Christian  religion  ;  and  not  only  Christian 
churches,  but  statues  of  the  emperor  and  the 
imperial  standard  originally'  enjoyed  the  priri- 


IMMUNITIES  AND  rEIVIEEGES  OF  THE  CLERGY 


825 


We  find  the  custom  of  sanctuary  acknow¬ 
ledged  and  acted  on  in  the  time  of  fet.  Basil 
(Greg.  Nazianz.  Oral.  xx.  De  Laud.  Basil.  Op. 
tom.  ii.  p.  353 ;  Paris,  1630),  St.  Chrysostom 
(Op.  tom.  viii.  p.  67,  ed.  Savil),  Synesius  (^Ep. 
Iviii.  Op.  p.  201 ;  Paris,  1630).  Arcadius  abro¬ 
gated  it  at  Eutropius’  instance,  a.d.  398  (CW. 
Theod.  lib.  ix.  tit.  45,  leg.  3,  tom.  iii.  p.  361); 
but  when  Eutropius  had  himself  to  claim  sanc¬ 
tuary  this  abrogation  was  it.self  abolished  (So¬ 
crates  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  5).  Shortly  afterwards 
Theodosius  II.  enacted  a  law  extending  the  pri¬ 
vilege  of  sanctuary  from  the  interior  of  the 
church  to  its  environs  (Ccc?.  Theod.  lib.  ix. 
tit.  45).  The  persons  who  were  allowed  to  take 
sanctuary  were  by  no  means  all  classes  of  crimi¬ 
nals,  as  afterwards  was  the  case  through  abuse 
of  the  original  right.  It  was  intended  for  the 
defeated  party  in  any  civil  affray,  for  slaves  that 
were  in  danger  of  cruel  treatment,  for  debtors, 
unless  they  were  debtors  to  the  state ;  in  gene¬ 
ral,  for  the  innocent,  the  injured,  the  oppressed, 
and  any  whose  criminality  was  doubtful,  and 
for  whom  intercession  might  seem  likely  to  be 
of  avail.  Such  persons,  provided  they  came 
unarmed,  had  protection  for  thirty  days.  Slaves 
were  protected,  at  first  for  one  day  (^Cod.  Theod. 
lib.  ix.  tit.  45,  leg.  5),  afterwards  till  their 
masters  gave  a  promise  to  spare  them  corporal 
punishment  (^Concil.  Ejjaonense,  A.D.  517,  can. 
xxxix.  ;  Hard.  Condi,  tom.  ii.  p.  1051);  for 
breaking  which  promise  the  masters  were  liable 
to  suspension  fi'om  communion  (^Condl.  Aure- 
lianensc  v.  a.d.  549,  can.  xxii.  ;  Hard.  Condi. 
tom.  ii.  p.  1447).  Ordinary  criminals,  as  rob¬ 
bers  and  murderers,  were  not  admitted  till  later 
times,  when  tlie  privilege  of  asylum  became 
incompatible  with  tlie  due  execution  of  the  laws, 
and  was  abrogated  with  the  applause  of  all 
lovers  of  justice  and  morality.  Charles  the 
Great,  a.d.  779,  forbid  any  subsistence  being 
supplied  to  murderer.s,  though  by  that  time  they 
had  made  good  their  right  not  to  be  directly 
delivered  up  to  justice. 

(5)  Censorship. — The  censorship  vested  in  the 
clergy  was  partly  a  right  founded  on  the  fact 
that  the  church,  as  a  religious  body,  took 
cognisance  of  immorality  within  its  own  body, 
and  exacted  of  its  members  the  discipline  of 
penance ;  partly  it  was  a  privilege  recognized  by 
law,  arising  out  of  the  privilege  of  intercession, 
and  indeed  forming  a  branch  of  it.  The  council 
of  Arles,  a.d.  314,  instructed  bishops  to  have  a 
special  oversight  of  such  civil  magistrates  as 
were  Christian:;,  and  to  cut  them  off'  from  the 
church  if  they  acted  contrary  to  her  laws 
(can.  vii.  Hard.  Condi,  tom.  i.  p.  264).  St. 
Ba.sil  very  boldly  censured  so  purely  a  political 
act  as  that  of  separating  Cappadocia  into  two 
provinces,  a.d.  371,  because  it  threw  an  increased 
burden  of  taxes  on  the  poor  {Ep.  ccclxxxix.  ad 
Martinianum,  Op.  tom.  iii.  p.  369  ;  Paris,  1638). 
St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  declared  to  rulers  and 
governors  (dvvd(TTai  /cat  dpxoyrfs)  that  the  law 
of  Christ  subjected  them  to  his  tribunal  (prat. 
xvii.  Op.  tom.  i.  p.  271  ;  Colon.  1690)  ;  Synesius 
excommunicated  Andronicus,  j/resident  of  Lybia 
(^Ep.  Iviii.  Op.  p.  201);  Orestes’  hatred  of 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  was  not  only  personal,  but 
also  “  because  the  authority  of  the  bishop  took 
away  so  much  from  the  power  of  the  king’s 
officers  ”  (Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  13,  p.  293). 


The  penance  performed  by  The()do<-ius  I.  at  the 
command  of  St.  Ambrose  was  a  conspicuous  ex¬ 
hibition  of  a  censorshij)  exerted  by  a  bishop* and 
submitted  to  by  an  emperor  (Sozom.  J/ist.  Eccl. 
vii.  25,  Op.  p.  315  ;  Theodoret,  J/ist.  Eccl.  v.  17, 
Op.  p.  215;  Cantab.  1720).  The.se  episcopal  acts 
were  performed  on  the  principle  that  every  body 
spiritual  or  political  has  an  inherent  right  of 
exei’cising  discipline  on  its  own  members,  even  to 
the  point  of  excluding  the  refractory  from  its 
bo.som.  But  the  imperial  laws  were  not  slow  in 
giving  further  rights  of  censorshi)/  to  the  clergy 
We  have  already  seen  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
bishop  to  visit  prisoners.  The  same  law  (a.d. 
409)  that  imposed  upon  him  this  duty  gave  him 
also  the  right  of  admonishing  the  judges.  Jus¬ 
tinian  required  him,  further,  to  rej/ort  what  he 
found  amiss  in  the  prison,  that  it  might  be 
corrected  {Cod.  Justin,  lib.  i.  tit.  4,  legg.  22,  23  ; 
Corp.  Jur.  Civ.  tom.  ii.  p.  35).  The  same 
emperor  likewise  empowered  bishops  to  uphold 
good  morals  by  putting  down  gaming  (/bid 
leg.  25);  to  see  that  justice  was  impartially 
administered  (Ibid.  legg.  21,  31);  to  resist 
tyranny  on  the  part  of  the  chief  lay  authorities, 
and  to  look  after  the  administration  of  puolio 
property  (Ibid.  leg.  26). 

These  rights  passed  over  from  the  Byzantine 
empire  to  the  Western  nations,  and  no  questions 
were  asked  as  to  whether  they  were  founded  in 
positive  law  or  in  prescription.  The  third  council 
of  Toledo,  A.D.  589,  declared  bishops  to  have,  by 
royal  command,  the  charge  of  seeing  how  the 
judges  treated  the  people  (Cone.  J'olet.  iii.  can.  v 
xviii. ;  Hard.  Cone.  tom.  iii.  482).  The  fourth 
council  we  have  already  seen  requires  bishops  to 
admonish  judges,  and  to  report  to  the  king  such 
judges  as  disregarded  their  admonition  (can. 
xxxii.).  The  same  charge  was  repeated  by  the 
sixth  council  of  Arles,  a.d.  813  (can.  xvii.).  It 
was  in  France  that  the  mystical  signification  of 
the  “two  swords”  was  discovered  (by  Geoffrey, 
abbot  of  Vtndome,  a.d.  1095),  and  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  principle  involved  in  that  inter¬ 
pretation,  ecclesiastical  authority  was  freely 
exerted  over  sovereigns.  Louis  le  Debonnaire, 
Lothaire,  and  Charles  the  Bald,  three  Carlo- 
vingian  princes,  were  deposed  bv  councils  of  the 
Galilean  church,  while  king  Robert,  Philip  I., 
and  Philip  Augustus,  like  Henry  IV.,  Henry  V., 
and  Frederick  II.  of  Germany,  suffered  Papal  ex- 
communication.  But  it  was  in  France  too  that 
the  secular  authority  once  more  revindicated  its 
right  in  the  memorable  struggle  between  Phi¬ 
lippe  le  Bel  and  Boniface  VHl.  at  the  end  of  the 
13th  century.  A  quarter  of  a  century  later  we 
find  a  conference  held  before  Philippe  de  Valois 
(a.d.  1329),  in  which  the  whole  question  of  lay 
and  spiritual  jurisdiction  was  argued  by  Pierre 
de  Cugnieres  on  behalf  of  the  crown,  and  by  the 
archbishop  of  Sens  and  the  bishop  of  Autun  in 
behalf  of  the  church,  in  which  the  king’s  advo¬ 
cate  alleged  sixty-six  excesses  of  jurisdiction  on 
the  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts.  Soon  afte’, 
the  Appel  comme  d'abus  or  Appellatio  tanqnam 
abusu  was  instituted,  which  admitted  appeal 
from  an  ecclesiastical  court  to  the  1  .gnest  civil 
authority  whenever  it  could  be  pleaded  that  the 
ecclesiastical  judge  had  exceeded  his  powers  or 
encroached  upon  temporal  jurisdiction.  At  the 
council  of  Trent  this  right  was  assailed,  but 
through  the  influence  of  the  ambassadors  of 


82G 


IMMUNITIES  AND  PKIVILP:GES  OF  THE  CLERGY 


Charles  IX.  it  was  maintained,  and  it  continues 
still  in  vigour. 

II.  Pecuniary'.  1.  Immunities  allowed.  (1) 
Ccns  IS  Cajntiim  or  Poll  Tax. — The  clergy,  their 
wives,  children,  and  servants  were  e.xempted  by 
Constantins  from  paying  the  poll-tax,  which  was 
levied  on  all  citizens  between  the  ages  of  14 
and  65,  except  such  as  were  granted  immunity 
(Coo?.  Theod.  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  legg.  10,  14).  This 
was  a  favour  shai'ed  by  the  clergy  with  the 
members  of  other  liberal  professions.  Valen- 
tiniau  exempts  the  higher  class  of  painters 
(Picturae  professores,  si  inodo  ingenui  sunt)  from 
the  incidence  of  the  tax  (Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xiii. 
tit.  4,  leg.  4).  This  immunity  is  alluded  to  and 
pleaded  by  Gregory  Nazianzeu  (^Ep.  clix.  ad  Ain- 
philochium,  Op.  tom.  i.  p.  873)  and  by  St.  Basil 
(^Ep.  cclxxix.  ad  Modestum^  Op.  tom.  iii.  p.  272). 

(2)  Eqnomm  canonicorum  adaeratic  or  Soldiers' 
horses  tax;  Auruin  tircnicum  ov  Recruit  tax. — 
The  clergy  had  to  pa}*^  their  property  tax  (cen¬ 
sus  ogroriim)  and  all  burdens  on  land  like  other 
owners  and  occupiers,  but  they  appear  to  have 
been  exempted  from  any  local  taxation  that 
might  be  imposed  for  the  supply  of  horses  for 
the  army,  or  as  a  substitute  for  recruits.  High- 
priests  of  the  old  pagan  religions  seem  to  have 
shared  this  immunity  (Cod.  Theod.  lib.  vii.  tit. 
13,  leg.  22 ;  cum  Gothofredi  comment.). 

(3)  Trading-tax  called  Chrgsarggmm  from 
being  paid  in  gold  and  silver,  and  Lustralis  col- 
latio  because  collected  at  the  end  of  each  hstrum. 
The  inferior  clergy  wei-e  permitted  to  trade 
without  paying  this  tax,  provided  their  opera¬ 
tions  were  confined  within  moderate  bounds  (Cod. 
Theod.  lib.  xiii.  tit.  1,  legg.  1,  11  ;  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2, 
legg.  8,  10,  16,  36).  This  immunity  was  abused, 
and  clerics  were  forbidden  to  trade  by  Valen- 
tinian  (Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xiii.  tit.  1,  leg.  16;  Ta- 
lentin.  NorelL  12  ad  calc.  Cod.  Theod.).  The  tax 
was  abolished  by  Anastasius  (Evagrius,  Hist.  Eccl. 
iii.  39  ;  Op.  p.  371  ;  Cantab.  1720). 

(4)  Metatum  or  Entertainment-inbneg.  —  The 
clergy  were  not  compelled  to  receive  the  emperor, 
the  judges,  or  soldiers  on  their  circuits  or  travels. 
This  immunity  their  houses  shared  with  those 
of  senators,  Jewish  synagogues,  and  places  of 
worship  (Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  leg.  8). 

(5)  Superindicta  or  Extraordinary  taxes. — The 
clergy  were  exempted  from  these  by  Constantins 
(Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  leg.  8),  by  Honorius 
and  Theodosius  Junior  (ibid.  leg.  40),  and  by 
Justinian  (Justin.  Eovell.  cxxxi.  c.  5). 

(6)  Ad  instructiones  reparalionesqux  itinerum 
et  pontiuin  or  Highiray  rate. — By  a  law  of  Ho¬ 
norius  and  Theodosius  Junior,  a.d.  412,  church 
lands  were  exempted  from  paying  the  road-tax ; 
but  this  exemption  was  withdrawn  A.D.  423  by 
Theodosius  Junior  and  by  Valentinian  III.,  and 
it  was  not  regi-anted. 

(7)  Cursus  publicus,  angariae,  parangariae, 
translation  evectio,  or  Conveyance-burden.^-Con- 
stantius  exempted  the  clergy  from  the  burden 
of  having  to  convey  corn  and  other  things  for 
the  soldiers  and  imperial  officers  (Cod.  Theod, 
lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  leg.  10),  but  in  the  last  year  of 
his  reign,  A.D.  360,  he  revoked  tbe  concession. 
The  immunity  was  restored  a.d.  382,  and  con¬ 
firmed  by  Honorius  a.d.  412  (Cod.  I'hcod.  lib. 
ii.  tit.  16,  leg.  15  ;  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  leg.  40),  but 
again  revoked  by  Theodosius  Junior  and  Valen- 
tinian,  A.d.  440, 


(8)  Descrijitio  lucratirornm,  denarismus,  unci  le 
or  Municipal  tax. — If  the  property  of  a  member 
of  a  town-council  (curia)  passed  by  will  to  any 
one  that  was  not  a  member  of  the  curiia,  the  new 
owner  had  to  pay  a  tax  to  the  curia  amounting 
to  the  sum  previously  jiaid  by  the  curialis.  But 
if  the  property  passed  to  the  church,  it  was 
enacted  by  Justinian  that  the  tax  could  not  be 
demanded  (Cod.  Justin,  lib.  i.  tit.  2,  leg.  22  ; 
Novell,  cxxxi.  c.  5). 

2.  Pecuniary  Privileges.  (1)  Legacies. — By  a 
law  of  Constantine  (Cod.  Thod.  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2, 
leg.  4)  it  was  enacted  that  goods  might  be  be¬ 
queathed  to  the  church,  no  distinction  being  made 
between  real  and  personal  jiroperty.  This  law  was 
confirmed  by  Justinian  f  Cod.  Jus'.in.  lib.  i.  tit.  2, 
leg.  13).  Moneys  or  e-states  left  to  the  church 
were  administered  by  the  bishop  for  the  general 
w'elfare. 

(2)  Inheritance. — Constantine  settled  the  pro¬ 
perty  of  confessors  and  martyrs  dying  intestate 
and  without  near  relatives,  on  the  church  (Eu- 
seb.  Vit.  Constant,  ii.  36;  Op.  p.  461;  Paris, 
1659).  Theodosius  Junior  and  Valentinian  ex¬ 
tended  the  provision,  so  as  to  embrace  the  ca.se 
not  only  of  martyrs  and  confessors,  but  of  all 
clergymen,  monks,  and  nuns  (Cod.  Theod.  lib.  v. 
tit.  3,  leg.  1 ;  Cod.  Justin,  lib.  i.  tit.  3,  leg.  20). 

(3)  Forfeiture. — Justinian  enacted  that  the 
property  of  clergymen  or  monks  leaving  the 
clerical  or  monastic  life  should  be  forfeited  to 
the  church  or  monastery  with  which  they  had 
been  connected  (Cod.  Justin,  lib.  i.  tit.  3,  leg.  55). 

(4)  Confiscation. — By  laws  of  Honorius  and 
Gratian  some  of  the  property  wdiich  had  belonged 
to  the  heathen  temples  (Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xvi.  tit. 
10,  leg.  20)  and  that  which  was  owned  by  heretics 
(ibid.  tit.  5,  leg.  52)  was  confiscated  to  the  use 
of  the  church. 

(5)  Imperial  largess. — Occasionally  large  .sums 
were  bestowed  by  the  emperors  for  the  support 
of  the  clergy.  Thus  Constantine  desired  his 
African  Receiver,  Ursus,  to  pay  over  a  vast  .sura 
(rpto-xiAious  (p6\\eis)  to  Caecilian,  bishop  of 
Carthage,  for  him  to  divide  among  the  clergy  of 
Africa  Mauritania  and  Numidia,  and  enabled  him 
to  draw  for  more  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  x.  6, 
p.  722,  ed.  Burton).  On  the  occasion  of  an 
oecumenical  council  being  summoned,  the  em¬ 
peror  bore  the  travelling  expenses  of  the  bishops. 

(6)  State  allowance. — Constantine  passed  a  law 
requiring  the  prefects  of  each  province  to  make 
an  annual  grant  of  corn  to  the  clergy  out  of  the 
revenues  of  the  province  (Theodoret,  Hisi.  Eccl. 
i.  11;  Sozomen,  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  5).  This  allowance 
was  discontinued  when  Julian  occupied  the  throne, 
but  it  was  restored  on  a  limited  scale  after 
Julian’s  death.  It  is  recognized  by  a  law  of 
Justinian  (Cod.  Justin,  lib.  i.  tit.  2,  leg.  12). 

IJthes  are  not  to  be  added  to  this  list,  as  they 
did  not  originate  in  a  state  grant,  but  in  the 
voluntary  libei-ality  of  individuals,  grounded 
partly  on'a  belief  that  tithes  were  due  by  divine 
right  (see  St.  Hieron.  Com.  in  Mat.  iii.  Op.  tom. 
iii.  p.  1829,  ed.  Ben.  Paris,  1704  ;  St.  Aug.  Enarr. 
in  Paal.  cxlvi.  8;  Op.  tom.  iv.  p.  1911,  ed. 
Migne),  partly  on  the  evident  need  of  some  such 
provision  for  the  maintenance  of  the  ministers 
of  religion  in  modest  independence.  They  became 
general  in  the  4th  century,  not  as  a  legal  impost 
but  as  a  voluntary  gift  (see  St.  Chrysos.  //bm.  iv. 
in  Ephes,  s.  f. ;  Op.  tom.  iii.  p.  784).  They 


i:MMUNrnp:s  and  privileges  of  the  clergy 


827 


were  made  compulsory  by  Charles  the  Great, 
A.D.  778  (see  Selden,  History  of  2'ithes.  Works, 
vol.  iii.  j)t.  2,  p.  114(5). 

III.  Official  and  Sociak  1.  Tmmumties. — 
Public  offices  not  bringing  with  them  their  own 
salary  and  emoluments  were  looked  upon,  though 
honourable  in  themselves,  as  burdens,  like  the 
office  of  high-sheriff  of  a  county  among  our¬ 
selves.  Constantine,  on  embracing  Christianity, 
exempted  the  clergy  from  the  burden  of  bearing 
any  offices  whatsoever  (huseb.  Hist.  Eccl,  x,  7, 
vol.  ii.  p.  721;  Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  legg. 
1,  2,  7).  This  concession  applied  to  all  offices, 
whether  personal  {personalia  ihunera)  or  praedial, 
i.e.  attached  to  property,  whether  honourable 
(Jionores  or  curialia  niunera')  or  mean  (sordida 
munerd).  No  change  was  made  by  subsequent 
laws  in  respect  to  personal  bui'dens  or  mean 
offices,  but  the  experience  of  Constantine  taught 
him  to  restrain  his  first  liberality  as  to  the 
burdens  belonging  to  property.  For  it  was  found 
that  immunity  from  bearing  office  was  counted 
so  great  a  boon  that  men  of  wealth,  who  had 
no  purpose  of  undertaking  the  ministry  of  the 
Church,  solicited  and  obtained  minor  ecclesias¬ 
tical  posts  solely  with  the  fraudulent  })urpose 
of  exempting  their  estates  from  the  services  to 
which  they  were  liable.  Constantine  therefore 
enacted  that  no  one  qualified  by  his  estate  to 
bear  public  offices  should  be  allowed  “  to  fly 
to  the  clerical  name  and  ministry,  and  that  any 
who  had  done  so  with  a  view  to  declining  the 
public  burdens  should  nevertheless  be  compelled 
to  bear  them  ”  {Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  leg.  3). 
Succeeding  emperors  modified  these  laws  of  Con¬ 
stantine  in  a  manner  sometimes  more  sometimes 
less  favourable  to  the  clergy,  the  general  tend¬ 
ency  of  the  legislation  being  to  exempt  the 
estates  of  the  church  from  civil  burdens,  but  to 
preserve  the  liability  of  the  private  property  of 
the  clergy — a  liability  which  they  had  to  fulfil 
either  by  finding  substitutes  to  perform  the  neces¬ 
sary  duties,  or  by  parting  with  a  portion  at  least 
of  their  lands  {Cod.  Theod.  lib.  xii.  tit.  1,  legg. 
49,  59,  99,  121,  123,  163;  lib.  xvi.  tit.  2,  legg. 
19,  21). 

Official  and  Social  Privileges.  (1)  Free  election. 
— In  the  midst  of  the  despotism  of  the  empire  the 
clergy  and  laity  maintained  their  old  right  of 
electing,  and  the  clergy  their  right  of  being 
elected,  to  the  office  and  dignity  of  bishop.  “Those 
absolute  monarchs  respected  the  freedom  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  elections;  and  while  they  distributed  and 
resumed  the  honours  of  the  state  and  army  they 
allowed  eighteen  hundred  perpetual  magistrates 
to  receive  their  important  offices  from  the  free 
suffrages  of  the  people  ”  (Gibbon,  Decline  and 
Falf  c.  XX.).  By  degrees  this  right  has  been 
taken  away  in  almost  all  parts  of  the  church, 
partly  on  the  plea  that  the  civil  magistrate  repre¬ 
sents  the  laity,  partly  on  the  allegation  that 
endowments  and  civil  urivileges  had  been  granted 
by  the  state,  sometimes  because  it  was  consi¬ 
dered  that  the  security  of  the  state  required 
such  a  precaution,  sometimes  from  apprehension 
of  the  evil  consequences  expected  to  arise  out  of 
the  excitement  of  free  elections,  sometimes  owing 
to  coi-rupt  agreements,  termed  concordats,  made 
between  the  bishop  of  Home  assuming  to  represent 
ecclesiastical  interests  and  the  king  or  emperor 
of  a  particular  country,  representing  the  civil 
power. 


(2)  Authonty  of  the  higher  over  the  lower 
clergy, — The  position  of  the  bishops  of  the  larger 
sees  was  made  one  of  great  dignity  and  im¬ 
portance  by  the  subjection  of  the  clergy  and 
ecclesiastics  of  all  cla.sses  to  their  uncontrolled 
authority  ;  and  this  was  not  restrained  by  any 
interference  on  the  part  of  the  state.  The  bishop 
of  Constantinople  presided  as  lord  over  60  pres¬ 
byters,  100  deacons,  40  deaconesses,  90  sub-dea¬ 
cons,  110  readers,  25  chanters,  100  doorkeepers 
{Justin.  Novell,  ciii.),  and  a  guild  of  1100  copiat'-e 
or  gravediggers.  The  ch?rgy,  under  the  imme¬ 
diate  control  of  the  bishop  of  Carthage,  were 
upwards  of  500.  The  paraholani  alone,  at  Alex¬ 
andria,  amounted  to  600.  All  these  were  allowed 
by  the  law  as  well  as  by  custom  to  form  in 
each  central  city  a  society  which  recognized  the 
bishop  as  its  head  wilIi  a  devotion  which  was 
not  equalled  by  the  retainers  of  any  civil  officer. 
Beyond  this  immediate  circle  of  adherents  a  less 
defined  authority  was  vested  in  the  metropolitan, 
extending  over  all  his  suffragan  bishops. 

(3)  Tights  of  meetin  /  and  speech. — Twice  every 
year  each  metropolitan  was  commanded  by  the 
canons,  and  permitted  by  the  laws,  to  call  to¬ 
gether  the  synod  of  his  province:  occasionally 
the  emperor  assembled  the  synod  of  the  empire. 
At  these  meetings,  as  well  as  in  the  pulpit,  free 
speech  was  allowed  by  the  laws,  the  doctrine 
and  discipline  of  the  church  were  regulated, 
ecclesiastical  sympathies  were  strengthened,  and 
the  power  of  the  clergy,  by  being  concentrated, 
was  increased. 

(4)  Tokens  of  respect. — It  was  the  custom  for 
the  laity,  not  excluding  the  emperor,  to  bow  the 
head  to  the  bishop  and  to  kiss  his  hand  (see  in¬ 
stances  given  in  Valesius’  note  on  Theodoret, 
Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  6,  p.  153,  Cantab.  1720;-  and  Sa- 
varo’s  note  on  Sidonius  Apollinaris,  viii.  11,  p. 
532,  Paris,  1609).  It  was  usual  to  address  the 
bishop  by  the  title  of  God-beloved  or  Most- holy 
{d€0((>i\€<naros,  ayiwTarusf  and  by  still  stronger 
terms  of  honour,  as  “  Holy  Lord  and  Most  Blessed 
Pope  ” — words  commonly  used  by  St.  Jerome 
in  writing  to  St.  Augustine.  “ coronam’’ 
was  a  common  form  of  beseeching  a  bishop 
(see  St.  Aug.  Ep.  xxxiii.  al.  157,  tom.  ii.  p. 
131,  ed.  Migne;  Sidon.  Apollinar,  cum  comment. 
Savan.  vii.  8,  p.  440).  Its  meaning  is  doubtful, 
but  it  is  probably  equivalent  to  the  phrase 
“  your  honour  ”  (.see  Bingham,  Antiquities,  ii. 
9,4).  Occasionally  Hosannahs  were  sung  before 
bishops  and  others  eminent  for  sanctity,  but  this 
practice  is  condemned  by  St.  Jerome  as  savouring 
of  profanity  and  presumption  (St.  Hieron.  in 
Matt.  xxi.  15;  Op.  tom.  iv.  p.  98).  The  bishop’s 
seat  in  his  cathedral  was  called  his  throne. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  position  of  the 
chief  bishops  was  one  of  great  dignity,  authority, 
wealth,  and  power.  Gibbon  calculates  that  the 
average  income  of  a  bishop  amounted  to  600/. 
a-year  (chap.  xx.).  This  does  not  give  an  accurate 
idea  of  the  status  held  by  them,  as  the  value  of 
money  is  constantly  changing,  and  averages  are 
always  deceptive.  We  may  regard  the  bishops 
of  the  chief  cities  of  the  empire  as  maintaining 
a  state  superior  to  that  of  the  imperial  officers 
and  lay  noble.s,  while  the  bishops  of  lesser  sees 
were  comparatively  j)oor  and  obscure  men, 
though  enjoying  a  sj)iritual  equality  with  their 
more  prominent  brethren.  The  simple  presby- 
tei’’s  position  was  a  humble  one,  at  a  time  when 


32ft 


IMPLUVIUM 


IMPOSITION  OF  HANDS 


l>ishop.s  were  compaiiitivel y  more  numerous  than 
now  and  parocliial  endowments  did  not  exist: 
the  deacon  was  regarded  as  little  else  than  one 
of  the  Irlshop’s  attendants. 

We  may  note  in  com  lusion  how  little  remains 
of  all  the  ]>rivileges  and  the  immunities  granted 
to  the  clergy  hv  the  lervour  of  the  first  faith  of 
a  converted  world,  d'heir  judicial  privileges  and 
immunities  exist  no  longer,  except  so  far  as  the 
coercive  j)ower  of  the  bishoji’s  court  be  regarded 
as  a  shadow  of  them,  though  once  they  were  con¬ 
sidered  imjiortant  enough  to  lead  an  archbishop 
Becket  to  entei'  upon  a  life-and-death  struggle 
with  a  Henry  11.  for  their  maintenance.  Their 
pecuniary  judvileges  and  immunities  exist  no 
longer,  for  the  grant  made  in  some  countries  to 
the  clergy  from  the  national  exchequer  is  rather 
a  substitute  for  estates  confiscated  than  a  free 
gift  of  love.  Their  oflicial  privileges  and  immu¬ 
nities  exist  no  longer,  unless  the  permission  con¬ 
ceded  to  bishops  to  take  part  in  national  legis¬ 
lation,  and  the  exemption  of  the  clergy  from 
having  to  serve  in  the  army  or  on  juvies,  be  re¬ 
garded  as  the  equivalents  of  the  honours  and 
immunities  bestowed  by  the  Caesars  with  so  un¬ 
grudging  a  hand.  The  apparent  tendency  of 
modern  legislation,  still  affected  by  a  reaction 
from  mediaeval  assumjitions,  is  to  approve  not 
only  of  the  civil  power  resuming  the  privileges 
that  it  had  bestowed,  but  of  its  transferring  to 
itself  those  powers  of  self-government  in  respect 
to  doctrine  and  discipline,  which  were  not  granted 
to  the  church  as  a  favour,  but  were  confirmed 
to  her  by  Constantine  and  his  succe.ssors  as  hers 
by  jnescription  and  inhei'ent  idght. 

Codex  Tkeodosinnus,  cum  comment.  Gothofvedi, 
Lugd.  1665.  C>jdex  ■hisliai(mus,n\)\xdi  Corpus  Juris 
Civilis ;  ed.  Beck.  Lii)siae,  1829.  Thomassinus, 
Vitus  ct  Nova  Ecclesiae  Dis  ipliri'^i ;  Lugd.  1706. 
Bingham,  AntiquitCs  (,f  tue  Ch'-istian  Church, 
books  ii.  V.  viii. ;  Bond.  1726.  Gibbon,  Decline  and 
Fall  of  the  Homan  E)npire,  chap.  xx. ;  Neander,  His¬ 
tory  of  the  C turch,  Second  Period,  Second  Section; 
Third  Period,  Second  Section.  Gieseler,  'L'ext-Book 
of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Second  Period ;  First 
and  Second  Sections.  [F.  M.] 

IMPLUA’KJM  seems  to  be  sometimes  used  to 
designate  the  atrium,  or  court  outside  the  door 
of  a  church,  in  which  there  was  generally  a 
basin  or  some  vessel  for  performing  ablutions 
[Fountain;  Holy  Water]  (Bingham’s  Antiq. 
?III.  iii.  5).  [C.] 

IMPOSITION  OF  HANDS  (M/nus 

sitio,  eTTideiTis, 

[XeipoTOJ^fa  originally  signified  election,  per  suf- 
fragia  manuum  ext'  iisione  data.  An  election  % 
the  people  always  in  the  early  church  preceded 
consecration,  so  that  it  is  not  surprising  that 
XiipoTov'ia  soon  came  to  signify  the  whole 
process  of  making  a  bishop,  of  which  it  pro¬ 
perly  denoted  only  the  first  stage  (Suicer, 
Thesaurus,  s.  v.)]. 

The  origin  of  this  rite  is  to  be  looked  for  in  pa¬ 
triarchal  times,  when  it  seems  to  have  been  a 
form  simply  of  solemn  benediction.  Thus  Jacob, 
when  blessing  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  on  his  death¬ 
bed,  laid  his  hands  upon  them  (Gen.  xlviii.  14). 
The  high  priest  employed  practically  the  same 
gesture  as  a  part  of  the  public  ritual  (Lev.  ix. 
22,  23).  So  the  Lord  Himself  blessed  children 
(Mark  X.  16). 


It  became  also  a  form  of  setting  apart  o* 
designation  to  important  offices,  as  well  secular 
as  religious,  e.  g.,  in  the  case  of  Joshua  (Num. 
xxvii.  18-23;  Deut.  xxxiv.  9).  And  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  consecration  of  priests  (Lev. 
viii.  22).  Jewish  Kabbin  were  set  apart  by 
imposition  of  hands  until  comparatively  modern 
times.  We  pass  over  the  use  of  this  ceremony 
in  the  Levitical  .sacrifices,  and  also  in  oaths,  as 
having  no  Christian  equivalent.  Though  this 
latter  somewhat  resembles  the  custom  of  swear¬ 
ing  with  the  hand  laid  ujion  relics,  and  upon 
the  volume  of  the  gosjiels  even  to  modern  times. 

In  the  New  Testament,  we  find  the  laying  on 
of  hands  used  by  our  Lord  both  in  blessing  and 
in  healing  ;  and  again  He  promi.ses  to  His  disci¬ 
ples  that  they  too  should  lay  hands  on  the  sick 
and  they  should  recover.  The  apostles  laid  their 
hands  as  the  outward  sign  of  the  bestowal  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  both  on  ordinary  Christians 
after  baptism  (Acts  viii.  17  ;  xix.  6),  and  on 
those  set  apart  for  a  special  office  (Acts  xiii.  3 ; 
and  probably  1  Tim.  iv.  14;  and  2  Tim.  i.  6); 
at  the  time  when  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebi*ews 
was  written,  the  doctrine  of  the  “  laying  on  of 
hands  ”  was  one  of  the  elements  of  Christian 
teaching  (Heb.  vi.  1).  [Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,  vol.  iii.  p.  xcv.] 

The  imposition  of  hands  is  used  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  ceremonies:  — 

1.  In  Ordinations  to  the  higher  Orders,  The 

4th  council  of  Carthage  had  canons  directing 
imposition  of  hands  in  the  ordination  of  a  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon  (cann.  2,  3,  4).  But  another 
form  was  provided  for  the  subdeacon,  “  quia 
mauus  impositionem  non  accipit.”  Similarly 
for  the  other  minor  orders  (cc.  5-10).  See 
also  Constit.  Apost.  lib.  viii.  c.  16.  These  were 
ax^tpoTovrjTos  virepea'ia,  an  infeidor  ministry, 
and  the  holders  insacrati  ministri.  They  were 
not  allowed  to  enter  the  diaconicon,  nor  handle 
the  vasa  Dominica  or  sacred  vessels  (Cone.  Aga- 
then.  c.  66 ;  Basil.  Ep.  Canon,  c.  51  ;  Bingham, 
iii.  1).  “  Manus  impositio  docet,  eos  qui  sacris 

ordinibus  mancipantur,  sacras  omnes  actiones, 
quasi  sub  Deo  efficere,  utpote  quern  habeant 
operationum  suarum  in  omnibus  ducem  ac  rec- 
torem  ”  (Pseudo-Dionysiius,  De  Eccles.  Hierarch. 
c.  5,  par.  3).  “Hac  manuum  impositione  signi- 
ficatur  illapsus  Spiritus  Sancti,  quern  ordinans 
precatur  dari  oi-din.iudo  :  ejusque  regimen,  di- 
rectio  et  protect io,  ut  scilicet  Spiritus  Sanctus 
ordinandum  quasi  manu  sua  regat  et  dirigat  ” 
(Amalarius  de  Eccles.  Offic.  lib.  i.c.  12). 

Deacone.sses  also  received  the  impositio  ma¬ 
nuum;  and  their  ordination  is  expressly  called 
both  Xf'pOTOvia  and  15th 

canon  of  Chalcedon.  [Ordination.]  [S.  J.  E.] 

2.  In  the  resiit'ition  of  h<  ly  orders,  as  in  the 
original  conferring,  the  imposition  of  the  hands 
of  the  archbishop  formed  an  es.sential  portion  of 
the  rite  (Martene,  Hit.  Ant.  HI.  ii.). 

3.  In  baptism  the  laying-on  of  hands,  with  unc¬ 
tion,  followed  in  the  most  ancient  times  immedi¬ 
ately  upon  the  washing  of  water  [B.^ptism,  §  13, 
p.  157] ;  nor  was  the  custom  obsolete  in  the  West 
in  the  13th  century  (Martene,  H.  A.  1.  ii.  1  §  3), 
while  in  the  East  it  is  practised  still.  This  is  how¬ 
ever  to  be  understood,  in  the  West  at  least,  to 
refer  to  baptisms  at  which  the  bishop  himself  was 
present,  as  was  generally  the  case  when  baptism 
took  place — except  in  cases  of  extremity — only  at 


IMPROPRIATION 


829 


IMPOTENT  MAN,  CURE  OF 

eert.un  solemn  seasons.  When  oaptism  was  fre¬ 
quently  celebrated  in  the  absence  of  a  bishop, 
while  the  laying-on  of  hands  and  chrismation 
on  the  forehead  was  a  privilege  of  the  epis¬ 
copal  order  (R.  A.  I.  ii.  8,  §  2),  the  custom 
arose  of  the  baptized  being  jn’esented  to  the 
bishop  at  some  convenient  season  sei)arate  from 
that  of  baptism.  [Confiiimation.]  The  Ara¬ 
bic  canons,  called  Nicene  (c.  55),  desire  the 
chorej)iscopus  in  his  circuits  to  cause  the  boys 
and  girls  to  be  brought  to  him,  that  he  may  sign 
them  with  the  cross,  pray  over  them,  lay  his 
hands  upon  them,  and  bless  them.  Bede  tells 
us  that  Cuthbert  used  to  journey  through  his 
diocese,  laying  his  hands  upon  those  who  had 
been  baptized,  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost  (  Vita  Cuthberti,  c.  29,  in  Migne’s  Patrol. 
xciv.  71)9  d)  Ancient  authorities,  however,  give 
at  least  as  great  prominence  to  the  chrismation 
on  the  forehead  which  was  reserved  for  the 
bishop,  as  to  the  laying-on  of  hands.  See  on 
the  whole  subject  Martene,  De  Pit.  Ant.  lib.  i. 
c.  ii. ;  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  vol.  1,  pt.  1. 
p.  206  If. 

4.  In  the  reception  of  a  heretic  into  the  church, 
whose  baptism  was  recognised  as  valid,  imposition 
of  hands  was  the  form  of  coufendug  those  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  he  could  not  have  re¬ 
ceived  in  a  heretical  community  [Confirmation, 
p.  425;  Heresy,  p.  768]. 

5.  In  benedictions  the  lajing-on  of  hands  is 
constantly  used;  as,  in  the  benediction  of  an 
abbat  (A.  A.  11.  i.  3);  of  a  viigin  dedicated  to  a 
religious  life  {ib.  II.  iv.  16);  of  a  king  II.  x.), 
as  when  St.  Columba,  who  was  an  abbat  and  not 
a  bishop,  laid  his  hands  on  the  head  of  Aidau 
and  consecrated  him  as  king  (Cumineus  Albus, 
Vita  S.  Colunibae  c.  5,  in  Acta  SS.  Bened. 
saec.  1). 

6.  In  the  visitation  of  the  sick  the  priest  and 
the  faithful  who  are  with  him  are  directed  to  hiy 
hands  on  the  sick  (Martene,  P.  A.  J.  vii.  4,  Ordd. 
4,  5,  14,  etc.),  with  the  prayer  that  the  Lord 
would  vouchsafe  to  visit  and  relieve  His  servant. 

7.  In  absolution  i\\&  laying-on  of  hands  accom¬ 

panied  the  prayer  for  the  remission  of  the  sins 
of  the  penitent  (Martene,  P.  A.  1.  vi.  3,  Ordd. 
3,  9,  etc.).  [C.] 

IMPOTENT  MAN,  CURE  OF.  Guene- 
bault  mentions  (s.v.  “  Boiteux,”  p.  164)  a  fine 
bas-relief  of  the  cure  of  the  lame  man  at  the 
gate  of  the  Temple,  with  apparent  reference  to 
Acts  iii.  2,  as  published  in  Monumcnta  cnjpta- 
rwn  Vaticani,  Angelas  de  Gabrielis,  fob  pi.  Ixxix. 
no.  3.  Notice  of  the  universally-treated  subject 
of  the  healing  of  the  paralytic  man  will  be  found 
under  the  heading  Pakalytic.  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

IMPRISONMENT  OF  THE  CLERGY. 

Seclusion  of  criminous  clerks,  generally  in  a 
monastery,  appears  to  have  been  resorted  to  as 
a  disciplinary  measure  as  early  as  the  6th 
century.  Justinian  {Nocellae,  cxxiii.  c.  20) 
orders  “  that  if  any  i>resbyter  or  deacon  were 
convicted  of  giving  false  evidence  in  a  civil 
cause,  he  should  be  suspended  from  his  function 
and  confined  to  a  monastery  for  three  years.” 
Laymen  were  scourged  for  this  crime.  So  the 
2nd  council  at  Seville  (can.  3),  in  the  case  of 
vagrant  clergy :  “  Desertorem  tamen  clericum, 
cingulo  honoris  atque  ordinationis  suae  exutum, 
aliquo  tempore  monasterio  relegaid  convenit : 


sicque  postea  in  ministerio  ecc.esiastici  ordinis 
revocari.”  A  similar  canon  directing  deposition 
and  relegation  to  a  monastery  to  be  inflicted 
upon  clerks  guilty  of  certain  crimes,  jjassed  at  the 
council  of  Agde  (c.  1).  A  distinction  was  drawn 
by  the  first  council  of  Macon  between  the 
inferior  clergy  (junior)  and  the  higher  orders 
(honoratior).  The  former  were  to  receive  forty 
stripes,  save  one,  whilst  the  latter  were  im¬ 
prisoned  thirty  days  for  the  same  otleuce  {Cone. 
Matiscon.  I.  can.  8).  Pope  Gregory  the  Great 
seems  to  have  laid  down  {Epp.  vii.  50)  an  intel¬ 
ligible  principle:  that  such  crimes  as  were  by 
the  Mosaic  law  punished  with  death,  when  com¬ 
mitted  by  cleric.s,  incurred  the  penalty  of  deposi¬ 
tion  without  hope  of  restoration  (desperationem 
sacrarum  dignitatum).  To  these  he  added  some 
others,  fornication,  adultery,  perjury,  and  such 
like :  all  these  incurred  irregularity.  Other 
oti'ences  were  expiated  by  j)oenitentia  in  a  mo¬ 
nastery  for  a  longer  or  shorter  time  (Thomassin, 
Vet.  et  Nova  Eccl.  Disc.  tom.  ii.  lib.  i.  c.  59). 
Individuals  would  sometimes  sesre^ate  them- 
selves  of  their  own  accord  to  expiate  some  fault. 
The  same  Gregory  praises  {E/p.  vii.  12)  Satur- 
ninus,  bishop  of  Jadera(—  Zara),  in  Dalmatia,  for 
so  doing  in  order  to  atone  for  communicating  with 
the  excommunicated  archbishop  of  Saloua  (lb. 
c.  59).  Joannes  Defensor,  whom  Gregory  had 
sent  into  Spain  to  execute  a  sentence  of  six 
months’  relegation  to  a  monastery  upon  a  certain 
bishop  who  had  driven  an  unoffending  neighbour 
from  his  see,  pronounced  the  sentence  far  too 
lenient.  The  same  punishment  was  inflicted 
upon  certain  bishops  who  had  condemneil  an  inno¬ 
cent  person.  When  Gregory  imprisoned  clerics  he 
was  in  the  habit  of  making  an  annual  payment 
for  their  maintenance  to  the  monastery  that 
received  them  (Thomassin,  u.  s.  HI.  lib.  ii.  c.  29), 
but  whether  derived  from  the  offender’s  bene¬ 
fice,  or  the  property  of  the  pope  himself,  does 
not  appear.  The  tendency  was  perhaps  to  bear 
more  lightly  on  crimes  of  the  kind  mentioned 
above;  but  incontinence  was  always  heavily 
punished.  Hincmar,  and  after  him  Flodoard, 
tell  the  story  of  Genebald,  bishop  of  Laudunum 
(Laon),  who  for  a  crime  of  this  kind  was  con¬ 
demned  to  seven  years’  penitence,  and  even  put 
into  fetters  by  his  metropolitan,  Kemigius, 
bishop  of  Rheiins  (Hincmar,  I  fa  S.  Pemig.). 
And  for  capital  crimes  the  incarceration  was  for 
life,  and  included  a  sentence  of  perpetual  lay- 
communion  {Cone.  Epann.  can.  22). 

But  during  the  reign  of  Charlemagne  a  some¬ 
what  milder  rule  prevailed.  Hincmar,  and  also 
Kabanus,  archbishop  of  Mentz,  were  inclined  to 
distinguish  between  secret  crimes,  and  those  which 
caused  open  scandal,  and  to  treat  the  former 
more  leniently  upon  confession  ami  repentance. 
Probably  the  general  declension  of  morals  at  that 
period  forced  them  to  make  some  abatement  from 
the  rigid  rules  of  a  purer  age.  Accord! nglv, 
canonical  punishments  were  generally  lightened 
from  this  time  (Thomassin,  u.  s.  tom.  ii.  lib.  i. 
c.  60  ;  Bingham,  bk.  xvii.  c.  4). 

The  larger  churches  iiad  sometimes  j»risous  in 
their  precincts  as  well  as  monasteries  [Decani a]. 

[S.  J.  E.] 

IMPROPRIATION  is  the  assignment  of 
ecclesiastical  tithes  to  a  lavman,  and  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  appropriation^  which  is  the 


830 


IN  PACE 


INCENSE 


assignment  of  them  to  a  college  or  other  cor¬ 
poration,  some  of  whose  members  are  in  orders. 
The  practice  seems  to  have  sprung  up  only  about 
the  beginning  of  the  9th  century. 

Very  soon  after  the  payment  of  Tithes  (see 
the  article)  became  general,  the  alienation  of 
them  by  the  laity  began.  Thus  a  council  at 
Ingelheim  (a.d.  948)  in  its  8th  canon  protests 
against  this  new.  form  of  robbery:  “  Ut  obla- 
tiones  fidelium,  quatenus  altari  deferantur,  nihil 
omuino  ad  laicalem  potestatem,  dicente  Scriptura, 
‘  Qui  altari  serviuut,  de  altario  j)articipeutur.’” 
(So  Thomassin,  Vet.  et  Nora  Eccl.  Discip.  III. 
lib.  i.  c.  7,  n.  8),  who  interprets  this  canon  as 
referring  to  tithes.  Louis  IV.  of  France,  and 
the  emperor  Otho,  were  present  at  this  council. 
To  the  same  effect  a  council  of  Metz  in  its  2nd 
canon,  quoting  Mai.  iii.  8-10.  It  was  not  un¬ 
common  for  the  lay  lords  to  seize  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  the  vacanc}’^  of  a  bishopric  or  a  parish, 
to  make  these  depredations  ( Vid.  Thomassin, 
tom.  iii.  lib.  ii.  c.  53,  for  instances  of  this). 
And  we  find  even  that  the  monks  of  St.  Denis 
had  got  possession  of  some  tithes  (it -does  not 
appear  how)  and  wanted  to  sell  them.  This 
seems  to  be  a  distinct  case  of  appropriation, 
and  we  learn  the  facts  from  a  letter  to  them 
of  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  who  protests  against 
their  selling  what  they  ought  to  restore  to  the 
parish  priest. 

But  any  instances  we  find  in  these  times  are 
exceptional,  and  apparently  the  result  of  violent 
and  illegal  seizure  by  laymen  of  ecclesiastical 
dues.  As  Thomassin  observes:  “Necdum  tunc 
m  mentem  quidquam  venisse  de  decimis  infeo- 
datis.  Involaverant  decimas  Laici,  necdum 
pacifice  possidebant,  necdum  obducere  potuerant 
huic  rapiuae  vel  colorem  legitimae  possessionis. 
Quin  identidem  commonebantur  profani  deprae- 
datores,  ut  ecclesiae  restituerent,  quae  jure 
I’etinere  non  possent  ”  (tom.  iii.  lib.  i.  c.  7). 

It  is  in  the  next  and  succeeding  ages  that  we 
must  look  for  impropriation  as  a  legally  recog¬ 
nised  condition  of  ecclesiastical  property. 

[S.  J.  E.] 

IN  PACE.  [Inscriptions,  p.  854  ff.] 

INCENSE.  There  is  no  trace  of  the  use  of 
incense  in  Christian  worship  during  the  first  four 
centuries.  On  the  contrary,  we  meet  with  many 
statements  in  the  writings  of  the  early  fathers 
which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  existence  of 
such  a  custom.  Thus  Athenagoras,  a.d.  177  : — 
“  The  Creator  and  Father  of  the  universe  does 
not  require  blood  nor  smoke,  nor  the  sweet  smell 
of  flowei's  and  incense'’  (^Legatio,  §  13).  Ter- 
tullian,  A.D.  198,  comparing  certain  Christian 
customs  wdth  heathen,  says,  “  It  is  true,  we  buy 
no  frankincense ;  if  the  Arabians  complain  of 
this,  the  Sabeans  will  testify  that  more  of  their 
merchandise,  and  that  more  costly,  is  lavished 
on  the  burials  of  Christians,  than  in  burning  in¬ 
cense  to  the  gods”  (^Apol.  c.  xlii.).  “I  offer  Him 
a  rich  sacrifice  .  .  .  not  one  pennyworth  of  the 
grains  of  frankincense,”  &c.  (ib.  c.  xxx.).  Cle¬ 
mens  of  Alexandria,  a.d.  192,  contrastinor  the 
reasonable  service  of  Christians  with  that  of  the 
heathen  says,  that  “  the  truly  holy  altar  is  the 
just  soul,  and  the  perfume  from  it  holy  prayer  ” 
{Strom,  lib.  vii.  c.  vi.  §  32).  “  If  then  they 

should  say  that  the  great  High  Priest,  the  Lord, 
offers  to  God  the  incense  (dvpiapa)  of  sweet 


smell,  let  them  not  suppose  that  the  Lord  offers 
this  sacrifice  and  sweet  smell  of  incense,  but  let 
them  understand  that  He  offers  on  the  altar  the 
acceptable  gift  of  charity  and  sjdritual  perfume” 
(Paeclag.  lib.  ii.  c.  8,  §  67).  Arnobius,  A.D.  298, 
.says  of  the  use  of  frankincense  among  the  hea¬ 
then,  “  It  is  almost  a  new  thing,  nor  is  the  term 
of  years  impossible  to  be  traced  since  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  it  flowed  into  these  |)arts  .  .  .  But  if 
in  the  olden  times  neither  men  nor  gods  sought 
after  the  matter  of  this  frankincense,  it  is  proved 
that  it  is  vainly  and  to  no  purj)ose  offered  now  ” 
(Adc.  Gentes,  lib.  vii.).  Lactantius,  a.d.  303: — 
“It  follows  that  I  show  what  is  the  true  sacri¬ 
fice  of  God  .  .  .  lest  any  one  should  think  that 
either  victim.s,  or  odours,  or  precious  gifts  are 
desired  by  God.  .  .  .  This  is  the  true  sacrifice, 
not  that  which  is  brought  out  of  a  chest,  but 
that  which  is  brought  out  of  the  heart  ”  {Divhi. 
Instit.  Epit.  c.  2).  He  also  quotes  with  ajquo- 
bation  a  saying  of  the  Neo-Platcnists,  that 
“  fraukincen.se  and  other  perfumes  ought  not  to 
be  offered  at  the  sacrifice  of  God  ”  (JJioin.  Tr.stit. 
lib,  vi.  §  25),  St.  Augustine,  396 : — “  We  go 
not  into  Arabia  to  seek  for  frankincense,  nor  do 
we  ransack  the  packs  of  the  greedy  trader.  God 
I'equires  of  us  the  sacrifice  of  praise  ”  {Enarr.  in 
Ps.  xlix.  §  21).  The  above  are  brief  extracts 
from  passages,  often  of  considerable  length,  all 
bearing  on  the  subject ;  and  not  a  single  author 
makes  the  least  allusion  to  any  Christian  rite  of 
incense,  or  any  reservation  from  which  we  could 
infer  that  such  a  rite  existed.  Their  language 
precludes  the  supposition. 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  incense  was  A’ery 
early  employed  in  Christian  places  of  worship  as 
a  supposed  disinfectant,  and  to  counteract  unplea¬ 
sant  smells  ;  and  that  this  was  the  origin  of  that 
ritual  use  of  it,  which  began  in  the  6th  or  possi¬ 
bly  the  5th  century.  Tertullian,  who,  as  we  have 
seen,  denies  by  implication  the  ritual  use,  yet  says, 
“  If  the  smell  of  any  place  offend  me,  I  burn 
something  of  Arabia;  but  not,”  he  adds,  “with 
the  same  rite,  nor  the  same  dress,  nor  the  same 
appliance,  with  which  it  is  done  before  idols  ” 
{De  Cor.  Mil.  c.  10).  The  following  is  a  bene¬ 
diction  of  incense,  used  in  the  days  of  Charle¬ 
magne  and  later,  in  which  no  other  object  than 
that  which  Tertullian  had  in  burning  it  is  re¬ 
cognized  : — “  May  the  Lord  bless  this  incense  to 
the  extinction  of  every  noxious  stench,  and  kindle 
it  to  the  odour  of  its  sweetness”  (Martene,  De 
Eccl.  Ant.  Pit.  lib.  i.  c.  4,  Art.  12,  ordd.  5,  6). 
There  is  no  mention  of  incense  in  the  so-called 
liturgy  of  St.  Clement,  which  is  supposed  to  re¬ 
present  the  offices  of  the  4th  century  ;  nor  in¬ 
deed  in  the  Apostolical  Constituti  ns  with  which 
it  is  incorporated.  Pseudo-Dionysius  (probably 
about  520,  but  possibly  somewhat  earlier)  is  the 
first  who  testifies  to  its  use  in  religious  cere¬ 
monial: — “The  chief  priest  (bishop)  having 
made  an  end  of  sacred  pi'ayer  at  the  divine  altar, 
begins  the  censing  with  it,  and  goes  over  the  whole 
circuit  of  the  sacred  place”  {Hierarch.  Eccles.  c. 
iii.  sect.  2  ;  comp.  sect.  3,  §  3).  A  thurible  of  gold 
is  said  by  Evagrius  to  have  been  sent  by  a  king 
of  Persia  to  a  church  in  Antioch  about  594 
{Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  vi.  c.  21).  The  most  ancient 
Ordo  Romanus,  which  Cave  supposes  to  have 
been  compiled  about  730,  and  which  may  belong 
to  the  7th  century,  orders  that  in  pontifical 
masses  a  subdeacon,  bearing  a  golden  censer, 


INCENSK 


INCEXSE 


831 


shall  go  before  the  bishop  (of  Rome)  as  he  leaves 
the  sccretarium  for  the  choir,  and  two  with 
censers  before  the  deacon  gospeller  as  he  proceeds 
with  the  gospel  to  the  ambo  (§§  7,  11,  in  Musac. 
ItaL  tom.  ii.).  These  rules  are  also  given  in  the 
ne.\t  revision  of  the  Ordo,  which  may  be  a  cen¬ 
tury  later  {ib.  §§  4,  8).  This  latter  document 
says  also,  “After  the  gospel  has  been  read  .  .  . 
the  thuribles  are  carried  about  the  altar,  and 
afterwards  taken  to  the  nostrils  of  persons  (hom- 
inum),  and  the  smoke  is  drawn  up  towards  the 
face  by  the  hand  ”  (§  9).  This  probably  origi¬ 
nated  in  its  earlier  natural  use  as  a  means  of 
sweetening  and  (as  they  thought)  purifying  the 
air ;  but  we  see  in  it  the  probable  origin  of  the 
strictly  ritual  censing  of  persons  in  the  West. 
In  the  same  Ordo,  which  was  certainly  in  use 
before  Amalarius  wrote  (about  827),  is  a  direc¬ 
tion  that  after  the  oblates  and  the  chalice  have 
been  set  on  the  altar,  with  a  view  to  their  con¬ 
secration,  “the  incense  be  put  on  the  altar” 
(§  9).  Here  we  have  the  probable  germ  of  the 
later  “  censing  of  the  gifts.”  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  such  ritual  practices  were  for 
some  lime  confined  to  Rome.  We  do  not  observe 
any  reference  to  the  use  of  incense  in  the  Galli- 
can  Liturgies  which  were  in  use  down  to  the 
time  of  Charlemagne,  nor  is  it  mentioned  by 
Germanus  of  Paris,  a.d.  5S5,  in  his  e.xplanation 
of  liturgical  rites  (Martene,  u.  s.  ord.  1),  nor  by 
Isidore  of  Seville,  a.d.  610,  in  his  book  on  the 
offices  of  the  church.  We  may  also  infer  its 
rarity  within  our  period,  and  the  little  import¬ 
ance  attached  to  it  throughout  the  9th  century, 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  not  mentioned  by  Florus 
of  Lyons,  Rabanus  of  Mentz,  or  Walafrid  of  Rei- 
chenau,  in  works  largely  devoted  to  questions  of 
ritual. 

The  so-called  3Iissa  Tllyrici  (Martene,  u.  s. 
ord.  4)  preserves  the  Scriptural  symbolism  by 
directing  the  priest  to  say,  when  the  incense  is 
burnt,  “  Let  my  prayer  be  set  forth  in  Thy 
sight  as  the  incense  ”  (Ps.  cxli.  2).  But  in  the 
same  and  later  ordines  [Ordo]  it  represents 
divine  influence  on  the  soul,  according  to  the 
following  explanation  of  Amalarius: — “The 
thurible  denotes  the  body  of  Christ  in  which  is 
fire,  to  wit,  the  Holy  Spirit,  from  whom  proceeds 
a  good  odour,  which  everyone  of  the  elect  wishes 
to  snatch  towards  himself.  The  same  odour  is 
a  token  that  virtue  (bonam  operationem)  goes 
forth  out  of  Christ,  which  he  who  wishes  to 
live  pas.ses  into  his  own  heart  ”  (De  Eccles. 
Offic.  lib.  iiii  c.  18).  The  reader  will  observe 
the  allusion  to  the  mode  of  inhaling  the  smoke 
above  described. 

This  notice  wmuld  be  imperfect  without  a  re¬ 
ference  to  certain  passages  from  early  writers, 
which  hove  led  some  to  su})pose  that  notwith¬ 
standing  the  authorities  above  cited,  the  ritual 
use  of  incense  was  known  in  the  Christian  church 
from  the  beginning.  As  the  earliest  testimony 
we  often  see  alleged  the  third  apostolical  canon, 
which  forbids  that  “  beside  honey  and  milk,  and 
new  ears  of  coi-n  and  bunches  of  grapes  in  their 
season  [see  Fruits,  Offering  of],  anything  else 
shall  be  offered  on  the  altar,  at  the  time  of  the 
holy  oblation,  than  oil  for  the  lamp  and  incen.se” 
(Bever.  Pandect,  tom.  i,  p.  2).  The  Arabic  para¬ 
phrase  has  more  generally,  “in  the  time  of  the 
sacraments  and  prayers  ”  (ib.  tom.  ii. ;  Ayinot. 
p.  16).  It  will  be  seen  that  this  canon  does  not 


mention  the  ritual  use  cf  incei  ^e,  nor  can  it  be 
shown  that  the  incense  mentioned  was  designed 
for  such  use.  It  was  without  doubt  often  used 
as  a  perfume,  and  in  the  caves  and  c'atacombs 
in  which  the  first  Christians  often  worshipped, 
and  in  which  their  dead  were  frequently  buried, 
would  sometimes  be  thought  almost  as  necessary 
as  the  lamp-oil,  on  behalf  of  which  a  similar  ex¬ 
ception  was  made.  We  must  add  too  that  the 
whole  of  the  clause  abox'c  cited  looks  like  a  late 
addition  to  the  very  simple  code  which  is  as¬ 
signed,  with  probability,  to  the  middle  of  the 
3rd  century,  though  the  first  mention  of  it  occurs 
in  394  (Tillemont,  Mem.  Eccl.  tom.  ii.  p.  76). 
Pseudo-Hippolytus,  alleged  as  the  bishop  of 
Portus,  220,  but  in  reality  some  centuries  later: 
— “  The  churches  lament,  with  a  great  lamenta¬ 
tion,  because  neither  the  oblation  nor  the  (rite 
of)  incense  is  celebrated  ”  (De  Consttmm.  Mundi, 
c.  34).  Here  we  have  nothing  more  than  ima¬ 
gery  borrowed  from  well  known  rites  of  tha 
Mosaic  law.  The  language  was  probably  sug¬ 
gested  by  that  of  the  following  passage  in  St.  Basil, 
370,  which  has  been  brought  forward  with  the 
same  object : — “  The  houses  of  prayer  were  cast 
down  by  unholy  hands,  the  altars  were  over¬ 
thrown,  and  there  was  no  oblation  nor  incense, 
no  place  of  sacrifice,  but  fearful  sorrow,  as  a 
cloud,  was  over  all”  (In  Gordlum  3Iart.  Horn, 
xix.).  St.  Basil  here  is  merely  in  part  citing 
and  partly  paraphrasing,  with  reference  to  the 
church  under  persecution,  what  Azarias  in  the 
Song  of  the  Three  Children  says  of  the  state 
of  Jerusalem  during  the  captivity  (Sept.  Vers. 
V.  14).  St.  Ambrose  says,  with  reference  to  the 
appearance  of  the  angel  to  Zacharias  “  on  the 
right  side  of  the  altar  of  incense  ”(St.  Luke  i.  11), 
“  Would  that  an  angel  might  stand  by  us  also  as 
we  burn  (or  rather  heap,  adolentibus)  the  altars  ” 
(Expos.  Evang.  S.  Luc.  lib.  i.  §  28).  Incense  is 
not  mentioned  here,  and  “  adolere  ”  does  not 
necessarily  imply  the  use  of  fire,  so  that  no  al¬ 
lusion  to  incense  may  have  been  intended.  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  the  thought  of  incense 
was  suggested  to  St.  Ambrose  by  the  mention  of 
“  the  altar  of  incense.”  We  therefore  further 
point  out  that  if  he  was  thinking  of  material 
incense,  as  used  in  the  Christian  church,  it  must 
in  his  time  have  been  burnt  on  altars,  which  no 
one  asserts  ;  and,  moreover,  that  St.  Ambrose  ex¬ 
plains  himself  by  a  paraphrase  of  his  own  words, 
“  as  we  heap  the  altars,  as  ice  bring  the  sacrifice.” 
The  incense  in  his  mind  was  “the  sacrifice  of 
praise  and  thanksgiving.”  The  testament  of 
St.  Ephrem  the  Syrian,  a  spurious  document  of 
uncertain  date,  is  also  quoted  with  the  same 
object: — “1  exhort  you  not  to  bury  me  with 
sweet  spices  .  .  .  but  to  give  the  fumigation  of 
sweet-smelling  smoke  in  the  house  of  God  .  .  . 
Burn  your  incen.se  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  to 
His  praise  and  honour”  (2'sst.  S.  Ephr.  in  Surii 
Vitae  Sanct  mini,  Feb.  1).  The  actual  use  of 
incense  during  the  funeral  ceremony  appears  to 
be  intended  here;  but  the  evidence  of  a  late 
forgery  is  worth  nothing.  We  may  add  that 
there  was  an  obvious  natural  reason,  such  as 
the  first  Christians  would  have  recognized  with 
Tertullian,  for  burning  incense  at  a  funeral  ; 
and  it  is  probable  that  the  custom  of  using 
it  then  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  the  practice  as  a  purely  religious 
rite.  [W.  E.  S.] 


INX'EST 


INDICTIO^^ 


832 

INCEST  IS  defined  by  the  Decree 

of  (iratian  (causa  dfi,  qu.  1,  c.  2,  §  4)  thus  :  “  In- 
ccstus  est  coiisanguiueorum  vel  affinium  abusus,” 
where  we  are  of  course  to  understand  affinity  or 
consanguinity  such  as  would  be  an  impediment 
to  matrimony  (V'^an  Espen,  Jm  Ecdes.  P.  iii.  tit. 
iv.  cc.  48,  49). 

Christian  morality  extended  the  range  of  “  ))ro- 
hibited  degrees.”  within  which  it  was  unlawful 
to  conti'act  matrimony,  and  consequently  the 
conception  of  incest,  much  beyond  that  of  the 
heathen  world.  The  apologists,  as  Minucius 
Felix  (Octav.  c.  31)  and  Origen  (c.  Celsu/n,  V. 
p.  248,  Spencer)  speak  with  horror  of  the  licence 
given  to  Persians  and  Egyptians  of  marrying 
persons  near  in  blood  ;  and  Augustine  (^De  Civi- 
tate,  XV.  16)  insists  upon  the  natural  loathing 
which  men  feel  at  connexions  of  this  kind. 
Gothofred  (on  the  Theodosian  Code,  lib.  iii.  tit. 
12)  gives  many  instances  of  maiudages  among 
the  Romans — as  of  uncle  with  niece — which  the 
feeling  of  Christendom  universally  condemns. 
[Affinity  ;  Prohibited  Degrees.] 

Basil  the  Great  (ad  Amphilochium,  c.  67)  holds 
incest  with  a  sister  to  be  a  crime  of  the  same 
degree  as  murder.  He  who  commits  incest  with 
a  half-sister,  whether  by  the  father’s  or  the 
mother’s  side,  during  the  time  that  he  continue.s 
in  his  sin,  is  to  be  absolutely  excluded  from  the 
church ;  after  he  is  brought  to  a  sense  of  his 
sUi,  he  is  for  three  years  to  stand  among  the 
“  Flentes  ”  at  the  door  of  the  church,  beargins; 
those  who  enter  to  pray  for  him  ;  then  he  is  to 
pass  another  seven  years  among  the  “  Audientes,” 
as  still  unworthy  to  pray  with  the  rest;  then, 
if  he  show  true  contrition,  and  on  his  earnest 
entreaty,  he  may  be  admitted  for  three  years 
among  the  “Substrati;”  then,  if  he  bring 
forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance,  in  the  tenth 
year  he  may  be  admitted  to  the  prayers  of  the 
faithful,  but  not  to  offer  with  them  ;  then,  after 
continuing  two  years  in  this  state,  he  may  at 
last  be  admitted  to  holy  communion  (c.  75). 
The  same  punishment  is  prescribed  for  one  who 
commits  incest  with  a  daughter-in-law  (c.  76). 
He  who  marries  two  sisters,  though  not  at  the 
same  time,  is  subject  to  the  penalties  of  adultery, 
i.e.  two  years  among  the  Flentes,  two  among  the 
Audiente.s,  two  among  the  Substrati,  and  one 
among  the  Consistentes,  before  he  can  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  communion.  And  general Iv,  he  who 
marries  within  the  prohibited  degrees  of  con¬ 
sanguinity  (rrjs  aveipr)fj.evr]s  (Tvyyei^e'ias)  is  liable 
to  the  penalties  of  adultery  (c.  68).  The  council 
of  Elvira  (done.  Elib.  c.  61),  a.d.  305,  allotted 
to  a  marriage  with  a  deceased  wife’s  sister  the 
penalty  of  fifteen  years’ excommunication ;  that 
of  Neo-Caesarea  (c.  2),  a.d.  314,  decreed  the  ex- 
communication  of  a  woman  who  married  two 
brothers  for  the  whole  of  her  life,  except  that 
in  peril  of  death  she  might  be  admitted  to  com¬ 
munion,  on  promising  to  renounce  the  connexion 
if  she  recovered  (Bingham,  Antiq.  XVI.  xi.  3). 

The  Penitentials,  as  might  be  expected,  pro¬ 
vide  penalties  for  incest;  those,  for  instance,  of 
Theodore,  of  Bede,  and  of  Egbert  assign  to  dif¬ 
ferent  forms  of  this  sin  periods  of  penance  vary¬ 
ing  from  five  to  fifteen  years  (Haddan  and  Stubbs, 
Counoils  and  Documents,  iii.  179,  328,  420).  [C.] 

INCLINATION.  [Genuflexion,  p.  725.] 

INCLUSI.  Monks  living  in  detached  cells 


within  the  ])recincts  of  the  monastery  (“  intra 
septa  ”)  were  termed  “  inclusi.”  These  were 
monks  either  of  long  exjierience  or  of  delicate 
health  (Cone.  Aqath.  a.d.  506,  c.  38).  They  were 
subject  to  the  conti-ol  of  the  abbot,  but  not  to 
the  ordinary  rules  of  the  monasterv  (Martene, 
lieq.  Chrnm.  c.  1  ;  Menard,  Con''ord.  llequl.  c.  3, 
§  6).  See  Hermits  and  Hesychastae. 

[I.  G.  S.] 

INDALECIUS.  [Hesychius  (1).] 

INDIC'JTON.  From  the  middle  of  the 
4th  century  a  new  note  of  time  begins  to  aiqiear 
in  dates;  Tndietvm,  followed  by  an  ordinal 
number,  from  1.  to  XV.,  as  a  character  of  the 
year,  is  ai)pended  to  its  customary  designation ; 
e.q.,  Coss.  M.  et  N.  (or  Anno  ah  Tnoarnatione — ) 
fndictione  — .  In  respect  of  its  origin,  “  In¬ 
dictin’’  is  a  term  of  the  Roman  fscus,  meaning 
“  quidquid  in  ))raestationem  indicilur,"  notice  of 
a  tax  (on  real  property.  Cod.  Ju  iin.  \.  6,  3), 
“assessment,”  iTnueqrjais  :  theiure  it  came  to 
denote  the  year  on  which  the  tax  was  assessed, 
beginning  1st  Sejdember,  the  epoch  of  the  im¬ 
perial  fiscal  year.  It  seems  that  in  the  pro¬ 
vinces,  after  Constantine,  if  not  earlier,  the 
valuation  of  property  was  revised  upon  a  census 
taken  at  the  end  of  every  fifteen  years,  or  three 
lustra  (Ideler,  JldhT'l.  347  sqq.,  from  Savigny, 
iiher  die  Steuerverfnssunq  unter  den  K'liscrn,  in 
the  Transactions  of  the  Berlin  Royal  Academy, 
1822,  23).  From  tlie  strict  observance  of  this 
fiscal  regulation  there  resulted  a  marked  term 
of  fifteen  years,  constantly  recurrent,  the  Circle 
of  fndictions,  -q  e  na'i  SeKafTrjpis  rUv  'IvbiKTtwywv 
(or  'IvSIktuu),  which  became  available  for  chro¬ 
nological  purposes  as  a  “  pcu’iod  of  revolution  ” 
of  fifteen  years,  each  beginning  1st  September  : 
which  (except  in  the  Spanish  peninsula)  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  used  as  a  character  of  the  year 
irrespectively  of  all  reference  to  taxation.  The 
Indictions  (like  the  “solar  cycle’’  of  Sunday 
letters,  twenty-eight  years,  and  the  lunar  cycle, 
nineteen  years,  of  “Golden  Numbers,”  beside 
which  this  circle  has  obtained  jilace  in  chrono¬ 
logy)  do  not  form  an  era  :  the  annexed  ordinal 
number  is  reckoned  from  the  ejioch  of  the  circle 
then  current  :  it  is  not  ex]»ressed  how  many 
circles  have  elapsed  since  any  given  point  of 
time.  It  is  certain  that  September  1st  is  the 
original  epoch  of  each  iudiction  (St.  Ambros. 
Epist.  ad  Episc.  per  Aeinil.  2,256,  fndivtio  cum 
Septembri  mense  incipit  ;  and  de  Eoe  et  Area,  c. 
17.  A  Septembri  mense  annus  videtur  incipere, 
sicut  Indict iomim  praesentium  vsus  ostendit). 
From  any  given  date  of  a  known  year  to  which 
its  indiction  is  added,  as  e.q.,  “3  id.  August. 
Symmacho  et  Boetio  Coss.  [=11  Aug.,  A.D.  522] 
in  fine  Indictionis  XW”  (Reines.  Inscript.  IVA. 
978),  it  results  that  a  circle  of  indictions  began 
210  (=:]4x  15)  years  earlier,  i.e.,  A.D.  312.  Now 
as  it  is  only  since  Constantine  that  “Indiction” 
makes  its  appearance  as  a  note  of  time,  and  as 
with  the  defeat  and  death  of  Maxentius  in  the 
autumn  of  that  year  Constantine  attained  to 
undisputed  empire,  the  date,  A.D.  312,  1  Sept.,  is 
accepted  as  the  epoch  of  the  first  circle  of  in¬ 
dictions.  Hence  the  technical  rule  for  finding  the 
iudiction  of  each  year.  To  the  ordinal  number 
of  the  given  year  a.d.  (beginning  with  1  Jam  ary) 
add  3 :  divide  the  amount  by  15  :  the  remainder 
denotes  the  iudiction :  if  there  be  no  remainder, 


IXDICTION 


INDICTIO?^ 


8S3 


tho  year  is  Indict.  1.5.  Thus,  in  respect  of  the  I 
above-cited  dote,  a.d.  52L’  (August  11th),  the 
division  of  525  by  15  gives  no  remainder;  there- 
for4  Jan.  1st  t'^  Aug.  jlst  of  that  year  lie  in  In- 
diction  15,  beginning  at  1  Sept,  of  A.D.  521.  The 
author  of  the  Paschal  Chronicle  (probably  a  man 
of  Antioch)  makes  the  circle  of  ludictions  begin 
much  earlier,  viz,  at  the  e])och  of  the  Antiochene 
era,  1  Gorpiaeus=:l  Sejd.  U.C.  705  =  b.c.  49;  at 
which  year  he  notes :  “  Here  begins  the  first 
year  of  the  15-ycar  circle  of  indictions,  with  the 
first  year  of  C.  .lulius  Caesar:”  and  thencefor¬ 
ward  he  adds  to  each  year  its  indiction.  Twenty- 
four  complete  circles  (24x  15  =  360)  end  there¬ 
fore  at  1  Sept.  A.D.  312  :  and  at  01.  273,  1,  Coss. 
Constantino  HI-.,  Licinio  III.,  U.C.  1066,  beginning 
1  January,  A.D.  313,  he  notes  :  'IuOiktiwucov 
KojvffTavTiuiavwv  ii/ravda  apxv — to  be  under¬ 
stood  as  meaning  that  the  first  eight  months  of 
that  consulship  belonged  to  that  fii-st  year. 
(So,  throughout,  the  Indiction  in  Chron.  Pasch. 
is  attached,  not  to  the  year  in  which  it  began, 
but  to  the  following  year,  beginning  1  January, 
which  contains  eight  months  of  it.  Comp. 
Clinton,  F.  R.  Append.  1  and  2.)  Although 
there  is  no  trace  elsewhere  of  this  earlier  system 
of  indictions,  it  does  not  follow,  in  Ideler’s  judg¬ 
ment  (2,  351),  that  the  statement  of  the  Paschal 
Chronicle  is  entirely  without  foundation.  A 
fiscal  regulation,  j)roceeding  by  periods  of  fifteen 
years  may,  he  thinks,  have  obtained  in  Syria 
and  other  Eastern  provinces  :  and  the  assumption 
would  serve  to  e.\'plain  the  circumstance,  else 
unaccounted  for,  that  in  the  reckoning  of  Antioch, 
the  year  (of  the  era  of  the  Seleucidae)  begins 
1  September,  not  at  the  old  1  October.  Some 
later  writers,  misled  by  the  merely  technical 
rule  above  given,  have  assumed  that  the  In¬ 
dictions  actually  had  their  beginning  three  years 
before  the  Nativity,  i.e.  before  our  a.d.  1,  with 
the  “  decree  of  Caes<ar  Augustus  that  all  the 
world  should  be  taxed”  (St.  Luke  iii.  1).  So 
says  Duranti — a  writer  of  the  13th  century 
{Specidum  Juris,  t.  i.  pt.  1,  p.  281):  “Caesar 
Aug.  decretum  proposuit,  ut  describeretur  uni- 
versus  orbis;  i.e.,  ut  quilibet  aestimaret  bona  sua, 
describens  orbem  sub  tributo  sibi  singulis  quin- 
decim  annis  reddendo,  quod  quidem  tempus  divisit 
per  tria  lustra,”  &c.  And  the  rule  concerning 
three  years  to  be  added  to  the  year-date  (a.d.) 
rests,  he  adds,  on  the  fact,  “  quia  tot  praecesserant 
de  indictione  quando  Christus  natus  fuit,  vel  quia 
praeynissum  edictun  Caesaris  tribus  annis  prae- 
cepit  Nativitatem  Christi.” 

It  is  only  in  the  latter  half  of  the  4th  century 
that  the  indictions  first  appear  in  dates.  St. 
Athanasius,  in  a  fr.agment  of  his  work  de 
Synodis,  opp.  t.  i.  pt.  2,  p.  737,  gives  “  In¬ 
diction  XIV.  ”  with  the  date  (  =  a.d.  341)  of  the 
council  of  Antioch  ;  but  that  work  was  written 
towards  the  clo.se  of  his  life  (o6.  371),  at  which 
time  this  method  of  dating  was  in  common  use. 
The  earliest  clear  instance  is  the  date  of  a  deci’ee 
of  Constantins  (Cod.  Theod.  xii.  12,  2),  of  the 
year  356,  or  rather  (for  the  text  needs  correc¬ 
tion)  357.  From  the  earliest  years  of  that  cen¬ 
tury  the  yearly  appointment  of  consuls  became 
irregular,  and  from  time  to  time  the  designation 
of  the  year,  instead  of  Coss.  M.  et.  N.,  became 
post  consulatuni  J/.  ct  N.  There  was  even  an 
uncertainty  in  the  numbering  of  a  set  of  post¬ 
consulate  years  :  for  instance,  some  would  de- 

CHKIST.  ANT. 


I  signate  the  first  v'acant  year  anno  post  consul- 
atum  M.  N  i. ;  others,  after  the  old  fashion  of 
numbering,  anno  ii.  (Pagi,  iJissert.  llypat.  p. 
319  ;  Ideler,  2,  345  note).  A  further  source 
of  uncertainty  was  the  dilference  of  epoclis  of 
the  year.  But  the  fifteen-years’  circle  of  iudic- 
tions  once  established  throiigliout  the  empire 
provided  a  correction  for  all  such  uncertainty, 
so  long  as  it  continued  to  be  understood,  that  the 
year  of  indiction  began  on  the  1st  of  September 
(preceding  the  1st  of  January  of  tlie  year  found 
by  the  rule  above  given).  And,  in  fact,  this  was 
the  established  practice  during  the  greater  part 
of  the  period  with  which  we  are  concerned  in  this 
work.  In  the  Codex  The  idosi  imis,  indeed,  its 
learned  annotator,  Gothofred,  finds  indications 
of  four  distinct  reckonings  of  the  indiction.s,  viz. 
the  Italica,  A.D.  312;  Urientalis,  ‘6Vd  •,  and  two 
of  Africa,  314  and  315.  As  regards  the  sup¬ 
posed  Orientalis,  Cardinal  Norris  (De  Anno  et 
Epochis  Syro-Maced.  Dissertat.  H'.  c.  iv. :  Opp. 
t.  ii.  col.  422  sqq.)  has  shown  that  its  epoch  is 
the  1st  September,  a.d.  312.  Concerning  the 
two  supposed  difierent  African  reckonings,  see 
Ideler  (Hdb.  2,  354  sqq. ;  Lchrb.  p.  409).  Apart 
from  these  inferences  from  the  TheodosiAn  Codex, 
we  find  no  trace,  except  here  and  tliere  in  corrupt 
texts  and  negligent  dates,  of  a  ditlerent  reckon¬ 
ing:  Dionysius  Exiguus  knows  no  other  than 
that  which  is  expressed  by  the  usual  rule  (Argu- 
menta  paschalia,  ii.).  To  trace  the  history  of 
the  use  of  the  indictions  through  the  diderent 
provinces  of  the  Roman  empire  would,  as  Ideler 
remarks,  require  extensive  disquisition.  In  re¬ 
spect  of  France,  Mabillon  has  shown  (de  re 
diplomat,  ii.  24,  26)  that  this  note  of  time  does 
not  appear  in  public  acts  before  Charlemagne, 
but  in  acts  of  councils,  and  in  writers,  it  is  found 
earlier.  But  far  down  into  the  middle  ages  its 
use  became  so  general  that  it  is  rarely  absent 
from  dates  attached  to  civil  or  ecclesiastical 
documents  in  Italy,  France,  Germany  (in  the 
Pyrenaean  peninsula  it  seems  never  to  have  been 
established).  Duranti,  writing  in  the  13th  cen¬ 
tury,  testifies  (u.s.):  “Tantaefuit  auctoritatis 
indictio,  ut  nullus  sine  ea  fieret  contractus,  nec 
privilegium,  nec  testamentum,  nec  alia  scrijitura 
sollennis :  et  etiam  hodie  eandem  obtinet  aucto- 
ritatem.” 

With  the  desuetude  of  the  Imperial  fiscal 
regulation,  with  which  the  indictions  originated, 
the  original  epoch,  1st  September,  ceased  to  be 
significant — except  in  the  Eastern  empire,  where 
that  day  was  established  as  the  first  day  of  the 
year  :  wherever  in  the  Corpus  Jlistoriae  Byzan- 
tinae  the  indictions  occur,  they  are  those  of 
1st  September,  312.  Even  in  the  West,  beyond 
the  limits  of  our  period,  they  are  still  occasion 
ally  met  with  :  thus,  a  writing  of  Gregory  VII. , 
A.D.  1073,  bears  the  subscription,  “  Datum 
Capuae,  Kalend.  Sept.,  incipiente  Indictione  XII.” 
But  in  process  of  time  the  indiction,  detached 
from  its  original  epoch,  came  to  be  dated  from  the 
new-year’s  day,  as  received  at  the  time,  December 
25th,  or  January  1st,  or  March  25th.  Distinct 
from  these  indictions  used  by  various  popes  in 
their  bulls,  and  by  other  writers,  is  one  which 
has  been  called  “Caesarean,”  of  which  the  first 
notice  occurs  in  Bede,  de  temp.  I'atione,  c.  46  : 
“  Incipiunt  Indictiones  ab  viii.  Kalend.  Octobris, 
ibidemque  terminantur.”  This,  of  which  there 
is  extiint  no  earlier  indication  (but  which,  so 


834 


INDULGENCE 


INDULGENCE 


great  was  the  authority  of  the  writer,  may  have 
intlucjiced  the  practice  of  tlie  Imperial  chancel¬ 
leries),  is  probably  due  to  an  assumption  of 
Bede,  that  the  old  epoch  of  the  Byzantine  year, 
September  24th,  was  accej)ted  by  Constantine 
as  the  epoch  of  the  indictions  established  by 
him.  [H.  B.] 

INDULGENCE.  (I.)  The  use  of  the  word 
Indulgentia  by  ecclesiastical  writers  is  derived 
from  that  of  the  jurisconsults,  who  employ  it  to 
designate  a  remission  of  punishment  or  of  taxes, 
especially  such  a  general  amnesty  as  was  some¬ 
times  proclaimed  by  an  emperor  on  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  occasion  of  rejoicing.  Thus  the  Theo- 
do.sian  Code  has  a  title  De  ladulgentiis  Criminum 
(Van  Espen,  Jus  Eccles.,  P.  II.  sec.  i.  tit.  7). 
Hence  the  word  passed  into  ecclesiastical  usage 
in  a  double  sen.se.  First,  it  designates  remission 
of  sins,  as  in  what  Reticius,  bishop  of  Autun, 
according  to  St.  Augustine  (c.  Julian,  i.  3),  ob¬ 
served  of  baptism  as  early  as  the  Roman  synod 
under  pope  Melchiades,  A.D.  313  :  “  It  can  escape 
nobody  that  this  is  the  principal  indulgence 
known  to  the  church,  where  we  lay  aside  the 
whole  weight  of  our  hereditary  guilt,  and  cancel 
all  our  former  misdeeds  committed  in  ignorance, 
and  put  off  the  old  man  with  all  his  innate 
wickednesses.”  In  this  pas.sage,  indulgence 
stands  immediately  for  remission  of  sins,  and 
that  alone.  But  we  are  more  immediately  con¬ 
cerned  with  it  in  a  second  .sense,  that  in  which 
it  designates  such  a  lightening  of  ecclesiastical 
})ena]ties,  in  consideration  of  the  state  of  the 
offender,  as  St.  Paul  practised  in  the  case  of  the 
incestuous  Corinthian  (2  Cor.  ii.  6-11).  This 
question  of  the  advisability  of  such  a  relaxation 
first  comes  prominently  before  us  in  the  case  of 
those  who  had  “  lapsed  ”  or  denied  Chri.st  to  avoid 
persecution,  and  for  whom  martyrs  had  in  many 
cases  interceded.  St.  Cyprian  tells  us,  in  his  letter 
to  Antoninus,  how  it  had  been  discussed  and  de¬ 
cided  by  bis  colleagues  in  Africa.  They  held 
that  the  church  should  not  be  closed  irrevocably 
to  such  of  the  lapsed  as  wore  desirous  of  return¬ 
ing  to  it :  nor  yet  opened  indiscriminately  till 
they  had  undergone  their  full  penance,  and  had 
their  particular  case  taken  into  consideration. 
“  Et  ideo  ])lacuit  .  .  .  examinatis  causis  singu- 
lorum  :  libellaticos  interim  admitti,  sacrificatis 
in  exitu  subveuiri :  quia  exomologesis  apud  in¬ 
feros  non  est,  nec  ad  penitentiam  quis  a  nobis 
compelli  potest,  si  fructus  penitentiae  subtra- 
hatur”  (^Ep.  lii.).  The  bishops,  he  adds,  already 
made  distinctions  between  other  crimes,  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  discretion,  and  therefore  might  be 
left  to  deal  with  this  similarly.  No  canons  for 
regulating  penances  of  any  kind  had  as  yet  been 
])assed.  It  rested  accordingly  with  the  bishops 
to  use  greater  or  less  indulgence  in  dispensing 
them  all  as  they  thought  fit.  It  was  disputed 
by  Novatian  whether  they  could  remit  as  well 
as  bind:  and  he  maintained  that  only  God  could 
remit.  But  this  was  not  the  doctrine  of  the 
church.  The  fifth  of  the  canons  of  Ancyra,  A.D. 
314  (Mansi,  ii.  516)  gives  the  bishops  power  to 
mitigate  (^<pi\ai'6pci}Tr€V€(rdai)  or  to  increase  the 
length  of  an  offender’s  penitence  ;  so  the  twelfth 
Nicene  canon  gives  the  bishop  power  to  deal 
more  gently  with  penitents  who  have  shown 
true  repentance  (Mansi,  ii.  673).  The  mercile.ss 
rulings  of  the  Elviran  canons  1,  2,  6,  8,  10,  12, 


1.3,  17,  19,  63-66,  70-73,  and  75,  w'hi.di  forbid 
certain  offenders  to  be  readmitted  to  commu¬ 
nion  even  on  their  death-beds,*  were  neither 
imitated  elsewhere  nor  maintained  in  Spain 
itself  (Mansi,  ih.  5-19).  St.  Ambrose,  speaking 
for  the  West,  says  :  “Our  Lord  must  have  meant 
the  powers  of  loosing  and  binding  to  be  coexten¬ 
sive,  or  He  would  not  have  bestowed  both  on  the 
same  terms”  (De  Poen.  i.  2).  St.  Gregory  Nyssen 
depo.se.s,  on  behalf  of  the  East,  to  what  had  been 
customary  :  Tols  aaOeufaTfpois  iyaperS  tis 
irapa  rwp  iraTeputv  tTup.irfpKpopd,  which  is  the 
Greek  equivalent  for  “  indulgentia  ”  (Ep.  ad 
Letoi.  c.  4). 

Usually  there  were  four  stages  or  degrees 
through  which  offenders  had  to  pass  before  re¬ 
gaining  communion  :  (1)  weepers,  (2)  hearers, 
(3)  k Heelers,  (4)  bystanders ;  and  usually  several 
years  had  to  be  spent  in  each.  Now  the  bishop, 
according  to  St.  Gregory,  might,  in  jiroportion  to 
their  conversion,  “resciml  the  period  of  their 
penance;  making  it  eight,  seven,  or  even  five 
years  instead  of  nine,  in  each  stage,  should  their 
repentance  exceed  in  depth  what  it  had  to  fulfil 
in  length,  and  compensate,  by  its  increased  zeal, 
for  the  much  longer  time  required  in  others  to 
effect  their  cure  ”  (ib.  c.  5). 

So  matters  went  on  till  about  the  end  of  the 
7th  century.  The  office  of  Penitentiary  pres¬ 
byter,  abolished  by  Nectarius,  patriarch  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  three  centuries  earlier,  is  not  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  produced  any  change,  so  far  as 
they  were  concerned  (See.  v.  19  and  Soz.  vii.  16). 
But  they  were  changed  materially  when  the 
system  of  commutations  laid  down  in  the  Peni¬ 
tential  of  Theodore,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 

.  had  begun  to  work :  according  to  which  a  rigorous 
fast  of  days,  weeks,  or  years,  might  be  redeemed 
by  saying  a  proportionable  number  of  psalms,  or 
by  paying  a  proportionable  fine  (c.  3—10,  in 
Migne’s  Patrol,  xeix.  937  .sqq.).  Several  of  the 
offences  stigmatised  in  the  canons  of  the  synod  of 
Berghamstede,  A.D.  697,  are  dismissed  with  a 
fine  (Mansi,  xii.  Ill  sqq.).  The  synod  of  Cloves- 
hoe,  A.D.  747,  protests  in  its  26th  and  27th 
canons  against  the  neglect  of  discipline  to  which 
this  “  new  device  ”  and  “  perilo'us  custom  ”  had 
led  (ib.  493-96).  But  the  Penitential  of.Egbert, 
archbishop  of  York,  not  only  re-enacts  all  the 
commutations  authorised  by  Theodore  (ib.  433), 
but  adds  to  them  in  a  subsequent  chapter 
(ih.  456),  voluntary  exile  from  home  and  country 
being  one  of  the  new  kind  allowed.  Similar  per¬ 
mission  is  given  in  the  Penitential  of  Bede,  as  it  is 
called  (ib.  519).  After  this  the  extension  of  in¬ 
dulgences  to  pilgrimages  and  hqly  wars  was  a 
pure  matter  of  time;  and  these,  from  the  ardour 
in.spired  by  both,  threw  everything  else  into  the 
shade.  The  climax  was  reached  when,  to  make 
them  more  attractiA'e,  it  was  formally  declared 
of  the  one,  “iter  illud  pro  omni  penitentia  repu- 
tetur”  (Concil.  Claroynunt.  c.  2,  ap.  Mansi,  xx. 
816),  and  popularly  believed  of  the  other,  “pro 
stipendio erat  indulgentia  peccatorum  proposita” 
(ib.  pp.  827  and  890).  On  this  point  seeMorinus, 
De  Poenit.  x.  22,  1-6,  and  Bingham,  Ant.  xviii.  4, 
for  earlier  times.  Goar  (Euchol.  pp.  680-88) 

»  It  is  to  bex)bserved  that  the  reading  “noe  in  fine,”  or 
“  nec  in  finem,”  is  changed  in  some  later  recensions — as 
in  that  of  Burchard — into  “  non  nisi  in  fine,”  so  as  to 
bring  it  into  harmony  with  the  Nicene  canon  (13)  whicli 
forbids  such  total  excommunication. — [Kn.j 


INDULGENCE 


INFANT  COMMUNION 


835 


atioiiipts  in  vain  to  detect  affinity  between  papal  | 
indulgences  and  the  Greek 

church  (comp.  Ducange,  Gloss.  Gr.  s.  v.). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

(II.)  Indulgences,  or  relaxations  of  the  strict 
letter  of  the  law,  are  however  by  no  means  con¬ 
fined  to  ])eniteutial  cases  ;  such  relaxations  are 
found  in  relation  to  almost  all  j)oints  of  conduct. 
The  laws  of  God,  whether  known  by  revelation  or 
by  natural  light  (Augustine,  Qiuiest.  67  in  J'Jxod.), 
are  of  course  always  binding;  but  under  i^ositive 
human  enactments  cases  may  and  do  occur,  in 
which  the  rigid  enforcement  of  a  law  may  be  a 
gieater  evil  to  the  society  concerned  than  the 
suspension  of  its  operation.  Hence,  in  all  state* 
and  societies,  either  the  law-giving  power  or 
seme  other  has  exercised  the  right  of  suspending 
the  operation  of  a  law  upon  occasion.  A  familiar 
instance  of  such  a  dis})eusing  power  is  the  com¬ 
mutation  by  the  sovereign  of  this  country  of 
sentences  passed  by  the  judges  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  law.  As  a  law  is  necessarily  rigid, 
while  the  real  character  of  human  acts  cannot 
be  rigidly  defined,  such  a  disi)eusing  power  seems 
necessary  for  the  equitable  administration  of 
justice. 

And  this  principle  is  just  as  true  of  the  church 
as  of  other  societies  ;  here  too  we  find  the  strict 
letter  of  the  law  mitigated  by  authority  in 
special  cases  from  an  early  period.  Such  in¬ 
dulgences,  or  concessions  to  human  weakness, 
commonly  called  dis])ensatious,  have  received 
various  names — remissio,  venia,  dementia,  mise- 
ratio,  dispensatio;  (Tvyyucti/.i.7],  av/j-irddeia,  (piAau- 
dpwTr'ia,  otKOPo/uLia  (Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v.) — all  im¬ 
plying  something  of  the  nature  of  occasional 
indulgence  or  iirieiKeia  in  the  administration  of 
a  law,  the  law  itself  remaining  unchanged.  A 
constant  exemption  of  a  person  or  body  corporate 
from  the  o])eration  of  a  particular  law  is  called 
Si.  privUegium.  The  canonists  generally  limit  the 
use  of  the  word  dispensath  to  the  case  in  which 
Si  future  transgression  of  a  law  is  permitted. 

Thomassin  {^Eccl.  Discip.  11.  iii.  24,  §  14)  holds 
that  in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  when  few 
or  no  councils  were  held,  such  dispensations  were 
granted  by  the  bishojiS ;  that  afterwards,  from 
the  end  of  the  3rd  century,  councils  decided  on 
the  cases  in  which  some  relaxation  of  the  law  of 
the  church  was  to  be  allowed ;  then,  as  pro¬ 
vincial  councils  frequently  referred  such  matters 
to  the  judgment  of  the  see  of  Rome,  that  see 
gradually  claimed  and  exercised  a  dispensing 
power  independent  of  councils.  The  twenty- 
seventh  canon  of  the  (so-called)  fourth  council 
of  Carthage  supjilies  a  good  instance  of  a  dis¬ 
pensing  power  applied  to  a  canon.  The  council 
recognises  the  general  prohibition  of  the  transla¬ 
tion  of  bishops  from  an  inferior  to  a  better  see 
“  per  ambitionem,”  yet  goes  on  to  provide  that 
“  if  the  good  of  the  church  requires  it,”  such  a 
translation  may  be  made  on  the  certificate  of 
election  being  produced  in  the  synod  itself.  Here 
a  dispensing  power  seems  to  be  given  to  the  synod ; 
for  it  must  be  presumed  that  it  was  to  decide 
whether  in  a  particular  case  “  utilitas  ecclesiae 
fiendum  poposcerit.”  Penitents,  digamists,  and 
husbands  of  widows  were  by  the  general  law  of 
the  church  incapable  of  holy  orders  ;  yet  pope 
Siricius  {E/.ist.  1  ud  J/imeri'm,  c.  15)  permits 
such  persons,  once  ordained,  to  exercise  the  func¬ 
tions  of  their  order,  though  without  hope  of  pro¬ 


motion  to  a  higher.  Pope  Innocent  I.,  a.d.  414, 
allows  (^Eplst.  22,  c.  5)  that  the  bisho])S  of  Mace¬ 
donia  might,  under  circumstances  of  peculiar 
difficulty,  admit  to  the  exercise  of  their  functions 
those  who  had  been  irregularly  ordained  bv  Bo- 
nosus,  a  heretic,  while  he  insists  strongly  on  the 
general  maintenance  of  the  rule  which  for  once 
is  violated  ;  it  is  only  ‘‘pro  necessitate  temporis” 
that  such  relaxations  of  canonical  strictness 
can  be  allowed,  and  “  quod  necessitas  pro  re- 
melio  invenit,  cessante  necessitate  debet  utique 
cessare such  liberties  cannot  be  permitted 
when  the  church  is  restored  to  its  normal  state 
of  peace.  We  have  another  kind  of  dispensation 
in  Gregory  the  Great’s  letter  to  Augustine  of 
C  interbury  {Epist.  xi.  64  ;  in  Haddan  and  Stubbs, 
iii.  21),  in  which  he  permits  persons  who  had 
married  in  ignorance  within  the  ])rohibited  de¬ 
grees  to  be  admitted  to  communion,  though  the 
general  law  of  the  church  excommunicated  such 
persons. 

Of  such  a  nature  were  the  relaxations  of  strict 
law  j)ermitted  in  the  early  church  ;  the  nume¬ 
rous  dispensations  in  matrimonial  cases,  in  plu¬ 
rality  of  benefices,  and  in  some  other  matters, 
which  were  so  great  a  scandal  in  the  mediaeval 
church,  do  not  fall  within  our  period  ;  nor 
within  the  same  period  had  the  baneful  j)ractice 
arisen  of  granting  dispensations  for  wrongs  to  be 
committed.  It  was  (as  Thomassin  observes,  it.  s. 
§  20)  “in  moi-e  recent  times,  when  the  discipline 
of  the  chtirch  had  grown  feeble  and  languid,  that 
permission  was  sought  for  future  violation  of  the 
canons,  that  license  was  asked  and  granted  for 
.sinning  against  sacred  rules;  men  would  fain  sin 
without  risk  of  penalty,  and  draw  even  from  the 
laws  themselves  cover  and  authority  for  their 
contempt  of  the  law.” 

(Thomassin,  Yet.  et  nova  Eccl.  Discip.  P.  II. 
lib.  iii.  cc.  24-26  ;  Van  Espen,  Jus  Ecclesiastic  nn, 
tom.  ii.  p.  754  fi’.  ed.  Colon.  1777,  De  Dispensa- 
tionibus ;  Walter,  ATrcAenrecAf,  §  180  ;  Jacobson, 
in  Herzog  Real-Encycl.  iii.  423.)  [C.] 

INDULGENTIAE  HEBDOMAS.  [Holy 
Week.] 

INDUS.  [Dorona.] 

INFANT  BAPTISM.  [Baptism,  §  95, 
p.  169.] 

INFANT  COMMUNION.  The  practice  of 
communicatinsc  infants  was  universal  through- 
out  the  period  of  which  we  treat.  For  the  east, 
where  it  still  flourishes,  we  have  the  testimonv 
of  the  so-called  liturgy  of  St.  Clement,  in  which 
little  children  (TratSi'a)  are  ordered  to  receive 
immediately  after  all  who  have  any  special 
dedication,  “  and  then  all  the  people  in  order  ” 
{Co7istit.  Apost.  lib.  viii.  c.  13).  Pseudo-Diony¬ 
sius,  possibly  of  the  5th  century,  but  more 
probably  of  the  6th,  says  that  “children  who 
cannot  understand  divine  things  are  yet  made  par¬ 
takers  of  divine  generation,  and  of  the  divine  com¬ 
munion  of  the  most  sacred  mysteries  ”  {De  Eccl. 
Ifierarch.c.vii.  §11).  Evagrius,  who  completed 
his  Church  History  in  594,  proves  the  continued 
observance  of  the  rite,  wlieie  he  mentions  “an 
ancient  custom”  at  Constantinople,  “when  there 
remained  a  good  quantity  of  the  holy  portions  of 
the  undefiled  body  of  Christ  our  God,  for  uncor¬ 
rupted  boys  from  among  those  who  attended  the 
school  of  the  undermaster  to  be  sent  for  to 

3  H 


836 


INFANT  COMMUNION 


INFANT  COMMUNION 


consume  them  ”  (lib.  iv.  c.  36).  There  is  a  story 
toU  by  John  Moschus,  a.d.  630,  of  some  children 
who  imitated  among  themselves  the  celebration 
of  the  Eucharist,  as  they  had  witnessed,  and 
taken  part  in  it  themselves  (^Praturn  Spirit,  c. 
196). 

Tlve  earliest  witness  in  the  Latin  church  is  St. 
Cyprian,  who  writing  in  251,  relates  how  the  agi¬ 
tation  of  an  infant  to  whom  the  cup  was  offered, 
led  to  the  disciwery  of  its  having  been  taken  to  a 
heathen  sacrifice  (Be  Lapsis).  He  also  repre¬ 
sents  the  children  of  apostates  as  able  to  plead 
at  the  da}'  of  judgment,  “  We  have  done  no¬ 
thing  ;  nor  have  we  hastened  of  our  own  accord 
to  those  profane  defilements,  forsaking  the  meat 
and  cup  of  the  Lord  ”  (ibid.).  St.  Augustine  : — 
“  They  are  infants;  but  they  are  made  partakers 
of  His  table,  that  they  may  hav'e  life  in  them¬ 
selves  ”  (Senn.  174,  §  7).  “Why  is  the  blood, 
which  of  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  was  shed  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  ministered  that  the  little 
one  (parvulus)  may  drink,  that  he  may  have 
life,  unless  he  hath  come  to  death  by  a  beginning 
of  sin  on  the  part  of  some  one”  (Contra  Ju'ia- 
num,  Op.  imperf.  1.  ii.  c.  30)  ?  It  is  evident  from 
these  passages  (and  see  especially  to  the  same 
effect.  Be  Peccat.  Mer.  lib.  i.  c.  xx.  §  26  ;  c. 
xxiv.  §  34)  that  St.  Aagir-stine  considered  this 
sacrament  to  be  generally  necessary  to  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  infants  ;  but  it  is  desirable  to  mention 
that  some  passages  often  cited  from  his  works, 
which  appear  to  imply  or  maintain  that  view 
are  not  really  to  the  purpose.  He  argued  against 
the  Pelagians,  that  if  infants  were  not  born  in 
sin,  our  Ldrd’s  words,  “  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh,” 
&c.  (St.  John  vi.  53),  would  not  be  true  in 
reference  to  them  :  they  would  have  life  without 
eating  of  that  flesh  (see  Contra  Buas  Epp.  Petag. 
lib.  i.  c.  xxii.  §  40);  but  then  he  taught  also 
that  “  every  one  of  the  faithful  is  made  a  par¬ 
taker  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  when  he 
is  made  a  member  of  Christ  in  baptism.”  This 
is  carefully  shown  from  his  writings  by  Ful- 
gentius,  who  had  been  questioned  by  Ferrandus, 
on  the  hope  that  might  be  entertained  for  a 
young  man  who  had  died  immediately  after 
baptism  (see  the  note  of  the  Benedictine  editors 
on  Aug.  Be  Pecc.  Mer.  lib.  i.  c.  20,  §  26).  The 
same  remark  must  be  made  on  a  saying  of 
Innocent  I.,  a.d.  417-(J.<i  Putres  Syn.  Mileo.  §  5, 
Ep.  182,  inter  Epp.  Aug.),  which  Augustine 
himself  interprets  of  the  necessity  of  Baptism 
(Ad  Paulin.  Ep.  185,  c.  viii.  §  28).  See  also 
Gelasius  of  Rome,  Epist.  7,  ad  Episc.  per  Pi- 
cenum.  Gennadius  of  Marseilles,  a.d.  495,  gives 
the  following  direction  with  regard  to  the 
reception  of  some  of  those  who  had  been  baptized 
bv  heretics  in  schism.  “  But  if  they  are  infants 
(parvuli),  or  so  dull  as  not  to  take  in  teaching, 
let  those  who  offer  them  answer  for  them,  after 
the  manner  of  one  about  to  be  baptized  ;  and  so, 
fortified  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  and  chri-sm, 
let  them  be  admitted  to  the  mysteries  of  the 
Eucharist  ”  (Be  Eccl.  Bogm.  c.  22).  We  call 
attention  to  the  word  “  parvulus  ”  when  it  is 
used  in  this  connection,  because  “infans”  was 
sometimes  applied  even  to  the  newly-baptized 
adult,  as  being  newly  born  to  a  higher  life.  In 
585  the  council  of  Macon,  in  France,  in  imitation, 
as  we  may  suppose,  of  the  Greek  custom  lately 
mentioned,  ordered  that  on  Wednesdays  and 
Fridays  innocent  (children)  ..shquld  be  brought 


to  the  church,  an!  there  “  being  commanded  to 
fast,  should  receive  the  remains  of  the  sacri¬ 
fices”  (can.  6).  The  council  of  Toledo,  675, 
found  it  necessary  to  reassure  anxious  minds  bv 
a  declaration  that  the  sick  who  found  themselves 
unable  to  swallow  the  eucharist,  and  others  who 
had  failed  to  swallow  it  “  in  time  of  infancy,” 
did  not  fall  under  the  censure  of  the  first  council 
of  Toledo  (can.  14),  against  those  who  having 
received  did  not  consume  it  (can.  11).  The 
Gelasian  Sacramentary  (lib.  i.  n.  75)  provides 
for  the  immediate  communion  of  an  infant 
(infans)  baptized  in  sickness.  The  earliest  extant 
copy  of  the  Gregorian  has  the  following  rubric 
referring  to  all  baptized  at  Easter.  “  If  the 
bishop  be  present,  it  is  fit  that  he  (infans)  be 
forthwith  confirmed  with  chrism,  and  after  that 
communicated.  And  if  the  bishop  be  not  present, 
let  him  be  communicated  by  the  presbyter  ” 
(Lilurgia  Rom.  Vet.  Murat,  tom.  ii.  col.  158). 
It  will  be  observed  that  previous  confirmation 
was  not  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  first 
communion.  A  MS.  Sacrameutary  of  the  8th 
century  preserved  at  Gellone  and  a  Rheims  ponti¬ 
fical  of  the  same  age  expressly  contemplate  the 
probability  of  some  of  the  “  infantes  ”  baptized 
being  nurslings,  but  make  the  same  provision 
for  the  communion  of  all  (Ordd.  6,  7,  8,  in 
Maidene,  Be  Ant.  Eccl.  Pit.  lib.  i.  c.  1,  art.  18. 
Comp.  ord.  15).  The  little  children  were  also 
to  communicate  daily  throughout  the  octave 
with  the  rest  of  the  newly-baptized.  See  Ordd. 
6,  8,  9. 

There  is  an  English  canon  ascribed  to  Ecg- 
briht,  A.D.  740,  but  probably  somewhat  later, 
which  says,  “  They  who  can,  and  know  how  to 
baptize,  faithful  monks  especially,  ought  always 
to  have  the  eucharist  with  them,  though  they 
travel  to  places  far  distant  ”  (Johnson’s  Engl. 
Canons,  vol.  i.  p.  235).  Jesse,  bishop  of  Amiens, 
A.D.  799,  in  an  epistle  on  the  order  of  baptism, 
says,  that  “after  trine  immersion  the  bishop 
should  confirm  the  child  (puerum)  with  chrism 
on  the  forehead,  and  that  finally  he  should  be 
confirmed  and  communicated  with  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  that  he  may  be  a  member  of 
Christ”  (see  note  to  Regino  Be  Eccl.  Biscipl. 
lib.  i.  c.  69  ;  ed.  Baluz.).  The  epistle  of  Jesse 
was  written  in  reply  to  some  questions  of  Charle¬ 
magne  respecting  baptism.  In  the  Capitularies 
of  the  latter  we  find  the  following  law  notably 
framed  in  express  accordance  with  the  answers 
of  Jesse  and  other  bishops  : — “  That  the  presbyter 
have  the  eucharist  readv,  that  when  anv  one 
shall  be  taken  sick,  or  an  infant  (parvulus)  be 
ailing,  he  may  communicate  him  at  once,  lest  he 
die  without  communion  ”  (Lib.  i.  c.  155 :  Sim. 
lib.  V.  c.  57).  This  is  in  the  collection  of  Walter 
of  Orleans  (c.  7)  ;  Regino  (n.  s.)  ;  Burchard  (lib. 
V.  c.  10);  and  Ivo  (Beer.  P.  ii.  c.  20). 

Infants  were  during  a  ])eriod  of  uncertain 
length  required  to  be  kept  without  food  between 
their  baptism  and  communion,  when  the  latter 
followed  as  a  part  of  the  day’s  rites.  Thus  in 
the  earliest  Ordo  Romanus,  supposed  by  Usher 
to  be  written  about  the  year  730,  care  is  enjoined 
that  the  little  ones  (parvuli)  baptized  on  Easter 
Eve  “  t.ake  no  food,  nor  be  suckled,  after  their 
baptism  before  they  communicate  of  the  sacra¬ 
ment  of  the  body  of  Christ  ”  (§  46  ;  Musae.  Ital. 
tom.  i.  p.  28).  There  are  rubrics  to  this  effect 
in  several  ancient  orders  of  baptism,  three  of 


INFANT  COMMUNION 


which  were  compiled  or  copied  in  the  8th 
century  (Ordd.  6,  7,  8,  in  Martene,  u.  s.  For 
later  exanijdes,  see  Ordd.  9,  15).  In  one  copy  of 
the  Gregorian  Sacrameutary,  the  rule  is  thus 
relaxed.  “  The}"  are  not  forbidden  to  be  suckled 
before  the  sacred  communion,  if  it  be  necessary” 
{Inter  0pp.  S.  Greg.  tom.  v.  col.  Ill;  Autv. 
1615).  The  prohibition  seems  to  have  been 
generally  omitted  from  the  rubric  after  the  8th 
century ;  but  the  pontifical  of  the  Latin  church 
of  Apamia  in  Syria,  which  was  written  in  the 
12th,  retains  it,  though  speaking  of  confirmation 
and  communion  imme>liately  after  baptism  only 
as  “the  custom  of  some  churches”  (Ord.  15; 
Martene,  u.  s.). 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  infants  were  at 
first  communicated  in  both  kinds  ;  but  there 
is  little  clear  evidence  to  that  efiect.  Passages 
which  speak  of  their  eating  the  flesh  and  drink¬ 
ing  the  blood  of  Christ  are  not  conclusive.  The 
council  of  Toledo  before  cited,  after  mentioning 
the  occasional  rejection  of  one  element  by  the 
sick,  “  because  except  the  draught  of  the  Lord’s 
cup,  they  could  not  swallow  the  eucharist  de¬ 
livered  to  them,”  proceeds  to  the  case  of  others 
“  who  do  such  things  in  the  time  of  infancy.” 
The  inference  appears  good  that  the  eucharist 
was  otlered  to  both  in  bread  as  well  as  wine. 
We  are  however  in  a  good  measure  left  to  infer 
the  practice  of  the  first  age.s  from  that  of  the 
later  church.  Because  the  cup  only  is  mentioned 
in  St.  Cyprian’s  story  of  the  infant  who  had 
partaken  of  a  heathen  sacrifice,  some  have 
ai’gued  that  they  were  communicated  in  the  blood 
only.  Had  it  been  so,  they  would  hardly  have 
been  permitted  to  receive  in  both  kinds  at  a  later 
period ;  as  they  certainly  did,  when  for  a  time 
the  custom  of  intinction  prevailed  in  the  West. 
Even  in  the  12th  century,  when  Paschal  II. 
suppressed  that  practice  at  Clugny,  he  made  an 
exception  in  favour  of  “  infants  and  persons  very 
sick  who  are  not  able  to  swallow  the  bread.” 
All  others  were  to  receive  the  bread  by  itself 
{Epist.  32 ;  Labb.  Concilia,  tom.  x.  col.  656). 
In  a  manuscript  Antiphonary  that  belonged  to 
an  Italian  monastery,  written  about  the  middle 
of  the  same  century,  after  directions  for  a 
baptism,  is  the  following  rubric:  “Then  follows 
the  communion,  which  is  ministered  under 
these  words  ;  ‘The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
steeped  in  His  blood,  preserve  thy  soul  unto 
everlasting  life  (Muratori,  Antiq.  Hal.  Mediaev. 
tom.  iv.  p.  843).  About  the  same  time,  how¬ 
ever,  we  find  Radulphus  Ardens  saying,  in  a 
sermon  on  Easter  Day,  “It  has  been  decreed  that 
^  it  be  delivered  to  children  as  soon  as  baptized,  at 
least  in  the  species  of  wine  ;  that  they  may  not 
depart  without  a  necessary  sacrament  ”  (Zac- 
caria,  Bihlioth.  Hit.  tom.  ii.  p.  ii.  p.  clx.).  How 
infants  were  communicated  in  the  one  species 
then,  we  may  learn  from  the  pontifical  of  Apamia 
already  cited.  “  But  children  who  as  yet  know 
not  how  to  eat  or  drink  are  communicated  either 
with  a  leaf  or  with  the  finger  dipped  in  the  blood 
of  the  Lord  and  put  into  their  mouth,  the  priest 
thus  saying,  ‘  The  body  with  the  blood  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  keep  thee  unto  everlasting 
life ’”  (Martene,  m.  s.).  Robertus  Panlulus,  a.d. 

1 175,  in  a  work  De  Sacramentls,  long  ascribed  to 
Hugo  de  S.  Victore,  says,  “  The  said  sacrament  is 
to  be  ministered  with  the  finger  of  the  {)riest  to 
children  newly  )orn  in  the  .species  of  the  blood ; 


INFIRMARY  (MONASTIC)  837 

because  such  can  suck  naturally”  (Lib.  i.  c.  20). 

As  the  Greeks  and  Orientals  generally  used 
intinction  before  the  age  of  Charlemagne,  it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  they  communicated  infants 
in  the  same  manner  as  adults;  i.e.,  in  both  kinds 
with  a  spoon.  Now  “  in  practice,  though  the 
rule  is  otherwise,  the  eucharist  is  given  to 
infants  under  the  species  of  wine  alone  ”  (Goar 
in  Annot.  Nihusii  ad  Allatii  Dissert,  de  Mis.d 
Fraesanct.».dL  fin.;  Allat.  Occ.  et  Or.  Consent. 
col.  1659).  The  Nestorians,  Jacobites,  Arme¬ 
nians  and  Maronites,  are  said  to  have  fallen  into 
the  same  practice  (Gabriel  Sinaita,  ibid.  col. 
1667).  Thev  Greeks  use  a  spoon,  but  from  con¬ 
flicting  statements  before  us  (.see  Martene,  u.  s. 
art.  15,  n.  15),  we  infer  that  the  rest  use  the 
finger  or  a  spoon  indifferently.  [W.  E.  S.] 

INFIRMARY  (MONASTIC).  In  hh 
enumeration  of  Christian  duties  Benedict  speci¬ 
fies  that  of  visiting  the  sick  (Bened.  Ji  g.  c.  4); 
and  elsewhere  he  speaks  of  it  as  a  duty  of  ])ri- 
mary  and  paramount  obligation  for  monks 
(“ante  omnia  et  super  omnia,”  c.  36),  quoting 
the  words  of  Christ,  “  I  was  sick,  and  ye  minis¬ 
tered  unto  Me.”  Beyond,  however,  saying,  that 
the  sick  are  to  have  a  separate  part  of  the 
monastery  assigned  to  them  (cf.  Aui’el.  l!eg.  cc. 
37,  52 ;  Caesar,  lieg.  c.  30),  and  a  separate 
officer  in  charge  of  them  (cf.  lieg.  Tarnat.  c.  21), 
that  they  are  to  be  allowed  meat  and  the 
luxury  of  baths,  if  necessary,  that  they  are  not 
to  be  exacting  (“  ne  superfluitate  sud  fratres  con- 
tristent  ”),  and  that  the  brethren  who  wait  on 
them  are  not  to  be  impatient,  he  gives  no  pre¬ 
cise  directions  (f6.).  Subsequently  it  was  the 
special  duty  of  the  “  infirmarius,”  the  “cellera- 
rius  ”  (house-steward),  and  of  the  abbot  himself, 
to  look  after  the  sick  (Martene,  lieg.  Comm.  c.  4 ; 
Caesarii  lieg.  ad  Virg.  c.  20,  Reg.  Cujicsd.  ad 
Virgines,  c.  15)  ;  no  other  monk  might  visit  them 
without  leave  from  the  abbot  or  prior  (Mart.  1.  c.). 
Everything  was  to  be  done  for  their  comfort, 
both  in  body  and  soul,  that  they  should  not 
miss  the  kindly  offices  of  kinsfolk  and  friends 
(cf.  Fructuos.  Beg.  c.  7 ;  Hieronym.  Ep.  22,  ad 
Eustoch.) ;  and,  while  the  rigour  of  the  monastic 
discipline  was  to  be  relaxed,  whenever  necessary, 
in  their  favour,  due  su^jervision  was  to  be  exer¬ 
cised,  lest  there  should  be  any  abuse  of  the  privi¬ 
leges  of  the  sick-room  (Mart,  l.c.;  cf.  Beg.  Pachom. 
c.  20).  The  “infirmarius”  was  to  enforce  silence 
at  meals,  to  check  conversation  in  the  sick-room 
(“  mansio  infirmorum,  intra  claustra,”  Cone. 
Aquisgran.  a.d.  816,  c.  142)  at  other  times,  and 
to  discriminate  carefully  between  real  and  fic¬ 
titious  ailments  (Mart. /.  c.).  The  sick  were,  if 
possible,  to  recite  the  hours  daily  and  to  attend 
mass  at  stated  times,  and  if  unable  to  walk  to 
the  chapel,  they  were  to  be  carried  thither  in  the 
arms  of  their  brethren  (i6.).  The  meal  in  the 
sick-room  was  to  be  three  hours  earlier  than  in 
the  common  refectory  {Beg.  Mug.  c.  28).  The 
abbot  might  allow  a  separate  kitchen  and  “  but¬ 
tery  ”  for  the  use  of  the  sick  monks  (Aureliau, 
Beg.  ad  Monach.  c.  53,  Beg.  ad  Virg.  c.  37). 
The  rule  of  Caesarius  of  Aides  ordered,  that 
the  abbot  was  to  provide  good  wine  for  the 
sick,  the  ordinary  wine  of  the  monastery  being 
often  of  inferior  quality  (cf.  Mabill.  Pisguis.  do 
Curs.  Gallic,  vi.  70,  71  ;  Mabill.  Ann.  iii.  8,  Du 
Cange,  Glossar.  Lat.  s.  v.).  [1.  G.  S.] 


838 


INITIAL  HYMN 


INFORMERS 

INFORMl'vRS.  {Cahminiatores,  Delatores. 
Tertullinii  [i(dv.  Mnrcion.  v,  18]  fancifully  con¬ 
nects ciiabolus  ”  with  “  delatura.”)  This  class 
of  men  originated  before  the  Christian  era.  and 
indeed  before  the  establishment  of  the  Roman 
empire.  [Dict.  of  Grkkk  and  Roman  Antiq. 
s.  V.  Delator.']  When  persecution  arose  against 
the  church,  the  delatores  naturally  sought  gain, 
ind  probably  some  credit  with  the  civil  aiitho- 
rities,  by  giving  information  against  those  who 
practised  Christian  rites,  since  the  secret  assem¬ 
blies  of  Christians  for  worship  came  under  the 
prohibition  of  the  Lex  .Julia  de  Majestate  (Tac. 
Ann.  i.  7“2,  p.  3  ;  Merivale.  Hist.  Home,  c.  xliv.). 
Tertullian  states  that  Tiberius  threatened  the 
accusers  of  the  Christians — “  Caesar  .  .  .  com- 
minatus  periculum  accusatoribus  Christianorum  ” 
{Apol.  c.  o),  but  the  story  rests  only  upon  his 
statement.  He  also  (/.  c.)  claims  M.  Aurelius  as 
a  protector  of  Christians.  Titus  issued  an  edict 
against  delators,  forbidding  slaves  to  inform 
against  their  masters  or  freednien  against  their 
patrons.  Nerva  on  his  accession  republished  this 
edict.  “Jewish  manners,”  f.  e.  probably  Chris¬ 
tianity,  is  specially  mentioned  as  one  of  the  sub¬ 
jects  on  wliich  informations  were  forbidden  (Dion 
Ixviii.  1,  quoted  by  Merivale).  In  Pliny’s  well- 
known  letter  to  Trajan  (x.  96  [al.  97])  we  find  the 
delatores  in  full  work.  The  Christians  who  were 
brought  before  him  were  delated  (deferebantur), 
and  an  anonymous  paper  was  sent  in  containing  a 
list  of  many  Christians  or  supposed_  Christians. 
Trajan  in  his  answer  (i6.  97  [98]),  though  he  for¬ 
bad  Christians  to  be  sought  out  (i.  e.  by  govern¬ 
ment  otKcials),  did  not  attemi)t  to  put  a  stop  to 
the  practice  of  delation;  those  who  w'ere informed 
against,  if  they  continued  in  their  infatuation, 
must  be  punished.  See  Tertullian’s  comment  on 
this  {Apol.  c.  2).  And  in  the  subsequent  per¬ 
secutions  a  large  part  of  the  sutfering  arose  from 
unfaithful  brethren  who  betrayed  their  friends 
to  the  persecutors.  It  is  not  wonderful  that 
during  and  immediately  after  the  days  of  perse¬ 
cution  the  delator  was  regarded  with  horror. 
Thus  the  council  of  Elvira  {Cone.  Elib.  c.  73), 
A.D.  305,  excommunicated,  even  on  his  death- 
bed,“-  any  delator  who  had  caused  the  proscrip¬ 
tion  or  death  of  the  person  informed  against ; 
for  informing  in  less  important  cases,  the  delator 
might  be  re-admitted  to  communion  after  five 
yeai’s ;  or,  if  a  catechumen,  he  might  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  baptism  after  five  years.  The  first  of 
Arles,  A.D.  314,  reckons  among  “  fraditores  ” 
not  only  those  who  gave  up  to  the  persecutors 
the  Holy  Scriptures  and  sacred  vessels,  but  also 
those  who  handed  in  lists  of  the  brethren  (nom- 
ina  fratrum)  ;  and  respecting  these  the  council 
decrees,  that  whoever  shall  be  discovered  from 
the  public  records  (acta)  to  have  committed  such 
otfences  shall  be  solemnly  degraded  from  the 
clerical  order ;  but  such  degradation,  if  the  of¬ 
fender  was  a  bishop,  was  not  to  vitiate  the 
orders  of  those  who  might  have  been  ordained 


a  According  to  the  reading  “Nec  in  fine;”  some  ItlSS. 
read  “  non  nisi  in  fine.”  It  seems  probable  that  “  nec  in 
fine  ”  or  “  finem  ”  was  the  original  reading,  and  that  it 
was  altered  to  bring  it  into  acco'dauce  with  the  decree  of 
Nicaea  (c.  13),  which  provides  that  the  Holy  Communion 
is  in  no  case  to  be  refused  to  a  dying  man. 

tj  “  Non  verbis  nudis another  reading  is  “  verberibus 
multis,” 


by  him.  Charges  again>t  traditores  were  not 
to  be  admitted  uule.ss  tiiey  could  be  proved 
from  the  “  acta  j)ublica.”  Tiiis  decree  is 
highly  interesting,  as  following  immediatelv 
U])on  a  period  of  porsecutiou,  and  showing  that 
the  edict  of  Milan  (a.d.  313)  had  brought  about- 
a  great  change  in  Gaul,  and  that  Christians  were 
admitted  to  consult  the  jiublic  records  of  the 
recent  proceedings  against  them.  The  capitu¬ 
laries  of  the  Frank  kings  (lib.  vi.  c.  317,  in 
Baluze,  i.  977)  cite  the  73rd  canon  of  Elvira 
with  the  reading  “  nec  in  fine.”  So  lib.  vii.  c. 
205,  and  Additio  Quarto,  c.  34.  in  Baluze,  i. 
1068,1202.  The  same  capitularies  (A(W.  Quarto, 
c.  35)  enjoin  bishops  to  excommunicate  “  accu- 
satores  fratrum  ;  ”  and,  even  after  amendment, 
not  to  admit  them  to  holy  orders,  though  thev 
may  be  admitted  to  communion.  Anv  cleric  or 
layman  who  brings  frivolous  charges  against  his 
bishop  (calumniator  extiterit j  is  to  be  reputed  a 
homicide. 

The  canon  of  Elvira  is  cited  in  the  decree 
of  Gratian  (p.  ii.  cau.  v.  quae.  0,  c.  6)  with  the 
reading  “  non  nisi  in  fine.”  The  same  decree 
{u.  s.  c.  5)  attributes  to  pope  Hadrian  I.  a 
decree,  “let  the  tongue  of  a  delator  be  cut  out 
(capuletur),  or,  on  conviction,  let  his  Ixead  be 
cut  otf ;  ”  a  decree  probably  taken  from  the  civil 
legi.slatlon,  for  nearly  the  same  jirovision  is  found 
in  the  Theodosian  code  (lib,  x.  tit.  x.  1.  2),  and 
precisely  the  same  in  the  Frank  cajdtularies 
(lib.  vii.  c.  360;  Bal.  i.  1102).  [S.  J.  E.] 

INFUL  A.  1.  The  infula  was  in  classical 
times  the  band  or  fillet  which  bound  the  brow 
of  the  sacrificing  priest  and  the  victim. 

“  Ncc  te  tua  plurima,  Panthu 
Labentem  pietas  nec  Apollinis  infula  texii.” 

Virg.  Aen.  ii.  430. 

Sennas  (on  Aeneid.  x.  538)  tells  us  that  it  was 
a  broad  fillet  or  ribbon  commonly  made  of  red 
and  white  strips.  Isidore  {Ltymol.  xix.  30) 
describes  the  infula  of  the  heathen  priest  in 
similar  terms.  The  infula  of  the  victim  is  men¬ 
tioned  in 

“  stans  bostia  ad  aram 
Lauea  dum  nivefv  circumdatur  infula  vittk.” 

Virg.  Georg,  iii.  487. 

And  the  term  seems  to  have  been  early  trans¬ 
ferred  to  the  head-covering  of  Christian  priests. 
Hence  Prudentius  {Peristeph.  iv.  79)  speaks  ot 
the  “sacerdotum  domus  infulata  ”  of  the  Valerii 
of  Saragossa,  when  he  is  evidently  speaking  of 
the  “  clerus,”  So  Pope  Gelasius  (Hardouiu’s 
Concilia,  ii.  901),  wishing  to  say  that  a  certain 
person  ought  to  be  rejected  from  the  Christian 
priesthood,  says  that  he  is  “  clericalibus  iufulis  * 
reprobabilis  ”  (Hefele’s  Beitrilje,  ii.  223  tl.). 
See  Mitre. 

2.  For  infula  in  the  sense  of  a  ministerial 
vestment,  see  Casula,  Plan  eta.  [C.] 

INGELHEIM,  COUNCIL  OF  {Tnjelheim- 
ense  Concilium'),  a.d.  788,  at  Ingelheim,  when 
Tassilo,  duke  of  Bavaria,  was  condemned,  but 
allowed  to  enter  a  monastery.  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

INGENUI^S,  martyr  at  Alexandria  with 
Ammon,  Theophilus,  Ptolomeus,  Zeno ;  comme¬ 
morated  Dec.  20  (JAo’f.  Ixom.  UL,  Adonis,  C>u- 
ardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

INITIAL  HYMN.— A  name  for  the  hymn 
which  in  the  Eastern  liturgies  corresponds  to  the 


INITIAL  HYMN 


Introit  of  the  Roman  mass.  In  the  eastern 
liturgies  the  term  Introit  (eftroSos)  is  applied  to 
the  two  EXTKAXCKS  of  the  liturgy,  the  little 
entrance  /jtiKpa  dcroSos)  i.  e.  that  of  the 
Book  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  great  entrance 
(■^  jxeyaKt}  iXcrohos)  i.  e.  that  of  the  elements. 

In  the  liturgies  of  St  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom 
this  hymn  takes  the  form  of  three  antiphons, 
called  the  first,  second,  and  third  antiphons,  each 
of  which  consists  of  a  few  verses  called  “  stichi  ” 
(arixoi)  from  the  Psalms;  each  verse  of  the 
first  antiphon  being  followed  by  the  clause  “  At 
the  intercession  of  the  Theotocos,  save  us,  0 
Saviour;”  each  verse  of  the  second  and  third 
by  an  antiphonal  clause  of  the  same  nature, 
varying  with  and  having  reference  to  the  festi¬ 
val.  That  of  the  third  antiphon  is  sometimes 
one  of  the  iroparia  of  the  day.  Each  antiphon 
is  followed  by  an  unvarying  prayer,  called  gene¬ 
rally  the  prayer  of  the  first,  second,  and  third 
antiphon,* *  and  which  are  the  same  in  the  litur¬ 
gies  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom. 

The  first  and  second  antiphons  are  followed  by 
“  Glory  &c.  (So^a  Kal  vvv),  after  which  the  anti¬ 
phonal  response  is  repeated. 

The  third  antiphon  by  short  hymns  or  troparia 
in  rhythmical  prose  under  different  names,  and 
which  vary  witli  the  day.  These  antiphons  are 
considered  to  symbolise  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets,  foretelling  the  coming  and  incarnation 
of  our  Lord.®  As  a  specimen  the  three  anti¬ 
phons  for  Easter  Day  are  : — 

Antiph.  I. 

Stick.  0  be  joyful  in  God  all  ye  lands.  (Ps.  Ixvi.  1.) 

At  tbe  intercession,  &c. 

Stick.  Sing  praises  unto  the  honour  of  His  name.  (Do.) 

At  the  intercession,  &c. 

Stick.  Say  unto  God,  0  liow  wonderful  art  Thou  in  Thy 
works,  (verse  2.) 

At  the  intercession,  &c. 

Stick.  For  all  the  world  shall  worship  Thee,  (verse  3.) 

At  the  intercession,  &c. 

Glory,  &c. 

At  the  Intercession,  &c. 

Antiph.  II. 

Stick.  God  he  merciful  unto  us.  (Ps.  Ixvii.  l.) 

Save  us,  0  Son  of  God,  Thou  that  art  risen  from 
the  dead. 

Stick.  And  show  us  the  li.ght  of  His  countenance.  (Do.) 

Save  us,  0  Son  of  God,  &c. 

Stick.  That  Thy  way  may  be  known  upon  earth,  (v.  2.) 

Save  us,  0  Son  of  God,  &c. 

Stick.  I.«t  the  people  praise  Thee.  (v.  3.) 

Save  us,  0  Son  of  God,  &c. 

Glory,  &c. 

Save  us,  0  Son  of  God,  &c. 

Antipk.  III. 

Stick.  Let  God  arise,  and  let  His  enemies  be  scattered 
let  them  also  that  hate  Him  flee  l)efore  Him. 

(Ps.  Ixviii.  J.) 

Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead,  having  trodden 
down  death  by  death,  and  given  life  to  those 
that  are  in  the  grave. 


»  There  are  variations  between  the  two  liturgies,  as  to 
whether  the  prayer  of  tbe  antiphon  snould  be  said  before 
or  after  its  antiphon,  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  par¬ 
ticularise. 

b  The  prayer  of  the  third  antiphon  is  “A  Prayer  of 
St.  Cbryyostom’'  of  the  English  Prayer-book, 

0  Vid.  Casali  de  Vet.  Sacr.  Christ.  Hit.  cap.  xci. 


INNOCENTS,  Festival  of  the  839 

stick.  Like  as  the  smoke  vanisheth  so  shalt  thou  drive 
them  away:  and  like  as  wax  melteth  at  the 
fire.  (v.  2.) 

Christ  is  risen,  &c. 

Stick.  So  let  the  ungodly  perish  at  the  presence  of  God, 
but  let  the  righteous  be  glad.  (vv.  2,  3.) 

Christ  is  risen,  &c. 

Stick.  This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made:  we 
will  rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it.  (Ps.  cxviii.24.) 

Christ  is  risen,  &c. 

On  Sundays  as  a  rule,  in  the  liturgy  of  St. 
Basil  the  Typica  ^  for  the  day  are  said  in-stead  of 
the  first  two  antiphons ;  and  in  those  of  St. 
Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom  instead  of  the  third 
antiphon,  the  Beatitudes  (ol  paKapicrpoi). 

These  are  the  Beatitudes  from  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  and  are  thus  said.  They  are  intro¬ 
duced  by  the  clause  “  Remember  us,  0  Lord, 
when  Thou  comest  into  Thy  Kingdom.”  The 
first  five  Beatitudes  are  then  said  consecutively  ; 
after  the  fifth  and  each  following  one  is  inter- 
posed  a  short  Iroparion,  dift'ering  in  each  case, 
and  all  varying  with  the  day.  After  tiie  si.\th 
of  these  follows  “  Glory,  &c.”  and  then  two  more 
troparia,  the  latter  of  which  is  a  TheotocAon.^ 

In  the  liturgies  of  St.  James  and  St.  Mark 
the  initial  hymn  is  the  same,  and  unvarying.  It 
is  of  the  ordinary  form  of  Greek  hymns,  begin¬ 
ning  “  Only  begotten  Son  and  Word  of  God,”  &c., 
and  containing  prayers  for  salvation  through  the 
mysteries  of  the  incarnation,  which  it  recites. 
[See  Antiphon].  [H.  J.  H.] 

INITIATION.  [Baptism,  §5,  p.  156.] 

INNOCENT,  or  INNOCENTIUS.  (1) 
[Gregory  (2).] 

(2)  Martyr  at  Sirmium  with  Sebastia  (or 
Sabbatia)  and  thirty  others ;  commemorated 
July  4  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis, Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  with  Exsuperius  (1).  [W.  F.  G.] 

INNOCENTS,  Festival  of  the. 
tSsv  ayiwv  i8'  x/Aid5a>i/  vyiriwv :  festum  Inno¬ 
centum  [j"m],  Natales  Sanctorum  Innocentum, 
Natale  Infantum,  Kecatio  [^Allisid]  Infantum. 
The  old  English  Childermas  and  the  German 
Kindermesse  may  also  be  noted.) 

1.  History  of  festival. — The  Holy  Innocents  ot 
Bethlehem,  the  victims  of  Herod’s  jealousy  of  our 
Lord,  are  at  an  early  period  commemorated  as 
martyrs  for  Christ,  of  whom  indeed  they  were 
in  one  sense  the  first  (see  Irenaeus  adv.  llaer. 
iii.  16.  4;  Cyprian,  Epist.  56,  plebi  Thibari  con- 
sistenti,  §  6).  Subsequent  fathers  continually 
speak  in  the  same  strain,  e.g.  Gregory  of  Nazi- 
anzum  {Serm.  38  in  Nativitate,  §  18  ;  vol.  i.  674, 
ed.  Bened.);  Chrysostom  {Horn.  9  in  S.  Matt. 
vol.  vii.  130,  ed.  Montfaucon)  ;  Augustine  {Knar- 
ratio  in  Psal.  47  ;  vol.  iv.  593,  ed.  Gaume  ;  Serm. 
199  in  Epiphania,  §  2,  vol.  v.  1319  ;  Serm.  373  in 
Epiph.  §  3,  vol.  V.  2178;  Serm.  375  in  Epiph. 
§  2,  vol.  V.  2183);  Prudentius  (Caih.  xii.  de 
Epiph.  125).  Augustine  also  distinctly  refers 
{de  lihero  Arbitrio,  iii.  68,  vob  i.  1035)  to  a  com¬ 
memoration  of  their  martyrdom  by  the  church. 
Some  writers,  as  August  i  {henkwiirdigkeAten  aus 
der  Curistlichen  Archdolo jie,  i.  304),  Bintcrim 
{Denkwiirdigkeitcn  der  Christ- A'athoiischen  Kirche, 
V.  1.  549)  and  others,  refer  to  a  homily  of  Origen 


d  These  terms  will  be  explained  In  their  place. 

*  These  ti  opariii  are  given  in  the  Vctotchus. 


fi40  INNOCENTS,  Fx:stival  of  the 

as  affording  evidence  on  this  last  point.  The 
writing  in  question,  however  (f lorn.  3  de  diversis, 
vol.  ii.  p.  282  ;  ed.  I’aris,  1004),  is  universally 
rejected  as  sj)urious,  and  Huet  sums  up  con¬ 
cerning  it  (Origenis  0pp.  vol.  iv.  .325,  ed.  De  la 
Rue)  that  it  is  a  work  originally  written  in 
Latin,  and  later  than  the  time  of  Jerome. 

The  commemoration  of  the  Massacre  of  the 
Innocents  was  at  first  combined  with  the  festival 
of  the  Epiphany.  Thus  the  passage  of  Pruden- 
tius  above  referred  to  speaks  of  them  in  the 
hymn  on  the  Epiphany  ;  Leo,  in  not  a  few  of  his 
homilies  on  the  Epiphany,  speaks  of  the  Inno¬ 
cents  (see  e.g.  Sernim.  31-33,3.5,  38:  Patrol. 
liv.  234  sqq.),  as  also  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe  in  a 
homily  de  Epiphinia,  deque  Innocentum  nece  et 
muneribus  magm-um  (^Patrol.  Ixv.  732).  Subse¬ 
quently  a  special  day  was  set  apart  for  the  fes¬ 
tival  of  the  Innocents,  a  day  in  close  proximit)’ 
to  that  on  which  the  Lord’s  Nativity  is  celebrated 
being  chosen ;  not  that  we  have  any  definite 
knowledge  as  to  the  time  when  Hei’od  put  the 
children  to  death,  but  from  the  special  associ¬ 
ation  between  the  two  events.  Hence  we  find 
December  28  in  the  Western  and  December  29 
in  the  Eastern  church  set  apart  for  the  com¬ 
memoration  of  the  Innocents.  The  date  of  the 
origin  of  the  separate  festival  cannot  be  very 
closely  defined.  It  is  however  mentioned  in  the 
Calendarium  Carthagincnse,  to  whose  date  we  can 
approximate  from  the  fixct  that  the  latest  martyrs 
commemorated  are  those  who  perished  in  the 
Vandal  persecution  under  Hunneric,  484  a.d. 
Here  the  notice  is,  “  V.  Kal.  7an.  Sanctorum  In¬ 
nocentum,  quos  Herodes  jccidit  ”  {Patrol,  xiii. 
1228).  It  may  be  added  that  Peter  Chrysologns, 
bishop  of  Ravenna  (ob.  450  a.d.),  has  left  among 
his  sermons,  two  de  Tnfantium  nece,  quite  apart 
from  several  others  on  the  Epiphany  (Sermm. 
152,  153;  Patrol.  Hi.  604).  It  is  needless  to 
give  here  a  list  of  later  calendars  and  martyr- 
ologies,  in  which  the  festival  of  the  Innocents 
uniformly  occurs,  but  it  may  be  noted  that  it 
subsequently  acquired  a  considerable  degree  of  im¬ 
portance,  for  in  the  Pule  of  Chrodegang,  bishop  of 
Metz  (ob.  766  a.d.),  the  “  festivitas  Infantium  ” 
is  included  among  the  “  solemnitates  praecipuae  ” 
{Reg.  Chrodeg.  c.  74;  Patrol.  Ixxxvii.  1009). 

2.  Liturgical  notices. — The  earliest  of  the  Ro¬ 
man  Sacramentaries,  the  Leonine,  contains  two 
masses  for  the  festival  of  the  Innocents,  which 
follow  immediately  after  that  for  St.  John  the 
Evangelist,  and  are  headed  In  Natali  fnnocenhi  n 
(Leonis  0pp.  vol.  ii.  155,  ed.  Ballerini).  We  may 
call  attention  to  the  curious  reference  in  the 
Preface  of  the  second  mass  to  the  prophecy  of 
Jeremiah  (xxxi.  15),  “  Rachel  plorans  filios  suos, 
noluit  consolari,  quia  non  sunt,”  where  the 
mother’s  grief  is  explained  as  arising  not  from 
the  death  of  her  children,  but  because  infants  held 
worthy  of  receiving  so  great  a  renown  were  born 
not  from  her  line,  but  from  that  of  Leah.  Ele¬ 
ments  from  the  Leonine  Sacramentary  are  found 
embodied  in  the  service  for  the  day  in  the  Ge-  1 
lasian  {Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1060)  and  Gregorian  Sacra-  | 
mentaries  (col.  12,  ed.  Menard),  in  the  latter 
case  including  a  slightly  modified  form  of  the  j 
Preface,^  which  also  appears  in  the  service  for  j 


•  The  collect  in  the  Gelasian  and  Gregorian  Sacra- 
mcntaries  furnishe<l  I  hat  of  our  own  church  till  1662, 
when  it  was  modified  into  its  present  foim 


INNOCENTS,  Festival  of  the 

the  day  in  the  Ambro.sian  liturgy  (Pameli’is, 
Liturgg.  Latt.  i.  308).  In  the  ancient  Romm 
church  a  special  degree  of  mournfulness  was 
associated  with  this  day,  for  we  rind  in  the  Gre¬ 
gorian  Liber  Anti phonarius  (col.  659.  ed.  Menard) 
the  nbtice  that  the  Gloria  in  Ex  elsis  and  Alle¬ 
luia  are  not  sung,  “  .sed  quasi  prae  tristitia  dies 
ilia  deducitur.”  Of  this  we  may  derive  an  illus¬ 
tration,  though  of  much  later  date,  from  the 
Ordo  Rom/inus  (x.  26),  which  remarks  that  on 
this  day,  except  it  fell  on  a  Sunday,  the  Romans 
abstain  from  flesh  and  fat.  See  also  Amalarius 
{de  Eccl.  Off,  i.  41  ;  Patrol,  cv.  1074),  and  the 
Micrologus  {de  Eccl.  ohs.  c.  36;  Patrol,  cli.  1005), 
which  mentions  the  further  omission  on  this  day 
of  the  I'e  Deum  and  He,  missa  est.  He  subjoins  as 
a  reason  for  the  sadness  attaching  to  this  day,  that 
the  Innocents,  though  martyrs  for  Christ,  *‘uon- 
dum  tamen  ad  gloriam,  sed  ad  infernalem  poenam 
discesserunt.” 

In  the  ancient  lectionary  of  the  Galilean 
church,  the  prophetic  lection,  epistle,  and  gospel 
were  respectively  Jer.  xxxi.  15-20,  Rev.  vi.  9-11, 
Matt.  ii.  1-23  (Mabillon,  de  Liturgin  Gal'icana, 
lib.  ii.  p.  112;  see  also  the  service  in  the  Gotho- 
gallic  missal,  lib.  Hi.  p.  198).  In  the  Mozarabic 
liturgy,  howevei’,  they  are  respectively  Jer.  xxxi. 
15-20,  2  Cor.  i.  2-7,  Matt,  xviii.  13-1.5,  1-6, 
10,  11  {Missale  Mixtuin  S.  Isidori,  p.  48,  ed. 
Leslie). 

The  Micrologus  {supra')  refers  to  the  octave  of 
the  festival  of  the  Innocents  as  generally  ob.served 
(“  eodem  modo  ut  aliorum  Sanctorum  celebra- 
tur”).  It  would  seem,  however,  that  this  is  of 
comparatively  late  date  as  a  matter  of  general 
observance,  for  according  to  Binterim  {Denkw. 
V.  1.  552),  it  is  wanting  in  many  calendars  of  the 
Oth'  century.  A  curious  mistake  must  be  men¬ 
tioned  here  into  which  several  have  fallen  in 
connection  with  the  octave  of  the  festival  of  the 
Innocents.  In  the  Indiculus  operum  S.  Au  justini 
by  Possidius,  is  an  entry  “  de  die  octavarum  In¬ 
fantium;  duo”  {Patrol,  xlvi.  16).  This  h;is  been 
taken  by  Baronius  {Martgrologium  Roman  'm, 
Dec.  28  and  Jan.  4,  not.)  and  others  as  showing 
the  existence  of  an  octave  of  the  festival  of  the 
Innocents  in  Augustine’s  time.  The  two  sermons, 
however,  of  Augustine  refer  to  the  first  t'unlay 
after  Easter,  the  octave  of  the  day  on  which  tlie 
sacrament  of  baptism  had  been  received,  “  hoiie 
octavae  dicuntur  infantium,  revelanda  sunt  capita 
eorum  ”  {Sermm.  260,  376  ;  Patrol,  xxxviii.  1201, 
1669). 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  prox¬ 
imity  of  the  festival  of  the  Innocents  to  that  of 
the  Nativity,  in  consequence  of  the  association 
of  the  two  events  commemorated.  These  two 
indeed,  with  the  commemorations  on  the  two 
intervening  days  of  Stephen  the  protomartyr 
and  John  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,  may 
be  suppo.sed  to  form  one  combined  testival,  all 
centering  in  the  idea  of  the  Incai  nation.  Thus 
we  have  a  homily  of  Bernard  of  Ciairvaux  de 
Quatuor  continuis  solemnitatibus,  scilicet  Nativi- 
tatii  Domini  ac  Sanctorum  Stephani,  Johannis  et 
Innocentium  {Patrol,  clxxxiii.  129). 

The  day  for  the  commemoration  of  the  Inno¬ 
cents  in  the  Eastern  church  is  December  29, 
but  we  find  in  the  Armeno-Gregorian  calendar 
(Neale,  Eastern  Church,  Introd.  p.  799)  .lune  10 
associated  with  them  :  this  same  calendar  being 
one  of  those  which  gives  from  what  original 


INSCRIPTIONS 


841 


INNOCENTS,  THE  HOLY 


cause  does  not  appear,  the  amazing  number  of 
14,000  for  the  infants  slain.  This  is  also  the 
case  with  the  pictorial  Moscow  calendar  prefixed 
by  Papebroch  to  the  Acta  Sanctorum  for  May 
(vol.  i.  p.  Ixxii.).**  Numerous  Eastern  calendars, 
however,  do  not  contain  this  absurd  addition  (see 
e.g.  Ludolf,  Fasti  Sacri  Ecclesiae  Alexandrinae, 
p.  16 ;  Selden,  de  Sijnedriis  veterum  Ehraeorum,  j 
pp.  214,231,  ed.  Amsterdam,  1679).  j 

For  further  details  on  the  subject  of  the  fes-  j 
tival  of  the  Innocents,  reference  may  be  made  to  | 
Binterim,  Denkvciirdigkeiten  der  Christ  -  Katho-  j 
lischen  Kirche,  v.  1.  549  ;  August!,  Denkwiirdig-  \ 
keiten  aus  der  Chrisl  lichen  Archdoiogie,  i.  304  sqq.  :  j 
Assemani,  Kalendarium  Ecclesiae  Universae,  v.  | 
519.  [R.  S.]  j 

INNOCENTS,  THE  HOLY,  MASSACRE 
OF.  Represented  in  the  mosaics  of  Sta.  M.  Mag- 
giore  (Ciampini,  V.  M.  I.  tab.  ii.),  and  in  two 
ivories,  one  of  which  (from  a  diptych  in  the 
cathedral  of  Milan)  is  given  by  Martigny  (s.  v. 
see  woodcut) ;  also  on  a  sarcophagus  at  St. 
Maximin,  south  of  France  (^Monum.  de  Ste.  Made¬ 
leine,  t.  i.  col.  735,  736).  Here  it  is  contrasted 
with  another  relief  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi, 


to  take  into  account — (1)  The  literature  of  the 
subject,  which  is  indeed  the  only  division  which 
can  be  treated  at  all  comprehensively  in  an 
article  like  the  present.  (2)  Technical  execution. 
(3)  Symbols.  (4)  A  selection  of  inscriptions,  with 
notes  on  some  matters  arising  out  of  them. 
(5)  Their  language  and  style.  (6)  The  modes 
of  dating  them.  (7)  An  enumeration  of  the  ab¬ 
breviations  which  occur  on  them. 

(i.)  Literature  of  the  Su'iject. — This  matter  is 
ably  treated  of  by  M.  De  Rossi  in  the  first  thirty- 
six  pages  of  his  preface  to  the  Inscriptiones  Chris- 
tianae  Ui-bis  Eomae  Septimo  Saeculo  Antijuiores^ 
(Rome,  1857-1861  fol.).  The  principal  facts  are 
as  follows.  The  earliest  collections  of  Christian 
inscriptions  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge 
belong  to  the  age  of  Charles  the  Great,  and  were 
made,  as  De  Rossi  thinks,  by  scholars  of  Alenin. 
The  most  ancient  of  these  is  contained  in  an 
Einsiedeln  MS.  written  in  the  age  of  Alenin  : 
about  a  third  of  the  whole  collection  is  Chris¬ 
tian,  sepulchral  examples  however  being  wholly 
wanting.  Various  compilations  of  inscriptions 
were  also  now  made,  in  which  many  of  the 
epitaphs  written  by  pope  Damasus,  among  other 
Christian  authors,  were  included  ;  and  the  small 


Ivory  Diptych  at  Milan.  From  Martigny. 


the  two  pictures  occupying  two  sides  of  a  frieze, 
and  being  divided  by  the  titulus  of  the  deceased. 
Martigny  also  mentions  an  ivory  diptych  of  this 
subject,  attributed  to  the  period  of  Theodosius 
the  Younger,  and  published  by  M.  Rigollot  (Arfo 
de  Sculpture  au  moyen  age).  [R.  St.  J.  T.] 

INSACRATI.  [Imposition  of  Hands,  §  1.] 

INSCRIPTIONS.  In  strictness  of  speech 
every  inscribed  monument  falls  under  this  cate¬ 
gory,  unless  the  writing  be  upon  skin  or  upon 
paper  ;  and  accordingly  the  great  collections  of 
Greek  and  Latin  inscriptions  recently  published  at 
Berlin  include  every  kind  of  monument  which  is 
inscribed,  coins  only  excepted.  These  are  some¬ 
what  arbitrarily  but  at  the  same  time  profit¬ 
ably  excluded,  as  belonging  to  a  special  depart¬ 
ment  of  study.  But  in  common  parlance,  by 
Inscriptions,  the  larger  monuments  in  stone  are 
intended,  and  in  the  following  ai*ticle  compara¬ 
tively  little  notice  will  be  taken  of  any  others. 

In  treating  of  this  vast  subject  it  is  proposed 


h  A  still  wilder  estimate,  however,  is  found  in  an 
Auctarium  to  the  martyrology  of  Usuardus,  which  fixes 
the  number  at,  144,000  {Patrol,  cxxiii.  848),  probably  with 
reference  to  Rev,  vii.  4. 


remaining  stone  fragments  of  some  of  these  can 
be  completed  with  certainty  by  their  aid.  The 
collectors  of  these  inscriptions  cared  little  for 
their  historical  value,  and  commonly  omitted  all 
mention  of  their  age  or  authors ;  they  rather 
designed  them  to  be  models,  after  which  similar 
verses  might  be  composed.  The  others  now 
remaining  in  whole  or  in  great  part  are — 
(1)  The  Palatine  MS.  of  the  11th  century 
(now  in  the  Vatican),  edited  by  Gruter,  Thes. 
Inscr.,  pp.  MCLXIII.-MCLXXVII.,  who  has  omitted 
a  few  profane  epigrams,  which  are  interspersed. 
None  of  the  Christian  inscriptions  seem  to 
be  later  than  the  9th  century,  and  they  were 
probably  collected  by  some  one  who  visited 
Rome  and  various  other  places  in  Italy  about  the 
close  of  that  century.  (2)  A  MS.  of  Kloster 
Neuburg,  about  the  llth  century,  consisting  of 
Christian  inscriptions  exclusively,  which  were 
copied  from  Italian  originals  about  the  8th  cen- 

■  Le  Slant’s  catalogue  of  books  relating  to  Christian 
epigraphy,  published  at  the  entl  of  his  Manuel,  is  a  useful 
supplement  to  this,  and  brings  the  bibliography  down  to 
1869.  De  Rossi  is  less  careful  to  notice  printed  books 
than  MS.  collections,  as  being  better  known.  After  the 
publication  of  Marini’s  papers  by  Mai  in  1831  he  ceases 
altogether. 


84-2 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTLONS 


tury  ;  they  are  almost  all  historical,  many  being 
by  Damasus.  (8)  A  Verdun  MS.  of  the  10th 
century,  containing  thirty-one^  Roman  inscrip¬ 
tions  ;  a  collection  independent  of  either  of  the 
preceding,  made  in  the  8th  or  9th  century. 

Hae  tres  antiquissimae  syllogae  omnes  trans 
Aljies  servatae  nobis  sunt;  neque  quidquam  his 
simile  in  Italiae  nostrae  bibliothecis  uspiam 
inveui  ....  Primi  ergo  veterum  inscriptio- 
num  amatores  trausaljiini  omnes  fuere  .  .  .  . 
Ab  Alcuiniaua  aetate  ad  saeculum  usque  deci- 
mum  quartum  ....  antiquis  inscriptionibus 
colligendis  nemo  videtur  operam  navasse  ”  (De 
Rossi,  u.  s.  pp.  X.*  xi.*). 

The  15th  century  saw  the  revival  of  epi- 
graphic  studies,  but  among  the  iuscrijitions  col¬ 
lected  by  Poggio,  Signorili,  Cyriaco,  Feliciani, 
Marcanova,  Pehem,  Schedel,  and  others,  those 
which  are  Cliristian  ajiparent  rarae,”  and  are 
not  separately  classed.  The  earliest  collector  of 
purely  Christian  inscriptions,  who  lived  in  the 
age  of  the  Renaissance,  is  Pietro  Sabiui,  who  in 
1495  presented  his  work,  in  MS.,  comprising 
those  which  he  had  cojiied  in  Rome  and  out  of 
it,  both  from  the  originals  and  from  ^ISS.,  to 
Charles  Vlll.,  king  of  France.  The  MS.  has 
been  found  in  the  library  of  St.  Mark  at  Venice 
by  De  Rossi,  who  aiHrms  that  some  of  the  in¬ 
scriptions  are  very  valuable,  and  have  been  copied 
b\'  no  other  scholar;  many  however  belong  to  a 
late  period.  A  volume  of  inscriptions  from  the 
aucieut  clnu'ches  of  Rome,  made  by  Giovanni 
Capoti  in  1498,  seems  to  have  been  of  much  the 
same  character.  The  otlier  collectors  of  inscrip¬ 
tions  who  lived  from  this  time  to  the  middle  of 
the  16th,  added  scarcely  anything  (vix  mediocre 
incrementum)  to  Christian  epigraphy.  Aldus 
Manutius  the  Younger  however  applied  himself 
diligently  to  the  collection  of  Christian  inscrip¬ 
tions  among  others,  and  twentv  volumes  of  these 
formed  by  various  members  of  this  illustrious 
family  are  preserved  in  the  Vatican,  from  which 
De  Rossi  has  derived  no  small  profit.  The  most 
important  of  these  was  compiled  in  1506  and 
1567,  and  is  entirely  filled  with  inscriptions  con¬ 
tained  in  Christian  churches.  The  whole  number 
of  Christian  inscriptions  hitherto  collected  from 
all  parts,  from  the  8th  to  the  middle  of  the  16th 
century,  excluding  those  of  very  recent  date,  is 
considerably  less  than  a  thousand ;  a  great  many 
of  these  being  contained  in  MS.  only.*’  At  pre¬ 
sent  more  than  11,000  Christian  inscriptions 
earlier  than  the  7th  centuiy  are  known  to  have 
been  found  in  Rome  alone.  With  the  exception 
of  a  few  epitaphs  by  Damasus  copied  in  tombs 
of  the  martyrs  by  the  scholars  of  Alcuin,  no 
subterranean  inscription  had  hitherto  been  de- 
cyphered.  But  the  discovery  of  the  catacombs 
of  Rome  in  1578  marks  a  new  era  in  the  study. 
Ciaccone,  L’Heureux  or  Macarius,  Winghius, 
Ugene,  and  somewhat  later  in  time,  but  first  and 
foremost  in  diligence  and  success,  Antonio  Bosio, 
were  among  the  earliest  explorers,  and  all  were 
more  or  less  addicted  to  the  study  of  Christian 

*>  The  Editibui-gh  Reciew  for  1864,  p.  221,  goes  so  fur 
as  to  SJiy  that  “  the  results  of  the  whole  epoch  (of  the  re- 
vis’al  of  letters)  may  be  summed  up  in  (he  single  state¬ 
ment,  that  more  than  a  C'-ntury  had  elapsed  after  the 
discovery  of  printing  before  a  single  inscription  of  the 
early  Christian  centuries  had  been  given  to  the  world.” 

Various  MS  volumes  are  mentioned  by  De  Rossi  (u.  s. 
pp.  .\iv.*-xvii.*)  of  which  no  notice  is  taken  here. 


inscriptions.  Soon  after  this  time  the  Christian 
inscriptions  occupy  a  distinct  place  in  Gruter’s 
Corpus  Inscriptionum,  published  in  1616;  but 
besides  the  Palatine  Collection  mentioned  above, 
all  the  others  together  reach  only  about  150, 
although  many  more  had  been  now  cojiied  in 
Rome  by  several  of  his  friends.  Tliere  can  b<j 
no  doubt  that  Gruter  cared  comparatively  little 
about  this  class  of  inscriptions.  The  extensive 
and  accurate  transcrijits  of  Bosio  tvere  trans¬ 
ferred,  after  his  death  in  1629,  to  Severani,  who 
published  the  Roma  Soiterar{ea  in  1662  ;  which 
was  republished  in  an  enlarged  Latin  form  by 
Aringhi,  in  two  folio  volumes,  in  16.50.*  During 
the  half  century  that  followed  the  publication 
of  Gruter’s  groat  work,  many  scholars  collected 
additional  Christian  inscriptions,  some  of  the 
most  imj)ortant  of  which  are  still  in  M.8.  Fspe- 
cially  to  be  named  are  those  of  .1.  B.  Doni  (died 
1647),  preserved  in  the-  iMarucelli  Library  at 
Florence,  “  codex  inter  primaria  operis  mei  sub- 
sidia  numeraudus  ”  (De  Rossi)  ;  of  Sirmond  (died 
1651),  in  the  Bibliotheque  Natiouale  at  Paris 
(very  valuable,  containing  many  still  unpub¬ 
lished),  and  of  Peiresc  (died  1667),  whose  In- 
scriptiones  Christianae  et  novae  were  consulted 
at  Paris  by  De  Rossi,  who  si)eaks  of  their  value, 
more  especially  for  the  inscriptions  of  Gaul. 
To  these  should  be  added  the  collections  of  F. 
Ptolomeo  (made  about  1666),  preserved  in  the 
public  library  of  Sienna,  of  which  Muratori 
made  much  use,  and  those  of  Brutio,  in  seven¬ 
teen  volumes,  finished  in  1679.  pre.-.erved  in  the 
Vatican,  whose  value  is  scarcely  proportional 
to  their  bulk.  Between  Aringhi  (1650)  and 
Fabretti,  whose  folio  volume  on  inscriptions 
appeared  in  1702,  Montfaucon  alone  (so  thinks 
De  Rossi)  can  be  regarded  as  having  materially 
added  to  the  knowledge  of  Christian  epigraphy ; 
his  MSS.  were  examined  at  Paris  by  De  Rossi, 
who  thence  derived  some  valuable  additions  to 
his  Roman  inscriptions.  It  deserves  however  to 
be  recorded  that  William  Fleetwood,  fellow  of 
King’s  College,  Cambridge,  afterwards  bishop  of 
Ely,  published  in  1691  an  fnscriptionum  Antiqua- 
?'um  Sylloge  (Lond.  8vo),  in  two  parts ;  the 
second  part,  “  Christiana  nionumenta  antiqua 
quae  hacteuus  innotuerunt  omnia  complec- 
titur  :  ”  these  occupy  nearly  two  hundred  pages, 
and  are  occasionally  accompanied  by  brief  notes.** 
Zaccaria  several  times  notices  this  work  contro¬ 
versially  or  otherwise  (Z>iss.  de  Vet.  Inscr.  usu, 
pp.  326,  327,  370,  382,  384,  388,  399),  and  it 
is  frequently  quoted  by  other  epigraphists  as  by 
Marini,  Le  Blant,  and  De  Rossi  himself,  though  he 
has  not  named  it  in  his  introduction.  Fabretti’s 
labours  are  both  skilful  and  accurate ;  but  the 
types  which  the  printer  made  use  of  were  inade¬ 
quate  to  express  the  true  reading  of  his  inscrip¬ 
tions.  Boldetti  and  Marangoni,  who  laboured  in 
concert  in  the  same  field  as  Bosio  had  done,  “  are 


«  Dr.  M‘Caul  {Christian  Epitaphs,  pref.  p.  iv.  note) 
observes  that  these  volumes  “  have  a  reputation  far  be¬ 
yond  their  merits.”  There  is  no  doubt,  he  adds,  that 
some  forger  of  inscriptions  imjxtsed  both  on  Severani  and 
Aringhi.  I  »e  Rossi  promises  a  detailed  account  of  this 
matter,  p.  xxvi*. 

t*  We  can  the  less  atford  to  pass  it  over,  though  it  ap¬ 
pears  to  be  little  else  but  acoinpilation  from  o'her  authors, 
as  it  is  almost  the  only  work  on  Chri^tian  epigraphy  ex¬ 
pressly  devoted  to  the  subject,  that  has  appeared  in  this 
country  till  quite  lately. 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


S43 


made  especially  memorable  by  one  of  those  cata¬ 
strophes,  which  occasioually  diversity  the  monoto¬ 
nous  history  of  student  life.  They  had  spent 
more  than  thirty  years  in  the  exploration  of  the 
catacombs  and  other  sacred  antiquities  ot  Rome. 
Boldetti’s  volume,  published  in  1720  at  Rome 
[entitled  Osservazioni  s  pm  i  cimiteri  de’  Santi 
3Iartir{],  comprised  a  portion  ot  the  results ; 
but  by  far  the  greater  j>art  still  remained  in 
WS.,  when  in  17b7  an  unlucky  tire  destroyed  in 
a  few  hours  the  fruit  of  all  these  yeai’s  of  toil¬ 
some  research.  The  loss,  it  is  melancholy  to 
add,  was  complete  and  irreparable.  Boldetti’s 
great  age  jjrecluded  all  hopes  of  his  being  able 
to  repair  his  portion  of  the  work.  Marangoni 
although  grievously  depressed  resumed  his 
labours  with  great  enei’gy  ;  but  M.  De  Rossi  has 
everywhere  sought  in  vain  for  the  results  ot  his 
attempted  restor;ition  ”  (^Iid'rdmrgh  Rev.  u.  s.  p. 
222).  The  destruction  of  these  papers  has  left  a 
void  which  can  hardly  be  supplied  ;  the  chambers 
which  they  e.xplored  are  now  ‘‘  demolita  et  hor- 
reiidum  in  modum  vastata  ”  (De  Rossi).  Bol- 
detti  indeed  and  those  whom  he  employed  to 
coj)V  the  inscriptions  have  been  proved  to  be  very 
inaccurate  both  as  regards  the  sites  of  their  dis¬ 
covery  and  the  reading  of  the  texts;®  ‘‘ ei  me 
iratissimum  esse  proHteor,”  says  De  Rossi  (p. 
xxvii.*).  Marangoni  was  much  more  exact,  and 
his  App'.ndix  ad  Acta  S.  I'ictorini,  Rom.  1740, 
4",  IS  a  work  of  considerable  value.  P.  Lupi,  a 
friend  of  these  scholars,  has  left,  besides  various 
printed  works  relating  to  epigraphy,  a  valuable 
collection  of  inscriptions  preserved  in  MS.  in  the 
Vatican  at  Rome ;  and  a  similar  collection  by  the 
celebrated  Buonarotti  is  preserved  at  Florence. 

It  became  evident  that  the  time  had  now 
arrived  when  a  fresh  collection  of  Christian  in¬ 
scriptions  should  incorporate  the  previous  dis¬ 
coveries  of  so  many  scholars.  The  industrious 
Gori  projected  such  a  work,  in  which  they  should 
be  so  arranged  as  to  illustrate  the  doctrines,  the 
ceremonies,  the  hierarchy  and  the  discipline  of 
the  church.  But  his  other  engagements  pre¬ 
vented.  The  MSS.  however  of  his  friends 
Stoscli,  Ficoroni  and  others,  containing  materials 
for  the  work,  are  stored  up  in  the  Marucelli 
Library  at  Florence,  where  they  were  consulted 
with  profit  by  De  Rossi.  The  task  was  in  some 
measure  executed  by  the  indefatigable  Muratori, 
whose  Xovus  'rhesaurm  Vetcrum  fnscriptionum 
published  at  Milan  in  1739  in  four  folio  volumes, 
contains,  in  addition  to  the  profane  inscriptions, 
a  larger  number  of  Christian  ones  than  had  ever 
yet  appeared,  being  taken  both  from  printed  and 
from  Ms.  sources:  but  the  work  was  very  un¬ 
critically  executed,  and  his  conjectural  additions 
are  not  distinguished  from  the  actual  readings  of 
the  broken  inscriptions.  ^laffei,  who  has  been 
called  the  founder  of  lapidary  criticism,  had 
undertaken  in  conjunction  with  Seguier  a  great 
body  of  inscriptions,  in  which  there  should  be  a 
purely  Christian  division  ;  but  both  these  and 
various  other  scholars,  who  had  cherished  like 
good  intentions,  bore  no  fruit  to  perfection. 

It  now  also  again  entered  into  the  minds  of 
more  than  one  divine  to  turn  the  extant  mass 


«  De  Rossi  (under  his  fnscr.  Urb.  Horn.  n.  17,  p.  24) 
calls  him  a  man  “cujiis  in  iil  genus  apographis  e.xcipi- 
endis  imperiiiam  et  iiicuriam  non  ceutena,  sed  millena 
exempla  tesiantur." 


of  Christian  inscriptions  to  theological  account ; 
and  with  somewhat  better  success.  The  learned 
Jesuit  A.  F.  Zaccaria  contemplated  a  very  exten¬ 
sive  work,  in  which  the  more  interesting  Chris¬ 
tian  inscriptions  should  be  arranged  under  the 
following  heads:  (i.)  Religio  in  Deum ;  (ii.) 
Religio  in  Sanctos;  (iii.)  Templa ;  (iv.)  Tem- 
plorum  ornamenta,  vasa  sacra,  idque  genus 
caetera  ;  (v.)  Dies  Festi  ;  (vi.)  Sacramenta  ;  (vii.) 
Hierarch ia  ecclesiastica  ac  primo  Romani  Pon- 
tificis;  (viii.)  Fpiscoid  ;  (ix.)  Presbyteri ;  (x.) 
Ordines  majores  ;  (xi.)  Ordines  minores ;  (xii.) 
Monachi ;  (xiii.)  Laici  ;  (xiv.)  Laici  dignitato 
praestantes ;  (xv.)  Artes  atque  officia  minora; 
(xvi.)  Leges  ecclesiasticae  (De  Rossi,  u.  s.  p. 
XXX.*)  This  magnilo(iuent  announcement  how¬ 
ever  was  never  carried  out  ;  but  a  kind  of  first 
fruits  were  put  forth  in  17G2  in  a  treatise 
entitled  De  ve!emin  Christianoruin  in  7'ebns 
t/ieolO(jicis  usu.^  In  this  work  he  brings  together 
with  a  considerable  amount  of  industry  and 
learning  such  inscriptions  as  bear  or  seem  to 
bear  upon  the  doctrines  of  his  church  ;  “  quae  non 
ultra  septimum  nostrae  aerae  saeculum  progre- 
diuntur,  ne  haereticis  cavillandi  detur  occasio  ” 
(7/iCS.  Theol.  Diss.  p.  325).  Martigny  however 
calls  it  “  un  livre  mediocre  ;  ”  and  speaks  of  his 
friend  and  imitator,  Danzetta,  as  having  written 
“  avec  moins  de  sucebs  encore  ”  ®  {Diet.  p.  305). 
The  bearing  of  inscriptions  upon  doctrinal  or  dis¬ 
ciplinary  controver.sy  is  “a  j)erfectly  legitimate 
use  of  the  subject,''  and  indeed  its  true  ultimate 
end,  but  one  for  which  from  the  insufficiency  of 
the  data  the  time  had  not  [in  the  18th  century] 
fully  arrived.”  {lid  n'mrcjk  ReVieic,u.  s.  p.  224.) 
Nor  can  it  be  said  to  have  fully  arrived  now.  In 
a  few  years’  time  it  will  probably  be  otherwise. 

Zaccaria  in  his  later  years  encouraged  a  rising 
young  scholar,  Gaetano  ilariui,  to  undertake  the 
task  which  he  had  found  to  be  too  much  for 
himself.  Marini  set  about  the  work  with  great 
spirit,  and  from  1765  to  1801  worked  at  it,  not 
exclusively  indeed,  but  yet  so  as  never  to  allow 
his  labours  to  be  wholly  intermitted.  An  ample 
account  of  his  preparations  and  of  the  merits  and 
defects  of  his  performances  is  given  by  De  Rossi. 
(m.  s.  pp.  xxxi.*-xxxii.*).  By  help  of  his 
friends  in  Italy  and  his  own  labour  he  had 
amassed  about  8600  Christian  inscriptions  in 
Latin,  and  about  750  in  Greek  from  all  parts 
of  the  world,  of  the  first  ten  centuries.  But 
these  were  in  a  confused,  imperfect  and  uncritical 
I  state.  “  Marini’s  labours  were  interrupted  by 
the  French  Revolution  ;  and  at  his  death  he  be¬ 
queathed  to  the  Vatican  Library  the  materials 
which  he  had  compiled,  and  which,  having 


f  Published  in  the  Thesaurus  Theolog.  Dissertationum 
vol.  i.  pp.  325-396,  Venet.  1762,  4to;  apparently  for  the 
first  time  (see  Fra<fatio  generalis').  Le  Biaiit  (in  his 
Bibliographic)  gives  1761  as  tlie  date.  It  has  been  re¬ 
published  by  Migne  in  his  Cursus  Theolog.  completus. 

g  It  would  seem  from  De  Rossi’s  remarks  (p  xxxi*) 
that  his  Theologia  Lapuiai-ia  exists  only  in  MS.  (in  the 
Vatican).  He  gained  from  it  a  lew  unpublished  inscrip¬ 
tions  which  Danzetta  had  taken  from  the  papers  of  Ma¬ 
rangoni. 

*>  For  the  ecclesiastical  historian  inscriptions  of  all 
pcricals  will  of  course  have  their  own  value;  and  many  of 
them  yield  up  a  great  deal  of  information  and  furnish 
‘‘illustrations  of  almost  every  branch  of  Christian  litera¬ 
ture,  history,  and  antiquities”  {Bdiuburgh  Review,  \i.  B, 
p.  231), 


844 


INSCKIPTIOXS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


recently  been  put  in  order  by  M.  De  Rossi  are  t 
found  to  fill  no  fewer  than  31  volumes.  Among 
these,  four  volumes  had  been  partially  prepared 
for  publication,  of  which  the  first  was  in  a  com¬ 
paratively  forward  state.  This  is  the  Tnscrip- 
tionum  Chriatianarum  pars  prima,  which  is 
printed  in  the  fifth  volume  of  Mai’s  Scripto)'um 
Veterum  Nova  CoUecth,  in  1831.  And  perhaps 
it  may  be  said  that  it  is  to  the  incomplete  and 
unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  remaining  por¬ 
tion  of  Marini’s  paj)ers  that  we  are  indebted 
for  much  of  the  far  more  critical  and  scholaHy 
work  of  M.  De  Rossi,  entitled  Inscriptiones 
Urbis  Romae  Scpthno  Saealo  anti/uiores  (Rom. 
1857-61,  fol.  pp.  619+123  pro!.  +40  praef.) 
This  publication  WiU  undertaken  at  the  expi-ess 
solicitation  of  Cardinal  Mai,  who  finding  the 
task  of  preparing  for  the  ])ress  the  rest  of 
Marini’s  materials  entirely  incompatible  with 
his  other  engagements,  transferred  to  his  young 
and  learned  friend  the  undertaking  for  which 
his  tastes,  his  studies,  and  his  genuine  love 
of  the  subject  pointed  him  out  to  Mai  as 
eminently  fitted.”  (Acfmiwn/A  Rev.  u.  s.  pp. 
224,  225,  slightly  altered.)  the  first  volume  of 
this  great  work,  the  only  one  known  to  the 
writer,  and  perhaps  the  only  one  yet  published, 
contains  those  Roman  inscriptions  only  whose 
precise  or  approximate  date  is  positively  known.* 
The  number  of  these  is  1126  ;  among  which  we 
have  one  belonging  to  the  first  century,  two  to  the 
beginning  of  the  second  (all  very  brief  and  unim¬ 
portant),  and  twenty-three  to  the  third;  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries  have  between  four 
and  five  hundred  each,  and  the  sixth  century  a 
little  more  than  two  hundred.  Fragments  and 
additional  inscriptions  contained  in  the  appendices 
bring  the  number  up  to  1374. 

The  second  part  of  his  work  is  intended  to 
include  select  inscriptions  interesting  for  their 
theological  and  historical  worth;  and  in  the  last 
place  he  will  include  all  the  remaining  inscrip¬ 
tions  arranged  accord?\ig  to  the  localities  where 
thev  were  found  ;  and  also  the  Jewish  inscrip¬ 
tion  found  in  Rome.*' 

We  can  afford  no  more  space  to  notice  this 
masterly  performance,  which  every  one  who 
desires  to  become  acquainted  with  Christian 
inscriptions  must  necessarily  study  ;  an  interest¬ 
ing  account  of  it,  and  also  of  the  work  following 
will  be  found  in  the  Edinburgh  Review  for  July, 
1864. 

The  impulse  given  to  Christian  epigraphy  by 
De  Rossi’s  great  work,  and  by  his  other  works  of 
smaller  dimensions'  has  been  manifested  by  the 


‘  He  calls  them  Epitapkia  certam,  tempoins  notam  ex- 
hibentia.  Notwithstanding  this,  the  mark  of  time  on  the 
stone,  by  reason  of  its  fragmentary  condition,  often  leaves 
the  exact  date  uncertain.  See,  for  example,  n.  986,  the 
date  of  which  may  be  522  or  485,  and  n.  999,  which  may 
be  of  the  year  525,  524,  454,  or  453. 

k  Under  each  inscription  mention  is  made  of  the  place 
where  it  w’as  found,  where  it  has  been  edited,  if  at  all,  or 
from  what  MSS.  it  has  been  copied  by  the  editor,  if  he 
have  not  himself  transcribed  it.  Plates  are  in  most  cases 
added.  If  the  inscriptions  were  more  frequently  written 
out  in  common  minuscules,  besides  being  figured,  they 
would  be  more  easily  read  by  the  non-antiquarian  scholar 
or  student. 

1  His  Bulletino  di  Archeologia  Cristiana,  of  which  the 
first  VO  ume  (in  twelve  monthly  parts)  appeared  in  1863 
(Roma,  tipografia  Salviucci,  4to)  is  a  magazine  of  most 


I  publication  of  other  books  relating  to  the  subject, 
among  vvhich  those  which  comprise  the  Christian 
in.scriptions  en  masse  of  particular  countries  hold 
the  first  rank.  And  among  these  w’e  must  place 
at  the  head  the  Inscriptions  Chfdliennes  de  la 
Gaule  antd'rieures  an  VIII"**.  Siecle.  edited  and 
annotated  by  M.  Edmond  Le  Blant,  in  2  vols 
4to.,  Paris,  1856,  and  1865,  comprising  708  in¬ 
scriptions,  nearly  all  Latin,  but  a  few  Greek,  and 
a  few  also  written  in  Runes. *“  The  earliest  dated 
inscription  belongs  to  the  year  334,  and  the 
latest  to  695 ;  but  only  four  of  these  are  as  early 
as  the  4th  century.  Of  the  rest  that  are  dated 
about  50  belong  to  the  5th  century,  nearly  100 
to  the  6th,  and  13  to  the  7th  century.  A  few 
which  are  undated  are  certainly  before  the  age 
of  Constantine  {Manuel,  p.  124). 

The  same  learned  author  has  likewise  more 
recently,  in  1869,  written  a  Manuel  d' Epijraphie 
Chretienne  d^apres  les  marbres  de  la  Gaule,  ac- 
compagnd  d'une  bibliographie  speciale,  i.e.,  a 
catalogue  of  books  relating  to  Christian  epi¬ 
graphy  generally,  Paris,  sm.  8vo.  pp.  267.  Al¬ 
though  this  valuable"  work  refers  more  especially 
to  Gaulish  inscriptions,  there  is  a  great  deal  about 
others  also ;  in  particular  his  enumeration  of 
formulae  (Greek  and  Latin)  which  occur  in  dif¬ 
ferent  parts  of  the  Christian  w'orld,  in  Europe, 
Asia  and  Africa,  where  diflerent  provinces  have 
their  own  styles  of  epigraphy,  is  peculiarly  in¬ 
structive  (pp.  76-81),  and  a  translation  wfill  be 
found  below.  The  Christian  inscriptions  ofSpain 
have  very  recc.itly  been  edited  by  one  of  the 
most  eminent  living  epigraphists.  Prof.  E.  Hiibner, 
of  Berlin.  His  Inscriptiones  Hispaniae  Chris- 
tianae  was  published  at  Berlin  in  1871,  and  in¬ 
cludes  209  inscriptions,  besides  89  others  of  the 
medieval  period  comprised  in  the  appendix.  Of 
the  earlier  ones  two  or  three  only  can  be  referred 
to  the  4th  century  ;  the  others  are  of  the  5th, 
6th,  7th  and  8th  centuries;  about  half  of  them 
are  dated,  the  earliest  being  of  the  year  465,  and 
the  latest  being  782.  Nearly  all  are  in  Latin  ;  a 
very  few  only  in  Greek.  A  splendid  publication 
commenced  in  1870,  entitled  Christian  Inscrip¬ 
tions  in  the  Irish  Language,  chiefly  collected  and 
drawn  by  G.  Petrie,  LL.D.,  edited  by  M.  Stokes, 
Dublin,  printed  at  the  University,  4to.  Four 
parts  have  now  (1874)  been  published.  Those  of 
Clonmacnois  (above  100  in  number)  range  from 

valuable  information  for  inscriptions  among  other  anti¬ 
quities.  Other  works  of  his  (some  unknown  to  the 
writer)  on  this  subject  are  enumerated  by  Le  Blant  in  his 
Bibliographie  at  the  end  of  his  Manuel  d’ Epigraphie. 

“  Both  this  and  Hiibiier’s  work  (see  below)  give  details 
for  each  inscription  in  the  same  exact  and  comprehensive 
manner  as  De  Rossi,  and  are  accompanied  by  numerous 
plates.  M.  Le  Blant  has  subsequently  obtained  additional 
inscriptions  from  various  parts  of  1  ranee  and  Switzerland, 
which  will  one  day,  he  hopes,  form  a  rich  supplement  to 
his  former  work  {Manue\  p.  1). 

“  It  is  notwithstanding  to  l>e  regretted  that  so  useful 
a  book  was  not  put  together  with  a  little  more  fulness  and 
precision  :  it  is  divided  into  nineteen  chapters,  but  nothing 
is  said  either  at  the  beginning  of  the  work  or  at  the  head 
of  each  respecting  the  contents  of  the  chapters ;  the  list 
of  books  placed  at  the  end  of  the  volume  scarcely  satisfies 
the  requirements  of  the  bibliographer,  as  it  almost  inva¬ 
riably  omits  the  Christian  name  or  initials  of  the  authors 
mentioned,  and  the  number  of  volumes  in  each  work.  At 
the  same  time  it  will  be  found  very  helpful  without 
being  by  any  means  complete,  particularly  as  regards 
English  books. 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


845 


the  7th  to  the  12th  century  in  a  regular  series ; 
and  by  their  help  it  is  hoj)ed  that,  a  key  to  the 
approximate  date  of  such  works  in  other  parts 
of  the  country  as  well  as  in  other  parts  of 
the  British  Islands  may  be  obtained.  They 
occupy  the  first  part  of  the  work.  All  the  above 
works  are  beautifully  illustrated  with  figures. 
There  are  also  other  recent  books  which  deal 
with  the  Christian  inscriptions  of  particular  re¬ 
gions.  Among  them  are  to  be  named  C.  Gazzera, 
Delle  iscrizioni  cristiune  antiche  del  Piononte  dis- 
corso,  Torino,  1850,  4to.  (also  in  Mem.  Accad. 
di  Torino,  1851);  J.  B.  De  Rossi,  Pe  Christianis 
titulis  Carthaginiensib  :s  (in  Pitra’s  Spicil.  Solesm. 
vol.  4);  and  (along  with  the  Pagan  inscriptions) 
L.  Renier,  Inscriptions  Ilomaines  de  V Algerie, 
Paris,  1858,  fol. 

The  Corpus  Inscriptionwn  Latinarum,  whose 
publication  is  still  going  forward  at  Berlin, 
includes,  with  specified  exceptions,  all  Latin 
inscriptions,  both  Pagan  and  Christian,  which 
can  be  placed  with  certainty  or  reasonable  pro¬ 
bability  before  600  a.d.  (see  pref.  to  vols.  ii. 
and  iii.).  The  Christian  inscriptions  are  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  the  indices  by  a  dagger  prefixed.® 

A  great  number  of  Welsh  inscriptions,  the 
earliest  being  probably  about  the  7th  century, 
will  be  found  in  the  numerous  volumes  of  the 
Archaeologia  Cambrensis,  1846,  sqq.  8vo.,  mostly 
described  by  the  well-known  palaeographer 
Prof.  Westwood.  But  a  conspectus  of  the  whole 
of  the  early  Christian  inscriptions  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland  ft  will,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  in  process 
of  time  be  included  in  Messrs.  A.  W.  Haddan  and 
W.  Stubbs’  Councils  and  Ecclesiastical  Docu¬ 
ments  relating  to  Great  Britain,  of  which  the 
first  volume  appeared  at  Oxford  in  1869,  8vo., 
part  of  the  second  in  1871,  and  the  third  in 
1873.  The  very  scanty  inscribed  Christian  re¬ 
mains  of  the  Roman  period  will  be  found  at 
vol.  i.  pp.  39,  40  vol.  ii.  p.  xxii.  (Addenda) 


°  It  is  a.stonlshing  how  small  a  number  of  Latin 
Christian  inscriptions  (or,  at  any  rate  inscriptions  known 
to  be  Christian)  occur  in  some  countries.  In  vol.  iii. 
edited  by  Mommsen,  which  includes  Egypt,  Asia,  Illy- 
ricum,  and  the  provinces  of  European  Greece,  there  are 
only  about  thirty  inscriptions  which  can  be  counted  upon 
as  Christian  out  of  6574.  Of  these  several  were  found  toge¬ 
ther  at  a  place  in  Dalmatia. 

p  The  books  where  the  inscriptions  are  described  and 
figured  are  fully  detailed  under  each  inscription  in  the 
same  complete  manner  as  in  De  Rossi’s,  Le  Blant’s,  and 
Hiibner’s  works  already  mentioned.  It  is  hardly  neces¬ 
sary  therefore  to  say  much  of  any  of  them  here ;  many 
of  them  are  periodicals,  others  are  monographs  on  parti¬ 
cular  cla.sses  of  monuments,  particularly  Stuart's  Sculp¬ 
tured  Stones  of  Scothind  (printed  for  the  Spalding  Club, 
Edinb.  1856-1867,  2  vols.  tol.) ;  G.  .Stephen’s  Old  Northern 
Runic  Monuments  (London  and  Copenhagen,  2  vols.  fol. 
1866-1868);  Munch’s  edition  of  the  Chron.  Manniae 
(Christian,  1860).  A  great  number  also  of  topographical 
and  archaeological  works  by  Ly.sons,  Ilodg.son,  Nichols, 
C.  Roach  Smith,  Horsley,  Borlase,  &c.  are  brought  under 
contribution. 

q  The  Lincoln  inscription  is  considered  by  HUbner 
{Inscr.  Brit.  Bat.  n  191)  to  be  of  the  16th  century.  If 
80,  perhaps  the  only  Roman  Chri>tian  inscription  which 
deserves  the  name  must  be  .-truck  off.  The  chrisma, 
how'ever,  has  been  found  on  six  or  seven  monuments  of 
different  kinds  (without  counting  coins),  once  with  the 
a  and  u>  (Haddan  and  .Stubbs,  u.s.').  The  chrisma  occurs 
also  on  a  lamp  in  the  Newcastle  must'um,  published  by 
Hilbner  («.  s.  p.  210,  n.  27),  who  likewise  gives  two  rings 
with  the  Christian  acclamation,  “  Vivas  in  Deo,”  found 


auJ  p.  51.  To  these  will  perhaps  be  added  .a 
Roman  imscription  found  at  Sea-mills,  near 
Bristol,  in  1873,  seen  by  the  writer,  but  whether 
it  be  Chri.stian  or  no  “  adhuc  sub  judice  lis  est.”' 
The  sepulchral  Christian  inscriptions  in  Celtic 
Britain,  a.d.  450-700,  mostly  in  Latin,  but  one 
or  two  in  Welsh,  vol.  i.  jip.  162-169;  some  few 
of  the  Latin  inscriptions  being  accomj)anied  by 
Ogham  characters.  The  same  class  of  inscrip¬ 
tions  in  Wales,  a.d.  700-1100,  vol.  i.  pp.  625— 
633  (Latin) ;  the  inscriptions  of  Scottish  and 
English  Cumbria  (a.d.  450-900,  vol.  ii.  pp.  51- 
56),  some  Latin,  some  (at  Ruthwell  near  Dum¬ 
fries,  and  at  Bewcastle  in  Cumberland)  Runic, 
The  inscribed  monuments  (very  few)  in  the 
Pictish  and  Scottish  kingdoms  (ad,  400-900), 
partly  Latin,  partly  in  Runes  and  Oghams,  are 
in  vol.  ii.  pp.  125-132  ;  those  of  the  Isle  of  Man, 
nearly  all  Runes,  of  Norwegian  origin  (one  may 
be  Gaelic),  and  inscribed  on  crosses,  whose  date  is 
not  given,  will  be  found  in  vol.  ii.  pp.  185-187. 
There  still  remain  to  follow  the  Saxon  inscrip¬ 
tions  of  the  period  of  the  Heptarchy  and  the 
Monarchy.* 

A  w’ork  has  yet  to  be  mentioned,  which  is 
perhaps  of  greater  importance  to  the  student 
of  Christian  epigraphy  than  any  which  has 
been  already  named,  De  Rossi’s  only  excepted  ; 
viz.,  the  Christian  inscrij)tions,  which  are  con¬ 
tained  in  Bockh’s  Curjnis  Inscriptionum  Grae- 
carum  (vol.  iv.  I'asc.  2,  Berlin,  1859,  fol.,  plates). 
They  are  collected  and  edited  by  Prof,  A.  Kirchotf, 
the  same  great  epigraphist  who  has  just  been 
occupied  upon  the  Covp ’s  Inscriptionum  Attica- 
rum.  The  Christian  inscriptions  begin  at  No. 
8606  and  terminate  at  No.  9893,  besides  a  few  in 
the  Addenda  ;  thus  making  a  total  of  nearly  1300 
inscriptions  of  all  ages  and  in  almost  all  parts 
of  the  Roman  world,  down  to  the  fall  of  the 


in  England  (pp.  234,  235),  as  well  as  other  rings  which 
seem  to  be  Christian.  The  Romano-Christian  remains 
in  Britain  are  so  extremely  rare  that  it  seems  to  be 
worth  while  to  make  these  slight  additions  to  what  will 
be  found  in  Messrs.  Haddan  and  .Stubbs'  work.  Mr. 
Wright’s  statement  {Celt,  Roman  and  Sax'jn,  p.  298) 
that  “  not  a  trace  of  Christianity  is  found  among  the  innu¬ 
merable  religious  and  sepulchral  monuments  of  the 
Roman  period  fotmd  in  Britain,”  cannot  bo  safety  contra¬ 
dicted.  The  Westminster  and  Bristol  monuments  may 
possibly  be  exceptions.  So  much  can  hardly  be  said  oi* 
one  or  two  others  which  have  been  suspected  to  be 
Christian.  See  Dr.  M’Caul’s  remarks  on  the  Chesterholm 
stone  in  the  Canadian  Journal  for  1874. 

r  See  Proc.  of  Soc.  of  Antiq.  Nov,  1873,  pp.  68-71 
Archaeolog.  Journ.  1874,  pp.  41-46  (with  figure). 

>  Until  these  appear,  it  may  be  useful  to  indicate  some 
of  the  principal  sources  of  information.  In  addition  to 
the  books  already  referred  to,  among  which  Professor  G. 
Stephen’s  Runic  Monuments  is  the  principal,  Pegge’s 
Sylloge  and  Camden’s  Britannia,  with  the  additions  of 
Gibson  and  Gough,  may  be  consulted.  Among  the 
periodiciils,  the  Yorkshire  Archaeological  and  Topogra¬ 
phical  Journal  and  the  Proceedings  of  the  llVsf  Riding 
of  Yorkshire  Geolog.  and  Polgtexhnic  Society  are  more 
especially  to  be  mentioned,  where  the  Runic  and  other 
early  inscriptions  of  Yorkshire  are  described  by  tlie  Rev. 
D.  Haigh  and  the  Rev.  J.  Fowler.  Professor  HUbner 
informs  the  writer  that  he  hopes  his  Inscripliones  Bri- 
tannuae  ('hristianae  w'iW  appear  in  the  i  ourse  of  1875, 
which  will  bo  analogous  in  all  resjiects  to  ihe  Inscr. 
Hisp.  Christ.  It  includes  all  l.atin  inscriptions  down  to 
about  800  r.c.  “  As  there  are  in  Wales  some  few  in 
Oghams  only,  while  the  rest  is  in  part  bilingual,  I  do 
not,”  he  says,  “exclude  those  few  merely  Celtic  ones.” 


846 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


Byznntine  empire.  To  these  are  to  be  added 
about  sixty  already  included  in  the  earlier  parts 
of  the  book,  which  are  evidently  of  Christian 
times  C‘  quos  Christianae  esse  aetatis  apparet  ”). 
They  are  divided  into  three  classes.  (1)  Tituli 
operum  publicorum  et  votivi,  the  first  division 
of  which  is  arranged  chronologically,  the  second 
comprising  those  whose  age  is  uncertain.  Of 
the  former  division  there  are  175,  but  none  is 
earlier  than  the'  4th  century,  a  copy  of  a  letter 
of  St.  Athanasius,  the  only  authority  for  the 
Greek  text,  being  perhaps  the  earliest  of  all  ; 
there  are  only  six  or  seven  others  which  can  be 
referred  to  the  4th  century.  The  fifty-eight 
which  follow  these  comprise  all  which  are  of  the 
fifth  and  following  centuries,  several  of  them 
being  in  verse,  to  the  death  of  Charlemagne,  of 
which  number  about  twelve  belong  to  the  age  of 
Justinian  (a.d.  527—505).  The  most  important 
of  these  perhaps  is  a  copy  of  the  paschal  canon 
of  St.  Hippolytus,  which  ap])ears  to  have  been 
engraved  in  the  reign  of  Theodosius  ;  most  of  the 
othei's  are  inscriptions  on  various  kinds  of  build-  ’ 
ings,  such  as  churches,  monasteries,  hospitals,  I 
towers,  and  there  are  two  or  three  which  are  in¬ 
vocations  of  the  Virgin  and  the  saints,  or  prayers 
for  the  welfare  of  the  persons  mentioned. 

(2)  The  second  class  comprises  156  inscrip¬ 
tions  on  mosaics,  fictile  and  other  vessels,  glass, 
lamps,  triptj'chs  or  other  wooden  tablets,  “  et 
variae  supellectilis  sacrae  et  profanae,  ponderum, 
&igillorum,amuletorum,  gemmarum  ”  (Nos. 8953— 
9109).  About  seventy  of  tiiese  are  on  seals 
(nearly  all  lead);  a  few  are  as  early  as  the  7th 
and  8th  centuries.  Some  of  those  however  on 
gems  and  glass  are  much  eaidier,  and  some 
notice  has  been  taken  of  tiiese  in  the  articles  on 
those  subjects  in  this  Dictionary. 

(3)  The  remaining  class  contains  no  less  than 
783  inscriptions,  all  sepulchral,  and  these  are 
arranged  by  the  regions  in  which  they  are  found. 
Those  which  bear  dates  are  comparatively  very 
few.  (a)  Egvpt,  Nubia,  and  the  rest  of  Africa 
(Nos.  9110- 9D37);  (6)  Syria  (Nos.  9138-9154); 
(c)  Asia  Minor  (Nos.  9i55-9287);  ((/)  Greece 
and  lllyricum  (Nos.  9288-9449,  of  which  114  are 
from  Athens);  (c)  Sicily  and  Malta  (Nos.  9450- 
9540);  (/)  Italy  and  Sardinia  (Nos.  9541-9885); 
(^)  Gaul  and  Germany  (Nos.  9886-9893). 

Various  other  Greek  Christian  inscriptions 
have  been  since  published  ;  in  particular,  it  may 
be  observed  that  a  few  have  been  found  in  Spain 
and  Algeria,  countries  from  which  Kirchoff  has 
not  given  a  single  example  (Hiibuer,  u.  s.  ji.  v. 
praef. ;  Renier,  u.  s.  j)p.  255,  349). 

From  what  has  now  been  said,  it  must  be  appa¬ 
rent  how  utterly  hopeless  and  impossible  it  is  to 
give  within  the  limits  of  an  article  in  a  die- 
tionary  a  satisfactory  account  of  this  immensely 
numerous  class  of  Christian  antiquities.  The 
most  important  aid  which  such  an  article  can 
render  must  be  to  indicate  the  principal  sources 
of  information;  and  these,  if  De  Rossi’s  labours 
are  carried  out,  will  be  very  largely  increased 
in  the  course  of  a  few  years. 

A  little  woik  however  has  been  published 
at  Toronto  in  1869  by  the  Rev.  John  M'Caul, 
LL.D.,  in  which  a  judicious  selection  of  a  hundred 
“  Christian  ejutaphs  of  the  first  six  centuries” 
(Greek  and  Latin  from  various  parts  of  the 
world,  esj)ecially  from  Rome)  has  been  brought  i 
together  and  ably  commented  upon.  They  occupy  ] 


sixty-eight  pages,  and  an  introduction  relating 
to  the  language,  names,  and  dates  employe.!  liU 
up  twenty-eight  moie.  Besides  these  we  have 
a  brief  jueface  pointing  out  the  neces!<ity  of 
caution  in  using  uncritical  books,  like  tho.se  of 
Aringhi  and  Boldetti,  and  giving  amusing  ex¬ 
amples  of  forgeries  of  Christian  inscriptions, 
which  have  deceived  .some  learned  writers  even 
of  the  present  century.  To  those  who  cannot 
give  any  great  amount  of  attention  to  the  sub¬ 
ject.  this  little  work  may  be  heartily  recom¬ 
mended,  as  it  bears  every  mark  of  cous'eientious 
care  and  of  strict  honesty. 

(ii.)  Technical  Execnti.n  and  ]\[aterlnls  em¬ 
ployed. — The  modes  of  writing  emjiloved  have 
much  the  same  variations  as  in  all  ages  :  the 
letters  are  most  commonly  engraved  with  a  chisel 
below  the  surface  of  the  stone,  and  then  occasion¬ 
ally  coloured  (red)or  gilded;  sometimes  the  letters 
are  scratched  with  the  jioint  of  some  instrument, 
a  nail  or  the  like  (fig.  1);  on  some  gems  the 


1.  Letters  sc'iatcLwl  on  moi-tar.  a.d.  339.  (Rome.) 


letters  are  in  relief  (camei).  Jlore  rarely  the 
letters  are  drawn  in  paint  (vermilion)  (fig.  2) 
or  in  gold  upon  the  flat  surface  of  the  marble, 
or  cut  in  gold  leaf  (upon  glass),  or  written  in 
ink  upon  sepulchral  tablets  or  vases,  ^r  in  white 


4:  K  AJU  C  o  y-A  z  YXyh  gj  uj-  ^  \ 

,  'e2:'n>^TeP*Nr  ujNUJNeic:-^-  ; 
^0B€N-£PeiB0YcaereB  eN&iec-AoYNAjw^  ;• 

;E>a-eicn«rrejTU)<xiJ  KTu;  TOY 


2.  Lexters  (Latin  words  in  Greek  characters)  painted  iii  vermilion  on 
ttie  tlat  (not  incised)  surface  of  the  marble ;  they  are  of  mixed 
forms,  uncial  and  minuscule.  Leaves  and  i>uints  introduced 
capi  iciously.  a  d.  269.  (Rome.  The  famous  epitaph  of  St. 
Severa.) 


colour  on  frescoes,  &c.  In  the  catacombs  the 
inscriptions  were  occasionally,  by  reason  of  the 
unhappiness  of  the  times,  smeared  in  charcoal, 
in  hope  that  when  persecution  had  passed  away, 
they  might  be  recorded  in  a  more  permanent 


3.  Words  divide.!  uniformly  by  points.  7th  century.  (Ely.) 


form.  Sometimes  also  old  tomb.stonos  of  tne 
pagans  were  used  over  again,  and  the  Christian 
iusttriptions  were  written  on  their  backs,  or  on 
their  oblitertited  faces  (fig.  5).  Points  are  also 
frequently  found,  sometimes  to  distinguish  words 
(Rg.  3),  sometimes  scattered  cauriciously  (figs. 


INSCKIPTIONS 


INSCPilPTIONS 


847 


2,  4);  likewise  a  variety  of  other  marks,  par¬ 
ticularly  cordate  leaves,  common  to  pagan  and 


KMUJNYtlO  2/  HZH_ 

rEN-E  TH-IA-HHBPAS-Kr 

ErfAHYtHseN  Dl'lFKAArNOBgHBP 
r/«^AUJ  YtlATorz? 


4.  Words  divided,  bnf  not  constantly,  by  varions  small  marks. 
Irrejjubir  uncial  letters,  a.u.  298.  (Rome.) 

Christian  inscriptions  (figs.  2,  5,  6).  Some  of 
the  above  remarks  are  illustrated  by  the  in.scrip- 
tions  figured  above  and  below,  to  be  more  fully 
described  under  To.mu.  The  reailer  may  see 
more  on  this  sutiject  in  Martigny’s  Diet.  s.  v. 
Inscriptions,  §§  IT,  III.;  but  it  can  only  be 
studied  to  ailvantacfe  by  e.xamining  the  plates 
In  such  works  as  De  Ro.ssi’s  Hom'i  Sotterranex 


~r^-PA  i.  HERACIIV5 

111  OV'nVIT  IN  5  AR^/LVM 

HCULVN  ^  3IBI  ^ 
iTlUO  -  SVOBENEMmNTMNP 

DECE.SlTVIHRySflB'S^  ^ 


_ _ II  lv«sotrot.,ErAio.< 

'  J  eor«S4% 


6.  Inscription  ■written  on  a  .scraped  portion  of  a  parcopbapu®  pre¬ 
viously  useil.  Rrani-lies,  leave.s,  and  various  small  marks 
introduce  !  between  .some  ot  the  words.  A.u.  338.  (Rome.) 


(coloured  plate.s)  and  Tnscr.  Crh.  Rom.,  and  the 
other  books  named  above  in  which  the  letters 
and  accessories  are  figured.  The  same  remark 
must  be  made  of  the  palaeography.  The  letters 
have  the  same  varieties  of  form,  such  as  uncial, 
minuscule,  rustic,  and  ligated,  which  are  com¬ 
mon  to  JISS.  and  monuments  of  all  kinds,  and 


PETRoNMEDigWAE  COIV9I  QVEVmT  ANbllS 
XXlETfEClTCVM  CONPABE  SVOrAXU  V 
KAl^‘NOB>^r0S  CONSS  CRATIANI  TERETEgVm 
-  VRSVS  AVARTTVS  SIBI  ET INNOCENT!  CO 
^AVPARI  lECIT  CESQVET  IN  PACE 


6.  Marks  of  different  kinds  before  and  after  one  word  only :  strokes 
drawn  tbrougli  two  letlei's  to  indicate  tliat  they  .stand  for  words 
(vtenaes  and  uies).  Regular  uiudal  letters,  a.u.  376.  (Rome.) 


their  execution  varies  from  extreme  neatness 
(figs.  6,  10)  and  even  beauty  to  extreme  ugli¬ 
ness  and  carele.ssness  (//ti(?/’a(?  nisticae)  (fiajs.  1,  8). 
Of  the  former  sort  the  characters  employed  by 
pope  Damasus  in  tiie  4th  century  are  the  most 
remarkable,  their  apices  being  ornamented  with 
little  hooks  (fig.  7).  They  are  called  after  him 


7.  Inscription  (completed  by  conjecture)  written  in  the  Uamasine 
uncLal  characters  (in  •i'eil).  4tli  ceuturj'.  (Rome.) 


gravetl,  .sometimes  painted  on  the  marble.  There 
are  also  many  Christian  inscriptions  as  well  as 


^.£PYCC^<'^KZO 
qvlvi  yjT  v/vv 

leA^f'EpTl^Avc^ 

(tN  l?A^AA0T^  f, 
q/  ivCl  r-/\  <;M llo 


8.  Example  of  rnde  palaeography.  Ru-stic  letters.  No  points  or 
othei  marks,  a.u.  4t‘4.  (Rome.) 


others  which  are  not  Christian,  where  letters  are 
connected  by  ligatures  {litterae  ligatxe) ;  some¬ 
times  to  that  degree  that  it  is  no  easy  matter  to 


9.  inscription  remaikable  for  (he  complexity  of  its  ligatures. 
A.U.  650.  (Near  Arjoiia,  Spain.) 


deevpher  them  (fig.  9).  For  some  observations 
on  the  form  of  letters  in  coi  tain  Christian  inscrip¬ 
tions  see  Le  Blant,  Manuel,  pp.  41,  42 ;  Hiibner, 


lO.  Inscriptiontin  minnsente  letters  of  x  ariable  form.  7th  century. 
(Cluiimaciiuis,  Ireland.) 

u.s.  p.  116;  De  Rossi,  Bull.  Arch.  Crist.  1863, 

p.  18. 

(iii.)  Symbols. — Of  the  symbols  which  are  found 
with  some  Christian  inscriptions,  the  princi])al 
are  the  following:  the  fish,  the  anchor,  tlie  dove, 
the  Good  Shejdierd.  the  chrisma.  the  a  and  at,  :'.nd 
the  cross  in  various  forms.  These  will  be  fotiiul 
described  under  thedr  respective  heads  (also 
noticed  under  Gk.ms  and  .Mos.mcs).  and  they 
may  be  regarded  as  either  exclusively  or  priu- 


Damasine  letters  ;  but  Philocalus  was  his  artist, 
or  one  of  his  artists.  Tiioy  are  sometimes  en- 


848 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


ci))ally  Chriutian  symbols.  The  palm  which  is 
also  found,  and  that  v'ery  commonly,  is,  like  the 
phoenix,  Christiani‘ied ;  but  it  occurs  also  on 
pagan  and  Jewish  inscriptions.  It  must  be 
sufficient  to  refer  to  a  table  indicating  the 
symbols  on  the  early  Roman  and  Gaulish  sepul¬ 
chral  inscriptions  (by  far  the  most  complete 
series),  and  the  observed  dates  of  their  intro¬ 
duction  and  disappearance,  given  by  M.  Le  Blant 
(^Manuel,  p.  29).  For 'symbols  generally  see 
Raoul  Rochette,  Tableau  des  C  (tacombes  de  Borne, 
pp.  229  s<iq.,  Paris,  1853,  and  the  authors  named 
at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  book. 

(iv.)  Select  Inscriptions. — These  consist  of  such 
examples,  arranged  chronologically,  in  prose  and 
verse,  as  are  connected  with  churches  or  their 
furniture  or  adjuncts,  and  they  have  mostly 
some  further  interest  of  their  own.  No  uniform 
system  of  j)rinting  has  been  followed.  Sometimes 
the  mere  transcript  of  the  letters  seems  to  be 
sufficient ;  sometimes  the  words  have  been  written 
out  (corrected  and  at  length)  below  these  ;  some¬ 
times  a  translation  has  been  added  ;  also  such 
notes  as  seemed  desirable. 

1.  De  Rossi,  BuUetihO  di  Arch.  Crist.  1864,  p.  28  ; 
Renier,  Tnscr.  Bom.  de  V Alg.  n.  4025. 
From  Caesarea  in  ]\Iauretania ;  written  by 
a  poet  named  Asterius  (ex  ingenio  Asteri)  to 
commemorate  the  gift  of  a  burial-ground  to 
the  Christians  by  Evelpius. 

ARFAM  AT  (ad)  SEFVLCRA  CVLTOR  VERBI 
CON  rVLIT 

trr  CEl.LAM  STRV'XIT  SViS  CVNCTIS  SVMP- 
TIB  VS 

ECLKSIAE  SANCTAE  HANG  RELIQVIT  MEMO- 
RIaM 

SALVE  PE  FRATRES  PVRO  CORDE  ET  SIMPLICI 
E\^Ei.PlVS  VOS  (salutat)  SATOS  SANCTO  SPIRITV 
ECLESIA  I'RATRVVM  (sk)  HV.'^O  RESTIIVIT 
Tll’VLVM.  M  A.  I.  SEVERIjCnI  C.  V. 

EX  ING.  ASTERI. 

A  wreath  enclosing  AD.  is  on  the  left ;  a  dove 
and  palm  on  the  right. 

M.  Renier  reads  the  end  of  the  last  line  but 
one  titulum  marmoreum  anno  primo  Scveriuni, 
viri  clarissimi.  If  this  be  right,  as  seems  very 
probable  (though  De  Rossi  feels  some  doubts, 
Prol.  Inscr.  Urb.  Bom.  p.  xi.),  the  mode  of 
dating  is  very  unusual.  Other  Mauretanian  in¬ 
scriptions  are  dated  by  the  era  of  the  province, 

1. e.  40  A.D.  when  it  was  reduced  by  the  Romans 
(M‘Caul,  Christ.  Epit.  p.  37). 

The  words  ecclesia  fratrum  indicate  the  re¬ 
storation  of  the  inscription  to  be  “  assai  antico  ” 
(De  Rossi) ;  the  original  was  probably  broken 
during  the  tumults  against  the  Christians,  A.D. 
258-304,  as  De  Rossi  thinks ;  and  the  restored 
marble  tablet  would  seem  to  have  been  put  up 
in  the  fii'st  year  of  Severianus,  probably  the 
Roman  governor  of  Mauretania.  One  of  the 
earliest  Christian  inscriptions,  not  being  an  epi- 
ta^jh,  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  any  form. 

2.  Bockh,  C.  J.  G.  8608.  Corcyra  (Corfu)  in 

the  porch  of  a  church,  written  in  two  lines 


of  two  hexameters  each.  A  cross  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  first  line. 

■KiffTiv  fiaal\(f)iav  e/xcau  /x4v(wv  <rvv4piBov 

<TOl,  flCLKap  V\pLIX€SoV,  Ifphv  fKTKTa  VTfSv, 

'YjKKrjUwv  Tffifvq  nal  ^wfiovs  4^a\avd^aT, 

Xfiphs  atr’  ovridayTjs  'lo^iayhs  iSyby  &yaKTi. 

Render:  / constructed  with  unworthy  hand,  &c. 

This  is  the  earliest  Greek  inscnption  relating 
to  the  imperial  destruction  of  pagan  temples, 
the  date  of  Jovian’s  act  being  about  a.d.  363. 

3.  Le  Blant,  Inscr.  Chr€t.  de  la  Gaule,  i.  496, 

n.  369.  Preserved  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville  at 
Sion  in  Switzerland. 

DEVOTION  E  .  VIGENS  •  V 

A  VG  VST  AS  .  PONT  J  VS  .  A  ED  IS 

RESl'lTVIT  .  PRAETOR  . 

LONGE  •  PRAESI’ANTIVS  •  ILLIS  . 

QVAE  .  PRISCAE  .  STETERANF  . 

TALIS  •  RESPVBLICA  .  QVERE  . 

DN  GRATIANO  AVG  .1111  ET  MER  .  COS. 

PONTIVS  ASCLEPIOLOTVS  VI*PDD. 

The  date  of  this  consulship  of  Gratian  with 
Merobaudas  is  a.d.  377,  the  earliest  date  of  any 
pwV'Vc monument  yet  known,  bearing  thechrisma. 
j  The  next  earliest  is  a.d.  390,  on  a  column  of 
I  St.  Paul’s  basilica,  extra  muros,  Rome.  It  is  won- 
j  derful  that  the  former  church  should  be  spoken 
of  as  old  so  early  as  A.D.  377  ;  it  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  it  was  a  Christian  or  a  Chri.stianised 
building.  Le  Plant’s  observation  that  this 
church-restoration  is  jwecisely  contemporaneous 
with  the  greatest  abundance  of  l\Iithraic  monu¬ 
ments  and  those  of  Cybele  is  worthy  to  be 
noted.  The  abbreviations  at  the  end  are  probably 
for  vir  praepo.situs  praetorio  dcdicnvit.  Hales,  i.  e. 
men  like  Asclepiodotus.  r>e  Rossi,  however  (Bull, 
di  Arch.  Crist.  1867,  p.  25),  who  evidently  con¬ 
siders  Asclepiodotus  to  be  the  author  of  the 
verses,  refers  t  ties  to  aedes  (“  che  li  dedico  alia 
republica  ”).  He  takes  the  building  to  be  “  il 
palazzo  dei  presidi  imperiali,”  the  chri.sma  and 
devotio  notwithstanding. 

4.  Rasponi,  De  Basil,  et  patriarch.  Lateran.  iii.  7, 

Rom.  1656.  On  the  bronze-silvered  gates 
of  the  Baptistery  of  the  Lateran,  Rome. 

IN  HONOREM  S.  lOANNlS  BAPI’ISTAE 

HILARVS  El'lSCOPVS  DEI  FA.MVLVS  OFFERT. 

Hilarius  was  pope  from  a.d.  462  to  467  ;  and 
the  inscription  has  the  appearance  of  being  con¬ 
temporary.  The  ancient  baptisteries  were  com¬ 
monly  placed  under  the  patronage  of  St.  John 
the  Baptist  ;  and  both  they  and  the  fonts 
which  they  contained  were  frequently  inscribed 
Ciampini  gives  both  kinds  of  inscriptions  from 
the  Baptistery  of  the  Lateran,  which  are  said  to 
have  been  there  in  the  5th  century:  but  this 
edifice  has  been  often  remodelled.  (See  Ciamp. 
de  Sacr.  Edif.  c.  iii.,  Mart.  Diet.,  p.  321  ;  Hubsch, 
Arab.  Chrdt.  p.  5,  Guerber’s  French  transl.  1866.) 

For  this  class  of  inscriptions  generil'.y  sec  the 
posthumous  papers  of  Marini  published  by  Jilai, 
Script.  Vet.  Nov.  Collect,  t.  v.,  pp.  167-177. 


5.  Hiibner,  Inscr.  Christ.  Hisp.  No.  135.  Found  in  a  wall  of  the  Benedictine  convent  of 
S.  Salvador  de  Vairao,  near  Braga  in  Portugal,  on  seven  stones. 


IN  NE  DNI  PERF  I  ^TV^  ESP  TEMPLVM  H 
SVB  DIE  XIII  K  I  AP  ER  DXXIII  •  REG 


VNC  PER  M  ARJSPAIXA 
NANTE  SERE  NISSIMO  VE 


D!>  VOTA 
REMVNDV  RE 


X. 


In  n(omin)e  d(omi)iii  perfectum  est  iemfihim,  hunc  per  Marispalla  d(ey>  vota 

Sub  die  XIII  l^alcndas)  Ap(riles)  er{a)  DXXIII  regnante  serenissinw  Veremundu  Rex, 

Spanish  Era  523;  A.o.  485. 


INSCRIPTIOXS 


INSCRirTIONS 


849 


Diction  barbarous,  as  frequently  in  these 
Spanish  inscriptions.  The  church  seems  to  have 
been  completed  under  the  auspices  of  a  nun, 
named  Marispalla  :  probably  the  text  really  is 
per  Marispallam  Deo  vutam^  the  last  letters 
having  a  stroke  above  tiiem,  which  may  have 
been  obliterated  or  accidentally  omitted.  The 
inscription  is  interesting  as  being  doubly  dated, 
both  by  the  Spanish  era  and  by  the  reign  of  the 
Visigothic  king.  The  Spanish  era,  whose  origin 
is  uncertain,  but  which  appears  to  commence 
B.C.  38  (see  Hiibuer,  praef.  p.  vi.),  is  the  era 
most  commonly  used  to  mark  the  time  of  the 
Spanish  Christian  inscriptions  :  about  100  of 
them  are  tlius  dated  (Hubuer,  p.  109),  the 
earliest  appears  to  be  a.d.  466,  and  the  latest 
A.D.  762.  Both  the  proper  names  in  the  in¬ 
scription  are  Gothic  (see  Hiibner,  praef.  p.  vii., 
who  gives  several  others)  ;  the  remark  of  M‘Caul 
(m.  s.,  p.  xxi.)  that  Gothic  names  are  “  very 
rarely”  found  in  inscriptions  does  not  apply 
to  Spain. 

6.  Le  Blant,  Triscr.  Chr€L  de  la  Gaule,  i.  87, 

n.  42.  Found  at  Lyons,  formerly  on  the 
exterior  of  the  church  of  St.  Romanus,  where 
Spoil  saw  it  in  the  17th  century;  now  lost. 

TEMPLI  FACTOItES  FVERANl'  FREDALDVS 

ETTXOR  MARTVRJS  EGREGII  QD 

CONS r AT  HONORK  ROMANI  LLLIVS  VI’ 

PC  BEQVEATVR  (sic)  SEDE  I'E  .  .  ENNE. 

Date,  as  Spon  believed,  of  the  5th  or  6th  cen¬ 
tury.  He  thus  restores  and  rectifies  the  lines — 

Templi  factores  fuerant  Fredaldus  et  uxor, 

Martyris  egregii  quo  I  constat  honore  Ii<mani 
niius  ut  precibus  recreentur  sede  perenni. 

The  motive  of  the  founders  is  here  sufficiently 
clearly  exjiressed,  that  they  may  enjoy  eternal 
rest  through  the  prayers  of  the  saint.  They  do 
not,  however,  actually  invoke  him. 

7.  Bockh,  C.  T.  G.,  n.  8640.  On  a  stone  found  in 

the  Peloponnese  by  S.  Alberghatti ;  origin¬ 
ally  (see  1.  7)  erected  at  Corinth ;  now  in 
the  museum  at  Verona. 

-f  AF.  MAPIA  0EOTOKE  ^YAAHON 
THN  BACIAEIAN  TOT 

4>IAOXICTOT  lOTCTINIANOT 
KAI  TON  ENHSIwC 
AOTAEYONTA  ATTct 
BIKTcoPHNON  -|-  CYN  TOIC 
OIKOYCIN  EN  KOP1N0W  K.  0EwN-f 
ZwNTAE-f 

*hyia  Mopta  deordKe,  (pvKa^ov  r)]v  ^affiK^lav 
Tov  <pi\ox[_pyo'Tov  'lovcTTiviayov  KOI  rhv  yv-q- 
a'lws  SouXevovra  avrtp  BiKToprjvov  avv  to7s 
oIkov(Tiv  ev  KopinOo}  Kl^ara)  dehu  ^wuras. 

Holy  Mary,  God-bearer  (l)eipara),  guard  the  kingdom 
of  the  Christ-loving  Justinian  and  his  faithful  servant 
Yictai  inus  with  them  that  live  godly  in  Corinth. 

Sixth  century,  between  A.D.  527  and  565. 
Other  and  even  stronger  invocations  of  saints 
occur  about  this  time.  In  one,  too  long  to  quote 
at  length,  Demetrius  is  invoked  by  Justinian  to 
aid  him  against  his  enemies,  in  the  capacity  of 
a  mediator  with  God  fxfyaKo/xdpTvs  Atj/utj- 
rpie  p.eo’irevo’ov  irpbs  dehu  'Iva,  k.t.K.  n.  8642). 
Another  in-scription,  mutilated,  from  Thera  (San- 
torin),  of  uncertain  date,  not  later  than  the  4th 
or  5th  century  at  latest  according  to  Ross, 
begins  —  ayie  koI  (pofiepe  MixorljA.  apxdyycKc, 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


$07)6(1  Tip  5ov\w  (TOV  'Clplptp  (n.  8911).  Votive 
tablets  were  also  erected  to  saints  ;  one  from 
the  cemetery  of  Cyriace  in  Rome  runs  thus ; 
Petrus  et  Pancara  botum  posuent  (sic)  marture 
Felicitati.  (lAI  arini,  u.  s.,  p.  15.)  In  another, 
found  near  the  baths  of  Diocletian,  Camasius 
and  Victorius  pay  their  vows  (votum  reddunt) 
Domnis  Sanctis  Papro  et  Mauroleoni  marturibus 
(Id.  p.  14). 

The  expression,  fA.-f)Tqp  &eov  (^.\Mher  of  Go  t), 
the  usual  title  of  the  Virgin  on  the  early  medi¬ 
eval  camei  (see  Gems)  had  not  yet  come  into 
common  use  in  the  Greek  church,  as  appears 
from  Ephraim,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  a  contem¬ 
porary  of  Justinian.  See  Pearson  On  the  Creed, 
Art.  111. 

8.  Sec.  Voy.  de  deux  Benedict,  p.  234  (quoted  by 

Martigny,  Diet.  p.  321).  On  a  silver  cha¬ 
lice  given  by  Remigius,  archbishop  of 
Rheims  (died  a.d.  533)  to  his  cathedral 
church. 

HAVRIAT  HINC  POPVLVS  VITAM  DE  SAN- 
GVINE  SACRO 

INIECTO  AETERNVS  QVEM  FVDIT  VVLNERE 
CHRIST  VS 

REMIGIVS  REDDIT  DOMINO  SVA  VOTA  SA- 
CERDOS. 

This  is  considered  by  Martigny  to  be  in  all 
appearance  the  “  ministerial  ”  (sacramental) 
chalice  given  by  St.  Remigius  himself  to  the 
church  of  Rheims  ;  see  also  Archaeol.  Journ. 
1846,  p.  134.  The  magnificent  chalice  of  gold 
which  goes  by  the  name  of  Remigius,  formerly 
at  Rheims,  now  in  the  Paris  Library,  is  of  the 
12th  century  (^Arch.  Journ.  u.  s.).  For  other 
inscriptions  on  chalices,  see  Marini,  u.  s.  p.  197. 

9.  Le  Blant,  laser.  Chret.  de  la  Gaule.  ii.  348, 

n.  574.  Engraved  on  the  four  scalloped 
edges  of  a  square  marble  altar  slab  formerly 
in  the  ancient  cathedral  of  Rodez. 

DEVSDEDIT  EpS  INDIGNVS  FIERI  IVSSIT  HANG 

ARAM. 

Deusdedit  is  supposed  to  have  been  bishop  of 
Rodez  about  the  end  of  the  6th  century  :  the  in¬ 
scription  is  doubtless  a  contemporary  composition, 
but  the  letters  and  the  sign  of  contraction  j\.  are 
suspected  of  having  been  restored. 

The  name  Deusdedit  occurs  also  on  a  gem  (see 
Gems)  ;  the  form  Deusdet  is  likewise  found  more 
than  once  in  inscriptions  (Le  Blant,  u.s.  p.  433); 
for  similar  instances,  see  Names  below.  For  the 
altars  of  Christian  churches  ara  (though  as  old 
as  Tertullian)  is  less  commonly  used  than  altare, 
especially  in  prose.  For  other  inscriptions  on 
altars  see  Marini  (u.  s.  pp.  74-80).  This  and  the 
altar  at  Ham  of  the  7th  century  are  among  the 
earliest  that  are  inscribed  (Le  Blant,  n.  91). 

10.  Camden,  Britan.  §  “  Brigantes,”  ed.  1600  : 
“  Accepimus  crucem  hie  (at  Dewsbury,  York¬ 
shire)  exstitisse,  in  qua  inscriptum  fuit : 

PAVLINVS  HIC  PRAEDICAVIT  ET  CELE- 
BRAVIT.” 

Paulinus  was  bishop  of  York,  A.D.  625-664. 

The  inscription  upon  it  is  among  the  earliest 
that  we  have  in  England,  which  are  not  sepul¬ 
chral.  Fragments  of  the  ancient  cross  itself, 
probably  broken  at  the  Reformation,  which 
Leland,  in  his  Itinerary,  mentions  having  seen, 
bearing  the  above  inscription  (temp.  Henr.  VllL), 


850 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


have  beeu  biiilt  up  against  the  church  there. 
The  miracles  of  Cana  and  the  multiplication 
of  five  loaves  and  two  fishes  were  represented 
thereon,  and  a  few  Latin  words  of  the  Gospels  in 
Runesque  characters  can  still  be  re<id.  (Figured 
and  described  by  the  Rev.  J.  T.  Fowler,  in  a 
recent  number  of  the  Yorkshire  Archaeol.  and 
Top.  Journal.') 

The  most  remarkable  cross  of  the  same  kind 
as  the  present  is  that  at  Ruthwell,  near  Dum 
fries  (then  part  of  Northumbria),  with  Scrip¬ 
tural  and  other  scenes,  and  Latin  legends  from 
the  Gospels,  &c. ;  also  having  extracts  from  a 
poem  by  Ca-dman,  entitled  A  Dream  of  the  Holy 
Hood.,  written  in  Runes,  near  the  edges.  It  is 
between  seventeen  and  eighteen  feet  high,  and 
appears  to  be  of  the  8th  century.  For  a  full 
account  of  it  .see  Stephens,  Runic  Mon.,  vol.  ii., 
pp.  405-448,  with  figure. 

1 1.  Cop}’’  of  the  dedication  stone  of  Jarrow  chapel, 
Durham,  made  in  1863  by  the  Rev.  J.  T. 
Fowler.  Marini,  u.  s.  p.  163  ;  Camden, 
Brit.  956  (Gibs).  Pegge,  Sylloge,  p.  15, 
pi.  1  (in  Nich.  Bibl.  Top.  Brit.  vol.  vi.). 

It  is  now  over  the  nave-arch  of  the  church, 
“and  may  be  original  ”  (Fowler,  in  litt.).  The 
forms  of  the  letters  0  and  C,  and  their  incon¬ 
stancy,  quite  favour  this  supposition. 

DKDICAl’IO  UASILILAE 
SCI  PAVLl  VJir  KL  MAI 
ANNO  XV  EGFRIDI  REG 
CEOLFRIDI  ABB  EIVSDEM 
Q.  ECCLES  DO  AVCToRE 
CONDITORIS  ANNO  JIIL 

The  date  is  A.D.  685,  determined  by  the  reign 
of  Ecgfi'ith,  king  of  Northumbria.  One  of  the 
very  few  early  English  inscriptions  which  bear 
a  date. 

The  basilica  or  chapel  of  the  monastery  has 
been  converted  into  the  parish  church,  some 
remaining  parts  of  which  “  are  generally  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  of  ante-Norman  date  ”  (G.  G.  Scott’s 
Report).  For  the  history,  see  Flor.  Wigorn. 
s.  a.  682.  Benedict  Biscop  should  rather  be 
called  the  founder  than  Ceol frith,  whom  he  ap¬ 
pointed  as  the  first  abbot. 

The  above  scanty  selection  must  suffice  for  this 
place.  More  is  to  be  sought  in  other  articles 
under  Ampulla,  Gems,  Glass,  Lamps,  JIoney, 
Mosaics,  Seals,  and  Tombs. 

(v.)  Language  and  Style  of  the  Christian 
Inscriptions. 

A.  Orthography,  Inflections,  and  choice  of 
Tlbcrfs. —  While  some  of  the  Christian  inscriptions 
are  composed  with  correctness  and  even  with  ele¬ 
gance  both  in  pi'ose  and  verse,  there  are  others 
which  are  written  barbarously  as  respects  the 
letters,  the  forms  of  words,  the  declensions,  the 
genders,  the  conjugations,  the  syntax,  arwl  the 
prosody. 

It  would  scarcely  fall  within  the  province  of 
this  article  to  enter  into  the  grammar  or  rather 
non-grammar  of  the  language  of  the  latter  sort. 
It  partakes  of  the  barbarisms  with  which  various 
non-Christian  inscriptions  are  more  or  less  dis- 
figured,'  and  which  have  even  found  their  way 

•  ilaDigny  (Oict.  p.  309)  calls  them  “communs  aux 
inscriptions  chietienncs  et  aux  romaines,"  referring  to 
Hub.  Goltzius  {Thes.  Jiei.  Ant.  $  23)  and  R.  Fabrelti 
{Inscr.  Lot.  expl.)  for  further  iuformaiiou.  The  indices 


I  into  literature  in  thc-ir  most  aggravated  shapes, 
if  the  Formularies  of  the  monk  Marculfus  (circa 
660  A.D.)  can  be  called  literature.  In  the  Greek 
Christian  inscriptions  the  frequent  and  various 
changes  of  vowels  and  diphthongs  are  the  most 
noticeable  particularity.  Thus  ndrai  is  written 
KiTC,  or  KiTT},  or  /CTJT17,  ‘Hpd»cAejos  becomes  Hpa- 
kAtjos  or  Hf)aK\ios,  KoiprjT'hpiov  is  changed  into 
KVfxerepior,  reKfiwdfis  becomes  reKiodds,  irwris 
written  eror,  vina  is  simply  vlku.  and  the  i  ad¬ 
script  of  the  dative  is  generally  omitted.  The 
change  of  consonants,  as  Ko\<pos  for  koKttos, 
ravpaffia  for  Gavpaaia,  y\r)yopei  for  yp-r^ySpei, 
Kupiw  for  xwplw,  is  more  rare.  There  is  also  an 
occasional  tendency  to  abbreviate  words,  so  as  to 
substitute  fxv7]6r]Ti  for  fjLuricrdj)Ti,  SiaKcnv  for  8id- 
Kovos,  &c.,  or  to  enlarge  them,  as  koWittis  or 
Ko\Tro<Ti  (ov  kSXttois.  Sometimes  Coptic  influence 
is  discernible ;  sometimes  uncouth  late  forms  as 
peyaKdraros,  make  their  appearance  (Bockh, 
passim). 

In  the  Latin  the  changes  are  much  more 
lemarkable."  From  the  selection  of  inscriptions 
(including  the  notes)  given  above  and  under 
Tomb,  also  under  Gems  and  Glass,  and  from  a 
few  others  we  obtain  such  changes  as  Agustas  for 
Augustas,  eclesia  or  aeclesia  for  ecclesin,  guere  for 
quaere,  que  for  quae,  hec  for  haec,  hixit  or  vixsit 
or  ricxit  or  visit  or  hissit  or  visse  for  vixit, 
posuete,  posuent  for  q^osuit,  qjosuerunt,  bobis  for 
vobis,  botnm  for  votum,  vibi  for  vv.i,  staviles  for 
stabilis,  provata  for  probata,  ornneb  is  for  omnibus, 
quesquas,  qesquet,  and  reqvis.it,  for  qiiescas, 
quiescit,  requiescit,  spectit  for  spectat  (expectat), 
jacit  for  jacet,  annus  for  annos,  hue  for  hoc,  epyta- 
flwn  for  epitapkium,  marturibns  for  martyribus, 
ozza  for  ossa,  ed  for  et,  es  for  e.v,  im  pace  for 
in  pace,  anaterna  for  anathema,  chanones  for 
cemones,  tintaiov  tincta,  pelem  (or  pell em,  meses  or 
misis  for  menses,  zaconus  for  diacomts,  Istephmus 
for  Stephanas,  slinatarius  for  linafarius,  Zesus  for 
Jesus,  Zenuaria  for  Januuria,  Gerosale  for  Jeru¬ 
salem,  and  various  other  wor  Is  which  contain 
bai’barous  substitutions  of  consonants  and  vowels 
and  also  of  diphthongs.  Again,  neuter  substan¬ 
tives  are  sometimes  treated  as  masculines,  «.  gr. 
hunc  templum,  and  conversely  masculines  as 
neuters,  e.  g.  hoc  tumulum.  The  regimen  of  the 
cases  is  frequently  violated  in  the  use  of  preposi¬ 
tions  (see  below),  and  also  in  such  expressions  as 
vixit  annis  (or  even  annus  or  aiuiorum)  and  the 
like.  See  more  in  Martigny,  JRct.  pp.  .309-311  ; 
and  McCaul,  ?«.  s.  pp.  xii.  and  xiii. ;  the  latter 
of  whom  observes  :  The  student  should  beware 
of  regarding  what  may  be  new  to  him  in  Christian 
epitaphs,  as  peculiar  to  tiiem.  Very  many  of 
the  variations  from  classical  usage  are  to  be 
found  in  Pagan  inscrij)tions.  and  some  of  them 
in  authors  that  are  not  commonlv  lead.” 

The  actual  words  also  varv  little  from  the 
Pagan  ones;  re,uuscit,  ?-cfrigerat.  and  even  depo- 
situs^  (about  which  Cardinal  Wiseman  in  his 


at  the  end  of  the  volumes  of  the  Omp.  imer.  Latin,  now 
being  piiblij-hod  at  Berlin,  under  /.’o  grammatica,  will 
be  found  still  more  useful.  They  go  far  to  establish  the 
truth  of  5Iartigny’s  remark. 

“  51.  Le  Blant  refers  to  a  work  by  A.  Fuchs,  Die 
Eomanischen  Sprachen  in  ihrem  Verhdltnisse  zuni  Ixi  tin- 
iseken,  which  the  writer  has  not  seen. 

*  It  was  not  after  all  so  very  common  in  the  earliest 
Christian  times.  “  La  formule  tUpositus — depositio  cha¬ 
racterise  particulierement  Ics  inscriptions  des  quatrieme 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


851 


Fahioln  (p.  145)  has  written  so  prettily,  as  im¬ 
plying  a  ‘  precious  thing,  intrusted  to  faithful, 
but  temporary  keeping’)  and  some  others  which 
seem  Christian  in  their  tone  occur  sometimes  in 
Pagan  inscriptions  (see  ]\PCaul,  u.  s.  jip.  siv. 
4,  29;  Tertull.  Ve  Test.  Anim.  c.  4,  commented 
on  by  Fleetwood,  fnscr.  Ant.,  Index,  p.  6,  wlio 
is  deceived,  however,  in  thinking  that  no  Chris¬ 
tians  of  Tertullian’s  age  “  refrigerium  mortuis 
suis  comprecatos  esse.”  See  De  Monag.  c.  10). 
And  conversely  some  words  and  expressions  which 
are  not  Christian,  find  their  way  occasionally 
from  Pagan  into  Christian  inscriptions,  as  domus 
aetema,  pereipere  (haptisma  sc.  said  primarily  of 
the  rites  of  Mithras  and  Cybele),  contra  votum, 
iJivus  (said  of  emiierors  deceased) ;  and  even  oc¬ 
casionally  D.  M.,  or  in  full  Dis  Manibus,  so  usual 
at  the  head  of  Pagan  inscri))tions  (see  Tomb,  and 
McCaul,  u.s.  p.  54,  and  his  Index,  s.  v.  Pagan 
us  iges).  In  fact  there  is  a  very  small  residuum 
indeed  of  mere  words,  i.  e.  not  necessarily  involv¬ 
ing  peculiar  doctrines  or  religious  distinction.s^ 
which  are  exclusively  Pagan,  or  exclusively 
Christian. Dr.  McCaul  remarks  that  there  is 
scarcely  one  of  the  designations  of  the  place  of 
burial  used  in  Christian  epitaphs,  that  is  pecu¬ 
liar  to  them,  so  far  as  he  remembers,  although  he 
has  not  observed  quadrisomus  (locus)  in  any  Pagan 
epitaph.  Likewise  he  does  not  remember 
seeing  sepultus  in  any  Christian  inscription 
of  the  first  six  centuries,  and  but  rarely  in 
Pagan  ones ;  but  yet  sepulcruni  occurs  in  both 
noC  rarely.* *  Again  he  says  praecedo  is  charac- 


etcinquiCine  siecles,  Bien  qu’on  en  ait  quelqiies  exeniples 
anlerieurs.”  Martigny,  Diet.  p.  319.  Neither  is  the  word 
univetsal,  being  very  rarely  found  in  Gaul. 

y  Thus  the  words  resarrectio,  resurgo,  haptidiatus, 
redmuptor,  perhaps  also  sanctimonialis,  as  well  as  the 
combinations  dies  judicii,  pnella  Dei  (a  nun),  and  per¬ 
haps  famulus  Dei,  aj)plied  in  very  many  epitaphs  to  the 
pious  dead,  but  in  a  few  other  inscriptions  to  the  living 
(see  }iv.  n.  4)  have  no  place  in  Pagan  in>criptions,  nor 
costa  as  applied  to  a  wife  (see  De  Rossi,  n.  151).  It 
might  be  thought  that  Deo  aelerno  vngno,  and  in 
acternum  renatns  would  etiuallj'  be  absent;  yet  both 
occur,  tlie  foimer  in  connexion  with  goddesses  (deabus- 
5Mt),  the  latter  in  relation  to  the  my>teries  of  Mithras. 
(.Mai,  Script.  Vet.  Xov.  Coll.  vol.  v.  p,  3  (note);  Le  Want, 
Inscr.  Chret.  de.  la  (iaule,  vol.  ii.  p.  721.  Christian  influ¬ 
ence  may  be  suspected  in  these  instances. 

*  At  the  same  time  it  is  undeniable  that  depositus 
(=.sepuHus)  and  depositio  occur  in  a  very  large  number 
of  Christian  inscriptions,  but  only  in  a  very  small  num¬ 
ber  of  Pagan  ones  (Orelli,  n.  4555,  is  a  clear  example) ; 
while  elatus,  the  classicid  expression  for  being  carried 
out  to  burii.l,  is  so  rare  in  Christian  inscriptions  that  De 
Ro.'Si  can  lind  no  parallel  to  his  single  example  (n.  1192). 
'J  here  may  perhaps  be  some  few  other  instances  of  the 
same  sort  of  each  kind. 

“  Since  this  sentence  was  penned,  the  writer  has  dis¬ 
covered  an  example  of  sejmltus  in  an  ancient  Christian 
epitaph  of  Maun  tania  (llenier,  n.  4026).  It  is  very 
po.ssibly  as  early  as  the  third  century,  to  which  several 
Pagan  in.-ci  iptious  in  that  region  cei  tainlj'  belong.  I  here 
is  a  second  example  in  the  .■'ame  region,  a.d.  416  (n.  3675), 
and  a  thiul,  .\.u.  389  (n.  3710).  We  have  another  instance 
occurring  in  an  epitaph  of  liirnini.  a.d.  523  (De  Rossi, 
Bull.  Arch.  Crist.  1864,  p.  15).  The  word  is  found  also  in 
Christiati  ep  taphs  of  Spain,  dat'  d  and  und  ited,  but  j)er- 
haps  in  no  case  before  the  s^weiith  century  (Ilubner, p.  x. 
and  the  relert  rices).  Wi'  h.ive  in  fine  in  a  Perugian  inscrip¬ 
tion  of  Roman  times  (\'ermigl.  Inscr.  I’erug.  t.  ii.  p.442) 
iv  qua  (basilica  sc.)  sepelliri  non  debet.  Cardinal  Wise¬ 
man  therefore  is  not  strictly  accurate  in  saying  (Fabiola, 


teristically  Christian,  while  abscedo  he  thinks 
occurs  only  (and  that  rarely)  in  Pagan  epitaphs 
(u.  s.  pp.  xiv.  XV.  53).  But  who  does  not  see 
that  any  new  discovery  may  upset  the  sujiposod 
distinction?  There  are  indeed  phrases  which 
appear  to  have  an  exclusively  Christian  meaning, 
such  as  Deo  reddere  sjjirilvni  sanctum,  apud 
Deum  acceptus,  decessit  or  exivit  de  saeculo,  abso- 
lutus  de  corpore,  receptus  ad  Deum,  arcessitus  ab 
angelis,  and  a  few  others  of  the  same  kind.b 
(Mart.  Diet.  p.  315  ;  M‘Caul,  u.  s.  p.  xv.).  The 
expression,  in  p  ice,  is  derived  from  the  Jewish 
ejiitaphs,  and  passes  over,  both  as  an  acclamation 
and  otherwise,  to  the  Christian  inscriptions;  its 
occurrence  is  generally  considered  to  be  a  certain 
proof  that  the  monument  is  not  laagan.  (See, 
however.  Money.)  “Dictio  ilia  In  Pace  Chris¬ 
tiana  tota  est”  (Morcelli,  De  Stil.  Inscr.  Lat.  ii. 

p.  77  ;  and  so  Martigny  Diet.  s.  v.  “  In  Pace,” 

q.  V.). 

Upon  the  whole,  it  will  perhaps  be  thought 
enough  to  give  the  following  extract  from  the 
Edinburgh  lieview  relative  to  the  Latinity  of  the 
Christian  inscriptions,  with  the  addition  of  a  few 
notes. 

“  The  reader  at  once  recognises  in  the  Latinity 
of  these  epitaphs  [of  Italy  au.l  Gauljc  the  germ 
of  that  total  change  in  the  government  of  prepo¬ 
sitions,  which  is  one  of  the  great  sources  of 
distinction  between  the  ancient  and  the  modern 
languages  of  Italy.  ^  Tlie  old  distinction  of 
government  between  the  ablative  and  the  accu¬ 
sative  has  evidently  begun  to  disappear.  Many  of 
the  prepositions  are  used  indiscriminately  with 
both  those  cases.  Thus  we  read  (De  Rossi,  Ins. 
Urb.  Rom.  p.  82)  that  Pelegrinus  “  lived  in 
peace  cum  uxorem  suam  Silvanam  and  in  an¬ 
other  place  (p.  108),  Agrippina  erects  a  monu¬ 
ment  to  her  “sweetest  husband,  cum  quern  vixit 
sine  lesione  anirni,  annos  tres  et  menses  decern.’* 

p.  145)  “The  word  to  bury  is  unknown  in  Christian 
inscriptions.”  It  occurs  even  at  Ronre,  which  he  had  more 
particul  .rly  in  his  eye,  in  nn  inscription  thought  lu  be  of 
the  third  century  :  eTd<l)r]  SjSc  Eiare'^i?  (Bockh,  n.  !)612). 
At  the  same  time,  for  whatever  reason,  the  woid  .qtpears 
to  be  decidedly  rare.  But  as  it  seems  to  be  not  much 
more  common  in  Pagan  inscriptions  there  is  no  great 
force  in  the  cardinal’s  remark. 

b  There  are  also  various  expressions  relating  to  light, 
as  lumen  clarum,  praemia  lucis,  lux  nova,  &c.  occurring 
in  Christian  epitaphs  which  contrast  remarkably  with 
the  luce  f.aret,  jacco  in  tenebris,  kc.  of  the  Pagans.  See 
Mart.  Diet.  p.  380.  But  this  is  a  difference  of  feeling 
rather  than  of  language.  'I'liere  are  other  similar  con¬ 
trasts  which  we  can  hardly  discuss  here.  See  M'Caul 
p.  xii. ;  Edinb.  Kev.  u.  s.  p.  24  2.  But  some  of  the  earliest 
Christian  Inscriptions  express  no  feeling  of  any  sort.  See 
De  Kossi,  nos.  3,  6,  12,  13,  16,  19,  20,  21,  22,  all  of  the 
first  three  centuries. 

=  Much  the  same  remarks  may  be  made  of  the  sepul 
chral  Inscriptions  of  Britain  and  of  Africa.  See  Tomii. 

And  of  France.  We  have  this  interesting  inscrip¬ 
tion  ofBerre,  Maria  virgo  minester  de  bmpuln  (=tpmpll 
=du  temple)  (;ero?afe(= Jerusalem),  L'*  Blant,  n  542,  A. 
The  same  author  points  out  various  other  links  of  con¬ 
nection  between  the  ejrigiaphical  Latin  and  the  French 
language,  'riuis  qiti,  wliich  is  invariable  for  both  genders 
in  French,  is  twice  found  on  the  epitaph  of  a  nun,  A.t). 
431.  (In  an  in.scription  of  Pi' dinont '/«i  in  like  manner 
agrees  with  Maria.  Gazzera,  Acc.  Tm-.  u,s.  p  191.) 
In  the  fifth  century  we  have  also  santa,  winch  prepares 
the  w'ayfor  the  modern  suinle  ;  troin  ispiritus  (“^que  I’on 
entend  encore  aux  oflices-  de  vill.iges”)  conrea  esprit 
(Manuel,  p.  194). 

3  I 


852 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


A  tliii-'i  moniin\ent  is  erected  pro  caritatem  (Le 
Bhuit,  fnscr.  Chret.  Ha  'l.  vol.  i.  p.  400).  In  a 
fourth,  a  mother  is  entreated  to  pray  for  the  child 
she  has  left  behind,  hunc  unnin  ora  snbolem  ” 
(De  Rossi,  p.  13d).  Conversely,  we  find  do  sua 
omnia  (De  Rossi,  p.  133)  and  decessit  de  saecnlum 
(p.  103).  And  although  an  occasional  solecism 
of  this  kind  might  be  explained  by  the  rude  and 
illiterate  diameter  of  the  individual  author  of 
the  inscription,  the  fre«iucncy  of  the  occurrence 
clearlv  indicates  the  settled  tendency  of  the 
popular  usage  of  the  prepositions  towards  the 
abolition  of  all  distinction  in  the  government  of 
cases.®  We  may  add  that  the  same  confusion  of 
case  is  found  in  the  inscriptions  of  the  .Jewish 
catacombs  uublished  by  Father  Garrucci,  among 
which  we  read,  on  the  one  hand,  cum  with  the 
accusative,  as  cum  xiripnium  (p.  50),  and  cum 
Celerlnnai  (p.  52)  ;  and  on  the  other,  inter  with 
the  ablative,  as  inter  dicaeis. 

“  It  is  hardly  worth  while,  perhaps,  to  advert 
to  such  solecisms  as  pauperorion  for  pauperum 
(although  it  is  plain  from  the  recurrence  of  the 
same  form  in  other  words,  as  omnionim  for 
oinni'im,  that  tiie  change  is  not  an  accidental 
error)  ;  or  to  the  occasional  use  of  forms  rare, 
but  not  entirely  unexampled,  in  classical  Latin, 
as  nectus  (Le  Blant,  p.  15)  as  the  paidicijile  of 
neco,  or  utere  (De  Rossi,  p.  233)  as  the  ablative 
of  afer,  a  rare  form  following  the  third,  instead 
of  the  second  declension.'  But  it  is  impossible 
not  to  discern  a  foreshadowing  of  the  modern 
idiom  of  Italy  in  such  words  as  pulla,  and  still 
more  Pitzinnina,  which  is  the  direct  prototype 
of  the  Italian  Piccinina.  The  same  may  be  .said 
of  the  orthography,  which,  in  many  casc.s,  points 
clearly  towards  the  modern  pronunciation.  The 
form  Santa  for  sanc-a  already  appears;  and  the 
X,  as  in  sesi  s  for  sexies.  begins  to  give  place  to 
the  modern  s.  This  tendency  goes,  however, 
beyond  individual  words,  and  seems  to  indicate 
certain  general  pi'inciples  of  usage.  We  do  not 
mean  those  broad  characteristics  which  distin¬ 
guish  Italians  and  foreigners  generally  from 
ourselves,  in  the  sounds  of  the  vowels  and  diph¬ 
thongs  of  the  ancient  languages,  although  in 
all  these  the  interchanges  of  the  characters  of 
the  two  languages  which  the  inscriptions  fre¬ 
quently  exhibit  and  the  characters  emploved  in 
each  to  represent  equivalent  sounds  of  the  other, 

e  Martlguy  {Diet.  p.  320)  thinks  that  if  an  inscription 
has  cum  or  de  followed  hy  an  accusative,  it  must  be 
placed  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  'this  seems  very 
doubtful.  \\’’c  have  c  rtainly  inter  sanetis  in  an  inscrip¬ 
tion  of  26S  A.D.,  and  perhaps  cu7n  eum  in  another  of 
279  A.D.  (see  De  R"S>i,  pp.  i’C,  21).  Before  this  cum  se¬ 
dates  occurs  at  Pompeii  (C.  I.  L.  iv.  n.  221). 

f  Dr.  McCaul  notes  some  very  singular  instances  of 
inflection,  as  the  datives  NicenL  Ayapeni,  Leopardeti, 
Ireneti  (also  IrenV),  .Vercin-a^-eti  from  Xice,  Agape,  Leo- 
parde,  Eirene,  Mercmane  (Itlercuriane);  also  ispeti  for 
spei ;  likewise  Victoriaes  for  Vietoriae  (u.  s.  p.  xiii.  and 
18,  19).  The  same  forms,  as  was  to  be  e.xpected,  occur  in 
Pagan  inscriptions.  Thus  we  find  Ghjeeni,  Slaplyltni, 
&.C.  in  Spain  {C.  I.  L.  ii.  Index,  p.  779).  We  have  also 
Januariaes  for  Jannarfae,  at  Pompeii  {C.  I.  A.  iv.n.  2233), 
and  several  similar  example.® ;  and  .ImpJiataes  in  Spain 
{C.  I.  L.  ii.  n.  4975,  60).  Professor  llubner,  in  fine,  ob¬ 
serves  in  a  few  Christian  inscriptions  of  Spain,  Joanni, 
Pastori,  kc.  Q.S  the  genitives  of  Joannes,  Pador,  kc.  (p. 
xiii.),  and  conversely  we  have  Saturnis,  .Uercuris  as  the 
genitives  of  Saturnus,  ileixurius  (De  Ro.ssi,  nos.  172. 
475). 


are  quite  decisive  against  the  English  u.sage.  Wa 
refer  rather  to  certain  peculiarities  of  Italian 
pronunciation,  which  are  regarded  a.s  defects 
even  by  the  Italians  themselves,  and  which 
nevertheless  find  their  counterpart  here.  One  of 
the.se  i.s  the  well-known  cf^da  or  additional 
vowel  sound,  which  Italian  speakers  often  attach 
to  words  ending  with  a  consonant.  Of  this  there 
are  numberle.ss  examples  in  De  Rossi’s  volume , 
as  posu^te  for  posuit  (p.  18).  In  like  manner  wc 
Snd  a  type  for  the  vowel  sound  prefixed  to 
words ;  as  ispiritus  for  spjiritus,  iscribit  for  scribit 
(p.  228);  and  the  actual  Italian  sound  of  h  {ch 
or  Ii),  between  two  vowels,  which  has  long  been 
the  subject  of  ridicule,  is  found  directly  expressed 
in  these  inscriptions,  in  which  michi  is  one  of  the 
forms  of  mihi. 

“It  is  amusing  too,  to  meet  in  the  Roman 
catacombs,  or  among  the  Christians  of  ancient 
Gaul,  the  prototype  of  the  cockney  aspirate  and 
its  contrary.  Thus  we  find  upon  the  one  hand 
(Le  Blant,  vol.  i.  p.  2-3),  //ossa  (for  os.sa),  //ordine, 
//octobres,  //’eterna  ;  and  upon  the  other  oc  for 
hoc  (Le  Blant,  p.  93),  ic  for  /dc,  /larus,  ora, 
Cnorius,  &c.”  (Edinb.  Pev.  18(34,  pp.  234-5). 

The  Index  Grammaticus  added  at  the  end  of 
Hlibner’s  Christian  ln.scrij)tions  of  Spain,  gives 
a  rich  harvest  of  similar  barbarisms.  Nearly  all 
the  vowels  are  blundered  in  one  way  or 
other,  and  no  small  niunber  of  consonants;  with¬ 
out  dwelling  on  them  we  have  the  following  : 
hunc  edifeium ;  in  annibus ;  post  funere ;  m 
tiunc  tumulnm  requicscit ;  cum  operarios  vn-- 
nolos :  offer'd  (for  offert  ;)  besides  other  less 
heinous  sins  against  inflections.  For  the  Saxon 
forms  which  occur  in  inscriptions  in  England  the 
reader  i.s  referroil  to  Stejihens’  Punic  Monuments, 
and  for  the  Celtic  forms  in  the  Irish  inscriptions 
to  Petrie  and  Stokes’  work  thereon  (see  above). 

Exam])les  of  bilingual  inscriptions  (Gj-eek 
and  Latin)  and  of  Latin  inscriptions  in  Greek 
characters,  also  of  double  rendering  of  words 
into  Runic  and  Roman  character.s,  as  well  ns 
Celtic  words  in  Ogham  characters,  will  be 
noticed  under  Tomb. 

B.  Proper  Names  tised  in  Christian  Inscriptions. 
—  For  the  proper  names  used  in  Christian  in¬ 
scriptions  see  careful  and  interesting  notices  in 
De  Rossi,  /.  U.  R.  Prol.  cxii.-cxiv.  ;  iMcCaul,  u.  s. 
pp.  xix.-xxi. ;  Hiibner,  u.  s.  pp.  vi.  vii.,  and  the 
references. 

The  Edinburgh  Reviewer  has  treated  this 
matter  so  well  for  the  Latin  inscriptions  of  Italy, 
Gaul,  and  Africa,  taking  also  some  slight  notice 
of  the  Greek  inscri])tions,  that  his  words  are  set 
down  with  little  abridgment.  The  account  has 
been  supplemented  by  a  few  words  about  the 
Spanish,  British,  and  Irish  names  which  occur 
in  the  early  Christian  inscriptions  of  those 
countries. 

“  The  small  proportion  of  patrician  families  among  the 
early  Christians  will  hardly  suffice  to  explain  the  rapid 
disappearance  among  them  of  the  use  of  the  ihrce  mimes, 
which  h.ad  liitlierto  been  the  peculiar  privilege  of  the 
ari'tocratic  class.  Not  a  shigle  inscription  after  Con¬ 
stantine  presents  three  names;  an  *  of  the  ante-Constan- 
tinian  inscriptions,  there  are  but  two  [rather,  is  but  one] 
in  which  the  three  names  occur  *  *  *  *  After  Constan¬ 
tine,  except  Flavius,  which  cotitinued  in  partial  use, 
praenomina  may  he  siiid  entirely  to  dl.-apjroar.  The  old 
distinctive  Gentile  name  too,  quickly  followed.  The 
inscriptions  before  Constaniine  abound  with  Aurelii 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


853 


Crmelii,  Claudii,  Antonii,  &c.  *  *  *  *  Thus,  in  the 
Aiireliau  age,  we  finil  Aurelius  or  Aurelia  repeated  seven 
times;  and  under  Constantins  and  bis  sons,  Conslantinus. 
Constantins  and  Constans,  have  their  turn  of  popularity. 
Tile  Gentile  name,  however,  was  quickly  displaced  by 
new  forms  terminating  in  ntius  as  Lactantius,  Dignantiiis, 
Crescentius,  Leontius ;  or  in  osus,  as  Bonosus.  A  favourite 
form  in  the  third  and  succeeding  centuries  was  some 
laudatory  epitliet,  as  Beiiignus,  Castus,  Grata,  Castula. 
Often,  especially  in  Africa,  in  the  superlative  degree; 
as  Iiignissimus.  Felicissimus,  Acceptissima.  Sometimes 
similar  adjectives  apptar  in  the  comparative  degree,  as 
Dignior,  Nubilior;  and  occasionally  the  abstract  quality 
itself,  as  Prudenlia,  *’Aya7n7,  &c.,  is  found  as  the  name. 
The  names  of  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  later  centuries  would 
be  found  on  examination  to  furnish  the  type,  if  not  the 
exact  equivalent  of  most  of  the  fanciful  appellatives  of  the 
palmy  days  of  piiritanism.  We  meet,  not  merely  with 
Simple  lorms  such  as  Trtcm?,  eAms,  aydnr},  D  centia, 
Pi  udentia,  Dignitas,  Idonitas,  croj^ou.eV»j ;  3  or  Itenatus, 
Redemptus,  Refrigerius,  Projectus ;  or  the  more  self- 
abasing  appellatives,  Stercorius  or  Contumeliosus,  but  com¬ 
pound  names  of  the  true  Puritan  stamp,  such  as  Deus 
Ledit,  Servus  Dei,  Adeodatus,  Qtiod  vult  Deus  *  *  * 

“  In  a  few  instances  occasion  is  taken  from  the  name  to 
introduce  into  the  s  ntinu  nt  of  the  epitaph  some  playful 
allusion  to  the  etymological  import  of  the  name;  and 
although  tliis  practice  is  more  consonant  with  the  tastes 
of  the  later  times,  yet  the  inscriptions  of  the  classic 
period,  present  examples  of  a  similar  play  upon  words, 
of  whrh  we  may  instance  the  s-ntence  from  the  very 
pretty  epitaph  of  Claudia  given  by  Orelli  (vol.  i.  p.  &47). 

“HKIC  ESC  SEPULCRUM  HAUD  PULCBUM 
PULCRAl  FCMINAE.”  [Pulcher  was  a  cognomen  of 
the  geiis  Claudia.]  These  allusions  in  the  Christian 
epitaphs  are  commonly  very  simple.  Thus  we  meet 
INFELIX  FELICH’AS,  and  INFAU.STUS  FELIX. 
A  monument  is  erect(d  to  Innocentius  in  recogiiilion  of 
his  innocence,  PRO  INNOCENTIA  SUA.  GLYCO 
{y\vKv<;,  sweet)  is  described  as  “i-wee'er  than  his  name.” 
The  sorrowing  frii-nds  of  ANTHUS  bemoan  his  years 
“  stript  of  their  Jlotvers and  evett  in  a  very  tender 
poetical  epitaph,  addressed  to  the  rn  mory  of  Verus,  by 
his  wife  Quintilla  (whose  grief  for  his  loss  proclaims  itself 
so  extreme  that  it  is  only  the  fear  of  God  that  restrains  her 
from  following  him  t<<  the  grave,  and  that  she  vows  to 
remain  a  widow  for  his  sake),  room  is  found,  in  the  midst 
of  all  the  writer’s  passionate  exjtressions  of  sorrow,  for  a 
pun  upoti  the  name  of  “IIIC  VERUS,  tjUl  SEMPER 
VERA  LOCUrUS,”*'  a  pun  e.xacTy  similar  to  that 
contained  in  the  epitaph  of  the  emperor  Proluis,  which 
Vopiscus  uas  jireserved — “  IIIC  PROBUS  IMPERATOR, 
ET  VERE  PROBU.S,  SITUS  ESI’”  (a.  pp.  235-2.17). 

The  proper  names  which  occur  on  the  Christian 
inscriptions  of  Spain  (Hiibner,  praef.  pp.  vi.  sqq.) 
are  more  varied.  The  old  Roman  nomina  gen- 
tilicia  are  rare,  and  generally  occur  alone,  as 
Aurelius,  Juliu.s,  Licinia,  &c.,  but  with  a  provin¬ 
cial  cognomen  occasionally  added,  such  as  A, 
(Aurelius)  Vinceutius.  We  have  also  numerous 
e.xamples  of  old  Roman  cognomina,  as  Avitus, 

6  A  remarkably  pretty  specimen  is  given  in  De  Rossi’s 
Roma  Sotteranea,  vol  i.  p.  262,  where  Faith  makes  an 
epitaph  to  her  sister  Hi^pe  which  runs  thus — 

PISl’E  SPEI 
SuRoRI  DVL 
CISSIMAE 
FECir.  (Dove.) 

But  it  ought  to  be  remembered  that  Spes  is  a  name 
not  unfretiuent  in  Roman  Pagan  ep  taphs,  so  that  the 
now  famous  fragment  of  tlie  Bristol  in.scription  which 
contains  it  is  not  on  that  account  presumably  Christian ; 
apart  from  the  symbols,  dog.  cock,  and  asp,  and  the  por¬ 
trait  (?),  it  now  reads  only  SPES  C.  SEN  I’l  (Hli.i). 

'I  bis  Christian  epitaph  is  published  by  Fabretti. 
iii.  630. 


De.xter,  Felix,  Crisjtinus,  Camilla.  Of  the  more 
modern  names  are  those  which  are  of  truly 
Latin  origin,  as  Aeternalis,  Amator,  Asella,  Do- 
minicus,  FebruariusJ  Ilonorius,  Sanctus,  which 
seem  to  be  generally  diffused  in  the  provinces 
of  the  empire;  also  the  following,  which  ap]»ear 
to  be  peculiar  to  Spain  (including  of  course  Por¬ 
tugal!:  Bracarius,  Cerevella,  Cuparius,  Gran- 
uiola,  Idlliolus,  Salvianella,  Ike.  There  are  also 
many  which  come  from  the  Greek,  as  Arcadius, 
Basilia,  Glaucus,  Leontius,  Macarius,  Theodosius, 
Zenon,  &c.  Others  are  still  niore  modern,  such 
as  Agilo,  Ermengond,  Froila,  Gultinus,  Huniric, 
Oppila,  Reccisvinthus,  Reswentus,  Sonnica,  Mari- 
spalla  (fern.),  Swinthiliuba  (fern.),  all  which  are 
jtrobably  Gothic;  also  “Ann.a  Gaudiosa  sive 
Africa”  (n.  71)  and  Maurtis,  which  are  of  course 
both  African;  and  Bacauda  tind  Ciimuelates,  which 
appear  to  be  Gaulish.  The  origin  of  others,  as 
Istorna,  Locuber,  Macona  (fern.),  Quinigia,  Quis- 
tricia,  and  Rexina,  is  unknown.  To  these  must 
be  added  Scriptural  names,  as  Emmanuel,  .Jo¬ 
hannes,  Maria,  Sallomon,  Susanna,  Thomas,  &c.  ; 
those  of  the  puritanical  type  mentioned  above 
appear  to  be  wanting. 

With  regard  to  Great  Britain  we  find  (for  the 
British  period)  some  Latin  names,  as  Viventius 
and  Florentius  (in  Scotland),  also  Silius,  Pauli- 
nus,  Satui-ninus,  and  Carau.sius  (in  Wales  and 
Cornwall),  and  some  of  these  forms,  as  Augus¬ 
tinus  and  Paulinus,  were  re-imported  from  Rome 
in  Saxon  times.  But  there  are  also  Celtic  names 
occurring,  as  Lsnioc  (in  Cornwall),  Pascent  (or 
Pasgen),  Cadfan,  Cyngen,  Pabo,  Boduoc  (in 
Wale.s),  and  Drost,  Voret,  Forcas  (Fergus  ?)  and 
others  (in  Scotland);  as  well  as  Saxon  or  Scan¬ 
dinavian  names,  such  as  Sinnik  (in  Scotland), 
Herebricht,  Hildithriith,  Wult'here,  and  the  like 
(in  Englaml).  A  Saxon  name  is  occasionally 
Latini.sed,  as  Wini  into  Ovinus.  In  Ireland  the 
great  mass  of  the  names  is  Celtic,  but  occasion- 
all}'  a  Latin  form  is  Hibernized,  as  Columbanus 
into  Cholumban  :  very  occasionally  a  Latin  form, 
as  Martinus,  survives. 

C.  TFbrdfs  and  Formulae  employed  in  different 
ages  and  places. — The  words  and  phrases  relating 
to  burial  and  other  matters  vary  a  good  de.^l  m 
different  ))laces,  and  in  the  same  jdace  at  different 
times.  IM.  Le  Blant  has  collected  these  “  for- 
mules  d’epigraphie  chretienne  ”  with  consider¬ 
able  industry  ;  but  a  good  many  additions  might 
easily  be  made.  He  even  takes  no  notice  at  all 
of  some  provinces,  e.g.  Dalmatia  and  Pannonia, 
which  however  have  some  formulae  and  words 
of  interest.* 

Several  of  the  selected  inscriptions  (sepulchral 
and  others)  have  been  chosen  partly  on  account 
of  the  formulae  therein  contained,  and  some  re¬ 
marks  upon  them  are  made  in  their  i)laces. 

But  it  is  well  observed  by  Hiibner  that  until 
the  Christian  inscriptions  of  all  parts  of  the 
world  have  been  collected  and  eilited,  it  is  im- 


i  E.g.  an  inscription  from  Sab  iris  (Stein  .an  Ancrar) 
speaking  of  a  dead  child,  has  “reiiuieni  accepit  in  Deo 
p.itre  nostro,  et  Christo  ejus  ”  (t’orp.  fnscr.  Lai.  t.  iii. 
n.  4221,  edited  by  Mommsen).  Anotli-r  (n.  422ii)  from 
the  same  place  begins:  “  Bonemenmi ie,  in  Deo  vivas, 
lodorus  Civ.  Grace,  ex  reg.  Ladle,  q.  vix.  an.  L.  Ac. 
(/ionaememorius  occurs  in  Gaul,  Lo  Blunt,  J/a».  p.  77). 

also  n.  6399  sqq.  from  Dalmatia,  where  we  bavo 
hie  in  pacejacet,  deposilus,  Ac, 


854- 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


possible  to  say  what  formulae  are  peculiar  to  ' 
each  :  those  which  we  consider  to  be  peculiar  j 
may  turn  out  to  be  universal  or  common  to 
many  ])rovinces  (m.  s.  p.  vii.).*' 

The  following  is  a  translation  with  slight 
omissions  and  additions  *  and  a  few  tacit  cor¬ 
rections,  mostly  for  the  Greek,  of  iM.  Le  Plant’s 
Moniiel  d' Epiijnqyhie  Chret.  pp.  75-85  (Paris, 
1860),  omitting  the  references  to  his  own  work 
for  Gaul  and  to  those  of  others,  as  De  Rossi 
(Rome).  Gazzera  (Piedmont),  Mommsen  (kingdom 
of  Naples),  Renier  (Algeria),  and  (for  the  Greek)  ! 
Bockh.  To  this  has  been  added  (besides  some 
Roman  phrases)  a  collection  of  Spanish  formulae 
derived  from  Hiibner  ;  also  a  notice  of  the  few 
formulae  which  occur  in  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland. 

‘‘  That  which  is  true  for  ancient  coins,  as  also 
for  the  works  of  architecture,  is  not  less  so  in  that 
which  concerns  the  monuments  of  epigraphy. 
In  each  new  place  which  he  visits,  the  antiquary 
sees  variations  of  the  formulae,  the  svmbols, 
the  writing,  the  disposition,  the  ornaments  of 
the  marbles.  Though  apparently  of  little  im¬ 
portance,  these  marked  differences  are  worthy  of 
being  .-itudied  with  care.  Arising  sometimes  from 
the  difference  of  the  times,  as  well  as  from  that 
of  the  places,  they  are  able  to  serve  as  guides  in 
the  restoration  of  the  texts,  to  fix  the  nationality 
of  personage.s,  the  age  of  the  inscriptions,  and  even 
to  furnish  materials  for  the  history  of  ideas. 

“1  must  appeal  to  the  patience  of  the  reader 
in  undertaking  to  place  before  him  some 
features  of  the  localisation  of  the  types  and 
formulae  of  Christian  epigraphy.  Below  are 
those  which  seem  to  me  the  most  remarkable  in 
different  provinces  : 

Germania  Prima : 

Mayence :  IN  HOC  TITVLO  REQVIESCIT  FELI- 
CITER.  Worms:  TITVLVM  POSVIT. 

Belgica  Prima : 

Treves:  PRO  CARITATE,  and  the  like;  TIT VLVM 
POSVIT;  HIC  lACET;  HIC  lACET  IN  PACE; 
PATRES  (titulum  posuerunt). 

Belgica  Secunda : 

Amiens;  VBl  FECIT  NOVEMBER  DIES  XV,  and 
the  like  ;  DEFVNCTVS  EST. 

Viennensis : 

iSVRRECrVRVS  IN  XPO,  and  analogous  formulae. 
Briord:  HVMANITAS;  ABSTVTVS  (i.e.  astu- 
tus,  in  a  good  sense).  Biiord  and  Vienne:  VO- 
LVNTAS.  Vaihon  and  Arles:  PAX  TECV'M. 
^Marseilles ;  RECESSIT,  retained  even  when  this 
word  has  disappeared  in  other  places  from  the 
epigraphical  formulary. 


k  Dr.  M‘Caul,  usually  most  accurate,  illustrates  this 
remark  by  a  statement  that  among  the  many  expressions 
for  our  “here  lies”  we  have  “  hie  jacet  (nof  ofUn'), 
eeSa'Se  Keirai  (o/teii),”  p.  xiii.  We  may  safely  say  of  hie 
jacet  that  it  occurs  almost  everywhere,  being  found  first 
in  Rome,  then  in  Gaul,  Spain,  Dalmatia,  Algeria,  and 
Britain,  in  which  last  country  it  is  almost  the  only  for¬ 
mula.  '>or  does  there  seem  to  be  any  reason  to  think  it 
rare  in  any  of  those  countries.  M.  Le  Blant,  however, 
only  notices  it  under  Gaul.  The  Greek  rendering  of  this, 
euOdoe  KeiTai,  or  KaTaKeirai,  is  also  very  general,  but  per- 
h.ips  not  r^uite  so  common :  it  occurs  in  Rome,  Sicily, 
Gaul;  in  Igypt,  Dalmatia,  and  Greece;  Algeria,  and 
C7,'rene;  also  in  A.^a  Minor,  but  not  everj/where.  In 
truth  M.  Le  Blant’s  is  only  a  sketch  partially  worked 
out,  but  still  very  interesting, 
i  They  are  enclosed  in  brackets. 


Aquifania  Prirna: 

Coudes:  TltAN-SIIT  IN  ANNOS. 

Narbonensis  Prima  : 

Toulouse;  REt^VlEVlT  IN  PACE. 

Lugdunensis  Prima,  Viennon.sis  : 

BONAEMEMORIVS  (adject.);  AI’TVS  (i.e.  tympa- 
thetic). 

Lugdunensis  Prima  et  Secunda,  and  a  good  many 
other  (though  not  all)  parts  of  Gaul  : 

BONAE  MEMORIAE;  verj'  uncommon  at  Rome. 

Lugdunensis  Prima,  Germania  Prima,  Maxima 
Sequanorum,  Viennensis,  Aquitania 
Prima : 

VIXIT  IN  PACE. 

Lugdunensis  Prima  et  Quarta,  Viennensis,  Prims 
et  Secunda  Narbonensis : 

OBIIT,  in  common  use  (though  seldom  at  Rome). 

Lugdunensis  Prima,  Viennensis,  Aquitania 
Prima : 

TRANSIIT;  not  com  won  at  Rome. 

[Lugdunensis  Prima,  Viennensis  : 

FAMVLV.S  DEI  (applied  in  epitaphs  to  the  dead'. 
See  Le  Blant,  Manuel,  pp.  10,  24,  and  references.] 

Spain : 

FAMVLVS  DEI,  or  CHRISTI.  [Apparently  always 
similarly  applied.  See  Hiibner,  pp.  xi.  Ill,  112 
and  references.  For  the  Spanish  for  ntilae  in  gene¬ 
ral,  see  below."’]  This  formula  do<  s  not  occur 
among  those  of  the  csitacombs  registered  by  Bosio 
and  Boldetti. 


Spain : — 

The  formula  In  peace. — IN  PACE  (in  various  con¬ 
nections),  with  REQVIESCIT,  REQVIkVIT,  RECES¬ 
SIT,  REQVIESCAT,  &c. ;  DOMINI,  CHRISTI,  lESV 
being  sometimes  added.  See  Hiibner,  u.  s.  pp.  ix.  x. 

Consecration  formulae. — IN  NOMINE  I)I  (DOMINI .’) 
NOSTRl  1.  C.  CONSACRATA  E.ST  ECLESIA  S. 
STEPHANI  PRIM!  MARTYRIS  ;  IN  NOMINE  DO¬ 
MINI  CONSECRATA  ECLESIA  S  MARIE;  EPl- 
SCOPVS  CONSEORAVIT  HANC  BASKLiCAM  ;  IN 
N0:M1NE  DOMINI  SACRATA  EST  ECLESIA  ;  IX. 
KAL.  lANHARll  ERA  D  LXXXX  DEDICATA  EST 
HAEC  ECCLESIA  SCE  MARIE ;  DEDICATA  EST 
HEC  BASILICA  A  PIMENIO  ANTISTITE  ;  DEDI- 
CAVIT  HANC  AEDEM  DOMIN-VS  BACAVDA 
EPISCOPVS. 

Meliqu  ary  formulae. — IN  N05IINE  DOiMINI  HIC 
SVNT  RECONDITE  RELIQVIE  S.-tNCTORVM  SER- 
VANDI,  GERMANl,  etc.  ;  RECONDITE  SVNT  IC 
RELIQVIE  DE  CRVORE  DOMINI,  SANCTI  BA- 
BILE,  etc. 

Building  formulae. — CEPRIANO  EPISCVPO  (sic) 
ORDINANTE  EDIFICATA  [est  hacc  ec.  lesia]  ;  HAEC 
SANCTA  TRIA  TABERNACVLA  IN  GLORIAM 
TRINITATIS  (in  imitate  ?)  COHOPKR.ANTIBVS 
SANCTIS  AEDIFICATA  SVNT  AB  INLV.STRI 
GVDILIVVA  CVM  OPERARIOS  VERNOLOS  ET 
SVMPTV  PROPRiO;  CONSVMATVM  OC  OPVS 
ERA  DCCXX  ;  FVNDAVIT  EAAI  {sc.  aram)  ALTIS- 
SIMVS  PER  EVL.VLIAM  ET  FiLlVM  EIVS 
PAVLVM  MONACHVAI  ;  PERFECTV.M  EST  TEM- 
PLUM. 

Vot  ve  formulae. — RECCESVINTHVS  REX  OFIE- 
RET  (off’-rt)  [?c.  coronam] ;  OFFERET  AIVNV.SCV- 
LVM  S.  STEPHANO  THEODO.SIVS  ABBA. 

Sepulchral  formulae  (length  of  lih  ). — VIXIT  TOT 
ANNOS,  or  ANN  IS;  oi  ANNORVM  TOT;  CVM 
MARITO  ANNIS  TOT;  PLVS  .MIN VS  TOT  (without 
annos);  ANNOKV.M  DIERVMqVE  TOT;  QVI  IN 
HOC  SAECVLO  CONPLEVERAT  LVSTROS  TOT 


INSCRIPTIONS 

Gallia  Cisalpina  : 

Como:  VlXiT  IN  HOC  SARCVLO  ANNOS.  Como, 
Alba,  Pollenzo,  Nice  and  the  environs;  DRFOSl- 
TVS  SVR  DIEM  XIV  KAL.,  etc.  Como,  Milan, 

•  Aquileja,  Florence,  ilologna,  etc. :  B.M,  at  the  head 
of  inscriptions.  Turin,  Tortona,  Milan,  Brescia, 
Civita  dl  Friuli,  Aquileja:  CONTRA  VOTVM 
rOSVlT.  Pi.  dmont:  HiC  KEt^ViESClT  IN 
SOM  NO  PACiS, 

Latium 

Rome,  Ostia  :  LOCVS,  at  the  beginning  of  the  inscrip¬ 
tion.  Rome;  DEPOSIT  VS,  very  common  form,  of 
which  Gaul  gives  scarcely  four  examples ;  REFRl- 
GEKIVM,  IN  REHRIGKRIO,  REFRIGERET 
DEVS  (once  only  in  Gaul);  LOCVM  EMIT,  or 
COMPARAVIT,  a  formula  which  is  completely 
unknown  in  Gaul;  the  mention  of  a  tomb  pre¬ 
pared  by  the  living  is  very  rare  in  Gaul.  Ostia: 
HIC  DOPMIT,  CVM  DEVS  PERMISERIT, 
QVANDO  DEVS  VOLVERIT. 

Campania  : 

Naples:  IN  AVLA  REGNI  TVI,  INDVC  EOS  IN 
CAELE'sTIA  REGNA. 

Apuleia : 

Mirabella,  Eclanum,  Fontanarosa,  etc. :  HIC  REQVI- 


AETATIS  SVAE  XLIIl ;  DECEDIT  E  VITA.  Some¬ 
times  the  words  AN  VS,  PVER,  VIRGO  are  introduced. 

Formnlae  of  DEPOSITIO  ;  HVIC  RVDI 

TVMVLO  lACENS;  IN  HOC  LOCO  QVIESCENS ; 
IN  HOC  TVMVLO  lACET ;  HIC  RECONDITVM 
EST  CORPVS;  DEPOSITVS  IN  PACE;  IN  ISTO 
LOCO  SEPVLTVS  EST;  HIC  SITVS  EST;  kro.<\>pJ>e^ 

ft€Ta  elprjurj^. 

Prayers  fm-  the  Dead.  — DOMINE  lESV  CHRI.STE, 
FAMVLE  TVE  OMNIA  PECCATA  DIMITTE  (a.d. 
662);  PRECAT  VS,  VT  PRO  TVO  PROMISSO  ET  SVB- 
LIBAMINE  (sublevamine)  MEREAMVR  INGREDI 
PARADISI  IANVE (seemingly  offered  for  the  dead,  but } 
see  n.  96);  YHEP  ANAHAYCEOC  KAI  CGTHPIAC 
THC  MAKAPIAC  KYPIHC  KITOYPAC. 

AccfanjaDons.-CHIONI  VIVAS;  LVPICVS  VIVIT; 
MARCIANE  VIVAS  IN  CHRISTO  (said  of  the  living). 

Station  of  the  deceasei  in  life. — The  public  and  private 
station  of  the  deceased  are  very  rarely  mentioned : 
and  then  only  extending  to  VIR  INLVSTRIS,  CLA» 
RISSIMA  FEMINA,  etc.  The  usual  designations  are 
FIDELIS,  FIDELIS  CHRISTI,  FAMVLA  or  FAMV- 
LVS  DEI  or  CHRISTI;  also  BAPTIDIATVS  (once). 

Ecclesiastical  station  in  life. —  ABBA;  ANTISTES  ; 
DEVOTA  VIRGO  ;  PONTIFEX  ;  VIRGO  CHRISTI  ; 
VOTA  DEO. 

“  The  following  formulae  (from  De  Rossi’s  I.  U.  R. 
vol.  i.  passim')  may  be  added  for  Rome  up  to  a.d.  400, 
and  from  Biickh  {C.  I.  G.). 

Formulae  of  death. — OBIIT  ;  DECESSIT ;  DISCES- 
SIT;  RECESSIT;  DORMIT;  DORMIT  IN  PACE; 
MORTVA  EST;  DEFVNCTA;  TEAEYTA;  ETE- 
AEYTHCEN;  EHAYCATO;  IIPOAPEI,  ETEAlOOH 
(Bdckh);  KOIMATE  (Koi/aSTat,  id.);  EN  EIPHNH; 
DE  SAECVLO  RECESSIT.  or  DECESSIT,  or  EX  I  BIT 
(exivit)  :  RECESSIT  DE  HAC  LVCE ;  IIT  AD 
DEVM;  RECEPTVS  AD  DEVM  ;  PRAECESSIT  AD 
PACEM;  EXIVIT  IN  PACE;  QVIESCET  IN  PACE; 
REQVIESCET  IN  SOMNO  PACIS;  ABSOLVTVS  DE 
CORPORE ;  SPIRITVS  IN  LVCE  DOMINI  SVSCEP- 
TVS  EST. 

Sepulchral  Formulae.—  HIC  lACET,  EN0AAE  KEI- 
TAI,  or  KATAKEITAI  (B.k:kh);  HIC  SITVS  EST; 
HIC  DORMIT:  HIC  POSITA  EST;  DEPOSJTIO; 
KATA0ECTC;  ETA<I>H  (Bdckh);  KATETE0H  (id.). 

Desiynation  of  tomb. — LOCVLVS;  BISOMVS,  TRI- 
SOMVS,  QVADRLSOMVS  (with  LOCVS  expressed  or 
understood);  TOIIOC,  CVBICVLVM,  AETERNA 
DOM  VS. 


INSCRIPTIONS  855 

ESCIT  IN  SOMNO  PACIS,  DEPOSITJO  EIVS 
HI  IDVS  ....  etc. 

Bi'utium,  Campania,  Apulia : 

B.  M  (i.  e.  bonae  memoriae)  at  the  head  of  inscriptions. 

Africa  : 

Sitifis,  Cirta,  Cesarea,  Rusgunia,  etc.:  MEMORIA, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  inscription.  Sitifi.s,  Orleans- 
villo,  Arbal,  Porius  Magnus  :  PRAECKSSlT. 
Hamman  bel  Hanefia,  Hwdjar  Roum,  Portus  Mag¬ 
nus:  DECESSIT,  DISCESSIT.  Cirta,  Kalama, 
Carthage,  etc. :  VlXIT  IN  PACE.  [Caesarea: 
IN  PACE  HIC  QVI ESCIT  ;  ACCUBITORIVM; 
SEPVl.TVS.  Sitifis;  HIC  lACIT.  Cirta:  EN- 
©AAE  KEITE.l 

Greece  : 

Athens:  KOIMHTHPION,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Inscription. 

Galatia : 

Tschorum,  etc. :  ©ECIC. 

Cilicia : 

Mopsuestia,  Tarsus,  Corycus,  Seleucia:  TOllOC.  Se- 
leucia,  Bor.:  MNHMA.  Mopsuestia,  Tarsus: 
MNHMA  AIA<I*EP0N.  Seleucia;  XAMOCOPIN 
(j(a/j.aicr6piou),  HAPACTATIKON ;  in  the  sense 
of  sepulchre.  Corycus,  Epinoia,  Seleucia,  0HKH. 
Corycus:  GnMATO0HKH,  ©HEH  AlA4>E- 
POYCA. 

Syria : 

Andrena,  Phylea,  Schmerrin,  Horus,  on  the  gates  ■ 
AYTH  H  HYaH  TOY  KYPIOY.  K.T.A. 

Palestine : 

Jerusalem:  MNHMA  AlAd>EPON;  ©HKH  AlA- 
4>EPOYCA. 

Egypt : 

Benka  el  Assel :  EIT  ArA©fl.  Thebes:  0  MAKA- 
RIOC,  applied  to  the  dead ;  [0  ©EOC  ANAlIAYd 
EN  CKHNAIC  APIGN.  Alexandria:  MNH- 
©HTI  THC  KOIMHCEGCTHC  AOYAHC  COY.] 

Nubia : 

Phile;  EH  APAQG.  Kalabscheh :  0  MAKAPIOC, 
applied  to  the  d^ad;  [EN0A  KATAKEITE]. 
Kalabscheh,  cemetery  of  Wadj'-Gazal-  ANA- 
HAYCON  0  ©EOC  THN  ^'YXHN  AYTOY  EN 
KOAHIC  (/coXirot?)  ABRAAM  KAI  ICAAK  KAI 
lAKDB.  Colasucia:  0  ©EOC  TGN  HNEYMA- 
TGN  KAI  CAPKOC  .  .  .  ANAIIAYCON  THN 
^YXHN. 

Great  Britain  : 

IC  lACET;  HIC  TVMVLO  lACIT  ;  IN  OC 
TVMVLO  lAClT;  A.  HIC  lAClT  B.  FILIVS; 
HIC  lACIT  IN  CONGERIES  (sic)  LAPIDVM  ; 
A  FILIVS  B  HIC  lACIT;  HIC  lACENT 
SANCTI  ET  PRAECIPVI  SACERDOTES ; 
HIC  MEMOR  lACIT;  HIC  IN  SEPVLCRO 
REQVIESCIT;  IN  MEMORIAM  SANCI  ORVM; 
LVCEM  TVAM  DA  DEVS  ET  REQVIEM;  and 
(later)  ROGO  OMNIBVS  AMBVLANTIBVS 
EXORENP  PRO  ANIMA;  also  (in  Ceitl  )  OR 
DO  (pray  for);  and  (in  Sixon)  BEGUN  AFTER 
(a  memorial  to)  .  .  .;  GIBIDDADDAER  SAV’LE 
(pray  for  the  soul)  ;  also  name  only, 

Ireland  : 

HIC  DORMIT  (once);  name  only  in  genitive  (in 
Latin)  ;  and  in  Celtic,  of  which  the  groat  majority 
are  composed,  OR  or  OROIT  IX)  (pray  for);  OR 
or  OROIT  AR  (pray  for);  BENDACHD  FOR 
ANMAIMN  (a  blessing  on  the  soul  of);  SAFEI 
SAHATTOS  (fthe  stone]  of  the  wise  sage);  also 
name  only  (very  frequently). 

D.  Acclamidions. — There  is  still  one  point  re¬ 
lating  to  the  phraseology  of  Christian  iu.scrip- 

tions,  on  which  it  may  be  convenient  to  say  a 


856 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


/ 


little  more.  Many  of  those  on  gems  and  glass, 
and  a  large  number  of  the  epitaphs  contain  what 
are  termed  acclm nations,  or  short  expressions 
addresseil  to,  or  in  behalf  of,  the  living,  or  to  or 
in  behalf  of  the  dead.  Both  one  and  the  other 
existed  for  the  Pagans,  and  both  one  and  the 
other  were  adopted  with  various  modifications 
by  the  Christians. 

(1.)  To  begin  with  those  which  concern  the 
living.  The  sentiment  on  the  inscription  amici 
DUM  VI  VIM  vs  VIVA  MVS  (Gruter,  p.  609,  3)  on 
the  glass  IN  NOMINK  IIKRCVLIS  ACKRENTINO 
(Acherontiiii),  felices  vivatis  (Garrucci,  Vetri, 
t.  XXXV.  f.  1),  and  on  the  gem  viijas(.sic)  lvxvri 
HOMO  HONE  (King’s  Ant.  Gems  and  Rings,  vol.  i.  p. 
311),  was  adopted  by  the  Christians  in  the  sense 
of  living  in  God  ;  and  they  engraved  viVE  or 
vivas  in  DEO,  and  cognate  expressions  expressive 
of  hoj)e  both  for  time  and  for  eternity  on  their 
own  gems  and  glass  vessels,  and  occasionally  on 
a  lamp  or  an  amulet.  Sometimes  a  saint  is 
added,  as  vivas  in  christo  et  lavrentio,  or 
a  saint  only  is  expre.ssed,  as  vivas  in  nomine 
lavre(n)ti.  Sometimes  again  a  married  couple, 
or  a  man  and  his  family,  are  the  subjects  of  this 
kind  of  good  wish.  Sometimes,  however,  the  name 
of  God  or  Christ  w'as  omitted,  but  a  Christian  sym¬ 
bol,  as  a  palm  or  a  chrisma,  was  introduced  in 
order  to  insure  the  Christian  significance.  The 
Christians  did  not  indeed  refuse  the  sense  of  en¬ 
joying  this  life,  when  they  wrote  pie  (-Trte)  ZESES, 
or  ZESES  only  on  their  glass  drinking-cups,  which 
were  employed  in  sacred  festivities,  but  the 
sacred  representations  which  accompanied  the 
legend  would  be  a  witness  against  any  intem¬ 
perate  use.  A  smaller  number  of  acclamations 
inscribed  on  glas.s,  prays  that  the  pei’sons  ad¬ 
dressed  may  live  in  the  peace  of  God.  Thus  one 
in  favor  of  a  married  couple:  VIVATIS  IN  PACE 
DEI  (Garrucci,  Vetri,  t.  i.  f.  3);  on  another  we 
have  BIHAS  (vivas)  in  pace  dei  (Id.  t.  vi.  f.  7), 
or  vivas  im  pace  DEI  (Id.  t.  vii.  f.  2). 

For  the  matters  here  touched  on  see  Gems, 
Glass,  Lamps,  Seals.  That  this  kind  of  accla¬ 
mation  exhorting  to  live  was  usually  addressed  to 
the  living,  is  clear  upon  the  face  of  it :  but  there 
are  a  few  cases  where  it  is  less  certain,  whether 
the  persons  addressed  were  aliv^e  or  dead.  Thus 
it  has  been  made  a  question  whether  hilakis 
vivas  cvm  tvis  feliciter  semper  refri- 
GERES  IN  PACE  DEI  is  an  acclamation  to  a  living 
or  dead  person:  Martigny  {Diet,  p,  8)  relying 
principally  on  the  word  expressing  a  desire  for 
his  refreshment,  looks  on  him  as  dead.  Garrucci, 
probably  with  greater  reason,  interprets:  sii 
sempre  Heto  et  ti  refrigera  nella  pace  di  Dio, 
cioe  con  la  grazia  di  lui,  shewing  that  refri- 
geri'i.m  is  not  rarely  used  of  living  persons 
M.  .s.  p.  126). 

On  Christian  epitaphs  the  living  are  sometimes 
addressed  by  the  living,  sometimes  by  the  dead. 
Of  the  former  are  requests  to  the  reader  to 
prav  for  the  soul  of  the  person  buried.  These 
are  very  rare  for  the  earlier  periods.  Dr. 
M’Caul  savs,  “I  recollect  but  two  examples  in 
Christian  epitaphs  of  the  first  six  centuries  of 
the  addre.ss  to  tiie  reader  for  his  prayers,  so 
common  in  mediaeval  times.”  In  the  early 
mediaeval  inscriptions  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  exam])les  will  be  seen  under  Tomb.  At 
other  times  the  readers  are  saluted  by  the  author 
of  the  insndption,  salvete  fratres  (Renier  n. 


4025  ;  see  above),  or  asked  to  pray  for  him  (Le 
Blant,  n.  619). 

The  dead  person  sometimes  prays  the  living 
not  to  meddle  with  his  bones,  as  precOR  EGO 
HILPERICVS  NON  AVFERANTVR  IIINC  OZZA  ME.A 
(Le  Blant,  n.  207.  See  similar  examples  in  his 
notes  on  this  in.scription  and  Tomb). 

Sometimes  the  survivors  are  exhorted  not  to 
weep :  and  the  nolite  dolere  parentes,  hoc  faciun- 
dum  fait  {Mus.  Disn.  i.  117,  pi.  liii.)  becomes 
on  a  Christian  epitaph — 


“  Parcite  vos  lacrimis,  dulcls  cum  conjuge  natae, 
VivenU-mque  Deo  credite  here  nefa^.” 

De  Rossi,  I.  U.  li.  n.  843  ^a.d.  472). 


More  strange  are  the  epitaphs  counted  to  be 
Christian,  p.r)  Auttou,  t4kuou,  ouSets  kdavaros 
(Bockh,  11.  9589),  and  Odpai,  Tarta  ouSeis 

ddavaros  (Id.  9624),  both  from  the  Roman  cata¬ 
combs.  A  Jewish  epitaph  in  a  Roman  cemetery 
runs  similarly  (Id.  n.  9917). 

(2.)  Of  acclamations  addressed  to  the  dead  we 
hav'e  the  following.® 

Vivas  or  vivatis  in  deo  ;  this  and  the 
allied  forms  viVE  or  vivas  in  christo,  domino, 
inter  SANCTIS  (sic,  De  Rossi,  n.s.  n.  10,  a.d. 
268),  IN  NOMINE  CIIRLSTI  (Marini,  p.  45r>);  also 
IN  NO.MINE  PETRI  (Boldetti,  p.  388),  the  same, 
or  nearly  so,  as  those  which  have  just  been 
noticed  as  addressed  to  the  living,  recur  abun¬ 
dantly  on  the  sepulchral  monuments  of  Rome 
and  other  places  (De  Rossi,  I.  U.  M.  Prol.  p.  cx  ; 
Le  Blant,  n.  576;  Mart.  Diet.  p.  7,  and  To.\ib). 


Epitaph  of  Aelemalis  and  Servilia,  .Sivaux,  Fian^.  Xiarnght  hy 
lie  Ro?si,  jud^'iiif?  frv>in  the  style  and  palaeography.  t<«  be  earlier 
than  Constantine  {fiuV.  .irch.  Crist.  I8B3,  p.  47,  whoee  tig.  i3 
copied) ;  if  8  >  it  probably  gives  the  oldest  known  exan^ple  of  the 
Chrisma.  Fifth  century,  according  to  Le  Blant  (n.  576). 


Similarly  in  Greek  (Bockh,  n. 

9800),  ^•qcrats  iv  Kupico  (Id.  n.  9673).  They 
'proceed  on  the  supposition  that  the  Christian 
life  is  continuous,  and  that  expressions  in  the 
form  of  good  wishes,  which  primarily  belong 
to  this  life,  may  when  their  fulfilment  is  nc 


0  Of  Pagan  acclainations  addressed  in  bobalt  of  tin- 
dead  we  have, among  otliers,  the  following:  At/  libi  terra 
levis.  Ossa  tua  bene  quiescavt.  Are,  la-'e,  Ui  tibi  benef.- 
ciant,  Xatpe,  6ioj)  yot ’Otripi?  ro  tl/vxpbr  v6iop  (M'caul,  U.S, 
p.  .wii.). 


INSCRIPTIONS 


857 


INSCRIPTIONS 


longer  doubtful,  be  transferred  to  the  life  to 
come.P 

Other  forms  express  to  the  dead  good  wishes 
for  their  rest  or  peace.  Thus  on  a  gem,  found 
in  a  grave  B  (bene)  qvesqvas,  (quiescas)  (see 
Gems),  and  on  tombs  quiosce  in  pace  (Marini,  p. 
366),  CESQUAS  BENE  IN  PACE  (Id.  p.  385).  Nor 
tan  we  well  take  such  phrases  as  pax  tecum  (Le 
Plant,  n.  490,  &;c.),  elpijUT]  (roi  (Bockh,  n.  9486), 
IpTjvi  (^^lp'i]vri)  (Toi  iv  ovpavco  (Id.  n.  9844),  and 
elpTjur]  Tra<ri,  with  or  without  eV  0ew  (Id.  nos. 
9487-8),  as  other  than  good  wishes  addressed 
to  the  departed,  not  affirmations  of  a  fait  ac- 
ccmpli,  but  a  confident  pra3'er,  or  rather  a  sure 
hope,  that  the  state  of  peace  ma_v  continue.  In 
other  inscriptions,  however,  it  is  evidently  re¬ 
garded  as  already  accomplished,  e.  g.,  aueiravafv 
'Apia  ky  eipriyr}  (Marini,  p.  456).  Compare  eV 
elpijvr)  irpodyei  (Bockh,  u.  9645  and  9632)  ;  OB- 
DORMIVIT  IN  pace  IESV,  QVEM  DILEXIT,  OBIIT  IN 
PACE  DEI  (Hlibner,  u.  s.  p.  x.).  The  full  expres¬ 
sion  elpTjyr}  aoi  PAX  VOBISCVM  SIT,  also 

occurs  (Bockh,  n.  9710;  Le  Blant,  n.  526). 
More  interesting  are  the  acclamations  which 
relate  to  refrigerium,  which  God  himself  is  often 
elsewhere-  invoked  to  bestow  on  the  departed. 
De  Rossi  notes  the  occurrence  of  spirUum  tuum 
Deus  refrigeret^'^  and  the  like,  as  occurring  in 
early  Christian  epitaphs  {Frol.  p.  cx.).  But  here 
the  deceased  is  addressed,  in  the  hope  that  he  is 
in  receipt  of  that  refreshment,  or  as  being  sure 
to  receive  it.  Thus  we  have  the  neuter  verb 
refrigerare,  to  enjoy  a  cool  repose,  in  this  con¬ 
nection,  IN  BONO  REFRiGERES  (Marini,  p.  420), 
i.  e.,  mag  you  enjoy  refreshment  in  a  good  place., 
by  which  is  intended  Paradise,  or  the  bosom  of 
Abraham ;  refrigera  cvm  spiritv  sancto,  i.e., 
in  thine  own  holy  soul  (Marangoni,  Cose  Gent. 
p.  460.  See  Tertull.  ado.  3Iarc.  lib.  iv.  c.  34). 
More  rarely  accepta  sis  in  cristo  (Marini, 
p.  454)  is  the  form  which  tlie  acclamation 
assumes,  with  which  XpLcrhs  juera  crov  (Bockh, 
n.  9697)  may  be  compared,  as  well  as.AETERNA 
TIBI  LUX  IN  CHRISTO  (Marini,  u.  s.  p.  450),  the 
last  word  being  expressed  by  the  chrisma.  Some 
addresses  to  the  dead,  however,  are  congratula¬ 
tory,  as  BENE  VIXSITI  (S4c),  VENE  CONSVMASTI 
(Marini  p.  434),  anima  tva  cvm  ivstis  {Id. 
p.  381),  IN  REFRIGERIO  ANIMA  TVA  (Fabretti, 
p.  547),  where  est  rather  than  sit  seems  to  be 
understood. 

The  Greek  acclamation  Odppi  {i.  e.  Bdppei)  is 
’  sometimes  placed  at  the  end  of  an  epitaph 
(Bockh,  n.  9821);  and  sometimes  at  the  begin¬ 


p  The  indicative  is  likewise  found,  as  in  Deo  decedit 
e  vita  (Httbner,  u.s.  p.  xi.);  and  both  expressions  mean 
in  reality  the  same  thing.  The  reader,  however,  may  see 
Martigny,  Diet.  s.  v.  “  Purgatoire  ”  for  a  different  view  of 
the  optative  formulae. 

<i  The  verb  is  then  used  transitively.  In  the  Latin 
version  of  St.  Irenaeus,  refrigerare  is  the  rendering  of 
avan-oucracrdai,  and  Ducange  accordingly  (Gloss,  s.  v.) 
explains  the  Latin  word  by  requieseere,  wliich  is  substan¬ 
tially  correct.  Refrigerium  as  used  by  Tertullian  and  in 
the  Acclamations  does  not  mean  “  a  release  from  pain, 
but  an  enjoyment  of  positive  though  imperfect  happiness 
on  the  part  of  theju^t  from  tlie«  very  moment  of  their 
dissolution  in  that  scj)arate  abode  which  Tertullian  sup¬ 
poses  our  Lord  to  distinguish  by  the  appellation  of  Abra¬ 
ham’s  bosoxn.” — Fab<  r,  Diff.  of  Roman  sm,  book  i.  c.  v. 

r  See  Do  Rossi  (u  s.).  The  words  occur  in  this  sense 
In  the  epitaph  of  St.  Severa  at  Rome.  See  Tomb, 


ning  {Id.  n.  9789),  addressed  in  each  case  to  the 
departed.  Another  imperative  yprjyopei  (waae 
up !)  in  singular  contrast  to  the  quiescas  above, 
is  occasionally  found  at  the  end  of  Christian  in¬ 
scriptions  {Id.  9599,  9570);  it  may  probably 
contemplate  the  return  of  the  Saviour.  Eu/aolpi 
also  occurs  {Id.  9800). 

The  Latin  classical  form  Ave,  much  used  by 
the  Pagans,  is  found  also  in  a  Christian  epitaph, 
and  written  A  B  E  (Bockh,  n.  9653).  We  have 
also  HAVE  VALE  on  the  same  monument  (Le 
Blant,  n.  495). 

In  the  last  place  are  to  be  noted  prayers  or 
requests  to  the  departed  to  pray  to  God  for  the 
survivors,*  De  Rossi  notes  that  in  the  earlier 
undated  inscriptions  of  the  catacombs  {i.e.,  those 
before  the  peace  of  Constantine),  we  have  pete 
pro  nobis,  pro  parent ibus,  pro  conjuge,  pro  fliis, 
pro  sorore  (Prol.  p.  cx.).  To  these  Dr.  IMcCaul 
adds  roga,  ora  pro  nobis,  but  adds  at  tlie  same 
time  that  there  are  “  comparatively  few  among 
the  thousands”  of  these  undated  inscriptions, 
which  contain  these  prayers,  and  “  that  instances 
of  the  mention,  in  such  forms  of  others  than  tho 
members  of  the.  family  o/  the  deceased  are  ex¬ 
tremely  rare.”  He  has  observed  only  one  dated 
example,  of  the  year  380  a.d.  (De  Rossi,  n.  288) 
which  contains  any  such  request ;  it  has  the 
expression  PRO  hvnc  vnvm  ora  svbolem 
(u.  s.  p.  xviii.).  With  respect  to  such  accla¬ 
mations  of  affection  as  oulcis  anima,  anima 
pura  et  tnand  i,  anima  innox,  puer  innocens, 
\pvxh  Ka\^,  and  the  like,  they  are  applied  in 
Christian  inscriptions  of  various  kinds  both 
to  the  living  and  the  dead,  and  need  hardly  be 
dwelt  upon  in  this  place  (see  Garrucci,  u.  s. 
Index,  s  v.  dulcis  anima  ;  Martigny,  Diet.  p.  7  ; 
Perret,  Catac.  de  Home,  t.  v.  pi.  17  ;  Bockh, 
n.  9697). 

E.  Style  and  Structure. — Such  inscriptions  as 
relate  to  public  works,  churches,  basilicas,  foun¬ 
tains,  or  to  sacred  objects  and  furniture,  altars, 
chalices,  crosses,  liturgical  book-covers,  kc.,  or  to 
votive  offerings  and  the  like,  need  hardly  be  taken 
into  the  present  account.  They  exist  in  prose  and 
verse,  both  in  Greek  and  in  Latin,  and  are  of  very 
various  styles  and  lengths.  A  large  number  of 
such  are  collected  by  Marini,  and  edited  by  Mai 
{Script.  Vet.  Nov.  Coll.  tom.  v,  pp.  1-236);  to 
this  work  more  especially  the  reader  is  referred. 
Many  of  them,  however,  are  later  than  the 
period  embraced  in  his  work.  Very  few  inscrip¬ 
tions,  if  any,  which  belong  to  this  class,  go  back 
before  the  time  of  Constantine,  so  far  as  the 
writer  is  aware,  and  can  hardly  be  called  nume¬ 
rous  till  after  the  close  of  the  4th  century. 
With  regard,  however,  to  the  sepulchral  inscrip¬ 
tions  the  case  is  somewhat  different.  They  can, 
to  some  extent  at  least,  be  classified  by  then- 
style.  But  the  first  thing  to  be  borne  in  mind 
is  that  inscriptions  of  one  country  are  no  rule 
for  those  of  another.  Those  of  Britain  and  of 
Ireland,  for  example,  are  both  unlike  each  other, 
and  unlike  those  of  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Italy,  of 
nearly  the  same  period.  The  Greek  in.scriptions, 
again,  admit  for  the  most  part  of  but  little  com¬ 
parison  with  the  Latin  ones ;  the  Greek  and 


*  The  Invocation  of  the  Virgin  an(i  of  saints  (see  ab-xve 
5  iv.)  are  scarcely  to  be  accounted  acclamations,  and  are 
better  considered  separately. 


858 


INSCRIPTIONS 


INSCRIPTIONS 


Latin  ins(;i-i})tions  to  Dometius,  written  on  the 
same  slab,  are  a  good  illustration  of  this  (Le 
Blant,  hisc.  Chrit.  Gaul.  n.  61. ‘1a). 

With  few  excej)tions  the  earlier  inscriptions 
are  characterised  by  their  brevity  and  simplicity, 
while  from  the  4th  century  onwards  they  assume 
in  some  countries,  as  in  Italy,  Gaul,  and  Spain, 
a  more  complex  and  ornate  character.  In  the 
earlier  epitaphs,  moreover,  sometimes  occur 
traits  more  or' less  similar  to  the  pagan  epitaphs, 
e.g.  mention  of  those  who  made  the  tomb,  which 
by  degrees  disappear.  They  also  contain  a  much 
greater  number  of  acclamations,  most  of  which 
soon  vanish  com])letely.  In  the  4th  century 
Christian  Latin  epigraphy  began  to  make  a  style 
of  its  oAvn,  and  for  the  first  time  we  now  get  at 
Rome  such  ojiening  words  as  hie  requiescit  in 
pace.,  or  in  somno  pads,  hie  quiescit,  hie  jacet, 
hie  positus  est,  &c.  ;  and  new  rhetorical  phrases, 
as  mirae  innocentiae,  sap)ientiae,  sanctitatis,  &c., 
begin  to  make  their  appearance.  It  is  not 
until  about  this  time  that  any  mention  of  the 
secular  profession  of  the  deceased  occurs  in  the 
Latin  inscriptions ;  and  it  is  not  very  commonly 
mentioned  at  any  time.  The  chrisma  and  the 
cross,  signs  of  a  triumphant  faith,  now  come  in 
abundantly.  The  inscriptions  of  Gaul  followed 
the  style  of  Rome  a  good  deal,  and  the  same  or 
similar  formulae  appear  upon  them  at  a  some¬ 
what  later  time.  It  is  in  these  Roman  and 
Gaulish  inscriptions  that  changes  of  style  can 
best  be  studied,  because  they  are  so  numerous, 
because  so  many  of  them  bear  dates,  and,  in  fine, 
because  they  have  been  so  admirably  edited. 
M.  De  Rossi  makes  some  remarks  on  the  changes 
of  style  in  the  Roman  inscriptions  (Insc.  Urb. 
Horn.,  P/olegom.,  pp.  ex.-exvi.),  and  will  in  an¬ 
other  volume  discuss  totani  dili  epigraphici  Chris^ 
ti  ini  doctrinam.  ]\I.  Le  Bh.mt,  in  the  first  fifty- 
eight  pages  of  his  Minuel,  treats  of  the  succes¬ 
sive  variations  in  the  Gaulish  inscriptions  (few 
of  which,  however,  are  before  the  age  of  Con¬ 
stantine),  and  also  establishes  the  fact,  that 
blank  formulae  were  in  circulation  for  the 
use  of  stonecutters,  where  of  course  the  num- 
bei  of  years  of  the  deceased  or  of  the  reigning 
king  could  only  be  expressed  by  the  word 
tot  or  tantus,  and  that  the  stonecutter  has 
sometimes  neglected  to  replace  the  tantus  by 
the  particular  number  required.  (See  Le  Blant, 
u.  s.  pp.  59-74.)  Similarly  in  Spain  traces 
of  blank  formulae  can  be  recognised  (Htibner, 
u.  s.  p.  A'iii.). 

By  means  of  a  careful  study  of  the  phrases 
of  the  dated  inscriptions  a  close  approximation 
may  sometimes  be  made  to  the  date  of  an  un¬ 
dated  one ;  great  caution,  however,  is  necessary, 
as  certain  expressions  held  their  place  for  a  long 
period.  (See  Le  Blant,  u.  s.  pp.  31-33). 

(vi.).  Dates  of  Christian  Inscriptions. 

(a)  Christian  inscriptions,  when  dated,  most 
usually  bear  the  names  of  consuls,  and  all  the 
earliest  are  thus  dated.  Sometimes  one,  more 
usually  both  consuls,  are  given,  the  names  being  ' 
commonly  contracted.  The  abbreviation  cos  for 
consulibus  was  in  use  up  to  the  middle  of  the  i 
3rd  century,  after  which  coss,  cons,  and  CONSS,  ' 
came  to  be  successively  adopted:  COS  is  very 
seldom  found  during  the  4th  century,  and  almost 
never  in  the  5th  or  6th :  coss  fell  into  disuse 


about  the  first  quarter  of  the  5th  century,  and 
after  that  CONS  was  used.* * 

The  numerals,  to  designate  a  second  or  third 
consulate,  are  frequently  jirefixed  to  cos  and  the 
other  abbreviated  for;ns  ;  but  where  there  is  no 
ambiguity  they  are  .sometimes  omitted.  A 
very  strange  abbreviation  was  occasionallv  used, 
though  in  Christian  inscn'ptions  it  is  exceedingly 
rare:  the  names  of  the  consuls  were  omit¬ 
ted  and  the  numbers  only  retained.  In  an 
epitaph  from  a  Christian  crypt  at  Motyca,  in 
Sicily,  to  “  Euterpe,  the  comj)anion  of  the 
Muses,”  her  death  is  fixed  to  Nov.  27,  viraTia 
Tuiv  KV  [plojz/]  TO  1  Kal  rh  -y'  in  the  consulship  of 
our  Lords  for  the  tenth  time  and  for  the  third 
time,  i.  e.  360  A.D.,  when  Constantins  was  in  his 
tenth  consulate,  and  Julian  in  his  third.  (Bockh, 
n.  9524.) 

Another  form  of  dating  was  bv  a  post-con¬ 
sulate,  i.e.  the  words  post  consvlatvm,  or  the 
abbreviations  post  cons,  po.st  conss  (or  from 
the  middle  of  the  5th  century),  p  c,  and  even 
post  (or  POs)  only  was  j)laced  before  the  consuls’ 
names  of  the  year  preceding,  “  when  it  was  not 
known  who  were  the  consuls  of  the  year,  or 
when  the  name  of  but  one  was  known,  or  when 
it  was  necessary  or  expedient  not  to  mention 
them”  (Me Caul,  u.  s,  p.  xxvi.).  This  formula, 
which  is  said  to  have  arisen  in  the  troublesome 
times  of  Maxentius,  307  a.d.,  I’arely  appears  in 
Christian  inscriptions  till  542  a.d.,  when  the 
post-consulate  of  Basil  the  younger  was  taken  as 


'  and  the  yeuvs  q^ost  consulatum  Basilii  extend  up 
to  xxix.  The  consulate  of  Justin  in  566  a.d. 
gave  birth  to  another  era  of  post-consulates, 
which  lasted  nine  years. 

There  are  various  other  matters  connected 
with  consular  dates  which  are  intentionally 
passed  over  here.  For  the  whole  subject  see 
De  Rossi  (Thsc.  Urb.  Bom.  pp.  xiii.-liv. ;  and  for 
an  epitome  of  the  more  important  parts.  Me  Caul 
(w.  s.  p.  xxiii.-xxvii.)," 

(6)  Other  inscriptions  are  dated  by  an  era, 

I  whether  of  a  province  or  of  a  city.  Examples  of 
I  the  former  are  seen  in  Spain  and  Mauretania ;  of 
I  the  latter  in  various  parts  of  Asia,  where  the 
eras  of  Antioch  and  Bostra  (among  others)  ob¬ 
tained  currency.  Examples  of  these  will  be 
found  above,  and  below  under  Tomb.  In  all 
these  parts  of  the  empire  Christian  inscriptions 
1  were  very  rarely  dated  by  the  consuls,  and  those 
I  are  mostly  of  the  6th  century  (De  Rossi,  u.  s. 

^  p.  xiii.).  For  other  eras  employed  in  Christian 
inscriptions,  see  De  Rossi  (tr.  s.  pp.  v.  vi.). 

(c)  Dates  by  Indictions  *  (or  cycles  of  fifteen 
year’s)  are  not  found  in  Christian  inscriptions  of 
Rome  before  the  beginning  of  the  6th  century. 
The  earliest  seems  to  be  522  a.d.  (De  Rossi, 
I.  U.  R.  n.  984).  In  Gaul,  however,  we  find  an 


*  In  Diocleti.an’s  time  CONS,  was  first  used  for  one 
comul,  and  CONSS.  for  two  consuls;  as  well  as  CS.  and 
CC.  SS.  similarly. 

“  In  Christian  inscriptions  dates  taken  from  the  office 
of  magistrates  other  than  consuls  are  extremely  rare  (De 
Roesi,  u.  s.  p.  xi.  See  alxive  )  iv.  n.  1). 

*  These  have  been  thought  to  be  connected  with  the 
fifteen  years  of  military  ser  vice  and  the  extrac  r  Jinary 
tribute  necessary  for  their  payment  f''om  time  to  time,  as 
adjusted  by  Constantine ;  but  their  origin  is  not  altoge¬ 
ther  certain. 


INSCEIPTIONS 


IXSCRIPTIONS 


859 


inscription  dated  Ind.  XV,  Olibrio  juniore  cans 
(consule),  i.e.  491.  a.d.  (Le  Blant,  n.  088).  The 
indictions  themselves  (whicli  commence  312  A.D.), 
unless  accomj)auied  by  other  notes  of  time  (as 
they  often  are),  do  not  sullice  to  determine 
even  approximately  the  year  A.D.  For  the  first 
year  of  each  cycle  is  counted  as  the  first  in¬ 
diction,  and  thus  the  tenth  indictiou  merely 
signifies  the  tenth  year  in  some  undetermined 
indiction.  See  De  Rossi  (u.  s.  De  Cyclo  Indic- 
tionum,  pp.  xcvii.-ci  ) 

(d)  For  the  mode  of  dating  by  solar  and  lunar 
cycles,  i.  e.  by  the  day  of  the  month,  the  day  of 
the  week,  and  the  day  of  the  moon,  as  compared 
with  each  other  and  with  the  year,  the  reader 
who  desires  to  enter  into  so  difficult  a  subject 
must  consult  De  Rossi  (u.  s.  pp.  Ixx.-xcvii.).  See 
also  Month;  Week. 

Thei'e  are  now  to  be  noticed  a  few  eras  or 
modes  of  dating  which  are  peculiar  to  the 
Christians. 

(e)  The  era  of  the  martyrs  is  only  used  in 
Egypt  and  the  adjoining  regions.  A  barbarous 
Greek  inscription  (n.  9121  Bcickh)  dates  March  30, 
anb  juapTvpwy  ad,  i.  e.  209  of  the  Dioclesian  era, 
which  commenced  August  29,  284  a.d.,  and  so 
corresponding  to  494  a.d.  This  era,  invented 
and  first  used  by  the  pagans,  was  adopted  after¬ 
wards  by  the  Christians,  who  more  usually 
changed  its  name  (Martigny,  Diet.  p.  532,  and 
the  references,  also  Bockh,  n.  9134). 

(/)  Episcopal  dates.  A  Roman  epitaph  (De 
Rossi,  /.  U.  li.  n.  139)  is  dated  deposita  in  pace 
SUB  Libe[rio  ep.],  and  another  (n.  190)  has 
RECESSIT  III  NON.  IN  PACE  SVB  DaMASO  EPISCO. 
These  are  the  only  examples  of  the  kind  known, 
and  do  not  prove  that  epitajths  were  then  dated 
purely  and  simply  by  the  papal  era,  but  rather 
that  those  who  put  them  up  wished  to  express 
their  adhesion  to  the  orthodox  pontiffs  and  not 
to  their  o])ponents  Felix  and  (Jrsicinus.y 

But  from  the  end  of  the  4th  century  it  became 
common  at  Rome  to  date  sacred  buildings  by 
inscriptions  in  which  the  pope’s  name  occurred  ; 
thus  we  have  in  such  connections  SALVO  SiRiciO 
EPiscopo  (like  the  Salvis  dd.  nn.  Augustis) 
and  TEMPORIBVS  sancti  Innocentii  EPISCOPI, 
and  the  still  remaining  inscription  in  the  basilica 
of  St.  Sabina : 

eVLMEN  APOSrOLICVM  CVM  CAELESTINVS 
HABERET 

rRIMVS  El’  IN  TOTO  FVLGERET  EPISCOPVS 
ORBE. 

(De  Rossi,  u.  s,  pp.  Viii.,  ix).  In  the  5th  and 
following  century  the  custom  of  dating  sacred 
buildings  by  bishops  and  other  ecclesiastics 
spread  abroad,  and  at  length  became  very  general 
throughout  Europe;  but  public  monuments  of  the 
provinces  of  the  4th,  5th,  and  even  6th  and  later 
centuries  are  dated  by  the  eras  of  Mauretania 
or  of  Bostra  or  Antioch,  or  by  consuls,  or  by 
the  reigns  of  emperors  (De  Rossi,  ti.  s.  p.  ix.  and 
the  references).  Sometimes,  but  very  rarely, 
the  exact  year  of  office  of  the  bishop  or  abbot  is 
given  (De  Rossi,  u.  s.  and  above,  §  iv.  n.  11). 

There  are  two  other  eras  much  employed  in 
inscriptions  soon  after  the  period  with  which  we 
are  concerned,  and  which  indeed  at  length  almost 

y  Martigny  (Z>ic<.  p.  317)  says;  “  Apres  Clovis,  ils  (Ics 
Gaulois)  inscriverent  quelquetois  sur  les  oiarbres  I’annee 
du  pontife  Romain.” 


superseded  the  others  in  common  use  —  the 
Dionysian  epoch  of  the  Incarnation,*  and  the 
mundane  era,  which  reckons  the  Creation  at 
5508  B.c.  [Era.] 

(y)  Bede  brought  the  former  into  vogue  in 
the  beginning  of  the  8th  century,  and  there  are 
also  some  early  inscriptions  dated  thereby.  De 
Rossi  affirms  that  he  knows  of  no  inscription  of 
the  first  six  centuries  so  dated.  There  is  one  ot 
the  year  617  a.d.,  which  records  the  construction 
and  consecration  of  a  ba})tistery,  at  Brixia,  by 
Domina  nostra  Flavia  Thcodolinda,  which  is  thus 
dated  at  the  end  :  vivente  domino  nostro  Adel- 
valdo  sacrae  salutis  saeciUo  CCC  CCC  xvii  (Marini, 
u.  s.  p.  170);  besides  this  there  is  one  at  Inter- 
amna  (Merni),  dated  AN.  s.  DCC.  xxvil.  (Marini, 
u.  s.  p.  157);  others  just  below  our  poriod  are  a 
little  difi'erently  exjjressed  :  one  is  dated  AN.  IN- 
CARNAT.  DNI  DCCCLVII  IND  V  REGE  LOVDOWICO 
IMP.  AVG.  (Marini,  w.  s.  p.  85),  and  another  is 
placed  ANNO  domini  dccc  lxiiii  (Marini, 
M.  s.  pp.  164,  5).  All  these  are  in  connection 
with  the  dedication  or  building  of  sacred  edifices. 

(A)  An  early  example®  of  the  mundane  era  is 
furnished  by  an  inscription  on  a  tower  at  Nicaea 
in  Bithynia,  ctous  ^s"r£r,  in  the  year  6316,  cor¬ 
responding  to  808  A.D.  (Bockh,  C,  I.  G.  n. 
8669).  But  as  it  is  called  “  the  tower  of 
Michael,  the  great  king  in  Christ,  emperor,” 
some  error  in  the  date  (as  edited)  has  slipped 
in.  For  Michael  I.  reigned  from  811-813  A. D., 
and  Michael  II.  from  820-829  A.D.  Possibly 
the  S'  is  a  misreading  for  6  :  if  so,  the  date  is  81 1 
A.D.  Another  mutilated  inscription,  relative  to 
the  foundation  of  an  arsenal  (tovtov  p.eya- 
Adrarop  (sic)  apayvaXyp)  by  “  Theophilus  the 
king,  son  of  Michael  the  king,”  is  doubly  dated, 
enrb  KTiaeos  (sic)  K6a/j.ou  dvrb  5e  Xpiarov 

iTovs  (D\d',  the  year  6342  of  the  mundane  era, 
corresponding  to  the  year  834  of  the  Christian 
era  (Id.  u.  8680). 

(i)  There  are,  in  fine,  inscriptions  dated  by  the 
reigns  or  by  the  years  of  the  reigns  of  the  sove¬ 
reigns  of  the  kingdoms  which  sprung  out  of  the 
ruins  of  the  western  empire.  Examples  occur 
in  England,  France,  Spain,  and  Italy.  (See 
above  §  iv..  Nos.  5,  11,  and  Tomb.) 

In  like  manner,  after  the  consulate  came  to 
an  end  in  541  a.d.,  the  year  of  the  Byzantine 
emperor’s  reign,  was  occasionally  placed  on  in¬ 
scriptions  as  a  date.  An  early  example  of  the 
year  592  a.d.,  in  the  11th  year  of  Justinian  II. 
(in  an  inscription  relating  to  a  church),  is  given 
in  Bockh’s  C.  1.  G.  n.  8651.  Another  less  pre¬ 
cise  is  dated  by  the  joint  reign  (842-857  A.D.) 
of  Theodora,  Michael,  and  Theda  (Bockh,  C.  /.  G. 
n.  8683). 

More  than  one  mode  of  dating  often  occurs  on 
the  same  monument,  as  by  consuls  and  an  indic¬ 
tion  conjointly  ;  by  an  era  and  a  king  conjointly; 

*  This  was  devised  in  525  a.d.  by  Dionysius  Exiguns,  a 
Roman  abbot.  For  his  purpose,  wliicli  was  ncillier 
literary  nor  historical,  but  simply  had  reference  to 
Easter,  see  the  late  Professor  Grote  in  tlie  Cambridge 
Journal  of  Classical  and  Sacred  Philology,  vol.  i.  pp.  68 
69,  in  a  paptr  entitled  ‘On  the  dating  of  Ancient 
History,’  where  several  subjects  here  touched  upon  are 
discussed. 

»  Piobihly  there  may  exist  somewhat  earlier  inscrip¬ 
tions  dat.  d  by  tliis  era  tlian  those  here  referred  to.  “  it 
began  to  prevail  in  thf  7th  century,  and  appears  in  the 
Paschal  Chronicle"  (C  vte,  u.s.  p.  66). 


860 


IXSCPtlPTIONS 


INSCKIPTIONS 


or  by  a  king  and  an  ecclesiastic  conjointly.  In 
addition  to  the  years  tlie  months  are  often  noted  ; 
tl'.ese  are  in  general  the  Roman  months. 

lint  the  day  of  the  month,  whether  of  the 
death  or  of  the  burial,  is  sometimes  in  the  more 
ancient  inscriptions  alone  set  down.  Thus  in  a*^ 
Roman  inscidj)tion  we  have  simply  Fortunatus 
clepositus  HI  Kal.  Oct.  in  pice\  and  in  another, 
La'ireniiu  (sic)  idus  lenuras  (sic)  dccessit,  fol¬ 
lowed  by  the  chrisma  (Marini,  u.  s.  pp.  380, 
S87). 

In  Egypt,  however,  the  Egyptian  months  are 
set  down,  either  alone  (Bockh,  n.  9110),  or 
together  with  an  indiction  (tc/.  n.  9111),  or  with 
the  era  of  “  the  martyrs”  {id.  9121),  or  with  an 
indiction  together  with  the  same  era,  under  its 
proper  name,  “  the  year  of  Diocletian”  {id.  9134). 

The  days  are  added  to  the  months  when  these 
occur  :  usually  computed  according  to  the  Roman 
kalendar  by  kalends,  ides,  and  nones  ;  but  the 
cyclic  inscriptions  have  the  days  of  the  week  {die 
Bcneris,  die  Saturnis  (sic),  &c. ;  also  die  Sabbati, 
die  dominica),  the  days  of  the  moon,  or  the 
octave  of  Easter.  (See  De  Rossi,  u.  s. ;  Me  Caul, 
u.  s.  pp.  53-58.)  In  Egypt  the  day  of  the  month 
is  reckoned  numerically,  as  the  21st  of  Tybi, 
the  10th  of  Phaophi,  &c. 

We  have  also  e.xamples,  though  they  are  not 
numerous,  of  epitaphs  dated  by  saints’  days. 
One  at  Briord,  of  about  the  6th  or  7th  century, 
records  of  “Ricelfus  et  jugalis  sua  Guntello” 
that  “  obierunt  in  die  Sci  May'tini,  who  probably 
himself  died  Nov.  8,  A.D.  397  (Butler’s  Lives 
of  Saints,  under  Nov.  11).  M.  Le  Blant,  who 
gives  this  inscription  (n.  380),  quotes  other  and 
earlier  examples  from  the  catacombs  ;  such  as 
Fatale  Susti,  Fatale  Domnes  Sitirctis,  yostcra  die 
marturorum,  ante  nutale  Domini  A^teri,  d.  nat. 
Sci  Mat’d. 

In  addition  to  the  day  the  hour  is  sometimes 
added,  and  occasionally  even  the  fraction  {scru- 
pulus)  of  the  hour.  See  Tomb. 

(vii.j  Ah'tredatit.ns  used  in  Christian  Imcrip- 
tions. — This  catalogue  might  no  doubt  be  en¬ 
larged  considerably  :  it  has  been  taken  from 
Martigny  {Diet.  pp.  322-324,  omitting,  however, 
the  numerals,  L  foi  quiuquaginta,  X  for  decern, 
and  the  like)  ;  and  the  writer  has  made  various 
additions  to  it,  mostly  by  help  of  Hiibner’s  Index 
to  his  Spanish  Inscriptions,  p.  115. 

A. — Anima, — annos, — ave. 

ABBl.— Abbalis. 

A.  B.  M. — Aiiiinae  benemerenti. 

ACOL.— Acolytus. 

A.D. — Ante  diem, — anima  dulcis. 

A.D.  KAL. — Ante  diem  calendas. 

A.K. —  Ante  calendas. 

AX. — Annum, — annos, — annis, — ante. 

ANS. — .Annos, — annis. 

AP.  or  APR.  or  A  PL. — Aprilis. 

A  POS  ro  R. — Apostolov  i  im. 

A.y.T.C. — Anima  quiescat  in  Christo. 


b  Cardinal  Wiseman  says  of  the  deceased  Christians  in 
early  times  that  “  annual  commemoration  had  to  be  made 
on  the  very  day  of  their  departure,  and  accurate  know¬ 
ledge  of  this  was  necessary.  Therefore,  it  alone  was 
recorded  ”  {Fabiola,  p.  147).  Even  if  this  be  the  true 
reason  (which  is  very  much  to  be  doubted),  it  remains  to 
be  exjdained  why  the  day  of  burial  alone  is  sometimes 
recorded.  The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  some  little  inci¬ 
dent  which  would  be  suflicient  to  iviuind  the  friends  of 
the  deceased,  was  sometimes  regarded  as  date  enough. 


A. Pi.T.M.D. — Anima  requie.scat  in  manu  Del, 

AVG. — Augustus  -  August!. 

B.  — Benemerenti,  -bixit  (for  vi.vit). 

B.  AN.  V.  D.  IX.— Vixit  annos  quinque,  dies  novem. 
BEN  E  R. — V  eneriae. 

B.  F. — Bonae  feminae. 

BIBAT. — Bibatls  (for  vivatis). 

B.  I.  C.  — Bibas  (for  viva.s)  in  Christo. 

B.  M.,  o?'  BO.  M.,  or  BE.  ME.,  or  BO.  ME.— Bonae 
memoriae. 

B.  M.  F. — Benemerenti  fecit. 

BMT. — Benemerenti. 

BN.VL,  or  BN.VIR. — Benemerenti,  or  beuemerentibus. 

B.  Q.— Bene  quiescat 

B.  Q.  I.  P. — Bene  quiescat  in  pace. 

BVS.  V. — Bonus  vir. 

C.  — Consul,— cum. 

CAL, — Calendas. 

CC. — Consoles, — carissimus,  or  carissima  conjux. 

CESQ.  I.  P. — Quiescit,  or  quiescat  in  pace. 

C.  F.— Clarisbima  femina, — curavit  fieri. 

CH.— Christus. 

C.  H.  L.  S.  E. — Corpus  hoc  loco  sepultum  (or  situm)  est. 
CL.— Clarus,— clarissimus. 

C.  L.  P. — Cum  lacrymis  posuerunt. 

CL.  V'. — Clarissimus  vir. 

C.  M.  F. — Curavit  monumentum  fierL 

C.  0. — Conjugi  optimo. 

C.  0.  B.  Q. — Cum  omnibus  bonis  quiescas, 

COI. — Conjugi. 

COI VG. — Conjux. 

CONI. — Conjugi. 

CON-S, — Consul, — cousulibus. 

CON  r.  VOT. — Contra  votum. 

COS. — Consul, — consulibus. 

COSS. — Consules,— consulibus. 

C.  P. — Clarissima  puella, — curavit  ponl. 

C.  Q. — Cum  quo,  or  cum  qua. 

C.  Q.  F. — Cum  quo  fecit  (for  vixit). 

C.  R. — Corpus  requiescit. 

CS.— Comsul. 

C.  V.  A. — Cum  vixisset  annos. 
eVNG.— Conjux. 

.  D. —  Dies, —  die, —  defunctus, —  depositus, —  donnit, — 
dulcis. 

D.  B.  M. — Dulcissimae  benemerenti. 

D.  B.  Q. — Dulcis,  bene  quiescas. 

D.  D. — Dedit,— dedicavii,— dies. 

D.  D.  S. — Decessit  de  saeculo. 

DE.  or  DEP.— Depositus,  -  deposlta, — depositio. 

DE. — Deum. 

DEC.— Decembris. 

DF.  — Defunctus, — defuncta. 

DI— Dei. 

DIAC. — ^Diaconus. 

DIEB. — Diebus. 

D.  III.  ID. — Die  tertua  idus 

D.  I.P.— Dormit,  or  decessit,  or  depositus  in  pace. 

D.  M  manibus. 

D.  M.  S.— Diis  Manibus  sacnim. 

DM. — Dormit. 

DMS. — Dominus. 

D.  N.,  or  DD.  NN.— Domino  nostro,  or  dominis  noetrifl 

(the  emperors). 

DNI.-  Domini. 

DO. — Deo. 

DP. — DPS.— DPT.— Depositus,— d  epos)  tio. 

E. — Est,— et,— ejus,— erexit. 

EID. — Enins  for  idus. 

EPC.— EPVS.— EPS. — episcopus. 

E.  V. — Ex  voto. 

E.  VIV.  DISC. — E  vivis  discessit. 

EX.  TM. — Ex  testamento. 

F. — Fecit,— fui.—mius,—  filia,—  femina,—  feliclter,— fe- 

lix,— fidelis,— februarius. 

F.  C. — Fieri  curavit. 


INSCRIPTIONS 

FE. — Fecit. 

FEBVS. — Februarius. 

FF.  — Fllii,— fratres, — fieri  fecit. 

F.  F.  Q. — Filiis  tiliabusque. 

F.  K. — Filius  caririsimus, — filia  carisslma. 

FL. — Filius, — Flavii. 

FLAE. — Filiae. 

F.  P.  F. — Filio,  or  filiae,  poni  fecit, 

FS. — Fossor, — fossoribus, — fratribus. 

F.V.F.— Fieri  vivus  fecit. 

F.  VI.  D.  S.  E. — Filius  sex  dierum  situs  eat. 

GL.— Gloriosi. 

H. — Hora, — hoc,— h  ic, — haeres, 

H.  A. —  Hoc  anno, 

H.  A.  K.  —  Ave  anima  carissima. 

H.  L  .S. — Hoc  loco  situs,  or  sepultus  est. 

H.  M. — Honesta  mulier. 

H.  M.  F.  F. — Hoc  nionumentura  fieri  fecit. 

H  11. 1.  P. — Hie  rcquiescit  in  pace. 

H.  S. — Hie  situs,  or  sepultus  est. 

H,  T.  F.  or  P. — Hunc  tituluin  fecerunt,  or  posuerunt, 

I.  —  In, —  idus, —  ibi, —  illustris, — jacet, — januarius, — 

Julius. 

IAN. — Januarius, — Jauuarias. 

ID. — Idus, — id  i  bus. 

I.  D,  N. — In  Dei  nomine. 

TONE. — Indictione. 

I.  H. — .Jacet  hie. 

IH. — Jesus. 

IHS. — Jesus. 

IRV.— Jesu. 

IN.  B. — In  bono, — in  benedictione. 

IND. — Indictione, — in  Deo. 

IN.  D.  N. — In  Dei  nomine 
IN.  D.  V. — In  Deo  vivas, 

INO. — Ingrnio. 

INL. — Inlustris. 

INN. — Innocens, — innocuus, — in  nomine. 

IN.  P.,  or  I.  P. — In  pace. 

INPO. — In  pace. 

IN.  X. — In  Chiisto. 

IN.  — In  Christo. 

IN.  XPI.  N. — In  Christi  nomine. 

I.  P.  I). — In  pace  Dei. 

ISPA. — Ispalensi. 

IX. — Jesus  Christus. 

K. — Kfl  lendas, — carus, — carisslma. 

KAL. — Kalendas. 

K.  B.  M. — Carissimo  benemereutl, 

K.  D.,  —  I.,  —  M.,  etc. — Calendas  decembres, — ■  janu- 
avias,  —  muias,  etc. 

K.  K. — ^Carissimi. 

KL.  KLENi). — Calendas. 

KRM. — Carissimae, — carissimo. 

L.  — Locus, — ’.ubens. 

L.  A. — Libenti  animo. 

L.  F.  C. — Liberis  fieri  enravit. 

L.  M. — Locus  monumenti. 

LNA. — Luna. 

L.  S. — Locus  sepulchri. 

M.  — Memoria, — martyr, —  mensis, —  menses, — merenti, 

—  maias,  —  mater,  —  merito,  —  monumentum,  — 
marmoreum  —  minus. 

MA. —  MAR. —  MART. — Martyr, —  martyrium, — mar¬ 
tins. 

MAT.— M;i^. 

M.  B. — Memoriae  bonae. 

M  ER  f  B. — Meren  tibus. 

ME.S. — Meses,./b?'  menses. 

M.M. — Martyres. 

M  P.,  or  PP. — ^lonumentum,  or  memoriam,  posuit,  or 
posuerunt. 

MR.  F.S.C. — Moerens  fecit  suae  conjugi. 

M  RT. — Merenti, — merentibus 

MS.  — Menses, — mensilius. 


INSCRIPTIONS  861 

N.  — Nonas, — nuniero, — novembris, — nomine, — nostro. 
N  AT. — Natal  is, — natale, 

N  BR. — Novembris. 

NME.— Nomine. 

NO.  or  NON. — Nonas. 

NON.  APR.,  —  IVL.,  —  SEP.,  —OCT.,  etc.—  Nonas 
apriles,— Julias, — septembres, — octobres,  etc. 

NN. — Nostris,— numeris. 

NOV. — Novembris. 

NOVE.  NOVEBRES.— Noverabres. 

NST.— Nostri. 

NVM. — Numerus. 

O.  — Horas, — optimus. — obitus,— obiit. 

OB. — Obiit. 

OB.  IN.  XPO. — Obiit  in  Christo. 

OCT. — Octobris, — octavas. 

0.  E.  B.Q. — Ossa  ejus  bene  quiescant. 

0.  H.  S.  S. — Ossa  hie  sepulta  sunt. 

OM.,  or  OMIB. — Omnibus. 

OMS. — Onines. 

OP. — Optimus. 

O.  P.  Q. — Ossa  pladde  quiescant. 

OSS. — Ossa. 

P.  —  Pax, —  pius, —  posuit, —  ponendum, —  posuerunt,— 

pater, — puer, — puella, —  per, —  post, —  pro, —  pridie, 
plus, — primus,^ — etc 
P  A . — Pace, — pater, — etc. 

PARTB. — Paren  tibus. 

PC. — Pace, — poni  curavit. 

F.  C.,  or  P.  CONS. — Post  consulatum. 

P.  F. — Poni  fecit. 

P.  H. — Positus  hie. 

P.  I. — Ponijussit. 

PL.— Plus. 

P.  M. — Plus  minus, — post  mortem, — piae  memoriae. 
PONT. — Pontifex. 

PONTFC. — Ponti  tice. 

P.  P. — Praefectus  praetorio. 

PP.  K.L. — Prope  calendas. 

PR.— PRB.— PRBIL— PREB.— PSBR.— PRSB.—  Pres¬ 
byter,  or  presbyteri. 

PR.,  or  PRII).  K.  IVN. — Pridie  calendas  Junias. 

PR.  Q. — Posterisque. 

PR.  N. — Pridie  nonas. 

PTR. — Posteris. 

P.  V. — Prudentissimus  vir. 

P.  Z. — Pie  zeses  (/or  bibas,  vivas). 

Q.  — qui, — quo, — quiesce, — quiescit, — quiescas. 

Q.  B.  AN. — Qui  bixit  (/or  vixit),  annos. 

Q.  FEC.  MEC. — Qui  fecit  (/or  vixit)  mccum. 

Q.  FV.  AP.  N. — Qui  fuit  apud  nos. 

Q.  I.  P. — Quie»scat  in  pace. 

Q.  M.  0. — Qui  mortem  obiit. 

Q.  V. — Qui  vixit. 

R.  — Recessit, —  requiescit, —  requiescas, —  retro, —  refri 

gera, — refrigore. 

REG.  SEC. — Regionis  secundae. 

RE. — Requiescit,  or  requiescat, — repositus. 

REQ. — Requiescit. 

RES. — Requiescit?  {Inscr.  Ilisp.  n.  114). 

R.  I,  P.  A. — Requiescas  in  pace  animae,  or  recessit. 

RQ. — Requlevit. 

S.  — Suus, — sua, — sibl, — salve, — somno, — sepnlchrum,— 

solve, — situs, — sepultus, — sub?  (//iscr.  Ilisp.  n.  5®^ 
SA. — Sanctissimus  ?  {Jnscr.  Ilisp.  n.  174). 

SAC. — Sacer, — sacerdps. 

SAC.  VG. — Sacra  virgo,  or  sacrata, 

S  B  RS. — Sep  tembres. 

SC. — Sanctus. 

'SC  A. — Sancta. 

SCE. — Sanctae. 

SCI. — Sancti. 

SCIS. — S.inctis. 

SCLI. — Saeculi. 

SC.  i\I. — Sanctae  memoriae. 

SCLO. — Saeculo. 


8G2 


INSINUATIO 


INSTRUMENT  A 


SCOR. — Sanctorum. 

SCORVM. — Sanctorum. 

SI).— vSedit. 

S.  I).  V.  in.  IAN. — Sub  die  quinto  idus  januarias. 

SEP. — September, — s^ptimo. 

S.  H.  L.  R. — Sub  hoc  lapide  requiescit. 

S.  1. 1). — Spiritus  in  Deo. 

S.  L.  M. — Sol%’it  lubens  merito. 

S.  M. — Sanctae  m-'inoriae. 

S.  0.  V. — Sine  offeiisa  iiUa. 

SP. — Sepultu.s,  •  sepulcrum, — spiritus. 

SP.  F. — Spectabilis  femlna. 

S3.— Sanctorum,— suprascripta. 

ST.-— Sunt. 

S.  T.  T.  C. — Sit  tibi  testis  coelum. 

T.  and  TT. — Tiiulus. 

TB.— Tibi. 

TIT.  P.,  or  PP.,  w  FF. — Titulum  posuit,  («•  posuerunt, 
or  fecerunt. 

TM. — Testamentum. 

TPA. — Tempora. 

TTM. — Testamentum, — titulum. 

V. — Vixit, — vixisti, —  vivus, —  vi%'a, —  vivas, — veneme- 
renti  (/or  benemerenti), — votum, — vovit, — vir, — 
uxor, — vidua. 

V.  B. — Vir  bonus. 

V.  C. — V^ir  clari.-simus. 

V.F. — Vivus,  or  viva,  fecit. 

VG.,  or  VGO. — Virgo. 

V.  H. — Vir  bonestus. 

V.  K. — Vivas  carissime. 

V.  I.  AE T. — Vive  in  aeternnm,  or  in  aetemo. 

V.  I.  FEB. — Quinto  idus  februarii. 

V.  INL. — Vir  inlustris  (illustris). 

VIX.— Vixit. 

V.  0. — Vir  opti.mus. 

VOT.  VOV. — V  turn  vovit 
VR.  S.— Vir  s.iietiis. 

V.  S. — Vir  speUaliilis. 

V.  T. — Vita  tibi. 

VV.  CC. — Viri  clarissimi 
VV.  F.— Vive  felix. 

V.  K. — Uxor  carissima, — vivas  carissime. 

X.  — Christus. 

X I.  — XIT. — Christi. 

XO. — X  f  O. — Christo. 

XPC.— XS. — Ch  ristus. 

Z. — Zezes,/or  vivas, — Zesu,/or  Jesu. 

[^.  B.] 

INSINUATIO.  The  making  certain  cus¬ 
tomary  payments  to  the  bishop  on  appointment 
to  a  church.  See  Thomassin  (  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl. 
Discip.  iii.  1,  c.  56).  Justinian  (Novell.  56,  col. 
5,  tit.  11,  §  1)  provides  that  it’  any  of  the  clergy 
make  the  payments  which  are  called  iu.sinua- 
tives,  “  quae  vocantur  insinuativa,”  except  in  the 
great  church  of  Constantinople,  the  bishops  who 
exact  them  shall  be  deprived  of  their  office. 

[P.  O.J 

INSPECTOR.  [Bishop,  p.  210.] 

INSTALLATION.  [Bishop,  p.  224.] 

INSTRUCTION.  1.  For  the  Christian  in¬ 
struction  of  ciiildren  in  general,  see  Catecihj- 
MEN,  Children. 

2.  In  a  more  special  .sense,  the  lections  from 
the  Old  Testament  read  to  the  candidates  for 
baptism  immediately  after  the  benediction  of 
the  taper,  au'l  befoj-e  the  benediction  of  the  font, 
on  Easter  Eve,  were  called  “  Instructiones  bap- 
tizandorum.”  See  the  Gelasian  Sacramentary 
(i.  c.  43),  and  the  Gregorian  (p.  70).  Amalarius 
(De  Eecl.  Off.  i.  19)  gives  mystical  reasons  why 


the  lections  should  be  four  in  number,  which 
however  is  by  no  means  invariably  the  case. 
They  are  four  in  the  Ordo  Eomauns  1.  (c.  40, 

р.  25),  but  the  Gelasian  Sucratncntary  gives 

ten  and  the  Gregorian  eight.  Instruction  of 
this  kind  seems  to  be  alluded  to  m  Palladius’s 
description  of  the  scene  which  took  ))lace  when 
soldiers  burst  into  John  Chrysostom’s  church 
at  Constantinople  on  Easter  Eve ;  “some  of  the 
presbyters,”  he  says  (  Vita  Chrysost.  c.  9)  “  were 
reading  Holy  Scriptures,  others  baptizing  the 
catechumens.”  So  Paschasinus  Lilybetanus,  in 
a  letter  to  Leo  the  Great  (quoted  by  Martene), 
speaks  of  a  case  in  which,  after  tlie  accustomed 
lections  of  Easter  Eve  had  been  gone  through, 
the  candidates  were  not  baptized,  for  lack  of 
water  (Martene,  De  Eit.  Ant.  1.  i.  13,  §  3).  As  in 
the  responses  of  the  candidates  at  Rome  both  Latin 
and  Greek  were  used,  so  also  the  lections  in  baptism 
were  in  ancient  times  recited  in  Latin  and  Greek. 
Thus  Ordo  Eorruinns  T.  (c.  40,  p.  25),  after 
noticing  that  the  reader  does  not  announce  the 
lection  in  the  usual  ivay,  “  Lectio  libri  Genesis,” 
but  begins  at  once  “  In  j)riucipio,”  goes  on  to 
say,  “  First  it  is  read  in  Greek,  and  then  im¬ 
mediately  by  another  in  Latin.”  The  next  lection 
is  read  hrst  in  Greek  and  then  in  Latin ;  and  so 
on.  Amalarius  (JJe  Eccl.  Off^.  ii.  1)  says  of  this 
custom,  that  lections  were  recited  bv  the  an- 
cient  Romans  in  Greek  and  in  Latin,  partly  be¬ 
cause  Greeks  were  present  who  did  not  undei’stand 
Latin,  and  Latins  who  did  not  understand  Greek  ; 
partly  to  show  the  unanimity  of  the  two  peoples. 
Anastasius  tells  us  (p.  251,  ed.  Muratori)  that 
pope  Benedict  III.  (855-858)  caused  a  volume 
to  be  prepared  in  which  the  le.ssons  for  Easter 
Eve  and  Pentecost  were  written  out  in  Greek 
and  in  Latin,  which  volume,  in  a  silver  binding 
of  beautiful  workmanship,  he  offierod  to  a  Ro¬ 
man  church.  [C.] 

INSTRUMENT  A.  By  the  word  instru- 
rnenta  we  understand  vessels,  <S:c.  employed  in 
the  sacred  ministry  ;  thus,  pope  Siricius,  a.d.  385 
(Epist.  L  ad  Himerium,  c.  14),  forbidding  persons 
who  had  incurred  public  penance  to  be  ordained, 
says,  “  nulla  debent  gerendornm  sacramentorum 
instrumeuta  suscipere  qui  dudum  fuerunt  vasa 
vitiorum.” 

By  the  woi-ds  “  instrumentorum  traditio  ” 
is 'technically  designated  the  handing  to  a  per¬ 
son  on  ordination  some  vessel  or  instrument 
used  in  his  office.  Thus,  the  African  statutes 
at  the  end  of  the  4th  century  (Cone.  Carth.  TV. 

с.  5)  order  the  bishop  to  hand  to  a  subdea¬ 
con  on  ordination  an  empty  chalice  and  an 
empty  paten,  and  the  archdeacon  to  hand  to  him 
a  water  vessel  with  a  napkin,  because  he  receives 
no  imposition  of  hands.  Similarly  the  acolyte 
(c.  6)  is  to  receive  from  the  archdeacon  a  candle¬ 
stick  with  taper;  the  exorcist  (c.  7)  is  to  receive 
from  the  hand  of  the  bishop  the  book  of  exor¬ 
cisms;  the  reader  (c.  8)  the  codex  from  which 
he  is  to  read;  the  doorkeeper  (c.  9)  the  keys 
of  the  church. 

In  these  cases  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
“instrumentorum  traditio  ”  takes  place  only  in 
the  case  of  those  ordained  to  minoj-  orders  (in- 
sacrati  ministri)  who  received  no  imposition  of 
hands. 

The  fourth  council  of  Toledo,  a  d.  633,  pro¬ 
vides  (c.  28)  that  a  bishop  who  is  restored  to 


INSUFFLATION 


INTERCESSION 


863 


his  orders  shall  receive  from  the  bishops,  before 
the  altar,  stole,  ring,  and  stalf ;  a  priest,  stole 
and  chasuble;  a  deacon,  stole  and  alb;  a  sub¬ 
deacon,  paten  and  chalice  ;  and  that  those  in 
other  orders  shall  receive  back  on  restoration 
those  instruments  which  they  had  first  received 
on  ordination.  We  see  from  this  that  the  ap¬ 
propriate  vestments  were  regarded  in  the  7th 
century  as  the  outward  sign  of  the  bestowal  of 
the  higher  orders.  The  delivery  of  the  pastoral 
staff  and  ring  also  forms  part  of  the  cere¬ 
mony  of  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  in  the  Pon¬ 
tificals  of  Gregory  the  Great  and  of  Egbert 
[Bishop,  p.  2‘22]. 

In  later  times,  the  handing  of  the  chalice 
with  wine  and  the  paten  with  a  host  to  a  priest 
on  ordination  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  “matter” 
of  the  sacrament,  while  the  ^‘form”  was  the 
words  “  Accipe  potestatem  offerre  sacrificium 
Deo  missasque  celebrare  tarn  pro  vivis  quam  pro 
defunctis  in  nomine  Domini.”  But  this  ojnnion 
not  only  has  no  supj^ort  in  Scripture,  but  it 
seems  to  have  been  totally  unknown  in  the 
church  for  at  least  nine  hundred  years;  Isidore, 
Amalarius,  Rabanus,  and  Walafrid  Strabo,  know 
nothing  of  it.  (Martene,  De  Hit.  Ant.  I.  viii. 
9,  §  16.)  .  [C.] 

INSUFFLATION.  [Baptism,  §  31,  p. 
158 ;  Exorcism.] 

tNfellLANI.  A  designation  of  monks  in 
Southern  France  in  the  5th  century,  on  account 
of  the  great  reputation  of  the  monasteries  and 
of  their  schools  on  the  islands  near  the  coast, 
especially  on  the  island  Lerina  (Lerins)  (Bingh. 
Grig.  Eccl.  VII.  ii.  14).  [1.  G.  S.] 

INTERCESSION  {Tntercessio,  It 

does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  present  work 
to  discuss  or  to  investigate  historically  the  doctrine 
of  the  intercession  of  the  saints,  or  of  the  nature 
and  efficacy  of  intercessory  prayer  generally  ;  the 
subject  is  considered  here  simply  in  its  relation 
to  liturgical  forms.  And  here  we  have  to  con¬ 
sider  (1)  the  persons  whose  intercession  is  asked  ; 
(2)  the  objects  on  behalf  of  which  intercession  is 
made. 

(1.)  a.  Throughout  the  Western  church  a  large 
poi-tion  of  the  prayers  end  with  a  pleading  of  the 
merits  of  (.’hrist,  the  great  Intcrcesisor ;  generally 
in  the  form  “  per  Christum  Dominum  nostrum.” 
This  is  in  fact  an  e.xtension  to  all  prayer  of  the 
principle  laid  down  for  the  altar-prayer.s,  “  cum 
altari  adsistitur  semper  ad  Patrem  dirigatur 
oratio”  (Gone.  Garth.  Iff.  c.  23);  when  the 
prayer  is  addressed  to  the  Fatlier,  it  is  through 
the  intercession  of  the  Sou.  This  principle  is 
not  adopted  in  the  East,  where  the  jirayers,  being 
addressed  to  the  Triune  Deitv,  generallv  end  with 
an  ascription  of  glory;  if  with  a  pleading  of 
merits,  it  is  of  the  Virgin  Mary  or  the  saints 
(Freeman,  Principles  of  DUine  Service,  i.  373). 

h.  We  may  take  the  words  of  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
ad'  em  (^Catech.  t.  V.  9,  p.  328)  as  an  authentic 
f.cxount  of  the  manner  in  which  the  intercession 
of  the  saints  departed  was  invoked  in  tlie  church 
of  Jerusalem  in  the  middle  of  the  4th  century. 
“  Then  we  also  commemorate  those  who  have 
gone  to  rest  before  us  (twv  -rrpoKficuiiJ.rjiJ.epwv), 
first  patriarchs,  ])ro|)hets,  apostles,  martvrs  ;  that 
God  at  their  jirayers  and  intercessions  (Trpeir- 
Be'iais)  would  receive  our  supplication.”  It  aji- 
pears  then  that  in  Cyril’s  time  the  church  asked 


the  intercession  of  patriarchs,  prophets,  apostles, 
and  martyrs;  for  the  rest  of  the  faithful  de¬ 
parted,  including  “holy  fathers  and  bishops,”  it 
interceded  [Canox  of  the  Lituroy,  p.  269;  Dip- 
TYCHS,  p.  560].  But  it  is  “  beyond  all  question 
that  the  early  church  offered  the  eucharistic 
sacrifice  as  well  for  the  highest  saints,  and  even 
for  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  as  for  the  common 
multitude  of  the  departed  faithful  ”  (Neale, 
Eastern  Ch.  hit.  510).  The  intercession  of  saints, 
for  whom  at  the  same  time  intercession  is  made, 
is  asked  in  the  so-called  liturgy  of  St.  Chrv- 
sostom,  where  we  have  the  following  form 
(Daniel,  Codex  Lit.  iv.  360)  : — “We  offer  to  Thee 
also  this  reasonable  service  on  behalf  of  (vTTfp) 
those  who  are  at  rest  in  the  faith,  our  fore¬ 
fathers,  fathers,  patriarchs  ....  and  every  just 
spirit  made  perfect  in  the  faith ;  especially  our 
most  holy  .  .  .  Lady  Mary,  IMother  of  God  and 
ever  Virgin  .  .  .  for  the  holy  Prophet,  Forerunner, 
and  Baptist,  John;  for  the  glorious  and  highly- 
praised  Apostles  ;  for  Saint  N.  whose  commemo¬ 
ration  we  are  celebrating,  and  all  Thy  saints;  at 
whose  supplications  {'iKtaiais)  look  upon  us,  0 
God.  And  remember  all  tvho  have  gone  to  rest 
before  us  in  hope  of  the  resurrection  to  eternal 
life.”  Then  follow  the  diptychs.  The  Syriac 
St.  James  (Renaudot,  Litt.  Oi'ientt.  ii.  36),  after 
commemorating  holy  Fathers,  Patriarchs,  Pro¬ 
phets,  Apostles,  St.John  Baptist,  St.  Stephen,  the 
Virgin,  and  all  Saints,  proceeds,  “  Therefore  do  we 
commemorate  them,  that  when  they  stand  before 
Thy  throne,  they  may  remember  us  in  our  weak¬ 
ness  and  frailty,  and  offer  with  us  to  Thee  this 
awful  and  unbloody  sacrifice,  for  the  safe-keeping 
of  those  who  are  living,  for  the  consolation  of 
the  feeble  and  unworthy,  such  as  ourselves;  for 
the  rest  and  good  memory  of  those  who  have 
passed  away  in  the  true  faith,  our  fathers, 
brethren,  and  masters.”  Here  the  saints  de¬ 
parted  are  represented  as  joining  in  one  great 
act  of  iiiterce.ssion  with  those  on  earth,  rather 
than  as  interceding  for  them.  These  may  serve 
as  examples  of  the  manner  of  asking  the  inter¬ 
cession  of  the  saints  in  the  Eastern  church. 

Of  the  Western  liturgie.s,  Mabillon’s  Gallican 
(Daniel’s  Codex  Lit.  i.  75)  has,  after  the  oblation 
of  the  unconsecrated  elements,  “  We  pray  for  the 
souls  of  Thy  servants,  our  fathers  and  former 
teachers,  Aurelian,  Peter,  Florentinus  .  .  .  and 
all  our  brothers  whom  Thou  hast  vouchsafed  to 
call  hence  to  Thee;  ....  for  the  souls  of  all 
faithful  servants  and  pilgrims  deceased  in  the 
peace  of  the  church  ;  that  Thou,  0  Lord  our  God, 
wouldest  grant  them  pardon,  and  rest  etei-nal : 
by  the  merits  and  intercession  of  Thy  Saints, 
Mary  mother  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Ste])hen, 
Peter.  Paul,  John,  James,  Andrew,  Philip, Thomas, 
Bartholomew,  Matthew,  Janies,  Simon,  Jude, 
Matthias,  Genesius,  Symjihurianus,  Bandilius, 
Victor,  Hilary,  bishop  and  confe.s.sor,  Martin, 
bishop  and  confessor,  Caesarius,  bishop,  vouchsafe 
in  mercy  to  hear  and  grant  these  jjetitions,  wlio 
livest  and  reisjnest  in  the  unitv  of  the  Holv 
Sj)irit,  God  for  ever  and  ever.”  The  Roman  has 
the  following  in  the  G  /rtmu/u'ccmtes  of  the  Canox, 
“Claiming  fellowship  with  and  venerating  the 
memory  of,  first,  the  glorious  i  ver-virgin  Mary, 
mother  of  our  God  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
also  of  Thy  blessed  apostles  and  martyrs,  Peter 
and  Paul,  Andrew,  James,  John,  Thomas,  James, 
Philip,  Bartholomew’,  Matthew.  Simon,  and  Thad 


8C4 


IXTEK  CESSION 


INTERPRETER 


(laeus  :  Linus,  Cletus,  Clemens,  Xystus,  Cornelius, 
Cyprian,  Laurence,  Chrysocronus,  John  and  Paul, 
Cosnias  and  Damian:  and  sUl  Thy  saints  :  in  con¬ 
sideration  of  whose  mej'its  and  prayers,  grant 
that  in  all  things  we  may  be  guarded  by  the 
help  of  Thy  protection.”  The  Ambrosian  (Daniel 
i.  84)  has,  besides  these,  the  names  of  Apolli- 
naris,  Vitalis,  Xazaiaus  and  Cel.sus,  Protasius  and 
Gervasius.  [Com2)are  Images,  §  viii. ;  Inscrip¬ 
tions,  p.  856.] 

The  rule  of  the  church  in  St.  Augustine’s  time 
drew  a  broad  distinction  between  martyrs  and 
other  saints;  for  that  father  observes  (^In  Joann. 
Tract.  84),  “  So  at  the  Table  of  the  Lord  we  do 
not  commemorate  martyrs  in  the  same  way  that 
we  do  others  who  rest  in  peace,  so  as  to  pray 
for  them,  but  rather  that  they  may  pray  for  us, 
that  we  may  follow  in  their  footsteps;”  and 
again  {De  Vvr't.  Almost.  17),  “martyrs  are  re¬ 
cited  at  the  altar  of  God  in  that  place  where 
prayer  is  not  made  for  them  ;  for  the  rest  of  the 
dead  who  are  commemorated  pi-ayer  is  made.” 
It  is  in  accordance  with  this  that  the  Roman 
canon,  besides  the  Virgin  and  the  twelve  apostles, 
recites  as  intercessors  twelve  martyrs.  Other 
churches  however,  out  of  respect  to  their  local 
saints,  did  not  (as  we  see  in  the  Gallican  and 
the  Milanese)  draw  so  rigid  a  line,  and  inserted 
the  names  of  confessors  as  well  as  martyrs.  The 
martyrs  of  the  Roman  canon  seem  to  be  all  con¬ 
nected  with  the  city  or  see  of  Rome.  [See  Li- 
BELLi,  Martyrs.] 

In  the  Emboli^mus  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  the 
Roman  and  Ambrosian  liturgies  pray  for  peace 
in  our  days  at  the  intercession  of  (interceclente) 
the  Virgin  Mary  with  the  apostles  Peter  and 
Paul  and  Andrew  and  all  the  saints  (Daniel  i. 
96).  In  the  benediction  of  incense,  in  the  Roman 
use  (Dan.  i.  72),  the  priest  prays  that  God  will 
bless  it,  at  the  intercession  (per  intercessionem) 
of  Michael  the  archangel,  who  stands  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  altar  of  incense. 

(2.)  With  regard  to  the  objects  of  intercession, 
we  may  say  that  Christians  have  been  taught  to 
make  intercession  for  all  things  of  which  they 
know  that  their  brethren  have  need.  Such  inter- 
ces.sions  are  scattered  over  a  great  variety  of 
offices  or  litanies  [Litany].  With  regard  spe¬ 
cially  to  the  intercessions  made  in  the  eucharist, 
we  will  take  the  form  of  the  Greek  St.  James 
(Daniel,  iv.  14)  as  a  specimen  of  the  objects  re¬ 
cited  in  the  great  eucharistic  intercession.  When 
the  priest,  after  consecration,  has  prayed  that 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  may  be  to  the  par¬ 
takers  for  remission  of  sins,  for  the  streirgthen- 
ing  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  etc.,  he  pro¬ 
ceeds — “  We  offer  (7rpo(r<pepoyU.ej^)  to  Thee,  Lord, 
on  behalf  of  (uTrep)  ”  the  Holy  Places,  especially 
Sion  ;  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  ;  holy  fathers, 
brethren,  bishops  ;  all  cities  and  countries  and 
the  orthodox  who  dwell  there  ;  those  who  are 
journeying;  those  fathers  and  brethren  who  are  in 
bonds,  imprisonment,  mines  or  tortures;  the  sick 
and  demoniac  ;  every  Christian  soul  in  trouble ; 
those  who  labour  in  Christ’s  name;  for  all  men, 
for  peace,  and  for  the  dispersion  of  scandal  and 
heresy  ;  for  rain  and  fruitful  .seasons  ;  for  those 
who  have  adorned  the  churches  or  shown  pity 
to  the  poor ;  for  those  w'ho  desire  to  be  remem¬ 
bered  in  our  prayers  ;  those  who  have  offered ; 
the  celebrant  and  his  deacons;  all  spirits  and 
all  flesh,  from  Abel  even  to  this  day,  “  give  them 


rest  in  the  land  of  the  living,  in  Thy  kingdom, 
in  the  bliss  of  Paradise,  in  the  bosom  of  Abra¬ 
ham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  our  holy  father.s,  whence 
sorrow  and  grief  and  mourning  have  fled  away  ;  ” 
for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  “  by  the  grace  and 
mercy  and  compassion  of  Thy  only  -  begotten 
Son;”  for /wTrep)  the  Gifts,  that  God  may  receive 
them  into  His  spiritual  sanctuary. 

Some  of  the  more  remarkable  peculiarities  of 
the  Interce.ssions  of  different  churches  are  noted 
under  Canon  of  the  Liturgy,  p.  27.3.  [C.] 

INTERCESSION,  EPISCOPAL.  By  a 
custom  which  grew  up  less  by  any  definite  enact¬ 
ment  than  by  the  general  respect  attaching  to 
their  office,  the  bishops  came  to  be  looked  upon 
as  protectors  of  those  who  were  oppres.sed  by  the 
secular  power.  The  patrimony  of  widows  and 
orphans  was  often  placed  under  the  protection 
of  the  churches  and  bishops  (Aug.  Ep.  252). 
Flavian,  bishop  of  Antioch,  interceded  success¬ 
fully  in  A.D.  387  with  the  Emperor  Theodosius, 
on  behalf  of  the  city,  which  had  been  guilty  of 
a  riot.  So  Theodoret'  with  the  Empress  Piil- 
cheria.  Many  other  instances  might  be  cited. 
These  interpositions  obtained  the  technical  name 
of  intercessio,  and  were  recognised  by  the  law. 
The  bishop  was  expected  to  visit  the  public 
prisons  on  Thursday  and  Friday  (Codex  Justi¬ 
nian.  lib.  i.  tit.  4).  They  were  charged  with  a 
special  oversight  of  such  as  held  civil  office  in 
their  dioceses  (Concil.  Arehit.  I.  c.  56,  Cone.  Arel. 
ii.  c.  13,  “ut  comites  indices,  sen  I'eliquus  popu- 
lus  obedientes  sit  ejdscojio,  et  invicem  consen- 
tiant  ad  justitias  faciendas,  et  munera  pro 
judicio  non  recipiant,  nec  falsos  testes,  ne  per 
hoc  pervertant  judicia  justorum,”  Cone.  Gener. 
tom.  ii.  p,  618,  ed.  Crabbe).  The  right  of  .sanc¬ 
tuary  for  fugitives  in  the  churches  grew  up  in  the 
same  period,  and  was  very  frequently  exercised 
(Cod.  Theodos.  1.  ix.  tit.  45,  ap.  Neander).  See 
Neale,  Introd.  to  Eastern  Church,  and  essay  by 
Moultrie  in  Neale’s  Ecdesiologji,  pp.  427-474; 
Neander’s  Church  History,  vol.  iii.  sect.  2. 
[Bishop,  p.  237 ;  Immunities  of  Clergy,  p.  824.] 

[S.  J.  E.] 

INTERCESSORES  or  INTERVEN 
TORES.  In  the  African  churches  tvhen  a  see 
was  v^acant  the  senior  bishop  appointed  one  of 
his  suffragans  as  guardian  or  procurator.  He 
was  stvled  Intercessor  or  Interventor.  The 
fifth  council  of  Carthage  made  a  canon  that  no 
intercessor  should  remain  in  this  office  more  than 
a  year,  and  that  if  the  vacancy  was  not  then 
filled,  another  should  be  appointed.  No  inter¬ 
cessor  was  permitted  to  be  chosen  bishop  of  the 
vacant  see  himself.  So  also  in  the  Roman  pro- 
A’ince,  as  we  learn  from  the  letters  of  Svmma- 
chus  {Ep.  V.  c.  9)  and  Gregory  the  Great  (Ep. 
ii.  16);  Suicer  (7'hesaurus,  s.  v.  yuecriTTjs);  Bing¬ 
ham  (Ant.  lib.  ii.  c.  15,  and  iv.  c.  2).  [Bishop, 
p.  237.]  [S.  J.  E.] 

INTERMENT.  [Burial  of  the  Dead.] 

INTERPRETER.  Epiphanius  (Expos.  Fid. 
n.  21)  speaks  of  interpreters  of  the  languages 
employed  both  in  reading  the  Scriptures  and  the 
sermons,  and  ranks  them  among  the  lower  orders 
of  the  clergy,  after  the  exorcists.  An  instance 
of  their  existence  is  afforded  in  the  case  of  Pro¬ 
copius,  who  is  said  to  have  discharged  three  offices 
in  the  church  of  Palestine,  having  been  reader, 


INTERROGATIO 


INTROIT 


865 


crorcist,  and  interpreter  of  the  Syrian  language. 
(Acta  Procop.  apud  Vale.s. ;  note  in  Eusch.  MaHyr. 
Palest,  c.  1.)  [Liturgical  Language.]  [P.  0.] 

INTERROGATIO  (sc.  de  fide).  This  is  a 
questioning  a  candidate  for  baptism  as  to  his 
belief,  before  he  was  baptized,  and  formed  part 
of  the  office  of  baptism  from  very  early  times. 
After  the  Renunciation  (Abrenunciatio)  of  the 
devil  by  the  candidate  for  baptism,  and  his 
anointing,  and  before  he  was  baptized  he  was 
questioned  as  to  his  faith,  and  called  upon  to  make 
public  profession  of  it.  The  custom  is  frequently 
alluded  to  by  the  fathers.  It  is  sufficient  here  to 
refer  :  (1)  For  the  custom :  to  St.  Augustine  (de 
Animd  ct  origine  ejus,  i.  10).  “  Ideo  cum  bapti- 

zantur  (i.  e.  pueri)  jam  et  symbolum  reddunt,  et 
ipsi  pro  se  ad  interrogata  respondent.”  (2)  For 
its  object  to  St.  Cyprian  (Ep.  70  ad  Jannarium  de 
baptizandis  haereticis).  “  Ipsa  interrogatio  quae 
fit  in  baptismo  testis  est  veritatis.”  (3).  For  its 
substance,  to  St.  Ambrose  (do  Mysteriis,  v.  28). 
“  Descendisti  igitur  (i.  e.  in  fontem)  recordare 
quid  responderis,  quod  credas  in  Patrem,  credas 
in  Filium,  credas  in  Spiritum  Sanctum  ;  ”  and 
more  fully  de  Sacramentis  lib,  ii,  vii.  “  Inter- 
rogatus  es :  Credis  in  Deum  Patrem  Omnipoten- 
tem  ?  Dixisti :  Credo,  et  mersisti,  hoc  est, 
sepultus  es.  Iterum  iuterrogatus  es ;  Credis  in 
Dominum  nostrum  Jesum  Christum,  et  incrucem 
ejus  ?  Dixisti :  Credo,  et  mersisti ;  ideo  et  Christo 
es  consepultus  ;  qui  enim  Christo  consepelitur, 
cum  Christo  resurgit.  Tertio  interrogatus  es ; 
Credis  et  in  Spiritum  Sanctum  ?  Dixisti :  Credo, 
tertio  mersisti  ;  ut  multipliccm  lapsum  supe- 
rioris  aetatis  absolveret  tr.na  coufessio.” 

The  rite  is  still  retained  in  the  office  of 
Baptism  in  the  Roman  church,  in  the  same  posi¬ 
tion  as  of  old  ;  and  in  the  Greek  church  in  the 
pitliminary  office  of  “  making  a  catechumen  ” 
(Pis  rb  7roirj(Tai  KaTrjxovjueuor). 

The  forms  of  the  questions  closely  resem¬ 
ble  the  old  forms  [v.  Pit.  Pom.  de  Sacramento 
Baptismali,  and  Euchologion  evxal  Pis  rb  iroiri- 
aai  further  details  and 

patristic  references  see  Martene  de  Ant.  Eccl. 
Pit.  i,  47.  See  also  Baptism,  §§  43,  46,  pp. 
159,  160;  Creed  §  4,  p.  489;  Profession. 

[H.  J.  H.] 

INTERSTITIA.  These  are  intervals  of  time 
which  according  to  the  regulations  of  the  church 
ought  to  elapse  between  the  reception  of  one 
order  and  the  admission  to  a  superior.  Their 
object  was  to  exercise  a  cleric  in  the  functions  of 
his  order,  and  to  test  his  fitness  for  promotion  to 
a  higher.  The  institution  is  an  old  one  in  the 
church.  The  tenth  canon  of  the  council  of 
Sardica  decrees  “  Habebit  autem  uniuscujusque 
ordiuis  gradus  non  minimi  scilicet  temporis 
longitudinem  per  quod  et  tides  et  morum  pro- 
bitas  et  constantia  et  moderatio  possit  cognosci.” 
The  duration  of  these  interstices  was  not  deter¬ 
mined  at  the  first,  and  it  has  varied  much  at 
different  times  and  places.  Zositnus  e.g.,  a.d. 
417  (Ep.  1  ad  Hcsychium)  proposes  the  following 
rule.  “If  any  cue  has  been  designed  for  eccle¬ 
siastical  ministration  from  his  infancy,  he  is  to 
remain  among  the  readers  till  his  twentieth  year. 
If  he  has  devoted  himself  to  the  sacred  ministry 
when  grown  and  of  ripe  age,  proviiled  he  has 
done  so  immediately  after  baptism,  he  is  to  be 
kept  among  the  readers  or  exorcists  five  years. 

CHRIST.  ANT. 


Then  he  is  to  spend  four  years  as  an  acolyte  or 
subdeacon.  Then  if  deserving  he  is  to  be  pro¬ 
moted  to  the  diaconate,  in  which  order  he  is  to 
remain  five  years,  and,  if  worthy,  promoted  to 
the  priesthood.”  Another  canon  pre.scribes  that 
a  bishop  must  have  been  at  least  four  years  a 
priest.  [It  must  be  remembered  that  in  the 
early  church  the  age  rcajuired  for  conferring 
holy  orders  was  more  advanced  than  is  the  case 
at  present,  twenty-five  being  the  ordinary  age 
for  a  deacon,  and  thirty  for  a  priest.] 

Gelasius  (a.d.  492)  shortened  the  prescribed 
intervals  between  the  difi'erent  sacred  order.s, 
and  in  cases  of  urgency  they  were  occasionally 
altogether  dispensed  with.  Of  this  the  most 
conspicuous  instance  is  that  of  St.  Ambrose,  who 
is  said  to  have  passed  through  all  the  saersd 
orders  and  to  have  been  consecrated  bishop  on 
the  eighth  day  after  his  baptism. 

In  process  of  time,  as  the  proper  functions 
assigned  to  the  several  minor  orders  fell  into 
disuse,  the  interstices  between  them  ceased  to  be 
observed,  and  the  modern  practice  is  to  confer 
the  four  minor  orders  simultaneously.  The 
council  of  Trent  requires  a  year  between  the 
minor  orders  and  the  subdiaconate,  between  the 
subdiaconate  and  the  diaconate,  and  between 
the  diaconate  and  the  priesthood.  Legitimate 
exceptions  are  recognised,  and  dispemsations 
under  certain  conditions  allowed  ;  but  two 
(major)  orders  are  not  to  be  conferred  on  the 
same  day  :  “  Duo  sacri  ordines  non  eadem  die, 
privilegiis  ac  indultis  ....  non  obstantibus 
quibuscunque  ”  (Con.  Trent.  Sept,  xxiii.  col.  3; 
Ee  Pefortn.)  [Ordination.]  [H.  J.  H.] 

INTER  VENTORES.  [Intercessores.] 

INTROIT.  Intt'oitus  is  the  name  commonly 
given  throughout  the  Latin  church  to  the  an¬ 
them  at  the  beginning  or  the  eucharistic  office. 
At  Rome  it  was  originally  called  Antiphona  ad 
lutroitum,  as  in  the  earliest  editions  of  the  07-do 
Rornanus  (i.  n.  8,  ii.  n.  3,  iii.  n.  8,  in  j\[usae. 
Ital.  tom.  ii.).  In  Ordo  Pornanns  VI.  (n.  2,  ibi), 
probably  a  little  later  than  our  period,  it  is  first 
called  introitus  simply.  Meanwhile  in  one  O/'do 
(v,  n.  5,  ib.'),  we  find  the  name  of  invitatory 
given  to  it.  At  Milan  it  was  .termed  ingressa 
(Ambros.  Miss.  Pitus  in  Pamelii  Piiuale  SS.  PP. 
tom.  i.  p.  293),  a  word  of  the  same  meaning  as 
introitus.  In  Spain  (Miss.  Mozar.  Leslie,  pp. 
18,  55,  64,  &c.)  and  in  England  (the  missals  of 
Sarum,  York,  Hereford ;  Maskell’s  Ancient 
Litu7'gy,  pp.  20,  21)  the  introit  was  called  offi- 
cium,  or  olficium  missae.  This  arose  from  a  mis¬ 
take.  The  several  masses  in  the  early  missals 
were  headed  by  the  words  Ad  Missam  Olficium 
(Leslie,  u.  s.  pp.  1,  7,  10,  &c.  ;  Missale  Sa7-um, 
coll.  1,  18,  27,  &c.,  ed.  Forbes),  which  were  the 
heading  of  the  whole  office,  but  were  supposed 
to  refer  to  the  introit  which  followed  immediately 
without  any  heading  of  its  own.  The  antiphon 
had  this  name  in  all  the  churches  of  Normandy, 
and  in  many  others  (Le  Brun,  Explic.  de  la  Messe, 
p.  ii.  art.  1),  and  in  the  mi.ssals  of  the  Carthu¬ 
sians,  Carmelites,  and  Dominicans.  This  extended 
use  would  be  a  sufficient  proof  of  its  great 
antiquity,  were  we  without  the  evidence  of  the 
Mozarabic  ritual.  In  the  barbarous  Expositio 
Missae,  ascribed  to  Germauus  of  Paris,  a.d.  555, 

and  certaiulv  not  much  later  than  his  time,  the 
¥  ' 

introit,  as  used  in  the  old  Gallican  liturgy,  is 


8G6 


IN'TKOIT 


INTKOIT 


called  praelegere,  or  antiiihona  ad  praelegendo 
{sic),  because  it  preceded  tlie  eucharistic  lessons 
{Exfjos,  printed  in  Martc-ne,  De  Aid.  Eccl.  liit. 
lib,  i.  c.  iv.  art.  xii.  ord.  1). 

Tlie  origin  of  the  introit  is  obscure.  At  the 
earliest  period  the  office  began  with  lessons  from 
holy  8crij)ture,  of  which  j)salms  said  or  sung 
formed  a  part,  but  this  psalmody  is  in  the  West 
to  be  traced  in  the  CIradual  and  Tract.  In 
the  Syrian  rite  a  psalm  is  sung  before  as  well  as 
after  the  epistle,  but  this  a))pears  to  have  had 
the  same  origin  {Ordo  Communis  ;  Renaud. 
Liturg.  Orient,  tom.  ii.  p.  7).  The  introit  is 
cleaidy  another  rite,  and  of  later  introduction. 
It  seems  to  have  been  introduced  partly  as  a 
fitting  accompaniment  of  the  solemn  entrance 
(introitus,  ingressa)  of  the  celebrant  into  that 
})art  of  the  church  in  which  the  altar  stood,  and 
partly  as  a  means  of  em])loying  and  solemnizing 
the  minds  of  the  people  before  the  service  began. 
The  name  incit  itory  suggests  that  the  people 
were  still  entering  the  church  while  it  was  being 
sung. 

The  Ordo  Bomanus  in  its  earliest  state,  about 
730,  gives  us  some  suggestive  information  re¬ 
specting  the  introit  as  sung  in  the  churches  of 
Rome  at  that  time.  The  bishop  having  vested  is 
still  in  the  secretarium,  the  choir  waiting  in  the 
church  for  an  order  from  him  to  begin  ‘‘  the  anti¬ 
phon  for  the  entrance”  (introitum).  On  a  signal 
from  him  “  ut  psallant,”  a  subdeacon  enters  the 
church,  orders  the  candles  to  be  lighted,  and  then 
stands  with  a  censer  before  the  door  of  the  secre¬ 
tarium,  while  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  choir, 
who  has  also  been  in  waiting,  carries  the  order 
for  the  singing  to  commence.  As  soon  as  this  is 
heard  two  deacons  enter,  and  each  taking  a  hand 
of  the  bishop  lead  him  into  the  church,  up  to  the 
altar.  He  is  preceded  by  the  subdeacon  with 
incense,  and  seven  acolytes  bearing  candles.  On 
his  way  to  the  altar  the  Sancta  or  Fermentum 
is  brought  to  him  that  he  mav  select  what  is 
necessary  for  the  celebration.  After  private 
prayer  at  the  altar,  and  giving  the  peace  to  the 
ministers,  he  stops  the  singing  by  giving  a 
signal  for  the  Gloria  Patri  {Ord.  Bum.  I.  nn. 
7,  8  ;  comp.  ii.  nn.  4,  5,  iii.  nn.  7^  8,  v.  n.  5, 
vi.  n.  3 ). 

The  Liber  Pontificalis  is  supposed  to  ascribe 
the  introduction  of  the  introit  to  Celestine,  A.D. 
423,  when  it  tells  us  that  he  “ordered  the  150 
psalms  of  David  to  be  sung  antiphonally  before 
the  sacrifice  ”  (Anastas.  Biblioth.  Vitae  Pont.  n. 
44).  The  tradition  probably  refers  to  the  in¬ 
troit,  although  the  next  statement  shows  that 
the  author  connects  it  with  the  earlier  Gradual. 
For  he  adds  : — “  This  was  not  done  before,  only 
the  epistles  of  the  apostle  Paul  were  recited  and 
the  holy  gospel,  and  so  masses  were  celebrated.” 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  Ordo  cited  calls  the 
introit  an  antiphon,  though  it  uses  the  word 
psallere.  Gregory  the  Great,  a.d.  595,  is  said 
to  have  comjiiled  the  antiphons,  selecting  pi*oper 
verses  from  the  psalms,  and  retaining  the  Gloria, 
which  was  then  said,  as  now,  at  the  end  of  every 
psalm.  Some  ancient  writers,  as  Amalarius 
{De  Eccl.  Ojficiis,  lib.  iii.  c.  5),  Walafrid  Strabo 
{De  Bebus  Eccl.  c.  22),,  and  Micrologus  {De 
Eccl.  Observ.  c.  1),  su]:)pose  that  this  selection 
was  the  work  of  Celestine;  but  Honorius  of 
Autun,  more  in  consonance  with  the  words  of  the 
Liber  Pontijicalis,  and  with  the  circumstantial 


evidence  of  the  case,  say.s,  —  “  Pope  Celestine 
ordered  psalms  to  be  sung  at  the  introit  of  the 
mass,  from  which  j)ope  Gregory  afterwards  ar¬ 
ranged  and  compiled  antiphons  for  the  introit  of 
the  mass”  {Gemma  Anim<e,  lib.  i.  c.  87).  All 
the  psalms  in  the  antiphonary  ascribed  to  Gre¬ 
gory  are  taken  from  the  old  Italic  version,  as  it 
stood  before  the  corrections  of  St.  Jerome,  but 
this  is  no  proof  of  an  earlier  antiquity  of  the  in- 
troits  than  we  ascribe  to  them.  For  Greo’or,* 
himself  professed  to  use  the  Italic  and  the  Vul¬ 
gate  versions  of  the  Bible  inditferently  {Ep.  ad 
Leandr.  c.  5,  in  fine  ;  Exj  os.  in  Lib.  Jolj.  proef.), 
and  Jerome’s  corrected  Italic  psalter,  long  called 
the  Galilean  psalter,  did  not  take  the  place  of 
the  original  at  Rome  until  the  time  of  Pius  V. 
(Bona,  Ber.  Liturg.  lib.  ii.  c.  3,  §  4).  The  fol¬ 
lowing  example  of  the  Gregorian  introit  is  for 
the  first  Sunday  in  Advent: — Antiph.  Ad  Tc, 
Domine,  levavi  an  imam  meam.  Deus  mens  in 
Te  confido :  non  erubescam  neque  irrideat  me 
inimicus  mens  (  Vulg.  irrideant  me  inimici  mei) 
etenim  universi  qui  Te  ex])ectant  ( Vulg.  susti- 
neut  Te)  non  confundentur  (Ps.  xxv.  1-3).  Psal. 
Vias  Tuas,  Domine,  demonstra  mihi  et  semitas 
tuas  edoce  me  ”  {ib.  \.  4).  Durand  us 
lib.  iv.  c.  5,  n.  5)  tells  us  that  “  in  some  churches 
tro2ies  are  said  for  the  jisalms,  according  to  the 
appointment  of  pope  Gi'egory,  to  represent 
greater  joy  on  account  of  the  coming  of  Christ.” 
The  introit  itselfhad  long  been  thought  designed 
to  “bring  back  His  advent  to  our  mind”  (Am- 
alar.  De  Eccl.  Off.  lib.  iii.  c.  5) ;  but  Durandus 
is  without  doubt  wrong  in  ascribing  to  Gregorv 
the  attemjffi  to  emphasize  that  meaning  by  the 
addition  of  troj^es.  We  cannot,  however,  say  at 
what  period  subsequent  to  his  they  first  ap¬ 
peared.  They  were  not  like  the  Greek  troparia, 
independent  of  the  antiphons  in  connection  with 
which  they  were  sung,  but  were  farsings  or  in¬ 
terpolations  in  the  antiphons  of  tlie  Gregorian 
introit.  In  the  following  examjde  the  farsing  is 
in  italics.  The  antiphon  is  that  for  the  Epiphany  : 
— “  Eja,  Sion  gaude,  et  laetare  aspectu  Dei  hii. 
Ecce  advenit  dominator  Dominus ;  cui  matenes 
coeli  et  terrae  famulantw  ;  et  regnum  in  mau'u 
ejus.  Lpsi  manct  Deus  (sic)  gloria  atque  jubilatio; 
et  potestas  et  imperium  ”  (Pamelii,  Bituale,  tom. 
ii.  p.  (513  ;  comp.  p.  73). 

Of  the  Galilean  introit  we  only  know  that  like 
the  Roman  it  was  sung  before  the  office  of  the 
mass  began.  “  While  the  clerks  are  singing 
jisalms  ”  (}isallentibus),  says  Germanus  {u.  a.), 
“  the  priest  comes  forth  out  of  the  sacrarium  ” 
(/i«*e=: secretarium).  The  council  of  Agde,  .a.d. 
506,  ajipears  to  recognize  the  introit,  when  it 
orders  that  as  in  other  churches  “collects  be  said 
in  order  by  the  bishojis  and  pre.sbyters  after  the 
antiphons  ”  (cap.  30).  The  following  is  the  in¬ 
troit  (taken  from  the  original  Italic  A'ersion  of 
Ps.  xciii.  1)  used  in  the  Mozarabic  liturgy  on 
every  Sunday  between  Whitsunday  and  Advent, 
and  again  on  the  Circumcision  and  the  Sunday^ 
before  and  after  the  Epijihany  :  —  “  Dominus 
regnavit  ;  decorem  induit :  Alleluia,  y.  Indu't 
Dominus  fortitudinem  et  praecinxit  se.  P. 
{Presbyter.)  Alleluia.  Gloria  et  honor  Patri : 
et  Filio :  et  Spiritui  Sancto  in  saecula  saecu- 
lorum :  Amen.  P.  Alleluia.”  It  will  be  seen 
that  this  belongs  to  the  later  jieriod,  when  the 
celebrant  was  at  the  altar  before  the  choir  be¬ 
gan,  a  rule  which  has  prevailed  in  the  church  of 


INTKOIT 


INVESTITURE 


867 


Rome  also  for  many  ages.  See  Sal  a,  Annot.  11, 
in  Bona,  licr.  Liturg.  lib.  ii.  c.  iii.  §  1  ;  and  Le 
Brun,  Explication^  jj.  ii.  art.  1.  The  Ambrosian 
ingre.ssa  is  very  simple.  The  following  is  for 
Christmas  Day,  from  Is.  ix.  6,  Ital.  vers.  “  Puer 
natus  est  nobis,  et  filius  datus  est  nobis,  cujus 
imperium  super  huinerum  ejiis,  et  A'ocabitur 
iiomeii  ejus  magni  consilii  angelus  ”  (Pamelius, 
ti.  s.  tom.  i.  p.  29:3).  “  It  is  an  anthem  without 

psalm,  or  Gloria,  or  repetition  ”  (Le  Brun,  Diss. 
iii.  art.  2). 

The  following  hymn  is  sung  in  the  liturgy  of 
St.  James  before  tlie  priest  enters  to  the  altar. 
It  is  preceded  by  the  rubric,  “Then  the  deacon 
begins  to  sing  in  the  entrance,”  which  at  once 
suggests  an  analogy  to  the  Western  iutroit. 
“  Only  begotten  Son  and  Word  of  God,  who  being 
immortal  didst  for  our  salvation  take  upon  Thee 
ro  be  incarnate  of  the  holy  Idary,  mother  of  God 
and  ever  Virgin,  and  didst  unchangeably  become 
man.  and  wast  crucified,  0  Christ  (our)  God,  and 
didst  by  death  trample  on  death,  being  one  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  glorified  together  with  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  save  us”  (^Liturgiae  SS.  PP. 
p.  6,  Bas.  1560).  The  matter  of  this  hymn  proves 
it  to  be  later  than  the  outbreak  of  the  Nestorian 
heresy;  but  its  great  antiquity  is  sufficiently 
attested  by  its  appearing  also  in  the  liturgies  of 
St.  Mark  (Renaudot,  Litiirg.  Orient,  tom.  i.  p. 
136),  in  copies,  apparently  the  older,  of  St.  Basil 
(^Eucholog.  Goar,  p.  180,  and  the  old  Latin  ver¬ 
sion,  Liturgiae,  site  Missae  SS.  PP.  p.  32,  Par. 
1560),  in  many  copies  of  St.  Chrysostom  (Goar, 
u.  s.  pp.  101,  105),  and  in  the  Armenian  (Neale’s 
Introd.' to  Hiit.  of  East.  Church,  p.  380).  In 
St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom,  however,  we  have 
a  nearer  apj)roach  to,  and  the  probable  origin  of, 
the  Western  introit,  viz.,  in  three  antiphons, 
composed  for  common  days,  of  three  or  four 
verses  (Rubric  in  St.  Basil,  Goar,  p.  180,  and 
the  old  Latin,  p.  32)  of  the  92nd,  93rd,  and  95th 
psalms  (as  numbered  in  E.  V.).  See  Goar,  pp. 
101,  104,  105.  While  each  antiphon  is  sung,  a 
prayer  is  said  secretly  by  the  priest ;  and  it  may 
be  interesting  to  mention  that  the  “  Prayer  of 
St.  Chrysostom,”  in  our  daily  office,  is  in  the 
Greek  liturgy  (^Lit.  PP.  pp.  45,  81)  the  “Prayer 
of  the  Third  Antiphon.”  The  revisers  of  our  offices 
were  familiar  with  it  in  the  translation  of  St. 
Chrysostom  by  Leo  Thuscus,  a.d.  1180  (printed 
by  Hofmeister,  in  1540),  and  in  the  Greek  and 
I..atin  of  the  editions  of  Venice,  1528,  and  Paris, 
1537,  and  introduced  it  at  the  end  of  the  litany 
in  1544.  When  the  Greek  antiphons  were  first 
used  is  not  known.  Amalarius,  Avriting  about 
the  year  833,  says  that  he  had  heard  the  95th 
psalm  sung  at  Constantinople  “in  the  church  of 
St.  Sophia  at  the  beginning  of  mass  ”  (Z>e  Ord. 
Antiph.  c.  21).  The  u.se  of  the  antiphon  by  the 
Nestorians  and  Jacobites  seems  to  carry  us  up  to 
the  5th  century,  in  which  they  were  separated 
from  the  church.  On  Sundays  the  Greek  church 
commonly  substituted  “  typica  ”  (so-called  be¬ 
cause  they  were  forms  prescribed  by  the  rubric.s) 
for  the  first  two  antiphons,  and  the  Beatitudes 
for  the  third  (Goar,  pp.  65-67 ;  Liturg.  PP.  pp. 
44,  80-82),  with  verses  (rpoirapia)  commemor¬ 
ating  the  saint  of  the  day  (Goar,  u.  s.).  The 
liturgic  typica  are  from  the  103rd  and  146th 
psalms  (Demetrius  Ducas,  in  Lebrun,  Diss.  VI, 
art.  iv. ;  Leo  Allatius,  De  Libris  Eccl.  Diss.  I. 
p.  14).  For  the  third  antiphon  may  also  be  used 


on  common  days,  the  third  and  sixth  canticle 
(when  thus  united  called  rpniKir])  of  the  matin 
office  (Goar,  pp.  67,  124).  The  typica,  we  must 
add,  are  not  sung  on  every  Sunday.  “  It  should 
be  known,”  says  the  Ti,picon  of  Sabas,  “  that 
from  New  Sunday  to  the  Feast  of  All  Saints  (L  e. 
from  the  octave  of  Easter  to  that  of  Whitsundav) 
the  church  sings  antiphons  and  not  typica.  We 
sing  the  antiphons  likewise  in  the  Twelve  Days 
(between  Christmas  and  Ei)ij)hany),  and  on  tlie 
memorials  of  saints  wdiich  we  keep  as  feasts  ’’ 
(In  Leo  Allat.  u.  s.). 

The  Syrian  rite  preserves  a  fragment  of  the 
93rd  psalm  and  nearly  the  whole  of  the  95th,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  service.  They  are  sung 
while  the  veils  and  the  altar  are  being  censed 
(Renaudot,  tom.  ii.  pp.  3,  4).  In  the  Nestorian 
liturgies,  the  priest  and  deacon,  standing  near  the 
altar,  say,  in  alternate  ver-ses,  on  common  days, 
parts  of  psalms  15,  150,  117 :  and  proper  hymns 
on  Sundays  and  the  greater  festivals  (Badger’s 
Nestorian.s,  vol.  ii.  p.  215;  Raulin,  Liturgia 
Malaharica,  p.  294;  Renaud.  tom.  ii.  p.  584). 
In  the  Armenian,  beside  the  hvmn  before  men- 
tioned,  there  are  hymns  proper  to  the  day,  sung 
where  the  Greek  has  its  antiphons  (Le  Brun, 
Diss.  X.  art.  12). 

Cardinal  Bona  (^Rer.  TAturg.  lib.  ii.  c.  iii.  §  1) 
suggests  that  “perhaps  Celestine  (in  adopting 
the  introit)  transferred  to  the  Western  churches 
a  custom  which  had  long  flourished  in  the  East¬ 
ern.”  The  great  use  made,  as  we  have  seen, 
of  the  93rd  psalm  (Dominus  regnavit)  in  the 
introits  of  Spain,  creates  a  strong  suspicion  that 
Spain  was  a  borrower  fiom  the  Greeks,  in  whose 
liturgy  that  psalm  was  used  on  all  common  days 
and  many  Sundays  in  the  year.  Hence  it  is  pro¬ 
bable  that  the  introit  was,  like  some  other  rites, 
derived  by  Rome  from  the  East  throuerh  Spain. 

[W.  E.  S.] 

INVENTION  OF  THE  CROSS.  [Cross, 
Finding  of  the,  p.  503.] 

INVESTITURE.  The  Latin  word  Investi- 
tura  (from  vestire,  to  put  into  possession ;  see 
Ducange  s.  v.),  is  of  later  datg  than  the 
9th  centui’v ;  nor  had  the  thins  signified  by 
it  really  commenced  by  then,  in  the  sense 
which  concerns  us  here :  the  putting  ecclesi¬ 
astics  in  possession  of  their  temporalities  by  a 
formal  act  of  the  civil  pow’er.  When  Sigebert, 
quoted  by  Gratiau  {Dist.  Ixxiii  c.  22),  in  enu¬ 
merating  the  privileges  supposed  by  him  to  haA'e 
been  conferred  on  Charlemagne  by  Adrian  I., 
says  of  that  pope:  “  Insuper  archiepiscopos  et 
episcopos  per  .singulas  provincias  ab  eo  investi- 
turam  accipere  definivit :  et  nisi  a  rege  laudetur 
et  investiatur  episcopus,  a  nemine  consecretur,” 
he  is,  apart  from  the  doubtfulness  of  the  fact 
(on  which  see  De  ^larca,  de  Concord,  viii.  12), 
making  the  pope  depose,  not  merely  to  language, 
but  to  customs  unknown  in  his  day.  Landulph, 
who  was  contemporary  with  Sigebert,  is  bolder 
still;  making  Adrian  the  inventor  of  both.  “  Qui 
primus,”  as  he  says  of  him,  “  aunulos  et  virgas 
ad  investieudum  episcopatus  Carolo  donavit  ” 
(^Hist.  Mediol.  \\.  \\)',  but  then  he  couples  an¬ 
other  incident  with  this  tale,  which  explains 
its  origin.  The  absence  of  notice  in  the  Caro¬ 
line  capitularies  of  any  such  custom,  an  1  their 
apparent  ignorance  of  the  w'ord  itself,  seems  con¬ 
clusive  against  the  existence  of  eitlver  at  that 

3.  K 


668 


IXYITATOEIUM 


ISAAC 


date;  paiticularly  as  the  word  vestitura  ”  is 
of  I'ltHiuent  occurrence  in  them,  denoting  either 
possession,  or  the  j)ayment  for  it.  Of  course 
tliere  were  symbolical  forms  also  then  in  use  for 
giving  possession,  but  none  peculiar,  as  yet,  to 
the  clergy  ;  and  the  common  name  for  the  act  of 
doing  this  was  “  traditio.”  Hence,  probably,  the 
new  word  arose  from  joining  the  two  words,  “  in 
vestitur.d,”  iu  one  ;  and  then  understanding  it  of 
the  special  formality  by  which  the  clergy  were 
put  111  jiossession  of  their  temporalities,  on  this 
becoming  essential  to  jiossession  in  their  case. 
'I'hat  Charlemagne,  as  well  as  his  predecessors, 
appointed  bishops  of  his  own  choosing  occa¬ 
sionally  to  sees  in  his  dominions,  is  no  more 
than  had  been  done  by  the  Greek  emperors  ages 
before,  where  investiture  in  its  Western  accepta¬ 
tion  has  never  been  known.  Neither  the  Theo- 
dosian  Code,  nor  the  Code  or  Novels  of  Justinian 
exhibit  traces  of  anything  approaching  to  it, 
though  by  the  latter  limits  are  prescribed  to  the 
fees  for  enthronization  {Xovel.  cxxiii.  3  :  see  also 
Du  Cange  and  Hofman,  s.  v. ;  Sirmond  a.p.  Baluz. 
Capitul.  ii.  802  ;  and  Thomassin.  Vet.  ct  Xov. 
Eccl.  Discipl.  II.  ii.  38).  [E.  S.  Ff.] 

INVITATORTUM.  In  the  Gregorian  and 
Benedictine  “  offices  the  psalm  ‘‘  Venite  exultemus 
Domino  ”  xciv.  [E.  V.  xcv.]  is  said  daily  at  the 
beginning  of  Nocturns  prefaced  by  an  antiphon 
which  is  called  the  Invitatorium.  It  is  of  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  character  as  other  antiphons  to 
psalms,  and  varies  with  the  day,  but  is  said 
differently  from  other  antiphons,  and  repeated 
.several  times  during  the  course  of  the  psalm  as 
well  as  at  the  beginning  and  end.  Thus  the 
ordinary  Sunday  invitatory  is  “  Adoremus  Domi- 
num,  qui  iecit  nos,'’  which  is  said  twice  at  the 
beginning  of  the  psalm,  and  repeated  in  whole 
or  in  part  five  times  during  its  course,  and  again 
after  the  Gloria. 

On  the  Epiphany  no  invitatory  tvas  said;  but  the 
psalmody  began,  and  still  begins,  with  the  psalms 
of  the  first  nocturn  with  their  antiphons  [Hodie 
non  cantamus  Invitatorium,  sed  absolute  inci- 
pimus.  Jlu''ric  ex  Antiphon  irio  Vaiicano  Rom. 
Eccl}'']  and  the  psalm  ‘-Venite”  was  said  with 
its  own  antiphon  as  the  last  psalm  of  the  second 
nocturn.  [Later  it  was  said  as  the  first  psalm  of 
the  third  nocturn,  and  its  antiphon  repeated 
during  its  course  in  the  ordinary  manner  of  an 
invitatory].  Amalarius  (lib.  iv.  c.  33)  and  Du- 
randus  (lib.  vi.  c.  36)  suggest  that  the  reason  for 
this  omission  may  have  been  to  mark  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  invitation  to  the  faithful  to 
praise  God,  and  that  which  Herod  gave  to  the 
scribes  and  doctors  to  find  out  where  Christ 
should  be  born.  More  probably  it  was  omitted 
[Martene  de  Rit.  lib.  iv.  c.  14]  simply  because 
the  psalm  to  which  it  belonged  was  said  in  an- 


»  In  the  Benedictine  Psalter  Ps.  “  Venite  ”  is  preceded 
by  Ps.  3 ;  but  it*  .antiphon  is  called  “  Antiph.  Invita¬ 
torium.’' 

b  Amalarius  e.  si.  writes:  “Nostra  regio  in  praesenti 
officio  [i.  e.  in  die  Epip,]  solita  est  unum  omittere  de  con- 
sueto  more,  id  est  Invitatorium as  if  the  custom  were 
local ;  but  from  what  he  says  in  the  passage  referred  to  in 
the  te.\t,  it  would  seem  that  it  soon  became  general. 
Some  French  churches,  however,  among  which  were  those 
of  Lyons  and  Rouen,  were  in  the  habit  of  singing  the  In¬ 
vitatory  on  the  tplpbany.  At  Lyons  it  was  sung  with 
special  solemnity  (Maitene  tU  sup.)'. 


other  place,  though  why  the  psalm  should  be  dis¬ 
placed  from  its  ordinary  position  is  not  so  clear. 

I  he  psalm  ‘-Nenitc”  is  also  known  as  the 
“  Invitatory  Psalm.” 

In  the  Ambrosian  psalter,  “  Venite  ”  is  not  said 
at  the  beginning  of  the  office,  and  there  is  no 
antiphon  which  corresponds  to  the  Gregorian 
Invitatorium.  [H.  J.  H.] 

INVOCATION.  [Epiclesis.] 

IRENAEUS.  (1)  [Hvacinthus  (1).] 

(2)  Bishop,  martyr  at  Sirmium  under  Ma.xi- 
mian ;  “  Passio,”  March  25  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(3)  [Theodorus.] 

(4)  Martyr  at  Thessalonica  with  Peregrinus 
and  Irene ;  commemorated  May  5  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(5)  Bishop  of  Lyons,  and  martyr  under  Seve- 
rus ;  commemorated  June  28  {Mart.  Hieron., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(6)  Deacon,  martyr  w-ith  Mustiola,  a  noble 
matron,  under  the  emperor  Aurelian  ;  comme¬ 
morated  July  3  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(7)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  Abundius,  under 
Decius ;  commemorated  Aug.  26  {Mart.  Ry^m. 
Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(8)  and  Phocas  ;  commemorated  Oct.  7  {Cal. 

Armen.)  [\V.  F.  G.] 

IRENE.  (1)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Thessalo¬ 
nica;  commemorated  April  5  {MaH.  Rom.  Vet., 
Hieron.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  ;  commemorated  with  Agape  and 
Chionia,  April  16  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

(3)  [iRENAEUS  (4).]  [W.  F.  G.] 

IRENICA.  [Eirenica.] 

IRELAND,  COUNCILS  OF  {Hihcmica 
concilia).  But  two  such  are  recorded  before 
A.l).  800,  both  held  by  St.  Patrick,  according  to 
Spelman  (Cone.  p.  49  and  seq.),  a.d.  450  or  456, 
viz.  in  his  80th  or  80th  year,  assisted  by  his 
coadjutors.  Bishops.  Auxilius  and  Iserninus.  At 
least  the  34  canons  passed  at  the  first  run  in  theiv 
joint  names.  Tlie  discipline  prescribed  in  them, 
indicates  very  primitive  manners.  By  the  6th 
any  clerk,  from  the  doorkeeper  to  the  priest 
seen  abroad  without  his  shirt,  and  with  his 
nakedness  uncovered,  if  his  hair  be  not  tonsured 
in  the  Roman  style,  and  his  wife  walk  out  with, 
her  head  unveiled,  is  to  be  lightly  regarded  bv 
the  laity,  and  excluded  from  the  church.  Thirty-- 
one  canons  of  a  similar  description  are  given  to 
the  other  council.  But  these  65  by  no  means 
exhaust  the  number  ascribed  to  St.  Patrick. 
Seventeen  more  from  other  sources  are  supplied 
by  Mansi  (vi.  519-22).  Another  collection  of 
Irish  canons,  supposed  to  be  earlier  than  the  8th 
century,  may  be  seen  in  Dachery’s  Spied,  by 
Baluze,  i.  491  and  seq.,  and  a  supplement  to 
them  in  Martene  and  Durand,  Anec.  iv.  1-21. 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

IRREGULARITY.  [Ordination.] 

ISAAC.  (1)  The  patriarch  ;  commemorated 
with  Abraham  and  Jacob,  Ter  28  =  Jan.  23, 
Maskarram  28  =  Sept.  25  {Cal.  Ethiop.)\  also  at 


ISAIAH 


intervals  of  thirty  days  reckouiug  from  these 
d  tis  throughout  tlie  year;  also  commemorated 
alone,  Nahasse  24  =  Aug.  17  (Ca/.  Ethiop.'). 

(2)  Armenian  patriarch  ;  commemorated  Feb. 
0  {Cal.  Armen.'). 

(3)  Dalmata,  oatos  TraT-fjp,  in  the  time  of  the 
emperor  Valens:  commemorated  May  31  {Cal. 
Ji'jza.t.). 

(4)  Monk,  martyr  at  Cordova  ;  commemorated 
June  3  {M irt.  Usuardi). 

(5)  and  Mesrop;  commemorated  June  27  {Cal. 
Armen.). 

(6)  Holv  Father,  a.d.  368  ;  commemorated 
Aug.  3  {Cal.  Bijzant.). 

(7)  and  Joseph  ;  commemorated  Sept.  16  {Cal. 
Gcor;).). 

(8)  King  of  Ethiopia;  commemorated  Tekemt 

30 -Oct.  27  {Cal.  Ethiop.).  [W.  F.  G."] 

(9)  The  Just,  patriarch  of  Alexandria ;  com¬ 
memorated  Hedar  9  =  Nov.  5  {Cal.  Ethiop.). 

ISAIAH,  the  prophet ;  commemorated  May  9 
{Cal.  Bijzant.),  July  6  {Mart.  Eoin.  Vet.,  Bedae, 
Adonis,  IJsuardi),  Maskarram  6  =  Sept.  3,  and 
Ter  3  =  Dec.  29  {Cal.  Ethiop.).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

ISAPOSTOLOS.  [Aposi'le.] 

ISBODICON.  [Fraction.] 

ISCHYRION,  martyr  at  Alexandria;  com¬ 
memorated  Dec.  22  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  '  [W.  F.  G.] 

ISIDOIIUS.  (1)  Bishop  of  Antioch;  “  Pas- 
sio,”  Jan.  2  {Mai't.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(2)  Saint,  of  Pelusium  in  Egypt,  3cr/o9  TraT-fjp 
circa  -415  a.d.  ;  commemorated  Jan.  15  {Mart. 
Adonis,  Usuardi),  Feb.  4  {Cal.  Bijzant.). 

(3)  Bishop  of  Seville  (Hispala)  ;  deposition  at 
Seville,  April'  4  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(4)  [H ELIAS.] 

(5)  Martvr  at  Chios,  a.d.  255;  commemorated 

av  15  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal.  Bijzant.). 

(6)  [Dioscorus  (3).]  [W.  F.  G.] 

ISMAEL,  martyr  A.D.  362  ;  commemorated 
June  17  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

ISSUE  OF  BLOOD,  CURE  OF  THE. 
This  miracle  is  repeated  on  many  sarcophagi. 


JAiMES  THE  GREATER,  ST.  8G9 

See  Bottari,  taw.  xix.  xxi.  xxxiv.  xxxix.  xli. 
Ixxxiv.  Ixxxv.  Ixxxix.  cxxxv.  She  has  been  taken 
as  rejiresenting  the  Gentile  church,  particularly 
by  St.  Ambrose,  lib.  ii.  in  Lu  '.  c.  viii.  She  is  of 
small  stature  in  the  carvings,  like  the  other 
subjects  of  our  Lord’s  miraculous  cures.  In 
Eu.sebius  {Eccl.  Hist.  vii.  18)  mention  is  made  of 
a  bronze  statue  of  our  Loi’d,  or  rather  of  a  group 
of  two  figure.s,  which  existed  at  Cac.sarca  Philippi, 
Dan  (or  Baneas  at  this  day),  and  was  said  to 
have  been  erected  by  this  woman,  who  was  also 
rejiresented  as  kneeling  at  His  feet.  Eusebius 
saw  the  statue  himself,  but  its  being  meant  for 
our  Lord  seems  to  have  been  matter  of  tradition. 
Tovtou  rhu  arSpidura  CiKova  rov  Ayaov  (pfpav 
ekiyov.  ‘'Epeive  Se  Kal  fls  rpMS,  Ka\  oipei 
irapaka^eir  eiridrj/u.-^fTai'Tas  duT0V9  rp  vAkei. 

(See  Jesus  Christ,  Representations  of.) 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

ISTRIAN  COUNCIL  (7sfm>«s>  Concilium). 
Held  by  the  partisans  of  the  Three  Chapters  at 
some  place  in  Istria,  a.d.  591,  according  to  3Iansi, 
to  petition  the  emperor  Maurice  in  their  own  be¬ 
half,  and  that  of  Severus,  bishop  of  Aquileia,  their 
metropolitan,  who  had  been  forced  by  the  exarch 
into  condemning  them  at  Ravenna,  and  was  now 
summoned  with  his  suffragans  to  Rome.  Their 
remonstrance,  to  which  eight  names  are  affixed, 
was  successful,  and  the  pope  was  ordered  to  leave 
them  in  peace  for  the  present  (3Iansi.  x.  463-7). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

ITALIAN  COUNCII.S  {TtaHca  Concilia\ 
Three  councils  are  given  under  this  heading  in 
Mansi.  1.  A.D.  380,  at  which  Maximus  the  Cynic, 
who  had  just  been  deposed  at  Constantinople,  was 
heard  (iii.  519).  2.  A. d.381,  at  which  St.  Ambrose 
was  pre.sent,  and  who.se  proceedings  are  preserved 
in  two  letters  addressed  in  his  name  and  that  of 
his  colleagues  to  the  emperor  Theodosius,  in  one 
of  which  an  attenijit  to  introduce  Apollinarian 
errors  among  them  is  noticed  ;  and  in  the  other 
the  claims  of  Maximus,  and  the  consecration  of 
Nectarius  to  the  see  of  Constantinople  are  dis¬ 
cussed  with  some  anxiety  {Vk  630-3).  3.  A.D. 

405,  at  which  the  emperor  Honorius  was  peti¬ 
tioned  to  intervene  with  his  brother  Arc.adius  in 
favour  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  {ib.  1162). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

IVENTIUS,  EVANTIUS,  or  EVENTIUS, 

confessor  at  Pavia;  commemorated  with  Syrus 
Sept.  12  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

J 

JACINTHUS.  (1)  [Felicianus  (4).] 

(2)  [Hvacinthcs.] 

JACOB,  the  patriarch ;  commemorated  Na¬ 
hasse  25  =  Aug.  18  {Cal.  Etoiop.).  See  also 
Isaac.  [W.  F.  G.] 

JADER.  [Felix  (24).] 

JA3IBLICHUS,  one  of  the  seven  sleepers  of 
Ephesus;  commemorated  Oct.  22  {Cal.  Hyzant.). 

[W.'F.  G.] 

JAMES  THE  GREATER,  ST.,  Legend 
AND  Festival  of. 

1.  Legend.  —  By  the  name  of  James  the 
Greater,  the  son  of  Zebedee  is  distinguished 
from  the  other  apostle  of  the  same  name.  The 


Fignree  un  a  Sarcophagru.  (Front  Martigny.) 


870  JAMES  THE  GREATER,  ST. 

fjpithot  would  seem  to  have  regard  either  to  | 
stature  or  to  age,  though  some,  with  a])i)arently 
less  likelihood,  would  make  it  refer  (1)  to  pri-  ! 
ority  in  tlie  call  to  the  apostleship,  or  (2)  to  : 
higher  judvileges  in  intercourse  with  Christ,  or  | 
(3)  to  the  dignity  of  an  earlier  martyrdom. 

The  el  ler  brother  of  St.  John,  univer-sally 
believed  to  have  been  the  last  survivor  of  the 
apostles,  St.  James  was  the  first  to  be  called 
away,  having  been  beheaded  by  Herod  Agrippa  I., 
shortly  before  the  Passover  of  44  a.d.  Out  of  a 
mass  of  tradition  concerning  him,  the  only  point 
supported  by  any  adequate  evidence  is  the  inci¬ 
dent  related  by  Kusebius  {flist.  Eccles.  ii.  9)  on 
the  authority  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  of  the 
convei’sion  of  St.  James’s  accuser  as  the  apostle 
was  led  away  to  death.  Struck  by  his  steadfast¬ 
ness,  he  too  embraced  Christ,  and  the  apostle 
and  his  accuser  sutiered  together. 

The  .stories,  however,  of  St.  James’s  connection 
with  Spain  are  deserving  of  very  little  credit. 
In  spite  of  such  plain  statements  as  Acts  adii.  1 
(very  lamely  met  by  Baronins),  the  apostle  is 
made  to  undertake  a  missionary  journey  into 
Spain  after  the  death  of  Stephen,  returning  to 
Jerusalem  before  a.d.  44.  The  ancient  evidence 
for  such  a  story  is  of  the  weakest.  Isidore  of 
Seville  (ob.  63i3  A.  D.)  does  say  {de  Ortu  et  Ohitii 
Patriuii,  c.  7 1  ;  Patrol.  Ixxxiii.  151),  if  indeed 
the  work  is  his,  which  is  certainly  doubtful,  that 
St.  James  preached  the  gospel  to  the  natives  of 
Spain  and  the  Western  regions  and  the  same 
statement  is  found  in  the  CAlectanea,  once 
wrongly  attributed  to  Bede  (Patrol,  xciv.  545). 
Mere  unsupported  statements,  however,  of  so 
late  a  date  can  amount  to  very  little.  It  is 
worthy  of  notice  too  that  at  a  much  earlier 
period.  Innocent  I.  (ob.  417  a.d.)  states  that  no 
church  had  been  founded  throughout  Italy,  Gaul, 
or  Spain,  except  by  those  who  owed  their  autho¬ 
rity  directly  or  indirectly  to  St,  Peter  (Ep.  25 
ad  Eeceiitiam,  c.  2  :  Patrol,  xx.  552).  With 
every  allowance  for  the  desire  of  a  bishop  of 
Rome  to  exalt  the  see  of  St,  Peter,  so  sweeping  a 
statement  could  hardly  have  been  ventured  on, 
had  there  been  a  strongly  established  tradition 
as  to  St.  James’s  connection  with  Spain.  Am¬ 
brose  evidently  knew  no  such  legend,  for  he 
speaks  of  St.  Paul’s  projected  journey  into  Spain 
being  “quia  illic Christus  non  erat  praedicatus  ” 
(Comm,  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.  xv.  24;  Patrol,  xvii, 
176)  ;  nor  did  Jerome,  for  he  mentions  St.  Paul’s 
journeys  having  reached  even  to  Spain,  imme¬ 
diately  after  referring  to  the  apostle’s  never 
building  “  super  alterius  fundamentum,  ubi  jam 
fuerat  praedicatum”  (Comm,  in  Amos,  v.  8  sqq. ; 
vol.  vi,  291,  ed,  Vallarsi).  Baronins  (notes  to 
tMartyrolojium  Rom  inum ;  July  25),  in  sum¬ 
ming  up  concerning  these  legends,  can  only  urge 
“  non  esse  adeo  impossibilia,  vel  haberi  pro 
inonstro,  ut  putaiit  aliqui.” 

The  story  of  the  translation  of  the  apostle’s 
body  into  Spain  is  obviously  totally  apocryphal. 

It  is  to  the  eti’ect  that  after  his  body  had  been 
interred  at  Jerusalem,  his  disciples  removed  it 
to  Iria  Flavia,  in  the  far  north-west  of  Spain. 
(For  an  elementary  form  of  the  story  see  the 
Mdj-tyrologies  25]  of  Usuard  and  Notker; 


^  This  writing  speaks  of  St.  James  as  buried  “  in  Mar- 
raarica”  {al.  Caimarica,  &c.),  a  name  which  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  satisfactorily  e.xplaitied. 


JAMES  THE  GREATER,  ST. 

Patrol,  exxiv.  295,  cxxxi.  1125:  tho.se  of  Bode 
and  Wandalbert  ignore  it.)  Here  it  was  dis¬ 
covered  early  in  the  9th  centurv,  and  removed 
to  Compostella  (a  corruption  of  Oia  'omj  Pastolo, 

I  ad  Ja-'ohum  Apos'olum),  a  few  miles  distant,  by 
order  of  Alj)honso  II.,  king  of  Asturias  and  Leon 
(ob.  84-2  A.D.).  For  a  very  full  account  of  these 
legends,  see  Cuper  in  the  Acta  Canctorum  (July, 
vol.  V.  pp.  3  sqq.);  also  Mariana,  De  aderntu 
Jacobi  Apostoli  mnjoris  in  Ilisp  miom,  in  his 
Tractatus,  Col.  Agr.  1609;  Tolra,  Justificacion 
historico-criticn  de  la  venidx  de  Santi  igo  el  Mayor 
d  Espaiia,  y  de  su  sepulcro  in  Compos'ela.  Ma- 
triti,  1797  ;  Arevalus,  Tsidorvina,  c.  61  (Patrol. 
Ixxxi.  382  sqq.),  and  sundry  writings  in  con¬ 
nection  with  St.  James,  wrongly  attributed  to 
pope  Callixtus  II.  (Patrol,  clxiii.  1370  sqq.). 
Strangely,  however,  in  spite  of  this  lack  of 
evidence,  the  legend  took  such  root  in  Spain, 
as  practically  to  count  there  as  an  article  of 
faith,  and  thus  we  find  Luther  holding  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  protest  against  such  a  view  (Cdmmtlkhe 
Schriften,  xv.  1864,  ed.  Walch). 

For  the  wild  legends  connecting  St.  .lames 
with  the  false  teachers  Hermogenes  an  1  Philetus, 
reference  may  be  made  to  the  Historia  Apostolica 
of  the  pseudo-Abdias,  lib.  iv.,  in  which,  it  may 
be  remarked  in  passing,  there  is  no  allusion 
whatever  to  Spain  (Fabricius,  Cude.v  Psendepi- 
graphus  Eovi  Testamenti,  vol.  ii.  p.  516  sqq.  ed. 
1719). 

2.  Festival  of  St.  James. — The  date  when  St. 
James  was  first  commemorated  by  a  festival 
cannot  be  determined  very  closely.  It  is  well 
known  that  at  first  the  only  apostles  who  had  a 
special  festiA'al  were  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and 
that  the  others  gradually  obtained  separate  com¬ 
memorations  afterwards.  In  the  case  of  St. 
James,  the  notices  are  such  as  to  point  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  festival  was  one  which  only 
made  its  way  very  gradually,  and  that  the  date 
at  which  it  had  attained  general  observance  was 
quite  late.  We  find  a  mention,  it  is  true,  in  the 
ancient  Kalendarium  Carthaginense,  where  for 
December  27  is  this  notice  :  “  vi.  Eal.  Jan.  Sancti 
Joannis  Baptistae  [here  probably  Evangelistae 
should  be  read]  et  Jacobi  Apostoli,  quern  Herodes 
occidit  ”  (Patrol,  xiii.  1228).  On  the  other  hand, 
many  ancient  Sacramentaries  give  no  indication 
of  the  existence  of  a  festival  of  St.  James.  The 
Ambrosian  (Pamelins,  Liturgg.  J.att.  i.  403)  and 
Gregorian  (col.  115,  ed.  Menard),  as  we  now 
have  them,  do  so,  the  forms  being  almost  iden¬ 
tical  in  the  two  cases;  but  the  Leonine  and 
Gelasian  pass  it  OA'er.  In  the  ancient  Galilean 
Liturgy  edited  by  Mabillon,  to  which  we  have 
referred  below,  it  will  be  seen  that  St.  James  is 
commemorated,  together  with  his  brother,  on 
December  27,  but  in  the  Galilean  Lectionary  the 
festival  is  of  St.  John  alone,  and  in  the  Martyro- 
loghim  Gellonense  (D’Achery’s  Spicilegium,  xiii. 
390),  the  notice  is  “  vi.  Kal.  Jan.  Ordinatio 
Episcopatus  Jacobi  Apostoli  fratris  Domini  et 
Adsumptio  Sancti  Joannis  Evangelistae.”  In 
the  Gothic  Breviary  edited  by  Lorenzana,  a  form 
is  provided  for  a  festival  of  St.  James  on  De¬ 
cember  30  (Patrol.  Ixxxvi.  1306),  but  there  is 
none  in  the  Mozarabic  Missal.  Ihe  Pontifical  ot 
Egbert,  archbishop  of  York  (ob.  766  a.d.)  has 
no  notice  of  such  a  festival.  Additional  evidence 
to  the  same  efiect  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  earliest  traces  of  a  vigil  of  a  festival  ot  St. 


JAMES  THE  GEEATER,  ST.  JAMES  THE  LESS,  ST.  871 


James  are  of  very  late  date.  Binteriin  (Denk  r. 
V.  1.  401)  asserts  that  the  vigil  does  not  occur 
at  all  in  calendars  before  the  10th  century. 
Even  so  late,  however,  as  the  loth  century,  the 
festival  itself  does  not  appear  to  have  attained 
universal  acceptance;  for  in  the  canons  of  the 
council  of  Oxford  (1222  A.D.)  it  is  not  included 
in  the  list  of  the  chief  festivals  observed  in  Eng¬ 
land  (can.  8;  Labbe  xi.  274).  At  the  council  of 
Cognac  in  France  (1256  A.D.)  the  case  is  some¬ 
what  doubtful,  yet  taking  the  context  into  con¬ 
sideration  (cf.  can.  19),  the  words  “  duodecim 
Apostolorum,  et  maxime  Petri  et  Pauli,  Andreae, 
Jacobi  .  .  .  .  ”  pei-haps  point  to  sej)arate  fes¬ 
tivals  and  not  to  the  collective  festival  of  the 
apostles  (can.  21  ;  Lebbe  xi.  749  :  cf.  Cunc. 
iblosaimm  [1229  a.d.],  can.  26,  op.  cit.  436, 
where  the  probability  seems  to  incline  the  other 
way).  We  may  appeal,  however,  finally  to  the 
proceedings  of  the  synod  of  Exeter  (1287  a.d.), 
Avhere  the  festivals  to  be  observed  are  named  in 
their  several  months,  and  where  the  entry  for 
July  is,  “  Translationis  S.  Thomae  martyris, 
Sanctae  Marine  Magdalenae,  S.  Jacobi  Apostoli 
majoids  *’  (can.  23,  op.  cit.  1288). 

Be.sides  this  vagueness  as  to  the  date  of  the 
origin  of  the  festival,  the  utmost  latitude  also 
prevails  as  to  the  day  when  it  was  to  be  cele¬ 
brated.*  We  have  evidence  indeed  of  a  kind 
Avhich  is  wanting  in  the  case  of  every  other 
apostle,  for  from  Acts  xii.  4  we  may  assume 
that  St.  James  was  put  to  death  shortly  before 
the  Passover.  Still,  in  the  Western  church, 
peidiaps  from  the  wish  not  to  have  a  celebration 
of  a  martyrdom  in  Lent  and  Eastertide,  we  gene¬ 
rally  find  St.  James’s  festival  on  July  25.*'  The 
calendar  of  the  church  of  Carthage  associates 
him,  as  we  have  seen,  with  his  brother  John  on 
December  27  ;  as  does  also  the  Gothico-Gallic 
Missal,  where  the  heading  for  the  day  is  “in 
Natale  Apostolorum  Jacobi  et  Johannis  ”  (Ma- 
billon,  de  Litnrjia  Gallicana,  lib.  iii.  p.  196). 
[In  the  Gothic  calendar,  however,  prefixed  to 
Lorenzana’s  edition  of  the  Gothic  Breviary,  we 
find  on  December  30,  “Jacobus  frater  Joannis 
Apostoli  et  Evangelistae,”  following  the  notice 
on  December  29,  “  Jacobus,  frater  Domini,” 
Patrol.  Ixxxvi.  19.]  The  same  combination  too 
meets  us  in  the  calendar  of  the  Armenian  church 
on  December  28  (Neale,  Eastern  Church,  Introd. 
p.  804),  and  in  that  of  the  Ethiopic  church  on 
September  27  (Ludolf,  Fasti  Sacri  Ecclesiac 
AlcxandrirMe,  p.  5).  The  calendar  of  the  Byzan¬ 
tine  church  appoints  Apidl  30  for  the  commemo¬ 
ration  of  St.  James,  and  so  we  find  in  the  Greek 
metrical  Ephenierides  prefixed  by  Papebroch  to 
the  Acta  Sanctorum  for  May  (vol.  i.  p.  xxv.) 

KTsivi  <p6vOV  ’laKCD/Soj/  iv  TpiaK6(TTT). 

In  the  martyrology  given  by  Cardinal  Sirletus, 
besides  the  commemoration  on  Apgl  30,  there 
is  also  noted  on  November  15,  “Natalis  SS. 
Baruch  et  Jacobi,  fratris  Joannis  Theologi  ”  (see 
Canisius,  Thesaurus,  vol.  iii.  pp.  427,  486). 

The  spring  period  is  also  recognised  in  the 
Ethiopic  and  Coptic  calendars.  In  the  former, 
besides  the  festival  mentioned  above,  there  are 
also  commemorations  on  February  4  and  April 


b  The  statement  of;ome  writers  {e.g.  Augustl,  Denkw. 
iii.  227)  that  this  particular  day  is  the  anniversary  of  the 
translation  of  the  saint’s  remains  to  Compostella,  is  one 
whose  proof  and  disproof  is  equally  impossible. 


12  of  St.  James,  apparently  the  son  of  Zebcdee 
(Eudolf,  pp.  20,  26).  The  Coptic  calendtir  has 
genentlly  a  very  close  affinity  with  flie  preceding, 
and,  like  it,  has  a  festival  of  St.  James  (defined 
!  as  the  son  of  Zebedee)  on  April  12  ;  and  also  on 
j  February  12  of  a  Jtimes,  presumably  the  present, 

I  and  on  April  30  of  a  James,  defined  as  the  son  of 
Zebedee. *=  ^ 

3.  Whether  or  no  it  is  due  to  the  eaidy  date 
of  this  a])ostle’s  martyrdom,  but  little  litera¬ 
ture  is  directly  associated  wdth  his  name.  The 
canonical  epistle  of  James  is  indeed  assigned  to 
him  in  the  subscription  of  a  Corbey  MS.  of  the 
old  Latin  version  cited  by  Tischendorf  (in  loc.), 
and  also  in  the  pa.s.sage  of  Isidore  already  referred 
to.  This  theory,  however,  is  exceedingly  im¬ 
probable,  and  need  not  be  further  referred  to 
here. 

A  pretended  discovery  was  made  near  Granada 
in  Spain  in  1595  a.d.  of  the  remains  of  two  of 
St.  James’s  disciples,  and  with  them  of  eighteen 
books  on  leaden  plates,  including  several  by  St. 
James,  which  with  the  others  were  condemned 
by  Innocent  XI.  in  1682  a.d.  (Fabricius,  Codej; 
Pseu  lepigraphus  Novi  Testamenti,  i.  352,  iii.  725  ; 
Acta  Sanctorum,  May,  vol.  vii.  pp.  285,  393). 

For  further  remarks  on  the  subject  of  the 
preceding  article  reference  may  be  made  to 
Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten  der  Christ -Katho- 
lischen  Kirche,  vol.  v.  part  i.  pp.  400  sqq. ; 
August!,  Denkmirdigkeiten  aus  der  Christlichen 
Archdologie,  vol.  iii.  pp.  237  sqq.  ;  Tillemont, 
Memoires  pour  servir  a,  Chistoire  Ecclesiastiguc, 
vol.  i.  pp.  342  sqq.,  625  sqq.  ed.  Paris,  1693; 
Cajetan  Cenni,  Dissertat.  i.  de  Aatiq.  Eccl.  Hisp. 
c.  2,  Rome,  1741.  [R.  S.] 

JAMES  THE  LESS,  ST.,  Legend  and 
Festival  of. 

1.  Legend,  4’'C- — E  does  not  fall  within  our 
present  province  to  discuss  the  question  whether 
James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  one  of  the  twelve 
apostles,  is  or  is  not  the  same  as  James,  the 
Lord’s  brother,  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  The  pro¬ 
bability  seems  to  incline  in  favour  of  the  non- 
identity  of  the  two,  but  there  are  considerable 
difficulties  attending  either  hypothesis  ;  and  the 
matter  will  be  found  discussed  at  length  in  the 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  Of  ancient  liturgies, 
martyrologies  and  calendars,  some  identify, 
while  others  distinguish  them ;  and  hence  it 
m’ay  perhaps  be  most  convenient  here  to  collect 
together  the  various  notices  under  either  desig- 
nation. 

It  may  be  remarked  at  the  outset  that  if 
James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  be  a  different  per¬ 
son  from  James  the  Lord’s  brother,  there  is 
almost  a  complete  lack  of  tradition  as  to  his 
history.  The  ancient  so-called  Martyrologium 
Hierongmi  speaks  of  his  being  martyred  in 
Persia  (Patrol,  xxx.  478),  and  the  Greek 
metrical  Ephemeridcs,  which  we  have  cited  be¬ 
low,  assert  that  he  was  crucified ;  but  it  is  im 
possible  to  say  what  amount  of  belief  is  to  be 
given  to  either  of  these  statements.  James,  the 


®  It  should  be  noticed  that  sundry  slight  variations 
from  Ludolf ’s  calendar  of  the  I^gyptlan  church  occur  in 
those  given  by  S  Idcn  (de  Sguedriis  VcUrian  Kbraeorum, 
pp.  210  sqq.;  ed.  Amsteid.un,  1679).  Here  one  calendar 
gives  Feb.  11,  the  other  Feb.  12  ;  one  April  11,  the  other 
April  12;  and  one  (ihe  other  has  no  entry)  has  April  20 
for  April  30. 


872 


ja:\ies  ^ihp:  lp^ss,  st. 

Lord’s  brother,  on  the  other  Inind,  fills  a  promi¬ 
nent  place  in  the  history  of  the  Acts,  he  is  re¬ 
ferred  to  by  St.  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala¬ 
tians  in  a  way  that  sufficiently  indicates  his  im- 
})ortauce,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is 
to  him  we  owe  the  so-called  Catholic  Epistle  of 
St.  James.  Ecclesia.stical  tradition  also  tells 
much  conc^'ning  him,  and  the  account  of  his 
martyrdom  given  by  Eusebius  (/list.  Eccles.  ii. 
23)  from  Hegesippus  is  doubtless  substantially 
correct.  It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  repeat 
here  what  has  already  been  said  in  the  liible 
Dictionary,  to  which  reference  may  be  made. 

2.  Festiv'l. — The  exact  date  of  the  rise  of  a 
special  festival  of  St.  James,  whether  as  the 
sou  of  Alphaeus  or  as  the  Lord’s  brother,  is  hard 
to  fix.  Like  those  of  most  of  the  apostles,  it  is 
comparatively  late.  Among  the  earliest  wit¬ 
nesses,  we  may  mention  the  Martyrologium 
Hieronijrni,  the  metrical  martyrology  of  Bede, 
and  the  ancient  liturgies  referred  to  below.  The 
first  of  the.se,  as  well  as  other  early  Roman 
martyrologies,  commemorates  James,  the  son  of 
Alphaeus,  on  June  22,  and  also  James,  the  Lord’s 
brother,  on  March  15,  April  25,  and  December 
27.  On  the  last  of  these  there  is  as.sociated  with 
the  “Assumptio  S.  Joannis  Ev'angelistae,”  also 
the  Ordinatio  episcopatus  S.  Jacobi  fratris 
Domini,”  a  combination  to  which  we  shall  again 
refer.  There  is  also  in  this  martyrology,  as  we 
now  have  it,  a  commemoration  of  James,  not 
further  defined,  but  obviously  the  profi»ri.t,  on 
May  1.  The  metrical  martyrology  of  Bede 
commemorates  St.  Philip  and  St.  James  together 
on  May  1,  the  latter,  it  will  be  seen,  defined  as 
the  Lord’s  brother, 

“Jacobus  Dominifrater  pius  atque  Philippus 
Mirifico  Maias  venerantur  honoie  Calendas." 

This  has  been  the  general  custom  throughout 
the  Western  church,  and  so  we  find  it  in  the 
Gelasian  (Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1161),  Gregorian  (col. 
101,  ed.  Menard)  and  Ambrosian  (Pamelius, 
Litargg.  Latt.  i.  370)  liturgies.  The  reason  for 
this  combination  of  apostles,  and  for  the  choice 
of  this  particular  day  does  not  appear.  Schulting 
(Bibliotheca  Ecclesiastica  ii.  130)  simply  states 
that  it  is  because  of  the  translation  of  the 
relics  of  the  two  on  that  day  in  the  Pontificate 
of  Pelagius  I.  (ob.  560  A.D.).  We  are  not  aware 
that  anything  can  be  adduced  in  support  of 
this  statement  beyond  the  remark  of  Anastasius 
Bibliothecarius  that  under  Pelagius  I.,  “  initiata 
est  basilica  Apostolorum  Philippi  et  Jacobi  ” 

( Vitae  Pontificum ;  Pelagius  I.  Patrol,  cxxviii. 
614),  where  we  see  the  two  names  already  asso¬ 
ciated. 

It  is  stated  by  the  Micrologus  that  this  festival 
was  originally  one  of  all  the  apostles;  there 
seems,  however*,  to  be  no  real  evidence  for  the 
a.ssertion  ‘‘  ideo  etiam  invenitur  in  martyrologiis 
sive  in  Sacramentariis  festivitas  Sanctorum  Ja¬ 
cobi  et  Philippi  et  omnium  Apostolorum  ”  (de 
Eccl.  Observ.  c.  55 ;  Patrol,  cli.  1017).  This  is 
followed,  however,  by  sundry  liturgical  writers, 
e.  g.  Honorius  Augustodunensis  (Gemma  Animae 
iii.  140  ;  Patrol,  clxxii.  681),  and  Durandus  (Piat. 
Div.  Off.  vii.  10). 

Besides  the  festival  of  May  1,  the  Ambrosian 
liturgy  also  commemorates  on  Dec.  30  the 
“  ordinatio  B.  Jacobi  Alphaei  Apostoli  ”  (og\  cit. 
309),  resembling  the  already  cited  notice  of  the 


JAME.S  THE  LESS,  ST. 

Martyrologium  Hieronynn ;  and  we  may  again 
refer  to  the  entry  in  tlie  Mm  tyrologi  nn  Gello- 
nese  quoted  in  the  jueceding  article.  The  Gai- 
lican  liturgy,  published  by  M.ibillou,  omits 
altogether  the  festival  of  .St.  James,  whether 
as  son  of  Aljthaeus  or  as  brother  of  the 
Lord  ;  but  in  the  Mozarabic  mis.sal  we  find 
a  commemoration  of  “  S.  Jacobus,  frater  Do¬ 
mini  ”  on  Dec.  29.  We  may  take  this  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  adding  that  the  prophetic  lection, 
epistle  and  gospel  there  are  i-espectively  Wisdom 
xviii.  20-24;  i.  Tim.  i.  18-ii.  8;  Luke  viii.  23, 
27,  John  xii.  24—26,  xiii.  16,  17,  20,  xv.  6,  12, 
13  (Patrol.  Ixxxv.  104).  In  the  Mozarabic  Bre¬ 
viary,  the  form  is  merely  headed  “  in  fe.'.to  S. 
Jacobi  Apostoli  ”  (Patrol.  Ixxxvi.  136),  but  there 
are  numerous  references  to  the  martyrdom  of 
Jame.s,  the  Lord’s  bi’other,  at  Jerusalem. 

The  Byzantine  calendar  distinguishes  the  son 
of  Alphaeus  fi*om  the  Lord’s  brother,  the  former 
being  commemorated  on  Oct.  9,  the  latter  on 
Oct.  23;  and  so  we  find  in  the  Greek  metrical 
Ephemerides,  published  by  Papebroch  in  the 
Acta  Sanctorum  C^liXY  1  vol.  i.  p.  xlviii.), — 
ivarg  ’laKcvfios  iui  aTavpea  rerdwaTo,  and  iadKoy 
aS€\(p66€OV  Tpirarg  ^v\ca  PiKaSi  In 

the  Armenian  church,  besides  the  commemora¬ 
tion  of  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee  on  Dec.  28,  there 
are  also  commemorations  on  August  .31  of 
“  Thomas  and  James,  Apostles,”  and  on  Dec.  23 
of  “  James,  Apostle  ”  (Xeale,  Eastern  Church  ; 
Introd.  pp.  801,  804).  In  the  calendars  of  the 
Egyptian  and  Ethiopic  churches  given  in  Ludoirs 
Fasti  Sacri  Ecclesiae  Alexaadrin  te,  we  find  that 
the  former  .commemorates  James,  the  sou  of 
Alphaeus,  on  October  2,  and  James,  the  Lord’s 
brother,  on  October  23,  and  that  they  both 
commemorate  this  latter  on  July  12.  Besides 
this,  the  Coptic  calendar  has  on  Feb.  12,  and  the 
Ethiopic  on  Feb.  4,  a  James,  an  apostle,  not 
otherwise  specified.® 

It  may  be  remarked  here  that  many  of  the  cus¬ 
toms  which  still  charaeferize  the  day  on  which 
the  Western  church  commemorates  St.  James, 
have  obviously  sprung  from  lingering  heathen 
usages.  These  are,  as  a  rule,  connected  with  the 
idea  of  the  return  of  spring,  and  thus  are  in 
some  sense  parallel  to  those  associated  with  the 
festivals  of  Christmas  and  St.  John  the  Baptist’s 
day,  which  dwell  on  the  idea  of  the  returning 
and  retreating  sun.  [Christmas;  John  the 
Baptist,  St.,  Fire  of.] 

Thus  the  gathering  of  flowers  and  the  adorn¬ 
ing  of  houses  with  them  on  May-day  morning 
may  fairly  ke  connected  with  the  Roman  festival 
of  the  Floralia  held  on  the  five  days  following 
April  28  ;  similar  festivals  to  which  were  also 
held  in  other  places,  as  the  Anthesphoria  in 
Sicily,  etc. 

A  trace  of  the  ancient  sun-worship  is  still  to 
be  found  in  one  of  the  customs  prevalent  on 
this  day  among  Celtic  peoples,  and  notably  the 
Irish  and  Highland  peasantry,  viz.,  the  lighting  of 
great  fires  in  the  open  air  ;  and  thus  the  com¬ 
mon  Irish  name  for  the  day,  is  La  Beul-tine 
(day  of  Beal’s  or  Baal’s  fire),  and  similarly  in 
Gaelic. 


»  It  may  be  noted  that  one  of  the  Egyptian  calendars, 
given  by  Selden  (de  Synedriis  Vetrrum  Ebracorum. 
pp.  215,  219;  ed.  Amsterdanj,  16*9^  puts  Feb.  11  for  Feb, 
12,  and  July  11  for  July  12. 


JAMES 

Customs  also  with  the  same  central  idea 
existed  among  the  ancient  Gothic  nations  (see 
Olaus  Magnus,  Historia  de  Gentibus  Septcntriona- 
libus  XV.  8,  p.  503,  ed.  Rome,  1555). 

3.  With  the  name  of  the  person  or  persons 
now  before  us,  more  litei’ature  is  associated  than 
in  the  case  of  the  son  of  Zebedee.  Besides  the 
Canonical  Epistle  of  St.  James,  there  are  .still 
extant  the  so-called  Protevantjelimn  Jacobi,  the 
most  respectable  of  the  Apocryphal  gospels,  and 
the  so-called  liturgy  of  St.  James.  It  is  possi¬ 
ble  too  that  at  one  time  there  existed  other 
pseudonymous  writings  bearing  the  name  of 
St.  James,  for  we  find  Innocent  I.  in  alluding  to 
sundry  works  of  this  class,  mention  those  which 
“  sub  nomine  .  .  .  Jacobi  minoris  .  .  .  damnanda  ” 
{Ep.  6  ad  Exsuperium  c.  7,  Patrol,  xx.  502). 
Again,  in  the  records  of  a  council  held  at  Rome 
in  494  A.D.,  under  the  episcopate  of  Geiasius,  it 
is  ruled  Evaugelium  [aL  Evangelia]  nomine 
Jacobi  minoris,  Apocryphum”  (^Patrol,  lix.  162, 
175,  176).  Apocryphal  letters  to  St.  James 
from  St.  Peter  and  St.  Clement  are  prefixed  to 
the  various  editions  of  the  Clementine  Homilies 
(see  e.g.  Cotelerius,  Patres  Apost.  i.  602,  ed. 
1700).  The  Apostolic  Constitutions  again  (viii. 
23),  cite  James,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  as  giving 
rules  respecting  confessors  and  virgins ;  and  some 
forms  of  the  text,  but  apparently  not  the  best, 
give  (c.  XXXV.)  rules  as  to  divine  service  claiming 
the  authority  of  James,  the  Lord’s  brother. 

Besides  works  already  cited,  reference  may  be 
made  to  Biuterim,  Eenkwiirdigheiten  der  Christ- 
Katholischen  Kirche,  vol.  v.  part  i.,  pp.  365  sqq. ; 
Augusti,  Denk'iiirdigkeiten  aus  der  Christlichen 
Arckdologie,  vol.  iii.  pp.  237  sqq.  [R.  S.] 

JAMES.  (1)  Bishop,  bcrios  -rrarrjp  Kal  6p.o- 
\oyr]T-f]s — circa  824  A.D. ;  commemorated  March 
21  {Cal.  Bgzant.). 

(2)  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  f830  A.D. ;  com¬ 
memorated  Oct.  8  {Cal.  Copt.). 

(3)  Patriarch  of  Antioch ;  commemorated 
Tekemt  ll=iOct.  8  {Cal.  Ethiop.). 

(4)  Martyr  of  Persia,  A.D.  396 ;  commemo¬ 
rated  Nov.  27  {Cal.  Bgzant.). 

(5)  Pi'esbyter,  martyr  in  Persia  under  Sapor 
with  Melicius  the  bishop,  and  Acepoimas  the 
bishop  (circa  345  A.D.);  commemorated  April  22 
{Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(6)  Of  Nisibis,  confessor  under  Maximin ; 
commemorated  Dec.  14  {Cal.  Armen.)  ;  July  15 
{Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(7)  Deacon,  martyr  under  Decius  apud  Lam- 
besitanam  urbem  with  Marianus  the  reader; 
commemorated  April  30  {Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi);  May  6  {Cal.  Carth.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JANUAKIA.  [SciLLiTA,  Martyrs  of.] 

JANUAKIUS.  (1)  [Felix  (1).] 

(2)  [Felix  (5).] 

(3)  UpojxdpTvs  ;  commemorated  with  compa¬ 
nion  martyrs,  April  21  {Cal.  Bgzant.). 

(4)  [Felix  (15).] 

(6)  [Felix  (16).] 

(6)  [SciLLiTA,  Martyrs  of.] 

(7)  Martyr  with  Pelagia  at  Nicopolis,  in 
Le.sser  Armenia;  commemorated  July  11  {Mart. 
Usuardi). 


JERUSALEM,  COUNCILS  OF  873 

(8)  [Florentius  (1).] 

(9)  [Sixtus  (2).] 

(10)  Bishop  of  Beneventum,  martyr  at  Naples 
with  Festus  and  Proculus,  deacons,  Desiderius, 
Euticus,  and  Acutus,  under  the  emperor  Dio¬ 
cletian  ;  commemorated  Sept.  19  {Mai't.  Bedae, 
Usuardi). 

(11)  [Faustus  (3).] 

(12)  [Felix  (23).] 

(13)  Saint;  commemorated  Dec.  2  {Cal.  A?'- 

men.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JASON.  (1)  [Hilaria  (2).] 

(2)  And  Sosipater,  apostles ;  commemorated 
April  28  {Cal.  Bgzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JEREMIAH.  (1)  The  prophet ;  commemo¬ 
rated  May  1  {Mart.  Usuardi,  Bedae,  Cal.  Bgzant.)', 
Sept.  5  {Cal.  Copt.)-,  Aug.  29  {Cal.  .Armen.)-, 
Ginbot  5  =  April  30  {Cal.  Ethiop.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

(2)  [Peter  (8).] 

(3)  [EiUilianus  (4).) 

JERUSALEM,  COUNCILS  OF  {Ilieroso^ 
Igmitana  Concili  i).  (1)  a.d.  47,  says  Cave  {Hist. 

Lit.  i.  38);  Baronius  and  others,  A.D.  51  :  the 
third,  in  chronological  order,  of  the  meetings 
of  the  Apostles  recorded  in  their  Acts,  but  the 
only  one  deserving  the  name  of  a  synod.  Its 
proceedings  are  described  there  (c.  xv.).  A  con¬ 
troversy  having  arisen  at  Antioch,  over  which 
according  to  Eusebius  {Chron.  ad  1.)  Euodius  had 
been  appointed  bishop  as  far  back  as  a.d.  43,  on 
the  necessity  of  circumcising  the  Gentile  con¬ 
verts  and  obliging  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses, 
it  was  referred  to  the  Apostles  and  elders  at 
Jerusalem  for  decision,  SS.  Paul  and  Barnabas 
being  sent  thither  for  that  purpose.  The  Apostles 
and  elders  came  together,  accordingly,  to  con¬ 
sider  of  it.  St.  Peter  spoke  first,  and  gave  hii: 
opinion  against  burdening  the  disciples  with  any 
such  yoke.  Then  all  the  multitude — in  other 
words,  the  body  of  believers,  or  brethren  who 
were  present — listened  to  the  reports  given  of 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  that  had  been 
achieved  on  their  first  expedition  as  missionaries 
into  Asia  Minor  by  SS.  Paul  and  Barnabas. 
After  which  St.  James,  as  bishop,  doubtless,  of 
Jerusalem,  delivered  his  “  sentence ;”  which  was 
embodied  in  the  synodical  letter,  addressed  in 
the  name  of  the  Apostles  and  elders  and  brethren, 
finally,  to  the  bi'ethren  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch, 
Syria,  and  Cilicia,  and  sent  by  two  principal  men 
of  their  own  number,  in  addition  to  SS.  Paul 
and  Barnabas.  On  reaching  Antioch,  the  bearers 
of  this  epistle  gathered  the  multitude  together 
and  delivered  it,  when  its  contents  having  been 
read  caused  great  joy. 

(2)  Mansi’s  reasons  for  dating  this  council  a.d. 
349  seem  conclusive  (ii.  171,  note).  Constans, 
who  ruled  in  the  West,  threatened  his  brother 
Constantins  with  hostilities,  if  St.  Athanasius, 
in  whose  favour  the  Sardicau  council  had  pro¬ 
nounced  two  years  before,  was  not  restored  to 
his  see ;  and  Gregory,  his  rival,  having  died  in 
the  early  part  of  this  year,  his  return  was  allowed. 
In  his  way  he  stopped  at  Jerusalem,  when  a  synod 
was  held  under  its  orthodox  bishop,  Maximus, 
and  a  letter  despatched  from  it  to  c.ongratulate 
the  Alexandrians  on  this  act  of  grace  on  the  part 
of  the  emperors ;  which  Coustaus,  however,  did 


874 


JESSE 


not  live  to  see  carried  out,  as  he  was  slain  in 
Jan.  350.  •  And  Ma.xiinu.?  having  held  this  synod 
without  leave  from  his  metropolitan,  Acacius, 
bishop  of  Caesarea,  was  ejected  by  him  in  another 
synod  a  few  months  later,  to  be  succeeded  by 
St.  Cyril,  then  catechist,  and  a  su))posed  Arian. 

(3)  A.i>.  399.  A  svnod  of  bishops,  met  to  cele¬ 
brate  the  feast  of  the  dedication  of  the  church 
there,  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  synodical 
epistle  from-  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
condemning  some  of  the  errors  of  Origen  lately 
revived  in  his  diocese,  and  profess  their  agreement 
with  it  (Mansi,  iii.  989-02). 

(4)  A.D.  415.  What  we  should  call  a  diocesan 
synod  :  of  presbyters,  that  is,  under  their  bishop, 
John.  Orosius,  the  historian,  then  on  a  iTiission 
from  St.  Augustine  to  St.  Jerome,  was  present 
at  it,  and  gives  an  account  of  its  proceedings. 
Pelag[ius  being  there,  and  accused  bv  him  of 
heresy,  was  invited  to  come  in,  and  put  on  his 
defence.  Neither  what  he  said,  nor  what  Orosius 
said,  were  considered  altogether  unexceptionable 
by  the  bishop,  who  proposed  that  letters  should 
be  sent  to  Pope  Innocent  of  Rome  on  the  subject, 
and  that  all  should  abide  by  what  he  decreed 
(Mansi,  iv.  307-12). 

(5)  A.D.  518,  to  express  its  adhesion  to  the 
Constantinopolitan  synod  of  the  same  year  (see 
the  art.) :  its  own  synodical  letter  being  also 
preserved  in  the  subsequent  council  under 
Menuas. 

(6)  A.D.  536,  Sept.  19  :  under  Peter,  its  pa¬ 
triarch,  on  receipt  of  the  acts  of  the  synod  of 
Constantinople  under  Mennas,  between  four  and 
five  months  previously,  with  the  edict  of  the 
Emperor  Justinian  confirming  them,  and  a  letter 
from  Mennas  to  Peter  acquainting  him  wRh  their 
contents  (see  the  article  on  this  council).  The 
deacon  and  notary  present  having  recited  them, 
they  were  received  synodically  by  Peter,  and 
subscribed  to  by  forty-eight  bishops,  with  himself 
at  their  head  (Mansi,  A’iii.  1164-76). 

(7)  A.D.  553,  under  its  patriarch,  Rustochius, 
at  which  the  acts  of  the  5th  council  were  received 
and  confirmed. 

(8)  A.D.  634,  under  Sophronius,  on  his  eleva¬ 

tion  as  patriarch,  to  condemn  Moucthelism, 
against  which  he  had  contended  with  so  much 
ardour  as  monk  previously.  The  encyclical 
epistle  sent  by  him  on  this  occasion  to  the 
bishops  of  Rome  and  Constantinople  is  preserved 
in  the  11th  action  of  the  6th  council  where  it 
was  recited  (Mansi,  x.  649-52).  [E.  S,  Ff.] 

JESSE,  ab  Silcania ;  commemorated  Dec.  2 

(^CaLGreg.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JESUS.  [Joshua.] 

JESUS  CHRIST,  REPRESENTATIONS 
OF.  I.  The  symbolic  representations  of  the 
Lord  are  discussed  severally,  as  under  the  titles 
Fish,  IX0TC,  Lamb,  Vine;  see  also  Symbolism. 
For  the  pictorial  types  of  the  Lord  derived  from 
the  Old  Testament,  see  Old  Testament  in 
Christian  Art  ;  for  pagan  types  used  to  repre¬ 
sent  Him,  see  Paganism  in  Christian  Art. 
For  representations  on  gems,  see  Gems,  §§  xii. 
and  xiii.  p.  718;  on  the  bottoms  of  cups,  see 
Glass,  Christian,  p.  732.  See  also  Images, 
p.  813;  and  Numismatics.  Setting  aside  such 
representations  as  these,  it  is  to  be  obseiwed,  in 
the  first  instance,  that  He  is  represented  in  the 
human  form  from  the  earliest  times  of  Christian 


JESUS  CHRIST,  Representations  of 

art  as  the  Good  Sheidierd  ;  and  thissvmbolic  pic¬ 
ture,  though  in  no  case  wlnitever  considered  as  a 
portrait,  must  have  made  the  idea  of  representa¬ 
tions  of  His  human  form  a  very  familiar  one  at  all 
times  in  the  Roman  and  other  Western  churches 
—and  in  earlier  centuries,  in  the  Byzantine  also. 
One  of  the  latest,  and  the  most  important  perhaps 
of  all  these,  is  the  often  described  Good  Shepherd 
of  the  chapel  of  Gal  la  Piacidia  at  Rjivenua,  middle 
fifth  century:  and  one  of  the  eailiest  ideal  ]->or- 
traits  of  our  Lord  is  found  in  the  church  of  St. 
Apollinaris,  built  a  century  later  within  the  walls 
of  that  city.  In  art  these  two  figures  mark  the 
transition  from  the  elder  Graeco-Roman  ideas  and 
traditions  of  art  to  the  later  style,  propei-lv  called 
Byzantine.  The  leading  difierence  in  feeling  and 
principle  between  them  will  be  illu.>^trated  in  the 
course  of  this  article  :  for  the  present  it  mav 
briefly  be  thus  stated:  that  in  the  earlier 
illustration  of  the  Lord’s  Parable  of  Himself, 
the  attempt  at  beauty  predominates,  and  is  far 
from  unsuccessful ;  whereas  in  the  Byzantine 
picture  of  St.  Apollinare,  though  considerable 
beauty  of  feature  is  retained,  the  tendenev  to 
the  a.scetic  or  melancholy  ideal  of  later  art, 
both  Italian  and  German,  is  unmistakably  visible. 

It  is  perhaps  fortunate  that  the  words  of  St. 
Augustine  {De  Trinitate  viii.  4,  5)  i)ut  it  appa¬ 
rently  beyond  question,  that  the  world  cannot 
possess  now,  and  disl  not  possess  in  his  time,  anv 
authentic  record  whatever  of  the  bodily  ap¬ 
pearance  of  Jesus  Christ  the  God-Man  on  earth. 
“  Nam  et  ipsius  Dominicae  facies  Carnis  innume- 
rabiliuni  cogitationum  diversitate  variatur  et 
ringitur;  quae  tamen  una  erat,  quaecunque  erat.” 
Two  centuries  before,  indeed,  St.  Irenaous  (con f/-« 
Hacres.  1.  25)  had  spoken,  with  indignant  absence 
of  comment,  of  certain  Gnostic  rej>resentations 
of  Christ,  both  painted  and  sculptured,  as  it 
appears.  “  Quasdam  quidem  [imagines]  quasi 
depictas,  quasdam  autem  et  de  reliqua  materia 
fabricatas  habent,  dicentes  formam  Christi  factam 
a  Pilato,  illo  in  tempore  quo  fuit  Jesus  cum 
hominibus,  Et  has  coronant,  et  proponunt  eas 
cum  imaginibus  mundi  philosophorum,  videlicet 
cum  imagine  Pythagorae,  et  Platonis,  et  Ari- 
stotelis.”  These  passages  seem  conclusive  to 
the  effect  that  no  real  portrait  of  our  Lord 
existed,  or  was  remembered  as  existing,  in  the 
2nd  century.  Indeed  as  Martigny  observes,  the 
controversy  (dating  from  the  2nd  century)  with 
regard  to  the  human  comeliness  of  our  Lord’s 
body  visible  on  earth,  makes  it  perfectly  certain, 
were  proof  necessary,  that  no  authentic  portrait 
of  Him  ever  existed.  Augustine  acknowledges 
without  blame  the  universal  tendency  of  thought 
to  picture  to  itself  persons  and  events  by  imagina¬ 
tive  effort,  instancing  St.  Paul  in  particular,  and 
taking  it  for  certain,  as  it  probably  may  be,  that 
each  of  all  the  innumerable  readers  of  the 
epistles  will  forni  a  different  idea  of  his  own 
about  the  author’s  appearance,  though  none  can 
say  whose  will  be  nearest  the  truth. 

In  his  mind  then,  and  indeed  in  our  own,  all 
ideal  or  fancy  portraits  of  our  Lord,  so  called, 
are  merely  symbolic  of  His  humanity  ;  and  in 
this  view,  the  crucifix  itself  may  be  taken  as  a 
symbol  only  of  the  fact  of  His  death  and  the 
doctrine  of  His  sacrifice  for  man  ;  however  the 
word  sacrifice  be  denned  or  enlarged  upon :  and 
this  may  certainly  make  its  presence  in  Christian 
churches  not  only  allowable  but  desirable.  We 


JESUS  CHEIST,  REPRESENTATIONS  OF 


may  observe  on  the  different  relation  of  the 
church  to  the  arts  in  Augustine’s  days,  when 
Christian  art  of  a  well  marked  and  distinctive 
chararter  existed,  from  the  state  of  things  in  the 
time  of  Tertullian,  who  protests  against  all 
simulacra,  likenesses,  or  representations  what¬ 
ever,  and,  as  he  well  might  in  the  j)resence  of 
the  whole  Pantheon,  considers  all  images  or 
likenesses  practically  the  same  as  idols.®* 

Human  art,  however,  was  adoi)ted  by  the 
church  along  with  human  thought  and  learning. 
We  cannot  tell  whether  Tertul  lian  knew  or  cared 
for  the  catacomb-paintings  of  Rome.  Some  of 
them,  as  those  in  the  more  ancient  part  of  St. 
Domitilla,  were  certainly  in  existence  before  his 
time ;  but  he  seems,  in  the  presence  of  the 
heathen,  to  protest  against  all  paintings  what¬ 
ever,  and  the  fact  that  St.  Augustine  not  unwil¬ 
lingly  accepts  them,  is  an  illustration  of  a 
hio^hlv  natural  change  of  Christian  feeling  on 
the  matter.*^ 

The  more  ancient  usage  of  representing  the 
Lord  as  the  Good  Shepherd  culminates  in  the 
Mosaic  of  Galla  Placidia’s  chapel.  A  far  higher 
antiquity  is  claimed  for  the  no-longer  existing 
portrait-head  of  Christ,  which  Bosio  represents, 
from  a  chapel  of  the  Callixtine  catacomb. 


Head  of  Christ  from  the  Callixtine  catacomb.  (Martigny.) 

There  is  a  general  opinion  that  it  may  have  been 
of  as  early  date  as  the  2nd  century :  and  what 
we  know  of  it  may  well  induce  us  to  believe 
that  it  was  the  original  of  that  ideal  of  our 
Lord’s  countenance  which  has  passed,  through 
Lionardo  da  Vinci,  into  all  Christian  painting. 
Lord  Lindsay,  however,  says  that  the  traditional 
Head  with  which  Europe  is  so  familiar,  was  un¬ 
known  in  the  West  till  the  4th  century,  when 
the  original  was  sent  to  Constantin,  sister  of 
Constantine,  by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea.  It  is 
therefore  of  Byzantine  or  Eastern  origin.  The 
earliest  example,  he  continues,  is  a  supposed  4th 
century  mosaic,  found  originally  in  the  Callix¬ 
tine,  and  now  in  the  V^atican.  See  Eusebius’s 


*  De  IdoV'latrid,  c.  iii.:  “Idolum  aliquamdiu  retro  non 
erat;”  he  says,  “sola  templa  et  vacuae  aedes.  At  ubi 
artifices  statuarum  et  inniginum,  et  oinnis  generis  .-iniu- 
lacrorum  diabolus  seculo  intulit  (rude  illud  nogotium 
humanae  calamitatis)  et  nonien  de  idolLs  consecutum 
est.’’ 

b  Tertullian  begins  his  book  against  llermogenes  with 
reproaching  him  for  his  profe.ssion  as  a  painter:  “  Pingit 
illicite,  nubit  assidue :  legem  Dei  in  libidinem  defendit, 
in  artem  contemnit:  bis  falsariiis  et  cauterio  et  stylo 
(encaustic),”  &c.  Athenagoras  {Legal,  pro  Christ,  c.  26) 
speaks  of  images  or  statues  in  general  as  portraits  of 
daemouB. 


87  o 

letter  in  Labbe,  Cvnc.  t.  vi.  col.  493  s<|.  This 
letter  repudiates  (rhetorically  but  with  sin¬ 
cerity)  any  idea  of  our  Lord’s  real  appearance, 
and  from  it  and  the  passage  in  Hist.  Ecct. 
(viii.  19)  it  appears  that  Eusebius  had  not  seen 
any  historic  portrait  which  he  (or  indeed  others) 
believed  on  evidence  to  be  a  genuine  likeness 
[Images,  §  III.].  Others  of  the  same  type  are  re¬ 
peated  on  sarcophagi,  dating  from  that  of  Junius 
Bassus,  A.D.  359;  see  Bottari,  tav.  xv.  xxi.-xxv. 
xliii.  xliv. ;  the  latter  represents  the  paintings 
in  the  catacomb  of  St.  Bontianus,  probably  r*^ 
newed  over  older  pictures  in  the  time  of  j.ope 
Adrian  I.  (a.d.  772-775).  This  catacomb  also 
contains  a  highly  ornamented  cross,  which  is 
evidently  intended  to  represent  the  person  of  our 
Lord  [Cross]. 

The  assertion  of  the  idea  that  our  Lord  not 
only  took  upon  Him  the  flesh  of  mankind,  but 
the  “  form  of  a  servant,”  or  slave,  all  bodily 
ugliness  instead  of  beauty,  is  derived  from 
meditation  on  the  prophetic  text  (Is.  liii.  2), 

He  hath  no  form  nor  comeliness ;  ”  as  the 
natural  thought  of  His  beauty  from  the  Mes¬ 
sianic  Psalm  (xlv.  3),  “Thou  art  fairer  than  the 
children  of  men.”  The  former  view  seems  to 
have  been  entertained,  or  is  nowise  discouraged  by 
Justin  Martyr,  who  twice  uses  the  word  a€'iSr}s  of 
our  Lord:  meaning  evidently  to  repeat  the  expres¬ 
sion  of  Isaiah  {Dial,  cum  Tryph.  cc.  85  and  88). 
So  Clement  of  Alexandria  (^Paed.  HI.  1)  appeals 
to  the  two  texts  to  which  we  have  referred  on 
the  same  side.  Compare  Stromata.,  ii.  5,  §  22  ; 
iii.  17,  §103;  vi.  17,  §  151.  Tertullian  may  be 
supposed  to  have  thought  likewise  {Adv.  Jud.  c. 
14):  “  Ne  aspectu  quidem  honestus;”  {He  came 
Christi,  c.  9)  “Adeo  ncc  humanae  honestatis 
corpus  fuit.”  He  infers  from  the  cruelty  of  Jews 
and  soldiers  at  the  crucifixion,  that  such  insults 
could  not  have  been  offered  to  the  Lord,  had  His 
person  possessed  any  beauty.  So  Origen  (c.  Cels. 
vi.  75,  p.  327,  Spencer),  who,  however,  held  that 
the  Lord  could  appear  in  whatever  form  he 
pleased  (76.  ii.  p.  99  f.).  A  list  is  given  by 
Molanus  (Hist.  Sacramm  Tmaginum,  p.  403)  by 
which  it  appears  that  St.  Jerome  (in  Matt.  ix. 
9 ;  Epist.  65,  ad  Princip.  c.  8),  St.  Ambrose,  St. 
Augustine,  St.  Chrysostom  (Horn.  27  [al.  28]  in 
Matt.  p.  328;  and  on  Fs.  44  [45]  p.  162),  and 
Theodoret,  followed  the  text  which  speaks  of 
Him  as  fairest  of  all  men,  St.  Basil  and  St.  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  (little  to  our  surprise)  taking  the 
other  side.  This  unedifying  controversy  belongs 
to  art  rather  than  to  theology.  The  Oriental, 
or  Egyptian,  or  ascetic  view  of  the  human  body, 
would  necessarily  have  weight  on  the  ill-favoured 
side,  theologically  speaking.  And  in  practical 
art,  the  want  of  skill,  and  also  of  models  possess¬ 
ing  any  degree  of  earthly  good  looks,  must  have 
borne  strongly  in  the  same  direction.  Beauty, 
of  expression  was  too  subtle  a  thing  for  the 
hands  of  the  Mosaicists  of  the  8th  and  9th  cen¬ 
turies. 

There  were  various  reasons  why  the  ideal  of 
bodily  beauty  should  gradually  be  lost,  up  to 
the  12th  century.  It  has  often  been  remarked 
that  as  the  ascetic  life  was  more  and  more 
severely  enforced  on  the  faithful,  and  the  suffer¬ 
ings  of  the  later  Roman  world  bore  more  and 
more  severely  on  the  whole  communitv,  the 
honour  of  the  body  of  man  was  lost  and  for¬ 
gotten.  In  the  earlier  Gothic  days,  strength  and 


876 


JESUS  CHRIST,  REPRESENTATIONS  OF 


manly  beauty  must  have  been  associated  in  the 
eyes  of  the  Monastic  Church  only  with  the 
ignorance  and  fierceness  of  barbarian  soldiers. 
The  Chi’istian  assembly  on  earth,  under  the 
hands  of  Alaric  and  (jenseric,  Attila  and  Alboin, 
was  utterly  hopeless  of  any  good  on  earth.  The 
eastern  end  of  a  liyzanline  or  Romanesque 
church  from  the  Gth  century,  begins  accordingly 
to  be  adorned  as  a  mvstical  representation  of 
heaven,  beyond  the  wihlerness  of  earth,  with  the 
})ortrait  figure  of  Christ  as  its  centre.  The 
Cord,  whom  all  seek  so  piteously,  shall  suddenly 
come  to  His  temple  ;  and  the  eyes  of  distressed 
congregations  are  allowed  a  vision  in  symbol  of 
His  presence  breaking  in  on  the  distresses  of 
later  days.  One  of  the  earliest  exam))les  of 
churches  thus  ornamented  is  that  of  SS.  Cosmas 
and  Damianus  at  Rome.  Here  the  figure  of  our 
Lord  coming  with  clouds  and  standing  on  the 
firmament,  is  grand  and  sutdime  in  the  highest 
degree,  and  is  perhaps  the  earliest  or  greatest 
instance  of  very  early  date,  in  which  passionate 
conception,  supported  bv  ])owerful  colour,  forces 
itself,  without  any  other  advantage,  into  the 
foremost  ranks  of  art-creation.  The  towering 
and  all  commanding  form  of  the  Lord  must  have 
seemed  to  ‘*1111  the  whole  temple;”  with  the 
symbolic  hand  of  the  First  Person  of  the  Trinity 
above  His  Head,  and  the  Holy  Dove  on  His 
right  hand.  The  mystic  Jordan,  or  River  of 
Death,  is  at  His  feet,  and  on  its  other  side, 
with  small  rocks  and  trees  to  indicate  the 
wilderness  of  this  world,  are  the  twelve  sheep 
of  His  flock,  with  the  houses  of  Jerusalem  and 
Bethlehem  ;  He,  Himself,  appearing  again  in  the 
centre  on  earth  as  the  Lamb  of  the  elder  dispen¬ 
sation.  The  same  idea  is  similarly  treated  in 
the  early  9th  century  decorations  of  St.  Prassede. 
The  form  of  the  Lord  is  tali  and  spare,  not 
without  grandeur,  but  markedly  ascetic :  the 
signs  of  the  other  Two  Persons  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  are  with  Him,  and  He  is  surrounded 
with  all  the  imagery  of  the  Apocalypse  ;  with 
this  grand  addition,  that  on  the  spandrils  of  the 
Arch  of  Triumj)h  before  Him,  the  twenty-four 
elders  are  inlaid  in  white  and  gold  mosaic,  in  the 
united  act  of  casting  their  crowns  before  Him.  He 
appears  below  as  the  Lamb;  and  the  same 
symbol  is  repeated  at  the  top  of  the  Arch  of 
Triumph,  laid  on  an  ornamented  altar-table — as 
the  Paschal  Lamb  that  was  slain.  The  Oft'ering 
of  the  Crowns  by  the  Eiders  was  also  represented 
on  the  triumphal  arch  of  S.  Paolo  fuori  le  Mura, 
and  the  author  of  an  interesting  article  on 
Portraits  of  Christ  (^Quarterly  Reo.  Oct.  1867) 
says  it  still  e.xists,  having  been  rescued  from  the 
flames  in  1823.  There  were,  or  still  exist, 
similar  figures,  in  the  Vatican  Basilica  of 
St.  Peter  ^Dc  Sacr.  Aedif.  xiii.  xiv.)  in  St. 
Constantia,  (ib.  xxxii.)  St.  Andrew  in  Bar¬ 
bara  (F.  M.  1.  Ixxvi.)  St.  Agatha  Major  in 
Ravenna  (I.  xlvi.)  and  St.  Michael  of  Ravenna 
(11.  xvii.)  &c.  The  greater  part  of  these  mosaics 
will  be  found  photographed  in  the  unique  collec¬ 
tion  of  Mr.  J.  H.  Parker,  which,  in  spite  of  all 
the  deficiencies  of  the  photographs,  gives  an  idea 
of  the  tessellated  work  -which  does  not  exist 
elsewhere.  To  historians,  or  students  of  Chris¬ 
tian  art,  their  importance  is,  that  by  the  presence 
of  the  sheep  of  Christ’s  church,  they  connect 
His  Glorified  Form  with  the  more  ancient  cata¬ 
comb  representations  of  the  Good  Shepherd. 


In  St.  Andrea  in  Barbara,  the  Lord  stands  on 
the  Rock  of  the  Four  Rivers,  and  He  is  thus 
repre.sented  very  frequently  on  the  sarcophagi. 
See  Aringlii,  voL  1.  p.  280  (Probus  and  Proba) 
and  pp.  293,  297.  On  that  of  Junius  Bassus 
(Aringhi  1.  277)  and  elsewhere.  He  is  sitting  above 
a  half-veiled  figure  rcjiresenting  the  firmament 
or  clouds  of  heaven  [Fikm.vmk.n  r]. 

The  figure  described  above  from  SS.  Cosm^as 
and  Damianus  posse.sses  awe  and  grandeur, 
and  can  di.spense  with  regularity  or  sweet¬ 
ness  of  feature.  But  the  very  earliest  ideal 
portraits  certainly  possessed  this;  and  it  is  one 
instance  of  the  cheerfulness  of  spirit  which  Mr. 
Lecky  notices  in  the  Primitive  Church,  that  the 
remnants  of  Graeco-Roman  skill  were  devoted  to 
such  works  as  Bosio’s  picture  (above)  must  have 
been;  or  the  other  mentioned  by  Boldetti  {Osser- 
vazioni  sopra  i  Cimiieri  pp.  21  and  64)  as  “  maes- 
tosa  figura  del  Salvatore,  come  quel  la  dipinta  nel 
cimitero  di  Ponziano.”  The  question  stands 
on  and  indicates  one  of  tho.se  great  human 
divergences  of  character  and  thought,  whicn 
determine  the  lives  and  conduct  of  whole 
generations :  and  it  will  be  remembered  how 
the  Mediaeval  German  or  hard-featured  ideal 
was  set  forth  against  the  Lionardesque ;  not 
altogether  without  the  countenance  of  Diircr 
and  Holbein.  On  this  subject,  the  last  chapter 
but  one  of  vol.  iv.  of  Ruskin’s  Modern  Painters^ 
is  worthy  of  grave  attention.  There  is  no 
doubt,  further,  that  Protestant  asceticism  often 
resembles  that  of  earlier  days,  in  a  certain 
suspicion  of  beauty  as  carnal  and  idolatrous. 

The  Gnostic  images  of  our  Lord  (see  St.  Ire- 
naeus  supra)  are  also  worthy  of  attention.  One 
was  set  up  by  Marcelliua  (Aug.  de  Hacrcs.  vii.), 
a  follower  of  Carpocrates,  and  adored  along  with 
others  of  St.  Paul,  Homer,  and  Pythagoras ;  and 
the  eclectic  Lararium  of  Alexander  Severus,  con¬ 
taining  the  statues  of  Christ,  of  Abraham,  Or¬ 
pheus,  and  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  is  mentioned  by 
Lampridius  (/n  Alex.  Severum  xxix.).  Raoul 
Rochette  (^Discours  sur  les  types  imit.  p.  21),  is 


referred  to  by  Martigny  for  a  “pierre  basilidi- 
enne,”  which  he  thinks  may  give  an  idea  of  the 
type  of  portraiture  which  was  in  vogue  among 
tLat  class  of  sectaries.  It  is  altogether  difterent, 
in  any  case,  from  that  of  the  Callixtine  and  othel* 
catacombs;  and  for  further  contrast  with  it,  he 
gives  a  woodcut  (reproduced  above)  of  that 
which  he  considers,  on  De  Rossi  s  authority, 
indisputably  the  most  ancient  of  all  representa¬ 
tions  of  our  Lord.  It  is  taken  from  a  portniit 


JESUS  CHRIST,  REPRESENTATIONS  OF  877 


on  ivory,  in  the  Christian  Museum  of  the 
Vatican. 

The  classic  typo  which  insists  on  personal 
beauty,  is  by  far  the  most  common  on  the 
sarcophagi,  and  all  early  monuments.  Christian 
artists  in  fact  seem,  as  was  natural,  to  have 
invested  their  ideal  with  comeliness  as  long  as 
thev  had  skill  to  do  so.  The  dress  (of  coiirse 
excepting  the  Good-Shepherd  rej)resentation.s),  is 
invariably  the  tunic  and  pallium,  sometimes 
ornamented  with  the  stripes  or  clavi  (Ciampini 
Yet.  Mon.  ii.  p.  60,  i.  18-t,  .xlvi.).  The  idea  of 
white  raiment  generally  seems  to  be  intended, 
though  gold,  dark  imperial  blue,  and  other 
colours  are  used  in  the  mosaics.  The  white  and 
glistening  raiment  of  the  Transhgiiratiou  will 
account  for  this  (Ciampini  ^’et.  Mon.  ii.  tab.  xvi. 
i.  tab.  Ixxvii.).  Our  Lord  is  generally  shod  witli 
sandals,  if  at  all.  The  cothurnus  is  given 
apparently  in  Aringhi,  vol.  i.  lib.  ii.  c.  x.  pp.  332, 
333,  and  something  resembling  it  is  worn  by  the 
Good  Shepherd  (Aringhi,  vol.  ii.  pp.  63,  67,  75, 
79,  &c.) 

Portraits  of  our  Lord  are  generally  youthful, 
as  symbolizing  His  eternal  nature,  even  (Aringhi, 
vol.  ii.  p.  213)  when  He  instructs  the  apostles 
(Bottari,  cxL).  In  the  dispute  with  the  doctors 
His  youth  is  of  course  insisted  on,  but  He  is  not 
made  small  of  stature,  whereas  in  pictures  of 
the  mii’acles,  as  has  been  frequently  i-emarked, 
His  figui’e  greatly  exceeds  His  human  companions 
in  height.  This  is  the  case  also  (.Aringhi,  i.  pp.  307, 
313  and /jassj/n),  where  any  dead  persons  are  car¬ 
ved  on  their  tomb  as  presented  before  him,  as  in 
many  ‘  bisomatous  ’  sarcophagi  of  husband  and 
wife.  A  beautiful  illustration  of  this  tradi¬ 
tion  of  early  Christian  work  in  later  times  will  be 
found  in  Ruskin’s  atones  of  J'enice,  vol.  iii.  p.  78, 
where  this  distinction  is  used  by  the  artist,  with 
the  detail  of  the  human  figures  partly  hiding 
themselves  in  the  folds  of  the  robes  of  attendant 
angels,  who  are  inferior  in  size  to  the  divine 
figure,  though  of  superhuman  stature.  The  Lord 
sometimes  stands  or  sits  on  a  sphere  (Ciampini, 
Vet.  Mon.  i.  270,  tab.  vii.),  probably  to  give  the 
idea  of  all  things  being  put  under  his  feet.  He 
is  accompanied  by  attesting  angels,  or  His  form 
is  represented,  full  length  or  half-size,  on  a 
medallion  supported  by  angels,  as  in  the  diptych 
of  Rambona,  and  very  frequently  in  the 
mosaics  of  Rome  and  Ravenna.  These  medallions 
are  sometimes  called  imagines  clipeatae,  the 
use  of  them  bein^  probably  derived  from  portrait- 
images  on  shields  of  ancient  times.  The  cross 
sometimes  represents  our  Lord  thus  borne.  This 
seems  to  point  to  the  Ascension,  and  to  his  glory 
as  Lord  of  Hosts  or  of  Sabaoth.  It  is  not  our 
work  to  follow  the  idea  into  its  various  develope- 
ments  in  the  angelic  choirs  of  the  middle  ages, 
for  which  we  may  refer  to  Lord  Lindsay,  and 
to  Mrs.  Jameson’s  Sacred  and  Le(]endar\j  Art. 
But  a  curious  example  of  transition  from  the 
circular  or  oval  medallion  into  the  Gothic  quatre- 
foil,  containing  the  figure  of  our  Lord,  and  sup¬ 
ported  by  angels,  still  remains  in  the  College- 
Hall  or  Refectory  at  Worcester,  and  is  certainly 
derived  from  classic  or  Byzantine  antiquity. 

Our  Lord  frequently  bears  a  rod  or  wand, 
especiallv  in  representations  of  the  miracle.s, 
apparently  as  an  emblem  of  his  power  over 
nature,  or  as  the  leader  of  His  people  in  the 
wilderness,  v/ith  a  reference  to  Moses.  The  roll 


or  volume  very  often  appears  in  His  hand,  as 
committed  to  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  or  other 
apostles,  or  when  he  instructs  the  disciples. 
The  full-grown  rather  than  the  youthful  type 
appears  in  such  exam])les,  as  in  Bottari,  clxxvi. 
See  woodcut  reproduced  below. 

Frequent  repi'eseutations  of  the  Second  Person 
of  the  Trinity  as  )>re.sent  at  some  transaction 
narrated  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  as  the  anti¬ 
type  of  some  typical  event  or  i)er.son.  IMartigny 
mentions  a  gla.ss  vessel  in  Garrucci  ( Vetri, 
xiii.  13),  in  which  He  is  with  Daniel,  who  is 
giving  the  cakes  to  the  dragon.  A  more  certain 
and  satisfactory  example  is  in  His  aj)pearance 
with  the  three  holy  children  in  the  fuiuace, 
Bottari,  xxii.  xli.  See  also  Gori  {Mies,  dipt  jilt. 
t.  iii.  tab.  8)  where  He  stretches  the  ci’oss  out 
over  the  flames.  The  representation  of  tlie 
holy  Three  appearing  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xviii.  2), 
in  S.  Vitale  at  Ravenna  is  well-konwn,  and 
Ciampini’s  plate  is  now  supplemented  or  super- 


The  Lonl,  with  book.  (Martigny.) 


sedcd  by  the  photographs  of  hlr.  Parker  and 
others.  [Trinity']. 

We  may  conclude  Yvith  the  mnemonic  lines  of 
St.  Damasus((7flrm.  vi.Pafrofo  /.  Migne,  t.  xiii.  col. 
378),  of  the  symbolic  or  other  names  and  titles 
applied  to  our  Lord  up  to  his  days. 

“  Spes,  Via,  Vita,  Salus,  Patio,  Sapientia,  Lumen, 
Judex,  Porta,  Gigas,  Hex,  Gemma,  Propheta,  Sacerdos, 
Messias,  Zebaof,  Rabbi,  Sponsus,  Mediator, 

Virga,  Columna,  Manus,  I’etra,  Filius  Kmmanuelque, 
Vinea,  Pastor,  Ovis,  Pax,  Radix,  Vitis,  Oliva, 

Fons,  Paries,  Agnus,  Vitulus,  Leo,  Propitiator, 
Verbum,  Homo,  Hete,  Lapis,  Domus,  omnia  A-ristus 
lesus. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

II.  Besides  the  representations  of  the  Lord 
which  strictly  belong  to  art,  there  are  others 
which  have  an  archaeological  rather  than  an 
artistic  interest.  We  have  ancient  accorints 
(1)  of  portraits  of  the  Lord  produced  in  the  or¬ 
dinary  manner  ;  and  (2)  of  jiortraits  of  the  Lord 
produced  miraculously.  Some  of  both  kinds  are 
even  believed  .still  to  exist. 

(1)  Ordinary  Eepresentathns.  —  Eusebius 

(Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  18)  tells  us  that  at  Caesarea 
j  Philippi  [Paneas]  there  existed  a  group  in  bronze 


878 


JESUS  CHRIST,  REPRESENTATIONS  OF 


representing  a  woman  kneeling  before  a  dignified 
man,  who  stretched  out  his  hand  benignantly 
towards  her.  This  group  Eusebius  says  that  lie 
had  himself  seen.  He  adds,  that  it  was  Ions: 
unknown  whom  this  statue  represented  ;  but  as 
it  was  observed  that  a  plant  of  healing  virtues 
grew  at  its  foot,  care  was  taken  at  last  to 
cleanse  it,  so  as  to  make  the  inscription  legilile; 
then  it  was  discovered  that  the  woman  cured 
of  the  issue  of  blood,  who  lived  at  Paneas, 
had  erected  the  statue  in  honour  of  the  Saviour. 
On  this  discovery  it  was  at  once  removed  into 
the  Diaconicum  or  Sacristy  of  the  church.  That 
such  a  statue  existed  seems  past  all  doubt;  as  to 
its  original  intention,  the  opinion  of  most  modern 
archaeologists  is,  that  it  had  been  erected  in 
honour  of  Hadrian,  or  some  other  who  had  bene- 
fitted  the  province,  which  was  represented  as  a 
kneeling  woman  at  the  feet  of  her  benefactor. 
Similar  representations  are  frequently  found  on 
coins,  especially  of  the  time  of  Hadrian.  Sup¬ 
posing  some  such  expression  as  “  o-oiT^pi,”  or 
“  (TaiTTjpt  TOO  K6(r/jLov” — titles  at  that  time  very 
frequently  given  to  emperors — to  have  been 
found  on  the  inscription,  while  the  name  had 
become  illegible,  the  statue  would  nfiturally  be 
referred  by  the  Christians  of  the  fourth  century 
to  the  true  “  Saviour  of  the  World  ”  (Hefele, 
Bcitriige,  ii.  257).  The  emperor  Julian,  angry 
at  the  respect  paid  to  this  statue,  caused  it  to  be 
thrown  down  and  his  own  substituted.  This  is 
related  by  Sozomen  (//.  E.  v.  21),  who  adds, 
that  the  statue  of  Julian  was  soon  afterwards 
struck  by  lightning  and  partly  desti’oyed,  while 
some  fragments  of  the  statue  of  Christ,  which 
the  heathens  had  dragged  about  the  street,  were 
collected  by  the  Christians  and  restored  to  the 
church.  Philostorgius  {Hist.  Eccl.  vii.  3)  gives 
nearly  the  same  account,  except  that  he  says 
Dothihg  of  any  edict  of  Julian,  but  attributes  the 
whole  transaction  to  the  pagan  inhabitants  of 
Paneas,  and  that  he  gives  the  more  exact  detail, 
that  the  head  of  the  statue  was  preserved.  This 
however  was  again  lost  at  a  later  period.  Aste- 
rius  of  Amasea  {Cone.  Nic.  //.,  Labbe,  vii.  210) 
gives  again  a  diflerent  account,  attributing  the 
destruction  of  the  statue  to  Maximin,  who  (he 
says)  was  nevertheless  unable  to  destroy  the 
fame  of  the  miracle  related  in  the  Gospel. 

Eusebius  also  says  (//.  E.  vii.  18)  that  he  had 
discovered  that,  besides  this  statue,  there  existed 
coloured  pictures  of  Christ  (et/eJms  hia  XP^~ 
fidruu  iv  ypa(pa7s),  as  well  as  of  the  apostles 
Paul  and  Peter. 

In  the  time  of  the  Iconoclastic  controversy, 
pope  Gregory  H.  asserted  in  his  letter  to  the 
emperor  Leo  HI.,  about  A.D.  727,  that  portraits 
of  Christ,  of  St.  James  the  Lord’s  brother,  of 
St.  Stephen,  and  of  other  martyrs,  had  been 
made  in  their  life-time  (Labbe,  vii.  12).  And  it 
was  probably  about  this  time  that  the  legend 
arose  that  St.  Luke  had  painted  portraits  of 
Christ,  of  His  Mother,  and  of  SS.  Peter  and 
Paul.  This  stoiy  is  found  in  Simeon  Meta- 
phrastes,  in  the  Menologium  of  the  emperor 
Basil,  and  in  the  histoiy  of  Nicephorus  Callisti 
(ii.  43).  At  a  yet  earlier  date  (about  a.d.  518) 
Theodorus  Lector  (fragment  in  Valesius,  p.  551, 
ed.  Mentz)  sj)oke  of  a  portrait  of  St.  Mary 
painted  by  St.  Luke,  which  was  sent  by  Eudocia 
to  Pulcheria,  but  said  nothing  of  any  picture 
of  Christ.  Such  portraits  of  the  Virgin  are  said 


even  still  to  be  in  existence:  one  is  shown,  for 
instance,  in  the  church  of  S.  Maria  Maggiorc 
at  Rome. 

Nicodemus  is  sometimes  described  as  a  wood- 
carver,  and  an  image  of  Chri.'^t  of  cedar-wmod 
from  his  hand  is  said  by  Aringhi  {h’oina  Subte.-r. 
lib.  iv.  c.  47)  to  have  existed  at  Lucca.  Some 
have  ventured  to  identify  this  with  a  wonder¬ 
working  image  at  Berytus,  mentioned  in  the 
pseudo-Athanasian  document  read  before  the 
.second  council  of  Nicaea,  a.d.  786  (Labbe  vii 
217).  Leo  Diaconus,  in  the  tenth  centurv,  save 
that  his  contemporary,  the  Byzantine  emperoi 
Nicephoi-us,  placed  this  statue  in  the  church  of 
the  Saviour  at  Constantinople  ;  but  neither  he 
nor  the  pseudo-Athanasius  .says  anything  of  its 
having  been  the  work  of  Nicodemus.  The  legend 
attached  to  the  image  of  Lucca  is  of  course 
destitute  of  every  shadow  of  probability. 

Among  the  likenesses  of  the  Lord  reported 
once  to  have  existed,  we  must  reckon  one  said  to 
have  been  the  work  of  the  Virgin  herself, 
described  in  Adamnan’s  account  of  ArculCs 
visit  to  the  holy  places  in  the  seventh  century 
{De  Locis  Sanctis,  i.  10;  in  Mabillon’s  Acta  SS. 
Ben.  saec.  iii.  pt.  2,  p.  460).  Among  the  won¬ 
ders  of  Jerusalem  he  mentions  a  napkin,  partly 
red  and  partly  green,  said  to  have  been  woven 
by  the  Virgin  Mary  herself,  containing  pictures 
of  the  twelve  apostles  and  of  the  Lord  Himself. 

(2)  Images  not  made  vitk  hands. — Another 
class  of  portraits  of  Christ  are  the  (IkSu^s 
a.x^ipoiroir\Toi,  images  of  miraculous  origin,  -of 
which  the  most  famous  are  (a)  the  Abgarus 
portrait,  (6)  the  Veronica. 

(a)  The  story  of  a  correspondence  between  the 
Lord  and  Abgarus  of  Edessa  is  found  as  earlv  as 
the  time  of  Eusebius  {H.  E.  i.  13).  Evagrius, 
in  the  sixth  century"  {H.  E.  iv.  27)  speaks  also 
of  a  divinely-fashioned  likeness  {Cikcov  d^orev- 
KTos)  which  Christ  sent  to  Abgarus  on  his  de¬ 
siring  to  see  him,  and  which  saved  Edessa  when 
it  was  besieged  bv  Cho.sroes  in  the  vear  540. 

This  story  is  alluded  to  by  Gregory  II.  in 
his  letter  to  Leo  before  referred  to,  when  the 
famous  picture  had  already  become  an  object  of 
pilgrimage.  “  Send  ” — he  adjures  the  iconoclastic 
emperor — “  to  that  image  not  made  with  hands, 
and  see;  to  it  flock  all  the  peoples  of  the  East, 
and  pray ;  and  many  such  there  are  made  with 
hands.”  His  contemporary,  John  of  Damascus 
{De  Fide  Orth'^d.  iv.  16)  gives  more  detail.  A 
story  was  current,  he  says,  that  Abgarus,  king 
of  Edessa,  sent  a  painter  to  take  a  portrait  of 
the  Lord ;  and  that  when  he  was  unable  to  per¬ 
form  his  task  in  consequence  of  the  brightness  of 
His  countenance,  the  Lord  himself  put  his  outer 
garment  {lixanov)  to  His  own  face  and  impressed 
upon  it  a  perfect  likeness  {inreiKoviaua)  of  His 
countenance,  which  He  sent  to  Abgarus.  Leo 
Diaconus  {Hist.  iv.  10,  in  Niebuhr’s  Scriptt. 
Byzant.  xi.  70)  adds  to  this  a  wonderful  story  of 
a  tile  having  received  the  imjire-ssion  from  this 
robe.  The  tile  is  also  alluded  to  by  Zonaras 
{Annal.  xvi.  25).  The  image  on  the  cloth  was 
brought  to  Constantinople  in  the  reign  of  Con¬ 
stantine  Porphyrogennetes,  A.D.  944 ;  its  transla¬ 
tion  is  celebrated  by  the  Byzantine  church  on 
August  16,  which  is  a  great  festival.  What 


»  Hefele  states  that  this  is  mentioned  at  a  somewhat 
earlier  date  by  Moses  of  Chorene. 


JESUS  CHE  1ST,  EEPEESENTATIOXS  OF 


became  of  the  picture  when  that  city  was  taken 
by  the  Turks  is  not  recorded,  but  pictures  claim¬ 
ing  to  be  this  miraculous  portrait  are  found  in 
Italy.  The  Genoese  lay  claim  to  the  possession 
of  it,  and  say  that  it  was  brought  to  their  city 
by  Leonardo  de  Montalto,  who  presented  it  to 
the  Armenian  church  of  St.  Bartholomew,  where 
it  is  still  exhibited  once  a  year.  St.  Sylvester’s 
at  Rome  also  claims  to  possess  the  original 
Abgarus-picture.  This  is  (according  to  Hefele) 
of  the  Byzantine  tyi)e,  and  represents  the  coun¬ 
tenance  of  the  Lord  in  the  bloom  of  youthful 
power  and  beauty,  with  high  and  open  forehead, 
clear  eyes,  long  and  straight  nose,  parted  hair, 
and  a  thick,  auburn,  bifurcated  beard.  Dr. 
Gliickselig  contends  that  the  Edessa  portrait 
furnished  the  type  for  the  pictures  of  Christ  in 
mosaics  from  the  fourth  century  onward  ;  before 
that  time  (he  believes)  no  attempt  at  portraiture 
of  the  Lord  was  made,  the  early  representations 
in  the  catacombs  being  mere  symbols  or  adapta¬ 
tions  of  pagan  types. 

(b)  The  opposite  of  the  calm  and  beautiful 
face  represented  in  the  Abgarus-portrait  is  the 
“  Veronica  ”  ))icturc  of  the  sutfering  Saviour 
crowned  with  thorns.  The  legend  attached  to 
this  picture  is,  that  as  the  Lord  was  bending 
under  the  cross  on  his  way  to  Golgotha,  a  pious 
woman,  Veronica,  offered  Him  her  veil,  or  a 
napkin,  to  dry  the  sweat  on  His  tace ;  an  image 
of  the  face  remained  miraculously  impressed  on 
the  cloth.  In  the  Marti/rologi/  of  Usuard,  for 
instance,  (eel.  Greven.)  we  have  under  March  25, 
“  Veronicae  sanctae  rnatronae  cui  Dominus 
imaginem  faciei  suae  sudario  iinpressam  reliquit.” 
Gervase  of  Tilbury  (Otia  Imperil dkt,  c.  25,  in 
Leibnitz’s  Scriptt.  Bruns,  i.  968),  wlio  wrote  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  speaking  of  the  “  figura 
Domini  quae  Veronica  dicitur,”  informs  us  that 
some  say  that  it  was  brought  to  Rome  by  an 
unknown  person,  Veronica  ;  but  the  account 
given  by  the  most  ancient  writers  is  (he  pro¬ 
ceeds)  that  the  woman  who  brought  it  was 
Martha,  the  sister  of  Lazarus.  From  the  tradition 
of  the  elders  we  learn  that  she  had  a  likeness  of 
the  Lord’s  countenance  painted  on  panel,  which 
Volusianus,  a  friend  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  who  was 
sent  by  the  emperor  to  Jerusalem  to  report  on 
the  deeds  and  miracles  of  Christ,  caused  to  be 
taken  away  from  her,  that  by  means  of  it  Tibe¬ 
rius  might  be  healed  of  his  disease.  Martha, 
however,  it  is  said,  followed  the. “  countenance  of 
her  guest,”  came  to  Rome,  and  at  the  very  first 
sight  healed  Tiberius.  Whence  it  came  to  pass 
(continues  the  veracious  chronicler)  that  Chris¬ 
tianity  was  known  in  Rome  before  the  arrival  of 
the  apostles,  and  that  Tiberius,  instead  of  the 
mildest  of  sheep,  became  the  fiercest  of  wolves, 
raging  against  the  Senate  because  they  refused  to 
recognise  Christ  according  to  his  wish  — certainly 
a  remarkable  way  of  accounting  for  the  aberra¬ 
tions  of  Tiberius’s  later  years. 

The  Veronica-portrait  is  said  to  have  been 
brought  to  Rome  as  early  as  the  year  700;  in 
the  year  1011  an  altar  was  dedicated  in  its 
honour,  and  even  to  this  day  it  is  one  of  the 
relics  exhibited  in  St.  Peter’s,  though  only  on 
extraordinary  occasions.  It  was  exhibited  on  the 
8th  December,  1854,  when  Rome  was  crowded 
with  bishops  assembled  to  be  present  at  the  pro¬ 
mulgation  of  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception.  On  that  occasion  it  was  .seen  by  M. 


879 

Barbier  de  Montault,  who  describes  it  as  fol¬ 
lows  (^Quarterly  Bev.  No.  246,  ]).  491)  : — 

“The  Holy  Face  is  enclosed  in  a  frame  of 
silver,  partially  gilt,  and  square,  of  a  severe 
character,  and  little  adorned.  The  simplicity  of 
the  bordering  gives  prominence  to  the  interior  of 
the  picture,  which  is  protected  by  a  thin  plate 
of  crystal.  Unfortunately,  by  one  of  those  cus¬ 
toms  so  common  in  Italy,  a  sheet  of  metal  covers 
the  field,  and  only  leaves  apj)arent  the  figure 
indicating  its  outline.  By  this  outline  one  is  led 
to  conjecture  flowing  hair  reaching  to  the 
shoulders,  and  a  short  beard,  bifurcated  and 
small.  The  other  features  are  so  vaguely  indi¬ 
cated,  or  so  completely  etl’aced,  that  it  requires 
the  liveliest  imagination  in  the  world  to  perceive 
traces  of  eyes  or  nose.  In  short,  one  does  not 
see  the  material  of  the  substanco  because  of  the 
useless  intervention  of  a  metal  ])late,  and  the 
place  of  the  impression  exhibits  only  a  blackish 
surface,  not  giving  any  evidence  of  human 
features.” 

For  many  years  the  explanation  of  the  name 
Veronica  given  by  Mabillon  and  Papebroch  was 
generally  adopted;  that  “Veronica”  is  simjily 
an  anagi'am  of  “  vera  icon,”  a  true  image.  Me¬ 
diaeval  writers  do  in  fact  use  the  word  Veronica 
rather  to  designate  the  picture  itself  than  as  the 
name  of  a  woman.  Thus  Gervase  of  Tilbury,  as 
we  have  .seen,  speaks  of  “  figura  Domini  quae 
veronica  dicitur;”  and  he  afterwards  uses  the 
expression,  “£st  ergo  veronica  pictura  Domini 
vera.”  But  more  recently  W.  Grimm  has 
maintained  a  dill'erent  view.  He  notices  the 
fact,  that  the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood  who 
was  healed,  is  said  in  the  gospel  of  Nicodemus 
(c.  7),  probably  of  the  fifth  century,  and  by 
John  Malalas,  a  Byzantine  historian  of  the  sixth 
(^Hist.  Chron.,  p.  305,  ed.  Oxon.  1691),  to  have 
been  named  Berenice  (Bepovi/c??) ;  and  supposes 
that  the  legend  of  the  A'eil  or  napkin  in  question 
arose  from  some  confusion  of  the  Paneas  statue 
with  the  Abgarus-portrait ;  the  Veronica-legend 
is,  he  believes,  no  more  than  a  Latin  rival-story 
or  metamorphosis  of  the  Greek  Abgarus-legend, 
with  the  Veronica  introduced  from  another 
source.  M.  Maury  (^Croyances  et  Legendes) 
connects  the  name  Bepoy'iKrj  with  the  Gnostic 
feminine  symbol  fj  Tlpout'iicos,  but  this  conjecture 
seems  rather  ingenious  than  sound. 

(3)  In  the  eighth  century  the  iconoclastic 
party,  seeing  the  great  variety  of  pictures  of 
Christ,  very  naturally  asked  which  they  were  to 
consider  the  true  portrait ;  were  they  to  adopt 
the  Roman  type,  or  the  Indian,  or  the  Greek,  or 
the  Egyptian?  To  this  Photius  64)  replies, 

that  the  difi'ercnce  between  these  representations 
is  much  the  same  as  the  ditference  between  the 
gospels  circulating  in  the  several  countries, 
which  are  written  in  one  character  by  the 
Romans,  in  another  by  the  Indians,  in  another 
by  the  Hebrews,  in  another  by  the  Ethiopians, 
and  which  dilfer,  not  only  in  the  forms  of  letters, 
but  in  the  pronunciation  and  significance  of  the 
words.  If  Photius’s  illustration  is  to  be  taken 
exactly,  it  seems  to  imply  that  all  the  pictures 
of  which  he  knew  anything  re])re.seuted  the  same 
face,  and  were  only  made  to  (iill'er  by  the  pecu¬ 
liarities,  whether  individual  or  national,  of  the 
painter ;  and  it  is  probable  enough  that  the 
Byzantine  type  was  so  far  determined  in  his 
time,  that  all  the  pictures  which  he  had 


880  JEWS.  AS  REPRESENTED 


seen  might  have  passed  foi*  copies,  of  various 
degrees  of  merit,  of  one  original. 

( t)  Tlie  descrij)tions  of  tiie  Loi-d  given  by  .John 
of  Damascus  in  the  eighth  century,  and  by  the 
supposed  Dublius  Leutulus  at  a  later  j)eriod,  no 
doubt  had  considerable  influence  on  the  repre¬ 
sentations  of  Christ.  The  former  (Epist.  ad 
Theoph.  c.  b),  referring  to  the  testimony  of  still 
earlier  writers,  describes  the  Lord  as  having 
been  somewhat  bent  even  in  youth,  with  meeting 
eyebrows,  beautiful  eyes,  large  nose,  curling 
hair,  dark  beard  and  tint  the  colour  of  wheat, 
like  His  mother.  The  latter  is  sujiposei  to 
be  written  to  the  Senate  of  Rome  by  one  Publius 
Lentulus,  a  friend  of  Pontius  Pilate.  The  age  of 
this  document  is  unknown  (see  Gabler,  dc 
audsPTta  Epistolae  Pub.  Lentu’i  ad  Senattm ; 
Jena,  1819),  but  it  does  not  seem  to  be  quoted  in 
its  present  form  by  any  earlier  writer  than 
Anselm  of  Canterbury  (f  1109).  Another  de¬ 
scription  of  the  Lord’s  person  is  given  by  Nice- 
phorus  Callisti  (//.  E.  i.  40),  but  this,  as  it  is  of 
the  fourteenth  century  and  does  not  claim  to 
rest  on  earlier  authorities,  may  be  passed  over. 

Literature. — Besides  those  portions  of  works 
on  Christian  Art  which  relate  to  representations 
of  the  Lord,  as  Molanus,  De  sotcris  Picturis  et 
hwajinibus  ;  Alt,  Heiivjenbilder ;  Miinter,  Sinn- 
b  'dder  und  liuntsvorstellurKjen ;  Piper,  Jllytho- 
lojie  und  Symbol ik  der  Chrk-tl.  liunst ;  v.  Wessen- 
berg,  Die  Chri  tlichen  PtUder ;  J.  G.  Muller, 
Pidliche  DarstelLmyen  in  Sanctu  trium  der  Car. 
Kirchen  vom  v.-xiv.  Jahrhdt ;  Lord  Lindsay, 
Sketches  of  Christian  Art ;  St.  John  Tyrwhitt, 
Art  Teaching  of  the  I^rimitive  Charch ;  we  may 
mention  the  following  special  works: — 

1.  On  Pepresentations  of  the  iMrd  in  general. 
P.  FI  Jablonsky,  Disscrtatio  de  Origine  Imagmum 
Christi  in  Ecclesid,  in  Opera,  iii.  377  ff.  ed.  te 
Water;  J.  Yiexske,  Exercitatt.  Hid.de  Imaginibus 
Jesu  Christi;  L.  Gluckselig,  Christusarchdologie ; 
Peignot,  Pecherches  snr  la  Personne  de  Jesm- 
’Christ ;  Pascal,  Pecherches  edifiantes  ct  curicuses 
snr  la  Personne  de  N.  S.  Jesus  Christ ;  Mrs.  Jameson 
and  Ladv  Eastlake,  The  History  of  our  Lord  as 
e.ccmplifed  in  Works  of  Art:  T.  Heaphy,  Exa¬ 
mination  into  the  Antiquity  of  the  Likenesses  of 
our  Plessed  Lxjrd,  in  Art  Journal,  New  Ser.,  vol. 
vii.  (1861)  ;  Ilefele,  Christusbilder,  in  Beitrdge  zur 
Kirchengesch.  Archdol.  u.  s.  w.  (Tiibingen,  1864); 
Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.  s.  v.  ‘  J^us 
Christ ;’  [Baring-Gould],  Portraits  of  Christ,  in 
Qu  irterly  Pevieiv,  No.  246  (Oct.  1867),  p.  490  ff. 

2.  On  the  Linages  not  made  with  h  inds.  Gretser, 
Syntagma  de  Lmagg.  non  manu  factis,  etc.,  in 
Opera,  vol.  xv.,  Ratisbon,  1734  ff. ;  Beausobre, 
Des  Images  de  Main  Divine,  in  Biblioth.  Ger- 
vianique,  xviii.  10 ;  W.  Grimm,  Die  Sage  vom 
Ursprung  der  Christusbilder. 

3.  On  the  Paneas-Statue.  Th.  Hasaei  Dissertt. 
LI.  de  Monumento  L^aneadensi,  Bremen,  1726; 
also  in  his  Sylloge  Dissertt.,  pt.  2,  p.  314.  [C.J 

JEWS  AS  REPRESENTED  ON  CHRIS¬ 
TIAN  MONUMENTS.  The  Jews  of  our 
Lord’s  time  appear  in  various  sculptures  of 
His  life  and  works  (Bottari,  tav.  Ixxxv.  et 
passim ;  Millin,  Midi  de  la  France,  pl.  Ixiv. 
ct  passim).  They  are  generally  distinguished, 
es])ecially  in  all  subjects  connected  with  the 
Wilderness,  by  wearing  a  flat  cap  or  beretta, 
as  in  the  above  plates  from  sarcophagi.  The  Old 


JEWS,  TREAT.MENT  OF 

Testament  mosaics  of  Sta.  Maria  Maggiore  are 
without  the  limits  of  our  work,  and  Roman  dress 
and  armour  prevail  in  them.  'I'he  sujtposed  arrest 
of  St.  Peter  contains  some  of  these  figures,  but 
though  Aringhi,  Bottari,  and  Buonarroti  are 
against  him,  Martigny  is  still  inclined  to  think 
I  the  group  in  question  intended  to  i-epresent  Moses 
attacked  by  the  rebellious  people  in  the  Wilder¬ 
ness,  when  (Exodus  xxiv.  &c.)  they  were  ready 
to  stone  him.  This  subject  constantly  accom¬ 
panies  that  of  the  Rock  in  Horeb,  where  their 
complaints  w'ere  .silenced  by  miracle.  Mo-ses  or 
St.  Peter  (whichever  figure  may  be  intended), 
always  has  his  head  uncovered  in  it,  and  the 
other  Hebrews  wear  the  flat  head  covering,  short 
tunics,  cloaks  or  saga  fastened  with  fibuiae,  and 
sandals  (Exo  l.  xii.  11).  The  cap  may  have  been 
a  common  or  distinctive  part  of  Jewish  dress. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

JEWS,  TREATMENT  OF.  The  fortunes 
of  the  Jew^s  after  the  rise  of  Christianity  are 
matters  of  general  history.  An  account  of  their 
relation  towards  the  expanding  power  of  the 
church  will  be  found  in  Milman’s  LList.  of  .Lews 
(iii.  167-203).  This  article  only  gives  a  brief 
summary  of  the  eccle.siastical  enactments  against 
connivance  with  Jewish  practices,  or  against 
the  Jews  themselves.  To  desert  Christianity 
for  Judaism  was  Apostasv  ;  to  confound  toge¬ 
ther  the  rites  or  doctrines  of  the  two  religions 
was  Heresv  ;  see  Cod.  Thcod.  XVI.  v.  43,  44; 
ibid.  XVI.  viii.  de  Judaeis  Coeli  olis  et  Samari- 
tanis.  But  in  addition  to  these  graver  of¬ 
fences,  Christians  were  ordered  to  hold  them¬ 
selves  separate  from  various  Jewish  customs. 
Thus  resting  on  the  Sabbath  (Saturday)  was 
denounced  fCunc.  L.aod.  c.  29)  on  the  ground  of 
its  being  a  relic  of  Judaism  ;  it  was  also  forbid¬ 
den  {ibid.  cc.  37,  38)  to  receive  festival  presents, 
or  unleavened  bread,  from  the  Jews,  or  to  share 
in  their  feasts.  A  similar  injunction  against 
participating  in  Jewish  festivals  or  fasts  appears 
in  the  Apostolic  Canons  (cc.  69,  70)  under  pain  of 
excommunication,  and  also  in  the  Trullan 
council  (c.  11).  The  council  of  Eliberis,  a.d. 
305,  initiating  the  violent  hostility  against  the 
Jew's  which  prevailed  in  Spain  up  to  and 
through  the  time  of  the  Inquisition,  forbade  (c. 
49)  any  landlord  to  cal'  upon  a  Jew  to  bless  his 
crops ;  and  in  the  next  canon  prohibited  a 
Christian  from  eating  with  a  Jew.  This  prohi¬ 
bition  against  sharing  food  with  a  Jew’,  because  he 
regarded  certain  meats  <as  unclean,  is  enacted  in 
many  subsequent  Gallic  councils  {Cone.  Tenet. 
c.  12  ,  Cone.  Agath.  c.  40;  Cone.  Lgxxon.  c.  15, 
3  Cone.  Aurel.  c.  13  ;  1  Cone.  Matiscon.  c.  15). 
Intermarriage  with  Jews  was  guarded  against  as 
strictly  as  with  heathen  (1  Cone.  Arvern.  c.  6  ; 
3  Cone.  Aurel.  c.  13;  3  Cone.  Tolet.  c.  14;  4 
Cone.  Tolet.  c.  63).  The  dangers  which  were 
supposed  to  lurk  in  association  with  the  Jews 
are  exemplified  at  length  in  Chrysostom’s  6 
Homilies  in  Judacos,  also  in  Horn.  23  ad  eos  qni 
primo  Pasch.  jejunant,  and  Horn.  24  ad  eos  qui 
Judaeorum  jejuniiun  jejunant  {iom.  6  Ed.  Savil.). 
One  of  the  matters  regarded  with  special  jealousy 
by  the  church  w’as  the  right  of  the  Jews  to  hold 
Christian  slaves.  By  a  law’  of  Constantine 
(Euseb.  Vit.  Const,  iv.  27),  the  right  had  been 
considerably  resti’icted ;  but  the  law  appeal’s  to 
have  fallen  into  disuse.  The  3rvJ  council  of 


JOACHIM 


Orleans,  A.D.  538  (c.  13)  recognises  Christian 
servitude,  but  decrees  that  if  a  Christian  slave 
takes  sanctuary  because  his  Jewish  master 
interferes  witli  his  religion,  the  slave  is  not  to  be 
surrendered,  but  redeemed  at  a  fair  valuation. 
This  decree  was  repeated  and  enlarged  by  subse¬ 
quent  councils  (4  Conn.  Anrel.  c.  30,  31  ;  1  Cone. 
Matiscon.  c.  15).  In  Spain  the  4th  council  of 
Toledo,  A.D.  633  (c.  66)  sanctioned  the  royal 
decree  which  declared  it  altogether  unlawful  for 
a  Jew  to  hold  a  Christian  in  bondage,  but  the 
desire  of  gain  was  too  strong  for  both  church 
and  state,  for  a  little  later  the  10th  council, 
A.D.  656,  complains  that  even  the  clergy  sold 
Christian  captives  to  the  Jews.  The  treatment 
of  the  Jews  in  Spain  occupies  no  inconsiderable 
portion  of  the  numerous  canons  of  the  synods 
held  in  Toledo  in  the  7th  century.  Under  the 
reign  of  Recared,  the  first  Gothic  king,  and 
again  under  Sisebut,  the  Jews  had  been  subjected 
to  fierce  persecution.  The  4th  council  of  Toledo, 
A.D.  633,  over  which  Isidore  of  Seville  presided, 
gave  them  some  relief,  but  this  leniency  was 
partial  and  shortlived.  In  the  57th  canon  of 
that  council  it  was  enacted  that  no  Jew  should 
be  converted  by  violence  ;  but  the  later  canons 
contain  more  stringent  regulations  ;  children  of 
Jews,  who  have  been  baptised,  are  to  be  separated 
from  their  parents  and  placed  in  monasteries  or 
in  God-fearing  families  (c.  60) ;  the  testimony  of 
Jews  is  to  be  rejected  (c.  64),  because  those  who 
are  unfaithful  to  God  cannot  be  faithful  to  man; 
and  (c.  65),  they  are  to  be  excluded  from  all 
public  offices.  A  few  years  later  all  trace  of 
toleration  has  disappeared,  owing  perhaps  to  the 
absence  of  Isidore,  who  had  died  in  the  interval, 
and  the  civil  law  which  banished  Jews  from  the 
kingdom,  was  ratified  by  the  church  (6  Cone. 
Tolet.  c.  3 ;  8  Cune.  Tolet.  c.  12),  The  12th 
council,  A.D.  681,  in  response  to  an  exhortation 
from  the  king  to  extirpate  the  pest  of  the  Jews, 
proscribed  (c.  9)  in  detail  each  distinctive  Jewish 
practice.  Shortly  afterwards  the  Saracenic 
invasion  swept  over  the  Peninsula,  and  the  Jews 
enjoyed  more  peace.  In  France  there  is  no 
notice  of  the  Jews  earlier  than  the  6th  century. 
The  3rd  council  of  Orleans,  A.D.  538,  contains  an 
ordinance  (c.  30),  forbidding  Jews  to  appear  in 
the  streets  or  hold  any  intercourse  with 
Christians  for  four  days,  from  Maundy  Thurs¬ 
day  till  Easter  Monday  (1  Cone.  Matiseon.  c.  14). 
The  council  of  Narbonue,  A.D.  589  (c.  9)  forbade 
Jews  to  hold  religious  services  at  the  burial  of 
their  dead,  under  a  fine  of  six  ounces  of  gold, 
a  sum  which  indicates  their  wealth  at  that  date. 
By  the  5th  council  of  Paris,  A.D,  615  (c.  15)  no 
Jew  was  to  hold  any  public  office  which  made 
Christians  subordinate  to  him,  except  on  con¬ 
dition  of  being  baptised  with  his  whole  family 
{Cone.  Remens.  c.  11 ;  Cone.  Cahil.  c.  9).  Later, 
under  Charlemagne,  Jews  were  not  only  tolerated 
but  treated  with  consideration.  [G.  M.] 

JOACHIM,  “  Avus  Christ!;”  commemorated 
^Miaziah  7  =  April  2  {Col.  Armen.')',  with  Anna, 
Aug.  27  {Cal.  Armen.),  and  Sept.  9  {Cal.  Byzant.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

JOANNA,  wife  of  Chuza ;  commemorated 
May  24  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi)  .  [W.  F.  G.] 

JOANNICITJS,  the  Gi’eat,  Saios  Trar^p,  A.D. 
758  ;  commemorated  Nov.  4  {Cal.  Bqzant.). 

'  [VV.  F.  G.] 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.  881 

JOB,  the  patri  ircli  ;  commemorated  May  6 
{Cal.  Byzant.)-,  Sejit.  5  {Cil.  Armen.)',  May  10 
{Mart.  Rom.  UcL,  Adonis,  Ur.uardi).  [W.  F.  G,] 

JOCUNDIANUS,  martyr  in  Africa;  com¬ 
memorated  July  4  {Alart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JOEL,  the  pro])het;  commemorated  Tckemt 
21  =  Oct.  18  (Co/.  ICthiop.) ',  Oct.  19  {Cal.  By¬ 
zant.)',  Nov,  19  {C tl.  Copt.)',  July  13  {Mart. 
Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.,  Festivals 
AND  Legend  of. 

1.  History  of  Festivals,  (a.)  Nativity  of  Bap¬ 
tist. — The  Festival  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  stands 
in  remarkable  contrast  with  those  of  other 
saints  commemorated  by  the  church,  in  that 
with  these  it  is  their  death  which  is  celebrated, 
as  the  birth  into  the  better  life,  whereas  here  it 
is  the  actual  birthday ;  a  circumstance  only  else¬ 
where  commemorated  in  the  case  of  our  Blessed 
Lord  Himself,  that  of  the  Virgin  Mary  on  Sep¬ 
tember  8  being  of  quite  later  date  ;  and  thus 
we  find  St.  Augustine  saying  {Serm.  287,  vol.  v. 
1692,  ed.  Gaume)  ‘‘  solos  duos  natales  celebrat 
[ecclesia],  hujus  [«.  e.  Johannis]  et  Christi.” 
There  is  a  veiy  obvious  reason  to  be  found  for 
this  exceptional  state  of  things  from  the  close 
historical  connection  between  the  birth  of  the 
Foreiunner  and  that  of  the  Saviour.  This  I'eason 
is  plainly  dwelt  on  in  many  ancient  liturgies, 
and  the  Preface  in  the  first  mass  for  the  festival 
in  the  Leonine  Sacramentary  may  specially  be 
noted. 

What  claims  June  24,  the  day  on  which  this 
nativity  is  celebrated,  has  to  be  considered  the 
actual  birthday  of  St.  John,  it  is  of  course  im¬ 
possible  to  say  definitely.  We  know  from  Luke 
i.  26,  that  the  Baptist  was  six  months  older  than 
our  Lord,  and  therefore  the  difficulty  resolves 
itself  into  the  more  important  matter  as  to  the 
correctness  of  the  view  which  places  Christmas 
on  December  25,  a  question  which  will  be  found 
discussed  elsewhere*  [Christmas]. 

Attention  has  there  been  called  to  the  coinci¬ 
dence  of  Christmas  Day  with  the_period  of  the 
winter  solstice,  and  the  possible  reasons  under¬ 
lying  that  coincidence.  The  festival  of  the  Nati¬ 
vity  of  St.  John  will  consequently  coincide  with 
the  period  of  the  summer  solstice,  which,  tike  the 
winter  solstice,  was  a  time  specially  observed  in 
many  of  the  older  heatlien  religions.  From  this 
source  many  superstitious  heathen  observances 
in  connection  with  this  day  passed  into  early 
Christianity.  One  of  these,  the  so-called  Fire  of 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  will  be  found  touched  upon 
in  the  following  article  :  another  is  reprehended 


by  Augustine,  “Natali  Johannis . de  sol- 

lemnitate  superstitiosa  pagana  Christian!  ad  mare 

A'eniebant  et  ibi  se  baptizabant . Adjuro 

per  ipsum,  qui  hodie  natus  est,  nemo  faciat  ” 
{Serm.  196  in  Nat.  Bom.  vol.  v,  1310). •• 


A  curious  mystical  idea  was  early  suggested 
by  the  times  on  which  the  two  birthdays  wei’e 


»  It  is  true  tliat  in  the  present  church  year,  beginning 
with  Advent,  the  festival  of  the  Nativity  of  the  Baptist 
seems  to follcno  by  six  months  that  of  our  I^oird ;  but  of 
course,  when,  as  was  originally  the  case,  the  year  began 
with  Easter,  the  natural  order  of  sequence  prevailed. 

b  This  practice,  as  existing  among  the  Mandaeans,  Is 
referred  to  below. 


CHRIST  ANT, 


882 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.,  Ficstivals  and  Legend  of 


kept,  in  connection  with  the  Baptist’s  own  words 
(John  iii.  30),  “  He  must  increase,  but  I  must 
decrease,”  so  that  from  our  Lord’s  nativity  the 
days  began  to  leugtlien,  and  from  St.  John’s  to 
shorten.  This  idea  is  found  dwelt  upon  in 
Augustine  (5c/ m.  287.  §  4,  vol.  v.  1692.  See  also 
a  sermon  formerly  attributed  to  Augustine  \Serm. 
197  in  Append.  §  2,  ib.  28.')6],  but  now  referred 
to  Caesarius  of  Aides  :)  and  Maximus  Taurinensis 
{Serm.  4  in  Apj  end.,  Pot  ol.  lix.  850);  and  the 
presence  of  numerous  homilies  for  the  festival  of 
the  Baptist  among  the  writings  of  this  father 
show  at  how  early  a  date  it  was  commemorated. 
A  remark  of  his  may  further  be  added,  that  it 
was  kept  •‘majorum  traditione  ”  (&rm.  292,  §  1, 
vol.  A'.  1717).  Consequently  with  all  allowances 
for  a  rhetorical  way  of  speaking,  this  will  carry 
back  the  festival  at  anv  rate  as  far  as  the  middle 

V 

of  the  fourth  century.  We  find  it  also  mentioned 
in  the  ancient  Kulendarium  Carthaginense,  where 
the  notice  is  “viii.  Kalend.  Jul.  Sancti  Joannis 
Baptistae  ”  (Patrol,  xiii.  1221)®.  It  is  wanting, 
however,  in  the  calendar  of  Bucherius,  which  is 
generally  referred  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  in  the  list  of  festivals  in  the  Apo¬ 
stolic  Constitutions  (viii.  3;>).  These,  however, 
are  mere  passing  exceptions,  for  its  otherwise 
universal  presence  in  ancient  liturgies,  martyr- 
ologies,  and  calendars,  and  the  numerous  homilies 
for  it  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  (Augustine, 
Maximus  Taurinensis,  etc.)  are  evidence  of  the 
wide-spread  observance  and  early  date  of  the  fes¬ 
tival.  The  council  of  Agde  (506  A.D.)  in  ruling 
concerning  private  chapels,  includes  the  Nativity 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist  among  the  most  important 
festivals  on  which  a  man  was  not  to  forsake  his 
proper  church,  the  only  others  specified  being 
Easter,  Christmas,  Epiphany,  the  Ascension,  and 
Whitsunday  (Cone.  Agataense,  can.  21 ;  Labbe, 
iv.  1386).  ' 

It  may  next  be  remarked  that,  as  might  haA’^e 
been  expected  from  the  interdependence  of  the 
dates  of  the  nativities  of  our  Lord  and  of  the 
Baptist,  the  East  agrees  almost  unanimously 
Avith  the  West  as  to  the  particular  day  on  Avhich 
the  latter  is  to  be  commemorated.  See  e.g.  be¬ 
sides  the  regular  Byzantine  calendar,  the  notice 
in  the  Greek  metrical  Ephemerides,  published 
by  Papebroch  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum  Qilny,  vol.  i. 
p.  xxxii.),  npSSpofxov  a/x(pl  rerdpT-g  elKadi  yei- 
paro  fj.r]TT]p  ;  the  curious  design  in  the  Moscoav 
pictorial  calendar  (ibid.)  ;  and  the  calendars  of 
the  Egyptian  and  Ethiopic  churches  published 
by  Ludolf  (Fasti  Sucri  Ecclesiae  Alexandrim’.e, 
p.  32).  So  far  as  we  have  observed,  the  Arme¬ 
nian  church,  the  only  church  that  does  not  cele¬ 
brate  Christmas  on  December  25,  is  al.so  the  only 
one  that  doe.s  not  commemorate  the  Nativity  of 
the  Baptist  on  June  24,  keejung  it  on  Jan.  14 
(Neale,  Eastern  Church,  Introd.  p.  797).** 

We  may  add  a  few  words  here  as  to  the  vigil  and 
octave  of  the  festival.  The  former  is  recognized, 


c  The  other  mention  in  this  calendar  of  St.  John  the 
Riptist  [vi.  Kal.  Jan.  Sancti  Joannis  Baptistae  et  Jacobi 
Apostoli  quern  Herodes  otciilit]  is  probably  due  to  a 
copyist’s  error,  oecause  of  the  constant  association  of  St. 
John  the  Evangelist  with  Dec.  27.  It  has  been  main¬ 
tained,  howcA'er,  that  this  is  an  early  African  form  of  the 
festival  of  the  Decollation  of  St.  John  the  Baptist 
d  Eor  a  possible  variation  from  general  usage  in  the 
case  of  the  church  of  l  ours,  see  Gregor.  Turen.  ItUt. 
J-Yanc.  z.  31  (Patrol.  Ixxl.  566). 


as  Ave  haA'e  shown  below,  in  the  Leonine  Sacra¬ 
mentary,  though  not  specified  by  name  as  in  the 
Ambrosian.  We  need  not,  hoAvever,  with  Pape¬ 
broch,  consider  St.  Ambrose  to  have  been  the  first 
to  institute  the  vigil.  It  is  also  found  included 
in  the  later  Roman  Sacramentaries,  the  Gelasian 
and  Gregorian,  and  its  observance  throughout 
Gaul  and  Germany  is  shown  by  its  presence  in 
ancient  martvrologies  and  calendars  of  those 
countries,  e.g.  [in  one  form  of]  the  Mart.  Gello- 
nensc  (L)’AchJ;ry,  Spncilegium,  xiii.  424),  the 
Mart.  Autissiedurense  (Martene,  Collectio  Ampliss. 
Ami.  vi.  709),  and  a  calendar  of  the  9th  cen¬ 
tury  described  by  Biuterim.  This  writer  refers 
al.so  to  a  German  Sacranientary  published  by 
Gerbert,  Avhere  the  notice  for  the  doy  is,  “  jeju- 
nium  S.  Joannis  Baptistae,  una  cum  Missa  pro 
more  vigiliarum  ”  (Denkw.  v.  i.  377).  It  may  be 
mentioned  that  the  council  of  Seligenstadt 
(1022  A.D.)  ordered  that  all  Christians  should 
abstain  from  flesh  and  blood  for  fourteen  days' 
before  the  festi\'al  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  (can. 
1,  Labbe  ix.  844). 

As  regards  the  octave,  it  Avould  appear  that 
Papebroch  is  in  error  in  considering  that  no 
earlier  traces  of  it  could  be  found  than  of  the 
13th  or  14th  centuries,  for  Binterim  cites  seA'eral 
calendars  of  the  9th  and  10th  centuries  Avhich 
mark  it,  e.g.  the  Cal.  Frisingense  of  the  10th 
century  (Eckhart,  Franc.  Orient,  i.  835).  It  will 
be  remembered  that  this  octave  has  a  special 
importance  of  its  OAvn,  as  being  the  day  on  Avhich 
the  Baptist  Avas  circumcised  and  received  the 
diA’inely  declared  name  of  John,  and  on  which 
the  speech  of  Zacharias  Avas  miraculously  re¬ 
stored. 

(B.)  Decollcdion  of  the  Baptist. — Besides  the 
festival  of  the  Nativity  of  St.  John,  there  are 
other  Johannine  festiA’als  of  comparatiA'ely  minor 
importance,  the  chief  of  which  is  that  of  the  De¬ 
collation,  generally  commemorated  on  August  29,* 
the  chief  exception  being  that  the  Armenian 
church  celebrated  it  on  April  13,  and  the  Gal¬ 
ilean  church,  according  to  one  A’iew,  on  the 
octaA'e  of  the  NatiA'ity  of  the  Baptist,  and  accord¬ 
ing  to  another  A'ieAV  on  September  24.*^ 

This  festiA'al,  too,  must  be  of  comparatively 
earh'  date,  for  Ave  find  it  in  the  Gelasian  and  [in 
some  forms  of]  the  Gregorian  Sacramentaries,  to 
its  presence  in  which  Bede  alludes  (Expos,  in 
Marc.  lib.  ii. ;  Patrol,  xcii.  192).  Again  in  the 
Eastern  church,  Ave  may  appeal  to  the  Byzantine 
and  Russian  calendars,  and  reference  may  be 
made  to  the  Moscow  pictorial  calendar  and  the 
Greek  metrical  Epheup  rides,  the  notice  in  the 
latter  being,  eludbi  apej)'  iudrg  TlpoSpofiov  rdpev 
air^cpa  ^l(pos.  See  also  Ludolf’s  Egyptian  and 
Ethiopic  calendars  (p.  1):  here,  however,  there 
is  a  simple  commemoration  of  the  Baptist  on 
Aucru-st  29,  and  the  festival  of  the  Decollation 
on  Augu.st  30. 

With  reference  to  the  usage  of  the  Gallican 
church  alluded  to  aboA'e,  the  tact  that  in  their 
liturgy  the  festiA’al  of  the  Decollation  almost  im- 

e  The  Marlip'dlogiutn.  Hieronymi  (Patrol,  xxx.  488), 
and  a  MS.  of  the  INIartyrology  of  Bede  (Patrol,  xciv. 
1025),  place  it  on  Aug.  30.  So  also  the  Egyptian  calen¬ 
dar  in  .Selden  (p.  221,  ed.  Amsterdam,  1679). 

f  August!  (Denkw.  ii.  156)  arguis  that  the  Decollation 
was  not  originally  a  distinct  leitiA’al  from  that  of  the 
Nativity  of  the  Baptist,  but  the  eA’idence  for  this  view,  it 
must  be  said,  is  hardly  concl  isive. 


883 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.,  Festivals  and  Legend  of 


mediately  followed  the  Nativity  of  the  Baptist, 
induced  Papebroch  (^Acta  Sanctorum,  June,  vol. 
V.  p.  608)  to  maintain  that  the  former  com¬ 
memoration  was  probably  held  there  on  the 
octave  of  the  latter.  Mabillon,  on  the  other 
hand,  appeals  to  a  letter  which  bears  the  name 
of  Augustine,  to  one  Bibiauus,  a  Gallican  bishop, 
which  asserts  that  the  conception  and  death  of 
St.  John  fell  on  the  same  day  (i.e.  Sept.  23  or 
24),  and  further  refers  to  August  29  as  the  day 
“  quando  inventum  legitur  caput  dominici  prae- 
cursoris  ”  (^Patrol.  I'vxii.  431).  This  letter,  while 
obviously  spurious,  may  be  taken  as  evidence  as 
to  ancient  Gallican  custom,  and  we  find  the 
same  usage,  at  any  rate  partially,  among  the 
Goths  of  Spain.  (See  Leslie’s  notes  to  the  Moza- 
rabic  Missal ;  Patrol.  Ixxxv.  837.) 

Legend. — This  will  perhaps  be  the  most  con¬ 
venient  place  to  give  a  very  brief  rdsume  of  the 
legends  respecting  the  body  of  St.  John.  This 
was  said  to  hav^e  been  buried  at  Sebaste,  a  town 
on  the  site  of  the  earlier  Samaria.  In  the  time 
of  the  emperor  Julian,  the  coffin  was  broken 
open,  the  bones  burnt,  and  the  dust  scattered 
abroad.  With  this  definite  statement,  it  might 
have  been  thought  that  the  history  of  the  relics 
was  at  an  end  ;  but  the  story  runs  that  the 
Christians  saved  some  of  the  remains,  which  were 
sent  to  Jerusalem,  and  afterwards  to  Alexandria 
*to  Athanasius  (Rufinus,  Hist.  Eccles.  xi.  28 : 
Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  3;  vol.  iii.  918, 
ed.  Schulze  and  Noe.sselt:  Theophanes,  Chrono- 
graphia,  vol.  i.  117,  ed.  Classen);  part  also  were 
obtained  by  Theodoret  for  his  own  church  of 
Cyrus  (see  his  Pelig.  Hist.  vol.  iii.  1245).  In 
order  to  contain  the  relics  of  the  Baptist,  a 
church  was  some  time  afterwards  (circa  390  A. D.) 
built  in  Alexandria  on  the  site  of  the  temple  of 
Serapis  by  the  emperor  Theodosius,  and  finished 
in  the  reign  of  his  son  Arcadius.  Concerning 
the  Head  of  the  Baptist  also  there  is  a  long 
series  of  traditions.  These  are  often  plainly  con¬ 
flicting,  and  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  a  scholar 
with  Papebroch’s  great  learning  should  have 
wasted  time  on  the  attempt  to  reconcile  them. 
The  Head  was  said  to  have  been  buried  in  Herod’s 
palace,  where  it  was  first  discovered  about  the 
year  330  A.D.  and  taken  into  Cilicia.  In  the 
time  of  the  emperor  Valens  it  was  moved  as  far 
as  a  place  named  Cosilaus,  but  about  390  A.D. 
Theodosius  transferred  it  to  Constantinople  (Sozo- 
men.  Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  21).  Besides  all  this, 
however,  w’e  read  of  a  finding  of  the  Head  at 
Emesa  in  454  a.d.,  a  discovery  which  can  hardly 
harmonize  with  the  preceding,  and  which  was  not 
improbably  due  to  a  growing  demand  of  the  age 
for  relics.  However,  there  is  a  further  story  of 
another  translation  of  the  Head,  from  Emesa  to 
Constantinople  in  850  A.D.,  to  preserve  it  from 
the  Saracens,  and  here  it  remained  till  1204  a.d., 
when  Constantinoj)le  was  taken  b}'^  the  Latins. 
The  Head  then,  or  part  of  it,  Avas  brought  to 
Fi'ance  by  one  Walo  de  Sartone,  a  canon  of 
Amiens.  The  further  legends  given  by  Pape¬ 
broch,  compared  with  which  the  above  almost 
rises  to  the  dignity  of  history,  we  pass  over. 

Ws  find  at  a  comparatively  early  period 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  literature  on  the 
subject  of  the  Finding  of  the  Hoad,  for  at  a 
council  held  at  Rome  in  494  A.  D.  under  the 
episcopate  of  Gelasius,  such  writings  are  with 
others  ordered  to  be  read  with  caution.  (“Scripta 


de  inventione  capitis  Joannis  Baptistae  novcllae 
quaedam  relationes  sunt,  et  nonnulli  eas  Catho- 
lici  legunt.  Sed  cum  haec  ad  Catholicorum 
manus  pervenerint,  beati  Pauli  apostoli  prae- 
cedat  sententia.  Omnia  probate,  quod  bonum  est 
tenete."  Patrol,  lix.  161.) 

(7.)  We  are  now  naturally  brought  to  the 
third  of  the  Johannine  festivals,  the  Finding  of 
the  Head.  It  would  appear  that  different 
supposed  findings  are  commemorated,  and  that 
this  accounts  for  the  various  days  on  which  the 
commemorations  are  held.  The  letter  of  the 
Pseudo-Augustine  already  quoted  names  August 
29  as  the  day  on  which  the  Head  was  found, 
and  in  connection  with  this  we  may  cite  one 
form  of  the  martyrology  of  Bede,  “  Passio  et 
decollatio  vel  potius  inventio  capitis  beati 
Joannis  Baptistae  ....  ’\Patrol.  xciv.  1025). 
That  day,  however,  has  ordinarily  been  re¬ 
served  for  the  Decollation,  and  Feb.  24,  for  the 
Finding.  In  that  arrangement,  generally  .speak¬ 
ing,  Western,  Byzantine,  Coptic,  and  Ethiopic 
calendars  agree :  and  the  Byzantine  also  com¬ 
memorates  another  finding  on  May  25.  There 
is  besides  a  commemoration  of  the  “  Apparitio 
corporis  ■”  [  “  inventio  ossium  ”  Copt.]  in  the 
Ethiopic  and  Co})tic  calendars  on  May  27,  and 
of  the  “depositio  capitis”  on  Oct.  27  [26, 
Selden]  in  the  latter.  The  notice  for  Feb.  24  in 
the  Greek  metrical  Ephemerides  is  el/cJcrTTji/ 
Trpodf^6/noio  (pavTf  Kdpr\  apcpi  TiTapTHjv. 

(S.)  The  festival  of  the  Conception  of  the 
Baptist  on  Sept.  23  [or  24]  is  also  found  in  the 
above  calendars,  and  in  many  Western  martyru- 
logies.  It  is  not  recognised,  however,  in  the 
Armenian  calendar.  The  notice  for  Sept.  23,  in 
the  Greek  metrical  Ephemerides,  is  iluddi  5e 
rpirr]  yu(rrr)p  Ad/3e  TTpoSpopov  ef(rce. 

(e.)  Besides  the  two  pj  eceding,  comparatively 
unimportant  festivals,  we  find  also  a  comme¬ 
moration  of  the  imprisonment  on  Aug.  24 
in  the  Ethiopic  calendar  (Ludolf,  p.  39),  and 
general  commemorations  of  the  Baptist  in  the 
same,  on  Aug.  29  and  April  10  (16.  ])p.  1,  25): 
and  on  June  6  and  September  5  in  the  Armenian 
calendar  (Neale,  })p.  799,  801). 

2.  Liturgical  Aotices.  —  The  oldest  Roman 
Sacramentary,  the  Leonine,  contains  no  le.ss  than 
five  masses  for  the  festival  of  the  Nativity  of  the 
Baptist.  The  first  of  these  evidently  belongs  to 
the  vigil,  for  though  included  with  the  second 
and  third  under  the  general  heading  Natale  S. 
Jo.  Bapt.,  still  the  point  is  settled  by  the  Avords 
of  the  preface  (also  occurring,  be  it  said,  in  the 
Gregorian  and  Ambrosian  liturgies  in  the 
service  for  the  vigil)  “  .  ,  ,  .  exhibentes  so- 
lemne  jejunium,  quo  nati  Joannis  Baptistae 
natalitia  praevenimus  ”  {l.eonis  Opera;  a'oI.  ii, 
28,  ed.  Ballerini).  The  fourth  and  fifth  masses, 
portions  of  Avhich  are  ahso  found  in  the  Gelasian 
Sacramentary,  are  headed  ad  fontem,  shoAving 
the  use  made  of  the  day  as  a  solemn  season  for 
baptism.  The  Gelasian  Sacramentary  both  has 
services  for  the  vigil  and  N'ativitA’,  each  Avith  its 
OAvn  title  (^Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1165),  and  also  for  the 
Decollation  {dies  pus.donis)  of  the  Baptist  (j6. 
1175):  and  the  same  too  is  the  case  Avith  the 
Ambrosian  (Pamelius,  Liiurgg.  Latt.  i.  392, 
420),  and  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  (coll. 
108,  126;  ed.  Menard).  In  this  last,  Avhile  the 
first  mass  is  headed  in  vigilia,  the  second  bears 
the  title  In  prima  missa  de  node, 

3  L 


884 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.,  Festivals  and  Legend  of 


In  the  ancient  Gallican  Lectionary,  publislied 
by  Mabillon,  we  find  no  mention  of  a  vigil  :  the 
prophetic  lection,  epistle  and  gospel,  are  re¬ 
spectively  Isaiah  xl.  1-20 ;  Acts  xiii.  16-47  ; 
Luke  i.  5-25,  39-47,  56-68,  [to  the  words 
Doininus  Deus  Israet],  80.  This  is  immediately 
followed  by  the  festival  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul,  and  this  by  the  “  Passio  S.  Joannis  Bap- 
tistae  ”  for  which  the  prophetic  lection,  epistle 
and  gospel  are  respectively  Isaiah  xliii.1-13,  22, 
— xliv.  5;  Heb.  xi.  33 — xii.  7  ;  Matt.  xi\N  1-14 
^(^de  Litur(jia  Gallicana,  lib.  ii.  pp.  158,  160). 
The  same  too  is  the  case  in  the  Gallican  missal, 
save  that  there  the  fe.stival  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul  is  immediately  followed  by  a  mass  “  In 
Natale  unius  Apostoli  et  Martyris  ”  (Op.  cit. 
lib.  iii.  271,  275).  In  the  Mozarabic  missal  we 
find  forms  given  for  the  Sunday  pro  .adventu 
S.  Joliannis,”  as  well  as  for  the  festival  of  the 
Nativity  itself,  and  for  that  of  the  Decollation. 
The  prophetic  lection,  epistle  and  gospel  in  the 
three  cases  are  Isaiah  xl.  1-9,  Eph.  iv.  1-14, 
Mark  i.  1-8:  Jer.  i.  5-10,  17-19;  Gal.  i.  11-24, 
Luke  i.  57-70,  80  :  Wisdom  iv.  7-15,  2  Cor.  xii. 
2-10,  Matt.  xiv.  1-15.  Sundry  variations  to 
the  above  occurring  in  ancient  lectionaries  are 
mentioned  {in  loc.)  in  the  notes  to  Leslie’s  edition 
of  the  Mozarabic  missal.  {Patrol.  Ixxxvn  751, 
756,  837:  and  for  the  Breviary  [June  24, 
Sept.  24],  Patrol.  Ixxxvd.  1129,  1133,  1209.) 

3.  Miscellaneous  Notices. — We  have  hitherto 
spoken  of  the  Baptist  solely  from  the  Christian 
point  of  view,  we  shall  now  dwell  briefly  on 
some  further  references.  Josephus’s  account 
{Antiq.  xviii.  5.  2)  is  practically  the  same  as 
that  of  the  New  Testament,  but  he  adds  that, 
besides  other  causes,  Herod  Antipas  was  more  or 
less  moved  to  the  murder  of  St.  John  by  poli¬ 
tical  reasons,  the  dread  of  a  revolution. 8^ 

There  are,  moreover,  some  curious  associations 
connecting  St.  John  with  some  semi-Christian, 
or  rather  non-Christian,  religious.  The  Clemen¬ 
tine  Homilies  (ii.  23)  make  Simon  Magus  to 
hav’^e  been  the  chief  {irpccTos  ual  ^oKifxuraros') 
disciple  of  St.  John,  who  is  further  described  as 
a  TipL^po^aiTTicrTris  (see  Hegesippus  apud  Euseb. 
Iftst.  Eccles.  iv.  22  ;  Justin  Martyr  Dial,  cum 
Tryph.  c.  80;  and  esp.  Epiphanius,  Haer.  17). 
We  may  perhaps,  therefore,  connect  the  Hemoro- 
hapiistae  with  the  so  called  Mendaeans(or  properly 
Mandaeans),  known  also  as  the  Zabians,  disciples 
of  St.  John,  Christians  of  St.  John.  This  sect, 
which  still  exists,  chiefly  near  the  Tigris,  claims 
to  be  the  lineal  successors  of  the  actual  disciples 
of  St.  John,  respecting  whom  they  give  some 
wild  traditions,  and  whom  they  regard  as  supe¬ 
rior  to  Christ.  They  totally  ignore  his  behead¬ 
ing,  and  say  that  on  his  death-bed  he  bid  his 
disciples  to  crucify  his  body,  in  reference  to  the 
death  that  should  befal  his  kinsman  Jesus.  The 
body  was  then  preserved  in  a  crystal  sarcophagus 
at  Sjuster  in  Persia.  (Ignatius  a  Jesu,  Narratio 
originis,  rituum  et  erronim  Christianorum  Jo- 
liannis.  Romae,  1652  :  Kaempfer,  Amoenitates 
Exoticae  pp.  435-454,  Lemgoviae  1712:  Norberg, 
De  religione  et  lingua  Sabaeonim :  Petermann 
in  Herzog’s  Peal-Encycl.  s.  vv.  Mendder^  Zabier : 


s  As  a  parallel  to  this  we  may  mention  the  story  of 
Herod  the  Great’s  attempt  to  slay  the  infant  John  from 
the  fear  lest  he  might  hereafter  prove  the  king  of  Israel 
(Frotev.  Jacobi,  c.  23) 


Chwolsohn,  Die  Ssahier  und  der  Ssabismus  pp. 
100-1.38,  St.  Petersburg!!,  1856.)  They  celebrate 
in  August  (or  April,  according  to  Ignatius  a 
Jesu)  an  annual  festival  of  three  days’  duration, 
in  honour  of  the  Baptist,  and  an  annual  festival 
in  June  of  five  days’  duration,  when  all  the  sect 
receive  baptism.  (Kaempfer,  p.  446.)  This 
reminds  us  of  Augustine’s  protest  cited  above. 
Their  chief  .sacred  book,  the  Sidra  Adem  or  Book 
of  Adam,  edited  by  Norberg  {Codex  Nasaracns, 
liber  Adami  appell  dus,  Hafniae),  and  recently  by 
Petermann  (Lipsiae,  1867),  contains  several 
references  to  St.  John  (see  vol.  i.  108,  vol.  ii.  20, 
22,  24,  60 ;  ed.  Norberg).  They  also  po.ssess  a 
“  Book  of  John  [the  Baptist]  ”  reported  to  have 
been  given  to  their  ancestors  by  John  himself; 
of  which  there  is  a  MS.  in  the  Brdiotheq.’e 
Nationale  at  Paris  (Norberg  de  lingua,  ^-c.,  p.  4). 
Among  their  most  curious  superstitions  is  one  in 
connection  with  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  bv  St. 
John,  which  accounts  for  the  view  they  take  of 
blue  as  an  unholy  colour  (Kaempfer,  p.  447). 

For  a  possible  connection  of  the  sect  of  the 
Elxaites  with  the  teaching  of  St.  John,  see  Hil- 
genfeld.  Novum  Testamentum  extra  Canoneni 
receptum  iii.  158.  Chwolsohn  {*>p.  cit.  p.  112) 
views  Elxai  as  the  actual  founder  of  the  Men- 
daeans,  another  point  of  coincidence. 

Among  the  Mohammedans,  St.  John  is  ac¬ 
counted  as  a  prophet,  and  he  is  mentioned  in  the 
Koran  in  terms  of  high  respe'i't  {Sura  iii.  39). 
The  p.issage  in  Sale’s  translation  runs,  ‘dohn, 
who  shall  bear  witness  to  the  word  which 
Cometh  from  God,  an  honourable  person,  chaste, 
and  one  of  the  righteous  prophets.” 

We  must  in  conclusion  only  allude  in  the 
briefest  terms  to  a  point,  which  though  not 
strictly  within  our  province,  must  not  be  abso¬ 
lutely  passed  over,  the  position  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist  as  the  patron  saint  of  the  Knights  Hos¬ 
pitallers  of  St.  John,  and  his  association  in  some 
form  with  the  esoteric  rites  of  the  order  of  the 
Templars,  though  probabh’  here  there  has  been 
at  times  a  confusion  with  St.  John  the  Evangelist. 
For  the  possible  connection  with  St.  John  the 
Baptist  in  such  rites  as  the  Baphomet,  the 
dissevered  head,  etc.,  see  Von  Hammer,  Alys- 
terium  Baphometis  revelatum.  .Vindobonae,  1818. 
Reference  may  also  be  made  to  Von  Wedekind, 
Das  J ohannis- Fest  in  der  Frey-Maurerei.  Frank¬ 
fort,  1818. 

For  the  matter  of  the  present  article,  we  have 
to  express  considerable  obligations  to  Binterini, 
P>enk>xurdigkeiten  der  Clirist-Katholischen  Kirchr, 
vol.  V.  part  1,  pp.  373,  sqq.  ;  446  sqq.  ;  August! 
Deukuiirdigkeiten  aus  der  Christlichen  Archdologic, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  152  sqq.  Papebroch  in  Acta  Sanc¬ 
torum  (July  25).  Reference  may  also  be  made 
to  Paciaudius  de  Cultu  S.  Johaimis  Baptistae. 
Romae  1755.  Wa.sewitz  Turtur  Joanneus. 
Magdeburg,  1659.  [R.  S.] 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.,  FIRE  OF. 

We  called  attention  in  the  previous  article  to 
the  way  in  which  early  Christian  writers  dwell 
on  the  mystical  significance  of  the  fact  that  the 
festival  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  coincides  with 
the  period  of  the  summer  solstice,  and  we  also 
referred  in  passing  to  various  superstitious  rites 
and  customs,  which  Christianity  evidently  inhe¬ 
rited  from  heathenism.  The  most  proniinent  ot 
these  is  that  which  has  long  been  known  under 
the  name  of  the  Fii-e  of  St.  John  the  Baptist, 


886 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.,  FIKE  OF 


which,  with  numevous  attendant  customs,  is 
obviously  nothing  more  than  a  relic  of  ancient 
sun-worship,  connected  with  that  period  of  the 
year  when  the  sun  has  reached  the  turning  point 
of  his  annual  course.  This  custom  of  kindling 
great  fires  in  the  open  air  on  IMidsummer’s  Eve 
has  been  shown  to  exist  (and  in  not  a  few  places 
even  to  the  present  day)  among  almost  all  Euro¬ 
pean  nations,  as  well  as  in  the  East*  (see  Jac. 
Grimm,  Deutsche  MytUologie  pp.  583  sqq.,  ed.  2)  ; 
and  it  can  hardly  be  rightly  viewed  unless  we 
associate  it  with  the  universally  observed  festival 
at  the  winter  solstice,  the  Natalis  Invicti,  when 
the  sun  is,  as  it  were,  born  again  for  the  coming 
year  [CiiRiSi'JiAS],  with  that  on  May-day,  the  la 
Beal-tine  of  the  Irish,  when  the  sun’s  warmth 
has  awakened  the  dormant  earth  [Ja.mks  tui-: 
Less,  St.,  Festival  of],  and  with  other  similar 
instances. 

Thus,  it  will  be  seen,  there  is  plainly  no  ori¬ 
ginal  connection  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  with 
the  practice  now  under  consideration.  The  birth¬ 
day  of  our  Lord  having  been  once  fixed,  by  what¬ 
soever  means,  at  the  winter  solstice  (and  there 
is  certainly  no  inconsiderable  body  of  evidence 
pointing  to  the  conclusion  that  the  well-nigh  uni¬ 
versal  iJi  evalence  of  a  festival  at  that  time  of  the 
year  had  much  to  do  with  the  matter,  and  that 
it  is  a  case  of  the  transference  of  worship  from 
the  material  sun  to  Christ,  the  sun  of  righteous¬ 
ness),  then,  since  there  was  a  difference  of  six 
months  between  the  ages  of  our  Lord  and  of 
the  Baptist,  the  birthday  of  the  latter  would 
naturally  be  assigned  to  the  summer  solstice. 
The  existing  heathen  practice.s,  at  first  strongly 
opposed  by  the  church,  gradually  came  to  be 
tolerated  and  finally  to  be  recognised  ;  while  the 
attempt  was  continually  made  to  associate  the 
customs  of  the  day  with  the  saint  whose  festival 
had  thus  happened  to  coincide  with  the  older 
celebration. 

A  curious  view'  on  this  subject,  w'hich  may 
just  claim  a  passing  notice,  is  found  in  Hislop’s 
Two  Bahglons  184),  which  refers  the  great  Mid¬ 
summer  festival  of  many  heathenisms  primarily 
to  the  Babylonian  festival  of  Tammuz,  w'ho  is 
further  identified  with  Cannes,  the  Fish-God 
mentioned  by  Berosus  (lib.  i.  p.  48,  ed.  Richter). 
It  is  there  maintained  that  this  name  was  sug¬ 
gestive  of  that  of  Joannes,  and  thus  a  Christian 
festival  grew  out  of  a  heathen  one,  with  hardly 
a  change  in  the  name  of  the  object  of  the  festi¬ 
val.  More  evidence,  however,  and  less  theorizing 
is  wanted,  before  such  a  view  can  be  seriously 
entertained. 

To  return  now  to  the  main  part  of  our  subject ; 
— we  shall  cite,  as  showing  the  church’s  original 
point  of  view  in  the  matter,  a  passage  from  one 
of  the  sermons  of  Augustine  first  edited  by 
Frangipane  in  1819,  where  he  protests  strongly' 
against  this  practice  of  the  lighting  of  fires  on 
St.  John’s  Eve: — “  Cessent  religiones  sacrilegio- 
rum,  cessent  studia  atque  joca  vanitatum ;  non 
fiant  ilia  quae  fieri  solent,  non  quaedam  jam  in 
daemonum  honorem,  sed  adhuc  tamen  secundum 
daemonum  morem.  Hesterno  die  post  vesperam 
putrescentibus  flammis  antiquitus  more  daemo- 


*  Nor  need  this  remark  be  confined  to  the  old  world, 
for  we  find  the  same  class  of  rites  prevailing  also  among 
the  Peruvians  under  the  dominion  of  the  Incas  (Prescott, 
Co.iqucit  of  Ftru,  i.  pp.  96  sqq. ;  10th  ed.). 


niorum  tota  civitas  flagrabat  atque  putrescebat, 
et  universam  aerem  fumus  obduxerat  ”  {Serm. 
8  de  S.  Joh.  Bapt.  §  3 ;  Patrol,  xlvi.  996). 
Theodoret  again  {Quaest.  in  iv.  Peg.  [xvi.  3], //i- 
tet'r.  47,  vol.  i.  539,  ed.  Schulze)  in  referring  to 
Ahaz’s  “  causing  his  sons  to  pass  through  the 
fire,”  sees  in  it  an  underlying  reference  to  a  cus¬ 
tom  existing  in  his  time,  of  lighting  fires  in  the 
streets,  over  which  men  and  boys  leaped,  and 
even  infants  were  carried  by  their  mothers. 
Theodoret  states  that  this  was  done  once  a 
year,  and  though  he  does  not  further  define  the 
time,  there  is  a  probable  reference  to  the  Mid¬ 
summer  fire.  The  Quinisext  or  Trullan  council 
(circa  692,  a.d.)  forbids  the  lighting  of  such 
fires  before  houses,  etc.,  and  the  leaping  over 
them ;  and  penalties  are  laid  down  for  all,  cleric 
or  lay,  who  followed  the  practice  (can.  65,  Labbe 
vi.  1172).  In  this  last  case,  however,  the  periods 
are  distinctly  specified  as  the  times  of  the  new 
moon,  but  the  superstition  legislated  against  is 
clearly  a  parallel  one ;  and,  at  any  rate,  Theo¬ 
dore  Balsamon  (cited  by  Paciaudius,  infra),  in  his 
comments  on  this  canon,  makes  special  mention 
of  the  fires  on  St.  John  the  Baptist’s  Eve.  One 
more  such  instance  may  suffice :  the  German 
council,  which  sat  under  the  authority  of  St. 
Boniface,  either  at  Augsburg  or  Ratisbon  in  742 
A.D.,  forbids  “  illos  sacrilegos  ignes,  quos  Ncd- 
fratres  \_Nodfyr,  Niedfyr']  vocant  ”  (can.  5,  Labbe 
vi.  1535). 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  change  of 
feeling  with  which  such  practices  were  regarded 
by  the  church  as  time  w'ent  on,  and  to  the  conse¬ 
quent  attempt  to  connect  them  directly  with  the 
Baptist.  As  examples  of  this  we  may'  cite  Joh. 
Beleth  fPat.  div.  ojf.  c.  137  ;  Patrol,  ccii.  141), 
who  wrote  about  1170  A.D.,  and  Durandus  fPat. 
div.  off.  vii.  12.  10).  In  these  passages  reference  is 
made  to  three  customs  practised  at  this  season,  the 
lighting  of  fires  (which  are  described  as  being  made 
of  “  ossa  et  quaedam  alia  immunda”),  the  carry¬ 
ing  of  firebrands  about  the  fields,  and  the  rolling 
of  a  wheel.  After  a  strange  explanation  of  the 
first  of  these  as  being  a  means  for  driving  away 
dragons,  another  reason  is  given,  namely,  that  it 
was  done  in  memory  of  the  burning  of  the  bones 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist  at  Sebaste  (see  last 
article).  The  carrying  about  of  firebrands  is 
explained  as  having  reference  to  him  who  was  a 
“burning  and  shining  light”  (John  v.  35);  while 
the  rolling  of  the  wheel,  which  has  an  obvious 
reference  to  the  course  of  the  sun,  is  made 
further  to  refer  to  the  glory  of  St.  John  waning 
before  Him  who  w'as  the  True  Light. 

An  attempt  to  disprove  the  idea  of  the  con¬ 
nection  of  the  Fire  of  St.  John  with  heathen 
rites  is  made  by  Paciaudius  {de  Cultu  S.  Joh. 
Bapt.  Antiquitates  Christianae,  pp.  335  sqq.), 
who,  however,  is  mainlv  combating  the  idea  of 
its  connection  with  the  Roman  Palilia,  a  point 
urged  by  Reiske,  Zeumer  {infra),  and  other 
writers.  The  arguments  here,  however,  though 
ingenious,  rest  altogether  on  too  narrow  a  foot¬ 
ing. 

In  addition  to  works  already  cited,  reference 
may  also  be  made  to  F.  C.  de  Khautz  de  ritu  ignis 
in  Natali  S.  Joh.  Bapt.  accensi.  Vindob.  1759: 
Reiske,  Untersuchung  dcs  bei  den  alien  Deutschen 
gebrduchlichen  heidnischen  Nord/yrs,  inglei-'hen 
des  Oster-und  Johannis-feuers.  Frankfort  1696: 
Zeumer,  Dissertatio  de  igne  in  festG  S.  Johanni% 


886 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.,  in  Art,  etc. 


accendi  solito.  Jenao  1699:  Brand,  Popular  An¬ 
tiquities,  vol.  i.  pp.  166  sqq.,  ed.  1841.  [K.  S.] 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST,  ST.,  in  Art,  etc. 

1.  Iconograqjhy . — We  find  abundant  evidence 
that  representations  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  were 
vpvy  frequent  in  early  Christian  times.  Epipha- 
nius  {Cone.  Nic.  II.  Act.  vi. ;  Labbe,  vii.  538)  tells 
us  that  those  who  delighted  in  “.soft  clothing” 
were  rebuked  by  the  figure  of  the  Baptist  in  his 
“raiment  of  camel’s  hair;”  in  this  garb,  indeed, 
he  is  most  usually  represented,  especially  in  the 
Baptism  of  the  Saviour  [see  Jordan],  a  subject 
of  very  frequent  recurrence  in  early  Christian 
ai  t,  as  for  instance,  in  the  well-known  painting 
in  the  cemetery  of  Pontianus,  in  many  mosaics 
(Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon.  ii.  tab.  xxiii.),  and  on  vari¬ 
ous  engraved  stones  and  bronze  medals  (Vettori, 
Num.  dcr.  e.vplic.  p.  68  and  frontispiece),  where 
he  is  shown  in  the  act  of  pouring  water  from 
a  shell  on  the  Lord’s  head  ;  he  carries  a  staff  in 
his  h'ft  hand. 

Sometimes  the  l''oreruuner  points  with  his 


finger  to  the  Messiah,  represented  in  the  form 
of  a  lamb,  or  in  person  {Concil.  in  Trull,  can. 
Ixxxii.).  He  has  been  figured  by  some  artists  in 
tunic  and  pallium,  as  for  example  on  the  bottom 
of  a  Clip  given  by  Buonarotti  {Vetri,  tav.  vi. 
No.  1),  and  assigned  to  St.  John  the  Baptist. 
If  this  assumption  be  correct,  we  have  here  one 
of  the  most  ancient  representations  of  this  saint, 
but  many  competent  judges  believe  that  it  is  a 
representation  of  St.  Paul.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
we  find  the  Baptist  clad  in  a  similar  manner, 
and  also  nimbused,  in  a  mosaic  of  the  6th  centurv 
(Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon.  tab.  xxxi.),  in  the  centre 
of  an  ivory  cross  of  almost  the  same  date  (Pa- 
ciaudi,  De  cultu  Joan.  Bapt.  p.  18*2,  see  woodcut), 
in  an  ancient  diptych  figured  hy  Gori  {Thc- 
saur.  Diptych,  vol.  iii.  p.  235),  and  also  in  bust 
upon  a  chaloedony  attributed  to  the  5th  century 
(Paciaudi,  u.s.  p.  189). 

In  the  ^lenaea  of  the  Greeks  the  figure  of 
St.  John  the  Baptist  is  w'inged,  in  allusion  to 


the  passage  of  Lsaiah  quoted  by  St.  Mark  (i.  2% 
and  applied  by  the  Lord  Him.self  to  the  Fore¬ 
runner  :  “  Behold  !  I  send  My  Messenger  before 
Thy  Face  which  shall  prepare  I'hy  way  before 
Thee.”  His  right  hand  is  rai.sed  in  the  act  of 
exhortation,  and  in  his  left  he  carries  a  cro.ss, 
and  a  scroll  inscribed  with  these  words. 

The  annunciation  of  the  birth  of  the  Baptist 
is  depicted  in  mosaic  on  the  great  arch  of  St. 
Maria  Maggiore,  a.d.  443.  The  angel  is  ad 
dre.ssing  Zacharias,  who  stands  before  the  altar 
of  incense  (Ciampini,  Lef.  Mon.  vol.  i.  tab.'xlix. 
nn.  1,  2,  3).  In  the  ancient  mosaic  on  the  por 
tico  of  St.  John  Lateran  the  head  of  John  the 
Baptist  is  carried  in  a  dish  by  a  lictor,  while  the 
decapitated  body  remains  still  kneeling  before 
the  executioner  whose  sword  is  still  raised. 

2.  Dedications. — The  first  church  dedicated  to 
him  was  probably  the  basilica  built  by  Constan¬ 
tine,  and  dedicated  to  the  Forerunner,  upon  the 
Coelian  Mount,  near  the  Lateran.  It  is,  however, 
not  improbable  that  the  name  was  transferred 
to  it  from  the  baptistery  of  Constantine,  a  short 
distance  from  it,  which  was  dedicated  to  St. 
John. 

Anastasius  Bibliothecarius  states  that  Con¬ 
stantine  built  churches  dedicated  to  the  same 
saint  at  Ostia  and  at  Albano  {in  S.  Sylcest. 
§§  45,  46 ;  Migne,  cxxvii.  1524  f.),  and  Du 
Cange  mentions  one  at  Constantinople  {Con- 
stantinop.  Christ,  lib.  iv.  §  4),  of  which,  however, 
we  can  find  no  other  record.  At  Naples  it  is 
commonl)’’  asserted  that  a  church,  dedicated  to 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  was  built  in  that  city  by 
Constantine  on  the  site  of  the  temple  of  Hadrian, 
in  fulfilment  of  a  vow  made  during  a  violent 
storm  on  his  voyage  from  Sicily.  But  it 
has  been  proved  by  Majochi,  that  this  founder 
could  not  have  been  Constantine  the  Great, 
though  he  may  possibly  have  been  the  younger 
Constantine,  son  of  Constans  {De  Cat'i.  Neap. 
part  ii.  3).  It  appears  certain  that  at  Florence 
in  early  times  a  church  w*as  dedicated  to  St.  John 
the  Baptist,  who  became  the  tutelary  saint  and 
protector  of  the  city  (Villani,  Chroniche,  1.  i. 
c.  60).  St.  Benedict  dedicated  to  the  Baptist 
one  of  the  two  oratories  which  he  erected  on  the 
site  of  the  temple  of  Apollo  on  Mount  Cassino 
(Greg.  Dialog,  ii.  8,  in  Migne,  Ixvi.  col.  152  b). 
Tradition  asserts  that  at  Milan  a  temple  of 
Janus  was  converted  into  a  church,  and  dedi¬ 
cated  as  “  Sancti  Joannis  ad  quatuor  facies  ” 
(Castellione,  Mediaev.  Antiq.  pars  1,  fasc.  2). 
There  w*ere  at  Ravenna  in  the  6th  and  7th 
centuries  two  churches  dedicated  to  this  saint, 
one  of  which,  called  In  Marmorario,  specially 
commemorated  his  decollation  (Rubeus,  Hist. 
Raven,  ii.  and  iii.).  At  Monza,  queen  Theo- 
deliuda  built  a  church  in  honour  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  on  which  she  lavished  wealthy  endow¬ 
ments  and  precious  gifts  of  every  description. 
Agilulph,  her  husband,  followed  her  example 
at  Turin  (Paciaudi  u.  s.  pp.  15  and  16).  Paciaudi 
enumerates  many  other  churches  dedicated  to  the 
Baptist  in  different  places  and  in  later  times. 
Altars  dedicated  to  him  were  usually  to  be  found 
in  the  baptisteries;  these  were  always  placed 
under  his  protection,  adorned  with  paintings  and 
sculptures  in  which  he  is  the  principal  tigure, 
and  sometimes  enriched  with  his  relics.  (Paci¬ 
audi,  De  Cultu  Joann.  Bapt. ;  Martigny,  Diet, 
des  Antiq.  Chret.  z.  v.).  [C.] 


JOHN  THE  EVANGELIST,  ST.,  Festival  of 


887 


JOHN  THE  EVANGELIST,  ST.,  Festi- 
v.v  L  or. 

1.  History  of  Festival. — It  is  not  necessary  to 
enter  here  upon  a  discussion  of  the  various  early 
legends  respecting  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  which 
*  will  be  found  treated  of  in  the  Bible  Dictionary, 
to  which  reference  may  be  made.  We  shall 
here  mei'ely  .speak  of  the  festivals  of  St.  John, 
and  add  a  notice  of  the  chief  pseudonymous 
works  attributed  to  him. 

We  hardly  find  the  festival  of  St.  John  stand¬ 
ing  out  in  early  times  with  that  prominence 
w’hich  we  should  expect  in  the  case  of  one  so 
essentially  of  the  chief  of  the  apostles.  As  we 
have  already  mentioned  in  the  article  on  the 
fe.-^tival  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  there  is  a  not 
improbable  commemoration  of  the  evangelist  in 
the  ancient  Calendarium  Carthayinense,  if,  as 
seems  reasonable,  we  assume  the  woi'd  Baptistae 
to  have  been  written  “  per  iucuriam  scribae  ”  for 
Evangclistae.  The  notice  is  “  vi.  Kal.  Jan.  Sancti 
Joannis  Baptistae,  et  Jacobi  Apostoli,  quern 
Herodes  occidit  ”  (^Patrol,  xiii.  1228).  On  this 
assumption  then  we  have  a  joint  commemoration 
of  the  two  brothers,  the  sons  of  Zebedee ;  and 
the  same  combination  is  also  found  in  the 
Gothico-Gallic  missal  (^infrd).  The  Armenian 
church  commemorates  the  two  brothers  together 
on  Dec.  28  (Neale,  L’ast-o-ii  Church;  Introd. 
p.  804) ;  and  the  Ethiopic  church  on  Sep.  27 
(Ludolf.  Fasti  Sacri  Fcclesiae  Alexandrinae, 
p.  5). 

In  the  West,  however,  the  name  of  St.  John 
alone  is  ordinarily  found  associated  with  Dec.  27, 
a  day  which  by  its  close  proximity  to  Christmas 
seems  especially  appropriate  for  the  commemo¬ 
ration  of  the  beloved  disciple,  os  also  those  of  the 
Innocents,  the  fir.st  martyrs  for  Christ,  and  of 
Stephen  the  first  conscious  martyr.  This  idea  is 
often  dwelt  upon  by  mediaeval  winters,  some  of 
whom  allude  further  to  a  tradition  that  the 
rAumgelist  died  on  the  day  which  is  now  the 
festival  of  the  Nativity  of  St.  John  the  Baptist, 
but  that  his  commemoration  was  transferred  to 
a  day  in  the  octave  of  Christmas  (see  e.g. 
Dui’audus,  Bed.  Die.  Off.  vii.  42).  As  we  have 
implied  above,  however,  there  is  a  lack  of  recog¬ 
nition  of  this  festival  in  the  writings  of  the 
earlier  fathers,  scarcely  any  of  whom  furnish  us 
with  homilies  for  the  day,  even  those  who  have 
written  them  for  the  festiv'als  of  St.  Stejdien  and 
the  Innocents. 

It  may  be  noted  here  that  in  many  ancient 
calendars  December  27  is  marked  not  as  the 
Fatale  or  Nativitas,  but  as  the  Assumptio  or 
Transitus  of  St.  John.  Thus  we  find,  e.g.,  in 
the  ancient  so-called  Martyrologiiun  Jlieronymi 
“  vi.  Kal.  Januarii  Assumptio  S.  Joannis  Evan- 
gelistae  apud  Ephesum  ”  (^Patrol,  xxx.  137), 
and  similarl}’-  the  ALartyrologium  Gellonense 
(D’Achery,  Spkilegiiun  xiii.  390).  This  wording 
is  doubtlessly  due  to  the  belief  in  some  of  the 
curious  legends  as  to  the  death  of  this  apostle. 
Of  this  we  find  no  trace  in  the  earliest  writers  ; 
tlius  Bolycrates,  a  near  successor  of  St.  John, 
simply  says  eV  ’Eepevo)  KeKol/j.r}Tai  (Polycr. 
apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  31).  Soon,  how¬ 
ever,  the  legendary  element  showed  itself,  and  as 
early  as  the  time  of  Augustine  tjie  story  pre¬ 
vailed  that  the  ajiostle  had  been  laid  in  the  tomb 
merely  in  the  .semblance  of  death,  but  that  he 
really  lived  was  shown  by  the  movements  of  the 


ground  where  he  was  laid,  and  the  appearance 
as  of  dust  expelled  from  the  grave  by  the  process 
of  breathing  (August.  IVactatns  124  in  Joannem  c. 
2 ;  vol.  iii.  2467,  ed.  Gaume).  Later  writers 
speak  of  this  dust  by  the  title  of  manna  (see  e.g. 
Gregor.  Turon.  de  Gloria  Martynirn  i.  30, 1’atrol. 
Ixxi.  730 ;  Hildebert  Turon.  Serm.  in  festo  S. 
Johan.,  Patrol,  clxxi.  726  .sqq.).  It  is  this  which 
appears  to  be  specially  dwelt  on  by  the  Greek 
church  in  their  commemoration  of  St.  John  on 
May  8  (infra).  In  some  writers  the  legend 
makes  St.  John  live  to  the  end  of  the  world,  to 
witness  with  Enoch  and  Elijah  to  the  truth  (see 
e.g.  Ephraemius  Antioch,  apud  Photium,  Biblio¬ 
theca,  cod.  229 ;  Patrol.  Gr.  ciii.  985).  Ac¬ 
cording  to  another  form,  he  died  in  the  ordinary 
cour.se  of  nature,  and  was  immediately  rai.sed 
from  the  dead  and  translated  into  paradise  (see 
e.g.  Nicephorus  IPist.  Eccles.  ii.  42).  All  these 
legends  have  doubtlessly  grown  from  a  misun¬ 
derstanding  of  our  Lord’s  words  in  John  xxi  22. 

We  may  add  further  that  the  festival  of  St. 
John  “ad  portam  Latinam  ”  on  May  6,  which 
commemorates  the  aj)ostle’s  having  been  thrown 
at  that  place  into  a  cauldron  of  boiling  oil  and 
escaping  unhurt,  is  often  noted  as  the  “Nativitas 
(Natalis)  ad  portam  Latinam  ”  (e.g.  in  the  Gre¬ 
gorian  Sacramentary  and  some  forms  of  the 
Martyrologium  Hieronyini)  the  apostle  having 
there  as  fully  won  the  martyr’s  crown  as  though 
no  miraculous  deliverance  had  been  wrought.^ 
Whatever  truth  there  may  be  in  this  story,  it  is 
at  any  rate  as  old  as  the  time  of  Tertullian  (see 
de  Praescript.  c.  36  ;  cf.  Jerome,  ado.  Jovinian. 
i.  26,  vol.  ii.  280  [where  ho  apj)ea]s  to  Tertullian], 
Comm,  in  Matthaewn  xxi.  23,  vol.  vii.  155). 

In  later  times  a  church  was  built  near  the 
Latin  gate  in  memory  of  this  event.  It  may 
reasonably  be  inferred  that  it  is  to  this  church 
that  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius  refers  as  being 
restored  by  Adrian  I.  (ob.  795  A.D.),  though  he 
describes  it  as  “  ecclesiam  beati  Johannis  Bap¬ 
tistae  sitam  juxta  portam  Latinam”  (Vitae 
Pontifeum,  Adrian  I.;  Patrol,  cxxviii.  1191). 
On  this  point  see  further  G.  M.  Croscimbeni, 
Elstoria  della  chiesa  di  S.  Giovanni  avanti 
Porta  Latina;  Roma,  1716. 

In  the  Greek  church  St.  John  is  commemorated 
on  May  8  and  September  26,  regard  being  had 
on  the  former  day  to  the  mii*acle  of  the 
“  manna,”  and  on  the  latter  to  his  translation. 
Thus  in  the  Greek  metrical  Ephemerides  pub¬ 
lished  by  Papebroch  in  the  Arta  Sanctorum 
(May,  vol.  i.,  pp.  xxvii.  xliv.)  the  notices  are 
oySodrT)  T(\eou(Ti  poSiO’/xhi'^  EpoyrSyovoio,  irpds 
yc  Qebv  /jL^recTTr]  fipovrris  7ra?s  elwaSi  eVrp.  The 
latter  festival  is  also  found  in  the  calendars  of 
the  Ethiopic  and  Coptic  churches®  (Ludolf,  p.  5), 
which  also  commemorate  St.  John  on  December 
30,  and  also  his  translation  on  May  11  (ib.  pp. 
16,  28). 

Before  jiassing  on  to  the  next  part  of  our 
subject,  we  may  refer  briehy  to  a  custom 
prevalent  in  the  middle  ages  of  sending  to 


*  Polj'crates  (/.  c.)  calls  St.  John  /aapru?,  and  the 
Gothico-Gallic  Missal  {injra)  spcalcs  of  the  two  sons  ot 
Zebedee  together  as  martyrs. 

b  So  Kphiaciniua  (i.  C.)  to  ayiov  eKeiuov  /jvpov. 
r  In  one  form  of  the  calendar  given  by  Selden  i^ile  Synr- 
driis  veteruni  Kbrarorum,  p.  212,  ed.  1079),  the  date  is 
given  a.s  Septemb«*r  24. 


888 


JOHN  THE  EVANGELIST,  ST.,  Festival  of 


friends  on  St.  John’s  day  presents  of  wine  which 
liad  been  previously  blessed  {Bcnedictio  or  Hau- 
stus  S.  Joannis).  The  origin  of  this  custom  is 
not  certainly  known.  Some  have  viewed  it  as  a 
continuation  of  the  old  Roman  custom  of  sending 
to  friends  at  the  beginning  of  January  presents 
in  honour  of  Janus.  Whether  or  no  there  be 
any  connection  between  the  two  customs,  it 
seems  probable  that  there  must  be  some  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  legend  of  the  poisoned  wine  cup  sent 
to  St.  John,  who  signed  it  with  the  cross  and 
drank  it  unhurt  (see  e.g.  Isid.  Hispal.  de  ortu 
et  obita  Patrum  c.  72  ]  lx.x.xiii.  151).  This 

legend  has  very  likely  arisen  from  our  Lord’s 
words  (Matt.  xx.  23  :  cf.  also  ^lark  xvi.  18),  and 
has  itself  obviously  been  the  source  of  a  common 
mediaeval  representation  of  St.  John,  as  holding- 
a  cup  round  which  a  serpent  is  entwined. 

2.  Litiirgio  d  Notices. — In  the  Leonine  Sacra¬ 
mentary  we  have  two  masses  for  the  festival  of  St. 
John  on  December  27  (Leonis  0pp.  ii.  153,  ed. 
Ballerini).  There  is,  however,  but  one  in  the 
Gelasian  Sacramentary  (^Patrol.  Ixxiv.  1060), 
and  in  the  Gregorian,  as  given  by  Menard  (col. 
10);  he  mentions,  how'cx-er,  that  two  occur  in 
the  Cd.  Ratoldi,  and  in  the  text  of  Pamelius,  and 
also  in  the  Gregorian  Antiphonary  (i6.  col.  659). 
We  may  probably  assume  that  one  mass  was  for 
early  morning,  and  another  for  a  later  service. 
In  some  forms  of  the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  is 
also  a  ma.ss  for  May  6,  “Nativitas  S.  Joannis 
ante  portam  Latinam  ”  («6.  col.  87).  The  Am¬ 
brosian  liturgy  gives  one  mass  for  December  27 
(Pamelius,  Liturgg.  Latt.  i.  307). 

In  the  ancient  Gallican  lectionary  published 
by  -Mabillon,  Dec.  27  is  inscribed  in  festo  S. 
Johannis,  but  in  the  Gothico-Gallic  missal  the 
heading  is  m  Naiale  Apostoloi'iim  Jacobi  et  Jo- 
hannis  (Mabillon,  de  IJturgia  Gallican'i,  lib.  ii. 
Ill,  iii.  196).  In  the  former  case  the  epistle 
and  gospel  assigned  for  the  day  (no  prophetic 
lection  is  provided)  are  Rev.  xiv.  1-7,  Mark  x. 
35  ...  .  (one  leaf  of  the  MS.  is  here  torn  away). 
The  Gothico-Gallic  missal  has  also  a  commemo¬ 
ration  of  St.  John,  “ante  portam  Latinam”*^ 
(^Op.  cit.  iii.  262). 

The  Mozarabic  liturgy  commemorates  St.John 
alone  on  Dec,  27  (^Patrol.  Ixxxv.  199),  the  pro¬ 
phetic  lection,  epistle,  and  gospel  being  respect¬ 
ively,  Wisdom  x.  10-18,  1  Thess.  iv.  12-17, 

John  xxi.  15-24.  (For  sundiy  variations  fi'om 
these,  see  Leslie’s  notes  to  the  Mozarabic  liturgy 
in  loc.')  For  the  service  in  the  Mozarabic  bre¬ 
viary,  see  Patrol.  Ixxxvi.  127. 

The  so-called  Liber  Comitis  provides  for  the 
festix'al  of  December  27  an  Old  Testament  lec¬ 
tion  and  gospel.  Ecclus.  xv.  1-6,  and  John  xxi. 
19-24  {Patrol,  xxx.  489). 

3.  Apocryphal  Literature. — With  the  name  of 
St.  John  is  associated  a  considerable  amount  of 
pseudonymr  us  literature.  First  among  these  we 
may  mentioji  the  book  de  transitu  Mariae,  first 
edited  by  Tischendorf  {Apocalypses  ApocryjJae, 
pp.  70sqq. ;  see  also  his  Prolegomena,  pp.  xxxiv. 
sqq.,  and  Fabricius,  Cxlex  Pseudepigraphus  Novi 
Testament i,  i.  352,  ed.  1719).  This  was  one  of 
the  books  condemned  by  the  council  at  Rome 


d  This  mass  occurs  between  those  for  the  “  Finding  of 
the  Cross  ”  and  those  for  the  Rogation  days.  It  contains, 
however,  it  must  be  stated,  oo  reference  to  the  event 
“  ad  portam  Latinam.” 


under  Gelasius  in  494  A.D.,  where  it  is  simply 
spoken  of  as  “  Liber  qui  appellatur  Transitus, 
id  est,  Assumptio  Sanctae  Mdriae”  {Patrol,  lix. 

1 62)  ;  and  the  false  claim  to  the  name  of  John  the 
dto\6yQs  is  referred  to  by  Epiphanius  Monachus 
{de  Vita  B.  Virginis,  c.  1  ;  Petrol.  Or.  cxx.  188). 
Fabricius  also  refers  to  another  apocryphal  docu¬ 
ment  found  attached  to  a  copy  of  the  above, 
\nr6jxvr\ixa  rov  Kup'iov  yua>v  Ttjctou  XpicTTOv  els 
TT)v  cLTroKaOrjKuxTiv  avTov  (Tvyypa<pe'i(Ta{siA)  irapa 
rov  ayio'j  Qeo\6yov.  A  passing  allusion  may  be 
made  here  to  the  Templars’  mutilated  recension 
of  the  canonical  gospel  of  St.  John,  published 
by  Thilo  {Codex  Apocryphus  N/vi  Testamenti  i. 
817)  as  the  Codex  Evangelii  .fohannis  Parisiis  in 
sacro  Templariorum  tab  dario  asservato,  and  also 
to  the  Book  of  St.  John,  said  to  have  been  in  use 
among  the  Albigenses,  and  brought  to  light  by 
the  Inquisition  of  Carcasonne  {Oj).  cit.  884). 

We  may  next  mention  the  Apocryphal  Acts  of 
St.  John,  the  Greek  text  of  which  was  first 
edited  in  Tischendorfs  Acta  Ap  stolorum  Apo¬ 
crypha  (pp.  266  sqq.),  and  a  Syriac  version  of  the 
latter  part  of  it  in  Dr.  NtvxgWC?,  Apocryphal  Acts. 
Any  detailed  account  of  this  document  is  out  of 
place  here;  reference  may  be  made  to  Tischen- 
dorf  (pp.  Ixxiii.  sqq.) :  it  may,  how'ever,  be 
noted  that  it  was  known  to  Eusebius  {Jlist. 
Eccles.  iii.  25).  A  history  of  St.  John  at  Ephe.sus, 
in  a  Svriac  translation  of  an  unknown  Greek 
original,  has  been  published  by  Dr.  Wright  {Op. 
cit.). 

There  is  also  an  apocryphal  Apocalypse  of  St. 
John,  first  edited  by  Birch  in  1804,  and  subse¬ 
quently  by  Tischendorf  {Apocal.  Apocr.  pp.  70  sqq. 
cf.  pp.  xviii.  sqq.).  Assemani  (Z>iW/of  Orien- 
tedis,  iii.  part  1,  282)  mentions  three  MSS.  of  an 
Arabic  version  of  this  document.  Less  important 
than  the  above,  but  claiming  a  passing  notice, 
are  the  Epistle  ad  Hydropicum  gucmdim  given  by 
the  Pseudo-Prochorus  (see  Fabricius,  i.  926),  the 
Praver  of  St.  John,  cited  from  Martene  bv  Fa- 
bricius  (iii.  334),  and  the  Prophetia  dc  Consum- 
matione  Mundi,  said  to  hax'e  been  discovered  with 
a  commentary  of  Caecilius  in  1588  a.d.,  in  Gra¬ 
nada  {ih.  iii.  720).  In  connection  with  St.  John 
may  also  be  mentioned  the  Historia  Apostolica 
(lib.  V.)  of  the  Pseudo-Abdias  {ib.  i.  531  sqq.) 
and  the  Passio  S.  Johannis  Evangelistae  of  Mel- 
litus  {ib.  iii.  604).  The  Apostolic  Constitutions 
(viii.  16)  connect  with  the  name  of  St.  John  the 
regulations  as  to  the  ordination  of  presbyters. 
P’inally,  we  may  mention  the  Syro-Jacobite 
liturgy  of  St.  John  the  Ex'angelist.  A  Latin 
translation  of  this  is  given  by  Renaudot 
Orientalium  Collectio,  ii.  163,  ed.  1847). 

In  addition  to  works  already'  cited,  reference 
may  also  be  made  to  Tillemont  (J/e'/nofr^s  pour 
servir  a  V Histoirc  Ecclesiastigue,  x'ol.  i.  pp.  370 
sqq.  and  notes  17  and  18,  ed.  1693)  and  to  Au¬ 
gust!  {[)enkicurdigkeiten  aus  chr  Christlichen 
Archd'Aogie,  i.  288  sqq.,  iii.  242  sqq.).  [R.  S.] 

JOHN,  ST.,  THE  EVANGELIST,  ix  Art. 

From  very  early'  times  the  eagle  has  been  assigned 
to  St.  John  as  his  emblem  among  the  four  living 
creatures  which  have  always  been  held  sym¬ 
bolical  of  the  four  Evangelists  ;  indeed  the  most 
ancient  method  of  representing  the  beloved  dis¬ 
ciple  appears  to  have  been  by  this  symbol  alone. 
[Evangelists.] 

Perhaps  the  oldest  personal  representations  of 


889 


JOHN  THE  EVANGELIST,  ST,,  in  Art 


him  are  to  be  found  on  two  glass  cups,  where  he 
is  figured  in  bust  conversing  with  St.  J’«ter ; 
the  names  Simon,  Joiiannks  being  given  (Gar- 
rucci,  Vetri  ornati  di  fig.  in  oro,  tav.  xxiv  4 
and  5),  In  some  mosaics  of  the  6th  century  we 
find  him  as  a  young  man — all  representations 
make  him  young — with  long  hair;  a  nimbus 
surrounds  his  head ;  he  wears  the  tunic  and 
pallium,  and  carries  his  Gospel  pressed  to  his 
heart.  In  the  church  of  St.  Vitalis  at  Ravenna 
a  mosaic  of  a.d.  5-17,  shows  the  Evangelist 
seated,  holding  the  codex  of  his  Gospel  open  in 
his  hands ;  before  him  is  a  small  table  with  a 
pen  and  ink-bottle,  and  the  symbolical  eagle 
appears  above  his  head.  (See  woodcut.)  Lam- 
beci  (Bihlioth.  Caesar.  Vindobon.  vol.  ii.  pars  i. 
p.  571)  gives  an  illumination  from  a  very  early 
Greek  manuscript  in  which  St.  John  is  repre¬ 
sented  seated,  dictating  his  Gospel  to  a  deacon. 

We  find  him  standing  with  a  volume  in  his 
hand  in  a  mosaic  which  dates  from  the  9th  cen¬ 
tury,  in  the  church  of  St.  Maria  Novele.  This 


St.  Jolm  the  Evangelist,  in  St.  Vitalis  at  Ravenna. 
Erom  Ciampini. 


figure  and  those  of  three  other  apostles  occupy 
four  small  niches,  which  are  placed  two  on  each 
side  of  a  large  niche,  containing  the  seated  figure 
of  the  Virgin  with  the  infant  Je.sus  on  her  lap 
(Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon.  vol.  i,  tav.  liii.). 

In  the  crypt  of  St.  Urban  in  Caffarella,  at 
Rome,  we  find  a  somewhat  coarse  and  very  curi¬ 
ous  painting  of  the  same  date,  in  which  St.  John 
appears  with  similar  surroundings.  He  stands 
on  the  right  of  the  Virgin  and  St.  Urban  on  the 
left  (Perret,  vol.  i.  p,  Ixxxiii.). 

The  attempted  martyrdom  of  St.  John  before 
the  Latin  Gate  is  figured  in  an  ancient  mosaic  on 
the  portico  of  St.  John  Lateran  (Ciamp.  De -Sac/*. 
Aedifi.  tab.  ii.  8).  The  scene  is  now  very  imper¬ 
fectly  represented  because  the  mosaic  is  much 
damaged,  but  the  flagellation  of  the  apostle  can 
still  be  distinguished,  and  also  the  cutting  oft’ 
of  his  hair.  In  the  oldest  representations  of  the 
Crucifixion,  St.John  uniformly  occupies  the  posi¬ 
tion  he  assumes  in  his  own  narrative  (John  xix. 
25,  26),  standing  with  the  Virgin  at  the  foot  of 
the  cross,  the  faces  of  both  resting  upon  their 


hands  in  token  of  grief.  He  appears  thus  in  a 
fresco  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Julius  (Bottari, 
cxcii.)  and  in  the  celebrated  dijitych  ofRambona, 
figured  by  Buonarotti  (  Ornati,  p.  285). 

Over  his  head  are  the  w'ords,  dissipule  (sic) 
ECCE  (mater  tua). 

An  almost  identical  representation  is  found 
upon  the  very  ancient  ivory  tablet  in  the  form 
of  a  pax,  mentioned  by  Florentino,  taken  from 
the  collegiate  church  of  Civitaiis,  in  the  diocese 
of  Aquileia.  St.  John  stands  by  the  Lord’s  side 
with  this  inscription :  AP.  ECCE  m  tva  (Apostole 
ecce  mater  tua). 

Basilicas  w'ere  dedicated  to  St.  John  the  Evan¬ 
gelist  in  very  early  times ;  among  others,  we 
may  mention  that  of  St.  John  Lateran.  The 
ancient  Vatican  had  also  an  altar  raised  to  his 
honour  by  pope  Symmachus  (Ciamp.  l)e  Sacr. 
Aedif.  p.  60,  1  d).  (Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq. 
C/iret.  s.  V.)  [C.] 

JOHN  (1)  and  Gabriel;  commemorated  July 
12  (Cal.  Gcorg.fi 

(2)  and  Cyrus,  martyrs,  dau/jLaTovpyoi,  audp- 
yvpoi,  A.D.  292;  commemorated  Jan.  31  (Cal. 
Byzant.')  :  their  translation,  A.D.  400,  commemo¬ 
rated  June  28  (Cal.  Byzant.fi 

(3)  Ab  Zedaoni  et  tredecim  patres  Syriae’; 
commemorated  May  7  (Cal.  Georg.fi 

(4)  Twenty-ninth  patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
commemorated  Ginbot  4  =  April  29  (Cal.  Ethiop.fi 

(6)  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  f  577  ;  comme¬ 
morated  Ter  16  =  Jan.  11  (ib.fi 

(6)  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem;  commemorated 
March  9  (Cal.  Annen.fi 

(7)  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  A.D.  685 ;  com¬ 
memorated  Ginbot  10  =  May  5  (Cal.  Ethiop.fi 

(8)  Archbishop  of  Alexandria,  A.D.  615;  com¬ 
memorated  Nov.  12  (Cal.  Byzant.fi 

(9)  '6<nos  TraT7}p,  b  (Tvyypatpeus  rrjs  KAipaKOS, 
f  A.D.  570;  commemorated  March  30  (Cal.  Byz.) 

(10)  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  A.D.  619; 
commemorated  Sept.  2  (Cal.  Byzant.fi 

(11)  Damascenus,  iaios  irar^p,  f  A.D.  735  ; 
commemorated  Dec.  4  (ib.fi 

(12)  Palaeo-laurita,  Herios  ttottjp  ;  commemo¬ 
rated  April  19  (ib.fi 

(13)  Presbyter,  deposition  in  monast.  Reomae- 
ensi,  Jan.  28  (Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(14)  Saint,  Penarensis:  commemorated  March 
19  (ib.,  Mart.  Bom.  Vet.fi 

(16)  Eremita,  deposition  in  Egypt,  t393  A.D. ; 
March  27  (ib.) 

(16)  The  pope,  martyr  at  Rome  (f 626  A.D.)  ; 
commemorated  May  ‘ih  (Mart.  Usuardi):  depo¬ 
sition,  May  28  (Mart.  Bedae). 

(17)  Presbyter,  martyr  under  Julian ;  com¬ 
memorated  June  23  (Mart.  Bom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(18)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  Paulus  ;  comme¬ 
morated  June  26  (ih.,  Mart.  Hieron.,  Bedae)., 

(19)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Rome  with  Cirispiis 
under  Diocletian;  commemorated  Aug.  1 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(20)  Martyr  at  Tomi,  with  Marcelliuus  and 
his  wife  Manula,  Serapio,  and  Peter  (filarU. 
Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 


890 


JONAH 


(21)  Martyr  at  Kicomedia,  under  Diocletian; 
commemorated  Sept.  7  (^Mart.  Horn.  Vet.^  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(22)  Martyr  with  Adulfus  at  Cordova;  com¬ 
memorated  Sept.  27  Usuardi). 

(23)  Martyr  in  Tuscany  ;  commemorated  with 
P'cstus,  Dec.  21  {Idart.  Rom.  Vet.^  Hieron.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(24)  Calybfta,  a.d.  460  ;  commemorated  Jan.- 

15  {Cal.  Byzant.)  [W.  F.  G.] 

JONAH,  the  prophet;  commemorated  Mas- 
karram  25  =  Sept.  22  {Cal.  EthiopC).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JONILTjA,  martyr  at  Langres  with  Leonidas, 
Speusippus,  Elasippus,  and  Melasippus;  comme¬ 
morated  Jan.  17  (Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

JORDAN,  THE  RIVER,  in  Art.  The 
repi  eseutations  of  tlie  river  Jordan  in  early 
Christian  art,  especially  those  sculptured  on 
sarco])hagi  (Bottari,  tav.  xxix.),  are  generally 
copied,  with  more  or  less  exactness,  from  the 
liver-gods  of  pagan  antiquity.  Thus  we  find 
him  personified  as  an  old  man  with  a  crown 
and  sceptre  of  reeds,  sometimes  leaning  upon  an 
urn  from  which  flows  a  stream  of  water.  He  is 
thus  represented  in  the  mosaic  in  the  baptistery 
of  St.  John  in  fonte  at  Ravenna,  with  the  name 


lOROANN,  written  over  his  head  (Ciampini,  Vet. 
Mon.  i.  tav.  Ixx.,  see  woodcut);  also  in  an  illu¬ 
mination  in  a  copy  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  in  the 
\  atican.  The  same  mythological  type  appears 
again  at  Ravenna,  in  a  mosaic  in  the  church  of 
S.  Maria  inCosmedin;  in  this  instance,  however, 
two  horns  are  substituted  for  the  crown  of  reeds 
on  the  head  of  the  figure  (Id.  ibid.  II.  tav. 
xxiii.). 

The  .Jordan,  simply  as  a  stream,  appears  in 
some  sculptured  representations  of  the  translation 
of  Elijah  (Bottari,  ScuHure^  tav.  Hi.  2),  in  a  paint¬ 
ing  ot  the  baptism  of  the  Lord  in  the  cemetery 
of  Pontianus,  in  another  fresco  in  the  cemetery  of 
Callixtus  (Bottari,  Ixxii.),  on  a  bronze  medaliion 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Loi-d  with  the  name  of  the 
river  below,  iorda  (Vettori.  Num.  Aer.  explic. 
frontisp.),  in  some  bottoms  of  cups,  where  it  Hows 
at  the  feet  of  the  Saviour  (Buonarotti.  tav.  vi.  1), 
and  in  various  mosaics,  that  of  SS.  Cosmas  and  Da¬ 
mian  at  Rome,  for  example,  with  the  inscription 


JOSEPH,  ST. 

lORDANES  (Ciampini,  Vet.  Mon.  tav.  xvi.).  See 
Jesus  Christ,  p.  876.  On  some  sarcophagi  the 
Lord  appears  seated,  in  the  act  of  teaching,  and, 
at  his  feet,  a  half-length  human  figure  holding 
with  both  hands  a  piece  of  cloth,  which  inflated 
by  the  wind,  spreads  above  his  head  in  the  form 
of  an  arcli.  'Phis  has  been  supposed  to  be  an¬ 
other  emblem  of  the  river  Jordan  (Gavedoni, 
Rayguol.  crit.  p.  50),  on  the  banks  of  which 
several  of  the  Lord’s  discourses  were  delivered. 
But  see  Firmament.  (Martigny,  Diet,  des  Antiq. 
Chr€t.  s.  V.  ‘Jourdain.’)  [C.j 

JOSEPH.  (1)  Of  Thessalonica,  8<noj  Trarrjp 
Kal  biJ.o\oyr]T7}s commemorated  July  13  {Cal. 
Byzant.). 

(2)  Husband  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  commemo¬ 
rated  Hamle  26  =  July  20  {Cal.  Ethiop.) 

(3)  Ab  Alaverdi;  commemorated  Sept.  15 
{Gal.  Georg.). 

(4)  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  f849  A.D. ;  com¬ 
memorated  Tekemt  23  =  Oct.  20  {Cal.  Etkiop.). 

(5)  The  Just;  commemorated  July  20  {Mart. 

Rorn.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JOSEPH,  ST.  Early  Christian  art  has  left 
us  no  work  in  which  St.  Joseph  appears  alone, 


or  even  as  a  principal  figure.  In  such  subjects 
as  the  Nativity,  the  Adoration  of  the  Shepherds, 
and  of  the  Magi,  and  the  finding  of  Jesus  in  the 
Temple,  he  appears  only  as  an  accessory  ;  never 
in  an  exalted,  seldom  even  in  a  prominent, 
position. 

He  is  represented  as  a  midille-aged  uiaL,  some¬ 
times  bald  (Bottari,  tav.  Ixxxvi.),  sometimes 
with  thick  hair  (Id.  ixxxv. ;  Allegranza,  Monum. 
Sacr.  di  Milano,  tav.  iv.);  he  is  generally  robed 
in  tunic  and  pallium,  and  carries  some  car¬ 
penter’s  tool,  as  the  distinctive  mark  of  his 
calling  (Molanii^,  de  Hist.  SS.  Tniag.  p.  269). 
Thus  in  a  diptych  in  i^lilan  cathedral  he  is 
represented  with  a  saw  (Bugati,  Memor.  di  S. 
Celso,  p.  282),  on  the  sarcophagus  of  Celsus,  alsc 
in  Milan,  he  carries  an  adze  (Bugati,  «.  s.  p. 


JOSHUA 

242),  and  wears  the  everyday  costume  of  an 
artisan. 

In  all  these  cases  St.  Joseph  retains  the  un¬ 
obtrusive  position  assigned  to  him  in  the  gospel 
naiTatives — always  in  the  background,  and  ap¬ 
parently  full  of  earnest  thought.  He  appears 
absorbed  in  his  duty  as  the  protector  of  the 
Holy  Family;  in  an  attitude  of  watchful  love  he 
stands  behind  the  Virgin  while  the  Holy  Child 
sleeps  upon  her  knees ;  sometimes  his  hand  is 
stretched  over  them  in  token  of  protection 
(Ferret,  vol.  v.  pi.  xii.) ;  sometimes,  seated  near 
the  cradle,  he  guards  the  slumbers  of  the  Divine 
Infant. 

Bandini  gives  an  ancient  ivory  (/«  tahulam 
ebuni.  in  fine ;  see  woodcut),  which  shows  two 
scenes  in  the  life  of  St.  Joseph.  Above,  the  dream; 
an  angel  standing  by  a  bed  extends  his  arm  over 
the  sleeper  in  the  attitude  of  exhortation.  Below, 
we  have  the  journey  to  Bethlehem  :  an  angel 
leads  the  ass  on  which  the  Virgin  is  seated ;  her 
arm  encircles  Joseph’s  neck,  and  his  whole  atti¬ 
tude  expresses  the  most  reverent  atlection.  (Mar- 
tigny.  Diet,  des  Antiq.  Chret.  s.  v.)  [C.] 

JOSHUA,  the  son  of  Nun  ;  commemorated 
Se})t.  1  (Ca/.  Byzant^\  Senne  25  =  June  19  (Cal. 
Ethiop.').  Also  with  Gideon.  [W.  F.  G.] 

JOURNEYING.  All  travellers  and  strangers 
were  expected  to  bring  Commendatory  Letters, 
i.e.  testimonials  from  their  own  bishop,  and  were 
then  admitted  to  communicate  in  the  Eucharist. 
Persons  who  had  not  provided  themselves  with 
these,  might  share  if  they  needed  it,  in  the  hos¬ 
pitality  provided  by  the  churches  and  religious 
houses,  but  were  not  admitted  to  communion. 
This  was  to  guard  against  the  admission  of  ex¬ 
communicated  persons.  The  Apostolical  Canons 
order  that  if  any  person  was  received  without 
commendatory  letters,  and  it  afterwards  ap¬ 
peared  that  he  was  excommunicate,  both  the 
receiver  and  received  should  be  cast  out  of 
communion  (Ccm.  xiii.).  From  an  allusion  in 
the  letters  of  Gregory  the  Great,  we  learn  that 
those  who  travelled  by  sea  sometimes  took  the 
reserved  sacrament  in  both  kinds  with  them  in 
the  ship,  so  as  not  to  be  deprived  of  communion. 
(Gregor.  Dialog.  III.,  c.  36,  apud  Baron,  an.  404). 
“  Peregrina  Communio,”  or  the  Communion  of 
Strangers,  is  a  well-known  phrase  in  Canons, 
but  is  not  well  understood  (Bingham,  xvii.  3  ; 
and  Communion,  Holy,  p.  417).  From  the  fifth 
century  downwards,  these  rules  were  of  con¬ 
tinual  application,  in  consequence  of  the  in¬ 
creasing  practice  of  going  on  pilgrimages.  [Pil¬ 
grimage.]  [S.  J.  E.] 

JOVINIANUS,  the  reader  of  Auxerre;  Pas- 
sio.  May  5  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi).  [VV.  F.  G.] 

JOVINUS,  martyr  at  Rome  with  Basileus, 
under  Gallieuus  and  Valerianus  ;  commemorated 
March  2  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

JO  VITA.  [Faustinus  (1).] 

JUDAS  ISCARIOT.  The  .subjoined  wood- 
cut  is  taken  from  Assemani’s  Catalogus  Bibl. 
Laurentianae,  and  represents  one  of  the  illumi¬ 
nations  ii'.  the  great  MS.  of  Rabula,  in  that 
collection.  The  subject  is  very  rare  in  early 
Christian  art.  The  Betrayal  of  our  Lord  after¬ 
wards  became  specially  popular  with  painters; 


JUDE  THE  APOSTI;E,  ST.  591 

but  is  not  found  that  we  are  aware  of  (except 
possibly  in  MSS.)  within  the  limits  of  our  jicriod 


Martigny  makes  no  mention  of  it,  and  Guene- 
bault’s  earliest  example  is  of  the  12th  century. 

[R.  St.  J.  T.] 

JUDE  THE  APOSTLE,  ST.,  Legend  and 
Festival  of. 

1.  Legend,  ^c. — With  the  name  of  this  apostle 
considerable  difficulties  are  associated ;  the  ques¬ 
tions  as  to  the  identity  of  Jude  with  Lebbaeus 
and  Thaddaeus,  the  identity  of  Jude  the  a})0stle 
with  Judas  the  Lord’s  brother,  and,  on  the  hypo¬ 
thesis  which  distinguishes  these  two  last,  the 
question  as  to  which  was  the  author  of  the  ca¬ 
nonical  epistle.  As  to  the  first  point,  in  spite  of 
some  curious  complications,  we  can  hardly  hesi¬ 
tate  to  assume  the  identity  of  the  three ;  it  is 
not  conceivable  that  the  Evangelists  should  have 
actually  varied  in  the  lists  of  the  Twelve.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  enter  at  length  into  thii 
point  here,  as  it  will  be  found  discussed  in  the 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible  ;  a  few  further  re¬ 
marks,  however,  may  be  made.  The  most  pro¬ 
minent  tradition  in  connection  with  the  name  of 
this  apostle  is  the  mission  to  Abgarus,  king  of 
Edessa,  to  which  we  shall  again  refer.  The  case 
is,  however,  complicated  by  the  fact  that  some 
writers  describe  this  Thaddaeus  as  the  apostle 
{e.g.  Jerome,  Comm,  in  Matt.  x.  4;  vol.  vii.  pt;  1, 
57,  ed.  Vallarsi ;  and  the  Acta  I'haddaei,  infra), 
while  others  {e.g.  Eusebius,  IJist.  Eccles.  i.  13) 
speak  of  him  as  one  of  the  Seventy  disciples,  who 
was  sent  to  Edessa  by  the  apostle  Thomas.  This 
last  writer  introduces  another  difficulty  by  stat¬ 
ing  {1.  c.)  that  the  name  of  Thomas  was  really 
Judas.*  Yet  another  element  of  confusion  has 
been  brought  in  by  those  who  identify  Lebbaeus 
with  Levi  (cf.  Origen  contra  Ce'sum,  i.  62).  Any 
discussion,  however,  on  these  theories  is  quite 
beyond  our  present  province,  and  we  shall  there¬ 
fore  assume  the  identity  of  Ju<le,  Lebbaeus,  and 
Thaddaeus ;  and  in  collecting  the  various  notices 
of  Thaddaeus  we  shall  include  all  as  belonging  to 
the  apostle,  except  those  which  distinctly  refer 
to  him  as  one  of  the  Seventy.  As  to  the  varying 
forms  of  the  traditions  about  Thaddaeus’s  labours 
and  death,  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  say  how 
far  they  are  to  be  viewed  as  distinctly  conffict- 

»  In  the  Syriac  Acts  of  Thoniiu:,  published  by  Dr. 
Wright,  the  name  Thomas  appears  as  a  mere  occasional 
addition  to  Judas.  See  also  Assemani,  Bibl.  Or.  i.  318. 


892 


JUDE  THE  APOSTLE,  ST.,  Legend  and  Festival  of 


ing  legends,  and  how  far  they  are  to  be  explained 
as  referring  to  two  different  men. 

We  shall  now  proceed  briefly  to  glance  through 
the  various  legends.  The  Martyrologium  Hiero- 
nymi  speaks  in  its  Prologue  of  St.  Simon  and 
St.  Jude  having  suffered  together  “in  Susia, 
civitate  magna  apud  Persidem  ”  (Patrol,  xxx. 
451),  though  in  the  body  of  the  work  the 
scene  of  the  martyrdom  is  simply  given  as 
“  alibi  ”  (lb.  495).  The  Martyrology  of  Bede 
speaks  of  previous  labours  of  St.  Jude  in  Meso¬ 
potamia  (Patrol.  xciv\  184) :  so  also  the  Western 
Martyrologies generally,  see  e.g.  those  of  Wand- 
albert  (Patrol,  cxxi.  616)  and  Usuard  (Patrol. 
cxxiv.  630).  So  also  Isidore,  who  refers  to  la¬ 
bours  in  Mesopotamia,  Pontus,  and  Armenia  (de 
ortu  et  obitii  Patrum,  c.  78,  Patrol.  Ixxxiii.  453) 
and  Venantius  Fortunatus  (Carm.  viii.  6;  Patrol. 
lxxxviii.270).  Paulinus  of  Nola  does  indeed  speak 
of  his  labours  among  the  Libyans  (Pocrtia  xix. 
82  ;  Patrol.  Ixi.  514),  but  a  mere  unsupported 
statement  of  this  kind  need  not  count  for  much.*^ 
The  account  given  by  Nicephorus  (Hist.  Eccles. 
ii.  40)  varies  somewhat,  and,  as  will  be  seen,  we 
cannot  account  for  the  variation  by  refei-ring  it 
to  the  other  Thaddaeus.  The  apostle  i^  spoken 
of  as  labouring  in  Judaea,  Galilee,  Samaria,  Idu¬ 
maea,  Arabia,  Syria,  and  Mesopotamia,  finally 
dying  peaceably  at  Edessa ;  on  his  arrival  at 
which  place  he  found  that  Thaddaeus,  one  of  the 
Seventy  disciples,  had  beer  there  before  him. 
The  Apocryphal  Acts  of  Thaddaeus  (infra)  differ 
again.  According  to  these,  Thaddaeus  was  a 
native  of  Edessa,  who  was  a  disciple  of  St.  John 
the  Baptist  before  he  followed  Christ.  Abgarus, 
king  of  Edessa,  having  been  healed  by  a  miracu¬ 
lous  portrait  sent  him  by  our  Lord,  is  visited  by 
Thaddaeus  after  the  Ascension.  The  apostle, 
after  making  many  converts,  journeys  to  Amis 
on  the  Tigris,  and  thence  to  Berytus  in  Phoenicia 
where  he  apparently  dies  a  natural  death. 

Syrian  traditions  almost  universally  distinguish 
Thaddaeus,  the  apostle  of  Edessa,  from  St.  Jude ; 
though,  like  Western  authorities,  they  assign. 
Mesopotamia  to  the  latter  as  the  sphere  of  his 
labours ;  the  former,  however,  whom  they  ordi¬ 
narily  name  Adai,  they  maintain  to  be  one  of  the 
Seventy  (see  Assemani,  Bibl.  Orient,  i.  318;  iii. 
part  1,  297,  302  ;  from  which  last  reference  it 
appears  that  practically  the  only  exception  to 
the  general  character  of  the  stream  of  Syrian 
tradition  is  Jesujabus,  bishop  of  Nisibis,  with 
whom  Adai  is  the  same  as  the  apostle  St.  Jude : 
— for  the  history  of  this  Adai,  see  Op.  cit.  iii. 
I  art  2,  pp.  8-13). 

2.  Festival. — As  in  the  case  of  not  a  few  others 
of  the  apostles,  there  is  a  lack  of  evidence  for 
any  early  special  commemoration  of  St.  Jude; 
and  its  absence  from  the  earlier  Sacramentaries, 
as  well  as  the  fact  that  hardly  any  ancient 
Homilies  are  extant  for  such  a  festival,  points 
in  the  same  direction.  In  the  West  the  comme- 


b  The  Martyrologium  Gellonense  speaks  of  St.  Jude’s 
having  been  buried  “  in  Nerito  .\rminiae  urbe"  (D’ Achery, 
Spicilegium,  xiii.  390).  This  is  probably  a  false  reading 
for  “in  Berytof'  so  Isidore  (?. c.)  “  in  Beryto  Armeniae.” 

f  ]\Iuratori  (not.  in  loc.)  tries  to  account  for  the  discre¬ 
pancy  by  supposing  Libya  to  be  the  place  of  sepulture, 
but  not  of  death,  but  this  is  palpably  over  refining. 

d  Among  the  very  few,  we  may  note  that  of  Nicetas 
Paphlago  {Patrol.  Or.  cv.  25-1);  that  once  attributed  to 
Bede  {Patrol,  xciv.  489)  is  spurious. 


moratioo  of  St.  Jude  has  been  joined  with  that 
of  St.  Simon  on  October  28,  but  this  combination 
does  not  occur  in  Eastern  calendars.  The  reason 
for  this  association  of  the  two  names  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  ascertain  ;  it  may  have  been  from  the 
belief  that  the  two  apostles  were  brothers,  or 
from  the  tradition  of  their  having  suffered  mar¬ 
tyrdom  on  the  same  day,  but  as  in  the  parallel 
case  of  St.  Philip  and  St.  James  it  is  perfectly 
useless  to  theorize.  It  may  merely  be  remarked 
that  as  regards  the  first  of  these  theories,  there 
is  no  trace  of  such  a  combination  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Andrew,  and  but  little  of  one  of  St.  James 
and  St.  John  :  as  regards  the  latter,  the  tradition 
can  have  been  by  no  means  a  wide-spread  one, 
inasmuch  as  only  the  Western  church  comme¬ 
morates  the  two  apostles  on  the  same  day. 

We  have  already  remarked  as  to  the  absence 
of  this  festival  from  the  oldest  liturgical  authori¬ 
ties.  Thus  we  find  no  trace  of  it  in  the  Leonine 
or  Gelasian  Sacramentaries,  in  Mabillon’s  Gal¬ 
ilean  liturgy,  in  Muratori’s  Gregorian  Sacra¬ 
mentary  and  in  the  calendar  of  Fronto:  nor  is  it 
recognized  in  the  Pontifical  of  Egbert,  archbishop 
of  York  (ob.  766  A.D.).  it  is  found,  however,  in 
the  Gregorian  Sacramentary  as  edited  by  Menard 
(col.  137),  where  also  a  separate  mass  is  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  A’igil.  The  vigil  is  also  recognized 
with  the  festival  in  DIenard’s  Gregorian  Anti- 
])honary  (col.  711),  and  in  the  St.  Gall  MS.  of 
the  Marty 7'ologium  Gellonense  (D’Achfery,  Spici- 
legium,  xiii.  427).  A  mass  for  the  festival  is  given 
in  the  Ambrosian  liturgy,  part  of  which  is  the 
.same  as  that  in  the  Gregorian  (Pamelins,  Liturgy. 
ImU.  i.  427) ;  and  in  the  Mozarabic  missal, 
where,  however,  it  must  be  noticed  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  service  is  borrowed  from 
that  for  another  festiA*al,  that  for  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul  (Patrol.  Ixxv.  888,  where  see  Leslie’s 
note :  also  for  the  form  in  the  Mozarabic  bre¬ 
viary,  see  Patrol.  Ixxxvi.  1236).  The  Comes 
Hieronymi,  as  published  by  Pamelins  (Liturgy. 
Latt.  ii.  53)  gives  an  Old  Testament  lection  [or 
epistle]  and  gospel  for  the  A'igil  and  the  festival  ; 
Wisdom  iii.  1  sqq.,  John  xv.  1  sqq.,  and  PkOmans 
riii.  28  sqq.,  John  xv.  17  sqq. 

Besides  the  festival  of  October  28,  it  may  be 
noted  that  some  Western  calendars  give  other 
commemorations  of  St.  Simon  and  St.  Jude : 
thus  the  Martyrologium  Hieronymi,  as  gi^'en  by 
D’Achfery  from  the  Corbey  MS.,  adds  one  on 
July  1  (Patrol,  xxx.  464),  and  Cue  Martyrologium 
Gellonense  (jy'Xchhry,  405)  two,  on  June  29  and 
July  1. 

In  the  Eastern  church,  as  we  have  already  said, 
St.  Jude  is  commemorated  apart  from  St.  Simon, 
on  June  19.  There  is  also  a  festival  on  August 
21  of  Thaddaeus,  whom  we  should  assixme  to  be 
the  apostle  of  Edessa  A'iewed  as  distinct  from 
St.  Jude.  Papebroch,  however  (hifra),  evidently 
refers  both  to  the  same  St.  Jude  in  his  notes  to 
the  Greek  metrical  Ephemcrides  published  by 
him  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum  (May,  vol.  i.  pp. 
xxxii.  xl.).  The  notices  here  are  —  ivv^a  uaX 
SeKarg  dvqaKei  TouSas,  and  eiKoBi 

TTpung  QuSSalos  ^loroio  awfinri.  In  the  Arme¬ 
nian  calendar  we  find  commemorations  of  Thad¬ 
daeus  on  July  20  and  of  Thaddaeus  and  Bartho¬ 
lomew  on  November  30  (Neale,  Eastern  Churchy 
Introd.  pp.  800,  804).  Whether,  however,  both 
of  these  are  to  be  referred  to  St.  Jude  we  are 
unable  to  say.  We  may  refer  lastly  to  the  ca- 


JUDGE 


JULIANUS 


893 


lendars  of  the  Egyptian  and  Ethiopic  churches 
published  by  Ludolf  (Fasie  iS'am  Ecclesiae  Alex- 
andrinac).  Here  we  find  “  Jude,  Apostle,”  com¬ 
memorated  by  the  former  chui’ch  on  Jan.  26  and 
May  10  (pp.  19,  28);  and  a  commemoration  by 
both  chui’ches  of  Thaddaeus  on  June  26  (p.  32), 
and  of  the  Translation  of  the  body  of  Thaddaeus 
on  July  23  (p.  35).  The  last  two  are  perhaps  to 
be  referred  to  Thaddaeus  viewed  as  external 
to  the  Twelve. 

3.  Whether  the  apostle  St.  Jude  is  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  the  author  of  the  canonical  epistle 
bearing  the  name  of  Jude,  we  do  not  discuss 
here  :  reference  may  be  made  on  this  point  to  the 
Digtionauy  op  thk  Bible.  But  little  pseudo¬ 
nymous  literature  is  connected  with  the  name 
of  St.  Jude;  an  apocryphal  gospel  bearing  the 
name  of  Thaddaeus  is  mentioned  in  some  forms 
of  the  records  of  the  council  held  at  Rome  in 
494  A.D.  under  the  episcopate  ofGelasius  {Patrol. 
lix.  162).  It  has  been  suggested,  but  does  not 
seem  probable,  that  Thaddaci  is  a  false  reading  for 
Matthiae.  There  are  also  extant  Acta  Th  iddaei, 
of  which  the  Greek  text  was  first  published  by 
Tischendorf  {Acta  Apostolorum  Apocrypha,  pp. 
261  sqq.).  In  this  is  contained  the  letter  of  Ab- 
garus  to  our  Lord  in  a  somewhat  different  form 
from  that  given  by  Eusebius.  The  Apostolic  Consti¬ 
tutions  (viii.  25)  give,  in  the  name  of  “  Lebbaeus, 
surnamed  Thaddaeus,”  the  regulation  as  to  the 
order  of  widows  in  the  church,  and  also  as  to 
exorcists.  Finally,  we  may  refer  for  the  legend¬ 
ary  history  to  the  Historia  Apostolica  of  the 
Pseudo-Abdias  (lib.  vi. ;  Fabricius,  Codex  Pseude- 
pigraphus  Novi  Testamenti,\.  591  sqq.,  ed.  1719). 
In  addition  to  works  already  cited,  see  also 
August!,  fJenkwUrdigheiten  aus  der  Christliclien 
Archdologie,  vol.  iii.  pp.  206  sqq.  Van  Hecke 
in  the  Acta  Sanctorum  (October,  vol,  xii.  pp. 
437  sqq.) ;  Assemani,  Kalendarium  Ecclesiae  Uni- 
versae,  vi.  432  sqq.  [R.  S,] 

JUDGE.  The  early  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
was  exercised  without  formality  or  strict  adhe¬ 
rence  to  legal  rights  and  requirements,  in  a  quasi- 
paternal  manner.  [Compai-e  Discipline.]  No 
special  training  was  therefore  required  for  it. 
The  bishop  himself  was  the  usual  and  ordinary  ” 
judge:  and  appeals  from  him  went  to  the  pro¬ 
vincial  synod  or  to  the  metropolitan,  primate 
or  patriarch  in  person.  [Appeal;  Audientia 
Episcopalis;  Bishop,  p.  236.] 

The  earliest  officer  of  the  bishop  occupying  in 
any  sense  an  independent  position  was  the  OECO- 
NOMUS  or  treasurer.  This  office  was  often  united 
with  that  of  the  defensor  or  guardian  and  advo¬ 
cate  of  the  liberties  of  the  church,  who  is  spoken 
of  in  the  2nd  canon  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon. 
[Advocate  of  the  Church.]  Gothofredus  (in 
Cod.  I.  iii.  33.  2)  says  that  the  defen^ior  became 
in  time  a  judge  in  small  causes:  and  his  office 
is  supposed  by  Ayliff’e  {Parerg.  160)  to  have 
been  the  original  of  the  modern  official  or  chan¬ 
cellor. 

The  word  ‘•official”,  the  technical  word  in 
later  times  (as  in  the  12th  century)  for  the 
officer  exercising  coercive  jurisdiction  on  behalf 
of  the  bishop  or  metropolitan,  is  not  used  in  this 
sense  in  the  Code  or  in  the  Novells.  The  word 
indeed  often  occurs  in  them,  but  as  the  name 
of  a  secular  officer. 

The  9th  canon  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon 


speaks  of  arbitrators  being  chosen  with  the 
bishop’s  consent  to  determine  civil  controversies 
between  clerks,  instead  of  the  bishop. 

The  greater  formality  and  style  of  the  ecclesi¬ 
astical  courts  grew  up  with  the  increase  of  juris¬ 
diction  over  civil  matters  and  with  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  “officials”  in  the  12th  century.  The 
presence  of  a  registrar  to  make  solemn  record 
of  the  decrees  of  the  court  was  first  ordered  in 
the  council  of  Lateran  held  under  Innocent  III. 
A.D.  1215;  though  it  was  probably  customary  to 
have  a  scribe  or  notary  present  at  the  formal 
sittings  of  the  courts  for  some  time  before  this ; 
and  we  actually  hear  of  notaries  at  the  pseudo¬ 
council  of  Ephesus,  A.D.  449.  Apparitors  or 
summoners  to  the  bishop’s  courts  are  spoken  of 
in  the  Code  and  Novells,  where  the  fees  to  be 
taken  by  them  are  specially  regulated. 

In  what  has  been  said  as  to  the  bishop  being 
the  “ordinary”  judge,  it  is  not  intended  to 
imply  that  he  decided,  at  any  rate  grave  cases, 
alone,  or  without  the  advice  and  concurrence  of 
his  clergy. 

Similarly  the  metropolitan,  even  if  he  did  not 
convene  the  whole  provincial  synod,  collected 
some  of  the  bishops  of  the  province  to  assist  him 
in  deciding  the  causes  brought  before  him.  In 
some  cases  the  canons  or  imperial  laws  speak  of 
the  metropolitan,  in  others  of  the  synod,  as  the 
proper  court. 

The  jurisdiction  of  abbots  [Abbat]  had  hardly 
grown  up  during  the  period  of  which  we  are 
treating.  They  had  at  the  utmost  a  sort  of 
parental  authority  subordinate  to  the  bishop. 
[Jurisdiction.]  [W.  G.  F.  P.] 

JULIA.  (1)  Virgin,  martyr  in  Corsica ; 
commemorated  May  22  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi), 

(2)  [Florentius.] 

(3)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Troyes  ;  commemorated 
July  21  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  in  Lusitania  with  Veneris.sima  and 
Maxima  (<6.). 

(5)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Augusta  Eufratesia ; 
commemorated  Oct.  7  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(6)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Emerita  (Merida)  with 

Eulalia ;  commemorated  Dec.  10  {Mart.  Adoni.s, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G,] 

JULIANA.  (1)  Martyr  “apud  Augustanam 
urbem  ”  with  Quiriacus,  Largio,  Crescentianus, 
Nimmia,  and  20  others;  commemorated  Aug.  12 
{Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  Virgin,  martyr  at  Cumae,  in  the  time  of 
Maximinian  ;  commemorated  Feb.  16  {Mart.  Rom. 
^"et.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Martyr  of  Nicomedia,  A.D.  299;  comme¬ 
morated  Dec.  21  {Cal.  Pyrant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JULIANUS.  (1)  Martyr  with  M  aximinus 
and  Lucianus  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(2)  and  Basilissa,  martyrs  at  Anlioch  under 
Diocletian  and  Maximian ;  commemorated  Jan, 
6  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  llieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi) 
Nov.  25  {Cal.  Armen.). 

(3)  Martyr  in  Egypt  with  five  others ;  com¬ 
memorated  Feb.  16  {Mart.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  in  Africa  witn  Publius;  comme¬ 
morated  Feb.  19  {Mart.  Usuanli). 


894 


JULITTA 


JURISDICTION 


(5)  Martyr  at  Alexandria;  commemorated 

Feb.  27  Horn.  Vet.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(6)  Bishop ;  deposition  at  Toledo,  JIarch  G 
(^Mnrt.  Usuardi). 

(7)  [Sympiiorosa.] 

(8)  Tarsensis,  martyr  ;  commemorated  .June 
21  {Cal.  liyzaat.'). 

(9)  Martyr  at  Damascus  with  Sabinus,  Maxi¬ 
mus,  Macrobius,  Cassius,  Paula,  and  10  others; 
commemorated  July  20  {MaH.  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(10)  Martyr  at  Rome  with  Peter  and  18 
others  ;  commemorated  Aug.  7  {Mart.  Horn.  Vet., 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(11)  Saint  in  Syria;  commemorated  with 
Macarius,  Aug.  12  {Mart.  Horn.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(12)  Martyr  at  Clermont;  commemorated 
Aug.  28  {Mart.  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(13)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Terracina  with  Cae- 
sarius  the  deacon  in  the  time  of  Claudius  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Nov.  1  {Mart.  Horn.  Vet.,  BeJae, 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(14)  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  fA.D.  189  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Magabit  8  n  March  4  {Cal.  Ethiop.). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

JULITTA  or  JULIETTA,  martyr  at  An¬ 
tioch  with  her  sou  Cyricus  or  Cyrillus,  a.d.  296  ; 
commemorated  June  16  {Mart.  Horn.  Vet.,  i 
Hieron.,  Adoni.s,  Usuardi);  Jan. 21  {Cal.  Armen.)-, 
July  15  {Cal.  Byzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JULIUS.  (1)  The  pope,  martyr  under  Con¬ 
stantins :  commemorated  April  VI  {Mart.  Horn. 
Vet.,  Bedae,  Hieron.,  Adonis,  Usuardi,  Cal. 
Bucher.). 

(2)  [Felix  (5)  ] 

(3)  Senator,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Commodus; 
commemorated  Aug.  19  {Mart.  Horn.  Uef.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(4)  Martyr  in  Thrace  ;  commemorated  Dec.  20 
{Mart.  Hieron.,  Usuardi). 

(5)  Martyr  in  Me.sia  at  Dorostorum ;  com¬ 
memorated  May  27  {Mart.  Horn.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi). 

(6)  Martyr  with  Potamica,  civ.  Thagora  ;  com¬ 
memorated  Dec.  5  {Mart.  Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JUNCA,  COUNCIL  OF  {.luncense  con¬ 
cilium).  Of  Junca  in  Africa,  a.d.  523  (see 
AFPacAN  Councils).  A  canon  attributed  to  it 
by  F'errandus  (n.  26)  is  to  the  effect  that  no 
bishop  may  claim  anything  for  himself  in  a 
flock  that  is  not  his  own  (Mansi,  viii.  633). 

[E.  S.  Ff.] 

JUNIA  and  Andronicus,  apostles,  (Rom. 
xvi.  7)  ;  commemorated  May  17  {Cal.  B'/zont.). 

[\V.  F.  G.] 

JURISDICTION.  Before  the  time  of  Con¬ 
stantine  the  Great  such  jurisdiction  as  was  ex¬ 
ercised  in  the  church  must  have  been  of  a  purely 
spiritual  character,  and  its  sanctions  must  have 
been  purely  spiritual..  Sinners  were  brought 
before  the  tribunal  of  the  bishop,  who  judged 
and  inflicted  spiritual  censures,  and  inflicted 
them  probably  without  appeal. 

Upon  the  recognition  by  Constantine  of.  the 
church  as  a  collegium  licitum,  these  spiritual 


juagrnents  and  censures  began  to  have  an  effe*.^ 
of  which  the  civil  law  could  take  cognizance, 
and  a  civil  effect  was  given  to  them.  They  were 
also  made  use  of  to  assist  or  sometimes  even  take 
the  place  of  the  sanctions  of  the  civil  law. 

In  criminal  causes  where  the  accused  was  a 
clerk,  or  in  any  way  specially  connected  with 
the  performance  of  religious  observances,  there 
was  an  early  tendency  to  make  the  bishop  the 
judge,  first  in  conjunction  with  the  lay  judge 
and  in  time  as  the  sole  judge.  Judging  as  a  spi¬ 
ritual  judge  over  spiritual  j^ersons,  a  confusion 
aro.se  between  the  sentences  which  he  imposed  in 
execution  of  the  discijdine  of  the  Church,  and 
those  which  he  imposed  as  a  delegate  of  the 
pow’er  of  the  State  and  armed  with  the  authority 
of  a  criminal  judge.  The  two  matters  are  so 
intertwined,  that  it  will  be  convenient  to  discuss 
together  jurisdUrtion  in  spjiritual  matters  and 
that  over  spiritual  persons. 

A  second  fountain  of  jurisdiction  in  the  court.s 
of  the  church  was  arbitration.  Bishops  were 
encouraged  by  the  Christian  Emperors  to  arbi¬ 
trate  on  moral  grounds  between  Christians  dis¬ 
puting  as  to  matters  of  right  and  property,  and 
the  civil  law  gave  a  civil  force  to  their  judg¬ 
ments.  Where  clerks  were  parties,  the  pro¬ 
priety  of  a  recourse  to  the  tribunal  of  the  bishop 
was  considered  to  be  greater.  Where  a  clerk 
was  defendant,  his  right  to  escape  the  annoyance 
I  of  appearing  before  a  .secular  tribunal  was  paral¬ 
leled  to  and  strengthened  by  his  privilege  to  be 
tried  by  the  bishop  when  defendant  on  a  criminal 
charge.  Hence  arose  jurisdiction  betxceen  parties 
generally. 

Lastly,  certain  special  matters  of  civil  litiga¬ 
tion  began  to  be  considered,  irrespective  of  the 
parties,  as  being  peculiarly  fit  for  the  cognizance 
of  the  ecclesiastical  judge.  Hence  arose  a  juris¬ 
diction  over  special  civil  causes. 

Jurisdiction  in  spiritual  matters  and  over  spi¬ 
ritual  persons. — We  have  here  first  to  consider 
the  difference  between  the  forum  internum  and 
the  forum  externum.  The  for  mi  internum  was 
the  tribunal  in  which  the  bishop  or  sometimes 
the  priest  decided  on  cases  of  conscience,  gave 
spiritual  directions,  and  counselled  with  fatherly 
authority'  penitential  discipline.  The  procedure 
and  the  decision  of  this  tribunal  were  not,  except 
in  the  cases  where  public  jjenance  was  required, 
necessarily  known  to  any  but  the  penitent  and 
his  judge.  The  terror  of  conscience  was  the  only 
sanction,  and  there  couM  be  no  formal  appeal. 
But  along  with  this  forum  the  church  from  its 
earliest  time  possessed  also  a  forum  externum 
(see  1  Cor.  v. ;  1  Tim.  i.  20).  [Penitence.] 

When  the  gravity  of  the  ofteuce  altered  the 
relation  of  the  parties  and  converted  the  father 
into  the  avenger,  or  made  it  necessary  to  prefer 
the  public  weal  of  the  community'  to  the  indi¬ 
vidual  welfare,  the  sentences  of  deposition  or 
excommunication  were  inflicted. 

These  sentences  on  clerk  or  layman  were  in¬ 
flicted  by  the  bishop.  They'  were  or  ought  to  be 
recognized  by  all  other  bishoi)s,  and  there  was 
originally'  no  aiipeal.  The  so-called  Apostolical 
Canons,  though  requiring  the  imposition  of  these 
sentences  in  several  cases,  are  silent  as  to  the 
procedure  by'  which  they  were  to  be  inflicted. 
The  Nicene  Canons  for  the  first  time  provide  a 
limited  right  of  appeal. 

The  5th  canon  say's  that  clerics  or  lay  people 


JURISDICTION 


JURISDICTION 


805 


separ?.t»>d  from  communion  by  tbeir  own  bishop, 
shall  be  held  everywhere  to  be  so  separated  ;  but 
that  in  order  that  no  one  should  be  expelled 
from  communion  through  a  contentious  or  harsh 
spirit  of  theiy  bishoj),  the  occasion  of  their 
expulsion  shall  be  inquired  into  by  the  ])rovincial 
synod,  which  is  to  be  held  for  this  purpose  twice 
a  year.  The  decision  of  the  synod  is  to  be  final. 
It  was  not  till  considerably  later,  when,  it  does 
not  exactly  appear,  that  further  aj)peals  were 
allowed.  [Appeal;  Indulgence.] 

The  original  discipline  of  the  church  had 
made  all  crimes  as  importing  sins  the  subjects  cf 
the  penitential  discipline  oi’  the  forum  internum, 
and  by  consequence  in  the  graver  and  more 
public  cases,  or  where  penitence  was  not  shown, 
of  the  foi’um  externum.  It  became  however 
obviously  impossible,  as  the  church  tribunals 
took  a  more  formal  shape  and  as  appeals  came  to 
be  allowed,  that  ordinary  criminal  off’ehces 
against  the  laws  of  the  state  should  be  tried  in 
any  fashion  by  the  church  courts ;  and  hence  a 
division  arose,  whereby  certain  offences  became 
the  subject  of  the  almost  exclusive  jurisdiction 
of  the  church  courts,  while  on  other  offences 
they  were  not  allowed  to  sit  in  judgment. 

Olfences  of  laymen  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  church  courts  were  heresy  (Van  Espen 
Jus  Eccles.  Univ.  pars  iii.  tit.  iv.  cap.  2,  and 
the  article  Heresv),  magic  (can.  10,  cans.  20, 
q.  5),  blasphemy,  to  be  punished  by  bishop  or 
count  according  to  the  capitularies  of  the  Frank 
kings  (lib.  vi.  cap.  101),  and  probably  cases  of 
laying  violent  hands  on  clerks.  It  seems  that 
incest  and  incontineime  were  not  distinctly 
reckoned  as  offences  over  which  the  church  had 
coerch'e  jurisdiction  till  late  in  the  9th  or  the 
10th  century,  though  they  were  of  course  sub¬ 
ject  to  penitential  disci])line  [FORNICATION ; 
Harlot;  Incest]. 

Every  oflence  which  when  committed  by  a 
layman  subjected  him  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
ecclesiastical  court,  subjected  a  fortiori  a  clerk. 

But  the  subjection  of  clerks  to  the  ecclesi¬ 
astical  tribunals  was  much  wider  than  this.  In 
A.D.  376  a  lav/  of  Gratian  and  Valentinian  is 
said  to  have  subjected  clerks  for  small  offences 
or  offences  of  an  ecclesiastical  nature  to  their 
diocesan  synod  (L.  23,  Cod.  Theod.  de  Episcopis  et 
Clericis).  But  a  special  exception  was  made  of 
such  offences  as  gave  rise  to  a  criminal  action 
before  the  ordinary  or  extraordinary  judges  or 
the  higher  officials  classed  as  the  Illustrious. 
So  in  A.D.  399,  Arcadius  and  Honorius  are 
said  (L.  I.  Cod.  Thcod.  De  Eelnjione')  to  have 
ordered  causes  relating  to  religion  to  be  tried  by 
the  bishoj)s,  but  questions  which  related  to  the 
civil  law  to  be  tried  according  to  the  law  (i.e.  by 
the  lay  judges).  Bather  stronger  is  an  edict 
attributed  to  V'alentinian  Theodosius  and  Ar¬ 
cadius  (L.  3  Cod.  The^d.  de  Episcop.  Jud.)  Van 
Espen  fJus  Eccl.  pars  iii.  tit.  iii.  cap.  i.)  cites  a 
constitution  of  Honoidus,  A.D.  412  (L.  41,  Cod. 
Theod.  de  Episcop.  et  Cleric.)  which  would  ap¬ 
parently  subject  the  clerk  for  all  offences  to  the 
bishop ;  but  it  is  held  that  the  words,  though 
vague  and  general,  do  not  really  refer  to  other 
than  ecclesiastical  offences. 

We  come  next  to  Justinian.  The  Code  con¬ 
tains  an  enumeration  of  the  courts  by  which 
an  accused  clerk  is  to  be  tried  as  follows;  he  is  ' 
to  be  tried  before  his  bishop.  If  the  bishop  be  j 


“  suspected  ”  there  is  to  be  an  appeal  (or  possibly 
an  original  trial)  before  the  metropolitan,  if 
his  decision  be  not  satisfactory,  an  appeal  lies  to 
the  provincial  synod  and  thence  to  the  patriarch, 
whose  judgment  (subject  to  certain  peculiar 
rights  in  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople)  is  to 
be  final.  The  law  then  proceeds  as  follows: 
“As  for  these  i)roceedings,  if  they  relate  to 
ecclesiastical  matters,  we  order  that  they  be  of 
necessity  tried  only  by  the  most  religious  bishops 
or  metropolitan-s,  or  by  the  sacred  synods,  or  by 
the  most  holy  ))atriarchs.  But  if  there  is  a  con¬ 
troversy  as  to  civil  matters,  though  we  will 
allow  those  who  xvdsh  it  to  bring  the  question 
before  the  bishojis,  yet  we  will  not  compel  them, 
since  there  are  civil  tribunals,  if  they  prefer  to 
go  to  them,  before  which  tribunals  also  criminal 
proceedings  can  be  had”  (Cod.  i.  iv.  29). 

This  law  seems  to  confuse  civil  and  criminal 
proceedings,  and  has  a  relation  to  both.  The 
83rd  Novell  is  more  precise.  It  recites  a  request 
of  Menas  or  Mennas,  the  patriarch  of  Constan- 
tino].>le,  and  proceeds  to  confer  certain  })rivileges 
upon  clerks.  The  first  relate  to  civil  suits.  As 
to  criminal  causes,  it  enacts  that  where  they 
relate  to  secular  matters  they  shall  be  tried 
before  the  lay  judge  ;  but  before  the  lay  judge 
proceeds  to  execute  the  sentence,  he  shall  allow 
the  bishop  to  depose  or  degrade  his  clerk. 
Criminal  causes  relating  to  ecclesitsHcal  matters 
are  to  be  tried  by  the  bishop.  The  123rd  Novell 
effected  a  further  alteration  (cap.  xxi.)  IMaking 
the  same  reservations  as  to  ecclesiastical  causes, 
it  provides  that  a  clerk  accused  of  a  secular 
criminal  offence  shall  be  brought  before  the 
bishop,  who  if  he  find  him  guilty  shall  depo.se 
him  ah  honore  et  gradu,  from  his  office  and 
order,  and  send  him  to  the  lay  judge  for  secular 
punishment;  or  he  maybe  brought  before  the 
lay  judge  first,  in  which  case  the  lay  judge  is  to 
transmit  the  evidences  of  his  guilt  to  the  bishop, 
who  is  to  depose  him  and  send  him  back  to  the 
lay  judge  for  secular  punishment.  This  Novell 
extends  to  monks,  deacone.sses,  and  nuns. 

Van  Espen  (foe.  cit.)  quotes  some  canons  of 
the  6th  century  as  going  further  in  this  resjiect, 
and  the  capitularies  of  the  Frank  kings  enact 
that  clerks  shall  not  be  judged  by  lay  judges,  but 
by  ecclesiastical  ones  (lib.  i.  cap.  38);  and  that  no 
one  shall  jiresume  to  accu.se  a  clerk,  monk,  or 
nun  before  a  lay  judge  (lib.  v.  caj).  378). 

In  England  it  is  well  known  that  the  distinc¬ 
tion  between  secular  and  ecclesiastical  courts  did 
not  exist  during  the  Anglo-Saxon  rule,  the 
sheriff  and  the  bishop  sitting  side  by  side  on  the 
same  bench. 

The  punishments  or  censures  inflicted  by  the 
episcopal  tribunals  were  at  first  mere  acts  of 
penance,  the  discipline  retaining  its  original 
penitential  character.  So  early  indeed  as  the 
'I’heodosian  Code  (L.  21  De  Ilaereticis)  a  fine  of 
ten  pounds  of  gold  seems  to  have  been  imposed 
on  any  clerk  or  bishop  who  was  convicted  of 
heresy;  but  it  does  not  appear  whether  this  fine 
was  imposed  by  the  ecclesiastical  judge  or  by  the 
lay  judge  after  sentence  by  the  ecclesiastical 
judge.  [Fines,  i>.  671.] 

Seclusion  in  a  monastery  both  for  lavmen  and 
more  especially  for  clerks  and  bi.shoj).s  was  an 
earlier  jiunishment.  It  seems  to  be  mentioned 
in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Gregory  (lib.  2  Ej/ist.  27,  40), 
and  in  a  canonical  rule  of  about  the  year  816  as 


896  JURISDICTION 

a  substitute  for  scourging.  [Imprisonment,  p. 
829.] 

The  123rd  Novell  (cap.  xi.)  orders  that  any 
bishop  who  has  been  by  law  expelled  from  his 
see,  yet  returns  to  the  city,  shall  be  shut  uj)  in  a 
monastei'y. 

Relegation  or  banishment  from  the  city  they 
disturbed,  or  in  which  the  public  offence  was 
committed,  seems  to  have  been  first  used  as  an 
ecclesiastical  -  punishment  towards  the  close  of 
the  period  of  which  we  are  writing  (see  ICpist.  of 
St,  Gregory,  lib.  9,  Ep.  60).  It  is  very  doubtful 
though  whether  it  was  ever  exercised  in  invitnm, 
unless  it  was  suj)ported  by  a  special  decree  of 
the  civil  authority.  The  bishops  of  lai’ge  towns, 
particularly  Constantinople,  were  however  often 
armed  with  a  power  of  sending  back  to  their 
own  dioceses  clerks  disorderly  tfequenting  the 
capital. 

Scourging,  as  a  means  of  penitential  discipline, 
is  mentioned  by  St.  Augustine  fEpist.  133)  and 
St.  Gregory  (E/nst.  lib.  2,  Epist.  52,  lib.  9, 
Epist.  66)  [Corporal  Punishment].  It  seems 
to  have  been  used  by  bishops  with  reference  to 
their  younger  clerks,  and  by  abbots  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  monks.  In  the  canon  law  (can.  10,  caus. 
26,  q.  5)  an  epistle  of  St.  Gregory  is  quoted  in 
which  he  orders  practisers  of  magic  if  they  be 
slaves  to  be  scourged,  if  free  men,  to  be  secluded 
till  they  are  penitent.  The  38th  of  the  Apos¬ 
tolical  Canons  orders  that  any  bishop,  priest,  or 
deacon,  who  endeavours  to  make  himself  feared 
by  scourging  either  sinners  or  men  outside  the 
Christian  community  who  have  done  wrong 
shall  be  deposed.  St.  Paul  requires  as  a  qualifi¬ 
cation  of  a  bishop  that  he  should  be  “  no 
striker”  (1  Tim.  iii.  3).  The  123rd  Novell 
(cap.  xi.)  forbids  the  bishop  to  beat  any  one  with 
his  hands. 

Besides  these  corporal  punishments,  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  courts  continued  to  administer  and  inflict 
their  old  censures,  now  become  also  of  worldly 
import,  of  excommunication  and  deposition  or 
degradation. 

So  clearly  was  the  distinction  between  these 
last  censures  and  matters  of  internal  and 
penitential  discijdine  now  marked,  that  St. 
Augustine  seems  to  say  that  bishops  cannot  pro¬ 
hibit  any  one  from  communicating  unless  the 
jienitent  has  confessed  his  crime  or  been  con¬ 
victed  by  a  secular  or  an  ecclesiastical  pxAge 
“  nos  a  communione  prohibere  quenquam  non  pos- 
sumus  .  .  .  nisi  aut  sponte  confessum,  aut  in 
aliquo  sive  saeculari  sive  ecclesiastico  judicio 
nominatum  atque  convictum  ”  fSertn.  351,  §  10; 
0pp.  V.  1359,  ed.  Bened.).  Conformably  to  this 
the  123rd  Novell  (cap.  xi.)  forbids  the  excom¬ 
munication  of  any  one  till  after  a  full  trial. 

It  should  be  saitl  here  that  monks,  who  were 
originally  subject  to  their  bishops  like  any  other 
laymen,  were  made  in  a  special  and  further 
degree  subject  to  them  by  the  council  of  Chalce- 
don  at  the  suggestion  of  the  emperor  Marcian 
(Van  Espen  pars  III.  tit.  xii.  caj).  1).  There 
seems  to  have  been  no  question  of  their  exemp¬ 
tion  from  episcopal  authority  till  the  6th 
century  ;  and  even  then  the  exemptions  con¬ 
ferred  on  them  were  not  exemptions  from 
jurisdiction,  but  from  despotic  invasion  of  their 
internal  rights. 

The  abbot  or  dean  exercised  a  subordinate 
jurisdiction,  such  as  remains  now  with  our 


.  JURISDICTION 

deans  and  chapters ;  and  actual  exemption  from 
their  bishop’s  authority  sometimes  was  conferred 
on  monasteries.  [Exemition  of  Mona.steries.] 

The  trial  of  bishops  has  been  reserved  for 
separate  mention. 

It  is  first  provided  for  in  the  Apostolical 
Canons  (can.  74).  This  is  the  more  remarkable 
as  there  are  no  provisions  in  these  canons 
regulating  the  trials  of  clergy  or  laity. 

This  canon  provides  that  a  bishop  when 
accused  by  credible  persons  shall  be  summoned 
by  other  bishops  (that  is,  the  other  bishops  of 
the  province),  to  appear  before  them.  If  he 
appears  and  confesses,  or  is  convicted,  his  punish¬ 
ment  is  to  be  decreed.  If  he  does  not  appear,  he 
is  to  be  summoned  a  second  time  personally  by- 
two  bishops,  and  so  if  necessary  a  third  time, 
after  which  he  is  to  be  tried  and  condemned  in 
his  absence.  The  75th  canon  prevents  heretics 
from  giving  evidence  against  a  bishop,  and 
requires  the  evidence  of  two  witnesses. 

The  Nicene  Canon  (can.  5)  as  to  the  appeal  of 
clerks  and  laymen  to  the  dioce.sau  synod  (quoted 
p.  894  supra)  has  been  held  by  many,  notablv  by 
St.  Augustine  (.see  Van  Espen,  pars  III.  tit.  iii. 
cap.  5)  to  relate  also  to  the  trial  of  bishops. 
However  this  may  be,  the  6th  canon  of  the 
council  of  Constantinople  undoubtedlv  provides 
for  the  trial  of  bishops.  After  refusing  the 
evidence  of  heretics,  excommunicated  persons  and 
persons  accused  of  crimes,  it  proceeds  to  enact 
that  if  any  not  disqualified  person  has  any 
ecclesiastical  charge  to  prefer  against  a  bishoj), 
he  shall  bring  it  before  the  provincial  synod.  If 
the  synod  cannot  correct  the  crime,  the  bishops 
thereof  shall  go  before  the  greater  synod  of  that 
“diocese”  (diocese  is  here  used  in  the  imperial 
sense  of  a  larger  province,  exarchate  or  j)atriar- 
chate),  but  shall  not  bring  their  accusation  till 
they  have  submitted  to  undergo  a  like  penalty, 
if  they  are  found  calumniators.  The  decree  is 
to  be  then  made  by  the  greater  synod,  and  there 
is  to  be  no  apj)eal  either  to  the  emperor  or  to  a 
general  council  iVom  it. 

The  9th  canon  of  the  council  of  Chalcedoii 
seems  to  relate  primarily  to  civil  suits.  It  orders 
that  any  dispute  between  a  clerk  and  a  bishop 
(whether  his  own  bishop  or  not)  shall  be  tried 
by  the  provincial  synod.  If  bishop  or  clei>k  have 
a  dispute  with  the  metropolitan,  the  trial  should 
be  before  the  exarch  of  the  diocese  or  the 
emperor. 

The  123rd  Novell  provides  (cap.  viii.)  that 
a  bishop  shall  not,  whether  in  a  pecuniary  (civil) 
or  criminal  cause,  be  brought  against  his  will 
before  any  civil  or  military  judge ;  and  (cap. 
xxii.)  that  disputes  between  bishops,  whether 
on  ecclesiastical  or  other  matters,  shall  be  tried 
in  the  first  instance  by  the  metropolitan  and  his 
synod,  with  an  appeal  to  the  ])atriarch  ;  while 
bishops  accused  of  crimes  are  to  be  tried  by 
the  metropolitan  (apparently  alone),  fi’cm  whom 
an  appeal  lies  first  to  the  archbishop  (that  is 
probably  the  primate  or  exarch  or  president  of 
the  greater  synod),  and  thence  to  the  patriax’ch. 

J urisdiction  between  parties. — In  the  early  days 
of  the  church,  when  Christians  formed  a  small 
and  separate  society,  it  was  natural  and  almost 
necessary  that  disputes  between  them  .should  be 
settled  by  arbitration  within  their  own  body,  to 
avoid  the  scandals  to  which  references  to  heathen 
judges  might  give  rise.  St.  Raul  expressly 


JURISDICTION 


JURISDICTION 


897 


reprobates  the  practice  of  “  brother  going  to 
law  with  brotlier,  and  that  before  the  unbe¬ 
lievers”  (1  Cor.  vi.  6). 

The  arbitrator  chosen  would  naturally  be  the 
bishop,  and  this  appears  to  have  been  the  case. 

After  the  recognition  of  the  church  by  Con¬ 
stantine,  provision  was  made  for  giving  a  legal 
sanction  to  these  arbitrations.  Constantine 
himself  is  said  (Van  Espen,  pars  III.  tit.  i. 
cap.  2)  to  have  allowed  litigants  to  choose  the 
bishop  instead  of  the  lay  judge,  and  to  have 
ordered  effect  to  be  given  to  the  sentence  of  a 
bishop  so  judging.  A  constitution  of  Arcadius 
and  Honorius  is  preserved  in  the  Code  (I.  iv.  7) 
allowing  litigants  to  go  before  the  bishop  in 
civil  matters  only  and  as  before  an  arbitrator. 

Another  constitution  of  Honorius  and  Theodo¬ 
sius  (Cod.  I.  iv.  8)  orders  that  the  bishop’s 
judgment  shall  be  binding  on  all  those  who 
have  chosen  him  as  judge,  and  shall  have  as 
much  force  as  a  judgment  of  the  praetorian 
prefect,  from  whom  there  could  be  no  appeal. 

It  appears  that  at  this  time  Jews  had  the 
privilege  of  trying  their  disputes  if  they  pleased 
before  their  rabbi  or  “  patriarch.” 

Valentinian  111.  allowed  the  same  result  to  be 
obtained  by  means  of  a  previous  formal  “  com- 
promissum  ”  or  submission  to  arbitration. 

None  of  these  constitutions,  however,  in  the 
least  degree  compel  the  resort  to  the  ecclesiastical 
tribunal,  unless  the  matter  in  question  be  of  an 
ecclesiastical  nature,  not  even  though  the  de¬ 
fendant  be  a  clerk. 

So  the  emperor  Marcian  (Cod.  I.  iii.  2o)  speaks 
of  an  episcopal  audience  for  clerks  who  are 
sued  at  law,  but  gives  the  plaintiff  the  pow'er  of 
choosing  the  lay  tribunal. 

The  67th  Novell  makes  provision  for  the  mode 
of  trial,  which  is  to  be  suniuiary. 

There  being  the  power  of  resorting  to  the  arbi¬ 
tration  of  the  bishop,  the  church  compelled  by 
threats  of  censure  every  clerk  at  least  to  resort 
only  to  the  tribunal  of  the  bishop.  Among  other 
canoai  on  this  subject  may  be  cited  that  of  the 
council  of  Chalcedon  (can.  9)  which  orders  that 
any  clerk  who  shall  have  a  dispute  with  another 
clerk  shall  not  go  before  the  secular  tribunals, 
but  shall  plead  his  cause  first  before  his  bishop, 
or  before  such  person,  with  the  consent  of  the 
bishop,  as  both  parties  shall  choose  to  decide  the 
question. 

The  9th  canon  of  the  3rd  council  of  Carthage 
orders  that  any  bishop,  priest,  deacon,  or  clerk, 
who  has  a  civil  matter  in  dispute,  and  brings  it 
before  the  secular  tribunals,  shall  lose  all  that 
he  gaii  s  by  the  sentence  of  the  secular  tribunal, 
or  shall  he  deprived  of  his  office.  Tnere  are 
also  canons  of  the  4th  council  of  Carthage  to 
the  same  effect. 

The  79th  Novell  (cap.  i.)  gives  the/or«  ^rm- 
legium  for  the  first  time.  It  provides  that  any 
one  having  a  cause  with  anv'  of  the  venerable 

V  w 

holy  men  (the  monks)  or  the  holy  virgins,  or 
any  women  living  in  nunneries,  shall  go  before 
the  bishop.  The  bishop  is  to  send  to  the  monas¬ 
tery  and  to  jirovide  for  the  appearance  of  the 
defendants  before  him,  either  by  the  intervention 
of  their  abbots  or  of  agents  (?ts/  onsales')  or 
otherwise.  He  is  then  to  try  the  cause  ;  which 
is  on  no  account  to  come  before  the  secular 
judges. 

The  83rd  Novel.,  which  has  been  already 

CHRIST.  AJtT. 


referred  to,*  extends  the  privileges.  Au>'  one 
having  a  pecuniary  cause  against  a  clerk  is  to 
go  before  the  bishop,**  who  is  to  decide  summa¬ 
rily  without  writing.  His  sentence  may,  how¬ 
ever,  be  put  in  writing.  There  is  to  be  no 
recourse  to  the  civil  tribunals ;  but  the  main 
object  of  the  Novell  is  to  avoid  long  delays  and 
pleadings,  rather  than  to  change  the  tribunal 
which  is  to  adjudge. 

The  123rd  Novell  puts  the  privilege  on  a  firm 
basis.  Clerks,  monk.s,  deaconesses,  nuns,  and 
ascetic  women,  are  to  be  impleaded  before  the 
bishop.  The  lay  judge  is  to  execute  the  bishop’s 
sentence,  if  there  is  no  appeal.  But  either  of 
the  parties  may  appeal  within  ten  days  to  the 
local  lay  judge.  If  he  decides  in  accordance 
wMth  the  bishop’s  judgment,  the  decision  is 
final. 

If  the  lay  judge  decides  contrary  to  the 
bishop,  his  sentence  may  be  appealed  from  in  the 
regular  way  of  civil  suits. 

If  the  bishop  delayed  to  hear  or  decide  on  the 
cause,  the  plaintiff  might  go  at  once  before  the  lay 
judge.  This  Novell  expressly  reserves  all  cccle^ 
siastical  suits  for  the  sole  cognizance  of  the 
bishop. 

The  capitularies  of  the  Frank  kings  (lib.  i. 
cap.  28)  ordered  all  disputes  between  clerks  to 
be  settled  by  their  bishop,  and  not  by  secular 
judges:  while  another  capitulary  (lib.  vi. 
cap.  366)  recites  and  enforces  an  edict,  attributed 
to  Theodosius,  declaring  that  the  sentences  of 
the  bishops,  however  declared,  and  apparently  in 
w'hatever  causes,  shall  be  ever  hebl  inviolate. 
This  edict  was  declared  by  Charlemagne  to  be 
binding  over  all  parts  of  his  empire. 

The  object  of  these  laws  also  seems  to  have  been 
to  avoid  pi'olixity  of  |)leadings,  technicality  of  pro¬ 
cedure,  and  long  disputes,  distracting  holy  men 
from  their  proper  avocations,  I’ather  than  any 
supposed  impropriety  of  secular  judges  exercising 
jurisdiction  over  clerks. 

The  constitution  of  the  special  court  of  his 
bishop  for  the  clerk  or  monk,  seems  to  have  been 
considered  by  the  secular  authorities  as  a  privi¬ 
lege  given  to  him,  which  he  might  waive,  the 
secular  court  having  always  the  capacity  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  him,  if  the  privilegium 
fori  w'ere  not  set  up.  But  the  canons  and 
decrees  of  the  councils  and  synods  leave  the 
clerk  no  option,  forbidding  him  to  sue,  or  to 
abstain  from  raising  his  privilege  when  sued,  in 
the  lay  court. 

The  secular  authorities  seem  to  have  retained 
nevertheless  their  view  of  this  exemption  as  a 
privilege  and  capable  of  waiver.  Gothofred 
(in  Cod.  I.  iii.  33  and  51)  cites  a  constitution  of 
the  emperor  Frederic  (  apparently  Frederic  11.  ) 
strongly  denouncing  any  assertion  of  jurisdiction 
by  the  lay  judge  in  civil  or  criminal  matters; 
but  yet  allowing  the  clerk  to  waive  his  privilege 
and  submit  to  the  jurisdiction. 

The  enn)eror  Alexius  Comnenus  brought  the 
matter  under  the  general  rule  ‘•‘■actor  sequitur 
forum  rei”  (Constit.  Imp.  289,  §  11). 

Jurisdiction  over  special  civil  causes. — This  is 
mainly  the  outgrowth  of  a  period  later  than 
that  j)rescribed  for  this  work. 


»  Supra,  p.  895. 

I  he  text  Seems  m  »ay  “archbishop, ’’  hut  this  must 
be  a  mistake. 


898 


JURISDICTION 


JUVENALIS 


The  jurisdiction  over  testamentary  causes  did 
not  arise  in  W’^esterii  Europe  till  the  12th 
century.  It  appears  to  have  arisen  early  in  the 
12th  century  in  England ;  not  till  the  end  of 
the  12tlv  or  beginning  of  the  13th  century  in 
F  ranee. 

The  only  indication  of  testamentary  jurisdic¬ 
tion  in  Eastern  or  Western  Europe  during  the 
period  of  which  we  treat,  a|)pears  in  the  com¬ 
mission  given  by  the  (Christian  emperors  to  the 
bishops,  to  take  care  that  the  wishes  of  the  dead 
should  be  faithfully  performed. 

Charlemagne  especially  intrusted  the  bishops 
with  the  duty  of  protecting  wards,  widows,  and 
paupers,  and  of  seeing  that  no  wrong  was  don.e 
to  them.  This  led  in  time,  but  not  during 
our  period,  to  a  sort  of  jurisdictiou  over  all  cases 
where  a  member  of  one  of  these  classes  was 
concerned. 

Matrimonial  causes,  though  infringements  of 
the  marriage  vow  were  probabl)  treated  of  with 
other  matters  of  spiritual  discipline,  did  not  as 
involving  formal  legal  rights  or  questions  of  pro¬ 
perty,  fall  to  the  jurisdiction  of  ecclesiastical 
tribunals  till  the  11th  century. 

Suits  relating  to  ecclesiastical  matters  are  in 
many  of  the  Imperial  Constitutions  mentioned 
as  unquestionably  matters  for  the  bishop’s  juris¬ 
diction.  The  term  “  ecclesiastical  matters  ”  is 
vague,  and  j)robably  varied  at  different  times ; 
but  before  the  expiry  of  our  period,  causes 
relating  to  tithes  and  offerings  were  probably 
considej-ed  as  coming  within  its  meaning. 

\_Authorities  referred  to  for  this  article. — 
Corpus  Juris  Givilis,  cum  notis  Gothofredi,  ed. 
Van  Leeuwen,  Amsterdam,  1633;  Ayliffe,  Parer- 
gon  Juris  Canonici  Anglicani,  ed.  London,  1734; 
Van  Espen,  Jus  Ecclesi  (sticum  Unkersum,  pars 
tertia;  Commentarius  in  Canones ;  ed.  Louvaine, 
1753  ;  Landon,  Manual  of  Councils,  18+6  ;  Philli- 
move,  Ecclesiastical  Law,  1873.]  [W.  G.  F.  P.] 


JUSTA.  (1)  [Fix>rextius  (1).] 

(2)  Martyr  in  Spain,  at  Seville,  with  Rufina; 
commemorated  July  19  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JUSTINA,  virgin,  martyr  with  Cyprian,  the 
bishop;  commemorated  Sept.  26  {Mart.  Rom. 
Vet.,  Bedae,  Adonis,  Usuardi);  and  Oct.  2  {Cal. 
Bijzant.).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JUSTINUS.  (1)  The  philosopher,  martyr  at 
Pergamus  with  Carpus  the  bishop,  Papirius  the 
deacon,  and  Agathonica,  and  many  other  women  ; 
commemorated  April  13  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet ,  Adonis. 
Usuardi);  June  1  {Cal.  Bgzant.). 

(2)  Martyr  with  companions,  a.d.  142 ;  com¬ 
memorated  June  1  {Cal.  Byzant.;  see  Daniel’s 
Codex,  iv.  260). 

(3)  [Symphorosa.] 

(4)  Martyr  in  terra  Parisiensi;  commemorated* 
Aug.  1  {Mart.  Usuardi). 

(6)  Presbyter,  martyr  at  Rome  under  Decius ; 
commemorated  Sept.  7  {Mart.  Rcnn.  Vet.,  Adonis, 
Usuardi).  [W.  F.  G.] 

JUSTUS.  (1)  [Felix  (14).] 

(2)  Martyr  in  Spain  at  Complutum  [Aixjala], 
wdth  Pastor  his  brother  under  Decius  {Mart. 
Adonis,  Usuardi). 

(3)  Bishop  of  Lyons,  “  Natalis,”  Sept.  2  {Mart 
Adonis,  Usuardi):  translation  Oct.  14  (i6.). 

(4)  Martyr  in  terra  Belvacensi  (Beauvais); 
commemorated  Oct.  18  {Alart.  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 

JUVENALIS.  (1)  Bishop,  confessor  at  Rome 
under  Adrian ;  commemorated  May  3  {Maid. 
Usuardi). 

(2)  Martyr  on  the  Island  Pontia  ;  commemo¬ 
rated  May  7  {Mart.  Rom.  Vet.,  Usuardi). 

[W.  F.  G.] 


END  OF  VOL.  L 


! 


